Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Oct 88 01:37:41 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06699>; Sat, 1 Oct 88 00:44:13 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat,  1 Oct 88 00:44:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.gXF69ty00UkT8O_E4r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.23446012.f96aa8>;
          Sat,  1 Oct 88 00:33:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.23445ddb.68d781>;
          Sat,  1 Oct 88 00:23:59 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct  1 88 00:21:08 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #0

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 9 : Issue 0

Today's Topics:
		     Hello, quick request here...
			  Re: Chix in Space
		      Cretaceous mass extinction
	     Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)
			  Re: Why no aliens
    Re: Navigating Hazardous Payloads (was: The sun as a trashcan)
   Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)
	     Wanted: Public domain Sat. tracking program
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
			life science/nutrition
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 88 22:18:15 GMT
From: sunybcs!fredonia!grig8348@rutgers.edu  (LoyEllen Griggs)
Subject: Hello, quick request here...

Hi.  This is my first posting to this group, please forgive any technix.

I am writing a fictional story, part of which will take place in orbit and
then in interplanetary space and I have a couple reasonably quick questions.
I am familiar with a number of theories on living in space and the 
reliability of SDI.  My questions:

1.  Any rough extimates on the cost of putting a six-person bio-science
    laboratory in orbit?  Assume most of the parts will be shipped via 
    shuttle and/or delta and assembled in orbit.  The parts of the station
    are paid for, I am looking for the cost of putting them up and 
    assembling them.

2.  Comments on the reliability/complexity of a(n SDI) satellite to divert
    incoming missiles from a known orbiting target.  IOW, country X is 
    attacking space center, satellite merely diverts attacking object into
    deep space by one of several methods.

I know what theoretically can be done, I am looking for what is pragmatically 
feasible and what is currently done.  Any comments would be wondrously 
appreciated.  My book and I thank you.

PLEASE MAIL, although I will keep up with this group.  If there is any
interest, I can summarize.
---LoyEllen Griggs
SUNY @ Fredonia    ...decvax!sunybcs!fredonia!grig8348
100 Brigham Rd. 4-15, Fredonia NY  14063
Work is Repeat...Until; Life is While...Do

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 88 07:45:05 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Chix in Space

In article <2249@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> I wrote:
>                                                                    [. . .]
>bird eggs (as well as reptile eggs) are even larger and yolkier than amphibian
>eggs, and while it is predicted that the absence of gravity will not disturb
>amphibian eggs (or reptile or bird eggs) -- that is, it takes gravity in the
>wrong direction and at the right time to mess up development -- the required
>data is not yet available.  Experiments to test the development of amphibian
>and fish (similar kind of eggs and development) embryos in space are being
>designed in the Department of Biology at Indiana University.

	I just heard a talk at the Indiana University Department of Biology
retreat on space biology, which gave me some information on these matters that
I hadn't heard before.  One piece of information is that it looks like (but is
not certain) that some of the cell migrations early in chicken development
which are normally vertical or near-vertical may actually depend on gravity
rather than just that gravity not be in the wrong direction.

>	It is my understanding that rats were taken up on one of the Skylab
>flights (unless I am getting mixed up and it is the Russians that did this)
>and allowed to mate and produce offspring.  [. . .]

	I guess I must have gotten this mixed up.  According to the same talk,
rats were taken up on the Space Shuttle after fertilization (I'm not sure just
how long after) and allowed to continue towards term; however, the Space
Shuttle flights are not long enough to allow rats to develop all the way from
fertilization to birth in space.  The rats came back down, and the embryos
which had done part of their development in microgravity were born as normal
rats.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
ARPAnet:   chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:    chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RETURN ADDRESS)
USENET:    iuvax!silver!chiaravi
-- 
	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
ARPAnet:   chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:    chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RETURN ADDRESS)
USENET:    iuvax!silver!chiaravi

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 02:07:27 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;)
Subject: Cretaceous mass extinction

Mike Trout writes:
>It's my understanding that this theory is highly questionable at best.  While 
>there is substantial circumstantial evidence to support it (layers of iridium, 
>apperance of chronological time-scale catastrophe, mathematical climatological 
>models, etc.), there is one major problem...
>
>Why did so many non-dinosaur reptiles survive?  Snakes, turtles,
>lizards, crocodilians, and such appear to have suffered no such losses
>at the time.  And it doesn't have anything to do with size, either.
>Although most of the "big" dinosaurs get all the attention, most
>dinosaurs actually were not all that large--many were no larger than
>modern-day lizards, and their average size seems to be little
>different from today's crocodilians.  Yet not one single dinosaur,
>regardless of size, survived whatever it was.  It's difficult to come
>up with a plausible scenario in which all dinosaurs die and most
>lizards live, even though biologically they are extremely similar.  A
>baffling mystery, to say the least.

There seem to be a few misunderstandings in the above.  I'm not a
paleontologist, but I have gathered these facts about the Cretaceous
mass-extinction (abbreviated CME below):

1.  Most dinosaurs species were already extinct at the CME.

2.  The CME was mostly marked by about 2/3 to 3/4 loss in the number of
marine animal (and plant?) genera.  As such it was an extremely massive
extinction.  A massive extinction like this only occurs every 100-200
million years.  Lesser extinctions occured more frequently.  In fact,
there were some extinctions while the dinosaurs were on earth.

3.  I'm not sure that it's been 100% established that all extant
dinosaurs died off at the Cretaceous boundary.  The fossil record is
somewhat vague here.  (At least, opponents of the theory seem to think so.
I'm not an expert.)

I don't have any data on how many non-dinosaur reptiles existed at the
CME and how many survived.  Is there a paleontologist in the house?


---
Dan Tilque	--	dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM

	"DIE YUPPIE SCUM"  --  Democrat campaign button.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 88 17:28:58 GMT
From: att!whuts!homxb!twitch!hoqax!lmg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (LARRY GEARY)
Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)

In article <6192@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>Rather than dropping waste INTO the sun, how about hanging a big lightsail
>on it and letting it ride on out?  Conversely, could a properly used
>lightsail provide the deceleration needed for a sun drop?

Let's see, we've polluted the air, we've polluted the water, we've polluted
the land ... what else can we pollute? I've got it! SPACE! Let's pollute SPACE!
INTERSTELLAR SPACE!

Come on, people, get real. Isn't it clear enough that the throw-away lifestyle
has got to end FOR OUR OWN GOOD. We can't keep consuming at an exponentially
increasing rate and throwing the garbage in our neighbor's back yard.

The simplest way to get rid of nuclear "waste" is to stop thinking of it as
waste. Think of it as a highly concentrated ore of transuranic elements. See?
No more nuclear waste. Instead, you have material that can be refined and
sold to paying customers.

Uranium, thorium and plutonium make a rather potent fuel for certain power
plants, if you haven't noticed. The power generated can partly or wholly
offset the power needed to reprocess the other transuranics. These have
uses in medicine and industry. Whatever unrecoverable sludge that remains
can be packaged and buried, but the heat can be used to generate process
steam for industrial customers (if industry is sited close by) or more
electrical power (if the burial site is remote).

Before you worry about how to live on the moon, learn to live on earth.

-- 
 Larry Geary                                          
 att!hoqax!lmg        Think globally ... Post locally
 lmg@hoqax.att.com

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 88 23:47:28 GMT
From: vsi1!altnet!altos86!nate@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Nathaniel Ingersoll)
Subject: Re: Why no aliens

In article <39649@linus.UUCP> marsh@linus.UUCP (Ralph Marshall) writes:
(deleted stuff)
>>Compute how much fuel it would take to accelerate an asteroid at one gee
>>for a month.  Not practical at present.
>>-- 
>	Not to mention how far away from the target you'd have to start.
>The poster claimed the goal was to accelerate to 1% of the speed of light.
>Going that fast for a single day would cover 4 x 10^9 MILES, which is
>a bit far back to stand.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ralph Marshall (marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa)

Please correct me if I'm wrong:

	c = 3 x 10^8 m/s

	1% of c = 3 x 10^6 m/s

	so, get to 3x10^6 m/s at acceleration = 1g = 10 m/s^2:

from Newton, we have:

	v = at

	(approximate 1g = 10m/s)
	3x10^6 m/s = 10 m/s^2 x t

	t = 3 x 10^5 s

	x = (1/2)at^2
	  = 5 x 9 x 10^10 m
	  = 4.5 x 10^11 m

	note that 1AU = 1.5 x 10^8 km = 1.5 x 10^11 m
	so you'd have to start about 3 AU's away.

	That's not too far;  the idea is you wanted to hit something
	with your asteroid going at 1%c, not travel at 1%c for a
	day.
-- 
Nathaniel Ingersoll
Altos Computer Systems, SJ CA
	...!ucbvax!sun!altos86!nate
	altos86!nate@sun.com

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 88 16:58:08 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Navigating Hazardous Payloads (was: The sun as a trashcan)

In article <8809121146.aa03715@note.note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") writes:
>> ..New failure
>> modes also appear:  what happens if you lose guidance on a
>> trashcan before Jupiter flyby?
>
>Isn't this the basis for objections to the plutonium power
>sources ?  Isn't one of them to be used on a mission that uses
>the Earth for a slingshot effect ?  Okay, the canister can
>withstand a launch disaster (so they say), but would it survive
>re-entry ?

Galileo will use an Earth flyby, among other things, and it does indeed
use a plutonium power source.  However, this isn't such a big deal.
Launch accidents are probably the worst case, due to the possibility of
high-velocity impacts; surviving reentry is a lesser problem, and is
already a design case for the canisters.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 88 16:43:40 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)

In article <6377@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>You are proposing a dichotomy: go back to the old pre-1986 practices or
>shut everything down immediately.  I am saying there is a middle ground:
>proceed, but more conservatively...

This is in fact what I am suggesting, too.  We do not need to go back to
1986 to use the old SRBs; we now know much more about what makes them
fail.  With a few precautions like restraining bands on the joints, lower
leak-test pressures, and a sharp eye on joint temperatures, those old
SRBs are not a lot less safe than the new ones.  Oh, there is a difference,
but given the oxidizer shortage, one has to balance the risks against the
utility of being able to fly more missions.  That's what I was getting at:
given that any shuttle flying involves risks, it is irrational to reject
ideas like this without careful consideration of the tradeoffs.  Saying "we
must reduce risks as much as possible" is silly; we can reduce risks to
zero by not flying at all.  Tradeoffs are inevitable if we want to get
things done.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 88 16:51:12 GMT
From: unmvax!charon!ariel.unm.edu!seds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (SPACE EXPLORATION)
Subject: Wanted: Public domain Sat. tracking program



I think this has been discussed before, but could someone tell
 if a public domain satellite tracking program is available
for Unix C?

Thanks,        

Ollie - N6LTJ
SEDS-UNM Satellite Tracking Station  (<-- almost!)


_______________________  seds@ariel.unm.edu  ____________________________
SEDS-UNM : Students for the Exploration and Development of Space           
Box 92 Student Union, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM  87106
(505) 898-1974

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 88 23:48:48 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <4468@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
>It's my understanding that this theory is highly questionable at best.  While 
>there is substantial circumstantial evidence to support it (layers of iridium, 
>apperance of chronological time-scale catastrophe, mathematical climatological 
>models, etc.), there is one major problem...

Actually, there are several problems, notably the fair body of evidence
suggesting that not everything became extinct at precisely the same time.
However, the recent discovery of shocked quartz particles in the boundary
clay is pretty much incompatible with anything but a major impact.  What
is not entirely clear is exactly how the impact(s) caused the extinctions.
Some of these problems might go away if we understood that.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 88 04:08:52 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Lee_-_Wells@uunet.uu.net
Subject: life science/nutrition

Is there ANYONE in the space program interested in the brain chemistry of
nutrition?

like how to keep the brain sharp and alert by feeding it properly?
like how to prevent disease?
like how to increase immunity?
like how to help the eyes see better?

In a business were the right reactions can mean life-or-death I would
think those things might matter....

do they?

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 15:18:48 EDT
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu


aplcen!aplcomm!warper.jhuapl.edu!trn@mimsy.umd.edu  (Tony Nardo) writes:

> Software/hardware doesn't mutate.  Fail, yes.  Mutate, no.

You don't think a stray bit of comet drilling through a berserker's
memory circuits could, once in a long while, change its behavior,
or the code that it passes on to its offspring, without completely killing
it?  That's what I meant by a near-fatal encounter.  (And, incidentally,
sufficiently intense radiation will warp battle armor, never mind wimpy
vacuum tubes).

Down with protein chauvinists!
					-- Hans Moravec

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #0
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Oct 88 05:37:58 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05416>; Sat, 1 Oct 88 03:51:48 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat,  1 Oct 88 03:51:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.wXF8smy00jZdEJ3k4K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.23448707.cb2148>;
          Sat,  1 Oct 88 03:19:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.23448406.3e87be>;
          Sat,  1 Oct 88 03:06:56 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct  1 88 03:04:36 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #1

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 9 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:
			Re: Berserker mutation
	   Another innane signature line from Henry SPencer
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		       Re: SETI and sea mammals
    Re: Navigating Hazardous Payloads (was: The sun as a trashcan)
Re: Dinosaur extinction compared to others (was: are we terraforming?)
Re: NASA and McDonnell Douglas sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded)
	 NOAA-H weather satellite to be launched (Forwarded)
		       Re: SETI and sea mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1988 15:13-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Berserker mutation

I'll propose the following 'mutation' mechanism. A berserker is
seriously damaged either by cosmic accident or in battle with a
bio-race that doesn't appreciate being on the wrong side of a genocide.

The damage destroys large sections of the 'program' and data of the
critter. It's self repair slowly kicks in and pieces together what it
can of the mess that is left, attempting to 'guess' to fill in the
holes.

Since the basic purpose of these things is to destroy, one would
presume that they would almost certainly been engaged in pitched
battles that don't go wholly their way. Thus lots of mutations. Then
assume they trade data when they meet in their travels around the
galaxy. I hate to use the term (shudder) but once the faulty 'memes'
are introduced, they may tend to propagate, and successful ones will
tend to dominate the berserkers. Programs that create more successful
berserkers will be the equivalent of DNA programs that create more
successful sharks. Over long periods of time they might mutate to
become peaceful because fewer of them get destroyed that way, or they
might fall into more of a predator/prey relationship with bio-races, if
there is any survival advantage to them to continue destruction.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 18:32:25 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Another innane signature line from Henry SPencer

Henry once again writes:
>NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto

Actually NASA isn't into artificial stupidity.  I know because I
tried getting them interested in studying it.  John Pierce,
then Chief Scientist at JPL, said:
	No thank you.  We have enough natural stupidity.

Them's almost fightin' words, Henry, but Pournelle isn't worth commenting on.
Enough notes on acronyms, I'm just waiting for Ted to get back with them.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Sep 88 10:04:46 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

>vsi1!daver!mfgfoc!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Thompson) writes:

>In todays San Jose Mercury News (Monday August 10th) in the Science and
>Medicine section there is an interesting article about extordinary
>measures some scientist are proposing to repair the Earth's ailing
>environment.  Among the proposals mentioned to reverse the depletion of
>ozone and excess amounts of Carbon Dioxide:

>1.  Mount giant infra-red lasers on mountain tops and zap the CFC's
>(chlorofluorocarbons) while they are still in the lower atmosphere.
>I guess if that doesn't work then can point the lasers at the factories
>causing the CFC's. ( many :-} )

If you have a laser tuned to the resonant frequency of a CFC, what is
the net result of this process?  Surely just very excited CFC molecules?
I thought they didn't dissociate easily.  When they do, what do they
turn into?  Is it going to start raining hydrochloric acid?

I have long thought that the way to handle cleaning the atmosphere is with
genetically-engineered microbes (and since I read "Engines of Creation",
with nanomachines instead) that gobble up the CFCs and the smog and turn
them into something useful, like fertilizer (nitrates, right?).  And you thought
yellow rain was bad...

Maybe we could kill two birds with one stone with nanomachines that
accelerate the transport of ozone from ground level to the stratosphere.
Nanomachine with *very* inert pincers grabs an ozone molecule, deploys a
nanoballoon, ascends 80,000', drops off the ozone, ejects the nanoballoon
and falls, letting out a nanoparachute at 1000'...


Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 19:56:02 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!beowulf!david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (David Smyth)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

>>> > Well, it does appear that a single asteroid hitting Australia wiped
>>> > out the dinosaurs. 

><Why did so many non-dinosaur reptiles survive? ... Yet not one single
><dinosaur, regardless of size, survived whatever it was.  

>But, the current theories say that lots of dinosaurs DID survive.  Their
>desendents are still around in great varity, filling many ecological
>nitches.  Their called BIRDS.  Fossil evidence has been found to show that
>many small dinosaurs may have been covered in feathers.

I went to the NY Museum of Natural History a couple of weeks ago, any
was impressed with the "duck-billed dinosaur" fossiles:  Along the
backbone, there are very long, hollow rods which look to me very
similar to the supports for the sails in billfish, or the shafts of large
feathers.  The signs suggested that they were ligaments, but that
seemed implausable: why very long ligament along the backbone?  Also,
the hollow shafts did not seem anchored to the bones, simply very
closely located. 

I dunno, I'm a software engineer, not a paleontologist or biologist.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 20:14:21 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!beowulf!david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (David Smyth)
Subject: Re: SETI and sea mammals

In article <4763@whuts.UUCP> sw@whuts.UUCP (WARMINK) writes:
>In article <8809092238.AA19957@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>, roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>>  (......)
>>  - A large brain does not necessarily imply great intelligence. Marine mammals
>>    are also sometimes observed doing stupid things.
>
>Humans do some pretty stupid things, too. Even the "intelligent" ones...

Baleen whales, from all observations, appear more stupid than cows.  After
all, they only have to swim.  They have no effective defensive behaviour,
and do virtually no collision avoidance.  Very retarded.

Toothed whales are more stupid than dogs by a fairly substantial margin.
Seals are also less intelligent than dogs.  Dolphins are more stupid than
dogs.

Some people carry on conversations with dogs and cats, so perhaps my
point will not be well taken :=)

People who actually work with marine mammals and study them as a profession
DO NOT harbor the popular myths that they are somehow wonderously intelligent,
regardless of how much the marine mammal's brain weighs.  Brain size is
clearly irrelevant in humans (the largest human brain recorded belong to
an imbicile).

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 20:03:44 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!beowulf!david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (David Smyth)
Subject: Re: Navigating Hazardous Payloads (was: The sun as a trashcan)

In article <8809121146.aa03715@note.note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") writes:
>
>Henry Spencer:
>> [writing of the implausiblity of ejecting all plutonium from the solar system]:
>> The problem with any such scheme, though, is that suddenly our
>> trashcans can't be just inert lumps of metal.  ...what happens if you lose 
>> guidance on a trashcan before Jupiter flyby?
>
>Isn't this the basis for objections to the plutonium power
>sources ?  Isn't one of them to be used on a mission that uses
>the Earth for a slingshot effect ?  Okay, the canister can
>withstand a launch disaster (so they say), but would it survive
>re-entry ?

How big do you think these RTGs are? A billion tons of Pu?  Or a kg?

1) Not much material to worry about, not enriched enough for any
   fission reaction: the radioactivity generates heat, and the
   heat provides the power: Radioisotope Thermal Generators.  Not reactors.

2) If we don't have Pu, we can always make more, so you can't get rid
   of it.

3) Nukes a a social problem, not a material or technology problem.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 17:40:39 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Dinosaur extinction compared to others (was: are we terraforming?)

In article <3504@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> The question is not: why did the dinosaurs die off?  The question is: how
> did all these others survive.  Actually, they probably didn't.  Mammals
> are probably all derived from only one or two dinosaur contemporaries.
> The same goes for birds.  Each family of living reptiles and amphibians
> probably owes its existance to only one or two survivor species.

Does this mean that the Earth's gene pool (at least for higher animals)
was significantly narrowed down by this cataclysm?
What have we lost, genetically?
Or gained -- this is certainly survival of the fittest to the extreme,
but what diversity has been lost forever?
Granted, life has recovered a lot of diversity since then...

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 88 16:32:54 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: NASA and McDonnell Douglas sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded)

In article <408@mfgfoc.UUCP> mike@mfgfoc.UUCP (Mike Thompson) writes:
>From article <14551@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, by yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee):
>I hope that the state of our (the country as a whole) space program is
>somewhat analagous to where commercial aviation was in the 1920's and
>30's

For another parallel, a British invention first started
development in 1939. some private funding was found
to continue development. The British Government wasn't
interested in funding research. Development continued very
slowly. Too slowly to have any effect the course of WWII.

After the WWII the plans for the invention were handed to
the USA for military use.

A payment of 3.4million dollars allowed the invention to be
developed for commercial use.

The inventor (as if you hadn't guessed) was Sir Frank Whittle.
The invention was the Jet engine.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 22:13:04 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NOAA-H weather satellite to be launched (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 September 14, 1988

Bud Littin
NOAA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Carter Dove
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.


RELEASE:  88-126

NOAA-H WEATHER SATELLITE TO BE LAUNCHED


     NOAA-H, a meteorological weather satellite, is set for 
launch aboard a U.S. Air Force Atlas-E expendable launch vehicle 
from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., no earlier than Sept. 24, 
1988.

     The NOAA-H launch will occur at the Vandenberg's Space 
Launch Complex 3.  The launch vehicle, the Atlas E, is an Air 
Force ballistic missile, refurbished and modified to boost 
spacecraft into a variety of low-Earth orbits.  After initial 
check-out by NASA, the satellite will be operated by the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

     The satellite will be designated NOAA-11 when in orbit.  It 
will join the orbiting NOAA-9 and NOAA-10 spacecraft in 
collecting meteorological and ocean data for transmission 
directly to users around the world.  Environmental data also will 
be recorded on board for relay to central data processing 
centers.

     In addition to assisting in global and local weather 
forecasting, data from the NOAA series of satellites are used for 
hurricane tracking and warning; global sea ice monitoring; 
atmospheric studies such as the global effort to provide more 
information on ozone depletion; and for agricultural, commercial 
fishing, forrestry, maritime and other industrial uses.

     NOAA-11, from its 540-mile, sun-synchronous, near-polar 
orbit, will circle the Earth approximately every 102 minutes.  
The satellite will observe a different portion of the Earth's 
surface on each orbit and view the Earth's entire surface and 
cloud cover once every 12 hours.

     Included among the seven scientific instruments on board the 
spacecraft is an international search and rescue instrument and 
another experiment for mapping Earth's ozone layer.

     The complete instrumentation for NOAA-H consists of:

o COSPAS/SARSAT is a satellite-aided search and rescue project of 
the U.S., Canada, France and the Soviet Union.  Its 
instrumentation, already operational on NOAA-9, -10 and two 
Soviet satellites, relays distress signals transmitted from 
downed aircraft or vessels at sea to ground-sea-air recovery 
forces.  NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., 
manages the U.S. research effort.

o Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Spectral Radiometer, Mod 2
(SBUV/2) is an improved instrument for mapping the Earth's
ozone layer.  The SBUV/2's functions include measurement of solar 
irradiance and ozone concentration and distribution in the 
Earth's atmosphere.  This instrument is provided under a contract 
with NASA by Ball Aerospace Division, Boulder, Colorado.

o Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument 
provides multispectral imagery and radiation measurements used to 
determine the Earth's cloud cover and surface temperature.  AVHRR 
is provided under a NASA contract by International Telephone and 
Telegraph (ITT), Fort Wayne, Indiana. 
 
o TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder System (TOVS) consists of 
three instruments:  high resolution infrared radiation sounder, 
Mod 2I (HIRS/2I) from ITT; the stratospheric sounding unit from 
the United Kingdom; and the microwave sounding unit from NASA's 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.  By measuring radiant 
energy, the TOVS' three instruments will provide data to 
determine temperatures within the atmosphere from the Earth's 
surface to its upper atmosphere.

o ARGOS/Data Collection System (DCS), provided by France, 
receives temperature, pressure and altitude data measured by 
approximately 2,000 platforms consisting of buoys, free-floating 
balloons and remote weather stations located around the world. 
The DCS retransmits this data to France's ARGOS facility for 
processing, storage and distribution.

     NOAA-11 eventually will replace NOAA-9 (launched Dec. 12, 
1984) orbiting the entire Earth during the early afternoon (local 
time).  It will join NOAA-10 (launched Sep. 17, 1986), which 
passes over the entire Earth in the morning (local time).

     The year 1988 marks the 10th anniversary of the TIROS-N 
spacecraft.  NOAA-11 evolved from the original TIROS-N, a 
research and development prototype spacecraft funded by NASA and 
launched in December 1978.  In all, six spacecraft in this series 
have been placed in orbit, NOAA-9 and -10 are still operational.

     Prime contractor for the NOAA-H spacecraft is the Astro 
Space Division of the General Electric Company, West Windsor, New 
Jersey.  The weather satellite research and procurement program 
is managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.  Space Systems 
Division of General Dynamics Corporation, San Diego, California, 
is the manufacturer of the Atlas-E expendable launch vehicle.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 01:48:52 GMT
From: agate!gsmith%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: SETI and sea mammals

In article <2861@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, david@beowulf (David Smyth) writes:
>In article <4763@whuts.UUCP> sw@whuts.UUCP (WARMINK) writes:
>>In article <8809092238.AA19957@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>, roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

>Toothed whales are more stupid than dogs by a fairly substantial margin.
>Seals are also less intelligent than dogs.  Dolphins are more stupid than
>dogs.

  I have heard toothed whales compared favoribly to apes. Does
anyone have a reference for all these 'animal IQ' comparisons?

>Brain size is clearly irrelevant in humans (the largest human
>brain recorded belong to an imbicile).

  This does not show there is no correlation.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"You and I as individuals can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but
only for a limited period of time. Why should we think that collectively,
as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" -- Ronald Reagan

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #1
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Oct 88 02:22:33 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04294>; Sun, 2 Oct 88 00:46:53 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun,  2 Oct 88 00:46:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.kXFPFoy00UkT0EhE5c@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po3.andrew.cmu.edu.2345b1e4.748130>;
          Sun,  2 Oct 88 00:34:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.2345afaa.e26881>;
          Sun,  2 Oct 88 00:25:20 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, Oct  2 88 00:20:32 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #2

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 9 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:
		 Re: The Cretaceous extinction event
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
		   Re: space news from Aug 15 AW&ST
		      re: trashing fission waste
	     Earth Energy Use and Nuclear Waste problem.
	      Another book on the Soviet space program.
  Rocking Rocket (an' I don't mean Roger Clemens); The Russkies are
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		 Re: The Cretaceous extinction event
		     Levchenko and Soviet Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 20:04:57 GMT
From: iscuva!jimk@uunet.uu.net  (Jim Kendall)
Subject: Re: The Cretaceous extinction event


IMHO:

After witnessing the latest fire in Yellowstone, I've come up with the
following:

Towards the end of the Cretaceous the Earth experienced a period of extremely
dry weather. There were many times more plants and forrests around which
all dried up. Lightning struck and fire ravaged entire continents and
destroyed the vegetation. The large animals either starved or were burned to
death. The smaller animals eaked out a living and made it through. This
would happen over a very short time scale and account for a mass extinction.
The Earth could support colonies of smaller animals because it didn't require
a large amount of time to re-establish their food chain. The extremely 
massive fallout from the burning Earth (gas, dust, smoke, etc, etc) 
contaminated all the water ways and the upper layers of the ocean to the
point that no oxygen could be extracted to support life, hence the massive
die-out of the marine animals. The disaster was far greater than anything
that man (with the possible exception of global thermonuclear war) could
possibly devise.

Short, sweet and simple.........no asteroids required.

Opinions?

Cheers!

-- 
Jim Kendall                 Send all prank mail        My boss is in full
jimk@iscuva.ISCS.COM        to: /dev/null              agreement with all
uunet!iscuva!jimk                                      of my opinions....

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 04:26:43 GMT
From: gauss.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis



   Nardo:
   > Software/hardware doesn't mutate.  Fail, yes.  Mutate, no.

   Moravec:
   You don't think a stray bit of comet drilling through a berserker's
   memory circuits could, once in a long while, change its behavior...?

By appropriate design, a system can be made such that random
modifications (comet bits, for example) have an arbitrarily small
chance of leaving a viable system;  such a system would be designed
to be proof against mutation.  

HOWEVER, it would be brittle in the sense that tiny injuries would
kill it.  It is also possible to design systems such that some 
fair proportion of small modifications leave a system with nearly
the same functionality as the original.  Such systems are fault-
tolerant.  If someone designed their berserkers to be fault-tolerant,
there is a good chance that they might be susceptible to evolution.

I hardly think we can rely on the hope that *everyone* has designed
their berserkers to be brittle.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 18:01:04 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from Aug 15 AW&ST

In article <5163@fluke.COM> mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) writes:
>	1) How much does a single SSME cost?  They can't be cheap!

It depends on what assumptions you make, but no, they are not cheap.

>	2) What was the intended number of flights per SSME?

I think they started out hoping for 50.  Then they scaled it back to 20.
Now it's 10.

>	3) Does NASA's latest budget include the costs of a new SSME
>	   every ten flights?

Three new SSMEs every ten flights, actually.  I don't know whether it's
explicitly in the budget, but with all the trouble they've been having
with the SSMEs, I would expect so.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Sep 88 08:52:59 EDT
From: rachiele@nadc.arpa (J. Rachiele)
Subject: re: trashing fission waste


I heard an interesting story on the news this morning.  Apparently someone
is developing a "nuclear battery".  The report stated that this device is
about the size of a small suitcase, uses fissionable products of nuclear
power plants, and can supply about 5 dwellings with enough power for about
100 years, at about 3 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Also, it emits only alpha and
beta particles, no gamma, which makes it easy to shield.  Is there any
substance to this?  If so, does everyone still want to ship all our waste
into the sun?-:)
   Seriously, if anyone knows of reports in scientific journals on this
subject, please post.  The public needs to know about this, if true, before
the public utilities and the oil companies manage to bury it.
            Jim Rachiele
            rachiele@nadc.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Sep 88 13:55:16 GMT
From: TSOMMER%IRLEARN.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Return-Receipt-To: <@andrew.cmu.edu:TSOMMER@IRLEARN.BITNET>
Subject: Earth Energy Use and Nuclear Waste problem.


1) Energy use on Earth had been going up by 7% for about 30 or 40 years
before 1973. Then we had the Oil Crisis. Since then energy use has slowed
down considerably and the total additional extra use now, since then is
only about 10 %. This 10 % is over about 15 years remember and not 7%
per year. However due to complacey the annual growth rate has started
to climb again to about the 3 % figure. (I think.)
      For the U.S. (of which I do not live in, ) the production by
industry has increased by about 35% since 1973, but yet did not need
the same increase in energy as it did before that. All of the savings
have come from slightly more fuel efficient cars and much more efficient
ways of using electricity in things like fridges and heating systems.
Before 1973 there was total and utter waste every where. There still is
in quite a few places still. Americans now use 25 % less energy per unit
of production than 73. But I am afraid the Japanese have done even better.
They have achieved a saving of 33 %. And of course Sweeden was better in
1973 at energy usage than most countries are today, and yet they are still
improving. For cars: most European and Japanese cars can easily get 40 to
50 miles per gallon now and could to better if laws were imposed to force
the manufactures to higher values. However American cars used to do around
about 12 miles/gallon and now do (on average) about 32. This of course has
contributed big savings, but they could do a lot better.
       For a fuller account of what savings can and could be made see
the following:
Energy-efficient Buildings, Scientific American, p 56 - 63, April 1988.

2)     To lead onto the proble of Nuclear Waste.
           All the crap in the last few days about sending it off to the
moon or sun is a prime example by people who think 'hi-tech' should be
used for everything no matter what. There is no point even discussing
it anymore, because besides the high cost and inherent un-reliabilities
and risk of major accident, the whole arguement has the basic flaw that
the whole philosphy is wrong. The whole attitude is one of waste. The
assumptions appear to be the same old ones that we encounter every where
else. They are we can use all we want and the waste problem is some sort
of after-thought, in which we will stuff it somewhere.
           The remedy is that even if 1/4 of the price of one shuttle
was used to increase research into Energy efficieny and conservation
whcih at any stage never even received 1/10 the budget for nuclear power,
then we could very quickly find ourself in a situation where there would
be no need for nuclear power. And note that for every 1% drop in demand
because of efficiencies, the contribution by alternatives keeps going up.
If such actions or other ones were taken, then there would be no need to
discuss getting rid of Nuke wastes. The only proble would be the present
stock-pile, which should be more easily to handle because we assume that
the problem would not be mounting continually.
       Then there is the miltary nuclear wastes. But that issue is not
really a techical one, it is more political.

        For a concise guide on how such an energy efficeint society
could be made workable, then read:

Energy for a Sustainable World, J. Goldemberg, Wiley, pp517, #34.50
(See NewScientist 25 Aug, p55, 1988, for a review.)

       and before all the people with the 'waster' attitudes respond
why don't they read the reference to Scientific American, (see above)
first.

Terence Sommerville        TSOMMER at IRLEARN.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 16:44:00 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Another book on the Soviet space program.


	Another good book on the subject is THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOVIET 
    SPACECRAFT, written by Douglas Hart.  While it does give rather terse
    descriptions of the Soviet space vehicles, it is accurate and up-to-
    date (1987), and includes many excellent photographs and diagrams.

	Larry

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Sep 88 11:39 EDT
From: Matt <WALL%BRANDEIS.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu>
Subject: Rocking Rocket (an' I don't mean Roger Clemens); The Russkies are
 comin'

>From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kian-Tat Lim)
>Subject: Re: SDI
>
>Something that has been bugging me throughout this "denying access to space
>via Stinger" discussion.  How much is the warhead of a shoulder-fired weapon
>going to disturb an SSME/Ariane/whatever, considering that the hottest target
>is the exhaust plume?  With all that energy spewing out, it would seem to me
>that the extra "bump" from a 50-pound explosive (to be generous) would be
>negligible.

Hey, a fifty pound cannon ball with the right guidance system would do the
trick.  A flipped out dentist from Peoria with the will and a Cessna could
probably smash the thing on the pad (think about Mathias Rust landing in
Red Square.)

>John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121
>...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp   jnp@calmasd.GE.COM   GEnie: J.PANTONE

>Now my question:  What will NASA and the U.S. Govt. say/do when a
>prominent space scientist LEAVES THE US AND GOES TO THE SOVIET UNION
>BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE ACTION IS? Does anyone really think that this
>is not inevitable - given the deplorable state of the US space
>non-program?

Well, my GOD, am I the ONLY ONE who noticed that we've ALREADY LOST
JOHN DENVER to the commies?!? Write your congresscritter now before the
Russkies beat us in the muzak race!!!

As for the less serious question of scientists defecting / playing out
their options, the USSR excels in a number of fields, and I don't see
many top US professionals defecting. Our gymnastics coaches and space
scientists (for some zany, whacky reason) must have some non-professional
preference for uhmerka. Frankly, the thought of John Denver singing songs
in orbit in a spacecraft with a hammer and sickle on its side really
brings tears to my eyes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Wall
Brandeis University      "My Employer thinks EMail is the new postage stamp"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 15:34:29 GMT
From: asuvax!nud!sunburn!gtx!al@noao.edu  (Alan Filipski)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

terraforming?  If we can get  good greenhouse going, how about veneriforming?


  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
 ( {allegra,decvax,hplabs,amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al       (602)870-1696 )
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 20:07:06 GMT
From: gondor.cs.psu.edu!schwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu  (Scott Schwartz)
Subject: Re: The Cretaceous extinction event

In article <1964@iscuva.ISCS.COM> jimk@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Jim Kendall) writes:
>After witnessing the latest fire in Yellowstone, I've come up with the
>following:

	Bambi's mother :-)  What do you think about the fires in Alaska?
Yellowstone has lost 500,000 acres.  Alaska has lost over 2,000,000.
No big deal, happens every summer (in Alaska).

>Towards the end of the Cretaceous the Earth experienced a period of extremely
>dry weather. There were many times more plants and forrests around which
>all dried up. Lightning struck and fire ravaged entire continents and
>destroyed the vegetation. 

	No evidence of this.  Forest fires like the ones in Yellowstone
(except for the misguided recent past) were common.  In no time in
recorded history has fire "raveged the entire continent" even though
there have been lots and lots of huge summer fires. (Representatives
from the park service pointed out that every couple hundred years you
can expect really big fires, even with the normal summer burns.)

  I find it hard to believe that at the end of the Cretaceous
conditions were such that all the vegetation could be destroyed.  Don't
forget that conifers (some pine trees, and redwood trees at least)
require fire in order to germinate.

>The large animals either starved or were burned to
>death. The smaller animals eaked out a living and made it through. This
>would happen over a very short time scale and account for a mass extinction.

	Except that at Yellowstone, for example, the animals don't mind
the forest fire (this info from McNeil/Lehrer news hour, last week).
The park service pointed out that you don't have thousands of acres of
fire storm, but merely wide areas with burning patches.  Aside from
simply avoiding the flames, it turns out that the dry stands of timber
that are burning are climax forest -- no underbrush for plant eaters to
eat, and hence no meat eaters.  The animals never lived in the stands
of trees that are burning, but rather lived in the meadows bewteen
them.  The fires will make room for new plants and grass and enable the
animals to survive.  Look for huge increses in wildlife population next
year.

>The Earth could support colonies of smaller animals because it didn't require
>a large amount of time to re-establish their food chain. 

	This doesn't follow.  Plant eaters like elephants don't need
much of a food chain.  Smallish meat eaters like humans do.,

>The extremely 
>massive fallout from the burning Earth (gas, dust, smoke, etc, etc) 
>contaminated all the water ways and the upper layers of the ocean to the
>point that no oxygen could be extracted to support life, hence the massive
>die-out of the marine animals. The disaster was far greater than anything
>that man (with the possible exception of global thermonuclear war) could
>possibly devise.

	How about volcanic activity?  I'd say mount St. Helens has a
bigger impact than any forest fire.  Also, I'd say acid rain will have
a greater impact on the north american ecology than anything else
besides nuclear war.

>Short, sweet and simple.........no asteroids required.
>Opinions?

	Others have mentioned the evidence for asteroidal impact.
Required or not, it looks like there have been many such impacts,
correlated with mass die-offs.

Anyway, asteriods are much more romantic, don't you agree?

-- Scott Schwartz     schwartz@gondor.cs.psu.edu    schwartz@psuvaxg.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 20:44:00 GMT
From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Levchenko and Soviet Shuttle


/* Written 10:24 pm  Sep 11, 1988 by henry@utzoo.uucp in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
/* ---------- "space news from Aug 15 AW&ST" ---------- */
Soviet cosmonaut Anatoly Levchenko dies Aug 6 of a brain tumor.  He flew
on the Soyuz TM-4 mission to Mir last December, and may have been meant
to be commander for the first manned mission of the Soviet shuttle.
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

	Interesting, if sad, news, that.

	I never got my 15 August issue of AvWeek.  Did they say how
long Levchenko had been ailing?  I wonder if this explains why, back
in June, the Soviets announced that they'd be flying their shuttle and
then cancelled the flight, and their various vacillations this year
over whether the first test flight would be piloted or not.

	Any comments, Glenn?

Kevin Kenny			   UUCP: {uunet,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
Illini Space Development Society   ARPA Internet or CSNet: kenny@CS.UIUC.EDU
P.O. Box 2255, Station A
Champaign, Illinois, 61820	   Voice: (217) 333-6680

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #2
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Oct 88 01:34:45 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04086>; Mon, 3 Oct 88 00:56:32 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon,  3 Oct 88 00:56:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.oXFkVQy00UkTIDx05e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.23470544.22813f>;
          Mon,  3 Oct 88 00:43:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.2347025a.19e97a>;
          Mon,  3 Oct 88 00:30:25 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct  3 88 00:19:52 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #3

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 9 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:
	     Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)
			  Porpoise intellect
	      Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies
     Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.
		      Re: trashing fission waste
		    P/T Data on Jovian Atmosphere
		 Re: The Cretaceous extinction event
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		      Re: SDI and Orbital Debris
Re: NASA and McDonnell Douglas sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded)
			 Ultra-Hot Trashcans
Re: NASA and McDonnell Douglas sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 21:49:48 GMT
From: haven!uflorida!mailrus!umich!itivax!ttf@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Fejel)
Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)

In article <1798@hoqax.UUCP>, lmg@hoqax.UUCP (LARRY GEARY) writes:
> 
> Let's see, we've polluted the air, we've polluted the water, we've polluted
> the land ... what else can we pollute? I've got it! SPACE! Let's pollute SPACE!
> INTERSTELLAR SPACE!
> 
Com on larry, get real.  How can you pollute a barren
wasteland/vaccum in which the ambient cosmic/solar radiation
will kill you years before the "waste" plutonium would.

On the other hand,

> The simplest way to get rid of nuclear "waste" is to stop thinking of it as
> waste. Think of it as a highly concentrated ore of transuranic elements. See?
> No more nuclear waste. Instead, you have material that can be refined and
> sold to paying customers.

Now you're bringing some sense into this rediculous "sun as
trashcan" discussion.
You are absolutely correct - pollution is simply how you look at
a valuable resource that you are too lazy/ignorant to use.

arpanet:  ttf%iti@umix.cc.umich.edu
uucp:  ...{pur-ee,well}!itivax!ttf (Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel)
Industrial Technologies Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan  48106
work phone: (313) 769-4248 or 4345
*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 01:06:22 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@hplabs.hp.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Porpoise intellect

In article <6678@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:

>BTW, whales and porpoises still curiously swim toward,
>or at least fail to avoid, human ships.

The reality is far more interesting.  When I was a sailor, our ship plied
a triangle route between Baltimore, San Juan, PR, and New Orleans.  I spent
quite a bit of time ondeck just thinking and watching the water.  

Ours was a large container ship - sister ship of the Mayaguez captured by
the Cambodians - and travelled relatively rapidly through the water.
There is an area alongside both sides of the bow where the water gets pushed
ahead of the ship in such a way that there is a sizeable area of water which
is still relative to the ship but which is moving forward.  It turns out that
this area was just the right size for two porpoises on each side, and we were
often "ridden" by one to four porpoises hitching a ride on the bow wave.  I
even watched them swim up and swap positions.  

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 20:45:30 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!gary@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gary Wells)
Subject: Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies

In article <2836@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> david@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes:
>
>My dad was an engineer, just like me.  I am higher up in the percentile
>ranks of wage earners than he was at my age.  When he was 32 years old,
>working as an engineer, making relatively less money than I am,
>he owned two custom 3000+ square foot houses in ritzy areas of So.Cal.,
>7 boats, 4 airplanes, we as a family of 7 took many, many vacations
>each year all over the USA, Mexico, Canada, and even the occasional trip
>to Europe.  No, nothing was inheireted.  I don't own all that stuff,
>and simply do not have the option to buy it.  Houses used to cost about
>1-2x your yearly income.  Now they cost about 4x, and with the higher
>interest, the total cost is much, much higer.  Same with cars, planes,
>boats, furnishings, ...
>
>Sorry, but the actual standard of living in the USA has plumetted
>over the last 20 years.  I don't care what government provided
>data you can spout which suggests otherwise.


The problem here is that you have fallen into "If I'm not better off than my
parents, society is worse" trap.  You, and most of us other Boomers, have 
grown up with steady inflation, and a steady increase in consumer goods/desires.

First off, being a Engineer in you Daddy's day was something special.  Now 
anybody with 4 years to spare can get an "Engineer" title.  A name plate has
been found to be cheaper than a pay increase.  

You detail a lot of things your parents had.  You don't detail, and probably 
don't know, what they traded off for those things.  For instance: most of the
people I count as friends have a camper/trailer/motorhome, and a boat, and 
multiple motorcycles/dirt-bikes/ATV's.  I don't.  Am I worse off than them?
No, I don't think so.  I have stocks/investments and computers.  They don't.
Their "wealth" shows, mine doesn't.

Your folks owned multiple houses?  I've owned multiple houses.  It was a pain 
in the ass.  I sold my extras.

Travel was lots cheaper then than now, mostly because oil prices were 
artifically low.  Travel was also much safer, due to lack of terrorists.

I personally think we grew up in a _very_ unusual time, finacal-wise.  Our 
parents got an amazing ride, and we got a distorted view of reality.  I am 
pretty sure _I_ am better off now than x years ago.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still working on _natural_ intelligence.

gary@percival   (...!tektronix!percival!gary)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 12:10:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.

In article <2835@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> david@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes:
>Note that is why we want to send a rover next time: when we see everything
>we can see from one place, move on to another...

Why didn't they do the same as one of the surveyors did on
the moon, and re-ignite the landing rockets and hop a few
yards sideways.

Was there that tight a weight limit that a few more pounds
of propellant couldn't have been carried, or was it just
that (as I suspect) that the landing motor was of the "fire and
let burn out" variety?
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 21:37:42 GMT
From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: trashing fission waste

"Nuclear batteries" have been around since at least the 1960s, when I
first read about them. They generally use beta-emitters, since beta
particles are nothing more than energetic electrons. These batteries
produce very high voltages (kilovolts) at very low current levels.

Aside from the problem of converting the voltage/current ratio into
something more useful, you also have obvious radiological hazards should
the batteries be opened. It is unlikely that the government would be
satisfied by simply printing "DO NOT DISPOSE IN FIRE" on the outside in
larger-than-normal letters. :-)

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 88 06:14 CDT
From: Christopher Maeda <maeda@mcc.com>
Subject: P/T Data on Jovian Atmosphere


>Date: 31 Aug 88 17:52:16 GMT
>From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net  (John Gregor)
>Subject: Re: Life on Jupiter

>Does somebody have a hypothetical gradient of pressure, temperature, and
>composition vs. altitude of the Jovian atmosphere?  I'd be interested.

Bruce Fegley and Ron Prinn at MIT have done extensive work in that area.
They have several publications in Nature.  (I wrote simulations for
Bruce in my freshman undergraduate days but never understood what was
being simulated.)  They're not on the net but here's the address:

	Bruce Fegley
	Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
	MIT
	77 Mass Ave.
	Cambridge, MA 02139 

Chris

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 17:42:49 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The Cretaceous extinction event

In article <1964@iscuva.ISCS.COM> jimk@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Jim Kendall) writes:
>Towards the end of the Cretaceous the Earth experienced a period of extremely
>dry weather. There were many times more plants and forrests around which
>all dried up. Lightning struck and fire ravaged entire continents...

It doesn't seem very plausible.  It would require an abrupt (by geological
standards) dry spell of great uniformity and intensity planet-wide.  I don't
see how that would happen.

(The predictions of continent-wide forest fires made by the nuclear-winter
people are pretty definitely hogwash.  The conditions needed for major
spreading of wildland fires are rare, and the odds of them happening on
a continental scale are infinitesimal.  A detailed study of possible
wildland fires after a nuclear exchange concluded that the effects had
been greatly overestimated; urban fires would be the main source of
nuclear-war soot and smoke.)
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 18:19:21 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!yunexus!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net  (gordan)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

-Actually, there are several problems, notably the fair body of evidence
-suggesting that not everything became extinct at precisely the same time.
-However, the recent discovery of shocked quartz particles in the boundary
-clay is pretty much incompatible with anything but a major impact.  What
-is not entirely clear is exactly how the impact(s) caused the extinctions.


A recent article (in Nature?) claims to have discovered evidence of
increased levels of carbon (soot) in the boundary layer.  I am quoting
this from memory, probably incorrectly, but this was apparently
attributed to the impact causing fires on a global scale.  

In any case, the hypothesis presented in the conclusion of the article
was that these fires caused formation of various poisonous organic
compounds.  This, in turn, may have accounted for the selectivity of the
extinctions, since different species have greatly varying degrees of
resistance to specific poisons.

--
                 Gordan Palameta
            uunet!ai.toronto.edu!utgpu!maccs!gordan

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 17:33:43 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI and Orbital Debris

In article <6445@dasys1.UUCP> axelson@dasys1.UUCP (Kevin Axelson) writes:
>If an SDI system is successfully used against say 500 missiles, would
>the resulting space debris be signfigant?  Would we be grounded?  Would
>the SDI equipment be damaged by this material?

Probably none of the above.  Based on the evidence of the Delta experiment
a year or two ago, a hypervelocity collision between an ICBM and a space-
launched interceptor will produce two debris clouds, each roughly following
the original path of one of the incoming objects.  (The first instant
of contact produces a shock wave which pulverizes both objects; the
debris clouds then pass through each other without interacting much.)
The ICBM debris will hit atmosphere roughly where the ICBM was aimed at
the moment of destruction; the interceptor has probably accelerated
enough since it was launched that its debris will be in either an escape
trajectory or a reentry trajectory.  The situation for things like beam
weapons would be similar except for no interceptor debris.

So this, so to speak, "main-line scenario" does not produce orbital debris.
There are, however, some secondary possibilities.  Fractional Orbit
Bombardment Systems (FOBS) involve actually putting warheads in orbit very
temporarily, so intercepting them could leave debris in orbit.  One might
expect that occasionally an ordinary ICBM intercept, especially at very
close range, would leave interceptor debris that didn't quite manage to
reenter or escape, and ended up in orbit.  And one should beware of SDI
systems that leave orbiting debris behind them; for example, many missiles
that are fired from sealed tubes simply punch out through the seal, and
this might leave small amounts of seal debris in orbit.  My guess is that
none of these things would be too significant, compared to the volume of
trash we already have in orbit.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 01:04:32 GMT
From: sm.unisys.com!psivax!quad1!ttidca!sorgatz@oberon.usc.edu  ( Avatar)
Subject: Re: NASA and McDonnell Douglas sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded)

< lineeater meets anti-lineeater! <UNIVERSE ENDS!> >

In article <775@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>
>For another parallel, a British invention first started
..etc.
>The inventor (as if you hadn't guessed) was Sir Frank Whittle.
>The invention was the Jet engine.


 Hey Bob, check again. I think you will discover that the principles of
the Jet (compressor-stage, continous combustion-stage, power turbine redrive
stage, afterburner, etc.) traces it's lineage farther back than Whittle..
..there were operational single-shaft, gas turbines that exhibited static
thrust > their own system weight, in Germany as early as 1925 !! There was
a Jet aircraft (sort of; it used a conventional recip engine as it's motive
power for the compressor!) built in Italy around 1910 !! Anyway, since this
isn't sci.aero.history, an oblig-joke seems in order:

 When's the next shuttle scheduled for launch? (THE 4TH OF JULY!) oooAH!

(since my Dad retired from Rockwell all he ever says is: "Screw those !@##$%^
 political fuckups! You want a space program? Tough! They want a pension!
 You can't have BOTH! ..with the money we're paying all these retired
 politicians we could have one hell of a good space program!"

 Food for thought, eh?)
-- 
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **

------------------------------

Subject: Ultra-Hot Trashcans
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 88 12:02:08 -0400
From: "F.Baube" <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>


While we're talking about disposing of unpleasant items
off-planet, here's a modest suggestion:

We have so many damn nuke warheads, why don't we get rid of
PCB's, dioxin, and the like by pouring them into an already-used
nuke test hole (with conveniently-glassed-in walls to prevent
leaks) and then set off a *second* nuke in the same hole.  
*That* should provide the temperatures necessary to break 
down these nasty organics into their atomic building blocks.

It makes more sense than burning them on the East Coast and
praying they don't trash something downwind.

#include <disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 11:10:32 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net  (Adrian Hurt)
Subject: Re: NASA and McDonnell Douglas sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded)

In article <775@etive.ed.ac.uk>, bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
> In article <408@mfgfoc.UUCP> mike@mfgfoc.UUCP (Mike Thompson) writes:
> >From article <14551@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, by yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee):
> >I hope that the state of our (the country as a whole) space program is
> >somewhat analagous to where commercial aviation was in the 1920's and
> >30's
> 
> For another parallel, a British invention first started
> development in 1939. some private funding was found
> to continue development. The British Government wasn't
> interested in funding research. Development continued very
> slowly. Too slowly to have any effect the course of WWII.

At the same time, Germany was working on jets too. The Heinkel prototype flew
slightly before the Gloster one. Fortunately, the German government was as
short-sighted as the British, so the world's first jet fighter, the Me262,
didn't see service until it was too late.

Anyone else heard of the Schneider Trophy? This was a seaplane racing contest.
Britain won it a few times, then the government pulled out. Fortunately, some
rich individual put up enough cash to finance the Supermarine S6B, which went
on to win the trophy outright. It also formed the basis for the Spitfire. Both
were designed by R.J. Mitchell.

-- 
 "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #3
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Oct 88 17:42:32 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02399>; Mon, 3 Oct 88 15:42:58 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon,  3 Oct 88 15:42:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.cXFxToy00Vs1A9JU5S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.2347d3fd.2c918c>;
          Mon,  3 Oct 88 15:25:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.2347cf65.db1b74>;
          Mon,  3 Oct 88 15:05:14 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct  3 88 14:57:32 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #4

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 9 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Another book on the Soviet space program.
Mars Rover (Re: was Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.)
		      Spy-Sat Hall of Mirrors ?
	   Re: Earth Energy Use and Nuclear Waste problem.
Re: Mars Rover (Re: was Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.)
		    Re: Space Station power supply
	      Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies
			   Re: Jet Engines
			Re: Berserker mutation
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
   Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)
			Nucell Nuclear Battery
			A whole slew of stuff
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 12:56:55 GMT
From: linus!marsh@gatech.edu  (Ralph Marshall)
Subject: Re: Another book on the Soviet space program.


	I'd like to publicly thank everybody who has been providing
sources for the research project I'm doing, both via e-mail and
posted responses.  I have tried to send personal thank-yous to
everybody, but some of them bounced.  I have rounded up some of
the sources listed, and they seem to have some great pictures,
especially of the earlier Soviet space science work as well as
more recent operations.

	Now, if anybody knows how I can get in touch with the
Novosti Press Agency, or Tass-Sovfoto I'll be eternally grateful.

-Ralph Marshall
...!att!linus!marsh
OR
marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa
.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 16:52:48 GMT
From: forsight!ragnarok!roston@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Mars Rover (Re: was Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.)

In article <783@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>In article <2835@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> david@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes:
>>Note that is why we want to send a rover next time: when we see everything
>>we can see from one place, move on to another...
>
>Why didn't they do the same as one of the surveyors did on
>the moon, and re-ignite the landing rockets and hop a few
>yards sideways?
>
Since I am heavily involved in the Mars Rover project under way at JPL, I will
try, withmy slanted bias, to respond to Bob's question.  I think that
it must be realized that the mobility of a properly designed roving
vehicle far surpasses that of a thrust fired lander.  The vehicle is
able to negotiate terrain that's inaccessible to a lander, can maneveur
itself into more interestiong positions, etc.

Consider: the scientists determine that they want a core sample drilled from
a vertical wall.  With a rover, you drive right up to the wall and take the 
sample.  With a lander, you will not be able to get as close.  Okay, you say,
we build a longer robot manipulator.  However, since there is gravity on Mars
(as opposed to zero g), a long arm is harder to control, is heavier, and
requires more energy to control (remember, the most precious commodity
on a rover is energy).

One last thought, has anyone considered the damage (from a scientific point
of view) that the retro rockets do to the landing site?


gerry roston, robotic systems research group
jet propulsion laboratory, 4800 oak grove drive, m/s 23
pasadena, california, 91109
(818) 354-9124  (818) 354-6508

------------------------------

Subject: Spy-Sat Hall of Mirrors ?
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 88 18:04:04 -0400
From: "F.Baube" <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>


Presumably our high-res snoopsats can be pointed at theirs, and
theirs at ours, yielding intriguing photos of just what a, say,
KH-11 or Rhyolite really *does* look like.  Has anyone written 
to the Reds asking for pix of our spysats ?  Or tried an FOIA
to have a look at one of theirs ?  Presuming that such a request
would get absolutely nowhere, whom are they being hidden from ?
The Libyans ?  The Sammarinesi ?

If such efforts failed, maybe the *French* could be relied 
upon to break up the happy club and deliver the pictures !

Enquiring Minds Want to Know !

#include <disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 18:45:07 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Earth Energy Use and Nuclear Waste problem.

TSOMMER@IRLEARN.BITNET writes:
"       For a fuller account of what savings can and could be made see
the following:
Energy-efficient Buildings, Scientific American, p 56 - 63, April
1988."

Energy conservation is responsible for at least 20,000 premature
deaths by lung cancer in the U.S. alone by trapping radon inside
buildings.  Retreating to the stone age is not a panacea.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 19:18:15 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Mars Rover (Re: was Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.)

In article <95@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> roston@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov (Gerry Roston) writes:
>One last thought, has anyone considered the damage (from a scientific point
>of view) that the retro rockets do to the landing site?

Yes, this is why Surveyor's motors stopped just short of grounding out.
Don't forget that people back then didn't know what the very surface of
the moon was like back then (hard or miles of deep dust).  The first image
was of the foot pad just in case it was slow in sinking.

Surveyor was the project in which my elementary school friend, Chad's,
father worked (for Huge Aircrash) at JPL.  Little did I realize I
would end up taking a job in the exact same building he worked in
(264) many years later.
 
An interesting exercise would be planning for a Europa lander
(unknown surface largely presumed to be ice.).  [Don't masturabate too long.]

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 19:45:27 GMT
From: pritch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Norm Pritchett)
Subject: Re: Space Station power supply

In article <8808190216.AA11489@watdcsu> allsop@watacs.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Allsop) writes:
#
### Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz.
### AC?  Why AC?
## 
## AC is easy to convert to whatever voltage you want by means of
## a transformer.  DC is obtained with a simple rectifier.  A
## high frequency is used because the transformer needed is
## smaller and higher frequencies are easier to filter out when
## DC is needed.
## 
#
# In addition AC is safer. High tension DC creates two problems:
#
#      1) Unidirectional magnetic fields.
#      2) The "grab-hold" effect if a person touches a bare wire.

I'm playing catch up in this newsgroup right now so this subject might
be passe but just to add my $0.02:

AC is also safer in that as the frequency of a power signal increases,
it has a greater tendency to travel close to your skin rather than
through your internal organs.  This lessens the chance of fatality
should one come in contact with a live wire.
-- 
Norm Pritchett, The Ohio State University College of Engineering
Internet: pritchett@eng.ohio-state.edu	BITNET: TS1703 at OHSTVMA
UUCP: pritch@cis.ohio-state.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 18:42:10 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies


Gotta ask: 

How many desktop computers did your father have?
How big was your grandfathers color television set?

Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 21:16:28 GMT
From: eachus@mitre-bedford.arpa  (Robert Eachus)
Subject: Re: Jet Engines


     The jet engine was invented (and patented) in the 1860's by James
Brayton.  That's why they are called Brayton cycle engines...

     However to imply that the state of the aircraft technology during
the early forties made jet  engines  practical in combat  ignores  the
reality of the state  of aviation  in   WWII.  Just proir to WWII  the
first  "modern"  fighter aircraft  entered production in   Japan  (the
Zero),  England (Spitfire and Hurricane) the  US (P-38 Lightning)  and
Germany (Me109?).  Most of these  aircraft were regarded  as dangerous
man-killers.

     The Spitfire and the Lighting  are NOW highly regarded collecters
items, and in fact  once World War  II started, the reputations of the
aircraft, the  knowledge   of how  to   fly  them,  and  the  aircraft
themselves all quickly improved.   But, take  one example,  Lightnings
and power dives.  It quickly became known that the Lightning couldin a
steep power dive, become  totally uncontrollable.  Between radios, and
pilots in shallower dives who cut  back the throttle, the the symptoms
were that the controls froze.  Finally one pilot  found a way out--you
could make the dive  steeper!, do an outside roll,  and regain control
at the top.  Later  versions of  the plane (about  1944 I think) added
speed brakes (and deicers and...).

     The point? The P-38, P-39, and  the  P-51 were all "overpowered",
and with, incremental  improvements  in engines and  propellers,  were
capable of transonic  flight by wars  end.  Jet engines were available
(and there  was even one Messerschmitt version  that saw combat),  but
the chief  performance improvements  in these  planes  were  the speed
regimes which were  just  beginning   to be  understood, and only  the
Germans and Jaapanese had  the incentives to put  pilots in combat  in
such dangerous aircraft.  (The Japanese  answer of course was not jets
but modified  Zeros  with no landing  gear and internal  ordnance--the
Kamikasi's.)


					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 12:45:32 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!warper.jhuapl.edu!trn@mimsy.umd.edu  (Tony Nardo)
Subject: Re: Berserker mutation

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Berserker mutation
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <590267605.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: 
Reply-To: @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Johns Hopkins University/APL (Baltimore, Md.)
Keywords: 

In article <590267605.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>I'll propose the following 'mutation' mechanism. A berserker is
>seriously damaged either by cosmic accident or in battle with a
>bio-race that doesn't appreciate being on the wrong side of a genocide.
>
>The damage destroys large sections of the 'program' and data of the
>critter. It's self repair slowly kicks in and pieces together what it
>can of the mess that is left, attempting to 'guess' to fill in the
>holes.
>
> [etcetera, etc, ...]

Why are repairs required?  Why not design the berserkers so that their first
few hundred years are spent building *lots* of other berserkers, so that no
single machine is indispensible?  If a unit is damaged (fails to pass it's own
integrity check - considering the stakes, this will be more than a simple
checksum :-), it dutifully shuts down and the Scrap Retrievers take it off for
reprocessing.

Considering the advances in SW/HW necessary to create berserkers in the first
place, no one seems to give much thought to integrity checks within such
machines.  Rather odd, since private industry (at least the companies I dealt
with) pays *lots* of attention to it in the realm of factory automation!  One
chemical plant I dealt with wanted redundancy at all points (they wanted triple
redundancy but had to settle for double), demanded error-correcting memory,
and designed all its applications to drive the plant to a safe state when
*ANYTHING* went wrong (this last event happened after a containment vessel
blew up because no one noticed the alarm condition).

If I was responsible for creating a system of killer machines, I'd be
sufficiently paranoid to insist on a lot more protection against errors than
the above chemical plant!

==============================================================================
ARPA:   @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:trn@warper             \
        nardo%str.decnet@capsrv.jhuapl.edu         }  one of these should work
UUCP:	{backbone!}aplvax!warper.jhuapl.edu!trn	  /
USnail: c/o Johns Hopkins University/APL, Room 7-53
	Johns Hopkins Road
	Laurel, Md. 20707

50% of my opinions are claimed by various federal, state and local governments.
The other 50% are mine to dispense with as I see fit.
==============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 14:02:09 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!rolls!attdso!tim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tim J Ihde)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <1988Sep13.234848.5479@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>However, the recent discovery of shocked quartz particles in the boundary
>clay is pretty much incompatible with anything but a major impact.

I hadn't heard about this - do you have any additional information to
offer?  What exactly is a "shocked quartz particle," and have they been found
right in the iridium layer?

-- 
Tim J Ihde					att!attdso!tim
(201) 898-6687					tim@attdso.att.com
This disclaimer intentionally left blank.  	attmail!tihde

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 19:15:27 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)

If we had experience flying the Shuttle unmanned it would be different.
As it is, that just looms as another unknown risk factor.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 88 01:37:42 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Nucell Nuclear Battery

A poster mentions a new nuclear battery which sounds like the product announced
by the Nucell Inc. company.

The battery supposedly harnesses the magnetic energy of the alpha and beta
emitters in a novel way.  Paul Brown, the inventor, claims he got the idea
from a study of Rutherford - hardly state of the art stuff, you must admit.

Brown's prototype cell used 1.45 curies (.01 gm) of strontium-90 and produced
about 75 watts.  These are figures 100,000 times as efficient as previous
nuclear batteries, if true.  Mike Van Pelt did some calculations and found
the figures to be incorrect, insofar as there is not that much energy 
obtainable from this particular isotope.

Nucell claims that radium-226 gives the highest power output, but a decay
product, bismuth-214, is a gamma emitter, so packages using R226 require
lots of shielding.  They claim that "Uranium mill wastes contain far more
energy in waste R226 than is represented by the fission energy derived 
from the produced uranium."

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 88 03:22:03 GMT
From: js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jon C. Slenk)
Subject: A whole slew of stuff

Hello!

Regarding space acessability:
        What we really need is to develop the Sinclair Monofillament type of
material that will allow us to construck a space elevator. If you haven't heard
of this idea, then check out The Final Frontier Vols 1 & 2 (Pournelle or Niven,
I forget which).

Regarding reasons for getting into space:
        We are not reducing pollution. The greenhouse effect will cause a
approx. 3degree increase in world avg. temperatures by 2100ish. This is not
good. We are destroying the forests which replenish our O2. We don't know what
our pollutants will do to the ecological balance of things. Lets put it this
way: we need to get off of this planet but pronto.

Regarding the USSR:
        I am drawing up a plan for a first-strike that _will work!_ The only
thing we have to worry about is retaliation from their subs. The plan relies on
EMP (Electro motive (or something) Pulse), which frys electronic (solid state
and up) stuff. If it is not a myth, then there is no problem!!

(The last was a joke. Sort of. 8-})

-Jon Slenk / js9b CMU

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #4
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Oct 88 03:04:01 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03864>; Tue, 4 Oct 88 01:55:47 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue,  4 Oct 88 01:55:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.8XG6Sty00Vs1ED504R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.2348628b.922161>;
          Tue,  4 Oct 88 01:33:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.23485243.9c8c28>;
          Tue,  4 Oct 88 00:23:38 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Oct  4 88 00:20:26 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #5

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 9 : Issue 5

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
	 Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.
		      Re: trashing fission waste
			   satellite pics.
		       Re: SETI and sea mammals
		       Re: SPACE Digest V8 #363
     NOX and Acid-Rain (was: RE: are we ready for Terraforming?)
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 22:25:28 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!cvedc!billa@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <4468@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
>> > >(Jim Giles) writes:
>
>> > Well, it does appear that a single asteroid hitting Australia wiped
>> > out the dinosaurs. 
>
>It's my understanding that this theory is highly questionable at best.  While 
>there is substantial circumstantial evidence to support it (layers of iridium, 
>appearance of chronological time-scale catastrophe, mathematical climatological 
>models, etc.), there is one major problem...
>
>Why did so many non-dinosaur reptiles survive?  Snakes, turtles, lizards, 
>crocodilians, and such appear to have suffered no such losses at the time.  
>And it doesn't have anything to do with size, either.  Although most of the 
>"big" dinosaurs get all the attention, most dinosaurs actually were not all 
>that large--many were no larger than modern-day lizards, and their average size 
>seems to be little different from today's crocodilians.  Yet not one single 
>dinosaur, regardless of size, survived whatever it was.  It's difficult to 
>come up with a plausible scenario in which all dinosaurs die and most lizards 
>live, even though biologically they are extremely similar.  A baffling 
>mystery, to say the least.

I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but I'm getting tired of
being bombarded with silly theories by "scientific" people that don't
hold up under investigation while those same people scorn a plausible
answer that does hold up under *good* scientific investigation.  They
would label people who promote the sort of theory I'm proposing as
unthinking and unscientific, while refusing to spend some energy
thinking about and using truly scientific methods to investigate these
ideas themselves.  (Hmmm... does that sound bitter?)

Please don't misunderstand me - I'm *not* speaking here of anyone who
has been involved in this discussion.  I've probably been too strong in
my language too.  I'd be glad to discuss in more detail exactly what
I'm referring to above with anyone who cares, but I'm not going to
bother all of you with that now.  If you will read this entire article,
I think you'll understand me a little better.

If you want to reply to the following, please first read it all
carefully and objectively.  Check out the references.  Give it as much
creedance as you would any other "scientific" theory.  After all, isn't
that what good science is all about?

Also, please do not think me anti-science.  Just the opposite in fact.
I do, however, get peeved with people who use bad methods and call it
science.  For one, science is incapable of determining what happened in
the distant past.  Some interesting theories, some more plausible than
others, can be devised, but *none* of them can be experimentally
verified.  However, some of them can be checked against data we know to
be true today and found to be in agreement with it or not.  We all have
the same world and data to investigate.  Our different conclusions
result from different assumptions.  The assumptions can not be directly
tested, but the resulting conclusions can be compared against what we
find in the world around us.

The folks at the Institute for Creation Research (P.O. Box 1606; El
Cajon CA 92022; (619) 448-0900) have an explanation for mystery of what
happened to the dinosaurs.  It begins in Genesis, Chapter 1, vs. 6.
There was water both *above* and below the sky.  Next, in Chapter 2,
vs. 5-6 we read that early earth had no rain.  Instead, a mist watered
the ground.  Finally, there is the account of the flood in Chapters
6-8.

Now, you may not think the Bible a good place to begin from, but just
humor me for a bit and see where this leads - judge the assumptions
after seeing how well the conclusions match the data, relative to other
theories.

Fossils of dinosaurs have been found on *all* the continents of the
world.  Investigation of some well preserved dinosaurs near the poles
has found undigested plant material still in their stomachs.  This
implies a lush, tropical climate over the entire world while the
dinosaurs were alive.  Computer simulations have shown that a huge
blanket of water above the atmosphere (remember Gen. 1:6?) would
provide the necessary greenhouse effect to give the earth such a
climate.  The dinosaurs were alive during Noah's day (BTW, take a look
at Job 40:15-41:34 for an interesting description of a dinosaur - or is
it a dragon?).  Noah took 2 of *every* animal (7 of some), including
dinosaurs, on the ark.  Note that the size of the ark is not a
problem.  First off, this was a *very* large ship (450'x75'x45').
Secondly, it was not necessary for all the animals brought on board to
be full grown - they probably weren't.  After all, the whole idea was
that they produce offspring, and they had a long, hard ride ahead of
them.

After the flood, the canopy of water that provided the warm climate was
gone.  The earth cooled and the polar ice caps were formed.  Clouds
were formed and "normal" rain began.  The lush, tropical vegetation the
the dinosaurs had helped to control with their ravenous appetites had
been destroyed.  It's no wonder they didn't survive!  (Interesting
note:  deep in the South American rain forests, natives have reported
seeing great beasts that look like what we know as dinosaurs.  They
didn't flourish, but maybe a few are still alive?)

So what do you think?  Is this any more outrageous a theory than the
giant asteroid?

Of course, in such a short explanation, I haven't filled in all the
details.  With a little bit of thought, I'm sure you can.  If you're
interested, a wealth of material on the subject is available from ICR
at the above address.  No, I am not affiliated with ICR in any way,
other than being very thankful for all their hard work and integrity.

Please, no "Bible Bashing" or other emotional outbursts.  I hope you
will excuse me if I've said anything to offend anyone personally.
While I'm apologizing, I should ask forgiveness for the length of this
posting and also for that fact that it doesn't have a whole lot to do
with space.  Sigh.  Would there have been a better place to reply?

Disclaimers, blah, blah ...

===============================================================   _____   __
Bill Anderson                  ..tektronix!reed!cvedc!wanderson  |   __| / /
Computervision                     ..sun!cvbnet!cvedc!wanderson  |  (   / /
14952 NW Greenbrier Parkway                FAX   (503) 645-4734  |   \_/ /
Beaverton, Oregon 97006                    Phone (503) 645-2410  \______/

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 17:18:23 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.

In article <1086@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:
>...or Marcia Smith's 'Soviet Space Programs 1976-80', a US
>Congressional Research Service document available from US Govt Printing
>Office in DC.  The latter is probably the 'primary' reference...

I don't recall whether this is the particular author that I've heard some
scathing remarks about from people like Art Bozlee, but beware:  nearly
anything from the Congressional Research Service has a significant chance
of being politically biased.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 17:23:57 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: trashing fission waste

In article <8809151252.AA22918@NADC.ARPA> rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele) writes:
>... a "nuclear battery".  The report stated that this device is
>about the size of a small suitcase, uses fissionable products of nuclear
>power plants, and can supply about 5 dwellings with enough power for about
>100 years, at about 3 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Also, it emits only alpha and
>beta particles, no gamma, which makes it easy to shield...

Nuclear batteries have existed for a long time, in minor "niche" applications.
They've never been economically competitive for normal uses.

If anybody has found a major component of fission waste (I assume that the
"fissionable" was an error -- fissionable isotopes are potential bomb
materials) whose decay involves no gamma rays, I'd be quite surprised.
Isotope generators for deep-space missions would be a major application
for such a thing, and it's hard to believe that it wouldn't have been
noticed years ago.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 88 04:08:01 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!psu-cs!matt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matt Logan)
Subject: satellite pics.


 Can somebody tell me where I can get a hold of some satellite pictures? 
Are satellite pictures in the public domain? I'm most intereted in pictures
of the Earth. Any information would be appreciated.
    __  __
   /\_\/_/\    /\
   \ \\/ \ \att\ \__ogan  matt@psu-cs
    \/    \/    \/___/

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 10:36:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: SETI and sea mammals


>>  - A large brain does not necessarily imply great intelligence. Marine mammals
>>    are also sometimes observed doing stupid things.
>
>Humans do some pretty stupid things, too. Even the "intelligent" ones...

Intelligence and duration of observed behaviour are related by
an uncertainty principle.  If you watch a bright person for only a 
short time, you can observe any degree of stupidity.  A stupid person
can have a flash of genius, but not often.  The longer the sample time,
the better the measurement.  

			... Bill

************************************************************************
Bill Witts, CS Dept.     *    Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
UCL, London, Errrp       *    mi ritrovai per una selva oscura
william@cs.ucl.ac.uk     *    che la diritta via era smarrita.
************************************************************************

------------------------------

Sender: "Sarah_M._Elkins.Henr801M"@xerox.com
Date: 17 Sep 88 10:04:53 PDT (Saturday)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #363
From: "Sarah_M._Elkins.Henr801M"@xerox.com
Cc: "Sarah_M._Elkins.Henr801M"@xerox.com
Reply-To: elkins.Henr801M@xerox.com

1)	Regarding Steve Elias' letter about the exponential growth of energy use:
Actually, I'm not as worried about thermal effects from energy usage, as I am
about the drop in our world resources.  We are certainly screwing up our
environment, which is probably the worst thing we could be doing.  My main
worry is the vanishing trees, which are necessary for us to breathe.  Second to
that is my worry about clean water, which is usually used at some stage in
energy production.  
	But alternative energy resources might possibly be used in the future.  What
about when we use up too many of the resources used in the making of computers -
petroleum for plastics, etcetera?  I see a drastic change coming up for the
economies of technological countries such as ours.

2)  Would somebody please tell me what JSA is?

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 17 Sep 88 17:19 EDT
From: GORDON D. PUSCH <PUSCHGD@VTCC1.BITNET>
Subject:  NOX and Acid-Rain (was: RE: are we ready for Terraforming?)
Original_To:  ARPA%"space@angband.s1.gov",PUSCHGD

>In article <3065@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>> Well over 90% of the global atmospheric loading of sulpher dioxide
>> is volcanic.  This makes you wonder why acid rain is such a recent
>> problem (and it is).  Could it be that _other_ pollutants are mainly
>> responsible?
>
>What about nitrates?  I learned some interesting things on a visit
>this past spring to the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest.  One is
>that, since the 1970's, the amount of acidity that seems to be caused
>by sulfates has diminished.  What has taken up the slack has been an
>increased contribution of nitric acid from nitrates.  The reason for
>this is that it people are burning less coal, but driving cars more,
>at least in the northeast.
>                              -- Buffalo Bill

Darn right! And based on my dusty memories of Chemistry, I am personally
convinced that Power-plant SO2-emissions are *NOT* the principal culprit
in Acidification (although it is Politically the most expediant thing to
blame).

I am convinced that the principle culprit in Acidification is the
*Automobile catalytic converter*.

SO2 has a *very* small disassociation constant. You CAN'T make sulfuric
acid (H2SO4) in significant quantities without the presence of a strong
oxidant. Nitric acid (H2NO3) is most commonly used industrially. It is
believed that Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) is the principle oxidant in Rain
Acidification (see the recent "Scientific American" article on the subject).

But if you examine the Reaction Diagram in the same article, you will
note that NOX plays a critical role in *every path* to both H2SO4 and
H2O2 formation. And H2NO3 can be formed quite easily from NOX and Water.

NOX is formed wherever Nitrogen and Oxygen are present together at high
temperature. And the rate of reaction typically goes like exp(-Ea/kT),
like any chemical process ( Ea is the "activation energy", T is the
absolute temperature, and k is Boltzmann's contant). Because they
operate at much higher temperatures, cars with catalytic converters put
out literally *an order of magnitude* more NOX than an unequiped engine.

When the EPA originally set the pollution standards, and approved
catalyic converters as a means for achieving them, they were primarilly
concerned about Carbon Monoxide and UnBurned Hydrocabon emissions.
The converters reduced this, which was a "Good Thing". NOX was viewed as
acceptable because it was "produced in Nature" by Lightning and Plant
decay, and furthermore acts as a fertilizer (soil bacteria use it to
"fix" Nitrogen); so it too was a "Good Thing", or at least not a
"Bad Thing".

It apparently never occured to anyone that "Bad Things" are also
"produced in Nature", and that it is possible to to have too much
of a "Good Thing"... Or to question later whether a "Good" decision
might have had "Bad" consequences. (Most of the "Environmentally
Aware" individuals I have questioned on this issue actually believe
that catalytic converters *reduce* NOX emmisions!!!  While the newer
ones aren't *QUITE* as bad as the old ones (the EPA has set tougher
standards on NOX since then), they *STILL* produce *LOTS* of NOX.)

Some will argue that this scenario most be wrong, since H2SO4
acid-plumes *are* found downwind of Power-plants, and since Europe's
Acid-rain problem is much worse than North America's, even though they
don't use catalytic converters. I counter this with the following three
observations:

1) Satellite measurements show that the entire Northern hemisphere has a
fairly uniform "NOX hood"; apparently the residence time for NOX in the
atmosphere is long enough for it to diffuse through the entire wind-
system, but it doesn't cross the Tropical Convergence region at the
Equator very effectively.

2) Measurements show little correlation between *local* atmospheric SO2-
concentration and *local* H2SO4 concentration in percipitation (although
*global* averaging does show some correlation). This suggests there are
probably other factors in H2SO4 production besides atmospheric SO2.

3) In the U.S., while we mostly hear complaints about Acid Rain from the
NorthEast and Canada, West of the Rockies there is also an Acid problem,
but it is predominantly due to H2NO3. Only as you go East do you find
the H2SO4 concentration become dominant. Do they have that many less
Coal-fired power-plants than the East does? They certainly aren't using
Nukes, at least in California ;-) ... and they have a *LOT* of Cars ...

After retrofitting Coal-fired Power-plants with Sulfur-scrubbers
(at great public expense), will we find out that it was *REALLY* all
those catalytic converters that we hung on cars (also at great public
expense)?

And what will the All-Knowing and All-Wise Politicians and Beaureucrats
who put the rest of us into this position (while making us pay for it).
do then?


Gordon D. Pusch        |  Try using <puschgd@vtcc1.bitnet>; if that doesn't
Physics Dept., VPI&SU  |  work, try <puschgd@vtvax3.bitnet>. (our Node-Name
Blacksburg VA 24061    |  got changed recently ... )

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "... Engineers ... Always *changin'* things ...                     |
|    It's like a Dam' *Computer Center* in here ..." --- L. McCoy, M.D. |
|                                                                       |
| Q: How many System Programmers does it take to screw in a light-bulb? |
| A: *ONE*; He holds the bulb, and the World revolves around him ...    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 88 21:57:04 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <583@attdso.ATT.COM> tim@attdso.UUCP (Tim J Ihde) writes:
>>However, the recent discovery of shocked quartz particles in the boundary
>>clay is pretty much incompatible with anything but a major impact.
>
>I hadn't heard about this - do you have any additional information to
>offer?  What exactly is a "shocked quartz particle," and have they been found
>right in the iridium layer?

Yes, they're right in the KT boundary clay that is iridium-enriched.  An
intense shock wave will alter some minerals, notably quartz, in distinctive
ways.  As far as is known, nothing but a major meteorite impact will do
this -- volcanic explosions just are not concentrated enough to produce the
necessary shock wave.  I believe they've been found in boundary-clay samples
from widely separated locations, so it's not just a local phenomenon.  (The
news was in Science sometime in the last year, if I recall correctly.)
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #5
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Oct 88 06:08:27 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07997>; Wed, 5 Oct 88 01:07:44 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed,  5 Oct 88 01:07:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.cXGOrBy00UkTAT_k4H@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.2349a6fe.8a22f9>;
          Wed,  5 Oct 88 00:37:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.2349a47e.18c1ae>;
          Wed,  5 Oct 88 00:27:24 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Oct  5 88 00:22:41 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #6

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 9 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
		     LOFT-1 flight is finally ON!
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 21:23:46 GMT
From: hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@hplabs.hp.com  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: LOFT-1 flight is finally ON!


The E-Prime Aerospace/North Coast/Vulcan Systems/etc... LOFT-1
flight test, the first civilian flight of any kind to use the Canaveral
Air Force Station, has been scheduled for Oct. 13, 1988. Many netreaders
will recall my earlier postings concerning the payload  and vehicle to
be used on this flight...I will not repost but will be glad to email them
to anyone who wants additional info.

I have no commercial connection of any kind with E-Prime, any subcontractor,
or any of the universities involved with the LOFT project.
-- 
Mark Johnson (Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM)
NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS  phone: (316)636-8189    
email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson 
US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 03:38:21 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #389 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88266.83386500 0.00000096           10764-3 0  1596
2 00424  80.4657 189.3007 0023965  95.3876 264.9997 13.67010045296283
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88263.97425392 0.00000002           10000-2 0  5671
2 08820 109.8183 137.5713 0044475  13.7122 346.4855  6.38664514 33371
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88268.50404724 -.00000006                   0  1533
2 10061   6.4895  71.3710 0009590 192.2238 167.9222  1.00269008  2716
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88267.20740244 0.00000013                   0  9579
2 10684  63.4622 109.0978 0101612 197.5247 162.2146  2.00563580 63172
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88264.16913051 -.00000029                   0  9164
2 10893  64.5719 350.0044 0142942  30.2235 330.6401  2.00563976 75937
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88268.35426524 0.00000312           15601-3 0   213
2 10967 108.0122 100.5221 0003466 241.0565 119.0252 14.33878648535973
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88265.98319640 -.00000029                   0  9440
2 11054  64.1316 346.4948 0051634 120.2615 240.3008  2.00570524 72986
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88266.58493789 0.00000013                   0   376
2 11141  63.4413 109.0298 0054433 323.2063  36.5083  2.00559601 71694
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88265.43042375 0.00000296           14225-3 0  7564
2 11416  98.4977 264.6053 0011441 169.7437 190.3974 14.25201976479610
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88271.18589181 0.00017033           52497-3 0  6977
2 11703  28.4990 303.1563 0000833 334.9430  25.1716 15.32118881479243
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88271.53003604 -.00000029                   0  8109
2 11783  63.9346 346.0352 0134896  64.2851 297.1505  2.00562653 61738
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88260.34577381 -.00000240           10000-3 0   141
2 11964   4.8144  76.7760 0001098  82.5241 277.5964  1.00263862 45127
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88266.41305002 -.00000245           10000-3 0  6296
2 12472   1.8578  83.5030 0001485 157.6950 203.8585  1.00254019 25928
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88267.24387467 0.00014926           43804-3 0  3020
2 12888  97.6058 303.1765 0003265  67.0035 293.1678 15.35259175387777
RS-08      
1 12998U          88258.72060709 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5397
2 12998  82.9579  26.0512 0018608 223.2766 136.6818 12.02964520296188
RS-05      
1 12999U          88267.29147584 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5274
2 12999  82.9684  16.1507 0011061 149.1845 210.9857 12.05072773297734
RS-07      
1 13001U          88263.41923144 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4082
2 13001  82.9640   8.6698 0023008  61.3318 298.9995 12.08705795298169
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88259.98813144 0.00000065           53311-4 0  6005
2 13113  82.5368 276.6618 0016829 108.2407 252.0598 13.83870733327317
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88269.69442555 0.00046295           13989-2 0  2449
2 13138  51.6111 163.9662 0001572 145.3338 214.7859 15.33768976367500
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88265.81682420 0.00000098           49032-4 0  7086
2 13718  81.2461 184.0262 0057580  42.7276 317.8342 14.12996697297651
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88262.38306745 0.00000120                   0  8240
2 14050   0.5920  85.7839 0002147 124.5819 149.6420  1.00266336  3884
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88263.58939385 -.00000004           10000-3 0  3558
2 14129  27.1303 303.8674 6030869 337.9514   4.5773  2.05878899 11644
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88265.64164155 0.00000012                   0  5508
2 14189  63.0942 107.7736 0129081 212.7587 146.5099  2.00554249 38054
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88261.32016002 0.00000140           58049-4 0  6525
2 14452  81.1633 206.9043 0095448 161.7456 198.7188 14.21838248253760
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88270.63153419 0.00000176           44107-4 0  5301
2 14780  98.2100 331.3845 0003126  21.3749 338.7843 14.57122076243186
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88264.08789900 0.00000629           13313-3 0  3455
2 14781  98.0452 324.4060 0014715  90.0046 270.2857 14.62423897243058
LDEF       
1 14898U          88267.56127949 0.00010453           27567-3 0  6285
2 14898  28.5045 232.0807 0002531 119.9344 240.1573 15.36725140250238
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88267.68914162 0.00000012                   0  5858
2 15039  62.7708 107.0570 0013612 304.1923  55.7730  2.00564933 31378
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88259.94229061 0.00000062           51032-4 0  8990
2 15099  82.5281 224.4396 0012002 292.6478  67.3407 13.83542680212197
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88269.08126917 -.00000029           10000-2 0  5319
2 15271  63.4312 346.0071 0095187 314.8612  44.4286  2.00558853 28513
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88270.83564688 0.00001576           23544-3 0  9175
2 15331  82.5377 221.1920 0023560 217.7874 142.1718 14.74025524215406
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88267.09928231 0.00000244           15549-3 0  2780
2 15427  99.1101 243.3122 0015797 346.2143  13.8595 14.11643744194764
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88261.26407814 0.00000162           13581-3 0   232
2 15516  82.5364 161.8194 0016203 157.0654 203.1228 13.83979034183308
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88270.86724090 0.00004978           16132-3 0   356
2 16095  51.6071 158.2851 0002718 147.6011 212.5157 15.33779442169353
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88265.25276956 0.00000013                   0  2737
2 16129  63.6215 107.5618 0114526 149.6373 211.1191  2.00567818 21640
Meteor 3-01
1 16191U          88261.90289920 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7776
2 16191  82.5419  68.2670 0018827 260.0829  99.8174 13.16933477139680
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88261.94224220 0.00000068           56306-4 0  4294
2 16408  82.5312  76.1654 0016575 350.1772   9.9060 13.84062540137895
Mir        
1 16609U          88269.69460186 0.00019726           13780-3 0  4200
2 16609  51.6167 271.4559 0020178  93.6194 266.7235 15.74031818149657
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88271.62012899 0.00001005           49064-3 0  1869
2 16613  98.7299 343.9960 0001087 141.5520 218.5800 14.20038807 47436
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88262.00813885 0.00000071           58776-4 0  2550
2 16735  82.5367 102.8076 0015447  58.0799 302.1861 13.83796811116813
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88271.97440293 0.00001169           17451-3 0  3708
2 16881  82.5208 280.0319 0022184 229.9816 129.9570 14.73857713116656
EGP        
1 16908U          88264.82686330 -.00000039           34685-6 0  1039
2 16908  50.0095  46.1322 0010823  20.2142 339.9119 12.44372129 95877
FO-12      
1 16909U          88267.38187369 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1129
2 16909  50.0160  38.4529 0011034  26.4306 333.7083 12.44395781 96185
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88265.23780660 0.00000215           11346-3 0  1595
2 16969  98.6736 294.5114 0013361 314.9155  45.0936 14.22629404104433
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88270.64904526 0.00000113           96450-4 0  1905
2 17290  82.4652   5.1303 0012088 283.4767  76.5084 13.83606255 87178
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88269.19403104 -.00000225           10000-3 0  1574
2 17561   0.0533 332.3878 0056961 115.3038 272.9711  1.00272642  2932
Kvant      
1 17845U          88270.77385860 0.00048562           32981-3 0  5484
2 17845  51.6153 265.9130 0020141  95.9217 264.4588 15.74160540 86098
Cosmos 1834
1 17847U          88271.59183530 0.00620531  15696-3  16633-2 0  7870
2 17847  65.0270 265.2488 0078968 283.9725  75.2998 15.88828504 83648
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88271.11678625 -.00000137          -15825-3 0  5186
2 18129  82.9221  72.4653 0013061  63.9649 296.2842 13.71905386 63322
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88271.60711867 0.00117321  76119-5  18097-3 0  6618
2 18225  71.9048  40.6484 0011221 254.5435 105.5438 16.04022288 69183
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88270.85836754 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  1496
2 18312  82.5588  68.1756 0012864 204.6063 155.4576 13.83357668 56103
Cosmos 1900
1 18665U          88271.62361575 0.00506097  36208-4  70085-4 0  5032
2 18665  64.9552 210.2433 0013511 280.5145  79.5043 16.34485459 46737
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88262.00252104 0.00000116           98692-4 0   568
2 18820  82.5456 136.8482 0016451 317.7170  42.2725 13.84041596 32037
1988 063B  
1 19331U          88249.99595107 0.00000102           10000-3 0    91
2 19331   0.0969 227.7701 0038739 343.7231 146.3235  1.00172693   229
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88271.10756560 0.00000391           10000-2 0   365
2 19336  82.5446   1.7430 0015610 110.5547 249.7207 13.16843832  8282
1988 069A  
1 19377U          88258.13111867 0.00000406          -20943-2 0   313
2 19377  62.9239  99.3295 7383175 288.5732   9.2933  2.00620532   653
1988 069B  
1 19378U          88259.66001329 0.01520355  39838-4  99457-3 0   654
2 19378  62.8299 335.1544 0095001 120.0174 241.2630 16.07148910  5382
1988 069C  
1 19379U          88259.64574735 0.01335658  39472-4  88765-3 0   697
2 19379  62.8329 335.5938 0118909 116.5091 244.9310 16.02674985  5374
1988 069D  
1 19380U          88254.71537643 0.00000256           10000-3 0    70
2 19380  62.8301 100.0379 7456841 288.5385   8.9141  1.95687075   581
1988 070A  
1 19384U          88259.80194845 0.01135259  35763-4  23976-3 0   700
2 19384  64.7517  83.3134 0074481 124.3813 240.3715 16.22723937  4878
1988 071A  
1 19397U          88257.56476182 -.00000108           10000-3 0   240
2 19397   1.3947 276.9998 0007993 284.2917  74.6419  1.00279877   277
1988 074A  
1 19419U          88251.25917033 -.00000025          -50139-4 0    90
2 19419  89.9666 140.3805 0098432 132.1445 228.8652 13.40251470  1749
1988 074B  
1 19420U          88251.25671129 0.00000180           30890-3 0    41
2 19420  89.9663 140.3803 0096400 131.8123 229.1842 13.40508306  1735
1988 074C  
1 19421U          88251.18610464 0.00000066           10779-3 0    91
2 19421  89.9665 140.3814 0097200 132.6397 228.3530 13.40085721  1726
Soyuz TM-6 
1 19443U          88271.85304252 0.00040477           27439-3 0   367
2 19443  51.6142 260.3631 0019671 105.0528 255.4957 15.74303377  4683
1988 076A  
1 19445U          88270.52425944 -.00000814           46117-2 0   303
2 19445  62.9330 138.1284 7358955 318.2738   4.7792  2.00598347   556
1988 076B  
1 19446U          88271.98962688 0.02640427  40234-4  10716-2 0   592
2 19446  62.8341  34.0743 0083507 119.5758 241.5277 16.14546347  4496
1988 076D  
1 19448U          88268.14357977 -.00000439          -10519-2 0   177
2 19448  62.9104 138.4509 7329693 318.2220   4.8629  2.04095337   515
Feng Yun 1 
1 19467U          88265.83490459 0.00000250           19242-3 0   154
2 19467  99.1293 234.1276 0016206   2.6389 357.0781 14.00343668  2109
1988 080B  
1 19468U          88253.54463928 -.00000018                   0    62
2 19468  99.1108 221.8563 0010268 331.8206  28.2070 14.00764680   381
GTE Gstar-3
1 19483U          88263.37524496 -.00000045           10000-3 0    53
2 19483   1.5248 150.2008 2987543 177.1911 185.0935  1.46484380   120
SBS-5      
1 19484U          88265.32838331 -.00000130           10000-3 0    52
2 19484   0.0857 309.1162 0058740  29.6273  21.0476  1.01175773   106
1988 081C  
1 19485U          88266.33976179 0.00000153           10000-3 0    96
2 19485   6.8691 142.6385 7334764 187.7602 145.2938  2.19984540   311
Progress 38
1 19486U          88271.85307232 0.00069936           46914-3 0   275
2 19486  51.6174 260.3610 0019695 104.5757 256.1387 15.74308419  2827
1988 084A  
1 19495U          88271.61088194 0.00769268  28317-4  27475-3 0   263
2 19495  67.1369 165.7843 0110023  58.8764 302.3311 16.11204505  1932
1988 084B  
1 19496U          88262.95107073 0.21900971  30632-4  35071-3 0   174
2 19496  67.1166 194.9725 0036948  93.2294 267.3225 16.43992901   544
1988 085A  
1 19501U          88272.17322629 -.00000007           10000-3 0   177
2 19501  64.8671  60.1106 0016674  83.9867 276.2095  2.12427503   275
1988 085B  
1 19502U          88271.82718561 -.00000007           10000-3 0   195
2 19502  64.8568  60.1271 0006113 321.0197  41.0954  2.13100782   262
1988 085C  
1 19503U          88271.38278600 -.00000007           10000-3 0   170
2 19503  64.8709  60.1344 0075931  42.8920 317.7007  2.10587791   254
1988 085D  
1 19504U          88260.50354969 0.50919800  38643-4  23692-3 0    79
2 19504  64.8275  59.1106 0013562 263.8224  96.4570 16.55653381    70
1988 085E  
1 19505U          88268.93986498 -.00000007           10000-3 0   136
2 19505  64.8729  60.2201 0007316 301.8414  58.1094  2.13363600   121
1988 086A  
1 19508U          88267.59481756 -.00000168           10000-3 0    78
2 19508   0.2074 256.6046 0029714 101.8036   3.1043  1.00440235    65
1988 087A  
1 19519U          88271.53073543 0.00313050  87096-5  23089-2 0   241
2 19519 142.8701 276.3929 0622262 117.6773 248.8562 14.61892402  1182
1988 087B  
1 19520U          88268.59042321 0.00377739  15283-4  27112-2 0   103
2 19520 142.8664 259.9776 0627328  95.2695 272.4117 14.61230683   759
1988 088A  
1 19521U          88271.66192504 0.00014284           16402-3 0   116
2 19521  72.8584 148.8556 0043328 197.4607 162.4874 15.60881639   824
1988 088B  
1 19522U          88272.08469985 0.01832458  12449-4  55639-3 0   240
2 19522  72.8484 146.9813 0074166  73.7719 287.1436 16.19468451   910
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88270.73336221 0.00001028           59671-3 0    83
2 19531  98.9064 210.5138 0011251 255.5823 104.4066 14.10625041   327
STS 26     
1 19547U 88 91  A 88275.16666666  .00064442  00000-0  25599-3 0    90
2 19547  28.4732  63.5844 0022140 206.0015 256.0125 15.84776811   242
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@galaxy.afit.af.mil             Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 08:18:04 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <604@otto.cvedc.UUCP> billa@cvedc.UUCP (Bill Anderson) writes:
>I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but I'm getting tired of
>being bombarded with silly theories by "scientific" people that don't
>hold up under investigation while those same people scorn a plausible
>answer that does hold up under *good* scientific investigation.  They
>would label people who promote the sort of theory I'm proposing as
>unthinking and unscientific, while refusing to spend some energy
>thinking about and using truly scientific methods to investigate these
>ideas themselves.  (Hmmm... does that sound bitter?)

That's because the network appears as an open channel to freely discuss
anything.  The problem is most of the people on the net are computer
people with peripheral interest in these other things.  The reality is
when I try to show use of News software for intradisciplinary discussion,
the amount of fluff turns most non-computer scientists (except the
diehard) off.  Tom Ackerman (of TTAPS) was one such fellow.  The problem
is news is like a gun, an equalizer in a somewhat bad sense.  The
problem is atmospheric science or various math branches, etc. have
tough learning curves.  Many net members cites from popular news
without a complete background (the inevitable problem of specialization).
He isn't the only one (many others).  Sure a few specialists read groups like
this (exceptions).  When you see serious discussions of superconductivity
on some net, and Email is more important than a FAX, then you will see
progress.  Now, let's get back to astronomy or space.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #6
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Oct 88 05:55:11 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00507>; Wed, 5 Oct 88 05:38:24 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed,  5 Oct 88 05:38:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.IXGSpCy00Vs101yE5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.2349e87a.a0f14b>;
          Wed,  5 Oct 88 05:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.2349e670.fc217>;
          Wed,  5 Oct 88 05:08:07 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Oct  5 88 05:05:07 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #7

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 9 : Issue 7

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		   Re: Levchenko and Soviet Shuttle
	 Re: Another innane signature line from Henry SPencer
			 Re: satellite pics.
	 Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.
		   That's it about Supernovae 1987A
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
	       Enterprise as escape system test vehicle
Re: Mars Rover (Re: was Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.)
	 Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		Re: Overpopulation is not our problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 23:09:55 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

[Followups directed to sci.space.]

Using the thermodynamics curve as an excuse for going into space is
just silly.  No matter what happens vis a vis human exploration of
space, the T-curve here on Earth is going to keep going right on up
until catastrophe hits or we work something ground-based out.  It is
ruinously expensive to put even lightweight things up there -- heavy
stuff would bankrupt the planet, or, even if we could afford it, would
require building such an enormous ground-based spaceflight industry
that the net energy expenditure (and thus Chris' T-curve) would zoom
even higher.

The bottom line is, in order to maintain the glorious progression since
the 1400's etc. etc., we need to keep expending more and more energy
*right here*.  This is where the people are; this is where the people
will continue to be.  Even if we establish a self-sustaining separate
presence in space with *millions* of people off Earth, it will be
a statistically insignificant drop in the bucket by comparison with
the billions left on Earth, who will probably reproduce just a little
faster to fill the fractional percentage gap anyway.

Jorge's hot words probably rankled a few readers, but he has a germ
of truth in there.  I identify three strains of popular space freakdom:
Mr. Right Stuff, the Starship Trooper, and the New-Age Crystalline
Holistic L5 Person.  These are in order of arrival on the scene.

Mr. Right Stuff was formed in the desert winds and backyards of 50's
slide-rule America... he flies model rockets (now with his kids) in the
back yard, wears aviator sunglasses and a pocket pen protector.  He
identifies with the astronauts, memorizes NASA jargon and takes the
Winnebago to launches (even weathersat launches) on vacation time.

The Starship Trooper wasted his youth on 60's SF and now toils away in
some high tech sinecure, waiting for the "big move to space" to
happen.  He hates NASA and the Congress and loves tiny rocket shops
and the military, basically because that's what it says in Heinlein.

The Crystalline Holistic person is an interesting creature who used to
be weirded out on yurts, pyramids and Kirlian auras in the 70's, but
saw enough of those pictures of Earth from lunar orbit etc. and weirded
out on space instead.  Space will be an Aquarian place where we can all
live in peace and harmony and paste rainbow decals on our quartz window
panels.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 88 07:04:08 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Levchenko and Soviet Shuttle

In article <21900039@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>	I never got my 15 August issue of AvWeek.  Did they say how
>long Levchenko had been ailing? ...

They didn't.  As far as I know, this came as somewhat of a surprise in
the West, but it's not clear whether the Soviets had advance warning.
If, as has been argued, Levchenko's flight last fall was to give
him some real space experience before the shuttle, then I would guess
that it took them by surprise too.

I don't think there is enough evidence to deduce a connection between
this and the uncertainty about timing and manning of the first shuttle
flight.  The latter can be explained fairly adequately as teething
troubles plus internal disagreements over the manned-vs-unmanned issue.
It is solidly established that Gorbachev has told the shuttle people
"take your time, do it right, choose delays over risks".
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 17:45:14 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: Re: Another innane signature line from Henry SPencer

Eugene writes:
}Henry once again writes:
}>NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
}>stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto
}
}Actually NASA isn't into artificial stupidity.  I know because I
}tried getting them interested in studying it.  John Pierce,
}then Chief Scientist at JPL, said:
}	No thank you.  We have enough natural stupidity.

Pournelle's words aren't very original, either.  The space-colonization
game M.U.L.E. (popular on C64's, Atari 800's, and other Pournelle-grade
hardware) randomly infused money into its economy by paying off on the
explorers' investments in artificial stupidity.
-- 
--    bob,mon			(bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
--    "Aristotle was not Belgian..."	- Wanda

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 04:56:16 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!serene!pnet12!fsjl@ucsd.edu  (Fragano Ledgister)
Subject: Re: satellite pics.

matt@psu-cs.UUCP (Matt Logan) writes:
>
> Can somebody tell me where I can get a hold of some satellite pictures? 
>Are satellite pictures in the public domain? I'm most intereted in pictures
>of the Earth. Any information would be appreciated.
>    __  __
>   /\_\/_/\    /\
>   \ \\/ \ \att\ \__ogan  matt@psu-cs
>    \/    \/    \/___/

Try the nearest French and/or Soviet Consulates -- in San Francisco, I
think -- for information.

UUCP: {ncr-sd crash}!pnet12!fsjl
INET: fsjl@pnet12.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 08:53:03 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.

In article <1088@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:
>From article <1988Sep16.171823.16540@utzoo.uucp>, by henry, quoting me:
>>>...or Marcia Smith's 'Soviet Space Programs 1976-80', a US
>>>Congressional Research Service document available from US Govt Printing
>>>Office in DC.  The latter is probably the 'primary' reference... 
>> <some comment by Henry about bias>
>> I don't recall whether this is the particular author that I've heard some
>> scathing remarks about from people like Art Bozlee, 
>
>Probably.

I must come to Ms. Smith's defense.  I first met her in 198[23?]
or there abouts.  She stopped by Ames and gave a fine report on Soviet
space and she has provided information to me specifically for the NET.
(I can spin Ted's 16 MB collected tape to get a specific reference.)
While she is pro-space, she is not specifically biased to NASA.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 17 Sep 88 13:18 EST
From: <11SSTEIN%GALLUA.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu>
Subject:  That's it about Supernovae 1987A


Hey, THAT's IT?????

No more talk about Supernovae 1987A???????????

I havent heard any updates nor publications!!!

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 88 14:56:24 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis

>From article <Sep.15.00.26.40.1988.4954@klaatu.rutgers.edu>, by josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall):
> 
> 
>    Nardo:
>    > Software/hardware doesn't mutate.  Fail, yes.  Mutate, no.
> 
>    Moravec:
>    You don't think a stray bit of comet drilling through a berserker's
>    memory circuits could, once in a long while, change its behavior...?
> 
> By appropriate design, a system can be made such that random
> modifications (comet bits, for example) have an arbitrarily small
> chance of leaving a viable system;  such a system would be designed
> to be proof against mutation.  
> 
> HOWEVER, it would be brittle in the sense that tiny injuries would
> kill it.  It is also possible to design systems such that some 
> fair proportion of small modifications leave a system with nearly
> the same functionality as the original.  Such systems are fault-
> tolerant.  If someone designed their berserkers to be fault-tolerant,
> there is a good chance that they might be susceptible to evolution.
> 
> --JoSH

It appears to me that this discussion is assuming that Berserkers are
the only members of the mechanical species in question. If I were
designing something to destroy all life in the galaxy, I think I would
go with a hive insect model for the destroying machines.

What we have been calling Berserkers would be the warrior caste of the
species. The warriors would be an end result of the reproductive
process, but sterile. Since warriors are subject to the chance of
mutation they should serve as sources of information, but not be
trusted to take part in the reproductive process. For that matter
information derived from the members of the warrior caste should be
studied closely before it is allowed to be distributed generally
within the thinker, builder, and colonizer castes.

Mutation, if it occurred at all, would be the result of planned
changes made by the thinkers, carried out by the builders, tested by a
single colony at a time, and archived by transmittal to all colonies
in communication range. A "dangerous" mutation could be stopped after
local review, or by other colonies after they determine that it was a
bad idea.

If a  random mutation did occur in a colony, the entire colony could be
destroyed by several other colonies working together. This would not
eliminate random mutation, but it would greatly reduce it. Ants and
termites have been around for a very long time.

			Bob P.

-- 
Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland
UUCP Address:  {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet
Alternate:     utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
        I am solely responsible for what I say.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 88 10:50:38 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Enterprise as escape system test vehicle
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

It just occurred to me that the Enterprise should be a perfect test
vehicle for the escape systems intended to be used in level gliding
flight (i.e., all of the ones I've heard about).  They could leave
a pilot on board to land the thing... it seems to be the ideal way
to test such systems.  Have I missed anything?  Why haven't they done
this?  Is Enterprise being used for anything else?

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 88 22:03:14 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars Rover (Re: was Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.)

In article <1535@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>... The first [Surveyor] image
>was of the foot pad just in case it was slow in sinking.

Also because that was the single most critical image of the whole program --
Surveyor's foot pads were carefully sized to exert exactly the same ground
pressure as those of the Apollo lunar module.  If Surveyor 1's camera
had failed after sending that one picture (not an insignificant worry,
given the nightmare series of failures in the Ranger program, Surveyor's
precursor), the geologists would have been annoyed no end, but the Apollo
planners would have been satisfied.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 00:13:07 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.

>From article <1988Sep16.171823.16540@utzoo.uucp>, by henry, quoting me:
>>...or Marcia Smith's 'Soviet Space Programs 1976-80', a US
>>Congressional Research Service document available from US Govt Printing
>>Office in DC.  The latter is probably the 'primary' reference... 
> I don't recall whether this is the particular author that I've heard some
> scathing remarks about from people like Art Bozlee, 

Probably.

> but beware:  nearly anything from the Congressional Research Service 
> has a significant chance of being politically biased.

To some extent; Marica's thesis is that we ain't doing that badly and the
Soviet achievements aren't that wonderful. I disagree with her conclusion
(although I'm not as pessimistic as some here about the future of our program)
but she does have some good arguments and is worth listening to. The published
reports have a good ratio of hard data to subjective analysis. They are 
the successors to the classic Sheldon Report of 1967 which introduced the
notation 'A-2','D-1' etc for Soviet launch vehicles. They also include 
detailed appendices by Geoff Perry and his merry band on the telemetry
monitoring of Kosmos recon and navsats. In the 1976-80 set, one volume
was on organisation and infrastructure, one on the piloted spacecraft 
programs, and one on the unpiloted satellites and probes.


Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 14:10:03 GMT
From: tness7!tness1!sugar!peter@bellcore.com  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <604@otto.cvedc.UUCP>, billa@cvedc.UUCP (Bill Anderson) writes:
> There was water both *above* and below the sky.

Unless you can explain what kept it up there this whole theory is pointless.
It's based on an assumption that doesn't hold water (pun intended).

> Computer simulations have shown that a huge
> blanket of water above the atmosphere (remember Gen. 1:6?) would
> provide the necessary greenhouse effect to give the earth such a
> climate.

A blanket of water would lower the temperature of the surface. Compare
the temperature at the surface of the ocean with the temperature just 10
feet down.

> So what do you think?  Is this any more outrageous a theory than the
> giant asteroid?

Yes.
-- 
		Peter da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net
		 Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 14:59:36 PDT
From: Christopher Schmidt <schmidt@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Overpopulation is not our problem

	The claim that we need all the people alive on the planet today to
maintain the human gene pool is preposterous.
	Out of the tens of thousands of generations of human life on this
planet, roughly one-twentieth to one-tenth of all the people who *ever* lived
are alive today.  I would have hoped it would be too obvious to note that
today's gene pool is no larger than that of 100 years ago when the population
of the planet was less than a billion, or a thousand years ago when it was a
fraction of a billion, or 10 thousand years ago when it was a fraction of
that.
	I wish I hadn't given my copy away, but in '84 or '85 the New Yorker
had quite a long article in one issue which discussed the historical
population of the planet and the historical insularity of its gene pools.  The
bottom line is that too-small a human gene pool is not a problem.  Perhaps
someone else has the New Yorker citation?  I have a vague idea that the author
had a Russion name (?).
	Viewed another way--if you wiped out all humans except the ~5% that
live in the United States today, would you have substantially reduced the
human gene pool?  I don't think so.
--Christopher

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #7
*******************
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Oct 88 02:26:47 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07560>; Thu, 6 Oct 88 00:39:10 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu,  6 Oct 88 00:39:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.QXGjWZy00UkTERVU5S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po3.andrew.cmu.edu.234af79c.c812b2>;
          Thu,  6 Oct 88 00:33:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234af5c1.6363c9>;
          Thu,  6 Oct 88 00:25:41 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Oct  6 88 00:21:29 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #8

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 9 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		    Re: Spy-Sat Hall of Mirrors ?
			     Marica Smith
   Re: NOX and Acid-Rain (was: RE: are we ready for Terraforming?)
	      Re: postings (was Launch Window question)
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		    Re: Spy-Sat Hall of Mirrors ?
	      Re: re: Overpopulation is not our problem
			 Re: Denver in Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 18:06:06 GMT
From: forsight!ragnarok!roston@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <604@otto.cvedc.UUCP> billa@cvedc.UUCP (Bill Anderson) writes:
>
>The folks at the Institute for Creation Research (P.O. Box 1606; El
>Cajon CA 92022; (619) 448-0900) have an explanation for mystery of what
>happened to the dinosaurs.  It begins in Genesis, Chapter 1, vs. 6.
>There was water both *above* and below the sky.  Next, in Chapter 2,
>vs. 5-6 we read that early earth had no rain.  Instead, a mist watered
>the ground.  Finally, there is the account of the flood in Chapters
>6-8.
>
> (more discussion deleted)

I certainly hope that Bill does not intend for us to take his explination
seriously for one simple reason.  EVERY major biblical scholar now accepts
the FACT that the bible was written by several groups of individuals over
an extended period (~800 years) of time.  To combine accounts from two
different groups is simply wrong.

For those who are not versed in biblical study, let me explain further:
The Old Testament was written over a period of about 800 years, starting
about 1000BC until about 200BC.  Some of the writing were original, some
were copied from other books of the times.  The four main sources are:
1) Jawehistic source - this is the oldest piece and was written in Judah(?)
2) Elohistic source - this is also very old, but from Israel(?)
3) Deuteronimistic source - "discover" during the reign of Hezikial(?), only
   about 100 years before the first fall of Jerusalem, purported to have
   been written by Moses
4) Priestly source - written during the Babalonyn(sp?) exile.  
There are also very small segements written by the editor (redacteur) to glue
the other sources together.

What does all of this mean?  Well, the P source is noted for its use of exact
numbers, etc. (The earth was created in 6 days...)  The J source is a more
"personal" account, without hard number (see Gen chap 2).  The Redacteur, when
assembling the bible into its present form was forced to keep the diiferent
versions for political reasons; therefore there are multiple accounts of
many of the important stories in the Bible (such as creation: read Gen 1
then Gen 2.  They are quite different from one another).

Back to the original point:  Since the account in Gen 1 and Gen 2 are
different, and are from different sources, to combine them to form a
"scientific" explination is utterly rediculous.  

Please, lets stick to science, and not fairy tales which are derived from the
beginnings of civilization.

NOTE: This was written at work, without the benefit of having a Bible handy.
please excuse spelling mistakes and minor factual errors; but the ideas 
presented are correct.

gerry roston, robotic systems research group
jet propulsion laboratory, 4800 oak grove drive, m/s 23
pasadena, california, 91109
(818) 354-9124  (818) 354-6508

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 23:01:42 GMT
From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Spy-Sat Hall of Mirrors ?

I once saw a *very* interesting picture of the Mir space station. It was
taken obliquely from above (with the earth in the background).
Rectangular pixel artifacts (not raster scan lines) were noticeable.

The picture was *not* taken by the Soviets.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 16:36:34 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Marica Smith

My personal feeling is that Marica Smith(however "pro-space" she
may be) has harmed the space program greatly over the last few years
by consistantly running down and belittling Soviet achievements while
functioning as a NASA/USA apologist.

She is frequently quoted as an "expert" who thinks we are "ahead" of the
Soviets. She is like somebody saying the Japanese don't have a quality
Navy and lack courage a few months before Pearl Harbor.

Dale Skran

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 21:05:36 GMT
From: eachus@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA  (Robert Eachus)
Subject: Re: NOX and Acid-Rain (was: RE: are we ready for Terraforming?)

In article <8809190405.AA03017@angband.s1.gov> PUSCHGD@VTCC1.BITNET (GORDON D. PUSCH) writes:

>After retrofitting Coal-fired Power-plants with Sulfur-scrubbers
>(at great public expense), will we find out that it was *REALLY* all
>those catalytic converters that we hung on cars (also at great public
>expense)?

     There was  a huge  outcry  a  few years   back, about the  Reagan
aministration's  foot dragging on scrubbers.  (I  personally feel that
closing the worst offenders down immediately is  a good idea,  but I'm
biased -- when I was growing up in Pennsylvania if you saw "coal mine"
in a headline, you knew it was  followed by "disaster" and preceded by
"another".)  The   outcry  died  down about   the time that    it  was
"discovered" that catalytic converters produced sulpheric acid...

     One of the "problems" that  led the administration  to  recommend
more study was that SO2 scrubbers could  actually result the amount of
SO3 emitted, and there  is  no problem converting  that to H2SO4.  The
"best" solution so  far is to remove the  sulpher before you burn  the
coal.   This  leaves NOx which  is simple  to  scrub,  but still  does
nothing for the greenhouse effect.

>And what will the All-Knowing and All-Wise Politicians and Beaureucrats
>who put the rest of us into this position (while making us pay for it).
>do then?

     Continue to   protest that  nuclear  plants  must  be made safer.
Remember that the largest loss of life  at ANY nuclear  power accident
occured in West Virginia when an unnecessary (at least at that height)
cooling  tower under construction  collapsed, and the -- OSHA mandated
-- "safety nets" insured that no one could escape.


					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 21:43:33 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: postings (was Launch Window question)

Ooops, I should have edited the Subject line, one that got away.
A few quick comments: posters have to realize the Usenet does
not agree to provide reliable communication (I have one note sitting
here which I have no hope of parsing).  Also, I'm more swamped with work
(now that we have a Y-MP), I've also a couple of conferences.
We do not receive every article which goes by (that's okay) sometimes
(partially due to cross posting) I see articles go by without adequate
context.  Lastly, I'm going to take some vacation (to Hawaii, to
see the Keck in fact) and I plan to "catch-up" (mark all articles
as "read" when I get back and start from stratch, so if you have a serious
query you had better get it to me by this Friday or you will have to wait
in excess of 2 weeks.  My mailer daemon should also kick out the next
"Questions" posting while I am away as well.

To the person who mentioned cynicism (see the signature line below).
Actually, its not that bad.  There are pockets of places with interesting
work. Depending on your discipline.  You just have to creat(2) your own.
(me, I did see the ABC series (switching back and forth with an
interesting Blake's 7 episode, maybe they should have named the Station
Liberator rather than Freedom ;-)).  Remember that most of the time
the public has a short memory (except for "catastophes").

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 16:26:57 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

Well, that layer of water above the troposphere, if only a foot
or so thick, could indeed act like a glass window and cause a greenhouse
effect to warm the earth.  Also, if it wasn't perfectly smooth,
it could obscure our vision enough to hide the sun, moon, and
stars.  Hence the notion that these weren't created till after
the Earth.

But what would have held such a layer in place in the first place?
Well, maybe it wasn't liquid water, it was a swarm of ice
crystals all in low Earth orbit, sort of like Saturn's rings only
spread out in a shell.  That would obscure vision all right,
but it would also make the Earth (as soon from outside) more reflective,
bouncing off more sunlight and making the earth *colder*.  (Maybe).

Now if most of the ice chunks happened to [re-?]enter in a short
time period, we could have the Flood, rain, and major climate changes,
plus some of the things in Revelations about stars and rocks falling
from the sky.

Two questions:  Why would most of the ice chunks fall at once,
and could the Earth have formed originally with such a water-ice
cloud out in space?  (I thought that solar radiation disassociated
H2O into its elements and blew them away, this close to the sun.)

Back to the Bible:  the events of creation occured quite a few
human generations before the flood.  Both the original poster and I
are mixing them together a bit, but if we assume that Genesis is a sort
of race memory of real events, the chronology would be fuzzed up
enough by now that we could be excused in tinkering with it.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 19:09:30 GMT
From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: Spy-Sat Hall of Mirrors ?

In article <3984@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes:
>In article <8809161804.aa09033@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") writes:
>>Presumably our high-res snoopsats can be pointed at theirs, and
>>theirs at ours, yielding intriguing photos of just what a, say,
>>KH-11 or Rhyolite really *does* look like. ...
>I would guess that spysats do not spy on each other.  They're likely to
>be specialized in looking at the ground. ...

I remember a "friend of a friend" story...

     When Skylab was launched, and lost some shielding and a power
     panel...NASA asked the spooks for a few pictures. They were
     told that no pictures could be taken from any of the spysats.

     But, a few days later, a package of pictures arrived...
     _very_ detailed pictures (I was told you could clearly
     see every nut and bolt). The "return address" was, more or
     less, "you don't want to know."

     Best theory to date is that the pictures were taken from a
     Blackbird on its back at 100,000+ ft.
-- 
Never be angry when a fool acts like a		David Pugh
fool.  It's better when fools identify		....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep
themselves...it removes so much uncertainty.
			--Lord Peace

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 09:07:06 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: re: Overpopulation is not our problem
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

>sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@ucsd.edu  (John Pantone) writes:

>(The Math Hacker) writes:
>>You're talking to the wrong people.  The U.S. is NOT currently overpopulated.
>>It just seems that way because of overcrowded cities.  

>You bet - the U.S. has a population distribution problem, not an
>overpopulation problem. Ever driven from Iowa through South Dakota,
>Montana, Idaho south through Nevada and or Utah into Arizona and much
>of California? You could count the people on the fingers of one hand. 
 
Well, this requires a leetle more involved calculation.  "Overpopulated"
doesn't start when the country reaches the density of Manhattan -- it's way too
late by then.  You have to consider how much land, on average, it takes to
provide one person with food, raw materials (metal, timber, water, etc),
manufacturing and retail infrastructure (oil refineries, gas stations, shopping
malls, etc), legislative, educational, and R&D support, and recreational
areas, and then see whether the total useful area of the country will suffice
for the total population (most mountain ranges, swamps, etc need to be
de-weighted since they tend not to be useful for real estate or providing
resources other than oxygen from plant life).  I have no idea what this
acreage would turn out to be, in order to support the population at the
level of life style that most of us find comfortable.  I wouldn't mind
betting that we're getting close, though.

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 20 Sep 88 16:25:58 PDT
From: greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Denver in Space
X-St-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"

>>What will NASA and the U.S. Govt. say/do when a
>>prominent space scientist LEAVES THE US AND GOES TO THE SOVIET UNION
>>BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE ACTION IS?
> 
>Maybe this belongs on talk.rumors, but i heard John Denver will pay
>the USSR $10M to go up into space.  Can anyone confirm or deny this?

This from an ad in the Dallas Observer, reprinted from Tampa Bay Weekly:

		LET'S PUT JOHN DENVER INTO ORBIT!

	John Denver, the man who gave us "Rocky Mountain High" and
	costarred with God in 'Oh, God', has asked the Soviet Union
	to launch him into space.  We think that's a great idea.
	According to 'Aviation Week and Space Technology' magazine,
	the Soviets told Denver he'll need $10 million and permission
	of the U.S. government to make the trip aboard a Russian
	rocket.  There may be even more irritating people we'd like
	to send than John, but he'll do for now.  He can get the
	money.  What he needs now is permission from the government.
	If you'd like to launch John Denver into orbit, tell the man
	who can make our dreams come true--George Shultz.

At the bottom of the ad is a coupon to clip and send to Mr. Shultz:
	"Mr. Secretary: You have my permission to put
	 John Denver into orbit. Right away. Sincerely,..."


Ten million dollars!  Shoot, there are plenty of folks who could easily afford
that! Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, Whitney Houston, Bruce Springsteen, Paul
McCartney, Willie Nelson are just a few entertainers who could do it.  And what
about George Luca, Steven Spielberg, H. Ross Perot, Trammel Crow, Yoko Ono...
Say, maybe those Ruskies have something there.

On the other hand, $10M seems pretty cheap.  Maybe the Soviets are offering this
bargain basement price just for the P.R. coup of an American capitalist having
to go to the Soviets for a trip into space.  If anything comes of this, maybe
it will be like Pearl Harbor, maybe it will "...awaken a sleeping giant."
Maybe...maybe...

A recent poll showed that YES, Americans want a space station, YES, Americans
want to go to the Moon, YES, Americans want to go to Mars, YES, Americans want
to continue to be leaders in space, but NO, Americans do not want to pay for
all this.  Actually, it didn't say that, rather it said that 38% believe the
U.S. spends too much on space, 43% believe our spending is just right, and only
17% believe we spend too little.  I believe this apparent discrepancy between
desire to do and willingness to spend is due mainly to ignorance, partly to the
Challenger incident and other scandals associated with the Orbiter program.

The ignorance aspect was brought out in another, unrelated poll which showed,
for example, that 70% of people believe they have at least an adequate basic
understanding of science and technology, while 47% disagree with the assertion
that humans devloped from ealier animals, 44% think that rocket launches affect
the weather, and 43% believe in lucky numbers.

If you're really concerned about America's future in space, let me tell you
that it is very easy to get a letter to the editor published.  Just write a
coherent letter with no libelous statements and you WILL be published.  You'd
be amazed at how few people can do this, or maybe you wouldn't be amazed, but
the point is that there just isn't much competition out there, so it's easy to
put in your two cents worth.  What good will it do? Who reads the newspapers
anyway? I used to think that way, till I asked myself, Who Votes?  Letters to
the editor may not reach many people, but maybe they'll reach the right people.

You can also write to your congressman or to the president.  A lot of people,
think, "Well, there are 250M people in the US, why should the president listen
to me?" or "There are 26M people in my state, why should either of my senators
listen to me?" or "There are half a million people in my district, why should
my representative listen to me?"  But the very apathy produced by these thoughts
has greatly magnified the power of any individual willing to take the time to
tell the public servants what to do.  Think of it, because of other's apathy,
you have the chance to represent tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even
millions upon millions of people, just by writing and mailing a letter!

The success of a marriage depends upon a sustained dialogue between the two
partners.  It is deadly in a marriage for one partner to assume that the other
should "just know" what is right to do and what is wrong.  Yet many apparently
intelligent people seem to assume the public or their representatives should
"just know", and so if nothing is being done about something, well, it must
mean they don't care.  But they can't care if they don't know, and if you know
and you care, SPEAK UP!


----
"When it's late in the day,		|         Dale M. Greer
 even small men cast long shadows."	|   Center for Space Sciences
		-- Who said that?	| University of Texas at Dallas

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #8
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Oct 88 06:05:26 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00571>; Thu, 6 Oct 88 05:25:34 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu,  6 Oct 88 05:25:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.kXGnjFy00UkT82AU49@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.234b39be.8db148>;
          Thu,  6 Oct 88 05:15:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234b37b4.3aa426>;
          Thu,  6 Oct 88 05:07:03 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Oct  6 88 05:04:19 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #9

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 9 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Survey Results
	      Moving asteroids (was: Re: Why no aliens)
		      Re: Smart ones at the top
		     Cherenkov radiation in space
			   Re: Marica Smith
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
			   Space Videotapes
			   Re: Marica Smith
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
			 How do we get there?
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
	 Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.
		     Re: Orbit tracking software?
	      USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 21 Sep 88 09:19:40 PDT
From: greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Survey Results
X-St-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"

>	Finally, but most importantly, we need to go into space to gain
>knowledge and do our part in making as much of the universe as possible a
>better place -- these are what make life worthwhile.  As a species, we haven't
>been very good at the latter, but we aren't going to be able to do it at all
>in areas where we can't reach.

	Make the universe a better place?!  Better than what?  Better for whom?
Is the North American continent better than it was 500 years ago?  Much as I
like my Mac and many of the other trappings of technology, I'm beginning to have
a sort of Luddite affinity for the ways of the original Australians.
	For forty thousand years the Australians believed that they were the
caretakers of nature, that it was their prayers for the flora and fauna of the
Earth that kept everything going.  In forty thousand years the Australians
never invented the wheel, never built a monument to themselves, neither did
they pollute a single stream, nor desecrate a single acre of land.
	If the Australians disappeared tomorrow, there would be scarcely a sign
they had ever existed.  The pristine nature of the Australian continent is
testament to the ultimate (so far) execution of the old Boy Scout principle,
"Always leave a place better than you found it." 
	We should be as good at taking care of the universe as they were at
taking care of their continent.


----
"When it's late in the day,		|         Dale M. Greer
 even small men cast long shadows."	|   Center for Space Sciences
		-- Who said that?	| University of Texas at Dallas

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 09:31:45 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Moving asteroids (was: Re: Why no aliens)
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

>mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net  (Adrian Hurt) writes:

>Take some sort of propulsion and control/guidance system. And enough fuel to
>drive it for, say, a month continuously. Put this lot onto a small asteroid,
>and move them to a suitable distance. Now switch it on, and let it accelerate
>continuously towards the target planet. Now, for example, let's say we have
>10 m s-2 acceleration, plus corrections for guidance control.
>One month = 31 days = 31*24*60*60 = 2678400 seconds.
>Final velocity = 26784000 m s-1. Which is just under 1 percent of lightspeed.

8.9%, actually.

>Could this be done? 

Unlikely.  Not counting relativistic effects (which don't get significant
-  to my mind - until you're past .7c), doing this to a modest, million-tonne
asteroid would require energy equivalent to the total annihilation of 
~4 million kg of matter.  We don't have the technology yet to accelerate
*any* size spacecraft at 1g for a month, unless we were to apply it to
something very small.

>What would happen to the target planet when something hit
>it that hard?

Hard to say (*** FLOATING POINT OVERFLOW ***).  Certainly seems as though
there's enough energy to blow both bodies into dust, if not elementary
particles (of which you can be sure there would be quite a few anyway).

Conclusion: ordinary orbital speeds resulting from just nudging an asteroid
so that its orbit intersects that of the planet you have a grudge against
are quite sufficient to wreak arbitrary amounts of destruction, without
running the risk of showering life on neighboring planets with hard radiation.

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1988 12:58-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Smart ones at the top

I would agree. If a society has upward mobility, the smart ones move
up. The more stratified or aristocratic, the slower the rise. A really
stultified society blocks the smart one and they get blocked agains the
bottom layer of the 'aristocracy' or 'apparactchik' or whatever name is
appropriate for the given time and society. If the force from below is
not relieved by peaceful means, it will eventually be redressed by
violent revolution. It seems like most revolutions have leaderships of
highly capable people who have been thwarted by a rigid structure.

If they are really smart, they create a less rigid structure after they
get invert the layer cake. More typically they simply replace the old
layer with their own and continue the same oppressive game. The
overthrow of the Czars by the Communists is a classic example.

But nonetheless, the smart DO, on the AVERAGE, get to the top. One way
or another...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 09:45:50 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Cherenkov radiation in space
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Esoteric question #537B: does anyone know whether a sufficiently 
rapidly-moving object in space would give off Cherenkov radiation due
to the presence of interplanetary and interstellar dust, gas molecules,
hydrogen ions, etc, which conspire to make the medium technically not a
perfect vacuum?  Any idea how close you'd have to be to c?  Would it be
so close that it would be impossible to attain it because of uncertainty
effects?

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 14:42:39 GMT
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Marica Smith

In article <4531@mtgzz.att.com> dls@mtgzz.att.com (d.l.skran) writes:

>She is frequently quoted as an "expert" who thinks we are "ahead" of the
>Soviets. She is like somebody saying the Japanese don't have a quality
>Navy and lack courage a few months before Pearl Harbor.

I believe the Readers' Digest carried an article entitled
"Why Japan will never fight the US", in the Summer of 1941.
We also had British and US military experts telling us that
Stalin's vast tank divisions were mythical, the tanks being
made of cardboard to fool non experts.  Sigh.  Let's all
hope really hard that everything works on Michaelmas Day.
It may be our last chance.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 17:20:11 GMT
From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu  (Patrick White)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis

aplcen!aplcomm!warper.jhuapl.edu!trn@mimsy.umd.edu  (Tony Nardo) writes:
> Software/hardware doesn't mutate.  Fail, yes.  Mutate, no.

   But it can be written to evolve.. I wrote a program to explore the
evolving code concept after reading Hogan's Code Of The Lifemaker book.
Amazingly enough, the code evolved in fairly predictable ways.
   BTW, I was running several hundred copies all evolving and co-existing in
an "electronic petri dish".

   As I watched the programs evolve, I began to think that that might be one
extremely powerful way of learning things.. but never had the time to pursue
it much.

   .. but this is off the topic for this group.. let's move it elsewhere
like the ai group, or pursue it via e-mail.



-- Pat White
ARPA/UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain  BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM  PHONE: (317) 743-8421
U.S.  Mail:  320 Brown St. apt. 406,    West Lafayette, IN 47906

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 13:42:22 GMT
From: ecsvax!ruslan@mcnc.org  (Robin C. LaPasha)
Subject: Space Videotapes


Periodically I've seen requests for various "space pictures,"
whether videos or machine-readable images, posters or
books.
In September's NASA Tech Briefs, page 82 has an ad for 4
different Space Videotapes.
1. "The Universe" - described as general intro of some sort.
2. "The Voyager Missions" - the planets "as seen through
the eyes of the Voyager 1 and 2".
3. "Landing on Mars" - from Viking.
4. "Space Shuttle - Satellite Rescue" - Columbia goes to
fetch a satellite.

They're about 30 mins apiece; the first 2 are about $30,
the last 2 about $20.  
I have NO IDEA how good they are - this is the first I've
seen of it, or of NASA Tech Briefs, for that matter.
Address - NASA Tech Briefs, 41 East 42nd Street, NY NY 10017.
(They put the videos out themselves, it seems.)

Hope it helps.  (Gee, we've gotta get a VCR one of these days.)
Robin LaPasha
ruslan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
Like I said - haven't bought or seen them, don't know... just FYI.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 17:27:01 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Marica Smith

Just to state for the record.  Marcia Smith is a Congressional
researcher (a librarian) for whom Congress asks questions and she
provides them with "answers".  She collects all her information from public
Soviet and non-Soviet sources.  She is not a scientist, engineer,
pilot, nor is she specifically in a decision or policy making position.
But then neither are most science fiction writers, newscasters, etc. who
ARE also in a position to influence policy thru the media and writing
campaigns.  She is forbidden to explicitly influence, yet her position
does implicitly influence.  She is a reasonable source of current information.
Anyone can write to her and request information (Congress gets priority).

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 23:01:43 GMT
From: spar!snjsn1!bilbo!greg@decwrl.dec.com  (Greg Wageman)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <6523@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>[Followups directed to sci.space.]
>
>Jorge's hot words probably rankled a few readers, but he has a germ
>of truth in there.  I identify three strains of popular space freakdom:
>Mr. Right Stuff, the Starship Trooper, and the New-Age Crystalline
>Holistic L5 Person.  These are in order of arrival on the scene.

> [..descriptions deleted...]

I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype.

F*** off.
Greg Wageman			ARPA:  greg%sentry@spar.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies	BIX:   gwage
1601 Technology Drive		CIS:   74016,352
San Jose, CA 95110		GEnie: GWAGEMAN
(408) 437-5198			UUCP: ...!decwrl!spar!sentry!greg
------------------
Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 02:36:51 GMT
From: js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jon C. Slenk)
Subject: How do we get there?

Hi!

I would just like to open a topic of discussion: How do we get into space? I am
interested in commercial (private company) aspects of the commercialization of
space. What systems would a start-up company propose? How much would it cost to
found one? Are they economically feasable?

To get things going:

        A laser launching system which pulses a beam into a chamber on a rocket
at 250cps. The atmosphere in the ship will be heated, expand, and go down and
out, pushing the rocket upwards. It would cost ~8 billion bucks to get it going.

        An elevator built of Sinclair monofillament (or some such thing) so
that we merely press 'up' and away we go. Do we have the technology to
construct such a thing so that it won't collapse under its own weight?

        Solar Power Satellites and commerical energy sales from them.

Thanks in advance for any replies / posts!

-Jon Slenk / js9b CMU

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 23:47:05 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!mfgfoc!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Thompson)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

Please move discussions under this topic to another news group.  They
are no longer appropriate for sci.astro and sci.space.  As the origial 
poster of the article under this heading I apologize for the posting
to the rest of you.  I merely wished to bring up ideas brought forth
from scientist which involved (to a certain extent) terraforming the
Earth.  I did not wish for the discussion to break down to a name calling
and arguments for or against creationism.  There are more appropriate
newsgroups for such discussions.  

Thank you.

Mike Thompson

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Thompson                      FOCUS Semiconductor Systems, Inc.
net: (sun!daver!mfgfoc!engfoc!mike)      570 Maude Court
att: (408) 738-0600 ext 370              Sunnyvale, CA  94086 USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 22:00:06 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.

In article <1547@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>>> <some comment by Henry about bias>
>
>I must come to Ms. Smith's defense.  I first met her in 198[23?]
>or there abouts.  She stopped by Ames and gave a fine report on Soviet
>space and she has provided information to me specifically for the NET...

One should probably distinguish between three different classes of
information when assessing bias:  (1) what the Soviets have done, (2) what
they are likely to do in the future, and (3) implications for the US.
It's quite possible to do a good job on class-1 reporting while letting
one's political biases warp classes 2 and 3.

Anyway, I'm not saying Ms. Smith's writings are useless, just that one
should not automatically assume that something from the Congressional
Research Service is an impartial, unbiased assessment.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 16:00:29 GMT
From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu  (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: Orbit tracking software?

>From article <877@mtuxj.att.com>, by tek1@mtuxj.att.com (Thomas E. Kenny):
> What software is used for tracking the man-made satilites? Does the
> software run on MSDOS or UNIX? Does anybody have source? Are graphics
> thanks in advance!

AMSAT has programs for most popular personal computers, current and
ancient.  Call AMSAT at (301)-589-6062 for there current offerings.

Bob
.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 05:04:34 GMT
From: g.gp.cs.cmu.edu!kck@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Karl Kluge)
Subject: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)

I was reading an old collection of Arthur C. Clarke essays,
_Voices From the Sky_ (copyright 1965), and came across an
essay where he cites a calculation by a Soviet astronomer
that the decay of Phobos' orbit due to air drag indicates 
that it has a density about 0.001 that of water, and hence
may be a hollow artifact. Now, I know that Phobos hardly
LOOKS like an artifact, but after all, wouldn't it be real
convenient to haul a small asteroid into Mars orbit and 
hollow it out rather than launch materials from the surface?
Could Phobos be the remains of a generation ship that parked
in Mars orbit? Could this be linked with our friend "the Face"?
COULD THIS BE WHY THE SOVIETS ARE SO INTERESTED IN PHOBOS?
Let's not forget that the USSR has funded expeditions to go
look for Atlantis.

Paranoid enquiring minds want to know! Does anyone know of
more recent follow up calculations that would set all our
minds at ease?

Karl Kluge (kck@g.cs.cmu.edu)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #9
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Oct 88 05:10:43 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06419>; Fri, 7 Oct 88 00:48:45 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri,  7 Oct 88 00:48:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.8XH4m9y00UkTAN4E48@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po3.andrew.cmu.edu.234c4905.88a141>;
          Fri,  7 Oct 88 00:33:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234c4733.efe581>;
          Fri,  7 Oct 88 00:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Oct  7 88 00:21:30 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #10

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
	 Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.
		   Re: space news from Aug 22 AW&ST
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
			   info on Pegasus
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 03:42:00 GMT
From: vx2!spector@nyu.edu  (David HM Spector)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

So far all of the arguments for why we should be in space fall far
short of the most obvious of reasons...

	We should be in space because we should be in space.

It comes down to a matter of the nature of the human experience.  We
are explorers.  We continuously push the limits of our abilities.
Sometimes our explorations are for better profits or trade; like the
search for the north-west passage, and sometimes they're for the
experience of doing something that hasn't been done before, like
scaling Mount Everest or K-2.  Finally we explore to learn, to make
the quality of our lives as Human Beings better than it was previously.

All of the above are among the reasons that we all use to justify the
need for space exploration, but they miss the issue.  We must explore
space because it is in the nature of Human Beings to explore.
If this were not true, there would be a very small concentration of
semi-humans somewhere in the middle of Africa.

Short-sightedness is an amazing thing, the more "advanced" our society
becomes, the more short-sighted we become, the more restistant to new
ideas and the prospect of new exploration and further advancement...
...we trade off long-term goals for short-term ones.  
Until we get this into our heads, and either beat it into the heads of
Congress, or elect a completely new congress, we will not be in space.

Unfortunately, the government has also opted us out of space in a
different way, in the interest of "national security" our government
has forbidden US satellites to be flown on a number of different
launchers, and more importantly has denied launch permission to
companies interested in developing space transportation systems.
This, of course, just means that we will be further and further behind.

Of course Human Beings will eventually be in Space to stay, but there
is no reason that that cannot be "today".  Someone "has to do it", we
are just forstalling the inevitable...


_DHMS
PS: In case you're all wondering,  the ABC News special on the US
space program just ended and its gotten me very depressed and cynical...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David HM Spector				   New York University
Senior Systems Programmer			   Graduate School of Business
ARPAnet: SPECTOR@GBA.NYU.EDU			   Academic Computing Center
USEnet:...!{allegra,rocky,harvard}!cmcl2!spector   90 Trinity Place, Rm C-4
HamRadio: N2BCA      MCIMail: DSpector             New York, New York 10006
AppleLink: D1161     CompuServe: 71260,1410        (212) 285-6080
"What computer puts out work like this?"          "Hire us and we'll tell you."

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 23:36:20 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <3040001@vx2.NYU.EDU> spector@vx2.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) writes:
>So far all of the arguments for why we should be in space fall far
>short of the most obvious of reasons...
>
>	We should be in space because we should be in space.

A restatement, not a reason.  Forgive us for ignoring it!  :-)

>It comes down to a matter of the nature of the human experience.  We
>are explorers.  We continuously push the limits of our abilities.

Nice cliche' but what does it actually mean in terms of hard numbers.
In every era there has been a miniscule scattering of individuals who,
I freely admit, explored their butts off -- while the overwhelming
remainder of humanity are no kind of "explorers" whatsoever.  This
includes today's space program, and it would continue to be true
even if the "move into space" takes place.

>Sometimes our explorations are for better profits or trade; like the
>search for the north-west passage, and sometimes they're for the
>experience of doing something that hasn't been done before, like
>scaling Mount Everest or K-2.  

But in all the economically or socially significant cases so far, the
explorations have been confined to the viable biosphere, with the
"exploration of the unknown" concept only valid to the extent that
white Europeans hadn't made it there before.  When you can sail or walk
or ride somewhere and find a fantastically rich ecosystem in place,
including fellow humans (as we are now grudgingly willing to admit!
<grin>) waiting there to trade, fight or procreate with you, then you
are indulging our sense of "man the explorer" in only a romantic sense
compared to what awaits us in space.

The Mount Everest analogy is a little better here since it's basically
inhospitable to white Europeans (forget for a moment that the Sherpas
schlep back and forth most of the way weekly to pick up the mail).
Nowadays there is a whole little mini-industry devoted to taking
climbers up and down.  Of what economic use to the rest of the world is
that industry, except to the Sherpa communities and specialty apparel
outfits it enriches?  Do you know how much cheaper it would be to house
five astronauts full time at the K-2 summit, than it's going to be to
keep them in orbit?

>... We must explore
>space because it is in the nature of Human Beings to explore.
>If this were not true, there would be a very small concentration of
>semi-humans somewhere in the middle of Africa.

If what you are saying is true, then it is obviously going to happen
anyway, so there is no one to convince and no reason to conduct this
debate.  Somehow I doubt that though.

>Short-sightedness is an amazing thing, the more "advanced" our society
>becomes, the more short-sighted we become, the more restistant to new
>ideas and the prospect of new exploration and further advancement...

Now there is a doozy of an unsupported assertion if ever I saw one!
What actual evidence do you have that "our society" [NY? USA? NA? Earth?]
is more "resistant to new ideas" [barring Gary Hart] than in, say, 1938 or
1888 or 1788 or 1588?  Seems like almost anyone would argue the other way.

>...we trade off long-term goals for short-term ones.  
>Until we get this into our heads, and either beat it into the heads of
>Congress, or elect a completely new congress, we will not be in space.

Too late... we already are in space.  YOU may not be in space.  But
YOU won't be in space no matter what Congress does, unless NASA starts
an "NYU Business School Systems Programmer in Space" program, and the
other fellow doesn't get picked. :-)  But even then, you'd only be
up for a few days and then it's back to Trinity Place.  Meanwhile,
no American humans are in space (but some humans are, have been for
years and probably will be quasi-forever... oops, they're Bolshies!)
until the 29th or so, then we send some more up.  Tons of hardware
up there though, with more to come.

Some of the hardware that isn't up there, of course, is stuff like
Hubble, Galileo, Magellan and Ulysses, because Congress listened to too
much "Man is the explorer" talk back in the 70's and s***canned our
unmanned space probe launch capability in favor of STS.

>Unfortunately, the government has also opted us out of space in a
>different way, in the interest of "national security" our government
>has forbidden US satellites to be flown on a number of different
>launchers, and more importantly has denied launch permission to
>companies interested in developing space transportation systems.
>This, of course, just means that we will be further and further behind.

Three US launch firms are ready to go with full Government blessing.
Rightly or wrongly, the US wants to protect the fledgling domestic
launch industry from low-ball foreign competition.  Since you assert
that "we" are not in space even though there are three guys eating
rehydrated borscht up there on Mir right this moment (and probably
getting damn sick of it after nine months!), I assume you really want
Americans in space.  If so then you ought to be happy to discourage
launch customers from giving their business to the French or Chinese or
Soviets(!) instead.

>Of course Human Beings will eventually be in Space to stay, but there
>is no reason that that cannot be "today".  Someone "has to do it", we
>are just forstalling the inevitable...

Comrade Spector, someone HAS done it!
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 22:21:39 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <6523@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>Using the thermodynamics curve as an excuse for going into space is
>just silly.  No matter what happens vis a vis human exploration of
>space, the T-curve here on Earth is going to keep going right on up
>until catastrophe hits or we work something ground-based out...

Note that one need not have mass movement of people into space for a
space-based civilization to have major positive effects on Earth.  The
population transfer from Europe to the Americas was relatively minor,
yet there have been a lot of side effects.  Economic expansion in space
is likely to be much more significant than population transfer.

Neither is going to happen, much, until we get cheaper launch systems.
Arguments based on how expensive launches are *now* are fallacious; the
fundamental limits on launch costs are still orders of magnitude away.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 18:16:18 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.

>From article <1547@eos.UUCP>, by eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya):
> I must come to Ms. Smith's defense.  I first met her in 198[23?]
> or there abouts.  She stopped by Ames and gave a fine report on Soviet
> space and she has provided information to me specifically for the NET.
> While she is pro-space, she is not specifically biased to NASA.

Yes, I should make clear that my 'probably' meant that she is the person
Henry had heard scathing comments about, not that I think those comments
were deserved.  Bias is a relative thing, and I think it is fair to say
that her biases are different from mine in the sense of thinking that
the US space program is in a lot better shape.  (Note that that is not
quite the same thing as a pro-NASA bias.) But I consider that all the
more reason to pay attention to what she says, and she is certainly very
thoughtful and well-informed. 


What did net-land think of last night's ABC news special? It was certainly
heavily pro-space; it was also gloomy about the state of NASA to the
point of hysteria (in fact, the exact opposite of the analysis Ms. Smith
would present). Yet it didn't seem to really address the reasons why we
should be first in space, apart from using the appealing enthusiasm
of the Space Campers. I was left feeling that viewers who were already
pro-space might be galvanised into writing to their politicians (and I hope
you all have :-) but those who were not already converts would just
shrug and say 'so what'. 



Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 05:42:07 GMT
From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: space news from Aug 22 AW&ST

In article <1988Sep19.033649.29339@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes:
>John Denver, the singer, who has been interested in a shuttle ride for a
>long time, has asked the Soviets about buying a Soyuz trip to Mir.  They
>quoted him a price of $10M, and said that he had to get permission from
>the US government.

This story was also covered in the 27 Sept Weekly World News.  They had
the extra information that the price tag did not cover "coffee and tea".

Say, is it time for space news from WWN?  The face on Mars, the WWII
bomber on the moon, the first pansy alien, and much more!  And at 65
cents a week (yes, Virginia, they raised their price), it's a lot
cheaper than AW&ST.

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 15:25:25 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!beowulf!david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (David Smyth)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis


 bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
 >
 >It appears to me that this discussion is assuming that Berserkers are
 >the only members of the mechanical species in question. If I were
 >designing something to destroy all life in the galaxy, I think I would
 >go with a hive insect model for the destroying machines.
 >
 >What we have been calling Berserkers would be the warrior caste of the
 >species. The warriors would be an end result of the reproductive
 >process, but sterile. 
 >    [ good argument for containing mutations which come via damage to `warriors']

Also, sterile warriors would prevent an opponent from being able to 
capture warriors, modify, and breed them for defense of counterattack.

For intrigue and to fuel the fantasies of you paranoid-schitzoids:
Maybe the hive insects ARE berzerkers!  Their tactics are not the
immediate annihilation, but slow and steady: introduce bizarre, destructive
concepts into human thinking via telepathy, like the atomic bomb,
paranoia, stupid and useless labels like "communist" and "capitalist",
and then let the poor stupid targets of annihilation kill themselves off!

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 03:52:46 GMT
From: jato!jbrown@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <6523@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>Mr. Right Stuff ...  takes the
>Winnebago to launches (even weathersat launches) on vacation time.

Hey, even weathersat launches are IMPRESSIVE!  The only launches I've seen
were a suborbital and a comsat... they were well worth seeing (even if they
did both end up in the drink...:-( ).

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 17:47:08 GMT
From: telesoft!roger@ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: info on Pegasus

The current issue (October?  I don't have a copy with me) of High
Technology Business has a report, reprinted from a commercial 
aerospace newsletter, that gives some interesting information on
the Orbital Sciences Corporation / Hercules Aerospace Corp. "Pegasus" 
launch vehicle.  The news may be encouraging or discouraging,
depending on how you feel about certain things..

It appears that there is a strong military interest in Pegasus as both
a launch vehicle for lightweight satellites, and as a weapon system.
The main weapon system use that the report mentions is--get this--long
range (i.e., intercontinental) NON-nuclear bombardment.  Or maybe
bombardment isn't quite the right term for pinpoint delivery of a
single warhead against a target of high strategic value.  At any rate,
accuracies of 1-2 meters are mentioned, resulting from active terminal
guidance of the warhead.  The report also mentions use of Pegasus as a
potential replacement for the MX missile.  

Some of the specifics in the report were a projected cost of $10
million per vehicle, use of fiber-optim gyros for onboard guidance,
multiple (10?) onboard computers and programming to minimize launch
preparations, and launch preparation times measured in hours using 
a crew of 10 and a single van with support equipment.

What struck me about the report is that Pegasus fits so well with the
military missions that it suggests to me that it was designed for that
in the first place.  It may never have been seriously intended as a
commercial launch vehicle, though there is no question that the way it
is being developed isn't anything like the standard model for military
hardware acquisition.

- Roger Arnold				..ucsd.edu!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 05:55:29 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

Chuck Sites writes:
>Dan Tilque writes:
>
>> 2.  The CME was mostly marked by about 2/3 to 3/4 loss in the number of
>> marine animal (and plant?) genera.  As such it was an extremely massive
>> extinction.  A massive extinction like this only occurs every 100-200
>> million years.  Lesser extinctions occured more frequently.  In fact,
>> there were some extinctions while the dinosaurs were on earth.
>
>Interesting... Isn't the rotation of the galaxay in the range of 100-200
>million years?  Maybe the earth is passing through a galatic jet or
>something?    

I read this theory in a book whose author I've forgotten.  I can't
remember if it was trying to explain the "Nemesis factor" or not but it's
interesting to think about.  I don't know enough to evaluate it fully.

	The Oort cloud is only temporary and is exhausted within a few 
	million years.  It is replenished whenever the sun passes through
	a section of the galaxy which has a high concentration of gas and
	dust, i.e. a spiral arm.  There is some kind of gravity focusing
	effect that the sun has on the dust which causes it to collect in
	the downstream "wake" of the sun and form comets.

	After this occurs, comets are common in the solar system until the
	batch of comets are used up.  

I think the book was written before the iridium content of the KT
boundary was discovered, and I can't remember if the author tried to
use the somewhat periodic extinctions on Earth as evidence or not.

Personally, I think that the weak point of the theory is the
gravitational focusing effect.  The author failed to convince me that
the focused dust would have sufficient density to form comets.  And he
did not mention the effect of the solar wind on the dust.

Of course, we won't really know until the sun passes through a dust
cloud.


---
Dan Tilque	--	dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM

	To join boldly infinitives which no man has joined before.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #10
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Oct 88 04:40:22 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06438>; Fri, 7 Oct 88 03:26:10 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri,  7 Oct 88 03:26:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.0XH75ly00jZdQN8k4D@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.234c6e8f.66216f>;
          Fri,  7 Oct 88 03:13:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234c6cea.6905c3>;
          Fri,  7 Oct 88 03:06:20 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Oct  7 88 03:04:28 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #11

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
       The latest works on antimatter (mirror matter) physics.
	 Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.
	  Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? (creationism)
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
	      Re: A whole slew of stuff (space elevator)
		      Re: trashing fission waste
			   Re: Jet Engines
		   where should all the people go?
		    Re: Spy-Sat Hall of Mirrors ?
			 Re: info on Pegasus
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 19:15:23 GMT
From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

The argument that we need humans in space because of our "innate drive
to explore" and our "quest for adventure" is interesting, but it leads
to two questions:

1. What's left to explore in the process of delivering communications
satellites to earth orbit? Or in sitting in earth orbit for month after
month, looking out the window and occasionally pushing a few buttons?

2. Why is it so absolutely necessary for humans to actually enter space
in order to explore it?

While I don't want to belittle those who eulogized the Challenger
astronauts, I must say that all their talk about "seven people reaching
for the stars" seemed just a bit much when the primary purpose of the
mission was a routine communications satellite deployment.  Somehow it
would have seemed a bit more appropriate if they really *were* engaged
in exploration. If they were on their way to Mars, for example.

Perhaps I'm strange, but in early January 1986 I had a much stronger
sense of anticipation and "quest for adventure" about the imminent
Voyager flyby of Uranus than I did for STS-51L.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 17:15:08 GMT
From: voder!kontron!optilink!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <583@attdso.ATT.COM>, tim@attdso.ATT.COM (Tim J Ihde) writes:
> I hadn't heard about this - do you have any additional information to
> offer?  What exactly is a "shocked quartz particle," and have they been found
> right in the iridium layer?
> 
> Tim J Ihde					att!attdso!tim

A quartz particle that wondered into an adult movie theater by accident.

Tell me, if someone dropped a 10^12 gram meteor on you, wouldn't you be
a little shocked?

(Couldn't resist. :-))

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 16:44:58 GMT
From: 25.691.enet!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: The latest works on antimatter (mirror matter) physics.


    	For those of you interested in reading about the actual
    possibilities of antimatter (mirror matter) being used to propel
    future interplanetary and interstellar spaceships, I highly 
    recommend the following book:
    
    	MIRROR MATTER: PIONEERING ANTIMATTER PHYSICS (1988 - HC, $18.95)
 	Robert L. Forward and Joel Davis
    	John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated
    	ISBN 0-471-62812-3
    
    	This book, which is available in any good general bookstore,
    will be of interest to those both involved and just studying future 
    space travel plans, as it discusses antimatter physics and its use as 
    a spacecraft fuel in a manner which neither insults nor overwhelms the 
    average reader's intelligence.  The authors' consensus is that 
    antimatter could make a wonderfully fast and efficient interplanetary 
    and sublight starship power source someday, but that using it for 
    faster-than-light (FTL) propulsion is impossible regardless, based 
    on the scientific knowledge we currently have in this area.

        Forward also publishes MIRROR MATTER, a newsletter which is 
    mailed out every few months detailing the latest advancements in 
    antimatter physics and technology.  The address for receiving MIRROR 
    MATTER can be found in the book.
                                                            
    	Another book by Forward on antimatter which I also recommend:
    
    	FUTURE MAGIC (1988 - Paperback, $3.95)
    	Dr. Robert L. Forward
    	Avon Books
    	ISBN 0-380-89814-4
    
    	FUTURE MAGIC devotes itself to numerous currently SF-type ideas 
    on future science and technology.
    
    	Larry

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 16:05:54 GMT
From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.

In article <1089@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu 
(Jonathan McDowell) writes:
>What did net-land think of last night's ABC news special? It was certainly
>heavily pro-space; it was also gloomy about the state of NASA to the
>point of hysteria (in fact, the exact opposite of the analysis Ms. Smith
>would present).

I got tired of the way it kept repeating that Soviet space accomplishments
dwarf those of the US.  Sure, they keep people in Earth orbit all the time,
but when are they going to do something with all that "in-space experience"
that keeps getting ballyhooed?  The only thing more depressing to me than
the sad state of the US space program is that what the USSR is doing is the
best that is being done.  By gum, I want permanent moonbases, with regular 
shuttles operating between them and large Earth-orbit space stations.  Yes, and
I want a manned Mars mission spacecraft under construction in Earth orbit.  
Hell, I even want unmanned probes in orbit around every planet in the solar 
system.  I get the feeling that I may not live to see all these things that I 
once thought were just a few years away.  I guess I read too many of those
gee-whiz books that came out in the late '60's.  Maybe I should just settle
for a Cinerama theater with a 70mm print of "2001."

-- 
"I don't suppose you have any idea what the damn thing is, huh?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                      uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu        internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 21:55:49 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? (creationism)

This discussion has passed from being marginally relevant to space to being
totally irrelevant.  Please move it to talk.origins, which is the group
specifically earmarked for the topic.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 20:54:34 GMT
From: paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

T.Neff writes:
> I identify three strains of popular space freakdom:
>Mr. Right Stuff, the Starship Trooper, and the New-Age Crystalline
>Holistic L5 Person. ...

This is one of the most flagrant examples of the ad hominem argument
I have seen on Usenet. (And that's saying a lot.)  What is it supposed
to prove?  That an association with the backyards of the 50's or
the SF of the 60's rots one's mind, rendering one incapable of 
reaching any correct conclusions?  That only good old boys who play
with footballs rather than model rockets can make sound judgements?

> It is ruinously expensive to put even lightweight things up there
...
>The bottom line is, in order to maintain the glorious progression since
>the 1400's etc. etc., we need to keep expending more and more energy
...

The energy necessary to put something into orbit is constant, or 
rather declines as more efficient ways of doing it are discovered
or become technologically feasible.  If energy available per capita
keeps increasing at an exponential pace, even Mr Neff can figure out
that there must come a point where orbital capability becomes a small
part of every individual's budget.  

Nobody, I trust, expects earth to be depopulated by a Diaspora to
space.  A more reasonable model is Europe, which hardly felt the 
effects of American colonization in population terms, but here we have
a well populated continent all the same...

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 21:53:28 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A whole slew of stuff (space elevator)

In article <8XARdPyQ2k-082PVN0@andrew.cmu.edu> js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes:
>        What we really need is to develop the Sinclair Monofillament type of
>material that will allow us to construck a space elevator...

We're getting there.  1 million psi carbon fiber is commercially available.
If you ignore safety margins and other annoying practical details entirely,
building a space elevator out of that stuff doesn't look too ridiculous.
In reality one can't ignore the margins, but on the other hand the fiber
is steadily getting better.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 04:25:16 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!lsuc!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net  (gordan)
Subject: Re: trashing fission waste

In article <1320@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
-"Nuclear batteries" have been around since at least the 1960s, when I
-first read about them. They generally use beta-emitters, since beta

This isn't really apropos of anything, but there was an article recently
in the Toronto Star on the subject of famous incorrect predictions from
the past.  Among them was a quote from one of the Wright brothers,
something like "Man will not fly for fifty years."

The last prediction, however, was from some fool who stated (in 1955)
that "Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners should be a reality within ten years."
Nobody particularly famous, so I don't recall the name.  I wonder if
this was supposed to be an application for them thar nuclear batteries.

--
                 Gordan Palameta
            uunet!ai.toronto.edu!utgpu!maccs!gordan

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 19:18:13 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Jet Engines

> In article <39974@linus.UUCP>, eachus@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Robert Eachus) writes:
> 
> Jet engines were available (and there  was even one Messerschmitt
> version that saw combat),  but the chief  performance improvements  in
> these  planes  were  the speed regimes which were  just  beginning   to
> be  understood, and only  the Germans and Jaapanese had  the incentives
> to put  pilots in combat  in such dangerous aircraft.  

The English were quite willing to put pilots into the Gloster Meteor.
It didn't see combat against German jets, but it was useful in downing
V-1s.  The Americans *would* have been happy to field pilots in the
Bell P-59, which probably wouldn't have fared so well against Me-262s.

Both would have put pilots into combat, if they could only have produced
the aircraft in time.

The Me-262, according to the pilots who flew it in combat, was a very
nice plane to fly.  (The guys who flew the Me-163 rocket fighter also
liked its handling a lot...there *were* problems with fuel and motors
exploding for no apparent reason, which slightly dampened their enthusiasm.)

> (The Japanese answer of course was not jets but modified  Zeros  with
> no landing gear and internal  ordnance--the Kamikasi's.)

The "Kikka" (Swallow?) was a Japanese-built version of the Me-262.  I
think there is one in Southern California at Planes of Fame.

How did wheelless Zeros fly?  The "Oka" (most often called "baka" by
Americans) was a solid-fuel motor with a tiny cockpit, tiny wings, and
*not* tiny warhead dropped from a bomber.  Most kamikaze missions
were flown with fighters and trainers carrying a 500-lb bomb (if it
could lift it) externally.  The kamikaze was a warrior's response to
inadequate maufacturing capacity and pilot training ability.  The
pilots were volunteers with no illusions about surviving.  The naval
officer who proposed the kamikaze, Onishi, received a lot of resistance
from other officers in the fleet.  Most correctly saw it as not worth 
the cost.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 12:43:51 GMT
From: spdcc!eli@bbn.com  (Steve Elias)
Subject: where should all the people go?

In article <6523@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

>Using the thermodynamics curve as an excuse for going into space is
>just silly.  No matter what happens vis a vis human exploration of
>space, the T-curve here on Earth is going to keep going right on up
>until catastrophe hits or we work something ground-based out.  
>... The bottom line is, in order to maintain the glorious progression since
>the 1400's etc. etc., we need to keep expending more and more energy
>*right here*.  This is where the people are; this is where the people
>will continue to be.

	if our energy use/production continues to grow exponentially,
	there may be lots of people continuing to be here without the
	environment we enjoy today.  at thousands of times the energy use of
	today, i can imagine people living underground with air
	conditioning -- while the surface is an uninhabitable wasteland.

	many folks seem to think that the proliferation of man will
	naturally doom the Earth's environment.  what do you think?

	i don't think this is an 'excuse' to go into space -- the
	reasons for space exploration go beyond the avoidance of
	Malthusian disaster here on Earth...  but that's one good reason.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 06:36:37 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;)
Subject: Re: Spy-Sat Hall of Mirrors ?

In article <8809161804.aa09033@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") writes:
>
>Presumably our high-res snoopsats can be pointed at theirs, and
>theirs at ours, yielding intriguing photos of just what a, say,
>KH-11 or Rhyolite really *does* look like.  Has anyone written 
>to the Reds asking for pix of our spysats ?  Or tried an FOIA
>to have a look at one of theirs ?  Presuming that such a request
>would get absolutely nowhere, whom are they being hidden from ?
>The Libyans ?  The Sammarinesi ?

I would guess that spysats do not spy on each other.  They're likely to
be specialized in looking at the ground.  Much more likely, is spying on
spysats from the ground or from airplanes.  After all, they did examine
the tiles on the first shuttle flight from Hawaii.

As for why they would not release this info, it's mainly to keep the other
side from knowing how much you know and don't know.  From this it might be
possible to deduce how it was found out and to formulate counter-measures
to keep any further info secret.


>If such efforts failed, maybe the *French* could be relied 
>upon to break up the happy club and deliver the pictures !

With a decent telescope and the right guidance mechanism, an amature could
probably do it.  How much are you willing to pay?

---
Dan Tilque	--	dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM

	To join boldly infinitives which no man has joined before.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 19:03:49 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: info on Pegasus

In article <304@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
> The current issue (October?  I don't have a copy with me) of High
> Technology Business has a report, reprinted from a commercial 
> aerospace newsletter, that gives some interesting information on
> the Orbital Sciences Corporation / Hercules Aerospace Corp. "Pegasus" 
> launch vehicle.  The news may be encouraging or discouraging,
> depending on how you feel about certain things..
> 
>	[ description deleted ] 
> 
> Some of the specifics in the report were a projected cost of $10
> million per vehicle, use of fiber-optim gyros for onboard guidance,
> multiple (10?) onboard computers and programming to minimize launch
> preparations, and launch preparation times measured in hours using 
> a crew of 10 and a single van with support equipment.
> 
> What struck me about the report is that Pegasus fits so well with the
> military missions that it suggests to me that it was designed for that
> in the first place.  It may never have been seriously intended as a
> commercial launch vehicle, though there is no question that the way it
> is being developed isn't anything like the standard model for military
> hardware acquisition.

On the other hand, the characteristics of Pegasus listed are also
descriptive of features that owuld be desirable in a lower-cost
orbital launch system.  Can you say convergent evolution?  (It is
thought that the macrochiroptera and microchiroptera, the two
main divisions of bat-dom, are not derived from a common ancestor.
On the other hand, they function and look very much the same.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #11
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Oct 88 06:11:02 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00520>; Fri, 7 Oct 88 05:18:25 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri,  7 Oct 88 05:18:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.0XH8iRy00UkTQ20E4b@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.234c89c1.70f14c>;
          Fri,  7 Oct 88 05:09:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234c88da.1555ef>;
          Fri,  7 Oct 88 05:05:34 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Oct  7 88 05:03:54 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #12

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Enterprise as escape system test vehicle
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		     Re:  Naming the new Shuttle
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		    Re: Spy-Sat Hall of Mirrors ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 88 21:57:58 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Enterprise as escape system test vehicle

In article <880917105038.0000062C083@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>It just occurred to me that the Enterprise should be a perfect test
>vehicle for the escape systems intended to be used in level gliding
>flight (i.e., all of the ones I've heard about).  They could leave
>a pilot on board to land the thing... it seems to be the ideal way
>to test such systems.  Have I missed anything?  Why haven't they done
>this?  Is Enterprise being used for anything else?

Testing from a normal, powered aircraft is safer, more convenient, and
much cheaper.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 17:57:00 GMT
From: vx2!spector@nyu.edu  (David HM Spector)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

Pardon the length, but Mr. Neff's rather obnoxious reply to a fairly
innocuous message has me po'd.
>>/* vx2:sci.space / tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) /  7:36 pm  Sep 19, 1988 */
>In article <3040001@vx2.NYU.EDU> spector@vx2.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) writes:
>So far all of the arguments for why we should be in space fall far
>short of the most obvious of reasons...
>
>	We should be in space because we should be in space.
>>
>>A restatement, not a reason.  Forgive us for ignoring it!  :-)

Granted. But to make the points you obviously didn't read below! :-{

>>It comes down to a matter of the nature of the human experience.  We
>>are explorers.  We continuously push the limits of our abilities.

>>Nice cliche' but what does it actually mean in terms of hard numbers.
>>In every era there has been a miniscule scattering of individuals who,
>>I freely admit, explored their butts off -- while the overwhelming
>>remainder of humanity are no kind of "explorers" whatsoever.  This
>>includes today's space program, and it would continue to be true
>>even if the "move into space" takes place.

That's the whole point, silly kid!  Using "hard numbers" to justify
going into space is a lose-lose scenario.  You can't try to use
"ecomonics" to justify something that we as a people (Human Beings)
should do because it is the nature of the race as a whole to do new
things and go to new (unexplored) places.  Your point is basically
correct in as much as most people are not explorers.  Explorers are
the folks who break new ground and allow the "rest of us" to follow.
But as a race of people Human Beings are always moving forward.  

>Sometimes our explorations are for better profits or trade; like the
>search for the north-west passage, and sometimes they're for the
>experience of doing something that hasn't been done before, like
>scaling Mount Everest or K-2.  

>>But in all the economically or socially significant cases so far, the
>>explorations have been confined to the viable biosphere, with the
>>"exploration of the unknown" concept only valid to the extent that
>>white Europeans hadn't made it there before.  When you can sail or walk
>>or ride somewhere and find a fantastically rich ecosystem in place,
>>including fellow humans (as we are now grudgingly willing to admit!
>><grin>) waiting there to trade, fight or procreate with you, then you
>>are indulging our sense of "man the explorer" in only a romantic sense
>>compared to what awaits us in space.

Absolutely bogus statement.  Just because there isn't a "viable
biosphere" waiting for us doesn't mean its not ecomonically or socially
significant.  I would make the same argument about setting up
colonies/workspaces/living-enviroments on the sea floor.  A
not-particularly-hospitable-bioshpere, which has some of the same
attributes in terms of mineral/mining potential of Space.

I think you just have a problem with the concept of making space a
"viable" place for people to work/live/grow/etc in.  (Not uncommon in
people who are afraid of technology.)

>>The Mount Everest analogy is a little better here since it's basically
>>inhospitable to white Europeans (forget for a moment that the Sherpas
>>schlep back and forth most of the way weekly to pick up the mail).
>>Nowadays there is a whole little mini-industry devoted to taking
>>climbers up and down.  Of what economic use to the rest of the world is
>>that industry, except to the Sherpa communities and specialty apparel
>>outfits it enriches?  Do you know how much cheaper it would be to house
>>five astronauts full time at the K-2 summit, than it's going to be to
>>keep them in orbit?

That's not the point.  You're using a dollar "cost" to measure the
utility of expanding the technology and knowledge base of the planet.
If you must use numbers to justify "man in space", think about the
computer you are using now... if all of the "costs" were taken into
consideration when we we launching the manned moon shots of the 60's
and 70's, you wouldn't have the machine you're on now.  The
technologies (developed for the space program) to produce most of its
components and (component) packaging wouldn't be ready for market
(yet).  (hmm.. we would have been trading off long term benefits --
LSI technologies, packaging systems, et al, for the short term goal
of saving a few hundred million dollars.  We have spent several
hundred million "just" keeping a number of ships in the Persian
Gulf...)

>... We must explore
>space because it is in the nature of Human Beings to explore.
>If this were not true, there would be a very small concentration of
>semi-humans somewhere in the middle of Africa.

>>If what you are saying is true, then it is obviously going to happen
>>anyway, so there is no one to convince and no reason to conduct this
>>debate.  Somehow I doubt that though.

Correct.  I am just lamenting the fact that it may not happen in my
lifetime...  due to the short-sightedness of a small group of people.
(Congress) The only reason people won't go to space is if we kill
ourselves off in a nuclear war.  It will happen.  There has never been
a frontier of knowledge or territory that we haven't explored.  We
already know we CAN live and work in space, there's just fine tuning
and expansion.  A question for our generation is who (the US, France,
China, USSR, et al) will show that it can be done in a meaningful way
so that the rest of us can follow the "explorers" and settle this "new
frontier".

>Short-sightedness is an amazing thing, the more "advanced" our society
>becomes, the more short-sighted we become, the more restistant to new
>ideas and the prospect of new exploration and further advancement...

>>Now there is a doozy of an unsupported assertion if ever I saw one!
>>What actual evidence do you have that "our society" [NY? USA? NA? Earth?]
>>is more "resistant to new ideas" [barring Gary Hart] than in, say, 1938 or
>>1888 or 1788 or 1588?  Seems like almost anyone would argue the other way.

You're right, I should have been more concrete.  But, I didn't want to
get into a flame war of how the FCC and a number of other goverment
organisations (under some very heavy pressure from certain business
interests) have more or less assured that the greatest country in the
world cannot have something that France has had for decades, a
nation-wide information network -- MiniTel, or even decent
television..  (PAL or Digital TV) Do you know what NTSC stands for ?
"Never The Same Color"...  This nation is very resistant to change and
new technologies (not including "consumer electronics").  It may be a
direct result of technological overload (read: too many changes too
fast) but the lack of planning, and foresight on the part of some
agencies (esp. the FCC) is very sad.

>...we trade off long-term goals for short-term ones.  
>Until we get this into our heads, and either beat it into the heads of
>Congress, or elect a completely new congress, we will not be in space.

>>Too late... we already are in space.  YOU may not be in space.  But
>>YOU won't be in space no matter what Congress does, unless NASA starts
>>an "NYU Business School Systems Programmer in Space" program, and the
>>other fellow doesn't get picked. :-)  But even then, you'd only be
>>up for a few days and then it's back to Trinity Place.  Meanwhile,
>>no American humans are in space (but some humans are, have been for
>>years and probably will be quasi-forever... oops, they're Bolshies!)
>>until the 29th or so, then we send some more up.  Tons of hardware
>>up there though, with more to come.

Wrong.  We have some satellites and junk in space, but we (as
Americans) are not in space.  We do not have the political will to
keep ourselves in space (yet).  We as aspecies are marginally in space
in terms of Mir, and have the capabilities to put instruments in space
(the French, the Chineses, et al), but not us Americans.

When the French, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Japanese start to
develop neeto new technologies from their research and put up manned
space stations, while we're on the ground we'll wise up, and realize
that continual buget cuts for space explotarion (as well as cuts in
other sciences) have placed us in an awfully uncomfortable economic
position.

Next there's pure science.  As I recall the US was the only country of
note NOT to be able to send a probe to Halley's comet.  Now, unless I
am mistaken, the next opportunity to do the same wil come in about 73
years....  and its not like we didn't have a chance.

>>Some of the hardware that isn't up there, of course, is stuff like
>>Hubble, Galileo, Magellan and Ulysses, because Congress listened to too
>>much "Man is the explorer" talk back in the 70's and s***canned our
>>unmanned space probe launch capability in favor of STS.

Bullsh*t.  Those projects got canned because we had/have no stamina.
We assumed that we would always be in space, it "belonged" to us, and
that no one else could catch up to us.  As a result we gave up our
non-reusable launchers.  As even you can tell: we are not now in space, it
doesn't "belong" to us, and everyone has surpassed us.  

Why?  Because we (the voters) didn't yell at our congress-critters
loud enuf' and so they cut the budget. Once the budget was cut, what
was NASA gonna do?  Scrap the shuttle?  They had no money, they were
being pushed on the shuttle, so they tried to make it do more than it
was possible to make a shuttle do.  

Now that we have been burned by the Russians in terms of the ability
to put people in space and the French in terms of putting _things_ in
space, maybe we'll get off our hands and make sure that we are never
put in a position like this again.  We have noone to blame but
ourselves.  We elected the congress that cut the budgets...


>Unfortunately, the government has also opted us out of space in a
>different way, in the interest of "national security" our government
>has forbidden US satellites to be flown on a number of different
>launchers, and more importantly has denied launch permission to
>companies interested in developing space transportation systems.
>This, of course, just means that we will be further and further behind.

>>Three US launch firms are ready to go with full Government blessing.
>>Rightly or wrongly, the US wants to protect the fledgling domestic
>>launch industry from low-ball foreign competition.  Since you assert
>>that "we" are not in space even though there are three guys eating
>>rehydrated borscht up there on Mir right this moment (and probably
>>getting damn sick of it after nine months!), I assume you really want
>>Americans in space.  If so then you ought to be happy to discourage
>>launch customers from giving their business to the French or Chinese or
>>Soviets(!) instead.

Not entirely true.  Permission has been granted for military
contractors to launce military payloads.  All other players in the
launcher market have been placed on indefinite hold.  Companies that
want to develop new technologies are not given permission to test them.

The US is indeed trying to protect the domestic launch industry from
comptetition, but its from ANYONES launchers that are not the Shuttle.


>Of course Human Beings will eventually be in Space to stay, but there
>is no reason that that cannot be "today".  Someone "has to do it", we
>are just forstalling the inevitable...

>>Comrade Spector, someone HAS done it!

Oh, come now... (he said, saving the best for last.) let us know when
you want to participate in an adult conversation.  Calling people
communists (or anything else in that style for that matter) is a
little childish, don't you think?

>>-- 
>>Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
>>	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
>>	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David HM Spector				   New York University
Senior Systems Programmer			   Graduate School of Business
ARPAnet: SPECTOR@GBA.NYU.EDU			   Academic Computing Center
USEnet:...!{allegra,rocky,harvard}!cmcl2!spector   90 Trinity Place, Rm C-4
HamRadio: N2BCA      MCIMail: DSpector             New York, New York 10006
AppleLink: D1161     CompuServe: 71260,1410        (212) 285-6080
"What computer puts out work like this?"          "Hire us and we'll tell you."

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 20:51:58 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <1988Sep19.222139.14477@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry 
Spencer) writes:
: Arguments based on how expensive launches are *now* are fallacious; the
: fundamental limits on launch costs are still orders of magnitude away.

I respectfully disagree.  To me, arguments based on how expensive launches
are *now* are quite germane to decisions about spending money *now*.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 21 Sep 88 9:11:37 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
Subject:  Re:  Naming the new Shuttle

Actually, since the Space Station is now named "Fred", the new shuttle
should be named "Wilma"....   

[Much throwing of rocks...]
Ouch! Oooch! [Run, duck, hide... ] :-)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 13:37:11 GMT
From: nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!com50!pai!erc@csd1.milw.wisc.edu  (Eric Johnson)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <143@laffu.UUCP>, 
> In article <604@otto.cvedc.UUCP>, 
> > In article <4468@brspyr1.BRS.Com> [more articles ad nauseum...]
>

Normally, I really enjoy all the space-related discussions in sci.space. 
I have learned quite a bit and appreciate the information.  Thanks.

But, the only connection to space that I see in all this evolution and
creationism bashing is that I would like to see all the people posting
that stuff in sci.space sent into orbit. There are other, better venues
for all the bashing.  Please post to other newsgroups.  Please also learn
how to spell.  If this keeps up, we will next have to deal with those
supporting the Hollow Earth theories and the Flat-Earthers as well
(the space program is a hoax, and we never landed on the moon, remember? :-).


Zippy says, "if it is worth doing, it is worth over-doing."


-- 
Eric F. Johnson          | Phone +1 612-894-0313             | Are we
Prime Automation,Inc     | UUCP:   bungia!pai!erc            | having
12201 Wood Lake Drive    | UUCP:   sun!tundra!pai!erc        | fun
Burnsville, MN 55337 USA | DOMAIN: erc@pai.mn.org            | yet?

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 05:50:44 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Spy-Sat Hall of Mirrors ?

In article <3051@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes:
<I remember a "friend of a friend" story...
<
<     When Skylab was launched, and lost some shielding and a power
<     panel...NASA asked the spooks for a few pictures. They were
<     told that no pictures could be taken from any of the spysats.
<
<     But, a few days later, a package of pictures arrived...
<     _very_ detailed pictures (I was told you could clearly
<     see every nut and bolt). The "return address" was, more or
<     less, "you don't want to know."
<
<-- 

I seem to recall reading a story on how the SpySats were in fact used to
take a look at the underside of Colombia (on STS-2 I think, and possibly
other missions) early on, searching for missing tiles. For obvious reasons,
the pictures were not released. (Yes, this was in addition to ground
based observations as well).


-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
 some of the time, but you can't fool Mom".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #12
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Oct 88 11:14:26 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05757>; Sat, 8 Oct 88 00:50:57 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat,  8 Oct 88 00:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.gXHNu7y00UkT4KRU50@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.234d9ce5.408165>;
          Sat,  8 Oct 88 00:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.234d9a44.a723f2>;
          Sat,  8 Oct 88 00:32:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234d9862.8dd7cc>;
          Sat,  8 Oct 88 00:24:08 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct  8 88 00:21:10 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #13

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
	     Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)
	       Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)
		       RE: SPACE Digest V8 #372
	      Re: Wealth of mature spacefaring societies
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
			 Re: info on Pegasus
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		 Re: Info about Soviet Space program
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
			 Re: Space Videotapes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 23:34:05 GMT
From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

u

>... have more or less assured that the greatest country in the
> world cannot have something that France has had for decades, a
> nation-wide information network -- MiniTel...

Nonsense. First of all, Minitel is a fairly recent phenomenon, no more
than 10 years old. Its technology, however, is archaic. How many of you
use the 75/1200 baud (75 baud in, 1200 baud out) modems that are
standard with Minitel.  As for information services in the US, ever
heard of Compuserve, among others? I see little difference between
Compuserve and Minitel, except for scale and the number of sex-related
messages. The sole reason Minitel became popular was that the French PTT
*gave away* the terminals. It could afford to do this because it has a
monopoly stranglehold on communications in the country.  I'll keep my
ARPA Internet access, thank you.

> television..  (PAL or Digital TV) Do you know what NTSC stands for ?
> "Never The Same Color"...

The history of color television standards is a classic, textbook example
of European Not-Invented-Here syndrome.  Compatible color was first
invented in the US by RCA in the early 1950s. After it was submitted to
the National Television Standards Committee, the FCC approved it in 1953
(or 1954, my sources conflict). The Europeans, however, felt that one
standard wasn't enough, so they decided to "improve" on the system.  The
result was not one but TWO additional standards: PAL and SECAM,
incompatible with each other and with NTSC. (SECAM, the French system,
is often known as Something Essentially Contrary to the American
Method.)

The claimed reason for these "improvements" was that better color hue
stability could be had. Although that might have been true in the early
days, electronics has long since improved to the point where this factor
is irrelevant. I haven't touched the hue or chroma controls on my "Never
TWICE the Same Color" TV set in years, and I still get an excellent
color picture. And so what if the European systems have an extra 100
scan lines? The 25 Hz vertical scan flicker gives me a headache, and
much of what they show is scan-converted American television anyway.

The Japanese, on the other hand, adopted NTSC. They're no fools.

Let's also not forget that European TV channels are several megahertz
larger than their American counterparts. TV broadcasting in Europe is
almost universally a government monopoly, so what did they care?
Frankly, I think we squander an appalling amount of valuable spectrum on
television broadcasting as it is, and I'm thankful that the FCC didn't
make the channels any wider.  I see you're also a ham; would you be
willing to give up amateur spectrum to accommodate a conversion to PAL
or SECAM?  I didn't think so.

As for HDTV, I sincerely hope it never sees the light of day on the
airwaves -- it belongs on videotape, cable or fiber.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 88 18:31:14 GMT
From: hpl-opus!hpccc!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfclm!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)


>Does absolutely nobody on this newsgroup have any sense of proportion
>at all?  Lets consider near interstellar space, say within 4 LY,
>having a volume of 2e50 cubic meters.  If we had an all-nuclear
>economy we would produce 1e6 m^3 of HL waste every century.  Now the
>volume of the oceans is something on the order of 1e17 m^3.  Thus 
>to equal the injection of a century of nuclear waste into near
>interstellar space we are talking about dumping 0.5e-27 cubic meters
>of waste into the oceans, which is to say half a cubic nanometer, or
>the size of single molecule of sugar.

True, but then if somebody DOES run across it someday, they're not going to be
particularly pleased.  This isn't exactly the Voyager Interstellar Record
we're talking about.  :-)

On the other hand, the odds against the waste container being found before a
rather high number of half-lives has passed are pretty astronomical (:-))
too.  Yes, it certainly would be nice if people ran the figures through a
Reality Check before reacting.  To (probably mis-) quote that epitome of
standard astromical references, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,
"Space is big.  Really big.  You may think it's a long way down to the
chemist's on the corner, but that's nothing compared to space!..."


Bob Myers            | "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the 
{the known universe} |  will to find out, which is the exact opposite."      
!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |          - Bertrand Russell, _Sceptical_Essays_, 1928.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 18:26:58 GMT
From: hpl-opus!hpccc!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfclm!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)

After posting the following a while back, I have received no response -
and I'd really like to know where the numbers came from!  I don't think
this got out the first time, so I'm re-posting (and by the way, could someone
please e-mail or post a response so I'll know that this stuff IS making it out?
Thanks!).

>A quick calculation indicates that a TV station would need about 10E9 watts
>effective power before it would have a chance of being seen on the moon
>with a normal antenna.  A 100 foot dish would probably be required for a
>normal quality picture.

>At 93E6 miles, the dish would have to be about 1000 feet in diameter just
>to 'sort of' see the picture.

>These assumptions have been based on a 10 BILLION watt TV station on channel
>14.  There are not many TV stations that come close to 10^10 watts Effective
>Radiated Power.

Alan, could you please post or e-mail your calculations?  I'm not sure, but
I *thought* that we *received* normal TV *from* the moon, not to long ago,
with a heckuva lot lower ERP at the transmitter.  Granted, the receiving    
antennas were pretty good-sized, but you didn't need Arecibo to pick it up.
For that matter, how do the signals from the Voyager probes stack up against
your calculations?  It's not "normal" TV, but I seem to recall some fairly
decent data rates.  

Bob Myers  KC0EW                         |  Opinions expressed here are not
                                         |  those of my employer or any other
{the known universe}!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |  sentient life-form on this planet.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Sep 88 09:18 EDT
From: Matt <WALL%BRANDEIS.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu>
Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V8 #372


Re: Chix in Space

An interesting variation on the eggs-in-space experiment might be
to split the zero-g eggs into two groups, one of which is turned
(the way a hen does on Earth) and the other of which is left alone.
If hens on earth turn the eggs to compensate for the pull of gravity
on the yolk, then perhaps this is unnecessary in zero-g.  I am
curious to see the hatching response, however...does gravity play
a role in encouraging the chicks to hatch in the prescribed manner?

A more interesting variation would be to attempt a sunnyside-up fried
egg in zero-g.  (Would this change depending on the relative attitude
of the spacecraft?)

Henry, you're a zoologist, any speculations?

--------We've all got opinions. Where do they come from?----------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Sep 88 08:54:22 CDT
From: bruce@diamond.tamu.edu (Bruce D. Wright)
Subject: Re: Wealth of mature spacefaring societies

Much of the discussion under this topic has dealt with the material wealth
of the individuals in present and possibly in future spacefaring nations.
Although we Americans seem to focus on *things* as a measure of wealth, 
another view is to realize that wealth provides *choice*.  We choose to 
spend our money on material goods (just stroll through your local shopping
mall and view all the incredible junk that people must be buying).
People could spend a greater portion of their wealth choosing to educate 
themselves or to explore new ideas or simply to explore (as in space travel).
Fortunately for us, there are many in this nation who do exersize their
freedom of choice in this manner.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 14:50:24 GMT
From: tikal!phred!daveh@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dave Hampton)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

>>Interesting... Isn't the rotation of the galaxay in the range of 100-200
>>million years?  Maybe the earth is passing through a galatic jet or
>>something?    
>
  I seem to remember from an astronomy class that the sun doesn't rotate
in the galactic plane, but oscillates between positions slightly above
and below the plane.  I think that the period was on the order of hundreds
of millions of years, and I remember seeing an article which hypothesized
that the periodic mass extictions were caused by these periodic swings through
this band of dust and debris.  Anyone know more?

  -- Dave Hampton



-- 
Reply to:  uiucuxc!tikal!phred!daveh {Dave Hampton}
Addr:      Research Division, Physio-Control Corp.
           P.O. Box 97006
           Redmond, WA  98073-9706

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 14:23:57 GMT
From: makolb@athena.mit.edu  (Mark A. Kolb)
Subject: Re: info on Pegasus

In article <69410@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>On the other hand, the characteristics of Pegasus listed are also
>descriptive of features that would be desirable in a lower-cost
>orbital launch system.  Can you say convergent evolution?  (It is
>thought that the macrochiroptera and microchiroptera, the two
>main divisions of bat-dom, are not derived from a common ancestor.
>On the other hand, they function and look very much the same.)

Well, since (as far as I know) OSC doesn't have any representation on the Net,
and I happened to work for OSC between terms in the summer of 1987, I suppose
my remarks on this subject can be considered at least "semi-authoritative".

For my summer job in 1987 I worked for OSC, helping out with the early
design of Pegasus.  At that time, in no way did I get the impression that
the vehicle was being considered for military applications.  As Mr. Hix
suggests, the goal was a very low-cost launch system for microsatellites.
As a matter of fact, I was surprised by the targeting accuracy figures in
Mr. Arnold's original article, since in '87 my boss wasn't too particular
about accuracy with respect to orbital insertion.  Obviously, there have
been some changes to the design since I was at OSC, but from my experience
with OSC I'd say this is definitely a case of convergent evolution.

BTW, this is my first posting to this group.  Did I do okay?  Also, please
don't send me requests for technical details about Pegasus.  When I left OSC
to go back to school, the project was still very hush-hush (OSC, being rather
small, is wisely very concerned about competition), so I had to leave all my
notes behind ...  :(

Internet: MAK%Hippocrene@Athena.MIT.Edu
USENet:   ...!mit-eddie!hippocrene.mit.edu!mak
Slogan:	  If it's ACME -- it's a gasser!

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 13:17:27 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <3040001@vx2.NYU.EDU>, spector@vx2.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) writes:
}Short-sightedness is an amazing thing, the more "advanced" our society
}becomes, the more short-sighted we become, the more restistant to new
}ideas and the prospect of new exploration and further advancement...
}...we trade off long-term goals for short-term ones.  

#define MY_OPINION

I suspect that this is largely due to big corporations, for many of which
"long-term" is synonymous with "until the next stockholder's meeting" or
"until the next quarterly earnings report".

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
Disclaimer? I     |Ducharm's Axiom:  If you view your problem closely enough
claimed something?|   you will recognize yourself as part of the problem.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 19:22:55 GMT
From: attcan!lsuc!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net  (gordan)
Subject: Re: Info about Soviet Space program

In response to the recent thread of messages asking about possible
sources of information on the Soviet space program:

Victor Kamkin Bookstores in Rockville, Maryland carries an extensive
selection of Soviet publications, mostly books but also some maps, LP
records, etc.  They have a mail-order operation and publish regular
(monthly?) catalogs.  I think they probably deal directly with Soviet
publishing houses.  The vast majority of this stuff is in Russian, but
a small percentage is English.  The subject material listed in the
catalogs runs the gamut from literature and poetry to technical subjects.

I have no idea what material they may or may not have on the Soviet
space program, but if anyone out there feels motivated enough, the phone
numbers given on the catalog cover are
  (301) 881-5973  (Rockville, MD)
  (212) 673-0776  (New York, NY)


They also have a catalog listing Soviet periodicals from the 1989
Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga export catalog.  From leafing through this, there
seem to be several periodicals devoted to the Soviet space program, but
apparently none in English (the catalog simply lists titles and prices,
so there is no indication of the scholarly level or target audience of
each publication).  Some of the periodicals are:

  Astronavtika i Raketodinamika
  Aviatsiya i Kosmonavtika
  Issledovanie Kosmicheskogo Prostranstva
  Kosmicheskaya Biologiya i Aviakosmicheskaya Meditsina
  Raketostroenie i Kosmicheskaya Tekhnika


Usual disclaimer: I have no connection with these folks.

--
                 Gordan Palameta
            uunet!ai.toronto.edu!utgpu!maccs!gordan

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 08:58:32 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <167@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>In article <1988Sep19.222139.14477@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry 
>Spencer) writes:
>: Arguments based on how expensive launches are *now* are fallacious; the
>: fundamental limits on launch costs are still orders of magnitude away.
>
>I respectfully disagree.  To me, arguments based on how expensive launches
>are *now* are quite germane to decisions about spending money *now*.

Steve Emmerson's critisism of Henry Spencer's point is invalid. The value of
the space program to the future is what is under discussion. Obviously the
technology of the future will be better, and space launches will surely be
orders of magnitude cheaper than they are now. Therefore arguments against
the value of space to the future based on today's launch costs obviously are
fallacious.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality == the set of assertions too costly to disprove and promulgated by 
persons with sufficient reputation to defend them against ad hominim attacks
using Occam's Razor.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 13:44:49 GMT
From: oliveb!pyramid!cbmvax!eric@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Eric Cotton)
Subject: Re: Space Videotapes

In article <5380@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> ruslan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Robin C. LaPasha) writes:
>Periodically I've seen requests for various "space pictures,"
>whether videos or machine-readable images, posters or
>books.
>In September's NASA Tech Briefs, page 82 has an ad for 4
>different Space Videotapes.
>1. "The Universe" - described as general intro of some sort.
>2. "The Voyager Missions" - the planets "as seen through
>the eyes of the Voyager 1 and 2".
>3. "Landing on Mars" - from Viking.
>4. "Space Shuttle - Satellite Rescue" - Columbia goes to
>fetch a satellite.
>
>They're about 30 mins apiece; the first 2 are about $30,
>the last 2 about $20.  
>I have NO IDEA how good they are - this is the first I've
>seen of it, or of NASA Tech Briefs, for that matter.
>Address - NASA Tech Briefs, 41 East 42nd Street, NY NY 10017.
>(They put the videos out themselves, it seems.)

I recall seeing at least the latter two tapes at local K-Marts for
$9.99 each.  In addition, I also saw an Apollo XI mission tape for
the same price.  I promise to get details during my next visit...
-- 
Eric Cotton
Commodore-Amiga                                               (215) 431-9100
1200 Wilson Drive                              {rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!eric
West Chester, PA 19380            "I don't find this stuff amusing anymore."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #13
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Oct 88 11:07:53 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06183>; Sat, 8 Oct 88 03:35:07 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat,  8 Oct 88 03:35:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.EXHQI6y00jZdIM9E5o@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.234dc16e.cfefb>;
          Sat,  8 Oct 88 03:19:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234dbf28.85380e>;
          Sat,  8 Oct 88 03:09:34 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct  8 88 03:05:00 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #14

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:
			Re: Tom Swift's rocket
	     Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)
	   Magellan spacecraft rollout ceremony (Forwarded)
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
			    Shuttle Names
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
   Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)
			 Re: Denver in Space
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
	 Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.
		       Re: How do we get there?
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1988 17:00-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Tom Swift's rocket

It was Challenger, his first 'repelatron' powered vessel launched from
'Ferris Island'....

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 18:29:18 GMT
From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kevin S. Van Horn)
Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)

In article <1110021@hpfclm.HP.COM> myers@hpfclm.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
 [In reply to a posting ridiculing worries about "polluting" space by
  sending radioactive wastes out of the solar system, since the volume of
  the solar system is so huge]
>True, but then if somebody DOES run across it someday, they're not going to be
>particularly pleased.  This isn't exactly the Voyager Interstellar Record
>we're talking about.  :-)

If somebody does accidentally run across it some day, they're going to be far
more worried about the gaping hole punched in their spacecraft then about the
level of radioactivity. :-)

Kevin S. Van Horn

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 21:20:43 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan spacecraft rollout ceremony (Forwarded)


Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 September 22, 1988


NOTE TO EDITORS:

MAGELLAN SPACECRAFT ROLLOUT CEREMONY


     NASA's Magellan spacecraft, one of the agency's
high-priority science missions, will officially "rollout" at 12 
noon EDT, on Sept. 27, 1988, during a ceremony from the Martin 
Marietta facilities, Denver, Colo.

     A press conference will follow the ceremony featuring 
officials from NASA Headquarters, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
and Martin Marietta, an astronaut crew member of the mission and 
a noted planetary scientist.  Other activities will include a 
spacecraft viewing and photo opportunity, a tour of the Martin 
Marietta facilities (where the spacecraft was designed, 
constructed and tested) and an award reception for employees who 
worked on the spacecraft.

     Scheduled to be launched on an April 1989 Space Shuttle 
flight, Magellan will map -- in great detail -- the planet 
Venus.  Once launched Magellan will be the first U.S. planetary 
space mission in over 10 years.

     Magellan is scheduled to be shipped to NASA's Kennedy Space 
Center, Fla., on Oct. 3, 1988, arriving 4 days later.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 20:56:34 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <4088@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.UUCP (THE VIKING) 
writes:
>Steve Emmerson's critisism of Henry Spencer's point is invalid. The value of
>the space program to the future is what is under discussion. ...
>Therefore arguments against
>the value of space to the future based on today's launch costs obviously are
>fallacious.

I beg forgivness.  I thought the discussion pertained to the expenditure
of current resources (i.e. time, effort & money) and its justification.
Considering this in a broad sense, I concluded that a relevant decision
point was the perceived balance between current costs and future 
benefits.  Therefore, it seemed that current costs should affect 
the decision process.  If, however, there is a consensus that 
future benefits far outweigh any current costs then, by all means, spend
everything we have.

>From my own narrow perspective, however, my work in satellite remote-
sensing of the oceans might have produced more benefits if past expenditures 
had gone more towards unmaned, scientific applications than what actually 
transpired.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 22 Sep 88 23:25:22 EDT
From: Michael Nosal <ST502042%BROWNVM.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu>
Subject:      Shuttle Names

Hmmmm, Shuttle Orbiter names should be sea-faring research vessels AND Sci-Fi
spacecraft? How 'bout The LEONOV. I think the Soviets have a research/arctic
icebreaker by that name AND it was the name of the spacecraft in 2010 that
back to Jupiter to retreive the Discovery. Think NASA will go for it? :-)

Michael Nosal
ST502042@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 23:12:43 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Ralf Brown)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction


Re: sun oscillating between above and below galactic plane.

What I read a few years ago (in an article expounding the Nemesis hypothesis)
was that the sun passes through the galactic plane every 33 million years,
and that the mass extinctions have a period of roughly 26 to 28 million
years (fairly erratic, thus the large range in the period).

The Nemesis hypothesis is that the sun is really a binary star, with an
extremely faint companion in a highly elongated 26-million year orbit.  
Whenever the companion swings through perihelion, it throws thousands of
comets from the Oort Cloud out of their orbits, many of which reach the inner
solar system.
-- 
{harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) 
ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make.
FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler
BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something?

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 19:27:30 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <1331@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
> Perhaps I'm strange, but in early January 1986 I had a much stronger
> sense of anticipation and "quest for adventure" about the imminent
> Voyager flyby of Uranus than I did for STS-51L.

"strange" thing is, Phil, that when I saw "2010" the most exciting part
of the movie (well, one of the most) was when they were steering
that remote probe over Europa to spot the life form.  Tension
really built up.

That the probe was launched from a crewed spaceship doesn't
alter the validity of our feelings here.  Actually it was
just the  aniticpation of first glimpse of a life form,
*regardless * of how it was accomplished (in the book it was
live Chinese astronauts).

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 13:47:59 GMT
From: ece-csc!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncrcce!c10sd3!c10sd1!johnson@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)

In article <1988Sep13.164340.1289@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>                                                 Oh, there is a difference,
>but given the oxidizer shortage, one has to balance the risks against the
>utility of being able to fly more missions.  

Forgive me for asking what might seem to be a dumb question (I'm not as involved
with the space program as I once was), but why not remove the oxidizer from the
old segments and put it into the new ones?  
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 06:26:17 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Denver in Space

In article <880920162558.15e@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
>On the other hand, $10M seems pretty cheap.  Maybe the Soviets are offering this
>bargain basement price just for the P.R. coup of an American capitalist having
>to go to the Soviets for a trip into space...

Maybe.  On the other hand, $10M is 2000 pounds at the current *US* launch
cost of $5000/lb.  That's enough for a lot of overhead.  Even more so when
you remember that Soviet launches are cheaper than US ones.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 05:34:30 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <4034@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>Isn't flat-Earth an appropriate subject for sci.astro?

Funny you mention this.  In 9th grade, I had a special honor's science
class taught by James Gladson on Eagle Rock High.  This was summer of
1969 just before Neil landed on the moon.  We had these 4 hour intensive
classes, but I will never forget the first day.  We spent 2 hours
discussing how we "knew" the earth was not flat, latitude and stars,
eclipse shadow, accounting for water loss, etc. the works.  When Neil
landeded there was a small article in the LA Times (please call
up the LA Times Morgue, I've done it myself) on the Flat Earth Society.
We could not convince Gladson the earth was definitively round.

With all these computers I bemoan the lack of empirical science:
experiments, telescopes, microscopes, particle accelerators,
wind tunnels, test flying......  Anyways, a digression.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  We don't just look at planets, we now go out there.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 06:23:59 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.

In article <1287@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.ncsu.EDU (Jay C. Smith) writes:
>... Sure, they keep people in Earth orbit all the time,
>but when are they going to do something with all that "in-space experience"
>that keeps getting ballyhooed? ...

They are systematically working up to the in-space stay time needed for
a manned Mars mission.  They admit this.  Furthermore, they are not wasting
their time even now.  Once upon a time, cosmonauts who'd been up for six
months or so had to be carried out of the capsule after landing.  Now they
get up and walk out under their own power.  What's more, they seem to have
found some sort of solution to the bone-decalcification problem.  They
aren't saying just what it is, mind you.

The doctor who went up to Mir a little while ago is supposed to stay for
a "short visit":  four months.  For those who aren't aware of it, that
is about one month longer than the US record for time in space.

>... I get the feeling that I may not live to see all these things that I 
>once thought were just a few years away...

There's a good chance you will live to see them.  The chances of US flags
being on them are not so good.

Another country to watch is Japan.  They do things a little differently.
They tend to spend a long time figuring out what they want to do and
building a firm consensus that it is a good thing.  Once they get moving,
they are in high gear all the way, and failures and setbacks will not
stop them or even delay them much.  (They already *have* their consensus
that what they are doing deserves doing, remember, so a failure is not
grounds for lengthy reassessment of the matter.)  Their space effort is
starting to shift from consensus-building to action.  Stand back.  Start
learning Japanese.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 17:37:57 GMT
From: watmath!mwtilden@decvax.dec.com  (M.W.Tilden, Hardware)
Subject: Re: How do we get there?

In article <QXBlL3y00XoI0JfGx0@andrew.cmu.edu> js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes:
>        An elevator built of Sinclair monofillament (or some such thing) so
>that we merely press 'up' and away we go. Do we have the technology to
>construct such a thing so that it won't collapse under its own weight?

It's own weight is one thing, but the lateral forces exerted on it by
the atmosphere is another. Typically is is easier to construct materials 
which are stronger in one axis than any other.  A space elevator would 
have to be constructed of materials with incredible resiliance along all
force axes.

I thought the cheaper idea was a Sky-hook;  a earth-fixed cable which 
would be a tether to a station held tight by centrifical acceleration
many miles above a geosync orbit.  You could send infinite amounts of
stuff into space in small packages (and back, of course) in robot shuttles
which could ride the wire electrically or mechanically.  Re-entry
problems are eliminated as the shuttles can fall back to earth at a 
controlled rate, and living arrangements are simplified as the station
at the far end of the tether would have a minor gravity field.  Another
station at the geosync level would contain all the factories
and labs needed for manufacture of zero-gee products. And supposedly,
the zero-gee scientists could go "home" to the minor-gee station
every night and thus thwart the problems of null-g medical problems,
at least in part.

Sounds good, but Geo-sync is about 40,000 km from earth, and any cable
that long would have a significant elasticity problem.  On the other
hand, even if there was nothing else than a heavy weight on the end,
it would be a cheap and effective way to get tonnes of useful products
into space.

Any materials engineers know of a cable material and weave that could 
handle the stresses involved?  Expensive?


-- 
Mark Tilden: _-_-_-__--__--_      /(glitch!)  M.F.C.F Hardware Design Lab.
-_-___       |              \  /\/            U of Waterloo. Ont. Can, N2L-3G1
     |__-_-_-|               \/               (519) - 885 - 1211 ext.2454,
"MY OPINIONS, YOU HEAR!? MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!"

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 16:15:14 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <196@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes:
>Hey, even weathersat launches are IMPRESSIVE!  The only launches I've seen
>were a suborbital and a comsat... they were well worth seeing...

Take in a shuttle launch if you possibly can.  Seeing it in person is very
different from watching it on TV.  (I saw Challenger take LDEF and the Solar
Max repair mission up.)
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 16:16:56 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <167@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>: Arguments based on how expensive launches are *now* are fallacious; the
>: fundamental limits on launch costs are still orders of magnitude away.
>
>I respectfully disagree.  To me, arguments based on how expensive launches
>are *now* are quite germane to decisions about spending money *now*.

However, the context of the original message was about how silly all us
space cadets are about *ever* wanting to go into space ourselves, and how
it was *always* going to be ruinously expensive.  The word "now" did not
appear.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #14
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Oct 88 11:11:50 EDT
Received: by PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id <AA00566>; Sat, 8 Oct 88 05:19:06 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat,  8 Oct 88 05:19:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.EXHRpcy00UkT42B05L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.234ddc44.533270>;
          Sat,  8 Oct 88 05:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234ddaab.b483a>;
          Sat,  8 Oct 88 05:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct  8 88 05:04:11 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #15

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:
		 Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space)
			Let's go to the moon!
		       The Schneider Cup races
		 Re: Info about Soviet Space program
			 Re: info on Pegasus
		    Re: Space Station power supply
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 18:51:58 GMT
From: voder!pyramid!prls!philabs!ttidca!sorgatz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Avatar)
Subject: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space)

<< lineeater becomes ENLIGHTENED! You can see again! >>
In article <880920162558.15e@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
{bunch of good stuff deleted to save bandwidth}
>
>A recent poll showed that YES, Americans want a space station, YES, Americans
>want to go to the Moon, YES, Americans want to go to Mars, YES, Americans want
>to continue to be leaders in space, but NO, Americans do not want to pay for
>all this.  Actually, it didn't say that, rather it said that 38% believe the
>U.S. spends too much on space, 43% believe our spending is just right, and only
>17% believe we spend too little.  I believe this apparent discrepancy between
>desire to do and willingness to spend is due mainly to ignorance, partly to the
>Challenger incident and other scandals associated with the Orbiter program.
>
 Dale-Good points!  But I question where the available funds  are  going.
It  would  be  quite  interesting  to look at the breakdown of where the
money is spent.  I suspect that FAR too much of the NASA budget is spent
on   useless  paper-studies,  management  salaries,  lame-duck  junkets,
expense account lunches, and other non-essential items.  The  Challenger
disaster,  let's  not  forget,  is  the  result  of  Fuzzy-thinking at a
management level; can YOU name the *idiot* who was responsible?  Was  he
a  techie?  NO  WAY!  It's  time  for  a new direction in this area.  It
cannot be the Goal, it must be  the  method!  NASA  has  too  long  been
guilty  of  using "the old-boys-network" system of appointment, nepotism
and other highly suspect methods of filling those highly-paid positions.
We  need  to  return  to the pre-SkyLab days of the "PRIDE" program, and
other promotion-by-performance schemes to have real leadership at NASA.
 Given that a degree in Business, followed by an MBA is NOT the proper
qualification to decide things technical, it would make sense to me (and
to more than just a few people I know who have recently retired from the
NASA/Prime contractor scene!) that the current crop of NASA management
be culled of the "business-only" types, and the "High-$$" good-ole-boys,
(most of whom are NOT up on the state-of-the-art!) and start a program
of promotion from within the technical ranks. This way, the management
is truly capable of making tech decisions. Think about it!
-- 
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 07:09:10 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!eruby@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Earl C Ruby)
Subject: Let's go to the moon!

I know there are a lot of BBSers out there who are interested in space
exploration. We want NASA to launch more research missions, to see
private enterprise in space, to go where no man has gone before...
 
What can we do to see to it that the politicians who run this country
have the same vision? How can we persuade them to stop cutting NASA's
budget, and increase it instead? How can we get politicians to give
incentives to private companies who help to develop space?
 
These questions were going through my mind and I thought "Voting picks a
politician, not an issue. We have to make the politicians KNOW how we
feel. We have to MAKE SPACE DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH AN ISSUE. Make it as
big an issue as Reagan's War on Drugs."
 
To do this, we have to ACT, and the ACTION is a simple one. Simply
download this message as an ASCII file. SEND IT TO AS MANY BBSes AS YOU
CAN.  Then put it in your wordprocessor, chop everything above and below
the dotted line, select one or both of the candidates you want to write
to, and mail out the letter. You can alter the letter to fit your own
style and tastes, the important thing is to ACT! Mail the letter as soon
as possible. The sooner the politicians KNOW how we FEEL, the sooner they
can ACT.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Governor Michael S. Dukakis            Vice President George Bush
Dukakis Headquarters         <AND/OR>  c/o Republican National Committee
105 Chauney Street                     310 First Street SE
Boston, MA  02111                      Washington, D.C.  20003
 
Dear Mr. Dukakis/Bush:
 
I've heard a lot of campaign promises this election, but I haven't heard
one word about space exploration or NASA. NASA's budget has been cut and
cut again ever since men walked on the moon. This country built up an
incredible space exploration system during the 1960's. By the early 70's
we had the hardware to get us to any planet in the solar system, and then
we threw it all away for no good reason.
 
People used to say that space exploration was too expensive. That we
spent all of that money to get "a few moon rocks." Now they realize that
all of the money we've spent on space development has been repaid many,
many times. Weather satellites alone have saved enough lives and averted
enough property damage to pay for the entire space program. Microelec-
tronics, which were developed primarily for the space program, have given
us the entire modern computer and software industry.  Satellites allow us
to find scarce resources on our planet.
 
Speaking of resources, this planet's resources are divided among five
billion people. Some of these people are very rich, some poor. But even
the richest person on the planet only owns a portion of it. Now look up.
There are an infinite number of planets up there. Enough raw materials
and natural resources to make every person on this planet a billionaire.
And it's all just sitting there for the taking. This isn't a dream, we
can grab this wealth with today's technology, just ask your science
advisors if you don't believe me. But we must act now, before someone
else beats us to it.
 
Please think about what I've said. 1988 could be remembered as the year
that America recaptured space.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
<YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS>
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
If you're feeling especially productive, you can also send this letter to
your state and federal politicians. If you don't know their addresses,
call your local Voter Registration number. It's in the white pages under
County Government Offices.
 
If you want more ideas on how you can help to promote space development
send a long, self-addressed stamped envelope to:
 
FTL Technologies
P.O. Box 5378
Walnut Creek, CA  94596

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 13:31:45 GMT
From: dartvax!linus!marsh@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Ralph Marshall)
Subject: The Schneider Cup races

In article <1966@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes:
>
>Anyone else heard of the Schneider Trophy? This was a seaplane racing contest.
>Britain won it a few times, then the government pulled out. Fortunately, some
>rich individual put up enough cash to finance the Supermarine S6B, which went
>on to win the trophy outright. It also formed the basis for the Spitfire. Both
>were designed by R.J. Mitchell.
>
> Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs

	There is a pretty bad movie about the subject.  It stars (?)
David Niven and somebody else who was big at the time, and was made
in the 50s (terrible black and white picture).  The only saving grace
of the film is that it has some pretty slick footage of both the
Schneider Trophy races and the Spitfires that came out of it. (Mock ups
actually, but it seems pretty well done due to the recency of the events.) Not 
worth looking for (I got a tape from the local PBS people for sending
just $X/month), but not bad for a rainy Saturday afternoon when it comes
on channel 83.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Marshall (marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa)

Disclaimer:  Often wrong but never in doubt...  All of these opinions
are mine, so don't gripe to my employer if you don't like them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 04:45:55 GMT
From: ecsvax!ruslan@mcnc.org  (Robin C. LaPasha)
Subject: Re: Info about Soviet Space program

In article <1437@maccs.McMaster.CA>, gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan) writes:
> In response to the recent thread of messages asking about possible
> sources of information on the Soviet space program:
> 
> Victor Kamkin Bookstores in Rockville, Maryland carries an extensive
> selection of Soviet publications, mostly books but also some maps, LP
> records, etc.  They have a mail-order operation and publish regular
> (monthly?) catalogs.  I think they probably deal directly with Soviet
> publishing houses.  The vast majority of this stuff is in Russian, but
> a small percentage is English.  The subject material listed in the
> catalogs runs the gamut from literature and poetry to technical subjects.
> 
> I have no idea what material they may or may not have on the Soviet
> space program, but if anyone out there feels motivated enough, the phone
> numbers given on the catalog cover are
>   (301) 881-5973  (Rockville, MD)
>   (212) 673-0776  (New York, NY)
> --
>                  Gordan Palameta
>             uunet!ai.toronto.edu!utgpu!maccs!gordan

I went there about a month ago - certain titles may or may not
exist... The problem, again, is if you don't speak the 
language.

For those who do, I can say that the problem is that Kamkin's
doesn't always have the types of books available in
Moscow foreign currency stores: _Entsyklopediia kosmonavtika_
and _Kosmonavtika SSSR_ - that one with lots of
color pictures (and a high price.)  I looked through Kamkin's
stacks (and stacks, and stacks) for stuff, but all I found
was:

Volumes 2B (?) and 3 of - some circa 1975 set on Space...
Biology and Medicine... - the really wild thing is that although
this incomplete eset was printed in the USSR, in Russian, it
was the Russian/Soviet edition of a set _also_ jointly printed
in English by NASA (this info from the inside covers and preface.)
At least I think it was NASA, otherwise one of those Technical
Info government presses... So, although the info is on
space medicine/bio, and is extremely dated, they did get together
to publish what they had to that point in one big set (in
the Russian edition, it was 3 vols. including a volume that
consisted of 2 separate books...).  
Does anybody know more about the US edition?

Again, other than that, I couldn't find anything useful.
A few biographies of Gagarin, that sort of thing...  
And I was looking.

Hope you have more luck than I did - if you get something
in Russian, I'd like to hear about it.
Robin LaPasha
ruslan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
Disclaimer - I'm a regular customer there, that's it.
(BTW - yes, I believe these days Kamkin's is the sole US
importer of Soviet books.  And ouch - glasnost' really
knocks the prices up a bit from what they used to be.)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 17:04:12 GMT
From: att!whuts!sw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (WARMINK)
Subject: Re: info on Pegasus

In article <69410@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
> orbital launch system.  Can you say convergent evolution?  (It is

I wish people would stop saying "Can you say ...". I'm sure I'm not the
only one who finds this condescending, and therefore likely to cause offense.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all statisticians were laid end to end    |  Stuart Warmink, NAPC
across the Atlantic, 99% would drown     :-) |  <att>!whuts!sw Whippany NJ USA
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 12:41:25 GMT
From: steinmetz!nuke!oconnor@itsgw.rpi.edu  (Dennis M. O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Space Station power supply

An article by pritch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Norm Pritchett) says:
] In article <...> allsop@watacs.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Allsop) writes:
] # In addition AC is safer. High tension DC creates two problems:
] #
] #      1) Unidirectional magnetic fields.
] #      2) The "grab-hold" effect if a person touches a bare wire.
]
] AC is also safer in that as the frequency of a power signal increases,
] it has a greater tendency to travel close to your skin rather than
] through your internal organs.  This lessens the chance of fatality
] should one come in contact with a live wire.
] -- 
] Norm Pritchett, The Ohio State University College of Engineering

  You guys are close to the mark, but slightly off. I'll bet AC was
  INDEED selected for the S-Station because for safety, but for an
  even better reason than you've given :

  With AC, you can't destroy your equipment by plugging it in backwards.

  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)
  ( Yes I know about Hot vs. Grnd in home-AC, but this is humor. )
--
 Dennis O'Connor   oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP  ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa
    "Never confuse USENET with something that matters, like PIZZA."

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 13:08:36 GMT
From: dartvax!linus!marsh@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Ralph Marshall)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <1331@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
>The argument that we need humans in space because of our "innate drive
>to explore" and our "quest for adventure" is interesting, but it leads
>to two questions:
>
>1. What's left to explore in the process of delivering communications
>satellites to earth orbit? Or in sitting in earth orbit for month after
>month, looking out the window and occasionally pushing a few buttons?
>
	Delivering comsats is obviously not the leading edge of space
exploration.  However, it once was, and that is an important thing to
remember.  What is now viewed as a relatively routine business decision
used to be televised on national TV.  One of MY personal goals for seeing
people in space is to expand the range of space activities that are
considered routine business.  I like NASA, but the US taxpayer is never
going to put large orbiting or Lunar space-stations up when they don't
see some purpose.  Businesspeople might be willing to, but as long as we
have an unreliable access to space for any people who might be needed to
take advantage of the manufacturing, research, etc. that business is going
to try to make a buck at it is too cutting edge for an operation that has
to report to the shareholders each quater.

>2. Why is it so absolutely necessary for humans to actually enter space
>in order to explore it?
>
>While I don't want to belittle those who eulogized the Challenger
>astronauts, I must say that all their talk about "seven people reaching
>for the stars" seemed just a bit much when the primary purpose of the
>mission was a routine communications satellite deployment.  Somehow it
>would have seemed a bit more appropriate if they really *were* engaged
>in exploration. If they were on their way to Mars, for example.
>
	Laying groundwork for the mission to Mars (which is of questionable
value when we don't even have the foundation ready, but thats another
story all together) includes things like running lots of Shuttle trips
to get the kinks worked out.  The actual cargoes may not have much to
do with the exploration aspect, but we have to get the Shuttle (or some
other lift vehicle) working, and if the comsat owners want to pay for
the missions (at least the successful ones) while NASA improves the
reliability, I have no complaints.

>Perhaps I'm strange, but in early January 1986 I had a much stronger
>sense of anticipation and "quest for adventure" about the imminent
>Voyager flyby of Uranus than I did for STS-51L.
>
	Don't you ever want to see HUMANS flying by Uranus ? I agree that
we are a long way from that, but the Solar system is an immensely interesting
place, and it can't all be explored by Jeep Wranglers with space suits and
AI control units.  I agree that unmanned space science is very important,
and should not be sacrificed to the goal of getting science lessons from
orbit.  However, the Hubble Space Telescope was deliberately designed
to take ADVANTAGE of the fact that humans could come up every once in a
while and plug in new sensors, power packs, game cartridges, whatever n
needs to be done in the way of regular maintenance and upgrades.

>Phil

	The point of the above has been that sitting on the ground
b*tching about how screwed up our priorities are, or that manned 
programs are a drain on our limited resources, does not qualify as
constructive criticism.  I agree with you that we look pretty lost
right now, and that NASA has inherent problems that makes it unlikely
that they will ever do everything right, but it's not ALL screwed up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Marshall (marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa)

Disclaimer:  Often wrong but never in doubt...  All of these opinions
are mine, so don't gripe to my employer if you don't like them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #15
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Oct 88 10:11:23 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03705> for SPACE@nyu.edu; Sun, 9 Oct 88 03:33:02 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun,  9 Oct 88 03:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.4XHlMfy00jZdIC805o@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.234f09f6.73a1c2>;
          Sun,  9 Oct 88 02:41:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.234ef4d5.5f7275>;
          Sun,  9 Oct 88 01:10:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234eea92.3928f0>;
          Sun,  9 Oct 88 00:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, Oct  9 88 00:19:20 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #16

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Promoting space (Let's go to the moon!)
	   Request answered, but brings up small problem...
		      Re: Naming the new Shuttle
    NASA Management (was Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space))
Re: Mars Rover (Re: was Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.)
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
	    Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)
	    Re: Australian Aborigines (was Survey Results)
		 Re: where should all the people go?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 18:16:36 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Promoting space (Let's go to the moon!)

In article <4091@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> eruby@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Earl C Ruby) writes:
>What can we do to see to it that the politicians who run this country
>have the same vision? How can we persuade them to stop cutting NASA's
>budget, and increase it instead? How can we get politicians to give
>incentives to private companies who help to develop space?

I have to stop doing this, too many postings....
The other evening, I was having dinner with our Project's "Chief Scientist,"
who is also a "Distinguished Laboratory Fellow" at LLNL where he used
to develop H-bombs.  A physicist, he has also been called to Congress
for his knowledge about computing (5th Gen and super),
and used to program on the Univac I.  He too is a space emphiast.
I brought up the topic of Sputnik and 1958.  It was his opinion that
the political kneejerk solution in 1958 was the wrong one.  He said
to attack the problem at that high a level attracts the wrong type of
money/development interests (he's done on businesmen and politicans).
He is very anti-greed as well as anti-big government.

What you must do is not convince the politicans, but convince your
fellow man (woman), to seek an interest in space.  Businesses
should consider the market on their own (or from competitive pressure).

Space must become an everyday thing.  (It has to a degree, a week
before Gilbert hit, I was thinking under my breath, maybe we should
now stop the weather images, and let it hit, unfortunately it
hit Mexico), we would have learned how fragile our understanding
of the world is.  I learned the realities that not everyone likes
space in 1970, 9th grade, when I had a space debate. (Got tons
and tons of paper from NASA) 3 in 30 were willing to debate
in favor.  Our society must learn to live with its consequences.
If we fall behind another country in economy, so be it.  The problem
is a politican can't lead the American people where they don't want
to go.  You have to change your fellow man: speak in public,
write letters, elect leaders not just managers.  Have to good, crisis mode.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 17:43:08 GMT
From: sunybcs!fredonia!grig8348@rutgers.edu  (LoyEllen Griggs)
Subject: Request answered, but brings up small problem...

Hi.

Thanks to those who responded to my questions on putting a lab in orbit and
defending it.  The figures all came in around $200-250 Million, cheaper if
I go by commercial or foreign launch.  The overwhelming advice was to go
Soviet.  On the satellite, it was pointed out that it is better to destroy
an incoming missile than divert it, although diversion is possible.

A very serious problem was introduced--that of debris placed in the path
of the station.  The idea for the lab includes some maneuverability on its 
own, but it's not very fast.  Can anyone recommend a good defense against
such debris?  A surrounding plate (outer wall) will already protect the 
station, how thick and what would it have to be made of to deflect, say,
small pieces of metal?

To those who were interested in the book itself, it is a full-length novel
written in sections (like the Martian Chronicles).  I don't want to give
the plot away completely, but it's structured around six brats (gifted
children now in their early twenties) who steal a bio-science lab and run 
away with it.  Where do they go?  Does their own government shoot them down?  
Why do they do it?  There is a good reason.

Well, it will be published hopefully sometime next year.  I would like to 
call it _The Cosmos Six_ if I can get permission from Carl Sagan.  The 
technical information has been in the collection stage for several years
now; these last few questions will add not only theoretical but practical
realism. (I strive for this.)

Once again, thanks, and I'd appreciate any more comments.


-- 
                      '. .`           
LoyEllen                _    
SUNY @ Fredonia                          ...decvax!sunybcs!fredonia!grig8348
"Randy's working on any thoughts he might have..."

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 17:22:51 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle

In article <Added.UXC=Jey00Ui3E1Rk8P@andrew.cmu.edu>, wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
> Actually, since the Space Station is now named "Fred", the new shuttle
> should be named "Wilma"....   

In honor of the opening space scenes of _2001_,
these names really ought to be swapped!

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 17:08:21 GMT
From: forsight!ragnarok!roston@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Gerry Roston)
Subject: NASA Management (was Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space))

In article <3208@ttidca.TTI.COM> sorgatz@ttidcb.tti.com (Erik Sorgatz - Avatar) writes:
>In article <880920162558.15e@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
>...that the current crop of NASA management
>be culled of the "business-only" types, and the "High-$$" good-ole-boys,
>(most of whom are NOT up on the state-of-the-art!) and start a program
>of promotion from within the technical ranks. This way, the management
>is truly capable of making tech decisions. Think about it!
>

Don't let my bosses see this, but I agree 150%.  NASA (and I am using JPL
as an example, and we're probably not as bad as main-stream NASA) is extremely
over managed.  It seems that for a group of 3-5 techies, there is a very
low level manager, who reports to a manager, and so on.  There is also
line management, which is not to be confused with project management.
There was a situation here where a person's boss reported to him for
a particular project!

As to the waste of money, we seem to spend a great deal of our effort
preparing demos and viewgraphs to justify our existance (and get money
for more viewgraphs, etc) than actually producing product.  Furthermore,
we are required to use large portions of our money to give out contracts
to outside vendors and (no insult intended) what comes back is usually
so bad it isn't used, or we never planned to use it in the first place.

To give a numerical example of how bad things really are, assume that we
(JPL, not the project) receives $1M for a project.  JPL takes $500K off
the top for burden (actually, this is less than at other places, but
there are reasons that I won't discuss here).  Then management says that
we must contract out $250K.  The company that gets this takes off their
overhead, say $150K (remember, JPL's 50% is low), leaving them $100K to
do the work.  Now, here at JPL, a person is needed (half time?) to monitor
the contract, say $50K.  So how much of the $1M is really being used for
work: $100K (contractor) + $200K (left at JPL) = $300K or only 30% of the
original investment.  No wonder taxes are high, and schedules seem to
slip.

As to geting rid of the "business-only" types and the "High-$$" good-ole-boys,
you can forget it!  Who actually controls things; not the techies, but
the above mentioned bozos.  They also control congress, and have proven 
to be extrememly good as self perpetuation, if nothing else!

Now, please don't get me wrong.  I am working on a testbed vehicle to test
vision and navigation algorithms for the Mars Rover project, and I enjoy
my work a great deal; but that's because we have been sucessful so far 
in avoiding politics.  However, in my 3 1/2 years here, including 2 spent
with the NASA telerobot project, I have become quite disillusioned with
the way things are done.




gerry roston, robotic systems research group
jet propulsion laboratory, 4800 oak grove drive, m/s 23
pasadena, california, 91109
(818) 354-9124  (818) 354-6508

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 15:32:58 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Mars Rover (Re: was Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.)

In article <95@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> roston@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov (Gerry Roston) writes:
>Since I am heavily involved in the Mars Rover project under way at JPL, I will
>try, withmy slanted bias, to respond to Bob's question.  I think that
>it must be realized that the mobility of a properly designed roving
>vehicle far surpasses that of a thrust fired lander.  The vehicle is
>able to negotiate terrain that's inaccessible to a lander, can maneveur
>itself into more interestiong positions, etc.

Hey! Hold it a minute. I wasn't suggesting for a moment some
kind of rocket propelled Mars hopper instead of a Mars Rover.

Of course a Rover is far superior to fixed landing sites.

I was just noting that by using re-ignitable retro rockets
and adding a few pounds of propellant, a lander could
examine more than one site. You might even have some control
over secondary landing site. How many "interesting" places
were there in the Viking photographs that geologists would
have liked to examine more closely, but were out of reach?
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 19:38:02 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <1988Sep22.161656.13043@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
: However, the context of the original message was about how silly all us
: space cadets are about *ever* wanting to go into space ourselves, and how
: it was *always* going to be ruinously expensive.  The word "now" did not
: appear.

Ah, the wonderful perils of entering a conversation in the middle :-).

Seriously, though, I believe anyone who thinks access to space will *always*
be ruinously expensive has a low opinion of humans.  Especially in light of
the fact that the time from Kitty Hawk to Tranquility Base was a single
lifetime.

On the other foot, I do have strong reservations regarding the wisdom of the 
U.S.'s massive expenditures on the manned space program.  It seems to me to 
be inefficient, unnecessarily risky (e.g. launch pressures & public opinion) 
and (just possibly) counter-productive in the long run.  I would much rather
see what I consider to be a more balanced approach -- with more scientific
applications and international cooperation -- than the current situation
in which the manned program becomes a sink for money while unmanned projects 
languish for lack of it.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 21:39:25 GMT
From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)

By funny coincidence, I was reading about the decay of Phobos just this
morning.  The "proof" of the extremely low density of Phobos was a way
of showing that atmospheric drag could not be the cause of its decay.
The Russian author went on to suggest, with tongue firmly planted in
cheek, that it was actually hollow, and built by spacefaring Martians!

It was later shown quite conclusively that tidal effects are the actual
cause.  The orbit of Phobos will continue to decay over the next 100
million years or so until it hits Mars.

The best Mars story I've seen to date appeared as the headline on one of
the tabloids last week. NINE MILE HIGH STATUE OF ELVIS ON MARS, it said,
or something like that. "ALL SHOOK UP" HEARD ON MARTIAN RADIO.

I was laughing so hard I almost dropped my groceries on the floor.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 18:02:12 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!cam-cl!scc@uunet.uu.net  (Stephen Crawley)
Subject: Re: Australian Aborigines (was Survey Results)

This is little to do with space anymore.  Please respect the redirection 
for followups:

> > [Stuff about going into space to make the universe a better place]

> Make the universe a better place?!  Better than what?  Better for whom?
> [...] I'm beginning to have a sort of Luddite affinity for the ways of 
> the original Australians.

I approve of this sentiment, but ...

> For forty thousand years the Australians believed that they were the
> caretakers of nature, that it was their prayers for the flora and fauna 
> of the Earth that kept everything going.  In forty thousand years the
> Australians never invented the wheel, never built a monument to themselves,
> neither did they pollute a single stream, nor desecrate a single acre 
> of land.
> 	If the Australians disappeared tomorrow, there would be scarcely 
> a sign they had ever existed. 

Very lyrical, but not factually correct. 

While the first Australians did indeed take very good care of the environment
it is wrong to think that they have not left their mark.  

[This next bit is remembered (possibly inaccurately) from scientific 
 literature I read some time ago ...]

1)  The arrival in Australia of the Aborigines has been associated with some 
notable changes in the Australian prehistoric environment.  Paleontological 
evidence indicates that a number of large marsupial species became extinct at 
that time.  For example, the Thylacine (or tasmanian tiger) is a native 
marsupial carnivore about the size of a medium sized dog, whose fossil remains 
are often found in caves.  Recent research has shown that the appearance of 
human remains in caves on the mainland as the aborigines gradually spread from 
the north to the south can be correlated with the disappearance of the remains 
of Thylacine.  The Thylacine became extinct on the mainland many 1000's of 
years before the arrival of europeans.  It is believed that what caused their 
extinction was actually competition with Dingos that were introduced in the 
2nd wave of Aboriginal immigration. The Thylacine still existed in Tasmania 
until about 50 years ago; the Tasmanian aborigines (first wave ... also 
extinct as a race!) did not have Dingoes.

2)  In parts of mainland Australia, aborigines are known to have regularly
started bushfires to keep the undergrowth in check.  Removal of the scrub
made it easier to hunt large animals (roos and emus) with spears.  (It also
made natural bushfires less destructive, but that is another issue.)

3)  I don't think that the concepts of "prayer" or "worship" can be
meaningfully applied to the aboriginal customs and folklore.  Even the 
term "religion" seems inappropriate.

-- Steve

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 88 02:52:37 GMT
From: phri!cooper!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <1889@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes:
>	i don't think this is an 'excuse' to go into space -- the
>	reasons for space exploration go beyond the avoidance of
>	Malthusian disaster here on Earth...  but that's one good reason.

The fallacy is assuming that putting people into space will in any
way *reduce* the number here on Earth.  Exactly how many people were
you contemplating dragging into space?  Three billion or so?  Even if
you could, what happens to the two billion remaining?  They probably
reproduce to fill the gap within a few decades; then what?
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #16
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Oct 88 06:47:31 EDT
Received: by po5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id <AA00473>; Sun, 9 Oct 88 06:13:05 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun,  9 Oct 88 06:12:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.0XHnYLy00Vs1I1d05Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.234f2c31.2591eb>;
          Sun,  9 Oct 88 05:07:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234f1181.76f931>;
          Sun,  9 Oct 88 03:13:08 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, Oct  9 88 03:03:18 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #17

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
NASA announces National Space Science Student proposal winners (Forwarded)
   Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)
		      Re: Smart ones at the top
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
	     Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)
	    Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)
			  Sky-Hook Problems.
			  Re: Survey Results
		      Re: Naming the new Shuttle
		       Re: How do we get there?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 22:25:41 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA announces National Space Science Student proposal winners (Forwarded)

Terri Sindelar                                  
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  

Shelagh Lane
National Science Teachers Assoc., Wash., D.C.

RELEASE:  88-131

NASA ANNOUNCES NATIONAL SPACE SCIENCE STUDENT PROPOSAL WINNERS

     NASA and the National Science Teachers Association held the 8th 
annual Space Science Student Involvement Program (SSIP) competition 
in Washington, D.C., the week of Sept. 17-21.  The national SSIP 
winners were in three competition categories:  Space Station 
proposal; student newspaper promotion; and aerospace internship.  

     In the national Space Station proposal competition, seven 
regional winners presented proposals to the selection panel on Sept. 
19.  Selected from over 900 proposals, the following are the three 
national scholarship recipients, their proposals and awards:

     First Place:  John C. Marschhausen, Glastonbury, Conn.  
Topic:  "Detrimental Loss of Calcium Due to Microgravity."  His 
proposal states that high calcium diets, toe spring treadmills and 
new pharmaceutical developments could be used to remedy the hazard 
of calcium loss during space flight.  He was awarded a scholarship 
of $3,000 and an Apple computer of his choice.  

     Second Place:  Kartik A. Parekh, Los Angeles, Calif.  Topic:  
"Effect of Space Environment on the Proliferation of Resting, 
Activated and Malignant T-(213) Lymphocytes."  The proposal examines 
the effects of rapid and repeating T-lymphocyte cell division in 
space.  This information could shed light not only on the mechanisms 
governing cell division, e.g. in cancer, but also on their role in 
the regulation of human immune functions.  Parekh was awarded a 
scholarship of $2,000 and an Apple computer of his choice.

     Third Place:  P. Martin Johnson, Baton Rouge, La.  Topic:  
"Frogs in Space:  The Growing and Muscular Training of Rana Pipens 
in a Weightless Environment."  The frogs would be exercised, using 
electrical stimuli, on nautilus-type machines to study the effects 
of weightlessness on the frog's main jumping muscle, the rectus 
femoris.  Johnson was awarded a scholarship of $1,000 and an Apple 
computer of his choice.


     The selection panelists for the Space Station proposals were 
Dr. John-David Bartoe, chief scientist, Office of Space Station, 
NASA Headquarters; Donna Bartoe, technical management assistant, 
Office of Space Station, NASA Headquarters; Michael Weiss, flight 
systems manager, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.; 
and Sister Mary Carol McCaffrey, biology teacher at Mount St. Joseph 
Academy, Slaughtertown, Pa., and SSIP Region VIII director.

     In addition to the Space Station proposal winners, three 
national student winners in the student newspaper competition and 
the aerospace internship competition were honored during the 
NASA/NSTA National Space Science Symposium.

     The national student newspaper award winner is DeAnne M. Nevis, 
Lambert, Mont.  Her article was titled "Hey Student! It's Your 
Chance to Get SPACY!"  She was awarded a $500 scholarship.

     The two national aerospace internship award winners will each 
spend one week at a NASA research facility interacting with 
scientists and engineers involved in wind tunnel or zero gravity 
facility programs.  The two winners and their proposals are:  Eliah 
D. Novin, Sherman Oaks, Calif.  Topic:  "Control Surface Testing on 
a Forward Sweep Prototype Aircraft."  Kenneth L. Riley, Akron, 
Ohio.  Topic:  "Measurement of Tensile Strength on Pure Water."

     A team of four Eau Claire, Wisc. students was acknowledged  for 
winning a SSIP pilot project involving a statewide competition to 
design and plan the first permanent manned colony on Mars.  This 
pilot is the third annual statewide competition for Wisconsin 
students.  The "Destination Mars" proposal consisted of three 
parts:  societal elements (international cooperation, financing, 
crew composition), engineering plan (habitat structure, human 
support systems, power sources, waste and water management) and 
scientific purpose and results (human effects and environmental 
research).  The students from Memorial High School include Steven 
Fredrickson, Jonathan Menard, Tristan Utschig, Joseph Wilson III and 
the teacher/advisor is Roger E. Sahs.

     The objective of the SSIP competition is to stimulate interest 
in science and technology by directly involving students in a space 
or aeronautics research program.  Since 1980, approximately 2.5 
million students have used the space science program materials in 
classrooms and over 15,000 students have submitted proposals.

     Entry materials for the 1988-89 SSIP program may be obtained by 
writing the National Science Teachers Association, 1742 Connecticut 
Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 20:09:11 GMT
From: att!whuts!sw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (WARMINK)
Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)

In article <484@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM>, johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
> (.....) but why not remove the oxidizer from the
> old segments and put it into the new ones?  

The oxidiser is mixed with the other components of the fuel into a liquid
mixture. This liquid is then left to solidify in the appropriate shape for 
each segment. Extracting the oxidiser from this hard, rubber-based mixture 
is probably more difficult (if at all possible) than starting from scratch.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all statisticians were laid end to end    |  Stuart Warmink, NAPC
across the Atlantic, 99% would drown     :-) |  <att>!whuts!sw Whippany NJ USA
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 17:49:08 GMT
From: eachus@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA  (Robert Eachus)
Subject: Re: Smart ones at the top

In article <590864285.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

>If they are really smart, they create a less rigid structure after they
>get invert the layer cake. More typically they simply replace the old
>layer with their own and continue the same oppressive game. The
>overthrow of the Czars by the Communists is a classic example.

     A classic example, but wrong.  It's amazing how many people don't
know the details of this.  (Maybe not, given  the amount of effort the
Soviets have put into  rewriting history.)  The  NILISTS overthrew the
Czar (in   May).    The  Menchiveks   tried to  set   up  a democratic
government, which was overthrown by the Bolshiveks (Lenin and friends)
in  October (Gregorian calenadar).   There  followed  several years of
fighting between  the  "Red" Russians and   the "White" Russians.  The
United States and several other countries even sent troops to help the
White Russians, but these were "withdrawn" leading  to the collapse of
the White armies and victory for the Communists.

     Many of the worst elements  of the Czar's government became  part
of the government installed by the "October Revolution", including the
secret police...

					Robert I. Eachus

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 88 16:09:11 GMT
From: att!icus!dasys1!tneff@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <1988Sep19.222139.14477@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <6523@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>Using the thermodynamics curve as an excuse for going into space is
>>just silly.  No matter what happens vis a vis human exploration of
>>space, the T-curve here on Earth is going to keep going right on up...
>
>Note that one need not have mass movement of people into space for a
>space-based civilization to have major positive effects on Earth.  The
>population transfer from Europe to the Americas was relatively minor,
>yet there have been a lot of side effects.  Economic expansion in space
>is likely to be much more significant than population transfer.

There will certainly be major effects, some of which will be positive,
but will there be any *thermodynamic* benefit?  I doubt it -- so long
as Earth-based population continues to grow, technological improvements
and new supplies of energy and raw materials will only tend to drive
the T-curve upward.  After all, one of the "positive effects" of New
World expansion on Europe was to fuel the Industrial Revolution, which
blackened the skies for the first time.  (Not to mention giving us
Marx.)




-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 16:48:08 GMT
From: phri!cooper!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)

Space is big alright, but the locus of trajectories it's economical
to reach from Earth on a regular basis is vastly less so.  I'm sure LEO
looked "big" to mission designers in the 50's too.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 04:59:20 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)

In article <3063@pt.cs.cmu.edu> kck@g.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>... a calculation by a Soviet astronomer
>that the decay of Phobos' orbit due to air drag indicates 
>that it has a density about 0.001 that of water, and hence
>may be a hollow artifact...  Does anyone know of
>more recent follow up calculations that would set all our
>minds at ease?

Fraid so.  The claim of abnormally high deceleration due to air drag was
never terribly widely accepted, and has been fairly thoroughly disproven
by more careful study.  False alarm.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 15:51:08 GMT
From: asuvax!nud!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!mwtilden@noao.edu  (M.W.Tilden, Hardware)
Subject: Sky-Hook Problems.


I have a question.  Can anybody provide a statistical value for the
number of orbiting body hits an area could expect over time?  That is,
sum all the time spent in space by various craft through the years,
take an average of thier cross-sectional areas and the number of times
something hit them.  Come up with a value of percentage hits/meter^2/year 
or something.

It's to decide if a 1 meter x 50,000 km space cable (length approximate)
would have very much to worry about from orbiting objects too small 
to be detected by radar (large objects could be detected and the cable
simply moved).  I suggest a simple sheath which would deflect the 
impact force around the cable and be very easy to repair, but if the
above value is too high, or orbiting bodies tend to fly around in groups,
then a re-think is required.

Anybody have a database of relevant statistics?



-- 
Mark Tilden: _-_-_-__--__--_      /(glitch!)  M.F.C.F Hardware Design Lab.
-_-___       |              \  /\/            U of Waterloo. Ont. Can, N2L-3G1
     |__-_-_-|               \/               (519) - 885 - 1211 ext.2454,
"MY OPINIONS, YOU HEAR!? MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!"

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 16:58:28 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Survey Results

In article <880921091941.251@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
>	For forty thousand years the Australians believed that they were the
>caretakers of nature, that it was their prayers for the flora and fauna of the
>Earth that kept everything going.  In forty thousand years the Australians
>never invented the wheel, never built a monument to themselves, neither did
>they pollute a single stream, nor desecrate a single acre of land.

Um, have you ever studied how they actually lived, in detail?  I got a bit
of this in an otherwise-boring "breadth requirement" undergrad course.
When you dump the romanticism and stop confusing religion with reality,
the fact is that the Australians -- and other primitive societies -- are
sometimes just as casual about nature as we are, but they lack the *means*
to do really serious damage to their environment.

(In places where they have the means to do damage, sometimes they do.)

>	We should be as good at taking care of the universe as they were at
>taking care of their continent.

Does this mean leaving the universe -- most of which is barren, blasted
desert, more thoroughly lifeless than the Sahara -- in its natural state?
Or are we allowed to do awful things like spreading life into the wasteland?

Do remember, too, that the Australians haven't done too good a job of taking
care of their continent in the last century or two.  Their way of life was
low-key enough that it didn't disturb the status quo very much, but it also
left them unable to respond effectively when the status quo changed for
other reasons -- which was inevitable, sooner or later.  Mother Nature is
not (consistently) our friend; now and then she throws bricks at us.  Being
able to catch them is definitely an advantage.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 22:20:30 GMT
From: amdcad!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle

In article <Added.UXC=Jey00Ui3E1Rk8P@andrew.cmu.edu>, wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
> Actually, since the Space Station is now named "Fred", the new shuttle
> should be named "Wilma"....   

Actually, i think we decided that its name should start with a "B".  I still
like "Beagle", but "Barney" is probably more consistent.  Anybody know if
there was a research vehicle named "Barnabas", "Barnacle", "Barnard",
"Barndoor", or the like?  We should probably avoid "Bam-Bam".


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 18:03:01 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: How do we get there?

In article <QXBlL3y00XoI0JfGx0@andrew.cmu.edu> js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes:
>...What systems would a start-up company propose?

Startup companies have proposed an immense variety of systems.

>How much would it cost to found one? Are they economically feasable?

How much have you got?  You'll need more. :-)  So far, private spaceflight
has not been a big money-maker.  There doesn't seem to be any fundamental
reason why it can't be, but right now it's definitely a high-risk investment.
This may change if a few of the current private-launch companies actually
manage to succeed.

>    A laser launching system which pulses a beam into a chamber on a rocket
>at 250cps. The atmosphere in the ship will be heated, expand, and go down and
>out, pushing the rocket upwards. It would cost ~8 billion bucks to get it going.

Less.  See the work being done now at Lawrence Livermore on laser launchers.
There are still a lot of open questions to be resolved, though.  One hassle
is that some important work on things like beam-directing optics is just a
wee bit classified right now.

>        An elevator built of Sinclair monofillament (or some such thing) so
>that we merely press 'up' and away we go. Do we have the technology to
>construct such a thing so that it won't collapse under its own weight?

The big problem is stronger materials.  The situation is a lot better than
it was five years ago, however.  At the moment, it looks excessively
difficult rather than totally preposterous.

>        Solar Power Satellites and commerical energy sales from them.

The launch-cost problem really has to be solved (or at least reduced)
first.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #17
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Oct 88 10:07:11 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01385>; Sun, 9 Oct 88 10:35:10 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun,  9 Oct 88 10:35:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.EXHrYIy00jZdQ58U5f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.234f62c2.9b91fc>;
          Sun,  9 Oct 88 08:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.234f44d0.c191f2>;
          Sun,  9 Oct 88 06:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.234f2dce.d78960>;
          Sun,  9 Oct 88 05:13:54 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, Oct  9 88 05:03:32 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #18

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)
		      Re: Let's go to the moon!
	      NASA Management (garbled in transmission)
			Space Policy Institute
		  Anybody going to watch Discovery?
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		       Re: SPACE Digest V8 #372
	       Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)
	       Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space)
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
			Re: Sky-Hook Problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 17:18:48 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)

In article <1110022@hpfclm.HP.COM>, myers@hpfclm.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
> Alan, could you please post or e-mail your calculations?  I'm not sure, but
> I *thought* that we *received* normal TV *from* the moon, not to long ago,
> with a heckuva lot lower ERP at the transmitter.  Granted, the receiving    
> antennas were pretty good-sized, but you didn't need Arecibo to pick it up.
> For that matter, how do the signals from the Voyager probes stack up against
> your calculations?  It's not "normal" TV, but I seem to recall some fairly
> decent data rates.  

Well, first of all those moonwalk shows came from a Hollywood sound studio,
the same one that filmed all those Holocaust photos after WWII ;-)))))).

Seriously, the difference is that the Apollo astronoauts and our
uncrewed space probes *transmit* thru directional antennas which
beam most of their energy at Earth.  (They also receive thru
them, as the Russians were reminded last week :-( ).

But broadcast radio and TV stations, by definition, do not concentrate
their signals in narrow beams, but let them spread out pretty
much in a circle.  Thus the signal weakens rapidly.

It's like the difference between a naked 60-watt bulb and
a one-watt flashlight -- if you know exactly where to look
in the dark, which do you choose to use?

BTW, you might be able to receive Earth TV broadcasts on the
Moon, but only from stations at the apparent edge of the Earth,
such that an observer at the station would see the Moon rising
or setting.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 88 05:31:55 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!rtech!hoptoad!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Let's go to the moon!

In article <4091@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> eruby@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Earl C Ruby) writes:
>...To do this, we have to ACT, and the ACTION is a simple one. Simply
>download this message as an ASCII file. SEND IT TO AS MANY BBSes AS YOU
>CAN.  Then put it in your wordprocessor, chop everything above and below
>the dotted line, select one or both of the candidates you want to write
>to, and mail out the letter...

Sigh.  No, no, no!  Write it in your own words; DO NOT just fiddle a bit
with a standard text.  Politicians' assistants get lots of practice at
spotting organized letter-writing campaigns.  Letters that are obviously
mass-produced are counted by a flunky, not read by the politician.  One
thoughtful, polite, reasonable individually-written letter will have far
more impact than a dozen rubber-stamped ones.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

From: Eugene Miya
Subject: NASA Management (garbled in transmission)

d so on.  There is also
>line management, which is not to be confused with project management.
>There was a situation here where a person's boss reported to him for
>a particular project!

Ah, the Lab's Matrix Management.  This is actually supposed to be there for
YOUR benefit!  And if you believe that, I have this Bridge occasionally
above water in Florida....  See the problem is like this. You are a
good engineer, you may or may not want to be a manager (some do well).
Suppose you don't.  How do you get promoted?  The problem is business
management has a nice hierarchy to give you more pay, etc.  The sciences
don't have this.  Tenure is not a good analogy.  So they give you
an alternative: hence the matrix.  This is a problem of Government
as well.  Consider a friend: she has a PhD in physics: a GS-13.
They want to promote her to a GS-14, but she does not want to manage,
fine, but most 14s manage (Branch chiefs ~~ to JPL Group Sup.).
If I had stayed at the Lab and climbed "the Ladder," I'd probably
be a Group Sup.). Instead I'm with a bunch of "wild men" (I've my
flops today), running Renegade, "God what did you do this time?!"
climbing down the ladder. It's great!  There are elements at Ames who
believe that I and the others around me are loose cannons. ;-).

>As to the waste of money, we seem to spend a great deal of our effort
>preparing demos and viewgraphs to justify our existance (and get money

As an ex-demo/viewgrapher I can agree.  See below your comment
about disillusionment.

>To give a numerical example of how bad things really are,

I remember planning University (note U, note this State) budgets:
$50K per person.  JPL was $100K per son (1980$).

>As to geting rid of the "business-only" types and the "High-$$" good-ole-boys,
>you can forget it!  Who actually controls things; not the techies, but
>the above mentioned bozos.  They also control congress, and have proven 
>to be extrememly good as self perpetuation, if nothing else!

The problem is not unique to NASA or the Government, try Detroit,
Los Angeles, New York.  Consider a friend John B.: MS Math UC,
space craft communications controller.  Leaves JPL. Joins the firm
in Downey.  He is paid $40K a year 1980, to read comic books and
sci fi novels to find new applications of the Shuttle.  He is part
of a marketing team.  The problem is we have to "sell" space.

NASA encounters its share of $500 seats.  I need an RS-232 cable for a
terminal.  The maker of "small nice Blue boxes" wants $120.  I petty cash
at Byte Shop $20.  No names now.

>I have become quite disillusioned with the way things are done.

1) I CAN tell you to stick with it (I have). Don't have to on my account,
I'm a cynic (see below). [If you get that disillusioned, FTS me in 2 wks.]

2) If you don't, there's literally hundreds others (not reading this)
who will take your job.  That's how projects burn up people.
It's seen as a sacrifice.
This is also how astronauts and projects are weeded out. (evolution
pardons to SJG).  At one time I thought this was an A*hole-ish view
(Very strong), now I am not so sure.  Budgets are very limited.
Many plans are placed forward (viewgraphs).  Most turned down.
Next year, say 90% come back, then 80% etc. Titan Sounder is a good
example.  How many more "interesting" projects have to either die
or get completed before doing it.  Suppose I have a competing
Europa Lander.  Your budget works against mine, so I must do what I
can to pass my budget over yours (Look, I'm closer: less fuel,
faster pay off, etc.)  This is existence, to hang on, that overburden
we pay for as future "research [what do we do next? hey, I have this idea]."

3) Lunch with a few of the long timers.  And ask how long some of their
projects are (decades in some cases).  My old ex-DSN managers still
call up and we talk of how we survived things.  Yes, they get bummed ,too,
but they kept with it.  There's plans to use these people as Mentors.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 12:12:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: Space Policy Institute

Does anyone out there know anything about the space policy institute at
George Washington University.  I belive the Director is Dr. John
Logsdon.  What do they do?  What contributions have they made to the
advancement of space exploration (manned as well ad unmanned).  From
what I understand one can get an M.A. degree in space policy!  Is anyone
out there involved in a similar program.  I'm thinking about joining
this program and am seeking all the information I can about space
studies graduate programs through out the country.  Thanks

                                          Jordan Katz
                                              (peacenet.jordankatz)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 88 16:37:54 GMT
From: jck@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu  (Chuck Kesler)
Subject: Anybody going to watch Discovery?

If someone out there is going to be at the Discovery launch, could I 
possibly persuade you to get some sort of "commemorative souvenir" type 
Discovery t-shirt for me?  Of course, I would supply full re-imbursement, 
including postage and handling for mailing it to me.  I'd love to go there
myself to buy one, but that's unfortunately a bit logistically impossible. 

If anyone is interested in doing this, please send me mail, since I don't 
usually have time to keep up with news on a regular basis.

-Chuck 

internet:  jck@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu
bitnet:    chuck@ncsuvm

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 88 08:51:57 GMT
From: nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!viper!dave@csd1.milw.wisc.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <169@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
 >Seriously, though, I believe anyone who thinks access to space will *always*
 >be ruinously expensive has a low opinion of humans.  Especially in light of
 >the fact that the time from Kitty Hawk to Tranquility Base was a single
 >lifetime.

But look how much more expensive Tranquility Base was!  At
this rate we won't be able to afford to walk across the street
in another lifetime... :-)
-- 
If you can't convince |   David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org)
them, confuse them.   |   Lynx Data Systems
   -- Harry S Truman  | 
                      |   amdahl   --!bungia!viper!dave
                      |   hpda    /

Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved
This work may be freely copied.  Any restrictions on
redistribution of this work are prohibited.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 88 05:37:41 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #372

In article <Added.EXCDuby00Ui3E70U9r@andrew.cmu.edu> WALL@BRANDEIS.BITNET (Matt) writes:
<A more interesting variation would be to attempt a sunnyside-up fried
<egg in zero-g.  (Would this change depending on the relative attitude
<of the spacecraft?)

Not on any spacecraft *I'm* on!  I have no desire to chase or be chased by
globules of hot grease and egg in free fall!

(and yes, I *do* realize that he was probably joking :-)
-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 88 10:18:49 GMT
From: larson@unix.sri.com  (Alan Larson)
Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)

In article <6867@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
>In article <1110022@hpfclm.HP.COM>, myers@hpfclm.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>> Alan, could you please post or e-mail your calculations?  I'm not sure, but

They were just e-mailed a minute or two ago.

It looks like the original (done late at night, like these), may have
been for a 10^6 watt station, not a 10^9.  Even so, the extra 30 dB
only increases range by about 32 times, nothing when compared to the
distance to another star.


>> I *thought* that we *received* normal TV *from* the moon, not to long ago,

If I recall correctly, the scan rate was lower.  Also, the resolution may
have been lower, and the modulation method was probably not DSB AM.

>But broadcast radio and TV stations, by definition, do not concentrate
>their signals in narrow beams, but let them spread out pretty
>much in a circle.  Thus the signal weakens rapidly.

Sort of.  They squish them to the horizon if possible.  The effective
radiated power (ERP) is an accounting for this (as well as feedline
losses, etc.)

>BTW, you might be able to receive Earth TV broadcasts on the
>Moon, but only from stations at the apparent edge of the Earth,
>such that an observer at the station would see the Moon rising
>or setting.

Yes, since the stations are sending the power towards the horizon.


I shouldn't try these caluclations when half-asleep.

	Alan

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 88 18:15:10 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space)


In the previous article the author talks about personnel housecleaning
to improve the performance at NASA.  Let me suggest another approach.
In business you have the incentive to make a profit, and the more
a given employee contributes to that goal, the more income the
employee expects to get in the form of raises or bonuses.

How about giving NASA personnel performance bonuses based on
sucessful launches (nothing gets paid for failures or waiting
around).  One way to measure would be the number of launches
times the launcher capacity, so ten 10,000 lb launches counts
a much as one 100,000 launch.

If you then hold their budget constant, you automatically give
them an incentive to get more payload per dollar launched
(i.e. less $/lb).

This bonus plan could be instituted in lieu of one of the anjnual
general cost of living raises, and initially set so the expected
number of launches equals the cost of living adjustment.

For example, given a 3% COL adjustment:

Any launch failures =       no bonus this year
For each Shuttle lauch,      1/3% bojnus
so for nine launches         3% bonus.

The specific numbers can be argued over, but the idea of
incentivizing the workforce where there is nothing now is the basic idea.

-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 88 17:02:29 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis


Sveral years ago, I believe in a special issue on software, the author
of a program called EURISKO (his name escapes me, but he is a leading
light in artificial intelligence) describes how his program was instructed
in the rules of a game called 'Starfleet Battles'.  The program 
proceeded to generate different types of fleets and pitted them
against one another, a form of forced natural selection.  After
a while, the evolved fleet was entered in a human competitiion,
where it won first place.

Now imagine that a berserker is equipped with a similar program
that is used to evaluate modifications to its own design versus a
current race it is trying to expterminate.  It then builds copies of
the modified form.  With the next race, the process repeats, resulitng
in a second modified form, etc.

-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 88 05:22:53 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sky-Hook Problems.

In article <21069@watmath.waterloo.edu> mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) writes:
>I have a question.  Can anybody provide a statistical value for the
>number of orbiting body hits an area could expect over time? ...
>It's to decide if a 1 meter x 50,000 km space cable (length approximate)
>would have very much to worry about from orbiting objects too small 
>to be detected by radar ...

I don't have numbers handy, but if you figure that the situation is bad
and getting worse, you won't be far wrong.  The only space-cable project
I've seen details on (a shorter one with more limited objectives) was
a multi-cable design with provisions for semi-automated in-space repair,
for this very reason.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #18
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Oct 88 09:00:56 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00819>; Mon, 10 Oct 88 07:17:14 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 10 Oct 88 07:16:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.4XI9k6y00UkT03704k@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po3.andrew.cmu.edu.23508eb1.56b13b>;
          Mon, 10 Oct 88 06:19:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.235072cc.14b104>;
          Mon, 10 Oct 88 04:20:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.235050ce.2d5ff>;
          Mon, 10 Oct 88 01:55:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.23503ca8.ab7a16>;
          Mon, 10 Oct 88 00:29:40 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct 10 88 00:19:21 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #19

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 19

Today's Topics:
   Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)
			 Re: info on Pegasus
  Re: NASA Management (was Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space))
	       Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space)
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		      Backward Flag on Orbiters
	    Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)
   Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)
		    Re: Backward Flag on Orbiters
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
		       Earth & living in space
	       Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque
	     Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque
		       Re: How do we get there?
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 88 05:38:29 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)

In article <484@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>... why not remove the oxidizer from the
>old segments and put it into the new ones?  

Possible in theory; very difficult in practice.  It's not the most stable
material in the world -- obviously -- and the setting process that occurs
after casting is not readily reversible.  NASA was originally planning on
igniting the old segments under controlled conditions to make the casings
available for re-use.  As far as I know, there's no other safe way of
cleaning them out.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 88 05:19:19 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: info on Pegasus

In article <7168@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> makolb@athena.mit.edu (Mark A. Kolb) writes:
>As a matter of fact, I was surprised by the targeting accuracy figures in
>Mr. Arnold's original article, since in '87 my boss wasn't too particular
>about accuracy with respect to orbital insertion.  Obviously, there have
>been some changes to the design since I was at OSC...

I would say that this was a question of what *could* be achieved with a
different guidance system, not what it is expected with the off-the-shelf
system.  Last I heard, OSC+Hercules were openly saying that the orbital
insertion accuracy of Pegasus was going to be lousy for the first few
flights, until the solid motors were calibrated by experience.  (If this
were a spare-no-expense government operation, the calibration would be
done in vacuum chambers beforehand, but OSC+H decided it wasn't worth
the trouble.)
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 88 21:43:58 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA Management (was Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space))

In article <109@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> roston@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov(Gerry Roston) writes:
>...NASA... is extremely over managed...

I seem to recall some experienced aerospace type -- Max Hunter? -- being
quoted as saying that a low-cost-launch-vehicle project should try to
avoid needing a service tower on the pad, because if there are platforms
where people can stand, there will be people with clipboards standing on
them!
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 01:28:48 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space)

In article <3208@ttidca.TTI.COM> sorgatz@ttidcb.tti.com (Erik Sorgatz - Avatar) writes:
>.... But I question where the available funds  are  going.

There was some good NASA bashing at the Worldcon this year.  The ratio
of NASA supervisors to contractor employees today is twice what it was
for Apollo.  "We're spending five hundred million dollars a year not
managing the contractors".  Not to mention two billion a year not launching
the shuttle, $300M/yr not using the tracking network, $100M/yr not flying
the Hubble Telescope, $300M/yr not building the space station (there are
four NASA centers and four prime contractors, with nobody in charge --
the Hubble telescope had real trouble with *two* prime contractors!).
Over one-third of the NASA budget simply maintains the status quo.  As
a percentage of total money, NASA's spending on R&D is *less* than the
US average, less even than the construction industry.  Lordy.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 09:56:54 GMT
From: sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@oberon.usc.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <168@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.UUCP (steve emmerson) writes:
>  I thought the discussion pertained to the expenditure
>of current resources (i.e. time, effort & money) and its justification.
>Considering this in a broad sense, I concluded that a relevant decision
>point was the perceived balance between current costs and future 
>benefits.  Therefore, it seemed that current costs should affect 
>the decision process.  If, however, there is a consensus that 
>future benefits far outweigh any current costs then, by all means, spend
>everything we have.

The point that Henry Spencer (if I remember correctly) and I were trying to
make here is very simple. It is incorrect to measure the benefits of a specific
FUTURE space project against CURRENT launch costs. A couple of different 
questions are whether current space projects are worth their current launch
costs, and the much broader question of whether it's worthwhile to spend
money on space at the current time at all. I firmly believe that a large
majority of US citizens believe that both manned and unmanned space projects
will be an important part of man's future. Consequently any money spent in
these areas is well spent. Of course how much money is just one facet of the
unbelievably huge government budget mess.

As to the age old, and posted to death, question of manned vs. unmanned space
projects, in my opinion they are both crucially important. However, I believe
manned space research is by its nature more expensive than unmanned, and so I
would expect the manned space program to have substantially more funding. It
would be wrong to fund one to the exclusion or starvation of the other.

>I beg forgivness.
I don't know if I can help you out here Steve, Mayor Koch and Time tell me
it's a no-no to help beggars out anymore. 8+=]

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality == the set of assertions too costly to disprove and promulgated by 
persons with sufficient reputation to defend them against ad hominim attacks
using Occam's Razor.

------------------------------

Resent-Message-Id: <4XDeG0y00Vse80c14Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 16:11:44 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-To: Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date:     Mon, 26 Sep 88 09:57 EDT
From: GODDEN%gmr.com@relay.cs.net
To: ota@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  Backward Flag on Orbiters

I have a NASA wall calendar and the picture for September shows one of
the orbiters landing at the cape.  This morning I noticed that the US
flag painted on the side is backwards.  The stars in blue are at the 
top right corner, rather than the top left.  The negative was not
backwards because the various words on the orbiter read correctly.  Does
anyone know why the flag would be painted in this odd way?  Is it for
any UFO's that may see the orbiter in their rear-view mirror?
-Kurt Godden    [godden@gmr.com]

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 17:41:56 GMT
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)

In article <1339@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:

>The best Mars story I've seen to date appeared as the headline on one of
>the tabloids last week. NINE MILE HIGH STATUE OF ELVIS ON MARS

This is obvious nonsense.  The Martian civilisation is immensely older
and more advanced than our own.  The headline should have read:

	FIFTEEN KILOMETER HIGH STATUE OF JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH ON MARS!

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 17:27:55 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@ucsd.edu  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)

In article <1988Sep24.053829.16201@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <484@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
> >... why not remove the oxidizer from the
> >old segments and put it into the new ones?  
> 
> available for re-use.  As far as I know, there's no other safe way of
> cleaning them out.


Why not use the method which the AF and its contractors use to renew the
solid propellant in the Minuteman missiles every ten years or so?  The
motors are cleaned out by the use of a high pressure water jet, which can
cut the rubbery perchlorate/polymer material without any ignition risk
such as a mechanical cutting tool would entail.

Many if not all of the Minuteman birds currently installed in silos have
been cleaned out and reloaded this way at least once. It also allows updating
the propellant technology to the latest available. Solid fuel mixes have been
fairly constant in composition but some advances do take place (higher energy
binders, new tricks with combustion accleration/retardation, etc)

Fuel for the flames from...
-- 
Mark Johnson (Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM)
NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS  phone: (316)636-8189    
email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson 
US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 01:53:57 GMT
From: voder!lynx!neal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Backward Flag on Orbiters

In article <8809261444.AA11607@angband.s1.gov> GODDEN@gmr.COM writes:
>This morning I noticed that the US
>flag painted on the side is backwards.
>-Kurt Godden

The flag is not backwards from the side you are viewing it from, is it? The
flag is painted this way on USAF planes, too. This is because this is the
direction it would "blow" if it were a real flag attached to the plane/orbiter.

Neal

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 19:43:17 GMT
From: att!whuts!sw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (WARMINK)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis

In article <2246@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
> Now imagine that a berserker is equipped with a similar program
> that is used to evaluate modifications to its own design versus a
> current race it is trying to expterminate.  It then builds copies of
> the modified form.  With the next race, the process repeats, resulitng
> in a second modified form, etc.

The (New) Star Trek episode "Arsenal of Freedom" deals with exactly that situation!

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Xlb lbtvist dufuew iyr qglr rgua alta?    |  Stuart Warmink, NAPC
                                             |  <att>!whuts!sw Whippany NJ USA
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 02:00:32 GMT
From: spdcc!eli@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Steve Elias)
Subject: Earth & living in space

In article <6574@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <1889@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes:
>>	i don't think this is an 'excuse' to go into space -- the
>>	reasons for space exploration go beyond the avoidance of
>>	Malthusian disaster here on Earth...  but that's one good reason.
>
>The fallacy is assuming that putting people into space will in any
>way *reduce* the number here on Earth.  

	good point -- people will still boff away happily on Earth...
	no matter how many *illion folks move to space.
	
	but some of the Earther baby space yuppies might move from
	Earth for economic and other reasons...   people today have
	to move away from some major cities in order to find 	
	affordable housing.  

	the Earth might become an awfully polluted and expensive place
	to live.  if it we save it from becoming horribly toxic, 
	it might be even more expensive...  

	and if there are other places to live, economics
	might send people skyward.  maybe.

	first things first:
	let's get a shuttle off the ground...

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 14:13:45 GMT
From: drfix.dec.com!luhrs@decwrl.dec.com  (Bruce Luhrs, MKO1-1/L38, Fire Management)
Subject: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque


    Can anyone remember what information and messages were represented
    on the plaque carried out of the solar system by Pioneer-10?

    Pioneer-10 was launched in March, 1972 destined for Jupiter. Continuing
    on, it became the first man-made object to leave the solar system in
    1986.

    I believe the plaque was to act as a note from mankind to anyone who
    may find the craft.  I'm wondering what messages were represented on
    the sides of the space probe.  Was there also a recording of some
    sorts?

    If I could find a good picture of the plaque, it'd be interesting to
    see how many people could gather the meaning of the messages.  But
    I need the "correct answers" first.

    Thanks to anyone who can supply information, I'll post a summary if
    anyone is interested.

    Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 22:36:17 GMT
From: titan!phil@rice.edu  (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque

In article <8809261413.AA18424@decwrl.dec.com> luhrs@drfix.dec.com (Bruce Luhrs, MKO1-1/L38, Fire Management) writes:
>
>    Can anyone remember what information and messages were represented
>    on the plaque carried out of the solar system by Pioneer-10?
>
>    Thanks to anyone who can supply information, I'll post a summary if
>    anyone is interested.

As I recall, there is an exhibit about the Pioneer-10 at the Johnson Space
Center visitor's center.  It features information about what was put on
board and, I think, a reproduction of the plaque and the record.

Next time I'm in the area, I'll take a closer look at it.

			William LeFebvre
			Department of Computer Science
			Rice University
			<phil@Rice.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 88 19:37:12 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: How do we get there?

In article <21037@watmath.waterloo.edu>, mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) writes:
 [ Space elevator , Sky hook ]

 The most intriguing idea I've heard was proposed by Kieth
 Lofstrom (at least he's the 1st I know). His idea more or
 less involves a continuous ribbon accelerated in such a
 manner that the upper portion of the band tends away from
 the surface of the planet. Vehicles ride (magnetically) the
 upward leg, into LEO. Sorry for the gross oversimplification
 of his ideas. Perhaps Mr.Lofstrom is reading sci.space, and
 might post an accurate version of this concept, as well as a 
 status report.

 m wooding

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 88 19:03:14 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <23364c57@ralf>, Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> In article <3040001@vx2.NYU.EDU>, spector@vx2.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) writes:
> }Short-sightedness is an amazing thing, the more "advanced" our society
> }becomes, the more short-sighted we become, the more restistant to new
> }ideas and the prospect of new exploration and further advancement...
> }...we trade off long-term goals for short-term ones.  
> 
> #define MY_OPINION
> 
> I suspect that this is largely due to big corporations, for many of which
> "long-term" is synonymous with "until the next stockholder's meeting" or
> "until the next quarterly earnings report".

 Or until the next chance Congress has to diddle with the
 tax system. Hard to make long term plans, with Gov't always
 making "adjustments" in the rules of the game.

 Short term planning seems more intrinsic to the political
 system than to "big corporations".

 m wooding

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #19
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Oct 88 07:21:29 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01148> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 10 Oct 88 07:16:15 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 10 Oct 88 07:16:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.EXI9hjy00jZdA4LE41@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.235081cd.81d2ba>;
          Mon, 10 Oct 88 05:24:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.23506153.848a57>;
          Mon, 10 Oct 88 03:05:59 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct 10 88 03:03:33 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #20

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)
		Tellus: spysat for neutrals, UN, media
	    Amateur Radio Tracking Experiment announcement
		  shuttle launches & Jerry Pournelle
			  Re: Skintight suit
		       Re: SPACE Digest V8 #372
		Re: shuttle launches & Jerry Pournelle
Re: Fermi Paradox (was Re: Alien civilizations, improved grey goo,etc.)
			  Re: Shuttle Names
		      RE: Naming the new Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 21:23:16 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)

In article <6867@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
>BTW, you might be able to receive Earth TV broadcasts on the
>Moon, but only from stations at the apparent edge of the Earth,
>such that an observer at the station would see the Moon rising
>or setting.

Therefore Arctic and Antarctic TV would come in all the time?




-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 08:44:09 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!erix!tage.ericsson.se!howard@uunet.uu.net  (Howard Gayle TX/UMG)
Subject: Tellus: spysat for neutrals, UN, media

>From the 25 September 1988 Dagens Nyheter, p. 52:

The Swedish space agency is talking about a spysat called
Tellus, for use by neutral countries, the UN, and perhaps the
media.  Price is about US$380M to build, plus about US$12M per
year to operate, over a 4-year lifetime.  Resolution is to be
1-2 m.  There is also to be an imaging radar.  [I'm very
sceptical about the radar, but that's what the article says.]
Canada, France, and Japan have shown interest in the project.

Howard Gayle
TN/ETX/TX/UMG
Ericsson Telecom AB
S-126 25 Stockholm
Sweden
howard@ericsson.se
{mcvax, uunet}!enea!ericsson.se!howard
Phone: +46 8 719 5565
FAX  : +46 8 719 9598
Telex: 14910 ERIC S

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 21:41:46 GMT
From: hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@hplabs.hp.com  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Amateur Radio Tracking Experiment announcement

The following is excerpted from a proposal submitted to the Univ. of 
Alabama/Weber State College SOAR (SubOrbital Academic Research) program.

After much research and correlation of thousands of measurements, it was
established that temperature inversions and stratified layers of air at
different temperatures and moisture content in the troposphere could refract
or bend VHF signals around the curvature of the earth. Today we know this effect
as Tropospheric Propagation or simply "Tropo". The majority of research on
troposheric propagation has been conducted  with ground based transmitters
by both the professional and amateur radio communities. Very little research
has been conducted with transmitters placed at high altitude within the 
troposphere.

This proposal is for such a high altitude radio propagation experiment. One
of the determining factors in tropospheric propagation is the "grazing angle"
at which the signal strikes the tropospheric anomaly. One of the primary 
objectives of the ARTE project is to investigate the effects on radio
propagation oif different grazing angles within the same tropospheric air
column. By placing the transmitter at high altitude, grazing angles will change
as a function of the descent rate of the transmitter instrument package.
The basic hypothesis of ARTE is that reductions in grazing angle will enhance
reflection from tropospheric temperature and/or moisture anomalies and
possibly extend the useful range of tropospheric propagation.

The purpose of this proposal is twofold:

1. To solicit comment and support for the ARTE project from the amateur
radio community.

2. To propose inclusion of the ARTE project into the Univ. of Alabama/Weber
State College SOAR program. (Editor's note: This has been accomplished).


A small sounding rocket, carrying a 145.55 MHz FM beacon, will be launched to
an altitude of at least 2.4 Km above ground level on a prespecified day in
mid July 1989 at 0900 local time from the Huntsville, Alabama area. During
parachute descent from peak altitude, a repeating 3.0 second formatted
beacon signal will be transmitted to ground mounted receivers tuned to 145.55
MHz. These receivers, spread out over a 500 mile (or greater) radius from the
launch site, will be manned by volunteer amateur radio operators. In addition
to the VHF signal, all the volunteer operators will be in communication with
the launch site via a 75 meter SSB HF radio link.

The beacon launch will be preceded and followed by a 5 minute transmission of
a similar beacon format from a ground mounted 1 watt 145.55 MHz transmitter.
Each volunteer radio amateur will record the output of their VHF receiver for 
both the flight and ground level transmissions, on audio tape. The students
participating in the experiment will analyze the data from all the collected
audio tapes.

For complete information on this project, please contact:

David Babulski
2677 Colony Circle
Snellville, Georgia  30276

(404)985-1020

I also have a summary sheet available ... I will send the 5 page summary
to anyone who emails me a request, and will also forward your names to 
Dave.

I have no direct involvement in this project other than my acquaintance 
with Mr. Babulski.
-- 
Mark Johnson (Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM)
NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS  phone: (316)636-8189    
email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson 
US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 01:46:58 GMT
From: spdcc!eli@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Steve Elias)
Subject: shuttle launches & Jerry Pournelle

In <> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Take in a shuttle launch if you possibly can.  Seeing it in person is very
>different from watching it on TV.  (I saw Challenger take LDEF and the Solar
>Max repair mission up.)

	if you are on a schedule, it might be difficult to see a 
	shuttle launch.  shuttle launches often occur many days after
	the day are planned for.  i've seen two misfires (one, with a
	launch pad fire).  i wish i had seen a launch.

>NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu


 Jerry Pournelle is into		         |   Steve Elias at home
 actual arrogant idiocy. - nobody in particular  |    harvard!spdcc!eli

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1988 10:56-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Skintight suit

Someone must be missing something.

THe suits have been described as multi-layer suits that were difficult
to put on. This says to me that the volunteers spent quite a bit of
time wearing them at 14psi.

One must conclude that the suits prevent EXPANSION, but do NOT exert
significant CONTRACTION on their own. And this makes sense, because the
purpose of the suit is to reinforce the skin, not to take over it's
job.

So I still think it is practicle to wear them 'indoors'.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 21:38:15 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #372

In article <1066@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
: In article <Added.EXCDuby00Ui3E70U9r@andrew.cmu.edu> WALL@BRANDEIS.BITNET (Matt) writes:
: <A more interesting variation would be to attempt a sunnyside-up fried
: <egg in zero-g.  (Would this change depending on the relative attitude
: <of the spacecraft?)
: 
: Not on any spacecraft *I'm* on!  I have no desire to chase or be chased by
: globules of hot grease and egg in free fall!

Actually, it would probably have to be a sunnyside-inward fried egg, if they
ever develop the technology:

"All systems are go for FCSU..." (frying cylinder spin-up)

"Commence FCSU..."

"FCSU complete--frying cylinder angular velocity is nominal, temperature
nominal, grease viscosity nominal.... Say, Joe, how we gonna put the egg
in this sucker without breaking the yolk?"

Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 13:06:19 GMT
From: linus!marsh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Ralph Marshall)
Subject: Re: shuttle launches & Jerry Pournelle

In article <1941@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes:
>In <> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>>stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
> Jerry Pournelle is into		         |   Steve Elias at home
> actual arrogant idiocy. - nobody in particular  |    harvard!spdcc!eli

	Actually, I have come to the conclusion that Jerry Pournelle serves
a useful function in society (not that I'd ever choose to emulate him.) He
is active on space exploration, and whether or not you like his arrogant
attitude that he is the only one who can see the way all of mankind should
head, at least he provokes conversation.  Much of it is centered around
how wrong his latest comment was, but it is an exchange of ideas.  I don't
particularly like him (I've taken to reading his columns in Byte and InfoWorld
for the laughs I get out of them) but I have to respect his commitment. Now
all we need is somebody with the RIGHT approach and the same flair for
self-promotion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Marshall (marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa)

Disclaimer:  I did NOT use WRITE, a CompuPro with a CBIOS (Customized BIOS) 
or CP/M for any portion of this article, nor did I have to transfer it
from one of my computers to another using an overly complex, jury-rigged
RS-232C cable my mad friend McLean (sp?) made for me :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 00:58:41 GMT
From: Portia!doom@labrea.stanford.edu  (Joseph Brenner)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox (was Re: Alien civilizations, improved grey goo,etc.)

Okay, one more time: The Fermi Paradox is centered around the 
fact that the sheer numbers of potential locations for extraterrestrial
intelligence is huge (in fact, "astronomical").  Any explanation 
that takes the form "Maybe they destroy themselves" or "Maybe they're
hiding" really only cuts the number of expected observations of alien 
civlizations by another factor of 100 or 1000 without reducing the 
expected result to zero.  I think that the unconcscious assumption is
that "they" are one species, or one of only a few species.  

I think we can see this attitude in some places in Shannon's posting 
(for brevity's sake, I'm clipping lines out of context): 

In article <5098@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> smann@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Shannon Mann - I.S.er) writes:

>A flaw in this argument is centered around the fact that the civilization in
>question may have no interest in leaving their planet.  

Note the phrase, "the" civilization.  We're concerned about ALL potential 
civilizations, not just one. 

>If such a civilization did exist, their next move could very possibly be to 
>hide their planet (and their star?) from detection.  

Okay, so this could happen any number of times.  To assume that it happens 
in every case would be to assume that the galaxy is incredibly homogenous, 
in fact, even more uniform than the earth itself is.  

>  To suppose that an existing 
>civilization would look something like ours has no basis in reality.  We
>can only guess at the possibilities.

To suppose that NO civilizations anywhere are similar to us in any way 
also has no basis in reality.  We only have one data point, ourselves.
Given that single data point, do you assume that it is a typical
representation of what can happen, or assume that it is wildly atypical
and has no relevance to any other situation? I submit that the latter
would be unreasonable.  

>      If there's anything that science has taught us, it should be 
>that the universe is not stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we
>can imagine.

For centuries now, we have been learning the lesson that "We are not 
special" (or at least, not radically so).  Earth is not the center
of the solar system, humans are not fundamentally different from the 
other animals, western civilization is not inherently superior to all 
others, and so on.  It would be very strange indeed to discover that 
we are the only example in the galaxy of "humanity". 

Our imaginations are not quite so limited, and the universe not quite
so strange...

(J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU  Materials Science Dept/Stanford, CA 94306)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 15:28:14 GMT
From: ecsvax!ruslan@mcnc.org  (Robin C. LaPasha)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Names

In article <6914@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
> In article <Added.0XCQKZy00Ui3EjF08l@andrew.cmu.edu>, ST502042@BROWNVM.BITNET (Michael Nosal) writes:
> 
> > spacecraft? How 'bout The LEONOV. I think the Soviets have a research/arctic
> 
> I think we'll see quite enough space ships with Russian names
> (s russkomi imyami?) on them in the next decade.  NASA should support
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[s russkimi imenami, but (since that's _first_
names) perhaps better 's russkimi familiiami']
> the minorities in space -- like Americans.
> 
> Wonder if they're saving "Tsiokolsky" for the Mars mission?


That's Tsiolkovskii (Lib. Cong. transliteration.)
	For those who don't have any (other) background on him,
I've got my handy-dandy _Kosmonavtika: Entsiklopediia_ :
  ... Roughly equivalent to a Goddard sort ("father of cosmonautics".)
Apparently more theoretical; from 1884 on (big theory in 1927 or so)
working on formulas for rocket flight...
[Apparently one of his favorite problems was 'interplanetary
journeys,' so it might be appropriate for Mars.  And in a wee
footnote... he's written some sci-fi!  Meets the SF test ;^).]
	I went to see the monument to him in Moscow this summer.
(He's sitting in front of another huge monument, to the, um,
'Conquerors of the Cosmos' - goes up into the air and to a point,
... as you can see on a lot of their commemorative medals and patches.)
Unfortunately the museum under the monument(s) was 'Closed for Repair'
;^).  Oh well.

Robin LaPasha
ruslan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
Disclaimers: The above isn't a direct quote of that book, just the
gist of a very quick skimming... Other than that I'm to blame for
my own ignorance and/or inaccuracyies.

------------------------------

Date: 	28-SEP-1988 15:07:46.86
From: LUCAS@sage.psy.cmu.edu
Subject: 	RE: Naming the new Shuttle
Reply-To: LUCAS@psy.cmu.edu
Vaxnotes_Export: 	MESCAL  

    I've always kind of assumed that CHALLENGER II would be a contender.
    				-pete (LUCAS@PSY.CMU.EDU)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #20
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Oct 88 07:40:27 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01276> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 10 Oct 88 07:35:27 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 10 Oct 88 07:35:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.0XI_0Gy00jZd84xE4z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.2350925d.cc14b>;
          Mon, 10 Oct 88 06:35:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.23507daf.7a3a82>;
          Mon, 10 Oct 88 05:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct 10 88 05:03:36 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #21

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:
  Space Station Freedom contract negotiations concluded (Forwarded)
			 Re: info on Pegasus
	       Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)
	       Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
			    Info on HOTOL
		     Re: The Schneider Cup races
		    Tellus - satellites for peace
       Re: Beyond the Shuttle (was Letter to Congress, et. al.)
	    Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 18:47:17 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Space Station Freedom contract negotiations concluded (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 September 28, 1988


RELEASE:  88-132

SPACE STATION FREEDOM CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS CONCLUDED


     The National Aeronautics and Space Administration today 
concluded contract negotiations for full-scale development of the 
permanently manned space station Freedom, scheduled to be 
deployed in orbit in the mid-1990's.  

     In December 1987, NASA selected Boeing Aerospace Co., 
Huntsville, Ala., McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co., Huntington 
Beach, Calif., GE Astro-Space Division, Vally Forge, Penn., and 
East Windsor, N.J., and Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell 
International, Canoga Park, Calif., for negotiation of cost-plus- 
award-fee contracts to design, develop, test and evaluate, and 
deliver the components and systems comprising the space station 
Freedom.  Today's action marks the successful settlement of those 
contracts. 

     The 10-year contracts with these four aerospace firms have a 
total value of approximately $6.7 billion, which is within NASA's 
estimates for the combined value of the four work package 
contracts.  

     The Marshall Space Flight Center's contract with Boeing is 
valued at approximately $1.6 billion, not including priced 
options for additional work or elements that would be provided 
for the Phase 2, or enhanced, space station configuration.  Under 
its contract with Marshall, Boeing will develop the U.S. 
laboratory and habitation module, logistics elements, structures 
for the resource nodes, the environmental control and life 
support system, internal thermal, and internal audio and video 
systems, and associated software.  

     The Johnson Space Center's contract with McDonnell Douglas 
Astronautics Co., is valued at approximately $2.6 billion, not 
including priced options for additional work or Phase 2 elements.

     Under its contract with JSC, McDonnell Douglas will outfit 
the resource nodes and develop the integrated truss structure, 
mobile servicing system transporter, airlocks, and hardware and 
software for the data management; communications and tracking; 
guidance, navigation and control; extravehicular activity; 
propulsion, and thermal control systems.  

     Goddard's contract with GE Astro-Space Division is valued at 
approximately $895 million, not including priced options for 
additional work or Phase 2 elements.  The contract calls for GE 
to provide a free-flying, unmanned polar-orbiting platform, and 
various attach-point hardware, including a pointing system for 
accommodating external scientific instruments on the manned 
base.  

     The Lewis Research Center's contract with Rocketdyne is 
valued at approximately $1.6 billion, not including priced 
options for additional work or Phase 2 elements.  Rocketdyne will 
provide the 75 kilowatt electrical power and distribution system 
for Freedom's manned base and the electrical power system for the 
U.S. polar platform. 

     Space Station Freedom will be a permanently manned base in 
low-Earth orbit for conducting scientific research, developing 
new technologies, and enabling human exploration of the solar 
system.  The United States, nine European countries, through the 
European Space Agency, Japan and Canada are contributing elements 
to the program and will share in its utilization.  A crew of up 
to 8 will permanently work and live aboard Freedom, which will be 
designed to operate for several decades, well into the the 21st 
century.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 04:03:29 GMT
From: ucsdhub!jack!crash!telesoft!roger@ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: info on Pegasus

Henry Spencer writes:
> Mark A. Kolb writes:
> >As a matter of fact, I was surprised by the targeting accuracy figures in
> >Mr. Arnold's original article, since in '87 my boss wasn't too particular
> >about accuracy with respect to orbital insertion.  Obviously, there have
> >been some changes to the design since I was at OSC...
> 
> I would say that this was a question of what *could* be achieved with a
> different guidance system, not what it is expected with the off-the-shelf
> system.  Last I heard, OSC+Hercules were openly saying that the orbital
> insertion accuracy of Pegasus was going to be lousy for the first few
> flights, until the solid motors were calibrated by experience.  (If this
> were a spare-no-expense government operation, the calibration would be
> done in vacuum chambers beforehand, but OSC+H decided it wasn't worth
> the trouble.)

The article that I was summarizing from wasn't specific, but the 1-2
meter accuracy of delivery cited must have referred to what could be
achieved by a "smart" warhead, with an active terminal guidance phase.

In that original summary, I alluded to some good news/bad news, then
forgot to elaborate.  The good news is that if there really is the
kind of military interest in Pegasus that the article suggested, then
its success--for OSC & Hercules--seems assured.  The bad news is that 
if its success is based on quantity sales to the military, then it is 
unlikely to inspire other, more efficient, commercial competitors.
We'll just have to wait and see.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 16:49:44 GMT
From: ucsdhub!jack!crash!adamsd@ucsd.edu  (Adams Douglas)
Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)


The problem with receiving Earth TV transmissions on the moon, or anywhere
else you can see several transmitters at once, is that whereever you tune
you receiver, you'll be getting _all_ the channel-4's (say) at once.

Also, most of the power in a TV signal is in the carrier. You will lose
program information very rapidly as distance increases. The exception 
would occur in those rare cases where many station are broadcasting the
same program information (Presidential Speeches, Moon Landings, Live Aid, etc.).

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 18:45:01 GMT
From: phri!cooper!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)

If all you could get on the moon with any consistency was Arctic and
Antarctic TV, there would not be "many" channel 4's.  Presumably two
at most.  And I'll bet you could pick the one you wanted with a dish,
no?
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 23:16:21 GMT
From: vu-vlsi!swatsun!leif@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu  (Leif Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <3982@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes:
> Chuck Sites writes:
> 
> I read this theory in a book whose author I've forgotten.  I can't
> remember if it was trying to explain the "Nemesis factor" or not but it's
> interesting to think about.  I don't know enough to evaluate it fully.
> 
> 	The Oort cloud is only temporary and is exhausted within a few 
> 	million years.  It is replenished whenever the sun passes through
> 	a section of the galaxy which has a high concentration of gas and
> 	dust, i.e. a spiral arm.  There is some kind of gravity focusing
> 	effect that the sun has on the dust which causes it to collect in
> 	the downstream "wake" of the sun and form comets.
> 
> 	After this occurs, comets are common in the solar system until the
> 	batch of comets are used up.
The sun is in orbit around the center of gravity of our galaxy, as is the
spiral arm we are in.  Thus the sun does not "pass[es] through...a spiral arm"
for that would imply that either the sun or the arm is standing still, in which
case it would not be in our galaxy any more.  Moreover, any dust/gas clouds
which our spiral arm might pass through would have been swept up and would
be moving along with the rotation of the galaxy, thus staying still relative
to us.  Yes, the sun and our galaxy have some small intrinsic straight line
velocity, but this is not large enough in comparison to the orbit around the
galactic center.  Moreover, the fact that out galaxy is moving at a small speed
in a certain direction does not imply any sort of periodic effect (unless 
someone has ideas of "ripples" left over from the big bang which the Milky Way
would encounter periodically, but I very much doubt this)
  In consideration of a biblically based creation, how was the flood caused?
And how did this hypothetical layer of water (assuming that something we
don't know about held it up) suddenly fall to create the flood?  
Contemporary experience with global weather phenomena are somewhat long term
in nature. (c.f. ice ages)

-- 
Leif Kirschenbaum '91
Swarthmore College
UUCP:  rutgers!bpa!swatsun!leif
CSnet: leif@swatsun.swarthmore.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 20:01:10 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Info on HOTOL

I've just read an article about HOTOL by B. R. A. Burns, the project
manager at British Aerospace.  The article appeared in Interdisciplinary
Science Reviews, 13(2), 1988, pages 171-179.  The article was apparently
written before the government decided to halt funding.

The article explains a bit about the engines, although they are still
classified.  The engines cool and compress incoming air, but apparently
don't liquify it.  The compressed air is used in dual-mode rockets (the
other oxidizer being LOX, of course).

Also, the article explains those funny protuberances on the back of the
air intake thar were apparent in the picture of the HOTOL model that
appeared in AW&ST some time back.  On the trajectory the HOTOL flies,
it needs a larger air intake the faster it goes (this is unlike a
conventional supersonic plane, which needs a larger intake at low
speed).  The protuberances are vents to release excess air at lower
speed.  This also explains why HOTOL does not continue to breath air
above Mach 5: the air intake would have to be too large.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 22:39:47 GMT
From: utkcs2!wauford@gatech.edu  (Melissa Wauford)
Subject: Re: The Schneider Cup races

In article <40208@linus> marsh@linus.UUCP (Ralph Marshall) writes:
>	There is a pretty bad movie about the subject.  It stars (?)
>David Niven and somebody else who was big at the time, and was made
>in the 50s (terrible black and white picture).  
>

Actually the movie (called, strangely, _Spitfire_) starred Leslie Howard and
David Niven and was made in Britain in 1942.  Note this is right in the
middle of the war; therefore, allowances must be made for both the quality
of the film technology and the over-sermonizing in the script.  It was
the story of the designer of the Spitfire who died right before the war
started.  Tragically, Howard also died not too long after the film was made.

                                             Melissa Wauford
                                             MWAUFORD@UTKVX1.UTK.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 16:02:43 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!kth!draken!chalmers!tekn01.chalmers.se!f86_lerner@uunet.uu.net  (Mikael Lerner)
Subject: Tellus - satellites for peace


	According to the weekly technical Swedish newspaper "Ny Teknik"
( "New Technology" ) a study on a project called "Tellus" has now been
completed. Tellus is intended to be a system of 'satellites for peace'
and allow countries, without the possibility of launching their own spy
satellites, and international organisations as the UN to superintend and
control, for example, that agreements about disarmaments are followed.
The idea of having a group of neutral countries capable of controlling an
agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union about reduction of nuclear
missiles, by using own reconnaissance-satellites, has been considered
several times. Sweden has therefore decided to take this initiative and
conduct a study of such a reconnaissance-system.

	Both the Swedish Government and Swedish industries have shown
interest in Tellus, and Sweden will now start discussions with other
countries and international organisations ( as UN ) to find out their
interest. The result of these discussions will determine the future of
the whole project.

	The study recommends a system of 3 satellites, two in orbit and
one spare on the ground. The Tellus-satellites would orbit the Earth in
sun-synchronous polar orbits 600 km above the surface. The camera-system
would have a resolution better than 2 m. ( SPOT, which has the best reso-
lution of all non-military satellites today, can't see objects less than
10 m. ) The whole programme is estimated to cost ~2.5 billion Swedish
crowns ( ~400 million US$ ) and to become operational 6 years after ini-
tiation. Once in operation Tellus will require a staff of 100 persons for
tracking, communication, image processing and analysing.

	I really hope that the project will be approved by other count-
ries. It would perhaps be able to play an important role in the process
of disarmament. And don't forget that pictures returned from Tellus would
be useful for many civilian applications too!

	BTW, a few days ago I read that SPOT has discovered a new complex
of missile ramps in Saudi Arabia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikael Lerner                               "This is the way the world ends,
Chalmers University of Technology            not with a bang, but a whimper."
Sweden                                                       T.S. Elliot

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 22:17:16 GMT
From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: Beyond the Shuttle (was Letter to Congress, et. al.)

In article <3040001@vx2.NYU.EDU> spector@vx2.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) writes:
>So far all of the arguments for why we should be in space fall far
>short of the most obvious of reasons...
>
>	We should be in space because we should be in space.

	[Lots of good stuff deleted]

>
>_DHMS
>PS: In case you're all wondering,  the ABC News special on the US
>space program just ended and its gotten me very depressed and cynical...

	Aside from wanting to say 'Nice Article', the above is the real
	reason for my posting.  This is the first mention of this
	program that I've seen on the net. I believe the ABC program
	was titled 'Beyond the Shuttle'.

	This was especially high caliber for a 'Network' broadcast.
	Reminded me more of the Discovery Channel than ABC. I think
	that ABC hit the nail on the head and they actually motivated
	me to write my congresperson.  Anybody else see this?
	Disagree?

-- 
    ____                 Kevin Bagley  "I did not say this, I am not here."
     )__) __    _   _    Global Tech. Int'l Inc.
  __/__/ (_/\_/(_) /_)_  Mukilteo WA  98275
              __/        UUCP: uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 05:47:51 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)

In article <3134@pt.cs.cmu.edu> kvs@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Kathryn Van Stone) writes:
>In article <6918@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
>>In article <1339@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R.
>>Karn) writes:
[About Phobos' decaying orbit]
>>> It was later shown quite conclusively that tidal effects are the actual
>>> cause.  The orbit of Phobos will continue to decay over the next 100
>>> million years or so until it hits Mars.
>>
>>How does Mars have tidal effects with no (hardly any) liquid on
>>the surface?  The atmosphere?  Is its crust weak enough to be
>>deformed by Phobos' gravity?  Is there magma under its crust
>>as on Earth?
>
>I assume that the tidal effects mentioned are that of Mars acting on
>Phobos, not Phobos on Mars.  I also believe that even if there is
>no liquid you still have a drag due to tidal effects (which is
>why the moon always faces the earth).

	While you do get tidal drag in the interactions of two solid objects
whose orbits are not synchronized with their rotation, tidal effects of Mars
upon Phobos will not cause Phobos' orbit to decay, although these effects
could alter an elliptical orbit.  This is because energy transfer induced by
tidal effects of Mars upon Phobos will be between Phobos' rotational energy
and its orbital energy, not between Mars' rotational energy and Phobos'
orbital energy.  Because Phobos is so small, this would not bring it down even
if it were started off non-rotating -- orbital energy would be transformed
into rotational energy and heat (due to energy dissipated in deforming Phobos
elastically), but this would stop as soon as Phobos was spinning at the speed
necessary to keep the same face towards Mars (or, if the orbit started out
elliptical enough, a non-1:1 relationship could be established, like Mercury's
3 rotations every 2 orbits relationship with the Sun).

	It requires tidal effects of Phobos on Mars to pull Phobos down -- in
this case, orbital energy of Phobos is transferred to rotational energy of
Mars, and Mars is so much bigger than Phobos that by the time Phobos crashes
on it Mars' rotational speed will have been increased only by a very small
amount.  However, I would not expect these effects to be very strong, because
Phobos has a very weak gravitational field, and therefore is not going to make
much of a tide on Mars (would be very hard to detect even if Mars had oceans
on its surface).  Therefore, I would be surprised if these effects would be
sufficient to bring Phobos down unaided in only 100 million years, unless it
is closer to crashing than I think (I thought it had an orbital period of
somewhere around 8 hours -- someone have a more accurate number for this?).

	Is it possible that magnetic drag may also be acting to bring down
Phobos?

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
ARPAnet:   chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:    chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RETURN ADDRESS)
USENET:    iuvax!silver!chiaravi
-- 
	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
ARPAnet:   chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:    chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RETURN ADDRESS)
USENET:    iuvax!silver!chiaravi

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #21
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Oct 88 01:47:21 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03437>; Tue, 11 Oct 88 00:56:06 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 11 Oct 88 00:55:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.4XINDyy00Vs1ABNk5G@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.23518e9e.65e1d1>;
          Tue, 11 Oct 88 00:31:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.23518cd8.199c16>;
          Tue, 11 Oct 88 00:23:55 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Oct 11 88 00:20:23 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #22

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Tellus - satellites for peace
	     Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque
	       Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space)
	     Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque
			  Pioneer 10 plaque
Re: Alien civilizations, improved grey goo, and biotech civilizations...
	     Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque
		     Re: Earth & living in space
	    Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 06:24:57 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: Re: Tellus - satellites for peace

I've seen it mentioned a few times recently -- just what IS a
sun-synchronous orbit?
-- 
--    bob,mon			(bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
--    "Aristotle was not Belgian..."	- Wanda

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 17:35:58 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!kth!draken!chalmers!tekn01.chalmers.se!f86_lerner@uunet.uu.net  (Mikael Lerner)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque

In article <8809261413.AA18424@decwrl.dec.com>, luhrs@drfix.dec.com (Bruce Luhrs, MKO1-1/L38, Fire Management) writes:
>     Can anyone remember what information and messages were represented
>     on the plaque carried out of the solar system by Pioneer-10?
> 
>     Pioneer-10 was launched in March, 1972 destined for Jupiter. Continuing
>     on, it became the first man-made object to leave the solar system in
>     1986.

	Oops, I thougt it was in 1983 on the 10th of June. The fifth
anniversery of this was celebrated this year with the craft still going
strong. It is now used for measurements of the interplanetary space and
gravitational perturbations from the outer planets including a possible
planet X. ( However the results show no indications of such a planet. )
The main goal is to keep Pioneer 10 functional until it reaches the
heliopaus, which is the boundary between interplanetary and interstellar
space.

>     I believe the plaque was to act as a note from mankind to anyone who
>     may find the craft.  I'm wondering what messages were represented on
>     the sides of the space probe.  Was there also a recording of some
>     sorts?

	No, the recordings are on the two Voyagers. They include gratings
in a large number of languages, sounds of road traffic and falling rain,
songs of whales, music by Bach and other easy-to-understand sounds. :-)
( Just imagine alien scientists trying to decode a Bach sonata!!! )

>     If I could find a good picture of the plaque, it'd be interesting to
>     see how many people could gather the meaning of the messages.  But
>     I need the "correct answers" first.

	I've seen it in several books, but I don't remember in which.
I think there is a quite good photo and/or drawing in 'Cosmos' by Carl
Sagan.
 
	Well, over to the real subject: what does the plaque show?
I'll try to make a short description:

  *  A big picture shows a man and a woman. The space probe is drawn
     behind them to show their actual size. The intention is, of course,
     to show the aliens what the intelligent creatures that created
     Pioneer 10 look like.

  *  A line with the sun and its 9 planets is placed at the bottom.
     There is a trajectory from the third planet ending in a miniature
     drawing of the spacecraft. This illustrates where it come from.
     Saturn will probably give the aliens problem: it is drawn as a
     circle with a line across it.

  *  Two strange circles at top left is supposed to illustrate a
     hydrogen-atom changing its energy state. When doing this, it releases
     radiation with the characteristic wavelength 21 cm. This is the
     radio frequency the aliens are supposed to contact us on, and it is
     the unit length used on the rest of the plaque.

  *  Below the hydrogen-atoms is a set of 15 straight lines coming from
     a point in the centre. Each line carry binary numbers. These lines
     and numbers gives the position of our solar system relative to 15
     selected pulsars. The distances are given in units of 21 cm. The
     pulsars are supposed to be easy to identify for an astronomy-interes-
     sed alien civilisation. The rotation time of a pulsar slows down in
     a well-behavied way with time, and as these times also are given,
     an alien will be able to find out when the craft was launched.


	At least the last 2 points will probably cause a lot of trouble
even to humans, but hopefully the aliens will pass the plaque round to
several universitys, and hopefully some smart alien astronomers will
find out the meaning.  (>:-O)

	Well, I don't think anyone REALLY expects aliens, if there are
any, to find Pioneer. It will probably be destroyed in collisions with
micrometeorites long before it reaches any habitated area of our galaxy.
The biggest value it has, I think, is to show mankind, that we now have
reached a point where we can actually, and not only in the dream, reach
the stars.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikael Lerner                               "This is the way the world ends,
Chalmers University of Technology            not with a bang, but a whimper."
Sweden                                                       T.S. Elliot

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 23:27:38 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space)

In article <2249@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>The specific numbers can be argued over, but the idea of
>incentivizing the workforce where there is nothing now is the basic idea.

In fact, if anything, right now there is *negative* incentive.  In any
large bureaucracy, status tends to be judged on your staff and your budget.
The trouble is that neither has much to do with results.  Indeed, trying
to get results involves a chance of failure, which can be disastrous.
It's much better to explain how the many, many difficulties have prevented
you from getting any results this year, but if you get more money and staff
next year, you'll try real hard to accomplish something Real Soon Now.

In fact, the entire US space industry suffers from too many subsidies
(payments for trying, or claiming to) and not enough market guarantees
(payments for success only).
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 03:21:13 GMT
From: datapg!viper!dave@uunet.uu.net  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque

In article <8809261413.AA18424@decwrl.dec.com> luhrs@drfix.dec.com (Bruce Luhrs, MKO1-1/L38, Fire Management) writes:
 >
 >    Can anyone remember what information and messages were represented
 >    on the plaque carried out of the solar system by Pioneer-10?
 >
 >    If I could find a good picture of the plaque, it'd be interesting to
 >    see how many people could gather the meaning of the messages.  But
 >    I need the "correct answers" first.

You have to realize that the plaque was designed to be read by
ALIENS.  You might try Henry Spencer (if he ever is in town)
or Mike Dukakis's dad.  :-)
-- 
If you can't convince |   David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org)
them, confuse them.   |   Lynx Data Systems
   -- Harry S Truman  | 
                      |   amdahl   --!bungia!viper!dave
                      |   hpda    /

Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved
This work may be freely copied.  Any restrictions on
redistribution of this work are prohibited.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 22:24:24 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!pauln@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Nelson)
Subject: Pioneer 10 plaque

This is what I remember of the pioneer plaque and the explanation:

1.  A naked man and woman are shown standing in front of the Pioneer
spacecraft.  Tic marks are included to show the relative sizes of the people
compared to the spacecraft.  The man is waving.

2.  A diagram of our solar system is shown, with the Pioneer leaving the
third planet from the sun.

3.  A drawing of the H2 molecule with tic marks showing that the distance
between the two atoms is the unit to be used for the rest of the plaque.
E.g. the man and woman have a sequence of dashes and dots (binary code) to
show how tall they are in terms of the universal unit.

4.  A starburst pattern is shown, with the rays also binary coded to
indicate where the earth is with reference to known pulsars.  

There is no record-player with the spacecraft (you're thinking of the
Voyager, I believe).  There was considerable debate at the time, as to
whether we really wanted to include the plaque.  (Some argued that we might
be a delicacy for some alien beings).  Pioneer is not expected to reach the
distance of the nearest known star for 80,000 years.  That's the distance,
not the direction.  It is not expected to pass through a star system for
1,000,000 years.

Apologies if I've misrepresented some of the facts--it's been about 10 years
since I've seen the plaque and the solution.

Paul Nelson
Bell Labs

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 22:47:44 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!watdcsu!smann@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Shannon Mann - I.S.er)
Subject: Re: Alien civilizations, improved grey goo, and biotech civilizations...

In article <8809102212.AA06670@angband.s1.gov> C445585@UMCVMB.BITNET ("John Kelsey") writes:
>
>   About the self-replicating robots someone mentioned before:  Suppose the
>robot finds a civilized planet...now, there are 3 options as to what happens...
>
>1.) The robot is more than a match for the civilization, it trashes the planet.
>
>2.) The robot is evenly matched with the planet--it is defeated, but the planet
>    is left with only a few survivors.
>
>3.) The civilized planet is of a superior technology than the robots' makers--
>    the planet's defences sweep the robot under the rug.
>
>   Now, if #2 happens, the first major engineering feat done by the survivors
>is going to be a planetary defence system that includes x-ray laser projectors
>the size of the moon, and antiparticle accelerators.  After rebuilding, the
>civilization may well send out probes of its own, looking either to kill all
>remaining robots, to destroy the creators of the robots, or both.

A flaw in this argument is centered around the fact that the civilization in
question may have no interest in leaving their planet.  A civilization may 
exist where war is unknown, yet have very advanced technology.  They would be
attacked by the robot, and initially be badly hurt.  Their superior technology
would be brought into use, and the machine defeated.
If such a civilization did exist, their next move could very possibly be to 
hide their planet (and their star?) from detection.  By removing themselves 
from view, they would no longer be targets.  To suppose that an existing 
civilization would look something like ours has no basis in reality.  We
can only guess at the possibilities.

>   After #3, there's a good chance the planet will go after the makers of the
>robot, if possible.
>   Because of this, I think it'd be seen as a bad idea to launch the robots,
>even if you DO hate aliens.  Also, who's to say there haven't been a number of
>waves of these robots and robot-chasers already.  God knows, there's been
>enough time.

Again, there is an assumption that this civilization will be something we would
recognise.  We just don't know.

>   Also, I came up with a variation on the idea of "Grey Goo" (Nanomachines
>whose sole purpose is to use available energy and matter to self-replicate.)
>What if, once the goo reaches the center of the planet/asteroid/whatever it's
>on, it stores up energy for a couple weeks, then liberates it all in an explo-
>sion, blasting globs of grey goo EVERYWHERE.  Nifty, huh?

Who knows.  We may be the 'GREY GOO' that was seeded here so many billion
years ago.  If you are going to create a machine, why not make it out of
materials that we know can be made to reproduce it self.  I have heard many
arguments against the possibility, including the delacate nature of DNA, but
consider the incredibly strong sporecasings of some fungi, and the like.
Regardless, any civilization willing to invest that much will take steps to
protect that investment.

>   Finally, has anybody really thought of the likelihood of a technical
>civilization forming?  Not only are there the numerous disasters that can
>end a society's advancement (Nuclear, biochemical, or even prolonged conven-
>tional war, biotech accident, a fall into tyranny, a plague of some sort (Read
>_Galapagos_ by Kurt Vonnegutt), a fall into unreason and superstition, etc.),
>but why must a technological society form interested in radio waves or space
>travel?  I can imagine, for example, a society whose biotechnology is VERY
>advanced, but whose space technology is uninteresting.  They might grow their
>own homes, and their clothes, and there might be very simple and effective
>birth control, etc., and they would never FEEL population pressure...

Yes.  This is exactly what I am saying.  We don't know.  We may never.  To 
assume that we would recognise the civilization as one, or even that we 
would recognise life that we might encounter from other stars as life is
to be beyond naive.  If anything that science has taught us, it should be 
that the universe is not stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we
can imagine.

>   -- John Kelsey (C445585@UMCVMB.BITNET)

        -=-
-=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca
        -=-

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 17:49:30 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque

In article <8809261413.AA18424@decwrl.dec.com> luhrs@drfix.dec.com (Bruce Luhrs, MKO1-1/L38, Fire Management) writes:
>    Can anyone remember what information and messages were represented
>    on the plaque carried out of the solar system by Pioneer-10?

See Carl Sagan's book "The Cosmic Connection" -- possibly still in print,
almost certainly findable in your local library -- which discusses the
Pioneer 10 plaque in considerable detail.
-- 
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 17:55:26 GMT
From: hacgate!janus!doug@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Doug Saxon)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1942@spdcc.COM>, eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes:
> In article <6574@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> >In article <1889@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes:
> >>	i don't think this is an 'excuse' to go into space -- the
> >>	reasons for space exploration go beyond the avoidance of
> >>	Malthusian disaster here on Earth...  but that's one good reason.
> >
> >The fallacy is assuming that putting people into space will in any
> >way *reduce* the number here on Earth.  
> 
> 	good point -- people will still boff away happily on Earth...
> 	no matter how many *illion folks move to space.
> 	
If we look at terrestrial history many people left Europe, some perhaps to
avoid just such a Malthusian disaster.  The population of Europe did not
decline, in fact, it grew and the new opportunities presented by the European
domination of the Earth lead Europe to a better standard of living than
previously existed in Europe or in the rest of the world.  I believe that
the same is true today.  There are limited resources on earth.  Energy sources
are at a premium.  The only or one of the only ways to avoid warfare over
these resources and to provide a way for the underdeveloped nations of the
world to develope lies in inhabiting the Solar system and utilizing the
resources available.

Malthus is right.  There are no new planets being formed in the Solar system.
The sun emits only so much energy in a given time.  There is no excuse for
an allegedly intelligent species not using the resources available to it to
better conditions for itself and for all life on its home planet.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 00:17:17 GMT
From: a.gp.cs.cmu.edu!kvs@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Kathryn Van Stone)
Subject: Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)

In article <6918@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:

>In article <1339@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
>> It was later shown quite conclusively that tidal effects are the actual
>> cause.  The orbit of Phobos will continue to decay over the next 100
>> million years or so until it hits Mars.
>
>How does Mars have tidal effects with no (hardly any) liquid on
>the surface?  The atmosphere?  Is its crust weak enough to be
>deformed by Phobos' gravity?  Is there magma under its crust
>as on Earth?
>

I assume that the tidal effects mentioned are that of Mars acting on
Phobos, not Phobos on Mars.  I also believe that even if there is
no liquid you still have a drag due to tidal effects (which is
why the moon always faces the earth).

Its been a while since I studied this stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong.


Kathryn Van Stone
kvs@cs.cmu.edu

I'm still lacking a .signature file, so no disclaimers, no quotes.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #22
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Oct 88 05:45:26 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06783>; Tue, 11 Oct 88 03:37:19 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 11 Oct 88 03:37:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.kXIPc=y00UkTAOTE5e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po3.andrew.cmu.edu.2351b48f.e12b>;
          Tue, 11 Oct 88 03:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.2351b379.aedc58>;
          Tue, 11 Oct 88 03:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Oct 11 88 03:04:09 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #23

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 23

Today's Topics:
		   The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.
			 space digest request
			Re: Pioneer 10 plaque
		     Multi frigent, pauci rigent
		  Re: Tellus - satellites for peace
	    Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)
			  Re: Shuttle Names
  Re: NASA Management (was Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space))
	   Venus Orbiter ... naming the new Shuttle ... LPI
		    Re: RE: Naming the new Shuttle
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		       Re: How do we get there?
			Propellants in Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 14:56:05 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.


         The famous plaque on the U.S. space probes PIONEER 10 and 11 
    is designed for anyone who encounters the probes on their journey 
    through interstellar space to hopefully receive some idea of what the 
    crafts are and who built them.  The chances of these satellites 
    being found in the incredible vastness of the Milky Way Galaxy are 
    very small, but since the chance was there, it was taken.

         The plaque was designed late in PIONEER's construction by 
    Carl Sagan and his second wife, Linda, when they realized that the 
    probes would be leaving the Sol system after flying by the planets 
    Jupiter and Saturn.  It is six by nine inches in diameter, and placed 
    between struts on the side of the probes, where it should be shielded 
    from most space debris and last as long as the spaceships are estimated 
    to, roughly one billion years.  In that time, the probes will come 
    within a few light years of several star systems, though whether any of 
    them have intelligent lifeforms which can travel to other stars and 
    detect such small vessels is unknown.  A lot of the PIONEERs' chances 
    to be found are based on many factors and just pure luck.

         The plaque's design is relatively simple, and assumes that
    the beings who find the probes have a scientific way of thinking
    similar to humans.  Of the etchings on it, there is the atomic 
    symbol for hydrogen, the most common natural element in the Universe.  
    There is also an etching of fourteen lines radiating from a single 
    point of the left side of the plaque.  This indicates the location 
    of fourteen pulsars (rapidly rotating neutron stars) in relation 
    to Sol, to serve not only as a guide to locate our star system, 
    but to give the recipients of the PIONEERS an idea of when the probes 
    were launched, as stars change positions as they move through the 
    galaxy, and if the beings can plot star courses over time, they may 
    know when the vessels were launched.

         Near the center of the plaque are drawings of two human beings,
    male and female.  They are nude and have facial features representing 
    the various races of humanity.  The male is also raising his right arm 
    and extending his hand palm flat in a gesture of what is hoped to be 
    interpreted as a friendly greeting.  The female is slightly shorter 
    than the male, and next to her is a binary code telling how tall the 
    average human is.  Behind them is an outline sketch of the PIONEER probe, 
    to give the beings who find the vehicle yet another idea just how big 
    we are.  This drawing caused the biggest stir of all for the plaque 
    and NASA, as some wrongly accused NASA of sending "smut" into space, 
    as the man and woman were without clothing (I personally think it would 
    have been ridiculous to show them *with* any type of clothing, as it was 
    assumed the aliens would have enough trouble trying to figure the plaque 
    out, and they might interpret clothing as a biological part of our bodies;
    plus what clothes could they wear which would represent *all* styles of 
    dress everywhere?  The situation would get ridiculous very fast).
    Feminists complained that the woman was not only shorter than the 
    man, but just seemed to stand there doing nothing.  Keep in mind that 
    Linda Sagan is the one who drew the man and woman representatives of 
    the human race, so I doubt she would have drawn them the way she did 
    if she had felt any sexism about the characters.

         At the bottom of the plaque is a representation of our solar 
    system, with Sol at the left and extending to Pluto on the right.
    Saturn is shown with a line through its center to represent its 
    rings (Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune were not known to have rings in 
    1972).  The small circle representing Earth is filled in, and 
    PIONEER is shown flying between Jupiter and Saturn with an arrowed 
    line from Earth to the probe.  There is also a binary code next to 
    each planet and Sol, indicating the size of each world.

         Sagan wanted to make another, more detailed plaque for the 
    VOYAGER probes - which are also heading into interstellar space - 
    in 1977, but it was decided instead to make a gold record for each 
    probe, one which is designed to reproduce over one hundred carefully 
    picked photos of our solar system and human activity, along with
    various selections of music, Earth sounds, and people talking in 
    fifty-five human languages.  I highly recommend Sagan's 1978 book on
    the project, MURMURS OF EARTH, from Random House.  It goes into great 
    detail on the record as well as the PIONEER plaque, where you will 
    find a picture of it.  I must admit I am surprised the original poster 
    said he could not find any pictures of the plaque, as I've seen it in 
    at least one dozen space exploration and astronomy books over the years.

         As I said earlier, the chances of any of the four spacecraft
    being found before they decay are incredibly slim, but not entirely 
    impossible.  I think the beings most likely to find them will be 
    our space-faring descendants as they spread out to explore and 
    colonize the stars, as they will know the probes are out there, what 
    direction they headed, and how far they have gotten in their journeys.
    PIONEER and VOYAGER will probably best serve as time capsules for 
    our distant children.  It would be an interesting yet sad thought 
    to think that the plaques and records these probes carry could end up 
    up being the only records left of the human race on Earth if we 
    carelessly destroy ourselves.

         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: Wed 28 Sep 88 09:50:59-PDT
From: Diana Egly <Egly%THOR@hplabs.hp.com>
Subject: space digest request

Where could I find the presidential candidates positions on space exploration?

-------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 19:32:46 GMT
From: gryphon!crash!adamsd@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Adams Douglas)
Subject: Re: Pioneer 10 plaque

You are correct in most of your description, except that the picture of
Hydrogen is of a state transition (the electron symbol is flipped over
in the second picture). This transition produces a characteristic emission
giving you both a distance unit (the wavelength) and a time unit (single-
cycle time).

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 02:50:23 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Multi frigent, pauci rigent


"If all you could get on the moon with any consistency was Arctic and
"Antarctic TV, there would not be "many" channel 4's.  Presumably two
"at most.  And I'll bet you could pick the one you wanted with a dish,
"no?
"-- 
"Tom Neff

Probably so--the typical backyard dish resolves about one degree,
and the earth seen from the moon subtends two.  However, you couldn't
do this from moon to earth, as luna is only half a degree from here.

Also, beware that the resolving power depends on frequency.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 18:28:59 GMT
From: killer!loci@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (loci!clb)
Subject: Re: Tellus - satellites for peace

In article <13221@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes:
> I've seen it mentioned a few times recently -- just what IS a
> sun-synchronous orbit?
> -- 
> --    bob,mon			(bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
> --    "Aristotle was not Belgian..."	- Wanda

	If I understand it correctly, sun synchro orbits are those
	which have a precession of the node which matches and
	cancels the ~1 deg movement of the Earth around the Sun,
	causing the sat to stay in a fixed orbit relative to the
	terminator (dawn or dusk).

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083
	   clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 19:36:57 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)

In article <1339@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
> It was later shown quite conclusively that tidal effects are the actual
> cause.  The orbit of Phobos will continue to decay over the next 100
> million years or so until it hits Mars.

How does Mars have tidal effects with no (hardly any) liquid on
the surface?  The atmosphere?  Is its crust weak enough to be
deformed by Phobos' gravity?  Is there magma under its crust
as on Earth?

> The best Mars story I've seen to date appeared as the headline on one of
> the tabloids last week. NINE MILE HIGH STATUE OF ELVIS ON MARS, it said,
> or something like that. "ALL SHOOK UP" HEARD ON MARTIAN RADIO.
> I was laughing so hard I almost dropped my groceries on the floor.

I saw that same tabloid and chuckled, but held back my belly laugh
while I searched its cover for the fine print "A National Lampoon
Parody."  I COULDN"T FIND IT!  This must be a real publication.
I couldn't laugh, thinking about all that wasted work by God
and Charles Darwin trying to create "intelligent" life on Earth...

Will it broadcast "Don't Be Cruel" when the RUssians arrive?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 18:53:35 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Names

In article <Added.0XCQKZy00Ui3EjF08l@andrew.cmu.edu>, ST502042@BROWNVM.BITNET (Michael Nosal) writes:

> spacecraft? How 'bout The LEONOV. I think the Soviets have a research/arctic

I think we'll see quite enough space ships with Russian names
(s russkomi imyami?) on them in the next decade.  NASA should support
the minorities in space -- like Americans.

Wonder if they're saving "Tsiokolsky" for the Mars mission?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 19:18:00 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: NASA Management (was Re: Cost of Space (was: Denver in Space))

As a lowly techie, I'd support the notion of promoting techies
into management.  But unfortunately, I know of companies
that have done this since the beginning, and there is no evidence
that they are managed any better than GM or even Morton Thiokol.
Part of this is no doubt due to what one other poster alluded to,
that by the time they reach upper management their own technical
views are way behind the state of the art, but they *think* they're
still engineers.

What you really want are managers who *respect* their engineers/
scientists and always consult with them and believe their opinions.
If the techies can't reach a concensus, the manager has to make
a decision and take the responsibility; that's what his bigger
salary is for.

I won't argue with getting the MBA types out, but on the other hand
a really tough business manager would be just the type to
cut out that subcontracting nonsense and other wastes (junkets,
lunches, etc), even though the people getting hurt would
call him a "bean counter."  That's *our* beans he's counting.

I'd rather have an MBA who's bullish on space than a burned-out
ex-scientist who doesn't give a s**t as long as he gets paid.
I think our dislike of MBAs concerns the low probability that
any of them care about anything as abstract as space exploration.
But if such people exist, let's use 'em.

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 28 Sep 88 15:04:24 EDT
From: Bill Blum <BASTILLE%GRIFFIN.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Venus Orbiter ... naming the new Shuttle ... LPI


This may be old hat to some...
The Venus Pioneer orbiter now well into its 10th year of life has
successfuly mapped 90% of the Venusian surface.  It continues to take
pictures of cloud cover and gather info on the planetary environment/
atmosphere.  It has 3 primary goals: 1) global mapping via remote sensing
and radio occultation, 2) direct measurements of upper atmosphere,
ionosphere and solar wind/ionosphere interaction, & 3) studies of planetary
surface by radar. It has also monitored the following comets between 1984-88:
Encke, G-Zinner, Halley, Wilson, Nishikawa-Takimizawa-Tago (NTT) and
McNaught (Wilson especially noted as it was non-periodic and "fresh" - it
produced as much water as did Halley (8 tons per sec)).

In the naming of the new shuttle orbiter (currently designated OV-105)
school-aged children must have entries postmarked by Dec 31.
Faculty members can get the packet via:
      NASA Orbiter-Naming Program
      Council of Chief State School Officers
      400 North Capitol Street, NW
      Suite 379
      Washington, DC 20001
or (202) 783-5109 or (202) 783-5113


Lunar and Planetary Institute info is available via ARPANET, NSFnet, NSN
through the DFTNIC computer (also via FAX) -- contact Carolyn Kohring
LPI::KOHRING on SPAN -or- KOHRING%LPI.SPAN at node JPL-VLSI.ARPA on BITNET
Acknowledge-To: <BASTILLE@GRIFFIN>

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 11:15:19 GMT
From: sun.soe!dave@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu  (Dave Goldblatt)
Subject: Re: RE: Naming the new Shuttle

>From article <8809290204.AA14186@angband.s1.gov>, by LUCAS@SAGE.PSY.CMU.EDU:
> 
>     I've always kind of assumed that CHALLENGER II would be a contender.

No.  NASA has retired the name "Challenger".

-dg-

-- 

Internet: dave@sun.soe.clarkson.edu  or:   dave@clutx.clarkson.edu
BITNET:   dave@CLUTX.Bitnet          uucp: {rpics, gould}!clutx!dave
Matrix:   Dave Goldblatt @ 1:260/360 ICBM: If you don't know, I ain't telling.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 88 16:12:51 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <1671@daisy.UUCP> wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) writes:
> Short term planning seems more intrinsic to the political
> system than to "big corporations".

As Jerry Pournelle once pointed out, it is impossible for the US to become
involved in interstellar exploration unless an FTL drive is developed:
within the speed of light, an interstellar mission to the nearest star
cannot possibly return results sooner than 8.6 years after launch, which
exceeds the longest possible US presidential term.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 17:54:08 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: How do we get there?

In article <QXBlL3y00XoI0JfGx0@andrew.cmu.edu> js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes:
}Hi!
}
}I would just like to open a topic of discussion: How do we get into space? I am
}interested in commercial (private company) aspects of the commercialization of
}space. What systems would a start-up company propose? How much would it cost to
}found one? Are they economically feasable?

1. be born there - no time real soon, but maybe...

2. start by learning russian.


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 29 Sep 88 11:47:20 EDT
From: Suzanne Rodday <ST401460%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Propellants in Shuttle

Now that we have all seen Discovery blast off into the wild blue yonder, I was
wondering what the propellants are in the solid rocket boosters. (Sorry if this
 question has been answered before in previous issues.)  What are the exact che
micals (not any trade names).  As a chemist, chemicals, of course, interest me.

Thanks in advance.


Go shuttle, go!

/ Suzanne Rodday, grad student, Chemistry Dept, Brown University

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #23
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Oct 88 06:30:22 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00805>; Tue, 11 Oct 88 05:29:26 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 11 Oct 88 05:29:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.AXIRF7y00jZd438k5d@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.2351d142.a2c18f>;
          Tue, 11 Oct 88 05:15:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.middletown.andrew.cmu.edu.2351cf4f.d41c84>;
          Tue, 11 Oct 88 05:07:31 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Oct 11 88 05:03:54 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #24

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:
		Re: Overpopulation is not our problem
			  Re: Survey Results
   Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)
		       Re: How do we get there?
	   ERP for intrasystem, interstellar communications
	     Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		    Re: RE: Naming the new Shuttle
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
	     Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque
			political info request
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 88 18:10:34 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!dharvey@tis.llnl.gov  (David Harvey)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation is not our problem

In article <880919090706.0000066A091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
...
> for the total population (most mountain ranges, swamps, etc need to be
> de-weighted since they tend not to be useful for real estate or providing
> resources other than oxygen from plant life).  I have no idea what this
> acreage would turn out to be, in order to support the population at the
> level of life style that most of us find comfortable.  I wouldn't mind
> betting that we're getting close, though.
> 
> Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)


The previous person writing about all the vast land expanses in the west
forgot one thing.  MOST OF THEM ARE DESERT, and it seems some folks in 
Africa who cut all their trees down are having problems with this sort
of terrain!  But rather than trying to push our population to the
largest size possible, why don't we give this good old earth of ours a
rest!  It would be too bad if we destroyed it, especially since we
haven't found intelligent life anywhere else in our Universe.  It seems
like we have some folks close to home who have the same problem.
Remember the Carribean island that was a tropical paradise 50 years ago
and is a desert today?


David A Harvey

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 17:49:45 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Survey Results

In article <880921091941.251@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
}	Make the universe a better place?!  Better than what?  Better for whom?
}Is the North American continent better than it was 500 years ago?  Much as I
}like my Mac and many of the other trappings of technology, I'm beginning to have
}a sort of Luddite affinity for the ways of the original Australians.
}	For forty thousand years the Australians believed that they were the
}caretakers of nature, that it was their prayers for the flora and fauna of the
}Earth that kept everything going.  In forty thousand years the Australians
}never invented the wheel, never built a monument to themselves, neither did
}they pollute a single stream, nor desecrate a single acre of land.

Never irrigated an inch of desert, planted a single flower, ...

}	If the Australians disappeared tomorrow, there would be scarcely a sign
}they had ever existed.  The pristine nature of the Australian continent is
}testament to the ultimate (so far) execution of the old Boy Scout principle,
}"Always leave a place better than you found it." 

note: better.  Not "as bad as it was"

}	We should be as good at taking care of the universe as they were at
}taking care of their continent.

Take care of it?  What's better?  Name an improvement.

Like the netherlands?  Underwater might be nicer, but geeze.

Or Southern California.  LA isn't great (personal opinion - the traffic
is unbelievable) but I think it is better than desert...

Check out "The Galaxy Before Man" by T. M. Donaldson, Analog Sept 84 for some
interesting galactic-level "beautification" projects.


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 88 19:56:44 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)

>From article <484@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM>, by johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson):
- In article <1988Sep13.164340.1289@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
->                                                 Oh, there is a difference,
->but given the oxidizer shortage, one has to balance the risks against the
->utility of being able to fly more missions.  
- 
- Forgive me for asking what might seem to be a dumb question (I'm not as involved
- with the space program as I once was), but why not remove the oxidizer from the
- old segments and put it into the new ones?  
-  -- 

Ever tried to take the egg out of an angel cake? The oxidizer is mixed
into the propellent and then the whole mass is "baked" to form a
solid. Not to mention that in this case the "cake" (solid rocket
propellent) has been known to catch fire and even explode when it is
cut. 

			Bob P.

-- 
Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland
UUCP Address:  {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet
Alternate:     utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
        I am solely responsible for what I say.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 88 17:59:43 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: How do we get there?

In article <21037@watmath.waterloo.edu> mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) writes:
}In article <QXBlL3y00XoI0JfGx0@andrew.cmu.edu> js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes:
}>        An elevator built of Sinclair monofillament (or some such thing) so
}>that we merely press 'up' and away we go. Do we have the technology to
}>construct such a thing so that it won't collapse under its own weight?
}
}It's own weight is one thing, but the lateral forces exerted on it by
}the atmosphere is another. Typically is is easier to construct materials 
}which are stronger in one axis than any other.  A space elevator would 
}have to be constructed of materials with incredible resiliance along all
}force axes.
}
}I thought the cheaper idea was a Sky-hook;  a earth-fixed cable which 
}would be a tether to a station held tight by centrifical acceleration
}many miles above a geosync orbit.  You could send infinite amounts of
}stuff into space in small packages (and back, of course) in robot shuttles
}which could ride the wire electrically or mechanically.  Re-entry
}problems are eliminated as the shuttles can fall back to earth at a 
}controlled rate, and living arrangements are simplified as the station
}at the far end of the tether would have a minor gravity field.  Another
}station at the geosync level would contain all the factories
}and labs needed for manufacture of zero-gee products. And supposedly,
}the zero-gee scientists could go "home" to the minor-gee station
}every night and thus thwart the problems of null-g medical problems,
}at least in part.
}
}Sounds good, but Geo-sync is about 40,000 km from earth, and any cable
}that long would have a significant elasticity problem.  On the other
}hand, even if there was nothing else than a heavy weight on the end,
}it would be a cheap and effective way to get tonnes of useful products
}into space.


I liked the shorter one, myself.  Make a long strong cable (shorter than
geosync, though) and put it in orbit at a height of appox 1/2 its length.
Spin it such that the tangential velocity of the end of the cable is 
approximately orbital velocity.  When the end gets near the earth, dock
a plane with the relatively slow moving port you build on it (1 on each end) 
and ride the ferris wheel to the top.  Get off at the top.  Use some propulsion
to keep the center in orbit and angular velocity up.

(picture it as a wheel riding along the earth, or just 1 radial spoke
the full diameter of one)

p.s.  this would look NEAT as the end came apparently straight down,
stopped in mid-air, then started back up!!!!

The cable strength and lengths are MUCH less....


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Sep 88 04:40:11 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: ERP for intrasystem, interstellar communications

A friend of mine tells me that one of the big 250 kilowatt Continental
transmitters sits in the building at Stanford which houses the larger of the
dishes on the hilltops above Palo Alto.  The dish is not all that efficient,
but it does add some 32db of gain at 50 mHz.  When they light it up
the wiring in the buildings around the Stanford Park area pick up some
of the stray RF and a lot of scopes have a spurious 50 mHz signal from it. 

He told me that when one of the planetary probes was struck by a micrometeorite
and began tumbling, out of contact with Earth, that the dish was used to
hit the backup omnidirectional antenna on it with orders to straighten up
and fly right.  It did, even though it was out beyond Saturn (or so he said).

When Stanford talks, probes listen.


Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 13:40:35 GMT
From: nsc!taux01!taux02!amos@hplabs.hp.com  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque

As a matter of fact, the plaque stands a good chance of being studied by
intelligent  beings  within a  rather  short  time (on  an  astronomical
scale). When  we have  much faster and  cheaper propulsion  methods, the
whole idea would become obsolete, and Pioneer will be recaptured and put
in the Smithsonian.
-- 
	Amos Shapir				amos@nsc.com
National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
Tel. +972 52 522261  TWX: 33691, fax: +972-52-558322
34 48 E / 32 10 N			(My other cpu is a NS32532)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 16:42:41 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@rutgers.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <2124@byzantium.cs.swarthmore.edu>, leif@cs.swarthmore.edu (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes:
> In article <3982@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes:
> > Chuck Sites writes:
> > 
> > I read this theory in a book whose author I've forgotten.  I can't
> > remember if it was trying to explain the "Nemesis factor" or not but it's
> > interesting to think about.  I don't know enough to evaluate it fully.
> > 
> > 	The Oort cloud is only temporary and is exhausted within a few 
> > 	million years.  It is replenished whenever the sun passes through
> > 	a section of the galaxy which has a high concentration of gas and
> > 	dust, i.e. a spiral arm.  There is some kind of gravity focusing
> > 	effect that the sun has on the dust which causes it to collect in
> > 	the downstream "wake" of the sun and form comets.
> > 
> > 	After this occurs, comets are common in the solar system until the
> > 	batch of comets are used up.
> The sun is in orbit around the center of gravity of our galaxy, as is the
> spiral arm we are in.  Thus the sun does not "pass[es] through...a spiral arm"
> for that would imply that either the sun or the arm is standing still, in which
> case it would not be in our galaxy any more.

The spiral arms of our galaxy are not always composed of the same gas clouds
and stars.  Rather, they are analogous to wave fronts which briefly
concentrate matter passing through them.  They are extremely dramatic
if you plot the locations of giant molecular clouds and young, massive
stars.  They are rather undramatic if you plot the local density of
typical stars.  In any case, our sun does indeed pass through the
spiral arms of our galaxy on a regular basis.  Since we also have some
vertical motion relative to the galactic disk, we pass through the disk
every 30 million years or so.  This is often compared to the proposed
time scale for periodic extinctions, but the connection isn't clear to me.
The gas in the disk is not all that concentrated at the exact
midplane of the disk.

I have never heard of this formation theory for comets (which means little
since this isn't my field).

>   In consideration of a biblically based creation, how was the flood caused?
> And how did this hypothetical layer of water (assuming that something we
> don't know about held it up) suddenly fall to create the flood?  
> Contemporary experience with global weather phenomena are somewhat long term
> in nature. (c.f. ice ages)
> 

Please direct all followups to the above paragraph to talk.origins.
Biblical creationism has no place in this group, or any other sci.*
group.






-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 20:26:08 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!mfgfoc!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Thompson)
Subject: Re: RE: Naming the new Shuttle

>From article <8809290204.AA14186@angband.s1.gov>, by LUCAS@SAGE.PSY.CMU.EDU:
> 
>     I've always kind of assumed that CHALLENGER II would be a contender.
>     				-pete (LUCAS@PSY.CMU.EDU)

	 I was thinking that CHALLENGER VII (with respects to the seven 
	 astronauts) or AVENGER would be a nice name for any future shuttle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Thompson                            FOCUS Semiconductor Systems, Inc.
net: (sun!daver!mfgfoc!mike)    570 Maude Court
att: (408) 738-0600 ext 370            Sunnyvale, CA  94086 USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 30 Sep 88 00:33:06 GMT
From: att!whuts!homxb!mhuxu!mls@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <6284@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, mhw@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Marc Weinstein) writes:

> In response to some other articles I was reading, some scientists have
> theorized that these periodic mass extinctions may be a necessary part
> of evolution.  The "wiping clean" of entire, unadaptable species may provide
> needed adjustments to evolution.

Pardon me, but could explain just WHO "needs" these adjustments?  Is this not
perhaps a hidden premiss that "well, if the dinosaurs hadn't bought it, we
probably would not have evolved."  I really DO wish that people talking about
evolution would not make the silly assumption that we are in some myterious
way its "goal."
-- 
Michael L. Siemon
contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!mhuxu!mls
standard disclaimer

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 20:37:19 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque

>From article <8809261413.AA18424@decwrl.dec.com>, by
luhrs@drfix.dec.com (Bruce Luhrs, MKO1-1/L38, Fire Management): 
>     Can anyone remember what information and messages were represented
>     on the plaque carried out of the solar system by Pioneer-10?

See Mercury, vol. 17, p. 88 (May/June 1988).  This issue and the
previous one have articles on the scientific achievements of the
Pioneer spacecraft.  The description of the plaque is a sidebar.

Mercury is published by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (390
Ashton Ave., San Francisco, CA 94112).  Copies should be available in
any good library. 
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 19:54:54 GMT
From: millgram@husc4.harvard.edu  (Elijah Millgram)
Subject: political info request


This should probably go to space.politics.misc, but I couldn't find
a newsgroup like that, soo...

Being a voter for whom space is an issue, I was wondering if someone
out there knows of a PAC-type group that does pro-space litmus test
ratings on the candidates we'll be choosing between shortly.
I want to know what the candidates *say* they'll do for space,
and also what their records (and their adivsors records) indicate
they *will* do.

Thanks in advance,

Lije



Elijah Millgram                            millgram@husc4.harvard.edu
Custom Philosophy...               ``All work done on the premises.''

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #24
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Oct 88 02:24:29 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06412>; Wed, 12 Oct 88 00:38:54 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 12 Oct 88 00:38:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.kXIi6wy00jZd4N2U4U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.2352e010.cdd1b8>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 00:31:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.2352dd93.e7f1b4>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 00:20:41 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Oct 12 88 00:18:29 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #25

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 25

Today's Topics:
		   Condensed CANOPUS - August 1988
			     CANOPUS Poll
	    Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)
			Re: Pioneer 10 plaque
	     Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		  Re: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 18:38:08 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - August 1988

Here's the condensed CANOPUS for August 1988.  There are seven
articles, two short ones given in full, two given very briefly, and
three condensed.  Material in {braces} is from me and is signed
{--SW} when it is only an expression of opinion.  Sorry this issue is
so late, but I was gone essentially all of September.

CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; 
e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded).  Send
correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.

{two articles summarized}
BOOSTER R.F.P. ISSUED - can880805.txt - 8/23/88
{for "Advanced Solid Rocket Motor"}

SPACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE - can880806.txt - 8/23/88
{$5.5 million study contract for launch pads, production facilities,
and flight vehicles.  Ride report to be updated and reissued.}

{two short articles in full}
PHOBOS INSTRUMENTS OPERATING - can880804.txt - 8/23/88 {in full}

The Earth's bow shock was measured on July 7 by the plasma wave
system developed by the European Space Agency and now aboard the
Soviet Union's Phobos-1 spacecraft. The system comprises a 1.5- meter
antenna and a 6--sq-cm plasma collector. Principal investigator is
Rejean Grard of ESA. The bow shock was measured at a distance of
170,000 km as Phobos-1 crossed it.

EUROPE AT THE NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM  {in full}

An exhibit on "European Space Agency: Space Science Satellites" 
will be open to the public Aug. 25 through mid-January 1989. 
Full-scale mockups and engineering models of the Giotto comet 
probe,the Ulysses solar polar probe, and other spacecraft will 
be in the display.

{three condensed articles}
SPACE STATION A.O. ISSUED - can880801.txt - 8/15/88 {condensed}

Astromag and a Cosmic Dust Collection Facility will be the major
science facilities NASA will attach to the exterior of the Freedom
Space station in the mid-1990's, according to an Announcement of
Opportunity issued on July 22. Another 4 to 6 principal investigator
(PI-class) instruments will be attached to the exterior as well.  The
Astromag facility will be a superconducting magnet with PI-supplied
detector modules attached around it.  {This sounds like a cosmic ray
and solar wind facility, but I don't know for sure.--SW} Cosmic Dust
Collection Facility (CDCF) is a mission once planned for the Long
Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF), which now has been in orbit almost
four years longer than planned. A total of 10 square meters of
collecting area will be exposed in the CDCF for the purpose of
gathering individual cosmic dust particles "in the least degraded
manner" for ultimate return to Earth.  The AO does not describe how
the cleanliness of the collectors will be maintained, especially
during spacewalks and Shuttle visits.

The AO (No. OSSA 3-88) is open to scientists in all disciplines but
Earth sciences: that was covered by AO OSSA 1-88 for the Earth
Observing System (EOS) in January. Further, Rapid Response Research
("Quick is Beautiful") will be covered by a separate AO about two to
three years before Freedom is operational. Separate AO's are expected
in the next two years for life sciences and microgravity materials
sciences, inside the lab module, and the plasma interactions
monitoring system (PIMS) outside the modules.

SOLAR TELESCOPE ALIVE, HEADED FOR NEW PHASE B - can880802.txt - 8/23/88

The High Resolution Solar Observatory, now renamed Orbiting Solar
Observatory (OSL), is expected to enter a renewed Phase B study to
define the spacecraft bus later this year.  {The new name is probably
"Orbiting Solar Laboratory" or something similar.  There was an OSO
series back in the sixties, and I guess the editor just wrote that by
reflex.--SW}

When started as SOT, the facility was to have a 1.25-meter 
primary mirror hosting a number of prime- and secondary-foci 
instruments, plus several co-aligned telescopes. A series of 
delays caused by U.S. Rep. Edward Boland (D-Mass.) trying to have 
SOT billed as a new start rather than a Spacelab facility, and 
by the Challenger accident, finally forced NASA to rescale the 
telescope to 1.0-meter and plan to place it aboard a free-flying 
spacecraft. In the process the ultraviolet capability was lost 
but the sub-arc-second resolving power was largely retained.

At present OSL's high-resolution solar telescope (HRST) still has 
the original consolidated instrument package with a tunable 
filtergraph and magnetograph developed by Alan Title of Lockheed 
Missiles & Space Co., and a filter camera developed by Harold 
Zirin of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. A West German white-light 
spectrograph has been added, turning OSL into a four-in-one 
facility.

Bohlin said that two instruments may be added to OSL. The first could
be the High Resolution Telescope and Spectrograph (HRTS) that flew on
Spacelab 2 in 1985. HRTS is the prototype and may become the flight
instrument since it would cost only half as much as a new instrument.
The second instrument that may be added is a high-resolution XUV
imager from the U.S. Air Force SAMEX (Solar Activities Monitor
Experiment) program.

If the Phase B study effort is held in fiscal 1989-90, and a new
start is approved in fiscal 1991, then a launch could come by the end
of 1995.  The spacecraft would be designed for a minimum three-year
mission with a goal of six years so it would reach the solar maximum
of 2001.

TRW WINS AXAF - can880803.txt - 8/23/88 {condensed}

NASA announced today that TRW Space and Technology Group and 
Kodak Federal Systems Division have been selected to build the 
Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF), the third of NASA's 
"Great Observatories" for space astrophysics. The first two are 
the Hubble Space Telescope, built by Lockheed Missiles & Space 
Co. and Perkin-Elmer Corp. (the other competing team), and the 
Gamma Ray Observatory, built by TRW.  {And the fourth is Space
Infrared Telescope Facility.  The funding situation is complicated
and keeps changing, but as I understand it, AXAF got the FY'89
development money it needed but not the official new start it wanted.
SIRTF is looking for a 1993 new start, following AXAF, EOS, and
CRAF+Casini.  Corrections or updates welcome.--SW}
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 19:20:53 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: CANOPUS Poll

After posting the condensed CANOPUS for over a year now, it's time
for a poll to see if the effort is worthwhile.

What happens now is this: Each month, I copy the CANOPUS articles for
the previous month, reformat slightly, and send the unabridged
CANOPUS to a mailing list (currently 37 names).  This takes almost no
effort and will continue.  Then I condense and rearrange articles,
typically decreasing the overall length by a factor of 3, and post
the condensation to sci.space.  The condensation is some effort, and
I want to know if it is worth while or could be improved.  However,
it will never be possible for me to post more quickly than the
present schedule.

August has just been posted (sorry, yes, I know it's late), and
September will come out in a couple of days.  These are examples of
the current practice.

Please respond via e-mail to one of my addresses below, picking which
of the alternatives you would prefer.  Please put your preference
first on a line by itself, then append any comments you have.  You
can include a request to be added to the unabridged mailing list if
you like.  (There is no need to request it if you are already on the
list.)

A. Forget it - waste of net bandwidth
B1. Condense more - just a sentence or two for each article
B2. Condense more - most articles a sentence or two, a few longer
   (Which types of articles should be longer?)
B3. Condense more - short paragraph or two for most articles
C. About right - keep it up
D. Too short - put in full articles on selected subjects
   (Which subjects?)
E. Forget condensation - just post the whole thing
F. Other - specify

Obviously A or E would be the easiest for me, but better to let me
know what YOU want.  Thanks for all replies.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 23:50:22 GMT
From: amdcad!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: USSR and Phobos (Today's paranoid theory)

In article <6918@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
> In article <1339@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
> > It was later shown quite conclusively that tidal effects are the actual
> > cause.  The orbit of Phobos will continue to decay over the next 100
> > million years or so until it hits Mars.
> 
> How does Mars have tidal effects with no (hardly any) liquid on
> the surface?  The atmosphere?  Is its crust weak enough to be
> deformed by Phobos' gravity?  Is there magma under its crust
> as on Earth?

Hmm.  I was about to send a reply to this when i started to think about
the situation.  Phobos and Deimos are orbiting in the same direction
as Mars is turning, right?  Phobos is a little closer to Mars than an
Areosynchronous satellite would be, so Phobos is one of the few natural
satellites (is it the only one?  My CRC doesn't list any others, but it's
kind of old) in the solar system that appear to orbit west-to-east, which
might be interesting but is irrelevant.  Oops, it isn't either irrelevant,
i was even more confused than i thought.

Because Phobos is lower than an isosynchronous satellite, tidal drag from it
would tend to speed up Mars' rotation rate.  Conservation of angular
momentum requires that Phobos' orbit decays as a result, leading to the
classical (in sci-fi movies and tv shows, at any rate) inward spiraling 
orbit.

Since Deimos is higher than an isosynchronous satellite, tidal drag from it
would tend to lower Mars' rotation rate, and conservation of angular momentum
would tend to move the satellite away from Mars.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 16:51:09 GMT
From: please.umiacs.umd.edu!frost@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Goltz)
Subject: Re: Pioneer 10 plaque


	Re: the Pioneer 10/11 plaque:  please also note that the binary numbers
on the pulsar map are periods of pulse (measured in transition times of the
hydrogen atom), and not distances.  This would also give an approximate
time of launch, since pulsar periods lengthen slowly at a known rate.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 16:15:11 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque

In article <207@tekn01.chalmers.se> f86_lerner@tekn01.chalmers.se (Mikael Lerner) writes:
>     Saturn will probably give the aliens problem: it is drawn as a
>     circle with a line across it.

Unless they've got a somewhat odd solar system, they should be able to
follow it.  The error was not in giving Saturn rings, but in not giving
Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune rings!  They seem to be normal features of
gas-giant planets.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 15:19:43 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space


In article <1942@spdcc.COM>, eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes:
> In article <6574@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> >In article <1889@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes:
> >>    i don't think this is an 'excuse' to go into space -- the
> >>    reasons for space exploration go beyond the avoidance of
> >>    Malthusian disaster here on Earth...  but that's one good reason.
> >
> >The fallacy is assuming that putting people into space will in any
> >way *reduce* the number here on Earth.  
> 
>       good point -- people will still boff away happily on Earth...
>       no matter how many *illion folks move to space.
>      

Slight suggestion - perhaps the Malusian escape isn't for the people on earth,
it's for the ones that get away.  Once you've left the planet, you no longer
are subjected to the crowd.

And in that context, it works fine!


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 13:16:24 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <392@janus.UUCP> doug@janus.UUCP (Doug Saxon) writes:
>If we look at terrestrial history many people left Europe, some perhaps to
>avoid just such a Malthusian disaster.  The population of Europe did not
>decline, in fact, it grew and the new opportunities presented by the European
>domination of the Earth lead Europe to a better standard of living than
>previously existed in Europe or in the rest of the world.  

...end of episode, right?  Not wishing to single out Doug in
particular, but this seems to be a popular line of argument.  It goes
kind of like, "Europe was a crowded, dangerous dead end, but when we
expanded to the New World things worked out OK.  Now Earth is a
crowded, dangerous dead end, but if we inhabit {the Moon, L5, Mars
etc}, things will work out OK."  What I like to do is establish some
LINKAGE between the *payoff* of the first example and the *premise* of
the second.  If expanding to a new world works out OK, then how come
we're crowded, dangerous etc?  Let's put it this way, what would it
look like if it HADN'T worked out OK? :-)

All indications are that as a species we are still LOUSY at running a
planet.  Is FRANCHISING this ineptitude system-wide really a rational
response to the problem?  How much closer to the angels will mankind be
when we have starving babies, carcinogenic air and race riots on six
planets instead of just the one?  Much as I love space and want to
explore it, I cannot regard it as an excuse for running away from the
mess we've already made.

The reader may object: that's what they told Columbus too.  Well, even
if they did (who? when?), I ask: were they wrong?  Is the planet better
off today for Europeans having colonized the New World as they did?
Next time we read about the horrors of Cortes and Pisarro, we should
remember who they were:  Starship Troopers!
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 88 17:38:12 GMT
From: att!ihlpf!mhw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Marc Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

> spiral arm we are in.  Thus the sun does not "pass[es] through...a spiral arm"
> for that would imply that either the sun or the arm is standing still, in which
> case it would not be in our galaxy any more.  Moreover, any dust/gas clouds
> which our spiral arm might pass through would have been swept up and would
> be moving along with the rotation of the galaxy, thus staying still relative
> to us.

Wrong!  Read your textbooks.  Our solar system rotates around the center of
the galaxy, AS WELL AS showing periodic swings through the galactic disk.  It
is this small periodic motion that we are talking about, and it DOES exist.
These motions are, of course, small when taken in relation to the size of
the galaxy.

In response to some other articles I was reading, some scientists have
theorized that these periodic mass extinctions may be a necessary part
of evolution.  The "wiping clean" of entire, unadaptable species may provide
needed adjustments to evolution.

-- 
Marc Weinstein
AT&T Bell Labs - Indian Hill
Naperville, IL
ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #25
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Oct 88 08:08:59 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01128>; Wed, 12 Oct 88 07:18:59 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 12 Oct 88 07:18:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.QXInyRy00jZd84Mk5x@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.23533e09.f43110>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 07:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.23532d12.da8190>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 05:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.235303db.8fc210>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 03:03:57 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Oct 12 88 03:02:17 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #26

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
			     Re: Phoenix
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		  Re: Navigating Hazardous Payloads
			   Re: Extinctions
			      Mars shot
	       Re: Bleak prospects for US space effort
	     Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque
			 SPACE Digest V8 #384
		     access to space; how to deny
			 SPACE Digest V8 #384
			  Porpoise Intellect
			  Re: Why no aliens
		      Re: Naming the new Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1988 15:38-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Phoenix

Gary would also point out that the design complexity is a function of
how closely you push the limits of your technology. Since Phoenix is
does not have an nozzle, the throat design and regenerative cooling
design and materials problems go away. The engines are low presure
rather than high pressure, so the pumps are simple and conservative,
unlike the shuttle pumps that push the state of the art to the limit.
In point after point he keeps his design complexity low. The areas in
which he WILL have to deal with complexity are of course the modeling
of the aerodynamics, the aerospike, the vibration modes, etc. Those
things you just can't get away from.

But if you've got a simpler, more tolerant and robust system to start
with, I suspect you will not have quite as much problem with
vibrations, so long as you avoid getting really nasty modes. Really
ruins your whole day when the LO2 lines fracture...

------------------------------

Date: 30 Sep 88 19:25:56 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

>From article <6445@ut-emx.UUCP>, by ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac):
>> > Chuck Sites writes:
>> > 
>> > I read this theory in a book whose author I've forgotten.  I can't
>> > remember if it was trying to explain the "Nemesis factor" or not but it's
>> > interesting to think about.  I don't know enough to evaluate it fully.
Ethan writes:
> [...][  In any case, our sun does indeed pass through the
> spiral arms of our galaxy on a regular basis.  Since we also have some
> vertical motion relative to the galactic disk, we pass through the disk
> every 30 million years or so.  This is often compared to the proposed
> time scale for periodic extinctions, but the connection isn't clear to me.
> The gas in the disk is not all that concentrated at the exact
> midplane of the disk.
> 
> I have never heard of this formation theory for comets (which means little
> since this isn't my field).

I believe the theory in question is presented in the book "The Cosmic
Serpent" by Victor Clube and Bill Napier, published in 1981, when both
were at the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh.  (I think Victor Clube is now
at Oxford.) There was also a paper in QJRAS.  The main criticism of this
part of the theory that I have heard is that you need an unreasonably
large molecular cloud mass to strip the Oort cloud and send a rain of
super-comets into the inner system.  It also gets a bit Velikovksian in
places; but it threw around some fun ideas which I, not being a
planetary scientist, am not competent to rebut. 

The one very good point that was made (I guess it's a commonplace now
but it was new at the turn of the decade) is that the victory of
uniformitarianism over catastrophism in geology a century ago was so
complete that it was until recently rather difficult to suggest that
unique catastrophic events can have played any important role in
geologic history; but there's no reason why the universe shouldn't throw
rocks at us occasionally, even if most geological processes are very
slow. 


Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 30 Sep 88 14:40:03 GMT
From: nather@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Ed Nather)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <6284@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, mhw@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Marc Weinstein) writes:
> 
> In response to some other articles I was reading, some scientists have
> theorized that these periodic mass extinctions may be a necessary part
> of evolution.  The "wiping clean" of entire, unadaptable species may provide
> needed adjustments to evolution.
> 

This assumes evolution has a "purpose" and extinctions are necessary to
"achieve that purpose," whatever it may be.  I doubt any Darwinian would 
accept that premise.  Maybe "Creationists" would, but then it becomes
theology, not science.

-- 
Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{backbones}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
nather@astro.as.utexas.edu

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Navigating Hazardous Payloads
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 88 16:59:42 -0400
From: Fred Baube <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>


David Smyth:
> F.Baube:
> >[plutonium power sources] Okay, the canister
> >can withstand a launch disaster (so they say),
> >but would it survive re-entry ?
> How big do you think these RTGs are? A billion tons of Pu?  Or a kg?

Sorry, I was laboring under the impression that inhalation 
of a microgram or so can cause fatal bone marrow cancer.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1988 22:47-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Extinctions

Some papers about 6 months ago in Science discussed the possibility
that the actual extinction mechanism was acid rain. I mean, intensely
acid...

The impact would create very large quantitities of NO and inject it
high in the atmosphere. Their models predict acid rain of a magnitude
that they hadve to turn the question around and ask how did anything
survive?

They apparently have some evidence for their theory in the kinds of
sediments washed off the landmasses after the Cret. Ext. Event.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 19:38:20 GMT
From: tahquitz!kwatts@sun.com  (Kevin L. Watts)
Subject: Mars shot

	Spacers,
		I was watching a news sequence about the shuttle launch
	and they went on into a little item concerning the Hubble Space
	Telescope, Space Station Freedom, and a proposed mars mission.
	The person they had speaking about it said there was a debate
	over wether they would launch from the earth or the moon to reach
	mars.
		Well, I thought, if it's easier to go from the moon as
	opposed to from the earth, would it not be easier to go from orbit as
	opposed to from the moon?
		Build the mars ship in orbit using the shuttle and go from
	there. Anyone care to discuss this?

	Kev!

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 05:44:21 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Bleak prospects for US space effort

In article <3833@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>At one time Australia was going to cede part of its territory to Japan as
>a spaceport area...

Are you sure?  I'm not aware of anything like this even being considered,
much less planned.  I would think it much more likely that this was a garbled
version of the rumored Japanese offer to finance the Cape York spaceport
(rumor has it that the offer was rejected).  Ceding territory is a pretty
drastic step for any nation to take.  I'd think it especially implausible
in this case, since it would be political dynamite -- Australia was openly
anti-oriental for many years, and there is still some of that left.

>I'd like it if Australia just
>declared a reasonably large piece of the coast as the first "free spaceport",
>where anybody could set up and shoot at the sky...

Well, the Cape York spaceport project is intended to produce a non-government
spaceport, but it's not going to be a "free spaceport" in the sense of having
no safety rules or management.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 04:05:15 GMT
From: rhw%helens.Stanford.EDU@labrea.stanford.edu  (Robert H. Wentworth)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque

>In article <8809261413.AA18424@decwrl.dec.com> luhrs@drfix.dec.com (Bruce Luhrs, MKO1-1/L38, Fire Management) writes:
> >
> >    Can anyone remember what information and messages were represented
> >    on the plaque carried out of the solar system by Pioneer-10?
> >
> >    If I could find a good picture of the plaque, it'd be interesting to
> >    see how many people could gather the meaning of the messages.  But
> >    I need the "correct answers" first.

I wonder if before they sent the Pioneer-10 plaque they tested it on anyone
who didn't already know what information it was intended to convey.  I
remember seeing reproductions of it several times, along with descriptions
of the interpretation, and thinking that very few humans with a BS in
Physics and no prior knowledge of the plaque or the philosophy behind
it would be likely to translate it correctly.  Heaven help anyone from
a different technical culture...


Robert Wentworth          | Got them don't know quite what I'm doin'
rhw@sierra.stanford.edu   | new poster blues...

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Oct 88 10:18 EDT
From: Mark C. Widzinski <Widzinski@SAPSUCKER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #384

    Date: Fri, Sep 30 88 15:21:49 EDT
    From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu


    Date: 10 Sep 88 23:55:09 GMT
    From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
    Subject: Re: Possible Disaster Scenarios

    In article <73@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
    >2) What happens if one of the SRBs doesn't light up? I assume the launch
    >	sequencer doesn't blow the bolts, kills the liquid fuelled engines
    >	and attempts to hold the stack on the ground until the one SRB goes
    >	out? ...

    No, the bolts blow at the same instant as SRB ignition -- there is no delay
    to see if the SRBs have ignited properly.  (I made this mistake once.)
    Seriously asymmetric SRB performance, with the worst case being ignition
    failure in one of them, is an unsurvivable accident.

At almost 6 million pounds of thrust from the pair of SRBs, it doesn't
matter much if the hold-down blow or not.  They would just be ripped off
the launch pad when the solids light.

Indeed, one worst case scenario involves ignition of only one of the
solids.  The resulting asymetric thrust would be likely to pinwheel the
oribiter into the ground.  The SRB ignitors are designed to be extremely
reliable to avoid just such an accident.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Oct 88 11:12 EDT
From: Mark C. Widzinski <Widzinski@SAPSUCKER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: access to space; how to deny

In Boston Globe, 3 Oct 88:

[...]
"One little-noticed problem came very close to spoiling Thursday's nearly
perfect launch, however.  Despite tight security precautions, a small
private plane strayed into the restricted zone surrounding Kennedy Space
Center less than an hour before takeoff and was less than 700 feet from
the launch pad before Air Force helicopters were able to divert it.  The
plane was piloted by a sightseer who said air traffic controllers had
not informed him of the airspace restrictions."

I would venture to guess that 700 feet is more than close enough to do
some serious damage.  Hell, at this point, he could have just flown his
plane in to the ET to make a pretty big mess!

Let's admit we were lucky this this that it was only a sightseer.  WE
HAVE GOT TO TIGHTEN UP SECURITY!  We can't lose 1/3 of our fleet to
some anti-space lunatic with a pilot's license and an hour to spare.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Widzinski {standard disclaimers}
(email: widzinski@SAPSUCKER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
 snailmail: Symbolics, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Oct 88 10:58 EDT
From: Mark C. Widzinski <Widzinski@SAPSUCKER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #384
Supersedes: <19881003141858.2.WIDZINSKI@OPUS.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Comments: signiture line added

    Date: Fri, Sep 30 88 15:21:49 EDT
    From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu


    Date: 10 Sep 88 23:55:09 GMT
    From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
    Subject: Re: Possible Disaster Scenarios

    In article <73@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
    >2) What happens if one of the SRBs doesn't light up? I assume the launch
    >	sequencer doesn't blow the bolts, kills the liquid fuelled engines
    >	and attempts to hold the stack on the ground until the one SRB goes
    >	out? ...

    No, the bolts blow at the same instant as SRB ignition -- there is no delay
    to see if the SRBs have ignited properly.  (I made this mistake once.)
    Seriously asymmetric SRB performance, with the worst case being ignition
    failure in one of them, is an unsurvivable accident.

At almost 6 million pounds of thrust from the pair of SRBs, it doesn't
matter much if the hold-down blow or not.  They would just be ripped off
the launch pad when the solids light.

Indeed, one worst case scenario involves ignition of only one of the
solids.  The resulting asymetric thrust would be likely to pinwheel the
oribiter into the ground.  The SRB ignitors are designed to be extremely
reliable to avoid just such an accident.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Widzinski 
(email: widzinski@SAPSUCKER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
 snailmail: Symbolics, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Oct 88 09:15 EDT
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.edu
Subject: Porpoise Intellect

    I saw a discussion of bow riding porpoises on some nature program.
    There was some discussion of *how* they could have learned about
    riding the bow wave of ships so quickly.  Remember that the ancient
    greek paintings often depict porpoises jumping from the water in
    the bow of ships.  
    
    The answer seems to be that porpoises already knew the trick.  They
    learned to ride the bow wave of larger wales, long before ships
    existed.
    
    Wonder if we'll ever get martians riding the bow wave of space ships?
    
    Chris Eliot
    Umass Amherst.

------------------------------

Date:          Mon, 3 Oct 88 10:21:04 LOCAL
From: Michael <COP50235%UCF1VM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:       Re: Why no aliens

     I think we have had contact with extraterrestial life.  In every culture f
rom the beginning of time describes some form of contact.  I believe that the g
overnments of both the us and ussr have made contact, but keep it unofficial.
One reason that they may want to keep anayomous is that we are just beginning t
o boom into a technilogical civilized race.  If they distube us to soon, we may
 be influenced and distaster may occur.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 00:42:31 GMT
From: bsu-cs!davodd@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (David Speakman)
Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle

In article <8809290204.AA14186@angband.s1.gov>, LUCAS@SAGE.PSY.CMU.EDU writes:
> 
>     I've always kind of assumed that CHALLENGER II would be a contender.
>     				-pete (LUCAS@PSY.CMU.EDU)

I liked the idea of Space Shuttle Phoenix..

Out of the Firey Ashes....


Some may consider this to be tacky, but I think it is a fitting and honorable
tribute to Challenger with an eye on the future.

davodd

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #26
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Oct 88 08:00:07 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00784>; Wed, 12 Oct 88 05:56:31 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 12 Oct 88 05:56:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.AXIml4y00jZdE2qE43@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.23532593.7d51af>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 05:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po3.andrew.cmu.edu.2353132d.9ca170>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 04:09:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.2353074a.f9f22d>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 03:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Oct 12 88 03:16:53 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #27

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 27

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
			      Pioneer 6
		       Re: Creation '?science?'
			       Re: SRBs
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 12:08:46 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!dharvey@tis.llnl.gov  (David Harvey)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <40238@linus.UUCP>, marsh@linus.UUCP (Ralph Marshall) writes:
> In article <1331@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
.
.
. 
> >2. Why is it so absolutely necessary for humans to actually enter space
> >in order to explore it?
> >
> >While I don't want to belittle those who eulogized the Challenger
> >astronauts, I must say that all their talk about "seven people reaching
> >for the stars" seemed just a bit much when the primary purpose of the
> >mission was a routine communications satellite deployment.  Somehow it
> >would have seemed a bit more appropriate if they really *were* engaged
> >in exploration. If they were on their way to Mars, for example.
> >
> 
> >Perhaps I'm strange, but in early January 1986 I had a much stronger
> >sense of anticipation and "quest for adventure" about the imminent
> >Voyager flyby of Uranus than I did for STS-51L.

	So did I.  And I felt the shoestring budget for the Voyager
	and other unmanned spacecraft was a bargain considering the
	immense amount of knowledge that we gained.  I also feel that
	missions like this will yield spectacular results in the future.

> 	Don't you ever want to see HUMANS flying by Uranus ? I agree that

	Not really.  I just want to learn more about what is there.

> we are a long way from that, but the Solar system is an immensely interesting
> place, and it can't all be explored by Jeep Wranglers with space suits and
> AI control units.  I agree that unmanned space science is very important,
> and should not be sacrificed to the goal of getting science lessons from
> orbit.  However, the Hubble Space Telescope was deliberately designed

	Don't be so sure about that.  After all, we could care less
	whether Mr. Robot dies, but we go to almost superhuman efforts
	to make sure humans won't die.  Don't think for one minute that
	these efforts don't hamper the effort of exploration.

> to take ADVANTAGE of the fact that humans could come up every once in a
> while and plug in new sensors, power packs, game cartridges, whatever n
> needs to be done in the way of regular maintenance and upgrades.
> 

What makes you so sure that any of it will happen when people get so
excited over just 7 people losing their lives.  How do you think they
would feel if they lost them flying past Mars (and maybe out of the
Solar System).  And don't think for one minute that a robot could be
made that could perform all those replacements and enhancements to the
Hubble Space Telescope, perhaps at an even cheaper cost.  Somehow, I
believe that most Americans just wouldn't care that a robot got blown
up on takeoff.  The people who paid for it and the launching wouldn't be
too happy, but the rest would be blissfully unaware.  Americans are
rather strange that way, getting excited about 7 people losing their
lives in the Shuttle explosion, national attention about a girl in a
well in Texas, and blissful ignorance about thousands dying in Vietnam,
Afghanistan, and other areas.  Many probably aren't even aware of the
millions of Armenians slaughtered by the Turks.  But somehow, to them
the experience of losing only seven people in a highly experimental and
risky adventure seems to be a much more immense tragedy.  My vote is
for unmanned adventure until the Psychological make-up of the American
people somehow changes.  And I doubt that change will be coming any time
soon.

dharvey@wsccs

------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 88 15:42:24 GMT
From: att!whuts!mhuxh!mhuxu!mls@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <411@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, kolb@handel.colostate.edu. (Denny Kolb - Professor of Existential Metaphysics ) writes:

> In article <8339@mhuxu.UUCP> mls@mhuxu.UUCP (Michael Siemon) writes:

> >Pardon me, but could explain just WHO "needs" these adjustments?  Is this not
> >perhaps a hidden premiss that "well, if the dinosaurs hadn't bought it, we
> >probably would not have evolved."
> 
> without these periodic mass extinctions, most of the ecological nitches would
> be filled with dead-end species.  Providing no driving force, or at 
> least, significantly reducing the driving force for evolution.

Please examine your assumptions here!  What, pray tell, is a "dead end" species?There is no such thing as "the" driving force for evolution.  We merely have a
resultant of selection pressures (and genetic "drift" of various kinds) all in
operation all the time.  Some species, and their successors in the same niches,
seem to maintain themselves very conservatively while other lineages indulge
(pardon the anthropomorphism) in spectacular careers of change.  BOTH patterns
are equally good representations of evolution.  And please disabuse yourself
of the idea that "intelligence" is somehow specially favored by (or needful in)
evolution.  Empirical evidence would tend to suggest that beetles are rather
more obviously the "goal" of evolution than any species marked by intelligence.
Once you start viewing our own species as a "goal" for evolution, you are on
the verge of (religious or Marxist or other materialist) theology.  I may well
view evolution as somehow bound up in God's providence for us -- but that has
no business in sci.* (try talk.origins.)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon
contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!mhuxu!mls
standard disclaimer

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  4 Oct 88 10:50:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 800+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
reply-to: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu
Subject: Pioneer 6

Date: Tue, 4 Oct 88 02:29:19 CDT
From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (405986289 abrams)
Posted-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 88 02:29:19 CDT
Message-Id: <8810040729.AA01416@doc.cc.utexas.edu>
Received: by doc.cc.utexas.edu (5.51/5.51)
        id AA01416; Tue, 4 Oct 88 02:29:19 CDT
To: ota@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Pioneer 6


I recently read, in a 1987 magazine, that "late in November 1988, in a
relatively close encounter with the Earth (about 1,77 million km), Earth's
gravity will swerve the" Pioneer's trajectory into a 317-day orbit, as opposed
to its current (?) 311.3 day orbit.

Is this still true...meaning "has Pioneer survived this long so that we can
expect a close encounter next month"?  Does anyone have access to the time and
closest approach?  Is the spacecraft still communicative?

                                        Steve Abrams

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1988 12:15-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Creation '?science?'

The animals found near the poles were not dinosaurs, they were frozen
wooly mammoths. The meat in some cases was still fresh enough to be
edible, and was in fact eaten in some cases. The animals were quick
frozen thousands of years ago during the previous ice age. Mamooths are
tundra animals and tended to live near the edge of the glaciers. Since
Siberian ground has remained mostly frozen ever since, some were
preserved to the present day.

I might add that NO fossils have been found 'near the pole'. The North
pole, under the current location of the continents is under a mile of
water, and the South pole under several miles of ice.

There have been some fossils found on the periphery of Antarctica,
mostly of small mammals from around the time that Anarctica and
Australia were last joined: ie small proto-marsupials. (1)

Also, there is very good reason to presume that the actual location of
the 'garden of eden' and the source of the 'flood legend' which comes
down to us originally from Babylonian (or Sumerian) PAGAN tales is the
upper portion of the Persian Gulf. At the lower sea levels this region
would have been above water during the last glacial and probably the
whole area had considerably more rainfall than now. There are
descriptions of the 4 rivers, and indeed, there IS a fourth river
joining the Tigris (Hiddekel) and Eupharates that is simply a dry
channel (Wadi Rimah and Wadi Batin (Pison)). The other river is the
Katun River (Gihon) which flows occasionally.

The fertile lowland area thus becomes our garden of Eden, remembered
long after it has been 'flooded' by the rising post-glacial oceans. (2)

I would also point out that not all dinosaurs lived in tropical areas
even by the fossil fauna of the time. Additionally there were Mosasaurs
and Plesiosaurs that were strictly pelagic. A rise in water level would
not particularly affect them, nor would a climactic change. There are
area's of the Earth that currently could support them quite nicely, if
they still existed. It is not out of the question that some distant
ancestor (other than birds) might still be extant, it is just highly
unlikely.

Continental drift is an absolute PROVEN fact. Proven with current data,
verified week by week as it is measured using interferometry between
sites thousands of miles apart, using radio quasars as signal sources.

The theory is highly more outrageous than a giant asteroid. Asteroids
exist, we can see them, plot their orbits, calculate the mean expected
time between impacts of given sizes of bodies.

God's are abstractions of various peoples through history. Each culture
has had it's own pantheon. Even the so called monotheist Christian
religion is in some areas quite literally polytheistic. Why should one
prefer to attempt to match geological data to the writings of jewish
tribes of 200 years ago over the traditions of the native americans? Or
the buddhists? Or the Hindus, Moslems, Taoists, Shintu, Confucians, or
any of a thousands others, past and present? I'm sure I could do an
equally creative job of explaining the past (if I played equally fast
and loose with the data) using the Great Father Zeus Which Art in
Heaven. Hail Apollo. Praise Venus. (3)

I would also note that I have had friends who went into creationist
conferences as 'moles'. I have heard quite a few quotes of creationists
leaders when they think none of us heathen atheists are around. They
are quite literal about the bible and within their own ranks freely
admit that they are out to 'discredit' the ungodly. Mostly they will
not stop at any misrepresentation or mistruth they can get away with. I
know of more than one scientist who has found his statements pulled out
of context and used in support of 'creation science'. Yes folks, the
religion that brought you the Crusades, the Inquisition, Salem, the 100
Years War (and others).

I rejected Christianity many years ago because it is probably the
religion with the most bloodstained history of all the bloodstained
religions.


(1) Science Magazine within the last couple years. Sorry, but I can't
    find the copy in my files just now.

(2) "Has the Garden of Eden been located at last?" Dora Jane Hamblin
    p127-135, Smithsonian Magazine (I think)

(3) I highly recommend listening to an old Fugs song called "Ramses the
    Second is Dead"

==============================================================================
Why can't we all just be human beings instead of inventing all these
artificial barriers between us? Religions and borders are for
pre-civilized primates.
==============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 23:22:02 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: SRBs

In article <1988Oct3.031336.28262@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <796@nvuxr.UUCP> deej@nvuxr.UUCP (David Lewis) writes:
> >.... What exactly are we doing using solids to launch piloted
> >craft anyway?  I know all the history and budgetary constraints and so
> >on, but isn't it kind of madness? ...
> 
> Yes.  Tell the Office of Management and Budget, aka the Office of
> Mismanagement and Beancounting, which set a limit on shuttle development
> funding of $1.000000G/yr.  Estimated overall development costs of a
> shuttle using a modified Saturn V first stage as a liquid booster were
> $1.2G/yr; all other liquid-booster options were worse.

There's a lot of screaming going on about which Presidential candidate
is going to do this or that for/to the space program.  The ones to worry
about are the ones who actually pass the legislation for funding it.

The head of NASA's appropriation committee for the past several years
has been a fellow name Proxmire (boo! hiss!), but he's going away in
a few months.  (Much of the funding he has tried to cut has been
reinstated by Masachusetts' Edward Boland.)

Proxmire's likely replacement will be either Patrick Leahey or Barbara
Mikulski, who both share his fondness for cutting NASA's budget.

Boland is soon to step down, too, by Bob Traxler of Michigan, who
also prefers to cut allocations for NASA (like W.P.).

I don't think it looks too good.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 88 22:27:25 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <6728@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>All indications are that as a species we are still LOUSY at running a
>planet.  Is FRANCHISING this ineptitude system-wide really a rational
>response to the problem?  How much closer to the angels will mankind be
>when we have starving babies, carcinogenic air and race riots on six
>planets instead of just the one? ...

Look at it another way:  the odds are better that we will get it right
on one try out of six than on one try out of one.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 88 22:43:51 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <13370@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> Doug Saxon wrote:
> >   
> >   I believe that if we do not go off planet we are condemning the
> >   third world nations to increasing rounds of starvation and
> >   warfare.

Why am I reminded of a famous saying of Marie Antoinette?

[ Jorge S. follows with some discussion of costs of spaceflight, and
  he mentions the poverty of much of humanity. ]

Read any article on global demographics and you will discover that
the poorest nations have the highest rates of population growth, while
industrialized nations are now either stabilizing or soon will. The only
nations that will have any hope of affording large scale space-emigration
in the next fifty years are precisely those nations that _do not_ have
the population problems.
  
[ Jorge continues with doubts about the quality of living in an artificial
  space environment ]

I think, Jorge, that the population in a space colony will not be the
determining factor in its cultural possibilities. With the ongoing
advances in communications and computer technologies, we will transcend
location more and more, until we have essentially transparent access
to each other regardless of where we happen to be. The only information
penalty a colony would pay would involve bandwidth and propagation
delays. Those might be serious, especially if the colonies start getting
far away. L5 has a lot of room, however, and a two-second delay shouldn't
be too bad, especially if you have loads of computer power up there (and
we will.)

Human behavior will have to change dramatically. We will no longer have
the luxury of being able to ignore external costs of virtually every
activity the way we do on earth. Space colonists will have to develop
ways of thinking that are currently foreign to most earthlings. We won't
be able to dump litter, wastes, auto exhausts, etc. into the immediate
environment and then pretend we aren't doing anything wrong.

As far as population control goes---remember, people with lots of
education don't have population problems. We spend the first 30 years
or so of our lives in school, deferring childbirth, and then we
have fewer children because our professional lives are so demanding
and interesting. High rates of population growth occur among
people with less education and income, and these are not the people
who will be blasting off. After several generations in a space
colony, the population profile might look like a broader cross-section
of humanity, and then you might have problems. Space colonies are
unlikely to afford many opportunities to people who can't play
the tech-weenie game. What then? Genetic engineering to insure
that people are better able to serve the colony?

> By itself, emigration to space will not solve the overpopulation problem,
> even in the very long term.

The human population is now doubling every 30 years. In a mere 3,000
years at that rate, we will have doubled 100 times, and we will
account for most of the mass in the universe. Actually, long before
that we will be a solid sphere of bodies, with a surface expanding
radially at the speed of light. Obviously this is absurd; either
the high-growth nations face reality soon or death rates will have
to rise to meet birth rates.

> >   To suppose that the nature of humanity is going to change or
> >   needs to change before humanity can move of planet is to ensure
> >   we will never go.
> 
> It is not a question of good deeds of charity; it is a question of life
> and death.  We HAVE to fix things here, period.  Going to space will
> make no difference.  Almost everybody will have to stay here anyway.

I submit that the only people who have a chance of getting off at the
next stop are those who _have_ learned to fix things. Everything is
harder in space, because you have to build and then preserve an
entire environment. Until we can handle the easy one down here---where
the air starts off already breathable, plants grow by themselves,
resources are close at hand---we haven't a prayer in a hostile
environment that will demand an order of magnitude more technological
prowess and social organization. And if we don't find a way to 
stabilize the populations of the poorer countries, we are condemning
billions to eventual starvation. The impending collapse of the poor
nations could take even the rich nations with it, and our dreams
of space as well.

Dan Mocsny

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #27
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Oct 88 09:33:18 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00615>; Wed, 12 Oct 88 07:21:04 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 12 Oct 88 07:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.sXInz_y00Vs102N05y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.23533cd2.aa8106>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 07:07:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.23531fdf.ed2256>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 05:03:31 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Oct 12 88 05:01:50 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #28

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
			   Re: Jet Engines
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
			   Re: Jet Engines
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		    Re: RE: Naming the new Shuttle
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 18:33:21 GMT
From: voder!lynx!neal@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1988Oct4.094209.19597@cs.rochester.edu> (Paul Dietz) writes:

>A study I read claimed that the Earth could comfortably support ten
>times its current population indefinitely.  Current problems are
>caused more by political mismanagement and outright genocide rather
>than limited resources.

If you want to live in a shoulder-to-shoulder packed world, then go to China
or India. I like open spaces, and don't want to see the earth packed with ten
times the number of people who now live here. Maybe the earth could support the
number of people you suggest, but does that mean that we should let the
population reach this level? Just because soemthing can be accomplished does
not mean that it should be done. An increase in the population of the kind you
are talking about would radically alter the way people lived (more crowding
means more laws to prevent people from interfering with each other, thus less
individual freedom). Also, would these people live good lives, or would they
scrape by with a bare minimum existance?

>The biggest problem we have to worry about on Earth is not lack of
>resources, but pollution.  It is difficult to see, though, how space
>will stop pollution.  Certainly it would be ludicrous to propose
>moving most manufacturing, agriculture and waste disposal off the
>planet.

If power could be sent from satellites to the earth as has been suggested, it
would go a long way towards ending pollution. If one has a virtually unlimited
supply of pollution-free energy, many other polution problems could be solved.
Also, your contention that it is "ludicrous" to move manufacturing, waste
disposal, etc. off the planet is based on the present cost of reaching space.
If this cost were much lower, then the option becomes more viable.

The main reason for this posting is because I am against any increases in the
earth's population (even though it looks like nothing can be done to stop this
in the immediate future). Actually, I believe that reliable fusion power is the
answer to all of our problems.

Neal

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 17:42:33 GMT
From: a.gp.cs.cmu.edu!kvs@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Kathryn Van Stone)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1988Oct4.094209.19597@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>The biggest problem we have to worry about on Earth is not lack of
>resources, but pollution.  It is difficult to see, though, how space
>will stop pollution.  Certainly it would be ludicrous to propose
>moving most manufacturing, agriculture and waste disposal off the
>planet.
>
Actually, its quite possible that operating a permanent space station will
teach us a lot about waste disposal, since on a space station there will
be less room for mistakes and sloppiness.

>The dogma that Space Will Save Us is comforting to the true believers.
>Examined critically, it doesn't make much sense.

I am actually not part of the Space Will Save Us camp, I am for space
"because its there" which makes it a bit difficult for me to argue
pro- or anti space, since I'm generally operating on a different set
of assumptions.


Kathryn Van Stone
kvs@cs.cmu.edu


I don't think CMU cares whether or not they agree with me.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 00:35:30 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Jet Engines

> (reference to P-38 coming apart in a 'transonic' dive)

  Sorry, folks, but no propeller driven airplane has ever exceeded Mach 1,
irrespective of whether or not it survived. The terminal velocity of WWII
era aircraft is just too low.  In fact, even the P-80 Shooting Star, an
early Korean-era jet, could not exceed Mach 1, even in a dive.
Look in "The Fork-Tailed Devil" by Martin Caidan (sp?) for a discussion.
  Also, be careful with that word "transonic".  I believe the official
definition of "transonic" is "greater than 0.8 Mach and less than 1.2 Mach."
Plenty of WWII fighters saw compressibility effects in the high subsonic range.
While a number of people claim to have seen airspeeds as high as 0.9 Mach
in Spitfires, these are almost certainly due to faulty airspeed readings
in compressible flows.  ASI's are NOT calibrated for transonic flows!

  -KPM <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 19:17:56 GMT
From: hacgate!janus!doug@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Doug Saxon)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <297@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>   
> Human behavior will have to change dramatically. We will no longer have
> the luxury of being able to ignore external costs of virtually every
> activity the way we do on earth. Space colonists will have to develop
> ways of thinking that are currently foreign to most earthlings. We won't
> be able to dump litter, wastes, auto exhausts, etc. into the immediate
> environment and then pretend we aren't doing anything wrong.
> 
> I submit that the only people who have a chance of getting off at the
> next stop are those who _have_ learned to fix things. Everything is
> harder in space, because you have to build and then preserve an
> entire environment.

These are precisely the kind of things that may only be learned in/from space.
How much of the ecology movement came from those hauntingly isolated pictures
of Earth taken by the Apollo crews?  If a company does high tech manufacturing
here on Earth, it can pretend it is a "clean" industry.  Only when chemical
levels rise in the local well water will the problem even be noticed.
If its not blamed on the owner of the nearest dump, and where exactly did he
get those toxins in the first place, good lawyers will practically assure that
the taxpayers and the public will pay in money and quality of life much more
than the offending company.

As you so eloquently state in space people will either get it right or die
much quicker.  I would argue either case may provide the kind of example of
either how to do it right on Earth or what happens when you do it wrong.

> Until we can handle the easy one down here---where
> the air starts off already breathable, plants grow by themselves,
> resources are close at hand---we haven't a prayer in a hostile
> environment that will demand an order of magnitude more technological
> prowess and social organization.

Until we migrate to an environment where failure to do it right brings
dramatic and immediate consequences, resources will not be allocated to find
out how to do it right.

> And if we don't find a way to
> stabilize the populations of the poorer countries, we are condemning
> billions to eventual starvation. The impending collapse of the poor
> nations could take even the rich nations with it, and our dreams
> of space as well.

I couldn't have said it better, except how are we going to STABILIZE the
populations of the poorer countries.  The only historical examples of
population stabilization come by making poor nations (15th century Europe)
rich (20th century Europe and the rest of the "First World").  If I live in
Africa and have 5 children, I can cultivate 2 1/2 times the land I and my wife
can do alone.  One of the children may get a good government job and take care
of us when we get old.  How are you going to stabilize a population that
correctly thinks like that?!?

When I saw Murchison (sp?) falls in Uganda in 1969, an Ugandan said that
the rich countries should give Uganda free electricity if they didn't want
Uganda to dam the falls.  Of course the rich countries are unlikely to
indulge in such charity.  On the other hand if the rich countries beamed
cheap electricity, cheaper than could be obtained from damming the falls,
from a power satelite to Uganda, and if the electricity could provide the
jobs, that provided the earnings, that provided the standard of living, that
encouraged the Ugandans to have fewer children, to conserve their natural
resources, both physical and animal, and to have the wealth to develop the
point of view that Earth is a precious place that must be preserved, if all
that could happen, would it be worth it.

Maybe we should just STABILIZE their population:-), whether they want it
STABILIZED or not:-).

P.S. Would the power satelite idea work??? I don't know, but it won't work
if it, and other ideas like it, are not tried.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 05:43:25 GMT
From: xait!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

I have redirected followups to talk.origins, which is the more appropriate
group.

In article <8351@mhuxu.UUCP> mls@mhuxu.UUCP (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In article <411@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, kolb@handel.colostate.edu. (Denny Kolb - Professor of Existential Metaphysics ) writes:
>

>> without these periodic mass extinctions, most of the ecological nitches would
>> be filled with dead-end species.  Providing no driving force, or at 
>> least, significantly reducing the driving force for evolution.

>Please examine your assumptions here!  What, pray tell, is a "dead end" species?There is no such thing as "the" driving force for evolution.  We merely have a
>resultant of selection pressures (and genetic "drift" of various kinds) all in
>operation all the time...

I think this criticism is a little off base.  There is considerable support
for the notion that major evolutionary changes usually occur only after major
extinctions.  The Cretaceous extinction is only one of a number of mass dyings.
A dead end species would be, I suppose, one which continues for a long time
with very little offspring speciation in contrast to a species with numerous
descendent species.  Turtles would be a good example.  The language is sloppy
but the intent is clear.  Similarly "the driving force for evolution" is an
unfortunate choice of words [not the least of which is that the phrasing 
carries teleological implications] but the intent is clear.  One can look
at the overall rate of new species formation and diversification and speak
of factors having major importance and those having minor importance.
-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 17:58:27 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@rutgers.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <21808@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
> In article <7007@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
> > 
> > How about we just say that without the PME's (PerMassExt),
> > life on Earth might reach a steady-state stagnation where nothing
> > changes for millions of years?  That we might still be in the
> > Carboniferous Era or whatever?  Not that I'm saying that eveolution
> > has any "purpose," including something totally new & different every
> > 10^8 years or anything else.

It just occurred to me that a slight modification of the anthropic
principle can be invoked to cover the notion of "purpose" in mass
extinctions.  Obviously the purpose of a mass extinction that
eliminated all the dinosaurs is so that some 65 million years later
we could all spend hours at our computer terminals without fear of
being eaten or (worse yet) having insurmountable vibrational
problems plague our computers due to the nearby passage of a multi-ton
animal.  In other words *without the extinction of the dinosaurs there
could have been no net*.  Of course, without the net we ourselves would
not exist.

 I propose calling it the "Silicon Principle".



-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 18:14:54 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Jet Engines

In article <336@nyit.UUCP>, tmg@nyit.UUCP (Tom Genereaux) writes:
> 
> I have photographs from the flight test phase of the P-38 going trans-sonic, 
> and disintegrating. Prop-planes in WWII were indeed capable of going
> trans-sonic in a dive - but it wasn't something that you really wanted
> to do - the airplane tended to come apart on you. In level flight,
> nothing except the Vamp and Me262 and Me263 came close.

What speed is transonic depends on the shape of the airplane.  P-38
transonic breakup surely occurred at lower speed than a DH-108.

I am nonplussed by the recent references to fast Vampires.  The Vampire
did not reach combat in WWII, and was slower than the Meteor, the only
Allied jet which did.
-- 

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 12:43:05 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <7004@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
}In article <6445@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes:
}> > And how did this hypothetical layer of water (assuming that something we
}> > don't know about held it up) suddenly fall to create the flood?  
}
}In an earlier posting I said that IF the Earth had a large number of
}ice chunks in low orbit (similar to Saturn's rings?),
}then a near-miss by a passing asteroid or comet could have wrenched
}most of them out of orbit, causing them all to re-enter the atmosphere
}within a period of a few days.
}
}Wonder if something like this could have caused all the eroded water
}channels on Mars?

Could have.  Or could have been put there by kindergarden students.

Fortunately, neither somewhat odd explaination is required.  Mars possessed
the same early functions to produce an atmosphere that earth did, so it
would have had the same early atmospheric history, along with the torrential
rains and such.  It does not, however, have the tectonic activity to
cycle the carbon dioxide, so it suffered an ice catastrophe.  No mysticism
required.

(quite an abbreviated account.  Look in "The Warm Earth" by Toon & Olson, 
Nature, october 1985 and "How climate Evolved on the Terrestrial Planets" by
Kasting, Toon, & Pollack, Scientific American, Feb 1988 for a couple. 


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 88 23:23:35 GMT
From: vax5!h52y@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Naming the new Shuttle

I've always liked the idea of the shuttle RENAISSANCE, or, failing that,
the PHOENIX.

CHALLENGER II is a bad idea.  Superstition is a powerful thing...or why hasn't
anybody christened a TITANIC II in 76 years?

Tim Lynch
BITNET: H52Y@CRNLVAX5
INTERNET:  H52Y@VAX5.CCS.CORNELL.EDU
UUCP:  ...!rochester!cornell!vax5.ccs.cornell.edu!h52y
Joy is in the ears that hear.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 21:31:55 GMT
From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <2124@byzantium.cs.swarthmore.edu> leif@byzantium.UUCP (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes:
>In article <3982@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes:
>> Chuck Sites writes:
>>
	[stuff deleted]
>>
>> 	The Oort cloud is only temporary and is exhausted within a few
>> 	million years.  It is replenished whenever the sun passes through
>> 	a section of the galaxy which has a high concentration of gas and
>> 	dust, i.e. a spiral arm.
>
>The sun is in orbit around the center of gravity of our galaxy, as is the
>spiral arm we are in.  Thus the sun does not "pass[es] through...a spiral arm"
>for that would imply that either the sun or the arm is standing still, in which
>case it would not be in our galaxy any more.
	[more stuff deleted]

I would assume that the eccentricity and inclination of the suns orbit around
the galaxy would allow the "pass[ing] through...a spiral arm".  I would
also think that unless the sun were smack dab in the middle (gravitational
center) of a spiral arm, that some oscilation through the arm would be bound
to occur.  In any event, local gravitational effects from stars passing nearby
would surely alter the path of the sun around the center of the galaxy. I
would think a smooth eliptical path of the sun around the center of the
galaxy to be highly unlikely.

Somebody with more branes and ejacashun please fix my booboos. Thanks!

-- 
    ____                 Kevin Bagley  "I did not say this, I am not here."
     )__) __    _   _    Global Tech. Int'l Inc.
  __/__/ (_/\_/(_) /_)_  Mukilteo WA  98275
              __/        UUCP: uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #28
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Oct 88 10:33:02 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00793>; Wed, 12 Oct 88 07:19:15 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 12 Oct 88 07:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.oXInyBy00UkTI35k4I@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.23533d72.a7101>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 07:09:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.23532346.4d273>;
          Wed, 12 Oct 88 05:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Oct 12 88 05:16:40 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #29

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
	 Re: ERP for intrasystem, interstellar communications
			       Re: SRBs
		  SHUTTLE THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM
		     Re: Earth & living in space
			       Re: SRBs
		   NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
		     Re: Earth & living in space
			Astronaut application
			NASA REDISCOVERS SPACE
		     Re: Earth & living in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 14:10:29 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@rutgers.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <7004@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
> In article <6445@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes:
> > > And how did this hypothetical layer of water (assuming that something we
> > > don't know about held it up) suddenly fall to create the flood?  

Whoa!!  I did not write the above message.  (Although it seems like a
fair question.)

> 
> In an earlier posting I said that IF the Earth had a large number of
> ice chunks in low orbit (similar to Saturn's rings?),
> then a near-miss by a passing asteroid or comet could have wrenched
> most of them out of orbit, causing them all to re-enter the atmosphere
> within a period of a few days.

The Earth is unlikely to have anything like Saturn's rings.  For reasons
which probably have to do with the early stages of solar evolution, the
inner planets have much less in orbit around them than the outer planets.
In fact, I am under the impression that the Earth's moon is the only
natural satellite in the inner solar system and that both Deimos and Phobos
are captured objects.  (Any Mars experts care to comment?)
This is at least consistent with proposals that our moon resulted from a fairly
fine-tuned collision between the Earth and some other object.
A similar point is that the early solar system had a much higher level of
random debris than we do at present so that any arrangement of orbiting
stuff that was at all delicately positioned would have been disturbed
at early times, not recently.

> 
> Wonder if something like this could have caused all the eroded water
> channels on Mars?

I think that current thinking is that the Martian climate has dramatically
evolved since its first billion years.  There is no more mystery about
where Martian water came from than there is a mystery about where
terrestrial water came from.  The hard part is asking where it went.
The Martian ice caps may contain quite a bit.  Another point is that
the Martian soil is loaded with peroxides, evidently the result of
H2O disassociation caused by UV.  The hydrogen would tend to leave the
Martian atmosphere.
-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 04:41:17 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: ERP for intrasystem, interstellar communications

If the big Continental transmitter dish at Stanford was able to goose a
tumbling US probe back into line out beyond Saturn, do you suppose we
could use it to wake Phobos 1 back up?
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 17:46:19 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: SRBs

> A liquid-fueled rocket produces a tiny pale flame and practically no smoke.  
> 
> A solid-fueled rocket produces a huge bright flame, billowing clouds at
> liftoff, and a thick mile-long smoke trail.  

There are liquids, and then there are liquids.  Hydrogen (shuttle) or
alcohol (Redstone) burning with LOX don't make big bright tongues of flame.
UDMH/N2O4 (Titan) doesn't either.  But check out the big, bright,
impressive kerosene/LOX flames coming from Saturn and Atlas.
-- 

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date:         04 Oct 88 16:38:26 CVT
From: denis burke <csvcdjb%NNOMED.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:  SHUTTLE THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM


 The thermal protection system (TPS) consists of materials applied externally
 to maintain the airframe outer skins within an acceptable temperature limit
 of 176'C (350'F) during re-entry. The TPS materials are designed to perform a
 minimum of 100 missions, in which temperatures will range from -156'C (-250'F)
 in space to re-entry temperatures of nearly 1,648'C (3,000'F) on the wing lead
 ing-edge and fuselage nose. Coated Nomex felt reusable surface insulation-FRSI
 -is used where temperatures are less than 371'C (700'F), on the upper portion
 of the payload bay doors, mid and rear fuselage sides, upper wing, and part of
 the orbital manoeuvring system (OMS). Low-temperature reusable surface
 insulation (LRSI) tiles are used where temperatures go below 648'C (1,200'F)
 and above 371'C (700'F) nominal. These areas are the lower portion of payload
 bay doors; forward fuselage; parts of the mid and rear fuselage; upper wing;
 vertical tail and portions of the OMS pods. Tiles have white surface coating
 which provide better thermal characteristics in orbit.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 05:37:05 GMT
From: sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@oberon.usc.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <6728@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>...end of episode, right?  Not wishing to single out Doug in
>particular, but this seems to be a popular line of argument.  It goes
>kind of like, "Europe was a crowded, dangerous dead end, but when we
>expanded to the New World things worked out OK.  Now Earth is a
>crowded, dangerous dead end, but if we inhabit {the Moon, L5, Mars
>etc}, things will work out OK."  What I like to do is establish some
>LINKAGE between the *payoff* of the first example and the *premise* of
>the second.  If expanding to a new world works out OK, then how come
>we're crowded, dangerous etc?  Let's put it this way, what would it
>look like if it HADN'T worked out OK? :-)
>
>The reader may object: that's what they told Columbus too.  Well, even
>if they did (who? when?), I ask: were they wrong?  Is the planet better
>off today for Europeans having colonized the New World as they did?
>Next time we read about the horrors of Cortes and Pisarro, we should
>remember who they were:  Starship Troopers!

Did the Europeans really make such a bad move when they settled North America?
Tens of millions of Europe's poor, starving and downtrodden found a new life
in a rich land, and bequeathed the richest state the world has ever seen on
their 250 million children. All of the world's problems were not solved 
(anybody who sees that hazy idea as a "goal" is in serious need of a reality
check), but massive benefits for 250 million people is a very impressive 
outcome. And as far as the rest of the world's 5 billion people are concerned,
even after 40 years of RELATIVE decline the US is still the locamotive that
drives the entire planets economy.

Obvious note: Yes a large number of native Americans were raped and butchered
in the process, and no there is no excuse for that. Man is flawed, but the
alternatives are trying to learn from the past and pressing forward, or 
dropping the bombs.

Obviously such settlement is impossible with today's technologies (anybody for
a trip off the edge of the world in a Viking long boat?), but future
increases in technology and wealth will without any doubt make it possible.
And remember the solar systems resources are many orders of magnitude greater
than North America's, and we are the solar system's natives.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"DEATH TO THE BARBARIC, SATANIC, GENETICALLY INFERIOR MARTIAN BACTERIA"!!!!!!
  -- Redneck frontiersman, 2050.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 03:13:36 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SRBs

In article <796@nvuxr.UUCP> deej@nvuxr.UUCP (David Lewis) writes:
>.... What exactly are we doing using solids to launch piloted
>craft anyway?  I know all the history and budgetary constraints and so
>on, but isn't it kind of madness? ...

Yes.  Tell the Office of Management and Budget, aka the Office of
Mismanagement and Beancounting, which set a limit on shuttle development
funding of $1.000000G/yr.  Estimated overall development costs of a
shuttle using a modified Saturn V first stage as a liquid booster were
$1.2G/yr; all other liquid-booster options were worse.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 03:39:59 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the amateur satellite community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:
 
AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN
 
Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical 
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending of ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (Blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:
 
NOAA 6   
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978
 
Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in 
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@galaxy.afit.af.mil             Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 14:14:23 GMT
From: haven!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space


In article <6799@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> It will take centuries
> before any other place is as viable and self-sufficient as Earth;

Ha ha ha.  Thanks Tom, for providing so many *convincing* *facts* to
back up your above-quoted *opinion*.  If you care to try again, start by
letting us in on precisely what you mean by "viable and self-sufficient."

It seems to me that the vast variety and extent of progress made in this
century alone, in every field of technical endeavour, is enough to cast
doubt on any statement that *any* technical problem will require
centuries for a solution.  Certainly a problem as (relatively) well-
defined as "design a self-sustaining ecology to support human life"
cannot justify such an enormous time estimate.

My own *opinion*, with as little factual support as your own, is that
perhaps 15 to 20 years might be needed to achieve ecological viability,
and given that, there will be no further major obstacles to the growth
needed for cultural viability (if that phrase even has meaning -- I'm
throwing it in only because I can't imagine anything else you might have
had in mind which would delay self-sufficiency for a long time).  Of
course, that 15 to 20 year guess is from the time a determined program
is begun to put people in space permanently; i.e., a program which makes
ecological viability a firm goal, as it has never been in the past.

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 17:55:40 GMT
From: vax5!xady@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: Astronaut application

Some time ago, it was mentioned here on the net that the next astronaut
selection cycle was about to start.  Could someone please e-mail me the
address that I can write to, so that I can find out more info on this.

Thanks,

Gil Irizarry
xady@vax5.ccs.cornell.edu

"The Dream is STILL Alive"

------------------------------

Date:         04 Oct 88 12:46:46 CVT
From: denis burke <csvcdjb%NNOMED.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:  NASA REDISCOVERS SPACE


 The code of a new machine-the shuttle's-software.Although best known for its
 role in manned space missions, NASA's Johnson Space Center ranks as one of the
 nation's leading software production facilities. The prime software product:
 space shuttle flight and backup software, destined for a market comprising
 just three space shuttles, each equipped with five IBM flight computers._The
 shuttle"s  GPCs are magnetic-core computers that were first specified_in 1972.
 Each of the five GPCs_has a 106,496-word memory. Nine different software
 memory configurations are loaded into the shuttle's General Purpose Computers
 for each mission.
 I'am willing to share NASA Space Flight DATA and would like to volunteer as an
 editor in your experimental magazine efforts.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 13:42:08 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <854@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:

>On the other hand, Earth does not have a population problem.  It has
>a resource problem.  Given sufficient resources of energy, food and
>minerals, any population size is fine.  The problem is that Earth
>does not have sufficient resources for its population.  This is a
>problem which space exploration and development might solve.

The position that the Earth is nearly out of resources has been
popular for a while.  O'Neill based his space-colonization schemes on
the Club of Rome forecasts.

However, the Earth is nowhere near its ultimate resource limits.  With
the possible exception of phosphorus, there is no element that is in
short supply that cannot be replaced.  Experience has shown that
substitution is almost always possible, and that lower grade ore
becomes minable when needed.  Energy is in great supply, as the oil
and uranium gluts demonstrate.

A study I read claimed that the Earth could comfortably support ten
times its current population indefinitely.  Current problems are
caused more by political mismanagement and outright genocide rather
than limited resources.

The biggest problem we have to worry about on Earth is not lack of
resources, but pollution.  It is difficult to see, though, how space
will stop pollution.  Certainly it would be ludicrous to propose
moving most manufacturing, agriculture and waste disposal off the
planet.

The dogma that Space Will Save Us is comforting to the true believers.
Examined critically, it doesn't make much sense.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #29
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Oct 88 02:30:05 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06506>; Thu, 13 Oct 88 00:53:17 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 13 Oct 88 00:53:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.cXJ3O9y00UkTQNO04N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.23543375.42e19a>;
          Thu, 13 Oct 88 00:39:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.23542f57.73428c>;
          Thu, 13 Oct 88 00:21:47 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Oct 13 88 00:20:05 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #30

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:
			   Digest Numbering
			     Cosmos 1900
		      Re: Naming the new Shuttle
	 Re: ERP for intrasystem, interstellar communications
		      Re: Propellants in Shuttle
		 Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.
			   Careers in Space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 88 08:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 530+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Digest Numbering

Several people have asked for missing issues of the digest near the beginning
of Volume 9 as there wre some transitional problems about the same time I
switched from volume 8 to 9.  What people may not realize is that the first
issue of volume 9 is issue number zero; the previous digest was Volume 8 number
384.  There is reason to expect that Bitnet people may not have received
several issues late in volume 8 and early in volume 9.  If you're missed any of
these digest let me know and I can resend them to you.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 15:52:39 GMT
From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: Cosmos 1900



Hello,

As some of you know by now, the nuclear reactor core separated from
Cosmos 1900 last Friday, Oct. 1st, and was automatically boosted to
higher orbit.  The satellite's attitude system was still working,
keeping atmospheric drag to a minimum.  The systems to automatically
coordinate the core separation were also still operational, and
performed the separation automatically.  Soon after, the remainder of
the satellite probably lost attitude control, and decayed due to the
increased drag.

So, I suppose we were denied the fun of having a chance to see the 
thing decay.  It all happened so fast and unexpectedly that by the
time I realized what was happening, it was all over.

For all the folks who signed up on my list:  Don't worry; the 
Russians will mess up again, and we will all be ready!

Rich

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 14:02:43 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle

In article <8809290204.AA14186@angband.s1.gov> LUCAS@MESCAL.PSY.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>    I've always kind of assumed that CHALLENGER II would be a contender.

I always thought they'd name the new shuttle after one of the victims;
probably CHRISTA.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 03:03:10 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ERP for intrasystem, interstellar communications

In article <6763@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>If the big Continental transmitter dish at Stanford was able to goose a
>tumbling US probe back into line out beyond Saturn, do you suppose we
>could use it to wake Phobos 1 back up?

There was discussion of this sort of thing.  The trouble is, the major
US deep-space transmitters are not equipped (yet) for the frequency band
that the Phobos probes use.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 88 22:25:20 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Propellants in Shuttle

In article <Added.IXEZtJy00Ui3IGwE9m@andrew.cmu.edu> ST401460@BROWNVM.BITNET (Suzanne Rodday) writes:
>... what the propellants are in the solid rocket boosters.
> ... What are the exact chemicals (not any trade names)...

I blew this one the last time it came up; let's see if I can get it right
this time!  The main component is ammonium perchlorate, which burns nicely
as a monopropellant.  Powdered aluminum is added to give a hotter flame.
(Aluminum is really fierce stuff once you get it burning.)  Synthetic rubber,
polybutadiene I think, is used as a binder, although it too does burn.  And
there is an assortment of trace ingredients to improve binding, control burn
rate, etc.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 20:04:40 GMT
From: ajdenner@athena.mit.edu  (Alexander J Denner)
Subject: Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.

In article <8809281456.AA00462@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
>    interpreted as a friendly greeting.  The female is slightly shorter 
>    than the male, and next to her is a binary code telling how tall the 
>    average human is.  

What are the "units" of this binary code (or is it a ratio--to what?)?

I think that the patterns and figures and sounds on this record and
plaque are much too complex.  Can you imagine an alein with no knowledge
of the life on Earth (or maybe no knowledge of carbon based life) decoding
this thing!  I think that the sounds are a waste of space, chances are 
whoever (or whatever) is listening (provided it figures out how to play the 
record) will not understand this vibrations as a means of communication.

I think that the Sagans were rather arrogant in assuming that other beings
will understand our bodies and the difference of sexes.  One should start
with the basics, then move up to other things (after our races make 
contact).  (I do not mean the first sentence of this paragraph to be
derrogatory.)

>                             It would be an interesting yet sad thought 
>    to think that the plaques and records these probes carry could end up 
>    up being the only records left of the human race on Earth if we 
>    carelessly destroy ourselves.

How could the human race destroy Earth such that there is no record of
our existence?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J. Denner                    		ajdenner@athena.mit.edu
234 Baker House, 342 Memorial Drive		mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
Cambridge, MA 02139

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 22:10:29 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Careers in Space

  I'm finally coming up on the home stretch; graduation is only 
about 9 months away.  Now the question is, what next?
  I majored in aerospace engineering here at Princeton University.
In retrospect, this was probably a mistake; the industry will probably
be hurt badly by budget cuts in the near future.  I also have a good
working knowledge of digital and analog electronics (probably the
rough equivalent of an associate's degree, but completely unofficial),
and I've been following the  trials and tribulations of the space
program for years. My GPA will probably be 3.0 or so at graduation.
Nearly everyone who has read my writings has stated that I am an
above-average writer, including some professional authors.
 
  Do I have any reasonable chance of getting a position at JPL, for
example?  Or I am just wasting my time dreaming?  I really don't want
to work for a big defense-related aero engineering company, busily
designing bolts for 747 nosewheels.  Any suggestions?

  Thanks.

  -KPM <kpmancus@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU>

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 21:53:24 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@purdue.edu  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space


In article <13370@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>Doug Saxon wrote:
>>
>>   I believe that if we do not go off planet we are condemning the
>>   third world nations to increasing rounds of starvation and
>>   warfare.
>
>Forget it. Colonizing space will not solve the Earth overpopulation
>problem.  Over the medium term (say the next 50 years) it is highly
>unlikely that humans will be able to leave the Earth fast enough to
>make a dent in the rate of growth.

That's accurate, as far as it goes.  Even ignoring the vast technical
difficulty of moving hundreds of millions of people into orbit (and
no smaller amount would have any noticeable effect on Earth's population),
there's the simple fact that *you cannot find that many people willing
to go*.  I'd like to go, and no doubt many people reading this list
would, but I believe the vast majority of any country's population
would not want to.

On the other hand, Earth does not have a population problem.  It has
a resource problem.  Given sufficient resources of energy, food and
minerals, any population size is fine.  The problem is that Earth
does not have sufficient resources for its population.  This is a
problem which space exploration and development might solve.

>Perhaps you meant that space will be a solution only for those few who
>leave.  Like many of those who write to this bboard, you probably don't
>give a damn to what happens to the "meek" ones who stay behind.
>That is fine, but then please don't complain about the lack of support
>for space from Congress and the public.  Why should *they* pay for
>*your* escape ticket?

And ``perhaps'' you, Jorge, are reading ridiculous nonsense into a simple
message in order to have a straw man to attack.  It seems to me that
most people, either in this newsgroup or in the world in general, are
people who mean well, and would like to see a cure for large-scale
problems.  They just don't know what the cure is.  Neither do you or I.
(Or perhaps you think you do?  I would not be surprised, given the
self-righteousness of the paragraph quoted above.)

>Besides, it is hard to see why moving to space should be good for those
>who do it.  Our current space stations and the poposed moon bases are
>terribly cramped places.  Even the most ambitious space colony designs
>I have seen look like awfully small places to spend a lifetime in.

It seems certain that the first permanent space outposts (if there ever
are any) will indeed be cramped.  So what?  The other side of that coin
says that very few people will be needed to staff them.  It should not be
hard to find those few people, any more than it has been hard to find
people willing to go to space in our current *tiny* spacecraft, for weeks
or months at a time.  In this case, the supply of willing people exceeds
demand by a very wide margin.

>Even if they are not cramped to begin with, what is going to keep their
>population in check?  Strict birth control laws?  Famine?
>Internal warfare?

How about the observed fact that well-educated populations don't grow
at any significant pace?  And anyway, if the population of a habitat
grows too large, its people can simply build another habitat.

>You imply that mankind will never be able to manage
>the Earth rationaly; why do you believe that managing a space colony
>will be easier?  If anything, pollution and waste are going to be a
>bigger problem there than on Earth.

Except that these problems can be cut off at their source, if the people
responsible have sufficient motivation.  On Earth people can tell
themselves, "Well, it's okay to dump raw sewage in the ocean, because the
ocean is big enough that it doesn't matter."  In a space habitat, someone
who expressed a similar opinion would be seen as a dangerous lunatic.

>Material conditions in a space colony are likely to be hard, but the
>spiritual ones will be even worse.  I just can't imagine an interesting
>culture flourishing in an isolated group of a few thousand people,
>confined to a small tin can and surrounded by a harsh and unforgiving
>environment.  No matter how well chosen are the first inhabitants,
>after a generation or two a space colony will surely be more crowded
>than central Tokyo, and will have less cultural life than the dullest
>mining town.  To me, emigrating to such a place seems far less
>appetizing than becoming a monk or getting sentenced to a penal farm
>for life.

The easiest answer is, "Fine, don't go.  Plenty of other people would
like to."  But it's nearly as easy to refute this entirely.  *Obviously*
a space colony will have access to Earth's satellite TV channels, at the
very least.  That alone will keep them in close contact with Earth's
culture.  And we might even go 'way out on a limb ( :-) ) and speculate
that every once in awhile, a few people might emigrate back to Earth, or
to another colony, and be replaced by a similar flow in the opposite
direction.

>By itself, emigration to space will not solve the overpopulation problem,
>even in the very long term.  If the total human population continues to
>grow exponentially, then the colonization "front" would have to move
>out at exponentially increasing speed, in order to keep the population
>density constant.  People born in the central parts of the settled
>region then would have to travel exponentially increasing distances to
>find an empty spot on the periphery.

Exponential growth curves don't tell you anything except that things are
going to change sooner or later, and the later the change comes, the more
drastic and damaging it will be.  In other words, we can make significant
changes now to reduce Third World population growth, or we can wait 50 or
100 years and watch huge plagues, famines, eco-disasters, etc., reduce
population directly.  The significance of space exploration is that it
offers the *only* possibility of large-scale increases in available
resources.  Given those resources, we might be able to improve Third
World living standards and educations enough to bring population growth
to a halt.

>>   To suppose that the nature of humanity is going to change or
>>   needs to change before humanity can move of planet is to ensure
>>   we will never go.  ...  I also believe we will never fix things
>>   here (on Earth) as long as the fixing is viewed as "good deeds"
>>   or "charity".
>
>It is not a question of good deeds of charity; it is a question of life
>and death.  We HAVE to fix things here, period.  Going to space will
>make no difference.  Almost everybody will have to stay here anyway.
>Those who stay will have to learn how to take good care of spaceship
>Earth.  Those who wish leave must first learn how to take good care of
>a space colony.  I bet the latter will turn out to be the herdest of
>the two problems.

No amount of ``good care of spaceship Earth'' is going to stop the
exponential growth curve in poor populations.  Unless a solution is
found for that problem, nothing else will matter for Earth's long-term
future.

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: uflorida!proxftl!jesse@gatech.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 19:27:09 GMT
From: phri!cooper!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1988Oct1.222725.10845@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <6728@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>All indications are that as a species we are still LOUSY at running a
>>planet.  Is FRANCHISING this ineptitude system-wide really a rational
>>response to the problem?  How much closer to the angels will mankind be
>>when we have starving babies, carcinogenic air and race riots on six
>>planets instead of just the one? ...
>
>Look at it another way:  the odds are better that we will get it right
>on one try out of six than on one try out of one.

If all six "tries" were comparable this might be true, but that's not the
way it would work.  Millions of times more people will remain on Earth
than live anywhere else for a long time to come.  It will take centuries
before any other place is as viable and self-sufficient as Earth; during
all of that time, Earth has to stay alive and at a spacefaring level of
technology or all "six" are doomed.  I'd say the ball remains in Earth's
court.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 18:58:08 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes@tis.llnl.gov  (Barnacle Wes)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <696@wsccs.UUCP>, dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes:
> ....  But somehow, to them [the U.S. public]
> the experience of losing only seven people in a highly experimental and
> risky adventure seems to be a much more immense tragedy.  My vote is
> for unmanned adventure until the Psychological make-up of the American
> people somehow changes.  And I doubt that change will be coming any time
> soon.

A good point, Dave.  The "Challenger Tragedy" captured the hearts and
minds of America as much more of a tragedy than 241 Marines dying in
Lebanon for another country.  A little odd, don't you think?

The manned spaceflight program in the United States has consistently
taken the lions share of the NASA budget, and the returns have been
significantly smaller, than the unmanned exploratory flights.  It was
unfortunate that seven astronauts died on the Challenger, but delaying
the ENTIRE space program 2 1/2 years was inexecusable.  This country
needs an alternate booster system immediately, one that does not depend
on the vagaries of public attention, the faulty decision-making process
of NASA "management," and that is handled on a more objective level than
the contracting for the space shuttle was.
-- 
                     {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes

         "How do you make the boat go when there's no wind?"
                                 -- Me --

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #30
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Oct 88 05:55:11 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07156>; Thu, 13 Oct 88 03:54:54 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 13 Oct 88 03:54:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.oXJ63xy00jZd0PrE58@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.23545b10.f19106>;
          Thu, 13 Oct 88 03:28:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.2354596f.7782e3>;
          Thu, 13 Oct 88 03:21:30 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Oct 13 88 03:19:03 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #31

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 31

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Promoting space (Let's go to the moon!)
			       Gravity
		       Re: Beserker Hypothesis
	 Re: ERP for intrasystem, interstellar communications
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		Molniya coordinates? Request for info
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
	       Re: Bleak prospects for US space effort
		     Re: Earth & living in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 12:27:24 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!dharvey@tis.llnl.gov  (David Harvey)
Subject: Re: Promoting space (Let's go to the moon!)

In article <1609@eos.UUCP>, eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
.
.
.
> of the world is.  I learned the realities that not everyone likes
> space in 1970, 9th grade, when I had a space debate. (Got tons
> and tons of paper from NASA) 3 in 30 were willing to debate
> in favor.  Our society must learn to live with its consequences.
> If we fall behind another country in economy, so be it.
.
.
.

Fall behind too far in economic terms, and you can kiss your starry
spacecrafts goodbye.  I am sure you realize that the economy, world
politics, and other factors have a bearing on what is done in space.
And what about disasters like the Shuttle blowing up?  How many more
will be experienced along the way?  What kind of psychological effect
will they have on the American people?  It is a very complex world we
live in and somehow all these items get hopelessly entertwined with one
another.  I am sure that you are well aware of that, but your proximity
to the space effort and NASA seems to have blinded you to the fact that
other people don't see it every day, and therefore don't consider it on
as high of priority as you do.  Remember that.

dharvey@wsccs

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 19:36:56 GMT
From: unccvax!nrk@mcnc.org  (Nitin R Kulkarni)
Subject: Gravity


	I was watching 'Star Trek: The next generation' last Friday and the thought
kept coming to my mind repeatedly, as it has been since long ago. I was wondering
as to how one would simulate gravity conditions on a spacecraft in deep space.
This would considerably reduce the amount of effort in moving around the spacecraft.
What scientific goals would have to be met in order to achieve this feat, and 
is this possible in the near future (say, in the Space Shuttle in @10 years ?).


- Nitin.

/*  Is it clean in other dimensions ?  */

UUCP : nrk@unccvax.uucp
arpa : nrk%unccvax@mcnc.org

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  3 Oct 88 11:50:51 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Beserker Hypothesis
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

>Portia!doom@labrea.stanford.edu  (Joseph Brenner) writes:

>... there are presumably competing
>effects that could be suppressing the beserkers.

>(BTW, There's an extension to John Kessel's reasoning that I might propose: 
>A planet that's been attacked by beserkers might come to the 
>conclusion that the best defense against future attacks is to 
>release their own version of beserkers...)  

Right on.  Surely the obvious solution (prompted by an apocryphal story
I once heard about how an obnoxious computer virus was chased out of a
system by a virus constructed to destroy it) is to construct self-
replicating machines designed to destroy beserkers (and/or turn them
into more beserker-destroyers, say).  If the technology is equal then
they must surely win in the end (boy, what a set-up), because:  (a) the
defender enjoys a 3:1 advantage over the attacker; (b) the beserker-destroyers
have a simpler task; it must take less energy to destroy a beserker than
it costs the beserker to sterilize a planet.

When thinking about this I wondered what the laziest way of destroying life
on a planet would be.  Surely, where they are available, diverting an
asteroid to impact (and you can get away with very small tweaks made to
far-off asteroids because you're not in any hurry, right?) and either
split the planet up, or generate a planet-wide tsunami or dust cloud.
Obviously, then, the beserkers already made it to this system 65 million
years ago just before the anti-beserkers caught up with them...

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 17:15:53 GMT
From: Portia!Jessica!paulf@labrea.stanford.edu  (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: ERP for intrasystem, interstellar communications

In article <1988Oct3.030310.28107@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>There was discussion of this sort of thing.  The trouble is, the major
>US deep-space transmitters are not equipped (yet) for the frequency band
>that the Phobos probes use.
>Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology

What band are they using for Phobos?  Most of the US stuff is done in S - band
with DSN...

Some background material on the Big Dish:

	The dish was designed and built to look at solar plasma, and its
effect on the phase of a 50 MHz signal.  The tracking system consists of a
DEC PDP-8E with some special hardware.  Since the dish was designed for
50 MHz, the grid spacings are far too wide for it to be used above 1 GHz
(and that's probably pushing it).  S - Band is right out.  The transmitter
was located in a house about 100 feet away, and connected by a 6" copper
water cooled feedline (someone forgot to use distilled water once, and they
melted the feedline).  The transmitter was cooled using a number of truck
radiators and fans in the back part of the house.  The transmitter is BIG,
but it hasn't been used in years, and parts of it had rusted when I was
up there last year.

	The Big Dish really doesn't see much use, largely because of the 
tracking system.  Paly High students love to steal parts of the dish as
some sort of a ritual.  There has been some talk of renovation, but that
will take money...
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX      |  "Engineer: A machine for converting beer
->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU |   into blueprints."

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 18:53:12 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <3199@utastro.UUCP>, nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
> In article <6284@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, mhw@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Marc Weinstein) writes:

> > In response to some other articles I was reading, some scientists have
> > theorized that these periodic mass extinctions may be a necessary part
> > of evolution.  The "wiping clean" of entire, unadaptable species may provide
> > needed adjustments to evolution.
> > 

> This assumes evolution has a "purpose" and extinctions are necessary to
> "achieve that purpose," whatever it may be.  I doubt any Darwinian would 
> accept that premise.  Maybe "Creationists" would, but then it becomes
> theology, not science.

How about we just say that without the PME's (PerMassExt),
life on Earth might reach a steady-state stagnation where nothing
changes for millions of years?  That we might still be in the
Carboniferous Era or whatever?  Not that I'm saying that eveolution
has any "purpose," including something totally new & different every
10^8 years or anything else.

But maybe evolution, like any other ongoing process, can get
stuck in a corner until something external shakes it out.
BTW, to answer another responder, an obvious implication of PME's
is that mankind is NOT the final "goal" of evolution -- we'll
have to duke it out too in a few million years.  Assuming we
stop causing our own mass extinctions in the oceans, rain forests,
etc. etc.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 19:04:09 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <1107@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:
> at Oxford.) There was also a paper in QJRAS.  The main criticism of this
> part of the theory that I have heard is that you need an unreasonably
> large molecular cloud mass to strip the Oort cloud and send a rain of
> super-comets into the inner system.  It also gets a bit Velikovksian in

Does the molecular cloud act by its gravity, or by direct aerodynamic
friction with the comets?  If the latter, then you don't need
"super-comets" to have fun ideas.  Tiny comets (showballs on down)
would be more likely stripped out of the Oort cloud by friction.
A swarm of these heading into the inner planetary orbits would
dump a lot of water onto each planet, maybe giving the
eroded canyons and deltas on now-almost-dry Mars and the Earth's
flood myths that every culture seems to have (not just the Judeao-
Xian ones).

I seem to recall some serious astronomer wondering
whether some of Earth's abundant water supply might be
captured from comets, tho seems to me that oxidation of our once-
reducing atmosphere could have supplied what we now have.

A few massive cometary impacts leave spectacular craters and are
fun to speculate about, but let's not overlook the possible effects
of *illions and *illions of itsy-bitsy ones.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 02:33:51 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:

    Without some technological miracle, I doubt that by 2038 you will be
    able to buy a ticket to low earth orbit for less than $100,000
    (meals and hotels not included).  Very few people wil be able to afford
    a rocket ride to the moon, and they are the ones who don't need to
    emigrate.  Note that we have had commercial airplane transportation for
    more than 50 years, and yet today there are still billions of people in
    the world whose yearly income is less than price of a airplane ticket
    from NY to LA.  

Wrong.  With normal technological development since 1970 a ticket
to LEO should cost about $50,000 right now.  However, without a
POLITICAL miracle you won't be able to buy one before 2038 for a 
million.  Indeed, 50,000 current dollars will be equivalent to 
about $1,500,000 in 2038 dollars if the next 50 years matches the
previous 50.  

However, none of this will mean anything if the government continues
to squash private launch companies.  LEO tickets will continue to
be ten million a shot, payable in rubles.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 88 01:13:32 GMT
From: ecsvax!ruslan@mcnc.org  (Robin C. LaPasha)
Subject: Molniya coordinates? Request for info


Does anyone know (or know where to find out) the path for Molniya
1 and/or 2?  I'm looking for enough info to point a satellite
dish that way... Reply by email please, and if there's some
standard listing of all satellite locations just tell me about
it and I'll get it in the library.

Apologies -
1) I don't get any rec.newsgroups here, so couldn't ask in
some other (conceivable, "rec.video.dish_users") group.
2) (Obviously,) I don't know exactly what kind of data is
needed, but I hope you get the idea.

Thanks in advance,
Robin LaPasha
ruslan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 15:16:06 GMT
From: beta!mwj@lanl.gov  (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <7007@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
> 
> How about we just say that without the PME's (PerMassExt),
> life on Earth might reach a steady-state stagnation where nothing
> changes for millions of years?  That we might still be in the
> Carboniferous Era or whatever?  Not that I'm saying that eveolution
> has any "purpose," including something totally new & different every
> 10^8 years or anything else.

I hesitate to bring this up, because it's a little too far afield from "space"
issues (and therefore followups are redirected to talk.origins), but:

A couple of months ago Jack Sepkoski (of Raup and Sepkoski, well-known
collaborators on mass extinctions) gave a talk here as part of an interesting
symposium titled "Unsolved Mysteries in the Science of Life."  (BTW, papers
from the talks there, which were very well done and pitched at about the same
level as, say, Scientific American, are available as _Los Alamos Science_ no.
16, Los Alamos report LA-UR-88-1000.  Most university and many public libraries
should be able to get it easily; it's well worth reading.)  One of the slides
he showed was of extinction rate over geologic time, with "peaks" from the
(periodic?) mass extinctions superposed on a smooth "background" rate.  To
quote the paper:

	"... you may have noticed a secular decline in the 'background'
	extinction rate through the Phanerozoic ... The rates tend to be
	very high early in the Cambrian and decline through the later
	Phanerozoic.  [A figure in the paper] shows how a simple exponential
	fits that decline for marine families.  The decline suggests that
	marine taxa are becoming more and more resistant to whatever processes
	cause extinction, at least at the family level.  We might speculate
	that background extinction will asymptotically grind to a halt. ..."

In other words, Sepkoski thinks your speculation may be correct, although we
aren't near that asymptotic state yet (the extinction rate now is about an
eighth as great as it was 600 million years ago).  It's always nice to hear
that one's own speculations agree with those of the "pro's" in the field!

-- 
"One thing they don't tell you about doing	| Bill Johnson
experimental physics is that sometimes you	| Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory
must work under adverse conditions ... like	| Los Alamos, NM, USA, Earth
a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann)	| (mwj@lanl.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 88 22:43:12 GMT
From: m2c!jjmhome!cloud9!cme@husc6.harvard.edu  (Carl Ellison)
Subject: Re: Bleak prospects for US space effort

In article <3833@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
> I can imagine
> fifty years later a wild, rich frontier-like city built up with individuals
> from all over the world drawn there by the activity, opportunity, and vision.

[in Australia]....

This sure sounds like a description of the American frontier -- the
frontier we were taught to expect.  I, too, would like it, but then
I'm an American.  I, too, am bothered by the difference between
today's Earth and the neighborhood I kept reading about in my
childhood -- the U.S. prior to 1870.

What are we going to do without a frontier?  Go into space.

If we need a frontier in order to get there, it sounds like a circular
argument to me.

--Carl

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 06:36:20 GMT
From: Portia!doom@labrea.stanford.edu  (Joseph Brenner)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <13370@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> Doug Saxon wrote:
> >   
> >   I believe that if we do not go off planet we are condemning the
> >   third world nations to increasing rounds of starvation and
> >   warfare.
> 
> Forget it. Colonizing space will not solve the Earth overpopulation
> problem.  

I can't tell you what Doug Saxon meant, but the way this argument 
usually runs is that products from space may be key items for solving 
world problems.  Typical example:  a power sat company might be 
capable of beaming cheap, environmentally benign power to any country, 
without a big capital investment on their part.  Note that something like
this has already happened in the use of comsats to talk to rural
areas where cables haven't been installed.  Jerry Porunelle used to 
present this as a choice between freezing the world in it's current state
(ala the anti-tech, slow growth faction) or buying into the next
great technological revolution: Space Industrialization. 

>  I just can't imagine an interesting
> culture flourishing in an isolated group of a few thousand people 
> confined to a small tin can and surrounded by a harsh and unforgiving
> environment.

"...a few thousand people...": Modern urban snobbery.  Athens in ancient
Greece wasn't much bigger.  Some people like small towns.  I would 
expect that a reasonably designed space colony would have an atmosphere
like a somewhat isolated, modern university.  

"...small tin can...":  A failure of imagination.  Even if this
is a fair description, some people might like living this
way (some people even enjoy sitting at computer terminals all day).  
If you were raised in Kansas you might not be able to imagine how
anyone could stand to live in New York City. 

"...harsh and unforgiving environment.":  On the other hand, this
kind of situation can produce a sense of camraderie, with everyone's
aggressive, competetive impulses focused outside the group. 

(J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU  Materials Science Dept/Stanford, CA 94306)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #31
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Oct 88 06:41:20 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AB00560>; Thu, 13 Oct 88 05:45:33 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 13 Oct 88 05:45:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.IXJ7ery00Vs182=04=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po3.andrew.cmu.edu.23547681.e5d128>;
          Thu, 13 Oct 88 05:25:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.23547522.a21314>;
          Thu, 13 Oct 88 05:19:33 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Oct 13 88 05:18:20 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #32

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		 Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.
		    Re: RE: Naming the new Shuttle
		 Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.
		       Re: Why no orbiter fax?
			    Re: Mars shot
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		  Re: Only three kinds of people...
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 23:29:20 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

Fallacies abound in the rebuttals to Jorge's 1337.  Here are some favorites.

 * WE CAN HELP THE EARTH'S PROBLEMS BY FINDING RESOURCES WHEN WE MOVE INTO
   SPACE.  And do what with them?  Ship them back down to Earth's surface
   for consumption there?  This whole brouhaha got started with Chris Torek
   and I talking about the thermodynamic curve.  We're choking on our own
   self generated products as it is.  If we start beaming or shoveling
   more energy in from outside the planetary thermodynamic system (in
   quantities significant enough to make sense) we will only compound our
   woes in the long run.  There are bound to be unforeseen environmental
   headaches involved (there always are), and if we lick those and turn
   Earth into a totally zipless power sink, we will have the satisfaction
   of maintaining world starvation at ten times the current population
   levels.  Where do I sign?  :-)

 * WELL-RUN SPACE COLONIES WILL BE LIKE MODERN UNIVERSITIES.  That was a
   gem, had to save it from expire.  Presumably the author meant the part
   of a modern university that a not-too-observant American scholar sees
   between dining hall and chemistry seminar... lots of potted trees and
   pretty buildings.  I can tell you that universities are some of the
   worst offenders around considered as overall ecosystems!  Go hang out
   with the janitors some time... see where that crummy food comes from,
   and where it goes after they throw it away... and where they generate
   the steam that pipes so neatly into the dorms (usually at a great
   coughing honker of a coal boiler downhill somewhere).

   If we are very lucky, well run space colonies will be like Israeli
   kibbutzes or high-tech hippie communes, rather than parasitical
   pyramid-tips like your average university.
   university as seen
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 01:46:03 GMT
From: voder!lynx!neal@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.

In article <7304@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> (Alexander J Denner) writes:

>What are the "units" of this binary code (or is it a ratio--to what?)?

The units are based on the wavelength of the EM radiation produced by a
state transition of hydrogen, which is depicted on the plaque. As a check
(so that aliens might know they are on the right track) the human figures
are shown to scale beside a representation of the Pioneer itself. All numbers
on the plaque are represented in a binary format.

>I think that the patterns and figures and sounds on this record and
>plaque are much too complex.  Can you imagine an alein with no knowledge
>of the life on Earth (or maybe no knowledge of carbon based life) decoding
>this thing!

I believe that any spacefaring race of beings would be intelligent enough to
decipher the plaque. This assumes that they at least recognise that it is an
attempt at communicaton, and that they have knowledge of chemistry and physics
(otherwise, what are they doing in space?).

>I think that the sounds are a waste of space, chances are 
>whoever (or whatever) is listening (provided it figures out how to play the 
>record) will not understand this vibrations as a means of communication.

The records were on the Voyagers, not on the Pioneers. I believe that they will
be able to decypher the records, once again assuming that they at least
recognise them as attempts at communication, and have some scientific knowldge.

>How could the human race destroy Earth such that there is no record of
>our existence?

If the human race died out (no matter how), all trace of our existance on earth
would be gone in less than 1 Million years (weather and erosion, etc.) It may
be true that the space probes will be the last traces of human existance (and
perhaps the lunar landers from the Apollo program).

Neal

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 16:52:25 GMT
From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: RE: Naming the new Shuttle

In article <433@mfgfoc.UUCP> mike@mfgfoc.UUCP (Mike Thompson) writes:
>From article <8809290204.AA14186@angband.s1.gov>, by LUCAS@SAGE.PSY.CMU.EDU:
>>
>>     I've always kind of assumed that CHALLENGER II would be a contender.
>>     				-pete (LUCAS@PSY.CMU.EDU)
>
>	 I was thinking that CHALLENGER VII (with respects to the seven
>	 astronauts) or AVENGER would be a nice name for any future shuttle.
>Michael P. Thompson


	Some of the proposed and current shuttle names seem to have
	implications of "attemps".
		CHALLENGER, ENDEAVOUR, ENTERPRISE.

	How 'bout one that implies success?

		I'd go for   " DESTINY "
-- 
    ____                 Kevin Bagley  "I did not say this, I am not here."
     )__) __    _   _    Global Tech. Int'l Inc.
  __/__/ (_/\_/(_) /_)_  Mukilteo WA  98275
              __/        UUCP: uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 01:00:13 GMT
From: mejac!gryphon!pnet02!bilbo@decwrl.dec.com  (Bill Daggett)
Subject: Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.

ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
>I think that the Sagans were rather arrogant in assuming that other beings
>will understand our bodies and the difference of sexes.  One should start

There isn't enough time to start with the A B C's.  Should any other planet
ever respond we will either be gone, back in the trees naked as ever, or
living on other planets.  You're right, WE are arrogant - not just the Sagans.
I think these plaques are the sort of thing where if someONE doesn't do them
they will never get done.

Bill

UUCP: {ames!elroy, <backbone>}!gryphon!pnet02!bilbo
INET: bilbo@pnet02.cts.com
* Sometimes The Dragon Wins! *

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 03:15:46 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why no orbiter fax?

In article <6745@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>...wondering if it wouldn't be simpler to just
>put a fax machine aboard each orbiter, and send these revised checklist
>pages up that way! ...

There is a teleprinter aboard the orbiter for just this purpose (fax is
a ridiculous waste for simple character data).  Don't know why they
weren't using it (it uses S-band, not Ku-band, so the busted antenna
isn't a factor).
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 19:15:44 GMT
From: nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!ems!rosevax!carole@ub.d.umn.edu  (Carole Ashmore)
Subject: Re: Mars shot

In article <71216@sun.uucp>, kwatts%tahquitz@Sun.COM (Kevin L. Watts) writes:
> 	Spacers,
> 		I was watching a news sequence about the shuttle launch
> 	and they went on into a little item concerning the Hubble Space
> 	Telescope, Space Station Freedom, and a proposed mars mission.
> 	The person they had speaking about it said there was a debate
> 	over wether they would launch from the earth or the moon to reach
> 	mars.
> 		Well, I thought, if it's easier to go from the moon as
> 	opposed to from the earth, would it not be easier to go from orbit as
> 	opposed to from the moon?
> 		Build the mars ship in orbit using the shuttle and go from
> 	there. Anyone care to discuss this?
> 
> 	Kev!


I believe that one of the early theoretical pioneers of space travel
(Goddard? Ley?) calculated that the cheapest departure from the
Earth/moon system for Mars would consist of building the ship from
lunar materials in moon orbit or high Earth orbit, then giving it
enough of a nudge that it fell toward the Earth in a free orbit that
would (if unchanged)  'slingshot' around Earth, picking up potential
energy on the way in and losing the same amount of potential energy on
the way out.  Only instead of allowing this to go all the way you
expend most of the fuel for escaping the Earth/moon system at closest
approach to Earth.  Because the fuel itself has lots of mass, you get
the potential energy picked up from the ship/fuel combination falling
toward Earth applied to the smaller mass of just ship going out.

Unfortunately, I don't have the original (respectable) source.  I
learned the idea from one of Heinlein's juveniles when I was a kid;
and it was such a nice idea it sort of stuck.


					Carole Ashmore

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 17:53:23 GMT
From: hacgate!janus!doug@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Doug Saxon)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <13370@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> Doug Saxon wrote:
> >   
> >   I believe that if we do not go off planet we are condemning the
> >   third world nations to increasing rounds of starvation and
> >   warfare.
> 
> Forget it. Colonizing space will not solve the Earth overpopulation
> problem.  Over the medium term (say the next 50 years) it is highly
> unlikely that humans will be able to leave the Earth fast enough to
> make a dent in the rate of growth.  
> 
I never said they could.  In fact I totally agree.

> Perhaps you meant that space will be a solution only for those few who
> leave.
Again you are answering an argument I didn't make.

> 
> You imply that mankind will never be able to manage
> the Earth rationaly; why do you believe that managing a space colony
> will be easier?  If anything, pollution and waste are going to be a
> bigger problem there than on Earth.  

I agree, what I said was that moving off the planet would provide or would
offer the possibility of providing sufficient resources and new ideas that
might result in the partial solution of these problems ON EARTH.

> 
> I just can't imagine an interesting
> culture flourishing in an isolated group of a few thousand people,
> confined to a small tin can and surrounded by a harsh and unforgiving
> environment.

As I imagine no one in Europe could imagine an interesting culture flourishing
in the New World.

> To me, emigrating to such a place seems far less
> appetizing than becoming a monk or getting sentenced to a penal farm
> for life.  

Your choice.
> 
> It is not a question of good deeds of charity; it is a question of life
> and death.  We HAVE to fix things here, period.

Again I agree, however, I believe that NOTHING will be done until sound
economic reasons are found to push the changes.  I further believe that
expansion into space will provide the stimulus and opportunities that will
give humanity the best chance of finding solutions to our growing list of
problems.

> Going to space will make no difference.

I couldn't disagree more.  I believe it is in human nature to constantly
expand.  I believe that if we could wait to get it perfect be for going on
we would still live in Oldevai (sp?) gorge.  I think its a fallacy to believe
that we can change the way people behave fast enough to save the planet or
the species.  In fact we are close to the stage of being able to spread
DNA based life to other rocks in this system, and I feel it is a moral
imperative.

One final thought, I believe I have at least directed my counter argument
at the central thesis of your argument.  I don't believe I have put words
in your mouth.  Please read the article and address the issues presented, or
if you want to present a different approach don't attribute words and ideas
to me that I did not write.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1988 12:30-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Only three kinds of people...

> I identify three strains of popular space freakdom:
> Mr. Right Stuff, the Starship Trooper, and the New-Age Crystalline
> Holistic L5 Person.

And which one are you, Mr. Neff?

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 16:34:14 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

>>  I just can't imagine an interesting
>> culture flourishing in an isolated group of a few thousand people 
>> confined to a small tin can and surrounded by a harsh and unforgiving
>> environment.

Check out a modest town on the prairies in winter, or in the dryer parts
of the southwest in summer.  Those are distinctly harsh and unforgiving
environments.  (The survival time for an unprotected human on the Canadian
prairies in a January blizzard isn't much longer than it is in vacuum.
But little kids, properly protected, routinely go out in such weather.)

Besides, they won't be isolated, they'll have television! :-(
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 14:58:20 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1988Oct4.094209.19597@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
}In article <854@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
}
}>On the other hand, Earth does not have a population problem.  It has
}>a resource problem.  Given sufficient resources of energy, food and
}>minerals, any population size is fine.  The problem is that Earth
}>does not have sufficient resources for its population.  This is a
}>problem which space exploration and development might solve.
}
}The position that the Earth is nearly out of resources has been
}popular for a while.  O'Neill based his space-colonization schemes on
}the Club of Rome forecasts.

Yech.  I got hold of the source documentation for this model.
It's awful.
If I did that many linear assumptions and extrapolations on a model while
working on my masters (OR/SA, specializing in advanced modelling) I would
need to put a LOT of disclaimers in it.  Which they didn't.
(the whishy values were for coefficients for calculations, yet.  Chaos
theory, eat 'em alive!)


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 01:34:08 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!odlin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Iain Odlin)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <6799@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>If all six "tries" were comparable this might be true, but that's not the
>way it would work.  Millions of times more people will remain on Earth
>than live anywhere else for a long time to come.  It will take centuries
>before any other place is as viable and self-sufficient as Earth; during
>all of that time, Earth has to stay alive and at a spacefaring level of
>technology or all "six" are doomed.  I'd say the ball remains in Earth's
>court.

Are you suggesting that we not even try?  I say any chance is better than no
chance.
-Iain Odlin


-- 
"The ground's some kind of soft stuff.| Iain Odlin: odlin@reed      
I can kick it around with my boot."   |-------------------------------===}[USA>
-First words said on moon's surface   | {backbone}!tektronix!reed!odlin

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #32
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Oct 88 05:05:42 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03797>; Fri, 14 Oct 88 00:49:58 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 14 Oct 88 00:49:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.AXJMQiy00Vs1ACjU4z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.235582d7.3ef1f6>;
          Fri, 14 Oct 88 00:30:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.235580e8.381275>;
          Fri, 14 Oct 88 00:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Oct 14 88 00:20:13 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #33

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:
	 Re: ERP for intrasystem, interstellar communications
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
	     Re: Enterprise as escape system test vehicle
	       Re: Bleak prospects for US space effort
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 16:24:55 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ERP for intrasystem, interstellar communications

In article <3832@Portia.Stanford.EDU> paulf@Jessica.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>What band are they using for Phobos?  Most of the US stuff is done in S - band
>with DSN...

They're using L band for Phobos, I think.  The DSN is being equipped for
L, with the Phobos mission in mind, but the work isn't finished yet.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 14:11:23 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <4536@lynx.UUCP> neal@lynx.UUCP (Neal Woodall) writes:
>>A study I read claimed that the Earth could comfortably support ten
>>times its current population indefinitely.
>
>If you want to live in a shoulder-to-shoulder packed world, then go to China
>or India. I like open spaces, and don't want to see the earth packed with ten
>times the number of people who now live here. Maybe the earth could support
>the number of people you suggest, but does that mean that we should let the
>population reach this level? Just because soemthing can be accomplished does
>not mean that it should be done.

You are changing the subject!  My comment was in response to a fellow
who was claiming that current world problems are caused by depletion
of resources, not a proposal that 10x the current population would be
a good thing -- although, if the world were affluent enough, it would
have its positive aspects, such as increasing the pace of scientific
discovery and technical innovation by a factor of ten.

As Stolfi argued, if crowding per se is the problem, colonizing space
won't help.

>If power could be sent from satellites to the earth as has been suggested, it
>would go a long way towards ending pollution. If one has a virtually unlimited
>supply of pollution-free energy, many other polution problems could be solved.

Powersats would be useful if they were necessary.  But earth-based
power generating technologies are advancing, too.  We have no shortage
of energy sources right here on earth.  

Also, I am unconvinced that powersats can be made economical.  We know
that fantastically low launch costs would be needed to make them from
terrestrial materials.  You'd also have to be able to process ET
materials very cheaply to make a profit; this is not going to happen
any time soon.

>Also, your contention that it is "ludicrous" to move manufacturing, waste
>disposal, etc. off the planet is based on the present cost of reaching space.
>If this cost were much lower, then the option becomes more viable.

Well, if you want to retreat into the science-fictional future where
it is 10,000 times cheaper to reach space, go ahead.  Just don't
pretend it will happen in time to affect this argument.  Are you
*really* suggesting that it will be economical to grow grain in space,
or make steel or concrete in space, for use on the ground?  You're off
by many orders of magnitude.

>The main reason for this posting is because I am against any increases in the
>earth's population (even though it looks like nothing can be done to stop this
>in the immediate future). Actually, I believe that reliable fusion power is
>the answer to all of our problems.

I don't see how being against increases in the earth's population has
anything to do with space.  If you believe fusion is the answer, why
talk about powersats?

--

I find a curious bias on the part of many space fans.  On the one
hand, they blandly suggest that costs of launching to and operating in
space will come down by three or more orders of magnitude (in our
lifetimes!).  On the other hand, they get very conservative when
discussing advances in competing terrestrial technologies.

I think we'll resolve population and pollution problems, and get much
wealthier, without space, thank you.  At some point, we'll have enough
capital and a sufficiently advanced technology to do space in a big
way.  I hope I am pleasantly surprised and see this happening in my
lifetime, but I expect it won't.  I am 29, by the way.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 17:04:36 GMT
From: voder!lynx!neal@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1988Oct5.101123.23137@cs.rochester.edu> (Paul Dietz) writes:

>You are changing the subject!

I know...I just get very upset when people advocate large increases in the
earth's population (which I thought you were doing).

>although, if the world were affluent enough, it would
>have its positive aspects, such as increasing the pace of scientific
>discovery and technical innovation by a factor of ten.

You assume that the relationship is linear. If more people had wealth, they
might well decide to have more parties and stay drunk all of the time, rather
than do research.

>Paul F. Dietz

Neal

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 07:33:16 GMT
From: Portia!doom@labrea.stanford.edu  (Joseph Brenner)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <6826@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> Fallacies abound in the rebuttals to Jorge's 1337.  Here are some favorites.
> 
>  * WELL-RUN SPACE COLONIES WILL BE LIKE MODERN UNIVERSITIES.  
>    ... Presumably the author meant the part
>    of a modern university that a not-too-observant American scholar sees
>    between dining hall and chemistry seminar... lots of potted trees and
>    pretty buildings.  I can tell you that universities are some of the
>    worst offenders around considered as overall ecosystems! 
>    
No, the author (me) was referring to the social atmosphere of a society  
composed of a few thousand well-educated, goal directed people living 
together without much interaction with any other communities.  
I was responding to someone else who was arguing that a space colony 
would have to be a boring place to live. 

And by the way, try and take it easy, huh?  

(J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU  Materials Science Dept/Stanford, CA 94306)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 21:48:28 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@purdue.edu  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space


In article <1988Oct4.094209.19597@cs.rochester.edu>, Paul Dietz writes:

>The position that the Earth is nearly out of resources has been
>popular for a while.  O'Neill based his space-colonization schemes on
>the Club of Rome forecasts.
>
>However, the Earth is nowhere near its ultimate resource limits.  With
>the possible exception of phosphorus, there is no element that is in
>short supply that cannot be replaced.  Experience has shown that
>substitution is almost always possible, and that lower grade ore
>becomes minable when needed.  Energy is in great supply, as the oil
>and uranium gluts demonstrate.

Since we are not launching any noticeable fraction of Earth's mass
into space :-) it is blatantly obvious that we cannot ``run out'' of
any element in the sense of no longer having that element on Earth.
But as easily accessible sources of any given resource are exhausted,
it becomes harder and harder (more and more expensive) to get useful
quantities of it.  You pointed this out yourself by saying ``lower
grade ore becomes minable when needed.''  Yes it does, but at higher cost,
both financially and environmentally.  Sooner or later we reach the
point of diminishing returns, where the benefit of having a particular
resource fails to pay the cost of extracting it.  At that point, we
have indeed ``run out'' of that resource, regardless of how much of
it is still present in the Earth.

Essentially the same argument applies to material substitution:  Yes,
when one resource is unavailable, another can often substitute for it.
But clearly the substituted material must either be less effective,
or more expensive, or both, otherwise it would have been used in the
first place.

The net result is that although the rich countries may not run out
of necessary resources, their cost will rise -- so the poorer
countries will be unable to afford them, and therefore be unable
to greatly increase their living standards.  Their populations will
continue to grow quickly.

>A study I read claimed that the Earth could comfortably support ten
>times its current population indefinitely.  Current problems are
>caused more by political mismanagement and outright genocide rather
>than limited resources.

An interesting claim.  While I am no fan of governments, it seems
unlikely to me that political mismanagement wastes on the average
90% of all important resources worldwide.  It seems more likely
that the study was written by someone with a political axe to
grind.

>The biggest problem we have to worry about on Earth is not lack of
>resources, but pollution.  It is difficult to see, though, how space
>will stop pollution.  Certainly it would be ludicrous to propose
>moving most manufacturing, agriculture and waste disposal off the
>planet.

Actually it's not at all difficult to see.  Using space resources
would reduce pollution problems from strip mining, refining, etc.
Using space power would reduce pollution from generating facilities
on Earth, such as acid rain, nuclear waste, etc.  Of course, this
would not ``stop'' pollution.  There are no magic bullets.  But it
would help.

>The dogma that Space Will Save Us is comforting to the true believers.
>Examined critically, it doesn't make much sense.

Will any ``true believers'' please stand up now?  Hmm, I don't see
too many.  I don't believe that space development is the snake oil
cure for all Earth's problems.  I do think that it has *a chance*
of easing resource shortages enough to get Earth's population
stabilized.  Since space development has a chance (I think a pretty
good chance) of working, I can't understand people who don't want
to try it.  Do they imagine that while doing so we would abandon
all other attempts to fix our problems?  What sort of childish
thinking is that?

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 16:09:52 GMT
From: joe@csvax.caltech.edu  (Joe Beckenbach)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

Three quick things:
   1-	To remind the newsgroup, there IS environmental research going on,
	working on the very question of self-sustaining closed ecosystems.
	University of Arizona Environmental Laboratory has its Biosphere II
	Project. By the bye, when will those eight lucky people enter the
	biosphere for their two-year stay? [Aside: I have a friend in Alaska
	who is seriously considering a one-year solo effort of this type.]

   2-	I'm thinking about doing an environmental simulator on a hypercube,
	does anyone have any favorite references which could be relevant?
	I don't want to be limited solely to what's available on campus here-
	especially since there must be larger collections somewhere else,
	like UArizona.

   3-	Japan in its feudal times had to deal with limited access to resources,
	which led to tofu, tatami, Zen, and much of what is thought 'Japanese'
	to many minds. This leads me to speculate that once nonterrestrial
	settlements start, there will be this same spartan feel concerning
	the rarer materials.

Thanks.

-- 
Joe Beckenbach	joe@csvax.caltech.edu	Caltech 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125
Just looking for something to do with a hypercube and a vax. Ho hum. 1/2 :-)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 15:11:16 GMT
From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <696@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes:
>Somehow, I
>believe that most Americans just wouldn't care that a robot got blown
>up on takeoff.  

Are people supposed to grieve the loss of electromechanical objects? If I 
witness an auto accident in which two cars are destroyed but the people are 
fine, then I'm happy.  It's just metal.

>Americans are
>rather strange that way, getting excited about 7 people losing their
>lives in the Shuttle explosion, national attention about a girl in a
>well in Texas, and blissful ignorance about thousands dying in Vietnam,
>Afghanistan, and other areas.

The Challenger got lots of international attention (a friend in Britain told
me that everyone there was shocked by it), and even the Texas girl was covered 
by Japanese and European television networks.  Looks to me like what we're 
dealing with here is not an American phenomenon, but rather an anti-Third 
World bias on the part of NATO countries.

>Many probably aren't even aware of the
>millions of Armenians slaughtered by the Turks.  But somehow, to them
>the experience of losing only seven people in a highly experimental and
>risky adventure seems to be a much more immense tragedy.  

Perhaps if the Turks had publicly slaughtered one Armenian before television
cameras and news photographers it would have had more of an impact.  Who can 
forget the powerful image of Saigon's chief of police publicly executing a 
suspected Viet Cong terrorist?  When a tragedy is brought down to the most 
personal level possible then it is more intensely felt.  Thousands of 
schoolchildren had been made aware of the first "teacher in space" and were 
watching the launch as it happened, envisioning one of the astronauts as a 
surrogate for their own teacher who was watching along with them -- how much 
more personal on such a large scale can one get?

>My vote is
>for unmanned adventure until the Psychological make-up of the American
>people somehow changes.

To be determined by annual testing of the nation's psyche?

Isn't "unmanned adventure" a contradiction in terms?

-- 
"I don't suppose you have any idea what the damn thing is, huh?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                      uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu        internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu

------------------------------

Acknowledge-To:  GJose@PCO-MULTICS.HBI.HONEYWELL.COM
Date:  Wed, 5 Oct 88 06:58 MST
From: GJose@PCO-MULTICS.HBI.HONEYWELL.COM
Subject:  Re: Enterprise as escape system test vehicle
Reply-To: GJose.HisAust@PCO-MULTICS.HBI.HONEYWELL.COM


Peter Scott (pjs%grouch at jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) writes:
> It just occurred to me that the Enterprise should be a perfect test
> vehicle for the escape systems intended to be used in level gliding
> flight (i.e., all of the ones I've heard about).  They could leave
> a pilot on board to land the thing... it seems to be the ideal way
> to test such systems.  Have I missed anything?  Why haven't they done
> this?  Is Enterprise being used for anything else?

   The Enterprise is currently located at Dulles International Airport in
Washington DC. It now belongs to the Smithsoneon Institute's Air and Space
Museum, who are planning to put it on public display in one of the hangers
at the airport in the near future. They plan to call the hanger the 'Challenger'
hanger.

Graham Jose (GJose.HisAust at PCO-MULTICS)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 88 15:22:42 GMT
From: attcan!lsuc!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net  (gordan)
Subject: Re: Bleak prospects for US space effort

In article <3833@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
-
-At one time Australia was going to cede part of its territory to Japan as
-a spaceport area.  This has possibilities.  I'd like it if Australia just
-declared a reasonably large piece of the coast as the first "free spaceport",
-where anybody could set up and shoot at the sky without NASA, the EPA, the 
-IRS, the UN, and everybody and their dog yammering at them.   I can imagine
-fifty years later a wild, rich frontier-like city built up with individuals
-from all over the world drawn there by the activity, opportunity, and vision.

Nope.  I think you got a bit confused there...  some fool (can't
remember who it was, offhand :-) suggested this idea in a post to this
newsgroup last year, but I don't think the Australian government would
ever seriously consider such a possibility.

Interestingly enough, there is a precedent of sorts.  In one of this
year's issues of Sky & Telescope (May, perhaps), there is an article on
a group of telescopes operated in Chile by a European astronomical
consortium.  According to the article, the surrounding geographical area
has full extraterritorial status and is considered the world's largest
diplomatic enclave (hundreds of square miles, if memory hasn't failed).

--
                 Gordan Palameta
            uunet!ai.toronto.edu!utgpu!maccs!gordan

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #33
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Oct 88 05:29:57 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07417>; Fri, 14 Oct 88 03:38:51 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 14 Oct 88 03:38:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.QXJOvey00jZd8Qxk4J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.po3.andrew.cmu.edu.2355ac77.9b2123>;
          Fri, 14 Oct 88 03:27:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.2355ab09.5782c6>;
          Fri, 14 Oct 88 03:21:51 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Oct 14 88 03:19:26 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #34

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 34

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     population and cultural bias
		   Re: access to space; how to deny
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 18:40:48 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <396@janus.UUCP>, doug@janus.UUCP (Doug Saxon) writes:
> These are precisely the kind of things that may only be learned in/from space.
I would say these are the kind of things that are more difficult to ignore
in space. The human capacity to ignore reality is breathtaking, but so
is our advancing ability to measure our impact on our environment (well,
perhaps not so breathtaking, but enough to give us at least a fighting
chance).

> How much of the ecology movement came from those hauntingly isolated pictures
> of Earth taken by the Apollo crews?  

>From what I understand, a lot. We saw a little blue-green ball floating in
a huge black void, which told us how precarious things are.

> Until we migrate to an environment where failure to do it right brings
> dramatic and immediate consequences, resources will not be allocated to find
> out how to do it right.

I'm afraid you may be right. But people can happily adjust even to drastic
and immediate consequences. Suppose you lost a loved one in an automobile
accident today. Would you question even for a moment the position of the
automobile in our society? I do, but then I am exceptionally radical.

I am reminded of the biblical parable where God tells the servant,
``Because you have been faithful with ten denarii, I will place you
in charge of ten cities.'' (I'm not trying to make a point, I just
liked the sound of it.) Perhaps people won't learn things until they
have no choice. Perhaps they have to learn to walk before they get
to run. Probably the truth is somewhere in the middle.

>  how are we going to STABILIZE the
> populations of the poorer countries.  The only historical examples of
> population stabilization come by making poor nations (15th century Europe)
> rich (20th century Europe and the rest of the "First World").  If I live in
> Africa and have 5 children, I can cultivate 2 1/2 times the land I and my wife
> can do alone.  One of the children may get a good government job and take care
> of us when we get old.  How are you going to stabilize a population that
> correctly thinks like that?!?
  ^^^^^^^^^

If an easy answer to population problems existed, it would already
be visible. Certainly the Western model of economic development (massive
unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels and high-quality mineral
resources) is not an option for most of the world. However, the trend
toward stable population probably owes as much to education and
cultural diversity as it does to gross material wealth. The two are
currently inseparable, but I can envision them becoming more
independent in the future, as we continue to move to a more
information-intensive lifestyle. However, I can't imagine any way
to stabilize the population in the third world that doesn't involve
repression.

If you live in Africa and you want to cultivate 2.5 times your current
land, you will have to find it first. I understand that's not too easy
right now, especially with the advancing desertification caused by
over-cutting of forests for firewood.

> On the other hand if the rich countries beamed
> cheap electricity, cheaper than could be obtained from damming the falls,
> from a power satelite to Uganda, and if the electricity could provide the
> jobs, that provided the earnings, that provided the standard of living, that
> encouraged the Ugandans to have fewer children, to conserve their natural
> resources, both physical and animal, and to have the wealth to develop the
> point of view that Earth is a precious place that must be preserved, if all
> that could happen, would it be worth it.

A source of cheap, universally available electricity would change a lot
of things. However, barring some stupendous breakthrough, this won't
happen in our lifetimes. :-( Solar power satellites will cost billions, and
the receiving antennas and distribution systems don't exactly go for
pocket change either. The Ugandans would be better off if we spent those
billions on small wind-electric and photovoltaic (terrestrial) generators,
along with cheap, reliable birth control, and got their government to take
an active interest in building a sustainable society. Of course, as long
as we continue our throw-away, non-sustainable fossil-fuel economic model, the
Ugandans have no reason to listen to us. On the other hand, if we found
a way to sustain an advanced culture on close to the theoretical minimum
level of maaterial and energy consumption, we would have a shot at boosting
worldwide living standards.

> Maybe we should just STABILIZE their population:-), whether they want it
> STABILIZED or not:-).

The  eventual collapse of non-sustainable economies will do this, but
in a very unpleasant way. The rich nations may not escape unscathed,
either. If advancing technology can change the rules,
we might avert disaster, but it's going to be close. We won't get
into space without a good launchpad, and this planet is the only
launchpad we've got.
> 
> P.S. Would the power satelite idea work??? I don't know, but it won't work
> if it, and other ideas like it, are not tried.

In theory, yes, and it would have some great advantages over terrestrial
solar (greater and largely non-interrupted solar flux outside the
atmosphere, no need to tie up land). However, the concept is big,
complex, expensive, and centralized, with a huge lead time and some
considerable risk of failure. Not the sort of attributes one
associates with successful revolutionary concepts. Terrestrial solar
has plenty of strikes against it, but it can proceed _incrementally._
And that is a huge mark in its favor. The technologies that have
changed civilization have often had incremental character (automobiles
and personal computers come to mind). With space we have this
distressing need for massive cooperation and consensus, because we
can't just sort of sneak into orbit a bit at a time. Perhaps the
emerging entrepreneurial focus can change things. I hope so.

Dan Mocsny

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 17:09:08 GMT
From: uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@gatech.edu  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space


In article <6826@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>Fallacies abound in the rebuttals to Jorge's 1337.  Here are some favorites.
>
> * WE CAN HELP THE EARTH'S PROBLEMS BY FINDING RESOURCES WHEN WE MOVE INTO
>   SPACE.  And do what with them?  Ship them back down to Earth's surface
>   for consumption there?

Obviously, although some amount would certainly remain in space for
facilities growth.

>   This whole brouhaha got started with Chris Torek
>   and I talking about the thermodynamic curve.  We're choking on our own
>   self generated products as it is.  If we start beaming or shoveling
>   more energy in from outside the planetary thermodynamic system (in
>   quantities significant enough to make sense) we will only compound our
>   woes in the long run.

Baloney.  ``Shoveling more energy in from outside the planetary
thermodynamic system'' is a weasel phrase.  It implies that we'll
be better off we don't import energy from space.  But if we don't
import it from space, we'll simply generate here by some other
means, and with equally bad thermodynamic effects, *in addition
to* the pollution problems avoided by a space system.  The source
of the energy is thermodynamically irrelevant (excluding ``natural''
sources like solar power or dams, which merely harness energy that
is already floating around in the biosphere); only the amount
matters.

>   There are bound to be unforeseen environmental
>   headaches involved (there always are), and if we lick those and turn
>   Earth into a totally zipless power sink, we will have the satisfaction
>   of maintaining world starvation at ten times the current population
>   levels.  Where do I sign?  :-)

I'm having a hard time understanding what you've written here (``a
totally zipless power sink''??), so please forgive me if I answer
something you didn't mean to say.  What I think you mean is, ``Space
resources and/or energy will not stop starvation, they will merely
make it possible for Earth to have a much larger, but still starving,
population.'' If that's what you meant, you're dead wrong.  To repeat
what's already been said several times in this discussion,

    ** WEALTHY, EDUCATED POPULATIONS DON'T HAVE GROWTH PROBLEMS **

If Third World living standards can be raised enough, global
population growth will level off.  The population then will *not*
reach ten times its current level, and no one will be starving.

> * WELL-RUN SPACE COLONIES WILL BE LIKE MODERN UNIVERSITIES.  That was a
>   gem, had to save it from expire.  Presumably the author meant the part
>   of a modern university that a not-too-observant American scholar sees
>   between dining hall and chemistry seminar... lots of potted trees and
>   pretty buildings.  I can tell you that universities are some of the
>   worst offenders around considered as overall ecosystems!  Go hang out
>   with the janitors some time... see where that crummy food comes from,
>   and where it goes after they throw it away... and where they generate
>   the steam that pipes so neatly into the dorms (usually at a great
>   coughing honker of a coal boiler downhill somewhere).

Marvelous rhetoric, Mr Neff, but quite unrelated to the context and
meaning of the original posting by Joseph Brenner, which said (in
response to comments by Jorge Stolfi):

>>  I just can't imagine an interesting
>> culture flourishing in an isolated group of a few thousand people
>> confined to a small tin can and surrounded by a harsh and unforgiving
>> environment.
>
>"...a few thousand people...": Modern urban snobbery.  Athens in ancient
>Greece wasn't much bigger.  Some people like small towns.  I would
>expect that a reasonably designed space colony would have an atmosphere
>like a somewhat isolated, modern university.

It's obvious to me, and I think to anyone else who isn't desperately
looking for nits to pick (because of a lack of substantive arguments?),
that what Mr Brenner meant was that a space colony might be
*culturally* similar to an isolated modern university, i.e., its size
would not make it a cultural wasteland, in fact the opposite would be
true.  That sounds very reasonable to me.  He said absolutely nothing
about *running* a space colony like a university.

>   If we are very lucky, well run space colonies will be like Israeli
>   kibbutzes or high-tech hippie communes, rather than parasitical
>   pyramid-tips like your average university.

Again, your statement is quite unrelated to the original posting.

Did you actually read the original posting, or did you merely pick
a few keywords out of it and free-associate from them to write your
reply? :-)

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 88 05:56:36 GMT
From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kevin S. Van Horn)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <13370@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>Doug Saxon wrote:
>>   
>>   I believe that if we do not go off planet we are condemning the
>>   third world nations to increasing rounds of starvation and
>>   warfare.
>
>Forget it. Colonizing space will not solve the Earth overpopulation
>problem.  [...]

He didn't say anything about shipping excess population off-planet; I
think what he was talking about was the fact that the solar system as a
whole has far more resources resources than just the earth, and that those
resources will be needed.

>Without some technological miracle, I doubt that by 2038 you will be
>able to buy a ticket to low earth orbit for less than $100,000 [...]

Get serious; our present rocket technology has lots of room for improvement.
The cost of fuel accounts for only a fraction of a percent of the cost of
a Shuttle launch; the major costs have to do with maintenance (they end up
cannibalizing one Shuttle to prepare the other for launch) and the army of
technicians they need to launch the thing.  With a simpler (thus more
reliable and easier to maintain) design, launch costs could go way down.
The theoretical limit, given our present energy-generation technology, is
only a few dollars per pound (the cost of the energy needed to put one
pound into orbit).  The reason it costs so much to launch something into
orbit now is that NASA has never been very interested in low launch costs.

Kevin S. Van Horn

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 19:26:54 GMT
From: rochester!cooper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: population and cultural bias

From: cooper

Suppose everyone had the same comfortable and improving quality of
life (eg. no starvation, at the very minimum).
Then wouldn't it be great if the human population just kept
increasing and increasing?
And who's to say this isn't possible?
Who wants `stabilization'?
..let's keep some big picture in mind also....

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 05:02:38 GMT
From: asuvax!duster!mikec@noao.edu  (Michael Collins)
Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny

In article <blah-blah-blah> (Mark C. Widzinski) writes:

>In Boston Globe, 3 Oct 88:

        Excerpt from newspaper article deleted.

>I would venture to guess that 700 feet is more than close enough to do
>some serious damage.  Hell, at this point, he could have just flown his
>plane in to the ET to make a pretty big mess!

I saw a report about this on CNN not too long before the launch.  No big
story, just a short mention that a small civilian aircraft had illegally
penetrated the restricted airspace and was intercepted.  I find the 700
foot seperation claim a bit hard to believe: the restriced zone must be
many miles in diameter, and the TV report indicated the guy was tracked
on radar for some time before the violation occurred, finally being
"escorted" once he had officially crossed the boundary.

>Let's admit we were lucky this this that it was only a sightseer.  WE
>HAVE GOT TO TIGHTEN UP SECURITY!  We can't lose 1/3 of our fleet to
>some anti-space lunatic with a pilot's license and an hour to spare.

Surprise!  It doesn't even take a pilot's certificate.  I saw or read that
the operator of the aircraft in question was only a student.  While I agree
that adequate security is needed, I've little doubt that anything as slow
as a Cessna would never get close enough to do any damage.  Too many
radars, helicopters, interceptors and air-to-air missiles around the
launch area for that sort of thing.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Mark Widzinski {standard disclaimers}
>(email: widzinski@SAPSUCKER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
> snailmail: Symbolics, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142)
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

					-- Mike --

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 23:28:49 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <1315@ncspm.ncsu.edu>, jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) writes:
> >Americans are
> >rather strange that way, getting excited about 7 people losing their
> >lives in the Shuttle explosion, national attention about a girl in a
> >well in Texas, and blissful ignorance about thousands dying in Vietnam,
> >Afghanistan, and other areas.
> >Many probably aren't even aware of the
> >millions of Armenians slaughtered by the Turks.  But somehow, to them
> >the experience of losing only seven people in a highly experimental and
> >risky adventure seems to be a much more immense tragedy.  
> 
> Perhaps if the Turks had publicly slaughtered one Armenian before television
> cameras and news photographers it would have had more of an impact.  Who can 
> forget the powerful image of Saigon's chief of police publicly executing a 
> suspected Viet Cong terrorist?  When a tragedy is brought down to the most 
> personal level possible then it is more intensely felt.  Thousands of 
> schoolchildren had been made aware of the first "teacher in space" and were 
> watching the launch as it happened, envisioning one of the astronauts as a 
> surrogate for their own teacher who was watching along with them -- how much 
> more personal on such a large scale can one get?
> 

This really doesn't belong in the sci.space group, but seeing how this
discussion of the MERITS OF MANNED/UNMANNED SPACEFLIGHT seems to have
degenerated into an analysis of the psychological worth of the American
public, let me throw in my $.02 worth.

People have ALWAYS been shocked by small tragedies which hit close to
home.  (The following quote is in no way, shape, or form, a reflection
of my own opinions.  It merely emphasizes the point I wish to make.)
There was a certain figure in WW2 Germany by the name of Heydrich.
His job was the oversight of the destruction of the Jewish race.  He said
once, when asked about the 'tragical' aspects of his work, 'Ten dead is
a tragedy.  Ten million dead is a statistic.'

Point:  The Challenger crew died in public.   Watched by millions.  It is
far easier to react to a tragedy when the numbers are comprehensible.

Point #2.  Perhaps the discussion of the psychological stability of the 
American people (and the sidelight of how they react to a tragedy which
involves the space program) should be moved to a more worthwhile group.
Like sci.psychology, or something like that.
Let's get back to the relevant arguements about the merits of space
exploration and not dwell on nit-picky details.

N. Kluksdahl        Arizona State University.

These thoughts are my own.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #34
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Oct 88 06:15:45 EDT
Received: by po2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id <AA01021>; Fri, 14 Oct 88 05:44:12 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 14 Oct 88 05:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.oXJQl8y00jZdI3yk45@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po5.andrew.cmu.edu.2355c8ca.86314d>;
          Fri, 14 Oct 88 05:28:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.2355c6de.1f72f3>;
          Fri, 14 Oct 88 05:20:33 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Oct 14 88 05:19:10 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #35

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 35

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Extinctions
		 Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
		       Re: Creation '?science?'
			      Berserkers
		  Re: Navigating Hazardous Payloads
			  Shuttle computers
			 The Mars Declaration
			     Re: Gravity
			     Re: Gravity
			  African Air Farce
			     Re: Gravity
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 01:09:36 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Extinctions

In article <591763669.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Some papers about 6 months ago in Science discussed the possibility
>that the actual extinction mechanism was acid rain. I mean, intensely
>acid...
>
>They apparently have some evidence for their theory in the kinds of
>sediments washed off the landmasses after the Cret. Ext. Event.

This has been around as a theory since shortly after the impact
hypothesis appeared, but it's a difficult thing to model and 
even harder to get evidence for.

A related notion, incidentally, is that the sorts of fires
considered by "nuclear winter" models would inject large quantities
of sulfur into the atmosphere, also resulting in very acidic
rain if (as has been suggested as a flaw in the nuclear winter models)
the combustion products are washed out of the atmosphere quickly.
This effect was first calculated by Mal Ruderman, who dubbed it
the "Nuclear Pickle".

	Jordin (Acid remarks) Kare

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 20:54:28 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!mfgfoc!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Thompson)
Subject: Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.

>From article <4542@lynx.UUCP>, by neal@lynx.UUCP (Neal Woodall):
> If human race died out (no matter how), all trace of our existance on earth
> would be gone in less than 1 Million years (weather and erosion, etc.) It may
> be true that the space probes will be the last traces of human existance (and
> perhaps the lunar landers from the Apollo program).
> 
> Neal

I believe that our geosynchronous satelites would still be orbiting the
earth (although no longer synchronous) after several million to several billion
years.  Would an orbit at aprox. 23,000 miles be stable for this period, 
assuming no other very massive body on the scale of a planet passes between
us and the moon?  If so, it seems to be an ideal place to put a time capsule.
I also think that a satelite locked in a very low orbit about the moon could
also stay stable for many eons.  There is no atmosphere to disturb it.

I agree with Neal.  Surely no structure or mechanism left on Earth could 
more than a few hundred thousand years.  Even the great pyramids will be
dust in this amount of time.  They look pretty worn being only 3000 years
old.  I remember reading artcles on the US govt. planning to build monuments
guarding waste disposal sites which contain very long lasting radioactive
waste.  There were many technical problems just trying to build a structure
to last a few 10s of thousands of years.  Perhaps they should build it out 
of plastic Coke bottles. :-}  The article also went into the problem
of how to communicate to our distant descendents through writing or symbols
placed on these monuments.  

Just some of my thoughts.

Mike Thompson

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Thompson                      FOCUS Semiconductor Systems, Inc.
net: (sun!daver!mfgfoc!engfoc!mike)      570 Maude Court
att: (408) 738-0600 ext 370              Sunnyvale, CA  94086 USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 17:24:10 EDT
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu


Bob Pendleton says:

> ...
>If I were
>designing something to destroy all life in the galaxy, I think I would
>go with a hive insect model for the destroying machines.
> ...
>If a  random mutation did occur in a colony, the entire colony could be
>destroyed by several other colonies working together. This would not
>eliminate random mutation, but it would greatly reduce it. Ants and
>termites have been around for a very long time.

	But ants and termites don't waste their time and energy on pointless
jihads.  They put it where it counts - making more ants and termites, and
keeping the existing nest going.  Basically, I don't think the berserker
strategy is evolutionarily stable.  An ever so slightly mutated berserker
hive that put a tad less of its energy into destructive forays, and a tad
more into its own survival would do better than its relatives. In time it
would dominate the population, setting the stage for a further reduction in
nastiness, and an increase in normal survival behavior.
(Sort of like Larry Niven's Kzinti, come to think of it.  Still
tigers on the outside, but increasingly pussycats on the inside.)

					-- Hans Moravec

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 14:31:25 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Creation '?science?'

In article <591984954.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
}The North
}pole, under the current location of the continents is under a mile of
}water, and the South pole under several miles of ice.

Well, BIG chunck of Antartic are ice-free.  Colder than I care to consider,
but no accumulation.  While the snow on the ground doesn't melt, it
doesn't snow that much inside the continent, either.

}Continental drift is an absolute PROVEN fact. Proven with current data,
}verified week by week as it is measured using interferometry between
}sites thousands of miles apart, using radio quasars as signal sources.

Nice, too, since you can WATCH it working.  Or dig into the ocean bed
and get the biggest hunk of magnetic strip recording of the whole time
one can imagine...

Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 13:55 EDT
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Berserkers

aplcen!aplcomm!warper.jhuapl.edu!trn@mimsy.umd.edu  (Tony Nardo) writes:
> Software/hardware doesn't mutate.  Fail, yes.  Mutate, no.

Not when designed according to existing human engineering principles.
You can't be sure what might happen with fault-tolerant, self-repairing
knowledge based, self optimizing cybernetic systems.  As an artificial
intelligence student it doesn't seem absurd to me to imagine some
different set of engineering principles which could lead (perhaps
intentionally) to mutating and self evolving systems.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 23:17:39 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Navigating Hazardous Payloads

In article <8810011659.aa02395@b.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes:
>> >[plutonium power sources]
>
>Sorry, I was laboring under the impression that inhalation 
>of a microgram or so can cause fatal bone marrow cancer.

Many, many micrograms of plutonium have already been placed into the
atmosphere by bomb tests.  Somehow, we aren't yet dead.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 6 Oct 88 06:23 EDT
From: RON PICARD <PICARD@gmr.com>
Subject:  Shuttle computers

Were the shuttle computers replaced during the last 2+ years?  I remember
hearing an astronaut saying the old (current?) ones had roughly half the
memory my desktop PC has and that any additional programs had to bump one
that was already there.

Ron Picard  (PICARD@GMR.COM)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 19:11:42 GMT
From: bucsb!mas@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Mark)
Subject: The Mars Declaration

References:
Sender: 
Reply-To: mas@bucsf.bu.edu (Mark)
Followup-To: sci.space
Distribution: 
Keywords: Planetary Society, petition 
Organization:

Got this in the mail today...
-----------------------------

				THE MARS DECLARATION

	Mars is the world next door, the nearest planet on which human
explorers could safely land.  Although it is sometimes as warm as a New England
October, Mars is a chilly place, so cold that some of its thin carbon dioxide
atmosphere freezes out at the winter pole.  There are pink skies, fields of
boulders, sand dunes, vast extinct volcanos that dwarf anything on Earth,
a great canyon that would cross most of the United States, sandstorms that
sometimes reach half the speed of sound, strange bright and dark markings on
the surface, hundreds of ancient river valleys, mountains shaped like pyramids
and many other mysteries.

	Mars is a storehouse of scientific information - important in its own
right but also for the light it may cast on the origins of life and on
safeguarding the environment of Earth.  If Mars once had abundant liquid
water, what happened to it?  How did a once Earthlike world become so parched,
frigid and comparatively airless?  Is there something so important on Mars that
we need to know about our own fragile world?

	The prospect of human exploration of Mars is ecumenical - remarkable
for the diversity of supporting opinions it embraces.  It is being advocated
on many grounds:

	+  As a potential scientific bonanza - for example, on climatic change,
	   on the search for present or past life, on the understanding of
	   enigmatic Martian landforms, and on the application of new knowledge
	   to understanding our own planet

	+  As a means, through robotic precursor and support missions to Mars,
	   of reviving a stagnant U.S. planetary program

	+  As providing a coherent focus and sense of purpose to a dispirited
	   NASA for many future research and development activities on an
	   appropriate timescale and with affordable costs.

	+  As giving a crisp and unambiguous purpose to the U.S. space
	   station - needed for in-orbit assembly of the interplanetary
	   transfer vehicle or vehicles, and for the study of long-duration
	   life support for space travelers

	+  As the next great human adventure, able to excite and inspire people
	   of all ages the world over

	+  As an aperture to enhanced national prestige and technological
	   development

	+  As a realistic and possibly unique opportunity for the United States
	   and the Soviet Union to work together in the spotlight of world
	   public opinion, and with other nations, on behalf of the human
	   species

	+  As a model and stimulant for mutually advantageous U.S./Soviet
	   cooperation here on Earth

	+  As a means for economic reconversion of the aerospace industry if
	   and when massive reductions in strategic weapons - long promised by
	   the United States and the Soviet Union - are implemented

	+  As a worthy application of the traditional military virtues of
	   organization and valor to great expeditions of discovery

	+  As a step towards the long-term objective of establishing humanity
	   as a multi-planet species

	+  Or simply as the obvious response to a deeply felt perception of
	   the future calling.

	Advances in technology now make feasible a systematic process of
exploration and discovery on the planet Mars - beginning with robot vehicles
and sample return missions and culminating in the first footfall of human
beings on another planet. The cost would be no greater than that of a single
major strategic weapons system, and if shared among two or more nations, the
cost to each nation would be still less.  No major additional technological
advances seem to be required, and the step from today to the first landing of
humans on Mars appears to be technologically easier than the step from
President John F. Kennedy's announcement of the Apollo program on May 25, 1961
to the first landing of humans on the Moon on July 20, 1969.

	We represent a wide diversity of backgrounds in the fields of science,
technology, religion, the arts, politics and government.  Few of us adhere to
every one of the arguments listed above, but we share a common vision of Mars
as a historic, constructive objective for the technological ambitions of the
human species over the next few decades.


*    We endorse the goal of human exploration of Mars and urge that initial   *
*    steps toward its implementation be taken throughout the world.           *


	___ Yes, I support the Mars declaration and am happy to have my name
	    associated with it.

	    Signature ____________________________________________
	    Name (please print) __________________________________
	    Address ______________________________________________
	    City ____________________________ State ____ Zip _____


(return to:  The Planetary Society, 65 North Catalina Ave., Pasadena, CA 91106)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 16:57:33 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <1140@unccvax.UUCP> nrk@unccvax.UUCP (Nitin R Kulkarni) writes:
>... how one would simulate gravity conditions on a spacecraft in deep space.

Using centrifugal force it's easy, except that to avoid things like
inner-ear problems you want a slow rotation rate, which (for truly useful
amounts of pseudo-gravity) means a long radius of rotation, hundreds of
meters at least.  It does tend to kind of constrain the design of your
vessel, but it definitely works.

If your propulsion system is good enough to produce continuous substantial
acceleration, and assuming that you're actually going somewhere rather than
just hanging around running a telescope or something, there's no problem.
Alas, current propulsion systems aren't nearly good enough.

A small black hole can provide useful amounts of gravity, assuming that
you can find or make one (we can't right now).

General relativity offers some theoretical possibilities, all of which
pose engineering challenges that are ridiculous now but might be merely
daunting in a century or so.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 88 17:01:16 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Gravity

Actually, one open question is "just how much gravity is needed to be
useful?".  This comes in two parts:  "how much is needed to provide a
good working environment, i.e. one in which globs of hot solder don't
drift down the breeze?", and "how much is needed to minimize unwanted
physiological effects of free fall, e.g. bone decalcification?".  The
answer to the former is probably lower than the answer to the latter.
We have no real data on which to base an answer to either.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 00:43:43 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!psivax!quad1!ttidca!ward@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (D. B. Ward)
Subject: African Air Farce


    In a bizarre experiment designed to  simulate  life  in  space,  the
    Gambian  Air Force welded four men in the cab of a 1957 Chevy pickup
    and left them there for sixteen days.  The WEEKLY WORLD NEWS reports
    that  the  men  were  hospitalized with heatstroke after being freed
    from their  "spacecraft".  General  Dembo  Ceesay,  the  top-ranking
    officer  in  the  Gambian  Air Force (which has yet to buy its first
    plane), defended the tests, saying they "are imperative if we are to
    reap the benefits of interplanetary exploration and trade".

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 03:28:52 GMT
From: amdcad!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Gravity


I might be exaggerating, but it seems that everyone now seems to feel
that coriolis acceleration will be hopelessly confusing in a spinning
environment, hence the radius will have to be large to diminish the
coriolis force to manageable proportions.  Is there any basis for this?
Have people been placed in spun-up rooms and asked to perform simple
tasks, or are people merely guessing?


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #35
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Oct 88 01:57:54 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07860>; Sat, 15 Oct 88 00:41:58 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 15 Oct 88 00:41:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.kXJhPjy00UkTASgU4B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.po2.andrew.cmu.edu.2356d418.3221b9>;
          Sat, 15 Oct 88 00:29:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.2356d266.c7455d>;
          Sat, 15 Oct 88 00:22:03 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct 15 88 00:19:14 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #36

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 36

Today's Topics:
		   Re: population and cultural bias
				limits
		     Spacecraft as time capsules.
		       Re: SPACE Digest V8 #384
		       Re: SPACE Digest V8 #384
		 Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.
		 Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.
			     Re: Gravity
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		       Re: Commercial launchers
		     Was " Creation '?science?'"
	      Nemesis, the Death Star (was terraforming:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 17:45:00 GMT
From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: population and cultural bias


/* Written  2:26 pm  Oct  5, 1988 by cooper@rochester.UUCP in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
/* ---------- "population and cultural bias" ---------- */
>From: cooper
>
>Suppose everyone had the same comfortable and improving quality of
>life (eg. no starvation, at the very minimum).
>Then wouldn't it be great if the human population just kept
>increasing and increasing?
>And who's to say this isn't possible?
>Who wants `stabilization'?
>..let's keep some big picture in mind also....
/* End of text from s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

I can't believe that we could keep everyone at a proper standard of living
if the populat increases without limit. There is only a finite amount of
mass in the solar system - only a certain fraction of that can be used to
make people, the rest is needed for support structures (such as houses, etc.).
Exponential growth curves are amazing things - it doesn't take long to
overload any system.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 14:18:35 GMT
From: rochester!cooper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: limits

From: cooper

I said (in short):
"Who wants 'stabilization'?"

From: carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu
> .... There is only a finite amount of mass in the solar system ....

Response (in short):  so?.....
in long: I was gratified that the finite limit at least occurred
at the solar system level, and not at the planetary level.
However, there's still no hard limit, even at this scope of analysis.

One of the most interesting recurring debates about space is the issue
of limits, when and why they are perceived, and how they are used to
argue against expansion.
Club of Rome wasnt't shy: "Limits to Growth", but they sure lacked
scope.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 15:19:17 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Spacecraft as time capsules.


         In regards to Mike Thompson's comment on using high Earth-orbiting
    satellites (or Sol-orbiting satellites for that matter) as time
    capsules for our distant descendants, this has already been done in
    one case which I know of, due once again to the foresight of Carl Sagan. 

         The LAGEOS satellite, launched by the United States in 1976 to
    indicate continental plate movements to aid in predicting earthquakes,
    was placed into an Earth orbit 3,600 miles high, where it will not
    decay for eight million years if left undisturbed.  Sagan placed
    onboard a plaque in the satellite's center core designed to tell
    anyone who retrieves this craft when it was launched, and perhaps its
    purpose.  Three vertical views of Earth's continents are shown, first
    as they appeared 250 million years ago, then as they did when LAGEOS
    was launched (LAGEOS is shown being launched from California in this 
    second drawing, to further indicate the time and place it was put 
    into orbit), and finally as they will have changed in 8,000,000 A.D.
    In the upper left corner of the plaque is a symbol indicating Earth
    orbiting Sol, the full wording of the acronym LAGEOS in English, the  
    acronym U.S.A., and the Christian Era date it was launched.  A picture 
    of and more detailed information on the LAGEOS plaque can be found in 
    the 1978 Random House book, MURMURS OF EARTH. 

         Keep in mind that those high-orbiting and interplanetary
    satellites will still tell something of the culture that built and
    launched them to any future discoverers of the vehicles by themselves,
    even without any plaques to help.  If things go well and the human
    race colonizes the Sol system, then I have no doubt that LAGEOS and
    many other satellites will be recovered long before they burn up in
    Earth's atmosphere, or are vaporized by a bloated red giant Sol in its
    dying days. 

         If there are any other satellites which have messages placed 
    in and/or on them for future generations - or even alien explorers, 
    for that matter - please post the information here. 

         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 17:31:52 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #384

In article <19881003145840.4.WIDZINSKI@OPUS.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> Widzinski@SAPSUCKER.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM (Mark C. Widzinski) writes:
>At almost 6 million pounds of thrust from the pair of SRBs, it doesn't
>matter much if the hold-down blow or not.  They would just be ripped off
>the launch pad when the solids light.

Nonsense.  Well, the shuttle hold-downs probably aren't built to take it,
but there is nothing difficult about building hold-downs for millions of
pounds of thrust.  (Remember that it's not the thrust you have to hold,
just the thrust in excess of weight.)  The Saturn V's hold-downs worked
fine at something like 2Mlbs of load, and they weren't even explosively
released -- they were purely mechanical, believe it or not.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 17:12:58 GMT
From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!seldon@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Joe Walker and Hal Jr.)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #384

In article <1988Oct6.173152.29582@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Nonsense.  Well, the shuttle hold-downs probably aren't built to take it,
>but there is nothing difficult about building hold-downs for millions of
>pounds of thrust.  (Remember that it's not the thrust you have to hold,
>just the thrust in excess of weight.)

  So say that the solids ignite but for some reason the hold-down bolts don't
blow...what then..or do the bolt go moments before the solids ignite and an
instrument determines weather the bolts have sheared....What do you do..
just sit on the pad until the solids burn out and pray??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Joe Walker                          |        
 U.S. Mail:                          |
   Dartmouth College                 |    "Why don't you fix your little
   H.B. 219, Hanover N.H. 03755      |     problems and light this candle!!"
 E-Mail:                             |
   BITNET:seldon@D1.dartcms1.bitnet  |                   - Alan Shepard
   UNIX:seldon@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               !{harvard,linus,inhp4}!dartvax!eleazar!seldon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 17:25:31 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.

In article <7304@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
>I think that the Sagans were rather arrogant in assuming that other beings
>will understand our bodies and the difference of sexes.

Sagan has observed that the human figures on the Pioneer plaque, although
the most obvious part to humans, are the *least* understandable part to
aliens.

> One should start
>with the basics, then move up to other things...

There wasn't room.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 15:35:10 GMT
From: phoenix!mfryba@princeton.edu  (Martin Francis Ryba)
Subject: Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.

>I believe that our geosynchronous satelites would still be orbiting the
>earth (although no longer synchronous) after several million to several billion
>years.  Would an orbit at aprox. 23,000 miles be stable for this period, 
>assuming no other very massive body on the scale of a planet passes between
>us and the moon?  If so, it seems to be an ideal place to put a time capsule.
>I also think that a satelite locked in a very low orbit about the moon could
>also stay stable for many eons.  There is no atmosphere to disturb it.

The satellite will last maybe a couple of hundred thousand years, maybe
more (micrometeors,solar wind,etc.) but definitely not the couple
billion that Pioneer will.  Recall that in about 2-5 billion years the
sun will not be behaving quite the same.  The earth even without our
help will not last forever.

I've got my ticket in hand.   :-)

Marty Ryba
slave physics grad student
Pulsars are fun and useful -- the plaques use pulsars to note our
position.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 14:12:51 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <1988Oct5.165733.7704@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
}In article <1140@unccvax.UUCP> nrk@unccvax.UUCP (Nitin R Kulkarni) writes:
}>... how one would simulate gravity conditions on a spacecraft in deep space.
}A small black hole can provide useful amounts of gravity, assuming that
}you can find or make one (we can't right now).

I really don't thing this would be a very neat idea....
1. All kinds of nastey stuff "comes from" a small black hole.
2. The field would be very strong close, and drop off quick (inverse
   square from a point would change FAST)
3. A small hole would weigh more than any propulsion scheme likely to come
   up with could accelerate worth anything.
4. The G filed would be radial toward a small point.  Yech.
5. As you point out, don't got 'em, and since they decay ain't likely to,
   either.

As long as we're into magic, how about neutronium foil?    ;~)


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 17:23:48 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <Oct.4.22.33.49.1988.4227@klaatu.rutgers.edu> josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes:
>However, none of this will mean anything if the government continues
>to squash private launch companies.  LEO tickets will continue to
>be ten million a shot, payable in rubles.

Ho ho, wrong:  payable in Swiss francs.  Cash.  No cheques or credit cards.
The Soviets know the difference between hard currency and waste paper!
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1988 13:06-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Commercial launchers

I disagree with Mr. Neff on most things he has said, but I do have to
point out the David Spector is incorrect in his statement about private
launch companies.

There HAVE been difficulties, mostly due to turf protecting behavior
and lack of coordination or direction within the massive beauracracy we
sometimes humorously call a government.

Nonetheless, there is an Office of Commercial Space Transportation
within the Department of Transportation which is responsible for one
stop licensing of commercial launches. They are also going to 'type
certify' launches to descrease the licensing costs.

There was some difficulty earlier this year because the OCST was about
to be underfunded (again) to the point at which it would have been
unable to process all of the requests before it. Scott Pace can
probably verify it, but I believe that a phone tree and mail campaign
action we carried out succeeded in saving their funding.

Several launch companies are very far along. Gary Hudsen's first stage
is at Vandenberg for testing (Pacific American Launch Services).
George Koopman (AMROC) has had several engine tests at Vandenberg
alreeady, one within the last 6 weeks I think. They may even build
their own pad there, although they had no end of grief with
Environmental Impact Statements and other such rot.

Space Services Incorporated of America is also well along. They
launched a suborbital flight early in this decade.

The ancestral company of AMROC, Starstruck Inc, launched a Dolphin
rocket from a canister at sea to a height of about 10 miles with a
partial load of oxidizer.

The LOFT-1 sounding rocket is due to go soon (if not already?) from
KSC.

There are several other entrepreneurs busy at it, but farther back
along the funding curve. There is mini-Phoenix VTVL reusable sounding
rocket being designed and hopefully built by a group in Colorado
(Hummingbird Systems). There is another person who has done an engine
test using very interesting technology, and I believe there is a group
down in Alabama also. And of course the Harvard grads who started
Orbital Sciences from scratch who are now turning out orbital transfer
engines.

Not to mention numerous other corporations that are at this moment
basically names and a handful of people who are practically
volunteering their time to keep a dream alive. Many of them will vanish
with hardly a trace, but some of them will make it. I expect there will
be a venture capital feeding frenzy after the first couple of
successful private launches. I would expect it will (unfortuneatly) be
somewhat like the biotech flap of some years back. Loads of money, a
few successes but not quite fast enough to satisfy the stock market
(phase 1), followed by a drying up of money and a squeezing out or
merger of marginal operations (phase 2), followed by a gradual
strengthing of the remaining few into a mature new industry (phase 3).

I'd guess the start of phase 1 by 1992, phase 2 by 1995 and phase 3 by
1998-2000.

US private enterprise IS going into space, albiet a bit slower than
many of us would like. But remember the hazards of prediction:
"predictions tend to be overoptimistic in the short term, and overly
pessimistic in the long run"  (an approximate quote)

People tend to project linearly, and this ignores the nearby flat
portion of the eponential as well as the far away vertical portion...

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 15:49:07 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@rutgers.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Was " Creation '?science?'"

In article <2084@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>, jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
> 
> Well, BIG chunck of Antartic are ice-free.  Colder than I care to consider,
> but no accumulation.  While the snow on the ground doesn't melt, it
> doesn't snow that much inside the continent, either.
> 

The dry valleys of Antarctica are peculiarly impressive in  
that respect.  My father told me stories of attempting to place soil
samples in plastic bags and having the sand fly out due to static
electricity.

It's also impressive that life adapted to that extreme environment
exists and prospers.  It's a particularly  sobering thought when 
considering the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.
-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 7 Oct 88 15:47:57 PDT
From: greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Nemesis, the Death Star (was terraforming:
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"

>Why did so many non-dinosaur reptiles survive?  Snakes, turtles, lizards, 
>crocodilians, and such appear to have suffered no such losses at the time.  
>...not one single 
>dinosaur, regardless of size, survived whatever it was.  It's difficult to 
 
	Last I heard, dinosaurs were not reptiles at all, so this phrase "non-
dinosaur reptile" makes no sense.  According to no less a source than Nat Geo,
dinosaurs were warm-blooded animals, and birds are their direct descendants. 
	I don't see what's wrong with the impact theory of mass extinction
anyway.  Some people are talking about it like it was some wacky, off-the-wall
kind of notion. Haven't they ever seen Hudson's Bay? 

	But, to get this discussion back into the sci.space arena, if there
were a Nemesis, The Death Star out there responsible for these mass
extinctions, then I'd imagine it would knock not just a couple, but a whole
slew of space rocks in our general direction.  This seems to be a more
plausible reason for paranoia than berserkers. 
	Suppose there were a swarm of Death Rocks heading for the inner solar
system right now.  How close would they have to get before we noticed? I've
forgotten where Halley's Comet was first spotted, but I think it was about as
far out as Saturn.  But people were expecting Halley's and they knew where to
look, so that made it many orders of magnitude easier to find while it was
still far away.  On the other hand, if these rocks were coming in a swarm,
maybe that would be noticeable enough that we'd have a couple of years to get
our act together. 
	Get our act together and do what?  The vast majority of these Death
Rocks will not be on a collision course with the Earth, maybe just one of them
will be, maybe none.  So we figure up all their trajectories, maybe find one
we think will hit the Earth, and then what?
	The farther out this Death Rock is when intercepted, the easier it will
be to nudge it into a harmless trajectory.  Using current technology, would we
be able to intercept in time, or if we had to start tomorrow, could we, in one
or two years time, develop and deploy the hardware to keep this Death Rock from
hitting our planet? 

----
"When it's late in the day,		|         Dale M. Greer
 even small men cast long shadows."	|   Center for Space Sciences
		-- Who said that?	| University of Texas at Dallas

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #36
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Oct 88 04:43:57 EDT
Received: by po2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id <AA12092>; Sat, 15 Oct 88 03:37:08 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 15 Oct 88 03:37:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.wXJk05y00jZdEjCU5M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8XJjrly00Ui309t0B4>;
          Sat, 15 Oct 88 03:27:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.2356fccf.70c5ae>;
          Sat, 15 Oct 88 03:22:59 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct 15 88 03:18:50 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #37

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		       ROTARY-WING AERODYNAMICS
	       What happened to the satellite engine???
		   Berserkers (von Nuemann probes)
			  Re: Why no aliens
		 Scandalous Posting: Africa air farce
			   Re: Cosmos 1900
	     Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque
		  Re: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		       Re: Why no orbiter fax?
		       Re: Beserker Hypothesis
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 14:17:30 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis

In article <8810061228.AA02175@angband.s1.gov> Hans.Moravec@ROVER.RI.CMU.EDU writes:
}Bob Pendleton says:
}>If I were
}>designing something to destroy all life in the galaxy, I think I would
}>go with a hive insect model for the destroying machines.
}
}An ever so slightly mutated berserker
}hive that put a tad less of its energy into destructive forays, and a tad
}more into its own survival would do better than its relatives. In time it
}would dominate the population, setting the stage for a further reduction in
}nastiness, and an increase in normal survival behavior.


How does the inhabitant of a planet tell if something is being a nastery
"kill all life beserker" or a "efficiently reporduce my kind and ensure
survival mutant" as it dissassembles his planet for materials?


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 02:30:50 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1988Oct4.094209.19597@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu 
(Paul Dietz) writes:

>The dogma that Space Will Save Us is comforting to the true believers.
>Examined critically, it doesn't make much sense.

As much as I respect Mr. Dietz, I have to comment here.  His comment is
true, if us = all of us.  Space will save some of us, and I hope that those
are the people most worth saving.

The best scenario I envision is that the advances in environmental management
resulting from building biomes in space can be backported to Earth in time
to clean up pollution of various sorts.

I note that most posters here make very timid projections about the future,
assuming little new technology and an assortment of constants.  Whichever 
way we wind up going, such conservative predictions are liable to be wrong.
We may not get to Nanotechnological Heaven in twenty-five years, but we
will certaintly get better at doing more with less, create new industries
and jobs, and find substitutes for things we run out of.

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date:         07 Oct 88 12:33:52 CVT
From: denis burke <csvcdjb%NNOMED.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:  ROTARY-WING AERODYNAMICS


 The field of helicopter aerodynamics is basically the study of unsteady
 aerodynamic flows in a rotating and translating coordinate system. Helicopters
 and other vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicles are becoming important
 elements of the national transportation system. Until now, the helicopter has
 been the most successful VTOL aircraft because of its high efficiency in hover
 and low-speed flight. The purpose of this paper is to highlight selected
 developments in rotary-wing aerodynamics over the past 20 yr, and to emphasize
 the role that computational fluid dynamics (CFD) will have in transforming
 theory into practice and in determining the method by which VTOL vehicles will
 be analyzed and designed in the future. In order to fully appreciate the role
 of computers in this challenging research discipline, a brief review of the
 development of the helicopter rotor is necessary. The aerodynamic analysis
 that is used today is, for the most part, based on theoretical principles
 that were developed during the autogiro era.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 13:31 EDT
From: McGarvey.henr@Xerox.COM
Subject: What happened to the satellite engine???
Reply-To: McGarvey.Henr@Xerox.COM

	I was on vacation, to the Great White North, a couple day before and
during most of the shuttle mission, but I knew in the beginning of that
week that there was a potential problem with a seal, (I believe they
thought it could have had a *slight* crack in it), around the engine used
to launch the payload (some satellite) into its orbit.
	What happened with it??
	Did they *somehow* check the engine of the payload before launch or did
they take a chance that it was alright and launch anyways??
	Any problems when it did get launched??

[Ron]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 07 Oct 88 18:55 PDT
From: ASDXLLL@OSUCC
Subject: Berserkers (von Nuemann probes)

Greetings!!
 
 I am usually just a reader of this list, but have have just
finished reading a book that deals a lot about the von Neumann
probes ( berserkers ).   I am sure that all of you will find
it very interesting.  I did.  Actually it about scared the hell
out of me.  Very well written indeed.
 
 Oh yeah.... It's called "The Forge of God"  by Greg Bear published
by TOR Science Fiction.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lonny Lynn Lowe    ASDxLLL@OSUCC
Administrative Systems Development
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74078
USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 18:02:56 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!juniper!chari@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Christopher Michael Whatley)
Subject: Re: Why no aliens

I don't normally post to this group since I am no expert but...

In article <8810031502.AA03705@angband.s1.gov> COP50235@UCF1VM.BITNET (Michael) writes:
>
>     I think we have had contact with extraterrestial life.  In every culture f
	^^^^^
That's fine, I think there might be a tooth fairy. But I don't have any
decent evidence.

>rom the beginning of time describes some form of contact. 

Sure, they also describe miracles, witches, and posession.

>							 I believe that the g
>overnments of both the us and ussr have made contact, but keep it unofficial.

Don't you think that you are being paranoid? What do you base this on
"WaveLength"?

>One reason that they may want to keep anayomous is that we are just beginning t
>o boom into a technilogical civilized race.  If they distube us to soon, we may
> be influenced and distaster may occur.

Didn't Captain Kirk say that? Oh yeah, the "Prime Directive". 

I don't think that sci.space is the place for this. It belongs in an alt. or
a talk. group. Let's keep the "sci" in "sci.space" please.

Chris

-- 
$---------------$--------------------------------$-------------------------$
| Chris Whatley | mail chari@juniper.uucp        | "Ever seen the chicken  |
| 512/453-4238  |      chari@killer.dallas.tx.us |  walk?"  -Jeffrey       |
$---------------$--------------------------------$-------------------------$

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 17:13:57 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Scandalous Posting: Africa air farce

DB Ward writes:

  >>>African Air Farce
 >   In a bizarre experiment designed to  simulate  life  in  space,  the
 >   Gambian  Air Force welded four men in the cab of a 1957 Chevy pickup
 >   and left them there for sixteen days.  The WEEKLY WORLD NEWS reports
 >   that  the  men  were  hospitalized with heatstroke after being freed
 >   from their  "spacecraft".  General  Dembo  Ceesay,  the  top-ranking
 >   officer  in  the  Gambian  Air Force (which has yet to buy its first
 >   plane), defended the tests, saying they "are imperative if we are to
 >   reap the benefits of interplanetary exploration and trade".



To assimilate all Africa to Gambia is already a sign
of deep stupidity. (I am not sorry to use this word).

Of course one never try to talk about the nice try
 of countries to create a air force in Africa.

But one is very fast to blame on a whole contiment
as soon as they found the slighest mistake.

Maybe they need to reassure themselves for their
own mistake and their own lack of progress...

Jean-Marc Debaud
carnegie-Mellon U.
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 11:23:07 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!kth!draken!chalmers!tekn01.chalmers.se!f86_lerner@uunet.uu.net  (Mikael Lerner)
Subject: Re: Cosmos 1900

	The latest I've heard is that Cosmos 1900 has split up in three
parts. The split-up was caused by the on-board security system. The part
containing the nuclear reactor was boosted up to an orbit of 720 km and
will hopefully stay there for a loooong time. Another part, said to consist
of the antennas, reentered on October the first 'at the opposite site of
the world' ( relative to Sweden ), which probably means the Pacific. No
debris has been found. The main part of the satellite is to reenter on
October 5th.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikael Lerner                               "This is the way the world ends,
Chalmers University of Technology            not with a bang, but a whimper."
Sweden                                                       T.S. Elliot

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 88 10:09:40 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!kth!draken!chalmers!tekn01.chalmers.se!f86_lerner@uunet.uu.net  (Mikael Lerner)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of the PIONEER-10 Plaque

In article <1988Sep29.161511.24601@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <207@tekn01.chalmers.se> f86_lerner@tekn01.chalmers.se (Mikael Lerner) writes:
>>     Saturn will probably give the aliens problem: it is drawn as a
>>     circle with a line across it.
> 
> Unless they've got a somewhat odd solar system, they should be able to
> follow it.  The error was not in giving Saturn rings, but in not giving
> Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune rings!  They seem to be normal features of
> gas-giant planets.
> -- 
> The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
> the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

	Do we really know that many solar systems that we can tell which
one is odd and which one is not? [ ;-) ]  Ok, with four giant planets out
of four in our own system, I admit that rings probably are quite common.
The error was, of course, that we did not know about the Jupiter, Uranus
and Neptune rings. But if we had known about them in 1972 - I still question
whether we should had drawn them on the plate. Why draw a tiny, almost
impossible to detect ring ,like the Jovian, and skip large satellites as
Io, Ganymede, Europa and Callisto?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikael Lerner                               "This is the way the world ends,
Chalmers University of Technology            not with a bang, but a whimper."
Sweden                                                       T.S. Elliot

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 20:11:10 GMT
From: att!ihlpf!mhw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Marc Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

> Posted: Tue Oct  4 12:58:27 1988
> 
> It just occurred to me that a slight modification of the anthropic
> principle can be invoked to cover the notion of "purpose" in mass
> extinctions.  Obviously the purpose of a mass extinction that
> eliminated all the dinosaurs is so that some 65 million years later
> we could all spend hours at our computer terminals without fear of
> being eaten or (worse yet) having insurmountable vibrational
> problems plague our computers due to the nearby passage of a multi-ton
> animal.  In other words *without the extinction of the dinosaurs there
> could have been no net*.  Of course, without the net we ourselves would
> not exist.

This is true genius.  This must be it!!!

Or, we may instead adopt the theory of backward evolution.  That's
where we are all actually going backwards in time.  Our universe started
out, trillions of years in the future, as an 'energy being' - a single
intellect.  The name 'evolution' is actually a disguise for 'the principle
of increasing entropy' - it is the process of deterioration of this
intellect into primitive humans playing with their digital watches, to
lumbering dinosaurs, and finally on to total chaos devoid of life.

Share and Enjoy!

-- 
Marc Weinstein
AT&T Bell Labs - Indian Hill
Naperville, IL
ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw

------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 88 05:42:49 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Why no orbiter fax?

In article <6745@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
<I'm sitting here listening to the Discovery crew and JSC CAPCOM reading
<checklists back and forth to each other in the precious few minutes of
<signal over Guam, Hawaii etc., as they try to fix the KU band antenna.
<If you have followed a lot of missions you know that this is basically
<what astronauts do: read and write checklists.  Nothing wrong with that
<of course, but I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be simpler to just
<put a fax machine aboard each orbiter, and send these revised checklist
<pages up that way!  You could get a lot more reliable info sent up in 7
<minutes over Guam by fax than you can by reading out loud, asking for
<repeats etc.
<
<-- 
<Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
<	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
<	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

While they don't have a fax machine, they do have a teleprinter on board
which is used to send flight plan updates, and presumably, checklists.

As to why they opted to send up the procedures by voice, I really don't
know. It might've been to permit rapid feedback.

As a (slightly) interesting side note, the manual states that the
teleprinter "was originally developed for the Army for use in a missle
fire control system".


-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"he's braindead Jim. . ."
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 16:28:45 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Beserker Hypothesis

In article <881003115051.0000066D4C1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>... If the technology is equal then
>they must surely win in the end (boy, what a set-up), because:  (a) the
>defender enjoys a 3:1 advantage over the attacker;

The 3:1 advantage is for dug-in defenders in an Earthly environment.  I
don't see any reason for assuming a similar differential in space-to-space
combat.  If anything the defender is at a bit of a disadvantage, because
his initial trajectory is more predictable.

>(b) the beserker-destroyers
>have a simpler task; it must take less energy to destroy a beserker than
>it costs the beserker to sterilize a planet.

Maybe.  Assuming you can *find* the berserker.  Planets are fairly easy
to locate.  Submarine warfare may be a good analogy:  the problem is
finding something to attack in a very big ocean.  (This is the real reason
for convoy tactics -- a convoy is almost as hard to find as a single ship,
and there are far fewer of them.)  The lesson from submarine warfare is
that in such circumstances, one must fight a war of attrition, because
a war of total annihilation simply is not feasible.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #37
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Oct 88 06:24:26 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00725>; Sat, 15 Oct 88 05:39:25 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 15 Oct 88 05:39:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.kXJlmYy00UkT02oU5e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UXJlaUy00Ui3I3rE5s>;
          Sat, 15 Oct 88 05:25:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.23571882.18a5da>;
          Sat, 15 Oct 88 05:21:08 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct 15 88 05:18:09 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #38

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:
		   Frequently asked SPACE questions
		       Reminders for Old Farts
			     Re: Gravity
			     Re: Gravity
				ORION
			  Minitel Inferior?
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		   Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
			      CNN report
		     Reference: New Feynman book
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Oct 88 04:00:13 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Frequently asked SPACE questions

This is a list of frequently asked questions on SPACE (which goes back
before 1980).  It is in development.  Good summaries will be accepted
in place of the answers given here.  The point of these is to circulate
existing information, and avoid rehashing old answers.  Better to
build on top than start again.  Nothing more depressing than rehashing
for the 100th time.

Initially, this message will be automatically posted once per month
and hopefully, we can cut it back to quarterly.  In time questions and
good answers will be added (and maybe removed, nah).

1) Can't they use those Shuttle tanks as an orbiting resource rather than
let them crash into the sea?

Yes, this question was thought about and answered in the mid-late 70s.
The problem is there is no sense in keeping an unguided object in space
until you need it.  There actually is a company devoted to developing them as
a resource (Denver/Boulder area).  These tanks are regarded as the Territory
of the US so are treated like land area.

2) Fermi's paradox: [Why they have not heard us yet]

Too open ended. ;-)

3) What can be done for Shuttle Crew escape systems:
Good open ended question.  Why there isn't one now:
Cost (weight, complexity, dollars, explosive devices in crew area).
Escape capsules have had a less than good history.  The B-1 caspule
was unstable after 350 MPH.  It's a trade off.  There is also a history
of "ride the bird home."

4) Where can I learn about space computers: shuttle, programming,
core memories?

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

5) What about SETI computation articles?

%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

6) What about SDI? (from H. Spencer)

A. What about it?  SDI relates to space.  It also relates to aviation,
disarmament, physics, software engineering, and tomorrow's headlines.
Sci.space is >>**NOT**<< the right place to chat about all this.
Please keep SDI discussions here tightly focused on things that are
specifically space-related.  (For example, there was some recent
discussion about the ability of a small SDI system to blockade
other nations' spaceports.)

7) What about blasting waste into space?  Another frequently
asked question (expensive solution looking for a problem).
Have you considered recycling?

8) Why is everybody talking about government spaceflight, when we all know
that governments are evil and should be abolished?

A. Many people agree with this opinion about governments, to varying degrees.
(Me, Henry Spencer, for example, to a modest degree.)  However, this is not the
place to debate libertarian politics / philosophy / theology.  It
is a fact, perhaps unfortunate but a fact, that most spaceflight
today is run by governments.  Talking about practical ways of
changing this is of interest; preaching about how it's our moral
duty to change it is boring.

n-4) How do I get a job in space?
There are two different concerns here. 1) If seasonal like summer, you
must start looking between the months of January-March, this means
preparation in December.  Reminders are posted at that time with addresses,
etc.  2) Permanent, a list of contracting aerospace companies was
assembled by Ken Jenks (now successfully working at Rockwell, but without a
net address [see! space uses modern technology]).  Send mail request such
to one of the network personalities (Dale, Henry, Phil, etc., myself) we
will try to update the list yearly.  P.S. It helps to learn Russian and
Japanese.

n-3) What does AW&ST stand for?

A. Aviation Week And Space Technology, the major US weekly newsmagazine of
the aerospace field.  Also known as Aviation Leak and Space Technocracy
for its tendency to print things that arguably should be kept secret.

n-2) What about ESA, AXAF, SSME, SRB, GRO, HST, MMU, OMB, IRAS, CRAF, ...?

A. Space technology is full of acronyms and abbreviations.  Most people
will try to remember to explain them, if prodded occasionally.
To some extent this is simply the language of the field, which
you have to learn if you want to fully grasp what's going on.
Don't expect people to use the full names every time.

n-1) What's the difference between sci.space and sci.space.shuttle?
[Or what are these names]  Why?

A. This confusion is the result (way back when) of early discussion
on space started on the ARPAnet (NCP days) at MIT.  So was born
SPACE-DIGEST in the days of simple electronic mail.  In time it
was gatewayed to the USENET which uses news software rather than
mail (some advantages).  Add BITNET and other domains [Ref.
provided upon request].

Historically, sci.space.shuttle was a place where news bulletins about
the shuttle could be posted by people who had access to such
things.  This eminently useful practice has recently been revived.
Discussion and debate should generally go in sci.space.  At some
point we should probably consider changing the name of the
subgroup to something like "sci.space.news".

Not all notes appear in both groups.  As article volume increases
newsgroups break up into other topical areas.  This may happen
with space if the volume of USEFUL articles grows unwieldy.

n) Where do I find information about space?
Try you local public library first.  The net is not a good place for this.
It's a better place for open ended discussions.  Next trying writing
real letters to the Public Relations or Public Information Offices
of NASA, ESA, JSA, USAF, DOD, and their various contractors.  They
can inundate you.  Also try
the telephone (check a phone directory can all offices at various places
[addresses posted occasionally]).  We will also try to have designed net
`experts' on where to get more information.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Oct 88 04:00:10 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1
follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 88 23:28:43 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <2104@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>}A small black hole can provide useful amounts of gravity, assuming that
>}you can find or make one (we can't right now).
>
>1. All kinds of nastey stuff "comes from" a small black hole.

Ah good, we have a built-in heating system too! :-)

>3. A small hole would weigh more than any propulsion scheme likely to come
>   up with could accelerate worth anything.

One can use the hole itself for propulsion; allowing matter to fall into
it releases very large amounts of energy.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 88 23:26:51 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <33644@sci.UUCP> daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes:
>I might be exaggerating, but it seems that everyone now seems to feel
>that coriolis acceleration will be hopelessly confusing in a spinning
>environment, hence the radius will have to be large to diminish the
>coriolis force to manageable proportions.  Is there any basis for this?
>Have people been placed in spun-up rooms and asked to perform simple
>tasks, or are people merely guessing?

My understanding is that there is a good bit of experimental evidence on
the matter.  It's not just coriolis, either, although that is the worst
problem at a small radius.  Particularly if people are constantly going
back and forth from rotating to non-rotating areas, avoiding all problems
with the inner ear is thought to require a rotation rate no faster than
about 1 RPM.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 88 10:41:10 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: ORION
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

I continue to be impressed with the quality and readability of Smithsonian
_Air and Space_ magazine.  The current issue has an article on the old
ORION (propelling spacecraft with nuclear bombs) project.  It wasn't
very technical, and let me confused: I had read elsewhere that the
shock absorber was a copper hemisphere at least a mile in diameter, but
they suggest that something much smaller will do.  Also they say that
it is physically possible (although impractical for other reasons) to
launch the spacecraft from the ground by this method.  I have the same
reaction as I did when I read the same thing in Niven & Pournelle's
"Footfall".  Somehow this just doesn't seem right.  What about the explosive
effects of expanding gases and vaporised soil, wouldn't they set up shock
waves that would shatter the bumper of this thing?

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Subject: Minitel Inferior?
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 88 15:04:46 -0400
From: "F.Baube" <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>


Phil Karn:
> I see little difference between Compuserve and Minitel, 
> except for scale and the number of sex-related messages. 

Don't forget that Compuserve charges an obscene per-hour 
rate, whle Minitel service was (and still is) intended to 
be universal.  This new Sears network will do well if they 
stick to their promise of fixed fees.  (And the sex-related
message provide over 50% of operating income, nothing to
sneeze at .. prudes' service is thereby subsidized.)

> The sole reason Minitel became popular was that the French PTT
> *gave away* the terminals. It could afford to do this because 
> it has a monopoly stranglehold on communications in the country.

Also economies of scale, and a pricing policy that, as mentioned,
was intended to bring everyone on-board.  So, their Jacques Six-
pack has services reserved for the affluent here.

Don't be so casual with the ideological insults.

#include <disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 07:30:15 GMT
From: uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes@gr.utah.edu  (Barnacle Wes)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <2124@byzantium.cs.swarthmore.edu> leif@byzantium.UUCP (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes:
> The sun is in orbit around the center of gravity of our galaxy, as is the
> spiral arm we are in.  Thus the sun does not "pass[es] through...a spiral arm"

In article <1988Sep30.165836.19053@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) replies:
| I'm afraid it does.  You are assuming that the spiral arms are material
| objects.  They're not; they're waves of brightening and star formation.
| They do not orbit the galaxy at the same speed as the stars.  (At least,
| this is the way things were the last time I read about it... the astronomers
| may have changed their minds again...)

This is true as far as I know.  I have a program that models a galaxy
from birth on; with the default parameters the galaxy looks like the
Milky Way (a very recognizable spiral) for a total of about 10^12 years.
At first, it is just a rotating mass of stars, and after the spiral
stage, the arms begin to break up and the stars eventually wander into
concentric rings.  It is quite a fascinating program to watch.  It came
as one of the sample programs in the Mark Williams C compiler for the
Atari ST.

	Wes Peters
-- 
                     {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes

         "How do you make the boat go when there's no wind?"
                                 -- Me --

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 19:01:43 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!drutx!druhi!deg@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Donald E. Gillespie)
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.

In article <197@obie.UUCP>, wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes:
> A good point, Dave.  The "Challenger Tragedy" captured the hearts and
> minds of America as much more of a tragedy than 241 Marines dying in
> Lebanon for another country.  A little odd, don't you think?

I don't find it odd at all.  The Challenger astronauts were people
dedicated to exploration and technology [and teaching], wheras the
USMC is an organization devoted to warfare and killing.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 88 17:30:31 GMT
From: ndsuvm1.bitnet!bj004425@cunyvm.cuny.edu  (Steve Pearce)
Subject: CNN report


   Could someone please elaborate on a story I heard on CNN last night.
The report (of which I only heard the end) stated that scientists were
investigating a 'beam' from a star directed at earth.  This beam
provided evidence of a new sub-atomic particle.

   Thank you.

  Doug Eppler
  bj004425@ndsuvm1.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 88 18:12:08 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
To: risks@kl.sri.com, space@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Reference: New Feynman book

I ran into Stacey's briefly today and just happened to see this:
%A Richard P. Feynman
%T "What Do YOU Care What Other People Think?"
%I W. W. Norton
%C New York
%D 1988
%$ 18

The first half is a collection of miscellaneous stories
(partially including the BBC/Nova interview a few years back).
The last half of the book is a significantly more detailed
account of the Challenger commission report (including lots
of photos and drawings).  Ralph Leighton notes that this
is longer than either the Physics Today or Engineering and Science
articles ["Mr. Feynman Goes to Washington"].  The very last chapter
is entitled "The Value of Science" and speaks about the social
responsibilities of scientists [with a title like this,
I'm buying for a Tech friend, but I might sneak a peek ;-), I would
never! buy this book otherwise ;-)].

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #38
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Oct 88 01:28:45 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA10260>; Sun, 16 Oct 88 00:49:21 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 16 Oct 88 00:49:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.cXK2cly00jZdAc3k49@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXK2NUy00Vs1I0zU9e>;
          Sun, 16 Oct 88 00:32:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.2358239f.ec368f>;
          Sun, 16 Oct 88 00:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, Oct 16 88 00:18:20 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #39

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 39

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Cost of Space
		   Re: Spacecraft as time capsules.
		       Re: SPACE Digest V8 #384
		    Re: Letters to Congress et al
		      Biblical Greenhouse Effect
	  energy use / growth (was: earth & living in space)
				 back
			Challenger Astronauts
		    Re: RE: Naming the new Shuttle
		       Re: SPACE Digest V8 #384
		Electronic letters to Congresscritters
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 88 10:05:20 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Cost of Space
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

> fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder) writes:

>How about giving NASA personnel performance bonuses based on
>sucessful launches (nothing gets paid for failures or waiting
>around).  One way to measure would be the number of launches
>times the launcher capacity, so ten 10,000 lb launches counts
>a much as one 100,000 launch.

It was this kind of thinking that led to the decision to launch STS-25 in the
face of engineers' objections.  I know there were no bonuses involved, and one
*could* argue that the above policy would cause people to be *more* cautious,
since they get paid nothing for the loss of the vehicle and crew, but human
nature is such that people will tend to take more risks, not fewer.  Besides,
it's unlikely to have any effect since most of the personnel are already
working as hard as they can.  For a more complete discourse on the general
inadvisability of productivity bonuses, see W. Edwards Deming, "Out Of The
Crisis" (MIT CAEN, 1982). 

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 88 05:32:40 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Spacecraft as time capsules.

In article <8810071519.AA04803@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
>         The LAGEOS satellite...
>    was placed into an Earth orbit 3,600 miles high, where it will not
>    decay for eight million years if left undisturbed...

Actually, there are two significant factors in LAGEOS's long life.  One
is the moderately high orbit.  The other is that LAGEOS's job, being a
stable reference point for laser ranging, demands the most stable orbit
possible.  This was achieved by making it basically a solid lump of
metal, reducing the effect of air drag greatly.  This almost incidentally
makes for a *very* long-lived satellite.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 88 21:57:18 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #384

In article <10304@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Walker and Hal Jr.) writes:
>  So say that the solids ignite but for some reason the hold-down bolts don't
>blow...what then..or do the bolt go moments before the solids ignite and an
>instrument determines weather the bolts have sheared....What do you do..
>just sit on the pad until the solids burn out and pray??

The bolts go simultaneously with SRB ignition, so there is no chance to
reconsider.  What happens if the bolts don't go, I'm not sure.  *If*
the bolts hold, and keep on holding, on both SRBs, then I'd say the
crew evacuate and everybody waits for the SRBs to burn out, at which
point people move in to figure out how badly the pad is damaged.  If
the bolts fail instantly on both SRBs, it's essentially a normal launch.
Anything in between, the crew and orbiter are in big -- probably fatal --
trouble.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 88 09:48:20 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Letters to Congress et al
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Henry Spencer writes:

>eruby@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Earl C Ruby) writes:
>>...  Then put it in your wordprocessor, chop everything above and below
>>the dotted line, select one or both of the candidates you want to write
>>to, and mail out the letter...

>Sigh.  No, no, no!  Write it in your own words; DO NOT just fiddle a bit
>with a standard text.  Politicians' assistants get lots of practice at
>spotting organized letter-writing campaigns.  Letters that are obviously
>mass-produced are counted by a flunky, not read by the politician.  One
>thoughtful, polite, reasonable individually-written letter will have far
>more impact than a dozen rubber-stamped ones.

I strongly second this.  I took the time to write such a letter to my
Congresscritter as part of the NASA Tech Briefs Letter-Writing Contest
(didn't mention that, of course), and was rewarded with a long reply that
was clearly written after careful reading of mine.  Can't prove the
Congresscritter himself wrote it, of course, but it seems likely.
If your letter is equally appropriately sent to more than one representative,
by all means send the same text, editing names, etc - don't use xeroxes,
of course - these days a letter that has obviously been done on a wordprocessor
carries no stigma of "probably mass-produced and run through MailMerge".

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Subject: Biblical Greenhouse Effect
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 88 14:39:56 -0400
From: "F.Baube" <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>


Just to muddy the waters ..

I heard what was essentially the same theory about twenty years
ago.  An added twist was the theory explains the lifespans of
hundreds of years that are cited in the Bible, since the cloud
layer blocked cosmic rays, drastically slowing the aging
process.  The Deluge comes, the layer breaks, and people start
living out lifespans we would consider normal.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 88 20:25:36 GMT
From: linus!spdcc!eli@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Elias)
Subject: energy use / growth (was: earth & living in space)

Joseph Brenner (doom@Portia.Stanford.EDU) writes:

! Typical example:  a power sat company might be 
! capable of beaming cheap, environmentally benign power to any country, 
! without a big capital investment on their part.  Jerry Pournelle used to 
! present this as a choice between freezing the world in it's current state
! (ala the anti-tech, slow growth faction) or buying into the next
!great technological revolution: Space Industrialization. 

	it doesn't surprise me that Jerry Pournelle is a fan of
	large scale solar power satellites -- it's yet another area
	where he and my good pal Jef Pokey (well!pokey) agree.

	:] instead of freezing the world at it's current state,
	we might be better off freezing Jerry & Jef's egos at their
	present state -- they may be heading towards "ego-runaway".  :]

	most energy 'sources' might wipe out our ecosystem via the
	greenhouse effect if we consider their use in a future where
	earther power needs are hundreds or thousands of today's.
	they might be awfully useful on a small scale in areas where 
	'conventional' power sources would be difficult to implement... 

	if we continue our growth rate in energy, we will have to address
	the "excess heat" issue.  if we add heat to the ecosystem at a rate
	faster than the Earth can radiate energy to space, we could end up
	with thermal runaway, even if we don't directly produce 
	greenhouse gases.  
	the theory of the greenhouse effect that it is a feedback cycle...

	if us Earthers want to grow their energy use a hundred-fold,
	we've got to avoid energy sources which unbalance Earth's ecosystem.

	or -- use our energy outside the atmosphere...  climb on board!

! Doug Saxon (doug@janus) writes:

! When I saw Murchison (sp?) falls in Uganda in 1969, an Ugandan said that
! the rich countries should give Uganda free electricity if they didn't want
! Uganda to dam the falls.  Of course the rich countries are unlikely to
! indulge in such charity.  On the other hand if the rich countries beamed
! cheap electricity, cheaper than could be obtained from damming the falls,
! from a power satelite to Uganda, and if the electricity could provide the
! jobs, that provided the earnings, that provided the standard of living, that
! encouraged the Ugandans to have fewer children, to conserve their natural
! resources, both physical and animal, and to have the wealth to develop the
! point of view that Earth is a precious place that must be preserved, if all
! that could happen, would it be worth it.

	this would be nice.  a way to "jump-start" remote areas into
	economic growth.  other energy sources could probably do the same...

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 88 17:58:42 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: back

My newsrc file lists 331 articles in sci.space.shuttle and
277 articles.  I am going to ignore all of them ('c' them)
including information requests (I did get one for employment
in my email and will answer this one).  I will read as time
permits (ignoring inane comments).  [I do not plan to dump
them on paper for JSC reading.]

I didn't have a chance to added the added frequently asked questions
to my old file, I will post what I have before editing this one time.
Forgive the correspondents' typos, etc.  (I had 4 hours between
Pittsburgh and Hawaii travel, note: I get to Hilo and I see our
C-130 there, can't get away from work).  One added note: I was
aware of the existence of the Air farce Maui Observing Station,
but after seeing the structure (outside) I gained lots of unexpected
knowledge! Very clever those Air Force remote censors!

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 10 Oct 88 06:05 EDT
From: RON PICARD <PICARD@gmr.com>
Subject:  Challenger Astronauts

When I attended Space Academy in Sept. we attended a lecture by a NASA-ite
which detailed the shuttle safety systems before and after 51L.  One of the
things he said caused a short arguement between a couple of us.  He stated
that the exact cause of death (and time of death) of each astronaut was 
classified because the public "had no need to know".  The arguement boiled
down to our different opinions as to why information should be classified.
I assumed (naively) that only info that would jeopardize our national defense
would be classified, while he stated that was not the case.

My question is has anyone tried to obtain the info through the FIA?  If so
what group and where is the info available.

Ron Picard  (PICARD@GMR.COM)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 88 18:59:01 GMT
From: unmvax!nmtsun!todd@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Todd/Dr. Nethack)
Subject: Re: RE: Naming the new Shuttle

Hmmm.. I would think that "Challenger II" would be on the order of

"Titanic II"

No offense intended, but would *you* want to go up in it?

------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 88 23:24:13 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #384

In article <218100002@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>RE : SRB ignition failure --
>There wouldn't be time to jettison the SRB's entirely (as is done normally
>after they've burned)?

Sigh.  (We were over this at length last year.)  The SRB-jettison system
is designed for use after burnout only.  It almost certainly would not
work when there is a thrust load of several million pounds on the SRB
attach points.  Designing a system that would permit safe jettisoning of
still-burning SRBs is perhaps not impossible, but it is hard.  (Actual
separation isn't the end of the problems; one also has to prevent the
jettisoned SRB from colliding with the shuttle or just blasting it with
the exhaust plume.)

And before anyone asks, shutting down an SRB prematurely is not quite
impossible -- blowing off the nozzle might suffice, since the fuel burns
poorly at normal atmospheric pressure -- but doing it gently enough for
the shuttle to survive the experience is very hard.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Oct 88 17:48:32 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@plato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Electronic letters to Congresscritters

I saw somewhere recently that folk on Compuserve (or some such network)
are able to send mail to their elected representatives electronically.
Who knows about this?  If I could send electronic mail to Senators,
Congresspeople, etc, I'd be much more prolific (Mailmerge *really*
comes into its own: "Dear \congresscritter:"...).  I don't expect them
to be on the Internet, but I subscribe to DASnet, a really economic way
of sending mail to and from just about any electronic mail service you've
heard of (AT&T, Dialcom, Geomail, Telemail, Easylink, TWICS, UNISON, The
Source, Telexes, MCIMail, etc, etc)... except Compuserve(!), and that
might do.  Dreaming a little, if our politicians were on a net that we
could send mail to as cheaply as this newsgroup, we could each send them
tastefully-written letters twice a day... Revenge of the Netlanders... :-)

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)
Subject: 
Cc:

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #39
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Oct 88 04:04:12 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05072>; Sun, 16 Oct 88 03:34:41 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 16 Oct 88 03:34:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.oXK53ly00Vs1MHnU5B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wXK4uoy00Ui303sk4E>;
          Sun, 16 Oct 88 03:24:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.23584d8c.bcb6d4>;
          Sun, 16 Oct 88 03:19:42 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, Oct 16 88 03:17:38 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #40

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 40

Today's Topics:
	      added frequently asked questions (1 time)
		   Re: Heavy Lift Capacity Boosters
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 88 17:59:54 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: added frequently asked questions (1 time)

How do I get satellite pictures?

It depends.  You have to be more specific.  Do you just want things
to place on the wall, or do you want digital remote sensing data,
or something else.  1st) Not everything is available immediately.
Most imagery (they are not true pictures, a different geometry) has
a one year lean on it for the instrument Principal Investigator.

Popular pictures are available from many sources, lots free:

More serious requests like Landsat, SPOT, and deep space are more
expensive.

From: harvard!ulowell!infinet!rhorn@ames (Rob Horn)

Another good set of articles to add to the reference list is the
April 1983 issue of IEEE Computer.  Titles from this issue are:

Communications Satellite Software: A Tutorial
Selecting On-Board Satellite Computer Systems
Orbit Control Software for Communication Satellites
Software Models for the Intelsat System
Computer-Aided Engineering in Communications Satellite Design
Spacecraft Copmputers: State-of-the-Art Survey

It is obviously a little bit dated, but the problems have not changed
and the designers of spacecraft are very conservative about making
radical changes. 

R Horn



Q. What is the rationale for the names of the shuttles?

A. The operational orbiters were named after famous oceanographic ships.
The Columbia explored the US west coast.  The Challenger was the
ship used on the first lengthy oceanographic expedition.  Several
ships have been named Discovery, notably one of Captain Cook's
vessels.  The Atlantis was one of the first major ships built
specifically as a research vessel.

Q. What about Enterprise and Pathfinder?

A. Enterprise was named that after a lengthy campaign by Star Trek fans.
The name goes back a long way in the US Navy.  Enterprise flew
the shuttle landing tests before the first shuttle flight.  It
was originally supposed to be rebuilt into a space-ready orbiter,
but it was too far overweight and out of spec and that was never
done.  Instead, the structural-test orbiter, not originally meant
to fly, was tested a bit less severely than intended and was fitted
out as orbiter Challenger.  Pathfinder was an orbiter mockup that
was used for early facilities testing.  Enterprise was later used
for the same purpose.

Q. What will the Challenger replacement be named?

A. Nobody's sure yet.  The name will follow the same pattern as the other
operational orbiters -- a famous oceanographic ship -- and will
be chosen from among those suggested by schoolkids.  The name
"Challenger" has been retired and will not be used again.

Q. What did the funny shuttle mission designations like "51L" mean?

A. NASA originally started numbering shuttle missions sequentially, but
this started to cause confusion when changes were made and the order
of missions got fouled up.  NASA switched to a code system in which
the first digit was the last digit of the fiscal year in which the
mission was funded, the second digit was which launch site it was
to be flown from (1 = Cape Canaveral, 2 = Vandenberg), and the
letter distinguished between different missions.  So 51L, the last
flight of Challenger, was mission L of fiscal year 1985 for launch
from the Cape.  It may or may not be accidental that the switch to
the code system prevented any mission from being designated STS-13.
NASA has now gone back to sequential numbering, for now at least:
the first post-Challenger mission is STS-26.

Q. What were Apollos 2 and 3?

A. They never existed.  Rationally, the Grissom/White/Chaffee mission should
have been Apollo 4, because it was preceded by three unmanned tests,
but the crew were calling it Apollo 1 and NASA HQ had not made an
official pronouncement on the subject; its only official name was
Apollo 204, a mission code analogous to "51L".  The unmanned tests
flown after the fire had official names starting with Apollo 4.
Apollo 204 was retroactively named Apollo 1 to honor the dead crew's
wishes.  This left the three early unmanned tests in limbo, with no
easy way of retrofitting them into the numbering.  NASA officially
decided not to try, so they never had names other than their mission
codes, and there never was an "Apollo 2" or "Apollo 3".

Q. Could the Saturn V be revived as a heavylift booster?

A. In principle, yes.  In practice, there are many problems.  Most of the
specialized production tooling is gone.  Some of the plans are gone.
Some of the subcontractors are gone.  Nobody remembers how to start
an F-1 engine safely (!) (some of the details never got into the
documentation).  The launch facilities at the Cape have all been
altered for the shuttle.  It wouldn't be quite as hard as building
a heavylift booster from scratch, but much of the work would have
to be done over.

Q. Are there any leftover Saturn Vs still around?

A. Yes, but they are no longer flyable.  The Saturn Vs lying on their sides
as tourist exhibits at Kennedy and Johnson Space Centers were the
ones built to fly Apollos 19 and 20.  (The one meant for Apollo 18
was used to launch Skylab.)  There is also an engineering test
article (a pre-production Saturn V) in protected storage with
"national monument" status, and another on display at Huntsville.


Q. How do I become an astronaut?

A. We will assume you mean a NASA astronaut, since it's probably impossible
for a Westerner to get into the Soviet program, 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.  Be in good physical condition, with good eyesight.
(DO NOT get a radial keratomy in an attempt to improve your vision;
its long-term effects are poorly understood.  For that matter, avoid
any other significant medical unknowns.)  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 the security people
consider 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; NASA has a very strong bias towards NASA employees.
Think space:  they want highly motivated people, so lose no chance
to demonstrate motivation.  Keep trying.  Be lucky.

From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: bibliography to accompany question list

Date: 10 Sep 88 08:52:54 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!erix!howard@uunet.uu.net  (Howard Gayle)
Organization: Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden
Subject: Starsailing
Message-Id: <1809@erix.ericsson.se>

>From the Books Received section of Science, 8 July 1988, p. 236:
Starsailing.  Solar Sails and Interstellar Travel.
Louis Friedman, Wiley, New York, 1988, 146 pp., paper $9.95.

Howard Gayle
TN/ETX/TX/UMG
Ericsson Telecom AB
S-126 25 Stockholm
Sweden
howard@ericsson.se
{mcvax, uunet}!enea!ericsson.se!howard
Phone: +46 8 719 5565
FAX  : +46 8 719 9598
Telex: 14910 ERIC S
------------------

Date: 12 Sep 88 05:18:52 GMT
From: aterry@TEKNOWLEDGE-VAXC.ARPA  (Stack Overflow)
Organization: Teknowledge, Inc., Palo Alto CA
Subject: Excellent book
Message-Id: <24899@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>

There is an excellent book I have not seen mentioned in this group:
  Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience
  edited by Ben R. Finney and Eric M. Jones
  Univ. of California Press, 1985
I bought it about a year ago so it may still be in print.

This is a collection of papers derived from a conference.  The papers have
been cleaned up, some new material published elsewhere has been added, and in
some cases rebuttals and comments added.  The book is an interdisciplinary
look at what going to the stars might mean, accessable to the Scientific
American type reader.  There are some technical papers in the front to set the
stage: e.g., what resources are there, what are the problems of interstellar
travel?  There is a section on demography and economics.  Well, what about
this genetic drift bugaboo, what IS a minimum colony size?  (Smaller than you
would think.)  How would one plan the first few generations' economy and
provide for their needs considering massive resupply will be impractical?
Deciding what to pack is a non-trivial problem for a generation ship.  There
are sections discussing other societies (such as the Polynesians) who have
culturally adapted to massive migration.  There is even a section on what
migration might mean to the future evolution of our species.  Going to the
stars is not just a matter of engineering, it will be a profound cultural
enterprise.  Reading this book gives some idea of the issues involved, and in
doing so makes it all that much more real.  I recommend this book highly.
                                                Allan

------------------
Date: 14 Sep 88 16:29:31 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Books on the Soviet space program.
Message-Id: <8809141629.AA09893@decwrl.dec.com>


        Per Ralph Marshall's request for sources of information on the
    Soviet space program, here are some books which come to mind, and
    which I also own.  I am writing on them from memory, since they are
    at home and I have no access to them at the moment.  I believe they
    are still available to order through any good bookstore:

        THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY, one volume, first printed
    in 1980.  It is an excellent source of material, photographs, and
    diagrams of every major space effort up to the present (the book is
    periodically updated).  It contains quite a bit on the Soviet
    programs, including new material never before published outside of
    classified documents.

        RED STAR IN ORBIT by James Oberg, 1981.  Oberg is an expert
    on the Soviet space program, and he provides a number of disclosures
    on Soviet space flights which have been hidden for years to the
    West.  There is also an excellent bibliography which will lead
    you to numerous other works on Soviet space flights.  An updated
    version of sorts on several space incidents can be found in Oberg's
    1988 book, UNCOVERING SOVIET DISASTERS.  These two books do expose the
    myths about a "secret" manned program in which ten cosmonauts
    supposedly died in space accidents before Yuri Gagarin's flight in
    VOSTOK 1 in 1961; in reality, there were eight or nine deaths of
    cosmonauts in training accidents on the ground which were only recently
    reported due to the reforms of glastnost.

        SPACE LOG, A Jane's Information Book, 1987.  This book details
    thirty years of unmanned planetary probes, with excellent technical
    information and diagrams of the Soviet probes, many of which have had
    little disclosure before.  A companion book, PLANETARY ENCOUNTERS,
    covers much of the same territory.

        A HISTORY OF ROCKETRY AND SPACE TRAVEL by Werhner Von Braun,
    1985.  This book has been updated three times since its first printing
    in 1966, the latest written by another author since Von Braun's death
    in 1977 (I have the 1969 version, thus my inability to mention the
    new author).  Like the Space Encyclopedia first mentioned, it
    gives you an all-around view of the Soviet program in relation to the
    other international space programs.

        These books are accessible to the age and education group you
    desire, and will hopefully lead you to even more sources.  If I think
    of or find any more, I will post them in this newsgroup.  Good luck,
    and thanks for bringing space education to the general public!  We need
    more of it to make people aware just how important space exploration
    is to our future.

        Larry
------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 16:55:50 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.
Message-Id: <8809141655.AA11300@decwrl.dec.com>


        In regards to my list of books on the Soviet space program, I
    would like to make one correction and addition:  The Jane's book on
    planetary probes which I referred to as SPACE LOG is actually entitled
    SOLAR SYSTEM LOG.  There is also a 1985 Jane's book on manned space
    flights entitled MANNED SPACE LOG, which gives the technical details
    on Soviet and American manned space flights.

        While I do not know of any periodicals which deal specifically
    with the Soviet space program (Are there any?), I can refer you to
    three magazines which do carry technical information on current
    developments in this area:  AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, FINAL
    FRONTIER, and SKY AND TELESCOPE, all of which should be available at
    any good library.

        Larry
----------------
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Organization: Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Subject: Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program.

>From article <8809141655.AA11300@decwrl.dec.com>, by klaes@mtwain.dec.com
(CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283):
(List of books on Sov space)

For more detailed info, try Nicholas Johnson's "Soviet Space Programs
1980-85", an AAAS Science and Technology series publication at about
$50, or Marcia Smith's 'Soviet Space Programs 1976-80', a US
Congressional Research Service document available from US Govt Printing
Office in DC.  The latter is probably the 'primary' reference (short of
reading Pravda and analysing NORAD's orbital elements) and an updated
version is being published.  Phillip Clark in London is writing a
definitive book on the Soviet program which hopefully will emerge soon.
The Journal of the British Interplanetary Society and Spaceflight News,
both British publications, carry regular articles; there is also a
privately published 'fanzine' called Zenit, also from England, which
deals exclusively with current news in the Soviet program.

Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 21:34:22 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov>
To: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Capacity Boosters
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Cc: 

Note to Eugene Miya or whoever is collecting the frequently asked questions list: add this on to it.

Why not resurrect the Saturn V to give us a heavy lift capability?

Author's Qualification: 6 years of launch vehicle studies for Boeing.

Background:

     Saturn V; Payload to Earth orbit = 260,000 lb.
     Cost to develop (in 1988 dollars): $5 billion each for first and
          second stages.

     The main reason for not resurrecting the Saturn V booster is that
the first and second stage engines have been out of production for many years.
In order to restart making those engines, one would have to partly reverse
engineer the components from the half-dozen or so engines that have been
kept in clean storage (i.e. not the ones on display outdoors).  This is
because some of the component maker have gone out of business, and for
others, the people who engineered and built the parts have retired.  In
other words, the knowhow has partly evaporated.

     The second reason for not resurrecting the Saturn V is that there
is no place to launch it.  The Vehicle Assembly Building, ~rMobile Launch
Platforms, and Launch Pads have all been converted to the Space Shuttle.
It would take a lot of time and money to convert them back, and you
could no longer launch Shuttles.  Building an addition to the VAB for
assembling Saturn V's and adding a third launch complex (39C) is possible,
in fact it was planned out to some extent under the assumption we
would go to Mars with Saturn V launchers, but would take money
(>1.5 billion in construction costs) and time.

     The third reason for not resurrecting the Saturn V is that we
have an equivalent or better launch capability in the Space Shuttle,
should we wish to make use of it.

     It is possible to make a variety of cargo launchers using the propulsion
elements of the Space Shuttle, but without carrying an orbiter.  The
elements available are the Solid Rocket Boosters and the Space Shuttle
Main Engines.  By varying the number of segments in the SRBs and the
number of SSMEs used, you can get different payloads.  For reference,
the Space Shuttle uses two 4-segment SRBs and 3 SSMEs.

Examples:                        Payload          Estimated Cost to Develop

2 3-segment SRBs + 1 SSME:        75,000 lb          $1.2 billion
2 4-segment SRBs + 2 SSMEs:      140,000 lb          $1.6 billion
2 4-segment SRBs + 3 SSMEs:      191,000 lb          ?
2 5-segment SRBs + 4 SSMEs:      267,000 lb          ?
Add for Advanced SRBs:        about 12,000 lb        $1 billion
Add for Block II SSMEs:       about 10,000 lb per    ?
(Pratt & Whitney new              SSME
 turbopumps, 15% higher thrust)
so: best 2x5 SRBS + 4 SSMEs:  about 319,000 lb

Dani Eder, ZZ 
-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #40
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Oct 88 01:33:56 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA10642>; Mon, 17 Oct 88 00:59:21 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 17 Oct 88 00:59:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.AXKLr8y00jZdIdPU4I@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EXKLQxy00Ui3I2I04p>;
          Mon, 17 Oct 88 00:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.23597571.14d7a1>;
          Mon, 17 Oct 88 00:22:12 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct 17 88 00:18:19 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #41

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:
			     Mars Ship...
			     Re: Gravity
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
		 Re: where should all the people go?
			Who is Henry Spencer?
			 Pioneer 10/11 plaque
		 Phobos / Mars drag or tidal effects
			       The End
	     Antimatter's no bargain (was: Why no aliens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 88 20:32:09 GMT
From: killer!rcj@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Robert Johnson)
Subject: Mars Ship...


A few days ago I was reading an issue of Newsweek (one of those prominent
scientific journals) and looking at the section on the space station and 
mars mission, and started to think...  Why don't they just send up an OMV
to go fetch the old external tanks?  These could funtion very well for either
a Mars fuel tank or even for storage for the space station...?  Has anyone
at NASA done a feasability study on this?  Of course, I could be way out
of line and not realise that the ET's don't ever reach an orbit and just
burn up???  If so, ignore this message completely!

   Robert Johnson
    ..!texsun!killer!rcj

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 88 20:41:48 GMT
From: dasys1!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <1988Oct5.165733.7704@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1140@unccvax.UUCP> nrk@unccvax.UUCP (Nitin R Kulkarni) writes:
>>... how one would simulate gravity conditions on a spacecraft in deep space.
>Using centrifugal force it's easy, except that to avoid things like
>inner-ear problems you want a slow rotation rate ...
>
>A small black hole can provide useful amounts of gravity, assuming that
>you can find or make one (we can't right now).

Wouldn't a small black hole (like as in really small, suitable for
providing 1G over a spherical surface X acres in area) also give you
weird balance problems courtesy the steep gravitational gradient?  I
have no idea how you would test for this -- the Coriolis stuff is a lot
easier.

By the way, does this mean the Clarke carousel aboard 2001's Discovery
would have needed a puke removal system? :-)
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 88 03:43:20 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

In article <2061@bucsb.UUCP> mas@bucsb.UUCP (Mark) writes:
>Got this in the mail today...
>*   We endorse the goal of human exploration of Mars and urge that initial   *
>*   steps toward its implementation be taken throughout the world.           *
>
>	___ Yes, I support the Mars declaration and am happy to have my name
>	    associated with it.

Beware that by signing this, you are essentially lending your name to
whatever Mars-related cause Carl Sagan & Co. choose to support this week,
including ignoring the Moon on the grounds that six Apollo expeditions
fully explored it.  Note, I am not saying that the petition itself is a
bad thing, I am saying that the statement "N thousand people, including
X, Y, and Z, have signed the Mars Declaration" is being used to imply that
all those people also support much more specific political initiatives. 
The Declaration itself is motherhood-and-apple-pie, but there are serious
ulterior motives involved.  Caveat signator.

Actually, the above generally applies to *anything* you get from the
Planetary Society, which was formed to rally political support for the
planetary-exploration initiatives favored by Sagan & Co.  (Not all of
the PS's members realize this.)
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 88 02:03:03 +0100
From: Matts Kallioniemi <MATTS@kicki.stacken.kth.se>
Cc: dasys1!tneff@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

Tom Neff writes:
> In article <1889@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes:
> >    i don't think this is an 'excuse' to go into space -- the
> >    reasons for space exploration go beyond the avoidance of
> >    Malthusian disaster here on Earth...  but that's one good reason.

> The fallacy is assuming that putting people into space will in any
> way *reduce* the number here on Earth.  Exactly how many people were
> you contemplating dragging into space?  Three billion or so?  Even if
> you could, what happens to the two billion remaining?  They probably
> reproduce to fill the gap within a few decades; then what?

The theory is that you should avoid the disaster by being somewhere else
when it happens, not by preventing it. It's obvious enough that you can't
stop people from killing each other with the fanciest weapons available...

/Matts Kallioniemi <matts@stacken.kth.se>

------------------------------

Date:       Tue, 11 Oct 88 09:37:20 BST
From: "Geoff. Lane. Tel UK-061 275 6051" <ZZASSGL@CMS.UMRCC.AC.UK>
Subject:    Who is Henry Spencer?


Who is Henry Spencer and how does he ever get time to do any Zoology? :-)

Geoff. Lane.

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Oct 88 11:12 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Pioneer 10/11 plaque

Someone (can't remember who - sorry) wrote:

> 3.  A drawing of the H2 molecule with tic marks showing that the distance
> between the two atoms is the unit to be used for the rest of the plaque.

     The sketch is of the hydrogen atom, NOT molecule, and shows the
electron-nucleus spin flip transition characteristic of the 21 cm
radiation (about 1420 MHz).  Thus one now has a time and a distance unit.

Mikael Lerner writes:

>>     If I could find a good picture of the plaque, it'd be interesting to
>>     see how many people could gather the meaning of the messages.  But
>>     I need the "correct answers" first.

>    Well, over to the real subject: what does the plaque show?
>I'll try to make a short description:

>  *  Below the hydrogen-atoms is a set of 15 straight lines coming from
>     a point in the centre. Each line carry binary numbers. These lines
>     and numbers gives the position of our solar system relative to 15
>     selected pulsars. The distances are given in units of 21 cm. The
>     pulsars are supposed to be easy to identify for an astronomy-interes-
>     sed alien civilisation. The rotation time of a pulsar slows down in
>     a well-behavied way with time, and as these times also are given,
>     an alien will be able to find out when the craft was launched.

     Actually, the lengths of the lines give the distances as we best
knew them at that time, while the binary number is the period of the
pulsars in units of the 21 cm hydrogen spin flip (see above).  It is by
the periods of the pulsar that they can be unambiguously identified.
There are 14 pulsars given in the plane of the Galaxy (when looked at
from the North Galactic Pole), as well as the direction to the centre of
the Galaxy, to get the orientation correct.

Larry Klaes writes:

>         At the bottom of the plaque is a representation of our solar
>    system, with Sol at the left and extending to Pluto on the right.
>    Saturn is shown with a line through its center to represent its
>    rings (Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune were not known to have rings in
>    1972).  The small circle representing Earth is filled in, and
>    PIONEER is shown flying between Jupiter and Saturn with an arrowed
>    line from Earth to the probe.  There is also a binary code next to
>    each planet and Sol, indicating the size of each world.

     The binary number next to the planets is not the size, but the
comparative distances from the sun, again so that the solar system may
be identified unambiguously.  The numbers translate as

Mercury    10
Venus      19
Earth      26
Mars       39
Jupiter   136
Saturn    247
Uranus    495
Neptune   780
Pluto    1021

Actually, thinking about it right now, the numbers may actually refer to
the periods of the orbits, which are much more constant than the mean
radii.

     The best book to look at is, as mentioned in a previous posting,
Murmurs of Earth - The Voyager Interstellar Record, ed. Carl Sagan, 1978,
Random House Publishing.  It contains details of **ALL** the messages sent
out into space.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Oct 88 11:21 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Phobos / Mars drag or tidal effects

Lucius Chiaraviglio

>    While you do get tidal drag in the interactions of two solid objects
>whose orbits are not synchronized with their rotation, tidal effects of Mars
>upon Phobos will not cause Phobos' orbit to decay, although these effects
>could alter an elliptical orbit.  This is because energy transfer induced by
>tidal effects of Mars upon Phobos will be between Phobos' rotational energy
>and its orbital energy, not between Mars' rotational energy and Phobos'
>orbital energy.  Because Phobos is so small, this would not bring it down even
>if it were started off non-rotating -- orbital energy would be transformed
>into rotational energy and heat (due to energy dissipated in deforming Phobos
>elastically), but this would stop as soon as Phobos was spinning at the speed
>necessary to keep the same face towards Mars (or, if the orbit started out
>elliptical enough, a non-1:1 relationship could be established, like Mercury's
>3 rotations every 2 orbits relationship with the Sun).

>    It requires tidal effects of Phobos on Mars to pull Phobos down -- in
>this case, orbital energy of Phobos is transferred to rotational energy of
>Mars, and Mars is so much bigger than Phobos that by the time Phobos crashes
>on it Mars' rotational speed will have been increased only by a very small
>amount.  However, I would not expect these effects to be very strong, because
>Phobos has a very weak gravitational field, and therefore is not going to make
>much of a tide on Mars (would be very hard to detect even if Mars had oceans
>on its surface).  Therefore, I would be surprised if these effects would be
>sufficient to bring Phobos down unaided in only 100 million years, unless it
>is closer to crashing than I think (I thought it had an orbital period of
>somewhere around 8 hours -- someone have a more accurate number for this?).

     I may be missing something, but as I learned Classical Mechanics,
it was the opposite effect that predominated.  At least in the Earth-Moon
system, the effect of moon tides on the Earth was to slow the lunar
rotation period and increase the Earth-Moon separation.  On a timescale
of about 5 million years (or shorter - can't remember right now), the
moon would have doubled its distance and the Earth-Moon orbital/rotation
periods would be identical, at around 46 days.

     As I understand it, the only thing that can bring a moon/satellite
down is a third body pertubation or atmospheric drag.  Since Phobos and
Deimos will at times be close together and at other times on the
opposite side of the planet, I suggest that the former explanation may
be the correct one.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Oct 88 10:20 EDT
From: GODDEN@gmr.com
Subject:  The End


Just for fun, let's accept that there are just two ways for the universe
to end -- 
1) The universe reaches maximum entropy and therefore 'stops'
2) The expansion phase of the Big Bang halts and the universe begins
   contracting until it reaches a singularity.

It would seem that these processes are in conflict, i.e. contraction to
singularity cannot occur if the rate of entropy increase is such that
maximum entropy occurs before enough time has elapsed for the singularity
to be reached.  

My Question:  Is there sufficient understanding of these competing finales
to predict how long each one might take?  In other words, is it possible
to give any reasonable predictions as to which one will win?  And finally,
how might this affect the stock market?

Planning my long-term investment strategies,
-Kurt Godden [godden@gmr.com]

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Oct 88 21:22 CDT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@CORNELLC.CCS.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject:  Antimatter's no bargain (was: Why no aliens)
Original_To:  SPACE

I hear a familiar refrain once again.  Pardon me if I get cranky.

In roughly calculating how to move an asteroid with antimatter,
aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall) wrote:
"At a million dollars a microgram, this comes to..."

The number J. Storrs Hall uses to calculate antimatter cost is one megabuck per
microgram, a number quoted by Air Force spokesmen, repeated by *Aviation Week*
reporters in utter credulity,  and sometimes used in calculations by innocent
trusting readers to rather pathetic result.  (See the letters column.)

The best Fermilab's antiproton source has yet done, in our best run ever, is to
produce an average of 1.16E10 pbars/hour. (The CERN source is in the same
ballpark, and the two instutions are vying for records.) Let's say we can keep
that up indefinitely.  Then a microgram-- that is, 6E17 antiprotons-- will take
us only 5.1E7 hours, or a bit more than 5900 years, to manufacture.  (Add ten
years or so to that, because most of our pbar production will be used in
colliding-beam physics for the near future.  After that, we can run the
thing full-time for rocket fuel.)

The annual operating budget of Fermilab is around 150 megabucks.  Hmm. The cost
to run only the Main Ring, as a source of 120-GeV protons, and the Antiproton
Source (target, cooling ring, and accumulator ring) would be much lower.  You
could get by with fewer people and less power.  I think twenty megabucks/year
would be too low, but let's go with that.  I'll also assume that the (as yet
nonexistent) apparatus to store microgram quantities of antimatter for long
periods has negligible costs.  Then the microgram we make in 5900 years will
cost us about 118 billion dollars-- rather far from the paltry million Mr.
(Miss?) Hall was talking about.

But, you say, surely we can make pbars more efficiently than the crude
factories at CERN and Fermilab!  Well, sure.  Those facilities aren't really
optimized for cost or efficiency, since they adapt existing apparatus. Build
apparatus to collect antiprotons from a wider range of momenta (but those
momenta still have to fit into  your cooling ring) and from a wider range of
angles (but those angles still have to be bent to zero to go down your
beamlines).  Use more incident protons (but watch out for target damage).  Use
higher-energy protons (but above a few hundred GeV you're working harder to put
energy into the protons than the improvement in pbar yield warrants).  Try not
to lose your precious antiprotons when going around corners, juggling them from
ring to ring, or in the cooling process (how?).

I think it would be no great trick to make an antiproton source ten times
more efficient than our existing ones.  A hundred times would be serious
work.  Factors of a thousand or ten thousand would be major developments,
and you'd better do your homework before you babble to me about your plans
for those.

My point is this:  Antimatter is REALLY expensive.  It can be made cheaper. But
how many zeroes do you think you can knock off before you hit practical limits?
How many before you hit fundamental limits?  Do you really believe those
*AvWeek* stories about milligram-a-year factories in ten years?  (Bob Forward,
one of the most technologically optimistic people I know, has studied the use
of antimatter carefully, and made what I consider some pretty wild statements.
But I have NEVER heard him make a claim like this.)  Tone down your enthusiasm
for antimatter rockets.  They're fun to think about.  But they'll be a long,
long time coming.

                      ______meson      Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton      Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /                             SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -
     ~

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #41
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Oct 88 05:12:53 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA12018>; Mon, 17 Oct 88 03:53:41 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 17 Oct 88 03:53:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.UXKOPPy00jZdMirE4s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXKO2dy00UkT40u0RA>;
          Mon, 17 Oct 88 03:26:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.23599efb.6477e6>;
          Mon, 17 Oct 88 03:19:25 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct 17 88 03:17:37 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #42

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Congresscritters' mail
	      Rocket chemistry book: Clark's *Ignition!*
		     Re:  Naming the new Shuttle
			     Re: Gravity
		   Long Duration Exposure Facility
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
			Re: Shuttle computers
			Losing the space race
	  dates: historical names vs. astronomical accuracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 88 13:38 EDT
From: Fred the Dead Cat <WALL%BRANDEIS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Congresscritters' mail


Regarding the discussion of what sort of letters your congresscritters
will or will not read, let me offer an informed response.  I worked as
a congresscritter's assistant, and for an extremely conscientious and
informed congressman, relative to the breed as a whole (or even
absolutely.)  Despite the alleged apathy of most citizens, congress people
get such a high volume of mail, form mail or otherwise, that individual
responses composed just for your inquiry are extremely rare.  Also,
staff members working on legislative projects tend to focus more on actual
work than on clarifying their boss' opinions to the masses, whereas
staff members working directly with the public have to concentrate on
casework (`social security lost my check and claim I owe them $100,000')
since that sort of inquiry requires an individual repsonse.

The thing that matters most is whether you're from the particular district
in mind; mail outside the representative's district, form mail or
otherwise, will probably get a form response.  Secondly, mass mailings and
a thoughtfully written, individual letter on a broad subject area are
treated the same way; they are tallied, reported on a regular basis to
the congressperson in question, and responded to with a general letter
stating the representative's position on the subject and perhaps going
into a few specifics about current legislation or including a Congressional
Record reprint.

The best way to get an individual response (again, in 98% of the cases,
this will still be prepared by a staff member, but by a staff member in
a position to influence the congress person) is to write an inquiry
about a specific, current piece of legislation, asking for a specific
position from the representative, and clearly stating your reasons for
supporting/opposing the bill.  The more thoughtfully-reasoned and the
less flaming in the letter, the more likely it is to be read by the boss.
Clever analogies and examples, and good one-liners also help your chances
of having your letter read.  Letters of two pages or less are more likely
to be read and responded to individually.  Relating the issue in question
to the livelihood of the district is another good way of getting attention.
Obvious cases of self-interest should be acknowledged in the letter and
explained, so you are not dismissed as ``of course ~this person supports\
such and such, they're getting something out of it.''

Finally, if you truly want to make sure you get to influence the legislator
directly, request an appointment.  The majority of representatives had
have regular office hours in their district, and if you have a reasonable
topic to discuss and any sort of credential in the area (even ``concerned
citizen'') and are not in a position that could be construed as beholden
to a special interest (like, your job is Public Information Director for
a major defense contractor), then more likely than not you can get
a 20 min. - 1 hour appointment within a few months.  Avoid flaming about
other subject matters, and do homework about your congressman's background
and his or her special areas of interest.  If you can thus separate yourself
from the various whackos and ideologues who haunt a congressperson's
public life, it's actually quite easy to influence public policy in a
meaningful way.

Caveat:  as in all areas, some of these folks are better at listening than
others.  An organized campaign that threatens the loss of votes in the
next election is more likely to be effective for those legislators who
don't care to actually talk to their consituents.  Again, do some homework
first.

Representatives are more likely to respond personally than Senators; it's
more likely to get a hold of a real person when congress is not in session;
don't bother the four months before election day in an election year.

Sorry about the length of this, but I thought a little practical advice was
in order for the potentially politically active after reading various flames.

Matt Wall
Brandeis University
"standard declaimers apply"

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Oct 88 20:58 CDT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@CORNELLC.CCS.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject:  Rocket chemistry book: Clark's *Ignition!*
Original_To:  SPACE

Suzanne Rodday  (ST401460@BROWNVM.BITNET) asked about the Solid Rocket
Booster propellants.  Doubtless many people will already have posted
that the Shuttle SRB's burn:

Ammonium perchlorate 70% by weight   Oxidizer
Aluminum             16%             Fuel
Nameless polymer     12%             Binder
(well, it's nameless in my source)
Epoxy curing agent    2%

I'd like to recommend a great book on the history of rocket propellants
that should be especially interesting to a chemistry major.  It's
*Ignition!*, by John Clark (Rutgers University Press, about 1972).
Clark spent about 25 years working on liquid rocket propellants,
and he tells a great story.  There are lots of technical details
in the book, but for every molecular diagram Clark also has a tale
about an amusing explosion in somebody's lab. (-:  Too bad it's out
of print.  I'd love to own a copy.

(Science fiction scholars will be interested to note that John Clark worked
at the Philadelphia Navy Yard during WWII alongside L. Sprague de Camp,
Isaac Asimov, and Robert Heinlein, and was active in fandom for many years,
notably in promoting the fiction of Edgar Rice Burroughs.  Published one
or two SF stories, too.)

                         ______meson      Bill Higgins
                      _-~
        ____________-~______neutrino      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
      -   -         ~-_
    /       \          ~----- proton      Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
    |       |
    \       /                             SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
      -   -
        ~

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 12 Oct 88 9:13:18 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <drears@ARDEC.ARPA>
Subject:  Re:  Naming the new Shuttle

>
>Date: 	28-SEP-1988 15:07:46.86
>From: LUCAS@sage.psy.cmu.edu
>Subject: 	RE: Naming the new Shuttle
>Reply-To: LUCAS@psy.cmu.edu
>Vaxnotes_Export: 	MESCAL  
>
>    I've always kind of assumed that CHALLENGER II would be a contender.
>    				-pete (LUCAS@PSY.CMU.EDU)
>
    Can people get off this Challenger kick?  The Challenger was a
*failure* not a success or heroic mission.  The crew were not heroes
just victims of a explosion, nothing more.  It's a period that
should be forgotten (except for the lessons learned) not revered or
remembered.  I'm sorry but thats the facts.

...dennis

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 88 19:47:47 GMT
From: grv101%psuvm.BITNET@jade.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <1988Oct5.165733.7704@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) says:
>
>
>General relativity offers some theoretical possibilities, all of which
>pose engineering challenges that are ridiculous now but might be merely
>daunting in a century or so.
>--

please explain what these theoretical possibilities are.
i would be interested to hear them explained further.

                                sincerely,
                                Gregson R. Vaux

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 12 Oct 88 22:22:36 CDT
From: "H. Alan Montgomery" <FHD%TAMCBA.bitnet@jade.berkeley.edu>
Subject:      Long Duration Exposure Facility

Okay...So we have this piece of hardware that is circling around up there
called a Long Duration Exposure Facility. What are the plans for it?
Has anyone made any?

One of the big experiments is impacts and erosion on a long exposed object.
Has anyone tried to guess how the longer period of exposure will affect
the results?

Some seeds were on the LDEF. Any guess as to whether that experiment has
been adversely affacted? Also, are there any experiments that people are
almost sure have been destroyed?

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 00:47:57 GMT
From: asuvax!duster!mikec@noao.edu  (Michael Collins)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

In article <see above>, Henry Spencer writes:

>Beware that by signing this, you are essentially lending your name to
>whatever Mars-related cause Carl Sagan & Co. choose to support this week,
>including ignoring the Moon on the grounds that six Apollo expeditions
>fully explored it.  Note, I am not saying that the petition itself is a
>bad thing, I am saying that the statement "N thousand people, including
>X, Y, and Z, have signed the Mars Declaration" is being used to imply that
>all those people also support much more specific political initiatives. 
>The Declaration itself is motherhood-and-apple-pie, but there are serious
>ulterior motives involved.  Caveat signator.
>
>Actually, the above generally applies to *anything* you get from the
>Planetary Society, which was formed to rally political support for the
>planetary-exploration initiatives favored by Sagan & Co.  (Not all of
>the PS's members realize this.)

The Planetary Society is to civilian space exploration much as the ACLU
is to the defense (defence, in Henry's neck of the woods) of constitutional
freedoms.  Both are too politically oriented and dominated by somewhat
egotistical leaders, however, they're better than nothing.  I have been a
member of the Planetary Society for several years.  I did not sign the
Mars Declaration, nor have I contributed any money to the Mars Institute
(or whatever they call it).  Aside from these activities, the Society
also sponsors a pretty good SETI program, some basic research (such as
minor planet studies), and a few other less visible but worthwhile projects.
My personal preference would be less moralizing about "the joint efforts
of the human species" and more realistic scientific work, but that's just
my opinion.

One other caution regarding the Mars Declaration.  Notice the lines for
your home address.  Keep in mind that this is a contributor funded
organization; not only are you adding your name to the list of citizens
interested in an expedition to Mars, you're also putting yourself on
the mailing list.  Expect a steady flow of solicitations for all manner
of worthy (in someone's opinion) projects dependent upon your charity
and long-term visions for humanity.

Disclaimer:  This posting is in no way intended to endorse nor diminish
the objectives of the Planetary Society, the Mars Institute or the Mars
Declaration.

>-- 
>The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

					-- MC --

------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 88 02:59:53 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@hplabs.hp.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Shuttle computers

In article <Added.wXGpV3y00Ui3E4_k9h@andrew.cmu.edu> PICARD@GMR.COM (RON PICARD) writes:

>Were the shuttle computers replaced during the last 2+ years?  I remember
>hearing an astronaut saying the old (current?) ones had roughly half the
>memory my desktop PC has and that any additional programs had to bump one
>that was already there.

Last I heard it was the same five boxes of IBM iron.  

I was fortunate to have lunch with Dr. Richard Hamming the other day, and
I dumped just about every question I could think of on him (from computers
to quantum physics) while he grappled with his sweet and sour pork.  One of
those was "Why is NASA still using 20 year old computing technology in the
Shuttle?"  His answer, which I should have had sense enough to anticipate, 
was that they were thoroughly debugged.

On the other hand, I read a nontechnical report about the decision-making
process leading up to the latest Discovery launch, and one of the interesting
points was that the shuttle software had been set up for typical wind
conditions, and that conditions were abnormally calm.  The article said that
NASA engineers had a corrected set of programs at hand, but that it 
would take so much time to reprogram the five boxes that the launch window 
would close before they completed it.   And there have been a handful of
occaisions where software problems or voting issues prevented liftoffs.
I hope that somebody has been porting the shuttle software over to new
systems for the past few years, and that the new boxes are in the wings
somewhere. 

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 20:54:14 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mark R. Leeper)
Subject: Losing the space race


(The following is a slightly re-edited version of an editorial for the
AT&T science fiction club notice.  It has been suggested that I should
post it in sci.space.)

A while back I wrote and article complaining about the new WAR OF THE
WORLDS television show that is coming up.  What I thought was absurd
was that in it is the premise that we really were invaded in 1953,
just like George Pal showed us, but we all have just sort of put the
knowledge out of our heads and forgotten that we were beaten so badly
and have survived by a (very literal) DEUS EX MACHINA.  How can we
forget something like that?  Well, I was wrong.  Putting all thoughts
of the Martian Invasion out of our heads is EXACTLY what we would do,
as something I just saw recently reminds me.

What I saw has little to do with the television series.  It was a
poster.  The title of the poster was "Great Moments in the History of
Space Exploration."  What were the moments?  They were things like the
first footstep on the moon, the launching of the first space shuttle, I
think there was a picture of Sally Ride--that sort of thing.  Well,
these moments all seemed to have something in common.  Can you see what
it is?  Right!  They are all from the AMERICAN space program.  They are
all events from the program that has recently been out of space for 32
months.  There was not one picture of what has led up to a program that
right now has a permanent space station.  There definitely is in this
country a will to ignore the fact that we are being beaten, not 35
years ago, but right now.  As long as it is out of sight, it remains
out of mind.

We are too busy taking justifiable pride as mammals that the hare was
the first mammal to cross the finish line.

					Mark R. Leeper
					att!mtgzz!leeper
					leeper%mtgzz@att.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 03:30:39 GMT
From: dougfir.Berkeley.EDU!samples@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (A. Dain Samples)
Subject: dates: historical names vs. astronomical accuracy

When someone reports that (for example) Columbus landed in the Bahamas
on Oct 12, 1492, how should that date be interpreted: as Julian (which
Chris was using at the time) or as the Gregorian translation of the
actual date?  That is, did Chris' log entry read "October 12, 1492: I
landed in the Bahamas; great spot for a vacation" or was the date he
wrote in his log different from Oct 12 due to the fact that he was
using the Julian calendar and we have since mapped it onto the
`correct' Gregorian date?

Possibilities:

(1) Chris called the day Oct 12, 1492, and what's good enough for him
	is good enough for us. Who cares about astronomical accuracy or
	where the Earth was in its orbit?  We'll celebrate the event on the
	Gregorian Oct 12, 1988.

(2) Chris called the day something else, and since we are interested in
	astronomical accuracy, we have given it a name according to
	current naming convention (i.e. the Gregorian calendar).  We'll
	celebrate on Oct 12, 1988, but who cares what the day was called in
	Chris' logbook.

In other words, on Oct 12, 1988 will the planet Earth be very close to
the same orbital location as it was when Chris landed in the Bahamas
(where I will accept `very close' to mean within a day or so), or is it
actually more like ten days away from that location because of the way
we `name' days?

In even more other words, what was the julian date of Christopher
Columbus' landing in the Bahamas? (or any other historical event
preceding Oct 4, 1582, or, if you're English or subject now or in the
past to English rule, Sept. 14, 1752). I'm savvy to the fact that the
julian date was introduced precisely to avoid these complications when
talking about astronomical events but, unfortunately, historians do not
use the julian day as a measure of time.  All of this is complicated
even further when spouting dates between 1582 and 1752 since the English
and their subjects were still using the Julian while the rest of the
Christian world was using the new fangled Gregorian.  (Thank God the
Declaration of Independence was delayed!  Must have been organized by NASA
:-)

And this doesn't even approach the question of
what historians mean when they given the date of an event prior to
the establishment of the Julian calendar.  What does it mean to say that
Hammurabi the Great died June 16, 1686 BC?  (Actually, I would take this to
be evidence that all historical dates have been mapped into the Gregorian
reckoning, or that someone is pulling my Babylonian leg.)

Does anyone have any good references to a book/article which spells out 
solutions to problems like these?  Or is it a non-problem, dreamed up by me
in a fit of pedanticism?

Dain
A. Dain Samples, UC Berkeley, samples@dougfir.berkeley.edu, 642-9542, 785-5644
Opinions?  Opinionated people should | It is so difficult to find the beginning.
be shot!  Er, I mean, give them      | Or, better, it is difficult to begin at
a million dollars!! If that's alright| the beginning.  And not try to go
with everybody else ...              | further back.             -Wittgentstein

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #42
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Oct 88 01:45:31 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA08947>; Tue, 18 Oct 88 00:42:17 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 18 Oct 88 00:42:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.kXKgi4y00jZdIWwE4Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YXKgeOy00Vs100yEEU>;
          Tue, 18 Oct 88 00:37:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.235ac77f.1209d7>;
          Tue, 18 Oct 88 00:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Oct 18 88 00:20:27 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #43

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:
	Re: dates: historical names vs. astronomical accuracy
	  Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V8 #384
	   Re: Wanted: Satellite orbital prediction program
		       Re: Commercial launchers
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 20:33:25 GMT
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: dates: historical names vs. astronomical accuracy

In article <26391@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> samples@dougfir.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (A. Dain Samples) writes:

>And this doesn't even approach the question of
>what historians mean when they given the date of an event prior to
>the establishment of the Julian calendar.  What does it mean to say that
>Hammurabi the Great died June 16, 1686 BC?

Well, there's this clay tablet in the Berlin Museum that says

  "June 16, 1686 BC.  Today King Hammurabi died.  Before you
   start calling him 'The Great', you'd better know that all this
   official history is a pack of lies.  Now the truth can be told.
   (continued on next tablet)"

Seriously, though,

(a) Historical events recorded under the Julian Calendar are still
    given their original dates, ie C Julius Caesar was assassinated
    on 15 March (Julian) and Columbus' landfall was 12 October (Julian)

(b) Dates prior to the introduction of the Julian Calendar are usually
    given in retrodicted Gregorian form.  This involves no discontinuity,
    since Julian and retrodicted Gregorian reckoning coincide at 99 AD.

(c) Dates between 1582 and 1922 (the span of time during which part of
    the West used one calendar and part the other) are not treated
    consistently, eg most histories of the 'October Revolution' give
    the key dates in Gregorian (in November, therefore).

Too bad the historians never adopted the 'Julian Day'.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 21:43:49 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)

In article <72350@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>In article <1492@cbnews.ATT.COM>, wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
>> In article <8810051316.aa01946@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") writes:
>> >
>> I don't have my references handy, but I'm pretty certain the 262 was never
>> fitted with radar (hardly surprising, with the nose full of 30mm cannon),
>> and so would have made a poor nightfighter. But even if the Germans had
>
>There *was* a nightfighter version of the Me262.  It had what looked like a
>forest of TV aerials sprouting from the nose.  I don't know if it reached

I stand corrected.  There was indeed a nightfighter version of the
Me262; several, really.

In October '44, an Me262A-1a was fitted with a radar system including
the standard 4-pole antenna array seen on German nightfighters. This
prompted conversion of several Me262B-1a's to nightfighters. The
radar was fitted ahead of the cannon mounts, leaving the armament
intact. First operational deployment was in Feb '45, in the defense of
Berlin. Less than a dozen of the Me262B-1a/U1 were deployed.

A further development was the Me262B-2a, which added about 4 feet of
fuselage; the added space was used for increased fuel capacity (and
several other measures, including a jettisonable winged "trailer",
were also used for added duration). Two 30mm cannon in "Schrage Muzik"
(Jazz Music) mounts (firing diagonally upward from behind the cockpit)
were also to be carried. The B-2a was to go into service in mid-45.

None of these reached any serious levels of deployment. I find no
record of the success of the 262 nightfighters. It is, however, 
doubtful that they were as successful as the Heinkel 219, which,
on its first operational test, succeeded in downing 5 RAF bombers !

My apologies for posting in error. I should have looked before I
wrote.

(Reference: "Warplanes of the Third Reich", by Wiliam Green (Galahad
Books, NY, 1986)



------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 14:36:35 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #384

>From article <1988Oct8.232413.11611@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> In article <218100002@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>RE : SRB ignition failure --
>>There wouldn't be time to jettison the SRB's entirely (as is done normally
>>after they've burned)?


> And before anyone asks, shutting down an SRB prematurely is not quite
> impossible -- blowing off the nozzle might suffice, since the fuel burns
> poorly at normal atmospheric pressure -- but doing it gently enough for
> the shuttle to survive the experience is very hard.

Actually you would want to blow the forward dome. The normal way to
terminate thrust on a solid rocket motor is to either blow the forward
dome or open ports in or around the dome that face forward. The choice
is made based on how much control you want to have after thrust
termination. The nozzle is already open. Opening it more doesn't make
that much difference.

I've seen models and drawings of the SRMs that had large TR (Thrust
Reversal) ports built into the sides of the forward segments. So I'd
guess that at one time the plan was to have a TR capability in the
SRMs. But, controlled reusable thrust reversal would cost a lot and
add a lot of weight, you pretty much have to provide a second nozzle
that points forward but away from the ET. Not to mention that failure
of the TR port during a normal burn is another single point failure
that leads to loss of the shuttle. 

A bit on terminology, SRB (Solid Rocket Booster) is the complete
booster. Including the cone on top, the parachutes, all the
electronics, everything. The SRM (Solid Rocket Motor) is just the
motor. 
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
An average hammer is better for driving nails than a superior wrench.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 18:59:30 GMT
From: killer!loci@eddie.mit.edu  (loci!clb)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Satellite orbital prediction program

In article <9446@pur-ee.UUCP>, frohne@pur-ee.UUCP (Henry R Frohne) writes:
> 
> 
> Does anybody out there have a satellite orbital prediction program
> (hopefully written in C)?  If you have a PD copy, could you please
> send me a copy or post a copy?  I'm wanting to get back into the
> satellite ham radio hobby.  Thanks in advance.
> 
> Rob Frohne
> pur-ee!frohne


	I have just completed a simple package for sat orbit calcs.
	The question is ... should I post it (and where?) or not.
	I've told people it was coming so I am ready to send out
	a shar of it. It was written on and for sysV Unix in 'c'
	and may not work on dos.

	My program (called "birdie") ignores atmospheric drag so
	it doesn't work too well for low orbits but it's simpler
	and faster than SGP. The main purpose is to demonstrate
	the factors involved. Anyway I'm thinking about posting
	it to sci.space. Comments?

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083
	   clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp

------------------------------

Date:     Wednesday 12 Oct 88 2:10 PM CT
From: J.L.M. <ASTOHNPA%UIAMVS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
To: <SPACE@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>


CHALLENGER'S CHALLENGE
----------------------   by Kim Unsong


Before millions of children, starry eyed,
And hundreds of millions of bewildered eyes of the world,
The brain child of American technology
The 25th Space ship, Challenger,
Is ready to soar into an emerald Florida sky
Evoking tumultuous zeal in hearts
Planting dreams of Cosmic exploration
Deep into the 21st Century....

On January 28, 1986
In the bright morning
The sky freshly awash with nippy air of 27 [degrees] F,
Seven astronauts all aboard,
Eight minute countdown begins;
8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0....
Detecting signs on the computer panels in milliseconds,
All data registering from 2000 sensors
Point systems functioning A-O.K.

Boosted by powerful rockets
Kicking off a cornucopia of flames & smokes
Around Pad 39-B.
The space shuttle complex blasts off
With 154 feet long rust colored fuel tank
Containing 143,351 gallons of liquid oxygen,
Two gleaming white solid rocket booster (SRB)
Each holding 1.1 million pounds of solid fuel
In their 149 feet long canisters
Reaching 4.3 miles high in the air,
Velocity to 1,538 miles per hour
In 35 seconds....

Challenger goes with throttle up
Proceeding normal after 52 seconds,
After 70 seconds,
An unusual flame flickers
At the lower end of right SRB,
After 73 seconds,
Challenger bursts into white & yellow fire smokes,
Tails streaming up and out from the fireball
Forming a twisted letter Y
Like a pair of demonic claws against the sky
Turning $ 1.2 billion space ship into rubble,
With debris showering down into the Atlantic Ocean
Dragging white ribbons through blue sky....

In a bang of enigmatic violence
Out of the Blue,
The legendary space ship with 7 astronauts
Sublimates into a fireball in heaven....
A thunderbolt in blue sky strikes the world
Shooting eyes in terror
Blocking minds in shock
Recoiling nerves in despair
Across the nation & over the world,
Mouths gasping in horror
Heads shaking in disbelief
Hearts sobbing in sorrow
Over the colossal loss

During the past quarter Century
Americans soared into space 55 times
All returning safely
Leading us to believe
Space ships technologically perfected
Symbolically immaculate
Philosophically ideal
Poetically chic
For an adventure
Realizing human dreams
In the farthest frontier of the Universe.

The explosion of Challenger is
A coup de grace in the heads of space scientists,
A momento mori to some elated astronauts,
A stern caveat against American complacency
Inflicting sharpest yet purest pain
In the loin of all Americans
Uncontaminated by trace of anger or hatred,
Uncomplicated by evidence of gimmickry
Political, racial, moral or religious
Manning the space ship with genuine humans
Dedicated for a common goal
Yet diverse in their ethnic origins & sexes
In sheer American way....

Farewell & rest in Heavenly peace !
Francis Scobee (1939-1986)
Michael Smith (1945-1986)
Gregory Jarvis (1944-1986)
Ronald McNair (1950-1986)
Ellison Onizuka (1945-1986)
Judith Resnik (1949-1986)
Christa McAuliffe (1948-1986)

We admire you forever
For the sacrifice of your life of vernal bloom
For your heroic challenge toward unknown Cosmos
For your dedication to unveiling the the truth
For your devotion to realizing human dreams
Up to your last space saga of 73 seconds

Gnawing questions still linger
Over our unrequited hearts & minds,
Under shadows of technological triumphs
Ominous ding gods hover about
Conspiring on human tragedy.

What a tragic destiny that finite mortals
Would challenge infinite immortals !

Seven astronauts are gone
Life goes on
Man's challenge continues
Challengers are destined to fly on

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 88 22:58:24 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Commercial launchers

In article <592247191.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>...Nonetheless, there is an Office of Commercial Space Transportation
>within the Department of Transportation which is responsible for one
>stop licensing of commercial launches...

On the whole, OCST is a massive improvement on the previous situation.
However, let us not forget that OCST can refuse permission for any launch
that is "not in the national interest" -- with OCST deciding what is in
the national interest.  Got a payload that the government doesn't approve
of (say, a commercial imaging satellite with resolution higher than DoD
likes)?  Good luck getting OCST to approve launch.

OCST would be an unmixed blessing if it was restricted to launch-safety
issues.  It's not.

>George Koopman (AMROC) has had several engine tests at Vandenberg
>alreeady, one within the last 6 weeks I think. They may even build
>their own pad there, although they had no end of grief with
>Environmental Impact Statements and other such rot.

Well, let's be fair.  The USAF has the same level of grief when it wants
to build a new pad at Vandenberg.  That area has special status, as an
archeological site I think, and this makes any new construction difficult.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 17:06:42 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis

>From article <8810061228.AA02175@angband.s1.gov>, by Hans.Moravec@ROVER.RI.CMU.EDU:
> 
> Bob Pendleton says:
> 
>> ...
>>If I were
>>designing something to destroy all life in the galaxy, I think I would
>>go with a hive insect model for the destroying machines.
>> ...
> 
> 	But ants and termites don't waste their time and energy on pointless
> jihads.  They put it where it counts - making more ants and termites, and
> keeping the existing nest going.  ...

> 					-- Hans Moravec

You're not seeing the complete anaology. And you are ignoring the
success of hive insects at competing for resources.

As I walk through the desert every so often I see an ant colony. The
zone around the colony is empty. Nothing grows there. The area is
paved with tiny stones. Armor against wind, rain, and raiders. If I
kick the colony a swarm a workers and warriors emerge. Defense and
reconstruction begin at the same time.

Once a year a number of winged males and females emerge from the
colony. They fly off, mate, and the female tries to establish a new
colony. If she is successful, in a short time there will be another
zone that is swept free of all life not beloning to the colony. If she
fails, a new female may try again next year. If a colony is destroyed,
a new colony may spring up near by.

If the machines are thought of as a metallic species that have a wide
range of possible haitats, everything from Oort clouds, to asteroids,
to rocky planets, or even Earth like planets. If they work like ants
and simply try to exploit all available habitats. Then their
"pointless jihads" can be seen as part of their normal reproductive
cycle. Evolutionary forces will balance expansion and the development
of existing nests in these machines just as it does in ants, termites,
and bees.

These machines do not need to be intelligent to be able to accomplish
the goal of the destruction of all life. The attempt to occupy every
available habitat and expand to the limits of the habitat will
accomplish the goal.

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
An average hammer is better for driving nails than a superior wrench.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #43
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Oct 88 05:02:41 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA09703>; Tue, 18 Oct 88 03:43:36 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 18 Oct 88 03:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.4XKjLyy00jZdMZsU5j@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UXKj9By00jZd81DUFB>;
          Tue, 18 Oct 88 03:27:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.235af0b8.e51a1d>;
          Tue, 18 Oct 88 03:20:26 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Oct 18 88 03:18:21 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #44

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:
			Re: African Air Farce
	   Spiral arms (was Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
	  Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)
		 Re: where should all the people go?
		  Interesting Space Speakers Wanted!
			Re: Shuttle computers
		     Mars and other future goals
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		       Re: Commercial launchers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 01:05:42 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Re: African Air Farce

In article <3262@ttidca.TTI.COM>, ward@ttidca.TTI.COM (D. B. Ward) writes:
> 
> :^) In a bizarre experiment designed to  simulate  life  in  space,  the :^)
> :^) Gambian  Air Force welded four men in the cab of a 1957 Chevy pickup :^)
> :^) and left them there for sixteen days.  The WEEKLY WORLD NEWS reports :^)
> :^) that  the  men  were  hospitalized with heatstroke after being freed :^)
> :^) from their  "spacecraft".  General  Dembo  Ceesay,  the  top-ranking :^)
> :^) officer  in  the  Gambian  Air Force (which has yet to buy its first :^)
> :^) plane), defended the tests, saying they "are imperative if we are to :^)
> :^) reap the benefits of interplanetary exploration and trade".          :^)
> 
>  
:^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) 

The Weekly World News has the credibility of the National Enquirer, that icon
of American gullibility. An article which appears in it is quite likely to
be about as unbiased and striving-for-the-truth as the column of horoscopes
which appears on the comic page of many newspapers. I suppose you meant your
posting to be a jest. I've taken the liberty of adding the smileys you forgot.
It certainly is food for thought, although not for discussion in this
newsgroup, to wonder why a supermarket tabloid feels it is necessary to print
articles like this, which don't even attempt to be subtle in their racism. 
I wouldn't be surprised to see the wire services pick this up, and news
broadcasts end their shows with this "innocent" tale. Of such musings are
urban myths begun, I suppose. Sorry for the digression. Back to space talk
now.

-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!{allegra,ulysses,ihnp4,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 06:49:09 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;)
Subject: Spiral arms (was Re: Cretaceous mass extinction

In article <150@laffu.UUCP> chuck@laffu.UUCP (Chuck Sites) writes:
>In article <2124@byzantium.cs.swarthmore.edu>, leif@cs.swarthmore.edu (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes:
>> In article <3982@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes:
>> > Chuck Sites writes:
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > 
>> > I read this theory in a book whose author I've forgotten.  I can't
>> > remember if it was trying to explain the "Nemesis factor" or not but it's
>> > interesting to think about.  I don't know enough to evaluate it fully.
>
>Anyway,
>I wish I could claim authorship of his eliquent followup, but Dan 
>really deserves the credit for that one.     

Thank you.  I'm glad you straightened that out.

>Leif, I understand your problem with the proposition.  If I can restate it,
>it would go something like this:  If the solar system is running into 
>debree as it orbits the galatic nucleus, in the spiral arms, why isn't
>the debree moving in the same orbit?  Well, one might speculate that there
>is debree in a geo-synchronis like orbit around the galactic nucleus.
>That's the idea at least. 

Several others have already mentioned this but perhaps it bears
repeating.  The spiral arms or the galaxy do not revolve about the
center of the galaxy as do the stars.  If they did then the spiral arms
would quickly (on an astronomical timeframe) wind up to the point of of
being unrecognizable.

The spiral arms are, instead, standing waves.  Standing waves can be
easily understood if you look at a river flowing past rocks.(*)  The
"permanent" waves which the rocks cause in the water are standing
waves.  The individual water molecules do not stay in the standing
waves; they continue to flow downstream.  Yet the waves do not flow.

The spiral arms of a galaxy differ from the water waves in that they
are density waves made up of gas and dust.  The dust as it approaches
the spiral arms is attracted and speeds up (i.e. falls faster).  Then
after it passes through, it's slowed down by the pull of the arm behind
it.  So the dust spends more time in the arm than in the areas
immediately before and after it.  Thus the spiral arms are
self-perpetuating (how they get started in the first place is another
topic which I don't pretend to understand).

It should also be noted that the high density of gas in a spiral arm is
conducive to stellar formation.  Since the brightest stars (types O and
B) have extremely short life spans compared with their orbital period
about the galaxy, they tend to be concentrated near the point of their
origin (i.e. the spiral arms).  The brightest stars also produce the
majority of the light given off by a galaxy.  This makes the spiral
arms highly visible; if it were just gas and dust concentrations,
they'd only be visible with special instruments.


(*) You can also make an analogy to sections of the freeway where cars
are going slow for no apparent reason.  They're standing waves.

---
Dan Tilque	--	dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 19:53:22 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)

In article <1522@cbnews.ATT.COM>, wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
> There was indeed a nightfighter version of the Me262; several, really.
> 
> In October '44, an Me262A-1a was fitted with a radar system including
> the standard 4-pole antenna array seen on German nightfighters. This
> prompted conversion of several Me262B-1a's to nightfighters. The
> radar was fitted ahead of the cannon mounts, leaving the armament
> intact. First operational deployment was in Feb '45, in the defense of
> Berlin. Less than a dozen of the Me262B-1a/U1 were deployed.

Some background:  The Me-262 was a single-place fighter/bomber.  The
airborne radars of the period pretty much required that a radar
operator focus all his attention on the display(s)...which meant that
essentially all night fighters using built-in radar were at least
two-place versions of whatever aircraft.  The Me-262B-1a was a trainer
version of the 262.  (The 262 had some operational quirks that, while
not nasty per se, *were* different than what fighter pilots of the time
would have expected:  The Jumo jet engines would burn out if you
advanced the throttles too quickly, and control inputs were apparently
much greater for a given response than most of the prop fighters.  It
"snaked" at high speeds.  The pilots liked flying, though, once they
made the transistion.

> A further development was the Me262B-2a,... Two 30mm cannon in
> "Schrage Muzik" (Jazz Music) mounts (firing diagonally upward
> from behind the cockpit) were also to be carried. 
> It is, however, doubtful that they were as successful as the Heinkel
> 219, which, on its first operational test, succeeded in downing 5 RAF
> bombers !

The He-219 (Uhu, or Owl) also used the "Schrage Muzik" mount.  The Uhu
flew in combat for several months before production actually began.
(Huh?!)  Pre-production prototypes were sent out singly and in pairs
against RAF bomber streams.  It was an excellent design, and very
effective in use.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 88 08:40:31 EDT
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 88 08:40:31 EDT
From: mordor!lll-crg!ll-xn!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!tneff@angband.s1.gov (Tom Neff)
To: KICKI.STACKEN.kth.se!MATTS@angband.s1.gov,
        angband.s1.gov!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

>The theory is that you should avoid the disaster by being somewhere else
>when it happens, not by preventing it. It's obvious enough that you can't
>stop people from killing each other with the fanciest weapons available...

This is precisely the elitism of which Jorge and others accuse many space
enthusiasts.  If you want to plead nolo contendere I don't much mind, but
at least let's keep the issue straight.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 17:55:01 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Interesting Space Speakers Wanted!

We have formed a new and very active space interest group at Princeton
University, the Princeton Planetary Society (soon to be a chapter of NSS,
SEDS, and an affiliate of SSI).
 
Our group is looking for top speakers to bring to the Princeton campus
to educate the university community about various aspects of the space
program.
 
We would appreciate any suggestions you have for good speakers (ones you
may have heard, people who know, experts in the space fields, etc.).  If
possible, an address to contact the speaker would be appreciated.
 
Please reply via. EMAIL, or by U.S. Mail to:
 
                      Eric W. Tilenius
                      332 Walker Hall
                      Princeton University
                      Princeton, NJ  08544
                      609-734-4911
 
Any suggestions, comments, or ideas would be greatly appreciated!
 
- ERIC -
 
*----------------------===>  SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
*        ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU  //  ewtileni@pucc.BITNET                *
*      rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni  //  princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni       *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 00:25:24 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Christian Riley)
Subject: Re: Shuttle computers


Space Shuttle Computers:

According to August "Final Frontier"
"The space shuttle is notorious for having computers whose basic design
dates 1971, meaning that they are less powerful than the desktop systems
sold at your local computer shop.
   The most recent versions of the shuttle's computers, which are already
installed on Discovery and Atlantis, do offer some improvement, however.
Similar models will be installed in OV-105.  The new computers perform
one millions operatins per second and have 262,144 32-bit words of memory,
a two-and-a-half-fold increase in both speed and memory over the old
versions.  The new ones are also more compact, filling a single unit
whereas their predecessors required two.  Like the other orbiters,
OV-105 will carry five computers."

What I want to know, is how much these things cost. Anyone?


I would say "launch" lasts until the first replays begin :}

Chris Riley
riley@cs.ucsd.edu



"We must control men in order to force them to be free."
Chris Riley
riley@cs.ucsd.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 17:15:17 GMT
From: amanda!msodos@sun.com  (Martin Sodos)
Subject: Mars and other future goals

I seem to be hearing the arguments for and against a manned mission to
Mars fall into two camps, which I will superficially charaterize as
those who believe that the scientific logic and the desirability of
maintaining a more constant funding level as opposed to a boom and bust
cycle make the moon the next logical goal, and those who believe that
it is necessary to have something as substantial and 'glamorous' as a
manned mission to Mars in  order to fire up the publics imagination,
lest Nasa funding slip into an abyss during the period of predictable
budget cutting which is to follow.

The question arises, which is the better way to achieve the COMMON goal
of both groups to reinvigorate Nasa and the space program, to achieve a
significant and sustainable level of funding, to increase the amount
and diversity of resources available such as heavy lift boosters,etc.,
to begin to have a viable commercial presence in space, and to maintain
aggressive programs of both manned and unmanned exploration of the
planets and beyond.

I would submit, that to be successful, the key to the equation is
sustainability. It was a crime to have developed the Appolo hardware
twenty years ago only to allow the technology to be lost through
neglect or worse.  Although the thought of an nearterm  mission to Mars
is very romantic, I see several problems with it. First, it will
require resources making the Appllo program pale by comparison. Second,
while the 60's were a time of great economic prosperity, currently
there is a severe budget crises, which I believe will come to a head
shortly after the next president takes office.  Third, such a program
will likely be of a duration which will span more than one, possibly
two administrations. As a result of this, fourthly, even if the nation
were to make such a committment, it would likely come at the expense of
almost every other important program, to the great detriment of every
other area of planetary and space science for a decade of more. As the
american public is notoriously fickle, and loses interest quickly, I
would expect that shortly thereafter, there would again be crippling
budget cutbacks and we would have another situation like Apollo, except
in this case we would also have then had twenty plus years of
underfunding in all other areas of space and planetary science, and the
situation would be beyond desperate.

I believe that grandiose plans are not the answer, but rather that the
long term careful building of a sustainable, scientifically balanced
program, with the encouragement and increased participation of
commercial aspects, and more worldwide cooperation is the key.

I think it likely that those who would term themselves space
enthusiasts are not the only ones aware of this problem. I have noted
with interest an increased level of attention and concern in the media
to the current condition of the space program, and similar indications
from the presidential candidates. Further, I believe those who
previously thought space a wasteful exercise are now coming to view it
more and more as a scientifically worthwhile endeavor. The key to
sustaining and increasing this trend is to earn the respect of others
in society so that they look on space science as a serious exercise
benefitting mankind at all levels, and not as a lot of buck rogers,
consuming copious amounts of money at a time of budgetary crises, and
providing fleeting results.

Therefore, I believe the best way to proceed is by pursuing programs
which provide the most 'bang for the buck', ie those of the highest
scientific value per dollar spent. If the public and congress see a
high level of return on investment, they will increasingly deem it a
worthwhile endeavor and will commit funds in a less capricious manner.
If Mars is indeed as scientifically valuable as some claim, then let's
take the soviet union up on their offer to make it a joint mission. If
anything, that should make the conservatives uneasy that we ' had to
rely on the soviets good graces', and we should get a more solid level
of funding from that as a result. Let's pursue things on the basis of
pure scientific merit.  I believe the american public will ultimately
respond favorably in return.

Let's give the public some respect, and not cut our own throats playing
political games which cause us to win in the shorterm, but fall further
behind in the long run.

Martin Sodos

{anywhere}!sun!msodos

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 23:20:26 GMT
From: zehntel!bales!nat@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Nathaniel Stitt)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <14731@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> link@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes:

>OK, so what do you have against us Flat-Earthers ?   :-)
>
>Dr. Richard Link
>Space Sciences Laboratory
>UC Berkeley


I understand the the Flat Earth Society is in the process of gathering funds
to send up their own satellite!  They intend to take pictures that prove the
earth is really flat.  The whole project is called F.E.S.S.U.P. (Flat Earth
Society Satellite Und Pictures)

P.S.   :->
-- 
Nathaniel Stitt           | This life is a test.  It is only a test.  Had
Guidelines Software, Inc. | this been an actual life, you would have received
ucbvax!ucbcad!z!nat       | further instructions as to what to do and where
(415) 376-1395            | to go.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 15:37:40 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Commercial launchers

>From article <1988Oct9.225824.26961@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> In article <592247191.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>>...Nonetheless, there is an Office of Commercial Space Transportation
>>within the Department of Transportation which is responsible for one
>>stop licensing of commercial launches...
> 
> However, let us not forget that OCST can refuse permission for any launch
> that is "not in the national interest" -- with OCST deciding what is in
> the national interest.  ...

If you take a paranoid view of commercial launch vehicles it is
amazing that any country anywhere allows the development of commercial
launchers by anyone.

The whole bit about pegasus being considered for use as a strategic
nuclear weapon platform points out the fact that any booster capable
of carrying a payload of more than a few hundred pounds into orbit is
capable of lobbing a nuclear bomb from any point on earth to any other
point on earth. 

The paranoid view would be that any space launch capability is a gun
held to the heads of every person on this planet. Development of space
launchers could even be interpreted as an act of war.

Considering how paranoid the U.S DOD and the Soviets are known to be
the fact that the U.S. only restricts launches that are "not in the
national interest" is more than I would have hoped for. As it is I
notice that almost everyone is offering launch services, not launchers
for sale. I'd hate to imagine what it would take to get an export
license for, say, 20 pegasi.

I'm a supporter of commercial space, don't get me wrong. But, we are
starting to see Nivens' Kzinti lesson applied to ourselves. Launchers
are also weapons.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
An average hammer is better for driving nails than a superior wrench.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #44
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Oct 88 06:31:20 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00737>; Tue, 18 Oct 88 05:30:53 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 18 Oct 88 05:30:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.YXKkwMy00jZdE2rE4w@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cXKksDy00Ui3Q0p05g>;
          Tue, 18 Oct 88 05:25:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.holmes.andrew.cmu.edu.235b0cb8.e2ca4a>;
          Tue, 18 Oct 88 05:19:54 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Oct 18 88 05:18:09 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #45

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:
		     Who's for Space?  (Politics)
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
			     Re: Gravity
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #29
			Re: Shuttle computers
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 17:24:51 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Who's for Space?  (Politics)

If you're wondering whether Dukakis/Bentsen or Bush/Quayle will do a better
job of reinvigorating our space program, consider the following:
 
       * BOTH candidates have pledged to reinstate the National Space
         Council and have their Vice-Presidential candidates head this
         space policy organization.
 
Now, I don't know about you, but I would much rather have Lloyd Bentsen
in charge of our space activities and goals than J. Danforth Quayle.
 
Bentsen has a 100% rating with SPACECAUSE/SPACEPAC, and can effectively
set our national space goals.
 
Quayle, well, he'll, uh, pray?    (So will I, folks, so will I...)
 
If space is an issue (which is should be), a Dukakis/Bentsen ticket is
sure to prove the better for our country.
 
- ERIC -
 
*----------------------===>  SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
*        ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU  //  ewtileni@pucc.BITNET                *
*      rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni  //  princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni       *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 17:46:20 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

In article <1988Oct9.034320.15722@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
 
>>*  We endorse the goal of human exploration of Mars and urge that initial   *
>>*  steps toward its implementation be taken throughout the world.           *
 
>Beware that by signing this, you are essentially lending your name to...
 
Henry, it's about time that we gave NASA a goal.  It's about time that
we started thinking about a Mars mission.  And it's about time that the space
community banded together to show a little support for something.
 
Your petty "moon vs. Mars" squabble is not of interest to most of the nation.
 
At issue is whether we do much of ANYTHING in space.  With high costs, a lack
of presidential leadership, and a big budget deficit, there are many who would
cut space missions down to the bare bone.
 
The Mars Declaration is the BEST - and in fact ONLY - document in circulation
that will effectively show large public support for space missions and show
the President and Congress that people DO CARE about our future in space.
 
If it fails, Congress will not think "gee, maybe we should go back to the moon
again instead," Congress will think, "No body cares.  It's not going to get us
re-elected, so let's put our money someplace else."
 
The Mars Declaration has already brought an amazingly diverse group of people
together in favor of human Mars exploration.  And it has real potential.
 
It's a fight for funding.  And it's a fight we can only win by showing
broad public support for a goal most Americans support.
 
Bickering over where to go right now makes little sense, because WE ARE GOING
NOWHERE.
 
Your signature on the Mars Declaration can make sure we DO go somewhere, that
we DO set long-term goals to guide our space program, and that we DO begin
a new era of exploration.
 
Your griping will only fulfill the latter half of that old proverb:
  "United we stand;  Divided we fall."
 
- ERIC -
 
*----------------------===>  SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
*        ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU  //  ewtileni@pucc.BITNET                *
*      rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni  //  princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni       *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 06:50:27 GMT
From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <1988Oct5.165733.7704@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes:
>General relativity offers some theoretical possibilities, all of which
>pose engineering challenges that are ridiculous now but might be merely
>daunting in a century or so.

Or may be merely ridiculous in a century or so.  Hard to say....

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 16:25:55 GMT
From: voder!blia!blic!inspect@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mfg Inspection)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <604@otto.cvedc.UUCP>, billa@cvedc.UUCP (Bill Anderson) writes:

>  The dinosaurs were alive during Noah's day (BTW, take a look
> at Job 40:15-41:34 for an interesting description of a dinosaur - or is
> it a dragon?).  Noah took 2 of *every* animal (7 of some), including
> dinosaurs, on the ark.

All geological evidence indicates that humans and dinosaurs were !NOT!
contemporaries.

Please forgive me for continuing this discussion, but I couldn't let this
pass.

- Jennifer

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1988 17:30-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #29

>Obvious note: Yes a large number of native Americans were raped and butchered
>in the process, and no there is no excuse for that. Man is flawed, but the
>alternatives are trying to learn from the past and pressing forward, or 
>dropping the bombs.

Actually the North American indians got off lightly. The Spaniards went
to the new world before Europe was vaguely civilized in a modern sense,
so the South American indians were enslaved and nearly wiped out.

The English who colonized the northern continent stopped off in Ireland
and worked off their barbarism there first...

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 23:47:15 GMT
From: mcdchg!duster!mikec@gatech.edu  (Michael Collins)
Subject: Re: Shuttle computers

In article <3850@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:

>I hope that somebody has been porting the shuttle software over to new
>systems for the past few years, and that the new boxes are in the wings
>somewhere. 

Far as I know, all the computers are on the flight deck. 8-)

>Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

					-- MC --

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 19:55:46 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

>From article <6243@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, by EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric William Tilenius):

> Your petty "moon vs. Mars" squabble is not of interest to most of the nation.

  That is true, and it really terrifies me.  It doesn't seem to matter
to most people just *what* we do in space, or why we're there.
I am reminded of some very naive economic models where "research
spending" is just a black box; it is presumed that it doesn't matter
WHAT you spend it ON.

  -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 88 01:29:03 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #393 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88274.22610082 0.00000170           19568-3 0  1609
2 00424  80.4668 182.0209 0024439  78.1806 282.2083 13.67012906297297
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88278.22406825 0.00000002           10000-2 0  5709
2 08820 109.8175 142.4503 0044531  10.4976 349.6712  6.38663226 34285
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88276.48227806 -.00000006                   0  1612
2 10061   6.5160  71.2969 0007766 159.6970 200.4537  1.00269172  2792
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88274.68627986 0.00000013                   0  9611
2 10684  63.4427 108.8705 0101561 197.6971 162.0067  2.00562787 63323
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88274.14113868 -.00000029                   0  9206
2 10893  64.5652 349.6952 0143154  29.9910 330.8760  2.00562975 76137
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88275.05161960 0.00000493           22102-3 0   234
2 10967 108.0113 114.2932 0004064 227.4700 132.6268 14.33889627536932
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88272.46474612 -.00000028                   0  9452
2 11054  64.1306 346.2940 0051353 120.5027 240.0609  2.00570321 73118
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88275.06128847 0.00000013                   0   447
2 11141  63.4649 108.7613 0054620 325.1199  34.5809  2.00558555 71861
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88275.39957589 0.00000572           25914-3 0  7601
2 11416  98.4973 274.2625 0011798 141.6985 218.5028 14.25213957481034
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88275.09390802 0.00018892           57998-3 0  7034
2 11703  28.4974 276.3920 0001291  61.0557 299.0258 15.32279193479843
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88271.53003604 -.00000029                   0  8109
2 11783  63.9346 346.0352 0134896  64.2851 297.1505  2.00562653 61738
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88260.34577381 -.00000240           10000-3 0   152
2 11964   4.8144  76.7760 0001098  82.5241 277.5964  1.00263862 45127
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88272.39521835 -.00000245           10000-3 0  6317
2 12472   1.8700  83.4299 0001475 158.1583 202.5866  1.00252825 25985
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88276.10688244 0.00020485           59265-3 0  3173
2 12888  97.6089 312.3314 0002050 101.5911 258.5747 15.35643065389130
RS-08      
1 12998U          88272.36004384 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5402
2 12998  82.9627  18.6790 0019437 190.3844 169.6844 12.02965760297823
RS-05      
1 12999U          88267.29147584 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5274
2 12999  82.9684  16.1507 0011061 149.1845 210.9857 12.05072773297734
RS-07      
1 13001U          88274.67624907 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4100
2 13001  82.9632   2.5118 0022956  38.3168 321.9525 12.08707476299523
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88274.37617591 0.00000083           69938-4 0  6016
2 13113  82.5351 265.2217 0017196  72.0351 288.2690 13.83872926329303
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88277.70835280 -.00001089          -27050-4 0  2520
2 13138  51.6120 125.1996 0001499 166.6107 193.4856 15.33895194368737
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88274.73895482 0.00000213           10664-3 0  7123
2 13718  81.2461 175.3051 0057121  17.9608 342.3599 14.13002670298911
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88271.35882898 0.00000120                   0  8256
2 14050   0.6184  85.8273 0001792 114.4440 159.7364  1.00269459  3971
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88270.38902788 -.00000021           10000-3 0  3561
2 14129  27.1260 302.7854 6032016 339.7612   4.1578  2.05879682 11784
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88272.12357804 0.00000012                   0  5559
2 14189  63.2413 107.3143 0127980 212.7800 146.4786  2.00552329 38184
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88272.79071613 0.00000279           11561-3 0  6561
2 14452  81.1677 195.4221 0096149 128.8838 232.0964 14.21844614255394
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88278.25382387 -.00000427          -89781-4 0  5392
2 14780  98.2056 338.9006 0001035 322.7417  37.3707 14.57110631244293
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88275.24033282 0.00001078           22193-3 0  3512
2 14781  98.0438 335.2676 0014732  57.0805 303.1812 14.62450314244681
LDEF       
1 14898U          88275.35361114 0.00015056           39643-3 0  6388
2 14898  28.4796 178.3178 0002158 192.4613 167.5930 15.36972094251437
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88269.68347451 0.00000012                   0  5884
2 15039  62.8170 107.0114 0013831 301.8650  58.0860  2.00564963 31418
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88259.94229061 0.00000062           51032-4 0  8990
2 15099  82.5281 224.4396 0012002 292.6478  67.3407 13.83542680212197
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88274.56596980 -.00000029           10000-2 0  5331
2 15271  63.4379 345.8417 0095905 314.9507  44.3247  2.00558800 28629
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88274.29766919 0.00001744           26084-3 0  9180
2 15331  82.5381 218.0049 0023714 206.0433 153.9605 14.74039078215911
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88274.04535178 0.00000264           16662-3 0  2810
2 15427  99.1110 250.3668 0015616 326.7679  33.2514 14.11648727195746
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88261.26407814 0.00000162           13581-3 0   232
2 15516  82.5364 161.8194 0016203 157.0654 203.1228 13.83979034183308
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88277.83864686 0.00009550           29771-3 0   417
2 16095  51.6103 124.5690 0001629 163.2969 196.7678 15.33906138170427
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88265.25276956 0.00000013                   0  2737
2 16129  63.6215 107.5618 0114526 149.6373 211.1191  2.00567818 21640
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88271.85550809 0.00000044           10000-3 0  7780
2 16191  82.5490  61.2267 0018594 231.9327 128.0129 13.16933036140997
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88276.40055967 0.00000099           83393-4 0  4303
2 16408  82.5313  64.6610 0015787 308.3132  51.6593 13.84065425139891
Mir        
1 16609U          88278.07246234 0.00186181           11915-2 0  4339
2 16609  51.6172 228.3807 0019375 126.1404 233.7254 15.74960136150979
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88278.73669694 0.00000313           16503-3 0  1930
2 16613  98.7279 351.0149 0001314 133.4418 226.6875 14.20021951 48448
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88262.00813885 0.00000071           58776-4 0  2550
2 16735  82.5367 102.8076 0015447  58.0799 302.1861 13.83796811116813
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88278.42399523 0.00001810           27198-3 0  3784
2 16881  82.5200 274.0799 0023039 207.4980 152.5084 14.73876095117608
EGP        
1 16908U          88278.72158422 -.00000049          -74893-4 0  1045
2 16908  50.0103   3.4156 0011036  56.1548 304.0335 12.44371772 97602
FO-12      
1 16909U          88267.38187369 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1129
2 16909  50.0160  38.4529 0011034  26.4306 333.7083 12.44395781 96185
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88277.61621174 0.00000329           16401-3 0  1610
2 16969  98.6720 306.6905 0012800 276.5429  83.4292 14.22639465106197
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88275.20491729 0.00000143           11994-3 0  1911
2 17290  82.4660   1.4800 0011984 269.4347  90.5534 13.83608318 87808
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88273.18294372 -.00000225           10000-3 0  1584
2 17561   0.0514  10.8385 0045952  76.1918 273.5158  1.00273956  2976
Kvant      
1 17845U          88275.85157661 0.00041200           27441-3 0  5526
2 17845  51.6154 239.8059 0019921 117.1769 243.1782 15.74694812 86894
Cosmos 1834
1 17847U          88278.75161115 0.00452690  88622-4  90859-3 0  8019
2 17847  65.0252 239.5519 0068546 278.6158  80.7060 15.95074082 84834
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88278.04534230 0.00000080           81505-4 0  5261
2 18129  82.9228  67.3467 0013027  45.7878 314.4365 13.71907020 64274
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88278.71239656 0.00148762  11746-4  20188-3 0  6686
2 18225  71.9064  21.5517 0010679 249.0815 110.8008 16.06121469 70326
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88270.85836754 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  1496
2 18312  82.5588  68.1756 0012864 204.6063 155.4576 13.83357668 56103
Cosmos 1900
1 18665U          88274.55728428 0.00709127  36716-4  64112-4 0  5162
2 18665  64.9531 198.9959 0013188 278.1854  81.7841 16.38304376 47216
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88262.00252104 0.00000116           98692-4 0   568
2 18820  82.5456 136.8482 0016451 317.7170  42.2725 13.84041596 32037
AO-13      
1 19216U          88273.72660805 0.00000030           10000-3 0   190
2 19216  57.5382 237.5900 6578369 191.3601 139.7626  2.09697959  2262
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88277.26191317 0.00000391           10000-2 0   406
2 19336  82.5442 357.4008 0017657  97.2127 263.0381 13.16843212  9092
1988 069A  
1 19377U          88258.13111867 0.00000406          -20943-2 0   313
2 19377  62.9239  99.3295 7383175 288.5732   9.2933  2.00620532   653
1988 069B  
1 19378U          88259.66001329 0.01520355  39838-4  99457-3 0   654
2 19378  62.8299 335.1544 0095001 120.0174 241.2630 16.07148910  5382
1988 069C  
1 19379U          88259.64574735 0.01335658  39472-4  88765-3 0   697
2 19379  62.8329 335.5938 0118909 116.5091 244.9310 16.02674985  5374
1988 069D  
1 19380U          88254.71537643 0.00000256           10000-3 0    70
2 19380  62.8301 100.0379 7456841 288.5385   8.9141  1.95687075   581
1988 070A  
1 19384U          88259.80194845 0.01135259  35763-4  23976-3 0   700
2 19384  64.7517  83.3134 0074481 124.3813 240.3715 16.22723937  4878
1988 071A  
1 19397U          88257.56476182 -.00000108           10000-3 0   240
2 19397   1.3947 276.9998 0007993 284.2917  74.6419  1.00279877   277
Soyuz TM-6 
1 19443U          88277.88219630 0.00036525           24168-3 0   423
2 19443  51.6182 229.3650 0019591 124.9299 235.4515 15.74911225  5630
1988 076A  
1 19445U          88273.51527021 -.00000791           54636-2 0   336
2 19445  62.9456 137.6873 7356697 318.2864   4.7503  2.00593433   612
1988 076B  
1 19446U          88274.20766607 0.08452432  41928-4  69212-3 0   683
2 19446  62.8306  25.0786 0037026 117.0383 243.5637 16.35362840  4855
1988 076D  
1 19448U          88268.14357977 -.00000439          -10519-2 0   177
2 19448  62.9104 138.4509 7329693 318.2220   4.8629  2.04095337   515
Feng Yun 1 
1 19467U          88277.76697566 0.00001629           11229-2 0   198
2 19467  99.1356 246.0498 0015905 331.7267  28.2995 14.00381136  3773
1988 080B  
1 19468U          88274.33029305 -.00000018                   0   104
2 19468  99.1155 242.5891 0009436 275.4484  84.5612 14.00770676  3295
GTE Gstar-3
1 19483U          88268.83444257 -.00000045           10000-3 0    66
2 19483   1.5284 149.2542 2986275 178.3816 183.6653  1.46474552   209
SBS-5      
1 19484U          88272.24760322 -.00000204           10000-3 0    68
2 19484   0.0836 301.1626 0051244  59.2517 359.3900  1.01164618   174
1988 081C  
1 19485U          88278.11242941 0.00000831           58232-3 0   113
2 19485   6.8352 137.1445 7327217 197.7372 112.2451  2.20128065   577
Progress 38
1 19486U          88278.83394538 0.00039631           26067-3 0   349
2 19486  51.6166 224.4676 0019166 126.0836 234.2752 15.75023175  3920
1988 084A  
1 19495U          88278.76260643 0.00765485  28342-4  25489-3 0   445
2 19495  67.1315 141.6037 0120653  67.2215 294.1996 16.09810448  3087
1988 084B  
1 19496U          88262.95107073 0.21900971  30632-4  35071-3 0   174
2 19496  67.1166 194.9725 0036948  93.2294 267.3225 16.43992901   544
1988 085A  
1 19501U          88278.74571788 -.00000007           10000-3 0   257
2 19501  64.8855  59.9031 0005006 257.2670 102.6784  2.13107836   415
1988 085B  
1 19502U          88278.86333203 -.00000007           10000-3 0   282
2 19502  64.8658  59.8880 0006147 320.6208  39.3512  2.13101387   417
1988 085C  
1 19503U          88277.51435394 -.00000007           10000-3 0   288
2 19503  64.8866  59.9283 0004473 162.1764 197.8487  2.13101068   386
1988 085D  
1 19504U          88260.50354969 0.50919800  38643-4  23692-3 0    79
2 19504  64.8275  59.1106 0013562 263.8224  96.4570 16.55653381    70
1988 085E  
1 19505U          88268.93986498 -.00000007           10000-3 0   136
2 19505  64.8729  60.2201 0007316 301.8414  58.1094  2.13363600   121
1988 086A  
1 19508U          88276.55382204 -.00000176           10000-3 0    93
2 19508   0.1722 255.1169 0005123 106.6935 358.2073  1.00280285   157
Offeq-1    
1 19519U          88278.75828192 0.00369636  14693-4  26144-2 0   338
2 19519 142.8676 317.0418 0602938 173.1956 187.7572 14.66799903  2244
Shavit RB  
1 19520U          88268.59042321 0.00377739  15283-4  27112-2 0   103
2 19520 142.8664 259.9776 0627328  95.2695 272.4117 14.61230683   759
1988 088A  
1 19521U          88278.71205939 0.00000962           11677-4 0   204
2 19521  72.8602 132.0081 0042707 181.3217 178.8341 15.60913396  1920
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88277.68445621 0.00001028           59671-3 0   113
2 19531  98.9060 217.4008 0010854 237.9123 122.0995 14.10641110  1301
1988 090A  
1 19541U          88278.79101656 -.00000163          -58804-2 0    98
2 19541  62.8476  94.2437 7360728 288.1760   9.5100  2.00702828   115
1988 090B  
1 19542U          88277.98431256 0.00689701  89506-5  14166-2 0   110
2 19542  62.8409  78.2094 0247987 122.9718 239.5517 15.62480962   723
1988 090C  
1 19543U          88277.67576359 0.01221380  35880-4  16519-2 0   127
2 19543  62.8219  79.4465 0289489 119.1914 243.8555 15.58960354   685
TDRS 2     
1 19548U          88276.46232858 0.00000144           10000-3 0    45
2 19548   0.0956 259.0451 0019780 302.9162 157.9887  1.00795487    32
TDRS IUS   
1 19549U          88276.58921497 0.00004330           24616-2 0    74
2 19549  26.7202  71.6285 7270228   1.4998 359.7364  2.27534363    76
1988 091D  
1 19550U          88275.20118722 0.00000128           10000-3 0    22
2 19550   2.2508 264.9590 0015005 129.2749 230.5901  1.00455004    20
1988 092A  
1 19554U          88277.98357324 -.00000155           10000-3 0    16
2 19554  62.9106 298.6537 7356986 316.1708   4.9469  2.03081504    16
1988 092B  
1 19555U          88278.88538279 0.00978825  34939-4  12206-2 0    49
2 19555  62.8551 295.3911 0305062 119.2373 246.3849 15.56511998   147
1988 092C  
1 19556U          88278.43345180 0.00588830  90160-5  12277-2 0    48
2 19556  62.7966 297.1746 0257087 119.2651 243.4320 15.60376716    71
1988 092D  
1 19557U          88278.47357548 0.00000060           10000-3 0    16
2 19557  62.9175 298.6174 7347050 316.1578   4.9907  2.04109246    22
1988 086C  
1 19558U          88276.49017932 0.00000578           10000-3 0    11
2 19558  28.1475 174.1613 7399703 187.0806 148.6633  2.14776242    04
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@galaxy.afit.af.mil             Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #45
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Oct 88 06:58:13 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00384>; Wed, 19 Oct 88 05:49:16 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 19 Oct 88 05:49:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.kXL6Hiy00Vs181RE4K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kXL65Ey00Ui3E8O04p>;
          Wed, 19 Oct 88 05:33:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.kXL5udy00UkZI32E42>;
          Wed, 19 Oct 88 05:21:47 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Oct 19 88 05:17:52 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #46

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
	  Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)
	    Re: Nemesis, the Death Star (was terraforming:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Oct 88 03:51:14 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #396 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88279.64218096 0.00000199           23075-3 0  1619
2 00424  80.4669 176.6868 0024367  64.4869 295.8821 13.67015386298033
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88284.17453804 0.00000002           10000-2 0  5732
2 08820 109.8111 144.4876 0044665   8.7063 351.4509  6.38663369 34660
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88283.46314559 -.00000006                   0  1643
2 10061   6.5331  71.2111 0008490 161.2068 198.9830  1.00270417  2862
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88281.16797735 0.00000013                   0  9656
2 10684  63.4424 108.6937 0102191 197.7986 161.9040  2.00563553 63457
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88281.62012210 -.00000029                   0  9217
2 10893  64.5671 349.4662 0143138  29.7398 331.1164  2.00562948 76282
GOES 3     
1 10953U          88279.52733405 0.00000089           10000-3 0  5289
2 10953   5.3881  73.9369 0006607 221.2726 139.2428  1.00279169    63
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88278.40027286 0.00000562           24551-3 0   246
2 10967 108.0117 121.1806 0004093 228.3504 131.7303 14.33895564537418
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88272.46474612 -.00000028                   0  9452
2 11054  64.1306 346.2940 0051353 120.5027 240.0609  2.00570321 73118
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88279.05015209 0.00000013                   0   458
2 11141  63.4695 108.6377 0054616 325.1765  34.5324  2.00558499 71940
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88278.41838434 0.00000604           27284-3 0  7613
2 11416  98.4985 277.1883 0012050 132.6316 227.5881 14.25218201481466
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88284.14586336 0.00023906           72559-3 0  7110
2 11703  28.5014 214.3800 0002135 115.9427 244.1413 15.32696104481236
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88281.00342131 -.00000029                   0  8114
2 11783  63.9382 345.7453 0134599  63.9613 297.4834  2.00563091 61924
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88260.34577381 -.00000240           10000-3 0   152
2 11964   4.8144  76.7760 0001098  82.5241 277.5964  1.00263862 45127
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88279.37747326 -.00000243           10000-3 0  6359
2 12472   1.8886  83.6520 0001190 156.7915 203.7468  1.00250688 26051
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88285.09774348 0.00025709           73168-3 0  3275
2 12888  97.6054 321.6080 0001255  34.4121 325.7259 15.36110723390518
RS-08      
1 12998U          88277.68274132 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5424
2 12998  82.9626  15.7971 0019742 180.4135 179.6916 12.02966535298466
RS-05      
1 12999U          88284.64307665 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5304
2 12999  82.9620   6.7125 0010062 108.5834 251.6323 12.05070698299828
RS-07      
1 13001U          88282.70514422 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4136
2 13001  82.9647 358.1254 0022549  21.2481 338.9510 12.08707809300498
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88274.37617591 0.00000083           69938-4 0  6016
2 13113  82.5351 265.2217 0017196  72.0351 288.2690 13.83872926329303
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88284.67911570 0.00006620           20892-3 0  2633
2 13138  51.6104  91.4699 0001180 192.3657 167.6943 15.34054291369802
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88274.73895482 0.00000213           10664-3 0  7123
2 13718  81.2461 175.3051 0057121  17.9608 342.3599 14.13002670298911
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88280.33433689 0.00000120                   0  8287
2 14050   0.6413  85.7971 0002034 123.7058 150.5031  1.00272611  4063
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88279.13132343 -.00000082           10000-3 0  3584
2 14129  27.1079 301.3539 6034945 342.1045   3.6398  2.05880749 11968
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88272.12357804 0.00000012                   0  5559
2 14189  63.2413 107.3143 0127980 212.7800 146.4786  2.00552329 38184
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88285.03523033 0.00000399           16773-3 0  6585
2 14452  81.1678 183.1643 0096806  94.0223 267.2070 14.21854722257132
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88284.36537917 0.00000937           21765-3 0  5449
2 14780  98.2054 344.9168 0001850 319.5891  40.5214 14.57125974245186
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88279.14020829 0.00001207           24698-3 0  3525
2 14781  98.0439 339.0661 0014642  44.5398 315.7023 14.62461626245251
LDEF       
1 14898U          88280.22317225 0.00016098           42204-3 0  6423
2 14898  28.4784 144.7316 0001773 255.8030 104.2339 15.37135613252187
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88269.68347451 0.00000012                   0  5884
2 15039  62.8170 107.0114 0013831 301.8650  58.0860  2.00564963 31418
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88283.22893767 0.00000237           20587-3 0  9027
2 15099  82.5328 205.9291 0011682 218.2087 141.8249 13.83550227215416
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88278.05623208 -.00000029           10000-2 0  5355
2 15271  63.4366 345.7162 0096157 314.9703  44.3118  2.00558865 28694
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88279.79610696 0.00001982           29678-3 0  9209
2 15331  82.5387 212.9432 0023885 188.3757 171.7161 14.74063444216725
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88280.70787637 0.00000308           19042-3 0  2835
2 15427  99.1119 257.1351 0015237 307.3928  52.5893 14.11655212196685
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88285.04947999 0.00000158           13223-3 0   268
2 15516  82.5342 142.9126 0017683  92.5340 267.7839 13.83985412186592
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88284.74425651 0.00009787           30330-3 0   493
2 16095  51.6126  91.1553 0001043 183.6618 176.3861 15.34062672171488
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88276.72014881 0.00000013                   0  2749
2 16129  63.6239 107.2103 0114870 149.5968 211.1323  2.00567654 21873
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88284.77110897 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7817
2 16191  82.5491  52.0962 0018828 198.1472 161.9013 13.16934443142693
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88284.78637524 0.00000115           98030-4 0  4334
2 16408  82.5314  57.9889 0015165 283.7394  76.2094 13.84067547141058
Mir        
1 16609U          88284.73302532 0.00068178           42840-3 0  4464
2 16609  51.6175 194.0916 0018570 152.7194 207.4822 15.75846660152022
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88284.72588282 -.00008574          -40328-2 0  2019
2 16613  98.7282 356.9227 0001587 125.1186 235.0302 14.20021665 49290
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88284.92897553 0.00000097           82656-4 0  2584
2 16735  82.5333  84.5773 0014640 357.5254   2.5832 13.83799815119980
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88284.94139497 0.00001437           21501-3 0  3855
2 16881  82.5197 268.0663 0023631 186.1249 173.9689 14.73896026118565
EGP        
1 16908U          88278.72158422 -.00000049          -74893-4 0  1045
2 16908  50.0103   3.4156 0011036  56.1548 304.0335 12.44371772 97602
FO-12      
1 16909U          88279.26846706 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1159
2 16909  50.0147   1.9211 0011139  58.6669 301.5254 12.44395542 97660
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88279.51516416 0.00000345           17126-3 0  1627
2 16969  98.6718 308.5589 0012744 270.5315  89.4407 14.22641265106463
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88284.60590544 0.00000181           15376-3 0  1943
2 17290  82.4672 353.9480 0011922 240.6283 119.3699 13.83612537 89107
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88281.16268256 -.00000220           10000-3 0  1612
2 17561   0.0099 297.5896 0012314 227.9760 194.5123  1.00264937  3055
Kvant      
1 17845U          88284.79644132 0.00073911           44876-3 0  5618
2 17845  51.5850 193.7321 0036485 141.1413 219.3072 15.75866080 88307
Cosmos 1834
1 17847U          88285.05985429 0.02892612  92685-5  23952-2 0  8245
2 17847  65.0233 216.6082 0048611 273.5578  86.0021 16.10771871 85841
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88284.82802172 0.00001189           13008-2 0  5360
2 18129  82.9251  62.3349 0012382  30.1296 330.0614 13.71910488 65206
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88285.06182790 0.00212326  20431-4  39889-3 0  6821
2 18225  71.9035   4.4209 0011948 268.5627  90.3922 16.00610638 71344
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88284.38377565 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  1578
2 18312  82.5546  57.4599 0012934 165.7570 194.4013 13.83359909 57976
Cosmos 1900
1 18665U          88285.00531947 -.00003081          -78515-3 0  5309
2 18665  66.0877 170.2786 0048366 292.3647  67.2209 14.49082828 48748
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88284.99161805 0.00000084           70122-4 0   604
2 18820  82.5422 118.5807 0015781 249.4413 110.5054 13.84045100 35216
AO-13      
1 19216U          88273.72660805 0.00000030           10000-3 0   190
2 19216  57.5382 237.5900 6578369 191.3601 139.7626  2.09697959  2262
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88282.58049771 0.00000391           10000-2 0   458
2 19336  82.5354 353.6431 0017929  72.4648 287.8259 13.16843188  9794
1988 069B  
1 19378U          88259.66001329 0.01520355  39838-4  99457-3 0   654
2 19378  62.8299 335.1544 0095001 120.0174 241.2630 16.07148910  5382
1988 069C  
1 19379U          88259.64574735 0.01335658  39472-4  88765-3 0   697
2 19379  62.8329 335.5938 0118909 116.5091 244.9310 16.02674985  5374
1988 070A  
1 19384U          88259.80194845 0.01135259  35763-4  23976-3 0   700
2 19384  64.7517  83.3134 0074481 124.3813 240.3715 16.22723937  4878
Soyuz TM-6 
1 19443U          88284.79643002 0.00074639           46784-3 0   498
2 19443  51.6124 193.7650 0018533 155.2819 204.8757 15.75867093  6723
1988 076A  
1 19445U          88273.51527021 -.00000791           54636-2 0   336
2 19445  62.9456 137.6873 7356697 318.2864   4.7503  2.00593433   612
1988 076B  
1 19446U          88274.20766607 0.08452432  41928-4  69212-3 0   683
2 19446  62.8306  25.0786 0037026 117.0383 243.5637 16.35362840  4855
1988 076D  
1 19448U          88268.14357977 -.00000439          -10519-2 0   177
2 19448  62.9104 138.4509 7329693 318.2220   4.8629  2.04095337   515
Feng Yun 1 
1 19467U          88277.76697566 0.00001629           11229-2 0   198
2 19467  99.1356 246.0498 0015905 331.7267  28.2995 14.00381136  3773
1988 080B  
1 19468U          88274.33029305 -.00000018                   0   104
2 19468  99.1155 242.5891 0009436 275.4484  84.5612 14.00770676  3295
GTE Gstar-3
1 19483U          88268.83444257 -.00000045           10000-3 0    66
2 19483   1.5284 149.2542 2986275 178.3816 183.6653  1.46474552   209
SBS-5      
1 19484U          88277.43155089 0.00000055           10000-3 0    76
2 19484   0.0479 305.7700 0000136 187.1500 271.7590  1.00271884    04
1988 081C  
1 19485U          88278.11242941 0.00000831           58232-3 0   113
2 19485   6.8352 137.1445 7327217 197.7372 112.2451  2.20128065   577
Progress 38
1 19486U          88284.66961308 0.00067262           42267-3 0   400
2 19486  51.6123 194.4161 0019013 153.8461 206.3804 15.75839615  4845
1988 084A  
1 19495U          88284.83849775 0.01474920  28865-4  38475-3 0   608
2 19495  67.1275 120.9113 0095077  73.5332 287.7763 16.17070866  4068
1988 084B  
1 19496U          88262.95107073 0.21900971  30632-4  35071-3 0   174
2 19496  67.1166 194.9725 0036948  93.2294 267.3225 16.43992901   544
1988 085A  
1 19501U          88284.84608125 -.00000008           10000-3 0   320
2 19501  64.8783  59.6800 0004854 257.5558 102.3672  2.13103101   542
1988 085B  
1 19502U          88284.96362170 -.00000008           10000-3 0   343
2 19502  64.8608  59.6776 0005698 319.0904  40.8694  2.13103318   547
1988 085C  
1 19503U          88283.61471402 -.00000008           10000-3 0   355
2 19503  64.8883  59.7180 0004538 161.6924 198.3243  2.13102511   518
1988 085D  
1 19504U          88260.50354969 0.50919800  38643-4  23692-3 0    79
2 19504  64.8275  59.1106 0013562 263.8224  96.4570 16.55653381    70
1988 085E  
1 19505U          88278.31353407 -.00000007           10000-3 0   159
2 19505  64.8574  59.8803 0006291 301.4697  58.5271  2.13365385   326
1988 086A  
1 19508U          88282.53850037 -.00000179           10000-3 0   107
2 19508   0.1646 256.1656 0000557 273.7450 190.3351  1.00274320   212
Offeq-1    
1 19519U          88284.73883210 0.00416520  20724-4  27745-2 0   442
2 19519 142.8573 350.9216 0586763 219.4731 136.2910 14.71290290  3128
Shavit RB  
1 19520U          88268.59042321 0.00377739  15283-4  27112-2 0   103
2 19520 142.8664 259.9776 0627328  95.2695 272.4117 14.61230683   759
1988 088A  
1 19521U          88283.96748623 -.00024994          -28573-3 0   293
2 19521  72.8596 119.4491 0042001 168.9441 191.3135 15.60961175  2743
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88284.70644747 0.00000502           30157-3 0   130
2 19531  98.9065 224.3604 0011407 213.6164 146.4284 14.10645068  2292
1988 090A  
1 19541U          88284.77009838 0.00000653           99095-2 0   170
2 19541  62.8617  93.3690 7362132 288.2019   9.5014  2.00698689   238
1988 090B  
1 19542U          88285.06503048 0.00969680  10344-4  16073-2 0   330
2 19542  62.8356  51.6926 0209808 123.2447 238.8987 15.73278749  1832
1988 090C  
1 19543U          88284.57220075 0.01636676  37032-4  16631-2 0   275
2 19543  62.8197  53.6644 0235860 119.2720 243.3478 15.73892915  1766
1988 090D  
1 19544U          88283.62082290 -.00000070          -84686-3 0    63
2 19544  62.8854  93.4498 7316080 288.1205   9.7961  2.06099564   212
TDRS 2     
1 19548U          88278.44237902 0.00000120           10000-3 0    55
2 19548   0.0766 251.2028 0000874  32.3725  76.4292  1.01094534    51
TDRS IUS   
1 19549U          88283.61972069 0.00003960           24616-2 0   132
2 19549  26.7317  69.0233 7267701   5.9660 358.9833  2.27575984   238
1988 091D  
1 19550U          88280.17753732 0.00000141           10000-3 0    36
2 19550   2.2341 264.9083 0015031 129.7145 229.9425  1.00458749    73
1988 092A  
1 19554U          88284.42235022 -.00000182           14325-1 0    93
2 19554  62.9219 297.7094 7377974 316.2185   4.8192  2.00554943   144
1988 092B  
1 19555U          88285.09048910 0.01867167  36381-4  17880-2 0   142
2 19555  62.8528 272.3126 0254666 119.8302 242.8414 15.70496535  1117
1988 092C  
1 19556U          88284.82295003 0.01129356  10157-4  19357-2 0   145
2 19556  62.7885 273.3042 0222036 119.7422 242.7141 15.70308983  1079
1988 092D  
1 19557U          88281.90334669 0.00000894           80642-2 0    54
2 19557  62.8955 298.0961 7347239 316.1820   4.9607  2.04093549    96
1988 086C  
1 19558U          88279.73869786 0.00027443           43444-2 0    32
2 19558  28.1400 173.0259 7398449 188.9380 141.5005  2.14963156    73
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@galaxy.afit.af.mil             Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 01:50:19 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)

In article <1492@cbnews.ATT.COM>, wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
> Many, if not most, modern analysts agree that the strategic bombing
> campaign was a very secondary part of the war. Germany's back was broken
> by the tremendous losses of veteran soldiers in the East, not by
> production stoppages.

I don't remember which of his books discussed it, but John K. Galbraith,
the economist (_New Industrial State_, _The Affluent Society_, etc.)
told about his involvement in the postwar Strategic Bombing Survey. He
led a team to Germany in 1946 to determine the effectiveness of the
bombing raids. Germany's war output did not drop until Allied ground
armies were crossing the Rhine. He found that war production often
climbed _after_ major bombing raids.

The firebombing of Dresden caused an appalling loss of life, but actually
helped the local war industries recruit workers, since it wiped out the
civilian capital stock. When the survivors crawled from the wreckage,
their flower shops, ticket counters, night spots, tobacco shops,
etc.etc. were gone. So they headed out to the war plants. Galbraith
points out that mobilizing a civilian economy for war output is one
of the biggest challenges facing a nation at war. Enemy bombers
can provide the motivation.

What does this have to do with space? Packing L5 full of human hives
will require an effort equal to a respectable war. Getting people to
leave their comfortable suburban lives and jobs and shoulder the
burden might be tough. Either it will take some good selling, or
some good bombing. :-)

Dan Mocsny
``If at first you don't succeed, use a larger hammer.''

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 88 22:05:35 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Nemesis, the Death Star (was terraforming:

In article <881007154757.41c@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
>	Suppose there were a swarm of Death Rocks heading for the inner solar
>system right now.  How close would they have to get before we noticed?

They would be noticed, before impact, only by accident.  Fairly substantial
asteroids have come fairly close to Earth and been spotted only at the
last minute.

>	The farther out this Death Rock is when intercepted, the easier it will
>be to nudge it into a harmless trajectory.  Using current technology, would we
>be able to intercept in time, or if we had to start tomorrow, could we, in one
>or two years time, develop and deploy the hardware to keep this Death Rock from
>hitting our planet? 

If we got full cooperation from the Soviets, yes.  The only viable method
would be to use large nuclear bombs to try to deflect or at least fragment
the rock.  The only launch vehicle on Earth that can carry that big a
payload is Energia.  The US could do this sort of thing in the last 60s --
the MIT senior systems-engineering seminar did a detailed study of it --
but without Apollo/Saturn hardware to cannibalize, the US no longer has
the capability.  One significant problem would be creating a propulsion-
and-support module for the bomb's midcourse corrections; the MIT folks
planned to use modified Apollo service modules.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #46
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Oct 88 06:43:27 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00497>; Fri, 21 Oct 88 05:43:01 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 21 Oct 88 05:42:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.IXLkN1y00UkTA1vU5X@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXLkD6y00Ui381jU42>;
          Fri, 21 Oct 88 05:30:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.sXLk5wy00UkZ83s049>;
          Fri, 21 Oct 88 05:21:05 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Oct 21 88 05:17:35 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #47

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Only three kinds of people...
		 Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.
			    Re: CNN report
			    Re: CNN report
		     Re: Earth & living in space
			      Re: limits
			     Re: Gravity
	    Re: Nemesis, the Death Star (was terraforming:
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
			     Re: Gravity
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
			     Re: Gravity
		      Zeus watches his children
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 20:06:17 GMT
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Only three kinds of people...

In article <592072228.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> I identify three strains of popular space freakdom:
> Mr. Right Stuff, the Starship Trooper, and the New-Age Crystalline
> Holistic L5 Person.

Please add one more: "to hades with this mediaeval Chinese technology;
let's build a star drive and do some REAL space exploration!"

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 00:38:43 GMT
From: ecsvax!paleo@mcnc.org  (Constantine A. LaPasha)
Subject: Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.

In article <7304@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
...[much deleted]...
> 
> How could the human race destroy Earth such that there is no record of
> our existence?
> 
It seems to me that normal erosive processes working on the surface
of our planet are quite potent, and well capable of erasing most
evidence of human passage on the planet. (assuming we don't blow
the atmosphere, or some other such nasty :) Given the passing of
a bit of time, geologically speaking, most of our scratchings will be
gone.  Some of those plastic six-pac rings might just survive though.

I wonder what a future anthropologist/paleontologist would dream up
as a reconstruction of humans given just a plastic six-pac ring?
====
  If at first you don't succeed, evolve...
===
-- 
=== If at first you don't succeed, hire a grad student... ===
Kostya LaPasha        paleo@uncecs.edu   or   paleo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
=== NCSU takes no responsibility for anything above ===

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 16:14:53 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: CNN report

In article <1438BJ004425@NDSUVM1> BJ004425@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Steve Pearce) writes:
>...investigating a 'beam' from a star directed at earth.  This beam
>provided evidence of a new sub-atomic particle.

Strictly a natural phenomenon, alas, if they're talking about what I think
they're talking about.  There is some evidence suggesting that a somewhat
mysterious object quite a distance away in the galaxy is emitting not only
electromagnetic radiation but some sort of long-lived moderately massive
neutral particle that occasionally reaches our upper atmosphere.  The
problem is that no known particle fits the bill -- all known massive neutral
particles are unstable (free neutrons, in particular, have a finite half-
life) and could not possibly reach us across many thousands of light-years.
Charged particles would be deflected by the galactic magnetic field and
would not reach us directly.

The "beam" business arises because the object is either emitting truly
vast amounts of energy or putting out more modest amounts in specific
directions.  Beaming is a familiar phenomenon in high-energy objects;
it does not imply artificial origin.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 22:00:21 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: CNN report

In article <1438BJ004425@NDSUVM1>, BJ004425@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Steve Pearce) writes:

>    Could someone please elaborate on a story I heard on CNN last night.
> The report (of which I only heard the end) stated that scientists were
> investigating a 'beam' from a star directed at earth.  This beam
> provided evidence of a new sub-atomic particle.

Being over 40 I get my news from the papers, so here's what I read
in the Chicago Tribune.  Scientists are picking up radiation from
a neutron star orbiting its binary sister, a Sunlike star.
They thought it was plain old gamma rays, till they realized it
was exciting lots of secondary radiation particles up in our
ionosphere.  Gamma rays don't do this, tho that's what the primary
radiation looks like on Earth-surface detectors.

So the physicists are saying they don't know what the radiation is
yet.  Maybe it's just a mix of known energy types that's confusing
our detectors.  Sure hope we can check it out from orbiting
instruments (above atmosphere) before it goes away.  Don't you wish
we were sending up Shuttles so often that we could just bump the
next payload and send up some people and equipment for this job?

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 02:09:17 GMT
From: thurm@speedy.cs.wisc.edu  (Matthew J. Thurmaier)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <6728@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> ................................. Much as I love space and want to
> explore it, I cannot regard it as an excuse for running away from the
> mess we've already made.
> 
There is certainly one problem that can be solved by "running away".
Put simply, one can leave behind all of the bagage of the current
society and start anew.

For example.  The greedy middle-aged ~!@@#@###$$ people we have in
this country are so out-for-themselves, that those of us just getting
under way in life have to have over half of our tax dollars go to
paying off what they were to cheap to pay for themselves (or put
more bluntly, replenishing the coffers that they stole from).

This is not a partisan problem, both political parties do it.  The
problem is in the system.  A system that some day I hope to leave
behind, when I build the next-generation space-station and colonize
mars.  No I know its a dream, but we all have to have them.......

====================================================================
In search of justice for the future....
	Matthew J. Thurmaier ...thurm@speedy

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 13:18:51 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: limits

In article <1988Oct7.101836.23420@cs.rochester.edu> cooper writes:
}Club of Rome wasnt't shy: "Limits to Growth", but they sure lacked
}scope.

They didn't lack nerve, either.  What they lacked was a good model...



Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 17:48:34 GMT
From: microsoft!bryanf@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Bryan Feir)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <33644@sci.UUCP> daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes:
>I might be exaggerating, but it seems that everyone now seems to feel
>that coriolis acceleration will be hopelessly confusing in a spinning
>environment, hence the radius will have to be large to diminish the
>coriolis force to manageable proportions.  Is there any basis for this?
>Have people been placed in spun-up rooms and asked to perform simple
>tasks, or are people merely guessing?

  There has been some experimentation on this, but most of it is a matter of
physics.  For example, if you walk in the same direction as the spin, you have
a higher velocity than the rest of the station, hence a greater force is needed
to keep you in a circular orbit.  Therefore, the apparent gravity increases,
and you feel like you're walking uphill.  Conversely, if you walk against the
spin, you feel as if you're going downhill.  The faster you move, the more
pronounced the effects.
  Also, consider the simple act of shaking the head.  The fact that you're
spinning around at a constant rate sets up a constant rotation in the inner
ear.  If you shake your head, or make any fast movement of the head that isn't
in the plane of the spin, the fluid in your ear is no longer spinning in the
same plane as the station, and it has to readjust.  This can cause minor
disorientation.
  The only SF book I've seen that treated this problem decently was Barbary
by Vonda N. McIntyre.

     Bryan Feir

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 21:51:35 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Nemesis, the Death Star (was terraforming:

In article <881007154757.41c@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV>, greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
> 	Suppose there were a swarm of Death Rocks heading for the inner solar
> system right now.  How close would they have to get before we noticed? I've
> forgotten where Halley's Comet was first spotted, but I think it was about as
> far out as Saturn.  But people were expecting Halley's and they knew where to
> look, so that made it many orders of magnitude easier to find while it was
> still far away.  On the other hand, if these rocks were coming in a swarm,
> maybe that would be noticeable enough that we'd have a couple of years to get
> our act together. 
> 	Get our act together and do what?  The vast majority of these Death
> Rocks will not be on a collision course with the Earth, maybe just one of them
> will be, maybe none.  So we figure up all their trajectories, maybe find one
> we think will hit the Earth, and then what?
> 	The farther out this Death Rock is when intercepted, the easier it will
> be to nudge it into a harmless trajectory.  Using current technology, would we
> be able to intercept in time, or if we had to start tomorrow, could we, in one
> or two years time, develop and deploy the hardware to keep this Death Rock from
> hitting our planet? 

Two points.  First, this problem is sort of Star Wars (SDI) in slow
motion -- detect the oncoming "missiles," compute their trajectories,
decide which ones are a real threat, and then try to deflect them
(destroying them is probably impractical).  Fortunately we'd have
much longer to estimate the trajectories than with nuclear missiles.
Also we'd certainly go for internation cooperation on this one!

Who would detect them at first?  Probably amateur backyard astronomers
looking for comets.  I read long ago that most comets are found by
amateurs or professors with modest telescopes, maybe 6"-10"
refectors.  The heavy 'scopes are tied up with research projects
planned months in advance, so the "little guys" search the skies
for fuzzy little starts that shouldn't be there.  Discovering a comet
is the one way a serious hobbyist with a homemade reflector
can get his name in the record books.

Unless he lives anywhere near a city or shopping mall :-(.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 11:49:43 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis

In article <8810061228.AA02175@angband.s1.gov> Hans.Moravec@ROVER.RI.CMU.EDU writes:
>(Sort of like Larry Niven's Kzinti, come to think of it.  Still
>tigers on the outside, but increasingly pussycats on the inside.)

Just don't smile when you say this :->
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 88 11:48:40 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <1988Oct5.165733.7704@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Alas, current propulsion systems aren't nearly good enough.
>
>A small black hole can provide useful amounts of gravity, assuming that
>you can find or make one (we can't right now).

Rather than relying on hypothetical micro black holes, have
a look at the book "Mirror Matter" by Robert L Forward and
Joel Davis. (Wiley science editions. ISBN 0 471-62812-3).

The authors describe an incremental approach to building an
antimatter space propulsion system which could take a
spacecraft to Mars in two days. Or to pluto in two weeks.

Yes, I know it reads like a 1960s book about what space
travel would be like in the 1980s, but there are a lot of
interesting ideas in there for readers of this newsgroup.

Have a look, for instance, at the table of Fifty two
space propulsion concepts.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 19:07:18 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

In article <6243@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>...
>Your signature on the Mars Declaration can make sure we DO go somewhere, that
>we DO set long-term goals to guide our space program, and that we DO begin
>a new era of exploration. ...

I'll reply at greater length to this later.  However, I note that no attempt
has been made to refute my basic contention:  people signing the Mars
Declaration should be aware that their signatures will be used in support
of a particular agenda and set of plans which are not mentioned in the
Declaration itself.

This is politics, not mathematics.  It is a mistake to think that because
you have read the actual document you are signing, you know everything
you are lending your support to by signing.  It is always necessary to
consider how the sponsors of such a document will *use* your signature.
Before you sign your name to motherhood and apple pie, check into what
is (really) being mothered and who's (really) going to be eating the pie.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 18:19:45 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <56000GRV101@PSUVM> GRV101@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>>General relativity offers some theoretical possibilities, all of which
>>pose engineering challenges that are ridiculous now but might be merely
>>daunting in a century or so.
>please explain what these theoretical possibilities are.

It's not an area I'm intimate with, but very roughly speaking, GR effects
are to normal gravity as magnetism is to electricity.  Large rapidly-moving
masses can generate "gravitational" fields with all manner of interesting
shapes and behaviors.  (For example, an antigravity machine of sorts.)
The gotcha is that the masses involved are far beyond anything practical
today, especially when you consider that "rapidly" often means fair
fractions of the speed of light.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 1988 08:43:18 EDT (Thu)
From: Ralph Hartley <hartley@AIC.NRL.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Zeus watches his children

    One does not need to imagine irrational berzerkers to explain the
silence of space; destroying all other space capable civilizations may
be quite rational. Space, big as it is, just may not be big enough for
more than one spacefaring species. Under this senario ALL civilazations
would almost always (note - This is very different from "almost all
civilizations always") fall into one of 3 classes:

1 - Domanant spacefaring civilization. Only one can exist at any time
    in any given region of space. Once was class 3. Destroys all class
    2 and 3 civilizations whenever it finds them. Knows that someday it
    will be distroyed (and replaced) by a class 3 that it misses.

2 - Uninformed pre-spacefaring civilization. Does not know about
    classes 1 and 2 and therefore makes no effort to hide. May progress
    to class 3, but is more likely to be destroyed by the current class
    1 first.

3 - Informed pre-spacefaring or pre-domanant spacefaring civilization.
    Knows about class 1 and has been succesfull so far in avoiding
    detection. May hope to replace the current class 1 someday.
    Eventualy one species of this class will do this. Starting a new
    cycle. This class gives the class 1 species the most head (or
    appropriate anatomy) aches.

    Zeus watches his children very closely because he remembers what
happened to HIS father. See "PROMETHIUS BOUND" from an old (2500yr)
genre of science fiction.

    Of course some class 3s might overthrow the current class 1 and NOT
spend all their energy trying to destroy all competitors. But there
will allways be less charitable class 2 and 3s out there that will make
this a transient event.

    We of course would be a class 2 civilization. Presumably under this
senario the class 1 probe in the oort (commet) cloud detected us
sometime arround the 1910, sent out a request for a mop up team, and
executed a the small engine burn which is all that is needed to make its
commet strike the earth, at near solar escape velocity, sometime in the
next century. This is the most cost effective way I can think of for
dealing with class 2 species.

			Ralph Hartley
			hartley@nrl-aic.arpa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #47
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Oct 88 06:06:46 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00586>; Sat, 22 Oct 88 05:37:37 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 22 Oct 88 05:37:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.8XM5Ony00jZd42DE4_@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AXM5KCy00Ui3E8LU4S>;
          Sat, 22 Oct 88 05:32:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.IXM5:ry00UkZE6Dk5r>;
          Sat, 22 Oct 88 05:19:53 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct 22 88 05:17:47 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #48

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:
			 John Denver in Space
		Soviet Mir station EVA set for Oct20th
		Death of another Soviet Shuttle Pilot
	       Re: Scandalous Posting: Africa air farce
		     RE: Earth & living in space
		    Re: Periodic mass extinctions
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		   Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 19 Oct 88 12:41:57 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <drears@ARDEC.ARPA>
Subject:  John Denver in Space

  This letter to the editor was in this week's issue (24 Oct) of Time:

         It is well known that, as an ardent supporter of NASA, I was
    among the first volunteers in the American civilian-in-space effort.
    After this program was suspended following the Challenger tragedy, I
    was intrigued by an offer from the Soviets [People, Sept 5] about
    flying to their space station.  They asserted that their costs for one
    year's cosmonaut training, transportation to and from the space
    station and one week's stay aboard the spacecraft, including one
    supply rocket midweek, total $10 million.  While I recognize that
    reasonable costs must be paid for such a venture, I have stated firmly
    that I am not interested in paying $10 million to spend seven days in
    space.  This project is very serious to me.  It has both political and
    social ramifications.  I appreciate neither the press's inaccuracy nor
    its insinuation that such an endeavor would be taken lightly.

			John Denver
			Aspen. CO

I guess this will answer of the questions that have been asked in this
group.

...dennis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
		Dennis G. Rears
ARPA:	drears@ardec-ac4.arpa	UUCP:  	...!uunet!ardec-ac4.arpa!drears
AT&T:	201-724-6639		USPS:	Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Work:	SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 88 17:09:16 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet Mir station EVA set for Oct20th

     On board the Soviet Mir/Kvant space station the cosmonauts are preparing 
for a rather complex space walk tomorrow (Oct.20).  Valadimir Titov and 
Musa Manarov (the long duration space crew) will be going out to repair the
British X-ray telescope on the Kvant astrophysical module.  The Physician 
Dr. Valery Polyakov (who came up on the Soyuz TM-6 flight launched Aug 29th) 
will remain on board to monitor the walk.  On Oct 16th they did a dry run for
this space walk (getting the suits checked out etc).  This is a very complex 
repair as the problem comes from the design of the telescope.  This instrument 
was originally meant for use on small British sounding rockets and was not
much modified for the Kvant module.  It is held in place by a series of latches,
each of which consists of a latch with a lock containing a pin inside 
a hole that must be depressed before the latch will release.  Unfortunately
during the June 30th space walk the tool sent up to do this was never designed
to be used in space.  On the last latch the depressing rod on the tool, which 
was brittle from the cold, seared off inside the hole.  To repair it they 
must drill out that hardened rod, then depress the pin with another tool.
Certainly one of the more delicate repairs yet attempted during an EVA.
    Titov is certainly one of the most trained cosmonauts for EVA missions,
even if he has not done them prior to this flight.  In Apr. '83 he was on
the Soyuz T-8 flight which was unsuccessful in docking with Salyut 7 in 
Apr. '83 (due to the failure of the Soyuz's radar and problems with a manual 
dock - he would probably have become part of a long duration crew otherwise).  
In addition Titov was on the Soyuz T-10A mission, the Sept. '83 pad fire and 
aborted flight.   That was the mission that was being sent up to repair a major
fuel leak in the rockets of Salyut 7 - instead the long duration crew
did that repair.  The reports said he had done extensive training in their
Zero G water tank for that.
     Titov and Manarov have  now  achieved 303 days of orbital time.
This makes  them  easily  the second  longest crew,  though 23 days behind 
Yuri Romanenko's world duration record  of 326 days set in Soyuz TM-2/4 
on Dec. 29, 1987.  They are considerably longer than the previous record of 
237 days set by the Soyuz T-10B crew  237 mission  on  board Salyut 7 
in Oct.  1984 (set by  Leonid  Kizim,  Validimir Soloyev  and  Oleg  Atkov).
Indeed  on Sept.  3  Titov  and  Manarov  alone accumulated  more  time 
on Mir than all the US crews on Skylab did in  1973- 1974.  
     The Russians have announced 4 new crews, primary  and  backup crews 
for the next two missions.  The two are  for  the French guest cosmonaut 
mission slated for Nov. 21st, with Jean-Loup Chretien as the prime 
frenchman. 
     I have seen no information about the fate of Progress 38.  On  
Soyuz TM-6 is still at the front docking port where it was moved on 
Sept.  8th in preparation for the Sept.  12th arrival of the Progress 38.
By Sept. 23 the USSR announced  on short wave that the 1.3 tonnes of cargo 
had been unloaded (the 1 tonne of fuel,  water and air has probably 
transferred).  The brought  up  material for the next Soviet/French mission 
in  November and the EVA.  This represents the 14th Progress and 22nd craft 
to dock to Mir.  It is probably still attached to Mir.
     Sorry that I have not been supplying the net with the USSR space update
for the past month but it was impossible for me to send stuff during
that time.  Just one comment - notice how all the recent TV shows on space
compare only the size of Skylab and Mir, not the operational experience.
In the 50's and 60's Washington would always say yes the Soviet space 
craft are bigger but ours are used more, last longer and have more advanced
technology.  Now that the positions are reversed all that is said on the
media is "but Skylab was bigger".  What a sad comment on the US position
in manned space flight.

                                                Glenn Chapman
                                                MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Oct 88 17:03:01 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Death of another Soviet Shuttle Pilot

    The Soviet shuttle program has undergone yet another difficulty.  
According to Defense Daily Oct 18, 1988 page 252, Moscow announced about
Oct. 15 that Cosmonaut Anatoly Shchukin, another of the shuttle pilots in 
training, died in the crash of a Su-26 on Aug. 18.  This puts his demise just
12 days after the death announcement of lead pilot, Anatoly Levchenko, who
succumed to a brain tumor.  That still leaves cosmonaut Igor Volk as the
remaining member of the original primary shuttle crew. 
    "'Instinctively I believe the Soviets on this one, but the odds on this
happening to the two most likely shuttle pilots are astronomical', analyst
James Oberg [told] Defense Daily."
    One other strange point here is the plane he is stated to have crashed.
The Sukhoi Su-26 is listed in Janes Aircraft as stunt competition
aircraft that first appeared in the World Aerobatic Championships in Hungary
in 1984 (they were unknown before that).  It is a single seat prop plane with
a radial engine.  Not the type of aircraft that you would expect for training
the shuttle pilots and apparently a rather rear one.
    This goes along with the mystery of the photos they released of their
shuttle mated to the Energiya booster.  While the front of the vehicle is
very much like the shuttle there are many changes at the rear.  For example
there are no Orbital Maneuvering System pods, because those engines are in
the tail.  In addition the fact that there is no weight of the engines in
the tail must change the center of mass.  These both must modify both the 
shuttle aerodynamic behavior, which must result in other changes in the
system.  Unfortunately, the shuttle tail is the least shown part in these
photos.
     However, unlike this country the Russians are not dependent on the shuttle
to get into space.  With the Mir space station manned continuously for
22 months now, and a steady stream of visitors they are the only nation that
can truly be said to be settling the space frontier.  It will be at least
8 years before that could be true of the USA.  It just goes to show, you do
not stop flying your operating manned vehicles to wait for a new fancier
design.  That is really what has killed this country's program.

                                                   Glenn Chapman
                                                   MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 22:10:53 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Scandalous Posting: Africa air farce

In article <gXHDhJyQ2k-0M1lUt=@andrew.cmu.edu>, jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
> DB Ward writes:
> 
>   >>>African Air Farce
>>   In a bizarre experiment designed to  simulate  life  in  space,  the
>>   Gambian  Air Force welded four men in the cab of a 1957 Chevy pickup
>>   and left them there for sixteen days.  The WEEKLY WORLD NEWS reports
> 
> To assimilate all Africa to Gambia is already a sign
> of deep stupidity. (I am not sorry to use this word).

Wait! Wait!  If you were to take a deep breath and look again at the posting,
you might see it for the joke that it is.  (Clippings from the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS,
if nothing else...)

No other African nation was implied, if anything, Gen. Ceesay was the only
one singled out for ridicule.
 
Take a look sometime at one of the films made up of old clips from the
early days of flight.  Rocket-powered men on skates with wings.  Powered
bouncing umbrella chairs.  Multiplane helicopters.  Multiplanes, for that
matter.  (Think triplanes are odd?  Try something with 20 or 60 stacked
wings.)

I doubt that many (if any) thought the message indicative of the ridiculous
of anyone other than Gen. Ceesay (and perhaps some components of his staff).

They certainly don't represent the rest of Africa.  Or even of Gambia.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 14:10:16 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (It's not how fast the car can go, it's how fast you can go)
Subject: RE: Earth & living in space

SET SOAPBOX/ON
I'm not so pro "Folks in Space" that I want to stop unmanned exploration. But
I do want to ask everyone who is opposed to FiS what they plan to do with all
the knowledge?  Do you just sit around all day in front of one tube or
another, absorbing useless (without application) information?  Or do you go
out and experience the world, explore your environment, experiment with your
knowledge?  Are you human? 8-)

As a little further motivation to make some sort of move into space, let's
look at where our (yours actually) children are going.  Not being a parent, I
can't tell for sure, but it seems like "our" kids are bored, listless and
undirected. What kind of future do they have?  I know what a draft card feels
like burning up my butt, why should they feel otherwise.  We are only
offering them a welfare state future.  "Why go to school when I can get
stoned?"  If we can not offer some challenge, something for the next generation
to look to, then we have doomed our children.

Now let's look at where we (USA) are right now.  Risk taking is a very dangerous
game.  Not in the sense of getting killed, but from a societal view point.
Just try to get life insurance if you have any "dangerous" hobbies (scuba,
rock climbing, fast cars).  One previous poster noted that the American
culture puts a very high value on human life.  Maybe too high?  If we
(people) aren't allowed to take risks, two things happen.  We stagnate and we
become unhappy. Challenges are what keep people going.  Either the challenge
of growing enough corn/rice/wheat for the year or getting a full colony
going. And it seems to me that the corn/rice/wheat grower can never get out
of his/her rut until those ahead move further.  So it can be thought of as
our moral obligation to start space colonization.  (I hear flamethrowers
warming up).  Put another way, is this our "ethical duty"? 8-)

When I see people saying that living in space won't solve the world's problems,
I want to know what you are proposing instead?  When otherwise intelligent
authors like Mssrs. Nelson and Neff exhibit an inability to extrapolate
technology simply because they don't like the path, I have no question as
to where our space program as a whole has gone wrong.  Let's quit arguing
and get working.  If you don't want a space based solution, start working
on an Earth-based one.  No single solution is the only one!!!!  But we do
need one.
SET SOAPBOX/OFF
If I rambled, well, I do ramble. I'm not a sociologist and I'm not a
psychologist, but I am human. Please chew carefully, flame me if you wish, and
put your most considered opinions here. 

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1988 15:41-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Periodic mass extinctions

I tend to agree with Knudsen's thesis, and I don't think we have to
even depend on periodic mass extinctions to get the same effect.

Think of evolution as the exploration of a complex critter-space. Like
most such spaces that are searched by hill climbing, it is easy to find
and become trapped in local optimum, despite the fact that a much
'higher' hill is just a short distance away.

Thus if the 'better' solution is to be found, the system must be
'heated up' so that it will escape the local optimum and explore the
other possibilities.

Even without asteroids, the existance of plate tectonics does this. As
the continents drift around, merging and splitting, the patterns of
ocean flows and air flows, ice caps, etc are constantly (on a scale of
Millions of years) changing the climate of the Earth. Some of these
shifts may actually occur quite rapidly ( a few thousand years or even
a few hundred years) because they are 'phase changes'. There are some
scientists studying the possibility of sudden phase changes occuring in
the Atlantic Ocean currents due to the continental seperation reaching
a critical value. Over turn of deep ocean water is another way in which
rapid shifts can occur.

The point is that the Earth's environment is NOT static, and in fact
can go through drastic changes at any time. This is sufficient to keep
the 'temperature' turned up on evolution, to keep shaking it off of
local optimums.

As Knudsen said, there is no need to assume any 'direction' for
evolution other than optimizing itself for current environment. But by
shaking things up, we MAY allow a system to grow towards greater
complexity by removing the competition of simple systems that are 'good
enough' for current conditions.

It is easy for me to imagine that a superior adaptation might have to
cross a 'valley' in the critter-space that is less adaptive. Such a
valley would block that evolution path unless things got so shaken up
that the competition was temporarily suppressed.

Maybe this is one of the reasons for the rapid adaptive radiation that
can occur in isolated population, such as Galapagos finches.

I'm not going to get very deeply into the punctuated equilibrium versus
steady change models, although what I am proposing is a way of thinking
that includes both. Steady state occurs around 'local hilltops'. When
things are shaken up, the 'valleys' get crossed and rapid adaptive
radiation occurs, ie the punctuated equilibrium.

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 12 Oct 88 16:09:51 EDT
From: JDAVIS%GRIFFIN.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject:      Re: Earth & living in space


Henry Spencer writes:

>"Look at it another way:  the odds are better that we will get it
>right on one try out of six than on one try out of one."

Very doubtful.

Humans will still be humans and driven by their nature which has mucked
things up here on earth.  There will always be those who want to get
ahead at any cost, exploiting people and things according to their set
of rules.  Explorers of the past, even those with honorable intentions,
were exploiters and in turn were preyed upon by robbers and pirates.
To think that this won't happen in space is unrealistic:  if you can get
there someone else can too, and he may have fewer scruples than you.

No, I don't think space is the panacea for the world's problems.  It is
only going to give humans more room in which to work.   Those who
think that every future inhabitant of space is going to be good, clean
and kind will probably suffer a rude awakening.  There will always be
those who have and those who have not, those who lead and those who
are made to follow.   It is unlikely that this will change in the near
future.  Jesus tried 2000 yrs. ago and the religions which supposedly
are based on his teachings still haven't gotten it right.

Enough rambling, back to lurk in the shadows of anonymity. :-)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 17:43:47 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)

In article <6240@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric William Tilenius) writes:
> Now, I don't know about you, but I would much rather have Lloyd Bentsen
> in charge of our space activities and goals than J. Danforth Quayle.
> Bentsen has a 100% rating with SPACECAUSE/SPACEPAC, and can effectively
> set our national space goals.

The last Democratic VP from Texas even managed to pork-barrel
a large part of the crewed space effort into Houston.
As in "Johnson Space Center."
Presumably Bentsen has been & will be feeling his constituents'
desires to keep space alive.  Pork (barrel) may not be kosher
but in this case it's nutritious.

However, might Bentsen be biased in favor of crewed flight
over robot probes, since I think it's only manned spaceflight
that operates out of Houston?  Maybe, but Bentsen would probably
add to the manned budget rather than cut it out of unmanned's share.
Anyway, he's got to be better than J-Dan Q.

BTW, I had to go out the evening of the VP candidates' debate
and missed it (I watched the whole Pres' one).
Was anything said or asked about space?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #48
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Oct 88 06:08:55 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04755>; Sun, 23 Oct 88 03:41:27 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 23 Oct 88 03:41:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.AXMMo5y00UkTEGX04w@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UXMMbTy00UkTQ0wE8k>;
          Sun, 23 Oct 88 03:27:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.4XMMVdy00UkZE7CU5N>;
          Sun, 23 Oct 88 03:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, Oct 23 88 03:17:55 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #49

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 49

Today's Topics:
		 Re: where should all the people go?
	  Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)
		Re: Puke Removal System (was: Gravity)
			     Re: Gravity
		    Naming the new Shuttle Orbiter
			     Re: Gravity
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #26
		    Proposal for sci.mil newsgroup
		     Re: Earth & living in space
	      Re: Beserker Hypothesis, Cret. Ext. Event
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 14:06:04 +0100
From: Matts Kallioniemi <MATTS@kicki.stacken.kth.se>
To: dasys1!tneff@uunet.uu.net
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?


> >The theory is that you should avoid the disaster by being somewhere else
> >when it happens, not by preventing it. It's obvious enough that you can't
> >stop people from killing each other with the fanciest weapons available...
> 
> This is precisely the elitism of which Jorge and others accuse many space
> enthusiasts.  If you want to plead nolo contendere I don't much mind, but
> at least let's keep the issue straight.

What do you mean by "elitism"? Do you think it is elitism that makes people
move to non nuclear countries like New Zealand. Is it only the elite that
could be afraid of being blown up?

I do NOT say that people going to space necessarily are any less likely to
have wars, but just that it would be a good idea to spread us out enough
that we don't all die in any single catastrophe. And besides, I think it is
indeed more likely to be wars where people are more crowded, like they will
on Earth for a long time, possibly until WW3...

    "The development of nuclear power will make space colonization both
     possible and necessary."           -- Arthur C Clarke

/Matts Kallioniemi <matts@stacken.kth.se>

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 20:37:12 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)

In article <320@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>In article <1492@cbnews.ATT.COM>, wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
>> Many, if not most, modern analysts agree that the strategic bombing
>> campaign was a very secondary part of the war. Germany's back was broken
>> by the tremendous losses of veteran soldiers in the East, not by
>> production stoppages.
>
>I don't remember which of his books discussed it, but John K. Galbraith,
>the economist (_New Industrial State_, _The Affluent Society_, etc.)
>told about his involvement in the postwar Strategic Bombing Survey. He
>led a team to Germany in 1946 to determine the effectiveness of the
>bombing raids. Germany's war output did not drop until Allied ground
>armies were crossing the Rhine. He found that war production often
>climbed _after_ major bombing raids.

To be fair, Germany's overall production would, no doubt, have been
higher without bombing. The increase can be attributed mostly to Speer's
work as Minister of Armaments, and he would have done even more without
the bombings. Still, the Germans could produce aircraft, for example,
much more quickly than they could train the pilots.

>Galbraith
>points out that mobilizing a civilian economy for war output is one
>of the biggest challenges facing a nation at war. Enemy bombers
>can provide the motivation.
>
>What does this have to do with space? Packing L5 full of human hives
>will require an effort equal to a respectable war. Getting people to
>leave their comfortable suburban lives and jobs and shoulder the
>burden might be tough. Either it will take some good selling, or
>some good bombing. :-)

I *like* this approach ! I can see the TV commercial:

"There are two rockets on the pads at Cape Canaveral. One of them
(closeup of shuttle ready for launch) is waiting for passengers to
take to the L5 space colony. The other (closeup of MX with bright
yellow nuclear warning symbols all over it) is aimed at *your* home
town.  Now, woudn't you rather be *here* when they're both launched ?"
8-)


------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt
	Support bioweapon research as an alternative to the
		horrors of nuclear war.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 22:57:45 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Puke Removal System (was: Gravity)

Nasa provides little barf bags for puke at the moment. They seem to
work well, and the plastic ones (which they use in the zero-g parabolic
airplane flights) sure are cheap, because we have to blow them up in
advance to make sure they don't have holes. A high-tech puke-removal
system doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Rumor has it that in space they use (expensive) teflon-coated barf
bags. I don't know what advantages these offer.

:-)

-- greg

----------
Greg Lindahl                                       internet:  gl8f@virginia.edu
University of Virginia Department of Astronomy     bitnet:  gl8f@virginia.bitnet

"Quayle for President. Even JFK would have voted for him!"

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 10:28:22 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <1988Oct12.181945.19756@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes:
>but very roughly speaking, GR effects are to normal gravity as
>magnetism is to electricity.

See the book by Thorne et al, BLACK HOLES: THE MEMBRANE PARADIGM for
the rigorous development of this "very rough" summary.  There was also
an article by Thorne and ?? in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN this past year which
presented a layman's version of the same.

No, there's nothing about black hole rocket propulsion systems in either.

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 14:58:00 EDT
From: "TERRELL" <dirkct@pine.circa.ufl.edu>
Subject: Naming the new Shuttle Orbiter
To: "space+" <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>

	I've been following this discussion recently, and I think that the only
appropriate name for OV-105 is PHOENIX, despite objections that the mythological
bird died repeatedly. The point here is the symbolism of the rebirth, and that
we will continue to move ahead even though failures are inevitable. However, I
haven't seen any reply to the original poster's question of whether or not there
has ever been a maritime research vessel named PHOENIX? (By the way, the rather
ludicrous idea that orbiter names must also be named after science fiction space
ships is WRONG!)
	Also, a recent poll by USA Today found that the name PHOENIX was by far
the most popular name for the new orbiter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you say that I have a plethora of pinatas? :   Dirk Terrell
                                                 :   Dept. of Astronomy
Oh yes!                                          :   Univ. of Florida
                                                 :   (904) 392-9698
                                                 :   DIRKCT@UFPINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 23:08:27 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Gravity

In article <1005@microsoft.UUCP> bryanf@microsoft.UUCP (Bryan Feir) writes:
> [discussion of rotating rooms deleted ]
>
>  Also, consider the simple act of shaking the head.  The fact that you're
>spinning around at a constant rate sets up a constant rotation in the inner
>ear.  If you shake your head, or make any fast movement of the head that isn't
>in the plane of the spin, the fluid in your ear is no longer spinning in the
>same plane as the station, and it has to readjust.  This can cause minor
>disorientation.
> [ more deletions ]

The disorientation isn't minor, it makes you throw up. I believe that
you can adapt to the environment after a while, but I've never read the
papers -- I'm just an occasional test subject.

Another interesting experiment is to sit on the "floor" with your arms
stretched towards the center. If you then move your arms apart, one in
the direction of spin and one against, you feel uneven torque on your
arms and can tell something is wrong. This is a nicer experiment than
shaking your head because it won't make you sick.

NASA has researched this sort of stuff extensively; I think the only
"slow rotation room" left in the country is at Brandeis University's
Graybiel Lab. Of course spinning on the ground means you have to add
in gravity, so the floor isn't flat. It makes for some optical illusions
when there is someone on the other side of the room!

----------
Greg Lindahl                                       internet:  gl8f@virginia.edu
University of Virginia Department of Astronomy     bitnet:  gl8f@virginia.bitnet

"Quayle for President. Even JFK would have voted for him!"

------------------------------

Sender: "John_A_Kostecki.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Date: 13 Oct 88 03:57:55 PDT (Thursday)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #26
From: "John_A_Kostecki.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Cc: "John_A_Kostecki.WBST129"@Xerox.COM

OK,

	The last time I had full contact with the world of geology and
paleontology was in 1983, when I worked for Mobil Oil in Dallas, but
previous to that I was a paleontologist/statigrapher at Columbia
University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory.  Anyway, all that is to
let you know that I had studied some of the theories back in the good old
days.  It seems that what I'm seeing in these disscussions on Mass
Extinctions is the obsession with catastrophy as the cause of everything.
It's almost biblical in nature.  In order to get a better picture of the
mass extinctions, dozens of which occurred throughout the last 800-900
million years, we need to understand what was happening previous to those
events.  

	Previous to the Cretaceous-Tertiary event, which was the subject
originally spoken about in this ongoing discussion, there was a large
expansion of the number of species of major plants and animals.  This was
no freak of nature.  Some geophysicists believe that this was the result of
the increase of sea-floor spreading between 120-80 million years ago - the
"event" which caused the birth of the Atlantic Ocean.  The scenario is that
the increased flow of magma to what we see today as the Atlantic Mid-Ocean
Ridges caused them to swell, which decreased the available volume of the
ocean basin, thus increasing the mean sea level.  The increase in sea level
would have flooded the flat lying areas of the world, such as what are the
U.S. central plains or Saudi Arabia.  Since most of these areas were in
fairly warm climates, the waters would have gotten warmer, even the mean
sea water temperature could have risen slightly, but the net effect would
have been much milder climates.  The vast increase in size of the available
ecological niches would have allowed for a great flowering of various
genera, such as dinosaurs, crustacea, and my former specialty, marine
nannoplankton (itty-bitty one-celled plants).

	When the sea-floor spreading slowed down (it never stops), there would be
a cooling off of the ridge system, increase in size of the ocean basin and
finally a lowering in sea-level, such that the previous ecological niches
for the previously florishing species is now dry land, thus the now have to
compete with other species for less food, and so the best shrimps won.  The
mass extinctions were not instantaneous by any means, but geologically
there is a dramatic decrease in the variety of flora and fauna between the
Cretaceous and Tertiary.  

	As I said, however, these events occur frequently in the history of the
earth.  Louis Alverez's theory of the meteorite, while backed up by Iridium
in correlatable stratigraphic sequences, may have not been the only factor
in the extinction process.  It might have added iceing to the cake,
however, and might have caused a world climatic "burp" which was too much
for the surviving dinosaurs to handle.  The "acid-rain" theory which I saw
mentioned in one of the messages may have some substance because during
these times of increased sea-floor spreading, you would also see greatly
increased volcanism, and one of the components of the gases expelled from
volcanic vents is SO2, which combines with water to form sulphuric acid.
There is evidence, however, from the recent (1980) research into deep ocean
volcanic vents by Woods Hole Inst. (see a National Geog. film called "Dive
to the Abyss? -- I forgot the exact title) has shown that a vast ecological
niche can be formed at the bottom of the Pacific, in very warm waters, with
high concentrations of sulphur and heavy metals.  Ain't nature grand!

John A. Kostecki
Xerox Research Center
Webster, NY

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 88 20:45:20 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Proposal for sci.mil newsgroup


New Group Proposal: sci.mil

Historically, there has been a great deal of discussion of
military matters in the various newsgroups on Usenet. In many
cases, probably most, these discussions have spawned from
other topics, and are inappropriate to the group in which they
take place. 

As examples, consider the recent topic "jet engines" in sci.space,
which has become a discussion of German jet and rocket fighters
of WWII. Last year, sci.space "hosted" a series of postings
about the utility of Iowa-class battleships in modern naval warfare.
Not a month goes by without SDI debates creating another flare-up in
sci.physics and/or sci.space, and sci.misc sees equally frequent arguments
over nuclear arms control. Obviously, many Usenet readers are
interested in military science; a proper forum would remove most
of these postings from inappropriate groups.

The proposed newsgroup, sci.mil (name subject to debate) would
host any discussion of military matters; theory, history, technology,
etc.  This would include arms control and SDI, as well as other
military matters.  Naturally, the strict "definition" for the 
group is also open to discussion.

I invite discussion of this group proposal in news.groups.  PLEASE
NOTE: this article has been cross-posted to numerous groups which, I
believe, contain interested parties. BE SURE to direct any followups
to news.groups  ONLY !  Alternately, I welcome replies by email; I will
summarize these and post them to news.groups.


------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 13 Oct 88 17:57:53 EET
From: Tero Siili <FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Earth & living in space


A comment on moving to space and developing countries...

It is probably almost 100% certain, that the problems on-world must be
solved before any major move off-world. The reason is, that despite
of their lower technological level the developing countries do control
a substantial portion of raw materials and other resources. If developing
countries plunge to too deep problems, I might imagine, that they prevent
the use of their resources either from anyone except from themselves
or from everyone - destroying mines and ports is fairly low-tech...
Someone might suggest, that industrialized nations - regardless of their
ideologies - might be tempted to acquire control of these resources.
That is hardly possible to the extent, it would be necessary. If people
are determined enough, economical and/or military pressure from outside
is not going to do the trick(Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc...).

The key word is interdependence; industrialized
nations - including U.S.A. - are incapable of sustaining their standard
of living without imported raw materials, the flow of which they do not
control and should not control.  The standard of living - or GNP - is
essential for space ventures, as they - at least for the time being -
require some type of economical surplus, which can be directed to
non-profit or very long-term profit ventures. Therefore, the success
of massive space ventures depends on the developing countries also,
perhaps not directly through knowledge and technology, but indirectly
through global division of wealth and resources.

To sum up, colonies can hardly be totally self-sufficient for a long
time and before they are, their construction and supply requires
a lot better political stability on Earth, than is presently the case...

Tero Siili

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1988 15:29-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Beserker Hypothesis, Cret. Ext. Event

SCott:

And I guess the dominant race wiped out by berserkers 65 MYA was the
dinosaurian race sketched in OMNI some years back?

I wonder though. If there WERE a previous intelligent race on Earth,
what are the chances we would have figured it out by now? What types of
traces would they leave? What is the probability we would have found
(and recognized) such remnants by now? How would both relate to the
technological/population level at the time of extinction?

Even though this is an unlikely possibility for the Earth, I'm sure
there will one day be a whole discipline for study of the fossils of
technological civilizations. Else how will we ever know about that
civilization of long ago and far away...

	"And here we have the fliptop and bottlecap strata from the
	  Cocacolian Age..."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #49
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Oct 88 07:06:09 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00662>; Sun, 23 Oct 88 05:31:48 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 23 Oct 88 05:31:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.MXMOPVy00jZd82Z05e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UXMOKEy00jZd01Dk4A>;
          Sun, 23 Oct 88 05:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.YXMOEgy00UkZE7Ok4w>;
          Sun, 23 Oct 88 05:19:42 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, Oct 23 88 05:18:22 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #50

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 50

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Antimatter's no bargain (was: Why no aliens)
			      Re: limits
	       Rising disinformation campaign from NASA
		 Re: where should all the people go?
	   Re: Antimatter's no bargain (was: Why no aliens)
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
		   Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)
		     Re: Earth & living in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 20:53:04 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Antimatter's no bargain (was: Why no aliens)

Bill Higgins writes:

In roughly calculating how to move an asteroid with antimatter,
aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall) wrote:
"At a million dollars a microgram, this comes to..."

The number J. Storrs Hall uses to calculate antimatter cost is one megabuck per
microgram, a number quoted by Air Force spokesmen, repeated by *Aviation Week*
reporters in utter credulity,  and sometimes used in calculations by innocent
trusting readers to rather pathetic result.  (See the letters column.)

...  Tone down your enthusiasm
for antimatter rockets.  They're fun to think about.  But they'll be a long,
long time coming.

                      ______meson      Bill Higgins

, end quote.  

Well, sorry if I seem like an easily bamboozled naif, but AvLeak *did*
print that...   anyway, you seem to have missed the point that my 
message was claiming that asteroid acceleration was too expensive,
using the $M/mg figure.  Increasing the cost would only bolster that
conclusion.

I would not expect cost-effective AM from bulk technology, but
nanotech is another story.  High power densities and extremely
fine dimensional control, not to mention perfect vacuums, are among
the benefits I would expect to increase the efficiency of AM 
production.  (At the very least we should be able to make a working
linear collider... :^)

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 88 19:02:00 GMT
From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: limits


/* Written  9:18 am  Oct  7, 1988 by cooper@rochester.UUCP in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
/* ---------- "limits" ---------- */
cooper: "Who wants 'stabilization'?"
carroll: " ... There is only a finite amount of mass in the solar system ..."
cooper: " so?... "
/* End of text from s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
carroll:
It's still a limit. While human society as a whole (if you can speak of a
whole when different parts are seperated by hundreds of lifetimes for
systems across the galaxy from the other) may continue to expand until
the universe burns out or collapses, this won't be important for the
people left "at home". The solar system will be a limit for them, since
anything within reach will be owned by other people who wouldn't
appreciate Sol consuming their mass. Note carefully that emigration and
expansion doesn't decrease the population pressure at home, in terms of
absolute numbers. The only reason that it has helped so far is that no
society is any where near the mass limit. That would change in a heavily
industrialized galaxy.

Alan M. Carroll          "How many danger signs did you ignore?
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu     How many times had you heard it all before?" - AP&EW
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 19:19:10 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Rising disinformation campaign from NASA

James Fletcher, on the day of the launch of Discovery, claimed that
we can look forward to the Shuttle system becoming "economical" in
the near future.  I'm curious about what those who decry "NASA-bashing"
think of this statement?
 
Is this statement simply the product of a senile mind or is it, as
I belive, indicative of a pervasive intellectual bankruptcy in NASA's
management?

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 22:39:10 +0100
From: Matts Kallioniemi <MATTS@kicki.stacken.kth.se>
To: Jim Davis <jrd@media-lab.media.mit.edu>
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

Jim Davis <jrd@media-lab.media.mit.edu> writes:
> I believe the point about "elitism" is that the solution of
> moving to space to avoid being killed is available only
> to an elite.  Everyone else will be left to die on Earth.
> (This assumes that the colonies could survive without
> help from society on Earth.)

With that view, survival is *always* restricted to the elite who are
smart/rich/lucky enough to be somewhere else. Have you ever looked at
the average income of the persons getting killed in wars...?

Besides, if you compare Earth/Space to Europe/America then I can
assure you that we europeans don't feel any inferior to you, just
because our ancestors were unlucky enough to stay behind. Quite the
opposite actually, since it was mainly losers who took the trip!

> Maybe we *can* prevent the disaster.  Are we obligated to try?
> That's the question.

We certainly are, but that may not be enough. The Earth could blow up
tomorrow, and that is a fact that it is VERY difficult to change. Even
if all the 'good guys' (if you believe there are any of those, I
don't) get rid of their nukes, we still would not be safe. And there
are natural disasters, like whatever killed off the dinosaurs. The
Earth is UNSAFE; you can't argue with that, can you?

/Matts Kallioniemi <matts@stacken.kth.se>

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 22:38:54 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Antimatter's no bargain (was: Why no aliens)

I'm pretty skeptical about the economics and practicality of
antimatter for space travel (beamed power seems much more practical).
However, I think Bill Higgin's criticism was a bit slanted.

Bill used the Fermilab operating budget as a base for comparison.
Bill failed to mention that the Main Ring, which accelerates the 120
GeV protons (2E12 protons every two seconds, according to my
description of the FNAL antiproton factory), is a synchrotron with
*copper magnets*.  These magnets consume megawatts of power to produce
a 20 kilowatt (average) proton beam.  That's reasonable if you want to
do physics experiments and reuse existing equipment; a system
optimized for antimatter production would use a much more efficient
accelerator.  Forward estimates a wall plug to proton efficiency of
67%.

Forward mentions numerous tricks for increasing the yields of a pbar
factory (higher energies, multiple thin targets, multiple lenses and
energy sorters feeding into multiple cooling rings, each for a
different range of momenta).  Forward estimated that one could produce
350 milligrams of antimatter per year at .01% efficiency at a cost of
$10K per microgram.  I'll believe it when I see it; but it does show
that $1M/microgram is not the most optimistic estimate of ultimate
costs around.

I wonder if it might be possible to collide 50 GeV protons (say) in a
self-colliding orbit (migma) device.  I have no idea how to separate
out the antiprotons, but this would increase the center of mass energy
available for a given proton energy.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 20:17:20 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

> ...  I note that no attempt
>has been made to refute my basic contention:  people signing the Mars
>Declaration should be aware that their signatures will be used in support
>of a particular agenda and set of plans which are not mentioned in the
>Declaration itself.
 
Then I'll refute it directly:
 
    A)  You're wrong.  The Declaration says, "We endorse the goal of human
        exploration of Mars, and urge that initial steps toward its
        implementation be taken throughout the world."
 
        That's the agenda.  To get Congress and the President to start
        initial steps to make human Mars exploration a reality.
 
    B)  You don't state what you think this "hidden agenda" is, but I
        presume that you think there's some deep, dark plot to kill
        your beloved hole in the moon.
 
        There's no such negative agenda.  What there is is a positive
        agenda to set the much broader, much more ambitious goal of
        Mars at the forefront of our space program.  A moonbase, and
        certainly a Space Station, can be integral parts of this.
 
We need a complete, far-reaching goal to stimulate NASA, and to provide
a compelling reason for building infrastructure such as a space station
and a moonbase.
 
Even now, Congress has chopped down the Space Station to the point where
it's nothing more than a microgravity lab.  As Space Studies Institute's
Gregg Maryniac has said, the Space Station should be like a pier from
which we can launch ships into the new frontier of space (including Mars,
Phobos, the Asteroids, and even the Moon).  What we currently have is
a space station that is like a pier that can only be used for fishing.
 
How did this come about?  We have lowered our sights to doing little more
than launching satellites in recent years.  We have failed to be
explorers, failed to really forge ahead and reach new worlds.   Humans have
not ventured any further from Earth in the last twenty years.
 
It is only by setting an ambitious goal - and a goal which captures public
fascination and interest - that we can hope to move onward in space.
 
Further, one tremendous advantage of Mars exploration is the opportunity
it affords for a cooperative mission with the Soviet Union.  The USSR IS
going to Mars.  They've set a rigorous time schedule and have plans for
exploration of the red planet reaching into the next millennium.
 
A cooperative venture would not only reduce costs, it would further cooperation
between our two nations, setting a precedent for peaceful joint space
missions.  Humanity would be venturing forward as one, conquering new
challenges as a species, not as several quarrelling nations.
 
Don't think this is important?  We currently spend 30% of our budget on
"defense".  By contrast, we spend LESS THAN 1% on all civilian science,
space, and technology programs COMBINED.
 
If, by reducing world tensions, we could transfer even a fraction of that
defense budget into peaceful, civilian space activities, there would be
more than enough funds for Mars trips, several moonbases, and even an
orbiting colony.
 
In the postings that follow, I will be sending the text of the Mars
Declaration and a list of just a few people who have already signed their
names to this important document.
 
Please, take a moment to read this document, print out the form, and
add your name to this list of distinguished individuals who have spoken
out for a renewed space program.
 
The Planetary Society is a worldwide space advocacy group with over 120,000
members in 60 countries.  For more information on the Society, or to obtain
your own copy of The Mars Declaration, please call or write:
 
         The Planetary Society
         65 North Catalina Avenue
         Pasadena, California  91106
         U.S.A.
   Tel:  1-800-255-2001
 
- ERIC -
 
*----------------------===>  SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
*        ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU  //  ewtileni@pucc.BITNET                *
*      rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni  //  princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni       *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 19:47:06 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

>One other caution regarding the Mars Declaration.  Notice the lines for
>your home address.  Keep in mind that this is a contributor funded
>organization; not only are you adding your name to the list of citizens
>interested in an expedition to Mars, you're also putting yourself on
>the mailing list.  Expect a steady flow of solicitations for all manner
>of worthy (in someone's opinion) projects dependent upon your charity
>and long-term visions for humanity.
 
The purpose of your address is primarily to prove that you exist as a person.
This is standard procedure in most petitions to prevent fraud by someone
making up fake names and signatures.
 
The Planetary Society does send you updates on the status of things if you
have signed the Mars Declaration; however, they do not release your name
to other organizations.
 
If you really do not wish to get mail, you may write "No Mail" next to your
address when signing the Declaration and your name will be coded so that you
do not get any mailings or information from the Society.  However, as I have
said, an address is really needed in any case for identity verification.
 
- ERIC -
 
*----------------------===>  SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
*        ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU  //  ewtileni@pucc.BITNET                *
*      rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni  //  princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni       *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 88 01:14:43 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)

In article <7193@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
>
>The last Democratic VP from Texas even managed to pork-barrel
>a large part of the crewed space effort into Houston.
>As in "Johnson Space Center."
>Presumably Bentsen has been & will be feeling his constituents'
>desires to keep space alive.  Pork (barrel) may not be kosher
>but in this case it's nutritious.
>

The story is told that the Manned Spaceflight Center (JSC) site
selection committee back in 1962 or so narrowed their choices down
to 2: Houston or Mt. View at Ames Research Center. No. California
had the schools, (Stanford, UCB, etc.), a good climate, a launch
site (Vandenberg), and so on. The vote was split, six voted for
Houston, six voted for Mt. View. A friend of mine was supposedly
the swing vote and said it goes in Mt. View. LBJ said Houston. It
went to Houston.




-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"he's braindead Jim. . ."
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 22:06:08 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <Added.8XJ__Uy00Ui3M75E8m@andrew.cmu.edu>, JDAVIS@GRIFFIN.BITNET writes:
> 
> Henry Spencer writes:
> >"Look at it another way:  the odds are better that we will get it
> >right on one try out of six than on one try out of one."
> 
> Very doubtful.
> 
> Humans will still be humans and driven by their nature which has mucked
> things up here on earth.

I finally decided to throw in my $.02 worth.  (And yes, my asbestos suit
is handy for the replies which I am sure to receive.)

The arguments presented so far AGAINST expanding the human presence in
space seem to boil down to these:  1) mankind is inherently evil/exploitative/
or has some intrinsic self-destructive nature, and thus shouldn't be trusted
to colonize the solar system, let alone play unattended in his own sandbox,
2) we have too many problems here on earth to worry about wasting our time/ 
money/precious resources/brainpower on frivolous things like exploring space,
3) man IS exploring--why are you upset at the pace, or is it just that YOU
aren't one of the lucky few, and thus your arguments in favor are biased,
and the biggy, 4) IT ISN'T TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE.

To these I can only reply, "BULL!!!"  The last is an argument against ALL
technological and scientific research.  Just because something isn't possible
now doesn't mean it won't become possible through research.  Or, in those 
immortal words spoken in Lincoln's time, "Everything which can be invented
has been invented."  In refutation of #3, I suggest that it is because of
people who aren't content that we have pressure to continue exploring.  Face
it--most of us are inherently curious.  What about #2, you may ask.  Well, 
let's examine the problem of the greenhouse effect.  If we had abundant, cheap
power available, we wouldn't have to burn fossil fuels, which would cut down
on the problem.  How do we get cheap power?  IF (and that's a big if) space
access were very reasonable, solar power satellites would be practical.  That's
only ONE possible solution.  Another is continued research on disposal of
radioactive waste and safer reactor design.  Another is fusion.  If you argue
against point #4, you are against all of the above mentioned possibilities,
plus the countless others I haven't mentioned.  Finally, I come to #1.  Yes,
mankind is destructive.  And generally, old Mom Nature is pretty lenient with
us (barring the occasional hurricane/tornado/earthquake/volcano).  We have
a very generous environment to work with.  Perhaps that is why we have become
lax with our conscience with respect to environmental matters.  If, however,
our resources HAD to be devoted to survival in a hostile environment, where
our resources were very limited, I argue that the survival instinct would
prevail over our other traits.

In short, I am reminded by these arguments of those poor souls who can only
sit back and criticize any idea which comes along, and never seem to have
taken the time to think of alternatives or answers.  My own personal opinion?
If you don't have alternatives in mind, how do you know that the idea in
question is so terrible??

N. Kluksdahl                         Arizona State University
                 ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #50
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Oct 88 02:15:07 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02723>; Mon, 24 Oct 88 00:52:12 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 24 Oct 88 00:52:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.UXMfOty00Vs10_a05p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.EXMfISy00Vs1417U4l>;
          Mon, 24 Oct 88 00:44:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MXMf7hy00Ui3E1gkBp>;
          Mon, 24 Oct 88 00:31:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.kXMezWy00UkZ88805z>;
          Mon, 24 Oct 88 00:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct 24 88 00:19:53 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #51

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:
		     Partial List of Signatories
		   Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)
	    What do we do when the next Shuttle explodes?
		   Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)
			Cretaceous Extinctons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 20:19:43 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Partial List of Signatories

PARTIAL LIST OF SIGNATORIES OF THE MARS DECLARATION.
(Affiliations for identification purposes only.)
 
DIANE ACKERMAN, Poet and Author
BILL G. ALDRIDGE, Ex. Director, National Science Teachers Association
BUZZ ALDRIN, Apollo 11 Crew
JOSEPH P. ALLEN, Shuttle Astronaut
LUIS W. ALVAREZ, Nobel Laureate, Physics
JACK ANDERSON, Syndicated Columnist
CHRISTIAN ANFINSEN, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry
HARRY ASHMORE, Pulitzer Prize, Journalism
ISAAC ASIMOV, Author
NEIL ARMSTRONG, Apollo 11 Crew
MORTON BAHR, President, Communications Workers of America
DAVID BALTIMORE, Nobel Laureate, Medicine
LAWRENCE BARKER, JR., President, LSB Leakey Foundation
ALAN BEAN, Apollo and Skylab Astronaut
STEVEN C. BEERING, President, Purdue University
JAMES BEGGS, Former Administrator, NASA
LUCY WILSON BENSON, Former Undersecretary/State;Ex-Pres, League of Women Voters
RICHARD BERENDZEN, President, American University
HANS A. BETHE, Nobel Laureate, Physics
BARUCH BLUMBERG, Nobel Laureate, Medicine
DANIEL J. BOORSTIN, The Librarian of Congress Emeritus
NORMAN BORLAUG, Nobel Laureate, Peace
RICHARD L. BOWEN, President, Idaho State University
ERNEST L. BOYER, President, The Carnegie Foundation for Avancement of Teaching
RAY BRADBURY, Author
TOM BRADLEY, Mayor, City of Los Angeles
JOHN LOTT BROWN, President, University of South Florida
E. MARGARET BURBIDGE, Director, Center for Astrophysics and Space Studies...
ANTHONY J. CALIO, Former Administrator, Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.
MELVIN CALVIN, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry
A.G.W. CAMERON, Professor of Astronomy, Harvard; Former Chair,Space Science Brd
SCOTT CARPENTER, Mercury Astronaut
JOHNNY CARSON, Talk Show Host, NBC
JIMMY CARTER, Former President of the United States of America
RAUL H. CASTRO, Former Governor of Arizona; Former U.S. Ambassador
FRANKLIN RAMON CHANG-DIAZ, Shuttle Astronaut
WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Former Deputy Secretary of State
HENRY G. CISNEROS, Mayor, San Antonio, Texas
JOHN F. CLARK, V.Pres/Public Policy, Am.Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics
ARTHUR C. CLARK, Author
STEPHEN F. COHEN, Professor of Politics, Princeton University
WILLIAM E. COLBY, Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency
PAUL COLEMAN, President, Universities Space Research Association
MICHAEL COLLINS, Apollo 11 Crew
CHARLES CONRAD, JR., Apollo and Skylab Astronaut
GORDON COOPER, Mercury and Gemini Astronaut
ROBERT S. COOPER, Former Director, Advanced Projects Agency, Dept. of Defense
NORMAN COUSINS, Author
WALTER CRONKITE, CBS News Special Correspondent
GERARD DEBREU, Nobel Laureate, Economics
FREDERICK B. DENT, Former Secretary of Commerce; Former U.S. Special Trade Rep.
JOHN DENVER, Musician and Composer
JOHN DIBIAGGIO, President, Michigan State University
STEPHEN R. DONALDSON, Author
HUGH DOWNS, Host ABC News 20/20; Chairman, National Space Society
FRANK DRAKE, Dean, College of Natural Sciences, Univ. of California, Santa Cruz
SIDNEY DRELL, Former President, American Physical Society
RICHARD DREYFUSS, Actor
ROBERT F. DRINAN, S.J., Former President, Americans for Democratic Action
ANN DRUYAN, Writer; Producer
JOSEPH DUFFEY, Chancellor, U.Mass; Former Chair, Natl Endowment for Humanities
CHARLES M. DUKE, JR, Brig. General, USAF; Retired, Apollo Astronaut
FREEMAN J. DYSON, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
SYLVIA A. EARLE, Research Biologist
DONN F. EISELE, Apollo Astronaut; Vice President, Prudential Bache Securities
SUSAN EISENHOWER, President, The Eisenhower Institute
FAROUK EL-BAZ, Director, Center for Remote Sensing, Boston University
RONALD EVANS, Apollo Astronaut
JOHN FABIAN, Former Director of Space Programs, HQ USAF; Shuttle Astronaut
MAXIME A. FAGET, President, Space Industries, Inc.
RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, Nobel Laureate, Physics
GEORGE FIELD, Professor of Astronomy, Harvard University
DANIEL J. FINK, Former Chairman,Space Applications Board,Natl Acad. Engineering
VAL L. FITCH, Nobel Laureate, Physics; President, American Physical Society
WILLIAM H. FITCH, Lt. General, US Marine Corps, Retired
WILLIAM A. FOWLER, Nobel Laureate, Physics
JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN, James B. Duke Professor of History, Duke University
HERBERT FRIEDMAN, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Emeritus
ROBERT A. FROSCH, Former Administrator, NASA; VP, Research, General Motors Corp
DON FUQUA, President, Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc.
JOHN GARDNER, Founder, Common Cause
JAKE GARN, U.S. Senator, Utah
NOEL GAYLER, Admiral, US Navy, Ret.; Former Director, National Security Agency
MURRAY GELL-MANN, Nobel Laureate, Physics
ALAN GEYER, Professor of Political Ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary
ROBERT R. GILRUTH, Former Director, NASA; Project Mercury
DONALD A. GLASER, Nobel Laureate, Medicine
T. KEITH GLENNAN, Former NASA Administrator
JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, Nobel Laureate, Medicine
ANDREW J. GOODPASTER, General, U.S. Army, Ret.; Former Commander, NATO
RICHARD F. GORDON, JR., Gemini and Apollo Astronaut
STEPHEN JAY GOULD, Professor of Geology, Harvard University
GEROME GROSSMAN, President, Council for a Livable World
JAMES E. GUNN, Professor of Astorphysics, Princeton University
NORMAN HACKERMAN, President Emeritus,Rice Univ;Former Chrmn,National Science Bd
FRED N. HAISE, Apollo & Shuttle Astronaut;President, Grumman Space Station Div.
EVELYN E. HANDLER, President, Brandeis University
HERBERT A. HAUPTMAN, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry
JAMES HEAD, Professor of Geology, Brown University
JIM HENSON, Creator of the Muppets
REV. THEODORE M. HESBURGH, President Emeritus, University of Notre Dame
HOWARD H. HIATT,X.Dean,School/Health,Harvard;X.Chair,Physicians/Social Responsb
EARL D. HILBURN, Former President, Western Union
CARL N. HODGES, Director, Environmental Research Lab, University of Arizona
ROALD HOFFMAN, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry
JAMES HOLDERMAN, President, University of South Carolina
ROBERT W. HOLLEY, Nobel Laureate, Medicine
SHIRLEY M. HUFSTEADLER, Attorney, Former Fed. Judge, and Form Sec. of Education
DONALD HUNTEN, Professor of Planetary Sciences, University of Arizona
JAMES B. IRWIN, Apollo Astronaut
EDWARD H. JENNINGS, President, Ohio State University
GEORGE W. JOHNSON, President, George Mason University
JOHN A. JOHNSON, Former Chairman and CEO, Communication Satellite Corp (COMSAT)
JAMES EARL JONES, Actor
QUINCY JONES, Composer and Music Producer
HENRY W. KENDALL, Prof./Physics,MIT; Chairman, Union of Concerned Scientists
DONALD KENNEDY, President, Stanford University
JOSEPH P. KERWIN, Skylab Astronaut
VERA KISTIAKOWSKY, Professor of Physics, M.I.T.
JAMES R. KILLIAN, JR., Former Advisor to Eisenhower; Former President, M.I.T.
JEANE J. KIRKPATRICK, Former Ambassador to the United Nations
RAY KLINE, President, National Academy of Public Administration
FOY D. KOHLER, Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union
CHRISTOPHER C. KRAFT, JR., Former Director, NASA; Apollo Program
LOUIS L'AMOUR, Author
GENE LAROCQUE, Rear Admiral,US Navy,Ret;Chairman,Center for Defense Information
DONALD N. LANGENBERG, Chancellor, University of Illinois at Chicago
URSULA K. LEGUIN, Author
BYRON LICHTENBERG, Shuttle Astronaut; President, Payload Systems, Inc.
PETER LIKINS, President, Lehigh University
JOHN M. LOGSDON, Director, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University
JON LOMBERG, Artist
JACK LOUSMA, Skylab and Shuttle Astronaut
JAMES A. LOVELL, Gemini and Apollo Astronaut
BERNARD LOWN,President,Intl Physicians/Prevention Nuclear War;Nobel Peace Prize
GEORGE LUCAS, Chairman, Lucasfilm Ltd.; Executive Producer, Star Wars Trilogy
RICHARD W. LYMAN, President, The Rockefeller Foundation
STEVEN MACKEY, Professor of Music, Princeton University; Composer
BARRY MANO, President, National Association of Sports Officials
HANS MARK, Chancellor, University of Texas System; Former Sec. of the Air Force
SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, U.S. Senator, Hawaii
THOMAS MATTINGLY, Apollo & Shuttle Astronaut; Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy
WILLIAM J. MCCUNE, JR., Chairman on the Board, Polaroid Corporation
JAMES A. MCDIVITT, Brig. General, USAF (ret.); Apollo Astronaut
JOHN L. MCLUCAS, Chairman, US Comission/Intl Space Year; Former Sec. Air Force
BRUCE MERRIFIELD, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry
JAMES MICHENER, Author
G. WILLIAM MILLER, Former Secretary of Treasury;Former Chairman,Fed.Reserve Brd
MARVIN MINSKY, Professor of Science, Founder, Artificial Intelligence Lab, MIT
EDGAR D. MITCHELL, Apollo Astronaut
DAVID MORRISON, Chairman,Solar System Exploration Committee; NASA Advisory Cncl
BRADFORD MORSE, Former Administrator, United Nations Development Program
GERALD J. MOSSINGHOFF, President, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
GEORGE E. MUELLER, Former NASA Associate Administrator, Manned Space Flight
BRUCE MURRAY, Former Director, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
DANIEL NATHANS, Nobel Laureate, Medicine
JOHN E. NAUGLE, Former NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science
PAUL NEWMAN, Actor and Director
EDMUND F. O'CONNOR, Lt. Gen, USAF (ret.)
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Former Chair, US Equal Employment Opportunities Commsn.
SEVERO OCHOA, Nobel Laureate, Medicine
GLENN OLDS, President, Fetzer Foundation
PAUL OLUM, President, University of Oregon
TOBIAS OWEN, Professor of Astronomy, State University of New York
THOMAS O. PAINE, Chairman, President's Natl. Comisn. on Space; Ex-NASA Admnstrt
JOSEPH V. PATERNO, Head Football Coach, Pennsylvania State University
LINUS PAULING, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry; Nobel Lautreate, Peace
REV. NORMAN VINCENT PEALE, Author
GREGORY PECK, Actor
CHASE N. PETERSON, President, University of Utah
ESTHER PETERSON, Consumer Advocate
RUSSELL W. PETERSON, Former Chairman, U.S. Council on Environmental Quality
ROCCO A. PETRONE, President, Space Transportation Division, Rockwell Internat'l
WILLIAM PICKERING, Former Director, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
SIDNEY POITIER, Actor; Director
REV. AVERY D. POST, President, United Church of Christ
BRUCE R. POULTON, Chancellor, North Carolina State University
SIMON RAMO, Director Emeritus, TRW, Inc.
EBERHARDT RECHTIN, President and CEO, THe Aerospace Corporation
EBERHARD F.M. REES, Former Director, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA
ROGER REVELLE, Former President, American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science
FRANK H.T. RHODES, President,Cornell University; Chair,American Cncl/Education
ELLIOT RICHARDSON, Former US Attorney General; Chairman, United Nations Assn US
S. DILLON RIPLEY, Secretary Emeritus, Smithsonian Institution
CHARLES ROBB, Former Governor, Virginia
WALTER ORR ROBERTS, Director Emeritus, National Center for Atmospheric Research
GENE RODDENBERRY, Executive Producer STAR TREK and STAR TREK: The Next Generatn
HERBERT J. ROWE, Senior Vice President, Electronic Industries Association
VERA C. RUBIN, Astronomer, Carnegie Institution of Washington
RICHARD G. RUTAN, President, Voyager Aircraft, Inc.
CARL SAGAN, Director, Labatory for Planetary Sciences, Cornell University
RABBI ALEXANDER M. SCHINDLER, President, Union of American Hebrew Congregations
HARRISON H. SCHMITT, Former U.S. Senator, New Mexico; Apollo Astronaut
BERNARD A. SCHRIEVER, General, USAF (ret.)
REV. ROBERT H. SCHULLER, Crystal Cathedral Congregation
RUSSELL L. SCHWEICKART, Apollo Astronaut
V. JUNE SCOBEE, Chairman, Challenger Center for Space Science Education
GLENN T. SEABORG, Nobel Laureate,Chemistry; Former Chair,US Atomic Energy Cmsn
DONNA E. SHALALA, President, Hunter College
ALBERT SHANKER, President, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
ROGER L. SHINN, Professor Emeritus, Social Ethics, Union Theological Seminary
REV. ROBERT H. SCHULLER, Crystal Cathedral Congregation
WILLIAM E. SIMON, Former Secretary of the Treasury
DONALE K. (DEKE) SLAYTON, Apollo Astronaut (Apollo-Soyuz Mission)
JANE G. SMITH, President, Samantha Smith Foundation
RICHARD G. SMITH, Former Director, Kennedy Space Center, NASA
ROBERTA SNOW, Founding President, Educators for Social Responsibility
STEVEN SPIELBERG, Director and Producer
ROBERT L. STAEHLE, President, World Space Foundation
THOMAS STAFFORD, Lt.Gen USAF (ret.); Apollo Astronaut (Apollo-Soyuz Mission)
GLEN STASSEN, Professor,Christian Ethics, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
H. GUYFORD STEVER, Foreign Secretary,Natl Acad. Engineering; X-Prez Space Advsr
ROBERT L. STEWART, Brig.Gen,Deputy Commander, US Army Strategic Defense Command
LEWIS THOMAS, President Emeritus, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
CLYDE W. TOMBAUGH, Discoverer of Pluto
LILY TOMLIN, Actress
MALCOLM TOON, Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union
VIRGINIA TRIMBLE, Professor of Physics, University of California, Irvine
TED TURNER, President and CEO, Turner Broadcasting System
FRANK E. VANDIVER, President, Texas A&M University
CHARLES A. WALKER, Chancellor, University of Arkansas
PAUL C. WARNKE, Former Chief U.S. Arms Control Negotiator
JAMES E. WEBB, Former Administrator, NASA
VICTOR F. WEISSKOPF, Institute Professor, MIT; Former Pres,Am.Acad Arts/Science
ROBERT R. WILSON, Former Director, Fermi National Accelator Laboratory; APS
WILLIAM W. WINPISINGER, Int'l President, Int'l Assn. of Machinists AFL-CIO
LEONARD WOODCOCK, Former Pres,United Auto Workers;Former US Ambassador to China
SIDNEY WOLFE, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory
JOHN F. YARDLEY, President, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company
CHARLES E. (CHUCK) YEAGER, Brig.General, USAF, Retired.
HERBERT F. YORK, Former Director, Livermore National Laboratory
 
The Mars Declaration is being circulated by The Planetary Society, a non-profit
space education group with over 120,000 members around the world.  For more
information on The Planetary Society, call 1-800-255-2001.
*----------------------===>  SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
*        ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU  //  ewtileni@pucc.BITNET                *
*      rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni  //  princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni       *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 88 19:55:19 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpscdc!chris@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Chris Schiller)
Subject: Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)

> hpscdc:sci.space / EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric William Tilenius) / 10:24 am  Oct 11, 1988 /
>If you're wondering whether Dukakis/Bentsen or Bush/Quayle will do a better
>job of reinvigorating our space program, consider the following:
> 
>       * BOTH candidates have pledged to reinstate the National Space
>         Council and have their Vice-Presidential candidates head this
>         space policy organization.
> 
>Now, I don't know about you, but I would much rather have Lloyd Bentsen
>in charge of our space activities and goals than J. Danforth Quayle.
> 
>Bentsen has a 100% rating with SPACECAUSE/SPACEPAC, and can effectively
>set our national space goals.
> 
>Quayle, well, he'll, uh, pray?    (So will I, folks, so will I...)
> 
>If space is an issue (which is should be), a Dukakis/Bentsen ticket is
>sure to prove the better for our country.
> 
>- ERIC -


I watched the most recent PBS program _NOVA_ last night and it included
interviews with both candidates.  You have a point about the Vice-Pres
and the Space Council.  However, as NOVA pointed out, only the 
Presisdent has the power to motivate people and push funding through
Congress.  In the interviews, it seemed to me that Bush has a much
stronger commitment to space than does Dukakis.  Dukakis mumbled
about how we should proceed in space, but the budget needs to be
well balanced with other priorities.  Although I cannot disagree
with this statement in principle, I have seen the space budget
balanced into nothingness in the last ten years.  From the interviews,
and considering the importance of presidential leadership, Bush 
is the proper candidate for space enthusiasts.  I highly recommend
the NOVA program.


________________________________________________________________
uucp: {hplabs,siesmo,hpda}!hpscdc!hpsctcd,chris
arpanet: chris%hpsctcd@hplabs.hp.com
Opinions expressed are mine, and not those of my employer.

Many hands make light work- Somewhere between the wave and 
particle theories.

________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 20:46:47 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: What do we do when the next Shuttle explodes?

My Congressman, who is on the Space Science and Technology subcommittee,
has asked me what he should be prepared to do when the next Shuttle explodes,
as it inevitably will. I don't have a good answer.  But he needs this
vitally important information so he can ensure a bold and vigorous
future in space for all of us.  I need your help.  

What SHOULD we do when the next Shuttle explodes?

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 18:17:01 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)

>        * BOTH candidates have pledged to reinstate the National Space
>          Council and have their Vice-Presidential candidates head this
>          space policy organization.
> Now, I don't know about you, but I would much rather have Lloyd Bentsen
> in charge of our space activities and goals than J. Danforth Quayle.
> Bentsen has a 100% rating with SPACECAUSE/SPACEPAC, and can effectively
> set our national space goals.

These are good points, but Dukakis is against the National Aerospace
Plane, and is more evaluative than supportive on the space station.
This is why SPACEPAC is not currently endorsing either candidate - both need
to go a ways before they are strong supporters of space.

Dale Skran
Spacepac Local Chapters Coordinator

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 12 Oct 88 18:47 EST
From: <RJOHNSON%CEBAFVAX.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Subject:  Cretaceous Extinctons

     I just thought I should mention to the net that there is a relatively
good presentation of the subject of mass extinctions in a PBS series
called Planet Earth. It includes discussions with the late Louis Alvarez, who
was one of the originators of the cometary bombardment theories for the
extinctions. There is also a companion book to the series by the same name,
which is available at most of the well known bookstores. The series was
produced by (I think) WGED in Pittsburgh, so one might also request info from
them, or from any local community college that provides video classes. As a last
resort, you could always, God forbid!, check your local library.:-)

     I was also thinking that perhaps someone on the net might know something
about the status of the current search for Nemesis? I believe it was being
conducted based on the data received from (I forget the name) some infrared
imaging satellite put up a few years ago and was focusing on 5000 or so nearby
cool dwarf stars. Does anyone know anything about this?

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars"

                                                            Rick R. Johnson
                                                            RJOHNSON@CEBAF1

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #51
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Oct 88 04:27:34 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04667>; Mon, 24 Oct 88 03:29:28 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 24 Oct 88 03:29:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.cXMhi2y00jZd8GB04V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AXMheMy00Ui341i05e>;
          Mon, 24 Oct 88 03:24:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.kXMhZgy00UkZQ8NU4z>;
          Mon, 24 Oct 88 03:19:13 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct 24 88 03:17:37 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #52

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
		    Re: traces of human existence
		      Re: Challenger Astronauts
		   Continental transmitter and I280
		     A new illusion from Houston
		       Re: Long lived orbits...
		  Re: Naming the new Shuttle Orbiter
			       Experts?
		 Re: where should all the people go?
	     A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sender: "John_A_Kostecki.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Date: 14 Oct 88 05:09:16 PDT (Friday)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous mass extinction
From: "John_A_Kostecki.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Cc: "John_A_Kostecki.WBST129"@Xerox.COM

In the article in issue V9 #31 from Bill Johnson:

>A couple of months ago Jack Sepkoski (of Raup and Sepkoski, well-known
>collaborators on mass extinctions) gave a talk here as part of an
interesting
>symposium titled "Unsolved Mysteries in the Science of Life."  (BTW,
papers
>from the talks there, which were very well done and pitched at about the 
>same level as, say, Scientific American, are available as _Los Alamos 
>Science_ no. 16, Los Alamos report LA-UR-88-1000.  Most university and 
>many public libraries should be able to get it easily; it's well worth
reading.) 
> One of the slides he showed was of extinction rate over geologic> time, 
>with "peaks" from the (periodic?) mass extinctions superposed on a smooth
> "background" rate.  To quote the paper:

	>"... you may have noticed a secular decline in the 'background'
	>extinction rate through the Phanerozoic ... The rates tend to be
	>very high early in the Cambrian and decline through the later
	>Phanerozoic.  [A figure in the paper] shows how a simple exponential
	>fits that decline for marine families.  The decline suggests that
	>marine taxa are becoming more and more resistant to whatever processes
	>cause extinction, at least at the family level.  We might speculate
	>that background extinction will asymptotically grind to a halt. ..."

>In other words, Sepkoski thinks your speculation may be correct, although 
>we aren't near that asymptotic state yet (the extinction rate now is about
>an eighth as great as it was 600 million years ago).  It's always nice to
hear
>that one's own speculations agree with those of the "pro's" in the field!

This is pretty interesting.  In studying the evolution of taxa throughout
time, there is a noticable increase in the complexity and robustness of the
organisms in the fossil record.  The mass extinctions wiped out species and
also phyla because they were not able to adapt and compete for the
available ecological niches.  A good example is that of phyla Brachiopoda
(known as brachiopods).  These animals resembled scallops and fed by
sucking water through a coil of cilia (hairs) which filtered out the
plankton or organic particles in the water.  The shells were permanently
attached to the sea bottom with a long "foot".  In a way, they are similar
to barnacles.  They florished in the mid Paleozoic and were replaced by the
pelycopods (clams) in there ecological niche.  The reason for their demise
might be because clams can dig and use a snorkle to siphon and expell
water, thus less exposed to predators.

If we extropolate this to the rest of the animal and plant kingdom, we can
see that modern species are more adaptable to severe environmental changes
(there may even be something living in Lake Erie), and it is these
adaptable species, genera and phyla which continue, crowding out the less
successful species.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Oct 88 17:08:04 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Subject: Re: traces of human existence


>From: vsi1!daver!mfgfoc!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Thompson)
>Subject: Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.

>>From article <4542@lynx.UUCP>, by neal@lynx.UUCP (Neal Woodall):
>> If human race died out (no matter how), all trace of our existance on earth
>> would be gone in less than 1 Million years (weather and erosion, etc.) 
>> Neal

>I agree with Neal.  Surely no structure or mechanism left on Earth could 
>more than a few hundred thousand years.  Even the great pyramids will be
>dust in this amount of time.  They look pretty worn being only 3000 years
>old.  

The great pyramid looks ragged because the smooth outer surface was stripped
for building material. The Parthenon looks ragged because it was used to
store gunpowder, which blew up. Fossilized bones and stone tools from 
apparently more than a million years ago still exist. A random stone found
in a field may be hundreds of millions to billions of years old. Almost all
of our quartz, gold, porcelain, etc. will probably still be around a million
years from now. Large stable structures made entirely of stone should be
more or less intact. 

                                   John Roberts
                                   roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 14 Oct 88 04:23 EDT
From: RON PICARD <PICARD@gmr.com>
Subject:  Re: Challenger Astronauts

Eugene Miya writes:
> The medical records of ALL NASA employees is regarded as privacy data
> and not subject to FIA.  This is regarded as a medical matter and not
> open re: families.  If you wrote to each family and asked you might learn,
> but not likely.

It was also told to us that the specific information was also not released
to the families.  It is classified data and a clearance is needed.

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 14 Oct 88 09:22:02 EDT
From: "Lee S. Ridgway" <RIDGWAY%MITVMA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Continental transmitter and I280

I know this is not space related, but since the object that started
my thinking is being discussed in this digest, I forge ahead anyway.:

The recent talk about the Big Dish reminds me of a thought I had a few
weeks ago as I drove by it, and over the Stanford Linear Accelerator
(SLAC) on I280.  What would happen to all those micro-processor
dependent automobiles that might be driving in the vicinity of one or
both devices if they were being fired up at full power?  Not to say,
what would happen to all those people in those nice houses nearby?

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 20:25:18 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: A new illusion from Houston

Johnson Spaceflight Center in Houston, the world's leading merchant of
fake space programs, has come up with a new one:  Space resources as
the way to overcome the "fact" that we are at or approaching the
limit of the cost/demand curve for space transportation.

For those unfamiliar with the way costs of things usually come down --
An item starts out being unavailable at any price, in other words, it
is infinitely expensive.  At some point it becomes available for a
price and that price is typically so high that no one who wants it
can afford it.  Sometimes the price comes down low enough to meet the
means of someone who wants it and the item can be purchased.  Once
purchased, it can usually be purchased again at a substantially lower
cost because it is easier to duplicate an item produced by design than
it was to produce it the first time.  This lower cost results in more
people being able to afford the item who also want it -- so they purchase
it and provide the cash and motive to optimize the production of the
item even further, lowering its cost further,... and so on.  As the
cost lowers the demand rises and as the demand rises the volume of 
production which allows both economies of scale and greater experience
in how to produce the item at lower cost.

Eventually, the real cost of the item stops dropping so drastically
and starts leveling out.  At the same time, the demand stops growing
as fast and starts leveling out.  This is the point of "market saturation"
and this is the point where JSC wants us to believe we are in launch
services -- whether because there just aren't enough people with the
money who want to launch or because it is getting very expensive to
decrease the cost of launch further.  With this illusion established,
JSC has formed the pseudo-foundation for "the next logical step" which
is space resource utilization. 

While it is true that space resource utilization is, eventually, a
logical step, it is ridiculous to pursue space resource utilization 
as a developmental goal, as opposed to a topic of basic research,
until we have freed up the economy to walk down the cost/demand
curve on its own, without the "help" of JSC in the form of criminal
suppression of attempts by entrepreneurs to start up launch service
companies.  We have at least a factor of 100 to go on the cost/demand
curve if JSC would just get the H*LL out of the way and we would reach
it much sooner than we would by pursuing ALS, Shuttle C or any other
half-baked bureaucratic idea.

Don't fall for JSC's newest illusion.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1988 16:21-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Long lived orbits...

Mike Thompson:

I understand that lunar orbits tend to be quite unstable because of the
Masscons.

There are also human-made objects in solar orbit which will probably
last until the Sun goes off the main sequence.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 88 21:33:22 GMT
From: amdahl!dlb!plx!skibo@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (skibo login )
Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle Orbiter

In reference to giving the name PHOENIX to the next shuttle:

In article <Added.0XJEBpy00UkT4CD09g@andrew.cmu.eds: <, dirkct@PINE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU ("TERRELL") writes:
> 
> ... The point here is the symbolism of the rebirth, and that
> we will continue to move ahead even though failures are inevitable.

I would like to put forth the idea that the space program has spent enough
time wearing sackcloth-and-ashes because of the Challenger.

The effort has been made to correct the faults of the earlier design ...
and the shuttle is flying again.

Giving the Shuttle a symbolic name to commemorate the Challenger -- such
as "Challenger II", "Christa", or even "Phoenix" is not necessary
to keep the memory of the seven astronauts alive.  The new Shuttle has
its own purpose: that of an exploratory, space-services vehicle .... not
a monument to the dead, or the mistakes of the past.

Time to get on with the space program ...  call the damn
thing "Teddy Roosevelt" !!!!!!   :->

stan chesnutt / plexus computers / sun!plx!skibo
--
My opinions are my own.  But I'll give 'em away if asked!

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Oct 88 12:33:58 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Experts?
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!juniper!chari@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  
(Christopher Michael Whatley) writes:
 
>I don't normally post to this group since I am no expert but...

A little empirical observation should reveal that this is not a
requirement.



(Fortunately we do have quite a few experts, though, it seems.)

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Oct 88 03:06:17 +0100
From: Matts Kallioniemi <MATTS@kicki.stacken.kth.se>
To: dasys1!tneff@uunet.uu.net
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

> The original proposition here, on which several of us are disagreeing,
> is that humanity "moving into space" will not improve the lot of the
> vast majority of people who remain on Earth... and that many space
> enthusiasts implicitly acknowledge this but dismiss it on the grounds
> that the only ones who actually MATTER are the ones who leave (let the
> rest eat cake) -- this is elitism, in case you wondered what elitism
> really looks like. :-)  Now, quite a few people have written pointing
> out ways they think this is wrong, i.e., ways that people back here will
> in fact be better off when humanity moves into space.  I may not agree
> with all their points but I can respect the argument. You, on the other
> hand, are simply pleading guilty to the original charge.  You don't
> need to explain that you don't consider it wrong; OF COURSE you don't,
> that's the whole point.

But I am NOT pleading guilty to the original charge!!!!!!

Can't you see the difference between assuming that Earth won't improve
with space colonization, and simply not wishing to be dependant on the
fact that it will?

I sincerely hope that Mankind on Earth will survive until the day Sol
goes nova, and I will do my best to make it happen, but I can't see
how to guarantee it, with the development of nuclear warfare. So to
avoid the risk of extinction of life as we know it, I would like to
have self supported space(/moon/mars/etc) colonies set up as soon as
possible. During my expected lifetime the chances of survival will
probably be far better on Earth than in space, but I am prepared to go
there anyhow, so don't tell me that I wish to leave people on Earth to
die!

/Matts Kallioniemi <matts@stacken.kth.se>

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 15:43:18 GMT
From: may@endor.harvard.edu  (Jason May)
Subject: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft


I've been wondering about this sort of thing, but my physics and math
isn't good enough to figure this out.  Is anyone out there game to try?


My spaceship masses 1000 metric tons, including fuel.  The engine is
uses hydrogen fusion to supply thrust.  The engine is 100% efficient,
converting hydrogen (deuterium, tritium, a mix, or whatever) to
helium and expelling the product out the exhaust.
I want to travel 100 million km (10^11 meters) at a constant
acceleration of 1 gravity (call it 10 m/s).  I don't need to be
stopped at the end, so I don't have to turn around at the midpoint
of the journey.

How long does the trip take?
How much of the ship's initial mass must be fuel in order to do this?
Is there any other information I need to supply?

Thanks muchly to anyone who's willing to take a shot at this.

Jason
(may@endor.harvard.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 17:23:26 GMT
From: accelerator!baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <484@husc6.harvard.edu> may@endor.UUCP (Jason May) writes:
>My spaceship masses 1000 metric tons, including fuel.  The engine is
>uses hydrogen fusion to supply thrust.  The engine is 100% efficient,
>converting hydrogen (deuterium, tritium, a mix, or whatever) to
>helium and expelling the product out the exhaust.
>I want to travel 100 million km (10^11 meters) at a constant
>acceleration of 1 gravity (call it 10 m/s).  I don't need to be
>stopped at the end, so I don't have to turn around at the midpoint
>of the journey.
>
>How long does the trip take?

Let's see..

x_t = x_0 + v_0*t + .5*a*t^2

Set x_0 = 0 m, assume (ie, you should have specified this) v_0 = 0 m/s,
and we get:

x_t = .5*a*t^2

We are given x_t = 10^11 m, and a = 10 m/s^2, so we have:

t^2 = .2*10^11 s^2 = 2E10 s^2

or

t ~=~ 1.4E5 s

Since 1 day ~=~ 8E4 s, the answer is: a little less than 2 days.
(modulo my algebra, it's renowned for its ``accuracy'')

>How much of the ship's initial mass must be fuel in order to do this?
>Is there any other information I need to supply?

Yup.  At the very least: 
- What reaction(s) are you running.  If multiple reactions, in what
  proportion?  (needed to determine the energy yield per unit mass)
- What is the exhaust velocity of your drive (function of above and
  the nozzle design, needed to determine *drive* -- as opposed to
  reaction -- efficiency)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #52
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Oct 88 07:07:29 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00674>; Mon, 24 Oct 88 05:46:06 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 24 Oct 88 05:46:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.YXMji9y00UkTE2b043@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XMjVjy00Vs1412k4f>;
          Mon, 24 Oct 88 05:31:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.MXMjLky00UkZQ8Yk55>;
          Mon, 24 Oct 88 05:20:54 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct 24 88 05:17:55 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #53

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		   Re: Partial List of Signatories
	     Shuttle Manifest (plus science expendables)
	  Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)
		  Condensed CANOPUS - September 1988
		    Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 17:46:27 GMT
From: accelerator!kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft


In regard to my ``solution'': I just thought of something (never
answer news after playing theory for hours, it warps the mind).  While
my little thing should be a valid solution for the problem you stated,
it is not for the problem you probably meant.  Is all this stuff
really going on in empty space, or is there/are there planets/stars
around?  If the latter, gravity is going to rear its ugly head, and
you will need to specify the exact geometry of the problem.  (and if
the number of attracting bodies is greater than one, I throw in the
towel)

Sorry for the confusion,
SR

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 23:23:13 GMT
From: voder!lynx!neal@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Partial List of Signatories

In article <1556@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:

>>HENRY W. KENDALL, Prof./Physics,MIT; Chairman, Union of Concerned Scientists
>This signatory alone is enough to make *me* withold my signature.

>Is anyone else out there as insulted by this posting as I was? 
>This tactic has completely removed the last
>shred of respect I had for the Mars Declaration.
>(Brrrr, to think of *my* name on the same form as Henry
>Kendall's..... 8-(

First of all, who is Henry Kendall, and why is he so bad? I think that the
Union of Concerned Scientists is a group that argues against the proliferation
of nuclear weapons, but I am not sure. Also, to let one posting ruin your
respect for the Mars Declaration seems kind of silly to me. Would you also
be against another good idea (like feeding homeless people in the US just
because someone like, say, Lyndon Larouche was in favor of it?

Whats the deal, Bill?

>Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt

------------------------------

Date: 16 Oct 88 18:16:37 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Shuttle Manifest (plus science expendables)

Here's a complete shuttle manifest and some additional launch dates.
The information was extracted from an article in CANOPUS (See
companion posting.) dated 88/09/01.  The schedule is being posted
separately from the usual CANOPUS postings because of its general
interest.   The following comments are from CANOPUS.

1990 will be a busy year for space science with Hubble, Astro, the
Gamma Ray Observatory, Space Life Sciences-1, Ulysses, and ATLAS-1
missions being flown. The first two unclassified military Shuttle
payloads will also be flown, one carrying infrared telescopes and the
other carrying the Starlab laser targeting Spacelab mission. 

In the manifest given below, a number in the first column denotes a
Space Shuttle mission, and an E denotes an expendable launch vehicle.
For clarity, only expendables carrying space science payloads are
listed. 

STS  DATE   PAYLOAD/COMMENTS
26   9/88   TDRS-C. Resumes missions.
27   11/88  DOD.

29   2/89   TDRS-D; also carrying SSBUV-1 (Solar Spectral 
            Backscatter UV)
30   4/89   Magellan (Venus radar mapper)
E    5/89   Cosmic Background Explorer
28   7/89   DOD
33   8/89   DOD
34   10/89  Galileo (Jupiter orbiter/probe + inner solar system 
            mini-tour)
32   11/89  Syncom IV launch; LDEF retrieval
36   12/89  DOD

31   2/90   Hubble Space Telescope
E    2/90   ROSAT (Roentgen Satellit; West Germany)
35   3/90   ASTRO-1 + BBRXT (Broad Band X-ray Telescope)
37   4/90   Gamma Ray Observatory
38   5/90   DOD
40   6/90   Space Life Science-1
E    6/90   Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite
39   7/90   CIRRIS (Cryogenic IR Radiance Instrument for 
            Shuttle), IBSS (Infrared Background Survey of 
            Shuttle; Spacelab-2 IR telescope on SPAS platform); 
            Teal Ruby (IR aircraft tracking system)
41   9/90   Starlab (DOD laser targeting tests)
42   10/90  Ulysses (international solar polar mission)
43   11/90  TDRS-E
44   12/90  ATLAS-1 (Atmospheric and Terrestrial Laboratory 
            Applications in Space)

45   1/91   Tethered Satellite System 1; GPS navigation satellite
46   2/91   DOD
47   4/91   IML-1 (International Microgravity Laboratory)
48   5/91   WAMDII (Wide-Angle Michaelson Imaging 
            Interferometer), GPS, EURECA (European Retrievable 
            Carrier)
(E   5/91   planetary alternative launcher)
E    6/91   Small Explorer-1
49   7/91   Spacelab J (U.S./Japan)
50   8/91   Spacehab-1, LAGEOS (Laser Geodynamics Satellite), 
            INMARSAT
E    8/91   Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer
51   9/91   Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
E    9/91   Small Explorer-2
E    10/91  Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite
52   12/91  Spacelab D-2 (West Germany)
53   12/91  ASTRO-2, EUERCA retrieval

E    1/92   Small Explorer-3
54   2/92   Shuttle Radar Lab-1; first flight of replacement 
            orbiter (OV-105)
55   3/92   USML-1 (U.S. Microgravity Lab-1; extended duration 
56   4/92   SHEAL (Shuttle High-Energy Astrophysics Laboratory); 
            GEOSTAR, ORFEUS (unidentified SPAS payload)
57   5/92   Advanced Communications Technology Satellite, USMP-1 
            (U.S. Micrgravity Platform)
58   6/92   ATLAS-2, Satcom
E    6/92   Small Explorer-4
59   7/92   Space Life Sciences-2 (extended duration planned)
60   7/92   Industrial Space Facility-1
E    7/92   Geotail ISTP (International Solar-Terrestrial Program)
61   8/92   DOD
62   9/92   DOD
E    9/92   Mars Observer
63   10/92  IML-2
64   10/92  Spacehab, Geostar commercial navigation satellite
65   11/92  TDRS-F
66   12/92  DOD
E    12/92  Wind ISTP

67   1/93   ATLAS-3; CRISTA (SPAS payload, not identified)
E    1/93   Small Explorer-5
68   2/93   Industrial Space Facility
69   3/93   Shuttle Radar Lab
70   4/93   EURECA-2, USMP-2 (U.S. Microgravity Platform)
71   5/93   DOD
72   6/93   SFU retrieval (not identified), GEOSTAR-3
E    6/93   Polar ISTP
E    6/93   Small Explorer-6
73   7/93   USML-2 (extended duration mission)
74   8/93   Spacehab 3, AAFE (Aeroassist Flight Experiment)
75   9/93   INMARSAT-2, Garvity Probe-B1

-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 16:09:34 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)

In article <1560@cbnews.ATT.COM>, wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:

> "V", and means "vengeance weapon"). Some claim that the V-3 designation
> would have been given to the two-stage A9/A10 intercontinental missile,
> while others apply it to the multiple-chambered guns built in France
> for shelling Britain.

Were the Germans really working on two-stage rockets?
I guess we've all seen "Operation Crossbow" with its multi-stager
with four engines in the first stage, but this is an action movie
not a documentary.  Just how far along were W. von Braun and his
cohorts?  Sure took them a while to build anything that big for us
afterwards (yes, I know Ike had a go-slow policy).

Also how does a multi-chambered artillery gun work?
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like handguns and nuclear bombs.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 15 Oct 88 15:28:17 EET
From: Tero Siili <FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>


An inquiry:

I am about to start working in project, which studies martian atmosphere.
I'd be interested to join the Planetary society, if it is of some
professional and intellectual benefit. I got the address from a recent
sci.space posting, but I'd like to read some personal comments on the
society by members, ex-members or anyone, who wishes to give me some
advice...
Please send your comments directly to me, adresses are below:
BITNET: FYS-TS at FINHUT
Internet: fys-ts@finhut.hut.fi

Thanks in advance,

     Tero

------------------------------

Date: 16 Oct 88 18:12:32 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - September 1988

Here's the condensed CANOPUS for September 1988.  There are only three
articles, one by title only, and two in condensed form.  The shuttle
manifest included in this issue is posted separately.  Note that a
table of contents has been added at the beginning.  You can use the
article numbers to search for particular articles that may interest
you.  Items in {braces} are from me.  Articles are heavily condensed,
even where ellipses (...) are not shown. 

CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; 
e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded).  Send
correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.

{CONTENTS}
CRRES Schedule clarification - can880902.txt - 9/23/88 {title only}
HUBBLE, ASTRO DELAYED BY SHUTTLE - can880901.txt - 9/1/88  {condensed;
  shuttle and science expendable manifest posted separately}
DUAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERED FOR CRAF AND CASSINI - can880903.txt - 9/27/88
  {condensed}

HUBBLE, ASTRO DELAYED BY SHUTTLE - can880901.txt - 9/1/88

Launch of the Hubble Space Telescope has been delayed by seven months,
and a number of other payloads shuffled, because of delays in getting
the Space Shuttle back into operation.  On Tuesday NASA issued a
revised launch manifest reflecting problems caused by the delays with
SS Discovery. The manifest had to be structured around the planetary
windows and high-priority Department of Defense missions. 

DUAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERED FOR CRAF AND CASSINI - can880903.txt - 9/27/88

More than $500 million could be saved by developing the Comet
Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby and Cassini Saturn/Titan missions as a
package rather than as separate programs, according to NASA.  The
total program costs, including mission operations and data analysis,
are estimated at $3.3 billion. Total spacecraft costs are estimated at
$1.58 billion if the two can be developed together and built with
common spares and manpower pools. 

The mission phasing for the two is crucial so that Cassini can take
advantage of a Jupiter swingby in 1996/97. 

CRAF now is targeted for comet Wild 2, assuming a new start is
approved for the fiscal 1990 budget (to be requested in January) and a
launch on April 15, 1995. The spacecraft will fly a delta- VEGA
(delta-V Earth gravity assist) with the Earth flyby on Feb.  28, 1997,
and a flyby of the 15 Eunomia asteroid on Oct. 8, 1997.  Rendezvous
with Wild 2 will come in July 2001 and last for approximately 800
days. It will comprise an initial reconnaissance, near nucleus science
phase (with penetrator delivered to the surface in June 2002),
perihelion phase, and a tail excursion. Nominal end of mission is set
for December 2003. 

Cassini is planned as a joint NASA/ESA mission. It is similar to the
mission it follows, the Galileo orbiter/probe of Jupiter. In fact,
NASA once offered the same two-for-one argument for Galileo and the
Saturn Orbiter/Dual Probe mission. 

Cassini would place a spacecraft in orbit around Saturn and drop
probes into the atmosphere of Saturn's moon, Titan. (Earlier versions
of this mission carried a second probe for Saturn.) Launch would take
place on April 10, 1996, and be followed by an inner solar system
orbit with a flyby of comet 66 Maja on March 14, 1997, and an Earth
gravity assist on June 13, 1998. A second gravity assist would take
place with a Jupiter flyby on Feb. 2, 2000, and the spacecraft would
arrive at Saturn on Oct. 2, 2002. During the Jupiter flyby, Cassini
would perform science observations to complement the Galileo
spacecraft, including possible stereo imaging of the planet's upper
atmosphere and clouds. 

After Saturn orbit insertion, Cassini would be in a highly elliptical
orbit higher than 100 radii and taking it within 1000 km of Titan on
Jan. 11, 2003. This would be followed by a four- year tour of Saturn's
moons lasting through December 2006. 
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 22:09:46 GMT
From: chinook.cis.ohio-state.edu!sarrel@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Marc Sarrel)
Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins


Thanks for keeping the net up to date.  I just got a really neat
satellite tracking program for my mac and have been able to load in
these orbital elements files successfully.  However, not being a
"setellite hobbiest" I have a couple of questions.

Do these files contain data on anything other than low-orbit
satellites (ie: geosynchronous ones)?  I might like to use this
program to see which geosynchronous satellites are visible from my
house (for when I get a dish... sigh).  Also, could my program be used
to track the Earth's only natural satellite, the moon?  Or, is that a
different problem altogether because the moon is so large.

Also, is there any way to tell or find out what some of these
satellites are used for?  Why would anyone, apart from initial
curiosity, want to track satellites anyway?  Would ham radio people
need to for some reason?

Thanks...
-=-
 Marc Sarrel, Department of Computer and Information Science
 The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH USA 43210-1277
 sarrel@cis.ohio-state.edu
 "If you wanna have fun, go to Washington.  Spokane!"  -- Cleric Apton

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #53
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Oct 88 01:02:34 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03491>; Tue, 25 Oct 88 00:35:01 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 25 Oct 88 00:34:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.IXN0FEy00UkTQBcE59@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXN0=ay00Vs1Q10Ed8>;
          Tue, 25 Oct 88 00:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.YXN04ry00UkZQ1gk4R>;
          Tue, 25 Oct 88 00:21:17 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Oct 25 88 00:19:31 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #54

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 54

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Earth & living in space
			     RE: Gravity
		   > >RE : SRB ignition failure --
		Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
		      Re: Cretaceous Extinctons
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Oct 88 18:32:08 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1988Oct15.124434.7282@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <149@enuxha.UUCP> kluksdah@enuxha.UUCP (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
> > In refutation of #3, I suggest that it is because of
> >people who aren't content that we have pressure to continue exploring.  Face
> >it--most of us are inherently curious.
> 
> That some fanatical minority (or majority) is in favor of some course
> of action is no evidence that that action is correct.  Man is exploring
> the solar system. 
> 
> >examine the problem of the greenhouse effect.  If we had abundant, cheap
> >power available, we wouldn't have to burn fossil fuels, which would cut down
> >on the problem.  How do we get cheap power?  IF (and that's a big if) space
> >access were very reasonable, solar power satellites would be practical.
> > That's only ONE possible solution.  Another is continued research on
> >disposal of radioactive waste and safer reactor design.  Another is fusion.
> 
> Let's examine this.  The US spends, if I recall correctly, about $400
> M a year on fusion.  This is about 25 times less than it spends on the
> civilian space program.  While fusion has many serious technical
> problems, the problems of building an economical SPS are also grave.
> Building SPS would require reducing the costs of operating in space by
> several orders of magnitude.  This is very very hard to do.
> 
> >4) IT ISN'T TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE.
> >The last is an argument against ALL technological and scientific research.
> 
> I suppose the position that you hold is that everything would be
> technically feasible tommorrow, if only Congress would do things your
> way.
> 
FLAME ON.
First, let me clarify my position.  Although I admittedly am a strong
advocate of space exploration, I am also a scientist, and I have learned
after several years to examine things carefully and (hopefully) logically.
AT NO POINT IN MY ARGUMENT did I state that my way is the best way.  Nor did
I state that movement into space would be a panacea for the world's problems.
Nor did I state that space power satellites are the answer.

READ THIS CAREFULLY, and re-examine my original posting if necessary.  My  
arguments boil down to a few simple statements.
1)  Mankind is inherently curious.  That curiosity may be directed toward
space exploration, scientific research, or other outlets.  ALL I SAID is
that man is curious, and there are those whose curiosity extends to the
heavens.

2)  Arguments against something because of 'technological impossibility'
is the true 'straw man'.  I didn't say specifically that space power or
transportation will solve all our problems.  PLEASE note that I DID 
specifically list more than one alternative.  As a scientist, I am very
much aware of the fact that one method of attacking a problem may not
yield the best solution.  Putting all our eggs in one basket is not just
silly, it is criminal folly.

FLAME OFF
I do not object to arguments against something which I happen to support.
It hurts to find objection, but rationality can prevail.  I object, however,
most strongly to people who argue against something without seeming to
propose any alternatives, or whose arguments reduce to quoted rhetoric
in the face of counter-arguments.  I also dislike people who 'read in' things
which aren't there.  I try to be objective.  Is it too much to ask that
others do the same??  In our haste to repeat our opinions, I fear that we
may not be as open-minded as we should.  Also, let us take care that we not
crush the spirit of the true explorers.  After all, what would our world be
like if Columbus and others like him had listened to the prevailing criticism
of his ideas?

No-one can justifiably accuse me of being a 'blind follower'.  If trashing
NASA and re-directing the money would solve our energy and pollution problems,
then I would agree that such a move is necessary and logical.  On the other
hand, since such a guaranteed result is not likely, is it wasteful to utilize
the space program for its scientific value, and also as a technology driver?
Have we received nothing for the investment we have made?

N. Kluksdahl         Arizona State U.
           ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah 
standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Oct 88 11:29:08 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (If you don't vote, you can't bitch)
Subject: RE: Gravity

Tom Neff writes:

>By the way, does this mean the Clarke carousel aboard 2001's Discovery
>would have needed a puke removal system? :-)

No, these problems weren't evident at the time he wrote the book, so they
don't apply (somewhat like gravity before Newton?!?!  :->)

Actually, the real problem was during the filming.  At least one camera
operator fell out of his seat, and another lost his "bangers&mash" due to
vertigo induced by "heads down" operation and then looking up!!!

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Oct 88 14:03:21 PDT
From: king@kestrel.arpa (Dick King)
Subject: > >RE : SRB ignition failure --

> >There wouldn't be time to jettison the SRB's entirely (as is done normally
> >after they've burned)?
> 
> Sigh.  (We were over this at length last year.)  The SRB-jettison system
> is designed for use after burnout only.

No.  The boosters are released shortly before they burn out.  This can
be seen clearly on TV at any launch.

I suspect that this is with good reason.  It is probably very
difficult to make them both burn out even within one second of the
other, and i suspect the austronauts would be in deep doo-doo if they
had that drastically unbalanced thrust for even that long.

> -- 
> The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
> the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

-dk

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 16:38:38 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space

In article <10648@reed.UUCP>, reeder@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes:
> Recent talk on the net of U.S. Soviet cooperation led me to wonder:
> Did anything useful come out of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project?

I've always wondered how much the Russians learned from us.
Seems that during our Apollo missions, the Soviets still didn't
trust themselves to rendezvous two vehicles in space.
Now they do it automatically.

Some of our astronauts learned to speak Russian (both crews had
to be bi-lingual, sort of), which may help them get space
jobs in the future ;-).

Seriously, the biggest benefit of Soyuz to both sides was
political and conceptual.  You can talk about a joint US/USSR
mission to Mars without people looking at you strangely, and if
they do, just remind them of Soyuz.

Mankind CAN cooperate in space.  I could not justify both "sides"
each spending the time and money to mount separate, competitive
Mars missions (or equivalent).  I'd really support a joint mission.
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like handguns and nuclear bombs.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 14:31:08 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!watdcsu!smann@bellcore.com  (Shannon Mann - I.S.er)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous Extinctons

I am curious to know if there has been any research done about other possible
reasons for the mass extinctions.  One in particular I had in mind:

What about intense solar flares?  Maybe the dinosaurs (which I believe were
hairless) died of massive doses of Vitamin C?  I realise that today, the ozone
layer would compensate for the increased UV (or maybe would have in the not
to recent past :-), but that may not have always been the case.  Still, there
would be the less potent visible spectrum to deal with.

For this argument would be the possibility of fur would protect most mammals
from severe exposure, but still leave most (all?) of the saurians exposed to 
massive sun burn.  The smaller reptiles could get out of direct exposure 
during most of the day by hiding in burrows, crevases, etc.  It wouldn't be
necessary for all saurians to be eliminated, just enough to thoroughly 
unbalance the ecosphere enough to cause a large percentage of the population
to die out.  Many of the predators would follow due to the lack of food.

The increase in solar radiation would cause an increase in the planetary
temperature, enough to cause even more imbalances.  Possibly, the increase
in temperature might be attributed to the cause of saurian demise.  There
are many ecospheres present today that exist within a narrow band of temper-
ature.  Check out our Great Lakes, and the ecospheres that exist around
volcanic rifts in the deep sea.  Both have narrow temperature band ecospheres.

How would the intense radiation effect the plantlife?  What about the 
the possibility of a shifting spectrum of radiation.  Shifting spectrums
could possibly cause the major plant life form to drop in quantity of growth.
This would, in turn, cause a ripple affect through out the food chain.  If
the primary plantlife was eaten to almost extinction (why not, Everything
else was), the effect could be rather dramatic.

Of course, all of the above does not explain the iridium layer that can
be found, dating from that period.  But, then again, the layer by itself
does not explain the mass extinctions (although it would seem to support
the comet, or impact theory.)  The layer may be coincidental (realise I
am more than guessing here.)

Any one care to comment about the possibility of periodic sun activity of the 
type mentioned above?   Does it agree, disagree with the present views and
models we have of stars?

Well, what do you think?  I haven't done what most would think to be basic
research in the impact theory.  However, that may mean a fresh perspective.
I would appreciate any comments, criticisms, alternative ideas.

        -=-
-=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca
        -=-

'I have no brain, and I must think...' - An Omynous
'If I don't think, AM I' - Another Omynous

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 21:38:32 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <830@accelerator> rob@baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
>In article <484@husc6.harvard.edu> may@endor.UUCP (Jason May) writes:
>>My spaceship masses 1000 metric tons, including fuel.  The engine is
>>uses hydrogen fusion to supply thrust.  The engine is 100% efficient,
>>converting hydrogen (deuterium, tritium, a mix, or whatever) to
>>helium and expelling the product out the exhaust.
>>I want to travel 100 million km (10^11 meters) at a constant
>>acceleration of 1 gravity (call it 10 m/s).  I don't need to be
>>stopped at the end, so I don't have to turn around at the midpoint
>>of the journey.
>>
>>How long does the trip take?
>
>Let's see..
[math deleted]
>t ~=~ 1.4E5 s
>
>Since 1 day ~=~ 8E4 s, the answer is: a little less than 2 days.

39.6 hours, to be exact.

BTW, your ship will buzz past your destination at a respectable 1.4x10^6
m/sec (3.1 million miles per hour), so you'll probably get a ticket 8-)

>>How much of the ship's initial mass must be fuel in order to do this?
>>Is there any other information I need to supply?
>
>Yup.  At the very least: 

Well, we can draw a few conclusions:

F = m*a
  =~ 10^6 kg * 10 m/sec^2
  =~ 10^7 N

Work, W = F * x
	=~ 10^7 N * 10^11 m
	=~ 10^18 Nm

E = m * c^2    (note that here m=matter lost, not spaceship mass)
10^18 Nm =~ m * (3x10^8 m/sec)^2
    m =~ 10.9 kg

i.e., 10.9 kilos coverted entirely to energy, used 100% efficiently,
would do the job. Make it 11 kilos, you'll want a heater and maybe
a reading light.... 8-)

Now, it should be simple enought to factor in your efficiency (100 %,
you say) and how much matter is lost in the reaction of a unit mass 
through your fusion drive (i.e., the hydrogen-helium cycle, or whatever).
This will tell you the total fuel mass. You'll actually need less
fuel than you calculate, as the ship gets lighter during the trip and
is therefore easier to accelerate; but if the total fuel mass is less than
about 10% (very roughly) you can ignore this effect.

Disclaimer: AT&T doesn't endorse my mathematics. Should you try this
   experiment and end up stranded somewhere near Jupiter, *don't* expect
   a free phone call home. 8-)

------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 00:40:41 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rbr4@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Roland Roberts)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

about a fusion powered spacecraft.  Given:

 1) initial total mass (1000 metric tons)
 2) a constant acceleration (1g, say 10 meters/second^2)
 3) a trip distance (10^11 meters)

then...

>How long does the trip take?
>How much of the ship's initial mass must be fuel in order to do this?
>Is there any other information I need to supply?

In a reply <830@accelerator>, rob@baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
gave a solution to the time question and pointed out several questions that
should be asked to obtain a complete solution.

The trouble with engineers is that they ask all those annoying detailed
questions :-), being a physicist, I'll now waive my hands vigorously and
provide a solution which puts some limits on a "real" solution.

First of all, Jason May specifies that his engine is 100% efficient.  Okay,
I'm gullible and I'll believe that.  That being the case, I'll pick a
semi-reasonable reaction for the fusion, namely

   1D + 1H --> 3He + (gamma) + 5.49 MeV

This particular reaction is part of the pp-cycle in the sun's fusion, and
it is one of the faster reactions (not the whole pp-cycle, only this part).
So let's say this miracle engine kicks out the 3He with the entire 5.49MeV.
Doing some conversions, this gives an exhaust velocity of 9.38e6 m/s (3.1%
of light speed).  That's still slow enough that the classical formulas
apply and the velocity relationships are given as

         v    =  v  ln(M /M )
          f       ex    i  f
where...
         v    = (final rocket, exhaust) velocity
          f,ex

         M    = (final, initial) masses
          f,i

(cf _Spacetime Physics_ (STP), Taylor and Wheeler, p.141ff).  STP gives a
relativistic solution for cases where the final velocities are higher.

Using Rob Carriere's answer to the time, and the constant acceleration, 

   the final velocity is ...   1.4e6 m/s 
   the final mass is ....... 816 metric tons

Obviously, this is a bit optimistic :-).  Most of the time the photon will
have a *lot* of the energy, and that means you get far less mileage for the
same mass.  At the opposite extreme, if the photon has all the energy, then
for every gram converted to photon (exhaust) 511.7 are vented with zero
exhaust velocity.  The photon gives more kick for it's 5.49 MeV than the
3He, but gives nothing for the 3He residue.  In fact, it's so bad that for
the given example, you don't have enough initial mass!

If you want to do interstellar distances, then the above solutions are
incorrect due to the need to include relativistic effects (i.e., your speed
builds up after a while).  I would suggest looking at STP (already
mentioned) and _Essential Relativity_, Wolfgang Ridler, particular section
2.16 "Proper Acceleration."  If you use the relativistic formalism, the
final velocity (starting from zero) is given as

     T = sqrt[(aX/c^2 + 1)^2 -1] c/a

     v = aT / sqrt[1 + (aT/c)^2]

with
     a = constant (in ship frame) acceleration
     X = distance travelled
     c = light speed
     T = time elapsed
     v = final velocity

A final comment is in order:  It has been suggested by some that a fusion
powered spacecraft is probably not going to happen.  I have only one vague
readily available reference to this, from Science News vol.132, no.13
(p.205), September 26, 1987, "Gone with fission".  George Chapline of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory made his comments at the
International Symposium on Feasibility of Aneutronic Power.

Hope this provides a satisfactory answer!
-- 
Roland Roberts                            BITNET: roberts@uornsrl
Nuclear Structure Research Lab          INTERNET: rbr4@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
271 East River Road                         UUCP: rochester!ur-cc!rbr4
Rochester, NY  14267                        AT&T: (716) 275-8962

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #54
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Oct 88 05:22:29 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03274>; Tue, 25 Oct 88 03:39:52 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 25 Oct 88 03:39:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.gXN2yZy00Vs1AAm04t@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AXN2mry00Vs1411V54>;
          Tue, 25 Oct 88 03:26:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.oXN2gjy00UkZA22k5X>;
          Tue, 25 Oct 88 03:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Oct 25 88 03:18:18 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #55

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Naming the new Shuttle Orbiter
		   Re: re earth and living in space
			Henry's latest tirade
	  Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 19:47:35 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle Orbiter

In article <ridiculous-id> dirkct@PINE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU ("TERRELL") writes:
>	I've been following this discussion recently, and I think that the only
                                                                           ^^^^
								   Indeed!/
>appropriate name for OV-105 is PHOENIX, despite objections that the 
>mythological bird died repeatedly. 
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		     \ Indeed!
		       What does it take, to translate as CHILD MOLESTER?!

>                      The point here is the symbolism of the rebirth, and that
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					       \ 105 already ordered before
						 STS25 accident - only diff
						 is that now it has to replace
						 an OV instead of augmenting
						 the fleet.  Happy day.

>we will continue to move ahead even though failures are inevitable. ...
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      \ Unsupported assertion of the week award!  Next failure is IT.

>	Also, a recent poll by USA Today found that the name PHOENIX was by far
>the most popular name for the new orbiter.

Oh well, why didn't you say so!  Order the stencils immediately.
What's good enough for Americans without a decent local daily newspaper
of their own is good enough for me!

Actually if you must name the OV after an Arizona town, I prefer
BENSON. :-)

However I am afraid there are heavier hitters out there in the
city-naming battle.  If you know how NASA appropriations and oversight
work you must realize that HOUSTON will get the first orbiter named
after it.  Of course, this will cause some confusion during flight.

BEFORE:

	CAPCOM: Discovery, Houston. Do you copy.

	DISCOVERY: Roger, Houston, we have you five squared up here.

AFTER:

	CAPCOM: Houston, Houston. Do you copy.

	HOUSTON: Roger, Houston, we have you five squared up here.

	KSC: Houston, we have the updated upper atmosphere numbers
		for relay to Houston.

	CAPCOM: Roger KSC, Houston, do you copy?

	HOUSTON: Roger Houston, go ahead with the numbers.

	KSC: Sorry Houston, repeat that last, you broke up.

	CAPCOM: Uh, OK --
	HOUSTON: Roger KSC -- sorry, go ahead Houston.
	CAPCOM:           sorry, go ahead Houston.

	KSC: Was that JSC or Houston wanted the numbers?

	CAPCOM: Houston --        this is JSC --
	HOUSTON:           JSC --                sorry go ahead Houston.

	CAPCOM: Uh, KSC, we'll get back to you in three on those numbers.

	KSC: Roger Houston, we copy.

	HOUSTON: Roger Houston.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 02:40:13 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: re earth and living in space

nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:

  Politics and priorities and different world views and apathy 
  and poverty and etc, etc, EXIST.  They're real. They are part
  of the problem and have to be solved just as much as the engineer-
  ing problems have to be solved.

And how do you solve them?  First thing, I would think, is to
talk about them and get people to realize that they are the problem.

  ... Libertarians and spacoids are both
  fond of saying that we *could* do all these great things "if it 
  weren't for the government" as though they have practically already
  done these things and the government is just sort of a technicality.

  But the government can't just be dismissed with a wave of the hand
  or as a proof to be left to the student.  

On the other hand, one can confidently predict a greater success at
technological innovation in venues where the government is not as 
great an obstacle.  And that IS an exercise left to the student...

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 01:49:11 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Henry's latest tirade

In article <1988Oct16.004116.28047@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
 
>Let me see if I have this straight.  The Mars Declaration basically says
>"we should go to Mars, someday, somehow".  And this has real potential in
>today's funding battles?  I find that difficult to swallow.
 
A Media-General/Associated Press poll (margin of error +/- 3%) taken during
the summer and published in the July 18 New_York_Times (among other papers)
came out with some interesting figures.
 
Even though the big aerospace giants had been pumping megabucks into ad
campaigns from Penn Station to People for the space station, more people
favored the human exploration of Mars.
 
Figures:
 
51% said they support the space station.
64% supported a human mission to Mars.
 
And this was BEFORE the TIME magazine cover story ("Onward to Mars").
 
People are inherently fascinated with Mars.  And it's much easier to sell
something to Congress if people favor it.
 
(Don't get me wrong again, Henry, I DO favor the space station.)
 
>Note carefully, folks, what is being said here:  the Mars Movement has
>no room for dissent or complaints.  Either you're with it or against it;
>there is no place for a "loyal opposition" in the Holy Crusade.  Mama
>knows what's best, and our duty is to obey.
 
I'm sorry if I did not state my point clearly...  Let me try again:
 
If we can agree that all these goals are good ones (moonbase, Mars missions,
space station, etc.), then we must look first at what is preventing us
currently from achieving any of them.
 
As pointed out in the discussion on "Congresscritters" the general problem
in getting funding for space activities is that Mr. Joe Congressman just
doesn't see that there's an interest in space.  Period.
 
Now I'd be perfectly happy if everyone in the public was arguing where we
should go next in space.  It would be great to get people thinking about
the final frontier again.   Woefully, this is not the case.
 
What is needed, then, is to show Congress and then next President that people
ARE interested and DO care.
 
We are not serving this end by having one 'faction' set up a "Moonbase
Declaration" and the other a "Mars Declaration" then having both sides tear
each other to pieces over why people should sign only one and not both.
We have one common enemy - apathy - and must band together against that.
 
I will be happy to sign the "Return-to-the-Moon" petition going around
AND The Mars Declaration, because frankly I'd like to do both.
 
But it hurts us to start street fighting about the order of events when
the general public isn't even aware of why we SHOULD go to Mars or the
Moon.  It is equally painful to present two mediocre petitions to Washington,
as this only reinforces the "not that many people care" message.
 
That's why it disturbs me that you used the word "opposition".  The Mars
Declaration is set up in opposition to apathy.  Those who care about going
to Mars can effectively show Congress that there really is interest in
this plan through the Declaration.
 
I would like to offer you a challenge, Henry:
 
       If you are really serious about starting us on the road to
       a brighter future in space, then do something POSITIVE.
       If you believe a moonbase to be the answer, then get out
       there and drum up support FOR a return to the moon.
 
       Quit your negative campaigning and biting.  We've had too
       much of that in this presidential election anyway.
 
       And join me in getting others to put themselves on the line -
       the signature line - in favor of renewing our commitment to
       space.  Collect signatures for a moonbase, not against a Mars
       mission.
 
       This way, we may all triumph.
 
- ERIC -
 
Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Princeton University | 11 Prospect Drive South  | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
332 Walker Hall      | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08544  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-734-4911         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 00:55:30 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)

In article <7241@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
>In article <1560@cbnews.ATT.COM>, wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:

>Were the Germans really working on two-stage rockets?

Yep. The A9 was similar to the A4 (V-2) except for its fuel system and
having two fins elongated into small wings. It was to be mounted on an A10
(basically a scaled-up A4) as an upper stage. The assembly was supposed to
be able to reach the US.

(Gee, we've come full circle... we're talking about rockets in sci.space !)
8-)

>not a documentary.  Just how far along were W. von Braun and his
>cohorts?  Sure took them a while to build anything that big for us
>afterwards (yes, I know Ike had a go-slow policy).

Neither the A9 nor A10 got past the drawing board.

>Also how does a multi-chambered artillery gun work?

The 15 cm "Hochdruckspumpe" (High Pressure Pump), aka Millipede, was a 
50-meter long gun barrel. Every couple of meters, a chamber enters
the barrel, angled toward the muzzle (resembling, somewhat, the fletching
of an arrow). The idea is that the shell is loaded in the "breech", and
a powder charge there is fired. As the shell passes along the 
successive chambers down the length of the barrel, each powder charge
is ignited in turn, supply a fresh influx of propulsive gases.
Theoretically, this should keep the pressure in the gun constant as the
projectile travels down the tube. Thus, the shell is accelerated more
than it would be in a conventional gun, allowing higher velocities
(and longer ranges) to be achieved. The goal was to be able to shell London
from Calais.

In practice, the thing didn't work well. Gases would flash past the shell
and ignite the side-chambers before the shell got there; burst barrels were
common. It never reached more than a third of the 180 km ranged predicted.
Two were used operationally (shorter versions), one of them shelling the
US 3rd Army during the Ardennes battle (from 40 miles away).

A battery of 50 had been desired for the Calais installation.


------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 88 14:54:21 GMT
From: mitel!scs!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

In article <6243@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>In article <1988Oct9.034320.15722@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
>>>*  We endorse the goal of human exploration of Mars and urge that initial   *
>>>*  steps toward its implementation be taken throughout the world.           *
> 
>>Beware that by signing this, you are essentially lending your name to...
> 
>Henry, it's about time that we gave NASA a goal.  It's about time that
                                     ^
                             How about going back to being an R&D outfit?

>we started thinking about a Mars mission.  And it's about time that the space
>community banded together to show a little support for something.

   Sure, but something with a reasonable chance of leaving us with an
infrastructure, okay?

>Your petty "moon vs. Mars" squabble is not of interest to most of the nation.

   Oh?  What's your data source?
 
> [ .... ]

>The Mars Declaration is the BEST - and in fact ONLY - document in circulation
>that will effectively show large public support for space missions and show
>the President and Congress that people DO CARE about our future in space.

  WRONG!  You haven't heard of the "Return To The Moon" petition?  This is
being circulated to the public through space interest groups all over the
country - the target is half a million signatures.  It's being done by
an organization (Space Frontier Foundation? something like that) in cooperation
with other groups.  Contact Elisa Wynn (of NSS, althought this is not an
NSS-originated document) for more info.

 
>If it fails, Congress will not think "gee, maybe we should go back to the moon
>again instead," Congress will think, "No body cares.  It's not going to get us
>re-elected, so let's put our money someplace else."

   Not necessarily -- see the Return To The Moon petition.  Also the Ride
Report, the National commission on space report ("Pioneering the Space
Frontier"), etc.

>The Mars Declaration has already brought an amazingly diverse group of people
>together in favor of human Mars exploration.  And it has real potential.

    No, a number of people who have nothing against Mars exploration have
signed it.   In fact very few people (myself and I'm sure Henry included)
have anything *against* manned Mars exploration per se.  I'm in favor of
it in fact.   BUT, as you point out
 
>It's a fight for funding. [...]

  And blowing a wad on what, at this stage, is likely to be a one-shot
"land a man on mars" stunt means that money that could have gone toward
building a real space infrastructure - with orbital and lunar bases,
low cost space transportation, etc - which would make real manned planetary
exploration easy - will have been spent on a few pounds of Mars rock.
   As witness Apollo.

>Your signature on the Mars Declaration can make sure we DO go somewhere, that
                                                 ^ No it can't.  It might,
just might, help a little, but no way can it "make sure".  Ditto for the
Return To The Moon, although the latter has IMHO a better chance of success.

>we DO set long-term goals to guide our space program, and that we DO begin
>a new era of exploration.
 
Of course, if access to space were cheap, the exploration would pretty much
take care of itself, nie?  Maybe that suggests a goal -- bring launch costs
down to some reasonably small multiple of fuel costs (currently about
$10/lb to LEO)

>Your griping will only fulfill the latter half of that old proverb:
>  "United we stand;  Divided we fall."
> 
>- ERIC -

So wouldn't it be better to be united about a goal that has a reasonable
chance of success and better long term payoffs?

-- Al (NSS member, SSI associate, Lunar Society charter member,
       Planetary Society drop-out)
------------------------------------
one of these days I really must get my .signature file fixed

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #55
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Oct 88 07:02:34 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00661>; Tue, 25 Oct 88 05:40:07 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 25 Oct 88 05:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.UXN4jNy00jZdQ2Yk4y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UXN4Udy00jZdQ1Ek59>;
          Tue, 25 Oct 88 05:23:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.MXN4R5y00UkZE2CU4t>;
          Tue, 25 Oct 88 05:20:08 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Oct 25 88 05:18:05 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #56

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Antimatter's no bargain (was: Why n
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
		   Re: Partial List of Signatories
		 Re: where should all the people go?
		 Re: where should all the people go?
			      A Poem....
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		Re: Interesting Space Speakers Wanted!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 15:22:00 GMT
From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Antimatter's no bargain (was: Why n


	The purpose of current anitmatter research is for the production
of accelerator targets. Antiprotons produced are held until a sufficient
number have been generated, and then they are collided with protons at
high speeds to generate very energetic reactions that are used to study
the basic properties of matter. The point that Forward makes is that the
requirements for good *science* using antimatter are very different from
those for good *engineering*. In order to have valid data, the anti-protons
must have extremely precises energies, and since there is a very finite
limit on how many you can have together in one place (with current
accelerators), there isn't any reason to be able to make more. Finally,
everything is designed to produce precise *HIGH* energy antiprotons -
but for antimatter engineering, you don't want high energy, you just want
a lot of them. The key fact is that antimatter is expensive now, not because
the people who make it are stupid, but because they have entirely different
goals/requirements for it.

Alan M. Carroll          "How many danger signs did you ignore?
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu     How many times had you heard it all before?" - AP&EW
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1988 12:05-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

> Your petty "moon vs. Mars" squabble is not of interest to most of the nation.

I agree with Keith Mancus, and that is one of the reasons why I no
longer support the government space program. It makes little or no
sense to me to support a $100B program that takes money out of the
private sector in the vague hopes that 5 or 10% of the effort will be
of use in opening the frontier.

One must watch carefully the way the word "WE" is bandied about, as in
"We should go to Mars." This is a rhetorical trick to make individuals
identify themselves with the "WE" despite the fact that only a few
right stuffs and stuffettes will ever see the Red Sands of Mars under
any of these scenarios.

True, well meaning engineers will try to sell such a venture as a Mars
transportation system. Just like they were used to sell the Saturn V as
a lunar tranportation system.

I really don't give a good goddamn whether Carl Sagan gets to hold a
Mars rock or not. I supported everything that came down the pipe from
childhood through my early 30's, and I have acquired a rather jaundiced
view of what the government space program is all about. I DO know what
it is NOT about. It is NOT about ME.

Those who want to go would be much better off donating their money to
the Space Studies Institute, working politically to protect the small
operators until they are big enough to protect themselves from
congress, doing coordinated technical volunteer development for SSI,
WSF, AMSAT or one of the others, going to work for one of the
entrepreneurial companies, doing research and development on your own
time and money...

Those are ways in which ALL of your funds and efforts are applied to
YOUR goals. A Mars shot won't get YOU very much at all.

		*********************************
		******** Vote Ron Paul **********
		*** Libertarian for President ***
		*********************************

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 14:45:42 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: Partial List of Signatories

In article <4675@lynx.UUCP> neal@lynx.UUCP (Neal Woodall) writes:
>In article <1556@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
>
>>>HENRY W. KENDALL, Prof./Physics,MIT; Chairman, Union of Concerned Scientists
>>This signatory alone is enough to make *me* withold my signature.
>
>First of all, who is Henry Kendall, and why is he so bad? I think that the
>Union of Concerned Scientists is a group that argues against the proliferation
>of nuclear weapons, but I am not sure. Also, to let one posting ruin your
>respect for the Mars Declaration seems kind of silly to me. Would you also
>be against another good idea (like feeding homeless people in the US just
>because someone like, say, Lyndon Larouche was in favor of it?
>
>Whats the deal, Bill?

I'm just overreacting, my right as an American 8-)

I'll admit that I probably overreacted to this posting.  I (incorrectly,
I guess) took it as intimidation, which got me up in arms.

However, when it comes to the Union of Concerned Scientists, I make
no apologies. In my opinion, members of that group *dangerously*
misuse the respect of the American people, and, frankly, misrepresent
themselves. Their organization is quite unscientific in nature (not
just that it's primarily a political group; but if they conduct scientific
research using the same logic they apply to policy statements, God help
us all).

You are correct, by the way. UCS argues against the proliferation of
nukes. They just don't bother to let facts or science ...
look, I'd better back off here, before I get sued. If you'd
like more info, I'd be glad to discuss it by email.

This is my opinion; I seek neither agreement nor approval. Suffice that
I'm not alone in my intense dislike for the UCS.  I feel as strongly
about them as many people do about the Nazi party.  Would *you* want
to sign the same petition as Hitler ?  Even if it was a good cause,
wouldn't you worry that his involvement might have strings attached,
and that he might pervert the Cause from what you seek ?



------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

>>Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 16:17:58 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

Several posters and mailers have apparently abandoned the premise that
going into space will actually improve our lot on Earth (score one for
Jorge in absentia) and are now suggesting that since we're going to
blow ourselves up or poison ourselves to death down here anyway, going
into space (for others if not the authors, give 'em credit) is the only
way to assure species survival.

There are two crippling objections to this line of reasoning.  First,
it will be centuries before any off-Earth colony (OEC) can be TRULY
self supporting, in the sense that Earth could blow up and go away and
the colony would still be viable indefinitely.  The level of technology
involved to establish and maintain an OEC is truly staggering, and
unlikely to be autochthonous for quite some time.  Virtually every
sector of Earth's productive capacity and resource cornucopia is
represented in, say, Spacelab, and Spacelab is just a baby step in
space habitation.

In the meantime, during the lifetimes it would take to go
self-supporting, Earth has to stay not only alive, but peaceful and
prosperous enough to remain active as a spaceport.  If we can't afford
to fly or aren't alive to fly or it isn't safe to try, there goes your
self supporting colony before it ever gets started.  This requires
solutions *down here*.  And I submit conversely that if we can keep
this mudball in one piece for enough centuries to see a full scale
colony blossom elsewhere, we won't *need* the colony to assure our
survival -- we will have done it ourselves.

Secondly, if we did have enough people and technology off Earth to
assure species survival despite an Earth screwup, we will by no means
be out of the woods -- your OEC will be about 1,000 times *more*
vulnerable to social and ecological misbehavior than our familiar
World-Turtle is.  Any place big enough to assure mankind's survival is
going to be big enough to have jails and elections (two notorious
institutions of ill repute :-), and it's also going to have communities
from many races right?  Watts was horrifying enough, now imagine it
happening in the hydroponics plant!

You cannot wall off an OEC from Earth's troubles.  If Earth goes under
there is a damn good chance it would take an OEC with it, just through
human irrationality and emotion.  Even if it didn't, an OEC in such
awful isolation would be under stress we can only imagine (thank
goodness).  And unlike Earth, there would be no place to run.  If we
can't get it together down here, we will lose it up there too sooner or
later.

None of this is intended to suggest it can't or won't work... only that
arguments along the lines of "to hell with Earth, we'll fix it in space"
are dangerously specious.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1988 11:45-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

I will certainly claim nolo contendere. With the fragility of the
earthly system, the number of maniacs increasing as the population
increases, the increasing interdependencies of systems, and the increasing
simplicity of mass destruction, I certainly want to be elsewhere.

It is NOT a sane act to stand in front of a loaded gun if you can even
CONCEIVABLY go elsewhere.

Anyone who wishes may state their ethical, moral, etc reasons for
standing in front of said loaded gun. If you really believe you can
change it, more power to you. 


			So long and thanks for all the fish...

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 17:38:00 CDT
From: "Pat Reiff" <eos@spacvax.rice.edu>
Subject: A Poem....
To: "space+" <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: eos@spacvax.rice.edu
Reply-To: "Pat Reiff" <eos@spacvax.rice.edu>


Thoughts of a NASA Employee's Son on the Day of Discovery's Launch,
                            September 29, 1988
 
                       I
i was in science class	dissecting frogs,
when Mr. Petrovich came in, his
tall body moving awkwardly	to the front desk.
"The Space Shuttle exploded," he said, the words	forced out of him like a 
javelin,
	or a sharp hiss of fear.
We all laughed - Mr. Petrovich was a great joker.
 
Later, after dinner,
my father and i stayed up to watch the	television's instant replays.
The brilliant fireworks flashed eerily on	my father's sad face,
while we let salt water silently
	soak our pain, like an empty womb.
Neither of us went to sleep that night; i instead
	lay quietly on the soft pillows,
staring at the glow-in-the-dark stars on my ceiling.
 
                        II
Today, we are free
	again.
Today, Discovery-
	mine and my father's-
cuts through the air above me, and the ground
	shakes with an earthquake of skybound emotion.
Today, the television's instant replays
are joyful and proud.
Today, i am smiling uncontrollably
as i hug my father tightly and shout our success
	into vaulted skies, in high tones of achievement.
Discovery, out of sight, is now within reach,
even for the astronaut
	who cannot sleep tonight for fear of waking deceived,
	who floats weightless to the window and waves at me.
i will see him through my ceiling,
	between the stars.
i will smile back, blinded with light.


--------------------- 
This was written by David B. Goldstein, 16, the son of a colleague of mine. 
---------------------
>From the First Space Science Department (celebrating its 25th anniversary):   
                                                   :      _^ ^_    ____
     Patricia H. Reiff                             :     / O O \   |GO \
     Department of Space Physics and Astronomy     :     \  V  /   |OWLS\
     Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892       :    / ""R"" \__/
     internet:  reiff%spacvax.rice.edu@rice.edu    :    \ ""U"" /
     SPAN:      RICE::REIFF                        :    _/|\ /|\_
     telemail:  [preiff/edunet] mail/usa           :My kids don't agree 
                                                   :with me; why should
                                                   :anyone else?
    
------

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 05:59:33 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rbr4@rutgers.edu  (Roland Roberts)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

I have deleted most of the material provide by rob@baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu
(Rob Carriere), since I already addressed that in an earlier posting.

In article <1583@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) 
writes:

>>In article <484@husc6.harvard.edu> may@endor.UUCP (Jason May) writes:
[original problem...
   1) 1000 metric ton ship, fusion powered 100% efficiency
   2) trip distance 10^11 m
   3) constant acceleration
   4) How long does it take?
   5) How much mass does it consume?
   6) What additional info is necessary?]

Rob Carriere solved for the time as...
>>t ~=~ 1.4E5 s

[Carriere comments on need for additional information, to which Thacker
responded with...]
>Well, we can draw a few conclusions:
[math to calculate ship's kinetic energy, followed by calculation
 of equivalent amount of matter]

>i.e., 10.9 kilos coverted entirely to energy, used 100% efficiently,
>would do the job. Make it 11 kilos, you'll want a heater and maybe
>a reading light.... 8-)

Unfortunately, this is not the case.  The velocity of the rocket depends
upon the thrust provided by the exhaust, i.e., it is the momentum transfer
which is critical, not the kinetic energy.

>Now, it should be simple enought to factor in your efficiency (100 %,
>you say) and how much matter is lost in the reaction of a unit mass 
>through your fusion drive (i.e., the hydrogen-helium cycle, or whatever).
>This will tell you the total fuel mass.

If you actually due this for the reaction I posted earlier,

    2D + 1H --> 3He + (gamma) + 5.49MeV

you'll find that you have to multiply that 11kg by 512.  That is much less
than the actual amount of mass necessary.  This is because of the point I
made above.  The momentum transfer is the key part.  And always be
suspicious when a non-relativistic calculation involves balancing energy
with a relativistic one (energy-mass conversion).
-- 
Roland Roberts                            BITNET: roberts@uornsrl
Nuclear Structure Research Lab          INTERNET: rbr4@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
271 East River Road                         UUCP: rochester!ur-cc!rbr4
Rochester, NY  14267                        AT&T: (716) 275-8962

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 88 14:27:49 GMT
From: mitel!scs!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Interesting Space Speakers Wanted!

In article <6242@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>We have formed a new and very active space interest group at Princeton
>University, the Princeton Planetary Society (soon to be a chapter of NSS,
>SEDS, and an affiliate of SSI).

  Congratulations and good luck with the new group, from a former L5
chapter president (L5 Waterloo).

   However, given the direction of your interests (as deduced from who
you're associating with - NSS, SEDS and SSI), I'm a little surprised
that you're using "Planetary Society" as part of your name.  That outfit
has been antagonistic toward manned space travel (except for hitching
a ride to Mars with the Russians), and last I heard (though I dropped
my membership in it some years ago) didn't have a chapter structure.

------------------------
.signature returned for regrooving

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #56
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Oct 88 17:58:55 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05494>; Wed, 26 Oct 88 03:45:51 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 26 Oct 88 03:45:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.wXNM_6y00jZdQJPk4k@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0XNLwTy00Vs1I1KVRh>;
          Wed, 26 Oct 88 03:30:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.EXNLo7y00UkZ04DE5P>;
          Wed, 26 Oct 88 03:21:46 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Oct 26 88 03:17:36 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #57

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:
	Magellan investigative review board named (Forwarded)
		     space news from Sept 5 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 17:54:18 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan investigative review board named (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   October 20, 1988


RELEASE:  88-141

MAGELLAN INVESTIGATIVE REVIEW BOARD NAMED


     Jon R. Busse, director of engineering at NASA's Goddard 
Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md., will head the 
investigative review board appointed to analyze damages to the 
Magellan spacecraft during a power systems check at Kennedy Space 
Center (KSC), Fla., Monday night, Oct. 17, 1988.

     The board will determine what caused a localized electrical 
fire in a test battery, why this occurred and how to prevent such 
a mishap in the future.

     Members of the board include:  Chester Vaughan, chief of the 
Propulsion and Power Division, Johnson Space Flight Center, 
Houston; William Mahoney, chief of the Payload Processing 
Division, KSC; Brian Keegan, deputy director of the Office of 
Flight Assurance, GSFC; and G. Ernest Rodriquez, staff engineer 
in the Space Power Applications Branch, GSFC.

     Members serving in an advisory but non-voting capacity 
include:  Josef Wonsever, on safety issues, NASA Headquarters, 
Washington, D.C.; Douglas Hendrikson, as counsel, KSC; and George 
Diller, on public affairs, KSC.

     Members selected to observe include:  Charles J. Sawyer, 
manager of Payload Aerosystems, NASA Headquarters; Raymond L. 
Heacock, deputy assistant laboratory director, Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.; and William Piotrowski, program 
manager for Magellan, NASA Headquarters.

     Preliminary results of this investigation are expected to be 
available within a week.  The launch date for Magellan, set for 
April 1989, is not expected to change.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 03:03:58 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Sept 5 AW&ST

[Cripes, I'm getting behind again...]

Two USAF C-5s are being modified to carry very large satellites, notably
a new spysat similar in size to the Hubble telescope.

US remote-sensing industry types are concerned about reports that Japan
may give Japanese customers preferential access to data from the JERS-1
satellite scheduled for launch in 1992.

SSMEs will continue to be in short supply for the rest of this year.  By
the end of the year, nine engines should be available -- enough for the
three orbiters, but with minimal margin.

Australian Launch Vehicles, Ltd., formed to develop a small booster to
put 500 kg into low orbit.  They want to start launches within three
years, preferably from Cape York in the long run.

Titan 2 pad at Vandenberg evacuated due to minor hydrazine leak.  Nobody
hurt.  The first refurbished Titan 2 ICBM was originally supposed to be
ready to launch in April, but in fact is still on the pad.

USAF readying Titan 34D for launch from the cape, carrying a secret
Clarke-orbit satellite.  A launch attempt on June 26 was aborted at T-2
due to an electrical problem; the time since has been needed to clean out
propellant tanks and re-check the payload.

NASA rejects proposal to use SDI's Delta Star spacecraft to boost LDEF
into a higher orbit.  Delta Star is scheduled for launch early next year.
LDEF retrieval is set for late next year, which leaves little margin for
trouble, as LDEF reentry is predicted for early 1990.  Using Delta Star
for reboosting LDEF was considered seriously, but NASA felt it would be
a distraction from its main line of effort, and SDI wanted Delta Star
retrieved from orbit as part of the price for the reboost.

NASA caves in to new USAF safety rules for shuttle launches, reducing
spectators from 45k to 14k.  Some NASA officials say this is stupid,
since the number should be unlimited or zero.

John Denver takes NASA spaceflight physical, in hopes of improving the
chances that the Soviets will take him as a fare-paying passenger on a
Soyuz.  He will reimburse NASA for the cost of the physical.

Both US manufacturers of ammonium perchlorate oxidizer are planning to
shift the more hazardous parts of their oxidizer work away from populated
areas.

NASA sets new shuttle manifest.  Most prominently, the Hubble telescope
has slipped from mid-89 to early 1990.  An effort will be made to bring
the telescope up to a state of readiness where it could fly on short
notice if another major payload cancels out.  (This is being referred
to as "vulture-on-the-fence mode".)  The slip occurred because of the
combination of domino effect from all the STS-26 delays, the inflexible
1989 launch windows for Magellan and Galileo (early May and late October
1989, respectively), NASA's wish to build up launch rate cautiously, 
Columbia's inability to lift the heavier payloads (virtually all of the
early missions are weight-critical), and the presence of several ultra-
high-priority military payloads (the USAF has the absolute right to bump
other payloads in a military crisis).  Basically, HST fought it out
with three military payloads, and lost.  One beneficial side effect is
that it should now be possible to use one of the USAF's satellite-carrier
C-5s [see above] to carry HST to KSC.  The original plan called for it
to go by barge through the Panama Canal, which led to worries about
storms and terrorist attack.

Another result of the new manifest is that Mars Observer has been moved
from the shuttle to a Titan 3 launch in Sept 1992.

The new schedule after STS-26 is a military mission in November, another
TDRS in February, Magellan at the end of April, DoD missions in July and
August, Galileo in October, LDEF retrieval in November (uncomfortably
late), another DoD in December, and HST in February 1990.  The February
TDRS launch will be sacrificed, if necessary, to keep Magellan on track.
The November mission is probably a missile-warning satellite.  The July
mission is a low-orbit mission using Columbia, which probably makes it
a KH-12 spysat.  The August mission, by elimination, is probably a
Clarke-orbit eavesdropping satellite (one of them has persistently been
mentioned as among the high-priority military payloads).  The STS mission
numbers are already hopelessly snarled.  NASA says that the oxidizer
shortage was not a big factor in the schedule after all.

[Some of the above information came from a piece in Science.]

India's Insat 1C has experienced a major power-subsystem failure, cutting
its communications capacity considerably but not impairing its metsat and
direct-broadcast functions.

Soviets launch Soyuz TM-6, carrying three cosmonauts, including a doctor
and an Afghan guest cosmonaut, to Mir.  The doctor will remain up for a
"short visit", thought to be four months.  [For reference, that is one
month longer than the US in-space duration record.]  Titov and Manarov,
the long-stay crew on Mir, are in their ninth month.

Arianespace reports a substantial profit for FY1987.  Ariane is already
winning orders on the strength of Ariane 4's flexibility -- its payload
capacity is a function of the number and type of strap-on boosters.
When the Intelsat 7s got heavier in summer, Arianespace just revised the
booster configuration in its bid to launch them.

Sweden cancels its Mailstar message-relay satellite, but will use the
launch reservation on Long March 2 for an ionospheric-science satellite
instead.

USAF's Pacific weather service is relying more on satellite images for
typhoon tracking, more or less of necessity since the budget for weather
aircraft is being cut.  Typhoon forecasting has actually been more
accurate since the changeover.  There is considerably more resistance
to a similar change for hurricane tracking in the East, partly for political
pork-barrel reasons and partly because Atlantic and Gulf storms are less
predictable.

Work on updating the USAF launch-control facilities at the Cape continues.
The new facility will be able to launch one vehicle while counting down
another; at present, it's strictly one at a time.

NASA is putting more effort into the space-debris problem.  Current
probability of damage to a shuttle is 1 in 30 for an average mission.
At current growth rates, this will be 1 in 10 by 2000 and 1 in 4 by 2010.
DoT is looking at regulations for the booster industry, since spent stages
are a major source of debris.  Even DoD is worried; it says that current
risks seem manageable for current satellites, but the trend is disturbing.
One fortunate case is the Delta 180 SDI experiment, deliberately run in
a very low orbit to bring the debris down quickly; space tracking confirms
that most of its debris was gone within six months.

DoT issues major report on hazards and risks of commercial space launches.
Space debris is an obvious concern.  Uncontrolled reentry of dead satellites
is not a big issue, since the average population density of Earth's surface
remains very low.  DoT comments that a fully fueled 747 has almost three
times the explosive potential of a typical large expendable, and has a far
better chance of crashing into a populated area.

Letter from Chuck Bowdish suggesting that the avionics/engine pod of
Shuttle-C should have trunnions and grapple fixtures to permit bringing
it back down aboard a shuttle, for missions (e.g. space station) in which
the orbits are right.  [I think it's too big to fit in the cargo bay, but
the idea sounds worth checking out.]

Letter from Richard Troy:

	"...Potential solution [to the oxidizer shortage]:  Let's ask the
	Soviets for some ammonium perchlorate...  Couldn't we find a
	suitable trade they would like without compromising technology
	transfer issues?  Like cash? ..."

Letter from Daniel J. Connors:

	"Concerning NASA's tentative Shuttle C, a few comments seem
	in order...  How marvelous that by 1993 or 1994 -- only 20
	years after throwing away the perfectly reliable, completely
	successful Saturn 5 -- we may have a launch vehicle almost as
	capable as it was.  With it we may be able to have a space
	station operational before the end of the century, only 30
	years after we first landed men on the moon.

	"If such innovative thinking goes on, in a few years somebody
	may come up with the idea of putting an enlarged Apollo capsule
	on top of the Shuttle C, a capsule large enough for maybe 10
	people, complete with a solid-rocket escape tower.  Then we may
	be able to launch both men and a large quantity of cargo into
	orbit with the same vehicle.  Like we were doing in the late
	1960s..."

[An interesting tidbit from the Aug 13 issue of Flight International:]

British companies are investigating the idea of sending a British
cosmonaut to Mir in the early 1990s, on a fare-paying commercial basis,
to conduct microgravity experiments.  The British government is not
too enthusiastic about the idea, but unfortunately it fits very nicely
with the government's policy of encouraging private funding for space
activities.  Austria is committed to flying a cosmonaut commercially
in about 1992, and several other countries are interested.  Britain's
first man in space was to be Sqn. Ldr. Nigel Wood, who was scheduled
to fly on the shuttle in June 1986, but that mission has been shelved.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #57
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Oct 88 04:40:22 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01052>; Wed, 26 Oct 88 05:36:01 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 26 Oct 88 05:35:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.gXNNlDy00UkTM46U4B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gXNNefy00jZdI1OE44>;
          Wed, 26 Oct 88 05:28:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.YXNNWpy00UkZ84PU59>;
          Wed, 26 Oct 88 05:19:51 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Oct 26 88 05:18:03 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #58

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
       Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 00:37:43 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #400 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88291.13302100 0.00000184           21232-3 0  1636
2 00424  80.4676 165.3699 0024420  35.8929 324.3855 13.67019212299608
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88284.48772064 0.00000002           10000-2 0  5749
2 08820 109.8143 144.5954 0044455   9.2098 350.9546  6.38664109 34684
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88287.45191098 -.00000006                   0  1681
2 10061   6.5428  71.1596 0007493 151.9198 208.2020  1.00270854  2903
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88292.13700205 0.00000013                   0  9741
2 10684  63.4523 108.3274 0102194 197.5695 162.1248  2.00563362 63671
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88285.60894385 -.00000029                   0  9221
2 10893  64.5664 349.3439 0143128  29.6587 331.2192  2.00563058 76367
GOES 3     
1 10953U          88285.50959476 0.00000088           10000-3 0  5348
2 10953   5.3998  73.8737 0006670 226.7077 133.5553  1.00280604   128
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88290.12044437 0.00000827           34029-3 0   285
2 10967 108.0143 145.2867 0003815 226.8632 133.2198 14.33921063539096
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88284.43066229 -.00000028                   0  9475
2 11054  64.1282 345.9206 0051176 120.6507 239.9281  2.00570709 73358
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88287.02783020 0.00000013                   0   468
2 11141  63.4692 108.3894 0054538 325.0065  34.6822  2.00558376 72100
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88291.05512894 0.00000879           38960-3 0  7647
2 11416  98.4980 289.4367 0012905  96.5492 263.7189 14.25241661483265
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88290.07051974 0.00025001           75181-3    7161
2 11703  28.4992 173.7610 0002707 210.8763 149.1672 15.32995641482140
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88284.49360979 -.00000029                   0  8121
2 11783  63.9377 345.6349 0134777  63.9742 297.4797  2.00563246 61999
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88284.36425951 -.00000243           10000-3 0  6407
2 12472   1.8980  83.2762 0001503 159.8261 200.8748  1.00249448 26103
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88285.09774348 0.00025709           73168-3 0  3275
2 12888  97.6054 321.6080 0001255  34.4121 325.7259 15.36110723390518
RS-08      
1 12998U          88277.68274132 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5424
2 12998  82.9626  15.7971 0019742 180.4135 179.6916 12.02966535298466
RS-05      
1 12999U          88284.64307665 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5304
2 12999  82.9620   6.7125 0010062 108.5834 251.6323 12.05070698299828
RS-07      
1 13001U          88282.70514422 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4136
2 13001  82.9647 358.1254 0022549  21.2481 338.9510 12.08707809300498
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88288.90876603 0.00000193           16447-3 0  6042
2 13113  82.5355 253.6669 0016840  34.9079 325.3172 13.83878303331315
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88291.64910736 0.00019565           59126-3 0  2725
2 13138  51.6114  57.7375 0001037 212.5407 147.5013 15.34227109370872
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88274.73895482 0.00000213           10664-3 0  7123
2 13718  81.2461 175.3051 0057121  17.9608 342.3599 14.13002670298911
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88286.31788192 0.00000119                   0  8292
2 14050   0.6557  85.6268 0001890 122.2961 152.1067  1.00274877  4126
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88279.13132343 -.00000082           10000-3 0  3584
2 14129  27.1079 301.3539 6034945 342.1045   3.6398  2.05880749 11968
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88283.59184335 0.00000012                   0  5571
2 14189  63.1094 107.2047 0129399 212.6899 146.5635  2.00553575 38417
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88291.08704514 0.00000501           21218-3 0  6611
2 14452  81.1673 177.1053 0096705  76.8568 284.3389 14.21861851257991
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88290.13356763 -.00002593          -57110-3 0  5499
2 14780  98.2044 350.5994 0002080 228.8903 131.0815 14.57101524246029
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88279.14020829 0.00001207           24698-3 0  3525
2 14781  98.0439 339.0661 0014642  44.5398 315.7023 14.62461626245251
LDEF       
1 14898U          88290.60974722 0.00018006           46679-3 0  6507
2 14898  28.4802  73.0597 0002172  59.9827 300.0993 15.37516284253780
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88282.64666073 0.00000012                   0  5980
2 15039  62.8413 106.5839 0013676 297.6484  62.2648  2.00565448 31678
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88288.72514631 0.00000239           20760-3 0  9033
2 15099  82.5335 201.5614 0011908 201.4832 158.5825 13.83552778216170
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88283.54092032 -.00000029           10000-2 0  5372
2 15271  63.4385 345.5525 0096222 314.9612  44.3357  2.00559297 28806
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88288.75631519 0.00002320           34723-3 0  9240
2 15331  82.5396 204.6960 0025211 157.7469 202.4908 14.74108088218046
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88290.41808384 0.00000394           23751-3 0  2890
2 15427  99.1127 266.9984 0014837 277.5016  82.4488 14.11667359198055
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88285.04947999 0.00000158           13223-3 0   268
2 15516  82.5342 142.9126 0017683  92.5340 267.7839 13.83985412186592
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88291.84452805 0.00020090           60652-3 0   572
2 16095  51.6098  56.7891 0001946 241.3910 118.7264 15.34239733172579
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88282.20457282 0.00000013                   0  2756
2 16129  63.6297 107.0431 0114962 149.6091 211.1291  2.00567821 21981
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88284.77110897 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7817
2 16191  82.5491  52.0962 0018828 198.1472 161.9013 13.16934443142693
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88284.78637524 0.00000115           98030-4 0  4334
2 16408  82.5314  57.9889 0015165 283.7394  76.2094 13.84067547141058
Mir        
1 16609U          88291.64513306 0.00033749           22932-3 0  4607
2 16609  51.6150 158.4827 0024915 202.3449 157.7286 15.74171102153118
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88292.61748052 0.00001308           63232-3 0  2116
2 16613  98.7268   4.7047 0001539 110.2720 249.9443 14.20040703 50418
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88284.92897553 0.00000097           82656-4 0  2584
2 16735  82.5333  84.5773 0014640 357.5254   2.5832 13.83799815119980
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88291.86602658 0.00001056           15692-3 0  3927
2 16881  82.5221 261.6772 0024128 163.6096 196.5729 14.73916840119581
EGP        
1 16908U          88278.72158422 -.00000049          -74893-4 0  1045
2 16908  50.0103   3.4156 0011036  56.1548 304.0335 12.44371772 97602
FO-12      
1 16909U          88279.26846706 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1159
2 16909  50.0147   1.9211 0011139  58.6669 301.5254 12.44395542 97660
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88288.93955558 0.00000470           22709-3 0  1641
2 16969  98.6707 317.8308 0012762 240.8110 119.1793 14.22652352109063
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88284.60590544 0.00000181           15376-3 0  1943
2 17290  82.4672 353.9480 0011922 240.6283 119.3699 13.83612537 89107
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88289.14175465 -.00000219           10000-3 0  1660
2 17561   0.0121  48.7575 0011914  99.5146 211.8316  1.00259550  3138
Kvant      
1 17845U          88292.08948352 0.00060462           40561-3 0  5704
2 17845  51.6167 156.1980 0023795 203.9193 156.0457 15.74237669 89450
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88284.82802172 0.00001189           13008-2 0  5360
2 18129  82.9251  62.3349 0012382  30.1296 330.0614 13.71910488 65206
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88292.62029225 0.00168461  13738-4  28377-3 0  6938
2 18225  71.9063 344.2198 0012481 255.2166 104.6738 16.02483988 72557
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88289.80839300 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  1615
2 18312  82.5554  53.1604 0014824 146.0147 214.2066 13.83361602 58723
Cosmos 1900
1 18665U          88291.83799720 0.00000363           12008-3 0  5350
2 18665  66.0869 151.3882 0048175 288.6419  70.9531 14.49093223 49739
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88284.99161805 0.00000084           70122-4 0   604
2 18820  82.5422 118.5807 0015781 249.4413 110.5054 13.84045100 35216
AO-13      
1 19216U          88273.72660805 0.00000030           10000-3 0   190
2 19216  57.5382 237.5900 6578369 191.3601 139.7626  2.09697959  2262
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88290.10245788 0.00000391           10000-2 0   518
2 19336  82.5532 348.3363 0017444  72.6087 287.6438 13.16843438 10784
Soyuz TM-6 
1 19443U          88291.83556447 0.00050278           33970-3 0   583
2 19443  51.6182 157.4997 0022512 201.7637 158.2033 15.74194372  7839
1988 076A  
1 19445U          88273.51527021 -.00000791           54636-2 0   336
2 19445  62.9456 137.6873 7356697 318.2864   4.7503  2.00593433   612
1988 076B  
1 19446U          88274.20766607 0.08452432  41928-4  69212-3 0   683
2 19446  62.8306  25.0786 0037026 117.0383 243.5637 16.35362840  4855
1988 076D  
1 19448U          88268.14357977 -.00000439          -10519-2 0   177
2 19448  62.9104 138.4509 7329693 318.2220   4.8629  2.04095337   515
Feng Yun 1 
1 19467U          88277.76697566 0.00001629           11229-2 0   198
2 19467  99.1356 246.0498 0015905 331.7267  28.2995 14.00381136  3773
1988 080B  
1 19468U          88274.33029305 -.00000018                   0   104
2 19468  99.1155 242.5891 0009436 275.4484  84.5612 14.00770676  3295
GTE Gstar-3
1 19483U          88268.83444257 -.00000045           10000-3 0    66
2 19483   1.5284 149.2542 2986275 178.3816 183.6653  1.46474552   209
SBS-5      
1 19484U          88277.43155089 0.00000055           10000-3 0    76
2 19484   0.0479 305.7700 0000136 187.1500 271.7590  1.00271884    04
1988 081C  
1 19485U          88278.11242941 0.00000831           58232-3 0   113
2 19485   6.8352 137.1445 7327217 197.7372 112.2451  2.20128065   577
Progress 38
1 19486U          88291.83556345 0.00028240           19308-3 0   489
2 19486  51.6156 157.4985 0023597 206.3495 153.6145 15.74176538  5971
1988 084A  
1 19495U          88287.94981370 0.00633145  27379-4  35577-3 0   649
2 19495  67.1303 110.4002 0121508 103.1111 258.4896 16.04240656  4564
1988 085A  
1 19501U          88284.84608125 -.00000008           10000-3 0   320
2 19501  64.8783  59.6800 0004854 257.5558 102.3672  2.13103101   542
1988 085B  
1 19502U          88286.84065197 -.00000008           10000-3 0   352
2 19502  64.8628  59.6131 0005610 319.4462  40.5128  2.13103235   582
1988 085C  
1 19503U          88286.43024167 -.00000008           10000-3 0   372
2 19503  64.8931  59.6261 0004828 159.9265 200.0850  2.13103026   574
1988 085E  
1 19505U          88278.31353407 -.00000007           10000-3 0   159
2 19505  64.8574  59.8803 0006291 301.4697  58.5271  2.13365385   326
1988 086A  
1 19508U          88282.53850037 -.00000179           10000-3 0   107
2 19508   0.1646 256.1656 0000557 273.7450 190.3351  1.00274320   212
Offeq-1    
1 19519U          88292.66463672 0.00332781  10740-4  20978-2 0   533
2 19519 142.8541  36.1515 0566991 281.0894  72.6489 14.76442540  4299
Shavit RB  
1 19520U          88289.24775240 0.00318453  90230-5  19378-2 0   122
2 19520 142.8513  17.0377 0565977 255.3326  98.2824 14.77198517  3795
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88284.70644747 0.00000502           30157-3 0   130
2 19531  98.9065 224.3604 0011407 213.6164 146.4284 14.10645068  2292
1988 090A  
1 19541U          88293.24052378 0.00000099          -19463-2 0   232
2 19541  62.8801  92.0945 7363919 288.2302   9.4944  2.00694945   402
1988 090B  
1 19542U          88292.59741903 0.01246673  37895-4  14419-2 0   568
2 19542  62.8359  22.9833 0164912 122.3261 238.9884 15.87048555  3028
1988 090C  
1 19543U          88292.39303745 0.02229153  38525-4  11433-2 0   418
2 19543  62.8141  23.5828 0150921 117.8660 244.0081 15.99216067  3009
1988 090D  
1 19544U          88289.44297049 -.00000264          -40159-4 0    95
2 19544  62.8881  92.5453 7317835 288.1366   9.7701  2.06103849   337
TDRS 2     
1 19548U          88292.33997457 0.00000162           10000-3 0   121
2 19548   0.0459 268.2495 0002203 118.5350 333.1684  1.00243731   192
TDRS IUS   
1 19549U          88292.40686280 0.00003057           18603-2 0   200
2 19549  26.7692  65.8589 7267930  11.2206 358.6510  2.27624238   430
1988 091D  
1 19550U          88286.14965977 0.00000154           10000-3 0    51
2 19550   2.2190 264.7761 0014981 129.9237 229.8032  1.00462118   138
1988 092A  
1 19554U          88292.89922956 -.00000264           14325-1 0   150
2 19554  62.9133 296.4496 7376527 316.3015   4.7776  2.00545067   310
1988 092B  
1 19555U          88292.42836779 0.01976031  38443-4  10746-2 0   275
2 19555  62.8474 244.3061 0177044 120.2723 241.5338 15.93188358  2276
1988 092C  
1 19556U          88292.36706557 0.01248815  37840-4  14612-2 0   266
2 19556  62.7903 244.6027 0173804 120.1662 241.6018 15.85130417  2268
1988 092D  
1 19557U          88290.23281505 0.00000168          -22548-3 0   125
2 19557  62.8969 296.8307 7346028 316.2569   4.8587  2.04098484   265
1988 086C  
1 19558U          88286.68894632 0.00034482           46934-2 0    41
2 19558  28.1356 170.5752 7396945 192.9573 125.8840  2.15435287   220
1988 093A  
1 19573U          88292.86002364 0.00001424           21321-3 0   165
2 19573  82.5388 160.5769 0024326 249.7425 110.1159 14.73871470  1118
1988 093B  
1 19574U          88289.19284145 0.00000674           10000-3 0    97
2 19574  82.5394 163.9468 0022312 267.2422  92.6062 14.74243939   574
1988 094A  
1 19582U          88292.63907177 0.00008850           10283-3     116
2 19582  72.8631 184.7624 0037885 202.0057 157.9376 15.61007953   817
1988 094B  
1 19583U          88292.63047337 0.03273492  12311-4  10418-2 0   155
2 19583  72.8570 184.0385 0075695  76.2581 284.9666 16.18725109   839
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@galaxy.afit.af.mil             Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 18:40:44 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)

In article <6268@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>                                       ... As Space Studies Institute's
>Gregg Maryniac has said, the Space Station should be like a pier from
>which we can launch ships into the new frontier of space (including Mars,
>Phobos, the Asteroids, and even the Moon).  What we currently have is
>a space station that is like a pier that can only be used for fishing.

I still don't get this.  Outside of the science fictional wish
fulfilment aspects (a very touchy subject around here, still I don't
think we can ignore it), exactly how does anybody benefit from using a
manned Space Station as a place to **LAUNCH** anything from?  Launches
are messy and dangerous things, requiring vast support resources.  I
wouldn't want one anywhere *near* my (a) space telescope, (b)
pressurized crew module, (c) sensitive EM or particle detectors, (d)
solar array, (e) you name it, the list is endless.  Nor would I want to
spend any money building a LOX, LH2, GN2 etc. tank/detank facility
anywhere near (a)-(e) above, or in LEO period.  Too expensive, too
dangerous, just doesn't make any damn sense.  All that stuff has to
come from the surface anyway, let's put it in the tank where it belongs
and loft it unmanned (no more Death Stars, thank you for the phrase
Crip).

Oh, but on-orbit assembly, you say.  500 Bruce McCall paintings can't
be wrong, right?  I got my doubts.  Atmosphere or not, if you boost
something out of EO towards Mars or wherever you have major structural
stress issues.  These tinfoil towers and box farm layouts are a
terrific way to DEPLOY but a lousy beast to INSERT.

It seems more reasonable to assume that anything ready to stand up to a
TMI burn, for instance, will consist of no more than two or three
load-balanced and -supported pieces.  Anything fragile you want to
deploy, you deploy after the burn... and it better be retractable
because you have more G-stress waiting at your destination in the form
of the MOI burn, circularizations etc.  But if you want to deploy after
the burn, you'll be out in exo-Van-Allen radiation hell, so the suits
will be bulky (you do have to have them in some form, it's suicide to
go all that way with no EVA capability).  So farewell to Bruce and the
legion of space hardhats a-weldin' away... and say hello to the good
ol' Canada Arm and its successors.

Well, if you want two or three G-ready pieces ready to link up and
burn, why the hell do you need a Station anyway.  Heavylift the
hardware (no manned risk) and use a couple of Shuttle flights to build
the thing.  A third to man it and bring the pigs and soybeans, and
you're off.  No decade of Station infrastructure in the way, no
twenty-load manifest nightmare up front.

-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #58
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Oct 88 01:52:19 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02016>; Thu, 27 Oct 88 00:42:27 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 27 Oct 88 00:42:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.wXNeXVy00jZd87oE4l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UXNeNfy00Vs1Q14kB0>;
          Thu, 27 Oct 88 00:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.MXNeFyy00UkZM69k5o>;
          Thu, 27 Oct 88 00:22:26 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Oct 27 88 00:19:37 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #59

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:
	  Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA
	   Austrian and French missions to the Soviet's Mir
	     Soviet Shuttle undergoing final preparations
		   Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)
	   *PROTEST* (was Re: Partial List of Signatories)
			     Mars vs Moon
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
			      Re: (none)
		      Re: Henry's latest tirade
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 88 11:47:38 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA


     Two of the cosmonauts on board the USSR's Mir/Kvant space complex 
completed a space walk today (Oct. 20).  According to the Radio Moscow
short wave report, starting at 10 am Moscow Time (2 am our time) 
Valadimir Titov and Musa Manarov (who have been up since Dec 21 1987) 
spent 4 hours 12 min. in this repair EVA. The main job was the
repair of a sensor system on the British X-ray telescope on the Kvant 
astrophysical module.  After exiting the airlock at the front of Mir they
walked the 20 meters baclk to the Kvant module.  First they peeled back the 
insulating blankets.  Then as noted in my Oct 18th posting they drilled out 
a rod which broke off in a hole (during their June space walk), where it was 
to depress a pin to release the locking latches on the telescope.  This worked,
the latches were removed, and the sensor electronics was successfully replaced.
To do all this they employed special tools brought up by the Progress 38 cargo
craft in September.  Meanwhile, Dr. Valery Polyakov (the physician who arrived 
on the Soyuz TM-6 flight Aug 29th) monitored the walk, and especially the 
cosmonauts health functions.   After the repair Titov and Manarov attached
a 60 Kg (132 lb) mounting block to be used for the EVA during the French
guest mission starting on Nov. 21.  Also they were using a new design of
space suits, that are supposedly much easier to use. Note that even their
older design of suits were much better than American ones because they could
operate at a higher pressure and so the cosmonauts only had to spend one
hour breathing oxygen (to remove nitrogen for preventing the bends) before 
going out, rather than the full day of reduced pressure and 3 hours of
oxygen required on the shuttle. 
     So an instrument fails, and men try to repair it.  The repair tool breaks
off in a hole, and you must remove that problem before proceeding with the
repair.  Flexibility of action is one of the things that mankind in space is 
all about.  With humans constantly up there the Soviets have that ability to
fix things.  Both people and robots/tools make mistakes to fail at some point.
Humans are still more flexible at repairing and doing all those none repetitive
tasks that are necessary for the true exploration of the space frontier.

                                                Glenn Chapman
                                                MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 88 13:15:54 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Austrian and French missions to the Soviet's Mir

    The Austrian mission to the Soviet's Mir station has turned out to
be more expensive than the Austrian government originally planed.  The
Oct. 7th agreement, signed by the Austrian vice-chancellor and the Soviet
foreign minister says they will pay some $6.6 million for about an
8 day flightt in late 1991 or early 1992.  This covers training, the flight
to and from Mir, and the cargo of scientific instruments (possibly brought
up on a Progress tanker).  Space Station News (Oct17) says the bill is 
about $1.5 million greater than Vienna originally had expected.  According
to one Austrian official this may be why they are not joining in the European's
Columbus space station project. "The high costs [of the Soviet flight] might 
be a reason we cannot participate in the space station program".  He also
stated that the agreement was made before the full costs were known, and
"we might have reconsidered" if they knew the final price. [If they think
that this price is bad, they should look at the bill for a shuttle flightt
for one person].  Currently their are 188 applications for the position, 19
from women.  As usual a primary and backup crew will be chosen from these.
    For the French guest mission, slated for Nov. 21 of this year, French
President Miterrand will attend the launch in Russia.  Jean-Loup Chretien
is still the primary spationaut for this 30 day mission, his second time
in space (he flew for 7.8 day in the Soyuz T-6/Salyut 7 mission June '82).
The main event of this mission will be a test of a European built strut 
assembly during a space walk.
    Meanwhile the head of European Space Agency's space science division,
Roger Bonnet, has warned that such extensive cooperation with the USSR is
weaking the ESA's own space program.  The problem is that the Soviets of
get the project leadership, and direction of the program is determined by
them.  It is made worse by the very low launch costs of the USSR's missions,
due to the mass production of their boosters.  As an example he noted that 
the UK is spending $1.8 million on an X-ray telescope to fly on a Russian 
satellite in 1993.   That would just about cover the cost increase of 
Britain payment to the ESA's Horizon 2000 program, funds that their 
government says they cannot afford (from New Scientist, Oct. 8).
    The Russians have become very competitive in space cooperation as far as 
other nations are concerned.  They offer good deals (though space is always
costs real money if you want to do it right), and they are generally
delivering on their promises.  As the NASA/International space station 
negotiation showed dealing with this country can be both time consuming
(4 years of talking before the contracts were signed) and uncertain
(what will happen if congress kills the station or DOD decides that it wants
to do research the other partys object to).  Hence people of other lands
are increasingly going elsewhere or doing it on their own.  This country has
got to stop assuming that nations have no where else to go than here for
their space cooperation.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 88 14:17:46 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet Shuttle undergoing final preparations

     Much more information and photos have been released about the
soviet shuttle today (Oct.23).  Radio Moscow called the shuttle 
Buran (Snowstorm) and that name is written on its side.  The shuttle is
strapped to the side of an Energiya core section, with 4 liquid strapon
on a side of the core, about 90 degrees either side of the shuttle
connection point.  The whole vehicle weighs 240 Tonnes unfueled.  It is
assembled horizontally (with the shuttle on the top) sitting on a
large railroad type flatcar (I could not see for certain whether there
were rails beneath it, and how many, but all their other launchers use
that system).  It is rolled out to the pad, then erected and fueled.
That is the reason for the short, squat appearance of the Energiya - so
that it can be erected in this manner (I have argued this for years).
The vehicle is undergoing final checkout, but no launch date has been
set (and position of the information on their news is so late as to
indicate it is not going to occur for a few days to weeks).  There have
been several statements that it will occur before the end of the year -
little else.
    More information has come out about Anatoly Shchukin, the Russian shuttle
pilot who died Aug. 18th (see my Oct. 19th posting).  Shchukin was born in
Vienna, Austria (his father was a diplomat) in 1946, and he entered shuttle
training in 1982.  He died doing some stunt flying demonstrations on a
Su-26 (doing a low to ground inside loop).  According to Jim Oberg
Shchukin's death was reported in Oct. 15 Sovietskiy Sport and in Sept. 29
Kosmomolskaya Pravda. 
     Finally, the USSR has officially declared the Phobos 1 Mars probe dead.
All attempts to recover it have not worked.  The report called it the first
Soviet interplanetary probe failure in 15 years.  To prevent problems with
the remaining mission, Phobos 2, commands sent the probe will be kept
to a minimum.  
    Success and failure are the twin aspects of any project.  There is 
statement attributed to IBM's CEO, "If you want to make faster progress 
then make more failures", because failures indicate that you are at least
trying new things.  Obviously it is the success that count best in the long
run.  The things that is most apparent with the Soviet in the past few
years is the number of new vehicles and programs that they are bringing on
line, and the number of failures they have publicly announced.  Now the 
world is asking, can they make them work?  That is the same challenge this
country faces with the shuttle.

                                                Glenn Chapman
                                                MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 88 14:21:41 GMT
From: mitel!scs!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)

In article <6240@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
> [..]
>Bentsen has a 100% rating with SPACECAUSE/SPACEPAC, and can effectively
>set our national space goals.

 Given the people that run SPACECAUSE/SPACEPAC, I'd say anyone they
give a "100% rating" to (whatever that means) has a big strike against
them. 

>If space is an issue (which is should be), a Dukakis/Bentsen ticket is
>sure to prove the better for our country.

  I thought Dukakis wants to cancel the aerospace plane?  (Currently
the only work the US is doing towards low-cost reusable space vehicles).
He's also on record as opposing space station, although (after being
reminded that California and Texas are important states in the election,
and to which Space Station means a lot of $$) he now says it will be
"studied".   And then cancelled?

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 19:16:19 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: *PROTEST* (was Re: Partial List of Signatories)

I must protest the 243-line "Partial List of Signatories" Eric Tilenius
just posted to the net.  The Declaration itself could reasonably be
construed as material of interest to space netters, even it's not
really very informative (mostly just Madison Ave.  pandering).  No such
merit attaches to this signatory list!  It's advertising, pure and
simple, and has no place on the net.  I don't give a damn which blues
guitarists or University administrators have seen fit to sign on this
particular bandwagon, and I can't believe anyone else reading this
group does either -- certainly not enough to waste massive Net
bandwidth on the unwanted info.  Damn it, if you want to make the list
AVAILABLE, archive it for ftp or anon-uucp.  Don't foist it on us
unasked.

I am posting this rather than mailing it because (a) I want to urge all
those who agree to mail Eric saying so, and (b) I am sure there are
lots of OTHER little agitators out there in net-land who might think
this is ollie-ollie-outs-in-free for their pet petitions.  They (the
petitions) DON'T belong here!  Data and discussion do!
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <Added.kXL=Pvy00Ui3QJL091@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 18 Oct 88 11:28:58 EDT
Resent-From: Harold C Pritchett <HAROLD%UGA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Resent-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date:     Tue, 18 Oct 88 10:18 EDT
From: Robert S Daedalus <BOWERS%UTKVX.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Mars vs Moon
Original_To:  BITNET%"space@uga"

Listers,

        To add my purely emotional and unlearned opinion to the controversy,
I'd vote Moon. I would be MUCH more interested in the possibility of a
permanant base established on the Moon, than in a trip to Mars.

        It just seems that the first "foothold" in space has to be a
permanent base OFF OF TERRA.

        Comments, rebuttals, flames?

Bob Daedalus
BOWERS@UTKVX3

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 13:56:02 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

> Thank you, Mr. Dietz, for this fine example of "intellectual honesty."

No, it's an example of condescending insult.  Which I *honestly*
believe many spacoids merit.  Folks like Bova and Pournelle who deliver
snake oil to the credulous followers are especially deserving.

> My children will live their adults lives in the future we create.

What our children will inherit will be a public debt that will take
generations to pay off.  I view the rate of return on the space program
to be very low.  Our children would be better off if the money going
to NASA went to reducing the deficit.

(At this point, the space fan, reeling from cognitive dissonance, trots
out the good 'ol spinoff argument.  This argument is brought to us
by the NASA PR hacks, the same who extolled the shuttle and promise
wondrous things from the space station.  I find it completely unconvincing.)

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

  Oral Roberts announced today that if viewers do not send him $4.5
  million by the end of the month, God will turn him into a hypocritical
  money-grubbing slimebag.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 16:07:28 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!clyde@husc6.harvard.edu  (Head UNIX Hacquer)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

Mr. Dietz, since you do not believe in space exploration and
development, and seem so enamoured of staying right here on Earth
forever, WHY DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ SCI.SPACE?????

There have always been those who cannot or will not see the value
of exploration - whose horizons seem to be limited to what is under
their noses.  It would seem that you fit into that category.

So, once again, I would ask why are you bothering with this newsgroup?
I know you are not going to change my mind nor stifle the excitement that I
feel whenever I see a spacecraft.

If you wish to inherit the Earth, by all means be my guest.
But I want MY children to have the option of the inheriting the stars.

	-Clyde Hoover
-- 
Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  
	clyde@emx.utexas.edu; ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!clyde

"You really have to take a broad perspective when giving pat answers
 to other people's problems."  - Eyebeam

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 88 21:47:57 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: (none)

>From article <Added.oXIvZqy00Ui3EWYk9i@andrew.cmu.edu>, by ASTOHNPA@UIAMVS.BITNET (J.L.M.):
> 
> CHALLENGER'S CHALLENGE
> ----------------------   by Kim Unsong

...

To paraphrase Heinlein, "beware of poets that read their works in
public, they may have other bad habits."

I've read worse. I've written worse. I was almost an English major
once. But, I don't inflict it on the unwary.

			Bob P.-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
An average hammer is better for driving nails than a superior wrench.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 16:21:46 GMT
From: thorin!tlab1!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Henry's latest tirade

In article <6315@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>Figures:
>51% said they support the space station.
>64% supported a human mission to Mars.

    The American people support most everything the government does &
thinks about doing. Unsurprisingly, other federal functions often get
higher support than 64%, e.g. Social Security. Since there is a finite
amount of federal $$$ available, it is not surprising that NASA
doesn't get a free hand.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Are there any more questions, besides the ones from the
      liberal communists?''
	- George Uribe, natl. director of "Students For America"

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 20:04:14 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

This Mars-vs-Moon debate is hilarious.  You take yourselves so
seriously!  Hasn't it occured to you that the chance of either
happening is about nil?  There is absolutely no way the government is
going to spend $100+ B so Sagan can play with Mars rocks.  There is a
huge deficit.  Congress will soon be confronted with the choice of
massive tax increases or the sacrifice of sacred cow programs; will
they decide to massively increase the NASA budget at the same time?
Of course not.

Frankly, I expect the space station to die soon; if not next year then
the year after.  Neither candidate has said he would kill it, since
California and Texas are pivotal states.  The station becomes much
more vulnerable after Nov. 8.  A likely scenario is a Bush win,
followed by a Democrat congress killing the station.  Bush wrings his
hands and argues (at least in public) to restore it, but congress is
intransigent.  This leaves the shuttle without much of a mission, and
the next accident kills that program too -- not because space travel
should be risk free, but because the accident provides an excuse to
terminate an expensive program without admitting the boondoggle.

I don't expect the Soviets to do much, if any, manned exploration of
Mars.  They have severe economic problems -- Gorbie is risking
communism itself to solve them.  They weren't asking for western
cooperation in Mars exploration just to be nice.  They can't afford to
go it alone.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #59
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Oct 88 06:00:32 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07460>; Thu, 27 Oct 88 03:43:55 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 27 Oct 88 03:43:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.QXNhBiy00UkTIR804K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QXNgypy00UkT42jEBK>;
          Thu, 27 Oct 88 03:26:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.UXNgsOy00UkZ46Tk5x>;
          Thu, 27 Oct 88 03:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Oct 27 88 03:17:58 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #60

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:
	Re: dates: historical names vs. astronomical accuracy
		      Re: Henry's latest tirade
		      Re: Cretaceous Extinctons
		      Re: Henry's latest tirade
		     Re: Earth & living in space
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
		     Re: Earth & living in space
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
		       Ivan Dyenver, Kosmonaut
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 14:39:34 PDT (Thursday)
From: Lynn.ES@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: dates: historical names vs. astronomical accuracy
Cc: Lynn.es@Xerox.COM

Although someone has already answered the principal question in A. Dain
Samples's message about historical dates, one item mentioned has not been
answered.

>In other words, on Oct 12, 1988 will the planet Earth be very close to
>the same orbital location as it was when Chris landed in the Bahamas

Being in the same orbital position is not the problem that the Gregorian
calendar solves.  We are in the same place in our orbit every 365.256 days.
But because the earth's axis moves slightly during that time, we are not in
the same orientation relative to the sun, and therefore not in the same
season.  The same season occurs after 365.2422 days.

The Julian calendar averaged 365.25 days per year, so the seasons moved
around the calendar by .0078 day per year on the average.  By omitting some
leap years, the Gregorian calendar has seasons that move by .0003 day per
year, small enough to be negligible for a few thousand years.

But in neither calendar do we average returning to the same place in the
earth's orbit every year.

/Don Lynn
Lynn.es@xerox.com

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 15:47:39 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Henry's latest tirade

In article <6315@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric William Tilenius) writes:
> What is needed, then, is to show Congress and then next President that people
> ARE interested and DO care.
> I will be happy to sign the "Return-to-the-Moon" petition going around
> AND The Mars Declaration, because frankly I'd like to do both.
> But it hurts us to start street fighting about the order of events...
>  
> That's why it disturbs me that you used the word "opposition".  The Mars
> Declaration is set up in opposition to apathy.  Those who care about going
>  
>        If you are really serious about starting us on the road to
>        a brighter future in space, then do something POSITIVE.
>        Quit your negative campaigning and biting.  We've had too
>        much of that in this presidential election anyway.
>  
With respect to an earlier posting, I am delighted to see this.  As I stated
before, the problem is not the numbers of people who support such goals, or
oppose them, the main problem is that people sit on their ***** and do
absolutely NOTHING except complain.  In short, apathy.

With all due respect to this newsgroup, it really doesn't matter what you
support or oppose, so long as you take some appropriate action.  If you 
support space exploration, then by all means let people know.  Get some
postal cards and periodically drop a note to your congresscritters.  Ask
for detailed responses.  Volunteer for campaign committees.  Help out
with educating young people about the merits of your project (after all,
it's their future too).  The key is:  DO SOMETHING POSITIVE.  

In the words of Oddball (Kelly's Heroes) "Always with the negative waves."
That describes too many people.

N. Kluksdahl                    ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 18:59:29 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous Extinctons

For what it's worth, yes, solar flares have been considered as
a possible cause of extinciton of the dinosaurs -- I forget
where I read this some years back.

This does not detract from the fine quality of your posting,
especially as regards survival of furry mammals (also feathered
birds, if already around?) and 'saurs small enough to hide
under something.
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like handguns and nuclear bombs.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 19:10:23 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Henry's latest tirade

Eric hinted, but didn't quite say, that anothger real danger
of "spaceoids" (us) dividing into warring camps is that we will
toss out arguments AGAINST the other side, not just FOR ours.
These negative points, when heard by The Public and Congress,
will lodge in their minds as reasons against each & every space
project.  So infighting is REAL counterproductive when overheard!

So far, the best reasons to vote for Bush are the taxes, harbor
sewage, and freed rapists running around Mass.  The best reason
to vote for the Duke is J. Dan4th Q.  You get the idea.

The difference is that ONE of those losers is going to be President
next January, no matter what.  But in choosing between Mars, Moon,
or Station, the public can still vote None of the Above.

So do watch what negatives you say about other space efforts
(though they should be freely discussed here of course).

(PS: L. Bentsen may indeed be a plus, spacewise, for Duke).
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like handguns and nuclear bombs.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 22:56:45 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <7095@ut-emx.UUCP>, clyde@ut-emx.UUCP (Head UNIX Hacquer) writes:
> Mr. Dietz, since you do not believe in space exploration and
> development, and seem so enamoured of staying right here on Earth
> forever, WHY DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ SCI.SPACE?????
> [...]

Even assuming this were an accurate assessment of Paul Dietz's attitude
(which I doubt), I can hardly express how idiotic this response is.
(so I won't bother...)
-- 

Bill    UUCP:  {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
         (or)  wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu
      BITNET:  wyatt@cfa2
        SPAN:  cfairt::wyatt

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 20:21:13 GMT
From: att!occrsh!uokmax!tegarvin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Patrick Garvin)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <484@husc6.harvard.edu> may@endor.UUCP (Jason May) writes:
 
]uses hydrogen fusion to supply thrust.  The engine is 100% efficient,

In the interests of completeness, I should add a comment to all the
calcuations and speculation already posted:  The First Law of Thermodynamics
excludes the possibility of 100% efficiency.  

But who pays attention to things like that in simplified text-book problems?


]Jason
](may@endor.harvard.edu)


Patrick Garvin          "Wish in one hand and do something else in the other,
       and squeeze them both and see which comes true." -- Corwin of Amber
                      >>-->         tgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
                        or          tegarvin@uokmax.ucs.uoknor.edu.UUCP
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are mine alone and do not represent 
University Computing Services policy.  Take what you like and leave the rest.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 14:48:48 GMT
From: phri!cooper!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space

In article <1743@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>In article <10648@reed.UUCP> reeder@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes:
>>Recent talk on the net of U.S. Soviet cooperation led me to wonder:
>>Did anything useful come out of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project?
>
>The best quote I've heard: "We got some low quality pictures of our
>craft" from Slayton. One of those pictures was in a hallway I used to
>work in.  The colors were slight off, but it was a unique view.  They
>also got some caviar.  I hope we do more joint missions in the future.

There was an ostensible technical purpose to ASTP-1 (Apollo Soyuz Test
Project), namely testing a compatible hatch adapter for international
manned space rescues.  NASA vets would know better than I how thin a
fiction, if any, this ultimately was... clearly detente was being
tested at least as much as the hardware.

The truly funny part is that the Soviets could probably still use their
end of the adapter, while our end (Apollo ready) is useless!  Maybe
that explains Slayton's cynical remark, or maybe he's just Commie
bashing, I don't know.

I do know that if we had any sense we'd try the same thing with a
Shuttle-Soyuz adapter on a new joint mission soon.  We have had our big
launch accident for the decade but Ironman One still lurks out there
waiting to happen some day... it's irresponsible not to have options.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 14:23:18 GMT
From: pyramid!prls!philabs!briar.philips.com!rfc@decwrl.dec.com  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

I would think that things like pieces of interstate highways, dams, non-
crossive metal objects, and such might survive in sufficient amounts
that future scientists might find them.  These things probably will not
be obvious to the casual eye anymore than evidence of dinosaurs is obvious
to people not looking for them today.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 19:57:58 GMT
From: ftp!jbvb@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (James Van Bokkelen)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

In article <37229@philabs.Philips.Com>, rfc@briar.philips.com (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201) writes:
> I would think that things like pieces of interstate highways, dams, non-
> crossive metal objects, and such might survive in sufficient amounts

The longest-lasting item will probably be radioactivity in ocean-bottom
sediments.  After that, perhpas other chemicals in sediments (tar/oil
and DDT or maybe PCBs).  After that, building stone moved far from where
it was quarried, large excavations (highway & railroad cuts, quarries)
and the landfills they are being turned into.  Also, the deforestation
of much of the temperate zones in the early years of this century, followed
by the tropics as I write this, should be detectable by pollen counts in
sediments, althought that and extinctions are less definite evidence.

jbvb

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 18:56:48 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <7095@ut-emx.UUCP> clyde@emx.UUCP (Head UNIX Hacquer) writes:
>Mr. Dietz, since you do not believe in space exploration and
>development, and seem so enamoured of staying right here on Earth
>forever, WHY DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ SCI.SPACE?????

Only those rabidly supporting space flight are entitled to express
opinions in this newsgroup?

Also, did I have a choice about staying on earth?  Do you REALLY
expect to be able to move into space yourself?

>There have always been those who cannot or will not see the value
>of exploration - whose horizons seem to be limited to what is under
>their noses.  It would seem that you fit into that category.

And there are those that believe that wishing Real Hard for something
will make it feasible.  Personal attacks aside, I believe strongly in
scientific research.  I also believe spending money for ground-based
research is, at current launch costs, generally more beneficial to
mankind, as far as such things can be judged.

>I know you are not going to change my mind...

No comment.

>If you wish to inherit the Earth, by all means be my guest.
>But I want MY children to have the option of the inheriting the stars.

This demonstrates several things:

(1) A smug "I believe in space flight therefore I'm superior" attitude.
  Kind of an inverse ad-hominem argument.  I've noticed a lot of
  pro-space propaganda panders to this feeling, stroking the egos of
  those who will agree with the writer's position.

(2) Sloganeering.  "Inheriting the stars" is not going to be possible
  for your children, unless you predict someone will invent an FTL
  spacedrive in their lifetimes.

(3) Unfounded optimism.  The cost of launching to orbit will have to
  come down by several orders of magnitude before any large scale
  movement into space will be possible.  Chemical rockets are nearing
  theoretical limits, and further improvements are going to be slow.
  Current cost of living in LEO is $1 million per DAY.  Your children
  are very likely going to live out their lives on Earth.

Perhaps you meant your distant descendants, say great grandchildren?
Then we're in agreement.  I DO expect some of my descendants to live
in space.  Current technology is a lot farther away from being able to
do it than space fans can admit.

I'll also say we'll see profitable activities in space (beyond comsats
and such) in our lifetimes.  But they will not involve large numbers
of people, will not be essential to survival of life on earth and will
not solve the population problem.  For example, news reports say the
Amazon rain forest will be gone in 15 years.  Space can't help, except
to let us watch.

Perhaps there is something we can agree on?  A substantial fraction of
the money spent on space should be spent on reducing the cost of
getting to orbit.  Cheaper launchers are going to be useful for any
activity in space, including the currently profitable and
near-profitable ones, and are essential for most visions.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 13:26:02 GMT
From: xait!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.


	I haven't been following this thread.  However someone, Randall
Garret as I recall, did an amusing story set in Asimov's Galactic Empire
where an archaeologist developed an inverse psychohistory (working out the
past from the present) and found Earth.  The archaeological digs uncovered
large numbers of mysterious ceramic objects which they puzzled over.  It
turned out that they were toilets.

	
-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 21 Oct 88 09:29:27 PDT
From: greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Ivan Dyenver, Kosmonaut
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"

Dallas -- John Denver, in town for a concert tonight (10/20/88), gave an
interview to Dallas Morning News pop music critic Russell Smith.  It was
rather a long article, so I'll just excerpt and condense the interesting
parts.  The parts in quotes are from John Denver, while the unquoted parts
are from Russel Smith, and parts in brackets are my condensations.

"Quite a few years ago, I was awarded NASA's public service medal.  I was
the catalyst for the whole Citizens in Space program getting started."
"Until President Reagan said he was going to send a teacher first, I had
every reason to believe that I was probably going to be among the first
candidates for space flight."
"..., a little over a year ago, I received an inquiry from the Soviet
Union (wanting to know) if I would be interested in flying in their space
program."
In 1987 he performed a benefit for the victims of Chernobyl.
"I think they've asked other prominent Americans...I believe I'm the only
one who's expressed positive interest..."

[After five visits, the Soviets told Denver there were five requirments:
 A letter of no objections from the U.S., which he has from George Shultz;
 a physical evaluation sufficient for space flight, which he has from NASA;
 fluency in Russian, not yet; one year of training in the Soviet Union;...]

"...and it would cost $10M.  The truth is, that's a hell of a bargain."
"...I've told them categorically that I'm unwilling to pay that money...
 I have until Nov. 1 to work it out."

"...I'll bet you I could (raise $10M) within a month.  But I don't think it's
appropriate politically; I don't think it's appropriate in regard to what
we're both trying to achieve in space.  I don't think it should look like
if anybody came up with $10M, they could go into space.*
It's not a stunt for me."

[Denver would be a full-fledged member of a crew on a one week flight in
December 1989.]

[On educating the American people about the benefits of the space program:]

"Still today they ask, 'Why do we spend all that money to bring a few rocks
back from the Moon?'  They don't know that, in 1976 dollars, there was a $7
return for every dollar we invested in putting a man on the moon.**  and
I've said people need to be connected with our space effort.  The way to do
that is to take a private citizen up in space.
 And I volunteer."


Me too! Me too!

Footnotes

*  Why not?
** What does that work out to -- about a $1T in 1988 dollars?  Is that true?

----
"When it's late in the day,		|         Dale M. Greer
 even small men cast long shadows."	|   Center for Space Sciences
		-- Who said that?	| University of Texas at Dallas

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #60
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Oct 88 07:13:20 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00779>; Thu, 27 Oct 88 05:45:13 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 27 Oct 88 05:45:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.MXNizQy00jZdI2zk4S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kXNikKy00jZd41Kk52>;
          Thu, 27 Oct 88 05:27:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.8XNicvy00UkZ46fE5g>;
          Thu, 27 Oct 88 05:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Oct 27 88 05:17:33 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #61

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Moon vs Mars
	 Re: *PROTEST* (was Re: Partial List of Signatories)
		 Re: where should all the people go?
	      Relative merits of various OEC locations.
			Re: Restarting Apollo
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
		      Economic Benefits of Space
		    Re: Economic Benefits of Space
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 00:37:45 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!robina@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robin Adams)
Subject: Re: Moon vs Mars

I'll support the Mars Declaration just to keep things moving - but, why
duplicate what the Russians might be far enough along with anyway. Instead,
why not capitalize on our earlier (lunar) success and go for a base on the 
moon. --Another two giant steps for man!

Besides, a lunar base would make a fine Earth study post, not to mention the 
potentials of satellite tracking and communication.  - Just imagine the 
weather news visuals....



					   o         o                o
                                              o                  o
					o                  o            o
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
						    |       |
						    |       |   Robin
						   /---------\  Adams

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 03:36:38 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Re: *PROTEST* (was Re: Partial List of Signatories)

In article <7001@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
 
>I must protest the 243-line "Partial List of Signatories" Eric Tilenius
>just posted to the net.
 
Before you go clogging the group with "protests", please read the letter
below which I recently sent via EMAIL:
 
Date:         Sun, 16 Oct 88 15:28:21 EDT
From:         "Eric W. Tilenius" <EWTILENI@PUCC>
Subject:      Re: Partial List of Signatories <1556@cbnews.ATT.COM>
To:           wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM
 
I apologize if my posting wasn't of interest to you...  The idea was
not to try to get you to sign based on who else signed.   The purpose
was to show the wide range of people who are interested in this sort
of thing.
 
It's a very diverse group, and I find it encouraging that such a wide
range of people are now supporting space goals.
 
Again, my apologies - I did it because I thought many would find the
list interesting.  And please do remember that what takes you a few
seconds to read took me many hours to manually type in.
 
Regarding the other points - many people have different reasons for
signing.  The fact that someone with whom you disagree is on the list
does not mean that that person's views are the same as those expressed
by the Declaration.  For example, you'd hardly call Jimmy Carter and
Jeanne Kirkpatrick ideologically similar, yet they're both for Mars
exploration.
 
It's a goal which has captured very wide support.
 
So, please forgive me if I came off as trying to "impress" anyone.
You don't have to "care" what those people think, but I thought you
might find it interesting to see that people in fields having nothing
to do with space are endorsing space goals.
 
- ERIC -
 
Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Princeton University | 11 Prospect Drive South  | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
332 Walker Hall      | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08544  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-734-4911         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 19:34:55 GMT
From: haven!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <6996@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> Several posters and mailers have apparently abandoned the premise that
> going into space will actually improve our lot on Earth (score one for
> Jorge in absentia) and are now suggesting that since we're going to
> blow ourselves up or poison ourselves to death down here anyway, going
> into space (for others if not the authors, give 'em credit) is the only
> way to assure species survival.

I'm certainly not abandoning that premise.  I'm still waiting for Mr
Neff to provide an adequate counter to it.  Instead, it appears he
would prefer to change the subject.  Okay, let's see how this new
one goes....  ;-)

> There are two crippling objections to this line of reasoning.  First,
> it will be centuries before any off-Earth colony (OEC) can be TRULY
> self supporting, in the sense that Earth could blow up and go away and
> the colony would still be viable indefinitely.

Ah, *this* bit of nonsense again.  The last time Mr Neff made this
claim that centuries would be needed to produce a self-sufficient
colony, I asked him to explain what show-stopping problems he foresaw
which would demand so much time to solve.  There was no response.
So, since we're hearing this claim again, I'll ask again:

	WHAT POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION IS THERE FOR SAYING THAT
	CREATING A SELF-SUFFICIENT SPACE COLONY *MUST* TAKE
	CENTURIES?

> The level of technology
> involved to establish and maintain an OEC is truly staggering, and
> unlikely to be autochthonous for quite some time.  Virtually every
> sector of Earth's productive capacity and resource cornucopia is
> represented in, say, Spacelab, and Spacelab is just a baby step in
> space habitation.

So what?  Ignoring the hyperbole of the above (Let's see now, what
important role does Earth's automobile industry play in Spacelab?
None at all.), the fact that Spacelab uses a lot of high technology
proves neither (a) all colonies must use that same technology, nor
(b) it will take ``centuries'' to establish those technologies in
orbit.  Frankly, both parts sound crazy to me, and yet both are
needed to support Mr Neff's statement.

``Centuries'' is a hell of a long time in technological development.
I flat don't believe *anybody* who thinks they can make predictions
about technology even as little as 50 years in the future.

> If we can't afford
> to fly or aren't alive to fly or it isn't safe to try, there goes your
> self supporting colony before it ever gets started.  This requires
> solutions *down here*.  And I submit conversely that if we can keep
> this mudball in one piece for enough centuries to see a full scale
> colony blossom elsewhere, we won't *need* the colony to assure our
> survival -- we will have done it ourselves.

Two separate problems are being confused here.  It's true that Earth
must stay peaceful and capable until the colony is done, *IF* the
colony is to be self-sufficient.  *BUT* there's no reason to suppose
that a non-self-sufficient colony would be useless.  As a matter of
fact, a dependent colony would probably be *more* useful (and hence
helpful for Earth's long-term survival).  A dependent colony could
be designed for productivity, rather than self-sufficiency.  The best
goal would probably be to design a productive colony which could
quickly be made self-sufficient if the need arose.

> ... your OEC will be about 1,000 times *more*
> vulnerable to social and ecological misbehavior than our familiar
> World-Turtle is.  Any place big enough to assure mankind's survival is
> going to be big enough to have jails and elections (two notorious
> institutions of ill repute :-), ...

This is certainly a matter for great concern, but hardly a show-stopper.

> You cannot wall off an OEC from Earth's troubles.  If Earth goes under
> there is a damn good chance it would take an OEC with it, just through
> human irrationality and emotion.  Even if it didn't, an OEC in such
> awful isolation would be under stress we can only imagine (thank
> goodness).  And unlike Earth, there would be no place to run.

Gee, I must have missed the part where we decided never to build more
than one OEC.  :-)

> None of this is intended to suggest it can't or won't work... only that
> arguments along the lines of "to hell with Earth, we'll fix it in space"
> are dangerously specious.

The only part of Mr Neff's posting which I can't argue with....

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 18:30:24 GMT
From: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (William A. Bralick)
Subject: Relative merits of various OEC locations.

I have always thought that a Lunar-based first colony makes the most 
sense.  Is there a consensus on this?  It seems to me that the advantages
of a planetary body more than make up for the gravity well.

How much would it cost to restart Apollo?  The most reprehensible thing
done to the space program (NASA SIW?) was the canx of Apollo before STS
was a reality.  And after all that sunk cost...

Cordially,
Will

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 20:07:36 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Restarting Apollo

In article <645@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes:
>How much would it cost to restart Apollo?

Quite a bit.  Consider if we restart from absolute scratch: problem:
is the Moon hard or deep dust (big unknown in 1963).  Prior to that
they started the Ranger "sub-program" to find out.  So assume you have
to rebuilt Ranger as well.  Well Ranger's imaging system used vidicons.
You will have to regear production of those.  They don't make that type any
more.  Goes for many parts and subprograms.  Why bring this up?  Because
lots of satellite designers like to use tried and true parts.  Restart
vidicon production (as opposed to using existing CCDs) and I know a few
small Labs who would beat a path to your door (not many, just a few).

In $$ numbers (1988) total figure would probably be more than $100G.
I had them some place and posted them a while back.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 02:26:47 GMT
From: bill@astro.as.utexas.edu  (William H. Jefferys)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

In article <35319@XAIT.Xerox.COM> g-rh@XAIT.Xerox.COM (Richard Harter) writes:
#
#	I haven't been following this thread.  However someone, Randall
#Garret as I recall, did an amusing story set in Asimov's Galactic Empire
#where an archaeologist developed an inverse psychohistory (working out the
#past from the present) and found Earth.  The archaeological digs uncovered
#large numbers of mysterious ceramic objects which they puzzled over.  It
#turned out that they were toilets.

...and if you want to go back even further, you might look for
Robert Nathan's _The Weans_ (Knopf, 1960), which was based on 
articles in Harper's starting around 1956.

	"Unlike the Romans, they bathed in private, in small
	troughs and porcelain tureens. They did not use the
	bidet, but did, as we have seen, make use of other
	formidible installations." (p. 35).

	"...in almost all mounds, our workmen have dug up
	porcelain receptacles of unmistakable shape and purpose,
	...The conclusion that the Weans were as human as the 
	Volgarians is inescapable." (p. 13).

It was really a spoof on c. 1960 U.S. culture, of course. The Weans'
(US, get it?) culture had declined at the same time as the Volgarians
(guess who?)

Bill Jefferys

-- 
Glend.	I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot.	Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
	do call for them?    --  Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 04:30:17 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Economic Benefits of Space

OK, we've postings claiming space is a Good Thing, and postings saying
space is The Right Thing To Do, and postings saying space is a Waste Of
Money.

I don't have a really good idea of the benefits space has brought us.
Everyone knows weather sats are useful, and save lives. But what else
has come out of the space program? I've heard, word of mouth, that
useful things like pacemakers came out of Apollo, that investing in
space pays for itself with the technology that it generates. But I
have never read hard estimates of these benefits.

Could someone summarize the benefits, or give us references to places we
can find this kind of information?

Thanks in advance,

greg

----------
Greg Lindahl                                       internet:  gl8f@virginia.edu
University of Virginia Department of Astronomy     bitnet:  gl8f@virginia.bitnet
     "Doesn't Quayle know that the FBI handles domestic assassinations?"

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 17:24:54 GMT
From: att!cbnews!lvc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Economic Benefits of Space

In article <648@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
> Everyone knows weather sats are useful, and save lives. But what else
> has come out of the space program? I've heard, word of mouth, that
> useful things like pacemakers came out of Apollo, that investing in
> space pays for itself with the technology that it generates. But I
> have never read hard estimates of these benefits.

Do keep in mind that the people paying for the space program are not
necessarily the same people that benefit from it.  Nor is it clear to
economists that "space pays its own way".  "Space" is like a lot of
other gov't programs, a lot of people get screwed a little bit, so that
a few people will benefit a lot.

-- 
Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, cbnews!lvc lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 01:10:39 GMT
From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

Jason May asks for comments on a particular space ship, and several reply.

In article <1583@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
>In article <830@accelerator> rob@baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
>>In article <484@husc6.harvard.edu> may@endor.UUCP (Jason May) writes:

1000 metric tons, "burns" hydrogen to helium, 1 g thrust, 10^11 meter trip.

>>>How long does the trip take?
>>
>>Let's see..
>[math deleted]
>>t ~=~ 1.4E5 s
>>
>>Since 1 day ~=~ 8E4 s, the answer is: a little less than 2 days.
>
>>>How much of the ship's initial mass must be fuel in order to do this?
>>>Is there any other information I need to supply?
>>
>>Yup.  At the very least: 

Not really, if you are looking for a general answer.

A rocket engine is a momentum engine, not an energy engine.  You
cannot find the total energy needed by computing the integral of F.dx.  

Suppose that 90% of the ship's mass is hydrogen fuel/reaction mass, to be
expelled at an exhaust velocity Vex.
Then the power needed to produce that exhaust is

P(t) = 0.5 Mdot(t) Vex^2

where Mdot(t) is the rate at which you throw matter away for reaction mass.

Since I specified that 90% of the mass is reaction matter/fuel, and the
rocket has constant thrust, then the ship mass as a function of time is

M(t) = M0 10^(-t/1.4e5)    where M0 is the initial mass = 10^5 kg
                           1.4e5 is the trip duration in seconds

So, Mdot(t) = M0 ln(10)/1.4e5 10^(-t/1.4e5)

At t = 0, then the engine is burning about 1.5 kg per second.  To provide
the 1e7 N of thrust, the exhaust velocity must be 1e7/1.5 = 7e6 m/s (!)
The power required is 0.5*1.5*(7e6)^2 = 35e12 watts, which is the energy
output of about 1000 Grand Coulee Dams, on the order of the peak energy
consumption of the United States, I suppose.

How much energy is in that 1.5 kg of hydrogen?  Well, burning hydrogen to
get helium _produces helium mass_.  In fact, only about 0.01% of solar
hydrogen mass winds up as energy (doubtless a solar physics person can
supply a better figure, I could be a ways off here).  So 1.5 kg can only
give us 0.15 g of E from mc^2, which is .15*(3e10)^2 = 1.5e20 ergs/second
or 15e12 watts.

Which is not enough power by half.  In other words, you cannot accomplish
the trip _at all_ even with 100% efficient hydrogen->helium fusion! 

Part of the problem is demanding constant 1g acceleration, or, better, requiring
acceleration that high at all.  Think about accelerations more like
.01g, .001g, .0001g.  It helps the engine requirements a lot.

The situation would be dramatically improved if you could tank up at "Exxon
AntiMatter," I suppose, because you would recover a lot of that mass penalty
going from hydrogen to helium.  That wouldn't change the power requirements
of the engine, though.

(weight == mass in the above epistle) 

John Sahr
-- 
John Sahr,                          School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall   
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

ARPA: johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #61
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Oct 88 05:16:38 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06745>; Fri, 28 Oct 88 03:37:04 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 28 Oct 88 03:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.QXO2Bwy00jZdMOJk50@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sXO2:Ry00UkTE13k8c>;
          Fri, 28 Oct 88 03:32:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.EXO1ydy00UkZ43WE5I>;
          Fri, 28 Oct 88 03:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Oct 28 88 03:18:07 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #62

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
	  Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)
	      Re: The Real Thing - THE MARS DECLARATION
		 Re: where should all the people go?
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		  Asimov on Future of Space Program
		Re: Asimov on Future of Space Program
		Re: Asimov on Future of Space Program
NASA and Martin Marietta sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded)
		 Re: where should all the people go?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 22:30:48 GMT
From: accelerator!kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <737@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu.UUCP 
(John Sahr) writes:
>Jason May asks for comments on a particular space ship, and several reply.
[Me among others, with a partial answer: t ~=~ 1.4E5 s ]
>>>>How much of the ship's initial mass must be fuel in order to do this?
>>>>Is there any other information I need to supply?
>>>
>>>Yup.  At the very least: 
>
>Not really, if you are looking for a general answer.

Hmm... Your solution seems to be to *assume* the answer, I guess in
that case you indeed don't need any further information :-) :-)

>A rocket engine is a momentum engine, not an energy engine.  You
>cannot find the total energy needed by computing the integral of F.dx.  

True, but rather irrelevant.

>Suppose that 90% of the ship's mass is hydrogen fuel/reaction mass, to be
              ^^^
              The poor guy wants you to *calculate* that number!

>expelled at an exhaust velocity Vex.
>Then the power needed to produce that exhaust is
[ setup of the math deleted ]
>M(t) = M0 10^(-t/1.4e5)    where M0 is the initial mass = 10^5 kg
>                           1.4e5 is the trip duration in seconds

You're off by a factor of 10 here.  (M0 = 1E6 kg = 1000 tons)

>So, Mdot(t) = M0 ln(10)/1.4e5 10^(-t/1.4e5)
>
>At t = 0, then the engine is burning about 1.5 kg per second.  To provide
                                            ^^^^^^
                                            Will become 15 kg

>the 1e7 N of thrust, the exhaust velocity must be 1e7/1.5 = 7e6 m/s (!)
7E5 m/s
>The power required is 0.5*1.5*(7e6)^2 = 35e12 watts, [...]
0.5*15*(7e5)^2 = 35e11 watts

[calculating energy for 1.5 kg of H->He.  Should be 15 kg, so ]
>or 15e12 watts.
15e13 watts

>Part of the problem is demanding constant 1g acceleration, or, better, 
>requiring
>acceleration that high at all.  Think about accelerations more like
>.01g, .001g, .0001g.  It helps the engine requirements a lot.

Yup.  In fact, STOP MAKING ENGINE NOISE IN SPACE!!  USE LIGHTSAILS!! :-)


Phew!!  This means I won't be first to make an algebra error in this
discussion!  That must qualify as the year's most improbable event :-)

SR

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 18:53:09 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: WW II Jets (was: something totally unrelated)

In article <4578@cadnetix.COM>, eriks@cadnetix.COM (Eriks Ziemelis) writes:
> 
> I never heard of a New York bomber. I do know the Germans had a rocket
> on the drawing boards (can't remember if they had started to build proto
> types) that could reach the US coastal cities.

One proposed version of the A9/A10 rocket bomber was manned.  I think it
was a pretty blatant attempt by the German Rocket Society's members to
get a man in space.  (They eventually did, of course, but it was 25 years
later and working for another outfit...)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 15:47:04 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: The Real Thing - THE MARS DECLARATION

In article <6266@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>WE ENDORSE THE GOAL OF HUMAN EXPLORATION OF MARS AND URGE THAT INITIAL
>STEPS TOWARD ITS IMPLEMENTATION BE TAKEN THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

So what is the problem? The Soviets are already going there
that fulfills the declaration.

Or is this another of these forms which argue that Human == American.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 17:34:04 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <6996@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
[ a posting I generally agree with stating that if we can't manage
  ourselves down on terra firma, we haven't a chance upstairs. He
  mentions that an off-earth colony (OEC) will require ``centuries''
  to become self-sufficient, and I wish to comment on that. ]

The ``centuries'' requirement may turn out to be true, but only if
a linear extrapolation from current conditions is valid. Today,
humankind (or certain privileged segments of it) maintains a
moderately impressive level of technology, but only with a monstrously
elaborate system of interdependence and specialization. I submit 
that the driving force behind our intricate divisions of labor is
our continued dependence on human skill and expertise to perform
most tasks. People develop skills and expertise through years
of experience, and then are largely unable to convey much of that
learning to students at a faster rate. Sure, we can reduce some things
to rules and algorithms, and delegate them to machines, but we have
not begun to succeed in doing this for many essential tasks. The
result is that a complex technology requires a throng of specialists
to keep itself going. That puts a real limit on how small a self-
sufficient OEC can be, and on how long one would take to build.

If research in artificial intelligence leads to machines that learn
from examples, adapt to real-world sensory data in real time, reason
by analogy, develop skills from practice, and in short exhibit
natural intelligence, then we might have a shot at building a
self-sufficient OEC much more quickly. We have no guarantee, however,
that our mechanical progeny would agree to have us aboard!

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 12:24:13 GMT
From: cook@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu  (Stephen J. Cook)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <1872@uokmax.UUCP> tegarvin@uokmax.UUCP (Patrick Garvin) writes:
>
>The First Law of Thermodynamics
>excludes the possibility of 100% efficiency.  
>But who pays attention to things like that in simplified text-book problems?
>

   Apparently more people should pay attention to their Thermodynamics
textbooks:

    1st Law:  You can only break even. <--Says nothing about efficiency!

    2nd Law:  Entropy won't even let you break even. <--Here's the
                                                        argument.



                                         Steve Cook

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 21:27:51 GMT
From: bobg+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Robert Steven Glickstein)
Subject: Asimov on Future of Space Program

Like many who have recently posted opinions against a near-term manned mission
to Mars, Isaac Asimov wrote a brief editorial column for Discover magazine
(Jan-88, p.18) entitled "Lost in space; if we hurry, we could soon reach Mars.
If we're patient, the solar system could be ours for the taking."

Asimov writes eloquently on the advisability of abandoning all whizbang ideas of
super-PR missions in favor of the methodical exploitation of space.  Methodical,
in this case, means: develop space stations in Earth orbit from which further
(less expensive) development and launches could proceed.  From these stations,
venture to the moon, to build a "gateway" to the solar system.  Somewhere in
there is also a plan for orbiting lunar space stations.  Of course, launches
from orbits instead of from celestial bodies require less fuel and can therefore
carry greater payloads.  Only when we have established these resources should we
consider exploring the rest of the solar system.

Has anyone else read this article?  What are people's opinions on Asimov's
ideas?  I, for one, agree with him 100%.

                                 Bob Glickstein
                          Information Technology Center
                           Carnegie Mellon University
                                 Pittsburgh, PA

                         "Flux capacitor... fluxing..."

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 03:26:59 GMT
From: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (William A. Bralick)
Subject: Re: Asimov on Future of Space Program

In article <IXLZdLy00VsIM7Bscc@andrew.cmu.edu> bobg+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert Steven Glickstein) writes:
->Like many who have recently posted opinions against a near-term manned mission
->to Mars, Isaac Asimov wrote a brief editorial column for Discover magazine
->(Jan-88, p.18) entitled "Lost in space; if we hurry, we could soon reach Mars.
->If we're patient, the solar system could be ours for the taking."


[ Asimovian plans deleted to conserve bandwidth ...]

Patience is necessary due to a lack of commitment.  If the vocal voting
public encouraged their representatives to support such a plan, then there
is no technical reason for such a plan to proceed at a snail's pace.  
Perhaps a petition advocating a well-reasoned, long-range plan for eventual 
space colonization, freed from the naive maunderings of the Union of 
Contemptible pSeudopods, may encourage those-who-tax-and-spend to adopt 
a "long-range" view (say, two years and a month).

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 14:02:41 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: Asimov on Future of Space Program

In article <IXLZdLy00VsIM7Bscc@andrew.cmu.edu> bobg+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert 
Steven Glickstein) wrote about the moderately-paced, "patient" approach
to space exploration expressed by Asimov.

In article <651@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. 
Bralick) replied:
>Patience is necessary due to a lack of commitment.

To which I opine: "Patience is also necessary due to a lack of resources."

Again, William Bralick:
>If the vocal voting public encouraged their representatives to support 
>such a plan, then there is no technical reason for such a plan to proceed 
>at a snail's pace.  

Technically speaking, the national debt may not be a good technical reason 
for proceeding moderately and patiently.  To me, however, it argues for those 
two qualities quite eloquently.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 18:11:57 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA and Martin Marietta sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded)

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   October 18, 1988


RELEASE:  88-137

NASA AND MARTIN MARIETTA SIGN COMMERCIAL LAUNCH AGREEMENT


     NASA and Martin Marietta Commercial Titan, Inc., Denver, 
Colo., announced today the signing of an agreement providing for 
the firm's use of facilities at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla., 
in support of commercial launches of the Titan III rocket.

     Advancing the government's objectives to encourage and 
assist the growth of a robust U.S. commercial launch industry, 
the umbrella agreement allows Martin Marietta access to NASA-
managed support facilities when the firm begins conducting 
commercial launches of the Titan III in the third quarter of 
1989.  

     The Titan rocket, developed as a space launch vehicle in the 
early 1960s by the U.S. Air Force, has evolved in capability over 
the years as it served both military and civilian space 
programs.  NASA employed versions of the Titan II rocket in the 
Gemini manned spaceflight program and the Titan III in several 
major planetary missions.  The latest version of the Titan is 
today the most powerful rocket in the U.S. expendable launch 
vehicle inventory.

     Martin Marietta, manufacturer of the Titan, is now marketing 
the commercial Titan III to communications satellite operators 
and other commercial users.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 18:03:19 GMT
From: hacgate!janus!doug@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Doug Saxon)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <6996@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> Several posters and mailers have apparently abandoned the premise that
> going into space will actually improve our lot on Earth (score one for
> Jorge in absentia)

I have certainly not abandoned the premise.  I remain convinced me that
failure to expand into space is the type of limited luddite thinking that
helped to bring on the stag-flation of the late 70s.  I believe we are living
off the benefits of the research required to build Apollo.  I also feel that
until people regularly live in space or on other planets many possible
solutions to problems on Earth just won't be recognized or possible.

> and are now suggesting that since we're going to
> blow ourselves up or poison ourselves to death down here anyway, going
> into space (for others if not the authors, give 'em credit) is the only
> way to assure species survival.

Probably also a true statement.  As long as we have all our eggs in one
basket, God help us if we drop it.  Think of all the minor nuclear powers
there are now and there are likely to be in the future.  In 1979/81 had Iran
had nuclear weapons, in the chaos of revolution, would they have launched???
Would we and the soviets correctly seen such a launch as the isolated mistake
of some splinter group??? or as the begining of FIRST STRIKE.

> 
> There are two crippling objections to this line of reasoning.  First,
> it will be centuries before any off-Earth colony (OEC) can be TRULY
> self supporting, in the sense that Earth could blow up and go away and
> the colony would still be viable indefinitely.

Based on what research.  I would suggest that in the next couple of years
biosphere II will tell us to some order of magnitude how far away self
sufficiency is.  Hopefully someone will continue or is continuing the work
done at the University of Colorado (?) on Martian ecology.  Those efforts will
say how far away a viable OEC is.  If you have data I would really like to
see it.  If all you have is your considered opinion, I must beg to differ.

> The level of technology
> involved to establish and maintain an OEC is truly staggering

All the more reason to get started yesterday.  The population/polution bomb
is ticking.  These problems will not go away just because they SHOULD.
They won't be solved by becoming GOOD people because all of us won't be good.
Rational behavior for rich, pampered, middle class techies living in North
America and Europe is irrational behavior in most of the rest of the world.
To explain alot of the first group are having smaller families, are energy
concious, are worried about pollution, are willing to take a longer view.
In the rest of the world more children means more likelihood some will
survive.  In the rest of the world more children means more people to work
and more likelihood that someone will make enough to keep the family alive
another week, another year.

China is trying to reverse the historical trend and force its population to
limit its growth in order to achieve a higher standard of living.  The
evidence I've seen to date indicates that the program is failing.  While
achieving some limitations, the necessary goal limits are not being achieved.
Again I state the only know historic cases where population growth has
slowed to acceptable levels or even stopped are those where a high standard
of living was achieved FIRST.  Then people had the luxury to take the long
view.  It might be nice if some other method would work, however, there is
only ONE Earth so whatever method is chosen it HAS TO work or else.

Left to their own devices the poorer countries are cutting down forests at
an alarming and increasing rate, over grazing and over working their farms,
slaughtering their wild animals, ripping minerals from their soil with little
or no care about the environmental costs in a desperate and futile attempt
to survive.  Every year they fall farther behind, deeper in debt.

The solution, a solution ...

There is only so much land, so much of any given resource on the planet.
Increasing their standard of living decreases ours, talk about a winning
political strategy:-).  Therefore, I say widen the game.  Maybe by making
available resources off planet, the abundant solar power, minerals and
chemicals from nearby other bodies ( Apollo astroids, the Moon ) we can
find a way to raise the poor of the Earth to a level where they will
voluntarily control their population, where they will have food and health
enough to worry about polution, ecology, the long term.
> 
> You cannot wall off an OEC from Earth's troubles.  If Earth goes under
> there is a damn good chance it would take an OEC with it,
Of course with no OEC the probability = 1 :-)!!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #62
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Oct 88 07:57:04 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00809>; Fri, 28 Oct 88 05:29:07 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 28 Oct 88 05:29:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.cXO3qyy00jZdI39k4N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AXO3nOy00jZdM1Qk5P>;
          Fri, 28 Oct 88 05:24:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.MXO3jYy00UkZE3iU5g>;
          Fri, 28 Oct 88 05:20:39 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Oct 28 88 05:18:13 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #63

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
		 Re: where should all the people go?
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
     Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
	     Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
		     Re: Earth & living in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 00:29:19 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <401@janus.UUCP>, doug@janus.UUCP (Doug Saxon) writes:
> There is only so much land, so much of any given resource on the planet.
> Increasing their standard of living decreases ours, talk about a winning
> political strategy:-).

This is certainly true if we linearly extrapolate a 1950's economic
model where increases in living standards followed from increases
in raw material consumption. However, advancing technology is enabling
us to steadily increase the value we can add to a given amount of
material. Consider the quantity of raw material sitting in the computer
you are now using to read netnews. A 1960's computer with the same
computational power would have required enough material to put you
in the poorhouse. By the year 2000, it might all be on one chip and cost
a few dollars. Non-information technologies don't offer the same
scope for efficiency increases, but we can certainly do much better 
than we do at present. No industrial country is nearly as efficient
as it could be, but some are better than others. Japan, for example,
consumes roughly 40% less energy per dollar of GNP than does the US of A.

> Therefore, I say widen the game.  Maybe by making
> available resources off planet, the abundant solar power, minerals and
> chemicals from nearby other bodies ( Apollo astroids, the Moon ) we can
> find a way to raise the poor of the Earth to a level where they will
> voluntarily control their population, where they will have food and health
> enough to worry about polution, ecology, the long term.

The huge costs associated with hauling materials around space virtually
dictate an end to the throw-away mentality of the 1950-1960's economic
model. If we are going to have any chance at all in space, we must greatly
reduce our material requirements. If we want to survive in closed, self-
contained environments, we must develop a conservation ethic the likes of
which we have not yet seen. People who can't even be bothered to separate
their garbage for recycle, ride bikes to work, or give a passing 
thought to the wider consequences of their actions won't last a second
upstairs.

I don't know the answers to the problems of the third world, but I doubt
that simply dumping nickel-iron asteroids on them would do the trick. (Not
that I am opposed to asteroid mining--I understand that we could chew on
even a modest one for a few centuries at present rates of consumption.)
And what makes anybody think that the third world poor would get a piece
of the action, anyway? At least when we rape their countries now to get
raw materials they can form cartels and such. If the industrial nations
put up $100 billion or so to park an earth-grazer in orbit, we could
nibble to our heart's content without any need to worry about the
disenfranchised. And you can bet we would pay off our investors long
before we would think about splitting the take.

Prosperity did eventually cut our birthrates, but remember that we
needed about two generations for it to kick in. And before we hit the
big time, we were nowhere near the carrying limits of our available
ecosystems. The Third World today is a very different place. Many
nations are dangerously overcrowded already, sustaining their
populations only through unsustainable agricultural and industrial
practices. Raising their gross consumption of energy and material to
the level of the industrial nations would create an environmental
catastrophe, especially if they had to use fossil fuels (as seems
likely for the next few decades). And their birthrates would probably
not fall for a generation or two, by which time their numbers would have
doubled or quadrupled. Twenty billion people driving cars? Unthinkable.

If an answer exists for the problems of the Third World (not to mention
the problems of the industrialized nations), it does not lie in simply
finding ways to repeat the mistakes of the past on a larger scale. Instead
we must make prosperity so cheap in terms of necessary materials that
even the poor can afford it.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 16:55:01 GMT
From: accelerator!kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <1872@uokmax.UUCP> tegarvin@uokmax.UUCP (Patrick Garvin) writes:
>In the interests of completeness, I should add a comment to all the
>calcuations and speculation already posted:  The First Law of Thermodynamics
>excludes the possibility of 100% efficiency.  

1) Is my brain out of sync, or should that be *second* law?
2) Everybody who used that piece of info clearly stated they were
   doing ballparking; assuming 100% efficiency is a fairly common
   trick when you're doing a first hack at a number.  The answer won't
   be right, but we were doing approximations anyway, so...

SR

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 12:41:34 GMT
From: bsu-cs!dhesi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <1872@uokmax.UUCP> tegarvin@uokmax.UUCP (Patrick Garvin) writes:
>The First Law of Thermodynamics
>excludes the possibility of 100% efficiency.  

(Are you sure it's the First Law that limits efficiency?)

In any case, only conversion of a temperature gradient to kinetic
energy, or something equivalent to that, is limited in efficiency.

There is no reason why an ideal electric motor cannot convert 100% of
electrical energy to mechanical energy, or why 100% of the matter lost
during fusion cannot be converted to heat.

Puzzle for the day:  Explain why it is impossible to convert mass into
energy.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 15:31:07 GMT
From: heurikon!lampman@speedy.wisc.edu  (Ray Lampman)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <1583@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
>BTW, your ship will buzz past your destination at a respectable 1.4x10^6
>m/sec (3.1 million miles per hour), so you'll probably get a ticket 8-)
________________________________________________________________________

Are there any relativistic effects to be considered here?
-- 
I am seriously considering a career on  | Ray Lampman (608) 276-3431
the beach. I'll need a microwave modem, | Madison Wisconsin USA Earth
solar power supply, and a little shade. | {husc6,rutgers}!uwvax!heurikon!lampman

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 23:03:29 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)

>From article <7000@dasys1.UUCP>, by tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff):
> In article <6268@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
--                                       ... As Space Studies Institute's
--Gregg Maryniac has said, the Space Station should be like a pier from
--which we can launch ships into the new frontier of space (including Mars,
--Phobos, the Asteroids, and even the Moon).  What we currently have is
--a space station that is like a pier that can only be used for fishing.
- 
- I still don't get this.  Outside of the science fictional wish
- fulfilment aspects (a very touchy subject around here, still I don't
- think we can ignore it), exactly how does anybody benefit from using a
- manned Space Station as a place to **LAUNCH** anything from?  ...
- 
- It seems more reasonable to assume that anything ready to stand up to a
- TMI burn, for instance, will consist of no more than two or three
- load-balanced and -supported pieces. ...
 
The Soviet mars ships described in Aviation Week looked to be nuclear
electric powered vessels. No tank farms. No high Gees. Just a long
slow push. They have a central living/cargo module with two long booms
sticking out opposite sides with a reactor mounted on the end of each
boom.

If we choose to use chemical engines as primary propulsion, why pay
the weight penalty to put high thrust motors on the mars bound ships?
In LEO a long low thrust burn is equivalent to a short high thrust
burn. Any way, there is no reason to fire up the motors within 10,000
miles of the station, even if you are launched from it. A very small
burn will put you in an orbit that separates from the station. When
the station is over the horizon, light off the main engines and head
to mars at the incredibly high acceleration of 0.01 G.

You are suffering from both a failure of imagination and of physics.

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
An average hammer is better for driving nails than a superior wrench.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 23:33:48 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

In article <386@ftp.COM> jbvb@ftp.COM (James Van Bokkelen) writes:
>In article <37229@philabs.Philips.Com>, rfc@briar.philips.com (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201) writes:
>> I would think that things like pieces of interstate highways, dams, non-
>> crossive metal objects, and such might survive in sufficient amounts
>
>The longest-lasting item will probably be radioactivity in ocean-bottom
>sediments.  After that, perhpas other chemicals in sediments (tar/oil
>and DDT or maybe PCBs).  After that, building stone moved far from where
>it was quarried, large excavations (highway & railroad cuts, quarries)
>and the landfills they are being turned into.  Also, the deforestation
>of much of the temperate zones in the early years of this century, followed
>by the tropics as I write this, should be detectable by pollen counts in
>sediments, althought that and extinctions are less definite evidence.

Hmm. I should expect that other giveaways would be "unusual" ecologies
surrounding toxic waste dumps (esp. nuclear), nuclear reactor sites
(unnatural isotopes and large chunks of stainless steel, should 
last a while), the Pyramids (half 8-) , and, for that matter, cities.
(if we can excavate Troy and other sites that have been built over time
and time again, surely New York City will leave some trace). If nothing
else, sewers and subways would be detectable as irregularities in the
strata, even if they collapse.


------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 04:33:01 GMT
From: att!occrsh!uokmax!tegarvin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Patrick Garvin)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <4402@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
]In article <1872@uokmax.UUCP] tegarvin@uokmax.UUCP (Patrick Garvin) writes:
]]The First Law of Thermodynamics
]]excludes the possibility of 100% efficiency.  
]
](Are you sure it's the First Law that limits efficiency?)
]
]Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones]!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi

I was in a bit of a hurry when I posted that.  I meant the second law.

Patrick Garvin  "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and
 always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."
                                             -- J. R. R. Tolkien
                      >>-->         tgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
                        or          tegarvin@uokmax.ucs.uoknor.edu.UUCP
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are mine alone and do not represent 
University Computing Services policy.  Take what you like and leave the rest.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 16:10:30 GMT
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Kevin William Ryan)
Subject: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)


   I agree, we must do something, or nothing at all.  I am quite opposed to
the Mars mission people, on the grounds that it's too flaming much for too
little.  I think that people are quite capable of being inspired by the idea of
cheap access to space and profitable space resources, if approached properly.

   Therefore, WHERE DO I GO TO SIGN THE 'RETURN TO THE MOON' PETITION!?!?!?
Seems like a much better way to apply the dubious leverage of my signature...


                                                 kwr

 kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu
 kr0u%andrew.cmu.edu@cmccvb.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 07:05:52 GMT
From: oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Phil Nelson)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <oXL=tq138k-084zYgD@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
>
>   I agree, we must do something, or nothing at all.  I am quite opposed to
>the Mars mission people, on the grounds that it's too flaming much for too
>little.  I think that people are quite capable of being inspired by the idea of
>cheap access to space and profitable space resources, if approached properly.
>
>   Therefore, WHERE DO I GO TO SIGN THE 'RETURN TO THE MOON' PETITION!?!?!?
>Seems like a much better way to apply the dubious leverage of my signature...
>

 Me too, I'm for Moonbase, not for Mars visit. When we can seriously talk of
a permanent base on Mars, I will be for that. Right now, I want my tax
dollars spent on Spaceplane + Space Station + anything else that may lead to
Man in space, to stay.

 I will sign a petition proposing a permanent manned base on the moon. I will
NOT sign a petition proposing that we repeat one of the most colossal
blunders in American history by building a multi-billion dollar throwaway
space program to enable a man to hit a golf ball on Mars.

 Has anyone else noticed that the discussion here of the impossibility of
resurrecting the Saturn 5 pertains to this discussion also? We invested
colossal sums of money to create that system, then, once we had seen the
Moon on TV, we let it all rot.

 Some will say that the Apollo program proves that the American people are
incabable of any long term effort in space. I do not agree. I think it
proves only that the American people (as represented in Congress) can be
badly led. The Apollo program had no substance, so we treated it as a circus.
We bought the greatest show in space, when the show was over we returned to
earth.

 What we need now is a serious space program with serious goals like space
industry, defence, energy production, exploration, colonization. We do not
need, and cannot now afford, a diversion to Mars. An early Mars program is
on the road to ruin, Moonbase is on mankind's path to the stars.



>
>                                                 kwr
>
> kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu
> kr0u%andrew.cmu.edu@cmccvb.bitnet


p.s. My sincere apologies to all the people who made Apollo work. It was a
     wonderful job, which I would not belittle. I believe this needs to be
     said, clearly and often, lest we forget the mistakes of the past, and
     repeat them.


extra disclaimer: My employer has definitely NOT supplied me with these
                  opinions, and cannot, fairly, be held liable for them.
-- 
{ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson | Parallel IQ (the IQ of a group)
OnTyme: NSC.P/Nelson  POTS: (408)922-7508  | may be easily calculated given
Disclaimer: Not officially representing    | the IQ of each member - use the
McDonnell Douglas Corporation policy.      | formula for parallel resistance.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 21:20:13 GMT
From: nsc!amdahl!drivax!macleod@decwrl.dec.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <Added.8XJ__Uy00Ui3M75E8m@andrew.cmu.edu> JDAVIS@GRIFFIN.BITNET writes:

:Humans will still be humans and driven by their nature which has mucked
:things up here on earth.  There will always be those who want to get
:ahead at any cost, exploiting people and things according to their set
:of rules.  Explorers of the past, even those with honorable intentions,
:were exploiters and in turn were preyed upon by robbers and pirates.
:To think that this won't happen in space is unrealistic:  if you can get
:there someone else can too, and he may have fewer scruples than you.
:
:No, I don't think space is the panacea for the world's problems.  It is
:only going to give humans more room in which to work.   Those who
:think that every future inhabitant of space is going to be good, clean
:and kind will probably suffer a rude awakening.  There will always be 
:those who have and those who have not, those who lead and those who
:are made to follow.   It is unlikely that this will change in the near
:future.  Jesus tried 2000 yrs. ago and the religions which supposedly
:are based on his teachings still haven't gotten it right.

I happen to think that the people you sneer at are the best and brightest
of the human race, and that you and a lot of other whining vegetables want
to crawl back into the womb and feel wounded by the fact that you have to 
create to survive.  Many people feel confident enough to compete with each
other, but you and your ilk want everybody to eat Gerber's strained carrots
because *you* can't handle steak.  "Good, clean, and kind"?  Try tough,
shrewd, and dangerous.

Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #63
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Oct 88 13:59:53 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02729>; Fri, 28 Oct 88 11:15:59 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 28 Oct 88 11:15:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.oXO8v3y00jZdE_X05r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4XO8Sdy00Ui3A3p04R>;
          Fri, 28 Oct 88 10:43:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.UXO8Nsy00UkZ04s057>;
          Fri, 28 Oct 88 10:38:54 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Oct 28 88 10:36:59 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #64

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:
      Dr. Polyakov will stay on USSR's Mir after French mission
	    Soviet Shuttle launch date and time announced
	       Correction on Soviet Shuttle Launch Time
		     Re: Earth & living in space
			"clyde" vs. Paul Dietz
		 Re: > >RE : SRB ignition failure --
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		     Re: Earth & living in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 88 16:18:52 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Dr. Polyakov will stay on USSR's Mir after French mission

    In more manned flight information Dr. Valery Polyakov (who arrived on the 
Soyuz TM-6 flight Aug. 29th) will not be coming down on Dec. 21 as expected.
According to flight director Vladimir Soloviev, the current long duration
crew of Valadimir Titov and Musa Manarov (up there since 
Dec 21 1987), and Frenchman Jean-Loup Chretien, who should arrive on Nov. 21
will come down in the Soyuz TM-6, while Polyakov will stay for a while with
the new crew.  That probably means he is in for a 6-8 month mission at the
very least. (from Space Station News, Oct. 16).
    According to Jim Oberg (by means of Jonathan Mcdowell of Harvard) the 
makeup for that Soyuz TM-7 French mission will Alexander Volkov 
(Soyuz T-14/Salyut 7 64 day mission in Sept. '85 which ended 
when the commander Valdimir Vasyutin became ill), Sergey Krikalyov (new), 
of the spationaut Jean-Loup Chretien, with a backup crew of Viktorenko, 
Alexander Serebrov (Soyuz T-8 in Apr. '83 and the Soyuz TM-10A pad fire abort 
in Sept. '83), Tognini (French backup).  Soyuz TM-8 is guessed to be due 
about May 10th with Viktorenko, Alexander Serebrov,Arzamazov (pure guesswork),
with perhaps Volkov,Krikalyov,Polyakov down in TM7 a week later.  New modules 
will go up next summer '89, maybe July.
    If the shuttle flights go on schedule next year the maximum amount of 
orbital time obtained by the US will be about 390 man days.  However the
current schedule is looking at a minimum (baring any accidents) Russian
program of 850 man days, still a factor of 2 larger.  The only area where
this country will be ahead will be in the number of astronauts lifted to
orbit, where the Soviets will stay behind until their shuttle flies.  Sorry
people, even with the shuttle flying the US is losing ground.  Tell that
to those who think this country is ahead now that it is back in space.
Only real strong efforts will change that.

                                                Glenn Chapman
                                                MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 88 23:44:40 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet Shuttle launch date and time announced

    The Soviet Shuttle launch date is set for Saturday Oct. 29th at 6:24 Moscow
Time (that translates as 11:24 EDT - Moscow is now off of Daylight time).
This initial flight is definitely unmanned (manned mission possibly in 1991)
The Russian name for their shuttle is Vosdushno Kosmicheskii Korabl'
(Air Space Ship), while this particular one is Buran (snowstorm).  Note that
James Oberg was first to use Buran several years ago.  Also the initial photos
of the vehicle had that name blocked out (look at AW&ST Oct. 24), do not
know why.  The dry weight of Buran is 70 Tonnes, of Energiya's dry weight of
240 Tonnes.  The fueled weight is up to 2,400 tonnes, with a liftoff thrust
of 3,600 Tonnes.  This current flight will be using a different pad than the
initial Energiya flight.  This suggests that there is at least one pad for
Buran related missions, and one for regular vehicles.  The launch will be
covered live at least on the short wave, probably on television (maybe even
CNN will carry it).
    Some interesting points here having to do with the Orbital Maneuvering
Systems (OMS) on Buran.  In this country's shuttle after main engine shut down
the dive to release the tank the shuttle is at 95% orbital speed, with the
OMS just supplying the rest.  However, the last Energiya launch had the third
stage separating at about 70% of orbital velocity.  That means the OMS rockets
must supply a much larger delta V (velocity increase).  Hence, this may 
explain the mystery about the tail on Buran - with no main engines as on
the shuttle it should be much lighter than needed to make the vehicle stable.
However, if it must contain more fuel for that maneurver this could balance
out.
   Finally in other man related mission the EVA Oct. 20th to repair the
X-ray telescope was successful, with the first X-ray pictures of a galaxy
being returned Oct. 25th.
   If the USSR pulls this off then they will have the same capacity we have
to return large cargoes from orbit, and to put up large manned crews.  In 
addition of course they have a permanently manned space station with crews
working towards 1 year missions.  Then it will be very hard for those that
argue "our shuttle puts us years ahead of the Russians in space".

                                                     Glenn Chapman
                                                     Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 88 20:21:43 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Correction on Soviet Shuttle Launch Time

   Just a small correction to the Soviet shuttle launch time I posted.  The
launch time should have read 6:24 am Moscow time, Saturday Oct. 29th, which
translates as 11:24 pm Friday night on Eastern Daylight Time (currently there
are 7 hours time difference between Moscow and the east cost).  They have
stated that the launch will be shown live on Soviet TV.  Maybe the networks
will pick it up here (CNN has still not said that it will carry the flight).
    Let us see how the Russians do it (and can they launch on time).

                                                   Glenn Chapman
                                                   MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 88 21:52:36 GMT
From: voder!pyramid!oliveb!cygnet!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <Added.8XJ__Uy00Ui3M75E8m@andrew.cmu.edu> JDAVIS@GRIFFIN.BITNET
writes:
>Henry Spencer writes:
>>"Look at it another way:  the odds are better that we will get it
>>right on one try out of six than on one try out of one."
>
>Very doubtful.
>
>Humans will still be humans and driven by their nature which has mucked
>things up here on earth.  There will always be those who want to get
>ahead at any cost, exploiting people and things according to their set
>of rules.  Explorers of the past, even those with honorable intentions,
>were exploiters and in turn were preyed upon by robbers and pirates.
>To think that this won't happen in space is unrealistic:  if you can get
>there someone else can too, and he may have fewer scruples than you.
>
>No, I don't think space is the panacea for the world's problems.  It is
>only going to give humans more room in which to work.   Those who
>think that every future inhabitant of space is going to be good, clean
>and kind will probably suffer a rude awakening.  There will always be
>those who have and those who have not, those who lead and those who
>are made to follow.   It is unlikely that this will change in the near
>future.  Jesus tried 2000 yrs. ago and the religions which supposedly
>are based on his teachings still haven't gotten it right.
>
>Enough rambling, back to lurk in the shadows of anonymity. :-)

Yes, life is nasty, brutish, and short, isn't it?  The world
*is* dog-eat-dog and human-exploit-human.  And those bright,
sterile worlds out there are *so* pristine and beautiful --
rather like a painted desert, but without any life cluttering
them up.  We mustn't mess up those worlds with life-forms that
might -- shudder -- *expoit* their environment or each other...!  

(End sarcasm.)  I'm sorry, but I find such attitudes as expressed
above -- that sterile, dead worlds are somehow "better" than worlds
filled with life, however far from utopian -- are basically *anti-
life*.  Yes, the world is distant from Utopia, but those who argue
that we should restrict ourselves from "exploiting" other worlds which
are basically *dead* unless and until Earth first becomes utopian,
are fooling themselves.  *Whom* are we protecting by keeping ourselves
bound to Earth?  You yourself admit space gives "humans more room in
which to work."  I'd editorialize by pointing out it gives us a *lot*
more room in which to work.  Surely, space has a creative role to play
in bringing humans and all life which lives on Earth closer to Utopia.

So what if life sometimes exploits life and non-life!  I'd rather
have that than nothing but *death* there.  And life also has its
moments of joy amidst the world in a way that mere rocks cannot.  

I'd like to close with a quote from Asimov's *The End of Eternity*,
where similar ideas to those expressed above are stated, and refuted:

	"And what would have been gained?" asked Harlan doggedly.  
	"Would we be happier?"

	"Whom do you mean by `we'?  Man would not be a world
	but a million worlds, a billion worlds.  We would have
	the infinite in our grasp.  Each world would have its own
	stretch of the Centuries, each its own values, a chance
	to seek happiness after ways of its own in an environment
	of its own.  There are many happinesses, many goods,
	infinite variety....  *That* is the Basic State of mankind."
		Isaac Asimov, *The End of Eternity*, Doubleday &
		Co., Inc., Garden City, New York, 1955, pp. 187.

--
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
Mountain View, California
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 01:16:46 GMT
From: well!pokey@hplabs.hp.com  (Jef Poskanzer)
Subject: "clyde" vs. Paul Dietz

In the referenced message, clyde@emx.UUCP (Head UNIX Hacquer) wrote:
}Mr. Dietz, since you do not believe in space exploration and
}development, and seem so enamoured of staying right here on Earth
}forever, WHY DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ SCI.SPACE?????
}
}There have always been those who cannot or will not see the value
}of exploration - whose horizons seem to be limited to what is under
}their noses.  It would seem that you fit into that category.
}
}So, once again, I would ask why are you bothering with this newsgroup?
}I know you are not going to change my mind nor stifle the excitement that I
}feel whenever I see a spacecraft.
}
}If you wish to inherit the Earth, by all means be my guest.
}But I want MY children to have the option of the inheriting the stars.

[Entire text quoted for the benefit of alt.flame readers - apologies
to sci.space readers for repeating this offensive garbage.]

I like to save articles that make interesting points.  Out of the 100
articles that I have in my "space" folder, dating back as far at 1981,
33 are from Paul Dietz.  Some of the subjects: Geostar; Rod Hyde's laser
fusion rocket; railguns; ionospheric laser powersats; artificial diamonds
by plasma deposition; high ISP fission rockets.

On the other hand, I have never saved a single article from "clyde".

Paul's subjects quite often include the kinds of things we will need
for *real* space industrialization.  If he has seemed to be against
space recently, it can only be in reaction to the moronic arguments
put forth by people like "clyde".  Moronic arguments will not get us
into space, but scientists and engineers of Paul's caliber might.

"Clyde": please fuck off.
---
Jef

             Jef Poskanzer   jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov   ...well!pokey
                                 Actual size.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 17:48:29 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: > >RE : SRB ignition failure --

In article <8810172103.AA16884@kestrel.arpa> king@KESTREL.ARPA (Dick King) writes:
>> Sigh.  (We were over this at length last year.)  The SRB-jettison system
>> is designed for use after burnout only.
>
>No.  The boosters are released shortly before they burn out.  This can
>be seen clearly on TV at any launch.

When I said "after burnout" I didn't mean "after the flame is completely
and absolutely out", I meant "after thrust drops nearly to zero".  If
you think about what you are seeing on TV, it is not hard to figure this
out:  if the SRBs were jettisoned while still thrusting, they would lunge
ahead of the orbiter+tank.

>... It is probably very
>difficult to make them both burn out even within one second of the
>other, and i suspect the austronauts would be in deep doo-doo if they
>had that drastically unbalanced thrust for even that long.

Even burning of the SRBs is a major concern and much attention is given
to it.  Yes, they do burn out essentially simultaneously.  The modest
unbalance that can occur was a major design factor in things like the
nozzle-gimbaling systems for the SRBs.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 03:51:25 GMT
From: tank!nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!viper!dave@handies.ucar.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <737@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu.UUCP (John Sahr) writes:
 >
 >A rocket engine is a momentum engine, not an energy engine.  You
 >cannot find the total energy needed by computing the integral of F.dx.  

But the original problem specified a 100% efficient engine.
Obviously that means that the exaust velocity would be C --
which does allow direct conversion of energy.

 >How much energy is in that 1.5 kg of hydrogen?  Well, burning hydrogen to
 >get helium _produces helium mass_.  In fact, only about 0.01% of solar
 >hydrogen mass winds up as energy (doubtless a solar physics person can
 >supply a better figure, I could be a ways off here).  So 1.5 kg can only
 >give us 0.15 g of E from mc^2, which is .15*(3e10)^2 = 1.5e20 ergs/second
 >or 15e12 watts.

You are definitely a ways off -- by about two orders of
magnitude.  If you convert four hydrogen atoms into one helium
atom (which the sun does by a round-about route) 0.7% of the
mass is converted to energy.

 >Part of the problem is demanding constant 1g acceleration, or, better, requiring
 >acceleration that high at all.  Think about accelerations more like
 >.01g, .001g, .0001g.  It helps the engine requirements a lot.

Generally, the higher the acceleration, the higher the
efficiency of a rocket motor.  I don't know where you got the
above statement from.
-- 
If you can't convince |   David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org)
them, confuse them.   |   Lynx Data Systems
   -- Harry S Truman  | 
                      |   amdahl   --!bungia!viper!dave
                      |   hpda    /

Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved
This work may be freely copied.  Any restrictions on
redistribution of this work are prohibited.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 18:07:13 GMT
From: haven!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space


In article <1988Oct15.124434.7282@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> That some fanatical minority (or majority) is in favor of some course
> of action is no evidence that that action is correct.  Man is exploring
> the solar system.  What is the problem with performing the exploration
> at a measured pace?  Saying that we must put people into space now,
> at enormous cost, is to propose eating our seed corn.

No, it is to propose *planting* our seed corn, rather than allowing
ravenous appetites (e.g., welfare or defense programs) to eat it.
What is ``a measured pace'' anyway?  What schedule do you propose?

> If putative impending energy shortages are the reason for the space
> program, one has to wonder why so much is spent on NASA instead of on
> energy R&D.  SPS has the look of a rationalization for space
> exploration, not a reason for it.

Energy shortage is not **``the''** reason for the space program;
there is no such single, unique reason.  Mr Dietz, if such childish
simplifications are the best arguments you can find, you'd help your
cause more by not saying anything.  SPS is just one possible
technology among many which space development would make available to
help solve Earth's problems, and these technologies are themselves
only a part of the benefits which space development could bring.

> I have some difficulty understanding the motivation of space fans.
> They give lots of reasons that someone should support a space program,
> but unless a person is incredibly altruistic, these reasons, even if
> true, don't appear to me to be capable of eliciting such a fanatical
> devotion.  They're rationalizations that the devoted repeat to one
> another to keep the faith alive.

My children will live their adult lives in the future we create.  I
can't think of anything I should be more concerned about.  As I said
in a previous posting (which was conveniently ignored by Mr Dietz, Mr
Neff, and the other people arguing against space development), I don't
claim space development is a sure cure for all the world's problems,
nor do I advocate abandoning all other lines of work on these problems.

I do think that (a) space development has a reasonable chance of
succeeding, and (b) if it succeeds, it will allow a more effective
attack on these problems than other possible solutions (because it
could help in several different ways at once, whereas most other
suggested approaches, e.g., fusion, only attack a single problem).

> Space fans should keep in mind that intellectual honesty is very important
> to any technological effort.  The whole sorrid space shuttle experience
> shows the capacity of the faithful for willful self-delusion.
>
>       Paul F. Dietz
>       dietz@cs.rochester
>
>       Space is where to go,
>       Ben Bova tells me so.

Here's an interesting piece of hypocrisy:  Mr. Dietz urges his opponents
to be more intellectually honest, but in the *same sentence* he smears
them with a label which suggests they are immature, shallow, and
emotionally swayed (on a topic which "should" be purely intellectual).
He follows this with a brilliant little ditty which implies not only
that his opponents can't think for themselves, but that their ideas are
mainly supplied by the high authority of a science fiction writer.

Thank you, Mr. Dietz, for this fine example of "intellectual honesty."

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #64
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Oct 88 05:52:02 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05118>; Sat, 29 Oct 88 03:37:44 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 29 Oct 88 03:37:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.oXOLIay00UkT0Hwk4D@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXOLBoy00UkT41=k9=>;
          Sat, 29 Oct 88 03:29:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.oXOL5Xy00UkZ06V05C>;
          Sat, 29 Oct 88 03:21:09 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct 29 88 03:18:08 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #65

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 65

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)
		Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
		   Looking for Astronaut Applicants
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		   Re: All this haggling about Mars
		      Re: Henry's latest tirade
		   Re: population and cultural bias
		     All this haggling about Mars
		     Re: Earth & living in space
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 17:42:37 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Who's for Space?  (Politics)

In article <422@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes:
>  I thought Dukakis wants to cancel the aerospace plane?  (Currently
>the only work the US is doing towards low-cost reusable space vehicles).

He is opposed to the aerospace plane.  However, there is no connection
between the aerospace plane and anything to which the phrase "low cost"
can legitimately be applied.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 17:44:09 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space

In article <10648@reed.UUCP> reeder@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes:
>Did anything useful come out of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project?

In a word, no.

The money and hardware would have been much more usefully employed in
sending up a fourth Skylab crew.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 16:49:57 GMT
From: pitstop!sundc!netxcom!ewiles@sun.com  (Edwin Wiles)
Subject: Looking for Astronaut Applicants

Rich Kolker, a friend of mine who has not yet regained a news
feed, has asked me to post this for him.

PLEASE RESPOND DIRECTLY TO *RICH* VIA MAIL!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM Rich Kolker:

July 1, 1989 is the deadline for submitting applications to NASA for the next
class of Astronaut candidates.

I'm one of several people I know who plan to apply this time around, and we're 
interested in exchanging ideas, news, suggestions, gossip, whatever with
others also seriously interested in applying this time around.

So, I'm going to set up a mailing list to do this.  Anyone out there interested
or with information is welcome to join us.  Unsuccessful (or successful, 
although I haven't seen any astronauts on the net) applicants from past
cycles are encouraged to help us out.

Send requests to join the list along with your news, suggestions...
to me at uunet!telenet!tp5c!richk.

NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT JUST A REPLY OR FOLLOWUP TO THIS MESSAGE.  I have mail,
but no news at this time.

++rich

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rich Kolker                 The work goes on...                             |
| uunet!telenet!tp5c!richk       The cause endures...                         |
| (703) 689-5915 (w)                The hope still lives...                   |
| (703) 361-1290 (h)          And the dream shall never die.                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REMEMBER, *MAIL* to RICH!  If you don't *MAIL* it, he *won't* see it!

						Enjoy!
-- 
...!hadron\   "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles
  ...!sundc\   Schedule: (n.) An ever changing	| NetExpress Comm., Inc.
   ...!pyrdc\			  nightmare.	| 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
    ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles			| Vienna, VA 22180

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 20:24:38 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Chuck Brunow)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <183@ur-cc.UUCP> rbr4@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Roland Roberts) writes:
> ...
>Unfortunately, this is not the case.  The velocity of the rocket depends
>upon the thrust provided by the exhaust, i.e., it is the momentum transfer
>which is critical, not the kinetic energy.

	A point well taken. Rocket thrust problems are action/reaction
	problems and conservation of momentum is the key factor.
>
>If you actually due this for the reaction I posted earlier,
>
>    2D + 1H --> 3He + (gamma) + 5.49MeV
>
	The way to maximize momentum while minimizing the mass of the fuel
	that must be carried is to get the exhaust to really high velocity.
	The fusion reaction is an inefficient pig compared to elementary
	particles accelerated to nearly 'c' in a suitable linear accelerator.
	So a much better "star drive" would be a high current tandem
	accelerator which strips the electrons off of hydrogen atoms
	and shoots the protons and electrons out of two (or more)
	drives at v->c. Not as flashy as fusion maybe, but less likely
	to melt the nozzle.

-- 
			CLBrunow - ka5sof
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 21:52:14 GMT
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Kevin William Ryan)
Subject: Re: All this haggling about Mars


   Mr. Sullivan listed a number of reasons why the ideas of going to Mars and
back to the moon are economically/politically infeasable, or at least quite
difficult.
   I would like to respond to at least one of them:

> (paraphrase) There is no good reason to put a mining colony on the Moon.

   Way back when, when G. O'Neill (sp?) and other folks were first hot on the
idea of Solar Power Satellites, he and a man from , I believe, Martin Marietta
spoke at a Congresscritter hearing concerning the costs involved.  GN's figures
were one or two orders of magnitude less than MM's, depending on the bells and
whistles attached.  (see _High Frontier_ for text)  The difference was in that
MM depended on boosting the entire satellites up from Earth, while GN suggested
Lunar ore launched by mass drivers.  Since then mass driver technology has
become almost ridiculously good, which should balance out to some extent the
tendency to underestimate.  Earth launch is expensive, ya know.
   I happen to feel that SPS's are a darn good idea.  Not just for the US, but
for everybody.  For example: in India one of the best ways to convince a family
to have only a few children is to provide their farm with a small pump for the
well, and similar aids for grinding, plowing, etc.  People are a source of
directable energy, and lots are needed if nothing else is available.  Another
example: People have discussed the shortages of various materials.  (Note that
I have qualms about bringing several asteroids of steel ore into the biosphere,
so I'm not going to include importing materials.)  Plentiful energy allows the
use of lower grade material sources.
   These examples could be run into the ground, but I'll leave it at just that.
I will also add the caution that it would be a bad idea to overload the Earths
thermal balance by importing too much energy.
   However, I would suggest that this is at least _one_ economically sound
reason for going to the moon, and actually doing something while we're there.

                                                    kwr

   "Jest so ya know..."

P.S.  To forestall objections of the type '3-rd world countries can't afford
      such things', note that reasonably priced energy is practically a
prerequisite for economic expansion...

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 16:19:02 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: Henry's latest tirade

In article <4723@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@tlab1.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes:
> In article <6315@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
> >Figures:
> >51% said they support the space station.
> >64% supported a human mission to Mars.
> 
>     The American people support most everything the government does &
> thinks about doing. Unsurprisingly, other federal functions often get
> higher support than 64%, e.g. Social Security. Since there is a finite
> amount of federal $$$ available, it is not surprising that NASA
> doesn't get a free hand.

  A more accurate measure of support would be if people
  listed all their priorites for gov't spending, in order
  of preference. I.e. preference ranking for spending.
  I'm afraid space programs wouldn't fare well. At least
  for now.

  m wooding

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 17:29:36 GMT
From: telesoft!roger@ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: population and cultural bias

In article <3f0e778e.ae47@apollo.COM>, Peter Nelson writes:
> 
>    [..]
>    There was a time when buffalo would thunder across the plain
>    in a herd that would stretch from one horizon to the other.
>    There was a time when you could sail a boat into blue water
>    without finding the odd bit of styrofoam floating along with 
>    you.  There was once a time when you could lie on your back
>    in the grass of your own lawn on a summer evening and enjoy the 
>    silence and the glory of our own galaxy stretching overhead.
>    Now your ears are assaulted by the traffic of the interstate 
>    a few miles away and the nightime sky is flooded by thousands
>    of lamps and streetlights to a limiting magnitude of about 3.
>     [..]
>                                  
>    You might be able to create a 'new man' who can live happily
>    in a hundred square feet.  But you can't create a bear or a 
>    moose or a whale or a wolf or an eagle who can and that's 
>    the problem.  
>    
>                                          --Peter    
> 

Well said!  Now, any bets that some well meaning idiot will respond 
by writing "there was a time when..", followed by a liturgy of the
evils of the bad old days before modern technology?  Which misses 
entirely what I take to be your point.  This isn't about then vs. 
now, and whether we're better or worse off.  And it's not about 
whether technology is good or bad.  As I see it, at least, it's
about choice and possibility.  What kind of world do we *want* to
create for ourselves and our children?  Because whether by design or 
by default, we do create it.

To me, what defines "progress" is expansion of possibilities.
Technology expands the possibilities open to us, including the
possibility of living in space.  I'm for it for that reason alone.
But it's worth recognizing that population growth and our taming of
the land have cost us other possibilities.  If the hunter/gatherer
lifestyle of the early plains indians happens to appeal to you, well
sorry, Charlie, you're simply out of luck.  The real estate you
require is all tied up in high productivity farms.

I sometimes feel very frustrated and lonely, being pro-environment 
and pro-technology.  People keep wanting to cast the two as
antagonistic.  They're not.  If anything can staunch the loss of
habitat that threatens everything wild on earth, it will be the
belated recognition that technology has rendered obsolete the need 
for expansive dominance and exploitation of the environment.

- Roger Arnold			     ..ucsd.ucsd.edu!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 20:58:16 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (Mr. Sullivan)
Subject: All this haggling about Mars

Eric fires off a Declaration.

Some people take it seriously.

Flames fly back and forth over the net.

Let me inject a little *reality* into a group who loves science
fiction to such an extent it is causing them to push a special
interest (mars vs. moon expedition) on the American space effort.

Reality #1  The U.S.A. has a budget deficit of over 2 trillion dollars
            and to reduce that deficit, the US will HAVE to cut back
            in areas that the public will not go crazy over (like Social
            Security).  Space funding will take a steep dive for the next
            few years.

Reality #2  A manned expedition to mars has as much purpose as the expeditions
            to the moon did in the late 60s and 70s, to make a political
            point.  We learned something about the moon but the cost
            and risk involved compared to unmanned explorers like the
            surveyor missions was incredible.  We were not surprised
            when we landed on the moon *because* the unmanned missions
            went first.  

Reality #3  There is no way in hell that we could get together a system 
            (vehicles, life support, landers, etc...) in a reasonable
            (10 year) amount of time to go to mars.
 
Reality #4  The Russians will not go to mars because they are crumbling
            from within and cannot afford the 
            costs.  If they could, why ask the US to help?  If you think
            that the Soviets are going to send up a Mir type vehicle to 
            mars, drop a lander, plant the red flag, return (after 4 years),
            you are either dreaming, paraniod, or ignoring all those
            little things necessary to support a long term mission in
            interplanetary space like food and water.

Reality #5  A joint mission between the US and the Soviets in *any*
            area would be only for political reasons and thus, very little
            science would be done, remember Apollo-Soyuz.


Reality #6  As far as the moon is concerned, sure, go back and set up
            a little base, then what?  This, at least, is technically
            feasible but what do you want to do, put Ozzie and Harriet
            there to raise a family?  Get real, there is no place like
            Earth.  Ok, let's mine the moon.  Do you know what it would
            take to set up a mining operation there???  

Reality #7  If you want to send people into space you had better be
            very sure it is for a *good* reason and not just flag
            planting.  The moon and mars are more inhospitable than
            the worst places on Earth!  Living on either world, at first
            anyway, would require continual resupply.  Both have nothing
            in the way of a real atmosphere and oxygen and water are not
            evident.  

Reality #8  For the next 20 years, the space efforts of all countries
            will be local missions (satallites), orbital manned missions,
            and unmanned interplanetary missions.


If you want to support
the space effort in a way that will get us some real paybacks,
support the unmanned exploration of mars, the moon, outer and
inner planets, and local space.  If you really want to look far
ahead into the future, look to developing an interplanetary vehicle
to send men to the moon and mars.  Don't you realize that if the president
decided *today* to send men to the moon just to plant a flag, we 
wouldn't be there for a long time because we have no way to get there?  
           
Sorry about the length, I just get tired of hearing this talk about
getting ourselves off this crummy world and into the wonderfulness
of space.  If you want to live on the moon or mars, go to antartica
in the winter, if you can't stand that, then stay home and read your
sci-fi.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 20:59:01 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

There's a troubling counterargument to the claim that colonizing the
solar system will improve life on earth.  The opposite could be the
case.

Currently, nuclear war is strongly deterred by the threat of
retaliation and the sharing of a common biosphere.  This symmetry will
be upset if large numbers of people are living in many self-sufficient
settlements in space.  One can imagine a situation in which some
belters, for whatever reason, decide to bombard earth with many small
asteroids.  The propulsion systems of the far future will make this
easy, even for small groups.

This will likely be prevented by making the space settlements depend
on Earth for supplies.  That shoots down the eggs-in-different-baskets
argument, though.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 00:06:43 GMT
From: ucsdhub!jack!nusdhub!rwhite@ucsd.edu  (Robert C. White Jr.)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

in article <4402@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) says:
> Puzzle for the day:  Explain why it is impossible to convert mass into
> energy.

Would it be. . . (perhaps?)
that matter is already energy, and one cannot "convert" something
	into itself.  (at least not in english ;-)

Rob.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #65
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Oct 88 06:54:37 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00592>; Sat, 29 Oct 88 05:43:36 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 29 Oct 88 05:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Added.AXON_Uy00UkTQ2HU5B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kXOMyjy00jZdE1dE5h>;
          Sat, 29 Oct 88 05:30:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.kXOMp5y00UkZM6gE5z>;
          Sat, 29 Oct 88 05:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, Oct 29 88 05:18:09 EDT
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #66

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:
			      Re: ORION
		 Re: where should all the people go?
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
			Re: Restarting Apollo
		    Re: Economic Benefits of Space
		   Re: Reference: New Feynman book
		 Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.
		   Re: Partial List of Signatories
		 Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
		Re: Asimov on Future of Space Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 17:40:52 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ORION

In article <881010104110.00000182093@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>... I had read elsewhere that the
>shock absorber was a copper hemisphere at least a mile in diameter, but
>they suggest that something much smaller will do...

You're thinking of Freeman Dyson's interstellar-Orion concept, which did
use a humongous copper absorber.  The nearer-term Orion designs were
indeed much smaller.

>Also they say that
>it is physically possible (although impractical for other reasons) to
>launch the spacecraft from the ground by this method...
>...  Somehow this just doesn't seem right.  What about the explosive
>effects of expanding gases and vaporised soil, wouldn't they set up shock
>waves that would shatter the bumper of this thing?

The shock wave of the bombs is a problem whether you're in air or not.
The bumper design was not a trivial problem but was considered solvable.
Vaporized soil would be a noticeable issue only for the first two or three
explosions, and isn't significantly worse than vaporized bits of bomb and
reaction mass.  Orion does sound strange, but some very smart people looked
into it at great length and thought it was entirely feasible.  The only real
technical problem with ground-launched Orion is that it would produce more
fallout than is considered desirable nowadays.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 19:58:42 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Chuck Brunow)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <593192756.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>It is NOT a sane act to stand in front of a loaded gun if you can even
>CONCEIVABLY go elsewhere.
>
>Anyone who wishes may state their ethical, moral, etc reasons for
>standing in front of said loaded gun. If you really believe you can
>change it, more power to you. 

	The choices you present are surrender or retreat? Either way
	it reflects apathy. The solution is to unload the gun and
	that is done by getting involved and organized.

	It is appalling that the discussions never seem to address
	the possibility of actions to improve the situation. The
	"arm-chair quarterback" syndrome, critisizing this and
	complaining about that isn't going to do anyone any good.

	"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

>
>
>			So long and thanks for all the fish...


-- 
			CLBrunow - ka5sof
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 17:49:00 GMT
From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu  (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

>From article <1988Oct18.160414.26520@cs.rochester.edu>, by dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz):
> This Mars-vs-Moon debate is hilarious.  You take yourselves so
> 
> I don't expect the Soviets to do much, if any, manned exploration of
> Mars.  They have severe economic problems -- Gorbie is risking
> 	Paul

This is the first rational statement I have heard on this subject to
date.  It is pessimistic but at least it follows a thread of logic
rather than some misplaced hope.  I wish we had (and could afford) to do
all the space science and manned exploration that anyone could want to
do.  The facts are: as long as entitlements cost as much as they do and
as long as there is no tax hike and as long as Bush and Gorbie position
themselves for negotiation from a `position of strength' as long as we
insist on protecting every bloody nation on earth with our military
bases while their markets are closed to us, we will never be able to
afford these dreams.  They cost real money not just hopes.

Bob McGwier

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 02:31:06 GMT
From: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (William A. Bralick)
Subject: Re: Restarting Apollo

In article <1773@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>In article <645@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes:
>>How much would it cost to restart Apollo?
>
>Quite a bit.  Consider if we restart from absolute scratch: problem:
>is the Moon hard or deep dust (big unknown in 1963).  Prior to that

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) ;-)

I bet we could start a little further along than that!   I was thinking
more along the lines of restarting from where Apollo ended rather than
"from scratch."

Cordially,

Will

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 23:26:48 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Economic Benefits of Space

In article <648@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
> I don't have a really good idea of the benefits space has brought us.
> Everyone knows weather sats are useful, and save lives. But what else
> has come out of the space program?

The work of Dr. Michael McGreevy at the Aerospace Human Factors
Research Division at NASA Ames is worthy of note. His team is developing
what I believe will stand in twenty years as NASA's major contribution
to lasting human prosperity---the Virtual Visual Environment Display (VIVED).
VIVED is the next step in computer/user interface technology. Unlike today's
clumsy methods of interacting with conventional computers, VIVED supports
the type of facile interaction with computers that we have with everyday
objects. For more info, see NASA Tech Briefs, July/Aug. 1988.

The gist of VIVED is to provide the user with the type of sensory data that
immerses him/her in a ``virtual reality.'' The display consists of a set
of ``data goggles'' that project a stereoscopic pair of images to the
user, providing a convincing illusion of 3-D depth. A head-mounted
tracking device tells the host computer how the user's head is moving. The
host computer pans the displayed images to cancel head motion, giving the
user the sensation of looking around in a stationary environment. This
``virtual environment'' can contain any sort of ``virtual objects'' the
computer can model. The user can manipulate the virtual objects naturally
by simply reaching out and touching them. The user wears ``datagloves''
that continuously sense hand position and finger flexion, allowing the
host computer to model the interactions of the user with the virtual
environment in a natural way.

With sufficient fidelity, VIVED could change the way we do almost
everything. Consider, for example, the problem of operating a complex
set of equipment, such as might be found in a laboratory or recording
studio. Each piece of equipment has several parameters that the
operator must manipulate, and the operator may also have to change
the connections between equipment. Thus the operator must spend
considerable amounts of time setting up equipment to prepare for
an experimental run, or to cut an album, or whatever. In ye olden
days, each piece of equipment came equipped with its own front
panel, complete with knobs, sliders, switches, patch jacks, and so on,
which the operator had to manipulate directly to set things up. The
trend today is toward computer control. The front panels get plainer,
the rig derives some benefits of automation (such as saving and
recalling set-ups), but the operator's task becomes more difficult.
Today's clumsy computer interfaces put one or more levels of
abstraction between operator and equipment. Instead of just reaching
out and turning the knob, the operator must wade through menus,
select parameters for entry, push a mouse, or scroll through screens
in a procedure that now has more steps. The small display capacity
of current computers cripples the operator, because he/she can no
longer grasp the entirety of a set-up by seeing all the parameters
at once. A VIVED display could rectify this problem completely, 
providing all the benefits of computer automation while preserving
those good-old friendly knobs (in virtual guise, of course).

This example repeats itself in a thousand ways. With high-bandwidth
communications links, users equipped with VIVEDs could interact with
work environments and/or each other so transparently that physical
transportation will become far less necessary. This will bring
about massive savings in lives and material resources, and possibly
permit us to reverse the ongoing environmental destruction.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 19:09:17 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Reference: New Feynman book

In article <8810110112.AA24263@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> eugene@AMELIA.NAS.NASA.GOV (Eugene Miya) writes:
>I ran into Stacey's briefly today and just happened to see this:
>%A Richard P. Feynman
>%T "What Do YOU Care What Other People Think?"
>%I W. W. Norton
>%C New York
>%D 1988
>%$ 18

I ran right out and bought this when I caught Eugene's note.  I had
heard it was coming out but forgot about it.  (Note to big city
readers: Discount house price is about $15.25 US.)  Read it last night,
it doesn't take too long because it's in RPF's loose conversational
style (actually it's one of those "as told to" books, in this case to
Ralph Leighton, who appears to have been a real friend and not just a
hired pen).

The autobiography and anecdotes comprising the first half were frankly
done better in his earlier SURELY YOU'RE JOKING, MR FEYNMAN! -- this
ought to be considered "required reading" before you tackle WHAT DO YOU
CARE? because it's a much better introduction to who RPF is (I can't
bear to say "was," yet) and how his mind works.  There are some photos
and drawings in the middle of the new book -- nothing earthshaking, but
this is the guy's swan song so what the editors wanted to include, they
are welcome to with no objection from me.

The gem, the reason for buying this book, is the second half.  All
about his experiences on the Challenger commission, his impressions,
how it happened, what he concluded and recommended.  There are enough
surprising things in here to revise ANYONE'S opinion, I guarantee (also
your writing style!  Better watch out. :-).

So this is an unabashed plug (disclaimer: I'm just a customer).  Buy
this book if you can afford to.  I would imagine paperback would take
six to twelve months, but who knows how widely distributed it'll be.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 88 17:26:38 GMT
From: asuvax!nud!sunburn!gtx!al@noao.edu  (Alan Filipski)
Subject: Re: The plaque on PIONEER 10 and 11.

In article <5542@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> paleo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Constantine A. LaPasha) writes:
>It seems to me that normal erosive processes working on the surface
>of our planet are quite potent, and well capable of erasing most
>evidence of human passage on the planet. (assuming we don't blow

Maybe superficially, but I would expect fossilization to work as well
for artificial junk as for natural.  If we still have fossilized
trilobites that are hundreds of millions of years old, it seems
reasonable that there would be fossilized artifacts hundreds of
millions of years from now.



  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
 ( {allegra,decvax,hplabs,amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al       (602)870-1696 )
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 01:01:06 GMT
From: voder!lynx!neal@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Partial List of Signatories

In article <1595@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:

>However, when it comes to the Union of Concerned Scientists, I make
>no apologies. In my opinion, members of that group *dangerously*
>misuse the respect of the American people, and, frankly, misrepresent
>themselves.

I think that there is a lot of misrepresentation going on these days...
especially "creative naming" of organizations, such as "American Liberty
Society" as a name for a neo-fascist organization. I guess we have all, at one
time or another, been tricked into thinking a group was something it was not
because the name sounded respectible. Perhaps the lesson here is that we
should not depend upon the names of orgainzations as indications of their real
agenda or intentions.

>Their organization is quite unscientific in nature (not
>just that it's primarily a political group; but if they conduct scientific
>research using the same logic they apply to policy statements, God help
>us all).

This relates to the above.
 
>Bill Thacker

Neal

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 23:01:15 GMT
From: l5comp!john@uunet.uu.net  (John Turner)
Subject: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

The November _National Geographic_ arrived today, and among other goodies
it contains a thirty-two page article by ex-astronaut Michael Collins titled
"Mission to Mars".  Collins outlines a joint US-Soviet manned Mars mission
for the early twenty-first century, departing Earth on 3 June 2004 for a
22-month round trip to Venus and Mars.  His expedition uses two ships, each a
cluster of tankage, motors, habitats and other equipment built into the
backside of a ninety-foot wide ablative aeroshell.  Each ship carries a crew
of eight, which Collins specifies as four married couples.  Each ship also
carries a mars lander similar to those specified for other Mars mission
schemes, except that one is a drone designed to home on beacons planted by the
other lander.  The crew of the manned lander would establish an inflatable
basecamp, powered by a nuclear reactor carried on the unmanned lander, and
spend forty days on the surface before returning to the mother ships in an
ascent stage.

The aeroshell allows an aerobraking manuever on arrival at Mars, which
presumably saves on fuel.  The aeroshell would be ejected after aerocapture
and the vehicle itself would be abandoned on the return voyage, the crew
performing another aerocapture in Earth's atmosphere in a smaller aeroshell
vehicle called the "Earth-capture vehicle" to reach low Earth orbit.  All of
this is illustrated throughout with a series of paintings and colored sketches
by Pierre Mion and Roy Andersen, plus numerous photos of the usual high
quality.  Check it out.

		John Turner, john@l5comp, way up in Edmonds WA
power panels and radiators retract inboard during thrusting and helldiving)
mission consisting of two ninety-foot-wide aeroshell

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 18:34:41 GMT
From: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (William A. Bralick)
Subject: Re: Asimov on Future of Space Program

In article <175@umigw.MIAMI.EDU-> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
->In article <IXLZdLy00VsIM7Bscc@andrew.cmu.edu> bobg+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert 
->Steven Glickstein) wrote about the moderately-paced, "patient" approach
->to space exploration expressed by Asimov.
->
->In article <651@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. 
->Bralick) replied:
->>Patience is necessary due to a lack of commitment.
->
->To which I opine: "Patience is also necessary due to a lack of resources."
->

In a terabuck budget, there are sufficient resources for a rather broader
space program.  By saying "a lack of commitment," I meant that the space
program is lacking congressional (voter) commitment relative to other
programs.  The space program competes with these other programs for 
resources in the federal budget.

The question is one of setting priorities at budget time. 

->Again, William Bralick:
->>If the vocal voting public encouraged their representatives to support 
->>such a plan, then there is no technical reason for such a plan to proceed 
->>at a snail's pace.  
->
->Technically speaking, the national debt may not be a good technical reason 
->for proceeding moderately and patiently.  To me, however, it argues for those 
->two qualities quite eloquently.

Correct.  The national debt is not a good technical reason for proceeding 
slowly.  The national debt may not even be a good economic reason for 
proceeding slowly.  Again, it is a question of where your priorities 
are -- I am merely arguing that those of us who believe that the space
program should be a higher priority should so inform our elected
representatives.

The money will be spent.  The question is, "What should the money be
spent on?"  If you inform your representative that your support in
the election is directly proportional to the support your representative
provides to manned space, and if you convince as many people as you
can to inform their representative similarly (and to convince as many
people as they can, etc.), then your representative may well respond, 
or you will be able to replace your representative with somebody more
sensitive to your priorities.

->-- 
->Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
->SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
->UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
->"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

-- 
Will Bralick                        |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology,  |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                    |  his powers of resistance.
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa               |               - Carl von Clauswitz

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #66
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Oct 88 04:31:59 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06081>; Sun, 30 Oct 88 03:31:02 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 30 Oct 88 03:30:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.AXOhAVy00jZdQLjE5K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4XOh99y00Ui3011U8S>;
          Sun, 30 Oct 88 03:26:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.IXOh4Oy00UkZA7hE4S>;
          Sun, 30 Oct 88 03:21:48 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, Oct 30 88 03:17:56 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #67

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:
		 Magellan Status 10/20/88 (Forwarded)
			     Re: The End
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
     Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)
	       Magellan Status for 10/21/88 (Forwarded)
			   Personal attacks
			 Re: Personal attacks
		     Re: Earth & living in space
     Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)
			    re spiral arms
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 17:56:56 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status 10/20/88 (Forwarded)


          October 20, 1988

               The Magellan Electrical Mishap Investigation Board resumed
          meeting today.  The activity during the morning was focused on
          developing a list of action items for Martin Marietta, the Jet
          Propulsion Laboratory, and NASA-KSC to support the investigation.
          The board is requesting to inspect additional physical evidence,
          the procedure in use at the time of the mishap, and to see the
          history and supporting documentation of the components involved.
          Testing has been directed to understand electrical conditions
          which were present in the mishap as observed from the damaged
          parts.

               A procedure is under development for safing the damaged
          battery in a manner consistent with preserving its evidence.
          This will be followed by testing at the KSC malfunction analysis
          laboratory.

               Failure board chairman Jon Busse has divided the panel into
          two groups.  One group will study procedures and quality
          assurance, and the other group will conduct an analysis of the
          evidence.   Over the next few days the board will meet in full
          and also in groups.  The panel hopes to begin drafting a report
          next week.

               At the SAEF-2 planetary checkout facility, cleaning of the
          Magellan spacecraft forward equipment module has begun.
          Technicains are experimenting with several solvents to determine
          which will be most effective in removing soot or other observed
          contaminant.


          George Diller
          NASA-KSC

          Approved:  Jon R. Busse, Chairman
                     Magellan Electrical Mishap Investigation Board

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 11:13:55 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!kth!draken!chalmers!tekn01.chalmers.se!f86_lerner@uunet.uu.net  (Mikael Lerner)
Subject: Re: The End

In article <Added.4XIWpfy00Ui34E0k9o@andrew.cmu.edu>, GODDEN@GMR.COM writes:
> Just for fun, let's accept that there are just two ways for the universe
> to end -- 
> 1) The universe reaches maximum entropy and therefore 'stops'
> 2) The expansion phase of the Big Bang halts and the universe begins
>    contracting until it reaches a singularity.
> 
> It would seem that these processes are in conflict, i.e. contraction to
> singularity cannot occur if the rate of entropy increase is such that
> maximum entropy occurs before enough time has elapsed for the singularity
> to be reached.  
> 
> My Question:  Is there sufficient understanding of these competing finales
> to predict how long each one might take?  In other words, is it possible
> to give any reasonable predictions as to which one will win?  And finally,
> how might this affect the stock market?

  Well, yes, the whole thing depends on the total mass of the universe.
If it is to small, gravity will never win over expansion, and the universe
will in that case expand forever. If the mass is larger than the so called
'critical mass'-value gravity will win, the expansion will stop and be
replaced by a contraction, which won't end until the entire universe is
again a singularity.
  The big problem is to determine whether the total mass of the universe
IS smaller or larger than the critical mass. The best estimations today
give a value of only a few percent, which seems to support the ever-
expanding universe theory strongly. However, there are several problems
with these estimations. If there is no other matter than the observed
in the galaxies, calculations show that gravity cannot hold galactic
clusters together. And they are together. This is the point where the
'missing mass'- and 'dark matter'-problems arise. To explain how struc-
tures in the universe can remain stable, we must add large amounts of
dark matter to the equations, perhaps 10-100 times the mass we actually
see, so the question is still open.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikael Lerner                               "This is the way the world ends,
Chalmers University of Technology            not with a bang, but a whimper."
Sweden                                                       T.S. Eliot

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 18:32:13 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <213@antares.UUCP>, pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) writes:
>  Me too, I'm for Moonbase, not for Mars visit. When we can seriously talk of
> a permanent base on Mars, I will be for that. Right now, I want my tax
> dollars spent on Spaceplane + Space Station + anything else that may lead to
> Man in space, to stay.
> 
>  I will sign a petition proposing a permanent manned base on the moon. I will
> p.s. My sincere apologies to all the people who made Apollo work. It was a
>      wonderful job, which I would not belittle. I believe this needs to be

It's ironic that the American people were not sold on Moon bases
during the Apollo flights.
No matter how frivolous the Apollo project was, clearly its landings
would have been necessary preludes to any [semi-] permanent lunar
presence.

Suppose that Apollo had been conceived from the start as part of
a manned moonbase effort.  I wonder what would have been done
differently.  Probably not much, except to develop some even
BIGGER boosters to land heavier materials up there.

So the mistake was not Apollo, but failure to follow up on it.

BTW, could some advocate of lunar bases list again the uses for
such a base (other than mining & using lunar materials)
that could not be done almost as well from orbiting satellites,
including space stations and shuttles?
It would be great someday to build interplanetary spaceships there
from lunar materials, but I mean short term (next 25 years).
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like handguns and nuclear bombs.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 18:57:07 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)

In article <1020@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
> The Soviet mars ships described in Aviation Week looked to be nuclear
> electric powered vessels. No tank farms. No high Gees. Just a long
> slow push. They have a central living/cargo module with two long booms
> sticking out opposite sides with a reactor mounted on the end of each
> boom.

[plus why a small, lightweight chemical rocket is also good idea.]

Nice posting.  I'd be nervous about riding that Russian design to
Mars, though.  That is, if there is a separate electric (ion?)
thruster out on each boom.  That's bad news if one of them fails,
since the remaining thruster will push you around in circles.

I hope that only the reactors are out on the booms, and both feed
power to a centrally located thruster on the rear of the center
crew & cargo module.

BTW, back in late 50s or early 60s Walt Disney's TV show (which did
a lot of serious stuff on future of space and nuclear power),
proposed a fleet of Mars ships technically very much like the
Russian design.  Fission reactor and electric ion propulsion.
The ion drive was in the middle of a long stem, the reactor
was at one end, and the crew/cargo section and a humongous
disk heat radiator (for the nuke plant; ANY heat engine needs
a heat SINK too) were at the other -- max distance from the nuke.
Each ship looked like a giant umbrella.

I wonder where the Russkies plan to dump their heat -- even a
thermocouple generator needs a cold end.
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like handguns and nuclear bombs.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 17:59:06 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 10/21/88 (Forwarded)


          October 21, 1988

               The Magellan Electrical Mishap Investigation Board met in
          full this morning, then for the remainder of the day divided into
          the two assigned groups studying evidence and procedures.  The
          planned activity schedule for the panel will be the same for
          Saturday and Sunday.

               Magellan is at the SAEF-2 planetary spacecraft checkout
          facility where it has been since its arrival at KSC on October 8.
          At the direction of the board, work allowed on the spacecraft
          since the mishap has been inspection and cleaning.  Swatches of
          soot and other observed contaminants have been taken from the
          spacecraft forward equipment module to analyze the composition
          and test for the most effective solvent that can be used for
          cleaning.

               The board has now authorized other spacecraft work to
          proceed which included removing the other test battery from the
          spacecraft and other work necessary to maintain schedule.


          George Diller
          NASA-KSC

          Approval:  John R. Busse, Chairman
                     Magellan Electrical Mishap Investigation Board

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 00:38:58 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Personal attacks

Please move persnoal attacks to mail.  They are much more effective there
and the rest of us readers don't have to put up with either side. Thank you.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 17:50:46 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@louie.udel.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Personal attacks

My apologies, everyone.  Let's stay technical.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 15:18:50 GMT
From: haven!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space


In article <1988Oct20.095602.12794@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> > Thank you, Mr. Dietz, for this fine example of "intellectual honesty."
>
> No, it's an example of condescending insult.

The only purpose of an insult in an intellectual discussion is to make
people laugh at or look down on the insulted person, and by extension,
the views of the insulted person.  *That* is intellectually dishonest.
(It also typically indicates that the person delivering the insult
lacks any more substantive arguments.)

> Which I *honestly*
> believe many spacoids merit.

Your honest beliefs may be of interest to you.  The rest of us would
like to hear facts.  And to reiterate, using insulting labels like
``spacoids'' interferes with useful discussion.

> Folks like Bova and Pournelle who deliver
> snake oil to the credulous followers are especially deserving.

Fine, mail your insults to them, if you feel so inclined.  Don't waste
net time on it.

> > My children will live their adults lives in the future we create.
>
> What our children will inherit will be a public debt that will take
> generations to pay off.  I view the rate of return on the space program
> to be very low.  Our children would be better off if the money going
> to NASA went to reducing the deficit.

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel for a response here, eh?  Let's
see, the NASA budget is around $10 or $11 billion, the defense budget
is order of $300 billion (depending on what you count); now where would,
say, a 10% cut, have the most effect on the deficit?  It's a tough
question, isn't it Mr Dietz?  Or do you feel the rate of return on the
defense budget is better than the rate of return from NASA's budget?
(I'd have used the welfare budget in preference to the defense budget,
but I don't think *anyone* is crazy enough to argue that the welfare
budget has a good rate of return.)

> (At this point, the space fan, reeling from cognitive dissonance, trots
> out the good 'ol spinoff argument.  This argument is brought to us
> by the NASA PR hacks, the same who extolled the shuttle and promise
> wondrous things from the space station.  I find it completely unconvincing.)

At this point, the space advocate looks on in wonder as his opponent
*once again* tries to put words in his mouth.  Let's use the following
policy in the rest of this discussion:

    1.  You argue your side.
    2.  I'll argue my side.  You are incompetent to argue my side.


While we're discussing rates of return, I should also say that I don't
favor space development by NASA.  I believe that NASA is incapable of
effectively doing anything more than pure research.  What I'd like to
see is government action to make private access to space easier.  NASA
is naturally opposed to any such action, and therefore an obstacle to
progress.  But lacking strong government action to encourage private
access to space, NASA is what we have to work with at the moment.
My latest hopes are pinned on the various private launch companies,
but it remains to be seen if the current government policy of, "we
won't prohibit this ... yet" is enough to allow these companies to
succeed.

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 18:09:11 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)

In article <7000@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>It seems more reasonable to assume that anything ready to stand up to a
>TMI burn, for instance, will consist of no more than two or three
>load-balanced and -supported pieces...

Quite possibly it will be, assuming it can be launched in two or three
launches.  Not always true.

One can also debate whether it is desirable to launch things in one piece
or assemble in orbit.  At least one past commercial study concluded that
plugging the thing together in orbit is cheaper than being absolutely sure
that it will stay together through the launch.  (In-space maneuvering can,
and probably will, use much lower accelerations.)

>... if you want to deploy after
>the burn, you'll be out in exo-Van-Allen radiation hell, so the suits
>will be bulky ...

???  What are you talking about?  Yes, out beyond the Van Allen belts
there is more radiation, but aside from solar flares, it is ultra-penetrating
stuff that cannot reasonably be shielded against.  (In fact, inadequate
shielding makes things worse, because of secondaries.)  The Apollo suits
were necessarily cleared for exo-Van-Allen use, and were not significantly
clumsier than low-orbit suits.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 19:45:00 GMT
From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@husc6.harvard.edu  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: re spiral arms


 Dan Tilque posts...
>
>Several others have already mentioned this but perhaps it bears
>repeating.  The spiral arms or the galaxy do not revolve about the
>center of the galaxy as do the stars.  If they did then the spiral arms
>would quickly (on an astronomical timeframe) wind up to the point of of
>being unrecognizable.

  I wasn't aware of this.  Could someone please email to me
  or post some technical reference(s) for this as I would like
  to read more about it.

                               --Peter

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #67
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Oct 88 07:37:44 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00768>; Sun, 30 Oct 88 05:33:29 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 30 Oct 88 05:33:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.IXOizHy00jZdA2zE55@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wXOitLy00jZd01SE4X>;
          Sun, 30 Oct 88 05:26:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.wXOinRy00UkZ07tU5F>;
          Sun, 30 Oct 88 05:20:16 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, Oct 30 88 05:17:57 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #68

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:
		    Re: NASA as a research agency
		 Re: where should all the people go?
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
			henry's latest tirade
			       Re: SRBs
		      Re: Cretaceous Extinctons
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
		 Re: > >RE : SRB ignition failure --
		   Re: space news from Sept 5 AW&ST
     Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 04:01:08 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: NASA as a research agency

I would like to clear something up yet again (I've posted this before).
Someone said "NASA as a research Agency."  Let me assure one
one thing: this is a fallacy, and it is known at the highest
levels of NASA.  Sure we have 3 "Research" centers, but this is
just a title.  NASA is not a research Agency.  If you want funding
for research go to the NSF (or DARPA to a much smaller degree).

NASA is classified as a "systems integration" agency.  You may do
some "research" to integrate systems, but there is little basic
research (at best applied).  The point is hit hardest to new
mission specialist astronauts as I saw in a Nova tape on women astronauts.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 00:47:41 GMT
From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <8810121240.AA23690@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
writes:
>>The theory is that you should avoid the disaster by being somewhere else
>>when it happens, not by preventing it. It's obvious enough that you can't
>>stop people from killing each other with the fanciest weapons available...
>
>This is precisely the elitism of which Jorge and others accuse many space
>enthusiasts.  If you want to plead nolo contendere I don't much mind, but
>at least let's keep the issue straight.

Is it elitism to believe that there should *some* people living in
other, perhaps safer, places -- even if they do not include oneself?

--
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
Mountain View, California
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	Life, even cellular life, may exist out yonder in the dark.  
	But high or low in nature, it will not wear the shape of man.  
	That shape is the evolutionary product of a strange, long
	wandering through the attics of the forest roof, and so
	great are the chances of failure, that nothing precisely
	and identically human is likely ever to come that way again.  
		Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1957

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 22:32:25 GMT
From: voder!pyramid!weitek!aimt!phil@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Phil Gustafson)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

In article <37229@philabs.Philips.Com>, rfc@briar.philips.com (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201) writes:
> I would think that things like pieces of interstate highways, dams, non-
> crossive metal objects, and such might survive in sufficient amounts
> that future scientists might find them.  

Also big holes like open-pit mines, big concentrations of metallic oxides
where battleships used to be, and perhaps the rubble of the pyramids.

We have burned up a significant amount of the petroleum of the world.
The inconsistency between the amount of oil present and the amount
the fossil record would suggest might be the biggest effect we've
had (will have had?) on the earth in the 10^7 or 10^8 year time frame.

					phil

-- 
				Phil Gustafson, Graphics/UN*X Consultant
				uunet!aimt!phil phil@aimt.com
				1550 Martin Ave, San Jose, Ca 95126

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 20:25:00 GMT
From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@husc6.harvard.edu  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: henry's latest tirade



>Figures:
> 
>51% said they support the space station.
>64% supported a human mission to Mars.

  The real question should have been how much money they
  were willing to pay for these things and whether they
  thought the government was the most cost-effective 
  organization to do them.  

  Lots of people are in favor of lots of things the government
  is doing/'should' do.  Enforcement of clean air/water laws,
  criminal law enforcement, air traffic control, national parks,
  national defense, public health, education, interstate highways,
  consumer product safety standards, aid to the poor, the elderly,
  the sick, etc, etc, etc, etc.

  I don't think most people think about what things cost when
  they say, 'the government ought to do' this or that.  I support
  space exploration and *I* am willing to put my money where my
  mouth is.  The problem is that I also support a balanced budget
  ammendment to the U.S. constitution and increased efforts to make
  people aware of what things really cost.  

  If over half the population is *REALLY* in favor of a manned
  Mars mission  --> and <-- is willing to pay for it then what 
  do we need the government for?   Let's set up an efficient,
  private organization to do it.  It should be cheaper than 
  letting the government do it and with a hundred million voters 
  behind it there's no way the government would fail to approve
  the launch permits, etc.        

                                            --Peter

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 21:47:53 GMT
From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: SRBs

> Non-hydrocarbon liquid rockets, like the shuttle SSMEs and Ariane's engines,
> do indeed produce a small flame and little smoke.  Hydrocarbon fuels, as in
> Atlas, Delta, and the Saturns, are rather more conspicuous due to glowing
> carbon particles.

I don't think it's just the presence of carbon. Ariane's fuel is UDMH,
unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine. That contains carbon and hydrogen,
although I suppose it's not a hydrocarbon by strict definition.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 17:26:18 GMT
From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Cretaceous Extinctons

In article <5163@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> smann@watdcsu.waterloo.edu
(Shannon Mann - I.S.er) writes:
>I am curious to know if there has been any research done about other possible
>reasons for the mass extinctions.  One in particular I had in mind:
>
>What about intense solar flares?  Maybe the dinosaurs (which I believe were
>hairless) died of massive doses of Vitamin C?  I realise that today, the
>ozone layer would compensate for the increased UV (or maybe would have in
>the not to recent past :-), but that may not have always been the case.  
>Still, there would be the less potent visible spectrum to deal with.  {...}
>
>Of course, all of the above does not explain the iridium layer that can
>be found, dating from that period.  But, then again, the layer by itself
>does not explain the mass extinctions (although it would seem to support
>the comet, or impact theory.)  The layer may be coincidental (realise I
>am more than guessing here.)

Many, many theories have been advanced as to what might have caused
the extinction of the dinosaurs -- everything from little green hunters
in flying saucers, to hard radiation from solar flares (such as you've
suggested) or from supernovae, and many other possibilities.  They've
all suffered from the same problem -- until the asteroidal/cometary
impact hypothesis, that is -- a *total lack* of any evidence whatever.

This is what makes the asteroidal impact theory so attractive -- there
*is* substantial evidence found all over the world that a major impact
did occur some 65 million years ago, and that it happened within at
least 10,000 some odd years of the great extinction of that time.  
The proximity in time makes it extremely unlikely to be a coincidence
(computing the ratio of 10,000 years into 65 million will give you an
idea of the probability of this), so even if the actual mechanism has
not yet been determined as to how such an impact might give rise to
the wide ranging, spreading wave of extinctions that we observe
(*three-quarters* of all species, plant and animal, land and sea,
became extinct at that time -- not merely the dinoaurs), nonetheless
the fundamental connection between the two appears to be established.

>-=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca

--
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
Mountain View, California
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	But what comes after?  What passes when all Creation
	is destroyed, when the gods are dead, and the chosen
	warriors, and the races of men?  ...  Will there be
	gods again; will there be any earth or heaven?  
		*The Ragnarok*

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 07:08:34 GMT
From: osu-cis!killer!csccat!loci!clb@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

In article <386@ftp.COM>, jbvb@ftp.COM (James Van Bokkelen) writes:
> In article <37229@philabs.Philips.Com>, rfc@briar.philips.com (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201) writes:
> > I would think that things like pieces of interstate highways, dams, non-
> > crossive metal objects, and such might survive in sufficient amounts
> 
> The longest-lasting item will probably be radioactivity in ocean-bottom
> sediments.  After that, perhpas other chemicals in sediments (tar/oil
> and DDT or maybe PCBs).

	I think you've lost sight of the amount of time mentioned,
	hundreds of millions of years. Radioactivity will be gone,
	half-lifed itself out. Ultraviolet radiation will break down
	chemicals and leave no trace long before even one million
	years. I guess we've been listening to politicians too long,
	"million, billion, trillion, what the heck ... it's only money."
	
> After that, building stone moved far from where
> it was quarried, large excavations (highway & railroad cuts, quarries)
> and the landfills they are being turned into.

	Consider what a glacier or two would do to your "large
	excavations." The forces of wind and water and geology are
	changing the face of the earth on a scale that makes the
	largest building or the biggest dam look trivial. Just a
	couple of million years ago the place where my house sits
	was a sea; we're well on our way to heating up the atmosphere
	enough that most of the largest cities of the world are
	going to be under the sea again and real soon.

> Also, the deforestation
> of much of the temperate zones in the early years of this century, followed
> by the tropics as I write this, should be detectable by pollen counts in
> sediments, althought that and extinctions are less definite evidence.

	And if the sea rises very much a great deal of the Amazon Basin
	will become a shallow sea. The forests will be destroyed and
	erraticated, the material washed into the sea and dragged by
	tectonic forces into the mantle of the earth to be returned
	as so much co2 in the air. Hundreds of millions of years is
	a scale too long to be survived by concrete and steel or
	hydrocarbon materials. After all, look what happened to the
	really big cities that the dinosaurs had! :-}
> 

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 13:25:57 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!yunexus!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net  (gordan)
Subject: Re: > >RE : SRB ignition failure --

->... It is probably very
->difficult to make them both burn out even within one second of the
->other, and i suspect the austronauts would be in deep doo-doo if they
->had that drastically unbalanced thrust for even that long.
-
-Even burning of the SRBs is a major concern and much attention is given
-to it.  Yes, they do burn out essentially simultaneously.  The modest
-unbalance that can occur was a major design factor in things like the
-nozzle-gimbaling systems for the SRBs.

Uh, this may be a dumb question, but after all the recent discussion of
all the horrible things that would happen if the SRBs were to burn
asymmetrically...  why didn't they design the Shuttle with one SRB
instead of two?  (there'd be one less set of O-rings to worry about too)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 19:10:59 GMT
From: thorin!tlab1!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 5 AW&ST

In article <1988Oct21.030358.2561@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>LDEF retrieval is set for late next year, which leaves little margin for
>trouble, as LDEF reentry is predicted for early 1990.

    Well, heck, this gives us a chance to catch up with the Soviets in
at least one area - large satellites undergoing uncontrollable
reentry. Unfortunately we don't have a nuclear reactor on board,
though.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``After all, the best part of a holiday is perhaps not so much to be
      resting yourself as to see all the other fellows busy working.''
	- Kenneth Grahame, _The Wind in the Willows_

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 17:01:16 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)

In article <1020@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:

>If we choose to use chemical engines as primary propulsion, why pay
>the weight penalty to put high thrust motors on the mars bound ships?
>In LEO a long low thrust burn is equivalent to a short high thrust
>burn.

Wrong.  When boosting out of LEO with chemical rockets, it is
important to complete the burn while still near the earth.  This is
because firing a rocket deep in a gravity well is energetically more
efficient (you are not lifting reaction mass out of the well).  Looked
at another way, you are moving faster in low orbit, so the thrust is
applied over a longer distance, and more work (force x distance) is
done on the spacecraft.  You could get the same effect with low thrust
engines by using repeated perigee burns to raise the craft into a
highly eccentric orbit, but that would be time consuming, and the
radiation belts are not nice places to visit repeatedly.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 19:14:12 GMT
From: thorin!tlab1!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <7336@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
>So the mistake was not Apollo, but failure to follow up on it.
>
>BTW, could some advocate of lunar bases list again the uses for
>such a base (other than mining & using lunar materials)

    Along these lines, take a look at Neal Ruzic's book, _The Case for
Going to the Moon_. This was written in the mid-60s and is no longer
in print, but may be at decent libraries (even the Denver Public
Library had it). Ruzic also had another 'future history' type book
extrapolating events on the moon until the turn of the century or so.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``The tuba recital is one of the most memorable experiences of
      music school.''
	- Seen on a bulletin board in the UNC Music School

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 88 17:15:43 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!stl!stc!praxis!gauss!macey@uunet.uu.net  (Ian Macey)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

In article <1988Oct16.004116.28047@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <6243@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:

<<< Lot's of stuff about Mars >>>

>>Henry, it's about time that we gave NASA a goal...
>Preferably an ongoing one, which cannot easily be turned into a one-shot
>spectacular, the way Apollo was.


Spending billions on going to Mars for a couple of months is totally
pointless with our current technology. The only valid reasons would be
scientific and these can be best served by unmanned probes. Of
course there are always the political reasons...

What NASA should be concentrating on is developing near-space, ie
establishing a permentent, useful (ie for science and as a future
spring board for exploration) space station, and a decent cheap
reusable craft for getting into orbit and back. The shuttle was an
interesting prototype, but is certainly no 'space workhorse'.  Lets
drop this, 'light blue touch paper and stand well back' stuff and
develop something better along the lines of HOTOL. 

When getting into orbit is simple/cheap/safe via a HOTOL craft, and we
have slowly built up a modular space station to the size/manpower
necessary to carry out in-orbit construction for projects such as
returning to the moon, and going to Mars, then such a project would
make more sense.


Ian.

|\\\X\\|\  |           Ian Macey  Bath, England.  (macey@praxis.co.uk)
|\\X\\\|\\ |   ----------------------------------------------------------------
|\X\\\\|\\\|       " there are never no bugs, only bugs you haven't found "

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #68
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Oct 88 06:39:49 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05960>; Mon, 31 Oct 88 03:34:45 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 31 Oct 88 03:34:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.cXP2Jpy00jZdELFU4p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0XP2Fpy00UkT816E9U>;
          Mon, 31 Oct 88 03:29:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.MXP29Py00UkZ88pU4o>;
          Mon, 31 Oct 88 03:20:48 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct 31 88 03:18:19 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #69

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:
		  Dyson on Decentralization of NASA
		 Re: where should all the people go?
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
			    Moon vs. Mars
	Re: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA
	      Re: Death of another Soviet Shuttle Pilot
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		   Re: All this haggling about Mars
		   Re: All this haggling about Mars
		      Re: Losing the space race
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 20:55:46 GMT
From: Portia!doom@labrea.stanford.edu  (Joseph Brenner)
Subject: Dyson on Decentralization of NASA

The following is quoted from an interview with Freeman Dyson 
in the Spring 1988 TECHNE Journal of Technological Studies from the 
VTS department at Stanford.  

There are lots of idiots, of course, in NASA, but my view of NASA 
is rather like the Royal Air Force used to be in the old days 
when I worked for the Royal Air Force during the war.  If you had an 
officer who was a dud, you put him in the command headquarters because 
he would do less damage there than he would out in the squadrons.  
So all the duds accumulated at the headquarters -- this is what has 
happened at NASA for the last thirty years or so.  Acutally, there are 
lots of very fine things, but they're all out in the stations.  If 
you look at JPL out here in California, or you look at Goddard which is 
in Maryland, they're doing very well.  I think JPL is running the Voyager
missions, which of course have been beautifully done.  The Voyager went 
to Jupiter and Saturn and Uranus and will go to Neptune next year.  
That's a fantastically good mission, which is run at JPL, and then there is 
the IUE, run at Goddard.  So there are these very good, what NASA calls, 
the centers, these places where the technical work is done.  And there 
is this terrible bunch of idiots in Washington at the headquarters which 
messes everything up.  So I think if you just abolish the Washington 
office, NASA would be in very good shape. 

We actually tried that out during World War II.  There was a very 
analogus problem we had in 1943.  The German armaments industry was 
doing very well, they were producing a tremendous lot of armaments and 
we wanted to put a stop to that.  We found out thtat all the head 
offices of these armament firms were in Dusseldorf and that was where 
all the paperwork was done.  So we decided we would really destroy 
Dusseldorf and disorganize the whole system.  We went in there one 
night and it was a very succesful operation and Dusseldorf really burned 
down to the ground.  And then, in the next few weeks, the armament 
production went up like a rocket.  

(J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU  Materials Science Dept/Stanford, CA 94306)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 15:58:26 GMT
From: ulysses!gamma!mibte!ccd700!jim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (J. Sitek)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <401@janus.UUCP>, doug@janus.UUCP (Doug Saxon) writes:
> There is only so much land, so much of any given resource on the planet.
> Increasing their standard of living decreases ours, talk about a winning
> political strategy:-).  Therefore, I say widen the game.  Maybe by making
> available resources off planet, the abundant solar power, minerals and
> chemicals from nearby other bodies ( Apollo astroids, the Moon ) we can
> find a way to raise the poor of the Earth to a level where they will
> voluntarily control their population, where they will have food and health
> enough to worry about polution, ecology, the long term.


A few thoughts on this:

By stating the need to find additional resources, off planet, to help
the poor, you imply the existence of poor people, in need of our help,
who are not getting it.  A reasonable assumption.  But, why don't we
help them?  Because we *can't*?  Hardly.  In spite of massive farm 
subsidies, paying farmers to *not* grow food, there is no food shortage
in this country.  In spite of rising costs, shortages of trained
professionals, and and poor preventative habits, the average American
is healthier today, than at any point in human history.  In spite of
incontrovertable evidence, America continues to pollute this planet,
not giving a tinker's cuss about ecology; the long term being the next
five minutes.

My point is that we, the United States of America, are completely
capable of helping these people *today*, using *existing* resources.
But, we don't.  Just what makes you think that we are going to give
away new resources, which are considerably more expensive to obtain?
Is the fact that we got some resource from the moon going to magically
instill us with the spirit of universal brotherhood, transforming us
into the great provider of humankind?  Only if there is a buck in it.

Call me cynical, but, I am fed up to here with people spouting these
pie in the sky ideals, blindly ignoring the current state of affairs in
this country.  The national debt is measured in *trillions* of dollars,
folks.  Anybody know how many lunar rovers that can buy?  Anybody
know what the credit limit is for the average "superpower"?  The
planet is being turned into a cesspool.  Should we sink trillions of
dollars (which we don't have) into somebody's sci-fi idea of pulling
up stakes and finding some other place to wreck, or should we invest
in the *one* place in the universe where we *know* we can live?

I'm all for the exploration of the universe, and I get just as big of
thrill watching space shuttles lift off as anyone.  But, I am tired of
things like the national debt standing in the way of progress.  I am
tired of this country being run on revolving credit.  I am tired of
gloom and doom predictions of the greenhouse effect and nuclear
winter.  I believe that it is natural for the human species to evolve
outward into the universe.  But, the Earth should be left as it was
found; a living place.  As we reach further into the cosmos, we don't
need to leave a trail of empty tin cans behind.

Lets do all of these great things in space, but, lets get our own house
in order first.

Jim Sitek

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 03:20:06 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

In article <593193959.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>I really don't give a good goddamn whether Carl Sagan gets to hold a
>Mars rock or not. I supported everything that came down the pipe from
>childhood through my early 30's, and I have acquired a rather jaundiced
>view of what the government space program is all about. I DO know what
>it is NOT about. It is NOT about ME.
>
>Those who want to go would be much better off donating their money to
>the Space Studies Institute, working politically to protect the small
>operators until they are big enough to protect themselves from
>congress, doing coordinated technical volunteer development for SSI,
>WSF, AMSAT or one of the others, going to work for one of the
>entrepreneurial companies, doing research and development on your own
>time and money...
>
>Those are ways in which ALL of your funds and efforts are applied to
>YOUR goals. A Mars shot won't get YOU very much at all.

Heaven knows, Dale and I don't always agree on everything... but on this
one I'm with him.  I'm willing to make some noises about what's a proper
goal for the government space program, because it might do something
useful, but it's not something I'm willing to bet much time on.  (That is
also my answer when people say "why don't you go work for NASA and *do*
something to make it all come true?":  NASA isn't tackling anything that
I consider worth the personal effort.)

The dream *is* alive, but not at NASA.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 19:51:34 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: Moon vs. Mars

From: dietz

(I now put my space fan hat back on again...)

One troubling aspect of the Mars vs. Moon debate is the unstated
assumption: that these are the ONLY choices for exploration of
the solar system.

There is, to my mind, a much better idea: missions to near earth
asteroids.  A comparison:

 - How hard is the body to get to?  From LEO, it takes 4.4 km/sec
   to get to 1982 DB, 4.8 km/sec to Mars, 5.6 km/sec to Phobos, and
   6 km/sec to the moon (because one must decelerate with rockets, not
   aerodynamically).

 - How hard is the body to return from, to LEO?  From 1982 DB, as
   little as .06 km/sec (with aerobraking), from Phobos, 1.8 km/sec,
   from Mars, 5.7 km/sec, and the moon, 3.1 km/sec.

It is estimated that some 380,000 (+- 40%) earth-crossing asteroids
are larger than 100 meters in diameter.  It is a scandal that we do
not have a better catalog of these bodies, and that no spacecraft has
visited an asteroid (except flybys of Phobos and Deimos).

No doubt NEAs exist that are even easier to get to than 1982 DB.
There would be thousands of launch windows per year to small NEAs.

An ion engine propelled spacecraft would be dandy for visiting NEAs.
Could that be what the Soviets are up to?  I think it would be cheaper
than going to Mars, and more likely to yield a payoff.

A suitably ambitious goal for NASA would be to characterize the NEAs
and return a 100 meter diameter chondritic NEA to high earth orbit.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 05:44:17 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA

In article <8810211558.AA22057@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>     Two of the cosmonauts on board the USSR's Mir/Kvant space complex 
>completed a space walk today (Oct. 20).... [they completed a space repair
job after 10 months on orbit! Congrats to them - TMN]

but then it's sermon time:
>     So an instrument fails, and men try to repair it.  The repair tool breaks
>off in a hole, and you must remove that problem before proceeding with the
>repair.  Flexibility of action is one of the things that mankind in space is 
>all about.  With humans constantly up there the Soviets have that ability to
>fix things.  Both people and robots/tools make mistakes to fail at some point.
>Humans are still more flexible at repairing and doing all those none repetitive
>tasks that are necessary for the true exploration of the space frontier.

However, it is not demonstrated that this is ultimately more cost
effective than just sending up a replacement when the instrument
originally breaks.  Here you have the costs of a manned program to
begin with, including the costs of two EVAs - one to break the thing
and one to fix it.  Furthermore, you never know how much more reliably
the thing could have been built if it didn't have to (a) ride up on a
man rated can (USA) or at least (b) hook up to Mir, although I cannot
point to the British X-ray package as the best example of this
principle.

I maintain we would get more bang for the buck if we ditched the idea
of a permanent or even a frequent manned presence in space at the current
level of propulsion and ecosystem technology -- but funneled money into
automation and remote control development instead, and concentrated on
getting QUITE A LOT of payload weight up there in the form of planetary
probes, industrial experiments and remote sensing.  If some of it
malfunctions, have replacements ready.  You can usually get big savings
if you build two or more at the same time anyway.  It's sure a hell of
a lot less expensive than sending human button pushers along with each
and every payload.

Since we have already plumped for STS, we should keep one or two
orbiters around for Spacelab and a twice-yearly long duration repair
mission devoted to fixing whatever has broken recently that we really
can't afford to replace.  Donate the third existing orbiter plus OV105
to DOD, who can use them to play with their Star Wars toys and spysat
stuff until they blow up one or both of them. This ought to happen
within three to five years given the removal from public scrutiny
secret DOD missions would enjoy.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 00:12:08 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Death of another Soviet Shuttle Pilot

In article <8810202103.AA16773@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>    This goes along with the mystery of the photos they released of their
>shuttle mated to the Energiya booster.  While the front of the vehicle is
>very much like the shuttle there are many changes at the rear.  For example
>there are no Orbital Maneuvering System pods, because those engines are in
>the tail.  In addition the fact that there is no weight of the engines in
>the tail must change the center of mass.  These both must modify both the 
>shuttle aerodynamic behavior, which must result in other changes in the
>system...

There is a "mystery" here only if you assume that the Soviet shuttle was
copied from the US one in more than superficial details.  Near as I can
tell, that is a paranoid delusion rather than a realistic assumption.
Is it so hard to believe that the Soviets have competent designers?
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 23:54:03 GMT
From: asuvax!nud!mcdchg!ddsw1!igloo!bhv@noao.edu  (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <2598@csccat.UUCP] loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes:
]	The way to maximize momentum while minimizing the mass of the fuel
]	that must be carried is to get the exhaust to really high velocity.
]	The fusion reaction is an inefficient pig compared to elementary
]	particles accelerated to nearly 'c' in a suitable linear accelerator.
]	So a much better "star drive" would be a high current tandem
]	accelerator which strips the electrons off of hydrogen atoms
]	and shoots the protons and electrons out of two (or more)
]	drives at v->c. Not as flashy as fusion maybe, but less likely
]	to melt the nozzle.

If one needs the fuel to generate the energy (i.e. one does not have some
external source of energy like a photocell battery), the best use for the
spent fuel is as reaction mass.  This will minimize the amount of
fuel one has to carry to reach a desired velocity.

The best stardrive would probably be a Bussard Ramjet (scoop up interstellar
hydrogen for fuel) if it could be made to work.  The best use for the spent
fuel is again reaction mass for this case, as well.
-- 
ddsw1!bhv@igloo

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 00:07:27 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: All this haggling about Mars

In article <EXLa0C988k-08SPcQT@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
>> (paraphrase) There is no good reason to put a mining colony on the Moon.
>
> [lunar materials for solar power satellites]

One can argue about the merits of solar power satellites.  However, one
thing that becomes clear as soon as you look at the numbers is that going
almost anywhere in space, even near-Earth space (e.g. to Clarke orbit),
is significantly cheaper if liquid oxygen comes from the Moon rather than
from Earth.  Earth's strong gravity makes it a *very* expensive source of
supply for anything to be used in bulk in space.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 15:25:54 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: All this haggling about Mars

In article <1988Oct23.000727.20389@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> However, one
>thing that becomes clear as soon as you look at the numbers is that going
>almost anywhere in space, even near-Earth space (e.g. to Clarke orbit),
>is significantly cheaper if liquid oxygen comes from the Moon rather than
>from Earth.  Earth's strong gravity makes it a *very* expensive source of
>supply for anything to be used in bulk in space.

I think a strong case can be made that near earth asteroids are better
sources of oxygen than the moon.  I've already mentioned that NEAs can
be easier to get to and spectacularly easier to return from than the
moon.  Also, some NEAs contain water, which can be decomposed by
electrolysis.  This also delivers hydrogen, an important plus.  Lunar
oxygen would require treatment of ilmenite with hydrogen at 1000 C to
get water for electrolysis.  NEAs may even be the most economical
sources of oxygen for use on the moon.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 88 20:52:40 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu!hogg@uunet.uu.net  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Losing the space race

In article <4583@mtgzz.att.com> leeper@mtgzz.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) writes:
>...
>What I saw has little to do with the television series.  It was a
>poster.  The title of the poster was "Great Moments in the History of
>Space Exploration."  What were the moments?  They were things like the
>first footstep on the moon, the launching of the first space shuttle, I
>think there was a picture of Sally Ride--that sort of thing.  Well,
>these moments all seemed to have something in common.  Can you see what
>it is?  Right!  They are all from the AMERICAN space program.  They are
>all events from the program that has recently been out of space for 32
>months.  There was not one picture of what has led up to a program that
>right now has a permanent space station.  There definitely is in this
>country a will to ignore the fact that we are being beaten, not 35
>years ago, but right now.  As long as it is out of sight, it remains
>out of mind.
>
>We are too busy taking justifiable pride as mammals that the hare was
>the first mammal to cross the finish line.

In all fairness, let me quote from a list of ``Facts, Events,
Achievements'' for 1969:
	January 14th-18th   The first docking took place of two
	spaceships in orbit: Soyuz 4... and Soyuz 5...  Thus the
	first orbital station in space originated.

	October 11th-18th   Three Soyuz spacecraft were in orbit
	simultaneously...

For those who want a universal, unbiased view of space exploration,
that was from
	Borisenko, I., and Romanov, A., *Where All Roads into
	Space Begin*, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1982.
It's a history of Baikonur, and, as can be seen from the above,
precious little else.  I wonder if there's a post-glasnost edition?

(And just to be fair about being fair, at least one other book from
Progress Publishers on applications of space-based remote sensing is
much more balanced, barring an implied cheap shot or two about Western
pollution.  It's actually quite refreshing, since there are a number of
satellite photos of higher latitudes than we are accustomed to seeing
from NASA sources.  Quick now, when was the last time you saw a
satellite photo of any part of the USSR?  And yes, it includes an
amazing North African radar image taken from the US shuttle as well.)
-- 
John Hogg			   | hogg@csri.toronto.{edu,cdn}
Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg
University of Toronto		   | hogg%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa)
				   | hogg@csri.utoronto (bitnet)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #69
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Oct 88 07:03:45 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00920>; Mon, 31 Oct 88 05:36:38 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 31 Oct 88 05:36:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.8XP47vy00jZd83Y054@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oXP3wwy00jZdE1f04A>;
          Mon, 31 Oct 88 05:23:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.gXP3tiy00UkZA90k4e>;
          Mon, 31 Oct 88 05:20:32 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, Oct 31 88 05:18:06 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #70

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 70

Today's Topics:
      Magellan spacecraft damaged by electrical fire (Forwarded)
	      Graduate Schools for Atmospheric Sciences
NASA and Corabi International Telemetrics, Inc., sign agreement (Forwarded)
		   Re: All this haggling about Mars
		    Re: Economic Benefits of Space
		 Re: > >RE : SRB ignition failure --
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		 Re: where should all the people go?
		   Re: space news from Sept 5 AW&ST
		      Re: Losing the space race
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 17:46:37 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan spacecraft damaged by electrical fire (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  October 18, 1988

ADVISORY:

MAGELLAN SPACECRAFT DAMAGED BY ELECTRICAL FIRE


     The Magellan spacecraft experienced a localized electrical 
fire when workers connected cables around 11:00 p.m. EDT, Monday, 
Oct. 17, 1988.  Housed at the Kennedy Space Center's 
Spacecraft Assembly and Encapsulation Facility 2, the spacecraft 
was undergoing a routine power systems check.

     Within 1 minute the fire was extinguished.  No personal 
injuries resulted.  The launch date for Magellan, set for April 
1989, is not expected to change.

     A preliminary review shows that during the process of mating 
electrical cables, in the forward equipment module, a circuit was 
shorted, causing an overheated battery.

     NASA will assemble today an investigative review board to 
assess the cause and extent of damages.  The assessment is 
expected to be available next week.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 15:04:31 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!skkumar@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (S Krishnakumar)
Subject: Graduate Schools for Atmospheric Sciences

Hello Everyone,

I am posting this on the behalf of my friend. He wants to do Graduate
Work in Atmospheric Sciences, especially Weather Forecasting Models.
He has an undergraduate degree in Aeronautical Engg, from India.

He would like to know a list of Grad. Schools in the US, which actively
do research in the above areas. 

Can someone E-Mail details about some of the schools and also point
me to other sources, if any, to obtain this information?

Thanks a lot

Please address all replies to skkumar@pittvms (BITNET)
Krishnakumar Srinivasan

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 17:49:44 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA and Corabi International Telemetrics, Inc., sign agreement (Forwarded)

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   October 21, 1988


RELEASE:  88-142

NASA AND CORABI INTERNATIONAL TELEMETRICS, INC., SIGN AGREEMENT

     The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Corabi 
International Telemetrics, Inc., a Maryland-based telemedicine 
systems company, announced today the signing of a cooperative 
agreement supporting the commercial development of telemedicine 
services for the Space Station Freedom.

     Under the memorandum of understanding, NASA and Corabi will 
cooperate in the firm's efforts to adapt for Space Station 
Freedom use Corabi's terrestrial-based technology that enables 
medical specialists to remotely view and analyze biological and 
other materials via high resolution video images.

     Specifically, Corabi is interested in commercially providing 
a telerobotic workstation that transmits a high-resolution video 
image of a patient or sample specimen to a ground workstation 
anywhere in the world.  The firm also plans to provide associated 
equipment and services for information storage and analysis.

     The agreement is expected to lead to a proposal from Corabi 
for proof-of-concept Shuttle flights of a prototype system prior 
to considering an agreement involving the Space Station Freedom 
program.

     NASA is committed to facilitating and encouraging the 
commercial use of space by U.S. firms.  The President's 
Commercial Space Initiative directs NASA to rely to the greatest 
extent feasible on private sector design, financing, construction 
and operation of future Space Station requirements.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 00:01:59 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: All this haggling about Mars

In article <799@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (Mr. Sullivan) writes:
>            ... The moon and mars are more inhospitable than
>            the worst places on Earth!  Living on either world, at first
>            anyway, would require continual resupply.  Both have nothing
>            in the way of a real atmosphere and oxygen and water are not
>            evident.  

Living in many places on Earth also requires continual resupply.  Read
about what happened to the early overland expeditions to California.

Oxygen is abundant, in chemical compounds, on both the Moon and Mars.
Water is scarce on the Moon, except just possibly at the poles, but is
present in modest quantities on Mars.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 19:25:03 GMT
From: thorin!tlab1!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Economic Benefits of Space

In article <337@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>The work of Dr. Michael McGreevy at the Aerospace Human Factors
>Research Division at NASA Ames is worthy of note. His team is developing
>what I believe will stand in twenty years as NASA's major contribution
>to lasting human prosperity---the Virtual Visual Environment Display (VIVED).

    I don't mean to cut down this research, but citing it as a benefit
of the space program is somewhat misleading. A good deal of work on
'virtual worlds' is going on outside NASA. For that matter, Ivan
Sutherland first talked about it ~20 years ago.

    I don't doubt that if the NASA budget were redirected to, say, the
NSF (no, I don't recommend this), we'd see a lot more interesting
science and engineering as a result. $$$ spent on building rockets and
runways does not produce much good science, as Eugene pointed out just
a few articles back.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``The tuba recital is one of the most memorable experiences of
      music school.''
	- Seen on a bulletin board in the UNC Music School

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 05:32:54 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: > >RE : SRB ignition failure --

In article <1513@maccs.McMaster.CA> gordan@maccs.UUCP () writes:
>Uh, this may be a dumb question, but after all the recent discussion of
>all the horrible things that would happen if the SRBs were to burn
>asymmetrically...  why didn't they design the Shuttle with one SRB
>instead of two? ...

Other things being equal, the simpler design with a single booster would
be preferred.  Unfortunately, other things are seldom equal.  The big
problem with a single booster is, where do you *put* it?  To get balanced
thrust more or less through the center of mass, it ends up having to be
under the base of the External Tank.  This is a rather awkward location for
a long, thin booster.  The booster also has to be bigger, which causes
a number of problems of its own.  (For one thing, if you increase the
diameter very much, I think you can no longer ship the segments by rail,
which is annoying.  Especially if you're Morton Thiokol, with a big
booster plant in Utah, inaccessible to barge transport.)

The right way to provide a single booster would have been to use a
modified Saturn V first stage, which avoids most of these problems and
is a better booster too.  Unfortunately, it looked a bit more expensive
to develop.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 16:38:52 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <937@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
>
>> What our children will inherit will be a public debt that will take
>> generations to pay off.  I view the rate of return on the space program
>> to be very low.  Our children would be better off if the money going
>> to NASA went to reducing the deficit.
>
>Really scraping the bottom of the barrel for a response here, eh?  Let's
>see, the NASA budget is around $10 or $11 billion, the defense budget
>is order of $300 billion (depending on what you count); now where would,
>say, a 10% cut, have the most effect on the deficit?  It's a tough
>question, isn't it Mr Dietz?  Or do you feel the rate of return on the
>defense budget is better than the rate of return from NASA's budget?

Certainly the DOD budget is far too large.  We are defending much of
the rest of the world at our expense.  But that has nothing to do with
the cost/benefit of spending on NASA.  We will continue to pay
interest on the trillions of dollars of debt that the current
government has run up for the rest of our lives.  If the ROI of space
spending is less than the real interest rate on this debt, we'd be
better off paying it down.  Call me a bean counter, but we have to
give some consideration to the people who pay the bills.

>From the point of view of a space fan, consider that developing a
technology is only part of the problem.  We have to have the capital to
exploit anything we develop.  If we allow our debt to grow as it has
been, we'll find ourselves in the position of the British after WW2.

> My latest hopes are pinned on the various private launch companies...

They do look more promising than NASA, but I think we're going to find
they are not all that much cheaper.  A factor of a few, perhaps.  For
the grand dreams we need a factor of a thousand or more.  If launch
costs (in constant dollars) improve 5% a year that's 140 years away.
I forget the exact figure (3%/year?), but this is faster than the
historical rate since the start of the "space age".  Extrapolation is
uncertain, but we're nearing the limits of chemical rockets.  Space
resources will help a bit, but beyond simple commodities you'll need
lots of manufacturing infrastructure in space.  Very costly.  Maybe
robotics will be up to it in 50 years.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 22:08:38 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1988Oct22.123852.18507@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> If the ROI of space
> spending is less than the real interest rate on this debt, we'd be
> better off paying it down.  Call me a bean counter, but we have to
> give some consideration to the people who pay the bills.
> 
> From the point of view of a space fan, consider that developing a
> technology is only part of the problem.  We have to have the capital to
> exploit anything we develop.  If we allow our debt to grow as it has
> been, we'll find ourselves in the position of the British after WW2.
> 
> > My latest hopes are pinned on the various private launch companies...
> 
> They do look more promising than NASA, but I think we're going to find
> they are not all that much cheaper.
> 
Now this is an argument that I can see has had some thought put into it.
Unlike the standard rhetoric which is hauled out whenever someone's pet
ideology is threatened with counter-arguments.

I have to agree that the problem of resource allocation is non-trivial.
We must seriously consider how to spend our finite $$$.  Which seems 
unlikely to be done while we have a self-serving bunch in DC.  Which 
seems to make the point moot, since they are obviously operating on a
different level of reality than is necessary to straighten out our current
fiscal and technological messes.  One only needs look at the pork-barrel
stupidity to understand this point.

Question to all:  How can we help straighten out the mess??  
Caution to all (including bureaucrats, congresscritters, and managerial
types):  Let's try to be VERY objective about this.  In this newsgroup,
the whole question has been summarized nicely by Mr. Dietz.  Is this in
our best national interest???  

N. Kluksdahl      ASU
standard disclaimer implied.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 15:25:40 GMT
From: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (William A. Bralick)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <1380@3comvax.3Com.Com> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes:

[conserving bandwidth ...]

>Is it elitism to believe that there should *some* people living in
>other, perhaps safer, places -- even if they do not include oneself?

I think about this question in terms of the survival of the human 
species.  As has been pointed out, man does not necessarily need 
to destroy the earth's ecosystem -- there are any number of
unavoidable events that could do that.  The point is to get the 
species distributed so that a single ecological tradgedy on a single 
planet doesn't terminate the species.  Of course, to buy that argument, 
you must consider the human race worthy of saving... :-)

I do.

-- 
Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology,    |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                      |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 18:18:45 GMT
From: asuvax!nud!mcdchg!ditka!dasys1!tneff@noao.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 5 AW&ST

In article <1988Oct21.030358.2561@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Another result of the new manifest is that Mars Observer has been moved
>from the shuttle to a Titan 3 launch in Sept 1992.

Has anyone seen those champagne glasses?!!!!


-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 88 05:23:26 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Losing the space race

In article <8810142052.AA05457@rumba.db.toronto.edu> hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes:
>... Quick now, when was the last time you saw a
>satellite photo of any part of the USSR? ...

AvLeak published some dandy Spot photos of Soviet naval bases a while ago.
Bet you won't find *that* in a Soviet book!

(Yes, Eugene, I really do know that they are properly called "images",
not "photos", but I'm not feeling pedantic today!)
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #70
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Nov 88 02:13:05 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01757>; Tue, 1 Nov 88 01:01:26 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  1 Nov 88 01:01:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.UXPJA0y00Vs146nU5b@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MXPIljy00Ui3M4lU5t>;
          Tue,  1 Nov 88 00:32:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.gXPIcny00UkZM:ME4G>;
          Tue,  1 Nov 88 00:23:03 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Nov  1 88 00:20:35 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #71

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 71

Today's Topics:
	      Soviet Shuttle liftoff scrubed for Oct. 29
			  Re: Moon vs. Mars
		Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
			  Re: re spiral arms
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 88 14:56:30 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet Shuttle liftoff scrubed for Oct. 29

     The USSR scrubed its first two attempts to launch their space
shuttle Buran today (Oct. 29).   Fueling began on Oct. 28th, and the first
launch attempt was at 6:24 am Moscow time (11:24 pm Oct. 28th EDT).
The fault there appears to be computer problems.   This resulted in a 4
hour delay, but at about 11:30 am the second count was cancelled when the
computer checkout detected a problem in the ignition hardware.  Currently
there is no scheduled relaunch attempt because before they can fix the
bug the fuel must be drained.
     One other interesting point.  It has been stated on the short wave that 
their shuttle is transported to the pad using 4 train locomotives to pull
the transport.  Hence, as I expected, they have continued to use railroad
tracks, switching engines and a horizontally assembled/tranport system even
for their biggest boosters, Energiya/Buran, as they have on all others.  If
it works well good engineering says you continue to use that method until
something superior appears.
     The question is will it take the Russians as many tries to launch
as it took NASA with the US shuttle.  We will see if they can pull this off.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 19:32:46 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@eddie.mit.edu  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Moon vs. Mars

In article <1988Oct22.155134.25682@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz writes:
> From: dietz
> One troubling aspect of the Mars vs. Moon debate is the unstated
> assumption: that these are the ONLY choices for exploration of
> the solar system.
> 
> There is, to my mind, a much better idea: missions to near earth
> asteroids.  A comparison:
> 

	While this article might make a good case for the fact that
	asteroids are easier to get to than planets, it sounds very
	much like that silly argument used in physics: "look for your
	lost keys under the street light." What is the point?  The
	entire problem with the space program, especially the manned
	space program, is that nobody has figured out what it's good
	for. Now of course there's that NASA blurb about zero gravity
	and how you can mix lead and aluminum but no one ever states
	why anyone would want to do such a thing, much less spending
	trillions on it.

> It is estimated that some 380,000 (+- 40%) earth-crossing asteroids
> are larger than 100 meters in diameter.  It is a scandal that we do
> not have a better catalog of these bodies, and that no spacecraft has
> visited an asteroid (except flybys of Phobos and Deimos).

	A scandal? For something like 40,000 years man and the higher
	animals on earth have muddled along just fine without such
	a catalog.  Besides, the whole point to intelligence is to
	be able to find simpler ways to do such things, like RADAR.
	It sounds to me like the "love affair with the automobile"
	has spilled out into the space program ... "hey, let's jump
	in our buggy and swing out to Laodamia." Look at the amount
	of information that astronomers have managed to glean about
	stars and without having to go to one.

> 
> A suitably ambitious goal for NASA would be to characterize the NEAs
> and return a 100 meter diameter chondritic NEA to high earth orbit.

	Whoa! Have you done your environmental impact study on this?
	This sounds like a very half-baked idea to me, especially in
	light of the record we have with jumping into things only to
	discover the mess we have created some decades later, and how
	much trouble and expense to reverse it.
> 

	Despite all the hoopla, slogans, pretty pictures, etc., nobody
	has managed to come up with a convincing reason why man should
	be in space. Because the Russians are doing it? I don't think
	they know something we don't ... they can't afford it either.
	I think that space belongs in the realm of science, with real
	scientific knowledge as the goal. The Mariner and the Voyager
	are/were excellent projects with massive payoffs in terms of
	understanding the planets and the solar system. The HST is
	another project which has a purpose, and the Jupiter probe
	holds a lot of promise.

	But putting people into space takes it out of the hands of
	science and makes it political, economic, etc. Once that
	happens then logic and reason go out the window ... it's
	exploit and consensus and development (as in "land developer").
	When a scientist starts wandering too far into fantasy land
	his collegues will bring him back to reality with facts and
	data ... when developers do it, it's called marketing and
	everyone jumps on the bandwagon until there's so much
	"pie in the sky" that no one can even remember the purpose.
	It even becomes patriotic, emotional, and if you dare say
	"hey, the king is naked as a jay-bird" then you are instantly
	a treasonist pinko liberal. Good Grief!

	Anyway, back to the point. Build robot space craft. It will
	get information and knowledge much sooner and much less
	expensively than sending fragile, failure prone people and
	the spin-off is better robotics here at home. And this is
	our home so keep it clean. And leave other planets, asteroids,
	etc. where they belong and clean as well.

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 06:29:35 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space

In article <10648@reed.UUCP>, reeder@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) asked:
>Recent talk on the net of U.S. Soviet cooperation led me to wonder:
>Did anything useful come out of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project?

...and there were several fairly off-the-cuff responses over the next
week, including one from me.  I took the time to look into the question
a little deeper this weekend and would like to post some information.

--

First off, in case any net.readers are unaware, Apollo-Soyuz Test
Project (ASTP) was a joint US-Soviet orbital mission which flew July
15-24, 1975. The Soyuz component was launched from Baikonur carrying
cosmonauts Alexei Leonov and Valeriy Kubasov (the first manned Soviet
launch ever to be carried live on TV); a few hours later an Apollo
Command-Service Module (CSM) crewed by Tom Stafford, Vance Brand and
Deke Slayton (one of the original Mercury 7, who had however been
grounded for years by sporadic heart problems) lifted off atop a Saturn
IB (the last Saturn V was used to launch Skylab).  The Apollo stack also
carried a special Docking Module (DM) in the adapter bay where LM
landers had been carried on moon missions.  The DM was about 10 feet
long and pressurized, with its own GN2 and GOX supply to enable it to
match atmospheres alternately with Soyuz (N2/O2 at 2/3 sea level
pressure) and Apollo (pure O2 at 1/3 sea level pressure).  [Note to
trivia buffs: Yes, the Soviets normally use full pressure, but they
agreed to operate at 2/3 for ASTP to avoid decompression delays during
crew transfer.]

Anyway, CSM hard docked with the DM then conducted a series of burns to
match orbits with Soyuz.  (Apollo did all the maneuvering in ASTP, as
Soyuz didn't have enough propellant for such things.)  At 52 hours after
Soyuz launch, Stafford guided the CSM/DM combo into hard dock with
Soyuz.  Three hours later Stafford and Leonov shook hands in an historic
meeting, with TV cameras rolling.  Over the next two days crew members
visited back and forth between vessels, with many ceremonial speeches,
press conferences, meals and so forth.  The ground rules were that one
astronaut would be in the CSM and one cosomonaut in Soyuz at all times.
This might seem like cold war paranoia and perhaps it was in part, but
also practical: it took quite a while to cycle through the DM airlock
with atmosphere swap etc., so if something went wrong in one vessel or
another it would be pretty bad if the guys trained to handle it were all
on the wrong side of the DM!

After all the "visiting" Apollo undocked and moved back in so Soyuz
could "dock."  Since they had little maneuvering capability for docking,
the Soviets simply extended their adapter into "active" position while
Apollo retracted the adapter on the DM to "passive" position and then
flew in.  Slayton did this one, there were some problems but eventually
the second dock succeeded.  Apollo then undocked for the last time and
actually "looped" around Soyuz several times while the crews performed
a light-beam experiment designed to detect atomic N and O at orbital
altitudes.

After one more day of science and checkout, Soyuz hard landed in the
desert (again carried live).  Apollo stayed up two more days performing
science experiments, before splashing down 500km W of Honolulu.

In all there were 28 experiments carried on board the CSM and an
unspecified further number on Soyuz.  Of the 28, 21 were US experiments,
5 were joint US-Soviet and 2 were West German.  Three occupied Service
Module bays and the rest were in the CM or DM.  I wish I had the exact
manifest, all I know for sure is the numbers.  Some things included
materials processing (a Skylab-style furnace in the DM), a special
Doppler effect experiment using the CM-DM distance (after separation) to
measure mascons, the usual Earth photography, a science training film on
the effects of weightlessness, a body size check to help design Shuttle
seats (consider that the pilot is several inches taller the day he lands
the Orbiter than he is the day it's launched!). There was also an
electrophoresis experiment.  (Is it just me or have we really been doing
the same experiments for the past 15 years??)

There was also the experimental design of the Russian docking adapter
itself, a radical "androgynous" setup that apparently really worked
great.  Our side of the DM was the usual probe/drogue pair (actually
the hardware from Apollo 14!).

NASA and the US public learned an unprecedented amount about how the
Soviet program worked as a result of ASTP.  One result of the technical
safety discussions, for instance, was that we found out how Soyuz 11
failed -- and how the Soviets intended to prevent a repeat.

In the last analysis, though, the biggest benefit was the sight of
astronauts and cosmonauts shaking hands in space.  For sheer symbolism
this is second only to Neil A. bouncing onto the lunar surface.  (I
think Pinky Nelson manhandling Solar Max comes in third!)

--

Now let me address some of the things said so far.  This will be brief.

First, in article <1743@eos.UUCP>, eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
offered:
>The best quote I've heard: "We got some low quality pictures
>of our craft" from Slayton. One of those pictures was in a hallway I
>used to work in.  The colors were slight off, but it was a unique view.
>They also got some caviar.  I hope we do more joint missions in the
>future.

Could Slayton simply be bitter?  I note the following time table:

	Stafford in Soyuz	7:10
	Slayton in Soyuz	1:35 -> hate to eat&run but...!
	Brand in Soyuz		6:30 
	Leonov in Apollo	5:43
	Kubasov in Apollo	4:57

Something a little fishy there.  Also there was the messy re-entry.
Brand forgot to arm the apex cover for auto ejection, so Stafford had to
do it manually in a hurry when he noticed the drogue wasn't deploying.
Manual eject didn't shut off the RCS thrusters like auto eject did
though, so the thrusters were firing to fight the drogue sway!  Those
were shut off, but they leaked fuel all over the capsule and thence into
the pressure equalization air inlet. Within moments all three astronauts
had a snootful of hypergolics! Stafford deployed the mains manually (and
a little bit early) just in case they lost consciousness.  One main
collapsed.  The remaining two were sufficient but you came down faster.
On impact the CM flipped upside down.  All three astronauts hung from
their straps and coughed their lungs out!  Brand and Slayton were KO'd
from nausea. Stafford unbuckled, slapped O2 masks on everyone, righted
the CM with flotation bags and opened the hatch himself to let in fresh
air.  (Nice to have a veteran commander huh?!!)

As if that wasn't enough, Houston made Deke give his headset to Alexei
Leonov for President Ford's congratulation call -- all those years
waiting to get into space, and he didn't even get to hear the President!
No wonder he's grumpy. :-)


Then in article <7242@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, from knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Mike
Knudsen):
>I've always wondered how much the Russians learned from us.
>Seems that during our Apollo missions, the Soviets still didn't trust
>themselves to rendezvous two vehicles in space. Now they do it
>automatically.

Open disclosure was in NASA's charter from day 1.  The Soviets or anyone
else can always find out about our program.  We learned a lot more about
the Soviet program than they did from us, I am sure.

>Some of our astronauts learned to speak Russian (both crews had to be
>bi-lingual, sort of), which may help them get space jobs in the future
>;-).

I don't know about jobs, but astronaut-cosmonaut friendships were
(as you might expect) born in ASTP.  There were a bunch of people
at NASA more or less cheering Yuri Romanenko (ASTP backup crew) on
when he broke the endurance record last year.  (That record will fall
very soon if it hasn't already.)

In article <24316@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) weighs in:
>In article <10648@reed.UUCP> reeder@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes:
>>Did anything useful come out of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project?
>
>In a word, no.

Too harsh.  I hope this long posting goes some of the distance towards
a rebuttal, Henry.

>The money and hardware would have been much more usefully employed in
>sending up a fourth Skylab crew.

Yes, and the money for a fourth Skylab crew would have been more
usefully employed on a seventh Moon landing; and so on.  You can argue
those till the cows come home.  The more I review it the more I begin
to think ASTP was a *really important* project.  And, like Eugene, I
think we should do some more.

How about it -- SHUTTLE-MIR TEST PROJECT in '92!

PS I researched this in several places but the one source that never
lets me down is David Baker's giant HISTORY OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT.
Look for it on remainder tables at Waldens etc... you will never be
sorry you shelled out the $15-20 for it.  A gold mine.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 14:46:31 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!pcp2g@purdue.edu  (Philip C. Plait)
Subject: Re: re spiral arms

In article <3f31db4e.ae47@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
> Dan Tilque posts...
>>
>>The spiral arms or the galaxy do not revolve about the
>>center of the galaxy as do the stars.  If they did then the spiral arms
>>would quickly (on an astronomical timeframe) wind up to the point of of
>>being unrecognizable.
>
>  I wasn't aware of this.  Could someone please email to me
>  or post some technical reference(s) for this as I would like
>  to read more about it.

A good starter reference is Frank Shu's "The Physical Universe: An Intro-
duction to Astronomy". This is an excellant reference for anything, but
Mr. Shu has published several papers on rotation of galactic arms.
Incidentally, the book is  from University Science Books, Mill Valley, Cal.
It also has some nifty drawings.

* Phil Plait                  PCP2G@bessel.acc.virginia.EDU
* UVa Dept. of Astronomy      PCP2G@Virginia
* "The story you are about to hear is a fib. But it's short." --Mathnet

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 19:52:27 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

>From article <1988Oct18.160414.26520@cs.rochester.edu>, by dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz):

> Frankly, I expect the space station to die soon; if not next year then
> the year after.  ...

> This leaves the shuttle without much of a mission, and
> the next accident kills that program too ...

> 	Paul F. Dietz
> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Which puts the federal government out of the commercial space launch
business. Something that will make a lot of people very happy. To be
able to abandon the government owned launch systems the feds will have
to? at least pay lip service to supporting private launch companies.
Not to mention leaving the feds as a major purchaser of a service they
would have to buy from private companies or other countries.

		Something to think about.

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
An average hammer is better for driving nails than a superior wrench.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #71
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Nov 88 05:26:51 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03964>; Tue, 1 Nov 88 03:44:41 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  1 Nov 88 03:44:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.4XPLZEy00UkT4DRE54@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.MXPLIlM00000A4pk8t>;
          Tue,  1 Nov 88 03:26:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.oXPLCqy00UkZE:dk5o>;
          Tue,  1 Nov 88 03:20:11 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Nov  1 88 03:18:12 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #72

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 72

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Earth & living in space
		 Re: where should all the people go?
	      Astronomy Textbook Recommendations Wanted
	Re: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA
	Re: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA
	Re: Earth & living in space (See latest issue of LIFE)
		   Re: re earth and living in space
			   Soviet designers
			 Re: Soviet designers
		       Solid Support For Space
			 new kid on the block
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 13:50:38 GMT
From: l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@k.cc.purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <159@enuxha.UUCP>, kluksdah@enuxha.UUCP (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
> In article <1988Oct22.123852.18507@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

	[Much, not all irrelevant, deleted.]

> Question to all:  How can we help straighten out the mess??  
> Caution to all (including bureaucrats, congresscritters, and managerial
> types):  Let's try to be VERY objective about this.  In this newsgroup,
> the whole question has been summarized nicely by Mr. Dietz.  Is this in
> our best national interest???  

Answer to question to all: Get the government largely out of it.

The question has NOT been summarized at all correctly by Mr. Dietz.
The question is not, as Mr. Dietz and Mr. Kluksdahl state, of getting the
US government to put up the funds for space as against some other expendi-
ture of tax money.  The real question is to allow those people who believe
that getting man into space is important to put their money on the line.
This cannot be done as long as the government can put years of red tape 
into permitting a launch (1/2 :-)) and can prohibit it altogether.

I suggest that we have non-profit or semi-profit organizations, not for
lobbying but for expediting and even doing, to get us into space.  There
may be more than one, which presumably will cooperate with each other and
with the current and to be formed profit-seeking organizations as they see
fit.  If we knew exactly what was to be done, a monolithic program might
POSSIBLY be better.  Since we do not, diversity is essential.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 20:26:09 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <746221@KICKI.STACKEN.KTH.SE> MATTS@kicki.stacken.kth.se (Matts Kallioniemi) writes:

>Besides, if you compare Earth/Space to Europe/America then I can
>assure you that we europeans don't feel any inferior to you, just
>because our ancestors were unlucky enough to stay behind. Quite the
>opposite actually, since it was mainly losers who took the trip!

People came here for many reasons; many of those "losers" only "lost" 
because they were hunted and oppressed by European tyrants and repressive
societies.  They came here for political and religious freedom.  At least
that's what Yanks are taught in school.

It's amusing that when I bring up the same argument, citing the oppression
of the US government and the various kinds of social intolerance in the 
USA as motivation for moving into the frontier of space, the same 
people who are proud of America are the first to sneer at those who want
to move on.  I believe that the process is relentless; there >must< be a 
frontier for each generation's pioneers and daredevils to move into, or 
they sit in their parent societies and ferment like yeast, trying to reform
a confortable mediocrity into a frontier.  It can't be done, and the lack
of an earthly frontier, I assert, is a sociological problem unparalleled
in human history.  I belive that the current scene is a pressure cooker
that cannot be released until space travel is developed enough to build
entire societies elsewhere.  The outlook is grim.


Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 88 15:01:57 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!krogers@gr.utah.edu  (Keith Rogers)
Subject: Astronomy Textbook Recommendations Wanted


     I am looking for textbook recommendations on celestial mechanics
and spherical astronomy so that I may teach myself more on these
subjects.  I have an undergraduate degree in physics and am looking for
books which present these topics at a junior or senior undergraduate
level for astronomy majors.  I will be teaching myself if that makes a
difference in which book you would recommend (note: It took a while, but
I finally got over needing solutions to selected problems in the back of
the book... so don't let that make any difference).  Books I can buy are
preferable to books I could check out at the local university library.
     Please take 1 minute to e-mail me your views, especially if you
teach or have had courses on these topics.  Thank you.

Keith Rogers

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 88 19:59:49 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA

In article <8810211547.AA21912@ll-vlsi.arpa>, glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
> Flexibility of action is one of the things that mankind in space is 
> all about.  With humans constantly up there the Soviets have that ability to
> fix things.  Both people and robots/tools make mistakes to fail at some 
> point.
> Humans are still more flexible at repairing and doing all those none 
> repetitive
> tasks that are necessary for the true exploration of the space frontier.

So why not just put a decent teleoperated robot up there? Then we could
dispense with the tons of life support hardware, and let the ground
technicians manipulate the tools with their datagoggles and datagloves.

I know, it wouldn't be sporting. But it would be cheaper, and that's what
we need to get into space sooner.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 17:40:42 GMT
From: accelerator!phao.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA

In article <339@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> [ in response to the argument that humans can improvise where
>   machines fail ]
>So why not just put a decent teleoperated robot up there? Then we could
>dispense with the tons of life support hardware, and let the ground
>technicians manipulate the tools with their datagoggles and datagloves.

And then the robot failed...  Remember, we have never used a robot of
that complexity on Earth, let alone in space; the initial reliability
figures won't be very good.

Long(er) term you do have an argument though.

SR

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 16:16:08 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space (See latest issue of LIFE)

LIFE has always been big on "space."  This month's issue has a preview
of a new book which is yet another collection of space photographs,
this time done jointly by Astronauts and Cosmonauts.  What is interesting
are the contrasts and perceptions of time and distance.  Lowell and others
point out how small the earth is, and one other (I forgot who) said
the Earth is such a big place.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
I am almost willing to bet that this newsgroup couldn't stay silent for 1 week.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 21:04:23 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: re earth and living in space

In article <3f0eaa9c.ae47@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:

:  You know, it's funny.  Ideologically, I have more in common with
:  the average Libertarian or the average spaceoid than I do with 
:  any 'normal'   But the fantasy world they live in drives me crazy!  
:  Political and financial problems are just as real as engineering
:  problems.  They have to be solved too.  There are lots of people 
:  who seem happy to work real hard on the technical issues but they
:  just whine about the political ones.  This reminds me of engineers
:  I've known who thought that all they needed to have a successful 
:  company was a great idea or technical breakthrough.  The hell with
:  financing or a business plan.   Libertarians and spacoids are both
:  fond of saying that we *could* do all these great things "if it 
:  weren't for the government" as though they have practically already
:  done these things and the government is just sort of a technicality.

This is probably because so many Libertarians are interested or employed 
in engineering disciplines, and these problems look much more tractable
than political problems.  

I conjecture that there was a time when exploration of the New World was 
conducted only by States, and those who wanted to emmigrate had to wait
decades for private (or semi-private) companies to mount expeditions.
They probably felt like it was time to go, too.  

Space travel is more complex and far more capital-intensive than any 
other form of exploration, but "spaceoids" are correct in harping that
the immediate technological problems are *solved*.  They have been for 20
years.  I can't think of any other technology that has ramped up with 
such promise only to meet with massive disinterest (yes, I think the US
public is bored and indifferent to space; the level of support for space
travel indicates this).  It is not the government, although I believe 
Robert Heinlein was correct in pointing out that NASA was the only group
which could make a trip to the moon dull; it is the society we live in 
that has lost heart and spirit.  

The mass of mankind will never move out into space; they are complacent
with their lot and their vision only extends to a larger house or a new
car.  There is nothing inherently wrong with this.  But when such trivia
become the goals of society itself, that society is in decline.  

It may take several more decades for individuals to move into space.  It
may take a century.  It may well require that we address the pressing
issues involved in managing the environment on Earth first.  But sooner
or later men will live in space, if earthly societies are not destroyed
first.


Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 14:13:15 GMT
From: att!cbnews!lvc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Subject: Soviet designers

In article <1988Oct23.001208.20449@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> There is a "mystery" here only if you assume that the Soviet shuttle was
> copied from the US one in more than superficial details.  Near as I can
> tell, that is a paranoid delusion rather than a realistic assumption.
> Is it so hard to believe that the Soviets have competent designers?

No, but there is a point that needs to be made.  It is much cheaper to
copy than to innovate, and the Soviets are well known for copying.  Is
it so hard to believe that the Soviets would apply their intelligence
service to learn about the Shuttle.  Maybe they realized it would be
a mistake to copy the Shuttle!

I just finished the book "My Life in the Soviet Army" by Victor Suvorov.
He claims that the Soviets use English measurement units to facilitate
copying American designs.  By the way, the Soviets did successfully copy
a US nuclear submarine.

-- 
Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, cbnews!lvc lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 01:06:46 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Soviet designers

In article <1677@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>In article <1988Oct23.001208.20449@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Is it so hard to believe that the Soviets have competent designers?
>
>No, but there is a point that needs to be made.  It is much cheaper to
>copy than to innovate, and the Soviets are well known for copying.
> . . .
>Copied a US nuclear submarine?

Several interesting questions could be asked Soviet Technology:
	Where are their hypersonic research aircraft? (like our X-15)
	What about the research equivalents to the West's
	telescopes, particle accelerators, etc. (note: you hear
	of the developments they have ahead: in lasers and fusion,
	tokomak is fairly common now)
	What's their computer technology like? [a Computer article
		was just published, but new Soviet articles are probably
		forthcoming.]

Using the sub as a example, as with aircraft, many technologies share
similar features.  To what degree was it copied? Shape? I have a hard
time believeing a copy down to say fuel pellets.  Even books like Jane's
would take notice of such an exact copy.  Also note the Japanese rocket
is basically a licensed Scout launch vehicle (cleaned up).

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 21:25:46 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Solid Support For Space

>>Figures:
>>
>>51% said they support the space station.
>>64% supported a human mission to Mars.
>
>  The real question should have been how much money they
>  were willing to pay for these things...
 
The same AP-Media General poll found that 75% of those who favored an
increase in our space spending were willing to pay higher taxes to get
that increase.
 
When you consider the astronomical military expenditures, I don't think
that it would be necessary to raise taxes to increase space spending AND
reduce the deficit, but it's a very positive sign that 75% of the people
are actually willing to put their money where their mouths are.
 
- ERIC -
 
Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Princeton University | 11 Prospect Drive South  | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
332 Walker Hall      | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08544  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-734-4911         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 23:34:12 GMT
From: uw-larry!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: new kid on the block


  This is my first post here so I'll just state my views
on space now and provide evidence in later posts. 
  My main interest in space is settlement: the creation
of many diverse, independent ecosystems to assure the 
survival of my species.  I believe and will defend the 
following:

1) because of nuclear war, the threat to our survival
is great, and together with other measures space settlement
within the next 50 years is urgent.

2) We do *not* currently have the technology to settle 
space within any reasonable engineering, economic or
political constraints.  We can develop this technology 
within the next 30 years, but much effort is needed.

3) Turn these 3 constraints into action items.  How can 
each be tackled?

  engineering:  we must work on basic science that will 
  enable technologies for converting raw materials into
  propulsion, habitats, and products for export to Earth.
  Trying to build technology before it is feasible is a 
  waste of time.  Making it feasible is not.

  economic: look to history. what economic incentives have 
  there been to settle new frontiers?  How about America
  c. 1500-1700?  Tobacco, rum, gold and furs:  2 drugs and
  2 status items.  More importantly, they are high value, 
  low mass: it is feasible to transport them over long distances
  in expensive ships.  Now let's look at space so far.  The
  major commercial item is information: communications relays,
  military pictures, weather pictures, etc: the ultimate high 
  value, low mass commodity.  What further HVLM could there be
  to further drive space development?
    a) info--more of it
    b) rare materials made in the unique environments of space
    c) rare minerals & isotopes extracted from raw space 
       materials.  how do we find these?  We must *explore*
       every nook and cranny of the solar system. Not just Mars, 
       not just The Moon, but every moon, every planet, and lots
       of comets and asteroids to boot.  We *do* have the 
       resources to do this within the next 20 years.

4) These beliefs lead me to support the following national policies:
  a) vigorous support for basic science and science education
  b) vigorous exploration of *every* part of the solar system
  c) manned spaceflight in this century is irrelevent to space 
     settlement.  To the extent that it takes away from basic
     science and exploration, and fools people into thinking we
     are farther along than we really are, manned spaceflight 
     *subverts* the goal of space settlement.

OK I'm ready to return volleys.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                              *************************
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu          ***  Biosphere III    ***
*************************               ***  best space bbs   ***
**   Bush?  Dukakis?   **               *** in the Milky Way  ***
**   Ron Paul in '88   **               ***  (206) 523-7381   ***
*************************               *************************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #72
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Nov 88 06:52:34 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00399>; Tue, 1 Nov 88 05:43:18 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  1 Nov 88 05:43:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.IXPNIJy00Vs1Q1X04Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gXPN=Ky00jZdQ1UU4:>;
          Tue,  1 Nov 88 05:32:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.UXPMzxy00UkZ0:p059>;
          Tue,  1 Nov 88 05:20:47 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, Nov  1 88 05:17:59 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #73

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		  Space agreements (Treaties, etc.)
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
		       Re: new kid on the block
		     Re: Earth & living in space
      Private Launch Companies (was Re: Earth & living in space)
		     Re: Earth & living in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 04:53:15 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

I have *no* idea how this was calculated, but there was a *widely* 
distributed wall chart on spaceflight that included a table of the specific
impulse of various propulsion systems. What I recall follows...

400		theoretical max for chemical
800		theoretical max for "nuclear heating"
		(NERVA, ships in many Heinlein juveniles..[single-H?])
600,000		fusion
3e7		photon "rocket"

Note that if you piece together items mentioned in several *different*
locations in the first edition of the Traveller role=playing game, you will
find that they are using an Isp of 600,000 for their fusion drives. I guess
I wasn't the only one to remember that chart... :-)



-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 21:28:43 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!odlin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Iain Odlin)
Subject: Space agreements (Treaties, etc.)


  Can anyone tell me what majour treaties and agreements the U.S. has signed
with other countries regarding the uses of space and what these treaties (etc)
say?

  Please mail your responses.  If there are enough, I'll post a summary (Hats
off to Eugene's .signature :-) ).

  Thanks!

  -Iain Odlin

-- 
"The ground's some kind of soft stuff.| Iain Odlin: odlin@reed      
I can kick it around with my boot."   |-------------------------------===}[USA>
-First words said on moon's surface   | {backbone}!tektronix!reed!odlin

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 02:15:28 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

>Suppose that Apollo had been conceived from the start as part of
>a manned moonbase effort.  I wonder what would have been done
>differently.  Probably not much, except to develop some even
>BIGGER boosters to land heavier materials up there.
>
>So the mistake was not Apollo, but failure to follow up on it.

  I don't agree.....although failure to follow was the *fatal* mistake,
things should have been done very differently.  In particular, LOR
(Lunar Orbit Rendezvous--use of a LM as the only module that would
actually touch down) shoud NOT NOT NOT have been used.  It was chosen
*only* because it was already "known" that their would be no Lunar bases
built.  Far, far better it would have been to use EOR, although it
would have cost twice as much per launch (two Saturn V's would have been
needed for every mission.)  This would have developed a capability for
putting large payloads in Lunar orbit or on the Lunar surface.  As it
is, we never did develop it, and no one else has it at the moment
(although the Soviets will probably have it soon).
   For those who aren't aware, the idea was to put a larger Apollo 
capsule (Command Module) which would have had braking stages to slow
down the entire thing and deposit it on the Lunar surface.  The total
weight would have been about 150,000 pounds, as opposed to the actual
total of LM and CM (~90,000) pounds.  This made the difference between
a load that the Saturn V could put in Lunar orbit and waiting for Nova.
(Was Nova ever developed?  What happened to it?)
   EOR (Earth Orbit Rendezvous)ould have launched the heavier Apollo
capsule with the Saturn's third stage partly empty of oxidizer.  A
second Saturn, acting purely as a tanker, would rendezvous with the
manned craft and the oxidizer tank would be filled.  There would then
be enough fuel to put the Apollo on the moon (with all 3 men) and
return.  You don't gain too much in the short run this way, but you
do develop the capability to move larger payloads to Lunar orbit,
and you can send payloads even larger than Apollo by launching the
original craft with both oxidizer AND fuel tanks partly empty.
(Incidentally, does anyone know if it is really necessary for the
tanker to be launched by a Saturn V?  I know only that that was the
way it was proposed, but it seems excessive.  Only about 60,000 lbs
of oxidizer needs to reach orbit--see above.  Surely a Saturn IIB 
could do this?)
  The way we did it, there was no good way to follow it up without
developing either EOR technology or a new booster.  Neither ever took
place.

  -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 06:46:30 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <4097@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith
P. Mancus) writes:
[About problems with the Apollo mission design, particularly use of Lunar
Orbit Rendezvous; about the Earth Orbit Rendezvous idea]

[Question about Nova interjected]
>(Was Nova ever developed?  What happened to it?)

	I only have a very fuzzy recollection of plans gained from sources
that are not the most reliable and very long ago, so feel free to correct me
on this.  As far as I can remember, Nova was supposed to be a really huge
booster built with Saturn technology -- if I have this right, the first stage
would have used 8 F1 engines arranged in 2 concentric squares, with only the
engines of the outer square being gimballed so as to allow the engines of the
inner square to be put very close together.  I don't remember how the upper
stages were to be configured.  Thus must have never gotten off the drawing
board -- certainly nothing like this was ever built.

>   EOR (Earth Orbit Rendezvous)ould have launched the heavier Apollo
>capsule with the Saturn's third stage partly empty of oxidizer.  A
>second Saturn, acting purely as a tanker, would rendezvous with the
>manned craft and the oxidizer tank would be filled.  There would then
>be enough fuel to put the Apollo on the moon (with all 3 men) and
>return.  You don't gain too much in the short run this way, but you
>do develop the capability to move larger payloads to Lunar orbit,
>and you can send payloads even larger than Apollo by launching the
>original craft with both oxidizer AND fuel tanks partly empty.
>(Incidentally, does anyone know if it is really necessary for the
>tanker to be launched by a Saturn V?  I know only that that was the
>way it was proposed, but it seems excessive.  Only about 60,000 lbs
>of oxidizer needs to reach orbit--see above.  Surely a Saturn IIB 
>could do this?)

	Better yet, why not send up even heavier Apollo equipment on a
Saturn V with no third stage, and use the other Saturn V to send up only its
own third stage.  Then dock the Apollo equipment to the third stage and launch
from orbit with the third stage mostly if not entirely full, and with no need
to do in-orbit refueling (which would have been an extra messy procedure to
develop and test -- plain docking would be easier to develop, since it would
have been based on established practice, ESPECIALLY if a moon mission had
already been successfully completed using the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous scheme,
since then docking to produce a major load-bearing connection could be derived
by scaling up Lunar Orbit Rendezvous procedures).

>  The way we did it, there was no good way to follow it up without
>developing either EOR technology or a new booster.  Neither ever took
>place.

	I don't think the politicians ever had any intention of following up
the initial Apollo missions, whatever the honorable intentions of the mission
designers.

-- 
	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
ARPAnet:   chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:    chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RETURN ADDRESS)
USENET:    iuvax!silver!chiaravi

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 17:58:39 GMT
From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

Perhaps the reason the Apollo program was all-pizazz-and-no-
infrastructure was *precisely* because the population wasn't willing to
pay for an expensive, continuing program without deriving either
entertainment value or direct, continuing economic benefits. The
entertainment value was largely gone after the first few landings (some
might say after the first one), and it's hard to dispute that there
wasn't much in the way of direct economic benefits commeasurate with the
costs. Seen in this light, I find it difficult to understand how anyone
can express shock or surprise at NASA's post-Apollo collapse. It was
completely predictable and inevitable.

This point is being missed by many in the Moon-vs-Mars debates. If the
cost is at all bearable, the population is more likely to support an
Apollo-style mad dash to Mars simply because it would have far greater
entertainment value than building a base in a place we've been before.
They couldn't care less about "scientific research" or "building
infrastructure"; they simply want to be entertained. How many people
follow the adventures of the intrepid explorers living at Scott-
Admundsen base at the South Pole? I'd venture to say "many fewer than
followed the original Scott and Admundsen journeys", even though far
more scientific research is now being conducted.  We have a base at the
South Pole only because the cost is relatively small.

Face facts: if you're going to explore space the expensive way (i.e.,
with humans in space), you've got to deliver either a commeasurate
economic return *or* you've got to deliver on the Hollywood Factor.  In
the extremely unlikely event that the former ever happens, it would be
an historic first for the manned space program. You'd see private
enterprise out there in no time flat -- but I'm not holding my breath.

The Hollywood Factor, however, is fundamentally at odds with spending
money on making things routine, i.e., building infrastructure.  The
shuttle program is an excellent case in point; NASA tried to make
expensive manned space flight routine, resulting in lost public interest
and support.  It gambled that it could instead rely on economic return,
and it lost badly.

On the other hand, if you explore space the cost effective way (i.e.,
with unmanned probes), then people won't expect quite as much in return.
You then have much more freedom to pursue the riskier and less glamorous
research that is far more important in the long term -- even if most
people don't realize it.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 17:05:36 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (Mr. Sullivan)
Subject: Re: new kid on the block

In article <37@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>1) because of nuclear war, the threat to our survival
>is great, and together with other measures space settlement
>within the next 50 years is urgent.
 
Volley #1) I guess you think that we won't take a few of the 50,000+ warheads
with us.  Do you think that only this planet causes the
human inhabitants to fear each other?  Fear and war will follow
man where ever he goes, unless you want to go alone?  So much
for survival of your species.  

[much diatribe deleated, see the origional posting if interested]

>4) These beliefs lead me to support the following national policies:
>  a) vigorous support for basic science and science education
>  b) vigorous exploration of *every* part of the solar system
>  c) manned spaceflight in this century is irrelevent to space 
>     settlement.  To the extent that it takes away from basic
>     science and exploration, and fools people into thinking we
>     are farther along than we really are, manned spaceflight 
>     *subverts* the goal of space settlement.
>
>OK I'm ready to return volleys.


Volley #2) It is unlikely that ANY planet in this system will
           sustain human life without continual resupply
           except maybe mars.  Even then, you would need
	   such support technology to stay warm that if one of the
           systems failed, your dead.  Self sufficiency on mars 
           may be possible in the DISTANT future but certainly
           not with todays technology.

Volley #3) It  would be easier, cheaper, simpler if you prepared for
           the final war by devising ways to live through it.  If
           you think a radioactive/dead earth is worse than
           the frozen, highly reactive sands of mars, or living
           in a tin can revolving around a dead earth with a fixed
           amount of fuel/food would save our species, you should
           stop reading science fiction and get down to some of 
           that science education which you support but
           do not use.

Volley #4) Look, there is no hurry to get into space to explore
           or settle.  I hate to see the analogy with the explorations
           of various parts of the earth.  We did not need to terraform
           North America to make it habitable.  If you want to use
           this analogy, why arn't people running to live in 
           Antartica.  You have a supply of food (fish/penguins),
           breathable air, water, sunlight, solid surface, everything but
           ambient temperatures and yet only the toughest of researchers
           goes there.  Are we being stupid by ignoring Antartica for
           human settlements?  I think not, but we are in thinking we
           could settle another planet in this system.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 16:27:05 GMT
From: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (William A. Bralick)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space


Perhaps this is grist for a sci.space.econ news group ...

Given seed capital, hire a lawyer to help draft the corporate charter
for a not-for-profit corporation whose mission is to establish self-
sustaining off-Earth colonies.  Incorporate your corporation in the
state/country of your choice (actually the choice of the founders based
on the recommendation of the lawyer).  Issue 10^7 shares of common
stock, from which you should sell 5x10^6 for $10000/share.  (Yes,
Virginia, that is $50 billion dollars!)  You hold back 5x10^6 shares
of stock as a contingency against needing more capital.

The important thing to note is that the shares of stock can be redeemed
by the holder for free one-way passage and grub-stake to the colony
of his choice, with the following restrictions:  1) subject to
availability -- waiting lists will be the norm for a very long time,
2)the lower the certificate number (i.e. the earlier it was purchased)
the higher priority the individual holder has -- i.e. the holder of 
certificate #1 goes to the front of any waiting list he chooses.  The
stock certificate is property -- it can be traded (bought and sold on
a secondary market), inherited, given away, etc.

The shares are common stock, and thus the holders vote for the board of
directors, etc. who are responsible to the shareholders and colonists
(who are holders of non-redeemable certificates (exchanged at launch)).
I am sure there are those who will claim that $10k is too expensive,
just remember that you are going to have to transport all those folks,
so the steeper the price the fewer you will have to lift.  It is a 
simple and direct application of the golden rule.

Cordially,
-- 
Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology,    |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                      |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 15:17:16 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Private Launch Companies (was Re: Earth & living in space)


  I don't really see that the U.S. gov't has much to say about it.
A successful launch company almost has to have multinational contracts
just to keep itself busy.  Is launching *out of the U.S.* so
unthinkable?
   Seems to me that what is really needed is a South Pacific island
near the equator, positioned so that launches from it do not pass over
inhabited areas.  This should apply to both polar and near-equatorial
launches.  It should be far away from people who might complain, but
not too far from support.
   A number of books from the 1950's assume that Johnston Island
would be used.  It's small, a few hundred (?) miles SW of Hawaii.
Admittedly it is US territory, so it wouldn't fill the bill, but there
must be other, non-U.S. controlled islands down there.
   Why isn't this happening?  Too expensive?  Or can the U.S. prevent
the launch of any payload owned by a U.S. company, regardless of where
it is launched?  Perhaps a little paper-shuffling is in order, so that
the companies aren't "U.S." any more.  The Swiss Connection? :-)

  -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 17:30:24 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1988Oct20.145648.28738@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>(3) Unfounded optimism.  The cost of launching to orbit will have to
>  come down by several orders of magnitude before any large scale
>  movement into space will be possible.  Chemical rockets are nearing
>  theoretical limits, and further improvements are going to be slow.

If you mean that chemical rockets are nearing theoretical limits for
efficiency (in some sense, not necessarily the thermodynamic definition
of efficiency), that's true, although I can think of a few people who
might argue that there are still better methods of using that efficiency
(e.g. altitude-compensating nozzles).  If you mean that they are nearing
theoretical limits for cheapness, bosh!  The major factor in the cost of
current launchers is not the fuels they use, but the cost-insensitive
bureaucratic organizations that build and operate them.  There is plenty
of room for several orders of magnitude of improvement in costs.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #73
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Nov 88 06:13:12 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06827>; Wed, 2 Nov 88 00:42:25 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  2 Nov 88 00:42:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.MXPe0Uy00UkTIOeE4i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXPdsUy00Ui3M2BU9z>;
          Wed,  2 Nov 88 00:33:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.AXPdjLy00UkZ4AxU4n>;
          Wed,  2 Nov 88 00:23:39 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Nov  2 88 00:19:56 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #74

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 74

Today's Topics:
		    New Soviet Shuttle launch date
		CNN coverage of Soviet Shuttle Launch
	  Re: Soviet Shuttle launch date and time announced
	      Re: CNN coverage of Soviet Shuttle Launch
		       CNN covers soviet launch
	      Re: CNN coverage of Soviet Shuttle Launch
	      Re: CNN coverage of Soviet Shuttle Launch
		     Re: Earth & living in space
			     Real Heroes
		   sci.military  -  Call for Votes
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Nov 88 16:42:41 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: New Soviet Shuttle launch date

     The USSR has announced the new launch date for their shuttle Buran.
Currently they are saying about Nov. 8/9, though no time has been stated for
that date.  The problem with the previous launch's second try is now stated 
as being due to a service platform failing to withdraw (actually one used 
for an emergency escape when there is a crew on board).  The count was 
stopped at minus 51 seconds.
     I just want to take some time to reply to several postings about
the similarity and differences of the US and Soviet shuttles.  In 
v9 issue 69 (Oct. 31) Space Digest Henry Spencer commented on my previous
posting
>>    This goes along with the mystery of the photos they released of their
>>shuttle mated to the Energiya booster.  While the front of the vehicle is
>>very much like the shuttle there are many changes at the rear.  For example
>>there are no Orbital Maneuvering System pods, because those engines are in
>>the tail.  In addition the fact that there is no weight of the engines in
>>the tail must change the center of mass.  These both must modify both the 
>>shuttle aerodynamic behavior, which must result in other changes in the
>>system...
>
>There is a "mystery" here only if you assume that the Soviet shuttle was
>copied from the US one in more than superficial details.  Near as I can
>tell, that is a paranoid delusion rather than a realistic assumption.
>Is it so hard to believe that the Soviets have competent designers?

     Sorry Henry (and others that said the same),  there are real important
mysteries here.  Of course their shuttle shape is partially determined by
aerodynamics.  For example I have a picture from the mid 60's showing Yuri
Gagarin and several cosmonauts clustered around a wind tunnel model that
looks almost identical to the shuttle.  However, certainly the measurements
of Buran are so similar to the shuttle that there was also significant
copying (look at the tile pattern and the position/shape of the forward
jet nozzles).  Some copying of existing systems is always part of good
engineering (why do you think that almost every company buys copies of its 
competitor's products and test them to find out what they have done better).
No, the important part is where the systems differ, and that is in the tail
assembly.  As I noted previously Energiya is only at 70% of orbital velocity
when the core stage burns out.  What sort of engines and fuel does Buran
carry (it must be much more than the tiny OMS engines on the NASA shuttle).
What thrust does it have, and how can that be used to modify their mission
profile.  No information on this has been released that I can find, while
significant data is available on Energiya itself.  Probably it will appear
just after the flight, in the same way it did for Energiya.
     Also note what else they did not copy.  All the engines on their 
shuttle/Energiya are liquid.  Therefore it is a much safer system from
the point of manned flight.  Those engines can always be shut down if something
goes wrong and the shuttle separated at any time during the flight.  Thus
there is just a narrow window (the first few seconds while the shuttle gets
up to several hundred meters) during which a nonexplosive engine failure
need result in the loss of the crew, while for the shuttle nothing can be
done while the solids are burning (the first 2 minutes).
     The Russian's shuttle is going to have a big impact on their program.
When it is operational (Say in 1992) they will have all the infrastructure
for large manned operations in the earth orbit - a heavy lift launcher
(carries >3 times maximum US load), an operational expandable space station, 
two working manned systems (Buran and Soyuz series), robot fueling/cargo 
systems for the station,  and at least 4 types of highly tested unmanned 
boosters (7 to 20 tonnes to orbit range).  At that point the NASA station
will still be at least 5 years away.  Without a lot of effort on the
US's part (or bad luck on theirs) nothing is going to prevent the USSR from
being the dominant manned space activity nation for the rest of this century.
If you do not like it then do something about it.

                                                  Yours truly
                                                  Glenn Chapman

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 21:03:03 GMT
From: att!ihuxv!ihnp4!edsel!dxa@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (DR Anolick)
Subject: CNN coverage of Soviet Shuttle Launch

I called CNN in Atlanta and they said that at this
time, they did not plan to have live coverage of
the Soviet Space Shuttle Launch.

I would assume that if they think there is enough
interest they will cover it live.  So, what can
we do?  Make them think that there is interest
by calling them!!

Call CNN in Atlanta (404) 827-1500.  Ask for the
programming department, and ask if they plan live
coverage of the Launch.  If they say no, tell
them they should.  

And you can always call more than once! 
-- 
droyan				David ROY ANolick
ihnp4!edsel!dxa   		^     ^^^ ^^

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 17:36:18 GMT
From: haque@umn-cs.arpa  (Samudra E. Haque)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle launch date and time announced

In article <8810270344.AA28432@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
*
*    The Soviet Shuttle launch date is set for Saturday Oct. 29th at 6:24 Moscow
*Time (that translates as 11:24 EDT - Moscow is now off of Daylight time).
*This initial flight is definitely unmanned (manned mission possibly in 1991)
*The Russian name for their shuttle is Vosdushno Kosmicheskii Korabl'
A point of clarification:

I think you mean Moscow time 0624 Saturday, October 29th
	New York (East Coast) time 2324  Friday, October 29th 1988.

I have a suspicion that the Moscow time is off by +/- 1 hour but I
don't have a current World Radio TV Handbook handy :-).


CNN is going to cover it live as usual. So get your VCR's ready!

-- 
Samudra E. Haque
Computer Science Laboratories, Computer Science Department
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
(1)-(612)-625-0876 || haque@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu || haque@umn-cs.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 13:40:04 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: CNN coverage of Soviet Shuttle Launch

>From article <449@edsel.UUCP>, by dxa@edsel.UUCP (DR Anolick):
> I called CNN in Atlanta and they said that at this
> time, they did not plan to have live coverage of
> the Soviet Space Shuttle Launch.
> Call CNN in Atlanta (404) 827-1500.  Ask for the
> programming department, and ask if they plan live
> coverage of the Launch.  

Just did .. (9:40 EDT) and they said they are going
to cover it, there may be a 7 minute delay in Soviet
release of the film. (IE they don't want it blowing up
live!). 
Jonathan

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 16:32:51 GMT
From: att!occrsh!jdsb@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John_Babcock)
Subject: CNN covers soviet launch

I just called CNN.  They said they will cover the launch of the
soviet shuttle live at 11:23 or 11:24 Eastern time TONIGHT (Friday).
I guess I did not understand one of the previous posts because
I thought it was tomorrow morning!

John Babcock

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 20:27:56 GMT
From: unm-la!cs235ad@lanl.gov  (Hugh Hazelrigg)
Subject: Re: CNN coverage of Soviet Shuttle Launch

Saturday launch in the USSR, Friday in the USA.  Around 11pm Eastern.  Just saw
some close-ups on CNN, complete with white-robed technicians.  Seems to be a
bit smaller than ours.  There was a real tight close up of the skin.  I am sure
I saw tiles...

hugh

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 04:10:20 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Christian Riley)
Subject: Re: CNN coverage of Soviet Shuttle Launch

CNN now says thelaunch of the Soviet shuttle has been delayed about 4 hours,
ie 3:00am (or 3:30am) EDT.


That's all they said.

"Free scientific inquiry?  The first adjective is redundant."
Chris Riley
riley@cs.ucsd.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 15:08:07 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <1988Oct24.173024.16839@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >(3) Unfounded optimism.  The cost of launching to orbit will have to
> >  come down by several orders of magnitude......
> 
> If you mean that chemical rockets are nearing theoretical limits for
> efficiency (in some sense, not necessarily the thermodynamic definition
> of efficiency), that's true,
> (e.g. altitude-compensating nozzles).  If you mean that they are nearing
> theoretical limits for cheapness, bosh!
> -- 
I recall seeing something recently about a concept called the Big Dumb
Booster.  (If memory serves) some work on the concept was done by Boeing
after the success of the LM descent engines.  Since the LM engines HAD to
work, they were made as simple as possible (remember the KISS principle??).
Well, some large engines using this concept were made, and not using the
current 'clean room' techniques.  The idea was to make 'shipyard spec' 
engines that were simple, had no turbo-pumps, and were fed by pressurized
fuel.  (Seems that this idea has resurfaced under the moniker "pressure-fed
engines", which sounds more hi-tech than Big Dumb Booster).

One argument for the failure of this BDB concept is that there is only so
much launch demand, and that current companies are making good $$$ with their
complex hi-priced rockets, and see no need (or resulting economic benefit) to
making their toys simpler and cheaper (i.e. Lockheed, General Dynamics, Martin
Marietta).  Since the launch business is somewhat restricted by the need to
provide launch insurance (against damage on the ground), cheap rockets by
start-ups seem unlikely.  Space-World reported a sub-orbital test rocket,
costing a total of under $50K, requiring an expenditure of $100K for insurance.

BTW, what happened to a concept by Boeing (reported in AW&ST) for using some
of the F-1's still in storage as engines at the base of a modified ET, with
or without the SRB's?  I think it was proposed for the Air Force's MLV for
launching the Navstar constellation.  The vehicle was supposed to launch up
to six at once.  Did the idea make too much sense???

N. Kluksdahl           Arizona State U.
         ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 18:07:45 GMT
From: att!codas!ablnc!rcpilz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robert C. Pilz)
Subject: Real Heroes


This posting is a little more emotional than "scientific," but
here goes anyway.
Are there anywhere trading cards of the astronauts? I know that
there are trading cards of other real people such as baseball
and football players. But it would be nice if real heroes, such
as astronauts could help shape/influence our young people in
a positive way.
I know such inane things as "Howard the Duck" and "Roger Rabbit"
get trading cards. Maybe nobody wants to bring the astronauts
down to this level. The same media as pro wrestlers?
On the other hand, the astronauts have been kept out of controversy.
Drugs, sex, etc, although some may be "lilly white", these things have
not rubbed on their image.
Trading cards can have lots of useful data on the back sides; hometown,
schooling, missions. These are good ways for people to gather in
information. I think that test pilots and other notable aviators
might be included also. 
Am I all wet on this?

R. C. Pilz
AT&T Orlando FL
attmail!rcpilz

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 16:49:58 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: sci.military  -  Call for Votes


Having completed the specified period of discussion, I am now
calling for votes on this newsgroup. 

The new group "sci.military" is hereby proposed as follows:

sci.military      Military sci. ; technology and related matters [moderated] 

More verbosely, sci.military is for the discussion of the technical
and technological side of military issues. Other facets, such as
history, tactics, and theory, are welcome to the extent that they
relate to technological matters. Similarly, policy and political
topics, such as arms control, are tolerated only as they impact 
military issues (e.g., missile /ABM developmemts).

The moderator would be responsible primarily for ensuring that 
political debates do not rage unchecked; also, that person should
be sure that postings fit the group's definitions. For topics that
do not meet the requirements, the author can be referred to
soc.politics.arms-d or talk.politics, for example. It is acknowledged
that this is a fine line to tread; the moderator must use good 
judgement and listen to feedback from the readers.

One topic that cannot be referred to a proper newsgroup is military
history, and many readers have emphasized their interest in this field.
For the time being, I propose that the moderator should allow military 
history discussions, excepting those with mainly political content, to 
be carried on in sci.military.  Should the volume of these postings
warrant, a seperate newgroup can later be created for them. Conversely,
should their content be objectionable to the bulk of the readers, they
would be discontinued.

PLEASE NOTE:   This note has been crossposted to several interested
groups. FOLLOWUPS ARE DIRECTED TO NEWS.GROUPS.  Be sure your
"Newsgroups:" line contains only news.groups

Rules:

1) ONLY EMAIL VOTES CAN BE COUNTED !  Please, DO NOT post votes. If
you cannot reach me by email, call me by telephone, and we'll try to
find a workable mailpath.

2) Please put the keywords "Yes" or "No" in your mail header, or 
on the first line of your letter. Makes my life easier...

3) The voting period is 30 days. Votes arriving in my mailbox after
noon (EST), 24 November '88, will not be counted.

4) If you have emailed a vote to me prior to this posting (12:00 noon,EST,
25 October, 1988) it has not been counted.  Please re-send.

5) I will try to acknowledge each vote I receive. 

6) I do not plan to post intermediate results. If you would like a
current "score", contact me via email.

7) Contrary to popular belief, residents of Chicago are NOT entitled to
multiple votes. 8-)

------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker		wbt@cbnews       {well-connected sites}!att!cbnews!wbt
	(614) 860-4019 (AT&T)      (614) 759-1792  (home)
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 14:54:21 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <4097@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>   I don't agree.....although failure to follow was the *fatal* mistake,
> things should have been done very differently.  In particular, LOR
> (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous--use of a LM as the only module that would
> actually touch down) shoud NOT NOT NOT have been used.
.......<stuff deleted>
>    EOR (Earth Orbit Rendezvous)ould have launched the heavier Apollo
> capsule with the Saturn's third stage partly empty of oxidizer.  A
> second Saturn, acting purely as a tanker, would rendezvous with the
> manned craft and the oxidizer tank would be filled.

I suggest you read the book "Chariots for Apollo", which details the work
by Grumman on the LM.  In particular, what struck me as particularly
interesting was some detailed sketches (hypothetical??? from the detail, I
think not.) of the Soviet Soyuz/Zond lunar lander.  The lander itself was
a Soyuz orbital module stacked atop a cluster of 3 engines and 7 tank modules.
Solar panels would have provided the power after landing.  The entire system
consisted of the command module (standard Soyuz orbital module, re-entry
module, and service module), the lunar lander, and a fuel module.  Each of
the three pieces was to be launched separately, with the manned spacecraft
launched last, assembled in orbit, then sent to the moon via a TLI burn.

According to this book, and also Oberg's "Red Star in Orbit", the Soviets 
missed an opportunity to upstage Apollo 8.  Reportedly, there was a Zond 
spacecraft on the pad ready for a Dec. 8 launch window.  Hardware trouble?
we can only guess.

The details of the Soviet lunar lander show that a combination of EOR/LOR
was actually seriously investigated.

N. Kluksdahl          Arizona State U.

               ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

<<< Henry--if you find inaccuracies, please e-mail me some references.
    I only have a limited number of references, and I'd love more.>>>>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #74
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Nov 88 06:33:17 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00807>; Wed, 2 Nov 88 05:45:08 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  2 Nov 88 05:45:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.kXPiQGy00jZdM39E4V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.EXPi=Oy00Vs180zE5U>;
          Wed,  2 Nov 88 05:26:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.cXPi57y00UkZ8BNU5H>;
          Wed,  2 Nov 88 05:19:54 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, Nov  2 88 05:18:34 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #75

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:
		Henry's signature & Planet of the Meek
 Earlier launch date set for NASA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)
				 UCS
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
		 Re: where should all the people go?
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
		       Re: The Mars Declaration
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		  asteroids (Was Re: Moon vs. Mars )
	   re: soviets successfully repair x-ray telescope
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 25 Oct 88 11:01 CDT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject:  Henry's signature & Planet of the Meek
Original_To:  SPACE

How could Henry Spencer, of all people, have let us down like this?

>The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Henry, may I presume you have a similar disregard for the poor in spirit?
Or those who hunger and thirst after justice?

                                          Meekly,

                         ______meson      Bill Higgins
                      _-~
        ____________-~______neutrino      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
      -   -         ~-_
    /       \          ~----- proton      Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
    |       |
    \       /                             SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
      -   -
        ~

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 15:03:53 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Earlier launch date set for NASA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   October 25, 1988

Barbara Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.


RELEASE:  88-143

EARLIER LAUNCH DATE SET FOR NASA HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE


     NASA announced today that it is rescheduling the launch of 
the Hubble Space Telescope from February 1990 to an earlier date 
of December 1989.  The earlier date was made possible following 
reassessment of a variety of factors including payload 
requirements and Space Shuttle orbiter assignments during the 
period.  The Hubble Space Telescope is a cooperative project with 
the European Space Agency.

     The telescope, which fills the orbiter cargo bay, will be 
deployed by the Shuttle crew with the aid of the orbiter remote 
manipulator system.

     The Hubble telescope is the first spacecraft designed for 
routine on-orbit servicing by the Space Shuttle crew.  In the 
mid-1990's, a Shuttle crew is expected to revisit the telescope 
to replace onboard scientific instruments with new instruments 
incorporating advanced technology now under development.

     The Astrophysics Division of the Office of Space Science and 
Applications, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., and the 
project management center, Marshall Space Flight Center, 
Huntsville, Ala., will establish a new shipping schedule for the 
Hubble spacecraft, presently at the Lockheed Missiles and Space 
Co. facility, Sunnyvale, Calif.  The schedule for a final ground 
systems test involving the Hubble spacecraft also may be 
affected.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 88 14:32 EDT
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: UCS

>Date: 18 Oct 88 14:45:42 GMT
>From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
>Subject: Re: Partial List of Signatories
>
>In article <4675@lynx.UUCP> neal@lynx.UUCP (Neal Woodall) writes:
>>In article <1556@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
>>
>>>>HENRY W. KENDALL, Prof./Physics,MIT; Chairman, Union of Concerned Scientists
>>>This signatory alone is enough to make *me* withold my signature.
>>
>>First of all, who is Henry Kendall, and why is he so bad? I think that the
>>Union of Concerned Scientists is a group that argues against the proliferation
>>of nuclear weapons, but I am not sure.
>>...
>
>I'm just overreacting, my right as an American 8-)
>
>I'll admit that I probably overreacted to this posting.  I (incorrectly,
>I guess) took it as intimidation, which got me up in arms.
>
>However, when it comes to the Union of Concerned Scientists, I make
>no apologies. In my opinion, members of that group *dangerously*
>misuse the respect of the American people, and, frankly, misrepresent
>themselves. Their organization is quite unscientific in nature (not
>just that it's primarily a political group; but if they conduct scientific
>research using the same logic they apply to policy statements, God help
>us all).
>
>You are correct, by the way. UCS argues against the proliferation of
>nukes. They just don't bother to let facts or science ...
>look, I'd better back off here, before I get sued. If you'd
>like more info, I'd be glad to discuss it by email.
>
>This is my opinion; I seek neither agreement nor approval. Suffice that
>I'm not alone in my intense dislike for the UCS.  I feel as strongly
>about them as many people do about the Nazi party.  Would *you* want
>to sign the same petition as Hitler ?  Even if it was a good cause,
>wouldn't you worry that his involvement might have strings attached,
>and that he might pervert the Cause from what you seek ?
>
>Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt

I disagree.  I support the UCS, though, not particularly actively.
Anyone who argues agains nuclear proliferation, in any way,
is a friend of mine.  Yes, it is a political group. So is 
the republican party.

No, the members do not conduct scientific research in the same
way that they express their political views.  That would be absurd.
What ever gave you that idea?

I would also like to point out that politicians are not completely
naive.  No matter how the Planetary Society tries to make it
seem, politicians are going to realize that 25,000 "supporters"
of their movement, really means that 25,000 people signed
some particular petition.  Politicians are professional lie
detectors.

Finally, my $0.02.  I think a moonbase is a better idea.  It is
much closer.  Certainly a mars mission would be great, but it
should be done second.  Besides, I wouldn't want to sign my name
to anything that was also signed by John Denver.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 12:23:01 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

In article <1022@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>From article <1988Oct18.160414.26520@cs.rochester.edu>, by dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz):
>
>> Frankly, I expect the space station to die soon; if not next year then
>> the year after.  ...
>> This leaves the shuttle without much of a mission, and
>> the next accident kills that program too ...
>
>Which puts the federal government out of the commercial space launch
>business. Something that will make a lot of people very happy. To be
>able to abandon the government owned launch systems the feds will have
>to? at least pay lip service to supporting private launch companies.

Two questions:

1) What ever became of the Air Force's shuttle proposal ? Belly-up,
I presume ?  Would military interests suffice to keep funding NASA at
some level to do their pioneering work ?


2) If the shuttle *did* go away, maybe Uncle Sammy could be persuaded
to rent out those launch facilities (No pets, no waterbeds, option
to sublet) to private industy ?



------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						cbosgd!cbema!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 15:13:06 GMT
From: ulysses!gamma!mibte!ccd700!jim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (J. Sitek)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <3909@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
> In article <5159@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> smann@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Shannon Mann - I.S.er) writes:
> >We have a good world here, and there is no
> >reason that we can not keep it that way.  
> 
> I would prefer not to have this crap in sci.space.  

I'll bet.  Are you saying that concepts like caring for one's 
environment have no place in space?  I have noticed a couple of 
themes inherent to many of these "get off the planet at any cost"
postings.

1. Nothing matters except my "Buck Rogers wet dream fantasy of living
   in space".

2. The world is full of problems.  Why bother solving them?  Let's 
   just escape them.

Fortunately, you will not carry these self-destructive attitudes into
space.  I hope your children are allowed to see the big picture which
you prefer to ignore.

Breathing toxic air against my will,

Jim Sitek
Former space fanatic
and sci.space lurker

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 88 22:57:03 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <7336@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
>Suppose that Apollo had been conceived from the start as part of
>a manned moonbase effort...

Actually, it was, by the people who were doing the detailed planning.
Unfortunately, the politicians didn't agree.

>[what to do] differently.  Probably not much, except to develop some even
>BIGGER boosters to land heavier materials up there.

The Saturn V had a long way to go before it really needed replacing.
The last Saturn Vs had twice the payload of the first ones.

>BTW, could some advocate of lunar bases list again the uses for
>such a base (other than mining & using lunar materials)
>that could not be done almost as well from orbiting satellites...

Did you forget exploring the Moon?
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 02:42:20 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The Mars Declaration

In article <1988Oct15.235246.27824@utzoo.uucp> I wrote:
>The Planetary Society's leadership (specifically, Friedman, speaking as
>a PS official) has already expressed its opposition to *any* further
>lunar exploration at this time.  Funny sort of attitude for a "Planetary
>Society" to take, wouldn't you say?  Reference and exact wording on request.

Several people have asked for details on this.  See Friedman's letter to
Aviation Week & Space Technology, published on page 394 of the 15 June
1987 issue.  He basically pooh-poohs the idea of the Moon being useful
as a stepping stone to Mars, and concludes:

	"...the simple initial exploration of the [Moon] is behind us.
	Humans have been to the Moon six times themselves, and more
	often with robotic vehicles.  It is not a place crying out for
	further exploration..."

						"Louis Friedman"
						"The Planetary Society"

He does waffle a bit about how "A reinvigorated space program could
provide opportunities for continued... lunar activities..." but stresses
that Mars takes priority as *the* way to reinvigorate the space program.

Now that I've dug this out and looked at it, I may have overstated his
views very slightly, but not by much.  It's pretty clear that a planet
which has been visited a whole six times is no longer of any importance
to the Planetary Society.

Hmmm, this is worth a one-shot revival of my old .signature, slightly
modified:
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight:  |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
fight the soi-disant "Planetary |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Society"'s mad race to Mars.    |

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 15:35:13 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

>400		theoretical max for chemical
>800		theoretical max for "nuclear heating"
>		(NERVA, ships in many Heinlein juveniles..[single-H?])
>600,000		fusion
>3e7		photon "rocket"

  Uh, that doesn't sound right.  The Shuttle ME's are already getting
455 seconds Isp (would someone confirm this?)  The theoretical maximum
for purely chemical fuels is something like 530 or so.  This would
be a Li/H/F mixture, where the Li and F were in a stoichiometric
balance and the H2 was present merely as reaction mass (because, having
a lower molecular weight, it would be exhausted at higher velocity).
I don't remember what the ratio was....something like 5x as much H2
by weight.   
  For convective fission rockets (H2 flowing over a nuclear heat source)
such as Nerva, the theoretical maximum is around 1200 seconds.  Nerva
itself was supposed to reach 800, and that was a first generation
system.
   Consumable fission rockets (which run the reaction mass directly
through a liquid reactor, thus avoiding the problem that the reaction
mass temperature is limited by the wall temperature of the heat
exchanger) can theoretically have exhaust velocities in the 30-60 km/sec
range.  This equates to 3000-6000 seconds Isp.  Of course these
drives produce a highly radioactive exhaust, and are wasteful of
U/Pu to boot.
   
   -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 16:42:29 GMT
From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: asteroids (Was Re: Moon vs. Mars )

In article <118@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:
    [ re observations of asteroids ]
>	a catalog.  Besides, the whole point to intelligence is to
>	be able to find simpler ways to do such things, like RADAR.

    Steve Ostro at JPL has done some radar observations of near-Earth
asteroids, but it's very difficult - the return signal attenuates
proportional to 1/r^4. Only a few asteroids ever come close enough for
this to work. It certainly isn't going to work for Main Belt asteroids
anytime in the near future.

>	our home so keep it clean. And leave other planets, asteroids,
>	etc. where they belong and clean as well.

    Christ, why don't we all just go back to the Olduvai Gorge.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe,
      why it is as it is and why it exists at all.''
	- Stephen Hawking

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 19:37:00 GMT
From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@husc6.harvard.edu  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: re: soviets successfully repair x-ray telescope


>> Flexibility of action is one of the things that mankind in space is 
>> all about.  With humans constantly up there the Soviets have that ability to
>> fix things.  Both people and robots/tools make mistakes to fail at some 
>> point.
>> Humans are still more flexible at repairing and doing all those none 
>> repetitive
>> tasks that are necessary for the true exploration of the space frontier.
>
>So why not just put a decent teleoperated robot up there? Then we could
>dispense with the tons of life support hardware, and let the ground
>technicians manipulate the tools with their datagoggles and datagloves.
>
>I know, it wouldn't be sporting. But it would be cheaper, and that's what
>we need to get into space sooner.

  It's true that some robot missions may fail for want of a 
  human repairman but so what?   Robot missions are so much 
  cheaper than manned ones that we can afford to have LOTS of
  them fail before the cost even COMES CLOSE to a manned mission.
  This becomes especially true once you get away from earth orbit.

  Both the Soviets and the U.S. are in the habit of launching these
  things in pairs in case one fails.   

  Given the spectacular success of such unmanned scientific missions
  as Mariner, Viking, Pioneer, and Voyager as well as many others, it
  is ridiculous that most of these kinds of projects have been put on
  hold in recent years, especially with the kinds of money constraints 
  the government is facing.  Not only that, but computer and robot 
  technologies have improved *enormously* since the days when those things
  were designed.  We could make some REAL neat stuff these days!
  Oh, well, that's show biz.
  
  BTW, the use of telepresence or teleoperated robots is rather
  constrained once you get beyond Earth orbit by the speed of light.
  These systems work best when used in something like realtime.
  The Moon is about a 2-3 second (round trip) delay and Mars would be
  anywhere from 3 to 22 minutes (round trip) delay.

                                             --Peter

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #75
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Nov 88 07:17:23 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00880>; Thu, 3 Nov 88 06:34:42 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  3 Nov 88 06:34:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.EXQ4E8y00jZdE3LE4k@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AXPzn6y00UkTE4MkEe>;
          Thu,  3 Nov 88 01:31:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.0XPynFy00UkZEErU5n>;
          Thu,  3 Nov 88 00:21:23 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Nov  3 88 00:19:26 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #76

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 76

Today's Topics:
		Re: asteroids (Was Re: Moon vs. Mars )
			Space Shuttle Phoenix
			 Re: Soviet designers
	    _Infinite_in_all_Directions_ by Freeman Dyson
	Re: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
     Thermo (was Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
	   Re: soviets successfully repair x-ray telescope
NASA issues draft guidelines on Station commercial infrastructure (Forwarded)
     Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)
		Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 01:20:22 GMT
From: fin!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: asteroids (Was Re: Moon vs. Mars )


    In  <4849@thorin.cs.unc.edu> 
		Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) writes:

> Steve Ostro at JPL has done some radar observations of near-Earth
> asteroids, but it's very difficult - the return signal attenuates
> proportional to 1/r^4. Only a few asteroids ever come close enough for
> this to work. It certainly isn't going to work for Main Belt asteroids
> anytime in the near future.

Could we make this crazy notion of mine work:
  - Launch a nuclear explosive into deep space.  This explosive is designed
    to convert most of its energy into radio waves: a radar flashbulb, if
    you will.
  - Point lots of radar dishes at all the different parts of the sky
    we wish to map.   
  - Set off the flashbulb and gather the incoming radar reflections.
  - Process the data through supercomputers.  Viola,  a map of all the large
    objects out to ????? km. 

Questions:
  - How small of objects could we detect at the Near-Earth belt? 
    (At the points closest and farthest from Earth).
  - How much of the sky could we map with one flash?
    (Assume great international cooperation, so we can use most of  
     the 9 DSN stations, the VLA, Parkes, the Japanese 64m, the two
     Russian 70m's, etc.  This will require 2 hours to set up the
     stations, plus 1-4 hours to gather in the data, depending on
     how far out we want to map.  This doesn't present any major
     scheduling problem).
  - Where is a good location to set off the flashbulb?
  - Could we get any information on mineral composition from these
    reflections?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                              *************************
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu          ***  Biosphere III    ***
*************************               ***  best space bbs   ***
**   Bush?  Dukakis?   **               *** in the Milky Way  ***
**   Ron Paul in '88   **               ***  (206) 523-7381   ***
*************************               *************************

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 88  20:51:15 EDT
From: nutto%UMASS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
      (Andy Steinberg)
Subject: Space Shuttle Phoenix

Wasn't there an Apollo flight that exploded into flame on the ground
and killed its three pilots? The commander of the next Apollo mission
wanted to call his spacecraft "Phoenix" but NASA wouldn't let him
because it would remind people of the disaster.

USnail: Andy Steinberg          BITNet: nutto@UMass
        214 Johnson                     nutto@Mars.UCC.UMass.EDU
        UMass                   Internet: nutto%UMass.BITNet@cunyvm.cuny.edu
        Amherst, MA 01003                 nutto%UMass.BITNet@mitvma.mit.edu
Phone: (413) 546-3225

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 13:17:51 GMT
From: att!cbnews!lvc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Soviet designers

In article <1802@eos.UUCP>, eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
> In article <1677@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
> >No, but there is a point that needs to be made.  It is much cheaper to
> >copy than to innovate, and the Soviets are well known for copying.
> > . . .
> >Copied a US nuclear submarine?
> 
> Several interesting questions could be asked Soviet Technology:
	. . .

All good questions, lots of different reasons they don't have stuff the
west has.  Somethings they can't make, ie the SR-71, others I'm sure they
choose not too.  By "they" I mean the Soviet military, their designers
probably have other ideas in mind.

> Using the sub as a example, as with aircraft, many technologies share
> similar features.  To what degree was it copied? Shape? I have a hard
> time believeing a copy down to say fuel pellets.  Even books like Jane's
> would take notice of such an exact copy...

Unfortunately, Suvorov (the former GRU spy I mentioned earlier), didn't
say to what degree the sub. was copied (how they got the plans was
interesting reading too).  The impression I had was that at a minimum the
structure was copied.  He did say that the Soviets made an identical copy
of the WW2 B-29 bomber.

If you can stomach the brutality of what Suvorov describes, I highly
recommend his 4 books.

But I digress from sci.space too much.

-- 
Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, cbnews!lvc lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 05:28:49 GMT
From: sun.soe.clarkson.edu!nelson@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu  (Russ Nelson)
Subject: _Infinite_in_all_Directions_ by Freeman Dyson

Another eclectic book by Freeman Dyson.  Concerns the diversity of life in
this universe.  Well worth reading.  And besides, he has cute daughters :-).
One of whom is Esther Dyson of RELease 1.0 fame.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
To surrender is to remain in the hands of barbarians for the rest of my life.
To fight is to leave my bones exposed in the desert waste.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 16:59:32 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA

In article <339@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>So why not just put a decent teleoperated robot up there? ...

Because there is no such thing available today and no prospect of
having one soon.

>... it would be cheaper...

Going to Mars by astral projection is cheaper than going by spacecraft,
too.  The problem is, you can't.

People have looked at what percentage of the work planned for the space
station could be done by automation or teleoperation technology that is
likely to be available soon.  It's not high.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 03:25:31 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!craig@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Craig Deforest)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article 4841, rwhite*nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) writes:

>in article <4402@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) says:
>> Puzzle for the day:  Explain why it is impossible to convert mass into
>> energy.

>Would it be. . . (perhaps?)
>that matter is already energy, and one cannot "convert" something
>	into itself.  (at least not in english ;-)
>
>Rob.

Or, neglecting philosophical conundra, maybe it's something insignificant like
conservation of baryon number?	(Most mass around _me_ is tied up in baryons,
how about _you_? 8-) )

--Craig DeForest
("What? No .signature?")

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 17:13:26 GMT
From: dswinney@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (David V. Swinney)
Subject: Thermo (was Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

Laws of Thermo as paraphrased by some professor I used to know.

1 You can't win, you can only break even.

2 You can only break even at absolute zero.

3 You can't get to absolute zero.

dvs

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 01:44:05 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: soviets successfully repair x-ray telescope

In article <3f45f131.ae47@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>  It's true that some robot missions may fail for want of a 
>  human repairman but so what?   Robot missions are so much 
>  cheaper than manned ones that we can afford to have LOTS of
>  them fail before the cost even COMES CLOSE to a manned mission.
>  This becomes especially true once you get away from earth orbit.

How about the Hubble Space Telescope? It cost billions, and is designed
to have its operating lifetime extended by several shuttle resupply/repair
missions. Let's see, the cost a few days out of 3 shuttle missions is
a LOT LOT less than several billion dollars, right?

The point is: IN EARTH ORBIT, human repair can pay off. The shuttle isn't
totally useless... it is not the best at launching communication sats
which don't need humans to be deployed, but it does put men up, who can
do cost effective things if you think ahead. We need both the shuttle
and an unmanned launch capability for a balanced program.

-- greg

----------
Greg Lindahl                                     internet:  gl8f@virginia.edu
University of Virginia Department of Astronomy     bitnet:  gl8f@virginia.bitnet
     "Doesn't Quayle know that the FBI handles domestic assassinations?"

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 14:53:04 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA issues draft guidelines on Station commercial infrastructure (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   October 25, 1988

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

RELEASE:  88-144

NASA ISSUES DRAFT GUIDELINES ON STATION COMMERCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

     NASA has published a draft of its revised policy guidelines 
for proposals from commercial entities to provide infrastructure 
for the Freedom space station.  The guidelines, published in 
Commerce Business Daily, were revised in response to the 
President's Commercial Space Initiatives, issued in February, 
which directed NASA to "clarify and strengthen the Federal 
commitment to private sector investment in this program." 

     The guidelines clearly state that NASA is committed to 
encouraging private sector investment and involvement in the 
development and operation of the Freedom station.  These revised 
guidelines, as well as a draft set of procedures and criteria 
which NASA will use to evaluate proposals from industry for 
participating in the Freedom program, are being issued for 
comment to U.S. industry which has until Dec. 31, 1988 to 
respond.  The revised policy guidelines follow:

	DRAFT POLICY GUIDELINES FOR SPACE STATION FREEDOM COMMERCIAL 
	INFRASTRUCTURE 

     These guidelines implement the President's National Space 
Policy and Commercial Space Initiatives announced on Feb. 11, 
1988.  They are intended to provide a framework to encourage U.S. 
commercial investment and involvement in the development and 
operation of Space Station Freedom.  Agreements between NASA and 
U.S. companies shall be for specific space station-related 
infrastructure and services.  The criteria and procedures, which 
will be used by NASA to assess proposals for such agreements, are 
published separately.

     1.  NASA encourages commercial participation by U.S. 
companies in Space Station Freedom development and operations.

     2.  NASA seeks proposals for commercial development and 
operation of space station-related infrastructure and services 
with the goal of achieving specific agreements where 
responsibilities and interfaces are clearly defined between NASA 
and U.S. companies.

     3.  NASA is prepared to enter into cooperative agreements 
with U.S. companies which are mutually beneficial and will assess 
all proposals in accordance with established law, criteria and 
procedures.  Agreements involving direct expenditure of 
appropriated funds must be in accordance with the Federal 
Acquisition Regulations.  NASA will provide any necessary NASA-
unique technical or other assistance to U.S. companies on a 
direct cost reimbursable basis.

     4.  NASA safety standards will be applied.  Standards such 
as reliability and quality assurance will be applied based on 
criticality to Space Station Freedom functions.

     5.  Agreements for commercial space station-related 
infrastructure and services must be consistent with agreements 
between NASA and its Space Station Freedom partners.

     6.  The customer base for commercially-provided Space 
Station Freedom systems and services consists of NASA and all 
other Space Station Freedom users and participants.

     7.  NASA will enter into arrangements, when in the national 
interest, to become a customer for commercially provided 
services, to provide deferred payment opportunities and/or to 
make available NASA resources in return for services.

     8.  NASA is willing , where there is a quid pro quo, to 
enter into agreements with U.S. companies for technical 
assistance, including access to NASA data and facilities.

     9.  NASA will protect proprietary rights and will ask for 
privately held data only when necessary to carry out its 
responsibilities.

     10.  U.S. companies will retain responsibility for 
financing, sustaining engineering, operational support and spare 
parts for the space station-related infrastructure to which they 
retain title.  NASA invites all interested parties to comment on 
these draft guidelines.

     Comments or questions on the draft guidelines should be sent 
to the attention of Kevin Barquinero, Strategic Plans and 
Programs Division, Mail Code ST, Washington, D.C. 20546.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 21:25:52 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)

In article <1988Oct22.130117.18767@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>When boosting out of LEO with chemical rockets, it is
>important to complete the burn while still near the earth.  This is
>because firing a rocket deep in a gravity well is energetically more
>efficient (you are not lifting reaction mass out of the well).  Looked
>at another way, you are moving faster in low orbit, so the thrust is
>applied over a longer distance, and more work (force x distance) is
>done on the spacecraft.  You could get the same effect with low thrust
>engines by using repeated perigee burns to raise the craft into a
>highly eccentric orbit, but that would be time consuming, and the
>radiation belts are not nice places to visit repeatedly.

Another way to look at it is to consider the energy of the orbit.  By the
time you achieve escape velocity, the long-slow-thrust method has you in
a parabolic orbit with high perigee (hundreds of thousands of miles), while 
the quick-high-thrust method has you in a parabolic orbit with low perigee.
It takes energy to raise the perigee, but the high perigee is useless.

The probes to the outer planets went up on direct-ascent trajectories,
not wasting energy on raising perigee above the atmosphere (or even
out of the ground) for a parking orbit.
-- 

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 16:57:22 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space

In article <7157@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>The money and hardware would have been much more usefully employed in
>>sending up a fourth Skylab crew.
>
>Yes, and the money for a fourth Skylab crew would have been more
>usefully employed on a seventh Moon landing; and so on...

There wasn't enough of it for another lunar mission.  The point here is
that the hardware used for Apollo-Soyuz was *exactly* what would have
been used for another Skylab mission, and the science community in fact
had requested that it be used for exactly that.  (The solar astronomers,
in particular, wanted some more work out of Skylab's solar telescope.)
The money I'm not sure about, but it was the right order of magnitude.

>... The more I review it the more I begin
>to think ASTP was a *really important* project...

I'm still somewhat baffled by your concluding this in the near-complete
absence of any reasons for it.  Please cite three ways in which the
Apollo-Soyuz mission benefitted the space program or the world.  Do not
cite things that would have happened anyway (improvement of US-Soviet
relations, doing some miscellaneous experiments in space).

And an amusing sidelight on A-S...  If you look at Soviet paintings and
such of the docking, they're always shown from the Soyuz end, never from
the side or the Apollo end.  Why?  Because the perspective makes the two
spacecraft look similar in size that way.  A side view makes it obvious
that the Apollo was a *lot* bigger than the Soyuz.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #76
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Nov 88 07:12:54 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00767>; Thu, 3 Nov 88 05:33:27 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  3 Nov 88 05:33:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.EXQ3Key00jZdQ2xk50@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AXQ1bVy00jZd01ZkMv>;
          Thu,  3 Nov 88 03:33:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.QXQ1R=y00UkZAF8U5w>;
          Thu,  3 Nov 88 03:22:37 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Nov  3 88 03:17:43 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #77

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:
			      MFHBTOTDOT
			Re: Restarting Apollo
		   Re: Partial List of Signatories
		      Re: Cretaceous Extinctions
  NASA Commercial Center awards launch services contract (Forwarded)
	Re: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA
	     Re: Cretaceous Extinctons, dinosaur sunburn
  New technology program initiated for spacecraft design (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 13:44:25 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: MFHBTOTDOT

My Favorite Half Baked Theory Of The Development Of Technology.

Several years ago I read an article that presented a theory of
business cycles. The claim is that there is a 60 year cycle that
"governs" the world economy. The recent low points of the cycle have
been in the 1870s and the 1930s. The 1990s are expected to be another
low point in the cycle. 

The claim was made that new technologies, especially transportation
technologies, are developed on the up slope of one cycle, are refined
on the down slope of the cycle, become practical during the up slope
of the next cycle, and really take off during the up slope of cycle
after that.

For example, aircraft were developed on the up slope from the 1870s to
the 1900s, refined during period before 1930, and really became
important in the period from the 1930s to the 1960s. If the theory is
correct the period from the 1990s to the 2020s should be amazing for
aircraft.

I think that the railroads and automobiles followed the same pattern,
just different cycles. 

So what does this have to do with space travel? Rocket propulsion
technology, all space travel related technologies, were developed
during the 1930 to 1960 period. Right now we are in a refinement
period. If the theory is correct the 1990 to 2020 period should be for
spacecraft what the 1930 to 1960 period was for aircraft.

No real change takes less than 2 generations to accomplish. You can
build a steel ariship, if you just make it big enough. You can build
cheap space ships too. But most people can't imagine anything they
didn't see when they were growing up.

			Bob P.


-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
An average hammer is better for driving nails than a superior wrench.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 03:21:53 GMT
From: larson@unix.sri.com  (Alan Larson)
Subject: Re: Restarting Apollo

In article <1773@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:

>to rebuilt Ranger as well.  Well Ranger's imaging system used vidicons.
>You will have to regear production of those.  They don't make that type any
>more.  Goes for many parts and subprograms.  Why bring this up?  Because
>lots of satellite designers like to use tried and true parts.  Restart
>vidicon production (as opposed to using existing CCDs) and I know a few
>small Labs who would beat a path to your door (not many, just a few).

I don't know why you keep mentioning this.

If you need one, I saw a whole pile of them at a recent Foothill flea
market (along with a couple of image orthicons).  If you just need a
tube, a plumbicon is easy to retrofit - and it 'sees in the dark'
compared to the vidicon.  You could even get a saticon or newvicon.
All of these are made.  I even have a few I would trade for a good
CCD camera!


Now, back to the subject...

It is unlikely that anyone who mentions restarting Apollo is planning
to re-run the initial steps.*  I am reasonably certain that they are
talking about continuing from where we left off.  Perhaps we can even
use some of the 'recently' developed hardware...  Carry up some of the
stuff in the shuttle - no need to take the return to earth hardware
to the moon and back, just meet up with a shuttle in orbit for return.

There are other ways to re-start (continue) lunar exploration.

	Alan


----------
* We no more need to repeat Ranger than to repeat Mercury and Gemini.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1988 15:14-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Partial List of Signatories

I agree with Bill Thacker's attitude on the Union of Confused
Scientists, but I wouldn't let that stop me from signing if I actually
believed a government Mars program would be worthwhile. I would be
willing to sign the lunar base petition if I ever see one.

After the lunar base is well under way, I'd THEN be happy to sign the
Mars Declaration.

I'm not against going to Mars. I also know that many of the people who
are seriously involved in things like the Mars Underground agree that
the lunar base is the first step in an attempt to open the solar
system for habitation.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 88 14:07:28 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Cretaceous Extinctions
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

clyde!watmath!watdcsu!smann@bellcore.com  (Shannon Mann - I.S.er) writes:

>What about intense solar flares?  Maybe the dinosaurs (which I believe were
>hairless) died of massive doses of Vitamin C?  

Not unless it caused the fruit to ripen suddenly and they drowned in
orange juice.  It's vitamin D that's synthesized by sunlight.  UV is
such a primary source of vitamin D that women wearing `purdah' (sp?)
in Middle Eastern countries suffer deficiencies of D despite the
intense sunlight because they cover so much of their bodies.

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 14:57:48 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Commercial Center awards launch services contract (Forwarded)

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   October 26, 1988


RELEASE:  88-145

NASA COMMERCIAL CENTER AWARDS LAUNCH SERVICES CONTRACT

     NASA and the Consortium for Materials Development in Space 
(CMDS) today awarded a $1 million commercial launch services 
contract to Space Services Inc., Houston.  CMDS is a NASA-
sponsored Center for Commercial Development of Space (CCDS) at 
the University of Alabama-Huntsville.

     Under the contract, funded through a NASA grant to the 
commercial development center, Space Services will launch a 
materials science experiment payload aboard their Starfire rocket 
from White Sands Missile Range, N.M., in March 1989.

     The experiment package will include six primary microgravity 
investigations.  About 8 minutes of "weightlessness" will be 
achieved during the suborbital rocket flight.

     The NASA grant, funding the purchase of commercial launch 
services to carry out the research flight, is representative of 
federal efforts to encourage and stimulate the growth of a U.S. 
commercial launch industry.

     NASA support, along with financial contributions by 
industrial firms interested in the commercial potential of space, 
also funds the research and development activities of the CMDS.

     The University of Alabama-Huntsville center, one of 16 NASA 
CCDS centers, is focusing on commercially-promising areas of 
research in the field of using the unique qualities of space for 
materials processing.

     Space Services Inc. was awarded the launch services contract 
following a competition advertised and managed by CMDS.  The 
flight will be the first commercial launch by the firm.  NASA in 
1987 signed an agreement with Space Services Inc. providing the 
firm with access to the agency's Wallops Island launch facilities 
on a cost reimbursible basis.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 17:17:41 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Soviets successfully repair X-ray telescope in EVA

In article <880@accelerator>, rob@phao.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
> In article <339@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> >So why not just put a decent teleoperated robot up there?
> 
> And then the robot failed...

So pack a few spares...

> Remember, we have never used a robot of
> that complexity on Earth, let alone in space; the initial reliability
> figures won't be very good.

Here I was thinking that this was not the newsgroup for Doubting
Thomases. :-)

> Long(er) term you do have an argument though.

I also received e-mail on the suggestion (that my mailer would not reply to),
pointing out problems with propagation delays, and maintaining a data link
of sufficient bandwidth as the satellite orbits the earth. I can't help
but suspect, though, that the technical barriers are less important than
the psychological barriers. Each of us grew up in a society that still has
very little grasp of the concept of action-at-a-distance. We all have the
idea that if you want to do something, then you go there and do it. Overcoming
this bias is very hard. Many companies have very Byzantine attitudes toward
letting their employees telecommute a few days per week, for example. A
similar thing happened to the Israeli Air Force in connection with their
reconnaissance drones. Despite the success of the technology, the military
authorities were highly skeptical, and the pilots (of course) vigorously
opposed the drones. The drone advocates worked for years in obscurity to
win acceptance. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the drones we
enormously successful, able to penetrate hostile airspace with impunity
while the manned reconnaissance flights were considered too dangerous.
Now the Israeli experience has caught the eye of other military establishments.

If we really wanted to develop teleoperated robots, we could. No new technology
is necessary, only the will to apply it. I know, sitting in a lab with 
datagoggles and datagloves doesn't sound too adventurous. But we are
better off getting _something_ up there, rather than committing to 
incredibly costly manned ventures that can't survive more than one
Administration.

Dan Mocsny
``I Aim for the Sky.'' -- Wernher von Braun
``But sometimes I hit London.'' -- Tom Lehrer

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1988 14:53-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Cretaceous Extinctons, dinosaur sunburn

It seems probable that dinosaurs were furred or feathered. A recently
discovered skeleton of T Rex apparently shows signs of feathers. There
are also signs of ridges on the teeth of the Pittsburgh (Carnegie
Museum) T Rex specimen that appear to have been used for grooming.
Times are a'changin' in paleontology. The scientist who did the work
stayed with a friend of mine while he was in town.

Keep in mind that dinosaurs WERE NOT lizards and they aren't really
extinct.  Birds are living reprentatives of the dinosaur clan
(according to some researchers who are building a stronger and
stronger scientific case for the new paradiegm.)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 14:58:45 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: New technology program initiated for spacecraft design (Forwarded)

Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   October 26, 1988

Marny S. Skora
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.


RELEASE:  88-146

NEW TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM INITIATED FOR SPACECRAFT DESIGN


     A team of experts from government, industry and academia has 
been assembled to tackle a dilemma that traditionally has plagued 
the engineering disciplines of controls and structures.  The 
dilemma -- finding the proper tradeoff between a spacecraft's 
control requirements and its weight, size and structural 
flexibility -- is a perennial aerospace problem.  NASA believes 
the answer can be found in controls-structures interaction (CSI) 
technology, which offers potential for greatly improved 
spacecraft designs of the future.  

     The CSI program will be directed from NASA Headquarters, 
Washington, D.C. and combines the talents and resources of the 
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.; the Marshall Space Flight 
Center, Huntsville, Ala.; and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 
Pasadena, Calif.  Specialists in structures and controls will 
work side by side to advance an interdisciplinary technology for 
spacecraft of the year 2000 and beyond.

     In conjunction with the establishment of the CSI initiative, 
NASA has selected eight companies and universities for 
negotiations leading to award of contracts and/or grants for the 
first phase of the CSI guest investigator program.  This phase 
one program is a 2-year effort at a total funding level of $2 
million.

     Selected from a field of 62 submittals were proposals 
from:  

    * Boeing Aerospace Company, Seattle, Wash.; Dr. J. Michael 
Chapman, principal investigator (PI)

     * DEI-Tech, Inc., Newport News, Va.; Wilmer H. Reed III, PI 

     * Harris Aerospace Systems Division, Melbourne, Fla.; Dr. 
David C. Hyland, PI

     * California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif.; Dr. 
John C. Doyle, PI

     * Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.; 
Dr. Wallace E. Vander Velda, PI

     * Purdue University, W. Lafayette, Ind.; Dr. Robert E. 
Skelton, PI

     * University of Cincinnati, Ohio; Dr. Randall Allemang, PI

     * University of Texas, Austin,; Dr. Bong Wie, PI 

     Guest investigator programs provide a mechanism for strong 
interaction of ideas and techniques between university, industry 
and government researchers, often resulting in significant 
technology advances.  The immediate focus for the CSI guest 
investigator program is on ground-based testbed activities with 
future in-space flight experiment opportunities to be defined in 
subsequent phases.  The next announcement of opportunity for the 
CSI guest investigator program is planned for Spring 1989.

     The CSI initiative is an outgrowth of the control of 
flexible structures element of NASA's Civil Space Technology 
Initiative program.  The prime objective of the CSI program is to 
develop and validate the technology needed to design, verify and 
operate spacecraft in which the structure and the control system 
complement each other to meet the requirements of 21st century 
space missions.  Emphasis is on increased analysis and ground 
testing, with a conservative flight experiment schedule to verify 
the anaylsis and ground test data.

    CSI-focused mission categories include large optical systems, 
large space antennas and special missions, such as an 
evolutionary space station and remote manipulator systems.  These 
types of missions need very large, distributed-mass components, 
greater surface and pointing precision, increased use of moving 
components, as well as increased use of multi-mission platforms 
with multiple control systems on board.

     Methods will be developed which allow the controls and 
structures analysis and design functions to use unified 
mathematical models.  Verification of methods in hardware 
applications and tests is emphasized and will require development 
of hardware concepts and test methods for implementation.

     Because of the close interrelationships among the many 
elements -- structure, control hardware and software, analysis 
and design approach -- a highly interdisciplinary activity is 
planned.  Structures, dynamics, control, computer and electronics 
engineers are co-located and working together on a daily basis.

     Daniel R. Mulville of the Materials and Structures Division, 
Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, NASA Headquarters, is 
the overall CSI program manager.  Langley Research Center has the 
lead role for technical program coordination.  Jerry R. Newsom, 
formerly assigned as technical assistant to NASA Administrator 
James C. Fletcher, has returned to Langley to manage the CSI 
office.  Henry B. Waites leads the effort at Marshall Space 
Flight Center, which is responsible for in-space flight 
experiments.  William E. Layman heads the CSI program at the Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory, where the focus is on microprecision 
technology.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #77
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Nov 88 08:01:20 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00826>; Thu, 3 Nov 88 07:08:33 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  3 Nov 88 07:08:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.cXQ4jmy00UkT03=05T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QXQ3Gqy00UkT81Bk4n>;
          Thu,  3 Nov 88 05:28:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.oXQ3:dy00UkZIFG04v>;
          Thu,  3 Nov 88 05:19:24 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, Nov  3 88 05:17:47 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #78

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 78

Today's Topics:
		Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
	       Magellan Status for 10/26/88 (Forwarded)
		    Wisacre Laws of Thermodynamics
		   Transporting the Soviet Shuttle
			    Lasing the Sun
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
			      Off Earth
			   Re: Signatories
			   Re: Real Heroes
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		       re new kid on the block
			    Re: MFHBTOTDOT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 20:09:38 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@hplabs.hp.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space

In article <7024@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

>I do know that if we had any sense we'd try the same thing with a
>Shuttle-Soyuz adapter on a new joint mission soon.  We have had our big
>launch accident for the decade but Ironman One still lurks out there
>waiting to happen some day... it's irresponsible not to have options.

Well, if I were Space Czar, about my first priority would be to get, if I
could, all the specs for the docking mechanism used on soviet spaceraft and
announce that we would support it as an international standard.  Then we
could go off and design one that was better but downward compatible.  In
exchange for that support I would ask for the automated docking technology
and implement that ASAP too, with the same approach: better but downward
compatible.

This would be the first step in setting common-carrier standards for the
shipping environment - power, pressure, acceleration, space, connection,
center-of-gravity, and so on, so that clients are not forced to virtually
hand-make a package to suit a specific carrier's requirements.

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that compatibility problems in mating
cargo packages to platforms has already fouled up a number of flights -
certaintly packages built for the Shuttle cannot be easily diverted to 
expendable launchers.  If commercial traffic is ever going to become 
routine this kind of compatibility is essential, especially so clients can 
avoid being locked into shipping on a carrier that can't fly for purely
political reasons. 

Considering the turf wars surrounding most government projects, the likelyhood
of adopting Soviet technology seems to be about 0 to none - NIH wins this 
battle pretty regularly.  So much the worse for us all. 

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 18:05:05 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 10/26/88 (Forwarded)


          October 26, 1988

               The Magellan Electrical Mishap Investigation Board met in
          their respective groups this morning.  This afternoon the full
          board is convened to review and discuss the drafts of the
          conclusions reached by the two subcommittees.  A first review of
          the drafts was accomplished during the board's afternoon session
          yesterday, which lasted until early evening.

               The subcommittes continue to analyze and discuss test
          results from the KSC Malfunction Analysis Laboratory, and to
          assess the procedures which were in use at the time of the
          mishap.  The findings and recommendations are now under
          development by the full board.

          George Diller
          NASA-KSC

          Approved:  Jon Busse, Chairman
                     Magellan Electrical Mishap Investigation Board.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 20:02:04 GMT
From: caip.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Wisacre Laws of Thermodynamics

The definitive Laws according to some SF writer, possibly Mack
Reynolds:

1: You Can't Win.
2: You Can't even Break Even.
3: You Can't Get Out of the Game.

-j

------------------------------

Subject: Transporting the Soviet Shuttle
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 88 14:07:19 -0400
From: "F.Baube" <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>


Glenn Chapman:
> [Buran] weighs 240 Tonnes unfueled.  It is assembled horizontally
> (with the shuttle on the top) sitting on a large railroad type
> flatcar (I could not see for certain whether there were rails
> beneath it, and how many, but all their other launchers use that
> system).  It is rolled out to the pad, then erected and fueled.

Egads, and we're still using river barges and 3.5-MPH crawlers !
Now there is a TRAIN GAP !

#include <disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 13:17:05 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu
Subject: Lasing the Sun

From: dietz


A recent article (which included a totally undeserved testimonial
about my contribution to the space program!) mentioned an article I
sent the this newsgroup on ionospheric lasers.  The idea (not due to
me) is to exploit possible population inversions in the upper
atmosphere to generate power.

That article made me think of a modification.  Let's look for
population inversions in the *solar* atmosphere, say the chromosphere
or corona.  Extract energy by using a pulsed beam of the right
wavelength, grazing the solar surface.  One could sweep out quite
large volumes using a source and collector in solar orbits.  Even if
the efficiency is low, there is so much energy available that quite
powerful pulses might be produced.

Another idea is to put the source and collector at great distances from
the sun and use gravitational lensing to focus the light.  This way,
an annular beam could extract a energy from a ring around the sun.
If the input source is properly positioned, the amplified beam can
be focused at infinity.  Perhaps this would be useful in CETI.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 88 04:44:51 GMT
From: grv101%psuvm.BITNET@jade.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft


In article <2598@csccat.UUCP>, loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) says:
>      The way to maximize momentum while minimizing the mass of the fuel
>      that must be carried is to get the exhaust to really high velocity.
>      The fusion reaction is an inefficient pig compared to elementary
>      particles accelerated to nearly 'c' in a suitable linear accelerator.
>      So a much better "star drive" would be a high current tandem
>      accelerator which strips the electrons off of hydrogen atoms
>      and shoots the protons and electrons out of two (or more)
>      drives at v->c. Not as flashy as fusion maybe, but less likely
>      to melt the nozzle.
>
>
What about using a laser to propel photons. I remember a problem from my first
year of physics in which a laser was mounted to the back of a spaceship,  in a
relatively short period of time the craft had reached astounding velocities.
In reference to what was said above, the photons have very little mass (please
no flames i did not mean REST mass) and of course a high velocity. Now comes my
 question, why is this not done? Perhaps the loss of energy due to heat is too
great, or maybe the photons carry little momentum as compared to energy.
The formula for energy is of course (planck's constant)(frequency)=Energy.
and momentum is P=E/c. Yes, a laser drive would accelerate too slowly for
a manned vehicle however, with unmanned probes no one cares.

                                         Gregson R. Vaux

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 20:29:06 GMT
From: *!postman+@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Jon C. Slenk)
Subject: Off Earth

OK -

There have been discussions of getting off the Earth, and going somewhere.
The moon and Mars have both been mentioned, as well as (sometimes) satellites /
stations.

As far as I can see, the plans should be this:

1) construct a space station which is serviced by the Shuttle. It can be made
from
fuel tanks as well as generic stuff.

2) get to the moon

3) start a moon base

4) send moon stuff to the station with a superconducting electro magnet.

5) build ships

6) goto mars

7) ...

Any takers?

Jon Slenk / js9b CMU

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1988 15:23-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Signatories

I disagree. Whether I am for against the Mars Declaration, I found the
list highly informative and was glad to read through it.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 05:41:30 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Nanook@uunet.uu.net  (Mike Backdraft Robert)
Subject: Re: Real Heroes

There was (a long time ago) trading cards for the space program. I have a 
complete set that includes the Gimini and Apollow series. When the space
program went into hybernation, the cards were no longer produced.

Since they are in storage right now (air-conditioned, stored in inert-
nitrogen bags... These are worth something folks!) I can't verify who
published them. I _do_ believe that it was a program that was run by Life
magazine.

If you send me some E-mail on the subject (I don't scan portal and may miss
a reply), I'll make it a point to check the cards for you...

The collection was realy nice and included basic statistics on each astronaut
as well as mission profiles. There was alot of other trivial information
on cards that were just "space oriented".

I hope that they bring back the concept (anyone frim Time-Life.com out there 
[if it exists] ? :). I would enjoy collecting cards based on the shuttle 
program.

Hope this helps!
Nanook of the South
hoptoad!ankh!muadib!nanook

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 17:03:08 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <1069@igloo.UUCP> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
}The best stardrive would probably be a Bussard Ramjet (scoop up interstellar
}hydrogen for fuel) if it could be made to work.  The best use for the spent
}fuel is again reaction mass for this case, as well.


Nah.  See "Use of Vacuum Energies for Interstellar Space Flight", Journal of
the British Interplanetary Society, September 1986, vol 39 #9.

Use nothing for fuel: there is plenty of nothing!


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 20:28:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: re new kid on the block


 The new kid (ha-ha- fresh meat!)  Nick Szabo posts...

>2) We do *not* currently have the technology to settle 
>space within any reasonable engineering, economic or
>political constraints.  We can develop this technology 
>within the next 30 years, but much effort is needed.
>
>3) Turn these 3 constraints into action items.  How can 
>each be tackled?
>
>  engineering:  we must work on basic science that will 
>  [ ... ]

>  economic: look to history. what economic incentives have 
>  [ ... ]

 Hey, what happened to political??  That was your third constraint
 wasn't it?   Getting any kind of a political consensus about 
 space exploration has been the big problem in this country.
 You're never going to tackle the engineering and economic ones
 without some kind of a political approach.  Many people are
 really not that interested in space and those that are tend to 
 favor human-interest 'show-biz' kinds of projects rather 
 than more mundane, but perhaps scientifically useful ones. 
 
 The next administration will face serious economic problems,
 including a likely recession starting in Q1 and a massive 
 budget deficit.  With pressing domestic problems including 
 drugs, environmental problems, banking system failures, the
 care of ~400,000 AIDS patients by 1992, and 3 million homeless 
 people ( a figure bound to rise in a recession) I think that
 keeping people focussed on long-range goals is going to be
 real hard.  Then again, you never know about Jane Q Public.
 All this week people have been going ga-ga over a trio of
 misguided whales in Alaska.  As of this writing, Greenpeace
 the oil companies, and the US and Soviet governments are
 threatening to have a group hug over it.  Who knows how 
 many homeless people have died on the street while this was
 going on?   And more to the point, who cares?  They're 
 not cute.   Maybe we should launch some harp seals into
 space along with some cameras so we can broadcast their
 plight every evening on the news.    What's your plan?  
           
                                         --Peter

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 20:34:42 GMT
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: MFHBTOTDOT

In article <1023@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:

>My Favorite Half Baked Theory Of The Development Of Technology.
>
>Several years ago I read an article that presented a theory of
>business cycles. The claim is that there is a 60 year cycle that
>"governs" the world economy. The recent low points of the cycle have
>been in the 1870s and the 1930s. The 1990s are expected to be another
>low point in the cycle. 

Credit where it's due: the author of this theory was the Russian
economist Kondratieff.  Exiled to Siberia by Stalin for voicing
the opinion that the 1929 Crash was not the final end of Capitalism
but merely one stage in a cyclic process.  Dismissed as a crank by
post-war Keynesians for pointing out that every upswing generates
false prophets who claim that this time the cycle has been broken.

Funny, though; some people actually began to take him more seriously,
on or about 20 October 1987.

However, I'm not sure the analogy between rockets and aeroplanes is
a good one.  I'd make a case that the true analogy is between rockets
and airships.

The airship was an attempt to apply marine engineering to flight. Most
directly, of course, in using the principle of buoyant lift.  But the
whole endeavour was to build ocean liners of the air.  In the end,
a different technology, based on different economic principles, won.

The rocket is an attempt to apply aeroplane technology to space flight.
Active lift; self-contained systems; complex propulsive and guidance
mechanisms; high speeds and stresses.  It has had some successes.  The
flight to the Moon was as magnificent - and as irrelevant - as the
circumnavigation of the world by the Graf Zeppelin.  But is it the
right way?

No, this is not my semi-annual pitch for star drives.  Just a couple of
suggestions

(a) Nearly all the hard work in designing an airship arose from one
    basic assumption: like a ship, the thing must float.  Similarly,
    nearly all the hard work in designing a rocket arises from one
    assumption: like an aeroplane, the thing must carry its own fuel.
    I'd like to see a really critical investigation of that assumption.

(b) The aeroplane is basically a non-stop end-to-end transportation
    system.  It has to be, because of the high costs of embarkation
    and disembarkation.  Likewise, we design rockets to be end-to-end
    systems: the astronaut sits in the same chair from takeoff to
    landing, just like the airline passenger.  But a rocket going
    anywhere interesting must move through several radically different
    physical environments: atmosphere/stratosphere/vacuum; gravity-well/
    free fall; radiation-poor/radiation-intensive.  Is it sensible to
    build one kind of vehicle for all those places?

And, to throw in an opinion or two:  I believe any viable system of
space transportation must at least

(a) get payload out of and into gravity wells by some means that does
    not involve carrying the motive power along with the payload.

(b) use very different designs and technologies for "fast" (surface to
    orbit) and "slow" (transfer orbit) stages of the journey.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #78
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Nov 88 02:33:55 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03365>; Fri, 4 Nov 88 01:35:46 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  4 Nov 88 01:35:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.kXQIw3y00Vs14B604f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gXQIFmy00UkTQ1AVA5>;
          Fri,  4 Nov 88 00:47:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.8XQHx4y00UkZ8H1k5d>;
          Fri,  4 Nov 88 00:25:26 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Nov  4 88 00:19:33 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #79

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 79

Today's Topics:
			    Return volley
	     soviets successfully repair x-ray telescope
   Re:  Value (if any) of ANY space exploration (was Moon vs. Mars)
      What good is the space program (was: "Re: Moon vs. Mars")
   Re: Thermo (was Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
			  Re: Moon vs. Mars
		Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
			   Launch Readiness
		U.S. spy satellite in the Philippines?
		species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 02:07:26 GMT
From: uw-larry!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Return volley


 Jim@nih-csl.UUCP (Mr. Sullivan)
 <805@nih-csl.UUCP>  flames: 
 
>  Fear and war will follow
> man where ever he goes, unless you want to go alone?  So much
> for survival of your species. 
  Fear is an integral part of animal and human survival.  Humans have 
survived with war for all of recorded history.  The difference is that
now a few twits have the ability to destroy all the rest of us.  Most
people *can* get along without threatening mass destruction on each other--
look at Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.  We just need the chances
(note the plural) to try.

> It is unlikely that ANY planet in this system will
> sustain human life without continual resupply
> except maybe mars.
  The moon systems of the gas giant planets have all the elements needed to
sustain life.  So do most asteroids.  And 'resupply', in the form of trade
from all parts of the solar system, is just plain common sense.  What is
missing is the technology to translate these minerals into life support, and
I propsosed we try to develop this technology.  I didn't say it'd be easy.

> you should stop reading science fiction and get down to some of
> that science education which you support  but do not use.
  Better science fiction than the fantasy of arguing against what you want
people to say instead of what they really said. 

> why arn't people running to live in 
> Antartica.  You have a supply of food (fish/penguins),
> breathable air, water, sunlight, solid surface, everything but
> ambient temperatures and yet only the toughest of researchers
> goes there. 
  Antartica is by law off limits to any military activity or resource
extraction.  There is no profit in living there.  Contrast to the equally
inhospitable Alaska North Slope where thousands of families live.
  Antartica has (relatively) little interesting geology, weather, chemistry,
minerology, etc. compared to even one place I can pick out of the
vast solar system: Io.  Plus several hundred other places in the solar
system I could list, plus thousands we haven't discovered yet.      
Antartica has no zero gravity and no vacuum.  It has no high pressure
like you find on Venus, Jupiter, etc.  It has no methane oceans like
Titan.  Need I go on?  The diversity and resource potential of        
Antartica is nil compared to the solar system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                              *************************
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu          ***  Biosphere III    ***
*************************               ***  best space bbs   ***
**   Bush?  Dukakis?   **               *** in the Milky Way  ***
**    Are you sure?    **               ***  (206) 523-7381   ***
*************************               *************************

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 19:30:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: soviets successfully repair x-ray telescope

>The point is: IN EARTH ORBIT, human repair can pay off. The shuttle isn't
>totally useless... it is not the best at launching communication sats
>which don't need humans to be deployed, but it does put men up, who can
>do cost effective things if you think ahead. We need both the shuttle
>and an unmanned launch capability for a balanced program.

  No argument here.

                           --Peter


  <note>  Collectors may wish to save a copy of this posting 
          since someday "the time Peter Nelson said 'no
          argument'" may be worth a small fortune.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 22:53:05 GMT
From: att!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re:  Value (if any) of ANY space exploration (was Moon vs. Mars)

In article <118@loci.UUCP>, clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:

> 	The entire problem with the space program, especially the manned
> 	space program, is that nobody has figured out what it's good
> 	for... 
>
> 	...I think that space belongs in the realm of science, with real
> 	scientific knowledge as the goal...

The entire problem with *space science in general* is that nobody has 
figured out what it's good for.  Ranger, Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter went
to the moon because a dead president had said we were going to send people,
so we ought to see what's there before we land.  Mariner, Viking and Voyager
were simply launched on momentum; nobody ever stopped to ask
if we *really* were going to go to these places; and if not, why did we care
to explore them in detail.  

>	... The Mariner and the Voyager
> 	are/were excellent projects with massive payoffs in terms of
> 	understanding the planets and the solar system. The HST is
> 	another project which has a purpose, and the Jupiter probe
> 	holds a lot of promise.

Promise of what?  More research grants?  More reams of numbers to be lovingly
reprocessed into papers that nobody reads?  Mariner and Voyager, while they
were a lot cheaper that Apollo or the Shuttle, still grabbed a great deal of
cash out of the public pocket.  The HST and Galileo promise to grab a lot more.
And for what?  Outside a space science community numbering perhaps a few
thousand, about all these projects produced were some pretty pictures.  Do you
really think that John Q. Taxpayer cares about the velocity of the
solar wind, or the chemical composition of Titan's atmosphere?  If you
explicitly reject the concept that people will visit the other planets, then
the audience for the information you gather in deep space is very small 
indeed, and the amount of taxpayer money spent on each one of them becomes
distressingly high (especially when you figure in the fact that many space
scientists are living on federal -- read taxpayers' -- research grant money).

> 	Anyway, back to the point. Build robot space craft. It will
> 	get information and knowledge much sooner and much less
> 	expensively than sending fragile, failure prone people...

But my point is, why build spacecraft at all?  Aside from pictures (which 
are at least briefly entertaining), planetary probes aren't going to return
any information that matters to more than a miniscule segment of the public.
We'd be better off plowing the money into paying off the national debt.  Private
concerns (domestic and foreign) can take care of comsats and earth-resources;
there's money to be made there.  But this planetary science stuff; well, 
the Palomar telescope was good enough for my daddy; it's good enough for me.

------

If you haven't figured out what I've been doing yet, I've been applying to
planetary science probes the same reasoning that the robot-probe people like
to apply to human space flight.  Namely, it's too expensive, it doesn't return
anything of real value, we'd be better off spending the money on something
else.  I sometimes think that the scientists and students on the net ought to
get off-campus (or off-facility) for a while and mingle with the taxpayers;
they might find that public support for *any* kind of space activity is more
related to its entertainment and inspirational value than to anything else.
We The People are willing to let the scientists send probes to Jupiter to 
uncover bits of information we don't care the least about as long as it 
maintains the comforting myth that we are Exploring.  Ditto the fiscally-
dubious Shuttle and Space Station.  The people are by and large buying into
something that makes them feel good about their country and their species;
and those who take that myth away--either by demanding Serious Science (the
no-people-just-robot-probe crowd)  or by trying to reduce th myth to
Mundane Business (the Moon-base-and-infrastructure
group)--are cutting their own throats.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 10:02:33 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!odlin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Iain Odlin)
Subject: What good is the space program (was: "Re: Moon vs. Mars")

In article <118@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:

> The entire problem with the space program, especially the manned space
> program, is that nobody has figured out what it's good for.

  Sir, how can you honestly post this line when, later in the same article,
you state:

> The Mariner and the Voyager are/were excellent projects with massive payoffs
> in terms of understanding the planets and the solar system. The HST is another
> project which has a purpose, and the Jupiter probe holds a lot of promise.

  I'm not going to call you hypocritical, but I do wish you'd be more honest
with yourself in future.

  And, as to a convincing argument for man in space:  Beside the facts that
men tend to more versatile, more adaptable and more intelligent than robots,
and that men are certainly no less fragile than robots (witness PHOBOS 1), I
find the best argument on a personal level is that I wish to go to space some
day.  Granted, I have perhaps the same chance as a snowball surviving an H-bomb
explosion, but with an active manned space-program I at least have *some* 
chance.  Besides, I can't speak Russian (1/2 :-) )...

-- 
---------------------------------Iain Odlin------------------------------------
                 Box 1014, Reed College, Portland OR, 97202
               odlin@reed -or- {backbone}!tektronix!reed!odlin
 "Mr Nesbit has learned the first lesson in not being seen:  Not to stand up!"

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 21:38:45 GMT
From: agate!soup.ssl.berkeley.edu!gckaplan@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (George Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Thermo (was Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <674@afit-ab.arpa> dswinney@blackbird.afit.af.mil (David V. Swinney) writes:
>Laws of Thermo as paraphrased by some professor I used to know.
>
>1 You can't win, you can only break even.
>
>2 You can only break even at absolute zero.
>
>3 You can't get to absolute zero.
>
>dvs

Or, to put it even more succinctly:

1.  You can't win.

2.  You always lose.

3.  You can't stop playing the game.

- George C. Kaplan		gkaplan@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 21:42:50 GMT
From: *!postman+@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Daniel K. Appelquist)
Subject: Re: Moon vs. Mars

The point of putting people, as opposed to robots, in space is two fold.  First
of all, there is a psychological factor.  If we, as a world, started to actively
colonize and explore our own solar system, it would relieve a great deal of
stress here at home.  Why?  Because we, as a race, no longer have any tangible
frontiers (pardon the trekism.)   So the first answer to your question is: yes
there is a "exploit and consensus and development" aspect to it.  And that is
because humans are humans, not logical thinking machines.  They need something
that can grab their immaginations and get them going.  The layman does not see
the need to know the origin of Neptune's Second Moon's irregular orbit.
Obviously, esoteric information like this IS of great interest to scientists and
also of great value as we, as a species build a picture of reality using the
language of science. This world is not run by a technocracy, however.  This
country is run by laymen and it's this country which provides the $$$ to run the
space program.

Anyway:  The second reason for physically going to space is a more long range
one.   If we can set up self-sufficient colonies on other worlds in our own
solar system, then that is the first step towards spreading the human race
throughout the galaxy.  This is a grand, almost mythic concept in its own rite,
but for those of you who need a logical reason for everything:  It means that
Humanity has less of a chance of dying out as a species.  Right now, living on
one planet as we do, the possibility of global devistation, either by natural or
man-made means, could wipe out the entire human race.  By spreading out, we can
insure the survival of the human race into the future.  If you can't identify
with that, then you're un-reachable.

  Dan A.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 20:17:57 GMT
From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space

In article <1988Oct25.165722.7221@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) 
writes:
>The point here is
>that the hardware used for Apollo-Soyuz was *exactly* what would have
>been used for another Skylab mission, and the science community in fact
>had requested that it be used for exactly that.

Hey, so what they should have done was docked the Apollo with the Soyuz,
used the Apollo to maneuver both to Skylab, had the Apollo undock from
the adapter and let the Soviets use it to dock with Skylab and use the
other docking port for Apollo.

Trouble is, seems the Soyuz had almost no maneuvering capability (given
what was done on the actual Apollo-Soyuz).

And don't forget, we can't let the Soviets in Skylab!  They'll see, well,
EVERYTHING!!

Would have been an interesting mission, though.


-- 
"I don't suppose you have any idea what the damn thing is, huh?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                      uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu        internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 28 Oct 88 00:09:20 EDT
From: Michael Nosal <ST502042%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Launch Readiness

In a recent posting, (Space Digest V9, #60) Tom Neff wrote:

>There was an ostensible technical purpose to ASTP-1 (Apollo Soyuz Test
>Project), namely testing a compatible hatch adapter for international
>manned space rescues.  NASA vets would know better than I how thin a
>fiction, if any, this ultimately was... clearly detente was being
>tested at least as much as the hardware.

This has lead me to wonder: If there was a *real* emergency, how fast *could*
we (or anyone else for that matter) get someone up in space? What is the all
out, no-holds-barred emergency launch time for an astronaut/cosmonaut?
(Never mind the fact that a true rescue operation would be impossible due to
incompatibilities in hatch design etc,) Back in an old issue of National Geo,
I remember seeing pictures of the Shuttle's "Rescue Ball" which astronauts were
 supposed to get into if they had to abandon ship. They had air/water for a
rather limited time. Are these still carried on shuttle flights? Could they
be used as a rescue tool? The point is, if current launch readiness is several
*days* at best, then there is no hope of rescue, is there?

Michael Nosal
ST502042@brownvm.brown.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 16:34:39 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: U.S. spy satellite in the Philippines?


         According to an October 26, 1988 article I saw from TASS, the
    official Soviet news agency, an alleged United States spy satellite, 
    launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on March 13, 1981, supposedly 
    had a failure in 1983 and crashed somewhere in the Philippines Islands.   
    Our government is now looking for it, as the satellite contained 
    instruments (not specified) which after five years of exposure to water 
    will start to present a radiation hazard.  TASS also says NASA gave a 
    warning to any civilians who discover the satellite to leave it alone 
    and report the find to them.

         There were no recorded satellite launchings by any nation on 
    March 13, 1981, and the one U.S. satellite launched near that time is 
    still in Earth orbit.  The list is as follows:

         DATE #    NAME        NASA  WHO  LAUNCH    DECAY

         1981 023A SOYUZ T-04  12334 USSR 12 MAR 81 MAY 81   
         1981 024A COSMOS 1258 12337 USSR 14 MAR 81 MAR 81   
         1981 025A IMEWS 11    12339  US  16 MAR 81 Still in orbit

         Is this a legitimate story?  Is TASS exaggerating or fabricating 
    the incident?  Something about this whole thing does not ring true to 
    me, but hopefully someone on the net may have all the details.
    
         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 13:29:32 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <kXNYPOy00Xo7MRJFU7@andrew.cmu.edu> da1n+@andrew.cmu.edu 
(Daniel K. Appelquist) writes (among other things):

>but for those of you who need a logical reason for everything:  It
>means that Humanity has less of a chance of dying out as a species.
>Right now, living on one planet as we do, the possibility of global
>devistation, either by natural or man-made means, could wipe out the
>entire human race.  By spreading out, we can insure the survival of the
>human race into the future.  If you can't identify with that, then
>you're un-reachable.

I've often seen attempts at justifying the manned space program via
this "survival of the species" argument.  I hope people making this
argument realize that, in my opion, the same result can be obtained,
and at far less cost, by entombing people in underground cities in
remote regions of the Earth.  Unglamorous, but effective.

In my view, this justification is similar to the "technological
spinoff" one: it's valid, but only as a side effect.  And there are
more effective ways of achieving the side effects.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #79
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Nov 88 07:27:46 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01025>; Fri, 4 Nov 88 05:05:33 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  4 Nov 88 05:05:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.EXQM2Zy00jZd03y04s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXQKpsy00UkT81AVJ0>;
          Fri,  4 Nov 88 03:42:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.IXQKYUy00UkZQHFE59>;
          Fri,  4 Nov 88 03:24:02 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Nov  4 88 03:18:14 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #80

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:
     Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)
		   Re: All this haggling about Mars
		 Re: where should all the people go?
			       Articles
	      The U.S. spy satellite in the Philippines.
			    Re: Off Earth
		  Another (insane?) berserker theory
		Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 17:36:59 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Station as "Launch Pier" (was Re: The Mars Declaration)

In article <7120@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>Now take a pencil and draw me a picture of the trajectory of this beast
>as you "insert" from LEO at 0.01g thrust.  Pretty picture, huh?  We
>visit some real neat places; spend quite some time in them too...

If you're thinking of the Van Allen belts, as I assume you are, the
answer to that one is trivial:  don't man the ship until it's clear
of the belts.  The crew is a negligibly small fraction of the total mass;
having them catch up to the ship using a less efficient (but quicker)
propulsion system is not a big deal.

The bigger problem is that low accelerations waste fuel, as others have
pointed out.  As an exceedingly rough rule of thumb, to minimize losses,
your thruster acceleration should be at least comparable to the local
acceleration of gravity.  In practice, there's a tradeoff: using smaller
thrusters means a less efficient trajectory, but it also makes the
thrusters lighter, and reduces acceleration forces on the structure so
it can be made lighter.  Somewhere in there is a point where total mass
is minimized.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 17:25:30 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: All this haggling about Mars

In article <1988Oct23.112554.27594@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>> [lunar LOX]
>
>I think a strong case can be made that near earth asteroids are better
>sources of oxygen than the moon...

In terms of materials and lack of a gravity well, definitely.  However,
the Moon is in a much more convenient orbit for sustained operations.
The problem with the near-Earth asteroids is that they are really better
described as occasionally-near-Earth asteroids.

>... Also, some NEAs contain water, which can be decomposed by
>electrolysis.  This also delivers hydrogen, an important plus...

Definitely a useful thing, although it's a bit less significant for the
space-propulsion angle because the oxygen is circa 85% of the propellant
mass.  It would *sure* be nice to know whether there are frozen volatiles
in lunar polar craters.

If it comes down to that, also, we don't *know* that there is water in
the NEAs.  We know that there is water in some types of meteorites, which
bit of information is tentatively extrapolated to the NEAs on the basis
of limited spectroscopic evidence.  We're also just a wee bit unsure
about underlying composition and mechanical properties of NEAs.  (One
important question is whether there is a useful amount of regolith on
them, because already-powdered material is a lot easier to deal with.)
We have far more definite knowledge about the surface of the Moon.  This
would be significant if one is in a hurry or if one doesn't want to gamble.

>Lunar
>oxygen would require treatment of ilmenite with hydrogen at 1000 C to
>get water for electrolysis...

My recollection is that the water content of NEAs isn't exactly lying
around in ice-cube trays either... :-)
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 07:15:27 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdcsu!smann@uunet.uu.net  (Shannon Mann - I.S.er)
Subject: Re: where should all the people go?

In article <593192756.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>I will certainly claim nolo contendere. With the fragility of the
>earthly system, the number of maniacs increasing as the population
>increases, the increasing interdependencies of systems, and the increasing
>simplicity of mass destruction, I certainly want to be elsewhere.

If all you want is to be elsewhere, then I suggest the traditional
outlet for those who cannot stand life as it is, suicide.  
(Kinda cruel.  Apologies.)

>It is NOT a sane act to stand in front of a loaded gun if you can even
>CONCEIVABLY go elsewhere.

As another poster has pointed out, leaving earth is not an alternative,
nor will it be for some centuries to come.

Anyway, the gun-pointing is not a strictly sane action either, is it?

>Anyone who wishes may state their ethical, moral, etc reasons for
>standing in front of said loaded gun. If you really believe you can
>change it, more power to you. 
>
>
>			So long and thanks for all the fish...

Personal survival is not the point when you look at the global scale
you have defined.  If you were to cease to exist tomorrow, the world 
would continue.  People do this every day (its called death) and yet
life goes on.  For you to equate personal survival with global 
survival shows your thoroughly egocentric point of view.  On the
global scale, you do not matter, neither do I.  Knowing this, global
survival can be seen as it should, very important.  The most any
human can ask for is that the world continues and is improved for
that persons children.  After life, children are all death leaves us.
(Please, I do not want any philosophical/religious arguments.  There
is no way I can please everyone.)  As for reasons to stand in front
of said gun...

One of the reasons for taking up arms during the world wars was that,
if the destructive forces at play were not held in check somehow,
destruction of our social system was a likely possibility.
I do not condone the killing of humans, or war.  Both are senseless
waste.  But, I need only ask myself 'What would I do if someone 
pointed a gun at someone whom I care deeply for?'  I would do anything
within my power to stop this person/entity from harming those whom
I care about.  This might include killing.  

What a dilemma!  I hate the idea of killing and war, but faced with
that situation, what other decision could I make.

Add in to this mix the idea that there are groups within our society 
who regularly pollute, distribute hate literature, love their religion/
ideology so much they're willing to destroy property, kill people, etc
and I can only react with distaste intermixed with fear, for my own
life, and that of my family, and friends.

Pollution, nuclear war, socio/political instability are actually more
likened to that of a bomb, than a gun.  With a person holding a gun, 
you need to defuse the human holding the gun.  A bomb isn't quite
as time sensitive.  We need not kill to defuse the bomb.  We can sit
back, take inventory of the situation, and carefully dismantle the 
bomb we have, by inaction, ignorance, and apathy, managed to create.

WE CAN DO THIS!

BUT, we need to start _now_!  The bombs can wait, but not forever.
Given enough time, someone will accidentally trigger one.  I do not 
know whether our planet will survive the explosion.  I do not think
I would want to live in a world where my children will grow only to 
be superficially human, mutated by some nuclear or chemical waste,
or to be killed in the prime of their lives by some stupid war.

Intelligence is regarded as our greatist gift.  But, if all it gives
humanity is a better, more efficient manner in which to destroy our
planet, then let me back to our womb, the trees that sponned (sp?) our
species.  I may become a lessor being, but, I would prefer that
over our present madness. 

        -=-
-=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca
        -=-

'I have no brain, and I must think...' - An Omynous
'If I don't think, AM I' - Another Omynous

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 88 08:40:26 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.Icst.Nbs.Gov>
Subject: Articles


There are several articles in the November National Geographic related to
space, including one on Mars colonization (>50 years from now).

                                          John Roberts
                                          roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

 ___ Yes! Tell me how I can lose 20 pounds or more literally OVERNIGHT
     with the amazing ANTARCTIC DIET PLAN!

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 17:38:17 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: The U.S. spy satellite in the Philippines.


	 A few more details on the alleged spy satellite which went down
    in the Philippines:

         The NASA representative mentioned by TASS who relayed the story
    was William Burr.  Plus, the Manila Bulletin said the satellite came 
    down in the area of the Zanbales and Batan provinces on May 13, 1983.
    There is no record of any satellite decaying from Earth orbit on that 
    day, nor do any satellites launched on March 13 of any year match
    the orbit of the spy satellite.

	Curiouser and curiouser....

	Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 14:59:42 GMT
From: l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@k.cc.purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Off Earth

In article <8XNXKGy00V4BE8zGUo@andrew.cmu.edu>, js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes:
< OK -
< 
< There have been discussions of getting off the Earth, and going somewhere.
< The moon and Mars have both been mentioned, as well as (sometimes) satellites /
< stations.
< 
< As far as I can see, the plans should be this:
< 
< 1) construct a space station which is serviced by the Shuttle. It can be made
< from
< fuel tanks as well as generic stuff.

Learn how to live and build in 0 g.

> 2) get to the moon
> 
> 3) start a moon base
> 
> 4) send moon stuff to the station with a superconducting electro magnet.

Or any other way.  The moon's gravitational potential is .05 that of earth.

> 5) build ships

and space-traveling communities.

> 6) goto mars

Why Mars?  We can probably live in asteroids more easily than on the moon
and especially Mars.  Will Mars be more of a research object than either a
place to live or a resource?  I suspect so.  Besides, we need many independent
communities, which will not interfere with each other.  This cannot be done
on a small planetoid.  Earth is small, as is obvious from the international
political situation.  The moon and Mars are smaller.

> 7) ...
> 
> Any takers?
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 21:41:08 GMT
From: cadnetix.COM!beres@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Another (insane?) berserker theory

*If* berserkers exist and if there are many "technically advanced"
civilizations then this theory may hold water.  

    1.  Berserkers visit and destroy many planets.
    2.  Some civilizations realize the impending destruction.
    3.  The civilizatons know they can't destroy the berserkers.
    4.  They send a message to other "friendly" civilizations.
    5.  They explode their star in desperation.

Now, the exploding star (actually their own or a nearby one) will be
viewed by other civilizations.  The others know that the star couldn't
explode when it did, as these things aren't supposed to happen overnight.
This could send a signal that bad things are happening to the exploding
stars neighborhood.

Why not send radio messages?  The berserkers would likely be able to 
cover it up (it would have probably been tried before - berserkers 
develop a defense).  A premature supernova or demise of a star would be 
hard to cover up.

Adjacent thought:  Did we know that the "Southern hemishpere" supernova
was about to go before we saw the aftermath, i.e., do we scan for 
probables?

Ah well, the ramblings of a man driving to Aspen and looking at a 
starry night.

			Tim

------>MY SOAPBOX (not necessarily my co.'s, yours or ALF's)
    If it weren't for packaging - McDonalds, Victoria's Secret and George
    			Bush would be nothing.
Tim Beres   beres@cadnetix.com  {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 16:02:35 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory

In article <4745@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM () writes:
>*If* berserkers exist and if there are many "technically advanced"
>civilizations then this theory may hold water.  
>
>    1.  Berserkers visit and destroy many planets.
>    2.  Some civilizations realize the impending destruction.
>    3.  The civilizatons know they can't destroy the berserkers.
>    4.  They send a message to other "friendly" civilizations.
>    5.  They explode their star in desperation.

I would suppose that a civilization which could destroy their own sun
would be able to fight and destroy berserkers. If so, I'd think they would
try to do just that, rather than commit racial suicide.

As for berserkers blocking radio messages; we're giving the civilization
sufficient technology to be able to see the berserkers coming with 
enough warning to have time to supernova their sun... surely they'd
have a hard-to-block comm system ?

I dunno, what you say could be true, but I'd think it very, very unlikely.
Your theory holds water, in my opinion, but only below 0 degrees C. 8-)


------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 18:07:39 GMT
From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <2210@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>Nah.  See "Use of Vacuum Energies for Interstellar Space Flight", Journal of
>the British Interplanetary Society, September 1986, vol 39 #9.

Anyone have the appropriate information on subscribing to JBIS? None
of the local libraries seem to have enough class to subscribe.
-- 
Never be angry when a fool acts like a		David Pugh
fool.  It's better when fools identify		....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep
themselves...it removes so much uncertainty.
			--Lord Peace

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 15:59:12 GMT
From: att!cbnews!lvc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

>     Why are we looking only to the earth for traces of a dead human civilizati
>on? The satellites (sp? i never could spell) we have put in clark orbits will
>still be there since the atmosphere does not ever reach that high to cause
>orbital decay.
>                                              Gregson R. Vaux

And what about all that litter left on the moon.  How long could it last?

-- 
Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, cbnews!lvc lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #80
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Nov 88 10:31:05 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01330>; Fri, 4 Nov 88 06:25:44 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  4 Nov 88 06:25:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Added.EXQNCMy00jZdM4xE5J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8XQMdDy00Vs101hE4B>;
          Fri,  4 Nov 88 05:45:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.UXQMKLy00UkZQHOk4:>;
          Fri,  4 Nov 88 05:25:30 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, Nov  4 88 05:17:43 EST
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #81

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 81

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Soviet Shuttle launch date and time announced
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
			  Re: Moon vs. Mars
			  Re: Moon vs. Mars
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
			  Puzzle for the day
			      telescopes
	  Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		      Reason and calm requested
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 14:11:32 GMT
From: att!whuts!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (WARMINK)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle launch date and time announced

In article <8810270344.AA28432@ll-vlsi.arpa>, glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
> stage separating at about 70% of orbital velocity.  That means the OMS rockets
> must supply a much larger delta V (velocity increase).  Hence, this may 
> explain the mystery about the tail on Buran - with no main engines as on
> the shuttle it should be much lighter than needed to make the vehicle stable.
> However, if it must contain more fuel for that maneurver this could balance
> out.

This would be OK for ascent, be during re-entry most of that fuel would have been
used up, and the mystery remains...perhaps there is much less weight in the nose
section, that would also solve the (potential) problem. I'm sure the Soviet
engineers have got their equations right though!

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   There are lies, damned lies               |  Stuart Warmink, NAPC
   and statistics...                         |  <att!>whuts!sw Whippany NJ USA
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 16:28:06 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

In article <58625GRV101@PSUVM>, GRV101@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
< in article <113@loci.UUCP>, clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) says:
< >        I think you've lost sight of the amount of time mentioned,
< >        hundreds of millions of years. Radioactivity will be gone,
< >        half-lifed itself out. Ultraviolet radiation will break down
< >        chemicals and leave no trace long before even one million
< >        years. I guess we've been listening to politicians too long,
< >        "million, billion, trillion, what the heck ... it's only money."

<      Why are we looking only to the earth for traces of a dead human civilizati
< on? The satellites (sp? i never could spell) we have put in clark orbits will
< still be there since the atmosphere does not ever reach that high to cause
< orbital decay.

 What about the litter left on the surface of the moon by
 some tourists a few years ago? 

 m wooding

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 18:43:33 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

In article <452@l5comp.UUCP> john@l5comp.UUCP (John Turner) writes:
>... a thirty-two page article by ex-astronaut Michael Collins titled
>"Mission to Mars".  Collins outlines a joint US-Soviet manned Mars mission
>for the early twenty-first century...   ...Each ship carries a crew
>of eight, which Collins specifies as four married couples.

Hmm, yet another author proposing a joint Mars mission without ever
bothering to learn what the Soviets think.  Sigh; I had hoped for better
from Collins.  The current Soviet position is that long-mission crews
should be all-male to avoid psychological problems.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 19:55:33 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

In article <1988Oct26.184333.9263@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <452@l5comp.UUCP> john@l5comp.UUCP (John Turner) writes:
> > . . . crew of eight, which Collins specifies as four married couples.
> 
> . . .  The current Soviet position is that long-mission crews
> should be all-male to avoid psychological problems.

Should we take this as representative of Soviet marital stereotypes?
Soviet sexual immaturity? Why not all female? Why does THAT notion
seem so far out relative to the all-male concept? Talk about "sigh . . ."

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 01:17:34 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@eddie.mit.edu  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Moon vs. Mars

In article <kXNYPOy00Xo7MRJFU7@andrew.cmu.edu>, da1n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel K. Appelquist) writes:
> The point of putting people, as opposed to robots, in space is two fold.  First
> of all, there is a psychological factor.  If we, as a world, started to actively
> 
...
> Anyway:  The second reason for physically going to space is a more long range
...
> Humanity has less of a chance of dying out as a species.  Right now, living on
> one planet as we do, the possibility of global devistation, either by natural or
> man-made means, could wipe out the entire human race. By spreading out, we can
> insure the survival of the human race into the future.  If you can't identify
> with that, then you're un-reachable.
> 

	Alright, we've got one psychological and one ego-centric reason
	for space development. Neither strike me as particularly objective
	or scientific. Basically these reasons skip right over the question
	of whether the human race is a success as an evolutionanary
	experiment. The strong evidence is that it is not, in light of
	the very things that we need to escape from to survive; they
	are man-made.

	The likelihood of really massive devastation is increasing with
	the population and the pressures are just beginning to be felt.
	Only in the last decades has it become apparent that there are
	limits to the exploitation, that nothing is limitless. And man's
	reaction has been to speed up the consumption lest they not get
	their "fair" share. This isn't ignorance either but a trait which
	may be uniquely human: greed. Is this a species worth saving?
	We already can see the answer: no, humans aren't valuable. They
	are to be used, exploited, enslaved, killed and otherwise treated
	the same as everything else. Pick up any newspaper and see what
	people think of each other.

	So lose your rose-colored glasses and set aside the humanitarian
	rhetoric. Actions speak so much louder, people are self-centered,
	arrogant, filthy creatures who would gladly crush millions of
	their own kind to further their own power, and they invent new
	ways to do it when then old ways become passe. Can you close your
	eyes to history? Do you really think people will change? Now,
	who is it that is unreachable?


-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 17:37:58 GMT
From: pyramid!uccba!uceng!dmocsny@decwrl.dec.com  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Moon vs. Mars

In article <kXNYPOy00Xo7MRJFU7@andrew.cmu.edu>, da1n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel K. Appelquist) writes:
> The point of putting people, as opposed to robots, in space is two fold.

First, a short word -- people invent robots to serve people, and not
vice versa. (Until those robots are running UN*X -- lots of :-).
The ultimate goal is to make space benefit people. We are discussing how
to get there the fastest. And don't think we can colonize space without
robots -- they will be essential, both teleoperated and (semi-)autonomous
varieties. Are you going out for an EVA to fix your stuck solar panel 
during a flare? Look at how successful labor-intensive industries are
down here. They only work with either huge payoffs or massive subsidies.
Labor costs in space will make building the Alaska pipeline
look like a bargain. The choice is not either/or, but what is the
most effective mix at time t. 

What will happen to manned space flight when we lose another shuttle?
I prefer to debug systems with nonliving cargo.

> First of all, there is a psychological factor.

Some people call it Luddism. I certainly won't be happy when a machine
cuts me out of a paycheck. But if I'm writing the check, it's a different
story. People are frightened by machines, however, and that's something
important to keep in mind. That's why I favor near-earth teleoperation
to distant autonomous probes, at least from a public-relations
standpoint. Imagine how much excitement you could drum up for the
space program if you had a convincing virtual reality rig where
John Q. Public could operate a space probe? The arcade game people
are already working on this stuff. In five years your kids are going
to be romping around virtual worlds, and we'll still be trying to
fly spacecraft with magnetic core memory.

> If we, as a world, started to actively
> colonize and explore our own solar system, it would relieve a great deal of
> stress here at home.

Did colonizing North America relieve stress in Europe? How would we
recognize such stress relief? I think the stress relief would occur
mostly in space enthusiasts. Joe Paycheck will still be living for
TV, beer, weekends, spectator sports...

> Why?  Because we, as a race, no longer have any tangible
> frontiers (pardon the trekism.)

Everywhere I look I see a frontier, but then again, I look more carefully
than most people. In my opinion, the ultimate frontier is Mind. Once we
have a handle on natural intelligence, the universe is ours for the
taking. Using your brain is a lot less tangibly satisfying than swinging a
hammer, but that need not always be so. Our information processing
technologies still only weakly couple our brains to the real world. We
have a dream, and we must labor decades to see it happen. When we discover
a way to put the intelligence available to today's Fortune 50 CEO in the
hands of the individual, the opportunities for exploration will have no
limits.

> the possibility of global devistation, either by
> natural or man-made means, could wipe out the entire human race.

We won't get there soon enough to escape the problems we are generating
right now.

> By spreading out, we can
> insure the survival of the human race into the future.

We can only improve the odds. We could improve the odds much more 
effectively (with or without spreading out) by understanding the
causes and prevention of human aggression. Given the probable
fragility of artificial environments in space, and our sterling
record with a fairly robust terrestrial environment, I think we
are kidding ourselves to assume that Homo Sapiens can swing it
upstairs without a little fine-tuning first. Don't get me wrong--
I advocate going, and I advocate finding out what fine-tuning we
need. (Don't ask me yet, as I have no clue.) How can we seriously
discuss creating new ecosystems from scratch when we can't even
sustainably operate existing ecosystems? To me that sounds like
saying if we can't ride a bike without running into things, then
we should be driving tanker trucks filled with gasoline.

>   Dan A.

Dan M.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 16:30:32 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <10743@reed.UUCP> craig@reed.UUCP (Craig Deforest) writes:
>>> Puzzle for the day:  Explain why it is impossible to convert mass into
>>> energy.
> ...
>Or, neglecting philosophical conundra, maybe it's something insignificant like
>conservation of baryon number?	...

If everyone believed implicitly in conservation of baryon number, there
wouldn't be all those experiments looking for proton decay.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 13:23:12 GMT
From: bsu-cs!dhesi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Puzzle for the day

In an earlier article, I asked:

     Puzzle for the day:  Explain why it is impossible to convert mass
     into energy.

Here is the answer.

It is impossible to convert mass into energy because mass is a property
that both matter and energy have.  Converting matter to energy leaves
the mass unchanged.

Take a perfectly insulated box containing matter.  Measure the total
mass of the box.  Somehow arrange (perhaps through a time-delayed
mechanism inside the box) for some of the matter inside the box to be
converted into energy.  Measure the total mass of the box again.  Your
two measurements of mass total will be identical.  Matter was converted
to energy but mass was not.

Often we see the term "mass" incorrectly used to mean "matter".  Mass
is a *property* of both matter and of energy.

-----
New puzzle for the day:  Many people believe that if you approach the
speed of light, you will begin to see passing objects contracted in a
direction parallel to your direction of motion, and that passers-by
will see you contracted in the same direction.  Explain what you and
they will really see.  (This is not a trick question; assume you really
can travel near the speed of light, perhaps by assuming that the speed
of light is only 65 mph.)
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 21:06:25 GMT
From: unh!psc90!pyr406@uunet.uu.net  (Devil's Advocate,Inc)
Subject: telescopes


        My son wants a telescope for christmas . One that he can use to see
the Galaxies in the local groups. I am not sure which one to get him . Does
anyone know which kind to get and how much it would cost?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ancient proverb( May you live in interesting times ).~
----- ------ ----- ----- ------ ----- ------ ----- -------
                  did you know it was really a curse?~

my proverb is a little different. [may we all live in fair times]


______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 15:05:36 GMT
From: psivax!quad1!ttidca!jackson@uunet.uu.net  (Dick Jackson)
Subject: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?

I seem to remember that one of the earliest designs for a launcher was by
the British Interplanetary Soc. and was based upon concentric layers of
strap-on boosters which "peeled away" when used. Not different in concept
from the shuttle, etc. but I think different in degree in that it used
maybe ten or more strap-ons.

What is wrong with this idea? Today we have mass produced solid fuel
components (a la ICBMs). Why not a cluster of ten surrounding a cluster of
four surrounding a liquid core?

Dick Jackson

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 15:18:09 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

> In article <1069@igloo.UUCP> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
> }The best stardrive would probably be a Bussard Ramjet (scoop up interstellar
> }hydrogen for fuel) if it could be made to work.  The best use for the spent
> }fuel is again reaction mass for this case, as well.

  NO.  Definitely not.  It is easy to show that an efficient rocket
is one which has high Isp, which means high p/E (p = momentum).
Photons are ideal.  (I will leave as an exercise for the reader
the proof that photons have larger p/E than matter.)
  An ideal rocket is thus one which uses ONLY photons as reaction mass.
The spent fuel should be dumped overboard without any significant
velocity.

  -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 88 15:00:03 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (If you don't vote, you can't bitch)
Subject: Reason and calm requested

I've noticed a very disturbing trend of late, particluarly with regard to
my favorite subject.  It seems that educated (presumably), mature
(hypothetically) adults (supposedly) could carry on a discussion without
resorting to ranting and raving.  I know that I'm guilty of that, and that
not all contributors (thank goodness) have been, but name calling and the
like does little to improve your argument and less to gain the respect of
an audience.  Let's remember that the things said here may one day be used
against us in arguments over whether we should spend money on space ***
(where *** is whatever you're for) or a new welfare/defense program.  The
*** vs. ### will suddenly become meaningless, because neither stands a chance.

These arguments are, and should be, passionate.  But passion is not violence!!
Flaming is expected (this game is not for the shy), but let's put up the
plasma torches.

Now, let's go to our corners, and fight a clean fight.

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #81
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Nov 88 13:58:13 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01519>; Sat, 5 Nov 88 05:13:32 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  5 Nov 88 05:13:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XQg2ay00jZdM3FG0G>;
          Sat,  5 Nov 88 03:49:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.cXQffWy00UkZQMVE5w>;
          Sat,  5 Nov 88 03:25:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gXQfZ7y00UkZ0MTk4g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  5 Nov 88 03:18:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #82

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:
			Is BURAN going to MIR?
   Re: Value (if any) of ANY space exploration (was Moon vs. Mars)
			     Re: The End
		     Re: re new kid on the block
	       Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced
	       Re: New York bomber (was Re: WW II Jets)
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
    Re: Private Launch Companies (was Re: Earth & living in space)
			      Re: (none)
		   Cut the Program Behind the Tree
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 19:05:46 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Is BURAN going to MIR?


Radio Moscow has given a launch date/time of October 29 03:24 UT.
 Using this info and an approximate launch site lat/long (from the
Britannica I have Tyuratam 46:00N, 63:15E and Baykonur 47:46N,
66:11E--does someone have a better position?) I have determined
that Buran will have an initial Right Ascension of Ascending Node
of 89.9 degrees while Mir at Buran launch will have a RAAN of
99.3 degrees.  I haven't been following Mir.  Has it been 
making pre-Progress type maneuvers?

If Buran liftoff occurs at the given time it should be visible 
in the predawn hours over North America in the following 
days.  I have assumed a Mir-like orbit of 91 minutes and
an inclination of 51.6 degrees.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 18:01:39 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Value (if any) of ANY space exploration (was Moon vs. Mars)

In article <10148@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, animal@ihlpa.ATT.COM (D. Starr) writes:

> They might find that public support for *any* kind of space activity is more
> related to its ENTERTAINMENT AND INSPIRATIONAL value than to anything else.

Right.  See my earlier posting.  Space really is Religion and Art.
These remain after the commercial and military values are taken
away.  They make us feel good about ourselves, and express some of
our deepest longings, which cannot be reduced to dollars and cents.

> and those who take that myth away--either by demanding Serious Science (the
> no-people-just-robot-probe crowd)  or by trying to reduce th myth to
> Mundane Business (the Moon-base-and-infrastructure
> group)--are cutting their own throats.

Remember how the Shuttle was advertised as "the Space Truck that will
make space travel routine?"  Well, that helped sell the program,
but it also explains why Challenger didn't even have live TV for
its final flight.  Who tunes in to watch 18-wheelers leave the loading
dock?

> We'd be better off plowing the money into paying off the national debt.  Private
> concerns (domestic and foreign) can take care of comsats and earth-resources;
> there's money to be made there.  But this planetary science stuff; well, 


Once we see space exploration as religion and art, we get a differenbt
perspective.  A "rational" people would refuse to waste time and money
on art or religion until they had licked poverty, unemployment, etc.
In practice everyone supports a & R.  In fact, the WORSE OFF a people,
the more they support A & R, because they need it.
Yet no matter how well off you are financially, you still need them.

> the Palomar telescope was good enough for my daddy; it's good enough for me.

The Catacombs were a great place to worship, and scribbling on cave
walls made some pretty good pix of mammoths.  Who needs cathedrals
and this fancy oil-paint & canvas technology?

BTW, I realize the point the poster was making; I'm just taking
it further in my own direction.
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 08:36:59 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!watdcsu!smann@bellcore.com  (Shannon Mann - I.S.er)
Subject: Re: The End

In article <276@tekn01.chalmers.se> f86_lerner@tekn01.chalmers.se (Mikael Lerner) writes:
>In article <Added.4XIWpfy00Ui34E0k9o@andrew.cmu.edu>, GODDEN@GMR.COM writes:
>> Just for fun, let's accept that there are just two ways for the universe
>> to end -- 
>> 1) The universe reaches maximum entropy and therefore 'stops'
>> 2) The expansion phase of the Big Bang halts and the universe begins
>>    contracting until it reaches a singularity.
>  The big problem is to determine whether the total mass of the universe
>IS smaller or larger than the critical mass. The best estimations today
>give a value of only a few percent, which seems to support the ever-
>expanding universe theory strongly. However, there are several problems
>with these estimations. If there is no other matter than the observed
>in the galaxies, calculations show that gravity cannot hold galactic
>clusters together. And they are together. This is the point where the
>'missing mass'- and 'dark matter'-problems arise. To explain how struc-
>tures in the universe can remain stable, we must add large amounts of
>dark matter to the equations, perhaps 10-100 times the mass we actually
>see, so the question is still open.

>Mikael Lerner                               "This is the way the world ends,

Why do we not work from the opposite direction.  

Assume that we have enough matter for a cyclical universe.  

Given this:
  What would be the calculated size of the universe?
  Is there any way to check this?
  Is there any reason to believe this was the first cyclical expansion?
  If not the first expansion, does each succeeding expansion _use_
    (I don't know how) matter, so that it doesn't come back?

Not giving the above postulate:
  What reasons do present theories give as a basis for calculating
    mass, based upon the visible universe (including radio galaxies)?

A related question:  (well, kind of related)
  When the singularity originally expanded, did it do so at the speed of 
    light, or was that not a condition of space at that time?

One last idea:  if entropy were maximized, would space/time somehow 
elastically contract, and reverse the process?  (You know, like the 
creation of ether :-)  Kidding aside, how much do we know about the 
nature of space/time(/energy?).

Any comments?

Shannon Mann - smann@watdcsu.uwaterloo.ca

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 15:10:32 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: re new kid on the block

>  Hey, what happened to political??  That was your third constraint
>  wasn't it?   Getting any kind of a political consensus about 
>  space exploration has been the big problem in this country.
>  You're never going to tackle the engineering and economic ones
>  without some kind of a political approach.

  I definitely don't agree.  Economic forces are much more fundamental
than political ones, and it is a rare time in history when economic
forces are overridden by other factors.  If you had said "you're
never going to tackle the engineering ones without some economic
incentive", I'd be inclined to agree.  But I can't agree with the above;
governments that try to go against economic forces either change quickly
or don't last long.  Look at the Soviets!  (It's actually amazing they
lasted this long without reform; most likely the invasions during WWII
gave Russians a strong sense of "Never Again!" which temporarily
overrode economic pressures.  The one thing that can be counted on
to overshadow economics every time is Fear for the Survival of your
Way of Life.  But I digress.)
  When there's money to be made in space (in the short term, not pie
in the sky) the government won't DARE interfere.  If they do, the US
will simply lose the initiative.  Of course, we're already seeing it
start to do that in other areas.

  -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 20:30:50 GMT
From: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (John S. Watson)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced

[eat me!]

In article <8810270344.AA28432@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
> This initial flight is definitely unmanned (manned mission possibly in 1991)

Is the entire mission going to be done by remote control (Telepresence)?   
Why the long wait for a manned mission?  

How come we haven't seen them practicing there landings?  
(Do they plan on landing?)  

Do they carry their shuttle from its landing area to launch pad 
on top of a 747 clone?

-- 
John S. Watson, IBM heir in hiding            ARPA: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov 
NASA Ames Research Center                     UUCP:  ...!ames!watson
Any opinions expressed herein are, like, solely the responsibility of, like, the
author and do not, like, represent the opinions of NASA or the U.S. Government.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 17:07:55 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: New York bomber (was Re: WW II Jets)

In article <1118@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
>Perhaps someone is thinking of the old Sanger "antipodal bomber" design? 
>...
>Anybody save the references to this from when it came up a year or so back?

The best and most detailed discussion that I know of (as with so many other
things in the early history of spaceflight) is in Willy Ley's "Rockets,
Missiles, and Men in Space".  Alas, I don't know if it's still in print.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 17:44:38 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.


few tons of metal on the moon will be there a long time.

glass coke bottles will last.

ruby rods made up for lasers are not readily degraded by ordinary forces

wierd deposites in antartic ice (tiny grains of pollution)

salt mines w/ nuclear wastes will be detectable a long time.

bones? fossils of lotsa domestic animals.

geosync satellites (bet low-earth will be gone)

lonely voyager & pioneer....


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 17:13:19 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Launch Companies (was Re: Earth & living in space)

In article <4108@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
> [use a non-US launch site]
>   Why isn't this happening?  Too expensive?  Or can the U.S. prevent
>the launch of any payload owned by a U.S. company, regardless of where
>it is launched?  Perhaps a little paper-shuffling is in order, so that
>the companies aren't "U.S." any more...

The US government claims authority over its companies, *and* its citizens,
everywhere.  If the US government takes a serious dislike to what you're
launching from Pago-Pago, you have your choice of knuckling under, taking
them to court in hopes of winning (fat chance, especially the way OCST's
powers are defined), or renouncing your US citizenship.

(Now me, I don't have that problem, but I don't have the money to start
building space launchers...  Boy, do I ever wish...)
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 15:48:31 GMT
From: tank!nic.MR.NET!eta!pwcs!ems!nis!meccts!meccsd!vin@handies.ucar.edu  (Vincent E. Erickson)
Subject: Re: (none)


How come when people talk about space projects, they look at the
budget deficit and say ($300 billion dollars over 10 years?
Impossible!) Then they close their eyes when we appropriate another $1
trillion for the military PER YEAR, and call it an investment in our
future security. You can argue indefinitly about deficits and cutting
programs, but until I hear someone suggest cutting real money (from
the real budget monsters like the military), I have no sympathy for
them at all. They'll cut any worthwhile program as long as it protects
their tax bracket and blessed military machine.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 17:58:45 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Cut the Program Behind the Tree

In article <1080@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> vin@meccsd.UUCP (Vincent E. Erickson) writes:
>How come when people talk about space projects, they look at the
>budget deficit and say ($300 billion dollars over 10 years?
>Impossible!) Then they close their eyes when we appropriate another $1
>trillion for the military PER YEAR, and call it an investment in our
>future security. You can argue indefinitly about deficits and cutting
>programs, but until I hear someone suggest cutting real money (from
>the real budget monsters like the military), I have no sympathy for
>them at all.

We spend something like $300 billion per year on the military, not
$1000 B, but that's a quibble.

This argument demonstrates an attitude that has led to governmental
gigantism.  MY program is above reproach; cut everything else.
Unfortunately, every special interest has the same argument, and
nothing gets cut.

I propose that the value of the space program is independent of how
much is being spent on the military.  If the space program is not a
good investment, we should cut it, even if we had a budget surplus.

> They'll cut any worthwhile program as long as it protects
>their tax bracket...

How despicable of them, to want to spend their own money as they see fit,
instead of as you see fit.  Send them to the gulag.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 17:42:06 GMT
From: buengc!bph@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Blair P. Houghton)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <4139@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>> In article <1069@igloo.UUCP> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>> }The best stardrive would probably be a Bussard Ramjet (scoop up interstellar
>> }hydrogen for fuel) if it could be made to work.  The best use for the spent
>> }fuel is again reaction mass for this case, as well.
>
>  NO.  Definitely not.  It is easy to show that an efficient rocket
>is one which has high Isp, which means high p/E (p = momentum).
>Photons are ideal.  (I will leave as an exercise for the reader
>the proof that photons have larger p/E than matter.)
>  An ideal rocket is thus one which uses ONLY photons as reaction mass.
>The spent fuel should be dumped overboard without any significant
>velocity.

Just to add $.02 (and that, apparently, is all it's ever
worth...)

What does the exhaust from a photon-drive ship look like?

Will there be no necessity for public service commercials extolling
the dangers of tailgating?

Is there a path on which to build a photon-drive highway that is
guaranteed not to have tangents that lead away from an inhabited planet?
And what about maneuvering error?

Will you want ever to try changing lanes?

I can see it now:  with the immensely powerful photon streams
emitting from the rear of our spacefighters, star wars will begin
to look like an extraterrestrial demolition derby, with drivers
careening across the sky, trying to back into each other.

At least a matter-momentum drive has an exhaust that dissipates
explicably due to diffusion...

				--Blair
				  "But, somehow, I don't..."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #82
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Nov 88 13:42:34 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01829>; Sat, 5 Nov 88 06:36:18 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  5 Nov 88 06:35:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cXQhjny00jZd06Tk4w>;
          Sat,  5 Nov 88 05:46:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.8XQhOay00UkZIMfU4z>;
          Sat,  5 Nov 88 05:23:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXQhJMy00UkZEMe04v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  5 Nov 88 05:18:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #83

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:
		   Re: All this haggling about Mars
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
		  Re: Navigating Hazardous Payloads
		politics, Miranda, and obsolete plans
		Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
			      Re: ORION
	       Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced
			    Flood legends
			      Re: (none)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 12:22:16 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: All this haggling about Mars

Henry writes:
>>I think a strong case can be made that near earth asteroids are better
>>sources of oxygen than the moon...
>
>The problem with the near-Earth asteroids is that they are really better
>described as occasionally-near-Earth asteroids.

Travel time is, alas, the major problem.  However, there are so many
NEAs that launch windows are very frequent.  My reference estimates there
is a launch window to a 100 m NEA once every 18 minutes.  Long missions
argue for them being largely unmanned.

I bet, though, that if we looked at hundreds of thousands of NEAs we could
find some in very nice orbits.

>  It would *sure* be nice to know whether there are frozen volatiles
>in lunar polar craters.

I've read some arguments casting doubt on the existence of lunar polar
ice deposits.  It may be that ice can only accumulate in craters that
are shielded from direct and once-reflected sunlight.  This would be
perhaps .02% of the moon's surface.  Also, large impacts on the moon would
cause the poles to shift, which would destroy any ice deposits.  Someone
should look, of course.

>If it comes down to that, also, we don't *know* that there is water in
>the NEAs. ...
> We have far more definite knowledge about the surface of the Moon.  This
>would be significant if one is in a hurry or if one doesn't want to gamble.

It would be foolish, I think, to preclude NEAs for reasons of haste or
misplaced caution.  The cost of unmanned missions to NEAs would be a small
fraction of the cost of a lunar or Mars program.

>>Lunar
>>oxygen would require treatment of ilmenite with hydrogen at 1000 C to
>>get water for electrolysis...
>
>My recollection is that the water content of NEAs isn't exactly lying
>around in ice-cube trays either... :-)

Water in carbonaceous chondrites can be cooked out at 250 to 300 C.
Also, the asteroidal cooker can operate continuously on solar power;
the lunar processor must use nuclear power or operate intermittently.

Someone asked what was the point of going to NEAs.  This is a valid
question.  I was proposing the retrieval of a small NEA to HEO as a
competitor for moon or mars missions, which are themselves nebulously
justified.  The best reason for a NEA retrieval is that once
performed, the NEA stays in earth orbit, even if the space program
collapses again.  There are many uses for a small NEA in earth orbit,
including shielding, processing of propellant, and use as a weapon.
The possibilities for future exploitation of platinum group elements
(processed in situ at other asteroids) should also not be ignored,
although I doubt this alone would justify the expense.  Eventually, I
expect crude fusion rockets (with much lower Isp than the fast
variety) to be used as asteroid tugs.  None of this wimpy solar
powered mass driver stuff.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Too bad it wasn't *1962* DB.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 16:07:07 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <176@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) writes:
> I've often seen attempts at justifying the manned space program via
> this "survival of the species" argument.  I hope people making this
> argument realize that, in my opion, the same result can be obtained,
> and at far less cost, by entombing people in underground cities in
> remote regions of the Earth.  Unglamorous, but effective.

Don't like to admit it, but he's right.  Space, the Moon, or even
Mars are pretty inhospitable places.  It's hard to imagine us
messing up the Earth so badly that it would be worse to survive on than
any of the heavenly bodies.  We'd have to shoot off a lot of dirty
nukes and dump a lot of pollution to make it impossible for
residents of an underground city to venture forth in "space suits"
to get minerals, water, etc.  Hell, most of these they could get
by tunneling underground without ever surfacing.

Surface only to "mine" ruined cities for plastic and metals.
But you could have surface buildings, airtight, with window ports.
Just like on the Moon.

And the Earth makes a pretty good shield from small metorites,
and bigger ones if any atmosphere is left.
And no problems getting a stable 1 G of gravity!

The only real difference from a real space colony would be emotional--
the feeling that "we blew it" (maybe literally) and you couldn't
take an occasional vacation back on beautiful Earth.

-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 88 15:43:05 GMT
From: cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!eta!pwcs!ems!nis!meccts!meccsd!vin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Vincent E. Erickson)
Subject: Re: Navigating Hazardous Payloads


One of the greatest anchors tied around the neck of humanity is
shortsightedness. Another is selfishness. Attacking one of the few
government programs which actually benefits a wide cross section of
the population is simply another example of conservatism at its worst;
cut everything, and then I won't have to pay higher taxes! Get real,
get your heads out of the sand, and show a little concern for things
other than your pocketbooks! And before you reply in kind here it is:
You're a L.. L... L... L...., etc. (scowl while you call me this.)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 19:08:45 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: politics, Miranda, and obsolete plans

in Message-ID: <3f4b26ce.ae47@apollo.COM>
  nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:

  > you never know about Jane Q Public.
  > All this week people have been going ga-ga over a trio of
  > misguided whales in Alaska.  As of this writing, Greenpeace
  > the oil companies, and the US and Soviet governments are
  > threatening to have a group hug over it. 

  Indeed.  The main political constraint is Congress, with billions to
spend or not to spend, at whim.  The political action items:
   1) train more skilled scientists and engineers.  This means reducing 
scientific illiteracy and motivating people to choose scientific     
careers. (By the way, space flight is a great way to motivate the
teaching of science).  Science must become more important in
our schools than  athletics, debate clubs, pep rallies, etc.
I am *not* suggesting spending more $$$: there is an *inverse* 
correlation between federal $$$ spent on education and SAT scores.
What we need is a grass-roots effort to change society's priorities.
  2) vigorous exploration of *every* part of the solar system.  We can do
this by mass-producing and launching small observer probes to orbit every 
major planet and moon in the solar system, and setting up an optical DSN
to return the data.  This could be done within the next 30 years for *less*
than the cost of the Space Station.  It is also more exciting than 
launching people in capsules to LEO.  We have to show people the   
excitement.  Anyone seen "Miranda, The Movie"?  Puts you on the surface
of Miranda and takes you on a tour of its geological features, like the
10-mile high cliffs.  Videos like that could do more for space exploration
than billions and billions of Carl Sagans.  We just have to get that info
out there, show it to people, let people know what is going on.
  3) More emphasis on *basic* science research in NASA et. al. 
    instead of trying to sail to the New World in canoes.

in  Message-ID: <8XNXKGy00V4BE8zGUo@andrew.cmu.edu> Jon Slenk writes:

>  1) construct a space station which is serviced by the Shuttle. 
>     It can be made from fuel tanks as well as generic stuff. 
>  2) get to the moon
>  3) start a moon base
>  4) send moon stuff to the station with a superconducting electro magnet.
>  5) build ships
>  6) go to Mars
>  7) ...
>  Any takers?

   Not me.  Details aside, that's the same plan as was originally
dreamed up in the 1920's by Oberth et. al.  It was clever back
then, but since that time we have developed computers, nuclear power,
TV, lasers, etc., etc.  Unfortuneately, NASA has stuck to that plan like 
a fly to honey.   
  Instead of creating all these silly plans and scenarios, none of
which ever come true (has anybody seen those scenarios NASA had in the
60's to have Mars Bases by the mid 80's?  Tragecomedy!!) why don't we
use the resources we have to explore *every* likely spot.  Then, instead
of bitching about Moon vs. Mars vs. asteroids,  we can make an *informed* 
decision.
"If you want a gusher, drill lots of wells". 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                              *************************
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu          ***  Biosphere III    ***
*************************               ***  best space bbs   ***
**   Bush?  Dukakis?   **               *** in the Milky Way  ***
**    Are you sure?    **               ***  (206) 523-7381   ***
*************************               *************************

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 03:02:34 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!yunexus!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net  (gordan)
Subject: Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space

In article <1988Oct25.165722.7221@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|In article <7157@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
|>... The more I review it the more I begin
|>to think ASTP was a *really important* project...
|
|I'm still somewhat baffled by your concluding this in the near-complete
|absence of any reasons for it.  Please cite three ways in which the
|Apollo-Soyuz mission benefitted the space program or the world.

Perhaps A-S was simply (to borrow a phrase from the Sixties) a "be-in".

In our media-conscious age, the mere fact of an event's having taken place
_is_ often its own most important (and sometimes sole) concrete result.

Think of a summit meeting between world leaders...  Hell, think of the
moon landings -- the most important thing about them is simply that they
happened, not the few pounds of rocks, the science, or even the
technological spinoffs (which might have gotten developed anyway).

--
                 Gordan Palameta
            uunet!ai.toronto.edu!utgpu!maccs!gordan

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1988 15:39-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: ORION

I'm pretty sure I posted this some years back, but there are new people
around...

Although I have no second source verification, I have been told by one
individual who was an eyewitness to the test that Aerojet did a limited test
of the Orion concept in a non-nuclear mode in the late 1950's. He told
me, "It took off like a bat out of hell..."

He also saw early test of other forgotten technologies like plugged
aerospikes, hybrid rockets, and all those other neat proven SSTO
concepts that NASA is too conservative to use.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 16:17:47 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced

Yet another newspaper photo yesterday shows Buran on the stack.
The Cyrillic "Energiya" is clearly visible on the main tank,
but nothing on the orbiter.

This photo shows catwalks and workers, and my impression is that the
whole thing is smaller than ours.  However, the view is from the front
looking back, so may be misleading.

Yes front looking back -- the whole rig is *horizontal*.
This photo must be pretty old, from before the stack was erected
on the pad.  I know that Russians have often assembled their
rockets horizontally and transported them to the pad as such,
and tipped them up for launch.  I've often wondered if this doesn't make
the structural design problems much tougher -- the stack has to endure
a different set of forces during horizontal position, plus
some very wracking strains during the 90 degree rotation to erect
launch position.  Also stress on extra horizontal support points.

At least the US vertical assembly subjects the stack to the same
type stresses that it will receive in flight, and presumably the
load is borne thru the rocket engine mounting frames while on the
ground.  (Yes of course the orbiters have to handle their own weight
both ways.)

Some of you professionals out there must have analyzed the pros and cons
of horizontal assembly.  Care to comment?
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1988 16:04-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Flood legends

After sending this off to someone in an offline conversation, I thought
that it might be of more general interest, So I'm passing it along.

======
I would furthur add that I expect the widespread existance of flood
legends has to do with the rising of the sea levels to cover the
fertile and populated continental margin lands that were exposed during
the glacial period.

In particular it is known that the Mediterranean basin was dry and had
freshwater lakes on its bottom until the Atlantic water levels rose
again to the point at which they flowed over the Straits of Gibralter
in a massive water fall that refilled the basin in a mere 300 years or
so.

Since the basin was most likely inhabited, I feel fairly sure that
these people are responsible for folk tales from Noah's ark to
Atlantis.

Fresh water sediments have been found in core samples taken in deep
parts of the Mediteranean according to a friend of mine.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 18:19:21 GMT
From: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (William A. Bralick)
Subject: Re: (none)

In article <1080@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> vin@meccsd.UUCP (Vincent E. Erickson) writes:
>
>How come when people talk about space projects, they look at the
>budget deficit and say ($300 billion dollars over 10 years?
>Impossible!) Then they close their eyes when we appropriate another $1
>trillion for the military PER YEAR, and call it an investment in our

Since the federal budget is only approximately $1 trillion PER YEAR,
and since there is empirical evidence that the federal government does
spend money on things other than the military (can you say Social 
Security?) then this statement must be false.  In fact, the $300 billion
is closer to the annual DoD budget.

>future security. You can argue indefinitly about deficits and cutting
>programs, but until I hear someone suggest cutting real money (from
>the real budget monsters like the military),

National security spending is lower in real terms now than during the 
Kennedy/Johnson administrations.  Domestic spending consumes approximately
70% of the budget.  Unfortuneately, the national security spending must
be driven by the level of threat; it is not some zero-sum-game played
at budget time -- this type of lack of clarity is common.  I believe
that government's PRIMARY responsibility is protective, as such the
other budget items (yes, including manned space) must enjoy a lower
budgetary priority.

>I have no sympathy for
>them at all. They'll cut any worthwhile program as long as it protects
>their tax bracket and blessed military machine.

Hmm. This looks like an overgeneralization.  Even so, you can expect
that people will disagree about spending priorities.  You can also
expect that people will want to keep what they earn.  Anybody who
desires to contribute extra money to the federal government (on the
assumption that they know how to spend it better :-)) is certainly
encouraged to do so.  I believe that you could send it directly  to
NASA (I might be wrong there).  I think that people disagree with
*you* deciding what is in the greatest long-range interest of the
human race, and then taking their money to implement it.

We, who are proud members of the "blessed military machine," are 
honored to be willing to give our lives in the defense of your
right to speak your opinion freely, here or in any other forum.

Have a very nice day.

Cordially,

-- 
Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology,    |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                      |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #83
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Nov 88 17:06:33 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06445>; Sun, 6 Nov 88 01:36:45 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  6 Nov 88 01:36:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.EXQyWQy00Vs1A1kUET>;
          Sun,  6 Nov 88 00:52:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.cXQy:8y00UkZ8NLk4p>;
          Sun,  6 Nov 88 00:26:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <oXQy4Hy00UkZ4NKE4S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  6 Nov 88 00:20:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #84

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 84

Today's Topics:
		   Re: All this haggling about Mars
			 Near Earth Asteroids
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
	 killer!csccat!loci@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Chuck Brunow)
	       Magellan Status for 10/27/88 (Forwarded)
		      Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix
		    Japanese/Indian ELVs and Buran
	    Re: Baykonur position; Buran not going to Mir
	       Re: Private Launch Companies (was Re: E
	       Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced
			    Re: MFHBTOTDOT
		      Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix
			      Re: (none)
	       Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 88 16:03:19 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bnr-di!borynec@uunet.uu.net  (James Borynec)
Subject: Re: All this haggling about Mars

In article <1988Oct23.112554.27594@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> I think a strong case can be made that near earth asteroids are better
> sources of oxygen than the moon.  I've already mentioned that NEAs can
> be easier to get to and spectacularly easier to return from than the
> moon.  

Given a fairly "close" graze of a NEA to the earth and the moon, how 
difficult would it be to "nudge" it into a position where the interaction
of the moon and the earth's gravity would capture the asteroid.
 
 james borynec utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!borynec

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 03:24:20 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!virginia!uvacs!rwl@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Ray Lubinsky)
Subject: Near Earth Asteroids

In article <1988Oct23.112554.27594@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <1988Oct23.000727.20389@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > However, one
> >thing that becomes clear as soon as you look at the numbers is that going
> >almost anywhere in space, even near-Earth space (e.g. to Clarke orbit),
> >is significantly cheaper if liquid oxygen comes from the Moon rather than
> >from Earth.
:
> I think a strong case can be made that near earth asteroids are better
> sources of oxygen than the moon.
:
> NEAs may even be the most economical
> sources of oxygen for use on the moon.

Materials from the Moon or any where off-Earth are only cheaper when amortized
over the cost of developing and deploying a base for mining and processing
facilities and a suitable transportation system.

One advantage to the Moon is that it's always a quarter of million miles away
(give or take a few dozen kilomiles).  What about the "Near Earth Asteroids"?
Do they have solar orbits which keep them "stationed" near the Earth or do they
just make close approaches occasionally?

-- 
| Ray Lubinsky,                    UUCP:      ...!uunet!virginia!uvacs!rwl    |
| Department of                    BITNET:    rwl8y@virginia                  |
| Computer Science,                CSNET:     rwl@cs.virginia.edu  -OR-       |
| University of Virginia                      rwl%uvacs@uvaarpa.virginia.edu  |

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 17:54:07 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!tmca@husc6.harvard.edu  (The Anarch)
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

In article <2218@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>glass coke bottles will last.
>

All of the others seemed serious, but this one perhaps needed a :-).

Glass won't last. It breaks, it's a fluid: it'll "melt" and pretty soon it will
be indistinguishable from the sand from whence it came, except perhaps an
unusually high concentration of lead and other metals etc that they use to
get certain qualities. By pretty soon, I mean ALL of the glass that we currently
have will be reprocessed within a geological age, never mind an astronomical one.

Tim.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1988 15:45-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: killer!csccat!loci@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Chuck Brunow)

Each of us makes our own choice. I've spent my 38 years in front of the
gun and I frankly would prefer to say screw it and leave.

You are welcome to your own choice in the matter. Each of us chooses
are own path in this life for our own reason. We should not denigrate
one another's choices because they are different from our own.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 02:57:07 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 10/27/88 (Forwarded)

The Magellan Electrical Mishap Investigation Board met in their respective
group this morning and is covened in full this afternoon.  Drafts of the
findings and the recommendations of the two subcommittees continue to be
revised as the full board makes changes and reaches consensus on the substance
and the language of the report.  Some testing continues at th KSC Malfunction
Analysis Laboratory as directed by the Board to support some of the conclusions.
Meanwhile, work on the Magellan spacecraft continues in parallel with the board's investigation.  On Friday, meeting of the ful
l NASA-JPL-Martin Marietta-McDonnell Douglas spacecraft test team is planned
to discuss progress, further requirements, and schedule.

George Diller
NASA-KSC


Approved:  Jon Busse, Chairman
	   Magellan Electrical Mishap Investigation Board

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 15:55:05 GMT
From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix

In article <8810262049395FB.AWXO@Mars.UCC.UMass.EDU> nutto@UMASS.BITNET (Andy Steinberg) writes:
>Wasn't there an Apollo flight that exploded into flame on the ground
>and killed its three pilots?

Yes and no. There was a fire during a ground test of a capsule (killing
the three astronauts). But it wasn't a "flight" -- there was no intention
to launch and, I think, the capsule wasn't even stacked onto the stages.
I think it was Apollo 1.
-- 
Never be angry when a fool acts like a		David Pugh
fool.  It's better when fools identify		....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep
themselves...it removes so much uncertainty.
			--Lord Peace

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 19:23:00 GMT
From: star.dec.com!hughes@decwrl.dec.com  (Noone expects the spammish repetition! Spam! Spam! Spam!)
Subject: Japanese/Indian ELVs and Buran

Someone recently described the Japanese launch vehicle as a 'cleaned up Scout'.
This is incorrect. Their solid propellant ELVs (Mu series) grew from their
sounding rocket program of the 50s and 60s, starting with 'Pencil' and moving
through the Kappa, Lambda and Mu series. Their first indigenous satellite
launch was on an L-4S.

If you are referring to their N-1 ELV, then it is a licensed version of one of
the Delta variants. Delta L,M,N varied only in the type and presence/absence of 
third stage. The N-1 is based on this series.

The Indian SLV is a Scout clone. The ASLV (two launch attempts, both failures)
is the SLV with a 'zero-stage' consisting of two of motors used in the first
stage. A 'zero-stage' is two or more strapons to the first stage that provide
the entire liftoff thrust, i.e. the first stage does not ignite at liftoff. The
central first stage is ignited at altitude, usually at or near burnout of the
zero-stage. A US example of this technique is the Titan 3C and followons.

In a recent posting, Glenn Chapman writes...
>must supply a much larger delta V (velocity increase).  Hence, this may 
>explain the mystery about the tail on Buran - with no main engines as on
>the shuttle it should be much lighter than needed to make the vehicle stable.
>However, if it must contain more fuel for that maneurver this could balance
>out.
    
Non sequitur (guess what Star Trek was on last night :-)
    
By the time the orbiter seperates from the Energia core, it has      
sufficient altitude that aerodynamic stability is irrelevant. The comments
around balance and stability refer to the glide phase of the descent and are
assuming that Buran is a clone of the US design. Any extra 'OMS' propellants
won't be there for that phase. 
    
Two other points: 1) for aerodynamic stability of a rocket, you typically have
to be careful to move the center of gravity forward, not backward and 2) many
current military jets are inherently unstable and rely upon the avionics to
keep them pointed in the right direction. Static aerodynamic stability is not
always neccessary, although in this case it is clearly desirable.
    
re: broadcasting the launch (in case this percolates through the net in time to
be of use)

CNN announced this morning that they are trying to arrange for live coverage.
The last I heard (about 9:15am) was that Soviet TV coverage will not commence
until a few minutes after liftoff (I take this to mean that the broadcast will
be delayed in case something screws up bad). They had more footage today,
including more of the tail of Buran and it still looks like one large OMS
engine (it was in shadow so it was hard to see detail). They also showed some
nice close ups of the Energia core engines.
    
UUCP:   ...{ decvax | allegra | ucbvax }!decwrl!star.dec.com!hughes
ARPA:      hughes@star.dec.com
reality?:  DEC, ZKO3-4/U14, 110 Spit Brook Rd, Nashua NH 03062

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 13:45:46 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Baykonur position; Buran not going to Mir

>From article <1132@scicom.alphacdc.com>, by wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson):
>  Using this info and an approximate launch site lat/long (from the
> Britannica I have Tyuratam 46:00N, 63:15E and Baykonur 47:46N,
> 66:11E--does someone have a better position?) 

Use the Tyuratam position; launches occur from 46-46.5N and 63.0E
(Proton, F-1) to 63.7E (easternmost Soyuz pads).  Kosmodrom Baykonur is
just north of Tyuratam and has essentially no connection with Baykonur
village (the position you quoted) which lies along the 65 degree ground
track about 200 km away. The confusion was a deliberate attempt
to mislead early Western space analysts, but it didnt fool anyone for long.
Still, Kosmodrom Baykonur is the official name of the launch site.

Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 00:07:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Private Launch Companies (was Re: E


	As I understand the laws, you'd have to give up your citizenship
too. Apparently the long arm of US regulation extends to the activities
of any US *citizen* anywhere on the planet.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 14:33:43 GMT
From: att!whuts!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (WARMINK)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced

In article <17204@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson) writes:
> 
> Do they carry their shuttle from its landing area to launch pad 
> on top of a 747 clone?

Some time ago information was released (by the US) of a spy satellite picture
showing a Bison (Bear?) bomber with the shuttle on top. The aircraft had apparently
slid of the runway, and hence could not be hidden before the satellite passed overhead.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   There are lies, damned lies               |  Stuart Warmink, NAPC
   and statistics...                         |  <att!>whuts!sw Whippany NJ USA
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 88 16:32:11 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: MFHBTOTDOT

In article <7506@aw.sei.cmu.edu> firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>    nearly all the hard work in designing a rocket arises from one
>    assumption: like an aeroplane, the thing must carry its own fuel.
>    I'd like to see a really critical investigation of that assumption.

What do you mean by "a really critical investigation"?  If you mean serious
work on propulsion systems that avoid that assumption, this is already being
done.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 21:43:30 GMT
From: blake!ogccse!littlei!guardian!prune@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (prune)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix

nutto@UMASS.BITNET (Andy Steinberg) writes:
> Wasn't there an Apollo flight that exploded into flame on the ground
> and killed its three pilots? The commander of the next Apollo mission
> wanted to call his spacecraft "Phoenix" but NASA wouldn't let him
> because it would remind people of the disaster.

   The Apollo training module, "Molly Brown", developed an electrical problem.
The resulting fire in the high-oxygen environment killed  the three astronauts
trining for the first manned Apollo mission: Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and
Ed White. I don't know about the name "Phoenix".

DISCLAIMER: Intel pays me well for the opinions it wants; the other stuff
   remains mine. Some of the latter is posted; it's worth what you paid for it.

  Of course it hurts. The trick is in not minding.  -- from "Lawrence of Arabia"

local backbone: tektronix	uunet!littlei!ihf1!myrddyn!prune
USA phone:  (503) 696-4205	prune@myrddyn.hf.intel.com

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 19:56:54 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: (none)

In article <1080@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> vin@meccsd.UUCP (Vincent E. Erickson) writes:
>
>Then they close their eyes when we appropriate another $1
>trillion for the military PER YEAR

   You can prove anything with lies (or to be kinder, mistakes).
   The figure is $300 billion per year.  The total Federal budget
   is $1 trillion.  NASA's budget is $10 billion (all numbers rounded to
   two sig digits).


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                              *************************
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu          ***  Biosphere III    ***
*************************               ***  best space bbs   ***
**   Bush?  Dukakis?   **               *** in the Milky Way  ***
**    Are you sure?    **               ***  (206) 523-7381   ***
*************************               *************************

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 13:36:30 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced

>From article <17204@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, by watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson):
> In article <8810270344.AA28432@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>> This initial flight is definitely unmanned (manned mission possibly in 1991)
> Is the entire mission going to be done by remote control (Telepresence)?   
	Not so much telepresence as just ordinary ground commands to the autopilot
as with a normal unpiloted satellite, I expect.

> Why the long wait for a manned mission?  

	They don't want to risk a crew on the first flight.. remember that
all previous piloted spaceships except our Shuttle, (i.e. Mercury,Gemini,
Apollo,Vostok,Soyuz..) there have been uncrewed orbital missions before 
astronauts flew on them.

> How come we haven't seen them practicing there landings?  
> (Do they plan on landing?)  
	Both the US DoD and the Buran command pilot Igor Volk report
that landing practice has been done by dropping the orbiter
from a large plane (I forget which). DoD said the tests were done
at Ramenskoye (which is Edwardski Air Force Baski for all practical
purposes, and gave the orbiter the codename Ram-R.

> Do they carry their shuttle from its landing area to launch pad 
> on top of a 747 clone?

Why bother - it's only a couple of miles! They'll just tow it back into
the assembly building. Kosmodrom Baykonur is in the Kazakh steppe, 
lots of dry flat area to land on, unlike the Everglades. Not so 
great in December/January, though... I suspect we won't see many
VKK missions in deep winter.

Launch is due for 23:29 our time; last night they claimed 2 orbits
would be done, which puts it down about 3 am EDT... groan.


Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 13:32:33 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <3407@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes:
}In article <2210@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
}>Nah.  See "Use of Vacuum Energies for Interstellar Space Flight", Journal of
}>the British Interplanetary Society, September 1986, vol 39 #9.
}
}Anyone have the appropriate information on subscribing to JBIS? None
}of the local libraries seem to have enough class to subscribe.

$120 annually (or was, anyway)
British Interplanetary Society
27-29 South Lambeth Road
London, England
SW8 1SZ

(they don't put this in JBIS!!!  silly of them.)


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #84
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Nov 88 14:28:43 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03788>; Mon, 7 Nov 88 01:33:25 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  7 Nov 88 01:33:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXRHY3y00jZdQ4x0IY>;
          Mon,  7 Nov 88 00:47:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.wXRHE:y00UkZQONE4N>;
          Mon,  7 Nov 88 00:26:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXRH9Uy00UkZ0OLk56@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  7 Nov 88 00:19:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #85

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 85

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix
	Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?
		Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory
		      Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
		      Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix
	       Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced
		      "birdie" satellite program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 18:37:14 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix

In article <3439@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes:
> In article <8810262049395FB.AWXO@Mars.UCC.UMass.EDU> nutto@UMASS.BITNET (Andy Steinberg) writes:
> >Wasn't there an Apollo flight that exploded into flame on the ground
> >and killed its three pilots?
> 
> Yes and no. There was a fire during a ground test of a capsule (killing
> the three astronauts). But it wasn't a "flight" -- there was no intention
> to launch and, I think, the capsule wasn't even stacked onto the stages.
> I think it was Apollo 1.

The Apollo 1 fire ocurred during a countdown test on January 27, 1969.
Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee died in the fire.  The test was
in a fully stacked Saturn 1B, as a precursor to an orbital flight of the
system.  So you are both right and wrong.  It wasn't an explosion, unless
you consider the rupture of the pressure compartment as an explosion, but
rather a fire.  There was no intention to launch AT THAT TIME, but the
fire occurred during a test.  The test was a precursor to an orbital test 
of the Apollo system.

N. Kluksdahl         Arizona State U.
         ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 01:00:12 GMT
From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?

In article <3348@ttidca.TTI.COM> jackson@ttidca.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes:
>I seem to remember that one of the earliest designs for a launcher was by
>the British Interplanetary Soc. and was based upon concentric layers of
>strap-on boosters which "peeled away" when used. ....
>What is wrong with this idea? Today we have mass produced solid fuel
>components (a la ICBMs).

The basic problem is that BIG boosters tend to be more effective at
putting stuff in orbit (double all of the dimensions of a booster and
you increase the fuel capacity by a factor of 8, but the weight of the
skin only goes up by a factor of four). Still, the idea does have its
good points. The major one is that you can tailor the rocket to the
payload ("let's see, 1000 kg to LEO -- Harry break out 8 D cells and
4 Cs."). 

I think a version of the AMROC rocket had 6 strap-ons around a central
core which went all of the way to orbit.
-- 
Never be angry when a fool acts like a		David Pugh
fool.  It's better when fools identify		....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep
themselves...it removes so much uncertainty.
			--Lord Peace

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 15:18:34 GMT
From: cadnetix.COM!cadnetix!beres@uunet.uu.net  (Tim Beres)
Subject: Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory

In article <1741@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
>In article <4745@cadnetix.COM> I write:
>>    [Some civilizations might explode their, or a neighboring, star in 
>>	order to warn other civilizations of a berserker attack]
>
>I would suppose that a civilization which could destroy their own sun
>would be able to fight and destroy berserkers. If so, I'd think they would
>try to do just that, rather than commit racial suicide.
>
If you postulate berserkers and lots of victims to conquer, the earlier 
discussions indicate you'd have a wide range of events;  some berserkers
win, some battles a stalemate, sometimes the defenders get the gold.
The point is, it would only take a small, small number of civilizations
that were at that point of "know we can't win, let's at least try to get
a message out" to make the exploding star idea happen.  The point being:
explode a star and if anyone is looking it will get their attention since
we are pretty much doomed as doomed can be.

>As for berserkers blocking radio messages; we're giving the civilization
>sufficient technology to be able to see the berserkers coming with 
>enough warning to have time to supernova their sun... surely they'd
>have a hard-to-block comm system ?
>
Some would have that.  The problem being, though, is a nice hard-to-block
comm system could only communicate with other civilizations that knew
the parameters of the system;  an exploding star would definitely get
noticed by others.  Some civiliations who notice the event will postulate
bad tidings (like eclipses did years ago - even now in certain places), 
others will say - "hey, look a supernova, let's call it 1987A";  these
races are as good as dead.  The few races who say "What in the...star
x-y-z exploded approximately 4 billion years to soon" will know something
is wrong.  If this communication event can be correlated to other similar
events travelling down some part of the galaxy, this would give even
better info to the receivers.

		Tim
------>MY SOAPBOX (not necessarily my co.'s, yours or ALF's)
    If it weren't for packaging - McDonalds, Victoria's Secret and George
    			Bush would be nothing.
Tim Beres   beres@cadnetix.com  {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 16:36:20 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix

In article <169@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
[... previous postings deleted]
> The Apollo 1 fire ocurred during a countdown test on January 27, 1969.
> Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee died in the fire.  The test was
> in a fully stacked Saturn 1B, as a precursor to an orbital flight of the
> system. [...]

Try 1966, not 1969. Also, at the time, the mission was Apollo 204, and
was only retroactively rename Apollo 1 in honor of Grissom, White, and
Chaffee.
-- 

Bill    UUCP:  {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
         (or)  wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu
      BITNET:  wyatt@cfa2
        SPAN:  cfairt::wyatt

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 17:34:42 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <2527@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
>>(Was Nova ever developed?  What happened to it?)
>
>... As far as I can remember, Nova was supposed to be a really huge
>booster built with Saturn technology -- if I have this right, the first stage
>would have used 8 F1 engines...

There were a number of different Nova proposals, in fact, although I too
have dim memories of this one -- perhaps it was one of the leaders.  Since
none of them ever got anywhere near full-scale development, there was no
need to pick one in particular.  Another that I remember was basically an
uprated Saturn V with big strap-ons.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 13:27:47 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Ralf Brown)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix

In article <169@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
}The Apollo 1 fire ocurred during a countdown test on January 27, 1969.
                                                                  ^^^^
Can't have been 1969, since Apollo 8 orbited the moon Christmas 1968.  If
I remember correctly, it was 1967.

-- 
{harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) 
ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make.
FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler
BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something?

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 20:33:18 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!wlp@ucsd.edu  (Walter L. Peterson, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced

In article <17204@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson) writes:
> 
> How come we haven't seen them practicing there landings?  
> (Do they plan on landing?)  
>

Since the Russians are so sensitive about being spied upon, and since
they certainly know the orbital parameters of US spy sats, I would
suspect that they have done their landing test at times when the spy
sats were not overhead (photo spy sats are typically in low polar
orbits, not Clarke orbits).

> 
> Do they carry their shuttle from its landing area to launch pad 
> on top of a 747 clone?
> 


According to an article I saw about a year or so ago (National
Geographic ?) on the Soviet space program, they carry it on top of a
modified "BEAR" strategic bomber.  That article, however true it might
be, is somewhat related to the stuff above about spy sats.  The article
calimed that the mode of transport was known because a "BEAR" with a 
shuttle on its back had apparently run off the runway and gotten mired
down in mud and the Soviets could not get it pulled out and in the
hanger before the next over-flight of a US photo sat.

(It sounds like a reasonable story, anyway.)



-- 
Walt Peterson   GE-Calma San Diego R&D (Object and Data Management Group)
"The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
GE, GE-Calma nor anyone else.
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!wlp        wlp@calmasd.GE.COM

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 23:27:41 GMT
From: texbell!killer!csccat!loci!clb@bellcore.com  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: "birdie" satellite program


	Thanks to everyone who sent suggestions on posting of the
	"birdie" program. I have decided, however, that e-mail is
	adequate for the probable number of requests (a few dozen)
	and I am not planning to post it.

	The simple satellite program "birdie" has gone out by e-mail
	to everyone who requested it. While it worked on the sysV
	systems, some problems were identified (and fixed, I hope)
	for use under BSD. No other problems have been reported.

	Two people who requested it could not be reached and the e-mail
	bounced (sewilco@DataPg, awpaeth@relay). There is a "smart"
	mailer in my path (at "killer") and I can't control what it
	does so I know of no solution to this problem.

	If you've been waiting for the program to appear in a source
	group and haven't requested it, drop me a line and I'll send
	it out.

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #85
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Nov 88 20:49:16 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01432>; Mon, 7 Nov 88 04:55:01 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  7 Nov 88 04:54:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YXRK4Uy00jZdA4yEFR>;
          Mon,  7 Nov 88 03:38:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.4XRJpgy00UkZ8OdE5S>;
          Mon,  7 Nov 88 03:23:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QXRJlGy00UkZ4Obk50@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  7 Nov 88 03:18:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #86

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:
		  Energiya, from the rocket's nozzle
		     Re: Earth & living in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 19:20:37 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Energiya, from the rocket's nozzle


Article by G. Gubanov, chief designer of the "Energiya" rocket system: 
"Energiya Airborne"

Source: Moscow, Pravda (in Russian) 30 July 1988, second edition, page 4.

as reported by BBC, London, UK
via JR Thomson, Director NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (7 Sep 88)
via Boeing Advanced Launch System program (early Oct 88)

[text begins]

The launch of the new "Energiya" Soviet heavylift launcher has aroused
enormous interest among specialists and the general public.  This is
understandable -- with the creation of such a rocket we are opening up
unique opportunities for expanding space research.

I should probably start by explaining that we are talking about a new
general-purpose [universalnyy] rocket system.  It will make it possible
to place in low-Earth orbit a payload of more than 100 tonnes, both
in the form of a shuttle -- which is currently being actively prepared
for its first launch -- and in the shape of large autonomous spacecraft.

For the third stage special rocket boosters with their own control
system can be used to carry the payload.  On this basis tasks can be
resolved linked with placing spacecraft in geostationary orbit [GEO]
or on trajectories to the Moon and the planets.  Spacecraft weighing
around 18 tonnes can be placed in GEO, while craft of around 32 tonnes
can be placed on lunar trajectories, and up to 28 tonne payloads can
be placed on Martian and Venusian trajectories.

This flexibility is an important feature of "Energiya," since is a
launcher rather than a booster-equipped orbiter.

The "Energiya" launcher comprises a two-stage "package" of four
longitudinal first-stage boosters around a central second-stage
core and an asymmetrical payload position.  Launcher lift-off weight
can be up to 2,400 tonnes.  Each first-stage booster is fitted with
a four-chamber liquid-propellant rocket motor burning liquid oxygen
and hydrocarbon fuel.  First-stage motor thrust is 740 tonnes at the
Earth's surface and 806 tonnes in a vacuum.  The second-stage burns
oxygen/hydrogen fuels and has four single-chamber liquid propellant
rocket motors each with a thrust of 148 tonnes at the Earth's surface
and 200 tonnes in a vacuum.

First- and second-stage motors are fired almost simultaneously just
before lift-off.  The total lift-off thrust is around 3,600 tonnes.  
The method adopted makes it possible to avoid the problem of firing
motors in weightlessness, and additionally enhances reliability.

Upon fuel depletion the first-stage boosters separate in pairs from
the rocket, then split up and land in the designated area.  They can
be fitted with reentry and landing equipment housed in special 
compartments.  They can be reused following diagnostic, preventive-
maintenance, repair, and restoration work.

The central core -- the second stage -- separates after suborbital
velocity is reached and lands in a designated area of the Pacific.
This procedure was selected in order to prevent near-Earth space
becoming littered with large discarded launcher fragments.  The
boost to orbital velocity is supplied by motors on the payload, the
orbiter, or the booster unit.  In other words, they act as a third
stage.

The modular assembly of the rocket, its transportation on a special
transporter from the vehicle-assembly and test building to the 
launchpad, and the provision of power, pneumatic, hydraulic, and
electrical connections with the launcher are conducted using a mobile
launcher-mating unit [startovo-stykovochnyy blok], which remains at
the launch complex after launch and is reusable.

Another fundamental feature of the "Energiya" launcher is its
construction on the basis of the second-stage unit and standardized
first-stage modules.  This makes the system flexible and allows
for the subsequent development of a number of promising heavylift
and medium-lift boosters with varying payload capacities depending
on their number of modules.

The road to flight testing of the new launcher was paved with many
complex scientific, engineering, and organizational problems.  The
efforts of hundreds of design bureaus, plants, research centers, and
construction, installation, and operations enterprises were pooled
in the development of the "Energiya".  Dozens of ministries and
departments, the USSR Academy of Sciences, and union republic 
Academies made their contribution to this work.

The powerful rocket required the use of high-energy fuels, including
liquid oxygen cooled to minus 186 degrees Celsius as the oxidizer and
liquid hydrogen cooled to minus 255 degrees as the fuel for the second
stage.  Special structural materials with considerable strength were
developed and used in the manufacture of the tanks, supply lines, and
some of the hydraulics [gidroavtomatika].  A number of new types of
high-strength steel and aluminum and titanium alloys were introduced.
New thermal-protection and thermal-insulation coatings were developed.
In all, new materials make up more than 70 percent of the "Energiya"
launcher's unfueled weight.

The technology has been assimilated for the manufacture of large "wafer"
structures for the tank shells and for the assembly of large diameter
units using electron-beam and pulse welding on an industrial scale.
Wafer-type shells are currently used quite extensively in rocket
equipment.

The problem of transporting tanks and central core components 8 meters
in diameter and weighing more than 40 tonnes from the manufacturer to
the point of assembly [tekhnicheskaya pozitsiya] has been solved.  A
specially modified heavy aircraft is used, which has made possible
the world's first-ever regular operations in transporting structures
of enormous dimensions -- the diameter of the cargo is almost 2 and
1/2 times greater than the aircraft cross section.

One of the most complex and fundamental problems was the development
of reliable and powerful sustainer motors for both the first and
second stages.  A great deal of attention is traditionally devoted
in the Soviet Union to the development and improvement of liquid-
propellant rocket motors.  The RD-170 motors, which are standard
for new-generation launcher first stages, including "Energiya", were
built in the most economical and compact [zamknutyy] layout -- in
which the gas used in the turbine is ignited in the main combustion
chamber -- and have produced a record performance in their class
in terms of thrust and specific pulse.  They are equipped with high
power turbopump units (more than 250,000 horsepower).

The development of reusable [mnogoresursnyy] high-thrust sustainer
motors using high-energy fuel components for the "Energiya" booster's
second stage was a considerable achievment for Soviet rocket
construction. The designers managed to ensure high performance 
characteristics with minimal gas-dynamic losses, regenerative cooling,
and durability of materials used in a liquid hydrogen environment.

For directional control in the boost phase the sustainer motors are
equipped with a precision electrohydraulic steering system (with an
accuracy of up to 1 percent of the range of movement).  They develop
a force of up to 50 tonnes in each rolling plane [ploskost kachaniya]
of the first-stage sustainer motors, and more than 30 tonnes in the
rocket's second stage.

Wide-ranging and multifaceted problems were solved by setting up an
autonomous on-board rocket control system based on a multi-unit
computer complex.  Pride of place was given to the development
software and control programs both for standard flight conditions
and for cases of individual systems failures.  More than 500 emergency
situations were analyzed and algorithms found to compensate for them.
These questions were researched on experimental installations, and
also during testbed firings.

In general the closest attention was paid to ensuring "Energiya's"
reliability and survivability.  The provision of backup systems was
stipulated for the main vitally important systems and units, including
the sustainer motors, steering instruments, turbogenerator power
sources, and pyrotechnics.  The autonomous guidance complex also has
inbuilt component and circuit redundancy.  The special emergency
protection devices which diagnose the condition of both stages'
sustainer motors and trigger an immediate cutout when a failed unit
starts malfunctioning are a new feature of the rocket.  In addition,
the rocket is fitted with efficient fire or explosion warning systems.

The measures that have been taken minimize the likelihood of a 
dangerous breakdown during launch.  So if an abnormal situation arises
the rocket can continue controlled flight even with a first- or second-
stage sustainer motor shutdown -- which, incidentally, is impossible
using solid-fuel boosters such as on the "Space Shuttle" system.
In abnormal situations during launch of a manned orbiter the construct-
ive measures built into the rocket make it possible either to place
the craft on a low "single-orbit" flight path following the orbit of
satellites and subsequently landing at an airfield, or to carry out
a maneuver to return to the boost phase, landing the craft on a strip
located near the launch complex.

It is well known that it is impossible to create a complex technical
system that will work absolutely perfectly.  That is why, if the
launcher fails during the launch of an unmanned payload and it proves
impossible to place the spacecraft in orbit, the rocket guided into
special zones along the flight path where the possible damage will be
minimal -- but the likelihood of such situations is fairly low.

Thus, by the time of the first launch of the "Energiya" a large program
of research, development, and experimental work had been completed. 
In all, more than 200 experimental installations, 34 large structural
assemblies, and 5 full-size items were created for this purpose, and
the total number of tests carried out exceeded 6,500.  Moreover, the
modular part of the first-stage unit was successfully flight-tested in
the launch of a new medium-lift launcher.  The main aim designated
before its first test flight was to obtain experimental data on the
servicability of the design of the rocket itself, its propulsion
systems, other on-board systems, and full-scale launch conditions --
that is, data which could not be obtained during static tests were
received in full.  The correctness of the plan and design solutions
and the strategy  and scale of ground development was confirmed.
The operation of all on-board systems was shown to be highly accurate.
  
The final phase of the launcher's work, in which it was necessary to
ensure the conditions for separation of the payload -- in this instance
a dummy spacecraft -- also went smoothly.  Unfortunately, a faulty
circuit in one of the on-board instruments in the dummy spacecraft
prevented it from reaching the planned velocity and entering orbit
after separation.

Positive results from the first test of this class of system -- a test
which was the result of a range of purposeful scientific research,
planning, and engineering work -- could not be mere chance, only a
malfunction could be chance.  The specialists are well aware of that.
On the contrary, failures at the start of flight testing would not have
made it possible to claim that the system was viable -- there would
still have been room for doubts about whether there were any fundamental
shortcomings.

Random breakdowns in such complex technical systems may occur mainly
because of unexpected and undetected defects during assembly and
operation.  In this connection all further development currently boils
down to stabilizing manufacturing techniques and improving quality-
control methods and their completeness.

The "Energiya" launcher is a component of a rocket system which includes
-- apart from the rocket itself and the payload -- a ground complex
unique in its scale, capabilities, and level of technical equipment,
which provides training and carries out the launches.  Its 
distinguishing feature -- also inherent in the rocket itself -- is its
high level of automation.  The launch center computer complex, which
controls many units and mechanisms taking part in launch preparations,
cooperates with the on-board part of the guidance system, which in
turn controls the state of all launcher systems.

A multipurpose launcher testbed was designed and commissioned as part
of the ground complex in order to test [otrabotka] under ground
conditions the first- and second-stage units and the `package' as a
whole, firing each stage's sustainer motors for virtually their full
burn time.  This large-scale installation (the plume deflector shield,
for instance, is located more than 40 meters below ground level, and
the lightning conductors standing alongside the launchpad rise 225
meters) equipped with a large amount of necessary technical and
technological systems can also be used as a launch complex.  It was
from here that the first "Energiya" launch took place.

The specially developed cryogenic systems for refueling the launcher
with cooled hydrogen and oxygen employ new engineering principles.
All fueling processes are automated and based on modern computer
equipment.

We are the start of the flight-test stage of a complex rocket system.
What problems will still have to be solved?  The most immediate 
problems are linked with making the design reuseable.  The desire to
reuse such a unique rocket is quite natural and understandable.  At
the present stage the system is undoubtedly expensive.  The main
stimulus for further improving and developing new launchers is the
need to reduce the cost of placing a unit mass in orbit (the so-called
unit launch cost).  This value characterizes the sophistication of
the launcher.

Analysis shows that in the future expendable space transportation
systems will lack the prerequisites for markedly reducing unit launch
cost.  A radical solution to the problem of reuseable launch vehicles
lies with the appearance of a new class of transportation system --
spaceplane systems.  But here a great deal depends on materials
technology -- new superlight and durable structural materials are
needed.

The main task of the day is to land an orbiter -- and in the future,
individual units and stages -- automatically without using pilots.
Currently automated flight from takeoff to landing is possible in
aircraft systems, such as the TU-204 medium-haul airliner, for
instance.  The problem is an urgent one.

The role of manned missions on launchers of this class is not yet fully
clear -- that is the opinion of many specialists.  It would be 
inappropriate to blindly copy avaition in this area -- space technology
has developed in its own way.  Initially automatic craft were launched
into space, and it was only later that man followed them.  In the
future space will mainly be a field for automatic spacecraft and
transportation systems.  Clearly, man's role will be linked with 
research and specific work on servicing and repairing systems.

Diagnosis of the condition of structures is a fundamental problem
linked with reuseability.  The current standard of dignostic methods
does not yet make it possible to forewarn of a possible accident
caused by hidden defects that arise in the process of operation.  A
reliable and accurate assessment of service life on the basis of
controls using objective and nondestructive methods is a task which
we will have to learn to resolve.

There are longer-term problems involved with working out avenues for
creating standardized modules and units for future superheavylift
launchers based on "Energiya" in order to use near-Earth space in the
interests of the national economy, to organize industrial production
in space, to research the Moon, Mars, and other planets, and to 
eventually organize an international expedition to Mars.  There are
many problems, but it can already be claimed today that the Soviet
Union has laid the foundations for their resolution.

[end text]
[I have left grammar and spelling as I found them, and resisted the
strong temptation to make editorial comments -- Dani]
 
-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 17:51:49 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Earth & living in space

In article <161@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>One argument for the failure of this BDB concept is that there is only so
>much launch demand, and that current companies are making good $$$ with their
>complex hi-priced rockets, and see no need (or resulting economic benefit) to
>making their toys simpler and cheaper...

The argument overlooks the fact that major decreases in price would increase
demand.  Note the word "major" -- at anything close to the current prices,
demand is inelastic enough to greatly reduce the incentive to cut costs.
(This is spectacularly true on cost-plus government contracts, where your
profits go *up* when your costs go up!)  As long as the only people who
can afford launches are those who own $50M comsats, there is definitely
a fairly finite supply of customers.  Bring costs down a *lot*, and it's
a whole new ballgame.

>BTW, what happened to a concept by Boeing (reported in AW&ST) for using some
>of the F-1's still in storage as engines at the base of a modified ET, with
>or without the SRB's?  I think it was proposed for the Air Force's MLV ...

Unfortunately, the stored F-1s are too few in number, and it's not clear
that one would trust them after 20 years in storage.  It would be necessary
to restart F-1 production, which in practice would mean duplicating part
of the development effort, since the tooling and some of the subcontractors
are gone and even the information is incomplete.  That is, it would be very
expensive.  Boeing and Hughes (it was originally Hughes's idea) very much
wanted to use F-1s, but concluded that it wasn't practical.  They switched
to a shuttle-derived concept, and that quietly died.  It didn't win the
MLV contract, partly because it was more than the USAF needed, partly
because it wasn't an "off the shelf" booster (although the Delta variant
that won wasn't REALLY "off the shelf" either), and partly (in my opinion)
because MLV and MLV2 were intended as resumptions of subsidies for existing
launchers, not as a chance for new launchers to break into the business,
regardless of what the official RFP said.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #86
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Nov 88 02:34:05 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02538>; Tue, 8 Nov 88 01:14:31 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  8 Nov 88 01:14:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8XRcQly00Vs101zUVS>;
          Tue,  8 Nov 88 00:33:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.cXRcHLy00UkZM1ek5h>;
          Tue,  8 Nov 88 00:23:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space 0XRcDyy00UkZM1dE5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: /afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space Tue,  8 Nov 88 00:20:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #87

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:
		    space news from Sept 12 AW&ST
			     Re: The End
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
		Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory
		      Re: Is BURAN going to MIR?
		       1967 Lunar Polar Orbiter
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 06:57:30 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST

The Astro ultraviolet/X-ray telescope payload has slipped four months,
to March 1990, on the new shuttle manifest.  It was originally set to
go immediately after Challenger in 1986, but is now #11 in the queue
because of DoD and planetary-science priorities.

First extended-duration shuttle mission set for March 1992, the first US
Microgravity Lab mission (Spacelab aboard Columbia).  It is planned to
run 9-12 days, against the current norm of 5-7.

NASA is looking at mounting a shuttle wheel and strut assembly on its
Convair 990 testbed aircraft to run more realistic tests on the shuttle
landing gear.

White House will approve limited use of Long March by US satellites,
given assurances on technology transfer, a limit of four commercial
launches per year, and Chinese willingness to talk about pricing policy.

German aerospace firms have begun basic technology work for the proposed
Sanger two-stage spaceplane, with special emphasis on propulsion for the
lower stage (a large Mach 5-6 hypersonic aircraft).

Titan blows it again.  Titan 34D launch from the Cape Sept 2 goes fine
until the Transtage upper stage fails to re-ignite for the apogee
maneuver.  The payload, believed to be a Vortex snoopsat which would
deploy a large antenna for communications eavesdropping from Clarke
orbit, is considered a writeoff.  The Vortex (nee Chalet) satellites
currently in orbit are aging and in bad shape.  The Transtage failure
may have been a broken feed line or a minor structural failure that
damaged crucial components.  USAF Sec. Aldridge has egg on his face,
since about 30 minutes after the launch he cited it as a shining
example of "robust, flexible launch capability".

Titan 2 launch from Vandenberg Sept 5 successful, deploying multiple
satellites -- probably a US Navy "White Cloud" ship-tracking cluster --
into polar orbit.  One minor blemish:  the first stage oxidizer tank
appears to have ruptured after (note, *after*) staging.  This has
happened occasionally before; it does not affect the second stage or
the launch.  It is thought to be due to shock waves from second-stage
ignition.  [I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember that the Titan
is a bit unusual in that the second stage ignites just *before* stage
separation, so the first stage really gets hit hard.]

Soyuz TM-5 lands safely, nearly a day behind schedule, after equipment
problems abort the first two attempts at retrofire.  The crew left
Mir on Sept 6, and then ejected their orbital module to prepare for
retrofire.  (This commits them to retrofire, since the orbital module
carries the docking system.)  The problem appears to have been stray
sunlight in a horizon sensor used to determine whether the Soyuz is
oriented correctly for retrofire.  This shut the engines down sixty
seconds into the first attempt.  The engines restarted automatically
seven minutes later [not clear why the delay], but the crew then shut
them down after only 3 seconds to avoid landing in China.  Another
attempt, three hours later, failed due to use of the wrong reentry
program, one meant for another mission.  It's not clear why that
happened.  The crew spent nearly a day waiting for the right orbital
position for a third try; they had oxygen for 48 hours, although things
were a bit cramped.  When ground controllers asked about food, the
cosmonauts said food was not a problem but they were worried about the
waste disposal system [which probably means there wasn't one aboard].
The third attempt, about 0400 Moscow time on the 7th, succeeded.

Formal signing of the Space Station agreement set for Sept 29.  ESA
is not entirely happy, but says at least it's a better deal than
Spacelab was.  Canada gets 3% use of the whole station in return for
providing the servicing equipment.  Europe and Japan each get 51%
of their own laboratory modules.  The US gets all else.  Station
resources, like power and crew time, go first to basic necessities
for keeping the station functioning; after that, the US gets about
70%, Europe and Japan each 13%, and Canada 3%.  The partners may
buy or trade resource use from each other.  Each nation pays for
maintaining its user hardware, plus a portion of "common" costs (divided
the same way as resources), plus fees for any use of the shuttle and
the TDRS network.  All partners provide astronauts, to be certified
and grouped into crews by NASA.  Astronauts do not work exclusively
on their own partner's equipment:  they all work on all areas of the
station, although there are provisions for protecting secret or
proprietary work.  Consensus management will be attempted, but NASA
resolves disputes, with appeal processes terminating in the White House.
The station plan continues to assume use of the shuttle for assembly
and resupply, but partners will be allowed to use their own launchers
and the US will supply necessary interface information.  Similarly,
TDRS is the base communications system but Europe can use its own
relay network [currently being thought about] if it wants.

China launchs a weather satellite into polar orbit from a new launch
site south of Beijing.

The Phobos 1 Mars probe is out of contact due to an erroneous ground
command that caused loss of attitude control; its antenna lock on
Earth is broken and it is feared lost.  NASA's Deep Space Network cannot
assist, because it is not yet ready for L-band operations and that's
the band the Phobos probes use.  (DSN is being equipped with L band
to help receive data from the Phobos missions.)  If the probe is tumbling,
as is thought likely, it has largely lost solar power, and its batteries
will only last two days.  [It has now been written off.]

Ariane launches two US comsats Sept 8.

Rockwell is examining the LOX valves that showed sluggish operation
during the shuttle flight-readiness firing.

United Technologies drops out of the new-SRB competition; the RFP has
finally been released, and certain clauses could require the winning
contractor to make major investments out of its own money in some
circumstances.

Geostar increases capitalization to $80M with stock offering to Sony
and other investors.  Geostar says this will bring it to profitability.

NATO signs for a Delta 2 launch for the NATO 4A military comsat.
McDonnell Douglas signs deal with NASA for use of facilities at the
Cape and Goddard to support Delta launches.

Japan launches one-stage sounding-rocket test model of the H-2 booster.

Courtney Stadd, ex-director of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation,
urges next administration not to start yet another review of space policy;
setting priorities and goals is urgent.  He says "this business of trying
to trickle up to the Oval Office assessments of where the nation ought to
go" doesn't work; leadership is needed.  He opposes full cost recovery for
the shuttle, saying it is needed to provide experience in space activity
and establish the existence of commercial opportunities.  He is concerned
that issues of risk management and foreign competition for commercial
launchers are still unsettled, two years after the basic policies were set.
Government use of commercial launchers will be especially important in
4-5 years, when the satellite backlog starts to taper off.  He has changed
his mind and now supports the Congressional launch-insurance approach
(government takes over after a specific liability ceiling) rather than
the White House one (absolute limit on liability), citing government
insurance aid to foreign competitors and use of launch facilities that
the companies have no input to.  He says commercial operators would
undoubtedly prefer a commercial launch facility which didn't have very
expensive government payloads and launchers nearby; he says Kourou is
a good example.

Heavily-flawed SRB joints pass Aug 18 test firing completely.  NASA and
Morton Thiokol originally didn't want to run this test, since the flaws
were far beyond anything realistic, but a failure would nevertheless
have caused major political problems.  Fortunately, it all worked.

NASA has put plans to use the pre-Challenger booster segments on hold.
The oxidizer shortage is not looking as bad as was thought.  The old
plan, of burning out some or all of them to make the casings available
for re-use (only one end was changed in the redesign, and the "bad ends"
can still be used in the factory joints in mid-segment, which have no
leak problems) is back on track.  NASA would like to spend a small
amount of money on a bunch of minor production changes, like qualifying
second sources for more of the parts, but there is concern that the
ASRM program may interfere with funding for this.  There is considerable
sentiment that the small payload increase from ASRM is not worth the
money, which should be spent on Shuttle-C instead.  [I am of two minds
about this.  On the one hand, I tend to agree:  since NASA has managed
to frame ASRM in terms that prohibit really radical redesign, like a
jointless SRB, I doubt that it's worth it.  On the other hand, I would
*really* like to see Morton Thiokol out of the SRB business -- they
deserve to get their tails kicked from here to the Moon, not to go on
getting lucrative contracts into the next century.  I'd have preferred
to see NASA put top priority on qualifying a second source, and a THIRD
source, for SRBs, and then ban M-T from all NASA programs forever.]

G. Gubanov, chief designer of Energia, says a heavylift derivative of
Energia will be needed "to organize industrial production in space,
research the moon... and to organize an international expedition to
Mars".  [Lord God of Undershorts, as if Energia wasn't heavy enough
to start with...  Probably he's thinking of going from four strap-ons
to six or eight, which would be perfectly practical if you move the
payload from the back to the top.]  He says Energia development work
is now focusing on long-term bulk production.  He says they are using
a "specially modified heavy aircraft" to carry the Energia core,
8m by 40m, from the plant to Baikonur.  The Soviets displayed a model
of such an aircraft, carrying a huge cargo pod resembling the Energia
core, at the 1987 Paris airshow.  The payload is nearly three times
the diameter of the fuselage.  [Now *that* must be something to see;
never mind this wimpy business of carrying a little shuttle orbiter!]
He says there are plans for both different upper stages and different
numbers of strap-ons for the existing Energia.  [Okay, so he *wasn't*
talking about just more strap-ons.  Lordy.]  He says Energia/shuttle
can do a survivable abort even with a strap-on failure or core-engine
failure in flight.  He says maximum launch mass can go as high as
2400 metric tons, 20% higher than Western observers believed.  It can
put 18 tons in Clarke orbit, 32 into a lunar trajectory, and up to
28 into Mars or Venus trajectory.  The first launch was from the pad
used for static firings, several miles from the *main* Energia/shuttle
launch complex.

[There is only one spacefaring nation on Earth.  And it looks like
they're going to keep their lead.  Either start praying for one of the
more ambitious US private-launch firms to hit it lucky, or start
learning Russian.]

A striking photo from a NASA/USAF/UMinnesota sounding-rocket experiment:
an actual picture of electrons spiraling in the Earth's magnetic field
at high altitude.  "We know that beams spiral like this, but to actually
see it for the first time is a remarkable thing."  The pictures were
strictly an accident:  the equipment, including a low-light-level camera
intended for other purposes entirely, continued functioning after its
main work was done, and the beam became visible just before reentry.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 17:30:41 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The End

In article <5201@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> smann@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Shannon Mann - I.S.er) writes:
>>  The big problem is to determine whether the total mass of the universe
>>IS smaller or larger than the critical mass. The best estimations today
>>give a value of only a few percent, which seems to support the ever-
>>expanding universe theory strongly. However, there are several problems
>>with these estimations...

There are, in fact, tenuous reasons for believing that the total mass
"ought to be" precisely the critical mass.  The significance of small
deviations from the critical mass grows as the universe evolves.  (For
example, a subcritical universe is harder to decelerate after it has
expanded for a while, since the inverse-square law weakens gravitational
attractions more quickly than deceleration slows the expansion.)  The
universe is, today, within a couple of orders of magnitude of its own
escape velocity.  That means it must have been very, very, very close
to it just after birth.  That's a very suspicious coincidence, since
there is no clear reason for such a near-miss.  The obvious hypothesis
is that, for some unknown fundamental reason, the universe is *exactly*
at escape velocity, and *exactly* at the critical mass, so we get the
borderline case:  flat space-time, continued expansion with velocity
going asymptotically to zero.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 06:54:15 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!watdcsu!smann@bellcore.com  (Shannon Mann - I.S.er)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

In article <4896@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
>In article <1988Oct26.184333.9263@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> In article <452@l5comp.UUCP> john@l5comp.UUCP (John Turner) writes:
>> > . . . crew of eight, which Collins specifies as four married couples.
>> 
>> . . .  The current Soviet position is that long-mission crews
>> should be all-male to avoid psychological problems.
>
>Should we take this as representative of Soviet marital stereotypes?
>Soviet sexual immaturity? Why not all female? Why does THAT notion
>seem so far out relative to the all-male concept? Talk about "sigh . . ."

Maybe I miss the point.  I think that the 'psychological' problem exists
within the politbureau.  I don't think that they feel comfortable with the
idea that these men would be up there with their wives.  It doesn't give
them any reason to come home :-)

        -=-
-=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca
        -=-

'I have no brain, and I must think...' - An Omynous
'If I don't think, AM I' - Another Omynous

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 06:39:42 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!watdcsu!smann@bellcore.com  (Shannon Mann - I.S.er)
Subject: Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory

In article <4745@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM () writes:
>*If* berserkers exist and if there are many "technically advanced"
>civilizations then this theory may hold water.  
>
>    1.  Berserkers visit and destroy many planets.
>    2.  Some civilizations realize the impending destruction.
>    3.  The civilizatons know they can't destroy the berserkers.
>    4.  They send a message to other "friendly" civilizations.
>    5.  They explode their star in desperation.

I find this excruciatingly funny.  They can't destroy the berserkers, yet
they can cause their sun to novae!

Why not put their sun at the center of a Dyson sphere, trap all sunlight,
and become an infrared star.  Being hidden seems like a better solution
then destroying your star!  

(Destroying your star because you are afraid of being beaten!  Ahahahah
ahahahahahahahaha ahahahahahaha ahahahahaha ahah ahahahaha ahahahaha 
ahahahahahahaha ahahaha  Too much!)

>Now, the exploding star (actually their own or a nearby one) will be
>viewed by other civilizations.  The others know that the star couldn't
>explode when it did, as these things aren't supposed to happen overnight.
>This could send a signal that bad things are happening to the exploding
>stars neighborhood.
>
>Why not send radio messages?  The berserkers would likely be able to 
>cover it up (it would have probably been tried before - berserkers 
>develop a defense).  A premature supernova or demise of a star would be 
>hard to cover up.

Worse yet, they probably wouldn't know what to make of your message anyway.

>Tim Beres   beres@cadnetix.com  {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres

I certainly hope this message was not serious.  If it was, I apologise
for my laughter.  But, think about it, if they can kill their SUN,
they could come up with something to deal with a berserker.

        -=-
-=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca
        -=-

'I have no brain, and I must think...' - An Omynous
'If I don't think, AM I' - Another Omynous

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 05:52:07 GMT
From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: Re: Is BURAN going to MIR?


In confirmation of Bruce Watson's article, I have done the same
calculations and it definitely looks like the Soviet shuttle launch is
synched with Mir.  Mir has also been doing manouevers in the past few
days.  However, docking or anything like that is out of the question.
Quite possibly the cosmonauts could observe BURAN from Mir: it should
be about 5 or 10 minutes behind Mir and therefore marginally within
line of sight.  The launch therefore comes a few minutes late for
docking; as a matter of fact at launch Mir will already be almost
overhead as seen from the launch site.

The mission is only supposed to last two orbits, eliminating viewing
possibilities from the States; even though Mir indeed is in a 
morning visibility window.

-Rich

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 04:15:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: 1967 Lunar Polar Orbiter


The latest issue of FINAL FRONTIER just arrived, and this month's "Data Base"
(a card stock insert) features lunar exploration missions.  One probe
(Lunar Orbiter 4 - launched May 4, 1967) was described as having, "Mapped 99%
of Moon's visible side from near-polar orbit."  I was under the impression
that no spacecraft had ever entered lunar polar orbit.

More importantly, was it equipped with a spectrometer able to detect the
supposed water at the lunar poles?

In short, how did this mission differ from the much talked about Lunar Polar
Orbiter?
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL 61820

 "Someone once defined a crank as an enthusiast without a sense of humor, and
 I have always believed that nothing is so important that you cannot make
 fun of it."
 - Arthur C. Clarke

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #87
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Nov 88 06:05:24 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04980>; Tue, 8 Nov 88 03:48:17 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  8 Nov 88 03:48:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kXRf4vy00jZd85S0RC>;
          Tue,  8 Nov 88 03:33:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.cXRew9y00UkZE1wE56>;
          Tue,  8 Nov 88 03:23:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space 0XResAy00UkZ81uk4e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: /afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space Tue,  8 Nov 88 03:19:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #88

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix
	      Re: politics, Miranda, and obsolete plans
	      Re: politics, Miranda, and obsolete plans
	  Re: Soviet Shuttle launch date and time announced
	Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
		       Re: John Denver in Space
		   NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
			Space Launch Start-ups
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 23:58:08 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix

In article <3439@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>[Apollo 1]    ...But it wasn't a "flight" -- there was no intention
>to launch and, I think, the capsule wasn't even stacked onto the stages.

It was a ground test, but it was after the booster and spacecraft were
stacked, so yes, there was a booster underneath.  The booster was
eventually used, I think for Apollo 7.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 03:16:06 GMT
From: vsi1!octopus!pyramid!uccba!uceng!dmocsny@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: politics, Miranda, and obsolete plans

In article <42@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@right (Nick Szabo) writes:
>   2) We can do
> this by mass-producing and launching small observer probes to orbit every 
> major planet and moon in the solar system, and setting up an optical DSN
> to return the data.  We have to show people the   
> excitement.  Anyone seen "Miranda, The Movie"?  Puts you on the surface
> of Miranda and takes you on a tour of its geological features, like the
> 10-mile high cliffs.

That's it! We can make planetary exploration a profit-making venture.
Compile a nice hefty database of planetary features (a few hundred
GB optical system ought to handle it, no problem with digital paper,
which will be selling for a pittance before we can get any more probes
out there), let subscribers connect to the server and go space
exploring with their home virtual reality rigs. Compared to Virtual
Space Adventure, today's entertainment options are going to look
pretty tame. Think of it...you fly in on your virtual rig, crash a
few dozen times until you learn to keep your hands off the controls,
you crawl around the surface, tumbling into crevasses and
craters (if only life had a ``pause'' key!), sneak up on a landing
party from the Enterprise, knock off the sacrificial security man
(``what did him in?'' ``Terminal cliche!''), observe James T. Kirk
discovering humanoid women on an otherwise lifeless sphere, walk up
on a big black monolith, and just when you're starting to cook...
POW! the display blanks out and you've got Carl Sagan telling you
that shortsighted governments spent the money on weapons so the
probe couldn't cover the area _you_ want to wander in, and the only
way to complete this data base is to sign a document with lots
of famous people (press hard
you're making six carbons) to show your elected officials that they
had better deliver the goods or you're going to tell their mom and
throw apple pie at them.

It can't miss.

Dan Mocsny
Nature hates empty disk space.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Oct 88 03:04:48 GMT
From: oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Phil Nelson)
Subject: Re: politics, Miranda, and obsolete plans

In article <351@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>In article <42@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@right (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>   2) We can do
>> this by mass-producing and launching small observer probes to orbit every 
>> major planet and moon in the solar system, and setting up an optical DSN

>That's it! We can make planetary exploration a profit-making venture.

>out there), let subscribers connect to the server and go space
>exploring with their home virtual reality rigs. Compared to Virtual

Just one thing; Why bother with the probes? It will be as easy to "simulate"
reality with fractal etc. terrain generation, since the goal is entertainment,
what difference does it make whether the data are "real"?

Anyway, we are already spending more money on fantasy trips than on real
exploration. No need to push virtual exploration, it will come soon enough.

I attended a meeting not long ago where a proposed "space amusement park"
was described, The principals explained that real exploration was too
difficult right now, so they would provide fake exploration to the masses,
which they thought they could make enough money at to later invest some
crumbs in real space efforts. Probably they are right.

Certainly, real exploration is difficult and dangerous. Maybe we should just
forget the whole thing. Instead, we can all stay home and watch TV.


>Dan Mocsny
>Nature hates empty disk space.


-- 
{ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson | Parallel IQ (the IQ of a group)
OnTyme: NSC.P/Nelson  POTS: (408)922-7508  | may be easily calculated given
Disclaimer: Not officially representing    | the IQ of each member - use the
McDonnell Douglas Corporation policy.      | formula for parallel resistance.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Oct 88 00:10:57 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle launch date and time announced

In article <8810270344.AA28432@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>... In this country's shuttle after main engine shut down
>the dive to release the tank the shuttle is at 95% orbital speed...

Correction:  only the first dozen or so shuttle missions made the dive.
The later ones, including STS-26 and all planned missions that I know of,
used a direct-ascent trajectory that deletes both the dive and the first
OMS burn.  (This is why the tanks used to go into the southern Indian
Ocean and now go into the Pacific off Hawaii.)
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Oct 88 00:08:02 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?

In article <3348@ttidca.TTI.COM> jackson@ttidca.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes:
>...concentric layers of
>strap-on boosters which "peeled away" when used...
>
>What is wrong with this idea? Today we have mass produced solid fuel
>components (a la ICBMs). Why not a cluster of ten surrounding a cluster of
>four surrounding a liquid core?

Not out of the question.  In fact it's done, on a very small scale, with
Delta:  the current Deltas have nine strap-ons, six of which ignite at
launch and three of which ignite later.  Amroc's proposed boosters, and
I think some of Space Services' boosters, are fairly complex clusters.

One problem with any clustered design is that it's that many more things
that have to ignite simultaneously, or else.  Reliability and simplicity
generally go together, which argues for "bigger and fewer".
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Oct 88 00:46:54 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

In article <4896@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
>> . . .  The current Soviet position is that long-mission crews
>> should be all-male to avoid psychological problems.
>
>Should we take this as representative of Soviet marital stereotypes?
>Soviet sexual immaturity?

It's been said a number of times that Soviet society is basically Victorian
in a number of ways...

>Why not all female? Why does THAT notion
>seem so far out relative to the all-male concept? ...

The USSR is a male-dominated society, rather more so than most Western
nations.

However, I think people are missing a point here.  The Soviets know far
more about the psychology of long space missions than we do; they're the
ones who have been flying them!  They pay far more attention to issues
like psychological support of cosmonauts than we do.  (If cosmonaut A
does not like cosmonaut B, and A is up on a long-duration mission, B
will *not* be assigned to a short-visit crew, regardless of how well
his technical qualifications fit him for the mission.  Every long-stay
cosmonaut has a psychological support team on Earth, composed of friends
who talk to him regularly and work at keeping his morale up.  Etc.)
Their current opinion -- perhaps influenced by the somewhat backward
attitudes of their culture -- is that sexually-mixed crews increase
tension and cause bickering and other problems.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 15:13:23 GMT
From: hpl-opus!hpccc!hp-sde!hpcea!hpbsla!jmcvey@hplabs.hp.com  (John_McVey)
Subject: Re: John Denver in Space

I wonder if it is truly a matter of principle that J.D. won't pay the $10M
or can't he afford it.  If I had the $10M laying around I would pay it and
go;  my only hesitation would be the soviet hardware (please ... no flames).

John McVey
(space enthusiast)
hplabs!hpbslq!jmcvey
or
hplabs%jmcvey@hpbslq

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 23:28:29 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the amateur satellite community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:
 
AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN
 
Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical 
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending of ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (Blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:
 
NOAA 6   
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978
 
Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in 
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 09:42:21 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

>From article <1988Oct30.004654.16316@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp
(Henry Spencer): 
> The Soviets know far more about the psychology of long space
> missions than we do....  Their current opinion -- perhaps
> influenced by the somewhat backward attitudes of their culture --
> is that sexually-mixed crews increase tension and cause bickering
> and other problems.

While Henry's first point is certainly well-taken, one might point
out that the Soviet's have no experimental data with sexually-mixed
space crews.  The experience of crews wintering-over in the Antarctic
might be relevant, though there the crew sizes are larger and the
male/female ratio is 3:1 or 4:1.  My second-hand information (i.e.
from people who have spent summers there but not wintered-over) is
that there is tension but that far more is caused by the isolation
than the presence of both sexes.

It seems to me that experimentation is in order.  I wouldn't be
surprised if all-female crews turned out to work best
psychologically, not to mention cutting consumption of food and
oxygen. 
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 01:08:49 GMT
From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kevin S. Van Horn)
Subject: Space Launch Start-ups

I am aware of the following start-ups who seem to be "for real", i.e. they've
actually built hardware and have contracts:

Pacific American Launch Systems (Liberty I)
American Rocket Company (Industrial Launch Vehicle)
Hercules/OSC (Pegasus)
Space Services Incorporated (Firestar)

The latest info I have on them is as follows:

Pacific American:
  Has tested or is in the process of testing first stage.  Has some kind of
  military contract?

American Rocket Company:
  At beginning of October had completed last major milestone before launch,
  viz., a full-duration test burn of one of their rockets.  The next step
  is a sub-orbital launch for a paying customer (payload is a zero-gee
  materials processing experiment).

Hercules/OSC:
  As of May they were half-way through the two-year development of Pegasus,
  having spent 1/3 of their total development budget. 

Space Services Incorporated:
  Will be doing a sub-orbital launch for a paying customer in March '89,
  another materials processing experiment.

Does anybody have any more recent or detailed information on any of these?
(Such as, when are AMROC, PacAm and Hercules/OSC planning their first
launches?)  Also, I have seen references to a start-up called Conatec that
has already obtained a launch license from the OCST.  Does anyone have
any information on this company?

Kevin S. Van Horn
kevin@cit-adel.caltech.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #88
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Nov 88 19:03:21 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01512>; Tue, 8 Nov 88 06:05:03 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  8 Nov 88 06:04:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXRgrfy00jZd43hE9H>;
          Tue,  8 Nov 88 05:35:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.0XRgePy00UkZ027U56>;
          Tue,  8 Nov 88 05:21:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space cXRgbzy00UkZI26050@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: /afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space Tue,  8 Nov 88 05:18:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #89

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
		   Re: Status of teacher-in-space?
		      Finally found citations...
		   Re: Status of teacher-in-space?
		      Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix
			  Re: Moon .vs. Mars
		       Re: John Denver in Space
		      Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix
			  Re: Flood legends
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 17:00:30 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@rutgers.edu  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)


In article <7413@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
> In article <176@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) writes:
> > I've often seen attempts at justifying the manned space program via
> > this "survival of the species" argument.  I hope people making this
> > argument realize that, in my opion, the same result can be obtained,
> > and at far less cost, by entombing people in underground cities in
> > remote regions of the Earth.  Unglamorous, but effective.
>
> Don't like to admit it, but he's right.

Let's take the obvious rebuttal first:  Any underground city on Earth
would be vulnerable in principle to disasters affecting Earth.  It
might survive such problems, and then again, it might not.  The big
survivability advantage of an off-Earth colony is that it *is* off-Earth.

Another factor to consider is that an off-Earth colony would be useful
for more than just a racial "insurance policy," whereas an underground
city would have no other use.

But the killing blow for this underground city proposal is, no one
would want to live there.  Just look at the phrase used to describe it,
``entombing people in underground cities.''  Does that sound attractive
to you?  I realize a space colony would also be a (relatively) small
and isolated environment, but it would have many other reasons for its
existence than just attempting to ensure survival for some part of the
human race.  It would supply correspondingly many motivations for people
to want to live in it.

Which leads me to my final point:  several of these anti-space colony
arguments take the form of (a) pick some particular benefit which
pro-space people have said a space colony could provide, (b) describe
some other (expensive) way of getting this benefit, (c) claim that
space colonies are the wrong way to get it, (d) conclude that space
colonies are a bad idea.

Each such argument ignores all the other benefits which a space colony
would provide.  My position is, building space colonies would provide
many different important benefits.  None of the proposed alternatives
addresses more than a couple of them.  It therefore seems foolish to
give much weight to anti-space colony arguments based on these
alternatives, unless some attempt is made to gather them together to
compare total costs and benefits.


Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 21:05:16 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <966@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
>In article <7413@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
>> In article <176@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) 
>> writes:
>> > I've often seen attempts at justifying the manned space program via
>> > this "survival of the species" argument.  I hope people making this
>> > argument realize that, in my opion, the same result can be obtained,
>> > and at far less cost, by entombing people in underground cities in
>> > remote regions of the Earth.  Unglamorous, but effective.
>>
>> Don't like to admit it, but he's right.
>
>Let's take the obvious rebuttal first:  Any underground city on Earth
>would be vulnerable in principle to disasters affecting Earth.  ...
>The big survivability advantage of an off-Earth colony is that it *is* 
>off-Earth.

Agreed.  The probability of it's survival would be increased (provided it
could be independent of Earth in the first place).  I have difficulty,
however, with a justification of near-term space colonies based on a global 
catastrophe of such magnitude.  Such events appear to be too infrequent 
and of insufficient strength to justify the cost of anticipating them in
this fashion.  (The last major one was, I believe, the CT extinction---
quite a while ago.)

>Another factor to consider is that an off-Earth colony would be useful
>for more than just a racial "insurance policy," whereas an underground
>city would have no other use.

Are you sure?  Considering the novelty of both ventures, how can we
know?  Until the practical economics have evolved to semi-stablity,
statements such as the above strike me as too speculative.

>But the killing blow for this underground city proposal is, no one
>would want to live there. ...

How does that make it less viable?  Prisoners don't want to live where
they are either.  Please understand that the sole purpose of my
counter-proposal was to demonstrate a more cost effective means of
achieving a much-touted end.  Consequently, If one truely believes in 
the necessity of species survival, then one should, it seems to me, 
consider the alternatives or else at least note that this justification 
of space-colonization is a secondary one and not as important as the 
primary reasons.

>Which leads me to my final point:  several of these anti-space colony
>arguments take the form of (a) pick some particular benefit which
>pro-space people have said a space colony could provide, (b) describe
>some other (expensive) way of getting this benefit, (c) claim that
>space colonies are the wrong way to get it, (d) conclude that space
>colonies are a bad idea.

b) I believe the alternative I proposed is less expensive.
c) I don't want to get it.  The species survival argument is, in my
   opinion, far too speculative and of secondary importance.
d) (Please, my mouth is so often full of my own feet that I would
   appreciate not having someone elses words also stuffed into it :-).
   I am not against space colonies, only their unecessary near-term 
   (i.e. within fifty years) appropriation of scarce resources and their 
   justifiction by what I consider to be specious arguments.  I hope
   to demonstrate the weakness of such arguments by making counter-
   proposals which serve the same ends but are much more cost effective.

>Each such argument ignores all the other benefits which a space colony
>would provide.  My position is, building space colonies would provide
>many different important benefits.  None of the proposed alternatives
>addresses more than a couple of them.  It therefore seems foolish to
>give much weight to anti-space colony arguments based on these
>alternatives, unless some attempt is made to gather them together to
>compare total costs and benefits.

Agreed.  Please proceed---starting with near-term space colonization;
but please don't use species survival as a primary rationale.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 12:10:36 GMT
From: texbell!tness1!nuchat!sugar!peter@bellcore.com  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Status of teacher-in-space?

The message you're about to read is a fib, but it's short.

What about the nerds in space program? Much more important to most of the
folk watching this channel...

Back to reality.

These sorts of "X in space" programs stick in my craw (yeh, I know, if you
don't like it don't eat it). They're basically a publicity stunt designed
to distract attention from the basic failures of NASA to provide a consistent
and effective space *program*. They don't have a product, just a series of
projects.

I've worked for companies like that. Rode one almost into the ground.

I don't see this new Mars program as being anything but more of the same. Sure,
it'll give NASA direction if they can ever get interested in persuing it, but
it's like it's got this little sign on the side: "Single use package, do not
refill". And after we've gotten to Mars they'll shut down the assembly lines
and leave us with a little space infrastructure that'll decay as fast as
Skylab's orbit. Oh, they're not planning on it... but the people setting it up
and the people in charge when they tear it down aren't going to be talking to
each other.

I have no solution, at this point. I don't know how to design a space
spectacular for the bread-and-circuses crowd that'll survive a hostile
administration after its first success. About the only program out there
that's being taken at all seriously and requires long term support is SDI.

Guess I better start learning Russian.

This evening of angst brought to you by another disilusioned space nut.
-- 
		Peter da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net
		 Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?

	Disclaimer: I accept full responsibility for my own typos.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1988 13:44-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Finally found citations...

In some previous postings over the last month or so I referred to
articles that I could not find at the time. One of them was on mass
extinctions by acid rain:

	"After the Fall" Science,26-Feb-88, p977

I also ran across the citation on Dinosaurs in cold climates, (also in
Science) but neglected to make a copy for file...

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 18:39:22 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Status of teacher-in-space?

In article <2933@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:

>The message you're about to read is a fib, but it's short.

Haven't I heard this on a children's show somewhere :-)

> [...]
>to distract attention from the basic failures of NASA to provide a consistent
>and effective space *program*. They don't have a product, just a series of
>projects.
>
>I've worked for companies like that. Rode one almost into the ground.
>

Wait a minute! NASA is NOT a company, it is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY. Congress
tells them which programs they can do, and which they can't. Congress
also tells NASA how to organize itself.

Put the blame where it belongs: your elected represenatives.

-- greg

----------
Greg Lindahl                                     internet:  gl8f@virginia.edu
University of Virginia Department of Astronomy     bitnet:  gl8f@virginia.bitnet
     "Doesn't Quayle know that the FBI handles domestic assassinations?"

------------------------------

Date: 30 Oct 88 23:04:38 GMT
From: fin!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix

In article <4967@hplabsb.HP.COM> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
>>> The Apollo 1 fire ocurred during a countdown test on January 27, 1969.
>>
>>Try 1966, not 1969.
>
>No.  Try 1967.  This string is beginning to remind me of the argument
>over English/metric conversion.  "1in = 24.5 mm!"  "No, 1in = 25.4 cm!",
>etc., with no one getting it right.  Some posters can't spell.  I can
>believe the claims about the sad state of education in this country.

   I second this.  Please, please, get facts & figures straight before
   posting.
Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 31 Oct 88 10:31:14 PST
From: greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Moon .vs. Mars
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"

	I'm go for a Lunar base too, and I'm encouraged to see how many others
are.  It's not that I mind a Mars mission, but I think it would be more logical
to establish operations on the Moon first.  Of course, before we even do that,
it might be a good idea to put up a space platform or two, which is what we
should have done in the first place, i.e., in 1967 or '68.
	Maybe, and this is probably completely unsubstantiated wishful thinking
on my part, but maybe if JFK hadn't been such a good orator, and then if he
hadn't gone and got hisself martyred, and then if LBJ hadn't been such a good
arm-twister, maybe our space program would have plodded along step-by-step in
an orderly and logical fashion so that by now we'd have hundreds of people in
orbit or on the Moon.
	Anyway, we went to the Moon "because it is there", but I don't think
that's a good enough reason to go to Mars.  I think we should develop and
exploit our way to Mars *and the other planets* rather than limit our vision
to what would likely be a one-shot mission to Mars.

----
"Pave Paradise,				|         Dale M. Greer
 	put up a parking lot."		|   Center for Space Sciences
		-- Who said that?	| University of Texas at Dallas

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 04:44:47 GMT
From: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (William A. Bralick)
Subject: Re: John Denver in Space

In article <1160001@hpbsla.HP.COM> jmcvey@hpbsla.HP.COM (John_McVey) writes:
->I wonder if it is truly a matter of principle that J.D. won't pay the $10M
->or can't he afford it.  If I had the $10M laying around I would pay it and
->go;  my only hesitation would be the soviet hardware (please ... no flames).

This is not intended as a flame, but I would hesitate to pay the Soviets
$10M in "hard" (i.e. U.S.) currency.  Perhaps this is the source of J.D.'s
trepidation.

Cordially,

-- 
Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology,    |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                      |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz

------------------------------

Date: 30 Oct 88 00:04:01 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix

In article <181@guardian.UUCP> prune@myrddyn.i.intel.com (Prune Wickart) writes:
>> ... The commander of the next Apollo mission
>> wanted to call his spacecraft "Phoenix" but NASA wouldn't let him
>> because it would remind people of the disaster.
>
>   The Apollo training module, "Molly Brown", developed an electrical problem.
>The resulting fire in the high-oxygen environment killed  the three astronauts
>trining for the first manned Apollo mission: Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and
>Ed White. I don't know about the name "Phoenix".

This is a bit confused.  Grissom unofficially named his *Gemini* spacecraft,
which flew the Gemini 3 mission, "The Unsinkable Molly Brown", in reference
to his Mercury capsule (which sank).  It was at that point that NASA decided
that manned spacecraft would not have names henceforth!  There was thus no
prospect of the Apollo 7 spacecraft having *any* official name.  The no-names
policy was reversed only when it became clear that Apollo 9 and the later
missions, with two manned spacecraft (CSM and LM), would need radio callsigns
and thus would necessarily have names of some sort.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 01:36:03 GMT
From: polya!crew@labrea.stanford.edu  (Roger Crew)
Subject: Re: Flood legends

In article <594158661.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> 
> In particular it is known that the Mediterranean basin was dry and had
> freshwater lakes on its bottom until the Atlantic water levels rose
> again to the point at which they flowed over the Straits of Gibralter
> in a massive water fall that refilled the basin in a mere 300 years or
> so.

true enough...  However my understanding is that this was something on
the order of six million years ago --- well before the glacial periods
and also well before any oral traditions (somewhat before MODERN MAN, 
for that matter...)

As for for the ocean level rising at the beginning of the interglacial
period, figure that the coastline moved perhaps several hundred miles
over the course of a few thousand years.  It's not the sort of thing that
one would actually *notice* unless one made a point of regularly
surveying and drawing maps every few years.  Nomadic tribes had better
things to do with their time.

--
Roger Crew  ``So, K-K-K-Ken, you're going to k-k-k-k-kill me?  I'm so SCARED!''
Usenet:    {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!crew
Internet:  crew@polya.Stanford.EDU

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #89
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Nov 88 01:10:00 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03541>; Wed, 9 Nov 88 00:54:04 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  9 Nov 88 00:53:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gXRxcQy00jZd03g0IA>;
          Wed,  9 Nov 88 00:40:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.YXRxNuy00UkZ04rE5U>;
          Wed,  9 Nov 88 00:24:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space MXRxKOy00UkZM4pk4V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: /afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space Wed,  9 Nov 88 00:20:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #90

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 90

Today's Topics:
		    space news from Sept 19 AW&ST
		Re: Asimov on Future of Space Program
		      Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix
			  Re: Moon vs. Mars
		      Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix
		       Chinese space launch pad
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 05:28:20 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Sept 19 AW&ST

Editorial castigating NASA for reducing access to good launch-viewing
sites at KSC.  A silly compromise it was, too:  if there is real danger
at the standard viewing sites, *nobody* except persons needed to launch
the shuttle should be within the perimeter.  That's actually what the
USAF safety people originally wanted.  Rep. Bill Nelson protests the
restriction as damaging to worker morale (many of the now-excluded
spectators are contractor staff) and says he and other congressmen
would have intervened had they realized NASA would be so spineless.

Second editorial calling for abolishing SIG-Space (the Senior Interagency
Group for space).  "In the area of civilian space policy, leadership by
committee has not served the space program well.  It's time for a change."
It also urges the next administration to act rather than studying the
situation yet again.

Yet more bad news.  The Ariane launch on Sept 8, with two US comsats on
board, went perfectly... but the apogee motor on Gstar-3, one of the two,
malfunctioned somehow and it is stranded in a useless orbit.  (SBS-5,
the other satellite, had no problems.)  An attempt will be made to move
Gstar-3 into Clarke orbit using its maneuvering thrusters, but this will
use up most of its station-keeping fuel and reduce its useful life
severely.  GTE Spacenet says the satellite will be considered a writeoff
for insurance purposes -- $60M worth.  Actually the total will be more
like $77M after the satellite manufacturer and Geostar (which had another
piggyback payload aboard) collect on their policies.  GTE will try to get
some minimal use out of the satellite until they can get Gstar-4 launched;
G-4 is booked for Ariane in April 1990 and GTE is asking Arianespace to
move it up.  It appears that the apogee motor on G-3 fired for its full
normal burn, but late in the burn something -- perhaps a crack in the
nozzle -- sent the satellite's attitude wildly out of control.  The
satellite may actually have done a complete flip, and its spin ended up
reversed as well (!).

The head of NOAA observed the Ariane launch, and says he will recommend
that future NOAA metsat launch competitions include Ariane as a full
competitor.

ESA and NASA are studying the idea of using Hermes as the rescue vehicle
for the space station.  One Hermes would be parked at the station at all
times, exchanged for a fresh one every 3-4 months.  ESA says it looks
feasible at first glance.  France is also about to invite the US and
the USSR to a meeting on developing a standardized docking system for
manned spacecraft, saying it's ridiculous that this hasn't happened
already.

In view of the Cosmos 1900 flap, some fuss has been made about a US
report estimating public-health consequences for space-nuclear-power
missions:  for some idiotic reason the report is classified!

Rep. George Brown introduces bill to ban nuclear power sources in orbit.

The insurance people are looking at another really bad year, with Gstar 3
a writeoff and Insat 1C not doing too well, and echoes from last year's
Telecom 1B and TVSat writeoffs still around.  (Fortunately, the US
snoopsat lost in September was not insured!)  The insurers are likely
to be very cool to the idea of insuring TDF, a French comsat slated
for October launch, which is nearly identical to TVSat.

Reagan approves use of Chinese booster for US-built satellites.  Launch
companies unhappy, satellite builders pleased.  Congressional review and
international export-control review are still pending.  China has agreed
to technology-transfer safeguards; it will be interesting to see what
happens if the Soviets do the same.  The official US position is that
the USSR is still off-limits.  The agreement with China is conditional
on agreement on details of technology safeguards, agreement on Chinese
responsibility for third-party liability, and agreement by China to do
something about not competing too severely with the US launch industry.
[Whatever happened to free enterprise?]

SDI considering a Brilliant-Pebbles flight experiment:  experience in
use of small optics in space against an Earth background is considered
important.

USAF is promoting space-based radar as a program for international
cooperation, to try to get some Nunn-amendment funding for it.  The
USAF would like it for cruise-missile defense.  Canada is interested
but only somewhat, since it looks very expensive.

AF Sec. Aldridge softens his opposition to small satellites in general,
although he is still strongly opposed to the idea of replacing existing
satellites with groups of smaller ones.

Letter from Stewart Dean:

	"The Space Sciences paper by Dr. Allen [Van Allen?] and
	the National Academy of Sciences is yet another plan by
	the foxes for an improved hen house.

	"True, these scientists are motivated by a desire for
	knowledge, [and] what they know how to do is remote sensing;
	thus, a space effort is best done by remote sensing in their
	expert opinion...

	"[They] are 'preparing for the last war' when they should be
	training the next generation of scientific astronauts."
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 88 19:00:40 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!alex@uunet.uu.net  (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Asimov on Future of Space Program

In article <IXLZdLy00VsIM7Bscc@andrew.cmu.edu> bobg+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert Steven Glickstein) writes:
>Like many who have recently posted opinions against a near-term manned mission
>to Mars, Isaac Asimov wrote a brief editorial column for Discover magazine
>(Jan-88, p.18) entitled "Lost in space; if we hurry, we could soon reach Mars.
>If we're patient, the solar system could be ours for the taking."

>Asimov writes eloquently on the advisability of abandoning all whizbang
>ideas of super-PR missions in favor of the methodical exploitation of space.

>Has anyone else read this article?  What are people's opinions on Asimov's
>ideas?  I, for one, agree with him 100%.

>                                 Bob Glickstein

That seems straightforward enough. But wait! What's this...?

>From: EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric William Tilenius)
>PARTIAL LIST OF SIGNATORIES OF THE MARS DECLARATION.
>ISAAC ASIMOV, Author

If we assume for the moment the accuracy of the "hidden agenda" ascribed
to the Planetary Society on this one, isn't Asimov shooting himself in
the foot? In addition, of course, to shooting his mouth off, which is one
of the endearing quirks of his non-fiction :-).
-- 
ARPA: alex%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk      USENET: alex@cs.glasgow.uucp
BANGNET: ...!mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!alex       JANET: alex@uk.ac.glasgow.cs
"You mean you could have walked the galaxy and you simply never bothered?"
Alex Ferguson.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Oct 88 18:31:18 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix

In article <181@guardian.UUCP>, prune@guardian.UUCP (prune) writes:
>    The Apollo training module, "Molly Brown", developed an electrical problem.
> 
"Molly Brown" was the name chosen by Gus Grissom for his Gemini spacecraft,
after the sinking of the Mercury "Liberty Bell 7".  The fire was NOT in a
training module, but rather in the AS204 spacecraft, which was slated for
orbital flight.  Check "History of Manned Spaceflight", which is a reasonably
good reference to such facts of our space program.

N. Kluksdahl            Arizona State U.
         ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 07:06:37 GMT
From: grv101%psuvm.BITNET@jade.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Moon vs. Mars

In article <135@loci.UUCP>, clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) says:
>        This isn't ignorance either but a trait which
>        may be uniquely human: greed. Is this a species worth saving?
>        We already can see the answer: no, humans aren't valuable. They
>        are to be used, exploited, enslaved, killed and otherwise treated
>        the same as everything else. Pick up any newspaper and see what
>        people think of each other.
>
>        So lose your rose-colored glasses and set aside the humanitarian
>        rhetoric. Actions speak so much louder, people are self-centered,
>        arrogant, filthy creatures who would gladly crush millions of
>        their own kind to further their own power, and they invent new
>        ways to do it when then old ways become passe. Can you close your
>        eyes to history? Do you really think people will change?
>
Think you can cheer up a little bit? All you can seem to notice is that the
glass is half empty. It is your familiarity with human compassion and love that
 has caused you to detest greed and hate so much. No one will deny that mankind
 has a long way to go but look at how far we have come.

     *A set of objective laws did not exist on our planet untill the code of
      Hamarabi(sp?)

     *The people of Europe bowed to the whims of the monarchs untill the
      Magna Carta

     *Slavery was accepted worldwide untill in the mid eighteenth century when
      suddenly countrys began passing laws banning it. Today it is all but gone

     *Although racism and sexism are still practiced, it is now dangerous both
      politically and morally to promote them openly.

Try to see humanity for the growing species that it is. Would you shoot your
best friend just because he/she was a bit immature?

                                   Gregson R. Vaux

------------------------------

Date: 30 Oct 88 18:38:24 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Phoenix

In article <3450@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes:
> In article <169@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
> }The Apollo 1 fire ocurred during a countdown test on January 27, 1969.
>                                                                   ^^^^
> Can't have been 1969, since Apollo 8 orbited the moon Christmas 1968.  If
> I remember correctly, it was 1967.

So I flunked typing.  All I can say is OOPS.  Absolutely correct.  1967.

I stand humbly corrected.

N. Kluksdahl

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 88 17:29:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Chris Koenigsberg <ckk+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 4523+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
To: Ted Anderson <ota+space-digest@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Chinese space launch pad

The Associated Press    APN-3316
AP 10/27 00:36 EDT a0413
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer

   XICHANG, China (AP) -- Turbaned peasants trudge by, prodding water buffalo
and lugging firewood, and taking little notice of the towering hollow structure
from another time and for another universe.
   Surrounded by green mountains in an isolated corner of Sichuan province, the
Xichang Satellite Center and its 11-story gantry is the takeoff point for
China's entry into the international satellite launching market.
   The base, normally closed to foreigners, is on display as China enters final
negotiations with Washington on issuing U.S. licenses for the launch of three
Hughes Aircraft Co. satellites. They would be the first American satellites put
into orbit by a non-Western country.
   Agreement has been reached on safeguarding U.S. technology secrets during the
launch process and establishing China's liability in case of accident.
   Officials meet again in November to work out how to ensure that Chinese
prices, much lower than those charged by the U.S. space shuttle or European
Ariane services, won't jeopardize the American commercial launching industry.
   Xichang's first commercial venture could come as early as 1989 with the
launch of Westar 6, an old satellite retrieved by the space shuttle in 1984, for
AsiaSat, a Hong Kong consortium.
   An Australian company, AUSSAT, intends to put two Hughes communications
satellites into orbit in the early 1990s.
   China decided in the mid-1970s to build a rocket base in this remote area
because it is easy to defend, sparsely populated and has clear winter days well
suited for launches.
   But while the base is part of China's march to the 21st century, it is
surrounded by reminders of the Middle Ages.
   The site is 40 miles north of Xichang, a small town accessible from the
provincial capital of Chengdu by twice-a-week airplane flights or a 12-hour
train ride.
   On the road from Xichang, women wash clothes in streams, water buffalo pull
wooden plows through rice paddies, and barefoot children scamper around
mud-baked houses. Farmers spread their grain on the road so truck wheels can
help grind it.
   Between launches, the base looks abandoned.
   The site, run by the People's Liberation Army, employs 1,200, but new
buildings to house the 141-foot Long March III rockets and satellites during
pre-launch testing are almost empty.
   Windows in the gantry blown out during the last launch in March have yet to
be replaced.
   About four miles from the launch pad, only two engineers sat at monitors in
the gymnasium-like control center. A smaller control center, built into the
mountains at the launch site, was not shown to visitors.
   Site officials say the simplicity of the operation is a main reason for its
competitive prices and high success rate. China reportedly can undercut space
shuttle or Ariane prices by as much as 30 percent.
   Tong Lianjie, deputy director of the center, said the price advantage is
"mainly because our launching facilities are simple, reliable and practical."
   He said the equipment, all produced in China, is relatively cheap and
"technical personnel in China have fairly low salaries. We will not seek a high
profit, although of course we will seek a profit."
   Tong gave assurances China will not pose a threat to other satellite
services. "Because of the limited number of launches, we can't be that
competitive in the international market."
   Center officials said military control over China's space program is another
reason for its successes. Since 1970, when China became the fifth nation after
the Soviet Union, the United States, France and Japan to launch a satellite with
its own carrier rocket, it has had 23 successful launches and one failure.
   "Military discipline is better than that of civilians, who spend half the
time smoking cigarettes and the other half working," said Wang Yongde, deputy
director of the center.
   China's space program, overseen by the Ministry of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, is concentrating on building a more powerful version of the Long
March III and adding a second launch pad at Xichang by early 1990. This will
give China the ability to put a payload of up to 8.8 tons in orbit, compared
with 1.4 tons at present and 12 tons for the space shuttle.
   China has had feelers about its launching services from more than a dozen
countries and has signed an agreement with Brazil for future joint development
of satellites for the study of Earth.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #90
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Nov 88 08:51:16 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07214>; Wed, 9 Nov 88 03:53:58 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  9 Nov 88 03:53:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QXS0C5y00UkTA1m0JN>;
          Wed,  9 Nov 88 03:36:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.UXS039y00UkZE5=U43>;
          Wed,  9 Nov 88 03:24:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space 4XRzxqy00UkZA5-04W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: /afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space Wed,  9 Nov 88 03:19:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #91

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 23:28:04 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #404 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88291.13302100 0.00000184           21232-3 0  1636
2 00424  80.4676 165.3699 0024420  35.8929 324.3855 13.67019212299608
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88294.82273952 0.00000002           10000-2 0  5795
2 08820 109.8115 148.1329 0044552   6.9292 353.1936  6.38664132 35345
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88294.43241648 -.00000006                   0  1729
2 10061   6.5537  70.9919 0007707 169.4358 190.6378  1.00270940  2973
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88293.13418132 0.00000013                   0  9758
2 10684  63.4572 108.2865 0102106 197.6306 162.0606  2.00563371 63692
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88294.58372793 -.00000029                   0  9233
2 10893  64.5661 349.0682 0143374  29.5360 331.3351  2.00563008 76545
GOES 3     
1 10953U          88295.48044992 0.00000086           10000-3 0  5386
2 10953   5.4258  73.7824 0006727 227.4387 132.5991  1.00283118   228
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88290.12044437 0.00000827           34029-3 0   285
2 10967 108.0143 145.2867 0003815 226.8632 133.2198 14.33921063539096
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88293.40506085 -.00000028                   0  9482
2 11054  64.1271 345.6408 0051100 120.7509 239.8207  2.00570917 73535
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88296.00276082 0.00000013                   0   506
2 11141  63.4631 108.1212 0054361 324.1386  35.5363  2.00557718 72283
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88294.42489836 0.00000741           33095-3 0  7653
2 11416  98.4980 292.7011 0012878  87.4595 272.8057 14.25245094483742
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88294.69235528 0.00023185           69247-3    7226
2 11703  28.4982 142.0684 0002777 228.9426 131.0952 15.33195639482851
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88284.49360979 -.00000029                   0  8121
2 11783  63.9377 345.6349 0134777  63.9742 297.4797  2.00563246 61999
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88289.26931152 -.00000244           10000-3 0   169
2 11964   4.8700  75.8457 0002546 141.5755 219.2707  1.00254953 45414
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88291.34575995 -.00000241           10000-3 0  6472
2 12472   1.9174  83.3497 0001306 170.8467 189.4972  1.00248790 26174
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88293.04390760 0.00025408           71377-3 0  3378
2 12888  97.6007 329.8057 0001896 355.9155   4.1968 15.36517787391730
RS-08      
1 12998U          88293.23502207 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5442
2 12998  82.9527   7.3590 0018318 150.5689 209.6386 12.02965689300334
RS-05      
1 12999U          88294.27365261 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5344
2 12999  82.9551   1.4597 0010075  89.1092 271.1058 12.05068409300989
RS-07      
1 13001U          88291.56176915 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4142
2 13001  82.9639 353.2781 0022576   3.8304 356.2923 12.08707047301564
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88288.90876603 0.00000193           16447-3 0  6042
2 13113  82.5355 253.6669 0016840  34.9079 325.3172 13.83878303331315
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88298.61837966 0.00012318           37492-3 0  2802
2 13138  51.6143  23.9976 0000591 308.6477  51.4022 15.34380758371946
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88292.58313483 0.00000382           19648-3 0  7131
2 13718  81.2467 157.8657 0055945 327.6970  32.0783 14.13011706301439
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88286.31788192 0.00000119                   0  8292
2 14050   0.6557  85.6268 0001890 122.2961 152.1067  1.00274877  4126
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88284.47386954 0.00000029           10000-3 0  3597
2 14129  27.0955 300.5380 6036028 343.4847   3.3322  2.05878657 12075
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88293.06570182 0.00000012                   0  5607
2 14189  63.0966 106.9104 0129967 212.7975 146.5362  2.00553265 38605
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88291.08704514 0.00000501           21218-3 0  6611
2 14452  81.1673 177.1053 0096705  76.8568 284.3389 14.21861851257991
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88297.00052560 0.00000346           81879-4 0  5605
2 14780  98.2029 357.3596 0001637 270.9013  89.1928 14.57117569247027
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88294.19202617 0.00001481           30082-3 0  3566
2 14781  98.0406 353.7167 0013735   1.1842 358.9387 14.62511671247456
LDEF       
1 14898U          88294.17956234 0.00017815           45990-3 0  6525
2 14898  28.4851  48.4166 0002625  98.2772 261.8152 15.37639868254337
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88293.11697371 0.00000012                   0  6025
2 15039  62.8273 106.2645 0013462 297.1108  62.7646  2.00565234 31884
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88288.72514631 0.00000239           20760-3 0  9033
2 15099  82.5335 201.5614 0011908 201.4832 158.5825 13.83552778216170
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88289.52418402 -.00000029           10000-2 0  5380
2 15271  63.4339 345.3593 0096194 314.9864  44.3119  2.00559542 28927
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88293.71147528 0.00002260           33798-3 0  9259
2 15331  82.5404 200.1358 0025793 142.0917 218.2130 14.74129415218777
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88294.95420359 0.00000380           22969-3 0  2935
2 15427  99.1164 271.6155 0014585 265.2283  94.7212 14.11674655198697
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88294.52021858 0.00000137           11341-3 0   286
2 15516  82.5340 135.3812 0017698  68.4834 291.8203 13.83987558187906
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88298.81377853 0.00011110           33928-3 0   653
2 16095  51.6087  23.0592 0000999 327.8782  32.2055 15.34381962173645
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88291.17904451 0.00000013                   0  2779
2 16129  63.6324 106.7637 0115133 149.6422 211.0678  2.00567546 22168
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88292.74839411 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7824
2 16191  82.5491  46.4510 0019696 177.4074 182.7179 13.16934991143740
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88294.32883728 0.00000158           13206-3 0  4365
2 16408  82.5320  50.3988 0014876 254.4731 105.4787 13.84071290142370
Mir        
1 16609U          88293.73977731 0.00079726           52479-3 0  4632
2 16609  51.6159 147.7137 0024353 210.4815 149.4161 15.74544942153447
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88298.60666041 -.00000308          -13604-3 0  2195
2 16613  98.7267  10.6118 0001620 109.2889 250.8369 14.20019436 51268
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88294.40096988 0.00000114           96946-4 0  2601
2 16735  82.5333  77.0458 0013992 330.6573  29.3796 13.83802140121291
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88296.88972064 0.00001151           17135-3 0  3981
2 16881  82.5234 257.0445 0025131 148.6772 211.5999 14.73932993120328
EGP        
1 16908U          88293.25882208 -.00000029           70484-4 0  1056
2 16908  50.0106 318.7321 0011092  94.6616 265.5486 12.44372380 99411
FO-12      
1 16909U          88279.26846706 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1159
2 16909  50.0147   1.9211 0011139  58.6669 301.5254 12.44395542 97660
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88293.58139821 0.00000463           22416-3 0  1653
2 16969  98.6699 322.3957 0012861 226.8317 133.1786 14.22657108109722
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88294.51307566 0.00000202           17281-3 0  1978
2 17290  82.4676 346.0079 0012311 208.9473 151.1057 13.83617270 90472
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88295.12620539 -.00000217           10000-3 0  1705
2 17561   0.0357 129.9440 0007281  63.3292 166.7425  1.00257318  3190
Kvant      
1 17845U          88298.88030796 0.00062035           40561-3 0  5766
2 17845  51.6181 121.2797 0023115 231.6515 128.0704 15.74840760 90523
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88298.97681246 0.00000094           97220-4 0  5520
2 18129  82.9281  51.8856 0011689 351.1229   8.9697 13.71911895 67146
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88298.61047808 0.00149178  11317-4  22947-3 0  7034
2 18225  71.9026 328.1587 0012124 244.3967 115.5080 16.04027104 73515
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88296.24559568 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  1661
2 18312  82.5636  48.0645 0012927 139.1065 221.1397 13.83364094 59617
Cosmos 1900
1 18665U          88296.87621081 0.00000140           49027-4 0  5415
2 18665  66.0897 137.4587 0048469 286.5226  73.0505 14.49097407 50461
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88294.46196468 0.00000088           73460-4 0   624
2 18820  82.5419 111.0562 0015776 222.4239 137.5696 13.84046686 36525
AO-13      
1 19216U          88273.72660805 0.00000030           10000-3 0   190
2 19216  57.5382 237.5900 6578369 191.3601 139.7626  2.09697959  2262
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88293.59752428 0.00000391           10000-2 0   552
2 19336  82.5504 345.8686 0017221  59.2102 301.0734 13.16844153 11242
Soyuz TM-6 
1 19443U          88298.94379517 0.00036411           24042-3 0   676
2 19443  51.6179 120.9437 0023698 230.4682 129.4383 15.74831557  8959
1988 076A  
1 19445U          88273.51527021 -.00000791           54636-2 0   336
2 19445  62.9456 137.6873 7356697 318.2864   4.7503  2.00593433   612
1988 076B  
1 19446U          88274.20766607 0.08452432  41928-4  69212-3 0   683
2 19446  62.8306  25.0786 0037026 117.0383 243.5637 16.35362840  4855
Feng Yun 1 
1 19467U          88277.76697566 0.00001629           11229-2 0   198
2 19467  99.1356 246.0498 0015905 331.7267  28.2995 14.00381136  3773
1988 080B  
1 19468U          88274.33029305 -.00000018                   0   104
2 19468  99.1155 242.5891 0009436 275.4484  84.5612 14.00770676  3295
SBS-5      
1 19484U          88277.43155089 0.00000055           10000-3 0    76
2 19484   0.0479 305.7700 0000136 187.1500 271.7590  1.00271884    04
1988 081C  
1 19485U          88278.11242941 0.00000831           58232-3 0   113
2 19485   6.8352 137.1445 7327217 197.7372 112.2451  2.20128065   577
Progress 38
1 19486U          88298.88035122 0.00029100           19308-3 0   549
2 19486  51.6169 121.2762 0024553 231.5561 128.4241 15.74817968  7084
1988 084A  
1 19495U          88287.94981370 0.00633145  27379-4  35577-3 0   649
2 19495  67.1303 110.4002 0121508 103.1111 258.4896 16.04240656  4564
1988 085A  
1 19501U          88284.84608125 -.00000008           10000-3 0   320
2 19501  64.8783  59.6800 0004854 257.5558 102.3672  2.13103101   542
1988 085B  
1 19502U          88286.84065197 -.00000008           10000-3 0   352
2 19502  64.8628  59.6131 0005610 319.4462  40.5128  2.13103235   582
1988 085C  
1 19503U          88286.43024167 -.00000008           10000-3 0   372
2 19503  64.8931  59.6261 0004828 159.9265 200.0850  2.13103026   574
1988 085E  
1 19505U          88278.31353407 -.00000007           10000-3 0   159
2 19505  64.8574  59.8803 0006291 301.4697  58.5271  2.13365385   326
1988 086A  
1 19508U          88282.53850037 -.00000179           10000-3 0   107
2 19508   0.1646 256.1656 0000557 273.7450 190.3351  1.00274320   212
Offeq-1    
1 19519U          88294.89549840 0.00313214  86600-5  19419-2 0   562
2 19519 142.8536  48.9372 0561575 298.5333  56.0618 14.77873731  4627
Shavit RB  
1 19520U          88289.24775240 0.00318453  90230-5  19378-2 0   122
2 19520 142.8513  17.0377 0565977 255.3326  98.2824 14.77198517  3795
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88284.70644747 0.00000502           30157-3 0   130
2 19531  98.9065 224.3604 0011407 213.6164 146.4284 14.10645068  2292
Molniya3-33
1 19541U          88298.72135097 0.00000151          -14553-2 0   290
2 19541  62.8821  91.2313 7365582 288.2551   9.4799  2.00695637   517
1988 090B  
1 19542U          88297.61801086 0.01640495  38980-4  12029-2 0   702
2 19542  62.8317   3.4630 0124742 120.8615 240.5722 16.00414228  3822
1988 090D  
1 19544U          88289.44297049 -.00000264          -40159-4 0    95
2 19544  62.8881  92.5453 7317835 288.1366   9.7701  2.06103849   337
TDRS 2     
1 19548U          88292.33997457 0.00000162           10000-3 0   121
2 19548   0.0459 268.2495 0002203 118.5350 333.1684  1.00243731   192
TDRS IUS   
1 19549U          88292.40686280 0.00003057           18603-2 0   200
2 19549  26.7692  65.8589 7267930  11.2206 358.6510  2.27624238   430
1988 091D  
1 19550U          88286.14965977 0.00000154           10000-3 0    51
2 19550   2.2190 264.7761 0014981 129.9237 229.8032  1.00462118   138
1988 092A  
1 19554U          88296.38986079 -.00000325           14325-1 0   185
2 19554  62.9063 295.8730 7374554 316.4117   4.7225  2.00536704   382
1988 092B  
1 19555U          88297.76760206 0.31080753  43731-4  27814-3 0   404
2 19555  62.8378 223.0412 0024047 118.2694 242.5303 16.49678659  3130
1988 092C  
1 19556U          88296.51520522 0.01615639  39117-4  12636-2 0   370
2 19556  62.7859 228.5046 0136836 120.1674 241.5067 15.97340549  2925
1988 092D  
1 19557U          88290.23281505 0.00000168          -22548-3 0   125
2 19557  62.8969 296.8307 7346028 316.2569   4.8587  2.04098484   265
1988 086C  
1 19558U          88292.23704211 0.00032686           39191-2 0    54
2 19558  28.1505 168.5407 7395959 196.2272 112.2153  2.15790588   345
1988 093A  
1 19573U          88299.03799295 0.00000977           14512-3 0   242
2 19573  82.5387 154.8886 0024698 229.1717 130.7345 14.73886764  2029
1988 093B  
1 19574U          88292.99372544 0.00000675           10000-3 0   114
2 19574  82.5405 160.4498 0023793 254.0851 106.3505 14.74289692  1130
1988 094A  
1 19582U          88297.76605698 0.00002429           28554-4     182
2 19582  72.8621 172.5119 0037495 189.9940 170.0465 15.61024689  1610
1988 095A  
1 19596U          88297.49578800 -.00000008           10000-3 0    55
2 19596   1.5101 275.3358 0011769  96.0694 263.9195  0.97723694    47
1988 095B  
1 19597U          88296.35753724 0.12507757  60658-4  25125-3 0   105
2 19597  51.6248 265.0403 0004998 254.6431 105.8934 16.46853638   284
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 20:42:51 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <966@proxftl.UUCP>, jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
> 
> In article <7413@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
> The big
> survivability advantage of an off-Earth colony is that it *is* off-Earth.
> 
> Another factor to consider is that an off-Earth colony would be useful
> for more than just a racial "insurance policy," whereas an underground
> city would have no other use.
>  I realize a space colony would also be a (relatively) small
> and isolated environment, but it would have many other reasons for its
> existence ....
> 
> Each such argument ignores all the other benefits which a space colony
> would provide.  My position is, building space colonies would provide
> many different important benefits. 
> 
I hate to sound like 'negative waves, Moriarity', but stop for a moment
and answer a few questions. 
1)  Name some benefits.  Tangible ones that can't be addressed by 
    earthbound substitutes.  (Forget Erethropoetin (sp?).  While it
    can separated better by electrophoresis in space, another alternative
    method of manufacture has come along--genetic engineering.
2)  What about the cost factor?  How do we pay for these benefits??

I submit to you (and anyone else who feels like fanning the flames--go
ahead.  SET ASBESTOS SUIT=ON!!)  No-one knows exactly, or even remotely,
the benefits which will accrue from an off-earth colony, simply because
we can't read the future and we can't predict serendipitous findings.  In
all liklihood, a multitude of benefits will be found, but they will also
probably be unlike what was expected.  The only guaranteed benefit which
we can expect is better scientific exploration of the solar system and
universe.  (Imagine radio astronomy from the back side of the moon!!) 

I don't advocate abandoning space exploration, because of the probability
of the same serendipitous benefits.  At the same time, I suggest we stop
tossing stale rhetoric and admit that we don't know what benefits we will
find, and thus can't say that benefits x,y, and z are justification.  We
should explore with the same basis of any good scientific investigation--
to search for alternatives and answers to some problems, while not becoming
so short-sighted or prejudiced that we refuse to acknowledge other methods
of attacking the problems.

N. Kluksdahl                Arizona State U.
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied.

P.S.  I personally favor sensible, paced exploration and exploitation of
space.  I just hate rhetoric.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #91
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Nov 88 13:15:46 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00957>; Wed, 9 Nov 88 05:44:41 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  9 Nov 88 05:44:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4XS1r0y00jZd82Q05D>;
          Wed,  9 Nov 88 05:28:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.0XS1k7y00UkZ05Kk4l>;
          Wed,  9 Nov 88 05:21:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space YXS1i0y00UkZ45JE5W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: /afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space Wed,  9 Nov 88 05:18:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #92

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 92

Today's Topics:
		Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is
       Re: killer!csccat!loci@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Chuck Brunow)
		       BURAN waiting for XMAS?
		     Re: BURAN waiting for XMAS?
		Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory
			  Re: Moon vs. Mars
		  Re: Soviet Shuttle launch coverage
			  Re: Flood legends
			  Re: Flood legends
		 Re: Transporting the Soviet Shuttle
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
		 Lasting evidence (with a new twist)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 01:02:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is


>From jackson@ttidca.TTI.COM (Dick Jackson):
> I seem to remember that one of the earliest designs for a launcher was by
> the British Interplanetary Soc. and was based upon concentric layers of
> strap-on boosters which "peeled away" when used. Not different in concept
> from the shuttle, etc. but I think different in degree in that it used
> maybe ten or more strap-ons.

Actually, the 1938 British Interplanetary Society Moonship had 2490 self-
contained solid-propellant motors.  Solid rockets were chosen because they
were believed to be the most reliable.  Of course, there was no way for the
BIS to know about the advances made in liquid rockets at Peenemunde.

The idea was to have each rocket's thrust hold it in place.  When the
propellant was expended, the acceleration of the ship caused them to release
from position.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL 61820

 "Someone once defined a crank as an enthusiast without a sense of humor, and
 I have always believed that nothing is so important that you cannot make
 fun of it."
 - Arthur C. Clarke

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 01:40:57 GMT
From: texbell!killer!csccat!loci!clb@bellcore.com  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: killer!csccat!loci@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Chuck Brunow)

In article <594157524.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> Each of us makes our own choice. I've spent my 38 years in front of the
> gun and I frankly would prefer to say screw it and leave.

	There's only one viable way to leave and it isn't by going into
	space.  I think that there's a complete misunderstanding of the
	difficulties involved in alternative living space,  and I think
	it's largely the result of people thinking that the problems will	
	be solved by somebody else instead of taking the initiative and
	the responsibility to carry their portion of the load.  For some-
	one to say that they've enjoyed the benefits and prosperity of
	this country for many years but they will shirk any responsibilty
	for the problems or for solving them is the height of selfishness.

> 
> You are welcome to your own choice in the matter. Each of us chooses
> are own path in this life for our own reason. We should not denigrate
> one another's choices because they are different from our own.

	Apathy and retreat have caused the problem.  Who loaded the gun?
	The U.S. government.  In order to pander to those voters who
	didn't want to pay for a conventional capability, and those who
	indicated that they couldn't be bothered by such things, U.S.
	strategists offered each and every one of us as hostages in a
	policy appropriately called "MAD".  It was bad enough when it
	was me, and it made me angry, but now it includes my children
	and it's intolerable.

	If you feed at the trough (and you do, a thousand times a day)
	then you owe it to the society to which you claim membership
	to take action.  Politicians will not solve the problems; they
	will only protect the status quo, as that is the nature of
	politics.  Only active and united citizens can effect a change
	and claiming to choose a path away from your responsibilities
	while feasting on the privileges is anti-social in the extreme.

	It happens that the net is a perfect place to exchange views
	and debate topics.  I doubt that I'd have been critisized for
	stating my views if you'd agreed.  It would be nice if everyone
	agreed, and all was sweetness and harmony, wouldn't it?  It
	would be nice if everyone was patient and waited for problems
	to go away of their own accord.  But I'm not as young as you,
	and I'm not getting any younger so I want to get the ball rolling
	now.  And if that rocks your sacred boat, so much the better.

 
-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 20:07:10 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: BURAN waiting for XMAS?


The next opportunities to launc`h BURAN in morning daylight with a MIR 
overflight is Dec 23 05:12UT and Dec 25 04:24UT.  To avoid such
a long delay the MIR connection would have to be abandoned.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 15:29:35 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: BURAN waiting for XMAS?

>From article <1802@scicom.alphacdc.com>, by wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson):
> 
> The next opportunities to launc`h BURAN in morning daylight with a MIR 
> overflight is Dec 23 05:12UT and Dec 25 04:24UT.  To avoid such
> a long delay the MIR connection would have to be abandoned.

I think the Mir connection is purely a coincidence; the Soviets have
stated that Buran will only stay up for 2 orbits. I guess they
will try again the second week in November, after the October
Revolution holiday.

Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 88 16:05:39 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!looking!brad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory

Oddly enough....

SPOILER FOR "ORA:CLE"

that's exactly the sort of thing that happens in Kevin O'Donnel's book,
ORA:CLE.   Earth is held semi-subject by an alien race, and they plan to
adapt an ancient (and deemed useless) sun-nova technology to "pulse" the
sun so that they can catch the aliens temporarily stunned.

ORA:CLE is an excellent book about a computer networked world, but for
some reason it has this alien invasion plot seemingly thrown on it.
The two plots have almost nothing to do with one another, and the computer
net setting was far more interesting to me.  The alien invasion part was
more pedestrian.

Anybody know why this was?   Was it thrust on by a publisher?  Was it
thrust on to make a novella into a novel?  Did he want to write it that
way?  Did he perhaps feel that the book needed some good aliens to
attract interest? 
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 18:00:57 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moon vs. Mars

In article <346@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>What will happen to manned space flight when we lose another shuttle?
>I prefer to debug systems with nonliving cargo.

As long as we are flying manned flights, sooner or later we will lose
another one.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 16:30:21 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle launch coverage

[]

For those with satillite dishes, you might want to check out Westar 4
on the next Snowstorm launch attempt. We came across an ABC test pattern
from Moscow announcing the launch coverage. 

Obviously the Soviets backed down since the count halted at T-51 secs 
and there was no live video, but because of all of the attention, 
they might reconsider next time.


-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"Some people say I'm arrogant. But I know better then them" -
	 Mike Dukakis at the Al Smith Banquet
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 17:58:47 GMT
From: well!pokey@lll-lcc.llnl.gov  (Jef Poskanzer)
Subject: Re: Flood legends

In the referenced message, crew@polya.Stanford.EDU (Roger Crew) wrote:
}As for for the ocean level rising at the beginning of the interglacial
}period, figure that the coastline moved perhaps several hundred miles
}over the course of a few thousand years.  It's not the sort of thing that
}one would actually *notice* unless one made a point of regularly
}surveying and drawing maps every few years.  Nomadic tribes had better
}things to do with their time.

Excuse me, but your figures work out to ~500 feet per year, or 1.5 feet
per day.  Any moron would notice that, even a nomadic tribesman.  "Gee,
that nice rock I fished off of last year is way the heck out in the
ocean this year.  Funny, the fishing rock up at the winter lake doesn't
move.  Hmmm."
---
Jef

             Jef Poskanzer   jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov   ...well!pokey
	            "Gee Thag, wall of ice closer today."

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 14:19:46 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@rutgers.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Flood legends

In article <7512@well.UUCP>, pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes:
> In the referenced message, crew@polya.Stanford.EDU (Roger Crew) wrote:
> }As for for the ocean level rising at the beginning of the interglacial
> }period, figure that the coastline moved perhaps several hundred miles
> }over the course of a few thousand years.  It's not the sort of thing that
> }one would actually *notice* unless one made a point of regularly
> }surveying and drawing maps every few years.  Nomadic tribes had better
> }things to do with their time.
> 
> Excuse me, but your figures work out to ~500 feet per year, or 1.5 feet
> per day.  Any moron would notice that, even a nomadic tribesman.  "Gee,
> that nice rock I fished off of last year is way the heck out in the
> ocean this year.  Funny, the fishing rock up at the winter lake doesn't
> move.  Hmmm."

Actually, one of the better things that nomadic tribesman keep themselves
busy with is an exact knowledge of the geography they live in.  Their
is an interesting section of Arctic Dreams (B. Lopez) where some eskimos
are persuaded to draw a map of their hunting range.  The accuracy of
their recollections (as illustrated in the book) is simply amazing.
"Even a nomadic tribesman"??  Try "especially a nomadic tribesman".

However, I am deeply skeptical of attempts to tie diffuse oral traditions
to specific events in the past.  Anyone living near the ocean or in a large
river valley  will have lots of flood stories.


-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 18:09:33 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Transporting the Soviet Shuttle

In article <8810271407.aa00178@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") writes:
>Egads, and we're still using river barges and 3.5-MPH crawlers !
>Now there is a TRAIN GAP !

The folks who planned KSC considered using rail for moving the Saturn V
to the pad, as well as some other ideas.  In fact, rail was used for
the Saturn I launch complex (long since defunct).  That was actually
a negative factor, because the Saturn I rail setup turned out to be
very expensive.  The crawler was picked because it looked both better
and cheaper.

There's not much alternative to river barges for transporting something
that is too big for aircraft or railroads.  (The Saturn V third stage
went by air, but the others were too big.  The Soviets claim to be
shipping Energia's tanks by air, which must be something to see.)
In case you've ever wondered why NASA's spaceflight facilities seem to
be so heavily concentrated in the southeastern US, ice-free barge routes
to and from the Cape had a lot to do with it.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 21:33:58 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <2527@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
>	Better yet, why not send up even heavier Apollo equipment on a
>Saturn V with no third stage, and use the other Saturn V to send up only its
>own third stage.  Then dock the Apollo equipment to the third stage and launch
>from orbit with the third stage mostly if not entirely full, and with no need
>to do in-orbit refueling...

Actually, there were several EOR concepts considered (although I don't
know if all of them survived to the final cut), and launching a fully-
fueled rocket stage to be used "as is" was one of them.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Nov 88 19:00:02 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.Icst.Nbs.Gov>
Subject: Lasting evidence (with a new twist)


>From: osu-cis!killer!csccat!loci!clb@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charles Brunow)
>Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

>> After that, building stone moved far from where
>> it was quarried, large excavations (highway & railroad cuts, quarries)
>> and the landfills they are being turned into.

>	Consider what a glacier or two would do to your "large
>	excavations." The forces of wind and water and geology are
>	changing the face of the earth on a scale that makes the
>	largest building or the biggest dam look trivial. Just a
>	couple of million years ago the place where my house sits
>	was a sea; we're well on our way to heating up the atmosphere
>	enough that most of the largest cities of the world are
>	going to be under the sea again and real soon.

A considerable fraction of the earth's land surface has never been exposed
to glaciers, and is unlikely to be in the next hundred million years.
Wind and water and geology do not operate uniformly over the entire earth,
and it is possible to predict the influence of at least some of these forces
over millions of years. Large structures built under the oceans would probably
be less susceptible to erosion than above-water structures.

Part of the problem is whether you want landmarks that would be easily
visible from space, or well-preserved items that could be found by a 
sufficiently diligent search, and whether you are talking about accidentally-
preserved objects from our current civilization, or deliberately-placed
"time capsules". It should not be at all difficult to design devices that
are likely to remain intact for millions of years barring human intervention,
especially if you can build and place a lot of them.

More interesting problem: the design of a machine which can remain dormant
(on earth or in space) for thousands or millions of years, then resume an
active existence, at a specific time or upon reception of a prearranged
signal. (Standard theme of hundreds of science fiction stories.) For those
anxious to preserve the human species, this could actually be useful.
(Machine wakes up after 100 million years, finds no humans around, and 
starts manufacturing new humans, or attracts visiting aliens and persuades
them to do the job.) Lest you laugh too hard, there is speculation that
it may someday be possible to remanufacture wooly mammoths, or even
prehistoric insects trapped in amber, using the DNA left behind as a blueprint.

                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

 "Presidential candidates? No problem! Both have pledged to support the
  space program, so if the winner doesn't do a good job, we'll just throw
  him out and put in... uh..."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #92
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Nov 88 06:12:37 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00654>; Thu, 10 Nov 88 05:51:30 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 10 Nov 88 05:51:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XSKyMy00Ui341SUFG>;
          Thu, 10 Nov 88 05:29:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.AXSKq4y00UkZA7H05Y>;
          Thu, 10 Nov 88 05:20:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space oXSKney00UkZQ7FU53@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: /afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space Thu, 10 Nov 88 05:18:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #93

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 93

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
	Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?
	     Earthbreak, Marsbreak, Lunabreak, NEAbreak.
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #72
			      Re: Flood
			 Re: Demise of OTRAG
		Re: Soviet Shuttle liftoff scrubed for
		    Re: CLBrunow on Moon vs. Mars
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 21:31:33 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <4097@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>...things should have been done very differently.  In particular, LOR
>(Lunar Orbit Rendezvous--use of a LM as the only module that would
>actually touch down) shoud NOT NOT NOT have been used.  It was chosen
>*only* because it was already "known" that their would be no Lunar bases
>built.  Far, far better it would have been to use EOR, although it
>would have cost twice as much per launch...

Sorry, not accurate.  The battle between LOR and EOR was not a question
of technical merits vs technical merits; it ended when both were studied
in depth, and all involved took an impartial look at the results, at
which point LOR was the near-unanimous choice.  This was long before the
death of Apollo, or even the earliest omens of it.  The trouble with EOR
was simply that it had a much lower chance of working.

To elaborate:  The problem with LOR was rendezvous.  The more thoroughly
this was studied, the easier it looked.  The problem with EOR was landing
the whole shebang on the Moon safely.  The more thoroughly this was
studied, the harder it looked.  The big win of LOR was that it permitted
the lunar lander to be small and light, with a low center of mass, and
allowed it to be custom-built for the job.  EOR would have meant landing
a large, heavy spacecraft.  The requirements of fitting the thing onto a
Saturn for launch would have meant a tall spacecraft with a high center
of gravity, and a strong tendency to tip over if the landing wasn't just
so.  And providing adequate view of the ground from inside the Command
Module -- weight limits prevented adding a separate crew area for the
landing -- was just impossible.  Literally:  there NEVER WAS a really
workable solution to the problem of giving the crew an adequate view
to fly an EOR landing safely.

>... This would have developed a capability for
>putting large payloads in Lunar orbit or on the Lunar surface...

Not impossible with LOR technology.  It was possible to launch a Saturn
with just an LM, no CSM -- it was done once, for testing.  The LM would
have needed little modification to make an unmanned landing.  In fact,
this was studied at length, starting with an "LM truck" concept to land
supplies for longer stays, and working up from there.

>(Was Nova ever developed?  What happened to it?)

Nova died when it became clear that it couldn't be ready in time for
Apollo.  (Actually, it died rather earlier, when the government plant
at Michoud was chosen to be NASA's big-booster assembly facility.  The
ceilings at Michoud were too low for anything bigger than a Saturn V.
The Nova idea was officially alive for quite a while longer, but it
was increasingly fighting an uphill battle as more and more investment
went into facilities that were too small for it.)  There wasn't enough
support to keep the Saturn V alive; what did you *think* happened to
Nova?  :-(

>  The way we did it, there was no good way to follow it up without
>developing either EOR technology or a new booster...

No, it could have been followed up perfectly adequately simply by
continuing production of the Saturn V, and pursuing some of the "Advanced
Apollo" concepts which were planned in considerable detail.  Please do
some research before pontificating on this sort of thing; I'm really
getting sick of people who claim that Apollo was always planned as a
one-shot effort.  It simply isn't true.  Looking at some of the plans
made in the early and middle 60s is enough to make you cry.
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 15:56:43 GMT
From: uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@g.ms.uky.edu  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)


In article <177@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) writes:
> In article <966@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
>
> >But the killing blow for this underground city proposal is, no one
> >would want to live there. ...
>
> How does that make it less viable?  Prisoners don't want to live where
> they are either.  Please understand that the sole purpose of my
> counter-proposal was to demonstrate a more cost effective means of
> achieving a much-touted end.

Let me get this straight.  You propose that a good way to ensure racial
survival is to build an underground city, a closed society isolated from
the people and problems of the surface, and to populate it with people
who have demonstrated that they cannot function acceptably even in an
open society.  If this turkey were ever built, it wouldn't last a year.
Probably not a month.  See previous discussion of social problems in a
closed society, even when that society is composed of well-intentioned
and law-abiding people.

> >Which leads me to my final point:  several of these anti-space colony
> >arguments take the form of (a) pick some particular benefit which
> >pro-space people have said a space colony could provide, (b) describe
> >some other (expensive) way of getting this benefit, (c) claim that
> >space colonies are the wrong way to get it, (d) conclude that space
> >colonies are a bad idea.
>
> b) I believe the alternative I proposed is less expensive.

We could argue that until the cows come home.

> c) I don't want to get it.  The species survival argument is, in my
>    opinion, far too speculative and of secondary importance.

Then why didn't you start out by arguing that you didn't think species
survival was a problem worth the effort of building a space colony?
By suggesting an alternative method of solving the problem, you imply
that the problem needs to be solved.

> d) (Please, my mouth is so often full of my own feet that I would
>    appreciate not having someone elses words also stuffed into it :-).

I apologise for putting words in your mouth.  It's true that your
posting <176@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> did not say you opposed space colonies.
I assumed that you did because your posting was entirely negative.

>    I am not against space colonies, only their unecessary near-term
>    (i.e. within fifty years) appropriation of scarce resources [...]

I've never said we should build colonies immediately, or even in the
next 50 years.  I merely believe that space *development* should be
the primary goal of the U.S. civilian space program.  And given the
state of the art in robotics, I believe that space development
requires manned space operations.

>    [...] and their
>    justification by what I consider to be specious arguments.  I hope
>    to demonstrate the weakness of such arguments by making counter-
>    proposals which serve the same ends but are much more cost effective.

As I said before, these counter-proposals, by you and others, never
seem to address more than one suggested benefit of space colonies at
a time.  While each proposed alternative might (or might not) prove
cheaper than a colony, it seems hard to argue that all of them
together would be cheaper.

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 22:55:01 GMT
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Kevin William Ryan)
Subject: Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?


   I believe that the old OTRAG folks wanted to build something like this.
('This' being concentric launchers)  The plan was to assemble 10's or
even hundreds of tiny boosters (~40 ft by ~6 inches?) into concentric
hexagontal arrays.  The 'upper' stages would slide out of the center of the
'lower' stage.  OTRAG died quite some time ago, though, for reasons I
have never heard explained.  Neat idea, although throwing _lots_ of extra
mass up in the air...

                                                    kwr

   "Jest so ya know..."

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  1 Nov 88 09:55:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 2116+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
To: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz), henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Subject: Earthbreak, Marsbreak, Lunabreak, NEAbreak.
CC: Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>

I think it is important to point out that the difficulty of escaping a planet
is not directly proportional to the depth of its gravity well.  Our experience
is colored by the extremely inconvenient depth of Earth's gravity well.  If you
calculate the minimum energy needed to escape per unit of mass you will get a
number you might call the gravitational energy density.  Compare this energy
density to the energy density of your convenient energy storage media.  Here is
where the light dawns.  On the earth the gravitational energy density is
significantly larger than the even theoretical chemical energy densities.

This necessarily leads to ugly mass ratios for chemical rockets and all the
horrible complications that are necessary to squeeze the maximum performance
out of fuels and materials.  The problem is just truly difficult.

With nuclear power the whole thing gets lots easier, at least theoretically,
but there are compensating difficulties.  Electromechanical systems like
Lofstrom's loop are a different approach to circumventing the limits of
chemical energy sources.

Now, from the Moon, things get a lot easier, not just because the gravitational
energy density of objects on the surface is lower by at least an order of
magnitude, but because practically any old chemical system has enough "go" to
get off the Moon.  Something as a simple as a spinning kevlar tether with a
mass at its end can contain enough energy to send payloads to L1 or L2.  I
think this David's sling idea is due to Minsky.

The point of this is not that the Moon is somehow easier to escape than a
Near-Earth-Asteroid but that the problem of delivering mass from the Moon to
anywhere in the Earth-Moon system is so easy that the travel times become the
dominant consideration.  The gravity on the Moon becomes a convenience since
things stay put and concepts of up and down make designing systems to work
there simpler, or at least more familiar.  The right in the backyard location
makes deliveries and resupply very much easier.  Now the probable lack of
hydrogen and nitrogen, that's another problem...
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1988 16:18-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #72

I agree with Mike MacLeod. If you don't let people let he and I leave
the planet, we're just going to make your lives utterly miserable and
unbearable until you KICK us off the planet! :-)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1988 16:24-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Flood

Several individuals have pointed out that the Mediteranean basin was
dry not 10KYA, but 10MYA. This does not invalidate the rest of my
statements, but I stand corrected on this point.

If anyone has any good citations on the Med. dry up and reflood, I
would appreciate them.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 00:26:16 GMT
From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kevin S. Van Horn)
Subject: Re: Demise of OTRAG

In article <8XPCx5y00UoA4FFlEf@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Kevin William Ryan) writes: 
>
>[...]  OTRAG died quite some time ago, though, for reasons I
>have never heard explained.

G. Harry Stine talked about this in one of his "Alternate View" columns
in _Analog_ some years ago.  It seems that OTRAG was setting up
operations in some equatorial country (in Africa, I believe), which then
had a civil war that trashed the whole operation.  Stine claims that the
Soviets had a hand in fomenting this civil war with the express intent
of putting OTRAG out of business and thus keeping the amount of
non-Soviet launch capability limited; he refers to it as "the first
space war."

Kevin S. Van Horn

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 14:54:00 GMT
From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@bellcore.com
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle liftoff scrubed for


I had been discounting the rumors that the Soviet Shuttle was a direct copy 
of the U.S. design up until they were unable to launch on schedule.

Now I'm not so sure ....    :-)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1988 15:30-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: CLBrunow on Moon vs. Mars

Others will probably jump on this as well, So I'll keep it short.

If you wish to stay home, do so. I do not, and there are many others
who do not so wish.

The bottom line is that I don't really care to give any justification
other than "I want to GO". I also do not wish to use the resources of
your tax dollars or anyone else's. Should those of us who believe in
private ventures succeed at this (I expect private transport to at
least the moon before 2025) I don't want to hear those who sat on
their butt's come crying for a share in the resources, energy and $$$$
that they were too myopic or too lazy to reach for. 

If I and others fail, we will fail alone. If we are wrong, there is a
very unforgiving universe of natural law that will tell us so. I don't
think any of the people who are trying to do it themselves care to
bother listening to the nay sayers. Naysayers are a dime a dozen and have
always been so. You try, you sweat blood and you either succeed or you
fail.

I don't mind when people say "I don't want to do X because I believe
Y".  Everyone is entitled to live by their own beliefs. I DO get bent
out of shape when someone tries to tell me that "YOU should not be
allowed to do X because I believe Y and I'm right." Bullshit.

	To each according to his effort and vision and screw the rest,
				Dale Amon


PS: I don't wish to unfairly pick out this one person. It is a general
class of sentiments I am attacking, not Mr. Brunow. I apologize in
advance if I have been too harsh.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 19:57:15 GMT
From: haven!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)


In article <173@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
> In article <966@proxftl.UUCP>, jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
>
> > Each such argument ignores all the other benefits which a space colony
> > would provide.  My position is, building space colonies would provide
> > many different important benefits.
> >
> I hate to sound like 'negative waves, Moriarity', but stop for a moment
> and answer a few questions.
> 1)  Name some benefits.  Tangible ones that can't be addressed by
>     earthbound substitutes.  (Forget Erethropoetin (sp?).  While it
>     can separated better by electrophoresis in space, another alternative
>     method of manufacture has come along--genetic engineering.

To start with (considering how this topic came up) how about assuring
species survival; in particular, survival of massive war on Earth.

Or, on the subject of genetic engineering, it would be nice to have
off-Earth laboratories for genetic experiments we'd love to try, but
can't because of their possible danger.  Yes, physically these
experiments could be done on Earth, but politically, no.

Then there's the whole topic of exploiting extraterrestrial mineral
resources for use on Earth.  We know these resources exist in space,
and we know of at least one source from which we could easily return
them to Earth orbit.  (See Paul Dietz's discussion of capturing a near
Earth approaching asteroid.)  The stumbling block here is finding a
good way to get the resources down from Earth orbit.  I'd bet on a
way being found, given the value of such resources.

The topic of solar power satellites has received a lot of attention,
both favorable and unfavorable.  It is certainly a viable possibility,
if done using extraterrestrial materials.

There is a whole array of new products which could be produced using
materials processing techniques possible in a microgravity environment.
You pointed out that drug purification by electrophoresis isn't a good
example.  But how about:

  o Large perfect crystals.  For example, silicon-on-sapphire VLSI
    products would be *much* cheaper if we could reduce the defect
    rate in the wafers.
  o Perfect ball bearings.  And if you think ball bearings are too
    prosaic to matter, think again.  A significant part of the Allied
    bombing effort in WW II was directed at destroying German ball
    bearing factories.
  o Alloys of immiscible materials.  For example, the airframes for
    the new generation of high-mach military airplanes are made from
    such an alloy.  (I believe the components are aluminum and
    titanium, but I'm not sure.)  This particular alloy can (sort
    of) be made on Earth, by spraying fine molten droplets through
    a cryogenic gas jet, collecting the resulting metal dust, and
    sintering it into ingots.  It's *not* a cheap process, which
    is why it's only used for applications where nothing else will
    do.
  o Etc. etc.  It's foolish to try to list all the applications in
    materials processing -- there are too many.

This is not an exhaustive list, but I think it should be enough to
demonstrate that there are specific benefits to be had from space
development.

> 2)  What about the cost factor?  How do we pay for these benefits??

The same way we'd pay for them if we pursued them in some other way
than by space development.

> No-one knows exactly, or even remotely,
> the benefits which will accrue from an off-earth colony, simply because
> we can't read the future and we can't predict serendipitous findings.  In
> all liklihood, a multitude of benefits will be found, but they will also
> probably be unlike what was expected.  The only guaranteed benefit which
> we can expect is better scientific exploration of the solar system and
> universe.  (Imagine radio astronomy from the back side of the moon!!)

It's true no one can see the future exactly.  So?  Does that mean we
should pretend we can't even guess at what might happen?

> I suggest we stop
> tossing stale rhetoric and admit that we don't know what benefits we will
> find, and thus can't say that benefits x,y, and z are justification.

This is like saying we should stop AIDS research because we can't be
*sure* a cure will be found.  In the case of both AIDS research and
space development, we can name specific benefits which we *expect*
will result if the work is successful, and these *expected* benefits
can indeed provide sufficient justification for doing the work.

> We
> should explore with the same basis of any good scientific investigation--
> to search for alternatives and answers to some problems, while not becoming
> so short-sighted or prejudiced that we refuse to acknowledge other methods
> of attacking the problems.

I have always stated my support for this view.


Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #93
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Nov 88 06:09:31 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02544>; Fri, 11 Nov 88 13:37:50 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 11 Nov 88 13:37:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gXSmjqy00Ui3E4C05L>;
          Fri, 11 Nov 88 13:05:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.YXSlY7y00UkZ01ek5a>;
          Fri, 11 Nov 88 11:45:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EXSlTmy00UkZ81dE4X@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 88 11:40:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #94

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 94

Today's Topics:
	   Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 12 Nov 88, 7:00 PM
			  Re: Lasing the Sun
			    Lasing the Sun
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #72
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
		    Explanation for name, `Buran'?
		  Re: Explanation for name, `Buran'?
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 88 16:58:54 PST
To: BBoard@venera.isi.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 12 Nov 88, 7:00 PM
Reply-To: Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@venera.isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 88 16:58:54 PST
From: rogers@venera.isi.edu

	    Living in Space:  Social  and Legal Challenges
		      Also:  Space Shuttle Tape

	Human beings *will* establish colonies in space.  But, 
how will we behave when we get there?

	Mr. Chuck Stovitz will talk about the social challenges of
living in a space colony.  The psychological and physiological aspects
of living far from the planet impose new behaviours for survival. The
isolation of a colony and interdependence of its members force us to
review our notions of privacy, freedom of speech, and other standards
of conduct and moral behaviour.

	Mr. Stovitz is an attorney with 15 years of corporate and
business experience.  In 1984 he lived and worked in Antarctica to
study its "space analog conditions".  He has served on a number of
NASA and private panels, and is a special consultant to the National
Science Foundation.

	In addition to the lecture, there will be a tape highlighting
the recent trip by the Shuttle Discovery, and OASIS will hold its
annual officer elections.


	GENERAL MEETING AND LECTURE
	Saturday, November 12, 1988, 7:00 PM
	Main Auditorium, Santa Monica Public Library,
	6th Street and Santa Monica Blvd in Santa Monica
	The public is welcome, admission is free.
	Pay parking (cheap) next to the library.

	OASIS is the Los Angeles and Orange Counties chapter of the
National Space Society.  It is a nonprofit educational organization
dedicated to promoting the exploration and development of space.

	For information about OASIS events call (213) 374-1381.

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  1 Nov 88 09:06:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 930+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Re: Lasing the Sun
CC: dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Another use for lasing the sun and focusing the resulting beam at infinity
would be to drive a Forward-style interstellar light sail.

Two problems come to mind:  If the magnitude of the gravitational lensing is
too small the point from which you would have to drive the laser would be so
far away that it would entail an interstellar-scale trip to get there.
Focusing the seed beam from such a distance may be a big problem as well.  I
think the gravitational lens effect is a function of the altitude at which the
lasing occurs.  Even at the sun's "surface" it may still be too small.

The other is that the resulting beam stability is likely to be affected by
turbulence in the solar atmosphere.  Since turbulence and solar prominences can
be quite violent this may seriously affect the optical quality of the resulting
beam.  Phase conjugation won't help because the speed of light delay is
probably too large.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Nov 88 09:56:52 EST
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu
To: ota+@andrew.cmu.edu
Cc: space+@andrew.cmu.edu, dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Subject: Lasing the Sun

One can calculate how far away the seed laser must be to focus the
beam at infinity.  A beam of light grazing the sun is bent by 1.75
seconds of arc.  The radius of the sun is 7e5 km; so the laser must be
7e5 km / sin 1.75" or 550 AU out.  About 3 light days.  The source
laser would have to have a rather large aperture.

Turbulence would certainly be a problem, if the atmosphere being
traversed is dense.  One should stick to more rarefied layers.  In
the original planetary scheme the ionosphere was used.  I worry a bit
about doppler shifts if the solar atmosphere is moving too fast.

This scheme would produce a pulsed beam, which might not be a good
idea for propelling light sails.  Maybe time of flight dispersion
would average out the pulses.

One problem with focusing by gravity is the nonsphericity of the sun,
due to its rotation.  Perhaps the seed laser should be above the north
or south solar pole.

If you can lase the corona in the ultraviolet, perhaps you can ionize
a long cylindrical volume of the interstellar medium.  That would be
useful for the various interstellar ramjet-type concepts.  One might
also use the beam for studying the Oort clound by laser radar.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 01 Nov 88 20:28:43 EST
From: Greg Howard  <HOWGREJ%YALEVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V9 #72


Herman Rubin writes:
>Answer to question to all: Get the government largely out of it.
>
>                    The real question is to allow those people who believe
>that getting man into space is important to put their money on the line.
>This cannot be done as long as the government can put years of red tape
>into permitting a launch (1/2 :-)) and can prohibit it altogether.

Getting the government out of space entirely is not a great solution.  Space
is, at this point, expensive enough to be unrealistic for virtually all
companies (or even groups of companies).  It would be nice if interested
companies could just do space research, but they can't (yet).  The government
is needed to do much of the basic research to make space accessible to
corporations.  For example, the government prompted the development of rockets
such as the Titan (whether for military or science uses), and these are now
becoming feasible for commerical use.  In a few decades, shuttle (or, more
likely, Hermes, also a gov't project) technology will be accessible to
industry.  Until then, no company will (or will be able to) pour the money
into research that will be required.  Once we have a good infrastructure
(read: space station, lunar base, OTVs, cheap transport) set up, the
government can dissolve (just like the Communist State :^) ), although it will
be nice to have them do more research.  Until then, we need the gov't to do
most of our basic research and to make things useable.  This is virtually the
same situation as the jet was in forty years ago (only more so).  In the
meantime, of course, the gov't should make an effort to allow space companies
do whatever they want.  One other point - the gov't should *not* sponsor
private enterprise in space with straight cash, as SSI (Max Faget & Co.)
wanted them to do - this creates a false market dependant on the government,
which defeats the whole purpose of private enterprise.  Let space companies
wait for a market to develop to support their projects.

>I suggest that we have non-profit or semi-profit organizations, not for
>lobbying but for expediting and even doing, to get us into space.

This is an interesting devation from the normal "capitialism" way of doing
things.  In Niven/Pournelle/Barnes' new book ("The Legacy of Heorot": not that
great as N/P go) the Tau Ceti colony ship is sponsored by National Geographic.
I expect that NG would love to sponsor, say, an asteroid mission, or something
that wouldn't be done immediately by a company or the gov't.  They, too, will
wait for costs to come down, I'm afraid (see above...).  It'd make for some
nice PBS specials...

Comments?

The Space People will contact us when they  |  Greg Howard
can make money by doing so.  - David Byrne  |  HOWGREJ at YALEVM

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 22:22:11 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <978@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
>> 1)  Name some benefits.  Tangible ones that can't be addressed by
>>     earthbound substitutes.  (Forget Erethropoetin (sp?).
>
>To start with (considering how this topic came up) how about assuring
>species survival; in particular, survival of massive war on Earth.

I side with underground cities argument.  We know how to dig mines.
They are FAR cheaper than space colonies.

>Or, on the subject of genetic engineering, it would be nice to have
>off-Earth laboratories for genetic experiments we'd love to try, but
>can't because of their possible danger.  Yes, physically these
>experiments could be done on Earth, but politically, no.

What experiments are these!?  The vast majority of genetic experiments
are known to be innocuous.  I do not see a market for labs for
dangerous experiments, unless we're planning a major effort in
developing offensive bioweapons.

Walk up to a biologist and say: "I have a great idea!  Let's move
genetic engineering into orbital laboratories.  I know, your
technicians will cost 1000x as much, but it will make the
environmentalists happy."  What will his reaction be?

>Then there's the whole topic of exploiting extraterrestrial mineral
>resources for use on Earth.  We know these resources exist in space,
>and we know of at least one source from which we could easily return
>them to Earth orbit.  (See Paul Dietz's discussion of capturing a
>near Earth approaching asteroid.)  The stumbling block here is
>finding a good way to get the resources down from Earth orbit.  I'd
>bet on a way being found, given the value of such resources.

Actually, for the elements that might make sense to mine for use on
Earth (platinum group elements, helium-3 maybe) return from space to
earth is not really a problem.  Making the in-space mining
sufficiently productive and inexpensive is a problem; not having good
characterizations of any asteroids is an even bigger problem!

>The topic of solar power satellites has received a lot of attention,
>both favorable and unfavorable.  It is certainly a viable possibility,
>if done using extraterrestrial materials.

Insert caveat: but not soon!  If it costs $100 B just to set up a lunar
oxygen factory, an SPS factory would be enormously expensive.

>  o Large perfect crystals.  For example, silicon-on-sapphire VLSI
>    products would be *much* cheaper if we could reduce the defect
>    rate in the wafers.

Um, silicon-on-sapphire wouldn't benefit from microgravity, would it?

>  o Perfect ball bearings.  And if you think ball bearings are too
>    prosaic to matter, think again.  A significant part of the Allied
>    bombing effort in WW II was directed at destroying German ball
>    bearing factories.

I thought this had been shot down some time ago.  If I understand
correctly, metal droplets freezing in zero gee are not perfectly
spherical, and we can grind ball bearings on earth with sufficient
accuracy anyway (and *much* more cheaply).

>  o Etc. etc.  It's foolish to try to list all the applications in
>    materials processing -- there are too many.

Near term, no one has demonstrated any product that can be made
profitably in space, beyond $200K of latex spheres.  No doubt some
will be found when launch costs go down.  It is not clear that these
justify space colonies, however.  As O'Neill said, microgravity
manufacturing of materials for use on earth is largely a publicity
stunt.

>It's true no one can see the future exactly.  So?  Does that mean we
>should pretend we can't even guess at what might happen?

Why pretend?  Historically, it has been very difficult to predict how
technology will develop.  There is no reason to think this has changed.
This is actually good news, since arrogant pessimists can be blind-sided
by unexpected breakthroughs.

>> I suggest we stop
>> tossing stale rhetoric and admit that we don't know what benefits we will
>> find, and thus can't say that benefits x,y, and z are justification.
>
>This is like saying we should stop AIDS research because we can't be
>*sure* a cure will be found.

AIDS is a good argument for giving priority to *science* rather than
overly focused development.  AIDS would have remained a baffling
enigma were it not for pure research done on retroviruses and the
immune system.  It is not clear that pouring money into a narrowly
focused War on AIDS is the best way to cure AIDS; maybe more basic
research would in the end more quickly lead to a cure.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 01:13:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Explanation for name, `Buran'?


Anyone out there familiar with what the Soviets use for a phonetic
alphabet (similar to the American Able Baker Charlie Dog or the
international Alfa Bravo Coca Delta)?

One fellow that I know, who is something of a Soviet space program
analyst, has noticed that Soyuz 6, 7, and 8 were Antayas, Buran,
and Granyt respectively.  Would this be analogous to our naming things
Alfa, Bravo, Coca or Charlie?  If so, could that be where the name of
the Soviet shuttle comes from (Was the one they used for drop tests
named Vosdushnyo Kosmicheskiy Korabl' Antayas?)

I'm betting that the third (?) Soviet shuttle will be named Granyt.

Kevin Kenny			   UUCP: {uunet,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
Illini Space Development Society   ARPA Internet or CSNet: kenny@CS.UIUC.EDU
P.O. Box 2255, Station A
Champaign, Illinois, 61820	   Voice: (217) 333-6680

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 03:19:02 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Explanation for name, `Buran'?

Um, the Russian alphabet goes A B V G D etc. So the third letter is V,
not G. I don't know, however, what system they use for spelling on
the radio, it might have a different ordering.

See, I know my Russian already! I'm all set for space :-)

Da Svidanya!

----------
Greg Lindahl                                     internet:  gl8f@virginia.edu
University of Virginia Department of Astronomy     bitnet:  gl8f@virginia.bitnet
     "Doesn't Quayle know that the FBI handles domestic assassinations?"

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 03:29:19 GMT
From: fin!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <973@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:

>Let me get this straight.  You propose that a good way to ensure racial
>survival is to build an underground city, a closed society isolated from
>the people and problems of the surface, and to populate it with people
>who have demonstrated that they cannot function acceptably even in an
>open society.  If this turkey were ever built, it wouldn't last a year.
>Probably not a month.  See previous discussion of social problems in a
>closed society, even when that society is composed of well-intentioned
>and law-abiding people.

What about the early settlements in Australia?  Most Aussies are   
descended from prisoners, and are quite civilized.  How about
Georgia (America c. 1650)?  Remote prison colonies have often been
successful.  They serve at least three good functions:

1) They socialize the otherwise hopelessly anti-social.  
2) They reduce risk to the offended society to zero.
3) They obviate the need for capital punishment. 

in additions to the function we are discussing.

Putting a coed prison colony in Antartica or northern Alaska strikes me
a great way of relieving prison overcrowding, and relieving the risk 
escaped and furloughed criminals pose to the rest of us.  Such a
colony would also

1) Provide a psychological and sociological testbed for early space 
colonies.  How do societies respond to enclosed conditions?
2) Increase the chances of our species' survival through a planetwide
disaster.  If you can grow food in Anartica, you can probably grow
it during nuclear winter, after an asteroid strike, etc. 

But that's only *probably*.  I want to be 100% sure.  For that we
need space colonies.  (Yes, that is long term, c. 20-50 years, and 
yes, there are quite a few good shorter-term reasons for exploring 
and developing space.  Species suvrvival is simply my personal 
motivation for trying to bring it about sooner.  I am also working
on lessening the risk of nuclear weapons and other survivalist issues).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                              *************************
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu          ***  Biosphere III    ***
*************************               ***  best space bbs   ***
**   send a message    **               *** in the Milky Way  ***
**   Ron Paul in '88   **               ***  (206) 523-7381   ***
*************************               *************************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #94
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Nov 88 07:06:23 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05700>; Sat, 12 Nov 88 00:45:16 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 12 Nov 88 00:45:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8XSwnEy00Ui3Q49U92>;
          Sat, 12 Nov 88 00:32:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.0XSwdQy00UkZ03CE54>;
          Sat, 12 Nov 88 00:21:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UXSwbXy00UkZA3B05m@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 88 00:19:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #95

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:
		  LOFT-1 Finally firmly scheduled!!!
		      Re: Private Space Programs
			  Volunteer Interest
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 14:04:35 GMT
From: hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!mjohnson@hplabs.hp.com  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: LOFT-1 Finally firmly scheduled!!!

The flight of the Univ. of Alabama-Huntsville/E-Prime Aerospace LOFT-1
sounding test from Canaveral Air Force Station has been scheduled to take
place on 16 November 1988 at 0730 EST, from LC 47 at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station. 

Representatives of all 3 major television news organizations will be 
present. I can only assume that NASA Select will cover this flight also.

The Launch Operations Flight Test-1 (LOFT-1) has been delayed over 13
months by various government hitches. The vehicle is some 12 feet long, 
six inches in diameter, and is the first non-government-owned flight vehicle
to be flown from Cape Canaveral AFS. It carries several industrial test 
payloads and telemetry transmitters, and should reach an estimated 17,000
feet. The vehicle is designed to be recovered. Complete information has been
posted to the net several times over the past 6 months.

[The above information comes courtesy of David J. Babulski, who will be 
serving as telemetry coordinator for the flight. I have no official connection
with the University of Alabama-Huntsville or E-Prime Aerospace Corp.]


-- 
Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP)
NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS   
email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!mjohnson  phone: (316)688-8189 (W)
US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 08:37:35 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Private Space Programs

Re: 60 Man-years effort:

Most you you probably don't remember when I posted this:

A friend (with lots of money [from oil]) offered up to $50K of his
personal money to a couple of University physics departments
(I'll say now that Caltech was one of them) to build the equivalent
of a re-enterable RC model plane.  His suggestion was to use parts like
reject shuttle tiles, etc.  Ionic blackout was certainly a problem.
It was the challenge right?  I posted this description to the net
several years ago and no one took up the challenge.  This was all very
serious.  We inquired about things leaving the shuttle and
re-entering [currently a policy against separate re-entry, have to be careful
not to declare war on some countries].  This policy will eventually
change, but I think it was more significant that no one rose to the challenge.
Probably not enough money.  There are NASA internal plans for similar
things for more serious testing, and you will eventually see it take place
but more for high altitude research and hypersonic design rather than
an experiment in low cost.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 20:11:49 GMT
From: joe@csvax.caltech.edu  (Joe Beckenbach)
Subject: Volunteer Interest


	Add yet another to the list of interested parties. Who's keeping this
list-- if not, I'll keep it going. [Oops- have I just volunteered to start a
mailing list? :-)]

	Eugene Miya posted about a missed opportunity (ref: <1897@eos.UUCP>)
>Most you you probably don't remember when I posted this:
>A friend (with lots of money [from oil]) offered up to $50K of his
> . . . . .

	My original reaction was: well, we've got volunteers wanting to do
something- all we need to do is get organized, make the models, get rocket
space somehow, and off we go. Okay, so that's a bit too flippant. However,
some other ideas started pouring out, pointing to various 'good' things in
most of the topics that I've read in sci.space and in some mailing lists.
I'll list a few of them here:

1- Models and incremental research, construction, and operations not only
	help keep costs down, it keeps organization a bit easier.
	Specifically, the models approach could start with lower-atmosphere
	tests, and eventually work up to re-entry tests, for shuttles,
	aerospace planes, booster clusters,....
2- Funding can come from a variety of sources: grants from NASA, NSF, and
	universities; donations in kind; contributions; volunteer efforts;
	barter ["I'll swap you a gross of SIMMs for radiation-test results"].
	The original Caltech Cosmic Cubes were helped by donations in kind.
3- Many different groups can contribute: SEDS (students), professionals,
	space groups of many stripes, interested outside people. The common
	organization would have to integrate research groups, spinoff 
	companies, manufacturing groups, and educational units, among others.
	An _active_ space-oriented 'underground', as it were.

	Oh, and this volunteer is currently full-time as a UNIX manager and
starting into hypercube programming and maintainence. Part-time volunteer work
in general research, organizational contact, organization, parallel computing
issues and use, and software engineering contemplated as current spread of
interests in this 'underground'.
-- 
Joe Beckenbach	joe@csvax.caltech.edu	Caltech 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125
Just looking for something to do with a hypercube and a vax. Ho hum. ;-)
Any trip starts with one guy saying, "Hey, that looks neat...."

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 05:57:03 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #406 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88291.13302100 0.00000184           21232-3 0  1636
2 00424  80.4676 165.3699 0024420  35.8929 324.3855 13.67019212299608
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88303.27867955 0.00000001           10000-2 0  5831
2 08820 109.8092 151.0264 0044568   5.1449 354.9737  6.38664031 35887
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88294.43241648 -.00000006                   0  1729
2 10061   6.5537  70.9919 0007707 169.4358 190.6378  1.00270940  2973
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88304.60176791 0.00000013                   0  9812
2 10684  63.4861 107.9482 0103031 197.5238 162.1193  2.00563174 63924
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88302.06274450 -.00000029                   0  9259
2 10893  64.5667 348.8390 0143554  29.3371 331.5297  2.00562704 76693
GOES 3     
1 10953U          88295.48044992 0.00000086           10000-3 0  5386
2 10953   5.4258  73.7824 0006727 227.4387 132.5991  1.00283118   228
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88302.46829358 0.00000725           30347-3 0   319
2 10967 108.0108 170.6783 0003214 247.7034 112.3748 14.33942127540867
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88302.37947113 -.00000028                   0  9491
2 11054  64.1266 345.3608 0050792 120.8596 239.7047  2.00570902 73716
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88301.48740344 0.00000013                   0   513
2 11141  63.4669 107.9507 0054410 324.1923  35.4420  2.00557595 72398
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88294.42489836 0.00000741           33095-3 0  7653
2 11416  98.4980 292.7011 0012878  87.4595 272.8057 14.25245094483742
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88300.81050752 0.00018661           55236-3 0  7262
2 11703  28.4994 100.1022 0002195 315.7761  44.2668 15.33422148483797
GPS-0006   
1 11783U 80032  A 88299.45153175  .00000018  00000-0  00000-0 0 08145
2 11783 063.9266 345.1853 0135314 063.8148 297.6053 02.00563224062295
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88289.26931152 -.00000244           10000-3 0   169
2 11964   4.8700  75.8457 0002546 141.5755 219.2707  1.00254953 45414
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88291.34575995 -.00000241           10000-3 0  6472
2 12472   1.9174  83.3497 0001306 170.8467 189.4972  1.00248790 26174
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88293.04390760 0.00025408           71377-3 0  3378
2 12888  97.6007 329.8057 0001896 355.9155   4.1968 15.36517787391730
RS-08      
1 12998U          88293.23502207 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5442
2 12998  82.9527   7.3590 0018318 150.5689 209.6386 12.02965689300334
RS-05      
1 12999U          88294.27365261 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5344
2 12999  82.9551   1.4597 0010075  89.1092 271.1058 12.05068409300989
RS-07      
1 13001U          88291.56176915 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4142
2 13001  82.9639 353.2781 0022576   3.8304 356.2923 12.08707047301564
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88288.90876603 0.00000193           16447-3 0  6042
2 13113  82.5355 253.6669 0016840  34.9079 325.3172 13.83878303331315
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88298.61837966 0.00012318           37492-3 0  2802
2 13138  51.6143  23.9976 0000591 308.6477  51.4022 15.34380758371946
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88292.58313483 0.00000382           19648-3 0  7131
2 13718  81.2467 157.8657 0055945 327.6970  32.0783 14.13011706301439
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88286.31788192 0.00000119                   0  8292
2 14050   0.6557  85.6268 0001890 122.2961 152.1067  1.00274877  4126
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88284.47386954 0.00000029           10000-3 0  3597
2 14129  27.0955 300.5380 6036028 343.4847   3.3322  2.05878657 12075
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88302.04063009 0.00000012                   0  5645
2 14189  63.0897 106.6217 0130546 212.9759 146.2062  2.00552982 38785
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88291.08704514 0.00000501           21218-3 0  6611
2 14452  81.1673 177.1053 0096705  76.8568 284.3389 14.21861851257991
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88303.59282639 -.00000508          -10778-3 0  5633
2 14780  98.2013   3.8495 0001523 233.8207 126.2671 14.57104504247986
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88294.19202617 0.00001481           30082-3 0  3566
2 14781  98.0406 353.7167 0013735   1.1842 358.9387 14.62511671247456
LDEF       
1 14898U 84034  B 88300.99389124  .00015014  00000-0  00000-0 0 06575
2 14898 028.5039 001.3700 0003389 134.1623 225.9723 15.37853512255386
GPS-0009   
1 15039U 84059  A 88299.59866063  .00000013  00000-0  00000-0 0 06039
2 15039 062.7878 106.0525 0013145 297.5308 062.3717 02.00566263032017
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88288.72514631 0.00000239           20760-3 0  9033
2 15099  82.5335 201.5614 0011908 201.4832 158.5825 13.83552778216170
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88302.48793880 -.00000029           10000-2 0  5422
2 15271  63.4374 344.9521 0097006 315.2816  44.0036  2.00559658 29188
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88302.12829600 0.00001906           28410-3 0  9276
2 15331  82.5414 192.3897 0026575 115.9086 244.4869 14.74161112220013
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88294.95420359 0.00000380           22969-3 0  2935
2 15427  99.1164 271.6155 0014585 265.2283  94.7212 14.11674655198697
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88294.52021858 0.00000137           11341-3 0   286
2 15516  82.5340 135.3812 0017698  68.4834 291.8203 13.83987558187906
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88298.81377853 0.00011110           33928-3 0   653
2 16095  51.6087  23.0592 0000999 327.8782  32.2055 15.34381962173645
GPS-0011   
1 16129U 85093  A 88299.65501195  .00000057  00000-0  00000-0 0 02784
2 16129 063.5956 106.5035 0115755 149.4420 211.2732 02.00568200022334
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88292.74839411 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7824
2 16191  82.5491  46.4510 0019696 177.4074 182.7179 13.16934991143740
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88294.32883728 0.00000158           13206-3 0  4365
2 16408  82.5320  50.3988 0014876 254.4731 105.4787 13.84071290142370
Mir        
1 16609U          88293.73977731 0.00079726           52479-3 0  4632
2 16609  51.6159 147.7137 0024353 210.4815 149.4161 15.74544942153447
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88304.73678669 -.00011715          -55197-2 0  2271
2 16613  98.7240  16.6551 0001756 105.3301 254.7976 14.20012808 52132
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88294.40096988 0.00000114           96946-4 0  2601
2 16735  82.5333  77.0458 0013992 330.6573  29.3796 13.83802140121291
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88304.83248608 0.00001372           20479-3 0  4055
2 16881  82.5255 249.7165 0025419 123.2191 237.1447 14.73954165121497
EGP        
1 16908U          88293.25882208 -.00000029           70484-4 0  1056
2 16908  50.0106 318.7321 0011092  94.6616 265.5486 12.44372380 99411
FO-12      
1 16909U          88279.26846706 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1159
2 16909  50.0147   1.9211 0011139  58.6669 301.5254 12.44395542 97660
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88293.58139821 0.00000463           22416-3 0  1653
2 16969  98.6699 322.3957 0012861 226.8317 133.1786 14.22657108109722
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88294.51307566 0.00000202           17281-3 0  1978
2 17290  82.4676 346.0079 0012311 208.9473 151.1057 13.83617270 90472
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88295.12620539 -.00000217           10000-3 0  1705
2 17561   0.0357 129.9440 0007281  63.3292 166.7425  1.00257318  3190
Kvant      
1 17845U          88298.88030796 0.00062035           40561-3 0  5766
2 17845  51.6181 121.2797 0023115 231.6515 128.0704 15.74840760 90523
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88298.97681246 0.00000094           97220-4 0  5520
2 18129  82.9281  51.8856 0011689 351.1229   8.9697 13.71911895 67146
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88304.78174468 0.00148989  11654-4  20699-3 0  7140
2 18225  71.8990 311.5694 0011632 230.5846 129.4684 16.05716133 74507
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88296.24559568 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  1661
2 18312  82.5636  48.0645 0012927 139.1065 221.1397 13.83364094 59617
Cosmos 1900
1 18665U          88304.88211591 0.00000422           13513-3 0  5487
2 18665  66.0859 115.3215 0048776 282.6652  76.9057 14.49104238 51627
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88294.46196468 0.00000088           73460-4 0   624
2 18820  82.5419 111.0562 0015776 222.4239 137.5696 13.84046686 36525
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88293.59752428 0.00000391           10000-2 0   552
2 19336  82.5504 345.8686 0017221  59.2102 301.0734 13.16844153 11242
Soyuz TM-6 
1 19443U          88298.94379517 0.00036411           24042-3 0   676
2 19443  51.6179 120.9437 0023698 230.4682 129.4383 15.74831557  8959
1988 081C  
1 19485U          88278.11242941 0.00000831           58232-3 0   113
2 19485   6.8352 137.1445 7327217 197.7372 112.2451  2.20128065   577
Progress 38
1 19486U          88298.88035122 0.00029100           19308-3 0   549
2 19486  51.6169 121.2762 0024553 231.5561 128.4241 15.74817968  7084
1988 084A  
1 19495U          88287.94981370 0.00633145  27379-4  35577-3 0   649
2 19495  67.1303 110.4002 0121508 103.1111 258.4896 16.04240656  4564
1988 085A  
1 19501U          88284.84608125 -.00000008           10000-3 0   320
2 19501  64.8783  59.6800 0004854 257.5558 102.3672  2.13103101   542
1988 085B  
1 19502U          88286.84065197 -.00000008           10000-3 0   352
2 19502  64.8628  59.6131 0005610 319.4462  40.5128  2.13103235   582
1988 085C  
1 19503U          88286.43024167 -.00000008           10000-3 0   372
2 19503  64.8931  59.6261 0004828 159.9265 200.0850  2.13103026   574
1988 085E  
1 19505U          88278.31353407 -.00000007           10000-3 0   159
2 19505  64.8574  59.8803 0006291 301.4697  58.5271  2.13365385   326
1988 086A  
1 19508U          88282.53850037 -.00000179           10000-3 0   107
2 19508   0.1646 256.1656 0000557 273.7450 190.3351  1.00274320   212
Offeq-1    
1 19519U          88294.89549840 0.00313214  86600-5  19419-2 0   562
2 19519 142.8536  48.9372 0561575 298.5333  56.0618 14.77873731  4627
Shavit RB  
1 19520U          88289.24775240 0.00318453  90230-5  19378-2 0   122
2 19520 142.8513  17.0377 0565977 255.3326  98.2824 14.77198517  3795
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88284.70644747 0.00000502           30157-3 0   130
2 19531  98.9065 224.3604 0011407 213.6164 146.4284 14.10645068  2292
1988 089B  
1 19532U 88089  B 88300.86740196  .00003131  00000-0  00000-0 0 00251
2 19532 098.9079 240.4058 0006667 134.5228 225.7040 14.11308768004572
Molniya3-33
1 19541U          88302.70739282 0.00000085          -14331-2 0   324
2 19541  62.8826  90.5981 7367529 288.2921   9.1076  2.00594398   594
1988 090B  
1 19542U          88302.76615154 0.07874717  42448-4  86975-3 0   825
2 19542  62.8198 342.8932 0046220 117.3915 243.8270 16.32345796  4656
1988 090D  
1 19544U 88090  D 88301.57321968  .00000483  00000-0  00000-0 0 00153
2 19544 062.8504 090.5924 7319438 288.2742 009.7052 02.06098327000580
TDRS 2     
1 19548U          88300.31980104 0.00000163           10000-3 0   143
2 19548   0.0280 262.5409 0001541  99.1153 358.3724  1.00255173   271
TDRS IUS   
1 19549U 88091  C 88299.43472274  .00001987  00000-0  00000-0 0 00214
2 19549 026.7393 063.1674 7264977 015.5273 358.3127 02.27662885000603
1988 091D  
1 19550U 88091  D 88299.08856737  .00000000  00000-0  00000-0 0 00065
2 19550 002.2302 264.0053 0015038 131.8289 228.3035 01.00459925000277
1988 092A  
1 19554U          88304.36899286 -.00001132           22036-2 0   250
2 19554  62.9155 294.6918 7372976 316.4756   4.6744  2.00516745   540
1988 092C  
1 19556U 88092  C 88302.28486635  .11957082  00000-0  00000-0 0 00518
2 19556 062.7755 205.4284 0036923 114.4127 246.1873 16.40449207003852
1988 092D  
1 19557U          88301.99104449 -.00000633          -16637-2 0   187
2 19557  62.9026 295.0317 7342692 316.4073   4.7387  2.04114237   506
1988 086C  
1 19558U          88302.39302295 0.00032026           34005-2 0    90
2 19558  28.1451 164.9465 7392606 202.1309  92.7413  2.16419756   564
1988 093A  
1 19573U          88304.67280456 0.00000233           33669-4 0   298
2 19573  82.5344 149.7026 0024648 209.5706 150.4035 14.73895407  2856
1988 093B  
1 19574U          88292.99372544 0.00000675           10000-3 0   114
2 19574  82.5405 160.4498 0023793 254.0851 106.3505 14.74289692  1130
1988 095A  
1 19596U          88304.55691526 0.00000185           10000-3 0   114
2 19596   1.4761 275.1955 0007877 138.6926 220.7452  1.00226289   113
1988 095B  
1 19597U          88296.35753724 0.12507757  60658-4  25125-3 0   105
2 19597  51.6248 265.0403 0004998 254.6431 105.8934 16.46853638   284
1988 096A  
1 19608U          88303.73694220 -.00000990           10000-3 0    71
2 19608  62.8882 254.2645 7359263 316.1059 359.9783  2.00574529   107
1988 096B  
1 19609U          88303.52335285 0.00653421  97156-5  12526-2 0    83
2 19609  62.8489 241.1053 0257797 121.8244 240.8141 15.61360812   585
1988 096C  
1 19610U          88304.47840283 0.01524253  36732-4  99676-3 0    95
2 19610  62.8532 237.4901 0284175 120.0201 242.8591 15.67981887   746
1988 096D  
1 19611U 88096  D 88301.76069690  .00000000  00000-0  00000-0 0 00050
2 19611 062.9236 254.4278 7334565 316.0284 005.0309 02.04244959000058
1988 097A  
1 19612U          88305.14921826 -.00004934          -55527-5 0   144
2 19612  72.8685 204.4054 0039826  72.8874 287.7694 16.06879783   592
1988 097B  
1 19613U          88305.02660790 0.02090845  11829-4  10263-2 0   138
2 19613  72.8714 204.7680 0097711  85.7032 275.5560 16.10256672   576
1988 098B  
1 19622U          88303.21097184 0.00019307           35640-2 0    62
2 19622   3.9007 242.9021 7282997 178.3298 190.3810  2.28875369    38
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #95
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Nov 88 07:40:44 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01292>; Sat, 12 Nov 88 05:40:09 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 12 Nov 88 05:40:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EXT1:gy00jZdE2v0J0>;
          Sat, 12 Nov 88 05:30:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.oXT11vy00UkZ83ZE5x>;
          Sat, 12 Nov 88 05:20:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <oXT0zzy00UkZE3Y04y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 88 05:18:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #96

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 96

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
		       Re: Return to the Moon!
      NASA seeks proposals for telerobotic servicer (Forwarded)
    Re: NASA seeks proposals for telerobotic servicer (Forwarded)
			 Oxygen from the Moon
		 Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
			 Namespace collision
			 How to fund research
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 02:31:44 GMT
From: fin!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <1988Oct31.213133.17906@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I'm really
>getting sick of people who claim that Apollo was always planned as a
>one-shot effort.  It simply isn't true.  Looking at some of the plans
>made in the early and middle 60s is enough to make you cry.
  The *real* reason we didn't go back is very simple, but everybody's
missed it.  There were no high-value, low mass resources discovered.
No deposits of diamond, platinum, gold, uranium, etc.  In fact, the
Moon turns out to be very geologically undifferentiated, so there is  
little potential for them. 
  That's the bad news.  The good news is that we have the whole rest of
the solar system to explore.  Io, for example, is *more* differentiated
than Earth, and who knows what bizarre deposits of an interesting nature
await there?  Mercury is much denser than Earth, so it probably contains
many more platinum-group and heavier deposits.  The metallic asteroids,
if they contain platinum-group concentrations, would be easy to get at.
(Our Biosphere group is doing some speculative engineering on technology
for automated asteroid mining, if anybody's interested).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                              *************************
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu          ***  Biosphere III    ***
*************************               ***  best space bbs   ***
**   send a message    **               *** in the Milky Way  ***
**   Ron Paul in '88   **               ***  (206) 523-7381   ***
*************************               *************************

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 05:12:21 GMT
From: thorin!ra!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon!

In article <47@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>  The *real* reason we didn't go back is very simple, but everybody's
>missed it.  There were no high-value, low mass resources discovered.
>No deposits of diamond, platinum, gold, uranium, etc.	In fact, the
>Moon turns out to be very geologically undifferentiated...

    The latter statement is, to say the least, unfounded. Besides,
platinum would not be economic to retrieve with near-term technology
(let alone Apollo), even if it were lying around in large chunks on
the surface(*). If we go back to the moon for economic reasons, it
will likely be for the exact opposite reason - low-value, high bulk
resources like oxygen and lunar soil, to be used in space.

>the solar system to explore.  Io, for example, is *more* differentiated
>than Earth, and who knows what bizarre deposits of an interesting nature
>await there?
    Lots of sulfur compounds, which are not "high-value". The
environment is more hostile than Luna, as well.

(*) This thought reminds me of "Doc" Smith's _Skylark of Space_, in
    which our hero, supergenius Richard Seaton (a cross between Dick
    Feynman and Indiana Jones :-), comes back to Earth from his
    adventure with enough platinum on board to depress the market
    value to a commodity level.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "I met a wonderful new man. He's fictional, but you can't have everything."
	- Cecelia, _The Purple Rose of Cairo_

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 02:57:02 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA seeks proposals for telerobotic servicer (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    November 1, 1988

Michael J. Braukus
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

RELEASE:  88-150

NASA SEEKS PROPOSALS FOR TELEROBOTIC SERVICER

     NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., today 
issued a request for proposal which will lead to the award of a 
prime contract for the design, development, testing and fabrication 
of Space Station Freedom's flight telerobotic servicer (FTS).

     The FTS will be a space robot with automated features that will 
assist crews in the assembly, maintenance and servicing of the 
Freedom station and visiting spacecraft.

     Mandated by Congress, the FTS program consists of a develop-
mental flight test on the Space Shuttle in 1991, followed by a 
demonstration test flight of the prototype robot on the Space 
Shuttle in 1993.  The FTS is scheduled to be launched on the second 
Freedom station assembly flight.

     Initially, the FTS will be capable of performing such diverse 
tasks as installing and removing station truss members, installing 
fixtures on the truss, changing out station orbital replacement 
units, mating thermal utility connectors and performing inspection 
tasks.  The FTS will enhance crew safety and productivity.  Crew 
members aboard Freedom will use the FTS to perform potentially 
hazardous tasks and to relieve astronauts on extravehicular 
activities from routine tasks.

     After initial deployment on the Freedom space station, the 
capabilities of the FTS will be enhanced through an evolutionary 
program to increase the level of autonomy used to perform tasks.   
In the future, an FTS-equipped Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle could 
retrieve, as well as service, spacecraft beyond Freedom's orbit.

     A key element of the Freedom program, the FTS will employ 
technolgies not used on previous NASA spacecraft.  Spinoffs from 
robotic technologies developed in the FTS program are expected to 
advance U.S. industrial automation capabilities.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 04:52:56 GMT
From: msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu  (Mark Robert Smith)
Subject: Re: NASA seeks proposals for telerobotic servicer (Forwarded)

Gee, somebody oughta tell them about Dr. Chandra in Chicago...

Mark
-- 
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604; P.O. Box 5063  that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063    {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith 
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu      Dukakis/Bentsen on Nov. 8th!!!

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 06:33:01 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Oxygen from the Moon

Henry Spencer wrote:
>   
>   One can argue about the merits of solar power satellites.
>   However, one thing that becomes clear as soon as you look at
>   the numbers is that going almost anywhere in space, even
>   near-Earth space (e.g.  to Clarke orbit), is significantly
>   cheaper if liquid oxygen comes from the Moon rather than from
>   Earth.  Earth's strong gravity makes it a *very* expensive
>   source of supply for anything to be used in bulk in space.  

Henry, could you please post your estimates of

(a) the cost of setting up and maintaining an oxygen factory on the Moon
    (plus supporting paraphernalia such as containers, mass launchers
    and catchers, etc.), 

(b) how much oxygen it would have to produce in order for the savings to
    be comparable with the costs in item (a), and
    
(c) how much it will cost to launch all the missions that are supposed to
    use the oxygen in item (b)?
    
Thanks in advance,

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi

    ``My dear major,'' J. T. Maston said, ``your theory seems to
    imply that if we just make the projectile big enough, we shan't
    need any powder at all.''
        --- Jules Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)

DISCLAIMER: This is merely a disclaimer.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 20:05:00 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.


    	For over thirty years now the human race has been launching
    all types of vehicles into the Universe, creating an immense "cloud"
    of human-made objects orbiting Earth and slowly expanding into the
    Solar System and interstellar space.
                                                 
    	While many of the satellites in space are of benefit to our
    society, many more are now inactive, floating around Earth serving
    no purpose at present.  In addition to dead satellites and rocket 
    boosters, there are also thousands of pieces of metal scrap and paint 
    flecks from rockets and satellites which have disintergrated in orbit 
    for one reason or another; and the satellite cloud is growing all the 
    time.  At present there is a one in thirty chance that a Space Shuttle 
    could be struck by some man-made orbital debris; by 2010 the chances 
    will be reduced to one in four.
    
    	This cloud represents a danger on many levels:  In space, this
    debris is orbiting Earth at eighteen thousand miles per hour (the 
    minimum velocity needed to achieve and stay in orbit); while some of 
    it will eventually be dragged into Earth's atmosphere and burn up, many
    more are in orbits which will last for millennia!  As more functioning 
    manned and unmanned vehicles are launched into orbit, the risk of being
    struck and killed/destroyed by this debris - no matter how small -
    grows constantly.  Even a grain-sized particle could hit with the
    impact of a rifle bullet!  And people and places on Earth's surface
    are not immune from the dangers of falling debris:  If an object 
    is large enough, it will not burn up completely and strike the surface.
    The Soviet nuclear-powered COSMOS satellite hitting Canada in 1978 
    and the United States SKYLAB space station hitting Australia in 1979 
    are good examples of debris too big to be burned up on reentry and the 
    consequences which result.
                                                         
    	Satellite debris also interferes with astronomical observations.
    The incredibly sensitive instruments professional astronomers use can 
    be "thrown off" by passing satellites and man-made debris.  Even more 
    threatening, just recently the French were stopped from launching a 
    huge balloon ring satellite to commemorate Paris' Eiffel Tower's one 
    hundredth anniversary.  Many astronomers opposed the ring satellite, as 
    it would have been the size and visual brightness of the full Moon as 
    viewed from the ground and interfered with observations.  They were also 
    concerned that it might start companies advertising in space with huge 
    satellite "billboards", which some *are* considering!  Along with light 
    pollution on the ground from ever-growing cities, astronomers - and 
    those who just enjoy looking at the stars - are having their work cut 
    out for them.  

        The International Dark-Sky Association is an organization designed 
    to help deal with our growing light pollution problem, while not 
    compromising public safety in the process.  For more details, write to:
 
                            Dr. Dave Crawford
                     Kitt Peak National Observatory
                              PO Box 26732
                            Tucson, AZ 85726
 
        You can also receive a brochure on an important meeting of
    astronomers and other scientists who discussed the problems of light
    pollution in Washington, DC, on August 13-16, 1988, by writing to Dr.
    Tomas Gergely, National Science Foundation, Dept. of Astronomy, 1800 G
    St., NW, Washington, DC 20550.  
     
        Now I know some of you are probably asking yourselves:  "How can 
    I possibly stop and/or clean up space debris?  I'm afraid I don't 
    have much access to a Space Shuttle with a huge vacuum cleaner; also, 
    I and other average citizens did not personally make the pollution 
    now flying over our heads!"  I am well aware of this, and naturally 
    this is a project for a major government and/or corporation to handle;
    but as is always pointed out, such organizations won't do much of 
    anything unless it personally affects them and/or the citizens they 
    are supposed to serve say something about it - in other words, write 
    to your Congressman; it does a lot more good than you might think.

        Tell them there should be a major program to start picking up 
    the useless satellite and rocket debris orbiting Earth.  It can be 
    done using the Space Shuttle, or even relatively cheaply using robot 
    satellites which can attain orbits where the Shuttle cannot; and 
    what is even better is that the debris need not be returned to pollute 
    Earth.  For one thing, some old, deactivated satellites are now part 
    of space history, and deserve to be returned to Earth for placement in 
    our museums.  Others still have valuable parts which can be reused 
    and/or recycled; and as for the truly useless debris, if it is 
    small enough it can be deorbited to burn up completely on reentry, or 
    launched into the Sun with no harmful effects to our star.  The 
    debris can also be placed in safe containers and launched into solar 
    orbit away from Earth, or even out of the Solar System, but I do not 
    care for this plan, as it does not destroy the debris, and just leaves 
    the hazard for future space travelers when humanity start to colonize 
    this and other star systems.

        I would like to point out that I am aware these clean-up plans 
    are not for the immediate future, as I understand the difficulties in 
    orbital mechanics, such as trying to send an object towards the Sun, 
    etc., but I hope they will inspire the start of such projects when 
    it is more feasible.  I am also aware of the recent Air Force project 
    designed to deorbit booster rockets earlier than normal for previous 
    missions, to make Low Earth Orbit (LEO) a bit less cluttered; I 
    personally approve of this, but it might be more beneficial if we could 
    recover the boosters and other debris for scrap metal, if nothing else.
    I just feel that *something* should be started relatively soon, so that 
    it does not become too late for us to do anything about it by the time 
    we are socially and technologically ready.  It would be horrible to 
    think that we might trap ourselves on this planet with our own space 
    debris circling the globe, making space launchings too risky to attempt.  
    This is an extreme view in some ways, but not impossible.

        Besides the fact that man-made debris is potentially dangerous 
    to satellites and humans, why else should we "clean up" space?  
    Because it will help the future of our space programs, which in turn 
    benefits all of society.  These very clean-up projects will get us 
    more involved in space exploration and colonization.  We will colonize 
    the other planets and star systems someday, and we cannot continue to 
    bring our pollution and poor management habits with us.  Space leaves 
    very little room for error and bad planning.  What you say to those 
    who will guide our future in space can have a lot of impact.  

        Do not think of space as something separate from Earth and its 
    concerns:  We live on a planet in space, and if we ruin not only our 
    world but the environment around it, then where can we go to live?

        Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 05:17:50 GMT
From: thorin!ra!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Namespace collision

In article <Added.sXPbBJy00Ui3IIWk8b@andrew.cmu.edu> HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard) writes:
>private enterprise in space with straight cash, as SSI (Max Faget & Co.)

    Does anyone else ever wonder why the Space Studies Institute and
Space Services Inc. haven't had an argument over names (or maybe they
have and I didn't hear about it). Similarly Danny Graham's High
Frontier pro-SDI group appropriated the term from O'Neill and the
Institute, which has "High Frontier" as a service mark. Maybe it's
just that the Institute doesn't have money to spare on lawyers.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Are there any more questions, besides the ones from the
      liberal communists?''
	- George Uribe, natl. director of "Students For America"

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 02:26:34 GMT
From: agate!gsmith%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: How to fund research

In article <1988Nov1.172211.3886@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs
(Paul Dietz) writes:

>Why pretend?  Historically, it has been very difficult to predict how
>technology will develop.  There is no reason to think this has changed.
>This is actually good news, since arrogant pessimists can be blind-sided
>by unexpected breakthroughs.


>AIDS is a good argument for giving priority to *science* rather than
>overly focused development.  AIDS would have remained a baffling
>enigma were it not for pure research done on retroviruses and the
>immune system.  It is not clear that pouring money into a narrowly
>focused War on AIDS is the best way to cure AIDS; maybe more basic
>research would in the end more quickly lead to a cure.

  I think this actually illustrates the point that it is often
hard to determine in advance the value of differing lines of
research.  At least, I have heard that research on AIDS has lead
to great gains in biological knowledge. In contrast, I have also
heard that the 'war on cancer' has been disappointing.
--
'Still, if you were at Brahms and the room flashed as another idea was
captured from the ebb and flow of that vast sea of cosmic intelligence,
the idea might be considered to have been "created"' --  Paul M. Koloc
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #96
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Nov 88 01:20:38 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05682>; Sun, 13 Nov 88 01:01:57 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 13 Nov 88 01:01:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXTFwDy00UkTI1LU8R>;
          Sun, 13 Nov 88 00:35:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.AXTFkNy00UkZE4OU49>;
          Sun, 13 Nov 88 00:22:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gXTFh5y00UkZI4NE5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 88 00:19:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #97

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 97

Today's Topics:
	     Earthbreak, Marsbreak, Lunabreak, NEAbreak.
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
		Re: Asimov on Future of Space Program
		 Re: Transporting the Soviet Shuttle
	   Re: Earthbreak, Marsbreak, Lunabreak, NEAbreak.
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
			     General Info
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Nov 88 14:55:28 EST
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu
To: ota+@andrew.cmu.edu
Cc: henry@zoo.toronto.edu, space+@andrew.cmu.edu, dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Subject: Earthbreak, Marsbreak, Lunabreak, NEAbreak.

Launching a rocket from the lunar surface is certainly easier than
from the Earth.  However, I am not convinced that the major
consideration in transporting material in the earth-moon system is
time-of-flight rather than energy.  Electrical energy in space is
expensive, unfortunately.  Space rated solar arrays are costly, and
must be launched from earth.  Making them in space would, in my
opinion, require too much infrastructure to be worthwhile in the near
term.  Asteroid spacecraft might be able to utilize solar or nuclear
steam rockets, avoiding the need for large amounts of electrical
power.

[Footnote: one place where electrical energy may not be as expensive
 is near the earth, where "electrobraking" via tether can replace some
 gradual aerobraking.  One might use the electricity so produced to, say,
 help electrolyse water into fuel for outgoing OTVs.]

I am dubious about the near term relevance of schemes like slings or
mass drivers.  Extreme accuracy is required (hard to get without lots
of machinery spread over a long distance on the lunar surface), as
well as a complicated catcher system.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 07:00:04 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

A few things to keep in mind on the subject of mixed vs. single-sex
crews for extended missions like a Mars visit:

 * Just because your mom and pop get along OK in their suburban house
   here on friendly Terra doesn't mean that a husband-wife pair of
   highly trained, competitive *astronauts* would get along over 2-3
   years of ultimate space isolation in cramped quarters with other
   similar couples.  The dynamics are so incredible different it
   boggles the mind!

 * If you sent an all male crew as the Russians propose, there would be
   certain obvious issues that would have to be addressed, which shall
   remain nameless here in a family newsgroup.  ;-)  Have they got this
   worked out?  They have guys up there for two and three semesters
   straight, it seems like a fair bet doesn't it.

 * The one particle of wisdom the Soviets cannot impart to us, but
   which I believe fervently on sight, is that an all-WOMAN crew would
   be the ideal solution.  I have a quarter that says respectable
   psychologists back me up on the point too!!

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 16:22:53 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <1988Nov1.172211.3886@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <978@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
> >> 1)  Name some benefits.  Tangible ones that can't be addressed by
> >>     earthbound substitutes.  (Forget Erethropoetin (sp?).
> >
This is from my original article, before JP started reading stuff into it
that wasn't there.  In short, what I said was "let's be logical and
in our arguments."  I honestly hope to hear some positive arguments, and
if nothing more, to get people thinking about the way research succeeds
in addressing identified problems.  It is usually not by taking a single,
damn-the-torpedos approach, but rather by investigating LOTS of different
possible answers.
 
> >Then there's the whole topic of exploiting extraterrestrial mineral
> >resources for use on Earth. 
> earth is not really a problem.  Making the in-space mining
> sufficiently productive and inexpensive is a problem; not having good
> characterizations of any asteroids is an even bigger problem!
> 
> >The topic of solar power satellites has received a lot of attention,
> >both favorable and unfavorable.
> Insert caveat: but not soon!  If it costs $100 B just to set up a lunar
> oxygen factory, an SPS factory would be enormously expensive.
> 
> >  o Large perfect crystals.  For example, silicon-on-sapphire VLSI
> >    products would be *much* cheaper if we could reduce the defect
> >    rate in the wafers.
> 
AHA!!  Now you've stumbled into one of my areas!  What about GaAs crystals?
Why not mention them??  In fact, the defect densities in crystals is being
brought down by earthbound research.  Is it cheaper to spend $5K per pound
to get the materials into orbit, $?? on overhead costs of using a space 
manufacturing lab, and $?? on returning the processed materials to earth, or
to utilize MBE and MOCVD to improve the defect density in the surface (read
active) layer, and forget about substrate impurities?  The technology for
the latter exists.  AND there is lots of research (including quite a bit
here at ASU) on improving the manufacturing process for pulling crystals, 
including automated systems.
> 
> >  o Etc. etc.  It's foolish to try to list all the applications in
> >    materials processing -- there are too many.

[ stuff deleted]  Try listing one.  That's what I asked in the first
place.  Also, try to avoid the things which have already been disproven.
In short, it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the benefits.  NOTE [especially 
those who insist on putting words into my mouth]  I DO NOT ARGUE AGAINST
RESEARCH, NOR DO I SAY NOTHING WILL COME OF THESE EFFORTS; ONLY THAT WE
CAN'T PREDICT THE OUTCOME.
> 
> >>  admit that we don't know what benefits we will
> >> find, and thus can't say that benefits x,y, and z are justification.
> >
> >This is like saying we should stop AIDS research because we can't be
> >*sure* a cure will be found.

Now that is really a cheap shot!!  Note in my article that I said nothing
about discontinuing any research.  I don't understand where you find a basis
for this, when later on, I clearly stated that we should continue research,
but stop the useless, unfounded drivel and rhetoric which is used for
justifying the research, because basic research can stand on its own. 
> 
> AIDS is a good argument for giving priority to *science* rather than
> overly focused development.
> 
Paul sums it up well.
Let me add my conclusions.  (And DON'T deliberately take me out-of-context
again--I will stand for logical arguments, but not cheap shots).
We should treat space science like any other science.  In fact, it is part
of the overall scope of science.  That means apply scientific principles.

1)  Identify a problem.  (We seem to be able to do that with ease.)
2)  Pose some possible solutions.  (There seems to be a definite shortage
    of the 'some'.  No one solution is likely to be perfect, and in fact,
    blind pursuit of one solution may lead one to ignore better solutions.)
3)  Methodically investigate the possible solutions.  Remain unbiased, so
    that you can dismiss alternatives which are not feasible.  (Again, we
    seem to have difficulty acknowledging that solutions tied to our pet
    dreams are not practical at this stage.)
4)  Develop the best solution found.  At this point, however, the research is
    not over.  Solutions may be improved.

I heartily endorse alternative developments for, among other things, reducing
launch costs to a reasonable level.  When that first, major hurdle is cleared,
some of the pie-in-the-sky solutions to other problems become much more 
attractive.  I can see that it's time to prepare for the onslaught of flames.

Now, let the sport begin.....

N. Kluksdahl           Arizona State U.
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 17:09:04 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Asimov on Future of Space Program

In article <1797@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> alex@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson) writes:
>>Asimov writes eloquently on the advisability of abandoning all whizbang
>>ideas of super-PR missions in favor of the methodical exploitation of space.
> ...
>>PARTIAL LIST OF SIGNATORIES OF THE MARS DECLARATION.
>>ISAAC ASIMOV, Author
>
>If we assume for the moment the accuracy of the "hidden agenda" ascribed
>to the Planetary Society on this one, isn't Asimov shooting himself in
>the foot? ...

Asimov, like too many other people, has taken the Mars Declaration at face
value.  Note, the Declaration itself does not say "full speed ahead to Mars,
right away!"; it just says "we should start seriously thinking about Mars".
Now who could object to that?
-- 
The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 17:07:23 GMT
From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Transporting the Soviet Shuttle

In article <1988Oct31.180933.13448@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) 
writes:
>(The Saturn V third stage
>went by air, but the others were too big.  The Soviets claim to be
>shipping Energia's tanks by air, which must be something to see.)

Back last March Aviation Week reported that it was carried on the back of
a Bear bomber, much like the setup used for testing the Soviet shuttle.


-- 
"I don't suppose you have any idea what the damn thing is, huh?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                      uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu        internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 19:25:28 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Earthbreak, Marsbreak, Lunabreak, NEAbreak.

In article <8811011955.AA09686@kochab.cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU writes:
> Electrical energy in space is
> expensive, unfortunately.  Space rated solar arrays are costly, and
> must be launched from earth.  Making them in space would, in my
> opinion, require too much infrastructure to be worthwhile in the near
> term.  

Part of the problem may be that long-lived electrical power sources
are heavier than photo-voltaic arrays.  A solar-heated steam turbine
might weigh more, but would be cheaper to make, and probably would
have a higher power density than a solar cell array.

A lot of engineering practice gets skewed when launch costs are so
high.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 06:17:34 GMT
From: oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson@sun.com  (Phil Nelson)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <1988Oct31.213133.17906@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>                                                          I'm really
>getting sick of people who claim that Apollo was always planned as a
>one-shot effort.  It simply isn't true.  Looking at some of the plans
>made in the early and middle 60s is enough to make you cry.
>-- 

 Apollo was sold to the American people as a one shot, in the end, that was
what made the difference. The plans were there, but not the will to execute
them. I still believe that this is only a setback, that a vigorous space
program will be supported by the American people, and by the people of
other countries, given good leadership.

 The current program encouraging more private enterprise in space is a good
sign, I think.

>The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

-- 
Phil Nelson at (but not speaking for)
Tymnet, McDonnell Douglas Network Systems Company      POTS:408-922-7508
UUCP:{ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson   LRV: Component Station

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 02 Nov 88 11:34:46 EST
From: Daniel Cwiertniewicz <DCWIERTN%WAYNEST1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      General Info

I'm looking for a list, or digest that deals specifically in Astronomy.
Any info would be helpful, Thanks.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 16:18:32 GMT
From: haven!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <1988Nov1.172211.3886@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <978@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
> >
> >To start with (considering how this topic came up) how about assuring
> >species survival; in particular, survival of massive war on Earth.
>
> I side with underground cities argument.  We know how to dig mines.
> They are FAR cheaper than space colonies.

Now let's hear your description of how to get people to live in
them, and what *other* significant benefits they'll provide.  And as
for cheap, you might want to reconsider your opinion.  Deep mines are
not cheap, and that's what would be needed here.  Then there's the
cost of developing and building a self-contained biosphere, which
will be a big part of the cost of a space colony; the cost of providing
adequate, self-contained, permanent, and safe power sources; and the
problem of providing for future growth.

That last is a really fun question:  Sure, when things get crowded in
there, the people can always dig another cavern, but where do they get
the *mineral resources* to build another city in the new cavern?  Yes,
they're *already* in a mine (sort of), but what kind of mine is it?
Whatever it is, there will be dozens of other essential mineral
resources *not* available where they are.

I guess my final word on this topic is, if it's such a great idea,
why isn't there some organization out there pushing it?

> >Or, on the subject of genetic engineering, it would be nice to have
> >off-Earth laboratories for genetic experiments we'd love to try, but
> >can't because of their possible danger.  Yes, physically these
> >experiments could be done on Earth, but politically, no.
					   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
					   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> What experiments are these!?  The vast majority of genetic experiments
> are known to be innocuous.

You and I may think so, but many people do not.  A year or two ago there
was a research group in the northwest (Idaho?) which wanted to do field
trials of a genetically engineered bacteria which would live in the
roots of a plant (potatoes?) and greatly increase the plant's nitrogen
fixing ability -- in other words, have the plant make its own fertilizer.
The experiment was cancelled due to public protest based on fears that
the bacteria might mutate and destroy the Earth, or something like that.

It doesn't help that people like Jeremy Rifkin can generate an amazing
amount of fear by taking advantage of widespread public ignorance.
But that's life.

> >The topic of solar power satellites has received a lot of attention,
> >both favorable and unfavorable.  It is certainly a viable possibility,
> >if done using extraterrestrial materials.
>
> Insert caveat: but not soon!  If it costs $100 B just to set up a lunar
> oxygen factory, an SPS factory would be enormously expensive.

Why, that's true!  And if the moon is made of solid gold, there won't
be any oxygen there to extract!  :-)  I guess that's unfair; if NASA
built a lunar oxygen factory, it might indeed cost that much.  In any
case, I wouldn't advocate building either SPS or a colony from lunar
materials -- it seems instead to be a perfect use for a captured NEA.

As for your caveat, no time scale was given.  I'll say it again; I
neither expect nor desire space colonies to be built anytime soon.
My goal is to see increased space development and a strong (U.S.!)
manned presence in space.

> Near term, no one has demonstrated any product that can be made
> profitably in space, beyond $200K of latex spheres.  No doubt some
> will be found when launch costs go down.

It seems, though, that the only reason for this is high launch costs.
As Henry Spencer has pointed out, there is still ample room for launch
costs to come down *a lot.*

> >It's true no one can see the future exactly.  So?  Does that mean we
> >should pretend we can't even guess at what might happen?
>
> Why pretend?  Historically, it has been very difficult to predict how
> technology will develop.  There is no reason to think this has changed.

Is it your claim that technological development will *not* find additional
benefits in space?  I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

> >> I suggest we stop
> >> tossing stale rhetoric and admit that we don't know what benefits we will
> >> find, and thus can't say that benefits x,y, and z are justification.
> >
> >This is like saying we should stop AIDS research because we can't be
> >*sure* a cure will be found.
>
> AIDS is a good argument for giving priority to *science* rather than
> overly focused development.  AIDS would have remained a baffling
> enigma were it not for pure research done on retroviruses and the
> immune system.

So?  No one is arguing that science should not be an important priority.
My own belief is that if we get a significant manned presence in space,
it will be *easier* to get funds for space science, because the added
costs will be small.

> It is not clear that pouring money into a narrowly
> focused War on AIDS is the best way to cure AIDS; maybe more basic
> research would in the end more quickly lead to a cure.

That's not how it went with polio.  Besides, that basic research is
still going on.  Not every microbiologist in the world has jumped
on the AIDS bandwagon -- most are still working away at whatever
specialty most interests them.


Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #97
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Nov 88 05:53:47 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00806> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sun, 13 Nov 88 05:51:44 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 13 Nov 88 05:51:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXTKBwy00UkT017U4M>;
          Sun, 13 Nov 88 05:27:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.gXTK7My00UkZE4kk5y>;
          Sun, 13 Nov 88 05:20:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0XTK58y00UkZQ4jU4v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 88 05:17:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #98

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 98

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
			      sci.space
			   'Roids in Orbit.
			 Re: Demise of OTRAG
			 Re: Demise of OTRAG
			 Re: Demise of OTRAG
		       Re: Oxygen from the Moon
			 Re: 'Roids in Orbit.
	 Space, the budget deficit, and return on investment.
			  Re: Flood legends
		 Re: Transporting the Soviet Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 06:19:09 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced

Just a stray thought:  How would you like to be the Soviet pilot
who let the Bison[Bear?] carrier aircraft slide off the runway
and get stuck so that the Americans were bound to spot it on the
next Keyhole pass...!

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 18:35:12 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <1988Oct31.213133.17906@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The battle between LOR and EOR ... ended when both were studied
>in depth, and all involved took an impartial look at the results, at
>which point LOR was the near-unanimous choice.  This was long before the
>death of Apollo, or even the earliest omens of it.

The LOR choice was announced on July 5, 1962.  That was long before the
death of Apollo, all right, but not before the earliest omens.  The issue
was contested until early summer.
-- 

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 88 19:08:37 GMT
From: nunki.usc.edu!sal25.usc.edu!khandpur@oberon.usc.edu  (Ari Khandpur)
Subject: sci.space


  Hi netters, I'm new at this, so be kind...

  If anyone wants to know about how to predict earthquakes from outer-space,
leave me E-mail.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 03:35:38 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: 'Roids in Orbit.

Be sure to catch the Science News article, 'Muscles in space forfeit
more than fibers,' vol. 134, Oct. 29, 1988, p. 277. It reports on a 
presentation by Danny A. Riley of the Medical College of Wisconsin in
Wisconsin in Milwaukee at the annual meeting of the American Society
for Gravitational and Space Biology in Washington, D.C. Riley studied
dissected tissues from rats that were flown on the Soviet Cosmos
Biosatellite 1887. He reports the rats sufferred not just muscle
atrophy but serious damage in 4 to 7 percent of their muscle fibers after
just 12 1/2 days aloft.

The article goes on to discuss the damage to muscles astronauts might
incur on a Mars mission. Riley warns that although astronauts' muscles
seem to regenerate after they return to earth, the muscle recovery may
be compensatory and not actually regenerative. Later he suggests the
astronauts may need _anabolic steroids_ in addition to exercise to
maintain lean muscle mass in zero-G.

What a concept! Astronauts on ``the sauce!'' I can see it now --
'roid rages in orbit, steroid-induced acne and alopecia, gynecomastia,
liver tumors, the whole nine yards. Or perhaps NASA will put some
serious money into developing anabolic steroids without destructive
physical and psychological side effects. The monsters at my weight
room would welcome such a drug with open arms...muscles from heaven.

``Yo, Houston, like wadda you build these cans out of?! I just broke
off the steering yoke...Now how am I gonna land dis crate? Yah want me to
be late to the Olympia or what? Talk to me or I break your face.''

Dan Mocsny
I train hard, but I don't ``juice.''

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 14:20:07 GMT
From: l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@k.cc.purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Demise of OTRAG

In article <8482@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, kevin@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
> In article <8XPCx5y00UoA4FFlEf@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
> (Kevin William Ryan) writes: 
< >
< >[...]  OTRAG died quite some time ago, though, for reasons I
< >have never heard explained.
  
> G. Harry Stine talked about this in one of his "Alternate View" columns
> in _Analog_ some years ago.  It seems that OTRAG was setting up
> operations in some equatorial country (in Africa, I believe), which then
> had a civil war that trashed the whole operation.  Stine claims that the
> Soviets had a hand in fomenting this civil war with the express intent
> of putting OTRAG out of business and thus keeping the amount of
> non-Soviet launch capability limited; he refers to it as "the first
> space war."

There was an invasion of Zaire from Angola, ostensibly to destroy guerrilla
bases there.  No guerrilla bases were destroyed, but OTRAG was.  As the aim
of OTRAG was to provide low-cost launching for third-world countries, was
the reason for the invasion the destruction of OTRAG?
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 16:56:44 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Demise of OTRAG

[]
In article <1004@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <8482@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, kevin@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
>> In article <8XPCx5y00UoA4FFlEf@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
>> (Kevin William Ryan) writes: 
>< >
>< >[...]  OTRAG died quite some time ago, though, for reasons I
>< >have never heard explained.
>  
>There was an invasion of Zaire from Angola, ostensibly to destroy guerrilla
>bases there.  No guerrilla bases were destroyed, but OTRAG was.  As the aim
>of OTRAG was to provide low-cost launching for third-world countries, was
>the reason for the invasion the destruction of OTRAG?
>-- 
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907

I read an article on OTRAG many moons ago in the pre-NSS days of 
Space World magazine (circa 1975). As I recall, after they left
Zaire, a fellow named Khadafy invited them to set up shop in Libya.

The Soviets didn't like the idea of Khadafy having anything to do with 
rockets so started a smear campaign against the company. The KGB
"leaked" phoney documents showing how the satillite launcher story was
merely a front, and that OTRAG was really building small missles to sell
to third world nations. The bad PR put them out of business.

One other detail I remember was that the OTRAG people wanted to use as
many off-the-shelf parts as possible. So for instance, some of the engine
valves were controled by windshield-wiper motors.

If I find the article, I'll post it to the net.
-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"Some people say I'm arrogant. But I know better then them" -
	 Mike Dukakis at the Al Smith Banquet
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 16:30:38 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Demise of OTRAG

>From article <8482@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, by kevin@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kevin S. Van Horn):
> In article <8XPCx5y00UoA4FFlEf@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
>>[...]  OTRAG died quite some time ago, though, for reasons have never heard explained.
> G. Harry Stine talked [..] in _Analog_ some years ago.  It seems that OTRAG was setting up
> operations in some equatorial country (in Africa, I believe), which then
> had a civil war that trashed the whole operation.

This was in Zaire's Shaba Province, in south west Africa just north of Angola.
But a few years later (1982?) they move to Qaddhafi's Libya, test firing a
rocket from Seba Oasis. People didn't like that idea a whole lot either,
so they then moved to the Swedish ESRANGE sounding rocket base and did a 
test firing from there, in 1983 I think. Havent heard anything about them
since then - has anyone else?


Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 14:16:47 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the Moon

Jorge Stolfi asked Henry Spencer for the cost of setting up a lunar
oxygen factory.  I saw some (guestimated) numbers that looked like:

	Cost to develop and install LOX factory:  $100 B
	Cost to make and return LOX to LEO:	 $2500/lb
	Breakeven point (with interest expense,
		assuming $4000/lb earth-to LEO launch costs):
					       250,000 tons of LOX

	(from: "Space Resources: Breaking the Bonds of Earth",
	  John S. Lewis and Ruth A. Lewis, Columbia U. Press, 1987.
	 Be warned that these folks are seriously pro-asteroid.)

The cost goes down when launch costs from Earth are reduced.  It is
clear that lunar LOX needs a large market for this scheme to make
sense.

These figures assume LOX is lifted from the moon with hydrogen launched
from Earth.  A source of lunar hydrogen would help enormously.  Failing
that, perhaps an orbiting rotating tether could help.  Finally, for some
missions the LOX need not be delivered to LEO.  For example, a mars or
asteroid mission could be refueled in HEEO.  This would increase the
cost advantage of lunar over terrestrial oxygen, since the latter must
be lifted from LEO.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 19:43:35 GMT
From: nyser!weltyc@itsgw.rpi.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: 'Roids in Orbit.

In article <365@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>...
>The article goes on to discuss the damage to muscles astronauts might
>incur on a Mars mission. Riley warns that although astronauts' muscles
>seem to regenerate after they return to earth, the muscle recovery may
>be compensatory and not actually regenerative. 

Here is an excellent example of how Soviet experience is so valuable
and our lack of it is so costly.  Note that Riley says astronauts
*might* incur muscle damage on a long trip.  The Soviets *know* this,
I'm sure, since they have had men in space for close to a year
straight.  Although I don't think a Mars mission is such a great idea,
I think it is necessary for the US to tag along on whatever major
mission the SU decides to go with.  They have the experience and
commitment to do it and we don't.  I think any such cooperation would
be far more advantageous to the US than to the SU.

Humph.

-- 

Christopher Welty  ---  Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu          ...!rutgers!nyser!weltyc

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 08:13:12 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Space, the budget deficit, and return on investment.

There have been a number of postings critisizing the expenditure of money on
space because of the budget deficit, and the lack of a return for the money
invested in these tight money times. I think both of these points are bogus.

1. NASA spends less than 1% of the federal budget. The numbers are less than
10 billion in a 1 trillion dollar budget (does anybody have the exact size of
the total and NASA budget for FY88?). The numbers clearly show that the 
solution to the budget deficit is in entitlement and military spending, R&D
spending (such as NASA) is negligible.

2. It is wrongheaded to judge the effectiveness of R&D spending by short term
return on investment (ROI). R&D (whether basic science or technology) is an
investment in the future and has no short term ROI like investment in 
infrastructure. But it is no less crucial for being of the future rather than
the present. 

Some posters try to refute point 2 by saying we have to solve "today's" 
problem's first (whatever that means). I have to ask whether they really
propose halting R&D spending for this purpose. People, R&D spending is where
those solutions are going to come from, and the future is tomorrow. 
Get serious.

Other posters seem to refute point 2 by saying that NASA spending is not R&D
spending because there is no future in space, especially for human beings. The
fundamental refutation of this is that from the time man appeared in Northern
Africa 2 million years ago, he has ALWAYS (over time) spread from where he is to
where he is not. Space is a place, man is not there, he will given enough time
have the ability to live there, and so he will be there. This is simply 
irrefutable.

A related accusation is that it's too soon for space research (manned or 
unmanned, take your pick). The technology is too primitive and expensive now
for basic research. Too primitive for basic research? Obviously we are deep
into the bogosity zone here. We have to build ENIAC (the shuttle) before we
build a laptop NeXT.

The final place for these people to stand is on the amount spent on space 
research by the government relative to other research. This is a complex
question in need of a lot of hard numbers. I.e. what is spent where by the
private sector, the states (universities), etc. NASA's budget is not small
relative other research areas, but it's not out of line for other fundamental
research (super conducting super collider anybody? the genome project??).
NASA gets decent funding because a large segment of the public understands the
long term significance of the new frontier, and is excited about it.

In my opinion I have presented factual assertions here, and not emotional 
dreams. These facts show that we should continue to fund both the manned and
unmanned space programs.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   [...imagine a time when evil man is infecting the solar system...]
"DEATH TO THE BARBARIC, SATANIC, GENETICALLY INFERIOR MARTIAN BACTERIA"!!!!!!
  -- Redneck frontiersman, 2050.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 23:26:24 GMT
From: polya!crew@labrea.stanford.edu  (Roger Crew)
Subject: Re: Flood legends

In article <7512@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov> writes:
> In the referenced message, crew@polya.Stanford.EDU (Roger Crew) wrote:
> >
> > period, figure that the coastline moved perhaps several hundred miles
> > over the course of a few thousand years.
> ..
> Excuse me, but your figures work out to ~500 feet per year, or 1.5 feet
> per day.  Any moron would notice that, even a nomadic tribesman.  "Gee,

Ooops.

I guess I must have been thinking ~5 feet per year.
(it's okay to be off by two orders of magnitude but not 3... sorry Dale :-)

Okay, I'll concede that Joe Nomadic Tribesman will notice 500 feet/year and
will probably have a vested interest in knowing exactly where his
shoreline is.  We then have another problem, however:

Why would he consider this unusual?  Note that the oceans have been rising
for as long as JNT and JNT's father and grandfather can remember.
Oceans are SUPPOSED to rise; what else would they do?
Moreover, they never go back down again.

At best we might get some sort of legend where some god created
the world and then went off and inadvertantly left the water running.... 

--
Roger Crew					``Beam Wesley into the sun!''
Usenet:    {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!crew
Internet:  crew@polya.Stanford.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 22:30:04 GMT
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Transporting the Soviet Shuttle

In article <1988Oct31.180933.13448@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>There's not much alternative to river barges for transporting something
>that is too big for aircraft or railroads.

Airships?  The R100 could lift 60 tons, and that was in 1936.  Build
one a bit bigger and with today's lighter materials and 250-ton
capacity should be easy.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #98
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Nov 88 05:29:03 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07092>; Tue, 15 Nov 88 00:47:14 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 15 Nov 88 00:47:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cXTw5Gy00jZdA1xU91>;
          Tue, 15 Nov 88 00:32:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.AXTvuwy00UkZM9304O>;
          Tue, 15 Nov 88 00:21:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXTvuUy00UkZA91k4g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 00:20:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #99

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 9 : Issue 99

Today's Topics:
		    space news from Sept 26 AW&ST
		  Re: Explanation for name, `Buran'?
			  Nuclear Flare Gun
			Bogos space arguments
		       Re:  SPACE Digest V9 #75
			  Re: Lasing the Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 88 06:56:16 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Sept 26 AW&ST

Japan launches CS-3B comsat on H-1 booster Sept 16.

Amroc completes maximum-duration (70 s) firing of its hybrid rocket motor.
This was the last major test before a suborbital test, set for spring.

Big items of pre-shuttle-launch coverage.  NASA believes it can build to
12-14 flights per year eventually; Morton Thiokol thinks 8-10 is a better
estimate.

There has been internal debate within NASA on policy issues arising from
the new crew-escape system.  In some main-engine-failure situations,
there is a choice between aborting into the ocean and pushing remaining
engines to emergency maximum to try to reach a runway.  The latter
preserves the orbiter and payload as well as the crew, *if* the extreme
throttle setting doesn't cause an engine explosion.  The astronauts and
Houston originally recommended abort and bailout.  NASA HQ overruled
them, citing the non-trivial risks of bailing out in mid-Atlantic where
rescue would be difficult.  [Granted that NASA HQ does have ulterior
motives, this argument does have some validity.]

NASA has also reversed pre-Challenger policy on abort modes, which
favored Return To Launch Site over TransAtlantic Abort.  TAL is now
favored.  RTLS remains the only option early in the flight, when the
shuttle can't make the TAL sites, but it calls for making a U-turn
at Mach 7 -- really -- and this untested maneuver is now considered
chancier than TAL when there is a choice.  [As I observed a long time
ago, it says something about the "operational" nature of the shuttle
that one of its primary abort modes has never been tested.  Come to
that, TAL hasn't been tested either.]

The STS-26 trajectory was chosen to give the safest possible abort
modes in the event of engine failure.  Discovery went up more steeply
at first, taking it to an altitude of 69 nm quite early, after which
the orbiter actually flew slightly nose-down and descended 9 nm in
the course of further acceleration.

One new measure that has been approved is use of a steeper reentry
angle, if needed to reach a TAL landing site.  This is controversial
because of the higher heating, but it does stretch the range 500 nm.

There remain "black zones" in the trajectory, where a multiple engine
failure is invariably fatal.  For example, between Mach 8 and Mach 10,
the orbiter is moving too fast to safely descend to lower altitudes,
but is not high enough to decelerate enough before descent.  A major
post-Challenger simulation effort has defined the black zones much
more precisely, and given the astronauts much better guidance on how
to deal with extreme emergencies that border on black zones.

Lockheed is offering a new small launcher to military customers, based on
the Poseidon sub-launched missile that is being phased out in favor of
Trident.  (Lockheed builds both.)  Lockheed's board of directors has
approved internal funding for development of a three-stage launcher, using
the first and second stages of a late-model Poseidon plus a Star 48 solid
motor as the third stage.  Lockheed says the launcher could be ready in
two years and could put 770 lb into low orbit.  It would not be commercially
available, and potential military customers would be responsible for getting
Navy approval to use surplus Poseidon stages.

General Dynamics and ESA are both pursuing ways to launch small payloads
piggyback on their big boosters.  Small secondary payloads flew on GD's
Atlas-Centaur a number of times in the 60s, using side-mounted cargo pods;
GD is asking potential users whether they are interested in a revival of
the idea.  ESA is planning a demonstration launch with Amsat's "Microsat"
small satellites mounted on a ring in unused space low in the payload
fairing of a large Ariane.

DoD is pursuing several small-satellite programs for launch in the next
few years.  DARPA has bought a Pegasus launch for a cluster of small
experimental UHF comsats.  The Navy's Spinsat program, developing four
small experimental satellites (the only one mentioned explicitly is
called Profile and will be used for locating radio interference sources),
is considering Scout, Pegasus, or piggyback launch on a USAF booster.
SDI is working on a small satellite (details not given) to be tested
from a submarine, using a missile adapted for use as a booster.  NASA
will launch part of its CRRES (Combined Release and Radiation Effects
Satellite) project on a Scout in March 1991.  (The other part goes up
on an Atlas; originally both were one larger shuttle payload.)  Several
other small satellites are reported to be under construction for some
of the more obscure agencies, notably the CIA.  DARPA is pursuing its
Lightsat project despite high-level opposition.  Apart from the idea
of small satellites per se, DARPA would like to find out whether small
satellites can be built economically:  current military satellites can
cost $100,000 per pound, twelve times the price of gold, and DARPA
thinks this is ridiculous.  Military commanders support Lightsat concepts
because current centralized satellite systems have been officially
superseding systems that were under more local control, like long-range
reconnaissance aircraft and weather aircraft; the result has been large
central resources that more often than not are too heavily loaded with
"high priority" traffic to provide effective support to forces in the
field.

Picture from the NOAA-10 polar-orbit metsat:  Hurricane Gilbert hitting
Yucatan.  An enormous spiral of clouds with a tiny eye.  Pressure at
the eye was 891 millibars (one "standard" atmosphere is 1013), with
winds gusting to 200+ MPH.

Israel launches its first satellite Sept 19, using a small solid-fuel
booster and launching *west* across the Mediterranean.  The satellite
is named Offeq-1 ("Horizon 1"); the booster is called Shavit (Comet)
and is thought to be a derivative of the Jericho ballistic missile.
Offeq-1 is a test satellite with no useful military capabilities, but
Israel's primary objective is believed to be launching its own small
spysats.  [Flight International, 3 Sept, reports that Israel badly wants
its own spysats.  It has been getting satellite pics from the US since
the Yom Kippur War, but the US has denied its request for direct ground 
links to the satellites, and Israel is not happy about getting edited and
sometimes dated information.  A further consideration, possibly of some
significance, is that Israel has an election coming up.]

[The 1 Oct issue of Flight had some more details, including a picture of
Offeq-1.  The western launch meant an orbital inclination higher than
anything since some NASA test launches in 1966.  Launching against the
Earth's rotation cuts into payload, but it was the only way to avoid
overflying Arab nations.  Flight shows the flight path nearly due west,
overflying Sicily and Gibraltar but avoiding other land.  Moshe Ortass,
head of Israel Aircraft Industries' electronics division, says total
development costs of launcher and satellite were $190M, most of it out
of company R&D budgets.  He says there will be another launch within
two years.  [The first spysat?]]

The planned Oct 7 Ariane launch has been postponed to the 27th because
the German TVSat has encountered thruster problems, and the Ariane
payload is the very similar French TDF-1.

Senate approves Wirth bill to limit third-party liability of US commercial
launchers.  The bill is similar to one that passed the House.  The White
House likes neither, since they transfer financial responsibility to the
government rather than setting absolute limits.

Letter from Dennis Jenkins, observing that the Martin Marietta / McDonnell
Douglas flyback booster for ALS looks strikingly like the MM/McDD proposal
for a flyback booster for the shuttle, circa 1970.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 15:02:34 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: Explanation for name, `Buran'?

In article <21900043@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Anyone out there familiar with what the Soviets use for a phonetic
>alphabet (similar to the American Able Baker Charlie Dog or the
>international Alfa Bravo Coca Delta)?
>
>One fellow that I know, who is something of a Soviet space program
>analyst, has noticed that Soyuz 6, 7, and 8 were Antayas, Buran,
>and Granyt respectively.  Would this be analogous to our naming things
>Alfa, Bravo, Coca or Charlie?  If so, could that be where the name of
>the Soviet shuttle comes from (Was the one they used for drop tests
>named Vosdushnyo Kosmicheskiy Korabl' Antayas?)

My guess would be that it both is and isn't. First, I assume that
the Cyrillic alphabet starts with "A, B, G" (whatever they call them).
I doubt that "Antayas, Buran, and Granyt" are standard phonetic
alphabets, but rather just good names that start with A, B and G.

This reminds me of the German practice (sorry, folks, more WWII here...)
for phonetic namings. The main gun turrets on cruisers and battleships
were, from front to rear, Anton, Bruno, Caesar, and Dora.  The Focke-Wulf
190-D9 was called the "Dora-9", and the Me 109-E was "Emil", the G was
"Gustav".  On the other hand, their tanks also used letter designators
(PzKpfw IV G) and I find no record of phonetic names being used for them.
Was this system the German equivalent to Able-Baker-Charlie, or just an
unofficial convention ?

The British names entire classes of warships (esp. destroyers and light
cruisers) similarly. For example, the G-class (Glowworm, etc) were 
followed by the H-class (Hardy, Hero, Hotspur,...). Similarly, 
Emerald and Enterprise were E class cruisers. This is pretty handy, as
just hearing the name of the ship gives you a good indication of her
vintage (very useful for destroyers).

>I'm betting that the third (?) Soviet shuttle will be named Granyt.

BTW, Buran, I know, means blizzard.  What about Antayas and Granyt ?
Named after the Greek giant and the rock, or what ?


------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 88 16:29:19 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (If you don't vote, you can't bitch)
Subject: Nuclear Flare Gun

>    In  <4849@thorin.cs.unc.edu> 
>		Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) writes:
>
> Steve Ostro at JPL has done some radar observations of near-Earth
> asteroids, but it's very difficult - the return signal attenuates
> proportional to 1/r^4. Only a few asteroids ever come close enough for
> this to work. It certainly isn't going to work for Main Belt asteroids
> anytime in the near future.

While discussing mapping the asteroids, Nick Szabo presents:

>>Could we make this crazy notion of mine work:
>>  - Launch a nuclear explosive into deep space.  This explosive is designed
>>    to convert most of its energy into radio waves: a radar flashbulb, if
>>    you will.
>>  - Point lots of radar dishes at all the different parts of the sky
>>    we wish to map.   
>>  - Set off the flashbulb and gather the incoming radar reflections.
>>  - Process the data through supercomputers.  Viola,  a map of all the large
>>    objects out to ????? km. 

Well, what I've thought about is to put two mid/large fusion devices (bombs
if you wish) in space, say 1 AU Solar North and South.  We could then pop
them, either relatively simultaneously, or one, then the other one day
(sidereal?) later.  I would think that this should emit enough energy in
the right ranges to tell some one who saw it that a (psuedo)intellegent
life form had either just signalled, or wiped itself out.  Something in
the 15-20 Mton range should do the trick, and if the "super"powers were
to handle it in a purely scientific way (everybody gets the same military
information), it might be politically do-able.  Of course, I can think of
a few things I'd rather spend money on before this Nuclear Flare Gun, but
it does sound interesting.

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 18:56:48 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jsalter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (The Math Hacker)
Subject: Bogos space arguments

In <5282@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna states:
>There have been a number of postings critisizing the expenditure of money on
>space because of the budget deficit, and the lack of a return for the money
>invested in these tight money times. I think both of these points are bogus.

[... lots of stuff deleted ...]

>Get serious.
>Obviously we are deep into the bogosity zone here. 
>In my opinion I have presented factual assertions here, and not emotional 
>dreams. These facts show that we should continue to fund both the manned and
>unmanned space programs.

Sure, sure.  "Bogosity" "Get Serious"  They are certainly non-emotional,
factual, informational assertations.

As for the manned and unmanned space programs, it seems to me that you have
just rehashed some old arguments.  Remember, john, sci.space is here to
talk about space.  You don't have to convince THESE people of the usefulness
of space.  Now, if we were to start some sort of group/club here on campus
(rather than the shuttle group - which doesn't do a hell of a lot about
space and space promotion, and the shuttle for that matter) we'd help to
keep the dream in people's minds as well as their hearts.

>John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   [...imagine a time when evil man is infecting the solar system...]
>"DEATH TO THE BARBARIC, SATANIC, GENETICALLY INFERIOR MARTIAN BACTERIA"!!!!!!
>  -- Redneck frontiersman, 2050.

Seems to me his .sig says it all.

-- 
James A. Salter (jim/jsalter) -- Yes, math majors use UNIX(tm), too!
                                 | If everyone believed in conservation of
jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU      | baryon number, there wouldn't be all those
...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jsalter | experiments looking for proton decay.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Nov 88 07:32:33 MST
From: Harold Bidlack <bidlack@usafa.ARPA>
Subject: Re:  SPACE Digest V9 #75
Cc: bidlack@usafa.ARPA

I think that the Manned-Unmanned debate, when argued at the technical level,
misses a very important point.  Perhaps it is just because I switched from
an astronomy major to a political science major in college (no jobs!), and
now teach political science, but it seems to me that a KEY element in whether
any type of program will get started is the degree to which Members of Congress
can sell it to the folks back home.  While bashing our elected officials is
an old and noble tradition, we should be realistic.  If it doesn't play in
Omaha, it will not get funded.  So I am afraid that the real choice is not
between manned and unmanned for the *scientific* returns, but rather a choice
between manned (with some unmanned) and no space activity at all.  Americans
like to see people in space suits with the American flag on the shoulder
zipping around in space.  *Regardless* of the unquestioned scientific merit
of unmanned space efforts, I think the reality of the situation is that
unmanned exploration will be intrinsically tied to men and women being up 
there.  Whether men or machines are better is not the debate. Rather men and
machines or nothing...
Just another Fuzzy Studies opinion from
Hal Bidlack
U.S. Air Force Academy

(assume all the standard denials of organizational responsibility...)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 20:38:46 GMT
From: ajdenner@athena.mit.edu  (Alexander J Denner)
Subject: Re: Lasing the Sun

In article <1988Oct27.091705.18121@cs.rochester.edu> dietz writes:
>That article made me think of a modification.  Let's look for
>population inversions in the *solar* atmosphere, say the chromosphere
>or corona.  Extract energy by using a pulsed beam of the right
>wavelength, grazing the solar surface.  One could sweep out quite
>large volumes using a source and collector in solar orbits.  Even if
>the efficiency is low, there is so much energy available that quite
>powerful pulses might be produced.

I have been thinking about this idea for some time.  I do not think that
it would be possible to acheive lasing in this manner without an extremely
powerful laser.  I think that the sun is producing too much light, and the
surface has a very high gain.  The density of excited molecules and
photons is too high.  The stimulating beam would be "lost" in the flood
of light inside the corona.

Perhaps a better approach would be to stimulate the gases at the outside of
a solar flare.  Here there should be a very good population inversion and
very good gain.  (Because of the dynamic expansion of the gases.) One would
not need to use mirrors since the gain would be so great.  A incredibly
powerful laser would be produced.

>Another idea is to put the source and collector at great distances from
>the sun and use gravitational lensing to focus the light.  This way,
>an annular beam could extract a energy from a ring around the sun.
>If the input source is properly positioned, the amplified beam can
>be focused at infinity.  Perhaps this would be useful in CETI.

The system would have to be very far away, and quite complicated.  The sun
is not spherical in mass distribution, and it would be difficult to focus 
the laser with gravity.  The great distances would also present difficulties
in coordination.  This would be an interesting tool for SETI.

A use that would not require much focusing is melting the ice caps on Mars.
Yes, the laser could be used to restore the Martian atmosphere.  I do not
know how many pulses this would take, but it could be done with today's 
technology.  Such a laser could be useful for terraforming other planets, as
well.

Alex Denner

PS:  Anyone who has any comments/calculations/variations on this idea,
     please email me.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J. Denner                    ajdenner@athena.mit.edu
234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive    mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
Cambridge, MA 02139                    ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #99
*******************
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Nov 88 04:57:08 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01069>; Tue, 15 Nov 88 03:36:38 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 15 Nov 88 03:36:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UXTyc9y00jZdE2iE5O>;
          Tue, 15 Nov 88 03:25:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.EXTyVsy00UkZA9HU5l>;
          Tue, 15 Nov 88 03:19:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XTyVTy00UkZA9GE5b@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 03:18:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #100

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Oct 3 AW&ST
		    Re: CLBrunow on Moon vs. Mars
		       Re: Return to the Moon!
			 RE: Shuttle Pheonix
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
			 Teleoperated Robots
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 05:17:16 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Oct 3 AW&ST

STS-26 mission successful, after fears of launch delay due to unexpectedly
low high-altitude winds (re-examination of the aerodynamic models of the
wing revealed a bit more margin than expected) and misbehavior of a backup
power controller in one OMS pod (the primary controller was working and
the controllers decided to proceed).  Lots of coverage of the launch,
not much real news.

STS-26 experiments included tests of the pointing accuracy of the IUS
for planetary missions, done by comparing the IUS's own attitude sensors
with the shuttle's before separation.

France is trying to keep the door open for Britain to change its mind
about participation in ESA's more ambitious programs, e.g. Ariane 5.

US geologists examining Venera radar images of Venus have found features
similar to Earth's mid-ocean rift zones, the first solid evidence of
plate tectonics on Venus.  The images are five years old but became
available outside the USSR only recently.

Space Station agreements signed by US, Canada, Japan, ESA.  Something
not mentioned in earlier stories about the details is that each lab
provider (i.e. everybody but Canada) can veto use of its lab for military
purposes.

US launch companies upset about White House decision to approve use of
Chinese launchers for US satellites.  Dept of Defense says the Chinese
already have the relevant technology, so there is no technology-transfer
issue.  General Dynamics rep says:  "What mechanism will be used to
prevent the infusion of American know-how in problem-solving, systems
engineering, and management techniques that we have developed over the
past 25 years?"  [I don't understand what he's moaning about; if the
Chinese picked up US aerospace management techniques, their prices would
have to double overnight to support all the extra overhead.  Those areas
are the US's weaknesses, not its strengths.]  State Dept says Chinese
will agree to limit Western sales to four launches a year; US launcher
companies say that even that might be too much.  [If they're that
sensitive to small loss of business, I'd say they're doomed anyway.]
State Dept says potential losses to US launch companies were considered
but were outweighed by potential losses to US satellite builders.

Pictures of Offeq-1, the first Israeli satellite, and its launch.

ESA declares Ariane 4 operational after one launch.  [Hmm, a new record
for minimizing testing...]  Performance actually was about 1% better
than expected.  Some technical problems did turn up in the post-launch
analysis, but nothing of real importance.

Soviets modifying Mars-study plans after loss of Phobos 1, although
final efforts to reestablish communications with it are still in progress.
Some experiments were not duplicated, and there were hopes that the
seismometer on P1's fixed lander might have been able to detect P2's
fixed lander putting down its "harpoon" anchor.  Fortunately the "hopper"
lander is on P2.  P2's Phobos flyby may be moved up a few weeks, since
there is no longer any need to wait until P1's flyby is finished.

NOAA launches polar-orbit metsat on Atlas E from Vandenberg Sept 24.

OTA says US needs to pay more attention to cutting launch and mission-
operations costs if it wants to make spaceflight cheaper overall.
Study says that the traditional NASA/USAF approach of trying to get
higher performance out of launchers is not going to help much.  They
talk about designing to cost rather than to performance, but when
they actually plan for future systems, increased payload becomes the
priority.  NASA and DoD spend very little research money on new
launcher technology and improvement of launcher operations.  NASA
is making small efforts to improve the technology, but has no clear
plan for using the results or setting priorities among different
research directions.

OTA says that major reductions in operations costs, such as those promised
for ALS, will happen only in the presence of high demand, major efforts
to design vehicles and ground facilities for fast turnaround, and
more uniform payloads.  These conditions are possible, but are most
unlikely unless either SDI deployment proceeds or civilian space
spending rises sharply.  In any case, ALS cannot fly until 1998 at
the earliest under the current program.  Prospects of cutting pre-
launch costs for existing launchers are not encouraging, with the
pre-Discovery experience casting doubt on NASA's renewed optimism.

OTA cites three major factors in high operations costs:  outdated
facilities that require constant maintenance, excessive supervision
and paperwork, and lack of incentives to lower costs.  "The system
does not have incentives built in for achieving low-cost, successful
launches.  There is the incentive not to fail, but not the incentive
to lower costs." says one OTA advisor.

OTA observes that SDI's Delta 180 experiment cut costs up to 50%
by decreasing oversight, delegating authority to those closest to
technical problems, and providing major cash incentives to contractors
(shared with their employees) to meet the demanding schedule.

Shuttle operations costs are likely to remain high.  Spares are still
a problem.  So is the sheer complexity of the shuttle -- after every
flight, 5000 parts must be removed and inspected in the SRBs alone!
Computers and software are a major cost, with little coordination
between different groups:  "...the flow of information during the
launch sequence is excellent [but] during the months leading up to
the launch, information flow is very poor."

Shuttle-C may help, but it will introduce its own problems.  Unless
it is specifically designed for simplicity and ease of operations,
its operations costs could be very high.  There will be coordination
problems with two different types of vehicles using launch facilities.
The very high value of Shuttle-C cargos will probably dictate launch
preparations of the same order of magnitude as those for a manned
launch, and its non-standard nature will make things worse.

Photo of Amroc's full-duration motor firing.  Various technical details
were changed to solve stability problems in earlier motors.  The test
also demonstrated Amroc's thrust-vectoring technique, injecting 70%
hydrogen peroxide into the exhaust nozzle to create a shock wave that
deflects the main exhaust plume up to 6 degrees.

Amroc's first suborbital test flight is next.  The single-stage rocket
will be sub-flight-standard in some ways, since minimizing weight is
not important for the test.  It will carry a superconductor-crystallization
experiment; there is sufficient demand for microgravity time that even
this short flight (circa four minutes in free fall) is valuable.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 12:59:04 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: CLBrunow on Moon vs. Mars

In article <594419443.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> Others will probably jump on this as well, So I'll keep it short.
> 
> If you wish to stay home, do so. I do not, and there are many others
> who do not so wish.
> 
> The bottom line is that I don't really care to give any justification
> other than "I want to GO". I also do not wish to use the resources of
> your tax dollars or anyone else's. Should those of us who believe in
> private ventures succeed at this (I expect private transport to at
> least the moon before 2025) I don't want to hear those who sat on
> their butt's come crying for a share in the resources, energy and $$$$
> that they were too myopic or too lazy to reach for. 
> 

	I have no problem with this if you are prepared to do it in
	such a way that it doesn't use tax money.  Actually I'm all
	for realistic research and exploration.  I'm especially in
	favor of people who will take the initiative.

	That wasn't the original impression I got though.  My mistake?
	I just feel like too many people are counting chickens that
	haven't hatched.  And I see a small percentage of the people doing
	the work to make such ventures possible and then they are
	pushed aside by others with more political or economic power.
	I got the impression that most people are saying "you make the
	rocket and I'll use it to escape."

	I don't agree that there will be private transport to the moon
	by 2025.  It just doesn't seem realistic to me.  Having been
	educated in physics,  I look at hard facts and assess the
	problems in mathematical terms.  I also look at the difficulties
	that governments have in dealing with these same problems and
	I don't see any easy solutions.  Everyone seems to be counting
	on some new technology to come to the rescue.  But from where?

	Anyway,  if you can do it within the constraints you outlined
	then more power to you.

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 20:49:02 GMT
From: fin!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon!

In article <5007@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@ra.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>In article <47@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>  The *real* reason we didn't go back is very simple, but everybody's
>>missed it.  There were no high-value, low mass resources discovered.
>>No deposits of diamond, platinum, gold, uranium, etc.	In fact, the
>>Moon turns out to be very geologically undifferentiated...
>
>    The latter statement is, to say the least, unfounded.

Try reading any elementary textbook on lunar geology.  There has been
no running water, which created most of Earth's precious-metal deposits.
The surface has been pounded and mixed up thoroughly by meteors.  

>Besides,
>platinum would not be economic to retrieve with near-term technology
>(let alone Apollo), even if it were lying around in large chunks on
>the surface.

Apollo's goal was to 'put a man on the Moon and return him safely',
not to economically return materials.   One could expect much more economy
out of a  mining consortium whose goal was to extract precious metals and
gems.  $8000/lb., the *real* price of platinum, is better than the speculative
price of $2500/lb. quoted by Paul Dietz for lunar LOX.  (Who's going to
buy 250,000 tons of one very common element at LEO?).  The price of 
raw diamonds is up to several orders of magnitude higher than this.

>If we go back to the moon for economic reasons, it
>will likely be for the exact opposite reason - low-value, high bulk
>resources like oxygen and lunar soil, to be used in space.

The capital required ($100 billion+) is at least two orders of magnitude too
high for an unproven product.  Low value, high-bulk does not make any sort
of economic sense.

>>We have the
>>whole solar system to explore.  Io, for example, is *more* differentiated
>>than Earth, and who knows what bizarre deposits of an interesting nature
>>await there?
>    Lots of sulfur compounds, which are not "high-value". 

Oh good grief.  Io has every element except some volatiles.  It
has differentiation, and probably geochemical, processes not found on 
Earth or anywhere else we know.   We have only taken a 
few pictures of it from thousands of miles out in space, and we already
know it has far more geological potential than the Moon.

>The environment is more hostile than Luna, as well.

Luna is hostile too, in different ways.  If one is clever it can be 
worked around.

And Io is only *one* small place out of hundreds in the solar system we
could explore.  Exploration is far more productive a pursuit than whining
about what our "Next Big Manned Project" should be, or dreaming up businesses
with speculative processes, unproven markets, and  $10^11 startup costs. 




---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                              *************************
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu          ***  Biosphere III    ***
*************************               ***  best space bbs   ***
**   send a message    **               *** in the Milky Way  ***
**   Ron Paul in '88   **               ***  (206) 523-7381   ***
*************************               *************************

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 88 16:19:15 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (If you don't vote, you can't bitch)
Subject: RE: Shuttle Pheonix

>Wasn't there an Apollo flight that exploded into flame on the ground
>and killed its three pilots? The commander of the next Apollo mission
>wanted to call his spacecraft "Phoenix" but NASA wouldn't let him
>because it would remind people of the disaster.
>
>USnail: Andy Steinberg          BITNet: nutto@UMass

Oh my God!  They sure are young these days :-)  

The first part is history (not very accurately described, though), the second a
recurrent myth (as far as I know). The last time I heard that was at TRW in 79
while working on TDRS.  Seems like about a 9-10 year period for that one. 

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 22:06:59 GMT
From: thumper!jupiter!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.


The note on stopping space pollution is interesting, but one of
the proposed solutions is, shall we say, a bit impractical.

First of all, the main problem isn't intact payloads. The real problem is
with the numerous small fragments in long-lived orbits, and these are not
easily reached from the Shuttle.  Debris, large or small, that *is* in a
typical Shuttle orbit (about 300 km) re-enters within a few months anyway,
so there's not much point in going up to get it.

Second, there are so *many* small bits of debris, in so many different
orbits, that even if you could reach them with the Shuttle you'd have to
expend enormous amounts of fuel chasing them all.

Third, the Shuttle itself generates a not-insignificant amount of debris
through such things as waste dumps and loose parts. This would largely
offset whatever debris it could pick up.  I remember seeing the first
on-orbit TV of the payload bay sent to earth during STS-1; clearly visible
was a small piece of loose hardware spinning across the field of view, off
into the blackness.

If you're seriously interested in the space pollution problem, I believe
you should advocate the following PREVENTIVE approaches:

1. An international treaty prohibiting deliberate collisions between or
explosions of objects in earth orbit above a certain altitude, say 500 km.
This would include both Soviet and American SDI and ASAT tests. Much
existing orbital debris is the result of Soviet ASAT tests. The reduction of
space debris is only one of many reasons that a complete ban on all ASAT
testing would be to our mutual advantage.

2. An international treaty requiring launch agencies to vent excess liquid
fuel from spent upper stages to render them incapable of exploding.  Much
existing orbital debris has come from upper stages that explode some time
after deploying their payloads.  This can happen in a cryogenic stage when
the fuel vaporizes (e.g., the Ariane 3rd stage that launched SPOT-1) or it
can happen in a hypergolic stage when the fuel and/or oxidizer corrode
through the bulkhead and mix (e.g., some Delta 2nd stages). I believe that
most launchers now vent as standard operating procedure, so it shouldn't be
much of a burden to make this a formal requirement.

3. International guidelines for the design of orbital missions missions such
that the fewest possible non-payload objects are deployed in long lived
orbits. This would consist of several aspects:

a. The use of short-lived transfer orbits whenever possible. For example, a
standard Ariane geostationary transfer orbit has a perigee of about 200 Km.
Spent Ariane third stages generally last in this orbit for a few years or
so.  intermediate earth orbits with "direct ascent" launches are the real
problem, since the upper stage goes into the same orbit as the payload. If
at all possible, spent stages should be designed to de-orbit themselves
after deploying their payloads.

b. Methods to control the amount of debris generated in long-lived orbits,
with emphasis on payload deployment operations. Clamp bands, springs,
fasteners, explosive bolt cutters and the like should be captive, i.e., they
should be tethered so they don't go floating off on their own after
separation.  This is already standard procedure on most Western launches; it
should be an international requirement.

c. Integrity standards for external coatings on all objects deployed in
long-lived orbits. The white paint used on Delta upper stages has been
traced as the cause of some small craters found on Shuttle windows.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 88 10:02 EDT
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Teleoperated Robots

>If we really wanted to develop teleoperated robots, we could. No new >technology is necessary, only the will to apply it.

No one is likely to do any serious basic research on teleoperated robots.  
The prospects for more or less fully *autonomous* robots are rather good on
the 5 - 15 year time frame.  I expect that a certain number of very 
impressive teleoperated robots will be developed as spin offs of the
push for autonomous robots, but they will almost instantly become
obsolete for most purposes.

As for the psychological acceptance of such things, there are
existing analogies.  Every industrial crane is a (mechanically
linked) "teleo"operated robot.

Chris Eliot

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #100
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Nov 88 06:26:59 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01189>; Tue, 15 Nov 88 05:39:12 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 15 Nov 88 05:39:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.MXU0Q3y00Vs1I18U4l>;
          Tue, 15 Nov 88 05:29:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.QXU0GLy00UkZ89SE5O>;
          Tue, 15 Nov 88 05:19:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXU0Fzy00UkZ49R04z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 05:18:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #101

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 101

Today's Topics:
			      Re: ORION
			     Real Heroes
			Soviet Shuttle Rumors
			  Re: Lasing the Sun
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
		       Re: Namespace collision
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
			     Pluto's day
       underground cities for human survival: lets think twice
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 17:55:16 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ORION

In article <594157191.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Although I have no second source verification, I have been told by one
>individual who was an eyewitness to the test that Aerojet did a limited test
>of the Orion concept in a non-nuclear mode in the late 1950's. He told
>me, "It took off like a bat out of hell..."

I'm not sure it was Aerojet, but yes, a test with conventional explosives
was run.  It worked okay.  The test model is in the Air&Space Museum.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Nov 88 12:21:09 EST
From: loeb@math.mit.edu
To: att!codas!ablnc!rcpilz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Cc: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Real Heroes

No the idea of "astronaut cards" sounds like a great idea to
encourage America's youth. Where can I get one! :) And when
do they start making Math Grad student cards? :)))

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Nov 88 14:21:43 MST
From: tdg%zia.CRAY.COM@uc.msc.umn.edu (Terry Greyzck)
Cc: tdg@zia.cray.com
Subject: Soviet Shuttle Rumors

Back in May at the International Space Development Conference in Denver,
rumours were flying about the Soviet Shuttle.  Can anyone tell me which are
true, or do we still not know?

Rumors:
- The tiles are hard ceramic, unlike the U.S. Shuttle tiles.
 - Related:  The tiles were being made in a converted toilet factory outside
             of Moscow.  Practical, I suppose.
- The Soviet Shuttle may have atmospheric jets.
- Only an OMS was supposed to be on the Shuttle; recent postings seem to
  require *much* larger engines.

tdg@sc.msc.umn.edu
Terry Greyzck

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 22:07:28 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Lasing the Sun


Check _Ringworld Engineer_ by L. Niven


Disclaimer: My ideas, not APL's - at least, not by design.....
                               NO Dukes!

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 21:51:58 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <982@proxftl.UUCP>, jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
> In article <1988Nov1.172211.3886@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> > In article <978@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
> > >
> > >To start with (considering how this topic came up) how about assuring
> > >species survival; in particular, survival of massive war on Earth.
> >
> > I side with underground cities argument.  We know how to dig mines.
> > They are FAR cheaper than space colonies.
> 
> Now let's hear your description of how to get people to live in
> them, and what *other* significant benefits they'll provide.  And as

	I'm concerned that the general opinion seems to be that people
	won't/can't live in a underground colony but that they will/can
	in space.  Seems to me that it would be a perfect way to simulate
	the psychological/socialogical conditions of long-term travel.

	I've seen reports of people going into caves for a few weeks and
	studies being done on their adaptations but I've never heard of
	groups of people being similarly tested.  Surely this has been
	done by the military to study effects of living in a nuclear
	submarine and such.

	Anyway, my point is this:  it is both more cost-effective and
	much safer to simulate long-term confinement on earth than to
	send people into inter-planetary space where the additional
	problems of life-support could foul up the experiment.  And if
	we can't/won't do it here then I see no reason to believe that
	people will elsewhere.

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 17:16:18 GMT
From: pyramid!vsi1!apple!kazim@decwrl.dec.com  (Alex Kazim)
Subject: Re: Namespace collision

There seems to be some confusion over names...

Max Faget heads up *SII* (Space Industries Inc) working on an industrial
space facility (i.e. unmanned station)

*SSI* (Space Services Inc) is headed by Deke Slayton and is working on
expendable launch vehicles.

Both are based in Houston, at least up to May '88 when I was there last.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Kazim, Apple Computer
I could say Apple has no opinion on this, but this isn't really an
opinion, is it...
---------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 20:53:07 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@purdue.edu  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)


In article <178@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
> In article <1988Nov1.172211.3886@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> > In article <978@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
> > >> 1)  Name some benefits.  Tangible ones that can't be addressed by
> > >>     earthbound substitutes.  (Forget Erethropoetin (sp?).
> > >
> This is from my original article, before JP started reading stuff into it
> that wasn't there.

Your original article was <173@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>.  In it you asked
me to name specific benefits which a space colony could provide.  So I
did.  I did take the liberty of considering ``a space colony'' to mean
``space development,'' since a colony per se isn't needed for any of
the benefits except survival.

A few of the suggested benefits have drawn objections, of greater or
lesser validity.  Others have passed without any objection.  None of
them involved reading *anything* into what you said.  I'm guessing
that the part you're upset about is my response to your claim that we
can't know what benefits to expect, and therefore, according to you,
we can't say that any specific benefits justify space colonies.  My
response was:

<This is like saying we should stop AIDS research because we can't be
<*sure* a cure will be found.  In the case of both AIDS research and
<space development, we can name specific benefits which we *expect*
<will result if the work is successful, and these *expected* benefits
<can indeed provide sufficient justification for doing the work.

This did not require reading anything into what you said.  It's
a simple analogy, intended to make a simple point: In any field of
research, you can't predict the results.  That's *why* it's research.
But research is often done with specific goals in mind, and those
goals *can* justify the cost of doing the work, despite the fact
that there's no guarantee that the work will pay off as intended.

Feel free to apologise for your baseless accusation that I read
things into your posting which weren't there.  Hint: The phrase
``is like'' does not mean ``is equivalent to.''  It is, rather,
a common introduction to an argument by analogy.

> In short, what I said was "let's be logical and
> in our arguments."  I honestly hope to hear some positive arguments, and
> if nothing more, to get people thinking about the way research succeeds
> in addressing identified problems.  It is usually not by taking a single,
> damn-the-torpedos approach, but rather by investigating LOTS of different
> possible answers.

You asked me to name some benefits, and I did.  You want a positive
argument -- I thought I was giving you one.  Who do you see pushing,
``a single damn-the-torpedos approach?''  As I said in closing my
last reply to you, I agree with you on the need to consider all
alternatives.  That's why I favor increasing U.S. involvement in
space development.  It's a promising alternative which we should be
investigating, but we are not because we do not have (and we're not
doing much to get) cheaper access to orbit.  When you asked me to
name specific benefits, I assumed you wanted me to defend the
proposition that space development really *is* a promising
alternative, at least in some areas.  That's all I've tried to do.

> AHA!!  Now you've stumbled into one of my areas!  What about GaAs
> crystals?  Why not mention them??

AHA!!  You've caught me out!!  Sure enough, I ignored your pet project.
Because I know nothing about progress in GaAs research.  Do you have
any other personal interests you'd like to drag in and expect me to
know about?

> In fact, the defect densities in crystals is being
> brought down by earthbound research.

So GaAs technology (which I never claimed would benefit), and perhaps
VLSI materials in general, *might* be something we needn't consider
as a possible beneficiary of microgravity processing.  (Of course
you're convinced the defect-reduction methods used on Earth would
not work any better in microgravity?)

> > >  o Etc. etc.  It's foolish to try to list all the applications in
> > >    materials processing -- there are too many.
>
> [ stuff deleted]  Try listing one.  That's what I asked in the first
> place.  Also, try to avoid the things which have already been disproven.

Yes, it would be nice if I were omniscient, so that I knew everything
that had ``already been disproven.''  Regrettably, I'm not.  On the
other hand, some of the benefits I listed have apparently not been
disproven.  At least, no one jumped in to tell me I was wrong on
them.  So it seems I *have* answered you, although you don't care
to acknowledge it.

> In short, it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the benefits.

No.  It is impossible to predict *all* the benefits.  *Some* benefits
can be predicted.

> NOTE [especially
> those who insist on putting words into my mouth]  I DO NOT ARGUE AGAINST
> RESEARCH, NOR DO I SAY NOTHING WILL COME OF THESE EFFORTS; ONLY THAT WE
> CAN'T PREDICT THE OUTCOME.

So, who is it that insists on putting words in your mouth?  If you're
referring to me (and there seems to be no other candidate), you're
wrong: I never did that.  And I *absolutely never* said that you were
against research of any kind.

> > >>  admit that we don't know what benefits we will
> > >> find, and thus can't say that benefits x,y, and z are justification.
> > >
> > >This is like saying we should stop AIDS research because we can't be
> > >*sure* a cure will be found.
>
> Now that is really a cheap shot!!

WHAT??!!  It's *not* a cheap shot; actually, it has nothing to do
with you personally.  It would be a cheap shot at you if I claimed
that *you* *wanted* to stop AIDS research.  I said nothing of the
kind, and certainly don't believe that for a minute.  (Who is reading
things into whose posting?)

> Note in my article that I said nothing
> about discontinuing any research.  I don't understand where you find a
> basis for this

For God's sake, I DON'T.  I never said anything like that!  My whole
argument *assumed* that you *DIDN'T* want to stop AIDS research.




> I heartily endorse alternative developments for, among other things,
> reducing launch costs to a reasonable level.

Perhaps we should close this thread on that note, since (a) it's
something we can agree on, (b) it's the single most important factor
involved, and (c) we're both getting entirely too steamed up on the
other issues to have a useful discussion.  If you do want to continue
this, let's do so by email.


Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 08:58:10 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Pluto's day

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

How do we know the length of Pluto's day?

I suppose that the currently accepted figure is the period of Pluto's
light curve, and that it was obtained before Pluto's moon Charon was
discovered.  I gather that it matches the period of Charon's orbit
around Pluto (as determined by timing their eclipses), and also the
length of Charon's day.  

My question is, how are the effects of Pluto's rotation on the light
curve distinguished from those of Charon's?  Are there dynamical
reasons to believe that both Pluto and Charon have the same rotation
period?  

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 00:35:53 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (d.l.skran)
Subject: underground cities for human survival: lets think twice

Underground Cities For Human Survival

Lately it has been stated that:
	The "human survival" reason for going into space is bad
	because the same effect could be achieved via the construction
	of self-sufficient underground cities, and this is more cost-effective.

First, I think the "human survival" reason for going into space is
pretty week, especially on the scale of a few hundred years, but 
eventually I suspect the goal will be achieved(with a few cautions
I'll list someday). However, the "underground cities" will never
assure human survival.

The single most difficult problem to overcome is the construction of
a fully secure underground city(UC). 
To be 100% safe from human attack it must be:

	1)100% secret in its location and remain so forever. This implies
	that everyone external to the city who knows about it either
	be dead or brain-wiped(no such technology, of course), and further
	that we must be 100% sure that the city will not be detected by
	the more advanced technology of 50 or 100 or 1000 years from now.
	Stuff like neutrino radar, etc.

			or
	2)100% defended in an active way by a defense that can block out
	100% of all incoming targets, and further can always keep up with
	the forward march of external technology. We are speaking here
	of a star wars that works perfectly forever - surely a fantasy.

			or
	3)100% secure from all prossible attacks via passive means - ie
	so deep underground that only cracking the whole mantle will get
	at it. Even this is not really secure since the obvious attack
	is to drop an asteroid or two on it from orbit. If preserving the
	biosphere is not a goal, then I suspect you could get at it
	with enough H-Bombs or enough asteroids. You must also consider
	all future weapon systems,e.g. SPS pumped orbital gamma ray
	lasers in the GigaWatt range. Even if the UC could survive
	an all-out current USA/Soviet attack(unlikely), in a 100 years
	it most likely would be vulnerable. Don't forget "mechanical moles"
	or similar technology either.
	
Here I'm only considering human attacks here. Suppose a big comet its
the Earth - right on top of the UC?

No doubt there is some set of scenarios that a UC could survive, but 
it cannot subsitute for the security of distributing the human race
throughout the galaxy.

Dale Skran

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #101
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Nov 88 01:50:29 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03388>; Wed, 16 Nov 88 01:08:33 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 16 Nov 88 01:08:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UXUFDjy00UkTI1X04I>;
          Wed, 16 Nov 88 00:36:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.QXUF1Xy00UkZA23k4k>;
          Wed, 16 Nov 88 00:21:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UXUEzfy00UkZM22U4C@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 88 00:19:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #102

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:
		     Soviets Launch first shuttle
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
			 Re: Demise of OTRAG
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 11:34:21 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviets Launch first shuttle

     Today (Nov. 15) the USSR successfully launched their first space shuttle
Buran (Snowstorm) at 6 am sharp Moscow time (10 pm Nov. 14 EST) as scheduled 
from the Baikonur cosmodrome launch facility in the south-east Soviet Union. 
The announcements of the launch date began on Nov. 10th, but this time there was
no statement about the launch being shown live.  By 8:00 pm EST on Nov. 14 they
were stating that the final fueling was underway on the shortwave.  However,
it was also noted that the weather conditions at the launch site were bad.
9:00 pm EST (5 am MST) still had the launch slated on time though CNN was 
saying it would be cancelled.  At 10:00 pm EST (6am MST) the shortwave Moscow
hourly news was silent about the launch (suggesting a cancelled mission).
About 10:35 the news was out - Buran was in orbit.  The 11:00 pm EST shortwave
gave full details of the launch (see below for the landing).  CNN had film
of the takeoff by 1:00 am EST.  The launch was unmanned.  The weather at the
launch site was nasty - high freezing winds and some rain.
    Buran was launched strapped to the side of Energiya, using a version with
4 strapon Liquid oxygen - Kerosene first stages and 4 Liquid Oxygen - Liquid
Hydrogen engines on the core section.   While exact details have not been
released on this flight for the last launch attempt (Oct. 29th) they gave 
the dry weight of the combined system at 240 Tonnes, 2,400 Tonnes fueled, 
and the lift off thrust as 3,600 Tonnes. Buran itself, first of the 
Vosdushno Kosmicheskii Korabl (Air Space Ships), weighted 100 Tonnes at lift
off (70 Tonnes empty), had a length of 36 meters (118 feet) and a wing span 
of 24 meters (78 feet).  The vehicle can take a crew of 10 for up to 30 days
in orbit, and has a cargo bay which could hold "a large freight car".
On reentry the hull tile system sees a maximum temperature of 1600 C.
The stated purpose of the Buran is to bring large cargos (space station
modules etc.) down from orbit and bring large crews up.  Note there is
some speculation that the Russians will use Buran early on to bring the old
(unmanned) Salyut 7 space station down for study of the long duration stresses 
(it was sent up Apr. 19, 1982).
    Buran completed two orbits of the earth and began automatic reentry.  
It landed at the Baikonur cosmodrome runway at about 1:28 am EST, with
a short announcement of that made almost immediately on the shortwave.
By 1:48 am they gave a much longer description of the flight which lasted
about 208 minutes (my estimate).  The landing was fully automatic and the 
shots of it on CNN (release a sometime after 2 am EST) showed chaise planes
picking up the flight at 12 Km (8 miles) out, and the landing to be very
smooth at about 320 Kph (200 mph) on a concrete runway.
    OK now the Soviet shuttle has flown so let us stop hearing how they
decades behind the USA.  They have had working space stations for 15 years
now, where men are setting new long duration records.  Their cosmonauts
are performing repairs on the equipment and keeping things running, as well
as doing the experiments.  Their old capsules are still flying while the
shuttle is being proven.  They have a heavy lift booster, with more than 4
times the current largest US capacity. It flies - shuttle C or the Advance
Launch Vehicle is still in the design stage.  OK its first flight did not 
fully work, but they were confident enough of the booster to risk their 
shuttle on the second launch.  Energiya can be readily expanded to a 
215 Tonne booster, far larger than anything this country plans.  Sorry, 
people, compared to the Soviet Union the USA is standing still in space 
exploration.  If you do not like it they you had better push both 
congress and American business to change things.
     Sorry I could not post this last night but since the virus attack
getting in contact with the net has been difficult.

                                                 Glenn Chapman
                                                 MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 88 00:07:21 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several
times weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on
this system.  As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most
current of these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's
elements are provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24
hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no
parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #410 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88306.50287641 0.00000133           15117-3 0  1646
2 00424  80.4657 150.2289 0023981 357.6686   2.4362 13.67023217301703
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88312.20438668 0.00000001           10000-2 0  5941
2 08820 109.8114 154.0817 0044633   3.3587 356.7461  6.38664407 36450
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88311.38540222 -.00000006                   0  1790
2 10061   6.6124  70.9051 0008451 160.7820 199.2206  1.00273092  3144
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88310.08631266 0.00000013                   0  9825
2 10684  63.4806 107.7772 0103161 197.4044 162.2529  2.00563434 64037
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88310.53897474 -.00000028                   0  9289
2 10893  64.5664 348.5799 0143913  29.1441 331.7228  2.00562480 76861
GOES 3     
1 10953U          88306.44852777 0.00000082           10000-3 0  5435
2 10953   5.4529  73.6806 0006408 227.4870 132.4705  1.00286289   337
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88311.11867691 0.00000666           28248-3 0   347
2 10967 108.0000 188.4833 0002560 256.1086 103.9828 14.33954370542102
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88309.35956040 -.00000028                   0  9507
2 11054  64.1230 345.1439 0050678 120.9041 239.6625  2.00571218 73853
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88311.45960468 0.00000013                   0   534
2 11141  63.4616 107.6396 0054550 324.2829  35.3571  2.00557399 72594
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88310.43115293 0.00000616           27793-3 0  7699
2 11416  98.4981 308.2087 0013343  42.3381 317.8823 14.25264740486024
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88313.23909897 0.00022377           65186-3 0  7382
2 11703  28.4981  14.8040 0005676 118.7157 241.4223 15.33957744485707
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88310.42063733 -.00000028                   0  8198
2 11783  63.9297 344.8189 0134865  63.6432 297.8047  2.00563720 62512
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88289.26931152 -.00000244           10000-3 0   169
2 11964   4.8700  75.8457 0002546 141.5755 219.2707  1.00254953 45414
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88291.34575995 -.00000241           10000-3 0  6483
2 12472   1.9174  83.3497 0001306 170.8467 189.4972  1.00248790 26174
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88310.55776938 0.00026687           72993-3 0  3475
2 12888  97.5992 347.9096 0002120 171.5523 188.5803 15.37339926394420
RS-08      
1 12998U          88311.53180827 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5479
2 12998  82.9611 357.4787 0020424 113.1390 247.1842 12.02966523302536
RS-05      
1 12999U          88310.13092369 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5399
2 12999  82.9505 352.8389 0010364  48.8678 311.3210 12.05064881302892
RS-07      
1 13001U          88311.09598796 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4182
2 13001  82.9671 342.6009 0021685 322.5880  37.3687 12.08708382303924
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88311.24980093 0.00000184           15619-3 0  6067
2 13113  82.5390 235.9133 0015611 334.7610  25.2784 13.83885741334402
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88313.01094862 -.00005527          -15672-3 0  3032
2 13138  51.6147 314.3080 0001514  17.0511 343.0464 15.34661710374155
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88310.99375653 0.00000126           63782-4 0  7207
2 13718  81.2451 139.8622 0055219 274.4463  85.0412 14.13015854304038
GOES 6     
1 14050U 83041  A 88299.52414182  .00000000  00000-0  00000-0 0 08381
2 14050 000.6374 087.4145 0002374 130.7612 229.2629 01.00272845004260
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88298.55866518 -.00000058           10000-3 0  3605
2 14129  27.0465 298.2929 6037040 347.2463   2.4750  2.05880371 12367
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88314.00735986 0.00000012                   0  5789
2 14189  63.1702 106.2791 0129352 212.7976 146.6047  2.00566396 39025
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88309.59408449 0.00000411           17289-3 0  6663
2 14452  81.1647 158.5741 0096209  24.0566 336.5075 14.21878326260622
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88311.62722137 -.00000019           84806-6 0  5696
2 14780  98.2005  11.7591 0002110 145.3752 214.7967 14.57106602249150
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88307.80671290 0.00001117           22941-3 0  3602
2 14781  98.0390   6.9681 0012868 318.6291  41.3925 14.62543500249444
LDEF       
1 14898U          88313.25730251 0.00017141           43358-3 0  6657
2 14898  28.5000 276.6452 0002228 253.3527 106.6823 15.38252020257277
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88303.58730472 0.00000012                   0  6040
2 15039  62.8238 105.9309 0013540 295.5351  64.3236  2.00565109 32095
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88303.18880680 0.00000182           15471-3 0  9042
2 15099  82.5334 190.0672 0013030 159.0179 201.1520 13.83558893218178
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88307.47397765 -.00000029           10000-2 0  5439
2 15271  63.4333 344.7871 0097051 315.3053  43.9779  2.00559899 29283
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88311.63094299 0.00001914           28488-3 0  9308
2 15331  82.5418 183.6442 0026965  86.4604 273.9726 14.74196231221411
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88306.93237151 0.00000364           22123-3 0  2960
2 15427  99.1181 283.7852 0014694 230.5677 129.4194 14.11685276200383
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88311.50967059 0.00000087           72964-4 0   302
2 15516  82.5332 121.8680 0017522  23.3683 336.8268 13.83989799190250
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88313.01094867 0.00011213           33928-3 0   771
2 16095  51.6195 314.3135 0004238 328.5852  31.4695 15.34665823175824
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88305.63796244 0.00000012                   0  2808
2 16129  63.6340 106.3171 0115426 149.6766 210.9978  2.00567096 22454
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88309.38744733 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7858
2 16191  82.5527  34.6870 0020682 138.8360 221.4200 13.16847873145935
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88303.72670534 0.00000144           11886-3 0  4377
2 16408  82.5334  42.9260 0015057 224.9741 135.0203 13.84073949143679
Mir        
1 16609U          88313.02423711 0.00125877           74995-3 0  5065
2 16609  51.6204  48.4423 0022713 294.1491  65.7218 15.76676250156480
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88313.68531966 0.00000096           53956-4 0  2421
2 16613  98.7262  25.4801 0001578  96.9082 263.2365 14.20031488 53408
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88309.87427995 0.00000136           11265-3 0  2621
2 16735  82.5353  64.7473 0013151 284.6753  75.2949 13.83806348123430
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88313.52185186 0.00001481           22102-3 0  4148
2 16881  82.5266 241.7018 0025749  96.8628 263.5509 14.73982227122778
EGP        
1 16908U          88307.31413905 -.00000019           17425-3 0  1079
2 16908  50.0103 275.5219 0011292 130.0669 230.1157 12.44373524101169
FO-12      
1 16909U          88308.26207447 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1199
2 16909  50.0168 272.7997 0011371 131.2933 228.8885 12.44396222101272
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88302.51339271 0.00000422           20549-3 0  1669
2 16969  98.6683 331.1781 0013081 199.4850 160.5829 14.22665250110990
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88309.48227183 0.00000159           13462-3 0  1997
2 17290  82.4674 334.0046 0012631 164.7720 195.3820 13.83621144 92543
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88310.08789444 -.00000212           10000-3 0  1760
2 17561   0.0871  72.9780 0008877 141.1940 145.8120  1.00252023  3347
Kvant      
1 17845U          88313.02421801 0.00067302           40561-3 0  5886
2 17845  51.6260  48.4411 0022820 294.4285  65.3345 15.76667893 92754
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88312.90678592 0.00000071           71628-4 0  5664
2 18129  82.9299  41.6008 0010724 310.0754  49.9475 13.71914351 69058
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88313.70029054 0.00137227  96402-5  22664-3 0  7313
2 18225  71.8967 287.6234 0010578 251.9591 108.0033 16.02877927 75931
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88310.71116497 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  1749
2 18312  82.5599  36.5944 0014709 104.2264 256.0560 13.83368206 61614
Cosmos 1900
1 18665U          88306.95260301 0.00000733           21544-3 0  5501
2 18665  66.0859 109.5978 0048847 281.6924  77.8768 14.49106741 51921
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88309.86029913 0.00000095           80189-4 0   641
2 18820  82.5403  98.8164 0016438 176.5474 183.5814 13.84049487 38655
AO-13      
1 19216U          88273.72660805 0.00000030           10000-3 0   190
2 19216  57.5382 237.5900 6578369 191.3601 139.7626  2.09697959  2262
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88310.46493800 0.00000391           10000-2 0   622
2 19336  82.5463 333.9372 0016988  25.6557 334.5361 13.16844869 13463
Soyuz TM-6 
1 19443U          88313.02427377 0.00039513           24042-3 0   790
2 19443  51.6218  48.4441 0024398 291.2359  68.8184 15.76628387 11176
Progress 38
1 19486U          88313.02426060 0.00031553           19308-3 0   666
2 19486  51.6257  48.4390 0023691 289.8344  70.1773 15.76644003  9317
1988 084A  
1 19495U          88287.94981370 0.00633145  27379-4  35577-3 0   649
2 19495  67.1303 110.4002 0121508 103.1111 258.4896 16.04240656  4564
Offeq-1    
1 19519U          88294.89549840 0.00313214  86600-5  19419-2 0   562
2 19519 142.8536  48.9372 0561575 298.5333  56.0618 14.77873731  4627
Shavit RB  
1 19520U          88289.24775240 0.00318453  90230-5  19378-2 0   122
2 19520 142.8513  17.0377 0565977 255.3326  98.2824 14.77198517  3795
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88309.60231270 0.00000712           41950-3 0   170
2 19531  98.9111 249.0469 0012690 142.6223 217.5833 14.10670733  5806
1988 089B  
1 19532U 88089  B 88300.86740196  .00003131  00000-0  00000-0 0 00251
2 19532 098.9079 240.4058 0006667 134.5228 225.7040 14.11308768004572
Molniya3-33
1 19541U          88302.70739282 0.00000085          -14331-2 0   324
2 19541  62.8826  90.5981 7367529 288.2921   9.1076  2.00594398   594
1988 090D  
1 19544U 88090  D 88301.57321968  .00000483  00000-0  00000-0 0 00153
2 19544 062.8504 090.5924 7319438 288.2742 009.7052 02.06098327000580
TDRS 2     
1 19548U          88300.31980104 0.00000163           10000-3 0   143
2 19548   0.0280 262.5409 0001541  99.1153 358.3724  1.00255173   271
TDRS IUS   
1 19549U 88091  C 88299.43472274  .00001987  00000-0  00000-0 0 00214
2 19549 026.7393 063.1674 7264977 015.5273 358.3127 02.27662885000603
1988 091D  
1 19550U 88091  D 88299.08856737  .00000000  00000-0  00000-0 0 00065
2 19550 002.2302 264.0053 0015038 131.8289 228.3035 01.00459925000277
1988 092A  
1 19554U          88306.86262516 -.00001153           22036-2 0   294
2 19554  62.9216 294.3280 7372953 316.5163   4.6881  2.00511971   598
1988 092C  
1 19556U 88092  C 88302.28486635  .11957082  00000-0  00000-0 0 00518
2 19556 062.7755 205.4284 0036923 114.4127 246.1873 16.40449207003852
1988 092D  
1 19557U          88305.42068111 -.00000234          -10195-2 0   218
2 19557  62.9054 294.5106 7342159 316.4417   4.7900  2.04104096   577
1988 086C  
1 19558U          88305.61876469 0.00030885           29224-2 0   118
2 19558  28.1057 163.8096 7392750 203.9984  86.7816  2.16602665   633
1988 093A  
1 19573U          88310.64701686 0.00001043           15513-3 0   359
2 19573  82.5351 144.2010 0024999 189.6653 170.4057 14.73911190  3737
1988 093B  
1 19574U          88292.99372544 0.00000675           10000-3 0   114
2 19574  82.5405 160.4498 0023793 254.0851 106.3505 14.74289692  1130
1988 095A  
1 19596U          88309.54708602 0.00000185           10000-3 0   167
2 19596   1.4693 275.6948 0005453 125.6189 233.9813  1.00264244   164
1988 095B  
1 19597U          88296.35753724 0.12507757  60658-4  25125-3 0   105
2 19597  51.6248 265.0403 0004998 254.6431 105.8934 16.46853638   284
1988 096A  
1 19608U          88313.71349350 -.00000976           10000-3 0   165
2 19608  62.8920 252.7684 7356768 316.2052   4.8147  2.00620762   300
1988 096B  
1 19609U          88313.85216634 0.00921307  11958-4  12874-2 0   347
2 19609  62.8498 202.4032 0206715 122.9839 239.1120 15.76161325  2201
1988 096C  
1 19610U          88314.21840646 0.15028577  42487-4  36896-3 0   385
2 19610  62.8346 199.7460 0066555 120.9046 240.0417 16.35943198  2293
1988 096D  
1 19611U          88309.59441785 0.00000324           10000-3 0   149
2 19611  62.8772 253.2924 7325708 316.1681   4.8892  2.04248855   231
1988 097A  
1 19612U          88313.73573222 0.00091375           92983-4 0   285
2 19612  72.8661 182.4240 0038180  50.8728 309.7674 16.08831143  1970
1988 098A  
1 19621U          88306.94258650 -.00000115           10000-3 0    18
2 19621   0.1149 271.3433 0049928 202.7392 246.4564  1.00323740    07
1988 098B  
1 19622U          88313.24301862 -.00068395          -11484-1 0   115
2 19622   3.7115 240.7877 7296075 184.6050 149.6588  2.27452627   237
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 06:14:30 GMT
From: phoenix!amlovell@princeton.edu  (Anthony M Lovell)
Subject: Re: Demise of OTRAG

I have a pal who studied MAE here who wrote a thesis on these people,
interviewing the scientists in Germany and touring their labs.  I don't
know if he has access to net news, but he is 

90.buja@gsb-how.stanford.edu

He'd love to hear from you as it seems you know a bit about these
people.   
-- 
amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu     ...since 1963.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #102
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Nov 88 04:26:25 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03745>; Wed, 16 Nov 88 03:53:09 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 16 Nov 88 03:53:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4XUHgly00UkT01VkAo>;
          Wed, 16 Nov 88 03:24:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.wXUHc9y00UkZ02KU4o>;
          Wed, 16 Nov 88 03:19:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sXUHahy00UkZE2JE54@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 88 03:17:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #103

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:
		       Surplus NASA space suits
			  Open House at JPL
		  Re: Explanation for name, `Buran'?
    Re: NASA seeks proposals for telerobotic servicer (Forwarded)
			      Space Junk
			   Re:Flood legends
	   Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 01:38:31 GMT
From: hp-sdd!mitchm@hplabs.hp.com  (Mitch Mitchel)
Subject: Surplus NASA space suits


I didn't come to work in a Halloween costume this year because I 
couldn't think of a good one.  Last year, I came to work in my
patch-bedecked flight suit, Navy parachute harness and survival 
harness.  I also wore my flight helmet with the lens pulled down.
All of this, along with my boots, flight jacket, gloves and
macho-man stride certainly made for an imposing figure.

Needless to say, that costume was hard to top this year so I 
didn't do anything.  But next Halloween I want to make a big
splash here at Hewlett-Packard and I remembered that a few years
ago I saw an article saying that NASA was selling its surplus
space suits.  I believe that this sale took place in either
Colorado or Texas.  The suits, complete with reflectorized 
helmets, were going for $500 - $800 dollars.  They were the suits
that were used in training and practice sessions and some of the
hoses/connections/radios/fasteners were non-working.

Does anyone remember seeing this same article?  Does anyone know
where a soul without any NASA or political connections (said soul
being me) can purchase a surplus space suit?  Any idea as to
how much they're going for these days?  Which NASA office would I
write to in order to get such information?

If it's possible to get surplus flight suits, would anyone be
interested in going in on this order with me?  Maybe we can get
a bulk rate.

Lemmeno.

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 11 Nov 88 13:10:26 PST
From: tencati%jplgp.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV
Subject: Open House at JPL
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space+@andrew.cmu.edu"

Well, first they don't do it for 8 years, then they do it two years in
a row...!

For those of you who are interested, and will be in the Greater Los Angeles
area on December 3rd, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is having an OPEN HOUSE!!

This coincides with NASA's 30th Anniversary.  The more "interesting" parts
of the main lab will be open to the public from 9-5 on Saturday, December
3rd.  I had the chance to attend the last open house and eventhough I work
here, I was treated with views of parts of the lab I don't normally get a 
chance to see.  Usually everyone is too busy working to have time to "show-
off" the products of their efforts.

The actual Galileo spacecraft is here, and will be on display in the 
Spacecraft Assembly Facility.  There will be movies in our main auditorium,
and plenty of chances to see the Deep Space Network's Spaceflight Operations
Center as well as Image-Processing facilities.

I would highly recommend if you are free that weekend, that you plan on
attending this event.

Hope to see you all here!

Ron Tencati
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, Ca.
Tencati%GPVAX.SPAN@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV
(818)354-8359

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 14:18:13 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Explanation for name, `Buran'?

>From article <1831@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. 
Thacker): 
> BTW, Buran, I know, means blizzard.  What about Antayas and Granyt ? 
> Named after the Greek giant and the rock, or what ? >

Exactly.  Antei/Antayas was Georgiy Shonin's callsign; Granit
('Granite') is Vladimir Shatalov's callsign - he used it again on
Soyuz-10, and still uses it when he calls up to cosmonauts from ground
control (he is now a general in charge of the cosmonaut corps). Note
that the Soyuz-4/5 joint mission used the callsigns 'Amur' and 'Baikal';
alphabetic again, but this time coincidental; it was to commemorate
the transcontinental railroad project, the Baikal to Amur Railway.

The Vostok cosmonauts used birds (Seagull, Golden Eagle, Hawk...) apart
from Gagarin ('Cedar'); the Voskhod ones used precious stones
('Diamond','Ruby').  The Soyuz-6/7/8 crews began the practice of
individual callsigns for the mission commanders with no apparent overall
themes. 

The current crew commander, V Titov, uses the callsign 'Okean' (Ocean)

- Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 14:45:51 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: NASA seeks proposals for telerobotic servicer (Forwarded)

In article <17473@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> NASA SEEKS PROPOSALS FOR TELEROBOTIC SERVICER
> 
>      NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., today 
> issued a request for proposal which will lead to the award of a 
> prime contract for the design, development, testing and fabrication 
> of Space Station Freedom's flight telerobotic servicer (FTS).

Well, well. I do recall hearing Henry Spencer taking me to task
for suggesting something like this...

> Because there is no such thing available today and no prospect of
> having one soon.

In fairness, I was suggesting a more radical ``stay-at-home'' plan.
This was certainly an extreme suggestion, at least for now.
The first generation of robots in space will only augment the people
there, not replace them, because of problems with reliability,
bandwidth, propagation delays, and so on. But since putting human
cargo in space is so ridiculously expensive, we must leverage the
ability of every astronaut as much as possible. If space labor
is 1000 times more expensive than earth labor, it must also be
1000 times more productive.

> People have looked at what percentage of the work planned for the space
> station could be done by automation or teleoperation technology that is
> likely to be available soon.  It's not high.

Perhaps they're taking another look? I thought NASA's job was not to
sit passively and wait for technology to ``become available,'' but to
actively create it. Robots are not a threat to developing space as
a human habitat. On the contrary, they are absolutely essential to
that goal, and we need to develop them as aggressively as possible.

Indeed:

>      A key element of the Freedom program, the FTS will employ 
> technolgies not used on previous NASA spacecraft.  Spinoffs from 
> robotic technologies developed in the FTS program are expected to 
> advance U.S. industrial automation capabilities.

Despite my stylistic objection to the author's use of passive voice
in the last sentence, I could not agree more strongly with its gist.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU
(That's Cincinnati, not California...sigh...)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 04:57:49 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jsalter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Notes from the Underground)
Subject: Space Junk

There's been an awful lot of talk about space pollution.  And some very
good future soln's such as International Agreements or appropriate Hardware
design, but what can be done about the stuff already up there?

The space station will be exceedingly vulnerable to all that junk, and
it would seem that unless some form of cleaning out is done, the danger is
going to become too great to launch AND have insurance.  After all the
government isn't all that eager to insure launches from what I've heard
and read.

How can such a cleaning take place?  Cages/traps are too small to be
effective, magnetic fields weaken too much with distance, Mel Brook's giant
maid would work great, but... :-)

I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, but I don't want to see us put up a space
station, and then lose it because some hunk of metal from one of OUR
satellites (or ANY satellite) punches a hole in an environment module.

-- 
James A. Salter (jim/jsalter) -- Yes, math majors use UNIX(tm), too!
                                 | If everyone believed in conservation of
jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU      | baryon number, there wouldn't be all those
...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jsalter | experiments looking for proton decay.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 14:12:34 GMT
From: hpwisf1!ISF.Unisys.COM!tom@burdvax.prc.unisys.com
Subject: Re:Flood legends

<daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
  [Proposes a theory that catastrophic flooding of the
   medateranian basin (which happened more than once, BTW)
   is responsible for "the widespread existance of flood
   legends"]

Tragically (for your theory anyway) several Mid-west American
Indian tribes have legends of this.

There also may be incan/myan references, but its been too long
since I saw "In search of Noah's Ark" the pseudo-documentry movie.


Tom Jewell

tom@isf.unisys.com
..!burdvax!hpwisf1!tom

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 22:36:18 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon! (was re: Henry's tirade)

In article <238@antares.UUCP>, pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) writes:
> In article <1988Oct31.213133.17906@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >                                                          I'm really
> >getting sick of people who claim that Apollo was always planned as a
> >one-shot effort.  It simply isn't true.  Looking at some of the plans
> >made in the early and middle 60s is enough to make you cry.
> >-- 
> 
>  Apollo was sold to the American people as a one shot, in the end, that was
> what made the difference. The plans were there, but not the will to execute
> them. I still believe that this is only a setback, that a vigorous space
> program will be supported by the American people, and by the people of
> other countries, given good leadership.


	The reason that Apollo wasn't followed up was a matter of priorities.
	We started the program because the CCCP had gotten into space first
	which had serious military consequences and we didn't want to be
	left behind.  Going to the moon was a way that we could show the
	world that we could deliver ICBM's better than anyone.

	But once we had proven that point, a grass-roots movement to divert
	the monies into social programs became over-whelming.  If you can
	put men on the moon then what excuse can you make for allowing
	poverty in the USA?  The social pendulum swung to solving the
	local problems with the "War on Poverty".  Besides, it was more
	important to drop bombs on Hanoi than to drop feathers on the moon.

	A good follow-up program to Apollo has never been found.  While
	there are lots of interesting scientific things that can be done
	in space, there is very little public interest in science and
	they don't sell well.  The military still gets support and so
	it is they who do most of the space work.  The problem with that,
	of course, is that it's classified so we don't hear much about it.

	In my view the pendulum is going to swing toward social issues
	again after a decade of "back-burner" treatment.  If so, space
	exploration is in big trouble, budget-wise.  The SDI program is
	killing the space program too, with the public dissatisfaction
	over the wasted money and pork-barrel politics involved,  people
	are going to reject the whole notion of space funding.

	All is not lost though.  Earth is a very nice space craft,  zipping
	along at a very respectable 215 km/sec and providing a wide-screen
	viewing port to all (just look up).  I've got the gravity generator
	tuned for a perfect 1-g and we're on course and headed for the
	constellation of Hercules.  So just sit back and leave the driving
	to me :-}


-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 05:01:07 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!yunexus!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net  (gordan)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

In article <1143@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu> willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes:
|
|While Henry's first point is certainly well-taken, one might point
|out that the Soviet's have no experimental data with sexually-mixed
|space crews.  The experience of crews wintering-over in the Antarctic
|might be relevant, though there the crew sizes are larger and the
|male/female ratio is 3:1 or 4:1.  My second-hand information (i.e.

What male/female ratio are you talking about here?  For crews wintering
over in Antarctica?  Not Soviet crews, surely -- they only send men

(according to a book published in 1986.  I quote: "All of Antarctica is
a man's continent; I've already mentioned that they don't send women
here.  Not because they don't have faith in them.  Not at all!  Women
simply don't have the strength to work in Antarctica."
  -- Leonid Pochivalov)

... as Victorian as it gets...
--
                 Gordan Palameta
            uunet!ai.toronto.edu!utgpu!maccs!gordan

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 88 03:35:19 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!igloo!bhv@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <4139@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>> In article <1069@igloo.UUCP> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>> }The best stardrive would probably be a Bussard Ramjet (scoop up interstellar
>> }hydrogen for fuel) if it could be made to work.  The best use for the spent
>> }fuel is again reaction mass for this case, as well.
>
>  NO.  Definitely not.  It is easy to show that an efficient rocket
>is one which has high Isp, which means high p/E (p = momentum).
>Photons are ideal.  (I will leave as an exercise for the reader
>the proof that photons have larger p/E than matter.)
>  An ideal rocket is thus one which uses ONLY photons as reaction mass.
>The spent fuel should be dumped overboard without any significant
>velocity.

I disagree - and I can prove my point mathematically.  I will start out by
stating my definition of "efficiency" - whcih is getting the most thrust from
a specified quantity of fuel.  This definition will ultimately lead to the
highest terminal velocity for a specified configuration of payload, fuel, and
necessary structual mass.

Let us consider a small quantity of fuel with mass M.  In order to maximize
the thrust, we want to maximize the total momentum generated by this amount of
fuel.

Let us call the amount of energy available by 'burning' and or fusing (or
otherwise using) the fuel E.  Let us assume 100 % efficiency (energy wise)
in applying the energy generated by using the fuel in accelerating the exhaust.
Let the amount of fuel used as reaction mass be m - where 0<m<M.  

The total momentum generated will be:

p=mv
where v = sqrt(2*E/m)

Thus we wish to maximize:
m*sqrt(2*E/m) = sqrt(2*E*(m*m)/m) = sqrt(2*E*m)

This is obviously a maximum when m is as high as possible - i.e. m = M.

This does not address the relativisitic case.  I do not believe the results
change (they certainly won't for
small exhaust velocities << c), but I leave this case up to the reader.
-- 
ddsw1!bhv@igloo

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 88 22:11:13 GMT
From: ece-csc!ncrcae!usceast!dean@mcnc.org  (Dean Karres)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

In article <7367@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>A few things to keep in mind on the subject of mixed vs. single-sex
>crews for extended missions like a Mars visit:
>...
> * If you sent an all male crew as the Russians propose, there would be
>   certain obvious issues that would have to be addressed, which shall
>   remain nameless here in a family newsgroup.  ;-)  Have they got this
>   worked out?  They have guys up there for two and three semesters
>   straight, it seems like a fair bet doesn't it.

Perhaps I am more naive than I thought, wouldn't the equivalent "issues"
exist for an all female crew? Forgive me but your observation sounds as
though it came from the "I'm afraid that I may slip-up therefore
everyone else will slip-up" school of thought.

Dean...k...
-- 
#define	name	Dean Karres
#define	E-mail	...gatech!ncrcae!usceast!dean
#define place	Math & Stat Comp Cntr/Math Dept/USC/Columbia/SC/29208
#include <disclaimers.h>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #103
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Nov 88 07:09:35 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01210>; Wed, 16 Nov 88 06:05:28 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 16 Nov 88 06:05:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.MXUJUAy00jZd02Qk9h>;
          Wed, 16 Nov 88 05:27:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.0XUJMPy00UkZQ2WE5l>;
          Wed, 16 Nov 88 05:19:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <MXUJLSy00UkZ42V05k@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 88 05:18:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #104

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Explanation for name, `Buran'?
		       Re: Namespace collision
			 The ASPOD satellite.
			 Manned vs. unmanned
			 Re: Shuttle Pheonix
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
			  Re: Lasing the Sun
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #72
		       Re: Oxygen from the Moon
		       Re: Oxygen from the Moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 07:11:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Explanation for name, `Buran'?


/* Written  9:19 pm  Nov  1, 1988 by gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
Um, the Russian alphabet goes A B V G D etc. So the third letter is V,
not G. I don't know, however, what system they use for spelling on
the radio, it might have a different ordering.
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

I lost a paragraph there; the hand is quicker than the mind when I'm
making late-night postings.

The speculation is that the third letter is Voskhod, which would be
confusing if applied to another spacecraft.  So V would be skipped.

Sorry for confusing people....

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 23:48:16 GMT
From: thorin!tlab1!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Namespace collision

In article <19907@apple.Apple.COM> kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) writes:
>There seems to be some confusion over names...
>
>Max Faget heads up *SII* (Space Industries Inc) working on an industrial
>space facility (i.e. unmanned station)
>
>*SSI* (Space Services Inc) is headed by Deke Slayton and is working on
>expendable launch vehicles.

    Yes, there is some confusion. The Space Studies Institute (SSI) is
in Princeton, NJ, a nonprofit research organization founded by Gerard
O'Neill. The confusion of the two SSIs is what I referred to, not the
two Texas companies.
    Someone informed me by mail that the actual name of the Houston
SSI is "Space Services Inc. of America", which does not stop people
referring to them as SSI. I think O'Neill's group has priority on the
name, however.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Needless to say, both in the United States and in the eucaryotic
      cell, once the old immigrants are comfortably settled and their
      place in society is established, they do their best to shut the
      door to any prospective new immigrants''
	- Freeman Dyson, _Origins of Life_

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 15:01:29 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: The ASPOD satellite.


         Since a number of people have requested information on ASPOD, 
    I am posting the article on this spacecraft to the net for everyone's 
    benefit.  The following article on the ASPOD satellite is from MACHINE
    DESIGN magazine, August 11 1988, "News Trends" section, page 14: 

         "Space Debris May Get the Axe"

         Low Earth Orbit (LEO) debris caused by human activity in space is 
    a possible threat to future exploration efforts.  Projections show that 
    by 1990 the probability of collision will be nearly double what it is 
    today.  But LEO debris may someday be removed by the Autonomous Space 
    Processor for Orbital Debris (ASPOD).  That's the name given to a small, 
    Shuttle-launched spacecraft currently under development at the University 
    of Arizona. 

      [ Photo of three people working outdoors on something that looks
        like a collection of aluminum tubing, black Masonite, and Fresnel
	lenses - assembly looks to be ~ 6'x6' - a model?]

         ASPOD is to be equipped with a solar-driven, metal cutting device 
    that will carve orbiting debris into pieces small enough to fit in a 
    removable bin.  The metal cutter uses gold acrylic mirrors, mounted on 
    a platform that inclines for tracking the Sun, to direct the Sun's rays 
    toward an array of Fresnel lenses.  Solar rays are concentrated by the 
    lenses into a powerful beam that will burn through metal. 

         ASPOD will operate in a quick-response mode, traveling between 
    orbits to locate and then disassemble debris.  It may also operate in 
    an economy mode, remaining stationary while waiting for debris to come 
    to it.  Quick-response operation requires large amounts of fuel but can 
    process several pieces quickly.  The economy mode uses much less fuel 
    but takes over 100 times longer to handle the same amount of debris. 

         Once a mission is complete, ASPOD could either be retrieved
    by the Space Shuttle or jettisoned to burn up on re-entry.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 08:02:12 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Manned vs. unmanned

Harold Bidlack wrote:
>   
>   ...  it seems to me that a KEY element in whether any type of
>   program will get started is the degree to which Members of
>   Congress can sell it to the folks back home.  ...  If it
>   doesn't play in Omaha, it will not get funded.  So I am afraid
>   that the real choice is not between manned and unmanned for the
>   *scientific* returns, but rather a choice between manned
>   (with some unmanned) and no space activity at all.  

This is not quite true.  Congress does fund things like particle 
accelerators and deep-ocean drilling, which are surely more esoteric
than Voyager or Viking.  I don't believe that the "folks in Omaha" 
who know about Voyager have strong objections to spending money on it;
at least, not nearly as much as certain so-called "space enthusiasts"
who flame in this newsgroup.

More importantly, you forget that there is already a substantial and
largely self-supporting industry based on unmanned spacecraft, namely
the satellite telecommunications industry.  Also, unmanned weather
satellites surely must "play in Omaha".  Finally, the military have
long regarded spy and communications satellites ---unmanned, of
course--- as indispensable.  

The truth is that even a 100% unmanned space program would stand pretty
well by itself.  If anything, it is the manned space program that needs
the unmanned one to justify its existence, given that satellite
assembly and repair is the only excuse for sending people up
that makes some sense at present.  

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi

    All eyes turned to the Frenchman. If he granted the truth of this
    observation, the consequences could be drastic.
        ---J. Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)
    
DISCLAIMER: (dis klam <schwa> r), n.  1.  the act of disclaiming; the
renouncing, repudiating, or denying of a claim; disavowal.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 07:14:35 GMT
From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!chguest@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Guest RCE)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Pheonix

>>Wasn't there an Apollo flight that exploded into flame on the ground
>>and killed its three pilots? The commander of the next Apollo mission
>>wanted to call his spacecraft "Phoenix" but NASA wouldn't let him
>>because it would remind people of the disaster.
>>
>>USnail: Andy Steinberg          BITNet: nutto@UMass

Yes ....sort of...

Apollo One was on the launch pad in 1966 (?) doing a number of preflight
tests.  The astronauts were bolted in and had the normal all oxygen
environment in the capsule.  Though there is still speculation on
exactly what happened, the consensus was that sometime into the test the
wiring under the seats of the spacecraft couches shorted out.  There
were numerous combustibles in the area and combined with a all oxygen
environment the inside of the capsule and of course the astronauts,
(Guss Grissom, Edward White and Rodger Chafee), was burned at a
fantastic rate.   The rocket itself DID NOT burst into flames or burn.
For the most part the fire was contained in the capsule.

About the Phoenix idea....I seem to recall reading this somewhere too
but I can't recall where. Possible an astronaut's biography or a time
lif publication.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 18:38:51 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

In article <1143@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu> willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes:
>> The Soviets know far more about the psychology of long space
>> missions than we do....  Their current opinion -- perhaps
>> influenced by the somewhat backward attitudes of their culture --
>> is that sexually-mixed crews increase tension and cause bickering
>> and other problems.
>
>While Henry's first point is certainly well-taken, one might point
>out that the Soviet's have no experimental data with sexually-mixed
>space crews...

Well, a little bit, but not on long-stay missions.  I suppose I ought
to clarify this:  I'm not claiming that the Soviets are correct in
thinking that mixed crews are a bad idea, in fact I suspect that they
are wrong, but their opinions on such things should be taken seriously.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 18:42:05 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Lasing the Sun

In article <8811011456.AA09542@kochab.cs.rochester.edu> dietz@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU writes:
>One problem with focusing by gravity is the nonsphericity of the sun,
>due to its rotation.  Perhaps the seed laser should be above the north
>or south solar pole.

Worse, remember that the Sun is neither homogeneous nor static.  In
particular, it vibrates.  I'd be very surprised if you could get anything
resembling sharp focusing out of it, barring some sort of sophisticated
active-compensation scheme.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 18:47:31 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #72

In article <Added.sXPbBJy00Ui3IIWk8b@andrew.cmu.edu> HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard) writes:
>... One other point - the gov't should *not* sponsor
>private enterprise in space with straight cash, as SSI (Max Faget & Co.)
>wanted them to do - this creates a false market dependant on the government,
>which defeats the whole purpose of private enterprise...

Do remember that something fairly similar helped the development of
aviation immensely.  (The air-mail contracts essentially amounted to
market guarantees, but note that this isn't quite the same thing as
a subsidy:  a market guarantee pays only for results, not for promises.)
The false market can become a real one very quickly, once it gets started.
Getting it started is the hard part.

Incidentally, Faget's company is Space Industries, which is not SSI,
which in turn is not Space Services.  (Space Industries is working on
the Industrial Space Facility; Space Services is an aspiring private
space-launch company; SSI is the Space Studies Institute started by
Gerry O'Neill.)
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 18:18:27 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the Moon

In article <13407@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>>   .... going almost anywhere in space, even
>>   near-Earth space (e.g.  to Clarke orbit), is significantly
>>   cheaper if liquid oxygen comes from the Moon...
>
>Henry, could you please post your estimates of
>(a) the cost of setting up and maintaining an oxygen factory on the Moon
>    (plus supporting paraphernalia such as containers, mass launchers
>    and catchers, etc.)...

I don't have figures on hand, I'm afraid.  I do know that they are very
sensitive to two variables:  (1) Earth-to-orbit launch costs; (2) whether
it is done by the government or someone else.

Incidentally, you don't need mass-drivers and such; I've seen studies on
doing this sort of thing using plain old rockets.  In that case, add a
third major factor:  (3) whether there are hydrogen-containing volatiles
frozen in lunar polar craters.

>(c) how much it will cost to launch all the missions that are supposed to
>    use the oxygen in item (b)?

Clearly, one builds a lunar oxygen facility only if one expects to launch
those missions anyway, so those costs don't count against the idea.  Equally
clearly, as long as the US idea of deep-space activity is boosting a ton
or two into Clarke orbit, lunar oxygen does not make sense.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 00:08:32 GMT
From: tiedeman@acf3.nyu.edu  (Eric S. Tiedemann)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the Moon

In article <1988Nov4.181827.21089@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
writes:
>Incidentally, you don't need mass-drivers and such; I've seen studies on
>doing this sort of thing using plain old rockets.  In that case, add a
>third major factor:  (3) whether there are hydrogen-containing volatiles
>frozen in lunar polar craters.

Yet another possibility is laser-thermal rockets using lunar oxygen alone as
reaction mass.

Eric
tiedeman@acf3.nyu.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #104
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Nov 88 04:56:09 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03682>; Thu, 17 Nov 88 04:20:07 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 17 Nov 88 04:20:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4XUctWy00Vs1E17UNf>;
          Thu, 17 Nov 88 03:31:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.AXUclCy00UkZ80uE5Y>;
          Thu, 17 Nov 88 03:22:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXUcgqy00UkZ80t05n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 88 03:17:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #105

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 105

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Return to the Moon!
		 Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
			Re: Nuclear Flare Gun
Re: Women in antarica and space (Mars in the Nov. National Geographic)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 05:39:17 GMT
From: thorin!tlab1!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Return to the Moon!

In article <49@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <5007@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@ra.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>In article <47@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>>In fact, the Moon turns out to be very geologically undifferentiated...
>>    The latter statement is, to say the least, unfounded.
>Try reading any elementary textbook on lunar geology.

    OK, I did, and I'm back to share the results with you all. This is
not so much a flame, or a pro-Luna-anti-Io diatribe, as some
interesting material from the literature.

    Here are my sources. I believe all of them to be reputable.

    [NS] _The New Solar System_, Beatty, O'Leary, & Chaikin, 1982.
	 Chapter "The Moon" by B. French.
    [SJ] _Satellites of Jupiter_, U. of Arizona Space Science Series, 1982.
	 Chapter "Geology of Io" by G. Schaber.
    [RR] Space Studies Institute _Update_, July/August 1986.
	 Article "Composites: Fibers & Matrices from Lunar Regolith"
	    by C. Coggin, Jr.

    Now, on to the quoting.  First, as to the "undifferentiated"
character of the moon:

   "The maria... are low, level areas cover with layers of basaltic
    lava... the highlands are higher, more rugged regions that are
    older than the maria. These latter areas are made up of several
    different kinds of rocks that cooled slowly deep within the moon."
	[NS] pg 73

   "The chemical composition of lunar material also varies from place
    to place, through a sorting out of compunds called
    differentiation, that occurred within the early, partially molten
    Moon. Thus the rocks of the light-colored highlands are rich in
    calcium and aluminum, while the lavas of the dark-colored maria
    contain less of these elements and more titanium, iron, and
    magnesium."     [NS] pg 74

    Now, as to what we might get from the Moon:

   "The lunar highlands...consist primarily of feldspar-rich rocks...
    The maria were formed... by basaltic magmas. The rocks thus formed
    are a series of iron and titanium rich basalts...  Chemical
    analysis of typical lunar materials list SiO2 contents of approx.
    50% for pyroxenes, 37% for olivine, and 46% for plagioclase.
    Pyroxenes are being considered as possible sources of magnesium,
    calcium, iron, and aluminum; olivines are a potential source of
    magnesium and iron; and plagioclase is a potential source of
    aluminum."

   "A variety of unsampled surface features that may have importance
    in resource considerations warrants investigation, such as the
    dark halo craters."

   "The composition of the non-mare regions is complex and highly
    variable."  - various quotes from [RR]

    It's clear that the Moon is by no means "undifferentiated".  If
Szabo means that we won't find ores on Luna, he may be correct.  But
there's no shortage of interesting minerals, and the surface is not
uniform on a global scale.

>Oh good grief.  Io has every element except some volatiles.  It
>has differentiation, and probably geochemical, processes not found on
>Earth or anywhere else we know.   We have only taken a

    We have vulcanism on earth; the Moon almost certainly used to have
it. Ditto Mars, Venus, probably others. Other than that, I doubt
anyone can say what processes are taking place on Io. What *I* want to
know is, are the ice mantles of the other Galilean satellites
convective? We won't find out until Galileo, if then.

>few pictures of it from thousands of miles out in space, and we already
>know it has far more geological potential than the Moon.

    Well, the geologists certainly are mad about it (I'd be mad too,
having to wait 15 years to get better pictures than the current 1/2 km
resolution :-), but in terms of surface composition, Io appears less
promising than Luna:

   "Io's surface displays a wide variety of colors resulting from the
    spectral reflectance of various allotropes of sulfur, as well as
    volcanic vent craters, fissures, and other morphologic forms
    attribute to volcanic processes...	Photogeologic evidence
    indicates a dominantly silicate composition for the moutain
    material... Sulfur flows of diverse viscosity and sulfur-silicate
    mixtures are thought to compose the extensive plains... The mapped
    area discussed in this chapter lies within the longitudinal zone,
    250 deg. to 323 deg...  where other sulfurous components dominate
    the upper surface layer... The evidence from spectral observations
    for a global mantling of sulfur and related volatile compounds is
    compelling..." [SJ] pp 556-557.

   "We know from bulk density (3.53 g/cm^3) that Io is probably
    dominantly composed of ferromagnesian silicates and that it has a
    substantial iron or iron sulfide core...  The photogeologic
    evidence for at least a mixture of silicates and sulfur compounds
    to km-scale depths is strongest for the mountain unit..." [SJ] pp
    590-591.

    I (more or less) stand by my statement about "lots of sulfur
compounds". This entirely bypasses the difficulty of working in an
environment of lethal radiation with a high probability of a volcano
leveling the operation within months, but we're just speculating here.
BTW, the densities of Io and Luna are virtually identical (3.3 Luna,
3.5 Io).

    As to what we may find on the moon - or anywhere other place in
the Solar System - the jury is out and will be for decades, at least:

    "For all we have learned, our conclusions about the global
     chemistry of the Moon are still mostly theories. Only nine lunar
     sites have been sampled, six with Apollo and three with Soviet
     Luna spacecraft.  The chemical analyses made from orbit cover
     only about a quarter of the lunar surface. We still know little
     about the far side and nothing whatever about the poles."
	[NS] pg. 79

    Arguments about whether we will exploit the moon for non-existent
diamonds or ridiculously expensive oxygen are just silly right now, so
I won't get into that one any further. Maybe in 30 years...

>And Io is only *one* small place out of hundreds in the solar system we
>could explore.  Exploration is far more productive a pursuit than whining
>about what our "Next Big Manned Project" should be, or dreaming up businesses
>with speculative processes, unproven markets, and  $10^11 startup costs.

    I'm all in favor of exploration. Split JPL off from NASA and give
it $10G of its own, IMHO. On the other hand, Columbus wouldn't have
sailed the ocean blue without 'speculative processes' (sailing
*around* the world?) and failed utterly to establish the spice trade
(a 'proven market' but no product for it). However, his attempts lead
to something he could hardly have imagined, 500 years later. I'd be
delighted if, 500 years from now, every speculation we make today was
irrelevant to that time, but they were in space anyway.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``After all, the best part of a holiday is perhaps not so much to be
      resting yourself as to see all the other fellows busy working.''
	- Kenneth Grahame, _The Wind in the Willows_

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 15:24:52 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.


        Alan Meiss sent me a letter regarding my space/light pollution 
    posting, but for some reason my system could not send my message
    back to him, so I am posting his letter and my answers to the net, 
    so that I can get my response through.  Also, I feel Alan has brought 
    up some important issues which need addressing to the whole community.

        The letters are as follows:

From:	DECWRL::"pur-ee!ameiss" "Alan R Meiss  2-Nov-88 1625 EST" 2-NOV-1988 
        23:18 
To:	intelca!decwrl!mtwain.dec.com!klaes
Subj:	Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

      Hello!  I read with great interest your news posting regarding light 
  pollution and space debris.  Allow me to make some comments, if I may. 
 
     Though I would agree that space debris collisions do pose a risk
  to craft such as the Shuttle, I question your figure of a "1 in 30
  chance."  Where did you get this?  How was it calculated, for what
  duration of time (particularly), and what orbit, LEO?  I have heard
  FAR, far lower figures for the risk of collisions, and I am skeptical
  simply because of the vast amount of space surrounding our planet - it
  would take an enormous amount of material to fill this volume. 
 
     But though I question your Shuttle figure, I would suspect that
  possible risks to space stations would be much greater, due to their
  longer duration of orbital time.  This is something that should be
  seriously considered in our station planning.  Have the Soviets had
  any problems with impacts on their Mir station? 
 
     I realize that you inferred admittance of this, but the costs for
  such an undertaking as cleaning up perhaps 10k pieces of space debris
  would seem prohibitive, at least for manned undertakings.  But
  combining two suggestions you made...if AI and robotics progress
  sufficiently in the near future, perhaps a reasonably priced robot
  fleet could do the job, salvaging remnants of fuel from boosters and
  collecting large pieces at some point in orbit, perhaps for use in
  future construction.  More adventurous still, might they use these
  objects for their own fuel and maintenance? 
 
     I would suggest that the greatest source by far of space debris is
  testing of SDI technology.  The recent test of an umbrella intercepting 
  a dummy warhead and the resulting destruction created an enormous amount 
  of debris.  Though I don't recall the exact figures, I believed it 
  increased the total amount of space debris particles in orbit by something 
  like a third(!).  Organized opposition to future tests such as this would 
  seem to be one of the best steps to take; prevention is far easier than 
  cure. 
 
     Thank you for your posting - it was food for thought.
 
     Alan R. Meiss, ameiss@en.ecn.purdue.edu
 
========================================================================

	Alan,

	The one in thirty figure I got on the chances of space debris
    hitting the Space Shuttle comes from the September 5, 1988 issue of
    AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY magazine.  Did you know that in
    1983, a Space Shuttle had a window cracked by a fleck of paint which
    struck it - had the damage been any greater, CHALLENGER would not have
    been our first Shuttle tragedy.  Also, when parts of the Solar Maximum
    Satellite (SMS) were returned to Earth in 1984, it showed definite
    evidence of pitting from space debris while in orbit.  I have seen no 
    data yet on the frequency of hits for the Soviet MIR station, but I 
    doubt that such a large space structure has avoided contact with debris, 
    especially in its rather low orbit. 

	There are serious plans for a robot satellite to be sent into
    LEO and cut up old, deactivated satellites up for scrap metal.  It is
    called ASPOD, and I will be glad to send a copy of the article over
    the net if you (or anyone else) are interested in reading the details.

	I am aware that SDI has (and no doubt will continue to) contribute 
    a great deal of dangerous junk into Earth orbit, but SDI is not alone 
    in this; space is becoming yet another place where governments and 
    companies feel they can be lax on waste management, but like toxic waste, 
    it won't just go away by itself, and the potential for killing astronauts 
    and cosmonauts grows all the time, not to mention wrecking valuable and 
    useful active spacecraft.  Yes, space is vast, but most of the debris 
    remains in Earth orbit, where the majority of the current manned and 
    unmanned missions take place, thus greatly magnifying the dangers.  The 
    proposals I made were not so much concrete plans for cleaning up the 
    debris, but rather - as you said - for making people aware of the problem 
    and sparking ideas on how this can be properly and realistically done. 

	Thank you for reading my article and taking the time to comment. 
    I hope I answered your questions sufficiently. 

	Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 12:11:39 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

In article <8811031524.AA17141@decwrl.dec.com>, klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
}From:   DECWRL::"pur-ee!ameiss" "Alan R Meiss  2-Nov-88 1625 EST" 2-NOV-1988 
} 
}     I would suggest that the greatest source by far of space debris is
}  testing of SDI technology.  The recent test of an umbrella intercepting 
}  a dummy warhead and the resulting destruction created an enormous amount 
}  of debris.  Though I don't recall the exact figures, I believed it 
}  increased the total amount of space debris particles in orbit by something 
}  like a third(!).  Organized opposition to future tests such as this would 
}  seem to be one of the best steps to take; prevention is far easier than 
}  cure. 

I rather doubt that the umbrella interceptor added ANY debris to LEO, since
both dummy warhead and interceptor were on suborbital paths and the
much-heavier "warhead" was already well past apogee.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
Disclaimer? I     |Ducharm's Axiom:  If you view your problem closely enough
claimed something?|   you will recognize yourself as part of the problem.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 21:47:49 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

In article <1379@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@jupiter.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) writes:
>Second, there are so *many* small bits of debris, in so many different
>orbits, that even if you could reach them with the Shuttle you'd have to
>expend enormous amounts of fuel chasing them all.

In fact, even if you had propulsion suitable to the job -- I once took a
cursory look at the idea of a tiny satellite with electrodynamic propulsion,
specifically as a garbage retriever -- the sheer size of the problem is
just plain excessive.  It's not the two-ton lumps that are the real
problem:  they are (relatively) few in number and collisions with them
are fairly unlikely.  The bad part of the problem is the coin-sized bits.
They're too small for any practical retrieval scheme, too numerous to
just trust to luck, too small *and* too numerous to just track and avoid,
and too massive to just disregard.  The best we can do is to protect major
facilities against them and try hard to avoid creating more!

>b. Methods to control the amount of debris generated in long-lived orbits,
>with emphasis on payload deployment operations. Clamp bands, springs,
>fasteners, explosive bolt cutters and the like should be captive, i.e., they
>should be tethered so they don't go floating off on their own after
>separation.  This is already standard procedure on most Western launches...

An alternative that is worth exploring for some types of object is photo-
degradeable materials.  De-spin weights, for example, *have* to be cut
loose, but I would suspect that they and their cables could be made out
of some plastic that would break down in sunlight, so eventually you'd
have nothing but organic gas left.

>c. Integrity standards for external coatings on all objects deployed in
>long-lived orbits. The white paint used on Delta upper stages has been
>traced as the cause of some small craters found on Shuttle windows.

Those who are enthusiastic about using shuttle external tanks in orbit
should note that the insulation on the tanks is likely to "popcorn" in
vacuum as it outgases.  The folks working on turning a tank into a
gamma-ray telescope (the only NASA-funded external-tank work) plan to
put an outer casing around the tank, partly to contain the debris.  (The
other reason for the casing is as a classic "meteor bumper" against both
natural meteorites and space debris.)
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 17:59:54 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Flare Gun

In article <8811032235.AA15406@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.TI.COM (If you don't vote, you can't bitch) writes:
>  Of course, I can think of
>a few things I'd rather spend money on before this Nuclear Flare Gun, but
>it does sound interesting.
>

A test detonation of a nuclear warhead was done back in the 50's or early
60's in space, over Hawaii.  Since it was secret, nobody expected
the night-time sky to be illuminated by the orange flash.  The effect
of this was to knock out communications in Hawaii (specifics unknown to me)
and later this was determined to be the EMP effect.  That light has reached
about 20 to 30 light-years out.  If any intelligent life saw it, I would assume
that they put up a sign at the edge of our solar system warning themselves
to stay out of such a dangerous place.  Don't expect ANY life form to
conclude that a nuclear detonation around a planet to be a sign
of *intellegence*. ;^)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 09:05:03 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Women in antarica and space (Mars in the Nov. National Geographic)

In article <1558@maccs.McMaster.CA> gordan@maccs.UUCP () writes:
>"Women simply don't have the strength to work in Antarctica."
>  -- Leonid Pochivalov)

I will have to tell my friend Mindy this when I get to the South Pole.
 ;-)							   ^^^^^^^^^^
					space, planetary science^

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #105
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Nov 88 10:11:13 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01205>; Thu, 17 Nov 88 05:42:27 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 17 Nov 88 05:42:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YXUeamy00Ui3I8hE4=>;
          Thu, 17 Nov 88 05:28:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.kXUeU1y00UkZ818E45>;
          Thu, 17 Nov 88 05:20:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXUeRiy00UkZ01704B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 88 05:18:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #106

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:
	     Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
		   Re: All this haggling about Mars
		       Re:  SPACE Digest V9 #75
     Re: underground cities for human survival: lets think twice
			Energiya Thrust Rating
		       Re: Oxygen from the Moon
			  Re: Lasing the Sun
	       Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1988 16:09-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: lasting evidence of human civilazation.

> few tons of metal on the moon will be there a long time.

But my question was what WE would be able to detect. We do not have the
ability to examine the lunar surface.

> glass coke bottles will last.

Glass does change over time. I am not sure whether current types of
glasses would survive geological times or not. I suspect the answer may
be no except for vary specialized ceramics.

> ruby rods made up for lasers are not readily degraded by ordinary forces

Hmmm. Lots of CD players around, but would an occasional strange ruby
crystal be considered evidence of intelligence or just a strange
mineral who's geological creation process is not understood?

> wierd deposites in antartic ice (tiny grains of pollution)

The Antarctic ice cap is quite temporary and will last until the
landmass drifts elsewhere. Ice is only good for a few 10's of thousands
of years.

> salt mines w/ nuclear wastes will be detectable a long time.

There are very few isotopes with half lives sufficient that the
would be detectable after 50 or 60 million years. Also, there are very
few such depositories. What are the chances that geological processes
will bring them to the surface at a time and place where they will be
discovered by scientists who will recognize the antiquity? Artifacts 
are not trusted unless recorded in situ. The crystal skulls for
example, cannot be dated because they were found by amateurs. Whether
ancient or 19th century will never be known. A similar problem arises
with any site or artifact that is off extreme rarity.

> bones? fossils of lotsa domestic animals.

Yes. But can you prove that a Brontosaurus was not a domestic animal by
looking at it's bones? And given the number of human ancestor skeletons found
that are in the 5 million year range, even accouting for the large
population, how many will be found by chance in 65 million years? I
will admit that this is probably the best bet, particularly because of
grave goods. Bones in place with remnants of precious metals and long
lived minerals (gems) should be found from time to time. I think, but
I'm not certain. 

> geosync satellites (bet low-earth will be gone)

Possibly, but they would have perturbed out of geosync. Some outwards,
some inwards. I would expect some dispersion in plane also. What are
the chances we would have detected them? Have we looked? If we did
wouldn't we just mark it as a tiny asteroid or meteoroid?

> lonely voyager & pioneer....

Once again, how would we find them if we didn't know where to look?
Also, in 65 million years they will be on the other side of the galaxy
from us. Perturbations from stars would make it near impossible to find
them even if some fossil stone recorded their exact orbit.

So we really have very little for our hypothetical paleohistorian to go
on. Of course as we become space faring things do get much better, as
the satellites and such are artifacts that would be found and would
tell a tale, assuming they were common enough to overcome the
probabilities of not lasting millions of years and of then being in the
right place at the right time to be found.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 18:29:54 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

In article <7367@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> * Just because your mom and pop get along OK in their suburban house
>   here on friendly Terra doesn't mean that a husband-wife pair of
>   highly trained, competitive *astronauts* would get along over 2-3
>   years of ultimate space isolation in cramped quarters with other
>   similar couples...

Actually, for long-term missions, one probably would be well-advised *not*
to pick highly competitive people.  NASA's current astronauts are mostly
action-oriented, individualistic test pilots (and non-test-pilots with a
fairly similar mindset) -- exactly the wrong sort of people for long-term
cooperative anything.  Even the Space Station, never mind a Mars mission,
would be better served by a different type of crew.

(Once again, actually, we're dealing with aviation people in what is much
more a naval environment.)

> * If you sent an all male crew as the Russians propose, there would be
>   certain obvious issues that would have to be addressed, which shall
>   remain nameless here in a family newsgroup.  ;-)  Have they got this
>   worked out?  They have guys up there for two and three semesters
>   straight, it seems like a fair bet doesn't it.

Such things are problems of decadent, rotting capitalist societies,
comrade, and are not an issue on good Soviet socialist space stations
manned by faithful Communists.  :-)

If you thought the Soviets were straitlaced about heterosexual couples...
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 04:16:37 GMT
From: iconsys!mcd@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Dakins)
Subject: Re: All this haggling about Mars

In article <799@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (Mr. Sullivan) writes:

Well, I have waited and waited but, no one has responded
to more that individual items of this nonsense so I feel it
necessary that I do so.  If you care exeactly what Mr Sullivan
said you will have to find his original article because I refuse
to waste the bandwidth to repost the whole thing.

|Let me inject a little *reality* into a group who loves science
|fiction to such an extent it is causing them to push a special
|interest (mars vs. moon expedition) on the American space effort.

This is insulting and condescending toward those who support the
manned space program and marks Mr Sullivan as someone who has no
respect for those he is addressing, therefore I feel little need
to be respectful toward him. The term "reality" however, implies
FACT not opinion so, lets look at Mr Sullivan's facts.

|Reality #1  ... budget deficit ... will ... cut back ... Space funding.

Regretable but, true. The only unassailable reality in the list.

|Reality #2  A manned expedition to mars has (little or no purpose.)
             (Also, the manned exploration of the moon had little
              or no purpose.)

This is NOT a reality! This is an opinion and I don't agree.

|Reality #3  ... no way ... that we could get ... to mars (in 10 years).

THIS is also an opinion and probably not true. Not that I think that
doing it within ten years is necessary or even wise but, it is
certainly not proven fact that it couldn't be done. Further, if it
takes more than ten years that is not a good reason to not start on a
well reasoned, well planned program.
 
|Reality #4  The Russians will not go to mars because they are crumbling
|            from within ... 

Opinion again, and hilarious. It is also blind to one of the long term 
goals of the very steady and methodical soviet space program.

|Reality #5  A joint mission ...would be only for political reasons ...

Another opinion.

|Reality #6  (There is no justification for a return to the moon.)

YAO (Yet Another Opinion)

|Reality #7  (We have been or are about to send people into space
              for no good reason?) 

I am not even sure that this one should be called an opinion. It does
state some facts but, what I think is its point is not supported
by the stated facts and is never stated explicitly. The whole
thing is set up kind of like asking a man if he has quit beating
his wife.

|Reality #8  For the next 20 years, the space efforts of all countries
|            will be local missions (satallites), orbital manned missions,
|            and unmanned interplanetary missions.

YAO

Now, I should state my position.
1) I support manned space flight.
2) I support unmanned space flight.
3) I support long range plans to create economically self supporting
     colonies off Earth and firmly believe that this can be done
     although not soon.
4) I oppose crash programs.
5) I oppose one shot, grandstand programs.
6) I oppose and resent anyone (even those I agree with) presenting their
     opinions as facts especially in the high handed fashion in which 
     Mr Sullivan's posting was written.

-- 
					Mark Dakins, Icon International
uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mcd@utah.cs.edu	774 South 400 East, Orem, UT.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 04:25:03 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re:  SPACE Digest V9 #75

In article <8811021432.AA08186@usafa.ARPA> bidlack@USAFA.ARPA (Harold Bidlack) writes:
>Americans
>like to see people in space suits with the American flag on the shoulder
>zipping around in space.  *Regardless* of the unquestioned scientific merit
>of unmanned space efforts, I think the reality of the situation is that
>unmanned exploration will be intrinsically tied to men and women being up 
>there. 
     
I agree that politics is very important.  But I don't think "manned"
spaceflight is intrinsically more motivating of funds than "unmanned".
The "unmanned" program simply has not been promoted properly.
(The "" are due to the many fine men and women working in the
"unmanned" program.  They are every bit as much heroes as the astronauts).


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                              *************************
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu          ***  Biosphere III    ***
*******************************         ***  best space bbs   ***
** vote with David Letterman **         *** in the Milky Way  ***
**      Ron Paul in '88      **         ***  (206) 523-7381   ***
*******************************         *************************

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 18:45:25 GMT
From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: Re: underground cities for human survival: lets think twice


Where is Dr. Strangelove when you need him?

Sounds like we're talking about a possible mine-shaft gap....

-- 
"I don't suppose you have any idea what the damn thing is, huh?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                      uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu        internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 18:07:29 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!teksce!teksce.SCE.TEK.COM!jerryw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jerry Willard)
Subject: Energiya Thrust Rating

Pardon me if this question has been asked before.

What is the thrust rating for the Energiya?  The news media keeps saying
it's the world's most powerful rocket.  Do they mean ever, or just lately?

The Saturn V was 7.5 million pounds of thrust.  The shuttle and some of our
military boosters like the Titan are also quite powerful.  How do they
compare?

Jerry Willard,  Tektronix
jerryw@teksce.SCE.TEK.COM.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 10:47:21 GMT
From: l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@k.cc.purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the Moon

In article <1988Nov2.091647.16792@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> Jorge Stolfi asked Henry Spencer for the cost of setting up a lunar
> oxygen factory.  I saw some (guestimated) numbers that looked like:
> 
> 	Cost to develop and install LOX factory:  $100 B

I cannot believe this figure.  I suspect that this assumes that the factory
is completely constructed on earth and ferried to the moon.  

The use of photothermal energy on the moon is not at all difficult.  If we
consider that it may very well be possible to use lunar materials locally
obtained, it may very well be that $100 M might be too high.  That the cost
of one LOX factory on the moon exceeds many years of the entire space program
seems outlandish.

I suspect that the major part of the cost of LOX from the moon will be that of
sustaining the people building and maintaining the plant, and not materials.

		[Rest of article deleted.]
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 14:18:11 GMT
From: fabscal!dorn@gatech.edu  (Alan Dorn Hetzel Jr.)
Subject: Re: Lasing the Sun

In article <8811011456.AA09542@kochab.cs.rochester.edu> dietz@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU writes:
>
>If you can lase the corona in the ultraviolet, perhaps you can ionize
>a long cylindrical volume of the interstellar medium.  That would be
>useful for the various interstellar ramjet-type concepts.  One might
>also use the beam for studying the Oort clound by laser radar.
>

Well, maybe you could, but tell me this; what is your range delay (round
trip pulse time) going to be???  Not something I would want to wait around
for..  Also, aiming (leading a moving target) could be REAL tricky...

Dorn

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 14:28:31 GMT
From: fabscal!dorn@gatech.edu  (Alan Dorn Hetzel Jr.)
Subject: Re: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic

In article <7367@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>A few things to keep in mind on the subject of mixed vs. single-sex
>crews for extended missions like a Mars visit:
>
>   ...
> * If you sent an all male crew as the Russians propose, there would be
>   certain obvious issues that would have to be addressed, which shall
>   remain nameless here in a family newsgroup.  ;-)  Have they got this
>   ...
> * The one particle of wisdom the Soviets cannot impart to us, but
>   which I believe fervently on sight, is that an all-WOMAN crew would
>   be the ideal solution.  I have a quarter that says respectable
>   psychologists back me up on the point too!!

Umm, well, I have an observation on that statement, and I'll go ahead and
make it, even though I have a suspicion that I'm gonna get flamed for it.

In general, psychologically, you are probably correct; a group of women
will most of the time be a pretty stable bunch.  

I spent about five or six years as the roadie (equipment and such handler)
for a band consisting of five girls.  I wasn't ever involved with any of
them.  One thing I did observe, though, is that being cramped together for
lots of time on the road, and being around each other all the time, they
tended to synchronize periods and then stay synchronized.  This may not be
a serious problem, I don't want to overestimate the problems this indicates,
but it did tend to produce some pretty tense days now and then.

Maybe there are drugs that could be used to skew the cycles for different
crew members so that you don't have that situation where the whole crew is
at something less than top efficiency, all at the same time.

Dorn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #106
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Nov 88 02:03:50 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01655>; Fri, 18 Nov 88 01:34:56 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 18 Nov 88 01:34:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XUvM8y00jZd82Jk8R>;
          Fri, 18 Nov 88 00:32:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.4XUvDZy00UkZ02L05o>;
          Fri, 18 Nov 88 00:23:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gXUvBAy00UkZ82Jk49@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 00:21:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #107

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Oct 10 AW&ST
	   Resource potential (was Re: Return to the Moon!)
			 Re: Demise of OTRAG
		   Relativity acceleration question
	   Resource potential (was Re: Return to the Moon!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 05:23:17 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST

Cover photo is Discovery landing.

Japan is facing a high probability that its current space budget, about
$1.12G/yr, is not enough for the space station and the H-2 launcher and
their other projects, once the big things move into peak funding periods.

NASA got 10 proposals to use expended shuttle tanks in orbit.  About half
of them are passing the first cut and proceeding to detailed review.

SDI's Relay Mirror and Laser Atmospheric Compensation Experiment payloads
are likely to go into storage rather than being launched, when they are
completed in spring.  There will be no launcher available, SDI expects a
budget that will limit its launches, and these two are low priority.

Earlier this year, DoD proposed firing the Miracl infrared laser at White
Sands at an orbiting US satellite [the now-useless Asat test target?] as
an experiment in antisatellite weaponry.  Senior USAF types vetoed the idea.

Landsat data acquisition will be curtailed starting Nov 1, to the extent of
shutting down the US ground stations (but not the foreign ones, which pay
a fee for use of the satellites) and reducing acquisition through TDRS a
lot.  Congress appropriated only $9M for Landsat operations for FY89; the
business-as-usual costs are about $26M/yr.

Major coverage of Discovery's flight.

NASA will study the "plume migration" that occurred on both SRBs on STS-26.
It is believed to be unrelated to the SRB design changes.

Discovery's Ku-band antenna, its link to the TDRS system, had a mechanical
or electrical failure in its pointing system the second day up.  Details
not known yet.

Discovery's flash evaporator, used for cooling the orbiter when the payload
bay doors are closed and their radiators thus are useless, failed during
orbital insertion.  The F.E. boils water for cooling, and ice formation is
suspected as the cause of the problem.  To help thaw the ice, the orbiter
was kept rather warm and the FE's heaters were left on.  Several hours
before reentry, several bursts of water were released into the FE to blow
remaining ice out; this worked.  The FE also had an oscillation problem
of some sort during retrofire; it was reset and that cleared the problem.

TDRS-C, deployed by Discovery, is undergoing checkout in Clarke orbit after
some trouble in getting one of its big antenna booms deployed.  The boom
started to deploy on command, but then stopped.  After 30 minutes in which
nothing happened, a meeting was called to assess the problem; during the
meeting, the boom freed itself and deployed, perhaps because of some minor
thruster firings around that time.  Later there was a minor delay,
unrelated, when thrusters failed to fire after a change of control station
at White Sands; this turned out to be due to a procedural error on the
ground.

NASA hopes to launch Atlantis and its secret DoD payload [which I'd guessed
to be an early-warning satellite, but which I've seen variously reported as
an NSA snoopsat or a low-orbit spysat; the former is plausible but the
latter is wrong, this one's using an IUS to reach Clarke orbit] by
Nov 24; the official target is Nov 17 but this is considered optimistic.
There was little damage to ground facilities from the Discovery launch,
so the pacing items are orbiter readiness and Discovery post-flight
analysis.  The minor hardware problems experienced on Discovery will need
looking at, and things are being delayed because workers without security
clearances have limited access to the orbiter.

Discovery is being prepared for ferrying back to KSC.  The tires and new
brakes behaved fine and showed only normal wear, despite a shorter landing
roll than expected.  There was minor tile damage, as usual.  There was
one nasty gouge, 19x8x1.5 inches, under the right wing, possibly due to
a piece of cork insulation coming off the nose of an SRB during launch.
Temperature measurements in this area during reentry showed nothing worse
than 114F, no problem.

First photo of the Soviet shuttle on the pad.  (This is reproduced much
better than the one in the NY Times, by the way.)  It is slightly shorter
than the US shuttle, has a two-part rudder, and has its OMS engines buried
in its tail (since its main engines are on Energia and hence the tail is
free for the OMS).  Otherwise the orbiter is superficially similar to the
US one.

The new US orbiter is slightly ahead of schedule, which calls for delivery
in April 1991 and first flight in Feb 1992.  It is being built to about
the same standard as Atlantis, but with a couple of improvements which are
scheduled to be retrofitted to the other orbiters as well.  It will have
a drag chute, to be deployed on touchdown, which will shorten landing
run and make life easier for the shuttle's somewhat-marginal brakes,
landing gear, and tires.  The other improvement is a new toilet,
although design work on that is on hold until NASA sorts out what will
be used on the space station -- there are hopes of using the same system
for both.  [Why not use the Skylab toilet?  Unlike the Shuttle one, it
worked.]

DoD establishes tri-service Space Test Range organization to coordinate
future military space tests.  A primary objective is better management
of space debris.  This will essentially provide a permanent version of
the ad-hoc systems set up for each military test in the past.

Anticlimax:  Cosmos 1900's emergency on-board systems were triggered
Oct 1, perhaps by the beginning of noticeable air-drag heating, and
boosted its reactor safely into high orbit.

ESA approves $6.8M to reactivate Giotto early in 1990 so it can be checked
out for possible use in another comet flyby.

Major article on Japan's spaceplane plans.  There are three major efforts
underway:  the Hope small unmanned spaceplane for launch on the H-2 as
early as 1996, a longer-term (2006?) manned vehicle possibly similar to
the US aerospace plane, and a general effort on advanced propulsion
methods.  This doesn't all necessarily have funding approval yet.

Major article on NOAA-11, the polar-orbit metsat launched Sept 24.  It
will replace NOAA-9, which is aging and of limited use.  NOAA-11 payloads
include an ozone instrument, new to the NOAA series, and a Cospas/Sarsat
payload to replace the one on NOAA-9.  There is one earlier NOAA satellite
in mothballs, which will be refurbished for launch next.  It was ready for
launch before it was needed, and its successor was the first NOAA with
Sarsat, so it was bypassed to get Sarsat hardware up quickly.  Money has
been tight for NOAA of late, and refurbishing it will be cheaper than
building a new satellite.  The refurbishing process may add a Sarsat
package; there are no plans for adding an ozone instrument, but it would
not function properly in the intended orbit anyway, so if Sarsat can be
added, this would be a fully-functional satellite.

Cospas/Sarsat, since its inception with the first Cospas payload on a
Soviet satellite in 1982, has saved 1149 lives, mostly at sea and from
aircraft accidents.  With four satellites active, distress signals are
detected within an average of two hours most anywhere in the northern
hemisphere.  Southern-hemisphere coverage is sparse because the current
hardware requires the satellite to be within range of the emergency
transmitter and a Cospas/Sarsat ground station simultaneously, and there
are few ground stations in the south.  A new 406-MHz system, slowly coming
into service, is specifically designed for the satellite system:  it has
better range and frequency stability, carries encoded identification
(and, if known, exact position), should be accurate to within 2-5 km
(against the existing system's 20 km), and most important, is processed
on board the satellite and recorded for retransmission when within
range of a ground station.  This will give global coverage.  Canada
provides the transponders and France the receiver/processor units for
US satellites; the Soviet hardware is all their own.  A new Cospas/Sarsat
agreement was signed July 1 to continue the system for 15 years with
automatic 5-year renewals thereafter.

Japan loses one:  a small hypersonic flight-test model of one of Japan's
spaceplane concepts was lost at sea after an equipment failure aborted
a test launch from a balloon.

NASA accelerates studies on a shuttle replacement, hoping for a new-start
budget item by the mid-90s.  There are two efforts underway, one for
evolutionary change and one for a fresh start.  The evolutionary approach
is looking favored, as it exploits existing experience.  The revolutionary
approach could use a lot of the ALS technology effort, but that is starting
to lag because DoD isn't keen on funding it soon.  Hopes are for formal
development of one approach to start in 1995, to fly around 2005.  The
evolutionary studies, aimed at building new hardware based on existing
designs with major modifications, will look at better SRBs, a crew-escape
module, better main engines, liquid boosters, and flyback boosters that
would replace the external tank as well.  [In other words, they're trying
to build the shuttle we should have had in the first place.]  The fresh-
start folks are looking at a fully-reusable design with a flyback booster,
an orbiter carrying fuel, and a payload housing on top of the orbiter to
"simplify interfaces"; a partially-reusable design with a flyback booster
carrying an expendable stage with an orbiter on top; an expendable approach
with orbiter atop large expendable booster [alas for the Saturn V, just
what the doctor ordered]; and air-breathing rocket systems derived from
the Aerospace Plane.

Letter from Karl Sanders, observing that Pegasus resembles a concept
briefly studied by Temco (now the T in LTV) 30 years ago; they found
the same general advantages.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 07:11:17 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Resource potential (was Re: Return to the Moon!)

In article <5038@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@tlab1.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>    [NS] _The New Solar System_, Beatty, O'Leary, & Chaikin, 1982.
>        Chapter "The Moon" by B. French.
>    [SJ] _Satellites of Jupiter_, U. of Arizona Space Science Series, 1982.
>        Chapter "Geology of Io" by G. Schaber.
>    [RR] Space Studies Institute _Update_, July/August 1986.
>        Article "Composites: Fibers & Matrices from Lunar Regolith"
>           by C. Coggin, Jr.

To which I would add:
     [PL] _Planetary Landscapes_ Greeley, 1987.  Has geologic info
     on all the planets out to Uranus, plus the moons we've started
     to explore.
>
>   "The chemical composition of lunar material also varies from place
>    to place, through a sorting out of compunds called
>    differentiation, that occurred within the early, partially molten
>    Moon...[]" 
>    [NS] pg 74
>    It's clear that the Moon is by no means "undifferentiated".  If
>Szabo means that we won't find ores on Luna, he may be correct.  

You are correct, "undifferentiated" is an overstatement.  Differentiation 
is relative, and the Moon is  less differentiated than most other
planetary bodies.  There is indeed little chance of ores on the
Moon, and ores, especially platinum-group, are some of the main high-value
low-mass resources there is market for.

>    We have vulcanism on earth; the Moon almost certainly used to have
>it. Ditto Mars, Venus, probably others. Other than that, I doubt
>anyone can say what processes are taking place on Io. 

How about low-gravity, sulfur-rich vulcanism, spewing into near-vacuum,
going on *today*, and thus continually reversing the mixing effects
of meteors.  Large sulphur rivers and lakes?  SO2 frosts?  The corresponding
erosion and deposition?  These are quite unique.  See [PL] pp. 189-197.

>In terms of surface composition, Io appears less
>promising than Luna:
>
>   "Io's surface displays a wide variety of colors resulting from the
>    spectral reflectance of various allotropes of sulfur, as well as
>    volcanic vent craters, fissures, and other morphologic forms
>    attribute to volcanic processes....
>
>   "We know from bulk density (3.53 g/cm^3) that Io is probably
>    dominantly composed of ferromagnesian silicates and that it has a
>    substantial iron or iron sulfide core...  The photogeologic
>    evidence for at least a mixture of silicates and sulfur compounds
>    to km-scale depths is strongest for the mountain unit..." [SJ] pp
>    590-591.

That's quite the opposite of 'less promising'.  Platinum-group elements 
on the Moon are trapped at the core.  Io is constantly disgorging its 
innards onto its surface.
(NB:  at one-half mile resolution, nobody 
is going to spot local concentrations of heavy elements.  Even true with
the much higher resolution maps we have of the Moon.   We must  
determine the probabilities for ores based on the processes
we do see and what we can infer from them.)

>    I'm all in favor of exploration. Split JPL off from NASA and give
>it $10G of its own, IMHO. 

My sentiments exactly!  Write your Congressman!

>On the other hand, Columbus wouldn't have
>sailed the ocean blue without 'speculative processes' (sailing
>*around* the world?)

Learned men in Columbus' time did in fact know the Earth was round.
This had been known since the Greeks, but it wasn't an important fact 
until worldwide navigation.  The question concerned how far it was the
other way to India.  Turned out Columbus was wrong.  Luckily, there
just happened to be an undiscovered continent in his way, otherwise he
would have croaked.

>and failed utterly to establish the spice trade
>(a 'proven market' but no product for it). 

Instead he established a thriving gold trade: another high-value, low-mass
product.

Those are good sources.   I'm glad you did that research.  
Planetary science has long been viewed as a pure science, whose goal
is to discover the origin of the solar system.  That's fine, and important.
But it is also good to start thinking about how to make use of all this
wide diversity.  From solar-flare lasers to finding ores.  What a great
forum we have here for doing that!

~
~
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                              *************************
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu          ***  Biosphere III    ***
*******************************         ***  best space bbs   ***
** vote with David Letterman **         *** in the Milky Way  ***
**      Ron Paul in '88      **         ***  (206) 523-7381   ***
*******************************         *************************

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 18:30:27 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Demise of OTRAG

In article <1148@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:
>[OTRAG] Havent heard anything about them
>since then - has anyone else?

They finally folded.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 08:29:34 GMT
From: tank!nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!viper!dave@speedy.cs.wisc.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Relativity acceleration question

I have a few (probably simple) questions that I have been
unable to answer from the Relativity texts that I have read.
If someone could answer them (by Email if there isn't a
general (relativity :-) interest) I would appreciate it.

In all these, assume an observer (Obs1) who is under a
constant acceleration (A) from his point of view, and another
observer (Obs2) who is at rest.

1) What is the equation for the distance Obs1 travels as,
   a function of time, as observed by Obs2?
2) What is the equation for velocity, as a function of time,
   as observed by Obs2?
3) How much time does Obs1 experience as a function of the
   time that Obs2 experiences?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 00:31:55 GMT
From: thorin!alanine.cs.unc.edu!leech@mcnc.org
Subject: Resource potential (was Re: Return to the Moon!)


    Continuing this Io/Moon thread a bit, I don't think either of them
is really suitable for heavy metals. They're both low density bodies.
A few weeks ago I mentioned Steve Ostro's research in radar
observation of asteroids; here's a relevant excerpt from one of his
papers (this is a great survey paper of his work, btw):

   "Consider the case of asteroid 16 Psyche, whose radar albedo
    is the highest estimated for a main-belt asteroid... The case
    is not closed, but the radar results favor the hypothesis
    that Psyche is a nearly entirely metallic asteroid, presumably
    the collisionally stripped core of a differentiated object"
    (Steven J. Ostro, _Radar Observations of Asteroids & Comets_,
	presented at the 1985 meeting of the Astronomical Society of
	the Pacific. No journal reference, sorry... )

    As another data point, about 5% of the meteorites collected are
predominantly iron. We would expect these bodies to be overrepresented
relative to their abundance in space, since lighter materials such as
silicates and carbonaceous chondrites are less likely to survive entry
into the atmosphere, but there are clearly a fair number of largely
metallic asteroids out there.

    And how do we make use of them (segue to humor mode)? I recommend
the chapter "Exploration and 1994 Exploitation of Geographos" (au.
Samuel Herrick) in the U. of Az. Press book _Asteroids_.  Quoting the
first section:

   "A mid-day brilliance streaking the midnight skies of Quito,
   Bogota, Medellin; a massive tremor of ground and air radiating from
   the jungle wasteland of northwestern Columbia; for the first time
   the conscious efforts of man will have tapped the potential energy
   of the planetary system and augmented the Earth's waning and
   decreasingly accessible resources of basic materials.  The year:
   1994; the day, August 25. The products: the excavation of a new
   canal from sea to sea; and the stowage of a treasure - a measured
   part of the minor planet Geographos - estimated to be worth some
   900 billion dollars in nickel and the heavier elements that are
   mostly locked in the earth's core: rhenium, osmium, iridium,
   platinum, gold, etc. The problems: enormous...  challenging...
   constructive."

   Perhaps if the proposal had been to make the canal through
Nicaragua, it would have been favorably received by the Reagan
Administration :-)
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "I met a wonderful new man. He's fictional, but you can't have everything."
	- Cecelia, _The Purple Rose of Cairo_

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #107
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Nov 88 05:30:51 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00683>; Fri, 18 Nov 88 04:41:28 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 18 Nov 88 04:41:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXUxwfy00Ui308hEVy>;
          Fri, 18 Nov 88 03:28:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.MXUxp:y00UkZA2e040>;
          Fri, 18 Nov 88 03:20:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXUxnay00UkZE2ck5C@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 03:18:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #108

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 108

Today's Topics:
		 Re: where should all the people go?
	       Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
			   Resources of Io
		     Re: [] (was: Moon vs. Mars)
	 Re:  manned vs. unmanned (was: SPACE Digest V9 #75)
	      Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
			   Re: Pluto's day
			    Moon vs. Mars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 4 Nov 88 15:50 CDT
From: <SISKMP%VUCTRVAX.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Re: where should all the people go?

Folks, I normally don't post to this sig, but here it goes anyway:

smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca (Shannon Mann) writes:

>In article <593192756.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>>I will certainly claim nolo contendere. With the fragility of the
>>earthly system, the number of maniacs increasing as the population
>>increases, the increasing interdependencies of systems, and the increasing
>>simplicity of mass destruction, I certainly want to be elsewhere.

>If all you want is to be elsewhere, then I suggest the traditional
>outlet for those who cannot stand life as it is, suicide.
>(Kinda cruel.  Apologies.)

This is followed later in the posting with:

>Intelligence is regarded as our greatist gift.  But, if all it gives
>humanity is a better, more efficient manner in which to destroy our
>planet, then let me back to our womb, the trees that sponned (sp?) our
>species.  I may become a lessor being, but, I would prefer that
>over our present madness.

This is worse than your rejection of Dale's desire to be "elsewhere."  I
don't know about you, but I'd rather explore the possibilities of being
"elsewhere" (read: space) than commit suicide or devolve into a monkey.

While I'm at it:

>>It is NOT a sane act to stand in front of a loaded gun if you can even
>>CONCEIVABLY go elsewhere.

>As another poster has pointed out, leaving earth is not an alternative,
>nor will it be for some centuries to come.

Please, pay attention to the argument.  Note:  *CONCEIVABLY*.  If not for
us, then certainly for future generations.  It *is* conceivable in the long
run; you cannot dismiss the possiblility with the wave of a hand.

Anyone:

I've noticed a couple of people talking about the human species needing
a frontier to explore, and that there are no more here on earth.  I
*do* support space exploration, but are we forgetting the deep oceans?
The deep is certainly not a closed frontier yet.

I realize that the oceans are not a matter for lengthy discussion in
sci.space, but let's not limit our horizons to space alone when speaking
of remaining "frontiers."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Sisk  (siskmp@vuctrvax.bitnet)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 21:31:17 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!bionet!apple!amdahl!pyramid!nsc!datack!altnet!altos86!nate@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Nathaniel Ingersoll)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle lunch time announced

In article <7366@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
:Just a stray thought:  How would you like to be the Soviet pilot
:who let the Bison[Bear?] carrier aircraft slide off the runway
:and get stuck so that the Americans were bound to spot it on the
:next Keyhole pass...!

Let?  Have you ever driven on sheet ice?  Let alone land a
huge airplane (planes land at what, 120 knots or so?),
with very unusual cargo.  The picture that I saw (about two years
ago, I think) showed snow and ice off of the runway, and probably
at least slush on the runway if not ice.
-- 
Nathaniel Ingersoll
Altos Computer Systems, SJ CA
	...!ucbvax!sun!altos86!nate
	altos86!nate@sun.com

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 88 13:44:36 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

(NB: quotations have been severely trimmed)

In article <973@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
>Let me get this straight.  You propose that a good way to ensure racial
>survival is to build an underground city...
>If this turkey were ever built, it wouldn't last a year.

No, I don't propose it.  I merely point out that it's a cost effective 
alternative.  As for its problems: if a colony in space is possible,
then, surely, a colony on sol's third planet must be too.

>> b) I believe the alternative I proposed is less expensive.
>
>We could argue that until the cows come home.

Probably, but consider this.  There are already large, self-contained,
comunities on this planet which are, for the most part, quite immune to
global catastrophe.  I'm referring to the fleet of strategic submarines.
Eliminate their weapons, populate them with mixed-gender crew, sperm and
ova banks, rotate the missions to reduce bordom, and voila!  Cheap, secure, 
effective and available now.

>>  The species survival argument is, in my
>>  opinion, far too speculative and of secondary importance.
>
>Then why didn't you start out by arguing that you didn't think species
>survival was a problem worth the effort of building a space colony?
>By suggesting an alternative method of solving the problem, you imply
>that the problem needs to be solved.

I posted what I did so that, hopefully, the pro-space-colony/
pro-manned-program people would realize that the species survival argument 
is a weak one and would stop using it.  I never intended to imply that
the problem needed solving and I'm sorry if you inferred that.
If you consider that USENET postings have no non-verbal content and are,
consequently, a rather poor communications medium, then it's probably
wise not to read too much into an article but instead take it at face
value.

>I believe that space development requires manned space operations.

I don't.  I've seen very little come out of the manned space program and
a lot come out of the unmanned.  I believe it would be more effective in
the long run to raise the priority of the unmanned program above the
manned.

I would hope that those of you who attempt to justify the manned space
program on the basis of space colonies and species survival would realize 
that the argument is a weak one and would drop it.  Surely there are
better ones.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 17:36:54 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Resources of Io

Aside from being a possible source of minerals, Io might (at some
distant time) be a good source of energy.  It is moving rapidly
through Jupiter's intense magnetic field.  Lay cables across the moon,
install plasma contactors, and generate electricity.  There's an
enormous amount of gravitational potential energy to be tapped as the
moon slowly spirals inwards.  Io might be the best place in the solar
system to put an antimatter factory.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 06:53:22 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Re: [] (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <178@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>I heartily endorse alternative developments for, among other things, reducing
>launch costs to a reasonable level.  When that first, major hurdle is cleared,
>some of the pie-in-the-sky solutions to other problems become much more 
>attractive.  I can see that it's time to prepare for the onslaught of flames.
>
>N. Kluksdahl           Arizona State U.
>            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

In my opinion this is the best current direction for NASA's manned program.
The most fundamental and important area for space research has to be launch
costs. I believe that was the original purpose of the space shuttle, so the
primary importance of launch costs has been recognized before. The shuttle
has not achieved this objective. Therefore it seems to me that NASA's primary
research objective should be the reduction of per pound launch costs, before
we move on to the moon, Mars, NEAs, or even a space station. Does anybody
else agree with this?


John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   [...imagine a time when evil Man is infecting the solar system...]
"DEATH TO THE BARBARIC, SATANIC, GENETICALLY INFERIOR MARTIAN BACTERIA"!!!!!!
  -- Redneck frontiersman, 2050.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 20:53:33 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re:  manned vs. unmanned (was: SPACE Digest V9 #75)

In article <8811021432.AA08186@usafa.ARPA> bidlack@USAFA.ARPA (Harold
Bidlack) argues that the main point to the manned vs. unmanned debate
is the ability of congress to sell the program at home and that, 
consequently, manned is better.

I disagree.

I would agree *if* an interested (i.e. non-apathetic) and informed
populace existed *and* that populace could be shown to be actually in
charge (e.g. by its routinely replacing members of congress).  I don't
believe either is true.  The re-election rate in congress is over 95%
and 1/4 of the populace is functionally illiterate.  Members of the
government needn't consider whether or not a program will play in
Omaha; they don't have to.  All they need are the appropriate media
handlers and domestic propagandists to pursuade the voters to a
particular choice.  I see this done every day.

I strongly recommend seeing Noam Chomsky with Bill Moyers tonight on PBS.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 20:06:47 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@rutgers.edu  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: species survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)


In article <181@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) writes:
> (NB: quotations have been severely trimmed)
>
> In article <973@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
> >Let me get this straight.  You propose that a good way to ensure racial
> >survival is to build an underground city...
> >If this turkey were ever built, it wouldn't last a year.
>
> No, I don't propose it.  I merely point out that it's a cost effective
> alternative.  As for its problems: if a colony in space is possible,
> then, surely, a colony on sol's third planet must be too.

Aren't you dodging my objection here?  I didn't say the thing couldn't
be built; no doubt it could.  My claim was that it would very quickly
fail if populated with *prisoners*, and I didn't think there was any
other practical way to populate it.  I believe any sort of self-contained
environment will require ongoing active cooperation by its inhabitants
to keep it functioning.  Furthermore, cooperation alone is unlikely to
be sufficient; a great deal of education and training will also be
needed.

> >> b) I believe the alternative I proposed is less expensive.
> >
> >We could argue that until the cows come home.
>
> Probably, but consider this.  There are already large, self-contained,
> comunities on this planet which are, for the most part, quite immune to
> global catastrophe.  I'm referring to the fleet of strategic submarines.
> Eliminate their weapons, populate them with mixed-gender crew, sperm and
> ova banks, rotate the missions to reduce bordom, and voila!  Cheap, secure,
> effective and available now.

I was not aware that strategic submarines were cheap.  Don't prices
start around $1G apiece, and go up from there (depending on dealer
options :-) ?  And that's for a very small crew.  Also, they require
large support bases, which could easily be destroyed by our
hypothetical disaster.  The hapless crew would then be forced to
abandon ship within just a few months, and take their chances in
whatever the outside environment then was.

> >I believe that space development requires manned space operations.
>
> I don't.  I've seen very little come out of the manned space program and
> a lot come out of the unmanned.

Quite irrelevant.  The manned program to date has never been directed
at space development.  Furthermore, the production of the unmanned
program has been only information.  Now, information is a great thing,
research is wonderful, blah blah blah.  We certainly need to continue
learning all we can about the solar system.  But space development means
getting out there and actually interacting with the environment, not
just looking at it.  We don't now have, even on Earth, robots capable
of moving around in a non-laboratory environment and accomplishing any
significant tasks.  Teleoperated machines are more promising, but they
also need a lot more work before they can be considered at all
general-purpose.

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 19:06:41 GMT
From: muddcs!mwilkins@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Wilkins)
Subject: Re: Pluto's day

In article <13410@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:


>My question is, how are the effects of Pluto's rotation on the light
>curve distinguished from those of Charon's?  Are there dynamical
>reasons to believe that both Pluto and Charon have the same rotation
>period?  

   From "Exploration of the Universe," an introductory astronomy textbook by
George O. Abell:

      "     Although Pluto is thought to have highly reflective methane
       ice on its surface, the ice cannot comprise a uniform covering,
       because Pluto varies in brightness with a period of 6.39 days.
       This variation was first measured by R.H. Hardie and M. Walker
       and is interpreted to be caused by a rotation of the planet dis-
       playing alternately light and dark sides to our view.  But this
       period of rotation is exactly the orbital revolution period of
       Charon [determined by observing variations in the elongation of
       Pluto's image];  Charon is too small to reflect enough light to
       us to cause the variations itself, so we must conclude that Pluto
       rotates with the same period that it mutually revolves about its
       satellite..."

   Charon's size, by the way, was measured in 1980.  Charon occulted a star
for 50 seconds, giving by some byzantine but reliable calculation a lower
limit of 1200 km for Charon's diameter.  From photographic plates, it can be
shown that Charon's brightness relative to Pluto is such that Charon doesn't
have a diameter much larger than 1/2 that of Pluto, or about 1500-1700 km.

                            -- Mark Wilkins

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Nov 88 12:56 EDT
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Moon vs. Mars

    >Lunar
    >oxygen would require treatment of ilmenite with hydrogen at 1000
    C to
    >get water for electrolysis...
    
    Sounds easy to me.  Solar powered blast furnaces have been built
    on earth, despite the atmosphere.  Several factors make it easier
    on the moon.  No atmosphere means there is more power in sunlight.
    It also serves as a near perfect insulator, so heat won't dissipate
    quickly (except as radiation).  Finally, it means there is no wind,
    so that ultralight mylar film mirrors can be used.  On earth they
    would be too flimsy and would blow away.
    
    Hydrogen would still have to be transported from earth, but it is
    literally the lightest element there is.
    
    What else is available on the moon?  Could moon dust be made into
    concrete?  How about metals?  An interesting problem is to estimate
    the percentage, by mass, of materials needed to construct and expand
    a permanent manned base.  Comparing this estimate for the Moon,
    Mars, LOW and other possibilities would be quite informative I believe.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #108
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Nov 88 07:36:09 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01257>; Fri, 18 Nov 88 06:32:10 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 18 Nov 88 06:31:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YXUzi9y00Ui3QC4049>;
          Fri, 18 Nov 88 05:29:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.gXUzZVy00UkZ82ok5a>;
          Fri, 18 Nov 88 05:20:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXUzXay00UkZI2nU4=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 05:18:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #109

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:
    Re: NASA seeks proposals for telerobotic servicer (Forwarded)
		       Re: Oxygen from the Moon
			 Teleoperated robots
		       Re: Oxygen from the Moon
		       Re: Teleoperated Robots
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
		Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory
			Re: Nuclear Flare Gun
	       Hydrogen and ICE (was Re: Moon vs. Mars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 22:14:12 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA seeks proposals for telerobotic servicer (Forwarded)

In article <369@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>> ... contract for the design, development, testing and fabrication 
>> of Space Station Freedom's flight telerobotic servicer (FTS).
>
>Well, well. I do recall hearing Henry Spencer taking me to task
>for suggesting something like this...
>
>> Because there is no such thing available today and no prospect of
>> having one soon.

Yup.  My comment still stands.  The FTS is a very simple widget that
could, at about the limits of its capabilities, unplug a box and plug
in another one.  This is nothing like what you were proposing.

Also, note that there is no guarantee that the thing will work or be
useful.

>> People have looked at what percentage of the work planned for the space
>> station could be done by automation or teleoperation technology that is
>> likely to be available soon.  It's not high.
>
>Perhaps they're taking another look?

My comment stands.  The FTS is meant to reduce (not eliminate) human EVAs,
and in the long run as a front end for the OMV.  Note that they're not
even talking about putting something like this *inside*, where most of
the crew man-hours will go.

>I thought NASA's job was not to
>sit passively and wait for technology to ``become available,'' but to
>actively create it...

That's the theory.  The practice is often different.  NASA has been doing
lamentably little of this in recent years.  (Well, I should qualify that:
some branches, like the aeronautics people, haven't forgotten their
purpose in life.  I wish I could say the same for the space side of NASA.)
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 12:51:34 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the Moon

Paul Dietz quotes some estimates about the economics of a lunar oxygen
factory:

>       Cost to develop and install LOX factory:  $100 Billion
>       Cost to make and return LOX to LEO:      $2500/lb
>       Breakeven point (with interest expense,
>               assuming $4000/lb earth-to LEO launch costs):
>                                              250,000 tons of LOX

Thanks.  $100 Billion sounds plausible to me (but several hundred billion
still does not sound excessive.)  

Note that 250,000 tons of LOX is more than 30 tons per day for 20
years. A LOX factory would hardly be a garage-style operation.  

Herman Rubin replies

>   I cannot believe this figure.  I suspect that this assumes that
>   the factory is completely constructed on earth and ferried to
>   the moon.  

Not completely, but in large part.  Shipping a factory that can build an
oxygen factory doesn't seem that much cheaper than shipping just the
latter.  
   
>   The use of photothermal energy on the moon is not at all
>   difficult. 

What do you mean, and how do you know?

>   If we consider that it may very well be possible to use lunar
>   materials locally obtained, it may very well be that $100 M
>   might be too high.  That the cost of one LOX factory on the
>   moon exceeds many years of the entire space program seems
>   outlandish.  

I believe $100 million is a typical price for an not-so-fancy comsat,
*exclusive* of launching costs.  (Comsats are build and bought by
private companies, so this figure is not easily explainable in terms of
government waste.) 

Even if you can use local materials for simple things, you will need
lots of equipment that is too complex to manufacture on the spot. 

The proposed US space station will cost some $30 billion; a LOX factory
would hardly be much smaller or simpler, and it is *a lot* more
expensive to get to the Moon than to LEO. 

In today's dollars, Apollo's price tag was over $70 billion; setting up
a LOX factory and servicing it would hardly require fewer trips or less
development effort.  

* * *

I asked how much it would cost to launch all the missions that
are supposed to use the oxygen produced by the factory. Henry Spencer 
replied:

>   Clearly, one builds a lunar oxygen facility only if one expects
>   to launch those missions anyway, so those costs don't count
>   against the idea.  Equally clearly, as long as the US idea of
>   deep-space activity is boosting a ton or two into Clarke orbit,
>   lunar oxygen does not make sense.  

That is exactly the point: a lunar factory only makes sense if there is
going to be a huge amount of stuff to be lifted up from LEO, which
implies a much bigger space budget (govt or private) than the one we
have now.  But if there were any real chance of we ever having such a
big space budget, then we would have little to flame about: we could
then have everything, my plutographs and Henry's moonscraper and Paul's
asterobbers and Dale's elsewherers and Sagan's marstronauts and
Giacconi's hubblescopes and Carlucci's snoopsats, and everyone would
live happily ever after.  

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi

    Now that the astronomical, mechanical, and geographical problems had
    been solved, there loomed the question of money. This project would
    cost an enormous sum. No private individual, and no national treasury,
    could afford to finance this experiment.
        --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)

laimer: our disc had a head crash and is being replaced.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 88 21:36:08 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jsalter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Notes from the Underground)
Subject: Teleoperated robots

In <8811031502.AA01187@crash.cs.umass.edu> csustan!lll-winken!uunet!husc6!ukma!rutgers!att!ucbvax!cs.umass.edu!ELIOT states:
>
>No one is likely to do any serious basic research on teleoperated robots.  
>The prospects for more or less fully *autonomous* robots are rather good on
>the 5 - 15 year time frame.  I expect that a certain number of impressive
>teleoperated robots will be developed as spin offs of the push for
>autonomous robots, but they will almost instantly become obsolete for most
>purposes.

This sounds like a bunch of bull.  Think of who's going to BUY these
robots.  Teleoperated robots are much less of a risk than any form of
autonomous robot; now or in the 5-15 year time span you give.  The reasons
are fairly simple.

1)  The people who are going to buy these things are very concerned with
keeping control.  They do not want a runaway robot on their hands.  And to
think that this "could never happen" is incorrect.  They have many people
working for them to think over the implications of things that could NEVER
HAPPEN.

2)  Teleoperated robots are human controlled.  Even now people are much
more likely to trust a person (with all his/her emotional/physiological/
psychological faults) than a machine.

3)  For the same reason that the shuttle's computers are using rather
"old" technology, the basis for teleoperated robots is already here; in
car manufacturing, in steel companies, in most any large scale process.

4)  Autonomous robots, though they may cause the obsolesence of
teleoperated robots, are going to need a much greater independence in
terms of visual recognition which is linked to pattern recognition which
is linked to Artificial Intelligence which, from what I've heard, is
still very, VERY much experimental.  At least for the AI that will be
required of fully autonomous robots.

>As for the psychological acceptance of such things, there are
>existing analogies.  Every industrial crane is a (mechanically
>linked) "teleo"operated robot.

Yes, and they are well controlled.  Someone watches them all the time.

I'd love to see autonomous robots become truly autonomous, but to say
that NO ONE is going to serious research on them seems to me to false.
There'll always be a need for teleoperated robots.

-- 
James A. Salter (jim/jsalter) -- Yes, math majors use UNIX(tm), too!
                                 | If everyone believed in conservation of
jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU      | baryon number, there wouldn't be all those
...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jsalter | experiments looking for proton decay.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 16:31:37 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@rutgers.edu  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the Moon

Paul Dietz quotes some estimates about the economics of a lunar oxygen
factory:

>       Cost to develop and install LOX factory:  $100 Billion
>       Cost to make and return LOX to LEO:      $2500/lb
>       Breakeven point (with interest expense,
>               assuming $4000/lb earth-to LEO launch costs):
>                                              250,000 tons of LOX

How big of a factory? If we build a smaller one, how much does the cost
per pound rise? It would likely be more efficient to choose a factory
size based on the expected demand... that would increase the TIME
needed to break even, but would make the cost seem more plausible.

-- greg

----------
Greg Lindahl                                     internet:  gl8f@virginia.edu
University of Virginia Department of Astronomy     bitnet:  gl8f@virginia.bitnet
     "Doesn't Quayle know that the FBI handles domestic assassinations?"

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 03:25:51 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots

In article <8811031502.AA01187@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>No one is likely to do any serious basic research on teleoperated robots.  
>The prospects for more or less fully *autonomous* robots are rather good on
>the 5 - 15 year time frame...

Can you cite a few references for this?  The AI community regularly
produces such claims, and seldom if ever comes through on them.  Having
seen this particular claim repeatedly for quite a while, I'm skeptical.

>... Every industrial crane is a (mechanically
>linked) "teleo"operated robot.

The problem with teleoperation is the mechanics, not the communications.
Nobody disputes that you can build a teleoperated bulldozer or crane.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 00:49:37 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

In article <23719e7b@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>}     I would suggest that the greatest source by far of space debris is
>}  testing of SDI technology.  The recent test of an umbrella intercepting 
>}  a dummy warhead and the resulting destruction created an enormous amount 
>}  of debris...
>
>I rather doubt that the umbrella interceptor added ANY debris to LEO, since
>both dummy warhead and interceptor were on suborbital paths...

He's probably thinking of the Delta experiment which finished with a
collision between the two spacecraft.  However, he's missed one important
point:  that was deliberately done in a very low orbit, so that the debris
would decay rapidly.  Most of it is already gone.  Some of the Soviet Asat
tests were in higher orbits, unfortunately.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 20:53:43 GMT
From: okstate!romed!cseg!hcx!rsh@rutgers.edu  (R. S. Hallquist)
Subject: Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory



Hey, Shannon,
whose to say that just because you can make you own star nova, that you
can destroy beserkers?
    * Stars stay pretty much in one place, compared to beserkers.
      That makes 'em ez to hit.
    * Stars do not employ stealth technology.
    * Beserkers are not limited to the technological level represented
      by today's sci-fi authors or this forum.  Everyone know what
      beserkers do.  Since no one has really seen one (if u have, post
      it here! There's really nothing else to do about it...) who knows
      how advanced they are.  Which means that you just might have the
      ability to destroy your own sun, and not save yourself from the
      beserkers.

...Roy

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 09:40:57 GMT
From: osu-cis!killer!csccat!loci!clb@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Flare Gun

In article <812@nih-csl.UUCP>, jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:
> In article <8811032235.AA15406@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.TI.COM (If you don't vote, you can't bitch) writes:
+ >  Of course, I can think of
+ >a few things I'd rather spend money on before this Nuclear Flare Gun, but
+ >it does sound interesting.
+ >
> A test detonation of a nuclear warhead was done back in the 50's or early
> 60's in space, over Hawaii. 

	I think we need to talk far side of the moon at least or we may
	damage the telescopes trying to see the echos.  But besides that,
	I like the idea of a big, wide-spectrum flash-bulb.

> If any intelligent life saw it, I would assume
> that they put up a sign at the edge of our solar system warning themselves
> to stay out of such a dangerous place.  Don't expect ANY life form to
> conclude that a nuclear detonation around a planet to be a sign
> of *intellegence*. ;^)

	Put yourself in their place.  What would we do?  I bet we'd
	rush out their fast as we could go to find out what was going on.
	It might mean we weren't alone in this part of the galaxy and
	that would be big news,  wouldn't it.  Of course a momentary blink
	from a boring G2 V star probably would go unnoticed.  Oh, well.


-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 03:52:26 GMT
From: fin!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Hydrogen and ICE (was Re: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <8811061758.AA03694@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>    Hydrogen would still have to be transported from earth, but it is
>    literally the lightest element there is.
  Hydrogen is bulky, and this is just as important as the mass.  Most of
the volume of the Shuttle's external tank is used for hydrogen, even  
though it masses much less than the oxygen.  This volume in turn requires
more tankage, more surface area to push through the atmosphere, etc.
Exporting hydrogen  to the Moon from the Earth will be difficult.
  Now if we could find a few comets in convenient orbits, perturb the orbits
a bit, and smash them into the Moon...  Perhaps we could even perturb
asteroids and/or comets in such a way that they orbit *around* the Moon.
  Speaking of gravitational slingshots, does anybody know if they are still
planning to bring ICE (International Cometary Explorer) back to LEO, pick
it up with the shuttle, and put it in the Smithsonian?   This is supposed 
to happen sometime after 2000, according to the rumor I heard.  Seems like
those folks at Goddard are up to more gravitational hijinks.
 


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #109
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Nov 88 01:28:29 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07731>; Sat, 19 Nov 88 00:48:14 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 19 Nov 88 00:48:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sXVEUby00UkTI3akko>;
          Sat, 19 Nov 88 00:35:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.gXVEL9y00UkZI6dE5=>;
          Sat, 19 Nov 88 00:25:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UXVEIly00UkZ46c04x@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 88 00:22:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #110

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:
	   References Needed - Private satellite launchings
	     Rare Book For Sale: The Sun by Young (1897)
			 Re: Demise of OTRAG
			 Re: Resources of Io
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
		       Re: Teleoperated Robots
	  Sagdeyev Says "Russia is loosing its space lead!"
		 Re: Relativity acceleration question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 88 20:23:52 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: References Needed - Private satellite launchings

I am doing an Economics paper on the privitization of the satellite/payload
launch business.
 
Any tips, leads, companies, people to contact, information, books, magazine
articles, or anything else relating to private industry launching of
satellites would be appreciated.
 
I'm mostly looking for facts and numbers, but opinions are always welcome, too!
 
- ERIC -
 
Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Princeton University | 11 Prospect Drive South  | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
332 Walker Hall      | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08544  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-734-4911         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 07:34:40 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Rare Book For Sale: The Sun by Young (1897)

Rare Book For Sale:  The Sun 

by C A Young

1897 edition

A classic in the study of the sun.  Many detailed engravings.
Water damage to cover.  Quarter-leather cover.  The binding
seems remarkably good for such an old book, I think it may
have a library edition (a book made with an extra-strong
binding for library use).  Gilt top-edge, which supports the
idea it was a special edition.

The best offer over $20 before 12 pm midnight PST 12/1/88 takes it.

Call 408 867 5477 between 6pm and 12 pm PST (pacific standard time)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 16:01:07 GMT
From: w3vh!rolfe@uunet.uu.net  (Rolfe Tessem)
Subject: Re: Demise of OTRAG

In article <1004@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> In article <8482@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, kevin@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
> > In article <8XPCx5y00UoA4FFlEf@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
> > (Kevin William Ryan) writes: 
> < >
> < >[...]  OTRAG died quite some time ago, though, for reasons I
> < >have never heard explained.
>   
> > It seems that OTRAG was setting up
> > operations in some equatorial country (in Africa, I believe), which then
> > had a civil war that trashed the whole operation.  
> 
> There was an invasion of Zaire from Angola, ostensibly to destroy guerrilla
> bases there.  No guerrilla bases were destroyed, but OTRAG was.  As the aim
> of OTRAG was to provide low-cost launching for third-world countries, was
> the reason for the invasion the destruction of OTRAG?

As to who was behind the destruction of OTRAG, let us not
forget that the principals behind OTRAG were all ex-Nazis,
and their efforts reportedly received major funding from
Libya, among others.  Around the time when OTRAG was
enjoying some success and credibility, there were certain
members of the Israeli Embassy in Washington who seemed
to be unusually well informed about the details of OTRAG's
operations. 

I was employed by ABC News at the time, and came by this
information during research of OTRAG for a possible story on
20/20 which, in the end, we never wound up producing.

-- 
UUCP:         uunet!w3vh!rolfe 			| Rolfe Tessem
INTERNET:     rolfe@w3vh.uu.net			| P.O. Box 793
AMPRNET:      rolfe@w3vh.ampr.org   [44.44.0.1]	| Great Barrington, MA 01230
PACKET RADIO: w3vh@wa2pvv 			| (413) 528-5966

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 22:51:57 GMT
From: osu-cis!killer!csccat!loci!clb@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Resources of Io

In article <1988Nov5.123654.14704@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> Aside from being a possible source of minerals, Io might (at some
> distant time) be a good source of energy.  It is moving rapidly
> through Jupiter's intense magnetic field.  Lay cables across the moon,
> install plasma contactors, and generate electricity.  There's an
> enormous amount of gravitational potential energy to be tapped as the
> moon slowly spirals inwards.  Io might be the best place in the solar
> system to put an antimatter factory.
> 

	Why not leave Io in it's place?  What is the driving urge to
	destroy everything in your path for short-term benefits?

	In exchange for the electrical energy that you could extract,
	you would destroy a planetoid for all time,  and modify a
	system which we don't understand.  Imagine that instead of
	being born in the 20th century,  you had come along in the
	22nd and all you have left is the rubble, trash and refuse
	of those who had gone before;  Your occupational opportunities
	would be limited to 1) sanitation engineer, 2) garbage collector
	or 3) salvage operator.  You could spend your spare time
	bemoaning what might have been if the resources hadn't been
	squandered and polluted, but it will be too late to undo the
	damage.

	The one reassuring feature in all this is that the physics is
	against you;  It's not possible for you to get out there and
	wreak your havoc,  and it seems likely that you never will.
	I know this will draw some fire from people who want to believe
	far more than is realistic,  but it's pie-in-the-sky, ie. sci-fi.

	Many civilizations have managed to live with, and in awe of 
	nature and to use what they needed without plundering. The
	fact that they were destroyed by the european mentality of
	conquest and plunder doesn't mean that they weren't higher
	states of development;  it only means that it's easier to destroy
	than to create.

	It seems the only way to control the political and economic
	interests is to withhold the information from them.  They
	have no quams about throwing a security blanket around what
	they do and to do what they like with technology, so I say
	that scientists must do the same.  As in the old days, when
	alchemists protected their knowledge with secrecy, it was
	job-security.  Special languages were used (like doctors and
	lawyers do even now) which kept the information from leaking
	out.  This is what scientists must do.

	It seems that fate has smiled on science in this regard.  The
	general level of scientific knowledge has sunk so low, and the
	trend away from printing formulae have left the language of
	higher mathematics largely to science.  It is not too difficult
	to write the results of experiments in a form that very few
	can decipher, save the scientist.  With a concerted effort,
	in a decade or two, all new scientific knowledge could be
	restricted to those whose interest is pure science.  That
	would make for a better world because basic research on gravity
	wouldn't get turned into new weapons in the way that it has
	been repeatedly in the past.  And to those who would say that
	the good of society comes first,  I say that society is trying
	very hard to destroy itself and everything around it and to
	contribute to it merely speeds the destruction.  In the long
	term the benefits are out-weighed by the costs to subsequent
	generations.

	If you love science and knowledge more than the almighty $$$
	then consider that you can contribute more by refusing to 
	work on government contract (I have since '70) and protect
	your knowledge from the plunderers.  Same thing goes for
	plastics, packaging, artificially flavored food, and on and
	on.  Science is good,  but the application becomes perverse.

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 20:03:20 GMT
From: nyser!cmx!amax.npac.syr.edu!anand@itsgw.rpi.edu  (Anand Rangachari)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.


  With all this talk about reducing the possibility of collision with debris,
I am reminded of a scheme suggested in the book 'The songs of distant Earth'
by Clarke. In this book, the ship Magellen pushes a shield made of ice
ahead of it, sweeping a clean path. Maybe a similar shield could be
made for the space shuttle from waste water and the water produced in the
fuel cells. 

  In fact it could be produced quite easily by creating a framework made
from a shape memory alloy. Then, water could be sprayed on it to actually
form the shield. 
  
                                                     R. Anand
  Internet: anand@amax.npac.syr.edu
  Bitnet: ranand@sunrise

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 19:19:38 GMT
From: netnews.upenn.edu!grasp.cis.upenn.edu!ulrich@rutgers.edu  (Nathan Ulrich)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots

In article <8811031502.AA01187@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>>No one is likely to do any serious basic research on teleoperated robots.  
I'm afraid that researchers at MIT, Goddard, JPL, Utah, Penn and many other
places, as well as the government agencies which are spending millions of
dollars to support research on teleoperation would disagree rather strongly
with you.

>>The prospects for more or less fully *autonomous* robots are rather good on
>>the 5 - 15 year time frame...
In article <1988Nov6.032551.18388@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Can you cite a few references for this?  The AI community regularly
>produces such claims, and seldom if ever comes through on them.  Having
>seen this particular claim repeatedly for quite a while, I'm skeptical.
First of all, we have to define what we mean by autonomous robots.  If you
consider the welding and painting machines on an automobile assembly line
robots, then they are certainly "autonomous" (and right now).  However, a
true robot has to be able to respond to unstructured environments and deal
with circumstances and objects it has never encountered before or has no
previous knowledge of.  Such a robot would be very useful in space, but I'm
afraid that we are very far from reaching this goal.  Maybe towards the end
of your 5-15 year time frame we will have something, but as Henry correctly
points out, it depends on research in AI more than anything, and we've been
overly optimistic in robotics since its inception.

In article <1988Nov6.032551.18388@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The problem with teleoperation is the mechanics, not the communications.
>Nobody disputes that you can build a teleoperated bulldozer or crane.
Are you sure you didn't get that first sentence backwards?  I have to disagree;
the big problems in teleoperation are definitely not in mechanics; there have
been beautifully-designed teleoperated machines for years.  There are two
major problems I am aware of.  First _is_ communications.  Remotely-controlled
mechanisms over the enormous distances in space introduce significant delays
which make traditional direct teleoperation difficult and very slow.  This is
obviously not a problem when robots on the space station are controlled from
within.
	
Second is the problem of feedback.  It is very difficult to do anything use-
ful without force and tactile sensation.  Visual feedback is useless in
reporting contact forces and moments, which are significant.  Imagine trying
to put a nut on a bolt without feeling the torque you are applying and the
shape of the nut in your hand:  you could be cross-threading it and wouldn't
have the benefit of the increased resistance to tell you, or when you are 
tightening it could easily apply to much torque and break it.  Recent results
in this area are promising.

The trend now seems to be to combine some degree of autonomy with teleoper-
ation:  there is no reason to have a human interact except when needed, so
the robots are autonomous until they encounter something they can't handle.
Of course, they also have to be able to decide when to ask for help, which
is not a trivial problem.  Hopefully, robots will eventually become
fully autonomous, but I fear not in the immediate future.

Nathan Ulrich
ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 00:07:58 GMT
From: mist!ruffwork@cs.orst.edu  (Ritchey Ruff)
Subject: Sagdeyev Says "Russia is loosing its space lead!"

from the New York Times Nov. 5th, 1988: page 3.
	[partial quote without permission]

	"Soviet Scientist Faults Space Bureaucrats"
		--by Celestine Bohlen

A leading Soviet space scientist, in a frank and critical speach,
has warned that the Soviet space program is in danger of loosing its
edge because the scientific establishment still values bureaucratic
titles over scientific expertise.

"Unfortunately, one must admit that for the most part, in the
Academy of Sciences, space research is now conducted at the
level of figureheads," said the scientist Roald Z. Sagdeyev, 55
who is leaving his post as the director of the Institute of
Space Research.  "Thus we are now losing our leading position
in space to a significant degree, and not only in the Academy of Sciences."

	[...about 15 column inches deleated...]

---

In this artical Sagdeyev also nominated Andrei Sakharov to the
academy's governing board.  He also noted that the Politburo
has supported returning Sakharov's medals.

---

well, so according to this they are falling *behind* where
Sagdeyev feels they should be in their space program ?!?!?!?

--ritchey ruff	ruffwork@cs.orst.edu -or- ...tektronix!orstcs!ruffwork

   "This is a test.  This is only a test.  Had this been an actual
   virus, you would all (in another two months) be up shit's creek without
   a paddle, compass, or bowsprit."
   --weemba (about the worm atack on the internet)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 21:29:18 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Nanook@uunet.uu.net  (Mike Backdraft Robert)
Subject: Re: Relativity acceleration question

Thanks for asking that David. Being a SciFi buff I've always wondered about
just how that stuff is figured.

Here is my additional related questions if anyone wants to hit them.

  1> I understand (from one of those scinence shows) that the slowing of time
     is also a function of accelleration. Example: Person "A" under accel-
     leration of 2 g's would effectivly have time pass slower for them 
     (subjectively?) then the person under 1 g. As it was stated this was
     a temporal function that was also aplied to gravity fields too so that
     someone who fell into a black hole would effectively have time stop for
     them. Am I rememberig this wrong or what?

  2> Working on the above concept, have they been able to measure any deff-
     inate subjective temoral differences for satalites in orbit? Has anyone
     ever bothered to send up a "cheep atomic clock", and see how accurate
     it would be in orbit compared to on the ground. (don't flame me for
     "cheep atomic clock". I know it's a contradiction of terms.)

  3> If not #2 (for one reason or another), and presuming #1 was valid, has
     anyone tried doing something similar to #2 using a centrafuge to simulate
     a high gravity condition ( ie 4 or 5 g's sustained) and measure for any
     possible "time slippage"?

If I'm completely off the track, just attribute it to another sci-fi buff 
that didn't feel like getting a physics degree just to figure it out himself.
(Besides, why else do I subscribe to Usenet but to ask the occasional left
field questions eh?? :)

Thanks.
Michael Robert
     &
Keith Dickinson

Nanook of the South
_   /|  | Fidonet  : 369/2 [(305) 421-8593] Brave Mew World South
\'o.O'  | Internet : nanook@muadib.FIDONET.ORG
=(___)= | UUCP     : (novavax,killer,hoptoad,attmail)!ankh!muadib!nanook
   U    | USNail   : 433 SE 13th CT. J-202, Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33441
  Ack!  | Disclamer: This message was created by a faulty AI program.
Don't blame me...I voted for Bill'n'Opus in '88

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #110
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Nov 88 04:56:35 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03679>; Sat, 19 Nov 88 04:00:33 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 19 Nov 88 04:00:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXVH3zy00Ui34C6UcK>;
          Sat, 19 Nov 88 03:29:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.4XVGupy00UkZ06wE4v>;
          Sat, 19 Nov 88 03:20:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wXVGt1y00UkZ46v05H@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 88 03:18:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #111

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Bogos space arguments
		   Answer to a laser drive question
			Re: Nuclear Flare Gun
			 Re: Resources of Io
			   Spaceship Orion
			  Re: Moon vs. Mars
		      Re: Private Space Programs
			 Re: Resources of Io
		     Successful ARIANE lift off.
		  U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
	  Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 05:50:03 GMT
From: emcard!fedeva!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@gatech.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Re: Bogos space arguments

In article <5289@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jsalter@polyslo.UUCP (Tasslehoff) writes:
>In <5282@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna states:
>[... lots of stuff deleted ...]
>>Get serious.
>>Obviously we are deep into the bogosity zone here. 
>>In my opinion I have presented factual assertions here, and not emotional 
>>dreams. These facts show that we should continue to fund both the manned and
>>unmanned space programs.
>
>Sure, sure.  "Bogosity" "Get Serious"  They are certainly non-emotional,
>factual, informational assertations.

Jim's (Tasslehoff's) posting calls the arguments in my previous posting bogus
without making the slightest reference to any point or argument in that
posting. The only thing he bothers to refer to is my use of a few Southern
Californian colloquialisms which I personally find amusing and descriptive.
It's possible that other people might be unable to take seriously a posting
that does not exclusively use formal language. I find that rather sad, but
perhaps in the future I'll have to limit my postings to formal english. In
any case I think it's wrong to flame an informational posting solely on its
tone, while ignoring all of the points the posting was trying to make.

>As for the manned and unmanned space programs, it seems to me that you have
>just rehashed some old arguments.  Remember, john, sci.space is here to
>talk about space.  You don't have to convince THESE people of the usefulness
>of space.  

This is a bizzare statement. More than half of sci.space's traffic recently
has been about whether and why manned space funding is worthwhile, which is
what I was posting about.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   [...imagine a time when evil Man is infecting the solar system...]
"DEATH TO THE BARBARIC, SATANIC, GENETICALLY INFERIOR MARTIAN BACTERIA"!!!!!!
  -- Redneck frontiersman, 2050.

------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 6 Nov 88 15:18 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Answer to a laser drive question

Gregson Vaux writes:

>What about using a laser to propel photons. I remember a problem from my first
>year of physics in which a laser was mounted to the back of a spaceship,  in a
>relatively short period of time the craft had reached astounding velocities.
>In reference to what was said above, the photons have very little mass (please
>no flames i did not mean REST mass) and of course a high velocity. Now comes my
>question, why is this not done? Perhaps the loss of energy due to heat is too
>great, or maybe the photons carry little momentum as compared to energy.
>The formula for energy is of course (planck's constant)(frequency)=Energy.
>and momentum is P=E/c. Yes, a laser drive would accelerate too slowly for
>a manned vehicle however, with unmanned probes no one cares.

     A laser to propel photons?  Light (and the laser) IS photons, and so
does not 'propel' them (at least not the way I think of the physical
situation).  The photons have in fact zero mass, otherwise the formula
P=E/c you use later on would be nonsense.  A couple of rather important
physical misconceptions there.

     However, in answer to your question, I don't think a laser drive in
the manner you envision it would be too useful.  Why use a laser, why
not just shine a light out the rear end of a spaceship - the result is
essentially the same.  However, laser drives have been thought of,
though with respect to solar sails.  Solar sails are the best idea for a
light driven spacecraft, again at very low accelerations.  The extension
to lasers was the idea to up the power of the light.  With an Earth
station (or in LEO), the space craft need not take along the power
source needed to drive the laser, but just point a reflective shield
back at the laser.  This has the advantage of getting twice the photon
momentum change, due to reflection, that one would get from firing the
laser from the ship itself.  One then requires two things.  First, make your
shield very reflective at the laser frequency (to get the maximum
momentum conversion), and second, where to aim the reflected laser.  You
can't aim it back at the source, because it would just damage itself.  (?)
Maybe you want to disperse it.  Maybe the returning laser would be able
to power itself, at least partially, even if it is redshifted and
diffused.  (How way out is that for an idea??  Is Paul Dietz around for
an opinion?  How much energy is lost per photon per momentum change in
the space craft?)

     However, without any numbers to back up the following statement, I
have the feeling that the solar wind is a better source for a light
powered craft with a decent sized sail than a laser would ever be, even
up in the proposed SDI dream end of high powered lasers.  That much
energy in a small area of the reflective shield would just be a bit
difficult to disperse of easily and quickly.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 02:52:49 GMT
From: thorin!tlab2!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Flare Gun

In article <152@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:
>	I think we need to talk far side of the moon at least or we may
>	damage the telescopes trying to see the echos.	But besides that,
>	I like the idea of a big, wide-spectrum flash-bulb.

    Part of the problem is that you *want* as narrow a frequency
spread as possible. The characteristics of the return signal can tell
about rotation periods, surface composition, porosity, and other
physical characteristics - but not very well when a wide signal is
used.

    I don't understand radio astronomy very well, but I believe that
radio telescopes are designed to operate in just a few frequency
bands, which means practically all of the energy from such a flashbulb
would be wasted. I ran a few numbers the other night; it looked like
the total return power from a 100km diameter asteroid at 1 AU, from a
50MT nuclear warhead, over the area of an Arecibo-type dish, would be
~10^-7 ergs. I don't have information on nuclear blast emissions or
dish sensitivies to turn this into signal/noise ratios.

    I have wondered from time to time if the Zenith Star SDI laser
experiment might prove useful for examining asteroids. I haven't run
any numbers on it, and my intuition says almost certainly not, but I
hope to find out sometime. Overall I suspect the best near-term bet is
large space-based radio telescopes in high Earth orbit (also great for
VLBI - the Soviets have talked about doing such a project). You don't
need the Moon to shield such a scope from the Earth, incidentally.

    I suspect there are people reading this group who work in radio
astronomy. Perhaps they will enlighten us all a bit and correct me as
needed.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Needless to say, both in the United States and in the eucaryotic
      cell, once the old immigrants are comfortably settled and their
      place in society is established, they do their best to shut the
      door to any prospective new immigrants''
	- Freeman Dyson, _Origins of Life_

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 06:47:45 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@purdue.edu  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Resources of Io

In article <154@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:
>
>	Why not leave Io in it's place?  What is the driving urge to
>	destroy everything in your path for short-term benefits?
>

Why don't you calculate how far it will move first? There is a LOT of
energy in that orbit. A _Scientist_ calculates out the effect of his
actions before he philosophizes about them. If the change isn't
noticable, then you won't necessarily be destroying Io, will you?

Let's see, E = mgh, g = GMj/Ri^2, etc. Looks like 6 x 10 ^ 28 Joules
to move Io 1 meter inwards. That's the output of a 1 MegaWatt nuclear
plant for 2 x 10 ^ 15 _YEARS_.

Hm. Doesn't look like we're going to move it too far real soon.

-- greg

(note: above accurate to astrophysical accuracy... you know, 1 year
 = pi x 10^7 seconds, pi=3, etc :-) contants taken from the Handbook
 of Chemistry and Physics, 1986. Calculations subject to human error
 since it's 1:45 am.)

----------
Greg Lindahl                                     internet:  gl8f@virginia.edu
University of Virginia Department of Astronomy     bitnet:  gl8f@virginia.bitnet
     "Doesn't Quayle know that the FBI handles domestic assassinations?"

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 16:37:39 GMT
From: oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Doug Harper)
Subject: Spaceship Orion

in article <594157191.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU says:

>Although I have no second source verification, I have been told by one
>individual who was an eyewitness to the test that Aerojet did a limited test
>of the Orion concept in a non-nuclear mode in the late 1950's. He told
>me, "It took off like a bat out of hell..."

The article "A Spaceship Named Orion" by Bill Wagstaff in the
October/November issue of Air & Space/Smithsonian magazine contains a
description of a successful test of the concept which took place in
October, 1959.  I don't know whether Air & Space/Smithsonian is
available on the newsstand.  If not, and if enough people email me
expressing interest in the article, I will attempt to contact Mr.
Wagstaff for permission to quote it on the net.

-- 
Doug Harper
Odyssey Research Associates | oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu       ARPA
301A Harris B. Dates Drive  | {allegra,rochester}!cornell!oravax!harper  UUCP
Ithaca, NY 14850-3051       | (607) 277-2020 extension 276

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 02:37:44 GMT
From: thorin!tlab2!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Moon vs. Mars

In article <8811061758.AA03694@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>    What else is available on the moon?  Could moon dust be made into
>    concrete?

    The Space Studies Institute is sponsoring research in production
of composite materials from the lunar regolith. This work is still at
a relatively early stage, but glass/glass composites look quite
promising. The equipment needed to manufacture these composites might
be far less massive than a plant producing metals. It was suggested
that a 5,000 pound plant could make crude structural elements (this is
not my estimate. Argue with the author of the paper, who presumably
knows his stuff.)

>    How about metals?

    Other SSI projects have looked at benefication (increasing the
concentration of useful material before it enters an extraction
facility), and extracting nickel/iron magnetically. For more info, I
suggest joining SSI (details on request). You can help sponsor their
research, and actually make a difference. The Institute is a place
where the Dream is not only alive, but kicking.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``The tuba recital is one of the most memorable experiences of
      music school.''
	- Seen on a bulletin board in the UNC Music School

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 18:01:42 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Private Space Programs

In article <1988Oct26.171319.6553@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> (Now me, I don't have that problem, but I don't have the money to start
> building space launchers...  Boy, do I ever wish...)
> -- 

Neither do most individuals have the ability to fund commercial
airplane development, yet it gets done.  Let's do a thought experiment:
The number of shareholder of record in Boeing Stock in 1986 was
68000.  `Stockholders equity was $4.36 billion.  This works out
to $63,000 per stockholder.  This sets the level of effort per
person.   

If we value contributed labor at $20/hr, then this amounts to
3000 hours , at 10 hours/week over 6 years.  The remaining question
is whether enough people are available.  Based on aerospace estimating
relationships, a small (garage scale) spaceplane should take about
60 person-years of effort to deisgn and build.  This equates to
40 people contributing effort on the above basis.  You game?

-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 20:56:43 GMT
From: muddcs!mwilkins@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Wilkins)
Subject: Re: Resources of Io

They tried to utilize Io in the movie "Outland."  Didn't work, as I recall.
:-)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 88 23:57:30 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Successful ARIANE lift off.

Kourou , French Guyana October 28.

A booster of type ARIANE II successfully launched a heavy
satellite, TDF 1, for TV diffusion all over Europe including North-Africa
and the Scandinavian countries.

This is the fifth successful launch of an Ariane rocket in five months.

Having at least 9 canals of transmition with diffusion in multiple languages,
this satellite (owned by the French ministry of telecommunication) is the first
of his categories. Naimly, it is designed for the broadcasting of European
programs making one more step toward the integration of European countries
in one community.
(If  His Majesty Mrs. Thatcher don't stop us...... just kidding !)

Also a decision to build the European small space shuttle HERMES should be
taken soon (a few weeks). The French, the designers, are pushing very hard for

it, the Germans are afraid of one more French domination in ESA and, of course,
Thatcher is against (but not the British in general), arguing that the USA have
already one. But this is to forget that there's is unreliable and will mainly be
used for military purposes. On the other hand, the Italians vote yes.

We will see. Fortunately the French government has heavily committed itself
with 2 major French contractors AEROSPATIAL and DASSAULT AVIATION
for the feasibility and design studies. So no matter what is the decision, the

French, I suspect, will continue the project.

In seven years we will have 3 shuttle systems on earth.


Jean-Marc Debaud.
Carnegie-Mellon U.
Bitnet,arpa: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Nov 88 15:00:10 EST
From: purtill@math.mit.edu
Cc: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu
Subject: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space


> Hey, so what they should have done was docked the Apollo with the Soyuz,
> used the Apollo to maneuver both to Skylab, had the Apollo undock from
> the adapter and let the Soviets use it to dock with Skylab and use the
> other docking port for Apollo.
>...
> And don't forget, we can't let the Soviets in Skylab!  They'll see, well,
> EVERYTHING!!

Given the second constraint (no soviets on Skylab), why couldn't we
have done Apollo-Soyuz, then had those astronauts proceed to Skylab
for another visit?  Or vice-versa (Skylab, then Soyuz docking).  I'm
not sure whether the Russians had a space-station at the time, but if
they did, they could have proceeded to theirs which would make the
mission completely symmetric.

^.-.^ Mark Purtill		purtill@math.mit.edu
((")) Dept. of Math, MIT 2-229, Cambridge, MA  02139

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Nov 88 15:06:20 EST
From: purtill@math.mit.edu
Cc: psivax!quad1!ttidca!jackson@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?


> I seem to remember that one of the earliest designs for a launcher was by
> the British Interplanetary Soc. and was based upon concentric layers of
> strap-on boosters which "peeled away" when used.

This is essentially what AMROC (American Rocket Company)'s proposed
commercial rocket looks like.  The boosters are hybrid, using LOX and
some sort of solid fuel.  I think I have their address around
somewhere if someone wants it.

Speaking of start-up commercial launch companies, does anyone know if
Third Millennium Inc (aka MMI) is still around?  They had a plan for a
commercial mini-shuttle.

^.-.^ Mark Purtill		purtill@math.mit.edu
((")) Dept. of Math, MIT 2-229, Cambridge, MA  02139

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #111
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Nov 88 06:07:07 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00722>; Sat, 19 Nov 88 05:38:10 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 19 Nov 88 05:38:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EXVImxy00Ui3I5E05v>;
          Sat, 19 Nov 88 05:28:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.oXVIgNy00UkZQ76U4N>;
          Sat, 19 Nov 88 05:21:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EXVIdiy00UkZQ75E5K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 88 05:18:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #112

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 112

Today's Topics:
		     Re: 1967 Lunar Polar Orbiter
		     Re: [] (was: Moon vs. Mars)
			      Re: Flood
		       Public approval ratings
			 The Depths of Lunacy
		       Re: The Depths of Lunacy
			 Re: Resources of Io
		      Human groups in isolation
		Ivory Tower (was Re: Resources of Io)
		      Re: Answer to Laser Drive
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 22:09:51 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcilzb!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: 1967 Lunar Polar Orbiter


 
Andrew Higgens asks about past lunar orbiter programs.
 
The mission of the Lunar Orbiter program was primarily photographic; the 
missions did indeed provide virtually complete photographic coverage of
the Moon's surface, including most of the polar regions. Analysis of the 
spacecraft orbits also revealed the presence of mysterious mass concentrations 
("mascons"). The Lunar Orbiters did not carry instrumentation for chemical 
analysis of the lunar surface. The first direct chemical analyses of the 
surface from lunar orbit were made by the Soviet Luna 10 spacecraft, which 
carried a gamma-ray spectrometer. This instrument measured gamma rays emitted 
by radioactive potassium, thorium and uranium. The first U.S. attempts at 
chemical remote sensing of the Moon consisted of gamma ray and xray 
spectrometers carried in the service module instrument bay of the Apollo 15 
and 16 spacecraft. The gamma ray instrument again provided data on the 
distribution of radioactive elements. The xray spectrometer was used to 
measure xrays fluoresced from the lunar surface by primary solar xrays; this 
data was used to map the abundance of magnesium, silicon, and aluminum on the 
lunar surface. The Apollo data is probably the most comprehensive to date, 
but the measurements were confined to within thirty degrees of the lunar 
equator; thus the interest in a high-inclination lunar orbiter equipped with 
instrumentation for remote chemical analysis.
 
None of the instrumentation flown so far (at least by the U.S.) would be 
capable of detecting water. The possibility of water existing on the Moon 
is very low. It is now well-established from analysis of lunar samples that 
the Moon started out with virtually no water. It has been proposed that 
"recent" cometary impacts (over the past few million years) might leave traces 
of ice in permanently shaded areas near the lunar poles. Another possible 
source are carbonaceous meteorites, which contain water. However, organic 
carbon, which would also be left behind by comets and carbonaceous meteorites, 
is extremely rare on the lunar surface; the only confirmed organic is methane, 
at a few parts per million.
 
Of course there may be surprises at the poles, but you'd be well-advised to
take along a canteen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
186,000 miles per second:	|  Tom O'Reilly at HP Lab Data Systems
It's not just a good idea...	|
it's the Law! - A. Einstein	|  oreilly@hpldslq.HP.COM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 17:56:47 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: [] (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <5391@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.UUCP (THE VIKING) writes:
>... Therefore it seems to me that NASA's primary
>research objective should be the reduction of per pound launch costs, before
>we move on to the moon, Mars, NEAs, or even a space station. Does anybody
>else agree with this?

Agreed, with the reservation that "research objective" is a key phrase:
NASA should be developing technology for others to use, not trying to
build its own operational system.  NASA did once develop, from scratch,
a fully successful operational launch system that kept all its promises.
Just once.  With Von Braun gone and NASA's arteries hardened, that probably
will never happen again, as witness the Shuttle.  Serious work on cheap-
launch technology would be one of the best things that NASA could do for
the spaceflight community; serious work on its own supposedly-cheap launcher
could be one of the worst.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 21:11:19 GMT
From: agate!bionet!apple!amdahl!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Flood

In article <594422649.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Several individuals have pointed out that the Mediteranean basin was
>dry not 10KYA, but 10MYA. This does not invalidate the rest of my
>statements, but I stand corrected on this point.
>
>If anyone has any good citations on the Med. dry up and reflood, I
>would appreciate them.

More like 4 to 6 million years before the present, from what I've heard.

I don't have a good scientific reference, but physicist Phillip Morrison's
PBS series *The Ring of Truth* has an episode "Clues" which goes into the
event in detail, with interviews with the original scientist crew-members
of the Glomar Challenger which made the initial discovery, "walking" the
viewer through core samples from locations around the Mediterranean, etc.

--
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
Mountain View, California
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	If you do not expect it, you will not find the unexpected,
	for it is hard to find and difficult.  
		Heraclitus

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 03:33:05 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Public approval ratings

The latest issue of Aerospace America contains a recent
Market Opinion Research Survey on public support for space 
programs, conducted by Rockwell.

Public approval for the following programs/goals:
Overall space program              80%
Increase NASA's budget             65%

Advanced Earth exploration         86%
Unmanned planetary exploration     82%
Space station                      78%
Lunar base                         70%
Mars mission                       66% 

Note:
- The dramatic goals which are allegedly required to win public support
in fact rank below the "mundane" goals.
- Unmanned activities rank _above_ manned.
- There is strong support for increased funding to pay for new
  endeavors.

Write a letter to your Congressman today, including these poll figures.
It's time to push off the shore while the tide is high!

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 01:06:48 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Larry Wall)
Subject: The Depths of Lunacy

OK, so the regolith of the moon is somewhat homogenized.  I understand the
chief limiting factor to the depth of mines on Earth is that it gets hot
down there and more difficult to keep cool the deeper you get.

How much cooler is the moon, and how much deeper could you dig a mine?
How about with unmanned mining equipment?  Would you be able to get to a
depth that is significantly more interesting that the surface?  Would the
limiting factor be pressure rather than temperature (exploding rocks, etc.)?

Perhaps 10 billion years from now the last remaining evidence of our
civilization will be the holes we left in the moon...     :-)

Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

Bumper sticker of the day:
"He dies who toys with the most wins."

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 13:47:39 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: The Depths of Lunacy

Larry Wall writes:
>Perhaps 10 billion years from now the last remaining evidence of our
>civilization will be the holes we left in the moon...     :-)

I thought that in 5 billion years, the sun would expand enough to cause
the Earth's orbit to decay.

Related topic: astronomers have detected silicon monoxide masers
around some red giant stars.  A new theory says that these occur in
rock boiling off planets or moons in the stars' extended atmospheres.
If true, it's a novel way to detect extrasolar planets.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 22:56:23 GMT
From: rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Rick Francis Golembiewski)
Subject: Re: Resources of Io

Hold a sec, generating a little bit of electric power will not destroy Io
(refer to previous post, for an estimate of how much energy it would take
to move it 1 m.), or do you consider Billions (heck lets say that the estimate
was way too low and just say Millions) of years to be short term?  If the
amount of electrical power that humans used was of a scale that it could
endanger planetary orbits, then we would have been sitting in the Sun, right
after the invention of the electric light.  Also some pretty radical statements
were made: ie "Scientists should protect their knowledge with secracy?" This,
in my opinion goes against the philosophy (Not I'm just speaking for myself
here not "This is what scientists must do") concerning Science.  I believe that
Science is an attempt to broaden man's (not just a select few, but mankind's)
knowledge of the physical world.  Sharing information is vital if one expects
to make any kind of headway, after all could we have reached the moon if all
the people working on the rockets had to re-invent: Calculus, Mechanics,
the Wheel etc. ?  Also, how could libraries, schools, not to mention computer
networks :-) exist without the free exchange of information? (This manual is
mine, go guess those UNIX commands!) Also, there was an assertion that along
with military research (which is debatable, after all Is is right to protect
yourself or your country in the best way possible?) research on plastics,
packaging, and artificially flavored food was perverse.  Well granted that
these areas of research are not as noble as some, however plastics are a
very important part of todays society and they have risen the quality of life
a great deal (Isn't that important too? and Just think how much the keyboard
that you typed your message on would cost if it had to be made of ivory, or
maybe consider all of the fuel that would be wasted carrying around heavy
metalic or glass cars...).  Packaging perverse?  I think that packaging can
be very important, after all would you want to buy food that was unsealed?
Even if you consider "wasteful" uses of packaging (ie. soly appearance to
convince customers to buy, with no "redeeming" value to the consumer) well
that's what people want, maybe it's a bit wasteful to have products where
the container is more costly then the product (the Hartz [sic?] pet products
come to mind...), however that is an individuals choice to buy or not to buy.
A company certainly has the right to try and make its products more attractive
to buyers (or else they may not be in business for long) so I don't think that
packaging can really be called "perverse-> deviating from what is right or good
" (Websters Dictionary.)
Enough preaching, I'll get off my soapbox now and go and do some work...
- Rick Golembiewski

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 01:56:27 GMT
From: nsc!amdahl!drivax!macleod@decwrl.dec.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Human groups in isolation

As everybody here probably knows, I'm a Space Nut.  A number of the postings 
lately make a lot of pretty confident statements about things that are in no
way well understood.  Lots of handwaving and conjecture.

In particular, human societies are funny things.  My favorite sociology story
of all time - rich enough for a few PhD studies, I'll wager - takes place as
follows.  It may all be made up, but I read it in the newspaper...:->

Some time ago, during a routine rotation of staff scientists and support
crews, a new team was sent to an American Antartic research station.  At this
time the rotation took place every six months, roughly corresponding with 
local winter and summer.  Several dozen individuals arrived in the winter
change and unloaded their personal gear, which included a number of 
videotapes and several tape players.

Winter in Antartica being what it is, everybody looked at the available tapes
until they had all seen them several times.  The cold and dark dragged on.
The next shift was months away.  At some point, possibly inspired by certain
illegal consumables brought into the base, a creative person with access to 
several tape machines began splicing together segments - some as short as a
fraction of a second - from various tapes.  According to the report, (s)he
used Disney movies, porn movies, westerns, Bogart movies, and whatever else
came to hand.  The result was a several-hour pastiche that was apparently 
compellingly weird and funny (possibly when smoking certain herbs during 
such viewing).  

If that was all there was to it, there would be no story.  However, the 
situations and the dialog from the edited Movie began to displace the 
base cultural reality of the staff; commonplace events in day to day 
activities were referred to by expressions from the Movie (much the same as
posters here parrot "Can you say *****?", which makes my skin crawl) and
the attitudes and behavior of the inhabitants came to be interpreted in the
consensus-derived "meaning" of The Movie.

When the summer crew arrived, they found they could "barely communicate"
with the winter crew; the Movie-language had replaced English to something like
the level of the argot in "A Clockwork Orange".   It took some time to restore
the conventional social context.

Why did this happen?  Crews have come and gone for many years without this 
sort of break with reality.  It was some unforseen combination of context and
individuals, source material and editing, and possibly drug use, which 
combined to take them off on a wild ride into the unknown.  

Any attempts to extrapolate social life in space habitats from earthly 
contexts is going to encounter unknowns like this.  Sure, many space
projects may be nothing but stuffy military organizations, but some of the
long-term ones may get weirder than anybody expects.  

BTW, I don't agree that this is a bad thing, of itself.  

Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 21:53:31 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Ivory Tower (was Re: Resources of Io)

Thanks, Charles, you just gave us a chance to see what *real* escapist 
fantasy looks like:

In article <154@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:
>In article <1988Nov5.123654.14704@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Pa
ul Dietz) writes:
>> Aside from being a possible source of minerals, Io might (at some
>> distant time) be a good source of energy.  
>
>       Why not leave Io in it's place?  What is the driving urge to
>       destroy everything in your path for short-term benefits?

Try "create". 

>       [diatribe insulting everything from European civilization
>        to science fiction deleted]
>       It seems the only way to control the political and economic
>       interests is to withhold the information from them. 

All we have to do is make sure our leaders are scientifically 
illiterate, and we won't be chopping down any more trees
in Brazil, we'll stop burning fossil fuels, etc.  Now that's clever! 

>       ....  As in the old days, when
>       alchemists protected their knowledge with secrecy, it was
>       job-security.  Special languages were used (like doctors and
>       lawyers do even now) which kept the information from leaking
>       out.  This is what scientists must do.
>       It seems that fate has smiled on science in this regard.  The
>       general level of scientific knowledge has sunk so low, and the
>       trend away from printing formulae have left the language of
>       higher mathematics largely to science.  It is not too difficult
>       to write the results of experiments in a form that very few
>       can decipher, save the scientist.  With a concerted effort,
>       in a decade or two, all new scientific knowledge could be
>       restricted to those whose interest is pure science. 

Good luck!  Scientifically illiteracy is a U.S. trend, not a worldwide 
trend.  With computers new scientific knowledge can be transfered
across the globe.  Math models can be run on computers everywhere, 
both to make the technology you dread and to teach science to students.
So too bad, you won't get to sit in your ivory tower while the rest of the
world wallows in ignorance.  So sad.  This is such a beautiful vision for 
humanity you have here.  

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 22:23:09 GMT
From: rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Rick Francis Golembiewski)
Subject: Re: Answer to Laser Drive

Humm If you assume that the mass of a photon is 0 then how can there be
ANY way for photons (ie a LASER) to accelerate an object. (ie m*v=0).
Also I had heard that solar wind, contains actual particles (protons? I don't
remember and I was unable to find a reference at short notice but the important
idea is that I had heard that it WANT JUST EM radiation), although very small
(ie sub atomic) they still had measureable mass and thus had momentum, and
since the particles were moving at very high velocities, it was feasable that
one could get acceleration (although nothing spectacular) for a space craft
with a solar sail.

-RFG [you don't think I'm going to type that out every message do you?]
"My terminal software for a good editor...."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #112
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Nov 88 01:24:08 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04659>; Sun, 20 Nov 88 00:54:39 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 20 Nov 88 00:54:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXVZZ3y00jZd81R05X>;
          Sun, 20 Nov 88 00:33:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.UXVZT7y00UkZ07vk5V>;
          Sun, 20 Nov 88 00:27:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXVZQVy00UkZA7uU5K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 88 00:24:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #113

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:
		       Re: The ASPOD satellite.
		   Re: All this haggling about Mars
			    Re: Space Junk
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
		       Re: Teleoperated Robots
			   Hubble Telescope
			  Sex Drive in Space
		       Re: Teleoperated Robots
		      Re: Private Space Programs
		       Reminders for Old Farts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 19:31:12 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: The ASPOD satellite.

In article <8811041501.AA05080@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
:          ASPOD is to be equipped with a solar-driven, metal cutting device 
:     that will carve orbiting debris into pieces small enough to fit in a 
:     removable bin.  The metal cutter uses gold acrylic mirrors, mounted on 
:     a platform that inclines for tracking the Sun, to direct the Sun's rays 
:     toward an array of Fresnel lenses.  Solar rays are concentrated by the 
:     lenses into a powerful beam that will burn through metal. 
: 
:          ASPOD will operate in a quick-response mode, traveling between 
:     orbits to locate and then disassemble debris.  It may also operate in 
:     an economy mode, remaining stationary while waiting for debris to come 
:     to it.  Quick-response operation requires large amounts of fuel but can 
:     process several pieces quickly.  The economy mode uses much less fuel 
:     but takes over 100 times longer to handle the same amount of debris. 
: 
:          Once a mission is complete, ASPOD could either be retrieved
:     by the Space Shuttle or jettisoned to burn up on re-entry. 

This strikes me as not too useful.  It would only work on thingies big enough
to track, which are already pretty much avoidable.  It's the little foxes
that spoil the vines.

Also, I don't see the benefit of carving the thing up, other than ease of
handling.  It won't reduce the mass much, unless you plan on vaporizing the
whole thing (not a bad plan, I suppose, but you could do that with ground-based
lasers).  It just makes it a little easier to grab hold of.  But a suitably 
dexterous and sticky transporter could just attach itself to the side of
an object, bend around to align its thrusters with the center of mass, cancel
any tumble (except for rolling, which doesn't matter), and just start pushing
in the desired direction.  Why chop the thing up?

And if the thing is tumbling, cutting a piece off it is just going to send
the piece off in some random direction, just about as deadly as the whole
chunk, as far as the citizenry are concerned.  If you're going to have to
put a net around the whole object to catch the pieces, or cancel its tumbling,
you might as well shove it in one piece.

A better idea might be to dangle a LARGE block of foam from the moon, and let
things plow into it and vaporize themselves or embed themselves in the foam.
When it's full of debris we let it land in a suitable ocean, or crank it up
to the moon for the used fuse market.  Of course, this big sponge would sop up
all the working satellites too, but we could always put up new ones...  :-)

"Sorry, this orbisphere is closed down for Preventative Maintenence this decade.
Please try again in the year 2019."

Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 17:50:01 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: All this haggling about Mars

In article <288@iconsys.UUCP> mcd@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Dakins) writes:
>In article <799@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (Mr. Sullivan) writes:
>
>Well, I have waited and waited but, no one has responded
>to more that individual items of this nonsense so I feel it
>necessary that I do so.  If you care exeactly what Mr Sullivan
>said you will have to find his original article because I refuse
>to waste the bandwidth to repost the whole thing.
>
>> Let me inject a little *reality* into a group who loves science
>> fiction to such an extent it is causing them to push a special
>> interest (mars vs. moon expedition) on the American space effort.
>
>This is insulting and condescending toward those who support the
>manned space program and marks Mr Sullivan as someone who has no
>respect for those he is addressing, therefore I feel little need
>to be respectful toward him. The term "reality" however, implies
>FACT not opinion so, lets look at Mr Sullivan's facts.

 [He then goes on to say that my "realities" were nothing but
  opinions and therefore should not have been stated as "facts"
  but only as unsupported opinions]

First let me say that I have quite a lot of respect for those
individuals and scientists involved in space exploration. I have little
respect for those who want to live in asteriods, mine oxygen on the
moon, escape the 'eventual nuclear war' by living in space, and 
in general, those who set their goals without considering the
methods of, and reasons for, achieving them.  These realities include the
limits imposed by physical laws, cost/benefit ratios, and the ever present
political atmosphere.  Yes, some of my "realities" were opinion but 
opinions are interpretations of facts.  If Mr. Dakins did not like
the way I presented my views, I am sorry.  

My posting was in response to The Mars Declaration and the flames it
recieved.  I found this proposal and some of the counterproposals to lack
a sense of the realities to be faced.  The Nov. Nat. Geographic was 
an example of looking at this type of undertaking in a realistic way.
The goal of my posting was to get people to begin thinking of just
what they were proposing.  I have followed the worlds space efforts
since my childhood because I believe there are benefits to be had.
I think, however, that we should know why we are going somewhere, how we
are going to get there and whether it is worth it.  

 [Mr. Dakins continues...]
>Now, I should state my position.
>1) I support manned space flight.
>2) I support unmanned space flight.
>3) I support long range plans to create economically self supporting
>     colonies off Earth and firmly believe that this can be done
>     although not soon.
>4) I oppose crash programs.
>5) I oppose one shot, grandstand programs.
>6) I oppose and resent anyone (even those I agree with) presenting their
>     opinions as facts especially in the high handed fashion in which 
>     Mr Sullivan's posting was written.

I certainly agree with positions #1-#5 while taking #6 to be the insult
that it is.  If you don't agree with what I consider to be reality, then you 
certainly have the right to disagree.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 19:40:52 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Space Junk

As usual, fiction is ahead of science, this time with right stuff.
Some years back there was a collection of four SF novellas,
called "Deadly Litter."  The title story concerns exactly the topic
of space junk, but extended to interplanetary solar orbits,
meaning transfer orbits between various pairs of planets &
asteroids.

Most relevant was the social-cultural norms that astronauts (by
now including basic blue-collar workers) had adopted to deal with
the problem.  A spaceman was said to have "dirty habits" if he
let any rivets, nuts, or whatever get away while he was out working
on a space craft or station.  Worse yet if he deliberately threw anything
away in space.  If you got spotted doing any such thing, you were
blacklisted and ostracized, and if someone got killed by orbiting
junk you just might have an "accident."

That's the attitude that could be applied by international treaty
to uncrewed lanchers as well as EVA by astronauts.
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 02:00:45 GMT
From: ubvax!weitek!sci!daver@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.


Suppose that you could lob a water-balloon into a sub-orbital trajectory which
intersects the orbit of one of the coin-sized pieces of metal that are the
main problem.  The intention is that the piece of metal strikes the water
balloon and is itself slowed down to a sub-orbital velocity, everything falls
back into the atmosphere, and everyone is happy.  We might want to use a
snow-ball instead of a water balloon.  I don't know the mechanics of how
the slug and the snowball would interact, but it looks like a quite small
snowball (6 cm diameter) ought to be sufficient, provided that you could hit
the slug.

Anyway, if you could track objects that were coin-sized, it seems that a
slight modification of the existing US ASAT device or of a sounding rocket
ought to be able to bring them down.  It might be possible to illuminate
the target with a ground-based laser in order to make the anti-slug device
cheaper (it's going to need some homing capacity).

Of course, even if you could work the bugs out of it, it'd never be
implemented.  Too silly.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 22:44:08 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots

In article <6050@netnews.upenn.edu> ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Nathan Ulrich) writes:
>>The problem with teleoperation is the mechanics, not the communications.
>Are you sure you didn't get that first sentence backwards? ...

Sorry; I wrote hastily and somewhat obscurely.  What I meant is that the
communications are more or less a solved problem, insofar as they can be
solved at all.  The speed-of-light lag is fundamental and is a real problem
for space applications.  However, communications technology is adequate for
remotely-piloted aircraft on Earth, and for that matter for the digging
scoops on Surveyor and Viking.  We have the communications to run a robot
arm, when somebody builds one that works well.

The problems lie in building a dextrous arm/hand equivalent with enough
feedback to make it controllable.  The mechanical problems are still not
trivial, as witness the limitations of many industrial robot arms.  The
sensor problems are, however, definitely worse.  We have clumsy but often
adequate solutions to many of the mechanical problems, although not all.
(To the best of my knowledge, there is no existing robot arm with the
full dexterity and degrees of freedom of the human arm, hand, and fingers.)
Work on the sensor problem is, well, started.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 88 12:31 EST
From: CRABHILLS <V055MVW3%UBVMS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Hubble Telescope


NASA recently announced that the Hubble Space Telescope will be
launched EARLIER than planned, with a launch in late 89 as opposed
to a Feb. 1990 launch.  I would assume that the nearly $60,000 per day
storage costs for the telescope must have been a rather strong incentive
for this move.

Greg J Schaffer
SState University of New York @ Buffalo

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 21:53:14 GMT
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Sex Drive in Space

[single-sex space crews]

Folks, we really don't have to rediscover this all over again.
Various civilizations have experimented with isolated groups
many times in the past, and the results are known.  To begin
with, there is enough documentation on the old sailing navies,
from "Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition" to less sensational
works.  To continue, there are the records of the various
Polar expeditions and bases, including Nansen's and Shackleton's
stuff.

Three solutions are known to work pretty well

(a) Have the team composed of stable monogamous homosexual pairs.
    (It worked for the Greeks; whether it would work today is
     another matter)

(b) Provide a reasonable proportion of sex service people common
    to the team (as has worked for most regular armies since Roman
    times)

(c) Have a single-sex team officially celibate for the duration,
    and ignore any discrete lapses (as was - and still is - the
    policy of Her Majesty's Navy).

If you want the least impact on team effectiveness, solution (a)
is clearly best; the sexual bonding increases team morale and
durability.  See, for example, the Sacred Band of Thebes.  In a
modern context, where physical sexual dimorphism is less relevant,
it would probably work with heterosexual pairs also.  And there
are no doubt many other solutions to be found in history.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 17:57:16 GMT
From: netnews.upenn.edu!grasp.cis.upenn.edu!ulrich@rutgers.edu  (Nathan Ulrich)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots

I'm sorry to belabor this subject, but it's an area I work in!

In article <1988Nov7.224408.23348@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The problems lie in building a dextrous arm/hand equivalent with enough
>feedback to make it controllable.  The mechanical problems are still not
>trivial, as witness the limitations of many industrial robot arms.  The
>sensor problems are, however, definitely worse.  We have clumsy but often
>adequate solutions to many of the mechanical problems, although not all.
>(To the best of my knowledge, there is no existing robot arm with the
>full dexterity and degrees of freedom of the human arm, hand, and fingers.)
Anthropomorphic geometry for autonomous robots makes little or no sense--the
tasks that robots are expected to do and the way that they do them has little
to do with the human approach.  My philosophy is that we can make _better_ 
devices, even general-purpose devices, than the human machine in certain 
situations.  Does anyone think the human body is well-suited for outer space?
(Don't get me wrong, I admire the design of the human body, especially the
female version, a great deal.)

For straight teleoperation, it would seem that the perfect solution is an
exact duplicate remotely located, one that we could use just like we would use
our own arms and hands.  There are major problems with this approach.  Although
there are devices which essentially duplicate the human hand/arm combination
(the Utah/MIT Dextrous Hand is almost the human hand, although with only four
fingers, and there are recent robot arms which approximate the human arm) the
problems associated with controlling, actuating, and sensing are formidable.
And we don't really want a human arm analog in space; we want something
stronger, larger, tougher, and more reliable.  We don't want it to get tired
and we want to be able to replace it easily when it is damaged.  These 
requirements probably dictate something much simpler than the human system (the
shuttle is a good example of what happens to complicated systems in space) and
I have demonstrated in my research that we can do almost anything the human
hand can do with a device about 1/4 as complex.  

I have to agree with Henry's basic premise that are robots are not mechanically
ready for the requirements of the space station.  However, I am optimistic and
have been encouraged by recent results enough to predict that they will be.

>Work on the sensor problem is, well, started.
Don't rub it in.  This is an endless source of frustration, but so is the
control problem, the planning problem, the actuation problem....

Nathan Ulrich
ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 21:01:18 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Private Space Programs

In article <2351@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
> 
> The number of shareholder of record in Boeing Stock in 1986 was
> 68000.  `Stockholders equity was $4.36 billion.  This works out
> to $63,000 per stockholder. 
> 
> If we value contributed labor at $20/hr, then this amounts to
> 3000 hours , at 10 hours/week over 6 years.  The remaining question
> is whether enough people are available.  Based on aerospace estimating
> relationships, a small (garage scale) spaceplane should take about
> 60 person-years of effort to deisgn and build.  This equates to
> 40 people contributing effort on the above basis.  You game?
> 
Count me in.  Where and when?  Let me add some more thoughts.
How about incorporating, and trying for non-profit status?  That way,
it's possible to get some equipment and materials (yes, one can't build
something out of mere sweat and wishes) from aerospace companies, and
give them tax write-offs (and thus incentive to support the effort).

Seriously, isn't this the type of effort being devoted by Third Millenium
(if they're still in business) and a few others, including a Colorado-based
outfit working on a SSTO aerospike design?  If such efforts are what it takes
to get launch costs down, then I'm all for it.

BTW, how about launch insurance??  Government approval to launch???

N. Kluksdahl            Arizona State U.
         ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Nov 88 04:00:50 PST
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1
follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #113
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Nov 88 06:04:33 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05241>; Sun, 20 Nov 88 03:42:58 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 20 Nov 88 03:42:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wXVc7vy00UkTQ17U8v>;
          Sun, 20 Nov 88 03:27:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.sXVc1Ny00UkZM8Ak4K>;
          Sun, 20 Nov 88 03:20:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXVbz-y00UkZ08=U44@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 88 03:18:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #114

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Pluto's day
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		     Re: 1967 Lunar Polar Orbiter
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		      Is there water on the Moon
		    Re: Human groups in isolation
			      Re: ORION
		      Re: Private Space Programs
		 Re: Answer to a laser drive question
		    Re: Is there water on the Moon
		       Planetary orbital decay
		     Re: Planetary orbital decay
		Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 19:27:10 GMT
From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: Pluto's day

In article <13410@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
 
> How do we know the length of Pluto's day?
 
> My question is, how are the effects of Pluto's rotation on the light
> curve distinguished from those of Charon's?  Are there dynamical
> reasons to believe that both Pluto and Charon have the same rotation
> period?  
 
Just last week, I saw an animation by Marc Buie of the Space Telescope
Science Institute of the rotation of the Pluto-Charon system.  The long
term light curve is easily matched by light and dark spots, including
polar caps, on Pluto.  The relative sizes of the two bodies have been
determined to quite good precision by a series of mutual eclipses over
the past four years, with the best absolute numbers from Walker's
observation of an occultation of a star by Charon in 1980 and reasonable
assumptions concerning densities and albedoes.  Pluto is made of
significantly brighter material than Charon and has some sort of an
atmosphere, apparently including a haze layer which is what both the
occultation observations and mutual events see as a surface.  Because
albedo variations on Pluto's surface can be used to model the surface
so well, it is currently assumed that the haze layer is fairly
transparent.  Marc has yet to incorporate albedo information from the
mutual events, which he plans to do over the next year.  He will also
see what effects may be contributed by a varying surface on Charon.
There will be papers out soon describing the occultation results; they
were presented for the first time last week at the American Astronomical
Society Division of Planetary Sciences meeting in Austin.  There is talk
of a popular publication by NASA on Pluto (similar to what they have done
after Voyager encounters with other planets) to let people know there's
another interesting planet out there.

On to Triton,

Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer
mink@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 16:52:36 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

>From article <4109@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus):

>   For convective fission rockets (H2 flowing over a nuclear heat source)
> such as Nerva, the theoretical maximum is around 1200 seconds.  Nerva
> itself was supposed to reach 800, and that was a first generation
> system.

Anyone have any idea what the ISP of a NERVA style motor would be if
you added LOX to the hot H2 coming out of the reactor? What about
nuclear preheating for both the H2 and O2?

This is an idea I've seen in 1? SF story, but in none of the
scientific literature I've read on the subject, so I suspect it is
impractical. If anyone has some real information on this I'd
appreciate hearing about it. 

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 20:32:22 GMT
From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: 1967 Lunar Polar Orbiter

In article <45000002@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> 
> The latest issue of FINAL FRONTIER just arrived, and this month's "Data Base"
> (a card stock insert) features lunar exploration missions.  One probe
> (Lunar Orbiter 4 - launched May 4, 1967) was described as having, "Mapped 99%
> of Moon's visible side from near-polar orbit."  I was under the impression
> that no spacecraft had ever entered lunar polar orbit.

I hadn't realized that there had been a lunar polar orbiter, either, but
I looked up the elements, and an orbit with an inclination of 85.5 degrees 
looks near-polar to me.
 
> More importantly, was it equipped with a spectrometer able to detect the
> supposed water at the lunar poles?

The ONLY instrumentation on board was photgraphic.  There were two cameras,
one for wide field mapping and one for telephoto, with an automated laboratory
for film processing and a scanner to encode the pictures for transmission to
Earth.
 
> In short, how did this mission differ from the much talked about Lunar Polar
> Orbiter?

A Lunar Polar Orbiter would have higher resolution, multispectral imaging,
as well as a few other instruments.  From the Lunar Orbiter payload, it's
clear that we've come a long way in 20 years--in instrumentation, anyway.
We probably couldn't launch the same mission today.

Doug Mink
mink@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 01:23:35 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!math!greg@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Greg)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <1059@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>Anyone have any idea what the ISP of a NERVA style motor would be if
>you added LOX to the hot H2 coming out of the reactor? What about
>nuclear preheating for both the H2 and O2?

Putting LOX on a ship to let it react with hydrogen is probably a waste
of cargo space and would slow the ship down, if the ship is principally
powered by nuclear reactions.  Fission converts about .1% of the mass
of its fuel to kinetic energy, while even the strongest chemical
reactions convert less than .000001%.  Also, the H2 coming out the
reactor would be so would move so quickly that it probably wouldn't
have time to react with the LOX before it left the nozzle.

Similarly, there is no point in putting seltzer-bottle rockets on
a jet.
--
Greg

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 12:14:40 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Is there water on the Moon

Tom O'Reilly writes:
>    
>   The possibility of water existing on the Moon is very low.
>   ...  It has been proposed that "recent" cometary impacts
>   (over the past few million years) might leave traces of ice in
>   permanently shaded areas near the lunar poles.  Another
>   possible source are carbonaceous meteorites, which contain
>   water.  ...  Of course there may be surprises at the poles, but
>   you'd be well-advised to take along a canteen.  

An object falling onto the Moon will have at least the Moon's escape
velocity, 2300 m/s, hence at least 2.6 x 10^6 joules/kg = 630 cal/g of
kinetic energy.  This energy seems more than enough to grind a comet or
chondrite to fine dust and bake all moisture out of it.  Is that so?  

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 08:10:45 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Human groups in isolation

Actually two things:
1) I am leaving for Florida shortly for a week.  Please do not send
serious queries for information during this time.  I am incredibly swamped
with difficult work.  I will also probably NOT try to read any postings
during the next week 'c [catch-up]' on rn.  So if you want some
real info from inside, don't post, I'm sorry, I'm really swamped.

2) MacLeod's posting on Antarctic research is good.  It's true.
I've heard of this study.  Strange because I just got an offer to
visit the South Pole to help a friend do research (Feb., I'm
pondering... God was a chance!).  Anyway, there is a particular good
episode of the Twilight Zone on the very topic of isolation with
Earl Holiman.  Deep space offers interesting psychological problems.
I wonder how many netters could handle living in a can the size of
a VW (just as an example) for who knows how long.  P.S. If sex becomes
an issue, select the person most likely to be celibate, he or she might be
best adaptable, but then, that's why we have tests, isn't it? ;-)

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 17:32:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: ORION


RE : Chemical tests of Orion

I have a reference. Check out 'Disturbing the Universe' by Freeman Dyson. He
talks about working on the project that built the model in the late 50's,
apparently for General Atomic. The model was named 'Hot Rod', and is
alledgedly in the National Air&Space Museum in Washington.

Alan M. Carroll          "How many danger signs did you ignore?
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu     How many times had you heard it all before?" - AP&EW
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 22:28:02 GMT
From: texbell!killer!csccat!loci!clb@bellcore.com  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Private Space Programs

In article <2351@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
> In article <1988Oct26.171319.6553@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
+ > (Now me, I don't have that problem, but I don't have the money to start
+ > building space launchers...  Boy, do I ever wish...)
+ > -- 
> 
> relationships, a small (garage scale) spaceplane should take about
> 60 person-years of effort to deisgn and build.  This equates to
> 40 people contributing effort on the above basis.  You game?


	Now you're talking!  I have given this project some thought and
	it is doable given some good (great) scrounging, and a heavy
	dose of volunteerism.  It would certainly be a more productive
	use of time than arguing over what NASA should do.


-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 20:15:41 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Answer to a laser drive question

In article <Added.IXRTJUy00Ui3MDWU9q@andrew.cmu.edu> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
>...and second, where to aim the reflected laser.  You
>can't aim it back at the source, because it would just damage itself.  (?)
>Maybe you want to disperse it...

It is most unlikely that an operational solar sail will have an optically
flat surface, which is what would be required to reflect the beam back to
the source accurately.  The reflected beam *will* disperse, fairly quickly.

>...I have the feeling that the solar wind is a better source for a light
>powered craft with a decent sized sail than a laser would ever be, even
>up in the proposed SDI dream end of high powered lasers...

Laser sails only make sense with lasers vastly more powerful than even
SDI's dreams.  However, such lasers are not physically impossible.

Incidentally, the solar wind is the outflow of plasma from the Sun;
solar sails use the Sun's light, not the solar wind.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 16:48:29 GMT
From: uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@g.ms.uky.edu  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: Is there water on the Moon


In article <13415@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> An object falling onto the Moon will have at least the Moon's escape
> velocity, 2300 m/s, hence at least 2.6 x 10^6 joules/kg = 630 cal/g of
> kinetic energy.  This energy seems more than enough to grind a comet or
> chondrite to fine dust and bake all moisture out of it.  Is that so?

Sounds right.  Of course, the vaporised water wouldn't just disappear.
Eventually it would cool off and condense in shady spots on the surface.

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 15:32:12 GMT
From: osu-cis!killer!pollux!ti-csl!DMeyer%mips.csc.ti.com@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Dane Meyer)
Subject: Planetary orbital decay

In article <1988Nov8.084739.13896@cs.rochester.edu> Paul F. Dietz writes:
 > I thought that in 5 billion years, the sun would expand enough to cause
 > the Earth's orbit to decay.

I heard recently that the Earth's orbital decay is measurable, and that it
can be calculated when the Earth will slam into the sun.  Are the above
numbers in the ball park?  Is the sun's expansion the major contributor to
orbital decay?  What are the gravitational effects of other planets (and
the moon) to the Earth's orbit when they cruise by?  How long before the
moon bashes the Earth?

                                                                              
Dane Meyer  (Texas Instruments, Dallas)
                                                                 
ARPA/CSnet: dmeyer@csc.ti.com
UUCP:       {convex!smu im4u texsun pollux ihnp4!infoswx rice}!ti-csl!dmeyer

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 21:46:37 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Planetary orbital decay

In article <63060@ti-csl.CSNET> DMeyer@mips.csc.ti.com (Dane Meyer) writes:
>In article <1988Nov8.084739.13896@cs.rochester.edu> Paul F. Dietz writes:
> > I thought that in 5 billion years, the sun would expand enough to cause
> > the Earth's orbit to decay.
>
>I heard recently that the Earth's orbital decay is measurable, and that it
>can be calculated when the Earth will slam into the sun.  Are the above
>numbers in the ball park?  Is the sun's expansion the major contributor to
>orbital decay?

Earlier this year S&T had a small article on a simulation that was run.
If the current Sun were to suddenly be replaced by itself as it will be in
its red giant phase (for which I believe 5 billion years is a good number),
then the Earth's orbit would decay in 300 years.

>How long before the moon bashes the Earth?

The moon is spiraling out, and will continue to do so until the Earth's
rotation is gravitationally locked to the moon.  I once heard figures,
but don't remember whether it happens when 1 day/month is around two current
months, or whether the moon's orbit radius will be double what it is now.
I suppose the Sun might catch us both first.
-- 

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 19:09:06 GMT
From: att!whuts!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (WARMINK)
Subject: Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space

(Name lost) wrote:
> 
> > Hey, so what they should have done was docked the Apollo with the Soyuz,
> > used the Apollo to maneuver both to Skylab, had the Apollo undock from
> > the adapter and let the Soviets use it to dock with Skylab and use the
> > other docking port for Apollo.

The Apollo-adapter docking mechanism was not symmetrical, the standard probe-drogue
attachements were used. The adapter end would have the drogue, and would be useless
for docking with Skylab.

Slighly different question: why was the CSM engine not used to boost Skylab into a
higher orbit? I guess that at the time it just didn't seem necessary.
The CSM was stationed on the centerline of Skylab, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Maybe the unfurled solar panels on the telescope mount could not have taken the 
stress (the CSM's engine was pretty powerful, I think it was in Michael Collin's
new book _Liftoff_ that it was decribed as a "Kick in the behind"(?) !
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   There are lies, damned lies               |  Stuart Warmink, NAPC
   and statistics...                         |  <att!>whuts!sw Whippany NJ USA
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #114
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Nov 88 00:58:50 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00705> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 21 Nov 88 00:51:53 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 21 Nov 88 00:51:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oXVujRy00UkTQ1:11N>;
          Mon, 21 Nov 88 00:38:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.wXVuZ:y00UkZM98U56>;
          Mon, 21 Nov 88 00:27:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QXVuUWy00UkZ897E4F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 88 00:22:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #115

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 115

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Public approval ratings
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
			Re: Nuclear Flare Gun
		       re: new kid on the block
			  photons have mass
			 Galactic Bombardment
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
	       Re: NASA seeks proposals for teleroboti
		   Space Shuttle names to consider
			 Re: Resources of Io
			  Lunar Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 20:17:31 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Public approval ratings

In article <60@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>- There is strong support for increased funding to pay for new
>  endeavors.
>
>Write a letter to your Congressman today, including these poll figures.
>It's time to push off the shore while the tide is high!

Nope, sorry, you are making a key assumption which is false.  You are
assuming that numbers equal strength.  A great many people do support
higher funding for spaceflight... but it is nowhere near the top of
their priorities.  The support is widespread but very weak.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 20:23:44 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <1059@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>Anyone have any idea what the ISP of a NERVA style motor would be if
>you added LOX to the hot H2 coming out of the reactor? What about
>nuclear preheating for both the H2 and O2?

It would go down.  You're thinking energy, but rocket engines run on
velocity.  You might be able to raise the temperature of the exhaust a
bit (although with things like dissociation, I have my doubts), but you
are increasing its molecular weight a whole lot, and that cuts the
velocity down a whole lot.  The big advantage of Nerva-type rockets is
not that they reach staggering temperatures -- they don't -- but that
the exhaust is hydrogen, with its very low molecular weight.
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 22:21:26 GMT
From: texbell!killer!csccat!loci!clb@bellcore.com  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Flare Gun

In article <5129@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@tlab2.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes:
> In article <152@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:
> >	I like the idea of a big, wide-spectrum flash-bulb.
> 
>     Part of the problem is that you *want* as narrow a frequency
> spread as possible. The characteristics of the return signal can tell
> about rotation periods, surface composition, porosity, and other
> physical characteristics - but not very well when a wide signal is
> used.

	I can't see how you're going to get compositions from a narrow
	band; aren't you talking about a spectrographic picture?  Anyway,
	why not let everybody play?  Optical telescopes could also be
	used to get more sky coverage during the event.

	I presume you need a narrow bandwidth for rotations since you
	would be looking at doppler smear,  very difficult given the
	output of a typical nuclear device.  As I recall, the experiments
	with x-ray lasers couldn't block out the normal emissions well
	enough to evaluate whether or not lasing took place. Maybe some
	sort of huge diffraction grating?  I think we should settle for
	wide spectrum.
 
> I ran a few numbers the other night; it looked like
> the total return power from a 100km diameter asteroid at 1 AU, from a
> 50MT nuclear warhead, over the area of an Arecibo-type dish, would be
> ~10^-7 ergs. I don't have information on nuclear blast emissions or
> dish sensitivies to turn this into signal/noise ratios.

	Sounds like a strong signal to me.  There might be some difficulty
	sorting out faint objects if you got that much from a few
	bright ones.  I wonder what the dynamic range for RT's is.
	If there's that much return then we should be able to see lots
	of things with many telescopes, both radio and optical (and others
	too, I'm not trying to exclude anyone).
 
-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 15:43:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: re: new kid on the block



I received the following email...

>The political problem is precisely why I want the government to GET OUT OF IT.
>The idea that we know how to allocate resources may be fine for a third world
>country trying to develop, but when you already have the known technology and
>scientific know-how, the only way to progress is to let those with ideas try
>them out.

 My point exactly.  But how do you propose that the government
 be made to 'GET OUT' without solving the political problem, hmmm?
                               
 It's going to take political action to get the government
 out of the space business but most space enthusiasts don't 
 want to get their hands dirty with politics and that's why
 we're going to stay earthbound.

                                            --Peter

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 17:44:35 GMT
From: grv101%psuvm.BITNET@jade.berkeley.edu
Subject: photons have mass


I write:

>>What about using a laser to propel photons. I remember a problem from my first
>>year of physics in which a laser was mounted to the back of a spaceship,  in a
>>relatively short period of time the craft had reached astounding velocities.
>>In reference to what was said above, the photons have very little mass (please
>>no flames i did not mean REST mass) and of course a high velocity. Now comes my
>>question, why is this not done? Perhaps the loss of energy due to heat is too
>>great, or maybe the photons carry little momentum as compared to energy.
>>The formula for energy is of course (planck's constant)(frequency)=Energy.
>>and momentum is P=E/c. Yes, a laser drive would accelerate too slowly for
>>a manned vehicle however, with unmanned probes no one cares.



Arnold Gill writes:


>     A laser to propel photons?  Light (and the laser) IS photons, and so
>does not 'propel' them (at least not the way I think of the physical
>situation).  The photons have in fact zero mass, otherwise the formula
>P=E/c you use later on would be nonsense.  A couple of rather important
>physical misconceptions there.
>
>     However, in answer to your question, I don't think a laser drive in
>the manner you envision it would be too useful.  Why use a laser, why
>not just shine a light out the rear end of a spaceship - the result is
>essentially the same.  However, laser drives have been thought of,
>though with respect to solar sails...


When I said laser, I meant the device that creates the laser beam. Most people
call this object a laser. If you look in a science catalog, you will often find
 lasers for sale. They are not selling photons, they are selling an object that
 creates or you might even say propels photons.

Photons DO have mass, though don't take my word for it. Here is an article that
 was posted to sci. physics on October 28.

Rahul Dhesi writes:

- It is impossible to convert mass into energy because mass is a property that
- both matter and energy have. Converting matter to energy leaves the mass
- unchanged.
-
- Take a perfectly insulated box containing matter. Measure the total mass of
- the box. Somehow arrange (perhaps through a time-delayed mechanism inside the
- box) for some of the matter inside the box to be converted into energy.
- Measure the total mass of the box again. Your two measurements of mass total
- will be identical. Matter was converted to energy but mass was not.
-
- Often we see the term "mass" incorrectly used to mean "matter". Mass is a
- *property* of both matter and of energy.

The reason I proposed mounting the laser to the craft instead of using a sail
was due to practicality(sp?) I was thinking of an unmanned craft we could build
 today. To set up a laser station in orbit and then track one or multiple craft
 would be too costly. It seems that the probes we send out, run out of fuel but
 not electricity. The nuclear plants used on unmanned craft could power a laser
 for quite some time.

Why use a laser and not just shine a light out the back? To be honest, I don't
exactly know. I think the problem is that incoherent light spreads out in all
directions at once while a laser produces a very tight beam.

                                           Gregson Vaux

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 9 Nov 88 17:57 EST
From: <RJOHNSON%CEBAFVAX.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Galactic Bombardment

     A couple of recent discussions on the net - specifically the 'SETI-Why
aren't they here' and the 'Cretaceous Extinctions' discussions have made me
wonder if there might not be some correlation between the two. In the
extinctions discussion, someone made the comment (I don't remember who)
that a great deal of debris may exist in the plane of the the galaxy, and that
occasional passes through the galactic plane may result in bombardments
of the Earth which would account for the periodic extinctions. If we begin
with the premise that this is at least probable, then it seems to me it also
has a direct bearing on the question of "Why aren't they here", at least in the
sense of adding one more variable to the Drake(is this right?) equation.

     Suppose that the amount of debris is much greater than we expect, or even
if it isn't, that the density of the debris increases as one approaches the
center of the galaxy. (Seems logical at first pass - dark matter searchers take
note.:-)) Then perhaps within a certain radius of the center of the galaxy,
there has been no chance at all for advanced life forms to develop because of a
relatively continual bombardment. I say relatively, because I'm not sure how
often a major impact would have to occur on a planet in early evolutionary
stages to effectively prevent advanced life from developing - once every
thousand years? every 100,000? or what? The point I'm getting to with this, is
that perhaps only planets in solar systems outside of this 'catastrophe'
radius have had any real chance of developing advanced life at all. The prime
question here, is if we can determine what the interval of impacts would have
to be to produce the effect mentioned, then is there any way to determine if
the density of debris is sufficient to support this theory, and what is the
minimum radius outside of which advanced life could evolve? Additionally, what
percentage of the stars in our galaxy are within this radius, or more
appropriately, what percentage is left that advanced life could evolve on?
Comments????

                                                        RJOHNSON@CEBAFVAX
P.S. Loyellen Griggs - Please send me a message with your correct node address.I
have some questions/info for you but I can't find your address.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 20:08:47 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <1089@igloo.UUCP> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <4139@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>>> In article <1069@igloo.UUCP> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>>> }The best stardrive would probably be a Bussard Ramjet (scoop up interstellar
>>> }hydrogen for fuel) if it could be made to work.  The best use for the spent
>>> }fuel is again reaction mass for this case, as well.
>>
>>  NO.  Definitely not.  It is easy to show that an efficient rocket
>>is one which has high Isp, which means high p/E (p = momentum).
>>Photons are ideal.  (I will leave as an exercise for the reader
>>the proof that photons have larger p/E than matter.)
>>  An ideal rocket is thus one which uses ONLY photons as reaction mass.
>>The spent fuel should be dumped overboard without any significant
>>velocity.
>
>I disagree - and I can prove my point mathematically.  I will start out by
>stating my definition of "efficiency" - whcih is getting the most thrust from
>a specified quantity of fuel.  This definition will ultimately lead to the
>highest terminal velocity for a specified configuration of payload, fuel, and
>necessary structual mass. [stuff deleted]


Ok, ok......I received a great deal of mail on this topic, and I would
have responded sooner if I hadn't been away on a vacation break.  To put
it simply:

  You're right.

  I'm afraid I had confused the p/E effect, which encourages high
mass/low velocity reaction mass, with the relationship between exhaust
velocity and payload fraction.  If you look at the latter, you see that

  delta V = U ln (Mi/Mf)

where U is exhaust velocity, Mi is the initial mass including payload
and fuel, and Mf is the final mass with the fuel gone.  This equation
makes it pretty clear that to have a reasonable payload fraction (PF =
(Mi-Mf)/Mi), you need as high an exhuast velocity as possible.  This
occurs when the mass of the reaction mass (?) is at a minimum.  This is
why rocket engines tend to supply excess hydrogen rather than running at
stoichiometric mixture.  Further, this effect overwhelms the p/E effect.
  It should by noted that this is not a relativistic formula, but the
trends shown (higher delta V with higher U at fixed PF) hold for the
relativisitic case.
  I stand by my arguments in the above article; unfortunate I quoted the
wrong equation to support it.  Sorry for the confusion, and thanks to
the people who corrected the mistake.

  -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 88 16:13:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: NASA seeks proposals for teleroboti


>From msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Smitty):
> Gee, somebody oughta tell them about Dr. Chandra in Chicago...

If you are refering to the Dr. Chanda of 2001 & 2010 fame, he was (will be?) a
professor of computer science at the University of Illinois in Urbana-
Champaign.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL 61820

 "Yes, as a matter of fact, I DO have January 12, 1992 marked on my calendar."

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 06:03:36 GMT
From: phoenix!amlovell@princeton.edu  (Anthony M Lovell)
Subject: Space Shuttle names to consider


 I saw Phoenix suggested, but I personally liked my first idea which was
"Champion".
-- 
amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu     ...since 1963.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 17:28:58 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Resources of Io

In article <730@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>Why don't you calculate how far it will move first? ...

Don't forget also, that there is a resonance with some of the other moons
that tends to maintain Io's orbit.  (Or there was last time I read about
it -- the astronomers may have changed their minds.)
-- 
The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 17:17:09 GMT
From: agate!pasteur!holden.Berkeley.EDU!c184-ap@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Iain McClatchie)
Subject: Lunar Engineering


   I wonder if the following idea would be practical for mining on the moon.

   Put a large mirror in orbit around the moon. It could be a clear thin
Mylar bubble, one side aluminized, with a little nitrogen inside. It should
focus sunlight on a small unmoving spot on the moon.
   Over this spot place another inflated Mylar half-bubble, the perimeter
sealed to the surface somehow. The idea is that the mirror acts as a solar
furnace, vaporizing a small patch of lunar material. The gas thus formed is
trapped by the half-bubble. The gas is prevented from touching said bubble by
electrostatic repulsion. An electron gun in the side of the bubble keeps the
gas negatively charged, and the bubble is an anode.
   A string of chambers is connected via a tube to the collection bubble.
The gas in each chamber is held at constant temperature by some means,
perhaps a thermostatically controlled liquid crystal light gate mediating the
influx of light from yet another mirror in orbit. The gas in the chamber next
to the bubble is nearly as hot as the gas inside the bubble, and each
succeeding chamber is cooler than the last. The idea is that the elements
of the gas condense one by one into distinct chambers, and the gas flow rate
from chamber to chamber is slow enough so that the condensate is reasonably
pure.  The condensed elements can fall into seperate pits where they await
later collection.

   This design has no moving parts, and probably wouldn't have much mass (a few
shuttle loads). It needs to be picked up and moved to fresh surface
regularly, but it leaves behind a nice hole in which to put things that you
don't want irradiated too badly (put the lunar base in the hole with an
elevator tube sticking out the top. Explode the surface surrounding it to bury
the thing). Would it work?

			      -Iain McClatchie
			      c184-ap@holden.berkeley.EDU

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #115
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Nov 88 03:50:00 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01423> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 21 Nov 88 03:46:09 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 21 Nov 88 03:46:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXVxBJy00UkTA17WtB>;
          Mon, 21 Nov 88 03:27:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.YXVx80y00UkZQ9NU5E>;
          Mon, 21 Nov 88 03:21:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXVx5Ky00UkZA9ME5L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 88 03:18:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #116

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Resources of Io
		 Re: Answer to a laser drive question
		       Re: The Depths of Lunacy
		Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory
		Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is
			 RE: Species survival
		  Stranded in LEO due to APU failure
		       Re: The Depths of Lunacy
		      Re: Private Space Programs
	   Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft
		       Re: Teleoperated robots
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 23:52:09 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Resources of Io

After sending the message about using Io as an energy source, I
noticed that Io is *beyond* synchronous altitude.  So, the generator
will cause Io to spiral away from Jupiter.  The energy is provided
by Jupiter's rotation.

Apparently cheated of the exciting spectacle of Io going down in
flames, we'll have to look elsewhere to spiral something into Jupiter
(Io would actually have fragmented from tidal stresses first).

Amalthea is at just about synchronous altitude (coincidence?), so it
makes a poor choice for power generation.

Metis (1979J3/J16) has a semimajor axis of 127,960 km and revolves
around Jupiter once every .295 earth days.  The effective speed w.r.t.
Jupiter's magnetic field is 9 km/s, about the same as at Io.  However,
Metis is 3.3x closer to Jupiter, so Jupiter's magnetic field is
(3.3)^3 = 35 times stronger.  The tether would probably be extended
into space on either side of the moon, pulled out by tidal forces.

Metis has a radius of 20 km.  Assuming it is rocky, with a density of
2.5 g/cc, it has a mass of 2e16 kilograms.  Moving it inward by 1
meter will liberate 7e16 joules.  If we run a 1 terawatt power plant
the orbit will decay about 400 meters per year.  Things get better
as we move inward.  At Jupiter's cloud tops a 20 km tether would
experience a potential of several hundred kilovolts.

Adrastea (1979J1/J14) is at about the same distance, but has a radius
of only 12 km.  It would spiral in more quickly.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 20:29:46 GMT
From: thorin!tlab1!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Answer to a laser drive question

In article <1988Nov9.201541.6251@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <Added.IXRTJUy00Ui3MDWU9q@andrew.cmu.edu> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
>>...I have the feeling that the solar wind is a better source for a light
>>powered craft with a decent sized sail than a laser would ever be, even
>>up in the proposed SDI dream end of high powered lasers...
>Incidentally, the solar wind is the outflow of plasma from the Sun;
>solar sails use the Sun's light, not the solar wind.

    Some other problems with using the solar wind:

    i) It contains far less energy than solar radiation.
   ii) It doesn't couple as well to a sail, since it doesn't bounce
       off like light (less momentum transfer), and is charged.
  iii) The solar magnetic field makes the wind spiral outward. As you
       move away from the Sun, the direction of the solar wind becomes
       closer to tangential rather than radial.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Are there any more questions, besides the ones from the
      liberal communists?''
	- George Uribe, natl. director of "Students For America"

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 23:35:58 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: The Depths of Lunacy

In article <1988Nov8.084739.13896@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> Related topic: astronomers have detected silicon monoxide masers
> around some red giant stars.  A new theory says that these occur in
> rock boiling off planets or moons in the stars' extended atmospheres.
> If true, it's a novel way to detect extrasolar planets.

Yes, and a little belated, too ;-).
Of course it's nice to get the statistical info
on how many stars and in what part of the galaxy
have planets, in fact what we would call
"inner" planets
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 88 11:53:32 GMT
From: uhccux!baron@humu.nosc.mil  (Baron Fujimoto)
Subject: Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory

In article <1095@cseg.uucp> rsh@hcx.uucp (R. S. Hallquist) writes:
=
=Hey, Shannon,
=whose to say that just because you can make you own star nova, that you
=can destroy beserkers?

out of curiosity, just how would one go about making a star go nova?
seems to me like the processes involved in stellar evolution are a
little difficult to control...


-- 
INTERNET:	baron@uuccux.uucc.hawaii.edu     | 
BITNET:		baron@uhccux.bitnet              |  "Make beans into peas!"
ICBM:		21 19 N     157 52 W             |

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 88 06:28:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is


>From purtill@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU (Mark Purtill):

> This is essentially what AMROC (American Rocket Company)'s proposed
> commercial rocket looks like.  The boosters are hybrid, using LOX and
> some sort of solid fuel.  I think I have their address around

AMROC's rocket uses a hybrid engine of liquid oxygen and synthetic rubber.
It is interesting to note that both of these are common items.  Liquid
oxygen is found in the basement of every hospital, while synthetic rubber
is in hundreds of household goods.

Another note, the hybrid engine was first proposed by Hermann Oberth, the
German rocket pioneer. 

> Speaking of start-up commercial launch companies, does anyone know if
> Third Millennium Inc (aka MMI) is still around?  They had a plan for a
> commercial mini-shuttle.

I saw a presentation by Third Millennium at the International Space Development
Conference in Denver last Memorial Day weekend.  The corporation recently
added a cargo-only mode to the planned Space Van system.

The Space Van is to be a fully reusable two-stage shuttle system.  Both stages
are manned rockets, with the orbiter only slightly shorter than an F-15.
The booster would use three H-1 rocket engines, while the orbiter would use
various liquid oxygen/hydrogen RL10 engines.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL 61820

 "Someone once defined a crank as an enthusiast without a sense of humor, and
 I have always believed that nothing is so important that you cannot make
 fun of it."
 - Arthur C. Clarke

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 88 13:38:05 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (If you don't vote, you can't bitch)
Subject: RE: Species survival

In article <177@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) writes:
                 various stuff, then ...
>    I am not against space colonies, only their unecessary near-term
>    (i.e. within fifty years) appropriation of scarce resources [...]

But when do we start?  If we wait 50 years, the same argument can be used
again, assuming that in fifty years we (humanity as a whole) is capable
of doing what we can do now.  Remember, if we run out of those scarce
resources, we can't get replacements.

The arguments based on "we can't afford it now" "non-thought process" :-) 
sound so much like the farmer who can afford to put up any seed corn next
year.  We have to start somewhere and somewhen, it might as well be here
and now.  Just because we don't have the technology today doesn't mean we
can't develop it, but we won't if we don't try!!!

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 88 18:17:25 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Stranded in LEO due to APU failure

In order to prepare for the next Shuttle disaster, we need to examine
the various scenarios that may occur, their likelihood, consequences 
and what work should be done, in advance to prepare ourselves, our
space program and our citizenry.

For example, consider what would happen if an orbiter were stranded
in LEO due to total APU failure.  The logic of the situation would 
unfold in this scenario:

Hundreds of millions of people on Earth would watch every detail
of the dramatic situation unfold over several days (assuming they
have that much life support).  During the first few days, there 
will be many attempts to repair the problem with ground crews working 
round the clock on a simulated orbiter in a similar failure
mode.  They will come up with any of a number of futile attempts
to fix the problem which the astronauts will, at first, dutifully
carry out.  This work will proceed even though there is little or no
possibility of an actual fix.  The public, the astronauts and NASA
personnel will feel hope and dispair in cycles at each attempt,
until, eventually, the charade will wear thin.  At that point, the
astronauts, the ones who are facing certain death, will be under 
enormous psychological pressure to end the charade.  

Such a break-point will carry with it the likelihood of one or more
astronauts venting frustration and hostility -- possibly built up 
over many years of disillusionment as part of the crippled US space 
effort.  

NASA will attempt to blank-out all communications with
the astronauts at or before this point.  Some or all astronauts will 
not want to cooperate with this black-out and will refuse to allow
the their communications to be encrypted.  Ham radio operators and
others around the world will band together to pick up the transmissions
of the doomed astronauts and make them available to the public.

After breaking from the bureaucracy's authority, the astronauts
may become extremely critical of specific individuals in NASA and
its contractors.  They will have nothing to lose and will finally 
have a chance to right what they perceive as the wrongs in the
space program.

A few weeks after the dying words of the astronauts are heard,
the shuttle will reenter the atmosphere at 5 or 6 miles per second.
It will break up.  A few large fragments will scatter widely and
unpredictaby, hitting the ground before total disintigration due 
to the ablative coating.  The public, ignorant of probability theory,
will be in terror at the thought of the shuttle crashing into their
communities causing mass destruction.  The fireball could easily be
visible from large population centers and will most likely be viewed
on television broadcasts around the world.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 88 03:50:48 GMT
From: muddcs!mwilkins@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Wilkins)
Subject: Re: The Depths of Lunacy

In article <1988Nov8.084739.13896@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>I thought that in 5 billion years, the sun would expand enough to cause
>the Earth's orbit to decay.

Won't the Earth vaporize before the orbit decays?  I heard something to that
effect some time ago.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 14:43:30 GMT
From: osu-cis!killer!texbell!uhnix1!nuchat!steve@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Steve Nuchia)
Subject: Re: Private Space Programs

>From article <182@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, by kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl):
> BTW, how about launch insurance??  Government approval to launch???

If we use horizontal takeoff all we need is FAA approval to fly it
as an "experimental" aircraft, which is relatively easy to get.  It may
be difficult to get life insurance for the crew but "launch" insurance
shouldn't apply.

More like industrial liability insurance for transporting explosives
by air, expensive but not prohibitive.

"I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the net."  Salt to taste.
-- 
Steve Nuchia	    | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy.
uunet!nuchat!steve  | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be
(713) 334 6720	    | infallible, it cannot be intelligent.  - Alan Turing, 1947

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 88 22:53:50 GMT
From: sayan@athena.mit.edu  (Sayan Chakraborty)
Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

In article <4360@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>I'm afraid I had confused the p/E effect, which encourages high
>mass/low velocity reaction mass, with the relationship between exhaust
>velocity and payload fraction.  If you look at the latter, you see that
>
>  delta V = U ln (Mi/Mf)
>
>where U is exhaust velocity, Mi is the initial mass including payload
>and fuel, and Mf is the final mass with the fuel gone.  This equation
>makes it pretty clear that to have a reasonable payload fraction (PF =
>(Mi-Mf)/Mi), you need as high an exhuast velocity as possible.  This
>occurs when the mass of the reaction mass (?) is at a minimum.  This is
>why rocket engines tend to supply excess hydrogen rather than running
>at stoichiometric mixture.

Rockets tend to supply excess hydrogen in order to keep throat temperature 
down.  Running stochiometrically, throat temperatures for hydrogen-oxygen go to
above 5000K which cannot be cooled even regeneratively.  So add extra hydrogen
and get the temperature down to 3000K.  Suprisingly, exhaust velocity is not
tremendously reduced.  Present rockets tend to use 2 to 2.5 times as much
hydrogen than needed for a stochiometric burn.

I want to apologize to places like Utah, which are also conducting teleoperator
researc, since I didn't mention them in my first posting.


Sayan Chakraborty
MIT Space Systems Lab

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 88 22:26:13 GMT
From: sayan@athena.mit.edu  (Sayan Chakraborty)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated robots

In <8811031502.AA01187@crash.cs.umass.edu> csustan!lll-winken!uunet!husc6!ukma!rutgers!att!ucbvax!cs.umass.edu!ELIOT states:
>
>No one is likely to do any serious basic research on teleoperated robots.  
>The prospects for more or less fully *autonomous* robots are rather good on
>the 5 - 15 year time frame.  I expect that a certain number of impressive
>teleoperated robots will be developed as spin offs of the push for
>autonomous robots, but they will almost instantly become obsolete for most
>purposes.

Unfortunately for you, fortunately for the rest of us, "serious basic research"
is already being done.  At MIT's Space Systems Lab, a great deal of effort is
being expended towards viable space telerobots.  Among these, are a space truss
assembly teleoperator, a sattelite "tugboat" which can be teleoperated or flown
by an astronaut (testing the benefits of both) and a truss "crawling" repair
servicer.  All of the aforementioned are tested in neutral buoyancy facilities,
including NASA/Marshall, at present, but the technology for space use is there.
Currently, one telerobot is being reconfigured with force reflection feedback
to the operator, for repairing the Marshall Hubble mockup.  Over time it is
expected that many of the lower level tasks will be replaced by autonomous
processes (some are already) but direct supervisory will be maintained.

There are several reasons for using teleoperators over autonomous robots.
Number one is safety.  Most people prefer too limit risks in the space 
construction environment, and direct teleoperation provides this.  In fact,
Goddard is keeping the safety components of the Space Telerobotic Servicer
contract "in-house" to guard against slip-ups.  They are dealing with a couple
of really tricky safety questions, such as control of 7 D-O-F arms (these tend
to act erratically, and I wouldn't equip a fully autonomous robot with one)
They are also dealing with public opinion.
Second, a great deal of reasearch has already been done, both here and at 
Stanford (they use air-bearing tables for 0-g simulation).  This data has also
been compared to astronaut construction (the EASE flight experiment was a 
MIT/SSL test), to determine what robots can do better.
I think in the 5-15 year period you mention, we'll see a number of useful 
space telerobots, and few if any pure robots.

On another note, a previous letter mentioned that chemical rocket Isp's were
limited to 300 seconds. (I apologize for not being able to cite it directly 
here, I just figured out how to send mail to the group).  The shuttle main
engines's operate at about 450 seconds (the theoretical maximum at acceptable
throat temperatures is about 500).  Combining hydrogen and flourine adds 20
seconds to that, if you're willing to live with the reaction products).  The
best possible chemical reaction would be to combine monotomic hydrogen back
into diatomic hydrogen (if you figure out how to store monatomic hydrogen).
A quick calculation in my head give me an Isp around 1400, as a theoretical 
maximum.

Anyway, hello to the group, I've been reading for a couple weeks now, and the
information passed about seems worthwhile.  I hope you feel the same way about
mine.


Sayan Chakraborty
MIT Space Systems Laboratory
sayan@athena.mit.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #116
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Nov 88 09:58:56 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01673> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 21 Nov 88 09:51:43 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 21 Nov 88 09:51:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0XW2dby00Vs141=05y>;
          Mon, 21 Nov 88 09:38:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.MXW2Siy00UkZM9rE5E>;
          Mon, 21 Nov 88 09:26:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XW2ROy00UkZM9q04n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 88 09:25:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #117

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Private Space Programs
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
		Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space
		       Re: Teleoperated Robots
		       Re: Teleoperated Robots
			  reboosting Skylab
		    Re: Is there water on the Moon
		  Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST
			      Amroc etc.
		     Re: Surplus NASA space suits
		     Re: Surplus NASA space suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 88 00:37:50 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space Programs

In article <2351@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>... a small (garage scale) spaceplane should take about
>60 person-years of effort to deisgn and build.  This equates to
>40 people contributing effort on the above basis.  You game?

Whether I'm game depends on details.  I'm certainly interested.
Details?
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 21:27:40 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

>From article <809@cmx.npac.syr.edu>, by anand@amax.npac.syr.edu (Anand Rangachari):
> 
>   With all this talk about reducing the possibility of collision with debris,
> I am reminded of a scheme suggested in the book 'The songs of distant Earth'
> by Clarke. In this book, the ship Magellen pushes a shield made of ice
> ahead of it, sweeping a clean path. Maybe a similar shield could be
> made for the space shuttle from waste water and the water produced in the
> fuel cells. 

Not a bad idea, except that a starship traveling at some fraction of
the speed of light and a space shuttle in LEO are very different
physical systems. The shield would have to surround the shuttle, not
just sit in front of it. Debris in the same orbit as the as the
shuttle has very little (none if in the SAME orbit, going the SAME
direction) difference in velocity relative to the shuttle and is not a
threat. But debris in orbits that cross the shuttle orbit, and
therefore have high velocities relative to the shuttle are the danger.

A starship is moving quickly with respect to the interstellar dust and
gases and can (maybe) get away with not worrying about material in
trajectories that cross its path.

>   In fact it could be produced quite easily by creating a framework made
> from a shape memory alloy. Then, water could be sprayed on it to actually
> form the shield. 

In a vacuum ice sublimes. That is it converts directly from a solid to
a gas. This fact has been used to get rid of heat on manned spacecraft
for quite some time. I suppose that if the ice is cold enough this can
be reduced to a point where the loss is insignificant, but in LEO the
ice will be in sun light for about half of each orbit. The shield will
slowly melt away.

>                                                      R. Anand


Question: Liquid water released in orbit tends to convert into a cloud
of water vapor and ice cristals. The ice crystals later sublime to
water vapor. Could large clouds of ice crystals be used to "sweep"
orbits of small debris particles? 

Doesn't sound practicle, too large a volume, too few particles. But I
haven't heard it suggested before. Might it be useful for sheilding a
battle station from a kinetic engery attack using a bucket of b.b.s?

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 88 21:33:48 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

In article <1068@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>Question: Liquid water released in orbit tends to convert into a cloud
>of water vapor and ice cristals. The ice crystals later sublime to
>water vapor. Could large clouds of ice crystals be used to "sweep"
>orbits of small debris particles? 

Unfortunately, you need to sweep a spherical shell, not just a single orbit,
since anything at the same altitude will intersect your orbit.  (Ignoring
non-circular orbits for the moment...)  That's a lot of volume.

You also have to be careful about the possibility of making the problem
worse.  Hypervelocity impacts can behave in peculiar ways.  It's quite
possible for an impact to break both objects into pieces without doing
much to decelerate or vaporize either one.  Breaking the existing
debris up into smaller bits is the *last* thing we want to do.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 88 21:17:18 GMT
From: ndsuvm1!ndsuvax!ncoverby@cunyvm.cuny.edu  (Glen Overby)
Subject: Re: U.S. - Soviet cooperation in space


In article <5013@whuts.att.com> sw@whuts.att.com (WARMINK) writes:
>Slighly different question: why was the CSM engine not used to boost Skylab into a
>higher orbit? I guess that at the time it just didn't seem necessary.

I recall that the CSM engines were used to boost Skylab several times (I'm
not sure if it was on each visit, but certainly on Skylab3 and
Appolo-Soyuz).  So there definately wasn't a problem with the durability
of the solar panels or centering of the CSM.

The first Shuttle mission (when it was supposed to be in
1979) would have taken up a booster to give Skylab a kick back up to a higher
orbit.  We all know how THAT went...

Glen Overby
ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu       uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby
ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 88 18:10:19 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots

A few months ago I attended a presentation by Dr. Steven Jacobsen
(SP?) about the work his group is doing on teleoperated robots and
other things. This is the group that brought you the dextrous hand.

One of the things they are developing under contract to the U.S. Navy
is a teleoperated robot designed to be mounted on the front of a deep
diving submarine. It will have two arms, with hands, and a head, with
eyes, mounted on a torso that is mounted on the end of what looks like
a heavy duty robot arm. It will provide the operator with binocular
vision and tactile feedback from the hands and arms. The operator will
wear the control mechanism and be able to see and feel what the robot
is manipulating. The operator will stay on the surface.

My understanding is that no amount of suit will allow humans to use
their hands to manipulate objects on the ocean floar at the depths
where this robot is intended to be used. LEO isn't so bad by
comparison.

So it would seem that teleoperated robots are under development. I'd
hope they will be (almost) off the shelf items in just a few years.

It would seem to me that you need teleoperated robots before you can
even start trying to develop autonomous robots. You need a body before
you can really know what the brain must do.

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 88 19:46:47 GMT
From: spar!snjsn1!news@decwrl.dec.com  (USENET News System)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots

C
In article <1067@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>
>One of the things they are developing under contract to the U.S. Navy
>is a teleoperated robot designed to be mounted on the front of a deep
>diving submarine. It will have two arms, with hands, and a head, with
>eyes, mounted on a torso that is mounted on the end of what looks like
>a heavy duty robot arm. It will provide the operator with binocular
>vision and tactile feedback from the hands and arms. The operator will
>wear the control mechanism and be able to see and feel what the robot
>is manipulating. The operator will stay on the surface.
>
>My understanding is that no amount of suit will allow humans to use
>their hands to manipulate objects on the ocean floar at the depths
>where this robot is intended to be used. LEO isn't so bad by
>comparison.
>
>So it would seem that teleoperated robots are under development. I'd
>hope they will be (almost) off the shelf items in just a few years.
From: greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman)
Path: bilbo!greg

But you are talking about operation over a distance of no more than
about 5 miles.  This causes no appreciable delay in the
feedback/response loop.  Try this over interplanetary distances, and
you will almost certainly lose robots.

Imagine it this way: you are driving your car.  Suddenly, there is a
large object in you path, which at your current speed, is five seconds
away.  You step on the brake, but you are really three seconds closer
to the object than it appears, and the brakes don't apply for three
seconds after you've stepped on the pedal.  Result?  You hit it.
Except that it's a multi-million dollar space probe that hit it, and
now it's broken, after months in space and billions of dollars spent
to get it there.  Oops.

>It would seem to me that you need teleoperated robots before you can
>even start trying to develop autonomous robots. You need a body before
>you can really know what the brain must do.

Hostile terrestrial environments are a good proving ground for the
mechanical portions and the feedback and control aspects.  But there
is no question that, at interplanetary distances, the robots must have
enough intelligence to recognize and circumvent potentially dangerous
situations, and rely on the telelink only for much less critical
responses, such as the answer to "I'm at the designated coordinates,
the terrain isn't suitable for taking a sample.  What now?"

It should be noted that there is research ongoing in this field, also.
A company called Denning Mobile Robotics in Massachusetts markets an
autonomous robot designed for security/surveillance.  It patrols its
designated area, matching walls and obstacles in its surroundings to
an internal map.  In the event of intrusion, it warns the intruder to
stop and wait for human personnel, which it summons, to arrive.  It
can take certain actions to protect itself (bright lights, painfully
loud sound, gas, etc.)

This type of navigation is rudamentary compared to the hazards of
navigating on an unmapped planetary surface, but it is a first step.



Greg Wageman			ARPA:  greg%sentry@spar.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies	BIX:   gwage
1601 Technology Drive		CIS:   74016,352
San Jose, CA 95110		GEnie: GWAGEMAN
(408) 437-5198			UUCP: ...!decwrl!spar!sentry!greg
------------------
Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 88 00:20:39 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: reboosting Skylab

In article <5013@whuts.att.com> sw@whuts.att.com (WARMINK) writes:
>Maybe the unfurled solar panels on the telescope mount could not have taken the 
>stress (the CSM's engine was pretty powerful, I think it was in Michael Collin's
>new book _Liftoff_ that it was decribed as a "Kick in the behind"(?) !

The engine had to be fairly powerful, since its specs were set at a time
when the EOR-LOR decision hadn't been made, so the CSM engine had to be
able to lift the CSM off the surface of the Moon.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 88 00:36:09 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Is there water on the Moon

In article <13422@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>>   The vaporised water wouldn't just disappear.  Eventually it would 
>>   cool off and condense in shady spots on the surface.  
>
>Not in the vacuum, would it?

Depends on how cold the shady spots are.  If cold enough, yes, the stuff
can condense in vacuum.  (The best vacuums yet made by man are achieved
by cryogenic cooling of apparatus walls, to freeze out remaining gases.)
If the vapor pressure of ice under local conditions is less than the
partial pressure of water vapor in the "atmosphere", ice will form.
Mind you, if the "atmospheric" partial pressure then drops off as water
is lost to space, eventually it will go below the vapor pressure of the
ice and the ice will start to vaporize again.  To stop that, you'll
have to cover it with regolith or something, at least.  It's possible;
remember that ice in comets survives billions of years in space.

I don't know of anybody who is prepared to confidently predict frozen
volatiles at the lunar poles.  On the other hand, not many people are
prepared to confidently rule it out, either.  A suitably-instrumented
lunar polar orbiter is the only way to settle it.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 88 00:34:21 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST

In article <1988Nov4.065730.10761@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>                                        ... On the other hand, I would
>*really* like to see Morton Thiokol out of the SRB business -- they
>deserve to get their tails kicked from here to the Moon, not to go on
>getting lucrative contracts into the next century.  I'd have preferred
>to see NASA put top priority on qualifying a second source, and a THIRD
>source, for SRBs, and then ban M-T from all NASA programs forever...

Very easy to bash Thiokol after the fact, but remember it was Thiokol
engineers protesting the decision to launch Challenger and NASA's
mid-level managers browbeating the vendor into going along.  Would you
rather have Roger Boisjoly on your team, or Larry Mulloy?  Perhaps
Henry has forgotten these immortal words:

   "My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?"

The blame for Challenger is precisely NASA's.  If they are permitted to
remain in the shuttle business, so should Thiokol be.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 88 00:24:17 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Amroc etc.

In article <45000005@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>> This is essentially what AMROC (American Rocket Company)'s proposed
>> commercial rocket looks like...
>
>AMROC's rocket uses a hybrid engine of liquid oxygen and synthetic rubber.
>It is interesting to note that both of these are common items.  Liquid
>oxygen is found in the basement of every hospital, while synthetic rubber
>is in hundreds of household goods.

Uh, is this supposed to be significant?  Kerosene is found in quantity at
every airport, and there are several major kerosene/LOX launchers.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 88 21:51:09 GMT
From: muddcs!mwilkins@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Wilkins)
Subject: Re: Surplus NASA space suits

Aren't space suits a bit heavy to be wearing around for long periods of
time?  They weigh something like 200 pounds at 1 g.

  Of course, medieval knights had the same problem :-)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 88 23:42:27 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Surplus NASA space suits

In article <1200@muddcs.Claremont.EDU>, mwilkins@muddcs.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) writes:
> Aren't space suits a bit heavy to be wearing around for long periods of
> time?  They weigh something like 200 pounds at 1 g.
> 
>   Of course, medieval knights had the same problem :-)

The major problem is not the weight.  If it's evenly distributed (a big
if) then the weight is much easier to bear.  If it were me, I'd be most
concerned about the fact that the suit is airtight, and thus quite well
insulated.  All that trapped body heat would make for an uncomfortable
person (to say nothing about the social ramifications!)j

N. Kluksdahl            Arizona State U.
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #117
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Nov 88 01:18:27 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03122>; Tue, 22 Nov 88 00:49:16 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 22 Nov 88 00:49:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4XWDl4y00UkT83G09m>;
          Tue, 22 Nov 88 00:34:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.0XWDbFy00UkZAAkE5p>;
          Tue, 22 Nov 88 00:23:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <8XWDZxy00UkZ4Aj051@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 88 00:22:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #118

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
		   Space-tech excerpt: EM Launchers
		    Re: Is there water on the Moon
		    Re: Is there water on the Moon
			 Re: Demise of OTRAG
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1988 21:03-EST 
From: Marc.Ringuette@DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Space-tech excerpt: EM Launchers

This is about 270 lines of discussion about Electromagnetic Launchers, 
summarized from the space-tech mailing list.  It includes some speculations,
calculations, and real data.

Introduction:
=============
An Electromagnetic Launcher (EML) is a device which uses electrical power to
fire a projectile into orbit.  It can be in the form of two parallel rails
(a "rail gun") or many rings in a line (a "mass driver" or "coaxial EML").

The actual EML technology is challenging, but it's nearly here.  An EML for
launch to a highly eccentric orbit will require around 11 km/s muzzle
velocity.  Our rule-of-thumb values are a launcher a kilometer long and having
accelerations of 6000 g's.  The biggest challenge, however, may not be the
launcher, but rather shielding the projectile for its flight through the 
atmosphere.

Condensed discussion from the space-tech list:
==============================================

From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Electromagnetic Launchers

The Launcher 
------------ 
The kinetic energy of a 1000 kilogram vehicle at escape velocity is 63
gigajoules, or about the energy of 15 tons of high explosive.  Quite a bit
to deliver quickly.

[ Note on launcher technology:
    I was looking through the '84 IEEE Transactions on Magnetics like Paul
    suggested, and it was encouraging!  There were several pre-SDI projects
    on rail guns and coaxial EML's, and my guess is that the problems will
    be solved.  Some of the concentration at that time was on power sources
    and control questions; future work will have to deal with current 
    densities and bursting forces.                               -- Marc    ]

Payloads and Shielding
----------------------
Is 6000 gravities too high for boosters or electronics?  The answer for
electronics is "no".  Proximity fuses in artillery shells tolerate
accelerations of this magnitude or higher -- even with WWII technology.  Some
SDI schemes have proposed smart projectiles launched at 500,000 gravities in
orbiting railguns!

The launch vehicle must have a high ballistic coefficient (ratio of mass to
cross-sectional area) in order to keep aerodynamic deceleration tolerable.
Just what the limit is depends on the drag coefficient of the vehicle at
extreme hypersonic velocities.

I looked in the library for texts on hypersonic aerodynamics.
I found many books on thermophysics of atmospheric re-entry
(obivously interesting to DOD & NASA).  One book had an article
on earth-based mass drivers:

Chul Park (NASA Ames) and Stuart W. Bowen.  Abalation and Deceleration
of Mass Driver-Launched Projectiles for Space Disposal of Nuclear
Wastes.  In Thermophysics of Atmospheric Entry, T. E. Horton (ed.),
pages 201-225, Progess in Astronautics and Aeronautics, volume 82.
AIAA, 1982.

The article describes the aerothermal environment faced by vertically
launched projectiles.  The projectiles are assumed to be launched at
17 km/sec (after drag) so that, if launched at dawn from the equator,
they escape the solar system.

The vehicles are assumed to have hemispherical noses, and have C_d >=
0.5.  The nose shield is made of graphite.  At these velocities, the
shock heated air reaches 40,000 K (at sea level), and radiates
fiercely.  The purpose of the heat shield is to sublimate and form an
optically thick gas layer to block this radiation.  The high pressure
of the shock wave means the ablated gas layer can be optically thick.
Calculations show the projectile loses about .1 ton of heat shield
(for a 1 ton vehicle).  Depending on the mass of the vehicle, it loses
between .4 (acceptable) and 30 km/sec (unacceptable) of velocity.

Their projectiles had radii up to 20 cm, and lengths up to 10 m.  They
found 50% of the velocity loss occured below 6 km, while mass loss
from the ablator peaks at 25 km.  This strange situation occurs
because at lower altitudes the dynamic pressure is higher, so the
blowing layer of vaporized carbon is more optically dense and blocks
radiation from the shock more effectively.

[ Wow, I had no idea how nasty the environment in the nose is!  This is 
  clearly one of the toughest problems to solve.  Wild stuff.   -- Marc ]

Orbits
------
An EML cannot fire directly into a stable earth orbit, since the vehicle
will be placed in an orbit with perigee beneath the earth's surface.  So,
the vehicle must undergo some change in velocity to place it into a stable
orbit.  One can imagine active systems (the projectile has a kick motor) or
passive systems (the vehicle hits a mass catcher).

Direct launch into low-earth orbit (LEO) does not appear to be feasible.
EMLs do much better launching to high orbits.  This is because velocity
changes can be made far from the Earth, where they provide much more angular
momentum (the moment arm is much longer).

Launching to high circular orbit is more feasible than launching to LEO, but
even easier targets are highly eccentric earth orbits (HEEOs).  These orbits
don't have a lot of angular momentum (at most twice that of LEO), yet they
allow the vehicle to change its velocity at great distances from earth.

Consider launching to an orbit with apogee at 20 earth radii (from the
earth's center) and perigee at low altitude.  A launcher at an angle of 60
degrees provides 1/2 the angular momentum.  The kick motor at the top must
supply the rest: a velocity change of about 200 meters per second.  Launching
to an orbit with apogee at 40 radii means the delta V is only 100 m/sec.

-- Paul F. Dietz

------------------------------

[ It's worth emphasizing:  highly eccentric orbits are FAR cheaper to
  reach than circular orbits, because the delta-v you must bring along
  with you is minimized.  The whole point of an EML is so you don't have
  to bring along all those thrusters.

  Therefore, all our thoughts from here on assume that you start by launching
  into a HEEO, then go on from there.

								  -- Marc  ]
------------------------------

[ I omit a discussion of how to adjust what orbit you end up in.
  Send mail if you want the whole thing.  I'll sum up as follows:

  Problem - An eccentric orbit has a very short launch window, once per day.

  Solution - You have to make a burn at the top anyway, so make the burn a
  little before or after apogee, and you can widen the launch window.
  It works out that you can change the angle of the orbit by 15 degrees
  in either direction by doubling the amount of delta-v you allow.  This
  is probably enough flexibility for most purposes.

								   -- Marc  ]
------------------------------

From: Marc.Ringuette@CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: How much Delta-v?

I have a couple of rough numbers on how much delta-v we'll need to have, in
order to get into a highly eccentric orbit.  My rule of thumb is that 500 m/s
is enough in almost all circumstances.  It is possible to reduce that to 200
m/s in some cases, or to need as much as 1000 m/s.  The smaller delta-v's can
result from choosing a more highly eccentric orbit, or by angling the
launcher to impart part of the angular momentum; but I think it's pushing it
to expect less than 500 m/s in the normal case.  The 1000 m/s numbers come
about when the apogee needs to pushed the full 30 degrees from the "natural"
apogee of the EML at the time of launch.

How much fuel will we have to carry, then?  That depends on the specific
impulse of the fuel.

======

 Typical values of specific impulse are:
    hydrazine             230 s
    solid propellants     290 s
    oxygen                445 s
	- Dr. Gary D. Gordon, "Spacecraft Technology", 1982.
The exhaust velocity Ve is related to the specific impulse Is by:  
	Ve = Is g,
where g is the gravitational acceleration, 9.8m/s/s.
        -- Jim Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.ARPA>

======

>From Jim's numbers, I would guess we can carry 25 percent of the payload as
fuel and engine, and achieve 500 m/s delta-v.  I think this is quite
realistic.

------------------------------

From: Marc.Ringuette@CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: What can we do with an EML?

1.  Send supplies and construction materials into low earth orbit.
    LEO is probably the main destination for just about everything,
    but it's not trivial to get there.  See below.

2.  Do something useful in HEEO.  If we have acceleration-resistant
    experiments, we can do them right there.  This doesn't sound likely.

3.  Boost things into geosynchronous orbit.  All of a sudden, it is
    much cheaper to get acceleration-resistant payloads into GEO.  What
    do we want to do there?

[ 4.  Use HEEO as a staging area for planetary misssions.  See Paul 
      Dietz's post, below. 					   -- Marc ]


Aerobraking
===========
The most promising way of getting from HEEO to LEO is to aerobrake into an
elliptical orbit with an apogee at the altitude of LEO, then boost into a
circular LEO.  Of course, the thing enters the atmosphere at the same speed
it left it, which is over 10 km/s.  But aerobraking can be done in stages, in
the outer atmosphere, so it should be much easier.

The boost after aerobraking isn't bad.  I worked it out, and in order to
boost from an elliptical orbit with perigee at radius 6500 km and apogee at
7000 km, into a circular orbit of radius 7000 km, it takes 430 m/s of thrust.
So if we can get into such an orbit (in which most of the orbital velocity is
already present) then it's quite reasonable to bring along a solid booster to
do the rest.

[ Note - to sum up, this means a projectile with about 700 m/s of thrust on
  board, and a VERY good heat shield, can be put in LEO by a ground-based EML.
  This is good news!  Of course, it's not easy to make this work, but it's
  a promising thought.						    -- Marc ]

Alternative: ion propulsion
===========================
We could possibly get from HEEO to a low circular orbit using solar power
and ion propulsion.  Since the payload is in a stable orbit, we have lots 
of orbits in which to do the change.  However, if aerobraking turns out
to be easy, there's no reason to do it this way.

[ Our space-tech group also briefly discussed ion propulsion.  Send mail
  to "space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu" if you'd like a copy of what we said.
								   -- Marc ]

------------------------------

From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Subject: The Utility of HEEO vs. LEO

Marc asked what do we do with an EML that can launch to HEEO.  I think
a major use would be as a component in a system to explore the inner
solar system.

The major cost (in delta-v) of getting to Mars or the near-earth
asteroids is the cost of escaping the earth's gravity well.  A
spacecraft in HEEO can fire its rockets at perigee (where they give
the craft the most energy) and enter useful interplanetary transfer
orbits with surprisingly small delta-v.  In an ideal case, entering a
Hohmann orbit to Mars from HEEO requires a delta-v of less than 1
km/sec.  In a sense, HEEO is already 3/4 of the way to Mars.

For visiting Near-Earth Asteroids (NEA's), delta-v could be equally small.
For example, it costs 4.4 km/sec to get to 1982 DB from LEO.  Leaving from
HEEO, the cost would be about 1.2 km/sec (4.4 - 11 km/sec + 7.8 km/sec).
Return from 1982 DB costs .1 km/sec using aerobraking.  There is every reason
to believe that more accessible asteroids exist.

I'm not proposing using spacecraft launched by EML to visit asteroids.
Rather, the EML will launch bulk materials to an operations center in
HEEO.  Things that could be launched include: rocket fuel, shielding
material, food, air, water.  I imagine launching (perhaps in sections)
a stripped-down manned asteroid exploration vehicle to LEO.  In LEO,
sufficient fuel (brought down from HEEO by aerobraking) is added to
boost the vehicle to HEEO.  Once in HEEO, a full stock of consumables
is added, and the fuel tanks refilled.  When the vehicle returns from
a journey, it stays in HEEO and is refueled there, using primarily
materials launched by EML.

------------------------------

[ Discussion moved on to other topics, including ion propulsion, amateur
  satellite projects, solar sails, and various propulsion methods.   If this
  kind of thing appeals to you, join the space-tech list (volume: 8 messages
  per week) or the space-tech digest (which packages every half dozen messages
  and filters a bit of noise).  Send mail to "space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu"
  and remember to say which list you want, and whether you want the 300k of
  previous discussions.	 Please also include a brief description of who you
  are and what you do.						   -- Marc  ]

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Marc Ringuette       | mnr@cs.cmu.edu  | I'm a PhD student working in AI. |
| CMU Computer Science | 412-268-3728(w) | My interests include learning,   |
| Pittsburgh, PA 15213 | 412-681-5408(h) | robotics, and amateur physics.   |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 20:38:40 GMT
From: phoenix!amlovell@princeton.edu  (Anthony M Lovell)
Subject: Re: Is there water on the Moon

In article <13415@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> An object falling onto the Moon will have at least the Moon's escape
> velocity, 2300 m/s, hence at least 2.6 x 10^6 joules/kg = 630 cal/g of

Cmon!  This Can't really be so!
The faster an object is moving, the LESS likely it is to hit the moon.
It has to hit it directly on the fly, whereas a slower object can pass
anywhere close by and will eventually get sucked in because it lacks the
velocity to escape the gravital pull.
Or am I blathering?
-- 
amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu     ...since 1963.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 88 23:50:21 GMT
From: voder!pyramid!nsc!datack!altnet!altos86!nate@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Nathaniel Ingersoll)
Subject: Re: Is there water on the Moon

In article <4336@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) writes:
:In article <13415@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
:> An object falling onto the Moon will have at least the Moon's escape
:> velocity, 2300 m/s, hence at least 2.6 x 10^6 joules/kg = 630 cal/g of
:
:Cmon!  This Can't really be so!
:The faster an object is moving, the LESS likely it is to hit the moon.
:It has to hit it directly on the fly, whereas a slower object can pass
:anywhere close by and will eventually get sucked in because it lacks the
:velocity to escape the gravital pull.
:Or am I blathering?

A little of each.  I think that the original poster was talking about
a general case, with something hitting the moon.  Whether or not it
would hit was not in question; it was assumed that the object (a comet)
_would_ hit the moon.

Anyways, it is not true that an object hitting the moon will have at
least the Moon's escape velocity.  If you have the Moon "overtake" an
object (e.g- put something in front (that is, in the same direction as
the motion of) of the moon but initially moving away from the moon and
have the moon catch up to it) the object could presumably soft-land on
the moon.

:-- 
:amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu     ...since 1963.


-- 
Nathaniel Ingersoll
Altos Computer Systems, SJ CA
	...!ucbvax!sun!altos86!nate
	altos86!nate@sun.com

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 88 15:58:58 GMT
From: lesath.usc.edu!kriz@oberon.usc.edu  (Dennis Kriz)
Subject: Re: Demise of OTRAG


The nation in question was Zaire, and it was invaded by communist
supported rebels staged from Angola.  OTRAG was a West German company
and the Soviets took the company's operations to signal West German
development of an independent nuclear force.  Indeed during this time,
the Soviets just began deployment of their SS-20s and then Chancelor
Helmut Schmidt had apparently told then President Carter that if NATO
did not act to counteract this deployment, the West Germans **would** in
fact be forced to do so unilaterally.  Since NATO deployment was
considered less inflamatory than West German deployment (whatever the
Russians may have thought of US intentions, they still have more
trust/respect in US actions than that of the Germans.  German deployment
of ICBMs would have scared the hell out of them... and quite possibly a
lot of other countries).  Anyway, OTRAG was operating at the time and it
promised a dirt cheap space vehicle.  Whether or not this was all
interconnected is stuff for spy-thriller buffs, but the events did occur
at nearly the same time.

Dennis

kriz%skat@oberon.usc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #118
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Nov 88 05:56:17 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05651>; Tue, 22 Nov 88 03:46:36 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 22 Nov 88 03:46:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kXWGJEy00Ui3M1M08u>;
          Tue, 22 Nov 88 03:29:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.YXWGBgy00UkZIB3E5o>;
          Tue, 22 Nov 88 03:21:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXWG=2y00UkZQB2041@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 88 03:18:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #119

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 119

Today's Topics:
			Re: photons have mass
		      Re: Re-entry craft contest
	      RE: special survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
			  Re: Ball Bearings
		       Borman comments on Sagan
		      One time shot to the moon
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #97
		    Re: Is there water on the Moon
		 Aging in space & underground hideout
		Description of Space Studies Institute
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 88 23:12:20 GMT
From: muddcs!mwilkins@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Wilkins)
Subject: Re: photons have mass

In article <60781GRV101@PSUVM> GRV101@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>What about using a laser to propel photons. I remember a problem from my first
>year of physics in which a laser was mounted to the back of a spaceship,  in a
>relatively short period of time the craft had reached astounding velocities.

   Let's look at this.  Pulsed lasers produce a tremendous power output but
over a short period of time.  Far more reasonable would be a continuous
laser, the largest of which are not practical in a lab environment at more
than, say, 10-100 W.  Assuming special R & D work, call it 10-1000 kW.

The equation for light pressure with a reflective object is
  p (momentum) =  2P (power) * t (time) / c (the speed of light.)

Of course, with high power levels per area, reflective surfaces are better,
plus you get twice the momentum.  Using p = mv, fiddling a bit, and assuming 
100% albedo (astronomers, unite!) you get:

  a = 2P/cm     (a : velocity, m : mass)

P = 10000W = 10 kg (m^2)/(s^3) (let's give it LOTS of power)
c = 3.00 x 10^8 m/s
m = (conservatively) 300,000 kg (about space shuttle mass, unloaded)

  a ~ 2 x 10^-10  in m/(s^2).

After a year, 31 x 10^6 seconds, you would have gone 96 km or about 60
miles.  Increase the power to 1 megawatt and you go 6000 miles -- it's
linear.  You would be going at 6.2 millimeters per second and 6.2 meters per
second respectively.

    That's a lot of power, especially over a year.  Cheaper ways include
paying astronauts time-and-a-half to walk to the nearest star instead.  Most
more practical ways to do this involve a large reflective sail and using the
sun's light.


                        -- Mark Wilkins
                           (mwilkins@muddcs.UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1988 14:56-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Re-entry craft contest

Eugene, I think this net is the wrong place to make the challenge. If
you showed up at Oshkosh with flyers on this challenge I'll bet you'd
have more takers than you would ever imagine. And they'd probably
succeed.

That's where people like Rutan got their start...

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 88 09:45 EDT
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: RE: special survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

    In article <978@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
    >> 1)  Name some benefits.  Tangible ones that can't be addressed
    by
    >>     earthbound substitutes.  (Forget Erethropoetin (sp?).
    >
    >To start with (considering how this topic came up) how about assuring
    >species survival; in particular, survival of massive war on Earth.
     
    I side with underground cities argument.  We know how to dig mines.
    They are FAR cheaper than space colonies.
    
    
    +=+=+=+=
    
    This has to be one of the silliest arguments I have read in a long
    time.  You really think that underground cities would survive
    a massive war on earth, ha ha!  There already *are* massive 
    underground cities on earth.  One is called Looking Glass,
    and it is one of the first targets of a russian attack.
    
    Underground cities just don't work for long term defence.  It is
    version # 101 of a static defence.  Same concept as trench warfare
    from WW1, the Maginot line from WW2 and SDI from WW3.  It works
    just long enough for the other side to think of a new way to
    attack.
    
    Perhaps you think that the 'enemy' will not attack your underground
    cities.  That would be a nice quaint 19th century war.  Perhaps
    some 'international agreement' will build them in switzerland? 
    
    Or maybe you were thinking that these cities would be built in secret?
     If that were possible, do you think that the location of Looking
    Glass would be public knowledge?  Or perhaps the cities are built
    after the war.  Sounds reasonable to me.  There should be at least
    3 or 4 days after a massive nuclear war before everyone has a fatal
    dose of radiation.  Perhaps a government would survive too, at least
    the mayor of some small village would probably be intact.
    
    Underground cities, surviving a massive nuclear war.
    
    Sure.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1988 14:48-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Ball Bearings

Paul:
	The ball bearing idea was temporarily shot down to to
experiments done on Skylab, but I've heard people sqaying recently that
there were errors in procedure that were to blame for the poor results.
I think it is still an open question.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 88 17:20:23 PST
From: Ken Harrenstien <KLH@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Borman comments on Sagan
Cc: klh@SRI-NIC.ARPA

I was just reading "Countdown", an autobiography of Frank Borman
(Gemini 7, Apollo 8, Eastern Airlines).  His astronaut phase occupies
only the middle third of the book, and there are no big surprises,
but his scattered comments about certain people do add some interest.
Here's what he said about Carl Sagan, that perennial topic of
discussion:

	(excerpted w/o permission etc from "Countdown", p.235-236)
" ... [at NASA's request, during 1969 (after Apollo 8, before 11)
Borman toured various schools to explain the space program] ...
	Then there was Cornell.
	Susan [his wife] went with me on this visit and she was
looking forward to it-- our host was none other than Carl Sagan.
Although I was actually escorted into the lecture hall by an armed
policeman, the talk itself went off peacefully enough.  I talked about
the space program and then answered questions.  Most were along the
lines of "How can you spend all this money going to the moon when
there are so many poor, so many economic inequities, so much poverty?"
	I tried to explain that the space program was a natural
extension of the human mind, that it was something our society could
not afford to abandon because the future--the students'
future--depended on our keeping up with advanced technology.  I got a
very cool reception; in fact it was almost icy.  I gathered from the
questions that these kids wanted an agrarian society, and frankly,
they were not only naive but hopelessly unrealistic.
	After the talk, Sagan invited us to his home "to meet some of
the members of the Students for a Democratic Society," he explained,
adding that he was their faculty adviser.  We accepted, and all evening
long they sneered at and ripped into everything about the United
States-- and Sagan orchestrated the entire attack.  They insisted on
quizzing me about Vietnam, and I admit I wasn't prepared to debate
them.
	We sat on the living room floor and with Sagan egging them on,
they confronted us with specific charges.  "Did you know that on such
and such a date American troops massacred innocent civilians?"
	"Look," I insisted, "our society with all its faults has
produced the greatest amount of freedom for individuals and the
greatest amount of material wealth of any nation in the world.  I
don't deny its faults but I don't forget its virtues, as you seem to
be doing.  How can it be all bad?"
	Admittedly, this was not much of a rebuttal against specific
allegations of American atrocities in Vietnam.  What infuriated me
more than anything else was Sagan's supporting them all night long.
To me, the entire evening was a superficial, pseudo-intellectual
attack on a country I loved, and I was angrier at him than I was at
the kids; they looked up to him and he kept encouraging them.
	Our parting that night was cool, to say the least.  I'll never
forget or forgive him for that unpleasant evening at Cornell.  It's an
ironic twist that Sagan has used all the self-promoting gimmicks of
public relations and television to set himself up as a kind of
scientific guru.  Now he enjoys the fruits of the same society whose
materialism he so viciously attacked.
	..."
-------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1988 10:00-EST 
From: Ingemar.Hulthage@CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: One time shot to the moon

I fear that the truth is worse than that "the Apollo was planned as one
time shot".

Apollo was deliberately planned NOT to create any infrastructure or
technology that would facilitate a permanent presense in space !

My source is a trilogy by Erling Bjol named "The World History after
1945". Dr. Bjol was a prominent Danish journalist and later Professor
of government in Arhus, Denmark. (I doubt that his books are available
in English.) 

This is the background: In the perpetual arms negotiation square dance
between the U.S. and the Soviets, their positions on SDI were completely
reversed in the early 60's.  The Russians was for it and John F.
Kennedy, advised by defense secretary Robert S. McNamara, was against
it. These negotiations eventually resulted in the anti balistic missile
(ABM) treaty.

In the early planning of the moon shot, McNamara therefor resisted
anything that would create technology or infrastructure that could
facilitate a strategic defense system. For example, a space station was
considered as a staging point for launches to the moon. Maybe we could
have had a space station 20 years ago !

Ingemar

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1988 15:16-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #97

> We should treat space science like any other science.  In fact, it is part
> of the overall scope of science.  That means apply scientific principles.

I disagree. We should treat space like any other venture. You wave
hands, sell blue sky and cross your fingers that you can actually find
something to sell when you get there.

Many try, many fail. Fortunes are lost, reputation lost.

And finally the pile of left overs from the failures reaches the point
where someone actually succeeds.

Science won't open space. We need con artists.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 04:25:36 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!jesse@handies.ucar.edu  (Jesse Perry)
Subject: Re: Is there water on the Moon


In article <13422@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> Jesse Perry replies:
> >
> >   The vaporised water wouldn't just disappear.  Eventually it would
> >   cool off and condense in shady spots on the surface.
>
> Not in the vacuum, would it?

Why not?  Vacuum doesn't keep things warm.  :-)

Seriously, I assume you're referring to the fact that water doesn't
condense as liquid in vacuum.  I believe that's true, but I think it
can condense directly from water vapor to ice.  After all, that's a
major component of comets.

But the real problem, as Jon Leech <5233@thorin.cs.unc.edu> points out,
is that much (most?) of the water vapor will leave the moon because its
thermal velocity exceeds the moon's escape velocity.  The only question
remaining is, what fraction of the vapor will happen to hit a cold part
of the surface, rather than flying off into space.  Even at the poles,
unfortunately, it seems this fraction must be very small.

Jesse Perry             INTERNET: jesse%proxftl.uucp@uunet.uu.com
3511 NE 22 Ave            BITNET: proxftl!jesse@psuvax1.uucp
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33308     UUCP: uunet!proxftl!jesse
(305)566-3511

------------------------------

Sender: "Bernard_DeGruchy.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Date: 14 Nov 88 10:57:14 PST (Monday)
Subject: Aging in space & underground hideout 
From: "Bernie_DeGruchy.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Reply-To: DeGruchy.WBST129@Xerox.COM

        I am new to this group so here goes.  I heard that the US will not
put a man (or woman) in space for a long period of time because a long stay
in space somehow greatly ages the body.  Is this true?  If so, then why and
how?

       Also, there is talk about a city underground for survival.  To my
understanding or dear government has already done this somewhere in the
mountains in Virginia just outside of Washington.  It is reserved for the
fat cats and no one else; and of course at great expense to us tax payers.
It is susposed to have all kinds of supplies in it for survival and
supplies to build a society when it is safe to come out.  One exampe I
heard was like umteen 55 gallon drums of titanium.  Anybody know anything
about this?

Bernie

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 88 20:59:52 GMT
From: thorin!tlab1.cs.unc.edu!leech@mcnc.org
Subject: Description of Space Studies Institute


    Several people sent email requesting info about the Space Studies
Institute. I'm posting this in response. Quoted material below is
drawn from SSI's own literature; anything else is mine. Please direct
any further questions to me via email and I'll attempt to answer.

---------------------------- clip-n-save ---------------------------------------

Quick summary:

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

    One year of the SSI newsletter for $25, but you should really send
    as much as you can afford. I'm in for $300/year and plan to
    increase the amount when I start making real money. Contributions
    are tax-deductible.

What is SSI?

   "The Space Studies Institute grew out of the research of Dr. Gerard
    O'Neill into the possibilities for human colonies in space,
    industry based on extraterrestrial materials, and the return to
    Earth of wealth generated in space."

   "SSI's first goal is to complete the hardware research that will
    make possible the productive use of the abundant resources of
    space. Its second goal, for which the attainment of the first is
    essential, is to bring about the formation of a private or
    government space program, in the US or abroad, on the economic
    scale of the Alaskan Pipeline, to exploit those resources
    carefully without environmental damage. Once these critical steps
    are taken, we at SSI feel that the construction of human
    colonies in space will be an inevitable result, and with it
    the opening of a new ecological range for humanity."

What has SSI accomplished?

    * Development of several generations of working mass drivers,
      designed to transfer lunar material into space at very low cost.

    * Completed and ongoing research projects in such areas as:

	- Near-term use of shuttle External Tanks.
	- Construction of Solar Power Satellites using mostly (>99% by
	    mass) extraterrestrial materials.
	- Asteroid retrieval and mining scenarios.
	- Low-cost lunar polar prove to search for volatiles. One
	    high-risk concept would be launched from a shuttle
	    Get-Away Special canister and acheive lunar orbit in 2
	    years using an ion drive.

    * Chemical and physical processing of lunar materials:

	- HF acid leach process for chemical separation, developed by
	    Rockwell under contract to SSI.
	- Magnetic and electrostatic separation techniques.
	- Glass/glass composites and concretes from lunar regolith for
	    use as bulk construction material.

    * Lunar Systems Study focusing on "the most cost-effective means
	of initiating space resource utilization at the earliest
	possible date."

    * Runs the biennial Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing
	(coming up May 10-13 1989), and co-sponsors other conferences
	including the annual Space Development Conference.

How is SSI funded?

   "In order to maintain its independence and therefore its ability to
    carry out research on a logical, continuing basis unaffected by
    politics, the Space Studies Institute draws its main support from
    a large number of individual donations... Support for SSI includes
    donations given annually by Subscribers, and on a five-year pledge
    basis by Senior Associates."

    In the longer term, SSI owns a substantial amount of stock in
    Geostar Corporation. Geostar was founded by O'Neill and will offer
    satellite location and messaging services. This is potentially a
    very lucrative market. If Geostar succeeds, SSI's share of the
    company will provide "a value sufficient for the Institute to
    carry out its full program including actual operations in space."

What SSI is not:

    SSI is not dependent on government funding. O'Neill was burned by
    this before and seems to want to avoid government entanglements at
    all costs.

    Despite being supported by individuals, SSI is not a membership
    organization such as NSS or the Planetary Society.	What you get
    is a bimonthly update from the Institute and periodic requests for
    more money targeted to specific new research projects. The only
    reason to join is if you believe, as I do, that SSI stands a good
    chance of success. If you do believe this, SSI provides a great
    opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Thus Mathematics helps / our brains and hands and feet
      and can make / a race of supermen out of us.''
	- The Education of T. C. Mits

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #119
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Nov 88 06:21:57 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00685>; Tue, 22 Nov 88 05:37:26 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 22 Nov 88 05:37:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cXWI1hy00jZdE19042>;
          Tue, 22 Nov 88 05:24:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.UXWHxDy00UkZMBC05L>;
          Tue, 22 Nov 88 05:20:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cXWHvhy00UkZQBAk5h@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 88 05:18:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #120

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:
		Granola Fascism  (was Resources of Io)
			 Re: Species survival
			    Re: Lunar Lox
			   Re: Fusion drive
		       NASA Authorization Bill
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #98
			    Re: Amroc etc.
    Soviet psychology (was: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic)
		    Re: Is there water on the Moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 04:12:55 GMT
From: vsi1!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Granola Fascism  (was Resources of Io)

In article <154@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:
  Many things truly astonishing to see from someone actually using
  that most E-vile of *gasp* TECHNOLOGICAL inventions, the computer.
  Including these rather incredible statements:

>It seems the only way to control the political and economic
>interests is to withhold the information from them.  They
>have no quams about throwing a security blanket around what
>they do and to do what they like with technology, so I say
>that scientists must do the same.  ...

>With a concerted effort,
>in a decade or two, all new scientific knowledge could be
>restricted to those whose interest is pure science.

Let's see if I get this right:  Scientists should take it upon
themselves to control the world to keep the great unwashed from
doing things that, in the scientists' opinion, are not "good".

Wonderful.  You seem to lump a lot of things (i.e., plastics)
into the "double-plus ungood" category that directly translate
into some rather major involuntary life-style changes for the
peons.  I can not but doubt that the peons will object, quite
strenuously.

But of course, there are plenty of "scientific" uses to which
obstreperous peons can be put.  After all, if animals have equal
rights with humans, then humans have no more rights than animals.
A = B implies B = A.

And what of those members of the Ubermenschen, those scientists
who refuse to go along with your Grand Design?  Well, of course,
we can build Camps for them...

No smiley here.  A smiley seems to trivialize the bitterly 
sarcastic mood your message has aroused in me.  
-- 
Here lies a Technophobe,                 Mike Van Pelt
  No whimper, no blast.                  vanpelt@sv.unisys.com
His life's goal accomplished,
  Zero risk at last.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 88 20:11:43 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Species survival

In article <8811111949.AA29859@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.TI.COM writes:
>>    I am not against space colonies, only their unecessary near-term
>>    (i.e. within fifty years) appropriation of scarce resources [...]
>
>But when do we start?  If we wait 50 years, the same argument can be used
>again, assuming that in fifty years we (humanity as a whole) is capable
>of doing what we can do now.  Remember, if we run out of those scarce
>resources, we can't get replacements.

The scarce resources being refered to were, I believe, capital and
labor.

>The arguments based on "we can't afford it now" "non-thought process" :-) 
>sound so much like the farmer who can afford to put up any seed corn next
>year.  We have to start somewhere and somewhen, it might as well be here
>and now.  Just because we don't have the technology today doesn't mean we
>can't develop it, but we won't if we don't try!!!

The "we might as well do it now" argument is flawed, IMHO.  It does
not take into account the unpredictability of the future, the effect
of serendipitous technological advances, or the time value of money.
If we wait N years to build space colonies it will become easier,
since the rest of technology will not have stood still.  Computers
will be far faster, robotics and manufacturing technology will have
advanced, new materials will be available, and the world economy will
be larger.  New technologies may develop that would make anything that
could be built now obsolete; the farther ahead we plan, the more
certain this becomes.  It would have ludicrous to suggest building a
space colony in 1888; is it obvious that this is not a ludicrous goal
today?  I think not.

If we go into space, it should be for the chance of relatively near
term gains (both commercial and scientific), not for specious reasons.

Anyway, this is a silly issue, since no one cares about space colonies
except a microminority, and, in my judgement, the cost will keep them
confined to science fiction stories for the rest of our lives.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1988 15:26-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Lunar Lox

Paul: I'd suggest you call the SSI office in Princeton. They've
researched this scenario intensively and I think they may even have
some spreadsheet that does some of the analysis of costs.

Also, there were papers at the 2nd Lunar Base Symposium on these cost
factors. Contact the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston and ask
Wendell Mendell for info.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 88 15:05:03 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Fusion drive


>From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
>Subject: Re: A Physics Problem: Fusion-Driven Spacecraft

>> In article <1069@igloo.UUCP> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>> }The best stardrive would probably be a Bussard Ramjet (scoop up interstellar
>> }hydrogen for fuel) if it could be made to work.  The best use for the spent
>> }fuel is again reaction mass for this case, as well.

>  NO.  Definitely not.  It is easy to show that an efficient rocket
>is one which has high Isp, which means high p/E (p = momentum).
>Photons are ideal.  (I will leave as an exercise for the reader
>the proof that photons have larger p/E than matter.)
>  An ideal rocket is thus one which uses ONLY photons as reaction mass.
>The spent fuel should be dumped overboard without any significant
>velocity.

>  -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>
There are two kinds of efficiency relevant to the design of a rocket: energy
efficiency and efficiency of the use of reaction mass. A rocket is driven by
the transfer of forward momentum from the reaction mass to the body of the
rocket. The greater the exit velocity of the reaction mass, the greater the
transfer of momentum per unit of reaction mass. Since reaction mass is at a
premium in open space, it is desirable to use this mass in the most efficient
manner possible, by ejecting it in small quantities at high velocity. It
should be remembered, however, that the transfer of momentum is directly
proportional to the exhaust velocity, but the energy required is proportional
to the square of the velocity. Thus the higher the exhaust velocity, the
lower the energy efficiency of the rocket. If you have infinite energy 
available but only limited reaction mass, then mass efficiency becomes the
primary concern, and photon or ion drives, which are horribly wasteful of
energy but use reaction mass very efficiently, are the most attractive. An
electromagnetic launcher represents the opposite extreme: a limited amount
of energy is used very efficiently to drive an effectively infinite reaction
mass (earth, moon, etc.) at the minimum possible speed. Where both energy
and reaction mass are limited, an optimum tradeoff must be found.

Consider again the case of the fusion-powered rocket. The problem is that the 
hydrogen fuel must be taken along until it is used, which requires a
considerable amount of forward momentum. Once a given unit of fuel has been
"burned", it is of no further use, and bringing it along decreases the
subsequent acceleration of the ship by soaking up further forward
momentum. If you jettison the spent fuel without driving it backward,
later acceleration is not affected, but the spent fuel retains the 
forward momentum it had when it was ejected. If, however, you use the
energy liberated by the reaction to drive the spent fuel backward, you
transfer the maximum possible amount of forward momentum from the fuel to the 
remainder of the rocket. To look at it another way, energy is only being
liberated at a fixed rate, and you want that energy to be used with the
greatest possible efficiency, which requires that it be used to drive the
largest practical amount of reaction mass. Thus using all the spent fuel
is better than using any lesser amount. If you supplement the spent fuel
with a stock of inert reaction mass, energy efficiency goes up, while
mass efficiency goes down. Barring service lifetime concerns, the 
additional reaction mass might just as well be fuel. This type of rocket,
therefore, will always tend to use reaction mass equal to the mass of 
the spent fuel.

[Question: My physics text refuses to divulge the formula for the momentum
associated with a photon of a given frequency. Does anybody know? The 
momentum transfer of a reflection should be twice that amount.]
                                         John Roberts
                                         roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 11:18:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 2495+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: NASA Authorization Bill
CC: "Maura T. Weis" <mw2q+@andrew.cmu.edu>

This message was posted on a legislative-news bulletin board at CMU.  The
infomation was extracted from a recent report in the Congressional Quarterly by
Maura Weis.  Reprinted with permission.

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

Return-path: <mw2q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 88 10:55:58 -0500 (EST)
From: "Maura T. Weis" <mw2q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: NASA Authorization Bill

The 100th Congressional session ended on October 21.  Before adjourning,
Congress passed a compromise NASA reauthorization bill.  The measure doubles
the space agency's budget in five years.  ALthough it reflects strong support
for a robust space program, it can have little effect in the current fiscal
year because it comes several months after enactment of appropriations and
postdates the agency's release of its FY'89 operating plan.

The legislation is on the President's desk for his signature.  A veto is
possible because of a provision to establish an advisory National Space
Council in the White House.  The FY'87 authorization bill was vetoed because of
this same type of Space Council provision.  President-elect Bush has endorsed
the Space Council concept which may ease Reagan's objection.

Specifically, the bill authorizes a $11.2B budget for FY'89, ($500M over FY'89
appropriations). All multi-year authorizations were dropped except one for the
space station,  which the adminstration had requested.  Authorization for the
space station includes $900M for FY'89, $2B+ in 1990 and close to $3B in 1991.
While these levels are close to the agency's request, it was a tough fight
and budget battles will be even more heated next year. Also,  it is known
that appropriations levels for 90 and 91 will probably not be as high.  NASA
competes in its spending bill with a number of other popular causes, including
housing and environment.  With President-elect Bush touting pro-environment
stances and Democratic housing advocates champing at the bit to reverse the
housing cuts of the Reagan ere, NASA may be forced to take a back seat.

Attention is also given to long-range goals and planning.  Provisions require
one overall five-year capital-improvement plan and  five 10-year "strategic"
plans.   The bill also contains several reach-for-the-stars provisions in
which Congress implicitly or explicitly endorses manned "space settlements,"
moon outposts, manned missions to Mars and elsewhere in the solar system, and
the  "robotic" exploration of the other solar systems.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1988 15:30-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #98

> I guess I must have been thinking ~5 feet per year.
> (it's okay to be off by two orders of magnitude but not 3... sorry Dale :-)

Graciously accepted :-)

Think of it this way. grandfather tells little child about great hunting
fields of his youth, far out under the water. Little child asks why
they are under water and in the child's mind 40 years of rising water
occured all at once in that dim surreal time before he was born.

Or maybe the tales of drowned lands are carried on for generations, and
embellished gradually. Long after the rising water slows and the lands
25 miles out and 100 feet down are forgotten, their echo is that of
marvelous rich 'cities' flooded or dropped into the water one night.  A
tiny grain of reality and the rest is added in from the cultural
context of the fireside story teller.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 19:09:56 GMT
From: vsi1!apple!kazim@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Alex Kazim)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

AMROC uses LOX and synthetic rubber...

I hate to admit it, but I've forgotten my basic chemistry.  Just what is
synthetic rubber, chemically, and what sort of rection are we talking
about here?

Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Kazim, Apple Computer
My dumb opinions...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 16:22:21 EST
From: purtill@math.mit.edu
Subject: Soviet psychology (was: Mars in the Nov. National Geographic)

>   >From an article by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): 
>   > The Soviets know far more about the psychology of long space
>   > missions than we do....  
	While this is true, they really don't know all that much.  A
reasonable mars mission would require two years minimum, with no
visitors and probably less contact with earth (than Salyut or Mir).
Futhermore, I thing a crew of two or three would be awfully small, and
that's what long term soviet crews have been.  This is not to take
anything away from the Soviet acomplishments -- obviously they're
massively ahead of anyone else.  Just that it's probably too early to
decide on the crew composition just yet.

>   From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
>   The experience of crews wintering-over in the Antarctic
>   might be relevant, though there the crew sizes are larger and the
>   male/female ratio is 3:1 or 4:1....
>   It seems to me that experimentation is in order.
	How large are the crews in Antarctica?  A male/female ratio of
3:1 or 4:1 actually sounds plausible (especially if it's a joint
mission;  the US might supply roughly a 1:1 mix, while the Russians
supply all males.  That would give about 3:1).  What is the current
sex ratio of US astronauts?  (And speaking of which, does anyone when
the next female astronaut is going up?  I noticed the first two crews
are all male.  (There aren't any female military astronauts (I think),
so it's no surprise for Atlantis(*))).

^.-.^ Mark Purtill		purtill@math.mit.edu  (617)623-6238 - H
((")) Dept. of Math, MIT 2-229, Cambridge, MA  02139  (617)253-1589 - O
((*) Obviously LISP programming has been rotting my brain....)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 88 04:16:20 GMT
From: hp-sde!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@hplabs.hp.com
Subject: Re: Is there water on the Moon


Assume water vapor is released on the Moon during the daytime. Almost  
immediately most of the water would be dissociated by solar radiation 
into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. (I'm not certain but think most would be 
dissociated within minutes.) Now the atoms are moving at a range of 
velocities, depending on the gas temperature. As pointed out by Jon Leech,
atoms moving at speeds greater than lunar escape velocity, in an appropriate 
direction, will escape from the Moon entirely. We can calculate the 
"root mean squared" (i.e., close to average) velocity of an 
atom or molecule from
 
    v(rms) = sqrt (3kT / m)
  
where k is Boltzman's constant (1.38E-16 erg/deg), T is temperature in
deg. Kelvin, and m is mass in grams. In the daytime the temperature of a
"collisionless" gas on the Moon is on the order of 1000K. The rms velocity
of several species is easily calculated: hydrogen - 5 km/sec, 
oxygen - 1.25 km/sec, water - 1.2 km/sec, argon - 0.79 km/sec. Compare
these to a lunar escape velocity of 2.4 km/sec. Note also that the atomic
velocities would be distributed about the rms velocity; so even if the rms
velocity is less than escape velocity, the gas would eventually leak off
into space at a rate which depends on the difference between rms and escape
velocity. It's been calculated that all of Earth's hydrogen would escape
in about 1 million years (even though Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 km/sec);
the reason there is still hydrogen here is because it's constantly replenished
from Earth's interior (and maybe from cometary debris). See "The Solar System",
by John A. Wood. 
    
Unless the water vapor condenses very quickly in a permanently shaded
location, it will escape from the Moon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
186,000 miles per second:	|  Tom O'Reilly at HP Lab Data Systems
It's not just a good idea...	|
it's the Law! - A. Einstein	|  oreilly@hpldslq.HP.COM
----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #120
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Nov 88 02:25:09 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05612>; Wed, 23 Nov 88 00:47:40 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 23 Nov 88 00:47:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oXWYmEy00Ui347jkJg>;
          Wed, 23 Nov 88 00:28:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.4XWYfpy00UkZ0EYU5x>;
          Wed, 23 Nov 88 00:21:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXWYe4y00UkZ0EXE5Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 88 00:20:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #121

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 121

Today's Topics:
		Re: Stranded in LEO due to APU failure
		       Bussard ramjet critique
		Re: Stranded in LEO due to APU failure
				STARS
			   Red Hot Aviation
			Re: Lunar Engineering
	Possible consequence of terminal approach APU failure
			 Oxygen from the moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 15:37:36 GMT
From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Stranded in LEO due to APU failure

In article <8811120236.AA09382@crash.cts.com> 
mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:
>At that point, the
>astronauts, the ones who are facing certain death, will be under 
>enormous psychological pressure to end the charade.  
>Such a break-point will carry with it the likelihood of one or more
>astronauts venting frustration and hostility....

At which point the hysteric astronauts will be interrupted by a knocking on 
their hatch as Alexei and Vladimir wait patiently outside to rescue them.

>A few weeks after the dying words of the astronauts are heard,
>the shuttle will reenter the atmosphere at 5 or 6 miles per second.

Nope.  By that time the Soviets will have salvaged it and be performing
in-orbit repairs.  Might give it a new paint job, too.

:-)




-- 
"I don't suppose you have any idea what the damn thing is, huh?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                      uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu        internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 11:08:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 2698+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Bussard ramjet critique

I've been meaning to attack the feasibility of the Bussard ramjet for sometime.
 There seems to be an undercurrent of belief that this may someday be a
reality.  The chances are, in fact, very slim.  The recent question about
causing the Sun to nova and some comments about adding LOx to a NERVA-type
engines provide a convenient tie-in.

There are at least two fundamental problems with Bussard ramjets.  The first is
that at any appreciable speed the kinetic energy of the interstellar medium is
much larger than the energy that can be produced by fusing the hydrogen.  (This
is another reasoning by energy density considerations argument).  Because of
this, the whole ramjet, including compressing the atom-per-cc interstellar
medium to some reasonable density and trapping all those pesky gammas and
neutrinos (which carry off precious ergs), must run at a total efficiency in
the high ninetys.  Since fusion processes prefer both high density and high
temperature you must also deal with the problem of containing the radiant
energy from a very hot (10-100 Million degrees) gas.  Since radiative losses
increase with the fourth power of the temperature, this is going to be a
tremendous problem.

The second fundamental problem is that fusing protons is far more difficult
than most people realize.  Fusing hydrogen is like burning a pile of wet
newspaper in a driving rain storm.  In principle, it may be possible, but in
practice you can forget it.  The sun only gets away with it (at the core, at
god knows what density, at tens of millions of degrees) because it has time to
burn, so to speak; a starship will have to make other arrangements.

Another problem with fusion is that the exhaust products are four times as
massive as the source material so for the same energy content you are going to
eat a factor of two in exhaust velocity.  This is going to hurt, because, even
in the best case, you can only provide a small energy increment.

If you assume some magical way to speed up proton-proton fusion you might be
tempted to reconsider.  I've heard proposals to use muons to catalyze fusion
but recovering or reusing them after interacting with a relativistic stream of
hydrogen atoms seems difficult.  It is interesting to note that anything that
makes P-P fusion easy may also be adaptable to making the Sun nova.  A happy
thought for sure.

A better approach might be to carry your own supply of antimatter and feed it
into the scooped up hydrogen.  This provides much more favorable energetics,
the annihilation reaction is fast and the reaction products are not huge helium
nuclei.  Still, it's probably not the best use of antimatter for interstellar
propulsion.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 20:54:42 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Stranded in LEO due to APU failure

In article <8811120236.AA09382@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:
>In order to prepare for the next Shuttle disaster, we need to examine
>the various scenarios that may occur, their likelihood, consequences 
>and what work should be done, in advance to prepare ourselves, our
>space program and our citizenry.

OK, we'll get right on it, as soon as I'm done barfing up my lunch.

>For example, consider what would happen if an orbiter were stranded
>in LEO due to total APU failure.  The logic of the situation would 
>unfold in this scenario:

>Hundreds of millions of people on Earth would watch every detail
>of the dramatic situation unfold over several days (assuming they
>have that much life support).  During the first few days, there 
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
				Until the last moment, buddy

>will be many attempts to repair the problem with ground crews working 
>round the clock on a simulated orbiter in a similar failure
>mode.  They will come up with any of a number of futile attempts
						  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
						  Is the poster aware
						  that this is a major
						  additional assumption
						  on his part?  Not just 
						  that the APUs fail, but 
						  that NOTHING WILL FIX 
						  ANY OF THEM NO MATTER 
						  WHAT WE TRY?

>to fix the problem which the astronauts will, at first, dutifully
>carry out.  This work will proceed even though there is little or no
>possibility of an actual fix.  The public, the astronauts and NASA
>personnel will feel hope and dispair[sic] in cycles at each attempt,
>until, eventually, the charade will wear thin...
 [and so on for several grafs of gloom-and-doom fantasy...]
>After breaking from the bureaucracy's authority, the astronauts
>may become extremely critical of specific individuals in NASA and
>its contractors.  They will have nothing to lose and will finally 
>have a chance to right what they perceive as the wrongs in the
>space program.

 [Yeah, THEN won't NASA and the Congress feel sorry, eh Jim?  That'll
  teach em.  I used to run through the same thing whenever I was sent
  to bed without supper.  Mysterious Fatal Disease, where is thy sting?]

 [NB: Martin Caidin did this whole scenario much better.]

>A few weeks after the dying words of the astronauts are heard,
>the shuttle will reenter the atmosphere at 5 or 6 miles per second.
>It will break up.  A few large fragments will scatter widely and
>unpredictaby, hitting the ground before total disintigration[sic] due 
>to the ablative coating.  
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Oh yes, the ablative coating.  This reminds me of 
	another good Shuttle disaster scenario: what if the 
	main chutes don't open?!

>                          The public, ignorant of probability theory,
>will be in terror at the thought of the shuttle crashing into their
>communities causing mass destruction.  The fireball could easily be
>visible from large population centers and will most likely be viewed
>on television broadcasts around the world.

[Silly ignorant public, looking up at a fireball streaking over their
"large population centers" yet worrying their fool heads about it
landing and hitting anything!  Why didn't they study their probability.]

-- --

Well anyway, that was special.  Back down here in mundane grungy reality
land, I see the following:

  - The Shuttle has three APUs.  For a reason.

  - The US and Soviet track record on improvising ways around space
    emergencies has been pretty impressive.  If something less violent
    than a major meteoroid impact happened on orbit, I would not run
    through "cycles of hope and dispair"[ugh],  I would place all my
    chips on Houston and the flight crew, to win.

  - If something violent DID happen to prevent reentry but not
    immediately kill the flight crew (such as a meteoroid impact holing
    the OMS), I would expect the President to call Moscow immediately.
    Could they get something in rendezvous within 48 hours?  If so,
    we'd do our best to hold out.  We have the rescue balls and perhaps
    the MMUs.  Mir is there.  Soyuz is cramped accomodations for five
    or six guests, you would never want to fly a mission that way if
    you could help it.  In the emergency we would make do gladly.

  - If nothing whatsoever could be done, and the astronauts remained
    alive long enough to say farewell, you can bet they would not
    disgrace themselves and this country by whining and bitching
    about "contractors and specific NASA individuals" for crissake.
    They would comport themselves as heroes, and urge the program to
    continue. 

  - If we really want to "prepare ourselves" for orbital emergencies,
    as opposed to indulging our creative powers like Bowery here,
    the let's build a redundant rescue capability in cooperation
    with the Soviets and Europeans.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 16 Nov 88 00:39 CST
From: <CS0X1912%SWTEXAS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Subject:  STARS

WHAT ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STARS DESCRIBED IN THE UNIVERSE. <EXAMPLE> WHITE
DWARF.                         THANK YOU FOR READING THIS IT WILL HELP ALOT.


                          DAVID LIPSCOMB

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 16 Nov 88 15:08 CST
From: <NANCE%AUDUCVAX.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Red Hot Aviation

Does anyone remember the NX-2/Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program???
(If you do, it dates you!). Well, it has become a pet research project
of mine and I am trying to gather as much data on it that I can. Let
me give you a little background on it if that'll help...
              * CONVAIR(Consolidated-Vultee)
              * B-36 airframe used as testbed
              * It was an Airforce project
              * Circa-1946 thru 1962
              * Kennedy nixed it
              * Contractors involved:GE,Northrop,Pratt-Whitney,Allison
Aircraft,eventually...General Dynamics

What I am looking for is ANYTHING that you know or have reference to
on the project,ie.published articles,books,technical journal/manuals,
photographs of any of the tests done(they never actually built one),
government documents,et cetera...
Any information should be sent to NANCE@AUDUCVAX (Bitnet) or to:
Paul Shanley
Dorm 1 Room 308
Auburn, AL 36830-5212
Thank you in advance for any information....

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 17:37:40 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: Lunar Engineering

In article <7241@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c184-ap@holden.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Iain McClatchie) writes:
>
>   I wonder if the following idea would be practical for mining on the moon.
>
>   Over this spot place another inflated Mylar half-bubble, the perimeter
>sealed to the surface somehow. The idea is that the mirror acts as a solar
>furnace, vaporizing a small patch of lunar material. The gas thus formed is
>trapped by the half-bubble. The gas is prevented from touching said bubble by
>electrostatic repulsion. An electron gun in the side of the bubble keeps the
>gas negatively charged, and the bubble is an anode.

The mylar must be capable of containing whatever pressure your vaporized
gases are to attain. It will also be heated via radiation to some fraction
of the gases' temperature. The latter could be controlled somewhat by
modifying the emissivity of the bubble. Also, you need lots of energy input
to keep the gas from cooling by radiation.  This works better if you make
your surrounding bubble out of a good, reflective, refractory heat shield,
with three layers, to trap the radiative losses.

Finally, I wonder at the magnitude of the electical charge you're building
up. Where are you stripping all these electrons from ? There's got to be a
ground somewhere in that circuit, right ?

>   A string of chambers is connected via a tube to the collection bubble.
>The gas in each chamber is held at constant temperature by some means,
>perhaps a thermostatically controlled liquid crystal light gate mediating the
>influx of light from yet another mirror in orbit. The gas in the chamber next
>to the bubble is nearly as hot as the gas inside the bubble, and each
>succeeding chamber is cooler than the last. The idea is that the elements
>of the gas condense one by one into distinct chambers, and the gas flow rate
>from chamber to chamber is slow enough so that the condensate is reasonably
>pure.  The condensed elements can fall into seperate pits where they await
>later collection.

In other words, you want to set up a fractionaly distillation column for
lunar elements, on a grand scale.

My gut reaction is that it will be much easier to seperate the various ores
by more conventional refinement techniques. The solar mirror (presuming the
orbital mechanics are such that it can indeed focus on one unmoving spot)
is probably still useful as a heat source for pyro operations, though.



------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 21:52:48 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Possible consequence of terminal approach APU failure

Another possible Shuttle disaster:

During reentry 2 of the APUs fail and the third has some problems (as
has occured before).  But unlike the previous instances, the Shuttle
comes into the terminal area energy management manuver a little bit high
and a little bit fast.  It encounters a little clear air turbulence
while in a tight turn to bleed off this excess energy.  As the pilot is
lining up on the runway, the third and last APU gives out due to the
buffetting.  Unfortunately, the APU failed before he completed the final
turn.  The control surfaces go dead.  The Space Shuttle, now out of
control, impacts at supersonic speed into the waiting crowd which never
hears it coming.  Thousands perish.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 88 22:52:50 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Oxygen from the moon


 >From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
 >Henry Spencer wrote:
 >>   significantly
 >>   cheaper if liquid oxygen comes from the Moon rather than from
 >>   Earth.  Earth's strong gravity makes it a *very* expensive
 >>   source of supply for anything to be used in bulk in space.  
I once read an old NASA paper describing production of oxygen on the
moon. The recommended method was direct high-temperature electrolysis
of certain minerals found on the moon. This would be useful because it
would not require a continual input of imported materials. 

The emphasis of the paper was on production of oxygen for use on the
moon. An estimate was made of the average electric power required to
produce enough oxygen to keep a man alive, assuming no recycling of the
carbon dioxide. (Of course, a long-term colony would recycle.)
------------------------------
 >From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
 >	Cost to develop and install LOX factory:  $100 B
 >	Cost to make and return LOX to LEO:	 $2500/lb
 >	Breakeven point (with interest expense,
 >		assuming $4000/lb earth-to LEO launch costs):
 >					       250,000 tons of LOX
With reference to the needs of a lunar colony, I would like to see
estimates of the cost to produce oxygen, metal, and electrical generating
capacity on the moon, using mostly native materials.
 >These figures assume LOX is lifted from the moon with hydrogen launched
 >from Earth.  A source of lunar hydrogen would help enormously.  
Hydrogen may be hard to find, but it might be possible to recover
helium produced by underground radioactive decay, which could be used
as reaction mass, or to fire projectiles. If you have plenty of electric
power, maybe you could produce small quantities of hydrogen for local use
by bombardment of heavier nuclei. (Could this be done for < $10k/pound?)
The best long-term solution may be to import ice from the outer solar
system, as described by Isaac Asimov in "The Martian Way". (You have
mentioned the idea of changing the orbits of small asteroids. This
could be a project of similar magnitude.)
------------------------------
 >From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
 >Incidentally, you don't need mass-drivers and such; I've seen studies on
 >doing this sort of thing using plain old rockets.  In that case, add a
 >third major factor:  (3) whether there are hydrogen-containing volatiles
 >frozen in lunar polar craters.
I still prefer the idea of a mass-driver, since it doesn't take large
quantities of anything from the moon that the moon doesn't have
in abundance. Of course this would be a long-term project, but so are
all of these plans, and once completed it would be extremely useful.

For rocket propulsion from the moon, how about a metal-oxygen mixture?
(Though metal oxide exhaust would probably not be welcome in earth orbit :-)
Perhaps a metal-oxygen reaction or other heat source could be used to
drive a pure oxygen exhaust.
                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #121
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Nov 88 08:03:15 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA08533>; Wed, 23 Nov 88 03:50:04 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 23 Nov 88 03:49:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kXWbMby00Ui387hERM>;
          Wed, 23 Nov 88 03:26:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.cXWbGFy00UkZAErU4Q>;
          Wed, 23 Nov 88 03:19:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cXWbF6y00UkZQEqE52@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 88 03:18:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #122

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
		   Quayle in charge of space policy
	 Re: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 12 Nov 88, 7:00 PM
			 BITNET mail follows
			    Re: Amroc etc.
    Stuff about the benefits of space (formerly Species Survival)
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
	       Momentum (was: Stopping Space Pollution)
		       Welcome BURAN in space.
		 Re: Quayle in charge of space policy
      Hawaii's proposed launch facilities will face competition
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 19:31:57 GMT
From: nyser!cmx!amax.npac.syr.edu!anand@itsgw.rpi.edu  (Anand Rangachari)
Subject: Quayle in charge of space policy


  I just found some startling news while reading the latest issue of
U.S. News and World Report (Nov 21):

   "But what will Dan Quayle *do*? Before choosing him, Bush promised
    a high-visibility anti-drug role for his Veep, but Congress
    precluded Quayle from that by creating a fedral drug czar. Quayle
    will lead development of a new U.S. space policy."

  Has any other source reported this?

                                               R. Anand

  Internet: anand@amax.npac.syr.edu
  Bitnet: ranand@sunrise

------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 88 17:23:48 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 12 Nov 88, 7:00 PM

In article <8811100059.AA06698@venera.isi.edu> Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@venera.isi.edu> writes:
>	    Living in Space:  Social  and Legal Challenges
>		      Also:  Space Shuttle Tape

I'd like to propose a new rule:  people who post talk announcements
worldwide are required to post a summary of the talk afterwards.  The
rule is waived if you choose newsgroup or distribution so as to restrict
the announcement's propagation to the region from which people might
actually attend.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88   17:18 EDT
From: SEDS%UKCC.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject: BITNET mail follows


The University of Kentucky SEDS announces:

FutureScience/One

February 24-26, 1989

Prices:

  $20 until December 31, 1988
  $30 thereafter and at the door

 CHILDREN

  Half Price 6-12 ** IN TOW **
  Free       6-under  ** IN TOW **

  NOTE:  Parents WILL pay FULL price if children (IN TOW) are caught running
         freely during the Conference.

  ** Conference Arrangements **

  Call the UK Ticket Office (for charges only) at:

  (606) 257-1378

  Or

  Send SASE and Registration Form to:

  SEDS - FS/1
  C/O Delegate Registrations
  PO Box 979
  University Station
  Lexington, Kentucky  40506


** Hotel Arrangements **

   Provided by:  The Hyatt Regency/Lexington

       Prices:

         $70 per night: Single, Double, Triple, and Quad

       Reservations:

         Reservations MUST be made through the Hyatt itself.

         Phone Number:  (606) 253-1234

The Hyatt Regency/Lexington is a regional-class hotel known for its ability
to handle large convention crowds and excellent food services; vegetarian foods
are a standard part of the menu.  Also featured is a "skyway" access to several
other buildings in the downtown Lexington area, including several restaurants in
almost any price range.

Planned Activities include:

     SDI: Pro and Con: The Physics Side
     Law In The 21st Century
     NASA Presentation
     Art Exhibit
     Trivia Competition
     Autograph Signings
     Reading by authors
     World-building 101: A How-to Guide for Writers
     Films - on real, 16mm and 35mm film, in real theaters, at the convention
     Masquerade Ball
     Banquet - with Real Food (no rubber chicken!)
     Filksinging
     Three to four tracks of science, science fiction, and fantasy panels
     Major Primary Speaker whose name we are not yet allowed to advertise

Guests List:

     Larry Niven
     Lawrence Watt-Evans
     Michael Banks
     Michael Sinclair
     Bill Levy
     Richard Tucholka
     Mitchell Clapp

Also Scheduled to appear:

     An official NASA recruiter
     A representative of the Soviet Space Program
     A 1988 Westinghouse Sciences Award Winner

Our Purpose:

    The purpose of FutureScience/One is to raise the funds to build an
observatory for the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  Any and all proceeds from this
event will go to further that cause.

Sponsors:

    UK SEDS - Students for the Exploration and Development of Space
    Lexfa - The Lexington Fantasy Association

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 07:07:03 GMT
From: vsi1!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

In article <20591@apple.Apple.COM> kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) writes:
>I hate to admit it, but I've forgotten my basic chemistry.  Just what is
>synthetic rubber, chemically, and what sort of rection are we talking
>about here?
                  H   H  
Polybutadiene.  H-C=C-C=C-H is butadiene, take away an H or two and 
                    H   H
like them together in long chains to make synthetic rubber.  The
reaction with LO2 is oxidation, resulting in water and CO2, plus
some random unburned hydrocarbons, no doubt.
-- 
Here lies a Technophobe,                 Mike Van Pelt
  No whimper, no blast.                  vanpelt@sv.unisys.com
His life's goal accomplished,
  Zero risk at last.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 23:23 EST
From: LOVE%BKNLVMS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject: Stuff about the benefits of space (formerly Species Survival)


I recently joined the space list and the first batch of Digests that I
got had a lot of flaming on the subject of benefits of space colonies.
Has anything been settled (pro or con) about some of the benefits that
O'Neill discussed in The High Frontier?  Specifically,

1) O'Neill points out that almost everything technological that is
done on earth is harmful in some way to the environment (ie. mining,
manufacturing, transportation, drilling, combustion (whether in cars or
in power plants) etc.) and that therefore space colonies could by merely
existing aid the environment whether or not they were otherwise economicly
viable (which of course O'Neill believed they were).

2) Also discussed in the book is the beamed solar power concept (power
beamed from satellites to specific points on earth (probably in deserts).
The aspect of this that I see as the most interesting is the potential
cheapness of the research necessary to develop this.  We can build satellites,
the efficiency of solar power collection in space would sufficently above
the efficiency of earth based collection (so no breakthrough in that
technology is needed), and research on the safety and controllability of
a beam of energy through the atmosphere can be done on the surface of the
earth.

Andy Love @ Bucknell University in no particular position of authority.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 22:32:57 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

>From article <1988Nov11.213348.27877@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> In article <1068@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>>Could large clouds of ice crystals be used to "sweep"
>>orbits of small debris particles? 
> 
> Unfortunately, you need to sweep a spherical shell, not just a single orbit,
> since anything at the same altitude will intersect your orbit. 

Depending on how long the cloud persists it would eventually sweep out
a sherical shell. Especially if the cloud is in a polar orbit. The
question is how long will the cloud persist? My guess is that it won't
last long enough.

> Breaking the existing
> debris up into smaller bits is the *last* thing we want to do.

Not really. Even a fairly heavy rain of microscopic particles can be
stopped more easily than one large chunk.

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 14:56:45 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Momentum (was: Stopping Space Pollution)

In article <1084@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
> [...]
> From article <1988Nov11.213348.27877@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> > [...]
> > Breaking the existing
> > debris up into smaller bits is the *last* thing we want to do.
> 
> Not really. Even a fairly heavy rain of microscopic particles can be
> stopped more easily than one large chunk.

Both arguments are correct, really. Think of the problem in terms of
momentum. Since simply breaking up debris into smaller particles means
each one has a smaller momentum (mv), they should do less damage
hitting anything. A particle already in orbit can only lose momentum
as the orbit decays. 

However, Henry is right for practical reasons. You would have to
convert *every bit* of debris into almost microscopic particles before
you would no longer have to worry about them. Remember the paint chip
that hit the shuttle window? If you have some really delicate
satellites (e.g. exposed mirrors or reflecting mylar sheets), then even
microscopic debris is probably a no-no.
-- 

Bill    UUCP:  {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
         (or)  wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu
      BITNET:  wyatt@cfa2
        SPAN:  cfairt::wyatt

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 16:09:31 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Welcome BURAN in space.

From: Radio France International capted in Pittsburgh last
night:

The Soviet Space Shuttle Buran made a successful lauch,
carried by a model of Energia. After two revolution around
our plamet, it landed back, with apparently no problem, in
the USSR.

The whole flight has been done and executed by telecommand,
therefore showing the Sovite ability in the area. (One more...).

So now, earth has 2 operational shuttles system. Also, the Soviet
have completed a very sound space program which enable them
to be present everywhere.

When is the next one ? Soon, I hope. (Either from the US or the
Soviet, I don't care as long as the traffic intensify).

Jean-Marc Debaud.
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 15:52:44 GMT
From: uop!joshua@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu  (Ed Bates)
Subject: Re: Quayle in charge of space policy

In article <17037@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
> In article <837@cmx.npac.syr.edu>, anand@amax (Anand Rangachari) writes:
> >U.S. News and World Report (Nov 21):
> >   "But what will Dan Quayle *do*? [...  He.] will lead development of a
> >    new U.S. space policy."
> Hmmm.  How about, while the Soviets aim for Mars, we can start a special
> crash program to get to Pluto?  I'm sure Dan Quayle would love the honor
> of being the first man there.  Just no one tell him what it's like....

Why don't you give him a chance?  Has he done anything with the space
program to warrant your attack, or is it just that you are sore that
your candidate didn't make it?  I've heard it somewhere :-) that a person
is innocent until proven guilty.  Or is that only for certain people or
groups of people?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Edwin J. Bates			University of the Pacific
Academic Computer Specialist	Computer Services, 877 W. Stadium Dr.
(Jack-Of-All-Computers)		Stockton, CA	(pretty close to Sacramento)
209-946-2251			95211		(somewhat near San Francisco)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 17:30:21 GMT
From: uhccux!kahala.hig.Hawaii.Edu!bob@humu.nosc.mil  (Bob Cunningham)
Subject: Hawaii's proposed launch facilities will face competition

Hawaii's space launch efforts will probably face some stiff competition from
Austrailia, according to reports from a meeting in Kailua-Kona this week,
Pacific Rim Opportunities: The 2nd Space Enterprise Conference.

Contracts for the design and environmental impact assessment of a
proposed space launch facility at Palima Point are expected to be
announced very soon, probably at the Governor's Symposium of Space,
which begins tomorrow in Honolulu.  Kahilipali Point will probably be
an alternative.  Both locations are on the south coast of the island of
Hawaii, the southernmost point in the U.S.

Rick Endres, director of the Office of Space Commerce in the U.S. Department
of Commerce, praised the progress of the Hawaii plan.  "This is a marvelous
physical location and it has minimal physical and bureaucratic impediments,"
Endres said after a tour of the Ka'u district.  He also called for less
involvement by NASA in the details of space projects and better cooperation
with private industry.  "In the long term, our space program will be far
stronger if we let the cost-effectiveness and imagination of the private
sector influence the design and operation of our space program," he said,
pointing out that the launch of commercial payloads, severely backlogged
since the 1986 space shuttle disaster, is now dominated by Ariane, which
has taken over about 50% of the market.

However the Australians, according to Bill Shirley, executive director
of the Australian Cape York Space Agency, will be competitive and are
aiming for 30% of the world's commercial launch business with their
Cape York facility.  That facility is expected to be approved next
year, and can be ready by 1993 at a cost of $120 to $200 million.  He
pointed out that at 12 degrees south latitutde, Cape York is closer to
the equator than Hawaii's at 19 degrees north latitude.

However, Cape York cannot support polar orbit launches without
launching over populated areas.  The Hawaii sites have open ocean to
both the south and east (making it the only place in the U.S. where
both polar and equatorial launches are feasible).  On the other hand,
the plans for Cape York include large runways for recovery of winged
spacecraft, for which there might not be space on the southern end of
Hawaii.

Little was said at the conference about the work already underway in
building up launch facilities by the People's Republic of China and
Indonesia, though both those countries have already begun to offer
their facilities for commerical launches.
Bob Cunningham
Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii
bob@kahala.hig.hawaii.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #122
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Nov 88 13:26:43 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01303>; Wed, 23 Nov 88 05:36:49 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 23 Nov 88 05:36:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XWd8Vy00UkT43kU5M>;
          Wed, 23 Nov 88 05:25:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.cXWd2sy00UkZEF2E4f>;
          Wed, 23 Nov 88 05:19:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0XWd1Zy00UkZ0F1045@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 88 05:18:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #123

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Is there water on the Moon
		     Soviet space shuttle RUMORS
		  Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
		 Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
		       Re: Teleoperated robots
			    Re: Amroc etc.
			 BITNET mail follows
	      Launches on the cheap and space industry.
	    Re: Launches on the cheap and space industry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 19:26:05 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Is there water on the Moon

In article <1850005@hpldsla.HP.COM> oreilly@hpldsla.HP.COM writes:
> In the daytime the temperature of a
>"collisionless" gas on the Moon is on the order of 1000K.

I am curious where you get this number.  I would have thought that
the molecules in a "collisionless" gas would bounce around in
parabolic trajectories, so they would be in thermal equilibrium with
the lunar surface.  The surface is certainly not heated to 1000 K.

> It's been calculated that all of Earth's hydrogen would escape
>in about 1 million years (even though Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 km/sec);
>the reason there is still hydrogen here is because it's constantly replenished
>from Earth's interior (and maybe from cometary debris).

Actually, escape of water from the earth is suppressed by the "cold
trap" in the stratosphere.  Measurements of the outgoing hydrogen flux
give a much longer timescale than 10^6 years, I think.  Replenishment
by cometary debris is certainly in conflict with interplanetary Lyman
alpha measurements.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 16 Nov 88 13:47 EDT
From: "RCSMPB::APSEY"@gmr.com
Subject:  Soviet space shuttle RUMORS

      Date: November 16, 1988
   Subject: In reply to Terry Greyzck's "Soviet Shuttle Rumors"
 Reference: Spaceflight V30N11 NOV 1988

 "The tiles are hard ceramic, unlike the U.S. Shuttle tiles.  To my surprise
 the tiles were soft - you can scratch pieces off with your fingernail,"
 reports a PRAVDA correspondent who was also taken for a test flight in the
 Soviet shuttle simulator.  He revealed the name of the shuttle, to be
 VKK (Vozdushno-Kosmicheskiy Korabl), meaning Air Space Ship.

 The socialist system is today building an advanced access to space.  Well
 meaning spacenet people are rumoring this and that while the socialism is
 building a space program second to none.

 I was pleasantly surprised to read about Shuttle-C, pictured on the cover
 of the Nov. 1988 issue of Spaceflight.  This new unmanned cargo vehicle
 will deliver 100,000 to 150,000 pounds to a 220 nm, 28.5 degree inclination
 orbit.  SSMEs are qualified for 20 Shuttle flights but NASA plans to use
 them at most 10 times.  These SSMEs would then be used on the Shuttle-C.
 Is the NASA finally recognizing the need for unmanned cargo vehicles?
 Have not the Soviets been using Progress cargo vehicles for years?

 Jim Oberg, often quoted here, said last evening on Public TV that the
 Soviet Space program shows very strong points, including the computer
 technology needed to automatically land their VKK.

					     Jim Apsey
                                   Relational Database Consultant
 ..................................  ............................
/\ I just cannot stand computers; /\/\ A computer puts a window /\
\/ now they even catch virus'!    \/\/ in a person's mind.      \/
 ..................................  ............................

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 21:41:39 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST

In article <7594@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>                                        ... On the other hand, I would
>>*really* like to see Morton Thiokol out of the SRB business -- they
>>deserve to get their tails kicked from here to the Moon, not to go on
>>getting lucrative contracts into the next century...
>Very easy to bash Thiokol after the fact, but remember it was Thiokol
>engineers protesting the decision to launch Challenger and NASA's
>mid-level managers browbeating the vendor into going along...

And Thiokol managers who ultimately made the decision to ignore the
engineers and tell the customer what he wanted to hear.  Don't forget,
what NASA eventually heard was not "well, we disagree but we'll go
along", it was "we've reconsidered and now see no problem".  NASA is
hardly blameless for the pressure it applied, but it was Thiokol, not
NASA, that ultimately decided to ignore the problem.  Would NASA have
gone ahead if Thiokol had stuck to its guns?  Impossible to be sure,
but I don't think so.

Being honorable under pressure is difficult, yes.  It's ever so much
simpler to take the easy way out and say "I vas chust following orders".
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 23:24:47 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.


Henry is correct about hypervelocity impacts. SDI PR stun...um, er, "tests"
have demonstrated what happens when two extremely fast-moving objects
collide.  The shock of initial impact fragments each object, and the
resulting bits of debris fly past each other with very little exchange of
momentum.  The result is a pair of debris clouds moving away from each
other, the center of gravity of each having almost the same velocity as the
intact objects did before the collision.

Unless you can build your debris catcher from material that can actually
STOP objects moving at relative velocities many times that of a rifle
bullet, you won't be able to clean up much of the orbital debris.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 88 10:19 EDT
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

    Perhaps SDI could be recycled as a garbage collector.  Would it
    be possible to use charged particle beams to add an electric charge
    to large numbers of orbiting paint chips efficiently?  After adding
    an electric charge to a small orbiting particle, would it interact
    with the earth's magnetic field in such a way as to cause a quick
    (several months) decay?  Or how about putting a large van de graf
    generator in orbit to charge nearby debris?  Or eletro magnets.
    
    As for future design, how about adding magnets to parts that will
    become debris?  (Like explosive bolts etc.)  Woul it be enough just
    to make these parts out of ferromagnetic materials?  That might
    be heavier, but it would seem to be worth it if it would guarantee
    their orbits to decay.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 17:11:26 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated robots

In article <7901@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> sayan@athena.mit.edu (Sayan Chakraborty) writes:
}In <8811031502.AA01187@crash.cs.umass.edu> csustan!lll-winken!uunet!husc6!ukma!rutgers!att!ucbvax!cs.umass.edu!ELIOT states:
}>
}>No one is likely to do any serious basic research on teleoperated robots.  
}>The prospects for more or less fully *autonomous* robots are rather good on
}>the 5 - 15 year time frame.  I expect that a certain number of impressive
}>teleoperated robots will be developed as spin offs of the push for
}>autonomous robots, but they will almost instantly become obsolete for most
}>purposes.
}
}Unfortunately for you, fortunately for the rest of us, "serious basic research"
}is already being done.  At MIT's Space Systems Lab, a great deal of effort is
}being expended towards viable space telerobots. 


You want to see a buncha current examples?  You are looking the wrong
direction.  Look down.  Autonomous underwater vechicles are 'in'.  And
teleoperators have been around a looooonnngggggg time.  The mix is not
uncommon.


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 22:22:01 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

In article <45000005@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>> This is essentially what AMROC (American Rocket Company)'s proposed
>> commercial rocket looks like...
>
>AMROC's rocket uses a hybrid engine of liquid oxygen and synthetic rubber.
>It is interesting to note that both of these are common items.  Liquid
>oxygen is found in the basement of every hospital, while synthetic rubber
>is in hundreds of household goods.

The synthetic rubber in an Amroc motor is very special stuff. It is
mostly rubber, but it has additives that affect the rate of burn,
tempurature and so on. The details are known only to Amroc.

The configuration of the lower stages of the Amroc booster is a number
of motors clustered around a large LOX tank. This is not a cluster of
individual motor/tank pairs. The LOX tank in each stage is sized to
match the number of motors on each stage. 

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88   17:18 EDT
From: SEDS%UKCC.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject: BITNET mail follows


          Convention Registration Form for FS/1

           Name:_______________________________

           Address:____________________________

           City, State, Zip:_______________________________________

           Phone:______________________________

           E-mail:______________________________


           I would like additional information on:

           _____ Costuming                       _____ Filksinging

           _____ Art Show                        _____ Huxter Room

           _____ Writer's Workshop               _____ Handicapped Access

           _____ Hyatt Regency/Lexington         _____ Other (Please Detail)

         ______________________________________________________________________

         ______________________________________________________________________

         ______________________________________________________________________

         Payment: (American Funds Only Please)

         _____ Check

         _____ Money Order

         _____ Visa or MasterCard

         Card Number:__________________________________

         Expiration Date:______________________________

         Signature:____________________________________


         Call the UK Ticket Office at:
         (606) 257-1378

         Or

         Send SASE and Form to:

         SEDS - FS/1
         C/O Delegate Registrations
         PO Box 979
         University Station
         Lexington, Kentucky  40506

         NOTE:  You can E-mail your complete registration form back to SEDS@UKCC
         ** IF ** You plan on paying $30 at the door.  We cannot process any
         Visa or MasterCard payments via E-Mail.

         You can however request information on a topic of the convention if you
         like.  We will E-mail responses back.  That saves us US Postage.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 88 06:43:46 GMT
From: sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@oberon.usc.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Launches on the cheap and space industry.

>In article <5391@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.UUCP (THE VIKING) writes:
>>... Therefore it seems to me that NASA's primary
>>research objective should be the reduction of per pound launch costs, before
>>we move on to the moon, Mars, NEAs, or even a space station. 

In article <1988Nov7.175647.15504@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Agreed, with the reservation that "research objective" is a key phrase:
>NASA should be developing technology for others to use, not trying to
>build its own operational system.  
>The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

The idea that reducing launch costs should be the major space (especially 
manned) research objective is not a new idea. It was one of prime goals of the
shuttle, though it wasn't achieved. I'm curious about the advanced launch
system project. I've heard that one of its primary goals is also the reduction
of launch costs. Is this the projects only goal, or are there competing
considerations? What is the current status of the project? Does there appear
to be reason to hope that the government and the aerospace corpocracy will
achieve a dramatic reduction in launch costs ($100/lbs is music to my ears)?
I think this is an important subject, and I'd be interested in any information
anybody has.

Changing the subject...I recently had a brief discussion with an executive at
Hughes Aircraft Co. about satellites. He said that technology in this area is
moving very fast, that current designs have a total power output of over 15KW,
and talk to [some random large number] of ground stations less than 1 foot in
diameter. His conclusion was that because of their increasing capabilities and
inherent advantages, all long distance communication and most of TV was headed
off of wires and onto satellites (sell your stock in the cable companies
now! 8-=). This means explosive growth in the satellite industry, and in my
opinion the developement of an industry to launch and eventually service in
orbit a vast network of increasingly complex and powerful satellites. All
those who don't believe in space industry and men in space take note.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   [...imagine a time when evil Man is infecting the solar system...]
"DEATH TO THE BARBARIC, SATANIC, GENETICALLY INFERIOR MARTIAN BACTERIA"!!!!!!
  -- Redneck frontiersman, 2050.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 19:56:27 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Launches on the cheap and space industry.

In article <5761@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes:
>...I'm curious about the advanced launch
>system project. I've heard that one of its primary goals is also the reduction
>of launch costs. Is this the projects only goal, or are there competing
>considerations?

Yes.  A whole bunch of them.  Anyone who seriously expects ALS to be really
cheap probably believes in the Easter bunny.  Quite apart from the fact
that it's being run by those masters of low-cost technology, the USAF, 
there is a more fundamental problem in that ALS is yet another launch
system that is going to be all things to all users.  Not a good recipe
for low cost.

>What is the current status of the project?

It might be flying by the year 2000.  Maybe.  (The people actually doing
it will quote you slightly earlier dates -- but only slightly -- but they
aren't allowing for further schedule slips.)

> Does there appear
>to be reason to hope that the government and the aerospace corpocracy will
>achieve a dramatic reduction in launch costs ($100/lbs is music to my ears)?

They're only shooting for something like $500/lb, and I will be massively
surprised if they actually achieve that.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #123
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Nov 88 01:31:16 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03825>; Thu, 24 Nov 88 01:03:21 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 24 Nov 88 01:03:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kXWtwvy00jZdM1kU4T>;
          Thu, 24 Nov 88 00:33:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.IXWtoky00UkZIIDk5J>;
          Thu, 24 Nov 88 00:25:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UXWtjby00UkZ8ICU5y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 88 00:19:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #124

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
		 STS - 27 visibility around the world
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 07:00:39 GMT
From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: STS - 27 visibility around the world


Hi folks,

Since the Atlantis launch is pretty well(??) fixed by now, we figured
it's about time to run a visibility window check on it, just so that
everyone knows when and where it will be visible during nighttime
passes.  I have here a semi-coherent set of results from our
calculations.

If any of you are interested in seeing the shuttle but have no
prediction software or source of elements, give me a shout.  As some
of you know, I wrote lots of software to handle just this kind of
thing and I run a mailing list of satellite predictions for many of you
around the world.  So if any of you would like to observe the shuttle,
or any other satellites, send me your:

1.  Location name
2.  Latitude and longitude, down to (at least) tenth of a degree
3.  Elevation above sea level (not too critical)
4.  Time zone (important)
5.  Daylight Savings Time rules
6.  Satellites you would like to see
7.  Questions you may have (these are welcome!)

And I will put you on the mailing list.

One interesting point about the shuttle: I am informed that they will
be deploying a KH-12 and that they will be testing the satellite
before it changes into its final orbit (of perhaps h=400km, i=70 deg,
eccentric).  If they find something wrong, they will bring it back
down.  Anyhow, this means that the KH (which is pretty huge) will be
in the immediate vicinity of the shuttle for quite a while, making
a specacular sight for those who make the effort to see it!

Anyway, here are the visibility conditions.  In making these up, we
assumed:

1. LAUNCH TIME: Dec 1 1988, 1130-1430 UTC.

Luckily, if the launch gets delayed the visibility dates won't change
much, so you can still use them (by adding the number of days the
mission was delayed to each visibility date).  In the event of a big
delay I will post an update.

2. INCLINATION: 57 degrees

3. ORBITAL HEIGHT: 340 km.  This was based on the historical records
of previous DoD missions, and is pretty uncertain because of the many
unusual factors about this launch, like launching a spysat that was
meant to be launched into a heliostationary orbit from Vandenberg.
(Anyways, there is about another pages' worth of deductive reasoning
we did which is not particularly interesting because it does not 
confirm anything.) 

As a general rule:  If the height is bigger than that, the windows
will expand.  If it's lower, they will contract, sometimes drastically
(bad news!).

Some of the below windows cover intervals not included in the mission
as it is scheduled now, but of course they might if the mission gets
delayed.

For people about 40deg N, the general picture is this: If they launch
early _or_ late in the window, we'll see it; if they launch it in the
middle of the launch window we are screwed.  The launch window on the
first of December is 1132-1432 UTC.  Remember, the data below will
still be us able if the launch is delayed, even by as much as a week;
you will, however, have to add the number of days the launch was
delayed to all dates.

Here are the more quantitative data.  The calculations were done for a
launch at various points in the launch window, spaced in intervals of
30 minutes.  Once you know the launch time (after launch, nothing is
certain before!), you can pick the one closest to that time and that
will be the correct visibility window summary.

Any comments, questions, etc. are welcome; but please don't expect an
extremely prompt reply.  I am unfortunately rather busy with
schoolwork (and it's stuff like quantum physics instead of orbital
mechanics - nuts!).  I will hopefully get to answer your stuff over
the weekends.

Here are the data:

ASSUMED LAUNCH TIME: 1130 UTC.

Place (latitude)   Visible in the morning     Visible in the evening

Australia          Nov 28 - Dec  2            none
30 deg N           Nov 30 - Dec  4 (great!)   none
40 deg N           Dec  1 - Dec 23            none
50 deg N           Dec  2 - Dec 18            none
60 deg N           Dec  4 - Dec 18            none


ASSUMED LAUNCH TIME: 1200 UTC

Place (latitude)   Visible in the morning     Visible in the evening

Australia          Nov 28 - Dec 3             none
30 deg N           Dec  2 - Dec 5             none
40 deg N           Dec  2 - Dec 7             none
50 deg N           Dec  3 - Dec 24            none
60 deg N           Dec  6 - Dec 20            none

ASSUMED LAUNCH TIME: 1230 UTC


Place (latitude)   Visible in the morning     Visible in the evening

Australia          Nov 30 - Dec 4             Nov 28 - Dec  2 
30 deg N           Dec  3 - Dec 7             none
40 deg N           Dec  4 - Dec 9             none
50 deg N           Dec  5 - Dec 26            none
60 deg N           Dec  7 - Dec 21            none

ASSUMED LAUNCH TIME: 1300 UTC


Place (latitude)   Visible in the morning     Visible in the evening

Australia          Dec  2 - Dec 6             Nov 29 - Dec  3

and no windows at all for northern hemisphere (bummer!)

ASSUMED LAUNCH TIME: 1330 UTC

Place (latitude)   Visible in the morning     Visible in the evening

Australia          Dec  3 - Dec 7             Nov 29 - Dec  3
30 deg N           none                       Nov 26 - Dec  2
40 deg N           none                       none
50 deg N           none                       none
60 deg N           none                       none

ASSUMED LAUNCH TIME: 1400 UTC

Place (latitude)   Visible in the morning     Visible in the evening

Australia          Dec  4 - Dec 8             Dec  2 - Dec  6
30 deg N           none                       Nov 28 - Dec  3
40 deg N           none                       Nov 25 - Dec  2
50 deg N           none                       none
60 deg N           none                       none


ASSUMED LAUNCH TIME: 1430 UTC

Place (latitude)   Visible in the morning     Visible in the evening

Australia          none                       Dec  3 - Dec  7
30 deg N           none                       Nov 29 - Dec  4
40 deg N           none                       Nov 26 - Dec  4
50 deg N           none                       Nov  8 - Dec  3
60 deg N           none                       Nov 11 - Nov 30


That's all!  

Hope to hear from you,

-Rich 

"Cruising on your radar,
 Watching from the satellites
 Take a page from the Red book
 And keep them in your sights..."

	-RUSH- Early Distant Warning

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 88 05:54:26 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #413 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88315.57838675 0.00000146           16699-3 0  1675
2 00424  80.4655 141.2884 0023672 334.4991  25.4981 13.67025912302944
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88315.17961976 0.00000001           10000-2 0  5976
2 08820 109.8124 155.1048 0044391   2.6634 357.4344  6.38664436 36646
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88318.36562328 -.00000007                   0  1843
2 10061   6.6329  70.7250 0008217 164.5598 195.4126  1.00273819  3218
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88310.08631266 0.00000013                   0  9825
2 10684  63.4806 107.7772 0103161 197.4044 162.2529  2.00563434 64037
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88310.53897474 -.00000028                   0  9289
2 10893  64.5664 348.5799 0143913  29.1441 331.7228  2.00562480 76861
GOES 3     
1 10953U          88314.42477073 0.00000079           10000-3 0  5474
2 10953   5.4749  73.5805 0007174 228.0251 131.8011  1.00288999   412
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88318.51327595 0.00000758           31552-3 0   368
2 10967 108.0035 203.6870 0002623 247.6488 112.4395 14.33968306543167
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88309.35956040 -.00000028                   0  9507
2 11054  64.1230 345.1439 0050678 120.9041 239.6625  2.00571218 73853
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88311.45960468 0.00000013                   0   534
2 11141  63.4616 107.6396 0054550 324.2829  35.3571  2.00557399 72594
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88310.43115293 0.00000616           27793-3 0  7699
2 11416  98.4981 308.2087 0013343  42.3381 317.8823 14.25264740486024
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88313.23909897 0.00022377           65186-3 0  7382
2 11703  28.4981  14.8040 0005676 118.7157 241.4223 15.33957744485707
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88310.42063733 -.00000028                   0  8198
2 11783  63.9297 344.8189 0134865  63.6432 297.8047  2.00563720 62512
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88314.20529076 -.00000206           10000-3 0   191
2 11964   4.7662  47.3303 0039171 192.5744 176.1896  0.99924240    08
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88313.28969422 -.00000235           10000-3 0  6497
2 12472   1.9715  83.1668 0001127 163.7990 196.0409  1.00240645 26390
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88319.27852515 0.00025724           69387-3 0  3541
2 12888  97.5970 356.9250 0002176 146.5062 213.6359 15.37780631395766
RS-08      
1 12998U          88319.18317202 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5499
2 12998  82.9643 353.3488 0021171  99.4051 260.9413 12.02967501303450
RS-05      
1 12999U          88320.09362381 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5412
2 12999  82.9486 347.4238 0011815  36.7553 323.4289 12.05063009304098
RS-07      
1 13001U          88311.09598796 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4182
2 13001  82.9671 342.6009 0021685 322.5880  37.3687 12.08708382303924
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88311.24980093 0.00000184           15619-3 0  6067
2 13113  82.5390 235.9133 0015611 334.7610  25.2784 13.83885741334402
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88320.23870439 0.00056145           16354-2 0  3156
2 13138  51.6132 279.2909 0001093  49.6067 310.4230 15.34841812375262
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88315.95046008 0.00000378           19392-3 0  7225
2 13718  81.2435 135.0140 0054782 259.9940  99.5130 14.13021159304734
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88319.22521442 0.00000113                   0  8498
2 14050   0.7404  85.0972 0002571 172.6823 102.3820  1.00286746  4455
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88313.61490571 -.00000095           10000-3 0  3614
2 14129  26.9972 295.9105 6038606 351.2307   1.6160  2.05882117 12679
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88320.98678958 0.00000012                   0  5845
2 14189  63.1195 106.0404 0130749 213.2479 145.9236  2.00575230 39160
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88316.56053177 0.00000462           19451-3 0  6672
2 14452  81.1636 151.5963 0095800   4.1261 356.0690 14.21885240261619
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88320.62287709 0.00000124           32627-4 0  5763
2 14780  98.2025  20.6193 0003216 187.2892 172.8091 14.57116318250460
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88314.64813774 0.00001329           27082-3 0  3636
2 14781  98.0380  13.6264 0012523 296.9052  63.0871 14.62565148250441
LDEF       
1 14898U          88313.25730251 0.00017141           43358-3 0  6657
2 14898  28.5000 276.6452 0002228 253.3527 106.6823 15.38252020257277
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88303.58730472 0.00000012                   0  6040
2 15039  62.8238 105.9309 0013540 295.5351  64.3236  2.00565109 32095
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88317.65241303 0.00000169           14315-3 0  9054
2 15099  82.5341 178.5734 0013723 119.7190 240.5336 13.83563411220178
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88307.47397765 -.00000029           10000-2 0  5439
2 15271  63.4333 344.7871 0097051 315.3053  43.9779  2.00559899 29283
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88311.63094299 0.00001914           28488-3 0  9308
2 15331  82.5418 183.6442 0026965  86.4604 273.9726 14.74196231221411
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88313.24036597 0.00000423           25350-3 0  2997
2 15427  99.1188 290.1951 0014776 211.8503 148.1775 14.11691892201276
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88311.50967059 0.00000087           72964-4 0   302
2 15516  82.5332 121.8680 0017522  23.3683 336.8268 13.83989799190250
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88318.87135959 0.00011258           33928-3 0   834
2 16095  51.6146 285.9135 0001182  55.5913 304.5220 15.34790218176728
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88305.63796244 0.00000012                   0  2808
2 16129  63.6340 106.3171 0115426 149.6766 210.9978  2.00567096 22454
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88309.38744733 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7858
2 16191  82.5527  34.6870 0020682 138.8360 221.4200 13.16847873145935
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88318.18493788 0.00000150           12504-3 0  4383
2 16408  82.5349  31.4311 0015711 182.5281 177.5804 13.84078443145674
Mir        
1 16609U          88319.55067225 0.00083915           48389-3 0  5225
2 16609  51.6240  14.7608 0022006 321.2208  38.7438 15.77597427157512
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88320.87228909 0.00000370           19167-3 0  2509
2 16613  98.7237  32.5652 0001546  87.2307 272.9143 14.20038366 54427
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88309.87427995 0.00000136           11265-3 0  2621
2 16735  82.5353  64.7473 0013151 284.6753  75.2949 13.83806348123430
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88320.24239946 0.00002449           36762-3 0  4220
2 16881  82.5264 235.5060 0025733  76.3433 284.0692 14.74012613123769
EGP        
1 16908U          88319.04028571 -.00000043          -27789-4 0  1087
2 16908  50.0121 239.4780 0011224 157.5951 202.5375 12.44373226102620
FO-12      
1 16909U          88317.81951275 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1207
2 16909  50.0163 243.4199 0011459 153.9233 206.2160 12.44396281102460
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88316.64976262 0.00000411           20043-3 0  1673
2 16969  98.6662 345.0764 0013816 157.5068 202.6717 14.22677708113004
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88319.46171614 0.00000124           10283-3 0  2006
2 17290  82.4674 326.0021 0013652 137.2826 222.9403 13.83622920 93923
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88312.08281630 -.00000212           10000-3 0  1788
2 17561   0.0917  73.0376 0008766 133.7662 153.1921  1.00251561  3365
Kvant      
1 17845U          88317.84021601 0.00069397           40561-3 0  5925
2 17845  51.6224  23.5950 0022768 315.8216  44.0899 15.77345025 93513
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88319.90822911 0.00000095           98255-4 0  5758
2 18129  82.9296  36.4328 0010618 290.0499  69.9379 13.71915722 70013
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88320.87320197 0.00150647  11747-4  22009-3 0  7414
2 18225  71.8984 268.3697 0010371 237.9422 122.1571 16.04923105 77081
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88320.18604933 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  1816
2 18312  82.5589  29.0896 0013302  79.8810 280.3935 13.83376384 62925
Cosmos 1900
1 18665U          88306.95260301 0.00000733           21544-3 0  5501
2 18665  66.0859 109.5978 0048847 281.6924  77.8768 14.49106741 51921
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88309.86029913 0.00000095           80189-4 0   641
2 18820  82.5403  98.8164 0016438 176.5474 183.5814 13.84049487 38655
AO-13      
1 19216U          88273.72660805 0.00000030           10000-3 0   190
2 19216  57.5382 237.5900 6578369 191.3601 139.7626  2.09697959  2262
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88317.53100721 0.00000391           10000-2 0   668
2 19336  82.5493 328.9438 0017275   7.9293 352.2088 13.16846824 14392
Soyuz TM-6 
1 19443U          88318.98057319 0.00040814           24042-3 0   847
2 19443  51.6293  17.7082 0020079 323.0224  37.0718 15.77481592 12118
Progress 38
1 19486U          88318.98058261 0.00032662           19308-3 0   718
2 19486  51.6223  17.7073 0022296 313.3152  46.7871 15.77449453 10253
Offeq-1    
1 19519U          88294.89549840 0.00313214  86600-5  19419-2 0   562
2 19519 142.8536  48.9372 0561575 298.5333  56.0618 14.77873731  4627
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88316.34043837 0.00000357           22056-3 0   192
2 19531  98.9128 255.7287 0012898 124.2385 236.0008 14.10674524  6758
1988 089B  
1 19532U 88089  B 88300.86740196  .00003131  00000-0  00000-0 0 00251
2 19532 098.9079 240.4058 0006667 134.5228 225.7040 14.11308768004572
Molniya3-33
1 19541U          88302.70739282 0.00000085          -14331-2 0   324
2 19541  62.8826  90.5981 7367529 288.2921   9.1076  2.00594398   594
1988 090D  
1 19544U 88090  D 88301.57321968  .00000483  00000-0  00000-0 0 00153
2 19544 062.8504 090.5924 7319438 288.2742 009.7052 02.06098327000580
TDRS 2     
1 19548U          88300.31980104 0.00000163           10000-3 0   143
2 19548   0.0280 262.5409 0001541  99.1153 358.3724  1.00255173   271
TDRS IUS   
1 19549U 88091  C 88299.43472274  .00001987  00000-0  00000-0 0 00214
2 19549 026.7393 063.1674 7264977 015.5273 358.3127 02.27662885000603
1988 091D  
1 19550U 88091  D 88299.08856737  .00000000  00000-0  00000-0 0 00065
2 19550 002.2302 264.0053 0015038 131.8289 228.3035 01.00459925000277
1988 092A  
1 19554U          88306.86262516 -.00001153           22036-2 0   294
2 19554  62.9216 294.3280 7372953 316.5163   4.6881  2.00511971   598
1988 092C  
1 19556U 88092  C 88302.28486635  .11957082  00000-0  00000-0 0 00518
2 19556 062.7755 205.4284 0036923 114.4127 246.1873 16.40449207003852
1988 092D  
1 19557U          88305.42068111 -.00000234          -10195-2 0   218
2 19557  62.9054 294.5106 7342159 316.4417   4.7900  2.04104096   577
1988 086C  
1 19558U          88305.61876469 0.00030885           29224-2 0   118
2 19558  28.1057 163.8096 7392750 203.9984  86.7816  2.16602665   633
1988 093A  
1 19573U          88310.64701686 0.00001043           15513-3 0   359
2 19573  82.5351 144.2010 0024999 189.6653 170.4057 14.73911190  3737
1988 095A  
1 19596U          88318.52499517 0.00000185           10000-3 0   235
2 19596   1.5219 273.8393 0004856 138.8300 223.4412  1.00265573   255
1988 095B  
1 19597U          88296.35753724 0.12507757  60658-4  25125-3 0   105
2 19597  51.6248 265.0403 0004998 254.6431 105.8934 16.46853638   284
1988 096A  
1 19608U          88319.69519866 -.00000763           51030-2 0   227
2 19608  62.8652 251.9038 7355508 316.2462   4.9188  2.00613666   426
1988 096B  
1 19609U          88321.11588095 0.01184107  38390-4  10984-2 0   505
2 19609  62.8406 174.5842 0158158 123.6822 238.1314 15.91130758  3359
1988 096C  
1 19610U          88314.40142080 0.27407233  43370-4  28483-3 0   392
2 19610  62.8305 198.9835 0047875 123.2004 238.4435 16.45144510  2326
1988 096D  
1 19611U          88318.89610692 -.00000502           10000-3 0   191
2 19611  62.9532 251.8852 7324374 316.2602   5.0186  2.04275674   421
1988 098A  
1 19621U          88317.90626636 -.00000097           10000-3 0    74
2 19621   0.0907 264.9826 0050424 208.8166 246.7685  1.00329521   113
1988 098B  
1 19622U          88313.24301862 -.00068395          -11484-1 0   115
2 19622   3.7115 240.7877 7296075 184.6050 149.6588  2.27452627   237
1988 100A  
1 19637U          88320.17858347 -.00000614                   0    36
2 19637  51.6203 109.7433 0006023 262.0967  97.9456 16.08201003    17
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #124
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Nov 88 05:04:25 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03288>; Thu, 24 Nov 88 04:16:56 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 24 Nov 88 04:16:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IXWwSOy00Ui3Q1JkBl>;
          Thu, 24 Nov 88 03:26:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.wXWwNIy00UkZAIWE4Y>;
          Thu, 24 Nov 88 03:20:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UXWwKmy00UkZMIV04G@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 88 03:17:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #125

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
	      Special treatment for Time Urgent messages
		  Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST
			Canadian Space Center
		Jet Propulsion Laboratory - Open House
		RE: Stopping space and light pollution
		      Looking over old MARS data
		       Re: Oxygen from the moon
			    Re: Amroc etc.
			    Re: Amroc etc.
			   Spaceship Orion
			 Re: Red Hot Aviation
		 Re: Quayle in charge of space policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 88 11:21:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 1225+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Special treatment for Time Urgent messages
CC: henry@zoo.toronto.edu, rogers@venera.isi.edu, HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET

In response to some recent comments about timely meeting announcements I'd like
to release a new feature of the space digest.  This only affects Internet Space
Digest recipients but it might be a reasonable convention for sci.space users
as well.

For meetings that are of general interest, but which are likely to be of only
local availability, sponsors may post announcements on distribution lists with
global scope if and only if they are also willing to post a followup summary of
the meeting for those unable to attend.  This will naturally tend to discourage
announcement that are not of truly general interest.  Hopefully it will also
encourage sponsors of interesting meetings to post announcements they are
currently withholding because of their local-only scope.  In order to
facilitate the timely distribution of such messages through the internet digest
queue I will have the automatic software specially recognize messages whose
subject line starts with the string "Time Urgent: " and put them into the next
digest to go out.  For example:
    Subject: Time Urgent: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 12 Nov 88, 7:00 PM
Note, however, that users of this facility will be expected to followup with a
summary.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 18:17:26 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST

In article <1988Nov14.214139.1892@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
-In article <7594@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
->Very easy to bash Thiokol after the fact, but remember it was Thiokol
->engineers protesting the decision to launch Challenger and NASA's
->mid-level managers browbeating the vendor into going along...
-
-And Thiokol managers who ultimately made the decision to ignore the
-engineers and tell the customer what he wanted to hear.  Don't forget,
-what NASA eventually heard was not "well, we disagree but we'll go
-along", it was "we've reconsidered and now see no problem".  NASA is
-hardly blameless for the pressure it applied, but it was Thiokol, not
-NASA, that ultimately decided to ignore the problem.  Would NASA have
-gone ahead if Thiokol had stuck to its guns?  Impossible to be sure,
-but I don't think so.
-
-Being honorable under pressure is difficult, yes.  It's ever so much
-simpler to take the easy way out and say "I vas chust following orders".

Thiokol was concurrently negotiating a contract renewal.  The pressure
to "go along" under those circumstances is unbearable.  Also note that
Rockwell had doubts and withdrew them (although the decision process
was quite controversial).  Until and unless we put every contractor in
the excruciating position Thiokol was in and compare their performance,
I consider it unfair to single out Thiokol for not dealing well with
improper NASA pressure.

-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 17:45:39 GMT
From: watmath!bmaraldo@decvax.dec.com  (Commander Brett Maraldo)
Subject: Canadian Space Center

This is a request for information from those on the net who might be in
the know.  I was listening to the radio a little while ago and the
newscaster was reading a story about the impending Canadian election on
November 21st.  One of the points that the party leaders are apparently
arguing over is where to put the new Canadian Space Center - Ottawa or
Montreal.

???????????????????????????????

I must have missed something here.  When did this idea go from "talked about"
to "funded"?  When do they anticipate its completion?  How many people do they
plan to employ?  I've already written a letter, but since its anybody's guess
when I'll get a reply from the government, I thought I might pose these 
questions to the net.  Can anybody help?

Sean
-- 
               --------     Unit 36 Research     ---------
	                "Alien Technology Today"
  	 	      bmaraldo@watmath.waterloo.edu 
  	           {uunet!clyde!utai}!watmath!bmaraldo

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 17 Nov 88 08:27:05 PST
From: tencati%jplgp.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV
Subject: Jet Propulsion Laboratory - Open House
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space+@andrew.cmu.edu"

  Well, first they don't do it for 8 years, then they do it two years in
  a row...!
  
  For those of you who are interested, and will be in the Greater Los Angeles
  area on December 3rd, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is having an OPEN HOUSE!!
  
  This coincides with NASA's 30th Anniversary.  The more "interesting" parts
  of the main lab will be open to the public from 9-5 on Saturday, December
  3rd.  I had the chance to attend the last open house and eventhough I work
  here, I was treated with views of parts of the lab I don't normally get a 
  chance to see.  Usually everyone is too busy working to have time to "show-
  off" the products of their efforts.
  
  The actual Galileo spacecraft is here, and will be on display in the 
  Spacecraft Assembly Facility.  There will be movies in our main auditorium,
  and plenty of chances to see the Deep Space Network's Spaceflight Operations
  Center as well as Image-Processing facilities.
  
  I would highly recommend if you are free that weekend, that you plan on
  attending this event.
  
  Hope to see you all here!
  
  Ron Tencati
  Jet Propulsion Laboratory
  Pasadena, Ca.
  Tencati%GPVAX.SPAN@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV
  (818)354-8359

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 88 14:42:03 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (It matters not to win or lose, only to cover the spread)
Subject: RE: Stopping space and light pollution

Larry Klaes writes:
 >Did you know that in
 >1983, a Space Shuttle had a window cracked by a fleck of paint which
 >struck it - had the damage been any greater, CHALLENGER would not have
 >been our first Shuttle tragedy.  Also, when parts of the Solar Maximum
 >Satellite (SMS) were returned to Earth in 1984, it showed definite
 >evidence of pitting from space debris while in orbit.

Not to cut my throat (being pro-(wo)man in space), but imagine said paint
flake hitting a faceplate!  Or, for the unmanned side, how much micro-pitting
can the HST stand (I don't know, but I'll bet it's not much)?  Of course,
it seems to me that by having both polar and "normal" orbits at the same
altitude, we can have junk which is not only sharing your orbit, but also
crossing it.  And in making transitions to other orbits, we have the
oppurtunity to run into a lot of trash.

If I sound a little critical of all the garbage in space it's because that's
the way man has always treated a "new frontier".  "There's so much of it,
no one will notice."  Well, I think someone has.  I've fought for clean
air and water for a number of years, and now it's space!  Write your
congress-person now, and tell him/her that you want some standards for US
launch vehicle that will prevent this pollution.  Show them that there is
a "responsible" interest in space, and congress may be more interested.

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 20:10:45 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Looking over old MARS data


I had forgotten the Martian moons were essentially equatorial
satellites (having roughly 1 deg inclinations to the Mars equator).
While Phobos is inside the radius that would make it are-stationary,
and therefore rises in the west and sets in the east, Deimos is
outside the stationary position, moving more sidereally.

I remember reading `conjectures about the possible artificial nature
of these bodieswhile back.  Why didn't I remember something to
the effect that there may have been three stationary satellites
two of which have strayed from original orbits and the third 
impacting on the Matian surface?

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 14:33:41 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the moon

In article <8811170352.AA06080@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>I once read an old NASA paper describing production of oxygen on the
>moon. The recommended method was direct high-temperature electrolysis
>of certain minerals found on the moon. This would be useful because it
>would not require a continual input of imported materials. 

Unfortunately, it also requires much more energy.  My reference "Space
Resources" states that O2 produced by magma electrolysis requires
30,000 calories per gram (about 1/2 electric power) vs 5000 cal/g by
the ilmenite process.  Also, the temperature in the ilmenite process
is only 1000 deg. C.

> >These figures assume LOX is lifted from the moon with hydrogen launched
> >from Earth.  A source of lunar hydrogen would help enormously.  

>Hydrogen may be hard to find, but it might be possible to recover
>helium produced by underground radioactive decay, which could be used
>as reaction mass, or to fire projectiles. If you have plenty of electric
>power, maybe you could produce small quantities of hydrogen for local use
>by bombardment of heavier nuclei. (Could this be done for < $10k/pound?)

Helium on earth gets trapped in special formations, it would be hard
to find such formations on the moon, and drilling would be difficult
anytime soon.  Using nuclear reactions is clearly unreasonable -- far
too much energy is required.  There are volatiles in the regolith, but
they are diffuse -- hydrogen is about 40 grams per tonne, for example.
It would make sense to extract them only if the regolith were
processed for some other reason.

Those figures of $100 B setup, 2500 $/lb LOX are obviously bogus.
They depend on $4K/lb cost to LEO, but if you're going to buy 250,000
tons of LOX (cost: > 1 trillion dollars) it obviously makes sense to
invest a few $10 B in better launch systems.

A suggestion for making lunar oxygen more economical: instead of
soft-landing liquid hydrogen on the moon, try hard-landing cargoes
that contain carbon and hydrogen.  For example, drop pieces of heat
resistant plastic near the base.  The plastic is processed into fuel
that will be burned with LOX.  This saves about 2.9 km/sec, assuming
the plastic doesn't vaporize.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 88 16:52:43 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

In article <20591@apple.Apple.COM> kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) writes:
>AMROC uses LOX and synthetic rubber...
>I hate to admit it, but I've forgotten my basic chemistry.  Just what is
>synthetic rubber, chemically, and what sort of rection are we talking
>about here?

There are about a zillion different kinds of synthetic rubber, but to a
first approximation, they're all made out of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,
oxygen, maybe some chlorine or sulfur.  The hydrogen is the thing that
really matters most, since it burns well and the molecular weight of the
result is very low.  (To a very sloppy first approximation, most liquid
fuels are ways of carrying hydrogen without having to deal with it directly.)
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 05:03:17 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

Is the rocket engine re-usable?  How many times?  How much does the fuel
and oxidizer cost?  Could a small version be made for recreational aircraft?

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 19:21:41 GMT
From: oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Doug Harper)
Subject: Spaceship Orion


The October/November issue of Air & Space/Smithsonian contains an
article by Bill Wagstaff on the work of Theodore Taylor and Freeman
Dyson on nuclear-powered spaceships from the 50's to the present.
(Dyson has written a book, _Disturbing the Universe_, Harper and Row,
1979.)  My efforts to get permission to reproduce the article have come
to a dead end, so I'll summarize its highlights instead of quoting.

In 1957, the Soviets launched Sputnik, shocking the U.S.  Taylor,
working at General Atomic, presented a proposal to ARPA in 1958 for a
spacecraft powered by repeated fusion explosions.  ARPA funded it as
Project Orion, and Dyson took leave from the Institute for Advanced
Studies at Princeton to join the new project.

They designed a rocket looking something like a floodlight, to be
placed in orbit by a Saturn V.  Plans called for fusion bombs to come
out the flat end, or "pusher plate", and were to be detonated close by
to drive the ship by shockwave.  Calculations showed that a
fusion-powered ship could make a round-trip to Mars in a couple of
months, using thousands of bombs.

During 1959, ARPA gave the Air Force sponsorship, and several
successful tests were carried out.  In the final test of concept, a
scale model, powered by chemical bombs, rose hundreds of feet into the
air.  NASA then came on board as a co-sponsor.  This was the high point
of the project.

The nuclear test ban treaty of 1962 was the death of Project Orion.  It
would violate the treaty to explode nuclear weapons in outer space.
The Air Force dropped sponsorship in 1965.  The project died, but Dyson
continues space research on his own.

-- 
Doug Harper
Odyssey Research Associates | oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu       ARPA
301A Harris B. Dates Drive  | {allegra,rochester}!cornell!oravax!harper  UUCP
Ithaca, NY 14850-3051       | (607) 277-2020 extension 276

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 19:11:51 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Red Hot Aviation

In article <Added.8XUTNuy00Ui30YTE8g@andrew.cmu.edu>, NANCE@AUDUCVAX.BITNET writes:
> Does anyone remember the NX-2/Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program???
> (If you do, it dates you!). Well, it has become a pet research project
> of mine and I am trying to gather as much data on it that I can. Let
> me give you a little background on it if that'll help...
>               * CONVAIR(Consolidated-Vultee)
>               * B-36 airframe used as testbed
>               * It was an Airforce project
>               * Circa-1946 thru 1962
>               * Kennedy nixed it
>               * Contractors involved:GE,Northrop,Pratt-Whitney,Allison
> Aircraft,eventually...General Dynamics
> 
> What I am looking for is ANYTHING that you know or have reference to
> on the project,ie.published articles,books,technical journal/manuals,
> photographs of any of the tests done(they never actually built one),
> government documents,et cetera...

A science-fiction book was published a while backe by a Hilbert
Schenck, titled "Steam Bird" about a fictitious nuclear-powered steam
turbine bomber.  Schenck was an engineer during the early '50s for
Pratt & Whitney working on part of the nuclear propulsion system.
(Strange book...)

As it was published in 1988 by Tor, I'd guess that Schenck is still
alive and seems to have maintained an active interest in the old
project.  Maybe you can contact him through the publisher.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 88 15:01:19 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@husc6.harvard.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Quayle in charge of space policy


At a recent talk here Carl Sagan was asked which candidate
would be better for the space program. (This was just before
the election.)  He responded by saying that both candidates
had expressed support for the program and that both had promised
to put their VPs in charge of it.

He did not smile.
-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #125
*******************


Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Nov 88 07:07:44 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00831>; Thu, 24 Nov 88 05:48:48 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 24 Nov 88 05:48:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4XWyE1y00UkTM1eE40>;
          Thu, 24 Nov 88 05:27:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.kXWy9ky00UkZEIh05b>;
          Thu, 24 Nov 88 05:20:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXWy7Vy00UkZMIfk4p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 88 05:18:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #126

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:
			  birdie sat program
			   Re: Pluto's day
			Re: Moon/Io thread...
		       The Robot Autonomy Axis.
		Re: Jet engines/WWII Jets/Supersonics
	      Re: special survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #107
		     Re: Planetary orbital decay
		     Re: Borman comments on Sagan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 08:45:10 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: birdie sat program


	The "birdie" satellite program has been sent out to everyone
	who requested it, with two addresses being unreachable.  Next
	time I sent out code, remind me to ask what OS and hardware
	it's going to be used on;  it might avoid some problems.

	I just finished porting the routines to MSDOS and I discovered
	a few bugs.  If anyone is using the programs on a 16-bit
	processor (80x86),  there are several places where int's need
	to be changed to longs.  The routines affected are "pk_kepl"
	and "lstkepl", and the fields involved are Epoch Rev and
	Element Set.  Check with me for details if this affects you.

	No other problems with the programs have been reported.  Is it
	working for everyone or are you just being polite?  Let me know
	if you need some help.


	
-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Sender: DLynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM
Date: 17 Nov 88 10:59:39 PST (Thursday)
Subject: Re: Pluto's day
From: Lynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM
Cc: DLynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM, jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.COM


Pluto's light curve would have two periods in it if Pluto's rotation (day)
were different from its satellite Charon's revolution (month).  Since it
has only the 6.39 day period, they are synchronized (this was figured out
soon after Charon was discovered).

Pluto and Charon line up with earth for eclipses only twice per 248 years,
and one such period has been happening for the last 2 or 3 years.
Astronomers have now separated the brightnesses and spectra of Pluto and
Charon during these eclipses, and are getting data on where the bright and
dark areas are on the surface of Pluto.  They had hoped to get Hubble Space
Telescope observations during the eclipse period, but that won't happen
with the shuttle schedule now unless the HST lasts 120 years to the next
eclipse period. :-)

Although many satellites have rotations synchronized to revolution, Pluto
is the only planet synchronized to its satellite.  But then, Charon is by
far the largest satellite as a fraction of its planet, and one would expect
the largest tidal interactions tending to synchronize.  We know that the
earth's day has slowed down many hours over the past billions of years due
to tidal effects from our moon, but the earth still has a long way to go to
synchronize.

Think what synchronization looks like.  If you are on a synchronized
satellite (and our moon is one of them), your planet hangs in the same part
of the sky all the time, while the sun and stars (at slightly differing
rates) rise and set once per satellite day, passing behind the planet.
Similarly on Pluto, you would see Charon hanging in the same part of the
sky always.  Would be quite a sight.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1988 11:36-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Moon/Io thread...

My personal opinion is that all of the above are useful, asteroids, ice
moons, rock moons, Io...

But, to jump in the fray on differentiation.

It is true that asteroids contain much useful differentiated material.
The Fe/Ni/Platinum group 'Irons' and 'Stoney Irons' have been
bombarding the lunar surface from it's birth to the present. Since the
moon does not have an atmosphere (EITHER of the oxidizing or reducing
type) the metals remain unchanged for geological ages. Lunar regolith
contains a sprinkling of this material in a form that is magnetically
seperable. So you can get your Platinum on the moon using a drag line,
an electro-magnet and the same separation you would use for an
asteroid. (Pick your favorite, melting, Carbonyl, ....)

I suspect this will probably be easier than asteroid mining. However,
asteroids of the chondritic or clathrate types will be valuable for the
volatiles, something which the moon lacks to a great extent (other than
the embedded solar wind protons in the regolith which is common enough
to be used for local water production via fuel cells. I doubt it would
be cost effective as rocket fuel)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 00:35:26 GMT
From: amdahl!pyramid!ncc!alberta!oha!tony@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Tony Olekshy)
Subject: The Robot Autonomy Axis.

Seems to me that the most common tasks required of a robot would be:

	Me:	OK, Robot, go in there and find out what's what.

	Robot:	[Goes and looks]
		Looks like conditions x, y, and z boss.

	Me:	[Thinks/Consults]
		Robot, *we've decided* you should try the following...

The more autonomous the robot the closer I can get to this ideal, otherwise
I have to instruct it at a lower level.  Nevertheless, it will need to be
teleoperated at least in the case of its situation-dependent actions being
decided on the basis of real-world politics.

This situation should be familiar to everyone, it's the old absolute/relative
argument.  Robots aren't teleoperated *exclusive-or* autonomous, but the
*more* autonomous they are, the *less* teleoperation is required.  Same as
the functional/procedural axis for programming languages: it's a matter of
degree.

So, best of luck to all those of you working on either end of the axis, or
anywhere else for that matter!

Yours, etc., Tony Olekshy (...!alberta!oha!tony or tony@oha.UUCP).

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 13:06:33 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Jet engines/WWII Jets/Supersonics

In article <7442@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
[in response to a posting about "Reaching for the Skies"]
>
>Thanks muchly, Ken.  Hopefully PBS will exploit its major source
>of programming so we Colonists can see this series ;-).

The end credits note CBS and the BBC as the two main
production companies. The series has obviously been made
with the US audience in mind.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 23:17:21 GMT
From: ucsdhub!esosun!cogen!celerity!dave@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (David L. Smith)
Subject: Re: special survival (was: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <8811141449.AA05543@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.UMASS.EDU writes:
>    There already *are* massive 
>    underground cities on earth.  One is called Looking Glass,
>    and it is one of the first targets of a russian attack.

Looking Glass is an airplane, whose role is to carry a small command staff
and communications equipment to co-ordinate retaliation in the event of a 
nuclear war.  In all likelihood it won't work (too many criticality-one
items, like the mile-long antenna needed to send Very Low Frequency signals
to missile silos which has a tendency to snap) and in any case it can't 
stay air-borne indefinitely.

What you're probably thinking of is NORAD, which is another command post
under Cheyenne Mountain.  They won't be able to survive more than a few
weeks without supplies from the outside world.

Building massive space colonies to insure the survival of the human race
against nuclear war is a silly idea.  Economics-wise, we're currently 
unable to build anything on that scale without throwing away our defense 
budget, and the only way we can stop funding defense is to eliminate the
threat of war, thereby eliminating the need for space colonies to protect
people from it.

Why do we need to justify the space program?  It's cheap entertainment if
nothing else ($10G/year is about $50/US citizen, about what I spend on
movies).

===========
David L. Smith
FPS Computing, San Diego
ucsd!celerity!dave

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1988 11:31-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #107

> To which I would add:
>     [PL] _Planetary Landscapes_ Greeley, 1987.  Has geologic info
>     on all the planets out to Uranus, plus the moons we've started
>     to explore.
>

To which I would add "The Geology of the Terrestrial Planets". NASA.
Available from US Gov Book stores. Summary of everything known up to
early 1980's. At some places there are more citations than text :-)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 16:05:33 GMT
From: killer!pollux!ti-csl!kas%hp-pcd.hp.com@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Planetary orbital decay


> > > I thought that in 5 billion years, the sun would expand enough to cause
> > > the Earth's orbit to decay.
> >
> >I heard recently that the Earth's orbital decay is measurable, and that it
> >can be calculated when the Earth will slam into the sun.  Are the above
> >numbers in the ball park?  Is the sun's expansion the major contributor to
> >orbital decay?
> 
> Earlier this year S&T had a small article on a simulation that was run.
> If the current Sun were to suddenly be replaced by itself as it will be in
> its red giant phase (for which I believe 5 billion years is a good number),
> then the Earth's orbit would decay in 300 years.

  I'm not a whiz at astrophysics, but I do have at least a passing
interest in it.  Anyway, I don't think you need to worry much about the
Earth being sucked into the Sun, per se.  The way I hear it, the Sun is
currently expanding (very slowly), and will continue to do so until it
enters its red giant phase (I think the 5 billion year timeframe is
about right).  At that time, it will rapidly "balloon" and become so
huge that the Earth (and I think Mars) will be engulfed in it.  In other
words, as the Sun expands the Earth will become hotter and hotter, until
it finally vaporizes.  So, I don't think there will ever come a time
when the Earth actually spirals into the Sun as a solid object.  More
likely, it will burn up and blow away in the solar wind.  Likewise,
although they won't be engulfed, the outer planets will no doubt be
vaporized -- at least the liquid and gaseous elements.  Perhaps a rocky
core will be left, but I don't recall.  Interesting thought: I wonder
if, say, Uranus or Pluto will be hospitable enough to become a new
"earth"?  It's probably a moot point, since the Sun will only last a few
thousand (tens of thousands?) years more, then collapse into a dwarf
star.  At that point, our solar system is essentially dead.

> >How long before the moon bashes the Earth?
> 
> The moon is spiraling out, and will continue to do so until the Earth's
> rotation is gravitationally locked to the moon.  I once heard figures,
> but don't remember whether it happens when 1 day/month is around two current
> months, or whether the moon's orbit radius will be double what it is now.
> I suppose the Sun might catch us both first.

  The part about the moon spiraling out is correct.  But I don't recall ever
hearing that it will reach a certain point, then stop.  Perhaps that's correct
too.  More interesting trivia:  The fact that the moon is spiraling out
implies that it used to be closer.  In fact, during the dinosaur era, it is
said that the moon was only about 40,000 miles from Earth (this number is a
vague memory, and subject to correction).  The current distance is about
250,000 miles (geeze, did I get *that* right?), so you can imagine what the
moon would have looked like to an earth-bound observer back then -- huge!
I would like to have seen that.  The tidal interactions were probably much
stronger, thus I expect that frequent devastating earthquakes were status quo.
Hey, here's a new theory for ya to chew on:  Maybe the dino's were wiped out
by huge dust clouds kicked up by a rash of nasty earthquakes?
 
Ken Scofield
HP Labs, Corvallis, Orgeon
kas@hp-pcd.hp.com
...!hp-pcd!hpcvic!kas

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 21:51:34 GMT
From: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (John S. Watson)
Subject: Re: Borman comments on Sagan


[Warning, this article don't have much to do with space anymore]

In Article <12446611752.25.KLH@SRI-NIC.ARPA> KLH@SRI-NIC.ARPA (Ken Harrenstien)
writes:
>       (excerpted w/o permission etc from "Countdown", p.235-236)
> " ... [at NASA's request, during 1969 (after Apollo 8, before 11)
> Borman toured various schools to explain the space program] ...
>       Then there was Cornell.

        ... [much stuff deleted, read the original article please] ...

> To me, the entire evening was a superficial, pseudo-intellectual
> attack on a country I loved, and I was angrier at him than I was at
> the kids; they looked up to him and he kept encouraging them.
>
>       Our parting that night was cool, to say the least.  I'll never
> forget or forgive him for that unpleasant evening at Cornell.  It's an
> ironic twist that Sagan has used all the self-promoting gimmicks of
> public relations and television to set himself up as a kind of
> scientific guru.  Now he enjoys the fruits of the same society whose
> materialism he so viciously attacked.

I would have had a good'ol time setting around debating and
pseudo-intellectualizing and slamming down beers.  And if there
was something I wasn't ready to debate, or not in my field
I'd probably say something like, "Well folks, I'm not really ready to
debate this" or "this is not my field of study, so I don't know a whole
lot about it, maybe we can talk about something in my field of expertise".
But if they still wish to talk about something I didn't know much about,
I still would have fun getting my 2 cents worth in.

The reason I love the United States of America, IS because we
are allowed to criticize ourselves (the United States of America).

To me, one the most "American" things you can do is to criticize America.
If you want to live in a country in which you can't criticize, move to Russia.

This has something to the with our Constitution I'm told.
In my high school civics class we learned it was the important document
there is in the US of A.  The Constitution is what makes the USA the USA.
It is the heart, soul and an mind of the America.  It's more important than
the flag, mother and apple pie (though I love them all!).

Recently I've go the impression that some people think
the Constitution is a "liberal rag".  And the ACLU, that organization
devoted to protecting it, are a bunch of "intellectuals" bent on destroying
America.  How did the "i" word become such a bad thing to be, anyway?

Mr. Borman has the right to criticize Mr. Sagen's views, I don't
agree some of them myself, but no one has the right to keep others from
stating their minds.  Mr. Borman didn't come out and say he was trying
keep Mr. Sagen from talking, but I sure got the impression.
My apologies to Mr. Borman if I misinterpreted his intent.
It was sort of impolite of Mr. Sagen to surround Mr. Borman with all these
opposite opinions without warning him before hand.
 
Maybe I'm paranoid, I've got this feeling that there are some
very dark times ahead.  Something evil has crawled out of its lair,
and its picking away at our rights and freedoms.  Ironically, this thing
is taking away our rights and freedoms in the name of protecting
our rights and freedoms.
 
Sorry if I'm sounding preachy, but I feel this is something that can
never be said enough, and we must be ALWAYS be on our guard against
those who would toss the Constitution into the shreding machine.
-- 
John "The Metaman" Watson                     ARPA: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov 
NASA Ames Research Center                     UUCP:  ...!ames!watson
Any opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author 
and do not necessarily  represent the opinions of NASA or the U.S. Government.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #126
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Nov 88 01:35:32 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02041>; Fri, 25 Nov 88 00:52:55 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 25 Nov 88 00:52:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4XXCxvy00jZdA1Y05d>;
          Fri, 25 Nov 88 00:28:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.8XXCrmy00UkZQJWk5w>;
          Fri, 25 Nov 88 00:21:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sXXCory00UkZ4JVU4-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 88 00:18:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #127

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Borman comments on Sagan
	 Re: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 12 Nov 88, 7:00 PM
		  Teleoperation, Robots and Autonomy
      REPLY TO DORN HETZEL'S COMMENTS ON AN ALL WOMEN SPACE TEAM
			  US Goals in Space
		Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory
		Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 23:21:48 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!varvel@husc6.harvard.edu  (Donald A. Varvel)
Subject: Re: Borman comments on Sagan

In article <18319@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson) writes:
> In Article <12446611752.25.KLH@SRI-NIC.ARPA> KLH@SRI-NIC.ARPA (Ken Harrenstien)
> writes:
> >       (excerpted w/o permission etc from "Countdown", p.235-236)
> > " ... [at NASA's request, during 1969 (after Apollo 8, before 11)
> > Borman toured various schools to explain the space program] ...
> >       Then there was Cornell.
> >    . . . 
> > To me, the entire evening was a superficial, pseudo-intellectual
> > attack on a country I loved, and I was angrier at him than I was at
> > the kids; they looked up to him and he kept encouraging them.
> >    . . . 
> I would have had a good'ol time setting around debating and
> pseudo-intellectualizing and slamming down beers.  And if there
>      . . .
> The reason I love the United States of America, IS because we
> are allowed to criticize ourselves (the United States of America).
>      . . . 
> Mr. Borman has the right to criticize Mr. Sagen's views, I don't
> agree some of them myself, but no one has the right to keep others from
> stating their minds.  
>
>   [More deleted]

I have on occasion been the only non-creationist or nuclear power
advocate or space advocate in a group of people intent on verbal
battery of those who disagree.  It is neither pleasant nor productive.
I think Mr. Borman has every right to complain.  Mr. Sagan certainly
had a legal right to do what he did, although it was impolite and
quite likely unproductive.

I am also a bit put off by the flag waving and chest thumping of
Borman's piece.  I also worry that prejudice and intolerance and
polarization seem on the rise.  I think Mr. Borman was complaining
about those very things, although in a way I don't find very
pleasant.

I have never understood the practice of attending a lecture only
to heckle.  I include here the question that amounts to "Mr Speaker,
don't you think the world would be better off if you had never been
born?"  Even if I think the speaker is entirely wrong on all points,
I try to understand a world view that could result in such beliefs.
Mr. Borman seems to have understood his inquisitors' world view a
lot better than they understood his.

There are vegetarian bigots.

-- Don Varvel, Frog Prince (once & future faculty, but presently
   vegetarian grad student)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 12:07:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 880+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 12 Nov 88, 7:00 PM
CC: henry@zoo.toronto.edu, Rogers@venera.isi.edu

> I'd like to propose a new rule:  people who post talk announcements
> worldwide are required to post a summary of the talk afterwards.  The
> rule is waived if you choose newsgroup or distribution so as to restrict
> the announcement's propagation to the region from which people might
> actually attend.
I think this is a great idea as well.  For notices of this type I feel
obligated to give them special priority in the digest queue, but on the other
hand what fraction of the readers are really going to even consider attending?
Having the announcer, or his designee, send a followup messages summarizing the
contents would be a great compromise.  Even if the talk turns out to be a bust,
a brief note like: "The talk by Joe Bozo was a dead loss, I'm sorry I went
myself." would be nice.

How do the people who announce these things feel about it?
        Ted Anderson (Digest Moderator)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 19:36:59 EST
From: Kevin.Dowling@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Teleoperation, Robots and Autonomy
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu


>From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
>... My comment still stands.  The FTS is a very simple widget that
>could, at about the limits of its capabilities, unplug a box and plug
>in another one.  This is nothing like what you were proposing.
>Also, note that there is no guarantee that the thing will work or be
>useful.

Henry is somewhat pessimistic regarding teleoperation and even more so, I
assume, regarding autonomy. However, there is historical precedence for many
capable teleoperators in space as well as on earth. The Soviets teleoperated
2 mobile vehicles on the moon about 15 years ago with great success. The 2
Lunokhods operated for many months over many kilometers of lunar terrain.
They were completely teleoperated from earth. This included vehicle
locomotion, actuation of other vehicle motions (some kind of 'wings' for heat
dissapation) and sampling and digging equipment, and monitoring of many
things aboard the Lunokhods.  It must have been wonderful to sit in a lab on
Earth and go sightseeing on the moon!

On Earth, there are the remote control devices such as those cited here on
the space bboard.  Here in Pittsburgh, for example, remote control
bulldozers have been used to scrape out steel-making furnaces. This allows
the mills to keep the furnaces hot and still clean them out when need be.
The cool down period would otherwise be days.  This is strictly remote
(wired or wireless) control of existing mechanisms.  The government has
recently funded teleoperated machines to handle NBC (Nuclear, Biological,
Chemical) type containers. And NASA is funding other research into these
areas.

We (CMU, Field Robotics Center) have deployed 3 teleoperated machines to
Three Mile Island. The first was a mobile base with controlled and
orientable cameras, and radiation sensors. (Remote Reconniassance Vehicle)
The second was a similar base but equipped with tooling to extract and
return core samples from the concrete walls of the TMI basement area.
(Remote Core Sampler) The third machine, The Remote Workhorse Vehicle, was
much more capable with 30 controlled motions, including a heavy lift
telescoping boom, with switchout  tooling for cutting, blasting (water jet),
coring, even teleoperated shoveling etc, lifting etc. Outriggers allowed a
crawling motion in the event of all wheel failure. Many functionally
redundant features. Extensive monitoring  and diagnostics. All machines were
rugged and built to take immersion and decontaminating washdowns. Each were
tethered and paid out the cable as they moved and wrapped it back as they
came back. The first two were 6-wheel skid steer and the RWV was 4 wheeled
with each wheel independently driven and steered.

The vehicles and their control were designed completely with teleoperation
in mind. The Workhorse had some teach-playback modes for repetitive actions.

There are even more exciting developments in force feedback, supervisory
control and all this eventually points to autonmony.

For a Mars Rover, for example, teleoperation from Earth doesn't make sense.
The half hour or so round trip time means there has to be a great deal of
autonomy. In the  Mars Rover project here, we argue that because of the
speed of light problems, or even guidance from an Mars orbiter (put all the
computing in orbit and the mechanism on the planet) won't work due to the
rough environment, the distance, the dust storm activity. So we advocate,
and are building, an autonomous walking machine for Mars. We have a single
leg testbed right now, with simulated mars terrain. (Tons of sand and rock!)
and are currently running experiments in perception, planning and
configuration. We currently take a range image of the scene, extract
elevation and uncertainty maps, look in a specified area where the foot can
go for the current gait and determine the best spot for stepping in that
area, move the leg and plant the foot til a specific force is reached.  The
leg's pretty big, about 3-4 meters high with over a 4 meter diameter stride
length.

Anyway, we think and hope, we're on the track towards autonomous machines
based on our previous autonomous vehicle works and teleoperated works and
we think that this is possible in the next few years.

nivek
Aka :	Kevin Dowling		Bell:	(412) 268-8830
Arpa:	nivek@rover.ri.cmu.edu	Mail:	Robotics Institute
				Carnegie Mellon University
				Pgh, PA 15213-3890

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 08:42:00 EDT
From: "CFE1::KING3" <king3%cfe1.decnet@nrl3.arpa>
Subject: REPLY TO DORN HETZEL'S COMMENTS ON AN ALL WOMEN SPACE TEAM
To: "space" <space@andrew.cmu.edu>

FIRST OF ALL, FEMALES TODAY PREFER THE TERM WOMEN TO GIRLS IF ONE IS
REFERRING TO ANYONE OVER THE AGE OF 12.  SO WHEN REFERRING TO THE 
"ALL GIRL BAND" ONE SHOULD USE "ALL WOMEN BAND".  REMEMBER THAT GIRL IS
A FOUR LETTER WORD.

IN REPLY TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT USING DRUGS TO SYNCHRONIZE WOMEN'S CYCLES,
ONE COULD SIMPLY USE BIRTH CONTROL PILLS.  USE OF THE PILL SETS ONE'S
MONTHLY CYCLE TO 28 DAYS.  PHEROMONES ARE THE HORMONAL SUBSTANCES THAT
ARE SAID TO CAUSE THIS PHENOMENA OF SYNCHRONIZATION OF WOMEN'S CYCLES 
AMONG WOMEN WHO SPEND LOTS OF TIME TOGETHER.  I BELIEVE THAT THIS DOES
HAPPEN.  BIRTH CONTROL PILLS, HOWEVER, REGULATE THE WOMAN'S CYCLE
CHEMICALLY AND, THEREFORE, OVERRIDE THIS NATURAL OCCURANCE.  AN EASY FIX
FOR YOUR "PROBLEM".

HOPE THIS INFO. IS OF SOME HELP.

CINDY

------------------------------

Subject: US Goals in Space
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 13:14:30 -0500
From: "F.Baube" <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>


Everyone seems to assume that management of the US space program
is so incredibly skewed in favor of short-term goals and short-
term ready-for-prime-time payoffs that plans for something like
establishment of a manufacturing facility on the Moon's surface,
making LOX or structural aluminum or silicon for solar panels or
whatever would never never EVER stand a chance of making it thru
the budget process.

Is this in fact the assumption ?

Consider if you will that the US' last borrowing binge was in the
late 1800's, when the US borrowed 1.5% of GNP a year.  It was
INVESTED (RR's and such), and paid off handsomely.

Now the US has been borrowing 3.5% of GNP a year and has abso-
lutely frittered it away, leaving nothing to show for it except
great piles of shiny doomsday hardware.

If lunar "infrastructure" were sold as a *real investment*,
mightn't it have a chance ?

Just thinking aloud, flames to /dev/null.

#include <disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 04:40:15 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!watmath!watdcsu!smann@uunet.uu.net  (Shannon Mann - I.S.er)
Subject: Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory

In article <1095@cseg.uucp> rsh@hcx.uucp (R. S. Hallquist) writes:
>
>Hey, Shannon,
>whose to say that just because you can make you own star nova, that you
>can destroy beserkers?

I don't remember if I posted a response to a similar argument or if I 
mailed it.  Regardless, I keep getting negative responses, and I tire
of them. 

To make any claim about other civilizations is so much hogwash.  We have
no way of knowing how these other beings feel, think, exist, etc.  No way.

To postulate that some civilization might want to novae their sun as a last
resort is to admit that you are basing your ideas upon a very egocentric,
ethnocentric, speciocentric view of the world (uhhhh, universe).  

For all those netusers out there who consider themselves to be expert xeno-
biologists, and xeno-sociologists please e-mail me with your resume.  I am 
starting a think-tank for totally extraneous and purposeless endeavours.
(If you haven't cought on, I am being very sarcastic.)

>    * Beserkers are not limited to the technological level represented
>      by today's sci-fi authors or this forum.  Everyone know what
>      beserkers do.  Since no one has really seen one (if u have, post
>      it here! There's really nothing else to do about it...) 
>...Roy

Yep.  It was right out there in the corn field.  Came floatin' down out
uh-thuh-skah and landed on mah best crop in years.  'Course i' was a beezerker!
I knows a beezerker when I'se sein' one.  Destroyed mah crop din' it....

(apologies about the poor try at an accent.)

        -=-
-=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca
        -=-

'I have no brain, and I must think...' - An Omynous
'If I don't think, AM I' - Another Omynous

P.S.  We have no really reliable estimate specifying how many intelligent
civilizations might exist in this universe.  Whith this information in mind,
the whole argument about the existence of berzerkers kinda falls apart.
Further, in fiction, the authors have been just a little more creative.
They have created berzerker viruses, and anti-berzerker berzerkers.
An all-round better solution!

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 16:04:09 GMT
From: cadnetix.COM!cadnetix!beres@uunet.uu.net  (Tim Beres)
Subject: Re: Another (insane?) berserker theory

Geez, I started this.  And all I really wanted to bring up was a method
of interstellar communication, GIVEN the hypothesis of many civilizations/
berserkers.  The second part of my original posting dealt with observance
of novaes (predictability on observance of a certain state, do we "know"
that the 1987 nova was supposed to go, how do we know, etc.)  Nobody
took a shot at that - my fault, I think I emphasized the (insane?) theory.

Sigh, step through jumpdoor into the flames...

In article smann@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Shannon Mann - I.S.er) writes:
>In article rsh@hcx.uucp (R. S. Hallquist) writes:
>>
>>Hey, Shannon,
>>whose to say that just because you can make you own star nova, that you
>>can destroy beserkers?
>
>I don't remember if I posted a response to a similar argument or if I 
>mailed it.  Regardless, I keep getting negative responses, and I tire
>of them. 

You mailed it to me.  Drink coffee, it'll circumvent that tiredness. (-:

>
>To make any claim about other civilizations is so much hogwash.  We have
>no way of knowing how these other beings feel, think, exist, etc.  No way.
>
>To postulate that some civilization might want to novae their sun as a last
>resort is to admit that you are basing your ideas upon a very egocentric,
>ethnocentric, speciocentric view of the world (uhhhh, universe).  

The entire foundation on which my hypothesis was based was this:  You
need to have large numbers of these civilization and berserkers.  With
these large numbers of X, then due to what has been observed,
(evolution of species, social structures in the animal specie, instinct for
survival, protection of young, etc.) I would make the bet that there are
some others out there with somewhat similar behaviours.  Not all of them,
mind you.  Of course, if there's only 3 total universal civilizations, 
who knows.  It would take huge numbers for the original hypothesis to hold.

>For all those netusers out there who consider themselves to be expert xeno-
>biologists, and xeno-sociologists please e-mail me with your resume.  I am 
>starting a think-tank for totally extraneous and purposeless endeavours.
>(If you haven't cought on, I am being very sarcastic.)

I think sarcasm in this forum is extraneous and purposeless.

>-=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca
>
>P.S.  We have no really reliable estimate specifying how many intelligent
>civilizations might exist in this universe.  Whith this information in mind,
>the whole argument about the existence of berzerkers kinda falls apart.
>Further, in fiction, the authors have been just a little more creative.
>They have created berzerker viruses, and anti-berzerker berzerkers.
>An all-round better solution!

Bingo.  This whole flow of communication was based on some assumptions that
have no experimental validity.  If you take away these foundation assumptions
then you can argue your point till the cows come home and be correct.
I was just trying to stimulate some thought on whether interstellar 
communication would be attempted in the face of a civilization dying.
I thought the most notable way to do this is a visual signal.

Anyway, does anyone have more info on our methods of prediction and 
detection of novaes.  This flaming about future star trek episodes depresses
me.

			Tim (looks like time for some Flower Power)

------>MY SOAPBOX (not necessarily my co.'s, yours or ALF's)
	<lecturing audience on apartheid>  I'm not *bugging* ya am I,
		   I don't wanna *bug* ya - Bono
Tim Beres   beres@cadnetix.com  {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #127
*******************
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Nov 88 05:26:42 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02911>; Fri, 25 Nov 88 04:21:16 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 25 Nov 88 04:20:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8XXFfoy00UkTQ1dk4d>;
          Fri, 25 Nov 88 03:34:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.sXXFTfy00UkZEJpE4L>;
          Fri, 25 Nov 88 03:21:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXXFQny00UkZ0Jo05o@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 88 03:17:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #128

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
			Re: IO as power source
		STS-26 astronaut visits Harvey Mudd...
	    Re: Launches on the cheap and space industry.
			    Re: Amroc etc.
			    Re: Amroc etc.
	 Re: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 12 Nov 88, 7:00 PM
		  Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST
	     Soviet space leadership + confused US public
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1988 11:50-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: IO as power source

Paul: There is more than the Jupiter magnetic field which, as you
propose,  would make a damn fine generator.  There is also the
ENOURMOUS current flowing through the Jupiter-Io flux tube if there is
a way to tap it.

The entire Jupiter system is seething with untapped energy.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 20:21:52 GMT
From: muddcs!mwilkins@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Wilkins)
Subject: STS-26 astronaut visits Harvey Mudd...


    Harvey Mudd College alumnus and STS-26 astronaut George D. "Pinky"
Nelson visted his alma mater today and will be around tomorrow.  Public
appearances are planned.
    When asked what he wanted to do after being an astronaut he said "It's
so much fun...  You know, it's hard to decide what you're going to do when
you grow up."
    Go figure.

    -- Mark Wilkins (mwilkins@jarthur.uucp)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 17:24:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Launches on the cheap and space industry.

In article <5761@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes:
>The idea that reducing launch costs should be the major space (especially 
>manned) research objective is not a new idea. It was one of prime goals of the
>shuttle, though it wasn't achieved.

It was interesting to hear the head of the Soviet space
centre, when commenting on the flight of BURAN, say that
they won't be flying their shuttle any more than two or
three times a year, and only when the particular
capabilities of the shuttle were needed. e.g. to return payloads.

He estimated that launching a payload on their shuttle cost
almost ten times what it would launching the same payload on
a mass produced disposable.

>now! 8-=). This means explosive growth in the satellite industry, and in my
>opinion the developement of an industry to launch and eventually service in
>orbit a vast network of increasingly complex and powerful satellites. All

That industry has already started. Their launcher is called Arianne.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 23:28:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.


>From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer):

> In article <45000005@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>> AMROC's rocket uses a hybrid engine of liquid oxygen and synthetic rubber.
>> It is interesting to note that both of these are common items.  Liquid
>> oxygen is found in the basement of every hospital, while synthetic rubber
>> is in hundreds of household goods.
>
> Uh, is this supposed to be significant?  Kerosene is found in quantity at
> every airport, and there are several major kerosene/LOX launchers.

Allow me to explain.  The point that these fuels are common was ment to convey
their impressive safety.  Synthetic rubber will not burn with (almost)
anything _except_ liquid oxygen.  Because of this ability, AMROC's ILV will
be able to be built in a light industrial facility in populated areas.
By mentioning that sythetic rubber is found is so many household products,
I hoped to drive this point home.

I remember hearing that the police attempted to stop Koopman from transporting
his "fuel" without a permit.  When it was explained that the fuel was
basically tire rubber, transportation was no problem.  The fuel's familiarity
was certainly "significant" here.  I doubt AMROC would have been so fortunate
had the shipment been kerosene.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL 61820

 "Someone once defined a crank as an enthusiast without a sense of humor, and
 I have always believed that nothing is so important that you cannot make
 fun of it."
 - Arthur C. Clarke

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 17:43:14 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

In article <45000006@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>> AMROC's rocket uses a hybrid engine of liquid oxygen and synthetic rubber.
>>> It is interesting to note that both of these are common items.  Liquid
>>> oxygen is found in the basement of every hospital, while synthetic rubber
>>> is in hundreds of household goods.
>>
>> Uh, is this supposed to be significant?  Kerosene is found in quantity at
>> every airport, and there are several major kerosene/LOX launchers.
>
>Allow me to explain.  The point that these fuels are common was ment to convey
>their impressive safety.  Synthetic rubber will not burn with (almost)
>anything _except_ liquid oxygen.  Because of this ability, AMROC's ILV will
>be able to be built in a light industrial facility in populated areas.

Liquid-fuel rockets can also be built in light industrial facilities in
populated areas.  I agree that solid rockets are dangerous.  The fact is,
any powerful oxidizer is dangerous.  Hospitals are very careful about
handling liquid oxygen, and so is NASA -- it's much more dangerous than 
liquid hydrogen, popular misconceptions notwithstanding.  Handling
fuels (as opposed to oxidizers) is no big deal, assuming they're non-toxic.

>...[Amroc] transportation was no problem.  The fuel's familiarity
>was certainly "significant" here.  I doubt AMROC would have been so fortunate
>had the shipment been kerosene.

The way to transport kerosene is to ship it in a tank truck with airport
markings.  No big deal, it's done all the time.  In fact it's done all
the time for gasoline, which is rather more dangerous than kerosene.  How
do you think service stations get their tanks refilled?  A tank truck
rolls up and pours more in.  Gasoline trucks go almost everywhere (they
are banned from some tunnels) without the slightest objection.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 11:12:32 PST
To: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 12 Nov 88, 7:00 PM 
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 11:12:32 PST
From: rogers@venera.isi.edu

In article <1988Nov15.172348.19812@utzoo.uucp> Henry wrote:
>  
>I'd like to propose a new rule:  people who post talk announcements
>worldwide are required to post a summary of the talk afterwards.  The
>rule is waived if you choose newsgroup or distribution so as to restrict
>the announcement's propagation to the region from which people might
>actually attend. 

        Sounds great to me!  OASIS current plans to produce summaries
(but not transcripts) of our advertised talks.  Of course, sometimes
the unadvertised ones are more interesting, such as a recent party at
which both Charlie Walker and George Koopman were present.  Too bad no
one was taking notes.

        From my point of view, the main problem with that announcement
was that I sent it too late!  I intended to send it the day the mail
system was down with the flu, and didn't follow up soon enough.  (I
came down with the flu shortly thereafter.  Could that mean... ???
Naah.)
----
	I tried to send this reply to Henry via rn's reply feature,
which failed (my Sun has Usenet but not UUCP connectivity).

                                        Craig Milo Rogers

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 18:26:57 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST

>From article <1988Nov14.214139.1892@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> In article <7594@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

Tom Neff and Henry Spencer arguing over how much blame Thiokol
deserves over the Challenger disaster.

I hate to even sound like I'm defending Thiokol, but I know a number
of engineers, and some managers who work there. I know a few people
who quit in disgust over the whole mess too. Being active in AIAA can
put you in contact with a lot of interesting people.

Look at a little history. Thiokol has been building rocket motors for
years. Some of them (the booster motors for Delta for example) have a
100% success rate. Not one failure, ever. But then Thiokol got this
huge lucrative contract for SRMs. And Morton bought them out.

One of the first things that happened was that Morton moved all the
top level management from Utah, to some place back east. A thousand
miles or so from the engineers and middle management that built the
SRMs. The whole structure of the company changed. The top managers of
the company didn't know salt from SRMs, literally. The managers that
did understand rockets were no longer in contact with the people doing
the work.

After Challenger blew up and it didn't look like Thiokol was such a
nice cash cow, Morton started trying to sell it. They did move the
managers back to Utah.

Remember the name of the comany that won the SRM contract was THIOKOL.
The company that built the SRMs that blew up the Challenger was MORTON
(best known for salt, you know, "When it rains it pours") Thiokol. Not
the same thing at all.

Somebody made a lot of money out of all this. I think it was Morton.

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 02:32:22 GMT
From: nsc!amdahl!drivax!macleod@hplabs.hp.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Soviet space leadership + confused US public

In article <7700@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

: * We have run this into the ground in sci.space, but let me reiterate
:   just this once in honor of the launch: With Energiya and Buran and
:   Soyuz and Mir all operational, the Soviets are BEATING US TO A PULP
:   in space.  

I caught a few seconds of James Oberg on the MacNeil-Lehrer Report the
other night, and I'll be damed if the interviewer didn't ask him 
"Dr. Oberg, with this new Soviet space ship (!) operating now, aren't they 
getting close to running neck-and-neck with us in space?"  I never did
like Oberg much, and he fell several notches in my esteem by giving her 
some bullshit answer that evaded the issue entirely.

I should add that I saw only the last minute or so of the segment, so 
the rest of it might have been more realistic, but I doubt it.

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 17:06 PST
From: C43RGP%ENG4%HAC2GM@engvax.scg.hac.com



	I've been silently following the debates on this conference for
some months and would like to offer some comments about the content and 
emotional tone of many of the heated exchanges which take place. Many of
the discussions that take place do not make a positive contribution to
the future development of space. Some conference participants accuse others
of being opposed to space exploration and development. Others claim
that to support a particular space project(e.g. a Mars trip) is to support 
a particular ideology. 

	I think that it is important to notice that the vast
majority of the accusers and the accused are strong supporters of activities
in space. Impugning the character of someone you are debating with is not
rational constructive debate. It does not indicate a strong desire to
learn how to get into space. It also does not indicate that you embrace the
use of reason as your primary tool to convince others that space activities
are an important and valuable human endeavor.

	At times I read proposals here that remind me of people who sit 
around and talk about how they are going to spend their money once they
win the lottery. Going to Mars seems ambitious when activities in low earth
orbit are difficult at best. Space is not a simple problem. Developing the 
ability to construct L-5 colonies, Moon colonies, and Mars colonies requires 
the solution of a large number of problems in a great many scientific and 
technical fields. We are like babies that are trying to progress from crawling
to walking. Talking about where we should go skiing seems a bit premature. 

	We need certain basic capabilities before we can do large scale 
undertakings in space. We should focus our rational minds on such prosaic
tasks as how to design rockets that don't require an army of engineers
and technicians to prepare for launch, clean room conditions and expensive
parts for their construction, and which don't have upper stages that blow up
or fail to ignite. 

	We need to figure out which basic technologies must be developed 
to enable us to do significant activities in space. Why can't we build boosters
that are both reliable and inexpensive? Is it due to lack of competition in a 
government dominated market, or do we need advances in metal alloy or composite
material science, or do we need to apply a quality-oriented design and
manufacturing philosophy to the construction of the boosters?(ala the Japanese
and J. Edwards Deming)

	As another example, what are the big stumbling blocks faced in the 
construction of the National AeroSpace Plane? Materials science? Lack of 
computational codes for modelling the problems on supercomputers? Do the 
existing computers lack sufficient computational power to model the problems 
that need to be solved?

	There are, I think, obvious principles that can be applied to judging
the relative merits of different space projects. An industry driven in search
of profits is one of the most powerful and enduring creations the human race
(on par with organized religions). If industry saw space as a profitable 
place to be then its exploration and settlement would be sped up enormously.
Our goal as space enthusiasts should therefore be to support developments
that would most quickly lead to the demonstration of profitable space
activities.

	In this light let us judge various proposals for activities in
space. In order to stumble upon a profitable space activity it is required
that we investigate as many avenues of research in space as are possible with
the resources(e.g. NASA's budget) that are available. For the amount of 
money that is proposed for a trip to Mars one or more space stations could 
be constructed in Earth's orbit and they could be kept staffed by well
provisioned chemists, material scientists, molecular biologists, chemical
engineers, and the like. Alternately, asteroids that pass near Earth could be
investigated to look for one with valuable raw materials. Alternately,
unmanned probes or geologists could be launched to the Moon to go prospecting.
While one can't easily judge with a certainty which of these activities
will produce the best results, it is at least possible to make an educated
judgement. 

	If we can develop reliable ways of getting into space and if
we can do research that demonstrates how a large scale industrial activity
could profitably be performed there then colonies will be constructed 
to perform them. Notice that the construction of these colonies will not 
require any political support. The incentives of the marketplace will provide 
all the motivation that will be necessary.

	We should concentrate our efforts on identifying the technologies
and the knowledge that are needed for space development. Then we should 
attempt to influence NASA, the NSF, Congress, et. al. to direct efforts in 
directions that will, in the long run, lead to the greatest capabilities in 
space.

	In order to go into space we must start here on Earth to build
the scientific, technological and industrial foundations that are needed.
Every project in space must be designed to build the scientific, technological,
and industrial capabilities that will be needed to secure a self-sustaining
presence in space.


Randall Parker
mail accepted at: c43rgp%eng4.gmgate.hac.com@oberon.usc.edu

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and not those of GM or Delco
Electronics. Nor, unfortunately, are they those of my elected representatives
in the U.S. government.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 17:35:05 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

In article <1084@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>> Breaking the existing
>> debris up into smaller bits is the *last* thing we want to do.
>
>Not really. Even a fairly heavy rain of microscopic particles can be
>stopped more easily than one large chunk.

*Microscopic* particles aren't that much of a problem.  Macroscopic ones
are.  A fairly light rain of coin-sized particles is a WHOLE LOT harder
to deal with than one large chunk, which can at least be tracked and avoided.

If we can't utterly pulverize the debris, we don't want to break it up
at all.  Unfortunately, hypervelocity collisions are non-intuitive in some
ways.  Based on the SDI Delta experiment, if two fairly large chunks hit
each other, the shock wave from the instant of first contact explodes
both, and the debris clouds then pass through each other without interacting
much.  There is more than enough energy there to vaporize everything, but
it doesn't get applied efficiently.  Any plan to get rid of debris with
collisions will have to be studied and tested *very* carefully to make
sure that it isn't going to make things worse.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #128
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Nov 88 06:39:55 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00825>; Fri, 25 Nov 88 06:12:14 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 25 Nov 88 06:12:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oXXHVPy00UkTI1Sk4S>;
          Fri, 25 Nov 88 05:39:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.kXXHDty00UkZ4Jzk4H>;
          Fri, 25 Nov 88 05:20:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXXHB7y00UkZEJyU5O@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 88 05:17:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #129

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:
		      Lunar Polar Probe Contest
			   Virtual Reality
	    Calculations for fusion drive and photon drive
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <sXV5dNy00UkZA450w4@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 12:14:01 -0500 (EST)
ReSent-From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-To: Space-Editors-New <space-editors-new+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 88 00:38:50 CST
From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (405986289 abrams)
Posted-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 88 00:38:50 CST
To: ota@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Lunar Polar Probe Contest


Here is some information about the recently announced Lunar Polar Probe
Conference being held in Houston next March...

				Steve Abrams
				SEDS National Co-Chairman
				sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu

DRAFT 11/10/88
Lunar Polar Probe Conference
Information Form

The Lunar Polar Probe
The purpose of the Lunar Polar Probe is to collect information about 
the Moon and promote the exploration, development, commercialization, 
and settlement of space. The probe will map previously uncharted areas 
of the Moon, determine the chemical composition of the Moon's surface, 
and determine if water is present in significant quantities on the poles 
of the Moon. This information is critical for designing future lunar 
bases and determining the future of manned space flight.
The goal of the Lunar Polar Probe Project is to launch the first 
probe and collect data before 1993. Three or four probes are 
anticipated.
We will increase support for both government funded programs through 
NASA and private efforts to develop space by allowing a large number of 
individuals to participate directly in space development and publicizing 
our efforts. The independent lunar polar orbiter will be designed, 
built, launched, and controlled much like the satellites launched by the 
Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation.
There are numerous technical and non-technical tasks which must be 
performed in order for the Lunar Polar Probe to be successful. There is 
something everyone can do, and everyone's help will be appreciated.

The Lunar Polar Probe Conference
The purpose of the Lunar Polar Probe Conference is to bring together 
individuals and organizations who will work together to design, build, 
launch, and track the Lunar Polar Probe. The conference will be 
organized as a series of workshops.
The goals of the conference are to develop preliminary designs for 
the probe and to write a business plan for the project.
Achieving the conference goals depends upon preparing for the 
conference in advance. You can help achieve the goals of the conference 
by registering early and indicating your primary areas of interest on 
the registration form. The information will be used to form working 
groups.

General Information
The first Lunar Polar Probe Conference will be held March 11-12, 1989 
in Houston, Texas. The conference will begin at 9:30 am Saturday March 
11, 1989. The organizations co-sponsoring the conference include the 
Clear Lake Area Space Society, the Houston Space Society, National Space 
Society, Space Studies Institute, Third Millennium, Inc., and University 
Space Society. Involvement of other space-related organizations is 
anticipated and welcomed.

Registration
Register for the conference by mail or at the Nassau Bay Hilton 
between 9:00 and 9:30 am Saturday, March 11. The nominal conference 
registration fee is $10.00 and the banquet is $25.00. The registration 
fee will increase February 15th; registration for the banquet received 
after February 15, 1989 will be accepted on a space available basis. 
Contact the hotel directly to reserve a room. To register for the 
conference and banquet, mail the conference registration form and check 
payable to the Houston Space Society to the following address:

Lunar Polar Probe Conference
Houston Space Society
P.O. Box 266151
Houston, TX 77207-6151

For further information, please write the above address or call (713) 
643-6373.
Anyone who desires to present a paper at the conference should mail 
an abstract to the Houston Space Society at the above address.

Travel Arrangements
Travel arrangements may be made through the Hanssen/Future Travel 
agency. They may be contacted at 1-800-544-4998. Mention you are with 
the Lunar Polar Probe Conference.

Hotel Information
The Nassau Bay Hilton is providing special rates for everyone 
attending the Lunar Probe Conference. The rates are $70.00, fixed for a 
room with up to four people. Please make your reservations for a 
room directly with the hotel. The Nassau Bay Hilton can be reached 
by calling (713) 333-9300 or writing 3000 Nasa Road One, P.O. Box 58727, 
Houston, TX 77058.
The Nassau Bay Hilton provides a complimentary Hobby Airport to 
Hilton shuttle service which runs from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. every 90 
minutes. The Hilton can be contacted using their courtesy booth 
telephone in the lower level of Hobby Airport. Air shuttle service is 
available from Intercontinental to Hobby through Continental Airlines. A 
cab from Intercontinental to the hotel will cost about $84.00 round 
trip. Parking at the Hilton is free.

Directions
>From either Intercontinental or Hobby airport, take I-45 South to 
Nasa Road 1 (one hour travel time from Intercontinental, twenty minutes 
from Hobby). Go east (left) on Nasa Road 1 for about five miles. The 
twelve story hotel will be on your right, overlooking Clear Lake and 
across the road from NASA.

Agenda

	Saturday, March 11,1989	            Sunday, March 12,1989

 8 am	Registration Opens
 9 am	"Welcome" Jim Davidson	8-10 am Tour of Lunar Planetary Instilute (?)
 9:10	"Why the Moon?" Dr. Allen Binder
 9:30	"Lunar Polar Probes" Dr. Gay Canough
 9:50	"Other Small Satellites" 
  	 Amateur Satellite Corp.			Technical Track	Resources Track
10:40	"Launch Options" Jim Davidson	10 am	Various Technical	Business Planning
11:00	"Space Business Primer" Ms. Dee Ann Divis	11 am	working groups	Milestones for PR 
11:30	"Politics & the International Scene"	11:30	meet separately	Fundraising Strategy
	 Rick Tumlinson
11:50	Summary
		Noon	 Lunch	Lunch	Lunch
Noon	Lunch
			Technical Track	Resources Track
 1:30	Technical and Resources tracks
	meet separately	1 pm	Technical meetlngs	Review Organization, Interfaces
		1:30	continue...	Review Business Strategy
 3 pm	All groups meet together for 
	crosslink	2 pm	Re-group & report	Assign Tasks

 3:30	Small workshop sessions, tasks assigned

		3 pm	Technical gives preliminary input on cost, weight,
 5 pm	Informal Discussions		  and capabilities

6 pm	Reception	4 pm	Discussion of problem areas, opportunities
7 pm	Dinner	5 pm	Assign tasks for next meeting, establish site, date
8 pm	Dr. Wendell Mendell, NASA Lunar Scientist	6 pm	Dinner break
9 pm	Informal Gatherings	7 pm	Preview of Presentation for Lunar & Planetary
	Science Conference	

Other Conferences of Interest
The Lunar and Planetary Institute will host the 2Oth Lunar and 
Planetary Science Conference in March 13-17. For information on the LPI 
conference, write LPI at 3303 Nasa Road 1, Houston, Texas, 77058-4399 or 
call at (713) 486-2139.
A workshop discussing the 8th Lunar Polar Probe will be held in the 
SSI/Princeton Space Manufacturing Conference May 6-9, 1989. For 
information on the Princeton Conference contact Ms. Barbara Faughnan, 
Conference Coordinator, SSI, P.O. Box 82, Princeton NJ 08540.

Lunar Polar Probe Conference
Houston Space Society
PO Box 266151
Houston, TX 77207-6151
(713) 643-6373

Registration Form
Houston, Texas	March 11 - 12, 1989

Name	_______________________________________________________________
Address	_______________________________________________________________
	_______________________________________________________________
	_______________________________________________________________
Phone	(______)_______________________________________________________

Registration
$10.00 per person	_______________

Banquet
$25.00 per person	_______________
(Banquet registration received after 
February 15, 1988 will be accepted on 
space available basis only.)

Total	_______________
(Make check out to Houston Space Society.)

Please indicate the areas you are interested in working on and any 
specialized skills you possess in the space provided. If you are not 
already working on the project, we will use the information to put you 
in contact with groups working on aspects of the project you are most 
interested in and qualified for.

(Sorry about the agenda...looks better when printed...Steve)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 16:46:36 EST
From: DAVID@PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU
Subject: Virtual Reality

I hope I don't get blasted for bothering SPACE with something not
strictly germane, but I *know* that there are some people with knowledge
in this area on this mailing list, and I don't know that about any
other.

I am currently constructing a role-gaming milieu whose central facet
is itself gaming:  the players will play characters who are gamers
that play games in a Virtual Reality environment.  (Analogous to
Dream Park, if you've read that, but different technology.)

I am posting here because I would like to anchor the milieu's history
in current reality.  I saw some messages go past about various
individuals working on the forerunners of Virtual Reality hardware
and software, and I was wondering if those in the know could send
me some references?  (EMail, of course; I'll post a summary if anyone
requests it.)  What I am looking for is references to the most advanced
current work on teleoperation, mind/computer interface (if there is
any work in that area), and reality synthesis (e.g.: the `blocks'
world of the AI experiments, etc.)  And if there are lists on which
topics in these areas are discussed, I'd appreciate being pointed
to them.

Thanks.

-- R. David Murray    (DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET, DAVID@PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 88 21:09:00 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Calculations for fusion drive and photon drive


Keith Mancus sent me a message stating that the momentum of a photon
is equal to h/lambda, which is equivalent to an earlier posting stating
that it is equal to E/c, since E = h * nu and nu = c / lambda (terms
explained below). Using this and previously given information, it is
possible to make rough calculations which ignore gross relativistic
effects, but which are fairly accurate within the range of the conditions
given.

h = Planck's constant = 6.6256E-34 kg-m**2/s
lambda = wavelength of photon in meters
nu = frequency of photon
c = speed of light = ~300 000 000 m/s

For matter moving well below the speed of light:
 momentum = mass * velocity
 kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity**2

...............................................................
Derived equations:

Photon: momentum/energy = (h / lambda) / (h * c / lambda) = 1/c

Matter: momentum/energy = (m * v) / (1/2 * m * v**2) = 2/v

Put together, these equations imply that using any reaction mass at
any velocity will result in more momentum for the energy expended
than a photon drive. Also, the momentum/energy for photon production
is independent of wavelength, and momentum/energy for matter is
inversely proportional to velocity, so higher velocity results in
greater transfer of momentum per unit of reaction mass, but less
transfer of momentum per unit of energy expended.
...............................................................
Partial solution of original fusion drive problem:

ship mass = 1 000 000 kg
reaction mass = 1000 kg (Note: some of the solutions previously posted
                        ignore the fact that a fusion drive ship will
                        lose mass as its drive operates. Since I am 
                        calculating for a reaction mass of only 0.1%
                        of the mass of the ship, I can ignore this
                        effect without getting a horribly wrong answer.)

exhaust velocity = 9.4E6 m/s (assuming ideal conditions and using the
                             entire quantity of spent fuel as reaction mass.
                             This number is drawn from an earlier posting
                             by someone who knows more on the subject than
                             I do.)

momentum transfer = m * v = 1000 * 9.4E6 = 9.4E9 kg-m/s
energy consumption = 1/2 * m * v**2 = 4.42E16 kg-m**2/s**2 (about .5 kg eqviv)
change in ship velocity = momentum transfer / ship mass
                        = 9.4E9 / 1E6 = 9400 m/s       <------------

Using the same energy consumption, but a photon drive,
momentum transfer = E / c = 4.42E16 / 3E8 = 1.47E8 kg-m/s
change in ship velocity = 1.47E8 / 1E6 = 147 m/s       <------------

In short, the fusion reaction drive imparts a velocity change on the
ship about 64 times that of a photon drive with the same energy consumption.
Since the fuel has to be brought along anyway, it definitely makes sense
to use it as reaction mass.

I think the fact that some posters felt the photon drive would be more
efficient in this heavily unbalanced situation just shows that such drives
have a better reputation than their performance warrants. Their only
real advantage is in situations where energy is available in abundance
and matter is at an absolute premium. For instance, the aforementioned
1 000 000 kg ship can be accelerated at one gravity using a photon drive
at the expense of only about 33 grams of mass per second. This mass,
however, must be supplied as pure energy. Matter-antimatter reactions
could provide energy at this rate, but they, too would benefit from
the driving of reaction mass.
...............................................................
Lightsails are an ideal application of the principle of the photon drive.
Since power is produced externally, it can be effectively unlimited,
and none of the mass of the sail is used up. I once read that the amount
of radiant solar energy available at the distance of earth's orbit is about
1000 W/m**2, and this figure is probably correct to within a factor of two.
This would indicate that the force exerted by sunlight at this distance
on a body which absorbs all photons is momentum transfer/second
= E / (c * s) = power / c = ((1000 kg * m**2 / s**3)/m**2) / (3E8 m / s)
= 3.33E-6 (kg * m / s**2) / m**2 = 3.33E-6 Newtons/m**2. A perfectly
reflecting surface perpendicular to the path of the photons would be
subjected to twice this force, 6.66E-6 N/m**2.

A hypothetical reflecting substance of specific gravity 1, spread 
into a layer 1/10000 inch thick, would accelerate under these conditions
at a rate of ~2.6E-3 m/s**2. Neglecting other forces, after an hour
this sheet would have accelerated by ~9.4 m/s, and be displaced by ~17 km.
After a day, total acceleration would be ~230 m/s, and total displacement
would be ~9800 km. With careful control, a lightsail could be made to
perform a wide variety of maneuvers. In addition (unless I made a mistake
in the calculations), any reflective object with a mass of less than 
about 1.2 grams per square meter presented to the sun can be "blown"
directly out of the solar system. Light pressure may also help to 
reduce the number of small dust particles in earth orbit.

<Disclaimer: absolute value of all numbers is guaranteed accurate
to within 1000 orders of magnitude. If I blew the calculations,
please let me know.>
                                  John Roberts
                                  roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #129
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Nov 88 06:15:06 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02326>; Sat, 26 Nov 88 00:49:41 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 26 Nov 88 00:49:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gXXY7ly00Ui341NE8v>;
          Sat, 26 Nov 88 00:32:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.AXXXzJy00UkZMKp05W>;
          Sat, 26 Nov 88 00:23:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cXXXvZy00UkZEKnk5B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 88 00:19:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #130

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:
	   More information on Mir module addition in April
	   Soviet French mission time and new space record
		   Re: Successful ARIANE lift off.
			    Atlantis orbit
			  Re: Atlantis orbit
		     Re: Public approval ratings
		       Re: Oxygen from the Moon
			   Net space plane
			    Re: Amroc etc.
		   Re: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST
			    Re: Amroc etc.
	Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Nov 88 18:17:48 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: More information on Mir module addition in April

     Some additional information has just come in on the module addition to 
the Mir space station.  Satellite News (Nov. 21) quotes a Russian report that 
this extravehicle activity module addition will occur at the end of April 
mission with Alexander Volkov, Sergei Krikalev and Valeri Polyakov "there will 
be a docking with a re-equipment module which will at first dock with the 
transfer compartment and then by means of manipulator it will re-dock with the 
lateral docking assembly" of Mir.  The cosmonauts will connect up power lines 
from the module to Mir's power system.  The resulting larger airlock will give 
them much more room to move equipment in and out of the station during EVA's, 
as well as providing more living area for the crew.  This is in agreement with 
statements that they have made that the importance of the "state rooms" for 
the cosmonauts physiological health during long duration mission meant that 
before much larger crews were employed Mir itself would have to be expanded.  
Note that visitors to the Star City water tank space walk training facility 
have noted Kvant style modules docked to both ends of Mir.  Indeed if you had 
sharp eyes you would have seen that during the training tank pictures shown 
during their Oct. 20th EVA (I missed it). In addition reports now say that 
Volkov and Krikalev will make two EVAs to install sun sensors to improve the 
orientation ability of Mir.  Three Progress supply vehicles (each with about 
2.3 Tonnes of material) will dock with Mir during their 4 month mission - 
higher than the average 6 weeks per Progress, especially since there will be a 
large quantity arriving with the new module, but there will have been no 
supplies brought up during the 26 day visit of Jean-Loup Chretien (the French 
spationaut) who will arrive with them. Finally the European Space Agency has 
just opened negotiations with Soviets about joint docking procedures for 
Hermes to Mir.
     It is funny, with all this there are still people who argue that the 
Russians are at a plateau in their space program.  I wish we were on the same 
plateau - it seems be rising rather quickly.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Nov 88 16:30:07 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet French mission time and new space record

     The USSR has announced that it will launch the joint French/Soviet mission
to the Mir space station at about 3:45 p.m. UTC (10:45 am EDT) on the scheduled
Nov. 26th date.  The Soyuz TM-7 will probably carry Alexander Volkov 
(Soyuz T-14/Salyut 7 64 day mission in Sept. 1985) and Sergey Kirkalyov 
(new cosmonaut) with Jean-Loup Chretien as the French spationaut.  This 26 day
flight, using the code name "Aragatz", will include a space walk to erect
a French made deployable structure, the first EVA by a non US or 
Soviet person.  Note that the flight was delayed from the original Nov. 21st
take off so that French President Francois Mitterrand could watch the launch
at the Baikonur cosmodrome.  Interestingly the only other foreign leaders to
visit the Soviet launch complex are also French - Charles de Gaulle and 
Georges Pompidou.  Mitterrand and Gorbachev are meeting to discuss more space
cooperation among other things.  The launch will be seen live in France, so
probably CNN will pick it up here.
     The flight will end on Oct. 21 with Chretien coming down with Vladimir 
Titov and Musa Manarov, the current long duration Mir crew.  This gives 
them one full year in space.  On Nov. 11th Titov and Manarov exceeded 
the 326 day orbital record set by Yuri Romanenko in Dec. 29, 1987 
with the Soyuz TM-2/4/Mir mission.  They currently have 340 day in zero G.  
Dr. Valery Polyakov (arrived Aug. 29) has accumulated 88 days, 
already exceeded the longest US mission, 84 days in Skylab 4 
(Feb. 4, 1974).  He will stay up until about April 1989, coming down with 
Volkov and Kirkalyov.  Apparently they will put up the second "Star" expansion 
module during their mission, which contains a much larger airlock.  This will 
be docked axially at the front port portion of Mir's ball section (which 
contains 5 docking ports).  The airlock module is of the Kvant type, with
a docking port at each end along its axis, allowing a Soyuz transfer vehicle to
dock in turn to it while it is attached to Mir.  Thus they can keep the station
balanced, and the suggestion is that the new module will only be moved to a
side port when a third expansion section will arrive at the station.  They
can then dock two modules on the sides making the Mir complex symmetric about 
the axis in mass distribution (important in reducing gravity induced 
perturbations).  The movement will be made by means of a docking arm on
each module which plugs into the side of Mir's ball section, undocks the
module, moves it to a side port, then redocks it.  Note the addition of a
much larger airlock suggests strongly that in upcoming missions they will be
substantially increasing their EVA work.
     When the Soyuz TM-7 mission is finished Chretien will have accumulated
more space time than any active US astronaut (he has nearly 8 days from the
Soyuz T-6/Salyut 7 mission in June 1982).  That shows how far this country has
fallen.  However, the good news is that if the Atlantis flies in December
humanity will again have 11 members of mankind in orbit (same ratio as last
time Apr. 1984 when STS 41-C, Soyuz T-10, and T-11 had 6 men on Salyut 7 (one
being an Indian guest), and 5 on the shuttle).  That shows that at least we
have started moving forward, both here and elsewhere.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 17:34:04 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Successful ARIANE lift off.

In article <4XRCPey00XoE44EEpv@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>.... it is designed for the broadcasting of European
>programs making one more step toward the integration of European countries
>in one community.
>(If  His Majesty Mrs. Thatcher don't stop us...... just kidding !)

Kidding? That is exactly what she intends to do. Where is
the joke?

>Also a decision to build the European small space shuttle HERMES should be
>taken soon (a few weeks). The French, the designers, are pushing very hard for
>it, the Germans are afraid of one more French domination in ESA and, of course,

If the Germans are that afraid, all they have to do is put
up more money and put forward their own plans.

>Thatcher is against (but not the British in general), arguing that the USA have
>already one. ....

Thank you for making the distinction, but if the newspapers
are to be believed, Britain already has as significant a role
in Space exploration as can be justified by the returns.

The recent reports signing of the Space Station agreement
were almost unbelievable. "Britain to join the USA in
Space Station development. Other countries also involved."
Sums it up. Enough to make you sick.

>.... So no matter what is the decision, the
>French, I suspect, will continue the project.
>
>In seven years we will have 3 shuttle systems on earth.

Maybe. The Japanese are talking about building one of their
own so, perhaps, add one system to the total.

But then again, if the US Shuttle crashes, subtract one.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 18:27:03 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Atlantis orbit


For kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu (couldn't find path): Yes, 160 n.mi. and
an inclination of 57 degs and circular.

After calculating the orbit of Atlantis for the 4? day mission
I forgot that I would have the orbit of the payload for
the remainder of its lifetime.  

Last I heard, the launch time will be between 3:30 and 6:30 EST.
I didn't get the launch date.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 21:04:55 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Atlantis orbit

In article <1146@scicom.alphacdc.com> wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson) writes:
}
}For kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu (couldn't find path): Yes, 160 n.mi. and
}an inclination of 57 degs and circular.
}
}After calculating the orbit of Atlantis for the 4? day mission
}I forgot that I would have the orbit of the payload for
}the remainder of its lifetime.  

Only if it does not have it's own booster, an item which would not
suprise me in the least, inasmuch as that is a rather poor orbit, I
believe, for an intell satellite.

}Last I heard, the launch time will be between 3:30 and 6:30 EST.
}I didn't get the launch date.

1 Dec, I think...

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 88 16:46:49 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Public approval ratings

In article <60@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>The latest issue of Aerospace America contains a recent
>Market Opinion Research Survey on public support for space 
>programs, conducted by Rockwell.

The BBC2 french language news programme earlier this year 
carried a report on the French space effort.

In a survey, when asked the question "Would you be willing
to pay more in taxes if it resulted in France having a
better position in space exploration", 61% said yes.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 21:45:50 GMT
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Kevin William Ryan)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the Moon


   At least one person has mentioned the possiblity of O-Al rockets for Lunar
oringinating payloads.  Does anyone know what Isp could be expected from an
aluminum-oxygen engine?

                                                 kwr

P.S.  I would suspect it's not terribly efficient.  But the fuel density is
      nice and high...

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 19:18:23 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Net space plane


	It seems that the recent net conversation about a space project
	drew interest in a model re-entrant space plane.  That was my
	impression of the comments, at least.

	I propose that we set out to design and build such an animal,
	with the intent of putting it into orbit and returning it safely
	to earth by the end of the century.  Further, I propose that
	all the work be conducted via the net news channel so that all
	can keep abreast of developments, take issue with design concepts,
	offer alternative plans, etc., etc.  Such a project has the
	potential of being a very educational endeavor for everyone.

	In the area of funding, I think that it would be a big mistake
	to accept any money that has strings on it, at least until the
	project is well along.  In the discussion, analysis and design
	phases of the project such external influences would probably
	be a distraction.  This is open for discussion, of course.

	Let's open up the "floor" now for general goals and guide lines.
	Does everyone agree that a model space plane is the right project?
	Are we prepared to set a maximum mass on the plane so that design
	of the launch system can begin?  What instrumentation should be
	carried and what tracking methods are appropriate?  What else
	are we prepared to discuss?  Begin now.

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 00:46:46 GMT
From: vsi1!apple!kazim@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Alex Kazim)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

Thanks to everyone who responded to my question concerning Amroc's rubber-LOX
fuel. But, as always, it raised more questions...

Someone said that butadiene (sp?) is similar to tire rubber, and doesn't
burn unless in the presence of LOX. I always thought the problem with burning
tires is the pollutants it released.  Is there going to be such a problem
with Amroc?  

On another note, a while back one of NASA's unmanned rockets was hit by a 
lightning strike just after liftoff.  One of the theories put forth was that
the exhaust put out by the solid rockets had aluminum in it, and this created
a metal matrix, like a 500-ft lightning rod.

Was this theory accepted as the cause for this accident?

Enquiring minds want to know...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Kazim, Apple Computer  
These are my dumb questions...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 20:49:35 GMT
From: Portia!Jessica!paulf@labrea.stanford.edu  (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST

In article <1988Nov17.052317.25865@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Discovery's Ku-band antenna, its link to the TDRS system, had a mechanical
>or electrical failure in its pointing system the second day up.  Details
>not known yet.

	"Dave, we have a problem with the tu35b antenna pointing unit."

>[Why not use the Skylab toilet?  Unlike the Shuttle one, it
>worked.]

	As I recall, and if you'll pardon the expression, the Skylab biffie
was a royal pain in the ass...

-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX      |  "Engineer: A machine for converting beer
->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU |   into blueprints."

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 16:14:54 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

I thought I'd toss this in. The source is

"Preliminary Design of the Industrial Launch Vehicle" by Michael D.
Griffin, Director, Vehicle Systems and Integration, American Rocket
Company, and Jeoseph H. Jerger, President Space Vector Corporation.
Presented at the AIAA/DARPA Meeting on Lightweight Satellite Systems,
Monterey, California. 4-6 August 1987.

"Ploybutadiene has been selected as the fuel for the ILV, with liquid
oxygen as the oxidizer. This combination allows a theoretical
performance nearly equal to that of a more conventional
LOX/hydrocarbon liquid bipropellant. The polybutadiene has a smaller
hydrogen fraction than a typical liquid fuel such as RP-1; also, some
energy potentially available for thrust must be used to vaporize and
dissociate the fuel. These factors result in about a two percent
performance degradation relative to similar liquids burning under
comparable conditions. With these considerations in mind, the ILV is
designed assuming a vacuum Isp of slightly less than 290 seconds at a
chamber pressure of 2 x 10^6 N/m^2 and a nozzle having a thrust
coeficient of 1.8 at a 20:1 expansion ratio. This is somewhat lower
than the 300 s Isp assumed in previous design iterations, and reflects
the results of continued engine testing and performance evaluation."

		Bob P.

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 88 00:33:01 GMT
From: att!ihlpm!njd@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (DiMasi)
Subject: Re: Old Idea for a Launcher -- What is Wrong with it?

> ......
> 
> Speaking of start-up commercial launch companies, does anyone know if
> Third Millennium Inc (aka MMI) is still around?  They had a plan for a
> commercial mini-shuttle.
> 
> ^.-.^ Mark Purtill		purtill@math.mit.edu
> ((")) Dept. of Math, MIT 2-229, Cambridge, MA  02139

Well, they were certainly around during the World SF convention this year
(Nolacon in New Orleans, 9/1 to 9/5).  I attended a talk given by one or more
of their people (looked like marketing types to me).  They were very serious
about their plans, the talk seemed to be (at least at the time) well-received,
and I for one wish them all the luck in the world (not to say that they will
need it, I'm not qualified to comment on that).

Nick DiMasi       njd@ihlpm.ATT.COM    ...att!ihlpm!njd    DELPHI: TURBONICK
Uni'q Digital Technologies (Fox Valley Software subsidiary;
   ^          working as a contractor at AT&T Bell Labs in Naperville, IL)
(  | this is an accent mark, supposed to replace the dot over the 'i')

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #130
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Nov 88 06:50:31 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02725>; Sat, 26 Nov 88 03:44:46 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 26 Nov 88 03:44:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QXXaf1y00Ui381NEAy>;
          Sat, 26 Nov 88 03:26:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.EXXaZoy00UkZ4L805g>;
          Sat, 26 Nov 88 03:21:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XXaX4y00UkZ8L6k4=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 88 03:18:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #131

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 131

Today's Topics:
		    Re: One time shot to the moon
		   Re: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST
			    Re: Amroc etc.
			 Re: Species survival
			   AT&T Space Phone
			  Re: Moon vs. Mars
		       Re: Teleoperated Robots
	     Re: Hydrogen and ICE (was Re: Moon vs. Mars)
		Investment (was Re: Species survival)
		    Re: Human groups in isolation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 88 18:11:33 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: One time shot to the moon

Thanks to our friend in Denmark for revealing some of the political
maneuvering behind our long-term failures in space.

Reminds me of how President Eisenhower in the early 50s tried to
hold back Werner von Braun's German-American team from
building big rocket engines, for fear that it would frighten
the Russians into doing soemthing rash.

Is their anything so sacred that politicians can't screw it up?
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 19:10:09 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST


[...the boom started to deploy then stopped...a meting was called
to assess the problem, during the meeting the boom freed itself 
and deployed.]

I knew there was a reason for those meetings.

[Skylab toilet]

I don't think the Skylab toilet can accomodate the female anatomy.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 21:19:55 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

In article <1988Nov15.165243.18686@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> There are about a zillion different kinds of synthetic rubber, but to a
> first approximation, they're all made out of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,
> oxygen, maybe some chlorine or sulfur.  The hydrogen is the thing that
> really matters most, since it burns well and the molecular weight of the
> result is very low. 

	The vast majority of explosives use the energy of nitrogen to
	get a kick.  Without digging through all my notebooks I'm not
	sure exactly how it compares to hydrogen, but take a look at
	how much energy is released in forming the triple bond of
	di-atomic nitrogen.  Now if the N is in the form of a nitrate
	then oxygen is also released, a handy thing if you've got some
	hydrogen to combust.


-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 23:00:49 GMT
From: zehntel!bales!nat@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Nathaniel Stitt)
Subject: Re: Species survival

In article <8811111949.AA29859@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.TI.COM (If you don't vote, you can't bitch) writes:
>In article <177@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) writes:
>                 various stuff, then ...
>>    I am not against space colonies, only their unecessary near-term
>>    (i.e. within fifty years) appropriation of scarce resources [...]
>
>But when do we start?  If we wait 50 years, the same argument can be used
>again, assuming that in fifty years we (humanity as a whole) is capable
>of doing what we can do now.  Remember, if we run out of those scarce
>resources, we can't get replacements.
>
>The arguments based on "we can't afford it now" "non-thought process" :-) 
>sound so much like the farmer who can afford to put up any seed corn next
>year.  We have to start somewhere and somewhen, it might as well be here
>and now.  Just because we don't have the technology today doesn't mean we
>can't develop it, but we won't if we don't try!!!
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do you really think that progress will cease in materials science, computer
science, robotics, and the many other fields that contribute to, but are not
exclusive to, space flight if funding for space flight is substantially
reduced?

No.  The space program was a good catalyst for technological progress in
the '60s.  Today that progress has a life of its own that is to a large
degree independent of our space program.

Right now technology is moving at an incredible pace, a delay of a decade
in the design and implementation of a new space venture will mean a
*fantastic* improvement in the capability and reliability of the completed
system.  Why?  Because many of the supporting technologies that go into
that system will have improved a great deal.

Let's say you have a $100 million a year budget for a large space project.
You spend this money each year for 20 years and end up in 2008 with, say,
a moon base designed back in 1990 and based on '80s/'90s technology.  Now
you have to go back to congress and ask for more $$$ to continue the project.

Now suppose you take that same budget and invest it at 10% (You get monthly
budget payments :-) then at the end of 20 years you have $6.3 *billion*
which you can spend on *2008* technology and design skills to get a much
nicer moon base.  You can spend your 6 billion all at once, or take interest
only payments at the rate of 632 million a year *forever* without touching
your principle.

Now I know congress is not likely to fund a project that does not plan to
start construction for 20 years (What!?!  You want to *invest* the tax
payers money???)  But my basic point is that it *may* make sense in some
cases to slow down a little.

>
>Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
>TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
>pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
>(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.


-- 
Nathaniel Stitt           | This life is a test.  It is only a test.  Had
Guidelines Software, Inc. | this been an actual life, you would have received
ucbvax!ucbcad!z!nat       | further instructions as to what to do and where
(415) 376-1395            | to go.

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 19 Nov 88 14:25:45 MST
From: jimkirk@CORRAL.UWyo.Edu (Jim Kirkpatrick)
Subject:  AT&T Space Phone

I have an old newspaper article describing an AT&T Space Phone number that
space enthusiasts could call to listen in on the space shuttle:
1-900-410-6272; 50 cents first minute, 35 cents per minute after that.
Is this number still usable for this?  (oh, I presume it is out of action
for secret missions like the upcoming Atlantis flight?)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 21:23:07 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Moon vs. Mars

In article <8811061758.AA03694@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>
>>Lunar
>>oxygen would require treatment of ilmenite with hydrogen at 1000 C to
>>get water for electrolysis...
>    
>    Sounds easy to me.  Solar powered blast furnaces have been built
 [...]
>    Hydrogen would still have to be transported from earth, but it is
>    literally the lightest element there is.

	Not only that, but the hydrogen is recycled -- you get it back after
you electrolyse the water.  You just need some to get the process
started, and a little more to make up for wastage.

>    
>    What else is available on the moon?  Could moon dust be made into
>    concrete?  How about metals?  [...]

    Yes, 'lunacrete' has been made from (simulated) moon dust.  Dunno
off hand what non-lunar materials are needed.  Metals, yes - titanium
and aluminum are possible byproducts of Lunar oxygen manufacture.
For local construction, glass-glass composites from lunar rock are
a possible.   SSI (Space Studies Institute) is currently doing research
in these areas.
-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 21:30:27 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots

In article <6050@netnews.upenn.edu> ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Nathan Ulrich) writes:
>In article <8811031502.AA01187@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>>>No one is likely to do any serious basic research on teleoperated robots.  
>I'm afraid that researchers at MIT, Goddard, JPL, Utah, Penn and many other
>places, as well as the government agencies which are spending millions of
>dollars to support research on teleoperation would disagree rather strongly
>with you.

So would Space Studies Institute and the Telerobotics Project of the
Lunar Society.   These projects are concentrating more on problems with
3-second delay teloperations.  The Lunar Society's project right now is
concentrating on teleoperated 'rover' vehicles, with the emphasis on
human factors and ground-based computer assistance to overcome 3-sec
delay problems, rather than trying to put AI on the rover.  (Some of
that will come at a later stage, but it's a *much* easier problem than
a totally autonomous rover).
   The Lunar Society's work is aimed at teloperated assistants for a
Moon Base.
-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 88 21:42:30 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Hydrogen and ICE (was Re: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <57@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <8811061758.AA03694@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>>    Hydrogen would still have to be transported from earth, but it is
>>    literally the lightest element there is.
>  Hydrogen is bulky, and this is just as important as the mass.  Most of
>the volume of the Shuttle's external tank is used for hydrogen, even  
>though it masses much less than the oxygen.  This volume in turn requires
>more tankage, more surface area to push through the atmosphere, etc.
>Exporting hydrogen  to the Moon from the Earth will be difficult.

The hydrogen loop is closed in the oxygen extraction process -- except
for leaks and other minor losses, you can extract as much oxygen
as you like with just one tankload of hydrogen -- of course the processing
rate will depend on how much H2 you have.  Bringing that initial supply
from Earth is not a great hardship, especially not compared with getting
the rest of the lunar oxygen factory set up.

Of course, crashing a few comets on the moon might be a good idea anyway -
that place could use all the hydrogen (and nitrogen, from cometary ammonia)
it can get.  Even with closed loop processing and closed life support
systems, there's always a bit of loss.
-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 06:04:46 GMT
From: fin!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Investment (was Re: Species survival)

In article <198@bales.UUCP> nat@bales.UUCP (Nathaniel Stitt) writes:

>Right now technology is moving at an incredible pace, a delay of a decade

In some ways it is.  But why are we still using 50's languages
(FORTRAN and COBOL) and launching satellites on 50's ICBM derivatives
(Titan and Atlas)?  How fast technology moves depends on how much effort
we put into moving it.  The level of effort depends on how many motivated
scientists we can train.

>Let's say you have a $100 million a year budget for a large space project.
>You spend this money each year for 20 years and end up in 2008 with, say,
>a moon base designed back in 1990 and based on '80s/'90s technology.  Now
>you have to go back to congress and ask for more $$$ to continue the project.

Multiply those figures by at least 10 for the cost of a moon base with     
'80s/'90s technology.   

>Now suppose you take that same budget and invest it at 10% (You get monthly
>budget payments :-) then at the end of 20 years you have $6.3 *billion*
>which you can spend on *2008* technology and design skills to get a much
>nicer moon base.  You can spend your 6 billion all at once, or take interest
>only payments at the rate of 632 million a year *forever* without touching
>your principle.

The historical real rate of growth of the average investment is 2-3% 
per year, not 10%.  Any investment over 20 years is risky.
Nevertheless, I agree a gigabuck moon base built on today's technology
is not the way to go.  The best investments are basic science and the
people who will be using that knowledge in 20 years; our children.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1988 14:54-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Human groups in isolation

> projects may be nothing but stuffy military organizations, but some of the
> long-term ones may get weirder than anybody expects.  

Hmmm. Define 'Weird'. Maybe the culture founded by colonists in North
America developed a culture (sans kings) 'weirder than anyone
expected'.

All that we can say is that isolated cultures diverge, sometime
rapidly. I certainly do not see this as bad. It is one of the things I
most value about opening the frontier. When the technology and cost
reach some critical value, small groups will explode into the universe.
And as MacLeod's posting shows quite clearly, small groups are
culturally unstable. They can change rapidly and fall into a new
'metastable' state. For example, what if his Antarctic group had been
cut off for a few generations? The MOVIE would become as central to
their cultural imagery as the BIBLE or the KORAN or the TALMUD is to
some other cultures I could name.

Also, I would refer you to papers written by Mimi George on her
experiences wintering over in Antartica with a small mixed group.

Humans are indeed strange. Weird, unpredictable, irrational and
marvelous critters. Even if I sometimes wish I were elsewhere, I never
cease to feel that humanity is inherently worthwhile.

(Certainly of more intrinsic worth than a hunk of sulfur and rock  :-)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #131
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Nov 88 07:29:22 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00850>; Sat, 26 Nov 88 05:45:37 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 26 Nov 88 05:45:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cXXcUuy00Vs1014k4g>;
          Sat, 26 Nov 88 05:32:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.MXXcJUy00UkZQLGU4U>;
          Sat, 26 Nov 88 05:20:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gXXcH-y00UkZILFE5l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 88 05:17:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #132

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
	    Energiya article by its chief designer (LONG)
		       Re: Oxygen from the Moon
			  Muscles in Orbit.
		   Re: Soviets Launch first shuttle
			      The dream
			     Solar Laser
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 88 06:58:56 GMT
From: rocky8!cucard!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Energiya article by its chief designer (LONG)

What follows ought to be of interest to folks who follow the Soviet
space program.  It appeared in PRAVDA sometime this fall and was 
reprinted in PRAVDA INTERNATIONAL, a skinny Brit translation of
selected feature articles.  Comments are invited.

[From Pravda Int'l Vol.  2 #10, Fall 1988] 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

REACH FOR THE SKY 

V.  Gubanov, chief designer of Energiya space rocket system, explains how
the rocket heralds new possibilities for expanding space research 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The launch of a new Soviet rocket of the Energiya class has aroused great
interest among specialists as well as the public.  With the advent of
this rocket we are obviously opening up unique possibilities for
expanding research in space.  

We should perhaps begin by explaining that this is a new multipurpose
space rocket system capable of lifting payloads of over 100 tons into
near-earth orbit, perhaps a re-usable spaceship, or maybe independent
space vehicles.  

The special boosters, with their own control system, may be used as a
third stage and can also carry payloads.  This system will be used to put
space vehicles into geostationary orbit and into flight trajectories for
the moon and the planets.  The weight of the objects put into stationary
orbit will be in the order of 18 tons and of those kicked into flight
trajectories towards the moon - 32 tons - and to Mars and Venus up to 28
tons.  

The key to the uniqueness of Energiya is that it is a multipurpose rocket
and not an orbiter aircraft equipped with boosters.  The Energiya launch
rocket is a two-stage system 'package' with four first-stage sections
arranged around the central section of the second stage with asymmetrical
payload distribution.  The starting weight of the rocket could be as much
as 2,400 tons.  Each first stage section is equipped with four-chambered
liquid-propellant rocket engines (LPRE), containing liquid oxygen and
hydrocarbon propellant.  The thrust of the first-stage engine is 740 tons
on the earth's surface and 806 tons in a vacuum.  The second stage works
with oxygen and hydrogen propellant and has four single-chambered LPREs,
each with a thrust of 148 tons on the earth's surface and 200 in a
vacuum.  

The first and second stage of the engines' start-up will take place
almost simultaneously before the launch.  The overall thrust at the
beginning of the flight will be around 3,600 tons.  The system will
enable us to get away from the problem of starting up engines in
weightless conditions and will further increase the reliability of
orbital insertion.  

Having used up their propellant, the first-stage sections separate as a
pair from the rocket, then split up and land in a predetermined region.
They can be adapted to return and land - the instrumentation for this
being located in special compartments.  After diagnostic, preventive,
repair and renewal work is completed they may be re-used.  

The central section, the second stage, separates after sub-orbital speed
has been reached and splashes down in a predetermined region of the
Pacific Ocean.  This avoids cluttering up space with huge cast-off
fragments of rocket launchers.  From then on acceleration to orbital
speed is left to the propulsion units with their payloads, the orbiter
craft or the acceleration unit.  In other words, these fulfill the
functions of a third stage.  

Another basic feature of the Energiya launcher is its construction around
the second stage section and the standard modules of the first stage.
This gives the system flexibility and allows for future development of a
series of heavy and super-heavy launchers with varying payload carrying
capabilities, depending on the number of modules involved.  

The powerful rocket requires high-energy propellants, including, as an
oxidizing agent, liquid oxygen cooled to a temperature of minus 186
Celsius, and as the propellant for the second stage, liquid hydrogen,
cooled down to a temperature of minus 255.  The development of this
launcher has produced tanks, piping, hydraulic system parts and special
construction materials, all capable of functioning at cryogenic
temperatures and having significant specific strength.  A series of new
types of high strength steels were developed, aluminum and titanium
alloys.  New heat-resistant and insulating coverings were created.
Overall, new materials account for more than 70 per cent of the dry
weight of the Energiya launcher.  

One of the most complicated and fundamental problems was how to build
reliable, powerful sustainer engines for the first as well as the second
stage.  The Soviet Union has traditionally done a lot of work on
developing and improving liquid propellant rocket engines.  The standard
RD-170 engines, for the first stages of new generation launch rockets,
including the Energiya, are built using a more economical closed circuit
under which the gas used in the turbine combusts in the main combustion
chamber and has record characteristics for thrust and specific impulse in
its class.  They are equipped with super-powerful (over 250,000
hore-power) turbopump aggregate units.  

The development of heavy thrust sustainer engines with a long service
life, for the second stage of the Energiya launcher, is a significant
achievement in Soviet rocket building.  The designers were able to
achieve this by minimizing gas dynamic losses, regenerative cooling and
minimizing resistance of materials in a liquid hydrogen environment.  

In general much work has gone into ensuring the reliability and viability
of Energiya.  Backup provision has been made for all the basic vital
systems and parts.  The autonomous control complex is also built with
backups for every part and circuit.  The rocket's special emergency
defense systems are new and provide diagnostic information on the
condition of the sustainer engines of both stages and prompt shutdown of
the section in trouble as soon as functional deviations are detected.  In
addition to this, the rocket has efficient fire and explosion prevention
systems.  

All these measures reduce the probability of an emergency situation
during launch to a minimum.  If an irregular situation should arise, the
rocket can continue its controlled flight with only one sustainer engine
working on the first or second stage - which incidentally, is not
possible when using solid rocket boosters as in the space shuttle system.
In irregular situations during launch of the manned orbiter spacecraft
the rocket will have the capability of either inserting the spacecraft
into a low 'single circuit' flight trajectory in the orbit of an
artificial earth satellite, subsequently landing at a special aerodrome,
or of effecting a return maneuver in the active phase of insertion and
landing the craft on a strip located close to the starting complex.  

It is well known that there is no such thing as a complex technical
system that will never break down.  This is why when launching unmanned
loads, in the event of the breakdown of the launcher and impossibility of
orbital insertion of the spacecraft, the rocket will be brought to
special zones along the flight route where damage will be minimized.
However, the probability of this sort of situation arising is very small.

And so, an enormous amount of scientific research and experimental design
work went into the preparation for Energiya's first launch.  The basic
aim of its first test flight, was to receive experimental data on the
efficiency of the rocket itself, its propulsion systems and other onboard
systems under launch conditions, i.e., data which it was not possible to
acquire during stationary tests.  The results were excellent.  The rocket
proved itself and the high accuracy of all the onboard systems was
proven.  

The final stage of work on the launcher also went well, concentrating on
separation of the payload, which in this case was a model of a
spacecraft.  Unfortunately, a circuit error in one of the model's onboard
instruments meant it failed to reach the necessary speed for reaching
final orbit after separation.  

The Energiya launcher is a composite part of a space rocket system which
includes, apart from actual rockets with payloads, a terrestrial complex
unique in size, ability and technical equipment - and can provide a full
launching service.  Its distinguishing feature is one which it shares
with the launcher itself - a high degree of automation.  The launch
base's computer system controls the multitude of parts and mechanisms
involved in the launch and cooperates with the onboard control system
which, in turn, controls all the launcher's systems.  

In order to develop the sections of the first and second stages and the
'package' as a whole in terrestrial conditions, and to be able to switch
on the sustainer engines of each of the stages for practically the whole
of the flight time, a multipurpose launch stand was designed and
installed within the terrestrial complex.  This is an enormous structure
(a gas and flame deflector, for example, starting more than 40 meters
underground and measuring 225 meters high at the top of its lightning
conductors), full of important technical and technological systems, and
which can also be used as a launching complex.  It was from this
structure that Energiya was first launched.  

We are still only at the beginning of the test flight program of the new
space-rocket system so what problems still remain to be solved?  The
first is that of re-usability.  It is only natural that we should want to
use such a unique rocket more than once.  It is a state-of-the-art system
and extremely expensive.  The main factor stimulating further improvement
and creation of new launch rockets is the necessity of reducing the cost
of orbital insertion per unit of weight (known as specific cost of
insertion).  The increased size of payload is an indication of the
improved nature of the launcher.  Analysis shows the future for
non-reusable space transport systems does not give grounds to hope for a
noticeable reduction in specific cost of insertion.  A radical solution
to the problem of re-usable launchers is linked with the appearance of a
new class of transport systems - space aviation systems.  Here, much
depends on materials technology - we need new super-light and durable
construction materials.  

The aim is to achieve autonomous landings of orbiting spacecraft without
pilot intervention and, in the future, of individual sections and stages.
Autonomous flight from take off to landing is also being developed in
aviation systems, for example, in the medium range TU-204 aircraft.  

Many experts consider the role of manned flights in launchers of this
class is still not totally clear.  To copy aviation blindly is not
appropriate, since space technology has developed along its own path.
Autonomous craft were sent into space first - only afterwards did man
follow.  In future space will be mainly the domain of autonomous
spacecraft and transport systems.  It seems the role of humans will be
related to research and specific work connected with servicing and
renewing the systems.  

If we look even further ahead, there are the problems of developing
multipurpose modules and sections of future super-heavy launchers based
on Energiya, which would be used in near-earth orbit for economic
objectives - industrial production in space, study of the moon, Mars and
other planets and for organizing a future international Mars expedition.
There are many problems, but even today we can safely say that the
foundations for soving them have been well and truly laid in the Soviet
Union.  
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 88 17:16:06 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the Moon

In article <1988Nov2.091647.16792@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Jorge Stolfi asked Henry Spencer for the cost of setting up a lunar
>oxygen factory.  I saw some (guestimated) numbers that looked like:
>
>	Cost to develop and install LOX factory:  $100 B
>	Cost to make and return LOX to LEO:	 $2500/lb
>	Breakeven point (with interest expense,
>		assuming $4000/lb earth-to LEO launch costs):
>					       250,000 tons of LOX
>
>	(from: "Space Resources: Breaking the Bonds of Earth",
>	  John S. Lewis and Ruth A. Lewis, Columbia U. Press, 1987.
>	 Be warned that these folks are seriously pro-asteroid.)
 [...]
>These figures assume LOX is lifted from the moon with hydrogen launched
>from Earth.  A source of lunar hydrogen would help enormously.  Failing

  Hmm, I sense some pro-asteroid bias influencing the assumptions as to
how the LOX is carted from the moon.  Earth-sourced hydrogen indeed!!
More realistic (read, "cheaper!") ways of getting the LOX off the moon
include using O2-Al rockets (since you've got all that aluminum etc from
the O2 extraction), mass drivers, and as you mention, tethers.
  Probably a mass driver is the way to go -- the capital cost isn't going
to be much compared with the O2 extraction and liquefaction facility
you need to set up.  Things brings the LOX price (in orbit) down by
several orders of magnitude.
  Of course, if you're using asteroid-based resources, you don't have
the moon's gravity well to overcome, so even if you're using LH2-LOX
rockets, the cost is low.  It even makes sense, because you can probably
extract the H2 locally too.  But from the Moon, for bulk cargos, the
mass driver makes most sense.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 03:09:18 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;)
Subject: Muscles in Orbit.

Christopher A. Welty writes:
>In article <365@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>>...
>>The article goes on to discuss the damage to muscles astronauts might
>>incur on a Mars mission. Riley warns that although astronauts' muscles
>>seem to regenerate after they return to earth, the muscle recovery may
>>be compensatory and not actually regenerative. 
>
>Here is an excellent example of how Soviet experience is so valuable
>and our lack of it is so costly.  Note that Riley says astronauts
>*might* incur muscle damage on a long trip.  The Soviets *know* this,

The Soviets do not necessarily *know* this.  These kind of results
typically require destructive analysis of the subjects.  To put it
bluntly, they have to kill the lab animals.  I suppose they could remove
the muscles without killing them, but it's more effort and they'd have a
crippled animal to take care of.

I'd doubt that the Soviets are going to perform these kind of experiments
on their cosmonauts.


---
Dan Tilque	--	dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM

 "*without the extinction of the dinosaurs there could have been no net*"
		  --  Ethan Vishniac

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 16:40:47 GMT
From: rocky8!cucard!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Soviets Launch first shuttle

In article <8811151634.AA24037@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>                               OK its [Energiya's] first flight did not 
>fully work, but they were confident enough of the booster to risk their 
>shuttle on the second launch.  

Actually the Energiya booster flew perfectly the first time.  The apogee
motor on the sample payload failed to fire long enough and the payload
didn't reach orbit.  The failure was with the payload instrumentation
and not with Energiya, which was felt to have proved itself.

Does anyone know whether the first stage was recovered on this flight?
I have seen no references anywhere.

-----------------

Unrelated note to readers of this newsgroup:  PLEASE do not inundate the
net with endless repetitive postings of the form "The XXX launched!
How about that!" -- fer crissake, when it's the lead item on CBS and CNN
you ought to realize that it'll be OLD NEWS by the time it propagates
through these newsgroups. If you have something to ADD to the discussion
(as Glenn amply does - no criticism of his posting implied), by all means
share it.  If you just want to say "Wow!", lean out your door into the
hallway and do it.  It's cheaper.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 88 17:26:02 GMT
From: grv101%psuvm.BITNET@jade.berkeley.edu
Subject: The dream

The dream is alive and was in orbit this morning.
Go ahead and flame me if you wish, but deep in your hearts you know it is true.

                                               Gregson Vaux

P.S. Apologies to Henry Spencer

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 88 04:59:42 GMT
From: ajdenner@athena.mit.edu  (Alexander J Denner)
Subject: Solar Laser

Hello,

	Does anyone know of any work done (or being done) on atmospheric,
solar, or any type of interstellar-pumped lasers?

	Mr. Paul F. Dietz started the conversation on the subject of solar
lasers and refered me to one source, Robert Forward's paper on propulsion
sources.  I have been looking into this subject, and find that surprisingly
little is known about the solar corona.  I sent an article to
sci.space saying that I thought lasing could not be achieved in the corona
itself (without a very high power laser), but a laser could stimulate 
emmision in the outer areas of a solar flare.  (This is because of the 
effect of the rapid expansion of gases around the flare.)  Does anyone 
know about or know of any sources dealing with the specifics of the solar
corona?  I find that different sources give different values.

	It seems to me that solar lasers have immense potential.  Such
an energy source could be used to heat the ice caps of Mars, for example.
(Melting the ice caps should create an atmosphere that would be much
more accomodating to humans and to a space colony on Mars.--I know it is
not going to be easy, but it is an interesting idea.)  A pulsed laser
correctly aimed could be also used to propel spacecraft (as in Mr. Forward's
paper), blast satelites to pieces, and many other things.

Thank you,

Alex Denner

PS1:  Anyone interested in this topic, e-mail me.  I will try to get a list
      of interested people.

PS2:  Followups are directed to sci.physics.  
.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J. Denner                    ajdenner@athena.mit.edu
234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive    mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
Cambridge, MA 02139                    ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #132
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Nov 88 04:51:30 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05133>; Sun, 27 Nov 88 03:45:30 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 27 Nov 88 03:45:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gXXvpqy00Ui341DkAV>;
          Sun, 27 Nov 88 03:31:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.QXXvgty00UkZEMI05=>;
          Sun, 27 Nov 88 03:22:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wXXvcyy00UkZ4MGk4=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 88 03:18:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #133

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 133

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Is there water on the Moon
			 Re: Resources of Io
		       Re: Teleoperated robots
		       Re: Teleoperated robots
			  Science on Galileo
			    Re: Amroc etc.
       Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 88 18:39:03 GMT
From: rochester!rit!ultb!awpsys@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Andrew W. Potter)
Subject: Re: Is there water on the Moon

>  If you have the Moon "overtake" an object
>(e.g- put something in front (that is, in the same direction as the motion
>of) of the moon but initially moving away from the moon and have the
>moon catch up to it) the object could presumably soft-land on the moon.
>
Not likely. If you could closely match orbital velocities of an
object with the moon so that it was ahead of the moon slowly being overtaken
by the moon, your scenerio would work  only if the moon provided no 
gravitational effects of its own.  

In reality, as the moon overtook the object, its gravity would slow the
objects velocity down and it would then fall in a vector towards both the moon
and the earth (because it is losing some of its orbital velocity.)  It would
either hit the moon (at a rather high velocity) or end up in an orbit 
arround the moon.

-- 
Andrew W. Potter                         Email: awpsys@ritvax.BITNET
Systems Programmer                              awp8101@ritcv.UUCP
Information Systems and Computing
Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY, 14623 (716) 475-6994

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 21:46:23 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Resources of Io

In article <932@etive.ed.ac.uk>, bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
> In article <154@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:
+ >	Many civilizations have managed to live with, and in awe of 
+ >	nature and to use what they needed without plundering. The
+ >	fact that they were destroyed by the european mentality of
+ >	conquest and plunder doesn't mean that they weren't higher
+ >	states of development;  it only means that it's easier to destroy
+ >	than to create.
> 
> Ah yes, the myth of the "Noble savage" living in harmony
> with nature.

	Ah yes, the Victorian attitude of evil, chaotic nature.  We must
	control it because we are such superior beings that it is our
	birthright, eh?  Perish the thought that we might be mere animals
	amoung so many others, that we might not be special and entitled.
	This attitude grew out of fear of the unknown; it had no basis
	in truth then and none now.
> 
> Name one civilisation at any point in human history which
> hasn't "plundered" to the best of its ability.

	Name one civilization in the southern hemisphere that did plunder.
	Examples are very easy to find if you get out of your easy-chair
	or read some books. Bet you never thought of finding out for
	yourself, huh? Too easy to get the pre-packaged, pre-digested
	and free-dried form of info which passes for knowledge these days.
	Better still, just spout opinions; that's easier still.
> 
> And what is this "european" bit? there have been many civilisations
> throughout history with this attitude. The Europeans were
> just a bit more succesful.

	Shall I spell it out?  It is based on the R-O-M-A-N-S.  You
	do know what happened to the ancient eqyptian civilization
	don't you?  And why?  I suppose that native american peoples
	were less successful before the europeans arrived?  B.S.
	This is not success but destruction for greed and avarice.
	There are plenty more examples, but I'm not going to spoon-feed
	you.
> 
> >	It seems the only way to control the political and economic
> >	interests is to withhold the information from them.  They
> 
> Official secrets act and that sort of thing, you mean?

	Hmmm, where's the part about lawyers and doctors?  Aren't
	they doing just this thing?  And who do they look out for?
	Can you say "Numero Uno"?

	The original point: Newton studied gravity to learn about
	nature, but his work turned into ballistic missiles. Einstein
	studied gravity to learn about nature, but his work got
	turned into nuclear warheads.  Studying nature for the sake
	of knowledge is good and noble,  but it's going to be the
	death of us all because of what it gets turned into.
 
> >	If you love science and knowledge more than the almighty $$$
> >	then consider that you can contribute more by refusing to 
> >	work on government contract (I have since '70) and protect
> >	your knowledge from the plunderers.  Same thing goes for
> 
> Do you also refuse medical treatment where the Government
> funded the research?

	Check the facts: the two major improvements made in medicine
	are 1) nutrition and 2) sanitation.  There is no evidence that
	the government (why did you capitalize?) funding projects has
	done one iota for the population at large.  It just stuffs
	the pockets of drug company executives.
> 
> Yet again it seems to come down to an argument between those
> people who want to return to the mythical past by returning
> to Nature, and those who want to create an idealised future
> in Space.

	Arm waving to disguise your lack of alternative views?  You
	have re-iterated my point; it is easier to destroy (critisize)
	than it is to create.  Or maybe the view from your arm-chair
	only admits black and white?  Get a perspective and leave your
	Victorian "geo-centric" attitude in the land-fill it creates.
> 
> Neither will happen, know which I would prefer.
> 	Bob.

	Fast food, TV sitcom's, and status quo, right?

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 22:50:19 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated robots

Whatever happened to the General Electric Hardiman program?  I have a book
titled Teleoperators and Human Augmentation which covers progress in these
fields up to the end of 1967.  It is richly illustrated with pictures of the
state-of-the-art at that time.  One of the most intriguing drawings is a 
sketch of a design concept for a powered exoskeleton called Hardiman.  Did
any get built?

One of the more interesting facts I learned from this book was that 
work in teleoperators started in the late 1940's with the need to handle
radioactive materials.  This book has several pictures and drawings showing
the purely mechanical master-slave bilateral manipulators used for "hot cell"
work.  It was from experience with these systems that the design of many
present-day robot arms evolved.

One of the weirdest photos I have ever seen is on page 61 of this book.  It
shows a bald man with thick glasses dressed in a white lab coat with his
arms inserted into an unpowered exoskeleton.  This device is connected to 
a big black box with metal letters on the side, GENERAL 0 ELECTRIC.  Out
of the bottom of the box hang two sinister black mechanical arms.  One
arm is twirling a hula hoop.  In the background, there are two little girls
with unhappy faces holding hula hoops and watching the mechanical arm.
I don't quite understand why the photographer stuck these two girls in
the picture, it gives the scene an almost nightmarish quality.

This photo shows Handyman, a bilateral electrohydraulic master-slave built
for the ANP program (Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion).

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 88 19:18:28 GMT
From: ajdenner@athena.mit.edu  (Alexander J Denner)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated robots

In article <11514@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>Whatever happened to the General Electric Hardiman program?  I have a book
>titled Teleoperators and Human Augmentation which covers progress in these
>fields up to the end of 1967.  It is richly illustrated with pictures of the
>state-of-the-art at that time.  One of the most intriguing drawings is a 
>sketch of a design concept for a powered exoskeleton called Hardiman.  Did
>any get built?

	I do not know what happened to the project, but I would like to
know.  I assume that it was costing a lot and the govt decided not to fund 
the project.

	I know of two operative robots.  One looked like a car with 
4 legs inside of wheels.  The operator sat in the top part and controlled
the four legs.  Somewhere (on TV?) I saw a videotape of the thing climbing
stairs.  It was doing quite well considering the culmsiness of the design.
Also, someone built a exoskeleton robot that looked very much like the
loader in the movie "Aliens."  This device gave a "power assist" to the
operator, making him/her as strong as superman.

	I wonder if these devices are in a warehouse somewhere.  They
would make great toys! :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J. Denner                    ajdenner@athena.mit.edu
234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive    mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
Cambridge, MA 02139                    ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 04:40:48 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hp-sde!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Science on Galileo

Does anyone have any information regarding experiments
to be carried by the Galileo Jupiter mission? Thanks in advance.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
186,000 miles per second:	|  Tom O'Reilly at HP Lab Data Systems
It's not just a good idea...	|
it's the Law! - A. Einstein	|  oreilly@hpldslq.HP.COM
----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 22:18:13 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

In article <20809@apple.Apple.COM> kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) writes:
>On another note, a while back one of NASA's unmanned rockets was hit by a 
>lightning strike just after liftoff.  One of the theories put forth was that
>the exhaust put out by the solid rockets had aluminum in it, and this created
>a metal matrix, like a 500-ft lightning rod.
>
>Was this theory accepted as the cause for this accident?

Yes, but not quite in the form you suggest.  There won't be metallic
aluminum in rocket exhaust; burning aluminum is viciously active, and will
cheerfully rip oxygen atoms right out of other materials, so what's in
the exhaust is aluminum oxide.  The significant fact is not that the
exhaust contains aluminum -- the rocket in question was a liquid-fueled
Atlas, with zero aluminum content in its exhaust anyway -- but that the
exhaust is hot enough to be slightly ionized, which makes it a much
better conductor than normal air.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 88 05:00:11 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]


[ I am cross posting this to Sci.space, so any further discussion oughtta
go there]
In article <18263@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>In article <880@cernvax.UUCP> jon@cernvax.UUCP (jon) writes:
>
>[quote from The Guardian, a British rag]
>
>>He starts with a brief history of the Soviet space program.  One  thing  I
>>found curious was claim about the demise of the Soviet moon project.
>>
>>  "The superbooster designed to put a Russian on  the  Moon  first  didn't
>>   work.  A  damage-limitation  exercise was started.  They didn't want to
>>   go to the Moon they said.  What they intended to do along was to  build
>>   space stations.  Curiously the West believed them."
>>
>>This is the first time I have heard that  the  Russian  ever  had  serious
>>plans to land a man on the moon.  Is it true?
>>
>
>See if you can pick up a copy of Jim Oberg's book, "Red Star in Orbit". You
>won't be able to put it down. 
>
>Yes, according to him and other Soviet space watchers, the moon race 
>was every bit as real as we thought it was. The problem was that the
>Soviets underestimated our ability to beat them, thinking that they had
>at least until 1972. Apollo 8 changed all of that.
>
>There was an extraordinary article in Astronomy magazine a couple of years
>ago by Peter Pasevento (sp? I'm working from memory, since that issue is 
>packed well away). 
>


For those interested, I found the article. It is in the December 1984
issue of Astronomy, pages 6 to 22. What follows are some excerpts:

	"About December 2, 1968, A Zond spacecraft and Proton booster
	 were erected on a pad at Tyuratam launch site in Soviet 
	 Kazakhstan, in preparation for a launch within a week. A cosmonaut
	 was . . . placed in the Zond on December 9th. The countdown went off 
	 without a hitch, but the launch was cancelled. From information
	 gleaned by Western experts, there seems to have been an electrical
	 problem in the spacecraft".

	"The later space shots in the Luna series - Luna 16, which returned
	3.5 ounces of lunar soil in September 1970, and Luna 17, which soft
	landed the first robot rover in November 1970 - probably used lander
	components for their descent stages. . . . Luna 15 (which crashed
	the day after Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon) is believed by some
	analysts to be a stripped down version of the actual Soviet
	lunar lander."

	"[CIA Informant Peter N. James] a Sovet Space technology specialist, had
	good friends among the Russian group that was attending the 
	[symposium on space science, Venice, Italy, May 1969]. The group,
	. . . also included a few cosmonauts and KGB agents. At one evening
	reception James recalls a heated debate with KGB Col. Nikolai
	Beloussov:

		I told him 'All things considered, the USA is going to beat
		the USSR to putting men on the moon, and you Soviets can't
		do a thing about it'. Beloussov, who had been looking 
		at the ceiling with a drink in his hand, fired back
		'You may be surprised!' He then paused, considered what he had
		just said, and then walked away.

	"At Tyuratam, the much-rumored G-1 rocket and its smaller Proton
	counterpart were erected at their respective pad sites sometime in
	mid or late June. The payload for the Proton launcher was a manned Zond
	spacecraft; for the giant G-1 booster, it was an operational lander with
	an added fuel stage."

	"As June 1969 waned into July, three men from the cosmonaut corps
	were flown from the Gagarin Training Center. . .On the morning of
	July 4th, the men entered their Zond spacecraft."

	"A planned series of holds delayed the countdown until early 
	afternoon, when the first launch signal was given. The G-1 
	booster roared to life and rose from the pad, but the rocket
	never cleared the launch tower. Some analysts believe that on-board
	sensors detected a fuel-flow problem. . .[while others] think
	that the second stage collapsed. In any case, the rocket fell
	back on the pad and blew up. Everything within a mile was either
	destroyed or heavily damaged in the fiery explosion. THe gantry
	observation towers, support equipment, and pieces of the launch pad 
	itself flew in all directions, while some of the attending 
	Soviet engineers perished."

	"The simultaneous countdown of the Proton booster/Zond spacecraft
	was halted and the cosmonauts left the capsule."



Perhaps the most amazing thing about this story is the fact that the
Soviets were trying to fly such a complex mission, with 2 of it's 3 major
components, completely untested. The G-1 had never flown successfully, 
and the lander had never flown at all. It would have been almost as it
the Apollo 7 mission attempted the landing itself, and tested the
the Saturn 5 while they were at it.

One also wonders what might have happened had the Soviets actually
launched successfully. Would they then cover the misson live, to scoop
the Amerikanskis, while risking public embarassment from a possible
mission failure during the landing or lunar stay? Or would they wait until
the cosmonauts were on their way home to announce their landing.

One never knows, do one. . .



	
		




-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"Some people say I'm arrogant. But I know better then them" -
	 Mike Dukakis at the Al Smith Banquet
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #133
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Nov 88 06:41:45 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00455>; Sun, 27 Nov 88 05:50:33 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 27 Nov 88 05:50:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IXXxXhy00Vs1410U5o>;
          Sun, 27 Nov 88 05:29:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.QXXxPby00UkZEMTU5V>;
          Sun, 27 Nov 88 05:20:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXXxN-y00UkZ0MSE4i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 88 05:17:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #134

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 134

Today's Topics:
			Re: Muscles in Orbit.
			    Re: Amroc etc.
		     Re: Welcome BURAN in space.
			    Re: Amroc etc.
			Helium 3 from the moon
		      Re: Helium 3 from the moon
			    Re: Amroc etc.
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
	     Re: Hydrogen and ICE (was Re: Moon vs. Mars)
		       Re: Oxygen from the moon
	   Helium-3 sources (was Re: Oxygen from the moon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 15:21:51 GMT
From: pyramid!uccba!uceng!dmocsny@decwrl.dec.com  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Muscles in Orbit.

In article <4192@teklds.TEK.COM>, dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;) writes:
> Christopher A. Welty writes:
> >Here is an excellent example of how Soviet experience is so valuable
> >and our lack of it is so costly.  Note that Riley says astronauts
> >*might* incur muscle damage on a long trip.  The Soviets *know* this,
> 
> The Soviets do not necessarily *know* this.  These kind of results
> typically require destructive analysis of the subjects.  To put it
> bluntly, they have to kill the lab animals.
> 
> I'd doubt that the Soviets are going to perform these kind of experiments
> on their cosmonauts.

Exercise physiologists examine muscle biopsies from human athletes all
the time. The instrument they use is a large needle which they drive into
the muscle belly and use to excise a rice-grain-sized tissue sample. I'm
sure the procedure doesn't feel good, but it's pretty routine. Muscle
biopsies are useful for examining the structure of muscle fibers.
Coaches use them to measure the relative proportion of fast-twitch vs.
slow-twitch fibers. Current opinion holds that this proportion is a
useful predictor of success in power vs. endurance sports. Muscle biopsies
are a standard diagnostic technique for degenerative muscle diseases as
well. The procedure seems to have no long-term harmful effects to the
subject, but some people worry that the subject's muscle will incur some
(small) permanent damage.

Rats are so small (and so expendable, one gathers) that you might as
well carve them all to pieces to get your samples. This is especially
true if you have no idea what you are looking for.

Set personal observation mode ON:

Much of the debate in favor of manned space travel seems to me to have
an underlying tone rugged adventurism (not that I am against this).
But ironically, the rugged macho Jack Armstrong types among us (of
which I like to fancy myself a part) are perhaps the least-suited to
confinement and zero-gravity conditions. We need physical mobility,
physical exertion, the opportunity to use our muscles. Sitting in a
can and watching them waste irreversibly away would be a psychological
disaster. (I know this, because this has happened to me on a lesser
scale when I have had injuries.) We might do better to recuit couch
potatoes who have less to lose.

Set personal observation mode OFF.

Dan Mocsny

------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 88 06:08:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.


/* Written  1:09 pm  Nov 14, 1988 by kazim@Apple.COM in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
AMROC uses LOX and synthetic rubber...

I hate to admit it, but I've forgotten my basic chemistry.  Just what is
synthetic rubber, chemically, and what sort of rection are we talking
about here?
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

The synthetic rubber that AMROC uses is hydroxyl-terminated
cis-polybutadiene (HTPB - I may be wrong about the isomer).  It's
mixed with some obscure additive to keep it plastic and improve its
toughness.  The oxidizer is loquid oxygen, and the stuff basically
just burns to CO2, water, CO and unburnt hydrocarbons of various
species.

The igniter is a small amount of triethyl aluminum (TEA) thrown into
the LOX flow.  The `slug' burns ferociously (Al(C2H5)3 is a mightily
powerful reducing agent) raising the temperatures to the flash point
of the HTPB.

Kevin Kenny			   UUCP: {uunet,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
Illini Space Development Society   ARPA Internet or CSNet: kenny@CS.UIUC.EDU
P.O. Box 2255, Station A
Champaign, Illinois, 61820	   Voice: (217) 333-6680

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 16:09:54 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Welcome BURAN in space.

In article <wXUOUvy00V4I40nUVV@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>The Soviet Space Shuttle Buran made a successful lauch,
>carried by a model of Energia.

A model? Ye Gods, what will the full sized one be like.


Sorry:->

>When is the next one ? Soon, I hope. (Either from the US or the
>Soviet, I don't care as long as the traffic intensify).

Rumor has it that the first flight went so well that they
have scrapped the next unmanned test flight and plan to
send people up in the next one. This won`t however be until
the middle of next year
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 22:27:11 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

In article <173@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:
>In article <1988Nov15.165243.18686@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> ... The hydrogen is the thing that
>> really matters most, since it burns well and the molecular weight of the
>> result is very low. 
>
>	The vast majority of explosives use the energy of nitrogen to
>	get a kick...

Nitrogen atoms are indeed pretty active stuff, but are not terribly
impressive on a per-kilogram basis, as I recall.  The end products also
have a relatively high molecular weight, which hurts rockets badly.

For those readers who don't follow that connection, a conventional rocket
engine converts heat into velocity.  At a given temperature, all gas
molecules have roughly the same energy.  Note, not the same velocity, but
the same *energy*.  At a given energy, lighter molecules move faster.
The most important performance characteristic of a rocket engine is its
exhaust velocity.  So, for a given chamber temperature (often limited by
materials or by dissociation in the gases), you get a higher exhaust
velocity with light molecules.  Water vapor, at a molecular weight of 18,
is about the lightest stuff that you can form by burning a practical and
manageable fuel.  Molecular nitrogen, at 28, is not nearly as good.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 14:37:52 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Helium 3 from the moon

Henry Spencer wrote:
>   
>   I have seen a serious proposal for mining the regolith for
>   helium 3, for export to Earth as fusion fuel.   Helium 3 is
>   potentially worth A LOT as fusion fuel, enough to make
>   interplanetary trade in it commercially viable.  

We went through this two years ago.  According to Paul Dietz [1], the
average concentration of He-3 in lunar soil is around 5 parts per
billion.  Let's assume the price of He-3 goes up to $10,000/g, from its
current price of $700/g [2].  If you manage to process 4 million tons of
soil a year (that is >100 kg/second!) and extract 100% of the He-3 in
it, you will get a mere $200 million/year worth of He-3.  

>   Trouble is, there is not a whole lot of helium on Earth, and
>   there is essentially *no* helium 3, for quite fundamental
>   reasons.  

Actually, terrestrial helium contains 50 parts per billion of He-3, if
I believe my source [3].  It is not clear to me why separating 50 ppb
of He-3 from He-4 should be harder than extracting 5ppb of He-3 from
lunar rocks.  The US strategic reserve of helium and its helium wells
should contain enough He-3 to last for a while.  By the time we really
need lots of of He-3, Jupiter or Saturn may be more favorable sources
than the Moon...  

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi

[1] Barney B. Roberts, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 31(9), Oct. 1986, page 1499.
    As quoted by Paul Dietz in message <8611120617.AA02138@s1-b.arpa>

[2] "The Elements"
    in the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics"
    (a.k.a. "the Rubber Bible"), 66th edition (1986),

[3] E. R. Oxburgh and R. K. O'Nions
    "Helium loss, tectonics, and the terrestrial heat budget"
    Science, vol 237 (25 Sep 87) page 1583.

DISCLAIMER: Digital Equipment Corporation is not in the He-3 business (yet).  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two hundred and fifty-seven francs, about $50, was Switzerland's
    modest donation to the American project.  We must say it outright,
    Switzerland could not see any practical value in the experiment.
    She could not imagine that sending a projectile to the moon would
    stir up any business there.  It did not seem wise to sink any
    capital in so risky a venture.  And after all, maybe she was right.  
       --Jules Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 88 15:29:06 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Helium 3 from the moon

In article <13435@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>Henry Spencer wrote:
>>   I have seen a serious proposal for mining the regolith for
>>   helium 3, for export to Earth as fusion fuel.

>We went through this two years ago.  According to Paul Dietz [1], the
>average concentration of He-3 in lunar soil is around 5 parts per
>billion.  Let's assume the price of He-3 goes up to $10,000/g, from its
>current price of $700/g [2].  If you manage to process 4 million tons of
>soil a year (that is >100 kg/second!) and extract 100% of the He-3 in
>it, you will get a mere $200 million/year worth of He-3.  

You'd want to beneficiate the components high in He-3.  For example,
if I recall correctly, fine particles of ilmenite can have up to 100
ppb He-3.

On the other hand, $10K/year seems high.  The energy value of
completely reacting 1 gram of He-3 with deuterium at 70% efficiency
(say) is 1.1x10^5 kilowatt hours.  If we budget $.02/KwH for fuel
costs, this is $2200/g, or $.22/kg of 100 ppb ore.  Specialized
applications (for example, in spacecraft) might support a higher
price.

If forced, I'd bet on breeding He-3 from d-d or p-Li6 reactions.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 18:39:12 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

In article <11407@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>Is the rocket engine re-usable?

No.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 18:46:46 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

In article <8811171520.AA08750@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>    ... After adding
>    an electric charge to a small orbiting particle, would it interact
>    with the earth's magnetic field in such a way as to cause a quick
>    (several months) decay? ...

The charge would leak off pretty quickly.  Electrically, near-Earth space
is not a particularly good vacuum.  There are a fair number of charged
particles running around loose up there.

>    As for future design, how about adding magnets to parts that will
>    become debris?  (Like explosive bolts etc.) ...

Most such things, actually, can be redesigned so that they don't become
debris.  To a considerable extent this has already been done, at least
for US hardware.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 18:58:20 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hydrogen and ICE (was Re: Moon vs. Mars)

In article <441@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes:
>Of course, crashing a few comets on the moon might be a good idea anyway -
>that place could use all the hydrogen (and nitrogen, from cometary ammonia)
>it can get...

Preferably, however, in solid form rather than as a gas.  There is some
real concern that intensive human activity on the Moon might give the place
enough of an atmosphere to be a nuisance.  Not enough to be useful, mind
you, you'd still need instruments to even detect it, but enough to be a
hassle for scientific work and perhaps some space operations.  It wouldn't
stay around long, of course... on a geological time scale.  In ten thousand
years or so, most of it would be gone.  It would be persistent enough on
our time scale, though.

The numbers I once saw on this (in JBIS?  not sure) were based on intensive
use of chemical rocket engines.  I don't know what the effects of comet
impacts would be, but I think I'd want to see the issue examined before I
called them a good idea.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 18:52:26 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the moon

In article <1988Nov17.093342.26305@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>... There are volatiles in the regolith, but
>they are diffuse -- hydrogen is about 40 grams per tonne, for example.
>It would make sense to extract them only if the regolith were
>processed for some other reason.

I have seen a serious proposal for mining the regolith for helium 3, for
export to Earth as fusion fuel.  Quite large amounts of hydrogen would
be a byproduct.  Helium 3 is potentially worth A LOT as fusion fuel, enough
to make interplanetary trade in it commercially viable.

(The significance of helium 3, for those who don't know about this, is that
most of the easy fusion reactions yield copious neutrons, which are a major
source of design headaches, radioactive waste, cooling problems, etc.  The
reaction between helium 3 and deuterium yields almost none.  Trouble is,
there is not a whole lot of helium on Earth, and there is essentially *no*
helium 3, for quite fundamental reasons.  But there is a useful amount of
it trapped in the lunar regolith.)
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 88 07:38:15 GMT
From: uw-larry!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Helium-3 sources (was Re: Oxygen from the moon)

In article <1988Nov18.185226.2809@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I have seen a serious proposal for mining the regolith for helium 3, for
>export to Earth as fusion fuel.
>[He-3/D reaction yields almost no neutrons.  No He-3 on Earth.]

Where in the solar system would He-3 be found in the highest concentrations?
Comets?  Are there any other interesting isotopes that are difficult to  
obtain on Earth, but might be found in quantity elsewhere?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #134
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Nov 88 04:53:42 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00513>; Mon, 28 Nov 88 04:25:34 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 28 Nov 88 04:25:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kXYEuKy00jZdI1Tk8N>;
          Mon, 28 Nov 88 03:30:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.oXYEksy00UkZANW05Z>;
          Mon, 28 Nov 88 03:20:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <8XYEioy00UkZMNUk55@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 88 03:17:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #135

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 135

Today's Topics:
	    Soyuz TM-7 joint French/Soviet flight launched
	    Re: Launches on the cheap and space industry.
	       Re: Aging in space & underground hideout
		       Re: Oxygen from the moon
		  Communications Satellite Economics
			 Oxygen from the moon
	  Re: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST (STS-27 payload)
	  Re: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST (STS-27 payload)
	     Conserving Resources (was: Resources of Io)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Nov 88 12:30:48 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soyuz TM-7 joint French/Soviet flight launched

     The USSR successfully launched the joint French/Soviet mission
to the Mir space station at about 3:49 p.m. UTC (10:49 am EDT) today
(Nov. 26).  The Soyuz TM-7 carried Alexander Volkov 
(Soyuz T-14/Salyut 7 64 day mission in Sept. 1985) and Sergey Kirkalyov 
(new cosmonaut) with Jean-Loup Chretien as the French spationaut.   The
launch announcement this was training for a joint international flight to
Mars (but did not specify what they meant by that).  The launch was shown
live on Soviet, and French TV with CNN picking up the feed also for real
time coverage in the USA.  They will dock with the Mir/Kvant complex on
Nov. 26, and Chretien intends to come down 26 days later on Dec. 21 (not Oct. 21
as I incorrectly posted last time).
    When Chretien finishes this flight he may have more orbital time than
any active US astronaut.  I have always found the best way to convenience
people how far this country fallen behind in space is to show what the
Ariane rocket is doing in the commercial space business.  That usually gets
the comment "I knew the Russians were ahead of us, but my God, the French!"
(they do not recognize it as a European project, but at least the feel is
correct).  Maybe that will move a few butts in Congress.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 16:03:33 GMT
From: sword!gamma!pyuxp!nvuxj!nvuxr!deej@faline.bellcore.com  (David Lewis)
Subject: Re: Launches on the cheap and space industry.

(Why do I always have to look that damn word up to see if it's two "t"s
or two "l"s??)

In article <5761@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes:
>Changing the subject...I recently had a brief discussion with an executive at
>Hughes Aircraft Co. about satellites. He said that technology in this area is
>moving very fast, that current designs have a total power output of over 15KW,
>and talk to [some random large number] of ground stations less than 1 foot in
>diameter. His conclusion was that because of their increasing capabilities and
>inherent advantages, all long distance communication and most of TV was headed
>off of wires and onto satellites (sell your stock in the cable companies
>now! 8-=). This means explosive growth in the satellite industry, and in my
>opinion the developement of an industry to launch and eventually service in
>orbit a vast network of increasingly complex and powerful satellites. All
>those who don't believe in space industry and men in space take note.

I'll ignore the fact that someone from Hughes Aircraft Co. might have a
vested interest in satellites as opposed to landlines, given that Hughes
is in the satellite business and not the fiber-optics business (Hey, I
read those yellow one-page ads in Spectrum...)... except to say that I'd
keep the *perspective* in mind when listening him.

I agree that communication satellite technology is advancing rapidly. 
IEEE Communications Magazine recently had an issue devoted to VSAT (Very
Small Aperture Terminal) satcom, and the technology has changed pretty
drastically in the two years since I last did some research on mobile
telephony using satcom.

The point I'd like to make, though, is that *both* satcom and landlines
have their advantages and disadvantages.  Satcom is unparalleled at
bringing communications to underdeveloped areas (an idea Arthur Clarke
has been espousing for quite some time), for mobile communications in
areas with what you might call low terminal density (few terminals in a
geographic area, as opposed to somewhere a cellular system would be
used), and generally in areas where fixed infrastructure is unavailable,
infeasible, or uneconomical to provide.  Landlines are superior for
fixed high traffic routes, for densely-populated areas (high terminal
density), and for applications where the delay induced by going up to
geosynch is unacceptable (although a mesh of LEO comsats would get rid
of that problem.)  The two technologies complement each other; they
don't necessarily compete.

For example, you wouldn't be wise to use a comsat for carrying
"corridor" telephone traffic -- Washington, Baltimore, New York, Boston.
The trunks are very high volume fixed endpoint lines.  A few fiber optic
cables ("few" could be large, of course...) would serve the purpose
admirably.  You wouldn't use a comsat for "the last mile" -- lines from
the telephone company end office to the user -- in someplace like NYC. 
It doesn't make sense.  On the other hand, you wouldn't use landlines
for carrying communications to rural Australia.  You can't (obviously)
use landlines for a mobile telephone service in Wyoming, and the density
is too low for cellular -- satcom makes sense.

Generally, I agree with part of the previous poster's comment (passed
along from the executive at Hughes) that satellite is advancing and
doing more.  I agree in hoping that this will drive the development of
space industries.  I disagree that you should go selling your stock in
cable companies... :-)  (although I consider it extremely unlikely that
we'll see terrestrially transmitted HDTV -- it'll either be satellite or
cable.)

These opinions are mine alone -- Judge Green wouldn't allow Bellcore to
have them.

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David G Lewis			 "somewhere i have never travelled..."
Bellcore						  201-758-4099
Navesink Research and Engineering Center       ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 18:44:15 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Aging in space & underground hideout

In article <881114-105756-1563@Xerox> DeGruchy.WBST129@xerox.com writes:
>       ... I heard that the US will not
>put a man (or woman) in space for a long period of time because a long stay
>in space somehow greatly ages the body.  Is this true? ...

The biological effects of free fall are not fully understood, but last I
heard, they don't resemble aging that much.  They are currently the biggest
obstacle to years in space.  The Soviets do seem to have the problems
under control, though, since they're quite happy to send people up for a
year or more (and unlike some earlier long-stay crews, the ones they've
sent up lately have been in reasonable shape when they returned).

In the seriously-long term, there is a problem with radiation, whose effects
do resemble aging.  That's only a concern if you want to spend a significant
part of your life in deep space (outside the Van Allen belts), though.

It's all academic for the US right now.  The US will not put a man in space
for a long period of time right now because it *can't*.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 22:09:16 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the moon

In article <8811170352.AA06080@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>For rocket propulsion from the moon, how about a metal-oxygen mixture?
>(Though metal oxide exhaust would probably not be welcome in earth orbit :-)

Worse, it's not a terribly good rocket; metal oxides tend to solidify very
quickly.  There is already quite a bit of metal oxide in Earth orbit,
because many existing solid-rocket motors use a bit of aluminum for extra
energy.

>Perhaps a metal-oxygen reaction or other heat source could be used to
>drive a pure oxygen exhaust.

That sounds better, although it would need some serious work on materials
for the combustion chamber and exhaust!
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 16:29:41 GMT
From: mirror!adelie!infinet!rhorn@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Rob Horn)
Subject: Communications Satellite Economics

In article <5761@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes:
>
>Changing the subject...I recently had a brief discussion with an executive at
>Hughes Aircraft Co. about satellites. He said that technology in this area is
>moving very fast, that current designs have a total power output of over 15KW,
>and talk to [some random large number] of ground stations less than 1 foot in
>diameter. His conclusion was that because of their increasing capabilities and
>inherent advantages, all long distance communication and most of TV was headed
>off of wires and onto satellites (sell your stock in the cable companies
>now! 8-=). This means explosive growth in the satellite industry, and in my
>opinion the developement of an industry to launch and eventually service in
>orbit a vast network of increasingly complex and powerful satellites. All
>those who don't believe in space industry and men in space take note.
>

When I was with COMSAT some years ago I saw some analyses by Prof
Staelin (MIT) that analyzed the relative economics of satellite vs
terrestrial communications.  These covered just the technological cost
drivers, not the equally important political and regulatory factors.
They assumed that the only limitations on satellites were those of
station-keeping accuracy and earth station antenna capabilities, since
these have limits that are imposed by basic physical laws.

Satellites have inherent advantages for:

  broadcast - Already most TV backbones and feeds are satellite,
      with hybrid systems the most effective setup.
  inverse-broadcast - The archetypical example being the Emergency
      beacon system on the polar orbiters.
  low-medium density mobile point-to-point - The INMARSAT ship
      communications system being typical.
  low density point-to-point - Which is what most people
      think of as communications.

Terrestrial systems have inherent advantages for:

  high-density mobile - Cellular radio being a classic example.
  medium-high density point-to-point - Traditional communications

The basic reason for the density relationship is that terrestrial
systems are far less expensive on a bits-per-second basis.  But they
are either very localized (cellular radio) or only go between two
specific points (fiber cables).  So you need a usage density that is
high enough to ensure that there will be enough users in that area or
between those two points.  Thus the fiber cable between DC-New York-
Boston is a clear winner over satellite on a cost basis.

On a purely technological basis, terrestrial is better between most
urban, suburban, or industrial locations.  The density is there.

Political and regulatory factors change this immensely.  Public
utilities must justify all investments to the regulators.  Investments
that provide facilities used ``only by big business'' don't get easy
approval.  When installed, they tend to be overpriced in order to
subsidize the ``poor and elderly''.  Many of the new technologies
involve shared equipment whose costs must be arbitrarily allocated
among the various services.  More political factors enter here.  I
have seen and still see satellite services sold that make sense only
because of regulatory pricing.

Inertia is another factor.  The terrestrial services are immense.
There are over 10,000 CO's.  A trivial upgrade taking only a week to
plan, install, test, and make operational translates into over 200
man-years investment.  This takes time to approve, time to organize,
time to install.  A private buyer facing a few years delay to get a
$10,000 service will often chose to spend $100,000 to get an
equivalent satellite service installed in a couple months.  The
satellite service need not wait for the massive network to be
upgraded.

So for a while satellites will compete effectively even where they are
at a disadvantage.  This will change as regulatory attitudes change,
and as the terrestrial networks gradually upgrade.  Ten years ago,
satellite was the only reasonable choice for getting a T-1 channel
installed between two urban locations.  Today, it is probably faster
(and probably better quality and cheaper) to buy one from the
terrestrial vendors.  Over the next couple decades the regulators and
network investment will change to match the underlying economics more
completely.
-- 
				Rob  Horn
	UUCP:	...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn
		...ulowell!infinet!rhorn, ..decvax!infinet!rhorn
	Snail:	Infinet,  40 High St., North Andover, MA

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Nov 88 19:14 EDT
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Oxygen from the moon

    >Note that 250,000 tons of LOX is more than 30 tons per day for
    20
    >years. A LOX factory would hardly be a garage-style operation.
     
    >Herman Rubin replies
     
    >>   I cannot believe this figure.  I suspect that this assumes
    that
    >>   the factory is completely constructed on earth and ferried
    to
    >>   the moon.
     
    >Not completely, but in large part.  Shipping a factory that can
    build an
    >oxygen factory doesn't seem that much cheaper than shipping just
    the
    >latter.
    
    I think this discussion is missing the major point.  A megaton LOX
    factory should not be an *initial* goal of a moonbase.  It should
    be
    thought of as developing slowly from a very small initial project.
    The first goal is to produce oxygen for the moonbase itself.
    At $8000 per pound this can save money quickly.  Making the moonbase
    cheaper to run will make it much safer from political dangers.
    
    Lunar oxygen can be used initially for breathing and making water,
    
    protecting somewhat against interruptions in supply for vital material.
    Later missions can use lunar landers with empty oxygen tanks (saving
    weight for other purposes.)  A numerically controlled milling machine
    could use programs transmitted from earth to make a wide variety
    of small parts from lunar aluminum.  Pipes, wires, and non-critical
    
    interior componants can be made from lunar aluminum initially.
    
    Starting from zero percent self sufficiency a lunar base would slowly
    improve until eventually it would become a net exporter of material.
    The way to start is to build the lunar infrastructure needed to
    be (relatively) self sufficient before trying to supply non-lunar
    projects.
    
    Chris Eliot

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 17:52:19 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST (STS-27 payload)

Aviation Leak apparently was either misinformed or disinformed earlier,
and is now saying that the STS-27 payload is in fact a low-orbit spysat,
presumably a KH-12.  (I suppose it's possible, actually, that DoD in fact
switched payloads for some reason.)
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 21:06:46 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST (STS-27 payload)


I suggest a very simple test to help determine whether the STS-27 payload is
a photoreconnaissance spacecraft in the KH-11/KH-12 category, or an ELINT
(electronic intelligence) spacecraft in the Vortex/Chalet/Magnum class.

Carefully watch the launch to determine the flight azimuth. This sets the
orbital inclination. If the payload is an ELINT bird, it will be going to
geostationary orbit and this requires the smallest possible starting
inclination, given by a due-east launch.  On the other hand, a
photoreconnaissance bird works best in high inclination orbits, so they will
be going for the most northerly launch that safety permits.

One early indication of the launch azimuth is the roll manuever. Standard
procedure is for the orbiter to fly heads-down. Since the orbiter starts
with its top facing southward, a 90 degree roll will indicate an easterly
launch and a geostationary payload. A larger roll angle will indicate a
higher inclination.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 10:35:23 GMT
From: uhccux!baron@humu.nosc.mil  (Baron Fujimoto)
Subject: Conserving Resources (was: Resources of Io)

In article <932@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>
>Name one civilisation at any point in human history which
>hasn't "plundered" to the best of its ability.
>

Actually, if I am not mistaken, the native hawaiians did pretty well
as far as living in harmony with their environment.  They had a very
strong sense of conservation, or at least, resource management.  For
exampple, they would periodically kapu (make off limits) certain
shorelines to prevent overfishing, or when making feather cloaks for
the ali'i they would only take a few feathers from each bird, and then
release it.  Interestingly, the Hawaiians (and most polynesian cultures
I think) had no concept of land ownership before contact with europeans.

>And what is this "european" bit? there have been many civilisations
>throughout history with this attitude. The Europeans were
>just a bit more succesful.
>

They were pretty successful in Hawaii.  

This is all pretty far afield from sci.space though, my apologies.


-- 
INTERNET:	baron@uuccux.uucc.hawaii.edu     | 
BITNET:		baron@uhccux.bitnet              |  "Make beans into peas!"
ICBM:		21 19 N     157 52 W             |

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #135
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Nov 88 06:28:37 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00819>; Mon, 28 Nov 88 05:44:36 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 28 Nov 88 05:44:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gXYGeuy00Vs1E19E4S>;
          Mon, 28 Nov 88 05:30:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.gXYGVyy00UkZINg048>;
          Mon, 28 Nov 88 05:20:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QXYGT9y00UkZENek59@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 88 05:17:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #136

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Fusion drive
		     Energia reusability status?
    Re: Hawaii's proposed launch facilities will face competition
	       ratios in space (was: Soviet psychology)
		     Re: Borman comments on Sagan
			    Morton Thiokol
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #97
			Nanoparticle pollution
		       Re: Oxygen from the moon
		   Re: Energia reusability status?
      Re: Possible consequence of terminal approach APU failure
		       private space operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 22:25:06 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Fusion drive

In article <8811142005.AA21828@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>... If you supplement the spent fuel
>with a stock of inert reaction mass, energy efficiency goes up, while
>mass efficiency goes down. Barring service lifetime concerns, the 
>additional reaction mass might just as well be fuel. This type of rocket,
>therefore, will always tend to use reaction mass equal to the mass of 
>the spent fuel.

You forgot a crucial word:  "other things being equal".  It's not necessarily
so.  Oxyhydrogen engines run hydrogen-rich, and it's not just to preserve the
chamber walls.  The exhaust velocity of any engine which accelerates gas by
heating it will depend on the molecular weight of the exhaust.  Lowering the
average molecular weight with extra hydrogen can result in a net performance
boost despite the extra mass.

Another "other things not equal" consideration is that there's usually a
tradeoff between exhaust velocity and thrust.  If you have much more
exhaust velocity than you need, it may be worthwhile to add inert mass
to boost thrust.  For example, antimatter rockets for solar-system use
would do that:  using the energy to heat a large amount of reaction mass,
giving high thrust at (relatively) low velocity, is much more useful for
the relatively short distances.

A quicker way of demonstrating that you don't want to just dump the waste
from power generation for a photon rocket is to observe that the effective
net exhaust velocity is a composite of that of your photon beam (speed
of light) and that of your generator exhaust (nearly zero).  Since the
mass flow in the generator exhaust is rather more than the mass flow in
your photon beam, this will drag down the overall exhaust velocity to
near zero.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 16:16:53 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu!hogg@uunet.uu.net  (John Hogg)
Subject: Energia reusability status?

Recent postings, some of them from the bear's mouth, have made it clear
that the entire Energia launch system is intended to be reusable.  The
first-stage boosters presumably land within the Soviet Union, while the
core (second) stage comes down in the Pacific somewhere.

Were any of the boosters from Buran's first mission be recovered?  The
translations of the Pravda article that Eder and Neff have recently
posted state that the first-stage boosters ``can be adapted to return
and land'' or ``can be fitted with reentry and landing equipment.''
It doesn't say that this will been done from the first of the VKK
launches.  Pravda was even more vague about the recovery of the core.
The engines at least are reusable, but I have heard nothing about how
such an immense object is picked up in mid-ocean, nor when this will
start.

Even if the Soviets don't intend to recycle the first few pieces of
hardware, they must be very interested in looking at their condition.
A fairly rough recovery would be better than none at all.  Did they
do this?  Will they do so for the next launch?

Does anybody out there have more details?  Glenn?  Henry?  Dani?
-- 
John Hogg			   | hogg@csri.toronto.{edu,cdn}
Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg
University of Toronto		   | hogg%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa)
				   | hogg@csri.utoronto (bitnet)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 16:01:14 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Hawaii's proposed launch facilities will face competition

In article <2644@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> bob@.hig.Hawaii.Edu (Bob Cunningham) writes:
>However, Cape York cannot support polar orbit launches without
>launching over populated areas.

This is a little unfair. Two spaceport sites are under
investigation on Cape york. You can launch into polar orbit
from one of the sites. The other site, hovever, is the site
with the best development potential and the most likely to
attract the required financial investments.

Is there anyone reading this in Australia who can give us
the latest details? I seem to remember a previous posting
from there on the subject.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 88 05:35:47 GMT
From: thorin!threonine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: ratios in space (was: Soviet psychology)

In article <8811152122.AA17944@fibonacci.mit.edu> purtill@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU writes:
>	How large are the crews in Antarctica?	A male/female ratio of
>3:1 or 4:1 actually sounds plausible...

    Come on Mark, you only say that because you went through 4 years
at Caltech where it was 6:1 or so :-)
    My former advisor at Tech was of the opinion that living there
prepared us for space - the food was bad, life was boring, and we
spent almost all our time in underground artificial environments (labs).
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``After all, the best part of a holiday is perhaps not so much to be
      resting yourself as to see all the other fellows busy working.''
	- Kenneth Grahame, _The Wind in the Willows_

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 19:28:52 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpsel1!campbelr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Campbell)
Subject: Re: Borman comments on Sagan

> Sorry if I'm sounding preachy, but I feel this is something that can
> never be said enough, and we must be ALWAYS be on our guard against
> those who would toss the Constitution into the shreding machine.
>
> John "The Metaman" Watson                     ARPA: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov 
----------

Yes we should be ever alert to protect our rights.  That however had little
to do with the story as I read it.  Sagan basically showed that he was not
what Judith Martin would consider a good host.  Having already spent his
time on the podium, the dinner would have been expected to be a more
respectable crowd.  Certainly, the host should have reacted to his guests
discomfort.

I think that the recent election has again proven that it is easier to
be against everything than for anything.  From the description given, it
sounds as if the students were just like every other extremist group I've
encountered.  They see the world as black and white and will not discuss
the greys. 

Bob Campbell                Some times I wish that I could stop you from 
campbelr@hpda.hp.com        talking, when I hear the silly things you say.
Hewlett Packard                                    - Elvis Costello

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 18:26:13 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Morton Thiokol

In article <7734@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>-...NASA is
>-hardly blameless for the pressure it applied, but it was Thiokol, not
>-NASA, that ultimately decided to ignore the problem...
>-Being honorable under pressure is difficult, yes.  It's ever so much
>-simpler to take the easy way out and say "I vas chust following orders".
>
>Thiokol was concurrently negotiating a contract renewal.  The pressure
>to "go along" under those circumstances is unbearable...

Et tu, Tom?  I really fear for mankind's future when damn near everybody
who discusses this issue seems to feel that Thiokol was right to go along
just because it would have been difficult and painful not to.

The trouble with having an unpopular opinion is that everybody claims you
don't understand the problem.  I understand, fully and completely, that
Thiokol was in a very awkward spot where there was great incentive to
cave in to NASA's pressure.  THAT DID NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.  Nor should it
excuse them from taking responsibility for their cowardice, and its
disastrous consequences.

The greatest tragedy of the Challenger disaster is that seven people died,
a near-irreplaceable billion-dollar orbiter was destroyed, the US manned
space program was nearly ruined... and nobody was held responsible for
it in any meaningful way.

>... Until and unless we put every contractor in
>the excruciating position Thiokol was in and compare their performance,
>I consider it unfair to single out Thiokol for not dealing well with
>improper NASA pressure.

Ah, the other Nuremberg defence (in addition to "I vas chust following
orders"):  "if I did not do it, someone else would have".  Are you claiming
that just because most contractors would behave the same way, that somehow
makes it right for Thiokol to do so?  Name one other contractor who has,
in fact as opposed to hypothesis, caused that much damage.

Actually, have no fear -- if the message we send those people is that
screwing up massively results in billions of dollars of new contracts
and no significant penalties, then there *will* be more.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 16:15:39 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #97

In article <595541795.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Science won't open space. We need con artists.

There are plenty con artists in the Space business already.

They are only interested in making money or running their
own little empires.

What we need are some con artists interested in Space.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 88 21:31:29 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Nanoparticle pollution

In article <1271@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> wyatt@cfa.harvard.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes:

:Both arguments are correct, really. Think of the problem in terms of
:momentum. Since simply breaking up debris into smaller particles means
:each one has a smaller momentum (mv), they should do less damage
:hitting anything. A particle already in orbit can only lose momentum
:as the orbit decays. 
:
:However, Henry is right for practical reasons. You would have to
:convert *every bit* of debris into almost microscopic particles before 
:you would no longer have to worry about them. Remember the paint chip
:that hit the shuttle window? If you have some really delicate
:satellites (e.g. exposed mirrors or reflecting mylar sheets), then even
:microscopic debris is probably a no-no.

Imagine a big cloud of nonreflective microsopic particles.  A shuttle or
other craft flys in, and *poof* their glass optical ports become opaque, and
the skin gets microbeadblasted. 

How small does a missle have to be before it packs too little mass to be 
dangerous in a collision, given local speed limits (sun's escape velocity)?

Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 23:29:46 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the moon

>There is already quite a bit of metal oxide in Earth orbit,
>because many existing solid-rocket motors use a bit of aluminum for extra
>energy.

Yes, aluminum is a standard component of solid rocket fuel. However, I find
the assertion about Al2O3 in orbit somewhat hard to believe. First of all,
the majority of solid rocket fuel is burned by lower stage boosters which
are nowhere near orbital velocity.

This leaves upper stages, particularly perigee and apogee kick motors.  A
typical exhaust velocity for a medium sized vacuum-fired solid motor is
(very roughly) 2500 m/sec.  Since the thrust vector used to boost a
spacecraft up from a low circular orbit has the motor nozzle pointing
against the velocity vector, particulate exhaust from a perigee kick motor
in low earth orbit is effectively de-orbited. (Examples of such motors are
the PAMs used on Delta and Shuttle, and the first stage of IUS.  Perigee
kick motors are unnecessary with Ariane, which has a liquid-fueled third
stage that places a geostationary payload directly in the transfer orbit.)

The exhaust from solid fueled apogee kick motors also de-orbits, although
why this is so is less obvious.  At the apogee of a geostationary transfer
orbit where the kick motors are fired, spacecraft inertial velocity is about
1.6 km/sec.  This is barely enough to stay in orbit (it corresponds to a
perigee of 240 km, given by Ariane to AMSAT Oscar-13).

Exhaust fired at 2.5 km/sec in a roughly opposite direction will have a net
inertial velocity of -0.9 km/sec, insufficient to stay in a retrograde
orbit. As the spacecraft picks up velocity during the burn, the inertial
velocity of the exhaust decreases through zero and becomes positive again,
but never large enough to stay in orbit.

Of course, I suppose it's possible that some tiny fraction of the exhaust
manages to come out at small relative velocity, depending on the nozzle
design.

About the only solid fuel exhaust that is likely to remain in orbit for any
length of time is that from RETRO rockets like those used to retrieve
Mercury, Gemini and probably their Soviet equivalents.  (Yet another good
argument against manned space flight, no?  :-)) Even there, however, I
suspect the particles are so small that solar photon pressure perturbs them
into decaying quickly, if the air drag at perigee doesn't do it first.

I am much more concerned about larger (millimeter and centimeter sized) bits
of orbiting debris such as those produced by inadvertent or deliberate
explosions of or collisions between orbiting objects. These are too small
and numerous to be tracked easily, yet large enough to do substantial
damage. They are also too large to be affected significantly by solar
radiation pressure.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 22:29:37 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Energia reusability status?

In article <8811181616.AA23053@ois.db.toronto.edu> hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes:
>Were any of the boosters from Buran's first mission be recovered? ...

I seem to recall a report that the first-stage boosters from the first
Energia launch were recovered, so I'd assume that was done this time too.
That report may have been wrong, of course.

As far as I know they haven't done anything about recovering the core
stage.  That still sounds tricky to me...
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 88 08:24:21 GMT
From: muddcs!mwilkins@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Wilkins)
Subject: Re: Possible consequence of terminal approach APU failure

In article <8811160558.AA08950@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:

>                                         The Space Shuttle, now out of
>control, impacts at supersonic speed into the waiting crowd which never
>hears it coming.  Thousands perish.

   Umm...  Ever been to a landing at Edwards?  The VIP guest center is a good
half-mile away and very small, maybe 10 acres, max.  The place where the
"public" goes is on the edge of the dry lake bed, and quite cramped.
And the entire thing is 40 square miles.  The chances that the Shuttle 
would crash into ANY structure in ANY condition are at least 1 in 10000.
   Plus, the turns to which you refer are made over the dry lake bed about
ten miles downrange of the crowd and the thing would just spiral in... or if
the surfaces DIDN'T lock, but moved freely, it would just stall and fall to
the ground.
   Not enough to keep me away.
                -- M. Wilkins (mwilkins@muddcs.UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 03:01:43 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: private space operations

I am flabergasted.  Only a short while ago, there was some discussion,
including a few hearty `count me ins', on the subject of a privately
run, homebuilt-style launch system.  And now... nothing.  Not one peep.

Is it any wonder, then, why the USSR is orbiting MIR and launching Buran an
nearly a hundred payloads annually, including automated docking for re-
supply of their space station, while the US's program languishes for lack
of support?  Why is it that so many of us complain vociferously about the
lack of progress in establishing a true space effort, and yet are
unwilling to back their fancy words with a serious commitment.  I've heard
the excuses hundreds of times before, relating to hundreds of subjects.
They range from the 'it's not possible' to `the government won't let us'
to 'what can one person do'.  Frankly, those willing to criticize 
quickly disgust me.

We have at our fingertips a vast resource of technically skilled people,
who also seem to believe strongly in some dream of the final frontier.

Or must the talent remain unused and criminally wasted?

Let me kick up a suggestion.  First, will all of you who are willing to
DO SOMETHING e-mail me a response.  I need to know how serious people are.
Second, consider this.  It was stated that something like 60 man-years
would be sufficient to develop a private space vehicle.  How can a group
of dedicated people achieve such a goal?  What treaties/regulations lie
in the way?  Can a corporation (non-profit or otherwise) be formed for the
purpose of achieving this goal?  Could this corporation be sustained by
contributions of materials/manual labor?  How about if a share in the
corporation be given for each dollar worth of contributed money or 
material or work?

I implore all of you to think seriously about this issue.  Since our future
in space rests in the hands of Congress, the GAO, and our executive branch,
it is likely NASA will be fighting major battles for survival, let alone
vigorous expansion.  Is there a way we can make a difference, or must the
space enthusiasts of this hemisphere be forced to learn Russian or French?

N. Kluksdahl    
           ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

disclaimer:  this message in no way reflects the opinions or policies of
   any official agency of the state of Arizona.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #136
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Nov 88 01:21:57 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04134>; Tue, 29 Nov 88 00:43:08 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 29 Nov 88 00:43:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UXYXSMy00Vs18180EM>;
          Tue, 29 Nov 88 00:37:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.oXYXFJy00UkZQPok5u>;
          Tue, 29 Nov 88 00:23:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cXYXBwy00UkZIPnU5Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 88 00:19:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #137

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 137

Today's Topics:
	 French/USSR Soyuz TM-7 docks with Mir space station
		    Re: Teleoperated Robots (LONG)
		       was Re: Resources of Io
		Re: Soviet space leadership + confused
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Nov 88 23:05:54 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: French/USSR Soyuz TM-7 docks with Mir space station

     The Soyuz TM-7 spacecraft "Aragatz" successfully docked with the 
Mir/Kvant space station today (Nov. 28th) approximately 1 pm EST today.  
According to Radio Moscow first out of the capsule was the French spationaut 
Jean-Loup Chretien (traditionally the guest cosmonaut leaves the Soyuz 
before all others - Chretien also flew on Soyuz T-6/Salyut7 in 1982).  His 
crewmates, commander Alexander Volkov and flight engineer Sergei Krikalev 
followed to meet the long duration crew Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov, 
plus Dr. Valery Polyakov.  They have all settled down to start the research 
of this 26 day mission.  There is no date yet for the space walk of this 
flight.
    I hope that the shuttle Atlantis soon lifts off to meet them.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Nov 88 22:33 EDT
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots (LONG)

>From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jsalter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Notes from the Underground)
>Subject: Teleoperated robots
>
>In <8811031502.AA01187@crash.cs.umass.edu> csustan!lll-winken!uunet!husc6!ukma!rutgers!att!ucbvax!cs.umass.edu!ELIOT states:
>>
>>No one is likely to do any serious basic research on teleoperated robots.  
>>The prospects for more or less fully *autonomous* robots are rather good on
>>the 5 - 15 year time frame.  I expect that a certain number of impressive
>>teleoperated robots will be developed as spin offs of the push for
>>autonomous robots, but they will almost instantly become obsolete for most
>>purposes.

I didn't think this statement would be so controversial. I am biased
in my opinion, as I am a doctoral student specializing in Artificial
Intelligence and particulary studying Planning, which relates directly
to constructing autonomous robots (among many other things.) 
Clearly I didn't make clear what I mean by "autonomous" vs. "teleoperated"
robots, since all of the replies are somewhat at variance with my
intended use of the words.

Just for the record:

ROBOT [Czech robota compulsory service, work.] In Karel Capek's play
R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal robots), one of a large number of
artificially manufactured persons, mechanically efficient but devoid
of sensibility; hence a brutal, efficient, insensitive person;
an automaton - Robotism n. - Robotistic adj. - Robotize v. - Robotry n.
-Webster's Collegiate, 5th edition *1941* :-)

That doesn't help much.  For my purpose I define "autonomous" vs.
"teloperated" as ends of a spectrum, where teleoperated refers
to mechanisms where the detailed motions are under direct control
of a human operator.  We all need help from time to time, and die
in the end, so nothing is perfectly autonomous, but a mechanism
is more autonomous the longer it can perform without intervention
and the larger variety of situations it can continue to perform under
without intervention.  I give more credit to a mechanism that performs
a variety of tasks for a short time, than a mechanism that performs a
repetative task for a long time (like a clock).

Now I will respond to the criticism from cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!-
csun!polyslo!jsalter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu and others.

>This sounds like a bunch of bull.  Think of who's going to BUY these
>robots.  Teleoperated robots are much less of a risk than any form of
>autonomous robot; now or in the 5-15 year time span you give.  The reasons
>are fairly simple.
>
>1)  The people who are going to buy these things are very concerned with
>keeping control.  They do not want a runaway robot on their hands.  And to
>think that this "could never happen" is incorrect.  They have many people
>working for them to think over the implications of things that could NEVER
>HAPPEN.

I don't buy this.  A pile of gravel can get out of control if circumstances
are wrong.  Everybody knows that sometimes buildings fall down and rockets
explode, but that's life.  Similarly there will be bugs in autonomous
robots. You take precautions and try to limit the possible damage.
And if you mean "out of control" like HAL from 2001 then I do believe
it could never happen.

>2)  Teleoperated robots are human controlled.  Even now people are much
>more likely to trust a person (with all his/her emotional/physiological/
>psychological faults) than a machine.

People are suspicious of new and untested and unknown things.  Sometimes
too much so, but caution with new ideas is certainly rational.  On the
other hand, I think you exagerate the point.  People trust *most*
machines so much that they forget about them entirely.  Clocks, radios,
stoves and cars are generally trusted entirely. You bet your life on
your car every time you make a left turn.  (Suppose it stopped half
way through.)

>3)  For the same reason that the shuttle's computers are using rather
>"old" technology, the basis for teleoperated robots is already here; in
>car manufacturing, in steel companies, in most any large scale process.

I don't think there were many robots used in car manufacturing in 1973.
My 5-15 year time frame fits your concept of "old" technology reasonably
well.

>4)  Autonomous robots, though they may cause the obsolesence of
>teleoperated robots, are going to need a much greater independence in
>terms of visual recognition which is linked to pattern recognition which
>is linked to Artificial Intelligence which, from what I've heard, is
>still very, VERY much experimental.  At least for the AI that will be
>required of fully autonomous robots.

I am a doctoral student, specializing in AI.  I work on planning, not
vision, and (surprise) I think the problems with autonomous robots
have more to do with their planning ability than with vision.
I agree that our work is experimental, but I object to "very VERY much" so.
The term "full autonomous" is also ambiguous.  You may be reading more
into that term than I meant to imply.

>>As for the psychological acceptance of such things, there are
>>existing analogies.  Every industrial crane is a (mechanically
>>linked) "teleo"operated robot.
>
>Yes, and they are well controlled.  Someone watches them all the time.

I would expect "autonomous" robots to be well monitored also, especially
when working on critical tasks.  

>I'd love to see autonomous robots become truly autonomous, but to say
>that NO ONE is going to serious research on them
[by "them" you mean teleoperated robots]
>seems to me to false. There'll always be a need for teleoperated robots.

I'm not sure we disagree all that much.  I agree that teleoperated
robots will have their place forever, and that people will do
engineering type research on them for just as long.  They will become
faster, smaller and stronger.  But the thrust of the more basic research
these days is towards more autonomous robots, not better teleoperated ones.

>-- 
>James A. Salter (jim/jsalter) -- Yes, math majors use UNIX(tm), too!
>                                 | If everyone believed in conservation of
>jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU      | baryon number, there wouldn't be all those
>...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jsalter | experiments looking for proton decay.
>
>Date: 6 Nov 88 03:25:51 GMT
>From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots
>
>In article <8811031502.AA01187@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>>No one is likely to do any serious basic research on teleoperated robots.  
>>The prospects for more or less fully *autonomous* robots are rather good on
>>the 5 - 15 year time frame...
>
>Can you cite a few references for this?  The AI community regularly
>produces such claims, and seldom if ever comes through on them.  Having
>seen this particular claim repeatedly for quite a while, I'm skeptical.

Trust me... OK, seriously, the major "reference" I would point to is just
the large funding level of the Darpa Autonomous vehicle project and related
initiatives.  I don't do vision or low level robotics, but the people down
the hall who do seem to be in pretty good shape.  The newer connection
machines like the Butterfly processor seem to be well suited for vision.
Various military and industrial applications (like quality control) seem
to demonstrate reasonable vision technology, and the basis for considerably
more.  For 10-15 years there was very little research done on planning.
Recently there has been quite a bit done, with a lot of emphasis recently
on coordinating high and low level processes.

>>... Every industrial crane is a (mechanically
>>linked) "teleo"operated robot.
>
>The problem with teleoperation is the mechanics, not the communications.
>Nobody disputes that you can build a teleoperated bulldozer or crane.

I don't understand this.  Tactile feedback won't work because of communications
delays over long distances.  This is one of the primary reasons that 
teleoperted devices will fail in the long run.  A robot near jupiter has
got to be sufficiently autonomous to operate for an hour or more, because
of communication delays.  That makes it "fully" autonomous by my
definition.

>The Earth is our mother.        |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>Our nine months are up.         |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.ed

**Only eight: I'm an optimist -ELIOT

>Date: 6 Nov 88 19:19:38 GMT
>From: netnews.upenn.edu!grasp.cis.upenn.edu!ulrich@rutgers.edu  (Nathan Ulrich)
>Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots
>
>In article <8811031502.AA01187@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>>>No one is likely to do any serious basic research on teleoperated robots.  
>I'm afraid that researchers at MIT, Goddard, JPL, Utah, Penn and many other
>places, as well as the government agencies which are spending millions of
>dollars to support research on teleoperation would disagree rather strongly
>with you.

I didn't say there is or won't be any research, I said "serious basic
research".  A great deal of interesting, difficult, creative,
important and expensive work must be done after the basic principles of 
something have been developed in order to develop and engineer it well.
Of course I think my area of research is more interesting and important.
That's why I chose it, and that is what keeps me interested in it.
*Fortunately*, other people think other things are more interesting 
and important, and that is what they work on.  

>>>The prospects for more or less fully *autonomous* robots are rather good on
>>>the 5 - 15 year time frame...
>In article <1988Nov6.032551.18388@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Can you cite a few references for this?  The AI community regularly
>>produces such claims, and seldom if ever comes through on them.  Having
>>seen this particular claim repeatedly for quite a while, I'm skeptical.

>First of all, we have to define what we mean by autonomous robots.  If you
>consider the welding and painting machines on an automobile assembly line
>robots,

I consider them robots, but I don't call them autonomous.

>then they are certainly "autonomous" (and right now).  However, a
>true robot

You have already observed that this debate involves terminological
confusion.  To proceed *immediately* to use the term "true robot" is
nothing short of inflammatory.  If we don't agree on the meaning of
"robot" we certainly don't agree on the meaning of "true robot".

>has to be able to respond to unstructured environments and deal
>with circumstances and objects it has never encountered before or has no
>previous knowledge of.

This statement is true, but it is repeated much too frequently with
too little discussion.  Taken literally this is partialy trivial.
A pocket calculator can "deal with circumstances... [it] has never
encountered before... [and] has no previous knowledge of."  For example,
multiplying any randomly chosen pair of 9 digit numbers.  There are
industrial robots that can deal with parts in a random orientation,
which guarantees they the (exact) situation has never been encountered
before and certainly not programmed. An "autonomous" robot is not
going to be able to deal with absolutely any contingency that may arise,
but neither can people.

In 5-15 years, with concerted effort, I think we could easily build
an autonmous robot that could deal with an "unstructured environment",
such as the surface of the moon or a planet, capable of visually
determining the topography of the area well enough to avoid (almost
always) falling off cliffs or getting stuck in holes.  It could
make good heuristic estimates of the geologic interest of specific
sites and autonmously locate and collect samples autonomously.

>Such a robot would be very useful in space, but I'm
>afraid that we are very far from reaching this goal.  Maybe towards the end
>of your 5-15 year time frame we will have something, but as Henry correctly
>points out, it depends on research in AI more than anything, and we've been
>overly optimistic in robotics since its inception.
>
>In article <1988Nov6.032551.18388@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>The problem with teleoperation is the mechanics, not the communications.
>>Nobody disputes that you can build a teleoperated bulldozer or crane.
>Are you sure you didn't get that first sentence backwards? 
>I have to disagree;...

For basically the same reason I gave above.

>The trend now seems to be to combine some degree of autonomy with teleoper-
>ation:  there is no reason to have a human interact except when needed, so
>the robots are autonomous until they encounter something they can't handle.

I basically agree with this.  I also define teleoperation narrowly, and
autonomy broadly.  If a robot can work at a *non-repetative* task for
more than a few minutes or hours on the average, then I would call it
autonomous.

>Of course, they also have to be able to decide when to ask for help, which
>is not a trivial problem.  Hopefully, robots will eventually become
>fully autonomous, but I fear not in the immediate future.

I cited 5-15 years which I don't consider the immediate future.  I also
meant (but didn't say) that I was thinking about development and initial
production.  I didn't mean that the entire industrial base of existing
simple robots would be replaced with autonomous robots by then either.
I do think that substantially autonomous robots will have been designed,
implemented, tested and instally by then.  Simple robots and teleoperated
robots will be largely "obsolete", but they will still be common because
they have already been built and still work.  

To be more specific, I am guessing that in 5 years we will start to see
some reasonably autonomous robots starting to be used.  In about 15 years
I expect that basically autonomous robots will be largely proven
technology and that simple robots (like welders and painters) will
be substantially losing, not gaining, competativeness relative to
more autonomous ones.

>Nathan Ulrich
>ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu

Chris Eliot
Eliot@Umass.edu

Umass Amherst.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 02:15:16 GMT
From: mtxinu!taniwha!michael@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Hamel)
Subject: was Re: Resources of Io

In article <177@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:

>	Name one civilization in the southern hemisphere that did plunder.
 
The Maoris in New Zealand. Burnt down the forests, slaughtered the moas
(all 17 species), introduced animals that mucked up the ecology all over.
They were just settling down to the job when we Europeans arrived and did
a much more thorough one...

>	The original point: Newton studied gravity to learn about
>	nature, but his work turned into ballistic missiles. Einstein
>	studied gravity to learn about nature, but his work got
>	turned into nuclear warheads.  Studying nature for the sake
>	of knowledge is good and noble,  but it's going to be the
>	death of us all because of what it gets turned into.

As Eric Morecambe used to say "There's no answer to that." Poor old
Newton, eh. Poor old human race. Dear oh dear...

-- 
"Where now are those who in times past have opposed the
Group of Seventeen?"

Michael Hamel.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 88 17:52:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet space leadership + confused


In article <7700@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
: * We have run this into the ground in sci.space, but let me reiterate
:   just this once in honor of the launch: With Energiya and Buran and
:   Soyuz and Mir all operational, the Soviets are BEATING US TO A PULP
:   in space.  
--Flame (not to tneff)
Beating us? You mean the US program is good enough to be considered
a competitor with the USSR? And I thought we'd conceded years ago.

Alan M. Carroll          "How many danger signs did you ignore?
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu     How many times had you heard it all before?" - AP&EW
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #137
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Nov 88 06:29:54 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00827>; Tue, 29 Nov 88 05:53:20 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 29 Nov 88 05:53:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXYbj=y00jZd81Gk9Z>;
          Tue, 29 Nov 88 05:28:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.oXYbbzy00UkZ0QEk5n>;
          Tue, 29 Nov 88 05:20:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXYbZJy00UkZEQDU5r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 88 05:17:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #138

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 138

Today's Topics:
		   Re Energiya resuability status?
		   Re: Morton Thiokol (blame etc.)
		     Re: Reminders for Old Farts
			 Re: AT&T Space Phone
		  Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST
			Re: US Goals in Space
		 Re: Relativity acceleration question
	  STS - 27 and implications for the Space Telescope
		 Re: Quayle in charge of space policy
	   Re: Conserving Resources (was: Resources of Io)
	 Re: Helium-3 sources (was Re: Oxygen from the moon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 88 00:37:29 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Re Energiya resuability status?

     In Space Digest v9: issue 136 John Hogg asks about the reusability
of the USSR's Energiya booster.  If you look at any picture of Energiya
you will note that the first stage strapon sections (4 Lox/Kerosene boosters) 
are not simple cylinders, but contain attachments at both the top and bottom
of the cylinder.  After burnout those spring open and form air-breaks, which
flip the strapons so that the engines are point up.  Then a parachute opens
allowing each cylinder to land with the engines up.  The idea is that the
tankage system is cheap if it must be replaced, but the rocket engines are
expensive on a liquid booster.  The parachute system was tried out on the first
Energiya flight, but reports say that it was not used on the second (Buran)
launch (possibly to prevent complications on an already difficult mission).
To date none of the original boosters have been reused, they are just studying
the damage to them from a launch.  Do not forget these are undergoing a
solid surface landing, not a water one (hence more damage may be expected).
    The only statements about the core section (Lox/Hydrogen) are that 
currently it will not be recovered, except to study the damage to the engines.
However, on future missions it would be possible to place that entire central 
section into a low orbit.  The engines could then be separated from the 
booster, and brought down in their shuttle (the stated main purpose of which 
includes bringing cargoes down).  If or when this will occur is uncertain;
at the first flight it was stated that the core was only at 70% of orbital
speed on burnout.  That would reduce substantially the capacity of the 
booster.
     Let us say that at this point it appears that Energiya was designed for
some reuse, but it will be a few years before that actually occurs.  Only
time will tell use to what extent.
     One personal request - I only have access to postings through the 
Space Digest distribution on the arpanet.  Unfortunately, due to the heavy
load there the net sometimes runs several days behind (in this case about
10 due to the holidays).  Would anyone asking a question like John Hogg
here about the Russian program that they think I might be able to help on
please send me a direct note along with their posting.  That way I can send 
a timely reply.  Thanks in advance.

                                                Glenn Chapman
                                                MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 00:20:51 GMT
From: rocky8!cucard!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Morton Thiokol (blame etc.)

In article <1988Nov18.182613.1823@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
-In article <7734@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
->-...NASA is
->-hardly blameless for the pressure it applied, but it was Thiokol, not
->-NASA, that ultimately decided to ignore the problem...
->-Being honorable under pressure is difficult, yes.  It's ever so much
->-simpler to take the easy way out and say "I vas chust following orders".
->
->Thiokol was concurrently negotiating a contract renewal.  The pressure
->to "go along" under those circumstances is unbearable...
-
-Et tu, Tom?  I really fear for mankind's future when damn near everybody
-who discusses this issue seems to feel that Thiokol was right to go along
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^
-just because it would have been difficult and painful not to.

I come to bury Thiokol, not to praise it. <grin - couldn't resist,
Spencerius> The reason we're still disagreeing is that Henry has
shifted ground.  He started by saying that Thiokol should be DUMPED
forever as a shuttle contractor because of their role in the Challenger
disaster.  Now he's just saying they weren't RIGHT to yield to NASA
pressure.  I agree, they weren't.  Going from there to Henry's
suggested remedy is another question altogether.  I claim that any of
the major NASA contractors would have done nearly the same thing under
similar circumstances, especially considering the contract renewal.  If
we want to dump the contractor system as a whole, OK; if not, NASA has
to be held responsible for managing that system effectively.  "My God,
Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?"  The virtuous
answer to Mulloy's question would have been "yes, if necessary." You
would have to be a Keebler Elf to believe that any NASA contractor
could have been expected to give that answer.  The crime is that the
question was even asked.

-The greatest tragedy of the Challenger disaster is that seven people died,
-a near-irreplaceable billion-dollar orbiter was destroyed, the US manned
-space program was nearly ruined... and nobody was held responsible for
-it in any meaningful way.

On the gut level I agree with this, but in a certain sense the outcome
we got may have been better.  By blaming the "system as a whole" for
the tragedy while most of the specific people under fire quit or
were transferred elsewhere, we spread the hurt (I think) where it will
do the most good.  It might have been counterproductive to have had
someone like the doped-up Amtrak switcher to pillory publicly.  The
flawed system itself might have been permitted to plow on unaffected in
the aftermath.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Sender: "Jo_M._Anselm.henr801E"@Xerox.COM
Date: 21 Nov 88 06:40:06 PST (Monday)
Subject: Re: Reminders for Old Farts
From: "Jo_M._Anselm.henr801E"@Xerox.COM

I'd like to add one more to Eugene's list of reminders:  Proofread before
you send!  The spelling on this net is abominable!  Typos can be corrected,
but a few people out there should invest in phonetic dictionaries and USE
them.

"Jo M. Anselm".Henr801e.Xerox.com

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 02:52:54 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: AT&T Space Phone

In article <881119142545.204002bf@UWYO.BITNET> jimkirk@OUTLAW.UWYO.EDU (Jim Kirkpatrick) writes:
>I have an old newspaper article describing an AT&T Space Phone number that
>space enthusiasts could call to listen in on the space shuttle:
>1-900-410-6272; 50 cents first minute, 35 cents per minute after that.
>Is this number still usable for this?  (oh, I presume it is out of action
>for secret missions like the upcoming Atlantis flight?)

It's not an "AT&T Space Phone," it's DIAL-A-SHUTTLE operated by the National
Space Institute.  Live audio link is relayed continuously from a few hours
before the launch to a few hours after landing.  When nothing else is
happening, they replay tapes of background info and press conferences.

You will probably be inundated with postings on this, it should be
added to the Frequently Asked Questions list.  I have no idea what
their plans are for STS-27.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 88 22:36:59 GMT
From: tektronix!nosun!cvedc!billa@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST

In article <7734@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <1988Nov14.214139.1892@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>-Being honorable under pressure is difficult, yes.  It's ever so much
>-simpler to take the easy way out and say "I vas chust following orders".
>
>Thiokol was concurrently negotiating a contract renewal.  The pressure
>to "go along" under those circumstances is unbearable.  Also note that
>Rockwell had doubts and withdrew them (although the decision process
>was quite controversial).  Until and unless we put every contractor in
>the excruciating position Thiokol was in and compare their performance,
>I consider it unfair to single out Thiokol for not dealing well with
>improper NASA pressure.

Unfair?  More than 2 1/2 years delay in shuttle launching, 7 fine
people killed, 7 families in sorrow, etc. and you would consider it
unfair to deal harshly with Thiokol?  I'm afraid those families (and I)
don't share your compassion for Thiokol.  You think it's better to let
them get away with caving in under pressure than to make an example of
them?  I think it would be better to do a good deal of "house cleaning"
and give the very clear message that honor and integrity are more
valuable than any schedule, contract, or $.  In my opinion, anything
less is unfair and demoralizing.

OK - Rockwell made the same mistake and got away with it.  You can bet
they would be less likely to try to get away with it a second time if
Thiokol had been badly "burned"!

===============================================================   _____   __
Bill Anderson                  ..tektronix!reed!cvedc!wanderson  |   __| / /
Computervision                     ..sun!cvbnet!cvedc!wanderson  |  (   / /
14952 NW Greenbrier Parkway                FAX   (503) 645-4734  |   \_/ /
Beaverton, Oregon 97006                    Phone (503) 645-2410  \______/

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 02:35:13 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space

In article <8811181315.aa26710@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") writes:
>
>Everyone seems to assume that management of the US space program
>is so incredibly skewed in favor of short-term goals and short-
>term ready-for-prime-time payoffs that plans for something like
>establishment of a manufacturing facility on the Moon's surface,
>making LOX or structural aluminum or silicon for solar panels or
>whatever would never never EVER stand a chance of making it thru
>the budget process.
>
>Is this in fact the assumption ?

Probably not, because the poster has fatally blurred the very real
distinctions among *management*, *funding* and *leadership* of the US
space program.  NASA does the managing, and they are far-sighted indeed
if you listen to what they're planning.  Always have been, near as I
can tell.  If NASA called the shots all the way, we'd be doing all
sorts of fun stuff I'm sure.  But they don't - they're spending my
money and they have to get it from my Congressional representatives.
That means a political game to play -- such is life in a republic.  The
White House, if sufficiently motivated, can provide *leadership* to
guide Congress to higher NASA funding levels, as has been done with SDI
even in the face of public apathy as reflected in the polls.  If this
leadership is lacking, Congress has louder mouths to feed than NASA and
will feed them.

The poster then hauls out the hoary railroad analogy.  If I hear this
one more time I'm going to go out and buy a conductor's cap. <grin>
That was then, this is now.  Congress had land to grant.  Space cannot
be granted.  Individual barons and investor corporations made a bundle
using rail to link pre-existing communities founded on ship travel.
Had railroad technology existed in Pilgrim times, folks would have gone
stone bankrupt trying to build rail lines to nowhere.  That's where we
are today.  We also have huge multinationals as well as four
spacefaring regions on Earth (US, USSR, Japan, Europe).  Let someone
besides the middle-class American homeowner foot the bill for space
industry if it's going to be so profitable, because he won't see the
fruits if it is, I guarantee you.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 88  13:51:04 EST
From: Castell%UMASS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
      (a voice crying in the wilderness...)
Subject: Re: Relativity acceleration question

portal!cup.portal.com!Nanook@uunet.uu.net (Mike Backdraft Robert) writes:

> Working on the above concept, have they been able to measure any deff-
> inate subjective temoral differences for satalites in orbit? Has anyone
> ever bothered to send up a "cheep atomic clock", and see how accurate
> it would be in orbit compared to on the ground. (don't flame me for
> "cheep atomic clock". I know it's a contradiction of terms.)

Back in the 50's, they (the omni-everything "they" who are responsible
for things like this) loaded up several atomic clocks in the backs
of B-52's and flew them back and forth across the continent several
times. They consistently deviated from a synchronized control clock
at NBS on the order of several nanoseconds. Now several nanoseconds
ain't much, but it's outside the error range of the clocks, and the
deviations matched the relativistic calculations of what they should
be. I don't know the exact numbers, like you, I'm just another sf buff
who's too lazy to work out the physics himself.
                                                    -Chip.

(    )  Chip Olson, 808-B McNamara, UMass, Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 546-4474.
(@::@)  Bitnet:     Castell@UMass.Bitnet
 \\//   Internet:   Castell%UMass.Bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
 (oo)   UUCP:       {blah!blah!blah}!mit-eddie!castell@umass.bitnet
  ""

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 14:38:39 GMT
From: hadron!klr@decuac.dec.com  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Subject: STS - 27 and implications for the Space Telescope


If, STS-27 does launch a KH-12, it should serve as good news for the
Space Telescope folks.  The KH-12 and the Space Telescope are reputed to
be close in size and shape, one being a telescope pointing outward, and
the other .... :-)

Maybe this is just a dry run for the launch of the Space Telescope.
Afterall, there is only one Space Telescope. :-)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 15:54:54 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!lad-shrike!milano!kepler!richter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charlie Richter)
Subject: Re: Quayle in charge of space policy

> The election is over. Democratic campaign propaganda no longer serves any
> purpose (if it ever did). I still have not heard any good reason to assume
> that Quayle, if he is given the oversight of the space program, will cause
> any harm to the space effort.

You're missing an important point here, Phil, and it has nothing
to do with campaign propaganda.  I think a lot of us would like to
see someone who'll do more than just "not harm" the space effort.
If Bush wants to take an active role in setting a direction, let
him assign that task to someone who *knows* something about space.
Quayle (or Bentsen, had Dukakis been elected) is not the kind of
person I have in mind.  I'm thinking of someone who has both a
strong technical background and a vision of the future -- someone
like Henry Spencer.

Face it, the easiest way for *any* president to appear to be doing
something about an issue while in fact doing nothing about it is to
put his vice president in charge of it.
-- 
Charlie Richter   MCC   Austin, Texas
  uucp: richter@milano.uucp     arpa: richter@mcc.com
"The panic ... was not due to anything fundamentally weak in either business
   or finance.  It was confined to the market itself."   - WSJ, Oct. 31, 1929

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 19:07:36 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Conserving Resources (was: Resources of Io)

In article <2655@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> baron@uhccux.UUCP (Baron Fujimoto) writes:
>Actually, if I am not mistaken, the native hawaiians did pretty well
>as far as living in harmony with their environment.  They had a very
>strong sense of conservation, or at least, resource management.  For
>exampple, they would periodically kapu (make off limits) certain
>shorelines to prevent overfishing, or when making feather cloaks for
>the ali'i they would only take a few feathers from each bird, and then
>release it.  Interestingly, the Hawaiians (and most polynesian cultures
>I think) had no concept of land ownership before contact with europeans.

Recent studies show the Polynesians did indeed cause ecological
damage.  A large number of bird species in Hawaii went extinct when
they arrived.  This pattern is repeated across the Pacific.  The most
horrific case I know of is Easter island, where deforestation led to a
collapse of the island's carrying capacity and mass warfare and
cannibalism.  Lack of land ownership causes a "tragedy of the
commons".

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 18:22:43 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Helium-3 sources (was Re: Oxygen from the moon)

In article <69@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Where in the solar system would He-3 be found in the highest concentrations?

Probably the atmosphere of Jupiter.  Mining it from there will present a
few little problems, however.

>... Are there any other interesting isotopes that are difficult to  
>obtain on Earth, but might be found in quantity elsewhere?

I can't think of any.  Helium-3 is sort of a special case:  it's too light
for the Earth to have held onto any of its original supply, and too inert
for chemical reactions to have tied it up.  The helium on Earth is mostly
alpha particles from radioactive decay, a source that produces almost
exclusively helium-4.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #138
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Nov 88 07:02:31 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00980>; Wed, 30 Nov 88 06:02:35 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 30 Nov 88 06:02:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0XYx4wy00Vs1A1CU4v>;
          Wed, 30 Nov 88 05:45:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.kXYwiiy00UkZ41rU5n>;
          Wed, 30 Nov 88 05:21:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sXYwexy00UkZ41qE5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 05:17:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #139

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Oct 17 AW&ST
		       Re: Teleoperated Robots
		Re: Teleoperation, Robots and Autonomy
		Re: Teleoperation, Robots and Autonomy
			   Re: Pluto's day
		       Old stuff in a new light
		     Re: Old stuff in a new light
		  Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST
			       Plunder?
		 Re: Relativity acceleration question
		  Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 06:34:34 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Oct 17 AW&ST

[A light news week.]

Congress forces SDI to give NASA $96.5M in FY89 funds for ALS propulsion
technology work.  [There is considerable unhappiness about SDI being a
major -- probably the major -- customer for ALS but not helping to fund it.]

Soviet officials say they will appeal the US ban on US commercial use of
Proton.  State Dept says US position will not change.

SDI plans a new launch vehicle for the Space-Based Interceptor, possibly
a derivative of existing military missiles.  ALS remains important to
launch Phase 2 weapons, which will be much bigger and heavier.

SDI changes Zenith Star space laser experiment to a two-parter, so it can
use Titan 4 launches rather than needing its own improvised heavylift
launcher.  The optics will go up first, followed by the laser, for a
teleoperated docking [a first for the US], possibly in late 1993.

STS-26 crew remarks on relatively small number of problems experienced
on their flight, a slight surprise considering the number of changes to
the orbiter since 51L.

Letter from Gary A. Davis, observing that the cost and development
problems attributed to the space-station rescue vehicle are unnecessary,
since Apollo hardware is well-proven and flight-tested [if perhaps a bit
of work to revive] and there is no need to start development all over.

Letter from O.P. Harwood:

	"...NASA has developed such an inflated belief in its capabilities
	that in this round [of space station design] the agency appointed
	itself prime contractor.  The resulting edifice in Reston VA, now
	filled with compliant bureaucrats, is designed to ensure that the
	contractors and NASA centers will be overcompensated for as little
	as they accomplish.

	"Not long ago somebody else summed it up:  `As long as NASA exists,
	the American public will harbor the delusion that we have a space
	program.'  The cure is obvious."
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 18:12:39 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots

In article <977@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>In article <439@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes:
>>   The Lunar Society's work is aimed at teloperated assistants for a
>>Moon Base.
>
>And a good way of testing them would be to build the base.
>
>All ready for moving into when people can get there.

Uh, please think before posting.  This is a silly suggestion.  You're
sending human beings -- by far the best mobile, dextrous, autonomous
robots we've got :-) -- up anyway.  It's a base/colony, not just a brief
visit, so they'll be up there for a while.  Why in the world do you want
to perform heroic feats of high technology just to save them a few weeks'
assembly work?  Given the task, the environment, and the bloody annoying
speed-of-light lag, this is well beyond even research-lab teleoperation
technology, never mind what's shaken down well enough to be available off
the shelf.  Cost-effective?  More like cost-ridiculous.

Note what Alastair said:  "assistants".  Not replacements.  Things like
teleoperated bulldozers *are* pretty much off-the-shelf technology now,
and could be quite useful.  All the more so if a bit of computerization
can help compensate for the speed-of-light lag.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 18:30:52 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Teleoperation, Robots and Autonomy

In article <8811190041.AA00670@angband.s1.gov> Kevin.Dowling@ROVER.RI.CMU.EDU writes:
>>... My comment still stands.  The FTS is a very simple widget that
>>could, at about the limits of its capabilities, unplug a box and plug
>>in another one.  This is nothing like what you were proposing.
>
>Henry is somewhat pessimistic regarding teleoperation and even more so, I
>assume, regarding autonomy. However, there is historical precedence for many
>capable teleoperators in space as well as on earth...
>[discussion of various activities, notably CMU work at Three Mile Island]

I still stand by my comments.  The systems Kevin describes, while they are
interesting (thanks for posting about them!), do not have hands.  That's
the big problem.  I've never questioned the practicality of teleoperated
bulldozers.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 06:51:09 GMT
From: master!rburns@sun.com  (Randy Burns)
Subject: Re: Teleoperation, Robots and Autonomy

I actually think that the use of Teleoperated Robots could make it
unnecessary for people to *man* a moon base for purposes of supplying
mass to produce satellites. This could really the be way space
industrialization takes off.

I expect it will first become more common in things like coal-mining and
undersea mining. Gee, it could actually make these jobs *fun*
instead of just dangerous.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 18:44:18 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Pluto's day

In article <881117-135526-2328@Xerox>, Lynn.ElSegundo@XEROX.COM writes:
> Although many satellites have rotations synchronized to revolution, Pluto
> is the only planet synchronized to its satellite.  But then, Charon is by
> far the largest satellite as a fraction of its planet, and one would expect

I believe that before Charon's discovery, the Earth's moon held the
honor of being largest relative to its planet.  So much so that the
Earth-moon could be considered a binary planet system.  What is Charon's
mass a percentage of Pluto?

BTW, I think it's ironic that a few years ago astronomers were
considering revoking Pluto's planethood -- Pluto was to be relegated to
the status of renegade asteroid or lost moon of Neptune or some other
excuse to boot it out of the country club.  Back to 8 planets.  Now that
Pluto has its own moon, and a big one at that, I guess its status is
secure.
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 13:55:25 GMT
From: umigw!gables!gtww2z9z%gables.span@handies.ucar.edu  (Jason Gross)
Subject: Old stuff in a new light

I know this is probably a terrible way to begin my first day on the net, but
I just have to do this being so keenly interested in the space program (i've
lived next to Kennedy all my life).

I think the words I'm looking for are:

ATOMIC BOMB DROP!

Whoever that idiot is out there who said the "the dream is alive, but not at 
NASA"  has got to be the most gullible people I know!  We have an accident
that unloads a seeming tide of dirty laundry and everyone thinks its all over.
Don't y'all remember that NASA has only had two three fatal spacecraft-related
accidents in its history (Apollo 1, Challenger, and a guy getting cuaght in
a shuttle's space full of nitrogen)!  Don't y'all remember that this is the
same agency that put up 25 successful shuttle flights before Challenger, 12
successful Apollo flights (I didn't count Apollo 13, but that ended well,
thanks to NASA, a bit of luck) including 6 moon landings, three space
station missions, and all those Gemini and Mercury flights?  Hmmm?

(Okay, I think the A-bomb has blown over, so the flame ends here)

I do believe that this country and NASA do need a cohesive space policy and
some long-term goals set, not just vague generalities (uh, I think we'll
get a space station up sometime around 1994, maybe).  The Soviets do
have definite plan in mind:  Set up a permanently manned station and get
to Mars.  Mir has a multiple docking port (much like Skylab) which can
be used as ports to different modules brought up by Buran.   It's true
that they are now killing us when it comes to longevity in space, but not
in innovation.  The Soviet space program has been less guided by new (and,
yes, risky) ideas, rather it has been guided by "let's just keep using this
and eventually we'll have it down to a reliable science."  That's why
things seem to work so well now over there.  They have just used the same
ideas and methods until only some drunken worker could screw thing up.  It
is interesting that they were able to pilot Buran remotely.  Wow, remote control
isn't really a new topic, is it now.

Well, I could go on and on and on and on about this subject, but I'm sure y'all
are ready to drop dead from boredom so I'll give you a break.  If you
feel the need to respond, the address is below.  Have a happy Thanksgiving!

-- 
Jason Gross     Comp Sci Ugrad     University of Miami     Class of '92 (?)
===========================================================================
"Women.  You can't live   | Mail your invigorating replies to:      | For
with them, and you can't  |  GTWW2Z9Z%Gables.Span@Umigw.Miami.Edu   | Sale:
shoot them, either."      |  (What a lovely address, isn't it now?) | $.05
======================================================== IBM Sucks Silicon!

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 21:39:06 GMT
From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: Old stuff in a new light

In article <gables.196@umigw.miami.edu> gtww2z9z%gables.span@umigw.miami.edu (Jason Gross) writes:
>... The Soviets do
>have definite plan in mind:  Set up a permanently manned station and get
>to Mars.  Mir has a multiple docking port (much like Skylab) which can
>be used as ports to different modules brought up by Buran.   It's true
>that they are now killing us when it comes to longevity in space, but not
>in innovation.  The Soviet space program has been less guided by new (and,
>yes, risky) ideas, rather it has been guided by "let's just keep using this
>and eventually we'll have it down to a reliable science."  That's why
>things seem to work so well now over there.  They have just used the same
>ideas and methods until only some drunken worker could screw thing up. ...

Let me get this straight...the Soviet have reliable system for placing
people and material into orbit, but are "behind" in the space race?

Yeah, sure.

The basic point is that there is only one good criteria for measuring
success: results. The Soviets are getting them and we aren't. We have
several very impressive projects that are just sitting on the ground
waiting to be launched (the space telescope, Galieo), but we can't
launch them. The Soviets could. So, who is winning the space race?

Flashy high-tech boosters may look very nice in the magazines, but
they are worthless unless they work. The Soviet boosters may not be 
very fancy, but they do work.
-- 
Never be angry when a fool acts like a		David Pugh
fool.  It's better when fools identify		....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep
themselves...it removes so much uncertainty.
			--Lord Peace
--

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 20:36:29 GMT
From: amdcad!diablo!phil@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST

In article <1091@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
|Remember the name of the comany that won the SRM contract was THIOKOL.

Seems to me that the Thiokol proposal was a design which had the joint
rotation problem. In other words, the technical problem was there from
the beginning. Didn't Thiokol have enough experience to know this
wouldn't work? Or were they just trying to make something cheap enough
to win the bid? 


--

Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com
{uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 17:01:49 GMT
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Plunder?

In article <177@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:

>	Name one civilization in the southern hemisphere that did plunder.

The ecological damage done by the Maori was replicated over much of
Oceania during its colonisation.  The occupation of sub-Saharan Africa
by the Bantu was a similar disaster.  Apart from the virtual extermination
of the previous inhabitants, such as the Bushmen, and the slaughter of
the wildlife, the whole basis of Bantu civilisation - the cow - was
the cause of serious problems.  The need for grass led to burning,
deforestation, and desertification.  The compulsion to accumulate kine
far beyond what was useful led to immense pressure on the land and a
pattern of forced migrations that caused turmoil over much of Southern
Africa, culminating in the thirty years slaughter that depopulated
what is now the Transvaal.  When the Voortrekkers entered that land,
they found less than one village in twenty undestroyed, and skeletons
of men and cattle littered every trail route for miles.

Although it's North of the Equator, we should also remember the Mayan
method of agriculture - based again on "slash-and-burn" with neither
rotation of crops nor any attempt at land regeneration.  This caused
the farms to move gradually outwards from the cities, as the land
became exhausted, until eventually the city could no longer be fed and
they had to found a new one.  Exhaustion of the soil almost certainly
led to the collapse of the Old Empire.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 23:20:34 GMT
From: jupiter!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Relativity acceleration question


The atomic clocks on the Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation
satellites are adjusted to compensate for relativistic effects. Because they
are mostly out of the earth's gravity well, they run slightly faster in
orbit than on the earth's surface.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 04:35:14 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST

In article <644@otto.cvedc.UUCP> billa@otto.UUCP (Bill Anderson) writes:
>In article <7734@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>Thiokol was concurrently negotiating a contract renewal.  The pressure
>>to "go along" under those circumstances is unbearable...
>>                           Until and unless we put every contractor in
>>the excruciating position Thiokol was in and compare their performance,
>>I consider it unfair to single out Thiokol for not dealing well with
>>improper NASA pressure.
>
>Unfair?  More than 2 1/2 years delay in shuttle launching, 7 fine
>people killed, 7 families in sorrow, etc. and you would consider it
>unfair to deal harshly with Thiokol?  

Bill should respond to the points in the article, not to a strawman.  I
will reiterate, Thiokol should not be *singled out* for vengeance
because it gave in to *improper* NASA pressure.  There is no reason to
suspect other key NASA contractors would have done any better under the
circumstances.  Nor is Thiokol solely responsible for the 51L disaster
as Bill well knows.  Improper leak check pressure probably holed the
putty, and additional flaws may have been induced by the Rockwell crew
in the VAB bay.  Should we shoot everyone involved?  Will that bring
back the dead?

>                                     I'm afraid those families (and I)
>don't share your compassion for Thiokol.  You think it's better to let
>them get away with caving in under pressure than to make an example of
>them?  

The program can ill afford your "examples."  We need new boosters
to get the program back on track.  NASA should have second sourced
the SRMs years ago but didn't -- now it's too late.  Second sourcing
is a much handier stick to beat a vendor with than contract renewal.

>      I think it would be better to do a good deal of "house cleaning"
>and give the very clear message that honor and integrity are more
>valuable than any schedule, contract, or $.  In my opinion, anything
>less is unfair and demoralizing.

Hey, pass that over here, don't bogart it.  Thanks <nnnpphhhhttt! O-O-O>.
Seriously, contracts and $$ are *pre-requisites* for honor and integrity
in the aerospace biz!  These vendors have oodles of integrity but
they only get to apply it if they're W-O-R-K-I-N-G.  You cannot teach
them by "example" that it's better to put their corporate life at
risk than to put a flight at risk, when NASA wants it the second way.
A couple such "examples" and you simply won't get bids... meanwhile
Ivan is blasting off weekly.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #139
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Dec 88 10:12:25 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01482>; Thu, 1 Dec 88 08:45:39 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  1 Dec 88 08:45:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sXZIdpy00jZdM1jk41>;
          Thu,  1 Dec 88 08:34:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XZHXVy00UkT012U44>;
          Thu,  1 Dec 88 07:19:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.gXZFpQy00UkZQ27E4t>;
          Thu,  1 Dec 88 05:22:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XZFkxy00UkZM2604u@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  1 Dec 88 05:17:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #140

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 140

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Oxygen from the moon
       Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]
		      Re: Advanced Launch System
      Re: Landing on the Moon (Was: Is there water on the Moon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Mon, 21 Nov 88 17:29:20 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Robert Jesse Hale III            <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>

Sorry about the Delay...   Progress report from ISECCO OCT 27.
Robert J. Hale III

=> #46 ACAD3A::FSRRC       Thu 27 Oct 1988  00:57  (  48) U*

PROGRESS  REPORT:   The International Space  Exploration  and  Colonization
Company   (ISECCo) has been developing the preliminary  hydroponic  systems
needed in our biosphere project.  These preliminary systems will be used to
determine the quantity needed and to determine the most effective method of
hydroponics in terms of weight and space.  We have built 2 systems so  far;
one  based on the normal 'box' technology (which, if gravel is used,  would
be  unacceptably  heavy  for an orbiting  biosphere--however  it  would  be
ideally  suited to other planetary surfaces so we are including several  in
our  experiments).   The other hydroponic system we've built is a  4"  pipe
which will be filled with gravel and has holes drilled in it for the plants
to  grow out of.  As a slight variation on that we cut one of the pipes  in
half  to provide 2 long narrow trays (this one may not  provide  sufficient
space  for the roots of most plants but if we can make it work it  is  very
efficient in terms of weight.)  None of these systems has been set up  yet.
I  hope to get the pipe systems set up in my bedroom and get crops  growing
at our next meeting.
     One  method  of hydroponics uses a drip technique, draining  down  the
roots  of the plant.  This necesitates a container to hold the plant and  I
think gallon milk jugs would work wonderfully.  So those of you who like to
drink  milk I'd really appreciate it if you'd save your  gallon  containers
for  me (especially those of you up here--it may prove more costly than  it
is worth to mail them up from stateside).
     Things are progressing in California where Jenine and Gina are working
on  "The Effects of Atmospheric Pressure on Plant Growth." Alfalfa  sprouts
are the test subjects as they grow fairly quickly, (7" in a week) and there
are  many plants in a small sample.  They hope to be able to grow  about  3
generations  to obtain a good statistical base.  The  containment  chambers
are  using a mixture of 95% air and 5% carbon dioxide.  Lights  are  sodium
lamps.   Latest  report:  "Yes, our plants are growing, but we  are  having
trouble.   We have been unable to get the containers to hold  pressure  for
more than about 5 or 6 hours.  Especially the one with the partial vaccuum.
We've  been going crazy with it."  I foresee the same sort of problem  when
we  build the biosphere: sealing the walls and entrances.   Hopefully  they
can come up with a solution which will help us!!

     Any of you out there who haven't yet joined and are interested  please
do so.  Our minimum membership is only $5 for an entire decade; I've  never
yet  met anyone who couldn't come up with $5!!!  Anyone who wants  to  join
can just send Robert, FNRJH@ALASKA, or myself a note on here and we'll send
you a letter with the information we'll need.

                                                 --Ray :: President, ISECCo

cc:  Ron,  Robert, James, Robert, Robin, Tim, Tamara,  Karen,  Ken,  Arvid,
Matt,  Don, Dean, Gene, Curt, Clay, Cal, Debi, Joe, Jenine,  Morgan,  Rich,
Jody, Mike, John

Also for release to Space Digest on BitNet.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 09:31:46 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the moon

Paul Dietz wrote:
>   
>   Those figures of $100 billion setup, $2500/lb LOX are obviously
>   bogus.  They depend on $4000/lb cost to LEO, but if you're going
>   to buy 250,000 tons of LOX (cost: > 1 trillion dollars) it
>   obviously makes sense to invest a few $10 B in better launch
>   systems.  

True.  Note however that if Earth-to-LEO launch costs are reduced, the
plant will have to to produce _more_ lunar oxygen in order to break
even.  This is because the value of lunar oxygen will go down faster
than the cost of the plant.  

For example, let's assume $20 billion of your $100 billion estimate is
due to non-transportation items (development, construction, ground
support, etc.  If Earth-to-LEO launch costs are reduced by a factor of
10, to $400/lb, the cost of the plant will be reduced to $28 billion,
i.e.  28% of the original cost, but the value of oxygen in LEO will be
only 10% of the original value.  So, instead of 250,000 tons, you will
need to produce (and consume) 2.8 * 250,000 = 700,000 tons of LOX to
break even.  (Let's ignore the fact that the plant would have to be
somewhat bigger, hence more expensive to build.) This is about 80
tons/day for 20 years, and requires a space program big enough to use
$14 billion/year worth of oxygen in LEO.  

Alastair Mayer writes
>   
>   More realistic (read, "cheaper") ways of getting the LOX off the moon 
>   include ... mass drivers and tethers.

The problem with the mass driver (as it is usually described) is that
it can launch only small parcels (tens of pounds), so in addition to
the LOX plant and the launcher you will need a Thermos(TM) bottle
factory capable of manufacturing thousands of bottles a day.
Those bottles had better be pretty strong, since they will have to
withstand several tons of force during launch, and a single failure is
likely to blow away a good piece of your launcher.  What is more, you
will need an unbottling plant somewhere near the moon, able to catch
all those bottles and empty their contents into more convenient
containers.  (You can replace the bottles by blocks of some oxygen rich
solid, or even lunar rock, but this only shifts part of the LOX factory
from the moon to lunar orbit, without making it any cheaper.) 

As for tethered schemes, they are basically an accounting trick: their
ability to lift payloads comes at the expense of their own orbital
energy, so the fuel that you "save" is at best equal to what you paid
to put them up there.  You can get real savings only if most of the
system's mass was already in space to beging with (e.g., an asteroid).
But then, what do you want the moon for, if you can catch an asteroid...  

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi

DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are just that, opinions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The members estimated that casting and boring the cannon; the masonry;
relocating the workers, housing them in a still uninhabited area; building
furnaces, workshops, and plant; buying the powder and the shell; and
paying all the operating, maintenance, and capital expenses would
easily absorb most of the five and a half million dollars subscribed.
    ---Jules Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 19:38:40 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]

In article <18420@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) writes:
> 	that the second stage collapsed. In any case, the rocket fell
> 	back on the pad and blew up. Everything within a mile was either
> 	destroyed or heavily damaged in the fiery explosion. THe gantry
> 	observation towers, support equipment, and pieces of the launch pad 
> 	itself flew in all directions, while some of the attending 
> 	Soviet engineers perished."

Well, this jibes perfectly with the rumored story that I alluded
to in last week's respone to the original posting that started
this thread.  Big rocket, blew up, wrecked the launch complex
and even killed some engineers/scientists.

However, in that article I questioned whether you can really get a
big explosion out of a failed rocket.  A big messy fireball, yes,
that would probably melt and destroy the gantry along with the
crew.  But "everything within a mile?"  And the people in the
blockhouse?  Maybe if the two tanks of hypergolic fuels
crunched together you could get a fairly explosive fire?

Anyway, I have to agree with this latest posting, that this was
a real act of desperation on the Soviets' part.  It probably
set their space program back several years -- if so, maybe
Apollo was worth it politically, tho one can argue that Apollo
set *ours* back even more.  Myself, I'm just glad that we walked
on the moon.
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 00:16:08 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Advanced Launch System

In a previous article Henry Spencer writes:
> respoding to THE VIKING:
> >...I'm curious about the advanced launch
> >system project. I've heard that one of its primary goals is also the reduction
> >of launch costs. Is this the projects only goal, or are there competing
> >considerations?
> 
> Yes.  A whole bunch of them.  Anyone who seriously expects ALS to be really
> cheap probably believes in the Easter bunny.  Quite apart from the fact
> that it's being run by those masters of low-cost technology, the USAF, 
> there is a more fundamental problem in that ALS is yet another launch
> system that is going to be all things to all users.  Not a good recipe
> for low cost.
>
Before I started to work on the Space Station, I was a systems engineer
on Boeing's Advanced Launch System project.   While I cannot speak
from experience for any of the other contractors , I can at least
give you my knowledge about my work there.

The primary goal of the ALS is to lower the average operations cost
per pound by a factor of ten from the Titan IV launch vehicle.  The
specified input cost for the Titan IV is $3,600 per pound, thus the
ALS goal is $360/lb.  This is to be achieved at a flight rate of
25 launches per year with a payload capacity of 150,000 lb.  For
those who can't do the arithmetic, that means a per launch cost
of $54 million for the ALS vs $140,million for the Titan IV.

Yes, the traffic model we were told to assume lists just about
every payload in existence that doesn't require the Shuttle.  It
was also fairly heavily dependant on SDI traffic.  Either a lot
of small interceptor missiles or a fewer number of large directed
energy (laser or particle beam) weapon platforms.  Thus, if the
assumed SDI traffic does not materialize, then the optimum size
and flight rate of the ALS gets smaller, and the $ per pound goes up.

}iThe major single cause for cost reduction is the larger size
of the ALS.  Things like propellant tanks don't get much more
expensive with size, and things like gyroscopes and control
computers are not affected at all by the size of the rocket.  Hence
the cost per pound tends to go down.~r

Size alone accounts for about a facotr of 3-5 out of the factor of 10
reduction in cost.  The rest is mostly due to not using solid rockets
and using automated checkout rather than manual checkout (very labort
intensive).


> >What is the current status of the project?
> 
> It might be flying by the year 2000.  Maybe.  (The people actually doing
> it will quote you slightly earlier dates -- but only slightly -- but they
> aren't allowing for further schedule slips.)

At the moment the Boeing ALS program is un-funded and all of the people
are off doing something else.  A previous funding gap (a bureaucratic
problem, not getting congressional appropriation) was the proximate
cause of my now working on Space Station.  Presumably the Air Force will
work this out and it will be funded sometime this fiscal year.

The program is in the early 'Validation' phase.  At Boeoing this means
we will build a core tank to prove the manufacturing techniques and
the cost.  The mzajor task is booster engine component development.
A new reuseable liquid booster engine is the critical item needed
for the ALS that has to be developed.  It would burn either LOX/RP-1
(a type of purified kerosine) with 7% hydrogen used to cool the
engine walls then mixed and burned; or LOX/methane, with or
without hydrogen cooling.  The main job in validation phase is
to prove the engine components will work as required and to
select the propellant combination.  This phase will last another
2 or three years, depending on funding.

Then it goes into 'full scale development', taking another 4-6
years, again depending on funding.

a> 
> > Does there appear
> >to be reason to hope that the government and the aerospace corpocracy will
> >achieve a dramatic reduction in launch costs ($100/lbs is music to my ears)?

If you merely used the Space Shuttle as a cargo only vehicle, you could
get about 180,000 pounds into earth orbit for the same launch cost you spend
now.  This would give you a factor of 4 reduction from whatever the
Shuttle costs now.  A higher flight rate would amortize the $1,700 million
per year fixed overhead for the Shuttle over a larger number of
launches, leading to a lower average cost per flight.  The ALS is not
much of a reduction over such a cargo shuttle (maybe a factor of 2).

With conventional rocket programs as practiced by the government, you
won't go much lower.  For example, assume that the winged, reuseable
booster Boeing has in it's ALS concept only lasts the 25 launches
the Shuttle Orbiter has demonstrated.  With a generous flight rate
of 25 per year, you only need to produce 1 booster per year to
replenish the fleet.  This is not a heck of a lot of booster production.
The empty booster is a bit larger in dry weight than a 767 aircraft.
At a production rate of 1 per year, it doesn't make sense to do
much automated assembly or manufacturing.  So basically, the booster
will be a hand-built item, costing about ten times more than a
comparable aircraft.  If it lasts the 100-200 flights you design
it for, then your whole fleet of boosters is one batch of a half
dozen or so.  With that few units, they each will be expensive.

To go much beyond the 300-500 dollar perpound point you have to
(a) use a different type of propulsion, and or
(b) get much higher production runs of flight hardware, and or
(c) get fully reuseable

Even the ALS as designed by Boeing used up a half pound of second
stage tank and payload fairing per pound of payload delivered
to orbit.  Tanks and fairings are comparatively cheap, since they
are simple structure rather than engines and electronics, but they
still contribute about $70 per pound of payload to orbit.  

So to go to lower launch costs, you cannot afford to throw away
manufactured hardware.

Time to get off my soapbox.  If you have any more questions,
I'll be happy to dig up what I can from reports I have
at home, or point you to someone I worked with who might have
an answer.


-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 18:35:02 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Landing on the Moon (Was: Is there water on the Moon)

>How about if the moon were "behind", travelling in the same direction, but
>NOT overtaking.  There must be some narrow band of velocities in which the
>lunar gravity would slow the object.  If it were JUST right, the moon would
>touch it just as the relative motion stopped, but before it began its
>"moonward" acceleration (really was always accelerating, but no positive
>component in that direction).  Then it would jjjjuuuusssssssttttttt
>(streach out the word) very softly touch down on the forward (direction
>of motion) side of the moon.

The gravity of any body is an acceleration towards that body.  This means
that the velocity towards that body is increasing, or away from the body
is decreasing.  If you touch the Moon's surface at zero velocity at t=0,
it means that you were going AWAY from the moon when t<0. In other words,
you were INSIDE it.  Before you posit a clever system of tunnels, remember
that you INCREASE speed as you drop below the surface, so you will always
have to be at zero velocity at the lunar surface when you enter the tunnels
if you want to be at zero velocity when you leave.  

Another way to think about this is to consider that gravity is a conservative
field, that is, any closed path in a gravity field results in no change in
energy under normal circumstances.  If you could get a body from above the
Moon, to its surface, without a velocity change, then the reverse would
have to be true as well.  The existence of rocket engines implies that
such is not the case.  It takes work to get out of a gravity well, and you
get that work back (whether you want it or not) dropping back in.

If that still doesn't grab you, compare the Moon-Earth system to the Earth-Sun
system.  Is there any place at all above you where you can jump from and
land on the ground without making a big splat?  The fact that you are orbiting
around the Sun with the Earth in your vicinity doesn't make it any easier to
reach the Earth's surface.

If I have not convinced you by now, well, I've got this great bridge in 
New York...   :-)

-- 
Keith Lofstrom   ...!tektronix!vice!keithl   keithl@vice.TEK.COM
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #140
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Dec 88 12:45:41 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02023>; Thu, 1 Dec 88 10:17:53 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  1 Dec 88 10:17:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXZJgDy00jZd01hE5n>;
          Thu,  1 Dec 88 09:45:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.QXZJSjy00UkZ82jE4:>;
          Thu,  1 Dec 88 09:31:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cXZJPqy00UkZM2hU4J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  1 Dec 88 09:28:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #141

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 141

Today's Topics:
			Re: US Goals in Space
		   Re: Buran (was: Stranded in LEO)
		       Re: Oxygen from the moon
		Re: Stranded in LEO due to APU failure
		      Re: Helium 3 from the moon
		     Re: private space operations
			       toilets
	  Re: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST (STS-27 payload)
		chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 11:11:51 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space

In article <7828@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

>NASA does the managing, and they are far-sighted indeed
>if you listen to what they're planning.  Always have been, near as I
>can tell. 

Having worked at a NASA center, I disagree.
NASA has one of the lowest research budgets of any government agency
set up for research, and you call them farsighted?  NASA's goals are
the same now as they were right after Apollo, and they're even more 
obsolete.  If NASA was farsighted they would be spending much more 
money on space industrialization, planetary exploration, electric 
and nuclear propulsion, mass drivers, tethers, optical communications,
etc. instead of spending billions trying to squeeze the last erg of 
efficiency out of chemical rockets, and trying to put crude capsules
in space and calling these 'habitats.'

>The poster then hauls out the hoary railroad analogy.  If I hear this
>one more time I'm going to go out and buy a conductor's cap. <grin>
>That was then, this is now.  Congress had land to grant.  Space cannot
>be granted.  

Why not?  How else can space resources be divied up?

>Individual barons and investor corporations made a bundle
>using rail to link pre-existing communities founded on ship travel.
>Had railroad technology existed in Pilgrim times, folks would have gone
>stone bankrupt trying to build rail lines to nowhere.

Instead folks built and sailed hundreds of ships, and governments granted 
land in the New World, to practically anybody who was willing to settle
there.

>[multinational corporations will profit from space]
>Let someone
>besides the middle-class American homeowner foot the bill for space
>industry if it's going to be so profitable, because he won't see the
>fruits if it is, I guarantee you.

Who buys the products of the multinationals?  Middle-class America 
consumes a big chunk.  Communications, weather, (and maybe) pharmaceuticals,
electricity, precious metals, etc.; whatever is produce in space, 
middle America will be among the first to benefit from it (assuming the
Sovs will export it  :-(       )

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 18:26:03 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Buran (was: Stranded in LEO)

In article <1293@muddcs.Claremont.EDU> mwilkins@muddcs.UUCP (Mark Wilkins) writes:
>... no jets on the actual spacecraft.  Those things on the back are
>ENGINE MOCKUPS provided to keep the aerodynamic features the same as ours.

Uh, please think again, Buran's aerodynamics are already significantly
different from the US shuttle.  (For example, the wing is not quite the
same shape, despite superficial similarity, and the OMS pods aren't there
[or at least weren't there before launch -- I haven't yet seen in-flight
photos].)

>   Dr. Nelson also pointed out that the thing was within 3% of ours in every
>dimension.  Hmm...

I wonder where he's getting his numbers.  Flight International estimated
Buran to be 10% larger than the US shuttle.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Mon, 21 Nov 88 17:30:04 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Robert Jesse Hale III            <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>

Here is a new Progress report from ISECCo    Nov 21, 1988
Robert J. Hale III

=> #54 ACAD3A::FSRRC       Mon 21 Nov 1988  12:08  (  92) U*


ISECCo PROJECT UPDATE:  The Biosphere Garden.

Background:
     The Biosphere will be, essentually, a garden capable of providing  for
the  needs of its inhabitant.  To determine the area needed we are  in  the
process of developing the hydroponics systems needed to support one person;
once  the  area  is determined the Biosphere shell can  be  built  and  the
hydroponics placed in it.  Preliminary research indicates we shall need  an
area of about 400 square feet (aprox. 45 sq m).
     We shall be experimenting with several different types of  hydroponics
systems  as  well as a soil-based system.  We have already built  about  20
square  feet of hydroponics systems, or about 5% of the  projected  total.
The  systems  we have built are a ceramic based, hay based,  gravel  and  a
liquid based hydroponics.  We expect to select several of these for use  in
the finished biosphere.

     We have 2 methods of hydroponics currently built; one is a water based
one  in which the plants are suspended with their roots hanging  down  into
milk containers (painted black--this is to retard algae growth}.  Seeds are
initially  started  in small bundles of hay and grown that  way  until  the
seedlings  are  about 2' in height.  Then they are transfered to  the  milk
containers  where they will be raised to maturity.  The hay is  sitting  in
about 1" of solution but after transplanting the nutrient solution will  be
dripped down the roots and will exit out the side of the milk container.
     About  15  days  ago  this system was  planted  with  tomatoes,  peas,
cucumber,  brocolli,  and cabbage.  The day after planting we had  grown  a
nice  crop of mold (in spite of having 'sterilized' the straw  in  clorox).
It  is  evident  that a much more vigorous method of  sterilizing  will  be
needed.   We  are currently looking for a pressure sterilizer  (which  will
probably end up being a pressure canner); a couple hours at 15 psi and  300
degrees  should  take care of most deleterious (and, I fear,  all  helpful)
microbes!   But  it was not a complete failure: most of the  peas  and  one
tomatoe survived the mold onslaught.  So far, anyhow!  The peas are comming
along nicely; they are up to about 2' in height.

     We  have  a couple other systems almost ready for planting; one  is  a
4'x4'  box which will be filled with (sterilized!) straw and  planted  with
potatoes.   The hold-up in this project is a sterilizer.  The other  system
is a 10', 4" pipe filled with ceramic insulation and drilled with about  70
1" holes and at our next meeting (December 3rd, for those of you living  in
Fairbanks!) we shall plant it with peas.


ON other matters:
     I  have  done  a  little  investigation  into  remote   communications
equipment  for  the  Aero-space plane: it looks  expensive.   The  quote  I
recieved  was $20,000 for a unit capable of transmitting command, data  and
video (we shall need all 3 for proper control).  Other than cost it  seemed
to  be  just what we need--and only 32 ounces to boot!  Naturally  this  is
quite  out  of our price range at the moment, and is an indication  of  how
expensive  this project is going to be.  (As for this piece of equipment  I
would hope to either obtain a donation or build it ourselves!)
     We  are  still  looking  at  pieces of land  on  which  to  build  the
biosphere.   We do have one piece which could be used, though it  does  not
quite meet all the criteria (too far from the University of Alaska, where I
expect  may  of  our  operations  to be  based  and  may  have  perma-frost
{permanently  frozen  soil} which would prevent  digging).   Another  piece
belongs  to  a  member  who is willing to let us use it,  but  it  is  debt
encumbered  and  thus  could be subject to loss.  A third  place  is  being
investigated.
     In the last month I have had 5 people query me about coming up for all
or  part  of the summer to work for us.  {Pay attention, Jenine!}.   As  of
that  time  we did not have dedicated housing and so while I did  not  tell
them  no  I  did  say 'wait and see'.  This  situation  has  changed.   The
dedicated  housing  now  available  consists  of  a  12'x20'shack   (summer
occupancy for up to 3 people), a trailer (2?) and a mobile home (4?) and  a
bedroom  in  a mobile home (1?).  We do not yet have the finances  to  keep
this many people busy but we've several possibilities so at this point  I'd
say  we could support up to 8 people, though some of these may not be  able
to work on the biosphere due to lack of materials (due to lack of money  to
buy  them!).  However we have plenty of paper-work things to keep  an  army
going;  top on the list is working on grants to get the money to  keep  our
people  working on space-productive projects (other things are  useful  but
not directly related to space!)

     Any of you out there who haven't yet joined and are interested  please
do so.  Our minimum membership is only $5 for an entire decade; I've  never
yet   met anyone who couldn't come up with $5!!!  Those of you who  haven't
joined  by  the  first of the year may be  discontinued  on  these  updates
mailings.   Anyone who wants  to  join can just send Robert,  FNRJH@ALASKA,
or  myself a note on here and we'll send you a letter with the  information
we'll need.  Or you can write ISECCo, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks, AK 99706.

                                                 --Ray :: President, ISECCo
                                                     FSRRC   {FSRRC@ALASKA}

cc:  Ron,  Robert, James, Robert, Robin, Tim, Tamara,  Karen,  Ken,  Arvid,
Matt,  Don, Dean, Gene, Clay, Cal, Debi, Joe, Jenine,  Morgan,  Rich, Jody,
Mike, John, Joe, Jeff, James, Dan, Richard, Travis

Also for release to Space Digest on BitNet.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 18:17:47 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Oxygen from the moon

In article <11883@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com.UUCP (Phil Karn) writes:
>>There is already quite a bit of metal oxide in Earth orbit,
>>because many existing solid-rocket motors use a bit of aluminum for extra
>>energy.
>
>...I find the assertion about Al2O3 in orbit somewhat hard to believe...
>[most of it doesn't end up in orbit]

"I just know what I reads in da papers."  I've seen it mentioned, I think,
in some discussion or other of space debris.  It's possible that either I
or the author made a mistake.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 88 06:07:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxf.cso.uiuc.edu!tmm1898@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Stranded in LEO due to APU failure


I laud the detailed and carefully considered 2nd response to the
base note. I am curious as to whether the author was indeed serious
about his scenarios or was merely attempting to provoke a response.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 18:44:11 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Helium 3 from the moon

In article <13435@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>>   I have seen a serious proposal for mining the regolith for
>>   helium 3, for export to Earth as fusion fuel...
>
>We went through this two years ago.  According to Paul Dietz [1], the
>average concentration of He-3 in lunar soil is around 5 parts per
>billion...

The average concentration is irrelevant; simple beneficiation techniques
boost it a great deal.  (In particular, trapping of solar-wind helium is
strictly a surface phenomenon, so throwing out all but the finest grains
[which have the greatest surface area per kilo] boosts it a lot.)

I'm not prepared to defend this one in detail; my note was based on a
2-hour talk to the Canadian Space Society a couple of months ago by a
fellow who'd spent quite a bit of time doing his homework on the matter.
I don't remember it well enough to recount it in detail, but his final
conclusion was roughly "yes, you have to process a lot of material, but
it looks like it might be viable".
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 00:01:00 GMT
From: vx2!spector@nyu.edu  (David HM Spector)
Subject: Re: private space operations


Don't feel too bad, I brought up this topic about 3-4 months ago and
got 0 (Zeeeeerrrrooooo) response. I agree that there are a lot of
technically skilled people out there, and in fact quite a few "rocket
scientists" on the net.  There are also quite a few (CPU) cycles
floating around and a lot of simulation could be done that could
perhaps lead to something interesting being done.

Perhaps we need a sci.space version of the FSF...?  

There is the problem of government and business intervention though...
but thats a topic for a 'nuther note...


_DHMS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David HM Spector				   New York University
Senior Systems Programmer			   Stern School of Business
ARPAnet: SPECTOR@GBA.NYU.EDU			   Academic Computing Center
USEnet:...!{allegra,rocky,harvard}!cmcl2!spector   90 Trinity Place, Rm C-4
HamRadio: N2BCA      MCIMail: DSpector             New York, New York 10006
AppleLink: D1161     CompuServe: 71260,1410        (212) 285-6080
"Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life"
			- Senator Orrin Hatch

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 18:15:11 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: toilets

In article <1160@scicom.alphacdc.com> wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson) writes:
>...[Skylab toilet]
>
>I don't think the Skylab toilet can accomodate the female anatomy.

The Skylab toilet applied itself, so to speak, to an area of the anatomy
which is pretty much the same on male and female.  The problem with female
anatomy is urine collection, a separate issue, and one that ought to be
manageable with a bit of work.  (The Soviets seem to have solved it.)
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 18:59:06 GMT
From: portal!atari!apratt@uunet.uu.net  (Allan Pratt)
Subject: Re: space news from Oct 10 AW&ST (STS-27 payload)

In article <11880@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com.UUCP 
(Phil Karn) writes:
> I suggest a very simple test to help determine whether the STS-27 payload is
> a photoreconnaissance spacecraft in the KH-11/KH-12 category, or an ELINT
> (electronic intelligence) spacecraft in the Vortex/Chalet/Magnum class.

> Carefully watch the launch to determine the flight azimuth. 

Doesn't DOD (or whoever) know this? Wouldn't they put it up in a
deliberately misleading or generic way, at the expense of using more
fuel in the satellite to get it where they really want it?

============================================
Opinions expressed above do not necessarily	-- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp.
reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else.	  ...ames!atari!apratt

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 01:52:38 GMT
From: puff!eric@speedy.cs.wisc.edu  (Eric "TheBoo" Bazan)
Subject: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes



	Hmmm...

	Just curious, but I know there must be some people
out there who know quite a bit about chemical rockets. So,
I thought I'd ask a few basic questions on the nature of
chemical rocketry. 

	+What are the advantages/disadvantages of solid
	fuel and liquid fuel rockets?
	+What are some of the more common chemical reactions
	used?
	+Is there an easy way to calculate thrust from a
	given design?
	+How is the fuel burned in a constructive way to
	produce thrust? Are special pressure chambers
	needed to produce this thrust after combustion
	has taken place?
	+Any books to recommend?


	I'm certain this is a very complex field, so forgive
me if these questions seem niave. 

	While on the topic of launch vehicles, does anyone know
of any more exotic ways of getting a given payload into orbit,
or into space on a given trajectory? I've read the post on 
electromagnetic (rail) guns. 
	As an earlier poster noted, a cheap, relatively efficient 
way of getting payloads into space is a major problem. It seems
to me thay chemical rockets may never fit this bill. Perhaps atomic,
rather than chemical means, could be used. As we're in a deep 
potential well, there are certain energy requirements that must
be met to get something into space. Its just a matter of how efficiently
it can be done, and how much total mass is needed to get a given payload
up. Any ideas?
	
		Thanks,
			Eric Bazan
			eric@puff.cs.wisc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #141
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Dec 88 05:36:21 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04415>; Fri, 2 Dec 88 01:12:20 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  2 Dec 88 01:12:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXZWm=y00UkT40ykNC>;
          Fri,  2 Dec 88 00:39:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.cXZWVNy00UkZ44G05a>;
          Fri,  2 Dec 88 00:21:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXZWSyy00UkZI4Ek5V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  2 Dec 88 00:18:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #142

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:
  New Soviet Cargo Aircraft for Buran and Soyuz TM-7 mission update
		Re: Communications Satellite Economics
		     Re: Old stuff in a new light
		 Re: Relativity acceleration question
		 Re: Relativity acceleration question
		Re: Communications Satellite Economics
		     Re: private space operations
			      Re: STARS
	   Re: Conserving Resources (was: Resources of Io)
		     Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Dec 88 12:36:00 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: New Soviet Cargo Aircraft for Buran and Soyuz TM-7 mission update

    In a interesting space related event the USSR announced on shortwave a new
very large transport aircraft, the An-225, which can carry the Soviet
shuttle Buran, and parts for the Energiya booster.  This 6 turbofan engine
plane is huge, its payload is stated at 200 Tonnes, compared to 150 Tonnes
for the previous largest cargo plane (the Russian An-124 known in the west 
as the Condor) and the USAF's C5A at 118 Tonnes (all comparison numbers from
Jane's Aircraft 1987).  It has a max speed of 850 Kph (530 mph) similar to the
Condor's 865 Kph (540 mph) but slower than the C5A's 888 Kph (555 mph).  Max
range is 4500 Km (2800 mi), the same as stated for the Condor but shorter 
than the C5A's 5526 Km (3453 mi).  The aircraft has a twin tail, and is 
specifically designed to carry large cargoes externally like Buran.  
The interesting point there is that NASA has for years
talked about a replacement for the shuttle 747 which replaces the single
tail with a twin.  The turbulence from the shuttle puts a great deal of stress
on the tail behind it.  The An-225's cargo hold will carry 60-80 cars.  
The aircraft has not flown yet, but the first roll out was shown on Soviet TV.
    In orbit on board the Mir/Kvant space station the 6 man crew has started 
its first tasks.  Jean-Loup Chretien has just completed his physical by 
Dr. Polyakov, complaining that too much time is spent on that exam (he
has a right to - the politics of getting the Russian and French presidents
together took 5 days off his mission).  The space walk is now set for Dec. 12
and will last 5 hours.  They will mount a French deployable structure on 
the base placed outside during the Oct. 20th space walk of Vladimir Titov and 
Musa Manarov.  Parts for this were brought up on the last cargo carrier,
Progress 38, on Sept. 12th).  This is the 15th guest cosmonaut mission on 
board a Russian space station.  It is also the third French manned mission,
Chretien's two (current plus Soyuz T-6/Salyut 7 in June 1982) with Russia 
and Patrick Baudry's flight on the USA's STS 51-G in June 1985 (for 7 days).
    Now another earth based portion of the USSR's space infrastructure
has appeared.  Does anyone really believe the Soviets are not building up
to be the real power house in space for the rest of this century?

                                                      Glenn Chapman
                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab




------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 22:31:39 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Re: Communications Satellite Economics

In article <1213@infinet.UUCP> rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) writes:
>Satellites have inherent advantages for:
>
>  broadcast - Already most TV backbones and feeds are satellite,
>      with hybrid systems the most effective setup.
>  inverse-broadcast - The archetypical example being the Emergency
>      beacon system on the polar orbiters.
>  low-medium density mobile point-to-point - The INMARSAT ship
>      communications system being typical.
>  low density point-to-point - Which is what most people
>      think of as communications.
>
>Terrestrial systems have inherent advantages for:
>
>  high-density mobile - Cellular radio being a classic example.
>  medium-high density point-to-point - Traditional communications

In my opinion satellites are better for any sort of mobile communication
system. Because of a satellites location, the system it services is more truely
mobile than any other. If you leave the city, the satellite is still overhead,
if you go to the other side of the world, you only need one more satellite.

>The basic reason for the density relationship is that terrestrial
>systems are far less expensive on a bits-per-second basis.  But they
>are either very localized (cellular radio) or only go between two
>specific points (fiber cables).  So you need a usage density that is
>high enough to ensure that there will be enough users in that area or
>between those two points.  Thus the fiber cable between DC-New York-
>Boston is a clear winner over satellite on a cost basis.
>
>On a purely technological basis, terrestrial is better between most
>urban, suburban, or industrial locations.  The density is there.

The bits-per-second cost for satellite communication is mostly dependent on
the throughput of a single satellite, and that is one of the satellite
characteristics that is improving the fastest. If one looks at the amount of
hardware required to run high density terrestrial lines from LA and SF to NY
and DC vs the amount of hardware for a satellite, a satellite clearly has the
advantage as long as its hardware is sophisticated enough to provide the
necessary throughput. If the hardware is not already sophisticated enough it
will be, and after it is cost effective for coast-to-coast communication, it
will in the same way become cost effective for all but local communication.
It just makes more sense to send long distance communication through a
satellite than hardwiring everybody together.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   [...imagine a time when evil Man is infecting the solar system...]
"DEATH TO THE BARBARIC, SATANIC, GENETICALLY INFERIOR MARTIAN BACTERIA"!!!!!!
  -- Redneck frontiersman, 2050.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 21:12:11 GMT
From: umigw!gables!gtww2z9z%gables.span@handies.ucar.edu  (Jason Gross)
Subject: Re: Old stuff in a new light

In article <3665@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes:
> Let me get this straight...the Soviet have reliable system for placing
> people and material into orbit, but are "behind" in the space race?
> 
> Yeah, sure.
> 
> The basic point is that there is only one good criteria for measuring
> success: results. The Soviets are getting them and we aren't. We have
> several very impressive projects that are just sitting on the ground
> waiting to be launched (the space telescope, Galieo), but we can't
> launch them. The Soviets could. So, who is winning the space race?
> 
> Flashy high-tech boosters may look very nice in the magazines, but
> they are worthless unless they work. The Soviet boosters may not be 
> very fancy, but they do work.

This is part of my argument.  Because some administrator thought it would
be neat to place all our space eggs on the shuttle, we are now struggling
to get our payloads up and are having to resort to the ESA or China.  This
is just a lack of that focused space policy I mentioned.

Now, about Soviet results.  Ok, they have successfully maintained a 
prescence in space for almost a year with the current crew in Mir.  They plan
to stay until a year passes.  Along with this, they are able to remotely
resupply Mir through the Progress cargo rockets.  But there's really nothing
new here.  Remote control for space objects has been around for a long time.
ANd on the space station issue, the same Soviet methodology shines through.
This is their seventh space station.  

To summarize all this babbling, let me just say (like, how could you stop me?)
that to just look at results, the Soviets seem to be winning, but all they've
done is maintained a public image in the world's eye that they are in space and
we are not.  Otherwise, they haven't really done much at all.
-- 
Jason Gross     Comp Sci Ugrad     University of Miami     Class of '92 (?)
===========================================================================
"Women.  You can't live   | Mail your invigorating replies to:      | For
with them, and you can't  |  GTWW2Z9Z%Gables.Span@Umigw.Miami.Edu   | Sale:
shoot them, either."      |  (What a lovely address, isn't it now?) | $.05
======================================================== IBM Sucks Silicon!

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 03:36:45 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: Relativity acceleration question

> Working on the above concept, have they been able to measure any deff-
> inate subjective temoral differences for satalites in orbit? Has anyone
> ever bothered to send up a "cheep atomic clock", and see how accurate
> it would be in orbit compared to on the ground. (don't flame me for
> "cheep atomic clock". I know it's a contradiction of terms.)

About 1976 or so a hydrogen maser clock was launched (from Wallops, if
memory serves), and compared to a clock on the ground. A group here at SAO
developed the clock, accurate to something like 1 part in 10^10. It was
known locally as the `Redshift Experiment', because it was intended to
measure the General Relativistic difference in clock rates due to the
different strengths of Earth's gravitational field. 

The experiment agreed with Einstein, though I'm not sure to what accuracy.
-- 

Bill Wyatt, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

UUCP:  {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
 (or)  wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu
SPAN:  cfairt::wyatt 
BITNET: wyatt@cfa2

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 06:12:20 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Relativity acceleration question


More info on the relativistic aspects of GPS from the satellite navigation
chapter of Handbook of Modern Electronics and Electrical Engineering:

The GPS demonstration satellites carry rubidium and cesium frequency
standards with long-term stabilities on the order of 1e-12 to 1e-13.  This
is several orders of magnitude smaller than the relativistic frequency
offset of 4.45e-10. The onboard clocks are slowed down by this amount to
make them appear "on frequency" to observers on the ground.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 06:32:52 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Communications Satellite Economics


John McKernan has overlooked an important consideration in the comparison
between satellite and terrestrial mobile radio systems: spectral
efficiency.

One major advantage of a ground-based system is that the frequencies it
occupies can be reused many times over a larger geographical area. Some
frequency reuse is possible with satellites, but this relies largely on
directive antennas on the ground. A typical satellite "footprint" covers the
continental US, while others cover the entire hemisphere with the same
signal on each frequency. The ground antennas, on the other hand, can cover
much smaller portions of the celestial sphere because they are considerably
larger and more directional, so multiple satellites can share a common
frequency band.

Unlike fixed stations, however, directional antennas are generally
impractical in mobile installations. All the directionality has to be
provided on the satellite end, which means very large and complex antennas
in space. Worse, relatively low frequencies have to be used to reduce the
path losses involved with omnidirectional antennas on the ground, and this
again scales up the required antenna size for a given directionality.

The end result is very limited frequency reuse in the mobile satellite
system.  For this reason, those proposing mobile satellite systems are
targeting only the rural areas where no terrestrial systems exist.  The one
proposed system I'm familiar with (SKYLINK) proposes two beams, one covering
the western CONUS and Canada, and the other covering the eastern half.
Clearly the total carrying capacity of this system will be much lower
than a large number of terrestrial systems all using the same spectrum
in different areas.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 14:56:00 GMT
From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@bellcore.com
Subject: Re: private space operations


Ah for the good old days when I was a teenager and knew everything.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 23:35:59 GMT
From: avsd!childers@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: STARS

In article <8811160821.AA07666@angband.s1.gov> CS0X1912@SWTEXAS.BITNET writes:

>WHAT ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STARS DESCRIBED IN THE UNIVERSE.

The traditional mnemonic goes something like this :

	Oh		O	Red giant
	Be		B
	A		A
	Fine		F
	Girl		G	Yellow, our Sun is a 'G' star
	Kiss		K
	Me		M
	Right		R
	Now		N	Neutron star
	Baby		B	Black hole

While it's been about twenty years since I last saw this mnemonic, there
is a fairly simple logic to it - it reflects the sequence of possible
states a stellar mass may pass through, from cool red stars through the
spectrum to mid-range yellow stars through to ultraviolet neutron stars,
and beyond into black holes.

I'm not sure what the last category's letter is, it seems kind of wierd
to have two classes called 'B'.

>                          DAVID LIPSCOMB

-- richard

-- 
*                 Any excuse will serve a tyrant.      -- Aesop               *
*                                                                             *
*       ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho     *
*           AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D          *

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 03:20:46 GMT
From: haven!umbc3!tron!carson@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Dana Carson)
Subject: Re: Conserving Resources (was: Resources of Io)

In article <2655@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> baron@uhccux.UUCP (Baron Fujimoto) writes:
>In article <932@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>>Name one civilisation at any point in human history which
>>hasn't "plundered" to the best of its ability.
>
>Actually, if I am not mistaken, the native hawaiians did pretty well
>as far as living in harmony with their environment.  They had a very
>shorelines to prevent overfishing, or when making feather cloaks for
>the ali'i they would only take a few feathers from each bird, and then
>release it.  Interestingly, the Hawaiians (and most polynesian cultures

An article in I believe Smithsonion about a year ago said that
archealogical digs showed that half of the bird species that were on the
islands when the Hawaiians landed were wiped out by the time the
europeans arrived.  So they weren't that careful.

--
Dana Carson
Westinghouse Electronic Systems Group  Mail Stop 1615
UUCP: ...!uunet!umbc3!tron!carson
AT&T: (301) 765-3513
WIN: 285-3513

------------------------------

(->space-usenet+) (->ota+space.incoming)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/QXWj5My00Ui3MBi04Y>;
          Wed, 23 Nov 88 12:11:54 -0500 (EST)
12:03:20 EST
Date:         Wed, 23 Nov 88 11:32:15 EST
From: Michael Nosal <ST502042%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Shuttle Disasters and Rescue


In his recent article, Jay Smith writes:

>In article <8811120236.AA09382@crash.cts.com>
>mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:
>>At that point, the
>>astronauts, the ones who are facing certain death, will be under
>>enormous psychological pressure to end the charade.
>>Such a break-point will carry with it the likelihood of one or more
>>astronauts venting frustration and hostility....

>At which point the hysteric astronauts will be interrupted by a knocking on
their hatch as Alexei and Vladimir wait patiently outside to rescue them.

>>A few weeks after the dying words of the astronauts are heard,
>>the shuttle will reenter the atmosphere at 5 or 6 miles per second.

>Nope.  By that time the Soviets will have salvaged it and be performing
>in-orbit repairs.  Might give it a new paint job, too.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In his recent article, Tom Neff writes:


> - If something violent DID happen to prevent reentry but not
>   immediately kill the flight crew (such as a meteoroid impact holing
>   the OMS), I would expect the President to call Moscow immediately.
>   Could they get something in rendezvous within 48 hours?  If so,
>   we'd do our best to hold out.  We have the rescue balls and perhaps
>   the MMUs.  Mir is there.  Soyuz is cramped accomodations for five
>   or six guests, you would never want to fly a mission that way if
>   you could help it.  In the emergency we would make do gladly.

Both of these comments lead me back to a question I asked a few weeks
ago. That is, what is the absolute minimum amount of time needed to get
a crew up in space??? All this rescue business means *zilch* if it takes
two weeks to get a launch. Try floating around in a rescue ball for more
than two or three days.

They also bring up another very good point. The Soviets are up in space
almost all the time now and with the addition of the shuttle to their
fleet, they might be able to perform, or at least be more ready than
ourselves, a rescue operation. In fact, they would go out of their way
to rescue american astronauts and come away looking like heroes.
Question is, what changes to hatch design have been made and are there
any interconnects nowadays?

Let's ask ourselves the *REAL* question here: How long does it take to
get a crew in space to do rescue operations? We could go on and on about
the possible shuttle disaster scenarios (Shuttle explodes on launch pad,
launch pad fire, bolts fail and shuttle tips over, landing gear
collapses and shuttle skids into crowds, shuttle hits bird at mach 1+
and explodes or spirals into a city, fuel tank doesn't separate and
drags shuttle to splashdown in south pacific, O-ring fails in SRB and
causes external tank to explode destroying shuttle....)

True, it help to look at the ways something can fail to learn how to
handle it when it does (or if), but I can just see this conversation
getting waaaaaay off base here, as so many netters are fond of doing.
:-)

+-------------------------------+
+ Michael Nosal                 +
+ ST502042@brownvm.bitnet       +
+ cs191044@cs.brown.edu         +
+-------------------------------+

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #142
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Dec 88 06:30:01 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01006>; Fri, 2 Dec 88 06:00:27 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  2 Dec 88 06:00:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YXZbC=y00Vs101p04M>;
          Fri,  2 Dec 88 05:42:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.8XZauQy00UkZM4f05v>;
          Fri,  2 Dec 88 05:21:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXZaqzy00UkZM4dk4T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  2 Dec 88 05:17:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #143

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 143

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
		     Re: Old stuff in a new light
Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.
			Re: US Goals in Space
			     misc. ideas
	       Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
				   
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #121
			    Re: Amroc etc.
			  Re: Morton Thiokol
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 22:39:56 GMT
From: ecsvax!urjlew@mcnc.org  (Rostyk Lewyckyj)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue


Since we all know that no system is perfect, and that
eventually there will be another accident, and that eventually
there will be a big accident, no matter what is done to attempt
repair, rescue etc,  The problem at hand is what should be done.
So here are my two cents worth. Please don't take offence.
In light of the inevitable, steps should be taken to minimize
the damage to the program. This means:
Prepare the public now for the eventuality of an accident.
Prepare the resources so that the program can continue.
Prepare to downplay the drama of the accident.
As a final recourse! be prepared to destroy the craft, to
end the drama. (Lord forgive me for this suggestion.
I don't think I would be able to push the button)

------------------------------

(->ota+space.incoming)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YXWlN0y00Ui3MHPk5S>;
          Wed, 23 Nov 88 14:49:23 -0500 (EST)
23 Nov 88 14:44:24 EST
Date: 23 Nov 88 13:38:24 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: Old stuff in a new light

In article <gables.196@umigw.miami.edu> gtww2z9z%gables.span@umigw.miami.edu (Jason Gross) writes:
>
>Whoever that idiot is out there who said the "the dream is alive, but not at 
>NASA"  has got to be the most gullible people I know!  We have an accident
>that unloads a seeming tide of dirty laundry and everyone thinks its all over.

That "idiot" was Henry Spencer.  If you'd *read* any of his postings (and
understood them), you wouldn't have said that. 

>Don't y'all remember that NASA has only had two three fatal spacecraft-related
>accidents in its history (Apollo 1, Challenger, and a guy getting cuaght in
>a shuttle's space full of nitrogen)!  Don't y'all remember that this is the
>same agency that put up 25 successful shuttle flights before Challenger, 12
>successful Apollo flights (I didn't count Apollo 13, but that ended well,
>thanks to NASA, a bit of luck) including 6 moon landings, three space
>station missions, and all those Gemini and Mercury flights?  Hmmm?

Don't *you* remember that Congress holds the pursestrings, and is trying to
balance a budget ? Don't *you* remember that a large number of Americans
*oppose* the space program, and even more think the money would be better
spent feeding the homeless ?  Haven't *you* noticed that NASA has changed
its emphasis from space exploration to space exploitation, giving up the
long-range dream (hence Henry's quote) in order to become the short-term
space arm of UPS ?  We no longer have a manned space program, it's just
a low-orbit trucking company. 

>They have just used the same
>ideas and methods until only some drunken worker could screw thing up.  

While we innovate and create new ones that PhD engineers could screw up.

>It
>is interesting that they were able to pilot Buran remotely. Wow, remote control
>isn't really a new topic, is it now.

Neither are "O" rings... maybe we need some drunken Soviet workers to
design them for us.

Don't get me wrong, I'm terrifically pro-space. But Henry's quote echoes a
sentiment I sadly share.  NASA is no longer the gung-ho group of intrepid
explorers it was during Apollo.  Now we have businessmen, trying to make
a balance sheet work, making space "profitable".

Since when has *anyone* expected the government to turn a profit ?

------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt
	"You made a killing in real estate and NASA,
	 selling cemetery plots in outer space;
	 'till some falling profits crashed upon your doorstep.
	 Welcome to the Human Race."     -    Timbuk 3
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 20:00:00 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.


         Henry Spencer writes on the location of a major concentration 
    of Helium-3: 

         > Probably the atmosphere of Jupiter.  Mining it from there will
         > present a few little problems, however. 

         The British Interplanetary Society (BIS) also considered Jupiter 
    a high-yielding source of Helium-3 for its DAEDALUS unmanned star probe 
    in the 1970s.  They chose Helium-3 because it reacted the most "cleanly" 
    (created the least amount of neutrons) with the fusion engine they 
    planned for the starship.  

         BIS also realized that getting Helium-3 from Jupiter's atmosphere 
    would be no less a task than getting a vehicle to another star.  Their 
    plan was to float 130 automated "aerostat factories" in Jupiter's 
    atmosphere, suspended beneath huge "hot hydrogen" balloons to collect 
    the seventeen percent of the Jovian air which is composed of helium, 
    one ten-thousandth of which is the crucial Helium-3.  The factories 
    would operate for over twenty years before the necessary twenty-seven 
    million kilograms of that helium isotope could be collected.  During 
    this time, the Helium-3 would be removed from the mining facilities by 
    means of special manned shuttles, which could get in and out of Jupiter's 
    gravity using very powerful boosters, and brought to DAEDALUS, which 
    would be constructed in orbit around Jupiter's moon Callisto, the only 
    Galilean satellite outside the Jovian planet's deadly radiation belts.  
    Needless to say, this is a project for the next century, when we will 
    hopefully be colonizing and exploring the Sol system extensively.

         In regards to DAEDALUS, there was some research done on the BIS 
    project by Roderick Hyde of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory at the 
    University of California about a decade ago.  His studies claim that 
    DAEDALUS' Helium-3-deuterium fusion pellets will either not work at 
    all when struck by the ship's electron "cannon" beams, or actually
    create enough neutrons to fry the probe if the reaction does work.  
    Hyde and his colleague, Lowell Wood, came up with their own variation 
    of the BIS starship, unofficially designated the Wood-Hyde starship.  
    Their starship would use a krypton-fluoride excimer (a high-performance 
    laser) to strike the pellets with, which would cause the fusion 
    reaction to function properly.  Their engine design feasibility is 
    supported by the LLL's LASNEX computer program, designed by the 
    institution to simulate laser-fusion experiments.  I would greatly 
    appreciate any more information anyone might have on the Wood-Hyde 
    starship.

         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 17:23:36 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space

In article <7828@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>... NASA does the managing, and they are far-sighted indeed
>if you listen to what they're planning...

I'm afraid I would amend that:  *some parts* of NASA are far-sighted indeed.
Unfortunately, said far-sightedness doesn't necessarily extend to a certain
headquarters building in Washington, specifically to the biggest offices in
it.  Remember that, even if his underlings are bright and enthusiastic, the
Administrator of NASA is basically a political appointee.  Some of the folks
who've held that post over the years have done a good job.  Some... haven't.

It was NASA HQ that didn't want the Ride Report published, remember.  And
if you can see any signs of it being implemented, you've got better eyes
than I have.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 07:54:47 GMT
From: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (USENET News System)
Subject: misc. ideas

From: szabonj@uw-larry (Nick Szabo)
Path: uw-larry!szabonj

Uses for terrawatt-scale (solar-flare?) laser:
-Perturb orbits of bodies.
-Spin bodies.
-Melt stuff (eg metallic asteroids, polar ice caps, etc.).
-Cut gouges, holes, troughs, channels, and other patterns onto the surface
of bodies. 
(etc.)

Uses for electric power from Metis:
-Transmit to Earth (via free electron laser?), distribute, and sell.
-Power for radar for studying solar system bodies.
-Power for terrawatt-scale lasers.
-Create antimatter (Dietz).
-Create the solar system's largest arc-welder.
(etc.)

Solar system billiards:
-Perturb asteroids into collision with each other, or with a comet.
-Perturb a comet into low orbit around the Moon (would it produce a tail?)
or Mercury (how long would it last?)
-Send an asteroid through the solar corona, or through the upper atmosphere
of Jupiter.
(etc.)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 22:30:51 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.

>From article <1988Nov17.173505.7601@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> In article <1084@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>>> Breaking the existing
>>> debris up into smaller bits is the *last* thing we want to do.
>>
>>Not really. Even a fairly heavy rain of microscopic particles can be
>>stopped more easily than one large chunk.
> 
> *Microscopic* particles aren't that much of a problem.  

Nice to hear that you agree with me. I think my assumptions came
through quite well.

[Restatement of the obvious deleted. Yes I agree with you too.]

> Unfortunately, hypervelocity collisions are non-intuitive in some
> ways.  Based on the SDI Delta experiment, if two fairly large chunks hit
> each other, the shock wave from the instant of first contact explodes
> both, and the debris clouds then pass through each other without interacting
> much.

Yes, I read AW&ST too. My wife qualifies for the cheap rate. She
doesn't mind that I read it first, and sometimes she even helps with
the long words.

Sarcasm aside; What is the average particle size resulting from
hypervelocity collisions? And how does it vary for different
materials? I don't know. If you know please tell me. That will settle
the question. No one knows?  Then I aggree that more testing is
needed.

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 23 Nov 88 10:22 EDT
From: <K_MACART%UNHH.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: 

subject: planetary (galactic?) bombardment

  I was reading the entry on galactic debris clouds, and want to
throw in my $0.02 in.

        The galaxy rotates around once every 250 million years or so.
What we see as the arms are actually pressure waves that rotate
around the galaxy faster than the stars in it.  The stars in the
arms aren't moving at the speed of the arms any more than the
molecules of water in a ripple do. They might bob up and down,
but don't have the same velocity.  It is theorized that these
pressure waves cause gas clouds to get dense enough to collapse
by gravity to eventually coalesce enough to make young stars.
This might explain why the arms are brighter than the parts of
the galaxy without arms (but still stars).
        Anyway, I'd be willing to venture that besides the previously
mentioned effects, that these galactic "wave fronts" might cause
enough disturbance to make bodies in the Oort cloud (comets that
orbit eternally around 1 ly out or less from the sun) fall into
the solar system.  This could explain the seasonal extinctions
that happen so many million years apart.  Assuming the arms move
at twice the speed of the stars ( a very big and unresearched
assumption), one arm would go by the same star once every 250
million years (just like the arm was standing still, (I worked
it out, weird..)).  That means for four arms, a star would
encounter one arm every 250/4 = 62.5 million years.  This is on
the same order of magnitude as the extinction cycles.  Any
professional Astrophysicist out there feel free to comment.
(I'm a physics grad student who is not an expert, but I've seen
enough to venture a theory).

                        Korac MacArthur

                        k_macart@unhh (bitnet)
                        5 Crockett St.
                        Rochester, NH 03867

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1988 15:39-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #121

> control, impacts at supersonic speed into the waiting crowd which never
> hears it coming.  Thousands perish.

Jeez. I KNOW you guys down there don't like OASIS, but isn't sabotaging
the APU's in order to knock them off in the crowd of spectators going a
bit far? :-)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 88 22:53:56 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.

One advantage of hybrid rockets is that it is very hard to cause one
to explode.

In a solid rocket the oxidizer and the fuel are mixed at manufacturing
time. Liquid fuels can mix with liquid oxidizers in large quantities
as the result of a structural failure. Like maybe running into the
ground. In either case all the fuel and all the oxidizer can come
together and burn in a short period of time.

In a hybrid rocket only the surface of the fuel is ever exposed to the
oxidizer. Even in the case of a crash, the fuel cannot mix with the
oxidizer. Increasing the flow of oxidizer into the motor can't even
significantly increase combustion, it is surface area limited.

As a result of their solid fuel, liquid oxidizer, construction hybrid
motors are safer to build and transport than solid fuel rockets and
safer to operate than either liquid or solid fuel rockets.

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 15:30:17 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Morton Thiokol

>From article <1988Nov18.182613.1823@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):

[Discussion of the lack of punishment for Morton Thiokol]

> Actually, have no fear -- if the message we send those people is that
> screwing up massively results in billions of dollars of new contracts
> and no significant penalties, then there *will* be more.

I wish I didn't have to agree with Henry on this, but I do. If you
want to see something that will make you puke, take a real close look
at the politics surrounding the ASRM contract. ASRM is NASAs attempt
at a politically viable way to take the SRM contract away from Morton
Thiokol.

Morton Thiokol could compete for the contract, but has chosen not to.
Best bet is that they will use political pressure to try to kill
funding, delay purchases, ... of ASRM after the contract is awarded.
And if you can't buy ASRM, well, Morton is still willing to sell SRM.

Trouble with ASRM, is that it isn't Advanced enough to really justify
its cost.

			Bob P.

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #143
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Dec 88 06:02:55 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05599>; Sat, 3 Dec 88 04:16:30 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  3 Dec 88 04:16:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XZuMiy00Vs1E1qEBE>;
          Sat,  3 Dec 88 03:30:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.gXZuFxy00UkZE6wU4u>;
          Sat,  3 Dec 88 03:23:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXZuAqy00UkZ86vE5Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  3 Dec 88 03:17:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #144

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 144

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
			 Re: Species survival
		   Re: Buran (was: Stranded in LEO)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 19:41:46 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #415 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88315.57838675 0.00000146           16699-3 0  1675
2 00424  80.4655 141.2884 0023672 334.4991  25.4981 13.67025912302944
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88323.94873799 -.00000007          -40701-1 0  5984
2 08820 109.8069 158.1028 0044551   0.7027 359.3760  6.38663894 37201
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88324.34875693 -.00000007                   0  1862
2 10061   6.6467  70.6602 0008411 166.9167 193.0055  1.00274757  3278
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88320.55675728 0.00000013                   0  9874
2 10684  63.4893 107.4464 0103714 197.5875 162.0528  2.00563022 64248
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88324.49978910 -.00000028                   0  9329
2 10893  64.5589 348.1432 0144891  29.0769 331.7712  2.00562137 77144
GOES 3     
1 10953U          88324.39508649 0.00000075           10000-3 0  5538
2 10953   5.4972  73.4138 0007224 228.0309 131.7811  1.00292012   517
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88321.16415333 0.00000782           32420-3 0   385
2 10967 108.0036 209.1367 0002749 241.1774 118.9110 14.33973479543541
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88323.81828932 -.00000028                   0  9568
2 11054  64.1240 344.6973 0050576 120.6440 239.9157  2.00571480 74145
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88323.42623498 0.00000013                   0   577
2 11141  63.4806 107.2655 0054476 324.2114  35.4151  2.00556839 72833
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88321.45286592 0.00000614           27671-3 0  7721
2 11416  98.4975 318.8859 0014076  11.5515 348.5996 14.25278640487591
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88326.24845670 0.00023126           66157-3 0  7466
2 11703  28.5004 285.4340 0003749 228.2949 131.7345 15.34542871487708
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88321.38971420 -.00000028                   0  8219
2 11783  63.9283 344.4776 0134763  63.4482 297.9819  2.00564006 62735
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88321.18615785 -.00000168           10000-3 0   219
2 11964   4.8109  47.5532 0039033 192.7053 167.1761  0.99925931    79
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88320.00000000 -.00000248           10000-3 0  6510
2 12472   1.9738  83.0068 0001476 278.9124 347.5256  1.00282435 26456
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88323.24756496 0.00026451           70841-3 0  3561
2 12888  97.5983   1.0341 0002338 140.9871 219.1594 15.37993670396374
RS-08      
1 12998U          88319.18317202 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5499
2 12998  82.9643 353.3488 0021171  99.4051 260.9413 12.02967501303450
RS-05      
1 12999U          88323.16545532 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5425
2 12999  82.9586 345.7900 0011231  45.9906 314.1739 12.05062091304460
RS-07      
1 13001U          88311.09598796 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4182
2 13001  82.9671 342.6009 0021685 322.5880  37.3687 12.08708382303924
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88318.19068099 0.00000185           15765-3 0  6086
2 13113  82.5395 230.3992 0015138 314.9682  45.0250 13.83888257335361
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88326.74956001 0.00007118           21758-3 0  3238
2 13138  51.6112 247.7417 0001654  77.6281 282.4790 15.34957397376262
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88322.46498079 0.00000282           14353-3 0  7235
2 13718  81.2431 128.6413 0054923 241.2289 118.3342 14.13023806305656
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88322.21690152 0.00000113                   0  8519
2 14050   0.7007  88.2462 0003136 159.9056 111.9505  1.00282937  4484
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88313.61490571 -.00000095           10000-3 0  3614
2 14129  26.9972 295.9105 6038606 351.2307   1.6160  2.05882117 12679
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88320.98678958 0.00000012                   0  5845
2 14189  63.1195 106.0404 0130749 213.2479 145.9236  2.00575230 39160
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88316.56053177 0.00000462           19451-3 0  6672
2 14452  81.1636 151.5963 0095800   4.1261 356.0690 14.21885240261619
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88326.04779345 -.00000693          -14879-3 0  5814
2 14780  98.2007  25.9564 0003123 153.4838 206.6521 14.57105815251254
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88325.73105215 0.00001425           28913-3 0  3655
2 14781  98.0360  24.4097 0012108 258.7724 101.2122 14.62599111252065
LDEF       
1 14898U          88323.37695895 0.00017964           44933-3 0  6704
2 14898  28.4992 206.6969 0002414  25.7511 334.3216 15.38609886258838
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88324.52799993 0.00000012                   0  6118
2 15039  62.8501 105.2600 0013395 290.9854  68.8552  2.00564641 32517
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88317.65241303 0.00000169           14315-3 0  9054
2 15099  82.5341 178.5734 0013723 119.7190 240.5336 13.83563411220178
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88321.43487000 -.00000029           10000-2 0  5477
2 15271  63.4307 344.3461 0097431 315.5366  43.7377  2.00560352 29565
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88323.64462231 0.00001958           29154-3 0  9339
2 15331  82.5393 172.5835 0026936  50.5190 309.8393 14.74244952223185
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88321.53286013 0.00000442           26380-3 0  3006
2 15427  99.1205 298.6241 0015001 187.7335 172.3604 14.11700046202449
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88311.50967059 0.00000087           72964-4 0   302
2 15516  82.5332 121.8680 0017522  23.3683 336.8268 13.83989799190250
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88325.96828784 0.00011315           33928-3 0   909
2 16095  51.6123 251.5285 0001203  65.4593 294.6422 15.34943831177811
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88320.59552669 0.00000012                   0  2812
2 16129  63.6400 105.8588 0115676 149.7344 210.9380  2.00566745 22757
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88324.12735818 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7884
2 16191  82.5514  24.2731 0021173 103.9616 256.3863 13.16853118147871
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88318.18493788 0.00000150           12504-3 0  4383
2 16408  82.5349  31.4311 0015711 182.5281 177.5804 13.84078443145674
Mir        
1 16609U          88326.77858548 0.00047269           35935-3 0  5385
2 16609  51.6225 337.5135 0023589  71.4390 288.9272 15.71428979158659
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88326.79094195 -.00000715          -32723-3 0  2580
2 16613  98.7245  38.3998 0001424  85.7937 274.3451 14.20040965 55269
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88309.87427995 0.00000136           11265-3 0  2621
2 16735  82.5353  64.7473 0013151 284.6753  75.2949 13.83806348123430
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88326.69126111 0.00002305           34532-3 0  4284
2 16881  82.5261 229.5593 0025613  56.2031 304.1531 14.74042892124712
EGP        
1 16908U          88321.53008344 -.00000046          -47651-4 0  1094
2 16908  50.0122 231.8236 0011230 163.9679 196.1513 12.44373131102939
FO-12      
1 16909U          88317.81951275 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1207
2 16909  50.0163 243.4199 0011459 153.9233 206.2160 12.44396281102460
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88321.57284268 0.00000429           20879-3 0  1686
2 16969  98.6653 349.9156 0014042 143.5564 216.6573 14.22682846113701
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88319.46171614 0.00000124           10283-3 0  2006
2 17290  82.4674 326.0021 0013652 137.2826 222.9403 13.83622920 93923
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88323.05513191 -.00000208           10000-3 0  1827
2 17561   0.1191  75.7016 0007870 131.5941 152.6913  1.00248024  3478
Kvant      
1 17845U          88326.77857536 0.00053473           40561-3 0  5996
2 17845  51.6255 337.5121 0023465  72.4261 287.8857 15.71433162 94927
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88326.98260378 0.00000109           10909-3 0  5820
2 18129  82.9294  31.2097 0010410 267.7196  92.2754 13.71917319 70988
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88326.79129194 0.00128515  93711-5  16821-3 0  7499
2 18225  71.8958 252.4355 0009976 225.8585 134.1299 16.06732512 78030
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88325.17663823 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  1835
2 18312  82.5601  25.1406 0013016  68.4094 291.8486 13.83376896 63617
Cosmos 1900
1 18665U          88306.95260301 0.00000733           21544-3 0  5501
2 18665  66.0859 109.5978 0048847 281.6924  77.8768 14.49106741 51921
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88318.82457129 0.00000141           11661-3 0   652
2 18820  82.5403  91.6929 0017336 149.8242 210.3917 13.84052026 39892
AO-13      
1 19216U          88273.72660805 0.00000030           10000-3 0   190
2 19216  57.5382 237.5900 6578369 191.3601 139.7626  2.09697959  2262
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88324.06522723 0.00000391           10000-2 0   732
2 19336  82.5293 324.3061 0016251 345.8057  14.2627 13.16845560 15253
Soyuz TM-6 
1 19443U          88326.77858996 0.00031348           24042-3 0   924
2 19443  51.6199 337.5035 0023793  69.9453 290.4457 15.71418894 13340
Progress 38
1 19486U          88326.77859560 0.00025029           19308-3 0   792
2 19486  51.6232 337.5147 0023725  71.0751 289.3440 15.71419561 11483
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88321.44720132 0.00000541           32311-3 0   212
2 19531  98.9144 260.7955 0013085 110.9128 249.3443 14.10681856  7476
1988 089B  
1 19532U 88089  B 88300.86740196  .00003131  00000-0  00000-0 0 00251
2 19532 098.9079 240.4058 0006667 134.5228 225.7040 14.11308768004572
Molniya3-33
1 19541U          88302.70739282 0.00000085          -14331-2 0   324
2 19541  62.8826  90.5981 7367529 288.2921   9.1076  2.00594398   594
1988 090D  
1 19544U 88090  D 88301.57321968  .00000483  00000-0  00000-0 0 00153
2 19544 062.8504 090.5924 7319438 288.2742 009.7052 02.06098327000580
TDRS 2     
1 19548U          88300.31980104 0.00000163           10000-3 0   143
2 19548   0.0280 262.5409 0001541  99.1153 358.3724  1.00255173   271
1988 092A  
1 19554U          88306.86262516 -.00001153           22036-2 0   294
2 19554  62.9216 294.3280 7372953 316.5163   4.6881  2.00511971   598
1988 092C  
1 19556U 88092  C 88302.28486635  .11957082  00000-0  00000-0 0 00518
2 19556 062.7755 205.4284 0036923 114.4127 246.1873 16.40449207003852
1988 092D  
1 19557U          88305.42068111 -.00000234          -10195-2 0   218
2 19557  62.9054 294.5106 7342159 316.4417   4.7900  2.04104096   577
1988 086C  
1 19558U          88305.61876469 0.00030885           29224-2 0   118
2 19558  28.1057 163.8096 7392750 203.9984  86.7816  2.16602665   633
1988 093A  
1 19573U          88310.64701686 0.00001043           15513-3 0   359
2 19573  82.5351 144.2010 0024999 189.6653 170.4057 14.73911190  3737
1988 095A  
1 19596U          88325.50519799 0.00000185           10000-3 0   292
2 19596   1.4172 275.8363 0005873 119.0477 241.0598  1.00275083   323
1988 096A  
1 19608U          88326.67405479 -.00000856           35673-2 0   270
2 19608  62.9059 250.8520 7352400 316.3405   4.9219  2.00601855   565
1988 096B  
1 19609U          88326.80371003 0.02399494  39704-4  10708-2 0   620
2 19609  62.8337 152.2693 0101843 123.1357 238.1534 16.10272169  4266
1988 096C  
1 19610U          88314.40142080 0.27407233  43370-4  28483-3 0   392
2 19610  62.8305 198.9835 0047875 123.2004 238.4435 16.45144510  2326
1988 096D  
1 19611U          88322.81235041 -.00000467           10000-3 0   223
2 19611  62.9068 251.3566 7322355 316.2648   4.9918  2.04273719   507
1988 098A  
1 19621U          88317.90626636 -.00000097           10000-3 0    74
2 19621   0.0907 264.9826 0050424 208.8166 246.7685  1.00329521   113
1988 098B  
1 19622U          88313.24301862 -.00068395          -11484-1 0   115
2 19622   3.7115 240.7877 7296075 184.6050 149.6588  2.27452627   237
1988 101A  
1 19647U          88326.80213984 -.00003397          -53550-4 0   131
2 19647  65.0180  82.4937 0009903 261.9705  98.0160 15.52020275   590
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 14:36:11 GMT
From: linus!marsh@gatech.edu  (Ralph Marshall)
Subject: Re: Species survival

In article <198@bales.UUCP> nat@bales.UUCP (Nathaniel Stitt) writes:
>In article <8811111949.AA29859@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.TI.COM (If you don't vote, you can't bitch) writes:
>>In article <177@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) writes:
>>                 various stuff, then ...
>>>    I am not against space colonies, only their unecessary near-term
>>>    (i.e. within fifty years) appropriation of scarce resources [...]
>>
>>But when do we start?  If we wait 50 years, the same argument can be used
>>again, assuming that in fifty years we (humanity as a whole) is capable
>>of doing what we can do now.  Remember, if we run out of those scarce
>>resources, we can't get replacements.
>>
>
>Do you really think that progress will cease in materials science, computer
>science, robotics, and the many other fields that contribute to, but are not
>exclusive to, space flight if funding for space flight is substantially
>reduced?
>
>Right now technology is moving at an incredible pace, a delay of a decade
>in the design and implementation of a new space venture will mean a
>*fantastic* improvement in the capability and reliability of the completed
>system.  Why?  Because many of the supporting technologies that go into
>that system will have improved a great deal.
>
>>
>>Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
>
>Nathaniel Stitt           | This life is a test.  It is only a test.  Had

	Well, I have to disagree with the concept that waiting will somehow
help us.  A very similar argument can be made for microcomputer technology.
Right now I can go out and buy (for example) an 80386 machine with various
add-ons and one of several operating systems.  However, if I wait a year
or two (or maybe more) I'm almost positive I can buy an 80n86, n>=3 machine
for about the same money, with a slick interface, lots of off the shelf
software that will make today's stuff look like a glass TTY, etc.  BUT,
I have to wait until these new machines become available.  So, I'm a
patient guy, only I find out that when these wonder machines are available
there is another generation just around the corner.  The logic that
lead me to wait in the first place is presumably still valid so I'll
decide not to get one of these machines either.

	The moral is that advancing technology ENSURES that anything
you buy today is going to be obsolete at some point, possibly long
before it has worn out, and therefore you have in some sense "wasted"
your money.  However, you obviously get the benefit of having the
items during the period when others were waiting, so do you really
lose out?  I would say not.  I bought my first computer from the
orchard in Cupertino back in 1979, and my younger sister is still
using it.  It is nowhere near as useful as my Mac II, but I got to use
it for a long time while I could have been saying "Yeah, but it only
has 40 column text and a brain-damaged processor."

	Space is much the same way in my opinion.  Nobody would argue
that the Mercury and Gemini missions are very impressive even compared
to a 1989 Honda, but at the time they were the best money could buy in
a short period of time.  They accomplished something good, rather than
waiting for the ultimate booster and space capsule to be built.
George S. Patton has a very appropriate comment about this issue which 
is included in "The Patton Papers" (which I obviously read recently
:-)): "The perfect is the enemy of the good."  The intent is that waiting
around for a better solution does not get you nearly as good results
as making do with what you have at hand.

[Returns soapbox to prop handler]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Marshall (marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa)

Disclaimer:  Often wrong but never in doubt...  All of these opinions
are mine, so don't gripe to my employer if you don't like them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 88 14:55:21 GMT
From: muddcs!mwilkins@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Wilkins)
Subject: Re: Buran (was: Stranded in LEO)

In article <1988Nov21.182603.1715@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>ENGINE MOCKUPS...
>
>Uh, please think again, Buran's aerodynamics are already significantly

 [stuff deleted]

   Point withdrawn.  This matter came up in an interview with a U.S.
official of some sort which appeared in the L.A. Times, I think.  The guy
was speculating on certain enginelike structures at the tail of BURAN.
   You, Mr. Spencer, are of course correct...  but the function of these
structures are then left to the imagination.

>>   Dr. Nelson also pointed out that the thing was within 3% of ours in every
>>dimension.  Hmm...
>
>I wonder where he's getting his numbers.  Flight International estimated
>Buran to be 10% larger than the US shuttle.

   Again, point withdrawn.  I checked into this one, and it seems that,
since Dr. Nelson was at the end of a 45 day P.R. tour, during which his
primary responsibility was to speak of the U.S. program, he was quoting
figures which were current as of the time of his landing, Oct. 3rd.  Long
before BURAN's launch and estimated from intelligence sources of some sort.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #144
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Dec 88 06:28:20 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00799>; Sat, 3 Dec 88 05:48:57 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  3 Dec 88 05:48:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kXZw5hy00UkTI0tU55>;
          Sat,  3 Dec 88 05:26:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.QXZw0Uy00UkZE7604d>;
          Sat,  3 Dec 88 05:21:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXZvwty00UkZA74k4k@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  3 Dec 88 05:17:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #145

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:
		 CRESCENT SIGHTING: FIRST VISIBILITY.
		     Re: Old stuff in a new light
		Re: Soviet space leadership + confused
			      Re: STARS
		 Re: Relativity acceleration question
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
       Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]
		       Re: Teleoperated Robots
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1988 4:26:02 EST
From: Mohib N Durrani <mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: sky-fans@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: physics@unix.sri.com, space@angband.s1.gov, mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Subject: CRESCENT SIGHTING: FIRST VISIBILITY.



                       Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
  ( I begin with the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )

         THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
           102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027

         SUBJECT: CRESCENT MOON: FIRST VISIBILITY (every lunar month)
         *************************************************************

      NEXT CRESCENT (NEW) MOON:  Fri Dec 9, 1988 (from long.+70 deg.W) *

                   (*) Hilal (crescent) sightings would be 
   at least 10 minutes after sunset, usually before 20 minutes after sunset, 
                   and upto 40 to 60 minutes after sunset.
   

        We are conducting research/survey on the recorded WORLD-WIDE
          first sightings of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" 
                   in the evenings, for every lunar month.

                  PHOTOGRAPHS / SLIDES ARE MOST WELCOME
               since they are very helpful in the research.

              Please also pass on the request to your friends 
                   who are interested in astronomy and to 
                 your local amateur astronomy associations.

                We would very much like to hear from you and 
                  will also keep you posted on the answers.

                Please respond either by email or by letter.        

       The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL 
               and fine tune some parameters regarding VISION.


 When reporting actual Hilal (crescent) sightings, (even if you do not see it)
                        PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

Was Hilal visible to naked eye?......... Hilal sighted in binoculars?.........
EXACT TIMES: Complete Sunset at......... Hilal First Visible....... End.......
Weather condition: Rel.Humidity......... Temperature..... Pressure............
Sky near western horizon: Clear?........ Hazy?........... Cloudy?.............
Observer: Age.... Eyesight: Glasses?.... Far sighted?.... Near sighted?.......
Name....................... Date........ Location.............................

                                 Thanks.





        Email to:  mnd@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
        
        Mail:      Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 18:21:16 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Old stuff in a new light

In article <gables.196@umigw.miami.edu> gtww2z9z%gables.span@umigw.miami.edu (Jason Gross) writes:
>... Don't y'all remember that this is the
>same agency that put up 25 successful shuttle flights before Challenger, 12
>successful Apollo flights (I didn't count Apollo 13, but that ended well,
>thanks to NASA, a bit of luck) including 6 moon landings, three space
>station missions, and all those Gemini and Mercury flights?  Hmmm?

Unfortunately, today's NASA is *not* the same agency that put up any of
those things (except the shuttle flights).  There has been a lot of aging
and hardening of the arteries since Apollo and Skylab.

If you want an example, consider that Mariner 1 went from back-of-the-
envelope sketches to launch in 11 months (although admittedly it was based
on existing hardware).  If you want another, consider that Del Tischler
wrote the specs for the F-1 engine -- the most successful big rocket engine
the US has ever built -- in 24 hours, had them reviewed within a couple of
days, and had full-scale development underway within months.  Gemini was
conceived, designed, built, tested, flown ten times, and honorably retired
in less time than it took just to design the space station.  All of these
feats would be quite impossible, indeed laughable, in today's NASA, which
has a supervisor:worker ratio two or three times what Apollo had and takes
five years to do *anything*.

>... Mir has a multiple docking port (much like Skylab) which can
>be used as ports to different modules brought up by Buran.

Buran is not a payload launcher; Energia does that much better.  Buran
is mostly for payload return.

> It's true
>that they are now killing us when it comes to longevity in space, but not
>in innovation.

So who needs innovation?  The cheapest launcher in the world today is
Long March, which is a truly boring design.  By far the most heavily
used launcher in the world is the same one that launched Sputnik 1;
it still works fine for Soyuz today.  Innovation can do great things,
but when you insist on doing it unnecessarily, it's a recipe for massive
cost and schedule overruns and poor reliability.  Witness the shuttle.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 15:54:54 GMT
From: killer!mjbtn!mtsu!csvon@eddie.mit.edu  (von hall)
Subject: Re: Soviet space leadership + confused

In article <218100009@s.cs.uiuc.edu>, carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> 
> In article <7700@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> : * We have run this into the ground in sci.space, but let me reiterate
> :   just this once in honor of the launch: With Energiya and Buran and
> :   Soyuz and Mir all operational, the Soviets are BEATING US TO A PULP
> :   in space.  
> --Flame (not to tneff)
> Beating us? You mean the US program is good enough to be considered
> a competitor with the USSR? And I thought we'd conceded years ago.
> 



I agree whole heartedly.  The U.S. a competetor?  We have been out of
the space race for years.  As far as I am concerned space leadership is
not a matter of how many lauches or "I got what you got and made it
better".  The real issue is accomplishments.  What have we done against
what they (USSR) have done.  I will leave this open for discussion.  It
shouldn't be a race between two countries, It should be a race for two
countries.

						Von Hall
					Middle Tennessee State U.
					Murfreesboro, Tn. 37132

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am.       
Therefore Do I think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 88 16:25:09 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: STARS

> >WHAT ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STARS DESCRIBED IN THE UNIVERSE.
> 
> The traditional mnemonic goes something like this :
> 
> 	Oh		O	Red giant
> 	Be		B
> 	A		A
> 	Fine		F
> 	Girl		G	Yellow, our Sun is a 'G' star
> 	Kiss		K
> 	Me		M
> 	Right		R
> 	Now		N	Neutron star
> 	Baby		B	Black hole

`Baby' should be `Sweetie', as the last 3 are `R', `N', and `S'.
Also, the last two are NOT `neutron stars' and `black holes'; the
scale was made long, long before either was know to exist.
The `RNS' stars are no longer recognized, anyway - they've 
been reclassified into I forget what (Wolf-Rayet O stars &
various `p' stars??).

> While it's been about twenty years since I last saw this mnemonic, there
> is a fairly simple logic to it - it reflects the sequence of possible
> states a stellar mass may pass through, from cool red stars through the
> spectrum to mid-range yellow stars through to ultraviolet neutron stars,
> and beyond into black holes.

The letters reflect early (1890's - 1920's) classification  
schemes, based on the relative prominence of various spectral
lines. (Well, it's still based on that of course, but it's the
older names for lines.) There used to be many more classes (more
letters), but some were winnonwed out, and we now subclass using
the letter and a number 0-9 (e.g., A9 is closest to F0, except 
there are no stars brighter than about O5). 

Your use of the phrase `pass through' may reflect another
misconception about stellar evolution - most stars do not pass through
all of these stages (although they pass through some, although not
more than one as a main sequence star). This is another place where
the historical classification scheme of `early' (i.e. young) stars
(the bright stars in O through A) and `late' (i.e. old) stars (F
through M) was based on erroneous ideas of stellar evolution.  As a
relict of this history, astronomers still speak of, for example,
`stars earlier than A0' or `stars later than G5' when they really mean
temperature/spectral ranges, not age. 

Finally, neutron stars are not `ultraviolet', at least in the sense
that their blackbody spectrum peaks there. They certainly don't have a
blackbody spectrum, for instance. 
-- 

Bill Wyatt, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

UUCP:  {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
 (or)  wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu
SPAN:  cfairt::wyatt 
BITNET: wyatt@cfa2

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 21:07:39 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@eddie.mit.edu  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Relativity acceleration question

In article <11986@bellcore.bellcore.com>, karn@jupiter..bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
> 
> The atomic clocks on the Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation
> satellites are adjusted to compensate for relativistic effects. Because they
> are mostly out of the earth's gravity well, they run slightly faster in
> orbit than on the earth's surface.
> 

	Extrapolate this some ... what are the signals (freq's) that
	the GPS's put out.  I've read a method of navigation which
	measures the accumulated doppler of the sat's and converts
	it into observer x-y-z.  Great stuff if you know the freq's;
	merely interesting if you don't.

	Any other details about the GPS's would be interesting as well.
	Who's got the facts?


-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 88 21:47:59 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue

In article <5895@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> urjlew@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes:
>Since we all know that no system is perfect, and that
>eventually there will be another accident, and that eventually
>there will be a big accident, no matter what is done to attempt
>repair, rescue etc,  The problem at hand is what should be done.

Unsupported assertion.  A finite number of shuttle flights will
take place over the life of the program.  With proper care we can avoid
a big accident.  We cannot avoid small accidents but we can improve
survivability when one occurs.  

>Prepare the public now for the eventuality of an accident.

Counterproductive to say the least.

>Prepare the resources so that the program can continue.
>Prepare to downplay the drama of the accident.

Good - step one is no more postings like Rostyk's or Bowery's.

>As a final recourse! be prepared to destroy the craft, to
>end the drama. (Lord forgive me for this suggestion.
>I don't think I would be able to push the button)

The Lord may forgive you but common sense won't.  Destroying
the craft is pointless.  


-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 18:25:46 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]

In article <7827@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
>However, in that article I questioned whether you can really get a
>big explosion out of a failed rocket.  A big messy fireball, yes,
>that would probably melt and destroy the gantry along with the
>crew.  But "everything within a mile?"  And the people in the
>blockhouse?  Maybe if the two tanks of hypergolic fuels
>crunched together you could get a fairly explosive fire?

Hypergolic fuels actually are rather less dangerous, because they ignite
on contact and hence tend to burn rather than explode.  Liquid oxygen
mixed with kerosene, or liquid hydrogen, is an explosive several times
as powerful as TNT.  Ever wonder why the viewing stands at KSC are three
miles from the pads?  It's because an exploding Saturn V could have thrown
debris almost that far -- it would have been the equivalent of a small
nuclear weapon.  A kilogram of TNT is quite an explosion, and we're
talking about *thousands of tons* of more-energetic fuels.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 88 17:17:42 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots

In article <1988Nov21.181239.1401@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <977@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>>In article <439@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes:
>>>   The Lunar Society's work is aimed at teloperated assistants for a
>>>Moon Base.
>>
>>And a good way of testing them would be to build the base.
>>
>>All ready for moving into when people can get there.
>
>Uh, please think before posting.  This is a silly suggestion.  You're
>sending human beings -- by far the best mobile, dextrous, autonomous
>robots we've got :-) -- up anyway.  It's a base/colony, not just a brief
>visit, so they'll be up there for a while.  Why in the world do you want
>to perform heroic feats of high technology just to save them a few weeks'
>assembly work?  Given the task, the environment, and the bloody annoying

Agreed, if you are assembling the base from parts shipped up
from earth, and intend sending people within a few weeks,
then complex robots aren't worth bothering about.

If you want to build a moonbase with a minimum of input of
materials from the Earth, you need to use as much of the
Moon's resources as possible.

Start with lunar prospectors to take core samples at
possible sites. Earth movers (Moon movers? :->) to prepare
tha site. More specialised machines teleoperated from Earth
to dig ores and pour lunar concrete.

Machines to smelting the ores and make some structural parts
should also be possible given the machinery already available.

There is even some work being done on the remote servicing
machines that would be needed.

It isn't a minor job to modify today's technology to work in
the extremly harsh lunar conditions, and the time lag in
feedback is going to be a problem, but building a lunar base
isn't a trivial job either. It just seems to me to make
sense to test out the techniques needed on site before
having people trust their lives to them.

The machines also don't HAVE to have a constant supply of
materials from Earth, they don't need to breathe or eat. They
don't need a way to get back to Earth. If a machine runs out
of supplies, it can be re-supplied and/or salvaged later.
People can't.

Once tha basic base is there and able to hold atmosphere,
then send people.

Of course, it would be nice to build something like a Lunar
oxygen plant too, but that is being a little too ambitious.
	Bob.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #145
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Dec 88 04:53:08 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00450>; Mon, 5 Dec 88 04:27:39 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  5 Dec 88 04:27:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kXaYePy00jZdE190Bp>;
          Mon,  5 Dec 88 03:36:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.QXaYQoy00UkZ88lk5g>;
          Mon,  5 Dec 88 03:22:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <8XaYNQy00UkZA8kU5m@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  5 Dec 88 03:18:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #146

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 146

Today's Topics:
			Re: US Goals in Space
		   Re: Morton Thiokol (blame etc.)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #126
		      Re: Advanced Launch System
		     Re: Old stuff in a new light
	      Condensed CANOPUS - November 1988 (part 1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 88 04:47:35 GMT
From: att!pacbell!hoptoad!dasys1!tneff@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space

In article <73@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <7828@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>
>>NASA does the managing, and they are far-sighted indeed
>>if you listen to what they're planning.  Always have been, near as I
>>can tell. 
>
>Having worked at a NASA center, I disagree.

Yes, but if he STILL WORKED at NASA, I wonder if he would disagree.
There's little shock value in the notion that someone who left the
agency has problems with its farsightedness.

>NASA has one of the lowest research budgets of any government agency
>set up for research, and you call them farsighted?  

Since NASA does not set its own budget, how does this question escape
the nonsense bucket.  Congress and the Administration(s) are certainly
shortsighted, as are the voters who install them.  That's all Nick's
assertion proves.

>                                                   NASA's goals are
>the same now as they were right after Apollo, and they're even more 
>obsolete.  

Were those BAD goals NASA had after Apollo?  If not, since they
haven't been completed yet, why change them.  It would be far worse
if our goals in space lurched all over the map every two or four
years.

>          If NASA was farsighted they would be spending much more 
>money on space industrialization, planetary exploration, electric 
>and nuclear propulsion, mass drivers, tethers, optical communications,
>etc. 

Maybe I'm reading different stuff from you, but I thought NASA had
ongoing projects in almost all of those areas.  They don't really
decide how much to spend on these things, and you know it.  The cuts
come down from the top and have to be distributed somewhere.

>     instead of spending billions trying to squeeze the last erg of 
>efficiency out of chemical rockets, 

Seems to me the billions[sic] not spent on production of existing
launchers, are going into advanced materials and design research.
If you can build a lighter and stronger bird, you increase the
efficiency of ANY propulsion system.

>                                    and trying to put crude capsules
>in space and calling these 'habitats.'

One wonders where the magic line is drawn which a "capsule" has to
cross before the poster excuses it from the "crude" category!  Would
it be okay to try to put *really fancy* capsules in space?  What do
you get for your investment in *fanciness*, in particular?

>>The poster then hauls out the hoary railroad analogy.  If I hear this
>>one more time I'm going to go out and buy a conductor's cap. <grin>
>>That was then, this is now.  Congress had land to grant.  Space cannot
>>be granted.  
>
>Why not?  How else can space resources be divied up?

Aside from the treaties we have *already* signed, space itself (notice
I said "space," not "space resources" in the original article) has
no enforceable boundaries.  Go ahead, pretend you have the power.
Grant me some space.  What space have you granted me?  Define it.

>[remainder of railroad analogy omitted - poster not really following it]

>>[multinational corporations will profit from space]
>>Let someone
>>besides the middle-class American homeowner foot the bill for space
>>industry if it's going to be so profitable, because he won't see the
>>fruits if it is, I guarantee you.
>
>Who buys the products of the multinationals?  Middle-class America 
>consumes a big chunk.  

Wonderful - he gets to pay for it twice! I said "he won't see the
fruits," as in profits.  The profits go somewhere else.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 88 19:59:30 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Morton Thiokol (blame etc.)

In article <7825@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>... If
>we want to dump the contractor system as a whole, OK; if not, NASA has
>to be held responsible for managing that system effectively...

Right.  And one very important part of managing it effectively is to make
it clear to contractors that appropriate behavior will be rewarded and
inappropriate behavior will be punished.  Do we really want to prevent
a recurrence of Challenger?  If so, the next time a contractor is faced
with the decision of whether to cut corners or not, and the engineers
say it's not safe, and the management is tempted to overrule them, what
can the engineers say?  Remember, management is MBAs and stuffed shirts,
whose notions of honor and professional ethics and duty could be inscribed
on the head of a pin in large type:  what matters to them is money.  Will
the engineers be able to say "but look what it *cost* Thiokol when they
cut corners"?  If they can't say that, then management will overrule them.
And right now, you better believe that they can't say that.  Thiokol made
large profits out of killing seven astronauts, not least the indefinite
postponement of the second-sourcing issue.

The right thing to do would have been to bring other contractors in on
the SRB fixes, since Thiokol had demonstrated that it values money over
safety, and shift production away from Thiokol as quickly as possible.
And lay some criminal charges against those directly responsible (in NASA
as well as Thiokol) too.  That might perhaps send the right message.  What
was actually done sure hasn't.

>Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?"  The virtuous
>answer to Mulloy's question would have been "yes, if necessary." You
>would have to be a Keebler Elf to believe that any NASA contractor
>could have been expected to give that answer.  The crime is that the
>question was even asked.

By the same argument, though, would you really expect that low-level
NASA management, under the pressures they were under, would have asked
the question any differently?  That argument can be applied to almost
any length, leading to the conclusion that nobody is responsible.  Which
is certainly the implicit conclusion that was reached this time, to judge
by the results.  But if nobody was responsible for Challenger, nobody is
really, personally responsible for making sure it doesn't happen again.
What we want is for *everybody* to feel responsible.  That means holding
*all* involved parties responsible when something screws up.  And doing
more to them than just slapping their fingers in public, too.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1988 11:46-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #126

John Watson:

I might agree with you that there may be a McCarthy in our future, but
I think it has little to do with the Borman incident. I can well
understand what he went through, since I was a hippy radical at the
time myself and know how utterly ideological some of my contemporaries
were. I imagine the night was not a night of pseudo-intellectual
argument but a night of continuous verbal attack and abuse upon an
individual who had come over for a peaceful evening of discussion. I
expect comments were more in the range of "How many kids did YOU
napalm?" and "Facist Amerikan pig".

Believe me, I KNOW the game. I've been there. Those kind of people
turned me violently against the left and made me a libertarian for
life.

Hate is a poison to the human mind, no matter WHAT their ideology is,
and I reject it.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 88 19:26:50 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Advanced Launch System

In article <2378@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>> ...Anyone who seriously expects ALS to be really
>> cheap probably believes in the Easter bunny...
>Before I started to work on the Space Station, I was a systems engineer
>on Boeing's Advanced Launch System project...

In fairness to Dani and his employer, I should say that from what I know
about Boeing's underlying notions about ALS, they have their heads screwed
on correctly.  (My own idea of how NASA should handle getting itself a
heavy-lift launcher is to tell Boeing and Hughes that if they develop the
Jarvis booster, NASA will buy a bunch of them.)  However, I don't think
they can escape from the fundamental problems of ALS:  a wishlist that is
too long and too self-contradictory, too much reliance on a hypothetical
abundant supply of big payloads, and the fact that it's government-funded
(with all that that implies in paperwork, mil-spec compliance, oscillating
funding, program stretchouts, etc.).

>To go much beyond the 300-500 dollar perpound point you have to
>(a) use a different type of propulsion, and or
>(b) get much higher production runs of flight hardware, and or
>(c) get fully reuseable

It's not clear to me why (a) is on the list, except possibly from the
viewpoint that different propulsion might radically reduce non-payload
mass to be lifted.

Something that Dani didn't discuss at length is that a lot of the costs
of current launch systems are on the ground.  There is NO WAY a launcher
can possibly be cheap if it has to sit on the pad for a month in advance
with people swarming over it.  Especially if each person who is actually
doing something useful has one or two others with clipboards watching
him.  (I think it was Max Hunter who said that it's important to design
a vehicle that doesn't need a service tower, because for every platform
you have on the tower, there'll be a man with a clipboard standing on it.)
NASA's launch crew for a Delta was about 2000 people.  If the average
salary is $20k/yr and overhead is 100% (it costs more to hire someone than
just his salary, and the US government and its contractors are notorious
for high overhead), and the pad time is indeed a month per launcher, then
that's close to $7M per launch right there.  And a month was a bit on the
optimistic side for a NASA Delta launch, as I recall.

Personally, I'm not convinced that automated checkout is going to solve
this, but we won't know for sure until somebody tries it.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 88 19:37:30 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Old stuff in a new light

In article <gables.211@umigw.miami.edu> gtww2z9z%gables.span@umigw.miami.edu (Jason Gross) writes:
>Now, about Soviet results.  Ok, they have successfully maintained a 
>prescence in space for almost a year with the current crew in Mir.  They plan
>to stay until a year passes.  Along with this, they are able to remotely
>resupply Mir through the Progress cargo rockets.  But there's really nothing
>new here.

Oh no?  The US can't do *any* of that right now.  In fact, the US has never
been able to do any of that.  It will be at least a decade before that gets
fixed, too, unless somebody does it privately.

>ANd on the space station issue, the same Soviet methodology shines through.
>This is their seventh space station.  

Yup, and they've obviously learned a few things from the first six.  It
probably won't be their last, either.  The US hasn't even really gotten
started on its second.  The way you learn things is by trying ideas out,
not by studying them endlessly.

>... to just look at results, the Soviets seem to be winning, but all they've
>done is maintained a public image in the world's eye that they are in space and
>we are not.  Otherwise, they haven't really done much at all.

Everything that the US plans to do on its space station, the Soviets are
already doing on theirs.  By this standard, what has the US done lately
in space?  A reusable space shuttle?  Big deal, what does it *do*?
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 88 22:21:29 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - November 1988 (part 1)


Here is the condensed CANOPUS for early November 1988.  There were no
articles in CANOPUS in October, hence no posting for that month.
This posting includes six articles dated November 1; there will be
another posting any additional articles appear this month.  The
unabridged version of this posting has been sent to the usual mailing
list.  Anyone who missed a copy or wants to be added to the list
should let me know.

Thanks to everyone who responded to the survey.  The results are
discussed in a separate posting, but some changes will be apparent.

CANOPUS is copyright 1988 by the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics.  See end of posting for information.

Contents:
MAGELLAN SHIPPED, SINGED - can881103.txt - 11/1/88 {short; in full}
EXCELLENT DATA - can881104.txt - 11/1/88 {condensed}
SUSIM REDESIGNED FOR REFLIGHT - can881105.txt - 11/1/88 {condensed}
FAR UV IMAGING SPECTROGRAPH - can881106.txt - 11/1/88 {condensed}
SPACE STATION CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS IN PLACE - can881101.txt - 11/1/88
  {condensed}
Copyright information
PERSONNEL ACTIONS - can881102.txt - 11/1/88 {at HST; omitted}

MAGELLAN SHIPPED, SINGED - can881103.txt - 11/1/88 {in full}

The Magellan spacecraft was shipped to Kennedy Space Center on
September 27 and damaged by a small fire shortly after its arrival.
Engineers suspect a small short and say that damage was minor. They
are now assessing what repairs must be done. Magellan will be
launched in 1989 to map Venus using radar.

EXCELLENT DATA - can881104.txt - 11/1/88 {condensed}

A new Center for Space Data and Information Services (CESDIS) has
been opened by the Universities Space Research Association (USRA) at
Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. CESDIS is being funded
through a $4.8 million NASA grant to "foster an innovative
environment for research by the academic and industrial computer
sciences community to develop new techniques and to apply new
technologies to handle NASA's problems in the transmission,
manipulation, and interpretation of vast quantities of data."

Junior teaching and graduate student positions will be funded through
CESDIS. The "institute without walls" will foster the use of
advanced, high-speed computer networks allowing scientists to stay at
their home institutions.

SUSIM REDESIGNED FOR REFLIGHT - can881105.txt - 11/1/88 {condensed}

A second-generation Solar UV Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SUSIM) has
been designed and built for the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
(UARS), according to the Naval Research Laboratory. The original
SUSIM flew aboard the Space Shuttle in 1982 and 1985, and will fly
again in 1992.  Data from the first two SUSIM flights agree within 3
percent in the 200-350 nm range, providing the first, independently
calibrated UV solar spectra measurements. The goal is a 6 to 10
percent accuracy across the 12-400 nm range.

NRL has also published "An Atlas of Extreme Ultraviolet
Spectroheliograms from 190-600 Angstroms" using data obtained from
more than 1,000 images taken by the slitless-objective-type grating
spectrometer that flew aboard the Skylab Apollo Telescope Mount.

FAR UV IMAGING SPECTROGRAPH - can881106.txt - 11/1/88 {condensed}

NRL is planning to fly a Far Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrograph on the
Spartan 281 payload under Air Force sponsorship. {Talk about tangled
funding!--SW}  FUVIS is similar to the NRL-803 electronographic
telescopes that George Carruthers flew aboard two sounding rockets to
observe Halley's comet in 1986.  No flight date was announced.

SPACE STATION CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS IN PLACE - can881101.txt - 11/1/88
{condensed, last article}

NASA has concluded contract negotiations with four firms and 
three foreign space agencies that will build the Freedom Space 
Station.

WP-1, Boeing Aerospace Co., $1.6 billion, Marshall Space Flight
     Center. Core module and resource nodes structures, laboratory
     and logistics modules outfitting, environmental control and life
     support, internal thermal systems, internal audio and video
     systems, associated software.

WP-2, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co., $2.6 billion, Johnson Space
     Center. Resource nodes and habitat module, support truss
     structure, mobile servicing system transporter, airlocks, data
     management system, communications, tracking, EVA, propulsion,
     and thermal control systems.

WP-3, General Electric Astro-Space Division (ex-RCA), $895 million,
     free-flying platforms and Station attached payloads hardware,
     including pointing system.

WP-4, Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International, $1.6 billion,
     75-kW electrical power system.

The International Governmental Agreement was signed by the European
Space Agency, Japan, and Canada. ESA will provide the Columbua
experiment module that will be attached on the aft side of Space
Station, Japan will supply the Japanese Experiment Module which will
be placed in a parallel position, and Canada will provide the robotic
systems for the Mobile Servicing Center.  Europe and Japan will also
provide unmanned platforms for the Earth Observing System and for the
Man-Tended Free-Flyer (MTFF) which will carry extremely low-g
materials experiments. The MTFF will have a Spacelab-type module
attached which will carry the equivalent of 23 single racks of
experiment gear and storage.

----------------END OF CONDENSED CANOPUS-----------------------------

This posting represents my own condensation of CANOPUS.  For clarity,
I have not shown ellipses (...), even when the condensation is
drastic.  New or significantly rephrased material is in {braces} and
is signed {--SW} when it represents an expression of my own opinion.
The unabridged CANOPUS is available via e-mail from me at any of the
addresses below.

Copyright information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; 
e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded).  Send
correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #146
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Dec 88 06:23:46 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00831>; Mon, 5 Dec 88 05:46:03 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  5 Dec 88 05:46:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4XaaCqy00Ui380jk5t>;
          Mon,  5 Dec 88 05:23:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.UXaa:vy00UkZ88vU4A>;
          Mon,  5 Dec 88 05:19:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EXaa95y00UkZ48uE5U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  5 Dec 88 05:17:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #147

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:
			Re: US Goals in Space
		  CANOPUS Poll Results and Comments
NASA selects contractor for Global Geospace Science Spacecraft (Forwarded)
		    New light, different focus...
		    Re: Teleoperated Robots (LONG)
			Re: Spaceplane project
			   Re: AL-O rocket
		     Re: Old stuff in a new light
			      Re: STARS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 88 04:56:39 GMT
From: att!pacbell!hoptoad!dasys1!tneff@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space

In article <1988Nov22.172336.25128@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <7828@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>... NASA does the managing, and they are far-sighted indeed
>>if you listen to what they're planning...
>
>I'm afraid I would amend that:  *some parts* of NASA are far-sighted indeed.
>Unfortunately, said far-sightedness doesn't necessarily extend to a certain
>headquarters building in Washington, specifically to the biggest offices in
>it.  Remember that, even if his underlings are bright and enthusiastic, the
>Administrator of NASA is basically a political appointee.  Some of the folks
>who've held that post over the years have done a good job.  Some... haven't.

I agree with Henry's amendment of my statement.  Short-sightedness is
undoubtedly a congenital, occupational disease at NASA HQ - just consider
who they have to deal with on a daily basis.  Back at the centers, though,
there is plenty of farseeing going on.  In fact, precisely to the extent
that my statement needed amending, so does Henry's former "dream alive but
not at NASA" signature - in the opposite direction. :-)

>It was NASA HQ that didn't want the Ride Report published, remember.  And
>if you can see any signs of it being implemented, you've got better eyes
>than I have.

No one but the President can make the Ride Report's recommendations
happen.  If anyone can suggest a reason why George Bush *needs* to roil
those particular waters, I'm all ears.  At the moment I do not
anticipate he will be doing a lot of things he doesn't *need* to do in
the next four years.



-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 88 22:50:59 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: CANOPUS Poll Results and Comments


First a brief quiz; answers below:

1) What is the significance of Canopus to the space program?
2) (for extra credit)  Why was Canopus picked as opposed to some
other star?

On October 3, I posted:
> After posting the condensed CANOPUS for over a year now, it's time
> for a poll to see if the effort is worthwhile.
[Posting was restricted to North America; readers elsewhere are
welcome to comment, but I didn't think the request was important
enough to send overseas.]

The responses were encouraging, with most respondents suggesting
keeping things about the same or else posting the unabridged version.
A significant minority asked for a shorter version; one person
suggested dropping the whole thing.  (Since that person was on the
mailing list for the unabridged version, I don't take it as much of a
criticism.)  Presumably a poll is biased against people who want a
shorter version, since they are less likely to take the time to
respond.  Therefore, I shall try to condense a bit more but not make
drastic changes.  Anyone who finds the condensation too short can
be added to the mailing list for the unabridged version.

One useful suggestion was to add a table of contents at the beginning
to allow readers to search for specific articles.  I have also moved
the bulk of the copyright information, etc. to the end, retaining a
copyright notice at the beginning to stay out of legal trouble.

Thanks to all who responded to the poll and especially to those with
helpful suggestions.  Further suggestions are always welcome.

I especially liked the response from the AT&T employee, who said
(approximately), "Post the whole thing.  The more telephone time you
use, the more I get paid!"

Answers to quiz:

1) Canopus is a bright star frequently used by interplanetary
spacecraft to control their orientation.  Typically two axes of the
spacecraft are controlled by a sun sensor and the third axis by a
star sensor locked onto Canopus.

2) Canopus is very bright (second only to Sirius, in fact) and lies
in a direction almost perpendicular to the plane in which the planets
orbit the Sun.  (Near the South Ecliptic Pole, in other words.)  It
is thus relatively easy to find and gives the greatest possible
sensitivity to orientation errors.  It is also visible from anywhere
in the solar system (unless temporarily blocked by a nearby body).

-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 88 06:08:25 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects contractor for Global Geospace Science Spacecraft (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    November 23, 1988

Carolynne White
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

NASA SELECTS CONTRACTOR FOR GLOBAL GEOSPACE SCIENCE SPACECRAFT

     NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has 
selected General Electric Co., Astro-Space Division, Princeton, 
N.J., for negotiations leading to the award of a cost-plus-award-fee 
contract for design, fabrication, instrument integration and launch 
operation support of the Global Geospace Science (GGS) Wind and 
Polar Missions.  

     The two GGS laboratories, with their complement of scientific 
instruments, will examine the flow of energy from the sun through 
the Earth's geospace environment.  This will be part of the overall 
scientific investigations within the International Solar-Terrestrial 
Physics Program.

     The contract, expected to be effective Jan. 13, 1989, will 
require that the contractor build two spacecraft and integrate 18 
government-furnished instruments.  The contractor will then deliver 
the two integrated laboratories and other support hardware and 
provide launch and mission operations support.

     The total proposed cost (excluding fee) for the basic contract 
period (excluding options) is $52,613,443.

     The contract will provide for delivery of the Wind laboratory 
to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for launch readiness on Dec. 30, 
1992, and delivery of the Polar laboratory to Vandenberg Air Force 
Base for launch readiness on June 30, 1993.  Each laboratory will be 
launched on a government-furnished expendable launch vehicle.  

     The contract calls for mission operations support to begin 
early in the program and continue 24 months after launch of the 
first laboratory, with two consecutive 12-month options for extended 
mission operations support.

     Other companies that submitted proposals were Ball Aerospace 
Systems Division, Boulder, Colo., and Fairchild Space Co., 
Germantown, Md.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 88 00:43:36 GMT
From: umigw!gables!gtww2z9z%gables.span@handies.ucar.edu  (Jason Gross)
Subject: New light, different focus...

Well, for my first posting on the net, I have garnered an amazing response.
Unfortunately, a good deal of it is negative. 

But before I try to rebuff some of the comments I've seen, let me apologize
to Mr. Spencer for stating that he is a idiot.  He's seems (from what I've seen)
to be an intelligent and informed person.  Now, with that out of the way, let's
begin.

I'm sorry that at least one of you out there considers by opinion "naive".
I an not unaware of what has happened to my neighbor NASA these days.  With
reports of coverups and suppressions of the truth and other nasty stuff, I
am a little disheartened by it all.  Worst of all, I terribly saddened by the
fact that we could do an immensely better job, except that some pinheads in
Washington think it more fun to play politics rather than playing getting down
to work.  But thought it all, I still have faith in NASA that they'll weather
this storm and come back to its rightful place.  Call me idealistically
optimistic, but that how it think it'll be.

And to clarify a point I made, at this point in time, I believe the Soviets
to be in the lead of the Space Race.  They have made accomplishments where we
have had failures.  But again, I don't see whe we should just say "Okay, that's
it ladies and gentlemen.  For now on, the show's gonna be run from Baikonur!"  
Now is our chance to do what should have been done all along: define what
we want to do in space.  Do we want to go commercial?  Do we want a space
station?  Do we want more planetary exploration (manned or unmanned)?  All
we want to do now is get the shuttle flying again!  Well, we just did that.
So now what?  Uh, let's launch another.  Yeah!  That's it!  Okay, what then?
Well, don't ask me these silly questions!

Ya see, we could be just as busy as the Sovs, but we are just running around
like a chicken with no head.  I just hope that someday soon, we find that
head again and put it back!

-- 
Jason Gross     Comp Sci Ugrad     University of Miami     Class of '91 (?)
===========================================================================
"Women.  You can't live   | Mail your invigorating replies to:      | For
with them, and you can't  |  GTWW2Z9Z%Gables.Span@Umigw.Miami.Edu   | Sale:
shoot them, either."      |  (What a lovely address, isn't it now?) | $.05
======================================================== IBM Sucks Silicon!

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 88 05:21:52 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots (LONG)

Darpa funding levels aren't the only standard of serious basic research.
Big bucks from Darpa are more generally indicative of a technology in an
early phase of its life cycle.  An old technology, such as teleoperators,
has less need for Darpa support because it has commercial support.  With
the decline of the principal customer for teleoperators, the nuclear industry,
teleoperators have been been hit badly by most economic measures.

Chris Eliot puts forward the important issue of definition of terms.  For example
What is a teleoperator?  Before the anthropomorphic all-mechnical remote
manipulator arms were introduced in the late 1940's, nuclear materials
were handled with long tongs.  Can tongs be a teleoperator?  These were very
advanced tongs.  The "master" end was connected to the "slave" end by a hollow
shaft containing inner shafts.  The inner shafts controlled the angle of the
slave end relative to the outer shaft, and the angle of closure of the jaws
of the slave end.  The shaft penetrated the "hot" cell wall through a ball
of lead or uranium in an enclosure which allowed free rotation.  The shaft
could be slid in or out, rotated in place, and swung in an arc of up to 65
degrees up-down or left-right.  This is a total of five degrees of freedom
in addition to opening and closing the "hand".

Is a manipulator arm driven by recordings taken in its "learn" mode a tele-
operator?  Here we have a machine which is run through its paces by a man once,
then it repeats the action over and over (such as painting a car).  I like
to think of this as a teleoperator, where the "tele" part is time, not
distance or the wall of a hot cell.

Would a mechanical sheepdog being used by a shepard be a teleoperator or
an autonomous robot?  The shepard gives the dog commands which determine
all of its actions.  I would not like to see a sheepdog classified as a
teleoperator because it is neither anthropomorphic or bilateral.  (Bilateral
means it gives feedback in the form the control input is applied, for example
tongs transmit the force they encounter back to the operator.)

Another question is What is a robot?  Is it a machine like a man?  What does
"like" mean?  Does it need to be able to fool me into thinking it's a man?
The latter definition might be met by a pile of pillows under a bedsheet,
with a tape recorder playing breathing sounds.

I don't have a good idea what a robot is, but I can easily imagine a "true"
robot.  This would be a robot which could fool all of the people all of the
time.  It would seem more human than a real person.  It would be a machine
people would fall in love with, or vote for.

I sense a defensive tone in Mr. Eliot's writing, as though he's being
realistic in advance about the industry he is helping to build.  Is he saying
we will have to become accustomed to these machines being as dangerous as other
ordinary risks?  I would not like robots if they were as dangerous as the
chemical industry, nuclear power, or cars.

I can just imagine an older Mr. Eliot giving a press conference after the
first major robot disaster (enraged automotive robot kills striking UAW workers,
super-patriotic military robot razes city of Berkeley, SDI robot becomes
convinced Communism is the scientific approach to political economics, etc.).

PRESS:  "Mr Eliot, aren't autonomous robots inherently dangerous?  Isn't 
autonomy the same thing as 'out-of-control'?"

ELIOT:  "A pile of gravel ..."

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Nov 1988 12:25-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

If the idea is going to be a serious one, you should get some members
of the Experimental Aircraft Association involved. Talk is great, but
you need people with space to build, tools, the skill to use them and
experience at building novel aircraft with novel materials. As I noted
once before, one of hte best places to go for the kind of people you
need is the annual Oshkosh fly-in. It is probably easier to arrange to
get some of these people on the net than it is to turn some of the net
people into machinists and hands-on type engineers.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Nov 1988 12:30-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: AL-O rocket

Kevin: Someone in our area has already tested an engine of this general
class. Contact me for details. Information is not public.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 88 20:02:33 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Old stuff in a new light


I think we need a new space discussion list/group.

It is clear that we need to unburden sci.space so it can be fully devoted to
endless rounds of a) armchair NASA-bashing, b) heartfelt handwringing in the
oh-my-gosh-the-Soviets-are-whipping-us-in-the-space-flagpole-sitting-
contest category, and c) off-the-wall libertarian political diatribes.

We simply cannot continue to allow sci.space to be polluted any longer by a
small minority of nonconformist posters who insist on submitting items with
meaningful technical content, instead of sticking to the approved categories
mentioned above.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 88 21:44:21 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@eddie.mit.edu  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: STARS

In article <1286@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, wyatt@cfa.harvard.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes:
> > >WHAT ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STARS DESCRIBED IN THE UNIVERSE.
> > 
> > The traditional mnemonic goes something like this :
> > 
> > 	Oh		O	Red giant
> > 	Be		B
> > 	A		A
> > 	Fine		F
> > 	Girl		G	Yellow, our Sun is a 'G' star
> > 	Kiss		K
> > 	Me		M
> > 	Right		R
> > 	Now		N	Neutron star
> > 	Baby		B	Black hole
> 
> `Baby' should be `Sweetie', as the last 3 are `R', `N', and `S'.
> Also, the last two are NOT `neutron stars' and `black holes'; the
> scale was made long, long before either was know to exist.
> The `RNS' stars are no longer recognized, anyway - they've 
> been reclassified into I forget what (Wolf-Rayet O stars &
> various `p' stars??).

	If I remember correctly the 'R', 'N', & 'S' stars are basically
	'M' stars with variations.  The 'S's are carbon stars (I think)
	and the others exhibit lines of Titanium Oxide.

	The 'W' stars are very different; they are the hottest stars
	and have a greenish color resulting from Helium emission.
	The 'p' means "peculiar" and refers to the fact that the particular
	star differs in some way from those normal for a class. For
	example, Arcturus is a K2 IIIp; the K2 indicates the temperature
	(~4250 K), the III means it's a giant star and the 'p' (in this
	case) means that Arcturus is a Population II star rather than
	the more typical Population I.

	After the stars had been sorted by color (O-M), certain variations
	showed up in the spectrums which were related to luminosity. The
	groups go something like this ...

		Ia	bright super-giant	Rigel		B8 Ia
		Ib	super-giant		Polaris		F8 Ib
		II	bright giant		Canopus		F0 II
		III	giant			Aldebaran	K5 III
		IV	sub-giant		Spica		B1 IV
		V	drarf or main sequence	Sun		G2 V

	Even with all the above combinations, there are many stars
	that don't fit so there are variations of this scheme, and
	some other classifications that are completely different.
	But that's another story.

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #147
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Dec 88 10:04:31 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02214>; Tue, 6 Dec 88 09:52:27 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  6 Dec 88 09:52:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8Xayxmy00Ui3E0uk5X>;
          Tue,  6 Dec 88 09:32:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.kXaymOy00UkZA2hE5:>;
          Tue,  6 Dec 88 09:20:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0XayjEy00UkZQ2g04M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  6 Dec 88 09:16:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #148

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:
		      Atlantis sightings tonight
			Atlantis STS-27 orbit
		     Atlantis sighting; elements
		 CRESCENT SIGHTING: FIRST VISIBILITY
		     The Cheap Space System, Inc.
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
		 Re: Relativity acceleration question
	      Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes
		     Re: Old stuff in a new light
Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 07:29:51 GMT
From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: Atlantis sightings tonight


Despite worsening pass conditions as Atlantis exits the evening 
visibility window, we made sightings of Atlantis again tonight.
The Lacrosse radar satellite is still station-keeping with
Atlantis (as of 2300 UTC on the fourth of December).  The two
were viewed on a low elevation pass and were of comparable
brightness (about mag. +4), so it was hard to tell which was
which.  They were about 4 seconds apart.

New elements were computed, and this set fits all the sightings
made up to date best.  Tonight it predicted a pass about 30 seconds
late compared to what was actually observed around 2308 UTC Dec. 4.

Object:       STS-27
Epoch:        88337.666018
ndot/2:       0.0001 
n2dot/6:      0.0
bstar:        0.3e-3
Inclination:  57.0 deg
RA of node:   189.2 deg
Eccentricity: 0.0
Arg. Perigee: 0.0
Mean Anomaly: 0.0
Mean Motion:  15.39
Rev:          1

This should give pretty good predictions for tomorrow.

Good luck!

-Rich

PS there was a mailer crash here tonight - any mail to me that was
   not replied to should be resent.  (sorry, not my fault ;-)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 88 19:35:31 GMT
From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: Atlantis STS-27 orbit


A net of visual observers across the States (of which I am a part)
made some visual observations of Atlantis yesterday.  We now have a
pretty good orbit for the shuttle...this should yield predictions
accurate to about 5 minutes for tonight.  Here is the elset:

Object:       STS-27
Epoch:        88337.66528
ndot/2:       0.0 
n2dot/6:      0.0
bstar:        0.0
Inclination:  57.0 deg
RA of node:   189.1 deg
Eccentricity: 0.0
Arg. Perigee: 0.0
Mean Anomaly: 0.0
Mean Motion:  15.32
Rev:          1

A rather high orbit, no?  I wonder why.

-Rich

(snowdog@athena, any mail welcome.)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 88 00:41:19 GMT
From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: Atlantis sighting; elements



I saw Atlantis make a pass over here at Cambridge at 17:12 EST.  The
payload satellite was about 3 seconds directly ahead of Atlantis,
flying in formation.  (This puts it about 20 km ahead in real space.)
It was about 1 - 2 magnitudes fainter and distinctly red in color
(gold foil?).  Very interesting.

The elements I posted earlier on today predicted a pass 7 minutes and
50 seconds later.  Here are some improved elements:

Object:       STS-27
Epoch:        88337.66528
ndot/2:       0.0001 
n2dot/6:      0.0
bstar:        0.3e-3
Inclination:  57.0 deg
RA of node:   189.1 deg
Eccentricity: 0.0
Arg. Perigee: 0.0
Mean Anomaly: 0.0
Mean Motion:  15.3817
Rev:          1

These should be very close, within a few seconds for tonight, and maybe
a few minutes tomorrow.

-Rich

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1988 20:15:47 EST
From: Mohib N Durrani <mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
Cc: physics@unix.sri.com, mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Subject: CRESCENT SIGHTING: FIRST VISIBILITY



                       Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
  ( I begin with the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )

         THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
           102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027

         SUBJECT: CRESCENT MOON: FIRST VISIBILITY (every lunar month)
         *************************************************************

      NEXT CRESCENT (NEW) MOON:  Fri Dec 9, 1988 (from long.+70 deg.W) *

                   (*) Hilal (crescent) sightings would be 
   at least 10 minutes after sunset, usually before 20 minutes after sunset, 
                   and upto 40 to 60 minutes after sunset.
   

        We are conducting research/survey on the recorded WORLD-WIDE
          first sightings of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" 
                   in the evenings, for every lunar month.

                  PHOTOGRAPHS / SLIDES ARE MOST WELCOME
               since they are very helpful in the research.

              Please also pass on the request to your friends 
                   who are interested in astronomy and to 
                 your local amateur astronomy associations.

                We would very much like to hear from you and 
                  will also keep you posted on the answers.

                Please respond either by email or by letter.        

       The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL 
               and fine tune some parameters regarding VISION.


 When reporting actual Hilal (crescent) sightings, (even if you do not see it)
                        PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

Was Hilal visible to naked eye?......... Hilal sighted in binoculars?.........
EXACT TIMES: Complete Sunset at......... Hilal First Visible....... End.......
Weather condition: Rel.Humidity......... Temperature..... Pressure............
Sky near western horizon: Clear?........ Hazy?........... Cloudy?.............
Observer: Age.... Eyesight: Glasses?.... Far sighted?.... Near sighted?.......
Name....................... Date........ Location.............................

                                 Thanks.





        Email to:  mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
        
        Mail:      Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Dec 88 14:18:13 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (There's no place like home, there's no place like home, the B2 is worth it)
Subject: The Cheap Space System, Inc.

This is brief and to the point.  I will take care of the legal work to get
Space Transport Technologies, Inc (or whatever name) into being if I can
get 10 people who say they will fund it with $110 each, for starters.  Do
not send money, E-Mail me for details, all we need is $1000 in securities,
I'll cover the other costs.  If you've read any of the postings about "sweat
equity" space and agreed, this is what was talked about.  Before this creature
actually comes to life, those involved should agree on what it is to do.
(Launchers? Birds? Space station? Lunar diamond mine? :-))


Money talks, bullshit walks.


Dillon Pyron               (This has no relationship to TI other than the
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com     network connection)
(214)462-5449 (work)
(214)492-4656 (home)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 88 22:22:14 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue

In article <Added.UXWj2ly00Vs105509S@andrew.cmu.edu> ST502042@BROWNVM.BITNET (Michael Nosal) writes:
>...That is, what is the absolute minimum amount of time needed to get
>a crew up in space??? All this rescue business means *zilch* if it takes
>two weeks to get a launch. Try floating around in a rescue ball for more
>than two or three days.

The rescue balls are only for inter-vehicle transfer, not for long-term
survival.  They're just ersatz spacesuits for crew members who aren't
expected to have to go outside normally.

As for minimum launch time...  Probably a couple of days *if* there happens
to be a flight-ready shuttle on the pad (not too likely).  Lots longer
otherwise.

That's for the US.  The Soviets could probably put up a Soyuz rather more
quickly, although it would get pretty crowded for a substantial crew.
Buran is anybody's guess right now.

>Question is, what changes to hatch design have been made and are there
>any interconnects nowadays?

The fast answer is that nobody is compatible with anybody else.

Even if there were a standard, it might not help.  The shuttle probably
would not carry a standard docking fitting on missions not calling for
it anyway, for the sake of saving weight.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 88 22:27:38 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue

In article <7917@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>...eventually there will be another accident, and that eventually
>>there will be a big accident...
>
>Unsupported assertion.  A finite number of shuttle flights will
>take place over the life of the program.  With proper care we can avoid
>a big accident...

NRC's report on shuttle launch frequencies essentially stated that another
big accident, bad enough to write off an orbiter, is highly likely.

>>As a final recourse! be prepared to destroy the craft...
>
>The Lord may forgive you but common sense won't.  Destroying
>the craft is pointless.  

In any case, there are no destruct charges aboard the orbiter.  Destroying
the SRBs and ET, unfortunately, conceivably might be necessary, and the
odds on the orbiter surviving that aren't good.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 88 20:38:39 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Relativity acceleration question


A very complete description of GPS is contained in the book I mentioned
before, Handbook of Modern Electronics and Electrical Engineering.
It's published by Wiley-Interscience; ISBN 0-471-09754-3.

To summarize, each GPS satellite transmits on two frequencies, L1 and L2.
L1 is 1575.420 MHz and L2 is 1227.600 MHz (we radio amateurs lost the
1215-1240 MHz section of our 23cm band several years ago for this reason).
The two carriers are generated coherently by multiplication of the internal
atomic clock reference of 10.23 MHz (lowered as described earlier to
compensate for relativistic effects).

The two frequencies are provided to allow for correction of ionospheric
propagation delay. 

Both signals are binary phase modulated in quadrature by pseudo-random
sequences; this means that the signals are actually direct sequence
spread-spectrum (i.e., you won't hear them on your R-7000).  One spreading
sequence is 1023 chips long; this is called the C/A (clear access) code, and
is public. The chip rate for this code is 1.023 megachip/s, so it repeats
every millisecond.

The other is the P (precision) code, and is classified. However, the P code
is known to be the product of two different PN codes, one of length
15,345,000 and the other of length 15,345,037. Transmitted at a chip rate of
10.23 megachip/s (10x the C/A rate), it takes 38 weeks to repeat. In
operation, however, each satellite uses a different section of the P code
sequence, and each satellite restarts its sequence every week at 00:00:00
UTC Sunday.

Total transmitter power is 20 watts, split 4:2:1 between the C/A channel of
L1, the P channel of L1, and L2. Antenna gain is 13.7 dB.

In addition to the spreading sequences, each signal contains a 50 bps
data stream containing an orbital ephemeris.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 88 21:06:57 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes


Contrary to Henry's assertion, liquid rocket fuels are not necessarily safer
to handle than solid fuels. Modern solid fuels are surprisingly stable; you
can hold a lit match to bulk solid fuel, and chances are it will not ignite.
(Nevertheless, the consequences of undesired ignition are nasty enough that
I would not recommend using a match as a light source while inspecting the
interior of a SRB...)

It takes what is essentially a cascaded series of small, quick burning
rocket engines to reliably ignite the solid rocket motors used on the
shuttle. The NASA Standard Initiator (NSI, essentially a detonator) ignites
a pyro booster pellet of BKNO3, which starts an ignitor initiator (a small
rocket engine) about 18cm long. The ignitor initiator in turn ignites the
main ignitor motor, another, larger, rocket engine about 91cm long. Its
flame shoots down the entire length of the SRB for a hundred milliseconds or
so. The igniter contains 64 kg of solid propellant -- reliable ignition
requires a big flame!

One major drawback to almost all liquid rocket fuels is that they are either
extremely toxic or extremely cold. Sometimes both. This is not the case with
solid fuel.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 03:37:24 GMT
From: bunny!hhd0@husc6.harvard.edu  (Horace Dediu)
Subject: Re: Old stuff in a new light

In article <12086@bellcore.bellcore.com>, karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes:
> 
> I think we need a new space discussion list/group.
 
> Phil

Hear, hear!  Let's have some good technical discussions, eh?

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 88 22:23:34 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.

In article <8811231725.AA07043@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
>         BIS also realized that getting Helium-3 from Jupiter's atmosphere 
>    would be no less a task than getting a vehicle to another star.  Their 
>    plan was to float 130 automated "aerostat factories" in Jupiter's 
>    atmosphere, suspended beneath huge "hot hydrogen" balloons ...

Unfortunately, Jupiter's atmosphere is probably too turbulent for this to
work particularly well.  Daedalus was pre-Voyager.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #148
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Dec 88 06:57:58 EST
Received: by PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id <AA00985>; Wed, 7 Dec 88 06:06:48 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  7 Dec 88 06:06:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sXbEYWy00Vs181j04v>;
          Wed,  7 Dec 88 05:34:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.EXbEJCy00UkZI4WE4o>;
          Wed,  7 Dec 88 05:17:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XbEHdy00UkZE4V04S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  7 Dec 88 05:16:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #149

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 149

Today's Topics:
	  Time Urgent: Pioneer Venus Press Conference on TV
		  Re: New light, different focus...
			Re: US Goals in Space
			Re: Spaceplane project
			Re: US Goals in Space
	       SPACE Digest V9 #133, Teloperated Robots
Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.
Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue,  6 Dec 88 16:22 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@CORNELLC.ccs.cornell.edu>
Subject:  Time Urgent: Pioneer Venus Press Conference on TV
Original_To:  SPACE

This just came over the CANOPUS newsletter.  Thought those of you
with satellite dishes might be interested.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY - can881284.txt - 12/5/88

Pioneer 12 completes 10 years of productive observations in orbit
around Venus today. NASA will hold a science press conference to
review results from the program. It and celebrations by NASA and
Hughes Aircraft, the spacecraft builder, will be held Monday.
These will be broadcast, by delayed tape, on Tuesday at 1 p.m.
EST (10 a.m. PST) on Satcom F-2R (at 72 deg. W) , transponder 13,
C-band (3960 MHz, audio 6.8 MHz).

(No, despite the new "Time Urgent" rule, I will not be posting a summary
of this stuff.  Not unless somebody buys me a satellite dish and VCR between
now and Tuesday...(-:)
                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with
     ~  Free Nobel Prizewinner Inside!

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 18:59:05 GMT
From: uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg@g.ms.uky.edu  (Gregory N. Hullender)
Subject: Re: New light, different focus...

In article <gables.232@umigw.miami.edu> gtww2z9z%gables.span@umigw.miami.edu (Jason Gross) writes:
>Now is our chance to do what should have been done all along: define what
>we want to do in space.  Do we want to go commercial?  Do we want a space
>station?  Do we want more planetary exploration (manned or unmanned)?

The _Ecomomist_ had a very good article about space recently.  They said that
there were really four reasons to go into space: Money, Power, Knowledge, and
Glory.  The suggested each be dealt with as follows:

1) Money.  Commercial exploitation of space should *not* be done by the
government.  The government might subsidize it or patronize it to help get
it started, but every effort should be made to privatize commercical launches
as much as possible.

2) Power.  The military should be free to persue their own objectives in space,
without strings attached to NASA.  This partnership has not served either
side very well.

3) Knowledge.  Universities and other research institutions should be free to
purchase launch capability wherever they wish (consistent with national
security).  Their budgets should simply include some amount for launch costs
for each project.

4) Glory.  Man exploring the universe is not a means to an end; it is an
end in itself, and the public is willing to pay for a certain amount of it.
NASA should pick a goal (Man on Mars, say), and, given a realistic annual
budget for it (what the public is *really* willing to pay for pure exploration)
plan out how to spend it intelligently over the time it will actually take.
If the USA alone won't foot the whole bill, go in together with the same allies
we're working with on the space station.

I think a great deal of NASA's problems come from the fact that it has always
been in business #4, but it has tried to justify things based on the other
three.  NASA's troubles with Congress are not the fault of Congress; they
stem directly from NASA's lies about the economic practicality of the shuttle.

Good steps have been made toward eliminating NASA's non-Glory functions.
This should continue.
-- 
Greg Hullender / 3511 NE 22nd Av./Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 / uunet!proxftl!greg

 "People get tired of being trampled on by the iron-shod feet of oppression."
		-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 01:38:30 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space

In article <7925@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>It was NASA HQ that didn't want the Ride Report published, remember.  And
>>if you can see any signs of it being implemented, you've got better eyes
>>than I have.
>
>No one but the President can make the Ride Report's recommendations
>happen...

It has been many years since a president acted on space issues without
prompting from below.  Only the president can make sure that the Ride
recommendations get implemented, but NASA can very easily make *almost*
sure that they don't, by making a token effort (the "Office of Exploration")
until the fuss dies down, and then shelving the report and forgetting it.
Which is pretty much exactly what they've done.

(Do you really think it was an accident that Sally Ride left NASA as soon
as the report was released?  She no longer had any future there.)
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 22:35:42 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <596568310.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> If the idea is going to be a serious one, you should get some members
> of the Experimental Aircraft Association involved. Talk is great, but
> you need people with space to build, tools, the skill to use them and
> experience at building novel aircraft with novel materials. As I noted
> once before, one of hte best places to go for the kind of people you
> need is the annual Oshkosh fly-in. It is probably easier to arrange to
> get some of these people on the net than it is to turn some of the net
> people into machinists and hands-on type engineers.

	Phase 1 of the space-plane is a basic problem definition.  While
	everyone knows what the problems are, they need to be defined
	in completely quantitative terms so that they can be subjected
	to design exercises.  Until that is done it is rather pointless
	to attempt to discuss alternative configurations or strategies.

	Phase 2 of the project is to perform a preliminary design of the
	hardware to meet the parameters developed in phase 1.  Materials,
	sizes, shapes and similar decisions will be quantitatively evaluated.
	As a practical reality, phase 2 will be iterative as problems
	will require re-evaluation of other aspects.  The project will
	loop in this phase until it converges, at which point we
	will have a preliminary design which is solid enough to discuss
	in specific terms.  Until this is completed, it's really all talk.

	Both of these phases will require the development of a sort of
	infra-structure, such as agreements on standards and the like.
	It is a big project and will be difficult and complex. It can
	be done, however, at no out-of-pocket cost through the two phases
	outlined above so expense is not an excuse. If volunteers come
	forward to lend a hand, and if their mettle is up to the task
	then a credible preliminary design will evolve some months hence.
	On the other hand, if the project languishes for lack of sweat
	or talent then so be it; important lessons will be learned along
	the way and we'll all know more about ourselves so the time won't
	be wasted.  Everyone can expect to get out in proportion to what
	they put it.

	Now to the point of the Experimental Aircraft Association; they
	are welcome to participate.  However, to turn to them as the
	experts is to miss the point of a net project, ie. to learn for
	ourselves by doing.  If we're looking to turn the project over
	to someone who can do it, why not just turn to NASA? The question
	is not "Can it be done?" We know it can. The question is "Can we
	do it?"  We have the advantage of hindsight and 50 years of hard-
	won knowledge so there are no technical barriers, only those which
	we build in our minds. If the commitment is there, it can happen.

	Now to the practical realities; response to this project has been
	weak.  Very likely it is not possible to turn netters into real
	engineers, and support will have to come from other sources. I
	thought that there were enough talented people in this group to
	make a run at it, but it seems that it's all talk. Asi es la vida.

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 23:15:28 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space

In article <7924@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <73@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>NASA has one of the lowest research budgets of any government agency
>>set up for research, and you call them farsighted?  
>
>Since NASA does not set its own budget, how does this question escape
>the nonsense bucket.  Congress and the Administration(s) are certainly
>shortsighted, as are the voters who install them.  That's all Nick's
>assertion proves.

NASA top management has plenty of say on the budget the President submits
to Congress.  How can they get R&D funds if they don't even ask for them?

>>NASA's goals are
>>the same now as they were right after Apollo, and they're even more 
>>obsolete.  
>
>Were those BAD goals NASA had after Apollo?  If not, since they
>haven't been completed yet, why change them.  It would be far worse
>if our goals in space lurched all over the map every two or four
>years.

If they were such great goals why weren't they accomplished, despite the
c. $200 billion (in '88 $) that has been spent on NASA since 1968?
Where is the moon base?  Where are the astronauts on Mars?  These were the
NASA goals of '68.  They were supposed to have been completed by 
now.  Now NASA has the same goals, and they are just as far away from 
being accomplished.  

Why change them?  Why does one change one's aim after missing a free throw?
Why discard punch cards and vacuum tubes in favor of magnetic disks
and microchips?

>One wonders where the magic line is drawn which a "capsule" has to
>cross before the poster excuses it from the "crude" category!

A habitat:
-costs less than $20 million per year to live in.
-provides open spaces, garden areas, etc.
-has gravity.
-is (for the most part) self-sustaining.

A capsule:
-costs $20-$200 million per year to live in. 
-provides no open spaces or significant gardens.
-doesn't have gravity.
-occasionally must be resupplied, with a reliable transport service. 

A crude capsule (eg space station module):
-costs over $200 million per year to live in.
-doesn't even have any large rooms.
-no gravity.
-must be resupplied quite often, using the Shuttle or 50's ICBM derivative.

>it be okay to try to put *really fancy* capsules in space?  What do
>you get for your investment in *fanciness*, in particular?

We should put things in space that will give us the most new knowledge for 
the least amount of $, or that will return more $ than we spend.  I don't
see how capsules, crude or otherwise, can accomplish this.  Until we can
live in space for a reasonable price, let's spend our $ on learning about
space, and learning (ie R&D) how to build space *habitats*.

>>>That was then, this is now.  Congress had land to grant.  Space cannot
>>>be granted.  
>>
>>Why not?  How else can space resources be divied up?
>
>Aside from the treaties we have *already* signed, space itself (notice
>I said "space," not "space resources" in the original article) has
>no enforceable boundaries.  Go ahead, pretend you have the power.
>Grant me some space.  What space have you granted me?  Define it.

Treaties can be renegotiated.
How about 1000 km^3 or smaller parcels in those parts of space having a 
density of .1 g/cm^3 or greater (ie not vacuum), including 
artificial structures?  Claims would include any locations that 
body will occupy at the time it will be occupied, in an unperturbed
trajectory.  To make a claim, one must inhabitat it or extract N units
of resource per year, or the claim is revoked.  Claims for scientific
exploration can be made, and these become international areas until
the research is complete.  A court will be made up of representatives
of nations having claims.  It will judge disputes.  
(NB this is just off-the-cuff, not a legal document.  Hole-poking is 
welcome. My point is that such a system is possible.  In fact it is 
*essential*, because no one will undertake risky space operations without
garuntee that they will get the full profit from such operations.)

>Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Nov 88 01:17:00 EST
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  SPACE Digest V9 #133, Teloperated Robots
To: MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU

The Handiman project of Ralph Mosher was completed.  Eventually,
Mosher's teleoperators were applied to a refrigerator moving machine.
The Handiman project led to a four legged machine in which the
operator was enclosed.  It worked, and I watched Ralph walk across the
large room and kick a jeep out of the way.  It was not very stable,
however, and no one else was allowed to operate it.  Eventually an arm
and a leg were built for Hardiman; the idea is best exemplified by the
handling suit worn by Sigourney Weaver in "Aliens".  Unfortunately no
one ever completed a real one; the movie machine was fake.  The arm
and leg were separately stable, but a roomful of operational
amplifiers, etc., did not stabilize the combination when both were
attached to a waist harness, as I recall.  I believe that poresent-day
control theory could do the job.  But the Army automotive and tank
corps did not continue the funding after that, and Mosher went into
the private sector, marketing other people's robots and also
developing a neat one of his own for making cylinder head gaskets.

I tried myself to urge NASA and various defense and nuclear agencies
to push further into this area, but you would find hard to believe how
much resistance there was then - and still now.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 21:35:02 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.

In article <7964@dasys1.UUCP> newsome@dasys1.UUCP (Richard Newsome) writes:
>I may be mistaken about this, because I don't have any references around
>here to check...but can't you manufacture helium-3 by wrapping a lithium
>jacket around a breeder reactor core? Is this a feasible scheme?

I think I've got my nuclear reactions straight enough to answer this, so here
goes:

	This scheme can be used for manufacturing tritium, because [7]Li + n
gives you [4]He + [3]H + n (where the neutron has been slowed down), and it
will also give you some deuterium if you didn't separate your lithium isotopes
because [6]Li + n gives you [4]He + [2]H + n (again, the neutron has been
slowed down).  In fact, it has been suggested as a scheme for having
deuterium/tritium fusion reactors breed their own tritium while recovering
some of the neutrons' energy as partially useable heat in the process.

	However, you don't directly get any [3]He this way.  In order to get
[3]He from the above process you have to take the tritium you get and let it
sit for a while to decay into [3]He (and electrons and antineutrinos).  When
enough [3]He has formed to make extraction economical you extract it.  This
can be done, since the half-life of tritium is 12.8 years, but that is a long
enough half-life to be a pain; also, storing the tritium that long (and
therefore giving it that much more chance to leak into the environment)
probably partially offsets the advantages of running a fusion reaction that
does not generate neutrons.

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 22:55:28 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!varvel@rutgers.edu  (Donald A. Varvel)
Subject: Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.

In article <2729@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
>In article <7964@dasys1.UUCP> newsome@dasys1.UUCP (Richard Newsome) writes:
>>I may be mistaken about this, because I don't have any references around
>>here to check...but can't you manufacture helium-3 by wrapping a lithium
>>jacket around a breeder reactor core? Is this a feasible scheme?
>
>I think I've got my nuclear reactions straight enough to answer this, so here
>goes:
>
>	This scheme can be used for manufacturing tritium, because [7]Li + n
>gives you [4]He + [3]H + n (where the neutron has been slowed down), and it
           [...]
>	However, you don't directly get any [3]He this way.  In order to get
>[3]He from the above process you have to take the tritium you get and let it
>sit for a while to decay into [3]He (and electrons and antineutrinos).  When

Actually, there's quite a lot of tririum sitting around and aging already.
The tritium in hydrogen bombs decays over time, and H-bombs therefore
require periodic replacement.

Does anyone know whether the "old" nuclear warheads are reprocessed, and
if so, whether the [3]He is recovered?  My suspicion is that only the
undecayed tritium is recovered.

If only the tritium is recovered, perhaps we should write to our congress
people.  The [3]He is stable and may someday be valuable.  It is likely
the only inert gas present, and should be easy to separate.  That is, if
it hasn't simply seeped away during the tritium decay process.

Does anyone know more about this?

-- Don Varvel

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #149
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Dec 88 07:42:03 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00746>; Thu, 8 Dec 88 06:59:48 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  8 Dec 88 06:59:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YXbZtSy00UkT81AE5g>;
          Thu,  8 Dec 88 05:50:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.0XbZQty00UkZE3Gk42>;
          Thu,  8 Dec 88 05:19:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wXbZNdy00UkZI3FU4x@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  8 Dec 88 05:16:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #150

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:
			Time to dock with Mir
			Re: US Goals in Space
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
	       Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING: FIRST VISIBILITY.
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
			Re: Spaceplane project
		      Psych tests for Mars crews
		Off-The-Wall [Street :-] Funding Idea
			Re: US Goals in Space
		  Alternative to launching a Shuttle
			   Re: Pluto's day
	      Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 16:37:08 GMT
From: nyser!cmx!amax.npac.syr.edu!anand@cunyvm.cuny.edu  (Anand Rangachari)
Subject: Time to dock with Mir


  While following the recent mission with the French astronaut to the
Mir, I noticed that it takes nearly 48 hours from launch until, the
Soyuz docks with Mir. Why does it take so long?

  Since it takes so long, I wonder what kind of supplies are carried by
the Soyuz.

  On an unrelated topic, I have been following the discussion on the
Lunakhod with some interest. In 1972, there was a Soviet space
exhibition in Bombay (India) which I attended. On display there was
a Lunakhod which was described as the backup for the original.
I believe it was also used for trouble shooting much the same way that
an extra lander was built during the Viking missions.
  I was struck by the size of the vehicle. It appeared to be at least
the size of a Volkswagen beetle and rode on 8 wheels without tires.

  I also remember that there were a number of people from the U.S.
consulate as I believe that this was the first public display of
the Lunakhod outside the USSR.

                                               R. Anand
Internet: anand@amax.npac.syr.edu
Bitnet:   ranand@sunrise

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 01:30:14 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space

In article <7924@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>          If NASA was farsighted they would be spending much more 
>>money on space industrialization, planetary exploration, electric 
>>and nuclear propulsion, mass drivers, tethers, optical communications,
>>etc. 
>
>Maybe I'm reading different stuff from you, but I thought NASA had
>ongoing projects in almost all of those areas...

If only it were so.  Advanced propulsion work in general is tiny and
poorly funded.  Planetary exploration is in a pitiful state, with even
the SSEC core program (never mind the extensions) being quietly ignored.
(Remember when Mars Observer was supposed to be cheap?  It's still cheap
compared to what, say, Viking would cost today, but in most other ways
it's turned into another one-shot-no-followon program, rather than the
first of a series of low-cost tightly-focussed missions.)  Even more
mundane things get little or no funding or attention.  The Gamma Ray
Imaging Telescope is the *only* shuttle-external-tank project with any
NASA funding.  Rocket-engine technology is in such a sad state that
NASA is starting to be seriously embarrassed about it.  Practically
nothing has been done lately on ideas like closed-cyle life support.

Nor is it fair to blame Congress for all of this.  Despite recent trends
toward Congressional micromanagement of NASA among others, the priorities
that NASA HQ sets still matter a lot in deciding what gets funded, notably
for small-scale long-term work.
-- 
Sendmail is a bug,             |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
not a feature.                 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 13:22:03 GMT
From: scdpyr!djr@handies.ucar.edu  (Dave Rowland)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue

In article <1988Nov25.222214.11854@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <Added.UXWj2ly00Vs105509S@andrew.cmu.edu> ST502042@BROWNVM.BITNET (Michael Nosal) writes:
>>...That is, what is the absolute minimum amount of time needed to get
>>a crew up in space??? All this rescue business means *zilch* if it takes
>>two weeks to get a launch. Try floating around in a rescue ball for more
>>than two or three days.
>
>The rescue balls are only for inter-vehicle transfer, not for long-term
>survival.  They're just ersatz spacesuits for crew members who aren't
>expected to have to go outside normally.
>
>As for minimum launch time...  Probably a couple of days *if* there happens
>to be a flight-ready shuttle on the pad (not too likely).  Lots longer
>otherwise.

I remember watching a committee meeting about the space station on C-SPAN
a while back and one of the committee members asked about the time
it would require to launch a rescue mission in the event of a mishap.
The response was at least two weeks.  Even if there were a flight ready
shuttle on the pad it would have to be reconfigured for a resuce mission.
This brings up a few questions I have about what defines "flight readiness".
>From following the status of Discovery and Atlantis on the net it seems
that there is an awful lot to do to a shuttle before it can be launched.
Is a Flight Readiness Firing required before every launch?  It seems to
me that there is a lot that needs doing even after a FRF.  What about
crew training?  It would seem obvious that a rescue mission would require
specialized training for the crew in order to prevent two disasters.

This all may be pointless.  I can readily envision two types of disasters
that could happen.  Major and minor.  A major disaster would be so
catastrophic that resuce would be required within hours or minutes.
An example would be that if the modules were heavily damaged and the crew
was forced to get into space suits in order to survive.  If the new
suits were being used that do not require the astronauts to prebreath
for 8 hours they may have a chance of surviving 8 to 24 hours.  If
they have to use the rescue balls or the current suits, it might be
pointless to consider this option.  The astronauts would surely get
the bends and have life threatening medical problems long before a
shuttle could get to them.

A minor disaster would be such that the crew was able to stay in the
station and wait for help to arrive weeks or months down the road.
If the damage was such that the crew could make temporary repairs until
help arrived, they could probably wait it out.

One possible solution might be to have a rescue shuttle on the pad
at all times with a properly trained crew on stand by as long as
the space station is manned.  Since the STS system probably wouldn't
tolerate sitting like that for long periods of time they would have
to be rotated.  A new shuttle could be outfitted for the rescue missions
every so often and the shuttle that had been on stand by could then be
used for a regular mission.  By doing things this way *MAYBE* a rescue
mission could be launched within 24 hours.  I wouldn't hold my breath.

This is, of course, purely speculation on my part.  I am by no means
and expert on any of this.  I have a funny feeling though, that if a
accident happened involving the space station or a shuttle the only
reason for sending up a shuttle would be to pick up the pieces.
	"Hey laser lips, your momma was a snow blower!"
					  -- Number 5
	Dave Rowland  at NCAR Boulder, Colorado  djr@scdpyr.ucar.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 88 16:53:34 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!jack@uunet.uu.net  (Jack Campin)
Subject: Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING: FIRST VISIBILITY.


mnd@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mohib N Durrani) wrote:

>                       Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim

> We are conducting research on the recorded WORLD-WIDE first sightings of the
> "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" in the evenings, for every lunar month.

Intriguing theological question... what's the "world"?  Do the MIR astronauts
get to play?  How far up can you go without cheating?  Any Hadith on that?

-- 
ARPA: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk       USENET: jack@cs.glasgow.uucp
JANET:jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs      useBANGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack
Mail: Jack Campin, Computing Science Dept., Glasgow Univ., 17 Lilybank Gardens,
      Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND     work 041 339 8855 x 6045; home 041 556 1878

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 16:37:13 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue

>From article <1042@ncar.ucar.edu>, by djr@scdpyr.ucar.edu (Dave Rowland):
> This brings up a few questions I have about what defines "flight readiness".
> Is a Flight Readiness Firing required before every launch?  

No. FRFs are only carried out before an orbiter's first launch, or
after a major refit/redesign.


> What about crew training?  It would seem obvious that a rescue mission would require
> specialized training for the crew in order to prevent two disasters.

Yes, but you could easily have a permanent 'standby crew' trained for
rescue mission scenarios; I don't think that's a real limitation. (You would
change this crew every 6 months or so to stop it getting stale, of course).

> One possible solution might be to have a rescue shuttle on the pad
> at all times [ ..and change which shuttle occasionally..]

VERY expensive. And I suspect that the minimum launch time would still
be at least 72 hours to go through a basic countdown. I suspect the most
you could arrange in practice is to have an orbiter always stacked in the
VAB (this can be done for large periods of time, as with Atlantis post
the Challenger accident), and roll it out for launch within about a week.
Do they really need the Terminal Countdown Demo Test, I wonder?

Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 88 22:00:55 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tbetz@rutgers.edu  (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

Quoth Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU in <596568310.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>:
|If the idea is going to be a serious one, you should get some members
|of the Experimental Aircraft Association involved. Talk is great, but
|you need people with space to build, tools, the skill to use them and
|experience at building novel aircraft with novel materials. As I noted
|once before, one of hte best places to go for the kind of people you
|need is the annual Oshkosh fly-in. It is probably easier to arrange to
|get some of these people on the net than it is to turn some of the net
|people into machinists and hands-on type engineers.

I agree.  Only problem is, the guys you want spend all their spare time
actually building and flying things, and don't have the time to fritter
away on the net.

However, if you can convince Burt Rutan to come aboard, I'm all for it!


-- 
  "I learned to play guitar just to get     |  Tom Betz       EAA#48267
the girls, and anyone who says they didn't  | "How did I forget eyedrops?
    is just lyin'!"  - Willie Nelson        |  I'm such a dope!" - Mr. Mambo
	  UUCP: tbetz@dasys1.UUCP  or  ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tbetz

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 88 09:56:50 PST
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Message-Id: <8811221756.AA01517@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
To: space@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Psych tests for Mars crews

All this talk about compatibility ratings for Mars trips is interestingly
anticipated in the first few pages of Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange
Land"...

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 02:47:24 GMT
From: joe@csvax.caltech.edu  (Joe Beckenbach)
Subject: Off-The-Wall [Street :-] Funding Idea


	Here's a crazy idea for raising money; I guess it's a cross
between a stock and a bond-- though the Security Exchange Commission 
might have conniptions if I showed them this ;-).

	1) Form a non-profit corporation.
	2) Issue paper (of some form) much like stocks.
	3) If the end-of-year threatens to turn a surplus above some level
		the IRS finds objectionable, take that excess and give it
		back to the paperholders.

Anything illegal so far? Now the additional spins:
	4) These payments go back to the paperholders, but part of that value
		is taken off the value of the paper. With a payment of $1, and
		the lopping rate at 50%, this means the paper just lost $0.50.
		After the 50% note has paid to twice its original face value,
		the note cannot pay further.
This could be seen as a bond with an indefinite time ending point but definite
return on original face value.

	Example: using a 50% paper and an original $100 investment into the
corporation. The corporation ends the year needing to pay back $5 per original
$100 investment. The owner of the 50% paper gets $5, his note stays at 50% but
is now worth $100-(50%x$5) = $97.50. [Notice: %lop inversely proportional to
return on investment, with no time considerations.]
	If the corporation gets additional outside funds, this could cause
problems. The payoff :-) begins when the nonprofit company starts getting
licensing income.

	Is this simply a disguised implementation of the incremental
stock repurchase, with additional funny business with voting if the stock
has voting priviledges? Or (for purely nonvoting paper) is this simply one
grand method of funneling money, like what's going on with Social Security?

Get enough investors together, and who knows where we could go with this?

-- 
Joe Beckenbach	joe@csvax.caltech.edu	Caltech 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125
Every trip starts with one person saying, "Hey look at this...."

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 01:58:48 GMT
From: joe@csvax.caltech.edu  (Joe Beckenbach)
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space


	What is the official title of the Ride report, and from whom
can it be ordered [with address, please]. Our local libraries don't seem
to have a copy, and I'd like to rectify the matter.
	Oh, in response to another posting [name slips my mind, sorry],
sayng that the President should provide the leadership for space. Yes,
true; if it's not there, then what? I guess we'll either need to make one
in private industry here, get an international effort going, defect (.5x:-)
or crawl back under our (figurative) rocks.
	Rock-crawling seems to be the normal thing to do [yeah, I'm guilty
of it too].
-- 
Joe Beckenbach	joe@csvax.caltech.edu	Caltech 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125
Every trip starts with one person saying, "Hey look at this...."

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 17:09:13 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Alternative to launching a Shuttle


*Why* can we not launch the Shuttle as we launched the X15, with the shuttle
strapped onto a high flying (supersonic?) plane.  Would this get the shuttle
to a height where SRBs would not be needed?  Or am I just dreaming????????

jim

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 19:01:00 GMT
From: apple!kazim@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Alex Kazim)
Subject: Re: Pluto's day

Is Pluto a planet...:

I think one of the arguments for revoking its planethood was the high
orbital eccentricity.  The rest of the planets have very low values
compared to Pluto, so a few were looking for theories, etc.

One of the theories I had heard about, and I'm not sure if it still holds
water, is that Pluto and Charon are the dead nucleus of a comet. Whether
this explains the synchronized rotation and the large mass ratio, I'm not
sure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Kazim, Apple Computer
It's not their theory, or mine BTW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 17:10:24 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcae!kurtk@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Kurt Krueger)
Subject: Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes

A disadvantage of a solid fuel rocket is that you can't shut it down.  If your
moon probe has reached its destination before the rocket burns out, you've got
a serious problem.

Some of the liquid fuel rockets contain propellents that are so unstable
(when mixed) that they ignite on contact.  These are real good for rocket
engines that are used for mid-course corrections on space probes.  Not the
kind of stuff that budding back yard rocket scientist want to mess with.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #150
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Dec 88 05:52:22 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00698>; Fri, 9 Dec 88 05:39:03 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  9 Dec 88 05:38:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.EXbufFy00jZd81A04g>;
          Fri,  9 Dec 88 05:28:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.8XbuXoy00UkZ02DE5O>;
          Fri,  9 Dec 88 05:20:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <oXbuUJy00UkZQ2C04n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  9 Dec 88 05:16:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #151

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 151

Today's Topics:
		   More data on the Soviet Shuttle
	     Soviet/French space walk changed to Dec. 9th
		     space news from Oct 24 AW&ST
			  Muscles in Orbit.
				 Back
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Dec 88 12:05:02 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: More data on the Soviet Shuttle

    Some more information has come out about the Soviet Shuttle Buran. 
In post flight information it was released that the orbiter went into 
a 250 Km (155 mi) orbit at 57 degrees. The actual vehicle mass is 83 Tonnes
empty, 106 Tonnes on launch.  On landing it has a 2000 Km 
(1,250 mi) cross range capability (compared to the 1600 Km (1000 mi) 
the US shuttle can alter its initial landing path). The shuttle uses 
a ceramic tile, though news reports said it was soft material similar 
rather than the hard substances western experts had expected. A second 
shuttle named Ptichka (little bird) has been shown strapped to an 
Energiya, and is about 30 meters (98 ft.) long;  6 meters (20 ft.) 
shorter than Buran. Three or four more shuttles are under construction, 
but they expect to make only 2 - 4 flights per year. Alexander Dunayev 
(head of Glavcosmos) said that with other launchers available they 
would not need to launch their shuttle at every opportunity, but rather 
restrict it to missions to bring large crews up to space stations, 
returning large cargoes to earth, and bringing up material that would 
not withstand the rigors of the Proton launches (that booster has 
higher vibration and G levels than Energiya). Plans are underway to 
dock Buran with Mir station. Long missions connected to their space 
station seem reasonable operations to expect, especially with the 
larger crews that the Mirgrad complex talked about for the mid 1990's 
will require. With more than a dozen people that would take more than 
4 Soyuz transports, tying up a lot of docking ports. 
     James Oberg, in several interviews, called Buran's similarity to the 
US shuttle "only skin deep".  That is a perfect description, as the 
shape and tile pattern of the shuttle are clear copies of the US version. 
However, within the vehicle all the electronics, controls systems, 
life support, computers and programs are purely Soviet.  Also it is 
clear that these shuttles came out of the USSR's aeronautics design 
bureau, rather than the rocket sections.  That is the reason that 
so little was said about them by the Russian space people over the 
previous years.  Of course there was some cooperation, for example in the
design of Energiya itself (which clearly came from the rocket design bureau),
and the engines on Buran.  But it appears that the rocket people really did
not think that the aerospace designers could make a working vehicle as soon
as they did (neither did western observers).
     This week saw US astronauts on the shuttle, plus USSR and French 
spacemen in Mir.  In a year or so there will be two shuttles in orbit at the
same time from different countries, and two space stations (Mir & Salyut 7); 
but both of those will be Russian. Very simply they are ahead.

                                                 Glenn Chapman
                                                 MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Dec 88 11:00:27 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet/French space walk changed to Dec. 9th

    The Soviet/French space walk on board the Mir/Kvant space station has been 
changed to Friday, Dec 9, from the previous date of Dec. 12th (announced 
before the launch).  Jean-Loup Chretien (French) and Alexander Volkov 
(Soyuz TM-7 mission commander) will do a 5 hour EVA at that time to 
mount the Aerospatial built ERA deployable structure on the conical shaped block
that was placed there during the previous EVA by Vladimir Titov and 
Musa Manarov (the long duration Mir crew) on Oct. 20th.  The ERA is a 3.8 x 3.6
meter (12.5 x 11.8 ft.) carbon fiber composite truss system designed to test 
out structures for deployable antennas and larger construction systems.  It is 
also the prototype of mounting systems for future external experiments.  After
the EVA the structure will be released from Mir by the cosmonauts and sent
away from the station (it is light so it will decay rather quickly from
there).  Currently these are also using extensively the French Matra As de Coeur
echocardiograph system which checks block flows in the cosmonauts, and the
CIRCE system to record the radiation levels within Mir in real time.
    The meeting of Gorbachev and French president Mitterrand before the launch
has also resulted in a longer term commitment to cooperation.  According to
AW&ST (Dec. 5th) they French will pay for a spationaut experimenter to visit
Mir for one month durations every other year.  This is the second set of
rents the Russians have gotten for Mir (Austria is paying about $6 million for
a 7 day visit).  Both the European Space Agency and West Germany are looking
at similar arrangements.
    There is now rooms to rent in orbit at low cost, with good delivery
service and a willing supplier.  The only problem is that you need to learn
Russian to work there.  Anybody other supplier willing to try?

                                                 Glenn Chapman
                                                 MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 06:13:50 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Oct 24 AW&ST

NASA to move the second 747 shuttle-carrier-to-be from Boeing Field to
Biggs Army Airfield in Texas temporarily.  The 747 is in storage,
awaiting the shuttle-carrier modifications, and if it stays at Boeing
Field, Boeing bills NASA for storage charges.  Biggs is fairly secure
and is used for some existing NASA activities.

Thruster firings to move the Gstar-3 comsat, currently stranded in a
somewhat-low orbit by apogee-motor failure, to Clarke orbit will be
delayed until January for better sun angles.  The delay will also
give more time for detailed planning.

USAF is once again examining the idea of using nuclear engines for
the upper stages of ICBMs.

Fletcher tells National Press Club that NASA needs more visibility
in the White House.  He says he discussed reestablishing the National
Space Council with Bush in 1986; at the time Bush said "perhaps a
good idea, but not now".  [It became one of Bush's election promises.]

The [pro-SDI] Marshall Institute claims that sophisticated discrimination
methods can reliably tell the difference between warheads and decoys in
space.  It claims that the Delta 181 test demonstrated discrimination
based on measurement of "the degree each wobbles in flight".

Soviet Union reverses previous stand, endorses French call for an
International Satellite Monitoring Agency to monitor arms control from
space.  The US opposes the idea, claiming that it would accomplish
little and would inevitably become politicized.  The technology-transfer
paranoids in DoD are worried about it, and the US also wonders who's
going to pay for the satellites.  The idea dates back to 1978, but
since then France, Israel, Japan, China, and Canada have started work
on relevant technologies, and the US/USSR monopoly is fading fast.
Many countries have at least considered using Spot and Landsat data
for military purposes.

Soviet Union also calls for a World Space Organization, another idea
the US dislikes on the grounds that it would become politicized.  In
this case they may be right:  in the past the Soviets have tied the
idea to anti-SDI proposals, and this time they are proposing that the
Krasnoyarsk radar become a major part of the WSO infrastructure!!
[For those not familiar with it, the Krasnoyarsk phased-array radar
is the one thing the Soviets have done that is almost certainly a
violation of the ABM Treaty.  It looks an awful lot like an ABM-system
radar:  its placement is wrong for a missile-warning or long-range-
surveillance radar, and it's too big and sophisticated for anything
else.  The Soviets appear to be embarrassed about the whole thing,
and nowadays claim it's a space-tracking radar, a claim that is
generally considered ridiculous.]

NASA is assessing a minor leak found in Discovery's number one engine
after its landing.  Engine work associated with the upcoming Atlantis
launch has diverted manpower from studying the leak temporarily.  The
engine will probably be replaced before Discovery is used for STS-28
in February, just on general principles.  The leak is in the bond line
between combustion chamber and nozzle, and fixing it would require
replacing the combustion chamber and rebalancing and retesting the engine. 

Atlantis is running behind schedule, with the processing team on a 7-day
work week [uh oh, an old bad habit returns...].  One unexpected problem
was the need to replace the left outboard elevon actuator last week.

NASA board to complete review of the Oct 17 electrical fire in the Magellan
Venus radar mapper.  Damage is believed to be minor, and it is not
likely to affect the late-April launch.  Repairs will probably take about
a week, mostly just to clean off soot and dirt.  Much of the spacecraft
was still in shipping covers, and major electronics packages had not yet
been installed.  The problem occurred when a technician inserted a
connector into the wrong socket on a test battery in an electrical-system
test.  The fire was small and was put out within a minute with a hand
extinguisher.  Test procedures will be reviewed:  the connectors cannot
be inserted all the way into the wrong socket, but apparently they can
be inserted far enough to make some contact.

NASA and Space Industries Inc have completed preliminary design review
of the Industrial Space Facility project.  Most of the engineering work
has been completed.  The project is now on hold, with construction not
yet started, pending customers.  SII is still financially healthy and
will diversify into related activities to keep itself afloat.

Martin Marietta signs deal with NASA for use of NASA facilities for
payload processing for Commercial Titan.

NOAA predicts that metsat GOES-West will fail within a few months, putting
the US back to a single Clarke-orbit metsat for at least 18 months.  G-W
is already past its rated lifetime, and three of the four encoder bulbs
in its imaging system have already failed.  Those bulbs are a notorious
weak point in the GOES hardware; the new GOES-East substitutes LEDs for
two of them.  There is a continency plan, much like the one used three
years ago when previous failures reduced NOAA to one GOES:  move GOES-East
westward in winter for winter storm coverage, and rely more heavily on
polar-orbit images and foreign metsats.  This will give barely adequate
coverage of NOAA's territory except for the easternmost Caribbean islands.

NOAA's headaches don't end there.  The GOES-Next satellites, intended as
replacements for the existing birds, are hitting huge cost overruns at
Ford Aerospace.  NASA is involved, since it was contract manager for
NOAA for GOES-Next, and there is a finger-pointing war in progress.
Ford and NASA appear to have seriously underestimated the development
costs, but NOAA is not entirely blameless:  it souped up the specs on
the instruments, and was in too much of a hurry to permit a competitive
preliminary design phase.  Competition for the bid appears to have caused
underbidding by both Ford and Hughes [the losing bidder], and NASA then
followed over the cliff by lowering its original estimates to match.
A formal investigation by the GAO and NASA's Inspector General is underway.
NOAA says Ford has finally gotten the message that the situation is not
acceptable, and is starting to shape up.  The first G-N will be about
nine months behind schedule, and will barely make its July launch date.
If Ford misses the launch schedule, NOAA is liable for $20k/day in
penalty charges for delaying the launch, as per the launch contract with
General Dynamics.  NOAA wants Ford to pay some of that if Ford is late,
but as yet there is no formal agreement about that.  Ford says it's all
NOAA's fault, because NOAA tried to combine next-generation technology
development with a tight delivery schedule.  This is the first time that
NOAA has actually done its own development contracting -- metsat
development was NASA's job until 1982.  NASA does not want to help pay
for the overruns, but OMB may insist:  NOAA's budget is much smaller
than NASA's and much less flexible in coping with such problems, and
NASA is not exactly blameless.

US, USSR, Canada, and France sign long-term agreement to continue
Sarsat.  Other nations are likely to join in.  The new agreement is
seen as crucial to convincing various national and international groups
that Sarsat is a stable system that can be relied on.  (This is of
importance because there is widespread thought about requiring Sarsat
transmitters on aircraft and fishing vessels.)  NOAA's Sarsat program
manager says the US should strengthen its commitment by giving it a
formal annual budget.  The US contribution is only about $3M/yr, but
it comes out of several agencies and there is no dedicated annual
budget, leading to doubts about US commitment to the effort.

Good sharp picture of Buran on the pad.  AW&ST says that Energia's
strap-on boosters appear to have been moved closer together to give
adequate clearance for the orbiter's wings.

[Flight International of 22 Oct, looking at the same pictures, draws
some interesting conclusions about Buran.  It does not appear to be
a blind copy of NASA's, despite overall similarities.  For one thing,
based on the photos, it appears to be about 10% bigger.  It may
nevertheless be lighter, about 70 tons, presumably because it lacks
the heavy main engines.  The thermal protection looks almost identical.
The shape of the wing is slightly different.  The rudder is in two
sections rather than one.  The crew access arm connects below the
cockpit, indicating a similar two-deck design.  The payload-bay doors
look very similar.  The rear-fuselage "body flap" is similar.  The
reaction-control thrusters are in similar but not identical places.
(And as most everyone knows, the maneuvering engines are differently
places since the Soviets have the whole tail section to play with
and hence have no OMS pods.)]

[Flight also observes that there are now 20 Soviet cosmonauts with
over 100 days in space each; the three highest US astronauts have 84.]

Glavcosmos completes talks with Austria on a paid flight of an Austrian
cosmonaut to Mir.  This is likely to happen around the end of 1991,
mostly because the Austrians won't be ready sooner.  A similar mission
is now being discussed with Malaysia; it could happen as early as late
1989.

Europe's Intospace commercial-microgravity group is talking to the US,
the USSR, and China about flying a superconductor-materials-processing
payload next year.

India declares Insat 1C comsat operational despite failure of half of
its one solar array.  The delay was due to wanting to put the bird
through one eclipse [a seasonal phenomenon in Clarke orbit] to be sure
that thermal management procedures were up to handling it.  Only about
half the communications payload will be operational, but nothing vital
has been lost.

Potential civilian Navstar users continue to be concerned about DoD's
control over the system, and in particular about DoD's ability (on the
forthcoming operational satellites, as opposed to the current semi-
experimental ones) to degrade accuracy whenever it feels like it.

Scott Science and Technology, a new company founded by former astronaut
David Scott, is negotiating to provide in-orbit delivery of up to 3
direct-broadcast satellites for Dominion Video Satellite.  SST will
buy the satellites from GE, obtain insurance, buy launch services,
and perform checkout in orbit before delivering to the customer.
Scott says that Long March is a prime candidate for launcher.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Nov 88 14:03:05 EST
From: purtill@math.mit.edu
To: pyramid!uccba!uceng!dmocsny@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Muscles in Orbit.

>[Dan Mocsny writes:]
> Much of the debate in favor of manned space travel seems to me to have
> an underlying tone rugged adventurism (not that I am against this).
> But ironically, the rugged macho Jack Armstrong types among us (of
> which I like to fancy myself a part) are perhaps the least-suited to
> confinement and zero-gravity conditions. We need physical mobility,
> physical exertion, the opportunity to use our muscles. Sitting in a
> can and watching them waste irreversibly away would be a psychological
> disaster. (I know this, because this has happened to me on a lesser
> scale when I have had injuries.) We might do better to recuit couch
> potatoes who have less to lose.

As I recall (from, in fact, postings here), the Russians have found
that a good deal of (boring) exercise is needed when in orbit for long
periods of time, as otherwise you end up being carried off the capsule
when you land.  That being the case, perhaps someone for whom watching
muscles waste away would be a psycological disaster would be just the
sort of person one would like, as they would be less likely to shirk
the exercise.  (It would also be nice to have lightweight, "interesting"
exercise apparatus -- perhaps another reason to send married couples).
(If that's not clear, think about it a little :-).

Someone else wrote that the only way to get really good data on the
effects of weightlessness on people was to test to destruction,
something that is not likely to be done with astronauts.  How about
adding a "zoo" module to a space-station with appropriate animals,
such as minipigs or chimps?  One could study the entire life-cycle,
see whether pregnancy and birth are possible, that sort of thing.
Does anyone know if the Russians are doing something of this sort
or if anyone has plans to do this (perhaps on a smaller scale, with
mice?)  

^.-.^ Mark Purtill		purtill@math.mit.edu  (617)623-6238 - H
((")) Dept. of Math, MIT 2-229, Cambridge, MA  02139  (617)253-1589 - O

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 06:47:37 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Back

This message is being posted to thousands of machines in the uncivilized
world...  So my news system tells me.

Well, I survived FL, associated some faces with some net addresses,
saw a few friends I haven't seen in ages and made lots of new ones.
The problem is thar's hundred of notes, most of which are rehashes
of uninteresting non-technical things.  Anyways (gee's you can only
purchase 2 B-2's for a shuttle, my how inflation works), there's
just too many articles to read.  So I'm going to do more than 'c',
I've decided to 'u' from the group again.  The content and restrain
are lacking.  I can do better in a crowded conference reception
(and I hate crowds).

I get a feeling of un-reality in some people's postings (not
necessarily in a positive sense, William Shatner's skit about this
on a Saturday Nite Live was good: "Get a life"), and vastly
enjoy others like Phil and Jon (and even Henry on occasion [as
I wrote to him "Sendmail is the Multics of mailers"]).  However,
I was called a "great mind" recently.  This is not true.  I've had the
privilege a knowing a few, no, I'm just feed up (howard beale?).
People's motivations for going into space differ, and so do their
methods for getting there.

Communication networks and B board systems offer great positive
benefits, but of late, I think TV is doing a bit better. I've had to
argue in favor of nets and board in seas against them. Anways, work is
catching up 6-windows don't help as much.  I will continue to have cron
post reminders for old farts (changing it every so often),
I'm editing the summer hiring posting, and the frequently asked
questions [separating simple questions from more detailed references].
So cron will have me part of sci.space in spirit.

Next to last: no sentimental email notes please.  No cards in snail mail
(I got one last time I 'u'ed).  Don't think that people who post to the Usenet
are some type celebrity or expert.  We just have loud mouths.  Real celeb's
have problems like you would not believe (I grew up in LA, I know).
Real experts never have time to real the net (I pay a few).
No, just moderate yourselves in the news group.  Perhaps, break up
into more topical subareas.  Do something real, not virtual.
Do the group a favor.  Organize yorselves.  I might sneak a peek late
some evening to see what's being discussed between runs.  If it's trash, then
I've had no effect, so it goes.  But if it shapes up, maybe I'll find time
to return.  Please use some intelligence, use the library, use
the telephone, use real mail, but supplement network use.

Lastly,
I had Thanksgiving Dinner with Ed, the person who proposed the
RPV idea 4-5 years ago.  The offer doesn't stand anymore because
he received no initial interest.  He invested the money into another
project, and so it goes.

Yet one last gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  sendnomail daemon

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #151
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Dec 88 11:56:34 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01098>; Sat, 10 Dec 88 10:14:35 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 10 Dec 88 10:14:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXcHM3y00jZdM1:ENj>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 09:34:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XcEVJy00jZdQ1:E9k>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 06:19:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QXcB4yy00Vs1I1A08X>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 02:25:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.oXc=GCy00UkZ841E4R>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 00:22:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4Xc=DPy00UkZQ4004J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 88 00:19:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #152

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 152

Today's Topics:
      Geostar establishes links in Europe, Canada and Australia
	French/Soviet space walk successfully completed today
	      Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.
			Re: Spaceplane project
Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
			Re: Spaceplane project
			   STARS and color
			  Re: Dial-A-Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Dec 88 19:53:45 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Geostar establishes links in Europe, Canada and Australia

    Geostar, the Radiodetermination Satellite Service (RDSS) company, 
has created Geostar Pacific in Australia, and is currently negotiating 
with Telesat Canada for a joint satellite system. Meanwhile Telesat 
Canada has issued a request for proposals to purchasing several mobile 
communications satellites for most of North America. Thus Geostar's 
desire to link up with the Canadian company before they come an agreement 
with the American Mobile Satellite Consortium (AMSC). Currently Geostar 
has 5000 transponders in the field, handling 20,000 messages per day 
from their customers. They have permission for 50,000 by 1990 and 
are starting an Automotive Electronics Plan for personnel communications 
which could see them servicing 10 million customers by 2000 AD, making 
them a $2-$3 billion company at that point. Meanwhile Geostar has combined 
with 26 European companies to form Locstar. The consortium 
will finance the building and the launch of 2 satellites plus the 
control center for Europe starting in 1991. CNES, the French Space 
Agency, is starting development under the Eureka commercial cooperative 
research program of low cost terminals to expand the user base to 
300,000 by 1993 and 500,000 by 1997. (Satellite News Oct. 31, Mobile 
Satellite Reports Nov. 15). 
     Investigations have suggested that a fuel loading problem 
by the General Electric's space division caused the apogee motor burn 
failure in GTE' G-Star III satcom, launched Sept. 9 on an Ariane 3. Note that 
Geostar has a location transponder on the GTE G-Star III. A partial recover 
may be possible using the positioning rockets starting 
in January.  The major customers for G-Star's services are K Mart 
(between their 2100 stores), the US Secret Service, and Day's Inn 
(hotel reservations for the chain). (AW&ST Nov. 21, Spaceflight Nov.). 
The next launch from the Kourou Space Center is the first commercial 
use of the Ariane 4, scheduled for Dec. 9. It will carry Luxembourg's 
Astra 1 direct broadcast satellite and the British military's Skynet 
4 communication satellite. Currently Arianspace has back orders for 
orbiting 38 satellites, valued at $2.3 billion in launch costs.
     I have revised this report from the December issue of the Boston L5/NSS
Newsletter (which I edit, print etc and write half of, especially the 
News of the Month column).  Hope those of you in the Boston area will come
out and visit our chapter some time.  Contact me if you are interested.

                                                     Glenn Chapman
                                                     MIT Lincoln Lab
                                                     glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Dec 88 19:12:41 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: French/Soviet space walk successfully completed today

    On board the Mir/Kvant space station the Soviet/French space walk has 
just started (the report was on the 10:00 am Radio Moscow shortwave report). 
As expected it was Jean-Loup Chretien (French) and Alexander Volkov (USSR 
Soyuz TM-7 mission commander) who went out.  The most interesting item is 
that the new space suits they are wearing are semirigid.  (Ouch - our VAX
just died, so you get a longer message here instead of a really quick one.)
The evening shortwave gave the total EVA time as about 6 hours (very long 
for Russian space walks).  Two main activities were performed.  First the
errection of a deployable hexagonal array (made by the French).  That will
used to test this type of expandable truss for the building of large antennas,
and other large support structures.  Secondly they placed French samples on 
the outside of Mir which will be collected in 6 months.  That says that in
addition to the already called for 3 EVAs by April the Soviets will be doing
the Russians must are expecting another space walk about June 1989.  
     In another interesting report the Soviets plan bring a Manned Maneuvering 
Unit (MMU) up with the air lock module to be added to the station in April 
1989.  This new module will mass 20.6 Tonnes, and has a full 1 meter (3.3 
ft.) air lock that will allow the MMU to be worn by the cosmonauts while 
exiting during an EVA (the current air lock is only 80 cm (2.6 ft.).  The 
combination of a semirigid suit, MMU larger air lock and the current agressive
space walk schedule suggests strongly that many more space walks will be done 
in the future.
     AW&ST reports that the rest of the new module is 12.5 meter (41 ft.) long 
and 4.1 meter (13.5 ft.) in diameter (the same as the main section of Mir).  
This is unexpected as all the earlier reports had stated the air lock module 
was of the Kvant type.  Kvant is only 5.8 meters long, 4.1 meters in 
diameter and weighs only 11 Tonnes.  The older "Star" modules were of 
similar size to the new air lock one.  The Mir main body is 13.1 meters 
long, with the same 4.1 meter diameter (for the main section, the mid 
section is narrower, as is the ball docking port). If true this will be a 
very substantial expansion of the Mir complex, increasing the mass by 65% in 
the base station.  However, the exact mass of Mir/Kvant is hard to 
determine.  So much equipment has been added after being brought up by Soyuz 
or Progress tankers that current descriptions describe it as crowed, with 
many cables and installed instruments.  This contrasts to the "bare walls" 
appearance of the station as launched (with very few experiments in place).
    Expanding space stations, installing new experiments, repairing broken 
equipment either inside or outside the station, and doing non repetitive 
experiments.  The Soviets know how to use man in the space environment.  Will 
the US learn from them?
                                                 Glenn Chapman
                                                 MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 23:25:18 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes

In article <12088@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com.UUCP (Phil Karn) writes:
>Contrary to Henry's assertion, liquid rocket fuels are not necessarily safer
>to handle than solid fuels. Modern solid fuels are surprisingly stable...

True; however, they are still fuel/oxidizer mixtures, and hence a non-trivial
safety problem.  NASA was *very* unhappy about having to have SRBs in the
VAB.  The really significant safety difference with liquids is not
that they are safer to handle, but that they don't have to be loaded into
the vehicle until shortly before launch.  Fuel and oxidizer can be handled
and transported safely and separately until then, without the compromises
that arise from transporting them mixed inside a rocket engine.

>One major drawback to almost all liquid rocket fuels is that they are either
>extremely toxic or extremely cold. Sometimes both...

Well, I'd quibble by changing "almost all" to "almost all common", but I
agree that this is a problem.  Kerosene is okay, but otherwise, ugh.
Still, the chemical industry handles toxic liquids in bulk all the time,
and even cryogenic liquids are routine items of commerce.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 23:28:36 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue

In article <1042@ncar.ucar.edu> djr@scdpyr.UCAR.EDU (Dave Rowland) writes:
>... What about
>crew training?  It would seem obvious that a rescue mission would require
>specialized training for the crew in order to prevent two disasters.

Not necessarily.  A space-station rescue mission is basically an incomplete
space-station resupply mission (omit payload handling, possibly omit the
actual docking) plus a funny EVA (more people coming in than went out).
Much of the mission-specific training has to do with payloads.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 23:37:22 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.

In article <4106@cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>Actually, there's quite a lot of tririum sitting around and aging already.
>The tritium in hydrogen bombs decays over time, and H-bombs therefore
>require periodic replacement.

This is sort of right and sort of wrong.  The fusion fuel in modern H-bombs
is usually lithium deuteride, which is stable.  However, small amounts of
tritium are usually used as a "booster" in modern *fission* bombs, including
the fission triggers of H-bombs.  (The beginnings of the fission reaction
trigger a small fusion reaction, insignificant in itself, which sprays the
fissionable material with high-energy neutrons, much increasing the fission
yield.)

>Does anyone know whether the "old" nuclear warheads are reprocessed, and
>if so, whether the [3]He is recovered? ...

Almost certainly they reprocess the old "booster" packages to recover
tritium, since it's too expensive (and too dangerous) to throw away.
They may perhaps recover the 3He for research work; I do recall some
mention of physics experiments using liquid 3He (which behaves rather
differently from 4He).

>... The [3]He is stable and may someday be valuable.  It is likely
>the only inert gas present, and should be easy to separate.  That is, if
>it hasn't simply seeped away during the tritium decay process.

There may be deuterium in the mix as well, but it would come out with
the tritium during separation.  I would hope that not too much of the
3He would have seeped away, but containing hydrogen and helium requires
somewhat different materials, and they may not try too hard to contain
the helium.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 23:00:28 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <7967@dasys1.UUCP> tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) writes:
>However, if you can convince Burt Rutan to come aboard, I'm all for it!

In a sense he's already on board -- he's building the wing for Pegasus.
Unfortunately, this won't do an amateur project much good...
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 88 10:16:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 2612+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
To: klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.
CC: Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>

Larry's message asking about Rod Hyde's work on laser fusion propulsion systems
prompted me to track down the reference I have on the subject.  It is probably
the best paper on that subject in the unclassified literature: it was written
by someone with access to the accumulated experience of the US Government's
nuclear fusion program, and it was tightly edited to push as much information
as possible through the classification section of the US Department of Energy.
It is densely packed with interesting technical information.

I have a preprint of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory report UCRL-88857
by Roderick Hyde entitled "A Laser Fusion Rocket for Interplanetary
Propulsion".  A note on the front says that, since this is a preprint, changes
may be made before final publication and it should not be cited or reproduced
without permission of the author.  I suspect that interested parties will be
able to get a copy of the published UCRL by contacting the Lab in Livermore and
asking for TID (Technical Information Department) and being persistent.
Failing that, the paper was prepared for presentation at the 34th International
Astronautical Federation, Budapest, Hungary (!), October 10-17, 1983, and there
are almost certainly proceedings of that conference available somewhere.  If
someone manages to obtain a copy I'd like to hear about the details.

A very brief synopsis:

Fusion Pellet design.  Fuel selection.  He answers the questions about the
D-He3 reaction.  He gives a price of Tritium $7000/gm and claims He3 would be
similar.  Favors "slightly tritium-enriched deuterium".  Energy loss
mechanisms.  Pellet compression metrics.

Thrust Chamber.  Magnetic nozzle.  Shielding.  Tritium breeding.  Thermal
modeling (this is mostly unclassified so more can be said about the modeling in
this phase.  rest assured that plenty of modeling went into pellet design).

Fusion Driver (lasers, particle beams, etc).  Favors KrF* for rocket systems
and notes that terrestrial fusion systems have very different constraints and
may very well lead to development of drivers that are incompatible with rocket
systems.  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.

Anyone seriously interested in this topic should track down a copy of this
paper.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 20:31:44 GMT
From: amdahl!pyramid!prls!philabs!briar.philips.com!rfc@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue

I seem to remember seeing in a "written for the general public" book or
article (many years ago) a rescue system from LEO.  It went something like 
this: Astronauts would get into space suits, and they would leave the
crippled vehicle.  Then they would activate a burn-away heat shield maker
(would create a large ball of some sort of foam around the astronaut).
Then the astronaut would use a portable handheld? jet-pack to de-orbit.
Some (but not all!) of the heat-shield would burn away, and the remainder
would keep the astronaut afloat in the ocean untill a rescue ship picks
him up.   
  Can this work?  Or is it too tough to get out of orbit by hand-held jet?
  Was this a real proposed idea, or just some author's speculation?  I can
  imagine that seeing thru a ball of foam so you aim the jet in a right
  direction would be rather difficult.  OK, just have foam on your back
  side, so you can see.  But what if you tumble in the hot part of the
  drop to Earth?  I suppose these problems killed this idea.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 23:55:57 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <184@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:
>   ...	Now to the point of the Experimental Aircraft Association; they
>	are welcome to participate.  However, to turn to them as the
>	experts is to miss the point of a net project, ie. to learn for
>	ourselves by doing.  If we're looking to turn the project over
>	to someone who can do it, why not just turn to NASA? ...

Because the idea would be to turn it over to (or, more likely, merely
involve) people who not only can do it but *will* do it.  NASA won't.
Charles has indirectly pointed out a decision that has to be made right
at the beginning:  is this supposed to be just a learning experience,
or is it directed at accomplishing something?  If the latter, then the
EAA should most certainly be involved, since reinventing their wheel is
not only undesirable but actively harmful -- it diverts effort from real
problems whose solutions aren't cut-and-dried.

>	Now to the practical realities; response to this project has been
>	weak.  Very likely it is not possible to turn netters into real
>	engineers, and support will have to come from other sources. I
>	thought that there were enough talented people in this group to
>	make a run at it, but it seems that it's all talk...

I would say that the real problem is not background and talent, but
commitment.  Realistically, it's not going to happen unless there is
a specific Chief Engineer who is enthusiastic enough to push, and keep
pushing.  Otherwise, when the time comes to do significant work, it's
always tomorrow or next week that it'll be done... even if everyone
agrees that it ought to be done sometime by somebody.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 23:40:09 GMT
From: amdahl!pyramid!leadsv!esl!rww@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Richard W. Webb)
Subject: STARS and color

Greeting, Greeting, Star Buffs,

	We all know about the Main Sequence, and how different stars
    have different colors.  What I would like to know is this:

	What RGB (red, green, blue) intensity values should I use for
    a star of a given spectral class?

	O stars are "blue-white" while M stars are "reddish."  I would
    like to be a bit more precise than this.  Possibly, I could
    guess at a mapping from spectral class to temperature, and then use
    the blackbody color curve (CIE chromaticity as a function of
    temperature) to produce a color for each spectral type.  I would
    much rather lookup in a table the RGB values for each spectral type.
    If anyone has done something like this and can send me a table like
    this, I would greatly appreciate it.  However, any pointers or
    references to similar material would also be appreciated.

	Please Email, I will post a summary of the responses.  I am
    doing this for my own modification to the "starchart" program that
    was made available a few months ago.

		Thank you very much for any help you can provide.
-- 
Richard W. Webb                           ecvax!decwrl!borealis!\
ESL Inc.  MS/302                                 sdcsvax!seismo!- ames!esl!rww
495 Java Drive           (408) 738-2888 x5729     ucbcad!ucbvax!/     /
Sunnyvale, CA  94088     SMAIL: rww@esl.ESL.COM         ihnp4!lll-lcc!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1988 14:48-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Dial-A-Shuttle

Yep, it's done by us, NSS. And LORD did we make a bundle on the STS-26
launch. For the first time in my memory we are in solid financial
shape, AND IMPROVING!!

So keep those calls coming in, and listen for Pittsburgh L5 newletter
editor (and a closest friend for more years than I'll admit) Beverly
Freed, who is one of the voices of Dial-A-Shuttle.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #152
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Dec 88 12:15:44 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01176>; Sat, 10 Dec 88 11:08:19 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 10 Dec 88 11:08:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oXcICfy00Vs141Ak9F>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 10:33:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sXcGDAy00Vs141C091>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 08:17:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UXcDvVy00Ui381:E57>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 05:39:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.cXcBqby00UkZ44GU4z>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 03:17:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EXcBpMy00UkZM4FE4h@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 88 03:16:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #153

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Amroc etc.
			Re: Spaceplane project
			Is whose dream alive?
			Re: US Goals in Space
		Re: Communications Satellite Economics
	   Re: A Question about a HEO manned space station
			Re: Spaceplane project
		    Re: ME163A hypergolics frolix
		  Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST
		  Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST
	   Electric Propulsion (was Re: US Goals in Space)
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 88 17:24:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Amroc etc.


>From bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton):

> One advantage of hybrid rockets is that it is very hard to cause one
> to explode.

In the 1950's, the Navy took several experimental hybrid rockets into the
desert and intentionally tried to explode them as a safety demonstration.
They were unsuccessful.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL 61820

 "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"
 - Sir Winston Churchill

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 22:59:08 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <596568310.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>... It is probably easier to arrange to
>get some of these people on the net than it is to turn some of the net
>people into machinists and hands-on type engineers.

Actually (just to be picky), some of us already are machinists and hands-on
type engineers, although admittedly (in my case at least) with no aircraft
experience.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 21:24:48 GMT
From: garth!smryan@unix.sri.com  (Steven Ryan)
Subject: Is whose dream alive?

>Unfortunately, today's NASA is *not* the same agency that put up any of
>those things (except the shuttle flights).  There has been a lot of aging
>and hardening of the arteries since Apollo and Skylab.

Rather than explore space vicariously, Canadians can borrow a Yankee idea:
if you have a better idea, finance it, implement it, and prove it's a better
idea by beating the stuffing out of your competitors.

If you can't finance it, it is rather hypocritical to chide Congress for
refusing that which Parliament refused.

postscript:
   If you haven't already noticed, I'm saving all the hate mail and posting it
   anyway. If you haven't the courage to proclaim your jingoism publicly, don't
   expect me to keep it private.
-- 
                                                   -- s m ryan
+---------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| And they looked across the PDP7 and saw that it was idle and  |  OSF is the  |
| without users. They `said let there be code' and it was.      |  antiUnix.   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
  There was a read and a write and it was the first memory cycle.

------------------------------

Cc: Tom Neff <phri!dasys1!tneff@NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space 
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 12:42:54 -0500
From: "F.Baube" <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>


Tom Neff:
> me:
> >Everyone seems to assume that management of the US space program
> >is so incredibly skewed in favor of short-term goals and short-
> >term ready-for-prime-time payoffs ..
> >
> >Is this in fact the assumption ?
>
> Probably not, because the poster has fatally blurred the very real
> distinctions among *management*, *funding* and *leadership* of the US
> space program.  NASA does the managing, and they are far-sighted indeed
> if you listen to what they're planning.  Always have been, near as I
> can tell ..
> The poster then hauls out the hoary railroad analogy ..

Both my terminology and my analogy were defective, as helpfully
pointed out.  Let me rephrase.  Garnering budget support for
long-term investments in space is a political problem, necessi-
tating a political solution.  Perhaps the way to promote it in a
time of budgetary crisis would be to (1) concede that borrowing
money and then failing to invest it is doubly unwise, (2) concede
that recent deficits have been funneled into consumption and the
military, (3) assert that space infrastructure is *true* invest-
ment, at least when intelligently conceived and implemented, with
great potential, and (4) reasonably suggest that space infra-
structure is relatively deserving, *in comparison with* the rest 
of the budegt, chock-full of the usual "absolute necessities".

libertarian flames to /dev/redundant
#include <disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 13:42:26 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Communications Satellite Economics

In article <6129@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes:

>The bits-per-second cost for satellite communication is mostly dependent on
>the throughput of a single satellite, and that is one of the satellite
>characteristics that is improving the fastest.

The important thing to determine is not that bit/s/$ is the most rapidly
improving satellite characteristic, but, rather, is it improving more
quickly than the bit/s/$ of fiber optic systems?  The latter is a less
mature technology, so I'd expect it to improve more quickly.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 19:04:00 GMT
From: mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu!sheppard@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Kenneth Charles Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: A Question about a HEO manned space station

In article <1073@galaxy>, ruane@andromeda.rutgers.edu.rutgers.edu (Michael T Ruane Sr) writes:
> ...Part of the story is about a crew on a space
> station in HEO. The question(s) are:
> 	3. The orbit wouldn't deteriorate appreciably in 200-300 years,
> 		would it ?
> 
Of course in HEO your going to have trouble with *solar* radiation
and Van Allen belts, but if you can build a booster big enough to get
it to HEO ( > 1000 km ) it should be around for a century or two ( at
least ).

I know it's not what you asked, but just for some background info...

A space station in *LEO* with a mass of 100,000 kg, frontal area of
1,000 m^2 and Cd of 2.2 would decay from 500 km ( 310 mi ) to 280 km
( 175 mi ) in around 1100 days.

Once the station is down to 280 km it's orbit is decaying at 3km per day.

   The equation for the time between two circular orbits is given by :

      t = ( Hsc * ( 1/rho1 - 1/rho2 )) /
	  ((Cd * A / m * go ) * ( go * Ro )^1.5)

   Where

      t   =  time between altitudes 1 and 2 ( seconds )

      rho1,rho2 = density of the atmosphere at 1 and 2,
        respectively ( kg/ft^3 )

      Cd  = draq coefficient

      A   = frontal area ( m^2 )

      go  = 9.807 m/s^2 

      Ro  = radius of earth = 6375400 m

      Hsc = ( h2 - h1 ) / ( ln(rho1) - ln(rho2 )) 
        where h2, h1 are altitude of orbit in m

      This assumes that the density increases exponentially from h2 to
      h1. ( Which is valid ( sort of ) from 1000 km down to 400,000 ft
      or so ( sorry to mix units -- habit )

I don't have any real feel for the density above 500 km, other that that
above ~1000 km it's low enough that lifetimes should be in 100s of
years.

I would have sent mail, but I figure this is just as valid a
contribution to the discussion as personal attacks on Canadians.

...so I guess the answer to your question is *NO*

As you can probably tell, I'd be happy to provide more info.

|      Ken Sheppardson
  "Ask a simple question -- get an equation."  |      U of M Aerospace Engin
|      sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 05:02:03 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

Is the spaceplane the same thing Reagan put in one of his TV speeches, the
plane which is supposed to go from New York to Tokyo in an hour or something?

If so, is that it's only purpose?  To be a real fast airplane?  Or, is it 
able to reach LEO?

Mark Thorson

Federal Airborne Express Mail
"When you say 'Overnight!'",
"We say 'How high?'"

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 21:53:20 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: ME163A hypergolics frolix

In article <7880@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
> Some story -- sort of Beware of the Blob.
> What was the T-stoff?  Nitric acid?

Nope.  Much more corrosive to tissue: C-stoff was a 30% solution
of hydrazine hydrate in methanol, T-stoff being 80% solution of
hydrogen peroxide with various stabilizers.  T-stoff would react
violently with anything organic.

> Could anything really dissolve a human body in a few minutes' time?

Given enough volume of the stuff, it could go a long way toward it.
A standard demonstration for incoming voluteers was to invite them
to dip a finger in a beaker of T-stoff...which finger would immediately
turn white and begin burn painfully.
 
> Seriously, I've heard that with all the troubles the Germans
> had in building planes and getting fuel for them late in the war,
> their major problem was still one of training enough pilots.
> I'm beginning to see why...

Although they seem to have had no shortage of volunteers.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 17:16:21 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST

>From article <23618@amdcad.AMD.COM>, by phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai):
> In article <1091@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
> |Remember the name of the comany that won the SRM contract was THIOKOL.
> 
> Seems to me that the Thiokol proposal was a design which had the joint
> rotation problem. 

Yes, but we were discussing management problems. 

> In other words, the technical problem was there from
> the beginning. Didn't Thiokol have enough experience to know this
> wouldn't work? Or were they just trying to make something cheap enough
> to win the bid? 


My understanding is that the Thiokol joint design allowed them to come
up with the lowest bid, which won them the contract. The new joint
design is, in fact, the joint design proposed by Hercules in their
bid. NASA rated the Hercules joint to be technically superior, but too
expensive. I don't know much about other bidders designs because I
don't know people who work for the other bidders. What can I say? You
get what you pay for. Thiokol bid it, but NASA bought it. Didn't NASA
have enough experience to know this wouldn't work? After all, no one
had ever built anything like it before.

As for Thiokols' level of experience. They have built MANY large (and
small) solid rocket motors. First stage on all the Minutemen, first
stage Peacekeeper (that name still makes me cringe), and first stage
on most of the submarine launched missiles. The Thiokol/Hercules joint
venture has been so good on the sub launched missiles that the Navy
has trouble getting other companies to even bother to bid. Though, I
think Hercules got D5 (Trident II) all to it self.

They claim that the sub scale (1/4 scale is what I remember)
prototypes for the SRMs were the largest solid rocket motors built,
until they built the first set of full scale SRBs. So I guess they
have most of the experience there is to be had in the area of very
large solid rocket motors. Of course whoever (CSD?) builds the Titan-3
families solid rocket motors has about 10 times the experience with
large segmented rocket motors. And Hercules grabbed about half the
Titan-4 solid propulsion contract away from them!

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 19:56:49 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 12 AW&ST

In article <1110@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>Of course whoever (CSD?) builds the Titan-3 families solid rocket motors

I think it is United Technologies.  Is CSD the Chemical Systems Division
of UTC?

At any rate, there is an argument/discussion going on about the notion
of barring Thiokol (or at least Morton) from future work.  I'd like to
know how that fits in with other companies' failures.  What penalties
were imposed on UTC/CSD for the Titan 34D explosion?  What happened to
Beech as a result of Apollo 13?  Did Rockwell (still North American at
the time?) suffer from Apollo 204?  The Titan and Apollo 13 failures
may not have been due to fundamental design faults, but Apollo 204 was.
-- 

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 00:44:03 GMT
From: blue!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Electric Propulsion (was Re: US Goals in Space)

In article <4622@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>Electric propulsion is being worked on both at JPL and here
>(Princeton), but funding leaves a bit to be desired. 
>If any work is going on outside of these two centers, I'm not aware of
>it.
There is some work going on at the Rocket Research Company (a division of
Olin) up here in Redmond, WA.  This company makes small engines, such as
for satellite stationkeeping.  They also made the Viking lander rockets.
They have already flown some crude electric rockets on communications
satellites.  (Further info I have not but shall attempt to aquire).


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                          "Want oil?  Drill lots of wells."   
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu                J. Paul Getty

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 17:55:51 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue

In article <1042@ncar.ucar.edu> djr@scdpyr.UCAR.EDU (Dave Rowland) writes:
>One possible solution might be to have a rescue shuttle on the pad
>at all times with a properly trained crew on stand by as long as
>the space station is manned.

One suggestion I have heard is being considered by ESA is to
station one of the HERMES shuttles at the space station.

I assume that there must also be plans for a passenger carrying
module to fit in the payload bay, because the normal
configuration will only carry a crew of three, there would
be major problems if only the ESA crew could escape using
this system.

British Aerospace was also at one time trying to sell it's
design of re-entry capsule as a space station escape system.
	Bob.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #153
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Dec 88 16:25:40 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00929>; Sat, 10 Dec 88 08:38:05 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 10 Dec 88 08:37:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MXcG2=y00jZdQ1:EEN>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 08:03:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXcEEFy00Ui3Q1905v>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 06:01:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.AXcDbXy00UkZ04QU4p>;
          Sat, 10 Dec 88 05:18:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXcDaBy00UkZ44PE4g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 88 05:16:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #154

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 154

Today's Topics:
		Lynch Thiokol (was: RE: Sept 12 AW&ST)
       Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]
		       Private Space Operations
			    Tower of Power
			Re: US Goals in Space
			 Sunspots and Lasing
	   Re: A Question about a HEO manned space station
	       Plutonian tourism (was: Re: Pluto's Day)
			   re Space Digest
       Re: Fuel based explosions [was: Re: USSR and the Moon ]
	Re: UN Conference : Outer Space Arms Race : Statements
			Re: Re: Tower of Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 16:50:23 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (There's no place like home, there's no place like home, the B2 is worth it)
Subject: Lynch Thiokol (was: RE: Sept 12 AW&ST)

I knew that would get your attention!  :-)

The problem which most of the posters have has to do with the "corporate
mentality" and an attitude towards quality based on the premise (which we
all use) of "good enough for government work".

The fatal flaw in the SRB casing was known for a while, but the engineers
involved all felt somehow uninvolved because of the size of the endevour.
This is the same sort of thing which affected the American auto industry
in the mid to late 1970's and beyond.  At the management level, there has
always been a feeling that the company will reward me for doing right for
the company, even when the actions are the worst thing possible.  The decision
to launch was not based on whether people would get killed if it failed
so much as whether Thiokol/NASA/etc would get a black-eye if nothing was
wrong.

To lynch M-T wouldn't really solve the overall problem, nor would flogging
some mid-level manager.  To avoid this problem requires changing the entire
system for developing and managing government projects.  I don't work in
the space industry, I make bombs and missles.  DoD projects have the same
sort  screwups, waste and misdirection as NASA, only we're black and you
don't hear about people getting killed unless they do it on camera.  As
someone commented, the purpose of a goverement contract is to ensure that
I get paid for my 8 hours, and who really gives a damn about what I produce.
This attitude has to change at the top of the company and work down, FAST!
And the government agency involved has to change its attitude the same way,
at the same time.  (mini-editorial: I wouldn't be saying this if TI wasn't
already making these changes, because this might get back to Jerry).

It seems a safe bet to me that the private companies that are working with
a limited amount of US government support will produce quality products
which will, in the long run, further the US space effort.  This assumes
that the entrenched (descriptive word) "space" industry does not use the
government influence to kill (paranoid, but finite probability) these
companies.  Personally, I feel that anyone who agrees with this last part
should put your money where your mouth is, as it seems that talent is easy
for most of these outfits, all it takes is money.

Anyways, I know that we will never have another "Challenger tragedy".  The
question is, based on the current management/procurement system, what will
the next tragedy look like?  (my bet: baydoor seperation on reentry)

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

Flame me, this is a topic that needs to be beat on!!

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 22:27:40 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]

In article <7827@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
> 
> However, in that article I questioned whether you can really get a
> big explosion out of a failed rocket.  A big messy fireball, yes,
> that would probably melt and destroy the gantry along with the
> crew.  But "everything within a mile?"  And the people in the

Have you ever heard about a fuel/air bomb?  Small charge speads out
an aerosol of some liquid fuel, then an igniter sets off the cloud.
Extremely potent for a given weight of bomb.

If the rocket first suffered a small explosion that ruptured its tanks,
then the resulting fuel/oxidizer cloud gets ignited...it might have
the described effect.

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 30 Nov 88 19:05 EST
From: "Scott P Leslie"                            <UNCSPL%UNC.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Private Space Operations

Hi,
   Count me in!  Norman, before you flame us all let us read the
huge stack of Digests and E-mail messages that accumulated over
the Thanksgiving break.  Also, you must give time for net-messages
to get to everyone (sometimes it takes more than a couple of days).
Enough said about that.
   So, how should this operation be started.  There are basically two
aspects that must be covered, the business (government relations)
aspect and the technical aspect.  I suppose that we need people to
manage all these aspects.  I don't have the necessary skills in either
area, but I'm sure somebody outthere reading this does.
   What kinds of questions need to be answered first?
   1) What kinds of monetary/time/facilities support can the project
      receive?  One of the biggest supports for the project could
      be the universities that we are attending (or teaching at).
      I would suggest trying to line up faculty/Chancellor support
      for the project.  Univeristies have the necessary equipment
      that will be necessary for the R and D.
   2) What is the SPECIFIC goal of the project?  What will happen
      WHEN the project is completed?  I would say that an immediate
      goal should be attainable in a 3 to 4 year time frame, and more
      long range goals should be developed to use the technology that
      will be developed.
   3) What sort of roadblocks will we encounter from the government
      and private industry?  Or, will these two groups help us?
   4) Who will help?  If you really want to help the US space program
      then join this endeavor!  Maybe we won't make breakthroughs in
      launch technology or set time-in-space records, but it will be
      interesting, fun, and difficult as hell.
.
There are many more questions to be answered, but I can't keep writing
now.   Reply to this if you are at all interested!  But, also be
prepared to come through with help when asked.
.
Scott P. Leslie (UNCSPL@UNC)                                   Jax
The University of North Carolina doesn't support my opinions!
NEWD Software : Nothing Else Will Do!

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 30 Nov 88 18:58:33 EST
From: Paul Klinkman <PKLINKMN%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Tower of Power


What would it cost to build a tower seven kilometers high at one of the
moon's poles?  I can tell you the benefit.  As the moon's rotational
axis is tipped only five degrees to the ecliptic, the top of the
tower would remain in sunshine all through the six month lunar
"winter".  The solar energy would be 99.99% dependable, stopping only
during eclipses.  Am I right in estimating that a 30 meter square
array of photocells (or mirrors) generates one megawatt?

A lunar tower has no crosswinds to contend with, mild moonquakes and
1/6 gravity.  All building materials on the moon have six times
their earthbound strength to weight ratio.

I assume that teleoperated/autonomous robots would mine
and refine their own building materials.  If they start in the lunar
spring they'll have six months of solar energy to get the tower started.

                                --Paul Klinkman     PKLINKMN at BROWNVM
I'd rather have the Soviets copy this,
instead of Star Wars.  Then we'd have
a multipolar earth and a bipolar moon.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 00:53:31 GMT
From: thorin!phi!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: US Goals in Space

In article <4622@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>  Electric propulsion is being worked on both at JPL and here...
>means the runs can't be very long.  Tests in real vacuum (i.e. LEO)
>are needed.

    Note that one or two ion engines were flown in the mid-60s on
Agena stages, titled SERT (Solar Electric Rocket Test?). I vaguely
recall reading that they were operational in the early 80's; maybe
they still are, all stunning 1/6,000,000 lb. of thrust each.
Unfortunately I don't have any more info on SERT.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Thus Mathematics helps / our brains and hands and feet
      and can make / a race of supermen out of us.''
	- The Education of T. C. Mits

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 88 03:45:45 GMT
From: ajdenner@athena.mit.edu  (Alexander J Denner)
Subject: Sunspots and Lasing


	Could sunspots be giant lasers?  It seems to explain the lower 
temperatures and some of the strange features of sunspots.

	My first problem was to describe a laser on the sun so that it
could be identified.  The main difficulty with seeing and identifying the 
power coming from the laser is that the laser is not pointing in the
direction of the observation.  (Luckily, the laser is not pointing at
me!)  How can one identify a laser when it can only be observed obliquely?

	If we take an ordinary electrically pumped CO2-N2 laser, that is,
for example, 20% efficient, and operate it without the mirrors, the power 
coming out of the sides of the laser could be measured.  With properly
aligned mirrors, one could get 20% of the power out the end (assuming a 
method of taking the power out.)  That means that there is 20% less energy
coming out of the sides of the laser cavity.  The higher the efficiency, the
less energy would radiate from the sides of the cavity.  Imagining a 100%
efficient laser, no energy would radiate from the sides.

	If we assume that on the sun, one may be able to approach a 100%
efficient laser, we should look for cold areas on the sun to identify lasers.
If the laser is below the surface of the sun (likely) it would not be seen 
from the Earth becuase it would be surrounded by the hot plasmas that are
optically pumping it.  However, we should be able to see the ends where the
beam emerges from the cavity, the ends would still be absorbing energy from
the surface of the sun.  The laser would appear to be two cold spots,
opposite each other on a secant of the sun.  Sunspots may very well be the
area where the beam exists the sun.  In fact, how else could cold spots
exist on the sun?  They must be absorbing radiation from the hots areas of
the sun, otherwise we would see those hots areas looking right through the
cold spots.

	When I locate and study some good data on sun spots, I should be able
to identify the frequency and the power of the sunspot pairs.  This should
be easy for sunspots close to the sun's surface.

	P = (Rs - Rss) X ( D ) X ( Pi ) X ( L )

where:

        P = power in the laser beam.
       Rs = Radiation from the sun's surface per square meter.
      Rss = Radiation from the sunspot per square meter.
	D = Height of the sunspot at right angles to a line drawn between
	    sunspot pairs (diameter of the beam).
	L = Distance between sunspot pairs.

	I would appreciate getting any info on sunspots if anyone has
some good data.

						Alex Denner

PS:  To those who wrote me:  I am compiling a list of people and I will
     start a list.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J. Denner                    ajdenner@athena.mit.edu
234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive    mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
Cambridge, MA 02139                    ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 19:07:00 GMT
From: mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu!sheppard@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Kenneth Charles Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: A Question about a HEO manned space station

 ... of course if the nuclear war is severe enough, you could probably
     blow away the atmosphere and not even worry about orbit decay...

	     Ken Sheppardson
	     U of M Aerospace Engin
	     sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Thu,  1 Dec 88 17:34 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject:  Plutonian tourism (was: Re: Pluto's Day)
Original_To:  SPACE

Don Lynn (Lynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM) wrote:
> Similarly on Pluto, you would see Charon hanging in the same part of the
> sky always.  Would be quite a sight.

Okay, let's run a cable between Pluto and Charon!  We'll sell cablecar rides to
tourists!

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with
     ~  Free Nobel Prizewinner Inside!

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 88 20:34:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: re Space Digest


> I disagree. We should treat space like any other venture. You wave
>hands, sell blue sky and cross your fingers that you can actually find
>something to sell when you get there.
>
>Many try, many fail. Fortunes are lost, reputation lost.
>
>And finally the pile of left overs from the failures reaches the point
>where someone actually succeeds.
>
>Science won't open space. We need con artists.

  Sounds like a good argument for keeping government IN the 
  space business.

                                            --Peter

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 88 22:03:50 GMT
From: dartvax!plasmoid!iang@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Ian Gregory)
Subject: Re: Fuel based explosions [was: Re: USSR and the Moon ]

In article <2025@eos.UUCP> steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) writes:

>   The test you are refering to was an FAA test including a JPL developed
>experimental anti-misting fuel.  The crash and contact with towers designed
>to rip open the wing tanks spread the fuel as intended.  The fuel 
>initially worked as the first flash fire went out very quickly.  A few
>seconds later the fuel re-ignited and engulfed the aircraft in flame.
>The test yielded much valuable data, but was seen by the media as a 
>gross failure.  

The anti-misting agent has to be broken  down before entering
the  engines (otherwise  combustion tends to be  difficult!).
This is achieved  by converters  installed  in the fuel lines
just before the engines.  In the test in question, a pylon on
the ground ripped through the small section of a line between
the converter and the engine, releasing a spray of fuel which
was not protected by the additive.  Had it not been  for this
rather  unlikely failure mode, the test may have been seen as
a success. (I think the additive was developed by I.C.I.).

                  Ian Gregory
                  iang@plasmoid.dartmouth.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 88 19:16:59 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: UN Conference : Outer Space Arms Race : Statements

Those five messages of UNish are unreadable and, as far as I can tell,
99% content-free.  Please don't post such garbage.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 01 Dec 88 19:50:45 EST
From: Paul Klinkman <PKLINKMN%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Re: Tower of Power


>>What would it cost to build a tower seven kilometers high at one of t
>>moon's poles?  I can tell you the benefit.  As the moon's rotational
>>axis is tipped only five degrees to the ecliptic, the top of the
>>tower would remain in sunshine all through the six month lunar
>>"winter".  The solar energy would be 99.99% dependable, stopping only
>>during eclipses.  Am I right in estimating that a 30 meter square
>>array of photocells (or mirrors) generates one megawatt?

>Why build a huge single structure when the same work can be done by 3
>or 4 ground-based arrays much cheaper?  It seems some of the NASA
>mentality is starting to run off... :-)

Wait a minute!  It's one hundred and fifty kilometers to the lunar
arctic circle from the lunar north pole, as the LM flies.  That's 600
kilometers for four ground sites, maybe 800 km. if the LM has to unroll
electrical cables over mountains and rocks and build thousands of
telephone poles to keep the electric current from discharging into the
ground.  Your alternative involves a heavy investment in teleoperated
trucks to haul cable.  They waste most of their time driving to and fro.
Robots can do fabrication, they run elevators, but they don't yet
drive trucks.  Worse, how do you power the trucks at night?

At some point, at some low gravity, building straight up is cheaper than
lateral construction.

There's also a tradeoff between the two alternatives.  75 km. from the
pole the sun shines only 1.5 km. above a flat lunar surface at noon on
the winter solistice.  If you found a 1 km. mountain you'd only have to
build a 500 meter tower to reach sunlight in one direction.  At some
surface distance versus some height lunar towers make sense.

                                                 --Paul Klinkman
I'd rather have the Soviets copy this  *
instead of Star Wars.  Then we'd have  *
a multipolar earth and a bipolar moon. *         PKLINKMN at BROWNVM

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #154
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Dec 88 16:11:13 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02203>; Sun, 11 Dec 88 12:19:03 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 11 Dec 88 12:18:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXce5Dy00Vs181FUBm>;
          Sun, 11 Dec 88 11:24:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cXccc6y00jZdM240F4>;
          Sun, 11 Dec 88 09:45:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MXcawpy00jZdI21U49>;
          Sun, 11 Dec 88 07:51:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.kXcYjUy00UkZQ5RE4J>;
          Sun, 11 Dec 88 05:20:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXcYfwy00UkZE5Q04W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 88 05:16:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #155

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 155

Today's Topics:
	previous statements by n.kluksdahl a couple days ago..
			  Re: Keith Lofstrom
	       Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario
			   Re: Bill Thacker
			Re: Spaceplane project
	     Re: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario
			      Quarantine
	      Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes
		       re conserving resources
			Re: Spaceplane project
			  Re: Tower of Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 1 Dec 88 14:35 EDT
From: <K_MACART%UNHH.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  previous statements by n.kluksdahl a couple days ago..

From:     <K_MACART%UNHH.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  private space operations
To:       kluksdah@noao.edu

  I tried to mail this directly to kluksdah@noao.edu, but my system
was unable to comply, I hope this gets through:
  Hello.  You made a valid point about the appathy of the average person out
there.  Unfortunately, the appathy is for most subjects, not just space.
  About starting an effort to make an organization for private space....
It would be more efficient to use the pre-existing framework of the three or fou
r companies that are already trying to do this.
  Imagine their response when they see hundreds (thousands if sold right) of
letters of support offering money and/or man-hours of free labor, r&d, programmi
ng,etc.
   It might interest them.  If enough technically qualified people got involved,
it might push the costs of starting up the industry for real low enough to get
it moving sooner.  After the enterprise proved itself, then there would be an
influx of resources to hire people for real and full time.  This initial
volunteer stage solves the "I'm not gonna fund it, YOU fund it....(too risky)"
arguments and politics that always have impeded frontier openings since
Columbus and before.   I bet there are enough people out there with experience
and know-how that are interested enough to make a difference.  Hell, send out
a poll to most workers at NASA, Rockwell etc. to see how many of those guys
would like to get a chance to do more real work on space instead of building
missiles, repairing electronics, etc., and you'll be amazed at the numbers.
  The secret is to start small, but succeed every time.  At first you won't
get much in the way of money, but most interested parties will devote at least
a few hrs a week if theyre sincere.  The big problem is to organize and get
all this man-power mobilized and working together.  Maybe hooking all people
up to their own net would allow groups to discuss problems and solutions
in close to real time.  Single man projects are no problem, but keeping track
of progress and assignments could get complex. (I'll never be a manager, no
way).    See if you can drum up some more support and motivation, and then
we'll descend en masse upon the chosen company (O'Neill's space industry?,
that Texas group?  ). Well, thats all I have to say.
                                Korac MacArthur
                                Lowly Physics grad student, UNH

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1988 12:46-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Keith Lofstrom

I'm not going to disagree with Keith on the lunar landing problem, but
simply try to state conditions that would have to be true if it were to
work.

	1) The rocket would have to have a velocity vector that passed
	precisely through the center of mass of the moon. Otherwise it
	would develop an nasty laterla acceleration on the way down and
	smash itself into a mountain.

	2) The ship must have a velocity at some time t0 when in front
	   of the moon such that the lunar acceleration due to gravity
	   (remembering that you have a squarelaw force to deal with)
	   will remove PRECISELY that vertical velocity component
	   relative to the moon PRECISELY by time ti, time of impact.

Now there are some difficulties here. One is that the moon has to be
catching up to the object, which gives the constraint the Vzobj < Vzmoon
in an appropriate frame of reference. It is not clear to me that this
can be true. Someone who has the time can see if it is even possible to
meet this constraint. I doubt it.

If Vzobj<Vzmoon it is pretty clear that the object and the moon are
following different orbits through the Earth-Moon system. This makes it
impossible to not violate the constraints Vobj = Vzobj in an orbiting
system. Now if like in Space 1999, we were to send the moon off into
interstellar space, then this problem would go away because the
difference in the 'orbits' of the object and moon could be
insignificant over the delta-t of interest. Then you would need only
fulfill the previous requirement, which is probably impossible,
although there MIGHT be some critical value of mass for a moon and
softlanding object that would satisfy it. I even have my doubts on
that, but I don't have any more time to spend thinking about it today
so I'll leave it to someone with more time to play...

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 21:17:18 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario

Here's another possible Shuttle disaster:

The DoD reopens the Vandenburg Shuttle launch facility.  A payload
with a plutonium radioactive thermal generator needs to be placed in
an LEO polar orbit.  About 2 minutes after SRB separation, a main
engine pump turbine blade fails causing the turbine to fly apart
at supersonic speed.  The containment works pretty well but a few
blades get out.  One of them nicks the pressurization system for
the fuel oxydizer tanks in one of the OMS pods.  The astronauts sense a 
loud THUD and the loss of one of the main engines.  They opt to abort 
once around using the remaining two main engines.  Everything goes
according to the contingency plan.  All fuel is consumed from the
main tank.  The tank separates.  The OMS engines start up.  Only
one of them lights.  Since this produces an off center thrust, the
RCS consumes excessive amounts of fuel to keep stability.  The OMS
system, only capable of using half its fuel, fails to put the Shuttle
into a once around trajectory.  It reenters short, somewhere near
the Persian Gulf.  In the early phase of reentry, when the aerodynamic
control surfaces are insufficient to orient the spacecraft, the already
overtaxed RCS runs out of fuel.  The Shuttle begins tumbling somewhere
over the Caucasus Mountains.  By the time the control surfaces could
be used, the Shuttle is in a fatal spin.  It breaks up.  When it 
breaks up, the RTG canister, designed to withstand reentry, is struck
by one of the structural members of the Shuttle.  Not being designed
to withstand this, it shatters.  22 kilograms of Pu238-dioxide are
distributed in the atmosphere over Moscow, Kalinin and Lenningrad.

The Soviet ballistic missile warning radars, primarily facing north,
are briefly treated to the spectacle of hundreds of reentering 
objects coming down around Moscow and Lenningrad.  The two largest,
most economically important and strategically significant cities in
the Soviet Union.  

Pu238 is 284 times more radioactive than the fissionable isotope Pu239
due to its relatively short half-life of 86 years.  It decays by alpha
emmission of 5.5Mev.  While this is somewhat higher than the decay
energy of Pu239, it is far higher than the decay energy of U235 and
not similar to the decay energy of any other common nuclide.  Thus
to the relatively unsophisticated instruments initially used to 
evaluate the sudden release of radioactive material, it will appear
as though 5.5 metric tons of weapons-grade Pu239 has suddenly reentered
over Moscow.

5.5 metric tons of Pu239 is enough to support on the order of 500 
warheads.  Areasonable surmize would be that a US secret launch out
of Vandenburg was to illegally emplace a facility containing 500 or
so nuclear warheads into an orbit where it would pass over the
Soviet Union 4 times per day from the south whre their early warning
radars could not detect it until it was far too late.

Vandenburg is a highly secured facility.  Due to the local geography,
neither the launch pad nor the assembly building can be viewed from
sites not on the base.  The Soviets will have very limited intelligence
about launch preparations and the launch itself.  Our belated 
protestations that it was merely a routine Shuttle launch will be met
with a great deal of skepticism.

The Soviets, sensitized by the Chernobyl disaster to nuclear 
catastrophe, will be react unpredictably.


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1988 13:13-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Bill Thacker

> explorers it was during Apollo.  Now we have businessmen, trying to make
> a balance sheet work, making space "profitable".

Sorry, but I disagree. If NASA had that we might have SOMETHING coming
out of them. What we have is a bunch of career bureaucrats in middle
and upper management who have infused the entire agency with a "put in
your 30 years and don't rock the boat" attitude. The people who
survived the cutbacks of the early seventies are the Washington
survivor types who know how to avoid responsibility, spread blame,
generate reams of CYA paper, generate paper studies in place of risky
experiments, avoid trying anything revolutionary, avoid backing any
nonmainstream (ie current in 1950) ideas...

If NASA were run like a business-like technology development
institution as it was under it's old incarnation as NACA, it might
actually accomplish something useful.

Pathfinder shouldn't be part of the NASA budget. It should be THE
ENTIRE NASA BUDGET.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 88 20:33:04 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <1988Nov30.172109.17205@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The Aerospace Plane has turned into another of those all-things-to-all-users
>projects, although currently the transport applications are very much on the
>back burner (partly because it doesn't look all that attractive -- you pay
>too much for the extra speed beyond about Mach 3) and the military side is
>up front.  I can't even remember the latest official word on whether the
>X-30, which is the only actually funded part of it, is supposed to be
>capable of reaching orbit or not.

An Aviation Week article several months ago said that it's not clear
whether it will be able to get all the way to orbit speed on an
air-breathing engine, but that they were driving for it.

As for all-things-to-all-users, the X-30 is a research plane like the X-15,
but the idea is to create follow-on aerospace craft.  AW&ST (Aug. 8, p.53)
says,
    Current X-30 designs indicate that the vehicle will be about the
    size of a Boeing 727 transport, and that the dry weight of the NASP
    will be comparable to that of an F-15 fighter...  A vehicle of this
    size, which will have little payload capacity beyond the ability to
    carry a crew and test instrumentation, will require about 100,000 lb.
    of slush hydrogen per mission...  "An operational NASP, as opposed
    to the X-30, would probably have a payload capability similar to
    that of the space shuttle," [NASP program manager Robert] Bellamy said.

The May 20 issue of Science had an article on the NASP program.  A couple
of extracts:

    The NASP and the high-speed transport programs "are two entirely
    separate and distinct projects," said J. Roger Fleming, senior vice
    president for technical services with the Air Transport Association
    of America.  "Basically, the airlines have stated a design goal of a
    6500 nautical mile range, speed in the Mach 2.5 to 5 range, and the
    ability to carry passengers at `seat-mile' costs roughly equivalent
    to today's `seat-mile' costs."

    Clearly, the most compelling utilization for a NASP-based vehicle--
    and the original raison d'etre for the program--is as a potentially
    cheap and reliable avenue into space.
-- 

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 88 20:56:39 GMT
From: rennet.cs.wisc.edu!stuart@speedy.cs.wisc.edu  (Stuart Friedberg)
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario


Can we leave the no-doubt best-selling fiction out of sci.space,
please?  If you want someone to review your book proposals, submit them
to an editor at one of the major paperback houses.  People here aren't
experts on trash literature, and the experts on trash literature don't
need to be experts on science.

------------------------------

Subject: Quarantine
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 88 08:32:17 -0500
From: "F.Baube" <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>


Remember the laughable attempts to "quarantine" the returning
Apollo astronauts ?  After a week or two so many support staffers
would be exposed and moved into quarantine that it would be too
damned crowded.

What was the problem ?  What was learned ?  Can we be sure we
won't get nailed my a Martian bug that has a very long incubatin
period ?

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 88 19:08:25 GMT
From: ogccse!pase@husc6.harvard.edu  (Douglas M. Pase)
Subject: Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes

In article <2554@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
-For safety considerations, might I point out 2 examples:
-1. An SSBN is a TERRIBLE place for a fire.
-2. A missle silo in arkansas 6 years ago.

In AFROTC some years back we were given a helicopter tour of Vandenberg AB in
California.  Part of the tour passed over an old atlas (liquid fuel) silo
that went PHOOOOM.  20 ton chunks of concrete were scattered around a 300 ft
radius like so many kids toys.  It was impressive.
-- 
Douglas M. Pase				Department of Computer Science
tektronix!ogccse!pase			Oregon Graduate Center
pase@cse.ogc.edu (CSNet)		19600 NW Von Neumann Dr.
(503) 690-1121 x7303			Beaverton, OR  97006-1999

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 88 22:16:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: re conserving resources


 
>Actually, if I am not mistaken, the native hawaiians did pretty well
>as far as living in harmony with their environment.  They had a very
>strong sense of conservation, or at least, resource management.  For


   Unfortunately, you are mistaken.  Shortly after the Europeans
   made contact with the Hawaiians they explained to them that
   there was money to be made in sandalwood.  The Hawaiians, in
   a fit of exploitation that would make any 20th century tycoon
   proud, promptly completely destroyed their sandalwood forests,
   selling every scrap, thus killing the goose that was laying
   the golden eggs.  

   Going farther back, When the Hawaiian's ancestors first arrived
   from Polynesia they introduced many new species of animals and
   plants that displaced many native species.  This was probably 
   inadvertent.  On a possibly more sinister note, it is believed
   that there also existed a race of people already living there
   (the Menehune) which ceased to exist shortly after the arrival
   of the newcomers from Polynesia.

                                           --Peter

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 22:52:50 GMT
From: garth!smryan@unix.sri.com  (Steven Ryan)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

>If so, is that it's only purpose?  To be a real fast airplane?  Or, is it 
>able to reach LEO?

Same thing. Orbit speed at the earth's surface is something like 18000 mi/hr.
If you're going that fast, why not climb up 100 miles to reduce drag?
-- 
                                                   -- s m ryan
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| ...and they were all in exactly the same nightmarish | The nerve-agent       |
| state: their faces were wholly burned, their         | causality...will die  |
| eyesockets where hollow, the fluid from their melted | of asphyxiation within|
| eyes had run down their cheeks.                      | a few minutes....     |
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 03 Dec 88 19:26:26 EST
From: Paul Klinkman <PKLINKMN%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tower of Power


>Maybe other people missed your point, as I did on the first go.  It
>appears that the 'obliquity of the ecliptic' on the Moon is only
>about 2 degrees - something I didn't realize until I looked it up.
>Thus from the pole, the center of the Sun is never more than
>2 degrees below the horizon.  (Unlike the case on Earth, where the
>Sun is 23 degrees or so below the horizon at mid-winter.)  And since
>the Moon's radius is smaller, the tower doesn't have to be as high.

2 degrees!!  I originally took a back-of-envelope guess at 5 degrees.
This cuts the tower's needed height by a factor of 6   = (5/2)**2.
*About* 2 degrees?  The *about* is now the critical factor.  Read on.

>Have you worked out how high the tower has to be?  I get about 1.0 km
>for the center or 1.7 km for the lower limb.  And your efficiency for
>solar cells appears to be a bit high; probably 15-20% is more like
>it.  Solar constant is about 1.4 kW/m^2, so you need about 70 m
>square for 1 MW.  No doubt the plan only makes sense if the desired
>power is much larger.

Yes, 1.0 km at the pole.  My next stop is a lunar map with elevations.
Will I find a 1.0 km mountain or highland near either pole?  If so, that
mountain peak will be bathed in perpetual light and we won't need the
tower.  If the best hill only rises 500 meters, that still requires
a 500 meter tower on top.  Also, what mountains block the horizon?

500 lunar meters is nothing.  There being no wind, you can push the
tower up from moon level just as an oil rig pushes pipe down, section
by section.  Start with the silicon/mirrors already mounted on a gimbal
on top.

Your "lower limb" number of 1.7 km needs better labeling.  Perhaps a
mountain 75 km from the pole, 1.7 km above any mountains on its northern
horizon and 0.1 km above the southern horizon would be perpetually in light.
That's a rough guess.

>A most interesting idea.  You have a year to patent it, but my guess
>is that the patent would run out before anyone makes use of it.  Good
>luck, though.

Thank you.  The mass driver brought Dr. O'Neill $100,000.  If patents cost
$5,000, it's a 20 to 1 payoff.  Now what's the risk?

I burned out trying to patent decimal dice in 1977.  I don't see why
the U.S. or Japan won't land an unmanned scientific package on the
moon's pole in ten years.  They can attempt polar water extraction,
they can hide some experiments in a lunar polar crater to permanently
screen out both earth and sun interference with rock, and maybe they'll
want a permanent power source for the next five packages to plug into.
Let's find out quick whether they need a 500 meter tower, a 200 meter
tower or none at all.

                                               --Paul Klinkman
I'd rather have the Soviets copy this  *
instead of Star Wars.  Then we'd have  *
a multipolar earth and a bipolar moon. *         PKLINKMN at BROWNVM

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #155
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Dec 88 15:54:17 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01658>; Mon, 12 Dec 88 11:25:37 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 12 Dec 88 11:25:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AXcydsy00jZdE2CEZP>;
          Mon, 12 Dec 88 10:49:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXcwMLy00Vs1Q1nU87>;
          Mon, 12 Dec 88 08:14:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.oXctnsy00UkZQ6W04H>;
          Mon, 12 Dec 88 05:18:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UXctlqy00UkZQ6Uk50@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 88 05:16:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #156

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 156

Today's Topics:
	    Terror-watt lasers and Stellar Classifications
			Re: Spaceplane project
			 Re: Species survival
			      Apollo 13
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
       Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]
			Rotating Space Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat,  3 Dec 88 10:22:08 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Terror-watt lasers and Stellar Classifications
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Add to the possible uses of terawatt lasers: CETI.  Even at light-years,
anyone in the beam would see us as the brightest object in the galaxy.

Which brings to mind an interesting twist to the scenario for the interstellar
mission envisioned by Bob Forward (using a terawatt laser to propell a mesh
sail spacecraft, decelerating by separating an annular section that reflects
incoming light onto the other side of the command section):  spacecraft
arrives on schedule and on target only to be zapped by enraged ET astronomers
who have lost a generation's worth of observing for a quarter of the sky
and had most of their CCD's burnt out...

Or is the aim and collimation good enough such that the sail is the only
thing that gets hit?


And in other news, avsd!childers@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Richard Childers) writes:

>In article <8811160821.AA07666@angband.s1.gov> CS0X1912@SWTEXAS.BITNET writes:

>>WHAT ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STARS DESCRIBED IN THE UNIVERSE.

>The traditional mnemonic goes something like this :

> [ Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me Right Now Baby]

>I'm not sure what the last category's letter is, it seems kind of wierd
>to have two classes called 'B'.

I learnt that the last class was 'S' ("Sweetheart").  Black Holes were somewhat
on the fringe at the time.  Perhaps a more chivalrous astronomer coined
the phrase.  Earlier versions stopped at 'M', but more letters were added
as more star types were discovered, raising the question of just how lewd
this mnemonic might get as Man's knowledge increases...


Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 88 12:42:42 GMT
From: dartvax!plasmoid!iang@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Ian Gregory)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <4680@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:

>  Definitely, but the cutoff is actually even lower than that.  Remember
>that there are no commercial supersonic aircraft flying today.  I can't
>count the Concorde because it's an economic disaster even at the
>extremely high cost/ticket it's currently flown at.  I suppose it's a
>matter of national prestige to keep it flying; it sure isn't profit
>considerations.  No US airline could afford to fly it.

I think you  are way off base here.  Within the last year I have
seen  two articles  on Concorde,  stating  that is is  the *most
profitable* aircraft  in the British Airways fleet  (in terms of
profit made per aircraft per year). Admittedly it will never pay
back it's  enormous  development costs,  but it certainly is not
kept in service just for "national prestige".  BA makes a lot of
money on its NY-London  supersonic route,  mainly because demand
is sufficient to fill most  flights even with the 30% premium on
ticket  prices  compared  to first class on their wimpy subsonic
flights. Some people pay these prices just for the thrill, but I
am sure there are  many people whose time is valuable enough for
it to make economic sense.

                   Ian Gregory
                   iang@plasmoid.dartmouth.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1988 11:33-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Species survival

I'll jump in on this thread for a few whacks. I partially agree with
Nathaniel Stitt. The case Ralph Marshall makes is valid, but misses an
important point.

Unless you are just a hobbyist who wants the latest greatest neat toy,
you will buy your 80n86 machine, or NeXT II based on criteria that are
not purely technical.

A capital investment is made based on decision criteria of the form:

	1) What is the job that needs done?
	2) Will an upgrade of equipment at this time save money on the
	   life cycle cost? Is it cost effective?

If your 80386 can't do the job specified by #1, you wait for the next
generation. If the price is higher than the cost savings of a
changeover, then you wait until the 80386 price comes down because the
80n86 was just introduced.

Now if you already own the 80386 and a new machine comes out that is
just nifty, you still apply the above criteria. Will the increased
capabilities, reliability, availability, etc of the new technology
cause enough cost savings to override the expense of a changeover and
of getting rid of a piece of equipment that is paid for and functional
and not yet fully depreciated?

The same arguments hold for rockets and interstellar probes. Maybe we
could build and launch one with today's technology. But that would
require a massive use of public funds. As Stitt pointed out, the
technology is improving such that if we wait 10 years the probe will
cost less and get there sooner.

Ralph Marshall argues that this can go on forever. That is incorrect.
Even though the technology may continue to improve nearly indefinitely,
that does not mean that the decision to launch will be delayed the
same. The launch should occur when technology reaches the point at
which the earlier decision criteria can be met.

What is the job?
	To collect as much high quality data about another stellar
	system as possible. We would like to do this as soon as
	possible.

Is it cost effective?
	The most cost effective way to meet the criteria is to project
	arrival dates of interstellar data based on differing departure
	dates. Assign a total project cost to each. Slipping data
	arrival date a few years into the future for saving a
	substantial percentage of life cycle cost is allowed, but
	slipping several years for minor gains is not.

Since the projected technological capability is for shorter and shorter
trip times, then we obviously gain by waiting. A current technology
method would take perhaps 1000 years to A Centaurus. In 10 years we may
cut that to 100 years. In 20 it may be down to 50. In 30 in might be as
little as 20. (Now folks, these are all 'Fermi' numbers so don't ask me
where I got them....)

So lets see, we
	launch		arrival		data back
	1990		2990		2994
	2000		2100		2104
	2010		2060		2064
	2020		2050		2054

It would seem obvious to me that if I were making the decision based on
the above data, I would shoot for a 2020 launch date, since I would not
expect significant improvement beyond the 20 year trip time to be worth
the wait: ie the difficulty of getting the extra relativistic speed is
such that improvements may take start taking longer than the decrease
in trip time they would allow.

Now if the cost in 2020 for use of the new technology were quite high,
I might look at using an earlier technology and waiting longer for
data, or delaying launch another 10 years for the 'new' technology to
mature and become cost effective.

If we want to open the frontier we have to think in terms of using our
investments EFFECTIVELY.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 88 07:16:23 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Apollo 13

[]

A previous poster mentioned a rumor about Rockwell being charged 
towing charges for "their" CSM being saved by the LM. Well, here's
the real story quoted (without permission) from the book "Chariots for Apollo"
by Charles R. Pellegrino, (the making of the Lunar Module), page 205 :

[this takes place during one of the many late-nite meetings of the Grumman
engineers, as the flight of Apollo 13 was nearing the end. . .]


"Rockwell! A stern voice called. . ."I think we ought to send them a bill!
We towed their damned ship in, didn't we?"

[A purchase order was quickly produced]

"Okay. Towing at four dollars for the first mile, one dollar each additional
mile. . . four-hundred thousand miles. It was a trouble call. . . fast service.
We've just given them a battery charge. That comes to---"

"Aw, be a sport, throw in the battery charge for free."

"Oxygen at ten dollars per pound. . ."

"Sleeping accommodations for two, no TV. . ."

"Air conditioned!"

"Right! Air conditioned, with radio, modified American plan-with view!"

"No charge! The room was prepaid!"

"Yes, but they had an additional guest in the room. [Jack Swigert, the 
CMP who moved to the LM since the Command Module was too cold]. Tack on an
extra eight dollars per night-checkout no later than noon today."

. . . .

[the invoice was supposed to stay confidential]

Everybody wanted a copy, so one of the test pilots ran up to his office and
asked his secretary to type it. . . .She showed it to the other secretaries,
and they all wanted copies, and that's when things became unglued. . .
And so inevitably. . .

"Walter Cronkite reporting. An unusual piece of paper has just come across
the desk. . ."

During the next six months, envelopes containing anywhere between ten cents and
twenty dollars would trickle in with Grumman's mail. Concerned citizens wanted
to help Rockwell pay the towing bill. Grumman would eventually throw a party
to "eat up the reserve cash".

------------------------------------

If you can track down a copy of this book, spend some time reading it. It's
quite extrodinary.





-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"Scientists say 'Saturn is so light, if you put it in a bucket of 
water, it would float'. Don't forget, it would also leave a ring".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 21:44:09 GMT
From: aviator@athena.mit.edu  (Joakim Karlsson)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations

In article <345@ntcsd1.UUCP> dmc@ntcsd1.UUCP (David Clemens) writes:
>In article <588@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes:
>>
>>I attended a lecture on space several years ago in which the speaker
>>claimed that the rotating von Braun-style space stations (like the one
>>in 2001) wouldn't work to provide artificial gravity.  He didn't
>>explain why this was so, he just reported it as current knowledge.
>>
>>If this is true, can someone tell me why?  
>>
>
>   Apparently, to get normal gravity, it would take a space station with 
>a ring one mile in diameter, rotating at one revolution per minute. This
>is not impossible,but it seems very unlikely to happen for some time.
>
>NOTE: This is from memory of a conversation several days ago. I have not
>figured out the mathematics of the situation, nor do I intend to. I leave
>it to the net users who love this kind of problem. I would like to hear the
>results of anyone who actually works on this.
>

I think the math involved is quite simple.  So simple even I can try. :)
What we need is the following:
                    
               a = r*w^2        a...acceleration due to rotation
                                r...radius of space station
                                w...rotational velocity

If we want one "g", then a = 9.81 m/s^2.  For 1 rpm (w = 0.105 s^-1), this
results in r = 895 m.  This is equivalent to a diameter of 1.79 km (or
1.12 mi for those of you using archaic units).  And yes, that would be a
big one.




Joakim Karlsson             ||  iceman@bellerophon.mit.edu
Flying Fanatic in Training  ||  {backbone}!mit-eddie!bellerophon.mit.edu!iceman
                 "Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
                And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings"

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 00:44:33 GMT
From: apple!ems@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]

In article <2735@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes:
>In article <79302@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>>Have you ever heard about a fuel/air bomb?  Small charge speads out
>>an aerosol of some liquid fuel, then an igniter sets off the cloud.
>>Extremely potent for a given weight of bomb.
>>
>>If the rocket first suffered a small explosion that ruptured its tanks,
>>then the resulting fuel/oxidizer cloud gets ignited...it might have
>>the described effect.
>
>I would think that the initial explosion would ignite the fuel before
>it's had a chance to spread out that fine.

Take a 5 lb bag of flour (Bleached white or Whole Wheat...)  Put it on
top of a tuna fish can full of explosive.  Place on floor of 12ft square
shed.  Light fuse and run away.  The flour is dusbursed into the air,
then the dust/air mix explodes violently.  The fuel doesn't burn well
until it is disbursed into the oxidizer, then it detonates.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 21:45:00 GMT
From: mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu!shelle@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Thomas A Kashangaki)
Subject: Rotating Space Station

--------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <588@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes:
>
>I attended a lecture on space several years ago in which the speaker
>claimed that the rotating von Braun-style space stations (like the one
>in 2001) wouldn't work to provide artificial gravity.  He didn't
>explain why this was so, he just reported it as current knowledge.
>
>If this is true, can someone tell me why?  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I know of two very complete sources for references and information on
Rotating Space Stations.  The first is a series of NASA Contractor
reports that cover a detailed design of:

        AN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SPACE STATION FOR THE YEAR 2025
        The Bionetics Corporation/ NASA Langley Research Center
        CR # 178345 (and three or four others).  
                                                                             
This is a very detailed study of all the differrent technology issues
that have to be addressed before a rotating space station is a viable
option.  It is probably the most complete and up-to date study of
rotating spacecraft to date.  I am sure Bionetics or Langley would be
willing to provide copies of the reports.

And the one that I am more familiar with is a two year study performed
here at the University of Michigan under the NASA/USRA Universities
Advanced Design Program:

        PROJECT CAMELOT (Circulating Autonomous Mars-Earth Orbital Transport)
        Senior Design project 1986/87 and  1987/88
        University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering Dept.
        Ann Arbor, MI 48109           

These two reports describe a large 20-man spacecraft that would be used
in support of a manned Mars base.  The reports are quite complete and
have good bibliographies and reference lists.  Reports can be obtained
by writing to Prof. Harm Buning at the above address.

~   Thomas A-L Kashangaki                 |       SHELLE@caen.engin.umich.edu ~     
~   University of Michigan                |       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ~     
~   Aerospace Engineering Department      |                                   ~

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #156
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Dec 88 05:29:47 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00472>; Tue, 13 Dec 88 04:36:12 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 13 Dec 88 04:36:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XdBFGy00Ui381J0Rz>;
          Tue, 13 Dec 88 03:27:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.UXdB:my00UkZ0C:U4T>;
          Tue, 13 Dec 88 03:20:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UXdB7oy00UkZ0C9E5y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 88 03:16:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #157

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 157

Today's Topics:
	      Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon)
	   Re: A Question about a HEO manned space station
		   Re: The Cheap Space System, Inc.
       Re: Fuel based explosions [was: Re: USSR and the Moon ]
		       Solid fuel flammability
	Brilliant Soviet Rescue of Astronauts Stranded in LEO
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #148
			 Buran range charges?
	     NASA's failure to allocate funds to research
			    Re: Quarantine
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Dec 88 09:11:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 4185+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon)
CC: eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov

[leq: in a nearby by galaxy, close, closer, closest.....]

It's time for university students to realize they MUST start
preparing resumes if they want the best summer opportunities:
outside of NASA as well as inside.  You can't have sympathy for
those who start as late as March when hundreds (thousands) do it right.

If you are a student looking for employment next summer, NOW is the time to
prepare a resume and fill out application forms for NASA summer employment.
A placement office can help.

NASA is the United States civilian space agency [we are not part of the DOD].
Note that several Centers (Ames, Johnson, Kennedy, Langley) share land
with military bases. (Other Centers do not: Goddard with USDA, Lewis with
Cleveland Airport, etc.)  JPL is a contracted lab to Caltech.
They have choosen limited military contracts, but in all cases, it is
possible to positions away from joint or direct military work if you choose.
As a reminder, we have projects which deal with manned and unmanned space,
near Earth orbit as well as deep space, aeronautics, and many aspects of air
research.

Unfortunately, each NASA Center is recruiting summer students
using different policies due to budgetary contraints.
E.g., some use local Universities to hire summer students,
others Center are hiring their own.

YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES to apply.
Exceptions: those Centers using universities can take
some foreign student positions.  Just ASK if it's possible.
Rememeber to state that you are seeking summer employment!
We have received several resumes from non-US citizen, sorry, we cannot take
you.  Foreign nationals with a green card are okay for JPL.
NASA and its contractors are equal opportunity employers. (usually)
P.S. see Ken Jenk's list of contractors and if any one know's Ken's
current phone number, please send it to me.

Standard Form 171.
To apply for some Centers (and excepting) please fill out a Standard Form 171.
This is the form used for all employment within the Federal Government.
When in doubt: inquire.  Where?  Addresses below.

Problems working with NASA.  Let's be truthful.  Salary can be a problem,
so if you would prefer working for a contractor, state that on your cover
letter.  We will try to forward resumes if possible. Another problem is locale.
Sorry, we bought land where it was cheap (at the time).  Some positions
sound like they use obsolete equipment (in some cases this is true).

Marilyn Lane
Summer Programs
MS 241-5
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035

Duane Patterson
Personnel Office
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Dr.
Pasadena, CA 91109

Personnel Office
NASA Headquarters
Washington DC 20546

Personnel Office
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771

Personnel Office
NASA Lewis Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44135

Amy Kennedy
Mail Code AH3
NASA Johnson Manned Space Center
Houston, TX 77058

Personnel Office
NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center
Titusville, FL 32899

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, AL35812
They might NOT have a summer employment program (their
contractors might).  They will have a summer co-op program contact
Tom Holden
CM-23

Personnel Office
MS 174
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23665

There are also several other NASA sites under the control
of the above Centers.  For instance: at the Ames Research Center,
we have the Dryden Flight Research Facility 100 miles N of
Los Angeles at Edwards AFB.  If you are not interested
in the above, perhaps there are other NASA offices nearer
than you think.  Some sites I can
think about are near VAFB, White Sands, NM, the Stennis
facility in LA, the Wallops Island facility, and the Goddard
Space Institute near NY (uncertain about their summer policies).

COOPerative work with a university or college is possible.  If you have an
interest in this, make this clear in your cover letter and check with your
local work-study office.  You must be a college student [I checked for
a high school student: no go.]  Seniors and juniors have
precedence (Lower classmen should still ask, then try contractors).

You only go as far as you push.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 02:57:04 GMT
From: garth!smryan@unix.sri.com  (Steven Ryan)
Subject: Re: A Question about a HEO manned space station

>I am new to this newsgroup, but I find many of the discussions
>interesting.
>Could someone be kind enough to post the definitions of HEO and
>LEO? 

Good luck getting any help from the experts. They are far too busy to
respond to mere amateurs as you or I.

As far as I can glean,

HEO = High Earth Orbit

LEO = Low Earth Orbit
-- 
+---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Multi-culturalism -- just an excuse   |     When are we going to see         |
| to keep the minorities satisfied.     |     Anglo-saxon cultural events.     |
+---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 23:37:52 GMT
From: garth!smryan@unix.sri.com  (Steven Ryan)
Subject: Re: The Cheap Space System, Inc.

Of course, I would need to find someone to trust before investing any money.
-- 
+---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Multi-culturalism -- just an excuse   |     When are we going to see         |
| to keep the minorities satisfied.     |     Anglo-saxon cultural events.     |
+---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 13:10:27 GMT
From: killer!mjbtn!root@eddie.mit.edu  (Mark J. Bailey)
Subject: Re: Fuel based explosions [was: Re: USSR and the Moon ]


I saw a show on Nova (I think) about "Why Planes Burn", and they had a 
detailed look at that test with the experimental fuel.  While the plane did
burst into flames and burned like nobody's business, after it was out and they
went to inspect it, many commented that it did not appear as damaged as plane
wrecks normally appear.  In fact, the fire had failed to melt down the 
fusalage (sp?).  It was believed and then tested that the new fuel mixture 
did in fact burn at a lower temperature than normal fuel, and thus, the 
fire did not penetrate the plane's body.  It is believed that this alone 
may have resulted in much fewer casualties.  The had cameras inside the
aircraft the whole time, and minus smoke, the people were not particularly
burned (that is the DUMMY people :-) severely.

I grant you that this is not exactly what they were looking for, but any 
step in that direction is the way to go.  It is sort of like the cure for
cancer...no miracles, just slow, but valuable, progress.

Mark.

-- 
Mark J. Bailey                                    "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!"
USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ___________________________
VOICE:  +1 615 893 4450 / +1 615 893 0098          |         JobSoft
UUCP:   ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!mjb      | Design & Development Co.
DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US                       |  Murfreesboro, TN  USA

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  6 Dec 88 10:06:05 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Solid fuel flammability
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn) writes:

>Contrary to Henry's assertion, liquid rocket fuels are not necessarily safer
>to handle than solid fuels. Modern solid fuels are surprisingly stable; you
>can hold a lit match to bulk solid fuel, and chances are it will not ignite.
<(Nevertheless, the consequences of undesired ignition are nasty enough that
>I would not recommend using a match as a light source while inspecting the
>interior of a SRB...)

There was an article recently (in, I think, _Air & Space_) interviewing
a guy who actually has the job of inspecting the interiors of SRBs.  He's
lowered inside on a winch (presumably the guy on the other end uses a *very*
long rope... :-)) in a special anti-static suit, and goes to extraordinary 
lengths to avoid generating the slightest spark.  Of course, this doesn't
mean Phil's wrong, if I were that guy I'd be damn careful too...

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 88 08:24:13 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Brilliant Soviet Rescue of Astronauts Stranded in LEO

As in the "Stranded in LEO Due to APU Failure" scenario, all 3 APU's fail,
leaving the astronauts helplessly adrift.  

The Soviets, hearing Tom Neff's idea of a rescue effort, come up with
a brilliant plan.  They launch an unmanned Soyuz from Space City
with the stated intent of making a rendevous with the drifting Shuttle
and rescuing some of the astronauts (the Soyuz wouldn't have capacity
for all of them).  Space City, being at a much higher latitude than
KSC, gives the Soyuz craft a much higher inclination orbit than the
Shuttle.  The Soyuz, being incapable of correcting its inclination
by the required amount, intersects with the Shuttle's orbit at a few
miles second or so.

Thus the Soyuz saves our brave astronauts from the senseless torture 
of a slow death.

Why would the Soviets would go along with such an imbicilic
rescue attempt when it requires the sacrifice of a launched Soyuz 
(worth $15 to $20 million)?  The Soviets draw attention and blame 
for the disaster away from NASA.  This allows NASA to contain the 
political damage and maintain its appearance of conducting a space 
program, leaving the Soviets free to develop space without competition.



UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1988 14:07-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #148

> Hear, hear!  Let's have some good technical discussions, eh?

Try Space Tech.

[That is 'space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu' -Ed]

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  6 Dec 88 09:57:52 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Buran range charges?
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer) writes:
> [...] there are no destruct charges aboard the orbiter.  Destroying
>the SRBs and ET, unfortunately, conceivably might be necessary, and the
>odds on the orbiter surviving that aren't good.

The Rogers Commission Report mentions that this was an emotionally-charged
issue (meaning, presumably, that there were some people who wanted to put
range charges on the orbiter).  Almost any catastrophic incident occurring
to the SRBs &/or ET while the orbiter is attached spells doom for the orbiter
(detonating the range charges would fall under that category, they're designed
to split the casing lengthwise...).

But what about Buran?  It has a teleoperated mode (e.g., maiden voyage),
and one can imagine the arguments of those wanting range charges installed
carrying more weight than for a (usually-) manned vehicle.  Does it have
charges, and if so, what happens to them when there's a crew on board?

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 88 08:40:28 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: NASA's failure to allocate funds to research

Tom Neff writes:

>Since NASA does not set its own budget, how does this question escape
>the nonsense bucket.  Congress and the Administration(s) are certainly
>shortsighted, as are the voters who install them.  That's all Nick's
>assertion proves.

Congress sets the overall budget of NASA.  Despite having the largest
overall budget of any civilian R&D agency, NASA chooses to spend the
smallest amount of any R&D agency on research.  Since the research
items are not actual line items in the budget but are rather small
fractions of them, increasing the funding devoted to research by a
factor of 5 or so is entirely within the discretion of the agency
anytime it wishes to do so.  It hasn't wished to do so for the last
25 years.  A priori, the probability it will wish to do so this year
is 4%.


>>          If NASA was farsighted they would be spending much more 
>>money on space industrialization, planetary exploration, electric 
>>and nuclear propulsion, mass drivers, tethers, optical communications,
>>etc. 
>
>Maybe I'm reading different stuff from you, but I thought NASA had
>ongoing projects in almost all of those areas.  They don't really
>decide how much to spend on these things, and you know it.  The cuts
>come down from the top and have to be distributed somewhere.

As discussed in my previous comments, how much to spend in these
areas is entirely at the discretion of NASA deputy administrators.
They receive no guidance from Congress or the administration.  They
choose to spend very little on research, and of what little they choose
to spend, all of it is spent corruptly on people who will return
political favors to them but have little if any knowlege in the
area they are supposedly researching.  This wouldnt be so bad if
there weren't dozens of qualified people dying to contribute to our
knowlege in these critically important areas who aren't able to obtain
any funding becaus they are politically unreliable.  What are other
governments who do not permit technically qualified citizens to work
if they aren't politically reliable?  What do you think of these
governments?  Do you think this is a good way to run a society?  Are
YOU politically reliable?  Are you SURE they'll be willing to give
you money?  How much money have YOU gotten from NASA recently?


Jim Bowery		PH: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981
La Jolla, CA 92038


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 23:04:37 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Quarantine

When the Apollo astronauts returned, they were quarantined for two weeks,
on top of the ~3 days it took to get back from the Moon.  And they opened
the hatch to let the divers throw in the environmental suits, the outsides
of which got exposed to them and their craft.  When astronauts return from
Mars, they will have nine months of quarantine in interplanetary space.
If that's not enough quarantine, how much is?

In article <1988Dec6.184322.24702@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>([The microorganisms on Surveyor 3] also, incidentally, survived the
> pre-launch sterilization process that was designed to kill them.)

Was Surveyor 3 in fact sterilized?  Nasa/Jpl stopped sterilizing Rangers
starting with number 7, on the chance that the sterilization process
might have contributed to the long string of failures.
-- 

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #157
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Dec 88 06:34:12 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00771>; Tue, 13 Dec 88 05:42:09 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 13 Dec 88 05:41:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8XdCzEy00UkTA1004Q>;
          Tue, 13 Dec 88 05:24:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.oXdCtZy00UkZICHk4h>;
          Tue, 13 Dec 88 05:18:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXdCs8y00UkZMCGU4l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 88 05:16:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #158

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 158

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Quarantine
			    Re: Quarantine
		RE: Alternative to launching a shuttle
	   Re: A Question about a HEO manned space station
		     Long-Life battery and clock
		       Diversity vs Monolithism
			    Re: high tech
			    Re: Quarantine
		       Space Industrialization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 11:42:15 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!vixen!ronbo@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ron Hitchens)
Subject: Re: Quarantine

In article <2807@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
>In article <4XakbCR98k-0E7XHkT@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick
>Francis Golembiewski) writes:
>>I don't really think that we have all that much to worry about in the way
>>of extra terristerial diseases.  For the following reasons: 1> Disease causing
>>organisms are usually specific to a species (ie Humans) or a range of similar
>>species [. . .]
>
>	However, note that this is not true of all disease organisms.  The
	[discussion of various desease types deleted]

   I just want to point out that the danger of infection of humans by some
extra-terrestrial bug is not the only concern here.  Rick is probably right
in that it's not very likely that a microbe from Mars would feel at
home in a human body.  But, what about something that loves the taste of
chlorophyll?  Or kills fish?  Or prevents the fertilization of bird's eggs?
Any major disruption in the food chain would spell Big Trouble for us, even
if we're not attacked directly.

   It could even conceivably hurt us without attacking earth biology.  How
about an organism that floats high in that atmosphere and breaks down the
ozone layer?  Or turns plastic into silly putty?  Or eats the first line of
Usenet articles?

   The point is that the *potential* for disaster is enormous, whether the
bug makes you cough or not.  But it's my guess that the odds are probably
in our favor.  I think that any micro-organisms which may have evolved on
other planets would have to be quite narrowly specialized for the niches
they are in and probably wouldn't survive anywhere else.  In any case, I'd
certainly want the first returning mission from Mars quarantined, preferably
in an orbiting facility, as a minimum precaution.  Sadly, the way things are
going, that probably won't happen in any of our lifetimes.

Ron Hitchens		ronbo@vixen.uucp	hitchens@cs.utexas.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 22:22:17 GMT
From: oracle!hqpyr1!csimmons@hplabs.hp.com  (Charles Simmons)
Subject: Re: Quarantine

In article <250@vixen.uucp> ronbo@vixen.UUCP (Ron Hitchens) writes:
>                                                          In any case, I'd
>certainly want the first returning mission from Mars quarantined, preferably
>in an orbiting facility, as a minimum precaution.
>
>Ron Hitchens		ronbo@vixen.uucp	hitchens@cs.utexas.edu

Um...  If I remember correctly, the first returning mission from
Mars will have been quarantined for somewhere around a year from
the time they leave Mars orbit to the time they enter Earth orbit.

-- Chuck

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Dec 88 10:51:06 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror)
Subject: RE: Alternative to launching a shuttle

nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)  writes:

>*Why* can we not launch the Shuttle as we launched the X15, with the shuttle
>strapped onto a high flying (supersonic?) plane.  Would this get the shuttle
>to a height where SRBs would not be needed?  Or am I just dreaming????????
>
>jim
Well, actually I seem to remember a proposal, written up in the all-knowing
AW&ST, about putting a mini-shuttle on the back of a heavily modified 747.
The mini would have it's own, single engine, along with a ET.  The 747 would
have HBPR turbofans (eight if I remember), an internal liquid tank and a
single SSME rammed up its ***.

The whole idea was for the airplane to casually fly up to around FL650,
start a shallow dive for speed, pull up and light the SSME.  At way over
VNE, the mini's motor would start, and it would detach and fly up into the
wild dark yonder.

It seems feasible, if somewhat of a wild ride for all involved.  All in
all, I think I'd want to watch the tapes first :-)

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.


------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 88 13:47:00 GMT
From: mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu!sheppard@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Kenneth Charles Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: A Question about a HEO manned space station

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <17976@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu (George W. Herbert) writes:
> In article <401907a2.5e37@dl5e37.engin.umich.edu> I wrote:
>
>>LEO <=> 100-500 nautical miles ( 200-1000 km )
>>HEO <=>    >500 nautical miles (    >1000 km )
> 
> pardon, but since when is 500 miles=1000 km?
> even nautical miles...
> really, 500 nm=925 km 
> (close, but no cigar?...)
> -george william herbert

Actually, if I wanted to be picky I'd point out that:

     1 nm = 1852 m   =>   500 nm = 926 km
                                     ^
...but then since my original statement was intended only as a general guideline/rule of 
thumb, and since the limits aren't that clearly defined, I see no reason for me to be picky.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Ken Sheppardson
                                                          sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 88 00:56:58 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcilzb!doug@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Doug Hendricks)
Subject: Long-Life battery and clock

A friend of a brother of mine is an artist who is interested in two items:

1.  A battery that can be trusted after 100 years of storage,

2.  A clock of some sort to alarm after 100 years.

Obviously, shelf-life is the primary concern.

I thought of NASA-type fuel cells for number one, but am not sure
if they would truly be appropriate.

Any ideas?


Douglas Hendricks     Not only are these my views, but those of
Hewlett-Packard       Hewlett-Packard as well. Furthermore, I beam my
Santa Clara, CA       thoughts into Ronald Reagan. He does everything I say.

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 88 21:43:32 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Diversity vs Monolithism

Humanity can promote the richness and diversity of life by providing a 
greater variety of habitats in space rather than encroaching on existing
terrestrial habitats.  We can enhance richness and diversity in systems
at all levels -- technological, economic, governmental, cultural, and
biological.  We can bring this gift to our world and, indeed, our
universe, if we adhere to the principle that it is better to
err on the side of diversity than on the side of monolithism.

In a series of seminars with environmental groups over a period of
years, space activists in the San Diego area have succeeded in laying
a foundation of trust with these groups based on the above vision.
This trust is a fragile one, more prone to misunderstandings than
the internal factions of the National Space Society.  

As guardians of the biosphere, environmental groups are particularly
sensitive to the issue of diversity and quality of life.  The vision
of space habitats usually comes wrapped in conventional aerospace
concepts such as "the space program" and the National Commission on 
Space's "50 year plan".  Unfortunately, for too many of us, this 
wrapping is an accurate reflection of our values.  Environmental groups 
reject our vision, and rightfully so.

Until we clean up our own act, and recognize that large government
projects are not the way to a diversity of space activities, we will 
fail to make inroads with grass-roots America, and our gift will be
rejected by those in the environmental movement who can lend it
deeper ethical and moral credibility.

We are desparate for things to happen in space.  We are easy prey for
the agents of monolithic space programs who would use us to
prop up funding for such dubious big projects as Space Shuttle 
and now Space Station.  These projects do more than waste money, they 
sap the will of our people to take responsibility for space activities 
into their own hands.  Like monocropping, they displace the richness 
and diversity of natural selection with the errors of monolithism.

We were willing to wait a decade for NASA to build Shuttle.  It failed
miserably to live up to our expecations.  Now, 15 years later, NASA is 
asking us to, again, wait a decade for Space Station.  It will have
been 25 years of waiting from Skylab to a pig-in-the-poke Space Station.  

25 years.

Think about it.  

The monolithism of our government's "X year plans" is as abhorrent
as the "5 year plans" of totalitarian bureaucracies of communist nations.
Do we really need the government's "help" in the form of "the space program" 
in order to realize the potential of space?  

No!

"The space program" is merely the decaying carcas of Apollo which 
monolithists keep around like a psycho with his long dead mother.
The stench is becoming unbearable.

If we are going to wait 5, 10, 25 or 50 years for something, let it be for 
something of real and abiding value.  Just as it takes several years 
for a dispoiled environment to regain its biodiversity, so it will take our 
economy several years to fill the markets dispoiled by government encroachment.  
Let us abandon the idea of "the space program" for the atavism it is.  Let us
not wait for yet another miracle from Uncle Sam.  Instead, let us wait for the 
life force, as embodied on our free enterprise economy, to grow and flourish,
filling all the territories that "the space program" has dispoiled by its
decaying presence.  Let us no longer accept morsels of opiated carrion from 
NASA to satiate our craving for space activity.  Let us, instead, get back 
in touch with our true needs which are the mother of invention.  

Beyond business regulatory functions, let government restrict itself
to the support of basic research through a wide variety of independent
agencies that have their own reasons for being interested in space.
Leave technology development and services exclusively in the hands of 
the citizens, buying technology and services on the open market when needed.

When our people see groups of other citizens getting together to do things 
in space on their own initiative, without government help or interference, 
the life force will speak to them.  Then, the National Space Society's 
mission will be accomplished and only then will we the people understand 
that space is a place to live work, play and grow.


Jim Bowery
PO Box 1981
La Jolla, CA 92038


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 23:04:51 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: high tech

In article <4018db47.ae47@apollo.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
> ...  be better to build a larger fleet of, say $100 million per
>      plane non-stealth bombers using off-the shelf parts?  So
>      we lose a few more of them.  Maybe we're still ahead in the
>      game.  

This reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke's story _Superiority_.

It also reminds me of the comparison between PC's and mainframes,
not to mention army ants and elephants.

I understand that American weaponry was largely inferior to German
weaponry in WWII, but we made up the difference in volume.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 88 08:50:13 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!vixen!ronbo@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ron Hitchens)
Subject: Re: Quarantine

In article <499@oracle.UUCP> csimmons@oracle.UUCP (Charles Simmons) writes:
> Um...  If I remember correctly, the first returning mission from
> Mars will have been quarantined for somewhere around a year from
> the time they leave Mars orbit to the time they enter Earth orbit.
>
>-- Chuck

   True enough, and that would certainly tell us if they picked up something
that likes to munch on astronauts, or even anything else that is onboard
the spacecraft.  But the environment the astronauts take to Mars and back
with them is only a very small subset of what exists on Earth.  Stopping first
at an orbiting laboratory for medical tests and initial examination of
soil samples would give us a fighting chance of detecting and contaning
any nasty critters that may have lain dormant during the return trip.  Some
such tests could be done by the crew on the return trip, but they probably
wouldn't be able to haul along all the equipment they would need to do a
thourough job of it.

Ron Hitchens		ronbo@vixen.uucp	hitchens@cs.utexas.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Dec 88 13:28 PST
From: C43RGP%ENG4%HAC2GM@engvax.scg hac.com
Subject: Space Industrialization


	How are new conferences created? This space conference seems 
rather broad in its range of topics but my major interest concerns
space industrialization and colonization. I propose a conference
called space-industry which would focus on such topics as: lower 
cost launch services, lunar mining, asteroid mining, space stations, 
and industrial processes that may benefit from weightlessness, 
vacuum and other features of space.

	We could explore in depth such questions as: what methods 
and equipment would be needed to search for asteroids whose mineral 
content and orbitable paths would make them desireable for diversion 
into Earth's orbit? Can existing equipment conduct the search?
Also, how can traditional chemical rockets be made less expensive to 
build and how can launch support systems be made simpler and less
expensive? Where are the costs coming from? Fuel? Avionics hardware 
or software? Inspection of parts and completed assemblages? Clean
rooms? Precise machining or expensive materials? 

	The topics would be of a practical and short to medium term
nature. The emphasis would be on ways to make our presence on space
economically profitable so that our move into space can reach a point
where government subsidies are no longer necessary to maintain a 
human presence.

	The conference would not cover such topics as outer planet
exploration, deep space exploration or other pursuits which can not 
be expected to soon result in viable industries. It would not cover
astronomy or unmanned probes to the outer planets. Nor would it be
the place to discuss such things as ancient civilizations, Nazi
war technology, the Apollo command capsule fire, dinosaur extinction
theories, the history of cancelled NASA projects, Carl Sagan's 
political ideology, the evils of man, the evils of technology, or 
personal character attacks.

	The conference would cover what is possible while we are alive.
The conference would cover ideas for potentially profitable activities
in Earth orbit, on the Moon, and with asteroids. Activities that have
some possibility of becoming commercially viable in thirty years would 
be given priority. Also, we could attempt to identify areas of applied 
research which should be conducted in space stations: alloys creation, 
eletrophoresis applications for molecular biology, crystalline growth 
for computer circuits and sensors, and other areas which hold the 
possibility of low weight and high value products which are the earliest 
candidates for profitable space-based production.


Randall Parker
Mail: c43rgp%eng4.gm@hac2arpa.hac.com
Disclaimer: Since it will be a long time before we can make cars in 
space I don't think my employer cares about my opinions on this
subject. Since space isn't going affect the next election I don't
think my elected officials care either.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #158
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Dec 88 06:31:28 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00755>; Wed, 14 Dec 88 05:51:16 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 14 Dec 88 05:51:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UXdY7Ny00UkT430E87>;
          Wed, 14 Dec 88 05:26:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.gXdY0gy00UkZIFUE4A>;
          Wed, 14 Dec 88 05:19:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <8XdXxYy00UkZ0FT054@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 88 05:16:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #159

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:
	     A Question about a HEO manned space station
	       The Soviet MARS 2 and 3 unmanned probes.
Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.
		Re: Alternative to launching a Shuttle
       Re: French/USSR Soyuz TM-7 docks with Mir space station
		   Re: space news from Oct 17 AW&ST
		Re: Communications Satellite Economics
	      Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes
	 Re: Electric Propulsion (was Re: US Goals in Space)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 16:49:32 GMT
From: galaxy!andromeda.rutgers.edu!ruane@rutgers.edu  (Michael T Ruane Sr)
Subject: A Question about a HEO manned space station

Hello net-folks!
	I've been reading the net for three years now, but posted only a few
times. Now I have a question.
	I'm taking a class called Nuclear War and Literature and have to write
a short story about nuclear war. Part of the story is about a crew on a space
station in HEO. The question(s) are:

	1. What would be its altitude ?
	2. Would it be affected by EMP, or would it be saved by distance
		or "hardening" ?
	3. The orbit wouldn't deteriorate appreciably in 200-300 years,
		would it ?

	Please Email replies (unless this is of general interest) so as
to conserve bandwidth. The 'r' command works well on getting back to
this machine.
				Thanks in advance-
					Mike

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 19:28:00 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: The Soviet MARS 2 and 3 unmanned probes.


	In regards to an earlier posting about MARS 3 being the first
    human-made vehicle to land on the planet Mars, this is incorrect.  Its
    companion probe, MARS 2, was actually first (1971), though it unfor-
    tunately crashed on the planet's surface without returning any useful
    data.  MARS 3 did land successfully, but it broadcast signals for
    only ninety seconds before mysteriously going silent (a planetary
    sandstorm occuring at that time is usually blamed for the probe's 
    demise).  MARS 3 did return one partial picture of the surface, but
    it was of such poor quality that no details could be seen (I have
    never seen this picture, though I would like to out of sheer curi-
    ousity; does anyone know where I might be able to see it?  Thanks.).

	Also, MARS 2 and 3 were not "spike" probes, as the earlier
    posting stated, but were based on the LUNA 9 and 13 lander designs,
    basically a sphere balanced upright by four metal "petals" which 
    shielded the instruments during landing, then opened outward to keep
    the probe upright on the surface.

	Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 18:56:50 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.

Just happened to read an article in today's paper about our aging
stockpile of H-bombs, and how we have a potential prblem coming
because our only reactors capable of making tritium have been
shut down as old and unsafe.

Over-age bombs are indeed reprocessed to re-concentrate the
tritium.  The article didn't say what was done with the decay
products, tho you'd think that anything at all rare would be
carefully put away somewhere.

Just remembered -- it may have been deuterium [2]H that was
involved, not [3]H, since the bomb is almost all D and has
only a bit of tritium inside the fission (A-bomb) trigger.

About half-life -- I still wear one of those LCD digital
watches using tritium as a luminescence source.
The watch is about 9 years old, and you can hardly see
the glow at all.  When new, you could read it in a car at night.
Phil Karn told me back then this would happen :-).
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones.  Nobody likes them,
but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 17:22:46 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Alternative to launching a Shuttle

In article <835@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:
>*Why* can we not launch the Shuttle as we launched the X15, with the shuttle
>strapped onto a high flying (supersonic?) plane.  Would this get the shuttle
>to a height where SRBs would not be needed?  Or am I just dreaming????????

There is nothing wrong with the idea; the problem is finding the plane.
A specially-beefed-up 747 can carry the orbiter alone, empty, at fairly
limited speeds and altitudes.  And there basically isn't anything bigger
than a 747.  (Depending on how you measure it, the C-5A and the Ruslan
may be slightly bigger, but only slightly.)  There is no aircraft on
Earth that could lift a loaded orbiter plus tank, never mind get them
supersonic!
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 22:24:33 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: French/USSR Soyuz TM-7 docks with Mir space station

In article <8811290405.AA13692@ll-vlsi.arpa>, glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
> 
>      The Soyuz TM-7 spacecraft "Aragatz" successfully docked with the 
> Mir/Kvant space station today (Nov. 28th) approximately 1 pm EST today.  

I saw the MIR/Kvant/Soyuz/etc. complex go over Denver at approx 5:50 pm 
MST.  I expected to see two objects but there was one.  Now I know why.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 18:30:20 GMT
From: umigw!gables!gtww2z9z%gables.span@handies.ucar.edu  (Jason Gross)
Subject: Re: space news from Oct 17 AW&ST

In article <1988Nov29.063434.12111@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Letter from O.P. Harwood:
> 
> 	"Not long ago somebody else summed it up:  `As long as NASA exists,
> 	the American public will harbor the delusion that we have a space
> 	program.'  The cure is obvious."

What might be the "obvious cure"?  Could it be that we should just get
rid of NASA?  That would solve a whole lotta problems.  The money could
go to feeding the hungry, helping the homeless, and things like that.  But
then again, without NASA we would second to the Soviets not becuase of a highly
politicized space agnecy, but becuase we didn't even try.  That would be
a real shame.

Sincerely,
   
Jason Gross     Comp Sci Ugrad     University of Miami     Class of '91 (?)
===========================================================================
"Women.  You can't live   | Mail your invigorating replies to:      | For
with them, and you can't  |  GTWW2Z9Z%Gables.Span@Umigw.Miami.Edu   | Sale:
shoot them, either."      |  (What a lovely address, isn't it now?) | $.05
======================================================== IBM Sucks Silicon!

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 18:06:23 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Communications Satellite Economics

>From article <6129@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, by jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING):

- The bits-per-second cost for satellite communication is mostly dependent on
- the throughput of a single satellite, and that is one of the satellite
- characteristics that is improving the fastest. If one looks at the amount of
- hardware required to run high density terrestrial lines from LA and SF to NY
- and DC vs the amount of hardware for a satellite, a satellite clearly has the
- advantage as long as its hardware is sophisticated enough to provide the
- necessary throughput. 

What the cost is dependent on is a "who cares" when it comes to buying
capacity. The question is which gives the lowest bit/second/$ value.
The dollar cost includes upfront costs, the cost of money, upkeep ...

Extra value considerations include things like security. An area where
satellites lose big.

Right now, for point to point communication, between fixed sites that
are not separated by oceans, it's hard to beat fiber optic cables.

				Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 88 17:35:27 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes

In article <2267@tekcae.CAX.TEK.COM> kurtk@tekcae.CAX.TEK.COM (Kurt Krueger) writes:
>A disadvantage of a solid fuel rocket is that you can't shut it down.  If your
>moon probe has reached its destination before the rocket burns out, you've got
>a serious problem.

Nope, sorry, wrong.  Carefully-designed solid rockets can be shut down.
This is absolutely necessary for use in ICBMs, after all, which need very
precise engine cutoff.

The technique used is to either blow off the nozzle (including the nozzle
aperture) or blow open ports in the motor wall.  Many (all?) modern solid
fuels burn well only at fairly high pressure.  Drop the pressure and the
fire goes out.  (This is what happened to Palapa and Westar -- the nozzles
on their upper stages failed and killed the engines, leaving them stranded,
more or less, until retrieved by the shuttle.)

>Some of the liquid fuel rockets contain propellents that are so unstable
>(when mixed) that they ignite on contact.  These are real good for rocket
>engines that are used for mid-course corrections on space probes.  Not the
>kind of stuff that budding back yard rocket scientist want to mess with.

Actually, such "hypergolic" propellants are safer (in fire/explosion terms)
than the more ordinary sorts, because it's impossible for them to form an
explosive mixture -- they ignite before they can mix.  This is why Gemini
(on a hypergolic-fueled Titan) could use ejection seats for launch escape,
where Mercury and Apollo (on non-hypergolic-fueled boosters) needed the
extra weight and complexity of escape towers.

The real reason why a budding back-yard rocket scientist doesn't want to
mess with hypergolic fuels is that the usual ones are dangerous poisons.
(Ever wondered why the first folks to approach a landed shuttle are wearing
protective suits, and why the astronauts don't emerge right away?  There are
hypergolic fuels in the attitude-control and maneuvering systems, and the
first order of the day after landing is to make very sure there aren't any
fuel leaks.)
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 17:22:15 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Electric Propulsion (was Re: US Goals in Space)

In article <78@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@blue.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>There is some work going on at the Rocket Research Company...
>They have already flown some crude electric rockets on communications
>satellites...

As I recall, at least one Japanese company either is offering, or is about
to offer, commercial ion rockets for comsat stationkeeping.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #159
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Dec 88 06:52:57 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00909>; Thu, 15 Dec 88 06:02:58 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 15 Dec 88 06:02:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YXdtGDy00Vs1I0p05Z>;
          Thu, 15 Dec 88 05:31:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.0Xdt67y00UkZE3NE5r>;
          Thu, 15 Dec 88 05:18:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXdt3vy00UkZ03M04B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 88 05:16:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #160

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
     UN Conference on Nuclear Waster and Arms Race in Outer Space
		 Re: Relativity acceleration question
		       Reminders for Old Farts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 16:13:27 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!patth@rutgers.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: UN Conference on Nuclear Waster and Arms Race in Outer Space

Ported to UseNET via Rutgers FidoGATEway 
from UNITEX Fido BBS (201) 795-0733
 

UNITED NATIONS PRESS RELEASE RETRIEVAL SYSTEM  
 
Forty-third General Assembly GA/PS/2738 
 
First Committee met on 18 November 1988 42nd Meeting (AM) 
 
FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON NUCLEAR WASTE 
DUMPING; 
 
TEXTS ON OUTER SPACE ARMS RACE, ARMS TRANSFERS, MASS 
DESTRUCTION WEAPONS 
 
     The First Committee (Political and Security) this morning 
approved two draft resolutions by which the General Assembly 
would call upon all States to ensure that no nuclear-waste-dumping 
practices occurred that would infringe onthe sovereignty of 
States, and which would express concern regarding nuclear-waste 
dumping in Africa.  One of the texts would request the 
Conference on Disarmament to take into account, in the on going 
negotiations for a convention on the prohibition of radiological 
weapons, the dumping of radioactive wastes on the territory 
of other States (document A/C.1/43/L.72/Rev.1).  This text was 
approved by a  recorded vote of 125 in favour to none against, 
with 13 abstentions (see Annex VIII for details of the vote).   
The other draft resolution would make the same request, but, in 
addition  ask the Conference to consider "the deliberate 
employment of nuclear wastes to  cause destruction" (document 
A/C.1/43/L.62/Rev.2).  It was approved by arecorded vote of 103 
in favour to 3 against (Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Togo), with 11 
abstentions (see Annex VII).  Also this morning, the Committee 
approved two draft resolutions on  international arms 
transfers.  Under the first (document A/C.1/43/L.22/Rev.2),the 
Assembly would request Member States to consider measures  
relating to concerns about arms transfers.  This text was 
approved by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to none against, with 
36 abstentions (see Annex V).  The other text (document 
A/C.1/43/L.35/Rev.1), approved without a vote, could have the 
Assembly decide "to include the question of liability for the 
illegal transfer and/or use of prohibited weapons and weapons or 
substances which cause unnecessary human suffering" on the 
provisional agenda of its nextregular session.  Regarding 
prevention of an arms race in outer space, the Committee 
tookaction on a draft resolution that would have the Assembly 
reiterate that the Conference on Disarmament, as the single 
multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, had the primary role 
in negotiations on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, 
and urge the Soviet Union and the United States to pursue   
intensively their bilateral negotiations aimed at reaching early 
agreement on the subject (document A/C.1/43/L.12/Rev.1).  The 
draf37 to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions (see   
Annex IV).  Before this vote, separate votes were taken on 
specific pre ambularand operative paragraphs (see Annexes I, II 
and III).  A draft that would ask the Conference on 
Disarmament to keep under reviewquestions of the prohibition of 
weapons of mass destruction (documentA/C.1/43/L.38/Rev.1) was 
approved by a recorded vote of 134 in favour to none against, 
with 2 abstentions (Israel, United States) (see Annex 
VI).Statements were made this morning by the representatives of 
Sri Lanka, China, Italy, Soviet Union, Venezuela and Colombia.    
 Speakers in explanation of vote were the representatives of the 
German   Democratic Republic, Belgium, the United States, Canada, 
the United Kingdom,Mali, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Mexico, 
Panama, Zaire, Nigeria, Cameroon,the Netherlands, the Cote 
d'Ivoire, Burundi, the Federal Republic of Germany,Australia and 
Uruguay.  The Committee will meet again at 3:30 p.m. today to 
take action on the  remaining draft resolutions before it on 
general issues of disarmament.  Next  week the Committee is 
expected to take up debate on international security   issues, as 
well as the question of Antarctica.  First Committee 
(Political and Security) meets this morning to act on  further 
draft resolutions on disarmament issues, including verification 
ofagreements, preventing an arms race in outer space, 
international arms transfers and the dumping of nuclear wastes in 
Africa.  Also circulated in the Committee was a draft resolution 
on Antarctica, which the Committee is   expected to consider next 
week.Under the terms of a draft resolution on prevention of an 
arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/43/L.12/Rev.1), the 
General Assembly would  reaffirm that general and complete 
disarmament under effective internationalcontrol warranted that 
outer space would be used exclusively for peacefulpurposes and 
that it would not become an arena for an arms race.  The 
Assemblywould recognize the need to consolidate, reinforce and 
enhance the legal  regime applicable to outer space as well as 
the importance of strictly  complying with existing bilateral 
and multilateral agreements.  All States,  particularly those 
with major space capabilities, would be asked to 
contributeactively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer 
space.  The Assemblywould emphasize the need for further measures 
with appropriate and effectiveprovisions for verification to 
prevent an arms race in outer space.  In addition, 
the Assembly would reiterate that the Conference onDisarmament, 
as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, had 
theprimary role in negotiation of multilateral agreements on the 
prevention of anarms race in outer space.  It would ask the 
Conference to intensify its   consideration of the question in 
all its aspects, taking into account allrelevant proposals.  The 
Assembly would urge the Soviet Union and the United  States to 
pursue intensively their bilateral negotiations in a 
constructivespirit aimed at reaching early agreement for 
preventing an arms race in outerspace.  All States, especially 
those with major space capabilities, would beasked to refrain 
from action contrary to the observance of the relevant    
existing treaties.  The draft resolution is sponsored by 
Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Ghana,India, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, 
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Venezuela,Yugoslavia and 
Zimbabwe.  In a text on international arms transfers (document 
A/C.1/43/L.22/Rev.2),Member States would be asked to consider 
reinforcing of their national systemsof control and vigilance 
convening production and transport of arms; examiningays to 
refrain from acquiring arms additional to those needed for 
legitimatenational security requirements, taking into account the 
specific  characteristics of each region; and 
examining the ways of providing for moreopenness and transparency 
with regard to world-wide arms transfers.  Thiswould include the 
possibility of establishing a system for Member States to   
report to the United Nations information on arms transfers, on a 
universal andnon-discriminatory basis.  This draft is 
sponsored by Australia, Bolivia, Cameroon, Canada,Colombia, Costa 
Rica, El Salvador, Federal Republic of Germany, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, 
Philippines,Samoa, Sweden and United Kingdom.  Under a draft 
resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer 
space(document A/C.1/43/L.27), the Assembly would express 
satisfaction at theagreement reached in 1988 in the Conference on 
Disarmament, the single  multilateral negotiating forum on re- 
establishing the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms 
Race in Outer Space. 
 


UNITED NATIONS PRESS RELEASE RETRIEVAL SYSTEM  
 
Forty-third General Assembly GA/PS/2738 
 
CONT'D: TEXTS ON OUTER SPACE ARMS RACE, ARMS TRANSFERS, MASS 
        DESTRUCTION WEAPONS 
 
UN Resolutions: Outer Space Arms Race 
 
It would emphasize the need for efforts in 
the multilateral field to be of a mutually complementary 
character in respect to those being developed bilaterally by the 
United States and the  Soviet Union in preventing an arms race in 
outer space and eliminating it on  earth.  The Assembly would 
call on the Soviet Union and the United States to   continue 
their bilateral negotiations in the search for effective 
andverifiable agreements aimed at preventing an arms race in 
outer space and terminating it on earth, at drastically reducing 
nuclear arms and at strengthening international stability.  
It would emphasize the necessity  of preventing the erosion of 
relevant existing treaties, and in that contextwould reaffirm the 
vital importance of a strict compliance with the Treaty on the 
Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems.  The draft 
resolution is sponsored by Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, 
Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, 
Spain, Turkeyand United Kingdom.  By a draft resolution on the 
international transfer of conventionalrmaments (document 
A/C.1/43/L.28), sponsored by Italy, the Assembly wouldinvite all 
Governments to abstain from supplying arms to areas of conflict.  
It would further call on all Governments which were the main 
suppliers andbuyers of armaments to consult on how to strengthen 
existing co-operation  aimed at restraining international 
illicit trade of conventional armaments andto identify possible 
additional measures to curb it.In addition, the Secretary-General 
would be asked to carry out a study onways and means of promoting 
transparency in international transfers of arms on  a 
universal and non-discriminatory basis, as well as on the problem 
of illicitarms trade and on means to prevent it.  Under the 
draft on the prevention of an arms race in outer space(document 
A/C.1/43/L.30).  The Assembly would call upon all States engaged 
inspace activities to facilitate the development and 
strengthening of aninternational inspection system for the 
maintenance of peace in outer space.Its functions would include 
the inspection of every launch of space objects.States would be 
asked to transmit to representatives of the inspectorate in  good 
time the necessary information about such launches.The Secretary- 
General would be requested to invite Member States tosubmit their 
views on the possibility of developing international co- 
operationfor the prevention of an arms race in outer space and 
for the peaceful  exploitation of outer space, including the 
establishment of a world space  organization.  The draft 
resolution is sponsored by Bulgaria, Byelorussia,Czechoslovakia, 
German Democratic Republic, Hungary, the Lao People's    
Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Poland, Ukraine and the Soviet 
UnionOn liability for the illegal transfer and/or use of 
prohibited weapons, adraft resolution would have the Assembly 
decide to include the subject on the agenda of its 1989 session 
(document A/C.1/43/L.35/Rev.1).    Sponsors of the 
draft are Guyana, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago andVanuatu.    
 China is sponsoring a draft resolution (document A/C.1/43/L.36) 
which   would have the Assembly ask States, especially those with 
space capabilities,to contribute actively to the objective of 
peaceful use of outer space and toprevent an arms race in outer 
space.  It would urge the Soviet Union and theUnited States to 
refrain from developing, testing, producing and deploying space 
weapons, to destroy all their existing space weapons, and to 
conductserious bilateral negotiations on the prevention of an 
arms race in outerspace.  The Conference on Disarmament would be 
asked re-establish an ad hoccommittee on the subject.  A draft 
resolution on new types of weapons of mass destruction based 
onnew scientific principles and achievements (document 
A/C.1/43/L.38) would havethe Assembly call for effective measures 
to prevent the emergence of suchweapons, ask the Conference on 
Disarmament to keep the question under reviewand call on all 
States, immediately following the identification of any newtype 
of weapon of mass destruction, to begin negotiations on its 
prohibition.   This text is sponsored by Afghanistan, Angola, 
Benin, Bulgaria, Burkina  Faso, Byelorussia, Cuba, 
Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, GermanDemocratic 
Republic, Hungary, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mongolia,  
Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Syria, Ukraine, USSR and Viet Nam.A 
text on arms limitation and disarmament agreements 
(documentA/C.1/43/L.53) would have the Assembly urge all States 
parties to suchagreements to implement and comply with the the 
entirety of their provisions.States would be asked to give 
serious consideration to the implications of  non-compliance with 
those obligations for international security andtability, as well 
as for the further progress in the field of disarmament.  This 
text is sponsored by Australia, Austria, Cameroon, Canada, 
Colombia,Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, 
German DemocraticRepublic, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, 
Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan,Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, 
Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey,   United States and 
Zaire.  A draft on a freeze on nuclear weapons (document 
A/C.1/43/L.56),sponsored by India and Romania, would have the 
Assembly call on allnuclear-weapon States to agree to a freeze on 
nuclear weapons, which would   provide for a simultaneous total 
stoppage of any further production of nuclearweapons and a 
complete cut-off in the production of fissionable material 
for   weapons purposes.  A text on confidence- and 
security-building measures and conventionaldisarmament in Europe 
(document A/C.1/43/L.61/Rev.1) would have the Assemblywelcome the 
"indications of progress" in work at the meeting at Vienna of 
theConference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and urge 
Member Statesparticipating in those negotiations to contribute 
actively to the attainment of those objectives.  Sponsors of 
the draft are Canada, France, Federal Republic of Germany,Greece, 
Italy, Spain and Turkey.  A draft on dumping of radioactive 
wastes for hostile purposes (documentA/C.1/43/L.62/Rev.2) would 
have the Assembly call on States to ensure that no nuclear-waste 
dumping practices occur which would infringe upon thesovereignty 
of States.  It would welcome the decision by the 
InternationalAtomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to establish a technical 
working group to work ona code of practice for international 
transactions involving nuclear wastes.The Conference on 
Disarmament would be asked to take into account, in theongoing 
negotiations for a convention on the prohibition of radiological  
weapons, the deliberate employment of nuclear wastes to cause 
destruction,  damage or injury by means of radiation produced 
by the decay of such material. 
 

---
 * Origin: UNITEX BBS >> Toward a United Species [7:520/701] (Opus 1:107/701)





--- AnkhMail (maillist 1.0.10)
--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 13:01:14 GMT
From: att!cbnews!ran@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robert A. Neinast)
Subject: Re: Relativity acceleration question


Despite a lot of good information about GPS and satellites,
I don't think I noticed anyone answering the original
question, to wit:

In Message-ID <15680@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> David Messer writes:
>I have a few (probably simple) questions that I have been
>unable to answer from the Relativity texts that I have read.
>If someone could answer them (by Email if there isn't a
>general (relativity :-) interest) I would appreciate it.
>
>In all these, assume an observer (Obs1) who is under a
>constant acceleration (A) from his point of view, and another
>observer (Obs2) who is at rest.
>
>1) What is the equation for the distance Obs1 travels as,
>   a function of time, as observed by Obs2?
>2) What is the equation for velocity, as a function of time,
>   as observed by Obs2?
>3) How much time does Obs1 experience as a function of the
>   time that Obs2 experiences?
>
>Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.


So, here goes.

Let t be the time as measured by the stationary observer
and let T be the time as measured by the accelerating observer
(this is the "proper time").  x is the position of the accel. obs.
as measured by the stat. obs., v is the velocity of the
accel. obs. as measured by the stat. obs., and a is the
acceleration felt by the accel. obs. (this is defined to be constant).
We'll set up our clocks and measurers so that at t=0 we have
T=0, x=0, and v=0.

Then,

	x=(c^2/a)*(cosh(aT/c)-1)

	t=(c/a)*sinh(aT/c)

	v=c*tanh(aT/c)

Hope this answers your question.  By the way, for a=g (acceleration
under one gravity), c/g=1 year.  Not exactly, but close (within 3%).

Bob
-- 

". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
Robert Neinast (cblpe!ran)
AT&T-Bell Labs

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Dec 88 04:00:15 PST
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1
follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #160
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Dec 88 06:53:58 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00920>; Fri, 16 Dec 88 05:56:45 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 16 Dec 88 05:56:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MXeCGLy00Ui3I5eE4u>;
          Fri, 16 Dec 88 05:25:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.IXeCAjy00UkZQ6Zk4K>;
          Fri, 16 Dec 88 05:19:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXeC-1y00UkZ06YU5X@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 88 05:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #161

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 161

Today's Topics:
Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.
	      Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
			  12' dish problems
	  UN Conference : Outer Space Arms Race : Statements
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 17:18:39 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Helium-3 and Jupiter's atmosphere, DAEDALUS and the Wood-Hyde starship.

In article <4621@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>  Do modern fusion bombs use fission triggers or laser triggers? ...

There is interest in laser-triggered fusion bombs but nobody has built
one to date.

>  How much cheaper would a laser-triggered bomb be? ...

Could be fairly significant; the fission trigger is supposed to be a
major component of the price tag.

>... Would an asteroid-moving project be impractical
>even with electrical propulsion (to get the ship there in the first
>place) simply because the megatons of bombs required are too expensive
>at present?

Depends on what sort of return you expect to see.  I saw a discussion of
one study which proposed using orthodox H-bombs and Apollo/Saturn rocket
technology to bring a 1-km nickel-iron asteroid into high Earth orbit.
The cost was $50G, and it was probably nearly 20 years ago.  On the other
hand, that's ten years' supply of steel for the entire Earth, which is
worth fifteen or twenty times that much.  (Although bringing it down would
run up the price somewhat.)  Sounds like an adequate profit margin to me.
And that didn't even consider things like the gold and platinum content.

>  Side note:  In the Outer Space Treaty [at least I think that's the
>one], space-based nuclear weapons are forbidden.  Does the wording say
>nuclear WEAPONS or nuclear BOMBS? ...

The relevant treaty (can't remember which one it is) bans space-based
"weapons of mass destruction", I think.  However, the Test Ban Treaty
bans nuclear explosions, of any kind, in space; there are provisions
for negotiating exceptions, but all I can say is "rotsa ruck".
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 88 21:13:25 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: chemical rockets/exotic launch schemes

In article <12088@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com.UUCP (Phil Karn) writes:
}
}Contrary to Henry's assertion, liquid rocket fuels are not necessarily safer
}to handle than solid fuels. Modern solid fuels are surprisingly stable; you
}can hold a lit match to bulk solid fuel, and chances are it will not ignite.
}(Nevertheless, the consequences of undesired ignition are nasty enough that
}I would not recommend using a match as a light source while inspecting the
}interior of a SRB...)

For safety considerations, might I point out 2 examples:
1. An SSBN is a TERRIBLE place for a fire.
2. A missle silo in arkansas 6 years ago.

(first uses solid boosters, the second was a liquid propellant)


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 88 00:42:14 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations


It seems plausible to me that the body might be OK if most of the large
space structure (Mars ship, or space station) were zero-G, except for a
centrifuge-bedroom.  Then the differential acceleration of top and bottom
of the body would not be large, and the main structure of the ship would
not have to stand up to large loads.  The sleepers would not do a whole
lot of moving, and would probably not notice Coriolis forces.

-- 

			David R. Smith, HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
			(415) 857-7898

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 88 02:20:50 GMT
From: unmvax!charon!ariel.unm.edu!seds@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (==== SEDS-UNM ====)
Subject: 12' dish problems


Hello!  Our satellite tracking group has just obtained a 12' dish
that we would like to use as a LEO sat. 'tracking' antenna.

 The question is:

What's the cheapest, safest, and most accurate way to point
this heavy dish in all azimuths and elevations?  All we have is the
the dish, thus we'll need both rotors and a support structure.

BTW, this dish is made of fiberglass, but it is no lightweight!
Looks like it was originally made for use as a fixed-position
dish, since it has only 3 mounting brackets on its rim.

Also, we would like to set the unit atop a building without
having to drill holes in the roof.  Is this possible?  Is the
windload too severe with this size of a dish? 

Any suggestions, hints, tips, comments, or speculations would be
appreciated!  


73

Ollie Eisman - N6LTJ

p.s. Anyone know where we could get a surplus BOMARS gun mount - cheap?

_______________________  seds@ariel.unm.edu  ____________________________
    SEDS-UNM : Students for the Exploration and Development of Space           
     -- Home of the SEDS-UNM Satellite Tracking Station - SSTS --        
Box 92 Student Union, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM  87106
  			   (505) 272-8258

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 16:19:08 GMT
From: phri!cooper!dasys1!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: UN Conference : Outer Space Arms Race : Statements

Ported to UseNET via Rutgers FidoGATEway 
from UNITEX Fido BBS (201) 795-0733
 

UNITED NATIONS PRESS RELEASE RETRIEVAL SYSTEM   
  
Forty-third General Assembly GA/PS/2738  
  
First Committee met on 18 November 1988 42nd Meeting (AM)  
  
  
CONT'D: Outer Space Arms Race  
  
STATEMENTS:  
  
HU XIAODI (China) said an arms race constituted a serious  
threat to  international peace and security, and therefore its  
prevention was a question of increasing concern to the  
international community.  The two major space Powers bore special  
responsibilities in that regard, and an effective way toachieve  
prevention was to prohibit all space weaponry, including anti-  
ballistic and anti-satellite weapons.  Given that the legal  
instruments applicable to outer space were inadequate to prevent  
an arms race there,negotiations were necessary for the conclusion  
of an international agreement for the prohibition and destruction  
of space weapons and prohibition of theuse of force in, from or  
against outer space.  The United States and Soviet Union, which  
had the greatest space capabilities, should immediately adopt     
complete measures not to develop, test, produce or deploy space  
weapons and to   destroy all existing space weapons.In  
order to achieve the largest possible majority for a draft  
resolutionon the prevention of an arms race in outer space, China  
had decided to support the draft text contained on the subject  
(document A/C.1/43/L.12/Rev.1) and would not insist the similar  
draft resolution in document A/43/L.36.  
  
Mr. PUGLIESI(Italy) said the approach contained in the draft resolution  
in document A/43/L.27 was valid and realistic.  Its contents would  
presentsome basis for the future work of the Committee.  He  
regretted that despitethe willingness to co-operate with a view  
to achieve consensus on the issue, asingle draft resolution had  
not been possible.  The co-sponsors of document  A/43/L.27 had  
therefore decided not to press it to a vote.  
  
MIKHAIL E. KOKEEV (Soviet Union) said the draft resolution on an   
outerspace arms race contained in document A/C.1/43/L.12/Rev.1   
contained a proper understanding of the matter.  The Soviet Union   
would not insist on the vote on the draft on the subject in document  
A/C.1/43/L.30.    
  
ADOLFO RAUL TAYLHARDAT (Venezuela) said it was necessary to prevent the  
technological powers to stop from extending the arms race to outer space.  
The existing legal instruments fell short because of the extraordinary   
progress  made in the scientific realm.  There must be general  
and comprehensive approach to prevent development, production,  
emplacement and use of space arms.  This was not an all or nothing  
approach and a step-by-step process must begin immediately.   
Venezuela hoped the Conference on Disarmament would finally be  
able to begin concrete negotiations on the subject.  The draft  
resolution should be adopted without opposing votes.  
  
The representative of the German Democratic Republic said his country   
supported the exclusively peaceful use of outer space.   
Furtheraction-oriented negotiations on both a bilateral and  
multilateral level wereneeded in order to permanently exclude an  
arms race in outer space.  Two approaches were possible:  an  
international agreement prohibiting the threator use of force in  
or from outer space; and a comprehensive solution through partial  
steps with agreement on a ban on anti-satellite weapons.  His  
country supported a single resolution on the topic.  The  
Committee then approved preambular paragraph 11 of the  
draft resolution on preventing an arms race in outer space  
document(A/43/L.12/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly express  
grave concern at "the impeding threat of the exacerbation of the  
current state of insecurity by   developments that could further  
undermine international peace and security",  by a recorded vote  
of 121 in favour to 1 against (United States) with 13        
abstentions (see Annex I for details of vote).  The Committee  
approved preambular paragraph 18, which would have the    
Assembly recognize the bilateral negotiations between the United  
States andthe Soviet Union "could facilitate the multilateral  
negotiations for the prevention of an arms race in outer space",  
was approved by a recorded vote of121 in favour to 1 against,  
with 11 abstentions.  (Annex II)  Operative paragraph 8, which  
would have the Conference on Disarmamentre-establish an ad hoc  
committee to undertake negotiations for the conclusionof  
agreements to prevent an arms race in outer space, was approved  
by a voteof 123 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 13  
abstentions.  (Annex III)  The draft resolution on prevention  
of an arms race in outer space(document A/C.1/43/L.12/Rev.1) was  
approved, as a whole, by a recorded vote of137 in favour to 1  
against (United States), with no abstentions.  (Annex IV)    
Explanations of Vote  The representative of Belgium said his  
country had abstained from voting on both individual paragraphs  
and on the draft as a whole.  The text differed  from  
that contained in other draft resolutions, not only because of  
the addition or modification of numerous paragraphs, but also  
because of a different balance.  The text included reference to  
article 51 of the Charter. Regarding a question of such decisive  
scope, the impact of the improving   relations between the two  
super-Powers should not be under-estimated.  
  
The representative of the United States said he had voted against  
the draft.  There should be no doubt about his country's  
commitment to the area of arms control; he would have liked to  
affirm that commitment, but the text didnot permit that option.   
The draft resolution had assumed an increasingly  exaggerated  
and hostile posture, with elements deliberately critical of    
fundamental elements of United States policy.  The draft would  
have to be  radically restructured in order to achieve  
consensus.  
  
Representative of Canada said no State could argue that  
the Ad HocCommittee of the Conference on Disarmament had made  
significant progress since l985, but that Committee must be quite  
modest about its attainments.  
  
The  draft resolution just voted was intended to facilitate and   
guide the work ofthe Committee.   
  

---
 * Origin: UNITEX BBS >> Toward a United Species [7:520/701] (Opus 1:107/701)





--- AnkhMail (maillist 1.0.10)
--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

------------------------------

Date: Fri,  9 Dec 88 10:48:51 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

scdpyr!djr@handies.ucar.edu  (Dave Rowland) writes:
>I remember watching a committee meeting about the space station on C-SPAN
>a while back and one of the committee members asked about the time
>it would require to launch a rescue mission in the event of a mishap.
>The response was at least two weeks.  

Um, I may be totally off the wall here, but I do remember seeing at some
time in the past plans for a space station that had an Apollo command
module attached as an escape vehicle.  Presumably that was a blueprint from
a more grandiose era, it hardly seems practical now since doubtless the
tooling is no longer in place for CMs.  However it seems like a darn good
idea (could you fit one inside the shuttle bay?).  They only need one plus
a backup, maybe there's a couple in decent shape somewhere?  (But then there's
docking adapters, etc, etc,... oh well, it was good while it lasted...)

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 88 14:21:00 GMT
From: mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu!shelle@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Thomas A Kashangaki)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations


In an earlier posting I suggested some reading on the rotating space station
discussion.  Let me share a few thoughts though.  

  In article <859@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
  >The real question is this: do we need 1g? Can we live with just 1/6 g? That
  >would provide a good compromise size and rotation rate.

The current train of thought is that less than 1g would be sufficient to
counteract many of the physiological problems generally associated with
weightlessness (calcium loss, muscle atrophy, etc. ) There is a well
known chart (NASA CP 2364) that relates the angular velocity (rpm) with
the centripetal acceleration (g's) and then has a bunch of curves and
limit lines outside of which human performance ina variety of functions
is outside the acceptable range.  The acceptable operating region ranges
from 0.1 to 1 g.  What value of acceleration will prevent the physical
problems is another question.  Hopefully this question will be addressed
next year by the International Space university (ISU) which is planning
to study a design for a Variable Gravity Research Facility (VGRF) during
their summer session.

Besides the phisiological problems though, there are other things to be
considered.  Gravity gradient forces can be a major problem.  Coriolis
forces due to sudden movements can be extremely disorienting.  Imagine
for a moment an astro/cosmo-naut sitting eating dinner in a rotating
space station.  The spacecraft is rotating clockwise ---->>.  He/she is
facing out of the screen. The person suddenly stands up ^.  All of a
sudden the inner ear is feeling a rotation rate, a vertical
acceleration, an orbital velocity, not to mention variable rotational
accelerations at the feet and head of the person.  If I was the inner
ear I think I would go on strike!  And infact that is what is
anticipated.  A severe loss of balance will occur and the person is
liable to fall.

There are numerous other interesting things to think about in a rotating
spacecraft.  Think about playing table-tennis, or basketball,or any ball
sport.  If the ball goes against the rotation it "slows down" and maybe
stops, if it goes with the rotation it speeds up.  in fact, if a person
were to run with the rotation he may take off (look Ma, no hands!!!).

Just thought I would feed the conversation.  

~   Thomas A-L Kashangaki                 |       SHELLE@caen.engin.umich.edu ~     
~   University of Michigan                |       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ~     
~   Aerospace Engineering Department      |                                   ~

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #161
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Dec 88 05:52:38 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00828> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 17 Dec 88 05:47:01 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 17 Dec 88 05:46:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wXeXSey00Vs1M0dU4p>;
          Sat, 17 Dec 88 05:32:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.cXeXHhy00UkZI:AU4Q>;
          Sat, 17 Dec 88 05:20:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXeXDey00UkZQ-=E4E@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 88 05:16:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #162

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 162

Today's Topics:
		Soviets set new space endurance record
			    Re: Quarantine
		   Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue
		    Kudos to Israeli space program
		      Re: Is whose dream alive?
		      Re: Advanced Launch System
			    star data base
			Re: Spaceplane project
			Re: Spaceplane project
			  Re: Tower of Power
	     Re: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario
			SRB Nozzle Seal Leaks
			Antimatter propulsion
			 Soviet Shuttle name
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Dec 88 17:57:11 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviets set new space endurance record

   On board the Mir/Kvant space station complex the long duration crew of
Moussa Manerov and Alexander Titov set an offical worlds space endurance
record today (Dec. 15) of 360 days.  This exceeds the previous record of
326 days set by Yuri Romanenko Dec. 21, 1987 by the required 10% needed for
an official new time limit.  These two crew members have entered a heavy
exercise phase in preparation for their Dec. 21 return in Soyuz TM-6 (the
older craft brought up in Aug. 29).  In addition they are spending
time reviewing the controls of their capsule - it has been nearly a year since
they used one.  They will be bringing Jean-Loup Chretien (the French 
spationaut) down with them after his 26 day mission.  The remaining crew,
Alexander Volkov and Sergei Krikalev from Soyuz TM-7 plus Dr. Valery Polyakov
from Soyuz TM-6, currently plan to stay up until April '89.
   Some interesting problems developed in the space walk done by Chretien and
Volkov.  They had originally planed for a shorter EVA but at 5 hrs. 57 min.
this was one of the longest run by the Soviets, just at the limit of the
new suits.  The problem was that the Aerospatial ERA deployable structure
failed to deploy properly, and it took some effort to get it to do so.
In addition there were some difficulties with the control lines for some of
the instruments.  It appears that all was well by the end of the space
walk.
   Again men do the work when machines fail.

                                                    Glenn Chapman
                                                    MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 88 00:29:08 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Quarantine

In article <1988Dec8.183319.13149@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Was Surveyor 3 in fact sterilized?  Nasa/Jpl stopped sterilizing Rangers
>>starting with number 7, on the chance that the sterilization process
>>might have contributed to the long string of failures.
>
>I could be wrong -- my references aren't handy -- but my recollection is
>that they revised the Ranger sterilization process rather than eliminating
>it completely.  The Surveyors definitely were sterilized:  there was some
>surprise at finding bacteria on Surveyor 3.

My reference on Ranger is "Appointment on the Moon", (c) 1968,1969 by
Richard S. Lewis, p. 247.  Aside from the point on sterilization per se,
I think this passage is interesting for what it says about the state of
the space program in those days: trouble-plagued as always, in spite of
our nostalgic memories of the U.S. space program's heyday.

    With the impending flight of Ranger 7, second of the Block 3
    spacecraft, JPL approached a new crisis.  Another failure might well
    mean the end of the Laboratory, in spite of its Mariner 2 success.
    It was generally understood that if NASA took over full direction of
    JPL and placed its personnel under civil service, about half of the
    engineers and scientists would leave.  The flight of Ranger 7 would
    decide the Laboratory's fate.
    ...
    The practice of sterilizing Rangers so that they would not contaminate
    the moon's surface with terrestrial microorganisms was abandoned.  It
    was suspected that the disinfecting process, which required heating,
    could degrade sensitive electrical components.  NASA headquarters had
    been persuaded to sterilize the Rangers so that if biology
    experimenters found microorganisms on the moon later on they could be
    reasonably sure they had discovered lunar life rather than immigrants
    from earth.  But now, when the chips were down, sterilization went out
    the window.  Ranger 7 had to make it.

That book does not say anything about sterilization of the Surveyors.  I
think that whether or not they were sterilized, the survival of the
microorganisms after three years of bombardment by hard UV and X-rays
in a vacuum would have been a surprise.
-- 

			David R. Smith, HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
			(415) 857-7898

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 17:10:50 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disasters and Rescue

In article <39435@philabs.Philips.Com> rfc@briar.philips.com.UUCP (Robert Casey) writes:
>... a rescue system from LEO...
>  Can this work?  Or is it too tough to get out of orbit by hand-held jet?
>  Was this a real proposed idea, or just some author's speculation? ...

There were a number of proposals for "personal" rescue systems about, oh,
a decade ago.  At least one of them did involve a foamed heatshield and
a hand-held retro; I remember seeing a drawing.  The idea isn't ridiculous,
but nobody's followed up on it.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri,  9 Dec 88 09:51:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 740+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Kudos to Israeli space program

I've always been impressed with the chutzpah of Israeli technical achievements.
Their recent satellite launch is a perfect example.  As far as I am away it was
successful on their first attempt.  This is impressive in its own right but hard
to verify.  More impressive is that the satellite was launched into a retrograde
orbit. a feat that requires nearly 10% more velocity to reach orbit than
launching east.  All this "simply" because their launch site had inhabited land
to the east and ocean to the west.

"Spaceflight", in their recent report, appeared to suggest that this was the
first object placed in a retrograde orbit.  Does anyone know if this is really
true or am I reading more into the article than is there?
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 17:30:25 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ois.db.toronto.edu!hogg@uunet.uu.net  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Is whose dream alive?

In article <2030@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes:
>Rather than explore space vicariously, Canadians can borrow a Yankee idea:
>if you have a better idea, finance it, implement it, and prove it's a better
>idea by beating the stuffing out of your competitors.
>
>If you can't finance it, it is rather hypocritical to chide Congress for
>refusing that which Parliament refused.

Actually, that's what this country is doing in manipulators.  (Among
other areas.)  We don't have the resources to fund an across-the-board
space program, so we specialize.  I agree that we should work harder on
beating *all* competitors; it would be wiser to divert more of our
funding to ESA (where we presently have observer status) and build them
an arm for Hermes, using our experience from the Shuttle RMS and
International Space Station Mobile Servicing System.  Beyond that,
Buran would be an obvious customer.  The planned Japanese shuttle might
be a bit small...

The word ``vicariously'' in the above quotation is a bit puzzling.
Canada is a full partner playing a crucial role in the Station.  Henry
has frequently come down hard on NASA's plans in this area, but even
by Mr. Ryan's logic, he has a right to do this.  If it's late and
unworkable, our space science suffers as well.

Of course, it's not all one-sided.  If SPAR and its subcontractors
deliver a product that is late, over budget, or sub-specification,
all players have a right to bitch.  Until then, Parliament hasn't
refused anything.  I have heard no rumblings in this country about
cancelling our commitments; can all partners say this?
-- 
John Hogg			   | hogg@csri.toronto.{edu,cdn}
Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg
University of Toronto		   | hogg%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa)
				   | hogg@csri.utoronto (bitnet)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 88 19:15:29 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Advanced Launch System

In article <13719@oberon.USC.EDU> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
>If indeed it is possible to reduce launch costs by a factor of 10 with a new
>launch vehicle... why in the h$%! isn't this a top priority in the space 
>program?  The fact that it appears *not* to be a priority seems to me to be an
>obvious siginal that there is something very wrong in the US approach to space.

Yup.  And it is not hard to identify the problem:  the US government runs
the US space program.  Cost-plus contracts give no incentive to hold down
costs; indeed, if other things can be snuck in under the "cost" part of
the contract, there is real incentive to INCREASE costs.  Doing everything
to government specs under government supervision adds *enormous* overheads.
Companies that survive on government contracts tend to get fat and sloppy,
to the point where some companies have separate "government work" divisions
to keep the rot from spreading, but even they will quote commercial prices
a tenth of what they quote for government work.

Launch prices are already dropping, since the US launch industry went
commercial.  It's not clear that they can drop much farther with existing
hardware and volume of business, but even with government customers, old
government-developed hardware, government-fattened companies, and hassles
over use of government launch facilities, they *are* dropping.

Back in the government side of things, the key thing to realize is that
the Number One priority of NASA's bureaucracy is the care and feeding
of NASA facilities and NASA contractors.  Exploring space comes a poor
second.  It shows.

>... the most imporant thing the
>station needs is a decent power source.  If a 120 V, 60 hz (along with possibly
>a 200 V industrial) electrical power source were made available in the station,
>then virtually everything else needed to conduct research in space would be 
>already available from down here ...

Actually one would probably prefer to use 400 Hz aircraft power equipment.
Equipment power supplies and such built for 400 Hz are widely available,
and 400 Hz avoids the worst weight problems of 60 Hz equipment.

>...  But the idea **has** to be to avoid 
>making every circuit especially for space...

Making every circuit especially for space means more money to contractors,
bigger budgets for NASA bureaucrats, and bigger management staffs to watch
over it all.  There is no way to avoid this sort of nonsense so long as
the government is running the show.  The only cure is radical change:  have
the government provide infrastructure and incentives (market guarantees,
please, not subsidies) (the difference is that market guarantees pay only
for results, not for promises), and do research to improve the technology,
but leave the hardware and operations to private industry.  This worked for
aviation.  Having the government in charge has *not* worked for spaceflight.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 88 04:10:23 GMT
From: sgi!kj%newt.SGI.COM@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Kenneth Josiah Harris)
Subject: star data base


	can anyone tell me where i can find a data base of stars and
other heavenly bodies?  i'm interested in about 5000 brightest objects
in the sky with position, distance, color, name.  i'm trying to write
a program that with show stars, planets and satellites in 3 dimensions.
please reply to me (kj@sgi.com) or this news group.
--
Ken J. Harris -- kj@sgi.com or {sun,decwrl,pyramid,ucbvax}!sgi!kj

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 88 18:54:34 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <4132@cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>It's been a long time since we've heard about the "Orient Express",
>hasn't it? ...

Recent pieces in Aviation Week indicate that the manufacturers and the
airlines are not very enthusiastic these days.  Orbital or suborbital
airliners would require drastic changes in many areas, notably air traffic
control (a troubled area even with just subsonics to deal with).  The
real-world cost-effectiveness of speed improvements appears to be poor
after about Mach 3 or so, and negative after perhaps Mach 6.  The need
for cryogenic fuels, which occurs somewhere between those points, has a
particularly severe cost impact.  (The problem is not that the fuels are
cryogenic but that they would require new ground infrastructure.)  There
is considerable interest in supersonics up to Mach 4 or 5 (the highest
interesting speed depends on who you talk to) but virtually none in the
Orient Express.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 88 17:21:09 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <11884@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>Is the spaceplane the same thing Reagan put in one of his TV speeches, the
>plane which is supposed to go from New York to Tokyo in an hour or something?
>If so, is that it's only purpose?  To be a real fast airplane?  Or, is it 
>able to reach LEO?

The Aerospace Plane has turned into another of those all-things-to-all-users
projects, although currently the transport applications are very much on the
back burner (partly because it doesn't look all that attractive -- you pay
too much for the extra speed beyond about Mach 3) and the military side is
up front.  I can't even remember the latest official word on whether the
X-30, which is the only actually funded part of it, is supposed to be
capable of reaching orbit or not.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 88 18:56:19 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Tower of Power

In article <Added.IXZ8lSy00Ui3MZSk8V@andrew.cmu.edu> PKLINKMN@BROWNVM.BITNET (Paul Klinkman) writes:
>... Am I right in estimating that a 30 meter square
>array of photocells (or mirrors) generates one megawatt?

It *receives* about one megawatt.  Don't forget that solar cells are only
10-15% efficient and solar dynamic systems only reach 30% or so.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 88 16:08:40 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario

In article <8812010536.AA03270@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes:
> Here's another possible Shuttle disaster:
> 
Why is it that some people seem to spend lots of time and otherwise creative
energy postulating remotely possible but highly unlikely disaster scenarios?
Do you feel that you are doing us some public service by preparing the
American public for catastrophe?  Be careful.  If you start being too much
of a doomsayer, you will either lose all credibility, or some people will
actually listen to you, and that will spell the end of what little US space
program we have.

If you really want to speculate about disaster scenarios, then do what other
people do--write novels, or write for that pinnacle of literary achievement,
the National Enquirer.


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 88 17:15:38 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu
Subject: SRB Nozzle Seal Leaks

From: dietz

The NY Times reports that hot gases leaked through caulked seals in
the nozzles of the SRBs used in the launch of STS 26.  NASA dismissed
the problem, saying that no O rings were damaged, and that the last
ground test of the redesigned SRBs had omitted a ten inch section of
caulking with no problems.

If failure of the caulking is not a problem, I wonder why they put it
in in the first place.  I find NASA's attitude disturbing.  Failure
of the seal to behave as designed is not something from which safety
can be infered.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

	Tonight on "It's the Mind" we examine deja vu...

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1988 15:20-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Antimatter propulsion

The thread seems to have petered out, but for those who were involved
in that discussion, I highly recommend a book by Robert Forward and
David Joels, "Mirror Matter: Pioneering Antimatter Physics" (Wiley
Publ.)

He answered most of MY questions on ENGINEERING feasibility.  After
reading this book, I think it will be "do-able" (god I hate that
nonword!!), in the first decades of the next century.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Dec 88 02:41 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Soviet Shuttle name
To: "space+@andrew.cmu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM

You mean they weren't honoring the great rocket scientist, Wernher von Buran?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #162
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Dec 88 11:05:16 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02937>; Mon, 19 Dec 88 10:21:17 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 19 Dec 88 10:21:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QXfFdTy00Ui302qU5f>;
          Mon, 19 Dec 88 10:04:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.MXfFOey00UkZI1i05C>;
          Mon, 19 Dec 88 09:48:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXfFL8y00UkZ81gk5N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 88 09:44:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #163

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 163

Today's Topics:
			 Cabin fever in space
		     Re: Spectral class mnemonic
		     Re: power at the lunar poles
		  Re: Kudo to Israeli space program
NASA, LTV sign commercial agreement for Scout rocket production (Forwarded)
 Kuiper Airborne Observatory continues supernova studies (Forwarded)
		  Re: Kudo to Israeli space program
		 Chances of summer employment in NASA
	    Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1988 15:31-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Cabin fever in space

Many discussion have occured on the effects of crowding of people into
a small space for an extended time.

I wonder how much of the 'problem' that has been discussed has to do
with an unreal limitation. Most people seem to think of the space
station or a space craft as being a can in which people are forced to
live, elbow to elbow for months on end. The results of such a scenario
are pretty predictable.

But what if we stop thinking of EVA as being the unusual and instead
make it the common place? Can we then start thinking of the spacecraft
or station as a small cabin in a vast uncrowded outdoors? Does it
change matters if people really can get away from each other just by
walking to the lock, suiting up and going out without anymore to do
about it than suiting up to go swimming?

I would say that it does, particularly for the space station. The
station would become a place to sleep and eat, a place to spend some
part of the day together, like a farm family. But the real work would
take place in the great outdoors.

I got started on this line of thought by Glenn's comments on the 6 hour
soviet/french outdoor work session. I think this kind of session will
become more and more common until time spent outside is the rule rather
than the exception.

Why bother to pressurize lab space UNLESS you are studying something
that requires atmosphere? A space lab is there to study the properties
of space; vacuum, micro-g, etc. Why study it at arm's length? Just
stick up an erector set framework and hang your equipment on it
outdoors. It sure as hell isn't going to rain on your lab bench...

Humans are taking the first few fearful steps into a new environment.
One day we will embrace that environment as simply another everyday
realm of human activity.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1988 18:00-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Spectral class mnemonic

I learned it as

Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me Right Now. Smack!

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1988 13:51-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: power at the lunar poles

Yes, there is a mountain almost exactly at the lunar pole. Get hold of
the proceedings from the 1st and 2nd Lunar Bases in the 21st Century
symposiums. The polar power option was examined by at least one paper
in each, complete with location. There is a spot that is in nearly
perpetual sunlight.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 88 15:26:53 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Kudo to Israeli space program

>From article <1988Dec10.235409.27257@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> NASA did some retrograde launches as part of one of its technology programs
> in the 60s.  Nobody's bothered since, that I know of.

Even Henry nods...

Retrograde just means an inclination greater than 90 deg, technically;
i.e.  even just a bit westward rather than eastward.  Lots of
satellites, including the NOAA polar weather satellites and the CIA's
cameras, are in retrograde orbits.  But if we're talking about
relatively equatorial westward orbits like Offeq-1, the only satellites
ever to be launched in such extreme inclinations were the OV1 technology
satellites of the 1960's, in particular several which were launched by
Atlas boosters for fixed orientation missile 'coffin' silos, which
happened to face west.  But these were Air Force launches, managed by
the Office of Aerospace Research of the USAF (precursor to the Space
Test Program that some of you may have heard of); they had absolutely no
connection with NASA.  The record inclination was 144 deg, just a degree
more than Offeq-1. 

I think NASA did do one very retrograde launch, to 120 deg, in the mid
1970s.  If memory serves, it was the Geos-3 Geodynamic Ocean Satellite
which carried an altimeter to measure sea surface heights. 

Jonathan McDowell


...

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 05:24:52 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA, LTV sign commercial agreement for Scout rocket production (Forwarded)

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   December 8, 1988


RELEASE:  88-167

NASA, LTV SIGN COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT FOR SCOUT ROCKET PRODUCTION


     The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the 
Missiles Division of LTV Missiles and Electronics Group, Dallas, 
Texas, today announced the signing of an agreement which grants 
the firm exclusive rights to commercially produce and market the 
Scout launch vehicle.

     NASA's successful negotiation of the agreement marks another 
important advance in establishing a strong U.S. commercial launch 
vehicle industry through the privatization of government 
expendable rocket programs.

     LTV has manufactured the NASA-developed Scout rocket since 
1958 under a series of government contracts procuring flight 
vehicles in support of NASA science missions.

     Under the agreement announced today, LTV is granted rights 
to produce and launch the Scout on a commercial basis and is 
provided with access to and use of NASA-controlled production 
tooling and special test equipment required to manufacture the 
Scout.

     The agreement also enables LTV to obtain access to and use 
of Scout launch support facilities at the NASA Wallops Flight 
Facility, Wallops Island, Va., and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, 
Calif.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 05:22:21 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Kuiper Airborne Observatory continues supernova studies (Forwarded)

[A bit of local news. -PEY]

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                December 12, 1988


RELEASE:  88-168

KUIPER AIRBORNE OBSERVATORY CONTINUES SUPERNOVA STUDIES


     Results from NASA's C-141 Kuiper Airborne Observatory (KAO) 
recent supernova expeditions are helping to create a detailed 
picture of the birth of matter in one of nature's most powerful 
events.

     The Kuiper team has completed its fourth deployment to 
observe Supernova 1987A, continuing its studies of charged 
(ionized) particles, and mass and ejection velocities of heavy 
metals produced in the giant blue star's explosion, first 
observed in February 1987.

     The November 1988 mission found nickel, argon and iron 
exploding outward at 868 miles per second, the same high speeds 
first observed on the KAO's third supernova expedition in April 
of this year.  Scientists also observed expected decreases in 
ionization and brightness levels of the explosion.

     An anomalous red shift, or scattering of light, was again 
seen, but at a reduced level.  This phenomenon had been predicted 
for astronomical objects, and first observed on the KAO's third 
mission.  The effect is produced by argon and nickel photons 
interacting with electrons torn (by the shock wave) from hydrogen 
originally on the surface of the star.

     The 5-week KAO study, conducted from Christchurch, New 
Zealand, was headed by mission Manager James McClenahan. The KAO 
carried four experiments and accommodated more than 20 
scientists.  The Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif., led 
the collaboration effort that included short infrared wavelength 
investigations by Principal Investigators Fred Witteborn with 
Jesse Bregman, Diane Wooden, Dave Rank, Tim Axelrod and Martin 
Cohen.  Longer infrared wavelength studies were conducted by Ames 
Principal Investigator Ed Erickson with Mike Hass, Sean Colgan 
and Steve Lord.

     Previous Kuiper observations of the expanding ejected cloud 
have greatly contributed to understanding how the explosion 
proceeds.  The first detections of nickel, argon, iron and 
radioactive cobalt produced in the SN 1987A core were made by the 
Kuiper crew's second mission in November, 1987.  Abundances and 
velocities of nickel, argon and iron formed in the core were 
first measured on the third mission in April 1988.

     The prevailing theory, supported by recent observations, 
states that supernovae are the great chemical factories in the 
universe, creating and hurling into interstellar space most of 
the elements heavier than carbon.

     The collapse of a massive star is the only naturally 
occurring event with pressures and temperatures great enough to 
fuse heavier elements.  Stars with masses of eight to 40 times 
that of our sun explode immediately after they collapse, forming 
supernovae.

     A great shock wave, produced by the nuclear force, moves 
away from the core and collides with matter falling inward at a 
slower speed.  The shock wave produces the heavy elements by 
rapid fusion, and blows the remaining layers of the star into 
interstellar space.  The Kuiper experimenters have been tracking 
the newly-formed elements in this ejected cloud.

     Heavier stars may form black holes upon collapsing, while 
lighter stars, like the sun, end their lives less violently - as 
white dwarfs.  Before exhausting its fuel, Supernova 1987A spent 
most of its 10 million years as a hot blue giant in the Large 
Magellanic Cloud, 170,000 light years away.  The Large Magellanic 
Cloud is the Milky Way's nearest galactic neighbor.  At the time 
of its cataclysmic collapse, the star (catalogued by Sanduleak) 
was 20 times the mass of our sun.

     Stars spend most of their lives fusing hydrogen into helium 
in the cores.  During this long middle age, the star is 
relatively stable - the inward pull of gravity caused by its 
immense mass, and the radiant pressure of its core, provided by 
thermonuclear reactions (fusion), are about equal.  After the 
hydrogen core is completely converted to helium, the newly-
created helium core temporarily collapses under gravity.  If the 
star is large enough, increased heat and pressure ignite a second 
stage of thermonuclear production, now fueled by helium.

     Helium then burns to carbon and oxygen.  During this period, 
the star's outer surface cools and expands, and the star becomes 
a red giant.  Once helium fusion ceases, contraction occurs 
again, and the core grows hotter.  This process is repeated, 
forming heavier materials, until iron is produced in the central 
core.

     The protons and neutrons of iron are in the most stable 
arrangement possible and, at this stage, nucleosynthesis 
ceases.  The iron core is eventually overcome by tremendous 
forces of gravity, until, at a very small distance, the nuclear 
force reverses (repels rather than attracts) and a nuclear bounce 
and explosion occurs.

     The high densities present during the iron core collapse 
squeeze electrons and protons together to form neutrons.  
Enormous quantities of invisible neutrinos, emitted in the 
production of neutrons, were detected here on Earth during a 10 
second period on Feb. 23, 1987.

     KAO Supernova 1987A research is conducted by the 
Astrophysics Branch, Space Science Division, at Ames and 
supported by the Ames Science and Applications Aircraft 
Division.  Overall program management and funding comes from the 
Astrophysics Division, Office of Space Science and Applications, 
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 14:54:33 GMT
From: nsc!taux01!taux02!amos@hplabs.hp.com  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: Kudo to Israeli space program

Don't forget that the plans for Offeq-1 were written from right to left :-)

-- 
	Amos Shapir				amos@nsc.com
National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
Tel. +972 52 522261  TWX: 33691, fax: +972-52-558322
34 48 E / 32 10 N			(My other cpu is a NS32532)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Dec 88 12:06:10 PST
From: Eugene miya <eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Chances of summer employment in NASA

I was asked a question about chances for summer employment, this is
fair and probably of general interest.  The overall acceptance rate
is about 5%.  This is from thousands of students who apply every year.
I know several readers who did succeed.

The vast majority are those students who had the right combination of
skills, and a corresponding NASA need.  The vast majority of positions
are NOT computer related (so readers of this announcement of opportunity
are basically only competing for computer jobs).  For the few
MEs, chemists, etc. (not computer people), you open slightly different
doors of opportunity (having computer knowledge helps).  Think of
all the other departments on campus who don't read Email or Enews
who get jobs, at school who frequently don't have CS departments,
or computer centers but are tops in their fields in areas like
aeronautics.  Not having basic skills in some of the physical sciences
reduces your chances.  However becaue of the prevasive nature of computers
in NASA, you have some advantages.

Other factors: geographic location.  If you in Wyoming, it's harder to
get in.  But suppose I said Ames, Iowa.  Iowa? Why?  Because although
they don't have world rank CS department, they do have a major aero
department, so plus one point.  Location helps, proximity to a Center
helps immensely.  Skills, etc.  All important.

What it comes to: We have about 50 or so slots at Ames, say 1000 students
apply (most local schools: 30K at UCB, 30K at SU, 30K at SJSU, n time 10K for
other CSUs locally and other colleges).  Many not majoring in sciences
(this is bad for the country in itself).

Odds are about the same for JPL in So.Cal. where I grew up as a local kid
in the Land of Huge (neighbors and Mother worked there), Rockwell (my first
summer job), Northrup, Lockheed, GD, GE, etc.  This is also certainly
better odds than astronaut selection.  Questions?

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@aurora.arc.nas.gov
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {uunet,hplabs,hao,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 88 01:25:28 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation

In article <217@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>
>SHE HAD NEVER HAD THE THRILL OF SEEING (on TV, of course) MEN WALK ON THE MOON.
>
[delete. . .]

Yeah, we're getting old. 

I was 13 when Armstrong took his step. Only a few days before I had returned
from the Cape, seeing the launch for myself. While still a tender young
lad of 13, I was acutely aware of the historical nature of what was happening
and made sure that I would never forget. I thought of my grandfather who
was 6 when the Write brothers flew, and I realized that someday my 
grandchildren would ask me what I remembered about Apollo and the time when
men walked on another planet. I'm glad I came around when I did. And now 
Apollo 11 is as remote to todays kids  as World War II was to myself back 
in the 60's.

Partly because of this, I've become an avid collector of Apollo audio
and video, so I can pop on my audio tapes I made back then, and
think back on '69. You bet I'll be running them this next July.

Mike

PS:
A couple of weeks ago the Arts and Entertainment cable network broadcast
4 1/2 hours of the NBC live coverage of the Kennedy assasination, as it
happened. I intend to write them, suggesting that they do the same with
Apollo 11 coverage. You guys might want to write them as well.




-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"Scientists say 'Saturn is so light, if you put it in a bucket of 
water, it would float'. Don't forget, it would also leave a ring".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #163
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Dec 88 07:01:33 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00533>; Tue, 20 Dec 88 05:42:35 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 20 Dec 88 05:42:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXfWfty00jZdE14k9:>;
          Tue, 20 Dec 88 05:27:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.YXfWXzy00UkZQ19044>;
          Tue, 20 Dec 88 05:18:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sXfWWIy00UkZE17k5R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 88 05:16:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #164

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 164

Today's Topics:
		Re: Stellar Classification Schemes...
		    NASP Project Research Question
		 Launch Service Purchase Act of 1989
			 Re: martian diseases
			    Apollo Payback
	     RE: Chemical rockets/ Exotic launch schemes
			   ISECCO Update #3
			NACA wing information
				Re: UN
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 13 Dec 88 11:35 EST
From: <SULTAN%BUASTA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU> (Centre Fur Space Physique)
Subject:  Re: Stellar Classification Schemes...


     Regarding the discussion of stellar classification mnemonics
     in SPACE Digest Vol 9 No. 156, a somewhat less sexist phrase
     was suggested to me by a friend who taught it to her Intro.
     Astronomy course students:

       "Only Boys Accepting Feminism Get Kissed Meaningfully"

     Now, if we could only get a similar catch-phrase for the
     Resistor Code :-).

                                         - Peter Sultan
                                           B.U. Center for Space Physics
                                           SULTAN@BUASTA on BITnet
                                           BUASTA::SULTAN on SPAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Dan Quayle.

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 88 20:21:57 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: NASP Project Research Question

Which turbulence model do you folks plan to use, and how do you intend to
validate it?

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 88 21:49:04 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Launch Service Purchase Act of 1989

The Launch Service Puchase Act of 1989 will be introduced under the
joint sponsorship of Congresmen Ron Packard and George Brown, senior
members of the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications in the
101st Congress.  We intend to ask Congressmen William Gray, Jim Bates,
Bill Lowery, Duncan Hunter, Jim Colby and perhaps others to cosponsor
this bill.

The Act will foster the commercial development of space by allowing
the private sector access to government markets for space transportation
services without burdensome bureaucratic restrictions. 

To find out more about the Act and what you can do to help ensure
its passage, contact me via email, regular mail or telephone with
your vitae.

Jim Bowery            PH: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981
La Jolla, CA 92038

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1988 18:02-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: martian diseases

It is highly unlikely that a non-terrestrial organism would be able to
live in our bodies. There is a whole hierarchy of systems that would
most likely be incompatible, all the way from whether it fell upon a
DNA code, to how the DNA is coded (a totally arbitrary assignment of
codes to codons), what proteins are used, what amino acids are used,
and so on and so on.

However, IF one were for some reason able to infect terrans, it would
most likely be a rapidly fatal disease. Animals and their diseases are
a stage on the road to a symbiotic relationship. Sometimes the
symbiosis is broken if the host is weakened, but nonetheless, the
nastiness of an infection decreases with each generation that lives
with it.

So, IF an extraterrestrial disease could infect us, it would probably
be a health problem with the severity of AIDS, only with a far more
rapid development.

So even though the probability is vanishingly small, caution will still
be in order, given the severity of the worst case.

I also agree with the poster who noted that the return trip of about a
year is a more than reasonable quarentine. If they are alive when they
get home, there is not very much to worry about. If it didn't show up
in 12 months, it isn't going to show up in a couple weeks on the
station.

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 14 Dec 88 07:01 EDT
From: RON PICARD <PICARD@gmr.com>
Subject:  Apollo Payback

I seem to remember that NASA states the US government received $7 for every    
dollar spent on the Apollo program.  It's easy to find the amount spent on
Apollo, but where can I find how they got the seven dollar figure?  I guess
I'm asking for a source or two.

Offhand, if anybody remembers without the source, was it the IRS collected
$7 for every Apollo dollar (i.e. from new companies, their employees...) or
was it $7 pumped into the economy?

Thanks in advance,
Ron

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 88 09:00:30 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror)
Subject: RE: Chemical rockets/ Exotic launch schemes

Two interesting points about all this, and the use of "exotic" fuels by
"non-rocket scientists" (I'm sorry, but it's the best phrase I could think
of):

While in high school and as a freshman in college, I drove an A/FD dragster.
While we didn't use the mixture, others used a blend of 80% nitromethane/15%
methanol/5% hydrazine.  I saw the hydrazine number go as high as 15%, but
this was hell on the engine!

At the same time, hydrogen peroxide rockets were also popular.  I think
that the sip from these wouldn't be sufficient for any kind of launch (numbers
anyone?), but they were easy enough to build.

Anyways, the last I heard, hydrazine was banned and the H2O2 rockets fell
out of favor as the price of the platinum catalyst jumped.  Besides, the
huge clouds of "smoke" sometimes had irritants in them.

Irrelevant, but maybe entertaining.

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Wed, 14 Dec 88 22:03:15 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Robert Jessie Hale III           <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  ISECCO Update #3

  This is more of a overview of the last year than a regular update.  Thank
you to all the people who have been responding.   Your comments and sugges-
tions are anways wellcome.     To all the people who have not heard from me,
I have a lot of trouble getting back throught the mailers please try again.
One last thing.  If your asking for information please include a USnail
or equlivent address so we can send it to you.  Merry Christmas and enjoy.



#70 ACAD3A::FSRRC       Mon 12 Dec 1988  21:49  ( 110) U*


 International    Space   Exploration  and  Colonization   Company
                             I.S.E.C.Co
 P.O. Box 60885                                  Annual Newsletter
 Fairbanks, Ak. 99706                            Issue #2
 (907)457-2674                                   December 12, 1988


                        Activities Synopsis

     1988  has   been a very successful year for  ISECCo.   We  have
become solidly established; our organization is set up and operating
smoothly,  we have made good progress on the Biosphere  Project  and
have even done some preliminary work on Aero-Space Plane ideas.
     Those  of  you  who have been  receiving  our  computer  update
reports  know  we  have  been  making  progress  on  our   biosphere
hydroponics.   (Any one not recieving these who wants them  and  has
access  to BITNET just send a note to FSRRC@ALASKA.)  We have  built
120  square  feet of hydroponic trays, which is almost  1/3  of  the
minimum  area needed to support one person (based on other  peoples'
productivity  figures).   We  have set up 70+  square  feet  {in  my
bedroom--NO  floor space left!!} and plan to get it planted  shortly
after the first of the year.  We planted a few plants in straw as an
initial  trial  but they all failed due (partly) to a  serious  mold
infestation.  We are pressure cooking our straw now to sterilize it.
     We  have  built  several different types  of  hydroponics;  the
'usual' method is to use a gravel bed to support the plant.  Since a
4'x4'x6" gravel bed weighs close to half a ton this method would  be
prohibitively  expensive  to launch.  So we are trying a  number  of
alternatives.  Principal among these is using straw; we expect there
to  be quite a bit of straw-like plant material produced which  will
need to be broken down and using it for hydroponics will thus  serve
a double purpose.  We are trying several other methods also: a  drip
system  with the plants growing in gallon milk jugs; a  flow  system
with  the  plants  growing from holes drilled  in  pipe;  a  ceramic
(insulation!) medium system similar to the flow system; a couple  of
gravel  systems (simulating a lunar system); and some trays  set  up
with  just  hydroponic  solution.   All  these  systems  are   being
evaluated to determine the most effective ones for our system.
     We  have  up  to 6 people interested  in  spending  the  summer
working for us.  This is a donation worth $30,000.  At this point we
are not sure how many of these people will actually make it  up--but
our  current growth rate is exponential and we could easily  receive
more offers more than offseting those who can't make it!
     Housing for all our volunteers could have been a problem but we
have  recently had several new offers of housing and we now  have  a
shack,  a  mobile  home, a trailer and a couple  of  bedrooms;  this
totals  rooming  for up to a dozen people.  So we  are  pretty  well
fixed for housing unless we get another rush of volunteers!  To help
feed  our hungry workers we have about 1/4 of a moose (some 150#  of
meat) and have hopes of obtaining a number of caribou.
     We  have  not  selected the land on which  we  will  build  the
biosphere.  We do, however, have 3 offers for land, and a couple  of
possibilities.   Between  now and May we shall select  the  best  of
these on which to build.
     Outside  funding is an area we have not made much progress  in.
We have identified a couple of sources but our funding continues  to
be the generous donation of our members.  Keep it up!  {And THANKS!}
     I  have  heard  a  rumor  that  our  'sister'  biosphere  being
constructed  in Arizona by Biosphere Ventures has been  sealed.   If
so,  congratulations  to them and I hope everything  goes  well  for
them!

                        Proposed Activities

     During   1989  we  shall  begin  construction  on  the   actual
Biosphere.   We  will prepare the lot where the biosphere is  to  be
built  (clear the area, put in a driveway, apply for  power,  etc.),
dig  the hole in which our structure will be buried, and I  hope  to
get  the  foundation built.  This amounts to some $20,000  worth  of
work and right at this point I'm not sure we will have the financing
to accomplish it, so send us all your spare nickels & dimes!
     Our Aero-Space Plane progress shall continue to 'simmer on  the
back  burner'.   By the end of the year we hope to have  a  possible
design  selected and have begun drafting blueprints for  our  model.
Early in 1990 we shall begin researching materials for construction.
This  process may be delayed due to lack of funding; an infusion  of
money would greatly speed up the project!
     Sometime  early in the next year we plan to begin  issuing  our
update reports twice a month, and by the end of the year increase it
to  once  a week.  Right now we are not set up to  distribute  these
other  than  over computer networks.  If enough  people  express  an
interest  we may offer it monthly to those who send us SASE,  so  if
you are interested in this let us know.
     Early  in January we plan to hold our second Member's  meeting.
This  is open to anyone who wishes to attend, though those who  were
not  members in 1988 will not be permitted to vote (so if  you  want
your  voice  to be heard you'd better hurry up and  join!)   Members
located  in  other parts of the country will be allowed to  vote  by
proxy.
     Throughout   the  year  we  plan  to  continue  expanding   our
hydroponics until, by late 1989, we hope to have enough to support a
person.   Then  we will begin adding secondary systems such  as  the
biodegradation system and fish.
     We expect to do some serious investigation into funding in  the
next  year; our expenses are rapidly expanding and even now we  have
more  volunteers than money--we would not want anyone who  wants  to
work for us be unable to due to lack of money!
     We have done a little investigation and is appears we shall  be
able  to  obtain a computer userid for ISECCo, which  will  be  very
helpful,  and  will  get our computer activities  off  our  personal
accounts.  This a top priority for January!
     I  hope to have my hanger foundation complete, slab poured  and
possibly the walls started.  While this project is not funded by nor
directly  related  to ISECCo it will have a bearing on  us  since  I
shall  offer  its' use to ISECCo and I expect it  will  (eventually)
become  our  base of operations.  Construction on this is  going  to
depend on how well my personal finances hold up this summer!
                                   Sincerely yours,

                                   Ray R. Collins::President, ISECCo

                                   ISECCo
                                   P.O. Box 60885
                                   Fairbanks, Ak.
                                                  99706
RJHIII
DEC14,1988
REL#3
[end]

------------------------------

Date: 15 Dec 88 19:23:53 GMT
From: polyof!karl@nyu.edu  (A1 karl muhlbach )
Subject: NACA wing information




To whom it may concern;

	I am a student at Polytechnic University in New York and am working on a
senior programming project.  I need to locate the NACA wing series information for
wing design.  I need this information on some sort of computer media so that I can
encompasses it into my program for the database of information.  This information
is in books but to save time and money having it on some sort of media would greatly be
appreciated.  I would appreciate any help that anyone can offer in locating such 
material.  This information is imperative to the successful completion of my program.
The program will deal primarily with stability and control and be AI based.

					Thanks for any and all help in my behalf

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1988 12:58-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: UN

> the inspection of every launch of space objects.States would be 
> asked to transmit to representatives of the inspectorate in  good 
> time the necessary information about such launches.The Secretary- 

If this kind of thinking had been carried out in 1905 about aircraft,
we'd have to file the contents of our suitcases with a UN inspector
every time we wanted to get our Cessna 152 off the ground. Of course
the takeoff rate would never be allowed to exceed the ability of the
pen pushing bureacrats to process, so there probably would never have
BEEN any general aviation. After all, it's too much work and too hard
to regulate....

I'd love to let the shortsighted diplomatic types who sit around and think of
these assininities see the outside of an airlock, sans suit.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1988 11:51-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations

I'd also refer people to the work that Peter Diamandes did (at MIT I
think). He worked on the idea of a centrifuge bed where the head is at
the center so that the inner ear does not feel much of the effects of
changing position, and the feet are at the maximum distance. The idea
is to make the heart work harder and to put some stress on the bones
while sleeping (with hopes that this would decrease the
decalcification).

Pete is one of the key people with the International Space University
now. He used to be (and maybe still is for all I know) one of the
leaders of SEDS, along with Todd Hawley (in both ventures).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #164
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Dec 88 11:39:41 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01554>; Wed, 21 Dec 88 10:40:55 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 21 Dec 88 10:40:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YXfwCJy00Ui3M2=05M>;
          Wed, 21 Dec 88 10:30:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.UXfw51y00UkZ42o04o>;
          Wed, 21 Dec 88 10:20:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gXfw2ky00UkZA2mk5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 88 10:18:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #165

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 165

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Nov 28 AW&ST
		     space news from Nov 7 AW&ST
			 Space Settlement Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 88 08:19:21 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST

McDonnell-Douglas is selling its shuttle-borne biochemical electrophoresis
equipment to NASA, for a pittance.

Pratt&Whitney gears up its West Palm Beach plant for long-term volume
production of RL-10 engines for the Centaur upper stage (used by both
Atlas and the bigger Titan configurations).

The protein-crystal growth experiment aboard Discovery came up with
bigger and better crystals than yet produced on Earth.  Several more
drug companies have joined the sponsoring consortium for the next
flight, on STS-29 in Feb.

Analysts suggest that the Nov 15 flight of Buran may have been the third
launch attempt, not the second.

Debate said to be underway within USSR on usefulness of the Soviet shuttle
and its impact on other programs.  Sagdeev, in particular, is skeptical.

NASA FY90 budget down about $1G from original request.  It's still a
large increase over FY89, but the cuts will constrain things enough that
NASA plans to appeal them.

GAO budget-deficit study incidentally criticizes NASA for lack of
long-term planning, underestimates of costs of major projects, lack
of life-cycle planning (i.e. cutting startup costs at expense of
operating costs), and the costly habit of delaying launches to "save"
money.

The airlock module to go up to Mir in spring (probably) will contain a
Soviet MMU for easier maneuvering during spacewalks.

It is now reported that each of the two add-on modules scheduled to go
up to Mir in 1989 will be roughly the size of the existing Mir complex!

Reagan signs launch-insurance bill giving government a share of third-
party liability for US commercial launches [some had expected him to
veto it -- he wanted liability limits instead], and the 1989 NASA
authorization bill [another slight surprise, since it establishes the
National Space Council that he opposed].

Hawaii starts action on master plan and environmental-impact statement
for a commercial spaceport at Palima Point or Kahilipali Point.

Solar-science community to ask NASA for another Solar Max rescue mission!
Solar Max will reenter in under two years, and may be uncontrollable as
early as Jan 1990.  Even optimistic estimates put reentry before June 1990
if the satellite is maintained in its current attitude, which keeps its
instruments pointed at the Sun but also puts the satellite broadside-on
to air drag about half the time.  A low-drag attitude is possible but
would greatly reduce scientific data return.  An urgent request has been
made for a shuttle mission to reboost Solar Max to a higher orbit, and
incidentally do a number of repairs that would improve its usefulness.
(In particular, Solar Max's high-gain antenna gimbal is jammed, making
it largely impractical to use the TDRS system for relaying Solar Max
data, and this will become increasingly important as TDRS takes over
other relaying jobs and ground stations are closed as a result.)  Action
is needed soon if the necessary hardware is to be ready in time; there
has been no decision yet.

Article on recent scientific results from Solar Max; interesting but
nothing remarkable.

Article on Jean-Loup Chretien's planned activities aboard Mir; nothing
remarkable.

NASA accelerating studies to give the new administration the option of
initiating work on a lunar base or Mars mission.  Bush will get initial
results in the next year or two, followed by formal NASA recommendations
in 1991.  [A mistake -- the sooner the better.  Bush's best chance to
get something like that past Congress is right at the start.  Of course,
NASA may be aiming at Bush's hypothetical second term...]  Bush himself
is now saying "...the logical order is first the Moon, then -- perhaps
Mars".  Major studies will aim at three ideas:  an evolving lunar base,
a streamlined [translation:  one-shot] Mars mission that could be mounted
early in the next century, and a possible Phobos mission.

The lunar-base studies will look at the commercial potential of such a
base, notably the potential for mining Helium 3 from the lunar regolith
for export to Earth as a fusion fuel.  Also of major interest is producing
liquid oxygen from lunar soil to cut costs of a possible Mars mission.
The Moon base is considered to involve the fewest unknowns, since the
Apollo landings eliminated most of them, and is favored as an intermediate
step even if Mars is considered the long-term objective.

The accelerated Mars mission would have a crew of 3 and would make limited
use of in-orbit assembly (it would not require an assembly base in orbit).
The spacecraft would not provide artificial gravity, and would use
aerobraking and fast orbits to do the whole mission in 14 months, including
20 days on the surface.  This would be a scaled-down version of an earlier
concept, which planned to launch an unmanned cargo transport in 2005 (with
lander, surface equipment, and Earth-return fuel), followed by a manned
ship carrying eight astronauts in a high-speed trajectory to reach Mars
in eight months (with a similar orbit used for return).

A new idea that is attracting attention is a manned mission to Phobos.
This could be done earlier than a Mars landing, would develop most of
the needed capabilities, could establish a useful staging base, and
would be of major scientific interest in its own right.  It could be
launched in 2001, using an unmanned cargo vehicle [presumably using
an economy orbit] to carry exploration hardware and return fuel to
Mars orbit, followed by a manned ship using a fast trajectory (nine
months).  The two would rendezvous at Mars.  Of the crew of four,
two would make a Phobos landing, while the other two control robot
activity (including a sample-return mission) on the Martian surface.
This again would be a 14-month mission with a Mars-orbit stay of 20 days.

USAF assumes control of Launch Complex 17 at the Cape, formerly NASA's
launch facility for Delta.

Work is underway to upgrade and automate the remote tracking stations
that form a major part of the USAF satellite-control network.

IKI, the Soviet space-research institute, is now offering its image-
processing system commercially (the hardware is essentially a PC clone
with fancy video gear).

"Aerospace Forum" piece by John Yardley (project engineer for Mercury,
technical director for Gemini, now president of McDonnell Douglas)
pushing commitment to a "Foundation Program" for the space program.
Nothing much new [as one might expect from somebody who expects to
profit heavily from the status quo].

[There will now be an interruption in the flow of these summaries while
I spend three weeks in Australia.  Back mid-January.  I may possibly get
the Dec 5 summary done before I go, but don't bet on it.]
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 06:14:15 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Nov 7 AW&ST

[Terminology:  although I know "Buran" is the name of one of the Soviet
orbiters, not their whole shuttle system, the lack of a convenient,
well-known name for the system inclines me to continue using "Buran"
in a generic sense.]

SDI launched a highly classified "Queen Match" experiment on a sounding
rocket in Alaska in August to observe Soviet missiles from space.  SDI
will not confirm whether it worked.

NASA Office of Spaceflight will renew efforts to get NASA HQ and the new
Administration to support Shuttle-C development.

First Titan 4 launch, originally set for October, slips up to five
months due to uncertainty about structural strength of its payload fairing.
There is suspicion that the Sept. Titan upper-stage failure may have been
the result of the payload fairing striking the upper stage during
separation.  Analysis of stresses in fairing fittings has raised some
doubts, so the fairing has been removed and sent back to McDonnell Douglas
for modifications.  The payload for the first launch is said to be a
Clarke-orbit early-warning satellite on an IUS.

The Atlantis STS-27 payload is a low-altitude reconnaissance satellite
with deploying arms which span up to 150 ft.  It has "characteristics
of an imaging radar or optical reconnaissance package involving digital
imaging, or both".  It fills essentially the entire payload bay.  Once
separated from the shuttle, two long arms unfold; they carry sensors,
solar panels, and antennas.  Atlantis will monitor deployment and
initial operation.  If there is trouble, there is the option of blowing
the arms off and retrieving the core for later re-use; it is thought to
cost up to $500M.  [In all these summaries, life is simpler if I report
the stuff as if it's current news rather than past history.  I do trim
out or shorten obsolete items.]

Buran prepared for second launch attempt.  [Which worked.]  The Soviets
say problems in retraction of a swing arm aborted the first, but the
long delay preceding a second attempt has raised speculation that that
may not have been the only problem.  Timing of the first launch attempt
is speculated to have been chosen to allow the Mir crew to watch.

Soviets say Buran is designed for up to four weeks in orbit, versus one
for the US shuttle, but did not say whether this was free-flying or
attached to a space station.  The second orbiter, Ptichka, is in one
of the processing facilities at Baikonur.

NASA starts small new research program in the interaction between
vehicle control and structures.

A.A. Galeev elected to direct IKI, replacing Roald Sagdeev.  Galeev is
well thought of in the West; he was formerly chief of the Plasma Division.

Soviets officially write off Phobos 1.  It has probably stabilized in a
gravity-gradient attitude with its solar panels pointed away from the
Sun.  It went out of control when a ground software-checking computer
failed during preparation of a command sequence, and a technician
transmitted the sequence without waiting for checking.

Avtex Fibers shuts down US rayon production; this is of serious import
for US spaceflight, because the stuff is used in carbon-phenolic composite
materials found in a wide variety of rocket systems, including shuttle
SRBs (nozzle reinforcement wrapping) and various missiles.  Existing
stocks will suffice for the near future, but...

Contractor selection for the advanced SRB will occur early next year.
Two teams are competing for it, Lockheed/Aerojet and Hercules/Atlantic.
Russell Bardos, NASA shuttle-propulsion director, says that Morton
Thiokol's improved SRB designs are not alternatives and will not be
substituted for the ASRM.  NASA will buy one more major batch of M-T
SRBs, in an order to be placed in the next few months, which will
carry the program through the transition period to the ASRM.

France's TDF-1 direct-broadcast satellite is moving towards its final
orbital position, after successful opening of its solar arrays.  (This
is noteworthy because the nearly-identical German TVSat 1 was written
off after one solar array failed to open.)  France is still looking for
customers for some of TDF-1's capacity, although at least one channel
will probably be leased to Germany to help cover for the loss of TVSat 1.
Doubts have been expressed in the past about France's ability to find
enough users to justify TDF-1 and TDF-2 (scheduled for launch late next
year); France has a growing cable-TV system that will compete with them,
and other lower-cost DBS projects like Luxembourg's Astra will also be
a factor.

A very interesting letter from Name Withheld By Request, observing that
the satellite insurance industry faces three quite fundamental problems:

	- The steady demand for more and more performance per pound
	steadily boosts complexity and erodes safety margins.  20 years
	ago, a Delta-class satellite had only 170W of power available;
	today it has ten times that, at the cost of an intricate set of
	mission-critical mechanical devices for solar-array deployment.

	- Competitive pressures have steadily eroded development and
	testing phases of programs.  "Where at one time we had a
	structural model, a solar/thermal model, an engineering model
	and a prototype before distinct flight models, we now, even
	with the first of a new generation, often leap from a combined
	structural/thermal model direct to a proto-flight, and derivatives
	are proven only by similarity."  The insurance companies have
	shown no signs of objecting to this, either.

	- The proliferation of small-production-run specialized satellites.

He suggests that reliability must be engineered into a product, rather than
relying on fallible quality-control and inspection processes, and says that
a major step towards this would be to get insurers involved in proposal
evaluation and contract negotiation, so that unsophisticated buyers are
made aware of the risks in pushing the state of the art too hard.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Dec 88 10:11:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 2591+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Space Settlement Act

To: space-activists@turing.cs.rpi.edu
Subject: Re: HR 4218 query - December update
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 88 17:27:41 PST
From: Scott Pace <pace%tp3@rand.org>

Senate passes, President Signs NASA Authorization Bill
        The passage of Senate bill S.2209, authorizing NASA Appropriations
was not surprising in itself. But thie bill also included the essence of
the Space Settlement Act (which started life as HR 4218). The text from
S.2209 reads as:

                            Space Settlements
SEC. 217. (a) The Congress declares that the extension of human life beyond
Earth's atmosphere, leading ultimately to the establishment of space
settlements, will fulfill the purposes of advancing science, exploration,
and development and will enhance the general welfare.
        (b) In pursuit of the establishment of an International Space Year
in 1992 pursuant to Public Law 99-170, the United States shall exercise
leadership and mobilize the international community in furtherance of
increasing mankind's knowledge and exploration of the solar system.
        (c) Once every 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall submit a report to
the President and the Congress which--
        (1) provides a review of all activities undertaken under this
section including an analysis of the focused research and development
activities on the Space Station, Moon, and other outposts that are
necessary to accomplish a manned mission to Mars;
        (2) analyzes ways in which current science and technology can be
applied in the establishment of space settlements;
        (3) identifies scientific and technological capacity for
establishing space settlements, including a description of what steps must
be taken to develop such capacity;
        (4) examines alternative space settlement locations and
architectures;
        (5) examines the status of technologies necessary for
extraterrestrial resource development and use and energy production;
        (6) reviews the ways in which the existence of space settlements
would enhance science, exploration, and development;
        (7) reviews mechanisms and institutional options which foster a
broad-based plan for international cooperation in establishing space
settlements;
        (8) analyzes the economics of financing space settlements,
especially with respect to private sector and international participation;
        (9) discusses sociological factors involved in space settlement
such as psychology, political science, and legal issues; and
        (10) addresses such other topics as the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration considers appropriate.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #165
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Dec 88 05:46:37 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04523>; Thu, 22 Dec 88 03:55:14 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 22 Dec 88 03:55:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YXg==Ry00jZdA1OEM6>;
          Thu, 22 Dec 88 03:31:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.gXg=0Jy00UkZ4:cE4c>;
          Thu, 22 Dec 88 03:19:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXg-y1y00UkZM-b048@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 88 03:17:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #166

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 166

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Nov 14 AW&ST
      Soviet/French mission lands - new record space record set
		Why use Spationaut for Fench spacemen
		    Breaking the Coriolis Barrier
			Re: Spaceplane project
		 Re: was the lunar landing too soon?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 88 05:42:33 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Nov 14 AW&ST

Japan officially commits to unrestricted distribution of data from the
Japanese Earth Remote Sensing satellite; the US had been concerned that
Japan might restrict image distribution in its own favor.

Roald Sagdeev, outgoing head of IKI [the Soviet Space Research Institute]
denounces "figureheads" in charge of key elements of the Soviet space
program, probably referring to Alexander Dunayev of Glavcosmos.  (There
is reported to be an internal power struggle among Soviet space groups.)

Pentagon plans to restart antisatellite work next year, probably aimed
mostly at ground/ship-based near-term interceptors.  The Navy wants a
role in Asat work, partly because it has the only well-defined mission --
knocking out Soviet radarsats whose primary role is tracking the US
fleet -- and it's a good bet that the revised design will be a Tomahawk-
sized missile that will fit submarines and Aegis cruisers.  Congress is
likely to balk at anything beyond low-level study work, though, and the
change of launch platform isn't likely to help much.

The replacement Mir crew that will [did] go up with Chretien will probably
remain up for well under a year, breaking the current pattern of steadily
increasing duration.  The medical people want a pause, presumably for more
thorough study and planning.

Soviets say Buran's swing arm was in fact retracting properly during the
firstl launch attempts, but the automated safety system checked its status
too soon.  They say the lengthy delay before the next launch attempt simply
reflects lack of urgency and a desire for thoroughness with a new system.

Investigating board concludes, as expected, that the electrical fire on
Magellan was the result of a technician's inability to see what he was
doing, and his incorrect assumption that battery connectors could not be
mated incorrectly.  (True, but they could be mated far enough for some
contacts to meet.)  Board recommends a change in connector design, an
alert to test personnel, and temporary removal of obstructing panels so
that the technicians can see the connections they are trying to make.

Atlantis launch preparations in final stages.

Bush transition team studying plan to reorganize US space program
management along the lines of the US intelligence agencies.  The head
of NASA would acquire a second hat as assistant to the president for
civil space, with broad powers for managing the federal space effort.
(Similarly, the CIA head is also the director of central intelligence.)
The National Space Council would be important in policy decisions, but
would not have day-to-day executive responsibility.  The organization of
the council, and transfer of power to it from the current Senior
Interagency Group on Space, is still being sorted out.  The first major
agenda item for the council will probably be a major review of the space
station.

[I am not sure that putting the head of NASA in that position is a good
idea.  Many people, including me, see private spaceflight as the best
hope for a revived US space effort... and NASA historically has been
deeply hostile to any space project it does not control.  Much of what
has been accomplished in recent years is at least partly due to the
Reagan administration's policy of keeping NASA *out* of a larger management
role.  Maybe it will all work out, but I'm worried.  A lot depends on who
replaces Fletcher as head of NASA, and how soon.]

NASA briefings to the new administration will stress keeping the space
station on track.  That aside, major priorities within NASA include
continuing and increasing NASA's newly-revived technology-development
efforts (Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology), providing enough
funding so existing projects can be finished on time (Office of Space
Science), and stable funding for shuttle operations (Office of Space
Flight).

Avtex Fibers is back in the rayon business, after NASA, DoD, Morton
Thiokol, and other aerospace manufacturers hastily arranged long-term
contracts to keep production going.

Radar measurements by William Dent (U of Mass.) indicate that the permafrost
on Mars is at least a meter deep, raising hopes that it might be useful as
a source of water and volatiles for manned expeditions.

ESA prepares to select its next major space-science project, out of five
possibilities:  Cassini mission to Saturn and Titan (joint project with
NASA, ESA supplying the Titan descent probe), GRASP (gamma-ray astronomy
satellite), Vesta asteroid/comet encounter (joint project with USSR, ESA
supplying encounter module including penetrators), Lyman faint-object
spectroscopic astronomy satellite, and Quasat very-long-baseline radio
astronomy observatory.  ESA's advisory council recommended Cassini, but
its recommendations are not binding.  One problem with Cassini is that
it's a joint project with NASA, historically an unreliable partner, and
assumes prompt Congressional approval of NASA's part of it.  Failing
Cassini, the council recommended re-opening competition among the four
remaining projects.  Actually, ESA has its own budget problems, since
most of this assumes modest annual space-science budget growth, which
Britain has been vetoing (such base-budget decisions must be unanimous).
Many of these projects have been waiting in the wings for several years,
as both Lyman and Quasat were originally joint work with NASA, and GRASP
was designed for shuttle deployment; the chaos within NASA after January
1986 scuttled those plans.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Dec 88 14:39:24 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet/French mission lands - new record space record set

     The Soviet/French space mission was successfully completed today (Dec 21)
when the Soyuz TM-6 capsule landed with Moussa Manerov, Alexander Titov (USSR)
and Jean-Loup Chretien (French) on board.  The flight was not without its
problems though, shortly after they undocked (sometime after 10 pm EST by
the shortwave) they developed an overload in the guidance computer, which
resulted in them returning on the second pass at the alternate landing site
rather than the first pass.  I do not have an exact landing time (the original
schedule just called for it to be before 4 am EST, 12 noon Moscow time), but
the first report I heard was at 8:30 am (Radio Moscow did not come on this
the frequencies I listen to until then for some reason).
    Several final points to note on this flight.  First Titov and Manerov are 
now the first people to spend one full year in orbit, exceeding the previous
record of 326 days (set by Yuri Romanenko in 1987) by some 39 days.  However,
note that Romanenko still holds the highest lifetime total at 430 days, while
Leoind Kizim (of Soyuz T-10B in '84, Soyuz T-15 in '86) is second with 
373 days, and Titov is third with 367 days (he gets only 2 days from the
Soyuz T-8 aborted mission in Apr. '83).  Secondly, Jean-Loup Chretien
gained another 26 days of orbital experience, which when added to
his 7 day 21 hour flight in Soyuz T-6/Salyut 7 (June 24, 1982), put him at
34 days of orbital experience.  That ties him with the experience of the
most active US astronauts: John Young at 34 days and Paul Weitz (Skylab 2
& STS-9) with 33 days.  All other US astronauts with higher experience levels 
(eg. the Skylab 4 crew with 84 days) have retired.  Also note he came down in
the older Soyuz TM-6 capsule, an interesting coincidence with the Soyuz T-6
flight he took in '82.  Finally, and little noticed by the press, with this
crew switchoff the Russians have continued the permanent manning of the 
Mir space station complex, running now for 684 days.  In addition it has
been occupied for 759 days total, putting it well ahead of the total lifetimes
of both their successful second generation stations: Salyut 6 station 
(669 days between Sept. '77 - July '82) and the previous Salyut 7 station 
(712 days: Apr. '82 - present).
    The crew left on board consists of Alexander Volkov and Sergey Kirkalyov
from Soyuz TM-7, plus Dr. Valery Polyakov (Soyuz TM-6, Aug. 29).  The Soviets
now have two highly experienced doctors with orbital observations, Polyakov
and Oleg Atkov (Soyuz T-10b, 237 days and 6 visitors in two crews).
Dr. Polyakov has lots of clinical observation of long and short term
zero G adaptation, having seen people 6 newly arrived people adjust to
orbital life, inspected a long duration crew for months at the end of their 
mission, and experienced 114 days of it himself.  Current schedules call
for him to be up until sometime in April, putting him at the 215 days level
minimum, and giving him time to observe both a crew during the first 100 days
of an extensive flight, plus the new crew adjusting in April.  Interestingly 
Volkov and Kirkalyov are now being called a new long duration crew which they
were not before on shortwave.  That may suggest that they are not coming down
in April, but will go for a more extensive mission (I can see it now -
"Comrades this is mission control, we have decided that you are not going
to land in April, but will go for a new record: see you in January 1990" [for
the 10% increase]).  Actually Volkov was on the Soyuz T-14/Salyut 7
64 day flight in Sept. 1985 which was cut short by the illness of the mission 
commander Vladimir Vasyutin.  The original Soyuz T-14 mission schedule 
called for a 6 month mission for him, so he maybe he would not find that
too bad.  Note the leaving of the fresh Soyuz TM-7 up there, definately an
indication of a long mission to come.
    Unless something happens this year will close with a new first for 
humanity: for the entire 365 days there were at least two men in orbit.  
That it was only one outpost representing one nation is true, but that will
change.  Let us work towards the time where many countries or blocks of
nations have orbital posts.

                                                     Glenn Chapman
                                                     MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Dec 88 15:19:37 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Why use Spationaut for Fench spacemen


    I recevied an interesting comment on my Soviet/French mission
postings from Yaron Sheffer at U of Texas that I though I might share:

>I actually, to be frank, don't like your term 'spacionaut'. Recall
>that the Soviets in their begining decided to call themselves
>"cosmonauts", and the Americans in their begining decided to call
>themselves "astronauts". Since these French fellows are HITCH
>HIKING on either Soviet or American spacecraft, then they SHOULD be
>called appropriately either "cosmonauts" or "astronauts".
>Once France, say, launches its own people up there independently,
>then they will decide what to call themselves.

     Sorry I cannot take all of the blame for using spationaut for the French
spacemen.  Of course the French use that themselves, but in addition the
the term is used by Russians on Radio Moscow and by Aviation Week.  However,
I think he has a interesting point in suggesting that only when the country
involved launches its own people should it have a separate name for them.
France of course will not use its own launcher to put people into orbit for 
the near future as the Ariane is a European venture (France does have the 
biggest share, but is not above 50% currently).  That suggests that a separate
term may arise for those taking rides on vehicles not entirely of their own
making.  Actually more likely the terms astronaut and cosmonaut will become 
used less to mean some particular country and more as generic terms.  After 
all in aircraft the older term aviator became standard, only to disappear 
when air flight became common.
                                                      Glenn Chapman
                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Dec 88 16:21:04 PST
From: Ken Harrenstien <KLH@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Breaking the Coriolis Barrier
Cc: KLH@SRI-NIC.ARPA

Several recent postings seem to be giving the impression that Coriolis
forces present insurmountable problems to building small-scale rotating
space stations.  I don't understand why.

There appear to be two separate arguments.  The first is that the mixture
of forces will simply be confusing.  The second is that this mixture will
affect inner-ear equilibrium in a way which induces incapacitating nausea
or dizziness.

As far as the first argument goes, I think it's a non-issue; learning
to function in such an environment would be no more difficult than
learning any new physical skill such as bicycling, skating, swimming,
hang-gliding, or windsurfing.  At first you know nothing about the
forces involved or how they interact, and must do some intensive
conscious thinking about what you're doing.  Later, your reactions
become faster, more instinctive, and almost unconscious.  We are
biological learning machines.

With respect to the second argument, the plasticity of the nervous
system is quite remarkable, and I would expect that after several days
the effects would wear off.  Remember the experiments where people
were given goggles that reversed, slanted, or distorted their visual
perceptions?  Even when their vision was turned completely upside
down, people would readily adapt after some days of initial confusion.
Quite amazing.  Seasickness and spacesickness (er, "space adaptation
syndrome") don't last forever either, which makes it easy to conclude
that inner-ear signals are equally plastic.

I'll leave it up to other readers to devise a suitably economical
experiment to verify this -- I think it should provide a strong
Coriolis-force environment for at least a week, preferably two.  The
main problem with a large earth-based centrifuge is that the increased
G load might have unpleasant effects unrelated to sensory perceptions.

Two other interesting sidelights:
	[1] There is a S/F novel by John C. McLoughlin, "The
	Helix and the Sword", in which spacecraft are classified by their
	rotational periods, e.g. a "one-minute sweep" is puny by comparison
	with a "two-minute sweep".  I always thought this a most intriguing
	vision that no other author has picked up, and the novel itself is
	an enjoyable read.  An overlooked book.

	[2] There exist people whose inner-ear sensory signals are non-existent
	or ignored.  Many deaf people have problems in the dark for
	this reason -- without a visual reference, they can lose their balance
	very easily.  But by the same token, they may be perfect candidates for
	a Coriolis-force environment!

--Ken (deaf, but with good balance -- I volunteer anyway!)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 18 Dec 88 04:34:19 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project


t seems there is some diffrences in usage of this term.  I propose
the term 'spaceplane' refer to any vehicle that can take off and
land using wing lift and can reach an altitude of more than 50
miles (80 km).  Type of propulsion and number of stages are
qualifiers to the basic term, as in the following examples:

Rocket powered spaceplane
The X-15 spaceplane was part of a two stage system, which included
a modified B-52 bomber as the first stage.
The NASP, also known as the X-30, is a single stage to orbit
spaceplane which uses air-breathing propulsion up to Mach 25. 


-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

------------------------------

Date: 18 Dec 88 04:13:07 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: was the lunar landing too soon?

In article <5892@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@zeta.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>     After years of buying the L5 party line, I came to believe that
> the entire US manned space effort of the 1960s - magnificent thought
> its accomplishments were - was a historical anomaly, decades before
> anything like it 'ought' to have happened. We didn't have, and still
> don't have, the capability or commitment or (most especially) *need*
> to do those things for which Apollo was a precursor. We don't even
> have a good reason for spending >$30G on a space station.
> 

The following is from my notes for a paper I am working on for the
next Princeton conference on space manufacturing:

The top speed of military aircraft, based on data from 1909 to 1967,
falls along a curve approximated by
                                 0.066(Year-1850)
     Top speed in miles/hour = e 

This equation correctly predicts aircraft with orbital capability about
1998, assuming the experimental X-30 flies about 1993, then allowing
five years to build an operational system.  Projecting further, to
Earth escape velocity (about what you need to go to the Moon), we
obtain the year 2003.  It is at this point that we might expect
expeditions to the Moon, since historically many exploration missions
were supported by the military.  The trends for civil transports
generally lag the military by about 30 years.

Some caveats about these trends:  they have no fundamental causes
to explain them, it is simply an empirical extrapolation.  The pace
of technology advancement versus the difficulty of getting to
higher speeds may have some hiccups in them, leading to earlier or
later dates than the predicted ones.

Making much longer range extrapolations (suitable for science fiction
and writers of books on what the future is like) we obtain:

Mars mission about 2020
Interstellar mission about 2140
Speed of light about 2158

Note that the speed of light is reached only 18 years after an interstellar
mission is reached.  Perhaps we learn how to FAX human beings.  All this
wild extrapolation is from the first 60 years of flight.



-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #166
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Dec 88 05:36:41 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00691> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 22 Dec 88 05:36:18 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 22 Dec 88 05:36:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QXgAooy00Ui3Q1ck4U>;
          Thu, 22 Dec 88 05:23:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.0XgAjNy00UkZ8:lU4J>;
          Thu, 22 Dec 88 05:18:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EXgAi6y00UkZ0-kE5d@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 88 05:16:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #167

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 167

Today's Topics:
	    Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation
   NASA's Office of Exploration releases annual report (Forwarded)
			Re: Spaceplane project
			Re: Spaceplane project
Pioneer orbiter's 10 years have revealed much about Venus (Forwarded)
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
Editors Note:  Magellan briefing and spacecraft showing Dec. 7 (Forwarded)
	    Liquid-air cycle rocket engine for spaceplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Dec 88 06:30:38 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation

In article <5892@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>In article <857@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:

>>It took a lot of convincing but they finally believed me.  In
>>seven more years, these kids will be 18 and most of their friends,
>>I'm afraid, will also doubt that in the late 60s, before they were
>>born, we succeeded in doing what we only dream about doing today.

>    After years of buying the L5 party line, I came to believe that
>the entire US manned space effort of the 1960s - magnificent thought
>its accomplishments were - was a historical anomaly, decades before
>anything like it 'ought' to have happened. 

I hope people will stash their emotions for a second and think about this.
It is probably true.  (NB: Many in the old L5, and a minority in the new NSS, 
agree with you).

>    Certainly I share the sense of wonder. 

As do I.  My first memory of watching *anything* on TV is watching the 
astronauts fly around the moon (Christmas '68) reading out of the book
of Genesis.  I will never forget it.

>    The problem is that 'soon' may mean 'in several decades'. Perhaps,
>horrid thought, 'in several centuries' (consider how long it took to
>get a *substantial* European presence in the Americas after Columbus,
>or perhaps Erickson(sp), for comparison purposes).

  Columbus set sail with several hundred men and founded a colony on his
second voyage, only 2 years after the first.  Granted, he didn't need the
high tech we do.  But the pace of technological growth is faster now; we
have millions of scientists as opposed to the few hundred back then.  
  Let's face it, how soon we get there is largely a roll of the dice.
We must roll it, and roll it often.  (This is not a joke.  This is how 
scientific discovery works--see Freeman Dyson's *Disturbing the Universe*).

>If true, most of us are unlikely to ever reach space,
>barring substantial and unpredictable progress in medicine & biology.

If your only motive is a personal desire to go into space, and you lack 
astronaut-class ambitions and skills, you may be out of luck.  If your
motive is a little bit more mature--to see the human race expand out into
space, and perhaps to wish that one's children may join in the Human 
Diaspora--then stick around, things are happening, and you can help make
them happen.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                          "Want oil?  Drill lots of wells."   
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu                J. Paul Getty

------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 88 17:13:27 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA's Office of Exploration releases annual report (Forwarded)

Edward Campion                                 December 19, 1988
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 11:00 a.m. EST


RELEASE:  88-172

NASA'S OFFICE OF EXPLORATION RELEASES ANNUAL REPORT


     NASA'S Office of Exploration (OEXP) today released the first 
in what will be a series of annual reports on the agency's 
planning efforts and the nation's current capabilities for future 
human exploration of the solar system.  The report, entitled 
"Beyond Earth's Boundaries - Human Exploration of the Solar 
System in the 21st Century," details OEXP's work over the past 
year to better understand the efforts required to comply with the 
National Space Policy directive to "expand human presence and 
activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system."

     One of the major conclusions in the report is that 
independent of what type of future exploration course is chosen, 
the United States must now lay the foundation by beginning a 
modest but vital effort in detailed research, technology 
development and concentrated studies in addition to a sustained 
commitment to the current ongoing NASA programs.  By pursuing a 
modest near-term investment of resources in the 1990s in long 
lead technologies and capabilities, the U.S. will preserve the 
ability to pursue a wide range of opportunities at the turn of 
the century.  

     Among the critical ongoing programs identified in the report 
are 1) the completion of Space Station Freedom which will serve 
as the key to developing the long duration capability to live and 
work in space, 2) the continuation of Project Pathfinder which 
builds the technology base of the U.S. civilian space exploration 
program, 3) the pursuit of a critical life sciences research 
program which will be the foundation for long duration human 
habitation of space for both Space Station Freedom and solar 
system exploration and 4) the continued development of more 
capable Earth-to-orbit transportation systems to increase the 
capability to transport equipment, propellant and personnel to 
low-Earth orbit.

     The report also identifies additional programs which must be 
initiated if the U.S. is to maintain its exploration options.  
These programs are in the areas of artificial gravity research 
and focused flight test and demonstration program.  The 
artificial gravity research must be started because if it is 
determined that an artificial gravity environment is needed for 
exploration, that requirement will have a significant impact on 
the space transfer vehicle configuration.  The focused test 
program is needed to understand and demonstrate the performance 
and capability of new technologies such as aerobraking, cryogenic 
propellant handling in space and highly advanced closed-loop-
life-support systems.

     To better understand the way all of these factors influence 
one another, OEXP examined four case studies that encompassed a 
broad range of objectives, requirements and capabilities.  All 
four addressed the prime directive of expanding human presence 
and activity beyond Earth orbit but, each emphasized a different 
pathway and destination.  

     One pathway examined is "Human Expeditions," which 
emphasizes a significant, visible, successful effort by humans to 
accomplish the first scientific exploration on another body in 
the solar system.  This type of approach is applied to two 
different case studies; one involving an exploration mission to 
Mars and the other an exploration mission to the Martian moon 
Phobos.

     A second pathway is "Science Outpost."  This approach also 
emphasized the advancement of scientific knowledge while gaining 
operational experience at an extraterrestrial outpost.  The case 
study chosen involves a human-tended lunar observatory on the far 
side of the moon.

     The final pathway studied is an "Evolutionary Expansion" 
approach that involves a methodical, step-by-step program to open 
the inner solar system for exploration, resource development and 
permanent human presence.  This approach is applied to a case 
study using the establishment of an outpost on the moon as a 
"stepping stone" to similar outposts on Mars and its moons.

     An in-depth discussion of this report is contained in a 
separate three-volume series entitled "Exploration Studies 
Technical Report:  FY 1988 Status," which will be available in 
early January 1989.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 88 23:44:03 GMT
From: agate!sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu!gckaplan@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (George Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <876@cmx.npac.syr.edu> anand@amax.npac.syr.edu (Anand Rangachari) writes:
>                 ... the Concorde also completely eliminates jet lag.

Would someone explain how crossing 5 timezones in 3 hours could
_eliminate_ jet lag? 

George C. Kaplan		gckaplan@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu
				...!ucbvax!sag4.ssl!gckaplan

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 18:45:00 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Michael Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <17777@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> gckaplan@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (George Kaplan) writes:
>In article <876@cmx.npac.syr.edu> anand@amax.npac.syr.edu (Anand Rangachari) writes:
>>                 ... the Concorde also completely eliminates jet lag.
>
>Would someone explain how crossing 5 timezones in 3 hours could
>_eliminate_ jet lag? 

Depends on what *really* causes jet lag.  There is some evidence that
it isn't so much the time-zone crossing that's the culprit.  Rather,
it's the stress and strain of spending 12 hours crammed into a tiny
little airline seat.  Being jammed elbow-to-elbow with a total stranger
on each side is definitely a stressful situation.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt           Video 7                ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
The electronic networks,  of course, have always been the terrorist's
most reliable ally, for they have never failed to bend over backwards
to give him what he craves: extravagant publicity.  --  Petr Beckmann

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 05:17:18 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Pioneer orbiter's 10 years have revealed much about Venus (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond                                     2:00 p.m. EST
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      Dec. 5, 1988

Peter W. Waller
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.

RELEASE:  88-165

PIONEER ORBITER'S 10 YEARS HAVE REVEALED MUCH ABOUT VENUS

     On Dec. 5, 1988, the Pioneer orbiter spacecraft will have 
spent 10 years circling Earth's cloud-draped twin planet, 
Venus.  Pioneer has continuously returned pictures of the planet 
and much other data and is still going strong.

     Scientists, engineers and other Pioneer team members will 
hold ceremonies Dec. 5 at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain 
View, Calif., to celebrate these accomplishments.

     On Dec. 9, it also will be 10 years since a companion 
spacecraft, Pioneer Venus 2, entered Venus' atmosphere along with 
four hard-impact probes it released.  The five probes measured 
the atmosphere from top to bottom on the planet's day and night 
sides and in its northern and southern hemispheres.

     Though other spacecraft have visited Venus, Pioneer's 
imminent completion of 3,652 24-hour-long orbits of Venus 
represents the first and most thorough survey of the planet yet 
made.  Work on the mass of Pioneer data, from both probes and 
orbiter, still continues to define the searing-hot planet and the 
mysteries of its behavior.  Pioneer's study may be the most 
intensive made of the atmosphere and weather of another planet.

     Pioneer's study of Venus has major implications for Earth. 
Though Venus is Earth's twin in many respects, the two planets 
differ in ways that are almost frightening.  For both its 
differences and similarities, Venus provides important insights. 
Long-term environmental effects, atmospheric processes, 
platetectonics, vulcanism and planetary magnetism, all are better 
understood because of Pioneer's studies.  From the dramatic 
differences between the planets comes a better understanding of 
the origins and evolution of both and what direction each may go.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 15:35:46 GMT
From: rti!ntcsd1!dmc@mcnc.org  (David Clemens)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations

In article <588@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes:
>
>I attended a lecture on space several years ago in which the speaker
>claimed that the rotating von Braun-style space stations (like the one
>in 2001) wouldn't work to provide artificial gravity.  He didn't
>explain why this was so, he just reported it as current knowledge.
>
>If this is true, can someone tell me why?  
>
   My roommate is taking a class on the problems we expect to encounter
in space exploration and he explained this to me the other night.

   Apparently, to get normal gravity, it would take a space station with 
a ring one mile in diameter, rotating at one revolution per minute. This
is not impossible,but it seems very unlikely to happen for some time.
Also, this space station would have to have several feet of shielding,
assuming moon soil as cheap shielding.

NOTE: This is from memory of a conversation several days ago. I have not
figured out the mathematics of the situation, nor do I intend to. I leave
it to the net users who love this kind of problem. I would like to hear the
results of anyone who actually works on this.

Disclaimer: The above ideas were the result of the head-on collision of two
       apparently random thought processes in the lower portion of my brain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  I'm not wierd, I'm normal...        | David Clemens                      |
|  The rest of the world is wierd.     | {backbone}mcnc!rti!ntcsd1!dmc      |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 05:20:24 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Editors Note:  Magellan briefing and spacecraft showing Dec. 7 (Forwarded)

[Posted because it might be of interest, although it has been edited to remove
some press instructions. -PEY]

Paula Cleggett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      

George H. Diller                             
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.

EDITORS NOTE:  MAGELLAN BRIEFING AND SPACECRAFT SHOWING DEC. 7

     The primary payload to be launched April 28, 1989, on the 
STS-30 Space Shuttle mission will be the topic of a briefing and 
photo opportunity on Wed., Dec. 7, noon EST, at Kennedy Space 
Center, Fla.

     Magellan, a spacecraft bound for Venus to radar map its 
surface, is in KSC's SAEF-2 planetary spacecraft checkout 
facility.  The spacecraft will be almost fully assembled.

     The briefing at the KSC news center will precede the showing. 
Participating will be Dr. Stephen Saunders, Magellan project 
scientist, and Gary Parker, Magellan spacecraft manager, both with 
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory; and Charlie Brown, director, 
Magellan project, Martin Marietta Astronautics Group. 

     After the briefing, media will be provided transportation and 
escort to the spacecraft cleanroom.  Because of Magellan's 
susceptibility to certain contaminants, those attending the showing 
are asked to refrain from using hairspray or makeup on the day of 
the event.  Also, long pants and low-heeled, closed-toed shoes will 
be required to access the cleanroom area.  White room attire will 
be provided.

Because access to the spacecraft is on a non- interference basis with
testing, media may wish to keep in touch with the news center to be
certain that there has been no change in the date or time of the
event.  The briefing will be carried on NASA Select television, Satcom
F2R, transponder 13, 72 degrees west longitude, with two-way question
and answer capability.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 19:28:37 GMT
From: boettche@gumby.wisc.edu  (Michael Boettcher)
Subject: Liquid-air cycle rocket engine for spaceplane

I have recently heard that there was some research done on a
liquid-air cycle rocket during the '60s.  Has anyone know of a source
of information about it?

The basic idea is that a rocket would liquify air, separate out the
nitrogen, and store/burn the oxygen rich air remainding.  A

An interesting idea that uses this would be for a spaceplane to be
launched with an air breathing engine.  It would take off horizontally
and rise to an altitude where the air is getting rarefied, or maybe a
little lower.  Air would be liquefied, separated, and stored.  In this
manner, the oxygen supply for a mission in low orbit or for an
"Oriental express" wouldn't have to be raised from the earth's
surface.  

Couldn't you get up to about 15km before you would have to start
carrying the bulk of your oxygen supply.  I realise that some of your
oxygen would be carried thru-out the flight.

What kind of problems would there be, other than system complexity?


*******************************************************************************
Michael Boettcher                 boettche@gumby.cs.wisc.edu
Student, Univ. of Wisconsin       107 N. Randall Apt. I
Applied Math, Engr. and Physics   Madison, WI 53715
*******************************************************************************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #167
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Dec 88 04:32:26 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04486>; Fri, 23 Dec 88 03:43:12 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 23 Dec 88 03:43:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4XgU:ly00Ui301gU4j>;
          Fri, 23 Dec 88 03:24:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.oXgU6Ey00UkZ8Jck5a>;
          Fri, 23 Dec 88 03:19:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EXgU3Xy00UkZ4JbU5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 88 03:16:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #168

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 168

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
	 Radio frequencies to listen for non US space events
			    Re: Quarantine
       Re: Fuel based explosions [was: Re: USSR and the Moon ]
			Re: Spaceplane project
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 88 22:40:36 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #422 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88340.82873259 0.00000159           18282-3 0  1717
2 00424  80.4634 116.4054 0022555 268.9896  90.8667 13.67033672306390
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88330.36898371 0.00000005           21343-1 0  6002
2 08820 109.8056 160.2982 0044607 359.3076   0.7529  6.38663924 37618
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88336.31493353 -.00000009                   0  1953
2 10061   6.6763  70.4865 0008768 171.9718 187.8885  1.00275899  3392
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88338.00755213 0.00000013                   0  9938
2 10684  63.4903 106.9129 0104180 197.7692 161.8494  2.00563011 64594
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88339.45786740 -.00000028                   0  9363
2 10893  64.5602 347.6886 0145216  28.7158 332.1212  2.00561854 77445
GOES 3     
1 10953U          88330.37933134 0.00000081           10000-3 0  5564
2 10953   5.5344  73.1583 0009063 224.1417 135.5442  1.00274639   575
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88339.23176054 0.00000728           30417-3 0   425
2 10967 108.0039 246.2990 0002281 252.8203 107.2686 14.34003258546132
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88336.78140864 -.00000028                   0  9604
2 11054  64.1193 344.2890 0050824 119.9882 240.5505  2.00560269 74400
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88338.38456879 0.00000013                   0   621
2 11141  63.4860 106.8034 0054990 323.1360  36.4662  2.00556362 73134
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88336.96730754 0.00000575           26016-3 0  7747
2 11416  98.4993 333.9233 0013224 334.1145  25.8956 14.25297630489809
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88337.04281821 0.00018985           53541-3 0  7581
2 11703  28.4997 211.2263 0002527 348.1310  11.9229 15.34939206489362
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88336.34755461 -.00000028                   0  8238
2 11783  63.9304 344.0175 0135178  63.0154 298.3962  2.00564179 63030
Cosmos 1176
1 11788U          88330.01646529 0.00000005           32179-4 0  8922
2 11788  64.8256 295.8187 0026130  77.7743 282.6282 13.92382872438847
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88333.33625256 0.00000079           10000-3 0   279
2 11964   4.9797  76.0959 0032645  90.6962 269.3848  0.99230211    37
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88334.21927956 -.00000252           10000-3 0  6544
2 12472   2.1597  84.5183 0004709 323.0924  36.5798  1.00316066 26609
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88339.57430831 0.00037042           96655-3 0  3688
2 12888  97.5930  17.9242 0003775 104.0867 256.1054 15.38722467398889
RS-08      
1 12998U          88335.48391433 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5522
2 12998  82.9609 344.5245 0020695  64.6599 295.6600 12.02966607305413
RS-05      
1 12999U          88334.45652468 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5448
2 12999  82.9568 339.6505 0011190  22.6920 337.4626 12.05061662305822
RS-07      
1 13001U          88331.45794496 0.00000012           10000-3 0  4199
2 13001  82.9596 331.4469 0020971 279.2945  80.5751 12.08707726306389
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88333.15691970 0.00000185           15664-3 0  6100
2 13113  82.5404 218.5104 0014274 270.6289  89.3232 13.83893836337436
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88340.74613570 0.00007248           21951-3 0  3425
2 13138  51.6112 179.9041 0001542 113.7680 246.2748 15.35208512378411
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88336.41454997 0.00000254           12839-3 0  7265
2 13718  81.2440 114.9992 0055358 200.6952 159.1973 14.13029945307627
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88338.17543069 0.00000119                   0  8678
2 14050   0.7864  85.4127 0000543  95.1158 179.4914  1.00267223  4647
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88340.33066523 0.00000012           10000-3 0  3651
2 14129  26.9089 291.6440 6045076 358.3466   2.4630  2.05881208 13229
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88338.43650601 0.00000012                   0  5872
2 14189  63.1261 105.4919 0131123 213.4261 145.7251  2.00575215 39513
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88335.06725275 0.00000349           14654-3 0  6712
2 14452  81.1625 133.0585 0095031 310.9194  48.3782 14.21897483264248
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88332.36539921 0.00000700           16539-3 0  5878
2 14780  98.2007  32.1745 0003475 129.3320 230.8191 14.57116055252175
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88339.61861940 0.00001183           24135-3 0  3700
2 14781  98.0343  37.9204 0012281 210.4884 149.5639 14.62630940254098
LDEF       
1 14898U          88335.11567525 0.00014780           36466-3 0  6791
2 14898  28.5157 125.5151 0002279 138.4840 221.5934 15.38948321260646
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88335.49694777 0.00000011                   0  6142
2 15039  62.8536 104.9124 0013595 290.0888  69.7505  2.00565135 32733
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88331.97133245 0.00000133           11120-3 0  9074
2 15099  82.5307 167.1888 0014583  83.3276 276.9554 13.83566642222154
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88335.89434310 -.00000029           10000-2 0  5513
2 15271  63.4232 343.8790 0098170 315.9051  43.3489  2.00560948 29850
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88337.96556630 0.00001556           23079-3 0  9374
2 15331  82.5389 159.3955 0026150   6.4394 353.7165 14.74287116225298
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88332.94382987 0.00000421           25247-3 0  3042
2 15427  99.1216 310.2221 0015248 155.1113 205.0795 14.11710060204057
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88332.76449633 0.00000108           92187-4 0   343
2 15516  82.5330 104.9647 0015972 325.4256  34.5920 13.83994270193195
Intelsat 5A
1 15629U          88333.87931590 -.00000155           10000-3 0  2077
2 15629   0.0572 265.5465 0004709 351.7070 102.8443  1.00270331   295
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88341.07161805 0.00011416           33928-3 0  1029
2 16095  51.6092 178.3298 0001394  97.2320 262.8524 15.35217381180132
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88335.55309271 0.00000012                   0  2835
2 16129  63.6458 105.3931 0115679 149.8467 210.8102  2.00566563 23050
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88333.09286078 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7913
2 16191  82.5500  17.9369 0021120  82.1091 278.2468 13.16851437149057
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88333.14915954 0.00000151           12589-3 0  4429
2 16408  82.5366  19.5370 0016966 140.4543 219.7858 13.84083128147746
Mir        
1 16609U          88336.31545794 0.00060305           44232-3 0  5591
2 16609  51.6237 288.6816 0024161 108.3900 251.9938 15.72153115160153
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88341.79914939 -.00000443          -19930-3 0  2789
2 16613  98.7227  53.1941 0001025  74.2216 285.9165 14.20022535 57391
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88333.15645064 0.00000229           19735-3 0  2654
2 16735  82.5371  46.2457 0013187 213.5525 146.4799 13.83817518126656
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88342.10024215 0.00010113           15245-2 0  4443
2 16881  82.5256 215.3490 0024084   8.3387 351.8391 14.74099553126988
EGP        
1 16908U          88341.93034980 -.00000009           24189-3 0  1127
2 16908  50.0113 169.1053 0011014 215.0872 144.9238 12.44374609105471
FO-12      
1 16909U          88339.90601680 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1214
2 16909  50.0134 175.5340 0011111 209.0123 150.9990 12.44396531105217
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88336.13099938 0.00000373           18361-3 0  1694
2 16969  98.6632   4.2245 0014593 102.3835 257.8978 14.22695208115774
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88333.05687075 0.00000108           92742-4 0  2036
2 17290  82.4669 315.0972 0013997 100.3941 259.8785 13.83625495 95802
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88340.01250232 -.00000202           10000-3 0  1987
2 17561   0.0474 266.0860 0007146 301.6818 152.2234  1.00247772  3642
Kvant      
1 17845U          88341.08210856 0.00056339           40561-3 0  6091
2 17845  51.6230 264.2584 0023784 128.2668 232.0282 15.72628439 97172
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88339.96443529 0.00062156           67800-1 0  5979
2 18129  82.9285  21.6204 0010455 226.8173 133.2179 13.71947348 72761
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88341.82097803 0.00099179  58337-5  16163-3 0  7779
2 18225  71.8957 212.0715 0010415 247.3818 114.2369 16.03137660    19
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88339.56974074 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  1948
2 18312  82.5617  13.7410 0013289  31.6493 328.5475 13.83380044 65606
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88332.77698309 0.00000182           15331-3 0   685
2 18820  82.5416  80.6071 0017912 112.0788 248.2278 13.84056938 41821
AO-13      
1 19216U          88336.18163088 0.00000092           10000-3 0   212
2 19216  57.4138 229.6234 6614723 194.6567 128.1375  2.09696746  3575
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88338.04540578 0.00000391           10000-2 0   823
2 19336  82.5489 314.4295 0015092 309.2529  50.7246 13.16846669 17096
Soyuz TM-6 
1 19443U          88341.08210810 0.00056329           40561-3 0  1035
2 19443  51.6219 264.2570 0023987 128.2099 232.0762 15.72617924 97173
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88338.32776983 0.00000381           23348-3 0   247
2 19531  98.9170 277.5426 0013304  65.1039 295.1509 14.10694945  9859
1988 095A  
1 19596U          88325.50519799 0.00000185           10000-3 0   292
2 19596   1.4172 275.8363 0005873 119.0477 241.0598  1.00275083   323
1988 096A  
1 19608U          88327.67106178 -.00000860           35673-2 0   281
2 19608  62.8986 250.6872 7352697 316.3500   4.9169  2.00600287   589
1988 096B  
1 19609U          88330.07134736 0.21214262  43563-4  36079-3 0   745
2 19609  62.8244 139.0310 0026509 120.4861 240.1610 16.45144868  4795
1988 096C  
1 19610U          88314.40142080 0.27407233  43370-4  28483-3 0   392
2 19610  62.8305 198.9835 0047875 123.2004 238.4435 16.45144510  2326
1988 096D  
1 19611U          88329.66641791 0.00000249           10000-3 0   278
2 19611  62.8940 250.3247 7320246 316.3326   5.0658  2.04253477   648
1988 098A  
1 19621U          88335.85857568 -.00000119           10000-3 0    95
2 19621   0.0431 277.6157 0003607 326.0318 116.3664  1.00270680   295
1988 101A  
1 19647U          88341.81572425 0.00003436           58898-4 0   319
2 19647  65.0195  31.7325 0009853 272.3196  87.6615 15.52016437  2921
1988 102A  
1 19649U          88341.99981264 -.00000107          -47322-4 0   207
2 19649  71.0023 304.2554 0003636  38.0496 322.0983 14.12301385  1898
1988 102B  
1 19650U          88333.42322413 0.00000086           55460-4 0    96
2 19650  71.0025 322.1557 0015318 206.1648 153.8718 14.14208722   686
1988 103A  
1 19651U          88341.78594457 0.00120533  92031-5  10589-3 0   244
2 19651  62.8127 188.0345 0031571  76.6979 283.7674 16.11749268  1968
1988 103B  
1 19652U          88342.08197693 0.01798527  40844-4  96233-3 0   328
2 19652  62.7937 187.3032 0040137 130.2002 230.4076 16.17396951  2008
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          88342.09880793 0.00049440           35549-3 0   182
2 19660  51.6232 259.0453 0023547 131.0795 229.2472 15.72721219  1655
1988 105A  
1 19662U          88341.82578422 0.00000214           33963-5 0   149
2 19662  69.9921 228.9968 0049197 205.4088 154.4800 15.62362385  1018
1988 105B  
1 19663U          88342.11361191 0.01965821  20279-4  10647-2 0   181
2 19663  69.9881 227.1537 0081346  52.9047 308.3422 16.11856818  1080
1988 106A  
1 19670U          88341.73958333 0.00009701           25599-3 0   189
2 19670  56.9883 171.7707 0005067 318.4528 301.6567 15.39175355   634
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 88 12:02:58 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Radio frequencies to listen for non US space events

     A recent letter to me by Chris Sylvain at the University of Maryland
suggested that a number of people on Space Digest would like the to know the
best frequencies on shortwave to pick up information on the Soviet space
program.  As this is Christmas some of you may be getting receivers that
will also pick up shortwave.  Radio Moscow and the British Broadcast Corp
signals are currently your best bet.
     Radio Moscow is a very strong signal but they change their broadcast
frequencies very often (and do not give them often in the program).  Right now 
the best frequencies are 7115 and 7150 KHz between 6:00 pm and 11 pm EST,
7165 Khz 11: pm > 2 am EST, 11840 KHz 8:30 am? - 11 am EST for Radio Moscow
on the east coast.  The best time for space info is in the 10 minute news on 
the hour, though listen for special programs in the listing they
give just after the news.  That usually occurs when big events are going on,
like the landing of the Soyuz today.  Please let me know if you find other
useful ones (especially in the morning about 7 am).  There is still a lot
of propaganda there, but the news content on space is way up in recent years.
Let me show you how crazy things have gotten on RM recently compared to the 
high propaganda days.  There was a recent "promo" on the shortwave by them,
done in the "Epiglottal Push" voice used by DJ's here, which said "Now, coming
to you straight from the Bear's mouth, this is Radio Moscow" and breaking into
a jingle of "49 meters on your dial".  Fortunately they have stopped that.
     The BBC is also excellent for following space programs, both Russian
and European Space Agency.  The best news currently there is at 5975 or 6175
KHz at 10 pm EST).
     In the morning the Canadian Broadcast Corp has a good international news 
at 8 am on weekdays at 9635 Khz. They also have a short wave listeners broadcast
at 8:30 am one day a week, and a nice science program at that time slot on
other days (sorry I forget which days - I usually have left for work by then).
     Happy listening.  Seasons greetings to you.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 88 22:54:07 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Quarantine

In article <8812020833.aa08883@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") writes:
>Remember the laughable attempts to "quarantine" the returning
>Apollo astronauts ?  After a week or two so many support staffers
>would be exposed and moved into quarantine that it would be too
>damned crowded.

Mind you, this sometimes had its beneficial side.  One geologist who
ended up in quarantine because of accidental contamination found that
it was a priceless, otherwise unavailable, opportunity to talk to the
astronauts at length about what they found and saw.

>What was the problem ?  What was learned ?  Can we be sure we
>won't get nailed my a Martian bug that has a very long incubatin
>period ?

One can take arbitrary levels of precautions.  However, as one SF author
(unfortunately, I don't have my library handy and don't remember just who
it was) pointed out decades ago, the only way to be *sure* is to make the
first trip a one-way colonizing expedition, with no return trips for a
generation or two.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 88 18:37:40 GMT
From: texbell!uhnix1!sugar!peter@bellcore.com  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Fuel based explosions [was: Re: USSR and the Moon ]

In article <2735@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes:
> It does remind me of the experiment that the Air Force (I think) did
> where they deliberately crashed a plane to test a new jet fuel mixture.
> The mixture supposable wouldn't ignite as easily when a place crashed and
> the fuel was spread out in a fine spray.  From the news footage, it didn't
> look as if it worked very well.

The problem is that they landed the plane slightly crooked and the knives
that were supposed to rip open the fuel tanks ripped open one of the
engines. The mixture was not designed to deal with the much higher temperatures
and exposed super-hot metal parts in the engine, so the initial flames
went out but when the leaking fuel reached the engine it was re-ignited.
-- 
		    Peter da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net
		     Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?

	          Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn busines#!rne

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 00:21:40 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <2091@puff.cs.wisc.edu>, boettche@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Boettcher) writes:
> In article <1155@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
> >In article <11884@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> ><Is the spaceplane the same thing Reagan put in one of his TV speeches, the
> 
> Wasn't this plane supposed to have a "SCRAM jet" engine.  An engine
> that starts out producing thrust staticaly, then when the forward
> velocity was great enough, it would convert into a ram type engine.
> When the atmosphere become too thin to support combustion, the engine
> would convert to a rocket engine with its own supply of oxygen.


u've got at least two different engines mixed together there.

A scramjet is a variation on a typical ramjet in that the air passing
through the engine need not be slowed down so much to operate.  SCRAM
being "supersonic combustion ram" jet.  Since a ramjet needs to have
air moving through it rather briskly to function, you need something
else to start off with.

A "turbo-ramjet" starts out as a turbojet, and given enough forward
speed, retracts (or something) its turbine rotor/stator blades and
acts like a ramjet.  The reverse as it slows down.  Sort of a 
reversible sex-change operation.

The HOTOL engine may be of this type, with on-board oxidizer for
use as the air outside got to be too thin.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #168
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Dec 88 05:58:34 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00596>; Fri, 23 Dec 88 05:36:10 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 23 Dec 88 05:36:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4XgVuWy00jZdQ1F05A>;
          Fri, 23 Dec 88 05:23:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.gXgVr7y00UkZ4Jmk4f>;
          Fri, 23 Dec 88 05:19:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXgVojy00UkZQJlU4g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 88 05:17:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #169

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:
       Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]
			    JPL Open House
		Re: Alternative to launching a Shuttle
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
		       Glasnost strikes again.
		     Re: Private Space Operations
		Re: Alternative to launching a Shuttle
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
		Re: Alternative to launching a Shuttle
			Re: Spaceplane project
			Re: Spaceplane project
	     Re: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 23:39:43 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]

In article <2735@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, doug@primo.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes:
> In article <79302@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
> >Have you ever heard about a fuel/air bomb?  Small charge speads out
> >an aerosol of some liquid fuel, then an igniter sets off the cloud.
> >Extremely potent for a given weight of bomb.
> 
> I would think that the initial explosion would ignite the fuel before
> it's had a chance to spread out that fine.

As long as the initiator produces more shock than heat, until enough
air mixes with the fuel, there won't be an explosion.  A lot like
setting up conditions for a grain silo explosion.  (Or disposing of
weevil-infested flour in a burning incinerator.  Don't ask.)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 88 15:57:07 GMT
From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kian-Tat Lim)
Subject: JPL Open House

I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate all the members of
the JPL community on their handling of the JPL Open House yesterday and, more
importantly, on their substantial achievements in Earth and planetary science.

Though some of the people I spoke to were disappointed in the past setbacks of
the U.S. space program and were wary of changes to come with the new
Administration, they were uniformly excited about their work and happy to be
exploring the "final frontier".

One interesting facet of the visit was the plethora of slick, often computer-
animated videos.  Obviously NASA has realized that investment in
public/Congressional relations yields the greatest rate of return :-).

--
Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 17:27:39 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Alternative to launching a Shuttle

In article <4683@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>  I understand Hermes is supposed to be much smaller than the shuttle
>or Buran.  Might this be practical for it?  (Probably not it the
>"first stage" aircraft has to be supersonic.)

But then there have been a lot of rumors circulating
recently that the French are talking about a "Concorde II".

But not, alas, big enough to launch Hermes from.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 23:06:31 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations

In article <QXb2s0y00WB70P9FN4@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
[...]
>
>However say we had 10 rpms, or (w=10rpm *2pi/60=1.05m), then
>r=9.8/(1.05)^2 =8.89m, not all that large is it?

I've been in a slow rotation room of this size. I was ready to throw up
after about 15 minutes, as the ear problems are proportional to the rotation
rate (I think). You can adapt to it in time, but then you can't shift between
a non-rotating and rotating frame quickly...

The real question is this: do we need 1g? Can we live with just 1/6 g? That
would provide a good compromise size and rotation rate.

-- greg

p.s. Yes, I wasn't moving around much as I was in 1.4 g's and there wasn't
a flat surface to walk on. We don't have a SRR in space -- yet.

----------
Greg Lindahl                                    internet:  gl8f@virginia.edu
University of Virginia Department of Astronomy    bitnet:  gl8f@virginia.bitnet
"When a 300' dish falls in the woods, and nobody hears, does it make a sound?"

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 13:02:20 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Glasnost strikes again.

An interesting note from the BBC CEFAX space pages.
(Page 265 for anyone who can get BBC2)

The # character is the pound sterling symbol.

------------------------------------------

The Soviet travel agency, Intourist,
has said that for #999 per person
they could arrange a week's package
"space" trip to Russia next summer.

The trip would include the Cosmonaut
training centre at Star City and
Soviet Mission Control at Kaliningrad,
both just outside Moscow.

The huge water tank where cosmonauts
train for walking in space and several
space museums would also be seen.

It seems that a package to the Baikonur
cosmodrome is in the planning stage.

------------------------------------------

If anyone is interested, I'll post more details if
and when they appear.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 10:25:10 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!stl!stc!iclbra!siesoft!cfb@uunet.uu.net  (cfb)
Subject: Re: Private Space Operations

Hi there all,

If you look in the sci.astro newsgroup, you'll see a recently formed
organization called Group 70.   They have legal status, leaders, members,
fund gathering methods, etc.   Their aim is to build a 70 inch reflecting
telescope for amateurs.   This instrument is intended for serious work and
has serious specifications (so I read).

A private spaceplane project will, of course, be a lot bigger.   However, if
scale is the only factor (is it? - I'm not sure), then surely a similar thing
could be done for a spaceplane.   Maybe communication with some of the Group
70 leaders could provide some insight.   It would do no harm.

Cheers for now,

Chris F. Broadbent		...!mcvax!ukc!siesoft!cfb
				<cfb@siesoft.uucp>

"I am certain we shall soon be hearing a human voice coming from space -
and that it will have an unmistakable Russian accent."
Werhner von Braun speaking to a Congressional Commitee on Space - Nov. 1959.

Addresses:	email - ...!mcvax!ukc!siesoft!cfb
			<cfb@siesoft.uucp>

		snail - (W)  Siemens Ltd.
			     Woodley House
			     65-73 Crockhamwell Rd.
			     Woodley, Reading
			     Berks. RG5 3JP
			     England

		Phone (W) **44 - 734 - 443 044
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 22:32:06 GMT
From: dswinney@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (David V. Swinney)
Subject: Re: Alternative to launching a Shuttle

Actually, early plans were to have a "fly-back booster" for the shuttle.

Development costs got a bit out of hand so, like much else, the cheaper
booster/tank arrangement was chosen...

dvs

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 17:35:35 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations

In article <588@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes:
[about 2001 style space stations.]
>.... the difference in
>gravity between one's head and feet would be so noticeable and
>disorienting as to be disabling.

The 2001 space stations were meant to be half a mile in
diameter, large enough that the differences in rotational
had no effect. I haven't heard of any reason why stations
that size wouldn't work.

>If it isn't true, why doesn't anyone (read "the Soviets") have a
>rotating space station?

Even the soviets would have a problem putting up a station
of that size. At present.

And the level of technology in 2001 was considered realistic
for the year 2001 when the film was originaly released.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 16:30:28 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Alternative to launching a Shuttle

>From article <4683@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus):
> 
>   I understand Hermes is supposed to be much smaller than the shuttle
> or Buran.  Might this be practical for it?  (Probably not it the
> "first stage" aircraft has to be supersonic.)

So small that, like the Soviet Shuttle, its on board propulsion is
limited to something like and OMS system. In other words, the launch
plane would have to carry the core of an Ariane-5 plus the Hermes.

Hermes is intended to be launched by the Ariane-5, a two stage liquid
fuel rocket with strap on solid fuel boosters. Drawings of the Hermes
stacked on the Ariane-5 look so much like drawings of the X-20
Dynasoar stacked on a Titan-3 that they make you just want to cry.

Just goes to show that you can't kill a good idea.

		Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 88 16:00:00 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

>From article <1988Nov30.172109.17205@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):

> The Aerospace Plane has turned into another of those all-things-to-all-users
> projects ...

Say what? You want to expound on this? Or is this just another of your
"It's being done in the US and DOD is involved so it's garbage" postings?

> I can't even remember the latest official word on whether the
> X-30, which is the only actually funded part of it, is supposed to be
> capable of reaching orbit or not.

Last thing I saw, in the most recent AW&ST buried in an article on
metal matrix composites, mentioned trying for orbit in the x-30. Most
of the AW&ST coverage of the X-30 is hidden in technology development
articles. Which makes sense considering that right now the X-30 is a
technology development program.

It turns out that composites made of titanium or aluminum with
silicon-carbide fiber have some amazing properties. I won't try to
quote them from memory. But, they are in the ballpark of what you want
for a space plane hull that has to operate at mach 25. Of course the
are also expensive. It is hoped that the price can be lowered below a
few hundred dollars per pound.  Silicon carbide fiber by its self, not
the finished composite, currently costs $2500/pound.

On the original subject of this thread: If you folks can come up with
a technology for a reentry vehicle that you can AFFORD to build as a
personal project, you will have done the world a great service. Of
course we've all heard about using kiln dried oak for ablative heat
shields.

I'd really like to see a more detailed statement of what you folks are
trying to do.

			Bob P.


-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 22:32:38 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <1988Dec5.184631.2218@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> The problem with the Aerospace Plane program as a whole -- not specifically
> the X-30 -- is that it wants to be (a) a hypersonic airliner, (b) a similar
> hypersonic military super-SR-71, presumably for reconnaissance or nuclear
> strike [which is what the S in SR-71, nee RS-71, originally stood for],
> (c) a cheap launcher, (d) a fast-reaction hardened military launcher,
> (e) a not-too-long-term replacement for the Shuttle, (f) a hypersonic-
> technology development project, and (g) an aeronautics-technology
> development project.  Oh, and let us not forget (h) a cash cow for aerospace
> contractors.  (The difference between (c) and (e) is operations cost versus
> delivery date.  The difference between (f) and (g) is hypersonic planes
> versus computer simulation of aerodynamics and such.  The difference
> between (f)/(g) and (h) is whether you're interested in results or in
> empire-building and corporate welfare.)

Is some of the confusion coming out of press reports that lump a whole
series of different project under a single heading?

It looks to me as though the X-30 fits f&g, which then could lead to
something farther down the line (Copper Canyon?) for b&d, as well as
a separate commercial airliner a (eventually), and yet a third project
aiming at c/e.  Item (h) seems to be trying to worm in on all the
above.  :{

I recently read (where?) that someone involved with the X-30 was,
somewhat exasperatedly, pointing out that NASP and the X-30 were only
peripherally related projects, and anyway "hypersonic airliners were
probably out of the question in the foreseeable future since the
airlines really didn't want to go to the expense of dealing with
cryogenic fuels...", roughly.

> I can believe reasonable results coming out of a program aimed at
> *one* of those objectives.  I might believe two, possibly even
> three.  But all of them???

Not in this current universe.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 17:24:45 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario

>From article <8812010536.AA03270@crash.cts.com>, by jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery):
> Here's another possible Shuttle disaster:

Ok folks, let's see how absurd we can get about generating
technological failures that lead to the end of civilization as we know
it.

How about:

A 747 fully loaded with people and fuel loses all hydraulic and
electrical power. It crashes into the astrodome while the supper bowl
is being played. The 747 crashes on the 50 yard line and everyone in
the stands is burned alive in realtime on national TV.

To make it interesting the UN Gernal assembly is holding a special
session in the stands to experience a "unique Amercan cultural event."
All the member nations decide that the crash was a plot by the CIA.

The result, global war. All of them against the USA ....

Jim, what is the purpose of these postings?

			Bob P.

P.S.

If you couldn't tell, the purpose of my posting was to parady Jims
postings.

Maybe I ought to stop reading this group. It's really starting to get
to me.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #169
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Dec 88 04:24:53 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03873>; Sat, 24 Dec 88 03:39:17 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 24 Dec 88 03:39:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kXgpG3y00UkTE3o04K>;
          Sat, 24 Dec 88 03:25:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.EXgp=ey00UkZMPI05d>;
          Sat, 24 Dec 88 03:18:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cXgp9ly00UkZQPGk4F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 88 03:16:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #170

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 170

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Quarantine
			Re: Spaceplane project
			Will they ever learn?
			Re: Spaceplane project
		 Re: Relativity acceleration question
		  Re: VIVE La FRANCE et les RUSSE !!
			 Re: martian diseases
		      Re: Advanced Launch System
			Re: Spaceplane project
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 88 18:04:34 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: Quarantine

In article <8812020833.aa08883@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") writes:
>
>Remember the laughable attempts to "quarantine" the returning
>Apollo astronauts ?  After a week or two so many support staffers
>would be exposed and moved into quarantine that it would be too
>damned crowded.
>
>What was the problem ?  What was learned ?  Can we be sure we
>won't get nailed my a Martian bug that has a very long incubatin
>period ?

Yes we can!  'Bugs' have developed on earth to take advantage of what resources are
around.  They are very specific in most cases and most would disappear if their 
host were to disappear.  Smallpox is preety much gone from the planet because
the WHO vaccine drive left the bug with no host to propagate the species.
A moon bug having the ability to infect an human would have to be similiar to 
earth bound bugs that invade *anything* such as ameoba or protazoa.  These
are kept in check by the bodies imune system.   I would presume that a moon
bug or a martian bug would be much happier on the moon or mars than on this
hostile, alien world called earth.
What was the reason for the quarantining those astronauts?  Was it a 'better safe
than sorry' attitude?  Who at NASA thought a virulent, human invading bug existed
on the lunar surface exposed to open space and a lot of nasty radiation?

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 17:47:30 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <8121@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <126@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Michael Van Pelt) writes:
>>Depends on what *really* causes jet lag.  There is some evidence that
>>it isn't so much the time-zone crossing that's the culprit.  Rather,
>>it's the stress and strain of spending 12 hours crammed into a tiny
>>little airline seat.  Being jammed elbow-to-elbow with a total stranger
>>on each side is definitely a stressful situation.
>
>If this were the case, passengers on lengthy north-south flights
>(say, New York to Santiago) ought to suffer from jet lag just as
>east-west passengers do.  Does this in fact occur?  I don't seem to
>be susceptible myself so my personal observations don't apply.

If the strain of the travel were the problem, we would have heard of 
something like 'train lag' or 'bus lag'.
I am pretty sure that the cause of 'jet lag' is the confusion of 
the individual's 24 hour biological clock.  Yes sitting on a plane
for 12 hours will cause stress but your body gets stressed if you
break the 24 hour cycle it is used to.  We all know the feeling when
we get up monday morning at 6AM after sleeping 'til noon on Saturday
and Sunday, even without any serious partying.  Your 24 hour biological
clock knows when it is time to sleep, eat, etc... and if you change time
zones and you are eating when you would have been sleeping and visa-versa,
your body will be expecting you to do what you normally would be doing 
according to your own cycle.  Adjusting your clock takes a day or more
depending on the number of zones crossed.  Taking a spaceplane to Tokyo
or a 747 won't make the lag any better or worse since your clock will still
be off by the same amount.  One trick I've heard of that seems to work
is to adjust your clock beforehand by sleeping later or waking earlier and
eating at adjusted times (shifting about 1-2 hours/day until you are 
within a few hours of the new time-zone's schedule.  One more thing
and then I'll stop: Traveling west to east seems to cause a more 
severe jet lag then traveling east to west.  I think it has to do with
ones ability to move a biological clock backward more easily (by staying
awake longer) than moving it forward (going to sleep earlier).

jim

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 14:48:09 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk!eagle.ukc.ac.uk!icdoc!doc.ic.ac.uk!brwk@uunet.uu.net  (Bevis King)
Subject: Will they ever learn?

In Message <13719@oberon.USC.EDU> kriz%skat@oberon.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) says:
>etc and get the chemicals he/she wants. So the most imporant thing the
>station needs is a decent power source. If a 120 V, 60 hz (along with possibly
>a 200 V industrial) electrical power source were made available in the station,
 ..........
>easier ways of doing this ... develop a cheap adapter between space based 
>power and the earth based standard...  But the idea **has** to be to avoid 
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I hate to be picky but....

	FLAME ON

	120 Volts 60Hz is NOT A WORLD STANDARD

	I DO WISH THE AMERICANS WOULD REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE NOT
	THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD... JUST SOMETIMES... FOR A
	CHANGE...

	FLAME OFF

If anything, 220 Volts 50Hz is far more common; the US, Canada, and
Japan being among very few notable exceptions...

Ok, so I'm no one to talk, coming from the UK where our power is
240 Volts 50Hz, but at least in almost all cases the equipment
will interwork... but then again I can charge the batteries for
by portable CD player in Europe, Australia, etc., where I couldn't
in Japan (where the player was made... strange that...)

Sorry to complain... but it really does annoy me.  Don't worry,
I'll be quiet now... Honest.

Regards, Bevis.

Bevis King, Systems Programmer        |   Email:  brwk@doc.ic.ac.uk
Dept of Computing, Imperial College   |   UUCP :  ..!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!brwk
180 Queens Gate, London, SW7 2BZ, UK. |   Voice:  +44 1 589 5111 x 5085
          "Never argue with a computer" ... Avon (Blake's 7)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 03:10:13 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

If the spaceplane is supposed to make access to LEO cheap, okay.

But if it's supposed to be an airliner, that's just nuts.

Whatever it is, if we go ahead with it, I think the engine should be
changed.  It should be something safer, like the Amroc engine. Liquid
oxygen, and a solid fuel.  Considering the time-frame in which it would
be introduced, and it's impact on the economy, I think the ideal fuel
would be U.S. currency.  Just skip the middleman and use it directly.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 88 22:27:48 GMT
From: att!poseidon!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Re: Relativity acceleration question

<"He seemed like such a nice man . . . and then he turned out to be a writer!">

In article <11986@bellcore.bellcore.com>, karn@jupiter..bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
> The atomic clocks on the Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation
> satellites are adjusted to compensate for relativistic effects. Because they
> are mostly out of the earth's gravity well, they run slightly faster in
> orbit than on the earth's surface.

There are two (or maybe three) kinds of relativistic effects here.
Phil describes one:  the GPS satellites aren't as affected by the
Earth's gravity as terrestrial clocks.  A second is that the satellites
are moving at fairly high speeds, and with an accurate enough clock
(which we have in this case:-), you can detect the Lorentz (-like)
transformation contraction of how fast the clocks run.

Something else to consider is that the satellites are constantly
accelerating (toward the Earth, due to gravity).  I don't know if this
is part of the first effect, or the second, or yet another factor.

Paul S. R. Chisholm, psrc@poseidon.att.com (formerly psc@lznv.att.com)
AT&T Bell Laboratories, att!poseidon!psrc, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 88 17:40:58 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: VIVE La FRANCE et les RUSSE !!

In article <oXcKaty00Xod49pkVv@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>Mrs Thatcher, we got you !! Anything you are doing to sink us won't
>work, Europe (and the French) will get ahead.

But Mrs T. would simply explain again that the French are
FAR behind the British. The French and the rest of Europe
are spending "vast sums of money" on "expensive joy-rides"

Sensible, thatcherite Britain isn't wasting money on
anything like this which will never show a profit, and is
attempting to enlighten the other ESA members.

[The current attitude of the British Government. Not Mine.]

If this doesn't work, she will simply pass a few laws
enforcing this position.


Not that much would be neded. Total coverage on British TV
of the Soviet/French mission has consisted of a five second
clip of the space walk hidden in the middle of a fifty
minute News programme on one of the minority channels. As
far as the rest of the TV stations are concerned, the flight
isn't happening. (Too close to home I think).
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 88 15:20:18 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: martian diseases

What I remember as being a little funny when the Apollo 11 astronauts
returned from the moon was the guy who followed them around when they got
out of the helicopter, waved to the news media, and entered the quarantine
trailer.  This guy was spraying some kind of disinfectant (probably bleach)
to kill off any possible moon bugs.  What a hoot!  Like a bug that lives and
therefore thrives temperature extremes, UV and cosmic radiation, and an
atmosphereic pressure of zero would be bothered by a little bleach.  Martian
bugs would live in soil which is so highly reactive that when water was poured
on it during the Viking lander experiments, it exploded giving off oxygen(?).
Now I doubt t doubt that any bugs live on either world and if they did, they would find
the earth so inhospitable that they would die.  But for those who are so
worried that some kind of Andromeda Strain will kill us all, think about
how you are going to contain and kill it.  I'm keeping a can of Lysol handy
just in case (:^}).

jim

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 17:50:35 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Advanced Launch System

In article <2228@ilium.cs.swarthmore.edu> leif@ilium.UUCP (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes:
>  I would like to point out that the components we use her on Earth are used at
>STP. i.e. at standard pressure, 1 atm, temperature, 25 C, stress, and so forth.
>In space it is much different.

Not inside a space station, it's not.

>a) under conditions other than in lab do not react the same. i.e. radio shack
>resistors can be quite sensitive to temperature changes, especially when the
>change is to the 20K of space (or 400K if it's in the sun)

I almost hate to point this out, but Radio Shack *computers* have already
flown in space, quite successfully.  No, they weren't specially built or
modified, either.

>b) they are very unreliable. their accuracy is not good (usually a resistance
>is given with a standard deviation of them having 10% error)...
>...Very accurate resistors are much more expensive...

This is not just a characteristic of Radio Shack resistors; tolerances of
5% or 10% are normal for resistors used in most electronics.  Not just
consumer electronics, either.  Anything more precise than 5% is a "precision
resistor", used only in circuits where the precision really matters (very
few).  It is part of the job of an electronics engineer to build circuits
that work even if the components vary a bit, because they always do.  If
you think resistors are bad, look at the tolerances for normal industrial-
electronics capacitors or transistors some time.  (Assuming you can even
find specs on the tolerances -- half the time, things like the beta of a
transistor are just given as "typical" values, and if you ask for promises
about tolerance you get laughed at.)

>...if I want a circuit where I can
>trust a billion dollar spacecraft to it, I need that resistance to be exact.

Usually not true.  Very few circuits actually need highly precise resistors.
Again, it's the job of a competent engineer to know where it matters and
where it doesn't.  5% tolerance is plenty good enough for most resistors,
even in critical applications.

I also note that very few circuits aboard that billion-dollar satellite
(must be built by the US government, nobody else gold-plates them like
that... :-)) will actually be critical to its survival.  That's how Radio
Shack computers got aboard the shuttle -- in non-critical roles.

>"Isolate everything in an Earthlike environment, then you can use mundane
>hardware to solve the problems of space."...
>One still has to have an interface with the hostile environment of space, and
>if the bubble protecting the fragile guts of one's spacecraft breaks...
>nothing works.

The same is true of many applications on Earth.  Ask your local computer
center what happens if their air conditioning breaks.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 18:12:33 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

>From article <1988Dec5.184631.2218@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> In article <1127@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:

>>Or is this just another of your
>>"It's being done in the US and DOD is involved so it's garbage" postings?
> 
> A curious statement, since that's not a position I take.  (I do take the
> position that DoD is essentially unable to build reliable, cost-effective
> high technology, but that's not quite the same thing.)

It's an attitude that I have come to associate with you as a result of
reading your postings for the last few years. I'm glad to find that
I'm wrong in this case. The fact is, as written it would be hard to
disagree with your position.

> The problem with the Aerospace Plane program as a whole -- not specifically
> the X-30 -- is that it wants to be (a) a hypersonic airliner, (b) a similar
> hypersonic military super-SR-71, presumably for reconnaissance or nuclear
> strike [which is what the S in SR-71, nee RS-71, originally stood for],
> (c) a cheap launcher, (d) a fast-reaction hardened military launcher,
> (e) a not-too-long-term replacement for the Shuttle, (f) a hypersonic-
> technology development project, and (g) an aeronautics-technology
> development project. 
> 
> I can believe reasonable results coming out of a program aimed at *one*
> of those objectives.  I might believe two, possibly even three.  But all
> of them???

Currently the Aeorspace Plane program, and the X-30 specifically, are
technology development programs. The decision to go ahead and build
the X-30 has not been made, and isn't scheduled to be made until 1990.

Projects a-e in your list are specific development projects that all
require a similar base of technology before they can be begun. For
that matter, before it is even possible to decide that they can be done.

Projects f and g are needed to develop the technology that will allow
us to do projects a-e. Currently, f and g are under way. The X-30
provides a target for these projects. You need a specific target as
reality check. The X-30, if built, will a be an experimental aircraft,
not a prototype of anything else.

The fact that all theose different things, your projects a-e, are
mentioned in conjunction with the X-30, and the Aerospace Plane
program, is simply part of the way you get political support for a
costly research and development project; You hype the applications of
the technology you are trying to develop.

			Bob P.

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #170
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Dec 88 06:11:09 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00537>; Sat, 24 Dec 88 05:32:15 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 24 Dec 88 05:32:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IXgr00y00UkTQ1I041>;
          Sat, 24 Dec 88 05:23:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.oXgqvoy00UkZ4PRE4L>;
          Sat, 24 Dec 88 05:18:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXgqtxy00UkZEPQ04i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 88 05:16:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #171

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 171

Today's Topics:
			Re: Spaceplane project
	      Aerospace plane, and cheap access to orbit
			    "Star Blazers"
	     Re: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario
		      Re: Advanced Launch System
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
		      Re: Advanced Launch System
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 17:07:19 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

>From article <1988Dec10.235322.27179@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> In article <1141@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:

>>Projects f and g are needed to develop the technology that will allow
>>us to do projects a-e....
> 
> I agree about f (hypersonic technology); I am not so sure about g (aeronautics
> technology).  I have a sneaking suspicion that the Aerospace Plane could be
> built -- using different approaches and possibly on a different schedule
> and budget, mind you -- without most of it, 

Hate to have to break up your sentence like this, but it is a bit
long.

If what you are looking for is a cheap way to put payloads in orbit
right now, the aerospace plane is not the way to do it. There are many
published studies (look in Aeronautics & Astronautics, now Aerospace
America over the last over the last 20 years) that show that a simple
two stage rocket powered vehicle is the way to go. With both stages
winged, and possibly manned, for complete recovery and reuse, coupled
with airline style operations, you get a system that is cheap to use
and cheap to build. Not to mention one that can be built using
existing technology.

An alternative that shows promise is to build very large single stage
to orbit vehicles and operate them like ocean going ships. Build them
in ship yards, launch from the ocean, and land on the ocean. Use tugs
to move them in and out of ports.

If what you are looking for is something that might be cheap in twenty
years, the aerospace plane is the way to go.

In other words, I agree, I think.

What do you, and everyone else, think is the right way to do build an
Aerospace Plane and/or a cheap way to orbit? Lets try to consider
only things that can be built with existing, or at least near term,
technology, ok?

> and the big push in aeronautics
> technology (computational aerodynamics and such) is a case of a solution
> which has finally found a problem that can be exploited for funding.

Not so. Because of CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) and super
computers Pegasus will not require any wind tunnel testing. Only one
or two static test firings will be done on each engine before the
first flight. Not to mention structural analysis that is reducing the
number of other tests that must be done.

All this gives you a lighter vehicle with a much smaller development
budget. Even military programs have reduced the number of tests from
the HUNDREDS of static test firings needed for Polaris to the handful
needed for Pershing-II. All because of applications of super
computers, and especially CFD.

>>... simply part of the way you get political support for a
>>costly research and development project; You hype the applications of
>>the technology you are trying to develop.
> 
> Unfortunately, as demonstrated in cases like the shuttle, the hype can
> backfire when the customers demand delivery.

Too true.

A totally unconnected asside: I know a few folks who worked on the
Pershing-II motor set that are walking around just bursting with
pride. Their system was so good that it had to be negotiated out of
existence. This is the ultimate victory for a nuclear weapons system.

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 88 18:40:35 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Aerospace plane, and cheap access to orbit

In article <1158@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>If what you are looking for is a cheap way to put payloads in orbit
>right now, the aerospace plane is not the way to do it...

Ah, but we were discussing the Aerospace Plane, which has nothing to do
with putting cheap payloads into orbit! :-)

(Actually, I think I did cite cheap orbital transport as one of the
numerous objectives for the project, but I should have put a "supposedly"
in there somewhere...)

>What do you, and everyone else, think is the right way to do build an
>Aerospace Plane and/or a cheap way to orbit? Lets try to consider
>only things that can be built with existing, or at least near term,
>technology, ok?

There is no fundamental reason why the cost to orbit of *expendable*
rockets built with *existing* technology cannot be reduced by at least
an order of magnitude.  What is required is (a) a system designed for
simplicity and mass production, (b) a system designed specifically as
a civilian space launcher, not as an ICBM or a hardened military
launcher, (c) a system designed for low on-ground overheads, (d) a
relatively small vehicle launched often, rather than a monster launched
a few times a year, and (e) religious avoidance of bottomless money
sinks like state-of-the-art technology, military contracts, government
specs, government paperwork, and experienced (i.e., well-rotted) government
contractors.

>> [I suspect that] the big push in aeronautics
>> technology (computational aerodynamics and such) is a case of a solution
>> which has finally found a problem that can be exploited for funding.
>
>Not so. Because of CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) and super
>computers Pegasus will not require any wind tunnel testing...

And if you've been watching the news, Darpa has sufficient confidence in
the result that it's decided to fly a flight-instrumentation package,
rather than a real payload, on the first one.  That is, at least the first
launch is a test launch as far as the customer is concerned (although it's
a paying launch for Pegasus's builders, admittedly).  This, mind you, for
what is really a pretty simple and conservative design.

Besides, to what extent is Pegasus using the results of the current "big
push", as opposed to the quiet development work that has been going on
for quite some time?  Probably much more the latter than the former.
I don't think CFD is worthless, but I do suspect that the hype about
$XXXXXXXXXX for CFD being a vital, irreplaceable part of the Aerospace
Plane is political rather than factual.

>... Even military programs have reduced the number of tests from
>the HUNDREDS of static test firings needed for Polaris to the handful
>needed for Pershing-II...

There are cynics, such as myself, who would say that this is the result of
a steady lowering of standards by budget pressure, plus greater familiarity
with the technology, rather than any replacement of testing by computation.
Norman Augustine pointed out that the number of tests before a missile is
declared operational nowadays is inversely related to the price tag --
the plot is a *remarkably* smooth curve -- which strongly suggests that
the big-ticket items are being badly under-tested.
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 88 16:55:38 GMT
From: rti!sas!sasbrb@mcnc.org  (Brendan Bailey)
Subject: "Star Blazers"


> Now, what's this got to do with space ?    Well, there was recently a 
> Japanese comic series entitled something like "Starship Yamato", where
> the battleship Yamato was raised, repaired, and outfitted as a spaceship.

> Well, the art looked really keen... 8-)

> Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt

    This cartoon was called "Star Blazers".  It was pretty neat with the
Yamato having a pretty damn powerful "Wave Motion Gun" on the front of the
ship.  I think the same artists did this that did "Speed Racer" because 
the main character was identical to Speed.  It was a good cartoon.  Not 
your typical watered-down type of cartoon.  Good sci-fi stuff.  Actual 
violence and fighting....  Check it out.

                                           Bren Bailey

-----------------------
Go Heels!
Go Hornets!
Go UNC-Charlotte 49'ers!

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 88 16:47:24 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!aplvax.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario

In article <1137@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
}From article <8812010536.AA03270@crash.cts.com>, by jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery):
}> Here's another possible Shuttle disaster:
}
}Ok folks, let's see how absurd we can get about generating
}technological failures that lead to the end of civilization as we know
}it.
}
}How about:
}
}A 747 fully loaded with people and fuel loses all hydraulic and
}electrical power. It crashes into the astrodome while the supper bowl
}is being played. The 747 crashes on the 50 yard line and everyone in
}the stands is burned alive in realtime on national TV.
}
}To make it interesting the UN Gernal assembly is holding a special
}session in the stands to experience a "unique Amercan cultural event."
}All the member nations decide that the crash was a plot by the CIA.
}
}The result, global war. All of them against the USA ....

Heck, I can beat that:

An airliner taking off from National Airport in Washington DC has an
engine failure on the left wing.  If misses the 14th street bringe and
slams, fully fueled, into the Pentagon.  In the ensuing mess a strike is
called from the sub-basement.

We all lose.

Big Fat Hairy Deal.

Now, might we possible end this "Shuttle disaster" drill, or move it to
talk.bizarre, or make it into a screenplay for Doug McClure?


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 06:01:53 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Advanced Launch System

>In space it is much different....
>Electrical components that are off the shelf:

As a partial refutation of these points, AMSAT can point to its long series
of successful spacecraft that include many off-the-shelf electronic
components.  A good example is our program to adapt standard commercial
Ni-Cd batteries for space use, prompted mainly by the drying up of our
previous supply of surplus space qualified batteries. A set has been flying
on UoSAT Oscar-11 for almost five years now with complete success.

Ironically, many of our component failures have been of supposedly "military
qualified" parts, even though these account for only a small fraction of all
the parts on our spacecraft. A good example is the the failed transistor in
the switching supply that provided bias to the final amplifier in the L-band
transponder on Oscar-10; it had a JAN-TX rating.

On the other hand, this does not mean that you can build a spacecraft and
expect it to work without a full understanding of the space environment.
The radiation-induced failure of the 4116 DRAMs on Oscar-10 is well known.
Many ordinary materials are completely unsuitable for space use. AMSAT uses
many space-qualified materials (Kapton, silver Mylar, Teflon, etc) in its
spacecraft despite the cost because it's absolutely necessary to avoid
vacuum outgassing; this is one of the things that the launch agencies
require. (When you fly with a primary payload costing hundreds of millions
of dollars, and this primary payload is a remote sensing spacecraft like
Landsat 5 or SPOT 2, they tend to be understandably protective of their
optics).  AMSAT spacecraft go through the same kind of vibration and thermal
vacuum testing that commercially produced spacecraft go through -- shake
table tests that are so loud that hearing protection is mandatory to avoid
hearing damage, and exposure to several days of hard vacuum, with chamber
wall temperatures ranging between -25C to +55C.  Failures and design faults
do sometimes occur, and these are (hopefully) fixed before launch.

The experience of AMSAT and its sister organizations (e.g., University of
Surrey in the UK) has shown that you can build successful spacecraft with
costs far below that charged by commercial vendors, but it takes a lot of
skill, creativity, dedication and a willingness to take risks (not to
mention lots of volunteer labor). Not all of our clever tricks work, but
enough do to make them worthwhile.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 88 17:14:59 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!ucl-cs!Bill@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations



I don't see that there is a problem with rotating space
stations.  You could easily put a couple of accommodation
blocks up there, and tie them together with a couple of miles
of cable, set them rotating, and maybe have a zero G
non-rotating lab in the middle.  Astronauts can travel
along the cable with a kind of cablecar.  In addition, I
suspect that full 1G is not necessary for reasonable existance.
Does anyone know of any results that might suggest, say, that
0.25G is sufficient to give humans a sense of orientation, to
allow them to eat/drink/etc normally, and to live fairly
Earthlike lives?

I figure that each section would be moving at about 200m/s
on a 1km radius cable if 1G were necessary, giving about 1rpm.
This doesn't sound impossible!  The difference in acceleration
from head to toe of a 2m tall human would be about 0.2%, I
think, which should be negligible?

                        ... Bill

************************************************************************
Bill Witts, CS Dept.     *    Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
UCL, London, Errrp       *    mi ritrovai per una selva oscura
william@cs.ucl.ac.uk     *    che la diritta via era smarrita.
************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 05:33:51 GMT
From: amdcad!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations


Let's see.  Various experiments have shown that rat muscle tissue apparently
undergoes irreversible deterioration after a long (months) time in space.
Also, whereas humans get terribly disoriented by living in centrifuges with
short rotation periods, rats don't (perhaps something to do with brachiating
or walking erect).  It'd be fun to design a carousel-type space station,
small enough to fit in the shuttle's cargo bay (or to be carried by a Proton,
take your pick) with, say, 5 bays, providing .1, .2, .3, .4, and 1 g
of acceleration (note how, if the 1 g bay rotates opposite the others, that
all your angular momentum cancels).  Fill each of the bays with rats, launch
into orbit, spin up the bays, wait several months, despin the bays, extract
the rats and send them back to earth, for disection and scientific analysis.
Mainly useful for examining long-term affect of mini-gravities on rats, but
maybe somewhat useful for life-support tests for a space station.

It'd cost tens of millions, perhaps hundreds, (less than billions, i'd hope),
but might yield some useful results.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 02:50:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Advanced Launch System


/* Written  8:43 am  Dec 12, 1988 by dietz@cs.rochester.edu in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
I recently read that 60% of Get-Away Special cannisters fail.  There's
no substitute for professionalism.
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

There's also no substitute for launch-time support.  Things like
battery charging on the pad are unavailable for GAS cans.

Anyone studied *why* the GAS payloads fail so often?

Kevin Kenny			   UUCP: {uunet,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
Illini Space Development Society   ARPA Internet or CSNet: kenny@CS.UIUC.EDU
P.O. Box 2255, Station A
Champaign, Illinois, 61820	   Voice: (217) 333-6680

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #171
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Dec 88 05:21:20 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00393>; Sun, 25 Dec 88 04:22:46 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 25 Dec 88 04:22:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AXh:Rcy00jZdQ14050>;
          Sun, 25 Dec 88 03:32:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.MXh:G3y00UkZ8QKE5:>;
          Sun, 25 Dec 88 03:19:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0Xh-D=y00UkZEQJ045@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 88 03:16:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #172

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Apollo Payback
	    Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation
	    Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation
			      a sad day
		Apollo 17 timings (was Re: a sad day)
		  Private Space Gedanken Experiment
		  Re: Kudos to Israeli Space Program
			Re: Spaceplane project
			 Re: ISECCO Update #3
	      R+D Payback Studies ( was Apollo Payback )
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 88 18:00:28 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Apollo Payback

In article <Added.MXdZoOy00Ui383xk9W@andrew.cmu.edu> PICARD@gmr.COM (RON PICARD) writes:
<I seem to remember that NASA states the US government received $7 for every    
<dollar spent on the Apollo program.  It's easy to find the amount spent on
<Apollo, but where can I find how they got the seven dollar figure?  I guess
<I'm asking for a source or two.
<
<Thanks in advance,
<Ron        

Ben Bova wrote an article several years ago about the benifits of space.
He stated that the Chase Econometric Group had determined that for every
dollar spent on space about $24 was returned to the economy. You might
want to check out his book "The High Road", as I believe this was from an
excerpt.

mike\

-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"Scientists say 'Saturn is so light, if you put it in a bucket of 
water, it would float'. Don't forget, it would also leave a ring".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 88 20:59:31 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation

In article <857@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:
>It took a lot of convincing but they finally believed me.  In
>seven more years, these kids will be 18 and most of their friends,
>I'm afraid, will also doubt that in the late 60s, before they were
>born, we succeeded in doing what we only dream about doing today.

    I hope that people following up on the following article (if any)
don't respond in too emotional or point-by-point a fashion.
Disagreements with the underlying theme would be interesting. Onwards.

    After years of buying the L5 party line, I came to believe that
the entire US manned space effort of the 1960s - magnificent thought
its accomplishments were - was a historical anomaly, decades before
anything like it 'ought' to have happened. We didn't have, and still
don't have, the capability or commitment or (most especially) *need*
to do those things for which Apollo was a precursor. We don't even
have a good reason for spending >$30G on a space station.

    (Heresy! the masses cry. But let me finish.)

    Certainly I share the sense of wonder. Indeed, one of my first
coherent memories is of watching the Apollo 11 mission. The fact that
the space program which put people on the moon is as dead as a
doornail need not be cause for sorrow, however.  We will soon reach
the point where permanent human space activities are justifiable for
what they will let us accomplish, rather than needing to be justified
in and of themselves. Then many of the things space fanatics want will
happen in a sustainable fashion, not subject to the whims of national
governments (only the whims of the market :-).

    The problem is that 'soon' may mean 'in several decades'. Perhaps,
horrid thought, 'in several centuries' (consider how long it took to
get a *substantial* European presence in the Americas after Columbus,
or perhaps Erickson(sp), for comparison purposes).

    This time span is a daunting prospect for those of us who cried
"L5 in '95!". If true, most of us are unlikely to ever reach space,
barring substantial and unpredictable progress in medicine & biology.

    I think that most individuals in the pro-space community recognize
they are unlikely to *personally* reach space, but will not admit it
because it seems like abandoning their goals. Perhaps in part this
explains the intense anguish over and criticism of NASA frequently
seen on the net. Perhaps accepting this concept will help space
activists act more effectively.

    On the other hand, perhaps I am full of BS, as I'm sure several
posters will now say. But remembering the delay from the invenion of
transistors, jet engines, airplanes, steam engines, etc. to their
widespread use, I feel fairly confident in saying that it's not yet
railroad time. Thinking otherwise results in unneeded frustration.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "I met a wonderful new man. He's fictional, but you can't have everything."
	- Cecelia, _The Purple Rose of Cairo_

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 88 06:41:37 GMT
From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kevin S. Van Horn)
Subject: Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation

In article <5892@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>    After years of buying the L5 party line, I came to believe that
>the entire US manned space effort of the 1960s - magnificent thought
>its accomplishments were - was a historical anomaly, decades before
>anything like it 'ought' to have happened. [...] 
>[...] remembering the delay from the invenion of
>transistors, jet engines, airplanes, steam engines, etc. to their
>widespread use, I feel fairly confident in saying that it's not yet
>railroad time.

It has now been 31 years since the first satellite was put into orbit.
Consider how far aviation advanced from the Wright brothers' first flight
in 1903 to 1934 -- far more than space flight has advanced, and this
during an era when technological progress was nowhere near as rapid as
it generally is today.  In my view our progress in space flight has been
far less than what it could have been and should have been.  But that's
a natural consequence of having government run the show.

Kevin S. Van Horn

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 19:12:35 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: a sad day

16 years ago today, human exploration of the Moon ended with the departure
of Apollo 17.  The hardware built for Apollos 18 and 19 was held in storage
until it was clear that it would never fly, at which point it went to
museums and such.  16 years later, we are farther from the Moon than ever.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 88 23:26:30 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Apollo 17 timings (was Re: a sad day)

In article <1988Dec8.062058.2063@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I should clarify this slightly:  Dec 7 was the launch date.  Arrival on
>the Moon was on the 11th.  I went looking for lunar departure date... and
>damned if I can't find out what it was!  A dozen references on Apollo
>don't even mention the day, much less the minute, of either the last
>footsteps on the Moon or the liftoff from the Moon!  This is really
>disgusting.  Anybody have precise information?

    We have the New York Times on microfilm. Here's what they said:
(all times EST).

    Launch of Apollo 17 12:33 AM 12/7/72, following a 2:40 delay.
	The Trans-Lunar Injection boost was extended for a
	few seconds to compensate.

    Lunar orbit entered at 2:47 PM 12/10/72.

    Challenger landed at 2:55 PM 12/11/72.

    First steps on the surface at 7:05 PM 12/11/72.

    Hatch closed at 12:38 AM 12/14/72.
	Cernan and Schmidt entered Challenger shortly before midnight
	according to the NYT, but the exact time wasn't given.

    Liftoff 5:55 PM 12/14/88.
	A total of 75 hours and 44 seconds were spent on the lunar
	surface - the longest as well as the last Apollo mission.
	Nearly 250 pounds of lunar samples were returned.

    I don't have the splashdown time because that reel was on
	backwards and I didn't have time to reverse it. I'm sure
	that's in the books, however.

    And finally, a quote from the editorial pages of the Times:

    "One might have thought that the Apollo 17 moonwalks would be
     thoroughly covered by television as they took place. But the
     networks have apparently chosen - as they did last night - to
     dish out their usual commercial fare while giving only minimal
     live coverage to moonwalks that will make history. It is a poor
     choice from the point of view of public service."

	NYT editorial page, 12/12/72
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Needless to say, both in the United States and in the eucaryotic
      cell, once the old immigrants are comfortably settled and their
      place in society is established, they do their best to shut the
      door to any prospective new immigrants''
	- Freeman Dyson, _Origins of Life_

------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 88 17:45:50 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Private Space Gedanken Experiment

Would all of you who e-mailed me responses to an earlier posting please
reply with your e-mail address, name, snail-mail address, and a brief
summary of your technical expertise?  It seems we are having some problems
with our mailer, and I fear my replies are going nowhere.  For others who
may be seeing this posting for the first time, Dani Eder and I have posted
(independently) some Gedanken proposals for a homebuilt-style space effort.
If interested, please respond.  Thanks.

(Sorry about having to post this!!)

Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 20 Dec 88 16:11:29 PST
From: greer%utd201%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Kudos to Israeli Space Program
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"


>Retrograde just means an inclination greater than 90 deg, technically;
>i.e.  even just a bit westward rather than eastward.  Lots of
>satellites, including the NOAA polar weather satellites and the CIA's
>cameras, are in retrograde orbits.  But if we're talking about

>I think NASA did do one very retrograde launch, to 120 deg, in the mid
>1970s.  If memory serves, it was the Geos-3 Geodynamic Ocean Satellite
 
>Jonathan McDowell


According to Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control,
James R. Wertz Ed., D.Reidel Publishing Company, 1978,
ISBN 90-277-1204-2, the inclination of GEOS-3 was 114 degrees.

Most retrograde orbits listed in that book have inclinations of 97 to 100
degrees.  The reason for this is that certain combinations of altitude,
eccentricity, and inclination give a precession (caused by the Earth's
oblateness) which rotates the nodes of the orbit by one rotation per year. Such
an orbit is called Sun Synchronous, since the spacecraft is always in the same
local time at a given latitude.  This is very handy for surveying satellites
like Landsat, since the lighting stays pretty much the same from one passover
to the next, except for changes due to the North-South motion of the Sun. 

For perfectly circular orbits, the limits are 95.68 degrees inclination at 0 km
altitude, and 180 degrees at 5974 km. In between, it's 97.03 degrees at 400km,
99.48 at 1000, you get the picture. 

----
"Facts are stupid."			|         Dale M. Greer
		-- Ronald Reagan	|   Center for Space Sciences
					| University of Texas at Dallas

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 88 22:42:58 GMT
From: pyramid!prls!philabs!linus!alliant!durant@decwrl.dec.com  (Jim Durant)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

>  I have to take issue with your 30% premium, though.  I don't know
>what subsonic transatlantic costs run these days, but a friend of mine
>came back to the states from South Africa via Europe, and the
>transatlantic leg was by Concorde.  I don't remember what he paid,
>but it was well into the 4 figure range just for the Concorde leg.  
>That doesn't sound like a 30% increase to me.

You are right. I just called British Airways. The cost of a Feb 1, 1989 round
trip ticket NY to London is $6420.00. Last Christmas I flew round trip Boston
to London for $349.00.


Jim Durant 
Alliant Computer Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Dec 88 12:04:55 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: ISECCO Update #3

Ray R. Collins writes:
>   
>   I.S.E.C.Co Activities Synopsis 
>   
>   We planted a few plants in straw as an initial trial but they
>   all failed due (partly) to a serious mold infestation.
>   We are pressure cooking our straw now to sterilize it.  

I don't think that sterilizing the straw at the beginning will make any
difference.  Unfiltered air contains zillions of spores from zilions of
bug species (remember Pasteur?), so the molds will be back in no time.
If anything, cooking the straw will make it digestible by more species
of microorganisms.  

My (totally unqualified) guess is that the bulk of the support must be
non-bio-degradable, or you will end up with a miniature peat bog.
Have you considered polyester fiber (pillow stuffing)? Glass/rock
wool?  I would try plastic foam (the kind with large "open" cells); I
believe this is almost a standard hydroponics support.  Also, I have
seen plants from commercial nurseries potted in a mixture of dirt and
2mm styrofoam beads, perhaps to reduce shipping weight.  Maybe this
will work too, if you can figure out a way to keep the beads in place.  

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        They also considered certain seeds to be essential, and they took
        several boxes.  
            --Verne, /From the Earth to the Moon/ (1865)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Dec 88 21:43:00 GMT
From: mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu!sheppard@CMF.NRL.NAVY.MIL  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: R+D Payback Studies ( was Apollo Payback )


>From :  "The Economic Impacts of the U.S. Space Program", Shnee, Jerome,
         Business Admin Dept, Rutgers U.  Published in "Social Sciences and
         Space Exploration" NASA, EP-192 

     "A Midwest Research Institute (MRI) study of the realationship between 
      R+D expenditures and technology induced increases in GNP indicated 
      that each dollar spent on R+D returns an average of slightly over 
      seven dollars in GNP over an eighteen-year period following the 
      expenditure [1].  Assuming that NASA's R+D expenditures produce the same 
      economic payoff as the average RD expenditure, MRI concluded that the 
      $25 billion (1958) spent on civilian space RD during the 1959-1969 
      period returned $52 billion throught 1970 and will continue to stimulate 
      benefits through 1987, for a total gain of $181 billion.

     "Chase Econometric Associates conducted a second econometric investigation
      of the relationship between NASA expenditures and the US economy [2]. 
      The first phase of the Chase study employed the 185 inter-industry 
      input-output model developed at the University of Maryland to analyze 
      the short-run economic impact of NASA RD expenditures. Simulations of the 
      input-output model were undertaken assuming that $1 billion of federal 
      expenditure was transfered ( proportionately ) from other nondefense 
      programs to NASA with no change in the size of the federal budget.  
      Chase estimated that the $1 billion transfer would increase manufacturing
      output in 1975 by 0.1%, or $153 billion (1971 $s), and would increase 1975 
      manufacturing employment by 20,000 workers.

      "The second phase of the Chase study considered the long-run effects of 
       NASA RD expenditures. Using a production function which related NASA RD 
       expenditures to the productivity growth rate iin the US economy from 
       1960 to 1974, Chase concluded that society's rate of return on NASA RD 
       expenditures was 43% ( MRI's estimated social rate of return was 33% ). 
       The Chase second phase also estimated the effects of changes in NASA RD 
       expenditures on economic growth and stability.  Overall, these long-term 
       estimates confirmed the significant positive effects of NASA RD 
       expenditures on national productivity and employment levels.

      "The Space Division of Rockwell International conducted a third study of 
       the macroeconomic impact of NASA RD program. Rockwell investigated the 
       relationship between NASA's Space Shuttle program and employment in the 
       state of California [3].  Using an econometric model developed at UCLA, 
       Rockwell estimated that the Space Shuttle program generated an employment 
       multiplier of 2.8; that is, direct Shuttle employment of 95,300 man-years 
       in California produced an increase of 266,000 man-years in total employment.

      "In each of the econometric studies the investigators qualified their 
       conclusions by noting several conceptual and data limitations associated 
       with an aggregate quantification of the returns to the economy of RD 
       investment.  A major limitation of all three studies is the assumption 
       that each dollar of NASA RD spending -- whether spent on basic research 
       or development -- is equal"

   [1]  Midwest Research Institute. "Economic Impact of Stimulated Technological 
        Activity", Kansas City, Missouri: Midwest Research Institute, November, 
        1971

   [2]  Chase Econometric Associates, Inc.  "The Economic Impact of NASA RD 
        Spending : Preliminary Executive Summary" NASA-2741 April 1975,
        Also : "Relative Impact of NASA Expenditure on the Economy" Unpublished 
        NASA Staff Report, March 18, 1975.
 
   [3]  Rockwell International, Space Division, "Impact of the Space Shuttle 
        Program on the California Economy" FD-74-SH-0334, December 1974   

+-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                         |                                   |
|   000       000                         |  Ken Sheppardson                  |
|   00000   00000     "               "   |  Aerospace Engineering Department |
|    00 00 00 00         insert quote     |  University of Michigan           |
|    00  000  00             here         |                                   |
|    00       00      "               "   |  sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu    | 
|   0000     0000                         |                                   |
|                                         |                                   |
+-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #172
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Dec 88 06:46:20 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00553>; Sun, 25 Dec 88 05:38:59 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 25 Dec 88 05:38:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sXhA7my00jZd81404y>;
          Sun, 25 Dec 88 05:24:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.cXhA1Py00UkZ8QUU4q>;
          Sun, 25 Dec 88 05:18:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <oXh=zpy00UkZEQTE52@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 88 05:16:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #173

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:
			 Re: martian diseases
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
		 spaceplane surveillance vs satellite
		  Re: Kudo to Israeli space program
		  Re: Kudo to Israeli space program
	    Re: R+D Payback Studies ( was Apollo Payback )
	    Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation
	    Cheap Components (was Advanced Launch System)
	  Re: Cheap Components (was Advanced Launch System)
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
		       Cost-Effective Research
			   another sad day
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
			   NASA and Ariane
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Dec 88 20:12:39 GMT
From: microsoft!bryanf@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Bryan Feir)
Subject: Re: martian diseases

In article <598143741.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>However, IF one were for some reason able to infect terrans, it would
>most likely be a rapidly fatal disease. Animals and their diseases are
>a stage on the road to a symbiotic relationship. Sometimes the
>symbiosis is broken if the host is weakened, but nonetheless, the
>nastiness of an infection decreases with each generation that lives
>with it.

A perfect example of this is scarlet fever.  A few generations back, it was a
disease that was feared: after someone came down with it, anything that person
had come in contact with was generally burned.  It wasn't an overly lethal
disease, but it was very bad, especially in less than sanitary conditions.

Nowadays, it's called strep throat.  It puts a person out for a week or so.

+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Bryan Feir      VE7GBF      | "The null graph is a pointless concept."      |
| {uw-beaver!}microsof!bryanf |                                               |
| bryanf@microsoft.UUCP       | Disclaimer: "I just work here."               |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 88 02:24:29 GMT
From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations

In article <8144@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>The other reason it hasn't happened is that it hasn't been necessary
>>so far.  For one thing, we're still in a very early, primitive stage of
>>space activity.  For another, free fall isn't as troublesome as some
>>early authors thought.  
>
>Hey, wait a minute.  If this year's space medicine findngs are correct
>and weightlessness really does cause irreversible muscle fiber loss
>(with strength gain after re-entry being compensatory rather than
>regenerative), and if calcium loss really is dramatic and tough to
>control without grotesque diets and drugs, then it's WORSE than the
>early authors thought; and very important to work on ways of providing
>gravity.  

Ahem.  Among the early fears was one that the heart would "take
off" without the load of gravity and more or less tear itself to
pieces in a super heart attack.  Many other medical emergencies --
sudden, not spread out over months -- were imagined.  One can't
call such fears unrealistic, since no one knew at the time what the
reaction would be of organisms to such an environment that life had
never evolved to live in -- but nowadays they sound much like the
monsters that early cartographers drew as living in the deep sea.
The known, real problems with weightlessness are tame by comparison.

>Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff

--
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
Mountain View, California
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	Our doubts are traitors,
	and make us lose the good we oft might win,
	by fearing to attempt.
		Shakespeare, *Measure for Measure*, Act I, Scene 5

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 88 18:39:30 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: spaceplane surveillance vs satellite

Someone mentioned using hypersonic aircraft for surveillance of the
USSR. Sorry if I missed earlier discussions of the issue. 

At what point will the Russkies (or the US) consider something to be
airspace incursion and not just a satellite? How to decide? Ballistic
trajectory?  Altitude? Propulsion system?

They will shoot down a U2 or the SR beast but not a satellite in LEO?

Jim Symon
Chapel Hill, NC  27599-3175
					"Better get Helms on the 
UUCP:  uunet!mcnc!unc!symon		 scrambler, we got incoming
UUCP: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon     	 treaties all over the screen"
Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu				- MacNelly

***Don't use "r" or my header line address***

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 06:05:40 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Kudo to Israeli space program

>NASA did some retrograde launches as part of one of its technology programs
>in the 60s.  Nobody's bothered since, that I know of.

By definition, a retrograde orbit is one with an inclination greater than
90 degrees. Sun-synchronous orbits all have inclinations greater than 90
degrees.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 88 18:20:48 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Kudo to Israeli space program

In article <12600@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes:
>By definition, a retrograde orbit is one with an inclination greater than
>90 degrees. Sun-synchronous orbits all [qualify]...

Picky, picky, picky...  I call sun-synchronous orbits "polar", not
"retrograde", unless I have some reason to want to be precise.
(Speaking to an audience of nit-pickers is not sufficient. :-) :-))
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 88 23:44:52 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!rb@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robert Brooks)
Subject: Re: R+D Payback Studies ( was Apollo Payback )


> From :  "The Economic Impacts of the U.S. Space Program", Shnee, Jerome,
>          Business Admin Dept, Rutgers U.  Published in "Social Sciences and
>          Space Exploration" NASA, EP-192 
> 
>      "A Midwest Research Institute (MRI) study of the realationship between 
>       R+D expenditures and technology induced increases in GNP indicated 
>       that each dollar spent on R+D returns an average of slightly over 
>       seven dollars in GNP over an eighteen-year period following the 
>       expenditure [1].  Assuming that NASA's R+D expenditures produce the same
>       economic payoff as the average RD expenditure...
>
[ A bunch of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo deleted ]

I am appalled.  These studies seek to show the economic impact of NASA R&D
expenditures, and they start by ASSUMING that the return of a NASA R&D
dollar is the same as that of the "average" R&D dollar, ie. that spent
by competitive, profit-seeking, private industry??!!?  It is exactly the
relationship of these returns that such studies should seek to discover;
any conclusions based on such an arbitrary a priori assumption are
meaningless.

These self-serving studies were doubtless funded by a generous amount of
taxpayer's money, and I'm sure the results are flaunted before Congress to
justify continued shoveling into the NASA porkbarrel.

Disgusting.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 88 04:18:11 GMT
From: thumper!gamma!pyuxp!nvuxj!nvuxr!deej@faline.bellcore.com  (David Lewis)
Subject: Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation

In article <5892@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@zeta.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes:
> In article <857@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:
 [much more than I'm including, but among other things...]
>     After years of buying the L5 party line, I came to believe that
> the entire US manned space effort of the 1960s - magnificent thought
> its accomplishments were - was a historical anomaly, decades before
> anything like it 'ought' to have happened. We didn't have, and still
> don't have, the capability or commitment or (most especially) *need*
> to do those things for which Apollo was a precursor. We don't even
> have a good reason for spending >$30G on a space station.

This reminds me of a comparison I read (somewhere, I can't recall
where...) between the moon and antarctica.  The South Pole was first
reached in the "Golden Age of Exploration", around the turn of the
century.  It was then forgotten for fifty years.  It was not until the
IGY, 1957, that people returned to antarctica -- and by that time, we
had the means to do it right.

The analogy is really very appropriate.  Around the 1900s, the effort to
reach the south pole was extraordinary -- and the effort to stay there
for any length of time was beyond the capacity and will of the US, or
any other country, to sustain.  Fifty years later, technology had
advanced to the extent that, while it's still not an easy life, it was
not at all infeasible -- or even requiring a significant portion of the
GNP -- to set up a permanent scientific settlement there.

In 1969 the effort to reach the moon was extraordinary -- and the effort
to stay there for any length of time was beyond the capacity and will of
the US to sustain.  Fifty years from now (or, actually, 30 years from
now), we hope that technology will have advanced to the extent that,
while it still won't be easy, it won't be infeasible to set up a
permanent scientific settlement on the moon.

Of course, we could go comparing Apollo to whaleboats, but that might be
pushing the analogy just a bit too far...

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David G Lewis			 "somewhere i have never travelled..."
Bellcore						  201-758-4099
Navesink Research and Engineering Center       ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 88 14:43:21 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Cheap Components (was Advanced Launch System)

I recently read that 60% of Get-Away Special cannisters fail.  There's
no substitute for professionalism.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

	If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 88 06:04:57 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cheap Components (was Advanced Launch System)

In article <1988Dec12.094321.18421@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>I recently read that 60% of Get-Away Special cannisters fail.  There's
>no substitute for professionalism.

Actually, there's no substitute for testing and debugging, whether you are
professional or amateur.  The professionals like to claim that they can
get it right the first time, but nature keeps reminding them that they're
wrong.  ("Hey, man, we've been designing Titan payload shrouds for two
decades now, no way would we botch one in such a way that it would hit
the Transstage, puncture its tanks, and leave a Vortex eavesdropping
satellite stranded in transfer orbit early in September 1988...")

The problem with GetAway Specials is not the failure rate but the
impossibly long delay before the next try.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 88 16:34:51 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!aplvax.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations

In article <859@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
}The real question is this: do we need 1g? Can we live with just 1/6 g? That
}would provide a good compromise size and rotation rate.

Do we need any g at all?

Ask the Soviets.  They have a much better database.

As an aside, I saw some "neat" footage of exercise in the Skylab - a guy was
running round the lab.  Literally.  Using one of the circular (reached the hull)
areas he was running, and the centrifugal force from his running held him 
against the hull, giving him the traction to run.

Shades to 2001!!!


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 18:12:17 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations

In article <QXb2s0y00WB70P9FN4@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
>... why limit the rotation to 1rpm ...

Last I heard -- I may be out of date on this -- 1 RPM was tentatively
considered to be the highest speed suitable for long-term habitation
by unselected people making frequent transfers between rotating and
non-rotating sections.  Inner-ear problems start to appear at higher
rates.  It might be possible to go to 2-3 RPM given a minimum of traffic
between rotating and non-rotating sections and careful selection of crew
for tolerance to such things.  Anything higher is unhealthy.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 88 18:53:11 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!beowulf!david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (David Smyth)
Subject: Cost-Effective Research

mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>
>Whatever [the Spaceplane] is, if we go ahead with it, I think the
>engine should be changed.  It should be something safer, ...  I think
>the ideal fuel would be U.S. currency.  Just skip the middleman and use
>it directly.


You have a point there!  Don't build boosters, just build a bridge
made of cash!  Earth to the Moon!  Earth to Mars!  And then drive
a Chevy!  No!  A '65 Cadillac!

Herr Rust has shown us the most cost effective stealth fighter/bomber,
a Cessna 150.  At $15k per copy, we could send in 33,333 for each B2 we
could afford.  Can anybody demonstrate how a B2 has that big an edge
over a Cessna 150 in surviveability?  It certainly doesn't in
payload!!!!  Especially when the Cessna is a PROVEN penetrator of
Soviet air defenses, and all the B2 and B1 and B1B and SR-71 and ...
people can do is speculate?

------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 88 09:14:03 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: another sad day

Twenty years ago tomorrow (Wed 21st), at 0751 EST, the first ship set sail
for the Moon.  Eight more sailed in the following four years.  The last
three were broken up, unused, a few years later.  There have been no more.
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 18:14:40 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations

In article <859@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>The real question is this: do we need 1g? Can we live with just 1/6 g? That
>would provide a good compromise size and rotation rate.

That's a very good question.  Next question, please.  :-)

1/6 is probably plenty for the convenience aspects, but we have absolutely
no data on the physiological aspects.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 88 04:30:18 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: NASA and Ariane

I just got the December issue of NASA Tech Briefs.  Along with all the
other adverts, it has a three-page full-color "spread" by Aerospatiale.
They give a Washington, DC address, BTW.

First page taglines:
	T E A M   W O R K
	ARIANE PUTS SATELLITES INTO SPACE THAT SPEAK 27 LANGUAGES.
reader action #658

Second page:
	T E A M   W O R K
	WE PLAY OUR PART IN DEFENDING THE FREE WORLD.
reader action #659

Third page:
	N O W   W O R K   O U R   T E A M
	OUR PARTNERSHIP CAN START RIGHT HERE.
reader action #660


Arrggghh.
-- 
--  bob, mon	(bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
--  RAMontante,  Computer Science Dept.,  Indiana University,  Bloomington
--	"In this position, the skier is flying in a complete stall..."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #173
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Dec 88 07:29:26 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00608>; Mon, 26 Dec 88 06:18:40 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 26 Dec 88 06:18:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0XhVCCy00Ui3A0yE42>;
          Mon, 26 Dec 88 05:25:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.sXhV92y00UkZQRS042>;
          Mon, 26 Dec 88 05:19:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EXhV5py00UkZQRQk5Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 88 05:16:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #174

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 174

Today's Topics:
	    Russian crew recovers well from 366 day flight
		     Re: Rotating Space Stations
	       Astronomy programs with large databases
			 Re: Martian diseases
		       Re: homebuilt spaceplane
		  Re: Kudo to Israeli space program
		      Re: Advanced Launch System
		    Query about Kuiper news blurb
	  Re: Cheap Components (was Advanced Launch System)
	     Re: Atlantis observed! preliminary elements.
		  Re: Kudo to Israeli space program
		     earth style power in space?
      Re: Brilliant Soviet Rescue of Astronauts Stranded in LEO
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Dec 88 00:11:52 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Russian crew recovers well from 366 day flight

   The Soviet's long term returning Soyuz TM-6 crew, which came down on 
Dec. 21, of Moussa Manarov and Alexander Titov have found to be in very
good health after their 366 day, 23 hour mission.  The Titov and Manarov
were able to walk down the air craft ramp with only limited assistance after
their arrival back at Star Village, just outside of Moscow.  They were
brought there after the flight rather than Star City (beside the Baikonur
Cosmodrome) make use of the better medical facilities there in studying
the body changes.  Two days latter, on Dec. 23, they made a 600 meter
(0.38 miles) walk.  This is much better then the earlier long duration
flights were the cosmonauts needed to stay in bed for weeks after the
mission.
   Also on board the Mir/Kvant space station Alexander Volkov and 
Sergei Krikalev have moved the Soyuz TM-7 from the front docking port to
the rear (ball port) to make it ready for the bringing up more supplies.
On Dec. 25th the Progress 39 cargo craft was launched carrying about
2.3 Tonnes of supplies.  There will be a rapid launching of these Progress
to Mir for the next few months as there has been no new supplies since 
Progress 38 in September.  Progress 39 is bringing New Years presents to
the Cosmonauts as well as the regular run materials.
   The mission of Earth's only manned space station continues.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 88 17:39:05 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rotating Space Stations

In article <8144@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>... The net result is that to get a useful
>>amount of false gravity, you need a very big space station with a very
>>slow spin.  When I say "big", I mean "kilometers across".
>
>Remember all this TETHER technology we're talking about?  Why not just
>have a pair of cans (or a can and a counterweight) joined with a 2km
>tether...

This is, in fact, the way one would do it for starters at least.  There
would be problems with vibration and gravity gradient to be looked at,
I'm sure, but it ought to be practical.

>To service the experiment pallets, you haul yourself up to the hub,
>float free and cancel your remaining spin via MMU or something
>simpler...

Just a platform on bearings with a motor at the hub.  That way you just
use a bit of electricity.  Doing it with an MMU uses mass, which is
harder to come by.

>>... free fall isn't as troublesome as some early authors thought.  
>
>Hey, wait a minute.  If this year's space medicine findngs are correct
>and weightlessness really does cause irreversible muscle fiber loss
>(with strength gain after re-entry being compensatory rather than
>regenerative), and if calcium loss really is dramatic and tough to
>control without grotesque diets and drugs, then it's WORSE than the
>early authors thought...

The Soviets seem to have the calcium situation under control; I don't
know about the muscle problems.  However, the troubles I was referring
to were the proposals that humans could not function in free fall at all,
or only with grave difficulty.  In fact, the short-term physiological
effects are only a nuisance, and free fall has its conveniences to make
up for them.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 88 19:33:28 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!krogers@tis.llnl.gov  (Keith Rogers)
Subject: Astronomy programs with large databases


     I have been looking for large star databases to run on an IBM
PC compatible.  The December issue of Sky & Telescope advertises two
programs which have such databases:  SUPERSTAR by picoSCIENCE, and
Genesis Project by Lewis-Michaels Engineering.  Superstar claims to
have a database of 259,000 stars, while Genesis Project has 190,000.
     Either of these databases would suit me fine so I am asking if
any of you Netlanders have experience with the actual programs which
drive these databases?  Please e-mail me your opinions on these or
any other such programs/databases of similar size; I'm not interested
in anything with less than 43,000 stars no matter how good the
associated program is.
     I remember that a few months back someone put the entire SAO
catalog on the Net, but I didn't stand a chance of getting all 60+
installments; we're lucky if we can keep our silly computer up for
two days in a row....  I'd rather fork out the $150 or so that these
guys are asking so that I can bitch at someone if it isn't all there.
     Hope to hear from you, and thanks in advance,

Keith Rogers     UUCP: utah-cs!esunix!krogers

------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <8XfbjCy00UkZ01HQcI@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 88 11:11:58 -0500 (EST)
ReSent-From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-To: Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 88 09:22:58 CST
From: bruce@diamond.tamu.edu (Bruce D. Wright)
Subject: Re: Martian diseases

The problem may not be bringing bugs back from Mars, but taking them to Mars.
Is there life on Mars?  Perhaps after a manned mission, we will never be able
to say for sure.  If any bugs are found in the Martian environment, there is
the distinct possibility that they were imported by us.

This has been a real issue with earlier unmanned probes such as Viking.  These
probes were baked before launch to try to kill any microbes which may have
been on them.

Bruce Wright
Agricultural Engineering
Texas A&M University
bruce@diamond.tamu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 88 22:02:34 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: homebuilt spaceplane

In article <2422@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
> 
> I had dinner yesterday with Georg von Tiesenhausen and Joe Carroll
> (plus a few other people).  GvT is a retired NASA adavanced projects
> person, and former Von Braun team member (like , for the V2).  Joe
> is a 'tether' person, working on a small tether deployer experiment
> to be done on a Delta launch after the 'main payload' is gone.
> 
> Wide ranging discussions occurred about various space launch systems
> (i.e. 8 km towers supporting pulley-and-rope catapult that gets to
> mach 4, etc.), but some of the evening was spent discussing cheap
> small spaceplanes.  Some gleanings:
> 
> . For an engine test stand, buy a junker car.  Remove Body.  Bolt
> tanks and engine to car frame.  Attach bicycle wheel to car frame
> so it rolls on the ground.  Mount LED/photodiode pair across wheel
> looking through spokes.  Feed signal to PC with data acquisition
> board.  Deduce acceleration of car from timings of bicycle wheel
> spokes interrupting LED.  Deduce engine performance from mass
> of car and aceleration.

Even easier:  Since you're using a bicycle wheel, use a rear-wheel
mounted pickup for a bicycle speedometer like the Avocet, Catseye,
or Paramount.  Either dig out the data from the microprocessor in
the speedometer, or else clip off the device and read the pulses
coming up the wire from the pickup.  I think that the pickup is
a Hall-effect sensor that reads each passage of a magnet mounted
on spokes near the hub of the wheel.  (The Avocet reads up to 99
mph...)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 88 05:26:25 GMT
From: pikes!csm9a!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Kudo to Israeli space program

In article <IXbyVgy00UkZI0SFgF@andrew.cmu.edu@, ota+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Ted Anderson) writes:
@ "Spaceflight", in their recent report, appeared to suggest that this was the
@ first object placed in a retrograde orbit.  Does anyone know if this is really
@ true or am I reading more into the article then is there?
@         Ted Anderson



Back around 1965-66 the Air Force launched a series called OV1 from
Vandenberg into inclinations of about 140 degrees.  The Israeli launch 
is the first into such 'extreme' retrograde an orbit` since.

Many polar orbit satellites have inclinations greater than 90 degrees
making them retrograde.  So, technically,  retrograde orbits are not 
uncommon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we fell into a black hole would                      Bruce Watson
Lou Gherig have Steven Hawking's disease?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 88 22:32:34 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Advanced Launch System

>"Isolate everything in an Earthlike environment, then you can use mundane
>hardware to solve the problems of space."...

Interestingly enough, this appears to have been a standard Soviet technique.
Several years ago, as US/Soviet relations started thawing, AMSAT began some
informal contacts with its Soviet amateur satellite counterparts.  As I
heard it, one of the questions we got was "how do you pressurize your
spacecraft?" It took a while to understand why they asked the question,
since we've never done such a thing.

Our spacecraft are designed with lots of opportunities for venting, so
nothing gets blown out during the rapid decompression associated with
launch. It's also important that transmitters reach a hard vacuum condition
quickly in order to prevent corona damage when they are switched on; there
is generally a delay of an hour or so after reaching orbit during which all
transmitters are held off.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 88 21:47:59 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!milano!banzai-inst!wex@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Alan Wexelblat)
Subject: Query about Kuiper news blurb

In article <19492@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> The effect is produced by argon and nickel photons interacting with
> electrons torn (by the shock wave) from hydrogen  originally on the
> surface of the star. 

What does it mean for something to be an "argon [or] nickel photon"?  I've
never heard of photons associated with elements before.  Is this something
that can be said of a photon in isolation, or is it an aggregate property of
a collection of photons?

Inquiring minds want to know.

-- 
--Alan Wexelblat      ARPA: WEX@MCC.COM
                      UUCP: {rutgers, uunet, &c}!cs.utexas.edu!milano!wex

The only problem is:  what do you do when they come back with the broom?

------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 88 18:52:39 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cheap Components (was Advanced Launch System)

In article <12602@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes:
> [GetAway Special problems]
>So let's hear it for the enormous flexibility and reliability that comes
>with manned space flight...

Serves you right, comrade, for flying your hardware on inferior Americanski
launchers operated by nouveau-socialiste agencies like NASA.  Granted,
it's ideologically purer than flying them on launchers run by dirty
money-grubbing capitalists, but if you want decent manned launch services,
you should talk to competent agencies like Glavkosmos.  Payment in Swiss
francs, please (even us good socialists have to pay the bills...).

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

[Anyone who thinks I am slandering NASA by accusing it of socialism should
consider things like NASA's policies on launch vehicles and commercial
spaceflight, and who the prime contractor for the space station is.]
[For those who haven't been following the sad tale of recent history,
NASA still wants everyone to use the shuttle, is interested in commercial
spaceflight only insofar as the commercial people are junior partners
to NASA, and is its own prime contractor for the space station.]
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 88 23:20:15 GMT
From: pikes!csm9a!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Atlantis observed! preliminary elements.

In article <1184@scicom.alphacdc.com>, wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson) writes:
> 
> Atlantis and its payload, separated by about 12 arc-minutes,
> a km or so, passed over Denver at 00:23 hrs UT December 3 Friday evening.
> The two objects were of mag 0 and +2.  They were also observed 
> by Richard Keen and Gary Emerson at Mt. Thoridin, CO a few minutes
> earlier.  Richard said that the two were gold and bluish.  Gary 
> took a photograph of the pair.
> 
After examining the orbit with the Goddard elements (see note 1030), I find
that I first saw Atlantis and payload at about 00:19UT and lost it at
about 00:23UT with the time of max altitude at about 00:20:30UT.  I had
WWV and my tape recorder with me, but forgot to rewind the tape.  The
running comentary with time in the background was lost.  I hope the
erroneous 15.33 (instead of a better 15.39) did not cause anyone to 
miss later observing opportunities.

Gary submitted his photo to the Denver Post but I don't think they
published it.  He told me he sent it to Aviation Week&ST.

We did not see Atlantis or payload again during the mission since
the next days best opportunity occurred with the sun too high and 
later times the passage took place in the low southwest where the
shuttle would be swamped by the light of the twilight arc and 
be backlit by the sun.  But that first time was glorious.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 88 18:18:14 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Kudo to Israeli space program

In article <1190@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:
>Even Henry nods...

Actually, I think it may have been Flight International nodding on this one,
and I simply picked it up from them.  Not sure of that, though.
-- 
SunOSish, adj:  requiring      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
32-bit bug numbers.            | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 88 19:55:26 GMT
From: amdahl!pyramid!prls!philabs!briar.philips.com!rfc@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: earth style power in space?

In article <524@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> brwk@doc.ic.ac.uk (Bevis King) writes:
>In Message <13719@oberon.USC.EDU> kriz%skat@oberon.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) says:
>>etc and get the chemicals he/she wants. So the most imporant thing the
>>station needs is a decent power source. If a 120 V, 60 hz (along with possibly
>>a 200 V industrial) electrical power source were made available in the station,
One thing to remember is that when earth based power line operated equipment
is designed, power comsumption is usually not an important concern.  After
all, power from the electric utility costs for me 11 cents a kilowatt-hour here in New York City (and that is high in USA!).  Usually, power comsumption gets
looked at when the equipment under design gets too hot (then the usual
solution is to use a cooling fan!).  Up in space, power consumption is much
more important, as the cost of having the generators up in space is expensive,
(solar cells, nuclear reactors, etc (no coal burning plants! :-)  ).  Power
would have to be rationed.  Don't forget, making AC from a DC source is
inefficient (something like 50%)  
   Using off the shelf DC operated equipment designed for cars (like ham or CB
   radios, etc) or airplanes would make sense, as they use the power directly,
   without power eating conversion circuits that AC equipment uses.  And don't
   forget the weight of such circuits.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 88 22:13:39 GMT
From: esosun!cogen!celerity!dave@seismo.css.gov  (David L. Smith)
Subject: Re: Brilliant Soviet Rescue of Astronauts Stranded in LEO

[Series of pessimistic doomsday scenarios from Jim Bowery(jim@pnet01.cts.com) 
	deleted]

Jim, what's your point?  You've written several rather unlikely scenarios
with terrible consequences.  Are you saying that you believe the space
program should be stopped because these horrible things might happen?
If you have a point, please come out and make it, rather than filling up
this group with these fictional accounts.  How about some _constructive_
criticism.  How could events like these be avoided?  To date, your articles
are reminiscent of school-yard arguments, to wit: 

	"Well, OK, sure, you have a shuttle there, but what if it can't 
	 come down?"  
	"The Soviets will come by and rescue everyone, of course."  
	"OK, yeah, but, what if, yeah, what if the Soyuz crashes into the 
	 Shuttle?  What then numb-nuts?"  
	"Well, see, the astronauts bailed out in these personal re-entry
	 capsules."
	"Oh, yeah, well, how about if their foam bottles had gone bad, huh,
	 what then?"

Whenever someone comes up with a solution to your problem, you come up with
an even more unlikely problem to counter their solution.  How about coming
up with some solutions to your problems, rather than trying to poke holes
in everything?

=========
David L. Smith
FPS Computing, San Diego
ucsd!celerity!dave

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #174
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Dec 88 05:45:34 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00408>; Tue, 27 Dec 88 05:38:16 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 27 Dec 88 05:38:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IXhqGny00Ui3414k5O>;
          Tue, 27 Dec 88 05:23:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.cXhqCey00UkZ8SV05D>;
          Tue, 27 Dec 88 05:19:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EXhq=py00UkZMSTk5Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 88 05:16:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #175

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 175

Today's Topics:
			 Tilting at Windmills
		   Re: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST
	    Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation
		     Oberg and the Soviet Shuttle
		      Earth as Lens for Powersat
		   Manned vs. Unmanned exploration
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #167
		 The Inner Ear and Balance in Humans
	 request for book on history of planetary exploration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Dec 88 11:49:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 2740+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Tilting at Windmills

I'd like to suggest two changes to the nation's space program.  The first is
that it is high time to begin insisting on continuity of data from space.  The
second is that NASA should create an analog of DARPA and put it in charge of
technical vision (aka research & development).

The problem of continuity, or the lack thereof, was brought to my attention by
several recent articles in AW&ST.  The first was one about the state of the
country's weather satellites, which is so disgraceful it made me sick.  The
second was a report that a $28 Million project to refurbish the Solar Max
satellite has been dropped.  With the recently heightened concerns about the
long term direction of the planet's climate, keeping a close and unblinking eye
on the Sun would be among the world's most pressing priorities.  Especially with
efforts to model the planetary atmosphere, maintaining long term, continuous
observations is at least as important as putting up the latest word in high-tech
satellites.  Ozone monitoring and unexpected events like Supernova 1987A are
other cases which would benefit greatly from ongoing observations rather than
one shot missions, like IRAS.  We would do well to commit to long term
monitoring when we put up a new type of satellite.  A few one shot missions can
be interesting and fun but it is time to settle down and stop wasting our time
and money.

The problem of vision is not new but I think that DARPA has been extremely
successful and its example is well worth following.  I suggest the creation of
the Space Advanced Research Projects Agency (SARPA) which would be funded with
5%-10% of NASA's budget.  This money would be spent at the discretion of the
agency's director.  His job would be to fund research and development projects
that would be useful to the nation's space program in the next quarter century
and would not otherwise be pursued.  The Pathfinder project is a pitifully small
and tardy step in this direction.  There are a great many projects that someone
in charge of filling the gaps in space R&D would have been funding during the
last decade or so.  I am not well informed about DARPA's detailed organization
or funding, but my impression is that it has been good at supporting basic
research as well as transferring successful developments into the mainstream of
DoD.  The space program could profitably learn from both DARPA's successes and
its failures.

While I'm sure there is no lack of suggestions for how to spend more money I
think NASA is failing to see the big picture.  Or, more precisely, there are
many, incompatible big pictures being pursued simultaneously and at different
times.  It's like no one is really in charge; as if nobody's minding the store.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 88 14:32:35 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST

Henry Spencer writes:

> McDonnell-Douglas is selling its shuttle-borne biochemical electrophoresis
> equipment to NASA, for a pittance.

I'm not surprised this has happened.  I've read that McD-D considered
CFE because, among other reasons, they thought no competing process
could be developed in 5 years (this more than 5 years ago).

Recall that continuous flow electrophoresis is a process where a stream
of protein mixture is injected into a slab of flowing buffer fluid.  An
electric field applied across the slab causes proteins to migrate
laterally at a rate dependent on their charge and size.  At the other
end of the cell the stream has been separated and is collected in a series
of outlets.

Microgravity is supposed to help this process, for a number of reasons:

  - Most important, the protein mixture can be made to have a higher
    density than the buffer fluid.  In gravity, it slumps and disrupts the
    flow.  This increases throughput by a factor of 100.

  - Higher electric fields and thicker cells can be used in microgravity,
    because heating due to ionic currents does not cause convection.  This
    increases the throughput by another factor of 5 to 10.

However, I don't understand why you can't cleverly avoid these
problems in gravity.  Naively, I would have thought that you could
avoid thermal convection by running the equipment horizontally, and
cooling it on the bottom.  The difference in density between the
protein mixture and the buffer fluid could be addressed by making the
buffer fluid more dense (for example, by mixing in a carrier protein
that can be easily separated afterwards), or by setting up a vertical
density gradient.

> The protein-crystal growth experiment aboard Discovery came up with
> bigger and better crystals than yet produced on Earth.  Several more
> drug companies have joined the sponsoring consortium for the next
> flight, on STS-29 in Feb.

I previously was skeptical of this application, but I was wrong, I
think. I've read that drug companies are willing to spend $100-200K
for good crystals of particular proteins, and drug company R&D budgets
are in the billions of dollars.  If microgravity really does let one
make protein crystals that give better diffraction paterns, launch
costs would be less important than flexibility in scheduling and short
turnaround time.  Clearly a niche for a private sector launcher.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 88 16:19:06 GMT
From: ucsdhub!calmasd!wlp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Walter L. Peterson, Jr.)
Subject: Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation

In article <85@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
> In article <5892@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
> 
>   Columbus set sail with several hundred men and founded a colony on his
> second voyage, only 2 years after the first.  Granted, he didn't need the
> high tech we do.  But the pace of technological growth is faster now; we
> have millions of scientists as opposed to the few hundred back then.  
>

As I recall, the colony which Columbus started did not last very long,
nor would I actually call it a colony - it was essentially a military
outpost. 

Granted. Columbus did not need the high tech that *WE* need, BUT he
*DID* need all the "high tech" which his society had to offer.  He and
the other earily explorers/exploiters/colonist were "pushing-the-envelope"
of the then existing navigation, ship design and logistic technologies
to their limit.  I'll willingly grant that Columbus did not have to
worry about oxygen supplies, air pressure and muscular deterioration,
but he was non-the-less using the available technology to its limit.

Let's also clear up one picky point.  We don't need "scientists" in
order to establish space colonies; we need "engineers".  There is no
*NEW* knowledge needed to build an L5 nor a Lunar or Martian colony.
What we need are innovative, cost effective, applications of existing
knowledge; that is "engineering" - not "science".  This is not
intended to be a critism of either "science" or "engineering".  They
are two different things which sserve two different purposes.  I think
we sometimes loose sight of that in our training of engineers in this
country and I think that the state of our industry, and by extension
therefore the space program, show the results of that loss of insight.

There is one more analogy with the so-called "Age of Exploration" that
I hope the space program will not parallel. The first nations to lead
the waves of exploration were Portugal, Spain and some of the more
adventurous of the Italian city-states, but who was the real long-term
winner ? England.  The big, continental super-powers were so busy
fighting amongst themselves, so concerned with simply collecting
plunder and had such a heavy burden of ideology ( the Catholic Spanish
Inquisition ) to carry arround the globe with them that they were soon
overtaken by the Brits.  The English, while they were exploitative,
were interested in long-term "trade" not just seeing how much gold
they could steal or how many heathens they could burn at the stake.
They set out without the burden of fanatical ideology and in the long
term they won. That tiny island nation out did the big continental
super-powers.

Gee! Now where in the world today is there a tiny island nation that,
while it may be somewhat exploitive, is interested in long-term trade,
does not have an ideological ( neither Capitalist nor Communist ) axe
to grind, does not squander its treasure on hugh military budgets and
is beating the pants off of the continental super-powers ?  Gee ! Does
the name JAPAN come to mind ?

Some people on this news group ( myself included ) have in the past
suggested ( in ironic humor ) that the first step to becomming an
astronaut should be to learn to speak Russian.  Maybe we were all
wrong, maybe the first step is to learn to speak Japanese.



-- 
Walt Peterson   GE-Calma San Diego R&D (Object and Data Management Group)
"The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
GE, GE-Calma nor anyone else.
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!wlp        wlp@calmasd.GE.COM

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 88 16:48:49 GMT
From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa  (John Logajan x3118)
Subject: Oberg and the Soviet Shuttle

Does anyone remember an article by James Oberg, perhaps in OMNI, about
two years ago in which he claimed that the Soviets were not developing
a shuttle, but some sort of nuclear weapons system?

The conventional wisdom at the time was that the Soviets were testing
their own version of the shuttle, but Oberg was sure that there were
more sinister things going on.  Has Oberg said anything lately since
the unveiling of Buran?  Does he still maintain that they were also
testing a weapons system?

-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 -
-    ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan                or     john@logajan.mn.org  -

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 88 19:36:26 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: Earth as Lens for Powersat

From: dietz

David Jones, in his always entertaining "Daedalus" column in Nature
(12/1/88), described an amusing phenomenon.  As you know, the
atmosphere refracts light, so we see the sun set several minutes after
it drops beneath the horizon.  Jones suggests that sunlight refracted
by the atmosphere is brought into focus on a line extending behind the
Earth (why this focus is apparently not seen in lunar eclipses is not
explained).

Following up on this idea, note that since the outer layers of the
atmosphere refract the light less (they are less dense), there should
be an altitude at which light is refracted to a focus at the earth-sun
L2 point -- just the place to put a powersat.  Transmit power back to
earth by laser.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 88 01:23:17 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Manned vs. Unmanned exploration

The December 26, 1988 issue of _Insight_ magazine has an interesting,
though somewhat watered down, article on undersea exploration. The
article cited some interesting comments that seem related to the
discussion of manned vs. unmanned space exploration.

After describing a few teleoperated and autonomous underwater
vehicles, it says:

"The growing sophistication of these machines is leading more
scientists, including [ Robert ] Ballard [ director of the
Center for Marine Exploration at Woods Hole ], to believe that
the era of manned undersea exploration may be nearing its end.
So reliable and maneuverable are some remotely operated vehicles
becoming that many explorers feel it is time to replace expensive
and cumbersome life-support systems with computers, video systems,
and artificial intelligence equipment."

The article later quotes Bob Wernli, director of research and
development for the Naval Ocean Systems Center in San Diego:

"One big problem is that the ocean is a very unstructured
environment. It's not like space, which is clearly defined. So
trying to use artificial intelligence to navigate these AUVs is 
very promising, but at the same time very difficult to pull off.
There's still a lot of work to be done before these systems are
very reliable and capable."

If I may comment:

Obviously teleoperation and autonomy have some advantages under water
compared to LEO or farther (even though Bob Wernli seems to think his
game is tougher--I guess he's talking about space flight, and not
about crawling over Martian boulders). If something breaks, you just
wind the tether back up to the mother ship, or write the system off.
"Launch" costs aren't much worse than rolling something off the deck,
so reliability is less critical. Propagation delays are small.
Nonetheless, I'm surprised that a vocal faction of manned undersea
exploration proponents doesn't dress Dr. Ballard down. I guess _Voyage
to the Bottom of the Sea_ wasn't as popular as _Star Trek_. :-)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist...)

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1988 14:30-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #167

>horrid thought, 'in several centuries' (consider how long it took to
>get a *substantial* European presence in the Americas after Columbus,
>or perhaps Erickson(sp), for comparison purposes).

The Spanish did not take very long at all to colonize the new world.
Columbus returned to Spain, got more ships and went back. I believe he
actually left a 'colony' behind while he went for more men and ships.
The Spanish presence was continuous and expanding throughout the
lifetime of Columbus and others that followed. The invasion of Mexico
and later on that of Peru all occured within decades of Columbus
setting foot in the Carribean.

There is a cultural bias of the poster that indicates a belief that
colonization of the new world did not begin until the British
settlements.

At the earlier date the Spanish (and Portuguese) had been given a
mandate by the Pope to all of the new lands. At this time the British
were too busy trying to kill off my ancestors (in Ireland) to bother
challenging the Spanish hegemony in the new world.

It may be true that 'modern' colonization began with the British. But
this was a social invention. The Spanish model of colonization was
encourage adventurers to conquer new lands and turn their peoples into
a peasantry capable of supporting an expanded landed aristocracy. The
North American continent, other than the deep south was largely
uncolonized by them because the existing population base was not
organized enough to be worth their while. At least not while the
various empires and rumored empires were available for conquest in the
south of the new world.

So if Neil Armstrong were Columbus, Buzz Aldrin would have stayed on
the moon until the next Apollo arrived with reinforcements and we would
have thriving colonies all over the moon by now.

Obviously historical comparison fails us.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 88 14:16:36 CST
From: marco@ncsc.ARPA (Barbarisi)
Subject: The Inner Ear and Balance in Humans


Recently there has been some discussion of the effects on human balance
that may occur in a space station that rotates to create "artificial"
gravity.  The assumption is that the Coriolis effect will disturb the
fluid in the inner ear and cause people to lose their sense of balance as
they move their heads towards or away from the center of rotation.
E.g., jump out of bed and you fall on your face.

I recall an experiment on Skylab in which the theory that the inner ear
is responsible for balance was proven incorrect.  I don't recall the
experimental details well, but I do recall that the apparatus included
a spinning chair.  Anyway, the results caused quite a stir at the time,
since someone had received a Nobel prize some years before for the inner
ear balance theory.  Does anyone else recall this experiment?

As an aside, I agree with those who speculate that the brain would learn to
automatically compensate for any strange sensations induced by rotation.
It's only the brief transition periods - from "real" to "artificial"
gravity and back again - that cause discomfort or uneasiness.  


Marco Barbarisi               marco@ncsc.arpa
"The Moon is cheesy.  Mars Schmars.  Let's go to Tralfalgamor!"

------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 88 21:03:35 GMT
From: ingr!b11!xenon!goodloe@uunet.uu.net  (Tony Goodloe)
Subject: request for book on history of planetary exploration

I would like to get some reccomendations for book(s) which talk about
the various planetary exploration projects. I would like a book that
talks about goals for each mission, accomplishments, anecdotes, etc. I
have been immersed in the space program my entire life, but I would like
something that talks about what we have done in more depth than the
evening news showing beautiful pictures of Saturn. I was real young when
much of this happened anyway. Thanks for any help.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #175
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Dec 88 20:20:40 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01223>; Wed, 28 Dec 88 16:30:07 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 28 Dec 88 16:29:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QXiGkmy00jZd41004N>;
          Wed, 28 Dec 88 13:47:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXiCn5y00Vs1I0pU4v>;
          Wed, 28 Dec 88 09:16:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IXiBD5y00Ui3M0zE5T>;
          Wed, 28 Dec 88 07:30:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.cXi=Rmy00UkT819k4:>;
          Wed, 28 Dec 88 05:29:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.0Xi=QAy00UkZITVk5I>;
          Wed, 28 Dec 88 05:27:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <MXi=GIy00UkZATV04f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 88 05:16:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #176

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Liquid Air Cycle engine
			   Morning Fireball
	    Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation
       Re: request for book on history of planetary exploration
	  Re: Cheap Components (was Advanced Launch System)
			    orbital photos
		       Voyager II, Element Set?
	      Re: Why use Spationaut for Fench spacemen
		       Re: Tilting at Windmills
			  Re: orbital photos
		    Re: Earth as Lens for Powersat
	    Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1988 14:51-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Liquid Air Cycle engine

The biggest technical problem I am aware of is the safety of the heat
exchanger. The incoming air is cooled in an exhanger that liquifies the
air by warming up the H2. H2 requires very good welds to prevent leaks.
The heat exchanger puts a multitude of small channels (that will get
cycled through a large temperature range) carrying H2 in close
proximity to O2. The ram air can be quite hot, so we can have the
possibility for ignition.

Hotol supposedly was based on this technology. I'd love to know how
they intended to make it safe. But then, it was intended to be unmanned
anyway...

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 88 17:50:07 GMT
From: asuvax!nud!sunburn!gtx!al@noao.edu  (Alan Filipski)
Subject: Morning Fireball


Today (12/22) at a few minutes past 6 AM, PST, I saw a bright
fireball in the sky.  It appeared in the NW sky (looking from Phoenix,
AZ) moved downwards, and lasted 3 or 4 seconds.  I would estimate that
it was 30 or 40 degrees above the horizon.  It was much brighter than
any meteor I have ever seen.  I assume it was space junk or a large
meteor.  Anybody else see it?  If we had a few sightings from different
directions, we could approximate its position.  I have no idea of the
range over which something like this is visible.  Typically, how high
are meteors when they flare up?  Does it depend much on their
velocity relative to the Earth?



  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
 ( {allegra,decvax,hplabs,amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al       (602)870-1696 )
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 88 19:38:20 GMT
From: actnyc!gcf@uunet.uu.net  (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation

In article <8901@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> kevin@cit-vax.UUCP (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
}It has now been 31 years since the first satellite was put into orbit.
}Consider how far aviation advanced from the Wright brothers' first flight
}in 1903 to 1934 -- far more than space flight has advanced, and this
}during an era when technological progress was nowhere near as rapid as
}it generally is today.  In my view our progress in space flight has been
}far less than what it could have been and should have been.  But that's
}a natural consequence of having government run the show.

So what happened to that guy (in California?) who was building a
space vehicle using private contributions?

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 88 22:21:57 GMT
From: att!whuts!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (WARMINK)
Subject: Re: request for book on history of planetary exploration

In article <139@xenon.UUCP>, goodloe@xenon.UUCP (Tony Goodloe) writes:
> I would like to get some reccomendations for book(s) which talk about
> the various planetary exploration projects. I would like a book that
> talks about goals for each mission, accomplishments, anecdotes, etc.

NASA has published at least one general guide to each mission. These books
are full of colour photos, technical information, people behind the mission,
results, etc. Very good, your local library should have them.
Sorry, the names escape me - but I'm sure they are named after the spacecraft
in question.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   There are lies, damned lies           |  Stuart Warmink, Interface Systems
   and statistics...                     |  <att!>whuts!sw Whippany NJ USA
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 88 20:12:40 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Cheap Components (was Advanced Launch System)

rbk@hpctdls.HP.COM (Richard Katz) writes:
>>I recently read that 60% of Get-Away Special cannisters fail.  There's
>>no substitute for professionalism.

>60 % is not such a bad number for success.  Consider the cost of doing
>it right, the NASA way.  

Can I assume that HP's products, because they are not built the NASA
way, with mil-spec parts and lots of redundancy, have a 60% failure
rate?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 88 20:36:09 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: orbital photos

In article <184@maths.tcd.ie> ftoomey@maths.tcd.ie (Fergal Toomey) writes:
}I remember seeing a TV program about this some time ago.
}Apparently the cunning ruskies in Leningrad or some place used to
}haul out giant rubber submarines just when the american spy satellites
}came overhead. The americans were completely fooled until a storm
}came up and blew the rubber subs onto the piers.


I strongly suspect this comes under the heading of urban myth.
Perhaps a deliberate one.

As you inflate a large balloon it does NOT look vaguely real, and even
a minor wind/current would cause a floating balloon to behave extremely
unlike heavy steel.

Like fold itself almost double pierside, for instance.

Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 88 08:30:57 GMT
From: attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@uunet.uu.net  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Voyager II, Element Set?


  What is Voyager IIs current heliocentric element set?
Neptunicentric(?) ? (Is this applicable yet?  Dont think so...)

  Would this be its Final Approach or are further changes
to be made?

-mdf

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 88 18:55:49 GMT
From: mcdchg!illusion!marcus@gatech.edu  (Marcus Hall)
Subject: Re: Why use Spationaut for Fench spacemen

[ Discussing spacionaut v.s. cosmonaut term for French space travelers ]

I heard one news report that was particularly amusing because of the double-
think overtones.  I don't remember what news network it was, but they referred
to the upcoming mission involving two cosmonauts and a French astronaut!!

marcus hall
marcus@illusion.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 88 07:21:34 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Tilting at Windmills

In article <YXfxMjy00UkZA320V1@andrew.cmu.edu> ota+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Ted Anderson) writes:
>I'd like to suggest two changes to the nation's space program.  The first is
>that it is high time to begin insisting on continuity of data from space.  The
>second is...
>the creation of
>the Space Advanced Research Projects Agency (SARPA) which would be funded with
>5%-10% of NASA's budget.

Both are good and timely ideas.  25%  (c. $3 billion) is more appropriate
than  5-10%.  Either is better than Pathfinder, and Pathfinder is better
than nothing.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                          "Want oil?  Drill lots of wells."   
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu                J. Paul Getty

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 88 23:51:59 GMT
From: steve@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Steve Philipson)
Subject: Re: orbital photos

In article <2777@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>In article <184@maths.tcd.ie> ftoomey@maths.tcd.ie (Fergal Toomey) writes:
>}I remember seeing a TV program about this some time ago.
>}Apparently the cunning ruskies in Leningrad or some place used to
>}haul out giant rubber submarines just when the american spy satellites
>}came overhead. ...

>I strongly suspect this comes under the heading of urban myth.
>Perhaps a deliberate one.

>As you inflate a large balloon it does NOT look vaguely real, and even
>a minor wind/current would cause a floating balloon to behave extremely
>unlike heavy steel.

   I don't know about the Soviet use of blow-up subs, but the Allies
actually did use blow up tanks, artillery, trucks, etc. during WWII 
to deceive German recon aircraft.  They did have a problem with things
getting blown around when the wind came up, but usually were able to
tie things down or weight them.

   In modern times, we do it a little differently.  Aviation Week reported
that the modern day Allies set up fake fighters made out of tent poles
and fabric to fool Soviet recon planes and satellites.  Av Leak even ran
photos of them.  There's no reason to think we couldn't do the same thing 
with fake subs.  The blow up models wouldn't be cheap, but they would be 
virtually free compared to the cost of a real sub.
-- 

						   Steve
					(the certified flying fanatic)
					    steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 88 14:48:01 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ois.db.toronto.edu!hogg@uunet.uu.net  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Earth as Lens for Powersat

In article <1988Dec21.143626.4198@cs.rochester.edu> dietz writes:
>From: dietz
>
>David Jones, in his always entertaining "Daedalus" column in Nature
>(12/1/88), described an amusing phenomenon.  As you know, the
>atmosphere refracts light, so we see the sun set several minutes after
>it drops beneath the horizon.  Jones suggests that sunlight refracted
>by the atmosphere is brought into focus on a line extending behind the
>Earth (why this focus is apparently not seen in lunar eclipses is not
>explained).

Well, here's the likely explanation.  Light that passes by just outside
our atmosphere won't be refracted at all.  Light arriving tangent to
the earth's surface will actually be refracted to ground level, and
this applies to all rays tangent to less than some minimal ``capture
altitude''.  Between this ``capture altitude'' and the top of the
atmosphere, each ``layer'' (this term is obviously an oversimplification)
will refract light by a different amount.  At any given distance downsun
of the earth, only a single very thin ring will be illuminated, or ``in
focus''.  This suggests that a lunar eclipse seen from the moon's surface
would be particularly beautiful, but it doesn't bode well for power
collection.

Of course, the above description is an oversimplification: sunlight is
broad-spectrum.  Eclipses now sound even more appealing, since a very
narrow rainbow should surround the black earth.  (Will the different
colours be resolvable by the human eye?  Probably not.  Maybe we should
place eclipse-watching seats at GEO instead.)  In fact, like any lens,
the atmosphere is also a prism.  (Camera designers know this as
chromatic aberration.)

In any case, during a lunar eclipse the moon will be illuminated in the
visible spectrum by a *very* thin layer of the earth's atmosphere.
(The whole atmosphere isn't very deep.)  This illumination is probably
detectable with appropriate instruments, but the human eye doesn't
qualify.

>Following up on this idea, note that since the outer layers of the
>atmosphere refract the light less (they are less dense), there should
>be an altitude at which light is refracted to a focus at the earth-sun
>L2 point -- just the place to put a powersat.  Transmit power back to
>earth by laser.

This powersat will collect (for each wavelength) all light incident on
a thin layer of the atmosphere that wasn't absorbed on its way past.
On the other hand, it will miss all the light that is blocked by the
earth itself.  Sounds like a loss.  A big loss.  A *really* big loss.

No, keep your powersats at L5.  (Earth-Moon or Sun-Earth, I'm not
particular.  You're the one that has to send the power back, unless you
use it on-site.)  The eclipsebow is a matter for Art, not Industry...
-- 
John Hogg			   | hogg@csri.toronto.{edu,cdn}
Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg
University of Toronto		   | hogg%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa)
				   | hogg@csri.utoronto (bitnet)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 88 07:11:44 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: lunar landing and the deprived generation

In article <169@calmasd.GE.COM> wlp@calmasd.GE.COM (Walter L. Peterson, Jr.) writes:
>In article <85@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>Granted. Columbus did not need the high tech that *WE* need, BUT he
>*DID* need all the "high tech" which his society had to offer.

Agreed.  Colubus took advantage of both technological breakthroughs, such as
the lateen sail and stern rudder, and advanced mathematics and astronomy 
derived from the Moslems and nurtured by Prince Henry the Navigator.

>We don't need "scientists" in
>order to establish space colonies; we need "engineers".  There is no
>*NEW* knowledge needed to build an L5 nor a Lunar or Martian colony.

I take *extreme* exception to this.  We "could" do without the knowledge of the
last 45 years: including lasers, transistors, genetics, retroviruses,  etc., 
even in space, but it would be silly to do so.  We "can" build  a space colony 
with current knowledge.  But it would be outrageously risky, and its cost 
extremely out of proportion to the cost of scientific research.  

Let's pay for the scientific research now, so we won't have to ask
Congress for the gigabucks later.

>"science" or "engineering"...
>are two different things which sserve two different purposes.  I think
>we sometimes loose sight of that in our training of engineers in this
>country and I think that the state of our industry, and by extension
>therefore the space program, show the results of that loss of insight.

This dichotomy, while useful, leaves out some important players in our
technological progress:

Theoretical scientists:  People who sit down with pencil and paper (or
computer) and attempt to create new scientific theories.  This category
blurs in with: 

Experimental scientists:  People who perform experiments with machines to
both figure out theories by induction, and to verify the theories of           
theoretical scientists.  This category blurs in with:

Scientific instrument engineers:  People who build instruments used by
scientists. 

Speculative engineers:  Work mostly with pencil, paper, and computer.
Do feasibility studies and integrate new scientific knowledge into
designs.  These people range from hard-sci-fi writers to inventors
to long-range engineering "planners" to just plain old engineers who
have come up with a great new design.

Design and Implementation Engineers: the people who build the working
models, set up the production line, etc.

Test engineers: Similar to experimental scientists, except they work on 
engineering projects, and attempt to discover whether a gizmo will work.

*All* of these people need to have the latest scientific knowledge.
Engineers attempting to design or produce new products, especially on such
a large scale as space endevours, need in addition a *thorough* 
background in history and economics, to give them perspective on what 
they are trying to build for who and why.

>The first nations to lead
>the waves of exploration were Portugal, Spain and some of the more
>adventurous of the Italian city-states, but who was the real long-term
>winner? England.  

At last count there were more Spanish-speaking people in
the New World than English-speaking.  There are also a couple hundred million
Portugese-talkers.  Yes, we have a better economy, but whose    
population is growing faster?  The jury's not in on this one.

England was technologically superior to Spain, by far and away, from 1500 on.
There are so many Latin Americans today because Spain and Portugal got the
jump on England.  This advantage perpetuated itself even after Spain and 
Portugal lost power.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                          "Want oil?  Drill lots of wells."   
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu                J. Paul Getty

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #176
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Dec 88 23:39:26 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01342>; Thu, 29 Dec 88 17:46:51 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 29 Dec 88 17:46:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YXickey00Vs1I1LE8v>;
          Thu, 29 Dec 88 14:49:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gXiZmFy00jZdQ1I051>;
          Thu, 29 Dec 88 11:25:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXiWCAy00UkTE0sE52>;
          Thu, 29 Dec 88 07:22:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.IXiUWuy00Ui381mU4N>;
          Thu, 29 Dec 88 05:28:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.wXiUW9y00UkZ0UWk53>;
          Thu, 29 Dec 88 05:27:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXiUMGy00UkZ0UW05=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 88 05:16:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #177

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 177

Today's Topics:
		     Re:  Glasnost strikes again.
			       TETHERS
		Long Life Battery and Clock: Thank you
	  Re: Cheap Components (was Advanced Launch System)
	  another sad day, but not because of space policy.
       Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]
	   Old Shuttle Processing Reports via Peter E. Yee
		   Re: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST
		      NASA Worship and Blasphemy
	Meta-discussion (was Re: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 23 Dec 88 10:07:05 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
To: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@UUNET.UU.NET, space@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject:  Re:  Glasnost strikes again.

> The Soviet travel agency, Intourist,
> has said that for #999 per person
> they could arrange a week's package
> "space" trip to Russia next summer.
> 
> The trip would include the Cosmonaut
> training centre at Star City and
> Soviet Mission Control at Kaliningrad,
> both just outside Moscow.

And, for only a $10 million surcharge, you can take a side-trip
excursion to Mir! :-)

Regards, and happy holidays... Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 88 17:00:15 GMT
From: lindy!news@labrea.stanford.edu  (Louis J Bookbinder)
Subject: TETHERS


A previous poster said something about building a space tether and
re-inforcing it with lunar fiberglass. This has practical shortcomings.
Thus I will explain what I know about tethers and skyhooks. Basically,
you want to build with the strongest materials you have.

TETHERS

Basics:
A tether is a long filament, thread, or cable with something useful
(payload) at one end and anchored someplace useful at the other. For
discussion in SCI.SPACE we are talking about orbiting tethers, or
tethers used with orbiting spacecraft.

The critical use of a space tether is to put a payload someplace it
would be difficult to put it without the tether. Typically, by putting
the payload on a long tether many kilometers from the primary spacecraft
it becomes possible to place it far enough away in the gravity gradient
to actually "hang" it at sub-orbital speed (from a primary spacecraft at
super-orbital speed). NASA had plans (before Challenger) to hang a probe
from a long tether from a shuttle to sample very-high-atmosphere
conditions without incurring the serious drag penalty of putting the
shuttle itself, or very-LEO satellite there.

The primary limit on the design and use of a tether is its strength. A
tether must be able not only to support a payload (in drag or gravity)
but also support itself. Consider a tether without any payload at all
hanging from a tower in a uniform gravity field (or towed at uniform
acceleration from a rocket). A long tether weighs more than a short
tether; at some length, under certain gravity (acceleration), the
tensile strength of the tether is just sufficient to support its own
weight. Let's call that the HANG of a given tether material. Merely
using a material with twice the tensile strength does not double the
hang, the density is also a factor. Double the density, also, and the
hang is unchanged.

Currently, Kevlar has the greatest hang of any material I know of -
about 100 km in a 1g uniform field.  In other words, if you could float
a balloon at 100 km you could hang a uniform kevlar cable from it to the
ground.  Steel has much less hang, less than 10 km. Nylon has about 20
km. I am sorry I can't find the actual figures.

USE 1 - BALLOONS

So, tether a balloon at 100 km. This would make a useful telescope
platform (a VERY BIG balloon), or a vacuum test lab, or even just a
super radio/TV tower. A very high space launch platform?

Limitations: Wind would put unacceptable loads on such a long tether.
Also, getting stuff up to the balloon, or down, would put additional
loads on it.

USE 2 - Gravity gradient utilization in orbit.

Gravity is not uniform. Any elongated object tends to line up with the
center of gravity around which it orbits because the end of the object
nearest the COG is moving at sub-orbital speed and the end furthest is
at super-orbital speed. Once such an object is stabilized this way, the
ends are no longer in 0g, they are experiencing MICROGRAVITY - very
slight forces toward or away from the COG. Another name for this effect
is TIDE.

Now, put a shuttle in LEO. From it launch a probe attached by a tether,
so the probe has less than (shuttle-)orbital velocity. (All objects in
this frame have orbits, but they may differ wildly from the shuttle's or
may intersect the Earth's atmosphere) The probe will "fall" away from
the shuttle, toward the earth. At the end of the tether it will be
forced to follow a path identical to the shuttle but kilometers closer
to the earth, and with the same period. This path is not a true orbit.
The probe is moving at less than orbital speed for its path. Thus it
"feels" a force of gravity. Likewise, the shuttle feels an opposing
force. The two masses on the ends of the tether are no longer in true
orbits - the only thing in a true orbit is a point part-way along the
tether - in fact the COG of the shuttle/tether/probe system. This COG is
not, incidentally, the center of mass - the gravity gradient prevents
this.

A person sitting in either the probe or the shuttle would feel a small
pull like weak gravity. The pull varies with distance from the COG and
increases faster on the EARTH side of the COG.

Another application might be a non-rotating space station with partial
gravity for living quarters. It would have 3 sections all connected with
long tethers: the earthward hi-g section, the outward lo-g section, and
at the COG a 0-g docking section (the only section where space craft
could dock). An interplanetary spacecraft in two sections, rotating at
the ends of a tether to produce centrifugal g, is the same thing in a
different frame.

NOTE: Orbiting tethers can be MUCH longer than the 1-g hang of the
material they are made of. Figuring the maximum length is a difficult
problem in differential calculus.

USE 3 SKYHOOKS

A skyhook is any one of several hypothetical devices for reducing the
energy needed for achieving orbit from the earth or from another orbit.
If a long tether is extended vertically in orbit, the lower end is
moving at sub-orbital speed. Thus if a space craft can catch the lower
end of the tether, it is now attached to an orbiting object, even if it
was not at sufficient velocity to be in orbit by itself. This changes
the COG of the skyhook, of course, but if it is sufficiently massive,
the effect on its orbit is minimal and can be adjusted.

Variation 1: the skyhook can be enormously long so its COG is in GEO,
and one end touches the ground. This allows any sufficiently strong
monkey in a spacesuit to climb hand-over-hand up to orbit!

Variation 2: the skyhook can rotate around its center of mass in the
same direction as its orbit. The end of the tether at bottom center is
traveling much slower than orbital velocity, and the end at top center
much faster. A spacecraft in a sub-orbital trajectory can meet the
bottom at almost 0 relative velocity, grab on, and ride all the way to
the top, then let go into a MUCH higher orbit or escape trajectory. The
spacecraft's gain is the skyhook's loss, of course. In reverse, a
hi-speed craft returning from Mars, say, can latch on at top, ride down
to bottom, and then drop softly into the atmosphere. If the end of the
skyhook touches ground, the velocity could be almost zero, hence little
air resistance or drag. The skyhook would even be able to lift a capsule
sitting on the ground into orbit.

NOTE both variations require enormously long tethers under gravity
and/or centrifugal load. Current materials are nowhere near strong
enough.

ENGINEERING VARIATION: Tapering.

Let's go back to that tower in the uniform gravity field. How can we
hang a tether longer than it's hang? If we first hang two tethers half a
hang long together, than they will be strong enough to support an entire
hang of another single tether. The entire structure is now 1 1/2 hang
long. Extending that, we can keep extending the structure by hanging it
on a bundle of tethers, half a hang long, but twice the number of
tethers. Or construct a thicker tether. This is a logarithmic taper, and
clearly can run to ridiculous dimensions for small relative increments
in length. But it does allow some gain. It won't allow us to build our
variation 1 skyhook (a beanstalk?) but the rotating skyhook is a real
possibility.

I am not a materials engineer, so I don't know much about the research
into hi-strength materials. Kevlar is the strongest I know of.
Theoretically, if we could make fibers out of diamond, sort of like
super graphite fibers, they would be an order of magnitude stronger than
Kevlar. This gets us into the practical skyhook range. But if anyone
knows of stronger materials coming out of the labs, readers of this
bboard would be most interested.

Thx, Booky - You Bet!  (What? me? opinions? Bo)  GE.LJB@Forsythe.stanford.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 88 23:02:30 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcilzb!doug@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Doug Hendricks)
Subject: Long Life Battery and Clock: Thank you

I want to thank all of the people who gave me responses to my
question about a Long-Life Battery and Clock. My brother and his artist friend
were very pleased. For those who wondered, this is what the artist planed to 
do (my interpretation):

A videotape would be made of time-capsule-y images and sounds and placed
in a video system that would activate and play after 100 years. Clearly,
there are many technological problems to be faced here, not the least
being the degradation of materials.

I advanced very general questions because I wanted to see how wide a range
of creative answers I could receive, and I was not disappointed.

Thank you and Merry Christmas,

Douglas Hendricks     Know the Seven Warning Signs of Weirdness.
Hewlett-Packard       See Your Doctor.
Santa Clara, CA

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 88 19:05:09 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpsel1!campbelr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Campbell)
Subject: Re: Cheap Components (was Advanced Launch System)

>>>I recently read that 60% of Get-Away Special cannisters fail.  There's
>>>no substitute for professionalism.
>
>>60 % is not such a bad number for success.  Consider the cost of doing
>>it right, the NASA way.  
>
>Can I assume that HP's products, because they are not built the NASA
>way, with mil-spec parts and lots of redundancy, have a 60% failure
>rate?

Of course not (virtual smiley noted :-)

But even if you take some of HP's best products and do not integrate
them into the package well, 60% sounds pretty good.  Even with our
most rugged equipment, some will fail (Hey, *Nobody* is that good)
and a GAS doesn't always have the room, time, money or power for
triple redundancy in critical components.

I took the note to imply that one triple redundant system is more
expensive than three tries at a nonredundant system.

Bob Campbell                Some times I wish that I could stop you from 
campbelr@hpda.hp.com        talking, when I hear the silly things you say.
Hewlett Packard                                    - Elvis Costello

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 88 15:20:08 GMT
From: spdcc!eli@bbn.com  (Steve Elias)
Subject: another sad day, but not because of space policy.


 henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Twenty years ago tomorrow (Wed 21st), at 0751 EST, the first ship set sail
>for the Moon.  Eight more sailed in the following four years.  The last
>three were broken up, unused, a few years later.  There have been no more.

	perhaps your posting went out before we knew the real reason that 
	Wed 21st is sad day.  when we finally do get an effective space
	policy, it too may be terrorized by sociopaths like Iran's worst,
	who appear to have begun a new round of terror.

	Merry Holiday(s), just the same...  
	
>"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

	God willing, we'll grow from this planet peacefully,
	rather than blow ourselves off of it quickly.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 88 10:32:52 GMT
From: roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Timothy Roberts)
Subject: Re: USSR and the Moon [was "Beyond the Energia crisis"]

In article <286@internal.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>Take a 5 lb bag of flour (Bleached white or Whole Wheat...)  Put it on
>top of a tuna fish can full of explosive.  Place on floor of 12ft square
>shed.  Light fuse and run away.  The flour is dusbursed into the air,
>then the dust/air mix explodes violently.  The fuel doesn't burn well
>until it is disbursed into the oxidizer, then it detonates.

Try taking an Estes "D12" model rocket engine and four bags of Nifda non-
dairy creamer to a remote site, preferably grass free.  Run the engine/
igniter assembly nozzle first through the bottom of a 13 oz. coffee can. 
Level the can/engine "tube" pointing upward, add creamer, string out a lot
of wire to your launcher switch and fire.  Awe inspiring mushroom cloud
to lighten up any party is produced with lovely caramel odor.  I do not
recomend you try this with strong winds or sane mind.

Tat Tvam Asi (That Thou Art), Svetaketu!      Tim (Rein und Raus) Roberts

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 88 11:09:43 GMT
From: roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Timothy Roberts)
Subject: Old Shuttle Processing Reports via Peter E. Yee

Peter Yee has been great in the way that he enlightens our small world with
news releases from NASA.  Unfortunatly, the main frame here at UW-Milwaukee
dumps the old reports every 15th of the month.  I have written to Peter and
he informed me that he does not have old reports archived or available.  I
was wondering if anyone out there has saved these and other relevent articles
without fail?  I have about 600k of stuff up to the Discovery launch but miss
ed a bunch from the Atlantis launch.  SWM will swap for good time.  Please 
write me - somebody - and tell me "Why, yes, I have those for you, Tim.  And
those are nice shoes you're wearing, too." 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's one small slip for a man, one pliant squished melon rind"
Timothy P. P. Roberts - Tat Tvam Asi, Svetaketu (That thou art, boy)!

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 88 20:11:00 GMT
From: osu-cis!killer!texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST


"God willing, we will return"
	      ^^
By this time you will have noted that Henry adopts the term "we" whenever
NASA has an achievement with which he agrees.  At other times you will note
his use of the phrase "they."

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 88 16:31:02 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: NASA Worship and Blasphemy

These scenarios are plausible (not one criticism has included a 
credible indictment of any key point or assumption) and the 
scenarios presented by the NASA worshipers are implausible
(for example, a 747 doesn't contain enough fuel to wipe out the
people in the Astrodome).  

The purpose of presenting these scenarios is to force some rather
painful congnitive dissonance upon those who so fervently believe
in Shuttle/NASA/Santa/Apollo and various other pagan gods, that they
are no longer capable of rational thought.  Predictably, many of
them react with even greater religious fervor and quasi-theological
rhetoric.  Hopefully, a few will opt for a more rational world view.

The NASA worshipers make each other think they are thinking, therefore
they love each other.  I am making them really think, therefore
they hate me.  But if enough of them really think, I might get to
go to space before I die of old age.  I would like that. 


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 25 Dec 88 22:14:17 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Meta-discussion (was Re: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST)

In article <191700015@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes:
>By this time you will have noted that Henry adopts the term "we" whenever
>NASA has an achievement with which he agrees.

    Henry's .sig you comment on is a quote. Perhaps you believe in
revisionist quoting but generally it's considered in poor taste.
    All this wild speculation about the private beliefs of one of the
group's most valuable contributors is also in poor taste. Most of the
Henry-bashers are rarely observed to contribute anything *other* than
inflammatory opinion to the group, IMHO.
    Followups to misc.misc.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Captain Sverre, should you disobey my command, I shall exercise
      my option to fire this missile, thereby airbursting a
      one-kiloton warhead within ten inches of your body.''
	- James Morrow, _This is the Way the World Ends_

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #177
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Dec 88 06:39:10 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00665>; Fri, 30 Dec 88 05:32:51 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 30 Dec 88 05:32:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oXipbFy00Ui341=E95>;
          Fri, 30 Dec 88 05:26:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.QXipWMy00UkZMVc04K>;
          Fri, 30 Dec 88 05:21:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXipRZy00UkZEVak5A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 88 05:16:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #178

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 178

Today's Topics:
       Progress 39 docks with Mir and space repairs with a boot
		      Shuttle Disaster Premises
			Re: Spaceplane project
		   Re: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST
       growth & energy use / thermal runaway / greenhouse gases
		    Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises
		    Private Space Research Falacy
			 North-South Jet Lag
		     Making model rocket engines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 88 14:13:17 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Progress 39 docks with Mir and space repairs with a boot

     On Dec. 27th the Progress 39 cargo craft docked with the Mir/Kvant space 
station complex.  As soon as the cosmonauts opened the hatch they were greeted 
by the aroma of fresh apples, just part of their New Years gifts for Alexander 
Volkov, Sergei Krikalev and Dr. Valery Polyakov.  This tanker brings up about 
1.3 tonnes of supplies and 1 tonne of fuel/water/air.  Also with the tanker 
Radio Moscow began to confirm that the crew would be coming down in April.  
The shortwave report says that the doctor's examinations of the returning 
Soyuz TM-5/7 crew of Moussa Manarov and Alexander Titov them to be in 
excellent condition.  The official time for their orbital duration is now 
given as 366 day, 19 hour 29 minute.  
     Some more information has come out concerning problems during the 
Soviet/French space walk taken by Jean-Loup Chretien and Alexander Volkov.  
Recall that the the Aerospatial ERA deployable structure failed to deploy 
properly, and it took some effort to get it to do so. Later AW&ST revealed 
Volkov released the ERA by giving the deployment canister kicks with the 
reinforced of toe of his space suit boot.  He waited until he was out of the 
range of flight control to begin this attack, because he was disobeying orders 
to leave it alone.  Naturally it worked after all the carefully planed 
alternatives failed.
     In another interesting report more data has been reveal about the Soviets 
Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) to be brought up to the station with the air 
lock module addition to the station in April 1989. The MMU is worn on the back 
of their new suits, there are two controller panels, one for each arm with a 
different controller type on each type.  The new semi rigid suits also contain 
interchangeable arms and leg sections to better fit different people.  
     In the commercial area on Dec. 19th Continental Grain Co. and Soyuzkarta 
(the Soviet remote sensing agency) signed an agreement to market images for 
the US and Canada.  ContriTrade Services Corp., their subsidiary, hopes to 
market these 5 meter (16 ft.) pictures in here to commercial and government 
agencies and to "countertrade" (barter - probably grain).   Meanwhile Space 
Commerce Corp. (Art Dula's Houston based marking firm) has signed a joint 
venture with Glavcosmos to sell all Soviet space services: launch services, 
rent aboard Mir, space hardware sales, tours of the Baikonur cosmodrome, and 
space memorabilia.  The Russians will be marketing space on board both Energia 
and the Soviet Shuttle Buran in a few years through SCC.  On Dec. 20th 
reporters where shown a backup to Buran in Moscow, and told several more 
shuttles were under construction.  (Defense Daily Dec. 22).  In another 
marketing area on Dec. 27th the head of the German agency said that he 
expected a West German to fly to Mir within 3 years according to Radio Moscow.
    As any engineer knows, machines fail in ways that often can be repaired 
with simple solutions by the person on site.  The Russians have proved this 
time and again on their space stations.  Now as they are bringing this 
expertise into the commercial market.  In the battle to become an economic 
space power they have that advantage while here people still argue that robots 
can do it all.

                                                      Glenn Chapman
                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 88 15:45:52 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Shuttle Disaster Premises

Here are the premises of the Shuttle disaster scenarios (my apologies
to those who find all this painfully obvious, but the noise level
around here has made it necessary that I belabor these points):

1 The SSME turbine pump blades have been found to be a weakness
  in the SSME design that has yet to be dealt with adequately.

2 The failure of these blades would result in a failure mode that
  has not been adequately tested, thus the turbine blade containment
  ring may not succeed in fully containing the debris.

3 The 3 APU's have been found to be a weakness in the Shuttle
  system design as 2 of the 3 have failed in a single mission
  with the 3rd found to be near failure after landing.

4 According to James Fletcher, the NASA Administrator appointed
  by President Reagan to reform NASA's Shuttle program after the
  Challenger disaster, the Space Transportation System is on
  the verge of becoming "economical".  (While I may not agree with
  this opinion, it is certainly reasonable to assume the statements
  of such a person to be "plausible" in these scenarios.)

5 An "economical" launch system is what the military needs to 
  launch its crushing backlog of spy satellites and Vandenburg
  is the only launch site which can make polar orbit without
  going over populated areas.

6 The trajectory of a Shuttle launched to the south into a polar 
  orbit (which is the typical orbit of spy satellites) from Vandeburg
  reenters over the major western Soviet cities in the event that 
  an abort to once around option is attempted and falls short due 
  to inadequate thrust (such as OMS engine failure secondary to 
  SSME failure).

7 RTG's are a far less vulnerable power source for spy satellites than
  solar cells and the military is increasingly concerned about 
  solar panel vulnerability.

8 Unavoidable clear air turbulence is common over the Shuttle
  landing site at Edwards AFB.

9 The OMS fuel and pressurization lines are in reasonable proximity 
  to the SSME turbine blades.

10 The Pu239 oxide cannisters have not been adequately tested since
   when they were subjected to an explosive test, they did fail and
   NASA proceeded to proclaim them flight ready because the explosive
   test was "invalid".

11 We have no way of rescuing Shuttle astronauts stranded in orbit.

Some other facts, pointed out to me privately, that could be used for 
future Shuttle disaster scenarios:

12 Orbital debris is a significant threat to the Shuttle as we have
   already experienced damage during one flight.

13 The SSME bell is not being adequately inspected for hairline cracks
   which could fail catastrophically during launch.


There are many classes of plausible disaster scenarios based on these 
premises.  I've chosen to write on just a few exemplary cases which
are particularly horrific.  They are worth contemplating because they 
are so horrific.

NASA is intransigent when it comes to pursuing important technical
activities that have little immediate political import.  Therefore,
it invested in SRB redesign only AFTER catastrophic SRB failure.
Now that it is "safe", NASA continues to invest more and more money
in SRB research to the exclusion of other areas of far greater
weakness in the Shuttle system.  Obviously, it will not invest adequate
money in those areas until they, too, fail catastrophically.

Tom Neff, Bob Pendleton, Jim Merrit, et al, start educating the 
net for a change.  Maybe you should start by reading some nonfictional 
accounts of space technology and history rather than continuing to 
worship mythology authored by such great story-tellers as Hans Mark, Gen. 
Abramson, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Barney Roberts, Jessco Von 
Puttkammer, James Fletcher, et al.

PS:  If NASA ignores reality in its largest, currently most important
and most immediate program -- the Shuttle program -- how do you think
it is doing on future systems like Shuttle C, NASP, Space Station, 
lunar bases, space resource utilization and mars missions?


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 88 17:33:23 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

I asked this earlier and didn't get any response so here it is again:

What turbulence model do you folks intend to use and how do you intend
to validate it?


This is the question that no one with the X-30 project or NASP seems
willing to grapple with.  I thought maybe some non-NASA/DARPA project
might avoid the same error.  Or have you even gotten to the point of
thinking about such things?

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 26 Dec 88 19:28:04 GMT
From: bbn.com!jallred@bbn.com  (John Allred)
Subject: Re: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST

In article <191700015@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes:
>
>"God willing, we will return"
>	      ^^
>By this time you will have noted that Henry adopts the term "we" whenever
>NASA has an achievement with which he agrees.  At other times you will note
>his use of the phrase "they."

Henry was quoting Eugene Cernan.  Mellow out, bozo.
____
John Allred
BBN Systems and Technologies Corp.
(jallred@bbn.com)

A truly wise man (or woman) never plays leapfrog with a unicorn.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Dec 88 18:08:45 GMT
From: spdcc!eli@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Steve Elias)
Subject: growth & energy use / thermal runaway / greenhouse gases

followups to sci.misc -- sci.space is overflowing with space junk, already!

Paul Dietz writes:

!Following up on this idea, note that since the outer layers of the
!atmosphere refract the light less (they are less dense), there should
!be an altitude at which light is refracted to a focus at the earth-sun
!L2 point -- just the place to put a powersat.  Transmit power back to
!earth by laser.

John Hogg writes:

!No, keep your powersats at L5.  (Earth-Moon or Sun-Earth, I'm not
!particular.  You're the one that has to send the power back, unless you
!use it on-site.)  The eclipsebow is a matter for Art, not Industry...

	are you guys in favor of large scale power satellites, or
	satellites for remote areas only?  

	do you think we will ever have to worry about the implications
	of increasing the flux of energy released on earth?  now, the
	buildup of greenhouse gases is certainly a more important 
	factor than energy use.  a few people (sci.misc, long ago) have 
	calculated that our energy production will reach the order of 
	magnitude of the solar flux incident on earth -- if we increase
	our energy use by a factor of 100 to 1000.  

	other sci.spacers have pointed out that our energy 'use'/production
	grows at 7% a year, or some such number.  this means that we
	might see a 100 fold growth in the forseeable future.

	when should we start worrying about the other side of the
	thermal runaway coin?  should we wait until we have the
	CO2 (and friends) problem under control?  could be a long wait...

	will it ever be important to begin relying on energy sources
	which can be considered "closed-loop" with regard to the biosphere?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Dec 88 16:07:06 GMT
From: nyser!weltyc@cunyvm.cuny.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises

In article <8812262356.AA22372@crash.cts.com>  (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Here are the premises of the Shuttle disaster scenarios ...

Excuse me for joining this discussion late (I haven't read any of the
previous mesages which this is clearly a rebuttal to), and if you've
done this already I apologize.  You bring up some pretty serious
accusations, and I would like to know your sources.  Specifically your
points 1+2 about SSME turbine pump failure and containment, point 10
about Pu239 containers, and 13 about the SSME bell inspections.

The other points you make coincide with the information I have (while
I am no expert, I try to stay informed), though again since I didn't
see the previous discussion I don't know their relevance...

>NASA is intransigent when it comes to pursuing important technical
>activities that have little immediate political import.  Therefore,
>it invested in SRB redesign only AFTER catastrophic SRB failure.
>....  Obviously, it will not invest adequate
>money in those areas until they, too, fail catastrophically.

While I won't defend NASA's current over-managed, undirected,
`save-our-own-skins' structure, I will say that your are, in my view,
being (characteristically) over critical.  It is in NASAs best
interest to insure the shuttle is safe, and on their limited budget
they can only afford to do so much.  There are an infinite number of
things that can go wrong, and they simply can't be expected to
compensate for every one.   I must agree with you on the APU issue,
though, and I confess the lack of attention this seems to be getting
is at least starting to make me suspicious of what other things have
been overlooked....

--

Christopher Welty  ---  Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu             ...!njin!nyser!weltyc
#! rnews

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 88 11:54:59 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Private Space Research Falacy

Perhaps the most destructive falacy pervading the thinking about
the US space program today is that the best way for government to
"prime the pump" for private industry in space is to have private
enterprise do space research using government developed and operated
infrastructure.  

This is backwards.

Government should be doing research using privately developed
and operated infrastructure.



UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 Dec 88 07:00:29 est
From: fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa (john s karabaic)
To: aagate..space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: North-South Jet Lag

 
Yes it does occur, but not entirely because of the cramped conditions.  Sunset
and sunrise times change with latitude depending on the time of year.  I have
had my circadian rhythms jolted by travelling from Boston to the Florida 
panhandle during winter.  Even though the trip was on a C-130 (not crowded but
very noisy), I think a large part of the perceived lag was due to the
increased sunlight.  I have heard of a similar phenomenon from folks who
travelled from San Diego to Portland during the winter, but they
didn't like the early darkness.
 
  ===========================  ==============================================  
||Lt John S. Karabaic        || arpanet:                                     ||
  ---------------------------   fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa            ||
||Paper mail:                  ------------- --------------------------------  
||Bldg 22, Room S-108        || phones:     |"A large and liberal discontent:||
||AFWAL/TXI                  || 513 255 5800|These are the goods in life's   ||
||ASD AI Applications Office || 513 255 5537|   rich hand,/The things that   ||
||WPAFB, OH 45433-6543       || AV 785 5800 |are more excellent." Wm. Watson ||
  ===========================  ============= ================================

------------------------------

Date: 27 Dec 88 18:25:18 GMT
From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa  (John Logajan x3118)
Subject: Making model rocket engines.

The discussion of this started in sci.space.shuttle (I think).
We took some commercial black powder (FF grade, for use with muzzle
loaders) and compressed it in cardboard casings using a 10 ton
hydrolic car jack.  Nozzels were either wooden plugs, or Rockhard
Water Putty with holes drilled into them. (The wooden one's holes
widend as they passed hot gasses.)  

Our engines sounded, smelled and performed just like Estes engines.

-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 -
-    ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan                or     john@logajan.mn.org  -

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #178
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Dec 88 06:40:25 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00571>; Sat, 31 Dec 88 05:37:57 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 31 Dec 88 05:37:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sXj:iKy00UkT80kk5e>;
          Sat, 31 Dec 88 05:27:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.AXj:bVy00UkZQWdE5g>;
          Sat, 31 Dec 88 05:20:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wXj-XSy00UkZEWc05L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 88 05:15:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #179

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 179

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Private Space Research Falacy
	      Re: Why use Spationaut for Fench spacemen
		      Glenn Chapman Great Info.
			       SW Radio
	    Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!
	       Information sources on planetary probes.
	     Condensed CANOPUS - 1988 November (part 2/2)
	    Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 88 02:52:36 GMT
From: thorin!unc!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private Space Research Falacy

In article <8812271956.AA27779@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:
>Government should be doing research using privately developed
>and operated infrastructure.

    As far as I can tell, this is largely true now in the planetary
program, save that NASA doesn't do research in this area as much as
fund it (Ames is the largest exception I can think of).

    Development: Academics working with NASA money develop instruments
in their own labs or subcontract out. Another contractor such as TRW
puts the hardware together and delivers it to the Cape. Once in orbit,
generally on an expendable booster originally developed with military
funding and now evolving into a for-profit industry, the mission uses
a privately developed upper stage.

    Operations: Solar Max is run direct from UC Boulder. JPL, which
runs most recent planetary missions, is a weird semi-private
organization (run by Caltech, facilities govt-owned). There is an
increased trend toward mission control being distributed among the
PIs. I believe something of this nature is planned for Mars Observer.

    This leaves the DSN, I guess. I don't see any need to build
another one right now. The current incarnation does a superlative job
even if the facilities *are* owned by the feds.

    Perhaps you mean something else, though. Words like
'infrastructure', the space activist's generic for the 90s, can mean
virtually anything.

    There's an excellent article in the current (Feb) Analog
describing the historical role of the govt. in large-scale projects
such as railroads & dams. It offers a bit of balance to the extremist
anti-NASA view. Recommended for non-ideologues.

    On another note, I personally could do without these diatribes
about "dangerous fallacies" that spring from Mr. Bowery every week or
two. Everybody has an opinion but handing it down as the Word is
ridiculous. Sci.space is ideally a forum for discussion, not
pontification (further metadiscussion to /dev/null).

------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 88 02:17:32 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Re: Why use Spationaut for Fench spacemen

A discussion semms to have arisen concerning which
word a nation ought to use when its people are doing
the particular action themselves. I refer to:

>I actually, to be frank, don't like your term 'spacionaut'. Recall
>that the Soviets in their begining decided to call themselves
>"cosmonauts", and the Americans in their begining decided to call
>themselves "astronauts". Since these French fellows are HITCH
>HIKING on either Soviet or American spacecraft, then they SHOULD be
>called appropriately either "cosmonauts" or "astronauts".
>Once France, say, launches its own people up there independently,
>then they will decide what to call themselves.

So, then, Mr colonialist, is telling us that a group of people ought to use
a (foriegn) word and can't invent another in their own dialectic (since they are
too
stupid, I guess...). I wonder how many word wouldn't exist in English if this was
true....

I am sorry but this looks a bit ridiculus. Maybe that comment was driven
by some other reason.

By the way I really liked the word "HITCH HIKING". !!!
(In the spirit of one of my previous article..). I'd better by an
hitchiker that getting old in my village.... Think about this !

Jean-Marc Debaud
Carnegie-Mellon University
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 88 02:25:04 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Glenn Chapman Great Info.

I am taking a step here where I don't know wheater it is right
or not. That is to make puplic what I thought or to send a private
message to the particular person.

But finally I thought that people ought to know what I think.

I want to express my gratitude as well as a big thanks to
Glenn Chapman for its invaluable information that days
after days he brings on the network.

Jean-Marc Debaud (Yes, that evil French...)
Carnegie-Mellon University
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Subject: SW Radio
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 88 12:52:19 -0500
From: "F.Baube" <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>


I for one would really like to hear about times and frequencies
for space-related broadcasts.  Is there a newsgroup where this
does or could take place ?  Is it an appropriate subject for 
SPACE ?

/fred

------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 88 14:16:13 GMT
From: rochester!kodak!ornitz@rutgers.edu  (barry ornitz)
Subject: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!

In article <1040@ns.UUCP> logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes:
>The discussion of this started in sci.space.shuttle (I think).
>We took some commercial black powder (FF grade, for use with muzzle
>loaders) and compressed it in cardboard casings using a 10 ton
>hydrolic car jack.  Nozzels were either wooden plugs, or Rockhard
>Water Putty with holes drilled into them. (The wooden one's holes
>widend as they passed hot gasses.)  
>
>Our engines sounded, smelled and performed just like Estes engines.
>
I am in a real quandary about a reply to John's posting.  After commending
Larry Lippman for chastising someone who posted a recipe for making bombs, here
I am responding to this.  Unfortunately, to discourage anyone from doing as
John suggests, I will have to post some better information.  I would prefer
not to do this, but in the interest of safety I feel I must.

Commercial black powder should never be used as a rocket propellant.  It burns
too fast due to the high sulfur content.  Pyrotechnic manufacturers use a
similar mixture but with a much higher charcoal content for rocket propellants.
For references, see the books by Weingart, Lancaster, Brock, Shidlovsky and
others.  Commercial black powder is used in fireworks only as bursting charges
for aerial shells, as the propellant in mortars for launching the shells, and
in quickmatch manufacture.  In a confined space as John describes, the result
is often an explosion.  Estes spent many years developing their engines in an
effort to make them safe, effective, and relatively foolproof.  I doubt if
anyone could duplicate Estes performance and safety in their garage.  I know
they could not duplicate Estes' cost either.  Estes uses specially wound paper
tubes designed to break into a number of small pieces in the event of over-
pressure; likewise the nozzles are pressed clay which are also designed to
break up in an explosion - both features tend to limit the amount of dangerous
flying debris in the event of a malfunction.

What John probably does not realize is that sooner or later he _will_ get hurt
if he continues fooling in pyrotechnics without any real knowledge.  He also
has forgotten that when he _does_ have his accident, his community will likely
ban all forms of model rocketry - even the relatively safe Estes model rockets.
Why take chances?

                                                Barry
 -----------------
|  ___  ________  |
| |  / /        | |  Dr. Barry L. Ornitz  UUCP:..rutgers!rochester!kodak!ornitz
| | / /         | |  Eastman Kodak Company
| |< < K O D A K| |  Eastman Chemicals Division Research Laboratories
| | \ \         | |  P. O. Box 1972
| |__\ \________| |  Kingsport, TN  37662       615/229-4904
|                 |
 -----------------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 88 15:51:51 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Information sources on planetary probes.


         For the person who requested some information on the history 
    of planetary exploration by space probes, I recommend 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):         

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

          Kenneth Gatland et al, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 
           1981

          Kenneth Gatland, ROBOT EXPLORERS, 1972

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

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

          Carl Sagan, PLANETS, 1969 (LIFE Science Library)

          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, and Uranus (and 
    soon Neptune).

          More details on American, Soviet, European, and Japanese probe 
    missions can be found in SKY AND TELESCOPE, ASTRONOMY, 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 and economic factors, as you no doubt 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.  Membership in the Society is $20 yearly for U.S.
    citizens.  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

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 88 22:56:54 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - 1988 November (part 2/2)


Here is the condensed version of CANOPUS for November 1988, part 2.
There was only one additional article to add to the earlier posting.
The unabridged version has been sent to the mailing list.  CANOPUS is
copyright American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; see
full copyright notice at end.

THE SOFTWARE BUG ON PHOBOS 1 - can881107.txt - 11/22/88
FROM THE EDITOR:  {condensed}

A great deal of speculation followed the loss in August-September of
Phobos 1.  According to the Soviets the error occurred when a
programmer overrode a rudimentary error-checking routine before
uplinking new commands to the spacecraft.  The fault in the revised
code caused the spacecraft to break track with the sun and deplete
its batteries.

Whatever the cause, it indicates some problem in basic Soviet
computer programming and architecture.  One might ask why the Soviets
did not design the spacecraft with a subroutine that would start
looking for the sun, then Earth, if battery power dropped to a
certain level and no one had called from home.  One Soviet observer
in Texas believes that even that level of sophistication is beyond
the Soviets.

Before readers become too critical, however, they should remember
that basically the same sort of error was committed by this country
and left the Viking 1 lander with its high-gain antenna aimed at the
ground instead of space a few years ago.  And a simple error (a
forgotten comma) was believed to be at fault when a U.S. probe headed
for Brazil instead of the planets in the early 1960's.

----------------END OF CONDENSED CANOPUS-----------------------------

This posting represents my own condensation of CANOPUS.  For clarity,
I have not shown ellipses (...), even when the condensation is
drastic.  New or significantly rephrased material is in {braces} and
is signed {--SW} when it represents an expression of my own opinion.
The unabridged CANOPUS is available via e-mail from me at any of the
addresses below.

Copyright information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; 
e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded).  Send
correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 88 18:55:58 GMT
From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa  (John Logajan x3118)
Subject: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!

barry ornitz writes:
> to discourage anyone from doing as
> John suggests, I will have to post some better information.  I would prefer
> not to do this, but in the interest of safety I feel I must.
> 
> What John probably does not realize is that sooner or later he _will_ get hurt
> if he continues fooling in pyrotechnics without any real knowledge.

But I do realize it!  Explosives are extremely dangerous!  But everyone on the
net knows that, to assume they don't is to insult their intelligence.  It would
be a different case if the audience consisted of grade school students.

The violent destruction of explosive and chemical factories, with the resultant
loss of "professional expertise" -- including the loss of the Challenger --
testifies to the tempermental nature of explosive chemistry.

Suppressing information about dangerous activities is counter-productive.  The
best defense against ignorance is knowledge.  So I applaud your effort to
enlighten us on some of these chemical issues.

To that end, basement bombers take note:

Loompanics Unlimited  sells the most extensive line of bomb making books I
have ever seen.  Lindsey Publications also occasionally carries a few.

I can highly recommend Loompanics (even though I don't have their address.)

-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / logajan@ns.network.com / john@logajan.mn.org -

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #179
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Jan 89 11:40:14 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01274>; Wed, 4 Jan 89 10:52:37 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  4 Jan 89 10:52:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UXkXm=y00Vs1Q18k9R>;
          Wed,  4 Jan 89 10:47:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.4XkXVjy00UkZMbAk5s>;
          Wed,  4 Jan 89 10:29:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXkXQny00UkZEb=U5q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  4 Jan 89 10:24:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #180

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 180

Today's Topics:
		   Re: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST
			  Philosphy of News
	   Re: NASA's failure to allocate funds to research
			      MIR orbit
	   Re: Condensed CANOPUS - 1988 November (part 2/2)
			    Re: Space Idea
		    Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises
		    Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises
		      Stupid relativity question
		  Aluminum (not oxidizer) shortage?
	    Problems with the Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.
	    Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 88 23:14:25 GMT
From: microsoft!gordonl@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: space news from Nov 28 AW&ST

In article <191700015@trsvax>, reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes:
> 
> "God willing, we will return"
> 	      ^^
> By this time you will have noted that Henry adopts the term "we" whenever
> NASA has an achievement with which he agrees.  At other times you will note
> his use of the phrase "they."

Gee, I didn't realize that God was running the space program!  Whats
all the fuss about, then?  People complaining about what NASA did and
didn't do, arguements about this, arguments about that.  But since
God is in charge here, we should just sit on our duffs because he's
either going to make it happen or prevent it.

I guess Feynman presented his report to the wrong group.  Instead of
congress, he should have reported to the Pope.  Likewise, rather than
punish Thiocal (sp?) we should just cut back on our hosanaas to punish
the real guilty party.  Boy, am I glad that *this* was clarified.  

	Gordon letwin

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 88 13:59:14 GMT
From: nyser!nisc.nyser.net!weltyc@itsgw.rpi.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Philosphy of News


It seems that whenever I actually have time to read news there isn't
any.  hmph.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 88 22:16:10 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Re: NASA's failure to allocate funds to research




A few weeks ago, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) wrote:
> [NASA administrators] choose to spend very little on research, and
> of what little they choose to spend, all of it is spent corruptly
> on people who will return political favors to them but have little
> if any knowlege in the area they are supposedly researching.

While I generally agree with your contention that NASA spends too
little money on research, the above statement is ludicrous and
insulting.  As have many of my colleagues, I have frequently received
NASA research grants, and it's hard to imagine what political favors
any of us has ever done for NASA.  And as for "little if any
knowledge", perhaps you should look again at the lists of recipients;
in astronomy, at least, nearly all are very well-respected.  (Allan
Sandage and Charles Townes come immediately to mind, but I'm sure
most of the top people in the field have received NASA grants.)  In
my opinion, the lower-level administrators do a creditable job of
allocating very limited research funds.

Since this statement was made publicly, I think it calls for a public
apology. 
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 88 17:18:00 GMT
From: apollo!ulowell!tegra!vail@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: MIR orbit


I use quiktrak to track MIR and listen to their downlink on 143.625
and maybe if I'm lucky to talk to them on 2 meters.  I noticed that
their orbit follows the day/night line on the display.  Actually they
are "a little to the left" of it always.  Given their altitude are
they always in the sun?  Is this why the orbit was picked or is there
a different reason?  Inquiring minds want to know...

"Gravity pulls the trousers down
         Morality pulls the trousers up" -- Bedful of Metaphysicians
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail  | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435  | N1DXG @ 145.110-, 444.2+, 448.625-
 -----

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 88 15:35:58 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@yale-bulldog.arpa  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Condensed CANOPUS - 1988 November (part 2/2)

In article <1201@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu> willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes:
>
>Whatever the cause, it indicates some problem in basic Soviet
>computer programming and architecture.  One might ask why the Soviets
>did not design the spacecraft with a subroutine that would start
>looking for the sun, then Earth, if battery power dropped to a
>certain level and no one had called from home.  One Soviet observer
>in Texas believes that even that level of sophistication is beyond
>the Soviets.

Huh? only the same problems ALL computer programs suffer from!

How about the time WE downloaded code on top of the pointing tables
in Viking, causing it to point it's high gain antenna at the ground
instead of at earth? Why wern't there safeguards against that? (Granted
it was operating way beyond the expected lifetime already...)

There are lots of other examples. My point is that saying there are
"basic problems in Soviet computer programming and architecture" with 
this as evidence is ridiculous. Pointless "Russia bashing".

Of course, there ARE basic problems in Soviet computer programming 
and architecture (and other things). :-)

    Paul Rodman
    rodman@mfci.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 88 00:13:14 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!robina@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robin Adams)
Subject: Re: Space Idea


Just to help start off the New Year, here's an idea:

2002 - We send off a deep space ship to the vicinity of the Centuris (Alpha
and Proxima). It will take about 20 years. The ship will spend about half that 
time accelerating and half decelerating. The time in between is made use of 
with remote astronomy - possibly optimized for background interference analysis
to make long range studies of new planets.

The ship carries life, - but very little food. It does carry much lab' space
and telerobotic machinery, as well as the best we can do in AI human interface 
computers.

The life, or coding for life, is in the form of fertilized eggs, or the 
conditions for immediate fertilization on thawing from cryogenics.

This latter action is not activated until a suitable planet is found in the
area of choice. - If none is found, one option would be to dump the robotics
and related electronics and send the ship back.

If a suitable planet is found, the robotic machinery would begin the process
of incubation and birth of these embryonic codings.

At the earliest cognitive stage, their further development will be achieved
by a combination of AI computer effort and tele' operations (- possibly using
some form of simulation technique - 4.29 years [earth equivalent of the 
Centuris distance] ahead of actual. During incubation time, the immediate
environment is further investigated for adaption development.

One more small step(s) for mankind.



					   o         o                o
                                              o                  o
					o                  o            o
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
						    |       |
						    |       |   Robin
						   /---------\  Adams

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 88 05:21:34 GMT
From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kevin S. Van Horn)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises

In article <804@nyser> weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
>>NASA is intransigent when it comes to pursuing important technical
>>activities that have little immediate political import.  Therefore,
>>it invested in SRB redesign only AFTER catastrophic SRB failure. [...]
>
>While I won't defend NASA's current over-managed, undirected,
>`save-our-own-skins' structure, I will say that your are, in my view,
>being (characteristically) over critical.  It is in NASAs best
>interest to insure the shuttle is safe [...]

Are you sure that it's really in NASA's (or the NASA bureacracy's) best 
interest to keep the shuttle safe?  Remember, after screwing up with 
Challenger, NASA's budget was *increased*.

Kevin S. Van Horn

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 88 15:25:43 GMT
From: nyser!weltyc@cunyvm.cuny.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises

In article <8994@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> kevin@cit-vax.UUCP (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
>In article <804@nyser> weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
>>
>>While I won't defend NASA's current over-managed, undirected,
>>`save-our-own-skins' structure, I will say that your are, in my view,
>>being (characteristically) over critical.  It is in NASAs best
>>interest to insure the shuttle is safe [...]
>
>Are you sure that it's really in NASA's (or the NASA bureacracy's) best
>interest to keep the shuttle safe?  Remember, after screwing up with
>Challenger, NASA's budget was *increased*.

I don't know you, so I don't know if this is a joke.  If it isn't it's
insulting.  This kind of thinking is simple-minded and arbitrary.  Do
you really believe that NASA administrators are more concerned about
their budget than the lives of the astronauts or the overall image of
NASA?  Do you really think there is no more to the story than that the
budget was increased?  The head of NASA was fired, shakeups in the
ranks, people losing faith in the ability of NASA to run the space
program...and so on.  Come on, you can't actually believe this?

Look, while NASA may not be blessed with visionary, motivated
managemnet, neither are they dammed with minions of evil.  People like
that live on Wall Street.

--

Christopher Welty  ---  Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu             ...!njin!nyser!weltyc
#! rnews            916
Path:

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 88 22:24:10 GMT
From: cadnetix.COM!beres@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Stupid relativity question

I know that mass would be infinite at C - my question:

What mass would be measured by an observer travelling at C, i.e., if one 
were going the speed of light, what would be the effects on that observer.

I presume that a "stationary" observer would see mass approach infinity, 
but do to time dilation would expire before C could be observed.  This 
observer would see larger and larger mass.

		Tim (I just finished _Stephen Hawkings Universe_ and am
		     curious of these things)

------>MY SOAPBOX (I speak not for Cadnetix nor any enjoined entity)
	OK, one more time:  This is a frying pan.....this is an egg....
	   this is an egg in a frying pan....JUST SAY OVER EASY
Tim Beres   beres@cadnetix.com  {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 30 Dec 88 17:50:20 MST
From: jimkirk@CORRAL.UWyo.Edu (Jim Kirkpatrick)
Subject:  Aluminum (not oxidizer) shortage?

Earlier this year there was a lively discussion regarding the oxidizer
shortage when the perchlorate plant exploded.  Many wondered why such
problems were not forseen (not the explosion, but the shortage IF there
might be an explosion).

I would like to ask if there might be a similar problem with the other
main component of solid fuel, the powdered aluminum.  Where is it
made (in certified form, of course; that's part of the perchlorate
problem, there's lots available but not certified to be in the right
shape, purity, and so on)?  How many different facilities are making it?
Note that under proper conditions, powdered aluminum is quite capable of
destroying it's manufacturing plant.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 88 17:26:04 GMT
From: parity.dec.com!biro@decwrl.dec.com  (Support SAR-SAT, get lost)
Subject: Problems with the Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.


    
PHOBOS   A Months' flight yet to Mars - 

The Soviet space probe Phobos-2, which blasted off on July 12,1988,
will begin orbiting Mars by the end of January and approach the red
planet's moon PHOBOS in early April, a Tass correspondent said
at the Babakin Research and testing Centre.

The Tass article has several error that lead to still more confusion
over the status of Phobos-2.  For example

ROUTINE EQUIPMENT CHECKS LED ISOLATED MALFUNCTIONS IN SOME OF THE INSTRUMENTS
ON BOARD PHOBOS-1 BUT, ACCORDING TO DR. GARRI ROGOVSKY OF THE BABAKIN CENTRE,
MOST HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED, WHILE THE REST WON'T PREVENT THE RESEARCH PROGRAM 
FROM BEING CARRIED OUT IN FULL  AFTER APPROACHING MARS THE VEHICLE WILL
TAKE EVER LOWER ORBIT TO EXPLORE THE PLANET IN THE VISIBLE, INFER-RED,
GAMMA-ARAY BANDS, COMPILE A TEMPERATURE MAP OF ITS SURFACE, GET A BETTER 
IDEA OF ITS MINERAL MAKE-UP AND OF ITS ATMOSPHERE AND IONOSHPERE....

Note the obvious mistake of calling the craft PHOBOS-1 not -2, one would
assume they were talking about -2 and made a typo or disinformation.
The article goes on an talks about all the present accomplishments of
PHOBOS-1 & -2 but all these accoplisments listed were before the 
loss of Phobos-1 in September when an erroneous computer command sent
to the vehicle turned off its pmematic system.

Since I have an early TASS report about PHOBOS-2 unlike the long delay
for the offical report on PHOBOS-1 then I assume PHOBOS-2 is OK but with 
some small malfunction, I guess I will have to take there word 
that  it is a  minor malfunction, but come January time will tell.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 88 15:01:54 GMT
From: rochester!kodak!ornitz@rutgers.edu  (barry ornitz)
Subject: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!

In article <1048@ns.UUCP> logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes:
>barry ornitz writes:
>>to discourage anyone from doing as
>>John suggests, I will have to post some better information.  I would prefer
>>not to do this, but in the interest of safety I feel I must.
>> 
>>What John probably does not realize is that sooner or later he _will_ get hurt
>>if he continues fooling in pyrotechnics without any real knowledge.
>
>But I do realize it!  Explosives are extremely dangerous!  But everyone on the
>net knows that, to assume they don't is to insult their intelligence.  It would
>be a different case if the audience consisted of grade school students.

But John, recent postings in this and other groups (especially sci.electronics)
have demonstrated that this network _does_ have a large audience of grade
school students [or else those with only the knowledge of grade school students
;-)  ].  Portal has been implicated in this, but that is not relevant to my
point.  The net has large numbers of people, who, while often being quite 
skilled in one area of expertise, have a very limited knowledge of science.  
This network is one way for these people to learn - that is why we should be
responsible in our postings.  I am sorry if it offends you, but I considered
your suggestion to use commercial black powder as a rocket propellant for model
rockets to be irresponsible.  There are numerous books on pyrotechnics - even
the company you suggested sells them.  If you had read these books first and
noticed the difference between black powder compositions and firework 
compositions, and then asked over the network why these differences were needed
I would have been much happier posting my reply.  People tend to disassociate
model rockets with explosives because of the excellent safety record of
companies like Estes.  If people viewed rockets as "controlled bombs" instead
of simple thrust producers, perhaps this attitude would change.

>The violent destruction of explosive and chemical factories, with the resultant
>loss of "professional expertise" -- including the loss of the Challenger --
>testifies to the tempermental nature of explosive chemistry.

Because of the knowledge about the "tempermental" aspects of explosives
manufacturing, the safety record of high explosives manufacturers is excellent,
especially when compared to many other industries.  Across town, at Holston
Army Ammunition Plant, our subsidiary, Holston Defense Corporation manufactures
RDX and HMX high explosives.  All workers must attend periodic demonstrations
of the explosive capabilities of these compounds.  It is an impressive sight
and the positive effect on worker awareness of safety issues is dramatic.  I
wish the users of these explosives were always as well informed.  I believe
the Challenger astronauts were well aware of the dangers, as are most of the
people reading this newsgroup.  However, there are still too many people who
see the past successes and think space exploration is simple and safe.

>Suppressing information about dangerous activities is counter-productive.  The
>best defense against ignorance is knowledge.  So I applaud your effort to
>enlighten us on some of these chemical issues.

Thanks.

>To that end, basement bombers take note:
>
>xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx  sells the most extensive line of bomb making books I
>have ever seen.  xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx also occasionally carries a few.
>
>I can highly recommend xxxxxxxxxx (even though I don't have their address.)

This is a classic example of what I consider irresponsible.  Scientific
knowledge and recipe books for bombs are two entirely different things.  I have
fortunately never had to do the any of the forensic studies that Larry Lippman
described in gory detail recently, but I have done some informal consulting
with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in the past.  I have seen the
after effects of pipe bombs and other amateur explosives.  I would hate to 
think that your posting might encourage others on the network to experiment in 
this area.
                                               Barry
 -----------------
|  ___  ________  |
| |  / /        | |  Dr. Barry L. Ornitz  UUCP:..rutgers!rochester!kodak!ornitz
| | / /         | |  Eastman Kodak Company
| |< < K O D A K| |  Eastman Chemicals Division Research Laboratories
| | \ \         | |  P. O. Box 1972
| |__\ \________| |  Kingsport, TN  37662       615/229-4904
|                 |
 -----------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #180
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Jan 89 06:24:45 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00422>; Thu, 5 Jan 89 05:36:58 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  5 Jan 89 05:36:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QXko=Ny00jZdQ0x04k>;
          Thu,  5 Jan 89 05:26:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.MXko3oy00UkZQ2S05=>;
          Thu,  5 Jan 89 05:18:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gXko1my00UkZ02Qk59@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  5 Jan 89 05:16:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #181

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 181

Today's Topics:
			    Just a comment
		    Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises
			Re: Spaceplane project
		      Re: Bevis, power standards
		      Hoagland and face on Mars
		    Re: Hoagland and face on Mars
	  Re: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!
			  phobos II problems
		 Re: Second Solar Max rescue dropped
			Re: Thatcher and space
	   Re: Condensed CANOPUS - 1988 November (part 2/2)
		    Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 88 05:34:35 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: Just a comment

I was listening to an old album recently, Blows Against the Empire by
Paul Kantner / Jefferson Starship.  And I was struck, nay, deeply
depressed by some of the lyrics in a song called Hijack:

	You know, a Starship circling in the sky,
	It ought to be ready by 1990;
	They'll be building it up in the air,
	Ever since 1980.

	People with a clever plan,
	Can assume the role of the Mighty,
	And Hijack the Starship!
	Carry seven thousand people past the Sun!

	Our babes'll wander naked through the cities of the Universe...

Round about 1969 or 1970, it seemed reasonable to think about a _star_
ship being built in the 1980's.  When I was a kid, science and
technology did a good job of outstripping the science fiction.  Kind of
sad that the starship has become a shuttle, and science fiction has
become swords&sorcery fantasies.

Oh well, to quote some more lyrics,

Don't let it bring you down...
-- 
--  bob, mon	(bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
--  RAMontante,  Computer Science Dept.,  Indiana University,  Bloomington
--	"In this position, the skier is flying in a complete stall..."

------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 88 16:04:52 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises

In article <808@nyser> weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes:

>>Are you sure that it's really in NASA's (or the NASA bureacracy's) best
>>interest to keep the shuttle safe?  Remember, after screwing up with
>>Challenger, NASA's budget was *increased*.
>
>I don't know you, so I don't know if this is a joke.  If it isn't it's
>insulting.  This kind of thinking is simple-minded and arbitrary.  Do
>you really believe that NASA administrators are more concerned about
>their budget than the lives of the astronauts or the overall image of
>NASA?  Do you really think there is no more to the story than that the
>budget was increased?  The head of NASA was fired, shakeups in the
>ranks, people losing faith in the ability of NASA to run the space
>program...and so on.  Come on, you can't actually believe this?

NASA administrators are concerned about their careers.  This may or
may not mean they are concerned about astronaut safety.  Suppose you
are in charge of the shuttle program, and you *know* you will lose
your job if the shuttle doesn't fly 24 flights per year.  You're not
going to out-and-out say, "to hell with the astronauts", but you might
reason that disaster (for you) is certain if flight rates are not
increased, but a catastrophic accident is not certain if they are
(and, if the accident occurs, you might escape blame).  You chose the
latter.  The same reasoning applies to folks farther down the chain of
command.

I expect another accident will occur in the near future.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 88 06:02:52 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

When was the last Concorde manufactured?  How about the Tu-144 (Concordski)?
The last bit of news I heard on the Tu-144 was a few years ago when the
Soviets announced they were putting it into regular, scheduled airline
service.  Is that service still running?

I notice that the Soviets seem to like putting high-technology into service
at an early date.  Here is quote from The Soviets Expected It by Anna Louise
Strong (1941):

"I stopped at the Moscow Central Telegraph and saw some twenty people drawing
up their "phototelegrams" to send to their friends.    This is something
that Western Union does not yet offer to ordinary Americans.  Yet it occurs
in a country which has periodic shortages of clothing and shoes."

Imagine that!  From the description, it sounds like the Soviets had national
FAX service before WW2!

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1988 14:39-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Bevis, power standards

I think you missed the poster's point. It did not strike me that he was
saying that 120V 60Hz was THE way to go. He was simply pointing out
that NOBODY uses 20khz (and whatever volts) that are to be used on the
space station. There are mumblings about safety, etc, etc for the use
of this 'NEW' standard, but the point is that if ANY earthly standard
were picked instead, the equipment would be off the shelf and the
government systems divisions of various contractors would be unable to
earn millions for R&D and more millions on sales of a tiny number of
handbuilt special purpose whizbangs. (That they are now the SOLE source
of?)  And NASA would be unable to justify a portion of the obscene
overpricing of the space station that they are using to support their
staffing levels, physical plant and retirement benefits.

Now if the ONLY use of the 20khz is distribution among the external
generation and storage equipment, I will find this selection less
offensive to my (commercial) engineering sensibilities. VERY slightly
less offensive.  There are 50hz, 60hz and 400hz systems which are
standards of some duration and which have many suppliers of solid,
proven, safe equipment. I find it stretches my credulity to the
breaking point to believe that the cost/effectiveness tradeoff on going
to 20khz would not cause a bean counter to go into catanonia.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1988 15:43-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Hoagland and face on Mars

I finally got around to reading the Hoagland book over the xmas break.

Now, the last time this subject came around, I was throwing  ridicule
on the face with the best of them. After looking at the enhanced
pictures in this book I'm prepared to eat my words. This object is
beyond a doubt bisymetrical. There are numerous other objects in the
vicinity that are HIGHLY geometric. The face is beyond any shadow of a
doubt NOT 'a trick of light and shadow' since it was photographed at
two different sun angles from which a very good 3d image was generated,
using modern image enhancement techniques (all done by top
professionals).  Both sides of the face ARE visible. Don't take my word
for it. Get the book and look at the center photo section yourself.

In summary, all of the objections I have previously heard are just flat
out untrue.

I'm unprepared to say that it and the surrounding objects ARE
artificial, but I'd say it is probably THE single most interesting
thing on Mars and should be the absolute HIGHEST priority of any future
Mars probes or landers. There is a face, a triangular wall-like area, a
five sided pyramid shaped object and other less well defined objects
there. Even if the answer is only a geological one, I suspect it would
be an awfully interesting piece of geology.

As to the Hoagland book in general. It is fun, but he builds layer
upon layer of conjecture until by the end he has a damned good science
fiction story. He probably damages his own case by telling us his
fantasies. All he really needed was the pictures themselves and the
description of the interrelationships of the several anomalous objects
in that very small region of Cydonia.

Anyone who can look at these images and not demand more data from
Cydonia, ASAP, is no scientist. (I consider a true scientist to be
explorer of the unknown who has not lost their childhood curiosity and
sense of wonder.)

(And anyone who flames me without FIRST carefully examining the pictures will
be ignored :-) Then you can say anything you want.)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jan 89 00:24:17 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Hoagland and face on Mars


Before giving much credence to Hoagland's book, I strongly suggest that you
read the review by David Morrison that appeared in the Fall 1988 (Vol 13 No
1) issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.

Morrison reviews both Hoagland's "The Monuments of Mars" and Pozos' "The
Face on Mars".  His account of the rampant inconsistencies and distortions
in the books is damning. For example:

"In 'Monuments', Hoagland further confuses things by introducing a three-
dimensional computer model that is *consistent with*, but extends, the two
available photos of the face. He then repeatedly substitutes images of the
model for the original data, giving a false impression of the information
actually available."

I repeat, I STRONGLY recommend this review to anyone who might be tempted to
take Hoagland at face value.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 88 18:13:16 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!paul@hplabs.hp.com  (Paul Bame)
Subject: Re: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!

>The discussion of this started in sci.space.shuttle (I think).
>We took some commercial black powder (FF grade, for use with muzzle
>loaders) and compressed it in cardboard casings using a 10 ton
>hydrolic car jack.  Nozzels were either wooden plugs, or Rockhard
>Water Putty with holes drilled into them. (The wooden one's holes
>widend as they passed hot gasses.)  
>
>Our engines sounded, smelled and performed just like Estes engines.

The book about building your own rocket engines for $0.40 - advertised
in the back of Pop Sci among others - tells what "commercial" engines
really are and you got it.  The book presumes that commercial black
powder is too expensive and tells how to make your own of sufficient
quality to work in rocket engines (e.g., finely ground and thoroughly
mixed).  The lower-grade powder requires a "core-burner" engine to
offset the slower burning.  They are very safety-oriented - some
operations are done with damp powder and you're supposed to have this
steel safety stand for packing the engines.  Pretty interesting book.

>From the book, I'd suspect that your simpler construction technique
would not be as reliable as Estes' or the one in the book because of
lack of casing and powder moisture control.  On the plus side, using
a jack might be easier and maybe safer than their method.

BTW, they recommend a non-standard black powder mixture - less sulfur
I think - and detail a method for safely determining the right
mixture to use [the one which doesn't quite explode :-)].

Anyone know how engines bigger than 'G' are made?  I've seen 'K'
engines with what appeared to be fiberglass casings, graphite nozzles,
and have a hard time believing someone compressed all that propellant.
Maybe it's poured/casted?  If so, what is used and why couldn't it
be used for smaller engines?


	--Paul Bame
	{lots}!hplabs!hpldola!paul
	paul@hpldola.hp.com
	719 590 5557

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 88 06:02:10 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!ccpet@boulder.colorado.edu  (CC Petersen)
Subject: phobos II problems



Has anyone any reliable news on what's happening with the Phobos II
spacecraft?  Sketchy reports allege that there are problems with 7 of the
experiments.  Any details anybody?

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1988 16:16-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Second Solar Max rescue dropped

This is typical of government operations, whether with busses, subways
or satellites. People are elected for new programs. They get press
coverage for buying new buses. They get bad coverage for raising taxes.

So what happens? Maintanence is deferred and eventually they buy brand
new shiny things to stand in front of during a photo op. Government
just doesn't have the right incentives. (And solar max has already been
saved once, so a second time is a ho-hum to the news media, not a
generator of good PR hype)

Oh, I'm not going to suggest this is 100% true. But it is true often
enough to be a major cause of government's inherent inefficiency. (Read
up on public choice theory)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1988 14:58-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Thatcher and space

If Thatcher was TRULY free enterprise about space, she would have
regulations repealed so that hobbyists, experimenters and basement
startups could build and test their own rocket engines. She would get
rid of a whole pantheon of regulatory and licensing drones whose only
purpose is to make sure that those who have, keep it, and those who
don't, can't get in the game. (And I mean a much wider range than just
things like 'explosive' rocket engines. And besides which, Guy Fawkes
was really such an awfully long time ago...)

As a Libertarian I reject the Thatcher model of STATE capitalism. If
she expects the large British corporations to do anything in space, she
will have to wait as long as we would have to wait for the giant
AMERICAN corporations to do it. The difference here (and no thanks to
any government of the last 100 years) is that no one is as yet stopping
the basement experimenter, even if s/he risks blowing theirself to
kingdom come. That is where the new ideas will come from.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 88 19:54:36 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Condensed CANOPUS - 1988 November (part 2/2)

In article <589@m3.mfci.UUCP> rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) writes:
>In article <1201@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu> willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes:
>Huh? only the same problems ALL computer programs suffer from!
>
>How about the time WE downloaded code on top of the pointing tables
>in Viking, causing it to point it's high gain antenna at the ground
>instead of at earth? Why wern't there safeguards against that? (Granted
>it was operating way beyond the expected lifetime already...)
>
>There are lots of other examples. My point is that saying there are
>"basic problems in Soviet computer programming and architecture" with 
>this as evidence is ridiculous. Pointless "Russia bashing".
>

The Viking code was probably circa 1972, the Phobos code, ~1986. Software
standards and practices have changed dramatically since 1972. With a continued
push towards increase modualarizing, hardware independance, software
engineering practices and more rigorous testing, the Phobos problem
should have been impossible. You would think that the Soviet software
engineers would have access to Western software development technolgies,
but such was apparently not the case. Either that, or possibly the rushed
nature of the Phobos program prevented them from building in 
all of the safeguards they needed to.

Oh, well. Considering the fact that students still must learn much of their
computer science from blackboards or MSX machines, I guess we shouldn't
be surprised.



-- 
			          *** mike smithwick ***
"Illiterate? Write for free brochure. . ."

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 88 21:51:42 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises

[Hanging my hat here at the Well for a few days until our machine
drags its sorry behind back onto the net]

Pointing out that the potential for more Shuttle mishaps exists is
useful, although hardly surprising news to informed sci.space readers.
Harping lovingly on the Peckinpah-esque slo-mo of one particular
exquisitely crafted disaster, as Bowery is wont to do, is just sick.
Nor is it particularly helpful to lecture the rest of the net on
what "nonfiction" it should read, in light of the overblown fiction
presented under this subject header thus far.

Military and civilian jets crash every month, often with horrific
consequences.  Neither program gets cancelled as a result.  Shuttle
safety is a vital, nonstop job and we must apply every reasonable
pressure to make sure that ball isn't dropped.  Scaring ourselves
by the ol' campfire with ghost stories is not a constructive part of
this process.  The annoyance and ill will Bowery's postings generate
are unlikely to "educate" anyone, but only harden positions on all sides.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #181
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Jan 89 06:20:15 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00437>; Fri, 6 Jan 89 05:39:27 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  6 Jan 89 05:39:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kXl9F5y00UkTQ0vU4K>;
          Fri,  6 Jan 89 05:26:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.UXl99Zy00UkZI4xU5f>;
          Fri,  6 Jan 89 05:18:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EXl97Vy00UkZA4wE4d@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  6 Jan 89 05:16:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #182

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Making model rocket engines.
		    Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises
			  Re: Just a comment
		Re: Aluminum (not oxidizer) shortage?
		  Re: Private Space Research Falacy
		    Re: Hoagland and face on Mars
			Re: Loompanics address
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
		  Re: Private Space Research Falacy
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
	     Re: Making model rocket engines. ---> Don't
	  Re: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 88 19:24:00 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Making model rocket engines.

When I was in college, I knew a fellow who had experimented with homemade
rockets.  An interesting rule of thumb he gave for choosing the nozzle
diameter was:  "Keep making it smaller and smaller till you get one that
explodes.  Then back off a little."

------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 88 19:25:44 GMT
From: killer!texbell!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises

ne thing this shuttle disaster scenario requires is a launch from Vandenberg.
Since the Vandenberg facility has been decommissioned it's unlikely that
this requirement will be satisfied.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  Hackercorp.
...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.uu.net      'U`

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jan 89 22:59:34 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!ccpet@boulder.colorado.edu  (CC Petersen)
Subject: Re: Just a comment



>RE: article 2305:
>I was listening to an old album recently, Blows Against the Empire by
>Paul Kantner / Jefferson Starship.  And I was struck, nay, deeply
>depressed by some of the lyrics in a song called Hijack:
>
>        You know, a Starship circling in the sky,
>        It ought to be ready by 1990;
>        They'll be building it up in the air,
>        Ever since 1980.
>
>        People with a clever plan,
>        Can assume the role of the Mighty,
>        And Hijack the Starship!
>        Carry seven thousand people past the Sun!
>
>        Our babes'll wander naked through the cities of the Universe...
 
 
 
Cheer up -- somebody will do it someday!  Remember these lyrics, too:
 
       Have you seen the stars tonight?
       Would you like to go up on "A" deck and look at them with me?
       Have you seen the stars tonight?
       Do you know
       we could go
       we are free
       any place you can think of
       we could be
       Have you seen the stars tonight?
       Have you looked at all the family of stars?
 
Happy New Year!
 
 
 
********
 
 
While, with silent, lifting mind,
I've trod the high, untresspassed sanctity of space...
 
cc petersen
(these aren't my words, but they reflect my opinions... >
 
********

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jan 89 19:47:07 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: Aluminum (not oxidizer) shortage?

In article <881230175020.2020032a@UWYO.BITNET> jimkirk@OUTLAW.UWYO.EDU (Jim Kirkpatrick) writes:
>
>I would like to ask if there might be a similar problem with the other
>main component of solid fuel, the powdered aluminum.  Where is it
>made (in certified form, of course; that's part of the perchlorate
>problem, there's lots available but not certified to be in the right
>shape, purity, and so on)?  How many different facilities are making it?
>Note that under proper conditions, powdered aluminum is quite capable of
>destroying it's manufacturing plant.

I have no idea what constitutes the "certified form" for aluminum powder.
However, as powdermaking is a relatively safe and simple process, I'd
be inclined to think that at least half a dozen domestic manufacturers
would be capable of supplying a suitable product.

Purity is no problem, and size is just a matter of screening out everything
that is larger or smaller than desired. Shape would probably be spherical,
but I suppose it's possible that some other is required.

Can anyone supply more detailed info on the requirements for propellant-
grade Al powder ?

------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt
	"You made a killing in real estate and NASA,
	 selling cemetery plots in outer space;
	 'till some falling profits crashed upon your doorstep.
	 Welcome to the Human Race."     -    Timbuk 3
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 16:36:28 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Private Space Research Falacy

> From: thorin!unc!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
> Subject: Re: Private Space Research Falacy
> 
> In article <8812271956.AA27779@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:
> >Government should be doing research using privately developed
> >and operated infrastructure.
> 
>     As far as I can tell, this is largely true now in the planetary
> program, save that NASA doesn't do research in this area as much as
> fund it (Ames is the largest exception I can think of).

... paragraphs describing how wonderful NASA is because JPL isn't
 all that bad...

>     Perhaps you mean something else, though. Words like
> 'infrastructure', the space activist's generic for the 90s, can mean
> virtually anything.
>
>     There's an excellent article in the current (Feb) Analog
> describing the historical role of the govt. in large-scale projects
> such as railroads & dams. It offers a bit of balance to the extremist
> anti-NASA view. Recommended for non-ideologues.

The definition of "infrastructure" as it is used in aerospace
these days originated with NASA in the 1970's so that they could
receive large, stable, long-term cashflows even though the technology
wasn't nearly mature enough to warrant comparisons with dams, railroads,
interstate highways and "space trucks".

>From the outset you refuse to address the obvious which is that NASA 
shouldn't be developing and operating a space transportation system, 
space facilities, etc.  Your claim that you just don't understand what I 
meant doesn't wash with me anymore than a 13 year old's claims that he 
didn't understand what it meant when he was told not to paint graffiti 
on the walls.  

Behave like an intellectually honest adult and we can communicate.
Behave like a smart-aleck and we will have a somewhat more limited 
repitore of communications, especially since I can't reach over
and whack you upside your head to knock some sense into it.


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jan 89 06:57:01 GMT
From: well!pokey@apple.com  (Jef Poskanzer)
Subject: Re: Hoagland and face on Mars

Dale, have you also seen "The Happy Face on Mars" and "Kermit the Frog
on Mars"?  You can find these pictures in the "Fringes of Reason" issue
of Whole Earth Review, as part of an item on Hoagland's book.

I actually liked the book, but he didn't convince me.
---
Jef

             Jef Poskanzer   jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov   ...well!pokey
"If I had known the microphone was on, I would not have taken the Lord's name
                           in vain." -- George Bush

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1989 12:41-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Loompanics address

In the discussion on black powder rockets a reference was made to
Loompanics. This publishing company has a number of interesting
anarchist books, one of which (Guerilla Capitilism) I am currently
reading. The address is:

Loompanics Unlimited
PO Box 1197
Port Townsend, WA 98368

Their logo is a space settlement.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 89 18:54:21 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun1!gsh7w@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <5919@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM () writes:
>
>What mass would be measured by an observer travelling at C, i.e., if one 
>were going the speed of light, what would be the effects on that observer.

Your question is basically, "What would a person measure when this
impossible thing occurs?" Since one can't go the speed of light, there
is no answer to your question.




-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 89 16:09:37 GMT
From: nyser!weltyc@cunyvm.cuny.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: Private Space Research Falacy

In article <8901030056.AA19879@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:

>The definition of "infrastructure" as it is used in aerospace
>these days originated with NASA in the 1970's so that they could
>receive large, stable, long-term cashflows even though the technology
>wasn't nearly mature enough to warrant comparisons with dams, railroads,
>interstate highways and "space trucks".

I still eagerly await your response to my posting last week requesting you
detail the sources you have for your wild claims about corruption and
other bad things within NASA.  Here, again, I ask - where do you get
this from?  You have an unbelievably annoying habit of asserting
your own opinions as fact, although I admit this is heightened by the
fact that I don't agree with them, and by the fact that you insist on
inflamatory personal references.  People can disagree with you and not
worship the devil.

>From the outset you refuse to address the obvious which is that NASA
>shouldn't be developing and operating a space transportation system,
>space facilities, etc.

Classifaction: opinion asserted as fact.
Respose: Once again, I disagree.
  Although I do believe NASA at this point in time should be encouraging
  privatization of the launch industry rather than discouraging it AND
  trying to further their own position in that area, I do believe they
  should be developing a space facility in orbit and/or on the moon.
  This is not because I love (or worship) NASA, but because I don't
  really see who else could do it.

>Your claim that you just don't understand what I
>meant doesn't wash with me anymore than a 13 year old's claims that he
>didn't understand what it meant when he was told not to paint graffiti
>on the walls.

Classifcation: oversimplification and absurd analogy bordering on insult.
Response: none deserved

>Behave like an intellectually honest adult and we can communicate.
>Behave like a smart-aleck and we will have a somewhat more limited
>repitore of communications, especially since I can't reach over
>and whack you upside your head to knock some sense into it.

Classification: standard Bowery-type inflamatory message, well inside
  the borders of insult.
Response: none deserved.

--

Christopher Welty  ---  Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu             ...!njin!nyser!weltyc
#! rnews

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 89 22:35:00 GMT
From: riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu  (Daniel S. Riley)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <970@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>In article <5919@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM () writes:
>>What mass would be measured by an observer travelling at C, i.e., if one 
>>were going the speed of light, what would be the effects on that observer.

>Your question is basically, "What would a person measure when this
>impossible thing occurs?" Since one can't go the speed of light, there
>is no answer to your question.

You can't go c, unless you're massless.  Otherwise, your mass is unbounded
as you asymptotically approach c.

At the very least, you'd have to go on a serious diet first.

More seriously, this is not necessarily a stupid question.  If memory
serves, this was one of the Gedanken experiments which led Einstein
to the special theory of relativity in the first place.

-Dan Riley (dsr@lns61.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley)
-Wilson Lab, Cornell U.
-(Our electrons go faster than yours :-)

------------------------------

Date:       Tue,  3 Jan 89 22:19:15 CST
From: Douglas Monk <bro@rice.edu>
Subject:    Re: Making model rocket engines. ---> Don't
Cc: 

John Logajan writes: (in response to allegations that he doesn't understand
how dangerous trying to manufacture explosive devices (model rocket engines)
can be:
> But I do realize it!  Explosives are extremely dangerous!  But everyone on 
> the net knows that, to assume they don't is to insult their intelligence.
> It would be a different case if the audience consisted of grade school 
> students.

Ah! But you ARE reaching grade school students! Some net feeds filter down
into junior high schools (maybe even elementary, but I don't KNOW about that
for sure). Remember when you post just how widespread your audience may be.
ALWAYS indicate potential dangers and safer alternatives. Commercial model
rocket engines are MUCH safer than those that random unprepared people could
make. Most rocketeers will be perfectly satisfied with them. By the way, even
commercial model engines are not completely safe in all circumstances: when
they get old in certain cases they can become damaged. If in doubt, they can
be destroyed by soaking in water until the propellant dissolves. Most engines
come with instructions on how to do this safely.

Doug Monk (bro@rice.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 89 14:14:02 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!

If making model solid rocket motors is so dangerous, how about a model
hybrid rocket?

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #182
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Jan 89 06:46:08 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00613>; Sat, 7 Jan 89 06:02:24 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  7 Jan 89 06:02:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0XlSVPy00Vs1A10U5P>;
          Sat,  7 Jan 89 05:37:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.UXlSEQy00UkZ02nU4A>;
          Sat,  7 Jan 89 05:19:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <8XlSBfy00UkZ02mE5w@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  7 Jan 89 05:16:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #183

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 183

Today's Topics:
     CRESCENT MOON: JAN 8(Sun) or 9(Mon), 1989; First Visibility.
	   Re: Condensed CANOPUS - 1988 November (part 2/2)
	    Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!
			 a look at history...
			Re: Spaceplane project
		       NOAA Decoders/Satellites
		       Re: a look at history...
	    Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
			Re: Spaceplane project
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1989 11:41:42 EST
From: Mohib N Durrani <mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: CRESCENT MOON: JAN 8(Sun) or 9(Mon), 1989; First Visibility.

   
                       Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
  ( I begin with the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )
   
         THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
           102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027
   
         SUBJECT: CRESCENT MOON: FIRST VISIBILITY (every lunar month)
         *************************************************************
   
         NEXT CRESCENT (NEW) MOON:  1989  JAN   8(Sun) or  9(Mon)  (*) 
   
                for the  6th. Islamic Month of Jumada II, 1409.
      (*)     Hilal (crescent) sightings would be in the evenings, 
        at least 10 minutes after sunset, usually before 20 minutes, 
    and upto 40 to 90 minutes after sunset; near and along the sun's path.
   
   
        We are conducting research/survey on the recorded WORLD-WIDE
          first sightings of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" 
                  in the evenings, for every lunar month.
                    Some TECHNICAL INFO. is at the end.
   
                  PHOTOGRAPHS / SLIDES ARE MOST WELCOME
               since they are very helpful in the research.
   
              Please also pass on the request to your friends 
               who are interested in astronomy/physics and to 
                 your local amateur astronomy associations.
   
                We would very much like to hear from you and 
                  will also keep you posted on the answers.
   
                Please respond either by email or by letter.        
   
       The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL 
               and fine tune some parameters regarding VISION.
   
   
     When reporting actual crescent sightings, (even if you do not see it)
                        PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
   
Was Hilal visible to naked eye?......... Hilal sighted in binoculars?.........
EXACT TIMES: Complete Sunset at......... Hilal First Visible....... End.......
Weather condition: Rel.Humidity......... Temperature..... Pressure............
Sky near western horizon: Clear?........ Hazy?........... Cloudy?.............
Observer: Age.... Eyesight: Glasses?.... Far sighted?.... Near sighted?.......
Name....................... Date........ Location.............................
   
                                 Thanks.
   
   
        Email to:  mnd@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
        
        Mail:      Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America
        
        Some orbital details for the Sun and Moon:
        
        Lunation No.    817
        New Moon (not crescent visible moon): 
        1989 Jan  7d 19h 22m UT 
        (Universal Time, i.e. mean solar time on the meridian of Greenwich)
   
   Date   Equatorial coords.(for 0h UT)         Ecliptic coords.(for 0h UT)
   JAN    Sun      Sun      Moon    Moon        Sun      Moon     Moon
   '89    R.A.     Decl.    R.A.    Decl.       Long.    Long.    Lat.
    
    7      19.21   -22.31    18.48  -27.71      286.82   276.34   -4.43
    8      19.29   -22.16    19.51  -25.52      287.84   290.36   -3.67
    9      19.36   -22.02    20.51  -21.70      288.86   304.61   -2.67
   
   Date  Sunset  Moonsets at longitudes:(approx. local time) at +40 deg N Lat.
   JAN            0 deg    75 deg   120 deg
   '89   hr min   Green.   New York S.Frisco
    7    16 51    16 22    16 38    16 47
    8    16 52    17 37    17 53    18 03
    9    16 53    18 55    19 11    19 20

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 89 17:28:52 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@yale-bulldog.arpa  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Condensed CANOPUS - 1988 November (part 2/2)

... deleted text.....
>
>The Viking code was probably circa 1972, the Phobos code, ~1986. Software
>standards and practices have changed dramatically since 1972. With a continued
>push towards increase modualarizing, hardware independance, software
>engineering practices and more rigorous testing, the Phobos problem
>should have been impossible. You would think that the Soviet software
>engineers would have access to Western software development technolgies,
>but such was apparently not the case. Either that, or possibly the rushed
>nature of the Phobos program prevented them from building in 
>all of the safeguards they needed to.

>			          *** mike smithwick ***


I'm surprised you make the statement "the Phobos problem should have
been impossible". Do you work for ex-NASA management, perhaps? (sorry,
that was a cheap shot.) 

You will NEVER reduce the probability of such an accident to zero. 

Do  you think that these problems don't still happen in Western software
post 1980?

Witness the problem a few years ago with one of the Uosats: it was
accidently commanded to turn on two mutually interfering transponders
at the same time. Result: lock-up and desense of the command uplike 
recv'r. Solution: use giant radiotelescope to beam 1Kw of uplike power
and overcome desense to tell the bugger to SHUT-UP!

Of course, this was a not-for-profit organization. I suppose you'll claim
that they are a bad example.

Do you ever read comp.risks? Things get better, but we use computers for
more and more applications, increasing our exposure to errors.

My personal feeling is that so far, "CASE" is pretty much STILL a bust.
It's been much heralded as important, but so far all I see is tools
like "make" and "rcs" which are very useful, not exactly what we
we're told was in our future!

I think we probably DO have the edge over the USSR in this area, but
don't forget they launched Buran UNMANNED. Pretty impressive. They do
pretty well for having such a crappy computer infrastructure.

BTW: I should point out that I was told that the article quoted did
mention my example of Viking. I don't read CANOPUS, so I didn't know.


    Paul Rodman
    rodman@mfci.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 89 19:13:06 GMT
From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa  (John Logajan x3118)
Subject: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!

barry ornitz writes:
> Scientific knowledge and recipe books for bombs are two entirely
> different things.

My point exactly.  When you suppress the first, you insure the second.

Thanks to Dale.Amon and Tom Neff for the Loompanics address.
For one of the best catalogs of books containing information that it is
"irresponsible" to know, write to:

Loompanics Unlimited
PO Box 1197
Port Townsend, WA 98368

I recommend this company very highly.

P.S.  Non-United States customers might or might not receive their purchases
depending upon the "Knowledge IS Irresonsible mentality" of their governments.
-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / logajan@ns.network.com / john@logajan.mn.org -

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 89 16:01:04 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: a look at history...

In article <808@nyser> weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
}In article <8994@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> kevin@cit-vax.UUCP (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
}>Are you sure that it's really in NASA's (or the NASA bureacracy's) best
}>interest to keep the shuttle safe?  Remember, after screwing up with
}>Challenger, NASA's budget was *increased*.
}
}I don't know you, so I don't know if this is a joke.  If it isn't it's
}insulting.  This kind of thinking is simple-minded and arbitrary.  Do
}you really believe that NASA administrators are more concerned about
}their budget than the lives of the astronauts or the overall image of
}NASA?

I believe that looking at the historic record for launch decision will
show that this is, or at least was, the case.  You do remember the
Challenger, do you not?  And why it was launched?  And that the "pressures"
yielded to were not the technical ones?


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 89 23:23:40 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <13081@cup.portal.com>, mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> When was the last Concorde manufactured?  How about the Tu-144 (Concordski)?
> The last bit of news I heard on the Tu-144 was a few years ago when the
> Soviets announced they were putting it into regular, scheduled airline
> service.  Is that service still running?

The Tu-144 flew scheduled service between Moscow and Alma Ata for some time,
but I believe that vibration and subsequent fatigue problems forced the
aircraft out of service after a couple of years of operation.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 88 20:16:06 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!charlie@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charlie Thompson)
Subject: NOAA Decoders/Satellites

Satellite Trackers:

I am currently tracking the NOAA satellites and receiving APT data
on an R7000 in wideband FM mode.  What I want to know is how SYNC is
derived from the APT format.  I know what the modulation format is
but what is a GOOD way to extract the SYNC?  or ... Do people ignore
the sync and instead depend upon stable sampling of the video to derive
a picture with little or no horizontal precession of the picture from
'top' to 'bottom'.   I have seen 'asynchronous' systems like this 
described.  Any suggestions?  Is there a good source of old G1 FAX
machines around that could be used for hardcopy?  Any stuff for the
Macintosh?  I'll be happy to share info with anyone receiving NOAA
or the Russian METEOR weather satellites.  Thanks!
 
Charlie Thompson WB4HVD
 Austin, TX

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 89 06:05:44 GMT
From: sun.soe.clarkson.edu!rpi!rpics!weltyc@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: a look at history...

In article <2914@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>I believe that looking at the historic record for launch decision will
>show that this is, or at least was, the case.  You do remember the
>Challenger, do you not?  And why it was launched?  And that the "pressures"
>yielded to were not the technical ones?
>

Yes, my point exactly.  And now that they've been burned bad by making
a decision that way they won't do it again.  OK, at least that's the
way I see it.  I don't believe that the people at NASA who make these
decisions will ever take such a risk again, at least in the near
future.  The potential damage to THEM if another disaster happens is
too great, they will undoubtedly lose their jobs and probably a lot
worse.  I also believe they do have some concern for the safety of the
people on board (clearly many people don't share this latter belief).
Anyways, it's just this kind of pressure that shouldn't exist in a
government agency, only in a corporation.  NASA shouldn't have to
justify it's existence by maintaining a tight launch schedule, they
should be devoted to research and development on a level not possible
(well, not expected) for companies because the return is too far off.
This whole country is suffering from massive short-sightedness...But
I'm rambling again. 


Christopher Welty  ---  Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu             ...!njin!nyser!weltyc

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 89 09:47:52 GMT
From: microsoft!w-colinp@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!

In article <1052@ns.UUCP> logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes:
>barry ornitz writes:
>> Scientific knowledge and recipe books for bombs are two entirely
>> different things.
>
>My point exactly.  When you suppress the first, you insure the second.

The point is that it's impossible to suppress all knowledge, and a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing...

If I'm playing with explosives recipies, and my first 12 attempts fizzle,
I may not be cautious enough on the 13th...  If I know what makes a good
explosive, I can do more trial with less error.
-- 
	-Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 89 14:36:29 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <970@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>In article <5919@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM () writes:
>>
>>What mass would be measured by an observer travelling at C, i.e., if one 
>>were going the speed of light, what would be the effects on that observer.
>
>Your question is basically, "What would a person measure when this
>impossible thing occurs?" Since one can't go the speed of light, there
>is no answer to your question.

	I think the first poster was asking what would happen
	to an observer on a ship going at high relativistic 
	velocities.  The question deserves to be answered so 
	I'll take a stab at it:
	Relativity states that an observer at any allowed constant velocity
	( < C ) will notice nothing different to him(her)self
	or the ship.  At high relativistic speeds, the
	mass of the observer and the ship would increase but
	the observer would not notice anything different.  A
	stationary observer, viewing the ship flying by at 
	close to C would notice that the mass of the ship had
	increased since it takes longer for the ship's thrust to
	accelerate the ship a faster. The observer on the 
	ship, applying thrust to his ship, would not notice anything
	different in the expected acceleration.  The disparity
	 between the two observers is caused by the
	slowing down of time for the ship *relative* to the 
	stationary observer.  Upon returning from the voyage, 	
	the observer on the ship would have aged less than expected
	because *relative* to the stationary observer, time had
	slowed down for him(her)[damn this feminist revolution].
	Now, while thinking this through, I was wondering about
	the opposite.  Would the observer on the ship notice
	the rest of the universe gain in mass since relative to the
	ship, the universe is flying by at close to C?

							Jim

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 89 00:21:24 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <5087@hplabsb.HP.COM>, dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) writes:
> In article <83539@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
> >
> >The Tu-144 flew scheduled service between Moscow and Alma Ata for some time,
> 
> The Moscow - Alma Ata run was as
> much range as it had, because of excessive fuel consumption.

It was also chosen because it was one of the apparently few long-
distance routes with no intermediate stops.  Many of Aeroflot's
in-country routes are "locals", running at fairly low altitude
and stopping along the way, again and again.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #183
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Jan 89 06:34:18 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00578>; Sun, 8 Jan 89 05:50:39 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  8 Jan 89 05:50:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.MXlnSwy00Ui3M0lE4w>;
          Sun,  8 Jan 89 05:28:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.QXlnLly00UkZQ3sU4g>;
          Sun,  8 Jan 89 05:20:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXlnI-y00UkZA3rE41@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  8 Jan 89 05:16:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #184

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 184

Today's Topics:
	       Pending announcement of opportunity (AO)
			  Re: Just a comment
			  Re: Just a comment
	   Re: NASA's failure to allocate funds to research
	    Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!
			   Engines beyond G
		       ISECCo Project Update #4
		       Re: a look at history...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 89 01:52:37 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Pending announcement of opportunity (AO)

We will be posting a special employment opportunity for
fresh-out of school new hires to misc.jobs.offered and other groups
shortly.  The positions are basically computer professional slots
(Called Aerospace Technologists) for everything from NeXT(tm) to
TMC CM-2(tm) with lots of CRAYs(tm) in between all running UNIX(tm).
See misc.jobs.offered if you are thinking about graduating or have
just graduated.  This funding comes from HQ.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 89 03:37:23 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!arrom@handies.ucar.edu  (Ken Arromdee )
Subject: Re: Just a comment

>Round about 1969 or 1970, it seemed reasonable to think about a _star_
>ship being built in the 1980's.  When I was a kid, science and
>technology did a good job of outstripping the science fiction.  Kind of
>sad that the starship has become a shuttle, and science fiction has
>become swords&sorcery fantasies.

Analog SF recently had a story about a man thrown into a parallel universe
starting up a space program and helping put a man on the moon.

40 years ago putting men on the moon was science fiction.

20 years ago it was fact.

Now it's science fiction again...
--
               EARTH                  --Kenneth Arromdee
           smog  |   bricks          UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa
        AIR     mud       FIRE   INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu
      soda water |   tequila       BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm
               WATER           (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 89 03:21:14 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!aipna!rjc@uunet.uu.net  (Richard Caley)
Subject: Re: Just a comment

In article <16069@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) writes:

>Round about 1969 or 1970, it seemed reasonable to think about a _star_
>ship being built in the 1980's.  

Not really, and the "Starship" in "Blows against the Empire" is more a
symbol of technology than a prediction of something which might happen.

That Hijacking still has to be done though.


-- 
	rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna	AKA	rjc%uk.ac.ed.aipna@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk

	    "Give me a beer and money sandwich: hold the bread"
			- Waldo 'DR' Dobbs

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 23:56:32 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: NASA's failure to allocate funds to research

Steve Willner writes:
> A few weeks ago, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) wrote:
> > [NASA administrators] choose to spend very little on research, and
> > of what little they choose to spend, all of it is spent corruptly
> > on people who will return political favors to them but have little
> > if any knowlege in the area they are supposedly researching.
> 
> While I generally agree with your contention that NASA spends too
> little money on research,... 
I'm glad we agree on something.

>                         ...the above statement is ludicrous and
> insulting.  As have many of my colleagues, I have frequently received
> NASA research grants, and it's hard to imagine what political favors
> any of us has ever done for NASA.
Have you written your congressman lately?  Have you informed him that
NASA needs more money because it needs to do more research or did you
do what you know should be done -- call for changing the priorities in 
spending the current NASA budget?  Accepting money from NASA and witholding 
criticism you might otherwise give is a favor.  It just isn't as grotesque
as accepting a "research grant" in exchange for hiring a lobbyist --
just one of the many "peer review" practices I've found out about.
(And yes, I've contacted the authorities and no, they aren't going
 to do anything without placing me in danger of having to pay for a
 lawyer for the next 10 to 20 years fighting law suits against me.
 I want a space program but I'm not going to sacrifice my welfare
 in a futile gesture.)

>                                       And as for "little if any
> knowledge", perhaps you should look again at the lists of recipients;
> in astronomy, at least, nearly all are very well-respected.  (Allan
> Sandage and Charles Townes come immediately to mind, but I'm sure
> most of the top people in the field have received NASA grants.)
First, I do apologize for the indirect slight of people in astronomy,
which receives most of its funding from NASA.  In areas where the main 
means of getting things done are not owned by NASA, and where there is 
a long academic tradition, integrity is likely to exist.  Even NASA 
has difficulty corrupting some fields.

However, check out the trend represented by Hubble Space Telescope and
the Space Telescope Science Center if you want to see a serious threat
to the integrity of astronomy by NASA corruption.  It is a classic
NASA maneuver:  Build a monument that everything depends on and
use it to create a centralized bureaucracy that can extract political
support in exchange for access.  Space Shuttle, Space Station and
Space Telescope are all in this class.  You astronomers are in for
a nasty wake-up call when HST goes into operation if you think NASA
isn't essentially corrupt.

>                                                          ...  In
> my opinion, the lower-level administrators do a creditable job of
> allocating very limited research funds.
In astronomy, maybe.  But if it is credible, there has been a lot
of blood spilled to keep it that way and it will get even worse
with HST.  

> 
> Since this statement was made publicly, I think it calls for a public
> apology.
Done.


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 89 16:40:05 GMT
From: ingr!b11!xenon!goodloe@uunet.uu.net  (Tony Goodloe)
Subject: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!

In article <10880005@hpldola.HP.COM>, paul@hpldola.HP.COM (Paul Bame) writes:
> Anyone know how engines bigger than 'G' are made?  I've seen 'K'
> engines with what appeared to be fiberglass casings, graphite nozzles,
> 	--Paul Bame

what are some sources for these larger motors. i've seen them fly at
contests, and like to PURCHASE (not make) some. i did enough stupid
pyrotechnic things when i was little.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 89 21:04:57 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Engines beyond G

In article <10880005@hpldola.HP.COM>, paul@hpldola.HP.COM (Paul Bame) writes:
> Anyone know how engines bigger than 'G' are made?  I've seen 'K'
> engines with what appeared to be fiberglass casings, graphite nozzles,
> 	--Paul Bame

I know of one company ("Advanced Propellants"?) that makes
super-engines, using a composite perchlorate-aluminum-polybutadiene
propellant instead of the more common black powder.  I had heard that
the G engines were not legal for contests, so presumably the same
applies for (*gasp*) K engines.  (Those have got to contain more
than 1 ounce of propellant!)

I've seen some of these engines at D&J Hobby in Campbell, CA.  
I didn't see a G, much less a K, but there was a nifty F engine
in a standard Estes D sized case -- and it was really light,
about the weight of an empty Estes D.  They did look like they
were fiberglass with a graphite nozzle, which may account for
the ~$10 price tag.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                     Will your long-winded speeches never
Video 7                           end?  What ails you that you keep on 
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp            arguing?    --    Job 16:3

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Thu, 05 Jan 89 13:04:00 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Robert Jessie Hale III           <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  ISECCo Project Update #4



January 5, 1989
ISECCo PROJECT UPDATE #4:  Hydroponics & space utilization.

Background:
     Any  space  colony  will  be very conscious  of  space.   The  costs
involved  in enclosing a given area and pressurizing it  are  staggering:
'cubic'  will  be  at a premium in any  space  system.   Therefore  every
possible  method of conserving space will undoubtedly be utilized.  In  a
biosphere  the  system  that requires the majority of the  space  is  the
hydroponics  system.   Plants by nature require large areas in  order  to
absorb sufficient light for photosynthesis.
     A  natural system requires a great deal more area than we expect  to
need  for  we shall use several methods for enhancing plant  growth.   At
this  point we are uncertain just how much space will be required  for  a
garden large enough to support one person.  There is, in the  literature,
a  number of claims that a person can be supported with a mere 40  square
meters (about 400 square feet) of garden area.  This sounds like quite  a
bit,  until you realize that it is a plot of roughly  6.5x6.5m  (20x20').
How  much  validity these claims have remains to be  seen;  pure  calorie
production could be sufficient but it may well prove to be too minimal  a
diet from such a small space.  The biosphere is being designed with about
115 square meters (1,200 square feet) and will hopefully prove more  than
sufficient to support one or more people.  In the event that it proves to
be too small it may well be possible to crowd more growing area into  the
biosphere by making use of empty cubic--of which there are usually  large
amounts  in any structure (look over your head to see what  I  mean--more
than  20%  of the cubic in a room is unused by the average  person  since
only  the tallest need the foot or two clearance between a person's  head
and the ceiling.)
     If  a person can be supported on an intensive garden plot of such  a
small  size  it  may  prove  possible to  reduce  the  size  even  more--
hydroponics  are  more  efficient  than soil  since  a  plant's  nutrient
requirements  are exactly met (though a correct solution may not be  able
to  be  maintained in the biosphere since we are producing our  own).  In
addition  to  this  we  will  be  modifying  the  atmospheric   pressure,
increasing  the light duration and intensity and increasing the level  of
carbon dioxide in the air.  By optimizing all these factors we expect  to
obtain  significantly better production rates than that obtained in  even
the  best outdoor environment.  We hope this forced growth  will  provide
more  than enough food given a cubic of 60 cubic meters (1.5x6.5x6.5  m).
The gross volume of the biosphere is 250 cubic meters; while a portion of
this will be devoted to other activities at least half will be devoted to
hydroponics.   More  than enough, we feel sure, to  support  our  initial
inhabitant!

Current status:
     Developing  the  necessary hydroponics systems is expected  to  take
several years.  Since it is also expected to take several years to  build
the  biosphere  structure  it  behooves  us  to  work  on  both  projects
simultaneously.   We  have,  therefore,  been  building  our  hydroponics
systems.   The systems we are building are being installed in my  bedroom
(causing  severe  crowding!)  This is for a couple of reasons;  first  to
gain experience in economizing space, second to have a confined space  to
minimize moisture spread (which can be a problem in Alaskan houses in the
winter) so we can remove it with a dehumidifier before it causes problems
in the rest of the house.
     My  bedroom is 3x4m (10'x13').  Since the ceiling is 2.5m (8')  high
this  is a cubic of 30 cubic meters (1040 cubic feet) or about half  that
required  to support 1 person.  As I am still using the bedroom (!)  that
cuts into the cubic by quite a bit.  However most of the plants we  shall
be  growing do not require 1.5 m (5') so we expect to have a  significant
portion of the biosphere's hydroponics installed in my bedroom.
     We  have already installed 74 square feet (7 square meters).   These
systems are mainly based on the floor, as is everything else in the room.
This has resulted in a very crowded bedroom: the only place you can stand
is  in  the  doorway and in the closet--and the only way to  get  to  the
closet  is  UNDER  one of the hydroponics trays!!  This  system  is  very
inefficient of cubic, however.  The only cubic utilized more than 1/3  of
the  way  to  the ceiling is where the file cabinet  is  stacked  on  the
bureau.  By building a sort of scaffolding, removing the bed and  placing
a  mattress on top of the scaffolding and another 4'x8' tray  beside  the
mattress we expect to free up considerable cubic.  Unused cubic over  the
4'x4'  trays can be used by stacking more trays on top of the 2 that  are
there  now; with the bed removed from the floor the desk/computer can  be
moved  to  free up enough room for another stack of 4'x4'  trays.   Total
garden area is expected to be increased to close to 20 square meters (200
square feet) by using there techniques.  This amount of garden area  will
probably require more dehumidification capability than we currently have,
though I hope not since there won't be room to put another dehumidifier!

Conclusion:
     By  economic  use  of  space my  bedroom  should  prove  capable  of
providing  1/3 to 1/2 of the food required for one person.   This  system
has several drawbacks; foremost among them is the high humidity from such
a  large  number  of  plants respiring in such  a  small  place  and  the
consumption  of  carbon dioxide will probably require  importing  bottled
carbon dioxide to maintain the desired level.  Other less severe problems
include providing power to run all the lights (probably have to run in an
extra cable), keeping the heat down (no problem here in the winter:  just
open  the window--summer may be a different story) from all  the  lights,
dehumidifiers, etc running, keeping the cat from grazing, limited use  of
my bedroom while this is going on, etc, etc...

ON other matters:
     We  have  done some work on aero-space planes and  preliminary  data
indicate  that  it  is possible to get to orbit using  $25-$75  in  fuel.
Given  that our labor is free and we don't spend too much on  material  I
see  nothing  prohibiting the development of a system capable  of  moving
material  surface  to  LEO  for  $250/lb.   Naturally  this  requires   a
considerable effort on the part of our volunteer workers which would have
to be reflected in any commercial venture, but it will put space a  great
deal  closer  than it is now, and will make it practical to  build  space
platforms  in  LEO.   These  figures  are,  of  course,   extraordinarily
tentative:  they show what may be possible given a dedicated effort.
     Along  somewhat more practical lines we are designing a model  aero-
space  plane which will be used as a test 'platform' to develop design  &
engine  technology.   This craft will be about 4m (12')  long  and  weigh
around  500#.   It  will be air launched over the Gulf  of  Alaska,  with
telemetry  pick-up based in Hawaii and, if it proves to  have  sufficient
range, Antarctica.  While we shall strive to recover the model the effort
will  likely prove impossible; flotation devices may prove  prohibitively
heavy and we are lacking the resources needed to retrieve it (like ships,
helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft).
     As you can see we are making some slight progress with this project,
even  though  it is not our current project: the biosphere is  much  more
important at this time and we are only working on  this when we have  the
spare time or resources.

     Any  of  you who haven't yet joined and are interested   do  get  in
touch  with us.  Our minimum membership is only $5 for an entire  decade.
Anyone who wants  to  join can just send Robert,  FNRJH@ALASKA, a note on
here  and  we'll  send you a letter with  the   information  we'll  need.
Alternatively you can write ISECCo, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks, AK 99706.

                                              --Ray :: President, ISECCo


FNRJH@ALASKA
Robert J. Hale III:: Director, ISECCo
[end]

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 89 17:46:56 GMT
From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: a look at history...

In article <55@rpi.edu> weltyc@turing.cs.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
>In article <2914@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>>
>>I believe that looking at the historic record for launch decision will
>>show that this is, or at least was, the case.  You do remember the
>>Challenger, do you not?  And why it was launched?  And that the "pressures"
>>yielded to were not the technical ones?
>>
>
>Yes, my point exactly.  And now that they've been burned bad by making
>a decision that way they won't do it again.  OK, at least that's the
>way I see it.  I don't believe that the people at NASA who make these
>decisions will ever take such a risk again, at least in the near
>future.

Paraphrased from memory from the Aviation Leak about the shuttle launch:
	When it looked like the wind velocity was outside of the safe
	range, they recalculated the safe range.

And the following (quoted from memory) was apparently not an attempt at irony:
	The increased emphasis on safety was demonstrated by the fact that
	xxx criticality 1 waivers were granted for this flight, as opposed
	to y for Challenger.  (I believe 50 < xxx < 200 and 5 < y < 20)

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
	"I was sad that I had no shirt, until I met a man with no torso"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #184
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Jan 89 06:26:37 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00489>; Mon, 9 Jan 89 05:51:15 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  9 Jan 89 05:50:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0Xm8cwy00Ui3A0qE4=>;
          Mon,  9 Jan 89 05:32:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.QXm8SLy00UkZ44bE58>;
          Mon,  9 Jan 89 05:21:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sXm8NQy00UkZQ4a04N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  9 Jan 89 05:15:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #185

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 185

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
		    ADDITION TO SUBSCRIPTION LIST
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
	     RE: Making model rocket engines ---> Don't!
		   deletion from subscription list
		     Re: Spaceplanes & Time Zones
		     Space station escape routes
		      please put me on the list
			   `Days' in space
      HST (was Re: NASA's failure to allocate funds to research)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 89 21:02:35 GMT
From: arisia!quintus!jabir@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Jabir Hussain)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <875@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:
>	                                                   A
>	stationary observer, viewing the ship flying by at 
>	close to C would notice that the mass of the ship had
>	increased
>							Jim

this bring up a question that has been bugging me for a while:

	if the ship's mass is approaching infinity from the
	point of view of a stationary observer, would not
	the gravitational attraction between them also
	approach infinity?  i.e. would the observer get
	sucked in toward the ship?  or does the fact that
	time is slowing down somehow prevent this?

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 06 Jan 89 13:29 CST
To: <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
From: OPERADP@ccm.UManitoba.CA
Subject: ADDITION TO SUBSCRIPTION LIST

Could you please add <COOPMAN@ccm.UManitoba.CA> to
your mailing list of space digest.
                 THANKS

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 89 21:57:07 GMT
From: avsd!childers@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <970@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>In article <5919@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM () writes:

>>What mass would be measured by an observer travelling at C, i.e., if one 
>>were going the speed of light, what would be the effects on that observer.

>Your question is basically, "What would a person measure when this
>impossible thing occurs?" Since one can't go the speed of light, there
>is no answer to your question.

Never say 'impossible'. If you're not sure, say "I'm not sure."

This is a perfectly valid question. It is a question exploring the boundaries
of scientific knowledge, and the boundaries are where things are happening.
Just because you're intimidated by boundaries does not imply that they aren't
a place for inquiring minds to hang out.

According to Einstein - whom got his recognition for thinking about the
supposedly 'unthinkable' - as one approaches the speed of light, one's mass
goes up. When one has a mass moving at the speed of light, its mass appears
to approach infinite. This is why some regard it as a nonsensical question,
since in order to accelerate an infinite mass, one would need infinite energy.

>-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
> USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA

-- richard

-- 
 *                          Supernovae are a blast                            *
 *                                                                            *
 *      ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho     *
 *          AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D          *

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 13:18:48 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror)
Subject: RE: Making model rocket engines ---> Don't!

This may be old hat for some, but I've been "black" for a few weeks.

I make bombs for a living, not a hobby.  Explosives kill, easily, readily
and not always quickly.  To assume that everyone on this net is aware
of the explosive potential of even black powder is not stupid, it is criminal.

If someone, in the name of "space research", were to blow up there house,
neighborhood (it can be done) or just themselves, the impact on true space
research at the non-govermental level would be horrendous.

Before anyone puts another such "experiment" here, ask yourself, how many
people could this kill?

Dillon Pyron                         |Too serious for humour.
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services |The opinions are mine alone, but
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |should be everybody's.
(214)462-5449                        |

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 06 Jan 89 12:37 CST
From: OPEROW@ccm.UManitoba.CA
Subject: deletion from subscription list

Could you please delete me <OPEROW@ccm.UManitoba.CA> from
your mailing list of space digest
                 THANKS DALE

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:22 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Re: Spaceplanes & Time Zones

George kaplan writes:

>In article <876@cmx.npac.syr.edu> anand@amax.npac.syr.edu (Anand Rangachari)
> writes:
>>                 ... the Concorde also completely eliminates jet lag.
>
>Would someone explain how crossing 5 timezones in 3 hours could
>_eliminate_ jet lag?

     One of the great advantages of the high speed travel is the
possibility of using it for commuter traffic.  An uncle of mine works
for the Dresdner Bank (West Germany), and tells me stories of big-wig
bank execs who fly from Frankfurt to Paris, and then hop on to the
Concorde for New York in the mornings, conduct a business day there,
and fly back to Frankfurt that same evening.  This completely negates jet
lag, as you end up back in the same bed in the same time zone.  While
something like this is obviously a long business day (and done only a
couple of times per week at most I am told), a faster plane would
promote commuter-like traffic for those that cold afford it.

     And that is how a Concorde could eliminate jet lag, as opposed to
eliminating it completely.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:33 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Space station escape routes

Peter Scott writes:

>Um, I may be totally off the wall here, but I do remember seeing at some
>time in the past plans for a space station that had an Apollo command
>module attached as an escape vehicle.  ...  However it seems like a darn good
>idea (could you fit one inside the shuttle bay?).  They only need one plus
>a backup, maybe there's a couple in decent shape somewhere?  (But then there's
>docking adapters, etc, etc,... oh well, it was good while it lasted...)

     While this is a decent idea, I have another one that may at first
seem to be a bit on the wasteful side.  Right now, everyone is telling
us that shuttles are becoming too expensive to be used as launch
vehicles.  Well, if that is the case - what exactly can they be used for
(besides junking them - that would be wasteful)?  To me it seems obvious
that the current shuttles could be used as the permanent `escape pod'
for the space station until such a time that they are no longer usable.
Shuttles would also be useful for taking down the results of scientific
or commercial ventures, especially many of them at once.  (Raw materials
would still be sent up via disposable boosters.)

     Anyway, 'tis just an idea.  I'm sure that something is wrong with
it somewhere.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 13:24 PST
From: C44RNT%ENG2%HAC2GM@engvax.scg.hac.com
Subject: please put me on the list

dear sirs, I would like to be put on the space mailing list
address: c44rnt%eng2.gm@hac2arpa.hac.com

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 6 Jan 89 17:15 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  `Days' in space

     A few weeks ago, there was a report on the boob-tube about a lady
in France who had spent about 60 days inside a cave (mineshaft?),
completely isolated with no timepieces.  She was startled when they
brought her out and said her time was up, as it seemed that she had
often spent 40 - 60 hours awake at a stretch without noticing.

     The question then becomes, how ingrained are our sleep patterns to
our environment?  How does this effect manifest itself in long-term
orbits (like in Mir)?  Does the proximity of timepieces and the day-cycle
of the earthbound communications force the astronauts to keep the
`normal' day cycle?  What is the effect of having two or more people
setting up their own `day' cycles?

     How will this effect affect the astronauts on the proposed Mars
mission?  Why is it that only the Soviet Union is now studying the
eating/sleeping habits of long-term space exposure, and only they will
thus be able to estimate correctly the amount of supplies needed on the
Mars voyage?

     If nothing else, more experiments could be done on isolation
experiments similar to the French one (i.e. no contact, no *clocks*),
especially the effect of having two people involved (against setting up
your own rhythms).  Just a thought - go to it, thought-busters!

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 89 20:51:46 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: HST (was Re: NASA's failure to allocate funds to research)

jim@pnet01.cts.com writes:

>  You astronomers are in for
> a nasty wake-up call when HST goes into operation if you think NASA
> isn't essentially corrupt.

I won't claim "corrupt", but I don't see how HST can be anything but a
tragedy.  IMHO, the main reason the shuttle got back into space after
Challenger was the backlog of military payloads.  By the time the next
accident occurs, the military likely will have launched the backlog
and moved back to expendables.  There's a good chance, I think, that
the shuttle will then be abandoned.  The HST would become a very
expensive meteor several years later.

By the way, look in AW&ST at the picture of the place where the tile
was missing from Atlantis after the last flight.  Brrrr.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #185
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Jan 89 07:17:10 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00628>; Tue, 10 Jan 89 06:07:46 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 10 Jan 89 06:07:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0XmRdiy00Ui3Q0vk4o>;
          Tue, 10 Jan 89 05:26:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.wXmRWEy00UkZ484k5n>;
          Tue, 10 Jan 89 05:18:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sXmRTOy00UkZ883U5-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 05:15:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #186

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 186

Today's Topics:
	 Model rockets vs. high power rockets, engines, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 89 22:41:00 GMT
From: att!ihlpb!rjungcla@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Model rockets vs. high power rockets, engines, etc.


This article discusses many of the issues and comments raised in
earlier postings. It is lengthy but contains "much good stuff!"

The term "model rocket" is precisely and LEGALLY defined based on
non-metallic structural components, weight, propellant and total
impulse restrictions, electrical ignition, recovery devices and
FACTORY-MADE, solid propellant engines. The term "High Power rocket"
refers to any rocket using model rocket technology (as described above)
except without the weight, propellant and total impulse restrictions
of model rocketry.  The term "amateur rocketry" refers to all other
non-professional rocket activities.  Included in the last class,
are "basement bombers," any attempts to make homemade engines,
and anything using metallic structural parts.  Please use the term 
"model rocket" in the proper way as given above. The National 
Association of Rocketry (NAR) and model rocket manufacturers have 
gone through much trouble and expense to dis-associate themselves 
from the other definitions and "fireworks." All too often a well 
intentioned, mis-informed public official will attempt to "outlaw" 
or restrict model rockets.  (As late as last August, the FAA
attempted to shutdown the national championship meet of the NAR. 
The problem is even more widespread on a local level). 
 
"High Power Rockets" refer to larger rockets using high impulse 
engines - type H and beyond, and certain high average thrust lower 
type engines. A high power rocket built by North Coast Rocketry and
carrying a research payload was recently launched (past 6 months) 
from Cape Canaveral after months of red tape. (The initial announcement 
and a couple of followups were posted to the net long ago.) A least 
one high power "meet" routinely has clearances to 200,000 ft.
High power rocketry is a recent development - say the last 5 or 6
years.

>Fortunately, in the mid 1950's, a chemical engineer by the name of
>G. Harry Stine worked out a way of sealing a small amount of propellant
>inside a thick paper tube in such a way as to make it much safer to
>handle.  

Orville H. Carlisle is the credited inventor and developer of the
"model rocket" and the model rocket engine.  G. Harry Stine claim 
to fame is that he was the founder of the first model rocket company, 
Model Missiles, Inc., and the founder of the NAR.

>However, The safety guide that comes in a package is just a guide 
>so that foolish people that try my device (note: I didn't say BOMB)
>can't sue when it sets Yellowstone park on fire.  

The Model Rocket Safety Code is more than a "liability waiver" suggested
above. The Safety Code is a NATIONAL code developed jointly by the
NAR and HIA. This safety code is adopted and periodically reviewed
by the regulatory agencies - National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), DOT, FAA, USPS, and Consumer Product Safety Commission to
name a few.  The NFPA incorporated the elements of the safety code 
into the NFPA 1122 Code for Unmanned Rockets. This in turn has been
adopted outright or in modified format by 48 states; only New Jersey
and Rhode Island do not use NFPA as the basis for their state laws
relating to model rockets. Adherence to the safety code also guarantees
that model rockets do not require FAA waivers or clearances for flight
under the provisions of Federal Aviation Regulations Part 101, Subpart
A, pp. 101.1 (a)(3)(ii)(a) through (d). The new version of the Safety
Code (dated 1-1-87) permits the use of "G" engines.  Unfortunately,
the FAA is the only regulatory agency yet to adopt the new code (it
is still being reviewed, meaning that it stalled in the bureaucracy).
As such to legally fly model rockets with "G" total impulse, it is
necessary to notify the FAA for each flight in compliance with the FAR
regulations cited above.  Further note, that only in a restrictive
set of circumstances (like being within range of an airport) can the
FAA deny the flight, if all provisions of the FAR regulations
are met.  

Therefore, if you comply with the Safety Code, you are in effect
complying with federal laws and the state laws of all states but the 
two mention above. These two states have explicit model rocket laws 
based on an earlier safety codes.  It is slightly more complicated 
than described.  It depends on how the state adopts NFPA codes. If
the state has enabling NFPA legislation, then the state automatically
and immediately adopts any NFPA code into law. In the other states,
the NFPA code must be explicitly voted into effect. Hence, the new
safety code may not be in effect for your state (eg. MA). If you fail 
to comply with the Safety Code, then additional steps may be required 
to comply with local, state and federal regulations or the activity 
can be banned outright!. All high power rockets must comply with all 
federal and state regulations including FAA notification.  Amateur 
rocketry is prohibited in every state!

>I had heard that the G engines were not legal for contests, so 
>presumably the same applies for (*gasp*) K engines. 
>(Those have got to contain more than 1 ounce of propellant!)

Most G engines are legal for NAR contests and have been since new
safety code when in to effect (1-1-87). Certain G engines, ie those
exceeding average thrust limitations are illegal as model rocket engines
nationwide.  Further, as described above certain states have yet to
incorporate the new safety code into their laws.  I'm certain that 
California (poster's state) is a state that must explicitly vote on the
new code. Again let me re-emphasize, until the new safety code has been
adopted by the FAA, model rocket flights involving "G" total impulse
must notify the FAA.  There are also high power rocket contests.
The 1 ounce of propellant is for the old safety code and pertains
only to model rockets.  Any engine of type H and beyond is NOT
a model rocket engine but is a high power rocket engine.

>In the more than 30 years since 'modern' model rocketry was begun,
>more than 300 million model rocket motors have been manufactured, and 
>there have been almost no (perhaps even NO) serious injuries.

I quote from  [1]: "Thirty years after the hobby began, it can proudly
boast of more than 300,000,000 safe flights. There have been a few
burned fingers but only one accident that could be classed as `serious'
-- a young spectator lost an eye as a result of improper construction
and pre-flight preparation of the model. ALL of the accidents in model
rocketry have been caused by product mis-use or failure to read and
follow explicit instructions and safety rules. Considering the high
volume of flights -- more than 20,000,000 per year at the present rate
-- this safety record is far better than that of Little League Football
or even bicycle riding.  The National Association of Rocketry has
determined statistically that one accident might be expected for
every 200,000,000 model rocket flights."

I am aware of the other posting, and have contacted the poster
regarding the exact nature of the injury. After consulting with
the poster, I would also classify this injury as serious and will
pass along a report of this injury on the NAR for statistical
purposes.  Unfortunately, the exact details have been long since
forgotten since the injury occurred in the 1967-1969 time frame.
However, let me re-emphasize that "ALL of the accidents in model
rocketry have been caused by product mis-use or failure to read and
follow explicit instructions and safety rules." Given the details
from original postings and my followup to the poster, this statement
remains true for the second injury. 

(from several posters):
>We took some commercial black powder ...

>Commercial black powder should never be used as a rocket propellant.  
>...

>Anyone know how engines bigger than 'G' are made?  I've seen 'K'
>engines with what appeared to be fiberglass casings, graphite nozzles,
>and have a hard time believing someone compressed all that propellant.
>Maybe it's poured/casted?  If so, what is used and why couldn't it
>be used for smaller engines?

I quote from [1]: "Two general types of solid propellants are used in
model rocket motors.  One type of model rocket motor uses dead-pressed
black powder ... This is a highly refined form of classical black
powder. ... It has the lowest energy content (thrust produced per unit
weight of propellant consumed, called specific impulse by rocket
engineers) of all commercially available rocket propellants and is
primarily used in small rocket motors ranging from ... to Type D.
The second type of model rocket motor uses a `composite' solid
propellant ...  The `composite' used in model rocket motors uses  
ammonium perchlorate as an oxider in a binder + fuel which is an
organic elastomer or rubber-like compound. ... Unlike black powder
propellant which must be physically dead-pressed into a motor casing
to form a propellant charge or `grain,' a composite propellant is cast
and cured to form a grain in the model rocket motor. Most composite
propellants will not burn at atmospheric pressure and are thus
self-extinguishing. Composite have two to three times the specific
impulse ... of black powder and are normally used in larger model
rocket motors from Type D to Type G."

Some composite D and E motors are the same size as the standard (A,B,C)
Estes motors.  Some composite E, F and G motors are the same size as an
Estes D motor. The primary reason that composite motors are not in more
widespread use is cost.  (The production process of composite model 
rocket motors does not readily lend itself to mass production by 
machine as is the case of black powder model rocket motors.) A cost 
comparison: 3 Estes D engines retail for about $5; the least expensive,
SINGLE comparable size Aerotech D composite engine retails for about 
$7. (A standard size Aerotech D engine is about $10).  Thus, a 
composite engine is at least 4 times more expensive than a black power 
engine.  Composite motors have epoxy encased fiberglass or plastic 
tubes and machined graphite or epoxy nozzles.  All the "high power" 
rocket motors [H, I, J, K, L, M, N and beyond] are composites. Some 
high power engines use the exact propellant mixture that is used in 
the space shuttle boosters.

>Estes uses specially wound paper tubes designed to break into a number
>of small pieces in the event of over- pressure; likewise the nozzles 
>are pressed clay which are also designed to break up in an explosion

This is one that I haven't heard before, but I quote from [1]: "When
the rare failure occurs, it is caused by an internal overpressure
created by separation of the propellant grain from the casing or a
void in the grain, thus producing a large burning surface and an
increased combustion pressure. Model rocket motors are designed to `fail
safe' on such occasions be either blowing the nozzle out the rear of
the motor or blowing the contents of the motor forward.  In the first
case, the motor ejects a cloud of ceramic dust; in the second case, the
model rocket airframe itself contains and directs the explosion as the
nose cone and recovery system are ejected forward. Paper model rocket
casing have been hydrostatically tested to an internal pressure of
1000 psi without rupturing; plastic casings used in composite model
rocket motors are designed with a standard aerospace industry and
military safety factor of 1.3."  I have personally witnessed several
failures described above, but have never witnessed or heard of the
motor case breaking apart as posted.

The surface area is the key to explosive nature of black powder.
The black powder model rocket propellant is a very hard, dense single
solid mass with a controlled burning surface area.  On the other hand,
fireworks and ammunition uses either a loose propellant mixture or a
granulated propellant mixture that is loosely packed into the casing.  
If a model rocket engine is severely temperature cycled, cracks (hence
increasing the surface area) develop in the propellant and the failures
described above occur.

>Explosives are extremely dangerous!  But everyone on the net knows 
>that, to assume they don't is to insult their intelligence.  It would
>be a different case if the audience consisted of grade school students.

Intelligence is not synonymous with WISDOM!  I know some intelligent 
people that have done some stupid things. I also must admit that I 
personally haven't always made the wisest choices.  I have heard of 
incidents in which supposely responsible adults have made "bazookas," 
"mortars,"  and radio controlled, explosive "warheads" out of model 
rockets. And worst yet, in one of these cases the adult was a high 
school teacher that was teaching this to his high school students and
this was highlighted in a well known modeling magazine. The "bad image"
that this conveys to authorities prompted the NAR and the manufacturers
to commission a study to on potential weapon use of model rockets.  
The results of this study were establish limits to average thrust of 
model rocket motors by the NAR/HIA that were incorporated into the new 
safety code and adopted by the NFPA in 1987.

The potential for abuse is even greater for high power rockets. With
high power rockets, we have the potential for terrorist grade
delivery systems and for more serious injury.   The first time this
happens will certainly spell the end for the high power hobby.

Further, one should not assume (assume = ASS out of U and ME) anything
about the characteristics of the readers of the net. We know little 
about most readers on the network.  As already been pointed out by
other posters, the network feed is available to schools and some of 
the responses on the net have shown a considerable lack of maturity.

>what are some sources for these larger motors. i'vse seen them fly at
>contests, and like to PURCHASE (not make) some. i did enough stupid
>pyrotechnic things when i was little.

If you email a request to me, I will send you a list of all the known
rocket engine manufacturers.  If I get enough requests, I'll also
post this information to the net.  I'm not being coy; I just don't
have this information readily available (still unpacking from a recent
move). Moreover, I should provide several warnings. First, large
composite engines are not inexpensive; some cost upwards of $500 or
more. Second, high power engines require special shipping procedures.
Finally, to purchase high power engines requires a card certifying
that you are able to handle the engines.

All "safety certified" model rocket engines including most G engines,
are classified as Class C propellant devices.  As such DOT, USPS, UPS
and other common carriers exempt these from most regulations, allowing
them to be transported as long as package is marked "Flammable solid."
High power engines are classified as Class B propellant devices and
these are NOT exempted.  Shipment of any high power engines, must be
made in a special "Fireproof, Explosion proof" container that requires
something like $150 deposit for the container alone. The high power
engine manufacturers, recognizing the potential for mis-use, have
voluntarily agreed to sell their engines only to recognized card holders.
To obtain a card it is necessary to build a high power rocket and to
fly it under the supervision of a designated card holder or a 
manufacturer. It also may be necessary to join Tripolitian (sp?)
(email for address) which is the equivalent of the NAR for high
power rockets. I believe that card is only good for one year, and
manufacturer checks the card every time that you purchase engines.
Hence, any card holder not in good standing is denied access to the 
engines. The way engine shipments are usually handled, is that you 
order engines for a high power "meet," and the manufacturer will take
care of shipment to the site and you picked up the engines at the site. 

This is my recollection of details for obtaining high power engines
when Tripolitian was first started 3 or 4 years ago. I am not
currently a member of Tripolitian, nor have flown any high power
rockets, but I have attended many high power "meets," often at
times when many legal and regulatory issues that were hotly debated.

(Poster A):
>Try taking an Estes "D12" model rocket engine and four bags of Nifda 
>non- dairy creamer to a remote site, preferably grass free.  Run the 
>engine/igniter assembly nozzle first through the bottom of a 13 oz. 
>coffee can. Level the can/engine "tube" pointing upward, add creamer, 
>string out a lot of wire to your launcher switch and fire.  Awe 
>inspiring mushroom cloud to lighten up any party is produced with 
>lovely caramel odor.  I do not recommend you try this with strong 
>winds or sane mind.

(Poster B):
>I seem to recall, back when I was interested in model rocketry along 
>with everyone else, the cover of a particular Estes catalog. It was 
>a cartoon by Don Martin of Mad Magazine fame. It depicted a group of 
>NASA technicians at work under the first stage of a Saturn V, busily 
>stuffing carton after carton of Estes model rocket engines into the 
>Saturn's engine nozzles.

First, the cover appeared on an issue of Estes Model Rocket News and 
never on a cover of catalog. MRN had a more limited distribution. 
Yes, this does show that Estes does have a sense of humor, but their
is a big difference.  How many of you were ever in the position 
of attempting to realize the event depicted in this cartoon? 
This cartoon was clearly a satire.  However, the device previously 
described is something that physically realizable from household 
items by even a grade school student.  Moreover, the serious tone 
of the posting leads me to believe that poster tried it.  The posting 
could have been described in a different way that would have presented 
the "thought experiment" in a considerably safer manner.  Given my
experience with model rockets, I can see several ways in which this
mis-use of a model rocket engine could lead to injury, beyond the
fire hazard. But in all fairness, the description chosen is safer 
than the original posting.  If you going to post something like this, 
avoid using brand names or terms like "model rocket" and please place
the DISCLAIMER in BIG Letters at the BEGINNING of the description.
Without these, such postings irate the manufacturer of the product
that you are misusing and the responsible user community. Rocketry
products are often mistakingly classified as fireworks, which have
a bad reputation for injury.  There are public officials, that would
love to get their hands on any reports involving the mis-use of model
rockets and use these as the basis of much more restrictive regulations
or even the elimination of model rocketry.  Regardless of how many
times model rockets are used safely, the incidents that cause injury
and damage are the ones that are remembered.

About making your own rocket engines, be advised that there have been 
fatalities in the commercial model rocket engine manufacture.  These 
facilities are high automated (and have been 1961) block house 
operations, that require minimal human support.  There is NO COMPLETELY
SAFE WAY of making a rocket engine, only degrees of relative safety.
If you insist of making your own engines, please proceed with the 
utmost caution and be prepared for the consequences including possible 
legal challenges.  Many insurance companies will not cover an accident 
of this sort.  And PLEASE DON'T CALL THEM MODEL ROCKET ENGINES even if 
they look, smell, and work like model rocket engines!

Most of the technical information and safety aspects contained in
this posting are from [1].  This report is "current" and makes for
interesting reading.  Other references available on request. Probably
can also provide you with a local model rocket or high power rocket 
contact.  If you are interested in receiving a Xerox copy of the 40 
page report [1], send me a SASE (9x12); email me first and I'll provide
the postage cost.  This report would be useful in fighting problems
that arise from time to time with individuals having reservations
about model rocketry. Questions about this response or any other model 
rocketry/high power rocketry can be mailed to me. I will answer all mail.

Finally, is anyone interested in starting a new group, say "rec.rocket"
to discuss any model rocket and/or high power issues. There are some
neat things happening in model rocketry and high power rocketry. If so
please send email to me. I have been debating  posting something this 
effect for several months.

[1] 	Stine, G. Harry. "Thirty Years of Model Rocketry: A Safety
		Report," NAR/HIA, 1988.

NAR #23085
R. Michael Jungclas                    UUCP:      att!ihlpb!rjungcla 
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.       Internet:  rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com
Home:  2504 Woodlyn Dr., #201, Woodridge, IL  60517.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #186
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Jan 89 06:55:51 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00656>; Wed, 11 Jan 89 05:51:27 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 11 Jan 89 05:51:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IXmmm2y00Ui3I0mk4B>;
          Wed, 11 Jan 89 05:29:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.EXmmbzy00UkZ82AE4z>;
          Wed, 11 Jan 89 05:18:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0XmmZOy00UkZ42=05D@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 05:15:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #187

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 187

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
			 Re: `Days' in space
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
			    Re: Space Idea
		   IBM satellite tracking software
		  references for space travel wanted
		  Re: Query about Kuiper news blurb
		  more 'power' to the experimenters
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
       Re: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Why Bother??
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
			 Re: Engines beyond G
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 89 04:23:56 GMT
From: rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Rick Francis Golembiewski)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

>This is a perfectly valid question. It is a question exploring the boundaries
>of scientific knowledge, and the boundaries are where things are happening.
>Just because you're intimidated by boundaries does not imply that they aren't
>a place for inquiring minds to hang out.

>According to Einstein - whom got his recognition for thinking about the
>supposedly 'unthinkable' - as one approaches the speed of light, one's mass
>goes up. When one has a mass moving at the speed of light, its mass appears
>to approach infinite. This is why some regard it as a nonsensical question,
>since in order to accelerate an infinite mass, one would need infinite energy.

Also, consider that relativity is a THEORY, there may be a lot of
things wrong with it, after all it is possible that at some velocity
the tendency for mass to increase/time to slow, my stop, thus
allowing velocities of C or even greater without infinate energy. Of
course it's kind of hard to run experiments (anyone have a space ship
and a REALLY great drive system?), but never close out the
POSSIBILITY, after all a big part of science is having an open
mind...

/  Rick Golembiewski,  rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu     \
\  standard, and non-standard disclaimers apply /

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 89 20:53:00 GMT
From: killer!csccat!loci!clb@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Brunow)
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

In article <Added.4XlHiiy00Ui38HQE8q@andrew.cmu.edu>, GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
> 
>      The question then becomes, how ingrained are our sleep patterns to
> our environment?

	Based on the limited info I have it appears that the Moon's diurnal
	cycle (~25 hr) takes over as the primary time reference when other
	stimuli are removed.  Of course Mir has a completely different set
	of circumstances; a new day every 90 minutes.  If two or more people
	were confined together I expect that they would tend to synchronize
	with each other and the Moon.



      Charles Brunow                   Loci Products
      clb@loci.UUCP                   POB 833846-131
..!uunet!texbell!loci!clb    Richardson, Texas 75083

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 89 23:48:05 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@yale-bulldog.arpa  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <IXlN3Qy00WB9QHVqUo@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
>
>Also, consider that relativity is a THEORY, there may be a lot of
>things wrong with it, after all it is possible that at some velocity
>the tendency for mass to increase/time to slow, my stop, thus
>allowing velocities of C or even greater without infinate energy. Of
>course it's kind of hard to run experiments (anyone have a space ship
>and a REALLY great drive system?), but never close out the
>POSSIBILITY, after all a big part of science is having an open
>mind...

Yes, but unfortunatly for those of use that would like to go >C there
HAVE been many,many experiments that all, so far, agree with 
General Rel. (Light bending buy large masses, binary pulsar orbit
precession, Mercury's precession, atomic clocks in orbit, etc.) 
Theory and experiment are closer every year by more decimal places, sigh.

Looks like we're trapped for a while longer yet......


    Paul Rodman
    rodman@mfci.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 89 14:58:00 GMT
From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@bellcore.com
Subject: Re: Space Idea


You might want to post this in rec.sf-lovers.  It is remarkably similar to
a short story by Vernon Vinge whose title I can't recall at the moment.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 89 08:45:13 GMT
From: killer!mjbtn!raider!crc@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Cain)
Subject: IBM satellite tracking software

recently I was interested in the launch of the Lacrosse satellite from
the Space Shuttle and realized that I would like to start tracking
satellites as a hobby. I have tried to ask some people where I work
about software for the IBM compatibles that would allow me to track
satellites and possibly show what the Earth looks like from their
perspective. I have found one program that will allow me to do that but
it requires an 80x87 coprocessor which I don't have at the present time.
Any help and any recommendations on this would be much appreciated.


					crc@raider.MFEE.TN.US

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
DOMAIN: crc@raider.MFEE.TN.US     |      The Hacker Ethic *IS* Alive...
PHONE: (615-459-9449		  |      Inside of ME!!!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The words are Websters'...
The way they are used is solely MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!  
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 89 19:17:00 GMT
From: primerd!bree!tomc@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Subject: references for space travel wanted


I'm looking to write a program to simulate touring the solar system. 
Unfortunately, I'm a programmer, not a starship captain, and have a bunch of
things to learn. I'm looking for:

1) A good introductory work on orbital mechanics. Equations won't scare me
   off.

2) A reasonable work on possible spaceship design for the next 50 years or
   so. I'd like the rocket to behave like a possible rocket of the near future,
   if possible.

Tom Courtney

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 7 Jan 89 23:35 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Re: Query about Kuiper news blurb

Alan Wexelblat writes:

>In article <19492@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
> writes:
>> The effect is produced by argon and nickel photons interacting with
>> electrons torn (by the shock wave) from hydrogen  originally on the
>> surface of the star.
>
>What does it mean for something to be an "argon [or] nickel photon"?  I've
>never heard of photons associated with elements before.  Is this something
>that can be said of a photon in isolation, or is it an aggregate property of
>a collection of photons?

     As far as I understand it, what is meant is the photons being
emitted by these two elements from the J=2 -> J=1 quantum transition.
If this specific transition is *not* the one meant, then it must be the
gamma decay of the particular radioisotopes of argon and nickel that are
thought to form in the supernova explosion.  In fact, the gamma decay of
nickel has a half-life practically identical to the decay half-life of
the supernova's brightness in the visible pass band (after 6 months had
passed, that is), so that these particular radioisotopes are pretty well
proven to exist.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 07 Jan 89 12:59:00 CST
From: "PAUL CROWSON" <C324698@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU>

Subject: more 'power' to the experimenters

So, some of you are opposed to individual model rocket
experimentation? If that same attitude had been around in
Marconi's time you probably would not be reading this
now, think about it. Build them and show up at the
US competition cos I intend to whip you all here in a
few years! Shoot for the moon or at least a slowly decaying
orbit.

Paul

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 89 20:09:59 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!-Rich-@uunet.uu.net  (Richard Sherman Payne)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question


The mass difference is only *between* the two reference frames. In the
reference frame of the observer near 'c', there would be no mass or length
changes observed, and in fact, the observer traveling near 'c' would
observe the same mass change in the observer at low velocity.

To get an increase in gravitational attraction, an object must become more
massive in it's OWN frame of reference. An object near 'c' does not gain mass
in the sense of getting more atoms, but in the sense that it resists 
acceleration as if it were a more massive body. I hope that this is clearer
than it looks. Like a mirage, the mass change aint real, when you get close
(to the object near 'c's velocity, it dissapears. 

							Rich
						   -Rich-@cup.portal.com

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 89 19:10:17 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!R_Tim_Coslet@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Why Bother??

In article: <!0af5@hpldola.HP.COM>
	paul@hpldola.HP.COM (Paul Bame) asks:
>Anyone know how engines bigger than 'G' are made?  I've seen 'K'
>engines with what appeared to be fiberglass casings, graphite nozzles,
>and have a hard time believing someone compressed all that propellant.
>Maybe it's poured/casted?  If so, what is used and why couldn't it
>be used for smaller engines?

They are poured and cast using a propellant very similar to that used on
the Space Shuttle's SRBs. The main company making "composite" model rocket
motors is a company in Las Vegas called AeroTech. I do not have their address
at this time, but most good hobby shops that have model rocketry supplies
should have their engines available.

These Engines are FAR more reliable (and more expensive) than Estes
(or other "Black Powder" engines). I see NO reason for anyone to bother
with anything as dangerious as making their own Rocket Engines for any
"MODEL ROCKETRY" type application.

Some of the "composite" motors have "unusual" core configurations, so
if you intend on trying them I STRONGLY recommend using ONLY the ignitors
provided by the Manufacturer and following the ignitor insertion
instructions EXACTLY. I have seen several people waste ALL their ignitors
on these engines simply by not following the instructions and the motor
"chuffed" the ignitor out the nozzle and failed to ignite!


I also VERY STRONGLY recommend that ANYONE thinking of getting into
Model Rocketry join the NAR (National Association of Rocketry) and a
local Model Rocket Club (BAYNAR, NIRA, HARA, etc.). The NAR magazine
"American Spacemodeling" is very helpful and interesting. The NAR can
also give you the address of a local Model Rocket Club.

	National Association of Rocketry
	2140 Colburn Drive, Dept. M
	Shakopee, MN 55379

Membership varies from $12 to $19 per year, depending on age. These prices
may have increased, I don't have a current application right now. The
NAR also provides $1,000,000 Liability Insurance to individual members
to cover their Model Rocketry activities (as long as NAR safety rules were
being followed) at a reasonable price (it was $11 per year the last I knew
but this has probably gone up some).

A couple of years ago the NAR increased the limits on the definition of
a Model Rocket from 1 lb. (liftoff weight) and F engines to 3 lbs. (liftoff
weight) and G engines. The last I had heard (about a year ago) the 
FAA was still discussing this change, but they might have OK'ed it by now.

Anything over a G engine is NOT a Model Rocket!!!

                                        R. Tim Coslet

Usenet: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com
BIX:    r.tim_coslet

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 89 19:45:09 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!R_Tim_Coslet@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article: <5919@cadnetix.COM>
	beres@cadnetix.COM asks:
>What mass would be measured by an observer travelling at C, i.e., if one 
>were going the speed of light, what would be the effects on that observer.
>
>I presume that a "stationary" observer would see mass approach infinity, 

The "observer travelling at C" would not see any change in his own mass, this
is simply because Relativity says that the state of motion of the observer
in an "inertial reference frame" can not change ANYTHING that he can 
measure that would permit him to tell if he was moving or "the universe" 
was moving. Also in his own "inertial reference frame" he is not moving
(which is really saying the same thing I just said) so he would observe
the same things about himself as if he was not moving.

Also the Relativity text I studied (Space Time Physics by Taylor/Wheeler)
stated that the "apparent" increase in mass of an object moving relative
to an observer is ONLY an apparent increase that explains the reduction
in acceleration in responce to a force if you INSIST on still using
"Newtonian" equations for mass, force, and acceleration. It has no affect
on "actual" mass of the objects.

If you are willing to accept "Relativistic" equations, then no
"mass increase" is required as the effects on acceleration are fully
accounted for already in the "distortions" of SpaceTime observed at these
speeds. To the "observer travelling at C" the entire universe would appear
as an infinitely thin plane collapsed in his direction of travel and he
would not observe ANY passage of time while "travelling at C" (this would
make it rather difficult for him to "observe" anything at this speed :-).

                                        R. Tim Coslet{

Usenet: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com
BIX:    r.tim_coslet

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jan 89 17:33:45 GMT
From: edsews!charette@uunet.uu.net  (Mark A. Charette)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

For a very good explanation (virtually mathematics-free) of the effects of
relativity try reading "The ABC of Relativity" by Bertrand Russell (the
first edition appeared in 1925!) I have the third edition, with work by
Felix Pirani, copyright 1969, published by Mentor.

While I'm at it, a good layman's explanation of many of the quantum
phenomena can be had in "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" (I hate that title!) by
Gary Zukav, copyright 1979, Bantam, ISBN 0-553-13578-3. 

-- 
Mark Charette             "People only like me when I'm dumb!", he said. 
Electronic Data Systems   "I like you a lot." was the reply.
750 Tower Drive           Voice: (313)265-7006        FAX: (313)265-5770
Troy, MI 48007-7019       charette@edsews.eds.com     uunet!edsews!charette

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jan 89 09:13:57 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Engines beyond G

In article <170@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
<In article <10880005@hpldola.HP.COM>, paul@hpldola.HP.COM (Paul Bame) writes:
<> Anyone know how engines bigger than 'G' are made?  I've seen 'K'
<> engines with what appeared to be fiberglass casings, graphite nozzles,
<> 	--Paul Bame
<
<I know of one company ("Advanced Propellants"?) that makes
<super-engines, using a composite perchlorate-aluminum-polybutadiene
<propellant instead of the more common black powder.  I had heard that
<the G engines were not legal for contests, so presumably the same
<applies for (*gasp*) K engines.  (Those have got to contain more
<than 1 ounce of propellant!)
<
<I've seen some of these engines at D&J Hobby in Campbell, CA.  
<I didn't see a G, much less a K, but there was a nifty F engine
<in a standard Estes D sized case -- and it was really light,
<about the weight of an empty Estes D.  They did look like they
<were fiberglass with a graphite nozzle, which may account for
<the ~$10 price tag.

Back in '73 Centuri was selling D, E, and F engines made by EnerJet.
The cases were epoxy-fiberglass composite and the nozzles were machined
graphite. I don't recall the exact specific impulse listed in the specs
but it was in the vicinity of 180 seconds. I *do* recall doing the
calculations and determining that a legal G class engine was possible.
I don't know about current laws, but at that time the restrictions on
model rockets were total weight of no more than 1 pound, propellant
weight no more than 4 ounces. Anything more and you needed to file with
the FAA for each launch.

Unfortunately, in this state you need approval from the county fire
marshal to get a permit to launch. And in this county you won't get it.
Someday I may get back into model rocketry, but it iisn't too likely.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #187
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Jan 89 08:10:37 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00637>; Thu, 12 Jan 89 05:38:24 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 12 Jan 89 05:38:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YXn7ppy00jZdE1WU5F>;
          Thu, 12 Jan 89 05:27:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.IXn7i6y00UkZ46FU4H>;
          Thu, 12 Jan 89 05:18:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sXn7fPy00UkZM6EE48@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 05:15:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #188

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 188

Today's Topics:
			 Re: `Days' in space
		      NSS - Space Hotline Update
			  Clark's IGNITION!
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
		       Reminders for Old Farts
			    Phobos II news
		     Announcement of Opportunity
			 Re: `Days' in space
		     Voyager approaching Neptune
		   Re: Announcement of Opportunity
			Re: Spaceplane project
			   Shuttle schedule
	 Re: Concorde/Concordski query was Spaceplane project
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 89 06:23:59 GMT
From: oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Phil Nelson)
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

In article <208@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes:
|	of circumstances; a new day every 90 minutes.  If two or more people
|	were confined together I expect that they would tend to synchronize
|	with each other and the Moon.

I wonder if two or more people confined together would synchronize with the
Moon during a trip to Mars? Or during a stay on the Moon?


|      Charles Brunow                   Loci Products

Phil Nelson at (but not speaking for)                  OnTyme:NSC.P/Nelson
Tymnet, McDonnell Douglas Network Systems Company       Voice:408-922-7508
UUCP:{pyramid|uunet}oliveb!tymix!pnelson             LRV:Component Station

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 89 21:29:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS - Space Hotline Update


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for Friday,
January 6th.

An internal assessment launch target date for the next shuttle
mission has been set - Thursday February 23rd.
The official launch date for the STS-29 mission of the Space
Shuttle Discovery will be set at the Flight Readiness Review
which will be held on February 9th. 

NASA will conduct a media briefing on its 1990 budget on January
9th. Administrator James Fletcher, Deputy Admin Dale Myers and
Comptroller Thomas Campbell will participate in the briefing
which will be held at 3pm EST. Pre-flight briefings including the
crew press conference will be held at the Johnson Space Center on
January 11th. Both of these events will be carried on NASA-Select
TV.

CNES, the French National Space Agency, has received a 20%
increase in its annual budget this year. The 1989 budget will be
for over 1 billion dollars, up from the $860 million budget last
year for the French civilian space research effort.

The National Academy of Sciences has released a white paper
report, entitled "Toward a New Era in Space", recommending that
work on the space station be delayed until its specific purpose
in the nation's space program is clear. The document has been
sent to the Bush-Quayle transition team, although there have been
reports that the transition committee office had a difficult time
identifying who should receive space policy recommendations.  

Although the NAS believes "that a permanently manned space
station is essential to establish the feasibility of human
exploration".."its final configuration, pace of deployment, and
funding level should not be established without prior decisions
on American goals in space." The NAS report warns that the
Station budget shouldn't cut into a $10 billion "base" NASA
program of assured access to space, a balanced space science and
Earth remote sensing program and advanced technology research and
development. The report also suggests that the new administration
should consider converting NASA centers "into government-owned,
privately operated institutions."
Reports are that there has been some disagreement among the NAS
leadership over the forcefulness and direction of some of the
reports recommendations.

Now that new members of congress have been sworn in, their first
order of business after selecting committee assignments will be
to take several weeks off before returning for the inauguration
on January 20th.

That's all for now, this has been David Brandt reporting for the
National Space Society's Space Hotline.

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 9 Jan 89 10:10:27 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject:  Clark's IGNITION!

Some weeks ago, there was a recommedation on this list for John D. Clark's
book on liquid rocket propellant development, IGNITION! (1972, Rutgers Univ
Press). I found the book at the local (St. Louis) public library and just
finished it. I'd like to add my recommendation to the previous one. I think
anyone who enjoys reading this list/group will enjoy that book. Even though
I hadn't had any chemistry since high school 25 years ago, and the book is 
crammed with chemical terms and a certain number of formulae, it is still
good reading. There's a lot of humor in it, too. You let the chemistry
wash past you like foreign-language quotes you can't translate, and gather
enough knowledge from the surrounding text to understand what is going on.

I'd like to add, though, that reading it now also gives one a great
sense of sadness. It was published in 1972, and is written with a sense
of optimism and in a mood of progress that can't really be recaptured
now, a decade and a half later. When Clark discusses the big booster
engines and the nuclear rocket program, for example, knowing that these
don't exist any longer gives rise to a "how the mighty have fallen" mood.

One other disquieting note: This book was a reference book, which couldn't
be checked out, until the St. Louis library system revised their
reference-book policy some years back and made a lot of those into regular
books which could be checked out. However, I was the first person to
check out this book, even though it has been on the shelf there for years.
That gives some indication as to the loss of interest in space technology
and that bodes ill for the future...

Regards,
Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 89 15:48:58 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@YALE-BULLDOG.ARPA  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <13273@cup.portal.com> R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com writes:
>Also the Relativity text I studied (Space Time Physics by Taylor/Wheeler)
>stated that the "apparent" increase in mass of an object moving relative
>to an observer is ONLY an apparent increase that explains the reduction
>in acceleration in responce to a force if you INSIST on still using
>"Newtonian" equations for mass, force, and acceleration. It has no affect
>on "actual" mass of the objects.


I think the terms used are "inertial mass" and "gravitational mass". 

i.e. the "m" in: F=ma vs the "m" in: GMm/(r**2)

Who says they have to be the same? :-)

    Paul Rodman
    rodman@mfci.uucp

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 04:00:10 PST
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1
follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Dec 88 03:36:30 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!ccpet@boulder.colorado.edu  (CC Petersen)
Subject: Phobos II news



does anyone have any details on problems with the Phobos II 
spacecraft?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 15:42:50 est
From: fuzzy@aruba (john s karabaic)
Subject: Announcement of Opportunity


Eugene Miya posts:

	We will be posting a special employment opportunity for
	fresh-out of school new hires to misc.jobs.offered and other groups
	shortly.  The positions are basically computer professional slots
	...

Is he willing to take on some age-discrimination lawsuits (or, in this
case, is the US Government?).  I suggest he amend this posting to read
``all interested, qualified candidates'' rather then ``fresh-out of
school''.

I have forwarded a copy of this to the Committee of Concerned
Electrical Engineers, which helps fight this sort of blatant age
discrimination. 

  ===========================  ==============================================  
||Lt John S. Karabaic        || arpanet:                                     ||
  ---------------------------   fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa            ||
||Paper mail:                  ------------- --------------------------------  
||Bldg 22, Room S-108        || phones:     |"A large and liberal discontent:||
||AFWAL/TXI                  || 513 255 5800|These are the goods in life's   ||
||ASD AI Applications Office || 513 255 5537|   rich hand,/The things that   ||
||WPAFB, OH 45433-6543       || AV 785 5800 |are more excellent." Wm. Watson ||
  ===========================  ============= ================================
||               It's not just a job.  It's an indenture.                    ||
  ===========================================================================

These opinions are mine and I cannot confirm or deny whether anyone else holds 
them.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 89 20:20:36 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!atanasoff!hascall@rutgers.edu  (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

In article <Added.4XlHiiy00Ui38HQE8q@andrew.cmu.edu> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
>
>     A few weeks ago, there was a report on the boob-tube about a lady
>in France who had spent about 60 days inside a cave (mineshaft?),
>completely isolated with no timepieces.  She was startled when they
>brought her out and said her time was up, as it seemed that she had
>often spent 40 - 60 hours awake at a stretch without noticing.

  I find myself doing this quite a bit in the winter.  I work in a
  basement office (no windows), it is dark when I come to work, and
  dark again when I leave.

  Hardly ever seeing the sun + plenty of work to do (and movies all
  night long on cable, when I don't) often leads to ~40 hr `days'.

  If only I could just work those 40 hrs, and have the rest of the
  week off :-)  Actually, just a 40 hr week sounds pretty good.

  Seriously though, doing this once a week or so, doesn't really
  seem to have any negative effects.  In fact it is sort of nice
  to have the time alone.

  This doesn't seem to happen in the summer, Im not sure if it is
  the lack of seeming the sun, or that I have less to do in the summer,
  or a combination.

>     If nothing else, more experiments could be done on isolation
>experiments similar to the French one (i.e. no contact, no *clocks*),
>especially the effect of having two people involved (against setting up
>your own rhythms).  Just a thought - go to it, thought-busters!

  Another interesting variation would be to try various simulated
  night and day lengths.

>                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
>Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
>gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
>                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

John Hascall
ISU Comp Center Systems Group  &&  (part time) ISU Comp Sci Grad Student

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 89 03:39:02 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Ignac Kolenko)
Subject: Voyager approaching Neptune

i'm just wonderin': 

if i recall correctly, Voyager 2 is supposed to visit Neptune sometime this
year. does anyone have any info on the progress of the mission since it left
Uranus?? any long range photos been taken lately?? is Voyager actually doing
any measurements as it head for Neptune: ie) solar wind, magnetic fields, etc??
what in the Neptunian (??) system is Voyager supposed to photograph?? Anything
that was discovered at Uranus cause a mission change for the Neptune
flyby??

just a few questions from an enquiring mind. :-)


-- 
Ignac A. Kolenko                watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac
"Sex farm woman, don't you see my silo risin' high? Working on a sex farm, 
hosing down your barn door, bothering your livestock, they know what I need!"
from Sex Farm by Spinal Tap

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 89 13:28:41 GMT
From: ecsvax!ruslan@mcnc.org  (Robin C. LaPasha)
Subject: Re: Announcement of Opportunity

In article <8901092042.AA09020@aruba.local>, fuzzy@aruba (john s karabaic) writes:
> 
> Eugene Miya posts:
> 
> 	We will be posting a special employment opportunity for
> 	fresh-out of school new hires to misc.jobs.offered and other groups
> 	shortly.  The positions are basically computer professional slots
> 	...
> 
> Is he willing to take on some age-discrimination lawsuits (or, in this
> case, is the US Government?).  I suggest he amend this posting to read
> ``all interested, qualified candidates'' rather then ``fresh-out of
> school''.
> 
> I have forwarded a copy of this to the Committee of Concerned
> Electrical Engineers, which helps fight this sort of blatant age
> discrimination. 
> 
>   ===========================  ==============================================  
> ||Lt John S. Karabaic        || arpanet:                                     ||

Perhaps you're making an incorrect assumption - that "fresh-out
-of-school" means that the graduate will be of a certain age.
I've seen many "returning students" (as they're called) who
get their first degree in their late thirties to late forties;
usually because they enter school after giving up another
career (whether soldier or homemaker...)

"Fresh-out-of-school" _might_ imply an attitude rather than an
age; the only way to know would be to see what happens if/when
a future middle-aged grad comes over with a fresh diploma asking
for a job.

[You'll notice that I wish to avoid the issue of whether 
"fresh-out-of-school" is: 1) a good thing; 2) an accurate
barometer of attitude and/or ability.]

Robin LaPasha
-- 
Robin LaPasha               |"When there is no cat,  
ruslan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu    |the mice dance the horo" - Bulgarian proverb

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 89 21:34:21 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick!inmos!conor@uunet.uu.net  (Conor O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

In article <13081@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>When was the last Concorde manufactured?  How about the Tu-144 (Concordski)?
>The last bit of news I heard on the Tu-144 was a few years ago when the
>Soviets announced they were putting it into regular, scheduled airline
>service.  Is that service still running?

I'm afraid that I don't know when the last Concorde was made, but
I heard on the radio that the very first one flew exactly 20 years ago,
from Filton airfield here in Bristol, on 9 Jan 1969.


-- 
Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd.    >> conor@inmos.co.uk <<
Disclaimer: All views are my own, not those of INMOS.

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  6 Mar 89 05:20:20 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Shuttle schedule
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Does anyone have an up-to-date Space Shuttle schedule?  Since the last
one was posted, around November I believe, there have been changes, for
instance the HST has been moved up from 2/90 to 12/89 I believe.

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 89 16:14:45 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzy!jaw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (j.a.welsh)
Subject: Re: Concorde/Concordski query was Spaceplane project

In article <13081@cup.portal.com>, mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> When was the last Concorde manufactured?  How about the Tu-144 (Concordski)?
> The last bit of news I heard on the Tu-144 was a few years ago when the
> Soviets announced they were putting it into regular, scheduled airline
> service.  Is that service still running?

We read that the Soviets have basically downgraded Concordski to a high-speed
freighter, but when was it last used on a passenger run and are there any
good estimates on when and how many were built?

The original poster also wanted to know when the last Concorde was built
and other inquiring minds (like mine) want to know.

John Welsh  mtgzy!jaw

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #188
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jan 89 06:30:36 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00631>; Fri, 13 Jan 89 05:43:58 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 13 Jan 89 05:43:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QXnR6yy00Vs1I1PU54>;
          Fri, 13 Jan 89 05:39:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.EXnQoPy00UkZQ0qk4B>;
          Fri, 13 Jan 89 05:19:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXnQluy00UkZE0pU5f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 89 05:16:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #189

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 189

Today's Topics:
		  space-tech excerpt: CMU Mars Rover
			 Re: `Days' in space
			  Re: Model Rocketry
		   Re: Voyager approaching Neptune
		 Re: IBM satellite tracking software
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1989 03:07-EST 
From: Marc.Ringuette@DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: space-tech excerpt: CMU Mars Rover

What follows is my description of the CMU Mars Rover Project here at
Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh.  I don't claim to do an adequate
job of explaining what's going on, but I hope it's of interest.


The CMU Mars Rover Project
==========================

The Mariner probes are the best look at Mars we've had so far.  The landing
sites were chosen to be the flattest they could find, in order that the
landers wouldn't tip over.  This had the side-effect that the areas were
geologically fairly boring.

The next step in Mars exploration is to send a flexible, mobile robot to Mars
to collect and study samples from different areas.  The importance of the
mission is split between observation, on-site testing of samples, and return
of samples to Earth.  The requirements for this vehicle are pretty stiff if
we are to try one of the more ambitious and more useful of the possible
missions.  The trickiest part of the problem is to do autonomous motion and
sampling.  Light takes between 10 and 40 minutes to travel the round trip
between Earth and Mars, so a vehicle operated from Earth would be extremely
slow.  Even worse, NASA's Deep Space Network has other jobs to do, and the
rover will spend half its time on the far side of Mars.  This virtually
requires a vehicle which can move and take samples using on-board computers
and Artificial Intelligence techniques, with human intervention only once
every few hours.  The mechanical design of the vehicle is also difficult.
The design is most highly constrained by a very low power budget - a few
hundred watts to run a 1-ton vehicle.

The CMU rover project is a 3-year project to build a rover which will operate
on Earth terrains, and be the prototype for a rover which can
 1. travel several hundred kilometers, reliably, over the period of about
    a year, traversing 1 meter obstacles and ravines
 2. take core samples, aim instruments, and perform sampling and experiments
    as flexibly as possible
 3. collect about 5 kilograms of samples and transport them to a return
    vehicle for return to Earth
 4. weigh no more than about a ton
 5. operate on about 300 watts of continuous power, supplied by a Radioisotope
    Thermal Generator (RTG)
 6. operate efficiently even when not in communication with Earth

The project has three main research areas: Mechanical Design, Sensing, and
Control.  The first group is building the vehicle, and is headed by Red
Whittaker, a mechanical engineer who recently constructed a robotic vehicle
to clean up Three Mile Island.  The second group, sensing, is headed by
Takeo Kanade, a Computer Science professor who has been involved with the
NAVLAB autonomous truck.  They are using a laser rangefinder and computer
vision software to maintain a terrain map on board the rover.  The third
group is headed by Tom Mitchell, who does Artificial Intelligence work.  His
group is designing the software to do motion and sampling without human
intervention.


The Ambler
==========

The original proposal had been for a rover with large, soft wheels which
could ignore small obstacles.  However, the mechanical design group determined
that a walking rover could better satisfy the reliability, stability, and 
power requirements of the mission.  A few hundred watts is almost no power 
at all, so a wheeled vehicle loses because it puts so much power into its
ground interactions.  A legged vehicle is mechanically more challenging,
but is smoother in operation and very energy efficient.

The Ambler has six legs, each of which has two joints which move in the
horizontal plane and a telescoping z-axis which stays vertical.  The 
horizontal and vertical directions are totally decoupled - the machine 
always stays level, and the two horizontal joints also stay level at all 
times.  Each of the six legs is attached to a central pole at a different
height, so they can move 360 degrees without running into each other.
The bulk of the body hangs from the center pole, close to the ground.

Here is a picture:

                              | |---------------------------------
                              | |                |              | |
                              | |---------------------------------
 -----------------------------| |^               ^               U
| |          |                | |Shoulder        Elbow           U
 -----------------------------| |                                U
 U                            | |                                U
 U                --------------------------                     U
 U               |                          |                    U
 U               | Body (with RTG, sampling,|                    U
 U               | computing, robot arm,    |                    U
 U               | instruments)             |                    U
 U               |                          |                    U
 |               |                          |                    |
 |               |                          |                    |
 |               |                          |                    |
 |                --------------------------                     |
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |
/_\								/_\

        (Side view of the body and the lower two of six legs)
        (the elbow and shoulder move in and out of the page)


=============================================================================

                                     _________
                     _              /---------
                 __--_\\_    ------//
             __--__--  \_\_/      //\   __-
           --__--        \_\_    //  __----\
           --            | \_\ -//__----   \\
                     ______--_|  |--- |     \\
                  _-- ____---  -- _-___      \\
                 / ---    \        --__-__
                / /        \        /  --||
               / /           ------       ||
              / /                         ||
             / /                           ||
                                           ||



            (Top view.  5 legs planted, 1 recovering.)
(The leg segments shown here are horizontal; the z-axis goes into the page)

=============================================================================


The machine has a reach of about 4 meters and a height of about 4 meters.
The laser rangefinder goes on top of the central pole.

The Ambler will walk a bit like a crab, with five legs on the ground at
all times.  When a leg is lifted from behind the vehicle, it is moved
all the way to the front of the vehicle to minimize the number of footfalls
required.  The body slides forward using the horizontal joints only, spending
energy only on friction losses and ground sinkage.  It moves almost like
floating on water.  The z-axis is used to hoist the body up and down, and
to lift each foot for recovery to the next position.

The machine moves very slowly (since the limiting factor is the ability
to control the motion reliably, not the motion itself).  The body averages
a few centimeters per second, which is plenty as long as the machine can
operate autonomously.


The Software
============

Building the Ambler is about half the project.  The other half is putting
together a software system to reliably (VERY reliably) move the robot from
place to place and perform sampling tasks.  

A terrain map (more or less a contour map of the immediate vicinity of
the rover) is maintained by integrating data from the rangefinder.  Other
information, such as "this is a rock" or "this is black stuff that sticks
to your feet" may be attached to the basic map.  This allows motion planning
to be done accurately.

The rover will be controlled by commands from the control center on Earth,
such as

   "go north as long as it's safe"
   "go back and pick up rock 13 and look at its underside"
   "follow this path to rock 15 and drill a hole in it, at this angle"
   "pick up one of those gray pebbles, about half an inch wide"
   "put this dust in your mass spectrometer"
   "aim your infrared sensor at anything unusual"

The commands won't be in English, but rather will be specified in terms
of frames and slots in a knowledge representation system designed by the
control group.

Realistically, there will probably be a team of geologists fighting over
what is most important to do next.  Rather than forcing them to do the
optimization of exactly what to do, it will be necessary to have a planning
system which can do the best thing given a set of goals of varying importance
and difficulty.  For instance, if one goal is very easy, you might as well
do it first rather than a more desirable but much more difficult goal.  There
are also background goals best monitored by the machine, such as "Never go 
too near a dropoff" and "Don't point your satellite dish away from Earth."

A flexible geometric reasoning system will be a component of the software.
It's important for the rover to have the ability to pick up a rock, and 
also to be able to notice if the rock was dropped by accident.  This
involves creating a general purpose planner which can generate expectations
about what will be true in the world if all went as planned, and to check
if this really happened.

=============

As of now, January '89, the project has finished its first year.  A
single-leg testbed is being used to test the leg design and the footfall
planning software.

The project is funded by NASA, and there is interaction with groups from 
JPL, TRW, and Martin Marietta.  JPL in particular has a parallel project,
designing a more conventional wheeled rover for the same mission.  Ours is
considered to be the more ambitious and high-risk of the two attempts.  The
results will be evaluated before the possible production of a Mars-ready 
rover to be launched in approximately 1998.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Marc Ringuette        | mnr@cs.cmu.edu  | "Gaston...a bucket for Monsieur" |
| CMU Computer Science  | 412-268-3728(w) |  -- watch this space for other   |
| Pittsburgh, PA 15213  | 412-681-5408(h) |     quotes from great literature |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ This was an excerpt from space-tech, a mailing list on which we discuss the
more technical side of space exploration.  Topics have included EM launchers,
solar sails, amateur satellite projects, tethered satellites, and ion
propulsion.  If you want to join, send mail to space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu. ]

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 89 14:49:48 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

Of what interest could it be to pretend Mars astronauts will make the
journey without clocks?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1989 12:34-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Model Rocketry

I found the article on Model Rocketry quite informative and
interesting, but I must say that I'm personally not interested in
building 'model' rockets. I've not really been in the hobby at all, but
if I were I'd definitely go into the amateur rocketry category with
intent to test new untried or undertried concepts and possibly to put
something in orbit. With or without permission.

Incidentally, a very talented group in the 1960's in this area used a
balloon, a two stage rather largish but standard rocket with a shaped
charge of plastic explosive as a third stage to spit a 'bb' of molten
aluminum into SOLAR orbit. They evidently had informal cooperation from
a local Nike Missile radar that let them know the second stage was at
the proper attitude and velocity at detonation time. Thus they assumed
they spit some aluminum into the solar system.

This is the kind of creative experimentation that I find worthwhile in
advancing the state of the art and stretching the bounds of the
possible.

Model rocketry may claim millions of accident free launches as a proud
heritage. That is fine for a pure MODEL hobby that is done for family
fun, for creative pleasure and so on. I won't knock it. I used to be a
model RAILROADER myself. Same difference.

But the kind of rocketry that is likely to produce useful results is
also unlikely to be able to sustain such a record. If it did, it would
not be pushing the state of the art and would not be accomplishing
anything real. I heartily agree that one should seperate the two, if
for no other reason that to insure that people know exactly WHICH they
are doing and don't accidentally slip from one type to the other
without knowing they have done so.

Real experimenters should be adults who recognize that they could may
maim or kill themselves in pursuit of knowledge. As long as they pursue
their art in such a way as to not endanger innocent bystanders, it
ain't NOBODY'S business but their own.

I personally know someone who has successfully fired a large
(suborbital class) teststand engine with an interesting hybrid type
fuel system. He and his crew did so in a very isolated area with
appropriate safety precautions. Their method of dealing with
bureaucracy is one that Admiral Grace Hopper would have approved of:
"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission." What they
don't know can't be regulated.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 89 17:19:38 GMT
From: erc@tybalt.caltech.edu  (Eric R. Christian)
Subject: Re: Voyager approaching Neptune

In article <254@electro.UUCP> ignac@electro.UUCP (Ignac Kolenko) writes:
>i'm just wonderin': 
>
>if i recall correctly, Voyager 2 is supposed to visit Neptune sometime this
>year. does anyone have any info on the progress of the mission since it left
>Uranus?? any long range photos been taken lately?? is Voyager actually doing
>any measurements as it head for Neptune: ie) solar wind, magnetic fields, etc??
>what in the Neptunian (??) system is Voyager supposed to photograph?? Anything
>that was discovered at Uranus cause a mission change for the Neptune
>flyby??
>
>just a few questions from an enquiring mind. :-)
>
>
>-- 
>Ignac A. Kolenko                watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac
>"Sex farm woman, don't you see my silo risin' high? Working on a sex farm, 
>hosing down your barn door, bothering your livestock, they know what I need!"
>from Sex Farm by Spinal Tap
  Voyager 2 is still heading towards Neptune, with a closest approach on August
25, 1989.  It will sail over the Neptune's north pole, within about 4400 km
of Neptune (very close ... Voyager 2's closest approach to anything since
launch).  Going over the pole will bend the spacecraft's flightpath towards
Neptune's large moon Triton, which it will encounter ~ 5 hours later.  Triton
is in a very weird orbit (inclined 160 degrees to Neptune's equator and
retrograde).  It won't get as close to Neptune's smaller moon Nereid.
V2 is already taking pictures of Neptune and Triton better than
earth based observations.  Neptune is blue-green due to atmospheric methane
and looks like it will be more interesting optically than the basically
featureless Uranus.  Neptune may also have ring arcs (not complete rings) as
indicated by stellar occultation studies.
  The changes that need to be made before encounter include setting up the
spacecraft to handle the intense radiation it will receive getting that close
to the planet, and setting up on Earth to receive signals from a 20 Watt
transmitter ~ 3 Billion (USA Billion) miles away.  The radiation level may
be more like what was encountered at Jupiter, which damaged some instruments,
than what was encountered at Uranus.
  Voyager does continue to collect data in its interplanetary cruise phase from
several of its experiments.  The solar wind and solar magnetic field are looked
at, and my thesis (~ 3 weeks from completion) is on galactic cosmic rays using
the CRS (Cosmic Ray Subsystem).  I've only been on the Voyager project for a
few years, but I must say I'm really impressed with the quality of this mission
and the people involved.  It's been a lot of fun, even if I joined just after
the Uranus encounter and will graduate before Neptune.

I hope this information is of some use.  Most of it comes from NASA Voyager
Bulletins.

Eric R. Christian
erc@tybalt.caltech.edu
"But I work with cosmic radiation, why can't I get superpowers like the
Fantastic Four."

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 89 19:22:28 GMT
From: m2c!ulowell!tegra!vail@husc6.harvard.edu  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Re: IBM satellite tracking software


    a hobby. I have tried to ask some people where I work about software for the
    IBM compatibles that would allow me to track satellites and possibly show what 
    the Earth looks like from their perspective. I have found one program that will


I couldn't send to .US so here is a lead for you:

Try quiktrak distributed by AMSAT.  It will show a map of the world
with the "footprint" of the satellite displayed on it.  It is the best
and easiest to use program I have seen and will take advantage of the
'87 or will run (slower) without it.   Here is their address:

For information on joining AMSAT-NA, the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation
of North America, write:

     AMSAT-NA
     Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation
     Post Office Box 27
     Washington, DC 20044 USA

Their # is (301) 589-6062

Quiktrak is available for about a $70 donation. It is not public
domain but inexpensive and the $$ goes to a good cause.

"History is made at night.  Character is what you are in the dark!" 
  - Dr. Lizardo, "Buckaroo Banzai"
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail  | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435  | N1DXG @ 145.110-, 444.2+, 448.625-
 -----

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #189
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Jan 89 06:52:10 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00525>; Sat, 14 Jan 89 05:34:05 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 14 Jan 89 05:33:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QXnm1Qy00jZdQ1WU4t>;
          Sat, 14 Jan 89 05:26:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.kXnluTy00UkZE42k5r>;
          Sat, 14 Jan 89 05:19:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UXnlrpy00UkZI41U5c@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 89 05:16:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #190

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 190

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 89 21:14:27 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #435 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88365.27386855 0.00000291           33964-3 0  1759
2 00424  80.4646  92.3202 0022767 203.4670 156.5440 13.67047405309738
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88357.61586909 0.00000000           10000-3 0  6061
2 08820 109.8008 169.6199 0044614 353.4585   6.5149  6.38663215 39354
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88362.24218760 -.00000012                   0  2046
2 10061   6.7337  70.2723 0005419 203.9665 155.9154  1.00278212  3654
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88361.94015074 0.00000012                   0  9996
2 10684  63.5030 106.1733 0104780 198.0254 161.6039  2.00562790 65073
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88362.39358225 -.00000028                   0  9433
2 10893  64.5552 346.9779 0146320  28.5856 332.2108  2.00561249 77906
GOES 3     
1 10953U          88361.26828124 -.00000048           10000-3 0  5629
2 10953   5.8245  71.0221 0047711 259.0791 100.2284  1.00702730   883
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88364.76270461 0.00001510           58306-3 0   504
2 10967 108.0087 298.8130 0002092 229.8983 130.1979 14.34079170549794
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88363.70621782 -.00000028                   0  9665
2 11054  64.1132 343.4530 0051112 118.7552 241.7629  2.00559333 74946
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89  2.30142235 0.00000012                   0   674
2 11141  63.5018 105.8773 0055246 322.8129  36.8056  2.00555468 73736
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88360.06305364 0.00001097           48193-3 0  7841
2 11416  98.4989 356.3095 0011167 259.0953 100.8946 14.25340259493090
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89  1.06625762 0.00029589           79429-3 0  7910
2 11703  28.5021   4.5314 0004409 293.5566  66.4148 15.36555386493981
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88359.28281419 -.00000028                   0  8312
2 11783  63.9179 343.2846 0136125  62.9433 298.4366  2.00564721 63499
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88345.42895844 -.00000026           10000-3 0   378
2 11964   5.0165  76.0252 0032177  91.3375 268.7410  0.99231566   155
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88360.14539979 -.00000247           10000-3 0  6600
2 12472   2.0968  82.7201 0001966 267.0272  91.7937  1.00264190 26862
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88362.26039431 0.00035082           87426-3 0  3869
2 12888  97.5906  41.4282 0003219  44.1511 315.9922 15.40145445402377
RS-08      
1 12998U          88348.45794591 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5547
2 12998  82.9558 337.4979 0020444  42.2385 318.0253 12.02968776306973
RS-05      
1 12999U          88356.04236984 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5460
2 12999  82.9559 327.9151 0010632 339.4191  20.6446 12.05062127308425
RS-07      
1 13001U          88360.34545102 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4266
2 13001  82.9583 315.6292 0021166 216.5176 143.4295 12.08708441309874
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88361.57098268 0.00000212           18138-3 0  6120
2 13113  82.5410 195.9375 0014783 184.1100 175.9966 13.83904147341368
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88363.00469821 0.00029658           84588-3 0  3757
2 13138  51.6109  71.9601 0000742  97.2977 262.7544 15.35802984381836
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88357.30336670 0.00000458           23630-3 0  7316
2 13718  81.2465  94.5725 0056824 141.2186 219.3089 14.13045692310571
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88356.12652157 0.00000119                   0  8773
2 14050   0.8409  84.3963 0001127 195.8981  79.6835  1.00273170  4821
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88354.41262227 -.00000036           10000-3 0  3718
2 14129  26.8622 289.3545 6046459   2.1727 359.5722  2.05881205 13518
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88359.37627187 0.00000012                   0  5938
2 14189  63.1229 104.8325 0131835 213.8491 145.2916  2.00574362 39931
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88359.27370761 0.00000508           21504-3 0  6772
2 14452  81.1621 108.8115 0094212 240.3074 118.8713 14.21919131267689
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89  2.62271015 0.00000213           52397-4 0  6142
2 14780  98.1960  67.8472 0003802  40.2915 319.8443 14.57113802257450
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88361.23588414 0.00002158           43219-3 0  3779
2 14781  98.0282  58.9442 0013479 141.7740 218.4416 14.62716293257250
LDEF       
1 14898U          89  1.07302936 0.00021460           50967-3 0  7066
2 14898  28.4958 264.2172 0001534 174.5253 185.5346 15.40227127265570
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88346.96448410 0.00000011                   0  6158
2 15039  62.8565 104.5471 0013630 287.5480  72.2875  2.00564858 32960
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88360.82600094 0.00000155           13042-3 0  9115
2 15099  82.5297 144.2474 0014070   8.0826 352.0568 13.83572745226140
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88361.82159508 -.00000029                   0  5558
2 15271  63.4141 343.0530 0098969 316.6443  42.5859  2.00561520 30370
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88365.85904922 0.00002986           44458-3 0  9466
2 15331  82.5396 133.7040 0023804 273.3158  86.5190 14.74448717229405
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88358.95485427 0.00000618           36023-3 0  3114
2 15427  99.1244 336.6674 0016566  85.3005 275.0057 14.11736596207727
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88353.73006100 0.00000256           22107-3 0   383
2 15516  82.5351  88.2926 0015049 263.2234  96.7214 13.84003806196097
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88361.63822017 0.00015471           44788-3 0  1214
2 16095  51.6151  78.5853 0001571 125.9912 234.1178 15.35759771183290
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88364.47118909 0.00000012                   0  2890
2 16129  63.6609 104.5063 0115631 150.1741 210.5003  2.00565940 23632
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88355.96242454 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7946
2 16191  82.5480   1.7636 0020795  27.5126 332.7098 13.16853273152061
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88361.92079260 0.00000209           17860-3 0  4462
2 16408  82.5362 356.6496 0017965  65.4983 294.8106 13.84091866151721
Mir        
1 16609U          88363.35881741 0.00038179           23584-3 0  6176
2 16609  51.6215 149.7265 0019625 217.9962 141.8254 15.76458728164411
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89  2.64460453 0.00002783           13250-2 0  3118
2 16613  98.7189  79.6507 0000487 114.9122 245.2217 14.20018697 61204
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88355.64314166 0.00000193           16436-3 0  2686
2 16735  82.5372  28.3738 0014964 147.4922 212.7163 13.83825445129765
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89  2.91188984 0.00001373           20402-3 0  4732
2 16881  82.5229 190.6154 0022412 279.7476  80.1257 14.74184930130933
EGP        
1 16908U          88362.25030274 -.00000040          -82131-5 0  1148
2 16908  50.0128 106.6420 0011271 267.2978  92.6566 12.44374323108000
FO-12      
1 16909U          88347.77684405 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1236
2 16909  50.0134 151.3381 0011202 229.0490 130.9375 12.44396973106197
Cosmos 1778
1 16961U          88346.47546322 0.00000021           10000-3 0  7382
2 16961  64.8155 177.7074 0003492 255.9312 104.0802  2.13102806 17389
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88361.94143986 0.00000598           28383-3 0  1744
2 16969  98.6596  29.5865 0014443  33.0946 327.1134 14.22726000119446
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88359.30694998 0.00000274           23840-3 0  2074
2 17290  82.4699 294.0360 0014557  35.8263 324.3866 13.83635640 99438
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88360.96109805 -.00000191           10000-3 0  2137
2 17561   0.0242 247.5309 0013191 322.2381 150.1456  1.00238407  3859
Kvant      
1 17845U          88361.77400013 0.00147710           88561-3 0  6260
2 17845  51.6222 157.8966 0020902 217.0791 142.6532 15.76518655100437
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88362.93785475 0.00000292           31121-3 0  6187
2 18129  82.9258   4.6482 0012233 160.4359 199.7266 13.71925425 75911
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89  2.63566988 0.00145273  10956-4  21392-3 0  8208
2 18225  71.8886 140.0356 0010087 249.4668 110.5760 16.04800439 84740
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88361.91873676 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  2095
2 18312  82.5590 356.0300 0008735 326.5235  33.5587 13.83386684 68692
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88355.18743177 0.00000328           28461-3 0   724
2 18820  82.5440  62.8011 0018056  55.0150 305.2701 13.84068942 44920
AO-13      
1 19216U          88345.71673632 0.00000007           10000-3 0   230
2 19216  57.4058 228.3882 6620691 195.2309 126.3564  2.09698504  3779
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88362.05485448 0.00000391           10000-2 0   971
2 19336  82.5470 297.4434 0014900 253.2639 106.6816 13.16848207 20254
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88359.60547806 0.00000607           36009-3 0   307
2 19531  98.9199 298.6616 0012640   9.6433 350.4983 14.10721588 12857
1988 101A  
1 19647U          88356.57136476 0.00039219           64791-3 0   518
2 19647  65.0158 341.8322 0009549 273.3090  86.5067 15.51988232  5212
1988 102A  
1 19649U          88356.94433719 0.00000406           24200-3 0   327
2 19649  71.0044 273.0123 0004410   4.7529 355.3691 14.12315488  4004
1988 102B  
1 19650U          88350.25746344 -.00000119          -51774-4 0   148
2 19650  71.0015 286.8608 0014698 182.6488 177.4560 14.14206576  3065
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          88361.77404953 0.00077443           47147-3 0   347
2 19660  51.6228 157.8955 0020250 214.3909 145.6127 15.76466942164169
1988 108A  
1 19683U          89  1.18871227 -.00000271           10000-3 0   255
2 19683   1.4057 267.1073 0003513 297.1424  63.6788  1.00279810   234
1988 108D  
1 19686U          88363.99443683 0.00000082           10000-3 0    99
2 19686   1.4414 267.3863 0021523   4.2780 356.5260  1.01513672   200
1988 109A  
1 19687U          88366.54800113 0.00000013           10000-3 0   127
2 19687   3.0998 271.1081 0107274 349.2423  10.4507  1.01891564   192
1988 109B  
1 19688U          88366.74286345 0.00000082           10000-3 0   121
2 19688   0.0437 103.7206 0071487   0.6456 256.4922  1.01436974   123
1988 109C  
1 19689U          88366.33757781 0.00000537           15763-2 0   141
2 19689   6.7889 254.7348 7255715 193.8789 123.7817  2.23337993   429
1988 110A  
1 19705U          89  2.65554298 0.01069687  40937-4  23273-3 0   394
2 19705  62.8375 253.1281 0095928 103.9417 257.2471 16.18452954  2729
1988 111A  
1 19710U          88366.41561096 -.00000323           10000-3 0   130
2 19710   0.5765 262.8972 0000492  87.2034   9.9127  1.00281142   128
1988 112A  
1 19713U          89  2.48305230 -.00001229          -67050-2 0   159
2 19713  62.7898 253.7022 7429850 280.1231  10.9523  2.00739107   230
1988 112B  
1 19714U          89  1.98109289 0.18910960  43182-4  47933-3 0   262
2 19714  62.7651 214.3757 0021500 133.3358 227.1583 16.43591333  1674
1988 112C  
1 19715U          89  2.01669984 0.12411099  42343-4  44235-3 0   309
2 19715  62.7924 214.4569 0048466 122.1795 238.5701 16.37221384  1678
1988 112D  
1 19716U          88358.13224744 0.00000058                   0    18
2 19716  62.8035 255.2962 7382922 280.0148  13.5527  2.06832972    21
1988 113A  
1 19720U          89  2.67570535 -.00028970          -16537-2 0   314
2 19720  73.5651 186.5864 0007058 234.5877 125.4547 15.12927353  1571
1988 113B  
1 19721U          89  3.07133338 0.00055471           31111-2 0   191
2 19721  73.5637 185.7341 0006284 238.4345 121.6894 15.13073659  1632
1988 114A  
1 19728U          89  2.80950942 -.00070903          -42560-3 0   196
2 19728  51.6297 121.6300 0020518 243.1401 117.3980 15.77007401  1375
1988 114B  
1 19729U          88361.94322112 0.17783502  60969-4  34778-3 0   123
2 19729  51.6176 156.8630 0009460 101.5540 258.7446 16.46517324   296
1988 115A  
1 19730U          89  1.17070906 0.00000397          -51463-3 0    46
2 19730  62.8270 128.1823 7319625 288.1824   9.7285  2.05579144    95
1988 115B  
1 19731U 88115  B 88364.49627202  .00673333  00000-0  00000-0 0 00069
2 19731 062.8167 124.2948 0255053 125.7711 236.8310 15.62092613000207
1988 115D  
1 19733U          89  1.15146543 0.00000411                   0    41
2 19733  62.8892 128.1720 7279012 288.4208  10.0336  2.06604028    91
1988 116A  
1 19734U          89  2.68723189 0.00212608  10547-4  14092-3 0   133
2 19734  64.7775 267.7287 0035500 351.2192   8.9411 16.15243792   695
1988 116B  
1 19735U 88116  B 88364.65941499  .02056141  00000-0  00000-0 0 00029
2 19735 064.7953 282.8136 0077501 067.4689 293.4574 16.12163910000049
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #190
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jan 89 04:28:28 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03495>; Mon, 16 Jan 89 03:36:14 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 16 Jan 89 03:36:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8XoORay00Vs1Q1MEET>;
          Mon, 16 Jan 89 03:27:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.kXoOL7y00UkZQ69E4R>;
          Mon, 16 Jan 89 03:20:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXoOH2y00UkZ46805i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 03:16:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #191

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 191

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 88 22:09:42 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #433 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88361.68762047 0.00000276           32300-3 0  1746
2 00424  80.4643  95.8530 0022740 212.7305 147.2463 13.67044985309244
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          88357.61586909 0.00000000           10000-3 0  6061
2 08820 109.8008 169.6199 0044614 353.4585   6.5149  6.38663215 39354
GOES 2     
1 10061U          88362.24218760 -.00000012                   0  2046
2 10061   6.7337  70.2723 0005419 203.9665 155.9154  1.00278212  3654
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          88361.94015074 0.00000012                   0  9996
2 10684  63.5030 106.1733 0104780 198.0254 161.6039  2.00562790 65073
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          88361.39636711 -.00000028                   0  9420
2 10893  64.5555 347.0076 0146266  28.6174 332.1767  2.00561279 77884
GOES 3     
1 10953U          88361.26828124 -.00000048           10000-3 0  5629
2 10953   5.8245  71.0221 0047711 259.0791 100.2284  1.00702730   883
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88361.27495834 0.00001468           56778-3 0   491
2 10967 108.0081 291.6391 0002119 232.5522 127.5465 14.34067082549292
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          88346.25495542 -.00000028                   0  9647
2 11054  64.1174 343.9969 0051002 119.5235 241.0078  2.00559127 74591
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          88358.82772814 0.00000012                   0   665
2 11141  63.4977 106.1702 0055081 322.7758  36.8261  2.00555575 73545
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88360.06305364 0.00001097           48193-3 0  7841
2 11416  98.4989 356.3095 0011167 259.0953 100.8946 14.25340259493090
Solar Max  
1 11703U          88361.48007987 0.00031822           86354-3 0  7858
2 11703  28.5007  43.0300 0002782 231.4729 128.5624 15.36238956493128
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          88359.28281419 -.00000028                   0  8312
2 11783  63.9179 343.2846 0136125  62.9433 298.4366  2.00564721 63499
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88345.42895844 -.00000026           10000-3 0   378
2 11964   5.0165  76.0252 0032177  91.3375 268.7410  0.99231566   155
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88360.14539979 -.00000247           10000-3 0  6600
2 12472   2.0968  82.7201 0001966 267.0272  91.7937  1.00264190 26862
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          88362.26039431 0.00035082           87426-3 0  3869
2 12888  97.5906  41.4282 0003219  44.1511 315.9922 15.40145445402377
RS-08      
1 12998U          88348.45794591 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5547
2 12998  82.9558 337.4979 0020444  42.2385 318.0253 12.02968776306973
RS-05      
1 12999U          88356.04236984 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5460
2 12999  82.9559 327.9151 0010632 339.4191  20.6446 12.05062127308425
RS-07      
1 13001U          88360.34545102 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4266
2 13001  82.9583 315.6292 0021166 216.5176 143.4295 12.08708441309874
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88361.57098268 0.00000212           18138-3 0  6120
2 13113  82.5410 195.9375 0014783 184.1100 175.9966 13.83904147341368
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88363.00469821 0.00029658           84588-3 0  3757
2 13138  51.6109  71.9601 0000742  97.2977 262.7544 15.35802984381836
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          88357.30336670 0.00000458           23630-3 0  7316
2 13718  81.2465  94.5725 0056824 141.2186 219.3089 14.13045692310571
GOES 6     
1 14050U          88356.12652157 0.00000119                   0  8773
2 14050   0.8409  84.3963 0001127 195.8981  79.6835  1.00273170  4821
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          88354.41262227 -.00000036           10000-3 0  3718
2 14129  26.8622 289.3545 6046459   2.1727 359.5722  2.05881205 13518
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          88359.37627187 0.00000012                   0  5938
2 14189  63.1229 104.8325 0131835 213.8491 145.2916  2.00574362 39931
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88359.27370761 0.00000508           21504-3 0  6772
2 14452  81.1621 108.8115 0094212 240.3074 118.8713 14.21919131267689
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          88361.00039792 -.00001346          -29389-3 0  6082
2 14780  98.1964  60.3492 0004003  65.3625 294.7969 14.57105279256344
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88361.23588414 0.00002158           43219-3 0  3779
2 14781  98.0282  58.9442 0013479 141.7740 218.4416 14.62716293257250
LDEF       
1 14898U          88360.20425830 0.00022809           54723-3 0  7025
2 14898  28.4819 311.7995 0001774 112.2346 247.8423 15.39937746264519
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          88346.96448410 0.00000011                   0  6158
2 15039  62.8565 104.5471 0013630 287.5480  72.2875  2.00564858 32960
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88360.82600094 0.00000155           13042-3 0  9115
2 15099  82.5297 144.2474 0014070   8.0826 352.0568 13.83572745226140
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          88358.82997358 -.00000029                   0  5546
2 15271  63.4195 343.1499 0098849 316.5708  42.6429  2.00561318 30317
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          88358.86901513 0.00003420           51032-3 0  9451
2 15331  82.5378 140.1411 0024033 296.7675  63.1077 14.74405790228371
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88358.95485427 0.00000618           36023-3 0  3114
2 15427  99.1244 336.6674 0016566  85.3005 275.0057 14.11736596207727
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          88353.73006100 0.00000256           22107-3 0   383
2 15516  82.5351  88.2926 0015049 263.2234  96.7214 13.84003806196097
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          88361.63822017 0.00015471           44788-3 0  1214
2 16095  51.6151  78.5853 0001571 125.9912 234.1178 15.35759771183290
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          88350.01212884 0.00000012                   0  2870
2 16129  63.6586 104.9494 0115814 150.1275 210.5434  2.00566295 23343
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          88355.96242454 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7946
2 16191  82.5480   1.7636 0020795  27.5126 332.7098 13.16853273152061
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          88361.92079260 0.00000209           17860-3 0  4462
2 16408  82.5362 356.6496 0017965  65.4983 294.8106 13.84091866151721
Mir        
1 16609U          88363.35881741 0.00038179           23584-3 0  6176
2 16609  51.6215 149.7265 0019625 217.9962 141.8254 15.76458728164411
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          88363.35999456 -.00027055          -12817-1 0  3045
2 16613  98.7188  74.4453 0000563  74.4131 285.6407 14.20039654 60452
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          88355.64314166 0.00000193           16436-3 0  2686
2 16735  82.5372  28.3738 0014964 147.4922 212.7163 13.83825445129765
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          88362.93880485 0.00001932           28871-3 0  4679
2 16881  82.5230 196.1280 0022922 300.7830  59.1135 14.74169863130053
EGP        
1 16908U          88362.25030274 -.00000040          -82131-5 0  1148
2 16908  50.0128 106.6420 0011271 267.2978  92.6566 12.44374323108000
FO-12      
1 16909U          88347.77684405 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1236
2 16909  50.0134 151.3381 0011202 229.0490 130.9375 12.44396973106197
Cosmos 1778
1 16961U          88346.47546322 0.00000021           10000-3 0  7382
2 16961  64.8155 177.7074 0003492 255.9312 104.0802  2.13102806 17389
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88361.94143986 0.00000598           28383-3 0  1744
2 16969  98.6596  29.5865 0014443  33.0946 327.1134 14.22726000119446
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          88359.30694998 0.00000274           23840-3 0  2074
2 17290  82.4699 294.0360 0014557  35.8263 324.3866 13.83635640 99438
GOES 7     
1 17561U          88360.96109805 -.00000191           10000-3 0  2137
2 17561   0.0242 247.5309 0013191 322.2381 150.1456  1.00238407  3859
Kvant      
1 17845U          88361.77400013 0.00147710           88561-3 0  6260
2 17845  51.6222 157.8966 0020902 217.0791 142.6532 15.76518655100437
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          88362.93785475 0.00000292           31121-3 0  6187
2 18129  82.9258   4.6482 0012233 160.4359 199.7266 13.71925425 75911
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          88362.83538806 0.00166532  13553-4  26936-3 0  8145
2 18225  71.8921 155.6141 0010188 257.7374 102.2899 16.03225493 83810
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          88361.91873676 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  2095
2 18312  82.5590 356.0300 0008735 326.5235  33.5587 13.83386684 68692
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          88355.18743177 0.00000328           28461-3 0   724
2 18820  82.5440  62.8011 0018056  55.0150 305.2701 13.84068942 44920
AO-13      
1 19216U          88345.71673632 0.00000007           10000-3 0   230
2 19216  57.4058 228.3882 6620691 195.2309 126.3564  2.09698504  3779
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          88362.05485448 0.00000391           10000-2 0   971
2 19336  82.5470 297.4434 0014900 253.2639 106.6816 13.16848207 20254
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          88359.60547806 0.00000607           36009-3 0   307
2 19531  98.9199 298.6616 0012640   9.6433 350.4983 14.10721588 12857
1988 098A  
1 19621U          88335.85857568 -.00000119           10000-3 0    95
2 19621   0.0431 277.6157 0003607 326.0318 116.3664  1.00270680   295
1988 101A  
1 19647U          88356.57136476 0.00039219           64791-3 0   518
2 19647  65.0158 341.8322 0009549 273.3090  86.5067 15.51988232  5212
1988 102A  
1 19649U          88356.94433719 0.00000406           24200-3 0   327
2 19649  71.0044 273.0123 0004410   4.7529 355.3691 14.12315488  4004
1988 102B  
1 19650U          88350.25746344 -.00000119          -51774-4 0   148
2 19650  71.0015 286.8608 0014698 182.6488 177.4560 14.14206576  3065
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          88361.77404953 0.00077443           47147-3 0   347
2 19660  51.6228 157.8955 0020250 214.3909 145.6127 15.76466942164169
1988 108A  
1 19683U          88362.20293809 -.00000270           10000-3 0   227
2 19683   1.4237 267.1299 0004213 299.9252  60.9103  1.00282241   188
1988 108D  
1 19686U          88356.11502423 -.00000010           10000-3 0    62
2 19686   1.4651 267.5754 0021655   3.8773 357.1408  1.01514196   121
1988 109A  
1 19687U          88359.68415562 -.00000089           10000-3 0    83
2 19687   3.0753 272.1707 0108127 348.4455  12.3189  1.01894622   129
1988 109B  
1 19688U          88362.79951740 0.00000046           10000-3 0   108
2 19688   0.1459 101.3117 0072492   3.1301 256.4017  1.01430817    87
1988 109C  
1 19689U          88358.75438245 0.00001051           31762-2 0    81
2 19689   6.8302 257.8953 7254002 187.8119 146.9275  2.23323613   254
1988 110A  
1 19705U          88362.64006080 0.00680903  39798-4  26963-3 0   269
2 19705  62.8397 277.1690 0125041 104.0875 257.5907 16.07132530  1755
1988 111A  
1 19710U          88362.40065041 -.00000073           10000-3 0    80
2 19710   0.5704 264.3611 0123727 334.3110 120.0965  0.98436392    81
1988 112A  
1 19713U          88362.50894074 0.00000340           17972-4 0    82
2 19713  62.7681 254.6108 7429995 280.0701  11.0056  2.01128906   116
1988 112B  
1 19714U          88363.09616775 0.01778220  39190-4  12846-2 0   145
2 19714  62.7778 234.0683 0104173 135.6567 225.3739 16.04344821   886
1988 112C  
1 19715U          88363.11790725 0.01884751  39075-4  95106-3 0   169
2 19715  62.8072 234.0568 0152821 126.0247 235.4963 15.99000752   885
1988 113A  
1 19720U          88362.98897344 -.00012475          -70855-3 0   234
2 19720  73.5671 198.7126 0007999 245.4119 114.6864 15.12892508   713
1988 113B  
1 19721U          88362.98841531 0.00071138           39787-2 0   127
2 19721  73.5668 198.7100 0007302 248.1780 111.9280 15.13083792   714
1988 114A  
1 19728U          88362.21776535 -.00069238          -42560-3 0   147
2 19728  51.6228 155.6115 0020051 212.0287 147.9299 15.76480365   339
1988 114B  
1 19729U          88361.94322112 0.17783502  60969-4  34778-3 0   123
2 19729  51.6176 156.8630 0009460 101.5540 258.7446 16.46517324   296
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #191
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jan 89 10:13:01 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01102>; Mon, 16 Jan 89 09:20:18 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 16 Jan 89 09:20:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gXoTQry00Vs181Ik4m>;
          Mon, 16 Jan 89 09:07:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.oXoTIqy00UkZ06W05y>;
          Mon, 16 Jan 89 08:59:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXoTEYy00UkZA6Uk5v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 08:54:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #192

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 192

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
Re: Supercomputing: Experience Preferred But Not Essential (Announcement of Opportunity)
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
		   Re: Voyager approaching Neptune
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 14:48:41 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #440 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          88365.27386855 0.00000291           33964-3 0  1759
2 00424  80.4646  92.3202 0022767 203.4670 156.5440 13.67047405309738
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 10.09366210 0.00000000           10000-3 0  6117
2 08820 109.8002 175.9429 0044573 349.5471  10.4204  6.38664096 40534
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89  2.22509162 -.00000014                   0  2069
2 10061   6.7475  70.1982 0008461 181.6791 178.2294  1.00279309  3713
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 10.39942636 0.00000012                   0    81
2 10684  63.4938 105.7221 0104621 199.3279 160.2998  2.00563180 65366
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 10.35448257 -.00000028                   0  9457
2 10893  64.5525 346.5511 0146557  28.3921 332.3915  2.00561154 78182
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89  7.18338918 -.00000155           10000-3 0  5646
2 10953   5.8705  71.4567 0108616 253.1029 105.1286  1.00709228  1002
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          88364.76270461 0.00001510           58306-3 0   504
2 10967 108.0087 298.8130 0002092 229.8983 130.1979 14.34079170549794
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89  2.69228196 -.00000028                   0  9677
2 11054  64.1117 343.2959 0050988 118.9886 241.5325  2.00559467 75045
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 10.27931996 0.00000012                   0   703
2 11141  63.5021 105.6302 0055437 322.4583  37.1874  2.00554866 73898
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88366.94250520 0.00000779           34641-3 0  7868
2 11416  98.4997   2.9765 0011122 237.3322 122.6699 14.25350785494078
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89  2.30029076 0.00024325           65182-3 0  7941
2 11703  28.5014 356.0219 0002035 315.7548  44.1353 15.36586833494176
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89  2.75610020 -.00000028                   0  8336
2 11783  63.9180 342.9940 0137208  62.7075 298.6851  2.00565118 63688
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88345.42895844 -.00000026           10000-3 0   378
2 11964   5.0165  76.0252 0032177  91.3375 268.7410  0.99231566   155
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88366.13104293 -.00000247           10000-3 0  6668
2 12472   2.1114  82.5314 0001887 265.0080  94.5909  1.00262560 26922
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89  4.57538185 0.00027750           68206-3 0  3955
2 12888  97.5882  50.0509 0003194  31.4138 328.7231 15.40615535403653
RS-08      
1 12998U          89  1.00414286 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5578
2 12998  82.9574 327.4553 0020002   4.8175 355.3069 12.02967823309209
RS-05      
1 12999U          89  5.23545068 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5515
2 12999  82.9601 319.6709 0008004 307.7882  52.2540 12.05064523310257
RS-07      
1 13001U          89  3.20209254 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4294
2 13001  82.9579 310.7815 0021450 198.4315 161.5982 12.08709133310948
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          88361.57098268 0.00000212           18138-3 0  6120
2 13113  82.5410 195.9375 0014783 184.1100 175.9966 13.83904147341368
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89  9.95241959 0.00015728           45002-3 0  3963
2 13138  51.6162   9.1221 0001042 126.8599 233.2467 15.36113739383821
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89  4.68621650 0.00000326           16646-3 0  7337
2 13718  81.2461  81.4860 0057041 103.6003 257.1522 14.13053584312465
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89  2.09332535 0.00000118                   0  8794
2 14050   0.8739  84.3128 0001126 200.5653  75.1153  1.00277805  4945
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89  2.49738497 -.00000069           10000-3 0  3721
2 14129  26.8122 287.0866 6049221   5.9406 358.7842  2.05882779 13802
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 10.32760504 0.00000011                   0  5972
2 14189  63.1349 104.2979 0132194 214.0154 145.1641  2.00574023 40278
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88364.69198965 0.00000563           23883-3 0  6782
2 14452  81.1619 103.3836 0094239 224.6297 134.7276 14.21926141268453
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89  6.60553900 0.00000233           56738-4 0  6189
2 14780  98.1960  71.7647 0003386  39.0417 321.1099 14.57115686258038
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          88364.24577475 0.00002126           42594-3 0  3789
2 14781  98.0278  61.8713 0013630 132.3147 227.9187 14.62729048257695
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 10.72621988 0.00021617           50704-3 0  7174
2 14898  28.5100 197.2941 0000334  42.6762 317.4035 15.40608024267062
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 10.38131743 0.00000011                   0  6173
2 15039  62.8716 103.6201 0014401 284.5692  75.3051  2.00564834 33558
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          88366.39441650 0.00000200           17073-3 0  9124
2 15099  82.5297 139.8196 0014003 352.3835   7.7105 13.83575893226915
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 10.28096852 -.00000029                   0  5585
2 15271  63.4073 342.5994 0099342 317.1133  42.1087  2.00562221 30660
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89  4.33801359 0.00002736           40676-3 0  9483
2 15331  82.5389 129.5782 0023690 258.2506 101.5994 14.74471307230060
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88358.95485427 0.00000618           36023-3 0  3114
2 15427  99.1244 336.6674 0016566  85.3005 275.0057 14.11736596207727
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89  7.10499369 0.00000303           26323-3 0   437
2 15516  82.5364  72.8887 0015235 206.1540 153.8852 13.84016705198771
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89  9.95241746 0.00013534           38887-3 0  1326
2 16095  51.6106   9.1198 0000862 125.8850 234.2097 15.36110604185496
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 10.43732671 0.00000012                   0  2905
2 16129  63.6699 104.1395 0115479 150.3904 210.3020  2.00565776 23878
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89  6.98159667 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7978
2 16191  82.5475 349.7306 0020570 345.6878  14.3663 13.16854715154305
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89  6.90888272 0.00000147           12194-3 0  4497
2 16408  82.5360 347.9072 0017162  37.3679 322.8685 13.84094632153248
Mir        
1 16609U          89  9.84072115 0.00086847           49175-3 0  6398
2 16609  51.6224  85.2974 0017301 269.5484  90.3538 15.78127122166387
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 10.81809914 -.00015809          -74619-2 0  3228
2 16613  98.7172  87.7021 0000616 140.9902 219.1297 14.20015252 62366
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89  6.99611591 0.00000106           90094-4 0  2711
2 16735  82.5368  14.5799 0015850 103.0042 257.2911 13.83830452132167
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 11.12476169 0.00002417           36146-3 0  4822
2 16881  82.5227 183.0398 0022367 251.1913 108.7028 14.74219251132149
EGP        
1 16908U          89  9.42214283 -.00000036           19575-4 0  1156
2 16908  50.0129  66.1499 0011053 301.1525  58.8225 12.44374466109646
FO-12      
1 16909U          88347.77684405 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1236
2 16909  50.0134 151.3381 0011202 229.0490 130.9375 12.44396973106197
Cosmos 1778
1 16961U          88346.47546322 0.00000021           10000-3 0  7382
2 16961  64.8155 177.7074 0003492 255.9312 104.0802  2.13102806 17389
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88361.94143986 0.00000598           28383-3 0  1744
2 16969  98.6596  29.5865 0014443  33.0946 327.1134 14.22726000119446
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89  6.68498085 0.00000280           24360-3 0  2114
2 17290  82.4685 283.3070 0013830 359.7041   0.4119 13.83643114101282
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89  6.93208506 -.00000191           10000-3 0  2208
2 17561   0.0414  61.8792 0003736 265.4762  32.6386  1.00271437  3977
Kvant      
1 17845U          89  9.84071225 0.00100723           56899-3 0  6371
2 17845  51.6221  85.2959 0016261 265.1455  94.7136 15.78145432102650
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89  4.96029952 0.00000264           27937-3 0  6252
2 18129  82.9264 358.7229 0012783 139.5954 220.6177 13.71926654 77011
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 10.85745682 0.00211272  22576-4  26106-3 0  8359
2 18225  71.8874 117.8854 0009167 246.5246 113.4865 16.07635188 86064
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89  7.05703697 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  2194
2 18312  82.5533 347.1976 0011190 292.1048  67.9573 13.83391595 70234
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89  7.04334041 0.00000152           12552-3 0   752
2 18820  82.5411  48.6106 0017170   5.8767 354.2598 13.84075653 47397
AO-13      
1 19216U          88361.45024372 0.00000064           10000-3 0   244
2 19216  57.3968 226.3421 6628515 196.0790 123.7784  2.09697175  4107
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89  7.07184943 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1056
2 19336  82.5461 289.6547 0015505 222.5431 137.4473 13.16849351 21706
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89  3.60584393 0.00000632           37406-3 0   328
2 19531  98.9206 308.5876 0012481 342.0118  18.0605 14.10773514 14263
Cosmos 1979
1 19647U          88356.57136476 0.00039219           64791-3 0   518
2 19647  65.0158 341.8322 0009549 273.3090  86.5067 15.51988232  5212
Cosmos 1980
1 19649U          88356.94433719 0.00000406           24200-3 0   327
2 19649  71.0044 273.0123 0004410   4.7529 355.3691 14.12315488  4004
1988 102B  
1 19650U          88350.25746344 -.00000119          -51774-4 0   148
2 19650  71.0015 286.8608 0014698 182.6488 177.4560 14.14206576  3065
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89  4.01325547 0.00079961           47147-3 0   415
2 19660  51.6218 115.3950 0017543 247.8881 111.9189 15.77247691  6059
Ekran 19   
1 19683U          89  6.17491319 -.00000271           10000-3 0   293
2 19683   1.3940 267.0977 0004265 299.2597  61.6497  1.00277935   281
1988 108D  
1 19686U          89  2.91965558 0.00000040           10000-3 0   119
2 19686   1.4290 267.2786 0021054   4.3455 356.5381  1.01515351   259
1988 109A  
1 19687U          89  3.49713384 0.00000029           10000-3 0   142
2 19687   3.0416 272.3985 0108227 348.7941  11.4238  1.01893246   226
1988 109B  
1 19688U          89  3.70007630 0.00000078           10000-3 0   141
2 19688   0.0499  97.8588 0071480   6.3679 256.5824  1.01438969   151
1988 109C  
1 19689U          89  3.01347161 0.00001004           30811-2 0   165
2 19689   6.7956 253.8720 7253180 195.7515 115.3374  2.23348528   487
Cosmos 1984
1 19705U          89  6.00361550 0.01003664  40019-4  30551-3 0   496
2 19705  62.8352 239.7403 0119061 126.8140 234.4767 16.10848332  3268
1988 111A  
1 19710U          89  5.40161872 -.00000323           10000-3 0   161
2 19710   0.5623 262.7684 0000620  81.4260  15.8334  1.00278051   176
Molniya3-34
1 19713U          89  4.47570250 0.00000903           36766-2 0   174
2 19713  62.7870 253.4025 7428829 280.1351  11.0084  2.00746119   277
1988 112D  
1 19716U          89  4.21669290 -.00000290           27457-3 0    24
2 19716  62.7898 253.3274 7375979 280.0946  11.3710  2.06837624   278
Cosmos 1985
1 19720U          89  6.04794673 -.00017422          -98882-3 0   392
2 19720  73.5628 179.3921 0006799 227.2224 132.8260 15.13000071  2086
1988 113B  
1 19721U          89  6.04660842 -.00053949          -30889-2 0   210
2 19721  73.5612 179.3893 0006644 230.0963 129.9251 15.13082182  2089
Progress 39
1 19728U          89  5.78741004 -.00071790          -42560-3 0   222
2 19728  51.6193 106.2364 0017630 251.0524 110.0938 15.77378869  1848
1988 114B  
1 19729U          88361.94322112 0.17783502  60969-4  34778-3 0   123
2 19729  51.6176 156.8630 0009460 101.5540 258.7446 16.46517324   296
Molniya1-74
1 19730U          89  4.57562740 0.00000530           20260-2 0    76
2 19730  62.8360 127.6677 7320095 288.1747   9.7255  2.05582386   160
1988 115B  
1 19731U 88115  B 88364.49627202  .00673333  00000-0  00000-0 0 00069
2 19731 062.8167 124.2948 0255053 125.7711 236.8310 15.62092613000207
1988 115D  
1 19733U          89  1.15146543 0.00000411                   0    41
2 19733  62.8892 128.1720 7279012 288.4208  10.0336  2.06604028    91
Cosmos 1986
1 19734U          89  6.09298617 0.00324578  10206-4  23428-3 0   208
2 19734  64.7787 254.9813 0040196 339.9850  20.0447 16.13606501  1247
1989 001A  
1 19749U          89 10.60000000 0.00000021           10000-3 0    25
2 19749  64.8950 176.0330 0004933 256.8680 174.4310  2.13158223    05
1989 001B  
1 19750U          89 10.97613053 0.00000021           10000-3 0    14
2 19750  64.8867 175.9598 0006689 265.1949  94.7763  2.13172525    17
1989 001C  
1 19751U          89 10.97613053 0.00000021           10000-3 0    15
2 19751  64.9074 175.9702 0007263 267.4630  92.5124  2.13184792    13
1989 001D  
1 19752U          89 10.44575135 0.33156297  38428-4  12452-3 0    45
2 19752  64.8196 174.8196 0011521 270.2742  89.7210 16.57516837    62
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 01:06:09 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Supercomputing: Experience Preferred But Not Essential (Announcement of Opportunity)

Just a follow-up note thanking all those of you who sent resumes.
One note: my officemate is disappointed that there have been no
resumes from women received thus far.  She wonders why there are not
more women applying for technical employment in the space program.
This is strictly retorical, and I concur to the point that I post this
note.  So if you are going to discuss this topic, please edit
Newsgroups: appropriately.  I withhold my opinion on what this signals.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 89 07:54:04 GMT
From: millard@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Millard Edgerton)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

>From article <605@m3.mfci.UUCP>, by rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman):
*> In article <IXlN3Qy00WB9QHVqUo@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
*>>
*>>Also, consider that relativity is a THEORY, there may be a lot of
*>>things wrong with it, after all it is possible that at some velocity
*>>the tendency for mass to increase/time to slow, my stop, thus
*>>allowing velocities of C or even greater without infinate energy. Of

Many of the particle bean accelerators reach speeds less than 2% below the
speed of light.  Mass increases as Albert predicted.  Mass doubles, if my
quick pencil, is not too far off, at less than 90%.  It is however in my
opinion, foolish to discount the future.  Remember in the late 19th century,
the closing of the patent office was discussed, since every thing possibles 
had been invented.

***************************************************************************
*  Intelligent people talk about ideas.   | Standard disclaimer(s)        *
*  Average people talk about things.      | Millard J. Edgerton, WA6VZZ   *
*  Small people talk about other people.  | millard@eos.arc.nasa.gov      *
*                -o-                      |         -o-                   *
*      Employed by Sterling Software at NASA Ames Research Center.        *
***************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 89 19:48:00 GMT
From: orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!rod@oberon.usc.edu  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: Re: Voyager approaching Neptune


Mark your calendars: I believe encounter date is August 27th. The also
expect the data return rate to be slower, not sure exactly how much.
They're also downplaying this a bit, expecting the photos to be less
interesting, with most of the really fun stuff not producing good
publicity photos. Of course, they expected that last time, too...

		--Rod

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 89 19:12:43 GMT
From: orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!rod@oberon.usc.edu  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <875@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:
>In article <970@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>	Now, while thinking this through, I was wondering about
>	the opposite.  Would the observer on the ship notice
>	the rest of the universe gain in mass since relative to the
>	ship, the universe is flying by at close to C?
>
>							Jim


That's the difference between special relativity and general relativity!
Special relativity teaches that the two frames of reference (the space
ship, and the "stationary" observer, cannot be distinguished, that it's
impossible to tell whether the ship is moving past the observer, or
if the entire universe is moving past the ship. Presents a nice little
paradox. When the ship returns, which will have aged less, the ship
or the observer?

General relativity teaches that it actually is possible to differentiate
the frames of reference. Geez, it's been six years already, I forget 
the details. I believe the acceleration is what does it. Most of the
simple equations you learn in connection with special relativity
deal with fixed velocities rather than accelerations.

There! Is that confusing enough? I haven't even answered your question. I want
to say that the ship would see the universe gain mass, but that there
would be no doubt that the ship was aging slower than the universe,
but that doesn't sound very consistent.

		--Rod

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #192
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jan 89 05:23:46 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04312>; Tue, 17 Jan 89 03:44:20 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 17 Jan 89 03:44:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.EXojcny00jZdI1KEYX>;
          Tue, 17 Jan 89 03:33:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.YXojOyy00UkZ41b04y>;
          Tue, 17 Jan 89 03:18:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXojNPy00UkZ41Zk5j@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 03:16:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #193

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 193

Today's Topics:
		   RE: Space Station Excape Routes
			 Re: `Days' in space
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
		   Re: Announcement of Opportunity
			Re: Clark's IGNITION!
		       Pluto perihelion in '89?
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
			 Electric Propulsion
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #188
			    Pro Space Adds
	Looking for maps associated with Shuttle radar images
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 11 Jan 89 10:51 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  RE: Space Station Excape Routes

The following was sent to me by Edmund Hack at the Johnson Space Centre.
It is relevant, so I decided to forward it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This is a reply to your usenet posting to the space conference (dated
Fri, Jan 6, 1989) - I get the usenet stuff from the SPACE Digest on ARPAnet,
as we don't have a usenet feed here at the Johnson Space Center.
The message concerned Space station escapes and was a reply to Peter Scott.
If you want to post it to space, with my name and disclaimer on it, do so.

---

About escape options for the Space Station, there are 4 proposals that are
under scrutiny that I have heard about in the press and local news at NASA/JSC.
All of these are unofficial and not policy of NASA or my employer.


1 - a redesigned Apollo capsule was proposed by Rockwell (who made the original
one) that would be attached to the resource nodes and could bring 6 or so
persons back to an ocean landing.  It would be expensive (as all of these are)
and subject the astronauts to 6-8 Gees during reentry.

2 - the permanent berthing of a Shuttle at the station is also being looked at.
This is also expensive, as another Orbiter would be procured ($2-3 billion or
so) for this _and_ modifications would be needed to the design and retrofit to
another shuttle would be needed.  The scenario would be to have the on-Station
shuttle leave as another came up to dock.  The mods to the current shuttle
design would be to allow long duration on orbit and to reduce outgassing from
the orbiter, which would interfere with the scientific observations going on.

3 - the French have proposed using a couple of modified Hermes spacecraft that
would be docked at the station.  Similarly, a few noises about using the UK's
HOTOL have been made.  As neither of these craft exist now and are not fully
funded, they are of lower probability I would guess.

4 - the current station contractors have made or are making proposals for a
"from scratch" design that could get the crew back in a hurry.


Any crew escape option must have a few characteristics:  High reliability over
a long duration in "standby mode".  Low outgassing and contamination
characteristics while in place.  Be completely self-contained.  Have first
aid and rescue equipment on board.  Hold the entire crew in a shirt-sleeve
environment.  It is desirable that the reentry be as low in Gee forces as
possible, in case injured or ill crew members are brought back in it.

Edmund Hack
AI & Telerobotics Dept.
Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Houston, TX
ARPA: hack%lock.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

     I have one general comment to add to the above - and a couple of questions.

>The scenario would be to have the on-Station
>shuttle leave as another came up to dock.

Why is this so?  Is there currently only one shuttle docking port being
designed for the space station?  If so, where would the escape module,
if such is even planned, be attached to?  It seems to me that if one has
a dedicated emergency escape vehicle, then there would also be a
dedicated emergency escape port, quite separate from the normal docking
port.  One would also have to be able to enter the escape vehicle from
the outside of the escape port, as not everyone can be expected to be
inside the space station if an emergency occurs.  The scenario becomes
even worse if one has to consider the potential breakup of the space
station, but that may be futile thought processes pushing forward.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 01:26:55 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!robina@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robin Adams)
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

In article <636@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>, hascall@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
> In article <Added.4XlHiiy00Ui38HQE8q@andrew.cmu.edu> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
> >
> >     A few weeks ago, there was a report on the boob-tube about a lady
> >in France who had spent about 60 days inside a cave (mineshaft?),
> >completely isolated with no timepieces.  She was startled when they
> >brought her out and said her time was up, .........

>   Another interesting variation would be to try various simulated
>   night and day lengths.  (--ref: John Hascall).


A few years ago, I sailed the Atlantic with two friends (38 days from the 
Canaries). Our watch periods were 3-hours on and 6-hours off. This produces an 
interesting cycle (amongst other cycles) of 27-hours. I was very suprised at 
how well this worked. Within just two or three days (of adjustment), we had 
settled into a rhythm that left us alert and in good spirits.


					   o         o                o
                                              o                  o
					o                  o            o
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
						    |       |
						    |       |   Robin
						   /---------\  Adams

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 89 18:39:48 GMT
From: nic.MR.NET!thor!christnp@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Doctor X)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <7217@venera.isi.edu> rod@venera.isi.edu.UUCP (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) writes:
>That's the difference between special relativity and general relativity!
>Special relativity teaches that the two frames of reference (the space
>ship, and the "stationary" observer, cannot be distinguished, that it's
>impossible to tell whether the ship is moving past the observer, or
>if the entire universe is moving past the ship. Presents a nice little
>paradox. When the ship returns, which will have aged less, the ship
>or the observer?

I've never heard of the difference between SR and GR being the way you
mention.  In fact, I don't think this is the case at all.  If you have
a reference, I'd like to know about it.

Actually, if I remember correctly, the paradox is resolved without   
resorting to GR.  The ship and the point in the universe, say a planet,
are in different reference frames.  In order for the ship to return to
the planet to compare clocks, etc it has to *switch* reference frames, 
i.e. decellerate and turn around.  The switching of reference frames 
solves the paradox.  This is the famous twin paradox.  If you say "What
if the universe is a closed, curved surface and we fly all the way 
around it to get back to the point in question without changing 
reference frames" (like an airplane flying around the Earth) then it
is a GR question.

>General relativity teaches that it actually is possible to differentiate
>the frames of reference.                                             
>             I believe the acceleration is what does it. 

I don't believe so.  First, GR is mainly concerned with the consequences
of having a non-euclidean space-time.  That is its main difference from
SR.  Second, many people have the misconception that the resolution to the
twin paradox is due to the *accelleration* of the ship in the above 
example, but it's really due to the change in frame of reference.

>		--Rod

-NPC
christnp@stolaf.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 89 22:54:59 GMT
From: nsc!ken@hplabs.hp.com  (Ken Trant)
Subject: Re: Announcement of Opportunity

&in article<8901092042.AA09020@aruba.local>, fuzzy@aruba (john s karabaic) says:
&> Eugene Miya posts:
&> 	We will be posting a special employment opportunity for
&> 	fresh-out of school new hires to misc.jobs.offered and other groups
&> 	shortly.  The positions are basically computer professional slots
&> 	...
&> Is he willing to take on some age-discrimination lawsuits (or, in this
&> case, is the US Government?).  I suggest he amend this posting to read
&> ``all interested, qualified candidates'' rather then ``fresh-out of
&> school''.
&> 
&> I have forwarded a copy of this to the Committee of Concerned
&> Electrical Engineers, which helps fight this sort of blatant age
&> discrimination. 
&>==========================  ==============================================  
& ||Lt John S. Karabaic     || arpanet:                                     ||

 Well John, 

  Does your posting imply that as an older American I can no longer go to
school and earn a degree?. Job opportunities for "fresh out of school" 
candidates does not deny those persons who are older or younger an opportuni-
ty at a job, it just provides those persons without experience the vehicle
by which they can gain it.
  Lighten up, Eugene has done nothing to deserve such an assult on his
character.  I am sure he would never have posted an article which he felt
promoted discrimination of any kind. Now appologize an go to your room. :-)

 
 Ken Trant
-- 
PATH= Second star to the right,          {...Ken Trant...}
      and straight on till morning 
National SemiConductor, 1135 Kern Ave. M/S 7C-266; Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Uucp: ...{pyramid,sun,amdahl,apple}!nsc!ken

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 89 16:50:08 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!clyde@rutgers.edu  (Head UNIX Hacquer)
Subject: Re: Clark's IGNITION!

I agree with the review if IGNITION!  I read it years ago in some library
somewhere and liked it so much that I got one myself.  It is
an interesting book about space exploration from the level of those
'faceless' research geeks who built the foundations that made it possible.

It also has one of my favorite lines about computers (paraphrasing):

	"Everyone who has worked with computers has, at some point,
	desired to attack the precocious abacus with an axe."

	(I feel that way at least once per week).
-- 
Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  
	clyde@emx.utexas.edu; ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!clyde

"You really have to take a broad perspective when giving pat answers
 to other people's problems."  - Eyebeam

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 89 19:01:54 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!bturner@hplabs.hp.com  (Bill Turner)
Subject: Pluto perihelion in '89?

I remember reading someplace that Pluto reaches perihelion in 1989.  Can
someone confirm/deny this and/or give exact dates?

Thanks in advance,
--Bill Turner

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 03:45:40 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!R_Tim_Coslet@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <IXlN3Qy00WB9QHVqUo@andrew.cmu.edu> 
	rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
>
>Also, consider that relativity is a THEORY, there may be a lot of
>things wrong with it, after all it is possible that at some velocity
>the tendency for mass to increase/time to slow, my stop, thus
>allowing velocities of C or even greater without infinate energy. Of
>course it's kind of hard to run experiments (anyone have a space ship
>and a REALLY great drive system?), but never close out the
>POSSIBILITY, after all a big part of science is having an open
>mind...

Actually this very experiment has been tried MANY times...
only using Sub-Atomic particles in the place of space ships
(they are a bit cheaper to accelerate to high speeds :-)

These experiments have accelerated Sub-Atomic particles to velocities
exceeding 99% of C (if I remember the articles I read correctly) with
no deviations from the predictions of relativity.

                                        R. Tim Coslet

Usenet: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com

------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 88 18:48:32 GMT
From: pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lll-ncis!oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Electric Propulsion

The December issue of Aerospace America has 44 short articles, and I
mean very short, summarizing the state of aerospace technology at the
end of 1988.  There is also a nice article entitled "NASA: Thirty
years of space flight." All well worth reading.

One article that caught my attention was "Electric Propulsion" by
Rolland Schreib. It mentions that 3 xenon ion thrusters are currently
available in the international market. They are manufactured by
Markconi/Culham in the UK, by Hughes ADM in the US, and by
Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm in West Germany.

I'll quote part of a paragraph that relates to a recent discussion in
this group:

"Further downstream, scenarios of a NASA Mars mission include two
possible vehicles, one manned and making a fast flight using chemical
propulsion, the other a large unmanned cargo carrier propelled
electrically either by magnetoplasmadynamic or ion thrusters. ...
Recently the Soviets fixed 1994 as the beginning of their Mars
program, for which they are considering nuclear electric propulsion."


If you are interested in the magazine:

Aerospace America is published by the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., at 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW
Washington, DC 20024 (202) 646-7471. Subscriptions are available to
nonmembers. Single copies, when available are $10.


			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1989 12:14-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #188

> I have forwarded a copy of this to the Committee of Concerned
> Electrical Engineers, which helps fight this sort of blatant age
> discrimination. 

I'll stand behind Eugene. My resume is good enough that I don't have to
try to steal jobs from young engineers who are trying to get their
first position. This 'discrimination' shit has gone too damn far.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 89 16:19:41 GMT
From: pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lll-ncis!oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Pro Space Adds

Has anyone else seen any of the U.S Space Foundations pro space adds
on T.V.? I've seen two so far. One with Jesse Jackson and Barry
Goldwater saying that even though they disagreed on about everything
else, the both supported space exploration, space development, and the
U.S space program. The other one that I've seen has Carroll Burnette
and Tom Selleck (Please excuse my spelling of their names) telling us
about how remote sensing satellites have improved all our lives.

Very good adds. I'd like to see them on during prime time.


			Bob P.

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 19:05:33 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!poole@rutgers.edu  (Steve Poole)
Subject: Looking for maps associated with Shuttle radar images


A friend of mine has some kind of radar images taken from the Shuttle
in Nov. 1981.  There supposedly is a set of maps that goes with these
images.  He has been trying to locate the maps without success.  I am
posting this in the hopes that someone knows where these maps can be
obtained.

Here are the details.  These are SIR-A Shuttle radar images.  The
images were taken in Nov. 1981 on flights 24-A and 24-B.  There is some
kind of code number associated with these images.  The code number is
601.

If you know where the maps can be obtained, send me the info and I will
pass it along to my friend.  Thanks.


-- 
Steve Poole  
ARPA: poole@emx.utexas.edu
UUCP: {ames,angband,exodus,gatech,harvard,mordor,rutgers}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!poole

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #193
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jan 89 05:37:01 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00725> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 17 Jan 89 05:32:51 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 17 Jan 89 05:32:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MXolDLy00Ui3Q0w08E>;
          Tue, 17 Jan 89 05:22:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.UXol=:y00UkZ01kU4k>;
          Tue, 17 Jan 89 05:17:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXol_0y00UkZI1jE5=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 05:16:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #194

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 194

Today's Topics:
	    Model rockets -- Higher power alternatives...
			Re: Spaceplane project
	Astronomers discover active stellar corpse (Forwarded)
		      Flight Termination Systems
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
	  Re: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!
		    Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 17:56:00 GMT
From: csc32.dec.com!s_hall@decwrl.dec.com  (Turn off the lights and watch the stupid...)
Subject: Model rockets -- Higher power alternatives...


	I've been reading with interest the ongoing discussion of
	model rocketry, and the alternatives for someone that is
	attracted to more powerful rockets.

	The various writers seem to be under the impression that
	for non-professional rocketry, one is limited to the Estes
	A through D motors, or home-brew propellant in metallic-tube
	vehicles.

	There is a whole class of non-professional rocketry that
	would fill the bill for most research and hobby projects:

	Advanced High-Power rocketry.

	The Tripoli Rocketry Association is a not-for-profit
	research corporation whose members fly rockets that
	exceed model rocket weight and power limits.  The
	models range from model-rocket size to 22 feet in length,
	and the motors START at H -class (320 newton-seconds
	total impulse) and range to N- class (11,500 newton-seconds)
	for off-the-shelf orders.

	The motors are built by commercial manufacturers,
	and utilize filament-wound motor casings, graphite nozzles,
	and composite (polybutadiene / ammonium perchlorate)
	propellant.  The motors are very reliable, and can be
	purchased with many propellant grain designs (star, core-burner,
	end-burner, moon-burner, c-slot) to tailor duration
	and thrust curve to the application.

	Models regularly fly Mach 2+, and exceed 10,000 feet AGL.
	Modellers have flown video camcorders, video-camera/transmitter
	combinations, and other telemetry devices.

	The LOFT-1 rocket recently launched from the Cape is an
	example of the sort of technology that high-power
	enthusiasts use.

	The above stated, it seems somewhat un-necessary to build
	motors for a small project.  The risks are high, capital
	investment not insignificant to build a motor with a
	high Isp (like composite propellant motors).  To re-invent
	the wheel with something like zinc-sulfur and its
	inherent dangers, seems kinda futile.

	If anybody'd like information about the Tripoli Rocketry
	Association, here's the address:

	Tripoli Rocketry Association
	P.O. Box 891373
	Houston, TX  77289-1373

	President, Ed Tindell
	
	Or, contact me:

	Steve Hall
	Phone:  719-260-0311

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 22:37:22 GMT
From: inuxc!inuxm!arlan@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

> In article <13081@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> >When was the last Concorde manufactured?  How about the Tu-144 (Concordski)?
> >The last bit of news I heard on the Tu-144 was a few years ago when the
> >Soviets announced they were putting it into regular, scheduled airline
> >service.  Is that service still running?
> 
> I'm afraid that I don't know when the last Concorde was made, but
> I heard on the radio that the very first one flew exactly 20 years ago,
> from Filton airfield here in Bristol, on 9 Jan 1969.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd.    >> conor@inmos.co.uk <<
> Disclaimer: All views are my own, not those of INMOS.

The Soviets' Tu-144 suffered an embarrassing incident at a Paris air show
some years back--it crashed, killing the crew.  We haven't heard much
bragging from the comrades since.   (Presumably they copied the space
shuttle somewhat better...)

--Arlan Andrews

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 22:29:37 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Astronomers discover active stellar corpse (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  January 11, 1989

Ray Villard
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md.


RELEASE:  89-3

ASTRONOMERS DISCOVER ACTIVE STELLAR CORPSE


     A group of astronomers has discovered evidence of vigorous 
activity in a white-dwarf star previously thought to be a stellar 
"corpse" incapable of such lively behavior.  This new and 
unexpected behavior may offer astronomers new insight into how 
stars are born, evolve and ultimately die.
 
     When stars like the sun exhaust their nuclear fuel, they end 
their lives as inert white dwarfs, compact objects about the size 
of the Earth.  Astronomers have long believed that white dwarfs 
are incapable of further evolution other than a gradual cooling 
off.
 
     The white-dwarf star, cataloged as 0950+139, lies at the 
center of a faint nebula called EGB 6 and is located about 1500 
light-years from Earth in the direction of the constellation 
Leo.  The nebula was formed an estimated 50,000 years ago when 
the star was in the red-giant stage, which occurs late in a 
star's evolution.  When red giants subsequently exhaust their 
nuclear fuel and "burn out," they contract to become white 
dwarfs.
 
     Astronomers commonly believe that white-dwarf stars mark the 
end of any further stellar activity other than a gradual cooling 
off over billions of years.  The researchers found, however, that 
0950+139 is surrounded by a glowing cloud of gas about the size 
of our own solar system.  The star apparently has very recently 
shed additional gas long after entering the white-dwarf stage.


     Howard E. Bond of the Space Telescope Science Institute, 
Baltimore, Md., James Liebert and T. Fleming of the University of 
Arizona, Richard Green of Kitt Peak National Observatory, J.B. 
Holberg and K. Kidder of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, and 
F. Wesemael of the University of Montreal, presented their 
findings today at the 173rd meeting of the American Astronomical 
Society, in Boston, Mass.  The research was supported by the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and by the National 
Science Foundation.
 
     These findings are based on spectroscopic observations of 
the star made at Palomar, Kitt Peak, and Steward Observatories, 
and by NASA's International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite.  "A 
spectrum like this, with unmistakable signs of a surrounding gas 
cloud has never been seen before in such a highly evolved star," 
says Bond. "My co-workers and I believe the gas indicates that 
the star has very recently undergone additional mass loss."
 
     One possible explanation is that the white dwarf is 
continually losing mass into space through some unknown 
mechanism.  "Such behavior," says Bond, "is unexpected once a 
star has become a white dwarf because of the tremendous 
gravitational force at the surface of a white dwarf."
 
     Another possibility is that nuclear-fusion processes re-
ignited below the white dwarf's surface, causing it to balloon 
back to the red-giant phase.  Most of the star then re-collapsed 
back into the white dwarf observed today, while the outer layers 
escaped to form the observed second shell of material around the 
star.
 
     "This re-birth as a 'born-again' red giant may only have 
lasted for a few years and could well have gone unnoticed by
astronomers," says Bond. 
 
     Recent theoretical studies by I. Iben and J. MacDonald at 
the University of Illinois have revealed a possible explanation 
for such unusual behavior.  Hydrogen may diffuse below the white 
dwarf's surface to mix with carbon rising up from the dwarf's 
interior, leading to re-ignition of nuclear fusion.  Because this 
diffusion process is extremely slow, a star could have existed as 
a white dwarf for some time until the re-kindling of nuclear 
fusion.

     The Space Telescope Science Institute is operated for NASA 
under a contract with the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 
MD., by AURA (the Association of Universities for Research in
Astronomy, Inc.).  It is located on the Johns Hopkins University
campus in Baltimore.

     The Hubble Space Telescope is a project of international 
cooperation between NASA and the European Space Agency.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 89 16:09:28 GMT
From: pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lll-ncis!oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Flight Termination Systems

All this talk about amatuer built space planes, model rockets, and
high power model rockets makes me wonder how big a rocket has to be
before it is required to have a certified FTS (Flight Termination
System).  The FTS lets the range safety officer blow up the vehicle if
it decides to run off its planned flight path.

I've been told that a triply redundant, certified, FTS reciever costs
several hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars. That's the part that
makes sure that your signal blows the vehicle and that Joe random
terrorists' signal doesn't.

Is there any set of conditions that would allow a vehicle capable of
reaching orbit to NOT have an FTS? 


			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 21:15:06 GMT
From: wucs1!wuphys!mrk@uunet.uu.net  (Mark R. Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <912@thor.stolaf.edu> christnp@thor.UUCP writes:
>In article <7217@venera.isi.edu> rod@venera.isi.edu.UUCP (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) writes:
>>That's the difference between special relativity and general relativity!
>
>I've never heard of the difference between SR and GR being the way you
>mention.  In fact, I don't think this is the case at all.  If you have
>a reference, I'd like to know about it.
>
>Actually, if I remember correctly, the paradox is resolved without   
>resorting to GR.  The ship and the point in the universe, say a planet,
>are in different reference frames.  In order for the ship to return to
>the planet to compare clocks, etc it has to *switch* reference frames, 
>...
>example, but it's really due to the change in frame of reference.
>>		--Rod
>-NPC
>christnp@stolaf.UUCP

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this--everything is in every
reference frame.  Presumably, you mean the *rest* frame--that reference frame
(either inertial or not) in which a given body is at rest.

I'd like to see a reference, too.

A reference for twin paradox:
J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd ed., problems 11.3,11.4.
Can be solved with no GR at all.

=======================================
Mark R. Kaufmann
UUCP: ...!uunet!wucs1!wucfua!wuphys!mrk
      wuphys!mrk@uunet.uu.net
Internet: mrk@wuphys.wustl.edu
=======================================

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 89 16:04:54 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lll-ncis!oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!

>From article <1989Jan3.091403.5480@cs.rochester.edu>, by dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz):
> If making model solid rocket motors is so dangerous, how about a model
> hybrid rocket?
> 
> Paul F. Dietz
> dietz@cs.rochester.edu

When I was 14 I did just that. I modified a Jetex motor by adding a
feed tube to the top center of the motor.  There was a nice hole there
already so it wasn't very hard.

I used tightly rolled newspaper for fuel and compressed air for the
oxidizer. The igniter was the hard part. I lit it off. I didn't have
it on any kind of a test stand, just clamped in a vice. I figured if
it worked I would try to measure its thrust later.

Well it worked. It made an impressive noise. Rather like an angry
snake. And then it started to glow. Before I could shut it off the
nozzle glowed white and the motor glowed red to bright orange.

On inspection the nozzle had expanded significantly. The case had also
expanded. I know it was only carrying about 40 PSI, but the metal had
softened enough to deform. All the fuel had burned. I decided not to
test it again. I also stopped working on the big one I was building in
metal shop.

Quite honestly it scared some sense into me. Not to mention that it
made me very glad that I had decided not to try using LOX. At the time
LOX was very easy to get.

If you're not a pro, DON'T try it. It just isn't as simple as it
looks.

		Lucky to still have my fingers and eyes

				Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 89 00:22:57 GMT
From: pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lll-ncis!oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Disaster Premises

>From article <8812262356.AA22372@crash.cts.com>, by jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery):

> Tom Neff, Bob Pendleton, Jim Merrit, et al, start educating the 
> net for a change.  Maybe you should start by reading some nonfictional 
> accounts of space technology and history rather than continuing to 
> worship mythology authored by such great story-tellers as Hans Mark, Gen. 
> Abramson, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Barney Roberts, Jessco Von 
> Puttkammer, James Fletcher, et al.

This is a rather nasty form of propaganda. You're using two brushes to
paint each other. Using both groups to make assertions about the
other. Assertions that aren't true about either.

You imply that neither Tom, Jim, nor myself have ever done anything to
"educate" the net. What you really mean is that we haven't actively
spread your brand of the "TRUTH." And frankly I'm disgusted to see you
include visonaries like Asimov and Heinlein in a list that includes
Abramson and Fletcher. I must admit to not having heard of Roberts or
Von Puttkammer. If you've read any of Heinleins' future history
stories you know he always portrayed space travel as a commercial
venture carried out by private organizations in pursuit of profits. I
have no idea how you can compare that to the current mess at NASA? I
can't see any connection to Asimov at all. 

I'm not sure who is being slandered more by your paragraph. Is it Tom,
Jim and myself? Or the others greats and not so greats mentioned in
the list? I always wanted to be mentioned in the same paragraph as
Issace Asimov and Robert Heinlein, but not quite this way.

Attacking my reading habits without ever having seen my book shelf?
Amazing! Or should that be Astounding? or perhaps Analog? :-)

Fact is, it's a great compliment to be attacked in this way. I didn't
know I was that important! :-)

		Thank You

			Bob P.

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #194
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jan 89 05:34:59 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00634>; Wed, 18 Jan 89 04:43:22 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 18 Jan 89 04:43:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AXp4hdy00UkTE50E49>;
          Wed, 18 Jan 89 03:31:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.YXp4WWy00UkZE5P05Z>;
          Wed, 18 Jan 89 03:19:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0Xp4TRy00UkZ05Nk4C@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 03:16:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #195

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:
	      Space-tech excerpt: Electrodynamic Tethers
		    Re: NASA Worship and Blasphemy
		   Re: Announcement of Opportunity
			ISECCo Annual Meeting.
			 NSS Board membership
	      Re: Why use Spationaut for Fench spacemen
			 Re: `Days' in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1989 11:30-EST 
From: Marc.Ringuette@DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Space-tech excerpt: Electrodynamic Tethers

Date:    Tue, 4 Oct 88 23:22:04 GMT
From:     matthews%asd.span@Sds.Sdsc.Edu (Michael C. Matthews)
To:       space-tech@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Electrodynamic Tethers

There were some recent comments and questions about Electrodynamic Tethers.
I quote from _Tethers in Space Handbook_ (NASA, 1986), pp. 2-29 - 2-36 
[a discussion on electrodynamic tether power generation]:

]   The discussion of electric power generation by tether systems will
]   begin with electromagnetic systems in Earth orbit.  Consider a vertical,
]   gravity-gradient-stabilized, insulated, conducting tether, which is
]   terminated at both ends by plasma contactors...
]
]   As the tether system orbits the Earth, it cuts across the geomagnetic
]   field from west to east at very high speeds (about 8 km/s if deployed
]   from the Shuttle...).  Due to this motion, the geomagnetic field 
]   induces an electromotive force (emf) across the length of the tether...
]
]   ...In this Earth orbit, the emf acts to create a potential difference
]   across the tether by making the upper end of the tether positive with
]   respect to the lower end.  The emf acts to collect electrons at the upper
]   end and drive them down the tether to the lower end, where they are
]   emitted when a current is allowed to flow in the tether.
]
]   In order to produce a current from this potential difference, the tether
]   ends must make electrical contact with the Earth's plasma environment.
]   Plasma contactors at the tether ends provide this contact, establishing
]   a current loop (a so-called "phantom loop") through the tether, external
]   plasma, and ionosphere.  Although processes in the plasma and ionosphere
]   are not clearly understood at this time, it is believed that the current
]   path is [as follows: ]  The collection of electrons from the plasma at
]   the top end of the tether, and their emission from the bottom end, 
]   creates a net-positive charge cloud (or region) at the top end, and a
]   net-negative charge cloud at the bottom.  The excess free charges are
]   constrained to move along the geomagnetic field lines intercepted by
]   the tether ends, until they reach the vicinity of the E region of the
]   lower ionosphere, where there are sufficient collisions with neutral
]   particles to allow the electrons to migrate across the field lines
]   and complete the circuit.
]
]   To optimize the ionosphere's ability to sustain a tether current, the
]   tether current density at each end must not exceed the external
]   ionospheric current density.  Plasma contactors must effectively
]   spread the tether current over a large enough area to reduce the
]   current densities to the necessary levels...
]

Note that for thrust generation, rather than power generation, the current
flows in the opposite direction (negative charges collect at the top, and
positive charges at the bottom).

The key point here, of course, is that THE IONOSPHERIC PLASMA COMPLETES THE
CURRENT LOOP.  The important question then is "What is the current capacity of
the ionospheric plasma?" for a given tether/plasma contactor configuration. 

]   To optimize the ionosphere's ability to sustain a tether current,
]   the tether current density at each end must not exceed the external
]   ionospheric current density.  Plasma contactors must effectively spread
]   the tether current over a large enough area to reduce the current
]   densities to the necessary levels.  Three basic tether system
]   configurations, using three types of plasma contactors, have been
]   considered up to this point.  They are (1) a passive large-area
]   conductor at both tether ends; (2) a passive large-area conductor
]   at the upper end and an electron gun at the lower end; and, (3) a
]   plasma-generating hollow cathode at both ends.
]   
]   ...[several paragraphs of discussion on the three methods, with
]       the resulting conclusion that the hollow cathode, a device which
]       emits a neutral plasma (argon) at very low mass flow rate, is by 
]       far superior]...
]
]   It has been calculated that the ionospheric impedance should be on
]   the order of 1-20 ohms. The highest impedances of the tether system
]   are encountered at the space charge sheath regions around the upper
]   and lower plasma contactors.  Reducing these impedances will greatly
]   increase the efficiency of the tether system in providing large 
]   currents.  Data exist which indicate that plasmas released from hollow
]   cathode plasma contactors should greatly reduce the sheath impedance
]   between the contactors and the ambient plasma surrounding them.  Data
]   from one study of hollow cathodes predict Zlow (electron emitting end)
]   to be on the order of 20 ohms, and Zup (electron collecting end) to be
]   on the order of 10-100 ohms.  Studies of [Plasma Motor-Generator] 
]   systems with hollow cathode plasma contactors, on the other hand, have
]   indicated that there is a nearly constant voltage drop of 5-20 volts
]   at the tether ends, independent of tether current (reference - Dr. James
]   McCoy, NASA/Johnson Space Center).  Therefore, for the PMG model, the
]   voltage across the tether is simply reduced by 20 volts to account for
]   the voltage drop at both tether ends.  Although processes in these 
]   plasmas and in the ionosphere are not well understood and require much
]   continued study and evaluation through testing, preliminary indications
]   are that feasible tether and plasma-contactor systems should be able
]   to provide large induced currents.

Remember that the ionospheric plasma is NOT in orbit with the tethered
satellite, and the satellite sweeps THROUGH the plasma at orbital speed.  
>From page 28 of _Guidebook for Analysis of Tether Applications_, by Joseph
A. Carroll: 

]   Motion of the tether through the geomagnetic field causes an EMF in the
]   tether... The motion also causes each region of plasma to experience
]   only a short pulse of current, much as in a commutated motor.

In essence, each end (plasma contactor) of the tether spews a "sheet" of
charged plasma, which follows the curvature of the magnetic field lines
toward the magnetic pole, to the E region of the lower ionosphere, where
collisional diffusion of charge completes the circuit between the upper and
lower field lines. 


There are some aspects of electrodynamic tethers which can't be predicted
purely by theory.  The Tethered Satellite System (TSS) is a joint project 
between the United States and Italy, and TSS-1, an electrodynamic mission,
is scheduled for flight on STS-45 (31 Jan 1991).  From "Tethered Satellite
System Science Interfaces", presented by Dr. N. Stone in December, 1987:

] TSS-1 SCIENCE OBJECTIVES SUMMARY
]
] * The physics of steady-state electrodynamic tether operations
]   * Characteristics & Phenomena of high voltage plasma sheath
]     * Plasma oscillations & instabilities
]     * Anomalous ionization
]     * Cross-field current flow
]   * Field aligned current drive phenomena
]     * Hydromagnetic waves
]     * Double layers
]   * Electrodynamic tether current collection characteristics
]     * Effects of tether voltage
]     * Effects of plasma conditions
]     * Effects of lighting conditions
] * The physics of time-varying electrodynamic tether operations
]   * VLF & ULF wave generation
]   * VLF & ULF propagation characteristics through ionosphere to ground
]   * Tether impedance
]   * Electrodynamic tether-orbiter system charging time constant
] * Investigation of fundamental processes in space plasmas
]   * Plasma expansion phenomena
]   * Critical velocity ionization phenomena
]   * Neutral gas-magnetoplasma interactions
] * Tether mechanics
]   * Tethered satellite system dynamics
]   * Dynamic noise in tethered satellite systems

These data will be vital to any practical application of electrodynamic
tethers in the future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:    I only work  |   Mike Matthews
  for  Lockheed,  I  don't  |   Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company, Inc.
  speak for them.  I don't  |   Avionics Systems Department
  speak  for NASA  either,  |   Flight Control Systems Section
  for  that  matter.   Any  |   Tether Dynamics Group
  opinions expressed  here  |   Houston, Texas
  are mine alone and  are,  |   MATTHEWS%ASD.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU
  therefore, TRUTH.         |   matthews@cup.portal.com



[ This was an excerpt from space-tech, a mailing list on which we discuss the
  more technical side of space exploration.  Topics have included EM launchers,
  solar sails, amateur satellite projects, tethered satellites, and ion
  propulsion.  To join, send mail to space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu, and specify
  whether you want the normal or digested version. ]

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 89 23:20:16 GMT
From: pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lll-ncis!oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: NASA Worship and Blasphemy

>From article <8812260036.AA17889@crash.cts.com>, by jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery):
> These scenarios are plausible (not one criticism has included a 
> credible indictment of any key point or assumption) and the 

How about your assumption that the Soviets don't have mass
spectorgraphs and can't tell one isotope of Pu from another one?

> scenarios presented by the NASA worshipers are implausible

Watch who you are calling a "NASA worshiper" I take that as a personal
insult, slander even! :-) Oddly enough I recieved mail recently warning me
to expect this from you. You're getting predictable Jim.

> (for example, a 747 doesn't contain enough fuel to wipe out the
> people in the Astrodome).  

It doesn't have to! Just a few hundred politicians sitting right on
the fifty yard line! Be real :-) Implausible indeed :-) But then, that
was the intent.

Seriously, and I do mean seriously. If you want to do something
useful, I can give you a list of about twenty things. Starting with
contacting your local Space Week committee and voluneering to help get
the message to the masses. If you don't have a local Space Week
committee you could start one.

Joy is the feeling you get when you see the dream come alive in a
childs eyes.

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 89 23:08:48 GMT
From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net  (John E Van Deusen III)
Subject: Re: Announcement of Opportunity

In article <6191@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, Robin C. LaPasha writes:

> "Fresh-out-of-school" _might_ imply an attitude rather than an
> age; ...

Fresh-out-of-school describes someone who, until recently, has paid
others to provide him or her with instruction.  The receipt of a degree
implies the ability to follow the instruction correctly, and good
grades, the willingness to do so with alacrity.
--
John, E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865
uunet!visdc!jiii

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Thu, 12 Jan 89 15:09:58 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Robert Jessie Hale III           <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  ISECCo Annual Meeting.



                     I.   S.   E.   C.   Co.
    The International Space Exploration and Colonization Co.
                    Annual Membership Meeting
P.O. Box 60885                                         Meeting #2
Fairbanks, AK 99706                               Posted: 1/10/89
(907)457-2674                               Meeting Date: 1/28/89
                      Bitnet: FSRRC@ALASKA



              The second annual Membership Meeting will
         be held at 7 pm Saturday, the 28th of January.
         The  meeting is to be held at the home of  Ray
         R. Collins, 1/4 Mile Sunnyhill Dr., Fairbanks,
         AK.   Anyone  wishing to  attend  and  needing
         instructions and/or local transportation  feel
         free  to  get in touch with us either  at  the
         address  above or via computer.  This  meeting
         will be for the purpose of reviewing the  past
         years   accomplishments,   financial   review,
         ratification   of  the  Bylaws  and  for   the
         election  of 1 board member.  All members  are
         urged  to attend.  The public is also  welcome
         to attend, though only those people who joined
         ISECCo before 1/1/89 will be allowed to vote.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

               If you can not attend, but wish to  vote
         on our Director's position, please let us know
         who you choose:

1. Robert J. Hale III
     Robert  has been a dedicated member for the last  year.   He
has  a  keen  interest  in our projects and,  a  factor  of  some
importance for ease of meetings, is located in Fairbanks, AK.

2. Other:_____________________________

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

                           ATTENTION:

     Ray  Collins, President of ISECCo, has promised to take  the
member  who  donates  the  most to ISECCo in  1989  on  either  a
sailboat  trip  in Prince William Sound or a float  trip  down  a
remote Alaskan River.  This will not include transportation to  &
from  Alaska, but will include all transportation within  Alaska.
The  member  who  achieves this may  be  accompanies  by  another
person,  possibly  more with prior arrangement.  The trip  is  to
take place during the summer of 1990.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

/*    From: Robert Hale

        To people sending mail.  Please remember if you don't hear form
me try again.   Please include a US MAIL address.   I have received messages
from a number of you and have found that the mailers will not return my reply
to you.   Thanks again for the intense interest in ISECCo.

*/
[end]

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 89 01:09:24 GMT
From: thorin!zeta.cs.unc.edu!leech@mcnc.org
Subject: NSS Board membership


    I glanced at the letterhead of a fund-raiser I got from NSS today
and to my dismay found that James Van Allen is on the Board of
Governors. Has he moderated his robots-only stance, or does NSS no
longer want to build space colonies someday?
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Are there any more questions, besides the ones from the
      liberal communists?''
	- George Uribe, natl. director of "Students For America"

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 89 00:42:11 GMT
From: mahimahi!verma@cs.ucla.edu  (Rodent of Darkness)
Subject: Re: Why use Spationaut for Fench spacemen

I'm a little confused about the (semi) recent discussion about spationauts.
It seems that the French adopted this as their term for a person who is 
trained to travel in space.  But the american word for this (astronaut)
is derived from a French word astronaute (according to my websters
dictionary).  So what is there a need for a new word?

							---TS

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 18:32:17 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!ecf!mugc@uunet.uu.net  (ModemUserGroupChairman)
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

In article <10285@well.UUCP> tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>Of what interest could it be to pretend Mars astronauts will make the
>journey without clocks?


    It isn't really of interest to pretend that Mars astronauts have no clocks.
It would be interesting, however, to have the Mars astronauts using clocks with
no relation to Earth's 24 hour period, as this could greatly affect the
utilization of consumable resources...
                                  -A. Craig West
                                   westac@ecf.UUCP

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #195
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jan 89 06:34:50 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00929>; Wed, 18 Jan 89 06:03:52 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 18 Jan 89 06:03:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AXp6Pmy00Vs141iU5T>;
          Wed, 18 Jan 89 05:29:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.IXp6Ffy00UkZE5aE58>;
          Wed, 18 Jan 89 05:18:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXp6E7y00UkZQ5Z04L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 05:16:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #196

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 196

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Space Station Excape Routes
			  Re: Pro Space Adds
	Philosophy of science (whadda ya mean JUST a theory?!)
			  Re: Pro Space Adds
      Re: Philosophy of science (whadda ya mean JUST a theory?!)
		     C-M Mars AMBLER (SD-9 #189)
		   NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 23:13:59 GMT
From: amdcad!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Space Station Excape Routes

In article <Added.kXmrWqy00Ui387Jk8G@andrew.cmu.edu>, GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
> The following was sent to me by Edmund Hack at the Johnson Space Centre.
> It is relevant, so I decided to forward it.
...
> 1 - a redesigned Apollo capsule was proposed by Rockwell (who made the original
> one) that would be attached to the resource nodes and could bring 6 or so
> persons back to an ocean landing.  It would be expensive (as all of these are)
> and subject the astronauts to 6-8 Gees during reentry.

Is the g-force rating correct here?  I thought that the Apollo capsules had
significantly lower deceleration than Mercury or Gemini capsules (more
aerodynamic--took a longer path through the atmosphere or something).


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 89 08:22:28 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Pro Space Adds

In article <1180@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>Has anyone else seen any of the U.S Space Foundations pro space adds
>on T.V.? I've seen two so far. One with Jesse Jackson and Barry
>Goldwater ...  The other one that I've seen has Carroll Burnette
>and Tom Selleck ...

They showed the whole series at the Space Development Conference in
Denver last May.  The other ones, as I recall, were

William F. Buckley & Tip O'Neil
Yitzak Perlman & Ray Charles
Charlton Heston & Gloria Steinham
Wilt Chamberlain & a 4'10" jockey who's name I can never remember

>Very good adds. I'd like to see them on during prime time.

They were good.  I've never seen them on broadcast TV, though.
That showing at SDC was the first and only time I've seen them.
-- 
"... Local prohibitions cannot block advances in military | Mike Van Pelt
and commercial technology.... democratic movements for    | Video 7                 
local restraint can only restrain the world's democracies,| ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
not the world as a whole.   --   K. Eric Drexler

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 13 Jan 89 08:07:55 PST
From: hairston%utdssa%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Philosophy of science (whadda ya mean JUST a theory?!)
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space@angband.s1.gov"


In SD V9 #187  Rick Golembiewski (rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu) states:
 
>Also, consider that relativity is a THEORY, there may be a lot of

A common misconception is that a "theory" in science somehow implies 
scientists are uncertain about the truth or validity of the idea.
This comes part from poor science teaching here in the US but mostly
from the misuse of the word itself.  When scientists use the word
"theory" it means an idea or an overarching organizing principle that 
may have a whole range of certainty to it going from "virtually 
certain" to "possibly true".  Unfortunately, if the listener has no
background in the subject, then he or she is at a loss to know what degree
of certainty scientists place on that particular idea.  A theory starts
out its life as a proposed explanation.  If evidence appears that 
refutes the theory, then it is discarded.  If evidence appears that
supports the theory while no evidence appears to contradict it, then
the acceptance of the theory as the true explanation grows.  An idea
may eventually become so well supported that it becomes accepted as 
fact, but still retains the word "theory" attached to it, which is 
where the confusion in the public mind starts.  There are a whole 
host of theories that are so well established as fact that saying 
"well, that's just a theory" about them is sure to draw gales of 
laughter.  There's atomic theory (on which all chemistry is based), 
germ theory, quantum theory, the heliocentric theory, nuclear
theory (hey, I don't have to worry about those warheads pointed at
me, they work on nuclear theory, and that's JUST A THEORY), plate 
tectonic theory, thermodynamic theory, genetic theory and, of course, 
relativity theory (to name just a few).

>after all it is possible that at some velocity
>the tendency for mass to increase/time to slow, may stop, thus
>allowing velocities of C or even greater without infinate energy. Of
>course it's kind of hard to run experiments (anyone have a space ship
>and a REALLY great drive system?)

No it's not hard to run these experiments.  When you make a simple
electromagnet the magnetic force is actually a relativistic correction
to the electric fields of the moving charged particles in the wire.
Getting up to close to the speed of light is something that routinely
happens in thousands of particle accelerators 24 hours a day.  Every
proton, neutron, and electron that gets sped up to 99.99whatever% of C
behaves exactly as Einstein's theory says it should.  No, we haven't
built any starships yet that get close to C, but those starships will
be made out of the same protons, neutrons, and electrons that obey 
relativity's rules.  (A starship made of neutrinos is an interesting 
idea, but since its crew and supplies would pass right through the hull,
it's not terribly practical.) 

> but never close out the
>POSSIBILITY, after all a big part of science is having an open
>mind...

There's a difference between an open mind and one you can pour water 
through.  We get wild phone calls all the time here, and when someone
calls me up and claims that they've found the burial shroud of Santa
Claus, I have a VERY closed mind on the subject and hang up on them.
(That's if I'm in a good mood.  If I'm in a bad mood, I'll transfer
them to a colleague.)  Seriously, the biggest part of science is 
taking an idea and then trying to find out if there is evidence that
supports or opposes it.  So far all the evidence we have supports
relativity.  (See the book "Was Einstein Right?" by Clifford M. Will.
It's an excellent description of all the experimental evidence testing
relativity through the 80's.  It also has a good description of the
atomic clocks taken on a round the world flight to test time dilation
that was discussed on this net a couple of months ago.)  Einstein
didn't prove that Newton's theories were wrong, (Newtonian mechanics
and relativistic mechanics agree at the normal low speeds we deal with)
instead he showed that Newton's theories were incomplete.  We may yet
someday figure out a way to go faster than the speed of light, but if 
we do, it will not be because we found out that Einstein was wrong, 
but that we will find some area in which relativity is incomplete.  Any
new theory will have in encompass relativity just like relativity
encompasses Newtonian mechanics.  Don't ask me where relativity is
incomplete.  If I knew the answer to that one I would be writing a letter
to Phys. Rev. Letts. and then waiting for the Nobel committee to call.
But that's one of the reasons why there is all the current effort to work 
out a theory that weds relativity with quantum mechanics (see Stephen 
Hawkins book "A Short History of Time").  

Later on in the same issue  Mark A. Charette (charette@edsews.eds.com) states:
 
>While I'm at it, a good layman's explanation of many of the quantum
>phenomena can be had in "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" (I hate that title!) by
>Gary Zukav

"Wu Li" is one of those books I look at and can only think "What an awful
waste of a perfectly good tree."  I think it was Jeremy Bernstein who came 
up with this analogy, but think of it this way: Suppose you speak another
language (say Russian) and you know of some wonderful poetry in that 
language you'd love to share with friends who don't speak it.  Then one day
you find that someone has translated that poetry into Enlgish.  At first
you're excited, but as you start to read it you find to your horror that
the translator has thoroughly botched the job.  He has twisted and mis-
interpreted what the poet was saying, and as for the beauty of the poetry,
well, it's like hearing the "1812 Overture" played by a kazoo band.
It's the same way with physics and science, you'd like to see a lot of
this stuff explained well for the general reader, but unfortunately the
result is that a lot of junk gets published alongside of the good stuff.
It's not that they're wrong so much as they're so badly done that it's
not worth the effort to read them.

"Wu Li" (along with several other books, most notably its spiritual
godfather "Tao of Physics" by F. Capra) tries to mix descriptions
of quantum mechanics with "California-style" Zen ideas and then show
they are somehow connected.  Our understanding of quantum mechanics and 
Zen are both products of the human mind, both may (or may not) contain
profound understandings of nature, and both are certainly weird to our
everyday way of looking at the world.  That does not mean, however, that
they are necessarily directly connected with each other.  Trying to connect 
the two (QM and Eastern mysticism) is sort of like trying to do French 
cooking using the NFL Rulebook as your cookbook.  Not only do you not
get very far, but you look very silly for trying it in the first place.  
"Wu Li" does not get very far.

If anyone on the net is really interested in learning about the weird and
wonderful world of QM, skip the "Dancing Masters" and go look for these:

"The Cosmic Code" by Heinz Pagels (the single best intro to QM for the
	general reader without the unnecessary mysticism) 
"The Quantum Universe" by Tony Hey and Patrick Walters (good intro on the
	level of a "Nova" show)
"QED" by Richard Feynman (a series of lectures he gave explaining quantum
	electrodynamics to intelligent laypersons)
and for the serious student: Vol III of the "Feynman Lectures on Physics"


Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--Univ of Texas at Dallas
UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Uniersity of Texas System does not take any responsibility for my
opinions.  Sometimes it's hard enough to get them to take any responsibility
for their own opinions.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 89 16:16:45 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: Pro Space Adds

In article <1180@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>Has anyone else seen any of the U.S Space Foundations pro space adds
>on T.V.? I've seen two so far. One with Jesse Jackson and Barry
>Goldwater saying that even though they disagreed on about everything
>else, the both supported space exploration, space development, and the
>U.S space program. The other one that I've seen has Carroll Burnette
>and Tom Selleck (Please excuse my spelling of their names) telling us
>about how remote sensing satellites have improved all our lives.
>Very good adds. I'd like to see them on during prime time.
>			Bob P.

	Yes, I've seen one at it was at prime time.  Here in the Nation's
Capital, we had Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neall and William F. Buckley.  My eyes
popped out seeing the two together, smiling, on my TV.  The ad was along the
lines of the one you meantion.  Just who/what is the U.S. Space Foundation?
Is it non-profit or an industry lobbying group?  Are these ads popping
up now that we are changing administrations?  Is Bush looking at
NASA in a nice way?  What's going on? (I'm paranoid by nature :-)).

					Jim




...

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 89 22:35:09 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of science (whadda ya mean JUST a theory?!)

>
>>after all it is possible that at some velocity
>>the tendency for mass to increase/time to slow, may stop, thus
>>allowing velocities of C or even greater without infinate energy. Of
>>course it's kind of hard to run experiments (anyone have a space ship
>>and a REALLY great drive system?)
>
>No it's not hard to run these experiments.  When you make a simple
>electromagnet the magnetic force is actually a relativistic correction
>to the electric fields of the moving charged particles in the wire.
>Getting up to close to the speed of light is something that routinely
>happens in thousands of particle accelerators 24 hours a day.  Every
>proton, neutron, and electron that gets sped up to 99.99whatever% of C
>behaves exactly as Einstein's theory says it should.

	Ah, but this statement contains an unwarranted assumption.
The author of "Islands In Space", a book about the settlement of the
asteroids (published in the early 70's and assuming we'd still have
Saturn V technology in the 70's and 80's -- sigh), points out that
all experiments done to date have involved particles that were
accelerated by external fields, generally electromagnetic.  Thus there
is really no way to tell whether the mass is actually increasing
or the particle simply acquires more resistance to being accelerated
_by an external field_.  To check this beyond any doubt, you need
an object that that can accelerate itself by dumping reaction mass out
the back.
	I should note that I don't take this idea very seriously.  It
contains at least two problems, which I hope the real physicists out
there will comment on:  (1) The accelerated particles will not only
show more inertia, they will also increase the strength of their own
gravitational fields, thus affecting objects around them.  Would this
be measurable?  (2) At the quantum level, a reaction drive is still
pushing reaction mass out the back by the use of electric fields, i.e.
electron repulsion, just like any other "macroscopic" force between
touching objects.
	Still, though almost certainly wrong, I hope this idea goes
to show the fundamental dictum of science; namely, it's dangerous to
extrapolate the measurements you can make into an area where you can't.
Newton couldn't measure the properties of anything moving at a
substantial fraction of C, and we can't measure the properties of a
macroscopic object moving at a sizable fraction of C.  You never know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of engineers/lawyers graduated in Japan each year		10 to 1
Ratio of lawyers/engineers graduated in US each year		1 to 10

	-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 13 Jan 89 11:30 EST
From: <HAYHURS%IUBACS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  C-M Mars AMBLER (SD-9 #189)

Distribution-File:
        SPACE@ANDREW.CMU.EDU

It seems to me that the placement of ComSat's in Geosynchronous orbit over
Mars would solve the loss of communications.  They would have to be fancy -
just a bounce point between the rover and Earth.
A simplified version of the TRDSS system in use for the Shuttle now.

                        -Steve Hayhurst, Bloomington Academic Computing Svcs,
                         Indiana University, Bloomington
                         "CHICKEN+HAWK=QUAYLE"

------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 88 22:11:24 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the satellite user community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.  The most current orbital elements
from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513)
427-0674, and are updated several times weekly.  Documentation and tracking
software are also available on this system.  The Celestial RCP/M may be
accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit, no parity.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:

AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed;
           blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.  (Decimal point assumed)
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:

NOAA 6
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978

Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #196
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jan 89 09:27:36 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00766>; Thu, 19 Jan 89 04:53:38 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 19 Jan 89 04:53:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EXpNgCy00UkTI1UUJO>;
          Thu, 19 Jan 89 03:23:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.EXpNaZy00UkZ81:U54>;
          Thu, 19 Jan 89 03:17:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXpNZ8y00UkZ419E5f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 03:16:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #197

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 197

Today's Topics:
		Re: space-tech excerpt: CMU Mars Rover
			 Re: Engines beyond G
		       Re: NSS Board membership
	   software simulators wanted (Re: CMU Mars Rover)
		      Re: ISECCo Annual Meeting.
	 Re: Concorde/Concordski query was Spaceplane project
	 Re: Concorde/Concordski query was Spaceplane project
			 Re: 'Days' in space
			 Re: 'Days' in space
			Re: Spaceplane project
      Re: Philosophy of science (whadda ya mean JUST a theory?!)
		       Re: Electric Propulsion
			  Re: Pro Space Adds
			  Re: Pro Space Adds
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 89 13:06:02 GMT
From: agate!e260-1b.berkeley.edu!c60a-2di@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (The Cybermat Rider)
Subject: Re: space-tech excerpt: CMU Mars Rover

While on the subject of Rovers:

Stan Shebs wrote a Common Lisp Titan Rover simulator called Cassini, which
is apparently based on NASA's planned Titan Probe mission.  Extracts from
the Introduction and Notes sections of the documentation are appended below,
with apologies to Stan (note that the simulator is actually a game):

	[Introduction]
	The year is 1997.  The Cassini Probe is the most ambitious
	unmanned project ever built by NASA; a mission to Saturn's
	moon Titan, the largest moon in the solar system--and the
	most Earth-like.  Because of the great distance, the probe
	is a small armada of vehicles, including an orbiter, a
	string of relay satellites, a ground base, a flying base,
	and a ground rover.

	[Notes]
	As of March 1986, the Titan Probe had been named Cassini,
	was being worked on a JPL, and was tentatively scheduled
	for 1993.  Lack of progress in vision and autonomous
	vehicle technology caused a several-year slide, to 1997.
	    Cassini was the Italian astronomer who studied Saturn's
	rings, discovering the dark space in the rings which also
	bears his name.

The package is obtainable via anonymous ftp at cs.utah.edu [128.110.4.21] as
pub/cas.tar.Z.  I corresponded briefly with Stan, and he mentioned that
Cassini was written in a restricted subset of Common Lisp (remember, this
was 3 years ago), with various odd functions that would seem to preclude a
direct port to any present-day incarnation of CL.

As such, I have been working on a port to Xlisp, which (presumably) is more
accessible to the masses 8-).  However, time is working against me (term
starts in 1.5 weeks), and I may not be able to finish it before I have to
start cracking texts again.  If I do complete the port, I shall discuss the
matter of distribution with Stan, and I'll post a notice to this newsgroup
regarding availability.  Until then, however, please don't send me any mail
requesting a copy -- I'll be losing this account in a matter of days, and
the next person who takes it over would probably be very unhappy with me if
he finds such messages in his mailbox.   8-)

In the meantime, if anyone ports it over to a fairly Common (pun intended)
implementation of CL, or if another simulator has been developed, please
post details.  Thanks very much!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Ho a.k.a. The Cybermat Rider	  University of California, Berkeley
c60a-2di@web.berkeley.edu
Disclaimer:  Nobody takes me seriously, so is it really necessary?

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 20:37:06 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!paul@hplabs.hp.com  (Paul Bame)
Subject: Re: Engines beyond G

Special approval is required before you should be able to obtain and
use the larger engines - I saw people going for this approval here in
CO in August.  I forget the classification but it's kinda like everyone
is approved for level 1 (or something) but demonstrations before
some group and paperwork seem to be required for level 2.  Launching
with the larger engines is more restrictive too (e.g., notifying the
FAA for one thing).  It would be great if someone could post a list of
those places/times where these launches can be seen.  There'll probably
be another qualification launch weekend here in southern CO next August.


	-Paul

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 89 08:09:14 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <6145@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.cs.unc.edu () writes:
>    I glanced at the letterhead of a fund-raiser I got from NSS today
>and to my dismay found that James Van Allen is on the Board of
>Governors. Has he moderated his robots-only stance, or does NSS no
>longer want to build space colonies someday?

I'd probably be more upset by this if I hadn't long
since written NSS off.  The L-5 Society is dead and
gone, unfortunately, and there's nothing to take its
place.  I wish it wasn't so.

Still, this surprises me.  It's rather like giving
Adolph Eichmann a seat in the Knesset.
-- 
"... Local prohibitions cannot block advances in military | Mike Van Pelt
and commercial technology.... democratic movements for    | Video 7                 
local restraint can only restrain the world's democracies,| ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
not the world as a whole.   --   K. Eric Drexler

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 89 16:30:59 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: software simulators wanted (Re: CMU Mars Rover)

In article <19053@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, c60a-2di@e260-1b.berkeley.edu (The Cybermat Rider) writes:
> Stan Shebs wrote a Common Lisp Titan Rover simulator called Cassini, 
> . . .
> I have been working on a port to Xlisp, which (presumably) is more
> accessible to the masses 8-). . . . If I do complete the port, . . .
> I'll post a notice to this newsgroup . . .  Until then, however, please 
> don't send me any mail . . . I'll be losing this account in a matter of days, 

Sorry about posting but since no mail. Is the porting really a major
project? I think all we have is some Franz Lisp and I don't know
anything about Lisp differences but I'd love to port this simulator.

We are developing both fuzzy logic and neural net hardware systems and
are looking for software simulations of possible control applications
so we can have our software (and hardware real soon!) control your
software.

If you start a mailing list please include me, otherwise I'll be
looking for your posting. If anyone else knows of software simulators
that might make use of smart control, I'd like to hear from you.

jim
symon@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 89 20:44:30 GMT
From: joe@csvax.caltech.edu  (Joe Beckenbach)
Subject: Re: ISECCo Annual Meeting.


	Quick addendum to Robert Hale's ISECCo posting:
For Internet people who can't find a Bitnet gateway, I can act as a mail
drop until you find one. Forwarding will happen as often as possible.

		Joe Beckenbach
		ISECCo VP for California
		joe@cit-vax.caltech.edu
		joe@cit-vax.UUCP

-- 
Joe Beckenbach	joe@csvax.caltech.edu	Caltech 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125
Users we'd like to see:
	pravda@kremlin.gov.cccp 	postmaster@link1.L5.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 16:02:03 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!dciem!client2!bgm@uunet.uu.net  (Bruce Matthews)
Subject: Re: Concorde/Concordski query was Spaceplane project

> When was the last Concorde manufactured?  How about the Tu-144 (Concordski)?
> The last bit of news I heard on the Tu-144 was a few years ago when the
> Soviets announced they were putting it into regular, scheduled airline
> service.  Is that service still running?

According to my Leading Edge calendar, the first supersonic transport
service started on January 21, 1974 with simultaneous take-offs of British
Airways and Air France Concordes.  Given that only 9 Concordes were built,
I would suspect that the last was built in 1975 at the latest.

I don't know much about the Tu-144 except that one was involved in a
spectacular crash at an airshow a number of years ago.

BGM

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 89 16:26:59 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!dciem!client2!bgm@uunet.uu.net  (Bruce Matthews)
Subject: Re: Concorde/Concordski query was Spaceplane project

>According to my Leading Edge calendar, the first supersonic transport
>service started on January 21, 1974 with simultaneous take-offs of British
                                ^^^^
                      Make that 1976. Time to get my contacts cleaned!
                      Hence last built in 1977 at the latest.

BGM

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 14 Jan 89 14:34 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Re: 'Days' in space

Tom Neff writes:

>Of what interest could it be to pretend Mars astronauts will make the
>journey without clocks?

     The obvious answer is the following.  On the Earth, we are forced
into the 24 hour cycle because of obvious influences, and many would
argue since evolution occurred in this environment, that this is the
best way (maybe only) to do things.  However, that is not true for a
weightless environment, because the initial assumptions have changed.
The question is really, what length of 'day' is the most economical and
efficient for mankind working in a zero-g environment?  If it is not 24
hours, then why should the astronauts on a Mars mission subject
themselves to inferior timing just because those on the Earth work only
from 9-5?

     I was not suggesting that there be no clocks, but rather that you
cannot investigate a natural cycle if clocks abound and an external
reference system exists.  Do the experiment without these artificial
hindrances.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 89 21:26:23 GMT
From: xanth!maurice@g.ms.uky.edu  (Dale Ross Maurice)
Subject: Re: 'Days' in space

In article <Added.AXnv1Sy00Ui3I7JU9f@andrew.cmu.edu> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
>Tom Neff writes:
>
>>Of what interest could it be to pretend Mars astronauts will make the
>>journey without clocks?
>
>     The obvious answer is the following.  On the Earth, we are forced
>into the 24 hour cycle because of obvious influences, and many would

	Actually according to a show I happened to see on the Discovery
channel yesterday the human clock is supposed to be on more of a 25 hour
cycle.  Now I'm not saying I believe this, certainly not enough of an
experiment was done to make this a valid assumption.
	This scientist fella went down into a cave for 6-7 months with
all kinds of electical equipment to keep track of his bodily functions.
A 25 hour day was the conclusion he and his collegues (sp?) came to.
	dale
-- 
;Dale Ross Maurice           |  maurice@xanth.cs.odu.edu  maurice@cs.odu.edu 
;Old Dominion University     |  maurice@xanth.uucp        maurice@gwynedd.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 89 18:50:41 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project

I read a magazine last month, I think it was High Technology Business or
something like that, which had a short article on a recent test of a hydrogen
powered jet engine in the Soviet Union.  A Tu-155 -- a three-engine jet
similar to a 727 -- had one of its engines replaced with a unit which runs
on liquid hydrogen.  The article mentioned this had been done once before,
by the DoD back in the 1950's, but the DoD test only ran their engine for
a maximum of twenty minutes.  The recent Soviet experiment ran their engine
for several hours.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 89 20:42:29 GMT
From: sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@oberon.usc.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of science (whadda ya mean JUST a theory?!)

In article <890113080755.24a@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> hairston%utdssa%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
>A common misconception is that a "theory" in science somehow implies 
>scientists are uncertain about the truth or validity of the idea.
>This comes part from poor science teaching here in the US but mostly
>from the misuse of the word itself.  When scientists use the word
>"theory" it means an idea or an overarching organizing principle that 
>may have a whole range of certainty to it going from "virtually 
>certain" to "possibly true".
>    [lots deleted]
>Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--Univ of Texas at Dallas
>UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON

While I agree with most of Marc's posting, the way I see it (I'm an engineer,
not a scientist) he's left out the word hypothesis. A theory is an idea backed
by considerable experimental evidence. It is of course still subject to error,
but a theory is stronger than possibly true. Possibly true to my mind is a
hypothesis, i.e. an idea that might be true, but needs more experimental
evidence. That means anybody who dismisses a scientific idea because it is
"just a theory" is even more wrong than Marc showed. 

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 89 04:13:15 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Electric Propulsion

Before you start planing your starship, I suggest you look at the spec's
of those ion thrusters.

Several months ago, I was looking at a brochure describing a Japanese-built
communications satellite.  The ion thruster was a really big unit, but it
had very little thrust.  I believe the figure was about twenty newtons.

The ion thrusters are used to keep a geosynchronous satellite on station.
The passage of the moon throws them off, and the ion engines put them back.

If I recall correctly, about half the launch weight of this satellite was
xenon for the ion engine.  I believe that was also the limiting factor on
the lifetime of the satellite.  (Eventually, it would run out of xenon.)

Gee, I wonder what happens to all that xenon?  Did anybody do an environmental
impact statement?

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 89 20:12:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Pro Space Adds


From:  mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt):
> They showed the whole series at the Space Development Conference in
> Denver last May.  The other ones, as I recall, were
>
> William F. Buckley & Tip O'Neil
> Yitzak Perlman & Ray Charles
> Charlton Heston & Gloria Steinham
> Wilt Chamberlain & a 4'10" jockey who's name I can never remember

Yes, I saw them at the SDC as well.  I also recall:

Willie Nelson & Frank Sinatra
Whoopi Goldberg & some else I can't remember.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL  61820

 "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"
 - Sir Winston Churchill

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 89 20:25:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Pro Space Adds


From:  jim@nih-csl.UUCP:

> lines of the one you meantion.  Just who/what is the U.S. Space Foundation?
> Is it non-profit or an industry lobbying group?  Are these ads popping

The United States Space Foundation promotes space education and public
understanding of the space program.  The USSF also puts out _Spacewatch_,
a monthly publication on the activities of the foundation and other
advances in space education.

Membership:
	$35 regular
	$29 teacher
	$20 college student
	$10 high school student

Address:
	USSF
	P.O. Box 1838
	Colorado Springs CO  80901

I do not represent the USSF in any official capacity, nor am I a member.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL  61820

 "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"
 - Sir Winston Churchill

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #197
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jan 89 13:37:02 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01003>; Thu, 19 Jan 89 06:07:03 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 19 Jan 89 06:06:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oXpPZfy00Vs142oE5K>;
          Thu, 19 Jan 89 05:33:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.YXpPPMy00UkZA1Ik5J>;
          Thu, 19 Jan 89 05:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0XpPK0y00UkZ41HU41@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 05:16:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #198

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:
			 Re: 'Days' in space
		   Re: Space Station Excape Routes
		  American Technological Superiority
				 Oops
		 Re: Why use Spationaut for Fench sp
		       Re: NSS Board membership
	  Re: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!
		    Re: Flight Termination Systems
		    NSS-Space Hotline Update 1/13
		  Re: NSS-Space Hotline Update 1/13
		   Re: C-M Mars AMBLER (SD-9 #189)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 06:28:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!zweig@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: 'Days' in space


	There is fossil evidence to indicate that the day hasn't always been
24 hours long here on Earth. Let's hear it for adaptability!

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 04:23:36 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station Excape Routes

In article <Added.kXmrWqy00Ui387Jk8G@andrew.cmu.edu> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
>>The scenario would be to have the on-Station
>>shuttle leave as another came up to dock.
>
>Why is this so?  Is there currently only one shuttle docking port being
>designed for the space station?  If so, where would the escape module,
>if such is even planned, be attached to? ...

I think you've misunderstood; what the (admittedly poorly-phrased) original
is trying to say, if I'm not mistaken, is that the shuttle orbiters would
rotate on "emergency escape" duty rather than having a specific orbiter
dedicated to it permanently.  The point of the rotation is that the
shuttle hardware is not designed to spend years in space without maintenance.
The Soviets do the same thing with Soyuzes docked to Mir; one important
purpose of the regular visits by short-stay crews is to bring up a fresh
Soyuz as a lifeboat for the long-stay crew, with the short-stay crew
returning in the Soyuz that's been on lifeboat duty for the previous cycle.

There would certainly be two docking ports, with brief overlap periods in
which there would be two docked shuttles, unless this causes some sort of
horrendous problem.
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 23:35:22 GMT
From: thorin!zeta.cs.unc.edu!leech@mcnc.org
Subject: American Technological Superiority


    FARMER OFFERS TO TRADE WHEAT FOR SPACE TRIP

    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - An Oklahoma farmer says he has offered
    the Soviet Union $1 million worth of wheat in exchange for a
    seat on a Soviet space flight.
	Even if the Soviets accept his offer, 73-year-old Elmer
    Graham still has to convince his wife, Mary Ruth.
	"She raises hell every time I get on one of these tears,"
    Graham said.
	The southern Oklahoma farmer and banker said he wrote
    Soviet Ambassador Yuri Dubinin on Nov. 30 offering the deal.
    He hasn't had a reply, but thinks that is a good sign.
	"If they were going to turn it down, they would have just
    flat-footed done it," Graham said. "I figure they're checking
    me out."
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``God is more interested in your future and your relationships
      than you are.'' - Billy Graham

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 22:30:16 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Oops


	Good grief!  I got more mail on one goof than on any
*serious* article I've ever posted.  Sigh.  Here's the CORRECT
sig:


Ratio of engineers/lawyers graduated in Japan each year		10 to 1
Ratio of engineers/lawyers graduated in US each year		1 to 10

	-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 06:26:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!zweig@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Why use Spationaut for Fench sp


	"Spationaut" sounds like a portmanteau of SPace stATION astronAUT....

-Johnny Hypothetical

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 09:59:06 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <6145@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.cs.unc.edu () writes:
>    I glanced at the letterhead of a fund-raiser I got from NSS today
>and to my dismay found that James Van Allen is on the Board of
>Governors. Has he moderated his robots-only stance, or does NSS no
>longer want to build space colonies someday?

NSS, nee NSI, has never wanted to build space colonies.  The L5 Society,
which originally did, is dead after a long and debilitating illness.

I am sorry to say it, but I fear that Wernher Von Braun would weep if
he could see what has become of his National Space Institute.
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 04:48:47 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: Making model rocket engines.  ---> Don't!

In article <1175@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>If you're not a pro, DON'T try it. It just isn't as simple as it
>looks.

I'd revise that slightly:  if you're not a pro, don't try it unless you
are prepared to turn yourself into at least a semi-pro first.  Study the
field rather than trying to just blunder ahead on your own; pros know
that it's not an easy job, and are grateful for all the help they can get.
Take precautions against damage to equipment (minor), yourself (serious),
or innocent bystanders (awful damn serious, especially in a country like
the US that has let its liability lawyers go berserk); pros know that
explosions and other violent failures are a normal part of rocket-engine
development, and that a small quantity of explosives (e.g. rocket fuel)
will produce a much bigger explosion than most laymen think.  Plan for
thorough testing under varied conditions before trying to use the engine
"for real"; pros know that having it work once or twice doesn't mean it
will always work under those conditions, never mind others.

Once all rocket engineers were amateurs, but the sensible ones turned
themselves into pros as quickly as they could.  Oddly enough, they were
the ones who ended up building reliable, useful engines.
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 09:49:40 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Flight Termination Systems

In article <1179@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>Is there any set of conditions that would allow a vehicle capable of
>reaching orbit to NOT have an FTS? 

Any rocket capable of going above 100 km in a vertical launch -- the
actual rules are written in terms of total impulse and so on but that's
what they add up to -- is (in the US) subject to launch approval by the
Office of Commercial Space Transportation.  Guess what the odds are of
getting their approval without an FTS.  Especially with NASA's influence
on US launch policy on the increase, given NASA's long-standing opposition
to cheap private (i.e. embarrassing to NASA) spaceflight.

Now, the interesting question, which I don't know the answer to, is how
the rules distinguish between a rocket and an airplane.  The FAA doesn't
require FTSes on high-altitude aircraft, that I know of, although an
unmanned one might be a different story.

I think the answer is that you have to (a) qualify as an airplane and
not a rocket, and keep the FAA happy, or (b) use sufficiently unorthodox
propulsion that you escape the letter of the OCST rules while violating
the spirit of them, or (c) launch from El Republico De Banana.  Oh, and
if you pick option (c), don't forget that if you're a US citizen, the
US government claims authority over you no matter where you are.
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 89 19:23:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS-Space Hotline Update 1/13


This is the National Space Society Space Hotline for Fri. January
13th.

Michael L. Coats, mission commander of the STS-29 space shuttle
mission said at a Houston press conference that the crew is eager
to start their mission and that, NASA is back in the space business
to stay!  The Feb. 23rd launch of the space shuttle discovery is
the first "reflight" of the same orbiter since shuttle flights
resumed.  During the mission the crew will deploy a TDRS satellite
to replace the original TDRS satellite placed into orbit in April
1983.  A number of pharmaceutical and physiological experiments
will be carried out.  Other experiments will deal with plant cell
division, protein crystal growth and chicken embryo development. 
The crew will also test a device that is designed for the proposed
space station "Freedom".  The device is works to remove heat
produced by on board electronics.  On this mission the crew will
use a special 70mm double frame camera to make a new IMAX film like
the kind shown at the Air and Space Museum, the subject of the
movie is South American rain forests and other topics of concern
to environmentalists.

Meanwhile at mission control, animal rights activists tried to get
NASA to drop a series of experiments performed on rat leg bones on
the up coming STS-29 flight.  NASA did not yield to the demand of
the activists on the basis that the experiments are crucial in
understanding the effects of 0 gravity on human beings.

Prompted by the Challenger accident, NASA has re-examined their
policies with regard to the flight of other than NASA astronauts. 
Today NASA released a new policy that sets guide lines for space
shuttle passengers.  The policy states that only astronauts and
payload specialists will be the only personnel who will have
opportunities to fly on the shuttle till at least 1992.  When a
flight opportunity is available first priority will be given to
the "Teacher in space" program, and the "Journalist in space"
program has been suspended indefinatly.  Till then all shuttle
flights will have a minimum of a crew of five, commander, pilot,
and three mission specialist with a maximum of two payload
specialists.

NASA was the big winner in the fiscal 1990 Reagan budget with NASA
receiving a $13.274 billion allocation, which is a 20% increase
from the budget allocation received last year.  The budget includes
$30 million for a the (CRAFT) Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby
mission to be conducted with ESAs Cassini mission.  Space Station
funding this year jumped to $2.05 billion from $900 million in the
previous year, which is almost the amount that NASA needs to keep
it fully on track.  Yet all is not rosy because there is no
indication that the incoming Bush administration will use this
budget.

This week in Washington D.C. negotiations will begin between the
NOAA and CNES, the French national space agency, which may result
in a break through merger of the U.S. Landsat and French Spot
remote sensing satellite system.  The merge's aim is to form an
international commercial remote-sensing system that will benefit
from sharing costs and customers.  Officials on both sides hope
the talks will lead to a joint development effort to replace Spot
and Landsat once the life of the latest version of the spacecraft
are expended.

The Soviets plan to expand their Mir space station this year by
docking two large building block to the permanently manned
facility.  The first building block is a service module carrying
in it among other things a shower and a new manned maneuvering unit
to be used for the first time, the module is expected to be docked
in April or May of 1989.  A second building block module will be
docked in the second half of 1989.  After the first successful
launch of the Soviet Space Shuttle "Buran"   the Soviets are
nearing completion of a second shuttle, and are estimating that
the vehicle will be ready for flight testing later this year. 
Phobos 2, the Soviets remaining operational Phobos spacecraft has
experienced difficulty with some of its payload instrumentation,
its television system has failed and they are experiencing
difficulties with the data collection from certain experiments. 
Plans are continuing for the spacecraft close encounter with Mar's
moon Phobos in the first half of 1989.  

This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space Society
Space hotline, this report will be updated next on Jan. 19th.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 89 05:55:43 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: NSS-Space Hotline Update 1/13

In article <246900002@cdp> jordankatz@cdp.UUCP writes:
>The budget includes $30 million for a the (CRAFT) Comet Rendezvous
>Asteroid Flyby mission to be conducted with ESAs Cassini mission.

    About bloody time! (That's CRAF, not CRAFT, BTW)

>This week in Washington D.C. negotiations will begin between the
>NOAA and CNES, the French national space agency, which may result
>in a break through merger of the U.S. Landsat and French Spot
>remote sensing satellite system.

    Does anyone know what happens to Eosat if this occurs? I'm
surprised they aren't mentioned in the negotiations - of course, it
would be in character for the feds to screw them over again.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``God is more interested in your future and your relationships
      than you are.'' - Billy Graham

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 22:06:00 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: C-M Mars AMBLER (SD-9 #189)

In article <Added.EXnWGJy00Ui3A8rU98@andrew.cmu.edu> HAYHURS@IUBACS.BITNET writes:
[in reference to the CMU Mars Ambler, which wants to have AI because of the
difficulty in an Earth-Mars teleoperations link]
>It seems to me that the placement of ComSat's in Geosynchronous orbit over
>Mars would solve the loss of communications.  They would have to be fancy -
>just a bounce point between the rover and Earth.
>A simplified version of the TRDSS system in use for the Shuttle now.
>                        -Steve Hayhurst, Bloomington Academic Computing Svcs,
>                         Indiana University, Bloomington

Something like this occurred to me too when I read the (terrific)
excerpt from SPACE-TECH about the Ambler.  Four primary difficulties
were outlined in the excerpt: (1) the 10-to-40 minute round trip for
signals, (2) the frequency with which Mars' rotation would cut off
communications, (3) the low power resources available to the rover, and
(4) the fact that the Deep Space Network has other things to do with
its time.

Forget control for a moment and think about data return.  There are two
ways the rover can get its data back to Earth: direct broadcast or
store and forward through an intermediary, presumably an orbiter of
some kind.  If the orbiter is low altitude like Viking, then you have
brief blasts at 80-90 minute intervals when the rover could uplink (at
high speed) and then the orbiter can forward to Earth at slower speed
(more reliable over the distance) for about half its orbit.  A sun
synchronous orbiter would be more fun for mapping and see Earth lots
more of the time, but the fuel requirements would be prohibitive after
such a huge journey, and it would hardly ever see the rover anyway!  Or
you could put the primary orbiter in areosynch (Mars-synch) orbit,
holding fixed in the sky above the rover's work area.  Now the uplink
can be continuous and orbiter/Earth communications nearly so.  But the
orbiter won't be good for much else since it is so far from the
surface!  And if the Mars orbit insertion burn occurs that far out, the
rover descent burn will be lengthy and expensive.

So here's what I propose.  Launch a separate, dedicated comsat - yes,
Steve, sort of a TDRS - first, on its own mission.  It carries a
big solar array and redundant antennae for reliable communications,
and since that's all it has to carry you can probably use a high energy
orbit and get it there in a hurry, even if the orbiter/rover mission
will travel slower.  Then, launch the orbiter/lander package.  The
orbiter goes into a fairly low orbit; the rover separates and lands
within the Mars-TDRS's zone of coverage.  Now both orbiter and lander
can uplink to the relay sat, which BLASTS the forwarded data back to
Earth.  No Deep Space Net required for reception.  Also, having
invested in that bit of infrastructure, you can design a whole decade of
Mars exploration around it, including cooperative stuff with the Euros
and U-Know-Who.

And if you want something else to put in the comsat package, how
about a computer?  Rather than try to build another one-shot all-purpose
AI trinket in the same box that's supposed to do the walking (and all
on 300 watts), suppose the "brains" were in areosync orbit above?
You'd have more ROOM for the computer, more POWER courtesy the solar
array, and more CONTROL since the brain would have a high bandwidth
link straight to Earth.  Besides which, when the first rover conked
you could send another one (or two more at once) and just reprogram
the orbiting brain to handle it, or them.  Best of all it would be
a lot harder to lose the whole mission thanks to a one line software
bug - if the control program crashes you reset the processor via
redundant signal, reload with a fix, and an hour later the dumb rover
shakes its head slightly and gets back to work. :-)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #198
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jan 89 06:22:56 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00588>; Fri, 20 Jan 89 04:37:11 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 20 Jan 89 04:37:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UXpiuMy00jZdQ2DUQL>;
          Fri, 20 Jan 89 03:32:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.EXpiiYy00UkZI4eE5Z>;
          Fri, 20 Jan 89 03:19:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XpigEy00UkZQ4d05U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 03:17:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #199

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 199

Today's Topics:
			 Re: `Days' in space
		Re: space-tech excerpt: CMU Mars Rover
		    Re: Flight Termination Systems
      Info on High-Power rocket launch: August '89 in Colorado.
		    Number of Concorde ever build
		     Voyager approaching Neptune
		      Excerpt from "Home Planet"
    Is it possible to get machine readable pics from space probes?
		       Re: NSS Board membership
    Re: Info on High-Power rocket launch: August '89 in Colorado.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 89 22:34:08 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

Not only will Mars astronauts certainly have clocks, but even if you
did want to play with the circadian cycle for an interplanetary
journey, Mars is absolutely the WORST candidate for a destination!
What a cruel irony to spend months deforming your biological clock,
only to land on a planet whose rotational period is almost identical to
Earth's! :-)

I strongly urge all you cave dwellers out there to factor in the
resource cost, not just of spending X months *at equilibrium* at some
artificial day length, but of sustaining two or three *transitions*
between day lengths, all the while trying to run a Mars mission at its
most critical moments.

Also, while we're busily discovering that each individual has his or
her very own favorite circadian interval, which eventually asserts
itself after enough time in the closet, we might take a moment to
wonder how a CREW functions together under those circumstances.  There
is going to be *work* to be done on the way out and back, and plenty of
it too (or else we're not getting our money's worth from the ruinously
expensive mission).  Work requires schedules, especially when you're
doing things like occultations and timed measurements.

I predict that a manned Mars mission, if we do one, will organize
itself around the 24 hour day (running two shifts or sometimes three)
in order to minize disruption at launch, during the landing phase, and
other critical periods; and also (most importantly) to permit the most
efficient integration with the VAST support team back here on Earth,
who will be doing MOST of the work and doing it on the good old 24 hour
clock.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 89 06:39:13 GMT
From: chiba!khb@sun.com  (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Subject: Re: space-tech excerpt: CMU Mars Rover

In article <Added.UXnQ3Ry00Ui381PU9n@andrew.cmu.edu> Marc.Ringuette@DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>The Mariner probes are the best look at Mars we've had so far.  The landing
     ------- !

Don't you mean Viking ?

>
>The next step in Mars exploration is to send a flexible, mobile robot to Mars
>to collect and study samples from different areas.  The importance of the
>mission is split between observation, on-site testing of samples, and return
>of samples to Earth.  The requirements for this vehicle are pretty stiff if
>we are to try one of the more ambitious and more useful of the possible
>missions.  The trickiest part of the problem is to do autonomous motion and
>sampling.  Light takes between 10 and 40 minutes to travel the round trip
>between Earth and Mars, so a vehicle operated from Earth would be extremely
>slow.  Even worse, NASA's Deep Space Network has other jobs to do, and the
>rover will spend half its time on the far side of Mars.  This virtually
>requires a vehicle which can move and take samples using on-board computers
>and Artificial Intelligence techniques, with human intervention only once
>every few hours.  The mechanical design of the vehicle is also difficult.
>The design is most highly constrained by a very low power budget - a few
>hundred watts to run a 1-ton vehicle.
>
>The CMU rover project is a 3-year project to build a rover which will operate
>on Earth terrains, and be the prototype for a rover which can
> 1. travel several hundred kilometers, reliably, over the period of about
>    a year, traversing 1 meter obstacles and ravines
> 2. take core samples, aim instruments, and perform sampling and experiments
>    as flexibly as possible
> 3. collect about 5 kilograms of samples and transport them to a return
>    vehicle for return to Earth
> 4. weigh no more than about a ton
> 5. operate on about 300 watts of continuous power, supplied by a Radioisotope
>    Thermal Generator (RTG)
> 6. operate efficiently even when not in communication with Earth
>
>The project has three main research areas: Mechanical Design, Sensing, and
>Control.  The first group is building the vehicle, and is headed by Red
>Whittaker, a mechanical engineer who recently constructed a robotic vehicle
>to clean up Three Mile Island.  The second group, sensing, is headed by
Keith H. Bierman
It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 89 18:01:40 GMT
From: pasteur!sim!bwood@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Blake P. Wood)
Subject: Re: Flight Termination Systems

In article <1989Jan15.094940.17861@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Any rocket capable of going above 100 km in a vertical launch...
>is (in the US) subject to launch approval by the
>Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
>...
>Now, the interesting question, which I don't know the answer to, is how
>the rules distinguish between a rocket and an airplane.

Do you mean 10Km?  There aren't many planes which fly over 100Km...

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 89 18:13:00 GMT
From: csc32.dec.com!s_hall@decwrl.dec.com  (Turn off the lights and watch the stupid...)
Subject: Info on High-Power rocket launch: August '89 in Colorado.



	Someone posted a request for info about upcoming
	high-power rocket launches.  August 3,4,5 and 6
	1989 are the scheduled dates for LDRS-8 in Colorado.

	Friday, August 4th is the first launch day (the 3rd
	being set aside for Tripoli Board of Directors meeting,
	Manufacturers Night, etc.).  A night launch is
	scheduled for Friday night, and then day launches to
	follow Saturday and Sunday.

	The rocketry association will be staying at the Hilton
	in Colorado Springs, and the launch will be held in
	the Southpark area (near Hartsel, CO), about 90 minutes
	drive west.

	Typically, a blanket waiver to about 10,000 feet AGL is
	in effect during the day, with a really high altitude
	"window" open for a few hours about midday (20,000 feet
	AGL in August '88).

	Competition events include H-motor streamer duration,
	and G-motor water-loft (lift a pound of water to the
	highest altitude).  Altitude tracking is provided
	by local amateur radio operators at two tracking sites
	a mile away.

	It's not unusual to see boost-gliders 6-feet tall powered
	with 640-newton-second motors, large clustered models
	with 3200-newton-seconds of total-impulse, and multi-stage
	rockets with electronic timers for upper-stage ignition
	and recovery-system activation.  Manufacturers have brought
	very powerful motors to these launches ('M' and 'N'
	class devices -- 10,240 Nsec and 20,480 Nsec, respectively),
	and put all-fiberglass vehicles up as high as 55,000 feet
	reaching speeds of Mach 4.5 at burnout.

	As I get info on other launches around the country, I'll
	post it on the net (as long as folks are interested !).

	Once again, here's info on the Tripoli Rocketry Association:

	Address:	P.O. Box 891373
			Houston, TX  77289-1373

	President:	Ed Tindell

	For more casual discussion offline, interested folks can
	contact me:

			Steve Hall
	Home:		719-260-0311
	Work:		719-548-4196

	P.S.  If there's interest in a list of motor, kit and
	accessory manufacturers, I'll post it on request....SCH

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 89 16:21:12 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Number of Concorde ever build

In article <13081@cup.portal.com>, mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
writes:
> When was the last Concorde manufactured?  How about the Tu-144 (Concordski)?
> The last bit of news I heard on the Tu-144 was a few years ago when the
> Soviets announced they were putting it into regular, scheduled airline
> service.  Is that service still running?

It is unfortunately true that due to certain mechanical problems the soviet have
downgraded the Tu 144 to a freigther many years ago. They had a crash in 81-82
near the city of Tashkent with a regular airline type of flight.

It seems to me that they weren't able to get a genuine copy of the French/British
Concorde. Or they manufacturing capacities couldn't cope with the design of the
parts,
as odd that could seem to.

16 Concorde were ever build. 8 for Air France, 8 for British Airways. The plane
was
killed by the refusal of the US to let it land in NY. (Tell me about
protectionism....).
Due to fuel cost, the plane were not profitable for a few years but for the past
4 years
they have been making a lot of money. For instance, I know that Air France makes
100 -110 M$ every years with those 8 planes... to the point that there are talks
of resarting
a production chaine, if both companies can interest a few others.

Jean-Marc Debaud.
Carnegie-Mellon University.
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

From: ota
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 11:24:43 MST
Subject: Voyager approaching Neptune

I just heard a lecture by Dr. Beebe of New Mexico State University and
JPL Imaging.  I got the opportunity to speak with her after the
lecture and talk abou;the upcoming flyby.  She's been working with
Voyager ever since the first Jupiter flyby and had some fascinating
things to say about the upcoming event.  Apparently, Voyager will be
flying directly at Neptune and Triton, and so will be able to take
long pictures without too much blurring.  Exposure times are on the
order of 20-40 seconds; she said you haven't seen grown men cry until
you've watched them fight for space on the magnetic storage tape!

+--------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| David Birnbaum, programmer/consultant      |  dbirnbau@nmsu.edu           |
| Small Systems, Computer Center             |  VTIS001@NMSUVM1.BITNET      |
| New Mexico State University             <--+  They pay my bills, but      |
| 10  PRINT "Basic is Dead!" : GOTO 10       |  they don't write my opions! |
+--------------------------------------------+------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 13:52:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 2866+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Excerpt from "Home Planet"

I got a copy of "Home Planet" for XMas and found this small excerpt interesting
enough to send.  I recommend the book highly.  It is very interesting in that it
gives some insight into the human side of space exploration.  The pictures,
through no attempt is made at systematic coverage, are terrific.  Special
commendation should be given to the translators who seem to have done a great
job.

"After the third major mission, Salyut 7 was mothballed, and for five months it
was maintained by radio control.  Then communication ceased and Salyut went
silent.
  "Dzhanibekov and I were launched into space to find the Salyut 7, which had
gone "on strike."  After changing orbits, we searched for the station from the
spacecraft for two days.  At last, the man-made star rose above the horizon and
flashed in the rays of the sun.
  "We floated into the station and turned on the lights, which did not, of
course, light up.  There was complete darkness, deadly cold and an ill-boding,
oppressive, and truly cosmic silence."
        -Viktor Savinykh, USSR

"We left the spacecraft and entered outer space, and hurtling high above the
Earth beside the vast and silent Salyut 7, we studied it attentively.
  "The solar panels were strangely oriented, their photoelectric cells peeling
away in pieces, and looking for all the world like storm-torn sails.  The once
bright green shell had been burned and was now covered in greyish-rust spots.
The portholes were all closed by shutters on the inside.  No damage, however,
could be seen on the hull of thecraft.  Well, what has happened to you, cosmic
wandererer, we asked, but we got no answer."
        -Valdimir Dzhanibekov, USSR

"The station had fallen into trouble without people aboard and met us with an
icy silence.  In absolute silence Viktor Savinykh and I inspected the
compartments.  The beam of the flashlight picked out the various items of
equipment, all in their correct places along the sides.  The interior was in
ideal condition.  The traditional Russian welcoming gift of bread and salt had
been left on the tiny table by Leonid Kizim, Volodya Solovyov, and Oleg At'kov,
together with a letter asking those who came after them to look after this house
and wishing them success."
        -Valdimir Dzhanibekov, USSR

"For seven long days, working both during the day-side parts of the orbit and by
flashlight, we tried to find out what was causeing the solar panels to fail.  We
wanted to get at least one bulb to light.  Finally, we found the culprits when
we checked all the storage batteries.
  "Two of them had gone out of commission.  We undid the thickly plaited cabling
and connected the solar panels directly so that they always faced the sun.  The
batteries began to recharge and finally there was light.
  "Automation is indeed a wonderful thing, but in the end humanity has the last
word."
        -Viktor Savinykh, USSR

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 89 01:55:16 GMT
From: erd@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ethan R. Dicks)
Subject: Is it possible to get machine readable pics from space probes?

Is there any source of machine readable images from the various space
probes which we (humanity) have been sending up over the last several years?
I am not picky about the format, as data swabbers are not hard to write.  If
at all possible, it would be nice to get some absoulute binary format or
maybe IFF (interchange file format for the Amiga et al.)

Thanks,
-ethan



-- 
Ethan R. Dicks       | ######  This signifies that the poster is a member in
Software Results Corp|   ##    good sitting of Inertia House: Bodies at rest.
940 Freeway Drive N. |   ##
Columbus OH    43229 | ######  "You get it, you're closer.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 89 05:06:36 GMT
From: humpback!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan15.095906.18357@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <6145@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.cs.unc.edu () writes:
>>    I glanced at the letterhead of a fund-raiser I got from NSS today
>>and to my dismay found that James Van Allen is on the Board of
>>Governors. Has he moderated his robots-only stance, or does NSS no
>>longer want to build space colonies someday?
>
>NSS, nee NSI, has never wanted to build space colonies.  The L5 Society,
>which originally did, is dead after a long and debilitating illness.
>

Who says that James van Allen is against building space colonies?  James
van Allen is against current forms of manned spaceflight (ie station, shuttle).
This is a very different thing.  

In fact, the exploration of the *entire* solar system which van Allen
and myself advocate will bring about the discoveries leading to space        
settlements much sooner than our current mass wastage on manned capsules in
low earth orbit.  

van Allen on the NSS Board of Governors is a good sign that NSS may be
recovering from its long bout of narrow-mindedness. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                          "Want oil?  Drill lots of wells."   
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu                J. Paul Getty

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 89 09:13:46 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Info on High-Power rocket launch: August '89 in Colorado.

I've been fascinated by the discussion of high-powered amateur rocketry.
Just for grins and giggles, I figured out the impulse category for the kick
motor flown on the amateur radio satellite AMSAT-Oscar-13 last summer.
According to my notebook figures, the thrust was about 388 newtons and there
was enough fuel for 428 seconds of firing time. This gave the motor a total
impulse of 166,210 N-sec, which put it roughly in the Q class (163,840
N-sec).  Has any other amateur group ever flown a motor this big? In space?
I bet our motor is bigger than your motor. :-) :-)

Of course, the firings (there were two, since it was a restartable liquid
bipropellant engine) weren't too spectacular visually, considering that they
were done at an altitude of 40,000 km. But the telemetry and radar tracking
told the story.

Some time ago I figured that a Shuttle SRB would be in the 4Z (or ZZZZ)
category...

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #199
*******************
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jan 89 20:57:00 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00975>; Fri, 20 Jan 89 05:52:14 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 20 Jan 89 05:52:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MXpka4y00Vs1A2yk4M>;
          Fri, 20 Jan 89 05:27:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.cXpkQry00UkZQ4nk4Z>;
          Fri, 20 Jan 89 05:17:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XpkQ9y00UkZ44mU4y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 05:16:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #200

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 200

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Spaceplane project/Concorde concatenation
		  Re: NSS-Space Hotline Update 1/13
			  Re: Pro Space Adds
			  A Modest Proposal
  Re: Is it possible to get machine readable pics from space probes?
	       Experimental Tests of Special Relativity
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
			Orbiter Modifications
		   Re: Space Station escape modules
			Re: A Modest Proposal
	A researcher's objections to the alleged FTL signals.
      Re: A researcher's objections to the alleged FTL signals.
			Re: A Modest Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 89 14:37:01 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk!eagle.ukc.ac.uk!icdoc!ist!kev@uunet.uu.net  (Kevin Holmes)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project/Concorde concatenation

>From article <672@brwa.inmos.co.uk>, by conor@inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill):
> In article <13081@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com 
> (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>>When was the last Concorde manufactured?  How about the Tu-144 (Concordski)?
>>The last bit of news I heard on the Tu-144 was a few years ago when the
>>Soviets announced they were putting it into regular, scheduled airline
>>service.  Is that service still running?
> 
> I'm afraid that I don't know when the last Concorde was made, but
> I heard on the radio that the very first one flew exactly 20 years ago,
> from Filton airfield here in Bristol, on 9 Jan 1969.
> Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd.    >> conor@inmos.co.uk <<

Alas, HMG had conceded the first Concorde flight to the French. Concorde
002 did indeed fly for the first time from Filton on 09/01/69, but 001 had
flown at Toulouse sometime the previous September or October.

As is noted elsewhere, only nine were ever built. Two are now in museums
(002 is at RNAS Yeovilton; 001? is part of the Science museum's
collection), I believe that BA are operating at least four (from where I'm
sitting at this moment we see/hear/feel at least three of those a day!) if
not the rest. Have Air France still got any, and if so what routes do they
run? (A late thought - BA have at least five, I recall some shots of them
flying in formation.)

As for the TU 144, I had understood that it had been grounded completely
following a mid-air break-up whilst on it's mail run.

Cheers,
 
Kev Holmes				kev@ist.CO.UK
Imperial Software Technology		Home Bone (44) 252 547902
Reading, Royal Berkshire, UK.

"That's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give 
 confidential briefings; you leak; he is being charged under
 section 2a of the Official Secrets Act."

    - Bernard Woolley, Principal Private Secretary to the
      Right Hon. James Hacker, MP. ("Yes, Prime Minister")

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 89 04:40:38 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS-Space Hotline Update 1/13

In article <246900002@cdp> jordankatz@cdp.UUCP writes:
>This week in Washington D.C. negotiations will begin between the
>NOAA and CNES, the French national space agency, which may result
>in a break through merger of the U.S. Landsat and French Spot
>remote sensing satellite system.  The merge's aim is to form an
>international commercial remote-sensing system...

I note with some amusement that this is two government agencies talking
about forming a commercial system.  The amusement gets stronger when you
consider that Landsat theoretically has been privatized already and thus
they should be talking to Eosat instead.  Even stronger when you consider
how pitiful the Landsat system is today (and how much worse it will be
in a couple of years when the old satellites die) compared to Spot.

"Well, we appreciate your offer to help with our Mars mission, comrade,
but... what can you do that we need?"
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 89 07:53:00 GMT
From: mirror!frog!john@bu-cs.bu.edu  (John Woods)
Subject: Re: Pro Space Adds

In article <1180@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
> Has anyone else seen any of the U.S Space Foundations pro space adds
> on T.V.?

I'm not certain it is the same group, but there is also an ad in which
Frank Sinatra and Willie Nelson state that the space-derived technology
used in pacemakers has saved their lives.

-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

Go be a `traves wasswort.		- Doug Gwyn

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 01:05:57 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: A Modest Proposal

Vice President elect Dan Quayle will head the revived National Space
Council.  How will he learn more about the space program, so he can lead
us into the future?  How can he demonstrate the commitment of the new
administration to space exploration and development?  How can he
publicly display renewed confidence in the U.S. space program?

He can join the NASA astronaut corps!

Let's petition to send him on a shuttle mission, to prove once and for
all that America is back in space.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 89 17:25:07 GMT
From: blake!mikem@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Michael M. Martinez)
Subject: Re: Is it possible to get machine readable pics from space probes?


---<>THIS LINE LEFT BLANK?<>---
I second the request for machine readable images from our deep space probes.
Is there a way for them to placed for ftp or can they be E-Mailed? I am
especially interested in images from Voyager's encounter with Uranus and with
Viking orbiter images.

Michael M. Martinez
<>should there be of a signature?<>
<>                               <>

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 89 10:49:18 EST
From: Joshua Knight <JOSH@ibm.com>
Subject: Experimental Tests of Special Relativity

Let's get serious here folks.  Electron accelerators, like for example
SLAC near Stanford, accelrate electrons to energies of several GEV.  One
GEV is 10E9 electron volts; the electron rest mass is approximately 5.11E5
electron volts/c**2.  Let's just use 1 GEV (people use GEV instead of
BEV == Billion Electron Volts to avoid confusion between American and
British billions).  10E9 / 5.11E5 = 1956.94716...  That means

           gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 - (v/c)**2) = 1956.94716...

This means beta (what v/c is usually called) is given by

           beta = sqrt( 1 - (1/1956.94716...)**2 )
                = sqrt(0.999999738879...)
                = 0.9999998694...

So the theory of special relativity has been tested to significantly
higher velocities than 0.99999987 times the velocity of light (note
I used bc and carried 20 digits through these calculations, but the
511Kev/c**2 figure for the electron rest mass isn't that accurate).
You run out of energy in *any* scheme of propulsion long before you
accelerate any macroscopic object to these kinds of relativistic
energies.

Josh Knight
josh@ibm.com, josh@yktvmh.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 10:23:30 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Let's change the title of this topic, please.  I didn't see the original
posting, but any question that sparks this amount of discussion and
dare-I-say learning shouldn't be called stupid.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 11:06:12 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Orbiter Modifications
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

The following is from _NASA Activities_, November 1988, which *just arrived*.
I hesitate to forward it because the information is old, but it may be
new to some readers.

	               MAJOR ORBITER MODIFICATIONS

(More than 100 mandatory modifications to the orbiter Discovery were
completed before returning to flight.  Major modifications include:)

 . Brake Improvements - These changes were made to eliminate mechanical
and thermally-induced brake damage, improve steering margin and reduce the
effects of tire damage or failure.  Modifications for the STS-26 flight were
the thicker stators, stiffened main landing gear axles, tire pressure
monitoring and anti-skid avionics.

 . 17-Inch Disconnect - A positive hold-open latch design feature for the
main propulsion system disconnect valves between the orbiter and the
external tank (ET) was developed to ensure that the valve remains open during
powered flight until nominal ET separation is initiated.

 . Reaction Control System Engines - The RCS engines provide on-orbit 
attitude control and have been modified to turn off automatically in the
event any combustion instability were to cause chamber wall burn through.

 . Thermal Protection System - TheTPS was improved in areas on the orbiter
in the wind elevon cove region, nose landing gear door, lower wing trailing
edge sruface and elevon leading edge.

 . Auxiliary Power Unit - An electrical interlock has been added to the
APU tank shutoff valves to preclude electrical failures that could overheat
the valves and cause decomposition of the fuel (hydrazine).

 . Orbital Maneuvering System - To prevent development of leaks as a result
of improper manufacturing process, bellows in critical OMS propellant line
valves have been replaced.

 . Crew Escape System - A pyrotechnically jettisoned side hatch, crew
parachutes and survival gear and a curved telescoping pole to aid the
crew in clearing the wing, have been added to give a bail-out capability
in the event of a problem where runway landing is not possible.  An egress
slide has been added to facilititate rapid postlanding egress from the
vehicle under emergency conditions.

 . 1,000,000 Mile Service - we changed the oil and shocks, rotated the
tires and replaced the air filter...

(The above was typed - except the last bullet - by the time-honored system
of connecting eyes to fingers without going through the cortex.  Typos are
all mine.)

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 10:05:56 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Space Station escape modules
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU writes:

>The following was sent to me by Edmund Hack at the Johnson Space Centre.
>     I have one general comment to add to the above - and a couple of questions.

>>The scenario would be to have the on-Station
>>shuttle leave as another came up to dock.

>Why is this so?  

I would think it would be a good idea from the standpoint of returning
shuttles to Earth frequently enough to perform preventive maintenance, repairs,
upgrades, etc, which the Space Station has no business doing.

>Is there currently only one shuttle docking port being
designed for the space station?  

I hope not.

>It seems to me that if one has
>a dedicated emergency escape vehicle, then there would also be a
>dedicated emergency escape port, quite separate from the normal docking
>port.  

Why?  Why should such a port have any advantage over a regular port?

>One would also have to be able to enter the escape vehicle from
>the outside of the escape port, as not everyone can be expected to be
>inside the space station if an emergency occurs.  

I think it's a good idea to have external access, but not for this reason.
First, EVAs are going to be *rare*.  Second, anyone on an EVA can reenter 
the station and go to the shuttle without noticeably impairing the escape
in almost any kind of emergency.  Have external access so the shuttle can
be used to rescue people who have an accident during EVA (float off, tether
breaks, run out of air, get knocked out by a stanchion, etc) without having
to wait for the next shuttle from Earth.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 02:34:45 GMT
From: bbn.com!jallred@bbn.com  (John Allred)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal

In article <19177@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>Vice President elect Dan Quayle will head the revived National Space
>Council.

This is the bozo who couldn't become drug czar, so they put him in charge of
space policy.  God save us all.
____
John Allred
BBN Systems and Technologies Corp.
(jallred@bbn.com)

A truly wise man (or woman) never plays leapfrog with a unicorn.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 89 15:03:04 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: A researcher's objections to the alleged FTL signals.


         In the January 14, 1989 issue of NEW SCIENTIST, a researcher at
    St. Albans cites two major objections to the "discovery" late last
    year of faster than light (FTL) signals in Italy:  The sensor coils
    were so positioned as to detect electric fields rather than magnetic
    fields; the parallel plates would act as mirrors producing
    electromagnetic images of the circuit wires.  He argues that the
    observed signals do not represent transmissions that are faster than
    light, but changes in potential at various points of the system. 

         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 06:19:52 GMT
From: att!mhuxu!davec@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dave Caswell)
Subject: Re: A researcher's objections to the alleged FTL signals.

In article <8901171503.AA25295@decwrl.dec.com= klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
=
=         In the January 14, 1989 issue of NEW SCIENTIST, a researcher at
=    St. Albans cites two major objections to the "discovery" late last
=    year of faster than light (FTL) signals in Italy:  The sensor coils
=    were so positioned as to detect electric fields rather than magnetic
=    fields; the parallel plates would act as mirrors producing
=    electromagnetic images of the circuit wires.  He argues that the
=    observed signals do not represent transmissions that are faster than
=    light, but changes in potential at various points of the system. 
=
=         Larry Klaes

For more really fun 'Science', check out last December's Wireless World.
(WW is where the faster than light article appeared.)  There is an
article headlined "Anti-Gravity Electronics."   They mean it too.

DaveC

-- 
    --->Dave Caswell
	att!mhuxu!davec
	davec@mhuxu.att.com

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 09:31:54 GMT
From: da1n+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Daniel K. Appelquist)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal

web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) Writes:
>Vice President elect Dan Quayle will head the revived National Space
>Council.  How will he learn more about the space program, so he can lead
>us into the future?  How can he demonstrate the commitment of the new
>administration to space exploration and development?  How can he
>publicly display renewed confidence in the U.S. space program?
>
>He can join the NASA astronaut corps!

A fitting follow up to the first teacher in space.

(Sorry, that was in poor taste)

    Dan A.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #200
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jan 89 09:18:57 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04674>; Sat, 21 Jan 89 04:15:31 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 21 Jan 89 04:15:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kXq3tyy00Vs1I2v08K>;
          Sat, 21 Jan 89 03:25:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.8Xq3n4y00UkZE7L04l>;
          Sat, 21 Jan 89 03:18:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <oXq3lXy00UkZE7Jk4M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 89 03:16:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #201

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 201

Today's Topics:
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
		    Re: Flight Termination Systems
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
		Re: Re: Number of Concorde ever build
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: NSS Board membership
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 04:37:08 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <92@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@humpback.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Who says that James van Allen is against building space colonies?  James
>van Allen is against current forms of manned spaceflight (ie station, shuttle).
>This is a very different thing.  

Of course James van Allen is not against building space colonies, provided
nobody suggests that any funding should be allocated to doing so... since
we all know that such funding would have to be taken out of the budget for
Space Science, which is the only space-related activity of any importance
and hence should have absolute priority.

>In fact, the exploration of the *entire* solar system which van Allen
>and myself advocate will bring about the discoveries leading to space        
>settlements much sooner than our current mass wastage...

Uh, discoveries?  Leading to settlements?  Can you please explain this?
Why do we need discoveries to lead to settlements, and what sort of
deep-space discoveries are likely to do so?  "The court finds itself
unable to follow the alleged reasoning."
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 15:24:36 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan18.043708.27547@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Of course James van Allen is not against building space colonies, provided
>nobody suggests that any funding should be allocated to doing so... since
>we all know that such funding would have to be taken out of the budget for
>Space Science, which is the only space-related activity of any importance
>and hence should have absolute priority.

Van Allen correctly predicted the disastrous failure of the space
shuttle program to achieve its stated objective of reducing launch
costs, and so far his predictions about the space station are right on
target.  His comments about the scientific track record of manned vs.
unmanned flights are cogent.  I think the friction that exists is a
symptom of a difference in underlying assumptions about the likely
future course and pace of activity in space, not a sign that Van Allen
is Evil Incarnate.

Space colonies are at this moment pie-in-the-sky, and will, IMHO, be
so for many decades, if not generations.  Space science is not -- it
can yield useful knowledge *right now*.  Is it any wonder that van
Allen is upset that expensive and much less useful (albeit
ideologically correct) projects dominate?

It is disingenious to pretend that recent NASA emphasis on manned
spaceflight, the shuttle program in particular, has not had a major
negative impact on planetary and space science.

>>In fact, the exploration of the *entire* solar system which van Allen
>>and myself advocate will bring about the discoveries leading to space        
>>settlements much sooner than our current mass wastage...
>
>Uh, discoveries?  Leading to settlements?  Can you please explain this?
>Why do we need discoveries to lead to settlements, and what sort of
>deep-space discoveries are likely to do so?  "The court finds itself
>unable to follow the alleged reasoning."

What about unmanned asteroid exploration?  A lunar polar orbiter?
Probes to Phobos?  Our knowledge of ET resources is still rudimentary.

I assume by deep-space you mean outer solar system.  However,
knowledge about the outer solar system is needed to understand the
origin and evolution of the solar system as a whole.  For example:
where did comets form?  What is the composition of dark outer solar
system asteroids, like the Trojans, and how did they form?  How did
the outer planets affect the formation of the asteroid belt and
terrestrial planets?  I think this knowledge would be useful in
planning further activities in space.

If one does not accept the position that space colonies are just
around the corner (I don't), then it becomes reasonable to speculate
that a workable fusion rocket will exist by the time they are built.
That might make it feasible to retrieve outer solar system resources.
Outer solar system objects are likely to be rich in volatiles.  Also,
Jupiter has a large amount of He-3.  It would not surprise me if He-3
from Jupiter's ionosphere has been implanted in the Jovian moons,
where it could be mined by melting surface ice.

Don't rule out unpredictable discoveries.  Might there, for example,
be useful exotic forms of "dark matter" in the outer solar system (for
example, primordial black holes, boson condensates, or other dense
objects)?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 89 20:15:23 GMT
From: mstan!frank@uunet.uu.net  (Frank Wortner)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

In article <kXoVNsy00Xc-46vEU2@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>[Concorde] was killed by the refusal of the US to let it land
>in NY. (Tell me about protectionism....).

I *do*, however, remember seeing the Concorde at JFK when I was passing
near the airport.  Landing rights were eventually secured.
-- 
						Frank

"Computers are mistake amplifiers."

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 04:26:29 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

[I'm pointing followups at rec.aviation.]

In article <kXoVNsy00Xc-46vEU2@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>It seems to me that they weren't able to get a genuine copy of the French/British
>Concorde. Or they manufacturing capacities couldn't cope with the design of the
>parts,
>as odd that could seem to.

Since the Tu-144 wasn't a copy of the Concorde, stupid propaganda to the
contrary (the two designs are quite different in detail), the point is moot.
They may have copied the idea, but not the design.

(I could be wrong, but my recollection is that they managed to avoid some
of Concorde's mistakes, in fact, notably putting the main landing gear
right in front of the engine intakes.)  (Concordes are very prone to
ingesting any stray debris thrown up by the wheels.)

>... The plane was
>killed by the refusal of the US to let it land in NY. (Tell me about
>protectionism....).

Um, what about protectionism?  Concordes land in NY every day.  The
plane was killed, as a sales success, by skyrocketing development costs,
limited demand, and reluctance on the part of various authorities to
permit supersonic flight over land.

>Due to fuel cost, the plane were not profitable for a few years but for the past
>4 years
>they have been making a lot of money...

The problem was more government problems than fuel costs.  The Concordes
have been profitable, I believe, ever since the governments involved
finally wrote off the development costs and let the planes run as a pure
commercial enterprise.
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 04:16:49 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Flight Termination Systems

In article <8832@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> bwood@sim.UUCP (Blake P. Wood) writes:
>>Any rocket capable of going above 100 km in a vertical launch...
>>is (in the US) subject to launch approval...
>>Now, the interesting question, which I don't know the answer to, is how
>>the rules distinguish between a rocket and an airplane.
>
>Do you mean 10Km?  There aren't many planes which fly over 100Km...

100 km is what I was told; apparently it was considered a reasonable
boundary between air and space.  I have not checked the detailed wording
myself.

The problem of distinguishing between the two is not entirely trivial,
since 100-km spaceplanes are not far away, and since the rules are phrased
not in terms of altitude but in terms of performance.  (The claim is that
an explicit 100-km limit was ruled out because the Soviets like this as
the air/space boundary, and at the time it was nekulturny :-) in Washington
to agree with the Soviets about anything.)

[Nekulturny:  literally "uncultured", with connotations of boorishness and
manure on your feet.  Serious insult to an educated Russian.]
-- 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 18:40:25 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!tmca@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (The Anarch)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

In article <209@s5.Morgan.COM> frank@Morgan.COM (Frank Wortner) writes:
>In article <kXoVNsy00Xc-46vEU2@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>>[Concorde] was killed by the refusal of the US to let it land
>>in NY. (Tell me about protectionism....).
>I *do*, however, remember seeing the Concorde at JFK when I was passing
>near the airport.  Landing rights were eventually secured.

This is irrelevant (strictly speaking) to sci.space, but I like bragging about
it.
When flying home (England) over Christmas '87 and on taxiing (in a measly old
Pan Am 747) to the runway for the trans-atlantic leg, there were three other 
aircraft in the queue for the runway. They were ALL Concordes! Two British
Airways and one Air France.

They are truly the most beautiful aircraft ever built.

What gets me though is that neither Great Britain nor the U.S.A. will allow them
to fly supersonic over land (last I heard, anyhow) and yet both these nations
allow their military junk to  make as much noise as it feels like.
There ain't no justice.

Tim
	Clean as a Q-Tip
	Quiet as nylon.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 18:53:29 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Re: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

>In article <kXoVNsy00Xc-46vEU2@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc
>Debaud) writes:
>>[Concorde] was killed by the refusal of the US to let it land
>>in NY. (Tell me about protectionism....).

>I *do*, however, remember seeing the Concorde at JFK when I was passing
>near the airport.  Landing rights were eventually secured.

Sorry, this is true. I should have mentioned it in my previous posting.
Landing rights were eventually secured but 3-4 years after initial
application. Which company would have bought a plame for international
travel without the autorisation to land in JFK ?

The delay in securing the landing permission wasn't justified by any reason.
Indeed, when it was finally secured, NO modification had been done to the
design of the Concorde. American manufacturers had lobbied very hard to
get that plane conmercially killed. They succeded !

Fortumately they couldn't do that with Airbus Industrie.

But it is interesting to note that 15 years after its first flight, the CONCORDE
remains the best commercial plane ever build ! (Beauty, speed, confort, technical
design...)

-Jean-Marc.
Carnegie-Mellon University
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 03:29:15 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan18.043708.27547@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Uh, discoveries?  Leading to settlements?  Can you please explain this?

Every major settlement in human history has been preceded by 
exploration.  Settling in an unexplored area is dangerous, dead-end 
(how do you know there are any resources to support life or to export?), 
and totally unecessary given modern technology.  Planning such a 
settlement, as anything but entertainment, is an equally fruitless exercise.
*Sticking* to such plans, as to a religion, is bizarre beyond belief, 
but a sin many space supporters are guilty of.

What if we build our $100+ billion dollar lunar base, and then find out
there is nothing worthwhile there?*  Or a similar amount on a manned Mars
mission?  In fact, both the Moon and Mars might turn out to be terrible 
places to build space industries and settlements or to provide material
for same.

On the other hand, we can spend this $200+ billion sending out probes
such as CRAF, Cassini, and the Observer missions, and on basic scientific
research leading to new technologies.  This pays for 200 probes, even
if you don't account for economies of scale (I suspect we can build at
least 2000 probes, much better equipped than the current generation, for 
this price).  With these we can explore every nook and cranny of the 
solar system, from Pluto to Mercury, with dozens of probes to look at
each moon and major asteroid, and some comets as well.  The data can
be distrbuted around the world; you will be able to analyze them
on your home computer at leisure.

This gives the scientist, the prospector, and the space settlement planner
orders of magnitude more knowledge and flexibility to work with.  The
choice becomes no longer Moon vs. Mars (an odious debate), but pick a
spot from any part of the solar system.  

------------

* Lunar materials to support other space industries (eg LOX) are not
worthwhile until such industries generate the $100+ billion/yr plus   
demand needed to pay for such a base, and  such materials can be made 
and transported cheaper than from Earth or asteroids.  He-3 is unproven 
and depends on other scientific discoveries to provide demand.  Besides
these possibilities we already know the Moon is likely a dry hole.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo                          "Want oil?  Drill lots of wells."   
szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu                J. Paul Getty

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 18:02:25 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan18.102436.12838@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>If one does not accept the position that space colonies are just
>around the corner (I don't), then it becomes reasonable to speculate
>that a workable fusion rocket will exist by the time they are built.
>That might make it feasible to retrieve outer solar system resources.
>Outer solar system objects are likely to be rich in volatiles.  Also,
>Jupiter has a large amount of He-3.  It would not surprise me if He-3
>from Jupiter's ionosphere has been implanted in the Jovian moons,
>where it could be mined by melting surface ice.

    You can assume anything any nonexistent technology you want in
enough time. Fusion power? Life extension? Nanotechnology? Antimatter?
AI? Sure, they're all *just* around the corner, and they'll all make
<desirable activity/goal X> *so* much easier, why bother to do
anything about it with existing technology?

    This is not good engineering, this is wishful thinking (not to say
that I advocate going off to build Island 1 anytime soon, however -
that's also wishful thinking).

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 04:09:48 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

> Fusion power? Life extension? Nanotechnology? Antimatter?
>AI? Sure, they're all *just* around the corner, and they'll all make
><desirable activity/goal X> *so* much easier, why bother to do
>anything about it with existing technology?

Space settlements are another example of *future* technology.  
Nanotechnology, which is based on the precision of current 
scientific instruments and the capabilities of living organisms, is no
more speculative than space settlements.  Nor is fusion or antimatter.
AI is quite a bit more unpredictable.

Good engineering is doing what is most economic and rewarding with current
technology.   Columbus and his crew, paddling to America in five hundred
rowboats, would not have been good engineering.

To improve the odds for tomorrow's engineers, new discoveries must be 
made today.  This means research and exploration.

------------------------
Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #201
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jan 89 06:15:15 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00881>; Sat, 21 Jan 89 05:48:13 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 21 Jan 89 05:48:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cXq5cAy00UkTA1Vk5x>;
          Sat, 21 Jan 89 05:23:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.QXq5Wdy00UkZI7UU44>;
          Sat, 21 Jan 89 05:17:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gXq5Viy00UkZA7TE5L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 89 05:16:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #202

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 202

Today's Topics:
		       Re: NSS Board membership
			 Re: `Days' in space
		     Kuiper Airborne Observatory
		     Dan Quayle on the Space Race
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: NSS Board membership
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 21:05:58 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <6226@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:

>>If one does not accept the position that space colonies are just
>>around the corner (I don't), then it becomes reasonable to speculate
							     ^^^^^^^^^
>>that a workable fusion rocket will exist by the time they are built.
>>That might make it feasible to retrieve outer solar system resources.
       ^^^^^

>    You can assume anything any nonexistent technology you want in
>enough time. Fusion power? Life extension? Nanotechnology? Antimatter?
>AI? Sure, they're all *just* around the corner, and they'll all make
><desirable activity/goal X> *so* much easier, why bother to do
>anything about it with existing technology?
>
>    This is not good engineering, this is wishful thinking (not to say
>that I advocate going off to build Island 1 anytime soon, however -
>that's also wishful thinking).

Of course it is wishful thinking!  This entire subject is wishful
thinking.  However, it is not obvious that workable fusion rockets
with a modest Isp, say 2000 s, are a greater engineering challenge
than building space colonies, on a time scale of (say) fifty years.

I do not understand the blather about life extension, etc.  Perhaps an
argument-by-parody?  I did not state that we shouldn't do *anything*
with existing technology, although I consider it obvious that existing
technology is inadequate by orders of magnitude to the task of
building a space colony.  Nor did I say that we should not work to
make space colonization easier, by working on launcher technology, for
instance.  I was just arguing that we shouldn't dismiss planetary
science just because it doesn't fit the Space Colonization Now mindset.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 89 18:07:14 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@purdue.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

In article <3664@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> robina@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Robin Adams) writes:
}In article <636@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>, hascall@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}> In article <Added.4XlHiiy00Ui38HQE8q@andrew.cmu.edu> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
}> >
}> >     A few weeks ago, there was a report on the boob-tube about a lady
}> >in France who had spent about 60 days inside a cave (mineshaft?),
}> >completely isolated with no timepieces.  She was startled when they
}> >brought her out and said her time was up, .........
}
}>   Another interesting variation would be to try various simulated
}>   night and day lengths.  (--ref: John Hascall).
}
}
}A few years ago, I sailed the Atlantic with two friends (38 days from the 
}Canaries). Our watch periods were 3-hours on and 6-hours off. This produces an 
}interesting cycle (amongst other cycles) of 27-hours. I was very suprised at 
}how well this worked. Within just two or three days (of adjustment), we had 
}settled into a rhythm that left us alert and in good spirits.

How redundant.  There are hundreds of people who live months at a time
without seeing day or night.  AND under trying conditions, with total
life support in high-tech environments.

Think SSBN.


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 17:53:24 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Kuiper Airborne Observatory


There have been several postings and questions lately about airborne
observatories.  Here are a few recollections about one of them from a
former user.

The Kuiper Airborne Observatory (KAO) is operated by NASA Ames
Research Center.  Instruments attached to the KAO telescope are
provided by various scientific investigator groups.  There are
nominally 80 research flights a year, though typically the number
actually flown is in the low 70's.  Each investigator group gets 2-4
flights.  Investigator selection is by NASA HQ, which uses a peer
review panel.

The KAO is a C-141 airplane with an opening in the upper left
side of the fuselage.  The fuselage has not been extended or widened.
The 36-inch telescope resides in a chamber filling most of the width
of the fuselage and about 8 feet or so of the length.  The chamber is
a pressure bulkhead so the aircraft cabin can be pressurized while
the telescope operates at ambient pressure and temperature.

The telescope chamber is mechanically separated from the airplane by
pneumatic vibration isolators.  The telescope is mounted on an air
bearing controlled by large, magnetically-driven torquers.  The
torquers are controlled from a gyro system and a star tracker.  The
final result is that pointing stability in the absence of turbulence
better than 1 second of arc.

The telescope is pointed in azimuth by changing the heading of the
airplane.  (The telescope looks to the left, so to observe in the
south, you must fly west.)  The telescope bearing can be rotated in
elevation from 35 to 75 degrees (nominal values).  Flight planning
uses a computer program that predicts the flight path, given the
objects to be observed and the times on each and given the
high-altitude winds.  Even so, planning a flight to optimize the
scientific return is a bit of an art.

Normal operating altitude for the KAO is 41,000 feet, though usually
the first hour or two must be spent at 37,000 or 39,000 feet.
Altitudes up to 45,000 feet are possible for the last 3-4 hours of a
flight, but for any altitude above 41,000, all participants must have
had altitude chamber training, and there are in-flight procedures
that are a bit of a nuisance.  The altitude 41,000 is also favored by
FAA regulations because flights in any direction are allowed, whereas
lower altitudes are restricted to eastbound or westbound flights.

Normal flight duration is 7.5 hours.  Typically the telescope door
will be open between 5.5 and 6.5 hours of that, depending on the
observing plan.

There are two basic justifications for the KAO.  Most flights are
justified by the much lower water vapor.  At a typical mountaintop
observatory, condensing all the water vapor above the observatory
into liquid would give a column 5-10 mm high.  This height is known
as the "precipitable water vapor".  The KAO usually sees precipitable
water vapor less than 10 microns, a factor of 1000 less.  Other
atmospheric gases are reduced by only about a factor of 4.  Since
water vapor is the primary atmospheric absorber of infrared
radiation, though, the KAO is a first-rate platform for measuring in
the 4-8 and >16 micron wavelength ranges, whereas the bulk of these
wavelengths are absorbed before the light can reach the ground.
(Some wavelengths get through at Mauna Kea, for example, but not
always and not with good transmission.)  A second justification is
mobility; if one needs to observe a one-time event like an
occultation or an eclipse, the KAO is a cost-effective platform.

Major discoveries from the KAO are the rings of Uranus, Pluto's
atmosphere, evidence for vast bursts of star formation in some
galaxies, and numerous constituents of planetary and stellar
atmospheres and of the interstellar material.  The KAO has also been
used to measure things like element abundances, dust temperatures,
total luminosities, and other properties of nearly every kind of
object in the sky.

The immediate predecessor of the KAO was a Lear Jet with a 12-inch
telescope.  As far as I know, the airplane still exists, but it is
not being used for astronomy any more.  There is now a plan for a
3-meter telescope to be built in a 747-SP.  My understanding is that
design studies are funded and in progress but that there is no final
commitment to construction.

I would be glad for any updates, clarifications, or corrections to
the above from anyone with more recent experience.  I'll also try to
answer any other questions readers may have.

-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 23:25:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Dan Quayle on the Space Race


Shortly after the November election, there was a rather drawn out discussion
of Vice-President Elect Dan Qualye's stand on the civilian space program.
Unfortunately, no one seemed to have any concrete information on Qualye's
position.  I recently came across an article which makes him look like a 
promising chairman of the National Space Council.

Quayle wrote an article entitled,"The Other Space Race:  Space Science
Education," which appeared in the October 1988 issue of _Journal_of_Defense_
and_Diplomacy_.  He seemed *very* well informed and made several insightful
comparisons to the Soviet and Japanese programs.  His article dealt
predominately with a critical shortage of engineers and scientists in this
country and the effect this dearth would have on our space program.  To
quote Quayle,"It if fine to budget grand space programs, but if we do not
get on with educating the manpower, these programs will not be doable at
any cost."

Of course, Quayle cannot be judged on one article, but he looks very promising.
I suggest those who have criticized Quayle read this article before sounding
off again.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61825                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL  61820

 "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"
 - Sir Winston Churchill

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 04:47:06 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

>Of course James van Allen is not against building space colonies, provided
>nobody suggests that any funding should be allocated to doing so... since
>we all know that such funding would have to be taken out of the budget for
>Space Science, which is the only space-related activity of any importance
>and hence should have absolute priority.

Aw, Henry, come off it! I've become more than a little irritated by people
who like to whip up religious zeal in the true believers by setting up straw
men and placing words in their opponents' mouths.  If I were to read van
Allen for the first time, having heard nothing about the man but what I'd
read in this group, I'd think I was meeting an imposter doing a poor job.
For anyone who is seriously interested in learning what van Allen has
actually said, read his writings! You may be surprised.

Uh, settlements?  Leading to discoveries and/or technological progress?  Can
you please explain this?  Why do we need settlements to lead to discoveries
and/or technological progress, and what sort of deep-space settlements are
likely to do so?  "The court finds itself unable to follow the alleged
reasoning."

:-) :-)

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 13:15:35 EST
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  Re: NSS Board membership
To: MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU

I would not write off the National Space Society.  It is reorganizing
itself and, as usual in any society, only a portion of the "name"
board members are actually active.  If you don't like van Allen's
position, it might comfort you that he is not nearly as active as, for
example, Thomas Paine.  The membership does include healthy remnants
of both the NSI and L-5, and is reorganizing itself in what I think is
a promising way: I am impressed by the breadth and intelligence of the
new president, Charles Walker.  (Also, there is a very capable
executive director Lori Garver, and ta very professional editor,
Leonard David, for the new magazine Ad Astra.  If you have a really
well-developed thesis or flame, consider sending it to him.)  The
chairman of the board of governors, Hugh Downs, is deeply involved,
and could just be the person to succeed Walter Cronkite as a principal
media personality to understand and promote the importance of space
exploration.  (He understands physics rather well.)

Some of us came to NSS's board of governors from L-5, and others came
from NSI. We all hope it will grow, along with the Planetary Society,
to help the public appreciate both the romance and practical
importance of space exploration and eventual settlement.  But the
growth of effectiveness and influence depend on the growth of
membership. Rather than grumble about what L-5 and NSS were or should
have been, consider this a new chance to do things right - whatever
that might mean to you: Join NSS and help shape the society's new
directions.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #202
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jan 89 05:35:35 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04207>; Sun, 22 Jan 89 04:05:29 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 22 Jan 89 04:05:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXqN14y00UkT01ZUNJ>;
          Sun, 22 Jan 89 03:26:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.gXqMuAy00UkZI8P04I>;
          Sun, 22 Jan 89 03:19:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXqMqzy00UkZ08Nk5o@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 03:16:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #203

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 203

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 89 22:09:57 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #443 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 16.76591689 0.00000431           50748-3 0  1777
2 00424  80.4628  75.0845 0023893 157.4122 202.8096 13.67058528312127
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 15.10456993 0.00000000           10000-3 0  6156
2 08820 109.7634 177.7100 0045471 348.8555  11.0821  6.38667053 40856
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89  9.20527980 -.00000015                   0  2074
2 10061   6.7647  70.1104 0008417 181.6789 178.2682  1.00280094  3789
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 10.39942636 0.00000012                   0    81
2 10684  63.4938 105.7221 0104621 199.3279 160.2998  2.00563180 65366
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 10.35448257 -.00000028                   0  9457
2 10893  64.5525 346.5511 0146557  28.3921 332.3915  2.00561154 78182
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89  7.18338918 -.00000155           10000-3 0  5646
2 10953   5.8705  71.4567 0108616 253.1029 105.1286  1.00709228  1002
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89  7.34248100 0.00001086           43146-3 0   535
2 10967 108.0065 316.4631 0001565 247.7027 112.3968 14.34098125551025
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89  9.67276874 -.00000028                   0  9689
2 11054  64.1096 343.0790 0051020 118.9190 241.5992  2.00559616 75189
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 10.27931996 0.00000012                   0   703
2 11141  63.5021 105.6302 0055437 322.4583  37.1874  2.00554866 73898
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          88366.94250520 0.00000779           34641-3 0  7868
2 11416  98.4997   2.9765 0011122 237.3322 122.6699 14.25350785494078
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 17.68764828 0.00050278           12975-2 0  8105
2 11703  28.4993 249.8615 0002095 174.0846 185.9871 15.37792611496549
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 15.71945747 -.00000028                   0  8377
2 11783  63.9149 342.5767 0137833  62.5547 298.8082  2.00565460 63949
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88345.42895844 -.00000026           10000-3 0   378
2 11964   5.0165  76.0252 0032177  91.3375 268.7410  0.99231566   155
GOES 5     
1 12472U          88366.13104293 -.00000247           10000-3 0  6668
2 12472   2.1114  82.5314 0001887 265.0080  94.5909  1.00262560 26922
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 10.09553324 0.00037748           91366-3 0  4021
2 12888  97.5873  55.7818 0002578  21.2345 338.9059 15.41017246404502
RS-08      
1 12998U          89  1.00414286 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5578
2 12998  82.9574 327.4553 0020002   4.8175 355.3069 12.02967823309209
RS-05      
1 12999U          89  5.23545068 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5515
2 12999  82.9601 319.6709 0008004 307.7882  52.2540 12.05064523310257
RS-07      
1 13001U          89  3.20209254 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4294
2 13001  82.9579 310.7815 0021450 198.4315 161.5982 12.08709133310948
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89  9.95868200 0.00000214           18244-3 0  6134
2 13113  82.5403 184.5051 0015312 143.0880 217.1342 13.83910084343358
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 16.78272225 0.00026809           75075-3 0  4047
2 13138  51.6132 335.9557 0001149 139.0120 221.1108 15.36427688384879
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89  8.15583625 0.00000095           47229-4 0  7359
2 13718  81.2461  78.0932 0057179  94.1556 266.6177 14.13051689312955
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89  2.09332535 0.00000118                   0  8794
2 14050   0.8739  84.3128 0001126 200.5653  75.1153  1.00277805  4945
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89  7.83992758 -.00000019           10000-3 0  3732
2 14129  26.7859 286.2278 6050471   7.3774 358.5347  2.05881846 13913
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 15.31327611 0.00000011                   0  5985
2 14189  63.1343 104.1437 0132368 214.1412 145.0236  2.00573805 40378
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          88364.69198965 0.00000563           23883-3 0  6782
2 14452  81.1619 103.3836 0094239 224.6297 134.7276 14.21926141268453
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 17.04314962 -.00000577          -12291-3 0  6247
2 14780  98.1905  82.0332 0002681  15.6430 344.4860 14.57130396259552
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89  5.22318128 0.00001665           33515-3 0  3812
2 14781  98.0281  68.6580 0014021 109.7052 250.5626 14.62747920258717
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 17.07340430 0.00034291           79401-3 0  7288
2 14898  28.5057 153.2462 0001734  27.7663 332.3076 15.41070736268046
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 11.37850011 0.00000011                   0  6180
2 15039  62.8716 103.5890 0014796 284.2549  75.6098  2.00564507 33579
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89  9.72330631 0.00000227           19560-3 0  9146
2 15099  82.5343 132.4078 0012749 326.4340  33.6016 13.83579838228209
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 15.26701959 -.00000028                   0  5634
2 15271  63.4062 342.4545 0099871 317.2925  41.9379  2.00562528 30768
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 16.28140512 0.00006579           97965-3 0  9580
2 15331  82.5378 118.5744 0024057 216.2253 143.7334 14.74596024231820
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          88358.95485427 0.00000618           36023-3 0  3114
2 15427  99.1244 336.6674 0016566  85.3005 275.0057 14.11736596207727
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89  7.10499369 0.00000303           26323-3 0   437
2 15516  82.5364  72.8887 0015235 206.1540 153.8852 13.84016705198771
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 15.87212859 -.00013584          -37310-3 0  1379
2 16095  51.6128 340.3850 0000849 134.6680 225.6094 15.36365569384730
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 10.43732671 0.00000012                   0  2905
2 16129  63.6699 104.1395 0115479 150.3904 210.3020  2.00565776 23878
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89  6.98159667 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7978
2 16191  82.5475 349.7306 0020570 345.6878  14.3663 13.16854715154305
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89  6.90888272 0.00000147           12194-3 0  4497
2 16408  82.5360 347.9072 0017162  37.3679 322.8685 13.84094632153248
Mir        
1 16609U          89 16.73981908 0.00136354           71613-3 0  6507
2 16609  51.6232  49.6041 0016374 296.9478  62.9583 15.79624414167474
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 17.79366441 0.00000637           31717-3 0  3319
2 16613  98.7166  94.5747 0000870 149.8802 210.2420 14.20049572 63351
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89  6.99611591 0.00000106           90094-4 0  2711
2 16735  82.5368  14.5799 0015850 103.0042 257.2911 13.83830452132167
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 16.89395282 0.00005733           85998-3 0  4886
2 16881  82.5233 177.7183 0022555 231.0715 128.8743 14.74278033132997
EGP        
1 16908U          89  9.42214283 -.00000036           19575-4 0  1156
2 16908  50.0129  66.1499 0011053 301.1525  58.8225 12.44374466109646
FO-12      
1 16909U          89  9.16412950 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1251
2 16909  50.0207  67.1525 0011194 297.9086  62.0613 12.44397259109604
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          88361.94143986 0.00000598           28383-3 0  1744
2 16969  98.6596  29.5865 0014443  33.0946 327.1134 14.22726000119446
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89  6.68498085 0.00000280           24360-3 0  2114
2 17290  82.4685 283.3070 0013830 359.7041   0.4119 13.83643114101282
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89  6.93208506 -.00000191           10000-3 0  2208
2 17561   0.0414  61.8792 0003736 265.4762  32.6386  1.00271437  3977
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 15.85403432 0.00145552           77215-3 0  6428
2 17845  51.6299  54.1844 0015355 299.4775  60.2497 15.79398072103606
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 11.08652120 0.00000134           13691-3 0  6339
2 18129  82.9267 354.1977 0012862 122.7328 237.5078 13.71927738 77854
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 17.77855127 0.00172988  14140-4  30139-3 0  8554
2 18225  71.8888  99.2862 0009891 261.6083  98.4017 16.01965117 87178
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89  7.99727066 -.00000206          -19290-3 0  2205
2 18312  82.5531 346.4524 0011265 289.2252  70.7785 13.83391833 70366
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 10.51330433 0.00000165           13914-3 0   767
2 18820  82.5414  45.8532 0016873 356.4711   3.6337 13.84076905 47875
AO-13      
1 19216U          89  1.64745422 0.00000000           10000-3 0   254
2 19216  57.3549 225.5808 6633630 196.4008 122.2160  2.09689954  4234
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89  7.07184943 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1056
2 19336  82.5461 289.6547 0015505 222.5431 137.4473 13.16849351 21706
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89  3.60584393 0.00000632           37406-3 0   328
2 19531  98.9206 308.5876 0012481 342.0118  18.0605 14.10773514 14263
Cosmos 1979
1 19647U          88356.57136476 0.00039219           64791-3 0   518
2 19647  65.0158 341.8322 0009549 273.3090  86.5067 15.51988232  5212
Cosmos 1980
1 19649U          88356.94433719 0.00000406           24200-3 0   327
2 19649  71.0044 273.0123 0004410   4.7529 355.3691 14.12315488  4004
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89  4.01325547 0.00079961           47147-3 0   415
2 19660  51.6218 115.3950 0017543 247.8881 111.9189 15.77247691  6059
Ekran 19   
1 19683U          89  6.17491319 -.00000271           10000-3 0   293
2 19683   1.3940 267.0977 0004265 299.2597  61.6497  1.00277935   281
1988 108D  
1 19686U          89  2.91965558 0.00000040           10000-3 0   119
2 19686   1.4290 267.2786 0021054   4.3455 356.5381  1.01515351   259
1988 109A  
1 19687U          89  3.49713384 0.00000029           10000-3 0   142
2 19687   3.0416 272.3985 0108227 348.7941  11.4238  1.01893246   226
1988 109B  
1 19688U          89  3.70007630 0.00000078           10000-3 0   141
2 19688   0.0499  97.8588 0071480   6.3679 256.5824  1.01438969   151
1988 109C  
1 19689U          89  3.01347161 0.00001004           30811-2 0   165
2 19689   6.7956 253.8720 7253180 195.7515 115.3374  2.23348528   487
Cosmos 1984
1 19705U          89  6.00361550 0.01003664  40019-4  30551-3 0   496
2 19705  62.8352 239.7403 0119061 126.8140 234.4767 16.10848332  3268
1988 111A  
1 19710U          89  5.40161872 -.00000323           10000-3 0   161
2 19710   0.5623 262.7684 0000620  81.4260  15.8334  1.00278051   176
Molniya3-34
1 19713U          89  4.47570250 0.00000903           36766-2 0   174
2 19713  62.7870 253.4025 7428829 280.1351  11.0084  2.00746119   277
1988 112D  
1 19716U          89  4.21669290 -.00000290           27457-3 0    24
2 19716  62.7898 253.3274 7375979 280.0946  11.3710  2.06837624   278
Cosmos 1985
1 19720U          89  6.04794673 -.00017422          -98882-3 0   392
2 19720  73.5628 179.3921 0006799 227.2224 132.8260 15.13000071  2086
1988 113B  
1 19721U          89  6.04660842 -.00053949          -30889-2 0   210
2 19721  73.5612 179.3893 0006644 230.0963 129.9251 15.13082182  2089
Progress 39
1 19728U          89  5.78741004 -.00071790          -42560-3 0   222
2 19728  51.6193 106.2364 0017630 251.0524 110.0938 15.77378869  1848
1988 114B  
1 19729U          88361.94322112 0.17783502  60969-4  34778-3 0   123
2 19729  51.6176 156.8630 0009460 101.5540 258.7446 16.46517324   296
Molniya1-74
1 19730U          89  4.57562740 0.00000530           20260-2 0    76
2 19730  62.8360 127.6677 7320095 288.1747   9.7255  2.05582386   160
1988 115B  
1 19731U 88115  B 88364.49627202  .00673333  00000-0  00000-0 0 00069
2 19731 062.8167 124.2948 0255053 125.7711 236.8310 15.62092613000207
1988 115D  
1 19733U          89  1.15146543 0.00000411                   0    41
2 19733  62.8892 128.1720 7279012 288.4208  10.0336  2.06604028    91
Cosmos 1986
1 19734U          89  6.09298617 0.00324578  10206-4  23428-3 0   208
2 19734  64.7787 254.9813 0040196 339.9850  20.0447 16.13606501  1247
1989 001A  
1 19749U          89 18.01680574 0.00000021           10000-3 0   152
2 19749  64.8668 175.7178 0005275 280.2801  79.6585  2.13104793   185
1989 001B  
1 19750U          89 18.04834304 0.00000021           10000-3 0   182
2 19750  64.8832 175.7264 0046849 112.3318 248.1427  2.11487409   180
1989 001C  
1 19751U          89 18.01317390 0.00000021           10000-3 0   169
2 19751  64.8717 175.7308 0009247 258.0427 101.8356  2.13155490   182
1989 001D  
1 19752U          89 10.44575135 0.33156297  38428-4  12452-3 0    45
2 19752  64.8196 174.8196 0011521 270.2742  89.7210 16.57516837    62
1989 001F  
1 19754U          89 16.12935583 0.00000021           10000-3 0    50
2 19754  64.8684 175.7784 0012081 311.1740  48.7072  2.13420469   124
1989 002A  
1 19756U          89 18.13105412 0.00149410  86627-5  25407-3 0   154
2 19756  82.5707 305.2074 0006495  75.8537 282.9870 16.02517724   910
1989 002B  
1 19757U          89 14.00353949 0.21212627 -64730-5  34552-3 0    64
2 19757  82.5627 309.8231 0013131 101.4408 258.9763 16.47359968   259
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #203
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jan 89 05:58:30 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00768>; Sun, 22 Jan 89 05:49:01 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 22 Jan 89 05:48:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXqOpdy00Vs1A1uU57>;
          Sun, 22 Jan 89 05:31:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.oXqOdgy00UkZA8ZU4u>;
          Sun, 22 Jan 89 05:18:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QXqObjy00UkZ88YE55@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 05:16:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #204

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 204

Today's Topics:
		 Finding Lagrange's Libration Points
	       Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points
			      Locations
      space science != Van Allen (was Re: NSS Board membership)
		       Re: Relativity question
			Re: A Modest Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 09:47:44 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utfyzx!sq!msb@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points

This posting is about 3-body systems where the bodies maintain a fixed
relationship to each other in space, under only their mutual gravity.

As most of you will know, such systems were investigated by Lagrange.
He considered first the situation where a primary (e.g. Sun) is orbited
by a much less massive secondary (e.g. Earth) in a circular orbit.
(Of course, if the orbit isn't circular, the fixed-position situation
can't arise.)  There is then added a tertiary body, much less massive yet.
The tertiary could be a space probe or an asteroid, and indeed, both have
been known to occur.  (And that's why this article is in both sci.astro and
sci.space.  I've directed followups to sci.space, more or less arbitrarily.)

Lagrange found that there are exactly 5 positions that the tertiary can
occupy with respect to the primary and secondary.  The three bodies can be
in a straight line: position L1 has the tertiary in the middle, L2 the
secondary, and L3 the primary.  Or they can be in an equilateral triangle,
with the tertiary either leading or trailing the secondary as they move
around the primary; these positions are L4 and L5.

There are several cases known of natural tertiaries at L4 and L5
positions; the first group of these discovered (with Jupiter as the
secondary) were named after Trojan War personalities, so these are
sometimes called the Trojan positions.  And, of course, the L-5 society
was named for the corresponding position.

The L in each of these positions stands for libration, as a body near those
positions may librate or oscillate around them, and not for Lagrange.


Now, everything I've said so far is well known and can be found in many
different books.  And most of them say about that much, draw a diagram,
and leave it at that.  I thought it would be interesting to see if I could
find the exact locations of the libration points.  And I did figure out
how to calculate L1, L2, and L3, but I don't even see why L4 and L5 exist.
I hope someone can explain it to me so that I do.


Here's my derivation of the position of the L1, L2, and L3 points.
In this presentation, I'll use "xy" to mean both "x to the power y" where
y is an integer, and "x times y" where y is a variable or expression.
Thus I might write E = mc2.  The formulas that appear are all unambiguous
when written this way, and it avoids the need of * and ^ signs.
(I wish you all used the same tools I do, so I could write it in eqn!)

Let the primary have a mass of Mm, and the secondary have a mass of m.
(Thus M is the ratio of their masses, and is assumed to be a large number.)
The (small) mass of the tertiary does not enter into the calculations
--except implicitly, in that the orbit of the secondary is calculated
without reference to the tertiary.

Let the distance from primary to secondary be r, and from primary to
tertiary, r + xr.  These two distances are going to turn out to be fairly
similar, so x will have a relatively small magnitude.  

Perhaps it's worth digressing to show why that is so.  First note that the
secondary and tertiary may be considered as both being in orbit around the
primary, with the orbits having the same period.  Now, in the L1 or L2
situation, if the secondary and tertiary were too close, they'd simply fall
together; but they are in a straight line with the primary, so the tertiary
must be orbiting the primary at a distance which is distinctly not the
one that would result in its orbital period, because the secondary has
the same period and is at that distance.  Therefore the secondary's
gravity must be having a significant effect on the tertiary's orbit.
But the secondary is much less massive than the primary, so it has much
less gravity.  So the tertiary must be fairly near the secondary.

On the other hand, if the primary is in the middle (L3), then the secondary
is so much farther from the tertiary than is the much more massive primary,
so the secondary must *not* have a very significant effect on the orbit of
the tertiary.  But as the secondary and tertiary have the same period, they
must be at nearly the same distance from the primary.

Now, let the orbital speed of the secondary in its path around the primary
be v, and of the tertiary, u ... as measured in an inertial frame, of course.


The relationship of orbital speed and radius is based on the equality
of gravitational acceleration toward the center, and the acceleration
that occurs when traversing the appropriate circle at the particular speed.

For the secondary, this means:
		GMm/r2 = v2/r					[1]
which reduces to:
		v2 = GMm/r					[2]

For the tertiary, we must consider gravitational acceleration due to
both the primary and the secondary.  We will take the L1 and L2 cases
together, because the secondary-tertiary distance is simply xr in both.

		GMm/(r+xr)2 +- Gm/(xr)2  =  u2/(r+xr)		[3]

Here +- is a plus or minus sign: plus for L2, where both gravities pull
the tertiary the same way, and minus for L1.

Now, the geometry of the situation forces the orbital speeds and radii
of the secondary and tertiary to be in direct proportion:

		u/(r+xr) = v/r					[4]

Now we square both sides of [4] and substitute for v2 using [2].

		u2/(r+xr)2 = GMm/r3				[5]

Multiply both sides of this by r+xr and cancel the factor of r on the right:

		u2/(r+xr) = GMm(1+x)/r2				[6]

Now [6] is in a form that can be readily combined with [3] to give:

		GMm/(r+xr)2 +- Gm/(xr)2  =  GMm(1+x)/r2		[7]

Cancelling the common factor of Gm/r2 reduces this to:

		M/(x+1)2 +- 1/x2  =  M(1+x)			[8]

Grouping the M terms and eliminating fractions yields:

		Mx2((x+1)3 - 1)  =  +- (x+1)2			[9]

This quintic equation can be solved numerically to give the value of x
that will result from a particular M.  However, since x is known to be
quite small in magnitude, a good approximation results from expanding the
left side to a polynomial and then simply suppressing all but the lowest
power of x on each side:

		3Mx3  ~=  +- 1					[10]

For instance, in the case of Earth and Sun, M is 330,000; putting this in
[10] gives x ~= +- 99.67.  Solving [9] numerically makes x = += 99.3345.
Since r is 93,000,000 miles, the L1 and L2 points are each 936,000 miles
from the Earth.  Notice that the distance is the same in both cases,
which follows from the +- in the equations.

What prompted all these thoughts of mine in the first place was someone's
proposal to put a power "satellite" at that L2 point, using the Earth's
atmosphere as a focusing lens.  Since the ratio of the Sun's and Earth's
diameters is about 108, the Earth exactly eclipses the Sun's disk at
a point only 861,000 miles beyond the Earth; clearly if the focusing
effect was to be useful it'd have to be at a point much closer than that,
where the ring of light around the earth added up to more than the direct
light from the sun.  So the L2 power generator is indeed a washout.
It's a curious coincidence how close L2 is to the exact-eclipse distance.

In the other case of terrestrial interest, Earth and Moon, M is about 81.
The approximate formula [9] gives x = +- 6.24; [10] gives x = +- 5.941.
Taking the orbital radius as 238,000 miles, the L1 and L2 points are
almost exactly 40,000 miles from the center of the moon.


Now for the L3 point.  The secondary-tertiary distance is now xr+2r, so
this must replace the xr term in [3] and thus in [7].  Both bodies pull
on the tertiary in the same direction, so the +- sign becomes a +.
The last part of the derivation then becomes:

		GMm/(r+xr)2 + Gm/(xr+2r)2  =  GMm(1+x)/r2	[7']

		M/(x+1)2 + 1/(x+2)2  =  M(1+x)			[8']

		M((x+2)2)((x+1)3 - 1)  =  (x+1)2		[9']

		12Mx  ~=  1					[10']

Basically the 2 dominated the x in the factor x+2, so 4 replaced a
factor of x2 that was in [10] to make [10'].

For Sun and Earth, [10'] gives x ~= 2,000,000; so the L3 point is
just 46.5 miles beyond the point in the Earth's own orbit directly
behind the Sun.

For Earth and Moon, [10'] gives x ~= 486, and [9'] makes that 485.5;
the L3 point is 490 miles beyond the Moon's orbit.

(With the actual, somewhat eccentric orbits, the tertiary would presumably
have to match its pericenter and apocenter times with the secondary, to
keep from straying off the straight line, and this would probably cause it
to leave the L3 point radially.  But a powered probe could compensate.)


This is as far as I have gotten on my own.  Now, I observe that if a
body is placed near one of the L1, L2, L3 points but slightly off the
straight line, then there will be a sideways force on it, so it makes
sense that, as I have read, these are unstable equilibria.

But now can someone explain to me why the Trojan points are stable
equilibria, or even why they are equilibria at all?  The same condition
of sideways force would seem to apply.  Clearly (I think) the equilateral-
triangle position cannot be exact; the tertiary would then be in an orbit
exactly like the secondary's despite the secondary's perturbing gravity.
So where are the true L4 and L5 positions?  And why?

Also, has anyone investigated situations where the masses are not so
unequal?  I remember reading that the Trojan positions are stable if the
some ratio exceeds 27; I think it was the secondary/tertiary mass ratio.
Of course, three equal masses can form an (unstable) equilibrium by
orbiting symmetrically in the form of an equilateral triangle around
a common center.  But I haven't heard of any other arrangements.


Mark Brader		For I do not believe that the stars are spread over a
Toronto			spherical surface at equal distances from one center;
utzoo!sq!msb		I suppose their distances from us to vary so much that
msb@sq.com		some are 2 or 3 times as remote as others.   -- Galileo

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 15:50:58 GMT
From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!dalex@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Dave Alexander)
Subject: Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points

In article <1989Jan18.044744.18328@sq.uucp>
                                        msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
> Lagrange found that there are exactly 5 positions that the tertiary
> can occupy with respect to the primary and secondary.  The three
> bodies can be in a straight line: position L1 has the tertiary in the
> middle, L2 the secondary, and L3 the primary.  Or they can be in an
> equilateral triangle, with the tertiary either leading or trailing the
> secondary as they move around the primary; these positions are L4 and
> L5.

...

> The L in each of these positions stands for libration, as a body near
> those positions may librate or oscillate around them, and not for
> Lagrange.

...

> This is as far as I have gotten on my own.  Now, I observe that if a
> body is placed near one of the L1, L2, L3 points but slightly off the
> straight line, then there will be a sideways force on it, so it makes
> sense that, as I have read, these are unstable equilibria.

So if L1, L2, and L3 are loci of unstable equilibrium, how can we expect
an object to librate or oscillate about any of them?


                        -- Dave Alexander

--
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything."
                                     -- Russell Baker

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 19 Jan 89 11:21:06 MST
From: John Shaver Modernization Office <steep-mo-m@huachuca-emh1.army.mil>
Cc: shaver@epg1-hua.arpa
Subject:  Locations

Does someone know of a listing of military locations which gives location by
longitude and latitude?  Please reply to the cc address shaver@epg1-hua.arpa.
Thanks

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 18:10:45 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: space science != Van Allen (was Re: NSS Board membership)

In article <1989Jan18.160559.2021@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <6226@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>>If one does not accept the position that space colonies are just
>>>around the corner (I don't), then it becomes reasonable to speculate
>>>that a workable fusion rocket will exist by the time they are built.
>>>That might make it feasible to retrieve outer solar system resources.

    I don't think we need fusion rockets to retrieve outer solar
system resources, or any other mission.  Your posting suggests you
feel differently. I apologize for being overly sarcastic in my
response.

>I was just arguing that we shouldn't dismiss planetary
>science just because it doesn't fit the Space Colonization Now mindset.

    (a) I don't disagree. Disliking Van Allen and "dismissing
	planetary science" are orthogonal.
    (b) I don't have a "space colonization now" mindset, or even one
	with Capitals.
    (c) However, I don't believe science should dominate NASA. I
	wouldn't mind if we spun off portions of JPL, Ames etc.
	somewhat like the Japanese have done with their two agencies.
	However, if space science funding were isolated from the
	relatively larger NASA budget, I wouldn't be surprised if the
	NSF fought to gain control of the $100 millions being spent.
	Strong arguments can be made that space science is very cost
	ineffective, particularly the planetary missions. (I do not
	care to argue this position on this newsgroup, however :-)
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.''
	- Ronald Reagan

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 13:56:43 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Relativity question


>From: nic.MR.NET!thor!christnp@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Doctor X)
>Actually, if I remember correctly, the paradox is resolved without   
>resorting to GR.  The ship and the point in the universe, say a planet,
>are in different reference frames.  In order for the ship to return to
>the planet to compare clocks, etc it has to *switch* reference frames, 
>i.e. decellerate and turn around.  The switching of reference frames 
>solves the paradox.

>In article <7217@venera.isi.edu> rod@venera.isi.edu.UUCP 
>(Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) writes:
>>General relativity teaches that it actually is possible to differentiate
>>the frames of reference.                                             
>>             I believe the acceleration is what does it. 

>I don't believe so.  First, GR is mainly concerned with the consequences
>of having a non-euclidean space-time.  That is its main difference from
>SR.  Second, many people have the misconception that the resolution to the
>twin paradox is due to the *accelleration* of the ship in the above 
>example, but it's really due to the change in frame of reference.

You are making a distinction that doesn't exist. "Acceleration" and
"change in frame of reference" are the same thing. A constant acceleration
represents a continual change in the frame of reference.

According to a general "science and technology" book I have handy, General
Relativity includes the effects of acceleration, gravity, curvature of
space, etc. Special Relativity is a "special case" of General Relativity,
in which these effects can be ignored because all observers and objects
remain in fixed frames of reference. If any of the participants in the
observation undergo "acceleration" or "change in frame of reference",
the conditions of Special Relativity are violated, and the principles
of General Relativity must be used.

(By the way, our college physics course never got around to General
Relativity. Anyone know of a good reference with a moderate amount of
mathematics?)
                                John Roberts
                                roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 20:12:44 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal

Post your address, and I'll send you a letter voicing my support.
(I'm assuming you're volunteering to coordinate this project.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #204
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Jan 89 06:25:55 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00793>; Mon, 23 Jan 89 06:00:59 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 23 Jan 89 06:00:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gXqjrLy00UkTI29U5K>;
          Mon, 23 Jan 89 05:26:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.4XqjkHy00UkZE9fU5W>;
          Mon, 23 Jan 89 05:19:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gXqjhvy00UkZQ9eE5m@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 05:16:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #205

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 205

Today's Topics:
			 Manned vs. unmanned
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
		      Re: Orbiter Modifications
		Re: Re: Number of Concorde ever build
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 18:58:54 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Manned vs. unmanned

In article <93@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>On the other hand, we can spend this $200+ billion sending out probes ...
> ...  With these we can explore every nook and cranny of the 
>solar system, from Pluto to Mercury, with dozens of probes to look at
>each moon and major asteroid, and some comets as well. 
 ...
>This gives the scientist, the prospector, and the space settlement planner
>orders of magnitude more knowledge and flexibility to work with.  The
>choice becomes no longer Moon vs. Mars (an odious debate), but pick a
>spot from any part of the solar system.  

This certainly sounds reasonable.

One little problem, though.

By the time we have spent the next two decades studying the
question to death, all the desirable real estate in the solar
system is likely to have been snapped up by the Soviets, French,
Japanese, Chinese, Israelis, Indians, Canadians, Brazilians,
Australians, and Indonesians.  (Have I missed any country with
a space program?  If so, it's an oversight.)

This is not to say, of course, that scientific probes are a bad
idea.  We should be mass-producing them and sending them out by
the score every year.  But we should not be sitting on our hands
waiting for the results from them, either.  Because the
information such probes send back is only part of the information
we will need to get out there and develop those resources.  The
other vital information is how to live and work in space.  Right
now, only one country has much of this kind of information and it
ain't the U.S.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
Video 7                                   No whimper, no blast.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                 His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 00:03:37 GMT
From: cbmvax!jesup@rutgers.edu  (Randell Jesup)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <94@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>> Fusion power? Life extension? Nanotechnology? Antimatter?
>>AI? Sure, they're all *just* around the corner, and they'll all make
>><desirable activity/goal X> *so* much easier, why bother to do
>>anything about it with existing technology?
>
>Space settlements are another example of *future* technology.  
>Nanotechnology, which is based on the precision of current 
>scientific instruments and the capabilities of living organisms, is no
>more speculative than space settlements.  Nor is fusion or antimatter.
>AI is quite a bit more unpredictable.

	You don't seem to realize, nick, that space settlements were within
'70's technology, easily within '80's.  It doesn't mean they're not expensive,
but we already have the technology needed (and then some).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 00:00:06 GMT
From: cbmvax!jesup@rutgers.edu  (Randell Jesup)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <93@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>What if we build our $100+ billion dollar lunar base, and then find out
>there is nothing worthwhile there?*  Or a similar amount on a manned Mars
>mission?  In fact, both the Moon and Mars might turn out to be terrible 
>places to build space industries and settlements or to provide material
>for same.

	There's one very valuable thing there: energy.  We're burning up our
energy reserves (the current oil glut is merely pumping more of it out of
the ground.)  When we're out, will we still have the capitol/energy/etc
to then try to set up SPS's?  The point of a moonbase (other than research),
is that raw materials from the moon are cheaper than sending them from
earth.  Even oxygen delivered to the space station could be of very soon.

	Also, fuel for your outer and inner system probes can come from the
moon, much cheaper than lifting the fuel from earth (given an existing
mining-moonbase.)

>This gives the scientist, the prospector, and the space settlement planner
>orders of magnitude more knowledge and flexibility to work with.  The
>choice becomes no longer Moon vs. Mars (an odious debate), but pick a
>spot from any part of the solar system.  

	The moon is a good stepping stone to any other destination (or fuel
base for a space-station stepping stone).  It also would develop the
technologies needed to go to/live on/exploit/whatever the rest of the
solar system.  Mars is silly as a stepping stone, it's WAY to far away to
be useful for almost anything for some time to come, except scientific
exploration.

>------------
>
>* Lunar materials to support other space industries (eg LOX) are not
>worthwhile until such industries generate the $100+ billion/yr plus   
>demand needed to pay for such a base, and  such materials can be made 
>and transported cheaper than from Earth or asteroids. 

	100 billion PER YEAR?  Seems rather high to me.  Asteroids are
very far away (energy-wise), and are unknown quantities for the most part
(compared to the moon).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 15:25:23 GMT
From: pitstop!sundc!hadron!klr@sun.com  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

In article <209@s5.Morgan.COM> frank@Morgan.COM (Frank Wortner) writes:
>In article <kXoVNsy00Xc-46vEU2@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>>[Concorde] was killed by the refusal of the US to let it land
>>in NY. (Tell me about protectionism....).
>
>I *do*, however, remember seeing the Concorde at JFK when I was passing
>near the airport.  Landing rights were eventually secured.

The Concord also makes weekly visits to Northern Virginia's Dullas
International Airport.  That droopy nosed approach looks really strange
coming over the trees.

I still have memories (and pictures) of the Concord doing a high-speed
(subsonic), low altitude wing-waggle salute over the mated Space Shuttle
Enterprise and 747 transporter, when it visted IAD a few years ago.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 18:27:54 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: Orbiter Modifications

In article <890117110612.0000012E121@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
:
:	               MAJOR ORBITER MODIFICATIONS
:
: . Brake Improvements - These changes were made to eliminate mechanical
:and thermally-induced brake damage, improve steering margin and reduce the
:effects of tire damage or failure.  Modifications for the STS-26 flight were
:the thicker stators, stiffened main landing gear axles, tire pressure
:monitoring and anti-skid avionics.

Anti-lock braking system...

: . 17-Inch Disconnect - A positive hold-open latch design feature for the
:main propulsion system disconnect valves between the orbiter and the
:external tank (ET) was developed to ensure that the valve remains open during
:powered flight until nominal ET separation is initiated.

Locking gas cap...

: . Thermal Protection System - TheTPS was improved in areas on the orbiter
:in the wind elevon cove region, nose landing gear door, lower wing trailing
:edge sruface and elevon leading edge.

Climate control...

: . Crew Escape System - A pyrotechnically jettisoned side hatch, crew
:parachutes and survival gear and a curved telescoping pole to aid the
:crew in clearing the wing, have been added to give a bail-out capability
:in the event of a problem where runway landing is not possible.  An egress
:slide has been added to facilititate rapid postlanding egress from the
:vehicle under emergency conditions.

Sun roof...


<sigh>  Seems that the US space industry has finally begun to respond
to consumer demand.  It's significant that these modifications were
installed only after the Japanese announced their entry into the space 
market.  Undoubtedly, NASA realized that imported space shuttles would
come with all these features standard, and wanted to beat the Japanese
to the punch.

Now, all we need is a 5-mission, 50 million mile warranty and a sporty,
turbo model. 

8-) 8-) 8-)
------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt
          Richard Sexton has determined that this poster may be 
                   hazardous to your health.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 18:34:57 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

In article <8XpBody00XomQ0fFNY@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>The delay in securing the landing permission wasn't justified by any reason...
>American manufacturers had lobbied very hard to
>get that plane conmercially killed. They succeded !

The delay was from court battles over the noise issue.  Suppose you tell us
what US manufacturers did to kill it.  I think what killed it were high
fuel consumption and limited range.  No subsonic jet would be successful if
its usefulness were limited to the North Atlantic run (London/Paris to
NY/Washington).*  And its fuel reserves on arrival to New York would be
considered impermissibly low on another plane.

>Fortumately they couldn't do that with Airbus Industrie.

I'm surprised you're not moaning about the resistance La Guardia put up to
letting Airbuses land.  It seems that Airbus Industrie didn't consult much
with airports over their landing restrictions.  They built their plane
(A300/A310) with the main gear legs too close together, violating La
Guardia's preexisting rules on weight concentration (which were intended to
safeguard the runways, which were built over soft landfill).
"Fortumately", a little friendly gov't-to-gov't arm twisting got La Guardia
to relent.

* OK, so they fly to Bahrain.
-- 

			David R. Smith, HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
			(415) 857-7898

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #205
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jan 89 04:29:49 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04534>; Tue, 24 Jan 89 04:16:01 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 24 Jan 89 04:15:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXr38ny00UkT42:khZ>;
          Tue, 24 Jan 89 03:22:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.YXr35Ay00UkZE42E4u>;
          Tue, 24 Jan 89 03:18:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cXr33Uy00UkZ84104c@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 03:16:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #206

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 206

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Dec 5 AW&ST
		 Details on the alleged FTL signals.
			    Re: NSS Board
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
	       Information sources on planetary probes.
		       NSS and space settlement
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
			    Re: Locations
			    Re: Locations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 00:43:16 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Dec 5 AW&ST

[Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is 1221 Ave. of
the Americas, New York NY 10020 USA.  Rates depend on whether you're
"qualified" or not, which basically means whether you look at the ads
for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or
military interest.  Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get
the cheap rate.  US rate is $58 qualified, higher for unqualified.
It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing
to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you.]

Soviet radarsat reactors pose yet another problem:  they are interfering
with astronomical gamma-ray detectors on other satellites.  Solar Max's
gamma-ray spectrometer has been encountering temporary interference for
quite a while, and there is real concern about possible effects on the
Gamma Ray Observatory (now being built).  The problem has been recognized
for several years but was classified until now.

Mitsubishi test-fires the LE-7 engine for the H-2 launcher.  Successful.

ALS contract awards delayed by a bid protest from a tiny Canadian company,
much to the disgust of the major bidders.

USSR is ground-testing the first expansion module for Mir, for launch in
April.  It is nearly the size of the original basic Mir module, and will
carry two large solar panels.  It will be a "service module", carrying
various facilities including a large airlock (which will include at
least one Soviet MMU).  Another add-on module will go up later this year,
as soon as can be managed (because attitude control will be difficult
with an asymmetric configuration).

France and USSR agree to a long-term space cooperation plan, including
French equipment aboard Mir modules.  A French cosmonaut will visit Mir
for a month or so about every two years.  These will be paying flights.
(France reportedly is trying to get at least one more free flight like
the current one, but Glavcosmos is adamant about its no-more-freebies
policy.)

Soviets prepare to test the An-225 heavylift cargo aircraft, an enlarged
An-124 Ruslan that will be by far the heaviest aircraft in the world.
One of its missions will be transportation of Energia and/or Buran parts.

The first manned flight of Buran (tentatively expected to be the third
flight) will have modified MiG-25 ejection seats for the crew.

USSR continues to develop upgraded versions of Soyuz (better visibility
for docking) and Progress (a cargo-return capability -- current versions
burn up on reentry and are used for Mir's garbage disposal).  Hardware
construction is already underway, although the Soviets decline to give
a schedule for first launches.

US and Chinese officials meet in Washington to discuss putting a quota
on Long March launches of US-built satellites.  China proposed 4/year;
the US proposed a six-year average of 1/year, a clause increasing the
quota if substantial launch backlogs develop, and a requirement that
China price "on a par" (the precise meaning of this was not defined)
with Western launch services.  [A pity that US anti-trust laws aren't
applicable, this would certainly violate them...]  Issues of technology
transfer and third-party liability are also being negotiated, but no
real problems are seen there.

NASA names crews for four more missions, nothing particularly notable
except that two civilian mission specialists have been assigned to
STS-35, a military flight, and DoD is not too happy about that.

Hughes signs contract with AsiaSat to refurbish the former Westar 6
(retrieved by shuttle in 1984) for launch on Long March next year.

The automatic landing of Buran was done by a system closely resembling
the Microwave Landing System which is the new international standard
for civil aviation.

DARPA is exploring use of small Navstar receivers on spacecraft for
automatic orbit control, reducing workload on ground stations.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 18:31:00 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Details on the alleged FTL signals.


         The following article contains more details on Obolensky's 
    claim of FTL signals, and a rebuttal by Jim Lesurf; from the January 
    14, 1989 issue of NEW SCIENTIST:

         Alexis Obolensky, the American (United States) instrumentation
    engineer who claims to have discovered faster than light (FTL)
    signals, set up an experimental rig which consists of a wire arranged
    in a triangular circuit with a 250 volt battery at its apex and a pair
    of square metal plates designed to act as capacitors at the corners of
    the base of the triangle.  Two mercury vapor relays break the circuit
    sixty times per second at the base of the triangle near each of the
    plates.  A pair of sensing coils, linked by coaxial cables to a twin
    channel oscilloscope located up to 46 meters away, encircles the base
    wire near the relays. 

         One of the relays discharges the parallel plate capacitor, while
    the other relay remains closed.  Obolensky claims the signals can take
    two routes to the oscilloscope:  Through the nearest coax cable and on
    the base wire and the longer coax cable.  He claims the first signals
    arrived almost simultaneously and almost instantaneously along both
    routes - he claims 100 times faster than the speed of light, which is
    186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second.  He claims a second
    signal then arrives, traveling at twice the speed of light. 

         Jim Lesurf, Saint Andrews University, sees two major flaws in the
    experiment:  The sensor coils do not detect current because they are
    perpendicular to the magnetic field produced - instead they detect
    electric field; the current does not necessarily stop as soon as the
    relay opens - it involves changing magnetic fields:  The parallel
    plates would act as mirrors producing electromagnetic images of the
    circuit wires.  These flaws do not represent FTL transmissions but
    changes in potential at various points in the circuit as the plates
    are charged and discharged.  He also suggests a path between the
    coaxial cables whose speed would vary with atmospheric conditions
    (experiment outside) that explains the varying measurements produced. 

         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1989 12:30-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: NSS Board

I was likewise surprised to see Van Allen on the Board of Governors.
Keep in mind though that the Board of Governors is a do-nothing body
that doesn little more than fill space on the letterhead margin and
possibly act as contacts to other VIPs.

But truthfully, I really don't understand why he would want to have
anything to do with us.

We are unabashedly pro-settlement, and more strongly free-market
oriented than any other large space organization I am aware of

You need only look at our magazine, now that we have dumped Space World
and the conservative Palmer Publications. Ad Astra states up front that
we are for the human settlement of space. It makes no bones about it.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 15:49:29 GMT
From: epiwrl!parker@uunet.uu.net  (Alan Parker)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

In article <9572@ut-emx.UUCP> tmca@emx.UUCP (The Anarch) writes:
>What gets me though is that neither Great Britain nor the U.S.A. will 
>allow them
>to fly supersonic over land (last I heard, anyhow) and yet both these nations
>allow their military junk to  make as much noise as it feels like.

This just isn't true.   Military jets rarely (never?) fly supersonic of
US land, except on the ranges out in the deserts where there aren't any
people and buildings.  When was the last time you heard a sonic boom
over a US city?

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 21:49:00 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Information sources on planetary probes.


         For the person who requested some information on the history 
    of planetary exploration by space probes, I recommend 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):         

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

          Kenneth Gatland et al, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 
           1981

          Kenneth Gatland, ROBOT EXPLORERS, 1972

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

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

          Carl Sagan, PLANETS, 1969 (LIFE Science Library)

          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, and Uranus (and 
    soon Neptune).

          More details on American, Soviet, European, and Japanese probe 
    missions can be found in SKY AND TELESCOPE, ASTRONOMY, 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 and economic factors, as you no doubt 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.  Membership in the Society is $20 yearly for U.S.
    citizens.  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

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 17:35:08 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: NSS and space settlement


Whether or not the NSS board goals are "better or worse" than
the original L5 Society, Henry is absolutely right about the
disappearance of space settlement as a major goal.  That was what
L5 was started for.  Then the "milestones" became the "goals".
Now the original goals are considered immature and embarassing.

There are a lot of organizations out there with impractical goals.
Some of them have trillion dollar budgets and nuclear weapons.
L5 seemed relatively harmless, and collected some of the best oddball
geniuses it has ever been my pleasure to meet.  It has been taken over
by suit-and-tie people with suit-and-tie goals, who brag about their
contacts and their ability to "get something done".  They changed the
definition of "something done" in order to "succeed".

For you folks that prefer the new "something done", well, I'm glad
you have the NSS to serve you.   Personally, I want a divorce.  NSS
can keep the suit-and-tie folk, the congressional lobbying, and the
short term goals.  I need to spend some time hanging around visionary
dreamers, practical or not;  it helps me survive the shrivel-souled
bean counters and smothering totalitarian fools I see every day.

Anyone want to start the L4 Society?  Membership strictly limited
to people who want to GO, practical or not.  Handicapped access
available, no gravity well too deep!

Ad Astra, goddammit, AD ASTRA!

-- 
Keith Lofstrom   ...!tektronix!vice!keithl   keithl@vice.TEK.COM
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 04:32:29 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!varvel@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Donald A. Varvel)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

Sometime around 1960, USAF experimented with civilian tolerance for
sonic booms by regularly flying supersonic over Oklahoma City.  They
discovered that the public doesn't put up with it.  You _can't_ fly
supersonic over populated areas of democracies, whether in military
or civilian aircraft.  It is only political in that any government
that allows it will get voted out of office.

The Pacific cries for hypersonic civil aviation.  It isn't easy, though.

-- Don Varvel

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 13:59:09 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!frank@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Frank Abernathy)
Subject: Re: Locations

In article <8901191321.aa04895@FHP2.HUACHUCA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL>, steep-mo-m@HUACHUCA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL (John Shaver Modernization Office) writes:
> Does someone know of a listing of military locations which gives location by
> longitude and latitude?  Please reply to the cc address shaver@epg1-hua.arpa.
> Thanks

Why?  You want to sell someone a Fire Control Table with our bases as targets?

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 17:56:31 GMT
From: bbn.com!jallred@bbn.com  (John Allred)
Subject: Re: Locations

In article <9639@ut-emx.UUCP> frank@ut-emx.UUCP (Frank Abernathy) writes:
>In article <8901191321.aa04895@FHP2.HUACHUCA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL>, steep-mo-m@HUACHUCA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL (John Shaver Modernization Office) writes:
>> Does someone know of a listing of military locations which gives location by
>> longitude and latitude?
>
>Why?  You want to sell someone a Fire Control Table with our bases as targets?

Anyone (read: a bad guy) who really wants such a table already has it.
____
John Allred
BBN Systems and Technologies Corp.
(jallred@bbn.com)

A truly wise man (or woman) never plays leapfrog with a unicorn.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #206
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jan 89 07:17:21 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00720>; Tue, 24 Jan 89 05:58:12 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 24 Jan 89 05:58:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4Xr4z9y00jZd81IE4K>;
          Tue, 24 Jan 89 05:28:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.YXr4qly00UkZM4AU4y>;
          Tue, 24 Jan 89 05:19:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <MXr4o4y00UkZE4=E5L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 05:16:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #207

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 207

Today's Topics:
	       Asteroids (was Re: NSS Board membership)
			    Re: Relativity
     Observer approaching C (was Re: Stupid relativity question)
			  Re: Space colonies
			  Re: Space colonies
		     Re: SST landing rights in US
		       Re: Manned vs. unmanned
			      Concordski
			    Re: Locations
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		   Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race
		   Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 15:50:36 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Asteroids (was Re: NSS Board membership)

In article <5740@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
>>* Lunar materials to support other space industries (eg LOX) are not
>>worthwhile until such industries generate the $100+ billion/yr plus   
>>demand needed to pay for such a base, and  such materials can be made 
>>and transported cheaper than from Earth or asteroids. 
>
>	100 billion PER YEAR?  Seems rather high to me.  Asteroids are
>very far away (energy-wise), and are unknown quantities for the most part
>(compared to the moon).

If you learn one thing about asteroids, it should be that some are
much *closer* than the moon, energy-wise.  1982 DB (does it have a
number & name now?) can be reached from LEO with a 4.4 km/s delta-v;
it takes 6 km/s to get to the lunar surface.  To return to LEO from
1982 DB requires as little as 0.1 km/s delta-v, using aerobraking;
from the lunar surface, about 3 km/s.  So, the energy cost of
returning material to LEO from asteroids is *spectacularly* lower than
from the moon.  Asteroids also have the important volatile elements,
especially hydrogen, that are essentially absent on the moon.

Asteroids are not complete unknowns -- we have samples: meteorites --
but surely ignorance is a reason to explore them, not ignore them.

If 1982 DB were 1962 DB, we'd have pieces of it in the Smithsonian
today.  The case for asteroids can only get better as we find more of
them.  As of 1/88, 104 earth-approaching asteroids were known, less
than .1% (estimated) of the population >= 100 meters in diameter.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1989 23:57-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Relativity

How do we know that there is not indeed a theory that is a superset of
Einstein? A lot of work in physics goes into getting rid of
inifinities. string-theory f'r'instance.

I would say that I don't believe for one instance that there is such a
thing as infinite mass, no matter how fast you go. I suspect SOMETHING
will break long before that, EVEN IF YOU CAN GET THE ENERGY TO KEEP
ACCELERATING.

Maybe you'll become a black hole, or maybe you'll tunnel through to the
negative have of the hyperbola.

I suspect that when you get up to those high energies that you will
enter the realm where quantum theory cannot be ignored even for
macroscopic objects.

I'm not saying that the speed of light is not necessarily a 'limit',
but that infinities just don't happen. They aren't neat. And Hawking
doesn't like them, so who am I to differ?

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 16:31:41 GMT
From: cadnetix.COM!cadnetix!beres@uunet.uu.net  (Tim Beres)
Subject: Observer approaching C (was Re: Stupid relativity question)

In article PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>Let's change the title of this topic, please.  I didn't see the original
>posting, but any question that sparks this amount of discussion and
>dare-I-say learning shouldn't be called stupid.

Thanks.  I started this topic and a summary might be in order.  

The original question:  As an observer/space-traveller approached C 
what would the observed effects by the traveller (not by an observer in 
an inertial reference frame).

Some answers:  1.  You can't go that fast.  [This consisted of one persons
entire answer - I was truly effing illuminated.   Well you may not be able
to go exactly C, but you certainly can approach it - the problem being that
a "stationary" observer can't witness this...but you, at ~C, certainly would]
2.  Since the "mass approaches infinity" part of Einstein's Special 
Relativity really has to do with the accelerations necessary to move an
object, not with its "intrinsic" mass, the observer at ~C would not notice
a change in his/her/its mass. [Thank you whoever it was that explained
this mass effect!]  3.  We don't really know what the observer would
notice, especially since we would be dead by the time the observer could
tell us.   4.  Einstein might be wrong, we'll just have to go real fast and
find out.  [Read "Was Einstein Wrong?" or something close to that title;
actually, in just about any physics/science book there will be evidence
presented backing Einstein - in "Future Magic", Dr. Forward states that
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is one of the most well tested 
theories ever]

If I've left off any answers, I apologize.  In asking these types of 
questions I typically find that the "answers" will diverge quite a bit.
The benefit of this, though, is that the answers that are presented
with some backing evidence or references give me a chance to follow up
on my own.  

			Tim

------>MY SOAPBOX (I speak for myself)
     My nephew Mark, in a letter:  Hi Uncle Tim  my aquarium is great.  4
     fish died but my crab is still living.  [Some of us have good attitudes]
Tim Beres   beres@cadnetix.com  {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 18:17:16 GMT
From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kevin S. Van Horn)
Subject: Re: Space colonies

In article <1989Jan18.160559.2021@cs.rochester.edu>
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>[...] I consider it obvious that existing
>technology is inadequate by orders of magnitude to the task of
>building a space colony.

According to my sources existing technology *is* more or less adequate
to the task of building space colonies -- at least there are no
"show-stoppers" --, it's just that they're not *affordable*.  What's
needed is cheaper space transportation, more experience working in
space, and a good economic motive for building them.

Kevin S. Van Horn

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 15:10:33 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Space colonies

>According to my sources existing technology *is* more or less adequate
>to the task of building space colonies -- at least there are no
>"show-stoppers" --, it's just that they're not *affordable*.  What's
>needed is cheaper space transportation, more experience working in
>space, and a good economic motive for building them.

I consider orders of magnitude too expensive == inadequate by orders
of magnitude.

We don't need experience if that experience will not be applied for
decades.  Consider all the experience gained in Apollo, and subsequently
lost, because it wasn't "steam engine time".

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1989 14:06-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SST landing rights in US

Actually what stopped the SST in the US were the enviro-nuts who
probably thought the sonic booms would vibrate the tail feathers off
the ducks. Or maybe they felt that if man were meant to fly at MACH god
would have given him a higher methane storage capacity... :-) and :-(

Seriously though, it was a bunch of noisy neo-luddites who got them
banned from all but NY and DC, and I think they even tried to stop them
there.

I don't remember to well how much they had to do with killing the
Boeing SST. The cancelation certainly didn't help the Seattle economy
much. But then, my feeling is that if it required government funding to
create a COMMERCIAL product, then it probably means that the technology
of 1970 was just not up to the job. When an SST is economically viable,
they will be built. The Concorde is nice, but I wonder if it ever paid
off it's full development cost?

I would guess we'll see the return of the SST sometime in the early
part of the next century. It will then be the standard aircraft for
fairly long haul flights.

If the NASP does turn into a commercial product, I will predict it will
follow the same path as the SST, and for the same reasons. There will
be a few built by some country by 2010 or so. They will be used for
very long haul flights for very premium prices. Then, by around 2040 or
earlier (the technological exponential), they will become a common
place form of transport for those distances and for LEO.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 04:53:18 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Manned vs. unmanned

In article <189@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> By the time we have spent the next two decades studying the
> question to death, all the desirable real estate in the solar
> system is likely to have been snapped up by the Soviets, French,
> Japanese, Chinese, Israelis, Indians, Canadians, Brazilians,
> Australians, and Indonesians.  (Have I missed any country with
> a space program?  If so, it's an oversight.)

Let's see here, this is 1989 as I read this statement. In the
next two decades no nation on earth is going to establish even one
self-sufficient off-earth colony*, much less "snap up" all the
desirable real estate in the solar system. I can only conclude one
of the following:

1. This posting is actually a message from some time in the 
indeterminate future, proving that time travel is possible, and
we had better start bracing for those paradoxes.

2. The solar system contains no desirable real estate beyond what
these nations can now occupy.

or perhaps another:

3. The author has already set his sights on some choice plot on,
say, Io, and is thus redefining "decade" in terms of the Jovian year.

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

* I am not particularly happy about this fact, but I can think of
few that are so certain.

------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <Added.8Xpn7Iy00Ui345jk8T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 20 Jan 89 08:16:56 EST
Resent-From: Harold Pritchett <HAROLD@UGA.UGA.EDU>
Resent-To: Ted Anderson <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 08:49 N
From: "Rob A. Vingerhoeds / Ghent State University" <ROB%BGERUG51.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Concordski

Bruce Matthews (attcan!utzoo!dciem!client2!bgm@uunet.uu.net) writes:

>> When was the last Concorde manufactured?  How about the Tu-144 (Concordski)?
>> The last bit of news I heard on the Tu-144 was a few years ago when the
>> Soviets announced they were putting it into regular, scheduled airline
>> service.  Is that service still running?
> ...
>I don't know much about the Tu-144 except that one was involved in a
>spectacular crash at an airshow a number of years ago.

As far as I know the Tu-144 is no longer in service, as problems seem to
have been coming also after the crash during the airshow.

RV

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 15:59:51 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stda.jhuapl.edu!jwm@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Locations

In article <8901191321.aa04895@FHP2.HUACHUCA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL> steep-mo-m@HUACHUCA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL (John Shaver Modernization Office) writes:
}Does someone know of a listing of military locations which gives location by
}longitude and latitude?  Please reply to the cc address shaver@epg1-hua.arpa.
}Thanks


You could ask the Soviet Embassy  :-)

(ask for "targetting information for ICBMs")


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 09:01:39 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan18.102436.12838@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Van Allen correctly predicted the disastrous failure of the space
>shuttle program to achieve its stated objective of reducing launch
>costs, and so far his predictions about the space station are right on
>target.  

>Nick Szabo (szabonj@humpback.UUCP) writes:
>Who says that James van Allen is against building space colonies?  James
>van Allen is against current forms of manned spaceflight (ie station, shuttle).
>This is a very different thing.  
>
>In fact, the exploration of the *entire* solar system which van Allen
>and myself advocate will bring about the discoveries leading to space        
>settlements much sooner than our current mass wastage on manned capsules in
>low earth orbit.  

Both of these postings declare the shuttle and space station to be wasteful
failures. While the shuttle did fail to live up to the preconstruction PR,
and the space station might do the same, I think it's short sighted to call
them "disastrous failures" and "mass wastage". In terms of manned space R&D
I think they both are (will be) extremely successful. The shuttle has taught
us a vast amount about how to build (and not build) a reusable space vehicle,
and I'm certain the station will do the same for human space habitats.

As to the perennial question of whether we should spend money on manned or
unmanned space research, I think most people support both. Of course this
brings up the real rub, just how much money should each program get. I think
it's clear that manned space research is by its nature much more expensive
than unmanned. In the one case you have to lift human size structures, life
support, and human beings; in the other miniaturized computers and scientific
instrumentation. Given this, unless you're part of the small minority that
rejects one type of research, I think current spending priorities are close
to what they should be.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results
guarenteed to advance science, satisfy every special intrest group, generate
2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 16:11:05 GMT
From: netsys!lamc!well!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race

In article <45000017@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> ... Quayle wrote an article entitled,"The Other Space Race:  Space Science
>Education," which appeared in the October 1988 issue of _Journal_of_Defense_
>and_Diplomacy_.  He seemed *very* well informed ...
>Of course, Quayle cannot be judged on one article, but he looks very promising.
>I suggest those who have criticized Quayle read this article before sounding
>off again.

And if whatever bright young aide who wrote the article for dumb Dan
was transferred to his VP staff and happens to be in a position to
continue to ghost-manage for his boss, specifically on the Space
Council, then this might actually be good news.

Do not, however, bet your house and grounds on it.

-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 20:25:14 GMT
From: microsoft!gordonl@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race

In article <45000017@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> 
> Shortly after the November election, there was a rather drawn out discussion
> of Vice-President Elect Dan Qualye's stand on the civilian space program.
> I recently came across an article which makes him look like a 
> promising chairman of the National Space Council.
> 
> Quayle wrote an article entitled,"The Other Space Race:  Space Science
> Education," which appeared in the October 1988 issue of _Journal_of_Defense_
> and_Diplomacy_.  He seemed *very* well informed and made several insightful
> comparisons to the Soviet and Japanese programs.  

Of course, Mr. Higgins is a bit naive about the way that politicians and
other honchos operate.  There's absolutely no chance that Quayle wrote
this article, and I personally consider it debatable that he's even
*read* his "own" article...  

This article may indeed give insight into the
direction the program might go, since it was probably guided 
by the same Quayle staffers that will actually do the space program work,
but it's really naive to suggest that Quayle actually WROTE it, and
that it somehow reflects upon Quayle's knowledge or thought processes.
	
	gordon letwin
	microsoft

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #207
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Jan 89 05:28:31 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04498>; Wed, 25 Jan 89 04:15:24 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 25 Jan 89 04:15:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QXrMGCy00UkTI7XkUY>;
          Wed, 25 Jan 89 03:25:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.YXrMA2y00UkZET7E4T>;
          Wed, 25 Jan 89 03:19:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXrM9Xy00UkZIT604n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 03:16:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #208

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 208

Today's Topics:
		   Transmitter failure on Phobos II
			   Fletcher Speech
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 01:34:13 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Transmitter failure on Phobos II

     The USSR's Phobos II probe to Mars has suffered a "major hardware 
problem" with its communications, according to both Defense Daily and Soviet 
Areospace (Jan. 9th).  The main transmitter, a 50 Watt high data rate system, 
has failed almost completely, and there is little chance it can be recovered.  
This leaves only the 5 Watt low rate back up transmitter, obviously with 
little capacity for the imaging data of Mars/Phobos.  The high data rate 
system was to operate at 4000 bits per second, the same as the US Viking 
probes.  Roughly the new lower rate will be 1/10 of this (though some increase 
may be possible depending on the noise levels.  Note that the internal 
storage capacity on the Phobos probe is 30 Megbytes. 
     Russian researchers believe that they should still be able to get the 
data from the Phobos encounter on April 7.  The two Phobos surface probes, the 
base station and the hopper, have their own transmitters.  However, the initial 
Martian orbital data, slated to start on Jan 29th, will be drastically 
reduced.  The good news is that the three FREGAT television cameras and the 
connected spectrometer have been repaired after an earlier problem.  The 
computer has room for 1100 groups of pictures from the 4 instruments, hence 
the problem on the initial orbits.  Also one of 10 particle stream instruments 
has failed, but that is not considered critical (sorry I am not certain 
exactly which of the charged particle instrument they are referring to here).
All of this comes after the earlier total failure of Phobos I.
     According to earlier information the Russians should have started the 
final course corrections sometime between Jan. 14 to 22, but I have not heard 
of it.  Phobos will be heading towards Mars from the interplanetary orbit and 
reach about a minimum distance of 800 Km (500 miles) on the 29th.  At that 
point the retros will fire, to insert the craft into a highly elliptical orbit 
of 4200 Km (2610 mi) periares and 79,000 Km (49,100 mi.) apoares of 72 hours 
period (sorry - I am just guessing that they will combine the greek orbital 
prefixes with the greek name for Mars). It will maintain this orbit for 25 
days with the original plans calling for high resolution photos of Mars.  
    Note: for those trying to follow the Phobos missions the best source I 
have seen is the new book "Race to Mars" edited by Frank Miles and Nicholas 
Booth, Harper & Row pub. (1988) $19.95; Library of Congress call number 
TL799.M3R3.
    Sorry for the delay in this report (and my other Soviet program data) but 
I was off at a conference and have just gotten caught up from the January 
rush.  Also I must thank several people who sent kind notes with respect to my 
postings at the year's end - my net connections do not all me to reply to all 
of you but your interest is appreciated.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 19:11:33 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Fletcher Speech


Following is the prepared text of a speech by NASA Administrator
James Fletcher.  The text came from the NASA news service and is
posted here in its entirety.  Please note that the remarks are
Fletcher's and NOT mine; I am merely reporting and not expressing
either agreement or disagreement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
James W. McCulla                           January 17, l989
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.             Immediate Release
(Phone:  202/453-8398)                    

                 REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY:
                  EXPLORERS CLUB, NEW YORK CITY
                        JANUARY 17, 1989

                      DR. JAMES C. FLETCHER
                       NASA ADMINISTRATOR

INTRODUCTION 

     I consider it a great privilege--and a great opportunity--to 
be able to address you this evening.  A privilege, because this 
august body holds dear so many of the values that energize the 
Nation's activities in space and it is good to share ideals among 
those on both side of the public-private fence.  An opportunity, 
because I feel the currents of history are rapidly taking us 
toward a decisive fork, an irreversible set of choices that will 
determine for our lifetimes the role and position to which the US 
can aspire in carrying forward man's destiny beyond the frontiers 
of Earth.

     If this sounds a bit ominous, a little disturbing, it is 
meant to.  As a nation, I believe we have become a bit apathetic, 
a bit disinterested in the substance of the great decisions and 
focused more on our immediate and personal horizons.  We really 
do leave a shockingly large percentage of our critical decisions 
up to others without that intellectual involvement so necessary 
to a true national consensus, a true long-term commitment to a 
course of action for a significant purpose.

     As the United States moves from this Administration to its 
successor, a hundred special interests are preparing to take 
sides in fierce contention for some piece of the Federal budget 
and some portion of the President's attention.  It should be of 
serious concern to everyone, not that there are so many needs and 
interests in conflict, but that the standards of decision among 
them seem to favor immediacy over futurity.  One of the great 
issues in the developing debate is that of our Nation's stake--
and probably our civilization's stake--in the exploration of the 
universe.  And a significant element in the outcome of that 
debate is that the real issue is seldom confronted and made 
explicit by the executive, the legislature, or the media upon 
which so many of us must rely for informed opinion.  

     This evening I hope to put some flesh and sinew onto the 
bare bones of the argument for space.

IMPERATIVES

     Perhaps the most compelling imperative in history has been 
the human demand to explore, to experience, to know, and 
eventually to control the totality of the available 
environment.  Early man's epic treks have taken him to every 
continent and across every ocean.  Some mechanistic models of 
human history assign the causes of our ancestors' expansive 
migrations to factors of climate and resources and competition; I 
think we cannot overlook the intrinsic factors that lie deep 
within us all and motivate us to seek knowledge and experience, 
to explore and tame the unknown.

     We need only to look about us to see the great lessons and 
relics of history:  societies that recognize the nature of the 
human challenge build and grow and prosper.  Those that lose 
vitality, that lose the sense of adventure and risk, that trade 
investment for immediacy become frozen in time and today are only 
fading legends and curiosities.  

     But we must wonder at the performance of our predecessor 
civilizations--the great intellectual and physical works that 
characterize these nations and empires of the past remain alive 
today as the foundations of our own sciences, technologies, and 
philosophies.  We see the evidence of enormous engineering skills 
in the roads and highways and aqueducts and canals that tied 
together the early empires of Asia and Europe and South 
America.  We rely every day on the structure of abstract thought 
and the discipline of logic that has given us the tools of art 
and science.  What will we leave as valuable and as permanent to 
those inheritor civilizations we will count as our inheritors?

CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE

     There is a well-known phrase, indelicate but pithy, that 
says, "root hog, or die."  It applies to societies as it does to 
individuals.  It means that the ultimate price of complacency is 
extinction, that the reward of investment is the survival of our 
heirs.

     The space program represents, in one small nutshell, all 
that we can say about challenge and response, about the quest for 
greatness and the penalties of failure.  It is widely accepted 
that there are extremely powerful economic consequences stemming 
from the exploration of space.  New technologies developed in 
response to the space challenge energize the whole of our 
industrial society with new capabilities, new products new 
employment.  Space systems are so integral to our daily life as 
to have become invisible--operational telecommunication, 
navigation, and environmental monitoring space services are 
embedded in our civilization.  The children of today learn a 
cosmology far different--and far more excitingly accurate--than 
we could teach even one short generation ago; space exploration 
has opened windows into the physical universe that will never 
close.  Even the games of children rely on computers commonplace 
today but that only twenty years ago had not yet been invented 
for our first tentative Apollo expeditions to the Moon.  The 
character of space exploration, whether by machines or men, has 
allowed us to leave strife behind and make the reaches beyond our 
planet a lasting symbol of peace dedicated to the benefit of all 
mankind.  The nature of space systems makes them particularly 
suited to the study and investigation of our own planetary 
processes; it is from space that we have gotten our earliest 
warnings of the possible growing crisis of climate and it is only 
from space that we will be able to fix upon and understand the 
real extent and direction of environmental change.  Above all, 
space has posed a challenge to the nation in terms of physical 
and intellectual unknowns to overcome.  With success has come a 
sense of national satisfaction and pride, and a position of 
earned leadership in the world.  

     I would point out that the accomplishments of the past and 
the continuing promises of the future have come at an 
astonishing low price for the values received--this year, for 
example, the entire NASA space and aeronautics program represents 
less than 1% of the Federal budget.  One might suspect that the 
prior record alone would suffice to assure continuing support 
from the two halves of the our government, from both sides of the 
political aisle, and from every part of the American public.  I 
believe I can speak to that last point:  the civil space program 
is overwhelmingly popular in this country.  It carries virtually 
no downside implications and everyone can share in its victories 
over obstinate nature, its revelations of new knowledge and 
capabilities, its expansion of our horizons, its adventure and 
sense of wonder and elevation of the human spirit.  The public 
EXPECTS a first-class program performance.  I know that, in his 
final budget submitted only ten days ago, President Reagan 
recognized the values of the NASA programs and requested nearly 
all the resources we need to fulfill these key commitments 
already made and expected.  The new President is another 
unequivocal and outspoken proponent of civil space and its 
contributions.  The Congress, without regard to partisanship, has 
steadfastly funded and supported a strong civil space effort--
perhaps not always identical in detail with the one requested but 
by and large the one representing a national consensus on what we 
should do and where we should go.

THE TASK AHEAD

     If the civil space record is so good and our supporters so 
steadfast, why is there reason for such keen concern?  I assure 
you that the concern is real.  The program we are trying so hard 
to bring to fruition is an integral, interdependent whole--and, 
therefore, vulnerable to serious dislocation in the face of even 
small perturbations.  The funds being requested do not permit us 
the luxury of backups, of alternatives, of programmatic 
robustness.  Virtually every element of the program is being 
pursued on a success schedule--and we know in advance that there 
will be unforeseen technical problems to solve and dilemmas to 
face which will require internal adjustments and constraints.  
After nearly three years of extremely hard work, the most visible 
part of NASA is once again in operation.  The Shuttle is 
successfully flying crews and payloads.  

     But we have only flown twice, and there is a critical 
backlog of payloads waiting for transportation to space.  We have 
planned fourteen flights over the next two years, trying to 
balance the demand for launch services with the necessary care 
and prudence we must observe in the inevitably risky business of 
manned space flight.

     We must launch our third tracking and data satellite next 
month to complete the global network that supports all the free 
world's space explorations.  Two months later, we will launch the 
long-delayed Magellan spacecraft to map Venus.  We will then 
launch the Galileo mission on a complex gravity-assisted 
trajectory that will eventually take it to Jupiter.  At the end 
of the year, we expect to carefully place in Earth orbit the 
Hubble Space Telescope which will permit astronomers to explore 
our universe out almost to its edges and back almost to its 
origins.  The gamma ray astronomical observatory will be in space 
the following year, as will the international cooperative Ulysses 
mission to monitor solar activity at the sun's previously unseen 
poles.  Manned Spacelab missions will investigate many physical 
and life processes in the yet little understood low gravity 
environment of space.  The Shuttle is integral to our manned and 
instrumented exploration programs; we dare let nothing interrupt 
our steady recovery and return to reliable flight operations.  
The Shuttle is our principal means of reaching space and our only 
piloted space vehicle capable of flexible space operations--
manned experiments, revisits, or retrievals.  About a third of 
our total effort is focused on keeping the Space Shuttle program 
moving usefully forward, and half again as much goes to the 
science and applications experiments that are steadily expanding 
the sphere of human knowledge.  We have worked long and hard to 
bring the shuttle back into safe operation.  Truly significant 
and exciting payloads are waiting to fly.  We still have many 
modifications to make on the shuttle to make it as safe and 
reliable as it needs to be.  The time to move ahead is now.

     The other side of this coin is Space Station Freedom, 
promising us the first real step away from earth on the way to 
the future.  The free world has made a strong beginning here; the 
concern of all of us is the follow-through.  Station Freedom has 
been designed and redesigned by experts and amateurs and 
enthusiasts and critics.  The configuration we are building today 
with a top industrial team is the RIGHT station--I dare say the 
ONLY right station--for the tasks ahead.  We know we and our 
international partners will be conducting a bewildering variety 
of exciting experiments, ranging in scope from microchemistry to 
macrophysics.  We will be using the station as a shirt-sleeve 
laboratory in space allowing easy interaction the research with 
his equipment.  We expect a flow of important exploratory 
discoveries and the development of technological insights 
directly applicable to our society's needs on the surface.  But 
the larger reason for Station Freedom is reflected in its very 
name.  The Space Station is our gateway to freedom, freedom to 
live away from earth, freedom to visit, to explore, to settle 
elsewhere in the solar system.  Space Station Freedom will 
simultaneously teach us how to live and work and relax in a new 
environment and how to build the structures and habitats that 
will make human exploration a realistic as well as a spirit-
lifting adventure.  Whether we go sooner or later, whether we go 
directly or first to an extraterrestrial base on the moon, man 
will go to Mars and beyond.  And the vehicles man will use will 
be the technological descendants of a space station.  

     Station Freedom is the first step toward being able to call 
ourselves a space-faring nation.  Just as those earlier nations 
that conquered the ocean barriers to exploration and expansion 
became great in response to the challenge, so will latter-day 
nations that recognize the nature of today's response to 
challenge have the opportunity to flourish.  The other half of 
the analogy holds as well:  historical extinction awaits the 
cultures unwilling to risk the voyage, afraid to wet their feet.

     It is a paradox, I feel, that this so simple point is so 
hard to make when we talk about the Space Station.  The 
governmental process, both in the executive and legislative 
branches, discovered the notion of "options and alternatives" a 
few years ago, and now doesn't know how to stop asking the 
question, "Why not some other way?"  Of course the motivation 
behind the questions is legitimate:  are we embarked upon the 
right course for the right reasons aimed at the right goals?  
Restudy after restudy simply reinforces the conclusion that 
Station Freedom is well conceived and well managed but very 
sparingly financed.  There is simply no room for further trimming 
or shaping or cutting.  We either are going to build it-- and 
build it right--or not build it at all.  And this binary 
consequence of under-budgeting and micro-management must be 
brought home to all who have an interest in the outcome.  

     The total budget for NASA the President has laid before the 
Congress and that the incoming President must evaluate has 
already been severely "edited"--some might say overly so--during 
its development.  The level of assurance that we can deliver a 
first-class performance to America teeters in the balance with 
every constraint imposed, whether dollars or people or time or 
policy.  I am more than usually concerned this year because the 
overall financial affairs of the country are not at their 
healthiest, and long-term investments are always an easier 
political target than are deliveries of current services.  In the 
complicated debate that will range about the issues of deficit 
financing, debt management, trade imbalances, and our 
responsibilities to those in need, I worry that the small shining 
light of future hope fueled by the civil space program may be 
dimmed.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF IRRESOLUTION

     In truth, the moment is coming when the nation chooses to 
lead--or to follow.  I want to be as certain as I can that that 
choice is made knowingly and not by default.  I cannot in good 
conscience return to private life without one last public 
service, trying to assure that the whole of American society be 
engaged in the decisions about its future strength, even its 
future survival.  The thinly stretched space program before the 
country today cannot be taken as the banker for the Federal 
budget, or even for the smaller element termed "discretionary."  
Flesh and sinew are as taut as possible; even a nick can mean 
organic rupture and collapse.

     We have always held that under a democracy the nation 
receives what it deserves.  What I believe the nation deserves 
above all is a forthright understanding of the implications of 
those great decisions being made in the name of the republic.  I 
believe the truth should be cast in as stark terms as possible, 
especially during a time when bad news is routinely disguised and 
even the most dedicated defenders of the public interest find it 
hard to find an audience.

     Failure to meet the challenge would be a failure of 
political will.  It would mean relinquishing for good the banner 
of leadership we have carried so proudly even during the darkest 
times of technical adversity.  And the price of forfeiture is one 
paid by our children and their descendants.  Without investment 
now there simply cannot be a future return; if we falter, if we 
are irresolute, if we cannot balance sacrifice with promise, then 
we have stolen the birthright of our successor generations.  

     Among the great gifts of Rome's cultural genius were the 
organizing principles of an integrated transportation network, a 
universal language, and a system of valued citizenship under 
law.  Scholars will argue endless about why the Roman imperial 
enterprise fell upon evil days; however, no one will seriously 
argue with Santayana's observation on who may be condemned to 
repeat an uncomfortable history.  We have great virtues in our 
republic and I have great faith in the commom sense of its 
citizens.  I have even greater faith in the power of great 
challenges--when so recognized--to elicit noble responses.  That 
is where we as a nation stand in space today, and that is why I 
am so appreciative of the chance to address this audience.

     I would leave you with one thought.  Earlier I said that, 
sooner or later, mankind would reach the planets.  I firmly 
believe that is true.  But a terrible question remains 
unanswered: what language, what culture, what values will shape 
the ethos of the first human settlement on Mars?  I do not know 
the answer, but I hope you and all who share with you a 
dedication to our cardinal national beliefs can help share an 
answer of which we and our heirs will be proud.  There really can 
be no second-best place in the judgment of history.

-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #208
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Jan 89 06:44:22 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00718>; Wed, 25 Jan 89 05:42:02 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 25 Jan 89 05:41:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8XrO21y00jZdQ18k4j>;
          Wed, 25 Jan 89 05:25:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.YXrNuXy00UkZ0X:U4x>;
          Wed, 25 Jan 89 05:17:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0XrNtjy00UkZQX9E44@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 05:16:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #209

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 209

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Information sources on planetary probes.
			    Re: Relativity
	       Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points
	       Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		   Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: NSS Board membership
	       Re: Re:Re:Number of Concorde ever build
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 89 03:43:36 GMT
From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!dalex@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Dave Alexander)
Subject: Re: Information sources on planetary probes.

In article <8901200053.AA23790@decwrl.dec.com>
           klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
> Space missions are affected by numerous political and economic
> factors, as you no doubt know.

If this is a particular interest, let me recommend

"...the Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age"

I believe that the author's name is Patrick Houghton.  It discusses the
political factors that helped to shape the development of the space age,
looking at both the military and civilian aspects of the American space
program.  Most of the information is about the American space program,
with some speculation about what was happening in the U.S.S.R.  The time
period begins with WWII.  It told me a lot about the origins of the arms
race as well as the space program.

I recommend it highly to anyone curious about either.


                         -- Dave Alexander

--
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything."
                                     -- Russell Baker

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 89 16:51:08 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Relativity

In article <601361839.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> I would say that I don't believe for one instance that there is such a
> thing as infinite mass, no matter how fast you go. I suspect SOMETHING
> will break long before that, EVEN IF YOU CAN GET THE ENERGY TO KEEP
> ACCELERATING.
>  ... 
> I suspect that when you get up to those high energies that you will
> enter the realm where quantum theory cannot be ignored even for
> macroscopic objects.
> 
> I'm not saying that the speed of light is not necessarily a 'limit',
> but that infinities just don't happen. They aren't neat. And Hawking
> doesn't like them, so who am I to differ?

These are not the type of infinities that pose any real physical
problem.  The troublesome infinities are those where an (apparently)
physically realizable system evolves to contain infinities, like
the collapse of a massive cold object into a black hole with a 
central singularity.  SR includes no such problems.  It may be wrong,
but there are no singularities in it that guarantee that it's wrong.

GR, of course, is a different story.








-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 18:08:39 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points

In article <11854@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> dalex@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Dave Alexander) writes:
>So if L1, L2, and L3 are loci of unstable equilibrium, how can we expect
>an object to librate or oscillate about any of them?

You can't, and it won't, without help.  An object *precisely* at one of
those points, with *no* perturbations, would stay there, but in the real
world, that doesn't work.

There are trajectories near those points -- so-called "halo orbits" --
which are *almost* stable, requiring only very slight corrections to
maintain.  ISEE-3 was in a halo orbit around the Earth-Sun L1 point for
some years, to study the solar wind "upwind" of Earth.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 89 01:00:47 GMT
From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!dalex@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Dave Alexander)
Subject: Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points

In article <1989Jan20.180839.7800@utzoo.uucp>
                                henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <11854@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
                    dalex@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Dave Alexander) writes:
>> In article <1989Jan18.044744.18328@sq.uucp>
                                        msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>>> The L in each of these positions stands for libration, as a body
>>> near those positions may librate or oscillate around them, and not
>>> for Lagrange.

>> So if L1, L2, and L3 are loci of unstable equilibrium, how can we
>> expect an object to librate or oscillate about any of them?

> You can't, and it won't, without help.  An object *precisely* at one
> of those points, with *no* perturbations, would stay there, but in the
> real world, that doesn't work.

I understand that.  The question that I was *really* asking was "How can
you say that the `L' in L1-5 stands for `libration,' when 60% of such
points do not exhibit that behavior?"  In light of that, I question Mr.
Brader's assertion that the `L' stands for `libration' and not
`Lagrange.'


                         -- Dave Alexander

--
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything."
                                     -- Russell Baker

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 18:38:57 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!kcarroll@uunet.uu.net  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

>....  I was just arguing that we shouldn't dismiss planetary
>science just because it doesn't fit the Space Colonization Now mindset.
>
>        Paul F. Dietz
>        dietz@cs.rochester.edu
>

I, for one, agree with this conclusion. However, it seems unfair
that Dr. Van Allen, among others, seems to want to dismiss
space colonization because it doesn't fit in with his Planetary
Science Now mindset. I would like to see vigorous programs
carried out in >>both<< these areas. Internal bickering about
which is more important will tend only to confuse those that
hold the purse-strings, leading to insufficient funding in
both areas. "United we stand; divided we fall," and all that.

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 89 01:43:01 GMT
From: umigw!umiami!gtww2z9z@handies.ucar.edu  (Jason Gross)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race

Frankly, the whole concept of having Dan Quayle head the Space Council just
so his VP post will mean something scares the bee-jeezus out of me.  Doesn't he
know that Veeps are not supposed to have anything to do except break the rare
tie in the Senate?!  For Bush to select this yahoo from Indiana to head what
could potentially determine whether or not we in the Space Race or not when I'm
sure he could've selected far more qualified personnel makes me wonder about how
Bush will decide on other equally important selections.  Who knows, maybe he'll
have a former combative Secretary of Education as drug czar...:-)

-- 
Jason Gross     Comp Sci Ugrad     University of Miami     Class of '91 (?)
===========================================================================
If you can read this, | Send your invigorating replies to:        | Nixon
  then you are just   |      Gtww2z9z%Gables.Span@Umigw.Miami.Edu |  in
     TOO CLOSE!       |      (Coming soon...BITNET!)              | '92!
===========================================================================
Disclaimer: The univeristy and I basically do not agree on anything.  Ever.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 18:46:33 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <93@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Uh, discoveries?  Leading to settlements?  Can you please explain this?
>
>Every major settlement in human history has been preceded by 
>exploration.  Settling in an unexplored area is dangerous, dead-end ...
>and totally unecessary given modern technology...

Quite true.  However, near-Earth space, which is where most space-colony
proposals envision initial settlement, is quite well explored already.
This cannot be said of the Moon as a whole (Carl Sagan et al notwithstanding),
but certain small patches of it can safely be considered well-explored.	

>What if we build our $100+ billion dollar lunar base, and then find out
>there is nothing worthwhile there?* ...

I thought you supported space science, or are you not considering exploration
of the lunar surface to be "worthwhile"?  Please explain what is found on,
say, Mars to have made the Viking landers "worthwhile".  I doubt that anyone
right now can confidently expect a lunar base to be financially profitable,
especially if you assume it is built by the government (which is the only
way it would ever cost as much as you suggest).  Most supporters of space
settlement consider it worthwhile for reasons other than short-term profit.

>... In fact, both the Moon and Mars might turn out to be terrible 
>places to build space industries and settlements or to provide material
>for same.

They almost certainly are terrible places for space industry; open space
is far superior for industry.  They are so-so places for settlements,
with both advantages and disadvantages.  Likewise they are so-so places
for providing materials.  Please explain how new discoveries could make
these assessments *worse* (it is easy to see how they might get *better*).
I don't think any serious space enthusiast is making more favorable
assumptions than the above.

>* Lunar materials to support other space industries (eg LOX) are not
>worthwhile until such industries generate the $100+ billion/yr plus   
>demand needed to pay for such a base, and  such materials can be made 
>and transported cheaper than from Earth or asteroids...

The notion that industry would need $100+ billion to set up a lunar
mining site is laughable.  Only the government could make it that
expensive.  (I note also that the capital cost has suddenly become
a yearly demand; please explain.)  Also, the relevant competition is
Earth, not the asteroids -- I have no objection to mining the asteroids
instead of the Moon.  The cost of lifting stuff from Earth is not too
hard to beat.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 18:04:04 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <94@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Space settlements are another example of *future* technology.  

No, they are an example of future application of current technology.
They are much less speculative than nanotechnology or the other examples
cited; we could clearly build at least small space settlements today if
the money could be found.

(Please don't cite closed-cycle life support as a difficulty.  We
could not build a space settlement that was guaranteed to be entirely
self-sufficient, with no outside intervention ever required in its life
support, without considerably more work, but that was not my statement.
Entirely self-sufficient settlements are very uncommon even on Earth.)
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 89 19:33:44 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan18.102436.12838@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Van Allen correctly predicted the disastrous failure of the space
>shuttle program to achieve its stated objective of reducing launch
>costs, and so far his predictions about the space station are right on
>target...

<sarcasm> How impressive. <end sarcasm>  He wasn't the only one making
those predictions.  Does this somehow give his other opinions more weight?

>His comments about the scientific track record of manned vs.
>unmanned flights are cogent...

Interesting, yes.  I'm not sure I would say "cogent" without first talking
to people like the solar astrophysics types (remember the Skylab Solar
Telescope and the Solar Max repair?), not to mention the lunar geologists.

>Space colonies are at this moment pie-in-the-sky, and will, IMHO, be
>so for many decades, if not generations.  Space science is not -- it
>can yield useful knowledge *right now*.  Is it any wonder that van
>Allen is upset that expensive and much less useful (albeit
>ideologically correct) projects dominate?

If one's priorities are short-term gain (be it financial or scientific),
then of course one gets upset about long-term investments.  Some would
question those priorities, however.

>It is disingenious to pretend that recent NASA emphasis on manned
>spaceflight, the shuttle program in particular, has not had a major
>negative impact on planetary and space science.

It is also dishonest, not to mention foolish, to pretend that cutting
back manned spaceflight would boost planetary science.

>>Why do we need discoveries to lead to settlements...
>
>What about unmanned asteroid exploration?  A lunar polar orbiter?
>Probes to Phobos?  Our knowledge of ET resources is still rudimentary.

Agreed, but please observe the word "need".  These things would indeed
be useful.  (I note that most of them don't seem to be high priority for
the space-science bunch.)  But they are in no sense prerequisites.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 89 01:46:54 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan20.193344.9479@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
writes:
|In article <1989Jan18.102436.12838@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
|(Paul Dietz) writes:
|>It is disingenious to pretend that recent NASA emphasis on manned
|>spaceflight, the shuttle program in particular, has not had a major
|>negative impact on planetary and space science.
|
|It is also dishonest, not to mention foolish, to pretend that cutting
|back manned spaceflight would boost planetary science.

	Actually, these two statements are not incompatible.  The way things
have been going, you put money into staffed spaceflight, and it comes out of
planetary science; however, take money out of staffed spaceflight, and it
doesn't go back into planetary science.  Entropy reigns supreme.

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 89 22:46:16 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Re: Re:Re:Number of Concorde ever build

>>The delay in securing the landing permission wasn't justified by any reason...
>>American manufacturers had lobbied very hard to
>>get that plane conmercially killed. They succeded !

>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue.

 True. But it wasn't really a problem. Does the Europeans have more
capacities to handle high level of noise ? No.

>Suppose you tell us
>what US manufacturers did to kill it.  I think what killed it were high
>fuel consumption and limited range.

The same way automakers killed the passenger railroad industries. (Through
lobbying in congress to get laws favoring them even indirectly.)

Autonomie is not an issues I beleive. Concorde has a range long enough to
cover 10000 Km. in one shot.

Jean-Marc Debaud
Carnegie-Mellon University
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #209
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Jan 89 17:27:12 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06347>; Thu, 26 Jan 89 09:11:48 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 26 Jan 89 09:11:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gXrmBey00Ui347M04S>;
          Thu, 26 Jan 89 08:56:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.kXrm4Ey00UkZA0b04q>;
          Thu, 26 Jan 89 08:45:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4Xrm1sy00UkZ40Zk4t@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 08:43:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #210

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 210

Today's Topics:
			     GEOS-6 dies.
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		     Re: SST landing rights in US
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		     Re: SST landing rights in US
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: NSS Board membership
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 11:56:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 1485+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: GEOS-6 dies.

>From the Tuesday January 24, 1989 New York Times, page 22 reproduces without
permission and without comment.

                      "Weather Satellite Dies of 'Old Age'"
  Washington, Jan 23 (AP) - A satellite that provided cloud pictures for
television weather forecasts failed Saturday, depriving customers of views of
the Western United States, officials said.
  The failure occurred aboard GEOS-6, a National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration satellite that was launched in April 1983, said Milton Mortman, a
shift supervisor at the agency's satellite operations control center.
  "It's just old age," he said.
  Al Brown, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service, said weather
map-making would be little affected because forecasters rely most on data
gathered from the ground.
  He said partial pictures can be provided from a companion satellite, GEOS-7,
which covers the Eastern United States.
  "Eventually we will move the eastern satellite over so it can cover the entire
country," Mr. Brown said.  Mr. Mortman said that maneuver would be completed
around Feb. 21.
  Until the satellite is moved, weather watching will also be augmented by other
existing satellites operated by NOAA and by satellites from the European and
Japanese space agencies, said Thomas N. Pyke Jr., NOAA's assistant administrator
for satellite and information services.
  NOAA said GEOS-7 would perform double duty for about 18 months, until the next
GEOS satellite is expected to be ready for launching.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 02:16:25 GMT
From: uw-larry!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <5740@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:

>	There's one very valuable thing there: energy.

There are several ways SPS technology could go:

CASE 1: Greenhouse concerns, lack of good nuclear technology, and tolerance
of SPS transmission effects lead to SPS as a major source of electricity.

a. SPS could be built as per your scenario, with lunar materials.  
(Space Research Associates, with whom I participate, has done the
premiere studies for Space Studies Institute on SPS from lunar materials).
b. ELM, laser-launch, gas guns, etc. make Earth launch cheap. 
Pre-fabbing SPS's on Earth becomes cheaper than building expensive        
construction and living infrastructure in space.
c. SPS is built with asteroidal materials, which may provide better
quality materials for less delta-v to GEO.
d: We learn how to generate solar power near Mercury, or tap the
power of Jupiter's magnetic field at Metis (see previous discussion of
this by Dietz et. al.), and transmit the power back to Earth, more
inexpensively than generating and transmitting power from GEO.

CASE 2: Environmental effects and real estate required for SPS energy
transmissision prove too costly.

CASE 3:  Nuclear energy, fission and/or fusion, becomes safe and cheap,
obviating the need for SPS.

CASE 4: Greenhouse effect does not become a problem, and we learn to
burn coal without acid rain (we have reserves to last several hundred
years).  Again SPS is not needed.

The Moon only figures in one of these scenarios (1a).  To rely on that
scenario to build a $100+ billion lunar base, requires a long leap of
blind faith.

>	Asteroids are very far away (energy-wise)

Nope.  Some are closer to LEO and GEO, energy-wise, than the surface of the
Moon.

> and are unknown quantities for the most part
>(compared to the moon).

Because we haven't explored them.  QED.


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 89 16:02:12 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: SST landing rights in US

In article <601326396.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> Actually what stopped the SST in the US were the enviro-nuts who
> probably thought the sonic booms would vibrate the tail feathers off
> the ducks.

I seem to recall that one serious objection to the SST (aside from the
obvious economic ones) was its potential deleterious impact on the 
ozone layer. Turns out to have been misplaced, I suppose, now that
the ozone layer seems to be doomed in any case...

> But then, my feeling is that if it required government funding to
> create a COMMERCIAL product, then it probably means that the technology
> of 1970 was just not up to the job. When an SST is economically viable,
> they will be built. The Concorde is nice, but I wonder if it ever paid
> off it's full development cost?

Every major existing transportation system I can think of required
some sort of start-up subsidy for building necessary infrastructure.
Not a few of these systems require ongoing public expenditures or some
sort of indirect cost-spreading.

> I would guess we'll see the return of the SST sometime in the early
> part of the next century. It will then be the standard aircraft for
> fairly long haul flights.

When speculating on the likely state of transportation technology in
the next century, be sure to remember that telecommunications
technologies won't exactly be sitting still in the meantime. In a
couple more decades, we will probably have telecommunications of such
speed, power, and transparency that most of our present-day shuttling
back and forth will become superfluous.

Transportation and communications technologies have historically
competed with each other. Fossil-fuel-based transportation
technologies have more or less "topped out" against theoretical and
practical limits. Communications technologies, on the other hand,
are improving exponentially and have many orders of magnitude of
theoretical headroom left. In a couple of decades, we can safely
predict that the terrestrial communications network will provide
the average individual with bandwidth and fidelity equal to the
limits of his or her sensory apparatus. People interested in
transacting serious business will simply not be able to waste
time sitting on aircraft if they want to stay competitive.

However, I think transportation, and perhaps space exploration,
will remain popular as leisure-time activities. Perhaps when information
technologies increase our disposable income by large factors, groups
of enthusiasts will be able to develop their own private ventures,
irrespective of possible economic return.

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 89 17:44:40 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <7199@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes:
> While the shuttle did fail to live up to the preconstruction PR,
>and the space station might do the same, I think it's short sighted to call
>them "disastrous failures" and "mass wastage". In terms of manned space R&D
>I think they both are (will be) extremely successful. The shuttle has taught
>us a vast amount about how to build (and not build) a reusable space vehicle,
>and I'm certain the station will do the same for human space habitats.

I think it is entirely fair to call the shuttle a disastrous failure.
The central reason for building it, reducing launch costs, was not
attained.  Calling the shuttle a success because it taught us how not
to build launchers is like calling Chernobyl a success because it
taught us how not to generate electricity.  The shuttle is also a
continuing obstruction: NASA has so much invested in it that it cannot
do the reasonable thing -- try to get a better set of launchers -- but
instead is building a space station to give the shuttle the appearance
of a mission.

> I think
>it's clear that manned space research is by its nature much more expensive
>than unmanned. ... Given this, unless you're part of the small minority that
>rejects one type of research, I think current spending priorities are close
>to what they should be.

What?!  We should support a form of research, reward it with lots of
money, because it is expensive?  I fail to understand this argument.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 89 18:22:58 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan20.193344.9479@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>His comments about the scientific track record of manned vs.
>>unmanned flights are cogent...
>
>Interesting, yes.  I'm not sure I would say "cogent" without first talking
>to people like the solar astrophysics types (remember the Skylab Solar
>Telescope and the Solar Max repair?), not to mention the lunar geologists.

Let's talk about repair of spacecraft.  At current launch costs, it's
a joke.  You'll notice Solar Max will not be reboosted.  Let's look at
another example -- HST.  With the shuttle it would have been cheaper
to build and launch multiple HSTs than to retrieve one from orbit for
refurbishment.  For on-orbit servicing: three or four repair missions
equals the cost of building and launching a new HST.  Since putting
HST into low orbit where the shuttle can reach it reduces the fraction
of time it can be used by a factor of three, is it any wonder the
astronomers would much rather have free flying instruments that are
not dependent on the shuttle?

As for lunar geologists: they will tell you that Apollo isn't around
any more.  It was far too expensive.  An unmanned program might have
taken longer, but it would have been a lot cheaper, would have let us
see more of the lunar surface, and might still be ongoing.

>If one's priorities are short-term gain (be it financial or scientific),
>then of course one gets upset about long-term investments.  Some would
>question those priorities, however.

I believe scientific investigation is a long term investment.  This is
orthogonal to the issue of the effectiveness of a particular
investment.  We can do a lot more science per dollar, in general, with
unmanned spacecraft than with manned spacecraft, at current launch
costs.  Curious how NASA has decided that those areas of science that
seemingly require people in space are the most important.

The long term viewpoint does not require the immediate gratification of
seeing people in orbit in the present.

>>It is disingenious to pretend that recent NASA emphasis on manned
>>spaceflight, the shuttle program in particular, has not had a major
>>negative impact on planetary and space science.
>
>It is also dishonest, not to mention foolish, to pretend that cutting
>back manned spaceflight would boost planetary science.

If experience is a guide, not cutting back manned spaceflight (the station)
*will* further damage unmanned spaceflight and, by delaying investment
in truly useful technology, like better boosters, it will damage manned
spaceflight in the long run.

>>What about unmanned asteroid exploration?  A lunar polar orbiter?
>>Probes to Phobos?  Our knowledge of ET resources is still rudimentary.
>
>Agreed, but please observe the word "need".  These things would indeed
>be useful.  (I note that most of them don't seem to be high priority for
>the space-science bunch.)  But they are in no sense prerequisites.

Something is needed then.  I notice we aren't building space colonies
now, and it isn't because of some epidemic of timidity.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 89 08:18:26 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: SST landing rights in US

One question about SST flights over land. Is it possible to have supersonic
flight at a high enough altitude that the shock wave doesn't reach the ground?
It it still possible to use reasonably standard wings, engines, etc, at that
altitude?

  ++PLS

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 89 18:26:47 GMT
From: killer!mjbtn!raider!crc@eddie.mit.edu  (Charles Cain)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

> people and buildings.  When was the last time you heard a sonic boom
> over a US city?

The last time I heard a sonic boom over a US city was 2 years ago while in the
USAF and was home on leave in Meridian MS and heard a sonic boom from an F-4
Phantom over the house. Nearly broke all the windows out of our house and
some others around us. Found out later that the pilot was at an altitude of
250 feet when he went supersonic.

Oh yes, he was grounded for 2 weeks and that's all that happened to him.


-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
DOMAIN: crc@raider.MFEE.TN.US     |      The Hacker Ethic *IS* Alive...
PHONE:  (615-459-9449)            |      inside of ME!!!!!!!!
                                          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The words are Websters'...
The way they are used is solely MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!  
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 04:05:05 GMT
From: uw-larry!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan20.180404.7740@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <94@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Space settlements are another example of *future* technology.  
>
>No, they are an example of future application of current technology.
>They are much less speculative than nanotechnology or the other examples
>cited; we could clearly build at least small space settlements today if
>the money could be found.

I wish this cliche could be put to rest.  What exactly do you mean by
"current technology"?    We haven't built any space colonies, so you can't
mean the exact technology needed for them.  Nor have we designed the supporting
structure, such as launchers of sufficient size, machines to build the 
launchers and the colonies, etc.  No space colony has ever been designed
in anything but the crudest macro detail.  No full-scale or even tenth-
or hundredth-scale models of colonies have been tested.  We have
never experimented with large spinning structures in vacuum or excavations
on the Moon.  We have never built any machines to extract tons of material 
in a vacuum, nor to extrude, bend, shape, mold, and the thousands of other
industrial processes required, which all must be ported to a zero gravity
and vacuum environment.  We could not build any colony of >1,000 people, in 
ten years, even given an infinite amount of money; there is simply too much 
to be learned and too many people to train.
(Unless you like the crude approach: 1,000 space station modules, cluttering 
up LEO, costing $5,000 billion, plus $500 billon per year to service, given
current shuttle cost.  If that is your idea of a space colony, I give up.)

In contrast, we have electric motors the size of a human hair, single
electrons trapped and measured, single molecules held in laser light, etc.
today.  It is not overly speculative to assume similar progress over the
next ten years, and even to expect that nanotechnology will play a big
role in both space exploration (check out the Microdevices Laboratory at
JPL) and in later space colonization.

Things we build in the future will use future technology.  I use computer
chips and bit-mapped screens, not vacuum tubes and punch cards.
If I had planned a computer back in the late 50's, and stuck religiously
to my plans, I'd be in pretty sad shape at the moment.  Planning space
colonies with today's technology is a similar mistake.  

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 03:04:15 GMT
From: uw-larry!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <7199@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes:
> As to the perennial question of whether we should spend money on manned or
>unmanned space research....
>...it's clear that manned space research is by its nature much more expensive
>than unmanned.
>... Given this, unless you're part of the small minority that
>rejects one type of research, I think current spending priorities are close
>to what they should be.

Come again?  We should spend more on manned spaceflight *because* it's
more expensive?  I suppose, too, that we should send men to Pluto instead
of Mars, because it's more expensive.  We should build the English Channel
Tunnel from Paris underneath Germany, Russia, America and thence to London,
because it's more expensive, and would make for a more interesting commute.
After all, we don't want to be narrow-minded and reject fun ways of doing 
things, simply because they're expensive...
   ;-)


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #210
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jan 89 13:46:49 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00660>; Fri, 27 Jan 89 05:35:46 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 27 Jan 89 05:35:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4Xs2byy00Vs180vkAY>;
          Fri, 27 Jan 89 03:36:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.sXs2LBy00UkZIJhE5h>;
          Fri, 27 Jan 89 03:18:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXs2JVy00UkZ8Jg04W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 03:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #211

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 211

Today's Topics:
		       Re: NSS Board membership
	  Colonies vs probes (was Re: NSS Board membership)
		       Re: NSS Board membership
SPS (was Re: NSS Board membership [boy, I'm sorry I brought Van Allen up!])
		   Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race
	     Re: Information sources on planetary probes.
	       Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points
				sob...
			fireball across Texas
		      Re: fireball across Texas
		       Re: NSS Board membership
	    Concorde, Hyper-sonic jets and onto Hotol etc.
		     Re: SST landing rights in US
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 05:18:55 GMT
From: uw-larry!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan20.184633.8392@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I thought you supported space science, or are you not considering exploration
>of the lunar surface to be "worthwhile"? 

Yes, I support *realistic* space science, such as a Lunar Polar Orbiter.
This will cost at least 100 times less than a lunar base, and be able to 
measure far more territory.   

>Please explain what is found on,
>say, Mars to have made the Viking landers "worthwhile". 

Tons of scientific data.  Theories ranging from nuclear winter to the Ozone
Hole to the greenhouse effect have been helped enormously by the data from
Mars.  (Nuclear winter theory was directly inspired by Martian duststorms).
The search for life informed SETI.  We found out that Mars used to have 
running water.  This greatly increases the chances of ore-forming processes 
similar to those on Earth--and absent, on, for example, the Moon.  Further 
observations may well point us to specific concentrations of valuable 
minerals.  There were also numerous technological spinoffs, both for Earth 
and future space industry.

>Most supporters of space
>settlement consider it worthwhile for reasons other than short-term profit.

A lunar base is inadequate by several orders of magnitude for either economic
or scientific profit, short or long term.

>>... In fact, both the Moon and Mars might turn out to be terrible 
>>places to build space industries and settlements or to provide material
>>for same.
>
>I don't think any serious space enthusiast is making more favorable
>assumptions than the above.
    
Then why all the obsession with spending hundreds of billions to send
people there, when we can find out far more in far more many places,
for far less?

>The notion that industry would need $100+ billion to set up a lunar
>mining site is laughable.  

I have never seen any reasonably complete speculation that it could be
done for any less, public or private, with "current technology".
We need research on how to port machinery and processes into a low-gravity, 
vacuum environment.  We should spend some money *now* to find out how
to do this, along with the many other tasks involved in space settlement,
and more basic technological issues.  We should look before we leap; it 
makes leaping quite a bit easier.

>the relevant competition is
>Earth, not the asteroids

The relevant competition *is* the asteroids, when funding is cut from
asteroid-exploration missions to fund the gargantuan sums needed for a 
space station, lunar base, or similar manned project.  

>Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A 
>toast to comrade Van Allen!!" 

This is beyond the bounds of rational argument.  


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 89 18:20:22 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Colonies vs probes (was Re: NSS Board membership)

Henry's uncharacteristically cranky followup to Paul Dietz's bit on Van
Allen, colonies vs probes etc., leads me to suspect we are treading on
emotional ground here.  Nevertheless at the moment I have to side with
Van Allen so far as the appropriateness of probing, rather than
visiting, the solar system goes.  I propose five phases of human
development in space:

	1. unmanned probes, 
	2. manned visits, 
	3. manned research stations,
	4. semiautomated resource extraction (mining, power, whatever),
	5. full scale "residential" colonization.  

The boundaries of some of these are
subjective and one may evolve into another gradually without anyone
quite noticing.  There are also four "zones" of space for the purposes
of discussing exploration: 

	A. earth orbit (LEO out to GEO);
	B. cislunar including the lunar surface; 
	C. the nearer minor planets including Mars and Venus
	   (and perhaps the asteroid belt), 
	D. Far Away (Jupiter and beyond).

Now it's fair to assess what stage each of these zones is presently in,
and where it makes sense to take each zone in the short term and long
term future.  I will let this posting circulate before presuming to
supply answers of my own; perhaps it can serve as a basis for
discussion.
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 13:09:22 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <1989Jan22.132258.6874@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> Since putting
>HST into low orbit where the shuttle can reach it reduces the fraction
>of time it can be used by a factor of three...

I have received expressions of disbelief about this assertion, so hold
on until I check my reference.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 04:38:46 GMT
From: thorin!proline!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: SPS (was Re: NSS Board membership [boy, I'm sorry I brought Van Allen up!])

In article <96@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <5740@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
>> Asteroids are very far away (energy-wise) and are unknown
>> quantities for the most part (compared to the moon).
>Because we haven't explored them.  QED.

    We have more samples of asteroidal material than lunar material,
and closeup photos of Martian moons (soon much more if Phobos
survives). Combined with spectroscopic and radar observations, there's
no question that bulk resources (iron, carbon, etc.) are readily
available in the 'roids anytime we care to fetch them. Of course we
will want to prospect for near-ideal bodies first.

    Landing 6 times on the moon does not make it a 'known quantity'
by any stretch of the imagination.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe,
      why it is as it is and why it exists at all.''
	- Stephen Hawking

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 00:04:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race


>From tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff):
>In article <45000017@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>> ... Quayle wrote an article entitled,"The Other Space Race:  Space Science
>>Education," which appeared in the October 1988 issue of _Journal_of_Defense_
>>and_Diplomacy_.  He seemed *very* well informed ...
>>Of course, Quayle cannot be judged on one article, but he looks very promising
>
>And if whatever bright young aide who wrote the article for dumb Dan
>was transferred to his VP staff and happens to be in a position to
>continue to ghost-manage for his boss, specifically on the Space
>Council, then this might actually be good news.

So What?

If you want to be really cynical, you could argue that John F. Kennedy's
"We will put a man on the Moon..." speech wasn't written by Jack himself,
but we put a man on the Moon nonetheless.  Of course, we all know Dan Quayle
is no Jack Kennedy :-).

The point is, the byline of the article reads,"by Dan Quayle."  Whether he
wrote it or not may be unimportant.  He *does* have to take the responsibility
for it.  If Quayle fails to live up to our hopes as Chairman of the National
Space Council, articles and statements like the one in question can be very
powerful tools.  Reminding politicians of statements "he" made years before
is a potent political tactic.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL  61825

 "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"
 - Sir Winston Churchill

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 00:01:32 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Information sources on planetary probes.

I'm amazed at the omission of Oran W. Nicks's "Far Travelers", NASA SP-480,
which is a history of NASA's unmanned planetary exploration by the man who
was in charge of most of it.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 89 23:59:11 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points

In article <1989Jan18.044744.18328@sq.uucp> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>... I don't even see why L4 and L5 exist.
>I hope someone can explain it to me so that I do....
>... now can someone explain to me why the Trojan points are stable
>equilibria, or even why they are equilibria at all?  The same condition
>of sideways force would seem to apply.  Clearly (I think) the equilateral-
>triangle position cannot be exact; the tertiary would then be in an orbit
>exactly like the secondary's despite the secondary's perturbing gravity.
>So where are the true L4 and L5 positions?  And why?

Odd though it sounds, the equilateral triangles are indeed exact.  The
key observation is that the tertiary is not in an orbit around the primary,
it is in an orbit around the center of mass of the primary-secondary system.
The secondary's "perturbing" gravity alters the net force vector on the
tertiary just enough to point it at the center of mass.  That's not a
sufficient condition, but it's necessary.  Beyond that, one pretty much
has to resort to math.  In particular, I know of no good intuitive way
of explaining why L4 and L5 are stable and L1-3 aren't; the key question
is not whether a nearby body feels a side force, but whether a perturbation
(of velocity or position) remains bounded (body remains near the point) or
grows (more or less) unboundedly.  The L1-3 points themselves are unstable;
carefully-chosen "orbits" around them are theoretically stable but in
practice the conditions are too fussy for true stability; L4 and L5 are
honestly stable, with slight gravity wells around them (subject to some
conditions, see below).

>Also, has anyone investigated situations where the masses are not so
>unequal?  I remember reading that the Trojan positions are stable if the
>some ratio exceeds 27; I think it was the secondary/tertiary mass ratio.

Not correct; the key requirement is that the primary/secondary ratio
exceed approximately 25.  (My favorite astrodynamics books, Archie Roy's
"Foundations of Astrodynamics", derives it as a requirement that the
ratio of secondary mass to total mass be under 1/2 - sqrt(23/108).)
Again, as far as I know, the question "why?" cannot be answered without
mathematics.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 17:34:43 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: sob...


GOES 6 gone....    :-(


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 19:45:13 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!charlie@husc6.harvard.edu  (Charlie Thompson)
Subject: fireball across Texas

This weekend .... in the Texas skies....something reentered the
atmosphere with a dazzing show of glowing debris.  Anybody know
what it might be?  I noticed one of TS Kelso's posted spacecraft
(by my orbit simulations) has decayed to a mean motion of zero!
 
Anyway... the thing was visible from several states in the mid
us continent.  Help TS... what do you know?? The Rooskies no doubt!
 
Regards,
Charlie Thompson 
Austin, TX

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 22:17:46 GMT
From: pablo@june.cs.washington.edu  (David Cohn)
Subject: Re: fireball across Texas

Reportedly, it was a derelict Soviet booster re-entering. It was
visible across maybe 1/3 of the country (no, not here in Seattle,
though we had a spectacular one like that a couple of years ago).

-David "Pablo" Cohn	"look to the night sky"

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 89 22:52:07 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <13541@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes:
>For anyone who is seriously interested in learning what van Allen has
>actually said, read his writings! You may be surprised.

Not likely in my case, because I HAVE read them.  And after reading, all
I can say is that the Van Allen belts -- deadly hazards to spaceflight --
are well and aptly named.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:       Mon, 23 Jan 89 14:10:19 GMT
From: "Geoff. Lane. Tel UK-061 275 6051" <ZZASSGL@CMS.UMRCC.AC.UK>
Subject:    Concorde, Hyper-sonic jets and onto Hotol etc.


It pleases a middle-aged Brit's heart good to see so much interest in
the Concorde as its one of the few projects that a British government did
not chicken out of as the price exceeded hopelessly under-estimated
development costs.  Despite the high price per aircraft the research
work that had to be done was used elsewhere and probably would have had
to be done in any case.

Right - now some space - Both the American and British Governments have
made some vague noises about very fast and very high altitude jet/rocket
craft at various times.  It seems to me that such projects are the ONLY
way that anybody outside of the space mafia will ever get out of the
atmosphere. There is no point in waiting for NASA to develop a craft that
is cheap or safe enough(and would YOU trust any USSR flying machine?). The
only existing experts in designing and building high performance flying
machines - the commercial aircraft builders -
must be given sufficient incentive to produce the hardware that is
required. Despite recent events I think that even PAN-AM could do the
job if a profit could be seen inside a few years. This of course implies
none of the very silly "You can't park that thing here" arguments that
various governments get upto in the aviation business.


geoff.

PS I just had a thought - do you remember the visual joke in the film
2001 where the instructions for the 0G toilet almost totally covered
the door? Well if we wait long enough not only will the instructions
be lengthy, they may also be a translation from the Japanese!

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 06:03:35 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!mfgfoc!mike@apple.com  (Mike Thompson)
Subject: Re: SST landing rights in US

>From article <601326396.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU:
> of 1970 was just not up to the job. When an SST is economically viable,
> they will be built. The Concorde is nice, but I wonder if it ever paid
> off it's full development cost?

In the early part of this decade, I seem to remember reading that
a new type of wing was being developed by NASA and some aerospace firm
which could lead to a supersonic aircraft which didn't create a
sonic boom (or at least much reduced in magnitude).  The wing was 
long, thin, and narrow like the one on the U2 and pivoted as one
piece where it was attached to the fusalage.  This meant one wing-
tip swung toward the nose and the other swung towards the tail in
a scissor like motion.  I think a small single
seat sub-sonic aircraft was built and flown for testing.  Does
anyone remember what happened to this research?  I assume it 
either died from lack of funding or the findings did not live up
to their claims.

Mike Thompson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Thompson                      FOCUS Semiconductor Systems, Inc.
net: (sun!daver!mfgfoc!mike)             570 Maude Court
att: (408) 738-0600 ext 370              Sunnyvale, CA  94086 USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #211
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jan 89 11:49:23 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00796>; Fri, 27 Jan 89 06:15:28 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 27 Jan 89 06:15:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EXs4BVy00UkT03UU5g>;
          Fri, 27 Jan 89 05:24:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.IXs48Jy00UkZIN9U5F>;
          Fri, 27 Jan 89 05:19:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <MXs45uy00UkZMN8E43@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 05:16:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #212

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 212

Today's Topics:
	       Supersonic aircraft and noise pollution
		       Re: NSS Board membership
			    HST Duty Cycle
	       Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points
		  Re: NSS-Space Hotline Update 1/13
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
			      Relativity
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever built
		      Re: fireball across Texas
			    Approaching c
		   Is the moon a 'known quantity'?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 03:14:23 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Supersonic aircraft and noise pollution


Surely an SR-71 at surveillance altitude doesn't sound too loud from
the ground - that would spoil the surprise (:-)

Concordes regularly fly by here (~20-40 miles north of Washington, DC).
Though they are undoubtedly subsonic, they are by far the loudest planes
in the area. Fighter planes a few hundred feet up would probably be louder,
but we don't get many of them around here.
                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 01:48:26 GMT
From: orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!cew@ucsd.edu  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <181@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <6145@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.cs.unc.edu () writes:
>>    I glanced at the letterhead of a fund-raiser I got from NSS today
>>and to my dismay found that James Van Allen is on the Board of
>>Governors. Has he moderated his robots-only stance, or does NSS no
>>longer want to build space colonies someday?
>
>I'd probably be more upset by this if I hadn't long
>since written NSS off.  The L-5 Society is dead and
>gone, unfortunately, and there's nothing to take its
>place.  I wish it wasn't so.
>

I don't see how anyone can "give up" on the National Space Society or
worry that James Van Allen in on the Board of Governors.  (Remember,
Boards of Governors usually lend credibility to a group, while Boards of
Directors set policy.)

In 1988, NSS was instrumental in getting the Space Settlement Act
through Congress.  The act amends the NASA charter to add space colonies
as a goal of NASA research.  Is this a sign that the Society has given
up on space colonies?  I don't think so.  I think it's damn good for a
two year old organization.

Even if James Van Allen is anti man-in-space, I think it is appropriate
that his opinions have an outlet of expression.  The Society must exist
in a pluralistic world and must be able to accommodate a wide variety of
opinions.  That he is on the Board of Governors is a good sign.  It says
that NSS is not run by fanatical demagogues and that Van Allen is not so
single-minded that he can not face contrary opinions.  What's wrong about
that?

As an NSS Chapter president, I have had the good fortune to meet and
talk with many of the leaders of NSS.  I have been uniformly impressed
with their intelligence and dedication and believe that the Society will
continue to grow and become stronger as the premier educational,
grass-roots activist organization of the space movement.

		Craig E. Ward
-- 
====================================================================
ARPA: 	cew@venera.isi.edu
PHONE:	(213)822-1511 ext. 111
USPS:	USC Information Sciences Institute
	4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100
	Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Slogan:	"nemo me impune lacessit"
====================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 18:52:38 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: HST Duty Cycle

>> Since putting
>> HST into low orbit where the shuttle can reach it reduces the fraction
>> of time it can be used by a factor of three...

Here is the reference for this:

Robert Bless, "Space Science: What's Wrong at NASA", Issues in Science and
Technology, Winter 1988-89, pages 67-73.

Bless, who is the principle investigator for the high-speed photometer
on the HST, says:

   The HST will orbit about 370 miles above the Earth.  This is nearly
   twice as high as most shuttle flights, but our planet still blocks
   about half of the sky from the telescope's field of vision.  Coupled
   with other observational constraints, this means the telescope can
   gather data only about one-third of the time ... By comparison, the
   smaller International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite [in GEO] can
   observe the heavens 85 to 90 percent of the time.

I'm not sure what the other observational constraints are -- not
pointing at the sun or moon, maybe, or perhaps time required to settle
after slewing to a new target.  Bless mentions that real-time control
will be difficult, since TDRSS is a very limited resource and high
data rates are available to HST only 15-20% of the time.  Placing HST
in GEO would have avoided this problem.

Bless also explains that returning HST to Earth for repair/relaunch
would approach the cost of building/launching a new telescope, and
that on-orbit repair missions will cost $250 M each, since the shuttle
must be launched empty in order to have enough fuel for two rendevous
attempts.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 17:41:36 GMT
From: joe@csvax.caltech.edu  (Joe Beckenbach)
Subject: Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points

In his article dalex@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Dave Alexander) writes:
>The question that I was *really* asking was "How can
>you say that the `L' in L1-5 stands for `libration,' when 60% of such
>points do not exhibit that behavior?"  In light of that, I question Mr.
>Brader's assertion that the `L' stands for `libration' and not
>`Lagrange.'

	I too thought that the 'L' was for the describer of the points,
Lagrange. And I do remember a bumper sticker from several years back,
in a space-enthusiast-humorous context:
		"FREE THE LAGRANGE FIVE!!"

	Whether he had it right, respondent saith not.
		:-) :-) :-)
-- 
Joe Beckenbach	joe@csvax.caltech.edu	Caltech 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125
Users I'd like to see (:      camera%observer@commsat.mars.solar-system
	postmaster@link1.L5.edu		daemon@probe.titan.solar-system

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 89 16:40:21 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: NSS-Space Hotline Update 1/13


 In article <1989Jan17.044038.5474@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
 >In article <246900002@cdp> jordankatz@cdp.UUCP writes:
 >>This week in Washington D.C. negotiations will begin between the
 >>NOAA and CNES, the French national space agency, which may result
 >>in a break through merger of the U.S. Landsat and French Spot
 >>remote sensing satellite system.  The merge's aim is to form an
 >>international commercial remote-sensing system...
 >
 >I note with some amusement that this is two government agencies talking
 >about forming a commercial system.  The amusement gets stronger when you
 >consider that Landsat theoretically has been privatized already and thus
 >they should be talking to Eosat instead.  Even stronger when you consider

  Yeah, and shouldn't that be Spot Image Corp talking to Eosat?

  (Meanwhile, Space Commerce Co. of Houston will be glad to sell you
  Soviet satellite imagery from Soyuzkarta.)

 >how pitiful the Landsat system is today (and how much worse it will be
 >in a couple of years when the old satellites die) compared to Spot.
 >
 >"Well, we appreciate your offer to help with our Mars mission, comrade,
 >but... what can you do that we need?"
 >-- 
 >"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
 >-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu


-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 04:45:09 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!ndcheg!stu@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Stuart Harvey on ndcheg)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build


The Concorde was built for the specific purpose to fly across the
Atlantic.  Boeing on the other hand built the 747 SP for a long
haul passenger aircraft, and claims that it is the fastest plane
available for flights over 8,000 miles (non-stop from New York to
Hong Kong).  Of course that's still a 13+ hour flight : )

stu@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu

------------------------------

From: ota
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 08:09:00 MST
To: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Cc: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Relativity

Those who find this FTL talk interesting will want to see this month's
Discover magazine, which has the cover story "Beyond Einstein".  It
contains some fascinating reference to tachyon theory, etc.  Nothing
for the hard-core physicist, but easy reading, at least.

+--------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| David Birnbaum, programmer/consultant      |  dbirnbau@nmsu.edu           |
| Small Systems, Computer Center             |  VTIS001@NMSUVM1.BITNET      |
| New Mexico State University             <--+  They pay my bills, but      |
| 10  PRINT "Basic is Dead!" : GOTO 10       |  they don't write my opions! |
+--------------------------------------------+------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 89 08:39:43 EST
From: John Hopkins <JHOPKINS%UGA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Number of Concorde ever built

   Just limiting supersonic flight (military or otherwise) to areas over
ocean doesn't always work in protecting the populace from the noise of
sonic booms. Under certain conditions those booms can travel for a great
distance.  There was a tremendous stink about ten to twelve years ago
along the coast of South Carolina regarding what were called "airquakes."
These strange vibrations were quite a mystery in an earthquake-gittery
region. To make a long story short, the airquakes were finally traced to
supersonic military aircraft far out over the ocean. As soon as the
media published the military sonic boom explanation, the airquakes stopped.

"The System ain't          John Hopkins
  the Solution"            College of Business Administration
                           Univ. of Georgia

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 22:30:11 GMT
From: nic.MR.NET!shamash!tank!milgram@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Michele Sara Milgram)
Subject: Re: fireball across Texas


I only saw a *very brief* news flash on this.  I think they said it was 
part of a Soviet rocket that was launched this past weekend.

--
Michele Milgram
usenet: milgram@paideia.uchicago.edu
BITnet: milgram%paideia@UCHIMVS1

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 09:28 EDT
From: "That's not lake Minnetonka..." <CALVIN%JHUIGF.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Approaching c


Hello, all.

I'll be the very first to admit that I'm not a physicist, and know precious
little about relativity, although I am a pure mathematician. This is why I've
decided to ask this question of this newsgroup - I'm confident that it will
be given better answers than I've recieved in the past from physicist-friends.

Anyway, here goes. It seems to me that the argument for the impossibility of
attaining speeds faster than c is flawed. Logically, an argument is invalid
if it, at some point, assumes that which it attempts to prove.

The argument (again, these are in simplistic terms, and I guess I should
apologize.. 8^) ), unless I'm wrong, goes something like this:
        An object becomes more massive the faster it travels.
        Since F=ma (Newton), an accelerating body requires more and more
             force to keep accelerating it
        At (near?) c, this force would become infinite, and thus, acceleration
             past c is impossible
        THEREFORE, c is the highest attainable speed by an accelerating body.

Ok. One thing screams out to me, though. c is a finite number, being 3x10^8 m/s
which all of you know. Then, why would the force required to accelerate a
body past c be infinite if c isn't infinite? How can it be assumed that a
body will become infinitely massive at c if c itself is not infinite, UNLESS
one assumes, subtlely, that c already is the fastest attainable speed (that
is, c is in effect, infinite).

Is my question clear? I know that not only has relativity been around for a
long time (allowing this question to come up by now, I'm sure), but many
quite intelligent and educated people buy into this. My conclusion: I'm
missing something. What is it, or (quite less likely) have I found a glitch
in the "c is the fastest attainable speed" argument? I mean, I could see
the force required being VERY large, but infinite..?

Thanks for your time, and again, I apologize if this question is either very
simple, or has been beat to death in the past. I'ma new subscriber to this
list.


Damian Hammontree
System Programmer
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD         (301) 327-2959
DAMIAN@JHUIGF.BITNET
CALVIN@JHUIGF.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 12:35:30 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Is the moon a 'known quantity'?

Jonathan Leech writes:
>   
>   We have more samples of asteroidal material than lunar material
>   and closeup photos of Martian moons ... spectroscopic and
>   radar observations ...  

Not exactly.  Yes, we have lots of meteorites, but we only *think* they
are bits asteroids---we do not know for sure.  We DO know that they are
at best a very skewed sample.  For one thing, rocky meteorites are much
harder to recognize than metallic ones, and hence they are highly
under-represented in our collections.  There are probably lots of
meteorites (and perhaps asteroids) made of loose dust or of volatile
materials, but those never reach the ground; and yet those would be the
most interesting ones.  

We also don't know whether the Martian moons are captured asteroids;
this is only a conjecture, plausible but with no hard evidence to
support it.  Even if they are asteroids, we have no idea as to how
typical they are of the whole lot.  (In fact, there probably isn't such
a thing as a "typical" asteroid).  

Spectroscopic and radar observations of solid objects can only give
broad hints as to the average composition---say, "metallic" vs "rock".
Also, radar can't see deeper than a few inches, and spectroscopy can't see 
deeper than a few mm.

>   Landing 6 times on the moon does not make it a 'known quantity'
>   by any stretch of the imagination.

Come on.  We know a *lot* more about the moon than about any other body
outside the Earth.  Certainly there are many unanswered questions about
the moon, but they are nothing compared to our abysmal ignorance about
the rest of the solar system.  

(Quick, how many open questions about the moon can you think of?
How many of those could be resolved by returning there?)

I submit that more than 90% of the scientific value of the Apollo
program came from the first moon landing, and specifically from the
soil samples it brought back. 

It is always nice to have more data, but the last few Apollo landings
added very little to the knowledge we got from the first few.
It would have been foolish to continue spending the limited money
available on additional Apollos instead of on things like Viking and
Voyager.  

                Jorge Stolfi
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi

  ``Strange, this lunacy,'' he said to Barbicane after the delegation
  left, ``and it's a type of madness that often hits the best minds.
  One of our most famous scientists, Arago, told me that many perfectly
  sane and respectable people will experience great excitement and behave
  incredibly whenever the moon posesses them. ''
     --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer,
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #212
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jan 89 07:59:28 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00753>; Sat, 28 Jan 89 04:30:30 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 28 Jan 89 04:30:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXsLaWy00Vs1M22kNs>;
          Sat, 28 Jan 89 03:28:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.wXsLQTy00UkZ0kIU4H>;
          Sat, 28 Jan 89 03:17:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QXsLPRy00UkZQkHE5M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 03:16:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #213

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 213

Today's Topics:
		Space-tech excerpt: High Velocity Guns
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1989 14:02-EST 
From: Marc.Ringuette@CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Space-tech excerpt: High Velocity Guns

What follows is about 375 lines of information on high-velocity guns,
with the focus being on firing projectiles at orbital velocity using
current materials and chemical fuels.

Surprisingly, the prospects look good!

------------------------------

From: Paul F. Dietz <dietz@cs.rochester.edu>

I just read an interesting article:

  "The Distributed Injection Ballistic Launcher"
  H. Gilreath et. al., JHU APL Technical Digest 9(3), 1988, pp. 299-309.

In a conventional gun, pressurized gas is injected once, and expands
as the projectile travels down the barrel.  As a result, acceleration
drops off.  The initial pressure is limited by the strength of the
projectile and/or the barrel.

Ideally, a gun should maintain constant pressure on the projectile.
The DIL (approximately) does this by injecting gas behind the
projectile from the sides at points along the barrel.  This is a
fairly old idea; the German V-3 guns in WWII used it (although they
were never made operational).  Just as a mass driver can be thought of
as a linear electric motor, a DIL can be thought of as a linear
internal combustion engine.

Discrete injection of gas behind a flat-based projectile doesn't work
very well.  Instead, Gilreath et. al. propose to make the projectile
boat-tailed -- that is, make its base be a long cone -- and inject the
gas against the boat-tail as the projectile passes.  If the boat-tail
is sufficiently pointy (small boat-tail angle theta) then the axial
velocity the gas must attain is reduced (by a factor of tan(theta)),
and the system can operate efficiently even if the projectile is
travelling much faster than the speed of sound in the gas.  The limit
the authors give is about 15 km/sec.

The authors say (but do not justify) the mass penalties associated
with launching directly to orbital velocities would be very great, due
to the need for thermal protection.  They suggest using the DIL as a
first stage.  They do say, however, that "complex electronics packages
... can easily tolerate accelerations of tens of thousands of g."
That they say this isn't surprising, since JHU APL developed the first
gun launched proximity fuse during WWII, and it tolerated 20,000 g,
even though it contained five vacuum tubes.

The article has an interesting picture of an extended-barrel 16" gun
(conventional, not a DIL) that was operated in Barbados in the 1960s
and early 70s.  It could launch atmospheric diagnostic probes at 1.6
km/sec, with apogees up to 100 km (at a launch cost of few dollars per
kilogram).  The gun was used to launch scramjet test vehicles; they
failed at launch, but theoretically they could have had a range of up
to 3700 km with apogee at up to 1000 km.  There is a picture of one
test vehicle.  It had a mass of 100 kg and burned 3 kg of triethyl
aluminum (it is not clear if this vehicle had the stated range).  It
was designed to withstand accelerations up to 10,000 g, but suffered
structural damage to its fins and skin in the test firing.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.UU.NET

> ... "complex electronics packages
> ... can easily tolerate accelerations of tens of thousands of g."
> That they say this isn't surprising, since JHU APL developed the first
> gun launched proximity fuse during WWII, and it tolerated 20,000 g,
> even though it contained five vacuum tubes.

Said packages do have to be specially built, though.  The vacuum tubes
for the proximity fuzes (a "fuse" is an electrical safety device) were
quite unorthodox designs.  They were placed on the axis of the shell to
minimize centrifugal force, and the tube elements were made of the
thinnest practical wire to get maximum benefit from the square-cube law.
The tube envelopes, needless to say, were metal.

I'm trying to recall a piece I saw some years ago on the electronics in
the Copperhead laser-guided shell.  My dim recollection is that they used
ring-shaped circuit boards around a central core, supported the boards at
both core and outer edge, and otherwise just used careful mil-spec circuit
construction.

> The article has an interesting picture of an extended-barrel 16" gun
> (conventional, not a DIL) that was operated in Barbados in the 1960s
> and early 70s.  It could launch atmospheric diagnostic probes at 1.6
> km/sec, with apogees up to 100 km...

Ah yes, HARP.  (High Altitude Research Project.)  A joint US-Canada project.
The gun was two battleship barrels end-to-end.  One hears occasional
mutterings that work along those lines may have been continued for a while,
on a smaller scale in secret.  HARP used fairly straightforward methods:
an extra-long barrel, smoothbore (it was actually 16.5 inches when they
bored out the rifling, I think) with fin-stabilized projectiles, and
subcaliber projectiles (that is, projectiles rather smaller than the gun
bore, padded out to full diameter with a light-alloy jacket that falls off
on departure from the barrel).  These techniques are all standard, on a
less ambitious level, for modern tank guns (although smoothbore guns
weren't in HARP's day).

"Distributed Injection Ballistic Launcher", indeed. :-)  It's a booster
cannon.  (I think we can claim that Heinlein's name for it has priority,
by about 40 years.)

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Following up on my last message about the distributed injection
launcher, here are some other concepts I've read or thought about.
All involve projectiles accelerated in a tube by gas pressure.

Ram Accelerator
---------------

In this concept, the space between the wall and the projectile forms
an annular ramjet.  Before firing, the tube is filled with some kind
of gas (either oxidizer, fuel, a mixture or a monopropellant).  The
projectile front is shaped to compress the oncoming gas; the back is
shaped to act as an inside-out nozzle.  The projectile might carry fuel
or oxidizer (perhaps in solid form).

I recently read somewhere (on the net?) a report of a professor and
students that built a model ram accelerator.  Anyonme remember this?

Travelling Charge Gun
---------------------

Unlike a conventional gun, in which the charge is burned in the
chamber, the charge in a TCG is attached to the back of the projectile
and travels down the barrel.  As a result, the pressure produced by
the burning is applied where it does the most good.  When the
projectile velocity is high this is much more important than the loss
in velocity due to the need to accelerate the charge.

The TCG can be thought of as an inside-out solid rocket, where
propellant burns inwards and the space between the propellant and the
tube wall acts as a nozzle.  The projectile could also have a spike
projecting backwards to increase thrust.  Unlike a conventional solid
rocket, the projectile need not have a steerable nozzle or, indeed,
any guidance at all.  However, the fuel must burn much more quickly.

One might also design a multistage TCG, equivalent to a multistage
solid rocket.  The first stage would help compress the exhaust from
the second stage; this clearly isn't possible with ordinary rockets.
One might also begin with the stages disconnected, perhaps with some
buffer gas between them.  This idea leads to...

Multistage Light Gas Guns
-------------------------

A large piston is accelerated by a conventional gun.  It is rammed
into a pump chamber filled with hydrogen or helium.  The light gas is
compressed and heated, and, after rupturing a diaphragm, accelerates a
smaller projectile down a tube.

The maximum muzzle velocity in a gun is, roughly, proportional to the
initial speed of sound in the gas.  The speed of sound is sqrt (gamma
R T / M) where gamma is the ratio of specific heats, R is the
universal gas constant, T is the initial temperature and M the
molecular weight.  So, it makes sense to use hot, light gases.

There are light gas guns in operation that can accelerate gram sized
objects to 7 km/sec or more.  Naively, I think you could scale up guns
while maintaining constant pressures and muzzle velocities.  So,
increasing the dimensions by a factor of ten would increase the
projectile mass by a factor of a thousand.  Scaling (for example) some
numbers I saw for the Ames light piston gun (muzzle velocity: about
7 km/sec) to a 1000 kilogram projectile would give it a length of
half a mile and a barrel diameter of four and a half feet.  I'm not
saying this would be practical, but it is interesting.  A large light
gas gun would use hydrogen, which is cheaper and has better performance.

I wonder if it would be possible to combine light gas guns with
traveling charges, so as to maintain pressure on the projectile at
late times.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------


From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Continuing this thread...

In traveling charge guns, the charge burns from the back forwards, not
from the sides inwards.  The pressure behind the projectile is already
high, so using some sort of nozzle probably doesn't make sense.

One thing that worries me about gun type launchers is abrasion
between the projectile and the barrel wall.  I assume this problem is
solved by letting some of the gas leak around the projectile, forming
a gas bearing.

I talked to John Hunter at LLNL briefly.  They are building a scale
model of a light gas gun launcher.  The full scale concept will launch
projectiles with masses of several metric tons at 5 - 9 km/sec, at the
rate of several per day.  Their paper will be presented at a AIAA
conference next July.

Dr. Hunter said he would send me an abstract, and, if he does not
object, I'll send more details to this list when I receive it.

I find it encouraging that the professionals are actively investigating
this topic.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

From: Andrew Higgins  <ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>

From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul F. Dietz)
> I recently read somewhere (on the net?) a report of a professor and
> students that built a model ram accelerator.  Anyone remember this?


You may be referring to the article "Impulsive Behavior" by Susan Sutphin
in the April 1988 issue of _Space_World_ (Vol. Y-4-292 p. 18).  This is
certainly not a technical article, but it does give some good background
information.  A brief summary follows:

	Students at the University of Washington are working on a
	chemically propelled mass launcher.  The project is headed
	by Professors Adam Bruckner and Abraham Hertzberg of the
	university's Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
	The vehicle is similar to the main body of a ramjet used
	in unguided missles.  The vehicle travels through a
	stationary tube filled with premixed high pressure gaseous
	fuel and oxidizer.  The vehicle carries no primary propellant
	of its own.  According to Bruckner,"The concept is that we
	can accelerate a vehicle weighing several thousand kilograms
	up to about 10 kilometers per second using only chemical
	energy and readily available fuels."

	The project has produced a small scale model that uses a
	projectile weighing between 50 and 100 grams and achieves
	a velocity of 2,400 meters per second.  They hope to increase
	this to 4,000 meters per second before having to move to
	a different facility.  All design work is based on current
	technology.

	The university has signed a teaming agreement with Olin Corp.
	and has received a research grant from Langley Research
	Center to further the effort.  Both Ames and Lewis Research
	Centers are showing interest.  Bruckner, Hertzberg, and
	Bogdanoff currently have a number of patents pending.

Also, according to the April 1988 issue of _Aerospace_America_, high velocity 
gun launch concepts were debated at the AIAA/Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency lightsat conference in Monterey CA, and at a similar conference at 
Utah State Univ.  Someone may want to look into these.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL  61820

------------------------------

From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>

I was the one who posted a note on the RAM Accelerator.  The paper I have was
published at the _37th meeting of the Aeroballistic Range Association_, Quebec,
Canada, 9-12 September, 1986.  The authors are A. Hertzberg, A.P. Brucknet, and
D.W. Bogdanoff all from the Aerospace and Energetics Research Program,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.

On the issue of scaling up a light gas gun I'll mention that a John Hunter at
LLNL was working on exactly this at least as recently as May.  I have a draft of
a paper he was preparing but I don't know what it's publishability status is.
He determined that the system does indeed scale well.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu

From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
> The paper I
> have was published at the _37th meeting of the Aeroballistic Range
> Association_, Quebec, Canada, 9-12 September, 1986. 

The paper has now appeared in a journal: AIAA Journal, 26(2) (Feb. 1988),
pages 195-203.  It is slightly different from the conference version, but
does not report the most recent experiments that reached 2.4 km/s.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu

I've received copies of some recent papers on the ram accelerator.  The
most interesting is:

"The Ram Accelerator: A Chemically Driven Mass Launcher" P. Kaloupis
and A. P. Bruckner.  AIAA-88-2968.  Presented at the 24th Joint
Propulsion Conference, Boston, July 11-13, 1988.

The paper describes the components of a system that can place a 2000
kg vehicle into LEO.  The details are apropos to the discussion in
this mailing list about gun based launchers.

The launch vehicle has a diameter of .76 m and is 7.5 m long.  It is
first accelerated by a methane/air gun to 700 m/s.  The ram
accelerator contains nine different gas mixtures at 33 atmospheres
(the gas mixtures tailored to have the correct properties for
different ranges of projectile speed).  The mixtures range from 0.5
CH4 + O2 + 3 CO2 (.7 to 1.1 km/s) to 8 H2 + O2 (7.2+ km/s).  Peak
acceleration is < 1000 g.

The vehicles are made of graphite epoxy and have a total structural
mass of 625 kg.  The graphite epoxy is coated with carbon-carbon
ablator.  This heating is apparently not as bad as I had feared.
Total mass loss for a 9 km/s launch velocity due to atmospheric
heating (starting at 4000 m altitude) is only about 38 kg for a 16
degree angle of elevation, about 20 kg for 22 degrees.  Velocity loss
ranges from 10% (30 deg.) to 20% (16 deg.).

It is claimed that mass loss from ablation decreases as muzzle
velocity increases, because although the heat load is higher, the
vehicle is not exposed to the heating for as long a time.  It is
also claimed that the heating is largely convective, not radiative.
In-tube ablation due to passage through the propellant gas is less than
1 kg; ablation in the combustion zone, less than 3 kg.

Unfortunately, the vehicle is aerodynamically unstable.  They'd
better add fins, I think.

For a 9 km/s launcher, the launch tube is 5.1 km long and is made
of 41,700 tonnes of AISI 4340 steel.

The paper talks about orbital maneuvesrs. Solid rocket motors are
ruled out because they could not withstand launch, and have
insufficient performance.  Instead, they propose using nitrogen
tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine, pressurized by a gas generator
using hydrazine.  Isp = 297 sec, thrust = 10,000 newtons.  Hardware
mass of the propulsion system is approximately 200 kg.

The vehicle is aerobraked down to LEO in one pass at 30-50 km without
the use of special aerodynamic devices.  This apparently does not
present heating problems.

Mass fraction to LEO ranges from 19% (8 km/s launch velocity, angle 22
deg) to 43% (10 km/s, 18 deg).  However, they have apparently not
addressed the problem of matching orbital planes, perhaps because they
think waiting for precession to match planes is too time consuming.

I find it encouraging that low launch angles lead to acceptable
ablation.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------
[ end of excerpt ]


This material was posted to the space-tech mailing list a month or two ago.
Space-tech is a mailing list which discusses the more technical side of 
space exploration.  Topics have included EM launchers, solar sails, amateur
satellite projects, and tethered satellites.  If you want to join, send mail
to space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu with your name, Email address, and optionally
a couple of lines saying who you are and what you do.  Specify whether you'd
like the raw or digested list.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Marc Ringuette        | mnr@cs.cmu.edu  | Holy cow, Batman!                 |
| CMU Computer Science  | 412-268-3728(w) |   -- watch this space for other   |
| Pittsburgh, PA 15213  | 412-681-5408(h) |      quotes from great literature |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #213
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jan 89 09:13:07 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01063>; Sat, 28 Jan 89 06:08:04 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 28 Jan 89 06:08:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XsNSgy00Vs1I3L04:>;
          Sat, 28 Jan 89 05:36:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.YXsNC6y00UkZ0kSk5v>;
          Sat, 28 Jan 89 05:18:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UXsNAcy00UkZMkRU5B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 05:17:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #214

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 214

Today's Topics:
			       Tachyons
	Re: Colonies vs probes (was Re: NSS Board membership)
	  Re: Concorde, Hyper-sonic jets and onto Hotol etc.
       Re: request for book on history of planetary exploration
		   NASA Manifest - science payloads
			     Re: Tachyons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 17:14:31 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Tachyons

In article <8901241509.AA20873@NMSU.Edu> space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU writes:
>Those who find this FTL talk interesting will want to see this month's
>Discover magazine, which has the cover story "Beyond Einstein".  It
>contains some fascinating reference to tachyon theory, etc.  Nothing
>for the hard-core physicist, but easy reading, at least.

The article didn't mention one of the most peculiar attributes of
tachyons.

Consider a tachyon with imaginary rest mass iM and velocity u.
Define beta = |u|/c and gamma = (beta^2 - 1)^(-1/2).  The
tachyon has momentum

	p = M u gamma

and total energy

	E = M c^2 gamma.

The ratio of momentum to energy is

	|p|/E = beta / c.

Since beta can be arbitrarily large, a tachyon beam of fixed power can
carry an arbitrarily large amount of momentum, and therefore provide
any amount of thrust you desire.

It would be amusing indeed if someone discovered tachyons and used
them in a reaction drive.

:-)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 07:28:22 GMT
From: humpback!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Colonies vs probes (was Re: NSS Board membership)

In article <10443@well.UUCP> tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>I propose five phases of human
>development in space:
>
>	1. unmanned probes, 
>	2. manned visits, 
>	3. manned research stations,
>	4. semiautomated resource extraction (mining, power, whatever),
>	5. full scale "residential" colonization.  
>
>There are also four "zones" of space for the purposes
>of discussing exploration: 
>
>	A. earth orbit (LEO out to GEO);
>	B. cislunar including the lunar surface; 
>	C. the nearer minor planets including Mars and Venus
>	   (and perhaps the asteroid belt), 
>	D. Far Away (Jupiter and beyond).

We are currently in phase 1 for all zones and phase 2 for LEO.  Phase 4 
can be reached without phases 2 and 3.  There should  also be a phase "1a", 
fully automated resource extraction.  We are currently operating in this 
phase with regard to information resources (remote sensing, communications, 
etc.)  Material and energy resource extraction may also operate in phase 
1a for a time, depending on available technology.

Note that the energy differences between the Earth's surface and zone A
are large compared with the energy differences of the other zones.
Near earth asteroids should be classified in zone B, as they roughly
correspond in energy level to the lunar surface.  In many situations,
the energy differences between zones B, C, and D, will be outweighed
by other concerns, such as the type and quality of environments
(eg minerals) available in the different parts of each zone.
Furthermore, zone D has more potential resources than C, and C than B.
We must conclude, with the knowledge available today, that each zone is
roughly of equal concern for explorations leading to space development.

In summary, phases 1, 1a, 4, and 5 are the most important to space
colonization, where 1a is *fully* automated resource extraction.
Phases 2 and 3 are expensive alternatives of last resort.  All zones
are important to space exploration. 
--------------------------------
Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 14:11:22 GMT
From: orion.cf.uci.edu!dkrause@ucsd.edu  (Doug Krause)
Subject: Re: Concorde, Hyper-sonic jets and onto Hotol etc.

In article <23.Jan.89.14:10:19.GMT.ZZASSGL@UK.AC.UMRCC.CMS> ZZASSGL@cms.umrcc.ac.uk ("Geoff. Lane. Tel UK-061 275 6051") writes:
>
>It pleases a middle-aged Brit's heart good to see so much interest in
>PS I just had a thought - do you remember the visual joke in the film
>2001 where the instructions for the 0G toilet almost totally covered
>the door? Well if we wait long enough not only will the instructions
>be lengthy, they may also be a translation from the Japanese!

My roommate and I thought it would have been great if Dr. Floyd
would have been slowly stepping on his left foot and then on
his right ... (with appropriate facial expressions)   :-)

Douglas Krause           "You can't legislate morality" -George Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine   ARPANET: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu
"Irvine?  Where's Irvine?"         BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 24 Jan 89 16:39 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Re: request for book on history of planetary exploration
Original_To:  SPACE

In response to the request by Tony Goodloe
(ingr!b11!xenon!goodloe@uunet.uu.net) for books on the history of
planetary probes, Larry Klaes posted a pretty good bibliography. But,
naturally, he left out some that I would've recommended.

I think *Far Travelers*, by Oran Nicks, is just the book Tony is
looking for.  Nicks was a NASA Headquarters project manager in the
glorious Sixties, and reminisces about Ranger, Surveyor, various
Mariners, and Viking.  It's available from Government Printing Office
bookstores in big cities, which take credit card orders over the
phone, and which don't charge you for postage! Ask for NASA SP-480.
The Chicago bookstore's phone number is (312)353-5133.

The GPO  bookstores also carry the mission-specific, semitechnical
guides Larry and Stuart Warmink recommmended, such as *Pioneer: First
to Jupiter, Saturn and Beyond* (SP-446) and *Pioneer Venus* (SP-461).
Ask them for a catalog. (I haven't read these particular books, but I
happened to have their SP numbers lying around.)

Also don't forget the magic of Interlibrary Loan!  If your library
doesn't have the book you want, they will usually be happy to order it
for you from somebody else's library.   I am always astonished by
this; it seems a godlike power...

Larry, I was surprised that none of  Henry S. F. Cooper's books made
it onto your list.  He has covered many NASA space programs for the
*New Yorker* over the decades. Tony could look in his card catalog
under Cooper's name and find out a lot about space probes.  *Imaging
Saturn* and *The Search for Life on Mars* spring to mind.  On the
other hand, his writing is a trifle bland (like so much *NY* writing),
and his books seldom have photographs or indexes. I wonder if
objections like these made you leave him off the list.  (His latest
book, *Before Liftoff*, was written for NASA's history program, not
for the magazine, and has considerable verve AND photos AND an index.
It's about Shuttle crew training.)

I'd be interested in hearing what Larry or anybody else here thinks of
Cooper. For that matter, how do you feel about other space writers?
Whose books do you rush out and buy when you see a new one?  Whose
books do you avoid like the plague?

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~                (no relation to Andrew Higgins)
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with
     ~  Free Nobel Prizewinner Inside!

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 04:21:50 GMT
From: thorin!luther.cs.unc.edu!leech@mcnc.org
Subject: NASA Manifest - science payloads


    I extracted the science payloads from the "Mixed Fleet Manifest" which
Peter Yee posted and reformatted in 80 columns, for those of you who don't
want to read through all 3500 lines of the manifest. They're sorted by flight
date, then requested launch date if one hasn't been assigned yet.
    The '**' means "For NASA Planning Purposes" (missions that haven't been
funded).

    [Editorial comment: we can tell how seriously NASA takes the mixed fleet
     concept. 65 shuttle flights and only 29 ELVs planned up to 1994, and
     that's before they attempt to build space station using the shuttle.]

[I have the original posting available for those who might want to see
 the original.  If so drop a note to space-request@andrew.cmu.edu and
 mention something about NASA flight assigments. -ota]

|	PAYLOAD    |	 CARRIER  |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE| TYPE/CLASS
| MAGELLAN	   | IUS	  |  89 04     | 89 04 28  | SHUTTLE
| COBE		   | N/A	  |  89 06     | 89 06	   | DELTA
| GALILEO	   | IUS	  |  89 10     | 89 10 12  | SHUTTLE
| HST		   |		  |  89 06     | 89 12 11  | SHUTTLE
| HST		   |		  |  89 06     | 89 12 11  | SHUTTLE
| HST		   |		  |  89 06     | 89 12 11  | SHUTTLE
| ROSAT		   | N/A	  |  90 02     | 90 02	   | DELTA
| GRO		   | UNIQUE	  |  90 01     | 90 04	7  | SHUTTLE
| ULYSSES	   | IUS/PAM	  |  90 10     | 90 10	5  | SHUTTLE
| EUVE		   | N/A	  |  91 08     | 91 08	   | DELTA
| UARS		   |		  |  90 10     | 91 10 10  | SHUTTLE
| SMALL EXPL-01    | N/A	  |  91 12     | 91 12	   | SCOUT
| SRL-01	   | PALLET+MPESS |  91 07     | 92 05	7  | SHUTTLE
| SMALL EXPL-02    | N/A	  |  92 06     | 92 06	   | SCOUT
| SPARTAN-02	   | MPESS	  |  89 01     | 92 06 11  | SHUTTLE
| MARS OBSERVER    | TOS	  |  92 09     | 92 09	   | TITAN III
| SHEAL		   | UNIQUE/TAPS  |  91 05     | 92 09	3  | SHUTTLE
| SRL-02	   | PALLET+MPESS |  92 11     | 93 02 11  | SHUTTLE
| XTE		   | FSS	  |  93 11     | 94 01 13  | SHUTTLE
| HST-REV	   | PALLET+FSS   |  93 06     | 94 03 24  | SHUTTLE
| HST-REV	   | PALLET+FSS   |  93 06     | 94 03 24  | SHUTTLE
| HST-REV	   | PALLET+FSS   |  93 06     | 94 03 24  | SHUTTLE
| RADARSAT**	   | TBD	  |  94 06     | 94 06	   | MEDIUM**
| SRL-03	   | PALLET+MPESS |  95 04     | 94 09 22  | SHUTTLE
| SOHO		   | N/A	  |  95 03     |	   | TBD
| CRAF		   | CENTAUR**	  |  95 08     |	   | TITAN IV**
| LUNAR OBSERVER** | TBD	  |  95 10     |	   | INTERMEDIATE**
| OSL**		   | TBD	  |  95 10     |	   | MEDIUM**
| CASSINI	   | CENTAUR**	  |  96 04     |	   | TITAN IV**
| PO**		   | TBD	  |  96 06     |	   | INTERMEDIATE**
| HST-REVISIT-02   | PALLET+FSS   |  97 01     |	   | SHUTTLE

CASSINI        Cassini
    Saturn Orbiter/Titan Probe complements CRAF mission. Advance the knowledge
    of early history of the solar system through the study of physically and
    chemically primitive objects. Includes a rendevous with Saturn to study
    the planet, its rings, and its moons.
COBE	     Cosmic Background Explorer
    Determine the spectrum anistropy of cosmic microwave background.
CRAF	     Comet Rendevous Asteroid Fly-by
    Explore two primitive bodies to gather new information on the origin and
    evolution of the solar system, prebiotic chemical evolution and the origin
    of life, and astrophysical plasma dynamics and processes.
EUVE	     Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer
    Produce definitive sky map and catalog of extreme ultraviolet portion of
    electromagnetic spectrum (100-1000 angstroms).
GALILEO     GALILEO
    Investigates the chemical compostion and physical state of Jupiter's
    atmosphere and satellites.
GRO	   Gamma Ray Observatory
    Investigate extraterrestrial gamma-ray sources.
HEAO	   High Energy Astronomical Observatory
    Satellite to study energetic radiation from space.
HST	   Hubble Space Telescope
    Observes the universe to gain information about its origin, evolution and
    disposition of stars, galaxies, etc.
HST-R	   Hubble Space Telescope-Revisit
    Revisit mission to the Hubble Space Telescope to replace either science
    instruments orother orbital replacement units (ORU's).
LO	   Lunar Observer
    Geological, elemental, gravity, and magnetic field mapping of moon.
MAGELLAN   Magellan
    Spacecraft designed to globally map the surface of Venus.
MO	  Mars Observer
    Spacecraft to study Mars' surface, climate, gravitational, and magnetic
    fields.
OSL	  Orbiting Solar Laboratory
    Will provide detailed data on our nearest star, the sun, to augment our
    studies of distant stars and cosmic processes.
PO	   Planetary Observer
    Spacecraft to study Martian upper atmosphere and ionosphere.
RADARSAT  Radar Satellite
    Remote free flyer sensing satellite will monitor land, sea and ice for
    five years over the poles (U.S./Canadian/U.K.).
ROSAT	  Roentgen Satellite
    NASA/West German cooperative satellite for studying X-Rays.
SHEAL	  Shuttle High Energy Astrophysics Laboratory
    Obtains images, spectra and timing data on celestial x-ray sources and the
    spectrum at the 30 ft. X-ray background.
SIRTF	  Space Infrared Telescope Facility
    Will span the infrared part of the spectrum with a thousand- fold increase
    in sensitivity.
SMALL EXPL  Small Explorer
    Payloads being designed to fly on Small Class ELV.
SOHO	  Solar Heliospheric Observatory
    Provides optical measurements as well as plasma field and energetic
    particle observations of the sun system for studies of the solar interior,
    atmosphere and solar wind.
SPARTAN-02
    Solar observing Spartan mission.
SRL	  Space Radar Laboratory
    Series of flights to acquire radar images of the Earth's surface.  The
    images will be used for making maps, interpreting geological features, and
    resource studies.
UARS	 Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
    Satellite to study physical processes acting within and upon the
    stratosphere, mesosphere, and lower thermosphere.
ULYSSES   Formerly ISPM (International Solar Polar Mission)
    Investigates the properties of the heliosphere (sun and its environment).
XTE	  X-Ray Timing Explorer
    A Spacecraft to be used in Earth orbit to investigate the physical nature
    of compact X-Ray sources by studying fluctuations in X-Ray brightness over
    timescales ranging from microseconds to years.  The XTE payload will be
    launched on the Shuttle and changed out with the EUVE payload which will
    have been previously launched on an explorer platform using a Delta
    rocket.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``The experiment must be wrong'' - Richard Feynman (as quoted by
    Eugen Merzbacher), upon hearing that experimental data did not
    agree with theoretical predictions. Feynman was correct :-)

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 20:40:27 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Tachyons

In article <1989Jan24.121432.3544@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <8901241509.AA20873@NMSU.Edu> space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU writes:
> >Those who find this FTL talk interesting will want to see this month's
> >Discover magazine, which has the cover story "Beyond Einstein".  It
> >contains some fascinating reference to tachyon theory, etc.  Nothing
> >for the hard-core physicist, but easy reading, at least.
> 
> It would be amusing indeed if someone discovered tachyons and used
> them in a reaction drive.
> 
(Prior apologies for any notable discrepancies in what I am about to
say--it has been 9 years since I took relativity, and I am trying to
quote from memory)

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, let me briefly describe the
work of Minkowski on relativity.  If we consider a 2-dimensional space-time,
with coordinates x and t, then the region of the coordinate system we can
get to is a cone, described by t<0 and |x| < t, assuming that the equations
for relativity are valid (and there is certainly no reason TO DATE to doubt
those equations).  However, if we multiply the mass of an object by i, and
carefully manipulate the equations, we find that the slowest that an object
can go is c, and that the permitted region of the space-time plane is now
bounded by t > 0 and |x| > t.  Moreover, the new, 'imaginary' plane can be
viewed as a permutation of the original 'real' plane.  Using this permutation,
it can be shown that the 'imaginary' permitted region corresponds exactly to
the 'real' region with x > 0 and |t| < x.  I.e. changing the mass to an 
imaginary quantity can permit FTL travel in the 'real' space-time.  Nothing
earth-shaking about this.  We just created a tachyon.

Now for the fun part.  If we assume that space-time, mass, velocity, etc.
are complex quantities, then normal space that we perceive is merely the
real part of space-time.  Further, if we assume this 8-D structure is folded
on itself such that Re(x) corresponds to the Im(y) axis, etc, then it is 
mathematically possible to show that Minkowski's transformation holds, and
all the equations of special relativity are satisfied with the set of
complex masses, velocities, momenta, and coordinates.

What, you may be asking yourself, does this have to do with sci.space?
Well, not a lot really.  It just happens to be one of my favorite things
to throw out whenever FTL discussions come up.  Besides, someone might
someday discover what 'i' really is, and find out that this postulation is
correct.  (Of course, by then I'll probably be dead, so it won't do me any
good.)


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #214
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jan 89 18:15:48 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04357>; Sun, 29 Jan 89 03:40:41 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 29 Jan 89 03:40:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XsggVy00Vs1Q3L09t>;
          Sun, 29 Jan 89 03:28:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.QXsgY5y00UkZMlT04j>;
          Sun, 29 Jan 89 03:19:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <oXsgVVy00UkZ8lRk5D@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 03:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #215

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 215

Today's Topics:
       USSR selling high res pictures and announce new reactor
   MMU being added to Mir and good recovery from year long mission
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 00:12:16 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: USSR selling high res pictures and announce new reactor

     Glavcosmos general manager Dimitri Poletayev, in charge of marketing space 
material, said that there was uncertainty in the design of the Mir 2 station 
to replace Mir.  Five expansion modules will be added to Mir at about 6 month 
intervals starting in April, and reaching competition in 1991.  If Mir proves 
sufficient for their needs at that point the replacement station will be 
delayed, and they will not operate both station simultaneously. (Defense Daily 
Jan 6).  Connected with this Space Commerce Corp. is now selling 20 meter (66 
ft.) resolution images taken from Mir and earth observation satellites covering 
20 Km (12 mi) squares or 5 meter (16 ft.) for 5 km (3 mi) square pictures.  
Digital data can be delivered to a customer's ground station within 3 hours. 
(Soviet Aerospace, Jan 9 and AW&ST Jan 9).
   The Russians announced at a space power conference that they have flown 
twice an advanced thermionic orbital nuclear reactor design called Topaz.  
Thermionic reactors produce electricity directly within their core and are 
more efficient than the older style liquid metal cooled reactors used on 
Soviet Rodar radar satellites, or the US's similar thermoelctric SP-100 system 
(scheduled to fly in 1993).  The two missions, Cosmos 1818 and 1867, has 
the reactors operating for 6 and 12 months, compared to the 2-3 months of a 
Rodar system.  These 5-10 tonne satellites will produce several hundred 
kilowatts for up to 5 years in future missions.  In addition the Soviets are 
looking at a nuclear propulsion/power system for a manned Mars mission.  In a 
typical mission a 665 day round trip would using Venus gravity assist an allow 
along stay at Mars. The Russians have stated these new reactors will also be
offered for sale.  (AW&ST Jan 16)
     The USSR's first launch of the year used a Proton booster to put Glonass 
navigation satellites and an Etalon laser geodesic satellite.  The Etalon was 
described as a 1.4 Tonne hollow sphere 1.3 meters (51 inches) in diameter 
covered with about 2000 quartz tetrahedral shaped prisms, which reflect laser 
beams back towards their source.  This allows very fine measurements of the 
earth's gravity field and of course can be used as a military laser target.  
Note the stated ground laser sources are at Sary Shagan and Dushanbe (the 
latter site figuring prominently in Tom Claney's new spy thriller "The Cardinal 
of the Kermlin").  Such candor was unusual in such a military related system 
prior to now.  Previous Glonass launches have sometimes contained a third 
satellite which went into a strange orbit - possibly they were similar 
systems. Total Soviet launches for 1989 were 90, the lowest since 1981, but 
these included the flight of Buran, and the manning of Mir for the whole year.  
(Defense Daily Jan 13, 18) 
    Developing advanced nuclear reactors for planetary missions, and 
selling orbital data from a space station.  When a non market oriented 
economy does that you know that space is viewed as a money making venture by 
them.  With the grounding of the Discovery today due, to moisture in the main 
engines causing the cracking of the bearing race way, it will be a while 
before the US catches up. The Russians are moving in this area, will the USA 
join them.


                                                Glenn Chapman
                                                MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 22:15:24 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: MMU being added to Mir and good recovery from year long mission

     On board the Mir/Kvant space station complex Alexander Volkov and Sergei 
Krikalev of the Soyuz TM-7 crew have now been up for 61 days, exceeding Skylab 
3's 59 day mission in July 1973. Meanwhile Dr. Valrey Polyakov from Soyuz TM-6 
has  now  spent 150 days in orbit.  This "medium duration" mission  will  last 
until  April-May when Alexander S. Victorenko (8 days Soyuz TM-3/Mir, July  22 
'87)  and Alexander Alexandrovich Serebrov (7 days Soyuz T-7/Salyut 7  Aug.  19 
1982 and 2 days Soyuz T-8) will replace them.  Note that Serebrov first 
trained for a long duration flight in 1983 when Soyuz T-7 suffered a docking 
radar failure which aborted the mission.  Timed close to their arrival will be 
the addition of the air lock expansion module (adding 20 Tonnes and about 100 
cu. meters to Mir).  The module, which will first dock to the rear end of Mir 
and then be transferred to the side port, contains a new shower, water 
electrolysis system (breaking waist water into oxygen) and the Gyrodine 
gyroscope position stabilization setup.  In addition it will carry the 
Russian's Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU), which is similar to the US system.  
However, for the initial test the MMU will be tied to the station with lines 
in case something fails according to Victor Blagov, deputy manned space flight 
director.  After the incident in 1977 when Yuri Romanenko nearly floated out 
of a space hatch with no cable attached the Soviets can not be blamed for 
being somewhat shy of going without safety lines (Romanenko was saved by 
Georgiy Grechko who grabbed him just as he floated out the door).  
Valery Ryumin, director of manned space flight (with 362 orbital days himself) 
said the Russian's new space suits, first used on the Alexander Volkov and 
Jean-Loup Chretien EVA of Dec. 9, were both much easier to put on due to 
exchangeable arms and were good for 10 space walks.  Note that in that walk it
appears that the cause of the failure of the ERA deployable structure failed to
expand was due to ice frozen in the container.  The box had not been sealed 
during the time it was kept on board Mir, causing it to pick up moisture from 
the air (it was very wet on Mir with the 6 man crew).  In addition to the ERA 
problem they had difficulty mounting a set of panels containing test materials 
for the space exposure (to be picked up in 6 - 12 months).  Finally, at the end
of 6 hours (their max allowed suit time was only 6.5 hours) they headed in but 
Chretien had trouble closing the hatch due to sweat on his visor.  
   The recover of Vladimir Titov and Moussa Manerov after their 365 day mission 
is almost astounding.  According to Bernard Comet, flight surgeon for the 
French space agency CNES, while they were pale and had balance problems when 
first being carried out of the capsule, by the time of the flight back to 
Moscow 3 hrs. later they were walking down the stairs from the plane (as I saw 
on the video tapes).  Twenty four hours after landing Titov had no difficulty 
while Manarov was still experiencing some equilibrium difficulties, and by 2 
days after landing both were walking and acting normally.  Subsequent reports 
on the short wave indicate that they have recovered much faster than even the 
Russians  expected.  Indeed the latest data shows this was also the case  with 
Yuri Romanenko, who flew for 326 days ending Dec. 29 1987.  For example he ran 
an 11 m (36 ft.) distance within a day of landing.  By comparison after the 211 
day Soyuz T-5/Salyut 6 mission in May 1982 Anatoli Berezolvi and Valentin 
Lebedev were still not fully recovered 34 days after landing, suffering 
weakness and dizziness ("space hangover"). The Soviet doctors are saying now 
they are confident they have licked the Zero G health problems in planing a 
typical manned Mars mission.  Note they first flew to Star Village near Moscow 
rather than the Baikonur Cosmodrome because of an outbreak of viral Hepatitis 
at the Star City center near there. (AW&ST Jan 2, Radio Moscow, Manned Space 
Log and Defense Daily, Dec 20, Jan 4).
   The Russians appear to have developed techniques to overcome many of the 
zero G medical problems (though probably not all).  It looks like the way to
Mars is now open for all those that learn how the Soviets do it.

                                                     Glenn Chapman
                                                     MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 05:20:24 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #447 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 24.08471460 0.00000393           46181-3 0  1802
2 00424  80.4625  67.8721 0024012 138.8443 221.4522 13.67063820313122
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 24.18686640 0.00000000           10000-3 0  6248
2 08820 109.8108 180.7627 0044952 346.7720  13.1183  6.38664383 41437
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 17.18297339 -.00000014                   0  2138
2 10061   6.7837  69.9828 0002532 216.2605 143.5988  1.00274006  3862
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 20.86988243 0.00000012                   0   178
2 10684  63.5229 105.4108 0105485 198.3318 161.2374  2.00562254 65576
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 18.33216397 -.00000028                   0  9473
2 10893  64.5502 346.3073 0146703  28.3504 332.4252  2.00560835 78346
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 21.22797732 0.00000090           10000-3 0  5681
2 10953   5.6626  72.7604 0005918 239.6950 120.2711  1.00273593  1160
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 20.03732004 0.00003612           13293-2 0   612
2 10967 108.0098 342.5827 0001495 250.4378 109.6565 14.34183288552848
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 21.14065779 -.00000028                   0  9742
2 11054  64.1062 342.7209 0049820 119.5806 240.9076  2.00559849 75419
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 18.25717676 0.00000012                   0   739
2 11141  63.5067 105.3846 0055973 322.0483  37.5806  2.00554344 74057
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 20.03614258 0.00001781           77019-3 0  7947
2 11416  98.5011  21.4837 0012452 177.3543 182.7819 14.25404739496798
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 24.82491161 0.00040316           10212-2 0  8201
2 11703  28.5004 200.5404 0004542 240.2467 119.7320 15.38357639497641
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 15.71945747 -.00000028                   0  8377
2 11783  63.9149 342.5767 0137833  62.5547 298.8082  2.00565460 63949
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88345.42895844 -.00000026           10000-3 0   378
2 11964   5.0165  76.0252 0032177  91.3375 268.7410  0.99231566   155
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 16.08994959 -.00000245           10000-3 0  6771
2 12472   2.1586  82.8555 0003387 259.0829 100.5254  1.00258547 27085
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 21.06506841 0.00058010           13434-2 0  4172
2 12888  97.5911  67.1906 0000508  43.8383 316.2483 15.42248857406195
RS-08      
1 12998U          89  1.00414286 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5578
2 12998  82.9574 327.4553 0020002   4.8175 355.3069 12.02967823309209
RS-05      
1 12999U          89  5.23545068 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5515
2 12999  82.9601 319.6709 0008004 307.7882  52.2540 12.05064523310257
RS-07      
1 13001U          89  3.20209254 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4294
2 13001  82.9579 310.7815 0021450 198.4315 161.5982 12.08709133310948
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 18.85153417 0.00000303           26257-3 0  6154
2 13113  82.5397 177.4385 0016309 118.5314 241.7524 13.83917046344583
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 23.74174604 0.00015869           44557-3 0  4149
2 13138  51.6136 302.1527 0001227 163.2191 196.9275 15.36698389385941
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 17.57329833 0.00000574           29731-3 0  7397
2 13718  81.2452  68.8813 0057612  67.6753 293.0506 14.13063776314284
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 20.04268551 0.00000115                   0  8905
2 14050   0.9174  84.3066 0002403 248.0358  27.6100  1.00279093  5124
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 20.46773607 -.00000064           10000-3 0  3758
2 14129  26.6880 284.1697 6052451  10.8344 357.8822  2.05882618 14177
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 20.29897219 0.00000011                   0  5995
2 14189  63.1374 103.9866 0132498 214.2130 144.9614  2.00573725 40477
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 17.12806321 0.00001255           53808-3 0  6844
2 14452  81.1642  84.9192 0095361 171.0937 189.1973 14.21961176271078
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 19.99587300 0.00004930           11022-2 0  6280
2 14780  98.1904  84.9431 0001731 351.7369   8.3889 14.57155490259988
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 20.61388353 0.00003634           71912-3 0  3944
2 14781  98.0282  83.6283 0015094  66.7093 293.5794 14.62856019260966
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 21.08801631 0.00034836           79903-3 0  7326
2 14898  28.5099 125.3864 0002171  75.2691 284.8065 15.41354406268669
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 18.85734064 0.00000011                   0  6190
2 15039  62.8749 103.3517 0014855 283.1685  76.6952  2.00564671 33723
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 20.28151933 0.00000564           50130-3 0  9171
2 15099  82.5335 124.0134 0012264 297.0976  62.8969 13.83593488229669
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 21.25016185 -.00000028                   0  5652
2 15271  63.4136 342.2355 0099397 317.3477  41.8687  2.00562105 30888
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 23.67757024 0.00006173           91682-3 0  9639
2 15331  82.5376 111.7594 0024339 192.0235 168.0248 14.74687314232918
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 19.46129793 0.00001027           58417-3 0  3235
2 15427  99.1272   3.6243 0015372  15.9186 344.2495 14.11781371211466
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 17.58764647 0.00000315           27382-3 0   444
2 15516  82.5342  64.5465 0016311 172.9375 187.2022 13.84022915200223
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 24.06685304 0.00049086           13488-2 0  1462
2 16095  51.6161 300.5728 0001063 177.2109 182.6460 15.36724579385995
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 10.43732671 0.00000012                   0  2905
2 16129  63.6699 104.1395 0115479 150.3904 210.3020  2.00565776 23878
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 17.92247951 0.00000043           10000-3 0  7989
2 16191  82.5493 341.9905 0019365 318.1900  41.7750 13.16856348155749
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 21.87283652 0.00000401           35022-3 0  4534
2 16408  82.5344 336.0038 0016568 356.6597   3.4453 13.84107363155317
Mir        
1 16609U          89 23.76807044 0.00067323           46632-3 0  6621
2 16609  51.6217  13.2748 0016375 106.6311 253.7443 15.73667622168582
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 24.76926419 -.00000397          -17773-3 0  3389
2 16613  98.7146 101.4471 0000935 144.9246 215.2040 14.20032132 64348
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 17.98628315 0.00000216           18475-3 0  2729
2 16735  82.5360   5.8397 0016062  74.4715 285.8232 13.83835888133689
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 24.90260998 0.00003037           45353-3 0  4978
2 16881  82.5255 170.3291 0022816 204.0298 155.9690 14.74339342134171
EGP        
1 16908U          89  9.42214283 -.00000036           19575-4 0  1156
2 16908  50.0129  66.1499 0011053 301.1525  58.8225 12.44374466109646
FO-12      
1 16909U          89  9.16412950 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1251
2 16909  50.0207  67.1525 0011194 297.9086  62.0613 12.44397259109604
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 21.39957075 0.00001032           47684-3 0  1827
2 16969  98.6572  54.5985 0012884 318.8806  41.1401 14.22772670123064
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 21.07529695 0.00000452           39947-3 0  2147
2 17290  82.4662 271.7672 0013728 319.8420  40.1772 13.83656812103276
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 16.89655656 -.00000215           10000-3 0  2236
2 17561   0.3053 293.4628 0018064 281.4862 144.8416  1.00360353   242
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 24.02212599 0.00025513           18021-3 0  6490
2 17845  51.6230  11.9712 0016160 105.4557 255.1850 15.73688769104894
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 23.84942909 0.00000175           18203-3 0  6477
2 18129  82.9293 344.7680 0013234  91.6276 268.6417 13.71934879 79600
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 24.76781597 0.00152156  11790-4  23287-3 0  8638
2 18225  71.8865  80.5364 0009303 251.5626 108.3761 16.04175568 88299
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 22.31786423 0.00001111           10000-2 0  2292
2 18312  82.5618 335.1126 0012978 225.5821 134.4289 13.83409715 72348
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 17.52550813 0.00000257           22085-3 0   784
2 18820  82.5409  40.2800 0016662 337.5163  22.5266 13.84081185 48848
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 21.67169254 -.00000109           10000-3 0   297
2 19216  57.3622 222.9543 6646232 197.5144 118.7893  2.09700975  4665
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 21.65985199 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1137
2 19336  82.5450 279.3399 0014160 188.0664 172.0190 13.16852570 23626
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89  3.60584393 0.00000632           37406-3 0   328
2 19531  98.9206 308.5876 0012481 342.0118  18.0605 14.10773514 14263
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89  4.01325547 0.00079961           47147-3 0   415
2 19660  51.6218 115.3950 0017543 247.8881 111.9189 15.77247691  6059
Ekran 19   
1 19683U          89  6.17491319 -.00000271           10000-3 0   293
2 19683   1.3940 267.0977 0004265 299.2597  61.6497  1.00277935   281
1988 108D  
1 19686U          89  2.91965558 0.00000040           10000-3 0   119
2 19686   1.4290 267.2786 0021054   4.3455 356.5381  1.01515351   259
1988 109A  
1 19687U          89  3.49713384 0.00000029           10000-3 0   142
2 19687   3.0416 272.3985 0108227 348.7941  11.4238  1.01893246   226
1988 109B  
1 19688U          89  3.70007630 0.00000078           10000-3 0   141
2 19688   0.0499  97.8588 0071480   6.3679 256.5824  1.01438969   151
1988 109C  
1 19689U          89  3.01347161 0.00001004           30811-2 0   165
2 19689   6.7956 253.8720 7253180 195.7515 115.3374  2.23348528   487
Cosmos 1984
1 19705U          89 19.40372789 0.01577637  41422-4  30625-3 0   813
2 19705  62.8261 186.2234 0062393 117.7652 243.1376 16.25470591  5424
1988 111A  
1 19710U          89 21.35764026 -.00000322           10000-3 0   296
2 19710   0.5294 261.0148 0000533  95.1335   3.8189  1.00268307   331
Molniya3-34
1 19713U          89  4.47570250 0.00000903           36766-2 0   174
2 19713  62.7870 253.4025 7428829 280.1351  11.0084  2.00746119   277
1988 112D  
1 19716U          89  4.21669290 -.00000290           27457-3 0    24
2 19716  62.7898 253.3274 7375979 280.0946  11.3710  2.06837624   278
Cosmos 1985
1 19720U          89  6.04794673 -.00017422          -98882-3 0   392
2 19720  73.5628 179.3921 0006799 227.2224 132.8260 15.13000071  2086
1988 113B  
1 19721U          89  6.04660842 -.00053949          -30889-2 0   210
2 19721  73.5612 179.3893 0006644 230.0963 129.9251 15.13082182  2089
Progress 39
1 19728U          89 24.84746179 0.00196394           12977-2 0   390
2 19728  51.6061   7.7341 0025417  99.9032 260.0074 15.74004304  4855
Molniya1-74
1 19730U          89  4.57562740 0.00000530           20260-2 0    76
2 19730  62.8360 127.6677 7320095 288.1747   9.7255  2.05582386   160
1988 115D  
1 19733U          89  1.15146543 0.00000411                   0    41
2 19733  62.8892 128.1720 7279012 288.4208  10.0336  2.06604028    91
Cosmos 1986
1 19734U          89 24.71754384 0.00244620  10211-4  16626-3 0   550
2 19734  64.7713 185.6584 0035195 169.1081 191.1112 16.14909601  4243
1989 001A  
1 19749U          89 24.11714390 0.00000021           10000-3 0   244
2 19749  64.8592 175.5300 0005055 284.2504  75.6588  2.13102573   314
1989 001B  
1 19750U          89 24.64509800 0.00000021           10000-3 0   309
2 19750  64.8781 175.5177 0004421 254.5312 105.3852  2.13102880   328
1989 001C  
1 19751U          89 25.05026959 0.00000021           10000-3 0   248
2 19751  64.8699 175.4979 0009290 257.8033 102.0614  2.13155988   339
1989 001F  
1 19754U          89 21.75204987 0.00000021           10000-3 0    96
2 19754  64.8672 175.6058 0012779 314.5178  45.3354  2.13421124   248
1989 002A  
1 19756U          89 24.74672639 0.00133019  68421-5  20340-3 0   238
2 19756  82.5648 297.8275 0005376  58.6516 301.4646 16.04320169  1978
1989 003A  
1 19758U          89 24.73375574 0.00002311           25552-4 0   174
2 19758  69.9859 267.4405 0049231 205.7974 154.0847 15.62400782  1004
1989 003B  
1 19759U          89 24.89250191 0.02668874  19982-4  11783-2 0   211
2 19759  69.9749 265.9356 0074490  52.1097 308.7523 16.15309524  1062
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #215
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jan 89 06:57:19 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00965>; Sun, 29 Jan 89 05:39:59 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 29 Jan 89 05:39:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXsiOXy00UkT85Ck5=>;
          Sun, 29 Jan 89 05:25:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.EXsiH:y00UkZMleE4R>;
          Sun, 29 Jan 89 05:17:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <oXsiG3y00UkZAld053@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 05:16:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #216

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 216

Today's Topics:
		      Re: fireball across Texas
	     Journal of Lunar Exploration and Development
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #207
		   Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race
			   Interesting typo
			Municipal sonic booms
		 Re: Is the moon a 'known quantity'?
		Re: Limitation on Chinese launch sales
	     Review of "Future Magic", by Robert Forward
			 Re: 'Days' in Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 23:11:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!daniel@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: fireball across Texas


>From East Central Illinois:  (Urbana)

I believe that this may have been what my wife saw as she was driving
up to pick me up from work.  She was looking due West and saw a set of
objects falling from the sky that left greenish tails that remained for
about half a minute.  There was a cluster of objects more or less
falling together (heading north) with the last appearing being the
brightest and leaving the most persistant tail.

This was all very visible at around 7: or 8: PM local time in fairly
bright city lights.  I believe that this happened Friday night the
20th.

-- Daniel Pommert
   daniel@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 25 Jan 89 17:56 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Journal of Lunar Exploration and Development
Original_To:  SPACE

I'm passing on an announcement from Dr. Gay Canough, who's starting
a new journal.  If you have an interest in lunar affairs, subscribe
or get your institution's library to subscribe.

                                       Bill Higgins
                                       Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                       HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
                                       SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS
 ==========================================================
                    ANNOUNCING :

**** THE JOURNAL OF LUNAR EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ****

PURPOSE:

This publication is meant to serve as a forum for discussion of lunar
science and development activities. Because workers in this area are
scattered around the world, it is important to keep in touch with work
going on through this type of publication. There has proved to be
widespread interest in returning to the Moon, both in the private and
government sectors. It is our aim to publish all articles relevant to
the Moon.


FORMAT:

     Articles on anything relating to the Moon are welcome.
Some examples:

     * Scientific papers on any lunar studies
     * Summary articles on past lunar studies
     * New analysis of old lunar data (which may or may not
           have been looked at before)
     * Lunar Base studies,designs
     * Materials processing as related to Lunar materials
     * Power systems for lunar utilizations
     * Designs for robotic prospectors and mining missions,
           as well as manned ones.
     * ETC...

These are just a few items, not meant to cover everything. We
encourage submissions of all kinds to find out all the different Moon
related work going on. You may request peer review for articles.

In addition to technical articles there will be a section for news;
that is, who is doing what, where and conference and meeting
announcements. There will also be a forum for opinions (viewpoints and
letters to editor). And there will be some departments, such as
'Problem of the Month'. Feel free to suggest other sections,
departments.

This journal will be completely public, so please do not send
proprietary information.

SUBMISSIONS:

Please send all submissions to

     Dr. Gay E. Canough, Editor
     ETM, Inc.
     PO Box 67
     Endicott, NY 13760

*** DEADLINE for the first issue is March 1,1989 ***

     If you have a computer, we encourage electronic submissions.
Call Gay at (607) 785-6499 for assistance in phone transfer. Or
you may send a 5.25 floppy disk. We have an IBM PC XT, and
current formats supported are DisplayWrite 3 and ASCII. In about
2 months, we will support Pagemaker and Generic CAD formats as
well. BITnet users may send articles to CANOUGH@FNAL. In the near
future a bulletin board will be installed.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

     We are accepting subscriptions now for $50/yr. The first
issue will appear in March, 1989. The subscription rate is set
only to cover the costs of putting out the journal. The journal
will be quarterly in 1989 and monthly starting in 1990.
Make checks payable to ExtraTerrestrial Materials, Inc.
==========================================================

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 19:13:29 GMT
From: ccnysci!dan@nyu.edu  (Dan Schlitt)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question


The discussion of relativity would be much easier if no one had ever
used relativistic mass (which is generally shortened to simply mass to
the utter confusion of everyone).  There is only one meaningful mass.
That is the "proper mass" or "rest mass".  It is something that all
observers can agree on and thus is something which is significant for
the purpose of discussion.  But, alas, it is much too late to get
people to quit calling (gamma)mc^2 the mass.
-- 
Dan Schlitt                        Manager, Science Division Computer Facility
dan@ccnysci                        City College of New York
dan@ccnysci.bitnet                 New York, NY 10031
                                   (212)690-6868

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 26 Jan 89 00:33:45 EST
From: Greg Howard <HOWGREJ%YALEVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V9 #207


Someone recently wrote, in the continuing manned/unmanned debate, that
with the amount it would cost to go to Mars, we could build 2000 probes and
check out every cubic centimeter of the solar system (sorry, I think I nuked
the original posting by accident).  This may be true in monetary terms, but
politically, it's far off.  A manned mission generates much more interest, and
therefore will receive much more funding, than any unmanned probe (or 2000
unmanned probes).  Fer cryin' out loud, NASA can barely maintain any unmanned
missions because they don't generate enough noise so that politicians want to
fund them.  On the other hand, there is a very real possibility of our
spending $100 billion+ to go to Mars.  Though hundreds of times less
economically viable, manned missions are politically more appealing, and Dr.
Van Allen's plan of dropping the manned space program might well leave NASA
without enough money to keep the coffee machine running.

   Just out of curiousity, and to keep from offending anyone, is there a
non-sexist term for a "manned" mission?  Here they've taken to calling
first-year students "freshpersons", but a "personned" mission just doesn't
sound right.  Any thoughts?

The Space People will contact us when they  |  Greg Howard
can make money by doing so.  - DAVID BYRNE  |  HOWGREJ at YALEVM

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 15:11:11 GMT
From: pacbell!well!tneff@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race

Andrew Higgins shifts his ground with all the admirable agility you'd
hope for in someone with the unenviable job of defending Dan Quayle
before this newsgroup. :-)  At first we were supposed to believe that
Dan wasn't really that dumb or uninformed after all, on the strength of
a defense policy article dealing with space issues.  Then a bunch of
responses come in pointing out that these things are ghost-written by
aides to serve the boss's constituency interests and political agenda,
and don't tell a thing about Quayle's ignorance or lack thereof.  Oh,
well, ok, <*SHIFT*> what really matters, we're now told, is that Quayle
is *responsible* for those articles appearing.  Yeah, and if he doesn't
do what we want (who's this we, white man? Aha, there's an NSS in the
signature) we can REMIND HIM OF THE ARTICLE!  Wow, *that* ought to have
heads rolling in the EOB, don't you think? :-)

In reality any politician who can't sidestep some policy article his
aides ghosted last term isn't electable material to begin with; and
dumb as Danno is, we do know he's electable.  It takes more than a soft
spot for hiring Trekkies as summer interns to be a leader in the space
program: you have to have the personal (slightly irrational) vision
that will keep your eyes riveted on the goal when other stuff intrudes;
and you need the respect of the White House.  Dan has been given this
job as a sinecure, and no matter how many articles his gophers put out
and no matter how many speeches he gives on the swiss steak circuit,
the White House will still thank him very nicely for his work and put
it on the agenda... SOMEWHERE, after the Seychelles but before the
potato treaties.  This is the sense I get at the moment.  Dan can
surprise us by exerting tons of personal initiative.  My only point is
that nothing we've seen so far hints at this.
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 24 Jan 89 12:37:20 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject:  Interesting typo

Re Space Digest #192 (Yup, I'm running behind...):

"Many of the particle bean accelerators reach speeds less than 2% below the
                         ^
speed of light."

Is a "particle bean accelerator" something like a pea shooter? :-)

There's also probably a Mexican jumping bean joke in there somewhere but
I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader...

In a strange frame of mind,
Regards, Will Martin        :-)        :-)        :-)        :-)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 11:07:27 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Municipal sonic booms
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

epiwrl!parker@uunet.uu.net  (Alan Parker) writes:

>In article <9572@ut-emx.UUCP> tmca@emx.UUCP (The Anarch) writes:
>>What gets me though is that neither Great Britain nor the U.S.A. will 
>>allow them
>>to fly supersonic over land (last I heard, anyhow) and yet both these nations
>>allow their military junk to  make as much noise as it feels like.

>This just isn't true.   Military jets rarely (never?) fly supersonic of
>US land, except on the ranges out in the deserts where there aren't any
>people and buildings.  When was the last time you heard a sonic boom
>over a US city?

About three years ago.  All of Los Angeles hears a respectable boom when
the space shuttle makes an approach from the south instead of the west.
So far I don't think anyone has complained.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 15:11:31 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Is the moon a 'known quantity'?

In article <13531@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> ... I submit that more than 90% of the scientific value of the Apollo
>program came from the first moon landing, and specifically from the
>soil samples it brought back. 
>
>It is always nice to have more data, but the last few Apollo landings
>added very little to the knowledge we got from the first few.

Most of Jorge's article (not quoted) was reasonable but this is a calumny.
Apollos 16 and 17 were the really big science missions.  The quantity and
sophistication of the experiments and activities was an order of magnitude
better than on the first few missions.  I can list the specifics if folks
are interested.

>It would have been foolish to continue spending the limited money
>available on additional Apollos instead of on things like Viking and
>Voyager.  

Not at all the same proposition; not hard to agree with either.
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1989 13:15-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Limitation on Chinese launch sales

I wonder if this has the chinese thinking of historical similarities.

The USA is like their old court Eunechs: people who can't do it
themselves and want to castrate everyone else so they don't have to
watch others doing it.

Remember that it was a struggle for power by the eunuchs that was
responsible for the Chinese withdrawing from exploration and burning
all large ships and making it a capital offense to build one.

Is that what kind of country we are becoming?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 11:32:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 1619+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Review of "Future Magic", by Robert Forward

In much the same way that Eskimos have many words for what English speakers call
"snow", Robert Forward has many words for what more conventional scientists and
engineers call "impossible".  For most "impossible" is the end of the line;
where you stop and give up.  For Dr. Forward "impossible is where he starts, and
naturally he imbues the concept with a richness of texture and detail that most
people miss entirely.

In the 1988 Avon book "Future Magic", Forward fills in and describes the fine
structure he sees in the spectrum of the impossible.  He covers the range
starting from near "impossibly difficult" to just short of "clearly
theoretically impossible".  Along the way he explains much of the relevant
physics quite lucidly, including special and general relativity, antimatter, and
other fun stuff.  One or two if his ideas are quite practical, such as using
masses to reduce the tidal forces for microgravity experiments in LEO.  And a
few ideas seem fairly ridiculous, like using gravity waves for communication.

Overall I thought the book was pretty good.  I had just finished Hawking's "A
Brief History of Time" (another excellent book), so perhaps that is why the
physics seemed a bit elementary.  But, consequently, readers shouldn't be scared
away if their physics background is a bit weak or rusty.  Several of the recent
questions asked here about relativity were clearly explained, so I'd recommend
it on that basis alone.  If you always like to look for loopholes in the rules,
or just want to have a better idea how much science there is in your science
fiction, check it out.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 24 Jan 89 12:42 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Re: 'Days' in Space

Tom Neff writes:

>I strongly urge all you cave dwellers out there to factor in the
>resource cost, not just of spending X months *at equilibrium* at some
>artificial day length, but of sustaining two or three *transitions*
>between day lengths, all the while trying to run a Mars mission at its
>most critical moments.

     How long does it take the average person to adjust to a three hour
time difference brought on by jet lag?  Several days, at most, during
which time the person is in no incapacitated, but just gets tired
earlier, gets up earlier, and possibly eats meals at different times.
How will any of these types of problems be dangerous (or even bothersome)
on a ** 22 month ** Mars mission?  So it takes you, say, three days
before Mars orbit to set your cycles for Mars.  Big deal!  This will
have to be done anyway, as your 'day' cycle will depend on where on Mars
you land - or do you really advocate that the choice of a landing spot
be left to the basis of "Not now, I'm sleeping!"?

>Also, while we're busily discovering that each individual has his or
>her very own favorite circadian interval, which eventually asserts
>itself after enough time in the closet, we might take a moment to
>wonder how a CREW functions together under those circumstances.  There
<is going to be *work* to be done on the way out and back, and plenty of
<it too (or else we're not getting our money's worth from the ruinously
>expensive mission).  Work requires schedules, especially when you're
>doing things like occultations and timed measurements.

     But that is really the whole point of what I am advocating.  The
astronauts will be there, on the scene, and they must be at the top of
their efficiency.  The mission planners should go out of their way to
design the trip so that this will happen, and if this includes changing
the length of the day, so be it.  Perhaps designing a scaling schedule
that will lengthen the day slowly over the first two weeks and shorten
it back to 'Mars Standard Time' just before orbit, and so on.  If the
astronauts can work on a day that is 10% longer, then perhaps there will
also have to be 10% less food for the trip.  (I know, I'm pushing things
a bit with that one.)  But anything to increase efficiency is a bonus and
must be looked in to.  Regarding the 24 hour cycle as God-given is
coming very close to being xenophobic.

     However, the only people with any kind of experience in that regard
are the Soviets.  Won't it be nice for the Americans to have to depend
on them for a change?  Will the American spirirt be able to handle such
an ego-deflater?  If not, Americans will end up watching the Tass report
of the Soviet landing on Mars within the next 20 or 30 years.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #216
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Jan 89 08:16:11 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04785>; Mon, 30 Jan 89 04:26:04 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 30 Jan 89 04:25:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gXt1pzy00Vs1Q3V08L>;
          Mon, 30 Jan 89 03:32:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.4Xt1eiy00UkZ0mc04v>;
          Mon, 30 Jan 89 03:20:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sXt1bNy00UkZ0mak55@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 03:16:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #217

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 217

Today's Topics:
		     Phobos II enters Mars orbit
			 Summer Jobs at NASA
		 Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II
		Manned missions vs. Planetary Science
		    Need 3-D  Cordinates of stars.
		   Re: Announcement of Opportunity
			  Re: Approaching c
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 21:43:43 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Phobos II enters Mars orbit

    The Soviet Union's Phobos II probe has successfully gone into orbit
around Mars today (Jan. 29th) according to Radio Moscow short wave (sorry
no time or orbital insertion was given).  The announcement said that the orbit
was near to the expected value, suggesting firing occurred at 800 Km (500 mi)
yielding a 4200 Km (2610 mi) by 79,000 Km (49,100 mi) orbit, 79 hour orbit.
Retro engine thrust is rated at 1 - 1.9 tonnes, nitric acid/hydrazine engine.
After 25 days this will change to a 9700 Km (6030 mi) by 79,000 Km (49,100 mi)
79 hour orbit, where it will stay for 35 days.  Then a circular 9700 Km
(6030 mi) 8 hour will be established for 30 days which will gain the 
controllers the navigation information for the 9378 Km (5827 mi) 7.6 hour 
final orbit at Phobos.  Thus roughly 90 days from now, about May 30, the 
probe make its rendezvous with that moon of Mars.  After that it will return
to the 8 hour orbit for more observations of the planet.
   One other point concerning my Jan. 24th posting about the transmitter
failure.  The reports that I read were in Defense Daily and Aerospace Daily,
and the two articles were identical.  However, I have since talked to several 
others who have direct communications with Russian researchers.  All say that
there no problem was mentioned by the Soviets even after the Jan 9th date of
the articles which quoted unnamed sources.  Let us hope that this was a false
alarm, or at least the transmitters are working again. (I want to see all the 
data on Phobos come to earth - the Soviets have said they will make most of 
it available in the west).
   Now we may find out if the Martian moons will be a source of material for
refueling Mars ships.  Unfortunately this data will be coming from the USSR 
for the next few years.  However, they that make the effort deserve the
rewards
   [One personal message - Mitch Waldrop would you please send me your Arpa
or Bitnet address so that I can send you the postings directly - the number
I copied down over the phone does not work; thanks and sorry to the rest of
for this personal intrusion]
 
                                                 Glenn Chapman
                                                 MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 89 01:23:40 GMT
From: cbmvax!vu-vlsi!swatsun!leif@rutgers.edu  (Leif Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Summer Jobs at NASA

I would like to thank Eugne Miya for his quite helpful list of addresses
of places to apply for summer internships.  I had quite a time getting the
SF-171 to apply; I had to go to Federal Plaza in NYC for it.  I feel
sorry for those who don't live near metropolitan areas where there are
federal offices.  The reason I'm posting is because the reply I received
from NASA Headquarters in Washington D.C. was negative.

Barbara Mayo of Personnel Management informed me that NASA HQ has "not 
pasrticipated in the Summer Employment Program at NASA Headquarters for
the last 3 years" so this is to tell who might be interested that one
should not bother writing there.
Fortunately, she did send me a list of the addresses of all NASA offices,
and after a reprint of Eugene's mailing list I include it.

>From: eugene@eos (Eugene Miya)
>Reply-To: eugene@eos (Eugene Miya)
>Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
>Subject: Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon)
>If you are a student looking for employment next summer, NOW is the time to
>prepare a resume and fill out application forms for NASA summer employment.
>A placement office can help.
>
>Unfortunately, each NASA Center is recruiting summer students
>using different policies due to budgetary contraints.
>E.g., some use local Universities to hire summer students,
>others Center are hiring their own.
>
>Standard Form 171.
>To apply for some Centers (and excepting) please fill out a Standard Form 171.
>This is the form used for all employment within the Federal Government.
>
>Marilyn Lane
>Summer Programs
>MS 241-5
>NASA Ames Research Center
>Moffett Field, CA 94035
>
>Duane Patterson
>Personnel Office
>Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>California Institute of Technology
>4800 Oak Grove Dr.
>Pasadena, CA 91109
>
xxx->Personnel Office
xxx->NASA Headquarters
xxx->Washington DC 20546
>
>Personnel Office
>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
>Greenbelt, MD 20771
>
>Personnel Office
>NASA Lewis Research Center
>21000 Brookpark Rd.
>Cleveland, OH 44135
>
>Amy Kennedy
>Mail Code AH3
>NASA Johnson Manned Space Center
>Houston, TX 77058
>
>Personnel Office
>NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center
>Titusville, FL 32899
>
>NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
>Huntsville, AL35812
>They might NOT have a summer employment program (their
>contractors might).  They will have a summer co-op program contact
>Tom Holden
>CM-23
>
>Personnel Office
>MS 174
>NASA Langley Research Center
>Hampton, VA 23665
>
Dryden Flight Research Facility
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
P.O. Box 273
Edwards, CA 93523
  Site Manager: Mr. Martin A. Knutson
  FTS 8-961-3311; Commercial (805)258-3311
     Hours: 7:30 - 4 PST
  Personnel: 1-805-258-3309

Goddard Institute for Space Studies
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025
   Head: Dr. James E. Hansen
   FTS 8-664-5500; Commercial (212)678-5500
     Hours: 8-4:30 EST
   Personnel: (212) 675-5500

KSC VLS Resident Office (Vandenberg AFB)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
P.O. Box 425
Lompoc, CA 93438
   Manager: Mr. Ted L. Oglesby
   FTS 8-986-5859; Commercial (805)866-5859
      Hours: 8-4:30 PST
   Personnel: (805)866-5859

Michoud Assembly Facility
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
P.O. Box 29300
New Orleans, LA 70189
   Manager: Mr. John W. Hill
   FTS 8-657-3311; Commercial (504)257-3311
     Hours: 7:30-4 CST
   Personnel: (504)257-3311

Slidell Computer Complex
1010 Gause Boulevard
Slidell, LA 70458
   Manager: Mr. Gene A. Leckie
   FTS 8-680-7200; Commercial (504)646-7200
     Hours: 7:30-4 CST
   Personnel: (504)646-7200

John C. Stennis Space Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NSTL, MS 39529
   Director: Mr. I. Jerry Hlass
   FTS 8-494-2211; Commercial (601)688-2211
     Hours: 8-4:30 CST
   Personnel: (601)688-2211

JSC White Sands Test Facility
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
P.O. Drawer MM
Las Cruces, NM 88004
   Manager: Mr. Rob R. Tillett
   FTS 8-572-5011; Commercial (505)524-5011
     Hours: 7-3:30 MST
   Personnel: (505)524-5771

There may be some typos, but that's it.  I have omitted at least two thirds of
the offices, since they were covered by Eugene's listing.  If anyone wants those
addresses and info. anyway, e-mail me a request.

Leif Kirschenbaum '91	UUCP: {bpa,cbmvax,liberty}!swatsun!leif
Swarthmore College	CS Net: leif@cs.swarthmore.edu
chemical physics major	BitNet: lsk91@swarthmr    or    lsk91@swatprm

"And this is the metric tensor used for Lorentzian transformations, to impress
your friends at cocktail parties." - my Modern Physics professor
-- 
Leif Kirschenbaum '91
Swarthmore College
UUCP:  rutgers!bpa!swatsun!leif
CSnet: leif@swatsun.swarthmore.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 18:00:10 GMT
From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kevin S. Van Horn)
Subject: Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II

>     The USSR's Phobos II probe to Mars has suffered a "major hardware 
>problem" with its communications, according to both Defense Daily and Soviet 
>Areospace (Jan. 9th).  [...]

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I can't help but wonder if Phobos I and Phobos II
are in fact doing fine and the Soviets are only claiming failures so that they
don't have to share the information from them with anyone.  Does anyone have
any information that would either support or discredit this idea?

Kevin S. Van Horn

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 10:05:32 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Manned missions vs. Planetary Science
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

The current debate surrounding the opinions of Dr. Van Allen et al
points up the fundamental conflict between manned and unmanned space
missions, viz: unmanned missions, by virtue of their current economic
ability to reach places that astronauts (or even cosmonauts) cannot explore,
have more-or-less immediate return on investment.  Even though the ROI
is mostly limited to planetary scientists, it's still much more than the
virtually non-existent return on space colonisation, since any other
value returned from a manned mission has so far been something that
could have been achieved with an unmanned mission (e.g., Skylab observations).

Thus advocates of manned missions often find themselves grasping at straws
(e.g. the zero-g pharmaceutical opportunity arguments).  The ROI for
manned missions qua manned missions is decades away (e.g., asteroid
mining operations), but *that doesn't mean we shouldn't start now*.
After all, we won't get there at all if we don't take the first step.
I'm just not sure that it's a winning strategy for us manned mission
advocates to try and compete with the immediate ROI currently available
to unmanned missions.  Question is, who on earth is prepared to undertake
a venture that won't break even for thirty years?  The classic response
is, "Governments", and they've done similar in the past, so how come it's
so difficult to get them to do it in space?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Wed, 25 Jan 89 12:54:58 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Robert Jessie Hale III           <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Need 3-D  Cordinates of stars.

   My friend is working on a simulator in his spair time.   What little
there is of it.     He would like to know if their is a place or person
he can get the 3-d cord. of stars relative to some point in the galaxy.
    If so please write me at FNRJH@ALASKA

   Thanks.     Robert J. Hale  III       Director ISECCo

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 89 03:26:17 GMT
From: avsd!childers@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: Announcement of Opportunity

fuzzy@aruba (john s karabaic) writes:
 
>> 	We will be posting a special employment opportunity for
>> 	fresh-out of school new hires to misc.jobs.offered and other groups
>> 	shortly.  The positions are basically computer professional slots
>> 	...

>> I have forwarded a copy of this to the Committee of Concerned
>> Electrical Engineers, which helps fight this sort of blatant age
>> discrimination. 

What a whiner. They're trying to help young people get over the hump of the
first job, a hump *you* got over decades ago, and you still can't see beyond
your own career opportunities.

Maybe they like young people because they aren't so hide-bound and inflexible.

>> ||Lt John S. Karabaic        || arpanet:                                 ||

And I'm Sargent Shriver ...

-- richard


-- 
 *                     Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim                         *
 *                                                                            *
 *      ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho     *
 *          AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D          *

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 19:36:55 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: Approaching c

In article <Added.0Xr94Sy00Ui3IFME9H@andrew.cmu.edu> CALVIN@JHUIGF.BITNET ("That's not lake Minnetonka...") writes:
>The argument (again, these are in simplistic terms, and I guess I should
>apologize.. 8^) ), unless I'm wrong, goes something like this:
>        An object becomes more massive the faster it travels.
>        Since F=ma (Newton), an accelerating body requires more and more
>             force to keep accelerating it
>        At (near?) c, this force would become infinite, and thus, acceleration
>             past c is impossible
>        THEREFORE, c is the highest attainable speed by an accelerating body.
>
>Ok. One thing screams out to me, though. c is a finite number, being 3x10^8 m/s
>which all of you know. Then, why would the force required to accelerate a
>body past c be infinite if c isn't infinite? How can it be assumed that a
>body will become infinitely massive at c if c itself is not infinite, UNLESS
>one assumes, subtlely, that c already is the fastest attainable speed (that
>is, c is in effect, infinite).

	Being a mathametician you must know that there are many 
	conditions where a limit exists which is never attained.
	I remember many equations where the curve gets closer and
	closer to some value but never attains it.  Also, relativity
	means that all things are relative to an observer.  An observer
	on a ship traveling at near c can accelerate and surpass c
	from his point of view.  He will however notice that his
	destination is now further away than he thought so to get
	say 5 light-years away, it will still take 5 years even though
	he continues to accelerate.
	Also note that relativity allows for matter to travel faster 
	than c.  You just cannot accelerate from below c to faster
	than c.  I remember a theory back in the seventies which
	proposed the existance of "tachyons" (FTL particles).  Don't
	hear much about them anymore.


						Jim

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 89 16:58:33 GMT
From: mcvax!cernvax!ethz!solaris!wyle@uunet.uu.net  (Mitchell Wyle)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

In the tradition of WWI, WWII, Vietnam, mid-east oil drilling, and
"fraternite/," the US bailed the French out of yet another blunder.
;-) Having three proposed US designs from manufacturers, 2 of which
were better than Concorde, the US congress canceled all SST projects
but the French built their own (financially doomed) system anyway.  ;-)
Concorde is too noisy to take off out of JFK, *but* if you turn very
sharply after takeoff, you can avoid the noise-detector, and pump all
the noise into Brooklyn!!  Guess what happens each time Concorde takes
off?  Vive la France! :-) [tounge out of cheek]

I'm just jealous cuz I can't afford a ticket in that gorgous mach 2.2
bird.  A parisian can work til noon, hop a concorde and arrive 3 hours
before he left, work 9-5 in NY, then fly back home.

Is Concorde gonna fly non-stop Paris -> Vancouver again?  What about
Vancouver -> Tokyo?  Seems to me the longer routes would be more 
worthwhile.
-- 
-Mitchell F. Wyle                         wyle@ethz.uucp
Institut fuer Informationsysteme          wyle@inf.ethz.ch
ETH Zentrum / 8092 Zurich, Switzerland    +41 1 256 5237

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #217
*******************


Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Jan 89 06:44:11 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00958>; Mon, 30 Jan 89 05:46:41 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 30 Jan 89 05:46:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AXt3T6y00Ui3A1qE4a>;
          Mon, 30 Jan 89 05:24:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.kXt3N:y00UkZQmlU5w>;
          Mon, 30 Jan 89 05:17:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4Xt3Ljy00UkZImkE4m@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 05:16:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #218

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 218

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Approaching c
	       Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points
			      CNN report
NASA calls for proposals regarding Reusable Reentry Satellite (Forwarded)
			 Re: Fletcher speech
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 23:18:15 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@yale-bulldog.arpa  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Approaching c

In article <Added.0Xr94Sy00Ui3IFME9H@andrew.cmu.edu> CALVIN@JHUIGF.BITNET ("That's not lake Minnetonka...") writes:
>
>
>The argument (again, these are in simplistic terms, and I guess I should
>apologize.. 8^) ), unless I'm wrong, goes something like this:
>        An object becomes more massive the faster it travels.
>        Since F=ma (Newton), an accelerating body requires more and more
>             force to keep accelerating it
>        At (near?) c, this force would become infinite, and thus, acceleration
>             past c is impossible

And even attainment of c is impossible! 

>        THEREFORE, c is the highest attainable speed by an accelerating body.

No, c is NOT attainable

>
>Ok. One thing screams out to me, though. c is a finite number, being 3x10^8 m/s
>which all of you know. Then, why would the force required to accelerate a
>body past c be infinite if c isn't infinite? How can it be assumed that a
>body will become infinitely massive at c if c itself is not infinite, UNLESS
>one assumes, subtlely, that c already is the fastest attainable speed (that
>is, c is in effect, infinite).

The equation for mass is something like:

        m(moving) = m(rest) / (1-(v**2/c**2))**.5

clearly this will approach infinity as there is a v/c in it. So, whats
the problem with mass => infinity as vel => c?

Actually, you CAN go faster than light IF you can conjure up a particle 
with an IMAGINARY mass (i.e. a mass times (-1)**.5). Nobody is sure what
this means, but solutions to the equations with an imaginary mass are
possible, if meaningless in nature.

Such posulated particles are call tachyons, and have been searched for
by several experiments , all with negative results. 
    Paul Rodman
    rodman@mfci.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 03:59:38 GMT
From: attcan!lsuc!sq!msb@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Finding Lagrange's Libration Points


Last week I wrote:
> I did figure out how to calculate L1, L2, and L3, but I don't even see
> why L4 and L5 exist.  I hope someone can explain it to me so that I do.

I received 6 mail messages, from Bob Ayers, Alan Paeth, Marc Ringuette,
and Steve Willner.  Both Marc and Steve gave me the critical hint that I
had missed, and I was able to complete the derivation.  Then before I
finished writing this followup, Henry Spencer posted a clearer version of
the same hint, and now I can't prove I had it before he helped. :-(

It turns out that a completely different approach is needed for the L4
and L5 points from what I used for the others: as Henry said, it is not
possible to say, just because the mass of the secondary is much smaller than
that of the primary, that you'll treat the whole system as revolving around
the center of the primary.

Accordingly, let us put the center of the one body at point P, and of
another at point S.  Somewhere on the line segment between these points
is the center of gravity of the two bodies; call that C.  Then the ratio
SC/PC is equal to the ratio of the masses of the body at P and that at S.

Now put the third body at point T, off to one side of the line PS.
Choose a point B beyond T on the line ST, such that ST/BT is also
equal to that ratio of masses, i.e., ST/BT = SC/PC.  Then CTS and PBS
are similar triangles, and so TC and BP are parallel.

The gravitational force on the body at T will be the resultant of two
forces, one toward P (that is in the direction TP), and one toward S
(that is in the direction TS, or what is the same thing, direction BT).
The ratio of these two forces will be the mass-ratio of P and S divided
by the square of the distance-ratio from T to P and to S.  That is, it
will be (ST/BT)(ST/TP)2, where 2 denotes squared as in my earlier article.

Now, so far nothing has been assumed about the relative distances of the
bodies.  Now add to the above considerations one more assumption:  that
T is equidistant from P and S.  Replacing ST by TP in the above formula
gives the ratio of forces as simply TP/BT.  But the forces are respectively
in the directions TP and BT.  Then the resultant force must be in the
direction BP, which, as shown above, is also the direction TC.

That is, if one body is equidistant from two others, then the resultant
gravitational force on it is directly toward the center of mass of the
two others.

But the center of mass of a three-body system is on a line between any
one of the bodies and the center of mass of the other two.  Therefore,
in a three-body system, if two of the bodies are equidistant from a third,
then the net force on the third is also directly toward the center of mass
of the system.

And so if all three bodies are equidistant -- forming an equilateral
triangle -- then the net force on each one is directly toward the center
of mass of the system, and so, no "sideways force" exists to move the
bodies out of the equilateral configuration.  And notice that this is true
no matter how equal or unequal the masses are.

Now, this does NOT prove that an equilibrium exists.  It only shows that
IF there is an equilibrium of the kind described, then it is exactly the
equilateral triangle formation.  For an equilibrium to exist, it must also
be true that when the three bodies are set revolving around their common
center of gravity, each has the same orbital period.

I'll leave the proof of this as an exercise for some reader more energetic
than I am.  I'm content to see it proved that the equilateral triangle is
in fact an exact one.

A second exercise is to correct the equations I gave in my earlier
article to allow for the fact that the orbits are really around the
center of mass; at least allow for the secondary's contribution to that.
In particular, consider that I computed the Earth-Sun L3 point as being
46.5 miles off the Earth's orbit (treated as circular).  The center of mass
of the Earth-Sun system is of course 280 miles from the center of the Sun.
How does this affect the L3 point?  I'm getting lazy.  You do it.

Now for a couple of other details.  I also wrote:
> Since r is 93,000,000 miles, the L1 and L2 points are each 936,000 miles
> from the Earth.  ...  Since the ratio of the Sun's and Earth's
> diameters is about 108, the Earth exactly eclipses the Sun's disk at
> a point only 861,000 miles beyond the Earth  ...  It's a curious
> coincidence how close L2 is to the exact-eclipse distance.

One of my correspondents suggested that that was no coincidence, but
happens because the Sun and Earth have similar densities.  Actually they
don't, but he was close.  If the Earth was exactly 3 times as dense as
the Sun, then the L2 point would be at the exact-eclipse distance... or
almost exactly so, anyway.  This number 3 is the factor of 3 in my
equation [10] last week, but that equation was only approximate.

And finally, Dave Alexander wondered how I could justify saying that
> The L in each of these positions stands for libration, as a body
> near those positions may librate or oscillate around them, and not
> for Lagrange.

... when 3 of the 5 positions are unstable.  The answer is that this is
what I have read in books that have described the points.  I don't remember
which ones offhand, though one was probably Clarke's "The Promise of Space".
Perhaps Lagrange named the points himself and was being modest but wanted to
keep his initial in there!

In any case, Henry tells us that the unstable libration points have some
(barely) stable orbits around them, and a body in such an orbit might be
considered to be librating, so the name is not really all that bad.

One of the messages from Alan Paeth pointed out that the gravity wells
around the L4 and L5 points have a curious comma-like shape, and they
can even extend around the "back" of the primary and join up!  So a body
orbiting near one of these points need not stay near it all the time to
remain captured.


My thanks to all of my correspondents.  It was fun.

Mark Brader, Toronto		"The singular of 'data' is not 'anecdote.'"
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				-- Jeff Goldberg

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1989 17:33-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: CNN report

On Saturday Jan 28, 11:10 AM  EST and at 12:30 (or maybe 12?) Sunday
CNN science and technology report will be showing a piece on our work
at the music lab here. The final segment shows a shot of my office RT
and the wireframe space shuttle I picked up from someone on Space
Digest.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 23:53:13 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA calls for proposals regarding Reusable Reentry Satellite (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.              January 18, 1989

Kari Fluegel
Johnson Space Center, Houston


RELEASE:  89-6

NASA CALLS FOR PROPOSALS REGARDING REUSABLE REENTRY SATELLITE


     NASA officials at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, 
last week released a request for proposal (RFP) for continued 
studies and design of an unmanned reusable reentry satellite 
(RRS) that could significantly expand NASA's capability to 
investigate the weightlessness environment. 

     The RRS, called LifeSat when carrying life science payloads, 
will be placed into Earth orbit by an expendable launch vehicle, 
reserving the National Space Transportation System for activities 
requiring crew presence.

     The RFP calls for the design of an almost completely 
reusable spacecraft that could be processed and readied for 
reflight in 2 months, allowing for several flights each year. 
Designs are expected to be derivatives of the often-flown 
Department of Defense Discovery satellite or the NASA 
Gemini/Apollo vehicles of the 1960s, calling for a vehicle 
roughly 6-feet in diameter and weighing more than 2,000 pounds 
with a useful payload of 500 pounds.

     RRS will be used primarily in the fields of life sciences 
and materials processing and would fly experiments in a variety 
of orbits including those providing high doses of radiation for 
periods up to and perhaps, beyond 60 days.  Upon completion of 
the flight, the RRS would reenter and soft-land at a designated 
ground-site where scientists and engineers would have immediate 
access to the experiments.

     Contracts for the design studies to begin this summer will 
be awarded to two vendors at a cost of $1 million each.  The 
project will be managed by JSC and could be flown as early as 
1993 if future development efforts are approved.

     Five international agencies have expressed interest in 
participating in the RRS and are expected to conduct parallel 
study efforts to the U.S. activities.  Agreements for the 
international coordination currently are being formulated.

     The commercial community also has expressed interest in the 
RRS because of its unique orbits, flight duration, autonomous 
operations and the dedicated and easily scheduled nature of the 
system.

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 23:22:56 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Fletcher speech

In James Fletcher's speech to the Explorer's Club he states:
> ........We see the evidence of enormous engineering skills 
> in the roads and highways and aqueducts and canals that tied 
> together the early empires of Asia and Europe and South 
> America...
> ...What will we leave as valuable and as permanent to 
> those inheritor civilizations we will count as our inheritors?

To use a Reaganism -- there he goes again -- comparing infrastructure
based on mature engineering technology with the "infrastructure" 
being built by NASA.  Whatever we leave to our inheritors, it
will have little if anything to do with NASA as it currently
exists.  The sooner we get NASA out of the "infrastructure" 
business, the sooner business will be safe to start maturing the
engineering techniques of space infrastructure.  Maybe in 100 years
or so that technology will be mature enough for the government to
take over and do it on the scale of the interstate highway system
without screwing things up.

>         Space systems are so integral to our daily life as 
> to have become invisible--operational telecommunication, 
> navigation, and environmental monitoring space services are 
> embedded in our civilization.

All based on technology developed privately or by the military.
Typically, NASA attempts to parasitize the credibility of others.

>     The nature of space systems makes them particularly 
> suited to the study and investigation of our own planetary 
> processes; it is from space that we have gotten our earliest 
> warnings of the possible growing crisis of climate and it is only 
> from space that we will be able to fix upon and understand the 
> real extent and direction of environmental change.  

What James Fletcher fails to mention, for obvious reasons, is that
the Nimbus 7 data to which he refers, was withheld by NASA 
"scientists" from the rest of the world for 7 years because
they didn't want people to find out that the ozone hole was
real after NASA had discarded the data on the hole as erroneous.
It was ground-based researchers who, after refusing to disbelieve
their own evidence for a hole in the face of NASA's reports, forced
NASA to fess up about their fiasco.

>      I would point out that the accomplishments of the past and 
> the continuing promises of the future have come at an 
> astonishing low price for the values received--this year, for 
> example, the entire NASA space and aeronautics program represents 
> less than 1% of the Federal budget.  

Such stupendous accomplishments as:
* Spending 8 times the budget of the NSF per year while producing 
1/8 the technical returns.
* Actively killing off all alternatives to the Shuttle both existing and 
proposed.
* Budgeting $20 million dollars for private launch services and claiming
before the Space Sciences subcommittee with an arrogant grin that this
is all that is needed at this time (Fletcher in response to a question
by Congressman Ron Packard). PS: A single private launch costs about
4 times that amount.
* Blowing up a teacher/mother live on national TV before the expectant
eyes of tens of millions of school children, who now have nightmares about
space instead of dreams.  Even if the launch had been a success we would
have believed NASA was bringing the space frontier to average Americans
so it was a good gamble in any case.
* The above mentioned cover-up of ozone-layer destruction during the
7 years of human history in which the most chloroflourocarbons were
dumped into the atmosphere.

1% of the Federal budget!?  The Defense Department should be envious
of the destructive power weilded by NASA on such a paltry $10 billion/yr.

>                         The program we are trying so hard 
> to bring to fruition is an integral, interdependent whole--and, 
> therefore, vulnerable to serious dislocation in the face of even 
> small perturbations.  

Quite by design.  Setting everything up to be totally interdependent
guarantees political support for every part from every other part
regardless of its merit.  This is known as programmatic hostage-taking
and NASA is getting better at it with each passing decade (yes I said
each passing DECADE, folks... time to wake up -- its been 20 years
and almost $200 billion (1989) since Apollo).

...then after paragraphs of merciless yammering and big lies about
SPACE STATION FREEDOM, our hero from Utah, who made sure Morton Thiokol
with its seamed solid rocket segments would one day propel seven
astronauts to martyrdom, continues yammering...
>   ...Scholars will argue endless about why the Roman imperial 
> enterprise fell upon evil days; however, no one will seriously 
> argue with Santayana's observation on who may be condemned to 
> repeat an uncomfortable history. 

And we certainly don't want to discuss those reasons here,
especially since the most obvious among them is the fact that
the Roman decay manifest itself in cancerous bureaucratic growth.

I love James Fletcher... I really do.  His sleaze is so transparent
as to be touching.  If only all the bureaucrats in NASA were so
naive.  Well, we all need dreams.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #218
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Jan 89 05:35:03 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06477>; Tue, 31 Jan 89 03:37:47 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 31 Jan 89 03:37:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EXtKqGy00Ui341qENN>;
          Tue, 31 Jan 89 03:26:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.cXtKlWy00UkZ8qVU4k>;
          Tue, 31 Jan 89 03:20:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gXtKhjy00UkZ4qUE4O@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 03:16:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #219

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 219

Today's Topics:
 NASA selects atmospheric sounder for EOS space platform  (Forwarded)
		  Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing
	    NASA seeks proposals for Orbital Debris Radar
		 Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II
			     Re: Tachyons
	     Re: Supersonic aircraft and noise pollution
			    Re: Relativity
		 Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II
Re: SPS (was Re: NSS Board membership [boy, I'm sorry I brought Van Allen up!])
			  moon's keplerians
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 00:06:30 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects atmospheric sounder for EOS space platform  (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 January 23, 1989

Jim Wilson
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.


RELEASE:  89-9

NASA SELECTS ATMOSPHERIC SOUNDER FOR EOS SPACE PLATFORM 


     NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., 
has established a new scientific instrument project office to 
develop and design a major new system for observing Earth's 
atmosphere.  Scientists expect it to support a quantum leap in 
weather forecasting and in understanding our climate.

     The instrument, called the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder 
(AIRS), was selected by NASA in late November 1988 to ride aboard 
the Earth Observing System (EOS) polar orbiting platform, as a 
facility instrument, beginning in the 1990s.  This platform is an 
element of NASA's Space Station Freedom and proposed "Mission to 
Planet Earth" programs.  EOS also is one of several Earth-
orbiting scientific platforms planned by the U.S. and other 
nations. 

     The AIRS system will provide global, three-dimensional 
information on the temperature and composition distributions in 
the atmosphere (including humidity and clouds) as well as 
climate-related properties of the sea and land.  It also will 
measure and help map ozone and various other "greenhouse" 
gases.  AIRS will observe both day and night. 

     The instrument is designed to scan 45 degrees East and West 
from the North-South suborbital track aboard the EOS platform. It 
is being planned to operate 435 miles above the Earth in a 100-
minute, circular orbit.  AIRS will observe the atmosphere and 
surface in elements about 10 square miles and perceive the 
atmosphere in mile-thick vertical layers.  It will be designed to 
read the temperature in each of these elements to an accuracy of 
approximately 1 degree Celsius (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit). 

     The value of AIRS will be the continuous long-term record it 
compiles of climate change.  "We can see and measure changes in 
global temperature over periods of one or more solar cycles," 
says Dr. Moustafa Chahine, JPL's chief scientist and an 
atmospheric physicist.  "We will have records of trends in the 
greenhouse effect, both in the composition and movement of gases 
which cause it and in regional patterns of moisture and air 
circulation which may result from it.  These are long-term 
changes, in contrast to weather patterns and are very subtle."

     These measurements will be derived from infrared radiation 
data.  The Earth emits electro-magnetic radiation which peaks in 
the infrared wavelength region.  Some of this radiation is 
absorbed by gases in the atmosphere.  The atmospheric gases 
themselves also radiate in the infrared.  Determining wavelength 
bands the gases absorb and radiate and how intense the radiation 
is in the various bands will help determine such things as 
composition and temperature.  AIRS will be able to make 
measurements in 256 spectral channels in the infrared spectrum 
(from 3 to 17 microns in wavelength).  Accurate temperature 
mapping may require the use of 50 to 100 of these channels. 

     Data processing will be the key to AIRS.  Scientists have 
been developing the algorithms (the complex of formulas used by 
scientists and their computers to turn the measurements into 
useful parameters) needed to process, use and understand AIRS 
data.  These include computer models of the atmosphere which AIRS 
will help to refine as well as use in generating maps of the 
parameters retrieved after the use of the algorithms.  It is 
anticipated that processing and interpreting the large 
constellation of AIRS measurements will call for large-scale 
computers in the "super" class, possibly parallel-processor 
designs.

     AIRS is similar in some respects to the ATMOS experiment 
flown aboard a Shuttle flight in the spring of 1985 and planned 
for another Shuttle mission as part of the Atlas 1 mission.  
There are substantial differences in the two systems in their 
resolutions (how small an element of atmosphere each can pick 
out) and in the length of their observing periods.  "ATMOS can 
observe the makeup of the upper atmosphere better than AIRS for a 
short period, but only AIRS can stay at its post observing 
changes year in and year out," says project manager Fred 
O'Callaghan, who is in charge of both efforts at JPL.  "With 
refurbishments, we hope to get 15 years or more out of the AIRS 
instrument".

     AIRS will be a "facility" instrument aboard the EOS 
platform.  That is, it will function more like a laboratory or 
observatory than an instrument designed and operated by a single 
scientist or single team.

     A scientific committee to be selected by NASA will oversee 
its use and data records will be archived for later research as 
well as for immediate use. 

     The AIRS project is part of JPL's Office of Space Science 
and Instruments. The EOS scientific program is administered by 
Dr. Shelby Tilford of NASA's Office of Space Science and 
Applications, Washington, D.C. and the first orbiting platform 
will be managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 
Md.

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 21:08:22 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing

>From Scientific Foundations of Space Manufacturing
First paragraph of the preface:

Recent years have seen the advent of manufacturing onboard spacecraft --
a new dimension in man's activities in outter space.  The materials
thus produced, show performance substantially improved owing to the
factors that exist in orbital flight.  Above all, dynamic 
weightlessness, which cannot be simulated on the earth for a sufficiently
long time.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 00:02:23 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA seeks proposals for Orbital Debris Radar

Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   January 19, 1989


RELEASE:  89-8

NASA SEEKS PROPOSALS FOR ORBITAL DEBRIS RADAR


     NASA has requested proposals from industry for a ground-
based radar that will quantify and characterize debris orbiting 
between 180 to 360 miles above Earth.  The radar would have the 
capability of detecting debris as small as 1 centimeter in 
diameter, contrasted with the 10-centimeter capability of current 
radar systems.

     The data gathered by the orbital debris radar are needed for 
designing the permanently manned Space Station Freedom.  Even the 
smallest pieces of orbital debris pose a potential hazard to 
spacecraft, so it is important that the pressurized modules of 
Freedom be built to withstand as much orbital debris damage as 
possible.  Space Station Freedom is planned to be in Earth orbit 
for up to 30 years.

     Information is extremely limited about the number and size 
of small debris pieces at the operational altitude range of the 
space station.  Preliminary experiments, using radar astronomy 
facilities, have suggested that the number of small debris 
particles at these altitudes may be higher than expected.  The 
new radar will provide definitive information about such debris, 
determining its size, altitude and orbital inclination.

     The orbital debris radar facility will conduct preliminary 
processing of data before sending it to NASA's Johnson Space 
Center, Houston, for further analysis and incorporation into 
models of the orbital debris environment.

     Under the request for proposals (RFP) issued today, an 
offeror would design, construct and test an orbital debris radar 
and associated hardware and software.  After a 5-month period of 
preliminary testing and operation at Goldstone, Calif., the 
offeror would be responsible for shipping the radar to an 
overseas location and then reestablishing and retesting the radar 
in preparation for operations at the overseas site.

     To meet Space Station Freedom design schedules, preliminary 
test results from the stateside location should be available by 
October 1991.  The overseas station should be operational by 
March 1992.  

     The deadline for responses to the RFP is 7 weeks after its 
release.  The firm, fixed-price contract will be managed by 
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 89 15:05:43 GMT
From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu  (Steve Masticola)
Subject: Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II

Kevin S. Van Horn writes:

>>The USSR's Phobos II probe to Mars has suffered a "major hardware   
  problem" with its communications, according to both Defense Daily and Soviet 
>>Areospace (Jan. 9th).  [...]
 
> Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I can't help but wonder if Phobos I and
  Phobos II are in fact doing fine and the Soviets are only claiming
  failures so that they don't have to share the information from them
  with anyone.  Does anyone have any information that would either
> support or discredit this idea?

NASA made a search for Phobos II with the Deep Space Network and found
nothing. Besides, unless the data they'd acquire was more valuable in
some way than the publicity they'd get from the success of the probe,
I can't see any reason to conceal the data from anyone.

- Steve (masticol@paul.rutgers.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 16:22:36 GMT
From: cadnetix.COM!cadnetix!beres@uunet.uu.net  (Tim Beres)
Subject: Re: Tachyons

In article kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>
>Now for the fun part.  If we assume that space-time, mass, velocity, etc.
>are complex quantities, then normal space that we perceive is merely the
>real part of space-time.  Further, if we assume this 8-D structure is folded
>on itself such that Re(x) corresponds to the Im(y) axis, etc, then it is 
>mathematically possible to show that Minkowski's transformation holds, and
>all the equations of special relativity are satisfied with the set of
>complex masses, velocities, momenta, and coordinates.
>

More of this reasoning can be found in _Future Magic_, by Dr. Forward.
He attributes this theory to Penrose, not Minkowski - but it may be that
Penrose has pursued it further.  This book is fairly recent, copyright
1988, so this "imaginary" theory is still being pursued.  Does anyone
have any (readable to the non-physicist) references on this Minkowski/
Penrose theory?

BTW:  _Future Magic_ discusses a range of technologies that may come to 
pass in the future.  Communication methods, space propulsion, space tethers,
anti-gravity machines and time travel are some of the topics he tackles.
He doesn't say that all these technologies *will* mature, just that there
is some theoretical (and practiced, in some cases) basis for them to occur.
The Universe has 8-D theory is used by Forward to speculate on FTL travel...

				Tim

------>MY SOAPBOX (I speak for myself)
     My nephew Mark, in a letter:  Hi Uncle Tim  my aquarium is great.  4
     fish died but my crab is still living.  [Some of us have good attitudes]
Tim Beres   beres@cadnetix.com  {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 89 00:52:44 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: Supersonic aircraft and noise pollution

In article <8901240814.AA07708@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>, roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
> 
> Surely an SR-71 at surveillance altitude doesn't sound too loud from
> the ground - that would spoil the surprise (:-)

 Since it can and probably does fly at several times the speed
 of sound when spying, it probably doesn't matter how loud it is.
 It's been gone long time when it's heard on the ground.
  
 m wooding

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 04:37:42 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!yunexus!geac!geaclib!rae@uunet.uu.net  (Reid Ellis)
Subject: Re: Relativity

Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
|Maybe you'll become a black hole, or maybe you'll tunnel through to the
|negative have of the hyperbola.

But how would it feel to have *some* of your atoms quantum tunnel?  You'd want
the whole thing to happen at once, n'est-ce pas? :-)

Reid
-- 
Reid Ellis
geaclib!rae@geac.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 89 14:55:03 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@rutgers.edu  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II

In article <9265@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, kevin@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
> >     The USSR's Phobos II probe to Mars has suffered a "major hardware 
> >problem" with its communications, according to both Defense Daily and Soviet 
> >Areospace (Jan. 9th).  [...]
> 
> Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I can't help but wonder if Phobos I and Phobos II
> are in fact doing fine and the Soviets are only claiming failures so that they
> don't have to share the information from them with anyone. 

  I think you are being paranoid. Do you think Gorby would sacrifice all the
  limelight and prestige from the world scientific community just to jealously
  guard the data ?                     


       Marc  Bonin

      Dept. of Aerospace Engineering
      University of Texas at Austin

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 89 17:15:21 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPS (was Re: NSS Board membership [boy, I'm sorry I brought Van Allen up!])

In article <6310@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@proline.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>    We have more samples of asteroidal material than lunar material,

Unfortunately, they are not labeled by location.  This makes it a little
difficult to use them for planning a mining expedition, although they
do give us a reasonable idea of what's out there (somewhere).

>    Landing 6 times on the moon does not make it a 'known quantity'
>by any stretch of the imagination.

No, but it makes six locations (actually a few more if you count results
from some of the unmanned probes as supporting evidence) known quantities,
and it gives us some notion of average properties.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 18:18:17 GMT
From: microsoft!joehol@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Joe Holman)
Subject: moon's keplerians



	previously, i asked the 'net' if anyone knew
	of the moon's keplerian elements.

	nobody responded, except for other interested
	parties!

	so, if anybody has any information on where
	to get the moon's keplerian elements, 
	please forward the information to me...

	or, are they even available ?

	thanks in advance,

	joe holman  UUCP: (uw-beaver!microsoft!joehol)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #219
*******************
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Jan 89 09:37:03 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00728>; Tue, 31 Jan 89 05:51:31 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 31 Jan 89 05:51:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kXtMczy00jZdI3N04P>;
          Tue, 31 Jan 89 05:28:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.IXtMU3y00UkZ0qfk5r>;
          Tue, 31 Jan 89 05:18:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <oXtMSJy00UkZ4qeU4N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 05:16:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #220

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 220

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
			 Re: 'Days' in Space
		   Re: C-M Mars AMBLER (SD-9 #189)
	  Re: NASA seeks proposals for Orbital Debris Radar
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
			  Re: Model Rocketry
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 14:55:23 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <567@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> me85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk (M D Ayton) writes:
>May I recommend an excellent book for the (intelligent) layman on this
>subject? It is
>
>   "A brief history of time" by Stephen W. Hawking
>
>He is the Lucasian professor of mathematics at Oxford (I think) and the
>book is very clear; giving the most lucid and intelligible explanation
>of relativity and general relatvity that I have ever read - and not an
>equation in sight.
>
>Martin.

	May I recommend a book I found to be better in content and
	clearity?  It is
	
		"Einstein's Universe" by Nigel Calder

	While reading Hawkings book, I was confused not by the subject
	but the style with which it was written.  Many parts were
	clear but others were down right confusing if not contradictory.
	I found myself picking up Calder's book to help explain
	just what Hawking was talking about.  Calder's book also 
	is for the layman with no equations and much less talk about God.

					Jim

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 14:01:41 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: 'Days' in Space

In article <Added.MXrSwIy00Ui3MCP09b@andrew.cmu.edu> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
}Tom Neff writes:
}>Also, while we're busily discovering that each individual has his or
}>her very own favorite circadian interval, which eventually asserts
}>itself after enough time in the closet, we might take a moment to
}>wonder how a CREW functions together under those circumstances.  There
}<is going to be *work* to be done on the way out and back, and plenty of
}<it too (or else we're not getting our money's worth from the ruinously
}>expensive mission).  Work requires schedules, especially when you're
}>doing things like occultations and timed measurements.
}
}     But that is really the whole point of what I am advocating.  The
}astronauts will be there, on the scene, and they must be at the top of
}their efficiency.  The mission planners should go out of their way to
}design the trip so that this will happen, and if this includes changing
}the length of the day, so be it.  Perhaps designing a scaling schedule
}that will lengthen the day slowly over the first two weeks and shorten
}it back to 'Mars Standard Time' just before orbit, and so on.  If the
}astronauts can work on a day that is 10% longer, then perhaps there will
}also have to be 10% less food for the trip.  (I know, I'm pushing things
}a bit with that one.)  But anything to increase efficiency is a bonus and
}must be looked in to.  Regarding the 24 hour cycle as God-given is
}coming very close to being xenophobic.
}
}     However, the only people with any kind of experience in that regard
}are the Soviets. 


I do not believe that you are correct.  We have a great deal of experience
with "large" crews functioning under very trying conditions requiring
exacting performance with NO "sunlight", with different people working
at different periods around the clock.  Quit thinking "above the 
atmosphere" and think "below the atmosphere".  Ballistic Missle Submarines
perform under those conditions, and do not surface from the start of their
patrol untill months later.  And they never can "stop" or they die.
(somebody has to keep the engines and life support going!)

(I posted something like this before, but was amazed at the number of folks
that mailed "What is SSBN?"!!!)


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 20:59:39 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: C-M Mars AMBLER (SD-9 #189)

In article <491@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes:
>In article <Added.EXnWGJy00Ui3A8rU98@andrew.cmu.edu> HAYHURS@IUBACS.BITNET writes:
>>It seems to me that the placement of ComSat's in Geosynchronous orbit over
>>Mars would solve the loss of communications.  They would have to be fancy -
>
>Well, if you really wanted *geo*synchronous orbit over Mars, they probably
>would have to be fancy.
>
>*Are*synchronous wouldn't be that tough, though.
>
Hmm.  Geosynchronous just means "synchronized with the Earth" -- and
it's no harder to make a 24+ hour (siderial Earth day) around Mars
than around Earth.  It would even be nearly Mars synchronous as well --
the days are nearly the same length.

"Aresynchronous" is an awful word, though -- some prefixes just don't
do the job.  Reminds me of the problem of how to describe things
belonging to the planet Venus.
"Venusian" is (from a liguistic standpoint) horrendous.
Unfortunately, the correct adjective is "venereal", which
has some unfortunate connotations.

I therefore prefer the Classical alternative, and I can't wait 'til Venus
is colonized so I can sample that Aphrodisiac atmosphere :-)

	Jordin (a Jovial fellow) Kare

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 06:36:01 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: NASA seeks proposals for Orbital Debris Radar

Once they find a 1 cm pebble, what are they going to do about it?  *I* 
think it makes a case for building a laser on the ground and a redirection
mirrow in space to zap these on the leading side of their orbital flight
and pulse evaporate enough of them to drop them into the atmosphere.  SDI
proponents and those who would clean up LEO as an environmental improvement
project should get together on this one!

Keith Henson---A founder of the sadly lamented L5 Society

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 17:24:57 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!bru-cc!me85mda@uunet.uu.net  (M D Ayton)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

Thanks, Tim, for starting all this.

May I recommend an excellent book for the (intelligent) layman on this
subject? It is

   "A brief history of time" by Stephen W. Hawking

He is the Lucasian professor of mathematics at Oxford (I think) and the
book is very clear; giving the most lucid and intelligible explanation
of relativity and general relatvity that I have ever read - and not an
equation in sight.

Martin.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 19:51:09 GMT
From: att!ihlpb!rjungcla@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Re: Model Rocketry

I have been trying to respond to this for a few weeks, but things
really bogged down at work and things are only slowly returning to 
normal.  If you requested a list of rocket manufacturers, I will email
you a copy as soon as I get caught up. So better late than never ...

>Model rocketry may claim millions of accident free launches as a proud
>heritage. That is fine for a pure MODEL hobby that is done for family
>fun, for creative pleasure and so on. I won't knock it. I used to be a
>model RAILROADER myself. Same difference.

While I concede that the largest percentage of model rocket launches 
are done for fun, model rocketry/high power rocketry is more than a 
"pure MODEL hobby."  Both of these have made positive research 
contributions.  Unlike model railroading and other "imitation" hobbies,
once a model rocket leaves the launcher all aerodynamic and structural 
principles apply.  Only the magnitude of the forces differ. In many 
cases, the magnitude of forces, etc. are insignificant in studying the 
research issues; major aerospace companies use a "static" modeling 
capacity in studying research issues and designs. Because of the 
medium used in model/high power rocket construction, is often easier, 
safer, and considerably less costly to study structural failure.  
For example, it is easy to build a vehicle that exceeds "the speed 
of balsa."  When this happens the forces applied to the vehicle exceed 
the tensile strength of balsa fins.  Professional rocket engineers 
obviously don't talk about balsa, but the underlying principles are 
identical. There have even been investigative efforts into what it 
would take to place model/high powered rocket into orbit.  Finally, 
there is also an R&D mechanism present within the NAR and presumably 
within Tripoli.  The bottom line is that model/high power rocketry is 
what YOU make out of it. It can be a inexpensive way to complete 
research.	

Let me now site several research examples:

1.  In 1966 James Barrowman developed a method for finding the
    stability of new model rocket designs.  This approach eliminated
    the previous trial by error approach and used a greatly simplified
    approach based on stability design by professional rocket 
    engineers.  This technique so greatly simplified and produced 
    reliable results that the stability design used by professional 
    engineers adopted the approach for sounding rocket designs.

2.  Considerable effort have gone into developing highly accurate
    altitude/speed prediction programs that take into account every
    conceivable factor and yet are available for most microcomputers.

3.  A friend of mine has developed a miniature video camera, transmitter,
    and on board computer that fits inside an Estes PNC-80K nose cone -
    about 2.6 inches in diameter and 4 or 5 inches in length. The
    battery pack by comparison is almost as big!.  This design was
    studied by a major robotics/machine vision corporation and Lionel
    trains who within the past year released a similar but drastically
    less complex video camera of their own. The original rocket design 
    was considerably larger.  This person was not the first to fly a
    video camera, but it illustrates what I call the "American" approach
    (ie miniaturization) vs. the "Russian" approach (strapping an
    off-the-shelf video camera/recorder to front end of a launch
    vehicle and flying it)

4.  By the late 1960's, model rockets had demonstrated the Space Shuttle
    concept of launching like a rocket and gliding back to earth
    identical to present real Space Shuttle concept. (True, we didn't
    make it to orbit, nor did the hobby invent the concept)

5.  >A high power rocket built by North Coast Rocketry and carrying a 
    >research payload was recently launched (past 6 months) from Cape 
    >Canaveral after months of red tape. 

Mark Johnson (Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM) reports info on LOFT-1:
   The flight was launched from Canaveral Air Force Station on November
   17, 1988 at 0745 EST, reaching an altitude of 3.25 miles. (LC 47 was 
   the launch site, using a modified Loki-Dart launcher; telemetry was 
   set up at LC 41). The vehicle itself and the Vulcan N5000-20 motor 
   performed essentially perfectly, although E-Prime's aneroid 
   main-chute deployment feature failed to eject...it was rigged to 
   reduce drift by holding the main chute until the vehicle reached an 
   altitude of 3000 feet on the way down, and it got fried by the 
   ejection charge on the motor, which was used to eject a 24" (or so)
   drogue chute.  The drogue chute thus was the only recovery system 
   on the bird, which suffered only minor damage on splashdown.
 
   The flight vehicle was recovered within 1 hour of the flight, and 
   was opened up in front of the news media shortly thereafter. 
   Telemetry data was received the entire time the vehicle was airborne.

   Several NAR members were involved in the project in various ways:
   (The LOFT effort is NOT an NAR activity, but rather one that some 
   NAR members branched out into by applying their model rocket 
   technology and experience.)

   Matt Steele, part-owner of North Coast Rocketry, designed the 
	vehicle and did some or most of the construction.  Project 
	engineer with Morton Thiokol-Huntsville. 
   J. Wayne McCain, a PhD candidate at Univ. of Alabama/Huntsville, 
	was payload integration manager.  Wayne is an amateur radio 
	operator.
   David Babulski, longtime MR telemetry builder (his series is 
	currently running in AmSpam), ran the telemetry ground station 
	for the flight. Dave is employed as a curriculum developer/trainer 
	with Harris/3M in Atlanta (copiers, fax machines, etc.)
	Dave is also an amateur radio operator.

   Some other details...one of the original payloads scheduled to be 
   launched on LOFT was a high-school biology experiment, coordinated 
   by Dave Babulski, from Brookwood High School (east suburban Atlanta).
   When LOFT was repeatedly delayed, Dave, Wayne, and North Coast put 
   together a replacement vehicle, called BABE-2 (the original 
   experiment package was BABE-1), which was flown from Huntsville 
   (Redstone Arsenal) last spring. This vehicle was powered by a
   Vulcan I283 and reached an altitude of 10,000 feet...15,000 had been
   projected but a structural failure occurred in the bird at Mach 2+ 
   causing the vehicle to break up and the payload did a free-ballistic
   number.  The experiment package was recovered with only minor damage,
   somewhat surprisingly; I think telemetry even survived the aerial 
   breakup although it stopped rather suddenly on meeting the region of
   extreme drag coefficient known as earth.

Another friend of mine reports that details of this flight are reported
in a recent issue (January?) of Discovery magazine.


>But the kind of rocketry that is likely to produce useful results is
>also unlikely to be able to sustain such a record. If it did, it would
>not be pushing the state of the art and would not be accomplishing
>anything real. 

Again, we  must look at volume of "fun" launches and subtract these.
Don't confuse safety with failure. Pushing the state of the art does 
not necessarily imply lack of safety.  Pushing the state of the art 
does mean failures and correcting the reason for these failures. 

>I found the article on Model Rocketry quite informative and
>interesting, but I must say that I'm personally not interested in
>building 'model' rockets. I've not really been in the hobby at all, but
>if I were I'd definitely go into the amateur rocketry category with
>intent to test new untried or undertried concepts and possibly to put
>something in orbit. With or without permission.

By the poster's own admission, he has never checked out the details
of the hobby. Any good researcher will check previous work done in
their field, related fields and any activity that could benefit 
their research.  Model/High power rocketry can provide an excellent, 
inexpensive and a safe way without all the legal hassles 
in which "to test new untried and undertried concepts" without 
re-inventing the wheel.  High power rocketry can trace it roots back 
to research and/or military applications. This does not imply that
model/high power rockets are useful in every case; only that if they 
can be used it probably in researcher's  best interest to do so. 
A good reference for a more detailed, in depth treatment of model 
rockets and theory/research behind them, consult G. Harry Stine's
"The Handbook of Model Rocketry" that may be found in many libraries.

>I personally know someone who has successfully fired a large
>(suborbital class) teststand engine with an interesting hybrid type
>fuel system. He and his crew did so in a very isolated area with
>appropriate safety precautions. Their method of dealing with
>bureaucracy is one that Admiral Grace Hopper would have approved of:
>"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission." What they
>don't know can't be regulated.

No one is going to stop you from developing or static testing anything 
on your own property, provided you don't create a public nuisance (ie.
noise) and don't create a public safety hazard (ie building your own 
nuclear warhead). However, the minute that you do this on public 
property, or in the national airspace, regulatory agencies will
subject you to close scrutiny.  Do you honestly think that an attempt 
to launch into orbit will occur without the appropriate agencies 
finding out about it? You might start to get away with it, but I 
guarantee that sooner or later you'll get caught and your research
project is likely to be destroyed in the process.  Moreover, ignorance 
is no excuse.  I know of  a case in which an individual attempted to 
use this approach that resulted in severe financial penalties and an 
agreement by the party involved to keep him out of jail that prevents
him from attempting any rocket activities for life.  Turns out that 
regulatory agencies really make examples out of these cases. So if you 
pursue this course of action be prepared for the consequences.

R. Michael Jungclas                    UUCP:      att!ihlpb!rjungcla 
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.       Internet:  rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 12:53:50 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

In article <258@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:

>AMEN! I say let's just go! Dammit! To hell with all the practical 
>'reasons' for going to the asteroids or whatnot.

Never mind rational thought!  Let's just stampede!

>Or if you need a pratical reason ... how about the old:
>I would rather be in a (self sufficeint) Mars colony when Earth 
>decided to blow itself up with the big bomb.

This is not inconsistent with a program that would currently emphasize
unmanned exploration.  We are very far away from being able to set up
self sufficient ET colonies.  A desire to have people in space at some
point in the future does not necessarily justify manned spaceflight in
the present.

>besides, arguing about what will we get out of space travel is fruitless.
>before we went to the moon, did we know that the space program would
>bring us microwave ovens, computer chips, vcr's and let's not forget
>Space Food Sticks???

This spinoff argument is bogus.  We'd have had all of these anyway
(expect perhaps Space Food Sticks; small loss).  I believe studies have
failed to show any widespread technological impetus directly attributable
to the space program.  That does not prevent the argument from being
repeated by PR hacks and the credulous.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #220
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Feb 89 07:12:29 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00912>; Wed, 1 Feb 89 06:03:15 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  1 Feb 89 06:03:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0Xthrzy00Vs1A2PE47>;
          Wed,  1 Feb 89 05:37:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.EXthbgy00UkZMugE4a>;
          Wed,  1 Feb 89 05:20:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XthZFy00UkZMuf047@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  1 Feb 89 05:17:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #221

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 221

Today's Topics:
			    Approaching c
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #207
		     Re: SST landing rights in US
		 Commercial Space Launch Act of 1988
	  Re: Concorde, Hyper-sonic jets and onto Hotol etc.
		   Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race
		      Turks in Space, circa 1633
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #207
	    *Aerospace Historian*, Semyorka, and Dyna-Soar
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 17:16:00 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: Approaching c

> CALVIN@JHUIGF.BITNET ("That's not lake Minnetonka...")
> [...] know precious
> little about relativity, although I am a pure mathematician.

>   At (near?) c, this force would become infinite, and thus, acceleration
>              past c is impossible
>   THEREFORE, c is the highest attainable speed by an accelerating body.
> [...but...] c is a finite number, being 3x10^8 m/s
> Then, why would the force required to accelerate a
> body past c be infinite if c isn't infinite?

Why is this surprising?  Especially to a "pure mathematician"?  Take
the function (1/abs(x)).  The limit is infinity as x->0.  So how can a
function "become infinite" when the domain is zero?  How do you get
infinity from nothing at all?

The real question is why anybody finds this surprising.  Not
"surprising that reality is modeled by such a function"... that *is*
perhaps surprising.  I mean "surprising that a finite domain value can
'map to' infinity" (very, very loosely speaking).

> How can it be assumed that a
> body will become infinitely massive at c if c itself is not infinite, UNLESS
> one assumes, subtlely, that c already is the fastest attainable speed (that
> is, c is in effect, infinite).

No, the assumption that is made in SR is that everybody "sees" light
travel at the same speed, regardless of the speed of the emitter or
observer.  (This "assumption" is pretty safe, since it is actually
what seems to happen with real light in the real world.)  From there,
Einstein used simple algebra to work out the consequences of this.
One of the consequences is that as v->c, force required to increase v
increases without bounds.

--
You run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking,
racing around to come up behind you again.
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older,
shorter of breath, and one day closer to death.
                              --- Pink Floyd
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 21:34:50 GMT
From: humpback!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #207

In article <Added.8XrfC6y00Ui3MefU83@andrew.cmu.edu> HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard) writes:
>
>A manned mission generates much more interest, and
>therefore will receive much more funding, than any unmanned probe (or 2000
>unmanned probes). 

This is a myth.  A poll I recently posted shows that unmanned missions
are more popular than manned.  If NASA replaced the manned program to
empty space with probes to many different and fascinating places 
in the solar system, I suspect public support and government funding would 
increase dramatically.



Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 89 17:37:16 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: SST landing rights in US

In article <601326396.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Actually what stopped the SST in the US were the enviro-nuts who
>probably thought the sonic booms would vibrate the tail feathers off
>the ducks. Or maybe they felt that if man were meant to fly at MACH god
>would have given him a higher methane storage capacity... :-) and :-(

One of the main complaints apart from the noise, was that it
was going to make holes in the Ozone layer above the Atlantic.

There was also some story at the same time about how rocket
launches were making holes in the Ozone layer which took
days to close up. 

Does anyone know if there were ever any follow-up
studies of this?
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 19:25:35 GMT
From: att!codas!ablnc!rcpilz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robert C. Pilz)
Subject: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1988


Why is there all this jabber about NASA this and NASA that? Blaming
and expecting everything from NASA? 
According to U.S. Representative Bill Nelson (I forget which Shuttle
flight he was on.) from Melbourne FL (just South of the Cape), "We
can now say that the U.S. commercial space launching industry is
on a roll"
What he meant by that is that the big 3 (McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
General Dynamics Corp., and (Orlando's) Martin Marietta have increased
the number of commercial payload contracts from 2 in 1987 to the
current number of 26. (11 of these are for foreign companies).
The commercial space industry is alive and well. What the 1988
act did is set up guidelines for prices at Cape Canaveral launch pads,
make the government a co-insurer of the flights, and protect the
companies from arbitrary changes in launch dates. 
Let's let free enterprise bring space into the next century and
stop knocking/depending on NASA!
R. C. Pilz
AT&T IMS
Orlando FL

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 89 17:26:24 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Concorde, Hyper-sonic jets and onto Hotol etc.

In article <23.Jan.89.14:10:19.GMT.ZZASSGL@UK.AC.UMRCC.CMS> ZZASSGL@cms.umrcc.ac.uk ("Geoff. Lane. Tel UK-061 275 6051") writes:
>It pleases a middle-aged Brit's heart good to see so much interest in
>the Concorde as its one of the few projects that a British government did
>not chicken out of as the price exceeded hopelessly under-estimated
>development costs.  Despite the high price per aircraft the research
>work that had to be done was used elsewhere and probably would have had
>to be done in any case.
>
>Right - now some space - Both the American and British Governments have
>made some vague noises about very fast and very high altitude jet/rocket
>craft at various times.  It seems to me that such projects are the ONLY

Not quite. The British government made some very specific
noises about jet/rocket craft.

No immediate profits: no money.

The government representative at the ESA meeting at the end
of last year had much the same attitude. Heavy criticism for
ESA because the proposed plans do not mention how the
proposed activities can be made to return a profit.

The only reason Britain is puting money into the Columbus
module for the space station is because advisors have
decided that the remote observation data obtained from the
polar platforms can be made profitable.

And Hotol? Alan Bond, the designer, tried to put together a
rescue package from private investors, late last year after
the Government had dropped the project. The deal fell
through, Bond says, because Rolls Royce don't want the
engine developed, and wouldn't release their patents.

Alan Bond is back working for the UK Atomic Energy
Authority and says "My involvement with Hotol is finished;
there is nothing more I can do".

Rolls Royce meanwhile are to have talks with the people
developing the NASP for the US airforce and Navy to see if
there are any "areas of common interest".
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 08:48:22 GMT
From: amdahl!pyramid!prls!philabs!spies!tbetz@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle on the Space Race

Quoth ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu in <45000017@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>:
|
|Shortly after the November election, there was a rather drawn out discussion
|of Vice-President Elect Dan Qualye's stand on the civilian space program.
|Unfortunately, no one seemed to have any concrete information on Qualye's
|position.  I recently came across an article which makes him look like a 
|promising chairman of the National Space Council.

[... excerpt deleted ...]

|Of course, Quayle cannot be judged on one article, but he looks very promising.
|I suggest those who have criticized Quayle read this article before sounding
|off again.

Better yet, find out which member(s) of his staff actually wrote the article,
and whether or not they followed him into his new job.

I mean, you can't actually believe this doofus could have strung that many
words together consecutively to form a coherent >paragraph<, much less a whole
article.

Or are you really that unaware of how these things are produced?

Now, if those staffers have influence upon the output of the Council, (and the
COuncil actually manages to obtain the President's ear, and he manages to 
convince Congress, etcetera, etcetera, down to the last flea) there
may be some hope...



-- 
  "One of these days the Hoover factory     |  Tom Betz       EAA#48267
    is gonna be all the rage in those       |  ZCNY, Yonkers, NY 10701-2509
      fashionable pictures." - Elvis        |------------------------------
 UUCP:tbetz@spies or ...philabs!spies!tbetz | "Empty, try another." - Joni

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 27 Jan 89 17:05 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Turks in Space, circa 1633
Original_To:  SPACE

Another recent issue of *Aerospace Historian* (Fall/September 1988)
had "Birdmen of the Middle East:  Early Attempts at Human Flight," by
Gary Leiser, a USAF historian specializing in Islamic history.  It's a
review of flight legends in the Arabic world, and among other things
it covers an incident not even whispered about in most Western books
on the history of rocketry, space travel, or science fiction.

Leiser quotes, and so will I, from a seventeenth-century account by
Evilya Chelebi.  This supposedly happened around 1633 in Istanbul.
(Arabic speakers, please pardon my slaughter of the transliterations!)

"This Lagari Hasan had fabricated a seven-cylinder rocket using 50
okkas [about 64 kg] of gunpowder compound.  When the Sultan was at
Saray Point, he got on the rocket and his apprentices lit the fuse of
the rocket. Saying, 'My Sultan, I have recommended you to God. I am
going to speak with the Prophet Jesus,' and, praising and glorifying
God, he made his ascent to the highest heaven... At the roof of the
heavens, the powder of the great rocket was exhausted and when it
descended toward the earth, he opened the eagle wings that he had in
his hands and landed in the water in front of the mansion of Sinan
Pasha.  He swam from there and came naked to the Sultan. He kissed the
ground and began to joke, saying. 'My Sultan, the Prophet Jesus sends
you his regards.'"

Leiser doesn't believe a word of this, but he says, "Evilya's account
does show that the Turks had the ability to make large rockets, that
some Turks had contemplated human flight by means of rockets as early
as the seventeenth century, and that they may have even experimented
with such a flight." I find it interesting that this account was
written only a few years after Cyrano de Bergerac published his own
account of rocket-powered spaceflight, in his *Voyage to the Moon*.

This issue also carried an article about the Army Air Corps/USAF
attempts to control erupting volcanoes in Hawaii by bombing to
divert lava flow.

*Air Power Historian*
$25/year (first two years for price of one for new members) from
Maj. Gen. Ramsay D. Potts
Publisher
Air Force Historical Foundation
Building 1413, Room 120
Stop 44
Andrews AFB, MD 20331
                                   Bill Higgins
                                   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                   HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
                                   SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 89 00:55:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #207


>From HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard):
   
> Just out of curiousity, and to keep from offending anyone, is there a
> non-sexist term for a "manned" mission?  Here they've taken to calling
> first-year students "freshpersons", but a "personned" mission just doesn't
> sound right.  Any thoughts?

The Planetary Society went through this silliness a few years back.  Louis
Friedman suggested it in the March 1985 issue of the _The_Planetary_Report_.
The society was soon swamped with suggestions.  The most popular response
was "staffed."  Other ideas for mission adjectives included:

	accompanied			humanned	
	ambisextrous		 	hybrid	
	animated			inhabited
	anthropic			live
	attended			missionary
	beset				organic
	bionic				peopled
	corporeal			piloted
	creatured			prosopal
	droogied			   (Greek for "personned")
	   (from Russian word		starred
	    for "friend")		tended
	hominized			wamo
					   (woman or man operated)
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	             | 	Illini Space Development Society
 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3           |  a chapter of the National Space Society
 Champaign IL  61820                 |  at the University of Illinois
 phone:  (217) 359-0056              |  P.O. Box 2255 Station A
 e-mail:  ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu  |  Champaign IL  61825

 "What's in a name?  That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell
  as sweet."
 - William Shakespeare

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 27 Jan 89 17:02 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  *Aerospace Historian*, Semyorka, and Dyna-Soar
Original_To:  SPACE

The Winter/December 1988 *Aerospace Historian* recently came in the
mail, and there are a couple of articles that might interest you.
Most *AH* articles deal with aviation history, leaning heavily on the
USAF and the wars,  but they occasionally publish some space-related
stuff.

Page 268: "The First ICBM: Early Soviet Strategic Ballistic Missile
Development," by Steven J. Zaloga, details Soviet work on large
rockets during and after WWII, culminating in the deployment of
Mezhkontinentalnaya Ballisticheskaya Raketa R-7, alias "Semyorka,"
alias "SS-6 Sapwood," alias "the Sputnik booster."  And yes, the title
is correct: its first full-range test took place on 21 August 1957, a
month before the Atlas's first flight. This vehicle is the Model T of
space flight, more than a thousand examples having been built and
flown over thirty years.  The article is a good rundown.

Under Stalin the Soviets had a peculiar method of managing their
R&D.  They kept their engineers and scientists in prison camps
equipped with drawing boards.  There were aircraft-design prison
camps, telecommunications prison camps, and so forth.  Once in
a while they'd release one of their designers and make him a major
or something; this happened to Sergei Korolev.  I don't really
understand this system (though I know I should read *The Gulag
Archipelago* if I really get curious about it;  I've read *The
First Circle*), but it actually seemed to produce working weapons
and other  innovations at some level.

page 274: "The Diplomatic Demise of Dyna-Soar: The Impact of
International and Domestic Political Affairs on the Dyna-Soar X-20
Project, 1957-1963," by Capt. Roy F. Houchin II of the Air Force
Academy.

"Even though Kennedy officials gave excuses for Dyna-Soar's demise (it
lacked attainable objectives, it became too costly, and it duplicated
NASA efforts), in reality, international space restrictions,
Dyna-Soar's offensive nature, and the Air Force's determined support
of military objectives detrimentally influenced the program and
eventually curtailed it."

Other articles in this issue deal with torpedo development, recovering
a wrecked bomber from a New Guinea jungle, Korean Air Force history,
and various war memoirs.

The previous issue of *AH* (Fall/September 1988) had a weird and
wonderful article in it, but I see this message is getting long, so
I'll save it for a separate posting.

Membership in the Air Force Historical Foundation is $25 for two years
(for new members only), which includes a subscription to the quarterly
*Aerospace Historian* magazine.  It's a bargain if you have a serious
interest in the subjects it covers.  It can be a little dry if you
have a casual interest. :-)

*Aerospace Historian* has just changed its title to:

*Air Power Historian*
Maj. Gen. Ramsay D. Potts
Publisher
Air Force Historical Foundation
Building 1413, Room 120
Stop 44
Andrews AFB, MD 20331

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with
     ~  Free Nobel Prizewinner Inside!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #221
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Feb 89 09:33:44 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07949>; Thu, 2 Feb 89 03:34:42 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  2 Feb 89 03:34:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8Xu15py00Vs1I2QUF8>;
          Thu,  2 Feb 89 03:29:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.kXu0vpy00UkZA1rU58>;
          Thu,  2 Feb 89 03:19:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0Xu0tOy00UkZE1qE4s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  2 Feb 89 03:16:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #222

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 222

Today's Topics:
		 Re: NASA Manifest - science payloads
	       Re: Re:Re:Number of Concorde ever build
		 Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
		Re: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing
			  Re: Approaching c
		   NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
		Re: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing
Re: NASA calls for proposals regarding Reusable Reentry Satellite (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 20:02:12 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hjh@hplabs.hp.com  (Heather Hubbard)
Subject: Re: NASA Manifest - science payloads

Thanks for posting this summary.

Heather Hubbard

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 89 05:35:52 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: Re:Re:Number of Concorde ever build

London to Vancouver? On a Condord?

The extreme range of a Condord is Paris to Washington, DC. This is so close
to the absolute maximum range that during the summer it arrives without
normal fuel reserves and requires special handling from ATC. And makes that
only because it flys without a full passenger load.

  ++PLS

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 22:36:29 GMT
From: humpback!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II

In article <9265@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> kevin@cit-vax.UUCP (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
>
>I can't help but wonder if Phobos I and Phobos II
>are in fact doing fine and the Soviets are only claiming failures so that they
>don't have to share the information from them with anyone. 

The Soviets had planned to transmit much of their data through NASA's
DSN (I helped schedule them time while I was at JPL).  This would have 
necessitated them sharing it in real time--no chance for them to look at the
pictures and say 'oops, we don't want Capitalists to see that!'.  I'm not 
sure if the weakened Phobos II transmitter will still use the DSN.  (I
can call my old boss and find out, if anyone's interested).

The Phake Phobos Phlub-Up theory must explain either a sophisticated con
job in planning use of the DSN in the first place, or a change of heart
before either probe got anywhere near Phobos.  It must also explain how
DSN technicians could be fooled by fake probe specs.

If both probes are still transmitting at full power, it may be possible for 
DSN or smaller dishes aimed at Phobos to detect the signals.  If memory
serves, Phobos has a roughly equatorial orbit of 7 hours, 26 minutes.
Transmissions will occur when Phobos is on this side of Mars, Mars is in
view of the Soviet 70-meter dishes, and the not-so-flexible Soviet probe 
antennas manage to point themselves towards Earth.  Since U.S. dishes
will be in view of Mars on an almost opposite schedule of the Soviets', the
Madrid DSN 70-meter and a Japanese 64-meter come to mind as the best
antennas for detecting Phobos Phraud.  Full data on the Phobos orbit
and the Soviet station view periods is available at JPL.  






Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 89 09:07:17 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

John Sparks responding to Keith Lofstrom states
     "Or if you need a pratical reason ... how about the old:
  I would rather be in a (self sufficeint) Mars colony when Earth
  decided to blow itself up with the big bomb.  besides, arguing about what
  we get out of space travel is fruitless . . "
I agree, but given nanotechnology, why settle for less than what we really
want, interstellar exploration.  The way NASA does things, nanotechnology
may be much closser than a return to the moon.  If anyone want to see it
I can post or email a 30k byte article called Megascale Engineering and
issue invitations to a party on the far side of the galaxy in about 200,000
Command:try
years.

 Keith Henson (a founder of the lamented L5 Society.)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 89 01:19:15 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing

Is this supposed to be news?  If I'm not mistaken, high-quality GaAs crystals
were manufactured aboard Skylab.  Sony equalled that quality using high 
magnetic fields during crystallization.

Anyhow, who could use such materials?  I can't do a production run based
on a couple ingots grown in space.  I need quantity, and I need a 
performance edge so large it can justify dependence on an expensive 
technology that could be yanked away at any time by engineering "glitches"
beyond my control.

What would you do with super-perfect crystals grown in microgravity?
Redesign your latest RISC engine for an ultra-custom batch of super-tight
geometry chips?  Re-tune your operating system to accommodate the higher
speed?  Design new hardware systems to hold these super-chips?  What
applications cry out for performance so badly that they can justify
this technology?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 07:02:00 GMT
From: tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Todd L. Masco)
Subject: Re: Approaching c

CALVIN@JHUIGF.BITNET ("That's not lake Minnetonka...") writes:

> Anyway, here goes. It seems to me that the argument for the impossibility of
> attaining speeds faster than c is flawed. Logically, an argument is invalid
> if it, at some point, assumes that which it attempts to prove.
	...
> Damian Hammontree
> System Programmer

	 Okay, he's your basic problem.  You're looking at the problem
 as though relativity was attemptig to argue through logic;  It isn't
 _exactly_ trying to do that;  rather, it's trying to provide a model
 that expresses what happens in "reality" (quotes for the enjoyment of
 you quantum people).  

	 The following gives a fairly reasonable explanation for you,
 as a mathematics person:

	 Picture a typical graph of a hyperbole, say (x-c)(y-m) = (C).
 [First c = c, second C = some constant, m=rest mass of object].

	 Now, imagine that, instead of moving along the x axis (which
 we will now reveal to be 'velocity') when kinetic energy is added,
 imagine that it moves along the line of the _graph_.

	 Close enough to x=0, the graph seems to be a straight
 line.  No problem.  Newtonian mechanics works fine.

	 Once we get past, say x=c/10, we being to notice some amount
 of discrepency;  We're not quite going as fast as we should, time's
 getting a wee bit altered, and some of our kinetic energy seems to
 have, strangely enough, gone to our mass instead of our velocity.

	 Undaunted, we continue to accelerate the object, thinking,
 "hurm.  What a wonderful toy the universe is."

	 As we approach c, the graph has begun to approach the vertical
 asymptote.  More and more, our Kinetic energy (remember, KE=(mv^2)/2)
 is increasing the mass, rather than the velocity.  We can add KE to
 our heart's content;  The universe won't care, we'll continue to
 travel along that hyperbolic line, approaching v=c, but never quit
 obtaining it.

	 The above isn't exactly what happens.  But it's close enough
 to show the concept involved.  Note that the structure does NOT
 prohibit something moving faster than v=c;  It only states that at v=c
 we have a discontinuity, and anything travelling along one line can't
 reach the other by conventional means (hedge, hedge).

	 Is it clearer?  [I used to be a math major -- I got better]

/----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Todd L. Masco        | ...and the dead are, but for a moment, motionless... |
|tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------------------------------ |
|r746tm2b@cmccvb                 |"The memories of a man in his old age      |
|...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!tm2b | are the deeds of a man in his prime."-PF  |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------------/

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 05:25:14 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the satellite user community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.  The most current orbital elements
from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513)
427-0674, and are updated several times weekly.  Documentation and tracking
software are also available on this system.  The Celestial RCP/M may be
accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit, no parity.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:

AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed;
           blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.  (Decimal point assumed)
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:

NOAA 6
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978

Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 05:11:33 GMT
From: rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Rick Francis Golembiewski)
Subject: Re: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing

>What would you do with super-perfect crystals grown in microgravity?
>Redesign your latest RISC engine for an ultra-custom batch of super-tight
>geometry chips?  Re-tune your operating system to accommodate the higher
>speed?  Design new hardware systems to hold these super-chips?  What
>applications cry out for performance so badly that they can justify
>this technology?
Humm... How about a brand new super computer for the Soviets (Wouldn't
it be grand for the Soviets to have one really increadible machine to do the
processing for all of the soviet space program Y times quicker then it is
done now...)

How about Space applications (kind of running around in circles isn't it ;-),
however consider: a fast/smaller system is vital for something that your
going to be sending out in space (especially very FAR out, I wonder what
the cost per lb was on, say the voyager/viking probes...), also if we want to
autonomous Mars rovers then they will need a great deal of processor power
(AI is very processer intensive) and weight/power are pretty critical in these
situations.  Still  I doubt that the soviets will make a major industry out of
micrograv. crystals, but if they make a few super applications with them it
could really boost their space program.
Disclaimer: Since I have no idea as to the specifics of the crystals in question
I am going on the assumption that they can build something much more
powerful then using "regular" earth grown crystals...

///  Rick Golembiewski        Rg20 +@Andrew.cmu.edu       \\\
\\\  "In reality Light is very rude... after all it even  ///
  \\      has a  set pattern for interfearence...."      //

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 15:46:17 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: NASA calls for proposals regarding Reusable Reentry Satellite (Forwarded)


Seriously, though, it sounds like an interesting opportunity for those
interested in demonstrating reusable ballistic vertical landing vehicles,
without having to worry about the vertical takeoff part.  (Just as well,
given the 2000 pound weight target).  A subscale Phoenix, for example...

(Although in my more paranoid moments I might wonder about the likelihood
of NASA ever awarding a contract to something that demonstrates how silly
the shuttle design is)
-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #222
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Feb 89 13:51:33 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02408>; Thu, 2 Feb 89 05:54:50 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  2 Feb 89 05:54:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXu2pny00UkTQ0fE41>;
          Thu,  2 Feb 89 05:29:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.0Xu2fMy00UkZI2104Q>;
          Thu,  2 Feb 89 05:18:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXu2doy00UkZE1zk4g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  2 Feb 89 05:16:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #223

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 223

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Is the moon a 'known quantity'?
Re: NASA calls for proposals regarding Reusable Reentry Satellite (Forwarded)
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		      Satellite technical info?
	      Re: Manned missions vs. Planetary Science
   Asteroid issues [was Re: Manned missions vs. Planetary Science]
			Light Plume on Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 15:31:05 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Is the moon a 'known quantity'?

In article <13531@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>Jonathan Leech writes:
>>   
>>   We have more samples of asteroidal material than lunar material
>>   and closeup photos of Martian moons ... spectroscopic and
>>   radar observations ...  
>
>Not exactly.  Yes, we have lots of meteorites, but we only *think* they
>are bits asteroids---we do not know for sure.  We DO know that they are

   Actually, we are pretty sure - reflection spectra of various meteorites
   have been mached very well to some specific asteroids - Vesta, for example.
   Also, for three meteorites whose falls have been recorded photographically
   well enough to determine their (previous) orbits, it has been determined
   that the orbits originated in the asteroid belt.

   Not all meteorites have been so associated with asteroids, though -
   some have been identified as almost certainly coming from the Moon,
   and two or three others are very probably of Martian origin.

>at best a very skewed sample.  For one thing, rocky meteorites are much
>harder to recognize than metallic ones, and hence they are highly
>under-represented in our collections.  There are probably lots of
>meteorites (and perhaps asteroids) made of loose dust or of volatile

  The technical term for such bodies is "comets" :-)

>materials, but those never reach the ground; and yet those would be the
>most interesting ones.  
>
>We also don't know whether the Martian moons are captured asteroids;
>this is only a conjecture, plausible but with no hard evidence to
>support it.  Even if they are asteroids, we have no idea as to how
>typical they are of the whole lot.  (In fact, there probably isn't such
>a thing as a "typical" asteroid).  
>
>Spectroscopic and radar observations of solid objects can only give
>broad hints as to the average composition---say, "metallic" vs "rock".

  Actually, by comparing spectra with meteorites, and analysing the meteorites,
we can get a very good guess at the average composition of a given asteroid.

>Also, radar can't see deeper than a few inches, and spectroscopy can't see 
>deeper than a few mm.
>
>>   Landing 6 times on the moon does not make it a 'known quantity'
>>   by any stretch of the imagination.
>
>Come on.  We know a *lot* more about the moon than about any other body
>outside the Earth.  Certainly there are many unanswered questions about
>the moon, but they are nothing compared to our abysmal ignorance about
>the rest of the solar system.  
>
>(Quick, how many open questions about the moon can you think of?
>How many of those could be resolved by returning there?)
   
   A lot.  See below.

>I submit that more than 90% of the scientific value of the Apollo
>program came from the first moon landing, and specifically from the
>soil samples it brought back. 

   90% of the scientific value from a few bags of dirt?  What about
   the scientfic packages left by Apollo shots *after* 11? (The primary
   mission of Apollo 11 was just "land and get back" - after that they
   could afford to spend some time on science).  Or the traverses done
   in the lunar rover (Apollo 15-17)?

>It is always nice to have more data, but the last few Apollo landings
>added very little to the knowledge we got from the first few.

   Not true.  For example, "dark halo" craters were thought to be of
   volcanic origin up to Apollo 16, which showed them to be impact
   craters which dug up ancient mare basalts that had been covered
   by white plains due to the Orientale impact event.

>It would have been foolish to continue spending the limited money
>available on additional Apollos instead of on things like Viking and
>Voyager.  
>
>                Jorge Stolfi
>                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi

  To return to the question of what open questions there remain about
  the moon, let me mention a few points raised by Dr. Ray Hawke of U.
  of Hawaii in  a paper he presented at the International Space
  Development Conference in Denver last May ("Geological Studies
  Supported by a Lunar Base")
       - impact cratering: there are some questions best resolved
	   by field studies and major traverses, eg. mode of ejecta
	   emplacement, distribution of impact melt as a function of size,
	   depth and origin of ejecta units, nature of crater modification
	   processes, origin of crater rays.
       - vulcanism: about 2/3 of the types of mare basalt on Moon
       have *NOT* been sampled (types det'd by remote sensing), we have
       no samples of lunar mantle, no information on ancient vulcanism,
	   need to investigate some possible still active sites (Alphonsus?)
       and settle debate on Kreuger crater (which may be a volcanic
	   caldera)
       - cometary impacts on lunar surface - several craters (eg Reiner
	   gamma on Western Procellarum) show both magnetic and albedo
	   anomalies, they may be comet impacts, in which case there may
	   be associated hydrated material.  (This would be *very* significant
	   to space colonization/industrialization if so!)

   Finally, studying the moon in more detail provides a much better baseline
  or control against which to compare studies of other bodies.  To quote
  Dr. Hawke (from the tape of his talk):
      "I don't think you're going to understand fundamental planetary
    processes by studying Ganymede or Mercury.  You've gotta understand
    them on the Moon first.  You're not gonna go to a very complex place
    like Mars or Ganymede to understand impact cratering if you can't
    understand it on the Moon.  The situation is much more complicated
    you got volatile-rich materials in the subsurface of Mars, and
    atmosphere; the situation is all screwed up.  You gotta go to the
    simple example of a place where material has not been eroded,
    degraded; where there's no nasty atmosphere to screw things up or
    blow dust on the deposits.  The Moon is a baseline."

Of course this was wrt Moon vs other planets, not asteroids, but the
point holds.  You're not going to understand really high-energy impact
events from studying asteroids -- they tend to get consumed by such
processes :-)
-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 15:39:56 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: NASA calls for proposals regarding Reusable Reentry Satellite (Forwarded)

In article <20996@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>Paula Cleggett
>NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.              January 18, 1989
>
>Kari Fluegel
>Johnson Space Center, Houston
>
>
>RELEASE:  89-6
>
>NASA CALLS FOR PROPOSALS REGARDING REUSABLE REENTRY SATELLITE

 [.. a whole bunch of stuff deleted ..]

>roughly 6-feet in diameter and weighing more than 2,000 pounds 
>with a useful payload of 500 pounds.

 Hmm, does that mean that if I can design a 6-foot diameter reusable
vehicle with a payload of 500 pounds, and the vehicle only weighs, say 1000
pounds, that I have to design in a bunch of ballast to bring it up
to the "more than 2000 lb" spec'd in the RFP?

 Sounds like a NASA proposal, all right :-)

-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 10:57:38 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

>
>szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: [in response to my previous posting]
>>Come again?  We should spend more on manned spaceflight *because* it's
>>more expensive?  
>
>Unless you don't believe that manned space technology
>R&D is important to the future, NASA should spend much more money on manned
>than on unmanned space R&D. Please note that since I DO believe in a robust
>unmanned program, I think it would be wrong if space station costs (as one
>example) eviscerated the unmanned program.

Anybody who thinks we have an infinite budget to work with, please make
yourself known so that I know where not to invest my hard-earned money.
It's not a question of "believing" in anything, since presumably we are not
discussing religion.  It's a question of X dollars divided between manned and
unmanned programs.  What allocation is best for our future?   Spending all
or most of the money on one or two large, risky projects, which go nowhere 
but LEO, is the poorest allocation.   Sending out a few probes, while
still spending half the money on thread-bare manned projects, is still poor.
The only reasonable allocation is to spend the money on unmanned projects
(and research), and forego manned projects until they are affordable,
and/or discoveries provide the incentive to substantially increase the
budget X which the government provides.

If it could be demonstrated that manned programs substantially increase the
budget X we have to work with, then perhaps something could be said for them.
But there is no evidence to show this, and in fact I suspect that the
opposite is true, that the overwhelming bonanza from unmanned probes would
greatly increase support and funding of the space program.

>The point here is that the shuttle is a new technology developed by a
>government bureaucracy. Serious problems in such a situation are always a
>definite possibility. 

This is why you don't throw your eggs in one basket.  Throw them in a lot
of small baskets--some fail (Phobos mission), but some succeed wildly, more
than making up for the failures (Voyager).  Nothing can make up for a 
$40 billion project like the Shuttle.
Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 23:56:56 GMT
From: np0c+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Norene Pfeffer)
Subject: Satellite technical info?


I have been looking for mechanical specifications on
satellites, and have not yet found what I need (having
consulted DataPro and a variety of "Satellite" information
handbooks available.  If anyone knows where I might seek
such information (i.e., mass limitations if any, power
availability, cubic space available), your help would be
greatly appreciated.  (The DataPro chapter on satellites
has information on using existing *communications* satellites,
which is not what I need.

Thanks
Seth Rothenberg
sr16@andrew.cmu.edu, or care of
np0c@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 21:17:50 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Manned missions vs. Planetary Science

In article <890125100532.000004A2082@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>  The ROI for
> manned missions qua manned missions is decades away (e.g., asteroid
> mining operations), but *that doesn't mean we shouldn't start now*.
> After all, we won't get there at all if we don't take the first step.

I expect asteroid mining, when it starts, will be small scale and
unmanned.  Given the long travel time it makes little sense to send
people when they are not absolutely required.  It would make more
sense, I admit, to have people in earth orbit (low or high) to process
the returned material, and to maintain the mining vehicles.

Unmanned asteroid mining could occur surprisingly soon, if anyone
wanted to try.  A really primitive mission, using an expendable
chemical upper stage to inject to the asteroid and aerobraking to LEO
could return 2.6 times the mass launched to LEO in asteroidal
material.  This goes up to 8 if the aerobrake is stored in HEEO and
reused several times.  Additional benefits can be attained by
extracting water at the asteroid or by using solar-thermal rockets.
No mass drivers are required.  These numbers use 1982 DB as an
example; more accessible asteroids almost certainly exist.

We should start now.  The first step is to find as many earth
approaching asteroids as we can.  Existing technology -- ground
telescopes, computers and CCDs -- could find them in droves, if we
tried hard.  Current searches, while excellent, are shoestring
operations.  Upgrading to more/larger scopes with better detectors,
computers and more staff would help immensely.  The cost would be
modest; the benefits, large.

> I'm just not sure that it's a winning strategy for us manned mission
> advocates to try and compete with the immediate ROI currently available
> to unmanned missions.

I suggest manned spaceflight advocates look for synergism with
unmanned activities (and vice versa).  Sending people anywhere beyond
LEO would be much cheaper if asteroidally derived rocket fuels were
available.  Unmanned missions would be easier to justify, I think, as
being precursors to manned activities.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 00:41:33 GMT
From: thorin!piglet!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Asteroid issues [was Re: Manned missions vs. Planetary Science]

In article <1989Jan29.161750.29964@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>I expect asteroid mining, when it starts, will be small scale and
>unmanned.  Given the long travel time it makes little sense to send
>people when they are not absolutely required.

    The scenario involving a Mars mission mining its return fuel from
Phobos is another (slight) possibility.

>We should start now.  The first step is to find as many earth
>approaching asteroids as we can.  Existing technology -- ground
>telescopes, computers and CCDs -- could find them in droves, if we
>tried hard.

    Marsden's semi-automated searches are doing a good job. I suspect
the hard part is getting more time on wide-field telescopes (on the
other hand, Gene & Carolyn Shoemaker use the 18" Schmidt at Palomar,
which might not get much use otherwise)
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``I have a fair amount of faith in American free press; oppression
      continues to surface, but justice will always triumph as long as
      enough money can be supplied.'' - Reed Waller

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 23:00:07 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Light Plume on Shuttle


The following article was taken from the 1988 December CANOPUS.  See
copyright information at end.

BRIGHT GAS FLOW ON STS-26 IS OLD PHENOMENON - can881228.txt - 12/8/88

Flashes of flame seen between the solid rocket boosters during the
STS-26 launch were caused by a well-known "plume recirculation"
effect that has been known since the launches of V-2 rockets in the
1940's. The flashes of light were reminiscent of the flashes that
preceded the breakup of Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986 and caused
some apprehension among observers until booster separation.

"The effect is visible -- if weather conditions and camera angles
permit -- from around 92 seconds into flight until just before
jettison of the boosters," said Aerospace Engineer Lee Foster of
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.  "Even if it's not visible,
we've used instrumentation to determine that the effect does indeed
occur on every flight."

Plume recirculation, Foster explained, is due to the relative
location of the booster and main engine nozzles, the expansion of the
rocket jets at high altitudes, and the airflow around the Shuttle
vehicle and its plumes.

"As the Shuttle ascends, atmospheric pressure becomes lower," Foster
said.  "As a result, the exhaust plumes grow wider as the Shuttle
gains altitude.  Then, as they get wider, they begin to intersect
with each other and this intersection region gets closer and closer
to the base region of the vehicle.

"Usually around 92 seconds," Foster said, "the pressure in this
intersection becomes higher than the pressure in the base region and
some of the exhaust plume gases from this intersection are reversed,
or recirculated, into the base region.  The high-temperature gases
heat the aft dome of the external tank and the aft sections of the
boosters."

By itself, that effect wouldn't result in anything visible. However,
another ingredient--oxygen--is added to the picture at this point.

"Around the outer boundary of the recirculation region, oxygen from
the airflow around the Shuttle mixes with some of the recirculated
exhaust gases, allowing residual fuel in the plume to burn.  That's
what results in the flames seen in the flight videotapes," said
Foster.

Foster said the plume effect is not a safety issue: it was predicted
before the first Shuttle mission and the vehicle thermal protection
system designed to allow for it.

"We've been building our data base on this subject ever since the
mid-1950s," he said. "In fact, plume recirculation occurred from the
very beginning, even with the German V-2 rockets.

"During the first six flights of the Shuttle, we put a variety of
gauges on the external tank and boosters to measure the heating from
plume recirculation.  These measurements showed that the heating was
basically the same on each flight and that the vehicle is well
protected from the heating."

Copyright information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; 
e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded).  Send
correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #223
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Feb 89 08:02:26 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05339>; Fri, 3 Feb 89 04:07:02 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  3 Feb 89 04:06:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sXuKG8y00Vs142DkR3>;
          Fri,  3 Feb 89 03:36:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.0XuK2Jy00UkZ4GCE5B>;
          Fri,  3 Feb 89 03:19:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wXuK03y00UkZEGB04D@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  3 Feb 89 03:17:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #224

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 224

Today's Topics:
	      Henson's article on Megascale Engineering
		      Re: fireball across Texas
     Re: USSR selling high res pictures and announce new reactor
		    MMU being added to MIR etc...
Re: NASA selects atmospheric sounder for EOS space platform  (Forwarded)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #207
		 Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #207
			  Re: Approaching c
		    Re: Stupid relativity question
	      Re:Re:Re:Re:Number of Concorde ever build
   Manned (Personed?) vs. Unmanned (Was: Re: NSS Board membership)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu,  2 Feb 89 08:43:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Henson's article on Megascale Engineering

I have the article on Megascale Engineering that Keith Henson mentioned
in his recent article.  I can forward you a copy if you send a note
to space-request@andrew.cmu.edu and mention the word Megascale.
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 21:43:54 GMT
From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: fireball across Texas

In article <7043@june.cs.washington.edu> pablo@uw-june.UUCP (David Cohn) writes:
>Reportedly, it was a derelict Soviet booster re-entering. It was
>visible across maybe 1/3 of the country (no, not here in Seattle,
>though we had a spectacular one like that a couple of years ago).

 Just as a matter of conincidence, there was just recently a daylight
 sighting of a fireball meteor observed by southern Washington (the State)
 and northern Oregon.  Any eye-witnesses out there?  I had the priveledge
 of seeing an extremely impressive fireball meteor about ten years ago
 from Everett Washington.  Duration was several minutes, Flames were
 very obvious, and the meteor broke into four fireballs as it approached
 the horizon. Something my wife and I will never forget.




-- 
 _____   Kevin Bagley  Global Tech. Int'l Inc., Mukilteo WA 98275  206-742-9111
  )___)  __    _   _   UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin
_/___)  (__(__(_)_/_)_ ARPA:uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu
_______________/  Disclaimer...  "I did not say this. I am not here."

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 01:12:26 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: USSR selling high res pictures and announce new reactor

In article <8901280512.AA29429@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>   Glavcosmos general manager Dimitri Poletayev, in charge of marketing space 
>material, said that there was uncertainty in the design of the Mir 2 station 
>to replace Mir.  Five expansion modules will be added to Mir at about 6 month 
>intervals starting in April, and reaching competition in 1991.  If Mir proves 
>sufficient for their needs at that point the replacement station will be 
>delayed, and they will not operate both station simultaneously. 

I hope no one is too surprised at this.  The Soviet space program, for
all the chic Western talk of its "stability," is clearly in upheaval.
In the past year or two the advent of Energiya, Buran and _glasnost_
have completed the revolution that Mir and Sagdeyev started back in the
chilly days of Andropov and Chernenko.  Energiya and Buran suddenly
give the entire program a dizzying new flexibility, and _glasnost_ does
two things: it enlists the support of the West and it clears the way
for PROFIT as a space program motive.  Not to be forgotten, either, is
the Afghan pullout.  The war down there required a significant amount
of spysat and military comsat investment over a decade.  Money will be
freed up, specifically for Star Wards research unless I miss my guess.

Mir 2 may well be abandoned and a military station lofted instead,
while Mir 1 is augmented with handfuls of profit making facilities.  It
would be ruinously expensive to maintain two Mirs at once in the
current configuration.

>     The USSR's first launch of the year used a Proton booster to put Glonass 
>navigation satellites and an Etalon laser geodesic satellite.  The Etalon was 
>described as a 1.4 Tonne hollow sphere 1.3 meters (51 inches) in diameter 
>covered with about 2000 quartz tetrahedral shaped prisms, which reflect laser 
>beams back towards their source.  

I can't help but wonder whether the Soviets can tell if anyone ELSE 
illuminates this thing... :-)

> ...  With the grounding of the Discovery today due, to moisture in the main 
>engines causing the cracking of the bearing race way, it will be a while 
>before the US catches up.

Uh, let's not confuse the large with the small here.  From what I understand
the bearing race was a disturbing one time affair - the moisture was 
present *when the bearing was cast* and that's what ultimately led to the
crack.  They can and will test for anything similar in the other bearings.
Work on Discovery proceeds on schedule - nothing is "grounded."
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 13:54:02 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror)
Subject: MMU being added to MIR etc...

Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa> says (in part)

>is almost astounding.  According to Bernard Comet, flight surgeon for the 
>French space agency CNES, while they were pale and had balance problems when 
that name is just too good to be true!  Look how far ahead of us even the
French are, they're naming themselves after astro-objects (is that a word?)

>                                                     Glenn Chapman
>                                                     MIT Lincoln Lab

More sincerly, thanks for the news and comments Glenn, this is sometimes
the only way I have to keep up with everything.

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | f=ma, it's not just a good idea, it's
                                     | the law

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 23:47:17 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: NASA selects atmospheric sounder for EOS space platform  (Forwarded)

How can something like EOS - in polar orbit - be "part of" the Space
Station?  Is that just the budget cubbyhole?  Also, how does NASA plan
to "refurbish" AIRS if it's in polar orbit?  Is this dependent on a
working OMV?  Surely a polar Shuttle mission would be too expensive 
for a purpose like this.
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 04:03:25 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #207

In article <3067@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
<In article <Added.8XrfC6y00Ui3MefU83@andrew.cmu.edu> HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET
<(Greg Howard) writes:
<|   Just out of curiousity, and to keep from offending anyone, is there a
<|non-sexist term for a "manned" mission?  Here they've taken to calling
<|first-year students "freshpersons", but a "personned" mission just doesn't
<|sound right.  Any thoughts?
<
<	"Crewed" and "staffed" are perfectly acceptable, and the latter of
<these even sounds good.

"Crewed" isn't usable due to an unfortunate homonym. It's hard to get 
politicians and the public interested when they hear the newscaster say
something about a "crude" mission... 1/2 :-)

And Staffed already has a meaning that we *don't* want, as in  "they
staffed it" (ie got the staff to draw up all the @$^%$ paperwork)

-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 22:06:34 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II

In article <9862@ut-emx.UUCP>, bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
-> In article <9265@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, kevin@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
-> > >     The USSR's Phobos II probe to Mars has suffered a "major hardware 
-> > >problem" with its communications, according to both Defense Daily and 
-> > >Soviet Areospace (Jan. 9th).  [...]
-> > 
-> > Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I can't help but wonder if Phobos I and 
-> > Phobos II are in fact doing fine and the Soviets are only claiming failures 
-> > so that they don't have to share the information from them with anyone. 
-> 
-> I think you are being paranoid. Do you think Gorby would sacrifice all the
-> limelight and prestige from the world scientific community just to jealously
-> guard the data ?                     
->  
Of course. He's a politician. Maybe the Soviets expect to find fantastically 
super-advanced science left on the asteroid-city Phobos by those superbeings 
who built "the Face" and "the City" on Mars, and want to keep it to themselves 
so they can peacefully coexist with us capitalists less fearfully. So, I 
wouldn't worry about any ulterior motives they may have. They only want the 
best for mankind, as any Afghan can attest to.
-
-
-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 00:20:54 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #207

In article <Added.8XrfC6y00Ui3MefU83@andrew.cmu.edu> HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard) writes:
> ... A manned mission generates much more interest, and
>therefore will receive much more funding, than any unmanned probe (or 2000
>unmanned probes).  

I cannot believe the poster seriously considered the implications of
his statement.  Not that I think the number itself is all that
realistic, but just stop and THINK for a moment what 2,000 (TWO
THOUSAND) planetary and Earth probes would yield!  We would know the
Solar System as thoroughly as we know the Galapagos, or Sausalito for
that matter. <grin>  I submit that if we invested in a BLANKET program
of probes, so that Joe Sixpack could watch high quality full color
Ganymede travelogues on evening TV as easily as he watches pro golf
today, then the public would be DEMANDING manned exploration, in a BIG
way, instead of sullenly tolerating more levies for Star Wars and a
Space Station (which will never venture farther into the Solar System
than Newark NJ ventures from Harrisburg PA).

Yet even if the public never plumps for large scale manned exploration
at their own expense -- exploration on the dole is always a risky
prospect, as Columbus discovered -- the probes would GIVE US our solar
system in a way I doubt we're going to get it given present trends.
What we're doing at present seems more logically designed to keep
Rockwell humming than to keep human knowledge advancing.  I don't wish
to denigrate the fine work of the thousands of scientists and engineers
in the aerospace program (some of whom are reading this); I have the
highest confidence that they'd do equally exemplary work on a more
sensible space program, if management assigned it.
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 19:45:45 GMT
From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: Re: Approaching c

In article <3092@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>
>Why is this surprising?  Especially to a "pure mathematician"?  Take
>the function (1/abs(x)).  The limit is infinity as x->0.  So how can a
>function "become infinite" when the domain is zero?  How do you get
>infinity from nothing at all?
>			stuff deleted
>
>No, the assumption that is made in SR is that everybody "sees" light
>travel at the same speed, regardless of the speed of the emitter or
>observer.  (This "assumption" is pretty safe, since it is actually
>what seems to happen with real light in the real world.)  From there,
>Einstein used simple algebra to work out the consequences of this.
>One of the consequences is that as v->c, force required to increase v
>increases without bounds.
>

Just one note of skepticism here...

Back in the 1940's when we were attempting to break the sound barrier,
the aerodynamic equations seemed to indicate the the air loads (the force on
the wings) would go infinite at Mach speed.  Half the aerospace engineers
seemed to think it was not possible to accomplish.  Good thing Chuck Yeager
wasn't real strong in Math.


"I know this is against the law of gravity, but then, I never studied law".
					Bugs Bunny



-- 
********************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd			*
CFI Aspen Flying Club			*
Denver CO.				*

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 14:56:51 GMT
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Stupid relativity question

In article <567@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> me85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk (M D Ayton) writes:

>May I recommend an excellent book for the (intelligent) layman on this
>subject? It is
>
>   "A brief history of time" by Stephen W. Hawking
>
>He is the Lucasian professor of mathematics at Oxford (I think)

Sorry, the other place.  the Lucasian chair is at Cambridge. Previous
holders of this position include Sir Isaac Newton and Paul Dirac.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 21:23:37 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Re:Re:Re:Re:Number of Concorde ever build

>>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue.
> True. But it wasn't really a problem. Does the Europeans have more
>capacities to handle high level of noise ? No.

*Just a less, uh, "developed" legal system.

So we are undercivilised ? Are we ?
Do you really believe that if the plane makes a lot of noise to
the point that it is untolerable, just because we are underdevelop
we can't have it stoped ?

Just typical of a certain attitude about foreign countries.
But just wait a while. If you can see what I mean...

>>Suppose you tell us
>>what US manufacturers did to kill it.  I think what killed it were high
>>fuel consumption and limited range.
>The same way automakers killed the passenger railroad industries. (Through
>lobbying in congress to get laws favoring them even indirectly.)

*What kind of laws?  More specifics, please.

Sorry I don't have the reference numbers... but,
Instead of allocating money to the development of passenger railroads,
congress, under heavy lobbying, passed many laws to develop highway
construction. Even forcing states by law or by cutting its subsidies to
maintenance. Where was that lobby from: Detroit... And this is only one
example.

>Autonomie is not an issues I beleive. Concorde has a range long enough to
>cover 10000 Km. in one shot.

*Baloney.  If it did, we would be seeng Concorde nonstop routes from Paris
*(or London) to Hong Kong, Capetown, Mexico City, Rio de Janiero, and
*Tokyo.

Thnaks to treat me as a liar. Besides Honk-Kong is much farther than
10000Kmfrom Paris. Just Paris-JFK is 6500km apart and I know that
for instance Pres. F Mitterant visited Venezuela 2 years ago and flew straight
from Paris.

If a Paris Brasilia or else wasn't done it might be because there weren't
enough pleople ready to pay the high price of a ticket.

Jean-Marc.
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 16:42:23 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Manned (Personed?) vs. Unmanned (Was: Re: NSS Board membership)

In article <107@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
> The only reasonable allocation is to spend the money on unmanned projects
> (and research), and forego manned projects until they are affordable,

Ah, but I think one could argue that right now manned projects are as
affordable relative to unmanned projects as they will ever be. People
are not getting cheaper, smarter, lighter, and more reliable every
year. The human "launch window" is open wider today than it will ever
be in the future, assuming we need to _justify_ human presence.
Therefore (seemingly) the best way to insure that people go to space
is to commit to enormously expensive, long-term manned projects.  That
provides several benefits.

1. Unmanned projects get canceled, delayed, and under-funded. This
puts a slightly smaller coefficient on the exponential growth in
unmanned technologies, keeping the justifiable human launch window
open just a bit longer.

2. Large projects develop bureacracies and infrastructures to support
them. When they go over budget, further appropriations are easy to
obtain, to avoid junking the massive existing investment (the
tiger-by-the-tail scenario--also called "double or nothing" in
gambling). This helps in other ways: see number (1).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for humans in space. But I don't think
clinging to some sort of Luddite justification is the fastest way to
get them there. We won't go to space because we are all that necessary
to our robots. We will go because we built the darned things that
paved the way for us to go.

But what do I know.

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #224
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Feb 89 12:23:54 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00923>; Fri, 3 Feb 89 05:43:46 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  3 Feb 89 05:43:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oXuLtLy00jZd41WU5:>;
          Fri,  3 Feb 89 05:26:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.YXuLlpy00UkZAGMk4V>;
          Fri,  3 Feb 89 05:18:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0XuLjly00UkZAGLU5q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  3 Feb 89 05:16:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #225

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 225

Today's Topics:
	       Relativity . An attempt to answer it all
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 30 Jan 89 21:53:17 EST
From: Jon Kjoll <PH509003%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Relativity . An attempt to answer it all


I would like to add my contribution (378 lines!) to the ongoing discussion
on relativity , speed of light , twin paradox and relevance to space.
In an attempt to keep the volume down ( I failed ) I'm a little short .
I apologize for all referneces to Dan Quayle and any HE/SHE
inconsistencies.      Those who cannot imagine a speed of v = c
take v = c - epsilon , and let epsilon be *very* small .


** HISTORY ( Simplified ) :
NEWTON assumed absolute time and space . In his picture there
is only one time, independent of speed of travel or
point of observation . His theory of gravitation united terrestrial and
extra terrestrial mechanics. In Newton's picture observed physics
are dependent on the motion of the observer. Nothing forbids travel
at speeds faster than light .

MAXWELL found the laws of eletromagnetism (EM). Maxwells equations has a
free wave soulution , this solution contains a constant - c ,
the speed of light. There is no reference to an "inertial frame" in
Maxwells equations , which means that all observers would measure
the same speed of light , c . An experiment by Michelson and Morley
showed that c is independent of the reference frame . It is the same
in all reference frames .

LORENTZ introduced the Lorentz contraction and a "local time" to
restore Newtons picture . He's goal was to  unite the new theory
of light with good old Newtons theroy . He managed to do so ,almost .
The error was of the order (v/c) squared. He then got a law for the
speed of light in ref frame 1 relative to an inertial (r) frame of
observation :

   V  =  speed of frame one relative to frame the reference .

           c   = c  +/-   V*(V/c)
            1     r

EINSTEIN took the opposite approach. The speed of light must be the same
in all reference frames, because Nature canno't be dependent on the
frame of the observer . Thus the laws of Nature must be the same in
all reference frames . But that implies that Newton's laws are NOT
true laws of nature !!. They can only be approximations .
Maxwell's equations are true laws of nature . They have the same form
in all reference frames .


** SPECIAL RELATIVITY (SR)
A gedanken ( thought) experiment :
Assume you stand at an interstellar traffic light . A space ship with
Dan Quayle on board comes driving down the space road at a speed of c .
As he passes the traffic light , the light turns green .
You will observe that Dan's hair (slightly distored ok ) and  the green
light travels down the road parallell to each other . They have the same
speed. Dan ALSO will see the light travel at the speed of light .
Now how is this possible ? Only if Dans time (as observed in your frame)
stands still !!. In his frame everything is ok , because his frame
follows the laws of physics !!  Then you ask , How can he *drive* down
the road if his watch doesn't move ?? . The answer has to be that
he doent's measure any traveled distance at all !! . He just passed a
sheat of material  that sent out some green light . He observes this
"green" light at another frequency .  These are just IMPLICATIONS of
Einsteins revolutionary concept of equality between frames .
The invariant equation valid in any frame of reference
(c - speed of light , tau - INVARIANT eigentime, t - local time and
 r the distance  , **2 means square ) :

      (c*tau)**2 =(c*t)**2 - r**2                        (1)

Short example ( R_distance_to_Dan = V_Dan's_speed times time t ) :
(c*tau)**2 = (c*t)**2 - (V*t)**2 = (c*t)**2 - (c*t)**2 = 0
so tau = 0 . In Dans system ( where R is zero as he sits in the
center) , 0 = (c*t')**2  with only solution t' is zero , i.e Dan's
time is zero !!.
The slowing of clocks and the lenght contraction are REAL !!!


** SR and OBSERVED MASS :
Now Dan activates his ion brakes .  He spits out ions .
To us nothing happens . His watch doesn't move . His ions stand still .
But if he told us in advance that he would operate the brakes when
he passed us, we can only conclude that his mass went to infinity .
The only quantity the two observers would agree upon is the *rest mass*
, the mass measured in a frame were the car is at rest. (**2 = Square())
A better way of stating this is that to change an objects momentum
you need to apply a force for some finite time t , at
v = c , from Dan's point of view, Dan passes us in no time i.e
the force doesn't work for any amount of time. Also, as Force*Distance
equals energy, we can also accept this equation ( **2 means square() )

    Mrest**2 = ENERGYtotal**2 - Pmomentum**2                 (2)

( I left out a few c's , if p = 0 , this is mc**2 = E )
This equation says that if you add momentum to a particle , you also
give it energy at a corresponding rate . And note this is the only
meaningful equation to express mass ,energy and momentum in .
Dan would conclude that he drove through a thin sheet .
To him it was the universe that traveled towards him at c,
and he would maybe speculate what laws of physics we would have .


** SR, GRAVITATION, MASS and GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION :
Now let Dan be weightless and pass the sun at a speed of v = c .
Let us observe Dan from a radially freefalling elevator in the suns
gravitatonal field . Let us have an open elevator and let Dan pass
right through it . As no external forces act on Dan he will travel
in a STRAIGH LINE observed by us inside the falling elevator !! For
an observer fixed at a certain height above the sun he enters the
elevator on one side and FALLS with the elevator and emerges on the
other side !!. Even if he has no mass he falls in the suns gravitational
field . This argument can be repeated for Dan if he carries mass .
The result is the same . Graviational interaction is NOT a
mass mass effect but a CURVED SPACE effect . Gravitational interaction
does not follow a Msun * Mdan's_relativistic_mass law except as a
low speed first approximation .


** GENERAL RELATIVITY (GR) :
When travelling relative to a mass there might be corrections to the
Newtonian gravitational force . Much like a magnetic field is produced
by a travelling electrically charged particle . Einstein showed that
to make a theory that treats time on a equal footing with space ,
makes the theory of gravitation a theory of geometry . GR states that
frames of reference in curved SpaceTime are equally good !! . There is
no absolute frame .  The physical invariants , quantities that are
agreed upon by all observers independent of their frame of reference,
becomes slightly more complicated . The wave solution to GR is called
a graviton and sadly for all "above c entusiast" , Nature fine tuned
the speed of the graviton to c ( NO PROVE EXIST YET !! )
The use of GR is to establish a relation between accelerated
frames . SR is more than adequate to describe gravitation in ONE
frame . Its just that Dan and I would not agree upon the valid laws .

As a test of GR I would like to add is the difference in clock rates
between identical clocks in Denver, CO (5000 feet above sea level)
and Greenwhich , England (80 feet above sea level) . Just as GR
predicts .( My altitudes might be off , I have long forgot where
I read this.)


** LIMITS OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY :
SR applies to all problems were gravity is to weak
  to warp SpaceTime or cause disturbances like Mercury's presession .
  All rests on the equality of refence frames in "flat" 4 dimensional
  space . A strong gravitational field slows down time
  ( atomic clocks tick slower ) and this must be put in in addition in
  SR or use GR .
You don't have to resort to GR to explain acceleration in flat space .
GR only is needed when our 4 dimensional space becomes curved and we
   want to compare observations .
The geometry of ants living on an orange has the GR features .
  Locally flat but still curved . Better be careful if you add the
  angles of a large triangle on an orange's surface , 180' is the flat
  space result .


** TEST OF SR: ( In addition to previous Space List Communications ):
SR sais that physical quantities must be expressed as 4-vectors in order
   to qualify as a description of nature and observed phenomena .
SR ( equation 2 ) is essential to Quantum Electro Dynamics and the
   electrons g factor is measured to about 10 digits of the theory .
Take a bunch of electrons travelling down a accelerator . Due to
   electrostatic repulsion the beam separates . Strangely enough
   the effect is smaller the faster they travel. The reason is that
   their time slows down .
Blueshift of photons as they fall in a GR field .
   This experiment was done in a 70 feet tower at Harvard U .
The observed lifetime of particles travelling at high speeds becomes
   longer because their 'internal' clock slows down as seen by us .
   Some cosmic protons have gamma's close to 10 . They'r lifetime and
   mass is as predicted by SR . Try to stop they , they appear heavy .
At CERN no corrections to SR were needed to explain observations
   at accelerations as high as 10**18 (m/s^2) !!



** THE TWIN PARADOX:
Take a flashlight with you outside a clear night . Direct it towards
the moon and "flash" . When the light hits the moon you are a second
older . When you SEE the light hit the moon you are two seconds older .
This because the light ray has to return for you to see the "hit" .
Previously we stated that for frames at the speed of light time stands
still . So the clock of the photon stands still .

If you have twins send one with the light flash .
What does the travelling twin see ??. On his way to the moon he
sees your watch stand still . The reason is that to him the distance
to the moon is zilch due to contraction . So he turns around imediately
and again has no distance to travel . You on the other hand
see him travel outwards for two seconds !!!! and then as soon
as he hits the moon he is back !!
Thus complete agreement by all observers .
I hope this solves the paradox for all of us  ;-) .


** COMMENTS to SPACE QUESTIONS :
> all experiments done to date have involved particles that were
> accelerated by external fields, generally electromagnetic.  Thus there
> is really no way to tell whether the mass is actually increasing
> or the particle simply acquires more resistance to being accelerated
> _by an external field_.  To check this beyond any doubt, you need
> an object that that can accelerate itself by dumping reaction mass out
> the back.
Not so . After having accelerated the charged particle in an EM field,
nothing prevents you from letting it leave the field an do whatever
measurements you want . Use cosmic rays to do your experiments .

> (2) At the quantum level, a reaction drive is still
> pushing reaction mass out the back by the use of electric fields, i.e.
> electron repulsion, just like any other "macroscopic" force between
> touching objects.
You don't have to resort to Quantum Mech to explain electron repulsion .
And yes you are right, EM forces are responsible for a lot .

> The accelerated particles will not only
> show more inertia, they will also increase the strength of their own
> gravitational fields, thus affecting objects around them.  Would this
> be measurable?
By construction SR and GR are "conservation laws" . Forces differ
between frames of refence . Try to stand on a 33rpm turntable and explain
linear motion to your kid . ( If you smile , think again - the turntable
is a perfectly valid frame .) The observed gravitational force has
to be such that the equations of GR are invariant . Then observer A and
B can compare their equations of physics and conclude Nature is
consistent .


** BREAKDOWN of SR ( A fragment of an unlikely scenario.)
If the basic assumption , that all frames are equally good breaks
  down, SR breaks down . We can imagine f.ex that space will undergo
  a phase transition , freeze somehow and thus change character
  completely . What EM and SR tells us is that there is no medium
  (Ether) out there in which EMwaves (light) travel. Light travels
  through empty space , all alone , unguided. If SR breaks down
  the laws of physics might be frame dependent .
  There will be different physics in all SpaceTime points !!
  Pretty hard to travel under such conditions . Even hard to
  be at rest because the laws *might*  change with time.
  The real implication is that our laws of conservation might be in
  danger upon which we have to find new ones or enter the land of
  confusion .  I remind the audience that one of Einsteins criterias
  for a law of nature was simplicity . GR is a theory containing
  the second derivatives of the curvature ( bending of a nail put on
  the outside of an orange ) . Second derivatives are needed but not
  higher derivatives . Of "other" attempts to "relativize"
  Newtons V(r) = 1/r law , they all fail the simplicity criteria and
  the experimental tests . As Einstein said :" I hope God
  didn't make a fool of himself. " ( or words to that effect ) .

> Newton couldn't measure the properties of anything moving at a
> Substantial fraction of C, and we can't measure the properties of a
> macroscopic object moving at a sizable fraction of C.  You never know.
and
> Also, consider that relativity is a THEORY, there may be a lot of
> things wrong with it, after all it is possible that at some velocity
> the tendency for mass to increase/time to slow, my stop, thus
> allowing velocities of C or even greater without infinate energy. Of
> course it's kind of hard to run experiments (anyone have a space ship
> and a REALLY great drive system?)

Hmm . Let me suggest a few nebulas for space ships and the best propel
ever - Big Bang. I think that there are observations of nebulas out
there , headed away from us at a speed of more than 99% of c .
We can observe these nebulas and conclude that SR is fine .
We can project ourselves on to a planet in one nebula and
look back at earth ,look beyond earth , at a nebula headed in the
opposite direction at a speed v > 99% c . Continue the process .
The relative speed you ask . Speeds add  like TANH .
SR is verified to a very small experimantal error .

Mark R. Kaufmann writes :
> but that we will find some area in which relativity is incomplete.  Any
> new theory will have in encompass relativity just like relativity
> encompasses Newtonian mechanics.  Don't ask me where relativity is
> incomplete.

I think the difficulties are up a magnitude . We now have a theory of
the force carrier that satisfy some very deep principles . Not just a
phenomenological theory based on a bunch of observations .
I do think Nature has a few surprises for us , but I'm not so sure
SR will be proven wrong when applied to interstellar travel and
the physics of space . It has proven itself successful far into the
relativistic elementary particle regime and to interstellar
high speed physics .



** Travel ABOVE the SPEED OF LIGHT:
Above the speed of light , there is no way atoms can hang together .
  Particles communicate with the speed of light so they would no longer
  hang together , seen from ANY frame of reference .
  As physics has (??) united the weak, strong and the electro-
  mechanical force , we really don't have much hope , given that
  gravity really is described by Einstein's GR . Experiments verify
  Einsteins predictions to within experimental error .
Conseptually there is nothing that prevents travel at speed v >> c.
  Take your 33rpm turntable outside a dark clear night , step up on
  it and scan the bondary of the universe in 2 sec !! .



** RELEVANCE FOR SPACE :
For the sake of effect lets say we can get the ship up to *almost* c .
The lifetime of the ship increases seen from earth !!
  Reliability is no problem.
  Aging of the astronauts are no problem .
Communication might be difficult due to the strong shift in frequencies
  (Doppler).
The frequencies received will be shifted strongly down .
  Also inside the spaceship , not much will take place as you are at
  your destination in zero time .
Particles colliding with the ship might easily be fatal .
  The really dangerous particles , the ones comming towards us at speeds
  close to c are heavy to distract. And we have to detect them far away !
  They come towards us at about the same speed as the reflected
  radar(?) signal the ship sends out .
Also they are heavy to distract or push out of our way .
To travel at v=c you'll have to be a package of photons .
  Careful, charged particles might scatter you off your course .
Parking : At v=c your space ship has no lenght so a parking garage
  for your space ship can be arbitrarily short .
Watches and pumps and all moving parts can be left on the drawing table.



** SF (Sience Fiction :-) :
Beyond the speed of c you'd better be careful .
First you'd have to map the universe using this new media of travel.
  If not you are prone to hit other objects at v > c .
  If you don't interact with them there are no problems . But if no
  interaction excists between objects at v > c , how are your
  propulsion system buildt ??
Also , you might happen to fall in love upon return with one of
  your grandparents , thus preventing your own birth .


** TACHYONS :
Space List continues to introduce concepts so how can a time dilated
grad student keep up ?? .
Tachyons are possible objects that do not contradict equation (1) and
(2) above .
Equation (1) and (2) IS NOT equations for describing possible objects .
They relate observations done between observer A and B and thats all they
do . MAXWELL's equations and DIRAC's equation describe physical
entities that we can observe. Before looking for imaginary objects
I would look for negative mass objects. ( Newton's laws doesn't
forbid them !  . If you find a -190lbs one send it to me ;-) )



** A few FINAL COMMENTS :
Strings and Black Holes are mentioned . Strings depend on SR
( equation 1 and 2 ).
The infinities in QM and Quantum Electro Dynamics stem from the
product of "distributions" ( commutators ) .
Black Holes are stationary solutions of the GR equations .
Black Holes also have the amazing feature that time slows down and
finally stops as an object fall towards and reaches the "horizon" of
the black hole .

"How come c is the upper limit ??"
Because it is the upper speed by which information is carried in
ANY frame of reference , accelerated , rotatating , falling .
C emerges from Maxwells equations and c also enters Einsteins
GR wave equation as it is also the speed of the classical gravitywave.
( Classical as no consistent quantum gravity is found yet . )
The rest is just consequences .

I hope this lengthy contribution clears the clouds ,
And I hope I didn't overlook spelling and logical errors .

Jon Kjoll
Physics Dept
Brown University .
pH509003@BROWNVM.BITNET

Claimer : Dan is the ultimate experimental object  .

( To those who say : " Dan at v = c is not possible", please go out
  and measure the mass of a neutrino before grilling me . )

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #225
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Feb 89 07:08:14 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00815>; Sat, 4 Feb 89 05:55:48 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  4 Feb 89 05:55:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sXuh=py00jZdE1Q040>;
          Sat,  4 Feb 89 05:39:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.0Xuguny00UkZQVVU4D>;
          Sat,  4 Feb 89 05:21:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXugq9y00UkZIVUE55@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  4 Feb 89 05:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #226

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 226

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #212
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
			   approaching "C"
			 Re: Fletcher Speech
    Re:  Info on High-Power rocket launch: August '89 in Colorado.
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever build
	       Re: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1988
		     Re: SST landing rights in US
	     Re: Supersonic aircraft and noise pollution
			   Think tank time
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 89 02:15:23 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

In article <wXtB9Ny00VA9Q810hj@andrew.cmu.edu>, jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>>>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue.
>> True. But it wasn't really a problem. Does the Europeans have more
>>capacities to handle high level of noise ? No.
> 
> *Just a less, uh, "developed" legal system.
> 
> So we are undercivilised ? Are we ?
> Do you really believe that if the plane makes a lot of noise to
> the point that it is untolerable, just because we are underdevelop
> we can't have it stoped ?
> 
> Just typical of a certain attitude about foreign countries.
> But just wait a while. If you can see what I mean...

Calm down a bit, Jean-Marc.  Note the quotes around 'developed' in the
other writers' comment.  If you hung around the US (or most any
American) that would have been a tip-off that he was referring to the
somewhat...um...enthusiastic lawyers dealing in product liability
suits.

Which has led to horrendously-expensive small aircraft, or *no*
production of such aircraft, or no import of the very nice european
private aircraft into the US.  (SOCATA, for example, abandoned plans
to sell their single-engined aircraft in the US mostly on the high
cost of product liability.  Too bad, the Tobago and Trinidad look like
nice birds.)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1989 13:43-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #212

> (Quick, how many open questions about the moon can you think of?
> How many of those could be resolved by returning there?)

Is there lunar polar water?

Why is the moon practically free of volatiles?

Are there lunar ore bodies, ie has there been enrichment of surface
materials in lava's and such?

Several key regions of the lunar surface have never been visited and
ground truth is unavailable. Several of these important areas were
intended to be visited by the Apollo flights that were cancelled.

What totally unexpected conditions exist on the moon? What geological
oddities are hidden on that vast tract of land which we have never
seen or theorized about?

The moon still contains the answers to many questions that we don't
know enough to ask. It will also contain evidence that will make us ask
questions which change theories.

It is the hieght of folly to constrain the study of nature to theory.
One must go and look, because if you don't look, you won't see the
things that don't fit.

It is the things which don't fit our pretty little picture of mommy
nature and wreck havoc with theories that have careers built on them
that bring the truly startling advances.

So what don't we know about the moon?

	"We don't know jack shit about the moon."

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 89 02:19:43 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

In article <87596@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
> 
> Calm down a bit, Jean-Marc.  Note the quotes around 'developed' in the
> other writers' comment.  If you hung around the US (or most any
> American) that would have been a tip-off that he was referring to the
> somewhat...um...enthusiastic lawyers dealing in product liability
> suits.

Oops...I should have said "If you were to hang around the US a bit longer..." 

Since Jean-Marc's message was posted from Carnegie-Mellon, and all.

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 30 Jan 89 12:22 EST
From: <HAYHURS%IUBACS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  approaching "C"

Based on Damian's question, and being even "dumber" (or more ignorant on
the subject), I'll propose something even more radical, but a notion that
might be supported by his idea concerning "C"...

If ou follow the course of development, the speed of sound was a barrier
for a very long time; now we have broken the speed of sound.  A lot of
questions about doing that involed the effects of approaching that mark.

The spped of sound was a barrier - you could fly up to it, break it, &
cross over BUT NOT FLY AT IT.  Who says that the speed of light is not
similar?

Okay, you Physicists, you can eat me alive on this one. +:')  (i even put
the crosshairs on my forehead for you.)


                                        - Steve Hayhurst, HAYHURS@IUBACS

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 89 16:34:03 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!memex!peter@uunet.uu.net  (Peter Ilieve)
Subject: Re: Fletcher Speech

I would like to comment on two points in James Fletcher's speech
to the Explorers Club, posted by Steve Willner <willner@cfa250.harvard.edu>.

>        Even the games of children rely on computers commonplace 
>today but that only twenty years ago had not yet been invented 
>for our first tentative Apollo expeditions to the Moon.

Why is he saying this? The only reason I can think of is to imply
that it was the Apollo programme that drove the development of computers.
I don't think that that was true at all.

>          The nature of space systems makes them particularly 
>suited to the study and investigation of our own planetary 
>processes; it is from space that we have gotten our earliest 
>warnings of the possible growing crisis of climate and it is only 
>from space that we will be able to fix upon and understand the 
>real extent and direction of environmental change.

This is even more questionable. The "possible growing crisis of climate"
I assume to be the question of the hole in the ozone layer and possible
overheating due to increases of CO2. The ozone data were first produced
by the British Antarctic Survey station at Halley Bay. A satellite
(I don't know which, NOAA??) had reported similar data but this
had been rejected as due to faulty sensors. To forstall nationalistic
comments, I am not saying this because it was the *British* Antarctic
Survey, but because it was on the ground. Similarly, I believe that
the best data showing long-term CO2 increases come from the mountain-top
observatory in Hawaii (whose name I vaguely know but can't spell :-).

I am not saying this to be anti-space, but these seem poor examples to
use in support of the current space program.

	Peter Ilieve			peter@memex.co.uk
					Memex Information Systems Ltd.
					East Kilbride, Scotland

Standard disclaimer: these are my comments, nothing to do with Memex.

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 31 Jan 89 8:50:57 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject:  Re:  Info on High-Power rocket launch: August '89 in Colorado.

Reading this announcement and description of activities brought to mind 
an interesting idea: We had been extensively discussing, in past months,
the possible use of those Pershing II missiles now being destroyed as
part of the arms-limitation agreements. What better PR for the Army than
to take one or two of those Pershings to this meet and set them off for
the entertainment of the attendees? This would also allow the budding
rocketeers to meet the Soviet observers and some of the actual hands-on
military missile people, so it would be good "glasnost" PR for the USSR
and a recruiting aid for the US. 

I guess the only thing that could give this a negative result is for the
Pershing(s) they take to be duds or to be defective... Since they don't
seem to have had any problems in destroying them up to now, that doesn't
appear likely. 

Hmmm... Maybe I should write this up as a DA suggestion...

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 89 23:38:02 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever build

In article <wXtB9Ny00VA9Q810hj@andrew.cmu.edu>, jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
> *Just a less, uh, "developed" legal system.
> So we are undercivilised ? Are we ?
> Just typical of a certain attitude about foreign countries.

I think you are too busy being a feisty Frenchman to recognize that as a
jest.  Throwing in "uh," and quoting "developed" was intended as a swipe at
the litigious American legal atmosphere, not as a slur on the French.
Please calm down and accept my apology for not having appended a smiley.

> >>Suppose you tell us what US manufacturers did to kill it.
> >The same way automakers killed the passenger railroad industries. (Through
> >lobbying in congress to get laws favoring them even indirectly.)
> 
> *What kind of laws?  More specifics, please.
> 
> Sorry I don't have the reference numbers... but, [general stuff about
> intra-American highway-rail skullduggery]

I expected you to give specifics on what laws were passed by the US Congress
to thwart the Concorde.
 
> Concorde has a range long enough to cover 10000 Km. in one shot.
> *Baloney.  If it did, we would be seeng Concorde nonstop routes from Paris
> *(or London) to Hong Kong, Capetown, Mexico City, Rio de Janiero, and
> *Tokyo.
> 
> Thnaks to treat me as a liar.

If the shoe fits...

> Besides Honk-Kong is much farther than 10000Kmfrom Paris.

9640 km, according to The World Almanac.

> Just Paris-JFK is 6500km apart and I know that for instance Pres.
> F Mitterant visited Venezuela 2 years ago and flew straight from Paris.

Neither of these proves your assertion of 10000 km range.  As a matter of
fact, Paris-JFK flights don't prove that the range exceeds the Paris-JFK
distance, which is where the argument started.  If Concorde carried
"Pres. F Mitterant" (I presume you mean Mitterand) nonstop from Paris to
Venezuela, it didn't have a full load of passengers.
 
> If a Paris Brasilia or else wasn't done it might be because there weren't
> enough pleople ready to pay the high price of a ticket.

Actually, there was talk of service from Paris to Rio de Janiero --
with a refuelling stop in Dakar.
-- 

			David R. Smith, HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
			(415) 857-7898

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 16:05:31 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1988

In article <672@ablnc.ATT.COM> rcpilz@ablnc.ATT.COM (Robert C. Pilz) writes:
[...]
>What he meant by that is that the big 3 (McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
>General Dynamics Corp., and (Orlando's) Martin Marietta have increased
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the number of commercial payload contracts from 2 in 1987 to the

Actually, Martin-Marietta Orlando is involved with electronics/control
systems (I think). The (Titan) launchers are made in Denver.  (Martin also
makes the Shuttle ETs, at Michoud).
-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 20:31:25 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: SST landing rights in US

In article <1205@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:

 [..of course there's stuff deleted..]

>2) SSTs release water vapor at very high altitudes. It was believed
>that this water vapor would form permanent, or nearly permanent,
>clouds at altitudes where clouds are not normally found. These clouds
>would reduce the amount of sun light reaching the ground and cause a
>global cooling. It was believed that contrails were already having
>this effect.

  That's it!  The answer the The Dreaded Greenhouse Effect!  We'll just
build SSTs and carefully balance the global heating caused by CO2 build
up and other nasties, by global cooling caused by high altitude SST
contrails.

   Who says there aren't always technological solutions?

   (Of course, lotsa smileys :-) :-) :-)
-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 20:08:24 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Supersonic aircraft and noise pollution

In article <2556@daisy.UUCP> wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) writes:
>In article <8901240814.AA07708@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>, roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>> 
>> Surely an SR-71 at surveillance altitude doesn't sound too loud from
>> the ground - that would spoil the surprise (:-)
>
> Since it can and probably does fly at several times the speed
> of sound when spying, it probably doesn't matter how loud it is.
> It's been gone long time when it's heard on the ground.

For those that want a quantitative analysis, figure the Blackbird is
going Mach 3 at >70,000'  (although it's generally beleived that the
SR-71 will do Mach 4 and >80,000 feet, these figures aren't officially
confirmed).   By the time it takes the sound the more than a minute
to reach the ground from 70K feet, the plane is 3*70 K feet (horizontal
distance) from where it was when the sound started -- about 40 miles.

Like the man said, it's been gone a long time when it's heard on the ground.
In any case, the boom is going to be somewhat attenuated after travelling
that far.
-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 14:13:48 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror)
Subject: Think tank time

This is another interesting thought experiment.

The SR-71 is capable of flying to very high altitudes and extremely high
speeds.  Now imagine putting a small (I don't know how being the 'Bird is)
SRM in the tail.  Fly up to say xx km @ xxxx kph, pick the nose up and light
the motor!

Now the problems to resolved would include the fact that the SR-71 is a
flying fire trap, it probably wouldn't be able to handle the acceleration
strain, getting back might require VERY expensive mods to the plane, and
why would you send two guys up in a craft that doesn't really do anything
(although they could dock with some surplus Atlas-Agena boosters :-) ).

It's a neat idea, and could be some sort of proving ground for a next
generation crewed space craft, or even a commercial vehicle.

Thanks for the time.

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #226
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Feb 89 10:38:42 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01647>; Mon, 6 Feb 89 09:40:30 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  6 Feb 89 09:40:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UXvOTRy00UkTA12k4T>;
          Mon,  6 Feb 89 09:12:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.EXvOEmy00UkZMXq05O>;
          Mon,  6 Feb 89 08:57:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wXvO8Hy00UkZAXok5M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  6 Feb 89 08:48:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #227

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 227

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Need 3-D  Cordinates of stars.
			 Pigs will be pigs...
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #219
		    Launches between 2/2 and 2/12
		 Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II
		Re: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing
		       Re: Summer Jobs at NASA
			  E-Prime prospectus
		      ISECCo Project update #5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 20:22:21 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Need 3-D  Cordinates of stars.

In article <Added.kXrYD_y00Ui38REU8e@andrew.cmu.edu> <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>   My friend is working on a simulator in his spair time.   What little
>there is of it.     He would like to know if their is a place or person
>he can get the 3-d cord. of stars relative to some point in the galaxy.
>    If so please write me at FNRJH@ALASKA
>
>   Thanks.     Robert J. Hale  III       Director ISECCo


Actually, yes.  Many astronomy books have such data - although often limited
to the few hundred nearest and/or brightest.  Check out star catalogs for
data on more stars.

The data is all relative to a very nearby point in the galaxy: here.
And there's a catch - the 3-D coordinates are usually based on a spherical
coordinate system: right ascension, declination, and radial distance.
However, it's a fairly simple matter to convert those to Cartiesian XYZ
coordinates, which I assume you're looking for.

Now, if there's a source of *machine-readable* star catalog data,  I'm sure
a number of people might be interested. (Like me, for example)
-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1989 13:57-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Pigs will be pigs...

Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2

	MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING,
	Washington, DC: Faces opposition from
	DoD. A satellite which could provide im-
	mediate photos of military activities to the
	media "poses a greater threat to national
	security" than current foreign-owned tech-
	nology, the AAAS was told recently.


Editorial comment:

The above is to be expected. The military does not foster a mentality
that is compatible with a truely free society. The more power that
mentality is given over society, the farther said society will be driven
from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy.

It is high time the Europeans got together and put up such a satellite.
I would love to see a US firm do it and make a business out of it.  But
the DoD does not care about America being the forerunner in opening new
technology markets, so I would rather see this important contribution
to world peace and stability done by statists than to see it not done
at all.

Someone has to put a check to the power hungry SOB's in ALL of the
military establishment's of the world. The US is not unique in this
respect, because the mentality comes with the territority.

So what if some US soldiers get wasted because they are on TV? The same
will happen to the guys on the other side of whatever worthless
imaginary line they are battling over. Maybe it will make ALL of them
think twice about whether what they are doing is worth dying for. If
they stayed home and concentrated on defending US territorial waters
and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY
is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD.

I know there are lots of Europeans out there on Space Digest, and some
of you may be involved in your nation's space efforts, or even better,
involved in a real company. Use whatever influence you have to get a
high resolution (maybe 1M) satellite with real time imaging capability
and with a high slant range. 

Screw the warrior class. It's about time we outgrew their paleolithic
mindset. While we still have time.

					Free Minds, Free Markets
					and an intact planet to be a
					capitalist on,
						Dale Amon


PS: And while you are at it, why not push for kicking ALL of our troops
off of European soil and waters and airspace? The $50,000,000,000 or
so saved per year would wipe out the US national debt, stabilize the
dollar and make Europe less of a trip wire to WWIII.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1989 12:08-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #219

> But how would it feel to have *some* of your atoms quantum tunnel?  You'd want
> the whole thing to happen at once, n'est-ce pas? :-)

On the serious side, I really did not intend to imply that this leads to
a practical means of FTL. I expect the "tunneling", if it should occur,
will be a less than pleasant experience...

And I am unaware of any current physics that would suggest such
tunneling actually could occur. It's just blatant for-the-hell-of-it
supposition on my part. :-)

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 89 05:29:48 GMT
From: xanth!nic.MR.NET!shamash!com50!aob!jim@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jim Anderson)
Subject: Launches between 2/2 and 2/12

I will be in Florida between 2/2 and 2/12.  I was wondering if NASA is
planning any launches during that time.  Does NASA launch very often,
or is this somewhat uncommon?  Is it likely that a launch will occur
during this time? 
	Thanks,
		Jim
-- 
Jim Anderson			(612) 636-2869
Anderson O'Brien, Inc		New mail:jim@aob.mn.org
2575 N. Fairview Ave.		Old mail:{rutgers,gatech,amdahl}!bungia!aob!jim
St. Paul, MN  55113		"Fireball... Let me see... How did that go?"

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 18:32:07 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!lclark!reeck@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (David Reeck)
Subject: Re: Transmitter failure on Phobos II

In article <105@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@humpback.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <9265@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> kevin@cit-vax.UUCP (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
>>
>>I can't help but wonder if Phobos I and Phobos II
>>are in fact doing fine and the Soviets are only claiming failures so that they
>>don't have to share the information from them with anyone. 
>
>The Phake Phobos Phlub-Up theory must explain either a sophisticated con
>job in planning use of the DSN in the first place, or a change of heart
>before either probe got anywhere near Phobos.  It must also explain how
>DSN technicians could be fooled by fake probe specs.
>
>Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

	You guys are ignoring what most of the non-techs of middle class
america knows! According to the weekly world news, thoes probes encountered:

	1) a 9 mile high statue of Elvis on mars
	2) Elvis music coming from mars
	3) Heaven, and God said 'You can go to Mars, but stay away from 
heaven, 'cause it's mine' (apparently Heaven is located somewhere close 
to mars)
 	
	In conjunction with the fact that the Soviet Venus probes just found
a face that is >>IDENTICAL<< to the one on mars, I'd say that the Soviets are
just being wise. Who wants to mess with an interplanetary race that has the
ability to create 9 mile high statues, or for that matter, God. 

	The Soviets are obviously bowing out gracefully, with out having to
provide the full blown explanation of why they are doing it. The probe 
failure is the best way to go. 

Dave Reeck	!tektronix!reed!lclark!reeck	.sig-less stardust
disclaimer: This is intended as a joke only, please take no offence, the WWN is
an 'entertainment journal' and not required to print the truth as far as I know

-- 
David Reeck                                   !tektronix!reed!lclark!reeck //

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 89 08:28:17 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing

>(AI is very processer intensive) and weight/power are pretty critical in these
>situations.  Still  I doubt that the soviets will make a major industry out of
>micrograv. crystals, but if they make a few super applications with them it

For super-performance, we can use parallel processing.  Granted, some problems
cannot be parallelized (such as compiling a program).

Bear in mind that the super-computer built from microgravity silicon and
meteoric iron will be surpassed in performance by conventional technology
in 2 to 5 years.  (Of course, the new technology 2 to 5 years from now
could also benefit from super-perfect crystals;  perhaps this suggests
stockpiling these crystals, and only turning them into IC's in the last
months before war.)

An inaccuracy in my previous statement on this topic is the idea you would
use low-defect silicon to make tight-geometry chips.  Actually, you would make 
larger chips.  A more advanced silicon technology would be used to tighten
geometries.  Larger chips might be linear extensions of conventional
technology chips.  For example, you could take the standard CPU+cache chip
and make it with a cache 10X larger.

I once toyed with the idea of a burst computer.  This would be a machine
which would provide 100X or 1000X performance for, say, 10 or 100 milliseconds.
I figured it would mostly be useful for compiling programs and refreshing
raster-graphics displays.  A friend of mine suggested using it for solving
complex pattern recognition problems during a missile attack.  Because a
missile attack could take several minutes, I imagined a long row of burst
computers being gobbled up one-at-a-time.

(BTW, I was just kidding about using meteoric iron.  But you should consider
microgravity silicon a similarly scarce resource.)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 00:06:08 GMT
From: cbmvax!vu-vlsi!swatsun!leif@rutgers.edu  (Leif Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: Summer Jobs at NASA

I have come into possession of an Announcemnet of Opportunity (NASA)
which asks for proposals for payloads to be mounted on the truss of
the Space Station.
  In Appendix A of the AO there is a brief description of the SS.
The payloads will be mounted on the 15m truss between the two alpha joints.
This truss will also support the U.S. lab and habitation modules and
the Japanese and European lab modules.

  The question I have is this:  What's an alpha joint and how does it work?
It was mentioned that the space station would have a constant attitude toward
the direction of flight, and I think it was mentioned that the solar panels
would re-orient to always face the sun.  Does this mean the alpha joints are
where the solar panels turn to face the sun (see diag.)?  
How is this accomplished? (i.e. turning the panels and not the station)


   ##                     ##
   ##                     ##
   ##                     ##
   ##    p    m m    p    ##
  =====+===============+=====
   ##    p    m m    p    ##
   ##                     ##
   ##                     ##
   ##                     ##

The p'a are payloads, the m's are modules (approximately located),
the #'s are the solar panels, and the two +'s are the alpha joints.
-- 
Leif Kirschenbaum '91
Swarthmore College
UUCP:  rutgers!bpa!swatsun!leif
CSnet: leif@swatsun.swarthmore.edu

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 89 03:09:38 GMT
From: thorin!zeta.cs.unc.edu!leech@mcnc.org
Subject: E-Prime prospectus


    Did anyone else recently receive a solicitation for E-Prime
Aerospace from security dealers First Eagle, Inc.? Comments on same?

--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``One never knows... Deacon now wants to conduct population
      explosion tests *underground*.'' - Molester Mole

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Wed, 01 Feb 89 14:37:56 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Robert Jessie Hale III           <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  ISECCo Project update #5.




January 28, 1989
ISECCo PROJECT UPDATE #5:  Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Members

7:20  Meeting  called  to  order.   Ray  R.  Collins,  President,
      presiding.

Members present (despite temperatures below -50 F):
     Ray R. Collins
     Robert Hale III
     Kelly Wilkinson
     Marilynn Rowley
     Gene Rowley
Proxy's received:
     Joe Beckenback
     Jenine Abarbanel
     Rich Kline
     Debi Wilkinson
     Larry Klaes

Previous minutes reviewed.
Old business:
     Discussion re: Adding members via space digest.
     Discussion re: Repeat of Logo; possibly Leonardo's design

Treasurer's report read and accepted:
     Total Donations: $1156.37
     14 Newsletters:     70.00
     2 Prj Desc reports:  4.00
     Total:          $1,230.37

     Expenses:
          Office/Administration:      $404.19
          Newsletter:                    0.00
          Biosphere:                   517.25
          Postage & Handling:           52.69
          Aerospace Plane Research:      0.00
          Public Relations:             71.75
     Total Expenses:                $1,045.88

     Labor donation estimated at 600 man-hours.

     Aproximate gross gain (including labor) for 1989: $6,000.

New business:
     Opened floor for nominations for General Director.
          Robert Hale sole Nominee.
          Vote for Robert Hale: 10 for, 0 opposed.
     Bylaws reviewed.
          Motion  moved,  seconded  and  passed  that  Bylaws  be
               accepted as written.
          Motion moved, seconded and passed that the expire dates
               on  all the Bylaw Articles shall be 10 years  from
               date of last modification.
     Review of past year's Accomplishments.
          ISECCo obtained State of Alaska non-profit certificate.
          IRS has not yet responded on tax-exemption.
               Letter to IRS dated 1/7/89 read & discussed.
               Decision made to call again around mid-Febuary.
          Hydroponics   construction:  preliminary   work    well
            advanced.
          Necessary forms designed and printed.
          Information sheets/pamphlets written.
          Formal  organization  of ISECCo completed (baring  tax-
            exempt status).
          Computer  program to keep track of members  about  half
            written.
          Preliminary Aero-space plane discussions begun.
          Preliminary advertising campaign begun.
          Establishment of inportant communications channels  via
            computer networks.
          Preliminary regional co-ordinator's duty described.
          Membership increased from about 8 to 43.
     Support of employees discussed
          IRS dis-allows housing
               Need copy of code: task force assigned to Gene  to
                    check Geophysical policy in room & board.
          Decision  made  to investigate  tax-exempt  employment
               Task   force   assigned  to  Ray  to   carry   out
                 investigation.
          Methods of volunteer worker support discussed:
               sub-contracting of employees
               hire at minimum wage
               co-operative set-up
     Hydroponics past & future discusion.
     Aero-space plane past & future discussion.
     Summer projects & personell discussion:
          Personel scheduled to arrive:
               Debi Wilkinson from Florida; 2 weeks labor in May
               Rich Kline from Florida; 2 weeks labor in May
               Jenine Abarbanel from California; summer
               Gina Walton {possibly}
          People availabe for part-time work (all summer):
               Ray Collins
               Kelly Wilkinson
               Pat Wilkinson
               Gene Rowley (through late June)
               Marilyn Rowley (through late June)
               Robert Hale
          People who might be available occasionally:
               Robert Hubby
               Dwight Hales
               Richard Guse
               Terry Fike
               JJ Bielshi
               Robert Miller
          Probable man-hours available (5/1 to 9/30):  2,000+
          Volunteer worker housing available for 6 people
               Living accomidations:
                    Rowley's trailer: 2
                    Pat Wilkinson mobile home: 2
                    Ray Collins cabin: 2
               Support:
                    Ray: moose meat
                    Kelly: possibly some buffalo
                    General: fishing, garden
          Funding currently pledged for summer '89: $1,350
          Primary goals:
               -build hydroponics to 25% of total needed
               -begin biosphere construction
               -continue membership expansion
               -persue IRS re: tax status
               -investigate/apply for grants
     Sailboat trip/prize discussed.
     Lack of secretary discussed--8 hours/week required.
     Computer networks expansion discussed.
     Long Range goals discussed.

Motion to adjourn moved, seconded and passed at 10:30 pm.

     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Post-meeting discussion on land donation:
     Marilyn  &  Gene Rowley have a piece of land  of  about  6.9
acres which they are willing to donate the lease of to ISECCo  to
be  used for the construction of the biosphere.  The lease  would
be for a 15 year period.
     Problems we discussed (and which need addressing):
          1.  How to retain use of the land in the event that the
Rowley's lose title.
          2.  How to arrange the termination of the lease  (note:
the biosphere is a structure which it will be quite impossible to
move to another location):
             a.  If ISECCo done with the biosphere do we give  it
to the Rowley's?
             b. Purchase the land & buildings from the Rowley's?
             c. Rowley's purchase the biospehere from ISECCo?
          3.  Location on the land for the biosphere such that it
will not interfer with the use of the land by the Rowley's.
          4.  Assuring a steady flow of money to the morgager  of
the  land  in the event of any kind of catastrophic loss  by  the
Rowley's.
          5.   Means  of  spreading  Rowley's   payment   burden:
reduction   in  interest  rates;  ISECCo  making  a  small   cash
contribution some time in the future; other means.

     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

     Any  of  you who haven't yet joined and are interested   do  get  in
touch  with us.  Our minimum membership is only $5 for an entire  decade.
Anyone who wants  to  join can just send Robert,  FNRJH@ALASKA, a note on
here  and  we'll  send you a letter with  the   information  we'll  need.
Alternatively you can write ISECCo, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks, AK 99706.

                                              --Ray :: President, ISECCo



[end]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #227
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Feb 89 10:37:42 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00705>; Tue, 7 Feb 89 05:50:28 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  7 Feb 89 05:50:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.MXvgPWy00Vs1I1904y>;
          Tue,  7 Feb 89 05:37:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.cXvg=ay00UkZ4aNk5I>;
          Tue,  7 Feb 89 05:20:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0Xvg8-y00UkZEaMU4=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  7 Feb 89 05:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #228

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 228

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Model Rocketry
		     Re: SST landing rights in US
		     Re: SST landing rights in US
		  Condensed CANOPUS - December 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 89 21:05:34 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Model Rocketry

Since you can't legally build your own amateur engines, I'm wondering
about the other parts of the bird.  Is it okay to build your own housing
for a engine?  Can you do experiments with manuvering and guidance?

Let's say I build a rocket with an infrared quadrant detector linked
to movable surfaces.  If I use Estes engines and go somewhere legal for
conventional rockets, would I be breaking any laws if I launched a rocket,
and then shot it down with a second rocket (assume no explosive in warhead,
just kinetic energy)?

If I added rockets to a conventional R/C model airplane, for example to
assist takeoff, would that be considered a model rocket or what?

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 89 00:32:24 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: SST landing rights in US

In article <1205@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>From article <601326396.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU:
>> Seriously though, it was a bunch of noisy neo-luddites who got them
>> banned from all but NY and DC, ...

>I don't usually disagree with you Dale, but you really blew it on this
>one. There were three very good environmental reasons not to build SSTs.
 ...
>1) The effects of sonic booms on the oceans. It was believed that
>sonic booms killed plankton.

This is the first I've ever heard this one.  It makes no sense at
all to me; why wouldn't thunder have the same effect?  Why would
plankton have such sensitive ears?

>2) SSTs release water vapor at very high altitudes.

I think I remember this, and the ozone question, being mentioned
at the time as arguments against the SST.

>3) Passenger safety. SSTs fly high enough that passengers are exposed
>to cosmic radiation and to radiation from solar storms. 
 ...
>The U.S. SST designs couldn't come down fast enough to save the
>passengers lives in the event of a loss of pressure accident or an
>intense solar storm.

This is not significantly more true for an SST than for an ordinary
passenger liner.  It's still below the Van Allen belts, which
are the main protection from solar flare radiation.  Cosmonauts in
LEO don't worry about solar flares, either, though the Apollo
astronauts sure did!
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                       When the fog came in on little cat feet
Video 7                             last night, it left these little muddy
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp              paw prints on the hood of my car.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 89 18:04:35 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: SST landing rights in US

>2) SSTs release water vapor at very high altitudes. It was believed
>that this water vapor would form permanent, or nearly permanent,
>clouds at altitudes where clouds are not normally found. These clouds
>would reduce the amount of sun light reaching the ground and cause a
>global cooling. It was believed that contrails were already having
>this effect.
>

Heyyy....  The greenhouse effect reversed!  There might be something to this.
Lets build lots of high-flying SST's and we in the Northeast can get our
ski trails back in shape!  And then we can all go back to burning all the
fossil fuels we can get.

-- 
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed herein are mine alone.  I wear an 
	asbestos suit to work, so flame away.  Pitt doesn't care *what*
	I do, so long as I appear to be working behind this terminal.
Jim Benz, University of Pittsburgh, UCIR

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 18:04:48 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - December 1988


Here is the condensed CANOPUS for December 1988.  There were 31 (!)
articles this month, of which 17 are presented in condensed form (or
in full if short enough), and 13 are given at the end by title only
or as "one-liners."  The article on the shuttle plume was posted
separately.  The unabridged version has been sent to the mailing
list.  CANOPUS is copyright American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics; see full copyright notice at end.

{table of contents: 17 articles}
BALLOON CAMPAIGNS CONTINUE - can881202.txt - 12/1/88
THIRD ARIANE LAUNCH PAD - can881203.txt - 12/1/88
ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR PROPOSALS - can881208.txt - 12/1/88
CONTROLS-STRUCTURES INTERACTION - can881210.txt - 12/1/88 {in full}
ORBITER 105 PROGRESS - can881211.txt - 12/1/88 {in full}
ESA SELECTS CASSINI MISSION TO SATURN - can881212.txt - 12/5/88
TDRSS WORKING - can881216.txt - 12/5/88 {in full}
HST ADVANCED A MONTH - can881218.txt - 12/5/88 {in full}
SPACELAB POSTERS - can881219.txt - 12/5/88  {in full}
PAYLOAD MISIDENTIFIED - can881220.txt - 12/5/88  {in full}
SHUTTLE TRIVIA - can881221.txt - 12/5/88  {in full}
SCIENCE FOR CHILDREN - can881222.txt - 12/6/88 {condensed}
MAGELLAN ON TRACK FOR 1989 LAUNCH - can881224.txt - 12/7/88
STS-29 ALSO ON SCHEDULE - can881225.txt - 12/7/88 {in full}
GENERAL ELECTRIC SELECTED TO BUILD GGS SPACECRAFT - can881227.txt -
  12/8/88
KUIPER AIRBORNE OBSERVATORY CONTINUES SUPERNOVA STUDIES -
  can881230.txt - 12/12/88
ARCTIC OZONE INVESTIGATION ANNOUNCED - can881231.txt - 12/12/88

{17 articles; condensed unless otherwise indicated}
BALLOON CAMPAIGNS CONTINUE - can881202.txt - 12/1/88

Three balloons were to be launched by NASA in Australia during
November. One carried an instrument to support the Cosmic Background
Radiation Explorer (CoBE) and two carry gamma-ray instruments in the
fifth balloon campaign to measure emissions from supernova 1987a.

THIRD ARIANE LAUNCH PAD - can881203.txt - 12/1/88

The European Space Agency and France's National Center for Space
Studies (CNES) started construction of a third Ariane launch pad in
Guiana on Nov. 14. It will support the Ariane 5 vehicle, now in
development, starting in 1995.

ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR PROPOSALS - can881208.txt - 12/1/88

Marshall is evaluating proposals from Hercules-Atlantic and
Lockheed-Aerojet for the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM).

Meanwhile ....

NASA is considering what to do with six flight sets of pre-
Challenger boosters that it still has on hand. There is nothing
physically wrong with them, other than having the two-O-ring design
that allowed the Challenger accident to occur. NASA is trying to
decide whether to use them or to burn off the propellant so the
casings can be rebuilt to the triple-ring design. The can be flown so
long as they are used in warm weather (as shown by the 24 flights
that preceded Challenger); strip heaters can be added as a
precaution. If that is done, however, it places NASA in the position
of justifying the long standdown after the accident.

CONTROLS-STRUCTURES INTERACTION - can881210.txt - 12/1/88 {in full}

NASA has initiated a multi-center controls-structures interaction
(CSI) program to develop a better understanding of the tradeoffs
between weight, size, and structural flexibility, and the payoffs
from active control systems, for aerospace vehicles. Large space
structures for space-based VLBI and other astrophysics projects are
expected to benefit from this effort.

ORBITER 105 PROGRESS - can881211.txt - 12/1/88 {in full}

Orbiter 105, the replacement for Challenger, is on schedule for an
April 1991 delivery, according to Rockwell International. Tile arrays
have been bonded to the belly, the wings have been mated, the lower
forward fuselage has been mated, and fluids lines and electrical
wiring are being installed. The payload bay doors are to arrive in
November 1989, the crew module is to be transferred to the Palmdale
plant in February 1990, and the aft fuselage in April 1990.

Rockwell also says that addition of a drogue parachute to slow the
orbiter after touchdown is being studied.

ESA SELECTS CASSINI MISSION TO SATURN - can881212.txt - 12/5/88

The European Space Agency (ESA) has selected the Cassini/Huygens
probe mission to Saturn and Titan as its next major scientific
project.  Cassini and the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby are
candidate "new starts" for NASA's fiscal 1990 {Original said 1989,
but that's an obvious misprint.--SW} budget plan now in the approval
cycle at the Office of Management and Budget. The two are being
proposed together so that the Mariner Mk. 2 spacecraft can be built
in series and at lower cost than if NASA built them separately.

The mission will parallel the Galileo mission to Jupiter in that one
spacecraft will orbit the planet and another will make an atmospheric
entry. In the case of Cassini, the Huygens probe will enter the
atmosphere of Titan, Saturn's methane-shrouded moon.  Dutch
astronomer Christian Huygens discovered Titan and identified the
rings of Saturn.

TDRSS WORKING - can881216.txt - 12/5/88 {in full}

The second Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS-C) is working
flawlessly, according to NASA, since it was launched by the STS-26
crew on Sept. 29. It is now at 150 deg. W over the equator for
antenna testing with the White Sands (N.M.) Ground Station. All
spacecraft systems were activated between Oct. 7 and 18.

HST ADVANCED A MONTH - can881218.txt - 12/5/88 {in full}

The launch of the Hubble Space Telescope has been moved up a month
from January 1990 to December 11, 1989, in a swap with a Department
of Defense payload that was experiencing delays.

SPACELAB POSTERS - can881219.txt - 12/5/88  {in full}

Marshall Space Flight Center's public affairs office is releasing two
posters with montages of pictures from the Spacelab 2 and 3 missions.
The Spacelab 2 posters is the better of the two: the largest of the
pictures shows the solar telescope cluster pointing out of the
payload bay. For copies, call MSFC public affairs at 205-544-0034.

PAYLOAD MISIDENTIFIED - can881220.txt - 12/5/88  {in full}

An earlier edition of CANOPUS improperly identified the Infrared
Background Signature Satellite (IBSS) payload on the STS-39 Shuttle
mission as being a rework of the Infrared Telescope carried on
Spacelab 2. This is incorrect, and we apologize for the
misunderstanding it may have created.  {IBSS is military; IRT was
completely civilian.--SW}

SHUTTLE TRIVIA - can881221.txt - 12/5/88  {in full}

The STS-27 mission, expected to end today after deploying the
Lacrosse radar spy satellite (according to popular news reports) is
the 120th manned orbital mission, the 55th for the U.S. (the USSR has
65). A total of 209 different humans have flown in orbit in a total
of 343 "tickets to orbit." During the mission a total of 11 persons
were in orbit -- five aboard the Shuttle and six aboard Mir, the
third time this record number has been reached.  Our thanks to "self
appointed Astro-Triviologist and Spaceflight Registrar" James Oberg
of Houston for these and far more facts than we can print.

SCIENCE FOR CHILDREN - can881222.txt - 12/6/88 

The National Science Resources Center has produced a "Science for
Children" book "designed to assist those who are working to improve
elementary science education."  The center is sponsored by the
Smithsonian Institution and the National Academy of Sciences, and
compiled its listing with assistance from the Departments of
Education and Defense.  Copies of the book are available from:

   National Academy Press
   2101 Constitution Ave. NW
   Washington, DC 20418.

Copies are $7.95 each; $6.50 for 2 to 9; and $4.95 in quantities if
10 or more.

MAGELLAN ON TRACK FOR 1989 LAUNCH - can881224.txt - 12/7/88

The Magellan Venus radar mapping spacecraft is on schedule for a
launch aboard the Space Shuttle on April 28, 1989, and has not
suffered from a small fire involving a battery a few weeks ago.

Magellan is built from hardware remaining after the Voyager and
Viking projects and borrowed from Galileo. The 3.7-meter high-gain
antenna, for example, is from the Voyager backup spacecraft. A number
of components were to be taken from Galileo spares, which created an
interesting payback problem when Galileo fell behind Magellan in the
launch queue.

The primary goals of Magellan are to provide high-resolution imagery
and altimetry data of 70 percent of the surface of Venus and
resolutions of 120 and 30 meters, respectively. Its secondary mission
includes mapping the remaining 30 percent of the surface and
providing gravimetric data on the planet interior.

STS-29 ALSO ON SCHEDULE - can881225.txt - 12/7/88 {in full}

Launch of the fourth Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRSS-D) is
not expected to be delayed by a handling accident that cracked the
carbon nozzle of the first-stage motor on the Inertial Upper Stage,
according to NASA.

Kennedy Payloads Director John Conway said a replacement motor has
been pulled from another mission, and the complete stage will be
delivered to NASA on Dec.  27 instead of Dec. 10. Crews are ready to
work around the clock, he said, to integrate the IUS and TDRSS and
deliver it to the launch pad on time, Jan. 13.

Launch of STS-29 is set for Feb. 18. However, it could be delayed
until March 14 without affecting the Magellan launch. All Shuttle
launches are at Launch Complex 39-B while repairs and upgrades are
made to pad 39-A. The TDRSS is not required for Magellan, but is
essential to complete the minimal TDRSS network

GENERAL ELECTRIC SELECTED TO BUILD GGS SPACECRAFT - can881227.txt -
12/8/88

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has selected General Electric's
Astro-Space Division for negotiations leading to the award of a
cost-plus-award-fee contract for design, fabrication, instrument
integration and launch operation support of the Global Geospace
Science (GGS) Wind and Polar Missions.

The two GGS laboratories, with their complement of scientific
instruments, will examine the flow of energy from the sun through the
Earth's geospace environment.  This will be part of the overall
scientific investigations within the International Solar-Terrestrial
Physics (ISTP) Program.

KUIPER AIRBORNE OBSERVATORY CONTINUES SUPERNOVA STUDIES -
can881230.txt - 12/12/88

NASA's C-141 Kuiper Airborne Observatory (KAO) has completed its
fourth deployment to observe Supernova 1987A.  The November 1988
mission found nickel, argon and iron exploding outward at 868 miles
per second, the same high speeds first observed on the KAO's third
supernova expedition in April.  Scientists also observed expected
decreases in ionization and brightness levels of the explosion.

Previous Kuiper observations of the expanding ejected cloud have
greatly contributed to understanding how the explosion proceeds.  The
first detections of nickel, argon, iron and radioactive cobalt
produced in the SN 1987A core were made by the Kuiper crew's second
mission in November, 1987.  Abundances and velocities of nickel,
argon and iron formed in the core were first measured on the third
mission in April 1988.

ARCTIC OZONE INVESTIGATION ANNOUNCED - can881231.txt - 12/12/88

NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
today announced a cooperative investigation to better understand the
nature of potential depletion of stratospheric ozone over the Arctic.

During January and February, scores of scientists from NASA, NOAA and
nearly a dozen other research organizations will carry out an
airborne study similar to that done last year on Antarctic ozone
depletion.  That study directly implicated man-made
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as a cause of the "ozone hole" over
Antarctica in the austral spring, and raised the question whether a
similar phenomenon could be occurring in the Arctic, perhaps on a
reduced scale.

{13 articles by title only or "one-liners"}
HINNERS PROMOTED - can881201.txt - 12/1/88
  Noel Hinners has been named associate deputy administrator of NASA,
  now is the Number 3 manager at NASA.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE UNIVERSITY - can881204.txt - 12/1/88
  The second annual International Space University session will be held
  June 30-Aug. 31, 1989, at the Universite Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg,
  France.
I.U.E. WINS AWARD - can881205.txt - 12/1/88
SUPERCOMPUTER AT AMES - can881206.txt - 12/1/88
  A Cray Y-MP
MARSHALL LABS "MOVE" - can881207.txt - 12/1/88
  {internal reorganization}
SHUTTLE-C - can881209.txt - 12/1/88
NRL CAMERAS READIED FOR SHUTTLE - can881213.txt - 12/5/88
  {UV cameras, 105-160 and 120-200 nm wavelengths}
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY - can881284.txt - 12/5/88
  Pioneer 12 completes 10 years of productive observations in orbit
  around Venus today. 
NASA's HLASS PROMOTED - can881215.txt - 12/5/88
GALILEO, ASTRO CREWS NAMED - can881217.txt - 12/5/88
CANOPUS IN PRINT - can881223.txt - 12/7/88
NASA APPOINTMENTS - can881226.txt - 12/8/88
LTV TO MANUFACTURE SCOUT COMMERCIALLY - can881229.txt - 12/9/88

----------------END OF CONDENSED CANOPUS-----------------------------

This posting represents my own condensation of CANOPUS.  For clarity,
I have not shown ellipses (...), even when the condensation is
drastic.  New or significantly rephrased material is in {braces} and
is signed {--SW} when it represents an expression of my own opinion.
The unabridged CANOPUS is available via e-mail from me at any of the
addresses below.

Copyright information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; 
e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded).  Send
correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #228
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Feb 89 10:43:46 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00804>; Wed, 8 Feb 89 07:48:10 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  8 Feb 89 07:47:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cXw2TTy00UkTQ9z05W>;
          Wed,  8 Feb 89 06:43:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.YXw1FUy00UkZMcbE5E>;
          Wed,  8 Feb 89 05:20:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kXw1BYy00UkZ0ca05H@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  8 Feb 89 05:16:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #229

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 229

Today's Topics:
		Re: Condensed CANOPUS - December 1988
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		       Re: Pigs will be pigs...
    Re: Info on High-Power rocket launch: August '89 in Colorado.
	     Re: Re: Re:Re:Number of Concorde ever built
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever built
			   Re: GEOS-6 dies.
		  Re: Number of Concorde ever built
			  Re: Approaching c
		       Re: Pigs will be pigs...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 19:26:32 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Condensed CANOPUS - December 1988

willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes:

>Here is the condensed CANOPUS for December 1988. 
...
>NASA is considering what to do with six flight sets of pre-
>Challenger boosters that it still has on hand. There is nothing
>physically wrong with them, other than having the two-O-ring design
>that allowed the Challenger accident to occur. NASA is trying to
>decide whether to use them or to burn off the propellant so the
>casings can be rebuilt to the triple-ring design. The can be flown so
>long as they are used in warm weather (as shown by the 24 flights
>that preceded Challenger); strip heaters can be added as a
>precaution. If that is done, however, it places NASA in the position
>of justifying the long standdown after the accident.

NO!  The 24 flights before Challenger do not show that the design is
safe in warm weather.  O-ring damage was found on many flights,
including one where the temperature at launch was 90 F.  As the Rogers
report stated, the O-ring design was flawed in many ways; the lack of
resilience of the rubber at low temperatures being only one problem.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 09:36:03 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <107@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>  It's a question of X dollars divided between manned and
>unmanned programs.  What allocation is best for our future?   Spending all
>or most of the money on one or two large, risky projects, which go nowhere 
>but LEO, is the poorest allocation.   Sending out a few probes, while
>still spending half the money on thread-bare manned projects, is still poor.
>The only reasonable allocation is to spend the money on unmanned projects
>(and research), and forego manned projects until they are affordable,
>and/or discoveries provide the incentive to substantially increase the
>budget X which the government provides.

You imply that manned projects are worthwhile if they are affordable, and that
unmanned projects are worthwhile and cheaper. I stated essentially these 
points in my previous postings. The difference is that I believe that because
manned space R&D is important, there is much to be gained from doing it as 
soon as possible. Therefore, as long as NASA can get the money out of
congress, the R&D should be done. The issue then is the more technical
question of whether NASA's budget is sufficient for worthwhile manned R&D.
I believe NASA's current budget of over $10 billion a year is enough for a
small manned program, leaving $1 or $2 billion for a reasonable productive
unmanned program.

The point I've reiterated for three postings now is that manned space R&D is
important, so if the money can be found it must be persued, even though it
is much more expensive than unmanned. Unmanned space R&D is just as important
and so must be persued too, though with less money because a productive
program requires less.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results
guaranteed to advance science, satisfy every special interest group, generate
2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 89 01:42:28 GMT
From: millard@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Millard Edgerton)
Subject: Re: Pigs will be pigs...

>From vn Wed Feb  1 13:43:06 1989
>Subject: Re: Pigs will be pigs...
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>References: <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>
>From article <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU:
> Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2
>
> deleted-----stuff
>
> If they stayed home and concentrated on defending US territorial waters
> and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY
> is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD.

Obvious you do not remember Czechoslovakia and Poland, 1939.  Russia,
1940, Pearl Harbor, 1941. 

As a former Prime Minister of Israel said: A people with out a sense and
understanding of history are DOOMED to repeat it!

***************************************************************************
*  Intelligent people talk about ideas.   | Standard disclaimer(s)        *
*  Average people talk about things.      | Millard J. Edgerton, WA6VZZ   *
*  Small people talk about other people.  | millard@eos.arc.nasa.gov      *
*                -o-                      |         -o-                   *
*      Employed by Sterling Software at NASA Ames Research Center.        *
***************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 15:52:39 GMT
From: rob!elliston@uunet.uu.net  ( Keith Elliston)
Subject: Re: Info on High-Power rocket launch: August '89 in Colorado.

In article <Added.4XtQhoy00Ui3AIQk8=@andrew.cmu.edu>, wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
> part of the arms-limitation agreements. What better PR for the Army than
> to take one or two of those Pershings to this meet and set them off for
> the entertainment of the attendees? This would also allow the budding
> rocketeers to meet the Soviet observers and some of the actual hands-on
> military missile people, so it would be good "glasnost" PR for the USSR
> and a recruiting aid for the US. 
> 

I may be a little naive, but sending up a pershing missile, even in this
day and age of Glasnost, I would think that the russians would view thi
this as being just a little questionable... I dont think that the powers that be
would be amenable to this sort of experiment.


Keith Elliston

uunet!rob!elliston

------------------------------

Date: Thu,  2 Feb 89 10:37:04 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Re: Re:Re:Number of Concorde ever built
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble) writes:
 
>London to Vancouver? On a Condord?
 
>The extreme range of a Condord is Paris to Washington, DC. This is so close
>to the absolute maximum range that during the summer it arrives without
>normal fuel reserves and requires special handling from ATC. And makes that
>only because it flys without a full passenger load.

I thought that they also flew Paris-Rio de Janeiro, which is a slightly
further distance on my map.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 19:35:20 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever built

In article <625@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>, me85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk (M D Ayton) writes:
> >>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue.
> 
> Right, I've just about had enough of this.
> 
> Concorde was banned from American airports ONLY while it was still being
> built and on the SPURIOUS gruonds of noise.

The grounds may have been spurious, although the Concorde is somewhat noisier
than most other aircraft.  At the time there was a big push, which has since
collapsed, to force some noise reduction around airports.  Concorde may
have been an unfair victim of this.  However.....

It is my distinct impression that the opposition was from community groups
around the airport.  In America local governments have a great deal
of autonomy on such issues.  It is not always easy for the federal
government to force them to change their minds, even if it is inclined to
do so.

As to who inspired the local opposition, unless my memory fails me it
was not the American aircraft manufacturers, but the same coalition of
environmental groups that had originally succeeded in killing funding for 
the American SST.
-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 05:16:34 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: GEOS-6 dies.

In the Jan 31 issue of the San Jose Mercury-News, page 1E, there is a story
on the failure of GOES-6 which reveals the following information:

"The aging GOES-6 satellite, which for over five years has snapped weather
pictures day and night, was forced into retirement 10 days ago when a crucial
light bulb in one of its components burnt out."

and later:

"But some satellites have suffered repeated problems with the light bulbs in
an instrument the satellite uses to keep itself oriented."

A light bulb?  I'm surprised.  That's like hearing a piece of string broke
or a rubber band snapped.  Does anybody have more specific information on
what this lightbulb was being used for?

While I'm on the subject of crudely-built satellites, you may be interested
to know there is a twin of the Telstar satellite in the main lobby of
Bell Labs, Murray Hill, New Jersey.  When I first saw this thing, I was
amazed how klugey it looked.  It looks like it's held together by solder.

There is sort of a little museum there.  The first transistor is there, as
well as an old copy of the NY Times which has the first description of
negative-feedback amplifiers scribbled in the margin.  There are a number
of automated displays, where you push a button and a demonstration takes
place.  About half the displays are out-of-order!  What a great advertisement
for AT&T!

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 20:01:15 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Number of Concorde ever built

In article <625@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>, me85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk (M D Ayton) writes:
> Right, I've just about had enough of this.
> 
>  At the
> time *NO* American manufacturer was capable of building a supersonic carrier,
> and on the principle of "if you can't join them, beat them" lobbied, lied,
> bribed and cheated their way to making it uneconomic for anyone else to build
> such a carrier either.

1)  This does not have a lot to do with sci.space.  It probably should be 
moved to rec.aviation, or some other newsgroup.

2)  *NO* American manufacturer???  EXCUSE ME???  Are you talking about the
same set of manufacturers which built the XB-70 Valkyrie, the B-58 Hustler,
the X-15, etc, ad nauseum???  I'd say the technology for sustained 
supersonic flight was WELL established within the US Aerospace industry.

Why DIDN'T American companies build an SST?  Good question.  Probably has
lots to do with a radically liberal, anti-technology Congress.  Probably
some questions about the dubious economic feasibility of such a venture.
I'd guess that you've not checked the 'facts' thrown before the US Congress
during this time period--claims of ozone depletion, permanent stratospheric
ice clouds leading to global cooling, damage to marine ecosystem from sound,
etc.  Sort of in the same vein as your 'fact' that the US simply couldn't do
it at the time.

Now let's move this to rec.aviation, and get back to space discussions.


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 89 23:45:45 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!gd@uunet.uu.net  (Gord Deinstadt)
Subject: Re: Approaching c

In article <894@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:

>                                             ...Also, relativity
>	means that all things are relative to an observer.  An observer
>	on a ship traveling at near c can accelerate and surpass c
>	from his point of view.  He will however notice that his
>	destination is now further away than he thought so to get
>	say 5 light-years away, it will still take 5 years even though
>	he continues to accelerate.

Actually, it's the other way around.  The observer on the ship finds,
as he keeps throwing exhaust out the back, that his speed doesn't seem
to be increasing much, but instead the distance to his destination keeps
decreasing.  From his frame of reference, the whole galaxy becomes shorter and
shorter in the direction of flight, so naturally it takes less time for
him to cross it.  From the galaxy's frame of reference, HE is getting
squished-up, but from his frame of reference, THE GALAXY is the one
getting ever flatter.  And they both see the other guy's clocks running
slower.  Bizarre, but that's relativity.

Incidentally, I had assumed that it all balanced out, so that if you
put a particular amount of energy into accelerating the ship, you arrived
in the same *subjective* length of time, as you would if Newton ruled the
universe.  However, I plugged in a few numbers, and this is what I got:

Vr 0.10000000 Vn   0.100377 ke    0.00504 gamma   0.994987 Tr/Tn   0.998743
Vr 0.20000000 Vn   0.203080 ke    0.02062 gamma   0.979796 Tr/Tn   0.994884
Vr 0.30000000 Vn   0.310757 ke    0.04829 gamma   0.953939 Tr/Tn   0.988143
Vr 0.40000000 Vn   0.426824 ke    0.09109 gamma   0.916515 Tr/Tn   0.977977
Vr 0.50000000 Vn   0.556238 ke    0.15470 gamma   0.866025 Tr/Tn   0.963433
Vr 0.60000000 Vn   0.707107 ke    0.25000 gamma   0.800000 Tr/Tn   0.942809
Vr 0.70000000 Vn   0.894740 ke    0.40028 gamma   0.714143 Tr/Tn   0.912818
Vr 0.80000000 Vn   1.154701 ke    0.66667 gamma   0.600000 Tr/Tn   0.866025
Vr 0.90000000 Vn   1.608824 ke    1.29416 gamma   0.435890 Tr/Tn   0.779189
Vr 0.99000000 Vn   3.489645 ke    6.08881 gamma   0.141067 Tr/Tn   0.497248
Vr 0.99900000 Vn   6.537013 ke   21.36627 gamma   0.044710 Tr/Tn   0.292564
Vr 0.99990000 Vn  11.807832 ke   69.71245 gamma   0.014142 Tr/Tn   0.167000
Vr 0.99999000 Vn  21.100112 ke  222.60736 gamma   0.004472 Tr/Tn   0.094363
Vr 0.99999900 Vn  37.579435 ke  706.10696 gamma   0.001414 Tr/Tn   0.053145
Vr 0.99999990 Vn  66.859076 ke 2235.06803 gamma   0.000447 Tr/Tn   0.029900
Vr 0.99999999 Vn 118.912302 ke 7070.06781 gamma   0.000141 Tr/Tn   0.016817

where Vr is the real (relativistic) speed as a fraction of C, gamma is the
resulting Lorentz contraction factor, ke is the kinetic energy of a unit
mass travelling at that speed (measured in mass units), and Vn is the
speed that would require the same kinetic enery in the absence of relativity.
The remarkable thing is the ratio of Tr/Tn, that is, the subjective time
to go a given distance, with relativity and without.  You actually get there
FASTER, in your frame of reference, than you would without relativity.
Or, conversely, you can get someplace in the same length of time at a lower
cost in hard-earned energy.

Of course, everybody else, staying at home, still sees you taking
100,000 years or so to cross the galaxy, but who cares about them?
Just be sure to empty the refrigerator before you leave for your
weekend jaunt. 8^)

Disclaimer: Shucks, ma'm, 'tweren't nothin'
-- 
Gord Deinstat           gd@geovision.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 05:16:34 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jsalter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Notes from the Underground)
Subject: Re: Pigs will be pigs...

In <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> csustan!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!Dale.Amon states:
>
>	[...MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING...]
>
>The above is to be expected. The military does not foster a mentality
>that is compatible with a truely free society.

Surprise, surprise.  A military is meant to protect the CURRENT society.
A changing society is difficult to deal with and therefore unwanted by
the military.

>The more power that mentality is given over society, the farther said
>society will be driven from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy.

So you're saying that our society is RIGHT NOW a liberal, laissez-faire
democracy?  Please go look outside.

>It is high time the Europeans got together and put up such a satellite.
>I would love to see a US firm do it and make a business out of it.  But
>the DoD does not care about America being the forerunner in opening new
>technology markets, so I would rather see this important contribution
>to world peace and stability done by statists than to see it not done
>at all.

Oh terrific.  Give every quack and terrorist in the world full up-to-date
information on all our citizenry visiting other countries while you're at
it.

>Someone has to put a check to the power hungry SOB's in ALL of the
>military establishment's of the world. The US is not unique in this
>respect, because the mentality comes with the territority.

Ok.  First, I'd like to see EXACTLY what's going on in that Libyan
chemical factory.  Think they'd let us if we told them where all our
military might is?

>So what if some US soldiers get wasted because they are on TV? The same
>will happen to the guys on the other side of whatever worthless
>imaginary line they are battling over. Maybe it will make ALL of them
>think twice about whether what they are doing is worth dying for.

IT WON'T REALLY MATTER IF THEY'RE DEAD, NOW WILL IT????

>If they stayed home and concentrated on defending US territorial waters
>and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY
>is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD.

Just like all those students who died in the the Air BOMBING over
Scotland, or the Ambassadors who get kidnapped or blown up for being
"Emmisaries of America".

>						Dale Amon
>
>PS: And while you are at it, why not push for kicking ALL of our troops
>off of European soil and waters and airspace? The $50,000,000,000 or
>so saved per year would wipe out the US national debt, stabilize the
>dollar and make Europe less of a trip wire to WWIII. 

WHOAH!!!  The Europeans were kicking and screaming NOT to take out the
medium range missles that the INF treaty suggested.  Only some clever
maneuvering by the people in Geneva made them think otherwise.
And what $50 billion?  What are you going to do with all the displaced
military people?  Put them on welfare until they all find jobs?  Get
real.  You have no idea what you're talking about.

-- 
James A. Salter (jim/jsalter)    | If everyone believed in conservation of
jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU      | baryon number, there wouldn't be all those
...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jsalter | experiments looking for proton decay.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #229
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Feb 89 06:17:09 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01070>; Thu, 9 Feb 89 04:58:48 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  9 Feb 89 04:58:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gXwIfzy00Ui3M15UEF>;
          Thu,  9 Feb 89 03:25:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.YXwIbly00UkZQhFE5M>;
          Thu,  9 Feb 89 03:21:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXwIXhy00UkZAhE05i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  9 Feb 89 03:16:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #230

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 230

Today's Topics:
		    Summer Jobs Available at Rice
		       Re: Pigs will be pigs...
		Re: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
			 Re: approaching "C"
			  Re: Model Rocketry
    Re: Info on High-Power rocket launch: August '89 in Colorado.
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
	    WANTED: MODEL SPACESHIPS, historic and sci-fi
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 13:03:00 CDT
From: "PAT REIFF" <reiff@spacvax.rice.edu>
Subject: Summer Jobs Available at Rice
To: "space+" <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: reiff@spacvax.rice.edu
Reply-To: "PAT REIFF" <reiff@spacvax.rice.edu>

SUMMER JOBS AVAILABLE

The Department of Space Physics and Astronomy of Rice University will have 
a number of temporary research apprenticeships available to undergraduate 
students in the summer of 1989.  Applications will be accepted until May 1 
for the summer period beginning on May 15.  Since the openings will start 
being filled in March, early application is recommended.

Ours is one of the oldest Space Science departments in the United States, 
with a long tradition in space experiments and observations, data analysis, 
and supporting theoretical and laboratory work.  Current areas of interest 
include study of planetary atmospheres and ionospheres, the magnetospheres 
of Earth and other planets, the interstellar medium, pulsars, and 
climatology.  We are particularly interested in hiring students of physics 
and related disciplines between their junior and senior years in order to 
allow them participation in the research activities of this modern 
department.  The exact nature of the assignment will be determined by a 
process of matching faculty and student interests.

Interested persons should send a letter of application which includes a 
statement of their academic position (school, year, major field of study, 
grade point average, both overall and in mathematics and physical science 
courses), the names of three references whom they have asked to write in 
support of their application, and a statement describing what attracts them 
to work in this summer program.  If the student has strong particular 
interests within the department or skills that may be particularly useful, 
these should also be described.  Letters of reference should be sent 
directly to the address below.

The remuneration for a full three months of service is $2500.

All correspondence should be addressed to:
Dr. Tamara S. Ledley		
Department of Space Physics and Astronomy
Rice University                 internet:  ledley@spacvax.rice.edu
Houston, TX 77251-1892          SPAN:      rice::ledley


(Note: This is a "Research Experience for Undergraduates" program sponsored 
by the National Science Foundation.  A number of other Universities will 
also be participating.  For a list of participating Universities in the 
Atmospheric and Space Sciences area, contact the Atmospheric Sciences 
Division of the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.)
  
------
>From the First Space Science Department (celebrating its 25th anniversary):   
                                                   :      _^ ^_    ____
     Patricia H. Reiff                             :     / O O \   |GO \
     Department of Space Physics and Astronomy     :     \  V  /   |OWLS\
     Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892       :    / ""R"" \__/
     internet:  reiff@spacvax.rice.edu             :    \ ""U"" /
     SPAN:      RICE::REIFF                        :    _/|\ /|\_
     telemail:  [preiff/edunet] mail/usa           :My kids don't agree 
                                                   :with me; why should
                                                   :anyone else?
    
------

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 89 02:08:15 GMT
From: chiba!khb@sun.com  (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Subject: Re: Pigs will be pigs...

In article <7624@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jsalter@polyslo.UUCP (Tasslehoff) writes:

Good thing...I'd missed part of the original screed

>In <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> csustan!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!Dale.Amon states:
>>
>
>>If they stayed home and concentrated on defending US territorial waters
>>and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY
>>is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD.

I suppose Germany invaded France, Poland, Czech., etc. because they
were all giving Germany a hard time ?

Muggers only pick on folks who opress them ?

Minding ones own business does not result in peace, quit, or much of
anything else.

These opinions are mine. 
Keith H. Bierman
It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 89 16:17:40 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing

>situations.  Still  I doubt that the soviets will make a major industry out of
>micrograv. crystals, but if they make a few super applications with them it

Actually, according to one report (which was quoted to me verbally - it'd
take a while for me to dig up the specific reference), the Sovs expect to
make space materials processing (primarily semiconductors) a mult-tens of
billions of rubles (whatever that works out to in billions of dollars)
a year industry, and do that within the next 10 years.
   Already they are doing a *lot* with space-grown semiconductors.  They've
had equipment for this aboard space stations for years, long before Mir.
At least some of this space-grown gallium arsenide has gone into solar
panels for the space station - possibly the stuff rejected for IC use.
-- 
"The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive,  | Alastair J.W. Mayer
therefore only the government can do it, but that   | alastair@geovision.UUCP
only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX
it is expensive."                                   |

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 89 23:38:03 GMT
From: spl1!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

First of all my first posting was a rough attempt to be humorous, but I now
realize that there are many 'stuffed shirts' out there who wouldn't know
a joke if it bit them on the ass. for instance:

In article <1989Jan27.075350.2215@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <258@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
> 
> >AMEN! I say let's just go! Dammit! To hell with all the practical 
> >'reasons' for going to the asteroids or whatnot.
> 
> Never mind rational thought!  Let's just stampede!
> 
> >Or if you need a pratical reason ... how about the old:
> >I would rather be in a (self sufficeint) Mars colony when Earth 
> >decided to blow itself up with the big bomb.
> 
> This is not inconsistent with a program that would currently emphasize
> unmanned exploration.  We are very far away from being able to set up
> self sufficient ET colonies.  A desire to have people in space at some
> point in the future does not necessarily justify manned spaceflight in
> the present.
> 
> >besides, arguing about what will we get out of space travel is fruitless.
> >before we went to the moon, did we know that the space program would
> >bring us microwave ovens, computer chips, vcr's and let's not forget
> >Space Food Sticks???
> 
> This spinoff argument is bogus.  We'd have had all of these anyway
> (expect perhaps Space Food Sticks; small loss).  I believe studies have
> failed to show any widespread technological impetus directly attributable
> to the space program.  That does not prevent the argument from being
> repeated by PR hacks and the credulous.
> 
> 	Paul F. Dietz


Wake up Paul! you aren't going into space, I doubt if I ever will. especially
if people keep thinking like you!!!!!!!! 

The spinoff is not bogus. sure we probably would have had all these things
eventually. but to deny that they were invented sooner because of space
travel is bogus also. When you have  hundreds of engineers with a set goal
to reach and obsticles in the way, they tend to discover/invent new 
technology to tear away these obsticles. hardly anything gets invented
until it needs to be. but once it is here you can be sure that there will
be lots of other uses for it, spinoffs and such. 

go ahead flame me! All this bean counting is making me bored anyway.


_______________________________________________________________________________

John Sparks      // Amiga  |  corpane : sparks@corpane 
  a.k.a        \X/  UUCP   |  blitter : john@blitter (preferred; path below) 
 RedHawk       ~~~~~~~~~~~~|  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!disk!blitter!john 
               D.R.A.G.O.N.|  >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru -5406 <<
Ye Quote:
Cheerio-Magnetics: The tendency of the last few cheerios in a bowl of milk
to cling together for survival.
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 89 16:01:08 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"

Last night I was reading Calder's book "Einstein's Universe" which I've
said in past postings (maybe too many times) is a good laymans book on
this subject.  It gave an example which I must share:

If you are stationary and ship A is moving at .75*c away from you and
ship B is doing the same but in the opposite direction, you would think
that ship A would see ship B moving at 1.5*c.  But you can communicate
with both ship A and ship B.  Therefore, both ships should be able to
communicate with one another and they can because as shown in the
previous posting, each ship's relative speed to the other would be
(1.5/(1+(.75*.75)))*c = (1.5/1.56)*c = ~.96*c

Just had to share this...   Jim
			    jim@alw.nih.gov

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 15:41:15 GMT
From: att!ihlpb!rjungcla@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Re: Model Rocketry

>Since you can't legally build your own amateur engines, I'm wondering
>about the other parts of the bird.  Is it okay to build your own housing
>for a engine?  Can you do experiments with maneuvering and guidance?

Yes, you are free to experiment with other parts of the birds including
maneuvering and guidance if you stay within the applicable (model vs. 
high power) safety codes. The limits to be concerned about are 
"non-metallic" structural parts and any weight limits. I had a
friend who routinely "manufactures" his own fiberglass and carbon
filament tubes (BTW not an inexpensive proposition.)

>Let's say I build a rocket with an infrared quadrant detector linked
>to movable surfaces.  If I use Estes engines and go somewhere legal for
>conventional rockets, would I be breaking any laws if I launched a rocket,
>and then shot it down with a second rocket (assume no explosive in warhead,
>just kinetic energy)?

As long as you operated the vehicles within the prescribed safety code, 
this would be LEGAL.  I would urge you to present this in a slightly
different way to avoid the negative image that "shot it down"
conveys.  In particular, I would present this as a "dynamic mating
or tagging of vehicles."  BTW, I quote from the G. Harry Stine's 
safety report that the study of potential weapon use of model rocket
components "tended to substantiate the US Army Ordnance data on the
Loki rocket and indicates that the probability of a model rocket
hitting a designated target is infinitesimally small - on chance in
14 billion for each launch with a 95% confidence level."

>If I added rockets to a conventional R/C model airplane, for example to
>assist takeoff, would that be considered a model rocket or what?

Good question since it sent me back to the technical definition of what
is a model rocket. A rocket assisted conventional R/C model airplane is 
NOT a model rocket. If this model airplane meets all other provisions 
(construction, weight etc.) for the definition of "model rocket," the 
provision under which the above case would fail to satisfy the 
definition would be "Its model rocket motor is ignited ... meeting
the safety standard established by the NFPA/NAR/HIA."  The NAR/HIA
safety code requires all model rockets be launched within 30 degrees
from vertical. Hence any conventional R/C model airplane requiring
a horizontal take-off would clearly not be a model rocket. Would a 
conventional R/C model airplane using a near vertical liftoff be
consider a model rocket? This is not as clear cut, but answer is
probably no under the same provision since a conventional R/C model
airplane is not designed (hence not safe) for a vertical takeoff.
This Friday (2/3/89) I should be seeing a NAR representative at our
club's meeting. I will discuss my comments presented here with him and
get his (and NAR's) view, and post any clarifications or corrections
to what I said above.

I would like to ask what the poster's intent for this last question.
Why do you want to view a rocket powered conventional R/C model
airplane as a model rocket?

R. Michael Jungclas                    UUCP:      att!ihlpb!rjungcla 
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.       Internet:  rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 89 15:43:28 GMT
From: att!ihlpb!rjungcla@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Re: Info on High-Power rocket launch: August '89 in Colorado.

>Reading this announcement and description of activities brought to mind 
>an interesting idea: We had been extensively discussing, in past months,
>the possible use of those Pershing II missiles now being destroyed as
>part of the arms-limitation agreements. What better PR for the Army than
>to take one or two of those Pershings to this meet and set them off for
>the entertainment of the attendees? This would also allow the budding
>rocketeers to meet the Soviet observers and some of the actual hands-on
>military missile people, so it would be good "glasnost" PR for the USSR
>and a recruiting aid for the US. 

I'm positive that the attendees for any LDRS (Large and Dangerous Rocket
Ship) meet will enjoy this, but because of regulatory concerns there
are "rules" in place that are intended to prevent the mixing of
professional/high power/model rockets.  For example, model rockets
and high power rockets are NOT SUPPOSE to be flown from same site
within any 24 hour period. These rules are intended to keep a distinction
in the minds of the public (and public officials). There are other
impications from the "24 hour" rule that I won't discuss here.

R. Michael Jungclas                    UUCP:      att!ihlpb!rjungcla 
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.       Internet:  rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 89 16:55:42 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

In article <293@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:

>Wake up Paul! you aren't going into space, I doubt if I ever will.

I *know* I'm not going into space -- for god's sake, why should I *want*
to?  To spend my children's inheritance on an orbital vacation in my
old age (I'm now 29)?

> especially if people keep thinking like you!!!!!!!! 

Are you saying I should tailor my beliefs according to whether you
like the implications?  Do your own wishful thinking.

>The spinoff is not bogus. sure we probably would have had all these things
>eventually. but to deny that they were invented sooner because of space
>travel is bogus also. When you have  hundreds of engineers with a set goal
>to reach and obsticles in the way, they tend to discover/invent new 
>technology to tear away these obsticles. hardly anything gets invented
>until it needs to be. but once it is here you can be sure that there will
>be lots of other uses for it, spinoffs and such.

I have not heard a good argument that computers, ICs, etc. were
advanced by the space program.  All I've heard is handwaving about
space R&D somehow being special in posing hard problems.  Considering
the remoteness of space from everyday life, the argument could be made
that space technology is likely to have few spinoffs.  What I've seen
in NASA "Spinoff" publications is rather pathetic.

I can make a plausible, if not convincing, argument that spending on
space has slowed the development of technology.  Spending on NASA has
helped increase government spending, in several ways.  First, it
directly consumed funds.  Secondly, congressional supporters of NASA
have to buy votes by supporting the pet projects of other congressmen
-- "go along to get along."  Third, the apparent success of Apollo led
to a better environment for other large government programs.
Increased budgets ==> increased deficits or taxes ==> suppression of
investment (through increases in effective interest rates) ==> slowing
down the development of technology.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 89 05:44:00 GMT
From: apollo!ulowell!hawk!devans@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Daniel Evans)
Subject: WANTED: MODEL SPACESHIPS, historic and sci-fi


	I am looking for the following plastic model kits...do you have one
of these forgotten in your basement? 

1)	Gemini/Titan 
	1:48 scale or smaller 
	(smaller meaning 1:96, 1:144, etc...)

2)	Mercury/Redstone
	1:48 or smaller

3)	2001 Orion (by Aurora?)
	This is the space shuttle seen in the movie, 2001.

4)	Star Wars X-Wing Fighter

5)	Saturn 1-B
	any scale

	
	I am posting this message for my brother.  He's interested in either
built or unbuilt kits listed above (preferably unbuilt.)  Please e-mail to me
and I'll forward any replies/queries to him.  (Please give your address or
phone number.)

	Thanks!

			-Dan Evans

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #230
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Feb 89 07:34:48 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00580>; Thu, 9 Feb 89 06:23:37 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  9 Feb 89 06:23:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XwKSiy00UkTM2Ik5d>;
          Thu,  9 Feb 89 05:28:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.oXwKMUy00UkZ8hOk4Z>;
          Thu,  9 Feb 89 05:21:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QXwKHuy00UkZ4hNU54@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  9 Feb 89 05:16:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #231

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 231

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Pigs will be pigs...
		   U.S. Mars Sample Return Mission
     NASA workshop to examine Mars mission technology (Forwarded)
		  Space travel and the spirit of man
		       NASA planetary footage?
       CRESCENT VISIBILITY: 6 FEB 1989 (Mon) & ORBITAL DETAILS.
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 89 04:37:25 GMT
From: sun.soe.clarkson.edu!nelson@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu  (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pigs will be pigs...

In article <484@umiami.miami.edu> gtww2z9z@umiami.miami.edu (Jason Gross) writes:

   In article <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
   > Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2
   > MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING, Washington, DC: Faces opposition
   > 	from DoD. A satellite which could provide im- mediate photos
   > 	of military activities to the media "poses a greater threat to
   > 	national security" than current foreign-owned tech- nology,
   > 	the AAAS was told recently.
   > 

   You have got to be out to lunch!  The DoD welcome any and all
   advancements in imaging technology.  And how would hundreds of
   satellites spying on every living promote peace and goodwill.  Just
   thinking about it gives me the willies.

Just thinking about ONLY the governments of the US and USSR having this
technology gives ME the willies.  Reagan's "Trust but verify" remark applies
double here.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
"I saved the whales!" - Rebecca L. Nelson, 3.5 years old, on receiving her
Christmas present of a whale "adoption" certificate.  Bless her liberal heart.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 89 19:01:09 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!goldmeer@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jeffrey S Goldmeer)
Subject: U.S. Mars Sample Return Mission

I am a senior at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and I am currently
working on my senior thesis.  My project is a computer simulation of
satellite orbits, including basic orbital operations:  rendezvous, 
and orbital transfer.

Currently, I am looking for any information of the U.S. Mars Sample
Return Mission.  Specifiically, I am searching for data on launch dates,
launch windows, and approximate time of flight.  Any other information
about the mission would be appreciated.

Once I have gathered this data, my goal is to use my program to do
a first order approximation of the mission.

Thank you

                                       Jeffrey S Goldmeer
				       goldmeer@wpi.wpi.edu
	

******************************************************************************
*   Jeffrey S Goldmeer                      Box 2246                         * 
*                                           Worcester Polytechnic Institute  * 
*                                           100 Institute Road               * 
*   Internet:  goldmeer@wpi.wpi.edu         Worcester, MA  01609             * 
*============================================================================*
*    "Language is the only instrument of Science, and                        *
*          words are but signs of ideas .... "		                     *
*						-- Samuel Johnson            *
******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 89 06:40:54 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA workshop to examine Mars mission technology (Forwarded)

Mary Sandy
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   January 30, 1989

Donald James
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.


EDITORS NOTE:  NASA WORKSHOP TO EXAMINE MARS MISSION TECHNOLOGY


     NASA studies of future solar system exploration include 
options for both piloted and robotic missions to Mars.  One 
challenge to future Mars exploration is to use the the martian 
and Earth's atmospheres to slow the vehicles while protecting 
them from the searing temperatures encountered during atmospheric 
entry.  This slowing process is now achieved in part through the 
use of rocket engine firings.

     NASA is investigating a new technology called high-energy 
aerobraking which would allow spacecraft to be slowed on 
atmospheric entry without having to use rocket engines.  The new 
technology would use an aerobrake -- a structure whose large 
blunt shape would slow the vehicle through friction with the 
atmosphere.

     Currently, interplanetary spacecraft necessarily carry the 
weight of the rockets and their propellants throughout its entire 
mission.  The use of high-energy aerobraking would permit the 
weight and space, now dedicated to rockets and propellants, to be 
used by astronauts or for additional science payloads.  
Aerobraking also could be used on returning from lunar missions.

     Scientists and engineers from NASA, private industry and 
universities will meet at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain 
View, Calif., Jan. 31 through Feb. 2, for a workshop on high-
energy aerobraking.  The workshop will highlight current and 
planned aerobraking research efforts.  Limited aerobraking 
experience exists upon which to base these future designs.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 89 02:31:30 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <1989Feb3.115543.15693@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu 
(Paul Dietz) writes:
:In article <293@corpane.UUCP: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
:
::Wake up Paul! you aren't going into space, I doubt if I ever will.
:
:I *know* I'm not going into space -- for god's sake, why should I *want*
:to?  To spend my children's inheritance on an orbital vacation in my
:old age (I'm now 29)?

I'm 36, and I'd trade the rest of my life for one LEO, assuming I could 
take a stack of (old) Yes and Vangelis CDs along.  Quality, not quantity, 
makes a life well-lived.

Some individuals experience extreme emotions, bordering on the "religious", 
when contemplating the entry of man into space.  I do believe that it is 
spiritual, of the *human* spirit, in the most sublime sense: it is something no 
animal would ever do, nor could it want to.  

Such sentiments usually remain in the background; when somebody does speak of
them, they are typically considered irrelevant or foolishly sentimental.  
The fundamentally conservative values of those who oppose manned space flight
are not to be questioned.  Their values lead to all the satisfactions of
animal nature - more comfort, more ease, a greater insulation from physical
reality, and a homogenization of shared experience.  There are those who 
feel that this is a valid goal for man, and there are others who find it about 
as nourishing as eating a printed picture of food.  

I wish the atmosphere were such that these larger issues could be discussed.
Why should the human race have any goals at all?  Why not use up all the 
consumables in our environment and die?  What does the pursuit of goals imply?
What sort of future are we creating? 

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 89 22:36:40 GMT
From: bpa!cbmvax!vu-vlsi!swatsun!rapkin@rutgers.edu  (Jon Rapkin)
Subject: NASA planetary footage?

[Disclaimer; this is not Jon Rapkin writing, but Jim Moskowitz]

Does anyone have information about the availability of color video from NASA's
'recent' interplanetary missions (Voyager, Viking, ICEE), or animations of
same?  I am helping an area science museum put together a videodisk 
compliation of footage, which will be used for a 'your trip into space'
station, where people can choose from a menu of destinations and activities,
and then watch highlights of their trip.  There's lots of good Earth-orbit
material, and shots of people working (shirtsleeve or EVA suit) in space,
thanks to the shuttle, but for farther trips we need to find planetary video.
We're looking for things like approach shots of Mars, the Red Spot slowly
turning, moons casting shadows on Saturn, etc.  The video has to be color
and can't just be still photos; if you have a source for such material 
please email to this account.
Thank you in depth,

Jim Moskowitz (via Jon Rapkin's account)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1989 17:07:08 EST
From: Mohib N Durrani <mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
Cc: mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Subject: CRESCENT VISIBILITY: 6 FEB 1989 (Mon) & ORBITAL DETAILS.

   
                       Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
  ( I begin with the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )
   
         THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
           102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027
   
         SUBJECT: CRESCENT MOON: FIRST VISIBILITY (every lunar month)
         *************************************************************
   
              NEXT CRESCENT (NEW) MOON:  1989  FEB   6(Mon)   (*) 
   
                 for the  7th. Islamic Month of RAJAB, 1409.

   (*)      Hilal (crescent) sightings would be in the evenings, 
        at least 10 minutes after sunset, usually before 20 minutes, 
   and upto 40 to 90 minutes after sunset; near and along the sun's path.
   
   
        We are conducting research/survey on the recorded WORLD-WIDE
          first sightings of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" 
                  in the evenings, for every lunar month.
                    Some TECHNICAL INFO. is at the end.
   
                  PHOTOGRAPHS / SLIDES ARE MOST WELCOME
               since they are very helpful in the research.
   
              Please also pass on the request to your friends 
               who are interested in astronomy/physics and to 
                 your local amateur astronomy associations.
   
                We would very much like to hear from you and 
                  will also keep you posted on the answers.
   
                Please respond either by email or by letter.        
   
       The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL 
          and fine tune some parameters regarding SCATTERING/VISION.
   
   
     When reporting actual crescent sightings, (even if you do not see it)
                        PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
   
Was Hilal visible to naked eye?......... Hilal sighted in binoculars?.........
EXACT TIMES: Complete Sunset at......... Hilal First Visible....... End.......
Weather condition: Rel.Humidity......... Temperature..... Pressure............
Sky near western horizon: Clear?........ Hazy?........... Cloudy?.............
Observer: Age.... Eyesight: Glasses?.... Far sighted?.... Near sighted?.......
Name....................... Date........ Location.............................
   
                                 Thanks.
      
        Email to:  mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
        
        Mail:      Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America
        


        Some orbital details for the Sun and Moon:
        
        Lunation No.: 818
        New Moon (not crescent visible moon): 
        1989 Feb  6d 07h 37m UT (Universal Time)
       (Universal Time, i.e. mean solar time on the meridian of Greenwich)
   
   Date   Equatorial coords.(for 0h UT)         Ecliptic coords.(for 0h UT)
   FEB    Sun      Sun      MOON    MOON        Sun        MOON      MOON
   '89    R.A.     Decl.    R.A.    Decl.       Long.      Long.     Lat.
    
    5     21.25   -15.91    20.08  -23.56       316.32     298.43   -3.15
    6     21.32   -15.60    21.07  -18.82       317.33     312.97   -1.98
    7     21.38   -15.28    22.01  -12.89       318.34     327.75   -0.67
   
        
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)  1989 FEB 6(Mon)
        CITY          LAT  LONG  SUN-SET MOON-SET  SIGHTING
                      deg  deg     h  m    h  m

                             (approx. local mean time)
        MECCA          20  320    17 55   18 10    DIFFICULT
        MOSCOW         56  320    16 44   16 53    DIFFICULT
        ISTANBUL       40  330    17 25   17 40    DIFFICULT
        GREENWICH      52    0    16 57   17 18    PROBABLE
        RIO D JENEIRO -20   45    18 40   19 07    PROBABLE
        NEW YORK       40   75    17 25   18 03    MOST PROBABLE
        SAN FRANCISCO  40  120    17 25   18 13    MOST PROBABLE
        ***********    International Date Line     ***********
        TOKYO          35  220    17 34   17 27    IMPOSSIBLE
        JAKARTA       -10  250    18 29   18 35    IMPOSSIBLE
        AGRA           30  280    17 41   17 48    IMPOSSIBLE
        

        The 27th of this Islamic Lunar month of RAJAB is the night of
            ^^^^                                ^^^^^
        ISRA & MIRAJ (the Heavenly Ascension of the Prophet Muhammad,
        ^^^^ ^ ^^^^^
        from Mecca to Jerusalem to the Heavens and back).
        
        Ref: The Holy Quran, Sura (chapter) 17, 
             Bani Israil (The Children of Israil), Ayat (verse) 1:

             "Glory to (Allah, God) who did take His servant (Muhammad) for a
              Journey by night (heavenly ascension) from the Sacred Mosque 
              (the Kabah at Mecca) to the Farthest Mosque (the Masjid-ul-Aqsa 
              at Jerusalem), whose precincts We did Bless, - in order that 
              We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who hears 
              and sees (all things)."
        
        This corresponds to the night of 4 Mar 1989 (Sat) for locations
        WEST OF New York. Because of the international date line,
        Tokyo and the other westerly locations will have ISRA & MIRAJ on 
        the following night, the night of FEB 7 (Sun).
        
        Please note that the Islamic and the Jewish dates start from 
        sundown of the previous day.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 89 19:59:39 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <4239@drivax.DRI> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>:I *know* I'm not going into space -- for god's sake, why should I *want*
>:to?  To spend my children's inheritance on an orbital vacation in my
>:old age (I'm now 29)?
>
>I'm 36, and I'd trade the rest of my life for one LEO, assuming I could 
>take a stack of (old) Yes and Vangelis CDs along.  Quality, not quantity, 
>makes a life well-lived.

Your current life is so unpleasant that you'd sacrifice your remaining
decades for one 90 minute orbit?  Why, this is hell, nor are you out
of it.  And my condolences to your would-be widow and children, if they
exist.

>Some individuals experience extreme emotions, bordering on the "religious", 
>when contemplating the entry of man into space.  I do believe that it is 
>spiritual, of the *human* spirit, in the most sublime sense: it is something
>no animal would ever do, nor could it want to.

Um, let's not commit the common philosophical error of confusing the
individual with mankind in general.  It is consistent for me to
believe that people will eventually live in space and yet still think
that it would be pointless for me, personally, to travel there.

By the way, how would *your* going into space help achieve any goals,
other than purely personal ones?

>The fundamentally conservative values of those who oppose manned space flight
>are not to be questioned.

Once again, it should be noted that opposing manned spaceflight IN THE
PRESENT (or, more precisely, opposing the appropriation of public
funds to pay for manned spaceflight) does not mean opposing manned
spaceflight for all time.  Nor is it obviously true that manned
spaceflight right now is necessary or even helpful in achieving
a longterm goal of moving mankind into space.

I hope my values -- whatever you perceive them to be -- are not above
question.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #231
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Feb 89 05:00:36 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AB00707>; Fri, 10 Feb 89 04:39:39 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 10 Feb 89 04:39:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oXwdlNy00UkTQ3CE8H>;
          Fri, 10 Feb 89 03:25:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.MXwdfcy00UkZEnfU54>;
          Fri, 10 Feb 89 03:18:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4Xwdddy00UkZ0ne05L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 89 03:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #232

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 232

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		    The MIRROR MATTER Newsletter.
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 89 22:13:15 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #451 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 29.50060981 0.00000332           38851-3 0  1815
2 00424  80.4618  62.5339 0024213 125.1168 235.2209 13.67066157313869
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 31.23349597 0.00000000           10000-3 0  6317
2 08820 109.8030 183.1771 0044664 344.9664  14.9542  6.38664120 41881
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 27.15713007 -.00000011                   0  2161
2 10061   6.8117  70.0033 0020532 142.6877 217.5271  1.00264515  3960
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 30.34329560 0.00000012                   0   229
2 10684  63.5158 105.0921 0105376 199.7400 159.8979  2.00562841 65769
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 30.29872843 -.00000028                   0  9511
2 10893  64.5405 345.9387 0147583  28.1221 332.6709  2.00560784 78580
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 30.20580920 0.00000089           10000-3 0  5709
2 10953   5.6814  72.5569 0006308 243.9265 117.2354  1.00277658  1253
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 29.03490711 0.00002128           80088-3 0   682
2 10967 108.0094   1.0928 0001410 266.2006  93.8740 14.34220731554131
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 30.11563801 -.00000028                   0  9805
2 11054  64.0961 342.4507 0051340 118.4513 242.0710  2.00559783 75591
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 30.72247047 0.00000012                   0   881
2 11141  63.5124 105.0006 0056159 321.6745  37.8553  2.00554311 74303
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 27.47678006 0.00001871           80823-3 0  7973
2 11416  98.5010  28.6954 0012444 155.3263 204.8413 14.25435245497852
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 28.71711385 0.00028500           71718-3 0  8273
2 11703  28.4990 173.6387 0001092 288.8632  71.1857 15.38540482498246
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 29.68005577 -.00000028                   0  8400
2 11783  63.9057 342.1419 0137695  62.3754 299.0157  2.00565651 64221
GOES 4     
1 11964U          88345.42895844 -.00000026           10000-3 0   378
2 11964   5.0165  76.0252 0032177  91.3375 268.7410  0.99231566   155
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 27.06205468 -.00000244           10000-3 0  6826
2 12472   2.1865  82.5928 0002332 280.0737  79.9384  1.00253901 27191
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 28.59009558 0.00036887           84152-3 0  4275
2 12888  97.5826  75.0007 0001293 352.8203   7.2753 15.42808258407359
RS-08      
1 12998U          89  1.00414286 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5578
2 12998  82.9574 327.4553 0020002   4.8175 355.3069 12.02967823309209
RS-05      
1 12999U          89  5.23545068 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5515
2 12999  82.9601 319.6709 0008004 307.7882  52.2540 12.05064523310257
RS-07      
1 13001U          89  3.20209254 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4294
2 13001  82.9579 310.7815 0021450 198.4315 161.5982 12.08709133310948
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 28.39500923 0.00000368           32188-3 0  6197
2 13113  82.5406 169.8578 0016555  93.7046 266.5966 13.83926284345908
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 30.76477845 -.00002495          -62895-4 0  4231
2 13138  51.6107 268.0258 0000772 185.7639 174.2958 15.36860454387022
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 28.05279291 0.00000251           12658-3 0  7420
2 13718  81.2446  58.6290 0057127  38.4583 322.0615 14.13068569315764
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 26.02710738 0.00000119                   0  8968
2 14050   0.9056  81.0110 0002057 225.0813  53.8072  1.00260873  5184
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 20.46773607 -.00000064           10000-3 0  3758
2 14129  26.6880 284.1697 6052451  10.8344 357.8822  2.05882618 14177
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 29.77180679 0.00000011                   0  6027
2 14189  63.1392 103.6901 0132832 214.3825 144.8062  2.00573471 40663
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 28.10501998 0.00001068           45646-3 0  6861
2 14452  81.1630  73.9223 0095627 139.5837 221.2474 14.21983456272633
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 31.25769718 -.00001269          -27686-3 0  6387
2 14780  98.1894  96.0054 0002765 338.4740  21.6491 14.57091463261624
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 28.20618633 0.00002948           58457-3 0  3984
2 14781  98.0264  91.0085 0014590  43.8059 316.4079 14.62898648262076
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 25.29621546 0.00023803           54110-3 0  7378
2 14898  28.5094  96.1484 0002755  91.1796 268.7659 15.41561556269317
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 30.32492455 0.00000011                   0  6214
2 15039  62.8835 102.9872 0014901 281.5075  78.3812  2.00564981 33958
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 24.25889944 0.00000609           54240-3 0  9189
2 15099  82.5336 120.8521 0012134 285.2037  74.7781 13.83599186230215
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 30.22495879 -.00000028                   0  5694
2 15271  63.4059 341.9536 0099588 317.8024  41.4371  2.00562626 31069
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 28.63080220 0.00004786           70967-3 0  9706
2 15331  82.5374 107.1947 0024524 176.4200 183.6998 14.74718273233646
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 30.44625632 0.00001124           63628-3 0  3282
2 15427  99.1283  14.7989 0015307 344.2821  15.7871 14.11809146213012
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 31.03428474 0.00000177           14865-3 0   476
2 15516  82.5321  53.8475 0017381 136.1640 224.0906 13.84029055202086
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 30.89479495 0.00049356           13488-2 0  1530
2 16095  51.6142 267.3993 0000976 188.3067 171.5747 15.36891735387048
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 25.39503142 0.00000012                   0  2927
2 16129  63.6735 103.6802 0115533 150.3960 210.3220  2.00565574 24171
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 30.83879565 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8011
2 16191  82.5506 332.8619 0018772 284.9660  74.9375 13.16857970157441
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 30.83669273 0.00000352           30630-3 0  4576
2 16408  82.5357 328.8766 0016294 331.8515  28.1735 13.84112966156558
Mir        
1 16609U          89 30.82146749 0.00045988           37974-3 0  6716
2 16609  51.6235 337.1149 0011245 218.9851 141.0397 15.69759035169697
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 31.81529840 -.00013676          -64475-2 0  3474
2 16613  98.7148 108.3854 0001314 143.7460 216.3710 14.20026898 65347
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 30.85626242 0.00000295           25603-3 0  2758
2 16735  82.5371 355.6102 0015907  40.0589 320.1734 13.83844578135460
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 31.35007050 0.00002696           40193-3 0  5061
2 16881  82.5270 164.3822 0023558 182.1343 177.9676 14.74372220135128
EGP        
1 16908U          89 23.47746664 -.00000036           23094-4 0  1162
2 16908  50.0130  22.9411 0011057 337.2307  22.8036 12.44374585111392
FO-12      
1 16909U          89  9.16412950 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1251
2 16909  50.0207  67.1525 0011194 297.9086  62.0613 12.44397259109604
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 30.54175432 0.00000971           44926-3 0  1864
2 16969  98.6559  63.5756 0012865 292.4302  67.5512 14.22791791124366
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 30.98212467 0.00000413           36458-3 0  2188
2 17290  82.4666 263.8229 0012987 290.9100  69.0636 13.83664358104645
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 26.00000000 -.00000143           10000-3 0  2259
2 17561   0.0901 259.3078 0002752 317.1147 187.5202  0.99987889   334
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 30.94881240 0.00021437           18021-3 0  6562
2 17845  51.6445 336.4944 0011400 230.0962 130.0012 15.69752514105988
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 30.92370317 0.00000015           98164-5 0  6550
2 18129  82.9303 339.5461 0013345  73.5938 286.6676 13.71936226 80571
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 31.81018941 0.00171310  15080-4  23104-3 0  8747
2 18225  71.8853  61.5792 0008149 243.1737 116.7637 16.06265593 89428
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 30.77997740 0.00001112           10000-2 0  2366
2 18312  82.5516 328.4006 0011207 211.2050 148.8427 13.83424020 73516
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 30.97154774 0.00000160           13405-3 0   828
2 18820  82.5393  29.5900 0015787 297.9261  62.0296 13.84086287 50704
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 21.67169254 -.00000109           10000-3 0   297
2 19216  57.3622 222.9543 6646232 197.5144 118.7893  2.09700975  4665
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 30.62538358 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1214
2 19336  82.5304 272.9811 0012911 162.5104 197.6384 13.16853595 24807
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 29.91827015 0.00001040           60176-3 0   404
2 19531  98.9227 334.7138 0011135 264.4510  95.5385 14.10792065 17974
Ekran 19   
1 19683U          89  6.17491319 -.00000271           10000-3 0   293
2 19683   1.3940 267.0977 0004265 299.2597  61.6497  1.00277935   281
Cosmos 1984
1 19705U          89 19.40372789 0.01577637  41422-4  30625-3 0   813
2 19705  62.8261 186.2234 0062393 117.7652 243.1376 16.25470591  5424
1988 111A  
1 19710U          89 21.35764026 -.00000322           10000-3 0   296
2 19710   0.5294 261.0148 0000533  95.1335   3.8189  1.00268307   331
Cosmos 1985
1 19720U          89  6.04794673 -.00017422          -98882-3 0   392
2 19720  73.5628 179.3921 0006799 227.2224 132.8260 15.13000071  2086
1988 113B  
1 19721U          89  6.04660842 -.00053949          -30889-2 0   210
2 19721  73.5612 179.3893 0006644 230.0963 129.9251 15.13082182  2089
Progress 39
1 19728U          89 30.94866135 0.00160805           12977-2 0   458
2 19728  51.6155 336.4593 0010727 215.6507 143.6585 15.69768524  5817
Cosmos 1986
1 19734U          89 30.04555172 0.00231193  10296-4  15848-3 0   635
2 19734  64.7693 165.7278 0036026 181.2863 178.8084 16.14732981  5107
1989 001A  
1 19749U          89 31.62531048 0.00000021           10000-3 0   302
2 19749  64.8604 175.2805 0005060 283.6417  76.2809  2.13102317   473
1989 001B  
1 19750U          89 31.21474558 0.00000021           10000-3 0   356
2 19750  64.8773 175.2974 0004413 252.7839 107.1554  2.13102698   467
1989 001C  
1 19751U          89 31.61825898 0.00000021           10000-3 0   280
2 19751  64.8680 175.2781 0009236 257.2176 102.6644  2.13156167   474
1989 001F  
1 19754U          89 25.96910984 0.00000021           10000-3 0   128
2 19754  64.8681 175.4644 0012782 314.2236  45.6424  2.13420731   337
1989 002A  
1 19756U          89 32.04605876 0.00213952  19079-4  34337-3 0   330
2 19756  82.5632 289.6778 0015434  70.6479 289.7463 16.03306890   233
1989 003A  
1 19758U          89 32.03230391 -.00029904          -31712-3 0   277
2 19758  69.9863 247.1315 0048140 193.7701 166.1591 15.62451363  2143
1989 003B  
1 19759U          89 27.78431481 0.14938237  21623-4  26020-3 0   318
2 19759  69.9552 257.0958 0020396  49.9752 310.5300 16.45927048  1538
1989 004A  
1 19765U          89 29.22785362 0.00000092           10000-3 0    97
2 19765   1.4705 276.4504 0021638 262.1442  96.9573  0.99201984    52
1989 004B  
1 19766U          89 27.90711451 0.06718164  59733-4  41796-3 0    99
2 19766  51.6301 265.6696 0004917 237.5165 122.6490 16.41214299   257
1989 005A  
1 19769U          89 31.81376639 0.00000478           19158-3 0   206
2 19769  74.0528 358.7926 0024611 319.5700  40.3637 14.30565464   741
1989 005B  
1 19770U          89 29.92043899 -.00003048          -11108-2 0    97
2 19770  74.0498   2.2150 0019665 350.1847   9.8851 14.32869947   478
1989 006A  
1 19772U          89 30.58600300 0.00000090           10000-3 0    25
2 19772   0.2940 257.9629 0042219 218.7474 243.6903  1.01190041    20
1989 006B  
1 19773U          89 29.06332279 -.00000026           10000-3 0    57
2 19773   8.4036 313.1152 7196513 179.9351 180.5265  2.25483677    59
1989 007A  
1 19774U          89 31.75591727 0.00768287  34856-4  28406-3 0   129
2 19774  64.7430 338.8666 0129284  64.7427 296.7656 16.07004452   527
1989 007B  
1 19775U          89 31.86053648 0.05785480  35962-4  55913-3 0   151
2 19775  64.7525 338.3650 0073982  66.8261 294.0902 16.27188659   544
1989 004F  
1 19776U          89 28.20163101 -.00000004           10000-3 0    13
2 19776   1.5009 276.1593 0027315 311.7171  48.5285  0.97994594    41
1988 095F  
1 19777U          89 25.50000000 -.00000103           10000-3 0    12
2 19777   1.2700 275.0710 0012694  74.1980 312.6030  0.97936040    09
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 17:49:00 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: The MIRROR MATTER Newsletter.


         Robert Forward, author of such books as MIRROR MATTER: PIONEERING
    ANTIMATTER PHYSICS, FUTURE MAGIC, STARSAILING, and the "hard" science
    fiction novels DRAGON'S EGG, STARQUAKE, and FLIGHT OF THE DRAGONFLY,
    is also publishing the MIRROR MATTER NEWSLETTER, an informal,
    aperiodically issued newsletter on the scientific, medical, and
    technological applications of stored antimatter.  The newsletter is
    sent free to those with a serious (or just plain curious) interest in
    the subject. 

         If you wish to be placed on the mailing list to receive MIRROR 
    MATTER, please write to:

         Robert L. Forward
         Editor, MIRROR MATTER NEWSLETTER
         P.O. Box 2783
         Malibu, California 90265-7783
         U.S.A.

         Telephone: (805) 983-7652

         The above address is also used for changes of address, letters 
    to the editor, and contributed items.

         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 89 23:30:10 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <4239@drivax.DRI>, macleod@drivax.DRI (MacLeod) writes:
> I'm 36, and I'd trade the rest of my life for one LEO, assuming I could 
> take a stack of (old) Yes and Vangelis CDs along.  Quality, not quantity, 
> makes a life well-lived.

I find this statement to be astounding, if not appalling. Sure,
ripping around the planet would be a blast, but dying for it? What
could you possibly gain from one LEO that would be worth dying for?
What if you cut a deal with our Soviet comrades, and at the end of the
ninety minutes you decided the experience didn't match your
expectations? 

I read a hauntingly similar statement in a _Time_ magazine article
about legalizing controlled substances. A cocaine addict was
commenting on what he would do if cocaine became legalized (and thus
cheap): "I'd go out and buy the biggest pile of coke I could afford.
Then I'd come home and snort it until I died. Only a true cocaine
connoisseur can understand this."

> The fundamentally conservative values of those who oppose manned space flight
> ...  lead to all the satisfactions of
> animal nature - more comfort, more ease, a greater insulation from physical
> reality, and a homogenization of shared experience.

I am having trouble imagining exactly who you might be referring to.
Does anyone in fact oppose [all] manned space flight [in principle]?
Personally, I am all for permitting private individuals and collective
ventures to loft any payloads they can afford to. Private interests
should be free to select the most cost-effective and appropriate tools
for obtaining a return on their space investments. But when support is
coming from the public trough, the public is entitled to ask about the
return on their space dollar. 

At present, manned ventures are (very roughly, I believe) ten times as
expensive as unmanned ventures in terms of data and benefits returned.
We might even go so far as to say that a certain manned program almost
eliminated the US as a spacefaring nation. I don't know about other
people who value return on public investment, but personally I don't
(and don't want to) lead a life of ease and comfort. And surviving
in space requires substantially greater insulation from physical
reality than I have ever required.

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #232
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Feb 89 07:15:42 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01025>; Fri, 10 Feb 89 05:58:03 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 10 Feb 89 05:57:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gXwfZTy00jZd824E4e>;
          Fri, 10 Feb 89 05:28:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.8XwfQry00UkZEnqE4p>;
          Fri, 10 Feb 89 05:19:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <8XwfO8y00UkZInok5k@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 89 05:16:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #233

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 233

Today's Topics:
		RE: RE: Spaceplane (more facts on fax)
  Effects of clouds on climate measured by NASA project (Forwarded)
		       UFO abduction evidence?
		       Re: Pigs will be pigs...
			  view and opinions
		     INF Treaty and Pershing II's
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 23:30:02 EST
From: Henry_Edward_Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: RE: RE: Spaceplane (more facts on fax)

On 31 Dec 88 06:02:52 GMT, portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net
-
(Mark Robert Thorson) said, in passing reference to another
topic, namely:
-
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project
-
that he had run across some interesting information regarding
FAX:
-
"Here is quote from The Soviets Expected It by Anna Louise
 Strong (1941):
-
'I stopped at the Moscow Central Telegraph and saw some twenty
people drawing up their "phototelegrams" to send to their
friends. This is something that Western Union does not yet offer
to ordinary Americans.  Yet it occurs in a country which has
periodic shortages of clothing and shoes.'
-
Imagine that!  From the description, it sounds like the Soviets
had national FAX service before WW2!"
-
I thought I might add the following sobering observations about
the history of fax at this same time in the U.S., as recounted by
Douglas Kellner in, "Network Television and Society," from the
"Mass Communication Review Yearbook," originally published in
"Theory and Society 10", Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.,
1981, pp. 31-62, and encountered by me in the readings for
Communications 773 with Prof. Vincent Price at the University of
Michigan:
-
"With the invention of television, the struggle for hegemony in
the telecommunications industry reached a fever pitch in the
1930's. In their remarkable book, "Television, A Struggle for
Power, Frank Waldrop and Joseph Borkin recount how AT&T and RCA
battled for supremacy in the telecommunications industry.AT&T
wanted to use telephone lines to broadcast television into homes,
whereas RCA wanted to use wireless, over-the-air broadcasting so
as to maintain control of radio and to secure control of
television. During this period, RCA considered developing
facsimile electronic reproduction which would deliver newspaper
and other print material into the home, as well as two way
televisual phone communication via broadcast waves, which would
have given them almost total control of the communications
industry. In the 1930's and 1940's, these two giants compromised,
establishing the basis for the present system of American
television. AT&T retained control of telephone lines and RCA
dropped development of over the air two-way televisual
communication. The introduction of facsimile reproduction was
postponed and publishing interests retained control of print
material. For these concessions, RCA was allowed to remain
foremost in broadcasting. As a counter-tendency, however, to
increasing monopolization, of the American economy, there were
government efforts to regulate and in some cases break up
monopoly. Government uproar over monopoly of the broadcast
industry forced RCA to divest itself of one of its two networks
(which became ABC). In the heyday of radio in the 1940's, then,
the three networks were the oligopolistic kingpins of
broadcasting."
-
For further information one might look for the following:
"Television, A Struggle for Power," by Frank C. Waldrop and
Joseph Borkin (New York, 1938, reprint Arno Press, 1972) and
"Facsimile and its Future Uses," by John V. L. Hogan, in "The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,
January, 1941.
-
And now, a question of my own: what would it cost in current
dollars to build say, five Saturn V heavy launch vehicles as
opposed to building and maintaining the same launch capacity
through the shuttle program? I have heard that some of the dies
and plans for the Saturn series launch vehicles are no longer in
existence, and wonder if anyone can confirm or disconfirm this as
well.
-
'The power of radio can be compared only with the power of the
atomic bomb' -- "Mass Communication, Popular Taste, and Organized
Social Action" by Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton, 1948 ;-)
-
*                 Henry Edward Hardy                             *
*                 Public Affairs Director,                       *
*                 Campus Broadcasting Network/WCBN-FM            *
*                 University of Michigan                         *
*                 Ann Arbor                                      *

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 89 22:27:44 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Effects of clouds on climate measured by NASA project (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   February 3, 1989

Keith Henry
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.


RELEASE:  89-14

EFFECTS OF CLOUDS ON CLIMATE MEASURED BY NASA PROJECT


     The most accurate Earth radiation budget measurements ever 
made, provided by NASA's Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) 
satellite, confirm that clouds result in a net cooling of the 
Earth.  Previously, atmospheric scientists were divided on the 
impact of clouds on the Earth's temperature.

     These measurements serve as the baseline for climate 
modelers to determine whether clouds will partially offset or 
enhance a future warming of the Earth due to the greenhouse 
effect.  The greenhouse effect is the term given to warming of 
the Earth's atmosphere and surface resulting from increased 
concentrations of gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous 
oxide and chlorofluorocarbons.

     The major uncertainty in the current ability to assess the 
future impact of greenhouse gases is the effect of clouds.  ERBE 
has given climate modelers some very specific numbers to test and 
validate their models.

     At any given time, clouds cover about 60 percent of the 
Earth.  Wispy, high-altitude cirrus (ice) clouds generally tend 
to warm the surface.  They reflect less solar energy back to 
space than stratus and cumulus (liquid water) clouds.

     Because they are so high in the atmosphere, ice clouds are 
more efficient at trapping the infrared heat energy emitted by 
the Earth and the atmosphere.  Low-level water clouds not only 
shade the Earth's surface from the Sun's rays better than high-
altitude ice clouds, they emit almost as much infrared radiation 
as a cloud-free Earth.  The net effect of clouds on surface 
temperatures depends on how these different cloud types are 
distributed over the globe. 

     The first of the three ERBE satellites was launched by the 
Space Shuttle Challenger in October 1984.  National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather satellites NOAA-9 and 
NOAA-10 launched in December 1984 and September 1986, 
respectively, also carried the ERBE instruments.  ERBE provided 
the first opportunity to measure the three components of the 
Earth's radiation balance with identical instruments flying 
simultaneously on separate satellites.  

     ERBE's instruments measured the solar radiation striking the 
Earth and the solar radiation reflected by the Earth.  These two 
measurements determine how much solar energy is absorbed by the 
Earth.  The absorbed solar radiation heats the Earth's surface.  
The infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and its atmosphere 
also is measured.  This emitted radiation cools the surface of 
the Earth.

     The ERBE measurements indicate that in April 1985, clouds 
reflected back to space considerably more radiation than they 
trapped in the atmosphere and the surface.  This loss of 
radiation due to the clouds is approximately equivalent to a 10 
to 30 degrees F. decrease in the global surface temperature.  
Thus, barring changes in any other variables, the Earth would be 
about 20 degeees F. warmer without any cloud cover.  In 
comparison, climate modelers believe that a doubling of carbon 
dioxide in the atmosphere would result in a warming of about 4 to 
8 degrees F.

     Global warming would change circulation patterns, altering 
the climates and growing seasons of many regions over the 
globe.  Significant warming also would melt large amounts of ice 
and snow in the polar regions, increasing the height of the 
world's oceans.  Changes in global circulation patterns would 
also change the distribution of clouds over the globe.  The ERBE 
data also revealed for the first time the regional distribution 
of cloud effects over the globe.  

     Langley scientists Patrick Minnis and Edwin F. Harrison 
published the first paper in 1984 showing the regional cloud 
effects over part of the Earth.  They used data from a weather 
satellite which only observed North and South America.  The ERBE 
satellites viewed all of the Earth with sensors much more 
accurate than those normally carried on weather satellites.

     ERBE is the first step in NASA's long-term program for 
studying climate change and is both a national and international 
effort supported by other government agencies and universities.  

     The ERBE satellite instruments were developed at Langley and 
the TRW Corporation, Redondo Beach, Calif.  Langley is 
responsible for data analysis.  ERBS was developed at NASA's 
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and Ball Aerospace, 
Boulder, Colo.  NOAA supplied the two weather satellites.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 89 17:51:26 GMT
From: ns!logajan@UMN-CS.CS.UMN.EDU  (John Logajan x3118)
Subject: UFO abduction evidence?


In the latest issue of IUR (International UFO Reporter, published by CUFOS -
Center for UFO Studies - Dec 88 issue, I think) Jerome Clark interviews Budd
Hopkins, the UFO abduction author/investigator.  CUFOS and IUR are among the
most conservative organizations/publications in the field.  They are quick to
point out when they are reporting facts or testimony or speculation. 

Clark, editor of IUR and Allen Hynek's heir apparent, questioned Hopkins on
the existence of physical evidence in reported UFO abduction victims.  Here
Mr. Hopkins makes one of the most fantastical statements that I have ever seen
in the IUR -- he states that many abduction victims are reported to have tiny
BB sized balls implanted by the UFO occupants under the skin of the victims.

Although Mr. Hopkins states that he himself has never seen the evidence to
support these reports, he does seem optimistic that he will be able to track
down one of these balls!!!!!!

WOW! That's quite a claim, even as distant as he places himself from it!

-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / logajan@ns.network.com / john@logajan.mn.org -

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  6 Feb 89 11:03:16 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Pigs will be pigs...
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

>Because NOBODY
>is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD.

Almost all of the examples from history of countries being invaded that
I am aware of were countries that were "minding their own business":
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan... if you consider the Roman Empire the
examples are legion (sorry, couldn't resist that one).

>I know there are lots of Europeans out there on Space Digest, and some
>of you may be involved in your nation's space efforts, or even better,
>involved in a real company. Use whatever influence you have to get a
>high resolution (maybe 1M) satellite with real time imaging capability
>and with a high slant range. 
>[...]
>PS: And while you are at it, why not push for kicking ALL of our troops
>off of European soil and waters and airspace? The $50,000,000,000 or
>so saved per year would wipe out the US national debt, stabilize the
>dollar and make Europe less of a trip wire to WWIII.

Unlikely that the Europeans would be launching non-essential payloads if
they are paying the full cost of their own defence.

>Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2
>
>	MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING,
>	Washington, DC: Faces opposition from
>	DoD. A satellite which could provide im-
>	mediate photos of military activities to the
>	media "poses a greater threat to national
>	security" than current foreign-owned tech-
>	nology, the AAAS was told recently.
>
>
>Editorial comment:
>
>The above is to be expected. The military does not foster a mentality
>that is compatible with a truely free society. The more power that
>mentality is given over society, the farther said society will be driven
>from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy.

Actually I would be more worried by the likely misuse of cheap high-quality
aerial pictures by the media.  The possibilities range from the Miami Herald
("Gary Hart Takes Cruise on Monkey Business II: Pictures of Decktop Party")
to the National Enquirer ("Supermodel and her Secret Love Nest in the Poconos")
to _Geraldo_ ("Did the survivors of Air Peru flight 999 really resort to
cannibalism in the Andes?  We have the answers.")  I don't think that organs
of the media such as the Morton Downey Jr. Show have really demonstrated
that they are responsible enough to use this information wisely.  I'm not
saying that the military are, either, but at least they don't broadcast it.

I know that this assumes *really* cheap and *really* high-resolution
photography, but not outlandishly so.  Obviously the media would say that
they would use such a satellite for pictures of things like the Chernobyl
incident, but given the emphasis that the networks are placing on so-called
`trash tv' these days, how long would it be before they found some way to
pervert it for those purposes?  Enquiring minds want to know...

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

Disclaimer: I'm not picking on the particular newspapers and shows I just
mentioned, there are plenty of equally qualified others.

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 6 Feb 89 17:43 EDT
From: <K_MACART%UNHH.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  view and opinions

/subject  funding for space use (manned AND unmanned)

I have a solution that won't raise taxes, will reduce the
deficit, and contribute to the scientific and industrial
well being.  Unfortunately, it is politically "not viable"
due to various aspects of human nature (greed,nationalism,
paranoia, greed...).

   Here it is.  All the industrialized nations are bleeding
themselves white with defense spending, and don't have the
resources to properly research and develop space and other
on-Earth resources (fusion,aquaculture,superconductivity and
all of those pie-in-the-sky technologies that require massive
infusions of capital).  This is true moreso for the superpowers.

   In a like vein as the recent missle reductions, have opposing
nations cut future defense budgets by an agreed upon amount
(the pentagon will demand we have "parity" first), with these
funds, set aside a fraction (100 million for every billion reduced)
to jointly or independently spend on the r&d mentioned before.
The less money is spent (less taxes), more real work is done, and
there is a good climate of international cooperation (especially
for joint missions and projects).  The only losers are the defense
industry companies (unless they are smart enough to re-tool for the
increased need for launch vehicles, aerospace systems, etc.).  The
major flaw in this is, of course, politics.  Fortunately, if enough
people try over an extremely long time, things can change.

  Before I get flamed from here to Hackensack and back, let me say
that this is merely an opinion that expresses an optemist's view of
alternatives to the present apathetic views of the future.

                                Korac MacArthur
                                K_MACART@UNHH     (BITNET)

"Optemism and Realism are not necessarily mutally exlusive."

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 89 19:07:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: INF Treaty and Pershing II's


From: uunet!rob!elliston (Keith Elliston)

>> part of the arms-limitation agreements. What better PR for the Army than
>> to take one or two of those Pershings to this meet and set them off for
>> the entertainment of the attendees? This would also allow the budding
>> rocketeers to meet the Soviet observers and some of the actual hands-on
>> military missile people, so it would be good "glasnost" PR for the USSR
>> and a recruiting aid for the US. 
> 
> I may be a little naive, but sending up a pershing missile, even in this
> day and age of Glasnost, I would think that the russians would view thi
> this as being just a little questionable... I dont think that the powers
> that be would be amenable to this sort of experiment.

Legally, something like this is entirely possible.  The INF Treaty allows 
for the destruction of missiles by static display, elimination in situ, or 
elimination by means of launching.  Specifically, the treaty requires the
launch to be monitored, for the launch to not provide a target vehicle for
interceptor tests (i.e. SDI test), and for the launch to ignite each stage.

Has anyone found out the exact launch capabilities of a Pershing II?  Surely
they could be used as a sounding vehicle or a microgravity experiment.
--
Andrew J. Higgins	             | Illini Space Development Society
404 1/2 E. White St apt 3            | a chapter of the National Space Society
Champaign IL  61820                  | at the University of Illinois
phone:  (217) 359-0056               | P.O. Box 2255 Station A
e-mail: ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu | Champaign IL  61825
                 ^^^^^^
"When the Waters were dried an' the earth did appear,...The Lord He created
 the Engineer"
 - Rudyard Kipling

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #233
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Feb 89 15:51:52 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07099>; Sat, 11 Feb 89 03:38:12 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 11 Feb 89 03:38:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wXwyq9y00UkTM1NEEc>;
          Sat, 11 Feb 89 03:23:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.0Xwym2y00UkZEw8k5Q>;
          Sat, 11 Feb 89 03:19:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EXwyjXy00UkZ8w7E5q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 89 03:16:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #234

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 234

Today's Topics:
			 Re: `Days' in space
		      Source for space pictures?
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
		       Re: Concorde - Last Word
			      Re: SST's
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
	  Commercially Developed Space Facility Act of 1989
		     Re: UFO abduction evidence?
			 Re: `Days' in space
		    Comparing c and speed of sound
Re: Effects of clouds on climate measured by NASA project (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 01:50:29 GMT
From: ems@apple.com  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

In article <10365@well.UUCP> tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

>I strongly urge all you cave dwellers out there to factor in the
>resource cost, not just of spending X months *at equilibrium* at some
>artificial day length, but of sustaining two or three *transitions*
>between day lengths, all the while trying to run a Mars mission at its
>most critical moments.

This pre-supposes that there IS a resource cost in making a transition 
or that there is a resource savings at some schedule.  I would make
the (bald faced, poorly supported) assertion that this is not true.

I underwent many transistions (during a study described in a prior
posting) and spent weeks at a time on free run, then shifted to 
another schedule and free run.  My resource consumption profile?
Consistently downward over time, leveling out at about a starvation
level of calories. (1100-1200/day).  The dominant factor BY FAR was
that there wasn't much to do in a room 11x17 with two other guys,
bunk beds, chairs, and a TV, other than be a couch potatoe.  Since
most of my time was spent laying down or sitting, I didn't consume
much.  Period.  Free run day or day-night schedule.  

The cost of a transisition is NOT resources, but rather PERFORMANCE.
We were awakened at the bottom of our {heart rate, temperature, etc}
curves and put on a flight simulator.  Being at a bottom (or going
through a desyncronization) resulted in SIGNIFICANT drops of
performance.  The conclusion?  Keep folks syncronized, but out of
phase.  (i.e. have one person who is awake and near a body temperature
high point on each shift so that they will perform well in an 
emergency.)  The exact interval for syncronization doesn't matter 
much, but time in the range of 22-28 hours are easiest for most folks
to accept (given our sample of 9 people in a 3 1/2 month study).

Unless there is an overwhelming need for something other than 24,
it wouldn't be worth the confusion of using a non-standard day, IMHO.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1989 14:01-EST 
From: Mike.Blackwell@ROVER.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: Source for space pictures?

Can anyone recommend a good source for poster size and quality space
pictures? Specifically, I'd like the famous "earthrise" shot from
Apollo 8, about 2x3 feet. Aldrin with flag and LEM in the background
would be good, too. I've seen ads for giant wall sized pics, but that's
too big... Send replies to me, I'll summaraize if requested.

		thanks!  Mike Blackwell  (mkb@rover.ri.cmu.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 89 22:39:09 GMT
From: rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Rick Francis Golembiewski)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In Message: <659@uceng.UC.EDU>  dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny)
says:

>At present, manned ventures are (very roughly, I believe) ten times as
>expensive as unmanned ventures in terms of data and benefits returned.
Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from
unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space.  This is
important, since EVENTUALLY (hopefully before I'm too old...) There
will be a need for a good amount of human labour in space (cheap &
adaptable, not perfect but it's been pretty economical, and it'de be
cheaper to have a person instead of a bunch of specialized gadgets)


>We might even go so far as to say that a certain manned program almost
>eliminated the US as a spacefaring nation.
I wouldn't go that far, especially since even IF the Challenger
disaster caused public opinion to go against manned space filght
(In actuallity most of the people I talked too felt that NASA was
taking too long to restart the shuttle program ) to the degree that
the shuttle was discontinued.  There would STILL be some sort of
space program (I doubt that the Military would ask the soviets to put
up U.S. spy satellites :-), not to mention that people like haveing
the benifits of satellites (ie Trans-Atlantic Communications. Weather
Fortcasting etc.  TV, what would the news be like without any
satellite photos. (The weather just wouldn't be as real for me ;-)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 89 13:01:30 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!dciem!client1!bgm@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bruce Matthews)
Subject: Re: Concorde - Last Word

The author of this piece requested that it be posted.  

Hi -

I've been following the debate about the Concorde and the Tu-144 on space
news with great interest, and want to pass on some information I got from 
a reference book on civilian aircraft.  

The Concorde had a total production of 22:
   2 static, non-flying units
   2 prototypes
   2 pre-production models
  16 production models

The first flight was in early 1969.  As of 1986, Air France and British 
Airways had 7 each flying.

The Tu-144 had 3 prototypes, with the first flight on 31 December 1968.  It
was redesigned and went into service in 1973.  It is estimated that 10
production models were built.  It was withdrawn from service in June, 1978.
A new model, the Tu-144D has been tried out, but is not in service.  Note that
it flew before the Concorde.

A few comparisons between the planes, and the planned, but cancelled Boeing
SST (which was to be the 2707-300).

                       Concorde        Tu-144   B-2707
Max speed (mph/kmph)  1354/2179     1550/2520   1800 (est)
Range in miles/km     3870/6228     4040/6500
Crew/passengers           3/144         3/140   3/234

I flew the Concorde from Dallas to Washington Dulles in the late 70's and
found it to be cramped.  The seats are 2 on each side of the aisle, slightly
wider than coach seats, but with leg room comparable to first class.  There
was a galley midway down the passenger cabin, and a rest room at each end of
the passenger cabin.  The flight deck was very, very cramped and hard to get
into. (I have heard that one reason for this is that the electronics to the 
controls and sensors are discrete wired and not multiplexed as on other jets
of that era.  Coupled with the thin fuselage, it means that the cable bundles
cramp the cabin area.)  On takeoff, the pilot really put it to the wall, and
we climbed out at a very steep angle for a commercial jet.  The flight was
quite smooth, and we flew at Mach 0.96 after leaving the Dallas metro area and
climbing to ~40,000 feet.  The flight paths out of Dallas and into Dulles were
complex, due to noise abatement requirements.  The plane was a British Airways
plane that was leased to Braniff for the flight.  After reaching Dulles, the
Braniff crew deplaned and a BA crew came on to fly it in to London, the reverse
happened the day before on the Dulles-DFW leg.  The flight was a very expensive
way to get to Washington about 30 minutes faster than the regular flights - it
cost 20% above the normal first class fare to Dulles, and this was before the
deregulation.  I lucked out, and it was the only flight available that day!

Edmund Hack
Lockheed ESC
Houston, TX 
hack%lock.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1989 17:19-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SST's

I recently read through some old newspaper clippings on the SST that I
cut from the papers back when I was in High School. I will stand by my
statement about "noisy neo-luddites". Whatever other 'reasons' may have
been used to justify the anti-SST stand, they were more creative
inventions to try to kill the SST than they were reality. I would put
them on a par with Jeremy Rifkin anti-tech arguments in use today.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 14:32:22 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <IXvVuBy00WB_43mYsp@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:

>>At present, manned ventures are (very roughly, I believe) ten times as
>>expensive as unmanned ventures in terms of data and benefits returned.

>Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from
>unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space.  This is
>important, since EVENTUALLY (hopefully before I'm too old...) There
>will be a need for a good amount of human labour in space (cheap &
>adaptable, not perfect but it's been pretty economical, and it'de be
>cheaper to have a person instead of a bunch of specialized gadgets)

Experience gained by having people work in space is only worthwhile if
there is some prospect of profitably applying it in the reasonably
near future.  If we must wait too long to apply it, it isn't worth it,
since the effective rate of return on the research investment is too
low.  Current manned activities in space seem to me to make sense only
if we can expect launch costs to come down a LOT in the next decade or
so.  Sorry, but I don't see that happening, at least not in this country.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 19:50:07 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Commercially Developed Space Facility Act of 1989

San Diego L5 and its nation-wide political action network is working
with members of both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
to ensure that the Commercially Developed Space Facility (CDSF formerly
ISF) is funded soon.  After CDSF is funded, it will be easy, again through
Appropriations, to terminate Space Station since there will be a private
space station which can take its place earlier at far less cost.

Anyone who wishes to help with this project should send me their
US Mail address via private email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 08:50:31 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: UFO abduction evidence?

In article <1106@ns.UUCP> logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes:
>Clark, editor of IUR and Allen Hynek's heir apparent, questioned Hopkins on
>the existence of physical evidence in reported UFO abduction victims.  Here
>Mr. Hopkins makes one of the most fantastical statements that I have ever seen
>in the IUR -- he states that many abduction victims are reported to have tiny
>BB sized balls implanted by the UFO occupants under the skin of the victims.

Hey, wow, I know what these are!  I saw it in the movie "Destroy
All Monsters".  These are remote control devices that the yoofoe
people use to turn the abductees into robots.  Just like the
reanimated corpses in "Plan Nine from Outer Space".  Uh, oh, here
come the Men in Black...

(Fade to black, with Twilight Zone theme music.)

(In case it isn't obvious ...  :-) :-) :-) :-)
-- 
The powers not  delegated to the United States by the | Mike Van Pelt
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are | Video 7
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.| ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
U. S. Constitution, Ammendment 10.  (Bill of Rights)  |

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 00:39:25 GMT
From: ems@apple.com  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

In article <Added.4XlHiiy00Ui38HQE8q@andrew.cmu.edu> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes
>
>     A few weeks ago, there was a report on the boob-tube about a lady
>in France who had spent about 60 days inside a cave (mineshaft?),
>completely isolated with no timepieces.  She was startled when they
>brought her out and said her time was up, as it seemed that she had
>often spent 40 - 60 hours awake at a stretch without noticing.
>
This is likely to be due to her own quirky construction.  I find this
claim (40-60 hour days) a bit hard to swallow.  Are you sure it is 
correctly quoted?

>     The question then becomes, how ingrained are our sleep patterns to
>our environment?  How does this effect manifest itself in long-term
>orbits (like in Mir)?  Does the proximity of timepieces and the day-cycle
>of the earthbound communications force the astronauts to keep the
>`normal' day cycle?  What is the effect of having two or more people
>setting up their own `day' cycles?

Our sleep patterns are pretty strongly engrained.  There have been
several other studies that have resulted in the conclusion that most
folks have a 'natural day' of about 22-27 hours.  More people tend to
be a bit on the long side than on the short, but some are in each camp.
Changes of a few hours are OK, but much beyond that is chaotic.  I would
surmise that since most folks will be close to a 24 hour day anyway, it
would be simplest to just keep them in sync at 24.  When 2 or more folks
are allowed to 'free run' and set up their own days, one of them becomes
the biological leader and the others drift into sync with them.  This 
person may not be the social leader.

[Mars speculation deleted ...]

>     If nothing else, more experiments could be done on isolation
>experiments similar to the French one (i.e. no contact, no *clocks*),
>especially the effect of having two people involved (against setting up
>your own rhythms).  Just a thought - go to it, thought-busters!

It has already been done.  I know from first hand experience.  I was one
of the subjects in a study of social isolation and circadian rythyms
done at UCDavis in about 1972.  When SkyLab was going for 85 days in 
space, we were going for 105 days on the ground.  They played all kinds
of games with our timing (including several weeks at a time of 'free
running') and switching 'noon' to happen at our biological 'midnight';
talk about jet lag!  We had no idea what day, date, or time is was.

Several interesting conclusions were derived.  (I'll be brief and only
list a couple...).  One was that the social leader did not corelate with
the biological leader (positive or negative corelation).  Another was 
that the scale of 'augementer/reducer' did corelate.  (This means, to
grossely simplify, that night people like to be left alone in the dark 
while morning people like stimulation and crowds and bright lights...)
One guy in our group had a natural day of about 23 hours.  Mine was 
about 25.5 hours.  We 'settled' on 25 hours (i.e. I was the biologic
leader and moved his pattern more than he moved mine.)  The third guy
was a 24is hour type and didn't have much influence on the drift rate.

No group had anyone much beyond a 26 hour day during 'free run'
intervals.  My experience would lead me to suspect anyone who claimed
that a 40-60 hour day was not noticed by the participant(s).  I 
would look closely at the issue of 'naps', also.

If anyone wants me to add more on this, let me know; otherwise I'll
assume that this posting was already too long!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Feb 89 21:59:18 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Comparing c and speed of sound


>From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
>Subject: Re: Approaching c

>Just one note of skepticism here...

>Back in the 1940's when we were attempting to break the sound barrier,
>the aerodynamic equations seemed to indicate the the air loads (the force on
>the wings) would go infinite at Mach speed.  Half the aerospace engineers
>seemed to think it was not possible to accomplish.  Good thing Chuck Yeager
>wasn't real strong in Math.

If they really thought air loads would go infinite, they should have known
better. At the time, there were many things which could be made to go faster
than the speed of sound (i.e. many rifle bullets), which were not crushed
by infinite forces. I agree that theories have been proven wrong in the
past and probably will be in the future, and that one should not assume
all current theories are correct, but different theories have different
degrees of "solidity", and Special Relativity seems pretty solid at present.
The fact that one theory has been proven wrong does not mean that all other
theories are *equally* doubtful.

My own area of skepticism: I'm not convinced that it's possible for a 
black hole to come into existence in a finite period of time, from the
viewpoint of an outside observer.

"Everyone knows that dragons don't exist. But while this simplistic
formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the
scientific mind." - The Cyberiad, by Stanislaw Lem

                                   John Roberts
                                   roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 13:05:06 GMT
From: spdcc!eli@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU  (Steve Elias)
Subject: Re: Effects of clouds on climate measured by NASA project (Forwarded)

for more information on this topic, refer to Science, 6 Jan 1989.



-- 
   Steve Elias (eli@spdcc.com);((617 239 9406)) *funk() /* C, not lisp */

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #234
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Feb 89 15:05:24 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00968>; Sat, 11 Feb 89 06:50:50 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 11 Feb 89 06:50:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EXx0fWy00Vs1A0nk5l>;
          Sat, 11 Feb 89 05:28:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.EXx0Xmy00UkZ4wGk4Y>;
          Sat, 11 Feb 89 05:20:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AXx0Twy00UkZAwFE5p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 89 05:16:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #235

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 235

Today's Topics:
		   Shuttle orbital elements needed
		Re: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #212
	       Re: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1988
		Re: Space travel and the human spirit
			   approaching "C"
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 21:37:31 GMT
From: nic.MR.NET!indri!larry!jwp@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Shuttle orbital elements needed

I need some "typical" orbital elements for the space shuttle.
Any actual elements from past missions would do fine.  Can
someone send them to me?  Thanks.
-- 
Jeff Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 23:06:52 GMT
From: ems@apple.com  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: Soviet Semiconductor Manufacturing

In article <14016@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:

>Anyhow, who could use such materials?  I can't do a production run based
>on a couple ingots grown in space.  I need quantity, and I need a 
>performance edge so large it can justify dependence on an expensive 
>technology that could be yanked away at any time by engineering "glitches"
>beyond my control.

Small lot manufacturing.  For example, each Cray is custom built...

>What would you do with super-perfect crystals grown in microgravity?
>Redesign your latest RISC engine for an ultra-custom batch of super-tight
>geometry chips?  Re-tune your operating system to accommodate the higher
>speed?  Design new hardware systems to hold these super-chips?  What
>applications cry out for performance so badly that they can justify
>this technology?

REALLY FAST test instruments to test the best stuff you can build on
earth (for one...).  Think nitch!  Not everyone is an assembly line.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 23:38:12 GMT
From: ems@apple.com  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #212

In article <602189018.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>> (Quick, how many open questions about the moon can you think of?
>> How many of those could be resolved by returning there?)
>
>Is there lunar polar water?
[...]
>So what don't we know about the moon?
[...]
and also ... what don't we know about man/moon interactions?  How
do bodies perform after a year in 1/6th G (as opposed to 0 G in LEO)?
Rather than dealing with rotational platforms in orbit, put one on
the moon and do lunar research on the side...
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'If you can dream it, you can do it'  Walt Disney

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 01:28:18 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1988

In article <672@ablnc.ATT.COM> rcpilz@ablnc.ATT.COM (Robert C. Pilz) writes:
>Why is there all this jabber about NASA this and NASA that? Blaming
>and expecting everything from NASA? 
>... the big 3 (McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
>General Dynamics Corp., and (Orlando's) Martin Marietta have increased
>the number of commercial payload contracts from 2 in 1987 to the
>current number of 26. (11 of these are for foreign companies).

"Companies"?  Try "countries".  Last I heard, the US "commercial" launch
industry had NOT ONE firm commitment from any purely commercial customer.
US or foreign.  The honestly commercial customers are all on Ariane.  If
there's been any change to that, it's recent.

>The commercial space industry is alive and well...

Ha ha.  Ho ho.  The commercial-launches-as-a-sideline-on-government-
launches industry, you mean.  Look at how many pseudo-commercial launches
McD-D, GD, and MM have signed up to do, and then compare it to the volume
of government business.  None of the "big three" is part of the "commercial
space industry" in any accurate sense; they all get their bread and butter
from sole-source US government contracts, with vaguely-competitive
"commercial" business supplying a bit of jam now and then.  The real
commercial space industry is still struggling for existence; if it makes
it, it may wipe the Bloated Three off the map.

>... What the 1988
>act did is set up guidelines for prices at Cape Canaveral launch pads,
>make the government a co-insurer of the flights, and protect the
>companies from arbitrary changes in launch dates. 

All of which is precisely as reliable as all those shuttle launch
contracts that NASA signed and then repudiated without compensation.

>Let's let free enterprise bring space into the next century and
>stop knocking/depending on NASA!

Actually, I agree, but let us not confuse government contracts with
free enterprise.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 12:26:43 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the human spirit

Paul Dietz and I discuss manned space flight:

In article <4239@drivax.DRI> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:

:>I'm 36, and I'd trade the rest of my life for one LEO, assuming I could 
:>take a stack of (old) Yes and Vangelis CDs along.  Quality, not quantity, 
:>makes a life well-lived.
:
:Your current life is so unpleasant that you'd sacrifice your remaining
:decades for one 90 minute orbit?  Why, this is hell, nor are you out
:of it.  And my condolences to your would-be widow and children, if they
:exist.

I didn't say this just to be provocative; it is true.  I do believe that I am
an extreme case who has tried to examine his feelings, and that there
exist others who share such sentiments to greater or lesser degrees.  I
wanted to speak for them as well.  Can you not imagine a feeling so sublime
that you would trade any other experience for it?  

:>Some individuals experience extreme emotions, bordering on the "religious", 
:>when contemplating the entry of man into space.  I do believe that it is 
:>spiritual, of the *human* spirit, in the most sublime sense: it is something
:>no animal would ever do, nor could it want to.
:
:Um, let's not commit the common philosophical error of confusing the
:individual with mankind in general.  It is consistent for me to
:believe that people will eventually live in space and yet still think
:that it would be pointless for me, personally, to travel there.

I'm not sure we understand each other here.  My purpose in my posting was
only secondarily to say that men >should< go into space because men >want< to 
go into space; my primary purpose was just to affirm that the desire can be
pretty overwhelming.  I mentioned in passing that I thought that such desires
were ordinate to man as a being, and so rational.

:By the way, how would *your* going into space help achieve any goals,
:other than purely personal ones?

I was only talking about purely personal goals, so my apologies if I mislead
readers.  Still, I think it will be a good thing when artists and writers and
poets are able to visit space and return their impressions to the rest of us. 

:>The fundamentally conservative values of those who oppose manned space flight:>are not to be questioned.
:
:Once again, it should be noted that opposing manned spaceflight IN THE
:PRESENT (or, more precisely, opposing the appropriation of public
:funds to pay for manned spaceflight) does not mean opposing manned
:spaceflight for all time.  Nor is it obviously true that manned
:spaceflight right now is necessary or even helpful in achieving
:a longterm goal of moving mankind into space.
:
:I hope my values -- whatever you perceive them to be -- are not above
:question.

:	Paul F. Dietz
:	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

All true, and my comment about conservative values was kind of a cheap shot.  
I have great respect for Mr. Dietz, and know him to be a thoughtful and
careful writer, and it bothers me to disagree with him, even if the
disagreement is superficial.  I do not support the use of government funds
for manned space flight, or any space program for that matter.   I don't
believe that my personal feelings - or anybody else's - are relevant to the
political and economic questions of how to get the best value for investments
in space research.  I >do< believe that such emotions and the lack of them
are relevant to the larger questions of why man should or should not venture
personally into space, and why men should pursue goals of this type in the
first place, where these questions are considered on their own merits and not
on current feasibility.  Again, my apologies if this was not clear from my
previous posting. 

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 15:35:14 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: approaching "C"

> HAYHURS@IUBACS.BITNET
> If ou follow the course of development, the speed of sound was a barrier
> for a very long time; now we have broken the speed of sound.  A lot of
> questions about doing that involed the effects of approaching that mark.
> The spped of sound was a barrier - you could fly up to it, break it, &
> cross over BUT NOT FLY AT IT.  Who says that the speed of light is not
> similar?

Well, there are several meanings of "impossible"... at least three.
One might mean something like "it is impossible to trisect the angle",
or "it is impossible to square the circle", or "it is impossible to
completely solve the halting problem".  These are absolutely
impossible.  They involve abstract entities, the definition of which
make it completely certain beyond rational question that they cannot
be done.

Then there are things like "it is impossible to travel FTL", or
"it is impossible to travel in time", or "it is impossible to
extract work from a system in equilibrium", or "it is impossible
to build a perpetual motion machine".  These involve models
of the real world.  The abstract entities in the model constitute
absolute impossibilities, and the only question is whether the
model accurately describes or resembles reality.

Finally, there are things like "it is impossible to make a heavier
than air flying machine", or "it is impossible to travel faster than
10mph by rail", or other examples.  These merely involve things that
haven't been done yet.  There is no particular well-founded model of
the situation that forbids the situation.

Now it seems to me (and I don't mean to put anyone down here, mind you)
that most people making the argument "well we broke the sound barrier,
so maybe someday we'll break the light barrier" are classing all
"impossible things" as things of the third kind.  It is my belief that
supersonic travel was an "impossibility" of the third kind.  After all,
there were known objects that traveled supersonically, and (as far as
I know) there was no well-checked model of supersonic airflow which
disallowed it.  So all that remained was a small matter of engineering.

But impossibilities of the second kind, FTL for example, are NOT a
small matter of engineering.  Finding them "possible" will require
building a new basic model of reality, and one just about as radical
as one which would allow a perpetual motion machine.  In the Navy, the
difficult is one immediately and the impossible takes a little longer.
But I note that even the Navy hasn't tackled impossibilities of the
first or second kinds, only the third kind.

So, to answer the question posed, *I* say they are not similar.
FTL and FTS are not really remotely in the same class of "difficulty".

( Note well, I am NOT, repeat, NOT saying that FTL is absolutely
  impossible.  After all, conservation of matter was once thought
  to be pretty secure until it became conservation of mass-energy.
  It's just that the analogy of FTL to FTS is flawed. )

( Somebody else mentioned that aerodynamic equations of some sort
  predicted infinite stresses at SoS, "just like" special relativity
  predicts infinite mass at SoL.  But the two are NOT "just alike".
  The aerodynamic equations were engineering equations that were
  developed to model subsonic airflow, and were tested against
  reality for only fairly narrow ranges of conditions.  Special
  relativity, on the other hand, is intended to model velocities and
  interactions of all kinds, and has been tested very thoroughly
  indeed, very close to lightspeed indeed. )

--
All things dull and gargully,
All creatures short and squat,
All thngs rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
                                --- Monty Python
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 01:17:31 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

In article <1989Jan27.075350.2215@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>... A desire to have people in space at some
>point in the future does not necessarily justify manned spaceflight in
>the present.

Unless, of course, one actually wants to get started on having people in
space someday, as opposed to postponing it indefinitely.  If one wants to
get started on it any time within the next few decades, it is not too
early to start doing it experimentally to lay the groundwork.  If one wants
to postpone it a few centuries, of course, any work on it is pointless,
since it will be possible to buy it from the Soviets long before then.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 05:45:51 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <IXvVuBy00WB_43mYsp@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
> Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from
> unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space.

True. However, we pay a considerable premium for this data. What
exactly do we need to learn that we don't already know, and how will
our current manned space priorities teach us these things? I was under
the impression that many of the major unanswered questions about life
in zero-g must await fundamental advances in physiology (e.g.,
understanding and preventing bone decalcification and muscle atrophy).
Studying hibernating bears (which actually increase their lean body
mass and bone density while hibernating) might be a more productive
way to do this. What knowledge do we gain by, say, having a piloted
shuttle?

>  This is
> important, since EVENTUALLY (hopefully before I'm too old...)

Hopefully you're pretty young now :-)

> There
> will be a need for a good amount of human labour in space (cheap &
> adaptable, not perfect but it's been pretty economical, and it'de be
> cheaper to have a person instead of a bunch of specialized gadgets)

Humans will not have the slightest chance of surviving and being
productive in space without that bunch of specialized gadgets. Human
labor in space will not be cheap. Even if launch costs were to drop
to zero, you still have to haul around and maintain a completely
engineered environment. That cannot be cheap compared to terrestrial
existence. Human labor costs in space will be at least ten to
one thousand times as high as terrestrial labor costs (the latter
figure is probably optimistic for the next several decades).

Thus human labor productivity in space must reach levels far beyond
any yet seen on earth. Manned space advocates must, paradoxically,
engineer away the need for manual labor in space insofar as possible,
if they (we) are to have a chance of establish an economically
justifiable manned presence in space. Requiring space-suited human
crews to assemble huge structures _by hand_ sounds like either
astronautical feather-bedding or a prescription for economic collapse.
Except on projects with phenomenally high payoffs. (Manual labor might
always be a useful emergency resource.) 

Consider current trends in undersea development. Launch costs are
essentially zero (just drop your ballasted submersible off a surface
vessel), but the overhead required to maintain an environment for
humans is driving a trend toward autonomous and tele-operated craft.
Admittedly, teleoperation is simpler because the distances involved
are less, but the payoff is higher when you build machines to serve
people and not the other way around :-)

The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish
and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature. By supporting robust
funding levels for unmanned missions, manned advocates will further
their cause. By choking unmanned missions, they may well be delaying
the advent of economically sound human space travel. 

I detect a parallel with certain threatened smokestack industries. The
unions involved are caught in a dilemma. They realize they must
allow labor productivity to increase for their industries to survive.
In the long run, higher productivity means greater wealth and employment
for everyone. In the short run, it means layoffs and dislocations.
Space travel is all about taking the long view, so I thought.

cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #235
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Feb 89 06:17:22 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00612>; Sun, 12 Feb 89 04:52:52 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 12 Feb 89 04:52:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8XxI1sy00Vs1M0qE85>;
          Sun, 12 Feb 89 03:29:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.sXxHs4y00UkZ4xD05S>;
          Sun, 12 Feb 89 03:19:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXxHp9y00UkZMxBU4-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 03:16:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #236

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 236

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
			 Re: approaching "C"
	      Re: repost: summer jobs available at Rice
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #229
		   Re: INF Treaty and Pershing II's
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 89 22:10:14 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #455 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 37.11212516 0.00000252           29319-3 0  1836
2 00424  80.4608  55.0303 0024570 105.8721 254.5120 13.67068124314900
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 38.12351410 0.00000000           10000-3 0  6409
2 08820 109.8067 185.5378 0044863 343.5897  16.3113  6.38663757 42329
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 33.14154379 -.00000009                   0  2233
2 10061   6.8277  69.9279 0011718 160.4161 199.8823  1.00264764  4025
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 35.82789722 0.00000012                   0   272
2 10684  63.5108 104.9222 0106632 199.9159 159.7786  2.00562444 65871
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 35.28478981 -.00000028                   0  9532
2 10893  64.5394 345.7852 0148334  28.1395 332.6449  2.00560677 78682
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 30.20580920 0.00000089           10000-3 0  5709
2 10953   5.6814  72.5569 0006308 243.9265 117.2354  1.00277658  1253
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 36.98613259 0.00001604           61426-3 0   748
2 10967 108.0148  17.4644 0001953 302.2947  57.8003 14.34240460555273
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 32.11005454 -.00000028                   0  9813
2 11054  64.0946 342.3889 0051559 117.9773 242.5431  2.00560173 75635
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 30.72247047 0.00000012                   0   881
2 11141  63.5124 105.0006 0056159 321.6745  37.8553  2.00554311 74303
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 36.46164567 0.00000853           37702-3 0  8040
2 11416  98.5028  37.4083 0012557 129.9486 230.2818 14.25441551499133
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 36.56447506 0.00036517           90357-3 0  8363
2 11703  28.4975 119.3627 0001323  73.0656 287.0169 15.39076412499456
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 32.67161080 -.00000028                   0  8416
2 11783  63.9058 342.0434 0138267  62.3856 299.0162  2.00565997 64282
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 31.83054292 -.00000125           10000-3 0   505
2 11964   5.1628  75.4889 0035056  93.1723 267.2187  0.99232053   679
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 35.03731701 -.00000247           10000-3 0  6896
2 12472   2.2017  82.1479 0007053 308.9363  51.0470  1.00288332 27270
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 37.08500126 0.00039157           87419-3 0  4403
2 12888  97.5804  83.8543 0002539 173.1682 186.9802 15.43438458408663
RS-08      
1 12998U          89  1.00414286 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5578
2 12998  82.9574 327.4553 0020002   4.8175 355.3069 12.02967823309209
RS-05      
1 12999U          89  5.23545068 0.00000012           10000-3 0  5515
2 12999  82.9601 319.6709 0008004 307.7882  52.2540 12.05064523310257
RS-07      
1 13001U          89  3.20209254 0.00000013           10000-3 0  4294
2 13001  82.9579 310.7815 0021450 198.4315 161.5982 12.08709133310948
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 36.34788007 0.00000288           25056-3 0  6212
2 13113  82.5415 163.5394 0016642  72.7686 287.5299 13.83929944347000
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 37.98204209 0.00039764           10833-2 0  4313
2 13138  51.6086 232.9473 0000684 251.5861 108.4673 15.37088323388132
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 37.04528503 0.00000303           15433-3 0  7457
2 13718  81.2440  49.8322 0057041  13.0827 347.1818 14.13074219317035
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 36.00091065 0.00000120                   0  9055
2 14050   0.9639  84.1144 0001087 263.3955  12.4551  1.00263655  5281
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 36.49538145 -.00000058           10000-3 0  3768
2 14129  26.6848 281.5403 6052058  15.1745 357.1244  2.05883005 14502
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 29.77180679 0.00000011                   0  6027
2 14189  63.1392 103.6901 0132832 214.3825 144.8062  2.00573471 40663
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 34.08600364 0.00000492           20705-3 0  6894
2 14452  81.1615  67.9285 0096160 122.6355 238.4146 14.21984577273483
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 37.16329085 0.00001085           25093-3 0  6432
2 14780  98.1884 101.8165 0001811 304.5556  55.5992 14.57116401262488
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 36.14035952 0.00001734           34771-3 0  4013
2 14781  98.0216  98.7187 0014162  20.1924 339.9903 14.62918937263233
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 36.36470616 0.00022738           50860-3 0  7451
2 14898  28.5100  19.2599 0002164 203.0911 157.0735 15.42035305271020
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 30.32492455 0.00000011                   0  6214
2 15039  62.8835 102.9872 0014901 281.5075  78.3812  2.00564981 33958
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 35.68480345 0.00000258           22433-3 0  9224
2 15099  82.5305 111.7676 0011839 247.4681 112.5222 13.83604205231791
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 30.22495879 -.00000028                   0  5694
2 15271  63.4059 341.9536 0099588 317.8024  41.4371  2.00562626 31069
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 29.91998751 0.00002555           37764-3 0  9727
2 15331  82.5398 106.0086 0024835 170.5884 189.5176 14.74711048233839
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 34.41500354 0.00000637           36974-3 0  3312
2 15427  99.1305  18.8389 0015346 333.2354  26.8023 14.11807907213574
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 31.97410200 0.00000172           14448-3 0   480
2 15516  82.5321  53.0997 0017429 133.6229 226.6388 13.84029293202216
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 36.94176885 0.00030551           83647-3 0  1597
2 16095  51.6114 238.0039 0001239 258.3255 101.6811 15.37061405387975
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 32.87385164 0.00000012                   0  2931
2 16129  63.6761 103.4488 0115600 150.5291 210.1858  2.00565526 24321
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 31.29466601 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8026
2 16191  82.5505 332.5396 0018804 283.8521  76.0509 13.16857982157501
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 31.27042775 0.00000346           30064-3 0  4582
2 16408  82.5358 328.5319 0016283 330.6101  29.4133 13.84113097156615
Mir        
1 16609U          89 38.01336865 0.00072788           57623-3 0  6806
2 16609  51.6229 300.3824 0011778 246.0798 113.9832 15.70573342170821
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 37.80447931 0.00040117           18752-1 0  3552
2 16613  98.7130 114.2850 0001334 129.1691 230.9648 14.20016956 66196
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 31.36238429 0.00000287           24891-3 0  2761
2 16735  82.5372 355.2081 0015900  38.5735 321.6550 13.83844686135531
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 36.30432235 0.00003529           52657-3 0  5118
2 16881  82.5270 159.8124 0023543 166.0307 194.1501 14.74406898135854
EGP        
1 16908U          89 23.47746664 -.00000036           23094-4 0  1162
2 16908  50.0130  22.9411 0011057 337.2307  22.8036 12.44374585111392
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 32.13413605 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1263
2 16909  50.0184 356.5430 0011026 358.1497   1.9294 12.44397461112468
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 34.40958829 0.00000498           23912-3 0  1880
2 16969  98.6531  67.3718 0012814 281.0680  78.8784 14.22791207124912
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 32.71762884 0.00000331           29021-3 0  2204
2 17290  82.4673 262.4324 0012675 283.4982  76.4581 13.83663130104887
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 32.87866317 -.00000103           10000-3 0  2270
2 17561   0.0936 256.3952 0004029 308.3915 155.2428  0.99988189   408
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 38.07700199 0.00043173           34483-3 0  6636
2 17845  51.6228 300.0576 0011729 247.3492 112.7424 15.70580721107109
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 34.93488462 0.00000140           14320-3 0  6601
2 18129  82.9303 336.5850 0013326  62.4425 297.8108 13.71937692 81121
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 37.84802402 0.00077323  39645-5  14917-3 0  8845
2 18225  71.8779  45.2490 0009630 274.3775  84.5940 16.00285935 90396
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 31.28625707 0.00001111           10000-2 0  2374
2 18312  82.5511 327.9996 0011025 215.5492 144.4920 13.83424592 73589
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 31.91132450 0.00000153           12729-3 0   831
2 18820  82.5392  28.8429 0015738 295.2303  64.7231 13.84086418 50833
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 21.67169254 -.00000109           10000-3 0   297
2 19216  57.3622 222.9543 6646232 197.5144 118.7893  2.09700975  4665
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 35.56402453 0.00000390           10000-2 0  1240
2 19336  82.5447 269.5102 0015999 149.8678 210.3204 13.16853344 25451
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 34.31541485 0.00000593           35193-3 0   434
2 19531  98.9253 339.0838 0011131 251.6699 108.2990 14.10792410 18597
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89 38.07698001 0.00057112           45401-3 0   747
2 19660  51.6235 300.0571 0011478 247.2200 112.7451 15.70576167 11424
Cosmos 1984
1 19705U          89 19.40372789 0.01577637  41422-4  30625-3 0   813
2 19705  62.8261 186.2234 0062393 117.7652 243.1376 16.25470591  5424
1988 111A  
1 19710U          89 21.35764026 -.00000322           10000-3 0   296
2 19710   0.5294 261.0148 0000533  95.1335   3.8189  1.00268307   331
Progress 39
1 19728U          89 38.07696405 0.00065264           51747-3 0   521
2 19728  51.6228 300.0578 0011679 247.3677 112.5086 15.70581579  6935
Cosmos 1986
1 19734U          89 30.04555172 0.00231193  10296-4  15848-3 0   635
2 19734  64.7693 165.7278 0036026 181.2863 178.8084 16.14732981  5107
1989 001A  
1 19749U          89 36.31788888 0.00000021           10000-3 0   332
2 19749  64.8613 175.1274 0004909 282.5006  77.4140  2.13102323   574
1989 001B  
1 19750U          89 37.31508824 0.00000021           10000-3 0   414
2 19750  64.8775 175.0986 0004559 253.3451 106.5698  2.13102323   599
1989 001C  
1 19751U          89 36.30964699 0.00000021           10000-3 0   330
2 19751  64.8736 175.1264 0009096 256.0816 103.7805  2.13155866   570
1989 001F  
1 19754U          89 32.99756385 0.00000021           10000-3 0   144
2 19754  64.8732 175.2408 0014280 316.8939  42.9607  2.13419920   480
1989 002A  
1 19756U          89 38.28433289 0.00161902  96122-5  31056-3 0   448
2 19756  82.5615 282.7025 0038123  46.1943 312.8443 15.99030197  4145
1989 004A  
1 19765U          89 36.24732356 0.00000127           10000-3 0   215
2 19765   1.4903 276.7052 0003298 348.5840  12.3250  1.00261304   112
1989 005A  
1 19769U          89 38.10747195 0.00000561           22344-3 0   242
2 19769  74.0531 347.3498 0024688 306.8626  53.0260 14.30575478  1642
1989 005B  
1 19770U          89 36.83253441 -.00003413          -12462-2 0   169
2 19770  74.0485 349.6021 0017229 340.2828  19.8102 14.32823944  1469
1989 006A  
1 19772U          89 35.54151743 0.00000183           10000-3 0    76
2 19772   0.2525 240.5098 0007579 226.6682 252.8464  1.00272302    75
1989 006B  
1 19773U          89 35.24785187 -.00000026           10000-3 0   111
2 19773   8.3896 310.7297 7196119 184.5934 160.6879  2.25482300   193
1989 007A  
1 19774U          89 38.15561183 0.00796795  34675-4  26441-3 0   270
2 19774  64.7452 315.0561 0122648  75.7486 285.8174 16.09378982  1558
1989 004F  
1 19776U          89 35.34446501 -.00000077           10000-3 0    58
2 19776   1.4845 276.1579 0025001 313.4592  46.6729  0.97996391   115
1988 095F  
1 19777U          89 25.50000000 -.00000103           10000-3 0    12
2 19777   1.2700 275.0710 0012694  74.1980 312.6030  0.97936040    09
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 03:11:06 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!tron@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard G Brewer)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <662@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>In article <IXvVuBy00WB_43mYsp@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
>> Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from
>> unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space.
>
>True. However, we pay a considerable premium for this data. What
>exactly do we need to learn that we don't already know, and how will

You both realize that this is, of course, an ancient, dog-eared, argument...

	-Rick

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 19:14:37 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"

Just an aside: Robert Forward mentioned in a talk he gave here that
he is now looking at tachyons.  Antimatter is old hat, I guess!

I can see it now: the Air Force, surveying Soviet research, announces
the existence of a Tachyon Gap.  SDI begins studying tachyon guns for
shooting backwards in time for pre-boost phase defense.  :-)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 17:14:23 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!regnery@husc6.harvard.edu  (George Regnery)
Subject: Re: repost: summer jobs available at Rice

In article <602891744.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

> (Note: This is a "Research Experience for Undergraduates" program sponsored 
> by the National Science Foundation.  A number of other Universities will 
> also be participating.  For a list of participating Universities in the 
> Atmospheric and Space Sciences area, contact the Atmospheric Sciences 
> Division of the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.)
  
  Is there a specific person we should contact at the NSF?  Also, could you
please post the complete address for the benefit of everyone here?
  Thank you,
.		----George



-- 
George M. Regnery      ! Worcester     ! Albedo 0.39    ! Going on means      
regnery@wpi.wpi.edu    ! Polytechnic   !  --Vangelis    ! going far. Going
regnery@wpi.bitnet     ! Institute     ! (a good album) ! far means returning.
CompuServe: 73300,3655 ! (Worc, Mass.) ! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=!     --Tao Te Ching

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1989 17:46-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #229

>>The more power that mentality is given over society, the farther said
							    ^^^^
>>society will be driven from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy.

>So you're saying that our society is RIGHT NOW a liberal, laissez-faire
>democracy?  Please go look outside.

Please read what I said.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 04:05:38 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: INF Treaty and Pershing II's

The Pershing 2 failed many of its flight tests during
development.  I'll bet Martin Marietta is relieved to see them being 
destroyed without letting anyone have a chance to see how many of them
really work.

In one test, the missile failed because a large cast-iron ring was out of
position.  I was quite suprised to learn there were any cast-iron parts
in a missile.  After that, they X-rayed all the engines to make sure there
weren't any similar defects.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 00:37:05 GMT
From: ems@apple.com  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <662@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:

[...]
>The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish
>and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature.
[...]
Gee, and I thought Mir didn't use robotics and tele-operated technology
to maintain a manned presence in space ...  are you shure _must_ is
the right word?
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'If you can dream it, you can do it'  Walt Disney

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #236
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Feb 89 05:00:45 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00859>; Sun, 12 Feb 89 05:44:54 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 12 Feb 89 05:44:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4XxJlXy00jZdE1ck54>;
          Sun, 12 Feb 89 05:28:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.cXxJbBy00UkZ8xO04v>;
          Sun, 12 Feb 89 05:17:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XxJZpy00UkZ0xMU4A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 05:16:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #237

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 237

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Re:Re:Re:Number of Concorde ever build
			  Heavy Lift Vehicle
		Re: Space travel and the human spirit
		Re: Space travel and the human spirit
		     Re: SST landing rights in US
		 Re: U.S. Mars Sample Return Mission
		Re: Space travel and the human spirit
Re: NASA selects atmospheric sounder for EOS space platform  (Forwarded)
   Model rocket/High Power rocket addresses, composite engines data
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 23:31:20 GMT
From: ems@apple.com  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: Re:Re:Re:Number of Concorde ever build

In article <wXtB9Ny00VA9Q810hj@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>>>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue.
>> True. But it wasn't really a problem. Does the Europeans have more
>>capacities to handle high level of noise ? No.
>
>*Just a less, uh, "developed" legal system.
>
>So we are undercivilised ? Are we ?
>Do you really believe that if the plane makes a lot of noise to
>the point that it is untolerable, just because we are underdevelop
>we can't have it stoped ?
>
>Just typical of a certain attitude about foreign countries.
>But just wait a while. If you can see what I mean...

I lived under the approach to an airport for a while.  ANYTHING
that threatened to increase the amplitude or duration of the
noise would be staunchly fought by the local residents.  No
political agenda.  No nationalism.  No need for the noise to be
'untolerable'.  No particular bias about machines.  A VERY LARGE
desire for INCREASED PEACE AND QUIET rather than decreased.

Concord was just moving the sound profile in the wrong direction
no matter what airport it wanted to land at.  People want less noise,
not more, from newer aircraft; regardless of national origin.
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'If you can dream it, you can do it'  Walt Disney

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 21:12:20 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Heavy Lift Vehicle

Why should we go through all the hassle of spec'ing, designing,
and making a new HLV?  Why muck about with a Shuttle-C?

Buy a license to manufacture Energias in Florida!

Hmmm.

Make that a partial smiley.  

Do the Russians want something *really* badly that we could provide
them?  

	seh

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 22:47:44 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the human spirit

In article <4246@drivax.DRI>, macleod@drivax.DRI (MacLeod) writes:
> Paul Dietz and I discuss manned space flight:
> 
> :>I do believe that it is 
> :>spiritual, of the *human* spirit, in the most sublime sense: it is something
> :>no animal would ever do, nor could it want to.
> :
> :  It is consistent for me to
> :believe that people will eventually live in space and yet still think
> :that it would be pointless for me, personally, to travel there.
> 
> My purpose in my posting was
> only secondarily to say that men >should< go into space because men >want< to 
> go into space....
> 
I couldn't resist any longer.  From the standpoint of pure feasibility,
Paul Dietz is of course correct.  From the standpoint of mankind's innate
spirit of adventure [ok, innate for SOME of us  :-) ], arguements FOR
manned spaceflight are valid.

No, I don't believe I have just presented conflicting views.  Look at some
examples:  Columbus' voyage could be argued as one of as much adventure as
economics.  Why do people climb mountains? Especially Mt. Everest?  After
all, it's been conquered in just about every conceivable way, but still
people make the attempt.  Is there new knowledge gained?  No.  Some people
are merely driven to new experiences.  But not all people.  I, for one,
have no desire to experience the thrill of skydiving.  After all, why 
voluntarily leap from an airplane that is still flying?  Nor do I wish to
take up bullfighting.  Nor would I climb Everest.  But there are some who
want to do those things, and more.  I am no more justified in saying that
they shouldn't do these things as someone is in condemning a desire to travel
in space, so long as these adventures don't cost me anything.  (In fact, one
could argue that the general public is willing to pay so long as the 
entertainment value holds out.)

I cannot condemn Paul for making his arguements.  Economically, they are
correct, and the US Constitution guarantees him the right to say what he
thinks.  I do have one thing to say, however:

Paul, (and others against manned spaceflight);
Please use a little discretion in your arguements; try not to come across
with the attitude of "it's not economical; therefore it's a waste of time
to even think about doing."  Such thinking is a sure way to kill dreams,
and if we have no dreams, we are little more than human automata.  It is 
the people who hold the dreams that will find a way to eventually refute
the objections to them.  They know, from examining the cold hard facts, that
your arguements are correct.  Still, they cling to a dream.  Let's not
take that dream away.



Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 18:07:52 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the human spirit

In article <27@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>
>No, I don't believe I have just presented conflicting views.  Look at some
>examples:  Columbus' voyage could be argued as one of as much adventure as
>economics.

	From Columbus' standpoint, yes.  There are no shortages of
would-be Columbuses in the US, or even in this newsgroup.  But for
Queen Isabella, the voyage was primarily a question of economics.  There
was a certain amount of national prestige involved, but while that might
have justified one voyage (i.e. Apollo), it was the economic incentives
that caused the Spanish to return again and again to the New World.
There _is_ a shortage of Queen Isabellas today, although the infant
private launch industry is a good sign.

	Frankly, I used to be a hard-core man-in-space enthusiast.
I still think that that is the desirable eventual goal, but the more
I've thought about it, the more I've realized that _I_, personally, have
potentially more to gain from the unmanned programs.  I have essentially
zero chance of becoming an astronaut, unless large colonies are started
in the next 25 years (very unlikely).  After spending 4 years studying a
relevant subject (aero engineering) in a prestigious school and getting
reasonable grades, I'm having trouble just getting into NASA/JPL at all.
In the near future, we stand to learn more tangible science and
intangibles about the position of Man in the universe from the unmanned
program, which is massively underfunded.  Men *are* involved in the
"unmanned" program, _more_ men more intimately wrapped up in exploration.
Let's not kill it by apathy or too much focus on manned missions.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 89 23:19:36 GMT
From: ems@apple.com  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: SST landing rights in US

In article <15438@cisunx.UUCP> jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (James C. Benz) writes:
>>2) SSTs release water vapor at very high altitudes. It was believed
>>that this water vapor would form permanent, or nearly permanent,
>>clouds at altitudes where clouds are not normally found. These clouds
>>would reduce the amount of sun light reaching the ground and cause a
>>global cooling. It was believed that contrails were already having
>>this effect.
>>
>
>Heyyy....  The greenhouse effect reversed!  There might be something to this.
>Lets build lots of high-flying SST's and we in the Northeast can get our
>ski trails back in shape!  And then we can all go back to burning all the
>fossil fuels we can get.

And what about all the military supersonic fights?  Surely what is
true of Eco-concerns for the Concord is also true for the SR71?

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 01:34:36 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: U.S. Mars Sample Return Mission

In article <588@wpi.WPI.EDU> goldmeer@wpi.wpi.edu (Jeffrey S Goldmeer) writes:
>... I am looking for any information of the U.S. Mars Sample
>Return Mission.  Specifiically, I am searching for data on launch dates,
>launch windows, and approximate time of flight.  Any other information
>about the mission would be appreciated.

There is no such mission.  There have been many studies of mounting such
a mission, in a wide range of different ways.  Launch windows and time of
flight vary widely with the specific scheme.  There has never been any
commitment to a specific plan or specific dates.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 20:33:29 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the human spirit

In article <27@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman 
C. Kluksdahl) writes:

>Paul, (and others against manned spaceflight);
>Please use a little discretion in your arguements; try not to come across
>with the attitude of "it's not economical; therefore it's a waste of time
>to even think about doing."  ...

I fear Mr. Kluksdahl misunderstands Mr. Dietz's position.  The argument
as I appreciate it, is not against the idea of manned spaceflight, but
rather against the manner of its funding.  I believe Mr. Dietz believes that
the unmanned space program is much more efficient, in terms of scientific 
return-on-investment, than the manned space program.  The combination of
this belief with the the observations that:

    * both programs are publicly funded;

	* the manned space program is preferentially funded (to the detriment 
	  of the unmanned);

and the opinion that public funds are a scarce resource and likely to 
remain so in the near future, has led Mr. Dietz to conclude that
It would be wise to adjust their relative funding levels.

I don't recall Mr. Dietz ever arguing against private funding of a manned 
space program as being a waste of time.

(Paul, please feel free to correct me).
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 01:29:32 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA selects atmospheric sounder for EOS space platform  (Forwarded)

In article <10522@well.UUCP> tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>How can something like EOS - in polar orbit - be "part of" the Space
>Station? ...

As both the NRC and me -- two illustrious authorities :-) -- have pointed
out, nothing in polar orbit has any rational connection with the space
station whatsoever.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 15:42:24 GMT
From: att!ihlpb!rjungcla@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Model rocket/High Power rocket addresses, composite engines data

Sorry that this has taken so long to compile, but things have been busy 
at work and I have had to unpack much of the materials from a recent move.

Below is a list of model rocket and high power manufacturers and organizations
that I am aware of as of February 8, 1989.  I think this is reasonably complete
but there are still some rocketry materials that I have yet to unpack.

Some of the high power manufacturers will only send you a catalog if you pay 
the appropriate fees - their philosophy is "if you wouldn't pay catalog cost, 
you probably can afford their kits."  I also suspect that this acts as screening
effect to keep out the kids.  Also listed are composite engine prices from 1987. 


Who						Comments
----------------------------------------	------------------
AAA Model Aviation Fuels			Large Model Rocket Kits
Large Scale Rocketry Division			High Power Kits
RD 6, Box 172					Distributor - engines
Edwards Ave.					Distributor - parts
Clarks Summit, PA  18411


Ace Rocket Manufacturing			High Power kits/parts
545 N. Orange Grove Ave.
San Fernado, California  91340


ACS-Reaction Labs				Composite Engines
RT 4, Box 274						(H-J)
Markwell LN
Taylorsville, Ky 40071


Aerotech, Inc					Composite engines
1704 Castleberry Lane					(D-N)
Las Vegas, NV 89115
(702) 438-2001


Apogee Components Inc.				Competition parts
11111 Greenbier Road
Minnetonka, MN  55343
(612) 545-4635


Belleville Hobby				Distributor - Estes,
1827 North Charles Street			   AeroTech, FSI
Belleville, IL.  62221				30% off retail
(681) 234-5989					$1.50 catalog


Cox Manufacturing, Inc.				Model rockets models   
1506 East Warner Ave				(resuming June 1989?)
Santa Ana, California  92705


Eagle Aerospace Systems				High Power rockets
P. 0. Box 2573
Evertt, Washington  98203-0573


Enertek Incorporatated				Large model rockets
2040 West North Lane				(ceased operations 10/88
Phoenix, Arizona  85021-1927			 before deliveries)
(not to be confused with Enerjet also in Phoenix - ceased prod. 1974)


Estes Industries, Inc.				Model rocket kits & engines
P.O. Box 227					(largest & most visible)
1285 H Street					1/2A through D engines
Penrose, CO  81240


Flight Systems Incorporated			Large model rockets
9300 East 68th Street				D-F blackpower engines
Raytown, Missouri 64133				Catalog $2.00


High Sierra Rocketry				Distributor
1800 Severn Drive
Reno, NV  89503
(702) 747-6996


LOC/Precison					High Power Kits
1042 Iroquois					Catalog $1.50
Macedonia, Ohio 44056


Model Rectifier Corporation			Model rocket kits & engines
2500 Woodbridge Ave.				(started 1987)
Edison, New Jersey  08817


National Association of Rocketry		Model Rocket Association 
2140 Colburn Drive				-contests/engine certification
Shakopee, MN 55379				-insurance model rockets only
(612) 445-2105					-American Spacemodeling (MR)


North Coast Rocketry				High Power Kits
P.O. Box 240017					Engine Distributor
Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124			Catalog $1.50
(205) 883-6020


Pine Cap Associates				Model rocket kits
P. 0. Box 5279					Catalog $1.00
7112 Knottypine Ave.				Distributor?
Winter Park, Florida  32793


Space Dynamics					High Power Rockets
1491 Bibiana Way				Catalog $2
Upland, California  91786


Tiffany Hobbies					High Power Kits.
P. O. Box 467
Ypsilanti, Michigan  48197


Tripoli Rocketry Association			High Power Rocket Association
P.O. Box 891373					-engine certification
Houston, TX  77289-1373				-Tripolitian magazine


U. S. Rockets					High Power Rockets
P.O. Box 1242					(slow delivery!)
Claremont, California  91711			Catalog $2


Vulcan Systems, Inc				Composite Engines
(No street address)
Colorado Springs, Colorado



Composite Engine Prices from 1987
=================================
E6 		 $9.95 each		E10,E28,E50 	 $6.95 each
F10		$11.95 each		F20,F41,F80	 $9.95 each
F30		 $7.95 each
G15		$19.95 each		G25, G60, G125	$14.95 each
G45		$10.95 each
H90		$15.95 each		H120		$24.95 each
H125		$29.95 each		H170		$14.50 each
H160		$17.50 each
I65, I140	$59.95 each		I300		$35.50 each
J100		$79.95 each		J700		$119.95 each
J460		$47.50 each

Motor diameters:  .690", 950", 1.13", 1.50", 1.60", 2.125", 3.188", 3.875" 
Motor lengths:	  2.75"  to 45 "

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #237
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Feb 89 12:03:01 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01177>; Mon, 13 Feb 89 04:58:32 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 13 Feb 89 04:58:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8XxdAUy00Ui3A1EE8J>;
          Mon, 13 Feb 89 03:34:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.AXxd2ly00UkZIyKk4z>;
          Mon, 13 Feb 89 03:24:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XxcvUy00UkZAyJE5F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 03:16:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #238

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 238

Today's Topics:
	  Phobos II probe makes first orbital change at Mars
	 Black holes (was Re: Comparing c and speed of sound)
			  Re: Approaching c
		       Re: NSS Board membership
		Re: Space travel and the human spirit
		Re: Space travel and the human spirit
			   Re: GEOS-6 dies.
	    environmental effects of high-altitude flight
	     Current UFO News (pointers, not wild claims)
			       Saturns
		      5th Annual Space Symposium
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 01:33:40 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Phobos II probe makes first orbital change at Mars

   The USSR's Phobos II probe on Feb. 12 raised its orbit from the 
capture one of 4200 km (2610 mi) x 79,000 Km (49,100 mi) to the 
second transfer one of 9700 Km (6030 mi) x 79,000 Km (49,100 mi). (The
orbits here are from the planet center, not from the surface as is 
common for earth orbits).  This change also moved the orbit to an 
equatorial one, which is completely outside of the moon Phobos's path. 
Initial plans had called for this to occur on Feb. 22, but the Russians 
decided to move the rendezvous with Phobos up to about 60 days after 
the initial insertion or about March 31st. The unstated reason is their
worry about the health of the probe. In this new orbit the satellite will
continue its study of Mars itself, however the new periapsis is 2630 Km
(1640 mi) above the surface, compared to the initial minimum height of
800 Km (500 mi). One other point, on Feb. 2 there were statements
that communications had started with the probe.  However, there has been
no confirmation on the shortwave of the receipt of pictures (CBS radio 
stated that the first ones have been received).  Nor has any of my 
contacts been able to confirm the CBS report.  This may be tied to 
earlier reports of transmitter problems.  If anyone has better 
information please contact me.
    Hopefully, Phobos II will still bring us the first real information
about that Moon of Mars.

                                                    Glenn Chapman
                                                    MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 18:18:08 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Black holes (was Re: Comparing c and speed of sound)

In article <8902080259.AA04715@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>My own area of skepticism: I'm not convinced that it's possible for a 
>black hole to come into existence in a finite period of time, from the
>viewpoint of an outside observer.

I'm convinced you're right.

Since time slows down, asymptotically approaching 'stopped' at the
event horizon, the closest there can be is a "black hole in progress".
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                 Video 7              ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
"... Local prohibitions cannot  block advances in military and commercial
technology.... Democratic movements for local restraint can only restrain
the world's democracies, not the world as a whole." -- K. Eric Drexler

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 89 16:23:23 GMT
From: unisoft!hoptoad!dasys1!ccnysci!sukenick@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (SYG)
Subject: Re: Approaching c

>	 As we approach c, the graph has begun to approach the vertical
> asymptote.  More and more, our Kinetic energy (remember, KE=(mv^2)/2)
> is increasing the mass, rather than the velocity.  We can add KE to
> our heart's content;  The universe won't care, we'll continue to
> travel along that hyperbolic line, approaching v=c, but never quit
> obtaining it.

You're mixing frames.

If you're the thing which is accelerating, everything is wonderful,
as long as you have the reaction mass, you'll continue to accelerate
to your heart's content.  Your mass will measure the same (to you), it's
just as easy to accelerate now as it did  when your journey started,
assuming :-) no particles in your path and the speed of light police
don't get you :-).

If you're accelerating something, then you will see that it takes more
and more energy to get the thing to go faster, kinetic energy goes up,
but some of the energy goes into mass.  The velocity
of that object will travel along that hyperbolic line.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 01:09:24 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership

In article <7359@venera.isi.edu> cew@venera.isi.edu.UUCP (Craig E. Ward) writes:
>In 1988, NSS was instrumental in getting the Space Settlement Act
>through Congress.  The act amends the NASA charter to add space colonies
>as a goal of NASA research.  Is this a sign that the Society has given
>up on space colonies?  I don't think so.  I think it's damn good for a
>two year old organization...

Hands up everyone who actually thinks that amending the NASA charter to
add space colonization is going to do diddly-squat to advance space
colonization.  NASA, like all mature bureaucracies, pays attention to
its charter only when it's useful as supporting evidence for funding
requests.  My recollection, admittedly dim, is that NASA's charter defines
technology R&D as a primary goal and says nothing at all about running a
launch system; NASA nowadays puts a lot of money and effort into running
a launch system and very little into R&D.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 22:16:51 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the human spirit

In article <211@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:

>I don't recall Mr. Dietz ever arguing against private funding of a manned 
>space program as being a waste of time.
>
>(Paul, please feel free to correct me).

Well, I don't feel private funding of a manned space program would be
a terribly wise way to invest one's money, but I have no problem with
those who have strongly different feelings spending their own money
any way they see fit.  If you're out to make money I suggest unmanned
is a better idea.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 23:12:43 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the human spirit

In article <211@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) writes:
> In article <27@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman 
> C. Kluksdahl) writes:
> 
> >Paul, (and others against manned spaceflight);
> >Please use a little discretion in your arguements; try not to come across
> >with the attitude of "it's not economical; therefore it's a waste of time
> >to even think about doing."  ...
> 
> I fear Mr. Kluksdahl misunderstands Mr. Dietz's position.  The argument
> as I appreciate it, is not against the idea of manned spaceflight, but
> rather against the manner of its funding.
> I don't recall Mr. Dietz ever arguing against private funding of a manned 
> space program as being a waste of time.
> 
Ah, but I DO understand the position of Paul Dietz regarding manned vs.
unmanned, and the current funding levels of each.  There are LOTS of things
which unmanned probes can accomplish which manned missions are not even close
to being capable of doing.  I NEVER implied that Paul or anyone else for that
matter were totally against ever attempting manned spaceflight.  We can look
at the Soviet BURAN flight for examples of what can be accomplished byh
a sophisticated unmanned flight.  The Solar Max satellite was ailing; the US
fix was to send up a manned shuttle and repair it (but only temporarily).  
My impression of the Soviet program is that they would have either just
launched a new satellite, or COULD HAVE used Buran in an unmanned, teleoperated
mode, to retrieve the existing satellite, which would have been repaired on
the ground, then re-deployed (probably on an expendable).  There is nothing
in this latter scenario which requires men in space, nor is it beyond current
technological capability.

I realize that I walked into the fire, but some things seem to have been taken
out of context.  1)  I admitted up front that economic arguements currently
weigh against manned flight.  2)  I did (IMHO) make reference to the 
'entertainment' factor, which is more favorable to manned missions, but is NOT
by itself justification.  Perhaps I COULD have been more clear in stating that
the arguements were against heavy government funding of manned programs (after
all, what incentive does any government have to make something less expensive?
But that's another subject!).

What I refer to is precisely the discouragement of privately funded programs,
which I doubt anyone should oppose.  After all, if I can gather x Million
dollars, who are you to tell me how to spend it.  Some people, who are very
bright and have good ideas, might possibly be turned off of their dreams of
cheap manned spaceflight.  This would be criminal if they were the same ones
who otherwise would have been the leaders in establishing the desired cheap
access to space, which would then permit massive manned programs.  

After all, "for want of a nail...."


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 01:32:28 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: GEOS-6 dies.

In article <14215@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>"But some satellites have suffered repeated problems with the light bulbs in
>an instrument the satellite uses to keep itself oriented."
>
>A light bulb?  I'm surprised.  That's like hearing a piece of string broke
>or a rubber band snapped.  Does anybody have more specific information on
>what this lightbulb was being used for?

As I recall, it's part of a sensor that encodes the position of rotating
parts in the satellite's scanner system.  Those bulbs are a notorious
reliability problem that is being designed out of more recent satellites;
even putting several of them in each encoder for redundancy hasn't brought
their reliability up to acceptable levels.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 01:50:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: environmental effects of high-altitude flight

In article <574@internal.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>And what about all the military supersonic fights?  Surely what is
>true of Eco-concerns for the Concord is also true for the SR71?

There are only a handful of operational SR-71s and they don't fly all
that much.  Virtually all other military supersonic aircraft spend
essentially all their time at relatively low altitudes and subsonic
speeds.

There is real reason for concern here, both for future SSTs and for
spaceplane developments.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 22:14:28 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Current UFO News (pointers, not wild claims)

John Logajan mentions some of Budd Hopkins's claims about the 3mm spheres
implanted in abductees.  This is only one minor part of the current turmoil
going on in the UFO community right now.  If you are interested in such 
goings-on, I recommend logging onto Paranet Alpha, the home node of the
Paranet BBS system, in Arizona (1-602-837-0062).  (Download LEAR.TXT or
the KRILLn.TXT files for an overview of all this)

The current controversy is over the MJ-12 conspiracy theory.  The entire
drama is too long to relate here, but basically it claims that the US 
government made a deal with malevolent aliens to let them conduct multilations
and abductions in return for receiving advanced technology.  As usual when 
barganing with aliens, we got the short end of the stick; aliens have now 
literally dug themselves in in vast underground complexes in New Mexico 
(a complex under Mt. Archuleta on the New Mexico - Colorado border, near 
Dulce, N.M.) and Nevada (at Datil, Roswell, Sunspot, and the notorious Area 
51 - Dreamland area at Groom Lake within Nellis Air Force Base).  The aliens 
are "out of control" and the CIA and military are supposedly going bananas.  
There are factions within the government supposedly leaking pieces of this
story, while others are trying frantically to keep a lid on it.  If you
get off on adrenaline rushes and conspiracies, check this out.

If you logon to ParaNet Alpha, you might want to read my file, GREYS.TXT, 
which is my analysis of the whole affair. 

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 01:40:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Saturns

In article <2526787@ub.cc.umich.edu> Henry_Edward_Hardy@UB.CC.UMICH.EDU writes:
>And now, a question of my own: what would it cost in current
>dollars to build say, five Saturn V heavy launch vehicles as
>opposed to building and maintaining the same launch capacity
>through the shuttle program? I have heard that some of the dies
>and plans for the Saturn series launch vehicles are no longer in
>existence, and wonder if anyone can confirm or disconfirm this as
>well.

*All* the tooling is gone, likewise most of the specialized skills and
training.  Many of the subcontractors are gone.  Some of the plans are
gone.  The launch facilities are gone, converted to handle the shuttle.
(The idea of retaining Saturn compatibility was rejected as too costly.)
Wernher Von Braun is dead, and the lack of an equally competent leader
is not a small obstacle.  The in-house engineering development capability
at Marshall, very important in the history of the Saturns, is totally
gone and it would all have to be contracted out.

It wouldn't be as hard as starting from scratch, but a lot of the work
would have to be done over.  It would be considerably more expensive,
even in constant dollars, than it was in the 60s -- not all of the work
needs to be re-done, but on the other hand NASA is much less efficient
than it used to be.

The way to get cheap transportation into orbit is to forget doing it
through the government at all.  Do it the way it was done for aeronautics:
offer a guaranteed market (not subsidies, but payment for results only --
the way it was done for aviation was lucrative contracts for carrying
air mail) and let private industry do it.  There is no shortage of
companies that could make a bundle carrying cargo to orbit at a tenth of
the current price, if they knew for sure that the market would be waiting
for them once they finished hardware development.  (The existing hardware
can't possibly do it at that price.)
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 07:42:11 GMT
From: well!dave@apple.com  (Dave Hughes)
Subject: 5th Annual Space Symposium


The Space Foundation asked me to post this.

                                                   Contact:  Robin Dailey
                                                             (719) 550-1000
               COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.   (January 30,   1989) -- The United
          States  Space    Foundation  will launch its Fifth National Space
          Symposium,"Space -- A New  Era",   April  4-7  at  the  Broadmoor
          Hotel  in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
               The  Symposium,   referred to as the "World Series of Space"
          by the late Jules Bergman,   ABC-TV Science Editor,   will  bring
          together  world  authorities  on  space  to  discuss space policy
          issues affecting all nations on Earth.
               The  four-day  event  will  feature  discussion sessions  on
          space  policy  issues,  a workshop and technical review of policy
          implications of space debris,   a dinner and  reception  for  the
          Apollo  astronauts,    the  annual  Space Technology Hall of Fame
          dinner,  exhibits and displays by space-oriented corporations and
          tours  of NORAD.
               Policy issues scheduled for discussion include:
                 *  Space Station:  Status and Potential
                 *  NASA:  Fit and Trim or Bureaucratic?
                 *  Space Physiology and Medicine
                 *  Aerospace Education:  Preparing for Life in a New Era
                 *  International Interests:  Cooperation and Competition
                 *  National  Aerospace  Plane:   Pushing the Technological
                    Frontiers
                 *  Space:  Commercial Opportunity
                 *  Military Space Issues
                 *  Developing Military Space Technology
               Confirmed  program  participants  include  Dr.   Carl Sagan,
          Director of the  Laboratory  for  Planetary  Studies  at  Cornell
          University  and  host    of  the  award-winning television series
          Cosmos;  Dr.  Edward Teller,    Director   Emeritus,     Lawrence
          Livermore   National Laboratory;  Roy Gibson,  former Director of
          the  British  National  Space Center;   Ian Pryke of the European
          Space Agency;  Lt.   Gen.  Donald Kutyna,   Commander,  Air Force
          Space  Command;  Norman  Augustine,  Chairman and Chief Executive
          Officer,  Martin Marietta;   Dr.  David  Webb  of  the   National
          Commission on Space;   Doug Heydon,  President, Arianespace;  Dr.
          Carolyn Huntoon,   Director of Space and Life Sciences,   Johnson
          Space Center;   and Dr. Brenda Forman, Director for International
          Marketing  Policy,  Lockheed  Corporation.
               Astronauts  participating  in   the  program  include  Wally
          Schirra,  Deke  Slayton,  Buzz Aldrin,  Jim Irwin,   Gene Cernan,
          Charles Conrad, Joe Allen and Ox van Hoften.
               Representatives from England, France, the Soviet Union, West
          Germany, Italy, Japan,  Canada and the People's Republic of China
          are expected to attend.
               Endorsed by President Ronald Reagan,  who commended the U.S.
          Space Foundation  for  "...its  pioneering  efforts to  galvanize
          public support,   motivate our youth and promote better technical
          skills through  sound  education," the National  Space  Symposium
          also  has  been  endorsed  for  attendance  by  the Department of
          Defense.
               The U.S.   Space  Foundation,    founded  in  1983,    is  a
          nonprofit  organization  committed  to  stimulating discussion on
          space policy issues and developing educational and  informational
          programs    to  enhance  better  understanding of space and space
          technologies.
               Registration  fee  is  $475    before    March  3  and  $525
          thereafter.    This  includes  all published conference material,
          three luncheons,  three receptions,   a dinner and a bound   copy
          of  the  Symposium Proceedings Report.
               Registration  information  may be obtained by contacting the
          U.S.  Space  Foundation  at P.O.   Box 1838,   Colorado  Springs,
          Colorado 80901, or calling (719) 550-1000.
+>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #238
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Feb 89 08:58:33 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00741>; Mon, 13 Feb 89 06:52:23 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 13 Feb 89 06:52:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oXxf0Uy00jZdE3nk4V>;
          Mon, 13 Feb 89 05:38:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.AXxekiy00UkZ8yUk5q>;
          Mon, 13 Feb 89 05:21:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YXxefjy00UkZ4yTE5G@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 05:16:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #239

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 239

Today's Topics:
		   Re: INF Treaty and Pershing II's
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
		  The Commercial Space Incentive Act
			 Re: approaching "C"
			Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
		  Re: Comparing c and speed of sound
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
			   Re: GEOS-6 dies.
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
			   Space Resources
			  Re: Model Rocketry
		       Reminders for Old Farts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 08:33:31 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: INF Treaty and Pershing II's

I understand that the Russians announced the treaty in Russia by showing the
launching of a goodly number of missiles on national television.

  ++PLS

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 05:51:43 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <583@internal.Apple.COM>, ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
> In article <662@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> >The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish
> >and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature.
> Gee, and I thought Mir didn't use robotics and tele-operated technology
> to maintain a manned presence in space ...  are you shure _must_ is
> the right word?

When I say "manned presence," I refer to something a bit more substantial
than demonstration/research projects, and something that might eventually
act as something other than an economic sink. Next time I will be more
precise.

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 02:43:38 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: The Commercial Space Incentive Act

In article <1989Feb9.014057.1089@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The way to get cheap transportation into orbit is to forget doing it
>through the government at all.  Do it the way it was done for aeronautics:
>offer a guaranteed market (not subsidies, but payment for results only --
>the way it was done for aviation was lucrative contracts for carrying
>air mail) and let private industry do it.

I agree.  In fact, the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space
Policy (Jerry Pournelle's group) has come up with a proposed bill
which is based on the Kelly bill which provided those air mail contracts.

The capsule summary is, the U.S. Government will guarantee a price of
$500/lb of payload placed in LEO for the first million pounds orbited
each year for the next 10 years.  When someone has launch services to
offer, he puts it out to bid.  The gov't would make up the difference
when the payload is placed in LEO if the maximum bid is less than
$500/lb.

Of course, nobody in Congress is doing diddly about this.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                      "Nobody's life, liberty, or property
Video 7                             are safe while Congress is in session."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                        -- Will Rogers

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 18:15:44 GMT
From: sgi!scotth%harlie.SGI.COM@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Scott Henry)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"

> Well, there are several meanings of "impossible"... at least three.
> ...
> So, to answer the question posed, *I* say they are not similar.
> FTL and FTS are not really remotely in the same class of "difficulty".
> ...
> -- 
> Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw

I am reminded that many people do not understand the distinction between
"natural" law and "man-made" law (a very unfortunate overloading of
terminology! I wonder if this problem exists in non-english speaking
societies?). It is similar to the (lack of) distinction between your types
2 and 3 impossibles.

--
---------------------
              Scott Henry <scotth@sgi.com>
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 23:23:08 GMT
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Kevin William Ryan)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle


   Steve Hix (fiddler%concertina@Sun.com) suggests with half a smiley that
we get a license to build Energias in Florida.

   Now, it's been said (with questionable veracity) that the Soviets have
copied their Shuttle from us.  What are the possibilities of copying some big
boosters from them?  Not necessarily Energia, but perhaps Proton?  I would
think that it's in the same class as redoing the Saturn V...

   On a more serious note - numerous people have asked about redoing the
Saturn V, despite the fact that NASA pitched most of the plans and machinery
for same.  It seems that the cost would be almost prohibitive.
   I would like to know if anyone has information about the Saturn launcher
used for the early Apollo tests (the IIB?) - were the plans for that pitched
as well?  Surely the capacity to orbit the mass of the LM/SM/CM combination
would be useful.  Does anyone know if the plans for that are still around?

                                                  kwr

kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu (internet)
kevin%cmcfra@cmccvb.bitnet (bitnet)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 16:27:02 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@gatech.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Comparing c and speed of sound

In article <8902080259.AA04715@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
}
}>From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
}>Subject: Re: Approaching c
}
}>Just one note of skepticism here...
}
}>Back in the 1940's when we were attempting to break the sound barrier,
}>the aerodynamic equations seemed to indicate the the air loads (the force on
}>the wings) would go infinite at Mach speed.  Half the aerospace engineers
}>seemed to think it was not possible to accomplish.  Good thing Chuck Yeager
}>wasn't real strong in Math.
}
}If they really thought air loads would go infinite, they should have known
}better. At the time, there were many things which could be made to go faster
}than the speed of sound (i.e. many rifle bullets), which were not crushed
}by infinite forces. 


That is a definite charley.  There had been manmade objects (well, one I can
think of) that had been going faster than sound for centuries.  Since it did,
it can.


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 21:15:49 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <665@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>> >The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish
>> >and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature.
>> Gee, and I thought Mir didn't use robotics and tele-operated technology
>> to maintain a manned presence in space ...  are you shure _must_ is
>> the right word?
>
>When I say "manned presence," I refer to something a bit more substantial
>than demonstration/research projects, and something that might eventually
>act as something other than an economic sink...

Fair enough... but you still haven't explained why robotics and teleoperation
are so vital to it.  To repeat Mike's question:  are you sure "must" is
the right word?
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 15:01:36 GMT
From: att!whuts!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (WARMINK)
Subject: Re: GEOS-6 dies.

In article <1989Feb9.013228.965@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> As I recall, it's part of a sensor that encodes the position of rotating
> parts in the satellite's scanner system.  Those bulbs are a notorious
> reliability problem that is being designed out of more recent satellites;

There must be a good reason why LEDs weren't used - 6 years plus isn't that 
long ago...anybody know why not?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Interface Systems
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  |  <att!>whuts!sw Whippany NJ USA
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 15:07:56 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

>>... A desire to have people in space at some
>>point in the future does not necessarily justify manned spaceflight in
>>the present.

>Unless, of course, one actually wants to get started on having people in
>space someday, as opposed to postponing it indefinitely.  If one wants to
>get started on it any time within the next few decades, it is not too
>early to start doing it experimentally to lay the groundwork.  If one wants
>to postpone it a few centuries, of course, any work on it is pointless,
>since it will be possible to buy it from the Soviets long before then.

Cut out the freshman debating tactics, Henry.  Did I suggest we not put men
in space for centuries?  Did I suggest we not do research on better boosters?
No.  I said that having people in space today doesn't matter a whole lot.
Developing better boosters is entirely orthogonal to whether we put men in
space now.  Today's manned spaceflight is largely PR nonsense.

However, I will disagree that there is much that men can do in space
in the next few decades.  Launch costs are not going to come down that
much in that time.  I don't believe private launchers are going to
save all that much, perhaps a factor of ten; the europeans don't even
believe that much is possible with rockets.  The history of launchers
shows that the cost of a launcher is usually lower on the sketchpad than
on the launch pad.  I reject the facile government is to blame
argument.

About the Soviets: I think folks are going to be in for a rude surprise when
the Soviet space program goes nowhere.  The Soviet Union is in deep economic
trouble.  The standard of living has gone down in the last decade.  Gorby's
reforms are a failure.  And, frankly, the "russians are coming!" cry has been
used too much.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 08:41:52 GMT
From: amethyst!spock!chris@noao.edu  (Chris Ott)
Subject: Space Resources


Sorry if this is a re-post, but the article didn't go through the first
time.

Boy! Are you tired of hearing the same old arguments going around about the
same old topic, using the same old metaphors?
I believe we need to speed things up a bit, don't you.

PREPARE YOURSELF!

The following ideas may be hazardous to your DOGMA!

I make no excuse for my utopianism and my optimism.
We are running out of time, so somebody has to do it!
And I'm getting tired od people arguing abd worrying about the future
instead of creating it. Anyway.

HERE WE GO!

Limits? I see no present evidence of limits? A limit can only be proved
completly and beyond a shawdow of a doubt, after it has been tested an
infinite amount of time, under an infinite number of conditions, forever.

  
Re: Space - Everything should be happening in space.
    Everything that can be done on Earth can be done in space much more
    efficiently and cheaply. All modes of gravity can be simulated in space.
    All temperatures; all manufacturing.
      
    In the book "Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience", David
    Criswell, Ph.D, demonstrates that there are enough resources in the
    asteroid belt to construct an extremely massive infra-structure
    consisting of 40 trillion people with 40,000 trillion tons of supporting
    structure, occupying aporx. 1 billion cubic km - which is 1 millionth of
    the space available in the L4 and L5 regions alone! All of these people
    could be in contact via laser communication with 0.2 seconds in one 
    L-volume and aprox 1 second to the other L-volume and Earth. Since space
    is frictionless, transportation between any two points in this matrix
    would be almost nothing. This would end phase 1 of Solar system
    development according to Criswell.

      He goes on to talk about phases 2 and 3 which would hinge upon the
    theoretical technology (perhaps extremely high energy lasers) to
    dismantle the outer planets, and then mine the sun. He has shown that
    it would be theoretically possible to convert the sun into a white
    dwarf, which would extend the lifetime of SOL 1,115 times. He calls
    this process, "Stellar Lifting".

        Using stellar lifting as a away of collecting the higher elements,
    Criswell shows that a civilization consiting of 10(16) - 10(21) power
    humans on a surface area equivalent to 1 billion earths would be
    possible. This civilization, due to Sol's extended lifetime, would have
    a potential lifespan of at least 10 trillion years. All of this is
    possible within the solar system.
      
    What limits?

    When I log on again, I will talk about nanotechnology, zero-point energy,
    immortality, intelligence increase using neural, genetic and nanotech
    engineering, info-space, hypermedia and human evolution evolving towards
    self-replicating systems.

    BYE! BYE! for now.


 Paul Hughes              |   Internet: guest@spock.ame.arizona.edu
 1386 N. Country Club Rd. |   UUCP: {allegra,cmcl2,hao!noao}!arizona!
 Tucson, AZ  85716        |          amethyst!spock!guest

 "Anything is possible through imagination and Will."

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 89 21:50:40 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Model Rocketry

R. Michael Jungclas writes:

>"non-metallic" structural parts and any weight limits. I had a
>friend who routinely "manufactures" his own fiberglass and carbon
>filament tubes (BTW not an inexpensive proposition.)

Can you tell me where he obtains his carbon filament material, and how much
it costs?  What equipment does he use for winding?

>Why do you want to view a rocket powered conventional R/C model
>airplane as a model rocket?

I didn't mean to imply this would be desirable.  Obviously, if I'm going
to do it, I want the least regulation possible.  If your interpretation
of "model rocket" is correct, does that mean a rocket fired from an R/C
airplane model is also not a model rocket?  Gee, that sounds like fun!!!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 04:00:15 PST
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1
follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #239
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Feb 89 11:14:43 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01828> for roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov; Tue, 14 Feb 89 06:03:42 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 14 Feb 89 06:03:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EXy0=by00UkT84qE5a>;
          Tue, 14 Feb 89 05:43:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.kXxzrry00UkZ178U5k>;
          Tue, 14 Feb 89 05:22:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UXxzlsy00UkZ57705G@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 89 05:16:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #240

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 240

Today's Topics:
	     1989 Space Development Conference in Chicago
		 Manned vs unmanned space exploration
	    Scientific Foundations of Space Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 89 08:45:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 10354+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: 1989 Space Development Conference in Chicago

                    The 8th Annual International
                  1989 SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
                        Memorial Day Weekend
                     May 26-29, 1989 in Chicago
                     Hyatt Regency O'Hare Hotel

The principal gathering of those involved in citizen space advocacy is
the annual Space Development Conference.  This year it is co-sponsored
by 23 space-activist organizations, including the National Space
Society, Space Studies Institute, Students for the Exploration and
Development of Space, and the World Space Foundation. The Planetary
Society is cooperating by arranging a Mars Symposium at the
Conference, and 18 local institutions are affiliated as supporters.
Over 400 activists are already registered.

APOLLO: 20 YEARS LATER: A 20th anniversary celebration and review
of the Moon landings.  With former NASA Administrator Thomas O.
Paine and astronauts Eugene Cernan and James Lovell.

AN OVERVIEW OF SPACE:  A comprehensive update on all aspects of
current space programs.

SPACE TECHNOLOGY: Half-day programs on (1) Building a Lunar Base
and (2) The U.S. Space Station.

BUSINESS AND SPACE: (1)Space and the Non-Space Business and (2)
Space Commercialization.  Two days of programs.

MEET SPACE LEADERS: A chance to converse with astronauts, experts,
advocates, and NASA officials.  Learn how you can participate in
the Space Movement by attending our Activist Track.

PLUS SPECIAL SYMPOSIA:  Law & Space (with American Bar Association),
Medicine & Space (with Aerospace Medical Association and American
Medical Association), Teaching & Space (with U.S. Space Foundation,
Young Astronaut Council, NASA, and a host of others), Exploration of
Mars (in cooperation with the Planetary Society).

                            *   *   *   *

AN OVERVIEW OF SPACE:  (Saturday/Sunday) The U.S. Space Program;
Soviets and Other Nations in Space; Space Colonies (Gregg Maryniak,
Exec. V.P., Space Studies Institute); Apollo: Was It Worth It?
(historian John Logsdon); Has the Space Program Paid for Itself? New
Economic Impact Studies; What Next: An Integrated, Step-by-Step Space
Plan; Building Moon Bases; Space Commercialization: Space and the
Environment; Solar Power Satellites; Refitting the Shuttle between
Missions; National Aerospace Plane (David Webb, University of North
Dakota); Charles Walker (President, National Space Society, and
payload specialist); Informal meetings with NASA officials and
astronauts.

SPACE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY:

--SCIENCE & SPACE: (Friday) Honorary Chairman John Simpson (U.
of Chicago) with Joseph Alexander (NASA Assistant Associate
Administrator for Space Science and Applications); Voyager at Neptune: A
Preview
 (Norman Haynes, JPL
Voyager project director); Future Space Science Missions; The Orbiting
Observatories; Space Science in the Midwest; Antimatter Propulsion
(Robert L. Forward); NASA's Pathfinder and Future Projects Programs.

--LUNAR BASES: (half-day, Saturday afternoon) Overview (chairman
Wendell Mendell, Chief Scientist, Lunar Base Studies, Johnson Space
Center); Designs (Peter Land, Illinois Institute of Technology);
Architecture (Larry Bell, JSC); Life Support (Farolyn Powell, Life
Systems, Inc.); Surface Operations (Dr. John Alred, JSC); Lunar
Resources (Mark Jacobs, Astronautics Corp.).

--THE U.S. SPACE STATION: (half-day, Sunday afternoon) Technical
Choices in Designing the Station (Thomas L. Moser, NASA Deputy
Associate Administrator for Space Station, and Franklin D. Martin,
Assistant Administrator for Exploration); Making the U.S. and Soviet
Stations Compatible (Gordon Woodcock, Boeing)

BUSINESS & SPACE: Organized by the Illinois Space Institute, KPMG Peat
Marwick, and Aerospace Research Applications Corp.; The Future of Free
Enterprise in Space, with Honorary Chairman:  James A. Lovell, Jr.
(Exec. V.P. Centel Corporation, and former astronaut)

--SPACE AND THE NON-SPACE BUSINESS: (Friday) Locating and Using
NASA Technology (Often without Cost); Space-Related Growth Industries;
American Rocket Co.: Getting into the Space Business; Space Spinoffs;
Using NASA R & D Contracts to Develop Commercial Products; Contracting
and Subcontracting with NASA (Getting and Keeping a Piece of the
Pie); Financing

--SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION: (Sunday) The Private Launch Industry;
How Your Business Can Use Space: An Overview; Photos from Orbit
for Business and Farming; Small Satellites; 3M's Space Research
Program; Geostar and SSI: A Case Study; Government Aid to High
Tech: An Illinois Example.  Also including: George Koopman (Amroc),
Jeffrey Manber (Exec. Director, The Space Foundation), SPOT Image
Corp., American Microsat, Globesat, Omnisat, John Straus (Director,
Governor's Commission on Science and Technology), NASA.

INTRODUCTION TO SPACEFLIGHT: (Friday) All-day professional seminar on
essentials of space navigation, led by Gregg Maryniak of the Space
Studies Institute and pilot Capt. Edward Daley.  Learn to solve NASA's
Shuttle rendezvous workbook problems. Additional fee of $195.

SCIENCE FICTION WRITERS VIEW SPACE: Including Ben Bova, Hal Clement,
Gordon R. Dickson, Roland Green, James P. Hogan, Frederik Pohl,
and Stanley Schmidt.

ACTIVIST PROGRAMMING:  Experienced space activists will share their
knowledge in a series of hands-on, how-to workshops and panels,
dealing with such topics as recruiting, staging special events such as
Spaceweek, pro-space political action, outreach to schools, using
computer networks, cooperation among chapters of pro-space groups, and
improving activist communications.

SPECIAL SYMPOSIA

LAW & SPACE (Friday) Organized by Hon. Edward R. Finch, Jr., Chairman,
Aerospace Law Division, American Bar Association. Space Debris:
Legal Aspects; The Law of Space (Treaties and Statutes); Conflicts
of Law: The Law IN Space (Taxation, Imports & Exports, Crimes,
Torts, Contracts, Marriages, Citizenship, Titles, Patents);
Legal Rights to NASA Research & Development; Governing Multi-National
Space Habitats; The UN in Space.

MEDICINE & SPACE (Saturday) Co-sponsored by Aerospace Medical Association and
Am
erican
Medical Association.  Man in Space: A Medical Overview; Closed
Ecology Life-Support Systems (CELSS); Medical Needs of a Space
Station; Surgery in Space; Psychosociological Aspects of Space
Flight; Medical Spinoffs from Space.

TEACHING & SPACE (Sunday and Monday) NASA and Teachers (Dr. Robert
Brown, Director, NASA Office of Educational Affairs); Tips in Teaching
Space (Margaret Lindman, Chairman, Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction,
Northeastern Illinois University), Come Fly with Me: Space Curricula
(David and Doreen Housel); Space Science for Non-Science Students
(Thomas Damon), Museum of Science & Industry: Local NASA Resource
Center; Teaching the History of Space Exploration (U.S. Space Camp);
Science Fiction as a Teaching Tool (Harry "Hal Clement" Stubbs);
Space as a "Hook" for Other Subjects (Georgia Franklin); Mars for
Students (Ralph Winrick, NASA); Air Bears: A Kindergarten Curriculum
(The Ninety-Nines); Horizons Unlimited (Civil Air Patrol); Teaching
Astronomy (Adler Planetarium); Teaching Space (U.S. Space Foundation,
Challenger Center, Young Astronauts). ALSO: NASA program to certify
teachers to handle Moon rocks (Friday evening); Space M+A+X computer
course.

EXPLORATION OF MARS (Monday morning) In cooperation with the Planetary
Society.  Overview: A Mars Exploration Program; NASA at Mars; Mars
Rover Sample Return Scenarios; Mars Airplanes; Mars Balloons; Soviet
Mars '94 Mission; Phobos-- The Movie; Psychology & Sociology of
Long-Duration Space Flight; What Next for Advocates?  Including Louis
Friedman (Exec. Director, Planetary Society), Thomas Paine, John
Logsdon, Carl Pilcher (Chief Scientist, NASA Office of Exploration).

YOU, TOO, CAN SPEAK! The "Many Roads to Space" track will give you and
other registrants a forum for your own special and diverse ideas on space
policy, science, education, or technology.  A fifteen-minute slot
will be alotted for each single speaker and topic.

ENTERTAINMENT: Moebius Theatre, Chicago's improvisational comedy
troupe, will offer humor for the space frontier on Saturday evening.

HOTEL INFORMATION: Hyatt Regency O'Hare Hotel rooms are $69/night,
single or double.  Call (800)228-9000.

DISCOUNT AIR FARES:  American Airlines offers 45% off coach fares
or 5% off any special fare (all restrictions apply), whichever
is less. Call (800)433-1790; ask for Star File No. S67088.

TOURS AVAILABLE: Introduction to Chicago (Thursday afternoon),
Fermilab (Friday morning), Chicago's Outdoor Art and the Art Institute
(Friday afternoon), Argonne National Laboratory (Saturday morning), A
Day in Chicago: Museums to Michigan Avenue (All day Saturday), Crown
Space Center at Museum of Science & Industry/Omnimax movie(Sunday
afternoon) [I'm not absolutely sure, but I think *The Dream Is Alive*
will be playing--WSH]

All schedule information is tentative-- we're still shuffling our
program.

Network contact: William S. Higgins
                 Bitnet:       HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
                 SPAN/HEPnet:  43011::HIGGINS
                 Internet:     HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 1989 Space Development Conference Registration Form
Name:                                               Age:    M__ F__
Address:
Telephone:
Affiliation: NSS____    Other pro-space organization___
Title:                          Employer:
Were you at the SDC in 1982__ 83__ 84__ 85__ 86__ 87__ 88__?
Check here if you're a teacher__
I volunteer to help: __before  __at the Conference
I am interested in making a "Many Roads to Space" minipresentation__
Is handicap access needed? _____

I enclose __SDC Registrations at $____each;
__students at half price($___)each          Total enclosed: $_____
   Make checks payable to Space Development Conference, and mail to
   P.O. Box 64397
   Chicago, IL 60664-0397  USA
Please include name, address, and phone number of each other registrant.

Rates: $60 to 2/28; $70 to 4/1; for teachers $45 to 4/1; $90
thereafter.  Full-time students half applicable price.  Prices
are subject to change without notice.  Full refunds (minus a $5
handling charge) will be available up to 35 days prior to the
Conference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 20:53:45 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Manned vs unmanned space exploration


>From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu 

>The point I've reiterated for three postings now is that manned space R&D is
>important, so if the money can be found it must be persued, even though it
>is much more expensive than unmanned. Unmanned space R&D is just as important
>and so must be persued too, though with less money because a productive
>program requires less.
>John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.

This seems like a reasonable argument, though the precise numbers are open
to debate. I would like to see a slightly larger percentage spent on
unmanned exploration, but the US is under intense pressure to catch up to
the USSR in manned exploration. (Usually not stated is the point that there
may be certain situations in which it makes the most economic sense to
have few or no launches for an extended period in order to concentrate on
the development of better technologies, with time for learning by experience
later on. Humans are generally impatient, and want some kind of results NOW,
if not sooner.)

A problem arises when things are set up so all launches are manned launches,
to keep the astronauts occupied and to further justify manned launches. This
was largely the case before the Challenger explosion, the result being that
exploration, military, and communications payloads were dependent on manned
launches. I hope this is less true now. I think it could be argued that
manned exploration for the time being should concentrate on adapting humans
to space and on things that humans can do more efficiently than remote
devices. Manned space travel at present is largely an investment in 
developing an expanded capability for more extensive missions in the future.

A question to those who feel that all current space exploration should be
unmanned: The US and the USSR have both sent out a fair number of unmanned
scientific probes, but it is my impression that the US is ahead, or at
least even, on the development and deployment of advanced scientific probes.
On the other hand, the USSR has placed a much greater emphasis on manned
missions, and many people claim that the US is "hopelessly behind" in
space exploration, citing as their chief argument the higher average human
occupation of space by the Soviets. Is the USSR wasting its money? And if
manned exploration for its own sake is insignificant, is the US really
not all that far behind?

A further philosophical question: Postulate some group (the USSR,
extrasolar aliens, etc.) which through exploration has acquired all the
information on space that US space science would be likely to obtain
in the next century or two. Assume this group is willing to sell this
information to the US at a rate far lower than the cost for the US to
obtain it by actual exploration, so low that it would not place any
strain on the US budget. Further assume that the US has agreed to buy
this information. Now, what should be the future course of action for
the US? Possibilities:
   1) Cancel future US exploration to save money.
   2) Buy the information, but continue to explore, just to have something
      to do, or to prove that we can do it.
   3) Concentrate on human presence in space and/or exploitation of space
      resources.

This is just a question about what people would prefer if the acquisition
of information were no longer an issue. Given these conditions, I think
I would vote for (3).
                                   John Roberts
                                   roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 18:39:21 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Scientific Foundations of Space Manufacturing

Scientific Foundations of Space Manufacturing
edited by V. S. Avduyevsky
published by Mir Publishers, 2 Pervy Rizhsky Pereulok,
I-110, GSP, Moscow, 129820
USSR

Vendor in the US:
Imported Publications
320 West Ohio St.
Chicago, IL 60610

Ph: 312/787-9017

This is part of a series:  Advances in Science and Technology in the USSR.

The book has been written by leading Soviet authorities on cosmonautics
and the industrialization of outer space.

The object of the book is to familiarize the foreign reader with the
advances of Soviet science and technology in tackling the problem
of making new materials and medicinal preparations onboard spacecraft.
Started on the Soyuz 6 space vehicle, work in this direction is being
widely practiced in the Soveit Union.

The topics examined in the book include the physical aspects of 
manufacturing processes in microgravity and their design and 
theoretical models.  The matters taken up in the book have been
given an all around consideration at three all union seminars on
fluid mechanics and heat and mass transfer in microgravity conducted
under the guidance and with the participation of the authors, and
also at the Gagarin and Tsiolkovsky meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #240
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Feb 89 18:00:25 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01674>; Wed, 15 Feb 89 05:39:45 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 15 Feb 89 05:39:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4XyHL5y00Vs1A13kUw>;
          Wed, 15 Feb 89 03:33:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.QXyH:9y00UkZI28E4E>;
          Wed, 15 Feb 89 03:19:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0XyH7-y00UkZ426k4U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 03:16:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #241

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 241

Today's Topics:
			  NSS Hotline Update
  NASA announces Earth Observation System investigations (Forwarded)
			 Re: approaching "C"
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 89 05:54:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update



This is the NSS's Space Hotline for the week ending 2/10/89.

In last Thursday's state of the union address President George Bush stated
that the space program must proceed at "Full Throttle Up, That's not just our
ambition, it's our destiny.", and wants the space program to receive a $2.4
billion increase over the current fiscal year.  He committed to a permanently
manned space station, strong safe space shuttle system, mission to planet
earth, and increased commercial space activities.  NASA's Chief Administrator
James Fletcher was pleased that the president supports the space station and
the civil space program.

Thursday the Senate Science Technology and Space Subcommittee held its first
hearings of the year.  Testimony given by NASA Administrator James Fletcher
stated  that the $13 billion dollar fiscal year 1990 budget approved by the
Reagan office of budget management will not be enough to keep both the
shuttle and the space station programs on track.  Sen. Albert Gore (D-Tenn.)
chairman of the subcommittee agreed that the fiscal year 1990 budget is
barely enough to implement NASA's ongoing programs.  Fletcher stated that
NASA needs at least $1 billion more in fiscal year 1990 in order to proceed
with the planned shuttle manifest, shuttle hardware improvements, the space
station and other projects.  

Additionally Fletcher testified that 45% of NASA's rocket scientists,
engineers and key support personnel will be retiring over the next two years. 
The fact that congress rejected the 51% pay raise that would be extended to
many government officials has turned this problem into a catastrophe for
NASA.  He stated many top employees stayed on after the Challenger Disaster
out of loyalty to the country and the space program, but are now ready to
bail out.  Fletcher reported that moral at NASA is pretty low among most of
the young and old people.

In addition Rear Admiral Richard Truly testified before the subcommittee that
the explosion that wiped out a critical rocket fuel plant last may will cause
solid rocket fuel shortages this year but the shuttle program will not be
effected.

At Kennedy Space Center launch pad 39B last week the Crew of the Discovery
performed a practice countdown and rehearsed emergency escape procedures. 
During the flawless countdown crews performed voice checks, and engineers
displayed the ability to make last minuet program changes in the orbiters
computer system.

Possibly cracked Oxidizing Turbo Pumps were removed from Discovery's main
engines as the STS-29 crew looked on.  New pumps were successfully tested at
Stenis Space Center and are due to arrive at Kennedy Space Center next week.

Crews successfully loaded the Tracking Data Relay Satellite into Discovery's
payload bay last monday, and began performing several communication test
between the satellite and ground control systems.

The loading of propellent into Discovery's various power systems and storage
tanks, went off with out any major problems reported.

Meanwhile in the Vehicle Assembly Building.....

Work continues on Atlantis, preparing it and it's payload for their April
28th launch.  As of today all three main engines were installed in the
orbiter.  Engineers attached solar panels to the Magellan Venus Radar Mapper
Probe and tested them with very high illumination electric lights.

On the Columbia power up tests continue, while checking of the main
propulsion systems, navigation system and communication systems are planned.

The Air Force is getting ready to launch their new McDonald Douglas Delta II
expendable launch vehicle.  The expendable launch vehicle will be launched
at 1:42pm EST Sat. Feb. 11, and will place into orbit the first navstar
geopositioning navigation satellite.  The launch will take place at complex
17 at the cape canaveral Air Force Base.

Examination of the space shuttle solid rocket boost that was test fired last
week has thus far shown that there have been no gas leaks from its O-rings. 
Two more joints remain to be examined.

Vice President Quayle can't get space experts to staff the 7 member national
space council of which he is chairman.  AeroSpace Industry leaders are
concerned that council will be ineffective, unless it is staffed soon. Some
of those who have been interview but withdrew them selves from the running
are Courtny Stadd-Former director of the commerce office of commercial space
flight, Kenneth Pedersen-NASA associate administrator for external relations,
and Fredrick "Rick" Hauck-who commanded Dicovery's mission last fall.

The Congressional Budget Office in a proposal to slash the budget deficit
recommend canceling the current space station in order to save $16 Billion
per year in the fiscal year 1990-1994 budgets.  An cheaper alternative to
cancelation would be a modest series of extended manned shuttle/spacelab
flights, and intermittently tended facilities. 

A report put forth by the commercial space advisory board (industry
officials) stated the primary problem with commercial space industry is
instability of US government space policy.  The report notes that Federal
Agency bickering over who is to assume what role, and the fact that none of
Reagan's commercial incentives taken been seriously.

JPL researcher have taken a compilation of mars picture and elevation data
(returned by the viking probes) and crunched it all together in one of the
worlds most powerful computers.  The result is five minuet 3-D tour of a
selected area of the martian surface.  The computer graphic simulation took
37 days (24 hrs.) of supercomputer time to generate one of the 3500 frames
that make up the short, each frame represents about 1 million bits of data. 
The tour is set to the Music of Gustav Holst's The Planets.  VHS and Beta
versions will be sold for $35.95.

At Star City Russia, 10 Cosmonauts are training for future flights on the
Mir space station while 7 others are training to fly the soviet space shuttle
Buran.  Buran's next flight could be manned but decision have not made yet,
the spacecraft still being tested and inspected to determine if its safe for
manned flight.  It was reviled the back in 1984 a crew of 3 women were to
have flown on Salyut 7, but the male backup crew went instead.  No women will
fly this year, and none are training.

The next update will be on 2/17/89.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 23:14:41 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA announces Earth Observation System investigations (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.              February 8, 1989

Randee Exler
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

James Wilson
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.


RELEASE:  89-15

NASA ANNOUNCES EARTH OBSERVATION SYSTEM INVESTIGATIONS


     NASA officials today announced the selection of scientific 
investigations for the Earth Observing System (EOS) program, a 
multi-mission observation system of the 1990's to study global 
changes taking place in planet Earth's environment.

     EOS is a science mission with the goal to advance 
understanding of the entire Earth system on the global scale 
through development of a deeper understanding of the components 
of that system, the interactions among those components and how 
the Earth system is changing.

     The EOS mission will create an integrated scientific 
observing system enabling a multi-disciplinary study of planet 
Earth, including its atmosphere, oceans, land surfaces and the 
solid Earth.  To quantify changes in Earth's system, EOS will be 
a long-term mission providing systematic, continuing observations 
from low-Earth orbit.

     EOS will make use of a new generation of spacecraft, called 
polar platforms, being developed as part of the U.S. Space 
Station Freedom program.  The program is a cooperative effort 
that may eventually include five platforms -- two from the United 
States, two from Europe and one from Japan -- as well as use data 
from future National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration 
operational satellites in polar orbits.

     Crucial to achievement of the mission's objectives will be 
development of the EOS data and information system that will 
provide access to data acquired by EOS instruments and to 
scientific results of research using these data.

Announcement of Opportunity 

     Investigation selections were based on proposals submitted 
in response to a January 1988 NASA announcement of opportunity.  
Proposals were solicited for scientific investigations which 
involve the provision of data from Earth observing instruments 
and use of data from instruments to be flown in polar orbit on 
one of the EOS platforms.

     Three types of proposals were solicited:  instrument 
investigations to include the provision of instrumentation for 
flight on the polar platforms including non-Earth science 
payloads which require flight in polar orbit; research facility 
instrument team member and team leader investigations for the six 
NASA research facility instruments to be flown on the various 
platforms; and interdisciplinary investigations to provide data 
analysis and modeling, preparing for and using EOS.

     NASA received 455 proposals in response to the 
announcement.  Each proposal was evaluated by scientific peers 
including representatives from government, academia, industry and 
the international Earth-observation community.  NASA then 
selected, from the ones viewed as acceptable by peer evaluators, 
those proposals needed to accomplish the EOS objectives.  

     The selection breakdown includes 24 instrument 
investigations, 6 research facility instrument investigation team 
leaders and 87 team members, and 28 interdisciplinary 
investigators (20 U.S. and 8 foreign).  The various teams 
selected comprise 551 individuals from 168 institutions, 
universities or laboratories in 32 states and, including the 
U.S., 13 countries.

Instrument Investigations and Descriptions 

     Selected instrument investigations will provide scientific 
instruments for flight on the polar platforms and analysis of the 
resulting data.  Investigations will provide new observations to 
improve understanding of the Earth system or in some cases, of 
space physics phenomena.

     Research facility instrument team members and leaders for 
the six NASA research facility instruments were selected.  Each 
of the instruments are planned to fly on one of the polar 
platforms.  

     Those selected propose to carry out a scientific 
investigation with data from the research facility instrument 
leading to an improved understanding of some aspect of the Earth 
system and to help NASA develop these instruments and analyze 
their data.  These instruments include:

     o  Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)

     AIRS will measure atmospheric temperature, moisture and 
other properties as a function of height above the ground with an 
accuracy and resolution far surpassing current operational 
satellite instruments.

     o  Geodynamics Laser Ranging System (GLRS)

     GLRS is a system to study Earth's crustal movements in 
earthquake-prone regions and across tectonic plate boundaries by 
precisely determining the locations of special mirrors set up on 
the ground.  GLRS also can measure the surface height profile of 
glaciers and polar ice sheets to determine how fast they are 
growing or shrinking.

     o  High Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (HIRIS)

     HIRIS is an imaging spectrometer providing highly 
programmable, localized measurements of geological, biological 
and physical processes.

     o  Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder (LAWS)

     LAWS is a laser detection and ranging system for direct 
measurement of tropospheric wind velocities by observing the 
Doppler shift in light reflected from wind born dust.

     o  Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS)

     MODIS is an imaging spectrometer to measure biological and 
physical processes in the study of terrestrial, oceanic and 
atmospheric phenomena.

     o  Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)

     SAR is an imaging radar which can see through clouds to 
observe properties relating to the geology, hydrology and ecology 
of the land, sea ice and ocean waves.

Interdisciplinary Investigations

     The selected interdisciplinary investigations include 
analysis, interpretation and significant use of data from EOS.

     The proposals involve research in more than one of the 
traditional disciplines of Earth science and use data from more 
than one of the EOS instruments.  Several of these investigations 
will develop and improve numerical models that will form the 
basis of a new predictive capability to forecast the global 
environment.

     The EOS scientific program is administered by NASA's Office 
of Space Science and Applications, Washington, D.C.  NASA's 
Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md., is 
responsible for the first orbiting polar platform.  NASA's Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., will manage the 
second orbiting polar platform.

     Dr. Dixon Butler is the EOS program scientist, and Alexander 
Tuyahov is EOS program manager, both at NASA Headquarters.  Dr. 
Gerald Soffen is the EOS project scientist, and Charles MacKenzie 
is the EOS project manager, both at GSFC.  Dr. Jobea Cimino is 
acting EOS project scientist, and Michael Sander is the EOS 
project manager, both at JPL.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 16:16:51 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!regnery@husc6.harvard.edu  (George Regnery)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"

In article <3316@xyzzy.UUCP>, throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
> 
> Finally, there are things like "it is impossible to make a heavier
> than air flying machine", or "it is impossible to travel faster than
> 10mph by rail", or other examples.  These merely involve things that
> haven't been done yet.  There is no particular well-founded model of
> the situation that forbids the situation.

  Haven't been done yet?  Where do you live?

  Seriously, the above statements are just a misuse of the word impossible.
Impossiblility, to most people, denotes something that can not ever be done
under any circumstances. 
  There are some things that can't be done now, yet aren't impossible (such
as space travel to Mars or Jupiter).  Then there are things that are just
impossible now, and always will be, like the things you mentioned such as
squaring a circle.
  Impossible is defined as something that will never be able to be done under
any circumstances.  What if you said the circumstances were a situation where
only impossible things sould be done?  I think the book Godel, Escher, Bach
talks about impossibility, but i'm not sure...  It is an interesting book
though.
.		----George Regnery
  

-- 
George M. Regnery       ! Worcester     ! Albedo 0.39    ! Going on means      
regnery@wpi.wpi.edu  OR ! Polytechnic   !  --Vangelis    ! going far. Going
regnery@wpi.bitnet      ! Institute     ! (a good album) ! far means returning.
CompuServe: 73300,3655  ! (Worc, Mass.) ! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=!     --Tao Te Ching

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 05:19:55 GMT
From: fin!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

>In article <665@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish
>and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature.

The "must" is correct.  Sustained manned presence requires self-sufficiency.
Mir is totally dependent on Earth for all food, water, replacement parts, 
new modules, etc.  The same will be true for Freedom.   As parasites of
Earth they are bad models for space settlements.

To be self sufficient, a settlement must obtain, or be able to obtain in a
crunch, its habitat, food, water, machines, factories, etc. from materials
in space.  This requires:

--Mines and mining equipment, to extract the thousands of minerals needed.
--Many kinds of diverse and flexible factories, to produce all the parts
needed for the construction and maintenence of the settlements, the care
and feeding and quality of life of the inhabitants, and of course the
construction and maintenence of the mines and factories.
--A large network of exploratory vehicles, to optimize the use of solar
system resources.
--An interplanetary transportation system, to bring the resources together
for use.

To do these things economically in space will require a large degree of
teleoperation and robotics.  It will also require the porting of current
Earth mining and manufacturing techniques to space environments (eg
free fall and vacuum)--not a trivial task.

These technologies are being developed slowly today.  In NASA, 
this is done mostly in the unmanned program.  The probe-builders at JPL et. al.
are developing techniques for operating vehicles with long round-trip light
times, in free fall and vacuum, in various radiation environments.  These
spacecraft have many mechanical parts: scanning platforms, adjustable
solar arrays and antennae, fuel and coolant pumps and valves, and
(on sample return vehicles) digging and soil processing equipment.
In addition, advances in Earth-bound mining and manufacturing (the
British Channel Tunnel diggers, stereo lithography, teleoperated ocean
vehicles, etc.) are relevent to developing space settlement technology.

The sustainable manned presence which would grow from such technology
could be developed much faster if we put more of our space budget into 
basic research and unmanned probes, and more effort in general into 
scientific research. 

As for the dream:  I share it.  Reality does not wreck dreams, it gives us
a way of making them come true.  Be patient, be honest with yourself,
and work hard for it.  *Do* let the dream inspire you; *don't* let it
get in the way of the careful thinking and effort that can make it reality.  

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #241
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Feb 89 14:38:46 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01989>; Wed, 15 Feb 89 06:55:44 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 15 Feb 89 06:55:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UXyJ=Sy00jZdI5B04L>;
          Wed, 15 Feb 89 05:37:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.YXyItby00UkZI2H04k>;
          Wed, 15 Feb 89 05:18:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XyIs3y00UkZ82FU5C@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 05:16:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #242

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 242

Today's Topics:
		  Re: The MIRROR MATTER Newsletter.
	       Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration
			   Re: GEOS-6 dies.
			 the un/manned debate
			   Re: GEOS-6 dies.
			Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
			  Re: Model Rocketry
		Re: Space travel and the human spirit
			 Re: approaching "C"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 00:32:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: The MIRROR MATTER Newsletter.


From: klaes@mtwain.dec.com (Larry Klaes)

>          Robert Forward, author of such books as MIRROR MATTER: PIONEERING
>     ANTIMATTER PHYSICS, FUTURE MAGIC, STARSAILING, and the "hard" science
>     fiction novels DRAGON'S EGG, STARQUAKE, and FLIGHT OF THE DRAGONFLY,
>     is also publishing the MIRROR MATTER NEWSLETTER, an informal,
>     aperiodically issued newsletter on the scientific, medical, and

No, sorry.  Unfortunately, _Starsailing_ was written by Louis Friedman, not
Robert L. Forward.  
--
Andrew J. Higgins	             | Illini Space Development Society
404 1/2 E. White St apt 3            | a chapter of the National Space Society
Champaign IL  61820                  | at the University of Illinois
phone:  (217) 359-0056               | P.O. Box 2255 Station A
e-mail: ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu | Champaign IL  61825
                 ^^^^^^
"When the Waters were dried an' the earth did appear,...The Lord He created
 the Engineer"
 - Rudyard Kipling

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 06:17:43 GMT
From: fin!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration

In article <8902100153.AA02978@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>>From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu 
>>The point I've reiterated for three postings now is that manned space R&D is
>>important, so if the money can be found it must be persued, even though it
>>is much more expensive than unmanned. Unmanned space R&D is just as important
>>and so must be persued too, though with less money because a productive
>>program requires less.
>>John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
>
>This seems like a reasonable argument

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????????????????????????
Two posters now have advocated putting money in *unproductive* ventures,
for the very reason that they are unproductive, and skimping on productive
ventures!  This sort of thinking scares the bejeebers out of folks who are
considering investing their money in space.  

Space cannot flourish as a welfare case.  Space settlement will not
come about through ten-plus-billion-dollar ventures which lack both short-term
and long-term rationale.  Government-funded, diverse research and exploration, 
paralleled by private use of its fruits, makes both historical and economic 
sense, in both the short- and long- terms.  

Every private industry we have in space--communications, remote sensing,
navigation, etc.--is teleoperated, and is the result of unmanned spaceflight
research. This will remain largely true until such time as the unmanned program 
provides the discoveries (of ET resources) and technology (mining, 
manufacturing, etc.) needed to develop self-sustaining space habitats.

>the USSR has placed a much greater emphasis on manned
>missions, and many people claim that the US is "hopelessly behind" in
>space exploration, citing as their chief argument the higher average human
>occupation of space by the Soviets. 

The USSR does *not* place more emphasis on manned missions; they place more
emphasis on space in general.  Their proportion of manned spaceflights is
lower than that of the US.  They send far fewer (percentagewise) missions 
beyond Earth orbit--perhaps a greater emphasis on military (short-term) at the 
expense of scientific research (long-term).   Also note that Soviet
teleoperation is primitive--witness what happened to their Phobos probes.  

> Is the USSR wasting its money? 

Maybe, maybe not.  They are definitely making advances in nuclear-powered
radars to detect our subs.  They have ASATs, an ABM ring around Moscow,
an aggressive SDI research program, and a heavy-lift booster that can
be mass-produced.  If the Soviets are going to take control of space, 
these are the relevant technologies.  Mir is dramatic but unimportant.  
The Soviets are much farther away than the West from widely exploring deep 
space, or settling space on a self-sustaining basis.



Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 19:26:23 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: GEOS-6 dies.

In article <5352@whuts.ATT.COM> sw@whuts.ATT.COM (WARMINK) writes:
>> ... Those bulbs are a notorious
>> reliability problem that is being designed out of more recent satellites...
>
>There must be a good reason why LEDs weren't used - 6 years plus isn't that 
>long ago...anybody know why not?

Semiconductors can take quite a while to become space-qualified, and there
is considerable reluctance to change a design that seems to work all right.
I think it was only in the last few years that it was understood that the
bulbs were a systematic weakness.

Also, don't forget that the bird may have been built well before it was
launched -- it's not uncommon to build a batch of satellites and then keep
the last few on the ground until they're needed.

The more recent encoder designs do use LEDs.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 10 Feb 89 16:18:13 EST
From: Eric Harnden <EHARNDEN%AUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      the un/manned debate

     guess it's time to chuck in my two bits. i've been following this
war for a while now, and am astounded at the floods of thinly veiled
invective that have poured across this issue. now i know why they call
it flaming.
     let me start by saying outright that i am an advocate of manned
spaceflight, and for truly bad reasons. i think it's neat. i want to go.
if i can't go, i want my son to.
     the problem is, of course, that the unmanned advocates have every
statistical reality on their side. jfk in fact did us all a great disservice
by making a man on the moon a national agenda without first providing for a
stable infrastructure for research and exploration. we advocates of manned
travel pay for that through our guts now, because there simply is not all
that great a return on the dollar. arguments about technological return are
just hair-splitting, on *both* sides of the fence. the returns are real,
but it as spurious to overestimate their value as to try to post-predict
when they would have occurred had not manned travel been their source.
more important, the manned advocates are in a bizarre soicial bind in which
what to them are the most profound arguments in their favor are not allowed
in serious public debate. because public money is at stake, they cannot simply
say *because it's there* and be heard. simply put, they have no case.
      on the other hand, the umanned folks lean on rationality as their only
argument. they take refuge in the resolute, logical unassailability of their
position. in other words, they commit the fallacy that c.p. snow was warning
us about in The Two Cultures. their contempt for the irrationality of their
opponents' words ignores the fact that the dynamics of our culture are not the
sole property of scientists any more than of artists. few, if any, great acts
are truly rational. fiscal responsibility has little to do with sheer monkey
curiosity.
     not that i disagree, you understand. money's tight, and education and
housing really are more important.
     but i **reeeallly** would like to go.
     oh, and lastly... there will always be type A personalities willing to
take a risk for the sake of that curiosity. don't confuse rhetoric with
insanity. a little enthusiasm is good for anybody, and should not necessarily
equate one with a coke-head.

           Eric Harnden (Ronin)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 14:04:42 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!frank@purdue.edu  (Frank Abernathy)
Subject: Re: GEOS-6 dies.

In article <5352@whuts.ATT.COM>, sw@whuts.ATT.COM (WARMINK) writes:
> In article <1989Feb9.013228.965@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > As I recall, it's part of a sensor that encodes the position of rotating
> > parts in the satellite's scanner system.  Those bulbs are a notorious
> > reliability problem that is being designed out of more recent satellites;
> 
> There must be a good reason why LEDs weren't used - 6 years plus isn't that 
> long ago...anybody know why not?
> 
My understanding is they emit RF in the GHZ range.  That's also why they aren't
usually employed in ECM equipment.  (But, as usual, I'm probably wrong. :^)   )

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 19:21:17 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

In article <4XwVpQy00Xc94aJ3IN@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
>... What are the possibilities of copying some big
>boosters from them?  Not necessarily Energia, but perhaps Proton?  I would
>think that it's in the same class as redoing the Saturn V...

Probably not quite, but it's not worth the bother either:  I don't think
Proton can do anything that the bigger Titans can't.  *Buying* Protons is
undoubtedly cheaper than buying Titans, if the Soviets were selling, but
copying it would drive the cost right back up again.  Energia might be
worth copying.

>   I would like to know if anyone has information about the Saturn launcher
>used for the early Apollo tests (the IIB?) - were the plans for that pitched
>as well?  Surely the capacity to orbit the mass of the LM/SM/CM combination
>would be useful.  Does anyone know if the plans for that are still around?

The Saturn IB is in pretty much the same boat as the Saturn V, I think:
tooling gone, launch sites gone, expertise gone, plans partly gone.  Not
quite as bad, and there was talk of reviving it at one point, but it doesn't
seem to have happened.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Saturn IB couldn't lift the LM and the CSM
together -- the Earth-orbit CSM/LM test, Apollo 9, used a Saturn V.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 20:30:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <119@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish
>>and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature.
>
>The "must" is correct.  Sustained manned presence requires self-sufficiency...

Why?  Name three settlements on *Earth* that are self-sufficient.  Modern
ones, not 17th-century ones.  The ENTIRE UNITED STATES is not self-sufficient,
at least not in its "normal operating mode", as witness the concern over
strategic materials obtained from unstable areas like Africa.  (We won't
even mention the Persian Gulf... :-))

The crucial requirement for sustained manned presence is not total self-
sufficiency, but enough self-sufficiency to keep necessary trade with Earth
down to a manageable level.  Clearly a colony needs either good recycling
or local supplies for air and water, and local production of basic foods
and structural materials is at least highly desirable.  There is absolutely
no reason why a colony should be considered non-viable if it doesn't make
its own semiconductors or machine tools; most countries on Earth don't.
(The state Nick Szabo lives in probably doesn't, never mind the city he 
lives in.)  Unless a colony finds something fabulously valuable, it's going
to have a serious trade deficit for a long time... but in case you haven't
noticed, the United States has one of those too.

If we assume that there is a useful amount of ice in lunar polar craters --
not ridiculous but not at all certain either -- it clearly is possible to
start a lunar colony with today's technology.  Before Challenger, in fact,
there was a proposal to do exactly that in 1992, as a commemoration of the
500th anniversary of Columbus.  It would have been within reach of (major)
private funding, given extensive reliance on donated labor and materials...
but the reliance on six donated shuttle flights killed it.  The people
proposing it were pros and had done their homework; they were not mindless
space cadets.  It would have involved risks, but could have worked.

Teleoperation and robotics would certainly *help*, but they aren't *needed*
for space colonies.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 18:12:38 GMT
From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@gatech.edu  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: Model Rocketry

In article <14446@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>of "model rocket" is correct, does that mean a rocket fired from an R/C
>airplane model is also not a model rocket?  Gee, that sounds like fun!!!

That is correct...a rocket fired from an RC airplane is NOT a model rocket...
it is not being launched in a safe manner AND is _NOT COVERED BY AMA OR 
NAR INSURANCE_.

Sorry for the strident emphasis, but we've had such a battle with the states
keeping model rocket products available on a general basis that I'm overly
sensitive to anyone who talks openly about misusing them!

To meet the definition of 'model rocket' the following elements are necessary:
(excerpted from memory from FAR Part 101, subpart C (47CFR101)

- gross weight under 1 lb.
- propellant weight under 4 ounces.
- made of fragile materials such as paper, plastic, and lightweight woods.
- launched so as not to create a hazard for persons on the ground or other
  aircraft.
- specifically NOT launched against any target, on the ground or in the air.
- containing no warhead or intentionally explosive device.

these regulations are contained in, and expanded upon, in the NAR's safety
code. 

-- 
Mark Johnson (Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM) WB9QLR/0 (Monon RR enthusiast)
NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS  phone: (316)636-8189    
email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson 
US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 89 20:28:45 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the human spirit

Michael Sloan MacLeod and Paul F. Dietz have been discussing humans going into
space for several posting.  I find it amusing that neither of them expects to
actually go into space.  *I* (at 47) expect not only to go into space, but to
travel to the stars.  True, this will take more than a standard lifetime, but
so what?  Progress (much of it being made within 50 miles of where I live) in
the fabrication of ever smaller computers parts will take only a few decades
to reach the size scale where molecular repairs can be made to human cells.
There is no reason those who make it to that time should *ever* have to die,
and the same technology will reduce the cost of just about everthing to that
of firewood (grow your own spaceship).  Anybody want to join in planning a 
party on the far side of the galaxy?  H. Keith Henson, a Founder of L5

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 89 21:32:00 GMT
From: silver!sl161022@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: approaching "C"


>Second, FTL in any form either provides time travel or violates
>conventional causality. I'm not sure how strong this second point is.
>Physicists are very attached to causality, and so assume FTL impossible.But
>there are known effects that call conventional causality into question.

Like the entire discipline of Quantum Mechanics, for example, some followers
of which would tell you that we can never know everything about an
electron, not just because our instruments interfere with it, but
because the electron ITSELF doesn't even know precisely where it is
or where it is going.  How the electron knows what the hell to do next
is an unresolved question.

The complaint about breaking the speed of light barrier is usually that
it would violate our notion of causality, that it would require overthrowing
modern-day physics.  I would propose that our notion of causality is a
fuzzy one at best, and for physicists to chain themselves to the word
"causality" while embracing Heisenberg's view of QM is the pinnacle of
Orwell's double-think, intentional or not.  (I, by the way, am in
astrophysics, of which physics is just a special case :-)

This does not mean I think breaking C is possible, or even probable.
I do believe, however, that if we are unable to break the speed of
light barrier, then we are forever confined to this solar system.
It would be a tragic limitation on our travels, but it is there
nonetheless.  I would even go further and say that given the nature
of humans and the governments they create, we are probably also
condemned to this planet for the rest of our species' existence,
despite the occasional Mars or lunar expedition.

But I hope I'm wrong on both counts.
__________________________________________________________________

"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."

Sincerely,                                        -- George Carlin
           Phaedrus
           (aka Colin Klipsch)
           sl161022@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
           Indiana University at Bloomington

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #242
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Feb 89 05:59:50 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02574>; Thu, 16 Feb 89 03:36:54 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 16 Feb 89 03:36:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IXycIHy00UkTQ2ZU49>;
          Thu, 16 Feb 89 03:23:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.oXycFKy00UkZ02805A>;
          Thu, 16 Feb 89 03:20:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QXycBby00UkZA26U43@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 03:16:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #243

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 243

Today's Topics:
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
	       Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration
			 Re: approaching "C"
			   Re: GEOS-6 dies.
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			 Mars video animation
		Re: NSS Hotline Update (NASA manpower)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 89 00:35:28 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <1989Feb10.203043.14958@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <119@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>>The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish
>>>and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature.
>>
>>The "must" is correct.  Sustained manned presence requires self-sufficiency...
>
>Why?  Name three settlements on *Earth* that are self-sufficient.

My message, in context, said *potential* self-sufficiency.  Any small
community that has farmland, woodland,  machine shops, and actual or 
potential access to local wind, solar, hydro, coal or oil, is potentially 
self-sufficient.  There are thousands of such communities on Earth.

Space settlements must be *more* self-sufficient, because the transportation
system from Earth to space is more complex and fragile.  How would dependent
space settlements fair if it were discovered that rockets destroy the ozone,
or if WWIII broke out (conventional or nuclear), if the powers controlling
the system decided there were more urgent priorities than spending billions
on distant space habitats, or (fill in your own bad-news scenario).  

>Clearly a colony needs either good recycling
>or local supplies for air and water, and local production of basic foods
>and structural materials is at least highly desirable.  

Agreed.  And we do *not* have the technology to do this.  We do not know
how to conduct mining or manufacturing operations in vacuum or less than
1 gravity.  It is still an expensive operation to scoop up a few ounces
of soil on Mars.  There are thousands of refining and manufacturing
operations that go into making structural materials from ore, and we do
not know how to do any of them in space.  We do not even know where we
can find good ore--the most likely source, asteroids, have never been 
explored due to lack of funding.  

These are the kinds of new technology and discoveries we need.  Spending
gigabucks putting a few lucky people in LEO does not teach us these things.
Exploring the length and breadth of the solar system, and working on   
advancing science and technology, is where we need to go.  

>If we assume that there is a useful amount of ice in lunar polar craters --
>not ridiculous but not at all certain either -- it clearly is possible to
>start a lunar colony with today's technology.  
>there was a proposal to do exactly that in 1992, as a commemoration of the
>500th anniversary of Columbus.  It would have been within reach of (major)
>private funding, given extensive reliance on donated labor and materials...
>but the reliance on six donated shuttle flights killed it.  

This is off by several orders of magnitude.  You can't put even one
space station module, with supporting solar cells, batteries, and 
several weeks of food, on the Moon, with six shuttles, even if we
had a lunar landing vehicle (a $5+ billion development in and of itself).
The estimates from NASA for a *minimal* lunar base: about 10 people huddled
in space station modules covered by dirt, with no mining or manufacturing
operations--run around $100 billion.  There have never been any reasonable
estimates made for mining operations on the Moon, whether they be the
alleged ice, LOX, or whatever, because we don't know how to build mining
eqipment that can operate in vacuum and high temperature and radiation 
extremes.  An ice-mining operation would increase the price-- and the base 
would still be nowhere near self-sufficiency, because all building materials, 
machines, parts, most food and chemicals except water would have to come 
from Earth.  Nor would such a base accomplish anything that could not be 
accomplished by unmanned vehicles for 100 times less expenditure ($20 billion). 


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 15:58:23 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <1989Feb9.211549.19516@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <665@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> >> >The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish
> >> >and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature.
> >When I say "manned presence," I refer to something a bit more substantial
> >than demonstration/research projects, and something that might eventually
> >act as something other than an economic sink...
> 
> Fair enough... but you still haven't explained why robotics and teleoperation
> are so vital to it.  To repeat Mike's question:  are you sure "must" is
> the right word?

I've read Nick Szabo's response to this question, and I believe he
echoes my views here. I will make explicit the notion implicit in his
words, that I also discussed about four articles back in this thread:
human labor costs in space are likely to be anywhere from 1-3+ orders
of magnitude higher than human labor costs on earth. Lower launch
costs will help, but they cannot erase the permanent disadvantage
resulting from having to engineer and cart around an artificial
environment.

High labor costs do not necessarily stop the show. To offset high labor
costs, you need either a tremendous payoff on the project (e.g., the
Alaska Pipeline), or you need high labor productivity. No doubt some
space projects will produce high payoffs, but I don't believe we can
safely count on this for largely autonomous space colonies. That leaves
us with the option of boosting labor productivity. This approach, BTW,
is (as Nick points out) the safest and most viable avenue to developing
self-sustaining space colonies. Colonies that rely on high terrestrial
returns to overcome their high costs will have a dangerous exposure to
changing market forces. They may also, by their very success, depress
commodity prices until their survival is endangered.

To boost productivity, we must learn to think of humans in space as a
precious resource, not as some sort of astronautical coolie labor. We
must build a space work environment that maximizes the useful output
from each human. We have to minimize (1) necessary hand labor, (2)
time wasted in transit to and from worksites, (3) confusion due to
lack of standardization, (4) unnecessary EVA's. High human resource
utilization implies a high degree of careful planning and coordination
to insure that every single effort counts and requires close to the
minimum amount of time for the task.

This is a difficult environment for terrestrial humans to envision,
since our economies have historically been fairly profligate with
labor. For example, note the political difficulties with implementing
computer standards---in some ways this reflects a low cultural
appreciation for labor productivity. Also consider suburban
development patterns that increase the time each person must spend on
travel. Don't forget the widespread practices of union featherbedding
and other Luddite reactions to advancing technology. BTW, the word
"Luddite" means "labor-preserving" as much as it implies
anti-technological sentiment. Ned Lud did not smash the looms because
he hated technology per se--he only wanted to keep his job.

I envision the work environment in space consisting of a nucleus of
broadly skilled and highly motivated humans surrounded by a fleet of
semi-autonomous and tele-operated robots. Depending on the degree of
autonomy, each human will monitor between 5 and 100 robots through a
high-bandwidth VIVED (Virtual Visual Environment Display) and perhaps
datagloves or force-feedback manipulators. The human supervisor will
ignore robots that are functioning normally or in transit to and from
worksites. When a robot breaks, gets in trouble, or faces a task it is
not programmed for, the human will step in and guide its operation
more closely, or send other robots to assist. The humans will also be
responsible for designing field fixes, reprogramming, and otherwise
raising their own productivity. The humans should find their jobs
absorbing, rewarding, and just plain fun. After all, we all want to
maximize our power and control over things. EVA's will be reserved
for emergencies or, possibly, for recreation.

Clearly, such an environment requires significant advances in the
information and robotics technologies. Compared to these problems,
the questions relating to boosters and such are mere details. I submit
that the frustrated space fan should pursue a career in, say, the
AI, workstation, robotics, or undersea development industries. The
technologies vital to eventual space development are emerging in
those fields. Moving them into space will be a natural extension.

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 89 22:17:29 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration

> 
> A question to those who feel that all current space exploration should be
> unmanned: The US and the USSR have both sent out a fair number of unmanned
> scientific probes, but it is my impression that the US is ahead, or at
> least even, on the development and deployment of advanced scientific probes.
> On the other hand, the USSR has placed a much greater emphasis on manned
> missions, and many people claim that the US is "hopelessly behind" in
> space exploration, citing as their chief argument the higher average human
> occupation of space by the Soviets. Is the USSR wasting its money? And if
> manned exploration for its own sake is insignificant, is the US really
> not all that far behind?
>                                    roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

	Well, I am not one of those who feels that *ALL* current exploration
should be unmanned, but I'll answer you question:  we are dreadfully
far behind in unmanned exploration.  Admittedly the Soviets seem to have
a much higher probe failure rate than we do, but at least they are
moving forward.  Where was the U.S. probe of Halley's comet?  Why are
Galileo and the Space Telescope still on the ground?  When is Cassini
going up?
	Some of these were delayed by the idiotic dependence the Shuttle as
the launcher; some were cancelled due to lack of funds; some are going
to be highly impractical to implement because our lack of big boosters
forces tricks like *double* gravity whips via Jupiter and Venus to get
to the destination.  (This was said by Professor Meese, currently
teaching a course in space flight engineering.  He formerly worked at
JPL.)  Also, funding for unmanned exploration is very hard to get.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 89 07:50:08 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"



>From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
>Subject: approaching "C"

>Then there are things like "it is impossible to travel FTL", or
>"it is impossible to travel in time", or "it is impossible to
>extract work from a system in equilibrium", or "it is impossible
>to build a perpetual motion machine".  These involve models
>of the real world.  The abstract entities in the model constitute
>absolute impossibilities, and the only question is whether the
>model accurately describes or resembles reality.

>Now it seems to me (and I don't mean to put anyone down here, mind you)
>that most people making the argument "well we broke the sound barrier,
>so maybe someday we'll break the light barrier" are classing allok
>"impossible things" as things of the third kind.  It is my belief that
>supersonic travel was an "impossibility" of the third kind.  After all,
>there were known objects that traveled supersonically, and (as far as
>I know) there was no well-checked model of supersonic airflow which
>disallowed it.  So all that remained was a small matter of engineering.

No, supersonic flight was an impossible of the second kind. Aerodynamic theory, 
as it was then understood, predicted several effects that were thought to make
controlled flight impossible. As I recall, one of the effects was that the
air pressure at the leading edge of the wing would become infinite, thus 
requiring infinite power.

It wasn't until some WW II fighter planes were OBSERVED to exceed
the speed of sound in a dive that the theories were revised.

The current theories regarding FTL flight (I think. I'm sure
someone will correct me if I'm wrong.) are similar. FTL is forbidded in two
ways. First, you can't accelerate continuously through the speed of light.
Second, FTL in any form either provides time travel or violates
conventional causality. I'm not sure how strong this second point is.
Physicists are very attached to causality, and so assume FTL impossible.But
there are known effects that call conventional causality into question.

  ++PLS

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 89 05:50:38 GMT
From: mcdchg!illusion!marcus@rutgers.edu  (Marcus Hall)
Subject: Re: GEOS-6 dies.

In article <5352@whuts.ATT.COM> sw@whuts.ATT.COM (WARMINK) writes:
>There must be a good reason why LEDs weren't used - 6 years plus isn't that 
>long ago...anybody know why not?

On the most recent, GEOS-7, the 4 encoder light bulbs were replaced with
two bulbs and two LEDs.  It would seem that this would be done out of some
concern that the LEDs might fail, so there are some light bulbs included.
On the other hand, the LEDs might work fine, in which case two of them should
outlast the light bulbs.  I haven't heard anything about it, so I guess that
everything is working fine.  Thus, I would expect all subsequent GEOS to
use LEDs.

marcus hall
marcus@illusion.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 89 23:35:59 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <Added.sXwpU3y00Ui3AER09e@andrew.cmu.edu> EHARNDEN@AUVM.BITNET (Eric Harnden) writes:

>i think it's neat. i want to go.

So do I.  But even more, I want humanity in general to go, to stay. 

>if i can't go, i want my son to.

Same here.  And the best way to insure our sons (and daughters!) will go is 
to work on long-term projects, that will produce the discoveries and new
technology we need for economically viable, sustainable space settlement.

>     the problem is, of course, that the unmanned advocates have every
>statistical reality on their side. 

So why support uneconomical, unscientific space activities, which detract 
from progress towards our goal? 

>on the other hand, the umanned folks lean on rationality as their only
>argument. 

We have not ignored the emotional and cultural aspects.  A vigourous 
exploration of all parts of the solar system will be at least
as culturally uplifting and emotionally edifying as manned space shots
to LEO.

>a little enthusiasm is good for anybody, and should not necessarily
>equate one with a coke-head.

I would go farther.  A *lot* of enthusiasm is *essential*.  But it must
be combined with the cold, hard weighing of the facts, or it is useless.

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 21:58:36 GMT
From: texbell!killer!mjbtn!raider!crc@bellcore.com  (Charles Cain)
Subject: Mars video animation

The other morning while at work I saw a video of a computer animation that 
was done at JPL. If anyone missed it, you missed truly some of the best 
computer animations ever rendered out to video. My question is to anyone at
JPL, is that available for distribution or was it just something for internal
use and press footage only, or is there a lot more than the 2:00 minutes I saw
then.

Please email responses and thanks in advance.
 
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
DOMAIN: crc@raider.MFEE.TN.US     |      The Hacker Ethic *IS* Alive...
PHONE:  (615-459-9449)            |      inside of ME!!!!!!!!
                                          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The words are Websters'...
The way they are used is solely MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!  
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 89 23:44:30 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update (NASA manpower)

In article <246900003@cdp> jordankatz@cdp.UUCP writes:
>...Additionally Fletcher testified that 45% of NASA's rocket scientists,
>engineers and key support personnel will be retiring over the next two years. 
>...Fletcher reported that moral at NASA is pretty low among most of
>the young and old people.

Hardly a big surprise, considering how the NASA bureaucracy has expanded in
recent years -- the competent people are drowning in a swamp of supervisors.
The supervisor:worker ratio is roughly double what it was during Apollo.

Now, if 45% of the *managers* retired, that would probably pick up morale
immensely, not to mention productivity...
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #243
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Feb 89 06:59:10 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00704>; Thu, 16 Feb 89 05:55:06 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 16 Feb 89 05:55:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0Xye91y00Vs1I1904M>;
          Thu, 16 Feb 89 05:28:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.oXydzdy00UkZE2Gk4o>;
          Thu, 16 Feb 89 05:18:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0Xydy1y00UkZQ2FE4j@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 05:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #244

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 244

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Dec 12 AW&ST
			  Re: Approaching c
			 Re: `Days' in space
			  A serious proposal
			 Re: approaching "C"
		Re: Space travel and the human spirit
		       State SPACEPAC rankings
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 05:18:23 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Dec 12 AW&ST

[Okay, so I'm a bit behind.  To quote from a thoroughly obscure publication
that's got an even worse case of the lates...

	"Please send all complaints regarding our publishing schedule to:
		The Shitcan
		PO Box 2001
		Everytown USA"

Between absences and illness, it's been a busy winter.]

The cover is an excellent color photograph of a spacesuit with a
maneuvering unit attached.  The markings on the sleeve say CCCP.

Japanese construction company buys 15% share in the Cape York Space
Agency (a private firm despite the name).

Hercules finishes first of its filament-wound Titan 4 SRBs.

Japan will probably put manned spaceflight on hold for a few years due
to the budget impact of existing programs like the H-2.

Fuss over possible impropriety in ASRM bidding, part of one proposal has
gone missing.  Investigation underway, schedule not expected to slip.

NASA drops plans for a second Solar Max repair mission:  NASA management
has decided that the shuttle manifest is too full in the near future
(Solar Max will reenter in 1990-91 if not reboosted) and the $28M cost
is too high.

Postmortem on the Atlantis mission.  The payload's solar arrays initially
refused to deploy, although the problem was cleared up quickly.  Tiles on
Atlantis's belly were inspected with the Canadarm's cameras due to concern
about possible tile damage; some damage but nothing disastrous.  Debris
that damaged the tiles does not seem to have come from the SRBs, with
speculation focusing on the external tank, which was nearly five years
old -- the oldest yet flown.

There is some concern about emergency aborts from high-inclination launches
like that of STS-27.  A multiple-engine-failure abort could have dumped
the external tank into Eastern Europe or the USSR.

Oops:  technician stumbles and damages first-stage exhaust nozzle of the
IUS meant for Discovery's next launch.  A replacement first-stage motor
has been pulled from USAF inventory, and schedule is not expected to slip.

Magellan launch still on schedule for late April despite electronics
problems.  An elastomer compound used for mounting electronic components
turns out to expand when heated or exposed to some cleaning solvents,
and this has cracked solder joints.  The fix is to eliminate the elastomer
and mount the components directly on the boards, but this and the cleaning
necessary after the battery fire have eaten up most of the safety margin
in the schedule.  The launch window is April 28 through May 23, with the
next window in May 1991.

French/Soviet Mir mission encounters minor problems due to crowding -- six
men in Mir is cramped.  Chretien complains about the Physalie microgravity
physiology experiment, saying it is too complex for the time available,
and that the cosmonauts feel like lab animals.  "If there was a window
that opened on Mir, I think I'd throw Physalie out of the station."
The scientists on the ground comment that clearly such experiments want
someone with laboratory training, rather than a military pilot, aloft.

Soviets sell advertising contracts for the French/Soviet mission, to
the concern of the French.  "...we are against our cosmonaut looking
like a race car driver."

Glavcosmos may compete against Soyuzkarta in commercial sales of
earth-resources data.  Soyuzkarta sells images only in film form, and
Glavcosmos has responsibility for several satellites that could return
images as digital data, the form preferred by most Western customers.

Details on the autolanding system used by Buran, basically a multiple
distance-measuring system (similar to the US military Tacan) for the
approach and a microwave scanning-beam system (similar to the new MLS
system starting to enter service for international civil aviation)
for the landing.

There appears to be concern in some quarters within the Soviet space
program that too much international cooperation might dilute the USSR's
own capabilities.

Soviets and US talk about Mars missions.  Soviets propose adding surface
meteorological packages to Mars Observer; US thinks this too costly.
US proposes adding a mapping spectrometer (bumped from Mars Observer)
to one of the Soviet 1994 Mars orbiters; Soviets will explore the idea.
The Soviet 1994 mission will be launched by Proton, as there isn't
enough time left to put together an Energia-scale payload.

ESA decides that the Titan-probe part of Cassini will be its next major
science mission.  [This may be a mistake, since it relies on the US
funding the orbiter part.]

Soviets say the pace of their program will be determined by mission
needs and their ability to master the technology.  "We have time on our
side... We don't face deadline pressure in having to develop one element
or another... if the first flight of Buran had failed, it would have been
a setback but it would not have meant that our manned space program came
to a halt..."

Soviets will build at least three shuttle orbiters; three is considered
enough for the "initial phase of operations".  They are very pleased with
Buran's precise automatic landing in a significant crosswind.  A second
flight will not be decided on until tile damage is assessed; so far it
looks minor.

The Soviet orbiters are not capable of docking with Mir, but Mir's
successor is planned to remedy this.  Docking mechanisms are under study.
Mir, with expansion modules, will be in service for some time, so there
is no pressure on the engineers to freeze the next one's configuration
quickly.  The first major Mir expansion module will launch in April; it
will contain more gyros, an electrolytic oxygen system, a lavatory and
shower, and a large airlock with MMUs.  The MMU is vaguely similar to
the US one overall, but different in detail.  It will be used with an
improved EVA suit.

Soviets unveil An-225 Mria, a stretched (in both directions -- fuselage
stretch and longer wings with one more engine on each side) An-124
Ruslan.  It will be by far the world's biggest transport aircraft, and
one major mission for it is hauling Energia components.  It has mounting
points for external payloads on top, and twin vertical tails for stability
while carrying large external loads.

Picture of the Kaliningrad space operations center's shuttle control room.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 16:52:22 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!yunexus!geac!geaclib!rae@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Reid Ellis)
Subject: Re: Approaching c

sukenick@ccnysci.UUCP (SYG) writes:
|If you're the thing which is accelerating, everything is
|wonderful, as long as you have the reaction mass, you'll
|continue to accelerate.

Indeed, if you set out for a star say 15 light years away,
and apply a large amount of acceleration, you could get
there in much less than 15 years, .. subjectively.  So if
you don't care about the rest of the universe, you could
say that the speed of light is no barrier at all.  To
state it a different way from that of relativity, there is
no limit to the speed with which one can travel.  However,
as a side effect, the faster one goes, the faster one
travels through time as well as space.

So there you go: FTL.  Wheee.

					Reid

"We've no intention of having any innocent bystanders
 killed this time, so just come along quietly, all right?"
-- 
Reid Ellis, geaclib!rae@geac.uucp, rae@geaclib.uucp [if you're lucky]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1989 20:24-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: `Days' in space

For people interested in doing some background reading on the subject
of this thread, I suggest the Scientific American book, "Wide Awake at
3AM, By Choice or By Chance?"

There is a bit of meat to the freerunning clock argument.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 89 18:42:35 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: A serious proposal

>This is off by several orders of magnitude.  You can't put even one
>space station module, with supporting solar cells, batteries, and 
>several weeks of food, on the Moon, with six shuttles, even if we
>had a lunar landing vehicle (a $5+ billion development in and of itself).
>The estimates from NASA for a *minimal* lunar base: about 10 people huddled
>in space station modules covered by dirt, with no mining or manufacturing
>operations--run around $100 billion.  There have never been any reasonable
>estimates made for mining operations on the Moon, whether they be the
>alleged ice, LOX, or whatever, because we don't know how to build mining
>eqipment that can operate in vacuum and high temperature and radiation 
>extremes.  An ice-mining operation would increase the price-- and the base 
>machines, parts, most food and chemicals except water would have to come
>from Earth.  Nor would such a base accomplish anything that could not be 
>
>
>Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

	Well, it seems to me that given the enormous cost and uncertainty
involved in establishing an ongoing manned lunar base, the next logical
step is a serious of heavily equipped unmanned lunar rovers.  This has
several beneficial effects:

	(1) It gives us a chance to test out rover technology over
moderately rough terrain, which will tell us a great deal about
how well those rovers can be expected to work on other planets.

	(2) It lets us explore large chunks of the moon quickly and
cheaply.  We need to do this before choosing a sight for our lunar
base anyway; what we know about the moon is based on six landing at
isolated sites and orbital mapping.

	(3) The rovers mentioned in (1) can test autonomous behavior modes
needed for other missions that are minutes or more away by lightspeed.
If the software bombs, control can be taken over immediately.
Where else will you be able to run in-vacuum, large scale, full-blown
tests of the hardware and software under temperature extremes?

	Eventually the manned base can be built, when we have a better idea
what we're doing.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 01:04:15 GMT
From: agate!e260-1f.berkeley.edu!128a-3cl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Cimarron D. Taylor <agate!e260-1f.berkeley.edu!128a-3cl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"


	I feel constrained to add a comment to this 
perennial discussion.  The transmission of matter or energy
faster than the speed of light would not require an
overthrow of current theory.  Relativity, which introduced
this limit, was more a broadening of theory than a revolution.
To suggest that relativity is, in turn, just a special case
of some larger model is not absurd.
	All one can say about FTL transmission is that it
is not predicted in the models that best fit physical
observations.

	--MYC

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 89 18:23:33 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the human spirit

In article <14484@cup.portal.com>, hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes:
> *I* (at 47) expect not only to go into space, but to
> travel to the stars.
> ...  Progress (much of it being made within 50 miles of where I live) in
> the fabrication of ever smaller computers parts will take only a few decades
> to reach the size scale where molecular repairs can be made to human cells.
> There is no reason those who make it to that time should *ever* have to die,
> and the same technology will reduce the cost of just about everthing to that
> of firewood (grow your own spaceship).

I hope you're right, because dying is not something I want to be
around for when it happens. But I think the race against the clock is
going to be tight for most of us. At 47 years can expect anywhere from
2-4 decades of further existence if you avoid accidents, homicide, and
disease.  Will that be enough time? No doubt our
information-processing and nano-fabrication technologies are moving
forward, but cellular repair on the scale you envision is an
exceedingly complex problem. In the past four decades our computers
have improved by six orders of magnitude in terms of raw processing
power available from a given input of material and energy.

Assuming this progress can continue, we will have another million-fold
improvement in next four decades. Will that be enough? Keep in mind
that our ability to fully exploit computer hardware lags
significantly, by perhaps a decade or two. The human genome has a raw
information content of ca. 1 GB. Significant advances in software must
occur before we can develop algorithms that can meaningfully work this
kind of information, irrespective of how much processing power is
available. Our progress in software has been arithmetic, not
exponential.  Many commercial packages are still written in assembler.
Finally, unless geneticists make real progress, they don't expect to
be able to map the human genome, let alone fiddle with it
comprehensively, for several decades.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that what you say will eventually
happen. Immortality, recreational space travel, and unimaginable
personal wealth should follow naturally from mature
information-processing capability. But within 2--3 decades? 
I'm not sure we could make the necessary cultural adjustments that
quickly, even if the technology became feasible (i.e., what is to
stop such tools from becoming forces for destruction?). Even now,
we cannot seem to organize society to take full advantage of the
present potential of computers.

Finally, what little I know of the thermodynamics of irreversible
processes leads me to the hunch that immortality will be much easier
to confer on the young than on the old. Diseases are always far
simpler to cure when caught early. Aging is probably a profound
example of this. I could see genetically-engineered aging-resistant
children in the next 3 decades. But to fix someone with massive
cellular damage already in place?

(My apologies to reader who feel this subject is straying from space.
I feel that the impact of information technologies on the eventual
privatization of space will be profound.)

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

"Prophecy is difficult, especially with respect to the future."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 10:34:29 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: State SPACEPAC rankings
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

This is excerpted from the space activists' digest 
(space-activists@turing.cs.rpi.edu):

>Subject: Spacepac ratings by State
>From: Scott Pace <pace%tp3@rand.org>
 
>In playing with the last set of Congressional ratings by Spacepac (1988
>edition), we took averages for each State's House delegation.  This gave us
>a rough measure of the Spacepac "rating" of each state.  Ratings of 70% or
>more were called pro-space, while 0-50% were called anti-space. This gave
>us 15 pro-space states, 9 anti-space states, and 26 "swing" states.
 
>The ranking was:
>Alaska          91    [#1]

Excuse me???  I mean, I can understand figures like

>Florida         87.6  [#3]

and naturally

>Wisconsin       43.3  [#45]

although I was surprised somewhat by the poor standing of

>California      66.5  [#20]

but why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
What are they doing up there to get that kind of support???!!?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #244
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Feb 89 08:20:25 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01038>; Fri, 17 Feb 89 05:06:43 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 17 Feb 89 05:06:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AXyxexy00Vs181YkBA>;
          Fri, 17 Feb 89 03:42:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.4XyxL4y00UkZ86WE4J>;
          Fri, 17 Feb 89 03:20:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4XyxHey00UkZQ6Uk5T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 03:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #245

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 245

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Viking had the first Phobos data
			 Re: Space Resources
			    1992 moon base
			Why the light bulb...
			 PHOBOS orbit change
	    Government Foolishness (Canceling the Station)
			 Re: approaching "C"
		   Chemical Projectile Accelerators
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
		      Re: NASA Planetary footage
		     Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
			 Re: approaching "C"
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 18:33:45 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Re: Viking had the first Phobos data

My recent posting to Space Digest (v9 #238) on the Soviet Phobos probes I 
stated:

>    Hopefully, Phobos II will still bring us the first real information
>about that Moon of Mars.

which got a reply from Mike Caplinger of JPL who properly points out:

> The Viking images of Phobos acquired in 1976-79 had resolutions far
> better than any existing images of any planetary body taken from a
> non-lander.  I think they qualify as real information.

    I did not forget those fine pictures, and use them all the time when we
give lectures on Mars missions here.  When I wrote that sentence the data
that came most to mind was the compositional information that hopefully
comes from Phobos II at that moon.  Clearly to the Viking team goes the 
credit for making the moons of Mars something other than points of light,
in addition to the other wounderful information about the red planet.  
The Russians, if they can pull it off, will gain a first landing and
more detailed data, especially in the area of what the moons are made of.
   I am well rebuked.

[Note to Mike Caplinger: I have tried to contact you but cannot make a net
connection with your current path - any suggestions?]

                                                    Glenn Chapman
                                                    MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 89 19:24:38 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfclm!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Space Resources


   > L-volume and aprox 1 second to the other L-volume and Earth. Since space
   > is frictionless, transportation between any two points in this matrix
   > would be almost nothing. This would end phase 1 of Solar system
   > development according to Criswell.

Space may be "frictionless", but that doesn't make travelling in space cheap.
As Saint Isaac pointed out, if you start to go in one direction, you're
gonna keep it up.  The expensive part?  Can you say "delta-vee"?


Bob Myers            | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but  
{the known universe} |  most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."
!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |                        - Winston Churchill

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 12:45:30 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: 1992 moon base

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>If we assume that there is a useful amount of ice in lunar polar craters --
>not ridiculous but not at all certain either -- it clearly is possible to
>start a lunar colony with today's technology.  Before Challenger, in fact,
>there was a proposal to do exactly that in 1992, as a commemoration of the
>500th anniversary of Columbus.  It would have been within reach of (major)
>private funding, given extensive reliance on donated labor and materials...
>but the reliance on six donated shuttle flights killed it.

Wonderful, Henry.  Lunar colonies (= a handful of people huddled
underground) are feasible if you don't have to pay for little things
like labor, materials or launchers.  By the way, how many shuttle
flights per year would be needed for support of this thing?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 13 Feb 89 08:36:07 EST
From: Eric Harnden <EHARNDEN%AUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Why the light bulb...

     In response to the query as to why a light bulb, a seemingly
inconsequential device, should 'bring down' half of a satellite system...
     The aforementioned light bulb was the illuminator for the mechanical
shaft encoder, a graduated cylinder whose outer markings are read by an
optical device. The rotational position of the encoder indicated to the
craft's controls the current attitude of it's sensors. It turns out that
bulbs of the type used are subject to crystallization of the filament,
which of course breaks under any appreciable shear force. Far from being
a lousy design, however, it must be remembered that the system actually
operated some months (nine? I think?) beyond it's five year design spec.
Anyway, when that bulb goes, the spacecraft is for all intents and purposes
finished, because even if the rest of the systems are still operational, you
can't point the sensors.
         Eric Harnden (Ronin)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 19:26:00 GMT
From: parity.dec.com!biro@decwrl.dec.com  (Support SAR-SAT, get lost)
Subject: PHOBOS orbit change


TASS CORRESPONDENT REPORTS FORM MISSION CONTROL CENTRE:  PHOBOS

The PHOBOS interplanetary station that became a satellite of
Mars on the 29th of January has been transferred to a new 
intermediate orbit.  In accordance with the flight program
the station engines were turned on at 1600 MSK on the 12th of
February.  The results were a new elliptical orbit with the
following parameters:
Apocentre  81200 KM   ?? this may be 87200 KM had bad reception at this point
Pericentre  6400 KM
Inclination  0.9 degrees
Period      86.5 Hours

Obersveration of the surface and atmosphere of Mars and well as the
space around the planet were started on  February 1st and continued on
February 5, 8 and 11.

In the Future, the craft will be transferred to a circular orbit with
a radius that will exceed by 200-300 km the height of the PHOBOS
satellite.  From this distance the spacecraft will carry out
autonomous navigation measurements of the position of that satellite of 
Mars for the purpose of a subsequent rapprochement of the station and 
the satellite.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 89 21:37:39 GMT
From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!wright!cs7300d@gatech.edu  (Student of Dr. Hemmendinger)
Subject: Government Foolishness (Canceling the Station)


	Has anyone else read where some lunatic in OMB has recommended
that the space station be canceled because the 30 Billion investment
will provide _no_ benefits!?!

	Anyone have the address/phone number/fax number of this guy???

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 17:12:56 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"

> regnery@wpi.wpi.edu (George Regnery)
>> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
>> [...] "it is impossible to travel faster than
>> 10mph by rail", or other examples.  These merely involve things that
>> haven't been done yet.
>  Haven't been done yet?  Where do you live?

Just in case this was not clear, "done yet" at the time of the
pronouncement of "impossibility".

>  Seriously, the above statements are just a misuse of the word impossible.
> Impossiblility, to most people, denotes something that can not ever be done
> under any circumstances.

True, it *is* a sort of "misuse".  But I didn't intend to judge
whether people are using the term "impossible" correctly or not.  I
was merely pointing three common ways in which the term is actually
used (this being one of the three).  To reconcile it with George's
definition, read an implied "impossible (for current technology)" or
some such into this usage.

--
The seeds of crime bear bitter fruit.
                --- Dick Tracy
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 19:30:35 GMT
From: ns!logajan@UMN-CS.CS.UMN.EDU  (John Logajan x3118)
Subject: Chemical Projectile Accelerators


(Why I think) Projectiles from guns can be accelerated to speeds faster than
the speed of sound in the propelling gases:

Because the gas molecules traveling at near right angles to the direction of
travel of the projectile can strike the projectile if it has a trailing conical
section.  That is, the ratio of projectile velocity to molecule velocity
determines a slope at which an orthogonal molecule will just graze the
projectile shape as it passes.  Thus note, there is no upper limit on speed
differential, as an appropriate slope can always be found.  HOWEVER, the
greater the ratio the more normal the collision and hence the less vector
forward thrust produced.  At some point the thrust produced will fall below
other frictions and acceleration will cease.

This same description holds true for sail boats (which explains why a sail
boat can go faster at an angle to the wind than directly with the wind) and
fresh watermellon seeds squeezed between the thumb and forefinger.

-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / logajan@ns.network.com / john@logajan.mn.org -

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 00:44:37 GMT
From: esosun!cogen!celerity!whoops!dave@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Smith)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

There has been a lot of noise lately about how tele-operated and autonomous
robots can do the same job as a person on the spot.  My question for the
group is:  Has anyone here ever done any work with teleoperated machinery,
and, if so, how easy/difficult is it?  

David L. Smith
FPS Computing, San Diego
ucsd!celerity!dave
"Repent, Harlequin!," said the TickTock Man

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 08:39:00 SET
From: ESC1325%ESOC.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: Re: NASA Planetary footage

Refers to Jim Moskowitz, who is searching for planetary misison videos:
If you are not restricted to NASA missions, here is one source:
The Max-Planck-Institute for Aeronomy (which built the camera
on ESA's Giotto spacecraft to Halley's comet) sells video tapes
with a short (10 min approx) animation of the approach to Halley's
nucleus.
The sequence shows nicely how the black comet nucleus emerges from
from the bright sunlit dust coma, how more and more features
on its surface show up as the probe approaches and, in the last
seconds, how the images degrade as the camera mirror gets
damages in the cometary duststorm.
The tape can be ordered for all kinds of TV systems (VHS tape,
PAL, NTSC and Secam System or U-matic high/low key) and
comes for approx. 50 US-$ for private/academic use and
approx. 200 US-$ for public presentation use (VHS tapes).
For details you should contact
   Dr. H.U. Keller
   Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie
   Postfach 20
   D-3411 Katlenburg-Lindau
   Federal Republic of Germany
His EARN e-mail address is U0166@DGOGWDG5, on SPAN ECD1::LINMPI::KELLER

Personally I like the sequence very much, as I remember that night
here in the control centre. The images displayed on that night
were very cryptic due to the false colours used, but the
processed ones in "real colour" are much better.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are mine, not ESA's or mbp's.
            No guarantee, no liability.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Lutz Massonne, mbp Software&Systems GmbH   | Tel. +49 6151 886 701
European Space Operations Centre               |
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5                            | ESC1325@BITNET
D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG                          |

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 23:08:06 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <890213103429.0000076D091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>
>why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
>What are they doing up there to get that kind of support???!!?

Alaska is the only (Earth-bound) U.S. frontier.  Perhaps there is
a psychology among its residents that lends support to the opening of
still more frontiers.

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 00:21:31 GMT
From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"

In article <EXtpzNy00WB9E0jnx8@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
>Here's a question I've alaways wondered about relativity:
>Suppose there are two space ships, one going at .6 C (an attainable
>theoretical velocity)  and one going .6 in the opposite direction,
>what would observers inside each see?  

Each would "see" the other going at 1.2/(1 + .36) C.  See is a word to be
taken lightly, because you can't see what's going on instantaneously. For
example as you look up into the sky at the sun, it may have already gone
nova up to 8 minutes ago.

ON APPROACHING C:
     Relativity says you can't pass beyond C, because no matter how close
you get to it, the difference between your speed and C is still C.  In
relativity, the "difference" between two speeds, v1 and v2, is:

		        (v1 - v2)/(1 - v1*v2)

expressed as a ratio in terms of C. When v1 is 1C, the difference becomes 1C.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 17:13:58 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb13.074530.17504@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Wonderful, Henry.  Lunar colonies (= a handful of people huddled
>underground) are feasible if you don't have to pay for little things
>like labor, materials or launchers...

Not quite what I said, which was that a startup lunar colony was very cheap,
and looked feasible *BY 1992*, if most of the big-ticket items were donated.
(As for "a handful of people huddled underground", most of the early colonies
in North America started with not much more, especially after the first
winter.)

>By the way, how many shuttle
>flights per year would be needed for support of this thing?

This was a *colony*, not a base, meaning no crew rotation and the intent
to be self-sufficient in basic materials essentially at once.  Remember
also that it was conceived in the days when shuttle flights were supposedly
going to be cheap and plentiful, so one or two a year for vital materials
and expansion wasn't a big deal.  I don't remember the numbers, but it did
not assume massive ongoing support from Earth.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 23:01:01 GMT
From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <1989Feb7.093222.6406@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <IXvVuBy00WB_43mYsp@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
>
>>>At present, manned ventures are (very roughly, I believe) ten times as
>>>expensive as unmanned ventures in terms of data and benefits returned.
>
>>Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from
>>unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space.  This is
>>important
>
>Experience gained by having people work in space is only worthwhile if
>there is some prospect of profitably applying it in the reasonably
>near future.

  [Bit and chunks removed from above, but I hope not out of context.]

Paul,
With this philosphy, we should abolish all the large aperture telescopes,
radio telescopes, particle research, robotic planetary exploration, and
a host of other fairly esoteric studies, since profitability is by no
means expected in the near future in any of these areas.  I hate it
when elimination of scientific studies is based on whether or not
you will get as many bucks back as you put in. This is not Science,
it is capitalism and belongs in the corporate office.  No, I'm not against
capitalism, but science Must not come and go based on profit, or we will
end up with a science that specializes in nothing but coffee makers and
microwave ovens.

-- 
 _____   Kevin Bagley  Global Tech. Int'l Inc., Mukilteo WA 98275  206-742-9111
  )___)  __    _   _   UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin
_/___)  (__(__(_)_/_)_ ARPA:uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu
_______________/  Disclaimer...  "I did not say this. I am not here."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #245
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Feb 89 14:41:13 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01346>; Fri, 17 Feb 89 06:42:19 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 17 Feb 89 06:42:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IXyzMZy00UkT42x05k>;
          Fri, 17 Feb 89 05:38:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.8Xyz6ty00UkZ46h059>;
          Fri, 17 Feb 89 05:19:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0Xyz40y00UkZQ6fU5S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 05:16:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #246

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 246

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Chemical Projectile Accelerators
	       SUMMER JOBS AT RICE (Repost by request)
			Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
			 Re: Space Resources
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
			  Faster than sound
       Re: Black holes (was Re: Comparing c and speed of sound)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 16:19:03 GMT
From: ns!logajan@UMN-CS.CS.UMN.EDU  (John Logajan x3118)
Subject: Re: Chemical Projectile Accelerators

I wrote: 
> (Why I think) Projectiles from guns can be accelerated to speeds faster than
> the speed of sound in the propelling gases:

I was refering to guns constructed so that the gases entered orthogonally at
many ports along the length of the barrel, rather than end fired guns -- as
someone else mentioned a few weeks ago -- sorry for the confusion.

-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / logajan@ns.network.com / john@logajan.mn.org -

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 11:21:00 CDT
From: "PAT REIFF" <reiff@spacvax.rice.edu>
Subject: SUMMER JOBS AT RICE (Repost by request)
To: "space+" <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: reiff@spacvax.rice.edu
Reply-To: "PAT REIFF" <reiff@spacvax.rice.edu>

SUMMER JOBS AVAILABLE AT RICE UNIVERSITY

The Department of Space Physics and Astronomy of Rice University will have 
a number of temporary research apprenticeships available to undergraduate 
students in the summer of 1989.  Applications will be accepted until May 1 
for the summer period beginning on May 15.  Since the openings will start 
being filled in March, early application is recommended.

Ours is one of the oldest Space Science departments in the United States, 
with a long tradition in space experiments and observations, data analysis, 
and supporting theoretical and laboratory work.  Current areas of interest 
include study of planetary atmospheres and ionospheres, the magnetospheres 
of Earth and other planets, the interstellar medium, pulsars, and 
climatology.  We are particularly interested in hiring students of physics 
and related disciplines between their junior and senior years in order to 
allow them participation in the research activities of this modern 
department.  The exact nature of the assignment will be determined by a 
process of matching faculty and student interests.

Interested persons should send a letter of application which includes a 
statement of their academic position (school, year, major field of study, 
grade point average, both overall and in mathematics and physical science 
courses), the names of three references whom they have asked to write in 
support of their application, and a statement describing what attracts them 
to work in this summer program.  If the student has strong particular 
interests within the department or skills that may be particularly useful, 
these should also be described.  Letters of reference should be sent 
directly to the address below.

The remuneration for a full three months of service is $2500.

All correspondence should be addressed to:
Dr. Tamara S. Ledley		
Department of Space Physics and Astronomy
Rice University                 internet:  ledley@spacvax.rice.edu
Houston, TX 77251-1892          SPAN:      rice::ledley


Note: *SOME* of the positions are funded by the "Research Experience for
Undergraduates" program sponsored by the National Science Foundation.  A
number of other Universities will also be participating (for example, the 
University of Alaska will have several such positions).  For a list of
participating Universities, contact the Research Experiences for 
Undergraduates Program, Directorate for Science and Engineering Education,
Room 639, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 20550.  Or write
or call the relevant Division of NSF directly:  Biological, Behavioral, and
Social Sciences: (202)357-9880; Computer and Information Science and
Engineering: (202)357-7349; Engineering: (202) 357-5102; Geosciences
(includes atmospheric sciences and space sciences): (202)357-7615;
Astronomy -7622; Chemistry -7503; Materials Research -9789; Mathematics
-3453; and Physics -7611 . 
------
>From the First Space Science Department (celebrating its 25th anniversary):   
                                                   :      _^ ^_    ____
     Patricia H. Reiff                             :     / O O \   |GO \
     Department of Space Physics and Astronomy     :     \  V  /   |OWLS\
     Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892       :    / ""R"" \__/
     internet:  reiff@spacvax.rice.edu             :    \ ""U"" /
     SPAN:      RICE::REIFF                        :    _/|\ /|\_
     telemail:  [preiff/edunet] mail/usa           :My kids don't agree 
                                                   :with me; why should
                                                   :anyone else?
    ------
------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 00:39:19 GMT
From: psivax!quad1!ttidca!sorgatz@uunet.uu.net  ( Avatar)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

<< sys:f "Lineeater full...system restart initiated...wait.." >>

In article <4XwVpQy00Xc94aJ3IN@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
>
>   On a more serious note - numerous people have asked about redoing the
>Saturn V, despite the fact that NASA pitched most of the plans and machinery
>for same.  It seems that the cost would be almost prohibitive.

 Assuming that there were NO PLANS or tooling (which simply isn't the case.)
the entire SATURN 5 system (airframe, tanks, plumbing, electrical and the
mighty F1's) COULD BE duplicated using the existing display units as models.

 If NASA were involved, it would be. But if it were done by a small, private
company (Sierra Space Corp??? ;-) ) using ex-Rockwell employees...being paid
medium-good jobshopper's wages...it could cost as little as $800K. Yup.

 This figure was decided upon by several ex-Rockwell employees, one of whom
is my father! His statements included such salty-quips as:

 "..Assuming we didn't have those assinine, know-nothing Government Inspector
Kids breathing down our necks!...why those clowns wouldn't know a micrometer
from a lathe if one jumped up their ass!"


 His friends had equally 'ripe' remarks  about  the  remaining  management
infrastructure  that hinders the NASA/Contractor environment.  The more of
this kind of stuff that I hear from these "Apollo Team" oldies, the more I
am  totally  convinced that the high cost of the NASA-approach is a result
of  too  many  'hangers-on'...i.e.  excess   layers   of   management-type
personnel.

 Using the existing display models as inputs to a Gorton Duplicator, a part
profile could be created for each of the 2 millon+ subcomponents. This info
would be in the form of Cincimatic (or similar) NC tapes.  There are several
software packages that can convert this information to standard 3-view and
detail prints in whatever size you'd like. Shop prints are usually 'D' size,
for those of you who have never worked in a machine shop, roughly 36" x 56".

 Actually manufacturing these parts, combining them into a Saturn Clone, is
a bit more work..but could still be done.  Seperate small teams (3-5 people)
would manage semi-skilled crews of 20-50 for each of the major subsystems:

 Airframe -- NC made struts, complex folded & welded/riveted sheetmetal.

 Tanks & Plumbing -- TIG & MIG welds on various alloys, complex sheetmetal.

 Engine & Turbopump -- exotic alloy machining, welding and finishing.

 Electrical & Hydraulics -- complex hi-reliability crimping/fastening/testing.
			    hi-precision machining, and assembly.

 System/Subsystem Test --  complete checkout and static firing.

 This could be accomplished by a small-to-medium sized private company, with
250-300 employees, most of whom could be semi-skilled (in the assembly) or
journeyman level (for the machining & welding).

 Look for the startup costs to be just over $1 million. With the cost of
finished S5-clones to run $800K per copy for the first 20, cheaper from
20-50 (maybe a 10% cost roll-off), and cheaper yet from 50-100.

>   I would like to know if anyone has information about the Saturn launcher
>used for the early Apollo tests (the IIB?) - were the plans for that pitched
>as well?  Surely the capacity to orbit the mass of the LM/SM/CM combination
>would be useful.  Does anyone know if the plans for that are still around?
>
>                                                  kwr

 You mean vehicle or launchpad (platform)?  The vehicle, Saturn 2b is in the
same mess as the Saturn 5...mostly "lost", some tooling, a few (3 I think)
display models adorning AFB's etc...one at Huston's Space Museum.

 ..anybody interested in starting a company? Got a "few" bucks and a little
vision?  Rockwell just retired a bunch of Apollo-era M.E.s...and most of them
are just sitting around bored with their retirements!
-- 
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Feb 89  19:04:33 EST
From: Castell%UMASS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
      (Chip Olson@somewhere.out.there)
Subject: Re: Space Resources

From: amethyst!spock!chris@noao.edu  (Chris Ott)

A general comment: You have got to be kidding.

>I make no excuse for my utopianism and my optimism.
>We are running out of time, so somebody has to do it!
>And I'm getting tired od people arguing abd worrying about the future
>instead of creating it. Anyway.

 I don't see you doing any different from the rest of us.  If we're
running out of time, why don't we concentrate on keeping this earth
in some sort of habitable shape instead of proposing all these wild
fantasies that may be technologically possible, but could never be
accomplished within our lifetimes.

>Limits? I see no present evidence of limits? A limit can only be proved
>completly and beyond a shawdow of a doubt, after it has been tested an
>infinite amount of time, under an infinite number of conditions, forever.

 I could use the same theorem to cast doubt on the existence of the
 earth, or even on my own existence. Give me a break.

>  In the book "Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience", David
>  Criswell, Ph.D, demonstrates that there are enough resources in the
>  asteroid belt to construct an extremely massive infra-structure
>  consisting of 40 trillion people with 40,000 trillion tons of supporting
>  structure, occupying aporx. 1 billion cubic km - which is 1 millionth of
>  the space available in the L4 and L5 regions alone! All of these people
>  could be in contact via laser communication with 0.2 seconds in one
>  L-volume and aprox 1 second to the other L-volume and Earth. Since space
>  is frictionless, transportation between any two points in this matrix
>  would be almost nothing. This would end phase 1 of Solar system
>  development according to Criswell.

So what?  What relevance does this fascinating bit of trivia have to the
problems facing the world today?  Take your head out of the clouds, wake
up and smell the ozone.

>      He goes on to talk about phases 2 and 3 which would hinge upon the
>    theoretical technology (perhaps extremely high energy lasers) to
>    dismantle the outer planets, and then mine the sun. He has shown that

Do you have any idea what you are saying? Since we've already pretty much
ruined this planet, we should go out and carve up the others?

>    it would be theoretically possible to convert the sun into a white
>    dwarf, which would extend the lifetime of SOL 1,115 times. He calls
>    this process, "Stellar Lifting".

And just what would this do to the Sun's output? It'd counteract the
greenhouse effect but good, that's for sure.  And if the process changes
the mass of the Sun (stellar engineering isn't my field), the orbits of
every planet,asteroid and comet in the solar system would be radically
altered.

>       Using stellar lifting as a away of collecting the higher elements,
>   Criswell shows that a civilization consiting of 10(16) - 10(21) power
>   humans on a surface area equivalent to 1 billion earths would be
>   possible. This civilization, due to Sol's extended lifetime, would have
>   a potential lifespan of at least 10 trillion years. All of this is
>   possible within the solar system.

Excuse me, but just what makes you think we as a species are going to
last that long?  Even if we manage to avoid blowing ourselves up, the
solar system has been around for only 4.5 billion years. We as a species
have been around for a few million.  Compress that 4.5b years into a single
year, and _Homo sapiens_ shows up at 9 pm or so on December 31 (just in
time to crash the New Years' party). I hate to burst your bubble, but you
and I are just a couple of hairless apes with ideas above our station.
It is these kinds of attitudes that have ruined and are still ruining
the balance of life on this planet.  Now you want to go out and ruin the
balance of the solar system for good measure.

>    What limits?

Sure, "What limits?"  I won't dispute that it's theoretically possible
to accomplish all this.  But by the same token, it is just as theoretically
possible, and far more practically possible, to fix the damage we've done
to this planet (it's called Earth... you were born there... remember?).
None of what you propose can possibly, or even theoretically, be accom-
plished in your lifetime, or my lifetime, or those of our children and
great-grandchildren.  I'm far more interested in making this a more
livable planet for them than I am in pipe dreams.

@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*
(    )  Chip Olson, 808-B McNamara, UMass, Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 546-4474.
:\^^/:   "Why be difficult when with a bit of effort you can be impossible?"
(@::@)  Bitnet:     Castell@UMass.Bitnet
 \\//   Internet:   Castell%UMass.Bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
 (oo)   UUCP:       {blah!blah!blah}!mit-eddie!castell@umass.bitnet
  ""                (or something like that)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 16:38:01 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <638@hindmost.gtisqr.UUCP> kevin@hindmost.UUCP (Kevin Bagley) writes:
>>Experience gained by having people work in space is only worthwhile if
>>there is some prospect of profitably applying it in the reasonably
>>near future.

>Paul,
>With this philosphy, we should abolish all the large aperture telescopes,
>radio telescopes, particle research, robotic planetary exploration, and
>a host of other fairly esoteric studies, since profitability is by no
>means expected in the near future in any of these areas.  I hate it
>when elimination of scientific studies is based on whether or not
>you will get as many bucks back as you put in.

I was not arguing that scientific projects should be judged on direct
economic payoffs.  First of all, I wasn't criticizing *science*, I
was criticizing "experience", that nebulous thing that putting men
into space is supposed to give us.  This is largely technical knowhow,
I think, and technology development is subject to economic criticism.

Science should be judged on whether it helps answer questions of
central importance, not just on economic grounds.  Unmanned
exploration of the solar system and the larger cosmos clearly does
this, even if it has no obvious direct payoff.  The questions answered
are so connected to more mundane problems that indirect payoffs are
inevitable.  For example, it would clearly be helpful to know how the
Earth was formed; this would have ramifications throughout geology.
To understand this we need to study the rest of the solar system.

The science that has been proposed for the space station is not, in my
opinion, of the same importance.  It seems to me that it has been
justified on more utilitarian grounds -- understanding how liquids
behave in microgravity may help in future space manfacturing, or
biological experiments may help in sending people to Mars.  Economic
criticism IS justified for these, I think.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 14:45:38 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Faster than sound
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu


As Arthur Clarke has pointed out in several books, the crack
of a whip is a sonic boom caused by the tip exceeding the
speed of sound. As the momentum in the heavy part of the
whip near the handle moves in a wave towards the lighter
tip, the velocity increases, until it exceeds that of sound,
and *CRACK*.  The taper of the whip serves to incrementally
match the high impedance of one end with the low impedance
at the other.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 04:40:03 GMT
From: megatest!bbowen@decwrl.dec.com  (Bruce Bowen)
Subject: Re: Black holes (was Re: Comparing c and speed of sound)

In article <210@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <8902080259.AA04715@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>>My own area of skepticism: I'm not convinced that it's possible for a 
>>black hole to come into existence in a finite period of time, from the
>>viewpoint of an outside observer.
>
>I'm convinced you're right.
>
>Since time slows down, asymptotically approaching 'stopped' at the
>event horizon, the closest there can be is a "black hole in progress".
>-- 

   This is not true.  The total time for a black hole to form for an
outside observer is the integral of the ratio of outside time to local
time integrated over the local time for the black hole to form.  The
ratio goes to infinity as the edge gets close to the event horizon so
one has an improper integral, but the value of this integral is finite.

As an example the integral from 0 to 1 of 1/sqrt(1-x)   = 2
even though 1/sqrt(1-x) goes to infinity as x -> 1


Bruce

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #246
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Feb 89 06:33:34 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00844>; Sat, 18 Feb 89 05:19:00 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 18 Feb 89 05:18:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.MXzGfNy00Vs181TUAP>;
          Sat, 18 Feb 89 03:35:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.YXzGPEy00UkZM2Fk5V>;
          Sat, 18 Feb 89 03:18:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wXzGNQy00UkZA2EE5k@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 89 03:16:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #247

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 247

Today's Topics:
	   If you know about telescopes please answer this
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			 Re: Space Resources
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
	  Re: Government Foolishness (Canceling the Station)
		     Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
			 Re: approaching "C"
		       Re: the un/manned debate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 21:49:09 GMT
From: unh!psc90!pyr406@uunet.uu.net  (Devil's Advocate,Inc)
Subject: If you know about telescopes please answer this

I am giving a presentation on telescopes on March 5. I need any information
or thoughts on telescopes of all kinds. From the cardboard kit in a toy store
to the V.L.A. Also any experiences that you feel would be interesting to talk
to kids age 6-13. ( It has to be a story that they can tell their parrents
about. Please e-mail me as soon as you think of something.~
                        Thank you in advance~
                                        Frank Hayes

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 16:45:48 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@yale-bulldog.arpa  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb13.074530.17504@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>Wonderful, Henry.  Lunar colonies (= a handful of people huddled
>underground) 

Are you trying to say that people huddled underground are worthless?

How about people crammed into cities like Tokyo or NYC? How about people
living in -80F in Alaska or Siberia?

Are the people in Antartica doing research useless or pointless because they
are "huddled underground"?

Your imagery is pointless. Yes, a lunar base is probably underground, so what?


    Paul Rodman
    rodman@mfci.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 16:40:53 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@yale-bulldog.arpa  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Space Resources

In article <16520003@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>
>Space may be "frictionless", but that doesn't make travelling in space cheap.
>As Saint Isaac pointed out, if you start to go in one direction, you're
>gonna keep it up.  The expensive part?  Can you say "delta-vee"?
>

Oh, Come on! There are lots of ways of storing energy from incoming 
masses in rotation, and extracting it later for outgoing masses. With enough
such systems in various directions the energy costs could approach zero.
G. O'neil had such an idea for getting between cylinder cites.s

Cay YOU say "L = I**2 x r"? :-)


    Paul Rodman
    rodman@mfci.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 18:02:53 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

In article <1989Feb9.100756.22055@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Cut out the freshman debating tactics, Henry.

I will if you will.

>Did I suggest we not put men in space for centuries?

Basically, yes.  In the same way that a call for a cost/benefit analysis
is usually really a call for an excuse to kill the project (since costs
are usually much more quantifiable than benefits), a call to do something
"when it's appropriate" is usually really a call to forget it entirely.
If not, please name a date, or cite specific criteria that would indicate
that the time is at hand.

>Did I suggest we not do research on better boosters?

No, but you didn't suggest we do research on the physiological problems of
long-term spaceflight, which is the other real issue for man in space.
Stopping manned spaceflight means largely stopping such research, since
we have no faithful ground-based simulation of space effects.  (Bed rest
is a partial simulation but only a partial one.)

>...I said that having people in space today doesn't matter a whole lot.

Except in preparation for having them in space tomorrow.

> ...Today's manned spaceflight is largely PR nonsense.

I partially agree, but only partially.  Satellite deployment clearly does
not require a manned flight; the presence of a crew is occasionally of
some small use, but not often and it's not important.  If you believe that
satellite deployment is the only important use of spaceflight, then of
course manned spaceflight is largely PR.

>However, I will disagree that there is much that men can do in space
>in the next few decades.  Launch costs are not going to come down that
>much in that time.  I don't believe private launchers are going to
>save all that much, perhaps a factor of ten; the europeans don't even
>believe that much is possible with rockets...

Let us be specific:  *Arianespace* does not believe that much is possible
with rockets.  I can think of several reasons for Arianespace to say that,
only one of which is the possibility that it's true.  And even a factor
of ten would make an enormous difference in many ways.  I've met people
who believe much greater savings are possible, if only one stops thinking
of space launchers as military missiles.

(All existing space launchers, Ariane included, are basically missiles
at heart, despite the labels saying "civilian space launcher".  Not one
of them has been conceived from scratch by people interested in low costs
rather than mil-spec conformance.  [One doesn't find such people working
for government aerospace contractors.])

> The history of launchers
>shows that the cost of a launcher is usually lower on the sketchpad than
>on the launch pad...

Agreed... but some of the sketchpad costs are low enough to make one wonder
just how much they would inflate on the launch pad.

>About the Soviets: I think folks are going to be in for a rude surprise when
>the Soviet space program goes nowhere.  The Soviet Union is in deep economic
>trouble.  The standard of living has gone down in the last decade.  Gorby's
>reforms are a failure...

I seem to recall the same comments about the Soviet economy being made a
decade or more ago, and the Soviets have made more than a little progress
in space since then.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 02:53:53 GMT
From: vx2!spector@nyu.edu  (David HM Spector)
Subject: Re: Government Foolishness (Canceling the Station)

Well, unfortunately, the lunatics in OMB are probably correct.  


The reality of the world is that we don't have the will as a nation to
build a proper space station, and in 10 years, our children won't have
the education to know what to do with one.   Pretty depressing.

The space station, AS IT STANDS NOW, completely crippled by budget
cuts, capability cut backs and the fact the its is highly improbable
that it will ever be built (not due to lack of skills, but a lack of
WILL) and the final prospect that it will be used for military
research makes it unlikely that the nation as a whole will see much
benefit from it.

Now, if the government would just let private industry get into the
space business for _real_....

...imagine if the Wright Brothers tried to fly TODAY...  :-(  (*Sigh*)

_DHMS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David HM Spector				   New York University
Unix Manager/Senior Systems Programmer		   Stern School of Business
ARPAnet: SPECTOR@GBA.NYU.EDU			   Academic Computing Center
USEnet:...!{uunet,rocky,harvard}!cmcl2!spector     90 Trinity Place, Rm C-4
HamRadio: N2BCA      MCIMail: DSpector             New York, New York 10006
AppleLink: DHMSpector   CompuServe: 71260,1410     (212) 285-6080
"Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life"
			- Senator Orrin Hatch

XYZZYGLORP

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 07:38:59 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <126@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
> Alaska is the only (Earth-bound) U.S. frontier. 

How about our continental shelves? International waters?  70% of our
planet's surface is essentially undeveloped. We still have geographic
frontiers (no need to get abstract, either).

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 07:34:14 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <646@m3.mfci.UUCP>, rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) writes:
> Are the people in Antartica doing research useless or pointless because they
> are "huddled underground"?

During the Antartic summer, the research bases maintain staff levels
about ten times as high as in the winter. Wintering over in Antarctica
is not great fun. Going outside is nearly impossible. 50--100 mph
winds blow almost constantly. Temperatures are cold enough to
immediately freeze any exposed flesh. The staffs undergo great
psychological stress from the confinement. The typical 10:1
male:female sex ratios also cause problems (though one suspects that
grad school should have adequately prepared the staffs :-).

To the extent the Antarctic winter is similar to life on the moon, the
experiences of the staffs provide valuable information on the prospects
for sustaining communities there.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 16:36:03 GMT
From: blake!calufrax@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Chad Fogg)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <698@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> To the extent the Antarctic winter is similar to life on the moon, the
> experiences of the staffs provide valuable information on the prospects
> for sustaining communities there.

I understand that there are a few enclosed and sealed off artificial
habitat experiments where simulated patches of greenery and hydro-
ponics reside. I've heard of one in the SW US that is in operation.

I've also seen photographs of a dome at the South Pole station. Is this
part of the study?  
   
-CF

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 12:08:33 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

I'm disappointed that I've heard of no objective studies of the correlation
between the ratio of manned vs. unmanned spending and public support.
What interests people the most, by far, is people.  There will always
be exceptions, and people who sublimate that tendency in favor of knowing
about other *things*, like planets, and most of them are scientists or
of scientific turn of mind, which doubtless applies to most SPACE Digest
readers, but the majority of the voting public - I assert - would much
rather watch pictures of people standing on Mars than landscapes of
Ganymede.

They lost interest in the Apollo missions because the astronauts weren't
doing anything *new*, as far as they were concerned, even though we know
there was more science performed.  They lost interest in the shuttle
missions up to #25 because the astronauts were doing the same thing.
What will interest the public more than anything else is people doing
things that people haven't done before, which is a darn good argument
for not wasting money sending astronauts up on shuttles which don't
need them.

So what is the strength of the connection (people pioneering in space) =>
(public support for space endeavors) => (public support for congressional
action) => (congressional funding for space activities)?  I wish there
was more to go on than just opinion.  We might find out that we could get
more money for *all* kinds of space activities in the long run by doing
whatever it took to put people on Mars (in prime time, natch).

That connection certainly didn't seem very strong after the Apollo missions;
I hadn't moved to this country then, so I have only hearsay that the
Nixon administration decided it was tough luck for space whatever the
American people thought.  What *was* the mood of the American people at
that time?  Was their popular support for more space activity or not?
Was there as much as there is now?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 19:47:49 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfclm!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"


>It wasn't until some WW II fighter planes were OBSERVED to exceed
>the speed of sound in a dive that the theories were revised.

I do not believe that there were any instances of a WWII fighter definitely
exceeding Mach 1; some may have come somewhat close, and experienced problems
with their controls in so doing, but there was still some who believed in a
"sound barrier" right up to Yeager's flight in the X-1.

Certainly, the counter-examples of bullets, etc., were known, but it was
still believed by some that *controlled* flight in excess of the speed of
sound was impossible.  The X-1 was a very "brute force" approach at proving
this to be incorrect.


Bob Myers  KC0EW   HP Graphics Tech. Div.|  Opinions expressed here are not
                   Ft. Collins, Colorado |  those of my employer or any other
{the known universe}!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |  sentient life-form on this planet.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 13:35:28 GMT
From: pyramid!prls!philabs!linus!marsh@decwrl.dec.com  (Ralph Marshall (617 271-7648))
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate


	As an advocate of putting people in space, as well as a strong
program of exploration by unmanned probes when that makes more sense, I
thought I'd try to inject some opinions from people who have actually
been there.  I got a GREAT book titled _The Home Planet_, edited by
Kevin Kelley, for Christmas, and it is full of wonderful stuff about
the history of man in space.  Lots of great pictures, and all of the
text is quotes from various people, of several different countries,
who have been in space on one mission or another.  (The original text
is included for non-English speaking astro/cosmonauts, which makes for
a nice visual effect).

	Anyway, somewhere in the middle of the book (they only numbered
the AWESOME pictures, not the pages), we find the following description
by two Soviets:

	"After the third major mission, _Salyut 7_ was mothballed, and
for five months it was maintained by radio control.  Then
communications ceased and _Salyut) went silent.

	Dzhanibekov and I were launched into space to find the _Salyut
7_, which had gonde "on strike."  After changing orbits, we searched
for the station from the spacecraft for two days.  At last, the
man-made star rose above the horizon and flashed in the rays of the sun.

	We floated into the station and turned on the lights, which
did not, of course, light up.  There was complete darkness, deadly
cold, and an ill-boding, oppressive, and truly cosmit silence."

Viktor Savinykh, USSR

	"We left the spacecraft and entered outer space, and hurtling
high above the Earth beside the vast and silent _Salyut 7_, we studiet
it attentively.

	The solar panels were strangely oriented, their photoelectric
cells peeling away in pieces, and looking for all the world like
storm-torn sails,  the once bright green shell had been burned and was
now covered in grayish-rust spots.  The portholes were all closed by
shutters on the inside.  No damage, however, could be seen on the hull
of the craft.  Well, what has happened to you, cosmic wanderer, we
asked, but we got no answer."

Vladimir Dzhanibekov, USSR

	"The station had fallen into trouble without people aboard and
met us now with an icy silence.  In absolute silence Viktor Savinykh
and I inspected the compartments.  The beam of the flashlight picked
out the various items of equipment, all in their correct places along
the sides.  The interior was in ideal condition.  The traditional
Russian welcoming gift of bread and salt had been left on the tiny
table by Leonid Kizim, Volodya Solovyov, and Oleg At'kov, together
with a letter asking those who came after them to look after this
house and wishing them success."

Vladimir Dzhanibekov, USSR

	"For seven long days, working both during the day-side parts
of the orbit and by flashlight, we tried to find out what was causing
the solar panels to fail.  We wanted to get at least one bulb to
light.  Finally, we found the culprits when we checked all the storage
batteries. 

	Two of them had gone out of comission.  We undid the thickly
plaited cabling and connected the solar panels directly so that they
always faced the sun.  The batteries began to recharge and finally
there was light.  

	Automation is indeed a wonderful thing, but in the end
humanity has the last word."

Viktor Savinykh, USSR

	Even if this doesn't convince you of anything, check out this
book!  It has great pictures of Earth from orbit, people on EVA, the
Apollo missions on the Moon, and tons of other great stuff.  The
commentary is also very good.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Marshall (marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa)

Disclaimer:  Often wrong but never in doubt...  All of these opinions
are mine, so don't gripe to my employer if you don't like them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #247
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Feb 89 07:33:57 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01028>; Sat, 18 Feb 89 06:06:09 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 18 Feb 89 06:06:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0XzILMy00Vs181pk5=>;
          Sat, 18 Feb 89 05:30:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.sXzIA5y00UkZ02QU55>;
          Sat, 18 Feb 89 05:18:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QXzI-Dy00UkZ02P04V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 89 05:16:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #248

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 248

Today's Topics:
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #242
			Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
	Manned vs. unmanned (was Re: NSS and space settlement)
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			 Re: Space Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 10:39:04 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

In article <1989Feb14.180253.18858@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>please name a date, or cite specific criteria that would indicate
>that the time is at hand.

Criteria:  A manned mission or base is desirable when  
1) It can return discoveries and/or resources, unrelated to further manned 
spaceflight, that are equivalent or better than what can be done by spending 
the same money on unmanned missions.
OR
2) It cannot quite meet criteria (1), but the costs are borne by the
mission promoters, not taxpayers or stockholders.

Time line: Very uncertain. Depends on the research we do *now*.  
(This is an optimistic scenario, based on the assumption that we spend  
the entire current NASA budget, $13 billion/year, on research and probes,
through the year 2000).
1990's: A $30 billion space station does not come close to what you can 
do with unmanned probes for $30 billion (return data from nearly every 
corner of the solar system, and distribute it to researchers and citizens
around the world).  Launch costs are far too expensive to be payed for
by anybody but taxpayers and stockholders.
2000-2010: Space manufacturing and initial mining,  like today's space
communications and remote sensing, will have to be automated
if it is to be priced low enough for Earth markets.  Tourism may provide
a commercial rationale for manned missions in LEO, if launch costs are
brought down far enough.  
2010-2020: Automated space mining and manufacturing will provide an 
infrastructure that makes manned forays into space much cheaper.  Tourism 
and limited on-site maintence of remote mining operations (mostly Mars,
asteroids, Galilean moons).  Space travelers will rely on air, fuel, water, 
food, shelter, etc. made by robots in space from space materials.
2020+  Due to the now massive, solar-system wide industrial infrastructure,
manned spaceflight becomes cheap enough for long-term stays and settlement.
Settlements occur for political or religious reasons more than economic.
In other words, criteria (2) above, financing carried out by the promoters
and not the public, is now economically viable, not due to return on 
investment, but due to the cost of investment being outweighed by political
or religious considerations.  

If we persist in spending our finite budgets on Man in Space Now, the scenario 
becomes much bleaker.  Important research on mining and manufacturing
operations, automation, and the space environment will go undone; most of 
the solar system's resources will remain undiscovered.  The result will
be that large-scale mining and manufacturing in the solar system are 
delayed by many decades, and with them, any manned presence beyond multi-
billion dollar romps by a few lucky individuals.

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 13:21:14 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

>>Did I suggest we not put men in space for centuries?

>Basically, yes.  In the same way that a call for a cost/benefit analysis
>is usually really a call for an excuse to kill the project (since costs
>are usually much more quantifiable than benefits), a call to do something
>"when it's appropriate" is usually really a call to forget it entirely.

Even if this were true, it would not imply forgeting manned
spaceflight for centuries.  The time constant on technological change
is shorter than that.

>>Did I suggest we not do research on better boosters?

>No, but you didn't suggest we do research on the physiological problems of
>long-term spaceflight, which is the other real issue for man in space.
>Stopping manned spaceflight means largely stopping such research, since
>we have no faithful ground-based simulation of space effects.  (Bed rest
>is a partial simulation but only a partial one.)

It is my opinion that long-term manned spaceflight is not justified for
the near term, so I don't see the value of this research.  How people
react to microgravity is not one of the burning issues in biology.

>>...I said that having people in space today doesn't matter a whole lot.

>Except in preparation for having them in space tomorrow.

That depends on *when* they're going to be in space.  Tomorrow, or
forty years from now?

>> ...Today's manned spaceflight is largely PR nonsense.

>If you believe that
>satellite deployment is the only important use of spaceflight, then of
>course manned spaceflight is largely PR.

What other uses are you proposing?  Space manufacturing in low orbit?
As Gerard O'Neill said (on TV), it's largely a PR stunt.  Satellite
repair?  At current launch costs that's not feasible.  Both of these
would benefit from reductions in launch cost; I don't see how they
would benefit from knowledge of the biological effects of long term
weightlessness.

>>About the Soviets: I think folks are going to be in for a rude surprise when
>>the Soviet space program goes nowhere.  The Soviet Union is in deep economic
>>trouble.  The standard of living has gone down in the last decade.  Gorby's
>>reforms are a failure...
>
>I seem to recall the same comments about the Soviet economy being made a
>decade or more ago, and the Soviets have made more than a little progress
>in space since then.

I don't recall that.  However, I don't believe the Soviet standard of
living was declining at that time.  Also, the Soviet government was not
at that time in such a turmoil of reform.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

	It is interesting to note the curious mental attitude of
	scientists working on "hopeless" subjects.  Contrary to what
	one might at first suspect, they are all buoyed up by
	irrepressible optimism.  I believe there is a simple explanation
	for this.  Anyone without such optimism simply leaves the field
	and takes up some other line of work.  Only the optimists remain.
	So one has the curious phenomenon that workers in subjects in which
	the prize is big but the prospects of success very small always
	appear very optimistic.  And this in spite of the fact that, although
	plenty appears to be going on, they never seem to get appreciably
	nearer their goal.

		Francis Crick, "What Mad Pursuit"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1989 16:57-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #242

Eric Harnden (Ronin):

Well said. I would consider myself a certifiable type A. I've soloed a
plane, spent most of my working life in struggling start up ventures,
rappeled off a cliff, driven my jeep into a river (and got stuck in the
middle), and so on.

I want to go because I want to experience it. Pictures do me no more
good than looking at a picture of some one else's jeep stuck in a
river. They are interesting but have little intrinsic value to me.
Other's may have a different set of values and not differentiate so
strongly the difference between collection of data and human
experience.

The reference to C P Snow is telling. There are some of us who are
engineers, but who actually fall closer to the other category. I am
probably an engineer BECAUSE of the space program of the 60's. It is
likely that if not for Apollo I would have been a full time
professional musician rather than the occasional participant in bar
gigs that I am now. My approach to science is not so much a love of the
preciseness as it is a love of the experiences that it opens up, the
richness of the new worlds that it makes available for HUMAN
experience. Economics is simply book keeping. It defines what we can
afford to do. It DOES NOT set the agenda. People set the agenda. People
DECIDE when the economics of something are within reach, and the
criteria is not necessarily a strict comparison of ROI's (return on
investment).

I am a staunch libertarian. Libertarian does not equate with money, it
equates with a desire for choice. I may choose to utilize the resources
that I honestly acquire to whatever end I choose. Those choices are not
driven by what will necessarily make me RICHEST, but what will fulfill
the higher purposes to which I set my life. The economics can not be
ignored in so far as I must insure I have the resources necessary to
live, and that I must collect enough extra to be able to afford to do
those things I WISH to do.

This is true of entrepreneurial companies as well. Small companies do
not always get started because the founder wants to make as much money
as possible in as short a time as possible. They are often started
because the founder wants the freedom and independance of being their
own boss. And the area is often selected based on what that person
wants to work on, what they believe will be FUN to work on.

IF they have the vision and enthusiasm, they will beat the pants off of
other businesses that may have better ROI on paper, and they will talk
venture capital into supporting them.

I am against the use of public money's for either manned or unmanned
space, although I am less bothered by research on basic aerospace
hardware such as the NACA used to do in the 1930's. I have joined in on
this discussion only because I feel that the light of "hard cold
scientific reason" has almost nothing to do with why we will eventually
colonize space. That mentallity is nothing more than a tool that will
help us balance conflicting desires and assist us in deciding when to
start.

Remember, the optimum time to do things is NOT the time that is most
optimum from a mere economic viewpoint, but the time at which the
TRADEOFF's between conflicting desires brings it within reach.

We will go when we WANT to go. The economics will be fudged after the
fact to convince people we were 'scientific' about it.

I'm quite sure that there will be more rantings about the necessity to
do it all nice and hard and cold. Just remember though. I don't
understand your way of quantitizing existance any better than some of
you understand my non-quantitized experential approach.

"I am, therefore I think" seems to be a more appropriate order of
things to me. Logic is not everything. It has nothing to do with a
sunset on a beach, or the feel of a breeze on a Pennsylvania hilltop on
a spring day, or the feel of music floating from a campfire after a
long day of hiking. Logic is a tool, only a tool. We must remember who
the master is.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 89 21:27:46 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

In article <88970@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>Buy a license to manufacture Energias in Florida!
>Hmmm.  >Make that a partial smiley.  
>Do the Russians want something *really* badly that we could provide them?  

Shure!  How bout Kansas?  Nebraska?  Maybe Alaska ... nyet, we got enough 
snow already.  Tell you what, comrade.  Give Central America to Cuba, and
let us build a naval base in Quantico Bay, and you got a dealski.
-- 
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed herein are mine alone.  I wear an 
	asbestos suit to work, so flame away.  Pitt doesn't care *what*
	I do, so long as I appear to be working behind this terminal.
Jim Benz, University of Pittsburgh, UCIR

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 21:44:36 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Manned vs. unmanned (was Re: NSS and space settlement)

PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:

>What interests people the most, by far, is people.
> ...
>They lost interest in the Apollo missions because the astronauts weren't
>doing anything *new*, as far as they were concerned, even though we know
>there was more science performed.  They lost interest in the shuttle
>missions up to #25 because the astronauts were doing the same thing.
>What will interest the public more than anything else is people doing
>things that people haven't done before, which is a darn good argument
>for not wasting money sending astronauts up on shuttles which don't
>need them.

I hope it is not true that public support of space is limited to
short-run space spectaculars.  If so, the space program will lurch
from triumph to catastrophe as public support dries up.  Progress
consists of making things as routine and cheap (and therefore
uninteresting) as possible.

Many government programs are awfully boring, so there is hope a
rational, if boring, space program could also be funded.

People are also interested in acquiring wealth, and in protecting what
they have.  It might be possible to sell a program with the eventual
goal of returing asteroidal materials for on-orbit defense use and for
the strategic element content.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 14:41:58 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ignac Kolenko)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb14.171358.17916@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1989Feb13.074530.17504@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>Wonderful, Henry.  Lunar colonies (= a handful of people huddled
>>underground) are feasible if you don't have to pay for little things
>>like labor, materials or launchers...
>
>Not quite what I said, which was that a startup lunar colony was very cheap,
>and looked feasible *BY 1992*, if most of the big-ticket items were donated.
>(As for "a handful of people huddled underground", most of the early colonies
>in North America started with not much more, especially after the first
>winter.)


don't snicker too loudly just yet. i think it was arthur c. clarke
who wrote in the intro to 2001: a space oddysey that all the money the u.s.
spent on the useless war in vietnam, if it was rechanelled into the space
program, everything he had described in the book could have been easily
realizable today.

in all cases, i wish he was right.


-- 
Ignac A. Kolenko          watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac      

"Perhaps if we built this large wooden badger ..."
   - from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 22:25:55 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Space Resources

Sometime earlier, amethyst!spock!chris@noao.edu (Chris Ott) wrote a
rather science-fictional message about what we could do in space.
I considered responding, because while I am firmly convinced we should
start moving out into space *RIGHT NOW*, I don't think that plans
that neglect such minor considerations as the cost of delta-V, and
shuffle off into the ozone of "stellar lifting" are particularly
helpful to the cause.

Then, in article <890214185544858.AFZR@Mars.UCC.UMass.EDU>
Castell@UMASS.BITNET (Chip Olson@somewhere.out.there) writes:

>A general comment: You have got to be kidding.

A reasonable question.  Not to defend wild fantasies such as turning
the sun into a white dwarf, of course, I see some serious problems with
Chip Olson's position, too.

...
>Do you have any idea what you are saying? Since we've already pretty much
>ruined this planet, we should go out and carve up the others?
...
>I hate to burst your bubble, but you
>and I are just a couple of hairless apes with ideas above our station.
>It is these kinds of attitudes that have ruined and are still ruining
>the balance of life on this planet.  Now you want to go out and ruin the
>balance of the solar system for good measure.
...
>I'm far more interested in making this a more
>livable planet ... than I am in pipe dreams.

Granted that much of Chris Ott's message consisted of far-out pipe
dreams, there's an element of truth there.  We have two choices:
Move forward, or slide backwards.  Staying in the same place is also
a pipe dream, because it is impossible in the medium-to-long term.
How long can you keep dividing up ever smaller pieces of a shrinking
pie?  Not long enough.  Without access to the resources of the solar
system, we're headed back to the 14'th century, one way or another.
Either by uncontrolled collapse, or (scarier...) by being dragged
back by Ecocrats.  Either way requires somehow disposing of the 
majority of the Earth's population, and I'd far rather that that be
something we tried to avoid and failed than something that we,
like Hitler or Pol Pot, deliberately planned.

So, forward.  Much of what we can do in space (Not pipe dreams like
solar lifting, but solidly possible things, like SPS and capture
of Earth-intersecting asteroids) can help to take some of the pressure
off Earth's ecosystem.  New energy sources and sources of platinum-
group metals makes it much less likely that war will break out over
mid-east oil or South African mines.

It will buy us a little time until we can figure out what the next
step should be.  Which may be enough.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt            Video 7            ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
There are  no perfect  power sources.   There is no  such thing as
100% perfect safety.  There is no such thing as zero environmental
impact  short  of the entire human race committing  mass  suicide.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #248
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Feb 89 05:26:51 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00508>; Mon, 20 Feb 89 04:43:05 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 20 Feb 89 04:42:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YXzwmty00Ui381dEBC>;
          Mon, 20 Feb 89 03:30:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.sXzwcry00UkZA4LE5B>;
          Mon, 20 Feb 89 03:20:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IXzwZHy00UkZ84Jk5Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 03:16:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #249

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 249

Today's Topics:
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		     Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
		     Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
		Re . Black Holes and approaching C  .
			More personal dreams .
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			 Re: Space Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 23:58:00 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <698@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>...To the extent the Antarctic winter is similar to life on the moon, the
>experiences of the staffs provide valuable information on the prospects
>for sustaining communities there.

There is one obvious dissimilarity:  the winter staff in Antarctica know
that they're in "maintenance mode", with all the real activity waiting
for the summer.  This will affect motivation.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 89 23:09:58 GMT
From: sm.unisys.com!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@hplabs.hp.com  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <890213103429.0000076D091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>>The ranking was:
>>Alaska          91    [#1]
>
>but why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
>What are they doing up there to get that kind of support???!!?
>
>Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

To get completely off the topic of space, maybe only adventurous people
move to Alaska in the first place?

Anyway, my two cents' worth: 

1) Return to the Moon
2) unmanned probes to the outer solar system
3) return to the Moon
4) mission to Planet Earth
5) return to the Moon
6) build a space station
7) return to the Moon

It's the middle of February, guys and gals. End of June is the cutoff
date to get your applications in for the astronaut training program,
selection process to be completed in December, candidates to report
to Houston next July, for one year of training and final approval
as an astronaut, with the cycle to begin again in June of 1991.

Get your applications in!

			--Rod

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 00:31:32 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!aero!venera.isi.edu!cew@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <890213103429.0000076D091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>>The ranking was:
>>Alaska          91    [#1]
>
>Excuse me???  I mean, I can understand figures like
>
>
>although I was surprised somewhat by the poor standing of
>
>>California      66.5  [#20]
>
>but why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
>What are they doing up there to get that kind of support???!!?
>
>Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

The answer is in how statistics work.  Alaska, with one
representative, can get a very high rating because that one
congressman likes space, if he hated it, Alaska could be last.
California, with 45 representatives, gets a greater mix.  Some of the
California representatives are very pro-space and others are not.

	Craig
-- 
====================================================================
ARPA: 	cew@venera.isi.edu
PHONE:	(213)822-1511 ext. 111
USPS:	USC Information Sciences Institute
	4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100
	Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Slogan:	"nemo me impune lacessit"
====================================================================

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 89 02:38:21 EST
From: Jon Kjoll <PH509003%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re . Black Holes and approaching C  .


More physics.
A responce on :
>Subject: Black holes (was Re: Comparing c and speed of sound)
>Subject: Re: approaching "C"


Mike Van Pelt writes in a responce ( to Roberts ?? ) :
> Subject: Black holes (was Re: Comparing c and speed of sound)
>>My own area of skepticism: I'm not convinced that it's possible for a
>>lack hole to come into existence in a finite period of time, from the
>>viewpoint of an outside observer.
>I'm convinced you're right.
>Since time slows down, asymptotically approaching 'stopped' at the
>event horizon, the closest there can be is a "black hole in progress".

Let's say the gravitational mass is a soccer ball , now let this
mass shell fall in its own gravitational field and collapse
indefenitely. At a certain point in time the gravitational pull is so
strong that space becomes bent into a ball at some distance Rh ,
the radii of the event horizon . What your statement implies is that
at this point the gravitating mass that *causes* the black hole is
outside or on the event horizon . It can impossibly be outside .
It could be on the horizon , but why should one trust one's domestic
intuition in the dynamics of the 4D gravitational theory ??
The black hole is a static solution of these equations , its formation
highly nontrivial .
( This problem is solved , and I recall that space and time changes
roles on the horizon: Hoeye, Olaussen, Sollie and ??, around 1984-1985 )
To send something into an existing black hole is something else .


More C :
>From: silver!sl161022@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
>Subject: Re: approaching "C"
>>Second, FTL in any form either provides time travel or violates
>>conventional causality. I'm not sure how strong this second point is.
>>Physicists are very attached to causality, and so assume FTL impossible
>>But there are known effects that call conventional causality into
>>question.
Yes ??????? and conventional ??
>Like the entire discipline of Quantum Mechanics, for example,
>some followers
>of which would tell you that we can never know everything about an
>electron, not just because our instruments interfere with it, but
>because the electron ITSELF doesn't even know precisely where it is
>or where it is going.  How the electron knows what the hell to do next
>is an unresolved question.

Sorry . Dirac solved that problem. The relativistic QM equation for
the electron describes the behaviour nicely and has done so the last 50
years. It even predicted antimatter . The electron is no longer *a*
electron but a mathematically expressed probability distribution .
Nature probably had no choise . My question is , how can the electron
withstand its own electric repulsion ??

I feel inclined to shake your concept of time . What makes
you think that time is something absolute ??
What if time *stems* from local uncertainty and short range correlations
i.e is a consequence of a deeper laying mechanism preventing all
points in space-time of being simultaneously in contact (preventing FTL
communicating ) ??


>The complaint about breaking the speed of light barrier is usually that
>it would violate our notion of causality, that it would require
>overthrowing modern-day physics.
>I would propose that our notion of causality is  a
>fuzzy one at best, and for physicists to chain themselves to the word
>"causality" while embracing Heisenberg's view of QM is the pinnacle of
>Orwell's double-think, intentional or not.
Causality and the Copenhagen view ( Heisenbergs uncertainty ) poses no
problem to me . Why is this double think ?? It might be the cause of
human thoughs .


>This does not mean I think breaking C is possible, or even probable.
>I do believe, however, that if we are unable to break the speed of
>light barrier, then we are forever confined to this solar system.

Heyheyhey . At the speed of c already, all matter in the entire
universe (as we know it today ) will be  *seen* as a 2 dimensional
pancake with you in the centre . There is no problem travelling
*anywhere* in 0 *local* time . Your twin will long be gone when you
return of course , but you couldn't interact with him anyway .
In frames where communication is possible , time is just a concept
to order events . Looking at your twin , s/he moved with tremendous
speed and accomplished a life in a few of "your" seconds.



       Jon Kjoll
       pH509003@BROWNVM.BITNET

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 89 01:09:28 EST
From: Jon Kjoll <PH509003%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      More personal dreams .


Why is it that the SPACE discussion forum is a hotbed for unfounded
personal dreams , the essence of them all being that I want to have
my own permanent, selfsupported, highly profitable and tachion-like
space habitat tomorrow ??.
What is so great with 40 trillion people in the astroid belt or
putting 36 years old in a 90 minute orbit so they can end their lifes ??
I for one , am not willing to put tax money in the hands of souls
not capable of rational thoughts , or an elementry understanding of
ethics. With rational thoughts I mean a clear and bright insight into
what is possible and when , and with ethics I mean concerns beyond
narcissistic personal dream motivs. There is no return without
investment . What kind of investment is a dream submittet to SPACE ??

I'm convinced that humans will increase their presence in space, slowly.
Despite all dreams and good faith in the US economy , Nature is
determined to let all variables fluctuate and so also the size of
the Federal Reserve . This might be independent on factors
like lack of interest or a 90 degree change in Space politics .
One may opt for more realistic timescales than "a dream-a-day" when
it comes to space development .

I am not for or against NASA , I just make the observation that
progress is made . Progress is made because there is quite a few
people out there with insight and energy working to realize realistic
goals . The speed at which progress is made is to me
a meaningless consept . I'm only interested in the knowledge .
A fast space program is as meaningfull to me as a fast academic
research program meant to "invent something new" . NASA could of
course yeild more output, but that argument applies to all of us and
efficiency fluctuations are to be expected .
I fail to see that non-academic space development has to progress faster
than the services requested at every instant . Now , the responce to this
might be that there is a lack of services , but what is a 10 year
delay in this game ?? Dreamy looses his chance ?? 10 years is what
it took Detroit to realize the benefits of the airbag .
I smile when I see references to mountain climbing and Columbi
travel . These feats are within the reach of ONE determined
human being . They do not require wasting a lot of scarcy resources .

I'm dissappointed to see all this reference to the Russian "lead".
If Space activites becomes Space race and Space race is the only
reality , then our investments are done in vain . Our commitments have
to be better founded than a steroid biceps .
Paul F. Dietz tries regularily to educate the net about the Russian
economy . We can all speculate about the domestic economy , lets say
20 years forward in time . A ten decade program depends negligibly
on the current resource input situation . And, if the thought of having
a cosmonaut be the first to step on Mars hurts , then maybe you should
dream about something else .


Let dreams be dreams and make creativity, knowledge and dedication
be the tools . Now you can start push ......

               Jon Kjoll

Brown Univ, Providence, RI02912
pH509003@BROWNVM.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 10:56:24 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

Henry Spencer wrote:
>   
>   The winter staff in Antarctica know that they're in
>   "maintenance mode", with all the real activity waiting for the
>   summer.  This will affect motivation.  

Which way, I wonder?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ``But--- suppose all these problems can be solved solved, all these
  obstacles  overcome, suppose everything does work out in your favor,
  suppose you do arrive safe and sound on the moon --- then how can
  you get back?''

  ``I won't come back.''

      --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 16:30:46 GMT
From: cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!thor!larsonjs@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (James S. Larson @ St. Olaf College)
Subject: Re: Space Resources

In article <222@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>
>Then, in article <890214185544858.AFZR@Mars.UCC.UMass.EDU>
>Castell@UMASS.BITNET (Chip Olson@somewhere.out.there) writes:
>...
>>Do you have any idea what you are saying? Since we've already pretty much
>>ruined this planet, we should go out and carve up the others?
>...
>>I hate to burst your bubble, but you
>>and I are just a couple of hairless apes with ideas above our station.
>>It is these kinds of attitudes that have ruined and are still ruining
>>the balance of life on this planet.  Now you want to go out and ruin the
>>balance of the solar system for good measure.

Modern ecological mythology is similar to the Medeival concept of man in
the universe:  in the beginning there was God (Nature), and the world was
perfect until evil man came along.  Not all men, of course, but industrial
man.  The older pre-technological civilizations lived in harmony with
nature.

This is not the case.  The only reasons Ancient peoples didn't destroy more
of the environment was that they did not have the capability.  The same
goes for animals.  Predatory species would not impose quotas on game.  They
would (and do)  hunt until lack of prey reduces their numbers.

Animals do not have any magical ability to live in harmony with nature.
The beginning of oxygen-breathing life on earth was due to uncontrolled
emissions from oxygen-producing bacteria.  To the life at the time this
was a terrible ecological disaster.  Mother Nature does not preserve
species:  99% of all species in history are now extinct.

Until recently humanity has just acted like another animal:  using resources
in the environment for our purposes.  But we have the blessing/curse of
intelligence, so we can consume far more than any other species, with
catastrophic results.  But I am convinced that intelligence will save us
too.  We are the only animal to realize the effects of our actions, and
to regulate them accordingly.  Does any other animal have ecological
awareness?  Let's not look at mankind as the enemy of the biosphere, but
as its only friend.

>...  Without access to the resources of the solar
>system, we're headed back to the 14'th century, one way or another.
>Either by uncontrolled collapse, or (scarier...) by being dragged
>back by Ecocrats.

This is only putting it off.  We have lived off the fat of the land (fossil
fuels) for the last few centuries.  We can either start to consume the
whole solar system, or we can realize the inevitable conclusion:
human society must eventually reach a steady state!!
This doesn't mean no progress or development; it means that we can't base
our civilization on non-renewable resources.

If we expand throughout the system, we can put off this lesson for
thousands of years, but we have to live up to the fact that even the
whole solar system is not infinite.

Now to make this relevant to sci.space.  What is the role of space
exploration for a steady-state civilization?

>-- 
>Mike Van Pelt            Video 7            ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
>There are  no perfect  power sources.   There is no  such thing as
>100% perfect safety.  There is no such thing as zero environmental
>impact  short  of the entire human race committing  mass  suicide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Larson		"What?  You mean behind the rabbit?"
				-Monty Python and the Holy Grail
larsonjs@thor.stolaf.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #249
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Feb 89 15:13:11 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01663>; Mon, 20 Feb 89 10:10:54 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 20 Feb 89 10:10:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4Y01h9y00jZd81SE5Q>;
          Mon, 20 Feb 89 09:06:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.cY01VLy00UkZA4mE4O>;
          Mon, 20 Feb 89 08:53:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY01Thy00UkZ84kk5E@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 08:51:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #250

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 250

Today's Topics:
			  private spaceplane
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		       Re: the un/manned debate
	       Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration
			  Energia questions
Cosmos mission results and future U.S./USSR missions announced (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 17:36:11 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: private spaceplane

A while ago, I asked for a showing of interest in a privately-run project
to investigate the feasibility of a small-scale spaceplane.  Lots of you
(i.e. 40+) responded in some way or another.  This was just before
Christmas, and I tried to e-mail a followup letter to everyone.  Unfortunately,
at that juncture, we were having massive problems with our mailer, and I'm
not certain what did or didn't make it through.  Soooo........

Here goes again.  (For all interested parties, I have compiled a preliminary
mailing list.  Ask for copies.)

What I propose is a 4 part project.  The first two phases can be accomplished
without vast sums of capital, and will, at the very least, be a great
learning experience for all involved.  The phases are:
1)  Definition of the goal.  What is the design supposed to accomplish?
2)  Selection of a design.  Things get quite involved here, but it's still
    relatively cheap and fun.
3)  Securing funding and construction.  Here is where the headaches start.
    But several possible solutions have been proposed for funding, and if
    the project goes anywhere, the EAA has *lots* of construction expertise.
4)  Operation.  Paydirt.  

Even if the thing never gets past phase 2, I think we could collectively
have lots of interesting experiences with such a project.
If this sounds interesting, e-mail an answer, resume, whatever.  If you
would like to know who responded initially, or if you didn't get my
followup message and would like it, you have but to ask.

(Special thanks to Dani Eder, Dale Amon, Henry Spencer, and Charles Brunow
for their helpful discussions and suggestions--even when they didn't know
that's what they were doing!)


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 05:37:40 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb15.235800.20880@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <698@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> >...To the extent the Antarctic winter is similar to life on the moon...
> There is one obvious dissimilarity:  the winter staff in Antarctica know
> that they're in "maintenance mode", with all the real activity waiting
> for the summer.  This will affect motivation.

Correct, and that is why I included the disclaimer "To the extent..."
I think we can safely count on at least the early lunar staffs to
display exceptional motivation and self-sacrifice, perhaps even
heroism. Living conditions that would amount to banishment in
Antarctica would probably appear as an unequaled opportunity to the
early lunar colonists. I have enough experience in several fields to
have some idea of what highly motivated people can do.

However, I also know how conditions that require tremendous motivation
have a way of eventually leading to burnout. An athlete will gladly
suffer deprivations in training to attain a goal, and will suffer
intense pain in competition, but will (s)he be able to sustain heroic
efforts indefinitely? Sports psychologists know the answer: no. The
athlete must schedule her/his training and competition around the
goal of hitting between one to three performance peaks per season.

The lunar staffs will enjoy the attention and sympathies of most of
humanity, at least initially. Ultimately, however, the moon base will
be yesterday's news, things will get a little slow at Luna 1, and the
staffs will be left with the reality of their situation. If it's
inherently a bad situation, they aren't going to be able to ignore
that forever. Then when we blow another shuttle and they're looking
at a few years until the next re-supply, they'll need motivation
in spades.

This is the reason for my interest in the information-handling
problems associated with space colonization. Productivity requires
three ingredients: materials, energy, and intangibles relating to
information: know-how, intelligence, judgement, data-gathering and
processing, control, organization, adaptation, learning. Notice that I
have no single word to sum up the vital third leg of the triad. That
implies how little we (OK, I) understand what we have historically
taken largely for granted.

A little reflection shows that the three legs of the triad can
partially substitute for each other. This is important for space
colonization, because the third ingredient can have arbitrarily close
to zero mass, depending on our skill at packaging it. And the third
ingredient is the primary factor that determines our psychological
well-being. 

We are information-processing organisms much more than we are
materials-processing organisms. Humans need a satisfying and
relatively benign information (i.e., sensory and thought) environment.
We need a variety of challenging (but not impossible) problems to
solve. We need to interact regularly with other intelligences. We need
to have our visual and auditory systems massively and favorably
stimulated. We need opportunities to exercise power and control over
our surroundings. We need variety.

And that is why we need robots, AI, pocket supercomputers, teleop,
virtual reality, global hypertext, gigabit networks, machine learning,
Von Neumann replicators, nanotech, the whole nine yards (did I miss
any buzzwords?). The material costs of sustaining, not to mention
expanding, human life on the moon will be well beyond what we can
satisfy with human labor. We can't just dump people in cans and expect
them to huddle heroically while we try to build a reliable launcher to
get them back home. We have to give them the tools to not simply
survive on the moon, but to take it.

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 05:29:09 GMT
From: rochester!rit!ritcv!mpksla@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

Ugggg!

I have just about enough of this manned/unmanned thing.  I think 
we all understand fairly well that both are needed.  Both the manned
and unmanned programs provide results (both tangible and intangible).

Most of the ideas that people propose seem to be thoughtless comments
about what the ideal space program would be.  Perhaps a little more
thought could go into possible solutions to our current 
situation--not fantsy solutions grabbed from pulp science fiction.

for example.  The scientific probe activists...  while your 
telling us the great virtues of 30 billion dollars worth have you ever
considered what we would do with all this information?  Where we would
store it?  Already we are on the verge of saturating nasa's NASCOM 
network.  with the HST and the other great observatory programs going into
service, we will rapidly climb into the terabytes a year worth of
information being transmitted from space to earth.  We need to be
continously thinking about new technologies to retreive, store, and
process this information.

I don't mean this to be a flame, (although there are doubtless those
who will take it as such.), But I bet there are those out there who
feel as I do, and would much rather see debate of issues a little
more pertinent to our present world.  

Also, what about areas in  applicable space research?  Not space
based manufacturing, or colonization.  Both of these ideas are decades
into the future (unless we are visited by aliens who grant us wild
technologies).  But areas where space help to discover new processes
that may be duplicated on earth.  Advances in crystalography, 
metalurgy, pharmacuticles(sp?), and other long unspellable sciences.  

We know that we need to take a two pronged approach.  Challanger 
has told us that much.  But what specific areas of research are we
looking forward to in the near years. How can nasa work against
a tightening budget to keep it's programs active?  Big ticket items
are always much easier to get public support for then smaller
less noticable scientific missions.  What does congress want out
of a space program?  Does anyone really know?  And is there really 
a tangible market for private industry research and developement
of space?  I tend to doubt it.  I believe that space will remain
a government controlled and operated thing until the government can 
start to prove that it will be worthwhile for private industry to
make the investement necessary.

Although we tend to think in great leaps and bounds, unfortunately,
the best research is that which is done slowly, and one step at a
time.  

Michael Kirby

mpk9172@ritvax.bitnet
mpk9172@cs.rit.edu
rochester!ritcv!mpk9172

***
"The intelligence of the masses is inversely proportional to it's size"

"Ray Tracing done here....Cheap!"

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 10:54:05 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (THE VIKING)
Subject: Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration

In article <120@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <8902100153.AA02978@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>>From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
  [John Roberts and I state a postition defending manned space as R&D]

>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????????????????????????
>Two posters now have advocated putting money in *unproductive* ventures,
>for the very reason that they are unproductive, and skimping on productive
>ventures!  This sort of thinking scares the bejeebers out of folks who are
>considering investing their money in space.  

Nick's posting attacks Robert's and my postings by simplifying their content
to a single, obviously contradictory sentence. Not a very ethical way of
discussing things Nick.

The basic premise in my posting is that manned space research is basic R&D.
That means that economic return on investment does not apply. It is also
wrong to try to catagorize some types of basic R&D as more important than
others. It might be possible to make some sort of a case that physics is more
important than chemistry which is more important astronomy, that unmanned
space R&D is more important than manned, etc. (pick your own peculiar R&D 
ordering). The fundamental point is that they are all important. We need many
and more types of basic R&D, not less. The US spends less than 1% of its GNP
on basic R&D, so if you think unmanned space R&D is underfunded, fight to get
its funding increased. Fighting to get the funding for other types of R&D
(for example manned space R&D) decreased is only negative.

Most people in this discussion do seem to agree that manned space R&D is
important in general, including Nick Szabo and Paul Dietz. I believe it's 
important because the event of man's expansion into the solar system is of
great importance. Nick and Paul do state that it is unimportant now. This
is wrong because knowledge gained from basic R&D is valuble regardless (within
reason) of when it is learned. Afterall when is the right time to learn about
the nature of subatomic particles, or the structure of DNA, or how to build a
transister? There are times when research is not feasible, but there've been
men in space for 30 years now, the Soviet Union has a permanently manned
station, etc. Paul says that manned space won't be important for 40 years. I
don't think it's possible to predict technological advance with any accuracy
beyond 25 years, if that. When the time to move into space does come we will
need a large body of technical and general knowledge inorder to do so. Manned
space R&D is clearly both feasable and worthwhile NOW.

Some things in Paul's postings suggest that he does support manned space R&D
now in general, just not NASA's current program. At least to the extent of 
developing manned booster technology.
Paul Dietz writes:
>>Did I suggest we not do research on better boosters?
Nick Szabo also supports research into tele-operation, from the perspective
of eventual use by men in space.
I personally believe that manned space R&D should focus on reducing manned
launch costs before doing anything else. I believe in this sense that virtually
everybody in this group supports somekind of manned space R&D, with the
exception of fanatics like Chip Olsen who don't support any R&D unless it is in
their area of concern (ecology in Chip's case).

I do believe that the space station is a mistake at this time. In fact I
agree with Henry Spencer that it would be best if we simply disbanded NASA
(with the exception of JPL) and turned it over to private industry with a
policy of payment on orbital delivery only. This is difficult because it
requires cutting the careers of tens of thousands of talented and dedicated
employees off at the knees. I do have a few words in NASA's defense. They do
agree that less expensive launchers are important before building a station,
that's why the shuttle was built in the first place. It is perhaps too
difficult politically for NASA to declare the shuttle a failure and start over.
And that means they have to use it for something, so they're moving on to the
station despite the inflated cost.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results
guaranteed to advance science, satisfy every special interest group, generate
2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 09:57:51 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Energia questions
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Those four boosters on Energia are liquid fuel, not solid, right?
What altitude do they separate at?  Are they recovered and reused?
What about the main rocket?  How close does it come to being able to
go into LEO?  Could it do so if it jettisoned the engines and just
send the shell into orbit?  If so, how come the Russkies haven't built
an orbiting facility this way?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 22:08:12 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Cosmos mission results and future U.S./USSR missions announced (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                February 16, 1989

C. J. Fenrick
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.


RELEASE:  89-18

COSMOS MISSION RESULTS AND FUTURE U.S./USSR MISSIONS ANNOUNCED


     The science results of the collaborative U.S./USSR 
biosatellite mission from Cosmos 1887 have confirmed the adverse 
physiological and biomedical effects of prolonged space flight. 

     The analyzed mammalian biospecimens suggest that adolescent 
vertebrate animals will experience significant alterations in 
calcium metabolism, immune functions and musculoskeletal mass and 
structure.

     The Soviet Union launched Cosmos 1887 on Sept. 29, 1987, for 
a 12-plus-day mission.  Cosmos 1887 was the sixth in a series of 
unmanned Soviet satellites that flew U.S. and USSR life sciences 
experiments.  This cooperative activity is being carried out 
under the l987 U.S./USSR agreement concerning Cooperation in the 
Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes.

     The U.S. experiments on Cosmos 1887 investigated the effects 
of space flight on the major body systems, including skeletal 
bones and muscles, nervous system, heart, liver and several 
glands and blood.  Special tissue culture studies, using 
pituitary cells, studied the growth hormone.  Spleen and bone 
marrow cells were used to investigate the effects of microgravity 
on the immune system.  The U.S. also had a radiation measurement 
experiment on the spacecraft.

     The Soviet experiments were developed and managed by the 
Institute for Biomedical Problems, Moscow.  The USSR provided the 
U.S. tissue samples from 5 of 10 rats that were flown aboard the 
spacecraft. 

     The majority of the scientific specimens were returned to 
the U.S. in late October 1987 and distributed to the scientific 
teams around the country.  The remainder of the biosamples 
arrived at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountian View, Calif., 
for analysis in early November.

     The science results of Cosmos 1887 bone studies indicated 
structural changes occurred without significant changes in the 
mineral content.  For example, the bending strength of the rat 
humerus bone was decreased by 40 percent and the compression 
strength of the lumbar vertebra was decreased by 27 percent.

     Muscle studies on the rats showed that, while individual 
muscle weights were similar for both flight and ground control 
animal groups, the fast muscle types showed significant decrease 
in cross-sectional area, atrophy and extracellular edema, while 
at the same time showing increased necrotic fibers and motor end 
plate degradation.  Slow muscle types showed little evidence of 
atrophy but some biochemical changes.  The mitochondria in the 
heart muscle also showed degeneration and fiber changes.  

     Observations on other body organs and physiological systems 
confirmed what was learned on previous flight research 
experiments, such as a decreased mass and spermatogenesis in the 
testes, decreased growth hormone release by the anterior 
pituitary cells, increased cholesterol, triglycerides and organ 
weight in the liver and a reduced immune response suggested by 
several types of measures involving the spleen, bone marrow and 
blood.

     The U.S. Space Biology and Medicine Program has received 
many benefits from scientific cooperation with the USSR, 
including the opportunity to conduct experiments on the 
physiological effects of 12-plus-days of space flight on rats and 
rhesus monkeys.  This length of the Cosmos missions is 
approximately twice the exposure time in microgravity that is 
presently experienced in U.S. Spacelab flights on the Shuttle. 

     While a comparable 8-day U.S. mission with rats is expected 
to fly in mid-1990, a U.S. mission with rhesus monkeys is not 
expected until late 1992 or 1993.  These early Cosmos flights 
serve as a testbed for the development of U.S. scientific 
experiments, technology and flight hardware.  In addition, both 
sides benefit from the sharing of research data in all areas of 
space biology and medicine.

     The U.S. has three opportunities to fly experiments with the 
Soviets in the next few years.  The USSR has invited the U.S. to 
participate on the USSR 1989 and 1991 biosatellite missions.

     The science focus will be in biomedical research with the 
following payload specimens:  Rhesus monkeys, male wistar rats, 
fish, fish eggs, newts, drosophila, beetles, seeds, unicellular 
organism and planaria.

     In reciprocal fashion, Soviet scientists have been invited 
to participate in analysis of specimens from the U.S. Shuttle 
Spacelab life sciences mission to be launched in June 1990.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #250
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Feb 89 05:48:16 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00671>; Tue, 21 Feb 89 05:01:11 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 21 Feb 89 05:00:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8Y0Fowy00Ui3M1iURq>;
          Tue, 21 Feb 89 03:27:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.4Y0FiOy00UkZQ70E4X>;
          Tue, 21 Feb 89 03:19:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EY0FfVy00UkZE6yk48@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 03:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #251

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 251

Today's Topics:
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
		TLM (What kind of modulation is this?)
			Re: Energia questions
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		       Re: Mars video animation
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			 Re: Space Resources
		     Re: NASA planetary footage?
	       French small space shuttle: A go ahead !
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 14:27:33 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

In article <1989Feb15.082114.13293@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

[A long discussion, with which I totally disagree, of why we should not invest
in manned space travel in the immediate future]

> 	It is interesting to note the curious mental attitude of
> 	scientists working on "hopeless" subjects.  Contrary to what
> 	one might at first suspect, they are all buoyed up by
> 	irrepressible optimism.  I believe there is a simple explanation
> 	for this.  Anyone without such optimism simply leaves the field
> 	and takes up some other line of work.  Only the optimists remain.
> 	So one has the curious phenomenon that workers in subjects in which
> 	the prize is big but the prospects of success very small always
> 	appear very optimistic.  And this in spite of the fact that, although
> 	plenty appears to be going on, they never seem to get appreciably
> 	nearer their goal.
> 
> 		Francis Crick, "What Mad Pursuit"

This is both correct and incorrect.  I work in mathematical statistics.
When one considers the amount of time needed to prove the results I announce,
this may be as small as 1% of the time I spend getting them, and I am 
considered to be rather good at this.  Is the rest of the time wasted?
No; I may have no idea at the beginning of my investigation as to how
to proceed.  I have often proved things in the process of which I would have
been dubious about their existence, if I had thought of it before the research.
Many of these are "obvious" later.

Many scientific discoveries are the culmination of much apparently fruitless
research and seeming to get nowhere.  And much of the research is actually
fruitless; this is the nature of research.  Much of the time the prize is
totally different from that sought.  Quantum theory, the existence of isotopes,
relativity, biological antibiotics, and nuclear fission are all examples of
big prizes which were not found by looking for them.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 15:23:06 GMT
From: romeo!currier@cs.duke.edu  (Bob Currier - DCAC Network Comm. Specialist)
Subject: TLM (What kind of modulation is this?)



On page 59 of the March 1989 issue of Popular Communications there is a
sidebar that lists Russian satellite frequencies, along with the
types of modulations used. I know what FSK, SSB,WBFM, NBFM etc etc
are, but I have never heard of TLM. Can somebody help me out here?
 
If anybody knows what it is, then the *next* question is: what type
of receiver do I need to pick it up?  (Yeah, yeah, I KNOW, a TLM rig :-) )
 
 
Thanks,

Bob Currier
Network Communications
Duke University
Durham, N.C

currier@romeo.cs.duke.edu       dynamo@tucc.bitnet
==============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 23:09:48 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Energia questions

In article <890216095751.00000C4E092@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
> How close does it come to being able to
> go into LEO?  Could it do so if it jettisoned the engines and just
> send the shell into orbit?  If so, how come the Russkies haven't built
> an orbiting facility this way?
> 
Have some patience.  Why haven't they done it yet?  After only 2 (count 'em,
2) launches of the Energia, they haven't had a chance to do that yet!  Heavy
emphasis on the yet.  Look at their achievements in the past couple of
years.  A new launch vehicle--Energia.  100,000+ kg to LEO.  Launched 
Buran on the second launch of the core.  Mir is in orbit, and will soon
be expanded.  They have automatically docked Progress vehicles for many
years now to re-supply their Salyuts (and now Mir).  The first flight of
Buran was unmanned, and totally ground controlled.

In short, give them time.  They WILL use Energia to launch a major orbiting
space facility.  (While the last of our Saturn V's lie rotting on their 
sides as tourist attractions.  Sigh.)

Norman C. Kluksdahl            Arizona State U.
        ..noao!ncar!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 18:36:18 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <894@blake.acs.washington.edu> calufrax@blake.acs.washington.edu (Chad Fogg) writes:
>I understand that there are a few enclosed and sealed off artificial
>habitat experiments where simulated patches of greenery and hydro-
>ponics reside. I've heard of one in the SW US that is in operation.
>
>I've also seen photographs of a dome at the South Pole station. Is this
>part of the study?  
>   
I assume you are refering to the geodesic structure - that IS the South Pole station!
Well, the above ground part of it, anyway.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  |  att!groucho!sw, sw@groucho.ATT.COM
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 02:55:39 GMT
From: tektronix!tekecs!nobody@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (-for inetd server command)
Subject: Re: Mars video animation

In article <87@raider.MFEE.TN.US> crc@raider.MFEE.TN.US (Charles Cain) writes:
>The other morning while at work I saw a video of a computer animation that 
>was done at JPL. If anyone missed it, you missed truly some of the best 
>computer animations ever rendered out to video. My question is to anyone at
>JPL, is that available for distribution or was it just something for internal
>use and press footage only, or is there a lot more than the 2:00 minutes I saw
>then.

This probably wasn't the same video, but at the Pacific Northwest Computer
Graphics Conference here in Portland, a NASA video was shown which described
the Mars sample-return mission.  The graphics were excellent, but it had
an interesting effect on the audience.  There were about a dozen little
devices that one by one were deployed from the spacecraft, kind of like the
old box-in-a-box-in-a-box-in-a-box novelty.  By the end of the video,
the audience was almost howling with laughter.  When the final Earth re-entry
vehicle appearred, I could barely even hear the soundtrack.  The video was
done in a very serious vein, but somehow the roomful of computer hacks
thought it was quite hilarious.

Kendall Auel				   ^ ^
					  /O O\
Tektronix, Inc.				  | V |
Information Display Group		/  """  \
Interactive Technologies Division	/ """"" \
(kendalla@pooter.GWD.TEK.COM)		 /|\ /|\

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 04:47:15 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <935@cs.rit.edu> mpk9172%ritcv@cs.rit.edu (Michael Kirby) writes:
>
>I have just about enough of this manned/unmanned thing.  I think 
>we all understand fairly well that both are needed.  

Some *misunderstand* this, and then go further to declare that because
manned spaceflight is more expensive, it should get more funding!  Manned 
spacelflight at the present time serves only to take resources away from true 
science and discovery, delaying the era when valuable, widespread manned 
presence in space can be achieved.  Manned spaceflight activists, by 
demanding the bulk of the resources, are destroying the space program for 
us all.

> Both the manned and unmanned programs provide results (both tangible and 
> intangible).

Unmanned provides *all* the private-sector benefits of space, and the 
overwhelming bulk of the scientific benefits, despite being shafted when 
it comes to public funding.  Unmanned also provides greater intangible 
benefits, in the form of expanding our consciousness of the cosmos around
us, rather than being confined to Earth and Earth orbit.

>The scientific probe activists...  while your telling us the great 
>virtues of 30 billion dollars worth [of probes] have you ever
>considered what we would do with all this information?  
>where we would store it?  

Ever heard of CD-ROM?   Photographs of all surfaces in the solar system 
can fit in a small room; a few more database servers can hold other sorts
of data (gamma ray, IR, etc.)  Of course, we will be able to store and
retrieve more information yet, and will do so, but this is gravy.  Researchers 
and the public should be able to access this data at negligible cost through 
networks or distribution of CD's. 

>Already we are on the verge of saturating nasa's NASCOM 
>network.  with the HST and the other great observatory programs going into
>service, we will rapidly climb into the terabytes a year worth of
>information being transmitted from space to earth.  We need to be
>continously thinking about new technologies to retreive, store, and
>process this information.

Communications is more of a bottleneck than storage.  For example, Magellan
may give us a map of Venus with a few holes in it, because it cannot get enough
time on the Deep Space Network when Galileo is doing maneuvers in the same 
part of the sky.  (This conflict is in turn the result of Shuttle hijinks,
but I won't go into that).  The remedy is to increase funding for the DSN 
several times, and to increase funding for K-band and optical communications 
research, with which we can greatly increase our bandwidth and sky coverage
at lower cost.  All these costs are negligible in relation to manned programs. 

The processing bottleneck depends on how much processing we want to do; in 
other words, how important the data is to scientists.  It is interesting 
that this problem does not come up as often with manned missions:  such data 
is often merely the side effect of multi-billion dollar missions done for 
other reasons, and processing it does not produce anything of value. 
  
We need to think about these bottlenecks, *and* we need to do something 
about them.  JPL could sure use a lot of new image processing machinery.
JPL *invented* image processing, but you'd never know it from their current
level of funding.  NASCOM and DSN need new eqipment and better technology.
We need to distribute the results to more scientists who are funded to work 
on them, as well as other interested members of the public.  All this
could be done, in spades, if only a fraction of the funding currently
thrown at manned programs were available for the effort.

>How can nasa work against
>a tightening budget to keep it's programs active?  

NASA's budget is not tightening.  It is being increased from $10 billion
to $13 billion next year.  Most of the new money will be wasted on the
Station and Shuttle.

>is there really 
>a tangible market for private industry research and developement
>of space?  

Huh?  We have had private industries in space since the 60's.  Communications
and remote sensing are thriving, despite being severely hampered by the 
Shuttle program and other government interference. 

    
Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Feb 89 13:28:42 PST
From: greer%utd201%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Space Resources
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"

/> There is no reason those who make it to that time should *ever* have to die,

/I hope you're right, because dying is not something I want to be around
/for when it happens. ... At 47 years can expect anywhere from 2-4 decades
/of further existence if you avoid accidents, homicide, and disease.
/                                  ^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^
/Dan Mocsny

Not to mention SUICIDE or WAR! Especially when confronted with...

/    ...enough resources in the asteroid belt to construct an infra-structure
/    consisting of 40 trillion people with 40,000 trillion tons of supporting
/    structure, occupying aporx. 1 billion cubic km...
/    ...theoretically possible to convert the sun into a white dwarf,
/    which would extend the lifetime of SOL 1,115 times...
/    ...civilization consiting of 10(16) - 10(21) power humans on a surface
/    area equivalent to 1 billion earths...potential lifespan of at least
/    10 trillion years. All of this is possible within the solar system.
/                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
/ Paul Hughes
 
Not MY solar system!  Not if I can help it.  Perhaps Mr.Hughes and
Dr.Frankenstein will team up with the Immortals and the FTL freaks and
they will all live happily (!?) ever after in ANOTHER GALAXY.

However, thinking about the some of the physics of such a so-called
civilisation makes a good demonstration of the weakness of gravity.

Assume the aforesaid mass and volume are equally divided between L4 & L5,
so each society would mass about 2e19kg.  For reference, the Earth masses
6e24kg and the Moon 7e22kg.  A cube of 5e8 km**3 would have about 800km
to a side.  The gravitational constant is about 7e-11 m**3/(kg-s**2).
So the outermost parts of this thing would have an acceleration of
   G*M/r**2 = 7e-11*2e19/8e5**2 = 14e8/64e10 = 2e-3 m/s**3,
which is 2 tenths of a percent of the surface acceleration on the Earth.
Also, the escape velocity would be
   Sqrt(2*G*M/r) = Sqrt (28e8/8e5) = Sqrt(3400) = 58 m/s.
By contrast, the Earth's Ve is 11200 m/s and the Moon's is 2380 m/s.

----
"Pave Paradise,				|         Dale M. Greer
	 put up a parking lot."		|   Center for Space Sciences
		-- Joni Mitchell	| University of Texas at Dallas
					| UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::GREER

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 11:15:34 SET
From: ESC1325%ESOC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: Re: NASA planetary footage?

This mailing refers to the question of
Jim Moskowitz, who is searching for planetary mission videos:
(SPACE Digest #231 from 4 Feb 89)

If you are not restricted to NASA missions, here is one source:
The Max-Planck-Institute for Aeronomy (which built the camera
on ESA's Giotto spacecraft to Halley's comet) sells video tapes
with a short (10 min approx) animation of the approach to Halley's
nucleus.
The sequence shows nicely how the black comet nucleus emerges
from the bright sunlit dust coma, how more and more features
on its surface show up as the probe approaches and, in the last
seconds, how the images degrade as the camera mirror gets
damaged in the cometary duststorm.
The tape can be ordered for all kinds of TV systems (VHS tape,
PAL, NTSC and Secam System or U-matic high/low key) and
comes for approx. 50 US-$ for private/academic use and
approx. 200 US-$ for public presentation use (VHS tapes).
For details you should contact
   Dr. H.U. Keller
   Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie
   Postfach 20
   D-3411 Katlenburg-Lindau
   Federal Republic of Germany
His EARN e-mail address is U0166@DGOGWDG5, on SPAN ECD1::LINMPI::KELLER

Personally I like the sequence very much, as I remember that night
here in the control centre. The images displayed on that night
were very cryptic due to the false colours used, but the
processed ones in "real colour" are much better.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are mine, not ESA's or mbp's.
            No guarantee, no liability.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Lutz Massonne, mbp Software&Systems GmbH   | Tel. +49 6151 886 701
European Space Operations Centre               |
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5                            | ESC1325@BITNET
D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG                          |

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 14:07:08 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: French small space shuttle: A go ahead !

The French CNES (centre national d'etude spatial) managing the space
program of France has officially announced its technical and financial
support for the small space plane Hernes (20 tons) to be build.

Matra Espace and Aerospatiale are the two main contractors in charge.
The technical feasability studies are done and developement has begun.

Hermes will be lauched by Ariane 5, a heavy booster currently under
development. Its first flight is scheduled for 1996 that is in 7 years.

England strongly oppose it and will not take part of any of its finacial costs.
This shouldn't surprise anyone since Thatcher is still in power. Decadence ...

Germany has some plan and might be soon heavily involved. Hopefully this
will work and help us make Europe one step closer.

Jean-Marc Debaud.
Carnegie-Mellon
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

*Beware ! Europe (beside England) is waking up !*

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #251
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Feb 89 11:57:05 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00963>; Tue, 21 Feb 89 06:23:49 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 21 Feb 89 06:23:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gY0Hdpy00Vs101OU4i>;
          Tue, 21 Feb 89 05:31:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.gY0HQzy00UkZ07=05v>;
          Tue, 21 Feb 89 05:17:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY0HQAy00UkZQ79U5Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 05:16:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #252

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 252

Today's Topics:
		 Looking for ESA lunar orbiter report
			Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		   Ariane: Contract of the Century
		       Re: the un/manned debate
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			  Re: MARS the Movie
		    RE: SPACEPAC ratings by state
		Re: Space travel and the human spirit
		 Space probe studies of Mars' moons.
	       Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 17 Feb 89 17:00 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Looking for ESA lunar orbiter report
Original_To:  SPACE

Here's an interesting problem, gang. Do any of you have a library at your
institutions good enough to find the following document?

European Space Agency
Polar Orbiting Lunar Observatory:
POLO Science Assessment
SCI/SPL(78)2. December 1978. PP.25

I am especially interested in North Americans.  It's not available from the
usual place to order ESA documents, ESTEC in Noordwijk, Holland, but I am
working on obtaining it from Paris. I thought maybe there was a copy somewhere
on this side of the Big Ditch.  If you can locate one, please send me e-mail.

There was a lot of activity in the mid-seventies to plan a lunar polar orbiter
as a natural follow-on to the Apollo and Luna studies.  Both NASA and ESA
considered the project in some detail.  But they ran out of steam during
those hard times, and other missions took precedence.  I'd like to know
what the ESA group was thinking about.

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with Free
     ~  Nobel Prizewinner Inside!   Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 03:05:02 GMT
From: Portia!Jessica!paulf@labrea.stanford.edu  (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

Gawd, just think of the platform you could put up in geosync with a Saturn.
You'd recoup the expense of the development in a few years from a *real* 
direct broadcast TVsat system...

-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX      | "Research Scientists need Porsches, too!"
->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU |			-- Bloom County

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 06:12:48 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <8140@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING)
writes:
>In article <120@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>>Two posters now have advocated putting money in *unproductive* ventures,
>>for the very reason that they are unproductive, and skimping on productive
>>ventures!  This sort of thinking scares the bejeebers out of folks who are
>>considering investing their money in space.
>
>Nick's posting attacks Robert's and my postings by simplifying their content
>to a single, obviously contradictory sentence. Not a very ethical way of
>discussing things Nick.

It has now become "unethical" to think rationally.  I paraphrased your
arguments quite correctly.

>The basic premise in my posting is that manned space research is basic R&D.

Then it should be funded as R&D, through the peer review of scientists.
The manned program is not R&D.

>That means that economic return on investment does not apply.

The return in scientific knowledge, related to the dollars spent, most
definitely *does* matter; this is the purpose of R&D.

>It is wrong to try to catagorize some types of basic R&D as more important
>than others.

Then, how, pray tell, do you decide where to spend finite budgets?  The
purpose of peer reviews is exactly this, to decide which areas of research
are important enough to be funded, and by how much.

>Most people in this discussion do seem to agree that manned space R&D is
>important in general, including Nick Szabo and Paul Dietz.

I believe it is *not* important now, but will be in a few decades, assuming
we put in the effort and rational thought we need *today*.  If we do the
research and explore the solar system in the 90's,  we stand a fighting
chance of having the resources and technology to support human needs in
space in the first half of the 21st century.

>Nick and Paul do state that it is unimportant now. This
>is wrong because knowledge gained from basic R&D is valuble regardless (within
>reason) of when it is learned.

When is very important, if it means one has to spend billions of dollars
on information that can be gained for much less in the future, instead of
spending it on making that future possible.  (If it is going to cost
billions to do zero-g physiology research in 2010, we won't be able to
afford manned bases either.  When we are ready the research will be cheap).

>Afterall when is the right time to learn about
>the nature of subatomic particles, or the structure of DNA, or how to build a
>transister? 

When researchers can afford particle accelerators, high-resolution 
microscopes, and electronic testing devices.  

>Paul says that manned space won't be important for 40 years. I
>don't think it's possible to predict technological advance with any accuracy
>beyond 25 years, if that.

The *time* is uncertain, but what we will need when we get there is pretty
straightforward.  Our most expensive and essential need in space will be
a large mining and industrial infrastructure to produce our air, water, 
food, structural materials, machines, etc. from the resources in space.
To create this we must (1) discover the resources with an exhaustive search
over a wide area of the solar system and (2) create the technology 
to process these materials in an environment of vacuum, low gravity and
high labor cost.  How people adapt to free fall is an  unessential question
that can be answered with inexpensive research when the time comes.
Unmanned exploration and basic R&D provide the two essential components.

>I personally believe that manned space R&D should focus on reducing manned
>launch costs before doing anything else. 

Launch costs are an important problem.  The problem of reducing manned and 
unmanned launch costs is similar; breakthroughs in the latter are usually 
breakthroughs in the former.

>I agree with Henry Spencer that it would be best if we simply disbanded NASA
>(with the exception of JPL) and turned it over to private industry with a
>policy of payment on orbital delivery only.

Does Henry really say this?  I agree! 


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 10:44:56 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz) writes:

>henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>If we assume that there is a useful amount of ice in lunar polar craters --
>>not ridiculous but not at all certain either -- it clearly is possible to
>>start a lunar colony with today's technology.  Before Challenger, in fact,
>>there was a proposal to do exactly that in 1992, as a commemoration of the
>>500th anniversary of Columbus.  It would have been within reach of (major)
>>private funding, given extensive reliance on donated labor and materials...
>>but the reliance on six donated shuttle flights killed it.

I didn't see this proposal, so I am curious; just how much payload did they
expect to deliver to lunar surface from a shuttle flight and how?  The shuttle
only goes to LEO, if you use a Centaur third stage like we were going to use
for Galileo I suppose you could get a LEM and enough fuel to land there, not
sure.  The lifting capacity of the Saturn V was much more than the shuttle and
look how little they got to the Moon, although of course they had to carry
enough fuel to get back.

Given Henry's later assertion that

>This was a *colony*, not a base, meaning no crew rotation and the intent
>to be self-sufficient in basic materials essentially at once.

just *what* did they expect to get there in 6 shuttle flights that could
have achieved that?

By the way, I wish we'd done it too.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 13:54:56 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Ariane: Contract of the Century

>From Radio France International capted last night (2/16)
we heard that the private company Arianespace has
ordered with the Societe Europeene de Propulsion
the equivalent of 3B US$ for 50 Ariane 4 to be delivered
in the next 8 years.

With a very strong order book, Arianespace is bound to keep
the lead in commercial espace explotation.

In mid-january was the last Ariane lift off which was a complete
success and the ninth straight in a row.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 17:44:32 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <133@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>... All this
>could be done, in spades, if only a fraction of the funding currently
>thrown at manned programs were available for the effort.

Of course it's not, and never will be, since money taken away from manned
programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 89 00:36:53 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <1989Feb17.174432.5749@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry 
Spencer) writes:
>In article <133@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) 
>writes:
>>... All this
>>could be done, in spades, if only a fraction of the funding currently
>>thrown at manned programs were available for the effort.
>
>Of course it's not, and never will be, since money taken away from manned
>programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs.

And yet the reverse appears to be true.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 17 Feb 89 10:36:38 PST
From: tencati%jplgp.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV
Subject: Re: MARS the Movie
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space+@andrew.cmu.edu"


The video is available from some outfit for $39.95 (a rip-off for
a 2-minute movie!).   I'm not sure what the process is, but I do know
that I as an employee can show up with a blank VHS videotape and get
"LA the Movie", "Miranda the Movie", "Earth the Movie", and "Mars the
Movie" copied onto it for next to nothing.  If you are interested, 
I would suggest that you send a letter to either the Public Affairs 
Office or Von Karman Auditorium here at the lab.

I have seen all these videos and I must compliment the Image Processing
people here for an excellent job!   The next movie is "Gallium Arsenide
the Movie".

The movies are generated using VAX/VMS machines and one Alliant FX/8-8.

JPL's street address is:

		4800 Oak Grove Drive
		Pasadena, CA. 91109

The telephone number is (818) 354-4321

Ron Tencati
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
TENCATI@GPVAX.JPL.NASA.GOV

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 17 Feb 89 14:45:52 CST
From: kistler%Iowa.Iowa%CITJULIE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (Allen C. Kistler)
Subject:  RE: SPACEPAC ratings by state

Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> writes:

)Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 10:34:29 PDT
)
)>From: Scott Pace <pace%tp3@rand.org>
)>
)>In playing with the last set of Congressional ratings by Spacepac (1988
)>edition), we took averages for each State's House delegation.  This gave us
)>a rough measure of the Spacepac "rating" of each state....
)>
)>The ranking was:
)>Alaska          91    [#1]
)
)Excuse me??? ...
)... why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
)What are they doing up there to get that kind of support???!!?

Space research.  It pulls money into the state.  It also, in general, has
public support, probably because the Alaskan sky at night has two things
the Californian sky doesn't have at night:
  1- stars
  2- aurora

)Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)
                         ^^^^^^^^
Hopefully without being insulting, I'll point out that you should know that.
A significant fraction of the space-related money in the Alaskan economy
comes from JPL contracts.  Most, if not all, of the rest comes from other
NASA sites.

Allen Kistler   InterNet: kistler@iowa.physics.uiowa.edu
                SPAN:     iowa::kistler

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 18:27:11 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the human spirit

Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu) responded to a previous posting doubting
that technology would develop fast enough for the older folks among us to
take advantage of the life extending and wealth enhancing technologies we
can see growing out of the computer revolution.  In this I strongly 
differ.  The problem is to get your memories and personality to future
medicine.  That can be accomplished (for those who make preperation) by
low temperature, i.e. cryonic suspension.  This is the reason I am so
optimistic about personally making it to the far side of the galaxy.
Keith Henson 408-978-7616   (detailed technical/legal/finantial/social
information is available from Alcor Life Extension Foundation, Riverside
California.  714-736-1703)  I can forward email request for information to
them.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 16:00:25 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Space probe studies of Mars' moons.


         As for early space probe examinations of Mars' moons Phobos
    and Deimos, credit should also be given to MARINER 9, which sent
    back the first clear images of the moons in 1971-1972.  MARINER 6
    and 7 also returned images (albeit crude) of Phobos in 1969, which
    first showed scientists that Phobos was roughly potato-shaped and
    allowed more accurate measurements of its dimensions.

         I do not believe the Soviet Mars probes ever photographed 
    either of the Martian moons, though several of the orbiters were
    able to return images of the planet's surface comparible to the
    later MARINERS.

         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 17:40:48 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration

In article <8140@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes:
>...I do believe that the space station is a mistake at this time. In fact I
>agree with Henry Spencer that it would be best if we simply disbanded NASA
>(with the exception of JPL) and turned it over to private industry with a
>policy of payment on orbital delivery only...

Unfortunately, this badly misrepresents my views:  I do not favor disbanding
NASA or splitting it into pieces, although others have expressed that view.
(At some point I will probably editorialize about this in one of my AW&ST
summaries.)  It's a dumb idea, frankly, because NASA -- not just JPL -- has
a lot to contribute.  The problem is that right now, NASA is doing all the
wrong things and (worse) is not doing the right things.  What is needed is
a major reorganization and reorientation, not amputation.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #252
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Feb 89 06:04:12 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA12310>; Wed, 22 Feb 89 03:38:01 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 22 Feb 89 03:37:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8Y0arVy00UkTE100ZM>;
          Wed, 22 Feb 89 03:22:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.QY0amxy00UkZMSC052>;
          Wed, 22 Feb 89 03:18:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EY0alUy00UkZESAU4n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 03:16:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #253

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 253

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
			  Re: 1992 moon base
	      An integrated space program for the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 89 17:01:25 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #460 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 44.94317536 0.00000253           29596-3 0  1842
2 00424  80.4601  47.3096 0024740  86.9070 273.4948 13.67071879315978
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 44.85693578 0.00000000           10000-3 0  6501
2 08820 109.8120 187.8396 0044835 342.0440  17.8311  6.38664365 42750
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 40.12261671 -.00000007                   0  2264
2 10061   6.8495  69.8204 0004011  92.8962 267.2826  1.00264485  4099
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 42.80828060 0.00000012                   0   312
2 10684  63.5192 104.7246 0106250 198.7324 160.9514  2.00562078 66018
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 40.76946768 -.00000028                   0  9545
2 10893  64.5386 345.6155 0148729  28.1924 332.6098  2.00560719 78793
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 43.16631600 0.00000088           10000-3 0  5798
2 10953   5.7189  72.4632 0006376 250.4811 109.5564  1.00278075  1389
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 36.98613259 0.00001604           61426-3 0   748
2 10967 108.0148  17.4644 0001953 302.2947  57.8003 14.34240460555273
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 40.58636028 -.00000028                   0  9832
2 11054  64.0954 342.1208 0051923 117.5249 243.0079  2.00560296 75805
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 42.68943192 0.00000012                   0   962
2 11141  63.4923 104.5956 0058585 317.7186  41.9021  2.00554270 74543
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 38.56745297 0.00000905           39887-3 0  8053
2 11416  98.5028  39.4495 0012498 123.4994 236.7388 14.25446272499430
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 45.12151046 0.00047049           11347-2 0  8493
2 11703  28.5005  60.1128 0002094 138.0054 222.1107 15.39854491500771
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 40.64907892 -.00000028                   0  8433
2 11783  63.9035 341.7936 0139033  62.3184 299.0901  2.00566038 64442
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 31.83054292 -.00000125           10000-3 0   505
2 11964   5.1628  75.4889 0035056  93.1723 267.2187  0.99232053   679
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 43.01455851 -.00000248           10000-3 0  6938
2 12472   2.2226  82.0044 0004572 321.8641  38.3466  1.00283968 27357
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 45.05722778 0.00053918           11674-2 0  4521
2 12888  97.5800  92.1548 0002151 185.2805 174.8760 15.44274521409893
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 38.80603343 0.00000279           24167-3 0  6227
2 13113  82.5418 161.5873 0016585  66.1995 294.0891 13.83931088347349
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 44.54814483 0.00018273           50107-3 0  4393
2 13138  51.6098 201.0171 0000795 304.5016  55.5987 15.37328816389147
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 44.97562209 0.00000370           18950-3 0  7471
2 13718  81.2442  42.0704 0056244 350.8032   9.2096 14.13081586318153
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 39.99027627 0.00000121                   0  9094
2 14050   0.9754  84.0818 0000456 288.9810 346.8944  1.00264655  5324
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 43.29488920 -.00000016           10000-3 0  3774
2 14129  26.6278 280.4398 6053625  17.0180 356.7274  2.05880749 14640
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 40.74036426 0.00000011                   0  6050
2 14189  63.1490 103.3440 0133449 214.6235 144.5770  2.00572908 40881
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 34.08600364 0.00000492           20705-3 0  6894
2 14452  81.1615  67.9285 0096160 122.6355 238.4146 14.21984577273483
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 44.57957422 -.00003132          -69124-3 0  6493
2 14780  98.1840 109.1045 0001728 225.6899 134.4266 14.57091272263567
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 40.10736581 0.00002017           40283-3 0  4043
2 14781  98.0213 102.5744 0013880   8.9875 351.1659 14.62939048263812
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 44.45305438 0.00030222           66601-3 0  7557
2 14898  28.5093 323.0156 0002517 294.9697  65.1202 15.42525816272275
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 40.79533231 0.00000011                   0  6236
2 15039  62.8885 102.6564 0015143 281.1002  78.8080  2.00564846 34169
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 38.57743143 0.00000265           23019-3 0  9233
2 15099  82.5306 109.4678 0011857 239.0854 120.9144 13.83605778232194
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 41.19412643 -.00000028                   0  5713
2 15271  63.3989 341.6070 0099601 318.1461  41.1053  2.00562769 31281
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 44.57556338 0.00003274           48333-3 0  9764
2 15331  82.5368  92.4974 0026236 124.3335 236.0386 14.74795902235996
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 41.43112783 0.00001069           60598-3 0  3338
2 15427  99.1327  25.9792 0014881 312.5249  47.4947 14.11821401214560
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 41.08309003 0.00000126           10316-3 0   503
2 15516  82.5306  45.8499 0017846 109.3436 250.9654 13.84030867203472
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 44.74312055 0.00055146           14819-2 0  1664
2 16095  51.6101 200.0700 0001141 277.7081  82.1905 15.37365401389173
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 41.34990022 0.00000012                   0  2961
2 16129  63.6714 103.1894 0115548 150.5484 210.1806  2.00565329 24494
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 39.65228076 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8037
2 16191  82.5509 326.6335 0018441 260.7677  99.1415 13.16859281158603
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 41.75233160 0.00000266           22967-3 0  4603
2 16408  82.5368 320.1987 0015658 300.3197  59.6420 13.84117008158060
Mir        
1 16609U          89 44.56559894 0.00063569           49028-3 0  6911
2 16609  51.6221 266.8741 0011774 270.7082  89.2202 15.71251869171851
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 45.90742901 -.00004446          -20833-2 0  3637
2 16613  98.7110 122.2633 0001466 122.5299 237.5650 14.20037711 67345
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 41.84631399 0.00000253           21787-3 0  2773
2 16735  82.5372 346.8758 0015664  10.3925 349.7569 13.83848906136984
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 44.71944020 0.00006258           93404-3 0  5186
2 16881  82.5272 152.0484 0024370 139.2615 221.0666 14.74492490137096
EGP        
1 16908U          89 38.17532047 -.00000033           38697-4 0  1176
2 16908  50.0133 337.7587 0011308  16.5812 343.5388 12.44375026113221
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 38.07742442 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1299
2 16909  50.0179 338.2722 0011061  13.5524 346.5603 12.44397497113209
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 41.58262838 0.00000786           36667-3 0  1909
2 16969  98.6510  74.4169 0012704 257.6903 102.3104 14.22804260125939
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 36.98407380 0.00000300           26194-3 0  2219
2 17290  82.4678 259.0124 0012387 271.8885  88.0889 13.83664810105477
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 32.87866317 -.00000103           10000-3 0  2270
2 17561   0.0936 256.3952 0004029 308.3915 155.2428  0.99988189   408
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 44.75640291 0.00091847           70301-3 0  6690
2 17845  51.6213 265.8993 0012369 268.9986  90.9466 15.71272778171882
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 44.85341954 0.00000188           19625-3 0  6691
2 18129  82.9304 329.2615 0012789  39.3810 320.8312 13.71941710 82483
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 45.90675705 0.00173857  14484-4  29048-3 0  8927
2 18225  71.8868  23.7179 0009502 248.3828 111.4336 16.02688217 91682
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 41.77348822 0.00000364           32140-3 0  2413
2 18312  82.5593 319.7003 0011661 186.0118 174.0910 13.83420134 75038
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 42.03198358 0.00000214           18239-3 0   846
2 18820  82.5384  20.7952 0015557 263.9626  95.9766 13.84090209 52233
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 21.67169254 -.00000109           10000-3 0   297
2 19216  57.3622 222.9543 6646232 197.5144 118.7893  2.09700975  4665
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 39.05906047 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1269
2 19336  82.5365 267.0285 0015534 141.7355 218.4817 13.16854155 25914
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 34.31541485 0.00000593           35193-3 0   434
2 19531  98.9253 339.0838 0011131 251.6699 108.2990 14.10792410 18597
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89 44.75633637 0.00160737           12160-2 0   825
2 19660  51.6257 265.9009 0011624 269.2708  90.2967 15.71301281 12475
Cosmos 1984
1 19705U          89 19.40372789 0.01577637  41422-4  30625-3 0   813
2 19705  62.8261 186.2234 0062393 117.7652 243.1376 16.25470591  5424
1988 111A  
1 19710U          89 21.35764026 -.00000322           10000-3 0   296
2 19710   0.5294 261.0148 0000533  95.1335   3.8189  1.00268307   331
Cosmos 1986
1 19734U          89 30.04555172 0.00231193  10296-4  15848-3 0   635
2 19734  64.7693 165.7278 0036026 181.2863 178.8084 16.14732981  5107
1989 001A  
1 19749U          89 40.54122425 0.00000021           10000-3 0   386
2 19749  64.8623 174.9880 0005168 283.2404  76.6691  2.13102189   665
1989 001B  
1 19750U          89 40.59991529 0.00000021           10000-3 0   450
2 19750  64.8828 174.9892 0004542 255.2470 104.6752  2.13102350   664
1989 001C  
1 19751U          89 40.53193346 0.00000021           10000-3 0   377
2 19751  64.8741 174.9866 0009234 258.6758 101.1945  2.13155878   668
1989 001F  
1 19754U          89 32.99756385 0.00000021           10000-3 0   144
2 19754  64.8732 175.2408 0014280 316.8939  42.9607  2.13419920   480
1989 002A  
1 19756U          89 41.81977810 0.00493286 -55157-5  17108-3 0   500
2 19756  82.5580 278.7041 0086949  32.8167 328.0352 16.16087723  4716
1989 004A  
1 19765U          89 44.22151979 0.00000128           10000-3 0   286
2 19765   1.4438 276.4901 0003651 356.4840   3.0258  1.00264800   193
1989 005A  
1 19769U          89 42.02353414 0.00000882           34596-3 0   265
2 19769  74.0541 340.2315 0024730 299.0647  60.8020 14.30583382  2203
1989 005B  
1 19770U          89 42.90700473 -.00004118          -15071-2 0   191
2 19770  74.0507 338.5243 0015484 328.8222  31.2005 14.32770049  2332
1989 006A  
1 19772U          89 43.51983105 0.00000183           10000-3 0    99
2 19772   0.2369 258.4062 0006081 219.8029 241.8347  1.00272433   158
1989 006B  
1 19773U          89 42.75943042 -.00000027           10000-3 0   167
2 19773   8.3499 307.9613 7195719 190.1231 138.1046  2.25483847   362
1989 007A  
1 19774U          89 46.20619091 0.00613508  34653-4  29455-3 0   541
2 19774  64.7370 284.8815 0113057  77.1577 284.0702 16.07515788  2850
1989 004F  
1 19776U          89 43.50664381 -.00000081           10000-3 0   115
2 19776   1.4563 276.1442 0024560 312.8420  46.8366  0.97995075   198
1988 095F  
1 19777U          89 39.71855553 -.00000018           10000-3 0   117
2 19777   1.2365 275.1581 0013382  74.5811 285.3772  0.97936958   147
1989 008A  
1 19783U          89 45.64675623 0.00049608           38193-3 0   133
2 19783  51.6249 261.3422 0012480 278.9604  80.9314 15.71385145   687
1989 008B  
1 19784U          89 43.13987149 0.33902438  60334-4  58774-3 0   138
2 19784  51.6156 273.8930 0010476 116.6000 243.6208 16.47040844   293
1989 009A  
1 19785U          89 43.59936485 0.00000004                   0    75
2 19785  82.6199  34.8128 0013440  29.3534 330.8323 12.63999939   250
1989 009B  
1 19786U          89 42.25476813 0.00000004                   0    38
2 19786  82.6222  35.6708 0003056  69.1217 291.0208 12.61810827    79
1989 009C  
1 19787U          89 45.26563552 0.00000004                   0    41
2 19787  82.6132  33.7535 0006476  32.9112 327.2381 12.62575400   450
1989 009D  
1 19788U          89 44.23389092 0.00000004                   0    98
2 19788  82.6193  34.4111 0010090  21.8581 338.2911 12.63355267   336
1989 009E  
1 19789U          89 43.83582947 0.00000004                   0    43
2 19789  82.6112  34.6542 0016583  23.8898 336.2980 12.64581394   274
1989 009F  
1 19790U          89 42.56940905 0.00000004                   0    46
2 19790  82.6191  35.4655 0020456  21.6471 338.5484 12.65339160   125
1989 009G  
1 19791U          89 42.01881514 0.00000004                   0    25
2 19791  82.6151  35.8211 0035504 203.4265 156.5248 12.54810298    46
1989 010A  
1 19792U          89 45.89238967 0.00043504           39911-3 0   101
2 19792  82.3561  56.4426 0038582 113.7752 246.6105 15.66542947   669
1989 010B  
1 19793U          89 43.47571253 0.25188219 -65537-5  28836-3 0   109
2 19793  82.3279  58.9440 0014880  82.4579 278.7400 16.49383211   284
GPS-0012   
1 19796U          89 45.70000000 0.00000077           10000-3 0    38
2 19796  62.9000 159.2340 7342829 318.2800 347.2830  2.03290826    12
1989 011B  
1 19797U          89 45.61927342 0.00588667  89166-5  12589-2 0    53
2 19797  62.7833 158.0372 0282530 119.6505 243.3142 15.54646993    75
1989 011C  
1 19798U          89 46.13356907 0.01190595  35716-4  14371-2 0    57
2 19798  62.8369 156.0180 0308322 120.9128 242.1933 15.56157148   166
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 17:37:46 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <703@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>... We can't just dump people in cans and expect
>them to huddle heroically while we try to build a reliable launcher to
>get them back home. We have to give them the tools to not simply
>survive on the moon, but to take it.

"We can't just dump people in covered wagons and expect them to huddle
heroically while we try to build a railroad to bring them back."

(Only half :-))

Agreed that a lunar colony has to have enough power over its environment
to do something practical rather than just huddling.  (If all you can do
is huddle and wait for the return flight, what you have is a base, not a
colony.)  It is a mistake to assume that massive sophistication is needed
for this, though.  It is also a mistake to assume that 100.00% probability
of success *must* be assured before making the attempt.  (NASA has done
spaceflight a huge disservice by propagating the myth that everything can
be planned in advance and there is no reason for anything to ever go wrong.
In the long run, the exploration of space will be like the exploration of
Earth some time ago:  a slightly risky business that occasionally kills
people and is *expected* to do so, and thus does not stop for agonizing
reappraisals each time that happens.)
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 89 00:52:30 GMT
From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: An integrated space program for the world.


     I believe that the time has long passed for us to look at what we are
going to do in space in the long term.  Why?  Because if we keep on pursuing
things in the typically myopic way we are at present then it will be impossible
to envision or carry out any kind of truly major project.  We need a long term
goal to work ourselves toward bit by bit much as what was done in the 1960's
but on a FAR LARGER scale.

     Who do I mean by "WE"?  If you've been under the impression that I'm 
discussing or criticizing the American space program, you are totally mistaken.
It's the *Soviet* space program, the *European* space program, the Chinese
space program AND the American one.  It is the fact that to pursue anything
of major consequence, we need to eliminate the vestiges of nationalism that
pervade our reach into space and develop a WORLD SPACE PROGRAM.  By WE, I
mean the entire planet.

     As you know, the time for such a proposal is ripe with what is going on
in the current political arena.  In fact, it is the Soviets who are proposing
to carry out cooperative ventures (maybe with ulterior motives).  But this
proposal is far less ambitious than what I have in mind.

     The space program I propose is an extremelly long-term engineering
project that is to be carried out both on the Earth and Mars.  Its purposes
are the following:

    (I)   To reform the food production system on the African continent,
    (II)  To reclaim the Sahara.
    (III) To provide a concrete symbol of world unity and a common purpose 
    to bind that unity together,
    (IV)  To create additional living space to alleviate the overpopulation
    problem.
    (V)   To explore, colonize and terraform Mars.

To carry it out will require the cooperation of most of the world's nations,
and this time may be the best opportunity for such a prospect.

     The first two phases of this project are carried out in parallel.  One
on Earth, and one in space.  The Earthbound venture will concern itself with
the long-standing, but never implemented, goal of reclaiming the Sahara
desert for living space and agriculture.  This in itself is a major engineering
project that can only be accomplished with the sustained cooperation of the
nations in Northern Africa, and the superpowers to provide the logistical
support.  The cost is high, but there will certainly be a large number of
people to devote their time and labor in this major investment.  And the
payoffs are potentially huge.  The spacebound phase will concentrate on
carrying out the exploration of Mars.  I have not thought out what this
entails, but it would be essential to integrate our present Space Station
project, the Soviet space station and whatever reserves are available into
this program for the sake of continuity, if nothing else.  The exploration
will carry human beings to Mars for the first time.

     The goal of the exploration is to gain the experience necessary to
develop a technology for inter-planetary travel and ultimately to develop
prototype stations on Mars itself.
     The Sahara project, besides providing obvious benefits to the Earth,
and besides giving us a concrete symbol of world unity will provide us
with practical experience in TERRAFORMING large inhospitable environments.
That, above all else, is the essential reason for integrating this into
the space program.

     Both of these subprograms tie nicely into major the long-term goal, which
is to colonize Mars.  The question is: are we ready to pursue something this
big?  I think the time has come.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #253
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Feb 89 06:06:19 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01012>; Wed, 22 Feb 89 05:29:29 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 22 Feb 89 05:29:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gY0cfVy00jZdQ1=U9h>;
          Wed, 22 Feb 89 05:26:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.IY0cYry00UkZISMk4P>;
          Wed, 22 Feb 89 05:19:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <MY0cWOy00UkZMSLE54@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 05:16:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #254

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 254

Today's Topics:
		Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
			Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
			 Re: Space Resources
		     Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
			  CDSF has a chance!
			Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			Re: Energia questions
			Re: Energia questions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 22:32:53 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <122@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>>... Sustained manned presence requires self-sufficiency...
>>
>>Why?  Name three settlements on *Earth* that are self-sufficient.
>
>My message, in context, said *potential* self-sufficiency...
>Space settlements must be *more* self-sufficient, because the transportation
>system from Earth to space is more complex and fragile...

Again, why?  All you have established is that a space colony which is not
fully self-sufficient is dependent on the maintenance of transportation
systems to and from (mostly from) Earth.  So what?  This is a problem only
if you consider the primary purpose of colonies to be acting as lifeboats 
for Spaceship Earth.  While I consider this significant in the long run,
I don't see it as a big short-term motivation.  In the long run the colonies
will have ample economic motivation to become as self-sufficient as possible;
it is not necessary to impose it as a precondition.

>How would dependent
>space settlements fair if it were discovered that rockets destroy the ozone,
>or if WWIII broke out (conventional or nuclear), if the powers controlling
>the system decided there were more urgent priorities than spending billions
>on distant space habitats, or (fill in your own bad-news scenario).  

One of two things happens.  They come back to Earth on the last flight of
the transportation systems, or they die.  (Actually there is a third
possibility, that they find out they aren't as dependent as they thought,
but we'll ignore that as a quibble.)  The bases in Antarctica today are
in essentially the same situation:  they are utterly dependent on outside
supply.  For some reason this isn't considered a major problem with them.
Anyone who signs up for the first space colony will be accepting risks.

>>Clearly a colony needs either good recycling
>>or local supplies for air and water, and local production of basic foods
>>and structural materials is at least highly desirable.  
>
>Agreed.  And we do *not* have the technology to do this...

Oh, nonsense.  Look at some of the work SSI has commissioned if you want
to know what can be done in the way of manufacturing with lunar materials.
"Mining" is not an issue at all, a bulldozer will suffice.  Oxygen is
everywhere in the regolith.  Hydrogen *is* a problem, which is why I
mentioned the lunar-polar-crater-ice issue.  Limited recycling does not
appear to be beyond our capabilities now, if you are willing to accept
less than 100.00000% probability of success.  Yes, modest further progress
would help on many of these things -- for example, there are probably
better sources of materials than randomly-chosen lunar regolith -- but
it's not *necessary*.

>... It is still an expensive operation to scoop up a few ounces
>of soil on Mars...

Expensive.  Not difficult, or beyond our technology, just costly.  The
Apollo astronauts did it on the Moon with hand scoops, if you recall.

>>...start a lunar colony with today's technology.  
>>there was a proposal to do exactly that in 1992...
>>but the reliance on six donated shuttle flights killed it.  
>
>This is off by several orders of magnitude.  You can't put even one
>space station module, with supporting solar cells, batteries, and 
>several weeks of food, on the Moon, with six shuttles...

Which is why you don't use space station modules for something like this.
The idea is to plant something that can grow, not to try to prefabricate
an entire colony.  Six shuttles, at old nominal-payload numbers, is about
350,000 lbs in low orbit.  I don't know what exact propulsion system those
folks had in mind, but that still adds up to a number of tons on the lunar
surface (one-way trip, remember -- this is a colony, not a base, and a
minimum-budget do-or-die version at that).  Sounds adequate as a starting
point for bootstrapping, to me.

>even if we
>had a lunar landing vehicle (a $5+ billion development in and of itself).

We had one, actually, which cost rather less than that, but we threw it
away.  However, much of the work would not need to be re-done.

>The estimates from NASA for a *minimal* lunar base: about 10 people huddled
>in space station modules covered by dirt, with no mining or manufacturing
>operations--run around $100 billion...

Yup.  Ever heard what NASA proposed as the budget for a Halley probe, versus
what was quoted when Delta Vee asked the same manufacturers about doing it
privately?  "NASA specializes in astronautical missions with astronomical
price tags."
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 16:53:07 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

>From article <4XwVpQy00Xc94aJ3IN@andrew.cmu.edu>, by kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan):
> 

>    On a more serious note - numerous people have asked about redoing the
> Saturn V, despite the fact that NASA pitched most of the plans and machinery
> for same.  It seems that the cost would be almost prohibitive.
>    I would like to know if anyone has information about the Saturn launcher
> used for the early Apollo tests (the IIB?) - were the plans for that pitched
> as well?  Surely the capacity to orbit the mass of the LM/SM/CM combination
> would be useful.  Does anyone know if the plans for that are still around?
> 
>                                                   kwr

I don't know the fate of the Saturn IB plans, but I did look up its
LEO payload. The Saturn IB had an LEO payload of 40,000 lbs. The Titan
IV, currently under development, will have an LEO payload of 40,000
lbs.  The Proton booster has an LEO payload of ~42,000 lbs. The Ariane
V booster, currently being developed by ESA, is expected to have an
LEO payload of ~43,000 lbs.

There is not much point in resurecting the Saturn IB when the Titan
IV, Proton, and Ariane V all have, or will have, equivalent
performance.

			Bob P.
-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1989 15:59-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Space Resources

Posting of (Chip Olson@somewhere.out.there) re: (Chris Ott)

I'll stand with Chris. I've had the doomsayers balthering in my ear for
20 years now and I'm really pretty bored by it. I hope I get to toast
Chris's foresight at one of the space settlements while the hairless
apes who stayed behind go back to the trees.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 89 06:37:07 GMT
From: att!alberta!obed!steve@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (stephen Samuel)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <890213103429.0000076D091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>>Subject: Spacepac ratings by State
>>From: Scott Pace <pace%tp3@rand.org>
>>a rough measure of the Spacepac "rating" of each state.  Ratings of 70% or
>>more were called pro-space, while 0-50% were called anti-space. This gave
>>us 15 pro-space states, 9 anti-space states, and 26 "swing" states.
>>The ranking was:
>>California      66.5  [#20]
> >Alaska          91    [#1]
> >Florida         87.6  [#3]
> >Wisconsin       43.3  [#45]
> although I was surprised somewhat by the poor standing of
> >California      66.5  [#20]
> but why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
I think that Alaska has much more of a pioneering spirit than most other
states would have.. (There's not much difference between an Alaskan winter 
and a warm night in space :-).
 California, on the other hand, is just too COMFORTABLE. People in
that state may tend to find it much easier to look towards things like
social issues (civil rights, ecology, etc.).  
 
 The movie-crew people (with possible exception of the lucas and other
such FX groups), for example, probably couldn't care less about space
exploration.

-- 
Stephen samuel !alberta!{obed,edm}!steve
Look on the bright side... It might have worked!

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 19:12:54 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: CDSF has a chance!

Now is the ideal time to support the Commercially Developed Space
Facility and lay the groundwork for termination of the Space Station.

The National Space Society family of Organizations and aerospace
establishment interests are so worried the Launch Service Purchase Act 
will pass without their coopting ammendments that they aren't keeping 
close track of what is going on with the budget process.  Right now 
Congress is primarily concerned with the budget, so while these 
typically anti-space elements are preoccupied we can wave the flag 
of privatization before the administration to ensure it helps get CDSF
authorization into the budget.  With the CDSF in the budget, calls for
fiscal restraint can easily be used to eliminate the Space Station.

This can be done right now.  The iron is hot.  Time to pound it flat.

By the time the NASA-boosters realize the LSPA, while valuable, was
just a diversion, it will be far too late. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 89 04:19:10 GMT
From: aablue!jb@uunet.uu.net  (John B Scalia)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

In article <3886@ttidca.TTI.COM>, sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) writes:
> [a whole ton of verbage canned]
> detail prints in whatever size you'd like. Shop prints are usually 'D' size,
> for those of you who have never worked in a machine shop, roughly 36" x 56".
> 
> [Even more deleted]

I don't normally nit-pick, but having been involved with several NASA 
contractors and with 20 years of engineering, I must point out the
least of the errors from your article. A 'D' print is either 22" x 34" or
24" x 36" period. Apollo/Saturn engineering drawings were either 27" x 36"
or 36" x 48" except for some assembly and wiring details which were done
in 36" rolls by length required. --- It is important that you understand
that many of the details called in the prints were not as-built on the
real thing.

These are known as change orders. Typical display units are those
components minus the change orders. In most situations a flying version
of the part does NOT exist and the change order detail has been lost.
That fact alone would mean many millions in engineering dollars just
to make what you've seen fly.

Face it, Saturns won't fly again. It's time for another subject.



-- 
A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio +1 216 794-8803 voice
UUCP:	   {uunet!}aablue!jb	Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
FidoNet:   1:157/697		wants to spend their life in an institution.
EchoNet:   US:OH/AKR.0

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 89 00:12:56 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <1989Feb17.174432.5749@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <133@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>... All this
>>could be done, in spades, if only a fraction of the funding currently
>>thrown at manned programs were available for the effort.
>
>Of course it's not, and never will be, since money taken away from manned
>programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs.

Just what evidence do you have for this?  I recall that after Apollo was
cancelled, money was shifted into Viking and Voyager, among other things.  On
the flip side, it is clear that the U.S. solar-polar and Halley missions
were cancelled, and Galileo, Magellan, Space Telescope and Mars Observer
were delayed, due to the funding priorities and delays of the Space Shuttle
program.  There is a clear trade-off, and giving manned programs most of
the money has starved and will continue to starve the real space program. 


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 89 02:25:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Energia questions


>From PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott):

> Those four boosters on Energia are liquid fuel, not solid, right?

That is correct.

> What altitude do they separate at?  Are they recovered and reused?
> What about the main rocket?  How close does it come to being able to

The four first stage boosters fall away in pairs and parachute back to Earth
ready for refuelling and further use, while the core stage splashes down in
the Pacific.  Though it might be noted that the Soviets have yet to demonstrate
this capability.
--
Andrew J. Higgins	             | Illini Space Development Society
404 1/2 E. White St apt 3            | a chapter of the National Space Society
Champaign IL  61820                  | at the University of Illinois
phone:  (217) 359-0056               | P.O. Box 2255 Station A
e-mail: ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu | Champaign IL  61825
                 ^^^^^^
"When the Waters were dried an' the earth did appear,...The Lord He created
 the Engineer"
 - Rudyard Kipling

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 89 00:12:54 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Energia questions

In article <890216095751.00000C4E092@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>Those four boosters on Energia are liquid fuel, not solid, right?

Right.

>What altitude do they separate at?  Are they recovered and reused?

I don't remember the altitude, if indeed the Soviets have published it.
They are recoverable and reusable by design, although the Soviets
haven't yet actually tried that.

>What about the main rocket?  How close does it come to being able to
>go into LEO?  Could it do so if it jettisoned the engines and just
>send the shell into orbit?

The core probably comes fairly close to orbit, since Buran's maneuvering
engines are not huge and it will have to be close to orbit at separation
time.  As a guess, you could probably get the core into low orbit without
much trouble.  You would run into the same problems as orbiting shuttle
tanks, though:  high air drag and a short orbital life unless you do
something special about it.

>If so, how come the Russkies haven't built
>an orbiting facility this way?

Be patient -- they've only flown the thing twice so far!
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #254
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Feb 89 05:38:16 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00474>; Thu, 23 Feb 89 04:37:18 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 23 Feb 89 04:37:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sY0w1jy00Ui3E15kQX>;
          Thu, 23 Feb 89 03:27:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.MY0vuGy00UkZ4Xw05G>;
          Thu, 23 Feb 89 03:19:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY0vray00UkZ4XuU43@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 03:16:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #255

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 255

Today's Topics:
			 Re Energia Questions
	       Soviet probe takes first Phobos pictures
			 Re: SPACE RESOURCES
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			  NSS Hotline Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 16:20:48 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Re Energia Questions

In Space Digest V 9, #250 Peter Scott asks

> Those four boosters on Energia are liquid fuel, not solid, right?
> What altitude do they separate at?  Are they recovered and reused?
> What about the main rocket?  How close does it come to being able to
> go into LEO?  Could it do so if it jettisoned the engines and just
> send the shell into orbit?  If so, how come the Russkies haven't built
> an orbiting facility this way?
[Sorry Scott - I cannot reply directly so hope you get this]

    Energiya consists in its current form of a central core 8 m (26 ft.)
in diameter and 60 m (197 ft) tall with 4 strap on boosters each 4.3 m
(14 ft) by  40 m (131 ft) tall.  The strapons are liquid oxygen/kerosene
fulled, each with 4 trust chambers of a single engine, total thrust 
of 800 Tonnes per stapon.  The central core is a Liquid oxygen/hydrogen
system with 4 engines, 200 Tonnes trust each.  At takeoff both the 
sustainer core and the strapons ignite for a combined thrust of 4000 Tonnes.
about 2.5 minutes latter the strapons burn out at about a 60 Km (38 mi)
altitude.  The central core burns out after 8 minutes, at about 110 Km 
altitude (69 mi).  The third stage or orbiter if used in a shuttle mode
is ignited at that point from its side strapped on position and puts the
cargo into orbit.
     If you look at any picture of Energiya you will note that the 
strapons are not simple cylinders, but contain attachments at both the top and 
bottom of the cylinder.  After burnout those spring open and form air-breaks, 
which flip the strapons so that the engines are point up.  Then a parachute 
opens allowing each cylinder to land with the engines up.  The idea is that the
tankage system is cheap if it must be replaced, but the rocket engines are
expensive on a liquid booster.  The parachute system was tried out on the first
Energiya flight, but reports say that it was not used on the second (Buran)
launch (possibly to prevent complications on an already difficult mission).
To date none of the original boosters have been reused, they are just studying
the damage to them from a launch.  Do not forget these are undergoing a
solid surface landing, not a water one (hence more damage may be expected).
    The only statements about the core section (Lox/Hydrogen) are that 
currently it will not be recovered, except to study the damage to the engines.
The engines are an integral part of the frame and cannot be jettisoned.
However, on future missions it would be possible to place that entire central 
section into a low orbit.  The engines could then be separated from the 
booster, and brought down in their shuttle (the stated main purpose of which 
includes bringing cargoes down).  If or when this will occur is uncertain;
at the first flight it was stated that the core was only at 70% of orbital
speed on burnout.  That would reduce substantially the capacity of the 
booster.
    Why have they not built a space station with the core section? I doubt
if it is currently useful to do so.  Do not forget they have an operating
space station (Mir/Kvant), therefore there is little to drive them 
towards an immediate replacement.  Energiya is also a dual use system,
with several of its early flights aimed at their shuttle development.  They
will replace Mir when they have learned enough from it, in about 1995,
when that replacement station can be designed to be a very long term
system.  Lifting the tank and then filling it with equipment has been
talked about here (and was talked about for Skylab - the so called wet
lab).  However it is simply an engineering choice as to what would be
better - there is little experience on that.

                                                   Glenn Chapman
                                                   MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 17:09:11 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet probe takes first Phobos pictures

   On Feb. 19th the Soviets reported that the Phobos II probe had undergone
another orbital adjustment, but gave no details.  In retrospect, this
appears to be a circularization to a 9700 Km (6030 km) from Mars center
orbit.  This is just 320 Km (200 mi.) outside of the orbit of Phobos itself.
The first pictures of the moon were receive today (Feb. 22) according to the
short wave, and one has appeared briefly on CNN just now.  This orbit
will be maintained for about the next month, while the exact orbit of
Phobos is measured (it is too poorly known at present to try for an
immediate attempt).  It will be photographed against the star background
to provide precise navigation parameters for the final approach during
the first week of April.  This report also shows that pictures of the
Mars surface have been received, but we just have not seen them published
as of yet.
   One report from external experimenters is available.  The ESA (European
Space Agency) plasma wave system measured the electron plasma oscillations
of the solar wind in the vicinity of Mars.  During the approach to the
planet the bow shock wave, where the solar wind piles up as it hits
the planetary magnetic field and ionosphere, was crossed several times.
Satellite News of Feb. 13 quotes the principal investigator, Rejean Gerard,
as saying "The PSW instrument worked perfectly, yielding a wealth of new
and exciting information about wave activity and plasma density in the 
Martian Environment".
   Now the assault on Phobos begins.
   
                                                   Glenn Chapman
                                                   MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 89 10:14 EST
From: brantly.henr@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: SPACE RESOURCES
Cc: brantly.henr@Xerox.COM

Just for general information regarding Space Resources:

NASA has a publication available, NASA SP-428 "Space Resources and Space
Settlements" that you may find quite interesting.  (U.S. Government
Printing Office 1979 0--293-364)

>From the Preface:

"This publication contains the technical papers from the five task groups
that took part in the 1977 Ames Summer Study on Space Settlements and
Industrialization Using Nonterrestial Materials."

"This summer study was the largest and most comprehensive investigation of
space manufacturing and habitation to date."

Study Topics:

Group 1:

REGENERATIVE LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEMS and controlled environment agriculture.

Group 2:

PARAMETRIC STUDIES OF EFFICIENT HABITATS IN SPACE.  Time and cost analysis
of a space manufacturing program plan.

Group 3:

Detection and analysis of special classes of asteriods suitable as material
resources for space manufacturing; STUDIES OF RETREVAL MISSIONS.

Group 4:

ELECTOMATIC MASS DRIVERS FOR USE AS INTER-ORBITAL ENGINES, as devices to
launch lunar material into space, and as tugs for the retreval of
asteroidal material.

Group 5:

CHEMICAL PROCESSING OF NONTERRESTRIAL MATERIAL IN SPACE; manufacture of
metals and glass fibers, benefication, and design of processing plants.




----------Good Reading----------


Dennis Brantly
Brantly.Henr@Xerox
Rochester, NY

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 89 00:15:22 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <215@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>>... money taken away from manned
>>programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs.
>
>And yet the reverse appears to be true.

It has happened at times.  I think, though, if you look at the record, you'll
find that most removals of money from unmanned programs were money that NASA
never saw again for any program.  (Note, I said "most" -- there have been
some prominent and unfortunate exceptions.)
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 89 15:40:19 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <890217104456.00000F2B087@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
> Given Henry's later assertion that
> 
> >This was a *colony*, not a base, meaning no crew rotation and the intent
> >to be self-sufficient in basic materials essentially at once.
> 
> just *what* did they expect to get there in 6 shuttle flights that could
> have achieved that?

This echoes my suspicions exactly. _What_ will those six shuttle
loads contain? Sustaining life is inherently much harder on the
moon than on the earth. Thus the industrial infrastructure that
does the sustaining must be proportionately more productive than
terrestrial industry. If technology with this kind of ROI existed,
it would already be visible. You would see entrepreneurs dropping
off six pallets of gear in the middle of the Australian desert,
setting up shop, and generating great material wealth with minimal
outside trade.
 
I see problems. For example, where will the energy come from? Two
obvious sources are solar and nuclear. Setting up a largely self-
sufficient nuclear power industry in the space of six shuttle
loads with current technology seems like one of the wilder 1950's-
vintage AEC fantasies (along the lines of the atomic-powered
automobiles and unmetered electricity that were predicted at the
time). If we forget about self-sufficiency, I suppose a lunar
colony could operate a small shipboard-style nuclear plant. But I
think self-sufficiency would come sooner if the main source of
power was solar energy.
 
I like solar energy, so that's fine with me. Given the likely scarcity
of working fluids and the abundance of silicon on the moon, I suppose
we will prefer photovoltaics to thermal-electric systems.
(Concentrating mirrors will make excellent solar furnaces on the moon,
so some sunlight can be used directly.) Sunlight on the moon is more
reliable than on the earth, because the absence of atmospheric
interference means the collectors get a full ~1450 W/m^2 whenever they
face the sun perpendicularly. However, the long lunar night
necessitates some form of power storage, building multiple collector
arrays around the moon along with a large power grid, or orbiting
arrays. The last two options are out of the question for a nascent
colony. That leaves us with storage, along with perhaps a severe
night-time energy conservation strategy. The scarcity of working
fluids probably eliminates pumped hydro and gas-compression, leaving
us with the only other large-scale _proven_ energy-storage technology
that I can think of: batteries. An array of batteries big enough to
last a self-sufficient colony two weeks isn't going to fit in six
shuttle loads with much room left over. A small nuke plant looks like
a necessary starting seed.
 
The long lunar night is a big enough problem to largely offset the
advantages of solar power on the moon vs. the earth. Arid regions of
the earth have occasional interruptions, but they will virtually never
go 14 consecutive days without sunshine. But on earth solar energy
still doesn't quite compete with fossil fuels (even though
photovoltaic power prices have dropped 90% in the last decade, and are
predicted to cross fossil fuel prices sometime in the 1990's). And
here's the kicker: the terrestrial fossil-fueled economy is not nearly
productive enough to provide the average citizen even in the richer
nations with the material wealth necessary to sustain life on an
airless ball of rock. Until I see manned-space advocates everywhere
abandoning fossil fuels and growing wealthy from solar energy, energy
conservation, and recycling, I will have my doubts that they can do
this on the moon. 

Note: I would dearly love to see all of us do this, both here and
there.

Cheers,
 
Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 89 18:26:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update



This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending Feb.
17, 1989

The Air Force has successfully launched a new generation Delta II rocket
last Wednesday at 1:30 pm from Cape Canaveral, carrying the first of 21
Navstar navigational satellites into orbit.  When all are in place these
satellites will revolutionize navigation by allowing U.S. and allied forces
on the ground, at sea, or in the air to determine location and altitude
within about 50 feet.  The Air Force will launch one every sixty days until
all 21 are in orbit in a constellation about 11,000 miles above the earth.

At the Kennedy Space Center:

Technicians are securing the three oxidizer turbo pumps on the main engines
of the Space Shuttle Discovery today.  The connections between the pumps
will be leak checked, and the head shields will be installed some time next
week.  Once the heat shielding is in place cycle tests will be conducted on
the main engine valves and the orbiters aerosurfaces.  In addition a helium
leak test is scheduled for the main propulsion system sometime next week. 
A payload end-to-end test is currently under way to verify communications
between ground stations and the Tracking Data Relay Satellite/Inertial
Upper Stage payload.

On the Atlantis Orbiter tires for the nose landing gear were installed
yesterday, while two of the four tires for the main landing gear will be
arriving today and installed overnight.  The remaining two tires will be
installed over the course of the weekend.  Thermal protection system
operations are continuing.

Power up testing continues on the Columbia Orbiter as well as checkouts of
the main propulsion system.  In addition technicians have been testing and
patching the orbiters hydraulic system and repairing and replacing damaged
heat shielding tiles.

A joint research effort between NASA and NOAA has not uncovered a hole in
the ozone above the Arctic circle like the one observed above Antarctica. 
Project Scientists that investigated the atmosphere over the Arctic said
that the atmosphere is primed for ozone depletion due to an abundance of
chlorine chemicals in the atmosphere.  It has become widely accepted that
the presents of chlorine chemicals in the upper atmosphere causes a break
up of the ozone layer.  Because the coldest winter temperatures in the
arctic are warmer than antarctica it is more difficult to observe ozone
depletion.  The scientists could not verify whether there has been any
increase in ultraviolet radiation from the suns rays over the northern
hemisphere.

After six year of research and controversy, the Strategic Defense
Initiative is ready to under go some key space tests which will determine
its technical and political viability.  The tests will take place in the
coming months and will involve as many as tree satellites and experiment
next month on the Space Shuttle Discovery.  Astronauts will flash onboard
lights in the payload bay each time the spacecraft passes over the Maui
test facility.  The test will determine whether ground based sensors can
identify and track different types of spacecraft.  It was not verified as
to whether this test had direct SDI applications.

A bill was introduced by Rep. George Brown, a long time critic of SDI, that
would place a ban on all nuclear-powered spacecraft in Earth orbit.  The
bill would urge the President to get the Soviet Union to abandon use of
nuclear reactor in orbit.  If the USSR agrees to comply the US would be
bared from placing nuclear powered spacecraft in orbit.  The Bill would not
stop the use of reactors for deep space science or spacecraft.

In about two weeks Vice Pres, Dan Quayle is supposed to present to congress
the status of the new National Space Council.  As of today the council
still lacks a director, a staff and a direction.  Already four of Quayles
candidates have removed themselves from the list prior to consideration.

Florida Governor Bob Martinez will include $10 million in his next fiscal
budget to support the development of a commercial launch facility.

An Italian woman has locked herself in a totally isolated cave in New
Mexico for five months to simulate the experiences of astronauts on long
voyages.  Stefania Follini, who entered a 100 square foot plexiglas cubical 
on Jan. 13, has been sleeping 10 hours and staying awake 20, reported the
leader of the US/Italian research team.  He expects that these cycles will
lengthen.  Follini's only contact with the outside world has been through a
personal computer, on which she relays results of tests of concentration
and brain wave activity.  Results so far have shown that her concentration
seems to have sharpened during her first four weeks of isolation.

The Soviet planetary probe Phobos II maneuvered into orbit around Mars on
Jan. 29.  The spacecraft will orbit into a position close to Mar's moon
Phobos and drop off two landers that will study the moon upclose for about
24 hours.  The spacecraft as of today if functioning normally.  JPL's deep
space network lent the Soviets a hand in tracking Phobos II ten times in
Jan. to verify the Soviets attempt to place it into orbit around Mars.

Meanwhile the Soviet Union has kicked off the new year with a variety of
space activities.  Already the Soviets have launched some 9 satellites with
their reliable proton boosters, 7 of the satellites are military
communication satellites, but one will be their first attempt at
photographing central antarctica.   The Mir space station was replenished
with supplies when an unmanned progress rocket system docked to the maned
platform.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #255
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Feb 89 09:30:16 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00786>; Thu, 23 Feb 89 05:58:02 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 23 Feb 89 05:57:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wY0xjxy00jZdA1Ak4I>;
          Thu, 23 Feb 89 05:25:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.wY0xdfy00UkZEY6k5J>;
          Thu, 23 Feb 89 05:18:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kY0xcey00UkZEY5E4I@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 05:17:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #256

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 256

Today's Topics:
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			   Voyager Bulletin
	     Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead !
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		 Congressional Members and Addresses
			    Voyager Images
		       Synthetic Aperture Radar
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 89 01:09:31 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb17.173746.5590@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <703@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> >... We can't just dump people in cans and expect
> >them to huddle heroically while we try to build a reliable launcher to
> >get them back home. We have to give them the tools to not simply
> >survive on the moon, but to take it.
> 
> "We can't just dump people in covered wagons and expect them to huddle
> heroically while we try to build a railroad to bring them back."

I see similarities in the analogy, but important differences. When
people know they aren't going back, you can count on a maximum effort,
and you might be pleasantly surprised. But comparing the American West
to the Moon? 

Before the White Man "developed" the West, it already boasted a
thriving ecosystem supporting a few million people. Game was so
insanely plentiful that if you were hungry you had only to step out of
the wagon and open fire. Dealing with hostile natives (and they
generally were not initially hostile) was usually a fairly simple
matter of introducing firewater and European diseases. Weather was a
problem, but to get a nice fur coat, you only needed a large-bore
rifle and a steady aim. Building materials were plentiful if you could
swing an axe, the soil was fertile, the land was free, draft animals
were simple to raise...

On the moon you have to make everything out of rocks. I need to see
those ISS studies (I couldn't find them at the University of
Cincinnati libraries). Any references/pointers, anyone?

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 22:15:10 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb14.171358.17916@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1989Feb13.074530.17504@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>Wonderful, Henry.  Lunar colonies (= a handful of people huddled
>>underground) are feasible if you don't have to pay for little things
>>like labor, materials or launchers...
>
>Not quite what I said, which was that a startup lunar colony was very cheap,
>and looked feasible *BY 1992*, if most of the big-ticket items were donated.
>(As for "a handful of people huddled underground", most of the early colonies
>in North America started with not much more, especially after the first
>winter.)

>From "Toward a Permanent Lunar Settlement in the Coming Decade:
The Columbus Project" by R. Hyde, M.Y. Ishikawa, and L. Wood:

	PURPOSEFUL EXISTENCE.  The essence of a human settlement is not
	just to permit people to survive, but to thrive.  The lunar 
	settlement must therefore provide for purposeful activity by
	the settlers, not just huddling in a shelter waiting for ... the
	time to return to Earth to finally arrive.  Exploration and 
	exploitation of the nearby lunar environment, primarily to extend and
	enrich the settlement, is thus provided for, by both tele- and 
	directly-operated lunar rover-type vehicles... and by lunar soil
	processing modules.

>
>>By the way, how many shuttle
>>flights per year would be needed for support of this thing?
>
>This was a *colony*, not a base, meaning no crew rotation and the intent
>to be self-sufficient in basic materials essentially at once.  
...
>-- 
>The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

The colony was to be self-sustaining for two years, and had its own
return capability, so no further flights were required if the colony
were to shut down.  The total cost was to be $500 million, including
6 shuttle flights "having a current NASA-assigned value of about
$240 million" (remember, NASA in those days was pricing Shuttle flights
at $40 million each.  sigh.)  To quote further,

	To this cost of the hardware base must be added that
	of the human endeavor to carry out the Project.  One 
	peculiarly American way for the necessary effort to be 
	provided would be on a completely volunteer basis from
	all walks of American life, particularly the technical
	professional ones.  The self-selected portion of what we
	confidently believe is a huge talent pool committed to an
	American manned presence in space could clearly carry out
	the Project on the required time scales, and with magnitudes
	of ... personal contribution consonant with volunteer effort 
	by professionals holding more-or-less unrelated full time jobs.

One can argue that the Columbus Project was overly optimistic,
but the authors of the proposal _had_ done their homework.

	Jordin Kare

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 89 10:33:50 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Voyager Bulletin
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

The following is extracted without permission from the _Voyager Bulletin_,
Mission Status Report #84, January 30, 1989, published by NASA at JPL.  
(Comments in [] are mine.)

Update:
-------
	Voyager 2 is 4.36 billion kilometers (2.71 billion miles) from Earth.
Neptune lies 298.95 million kilometers (185.76 million miles) and slightly
more than six months ahead.  With a velocity of about 18.9 kilometers per
second (42,380 miles per hour), Voyager 2 travels over a million miles a day.
[...]

Encounter Period Overview:
--------------------------

	The Neptune encounter period will officially begin on June 5, 1989,
81 days before Voyager 2's closest approach to Neptune.  The first 62 days
are called the "observatory" phase, and will consist of continuous observations
of the Neptunian system and numerous pre-encounter calibrations (checkouts)
of Voyager 2's instruments.  Science observations will include repeated scans
across the entire Neptunian system with the ultraviolet spectrometer to
look for neutral hydrogen and excited ions.  The imaging cameras will monitor
long-term atmospheric motion on the planet and search for ring arcs and
satellites.  A trajectory correction maneuver is scheduled for August 1.

	On August 6, 19 days before closest approach, the "far encounter"
phase will begin.  By then, at least two narrow-angle camera frames will
be required to capture the entire planet and the ring-arc region.  Satellite
observations, detailed ring observations, and infrared observations of
Neptune will begin.
[...]

	The "near encounter" period, from August 24 to August 29, will contain
all of the highest value Neptune science, including a distant look at tiny
Nereid, a close swing over Neptune's north pole, and a close look at Triton,
as well as characterization of Neptune's magnetic field and searches for
possible ring arcs and other satellites.

	Voyager 2 will pass about 4,850 kilometers (3,000 miles) above the
cloudtops of Neptune at about 76 degrees north latitude.  This will be Voyager
2's closest approach to any object in the Solar System since it left Earth
nearly 12 years ago.

	Voyager 2's aimpoint at Neptune has been carefully chosen to bend
the flight path sharply below the equator again, where Voyager 2 will intercept
Neptune's large moon Triton at a distance of about 40,000 kilometers (25,000
miles) five hours after the spacecraft's closest approach to Neptune.
[...]

New News about the Neptunian System:
------------------------------------

	The imminent encounter with Neptune has sparked increased Earth-based
observations of Neptune's system, and some of the information is summarized
below.

Neptune:	Using the Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) at Mauna Kea,
	Dr. Heidi Hammel of JPL has detected discrete cloud features moving
across the disk of Neptune as the planet rotates.  These features are clearly
visible at 6190 Angstroms, the same wavelength as the methane-band filter
on Voyager's wide-angle camera.  As Voyager 2 gets closer to Neptune, these
features should become apparent in Voyager images.  Dr. Hammel also reports
that clouds at 38 degrees south latitude have a roation period of 17 hours,
while at 30 degrees south latitude the rotation period is 17.7 hours. 
In addition, she reports a deep haze (down to an atmospheric pressure of
about 100 millibars) at the south pole, and a higher haze (down to about
50 millibars) at the north pole and in the northern hemisphere.
	Spectrophotometry observations indicate that Neptune may have a
three-layer cloud structure of icy hydrocarbons, a thin methane haze, and
a hydrogen sulfide cloud [thereby qualifying it as the most obnoxious-smelling
planet in the Solar System].
[...]

Triton:		Estimates of Triton's size are shrinking as some researchers
	now believe that the largest diameter that Triton could have is about
4,000 km (2,500 mi).
	Judging from light reflected by Triton, the satellite's temperature
may be about 52 K for a diameter of 3760 +/- 780 km (2340 +/- 480 mi).
[...]

Rings?		And finally, the question of Neptunian rings remains open.
	Out of 110 observed occultations of stars by Neptune, only 8
occultations produced effects that could be attributed to rings or ring
arcs near Neptune.  Small satellites shepherding ring particles at Neptune
could be as small as 10 km (6 mi) in diameter at distances of a few hundred
kilometers.  And, going far out on a limb, simulations show that polar rings
around Neptune would be stable [sheesh!].
[...]

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 18:53:36 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!osiris!sics!bruno@uunet.uu.net  (Bruno Poterie)
Subject: Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead !

In article <EXz2QAy00VA90VHEoJ@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>   [... news about Hermes]
>   *Beware ! Europe (beside England) is waking up !*

You should care about your titles: Hermes is a *European* project, backed
up by the ESA. Your national pride, although comprehensible, gives a strange
idea of Europe to the locals on your side of the Atlantic:
	France first
	Great Britain never
	Germany sometimes
Believe me - a *lot of* subjects of H.G.M. are pro-Europe, including most
of their companies. It is actually Tatcher and Co who give the impression
that UK wants to remain out of the game. So _please_ do not confuse the UK
as a whole with the attitude of the British government.
[Personal note: Ne prend surtout pas ca pour un ordre, simplement je pense
qu'une attitude plus positive envers nos voisins d'outre-Manche avancera
davantage le schmilblick tant spatial qu'europe'en. Il y a d'ailleurs en
ce moment sur ce sujet une discussion tres inte'ressante dans eunet.politics,
dommage que tu ne puisses pas la suivre.]

And *for once* i may share some of Tatcher's fears: The Hermes project is
more the result of national/european pride and political motives than the
outcome of a real need. It will be dependant on a heavy and expensive booster,
and will be redundant with the American and Soviet shuttles. In order to
use it with reasonnable costs, we would need as well a sort of vehicle to put 
it outside the Earth' attraction, at least high enough outside the atmosphere
(like a wind-glider is put in position by a small plane). But this project is
not going to be implemented abny time soon. So... It is time we stop spending
too much money on expensive projects, when those costs could be shared between
all (and i mean, all space-faring entities). Military/civil control would be
the major problem i believe, but there should be a way to work that out.

*Beware* is  therefore a ill-choosen word. Why not try this line:

	*Hello* America & Russia, Europe is there and ready to cooperate!

-- Bruno Poterie, IM, Kista, Suede   email: bruno@inmic.se

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 89 20:43:24 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

One additional problem with the shuttle (vs. the Saturn V) is that a
lunar vehicle launched by the shuttle must use solid or storable
propellant rockets to leave earth orbit, rather than oxygen/hydrogen,
unless you are proposing to refuel in orbit with propellants launched
by something other than the shuttle.

If a shuttle can carry 27 tons and we use storable propellants with an
Isp of 300 to inject to and land on the moon, then six shuttle flights
lets us land about 21 tons on the moon (including the dry mass of the
landing vehicle).  Question: what was the mass and payload capacity of
the LEM?

Henry argued for the lunar colony not needing to be totally
independent by asking (rhetorically) what communities on Earth are
independent.  I do not think the comparison is fair, because
transportation costs to any community on Earth, even in Antarctica,
are far lower (by orders of magnitude) than the cost to the moon.
Therefore, we'd expect an "Earth colony" to be much more dependent
on imports than an economically viable lunar colony.

I noted with interest that the quotes from the document describing the
moon base mentioned teleoperated rovers.  This is a wonderful idea.  I
assume the teleoperation is from Earth.  If so, isn't their use
independent of whether a manned base is set up?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 00:06:30 GMT
From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!tank!nucsrl!accuvax.nwu.edu!lentz@rutgers.edu  (Rob Lentz)
Subject: Congressional Members and Addresses

Hello,
	Since we have all these wonderful ideas and opinions about what
should (and what is going to) be done with/in the space program I was
wondering if there was anybody who could post the new congressional
members of the various committees (and just plain influential positions)
that deal with space/science.  This would be especially helpful with Quayle's
report coming up and all the dire consequences people are forecasting.
Or has the list not changed at all since last year?
	Thank you.

					Robert Lentz
			      Internet: lentz@accuvax.acns.nwu.edu
				Bitnet: lentz@nuacc
				  UUCP: {gargoyle,chinet}!nucsrl!accuvax!lentz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How can you be a man, til you see beyond the life you live?"
			-Boston, "What Does It Take To Be a Man?" _Third Stage_

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 19:36:03 GMT
From: romeo!currier@cs.duke.edu  (Bob Currier - DCAC Network Comm. Specialist)
Subject: Voyager Images



Does anyone know if the Voyager images are available to the public?
If so, can they be obtained in machine-readable format, i.e. 9 track
tape, or better yet, by anonymous FTP?  For that matter, are there
*ANY* images available free of charge, or for a modest fee that can be
had for experimentation with image processing? 
 
We want to use our new NeXt box to play with the images...

Bob



|============================================================================|
| La prima parola della guerra e pronunciata                                 |
| dal cannone ma l'ultima e sempre detta dal pane.                           |
|                                                                            |
| Robert D. Currier                                                          |
| Duke University                                  currier@romeo.cs.duke.edu |
| Department of Network Communications                                       |
|============================================================================|

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 01:00:05 GMT
From: Portia!hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@labrea.stanford.edu  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Synthetic Aperture Radar


	I attended a seminar here recently about the devastating Sept, 1985
earthquake in Mexico (the one that showed why it is not a good idea to
have highly populated flimsy buildings on top of jello).

	In order to predict how often you can expect such an earthquake,
it is useful to know how much the ground actually statically moves during
one. In California, for example, they do "we expect 5cm / 1 year movement
on the San Andreas, the 1906 earthquake moved 21 feet, so expect an
Earthquake like that every 120 years or so".

	Unfortunately, they lamented at the seminar that in Mexico there
HAS NEVER BEEN A GEODETIC SURVEY! (For some reason the English and all
English-influenced cultures are big on drawing straight lines on the
ground, while Spanish-influenced cultures are not.) So although they
suspect there was a large static ground motion, they really don't know
how much there was.

	The question is, is there some way to CHEAPLY measure such
ground motions (on the order of a meter or two) from space? We had
a professor here a year ago (Fabio Rocca from Italy) who used Stolt
migration of SeaSat data from two passes over Death Valley to create
"interference fringes".  The result clearly showed elevation changes
of ~6cm in the very flat Death Valley floor. So it seems it should
be possible.

	I asked him about it, and he said if you wanted to be accurate
you'd probably need to lay out a grid of Radar corner reflectors. These
would be half-cubes of metal about ~1m on a side. Should be cheap.

	So, questions:
1) Would countries like Mexico be amenable? Would the DOD be amenable?
2) Is there going to be a SAR equivalent to LandSat anytime soon, that
   seismologists could use to measure relative displacements of their
   corner reflectors?
3) Who would be in charge of actually setting up such a thing? The USGS?
   NASA? A University?
4) Has it already been done anywhere? How did it work?

	Enquiring minds want to know...
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #256
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Feb 89 06:00:15 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA14185>; Fri, 24 Feb 89 03:40:12 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 24 Feb 89 03:40:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wY1F4uy00UkT02MEMy>;
          Fri, 24 Feb 89 03:24:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.UY1F1By00UkZQaO05V>;
          Fri, 24 Feb 89 03:20:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wY1Exwy00UkZMaMU5-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 03:17:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #257

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 257

Today's Topics:
      Phobos II probe to take next pictures of Phobos on Feb 28
	 Mir surpases other Soviet space stations in February
		  Soviets outline crew plans for Mir
			  question.shuttles
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #247
      Government/Commercial Research, Development and Operations
		      First Phobos image in 1969
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		   First concert from space--update
			Re: question.shuttles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 10:41:33 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Phobos II probe to take next pictures of Phobos on Feb 28

     The USSR's Phobos II probe completed the first pass pictures of 
the Martian moon and will take a second pass on Feb. 28th.  This new set 
will be photographed at a distance of 100 to 150 Km (63 - 94 mi.) 
according to Radio Moscow, indicating that the new circular orbit (done by a Feb. 19th burn - see my posting of Feb. 21) is closer than the 
initially planed 320 Km (200 mi.).  This may represent a change in the 
calculated burn, or the uncertainty in the position of Phobos.  Either 
way it will certainly allow much better pictures of the moon during this 
30 day period before the final encounter attempt.  Based on the stated 
resolution of the surface mapping camera at closest approach 6 cm at 50 
meters (2.5 in. at 162 ft.) this suggest that objects 120 to 180 meters 
(394 ft. to 590 ft.) in diameter can be resolved during the next picture 
set (take that number as rather uncertain - other articles talk about 
surface resolutions of 1 cm.)  This should be less than the current 
Viking Orbiter 1 photographs taken on Oct. 19, 1978 from 612 Km (382 mi.) 
with a resolution of 15 meters (49 ft. - as taken from the one reference 
I could find).  Note that as Larry Klaes said in Space Digest V9 #252,
pictures of the Martian moons were indeed taken by Mariner 9.  The dates were 
Nov. 29/30 1971 for Phobos and Nov. 26/27 for Deimos
(these were taken in part due to a dust storm on Mars at that time, 
which meant that there was little point in looking at the planet 
itself).  I could find no reference to pictures by Mariner 6/7 of the 
moons but maybe I was not looking at complete enough reports.  
Note also that Deimos' orbit is at 23,500 km (14,600 mi.) from 
Mars center while Phobos is only 9378 Km (5827 mi).  
     Unfortunately, this shift to an early attempt at Phobos will 
certainly degrade the pictures of Mars itself which were to be taken at 
the 4200 Km x 79,000 Km (2610 mi x 49,100 mi) injection orbit, just 800 
Km (500 mi) from the Mars surface, compared to the present 6300 Km (3940
mi) altitude.  However, there is some compensations as the present orbit 
is circular rather than highly elliptical, allowing more time for 
close up pictures of Mars, though at 1/8 the resolution of the 
best possible previously.
    Yes Russian equipment is not as good as the US could have made.  But 
then they are there and this country is not.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 10:23:28 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Mir surpases other Soviet space stations in February

     This month saw two significant anniversaries for the Mir/Kvant space 
complex.  Little noticed by the media (including the professional press 
such as Aviation Week, Defense Daily and Areospace Daily) Feb. 6 marked 
the second anniversary of permanent manned presence in space, while Mir 
itself has been continuously occupied since Feb. 9, 1987.  In the second 
"birthday" Feb. 20 was the third year of Mir's orbital life.  Mir is now 
by far the most useful of the Russian space stations.  It has been 
occupied for 818 days, compared to 676 days for the earlier Salyut 6 
(Sept. '77 to July '82) and 712 days for Salyut 7 (Apr. '82 to present).  
By comparison the US's Skylab (May '73 to July '79) held crews for only 
171 days.  In terms of the fraction of the orbital time these stations 
were occupied (taken from launch to the date the last crew left to give 
a fairer comparison), 75% is Mir's currently manning level, 51% for 
Salyut 6, 47% for Salyut 7 and 64% for Skylab.  Mir has also reached 
1962 mandays, exceeding the previous record of 1821 mandays for Salyut 7 
(Skylab had 512 mandays, only 26% of Mir's).  Indeed occupation of Mir 
alone exceeds by 20% the total US space experience (1642 mandays) over 
the past 27 years!  The Soviets now have 6105 mandays or 3.7 times the 
space experience of the USA, and Mir represents 32% of their total time 
in orbit.
    On board the space station Feb. 7 saw the ejection of the Progress 
39 cargo ship (then filled with garbage) and its reentry destruction.  
Progress 40 was launched on Feb. 10 to bring up another 2.3 Tonnes of 
supplies.  Alexander Volkov and Sergei Krikalev (Soyuz TM-7) have been 
up in orbit for 89 days, exceeding the Skylab 4 crew (USA's longest 
mission) of 84 days, while Dr. Valrey Polyakov (Soyuz TM-6) has 176 
days.  Cosmonauts, by the way, now hold the first 22 places in terms of 
personal cumulative orbital time, while the Skylab 4 crew occupies the 
23-25 positions.
   [Sorry about the delay in posting the stuff around Feb. 10th. The 
mailer ate my message on those events so I combined them with the most 
recent ones]
   In spite of statements from certain people in Washington the Soviet 
program is clearly not at a plateau.  These records show it - ignore 
them only if you want to hide your head in the sand.

                                                 Glenn Chapman
                                                 MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 14:17:30 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviets outline crew plans for Mir

    A report was published in the Soviet publication Turd by the head of
cosmonaut training, Lt. Gen. Vladimir A. Shatalov (himself a cosmonaut on 
Soyuz 4, 3 days in Jan. '69, Soyuz 8, 5 days in Oct. '69, and Soyuz 10, 
2 days in Apr. '71 - docked with Salyut 1, but could not enter the 
first Russian space station).  He stated that 10 cosmonauts are in 
training for Mir missions, each with 2 men per flight.  Researcher
cosmonauts who are to run experiments on Mir might be added to these crews
later on.  With the exception of a few long duration missions to expand the
research on weightlessness, most missions would last 6 months.  However,
each flight would have about a 2 month overlap with the previous mission
so that each experienced crew could train their replacements.  Two to three
missions a year would be done this way. Foreign cosmonauts could work on
Mir during that overlap period.  For example French will be sending a
spationaut to Mir every second year.  Thus Michel Tognini, the backup
for Jean-Loup Chretien's flight in Soyuz TM-7 (Nov. '88) is considered a
good candidate for a 1990-91 mission.  This would give the USSR between
970 mandays (2 person crews only) to 1456 mandays (3 person crews) of
experience per year.
   He also stated that 7 cosmonauts are in training for Soviet shuttle
missions, I. Volk (group leader), V. Zabolotskiy, 
R. Stankyavichyus, U. Sultanov, M. Tolovoyev, S. Tresvyatskiy, and 
Yu. Sheffer.  The cosmonauts are pushing for the next flight of the
shuttle Buran to be manned, but the results of the first flight must be
studied before a decision is reached.
   No women crews are currently being trained.  Svetlana Savitskaya
(Soyuz T-7, 8 days in Aug. '82, and Soyuz T-12, 11 days in July '84)
the second woman cosmonaut, was to head an all female crew of 
engineer Ye. Ivanova and physician Ye. Dobrovakshina in about 1985,
but the flight was delayed.  There problems with Salyut 7 at that time,
control systems failed early in 1985, resulting in the requirement 
to send a repair mission of Soyuz T-13 in June '85.  Unfortunately,
by the time the situation stabilized Savitskaya had become pregnant
and the stand by crew was all male due to the lack of a qualified 
women cosmonaut with space flight experience (one experienced
cosmonaut is required on each mission).  A. Viktorenko and 
A. Alexandrov from that stand by flew the Soyuz TM-3 mission with
the Syria guest cosmonaut in June 1987, while the other, A. Solovyov,
went up on the Soyuz TM-5 in June 1988.  (This does not explain why
they did not have a mixed crew of two rookie women and one experienced
man to generate other exerienced women - they probably were just not 
interested.)
    He also said some of their recent problems with the Soviet
program came from the large number of new personal being brought in
due to the expansion of their space operations.  Not all of them were
as well trained as they should have been.  They are working on systems
to guard against this. (from Aerospace Daily, Feb. 7).
    Sounds like in spite of their troubles the Russians are planning
an expansive space program for the next few years.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 89 18:42:30 GMT
From: pacbell!sactoh0!tree!guest@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Lord Shadowhawk)
Subject: question.shuttles

I'm just curious if anybody knows whether or not two space shuttles can be
launched simultaneously.....like the Atlantis and Discovery??

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 08:30:56 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb19.154324.513@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>I noted with interest that the quotes from the document describing the
>moon base mentioned teleoperated rovers.  This is a wonderful idea.  I
>assume the teleoperation is from Earth.  If so, isn't their use
>independent of whether a manned base is set up?

I don't think that teleoperation from Earth would work out very well,
given a 3-second or so round-trip delay.  It would certainly slow
things down quite a bit.

Of course, teleoperation of a rover on Mars would be even more of
a problem.
-- 
...Defending the truth...is not something one     |  Mike Van Pelt
does out of a sense of duty or to allay guilt     |  Video 7
complexes, but it is a reward in itself.          |  ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
                  --  Dr. Petr Beckmann

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 89 12:12:06 EST
From: Eric Harnden <EHARNDEN%AUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V9 #247

     re: telecope stories

what about: there's  a guy i know who uses his cat to clean his instrument.
he removes the optical component package at the viewing end and slides the
animal through the tube to pick up the dust.

Eric Harnden
EHARNDEN@AUVM

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 17:52:41 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Government/Commercial Research, Development and Operations

There are many ways to slice and dice the issue of space policy.  
One of the least appropriate and most distracting is to
portray space policy as a "manned vs unmanned" debate. 

NASA has succeeded in defining the terms of debate about space
policy.  This success is most obvious in the pointlessly divisive
debate on manned vs unmanned programs between two of the, otherwise, 
most informed and reasonable people on the net.

The real space policy issue is not between manned vs unmanned, 
expendable vs reuseable, moon vs mars, nor even between GOCO and
COCO.  

The real space policy issue is where, on the spectrum of 
technical maturity and risk from research to development to operations, 
should the government be prohibited from stepping in to provide
direct support/subsidy and what controls should be put on that
support so as to avoid self-serving porkbarrel and good-ole-boy
networks?

Various dogmatists such as Libertarians or NASA-socialists, place the
boundary at one end or the other.   Most of us, however, have enough
freedom of thought to allow a more multidimensional discussion.  Let's
focus our limited energies on that phase-space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 89 18:58:53 GMT
From: hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@hplabs.hp.com
Subject: First Phobos image in 1969


Some more Phobos trivia;

Mariner 9 returned images of Phobos in 1971-72, showing its cratered 
surface and irregular shape. Granted the resolution was poor by Viking 
standards, but at the time the images were considered to be spectacular.

In fact, the very first image of Phobos was returned by the the 1969 flyby
probes Mariners 6 and 7. In this image, Phobos is seen against the backdrop
of the Martian surface, as a tiny black blob only a few pixels wide (i.e., the
picture was taken from a vantage point "above" Phobos, looking down towards 
Mars!).  Although no features are visible on Phobos' surface, the moon's shape
is clearly irregular. I don't remember which of the two probes actually acquired
the image.  Again, the image was pretty primitive and the information content 
pretty low, but it sure fired up the imagination of more than one 14-year-old.  
I think the picture appeared in _Sky and Telescope_ in September of either
1969 or 1970.

Tom O'Reilly
oreilly@hpldsla.HP.COM

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 12:59:07 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <233@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>>I noted with interest that the quotes from the document describing the
>>moon base mentioned teleoperated rovers.  This is a wonderful idea.  I
>>assume the teleoperation is from Earth.  If so, isn't their use
>>independent of whether a manned base is set up?
>
>I don't think that teleoperation from Earth would work out very well,
>given a 3-second or so round-trip delay.  It would certainly slow
>things down quite a bit.

There will also be a communication delay for lunar operators, if they
place a comsat at the L1 point.  Or were they planning on restricting
the rovers to within line-of-sight of the base?

While earth-operated rovers may be slower, they could be operated around
the clock (at least during the lunar day).  Earth-bound operators would be
many times less expensive than lunar colonists.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 89 18:19:53 GMT
From: talmy@rand-unix.arpa  (Shel Talmy)
Subject: First concert from space--update

A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to 
stage the first ever concert from space.  A large portion of the proceeds
from this venture is to be donated to various charities.

The following is a letter that was sent to Mikhael Gorbachev that 
explains the current position to date. 



Chairman Mikhael Gorbachev
The Kremlin
Moscow, Russia


Dear Chairman Gorbachev:

We  have organized a company in the U.S.A.  whose
main goal is to produce the first ever musical concert  broadcast
from space.  To that end, we are in negotiations with some of the
most  famous  musical  stars  in the world,  many  of  whom  have
expressed an interest in performing while orbiting high above the
earth.   We  of course,  have been in touch with NASA,  and while
they  are  receptive to the idea,  are not booking  civilians  on
shuttle flights for the foreseeable future.

We  would like to explore the possibility of booking passage  for
our  "star",  on  one  of your spacecraft  with  a  view  towards
broadcasting  the  concert live from your space station  while  a
pre-rehearsed band plays the accompaniment on earth from a yet to
be determined venue.

The  boldness  of the concept provides a  unique  opportunity  to
further  stimulate  international  harmony between  our  nations,
where  the  artist  would be American,  but the  stage  would  be
Soviet.   Our aim is to do this concert as close to Christmas  of
1990  as  possible.   We would appreciate learning what  are  the
available launch dates.   We are prepared to pay any price within
reason.

We intend to donate a portion of the proceeds to further research
into  the cure of Retinitis Pigmentosa,  the World Wildlife  Fund
and  others.   We  would  also  be happy to donate  some  of  the
proceeds to a charity of your choosing.   We await your favorable
reply.

Yours sincerely,

Stanley Ralph Ross
Martin Genis

Directors

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Ralph Ross would appreciate any technical suggestions that will
make this "space concert" better.  Please direct all your suggestions
or questions to Stanley Ralph Ross, Orbit Prods., 7865 Willoughby Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA  90046, FAX #213-656-6446.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 22:01:06 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!regnery@husc6.harvard.edu  (George Regnery)
Subject: Re: question.shuttles

In article <224@tree.UUCP>, guest@tree.UUCP (Lord Shadowhawk) writes:
> I'm just curious if anybody knows whether or not two space shuttles can be
> launched simultaneously.....like the Atlantis and Discovery??

  I once heard of a plan that wherer there would be simultaneous shuttles in
flight- one would be launched from the Cape, the other from Vandenburg I
believe.

-- 
George M. Regnery       ! Worcester     ! Albedo 0.39    ! Going on means      
regnery@wpi.wpi.edu  OR ! Polytechnic   !  --Vangelis    ! going far. Going
regnery@wpi.bitnet      ! Institute     ! (a good album) ! far means returning.
CompuServe: 73300,3655  ! (Worc, Mass.) ! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=!     --Tao Te Ching

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #257
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Feb 89 07:01:58 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01491>; Fri, 24 Feb 89 05:40:00 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 24 Feb 89 05:39:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gY1Gq5y00UkTI3E05D>;
          Fri, 24 Feb 89 05:25:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.kY1Gkhy00UkZAaYk40>;
          Fri, 24 Feb 89 05:19:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sY1Giay00UkZMaXE4r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 05:17:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #258

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 258

Today's Topics:
			  Re: MARS the Movie
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
		     Re: NSS and space settlement
			     Photography
			  Re: 1992 moon base
	      Orbital debris study completed (Forwarded)
			Re: question.shuttles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 23:19:18 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: MARS the Movie

In article <890217103638.a75@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> tencati%jplgp.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
<
<
<I have seen all these videos and I must compliment the Image Processing
<people here for an excellent job!   The next movie is "Gallium Arsenide
<the Movie".

What I'm really waiting for is >>> Henry Spencer the Movie <<< 

:-)


>
-- 
          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them!"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 22:56:53 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

In article <129@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>please name a date, or cite specific criteria that would indicate
>>that the time is at hand.
>
>Criteria:  A manned mission or base is desirable when  
>1) It can return discoveries and/or resources, unrelated to further manned 
>spaceflight, that are equivalent or better than what can be done by spending 
>the same money on unmanned missions.
>OR
>2) It cannot quite meet criteria (1), but the costs are borne by the
>mission promoters, not taxpayers or stockholders.

On the whole I agree with this, but with a couple of important reservations.

First, I don't understand the mention of stockholders in (2) -- stockholders
can always take their money elsewhere if they don't like what the company
is doing.  Their *purpose* is to provide capital for the company; it is
silly to say that they shouldn't bear the costs of a speculative venture.

Second, more important, the "unrelated to further manned spaceflight" part
of (1) basically gives us the same situation that is ruining North American
industry:  only immediate returns are of interest; long-term planning and
investment in the future is forbidden.  Not a promising policy.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 03:51:36 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

In article <1989Feb20.225653.14386@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <129@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Criteria:  A manned mission or base is desirable when  
>>1) It can return discoveries and/or resources, unrelated to further manned 
>>spaceflight, that are equivalent or better than what can be done by spending 
>>the same money on unmanned missions.
>>OR
>>2) It cannot quite meet criteria (1), but the costs are borne by the
>>mission promoters, not taxpayers or stockholders.

>On the whole I agree with this, but with a couple of important reservations.
>First, I don't understand the mention of stockholders in (2)

Stockholders expect a return on their investment.  If a company promises such
a return, but does not come through, the stockholders are cheated and future 
investors will be reluctant to invest in that industry.  (2) applies to those 
people ready and willing to sacrifice their own resources; this excludes normal stock-market investors.

>Second, more important, the "unrelated to further manned spaceflight" part
>of (1) basically gives us the same situation that is ruining North American
>industry:  only immediate returns are of interest; long-term planning and
>investment in the future is forbidden.  Not a promising policy.

The reference is to "further manned spaceflight", not the future.   
I specifically included that phrase because the argument, "we should
do manned spaceflight now for the sake of manned spaceflight in the future",
is self-referencing and self-absorbed.  (And wrong anyway, because as I
have pointed out the best thing we can do for manned spaceflight in the
future is unmanned spaceflight and basic R&D now).  The space program cannot
endure as a welfare case.  




Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 89 21:19:51 GMT
From: bgsuvax!sbrown@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Scott F. Brown)
Subject: Photography


	Hello.  In the near future, I will be using our university's 1/2
meter for photography.  I will be using Tri-x film for starters.  What I
would like to know is recommended exposure and F-stop settings for the
following objects:

	1 : The moon
	2 : Brighter planets (Jupiter / Venus)
	3 : Dimmer planets (Mars, Mercury, Saturn)
	4 : Remaining planets
	5 : Bright deepsky objects (M42, M31)
	6 : Faint deep sky (M81, M33)
	7 : Meteor storms (no telescope)
	8 : Milky wat (no telescope)

	An additional note:  Anything taken through the telescope has
the misfortune of the campus lighting.  The sky in Bowling Green is bright
and causes many stars to not be visible.  Thanks in advance.

					- Scott F. Brown

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 04:37:32 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb19.154324.513@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>One additional problem with the shuttle (vs. the Saturn V) is that a
>lunar vehicle launched by the shuttle must use solid or storable
>propellant rockets to leave earth orbit, rather than oxygen/hydrogen,
>unless you are proposing to refuel in orbit with propellants launched
>by something other than the shuttle.

Don't forget that the first Shuttle/Centaur launch was only a few months
away when Challenger was lost.  A shuttle-based plan made *today* cannot
assume oxygen/hydrogen without orbital assembly or something like that,
but before January 1986 oxygen/hydrogen was a reasonable choice of fuel.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 06:29:01 GMT
From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Orbital debris study completed (Forwarded)

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  February 17, 1989

Pam Alloway
Johnson Space Center, Houston

Lt. Col. Rick Oborn
Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.


RELEASE:  89-20

ORBITAL DEBRIS STUDY COMPLETED


     The U.S. Government today released results of a 6-month
interagency study on orbital debris.

     The study, co-chaired by NASA and the Department of Defense,
cites satellite and rocket body fragmentation as the principal
source of orbital debris and concludes that, left unchecked, the
growth of debris could threaten the safe and reliable operation
of manned and unmanned spacecraft in the next century.

     A major finding concerns the limits of our knowledge about
the current population of orbital debris objects.  While the U.S.
Space Command routinely tracks objects in space that are larger
than a softball (about 10 centimeters and larger), the ability to
track smaller objects is hampered by system design.  The
uncertainty, therefore, as to exactly how much debris is in orbit
makes it difficult to assess the true risk posed to spacecraft.
This, in turn, creates uncertainty as to the urgency for action
and the potential effectiveness of any corrective action.  The
report states that the need for enhancing debris measurement
capabilities "has been universally recognized."

     The report reviews current policies and activities designed
to reduce debris or mitigate its effects and explores potential
opportunities for further action.  International efforts, legal
issues and commercial regulation also are examined.

     Along with NASA and DOD, other federal organizations
participating in the orbital debris study included the
Departments of State, Commerce, Transportation and Treasury as
well as the Office of Management and Budget, Federal
Communications Commission and the Intelligence Community Staff.

     A fact sheet concerning the orbital debris study follows.
Limited quantities of the report itself are available in the
newsrooms of NASA Headquarters, Johnson and Kennedy Space Centers
and at the Office of Secretary of Defense/ Public Affairs.
------------------------------------------------------
                                                February 17, 1989

	ORBITAL DEBRIS STUDY

     The U.S. government today released the Interagency Group
(Space) Report on Orbital Debris.

     The report is the culmination of an intensive 6-month study,
which was initiated in response to a directive contained within
the National Space policy approved by President Reagan in
February 1988.  The directive stated that "all space sectors will
seek to minimize the creation of space debris.  Design and
operations of space tests, experiments and systems will strive to
minimize or reduce accumulation of space debris consistent with
mission requirements and cost effectiveness."

     An interagency working group was tasked last July by the
National Security Council to review the extent of the orbital
debris problem, identify options for minimizing or reducing the
accumulation of orbital debris and its impact on future space
activities and recommend courses of action.  The group was co-
chaired by senior officials from NASA and DOD and included
representatives from the departments of State, Commerce,
Transportation and Treasury, as well as the Office of Management
and Budget, the Federal Communications Commission and the
Intelligence Community Staff.

     The report is written in concise, non-technical language.
It begins with a description of the current space environment, a
discussion about the major sources of debris, and an assessment
of the implications of current debris growth trends.  It then
reviews current policies and activities designed to reduce debris
or mitigate its effects and explores potential opportunities for
further action.  International efforts, legal issues and
commercial regulation also are examined.

     According to the report, the principal source of orbital
debris has been fragmentation of satellites and rocket bodies.
Other sources include inactive satellites and objects discarded
during satellite delivery or operations, such as lens caps,
packing devices or empty propellant tanks.  The report concludes
that, left unchecked, the growth of debris could threaten the
safe and reliable operation of manned and unmanned spacecraft in
the next century.

     A major finding of the report is that not enough is known
about the extent of the problem posed by small debris in the
orbital environment.  Although the U.S. Space Command routinely
tracks objects in space that are larger than about 10 centimeters
in diameter, the limited ability (a design limitation) of current
surveillance systems to detect and track the much greater number
of small debris objects creates high uncertainty in the debris
environment models that scientists have constructed.  This makes
it difficult to assess the true risk posed to spacecraft by
orbiting debris, which in turn creates uncertainty as to the
urgency for action and the potential effectiveness of any
corrective measure.  The report states that the need for
enhancing debris measurement capabilities "has been universally
recognized."

     The report's recommendations call for appropriate agencies
to make debris minimization a design consideration for all future
civil, military and commercial launch vehicles, upper stages,
satellites, space tests and missions.  This would include
promulgating and implementing agency-level internal policy
guidance consistent with the debris minimization directive of the
National Space Policy.  The report also recommends that NASA and
DOD undertake a joint study to develop a comprehensive R&D plan
to improve orbital debris environment monitoring, statistical
modeling and data management capabilities.  A second joint study,
to be undertaken by NASA and DOD in consultation with the
Department of Transportation and the commercial space sector,
would construct a basic research plan for developing technologies
and procedures for debris minimization and spacecraft
survivability.

     The report further recommends a continuing dialog between
the federal government and industry, recognizing that any
imposition of requirements on the private space sector to control
or prevent the proliferation of space debris will have important
commercial implications.

     The report also includes these recommendations:

--  Current agency operational practices for debris mitigation
during launch and space operations should be continued and, where
feasible and cost-effective, improved.

--  The following activities should be emphasized and, where
appropriate, accelerated:

        - efforts to improve debris characterization measurements
          and inventory through use of ground-based radars and 
          development of an improved data base

        - modeling and statistical analysis of the debris 
          characterization measurements

        - analysis of physical evidence returned from space

        - technological research directed toward improved 
          spacecraft shielding and a better understanding of the 
          fragmentation processes that result from hypervelocity 
          collisions

        - licensing agency development of performance 
          requirements and regulations to guide private industry 
          activities

        - ongoing studies of design and operations techniques to 
          minimize the cost of debris elimination

--  Representatives of commercial licensing agencies (DOT, DOC
and FCC) should continue their discussions to define the
boundaries of regulatory authority among the licensing agencies
over commercial activities that may produce orbital debris.

--  An ad hoc interagency working group on orbital debris,
chaired by NASA and DOD, should be retained as a coordinating
mechanism for issues, policies and activities concerning the
orbital debris problem.

--  The U.S. should inform other spacefaring nations about the
conclusions of this report and seek to enhance understanding
about orbital debris issues.  As appropriate, the U.S. should
enter into discussions with other nations to coordinate debris
minimization policies and practices.

--  Within 18 months, an interagency working group should develop
a long-term strategy for researching, developing and implementing
means to minimize the accumulation of orbital debris and protect
spacecraft operations (within an acceptable level of risk) from
collision with debris objects.  As a minimum, this strategy
should include establishing long-range goals, providing a
milestone plan and schedule leading to achievement of these long-
term goals, and preliminary resource implications.

     The Interagency Group (Space) Report on Orbital Debris is
being prepared for printing, and finished copies will be
available for distribution by early April 1989.  Meanwhile, a
limited number of photocopies is now available upon request.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 04:42:36 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: question.shuttles

In article <224@tree.UUCP> guest@tree.UUCP (Lord Shadowhawk) writes:
>I'm just curious if anybody knows whether or not two space shuttles can be
>launched simultaneously.....like the Atlantis and Discovery??

There is no theoretical reason why it can't be done, since all the big
hardware (VAB bays, launch platforms, pads, control rooms) is at least
duplicated, but the current processing and support organization is very
much keyed to one launch at a time.  Also, not all of that duplicated
equipment is really ready to go -- pad 39A is not up to 39B standard
at present, for example, and I'd suspect that there's only one fully
up-to-date control room.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #258
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Feb 89 04:37:56 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA18323>; Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:42:11 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:42:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AY1aIgy00Vs100xE4R>;
          Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:34:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.YY1a9Py00UkZMcoU4d>;
          Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:22:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gY1a3My00UkZ8cn04S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:16:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #259

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 259

Today's Topics:
	   manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
		      RE: Pigs will be pigs ...
			  Re: MARS the Movie
			      arguments
			    Re: arguments
	       ANTHROPOLOGIST SEEKS ABDUCTEE INTERVIEWS
		     What ever happened to NERVA?
		   Re: What ever happened to NERVA?
		     Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		       Current issue of Science
	 Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 22:50 -0600
From: bradley thompson <thompson%arc.cdn@relay.ubc.ca>
Subject: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

Just thought I would drop a few comments on these subjects:
1- manned vs. unmanned space exploration- I work on low gravity
experimentation in the areas of biotechnology and materials
processing. I view manned tending of my experiments as being
critical. If I get a breakdown or unexpected results I need
human capability to deal with the situation. My own personal
experiences on low gravity aircraft [ KC135 in the USA, and
the T33 in Canada] only support these beliefs. Every experiment
I have personally flown has needed in flight repairs and/or
modifications in protocol. Simple things kill experiments in
low gravity. Give me a cranky old STS mission with a overworked
astronaut any day over an automated satellite experiment.
2- commercialization in space- most of the companies I deal with
are interested in space not as a place to do things but as a place
to research processes. Most multiphase processes on Earth
are combinations of physical-chemical and gravity driven parameters.
In space we can isolate the effects of each and learn something
that normally helps out on the ground. Think of multiphase processes.
They occur in waste treatment, biotechnology, oil, coal, materials,
and a hoste of other industries. What I need is routine access to
low gravity and cheap experiments. Note I am ommitting cheap 
launch costs. Experiments are usually low mass, therefore low
launch cost. Companies need routine access to build business
plans around. 

Nuff said.

Brad Thompson
Alberta Research Council
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 10:46:14 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror)
Subject: RE: Pigs will be pigs ...

Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> writes:

>Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:


>>Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2
>>
>>	MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING,
>>	Washington, DC: Faces opposition from
>>	DoD. A satellite which could provide im-
>>	mediate photos of military activities to the
>>	media "poses a greater threat to national
>>	security" than current foreign-owned tech-
>>	nology, the AAAS was told recently.
>>
>>
>>Editorial comment:
>>
>>The above is to be expected. The military does not foster a mentality
>>that is compatible with a truely free society. The more power that
>>mentality is given over society, the farther said society will be driven
>>from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  to what it is today :-)

The argument that distribution of knowledge makes for a peaceful world has
been used in multiple espionage trials, without much success.  This does
not refute the argument (I believe it to a certain degree), but places the
burden of proof on the "distributor".  While spying per se is a dirty and
dangerous game, making available to the world something such as the status
of a poison gas plant in Lybia or the number of B-1Bs on the ground at Dyes
is reasonable, if the goal is reducing fear of the other person.

If I put up a private imaging satellite, then I can also have multiple ground
stations, and no country can stop me from producing pictures, until one
of them (choice of two) turns my bird into a metorite.  If someone wants
to put a new missle/ship/plane/girlfriend out in the daylight, I should
be able to take a picture of it.  An analogy would be your 55 Chevy.  If
you don't want me taking pictures of it, leave it in the garage.  The danger
of owning curiosities is that it makes people curious.

>Actually I would be more worried by the likely misuse of cheap high-quality
>aerial pictures by the media.  The possibilities range from the Miami Herald
>("Gary Hart Takes Cruise on Monkey Business II: Pictures of Decktop Party")
>to the National Enquirer ("Supermodel and her Secret Love Nest in the Poconos")
>to _Geraldo_ ("Did the survivors of Air Peru flight 999 really resort to
>cannibalism in the Andes?  We have the answers.")  I don't think that organs
>of the media such as the Morton Downey Jr. Show have really demonstrated
>that they are responsible enough to use this information wisely.  I'm not
>saying that the military are, either, but at least they don't broadcast it.

>I know that this assumes *really* cheap and *really* high-resolution
>photography, but not outlandishly so.  Obviously the media would say that
>they would use such a satellite for pictures of things like the Chernobyl
>incident, but given the emphasis that the networks are placing on so-called
>`trash tv' these days, how long would it be before they found some way to
>pervert it for those purposes?  Enquiring minds want to know...

Interesting.  And just who should determine what is or is not a legitimate
use of the "pictures"?  Just because you don't like the reporting style
(and I agree, those are dogs) doesn't give you, or anyone, the right to
censor the medium in question.  And that is censorship.  Either all have
equal access, or no one should have access.  I chose all and take the jerks
as a cheap price to pay.

Dillon Pyron
this time, I won't say who I work for, although the NSA knows who I am.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 17:58:10 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: MARS the Movie

In article <21969@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>What I'm really waiting for is >>> Henry Spencer the Movie <<< 

Don't hold your breath; production has been halted due to a battle over
merchandising rights.  :-)
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Subject: arguments
From: IA80024%MAINE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (nicholas c. hester)
Date:    Tue, 21 Feb 89 12:48:32 EST

i find it fascinating how each side of the manned/unmanned "debate" feels that
the other is "destroying" the US space program, tho' the unmanned side screams
the loudest. the prestige and technology gained from manned flight is necessary
politically in todays world, while the unmanned platforms provide for pure sci-
entific research and industrial production that is too expensive and unnecessar
y to be manned. if both stopped bickering and tried to cooperate a solution mig
ht be found to improve both worlds.

=Nick=
ia80024@Maine.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 01:58:15 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <Added.YY0OGTy00Ui384kE8m@andrew.cmu.edu> IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (nicholas c. hester) writes:
>the prestige and technology gained from manned flight is necessary
>politically in todays world

Manned spaceflight does not spin off more technology than unmanned.  The
fact that all private space industries are unmanned points to the reverse 
being true.  

Prestige is a matter of attitudes, which are changing.  People are realizing
that solid economic and scientific progress is in itself prestigious, while 
the glamour of manned spaceflight has faded into expensive, meaningless
repitition.  Polls show that the public prefers unmanned planetary probes
over manned missions.

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Tue, 21 Feb 89 11:36:07 -0900
Reply-To: <FNMRD%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNMRD%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: MARILYN R DUDLEY-ROWLEY          <FNMRD%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  ANTHROPOLOGIST SEEKS ABDUCTEE INTERVIEWS

Professional  anthropologist  seeking  interviews  in  Alaska  or
Southeastern   United   States  with  those   believing   they've
participated  in  "the Visitor experience".   Must be willing  to
interview on tape,  although anonymity assured.   Willing to work
with   psychology   professionals  in  those   geographic   areas
interested in the phenomenon, and who might be counseling several
such clients at present.   This is a serious study,  and  serious
persons  need  apply.   Write me via electronic mail  or  Marilyn
Dudley-Rowley, 2664 Montana Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 13:20:42 SET
From: T001119%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: What ever happened to NERVA?

I would pose a question to the net.

In an old textbook ( Sutton-Ross (?), about 1970 ) I found an article
regarding the exploitation of nuclear energy in space technology. It was
full of expectations for the NERVA and Phoebus-2A nuclear rocket engines
( maybe Phoebus-2A was intended for for electric power production : I
don't know ). These engines were promising specific impulses about 800
sec., and there were also hints at far more advanced nuclear engines,
with a liquid or gaseous core, expected to attain as much as 3000 sec.
specific impulse.
I know for sure that prototypes of NERVA and Phoebus-2A were built and
ground-tested, even if they were never flown. I wish I could know : why
were these projects dropped ( I think they were, because I had never
heard about them before ) ?  Was it because of technical difficulties,
safety concerns, financial illness, political issues ( e.g. space-based
nuclear weapons prhibition treaty ) ?  Or what else ?  Are they a
definitively closed stage of propulsion systems technology ?

 Thank you in advance,

Gianluca Zanetti

  EARN/BITnet    T001119@ICNUCEVM

  Internet        T001119@ICNUCEVM.CNUCE.CNR.IT
              or  T001119%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@ICNUCEVM.CNUCE.CNR.IT
              or  T001119@CNUCE-VM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 21:37:23 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: What ever happened to NERVA?

In article <8902211238.AA02325@angband.s1.gov> T001119@ICNUCEVM.BITNET writes:
>I know for sure that prototypes of NERVA and Phoebus-2A were built and
>ground-tested, even if they were never flown. I wish I could know : why
>were these projects dropped ( I think they were, because I had never
>heard about them before )?  
I do not know exactly why they were dropped, other than the general budget
cutting going through the NASA and the DoD at the time.  I do know that
nuclear engines are still among our most promising space propulsion options,
and the research should be revived. 

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 16:29:19 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <2052@pembina.UUCP> steve@obed.uucp (stephen Samuel) writes:
}In article <890213103429.0000076D091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
}>>Subject: Spacepac ratings by State
}>>From: Scott Pace <pace%tp3@rand.org>
}>>a rough measure of the Spacepac "rating" of each state.  Ratings of 70% or
}>>more were called pro-space, while 0-50% were called anti-space. This gave
}>>us 15 pro-space states, 9 anti-space states, and 26 "swing" states.
}>>The ranking was:
}>>California      66.5  [#20]
}> >Alaska          91    [#1]
}> although I was surprised somewhat by the poor standing of
}> >California      66.5  [#20]
}> but why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
} California, on the other hand, is just too COMFORTABLE. People in
}that state may tend to find it much easier to look towards things like
}social issues (civil rights, ecology, etc.).  

I propose that the reason that Alaska is so high is the same reason that
California is so low - people are comfortable in California and want to
stay there, psople in Alaska are so un-comfortable that they want to get
out.

Besides, -80 degrees is not so unlike Mars!   ;-)



The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 14:15:43 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb21.043732.25070@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Don't forget that the first Shuttle/Centaur launch was only a few months
>away when Challenger was lost.  A shuttle-based plan made *today* cannot
>assume oxygen/hydrogen without orbital assembly or something like that,
>but before January 1986 oxygen/hydrogen was a reasonable choice of fuel.

It was reasonable only in the sense that NASA was saying that it was
reasonable.  NASA said lots of silly things -- like the shuttle having
a 1 in 10,000 (or was that 100,000?) chance per launch of blowing up.
That's down to 1 in 3000 now.  Some progress, I suppose.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 23:29:04 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Current issue of Science

Nice issue on Atmospheric Science in Science 10 Feb. 1989.
Covers all aspects of the problems in independent way (perhaps
a disadvantage is that interactions aren't covered). Schneider's
article has a section on "Scientific Consensus" which basically says:
it's probable we will have greenhouse warming, but if you push us for details,
we can't help you, but we do need more research.  Back to benchmarking models.

Follow-ups directed to sci.environment.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Post follow ups.  Contribute to network noise."

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 21:28:27 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

In article <58*thompson@arc.cdn> thompson@arc.CDN (bradley thompson) writes:
>My own personal
>experiences on low gravity aircraft [ KC135 in the USA, and
>the T33 in Canada] only support these beliefs. Every experiment
>I have personally flown has needed in flight repairs and/or
>modifications in protocol. 

Airplane flights are very cheap compared to space flights, and man-tended
experiments make sense.  But in space, how many of the repairs can be made 
real-time? Shuttle experience suggests not very many.  How many protocol 
changes could be made through software uploads?  Quite a few.  Furthermore,
mixing experiments and people puts tremendous safety constraints on the
experiments.  For actual space experiments, it does not make sense to spend 
billions of dollars for the minor added capability of man-tending.

>What I need is routine access to
>low gravity and cheap experiments. Note I am ommitting cheap 
>launch costs. Experiments are usually low mass, therefore low
>launch cost. 

Experiments are low mass; people and the extensive life support they
need are high mass.  This again illustrates why automated research
makes more sense.

>Companies need routine access to build business
>plans around.

Routine *and* inexpensive.  This is why all serious private space ventures are 
unmanned, and will remain so (excepting expensive tourism) until a mature 
mining and manufacturing infrastructure is developed in space.


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #259
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Feb 89 06:59:17 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01685>; Sat, 25 Feb 89 05:52:28 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 25 Feb 89 05:52:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oY1c0Xy00Vs1I0v04k>;
          Sat, 25 Feb 89 05:30:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.sY1bpvy00UkZEcyU55>;
          Sat, 25 Feb 89 05:18:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YY1bnzy00UkZMcx04I@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 89 05:16:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #260

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 260

Today's Topics:
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			  centrifugal forces
			Re: centrifugal forces
		      Re: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
			 Re: Space Resources
		   Re: What ever happened to NERVA?
			  Re: 1992 moon base
	       Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		     Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 12:04:36 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Dr. Dereference)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

I'd like to make one thing clear to those who are critisizing manned space R&D.
I am defending manned space R&D in general. I agree that NASA's program has
many problems, but by pointing those problems out you only attack the current
research program, not the importance of manned space R&D in general. Criticism
should be directed at that program, not the entire field of research.

In article <134@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>John McKernan writes:
>>The basic premise in my posting is that manned space research is basic R&D.
>Then it should be funded as R&D, through the peer review of scientists.
>The manned program is not R&D.

Peer review applies to experiments, not entire fields of study. Peer review for
specific experiments in manned space is a good idea.
It is ridiculous to say that the entire field of manned space R&D is not R&D.
What do you think it is Nick? Please note that I am refering to manned R&D in
general, not NASA's current program.
 
>>It is wrong to try to catagorize some types of basic R&D as more important
>>than others.
>Then, how, pray tell, do you decide where to spend finite budgets?

The number of general fields where R&D is important (i.e. physics, chemistry,
superconductors, manned space, etc.) is fairly small. Less than 1% of GNP is
spent on this kind of R&D anyway, and because of its importance to the future
a minimum amount must be spent in each area.

>>That means that economic return on investment does not apply.
>The return in scientific knowledge, related to the dollars spent, most
>definitely *does* matter; this is the purpose of R&D.

The return from a specific experiment is what matters. You cannot attack an
entire catagory of R&D, only specific experiments.
 
>>Nick and Paul do state that it is unimportant now. This
>>is wrong because knowledge gained from basic R&D is valuble regardless (within
>>reason) of when it is learned.
>When is very important, if it means one has to spend billions of dollars
>on information that can be gained for much less in the future

As technology advances, the cost of a particular level of R&D decreases
continuously. But of course you do the R&D that can be financed now, otherwise
you wait forever. Do you think we should stop building particle accelerators
until room temperature superconducting wire costs 10 cents a meter?
 
>>Paul says that manned space won't be important for 40 years. I
>>don't think it's possible to predict technological advance with any accuracy
>>beyond 25 years, if that.
>The *time* is uncertain, but what we will need when we get there is pretty
>straightforward.  Our most expensive and essential need in space will be
>a large mining and industrial infrastructure to produce our air, water, 
>food, structural materials, machines, etc. from the resources in space.
>To create this we must (1) discover the resources with an exhaustive search
>over a wide area of the solar system and (2) create the technology 
>to process these materials in an environment of vacuum, low gravity and
>high labor cost.
>Unmanned exploration and basic R&D provide the two essential components.

While it is natural that R&D in one area is valuable in another, manned space
R&D (as I understand the term) is distinct from unmanned. Unmanned R&D will
not tell us everything we need to know to settle the solar system. One example
is your point (2) above. Mining and the construction of a residential and
industrial infrastructure are essentially manned activities. While it might be
possible to do these things entirely with robots, since the idea is to move 
people into space such an extreme level of automation is not necessary.

>>I personally believe that manned space R&D should focus on reducing manned
>>launch costs before doing anything else. 
>Launch costs are an important problem.  The problem of reducing manned and 
>unmanned launch costs is similar; breakthroughs in the latter are usually 
>breakthroughs in the former.

While both benefit from increased launch capabilities, manned space needs
inexpensive access to space for large amounts of mass much more than unmanned.
You can't miniaturize people. The focus of unmanned space today is launching
probes with the launchers we have now, not building new launchers.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results
guaranteed to advance science, satisfy every special interest group, generate
2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 89 17:05:02 EST
From: Eric Harnden <EHARNDEN%AUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      centrifugal forces

     I'm not entirely sure that this is the place to be asking this
question, but I'm not subscribed to any other list that has engineers and
physicists around, so here it is, dumb though it may be..
     In short: does centrifugal force operate on a body inside of, but not
touching, a spinning, evacuated cylinder?
     Long form: I was re-reading 'Rendezvous With Rama', by Clarke. There is
a sequence in the book where a small bicycle-driven aeroplane flies down the
axis of Rama, a sixteen- by fifty-kilometer atmosphere-filled cylinder that
spins to provide artificial gravity. There is a warning at some point to
'not get too low' (far away from the axis), because then the gravity induced
by the centrifuge would become too great for the smaller craft to maneuver
effectively in. Now, this confused me. The only reason that I can think that
this would be so is that there is an atmosphere which is being centrifuged,
and that its' action will be transferred to the plane. If the cylinder were
evacuated, and the plane were not in physical contact with it, then would it
actually be sharing the cylinder's inertial frame of reference? The cylinder
would not actually be exerting any constraints on the plane's motion. This
also sort of brings up a more general question: does the whole idea of
artificial gravity via spinning require friction, or some other kind of force
transfer/constraint mechanism, in order to operate?

Eric Harnden (Ronin)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 02:20:29 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: centrifugal forces

In article <Added.IY0SIUy00Ui34G=k8c@andrew.cmu.edu> EHARNDEN@AUVM.BITNET (Eric Harnden) writes:
>     In short: does centrifugal force operate on a body inside of, but not
>touching, a spinning, evacuated cylinder?

Is the body moving in a circle around the cylinder's axis, as it would be
if it were part of the cylinder?  If so, yes.  If not, no.

>     Long form: I was re-reading 'Rendezvous With Rama', by Clarke. There is
>a sequence in the book where a small bicycle-driven aeroplane flies down the
>axis of Rama, a sixteen- by fifty-kilometer atmosphere-filled cylinder that
>spins to provide artificial gravity. There is a warning at some point to
>'not get too low' (far away from the axis), because then the gravity induced
>by the centrifuge would become too great for the smaller craft to maneuver
>effectively in. Now, this confused me. The only reason that I can think that
>this would be so is that there is an atmosphere which is being centrifuged,
>and that its' action will be transferred to the plane...

Precisely.  The atmosphere will be rotating with the cylinder, so an object
more or less at rest with respect to the atmosphere (i.e. moving slowly in
it) will share the cylinder's rotation.

>... This
>also sort of brings up a more general question: does the whole idea of
>artificial gravity via spinning require friction, or some other kind of force
>transfer/constraint mechanism, in order to operate?

Yes:  how else to constrain the object to move in a circle?
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 17 Feb 89 15:48:52 PST
From: greer%utd201%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"

>the entire SATURN 5 system (airframe, tanks, plumbing, electrical and the
>mighty F1's) COULD BE duplicated using the existing display units as models.
> 
> Look for the startup costs to be just over $1 million. With the cost of
>finished S5-clones to run $800K per copy for the first 20, cheaper from
>20-50 (maybe a 10% cost roll-off), and cheaper yet from 50-100.
> 
> ..anybody interested in starting a company? Got a "few" bucks and a little
>vision?  Rockwell just retired a bunch of Apollo-era M.E.s...and most of them
>are just sitting around bored with their retirements!
>-- 
>-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
 
A MEASLEY MEGABUCK!?  I'd like to see 'em put THAT in those Publisher's
Clearing House Sweepstakes ads, right next to the luxury yacht and the
Rolls-Royce..."Ever dreamed of owning your own space ship?  Then enter
today!"...Yeah, sounds great!

But seriously, that's only thousand bucks from a thousand investors, or
10,000 from 100, or whatever.  If this is true, it'd be a crime to let it
go undone.  Let's do it!

----
"Pave Paradise,				|         Dale M. Greer
	 put up a parking lot."		|   Center for Space Sciences
		-- Joni Mitchell	| University of Texas at Dallas
					| UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::GREER

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89  17:17:13 EST
From: Castell%UMASS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
      (Chip Olson@somewhere.out.there)
Subject: Re: Space Resources

Uh..

From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
 (THE VIKING)

>I personally believe that manned space R&D should focus on reducing manned
>launch costs before doing anything else. I believe in this sense that virtually
>everybody in this group supports somekind of manned space R&D, with the
>exception of fanatics like Chip Olsen who don't support any R&D unless it is in
>their area of concern (ecology in Chip's case).

Ok, after rereading my article and the responses to it, I suppose I came
across as rather anti-space.  I strongly support manned and unmanned space
R&D, as long as it's done with some responsibility and with priorities
clearly set (and as long as those priorities are ones I agree with ;-) ).
Capture and mining of asteroids, settlement and exploitation of the moon
and Mars etc, deep-space probes like Voyager and Galileo, and the Hubble
Space Telescope are all things worth doing; the potential scientific and
material benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs.  It's all a question
of balance.

@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*@#$%&*
(    )  Chip Olson, 808-B McNamara, UMass, Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 546-4474.
:\^^/:   "Why be difficult when with a bit of effort you can be impossible?"
(@::@)  Bitnet:     Castell@UMass.Bitnet
 \\//   Internet:   Castell%UMass.Bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
 (oo)   UUCP:       {blah!blah!blah}!mit-eddie!castell@umass.bitnet
  ""

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 02:13:05 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What ever happened to NERVA?

In article <8902211238.AA02325@angband.s1.gov> T001119@ICNUCEVM.BITNET writes:
>I know for sure that prototypes of NERVA and Phoebus-2A were built and
>ground-tested, even if they were never flown. I wish I could know : why
>were these projects dropped ( I think they were, because I had never
>heard about them before ) ?  Was it because of technical difficulties,
>safety concerns, financial illness, political issues ( e.g. space-based
>nuclear weapons prhibition treaty ) ?  Or what else ?  ...

They were dropped because there was no mission for them, hence no reason
to continue spending money on them.  The missions, of course, had all
been cancelled or deferred in the previous rounds of budget cutting.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 02:16:36 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!sq!msb@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

> ... Sunlight on the moon is more
> reliable than on the earth, because the absence of atmospheric
> interference means the collectors get a full ~1450 W/m^2 whenever they
> face the sun perpendicularly. However, the long lunar night
> necessitates some form of power storage, building multiple collector
> arrays around the moon along with a large power grid, or orbiting
> arrays. ... A small nuke plant looks like a necessary starting seed.

I can think of one other option.  What about locating the first colony
precisely at one of the lunar poles?  There, the sun is always skimming
the horizon, but it's shining all the time... 655.7 hours per day!
And there's no problem of atmospheric attenuation is there is at the
poles of Earth.

To be exact, this is only true if the local horizon is truly level, or
if you build your solar collector on a sufficiently tall tower.  I don't
know how level the lunar terrain is in the polar areas, but if the pole
itself is unsuitable because of high ground, then the top of that high
ground itself might be suitable.

Note that no matter where you build your collector you want to pivot it
to follow the sun; at the pole it just happens that that pivoting is around
a vertical axis.  This might even make it easier; you don't have to worry
about the wind loading on the structure and can balance it on edge nicely.

Another advantage of a polar location is that it could both be in regular
contact with Earth, without needing in-space support, and yet be well
placed for visits to a part of the far side.  Hmm, I like this idea!
Anyone got a way to shoot it down?


Mark Brader, Toronto	"If the standard says that [things] depend on the
utzoo!sq!msb		 phase of the moon, the programmer should be prepared
msb@sq.com		 to look out the window as necessary."  -- Chris Torek

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 12:39:57 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Dr. Dereference)
Subject: Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration

In article <1989Feb17.174048.5656@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <8140@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>>...I do believe that the space station is a mistake at this time. In fact I
>>agree with Henry Spencer that it would be best if we simply disbanded NASA
>>(with the exception of JPL) and turned it over to private industry with a
>>policy of payment on orbital delivery only...
>
>Unfortunately, this badly misrepresents my views:  I do not favor disbanding
>NASA or splitting it into pieces, although others have expressed that view.

I'm sorry, my statement was more extreme than I really intended. It was based
on Henry's statement that NASA should get out of the launch business entirely,
and turn it over to private industry on a payment after delivery to orbit
basis. I can't reference Henry's posting on that subject directly, it has
expired at my site. It's interesting to think about how little of NASA would
be left if all launch activities, the unmanned space program, and the space
station were removed. In my opinion the station is premature at current launch
costs, and I know some of Henry's postings have been critical of it, though I
can't say for sure whether he supports building the station now or not.

I do believe that at this time government is the only practical source of
funding for a robust manned space R&D program. So maybe reforming NASA is the
best solution, but NASA has gotten so bureaucratic that it would be difficult.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results
guaranteed to advance science, satisfy every special interest group, generate
2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 18:30:10 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

>
>While earth-operated rovers may be slower, they could be operated around
>the clock (at least during the lunar day).  Earth-bound operators would be
>many times less expensive than lunar colonists.


	I fail to see why rovers couldn't be operated around the clock,
period.  Putting searchlights on them is no big deal.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 22:06:26 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar

In article <404@Portia.Stanford.EDU> joe@hanauma.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>
>	The question is, is there some way to CHEAPLY measure such
>ground motions (on the order of a meter or two) from space? 

The measurements can also be performed the other way round: the reflector is already
in orbit around the Earth. A solid sphere of copper or so, covered with corner cube
reflectors for bouncing back a laserbeam. It is in a reasonably high orbit so as not
to be affected by air resistance too much, but being small and heavy that isn't a
big problem anyway.
It is especially usufull for comparative measurements, for instance continental drift.
I can't remember the name of the satellite, but I seem to remember that it has been
up there for many years now. Sorry about being so vague...

This puts the measurement equipment on the ground, which for one thing will make
it easier to maintain!  ;-)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  |  att!groucho!sw, sw@groucho.ATT.COM
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #260
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Feb 89 05:15:38 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05578>; Sun, 26 Feb 89 04:00:53 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 26 Feb 89 04:00:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kY1vRLy00UkT83WkBM>;
          Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:37:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.IY1vH=y00UkZ0du045>;
          Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:26:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AY1v9Wy00UkZ8dsU4j@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:16:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #261

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 261

Today's Topics:
			 the un/manned debate
		     Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			  Re: 1992 moon base
    Re: Government/Commercial Research, Development and Operations
			Re: centrifugal forces
			  Re: 1992 moon base
	   Re:Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead !
			  Re: 1992 moon base
	 Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 17:00:56 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror)
Subject: the un/manned debate

The problem with arguing about the value of space research is, what is its
REAL value.  Not the intrinsic value to most participants (knowledge), but,
for instance, what does 1987A have to do with a cure for AIDS or stopping
the greenhouse effect.

What I find myself doing is getting involved with this from a view of space
only.  We don't have the luxury of living in that world.  If someone were
to come forward and offer up a cure for AIDS (or whatever you believe is
a pressing social issue), but the cost would be NASAs budget for the next
year, we'd all be dreaming for a year.

All the research, all the technology that we have going for us, and we still
can't keep people clothed, fed and housed in this country.  If you want
to argue value of research, let service to society be your true standard,
and see how far we all fall from the mark.

We should go the stars because we want to, not because it makes sense. 
We should ask questions not for economic return, but because we are curious.

Me, I've spent a week in an ice cave on Denali, so the moon colony sounds
good to me :-)

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Did anyone notice Frank Borman at
                                     | Christmas?

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 03:02:55 GMT
From: sgi!mitch%rock.SGI.COM@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Tom Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar

In article <404@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, joe@hanauma.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes:
> 
> 	Unfortunately, they lamented at the seminar that in Mexico there
> HAS NEVER BEEN A GEODETIC SURVEY!

Good surveys are not cheep. And they are rare in Mexico.  This is one
of the reasons our railroads were given the 20 mile checkerboard for
completion of the railroads in the west.  They only got the
checkerboard IF it was surveyed and the rail was set..

It seems like a big give away today.  But I don't think so.  In Mexico
today one of the largest expenses for mineral exploration is bringing
in the required high quality survey to the property boundaries.  A
single monument can cost $+20,000 (1971 dollars).  No wonder the masses
cannot rise above it.

> 	The question is, is there some way to CHEAPLY measure such
> ground motions (on the order of a meter or two) from space? 
> 	I asked him about it, and he said if you wanted to be accurate
> you'd probably need to lay out a grid of Radar corner reflectors. These
> would be half-cubes of metal about ~1m on a side. Should be cheap.

Yes,  A couple of years back Bendix had a thing in one of the employee
magazines which described a ~12inch sphere with imbedded optical corner
cube reflectors.  This had been launched into orbit just for high
quality surveying.  I have since seen (Science) articles with the same
truck van doing 'high' quality surveying in the context of earthquake
predictions.  As the technique is optical locations may be determined
within a couple of cm or so.

The best way to research this is a computer search on the "Palmdale
Bulge".  There was a large bunch of articles c.5 years back when
someone noted that geodedic leveling indicated a 'uplift' of a 
large area adjadcent to the San Andreas fault.   

As always only believe a bit of what you read,

--
Thomas P. Mitchell  (mitch@sgi.com)
Rainbows -- The best (well second best) reason for windows.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 13:25:57 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

Keith P. Mancus writes:

> I fail to see why rovers couldn't be operated around the clock,
> period.  Putting searchlights on them is no big deal.

My concern was not vision.  After all, military light intensifiers
allow soldiers on Earth to see reasonably well by starlight, the rover
(at least on the near side) will have a Full Earth overhead, and,
because of slowness due to transmission delays, it should be possible
(if not necessary) to take several second exposures.

I was worried about power.  I assumed the rovers would be solar
powered.  Keith suggested using a RTG instead.  Would this be
feasible?  If so, round-the-clock operation is no big problem.
Indeed, if the rover uses optical communications the SNR for
the signal from the rover would be higher at night.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 02:15:25 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb21.091543.8162@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>... A shuttle-based plan made *today* cannot
>>assume oxygen/hydrogen without orbital assembly or something like that,
>>but before January 1986 oxygen/hydrogen was a reasonable choice of fuel.
>
>It was reasonable only in the sense that NASA was saying that it was
>reasonable.  NASA said lots of silly things...

And a lot of things that originally made sense got retroactively declared
silly because NASA didn't feel like bothering any more.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 19:31:34 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb20.075908.5764@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
   [ lots of stuff deleted ]
> 
> While earth-operated rovers may be slower, they could be operated around
> the clock (at least during the lunar day).  Earth-bound operators would be
> many times less expensive than lunar colonists.
> 
How about this:  If we can put teleoperated lunar rovers on the surface, which
can then survey the terrain and find good deposits of materials, why not
follow up these rovers with teleoperated materials extraction robots, to
extract and stockpile materials such as glass, aluminum, iron, silicon, etc,
for a permanent colony to follow later?
Iron could be relatively easily gathered with magnets, and since the soil
has lots of silicon dioxide, glass would be easy to manufacture.  But how
about aluminum?  Has anyone done any study of a closed-loop method for
extracting aluminum from the lunar soil?  If possible, it would make a good
building material.  How about silicon?  If pure silicon (i.e. 98% +) can
be extracted, then a robotic float-zone puller could eventually get pure
enough silicon for the manufacture of solar cells.  If the process is highly
automated and produces large quantities, then even 5% efficiency is adequate.
What about power storage?  Are the materials present to construct batteries
of any form?  In a closed-loop process?

In short, if we could put a teleoperated surveyor on the lunar surface, why
not go one step further and stockpile resources?  Apart from the $$$$$$$$$$,
what's to stop it?


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

Useful criticism always appreciated.  Senseless flames always discarded.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 05:00:58 GMT
From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Government/Commercial Research, Development and Operations

In article <8902210156.AA22066@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:
>The real space policy issue is where, on the spectrum of 
>technical maturity and risk from research to development to operations, 
>should the government be prohibited from stepping in to provide
>direct support/subsidy and what controls should be put on that
>support so as to avoid self-serving porkbarrel and good-ole-boy
>networks?

My analysis is based on U.S. politics.  The U.S. had a very successful 
history of policies that promoted new industries and opened new frontiers.
(Note the past tense).

Government should provide funds for both exploration (as it did for Lewis 
and Clark et. al.) and basic research.  Furthermore, it should provide 
incentives for the creation of new industries, as with the railroad (c.  
1840-1870) and air transportation in the 1930's.  It should not own or 
operate these industries.  

Translating these policies into the current space program, the government 
should fund scientific missions (eg planetary probes, Mission to Planet
Earth) based on their science return, and basic R&D to develop better 
technology for future scientific and commercial applications.  It should
subsidize new industries of large potential by providing garunteed purchases,
tax breaks, patents, import quotas, etc. to the extent that these measures 
do not harm other new industries.  

A technology is mature enough to be operated privately if it can be done
at a profit, given reasonable government new-industry incentives.
Launchers can and should be operated privately (except time-critical 
launchers for the DoD).  Similarly, communications (including TDRSS and 
the DSN) and remote sensing should be privately operated.  Research in
commercial applications (eg free fall processing, optical space communications)
is properly done by  the government.  Incentives for private research (eg 
patent rights and flight cost subsidies) are also desirable.

Environmental constraints, labor regulations, etc. should be softened 
where needed as an incentive to new industry, with the full knowledge that
these constraints will be stiffened to the norm after the short incentive
period.  Internationally, the government should promote the interests of the 
new industries under its jurisdiction, and provide free legal counseling.


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 03:46:17 GMT
From: gauss.rutgers.edu!math.rutgers.edu!aberg@rutgers.edu  (Hans Aberg)
Subject: Re: centrifugal forces

The reply to the question in the long form is yes, if there were
vacuum, or no other forces keeping the object in orbit, there would
no artificial gravity. (But an aeroplane is hard to maneuver in
vacuum.)

The short form question is more tricky, because one needs to define 
the meaning of a centrifugal force; so I leave that.

Hans Aberg, Mathematics
aberg@math.rutgers.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 17:55:27 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <714@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>> "We can't just dump people in covered wagons and expect them to huddle
>> heroically while we try to build a railroad to bring them back."
>
>I see similarities in the analogy, but important differences...

Agreed that the cases are not entirely parallel (although they are not
parallel in more ways than you mention, notably the fact that we've got
much better technology to send with our pioneers), but I think I made
my point:  historically, colonization has often been a one-way trip with
return difficult or impossible, and it is not ridiculous to assume the
same in space.  Such an assumption may not be *desirable*, but it is
not ridiculous; there would be no shortage of volunteers.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 21:09:05 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Re:Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead !

>You should care about your titles: Hermes is a *European* project, backed
>up by the ESA. Your national pride, although comprehensible, gives a strange
>idea of Europe to the locals on your side of the Atlantic:
>       France first
>       Great Britain never
>       Germany sometimes

In a way I have to agree with the above.
But for *HERMES* the case is the same that with ARIANE.

At the biginning NO ONE else wanted to support it or to be part of it.
Then when the project began to engrange successes, everybody
joined the train !!  The Germans being the more honest of all.

HERMES follow the same path. 2 years ago nobody wanted to hear
about it. To push it the French agreed to pay for more than one half of cost.
Now (almost) every nation wants its name on it !!

>And *for once* i may share some of Tatcher's fears: The Hermes project is
>more the result of national/european pride and political motives than the
>outcome of a real need. It will be dependant on a heavy and expensive booster,
>and will be redundant with the American and Soviet shuttles.

Bruno, if you were following the discussion in American politics, you would
realise
than very few people are ready to share any technologies concerning space or
the shuttle in particular. Yes we will have an almost redundant system but it
will be ours and we won't have to wait and prostitute ourselves.

Remenber the outrageous conditions that Americans space launchers asked 10-20
years ago for satellite launchs until the monopoly was broken by Ariane !!

We can't afford that !.

A funny things is the new openness of the Soviet. We can do more with them now
than with the Americans.

(I want to add that this is no insults to the American audience. I am studing in
this
country and very happy to be doing so !!)

To speak about the British Government. I agree with you Bruno. The English people
in great generality support Europe.

Just the attitude of the English government (expressing also the fears of the
American
to see Europe unifying itself) is making me mad. !!!

Jean-Marc.
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 02:46:59 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!sq!msb@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In case my article with the incredibly stupid mistake about the lunar
poles has escaped my cancel message and reached you -- please ignore it!

Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
	"I'm a little worried about the bug-eater," she said.  "We're embedded
	in bugs, have you noticed?"		-- Niven, "The Integral Trees"

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 13:44:01 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

In article <58*thompson@arc.cdn>, thompson@arc.CDN (bradley thompson) writes:
> Every experiment
> I have personally flown has needed in flight repairs and/or
> modifications in protocol. Simple things kill experiments in
> low gravity. Give me a cranky old STS mission with a overworked
> astronaut any day over an automated satellite experiment.

What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig? Touchy force-feedback
requirements? Rapid time scales making propagation delays unacceptable?
Inadequate video/audio transmission? Lack of suitable binocular/pseudo-3D
display (e.g., VIVED)? The importance of smell?

> What I need is routine access to
> low gravity and cheap experiments. Note I am ommitting cheap 
> launch costs. Experiments are usually low mass, therefore low
> launch cost. Companies need routine access to build business
> plans around. 

When human life support is necessary, low mass goes out the tailpipe.
If the $ billions wasted on the shuttle had gone into developing
teleoperated devices and cheap, expendable boosters, you would be
much closer to satisfaction today.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #261
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Feb 89 08:15:46 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01270>; Sun, 26 Feb 89 05:40:44 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 26 Feb 89 05:40:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4Y1x4By00UkT82WU5I>;
          Sun, 26 Feb 89 05:27:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.YY1wwBy00UkZIe5k5c>;
          Sun, 26 Feb 89 05:18:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EY1wuAy00UkZEe4E5j@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 05:16:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #262

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 262

Today's Topics:
			  manned spaceflight
		       Re: the un/manned debate
	    Re: An integrated space program for the world
			Re: manned spaceflight
			Re: Energia questions
			Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
			Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
			   More good news!
	 Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
		       The Fascism continues...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 15:51:26 GMT
From: rochester!cooper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: manned spaceflight

From: cooper

The value of an endeavour is often hard to quantify.
Consider the Apollo moon landings. A group of people
set themselves the extremely difficult (many said impossible)
goal of landing people on another planet, and
in very short order achieved it.

I'd say this changed the human race's view of itself in a positive way
more than any other event in human history. It completely redefined the
scope of what humanity was capable of achieving, for almost every single
living person. For a few billion bucks, seems like a bargain to me.

It seems pretty clear that purely technical achievements (unmanned probes, for
example) cannot ever provide this kind of priceless value.

....space is all about expanding scope, and breaking limits.....

cooper@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 17:29:45 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <136@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Of course it's not, and never will be, since money taken away from manned
>>programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs.
>
>Just what evidence do you have for this?  I recall that after Apollo was
>cancelled, money was shifted into Viking and Voyager, among other things...

Please have someone run diagnostics on your memory. :-)  The heyday of
unmanned planetary exploration was in the Apollo days.  Unmanned funding
declined more or less in step with manned funding when Apollo began to
end.  Viking and Voyager were shrivelled remnants of much more ambitious
earlier programs.  Viking, in particular, was a joke compared to the
original Apollo-era Voyager project, which was the most ambitious unmanned
planetary program ever planned.  (The name "Voyager" got reused later,
once the original was dead.)  I'm unaware of any Apollo funding being
shifted into anything except Vietnam and the pork barrel.

> On
>the flip side, it is clear that the U.S. solar-polar and Halley missions
>were cancelled, and Galileo, Magellan, Space Telescope and Mars Observer
>were delayed, due to the funding priorities and delays of the Space Shuttle
>program...

To quote one more skeptical observer at the time, "don't you give a major
recession any credit at all?".  Yes, unmanned programs were starved almost
to death during Shuttle development... but so was the Shuttle.  The only
case I'm aware of where unmanned funding was definitely and unquestionably
diverted to manned spaceflight was one nasty year during Shuttle development,
when the Shuttle was so starved that it ended up taking bites out of a lot
of other NASA programs (not just unmanned spaceflight) to survive.

One can argue about whether Shuttle priorities have hampered funding for
other projects.  Undoubtedly they have, to some extent.  But this isn't
confined to manned-vs-unmanned.  At various times in the past there've
been a good many unmanned-spaceflight partisans who would have cheered
if Galileo had been cancelled, because it has done the same thing to a
lot of smaller unmanned projects.  The SSEC argued most pointedly that
the small projects are more cost-effective and deserve protected funding.
"When the elephants dance, the mice stay off the floor."  This sort of
thing will happen any time you get big projects with lots of staff and
smaller ones sharing the same budget; it would happen if the US had no
manned space program at all.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 17:03:11 -0600
From: Mark William Hopkins <markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>
To: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil, space@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: An integrated space program for the world
Cc: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu

The political climate is subtly changing in such a way that no individual
nation's power no longer exceeds the combined power of world opinion.
For example, the UN's intervention in the Iran-Iraq war, in Angola and
Namibia, are pointing toward this trend.

The point is that the Sahara project is not something to be accomplished
with world cooperation as a prerequisite, but rather as a means to that
end.  But all in all, I think that the opportunity is finally dawning on
us today to accomplish major engineering projects such as this.

Judging by the response, though, I would still tend to think that a lot of
people are somewhat skeptical towards this assessment of the current and
future political situation.  But the world is getting to be way too
small for there to be autonomous nations -- especially with what is already
going on with other climate problems such as the depleting Ozone layer
or the Greenhouse Effect.

There will be cooperation, or extinction.  That time of reckoning is no
longer in the future (as so many Sci. Fci. scenarios depict it), but
today.

The big stumbling block is getting the superpowers together on such a plan.
That, alone, would turn the tide of opinion.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 21:32:52 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: manned spaceflight

In article <1989Feb22.105126.6527@cs.rochester.edu> cooper writes:

>Consider the Apollo moon landings. A group of people
>set themselves the extremely difficult (many said impossible)
>goal of landing people on another planet, and
>in very short order achieved it.

Sending probes to other planets was considered equally, if not more,
difficult.  It has turned out to be much easier.  This discovery, which
has still not sunk in to many space enthusiasts, is more significant than
Apollo.

>I'd say this changed the human race's view of itself in a positive way
>more than any other event in human history. It completely redefined the
>scope of what humanity was capable of achieving, for almost every single
>living person.

Space communications and remote sensing (unmanned activities) have changed
our lives and worldviews more fundamentally than Apollo.  Unmanned planetary
probes have explored a much vaster and more diverse part of the solar system
than manned missions.

>It seems pretty clear that purely technical achievements (unmanned probes, for
>example) cannot ever provide this kind of priceless value.

This is not clear, it is wrong.  First, "manned" missions are no more or less
"purely" technical achievements than "unmanned": both involve people and
technology.  Second, many people, James Michener comes immediately to mind,
found Viking and Voyager to be more astounding and important than Apollo.

>....space is all about expanding scope, and breaking limits.....

Indeed it is, and unmanned space projects have expanded our scope much
farther, and have broken many more limits, than manned projects.


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 10:26:33 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Energia questions
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

For some reason I had thought that Energia had made more than two flights...

uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Andrew Higgins):

>The four first stage boosters fall away in pairs and parachute back to Earth
>ready for refuelling and further use, while the core stage splashes down in
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the Pacific.  Though it might be noted that the Soviets have yet to demonstrate
>this capability.

What are you saying here?  That the core has the capability of making a
soft landing, presumably for re-use?  That would require atmospheric heat
protection and a parachute system, the heat shield would add a lot of weight, 
is it worth it?

What's the atmospheric drag like at Mir's altitude?  Presumably not much
since it is fairly big already.  What if the Russians started boosting
the cores to dock with Mir?  Can you imagine how fast that thing could
grow?  Since I haven't seen what I would call a sufficient reason why we
shouldn't put shuttle E.T.s in orbit, I can only assume that the Russians
are going to do the obvious and put Energia cores in orbit.  They've already
demonstrated the ability to improve on our designs (liquid- instead of
solid-fuel boosters for their shuttle carrier, jets on the shuttle, tele-
operated piloting mode).

I just saw a re-run of "The Absent-Minded Professor".  There's a scene where
the professor flies his Flubber-equipped Model T to Washington and the Air
Force tracks it as a UFO.  They broadcast a radio warning that they will
shoot it down unless it identifies itself and a colonel gives it ten seconds
to do this.  As he counts, an assistant interrupts to say that the object 
has gone behind the Capitol dome and if they fire at it, they'll kill every 
Senator and Congressman.  The colonel stares into the camera, and without 
missing a beat, continues counting: "Nine..."  I know the feeling.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 12:42:57 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

In article <1220@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>There is not much point in resurecting the Saturn IB when the Titan
>IV, Proton, and Ariane V all have, or will have, equivalent
>performance.

It is also worth noting that the Ariane V will be man-rated.
I believe the proton is too.

Is there any plans to do this with the Titan IV?
	bob.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 18:41:32 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

In article <1441@etive.ed.ac.uk>, bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
> 
> It is also worth noting that the Ariane V will be man-rated.
> I believe the proton is too.
> 
> Is there any plans to do this with the Titan IV?

Here we go again--Wehrner Von Braun is probably spinning in his grave at
this thought.  I seem to recall that he strenuously objected to every 
flying men on rockets with solids.  If they man-rate Titan IV, it will 
be the second manned launch vehicle with solid boosters.  Perish the thought!


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

Useful criticism always appreciated.  Senseless flames always discarded.

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 07:26:51 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: More good news!


Vice President, Dan Quayle, head of the newly revitalized Naional
Space Council, has been reached through our far reaching network of
political contacts.  He agrees the CDSF is the way to go.

He will throw the full weight of the NSC behind this plan as
a test of its capability to influence space policy in the face
of NASA intransigence.

Would you please all write to him expressing your support for his
position?

He can be reached care of the White House:

Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 17:37:56 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

In article <718@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>> Every experiment
>> I have personally flown has needed in flight repairs and/or
>> modifications in protocol. Simple things kill experiments in
>> low gravity. Give me a cranky old STS mission with a overworked
>> astronaut any day over an automated satellite experiment.
>
>What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig? Touchy force-feedback
>requirements? Rapid time scales making propagation delays unacceptable?
>Inadequate video/audio transmission? Lack of suitable binocular/pseudo-3D
>display (e.g., VIVED)? The importance of smell?

The complete lack of an adequate, workable "tele-operated rig" available
as reliable off-the-shelf hardware, perhaps?
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1989 17:42-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: The Fascism continues...

Space Calendar, Feb 20-26-1989 p3:

	Mediasat International, Arlington VA: President Mark
	Brender reports that in the 18 January issue of The Federal
	Register a notice on remote sensing satellite rules was
	published by the Commerce Department and NOAA. Says
	the notice, "NOAA plans to undertake furthur rule making to
	reassure potential satellite license applicants that the US
	government would not unreasonably restrict licensing for
	commercial remote sensing satellites. At the same time,
	NOAA firmly declines to consider adopting a first amend-
	ment-based standard to test the risk to national security that
	would justify operating restrictions." According to Brender,
	the Radio and Television News Directors Association
	(RTNDA) will continue to urge NOAA to adopt rules that will
	clearly articulate the correct legal standards.
	Info Mark Brender, Mediasat International, 4419 Seventh St
	North, Arlington VA 22203; 202-887-7724

EDITORIAL: I'm glad to see that NOAA is publicly admitting it does not
believe itself bound by the Constitution of the United States. But
then, we've known for a long time that the government of the US is no
longer bound by constitutional law. Anyone who has watched the behavior
of presidents, congressmen or the military over the past four decades
knows this to be true. (I start with Roosevelt, the Supreme Court
Packer)

The First Amendment was clearly intended to cover all communications.
The fact that certain modern forms of information were beyond the
imagination of it's framers is irrelevant. Franklin and Paine are quite
clear in their beliefs that government has no rights to control
information flow. It was only the Hamiltonian ilk that wished such foul
state control (as in the Alien and Sedition Acts).

The Bill of Rights is becoming more and more of a problem for those who
rule the United States. They do not believe in it except when it serves
their own purposes, and those purposes are more often than not, power
and privilege.

Those who wield the power in this country are not the "capitalists".
Anyone who thinks the US is a capitalist country is much mistaken. (Not
there there aren't more surviving pockets of it than you will find most
places) The US is ruled by a group of career politicians, generals and
bureaucrats. The closest definition of what they have wrought is "State
Capitalism", or more simply, Fascism.

I would love to see these kinds of "people" (I use the word lightly)
behind bars. But courts do not bring down decisions that significantly
affect the desires of the ruling class. Any court in history that has
done so recieved a rude awakening about who had the guns. Government
and power ultimately came from the barrel of a gun and not from law.

Given the improving financial condition of SpotImage and the sudden
interest by the US government in a "joint venture", I really have to
wonder if this is an attempt by the DOD to get partial control over the
only other (outside of the soviet union) remote sensing system in the
world. The US and the USSR tend to have "gentleman's agreements about
not embarassing each other with spy satellite images. Honor amongst
theives, as they say. But the French are too damned independant and too
likely to develop something like real time imaging of world trouble
spots.

I suggest that the reason for the sudden interest by the US government
in Spot Image is the desire of the DOD to have a veto power over all
remote imaging systems on Earth.

I hope the French are smart enough to give the US government a
resounding, "NON!!!!" to this attempt to control them. I hope
that the American people would give a resounding "NO" to NOAA. But I
seriously doubt they will.

					Free Minds and Free Markets,
					Dale Amon

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #262
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Feb 89 07:08:13 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA12357>; Mon, 27 Feb 89 04:07:31 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 27 Feb 89 04:07:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wY2Ef=y00Vs1A1BE5d>;
          Mon, 27 Feb 89 03:46:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.4Y2EGry00UkZMf704U>;
          Mon, 27 Feb 89 03:20:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY2EDey00UkZ4f5U5=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 03:16:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #263

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 263

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		       Re: the un/manned debate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 19:09:22 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #463 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 52.33506446 0.00000313           36577-3 0  1859
2 00424  80.4595  40.0220 0024915  69.0184 291.3652 13.67077530316984
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 50.96400173 0.00000000           10000-3 0  6596
2 08820 109.8077 189.9320 0044691 340.7791  19.0874  6.38664007 43140
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 49.09834618 -.00000007                   0  2288
2 10061   6.8689  69.7118 0007318 182.4683 177.7958  1.00266245  4183
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 47.29564477 0.00000012                   0   353
2 10684  63.5169 104.5823 0106310 198.6707 161.0048  2.00561899 66106
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 47.25139571 -.00000028                   0  9575
2 10893  64.5352 345.4191 0149238  28.1734 332.6175  2.00560048 78925
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 51.14602075 0.00000090           10000-3 0  5905
2 10953   5.7466  72.3673 0010057 253.4302 106.9846  1.00269805  1464
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 47.09926278 0.00002310           86484-3 0   779
2 10967 108.0111  38.2804 0001472 288.4026  71.6977 14.34288013556722
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 47.06824264 -.00000028                   0  9844
2 11054  64.0923 341.9188 0052091 117.2116 243.3248  2.00560185 75934
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 52.16326277 0.00000012                   0  1012
2 11141  63.5140 104.3245 0081256 319.9179  39.4420  2.00552911 74737
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 49.09633097 0.00001483           64374-3 0  8115
2 11416  98.5037  49.6637 0012305 100.0559 260.2023 14.25482643500934
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 53.09095023 0.00049619           11654-2 0  8564
2 11703  28.5004   4.8697 0003124 225.2112 134.8169 15.40645933502001
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 40.64907892 -.00000028                   0  8433
2 11783  63.9035 341.7936 0139033  62.3184 299.0901  2.00566038 64442
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 31.83054292 -.00000125           10000-3 0   505
2 11964   5.1628  75.4889 0035056  93.1723 267.2187  0.99232053   679
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 47.00291526 -.00000248           10000-3 0  6949
2 12472   2.2354  81.9841 0004457 326.2677  33.8779  1.00282750 27391
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 48.55577078 0.00058464           12468-2 0  4578
2 12888  97.5813  95.8038 0003250 156.6309 203.5093 15.44699395410434
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 45.67438189 0.00000448           39388-3 0  6234
2 13113  82.5440 156.1349 0016619  50.1258 310.1384 13.83937442348297
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 51.76295734 0.00035275           94508-3 0  4470
2 13138  51.6127 165.9194 0000686 353.5366   6.5732 15.37661767390257
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 44.97562209 0.00000370           18950-3 0  7471
2 13718  81.2442  42.0704 0056244 350.8032   9.2096 14.13081586318153
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 43.97965187 0.00000121                   0  9101
2 14050   0.9882  84.2081 0000453 279.8763 355.8845  1.00265980  5369
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 44.26630755 -.00000008           10000-3 0  3790
2 14129  26.6809 280.2786 6055765  17.2066 356.6609  2.05878094 14664
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 40.74036426 0.00000011                   0  6050
2 14189  63.1490 103.3440 0133449 214.6235 144.5770  2.00572908 40881
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 47.17364452 0.00000593           25106-3 0  6907
2 14452  81.1597  54.8090 0096431  85.2536 275.9655 14.21999061275349
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 46.36496470 0.00002422           54727-3 0  6529
2 14780  98.1787 110.8600 0001298 233.9620 126.1520 14.57122910263823
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 48.58832771 0.00002862           56662-3 0  4092
2 14781  98.0229 110.8213 0013273 341.8255  18.2631 14.62996245265050
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 48.20509040 0.00034111           74513-3 0  7607
2 14898  28.5093 296.9062 0002336 340.6455  19.4693 15.42802072272851
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 47.27699171 0.00000011                   0  6243
2 15039  62.8913 102.4511 0015188 281.0750  78.8227  2.00564671 34292
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 47.54455613 0.00000295           25798-3 0  9242
2 15099  82.5302 102.3367 0012159 211.1449 148.8986 13.83611369233438
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 50.16870139 -.00000028                   0  5730
2 15271  63.4023 341.3063 0099680 318.3324  40.7852  2.00562617 31461
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 52.03864643 0.00003783           55823-3 0  9795
2 15331  82.5354  85.6146 0026596 100.9873 259.4336 14.74854958237096
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 41.43112783 0.00001069           60598-3 0  3338
2 15427  99.1327  25.9792 0014881 312.5249  47.4947 14.11821401214560
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 41.08309003 0.00000126           10316-3 0   503
2 15516  82.5306  45.8499 0017846 109.3436 250.9654 13.84030867203472
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 52.15291198 0.00015423           42011-3 0  1730
2 16095  51.6087 164.0252 0000847 281.7346  78.4211 15.37665152390310
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 41.34990022 0.00000012                   0  2961
2 16129  63.6714 103.1894 0115548 150.5484 210.1806  2.00565329 24494
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 39.65228076 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8037
2 16191  82.5509 326.6335 0018441 260.7677  99.1415 13.16859281158603
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 48.69205070 0.00000300           25891-3 0  4611
2 16408  82.5366 314.6800 0015296 279.7134  80.2320 13.84121776159021
Mir        
1 16609U          89 51.75060112 0.00057348           42852-3 0  6994
2 16609  51.6193 230.0885 0012169 301.3870  58.5808 15.72037900172981
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 52.74202406 0.00001755           84225-3 0  3711
2 16613  98.7095 128.9928 0001615 119.5264 240.6323 14.20062041 68315
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 41.84631399 0.00000253           21787-3 0  2773
2 16735  82.5372 346.8758 0015664  10.3925 349.7569 13.83848906136984
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 52.99829129 0.00005750           85562-3 0  5257
2 16881  82.5278 144.4099 0024820 112.6625 247.7341 14.74587130138312
EGP        
1 16908U          89 38.17532047 -.00000033           38697-4 0  1176
2 16908  50.0133 337.7587 0011308  16.5812 343.5388 12.44375026113221
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 38.07742442 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1299
2 16909  50.0179 338.2722 0011061  13.5524 346.5603 12.44397497113209
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 41.58262838 0.00000786           36667-3 0  1909
2 16969  98.6510  74.4169 0012704 257.6903 102.3104 14.22804260125939
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 47.03551444 0.00000212           18169-3 0  2246
2 17290  82.4674 250.9476 0012200 242.0465 117.9453 13.83666575106864
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 32.87866317 -.00000103           10000-3 0  2270
2 17561   0.0936 256.3952 0004029 308.3915 155.2428  0.99988189   408
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 52.13199516 0.00059648           44452-3 0  6770
2 17845  51.6196 228.1341 0012288 301.9370  57.9506 15.72083211109316
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 51.85471640 0.00000014           88683-5 0  6752
2 18129  82.9313 324.0928 0012418  21.4050 338.7645 13.71944261 83448
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 52.70547397 0.00202690  20071-4  29209-3 0  9004
2 18225  71.8859   5.4496 0009309 236.0691 124.0118 16.05154252 92777
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 48.06578440 0.00000448           39818-3 0  2426
2 18312  82.5600 314.7178 0011815 167.5822 192.5632 13.83426607 75905
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 50.85139095 0.00000282           24377-3 0   854
2 18820  82.5397  13.7863 0015569 236.8107 123.1589 13.84095740 53453
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 40.26552022 0.00000016           10000-3 0   300
2 19216  57.3661 220.4414 6656511 198.6348 115.5647  2.09697875  5057
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 50.53188374 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1338
2 19336  82.5376 258.9090 0016865 109.6056 250.6747 13.16855300 27429
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 40.27281070 0.00000621           36716-3 0   442
2 19531  98.9254 344.9999 0011096 233.3855 126.6295 14.10800815 19437
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89 52.13198168 0.00066097           49090-3 0   895
2 19660  51.6253 228.1424 0014021 302.3236  57.4676 15.72089267 13631
Cosmos 1986
1 19734U          89 30.04555172 0.00231193  10296-4  15848-3 0   635
2 19734  64.7693 165.7278 0036026 181.2863 178.8084 16.14732981  5107
1989 001A  
1 19749U          89 40.54122425 0.00000021           10000-3 0   386
2 19749  64.8623 174.9880 0005168 283.2404  76.6691  2.13102189   665
1989 001B  
1 19750U          89 40.59991529 0.00000021           10000-3 0   450
2 19750  64.8828 174.9892 0004542 255.2470 104.6752  2.13102350   664
1989 001C  
1 19751U          89 40.53193346 0.00000021           10000-3 0   377
2 19751  64.8741 174.9866 0009234 258.6758 101.1945  2.13155878   668
1989 001F  
1 19754U          89 32.99756385 0.00000021           10000-3 0   144
2 19754  64.8732 175.2408 0014280 316.8939  42.9607  2.13419920   480
1989 004A  
1 19765U          89 50.20491269 0.00000128           10000-3 0   314
2 19765   1.4114 276.1293 0003273   2.0260 357.6579  1.00267808   257
1989 005A  
1 19769U          89 53.07229554 0.00001097           42761-3 0   294
2 19769  74.0528 320.1490 0024657 275.9717  83.8608 14.30609131  3780
1989 005B  
1 19770U          89 50.86702685 0.00001455           54285-3 0   215
2 19770  74.0501 323.9885 0010082 334.3912  25.6812 14.32723153  1159
1989 006A  
1 19772U          89 49.50292193 0.00000185           10000-3 0   108
2 19772   0.2198 258.9479 0009629 196.6924 264.4338  1.00314990   215
1989 006B  
1 19773U          89 50.71628201 -.00000028           10000-3 0   205
2 19773   8.3524 304.8710 7194025 196.2339 117.1882  2.25496289   549
1989 007A  
1 19774U          89 52.90030017 0.00463426  34170-4  28376-3 0   716
2 19774  64.7330 259.8523 0124711 108.2147 242.7111 16.02644467  3939
1989 004F  
1 19776U          89 44.52722249 -.00000068           10000-3 0   122
2 19776   1.4516 276.1445 0024509 312.9245  46.8061  0.97994865   208
1988 095F  
1 19777U          89 43.80302547 -.00000066           10000-3 0   126
2 19777   1.2251 275.2099 0013255  74.4285 285.5929  0.97938571   182
1989 008A  
1 19783U          89 52.95834637 0.00091608           66838-3 0   210
2 19783  51.6129 223.8891 0021000 313.0275  46.8181 15.72207439  1831
1989 009A  
1 19785U          89 49.53586643 0.00000004                   0   117
2 19785  82.6205  31.0347 0013669  15.6643 344.4869 12.64000666  1003
1989 009B  
1 19786U          89 53.03832333 0.00000004                   0    62
2 19786  82.6222  28.8372 0003102  50.3595 309.7770 12.61808705   829
1989 009C  
1 19787U          89 53.11066529 0.00000004                   0    79
2 19787  82.6129  28.7683 0006321  14.6360 345.4913 12.62574971  1440
1989 009D  
1 19788U          89 53.10359853 0.00000004                   0   120
2 19788  82.6185  28.7697 0009860   2.2165 357.8969 12.63354885  1455
1989 009E  
1 19789U          89 53.09252746 0.00000004                   0   100
2 19789  82.6104  28.7485 0016568   2.3806 357.7362 12.64579713  1308
1989 009F  
1 19790U          89 53.08565803 0.00000004                   0    67
2 19790  82.6176  28.7518 0020383 358.0932   2.0080 12.65340388  1455
1989 009G  
1 19791U          89 48.15844392 0.00000004                   0    52
2 19791  82.6117  31.9738 0035307 188.6063 171.2854 12.54766929   813
1989 010A  
1 19792U          89 52.72684580 0.00036380           32973-3 0   179
2 19792  82.3554  49.0138 0038654  90.4019 270.2183 15.66846871  1737
1989 011A  
1 19796U          89 50.18340778 -.00000090           18845-1 0    89
2 19796  62.8414 158.6121 7362997 318.2626   4.5767  2.00639898   110
1989 011B  
1 19797U          89 52.66913804 0.00883627  10932-4  14827-2 0   183
2 19797  62.7788 131.8709 0243775 119.6174 242.8449 15.66064465  1174
1989 011C  
1 19798U          89 52.65380306 0.01580496  36823-4  13375-2 0   158
2 19798  62.8379 131.7204 0246962 120.8231 241.6621 15.73533845  1181
1989 011D  
1 19799U          89 46.21558859 0.00000108           10000-3 0    11
2 19799  62.8236 159.1473 7343173 318.2583   7.1245  2.03007144    35
1989 012A  
1 19800U          89 52.73523130 0.00369668  16068-4  92245-3 0   265
2 19800  65.8451   4.9538 1368889 145.6006 224.1700 13.09223795   910
1989 012B  
1 19801U          89 52.64562999 0.00542592  16245-4  12380-2 0   214
2 19801  65.8389   5.0950 1356733 145.4372 224.2897 13.12727082   897
1989 013A  
1 19802U          89 49.61553610 0.00000015           10000-3 0    32
2 19802  55.1150 216.4765 0090439 179.8887 179.9325  2.01393533    42
1989 013C  
1 19804U          89 49.59798811 0.00211815  19257-5  16118-2 0    65
2 19804  37.3648 210.0034 6083084 201.1965 115.4858  4.02759826   137
1989 014A  
1 19807U          89 52.34786429 -.00000216           27010-2 0    95
2 19807  62.9398 342.2826 7419196 279.8171  11.1717  2.01425728   136
1989 014B  
1 19808U          89 51.83159592 0.01337338  37447-4  12420-2 0   181
2 19808  62.9626 322.8075 0180149  63.1122 298.6651 15.86669671   859
1989 014C  
1 19809U          89 52.53649316 0.00731430  20089-3  14929-2 0   132
2 19809  62.9474 320.2561 0149186  67.0103 294.7746 15.82170307   964
1989 014D  
1 19810U          89 47.48706682 -.00000013           10000-3 0    10
2 19810  62.9452 342.9635 7370676 279.9307  15.3350  2.07100731    35
1989 015A  
1 19818U          89 52.71463947 0.00118110  14264-4  12216-3 0   126
2 19818  62.8081 306.3565 0025535  80.1062 280.2924 16.09742808   663
1989 015B  
1 19819U          89 53.00436603 0.03549895  41980-4  95555-3 0   133
2 19819  62.7878 305.0366 0006512 294.8991  65.4444 16.27754235   714
1989 016A  
1 19822U          89 53.07560234 0.00001769           10000-3 0    14
2 19822  75.0715 105.9545 4345833 158.2948 224.7672  6.82410127    17
1989 016B  
1 19823U          89 53.14835493 0.00541343  82524-4  37123-2 0    34
2 19823  74.5687 105.8448 0192888 176.8831 183.3559 15.56480003    31
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 08:05:17 GMT
From: blue!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <8287@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:

>Criticism
>should be directed at that program[NASA], not the entire field of research.

I have directed my criticism at manned spaceflight in general.
NASA as the dominant promoter of manned spaceflight in the U.S.  
provides the bulk of my examples.  I have also discussed the Soviet
program, SSI studies, etc.

>Peer review applies to experiments, not entire fields of study. Peer review for
>specific experiments in manned space is a good idea.

Wrong.  Peer review works in between as well as within fields of study. Its   
purpose is to determine the importance of a field of study, and prevent some 
fields from starving out other fields of study by taking the bulk of the 
resources.  Clearly "manned spaceflight R&D", which is of trivial significance 
to biology and other fields, consumes far more than its share; peer review has 
broken down. (If you disagree with the "trivial significance", please explain
why this R&D is so important to a field, eg human biology, that it deserves 
more funding than the entire rest of the field combined.)

>It is ridiculous to say that the entire field of manned space R&D is not R&D.
>What do you think it is Nick? Please note that I am refering to manned R&D in
>general, not NASA's current program.

My argument was that "manned space R&D" does not exist right now, because it 
is not funded through peer review.  I am in favor of setting up a true 
manned space R&D project.  I would guess its appropriate funding level would
allow 2 or 3 KC135 flights per year, but since it is R&D this is up to the 
scientific community.

>The number of general fields where R&D is important (i.e. physics, chemistry,
>superconductors, manned space, etc.) is fairly small. Less than 1% of GNP is
>spent on this kind of R&D anyway, and because of its importance to the future
>a minimum amount must be spent in each area.

I suggest a little stroll through our universities!  There are hundreds upon
hundreds of different research fields, most of them more important than manned
space R&D.  I can tick off 20 right off the cuff that are also more important 
to manned space flight in the future than current manned space R&D: astro-
physics, fluid physics, nuclear physics, materials science, organic chemistry, 
planetary science, geology, atmospheric science, computer science, electrical 
engineering, robotics, industrial engineering, mechanical engineering, 
astronautical engineering, civil engineering, mining engineering, nano-
technology, human factors, operations research, psychology.  This just 
scratches the surface, there are probably dozens I didn't name.  Some these 
fields have many subfields that are themselves more important than manned 
space R&D for the future of manned spaceflight itself, not to mention other
important endevours in our future.

>>The return in scientific knowledge, related to the dollars spent, most
>>definitely *does* matter; this is the purpose of R&D.
>
>The return from a specific experiment is what matters. You cannot attack an
>entire catagory of R&D, only specific experiments.

An entire category most definitely can be attacked, and most definitely should
be when it is demanding far more than its share of resources.

>Do you think we should stop building particle accelerators
>until room temperature superconducting wire costs 10 cents a meter?

I don't know about your price, but multi-billion dollar accelerators can
wait, and many (most?) physicists agree with me on this.  Thousands of diverse
physics experiments are being forsaken for the sake of the "supercollider".
Most scientific advances, such as the recent superconductor advances, come
out of a large, diverse "ecology" of research.  Shovelling resources into 
large centralized projects destroys this source of scientific creativity,
much as the destruction of Amazon rain forests destroy the working material
of biological evolution.  (This analogy comes from Freemon Dyson's *Disturbing
the Universe*, which contains good insights on how scientific progress is
made.  He is not coincidentally very much opposed to projects like the Shuttle
and Station).

>Mining and the construction of a residential and
>industrial infrastructure are essentially manned activities.

On-site they are essentially machine activities.  A naked man is worth nothing
on an asteroid, but automated mines within the next few decades are plausible,
given current rates of advance in automation technology.  With very high 
transportation and labor costs, there is no other alternative.  Humans will only
go into space on a large scale when the machines needed to build the habitats,
provide the food, water, etc. from native resources are already in place.

>manned space needs
>inexpensive access to space for large amounts of mass much more than unmanned.
>You can't miniaturize people. 

My point exactly.  True manned spaceflight must await drops of at least two
orders of magnitude in launch cost, plus space infrastructure to support us
when we get out there.  Unmanned projects can start today exploring the solar 
system and building that infrastructure.  The longer the unmanned projects 
wait, the longer people will wait.  Let's start now.
Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #263
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Feb 89 12:49:46 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01407>; Mon, 27 Feb 89 05:48:08 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 27 Feb 89 05:48:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EY2GA9y00UkTA2xE56>;
          Mon, 27 Feb 89 05:29:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.UY2G3ay00UkZQfF05T>;
          Mon, 27 Feb 89 05:20:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AY2G04y00UkZ4fDU4U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 05:16:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #264

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 264

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			  Re: 1992 moon base
	     Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead !
		       Re: the un/manned debate
		     Re: Henry Spencer, the Movie
			  lunar base 1992???
	    Model rockets: composite materials/mixing rule
	    Re: An integrated space program for the world
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 08:54:44 GMT
From: Portia!hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@labrea.stanford.edu  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar

Most of the replies I have gotten have been of the form
"Well there is this wonderful way to do it already if you put
this expensive equipment on the ground and have something
cheap in orbit." (Or use GPS which is expensive at both ends
and not accurate enough.)
But the whole point is the areas we want to measure are
remote and inaccessible; we don't want to have to go there
once a week to take a measurement. We want to go there once
and not have to come back very often to maintain whatever it
is we left behind.
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 21:39:59 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

There appears to be considerable curiosity about what the proposed 
lunar base was to include, how much mass, etc.  For example,
Paul Dietz calculated a payload limit as follows:

>One additional problem with the shuttle (vs. the Saturn V) is that a
>lunar vehicle launched by the shuttle must use solid or storable
>propellant rockets to leave earth orbit, rather than oxygen/hydrogen,...
>
>If a shuttle can carry 27 tons and we use storable propellants with an
>Isp of 300 to inject to and land on the moon, then six shuttle flights
>lets us land about 21 tons on the moon (including the dry mass of the
>landing vehicle).  Question: what was the mass and payload capacity of
>the LEM?

>From the "The Columbus Project" by Hyde, Ishikawa, and 
Wood:

    The initial lunar settlement will travel to the moon in several
    (nom. 6) independent Shuttle-launched lunar landing system vehicles
    Each will deliver 6 metric tons of net payload to the lunar surface.
    This represents roughly 20% of the mass placed by the Shuttle
    into LEO, a significant improvement over Apollo systems per-
    formance which is made possible by two considerations: 1) all
    major maneuvers are carried out with ... H2/O2 propellants...;
    2) almost all of the payload is finally deposited on the lunar
    surface--it isn't necessary to also carry propellant to
    return much of the landed payload from the Moon....

The Columbus Project assumed using RL-10 engines with Isp=444 
seconds -- remember this was all before Challenger and the ban on
H2/O2 in the Shuttle bay.  The Shuttle payload was to be 29.2 tons,
including 22.1 tons of propellant.  Lunar injection burn used
15.1 tons of propellant; boiloff and midcourse maneuvers used
another 300 kg.  6.5 tons are burned to enter Lunar orbit and land,
leaving enough (200 kg) for 60 seconds of hovering.  Landed mass
is 7.1 tons, of which 1.2 tons is vehicle structure
(which is broken down in detail).    Cargo mass is 5.9 tons.
Thus the total mass available from 6 flights would have been
35.4 tons.  2.7 tons were reserved for a modified Apollo 
capsule  for emergency return.  The breakdown of the
actual colony mass was:

	11.3 tons inhabited area
		4.8 t primary structure (8 double Kevlar bags, 5mx15m)
		4.0 t internal furnishing s and equipment
		2.5 t atmosphere

	5.6 tons life support
		3.5 t food
		0.5 t water conditioning
		0.9 t air refurbishment
		0.7 t thermal management

	5.5 tons power plant
		1.7 t solar primary power (170 kW peak power)
		0.8 t fuel cells and power conditioning
		3.0 t H2 and O2 in various forms

	1.2 tons personnel and gear (6 people)

	1.5 tons lunar vehicles

	0.4 tons emergency ascent stage

total	25.5 tons

which leaves about 7 tons for extra hardware -- or for reserve in
the event one of the missions fails.  (There are considerable details
given for, e.g., how thermal management is done, but I think
I've given enough data here...)

	Jordin (To the Moon, Alice, To the moon) Kare



>I noted with interest that the quotes from the document describing the
>moon base mentioned teleoperated rovers.  This is a wonderful idea.  I
>assume the teleoperation is from Earth.  If so, isn't their use
>independent of whether a manned base is set up?
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 00:10:23 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base


>From the "The Columbus Project" by Hyde, Ishikawa, and 
>Wood:

>Thus the total mass available from 6 flights would have been
>35.4 tons.  2.7 tons were reserved for a modified Apollo 
>capsule  for emergency return.

	That's some modification...the CSM weighed 55,000 lbs and the
LM 35,000 lbs.  That's 45 tons.  The fact that you wouldn't need
the mass to slow down, enter lunar orbit, and land would be helpful,
but you have to bring more people back now, which should account for
most of it.  Moreover, if the CSM is landed on the moon instead of
left orbiting, the fuel requirements go up drastically.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 18:10:54 GMT
From: amdahl!reddy@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (T.S. Reddy)
Subject: Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead !

In article <oY0Qzly00XoUI13Fh7@andrew.cmu.edu>, jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
> >You should care about your titles: Hermes is a *European* project, backed
> >up by the ESA. Your national pride, although comprehensible, gives a strange
> >idea of Europe to the locals on your side of the Atlantic:
> >       France first
> >       Great Britain never
> >       Germany sometimes
> 
> In a way I have to agree with the above.
> But for *HERMES* the case is the same that with ARIANE.
> 
> At the biginning NO ONE else wanted to support it or to be part of it.
> Then when the project began to engrange successes, everybody
> joined the train !!  The Germans being the more honest of all.
> 
     There was a joke to the effect that in the early days of Ariane,
if the launch succeeded, the French used to call it a French space effort
and when it failed, they used to call it a European space effort.
     Also, when fog covered the English Channel, British newspapers read
"Fog envelopes Channel; Europe isolated", but I digress :-). 
> 
> Jean-Marc.
> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu


-- 
T.S.Reddy

Arpa: reddy@uts.amdahl.com
uucp:...!{ames,decwrl,uunet,pyramid,sun}!amdahl!reddy

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 19:52:42 GMT
From: uhccux!lee@humu.nosc.mil  (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

>From article <8902212304.AA01554@ti.com>, by pyron@lvvax1.csc.TI.COM (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror):
" The problem with arguing about the value of space research is, what is its
" REAL value.  Not the intrinsic value to most participants (knowledge), but,
" for instance, what does 1987A have to do with a cure for AIDS or stopping
" the greenhouse effect. ...

Right.  If you want people to be willing to invest in space, you
have to give them back something they value for their investment,
or at least promise to do so shortly.  I've been following this
discussion since forever waiting for someone to point out the
obvious source for such value.  It's entertainment.  Movies filmed
on Mars.  Curios carved from Deimos rocks.  Contest -- Win a 2-day
vacation on the Moon!

What I hear from you guys is stuff like new materials research and
testing models of planetary evolution.  Get real.  You'll never
get more than a dribble of cash, if that's the best you can do.

		Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 21:10:27 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: Henry Spencer, the Movie

In article <21969@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>
>What I'm really waiting for is >>> Henry Spencer the Movie <<< 
>:-)

I saw a section of the script for this; the working title is, I believe,
"Spencer for Higher."   The clip I saw was a climactic showdown between
our hero and his evil nemesis, Dietz Vader:

D.V.: "With the moonbase controlled by my robotic automatons, the weaklings
	of Earth lie helpless before me !" [maniacal laughter] 

NASA: [portrayed by fat, slowmoving burocrat-types] "Damn !  If only
	Congress had OK'd the manned base, we could have prevented this !
        Help us, oh Henry-wan !"   [cries of anguish]

H.S.: "Sorry, boys, but you're on your own."  [more cries of anguish,
	maniacal laughter from D.V.]

D.V.: "I knew you would turn to the dark side of the moon... er, force."

[a remote camera pans over the robots working the missile silos of
Moonbase, when suddenly, a bright flash appears; the base is wiped out,
levelled, but then begins to change before our eyes; trees spring up,
roads, buildings; soon, an entire city exists, complete with a Moosehead
brewery, and a Canadian flag flies from the tallest building, rippling
gracefully in the solar wind.]

D.V.:  "Huh ?"

H.S.: "Hah-hah !  While you were occupied with undermining NASA, my private 
       space venture firm secretly completed their Genesis device !"

D.V.: "You mean...?"

NASA: "No, no !!!!"

H.S.: "Yes.  The Moon has been Torontoformed !"


(These characters are fictional. Any resemblence to sci.space posters is
strictly coincidental.  And even if it isn't, it's just a joke, OK ? 8-)


------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt
	"You made a killing in real estate and NASA,
	 selling cemetery plots in outer space;
	 'till some falling profits crashed upon your doorstep.
	 Welcome to the Human Race."     -    Timbuk 3
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Subject: lunar base 1992???
From: II60016%MAINE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (trekkER)
Date:    Wed, 22 Feb 89 23:39:53 EST

  Rather than rushing projects together and begging for donations
to get a lunar base by 1992 (for the 500th anniv. of Columbus'
stumbling upon the new world)  I think a much more feasible and
worthwhile goal would be to plan said base in greater detail for
2020.
  Aside from having much more time to plan, experiment, and secure
funds, i think the date is much more appropriate.  Columbus didn't
discover the new world (i hope you all realize that :-) ) he merely
proved that you could get to someplace across the Atlantic and
return alive.  In fact he died not knowing that he had landed in
America.  (He thought he had found the East Indies.)
  2020, however, would mark the 400th anniversary of the voyage of
the Mayflower and the subsequent settlement of New England.  Apollo
marked our lunar parallel to Columbus.  Let the lunar base parallel
the settlement of a new frontier.

Live long and prosper,
Chris Clark

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 19:33:24 GMT
From: att!ihlpb!rjungcla@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Model rockets: composite materials/mixing rule


>Can you tell me where he obtains his carbon filament material, and how
>much it costs?  What equipment does he use for winding?

The February issue of American Spacemodeling (available at many hobby
stores and a few libraries) contains an article on composite materials
but excludes sources or costs.  This issue also contains a 1 page
article on the "No Mixing" (ie Model rocket vs high power) rule and
the rationale behind it.

The fellow that I know uses a variety of different materials, especially
fiberglass cloth. I have no idea what weight he used, where he got it,
or what price he paid.  All I recall with regards to price is a
statement of his that comparable size tubes cost more than
manufacturer's tubes. I do know that he has contacted military
suppliers.

The equipment that he uses is similar to a lathe. Most expensive part 
is coming up with the mandrel to "form" the tube, which he machines 
from aluminum stock. I've personally seen him start to build a tube 
during half-hour to an hour convention presentation.  I recall that it 
was time consuming and messy.

BTW, the reason that this individual makes his own tubes is for scale
competition. Fraction of percent errors in scaling the model, spiral
seams, etc. are considered unacceptable.  This individual has 
represented the US in international competition and has one of his 
models on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington.

R. Michael Jungclas                    UUCP:      att!ihlpb!rjungcla 
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.       Internet:  rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 09:34:20 PST
From: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (Tim Shimeall x2509)
Subject: Re: An integrated space program for the world
Cc: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu

[Intro material deleted]
>     The space program I propose is an extremelly long-term engineering
>project that is to be carried out both on the Earth and Mars.  Its purposes
>are the following:
>
>    (I)   To reform the food production system on the African continent,
>    (II)  To reclaim the Sahara.
>    (III) To provide a concrete symbol of world unity and a common purpose 
>    to bind that unity together,
>    (IV)  To create additional living space to alleviate the overpopulation
>    problem.
>    (V)   To explore, colonize and terraform Mars.
>
>To carry it out will require the cooperation of most of the world's nations,
>and this time may be the best opportunity for such a prospect.
[Subsequent material deleted]

Interesting idea, with one major flaw.  It won't work.  You're
expecting cooperation among strongly antagonistic nations (consider:
Libya Vs. Chad, Rampant civil wars in the area, etc.) that have a
long-standing record of considering only their own local and immediate
interest.  Your plan does not provide any advantages to the regiems in
the area to cooperate. To be fair, these are also poor nations, without
the resources needed to support abstract and long-term goals.  I don't
think you could get these nations to work together on even trivial
goals, let alone on something as costly as what you propose.

I'll also invite you to consider the social effects of converting the
Sahara into farmland.  There are widespread and ancient cultures built
around desert life, with many active advocates.  I don't think that
they'll welcome the sacrifice of their culture.

(I leave to others the critique of the technical aspects of this
plan.)

Note that these criticisms apply ONLY to the Sahara reclamation
process.  Terraforming Mars involves nothing close to these political
problems -- only some very nasty technical problems.  It would also
satisfy goals III through V of your list above.
					Tim

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #264
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Feb 89 05:55:45 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA16006>; Tue, 28 Feb 89 03:34:19 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 28 Feb 89 03:34:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8Y2ZRqy00jZd815EAL>;
          Tue, 28 Feb 89 03:25:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.YY2ZMly00UkZ4gM04x>;
          Tue, 28 Feb 89 03:20:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY2ZJpy00UkZEgKU5L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 03:16:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #265

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 265

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration
	    Re: An integrated space program for the world
		       Re: the un/manned debate
	    Re: Orbital debris study completed (Forwarded)
			  Re: Space colonies
			NASA, Soviets, gripes
		     Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			  Re: Voyager Images
		   Re: What ever happened to NERVA?
			 Re: approaching "C"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 17:58:33 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration

In article <8288@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>... It's interesting to think about how little of NASA would
>be left if all launch activities, the unmanned space program, and the space
>station were removed.

Yeah, you'd be left with just the technology R&D... supposedly NASA's primary
purpose in life...

> In my opinion the station is premature at current launch
>costs, and I know some of Henry's postings have been critical of it, though I
>can't say for sure whether he supports building the station now or not.

I have deeply mixed feelings about the current space station project.
I don't consider launch costs a major factor, though -- that's not a big
part of the budget for it.  I don't think it's impossible to build a good
and relatively economical space station at current launch costs, but I
don't think NASA can.

The space-station concept I liked was Art Dula's:  you keep the hardware
costs modest by having it built by construction companies instead of
aerospace contractors, and you get cheap and prompt launches by buying
them from the Soviets.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 21:48:54 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: An integrated space program for the world

In article <8902221734.AA18412@cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@CS.NPS.NAVY.MIL (Tim Shimeall x2509) writes:

[Concerning "terraforming" the Sahara] 
>I'll also invite you to consider the social effects of converting the
>Sahara into farmland.  There are widespread and ancient cultures built
>around desert life, with many active advocates.  I don't think that
>they'll welcome the sacrifice of their culture.
>
>Note that these criticisms apply ONLY to the Sahara reclamation
>process.  Terraforming Mars involves nothing close to these political
>problems.

Actually, similar problems might arise, if the project to terraform Mars
starts after the first Martian settlements are already laid down.  Granted,
these won't be ancient cultures, but imagine crashing comets or seeding 
genetically engineered organisms (to name just a couple of terraforming 
techniques) onto an already inhabited planet.  These issues may need to be 
resolved before the first Mars bases and settlements are laid down.
Should the terraformation of Mars be sacrificed for the sake of its first
settlers?  Or vice-versa?



Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 17:34:17 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <8287@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>... The focus of unmanned space today is launching
>probes with the launchers we have now, not building new launchers.

In fact, one sometimes gets the impression that unmanned space today isn't
interested in *anything* that won't help their current missions.  Give
them all the money they want, and they'll still be flying the same sort
of missions a century from now. :-)  "We can't fund your new technology
because no current mission requires it.  And of course we can't design
it into any of our missions until it's developed properly.  And of course
our current missions should have priority over developing it."
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 08:32:50 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Orbital debris study completed (Forwarded)

A proposal I have not seen (doesn't mean it hasn't been made) to clean up
orbital debris would be to construct one large ground based laser and a few
orbital redirection mirrows.  Very small stuff could be vaporized, but even
the large pieces could be de-orbited and dumped into the atomosphere by 
vaporizing a small fraction of the junk on the forward (in orbit) side.

There should be several groups that could support this project.  The laser
would be useful for launching material, and it would provide definative 
answers to many SDI projects.  One system would not be enough for significant
defense, so those opposing SDI might not fight it.  And after all, it is
a cleanup project, so we might get environmental support.  

Keith Henson, a founder of the L5 Society

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 06:06:13 GMT
From: blake!ogccse!littlei!omepd!psu-cs!reed!mehawk@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Space colonies

In article <1989Jan20.101034.10384@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>According to my sources existing technology *is* more or less adequate
>>to the task of building space colonies -- at least there are no
>>"show-stoppers" --, it's just that they're not *affordable*.  What's
>>needed is cheaper space transportation, more experience working in
>>space, and a good economic motive for building them.
>
>I consider orders of magnitude too expensive == inadequate by orders
>of magnitude.
>
>We don't need experience if that experience will not be applied for
>decades.  Consider all the experience gained in Apollo, and subsequently
>lost, because it wasn't "steam engine time".
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Hi!  I just started reading this newsgroup, but since I recently read an
article relevant to this discussion, I thought I'd share.

There already is a "much cheaper space transportation technology" in the
works, like 20$ per pound of payload to get to orbit.  Its based on the
good 'ole electromagnetic railgun.  The current technology can get
small (~1 pound) objects up to 4 miles per second by accelerating them
at 48,000 g.  Current technology, and technology that can easily be
developed in the next ten years can make semi-conductors and other
electronic packages capable of withstanding that acceleration.  A launch
facility that could launch payloads of up to a ton could be built for
300 million dollars, a fraction of the space shuttle cost.  Used in conjunction
with the shuttle, with the shuttle transporting such fragile things as
humans and the rail launcher the more massive stuff, we could redo the
moon launch project like it was originally intended.

The original plan had the US first establishing space stations as refueling
points.  With a cheap method for getting fuel into orbit and other new
technologies like the ion drive the solar system is back in reach again.

The article in question was the February 1989 Discover.

Michael Sandy
mehawk@reed.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 05:29:11 GMT
From: silver!matzatt@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (thomas matzat)
Subject: NASA, Soviets, gripes



	Here we sit, waiting patiently for the next shuttle launch,
while the Soviets have tested not only a new HLV, but their own
shuttle.  As much as I hate to say it, the Soviet space program
has got NASA beat bad.  I say this because I'm really sick of seeing NASA,
and the U.S. government in general, screw up time and time again!

	The Soviets have built up a great deal of confidence in
their equipment over the years, to the point where they can test
their shuttle on a booster that's only being launched for the 
second time, and do it all by remote control.  Hell, we can't
even launch a satellite on a Titan II without worrying about it 
blowing up!

	The Soviet space program has built itself up the slow, but
cautious way by basing the next generation of lifter and spacecraft
on the previous design.  It has been slow, but it has worked.  NASA
started out that way, but got hooked on the glitz and promise of
the shuttle.  Developing new technology is fine, but NASA was in such
a rush to "beat the Russians", that they lost sight of what they 
should have been doing: Improving on the Saturn V and putting up a
space station a bit more permanent than Skylab.  Instead, they scrap
our only REAL HLV and go all out for the space shuttle, a plan which 
hurt NASA in the long run.   Now NASA is in a position where it will 
take them twice as long as the Soviets to put up a "real" space station.  
With Energia and Buran, the Soviets could build a large station in no 
time at all.  Mir could serve as the base for all of this construction.  
Just add a few modules, and presto, instant large scale space station.

	Right now I believe NASA can do one of two things:
		
		1) Spend large sums of money on bringing back the
		   Saturn V or building an HLV from scratch, and 
		   getting the space program going in the right 
		   direction again.

					or

		2) Work together with the Soviets , ESA, and any
		   other space program that wants to get in on the
		   act, because it's going to take more money than
		   any one country can come up with to really
		   explore space in the right way.
		   (My definition of the "right way" is by moving
		    from space stations, to a Moon base, to Mars, etc.
		    in an organized, cautious, and PERMANENT manner.)

	These are my ramblings on this whole affair.  If I have offended
anyone, I apologize.  If you have a different opinion, I'd like to hear
it.


						-Tom
				       	  "the illogical one"

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!    Thomas R. Matzat    !  UUCP: {inuxc,rutgers,pyramid,pur-ee}!   !
!    Indiana University  !        iuvax!silver!matzatt              !
!    Bloomington, In.    !  ARPA: matzatt@silver.bacs.indiana.edu   !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  BITNET: matzatt@iubacs.BITNET           !
!                                                                   !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DISCLAIMER: These are my opinions only.  (Who else would want them?)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 21:27:07 GMT
From: math.ucla.edu!julia!hgw@cs.ucla.edu  (Harold Wong)
Subject: Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar

In article <27230@sgi.SGI.COM> mitch@rock.SGI.COM (Tom Mitchell) writes:
>In article <404@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, joe@hanauma.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>
>The best way to research this is a computer search on the "Palmdale
>Bulge".  There was a large bunch of articles c.5 years back when
>someone noted that geodedic leveling indicated a 'uplift' of a 
>large area adjadcent to the San Andreas fault.   
>
>As always only believe a bit of what you read,
>

If my source is correct, the Palmdale Bulge turned out to be an error in
instrumentation.  It's suppose to be a long story.  Anybody else know
anything about it?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harold Wong         (213) 825-9040 
UCLA-Mathnet; 3915F MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555
ARPA: hgw@math.ucla.edu          BITNET: hgw%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 04:20:01 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <1989Feb22.173417.9049@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>one sometimes gets the impression that unmanned space today isn't
>interested in *anything* that won't help their current missions.

You are caught up in your own rhetoric, Henry.  I can't speak for specific
scientists, but unmanned activities in general are far more future-oriented
than manned projects, which exist mainly to satisfy the present pleasure of
witnessing a few people in space.  The future-oriented aspects of our
space program--private industry in space, exploration of the entire solar
system instead of just LEO, the development of deep-space communications and
operations, etc.--are unmanned.  You will note that I have not been advocating
*just* unmanned; I have been advocating unmanned *and* basic R&D.  Both have
been shafted by funding priorities.  (As an aside, note that the development
of EML and gas-gun technology is far more relevant to unmanned than manned
activities.  Cheap unmanned launch methods will enable us to send thousands
of probes to all corners of the solar system, and later to launch automated
prospecting and mining missions.)


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 17:50:12 GMT
From: mahendo!jato!jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

: >While earth-operated rovers may be slower, they could be operated around
: >the clock (at least during the lunar day).  Earth-bound operators would be
: >many times less expensive than lunar colonists.
: 
: 	I fail to see why rovers couldn't be operated around the clock,
: period.  Putting searchlights on them is no big deal.

You'd almost certaintly want to keep them operating to avoid getting them
too cold.  Even if nothing is overtly damaged by the cold, the thermal
cycle is vicious.

Unless you make the rovers so they can dig in for the lunar night, of course.
Even then, you want to produce enough heat to offset what is lost through
whatever insulation you've collected around the rover.

On the other hand, if you've designed them to run at night, the problem
may be to get rid of the excess heat during the day...

Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 10:11:03 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Voyager Images
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"
Cc: romeo!currier@duke.cs.duke.edu

romeo!currier@cs.duke.edu  (Bob Currier - DCAC Network Comm. Specialist) 
writes: 
 
>Does anyone know if the Voyager images are available to the public?
>If so, can they be obtained in machine-readable format, i.e. 9 track
>tape, or better yet, by anonymous FTP?  For that matter, are there
>*ANY* images available free of charge, or for a modest fee that can be
>had for experimentation with image processing? 
> 
>We want to use our new NeXt box to play with the images...

The Voyager Imaging Library here says that the images are not available
in machine-readable form to the public at present, *however*, the NSSDC
*does* plan to release them on CD-ROM in the near future.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 00:21:49 GMT
From: amdcad!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: What ever happened to NERVA?

I had heard that NERVA, in spite of having such a good specific impulse
(the number posted (800 sec) (ick--specific impulse should be a velocity)
looks to be about twice that of the SSME--did i mess up in the conversion
somewhere?), was no better, and indeed a bit worse, than a chemical rocket.
The problem was that the NERVA engine was much heavier than a conventional
chemical rocket engine with the same thrust; in most of the proposed missions
you could get better (and more reliable) performance by using a chemical
rocket and some extra fuel.  Of course, that's an unfair comparison--comparing
a mature technology (chemical rockets) to a developing technology (nuclear
rockets), but what the hell.  The anti-nuclear movement of the 60's certainly
didn't help NERVA along any.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 01:34:56 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!robina@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robin Adams)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"


A space ship is travelling through space at 75% light speed. It is headed 
toward our moon and is 50,000 miles distant. A powerful laser is mounted at 
the front of the space ship. When the beam is switched on, the light should 
reach the moon in approximately 0.27 seconds. 

Regardless of where any observer is, the photons in the beam would appear to 
impact the surface at a speed greater than "C" (This is a kind of Michelson - 
Morley experiment out in the open).

If it does'nt, it seems like the ship would pile into its own photons.
- Did I miss something?



					   o         o                o
                                              o                  o
					o                  o            o
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
						    |       |
						    |       |   Robin
						   /---------\  Adams

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #265
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Feb 89 06:31:23 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00584>; Tue, 28 Feb 89 05:38:38 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 28 Feb 89 05:38:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oY2bA4y00Ui3Q0vE56>;
          Tue, 28 Feb 89 05:23:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.oY2b8ty00UkZIgWk5D>;
          Tue, 28 Feb 89 05:19:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YY2b6Py00UkZ8gVE4i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 05:17:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #266

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 266

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Model rockets: composite materials/mixing rule
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			      Satellite
			    Re: Satellite
			Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
		 Re: First concert from space--update
			  Re: Space colonies
		Forbes article on manned space program
		      Re: NASA, Soviets, gripes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 16:21:48 GMT
From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@gatech.edu  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: Model rockets: composite materials/mixing rule

In article <9702@ihlpb.ATT.COM> rjungcla@ihlpb.ATT.COM (R. M. Jungclas) writes:
>The fellow that I know uses a variety of different materials, especially
>fiberglass cloth. I have no idea what weight he used, where he got it,
>or what price he paid.  All I recall with regards to price is a
>statement of his that comparable size tubes cost more than
>manufacturer's tubes. I do know that he has contacted military
>suppliers.

The builders of fiberglas model rocket tubes that I've seen are using 
3/4 oz glass cloth from Sig, usually only a single wrap (with slight overlap
at the seam, wrapped over a steel mandrel coated with mold release.

There is also a supplier of carbon fiber materials buried in the classified
ads in _American Spacemodeling_:

Competition Specialties
PO Box 452
Vine Grove, Kentucky  40175      Catalog $3.00; emphasis on composites for 
				 model rocketry use.

I have not seen their catalog but plan to get my hands on it shortly.
-- 
Mark Johnson (Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM) WB9QLR/0 (Monon RR enthusiast)
NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS  phone: (316)636-8189    
email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson 
US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 19:10:56 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <6592@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>>... 2.7 tons were reserved for a modified Apollo 
>>capsule  for emergency return.
>
>	That's some modification...the CSM weighed 55,000 lbs...

Sounds like they were planning to use just the CM, not a full CSM, although
they'd have had to goose the life support up a bit.

>... you have to bring more people back now, which should account for
>most of it...

A stock Apollo CM could hold five people with minor modifications; such
a configuration was planned in detail for the Skylab rescue plan (which
was never used, since none of the Skylab crews needed rescuing).  This
by itself wouldn't add much.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 05:54:46 GMT
From: well!pan@apple.com  (Philip Nicholls)
Subject: Satellite

I am posting this for a friend.  He can be reached at
well!gregor for email.                   
 
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR A SMALL SATELLITE
2-21-89

The San Francisco and Golden Gate Chapters of the National
Space Society will launch a small satellite into orbit in
the summer of 1990.  We are soliciting proposals for
instruments and experiments to go in that satellite.  Two
obvious types of mission are astronomical and earth-sensing,
but we are open to other ideas.  

Deadline for responses is March 15, 1989.  Proposals should be
limited to 3 pages (excluding resumes).  A decision will be 
announced by the end of March.  Experimenters will be 
responsible for funding and building their own experiments.  
Depending on the complexity of the instrument package, it 
must be ready for integration with the satellite by February 
1990.  

Proposals should discuss:

   o  The scientific goals of the mission.

   o  A brief description of the experiment itself.

   o  The proposer's technical background and ability to 
      complete an instrument package in the time allowed.

At this stage in the planning we are looking at two types of 
platform:

   o  A non-stabilized (tumbling) satellite

   o  A gravity-stabilized satellite with spin axis pointing 
      at the Earth

Proposals may address either or both options.  We're looking 
for good science AND a mission which will attract wide
public attention.

Satellite Parameters:

Altitude: 150 to 400 nautical miles. 

Orbit: High inclination polar orbit.  Circular.  96 degrees 
sun-synchronous.

Lifetime: 4 months to decades.  No recovery of payload.

Weight: Up to 20 pounds

Volume: About 1.5 cubic feet.  Hexagonal space 22" wide, 6" 
high.

On-board Data Storage: 1 S32 or IEEE488 bus.  
Downlink: 9,600 bits/second.  Telemetry will be provided for 
the life of the satellite.

Attitude Control: Either none (a tumbler) or gravity-boom 
stabilized.

Power: Solar cells with storage batteries.  5 watts average. 
Peaks of 20 watts for short times.

Temperature Range: 58 - 84 degrees F.

Shielded against charged particles and radiation.

G Forces at Launch: 12G vertical, 3G lateral.

Special Rules: This launch is not being done through NASA, 
so it's not necessary to follow all NASA requirements for 
components.

Experiments with additional power or pointing requirements 
will be considered, but preference will be given to 
experiments with lower requirements.

Submit Proposals To:

     National Space Society, San Francisco Chapter
     P.O. Box 1351
     San Francisco, CA  94101

For more information contact Gregor Hartmann, President, San 
Francisco Chapter, National Space Society, at 415-863-3737.

The National Space Society is a nation-wide grassroots 
organization which promotes the civilian use of the solar 
system.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 19:50:14 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Satellite

In article <10815@well.UUCP>, pan@well (Philip Nicholls) writes:
> 
>REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
>FOR A SMALL SATELLITE
>2-21-89
>
>The San Francisco and Golden Gate Chapters of the National
>Space Society will launch a small satellite into orbit in
>the summer of 1990.  We are soliciting proposals for
>instruments and experiments to go in that satellite.

A warning for those who might be interested in this proposal.

These are the same people who just lost their shirts on a benefit
concert performance by The Bobs, one of the hottest musical groups in
the San Francisco area.  The benefit was a $3,000 affair.

This satellite launch is going to cost on the order of $100,000.  Don't
hold your breath waiting for them to find the money.

>The National Space Society is a nation-wide grassroots 
>organization which promotes ...
                                 space station, space shuttle, NASP, and
most other NASA schemes to keep us out of space.


William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 18:21:14 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

In article <1441@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>It is also worth noting that the Ariane V will be man-rated.
>I believe the proton is too.

One hears varying stories about whether Proton was meant to be man-rated,
but I don't think it is today.

>Is there any plans to do this with the Titan IV?

It could probably be done, but I don't think anybody plans to do it.
Various people have recommended development of an expendable-launched
manned capsule, but NASA and the USAF are ignoring them.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 20:48:50 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Rick Wojcik)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1885@randvax.UUCP> talmy@randvax.UUCP (Shel Talmy) writes:
>A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to 
>stage the first ever concert from space.  A large portion of the proceeds
>from this venture is to be donated to various charities.

I usually applaud activities designed to promote charity and I don't really
want to spoil anyone's fun, but it seems to me that our space program (and
that of the Soviets) has suffered egregiously from people who want to turn it
to some nonscientific purpose.  The shuttle program suffered a spectacular
setback, not just because astronauts died, but because certain politicians
wanted to turn it into a real media event.  There is no justification whatever
for sending Senators, teachers, and singers into orbit.  The Soviet Union
shouldn't be sending up astronauts from different nations just to score
political points.  There is more than enough work up there for scientists and
professional astronauts.  Countries such as the US and the USSR use up huge
resources to keep these activities going, and it is a shame that people can't
understand the worth of the investment without a sugar coating.  Perhaps we
need these kinds of activities to keep the space program alive, but I think
that people would be much more receptive to it if our leaders tried to
promote the space program from loftier motives--e.g. the advancement of
science and the destiny of the human race.

I apologize to Shel and others in her company for being such a curmudgeon.  It
is just my personal opinion that we are not yet at a point where the activity
that they contemplate is justifiable.




-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 21:59:57 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!mehawk@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Space colonies


Oops.  Made a few errors in last night's post.  The article was the
_March_ 1989 Discover.  Also, the g-forces involved were in the 100's
of 1000's of g's, and the _launch_ technology could be built tested and
contructed by 1995 for 300 million$.

The stumbling block, it seems, is making satellites tough enough to take
being shot out of a rail gun and still have maneuvering ability to change
their trajectory from a ballistic that intersects the planet to an orbit
which doesn't ;*).  Supposedly such technology would be "expensive to 
develop, possibly more than the launch facility."

That doesn't strike me as much of a limitation at all.  The usefulness of
shockproof, tough electronics has uses _far_ beyond just space.  Car
engines, drill bits hydraulic presses and stress monitors for buildings
would just be a start of the list of applications.  

Simply having a cheap way of getting booster rockets into orbit would be
worth it in my opinion, a reliable satellite launcher that is _cheap_ as
all hell...  IMHO, dozens of companies would be building more satellites
if they knew that they would indeed be launched.  At $300 mil for the whole
launch setup, including development costs, dozens of launchers may spring
up by the end of the century.  Microtechnology would probably be advanced
in tandem with satellites and electronics that can survive mega-g's so
easily launched light planetary probes could eventually be launched with
no boosters or gravity slings needed.  Well, maybe not, but it is a great
thought to think on.

The actual projected launch costs, including overhead, was 10-40$ per pound,
as compared to 1,000-40,000/pound for conventional launches, (depending on
the source).

Michael Sandy
mehawk@reed.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 21:05:19 GMT
From: amanda!msodos@sun.com  (Martin Sodos)
Subject: Forbes article on manned space program

This weeks Forbes had an interesting article on the space
program vis-a-vis the desirability of building the station and
going to Mars. I won't reprint the article here (those interested can
get a copy), but I'll outline the basics contained therein.

Note before I begin that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the
contents or the conclusions, I'm merely summarizing.

The basic thrust of the article begins by noting how the Soviets have
said that as a result of their research into extended stays in space,
they have come to the conclusion that without changing the basic
environment provided that their cosmonauts will be unable to survive
more than a year in space at a time.

It is then noted how the National Academy of Sciences and of Engineering have
both recommended that a trip to Mars and the space station, which uses
this as one of its' main justifications for being built, should not be
built until more basic research into life sciences and related engineering
issues is done. They also recommend that the station and trips to Mars be
separated from the rest of the NASA budget.

It is noted that merely rotating a space station is not a reasonable
solution, the example given being that to generate 1 g at 1 rotation per
minute requires a station either 10 miles wide, or a tether with a counter-
balance of the same length, Not a trivial engineering problem.

The article goes on to infer that the space program has suffered from
the manned space efforts, and that the ability of man to live in space
for extended periods is currently a romantic notion, disproven by
the facts. The reader is then presented with the logical conclusion
that therefore, a trip to Mars would be a likely disaster until we
know more about how to enable man to survive for extended periods, and
should be, at least temporarily, put on a back burner.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the facts and conclusions provided, 
I think the article makes for intesesting reading, particularly because
it is contained in a respected business, not scientific, publication, 
and may therefore be indicative as to how the educated lay public 
perceives 'the facts'.

MS

 

  --

  Martin Sodos
  Sun Microsystems            uucp: {any major}!sun!msodos
  Mt View, CA                 phone: (415) 336-6011

  A man who isn't a liberal in his youth has no heart. A man
  who is not a conservative in his later years has no brains.
  
  Winston Churchill (paraphrase)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 14:39:45 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NASA, Soviets, gripes

Has anyone besides me noted the slow shuttle launch pace since last
fall?  At this rate, we'll get maybe six flights this year.  Since
NASA is spending $3.4 B on the shuttle this year, that's about
$10K/pound to orbit.  America won't be "back in space" until NASA
can demonstrate that it can launch the shuttles at a much higher
sustained rate.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #266
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Mar 89 08:43:42 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05886>; Wed, 1 Mar 89 01:42:57 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  1 Mar 89 01:42:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sY2s2Sy00Vs1418UNy>;
          Wed,  1 Mar 89 00:33:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.QY2rsiy00UkZ8hI04:>;
          Wed,  1 Mar 89 00:22:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4Y2rpsy00UkZAhGU4X@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  1 Mar 89 00:19:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #267

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 267

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Forbes article on manned space program
Re: Cosmos mission results and future U.S./USSR missions announced (Forwarded)
			  Re: 1992 moon base
	Discover article on railguns (was Re: Space colonies)
			 Re: approaching "C"
Re: Cosmos mission results and future U.S./USSR missions announced (Forwarded)
		       Re: the un/manned debate
	The Palmdale Bulge (was Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar)
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			  Re: MARS the Movie
		       Re: the un/manned debate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 04:10:53 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Forbes article on manned space program

[Free fall health problem]
>It is noted that merely rotating a space station is not a reasonable
>solution, the example given being that to generate 1 g at 1 rotation per
>minute requires a station either 10 miles wide, or a tether with a counter-
>balance of the same length, not a trivial engineering problem.

Do we need 1 g, and do we need 1 rotation per minute?  I suggest an experiment
using long tethers, with small biological modules spaced at intervals 
(or sliding) to provide various levels of gravity from 0 to 1 g.  For 
example, a module could be placed for a time at lunar gravity (g/6).  The
rotation rate would be varied.  Small mammals, such as mice, would be placed 
in the modules, observed, and experimented with.  The minimum healthy levels 
of gravity and rotation would thereby be found. 



Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 19:06:07 GMT
From: blake!mikem@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Michael M. Martinez)
Subject: Re: Cosmos mission results and future U.S./USSR missions announced (Forwarded)

In article <21918@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>RELEASE:  89-18
>
>COSMOS MISSION RESULTS AND FUTURE U.S./USSR MISSIONS ANNOUNCED

[lots of stuff deleted]

>     Muscle studies on the rats showed that, while individual
>muscle weights were similar for both flight and ground control
>animal groups, the fast muscle types showed significant decrease
>in cross-sectional area, atrophy and extracellular edema, while
>at the same time showing increased necrotic fibers and motor end
>plate degradation.  Slow muscle types showed little evidence of
>atrophy but some biochemical changes.  The mitochondria in the
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>heart muscle also showed degeneration and fiber changes.
>

I note one thing about which I have a question, and that is the reference to
a loss of mitochondrial fiber. Mitochondria are not tissue, they are organelles
within all procaryotic cells that provide the electron transport necessary to
provide energy. I don't know what possible fiber would be involved with them.
If there is any way that you can use the network to question this wording, I
wish that you would do so for me. Thanks.

Come to think of it, if you can do that, would you also please ask if these
rather dramatic effects of a mere 12 days are reversed upon a longer exposure
to light or null gravity? Surely similar tests must have been done on the
humans who spent such long periods in space.

[  I am posting this question for a friend; please post your comments and I
will forward them. ]

Michael M Martinez
mikem@blake.acs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 16:43:50 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb17.173746.5590@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <703@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>>... We can't just dump people in cans and expect
>>them to huddle heroically while we try to build a reliable launcher to
>>get them back home. We have to give them the tools to not simply
>>survive on the moon, but to take it.
>
>"We can't just dump people in covered wagons and expect them to huddle
>heroically while we try to build a railroad to bring them back."
>
>(Only half :-))

	The analogy does not apply.

>Agreed that a lunar colony has to have enough power over its environment
>to do something practical rather than just huddling.  (If all you can do
>is huddle and wait for the return flight, what you have is a base, not a
>colony.)

	Agreed, but what is wrong with starting with a base which would
	be revisited, each visit bringing along an addition or improvement
	eventually leading to a permanent base or colony.  The USSR
	keeps men in space very long with continual resupply, the moon
	is only a few days away.

           It is a mistake to assume that massive sophistication is needed
>for this, though.  It is also a mistake to assume that 100.00% probability
>of success *must* be assured before making the attempt.  (NASA has done
>spaceflight a huge disservice by propagating the myth that everything can
>be planned in advance and there is no reason for anything to ever go wrong.

	Where is this myth?  Does NASA deny the Apollo I fire, the Soviets
	killed on re-entry a few years ago, Challenger?  What NASA propagates
	is an assurance that all safty procedures possible are undertaken
	and backups to them.  I remember the Apollo flights very well and
	everyone was worried about an accident.  NASA stated that they
	were implementing all safty procedures but no one assumed an accident
	could not occur nor that an accident would stop the program.  
	Remember Apollo 13?

>In the long run, the exploration of space will be like the exploration of
>Earth some time ago:  a slightly risky business that occasionally kills
>people and is *expected* to do so, and thus does not stop for agonizing
>reappraisals each time that happens.)

	Yes, people will die just as they do in every exploration project
	since by definition there are many unknowns BUT that does not mean
	that we should just ignore a death or accident and continue on blindly.
	I, for one, am happy to see the shuttle redesigned.  The reappraisals
	are those of how to continue *with more safty* than they are of
	whether to continue at all.
	
					Jim Sullivan
					jim@nih-csl.dcrt.nih.gov

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 16:04:43 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Discover article on railguns (was Re: Space colonies)

This article is being discussed in the space-tech mailing list, where
previously gun-type launchers using chemical energy were discussed.
The opinion of several contributors seems to be that the ram
accelerator is simpler and potentially cheaper than the railgun for
use as a launcher.  Also, it would subject its payloads to lower
accelerations, perhaps 1000 g.

If nothing else, a low cost launcher that could send bulk materials to
LEO (and higher orbits) would make many space operations less
expensive.  For example, you could launch consumables to a space
station and avoid the need for closed cycle life support, or you could
use it to launch rocket fuel for use in and beyond earth orbit.  Many
raw materials for space construction are acceleration insensitive.

It was claimed in space-tech that a laser launch system could be	
developed in 5 years for $500 M; the system would have a max
acceleration of 5 g.

It kinda makes you wonder what we're getting for $10B+/year, when they
could be working on things like these.  Ah, I know, "experience".  What
a bargain.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 16:00:05 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun1!gsh7w@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"

Robin Adams writes:
#
#A space ship is travelling through space at 75% light speed. It is headed 
#toward our moon and is 50,000 miles distant. A powerful laser is mounted at 
#the front of the space ship. When the beam is switched on, the light should 
#reach the moon in approximately 0.27 seconds. 

For an observer on the earth fine. An observer on the ship would see
it arrive in a different amount of time. 

#
#Regardless of where any observer is, the photons in the beam would appear to 
#impact the surface at a speed greater than "C" (This is a kind of Michelson - 
#Morley experiment out in the open).
#

No. regardless of where any observer is, the photons in the bean would
appear to impact the surface at a speed of EXACTLY "C". (This is a
kind of Special Relativity experiment out in the open.)


#If it does'nt, it seems like the ship would pile into its own photons.

The ship sees the photons traveling ahead of the ship at exactly "C".
It never piles into its own photons.

#- Did I miss something?

Special Relativty. Try Taylor and Wheelor, Special Relativity.
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 22:16:29 GMT
From: csli!jkl@labrea.stanford.edu  (John Kallen)
Subject: Re: Cosmos mission results and future U.S./USSR missions announced (Forwarded)

What are the main arguments against not having some kind of "centrifuge"
to generate artificial gravity? Stability reasons (i.e. the whole vessel
would start spinning, making it difficult to dock to it) ? The little
problem that occurs when the bearings of the "centrifuge" jam (oops,
got some angular momentum there :-) ? 

Surely such a "centrifuge" module could be added to a space station/vessel
just like any other module...

_______________________________________________________________________________
 | |   |   |    |\ | |   /|\ | John Kallen            
 | |\ \|/ \|  * |/ | |/|  |  | PoBox 11215             "Life. Don't talk to me 
 | |\ /|\  |\ * |\ |   |  |  | Stanford CA 94309        about life."         
_|_|___|___|____|_\|___|__|__|_jkl@csli.stanford.edu___________________________

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 19:23:47 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <149@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>one sometimes gets the impression that unmanned space today isn't
>>interested in *anything* that won't help their current missions.
>
>... I can't speak for specific
>scientists, but unmanned activities in general are far more future-oriented
>than manned projects...

"Orbital assembly?  No, no, we don't want any work on orbital assembly,
none of our current projects need it, so we don't care that it would give
much larger payloads for planetary missions."  This was said, almost in
so many words, not too long ago.  The unmanned activities may be "future
oriented" in the sense that their advocates (including Nick) think they
are the Wave Of The Future, but they have demonstrated very little desire
to improve technology in their own long-term interests.  Others have
observed that the planetary-science people aren't pushing for cheaper
launchers, for example.  Much of the technological improvement that does
occur, occurs because people are forced into it:  Galileo will use CCD
imagers because the image tubes used on earlier missions are no longer
in production.

More generally, the most striking thing about most of the reports that
attempt to set goals for future unmanned activity is the near-complete
lack of any underlying long-term vision.  They have no goals, just some
missions they want to fly.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 05:43:19 GMT
From: shelby!Portia!forel!karish@decwrl.dec.com  (Chuck Karish)
Subject: The Palmdale Bulge (was Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar)

In article <487@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> hgw@math.ucla.edu (Harold Wong) wrote:
>If my source is correct, the Palmdale Bulge turned out to be an error in
>instrumentation.  It's suppose to be a long story.  Anybody else know
>anything about it?

	It is, indeed, a long story.  As I understand it, there's still
	disagreement whether the observed changes were significantly
	larger than the expected instrumental error.

	Surveying instruments and techniques, ground based as well as
	satellite-assisted, have improved quite a bit in the last 15
	years, so it would be easier now to document a similar effect
	than it was in the mid '70s.  Indeed, a bulge of about 10 cm.
	(less than the debatable change near Palmdale) was firmly
	documented, in Long Valley.  It was caused by the intrusion of
	a dike into the floor of the caldera left by a large volcanic
	eruption about 725,000 years ago.

	Elevation changes of 15 cm. or more should be detectable with
	careful gravity surveys.  You have to be doing it in the right
	place, though, and such experiments aren't done as often as
	precise surveying is.

	Chuck Karish	karish@denali.stanford.edu
			hplabs!hpda!mindcrf!karish

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 21:14:41 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <6592@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>
>>From the "The Columbus Project" by Hyde, Ishikawa, and 
>>Wood:
>
>>Thus the total mass available from 6 flights would have been
>>35.4 tons.  2.7 tons were reserved for a modified Apollo 
>>capsule  for emergency return.
>
>	That's some modification...the CSM weighed 55,000 lbs and the
>LM 35,000 lbs.  That's 45 tons.  The fact that you wouldn't need
>the mass to slow down, enter lunar orbit, and land would be helpful,
>but you have to bring more people back now, which should account for
>most of it.  Moreover, if the CSM is landed on the moon instead of
>left orbiting, the fuel requirements go up drastically.
>
No LM.  Much reduced service module -- bare minimum life support
for 6 people for a one-way trip.  Minimum fuel -- just enough
to get out of Lunar orbit and back to Earth.  The emergency
ascent stage (and fuel) to get up to the return capsue was included
in the rest of the mass budget.  Again, the program as a whole
may have been optimistic (and, of course, became impossible after
Challenger), but the basic numbers _were_ carefully checked.

Jordin Kare







.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 05:34:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: Re: MARS the Movie


>Don't hold your breath; production has been halted due to a battle over
>merchandising right.

Maybe NSS could carry a line of >> Henry Spencer the Tooth Brush >> in the
next Space Shoping....The Catalog Srikes Back.

       Jordan Katz

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 04:50:20 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <1989Feb23.192347.12009@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <149@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>>one sometimes gets the impression that unmanned space today isn't
>>>interested in *anything* that won't help their current missions.
>>
>>... I can't speak for specific
>>scientists, but unmanned activities in general are far more future-oriented
>>than manned projects...
>
>More generally, the most striking thing about most of the reports that
>attempt to set goals for future unmanned activity is the near-complete
>lack of any underlying long-term vision.  They have no goals, just some
>missions they want to fly.

Alas, for science missions, I must concur.  Most planetary scientists 
are more concerned about "the evolution of the solar system" than future 
technology development, and surprisingly few are interested in prospecting 
or mining.  Meanwhile, surprisingly few space activists are interested in the 
99%+ of our solar system beyond the Moon.  The people exploring deep space 
ignore the future, and the people exploring the future ignore deep space.  
The cultures need to join up, because deep space is the most important part 
of our space future.  
I suggest the following:
--Space development activists get involved in the planning and promotion
of unmanned planetary missions.  The main reason I am actively campaigning 
for the "unmanned" side is to get more future-oriented people involved in
it.             
--Planetary scientists explore ways to apply their science, such
as prospecting for resources in space.


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #267
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Mar 89 23:45:59 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01169>; Wed, 1 Mar 89 05:57:56 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  1 Mar 89 05:57:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YY2uVzy00Ui305ok55>;
          Wed,  1 Mar 89 03:23:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.QY2uRRy00UkZAhYk4z>;
          Wed,  1 Mar 89 03:18:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EY2uPsy00UkZ8hXE5=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  1 Mar 89 03:16:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #268

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 268

Today's Topics:
		 Re: First concert from space--update
Re: Cosmos mission results and future U.S./USSR missions announced (Forwarded)
			  Re: 1992 moon base
	     The Great Space Settlement Economics Debate
			    Re: arguments
			    Re: arguments
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 04:12:19 GMT
From: adobe!jackson@decwrl.dec.com  (Curtis Jackson)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1885@randvax.UUCP> talmy@randvax.UUCP (Shel Talmy) writes:
}Dear Chairman Gorbachev:
}We  have organized a company in the U.S.A.  whose
}main goal is to produce the first ever musical concert  broadcast
}from space.  To that end, we are in negotiations with some of the

You have friends who are in desperate financial state and incredibly
low on morale, and you go to their house and say, "Yo, Fred!  How's
about you let us use your car to go to Tahoe -- and you pay the gas
money.  We're gonna visit an old folk's home there, and we need
wheels and we can't pay you for the use of your car.  Oh, you stay
here and tell your old lady and the kids why they can't use the car
for the weekend."

Sound crass?  It's not much worse than this concert crap.  Mikhail
Gorbachev is trying to reform his country.  He is facing enormous
budget deficits, rampant alcoholism and food shortages, gang
and Mafia-style activity crippling his production and making his
streets unsafe, and is quite literally in danger of being deposed,
offed, or "disappeared" on a daily basis.  He has pissed a lot of
people off.

Now you want him to tell the people of his country that he is going
to spend the megabucks necessary to launch the shuttle just so some
Americans and Russians can broadcast a concert from space to radios
and TVs his own people don't have, can't get, and even if they could
get couldn't afford?

This is the height of liberal altruistic bad taste.  And since I are
a liberal myself I'm quite embarrassed by it.  Perhaps your next
little venture will be to ask the spiritual leader of your local
black ghetto if you can boot them out of their church for a Sunday
so you can go in there and sell beautiful imported chocolates they
can't afford -- with all proceeds going to Muscular Dystrophy, of
course.

I find the arrogance of Americans as a group very annoying these
days.  "Mr. Gorbachev, do this because *we'll* like you more for it,
and that is of course what you want."  Gorbachev wants technology
to help feed and cloth his countrypersons and bring them into the
mid-twentieth century, and glasnost is strictly a vehicle to make
that possible.  I applaud him for trying to do his job -- make
the USSR a better place to live.  I do not and cannot applaud
the lack of tact shown by Shel and Co. in this matter of the concert.

Follow-ups have been directed to talk.politics.misc, since this is
a political issue -- not a musical or shuttle one, and certainly
not a headline I've seen lately.
-- 

Curtis Jackson @ Adobe Systems in Mountain View, CA  (415-962-4905)
Internet: jackson@adobe.com	uucp: ...!{apple|decwrl|sun}!adobe!jackson

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 06:52:11 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Cosmos mission results and future U.S./USSR missions announced (Forwarded)

In article <951@blake.acs.washington.edu> mikem@blake.acs.washington.edu
(Michael M. Martinez) writes:
>In article <21918@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
>writes:
>>                              [. . .]  The mitochondria in the
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>heart muscle also showed degeneration and fiber changes.

	This has to be a mistake (I assume it resulted from the scrambling of
two sentences), but then:

>I note one thing about which I have a question, and that is the reference to
>a loss of mitochondrial fiber. Mitochondria are not tissue, they are
>organelles
>within all procaryotic cells that provide the electron transport necessary to
>provide energy. [. . .]

	If you are going to discuss space biology, get your biology right.
Mitochondria are organelles in EUKARYOTIC cells (almost all, but not quite
all), and NOT PRESENT IN ANY PROKARYOTIC cells.  In fact, mitochondria
developed from some kind of symbiote (presumably a prokaryote) living inside
ancestral eukaryotic cells.  (The same is true of chloroplasts, incidentally,
for which the general type of prokaryotic ancestor (cyanobacteria, also known
as blue-green algae) is known.)

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 22:26:00 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <918@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:
>>... a lunar colony has to have enough power over its environment
>>to do something practical rather than just huddling.  (If all you can do
>>is huddle and wait for the return flight, what you have is a base, not a
>>colony.)
>
>	Agreed, but what is wrong with starting with a base which would
>	be revisited, each visit bringing along an addition or improvement
>	eventually leading to a permanent base or colony...

Nothing much, except that it's a great deal more costly than shipping all
the hardware up at once and starting permanent occupation immediately.
It *does* spread the bill out over a longer period, which may be an
advantage, depending on who's paying it.

>>... (NASA has done
>>spaceflight a huge disservice by propagating the myth that everything can
>>be planned in advance and there is no reason for anything to ever go wrong.
>
>	Where is this myth?  Does NASA deny the Apollo I fire, the Soviets
>	killed on re-entry a few years ago, Challenger?

No, but these were, you understand, lamentable anomalies which will never,
never, never be allowed to happen again, and hence need not be planned for.

The NRC said in so many words that losing more orbiters is inevitable and
ongoing orbiter production is vital to any long-range plans for use of
the shuttle fleet.  NASA has lots of long-term plans for the shuttle
fleet, but no plan for ongoing orbiter production.

It is an inarguable fact that solid boosters are more prone to disastrous
trouble than liquid ones, but NASA has no plans to change.  The problems
have been fixed, after all!

NASA isn't even building backup hardware for the space station.

>What NASA propagates
>	is an assurance that all safty procedures possible are undertaken
>	and backups to them.  I remember the Apollo flights very well and
>	everyone was worried about an accident.  NASA stated that they
>	were implementing all safty procedures but no one assumed an accident
>	could not occur nor that an accident would stop the program.  
>	Remember Apollo 13?

Yes, I remember Apollo 13.  I remember that the astronauts were inordinately
lucky that one man in the computer-development group had put his foot down
and insisted that the CSM and LM computers *must* be identical; this was
the reason that the LM could handle navigation for Apollo 13.  I remember
that the LM didn't have enough lithium-hydroxide canisters for the return
trip, and the CM canisters were an incompatible design that couldn't be
connected to the LM system; fortunately, a connection could be improvised.
I remember that there was no procedure for separating CM from LM without
help from the SM; again, an improvision was possible and sufficed.  This
was all luck, not planning.  NASA had never considered the possibility
that the SM might be completely dead, unable to handle navigation, life
support, or maneuvering propulsion.

NASA does *not* undertake all possible safety procedures.  It undertakes
safety procedures for all the specific failures it can think of.  Little
attempt is made to make the system more versatile, more flexible, more
forgiving, so that *un*expected problems can be handled.  Why not make
the Apollo CM and LM lithium-hydroxide canisters interchangeable, or at 
least provide an adapter?  Why not put oxygen, not air, in the escape
packs on the shuttle?  Why not put a manual trigger on the TPAD grappling
unit, whose automatic systems failed so miserably on the Solar Max repair?
Because none of the failures in The Book require those things, and it
says in The Book that all possible failures have been considered.

>>In the long run, the exploration of space will be like the exploration of
>>Earth some time ago:  a slightly risky business that occasionally kills
>>people and is *expected* to do so, and thus does not stop for agonizing
>>reappraisals each time that happens.)
>
>	Yes, people will die just as they do in every exploration project
>	since by definition there are many unknowns BUT that does not mean
>	that we should just ignore a death or accident and continue on blindly.
>	I, for one, am happy to see the shuttle redesigned.  The reappraisals
>	are those of how to continue *with more safty* than they are of
>	whether to continue at all.

Um, are we talking about the same shuttle accident?  The question of whether
to continue at all was being very seriously raised in Congress.

I agree that the shuttle is better for the redesign.  It's a pity that it
took two or three times as long as it should have.  Likewise that safety
has been used as an excuse to kill off a number of desirable ideas.  And
that those responsible for the accident were mostly rewarded rather than
punished, setting a truly awful example for the next bunch of people who
have to justify doing the right thing rather than what management wants.
And that all the old bull about how reliable the shuttle is has come back.
And that if there is ever *another* accident -- and it will happen, no doubt
about it -- we'll go through all the same nonsense all over again, since
NASA has made no serious attempt to prepare people for the idea that it 
could happen again.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 09:28:10 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: The Great Space Settlement Economics Debate
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

There's an interesting, informative, and pertinent article in the
February (? - if not, it's the one with the story title "Pony Express"
on the cover) _Analog_.  There's a good discussion of the precedence
for government paying for long-term-payoff projects.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 20:25:46 GMT
From: asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@noao.edu  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <142@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
> 
> Prestige is a matter of attitudes, which are changing.  People are realizing
> that solid economic and scientific progress is in itself prestigious, while 
> the glamour of manned spaceflight has faded into expensive, meaningless
> repitition.  Polls show that the public prefers unmanned planetary probes
> over manned missions.
> 

Show me the polls that show this. It seems to me that most people favor
a manned space program. Take this newsgroup for instance. From what I 
see, most people on here support a manned presence in space. I can only
think of two who oppose vehemently: You and Mr. Dietz. Most every one else
is for manned spaceflight in the present. 

I personally am not against unmanned spaceflight. I think there is room 
enough for both. Unmanned should pave the way for manned. But I don't
think that we should sit on our behinds while probes explore and do everything.

I mean, what is the purpose of sending probes all over the universe if we
aren't going to go out there ourselves and use the knowledge? We might
as well just cancel the entire space program. 

If we keep putting off manned space flight until it gets cheaper, it will
never get cheaper. It gets cheaper because the more we do something, the
better we learn how to make it more efficient and cheaper. 

How do we learn how to support life in space unless we go there and try
to support life in space? How do we learn how to make cheap self sufficient
bases/colonies unless we try to build some? Probes can't give us the 
answers to this, they aren't alive. They can measure radiation, take pictures
of rocks, etc. They don't need life support. 

How can sending more probes into space make it cheaper to send men later?

This is an arguement that will never be resolved. There are those like me
who support a Manned Program, and nothing you say will change our minds.
And those like yourself and Mr. Dietz, who oppose a Manned Program in the
present, and nothing I or anyone else will say will change your minds.

Not that I am saying that any of us (your group or mine) is closed minded.
I just feel that this is a subject that neither of us will budge on.

As a closing note: I have noticed that most supporters of Manned Spaceflight
also support an Unmanned Program. We see them complimenting each other.
While most supporters of the Unmanned Program are against the Manned Program
altogether, or put it off indefinately.


-- 
John Sparks      // Amiga  |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks 
               \X/  UUCP   |  >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 << 
 
A virtuous life is its own punishment.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 22:00:04 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <381@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
>In article <142@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
>> 
>I personally am not against unmanned spaceflight. I think there is room 
>enough for both. 

If there is room enough for both, why does present manned spaceflight continue
to get the bulk of the resources, while badly needed unmanned and R&D projects
go wanting?   Why are the funds for optical communications, electrical 
propulsion, NERVA, EML, gas guns, laser launch, DSN upgrades, etc. so low?
Why aren't we sending probes to look for resources in the near-Earth asteroids,
Mercury, etc?  Why are we still waiting for a lunar polar orbiter?

>If we keep putting off manned space flight until it gets cheaper, it will
>never get cheaper. It gets cheaper because the more we do something

That "something" is basic R&D and unmanned exploration, not building
manned vehicles and stations that are even more expensive than the last
generation (eg Shuttle, Station), at the expense of exploration and
technical progress.

>How do we learn how to support life in space unless we go there and try
>to support life in space? 

Biological reactions to space are not the most important questions, and 
they can be answered with an unmanned biological platform like the sliding
module tether I have proposed.  The important questions of finding resources,
and figuring out how to mine and manufacture them, are best answered by unmanned
projects.

>How can sending more probes into space make it cheaper to send men later?

I have exhaustively answered this question, over and over again, in my
messages.  

>This is an arguement that will never be resolved. There are those like me
>who support a Manned Program, and nothing you say will change our minds.

This is really too bad.  I hope for the sake of space enthusiasts everywhere
that people like you are a small, small minority.

>Not that I am saying that any of us (your group or mine) is closed minded.

!!!!!!!!!!!

>As a closing note: I have noticed that most supporters of Manned Spaceflight
>also support an Unmanned Program. We see them complimenting each other.

Promoting manned spaceflight at the expense of unmanned does not constitute
"support" for the unmanned program.  

>While most supporters of the Unmanned Program are against the Manned Program
>altogether, or put it off indefinately.

Nobody has argued anything of the kind.  The argument is that we 
must "put it off" until it provides cost-effective return of scientific 
knowledge or money, or there are volunteers willing to undertake it at their 
own expense.  


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #268
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Mar 89 03:15:42 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00968>; Wed, 1 Mar 89 06:53:48 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  1 Mar 89 06:53:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YY2wxUy00jZdQ3K08c>;
          Wed,  1 Mar 89 06:09:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.wY2wCzy00UkZAhjU4j>;
          Wed,  1 Mar 89 05:19:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4Y2wAWy00UkZ8hi05G@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  1 Mar 89 05:17:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #269

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 269

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar
		 Re: First concert from space--update
	      Re: Forbes article on manned space program
		    Re: The never-ending argument
			Re: centrifugal forces
			  Re: Voyager Images
		 Re: First concert from space--update
			       ESA data
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #257
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		     Re: NASA planetary footage?
			  Re: 1992 moon base
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 11:23:25 SET
From: ESC1325%ESOC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar

From: Lutz Massonne <ESC1325@ESOC> (+49-6151-886-701)
Subject: Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar

 In SPACE Digest #256 Joe Dellinger asked about SAR applications
 to geophysical questions.

 Hopefully, in late 1990 the European remote sensing satellite ERS-1
 will be launched, carrying among other instruments a synthetic aperture
 radar and a radar altimeter.
 The satellite mission is dedicated primary to sea and polar ice
 observations, but some land applications are also proposed.
 These will engage mainly the SAR and comprise (among other points)
 - cartography
 - geology mapping
 The source I have is the ERS-1 Programme Proposal Volume 1,
 System Description and Mission Capabilities.
 It is an ESA document, but my copy has no reference number.
 I would suggest to contact the ESA publications service at ESTEC
 about this.
 I have no information how the experiments for the ERS-1 satellite
 will be selected, but there is some operation time available for
 experiments beside the standard applications (sea surface and ice
 coverage mapping etc.)

 Regards, Lutz

 (Standard disclaimer applies)

 +------------------------------------------------------+
 | Address: Dr. Lutz Massonne, OAD/mbp, ESOC,           |
 |          Robert-Bosch-Str.5, D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG   |
 +------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 18:56:54 GMT
From: wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu  (William M. Bumgarner)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

welcome to capitalism.

b.bum
wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 18:26:22 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Forbes article on manned space program

In article <150@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Do we need 1 g, and do we need 1 rotation per minute?  

Nobody knows for sure on either.  We have no experience with low but
non-zero gravity over substantial periods.  The best current guess is
that rotation rates greater than 1 RPM will cause trouble, but again
we lack real experience.

>I suggest an experiment
>using long tethers, with small biological modules spaced at intervals 
>(or sliding) to provide various levels of gravity from 0 to 1 g...

An excellent idea which has been suggested a number of times.  Unfortunately,
nobody is planning to do anything about it any time soon, except possibly
the Soviets.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 89 00:30:08 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: The never-ending argument

In article <154@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
<In article <381@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
<> ... most supporters of the Unmanned Program are against the Manned 
<>Program altogether, or put it off indefinately.
<
<Nobody has argued anything of the kind.  The argument is that we 
<must "put it off" until it provides cost-effective return of scientific 
<knowledge or money, or there are volunteers willing to undertake it at their 

Which ammounts to exactly the same thing.  Knowledge about precisely 
how to live and work in space will NEVER be obtained --- EVER ---
unless we go out there and try it.  What you are insisting upon,
whether you are personally aware of it or not, is that we relegate
manned space flight to a "study it to death but never DO anything
about it" status.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                     Will your long-winded speeches never
Video 7                           end?  What ails you that you keep on 
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp            arguing?    --    Job 16:3

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 18:39:58 GMT
From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@gatech.edu  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: centrifugal forces

Along the same lines,  I once read a short story about a community housed in
a cylindrical space colony.   

As  I recall,  the propulsion system had failed and several of the  citizens 
had  taken  up with jogging around the cylinder to keep  it  spinning,  thus 
causing the spin (and of course the gravity) to increase.  

After generations of this,  the non-jogging population got upset and started 
an  incident because the gravity was increasing beyond the  original  level, 
whereas the joggers had gotten so accustomed to their daily ritual that they 
refused  to  stop.   

The  result  was a compromise where they jogged one way around the  cylinder 
one day, and the other direction the next.

-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 06:13:47 GMT
From: hpfcdc!rjn@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Niland)
Subject: Re: Voyager Images

re: "Does anyone know if the Voyager images are available to the public?"

You can get "The Voyager Gallery,  A HyperVideo Database" at most laser
video stores near you.  The list price is now $99.95; it was $49.95 for
most of 1988 :-(

In addition to the JPL animation, there are 2700 still frames from Voyager.
The disc is a product of Optical Data Corporation, who also offer the "Space
Archive" series, which includes lots of other NASA still images and motion
footage.  This is an NTSC CAV video disc pressed by 3M.  It includes a
5-1/4" floppy index.

> If so, can they be obtained in machine-readable format...

Well, sure, if you have NTSC, composite video or RGB input on your computer.

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland        rjn@hpfcrjn.HP.COM                  3404 East Harmony Road
                  [hplabs|hpu...!hpfcse]!rjn          Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 17:51:09 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <10325@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>>A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to 
>>stage the first ever concert from space.  A large portion of the proceeds
>>from this venture is to be donated to various charities.
>
>...  There is no justification whatever
>for sending Senators, teachers, and singers into orbit.  The Soviet Union
>shouldn't be sending up astronauts from different nations just to score
>political points...

They aren't any more; all future foreign cosmonauts will be paying
passengers.  It would surprise me greatly if Orbit Productions got a free
ride.  Almost certainly they will be asked to pay the commercial price
for their trip.

What, pray tell, is wrong with carrying people into orbit for a fee?
The airlines carry senators, teachers, and singers into the sky all the
time.  "Things that make profits don't have to make excuses."

You should not need permission from government bureaucrats to go into
space for purposes *you* consider worthwhile, assuming that you can pay
the fare and that there's a vacant seat.  It's truly mind-blowing that
to book a spaceliner seat in the "Free" World you need a very good reason,
years of patience, and approval from 57 layers of bureaucrats, while to
book one behind the Iron Curtain you just need the fare in hard currency.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 19:28:54 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: ESA data

A friend of mine is working on modeling organizational structures,
such as NASA before and after Challenger, and the European Space 
Agency (ESA).  For that, he requires any available information about
ESA's organization.  Does anyone out there know of a good source of
such info?

Since he doesn't have access to the net, if you would kindly reply to
me, I have agreed to forward the info to him.

Thanks in advance.


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

Useful criticism always appreciated.  Senseless flames always discarded.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1989 12:56-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #257

> what about: there's  a guy i know who uses his cat to clean his instrument.
> he removes the optical component package at the viewing end and slides the
> animal through the tube to pick up the dust.

If you look through the tube at the same time, would you get a CAT
scan? :-)

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 21:06:23 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base


	Just how close are we to being able to establish this unmanned
base we are discussing?  In particular, I would like to know how
far development of teleoperated mechanical hands has progressed.
Do hands capable of picking up and turning a wrench or screwdriver
exist?  If you have to build all of the tools into the hand, repair
will be very expensive and for complex tasks impractical.
	I can't believe that a 3 second turnaround lag will matter for
most jobs.  And as I remarked previously, this will provide a good
opportunity to test Mars Rover technology without losing the ability
to grab control of the machine away from the AI software.
	So, does anyone who should know think it would be practical to
make "repair robots" whose specific task is to repair other robots?
Under what circumstances would they prove unable to subsititute for
a human repairman?  Surely they could change PC boards?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 06:25:46 GMT
From: hpfcdc!rjn@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Niland)
Subject: Re: NASA planetary footage?

re: "Does anyone have information about the availability of color video
     from NASA's 'recent' interplanetary missions (Voyager, Viking, ICEE),
     or animations of same?  I am helping an area science museum put
     together a videodisk ..."

Check your local videodisc store first.  The Optical Data Corporation has
already done this.

Space Archive series:
  Vol.1: Space Shuttle STS 5,6,7      (CAV,dual analog sound) 1983
  Vol.2: Apollo 17                    (CAV,dual analog sound) 1984
  Vol.3: Mars and Beyond      (CAV,dual analog sound,Some 3D) 1985
  Shuttle Downlink                    (CAV,dual analog sound) 1984
  Vol.5: Greetings from Earth  (CAV,stereo/dual analog sound) 1985
  Vol.6: Encounters              (CAV,stereo CX analog sound) 1986

Space Disc
  Voyager Gallery         (CAV,stereo digital & analog sound) 1988 

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland        rjn@hpfcrjn.HP.COM                  3404 East Harmony Road
                  [hplabs|hpu...!hpfcse]!rjn          Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 01:59:19 GMT
From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <49@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>In article <1989Feb20.075908.5764@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>   [ lots of stuff deleted ]
>> 
>> While earth-operated rovers may be slower, they could be operated around
>> the clock (at least during the lunar day).  Earth-bound operators would be
>> many times less expensive than lunar colonists.
>> 
>How about this:  If we can put teleoperated lunar rovers on the surface, which
>can then survey the terrain and find good deposits of materials, why not
>follow up these rovers with teleoperated materials extraction robots, to
>extract and stockpile materials such as glass, aluminum, iron, silicon, etc,
>for a permanent colony to follow later?
>
    [ lots of stuff deleted ]

I think that at some point, we need to get away from every thing being
teleoperated, unless we are never going to go there on a permanent basis.
Anyhow, What if these rovers (teleoperated from the lunar base) carried
along relay stations, simple radio booster on tall poles. The rover goes
along planting these things, increasing it's range as it goes. No long 
range communication sattelite needed, plus, you would be building the
foundation for communications between bases. 

Sounds sort of like Johnny Appleseed :-).

I think that living with a 3 second delay will become (quickly) more
expensive than operators located on the moon for the following reasons...

1) Things fail (non-repairable from earth). You have to blast another one
   up there to replace it. Not cheap.

2) Production will be slower. Dont move faster than you can react or you
   will end up a statistic of #1 above. You probably will anyway since
   something you picked up could be dropped, thow a rock into the gears
   etc. etc. etc.

3) Improvements possible on current models, won't get implemented. You
   would have to go get them, bring em back, update em, and send em back.
   Or build new ones, making those transistorized blivets outdated.
   Though they might still be usefull, they cannot be upgraded without
   extreme expense. (production suffers)

4) One of these mobile lunabots may get stuck. It might require the
   use of a lever to free it, or maybe a size 9 hex wrench., Damn I
   wish we had a base to draw on. Resources available in a peopled base,
   would prove very valuable to mobile travelers.

5) The less quantifiable value of having people available, and ready to
   act on information not available to lunabots.  Something felt funny
   when I kicked that rock. Hmmmm.  Say Suzie, the lunabot can't get
   between those rocks. Can you grab that 50 lb. chunk of platinum laying
   there?

I think I could go on and on, but I'll stop and let somebody shoot me. :-)

-- 
 _____   Kevin Bagley  Global Tech. Int'l Inc., Mukilteo WA 98275  206-742-9111
  )___)  __    _   _   UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin
_/___)  (__(__(_)_/_)_ ARPA:uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu
_______________/  Disclaimer...  "I did not say this. I am not here."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #269
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Mar 89 07:15:48 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04932>; Thu, 2 Mar 89 01:27:15 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  2 Mar 89 01:27:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sY3BBLy00Vs141wUlV>;
          Thu,  2 Mar 89 00:38:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.MY3AzSy00UkZQiQE4e>;
          Thu,  2 Mar 89 00:23:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YY3Awzy00UkZ4iOk5K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  2 Mar 89 00:21:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #270

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 270

Today's Topics:
European space policy & activists (was: French small space shuttle: A
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #258
		    Re: The never-ending argument
		 Re: First concert from space--update
		    Re: The never-ending argument
			    Re: arguments
			    Re: arguments
		 Re: First concert from space--update
			 Re: approaching "C"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 24 Feb 89 11:35 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  European space policy & activists (was: French small space shuttle: A
Apparently-To: <SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>

go ahead !)
To:       SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Original_To:  SPACE


Recent postings by Jean-Marc Debaud and Bruno Poterie have raised
questions about European space policy.

To summarize my understanding of such things:  ESA has decided they
need a broad capability in space, including medium launchers (Ariane
1-4), heavy launcher (Ariane 5), independent launch site (Kourou),
their own module on the U.S. station (Columbus), free-flying space
station (further Columbus developments), and independent manned
shuttle (Hermes).  In addition, they have plenty of science projects,
comsats, and earth-resources programs, and cooperation on
multinational space science programs such as Hubble and Cassini.

The British government thinks that ESA's effort is too extravagant.
They have opposed Hermes and some other projects as being redundant
and expensive; in general, they seem to prefer space projects with
immediate benefits. This makes some sense if they are trying to
tighten up their budget (and they always are). The UK has been
reluctantly dragged into ESA's grander schemes.  There are plenty of
British taxpayers, of course, who would prefer a more glorious
program.  Some of them read this newsgroup.

Additional analysis, from persons with more profound understanding of
the situation than I, is welcome.

Question:

Are there British space activists, working to influence national space
policy in the same way that NSS/Spacepac/etc. people [think they]
influence the US government?  How about other nations in Europe?

Does the British Interplanetary Society take a role in this?  Although
I have been a member for years, I know almost nothing about activities
other than publishing magazines and holding lectures and seminars.
Can anybody out there (yoo-hoo, JANET) tell me more?  Are there other
organizations in the UK or elsewhere pushing on politicians?

Disclaimer:  I don't mean to imply that political action is the
*only* appropriate purpose of a pro-space group-- far from it.
I am merely curious about whether any is going on.

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with Free
     ~  Nobel Prizewinner Inside!   Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1989 13:02-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #258

> imposition of requirements on the private space sector to control
> or prevent the proliferation of space debris will have important
> commercial implications.

Interesting to hear the government make this statement since they are
the ones that are nearly 100% responsible for the current debris
problems. The ol' pot calling the kettle black routine...

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 89 20:39:38 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: The never-ending argument

In article <1989Feb25.115731.15055@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <243@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>> Knowledge about precisely how to live and work in space will NEVER
>> be obtained --- EVER --- unless we go out there and try it.

>His main premise, that manned spaceflight will not be
>developed unless we, today, send men into space, is nonsensical.

Wrong.  That is not my premise.  My premise is that manned space
flight will not be developed until we develop manned spaceflight.
This is obvious to the point of being a tautology.  Sending out
more probes, though a valuable thing in itself, does not develop
manned spaceflight.

>Lack of knowledge of how to live and work in space is not the
>bottleneck.  The main problem is exorbinant launch costs.  Once these
>come down, it will be far easier and cheaper to get this putative
>precious knowledge.

There's a great deal of truth to this.  Fine, we need cheap launchers.
Unfortunately, there's a catch-22 here.  We shouldn't do manned space
flight because we need cheap launchers to do that in a cost-effective
manner.  But we don't need to waste money on the development of
new heavy-lift launch systems because there are no missions that
require them.  (We cancelled all that useless, wastefull manned stuff,
remember?)  Titan III's and IV's can easily handle all our REAL
space needs.

That is a prescription for going absolutely nowhere at any speed.

>Consider the Soviet space program.  They have much lower launch costs
>than can be provided by the shuttle, yet their current space station
>is much smaller than NASA's gold plated project.

Yes.  A permanently *MANNED* space station with rotating crews.

>
>Like Henry says (if I understand him correctly), we need NASA to do
>R&D, not operate a trucking company  ...

You won't get much arguement from me on that one.

>One thing is for sure -- the current NASA
>program is on a slow track to nowhere.

That's for sure!  (How about that -- we agree on something!)
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                                 "Hey, hey, ho ho,
Video 7                                       Western culture's got to go."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                        Stanford students and faculty.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 89 20:41:03 GMT
From: ingr!brooke@uunet.uu.net  (Brooke King)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1989Feb24.175109.11738@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
| You should not need permission from government bureaucrats to go into
| space for purposes *you* consider worthwhile, assuming that you can pay
| the fare and that there's a vacant seat.  It's truly mind-blowing that
| to book a spaceliner seat in the "Free" World you need a very good reason,
| years of patience, and approval from 57 layers of bureaucrats, while to
| book one behind the Iron Curtain you just need the fare in hard currency.

I guess this would be truly mind-blowing if Mr. Spencer did not
correctly have to put quotation marks around the 'Free' in 'Free
World.'  Some countries in the "Free" world are freer than they
have been.  Some are less so.  Certainly, the USA is an example
of the latter, but I currently would not want to call any other
place home.  ("Sweet Home Alabama" and "Oh Fair New Mexico"
really appeal to me!)

The Iron Curtain launchers are simply facing the reality of their
need for hard currency and the results of the (until recently)
reality of the US government's foolish, all-the-eggs-in-one-
expensive-shuttle-basket, monopolistic launch policy.  They
oughtn't be credited with any love of free enterprise.

| The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
| our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
-- 

brooke@ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke W+1 205 7727796 H+1 205 8950824

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 89 16:57:31 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: The never-ending argument

In article <243@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

> Knowledge about precisely 
>how to live and work in space will NEVER be obtained --- EVER ---
>unless we go out there and try it.  What you are insisting upon,
>whether you are personally aware of it or not, is that we relegate
>manned space flight to a "study it to death but never DO anything
>about it" status.

Mike's argument completely ignores the need to make a choice between
different options.  We have to make choices, because budgets are
limited.  His main premise, that manned spaceflight will not be
developed unless we, today, send men into space, is nonsensical.  Lack
of knowledge of how to live and work in space is not the bottleneck.
The main problem is exorbinant launch costs.  Once these come down, it
will be far easier and cheaper to get this putative precious
knowledge.  Conversely, if launch costs do not come down, the knowledge
of how to live and work in space will have little value.

Consider the Soviet space program.  They have much lower launch costs
than can be provided by the shuttle, yet their current space station
is much smaller than NASA's gold plated project.  If their program is
worth emulating, the "next logical step" for NASA would be to build
better launchers, not a space station (or a moon base!).

Now, it might be argued that independent private companies should work
on launchers.  Certainly they will help, and eventually will take
over.  But the market is uncertain.  I think the right kind of
government support would help enormously, and is the only way to
develop really novel technologies, like the various gun launchers or
laser rockets.

Like Henry says (if I understand him correctly), we need NASA to do
R&D, not operate a trucking company (or rationalize projects that give
their "trucks" something to do).  Manned vs. unmanned is a secondary
issue, except insofar as manned space advocates insist on NASA
conducting expensive, non-critical-path projects in space rather than
longterm R&D on the ground.  One thing is for sure -- the current NASA
program is on a slow track to nowhere.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 01:22:53 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <1154@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>If we are to have largely self sufficient ecological units in space for man
>to live, at a conservative level we will need at least 5 times the mass in
>nonhuman organic material as human.  How are we going to find out how a
>space garden will work by sending up unmanned probes?  We are not.

The necessary knowledge can be obtained by projects such as the current
Biosphere and ISECCO(sp?) closed-ecology experiments, and experimenting with 
small plants and animals at various levels of gravity.   This is many orders 
of magnitude cheaper than manned space projects. 

The critical paths to self-sufficient settlements are first, as Paul 
mentioned, bringing down launch costs, and second, converting the resources 
of space into the biomass, the shelter for such biomass, and the export 
industries to motivate the whole project in the first place. 

The first requires extensive R&D, the second R&D and inexpensive exploration
of the solar system.

>Scientific exploration can never be effective if we attempt to make it cost-
>effective.  The best type of cost-effectiveness in scientific endeavor is to
>support people who have demonstrated ability, together with some "screwballs."

Scientific progress above all must be cost-effective, because budgets are
short.  Try asking for $30 billion (or any significant fraction of that) for
your next statistics study and see how far you get.  Scientific progress 
comes through giving lots of "screwballs" and people of ability money, with 
most ideas from both groups failing and the rest paying back several-fold.  
We can't predict ahead of time which will pay back, so it's a bad idea 
to put most of the money in one place (when we do we get things like the 
Shuttle).

>And I have called for governments to allow those of us who wish to support
>manned space programs to get out of our way.

I agree wholeheartedly.   Governments should stop funding manned programs.
They should get out of other operations as well, except for providing 
commercial start-up incentives.  Governments have a proper role in exploration 
and basic R&D.  

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 89 15:55:35 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <154@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
> In article <381@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
> >In article <142@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:

			.........................

> >How do we learn how to support life in space unless we go there and try
> >to support life in space? 
> 
> Biological reactions to space are not the most important questions, and 
> they can be answered with an unmanned biological platform like the sliding
> module tether I have proposed.  The important questions of finding resources,
> and figuring out how to mine and manufacture them, are best answered by unmanned
> projects.

If we are to have largely self sufficient ecological units in space for man
to live, at a conservative level we will need at least 5 times the mass in
nonhuman organic material as human.  How are we going to find out how a
space garden will work by sending up unmanned probes?  We are not.

Years of research have not produced a workable Mars rover.  A robotic mining
and manufacturing robot?  We can build a robot to do what we know how to do
almost precisely.  There are no thinking machines in the immediate future.
I would be surprise if we could even build a mining robot on earth.  And 
I doubt that a government project would speed the development of manufacturin
robots.

			..........................

> Promoting manned spaceflight at the expense of unmanned does not constitute
> "support" for the unmanned program.  
> 
> >While most supporters of the Unmanned Program are against the Manned Program
> >altogether, or put it off indefinately.
> 
> Nobody has argued anything of the kind.  The argument is that we 
> must "put it off" until it provides cost-effective return of scientific 
> knowledge or money, or there are volunteers willing to undertake it at their 
> own expense.  

Scientific exploration can never be effective if we attempt to make it cost-
effective.  The best type of cost-effectiveness in scientific endeavor is to
support people who have demonstrated ability, together with some "screwballs."

And I have called for governments to allow those of us who wish to support
manned space programs to get out of our way.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 23:47:54 GMT
From: ingr!brooke@uunet.uu.net  (Brooke King)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <10325@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
| I apologize to Shel and others in her company for being such a
| curmudgeon.  It is just my personal opinion that we are not yet
| at a point where the activity that they contemplate is
| justifiable. 

See talk.politics.theory for why I don't think Rick owes Shel or
anyone else an apology for being a "curmudgeon."

| Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
|               uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
-- 

brooke@ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke W+1 205 7727796 H+1 205 8950824

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 89 21:13:31 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!powi@louie.udel.edu  (Peter Owings)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"

In article <3800@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> robina@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Robin Adams) writes:
>
>A space ship is travelling through space at 75% light speed. It is headed 
>toward our moon and is 50,000 miles distant. A powerful laser is mounted at 
>the front of the space ship. When the beam is switched on, the light should 
>reach the moon in approximately 0.27 seconds. 
>- Did I miss something?

Yes...	For all observers, the speed of light is the same, namely c.  The 
difference between observers is the distance between you and the moon and 
the time it takes for the light to get there.

	For someone on Earth, say, the distance for the light to travel is 
50,000 miles.  However, for you, the moon is moving toward you at 0.75c and 
the distance is Lorentz contracted by the factor sqrt(1-(v/c)**2), or for you
is ~33000 miles.  So the time for the light is different for the two observers,
you in your space ship and someone standing on Earth.  

	Time and distance change at relativistic speeds.  The speed of light
is the constant for all observers, always.

Peter...
>
>
>
>					   o         o                o
>                                              o                  o
>					o                  o            o
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>						    |       |
>						    |       |   Robin
>						   /---------\  Adams

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #270
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Mar 89 08:28:02 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05255>; Thu, 2 Mar 89 04:13:49 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  2 Mar 89 04:13:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oY3DgAy00Vs1M1skMg>;
          Thu,  2 Mar 89 03:28:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.8Y3DXfy00UkZQigE4U>;
          Thu,  2 Mar 89 03:18:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kY3DVIy00UkZQiek5L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  2 Mar 89 03:16:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #271

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 271

Today's Topics:
		 Re: First concert from space--update
		    Re: The never-ending argument
			Re: centrifugal forces
			Re: centrifugal forces
			Re: centrifugal forces
			 Re: More good news!
		 Put your money where your dream is.
	 Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
			    Public thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 01:38:09 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <4111@ingr.com> brooke@ingr.UUCP (Brooke King) writes:
>...The Iron Curtain launchers are simply facing the reality of their
>need for hard currency and the results of the (until recently)
>reality of the US government's foolish, all-the-eggs-in-one-
>expensive-shuttle-basket, monopolistic launch policy.  They
>oughtn't be credited with any love of free enterprise.

Neither should NASA, which really would prefer to go back to said
monopolistic launch policy, so it could retain control.  At the moment
the space-launcher competition isn't between free enterprise and the
socialist bureaucracies, it's between four or five different socialist
bureaucracies.  Predictably, the simplest and crudest one -- China's --
is the low bidder for current launch contracts, the most experienced
one -- the Soviet Union's -- is not far behind, and the newest and most
factionalized one -- NASA and the US aerospace contractors -- is dead
last.

There are some glimmerings of free enterprise here and there, at places
like OSC/Hercules, Amroc, Pacific American, et al, but they are still
very small and vulnerable.  Pray that the US government doesn't step on
them, deliberately or through sheer negligence, in the next few years.
If they succeed, it will be a whole new ballgame.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 00:43:42 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: The never-ending argument

In article <243@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <154@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
><In article <381@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
><> ... most supporters of the Unmanned Program are against the Manned 
><>Program altogether, or put it off indefinately.
><
><Nobody has argued anything of the kind.  The argument is that we 
><must "put it off" until it provides cost-effective return of scientific 
><knowledge or money, or there are volunteers willing to undertake it at their 
> 
>Which ammounts to exactly the same thing.  

Gee, you're sure a pessimist today.   :-)

>Knowledge about precisely 
>how to live and work in space will NEVER be obtained --- EVER ---
>unless we go out there and try it.  

It can best be obtained with unmanned projects, as I have said before.  When 
the above criteria are met, we can try it for real.  If manned spaceflight
does not provide economic or scientific return commesurate with its cost,
it is a parasite, sucking resources away from the important endevours of our 
society, such as space development and future space settlement.  If you 
want to waste money, waste your own.  Let the public spend its money wisely. 



Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 89 20:22:48 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: centrifugal forces

In article <1047@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
:Along the same lines,  I once read a short story about a community housed in
:a cylindrical space colony.   
:
:As  I recall,  the propulsion system had failed and several of the  citizens 
:had  taken  up with jogging around the cylinder to keep  it  spinning,  thus 
:causing the spin (and of course the gravity) to increase.  
 ...
:The  result  was a compromise where they jogged one way around the  cylinder 
:one day, and the other direction the next.

Of course, the main thing this shows is that the writer of that
story doesn't know about conservation of angular momentum!
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                                 "Hey, hey, ho ho,
Video 7                                       Western culture's got to go."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                        Stanford students and faculty.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 89 19:01:21 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!arrom@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: centrifugal forces

>The  result  was a compromise where they jogged one way around the  cylinder 
>one day, and the other direction the next.

I remember this too.  It was from Analog.  If I recall correctly, there was
a big fuss over it in the letter column; scientifically inaccurate Analog
stories tend to get such treatment.

It was inaccurate.  When a jogger stops jogging, the angular momentum of
the jogger jogging in one direction exactly cancels out what was added to
the angular momentum of the colony when the jogger started jogging.  Conser-
vation of angular momentum.
--
               EARTH          |       --Kenneth Arromdee
           smog  |   bricks   |      UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa
        AIR     mud       FIRE|  INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu
      soda water |   tequila  |    BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm
               WATER          |(please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)
Element chart from "Science Made Stupid".  (The chart seems rather popular...)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 89 19:41:44 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: centrifugal forces

In article <1047@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>Along the same lines,  I once read a short story about a community housed in
>a cylindrical space colony.   
>
>As  I recall,  the propulsion system had failed and several of the  citizens 
>had  taken  up with jogging around the cylinder to keep  it  spinning,  thus 
>causing the spin (and of course the gravity) to increase.  
>
>After generations of this,  the non-jogging population got upset and started 
>an  incident because the gravity was increasing beyond the  original  level, 
>whereas the joggers had gotten so accustomed to their daily ritual that they 
>refused  to  stop.   
>
>The  result  was a compromise where they jogged one way around the  cylinder 
>one day, and the other direction the next.

Ah yes.  I believe the story (which appeared in the now defunct
Galaxy) was called "Jogging Up Main Street".  The author and the
editor were apparently both scientific illiterates, since they did not
understand the law of conservation of angular momentum.  Jogging would
cause the colony to spin up very slightly as long as the runner kept
moving, but as soon as he stopped, the extra spin would disappear
(considering the mass of a runner vs. the colony, the effect would be
unnoticable).  Similarly, a space colony does not need a propulsion
system to keep spinning.

Another story with the same error (not as fatal to the plot) appeared
in Analog a few years later, where it prompted letters from readers.

Then there was the story in Analog about a race in earth orbit between
human-powered vehicles with ion engines.  What a stupid concept.

Followups to rec.arts.sf-lovers.

  Paul F. Dietz
  dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 02:53:56 GMT
From: att!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Re: More good news!

In article <8902221536.AA08487@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery)
writes that Vice Presient Quayle supports CDSF, and:
} Would you please all write to him expressing your support for his
} position?
} 
} He can be reached care of the White House:
} 
} Vice President
} 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
} Washington, D.C. 20500

Golly, I never thought I'd agree with Dr. Bowery.  Sure, Jim, I'll be
happy to write him.  I'll tell him that CDSF is an excellent way to
encourage our fledgling commercial space industry (by showing that
there *are* dollars at the end of the tunnel if you're doing something
worth while).  I'll also tell him that that a man-tended station is a
supplement, but not a replacement, for the permanently manned space
station that's our logical next step in the exploration and
exploitation of space.

}Jim Bowery, {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories, att!pegasus!psrc
psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 89 17:23:06 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Put your money where your dream is.

You now have the opportunity to begin investing in your own dream of
space as a place to live, work and play.  After reviewing my opportunities
to invest in space businesses, I decided on E'Prime and made the largest
investment of my life.  I did this because I believe in what these people
are doing whether or not they are eventually successful as a company. 

Christians tithe 10% of their income (if they are following their
scriptures to the letter).  How much more can we afford to INVEST in
what, in many respects, is the religion of technological civilization?

Look around, pick your favorites and invest what you can.  Let them know
WHY you are investing in their company (whoever they may be).  You may not
make it into space yourself, but your odds can only be increased by putting
your money where your dream is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 06:02:07 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

In article <1989Feb22.173756.9145@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <718@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> >What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig? 

> The complete lack of an adequate, workable "tele-operated rig" available
> as reliable off-the-shelf hardware, perhaps?

The time has never been better to develop an orbiting, tele-operated
materials-processing and biological experimentation laboratory. With
skillful miniaturization, an unmanned laboratory could be lofted
by a fairly small, and thus inexpensive, expendable launcher. The
launcher would be well within the range of a private launch service.

The nation with the most efficient and inexpensive automated
manufacturing technology will be the first to establish an
extraterrestrial industrial base. By sinking our space resources into
the shuttle and the space station, NASA may well be ceding space to,
say, the Japanese (they'll ship VCRs to the Soviets in exchange for
launchers, if necessary).

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1989 15:59-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Public thanks

I want to thank Phil Karn for getting me a copy of an article that came
up during a previous discussion. Although Phil and are almost
invariably on the opposite sides of issues, I nonetheless consider him
a gentleman and a scholar and one whose opinion is worth listening too,
even when I disagree with it.

I'll be doing another post on the "Great Face" as soon as I find a
little time to think about it, so roll up your sleeves again, Phil...

				In this corner....
					Dale Amon

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #271
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Mar 89 00:24:41 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00760>; Thu, 2 Mar 89 05:44:42 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  2 Mar 89 05:44:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4Y3FOdy00Vs1A25U4M>;
          Thu,  2 Mar 89 05:25:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.wY3FH:y00UkZIiqE5k>;
          Thu,  2 Mar 89 05:17:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gY3FG4y00UkZ4iok5h@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  2 Mar 89 05:16:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #272

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 272

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V9 #259
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:12:16 PDT
From: postmaster@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV
Subject:  SPACE Digest V9 #259
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"<space+@andrew.cmu.edu>"

 *** VMS error in delivery mail, error message follows *** 

EXOS Mail server: delivery error: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening USER$DISK2:[PJS.MAIL]MAIL$000400920EFD2D53.MAI; as output
EXOS Mail server: delivery error: -RMS-F-FUL, device full (insufficient space for allocation)0400920EFD2D53.MAI; as output
EXOS Mail server: delivery error: 
%MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening USER$DISK2:[PJS.MAIL]MAIL$000400920EFD2D53.MAI; as output
-RMS-F-FUL, device full (insufficient space for allocation)

 *** Original message follows *** 

>From : space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject:  SPACE Digest V9 #259

Return-path: <@po3.andrew.cmu.edu:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from jpl-mil (jpl-mil.Jpl.Nasa.Gov) by grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV
          id 000000C0002 ; Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:11:13 PDT
Received:  from spanza.Jpl.Nasa.Gov by jpl-mil.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (4.0/SMI-3.4+DXR+main+mr)
	id AA01874; Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:16:43 PST
Received:  from po3.andrew.cmu.edu by spanza.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (4.0/SMI-4.0+DXRs0.3)
	id AA19744; Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:08:24 PST
Received:  by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA18323>; Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:42:11 EST
Received:  via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:42:09 -0500 (EST)
Received:  from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AY1aIgy00Vs100xE4R>;
          Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:34:53 -0500 (EST)
Received:  from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.YY1a9Py00UkZMcoU4d>;
          Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:22:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id:  <gY1a3My00UkZ8cn04S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To:  space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From:  space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To:  space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date:  Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:16:25 -0500 (EST)

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 259

Today's Topics:
	   manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
		      RE: Pigs will be pigs ...
			  Re: MARS the Movie
			      arguments
			    Re: arguments
	       ANTHROPOLOGIST SEEKS ABDUCTEE INTERVIEWS
		     What ever happened to NERVA?
		   Re: What ever happened to NERVA?
		     Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		       Current issue of Science
	 Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 22:50 -0600
From: bradley thompson <thompson%arc.cdn@relay.ubc.ca>
Subject: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

Just thought I would drop a few comments on these subjects:
1- manned vs. unmanned space exploration- I work on low gravity
experimentation in the areas of biotechnology and materials
processing. I view manned tending of my experiments as being
critical. If I get a breakdown or unexpected results I need
human capability to deal with the situation. My own personal
experiences on low gravity aircraft [ KC135 in the USA, and
the T33 in Canada] only support these beliefs. Every experiment
I have personally flown has needed in flight repairs and/or
modifications in protocol. Simple things kill experiments in
low gravity. Give me a cranky old STS mission with a overworked
astronaut any day over an automated satellite experiment.
2- commercialization in space- most of the companies I deal with
are interested in space not as a place to do things but as a place
to research processes. Most multiphase processes on Earth
are combinations of physical-chemical and gravity driven parameters.
In space we can isolate the effects of each and learn something
that normally helps out on the ground. Think of multiphase processes.
They occur in waste treatment, biotechnology, oil, coal, materials,
and a hoste of other industries. What I need is routine access to
low gravity and cheap experiments. Note I am ommitting cheap 
launch costs. Experiments are usually low mass, therefore low
launch cost. Companies need routine access to build business
plans around. 

Nuff said.

Brad Thompson
Alberta Research Council
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 10:46:14 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror)
Subject: RE: Pigs will be pigs ...

Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> writes:

>Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:


>>Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2
>>
>>	MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING,
>>	Washington, DC: Faces opposition from
>>	DoD. A satellite which could provide im-
>>	mediate photos of military activities to the
>>	media "poses a greater threat to national
>>	security" than current foreign-owned tech-
>>	nology, the AAAS was told recently.
>>
>>
>>Editorial comment:
>>
>>The above is to be expected. The military does not foster a mentality
>>that is compatible with a truely free society. The more power that
>>mentality is given over society, the farther said society will be driven
>>from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  to what it is today :-)

The argument that distribution of knowledge makes for a peaceful world has
been used in multiple espionage trials, without much success.  This does
not refute the argument (I believe it to a certain degree), but places the
burden of proof on the "distributor".  While spying per se is a dirty and
dangerous game, making available to the world something such as the status
of a poison gas plant in Lybia or the number of B-1Bs on the ground at Dyes
is reasonable, if the goal is reducing fear of the other person.

If I put up a private imaging satellite, then I can also have multiple ground
stations, and no country can stop me from producing pictures, until one
of them (choice of two) turns my bird into a metorite.  If someone wants
to put a new missle/ship/plane/girlfriend out in the daylight, I should
be able to take a picture of it.  An analogy would be your 55 Chevy.  If
you don't want me taking pictures of it, leave it in the garage.  The danger
of owning curiosities is that it makes people curious.

>Actually I would be more worried by the likely misuse of cheap high-quality
>aerial pictures by the media.  The possibilities range from the Miami Herald
>("Gary Hart Takes Cruise on Monkey Business II: Pictures of Decktop Party")
>to the National Enquirer ("Supermodel and her Secret Love Nest in the Poconos")
>to _Geraldo_ ("Did the survivors of Air Peru flight 999 really resort to
>cannibalism in the Andes?  We have the answers.")  I don't think that organs
>of the media such as the Morton Downey Jr. Show have really demonstrated
>that they are responsible enough to use this information wisely.  I'm not
>saying that the military are, either, but at least they don't broadcast it.

>I know that this assumes *really* cheap and *really* high-resolution
>photography, but not outlandishly so.  Obviously the media would say that
>they would use such a satellite for pictures of things like the Chernobyl
>incident, but given the emphasis that the networks are placing on so-called
>`trash tv' these days, how long would it be before they found some way to
>pervert it for those purposes?  Enquiring minds want to know...

Interesting.  And just who should determine what is or is not a legitimate
use of the "pictures"?  Just because you don't like the reporting style
(and I agree, those are dogs) doesn't give you, or anyone, the right to
censor the medium in question.  And that is censorship.  Either all have
equal access, or no one should have access.  I chose all and take the jerks
as a cheap price to pay.

Dillon Pyron
this time, I won't say who I work for, although the NSA knows who I am.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 17:58:10 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: MARS the Movie

In article <21969@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>What I'm really waiting for is >>> Henry Spencer the Movie <<< 

Don't hold your breath; production has been halted due to a battle over
merchandising rights.  :-)
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Subject: arguments
From: IA80024%MAINE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (nicholas c. hester)
Date:    Tue, 21 Feb 89 12:48:32 EST

i find it fascinating how each side of the manned/unmanned "debate" feels that
the other is "destroying" the US space program, tho' the unmanned side screams
the loudest. the prestige and technology gained from manned flight is necessary
politically in todays world, while the unmanned platforms provide for pure sci-
entific research and industrial production that is too expensive and unnecessar
y to be manned. if both stopped bickering and tried to cooperate a solution mig
ht be found to improve both worlds.

=Nick=
ia80024@Maine.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 01:58:15 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <Added.YY0OGTy00Ui384kE8m@andrew.cmu.edu> IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (nicholas c. hester) writes:
>the prestige and technology gained from manned flight is necessary
>politically in todays world

Manned spaceflight does not spin off more technology than unmanned.  The
fact that all private space industries are unmanned points to the reverse 
being true.  

Prestige is a matter of attitudes, which are changing.  People are realizing
that solid economic and scientific progress is in itself prestigious, while 
the glamour of manned spaceflight has faded into expensive, meaningless
repitition.  Polls show that the public prefers unmanned planetary probes
over manned missions.

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Tue, 21 Feb 89 11:36:07 -0900
Reply-To: <FNMRD%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNMRD%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: MARILYN R DUDLEY-ROWLEY          <FNMRD%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  ANTHROPOLOGIST SEEKS ABDUCTEE INTERVIEWS

Professional  anthropologist  seeking  interviews  in  Alaska  or
Southeastern   United   States  with  those   believing   they've
participated  in  "the Visitor experience".   Must be willing  to
interview on tape,  although anonymity assured.   Willing to work
with   psychology   professionals  in  those   geographic   areas
interested in the phenomenon, and who might be counseling several
such clients at present.   This is a serious study,  and  serious
persons  need  apply.   Write me via electronic mail  or  Marilyn
Dudley-Rowley, 2664 Montana Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 13:20:42 SET
From: T001119%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: What ever happened to NERVA?

I would pose a question to the net.

In an old textbook ( Sutton-Ross (?), about 1970 ) I found an article
regarding the exploitation of nuclear energy in space technology. It was
full of expectations for the NERVA and Phoebus-2A nuclear rocket engines
( maybe Phoebus-2A was intended for for electric power production : I
don't know ). These engines were promising specific impulses about 800
sec., and there were also hints at far more advanced nuclear engines,
with a liquid or gaseous core, expected to attain as much as 3000 sec.
specific impulse.
I know for sure that prototypes of NERVA and Phoebus-2A were built and
ground-tested, even if they were never flown. I wish I could know : why
were these projects dropped ( I think they were, because I had never
heard about them before ) ?  Was it because of technical difficulties,
safety concerns, financial illness, political issues ( e.g. space-based
nuclear weapons prhibition treaty ) ?  Or what else ?  Are they a
definitively closed stage of propulsion systems technology ?

 Thank you in advance,

Gianluca Zanetti

  EARN/BITnet    T001119@ICNUCEVM

  Internet        T001119@ICNUCEVM.CNUCE.CNR.IT
              or  T001119%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@ICNUCEVM.CNUCE.CNR.IT
              or  T001119@CNUCE-VM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 21:37:23 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: What ever happened to NERVA?

In article <8902211238.AA02325@angband.s1.gov> T001119@ICNUCEVM.BITNET writes:
>I know for sure that prototypes of NERVA and Phoebus-2A were built and
>ground-tested, even if they were never flown. I wish I could know : why
>were these projects dropped ( I think they were, because I had never
>heard about them before )?  
I do not know exactly why they were dropped, other than the general budget
cutting going through the NASA and the DoD at the time.  I do know that
nuclear engines are still among our most promising space propulsion options,
and the research should be revived. 

Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 16:29:19 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <2052@pembina.UUCP> steve@obed.uucp (stephen Samuel) writes:
}In article <890213103429.0000076D091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
}>>Subject: Spacepac ratings by State
}>>From: Scott Pace <pace%tp3@rand.org>
}>>a rough measure of the Spacepac "rating" of each state.  Ratings of 70% or
}>>more were called pro-space, while 0-50% were called anti-space. This gave
}>>us 15 pro-space states, 9 anti-space states, and 26 "swing" states.
}>>The ranking was:
}>>California      66.5  [#20]
}> >Alaska          91    [#1]
}> although I was surprised somewhat by the poor standing of
}> >California      66.5  [#20]
}> but why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
} California, on the other hand, is just too COMFORTABLE. People in
}that state may tend to find it much easier to look towards things like
}social issues (civil rights, ecology, etc.).  

I propose that the reason that Alaska is so high is the same reason that
California is so low - people are comfortable in California and want to
stay there, psople in Alaska are so un-comfortable that they want to get
out.

Besides, -80 degrees is not so unlike Mars!   ;-)



The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 14:15:43 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb21.043732.25070@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Don't forget that the first Shuttle/Centaur launch was only a few months
>away when Challenger was lost.  A shuttle-based plan made *today* cannot
>assume oxygen/hydrogen without orbital assembly or something like that,
>but before January 1986 oxygen/hydrogen was a reasonable choice of fuel.

It was reasonable only in the sense that NASA was saying that it was
reasonable.  NASA said lots of silly things -- like the shuttle having
a 1 in 10,000 (or was that 100,000?) chance per launch of blowing up.
That's down to 1 in 3000 now.  Some progress, I suppose.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 23:29:04 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Current issue of Science

Nice issue on Atmospheric Science in Science 10 Feb. 1989.
Covers all aspects of the problems in independent way (perhaps
a disadvantage is that interactions aren't covered). Schneider's
article has a section on "Scientific Consensus" which basically says:
it's probable we will have greenhouse warming, but if you push us for details,
we can't help you, but we do need more research.  Back to benchmarking models.

Follow-ups directed to sci.environment.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Post follow ups.  Contribute to network noise."

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 89 21:28:27 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

In article <58*thompson@arc.cdn> thompson@arc.CDN (bradley thompson) writes:
>My own personal
>experiences on low gravity aircraft [ KC135 in the USA, and
>the T33 in Canada] only support these beliefs. Every experiment
>I have personally flown has needed in flight repairs and/or
>modifications in protocol. 

Airplane flights are very cheap compared to space flights, and man-tended
experiments make sense.  But in space, how many of the repairs can be made 
real-time? Shuttle experience suggests not very many.  How many protocol 
changes could be made through software uploads?  Quite a few.  Furthermore,
mixing experiments and people puts tremendous safety constraints on the
experiments.  For actual space experiments, it does not make sense to spend 
billions of dollars for the minor added capability of man-tending.

>What I need is routine access to
>low gravity and cheap experiments. Note I am ommitting cheap 
>launch costs. Experiments are usually low mass, therefore low
>launch cost. 

Experiments are low mass; people and the extensive life support they
need are high mass.  This again illustrates why automated research
makes more sense.

>Companies need routine access to build business
>plans around.

Routine *and* inexpensive.  This is why all serious private space ventures are 
unmanned, and will remain so (excepting expensive tourism) until a mature 
mining and manufacturing infrastructure is developed in space.


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #259
*******************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #272
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Mar 89 04:38:54 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00917>; Fri, 3 Mar 89 04:50:14 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  3 Mar 89 04:50:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YY3YkYy00Ui3E5E0d9>;
          Fri,  3 Mar 89 03:26:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.sY3Ygxy00UkZEl2U4y>;
          Fri,  3 Mar 89 03:22:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0Y3Ybuy00UkZ4l104w@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  3 Mar 89 03:16:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #273

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 273

Today's Topics:
	      Mondale and (or vs.) space (was Re: Nerva)
	 Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
	    Re: An integrated space program for the world
		     USSR on manned/unmanned ...
		   Re: What ever happened to NERVA?
	      Re: Forbes article on manned space program
			      Re: Nerva
			 Re: More good news!
		      Re: Man tended experiments
			      PS: Nerva
		   NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 20:55:10 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Mondale and (or vs.) space (was Re: Nerva)

In article <604525968.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>The Congressional names to damn for all eternity are William Proxmire
>and Walter Mondale. [. . .]

	I know why you list William Proxmire in this, but what did Walter
Mondale do against space, and when?

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 22:01:20 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

>> >What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig? 
 
>> The complete lack of an adequate, workable "tele-operated rig" available
>> as reliable off-the-shelf hardware, perhaps?
 
>The time has never been better to develop an orbiting, tele-operated
>materials-processing and biological experimentation laboratory. With
>skillful miniaturization, an unmanned laboratory could be lofted
>by a fairly small, and thus inexpensive, expendable launcher. The
>launcher would be well within the range of a private launch service.

	I'd go even further than that.  Given the current movement away
from central cities, with people living further and further from their
places of work, it seems to me that in the not-too-distant future
many people will be able to live at home and do their work through
teleoperation.  (See _Oath of Fealty_ for the sort of thing I mean.)
The US can probably manage fine without this technology, although
it would be nice.  The more overpopulated a country is, the more
it needs to spread out, creating problems with traffic congestion and
time wasted moving to and from work.

	This all seems reasonable to me.  What do the people actually
working on these rigs think?  Is this too expensive to contemplate?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 01:58:48 GMT
From: att!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Re: An integrated space program for the world

<"He seemed like such a nice man . . . and then he turned out to be a writer!">

In article <8902222303.AA13688@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, markh@CSD4.MILW.WISC.EDU
(Mark William Hopkins) defends his agenda in space.  I apologize for
carrying this debate away from space-related issues.  But while Dr.
Hopkins says that some of these things *should* or *must* happen, I
argue that they *cannot* happen, and that tying our goals in space to
such wishful thinking will damage our more attainable objectives.

> The political climate is subtly changing in such a way that no individual
> nation's power no longer exceeds the combined power of world opinion.

Such as the enormous effect international condemnation has had on
apartheid in South Africa?  Or (to address your specific suggestions)
that some North African nations are destroying food and starving their
own people, because the hungry regions are also centers of dissent?
Raw food production isn't the sole cause or antidote to world hunger;
distribution is also a critical issue.

> Judging by the response, though, I would still tend to think that a lot of
> people are somewhat skeptical towards this assessment of the current and
> future political situation.

Especially when you tie your visions to attitudes such as these:

>                              But the world is getting to be way too
> small for there to be autonomous nations -- especially with what is already
> going on with other climate problems such as the depleting Ozone layer
> or the Greenhouse Effect.
> 
> There will be cooperation, or extinction.  That time of reckoning is no
> longer in the future (as so many Sci. Fci. scenarios depict it), but
> today.

I don't disagree with you that nationalism is often counterproductive,
even dangerous.  "Cooperation or extinction, today" has been cried
since the beginning of the Cold War.  Even now, forty years later, the
wrong interpretation of a radar screen could set back civilization by
decades or centuries, or even kill every human being on or above the
Earth.

But the alternative seems to be telling the Powers (super- or
otherwise) that be, "It's time for you to give up all your strength,
to lay aside your ability to 'protect your own interests.'  Sure, you
may end up hungrier, poorer, certainly weaker for it.  But isn't the
bettering of the rest of the human race worth it?"  That question has
been answered, "No!" by every nation that ever prepared for or went to
war.

> The big stumbling block is getting the superpowers together on such a plan.
> That, alone, would turn the tide of opinion.

Sorry; I can't agree even with that.  Removing the polarization between
nations on Earth would of course have a tremendous impact on
international relations.  (How's *that* for the understatement of the
eon.)  But it wouldn't solve regional problems that cause some of the
trouble you're trying to fix.  Unity between the superpowers would
certainly exacerbate mistrust between them and the smaller nations,
who'd no longer even be able to play the big boys off against each
other.

Mark, going into orbit with the Soviets to solve world hunger, or with
them to Mars instead of building nuclear warheads (Dr. Sagan's thesis),
would be wonderful.  Carter's concentration on energy problems as "a
moral equivalent to war" would have been, too.  But our efforts in
space, and our technical solutions, can't resolve problems like that.
At best, they help us to defuse them.  At worst, they can make them
worse.  (ICBMs are one example.  Many people would site ballistic
missile defense systems as another; I'm not going to get into that one
here.)

So we'll send our robots and our men to other worlds.  We'll have them
dig up the soil of other planets, other places.  We'll look through
their eyes as they turn back wonder how the orb they stand on differs
from this fragile blue marble of ours.  Maybe, we'll take a more
global, certainly less narrow view of how we deal with each other.  But
no satellite will bring world peace.  Only men and women can do that.

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories, att!pegasus!psrc
psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 01:40:16 GMT
From: jumbo!ayers@decwrl.dec.com  (Bob Ayers)
Subject: USSR on manned/unmanned ...


The following exchange begins the USSR/USA television talk/debate
"Together to Mars."  I obtained it from the April 1988 issue of 
"Soviet Life," which contains several articles releated to the 
USSR space program.

I believe the exchange sums up the current manned/unmanned debate 
well -- the "realists" versus the visionaries.


Sagan:  Should we send men to Mars -- or only robots?  And can we
    afford to send manned flights to Mars?

Arkadi Strugatsky, Soviet science-fiction writer:  Well, I'm a
    pessimist in this regard. I think it's too early to seriously
    discuss such a monstrously expensive project. Mankind is not 
    yet prepared for this, economically or socially. Moreover, 
    technologically, mankind is not yet ready for a comprehensive, 
    sustained exploration of Mars or Venus ...

Valeri Kubasov, Pilot-Cosmonaut of the USSR:  I've always imagined 
    that first there was the dream -- the vision -- and only after 
    that, the real project. And the visionaries always provided us 
    with a direction for thought ... Sure the mission might take 
    10 or 15 years, but we've got to get started ...

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 11:22:39 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: What ever happened to NERVA?
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

There's a short article on NERVA in the current issue of _Final Frontier_,
an excellent magazine.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 02:22:24 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Forbes article on manned space program

Someone failed to do their arithmetic.  1 g and one rpm gives you the
Stanford torus of the 1975 space colony study.  It came in at just over
a mile in diameter, not some 10 miles.

A bigger problem is cosmic radiation.  It takes about 6 feet of dirt to
bring them down to the level you could live all your life there.  

Keith Henson (a founder of L5)  hkhenson@cup.portal.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1989 14:52-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Nerva

Nerva was dropped primarily because it was an engine without a mission.
The only reasonable mission for it was perceived to be a manned Mars
mission, and although the Agnew Commission came out for this aggressive
space plan, congress and the country were turning anti-tech. It was a
sad time for those of us who grew up with bright dreams of going into
space. I got to grow up watching the hardware being built, and then I
got to see it all INTENTIONALLY discarded and destroyed to insure that
NASA would not be able to revive the dream any time soon.

More simply, NERVA was killed by the political maneuvering over the
space budget. It could only be justified by a healthy active space
program, and congress did not want that. Nixon did not want to put his
political capital on the line because the Moon (and space) was a
Democratic program and he was too busy with the Vietnam War and
millions of long haired hippies (like me at the time) banging on the
White House fence.

The Congressional names to damn for all eternity are William Proxmire
and Walter Mondale. Maybe one day we can erect an anti-monument to them
on the moon. Maybe the "Walter Mondale Memorial Septic Tank". Strikes
me as quite fitting, you know.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 15:12:00 GMT
From: killer!texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: More good news!


If Dan Quayle is your most prestigious supporter, you've got a long, long
way to go.

Every time I think of him I pray for the competence of the Secret Service
and hope George keeps his flak jacket on.

However, I do think the Commercial or Industrial or whatever you want to
call it Space Thingy is a logical step towards a manned station.  My
primary beef with Space Station Freedom is its apparent uselessness until
it is fully completed.  I remember from several years back a proposal
to orbit a Solar Array with which shuttles could dock to increase their
on orbit time.  To this structure would be added SpaceLab modules, etc,
eventually leading to a permanently peopled station.  Freedom, on the 
other hand, seems to need a large number of flights for construction, 
during which time all other American space activities seem to go on hold.

Is my understanding correct, or will the structure be in some way useful
after the first few shuttles deposit their loads?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1989 15:03-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Man tended experiments

> experiments make sense.  But in space, how many of the repairs can be made 
> real-time? Shuttle experience suggests not very many.  How many protocol

Quite a lot actually. I know Charlie Walker well enough to sit around
and swap stories over a brew, and he spent much of his three flights
tinkering with the hardware. Charlie was the first real ENGINEER in
space, and he was studying his hardware in it's natural environment and
using the results of real observation to modify things on the spot and
to make later more major corrections on the ground based on the in
space observation and tinkering.

Franklin Chang Diaz did quite a bit of fiddling around with his
experiments in Skylab also. (The Floating Monkey Shit Flight)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll buy ANYTHING that gives			Dale Amon
Khomeini a heart attack.			Free Minds and Free Markets
Simon Rushdie for Prime Minister!		Free Speech and a Free Press
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1989 15:19-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: PS: Nerva

In a way I grew up with the project because my brother and law and
sister were living up stairs and he was flying out to Jack Ass Flats
for the Pittsburgh based contractor, Westinghouse Astronuclear. I can
remember sitting around watching Star Trek with him every week (when it
first came out) and thinking that Bill was working on the real thing.
The apartment walls featured some great engine test photos.  Ah, those
wonderful forgotten days of optimism...

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 19:13:41 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the satellite user community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.  The most current orbital elements
from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513)
427-0674, and are updated several times weekly.  Documentation and tracking
software are also available on this system.  The Celestial RCP/M may be
accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit, no parity.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:

AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed;
           blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.  (Decimal point assumed)
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:

NOAA 6
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978

Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #273
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Mar 89 07:04:28 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01241>; Fri, 3 Mar 89 05:57:46 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  3 Mar 89 05:57:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kY3aYfy00Ui3Q8Nk4Q>;
          Fri,  3 Mar 89 05:30:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.UY3aOwy00UkZIlBU5b>;
          Fri,  3 Mar 89 05:19:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <8Y3aMDy00UkZ8lA04e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  3 Mar 89 05:16:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #274

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 274

Today's Topics:
		     NASA's budget and addresses
		       400th anniversary colony
				Errata
		 Re: First concert from space--update
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			     Space Digest
			    edwards base?
			 Cylinder on Titan IV
			    Re: Mars Movie
		       Solar cells on the moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 06:27:42 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Chris Riley)
Subject: NASA's budget and addresses

I got this form letter in the mail the other day and thought I'd pass it 
along.  Hope they don't mind!  Make of it what you will...

-------
>From the desk of James Beggs, Former Administrator of NASA

Dear Space Enthusiast,

	The Russians will soon totally dominate us in space, unless we 
move our space program forward aggressively.  They have had a 
space station in orbit since 1982.  Ours will not be available until 
1996, at the earliest.  In the last year before the Challenger space 
shuttle disaster, the Russians launched 97 rockets compared to our 
17.

	The Japanese and Europeans understand the importance of 
space and are rapidly closing the gap between them and us.

	How did we get ourselves into this sorry situation?  In the late 
1960s the NASA budget was almost 1% of our GNP.  Today it is less 
than 1/4 of 1%.

	Despite this situation, I would not be writing this letter to you 
if it were not for the fact that Congressional pressure on this year's 
NASA budget is particularly severe.  Budget reductions are almost 
certain. The Space station program, in particular, may be gutted.

	The deficit situation is forcing each of the special interest 
groups to mobilize all of its political constituency.  The competition 
for every federal dollar is fierce.  The NASA budget has done poorly 
in similar situations in the past, primarily because its supporters 
among the public have not been organized.

	This time, let us do things differently.  SPACECAUSE--the new 
lobbying organization for the grassroots space constituency--is 
mounting a major effort to save the NASA budget in general and the 
space station in particular.

	I urge you to write a letter (or send a mailgram) to each of four 
key members of Congress:  Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, 
Washington D.C. 20510-4801;  Senator Jake Garn of Utah, Washington 
D.C.20510-4401;  Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Washington 
D.C. 20510-2003; and Congressman Robert Traxler of Michigan, 
Washington D.C. 20515-2208.  All of these, except for Garn, are 
Democrats.  Letters should be less than one page and need not be 
typed.  Essentially the same letter can be sent to all four.  After you 
have done this, please call ten of your friends and have them do the 
same and then have each of them call ten of their friends, etc.

	In Congress, we face an unusual situation.  The three members 
who are likely to be the most influential on space issues--all of 
whom are among the four that I have asked you to write--are new to 
their positions.  Impressing them with the strength of the public 
support for the space program will pay high dividends for years to 
come.  Your letters are key to accomplishing this.

[a bit about what letters can do and money for their group can do left 
out]

Signed by James Beggs
--------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul." --George Bernard Shaw
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riley
riley@cs.ucsd.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 22:45:27 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: 400th anniversary colony


>From: II60016%MAINE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (trekkER)
>  Rather than rushing projects together and begging for donations
>to get a lunar base by 1992 (for the 500th anniv. of Columbus'
>stumbling upon the new world)  I think a much more feasible and
>worthwhile goal would be to plan said base in greater detail for
>2020.
>  2020, however, would mark the 400th anniversary of the voyage of
>the Mayflower and the subsequent settlement of New England.  Apollo
>marked our lunar parallel to Columbus.  Let the lunar base parallel
>the settlement of a new frontier.
>Chris Clark

Maybe 2007 would be more appropriate. The Pilgrims formed the Plymouth
Colony to escape religious persecution, or to impose their own brand
of religious persecution, depending on your point of view. Hopefully,
a space colony would not be needed for either of these reasons. Also,
one would hope that the first space colony would be better thought out
than the expedition to the Plymouth Colony, and have a lower initial
mortality rate (~50%)!!!

Jamestown was founded in 1607 with the intention of forming a profitable
colony, surely setting a better example. (Or, we could try for 1965,
to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of St Augustine, Florida :-)
                                     John Roberts
                                     roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1989 19:28-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Errata

Stuart Warmink pointed out that I inadvertantly said "Skylab" where I
meant "Spacelab" in a posting I made yesterday. Sorry about that
guys...

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 05:58:41 GMT
From: ingr!brooke@uunet.uu.net  (Brooke King)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1989Feb26.013809.13032@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
| In article <4111@ingr.com> brooke@ingr.UUCP (Brooke King) writes:
| >...The Iron Curtain launchers are simply facing the reality of their
| >need for hard currency and the results of the (until recently)
| >reality of the US government's foolish, all-the-eggs-in-one-
| >expensive-shuttle-basket, monopolistic launch policy.  They
| >oughtn't be credited with any love of free enterprise.
| 
| Neither should NASA, which really would prefer to go back to said
| monopolistic launch policy, so it could retain control.  At the moment
| the space-launcher competition isn't between free enterprise and the
| socialist bureaucracies, it's between four or five different socialist
| bureaucracies.  Predictably, the simplest and crudest one -- China's --
| is the low bidder for current launch contracts, the most experienced
| one -- the Soviet Union's -- is not far behind, and the newest and most
| factionalized one -- NASA and the US aerospace contractors -- is dead
| last.
| 
| There are some glimmerings of free enterprise here and there, at places
| like OSC/Hercules, Amroc, Pacific American, et al, but they are still
| very small and vulnerable.  Pray that the US government doesn't step on
| them, deliberately or through sheer negligence, in the next few years.
| If they succeed, it will be a whole new ballgame.

A ballgame I should like very much to see!  I do worry that the
aerospace contractors here in Huntsville and elsewhere might team
up to oppose privatization out of fears they might not be able to
compete.  I hope they allay my fear.  The contractors here
certainly have the talent in their ranks to make their
competition viable.

| The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
| our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
-- 

brooke@ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke W+1 205 7727796 H+1 205 8950824
"I'd like to nuke all the litterers." -- John Denver, 19 Oct 1988
Why REPEAL the income tax?  I heard only four states ratified it!

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 16:11:47 GMT
From: fas.ri.cmu.edu!schmitz@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Donald Schmitz)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <6632@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>	Just how close are we to being able to establish this unmanned
>base we are discussing?  In particular, I would like to know how
>far development of teleoperated mechanical hands has progressed.
>Do hands capable of picking up and turning a wrench or screwdriver
>exist?  If you have to build all of the tools into the hand, repair
>will be very expensive and for complex tasks impractical.

A few very anthropomorphic robot hands have been built, the usual problem is
mounting the dozen or so actuators which control the fingers via cable drive
on the robot carrying the hand.  I don't think such a hand has ever been
installed on a commercial manipulator (at least without making the
manipulator much more bulky and less capable).

>	I can't believe that a 3 second turnaround lag will matter for
>most jobs. 

We just had a guest speaker here from Teledyne Brown in Huntsville, they are
doing teleoperation research (as subcontractors) for the NASA station - most
of the info that follows is from him: The plan is to provide a teleoperated
manipulator in the station lab module, allowing experiments to be
continuously tended from the ground. Counting all the satellite bounces,
delays of 3 or more seconds are possible to LEO.  There are quite a few
studies showing teleoperation efficency rapidly drops to 0 with delays
greater than 0.5 seconds.  The current solution is to graphically simulate
the robot responding instantly, and overlay this on top of the actual video
feedback.  Operation is still inefficient - after every few seconds of
operation, the operator waits the 3 seconds to make sure the actual robot
did what it should have - however efficiency and operator fatigue are much
better using the simulator.  Safegaurds and local intelligence are built
into the maipulator to keep it from crashing into unexpected obstacles (like
stray astronauts) - hopefully this intelligence can be extended to handle
more of the tasks without human intervention.

In summary, although there are no insurmountable problems, a lot of
engineering is requried to build even a 90% human capacity tele-robot.
Still, there are lots of earth bound applications of such technology, and it
will likely be available in the next 5 years (my opinion of course).

Don Schmitz	(schmitz@fas.ri.cmu.edu)
--

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 05:35:36 GMT
From: att!alberta!ubc-cs!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a864@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jono Moore)
Subject: Space Digest

How does one get put onto the mailing list?
--
.......
Jono Moore --> Jono_Moore@mindlink.UUCP  *or*  a864@mindlink.UUCP
Vancouver, BC, Canada ... eh!

The definition of a Canadian is someone who knows how to make love in a 
canoe.
  -- Pierre Burton (I think...)

------------------------------

Subject: edwards base?
From: IA80024%MAINE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (nicholas c. hester)
Date:    Mon, 27 Feb 89 10:59:49 EST

is the base that the airforce built for the launching of shuttles closed perma-
nently or is it used for unmanned rockets? also, is there any chance of it bein
g used for shuttles? i'm sorry that i don't remember the name of the base.

=Nick Hester=
ia80024@maine.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 20:25:37 GMT
From: killer!rcj@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Robert Johnson)
Subject: Cylinder on Titan IV


Quick question:  On page 35 of the February 20, 1989 issue of Aviation
Week & Space Technology, there is a picture of the Titan IV...What the 
hell is that red cylinder on the right hand solid booster?

     Thanks,
        Robert C. Johnson

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 24 Feb 89 17:38:40 PST
From: rgd059@Mipl3.JPL.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: Mars Movie
X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu",RGD059      

In article <87@raider.MFEE.TN.US> crc@raider.MFEE.TN.US (Charles Cain) writes:
>The other morning while at work I saw a video of a computer animation that 
>was done at JPL. If anyone missed it, you missed truly some of the best 
>computer animations ever rendered out to video. My question is to anyone at
>JPL, is that available for distribution or was it just something for internal
>use and press footage only, or is there a lot more than the 2:00 minutes I saw
>then.

It's called "Mars, The Movie" and it was done by one of the groups in my
section here (Digital Image Animation Lab).  For those of you that haven't
seen it, it's a simulation of a *close* Mars flyby, combining imagery from
Viking with terrain elevation data to get a 3-D effect.  It's maybe 5 minutes
long (it's much longer than the clip CBS showed a while back).

I just talked to one of the creators about how to get a copy.  "Mars, The
Movie" is being distributed on a VHS tape along with the earlier "L.A., The
Movie", "Miranda, The Movie", and "Earth, The Movie" by:

The Video Tape Company
10523 Burbank Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA 91601
Attn: Kathy
(818) 985-1666

All four are on one VHS tape, for $33.40 (includes shipping and tax).

That's kind of a steep price for maybe 15-20 minutes of video, but it's
the easiest route.  The movies are public domain, so if you can find someone
else who'll copy one for you, it's no problem (no, I'm not taking requests,
sorry).  You might try calling the JPL Public Information Office at
(818)354-5011 and see what they say.  They may have something available,
especially if you're with an educational institution or something.

Good luck...

Bob Deen  @  NASA-JPL Multimission Image Processing Lab
rgd059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov		span:  mipl3::rgd059
#include <stddisclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 23:11:24 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Solar cells on the moon


>Note that no matter where you build your collector you want to pivot it
>to follow the sun; at the pole it just happens that that pivoting is around
>a vertical axis.  This might even make it easier; you don't have to worry
>about the wind loading on the structure and can balance it on edge nicely.

Not sure about the lunar poles, but elsewhere there might be little
incentive to pivot solar cells to follow the sun, if you have adequate
power storage (3 weeks or more). A pivoting solar array would cost much
more than one just laid flat on high ground, and would only collect about
60% more power (at the equator). It would, however, provide full power 
for a higher percentage of the time.

Caution: Solar cells have reduced performance at high temperatures. Since
the moon gets pretty hot during the day, this might have to be taken into
account.
                                       John Roberts
                                       roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #274
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Mar 89 05:32:20 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06786>; Sat, 4 Mar 89 03:54:32 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  4 Mar 89 03:54:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4Y3ttTy00Vs1M2NEkG>;
          Sat,  4 Mar 89 03:29:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.kY3tjmy00UkZ020U4q>;
          Sat,  4 Mar 89 03:19:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY3thLy00UkZM1z05M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  4 Mar 89 03:16:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #275

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 275

Today's Topics:
		      NSS Hotline Update 2/24/89
		       RE: the un/manned debate
	   Manned/unmanned projects and government funding
	 Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			Photo identification?
		       Re: the un/manned debate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 04:26:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update 2/24/89



This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the Week
ending 2/24/89

In Washington.....
Last Wed. Office of Management & Budget Director Richard Darman
testified on NASA's FY 90 Budget to the House Budget Committee
Hearing.  Stating that, "the only way to save any significant
money from the NASA budget would be to cut the space station
program, and stretch it out over a longer time line.  That would
be equivalent to killing it, and Office of Management & Budget
doesn't want to do that.  The space program is critical in the
investment of our future.  Investment in space is an investment
in our children's future, its a good policy and a good budget". 
In closing remarks he stated the we should not allow the US to
take a back seat in new technologies, and exploring a new
frontier.

Its been rumored that Henry Cooper will be named by President
Bush to Head the National Space Council.  Henry Cooper was a
State Department official with a background in military space
activities.  He served as a arms control negotiator for defense
and space issues.  No decision has been made, but he is a leading
candidate for the position of executive secretary of the National
Space Council.

In response to the Bush Administration's line by line acceptance
of the NASA budget Sen. Lloyd Bensten stated it will be taught to
sell the NASA increases to a Congress that is mainly concerned
with deficits.  He called on NASA's administrator to try to win
support for the agency's need for additional funding.

At Kennedy Space Center:

On the Orbiter Discovery technicians are finishing up the last
connections to the third oxidizer turbo pump, while workers
installed heat shields around the other two main engines.  On
Sunday pre-launch operations will commence, including
pressurization of the orbital maneuvering system and reaction
control system.  Flight readiness tests will be conducted on the
orbiter and the TDRS's IUS.  The tests will determine weather the
orbiter and payload are ready for flight.

The orbiter Atlantis had her flight controls tested and
activities regarding the checkout of main propulsion system, tile
inspections and waterproofing are continuing.

A faulty electrical power supply was found in the Magellan Venus
radar mapper booster, last Wed.  This was another small but
frustrating problem that technicians say have been slowing down
preparation of the probe for its April 28 launch.  The IUS will
probably have to be disconnected from the spacecraft in order to
replace the burnt out component.  NASA must launch the probe
during the April 28 to May 28 launch window, or wait two years
before the planets return to closer positions.  The launch is
still scheduled for April 28th.

NASA has accepted 24 out of 455 proposed experiments to go on its
Earth Observing polar platform.  550 scientist from 168 different
institutions, from over 13 countries will be participating in the
program.  The platform is scheduled to be launched in 1996, and
will be coordinated with the Space Station.

The Air Force released a report last Fri. that stated there is a
growing problem with all the debris in orbit about the Earth. 
The 71,000 pieces of debris larger that 4 inches in diameter and
the 17,500 smaller pieces pose a dangerous threat to operating
spacecraft, especially manned.

The Bush administration proposes $190.5 million for increased
research of global temperature changes caused by the greenhouse
effect.  The money will be split between nine federal agencies
including the NSF, DoE, EPA and NASA.

Currently NASA managers are asking Congress for $6.8 million this
year to increase work on the 10 year, $85 million Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence program.  The program will search
800 stars that fall within 480 trillion miles of Earth, and that
resemble the sun. In addition the program will perform a lower
intensity survey of the full sky.  

On an interview with Moscow Radio Buran Space Shuttle designer,
Yuri Semonyou, stated that the next flight of Buran will probably
be unmanned like it previous voyage.  In addition he believed
that there could be interaction between the Buran and the Mir
Space Platform.

The USSR's probe Phobos has relayed to Earth the first images of
Mars's moon Phobos.  Nine high-quality television images of
Phobos at various angles.  The information will be used to orbit
the probe about Phobos, so that it will deploy its two landers.

Lastly a documentary called "SPACE WORKERS" will be aired on
public television Mon. Feb. 27.  The program features NASA
employees and space activists that have helped in shaping the US
Civil Space program.  Please consult you local listings for show
time.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 18:31 EST
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: RE: the un/manned debate

    I just read the march 1989 Scientific American article "U.S. Access
    to Space".  This is a companion to last month's article on the Soviet
    space program.  The march article describes the "Shuttle-C" which
    has not been extensively discussed on the net.
    
    Currently Henry Spencer and Paul Dietz and others are engaged in
    a protracted debate on the merits of manned vs. unmanned space
    exploration.  I would suggest that without agreeing on the long
    term issue, both groups should agree that the Shuttle-C deserves
    to be built as quickly as possible.
    
    At $1.5B it is a relatively cheap project. (Sci.Am p.38)  This is
    perhaps the cost of three shuttle launches (P.37)  At 100-150K lift
    this is definately a heavy lift vehicle.  I see the following
    advantages:
    
    Manned Space Exploration:  The capacity to lift large payloads is
    essential to manned space exploration.  Complete moonbase or space
    station modules could be lifted with shuttle-c, while shuttle requires
    in space assembly, which greatly increases risks and expense.
    Furthermore, dangerous supplies (such as fuel) would be needed for
    a moonbase/mars mission and these cannot be lifted with shuttle
    due to safety considerations.
    
    Unmanned Space Exploration:  The capacity to lift large payloads
    greatly increases the prospects for unmanned space exploration.
    Small probes can accomplish a lot, but larger probes have a number
    of advantages.  Guidance, power and communication componants are
    required for all probes, but these fixed expenses can be amortized
    over a larger number of scientific packages on a large probe.  IN
    a large probe redundancy of critical subsystems requires a smaller
    percentage of weight and cost.  Furthermore, dangerous but useful
    componants (such as lithium batteries) cannot be lifted on the shuttle.
    
    It seems to me that everyone who wants any kind of ambitious space
    exploration should strongly support the shuttle-C.  It is the only
    near term proposal for a new heavy lift launcher.  Capacity is similar
    to or greater than the Saturn V.  Using at least partially reusable
    componants (shuttle boosters) should result in some cost savings.
     Using already exising componants (boosters/engines) also saves
    bucks and further amortizes the original shuttle development costs.
     Fully fueled pre-challenger boosters could be used without upgrading
    them.
    
    The "proponants maintain that the vehicle could be operational as
    early as 1994 and estimate that it could lift between 100,000 and
    150,000 pounds to the space station's orbit" (S.A. P.38).
    This should be something that everyone in this discussion group
    should clearly and vocally support.
    
    Chris Eliot
    University of Massachusetts at Amherst

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 22:16:52 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Manned/unmanned projects and government funding


>Government should provide funds for both exploration (as it did for Lewis 
>and Clark et. al.) and basic research.  Furthermore, it should provide 
>incentives for the creation of new industries, as with the railroad (c.  
>1840-1870) and air transportation in the 1930's.  It should not own or 
>operate these industries.  

>Translating these policies into the current space program, the government 
>should fund scientific missions (eg planetary probes, Mission to Planet
>Earth) based on their science return, and basic R&D to develop better 
>technology for future scientific and commercial applications.  It should
>subsidize new industries of large potential by providing garunteed purchases,
>tax breaks, patents, import quotas, etc. to the extent that these measures 
>do not harm other new industries.  
(2 more paragraphs)
>Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

This appears to be a very reasonable presentation of the proper role
of government in research and development, and largely corresponds with
my own ideas on the subject. However, for actual application of these
principles, another factor must be included: politics. There is limited
funding available, and competition for it is intense. Strong political
pressure is generally required for approval of any funded project. This
pressure has additional leverage if it is from a powerful organization
within the government. It is also important to consider the effects of
politics within a government research organization. There may, for 
instance, be more concern for continued funding (survival) than for
spending the money in the most efficient manner. There may be excessive
caution, to prevent politically harmful mistakes. When a budget is tight,
the organization may try to kill or restrict some projects to save others,
and the leaders of the organization may have an unjustified bias toward
or against certain areas of research. The organization may also try to
discourage private competition.

It is clear that many areas of space research must be funded by the
government if they are to be pursued at all in the near future, because
they offer no direct short-term financial benefits. Included in these
are exploration of the solar system by unmanned probes, and research
on human occupation of space. NASA, as a moderately powerful organization
within the government, has caused many billions of dollars to be spent
on space exploration that would have otherwise been spent on things
unrelated to space. Whether the collective influence of NASA has been
helpful or harmful in the long run to any specific area of space exploration
is open to debate. However, NASA has justified, and Congress has approved
its current budget largely in terms of the manned space program, with some
additional funding for the unmanned effort. Given this history, and the
known characteristics of Congress, it is simplistic to assume that taking
away the funding for manned exploration would result in all the money being
added to the unmanned program. There might be some increase, but the overall
space budget would probably be greatly reduced, to the sorrow of the large
portion of the population that favors both manned and unmanned exploration.

NASA has previously discouraged private competition for launch services.
Hopefully, this is coming to an end, and we are at the beginning of an
era in which numerous private companies compete, at first for government
launches, then later for service to industry.

In times of severe budget difficulties, NASA has tended to favor the
manned program over the unmanned program, and many claim that it always
does so to an unreasonable degree. Perhaps this situation could be alleviated
if a single agency were to be split off from NASA, dedicated to Space Science
or a similar category. This agency could initially be given the part of the
NASA budget dedicated to unmanned exploration (and maybe several other areas).
To launch its payloads, it could use private launch services or university
contracts. Having many areas of common interest, it would continue to
interact with NASA, as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission interacts with the
other descendent of its parent organization, the Atomic Energy Commission.
After the initial period, this agency would compete directly for the general
funding along with NASA and the other major government organizations. The
public, through its representatives in Congress, could show its relative
support for the manned and unmanned programs by the relative funding
approved for NASA and the new agency. Optimistically (from a space
enthusiast's viewpoint) the combined research budgets would be larger than
the current NASA research budget.

                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 17:28:00 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

In article <730@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>> >What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig? 
>
>> The complete lack of an adequate, workable "tele-operated rig" available
>> as reliable off-the-shelf hardware, perhaps?
>
>The time has never been better to develop an orbiting, tele-operated
>materials-processing and biological experimentation laboratory. With
>skillful miniaturization, an unmanned laboratory could be lofted
>by a fairly small, and thus inexpensive, expendable launcher...

In, say, 1999, when development of the laboratory is complete.  If then.
This is *well beyond* current teleoperator technology (defined as the
technology that is well understood and reliable enough for production
use, as opposed to laboratory experimental devices), assuming that you
are talking about a teleoperator system that can deal with unexpected
problems (i.e. the need to repair equipment) rather than just moving
samples around.

I agree that the teleoperator development in question is worth pursuing.
But it should not be confused with alternatives that are available now.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 10:39:24 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

uhccux!lee@humu.nosc.mil  (Greg Lee) writes:

>Right.  If you want people to be willing to invest in space, you
>have to give them back something they value for their investment,
>or at least promise to do so shortly.  I've been following this
>discussion since forever waiting for someone to point out the
>obvious source for such value.  It's entertainment.  Movies filmed
>on Mars.  Curios carved from Deimos rocks.  Contest -- Win a 2-day
>vacation on the Moon!

Of course... if people want a nine-mile high statue of Elvis on Mars, then
By Golly, let's give 'em one!   :-)

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 05:26:47 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Photo identification?

Someone handed me copies of two satellite photos. These have identification
lines reading
  1615 26FE79 35A-2   00952 23132 SB39N121W-2
  1645 26FE79 35A-2   00954 23132 SB39N121W-2

Can anyone tell me how do decode this? Can you tell me where these came from?
I'd like to see if other images, perhaps in other spectral bands, are available
of the same area.

  ++PLS

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 00:22:14 GMT
From: orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!aero!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@ucsd.edu  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <144@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@blue.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>My argument was that "manned space R&D" does not exist right now, because it 
>is not funded through peer review.  I am in favor of setting up a true 
>manned space R&D project.

This is the central point I've been trying to make in my postings. Manned
space R&D in general is worthwhile now. I agree however that the program as
it is *currently* constituted is not returning and will not return results
worth what the program costs. That said I'd like to say the following in
defense of NASA's program. First that the shuttle has yielded and the station
will yield valuble data, although to reiterate, the amount of money NASA is
spending could accomplish much more. Second, given that the only currently
practical source of billions of dollars for space is the government, a large
amount of waste is to be expected.

>In article <8287@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>>manned space needs
>>inexpensive access to space for large amounts of mass much more than unmanned.
>>You can't miniaturize people. 
>
>My point exactly.  True manned spaceflight must await drops of at least two
>orders of magnitude in launch cost, plus space infrastructure to support us
>when we get out there.  Unmanned projects can start today exploring the solar 
>system and building that infrastructure.  The longer the unmanned projects 
>wait, the longer people will wait.  Let's start now.

An orders of magnitude reduction in launch costs, followed by the construction
of an off earth infrastructure (in space, on Mars, on the moon, wherever)
sounds like an excellent *manned* program to me. As you say, we should start
now. And certainly the unmanned program should continue exploring the solar
system, with maximum financial support. 

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results
guaranteed to advance science, satisfy every special interest group, generate
2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #275
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Mar 89 11:15:07 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01043>; Sat, 4 Mar 89 05:42:04 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  4 Mar 89 05:41:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0Y3vc9y00Vs142qU4T>;
          Sat,  4 Mar 89 05:27:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.wY3vUKy00UkZA2=E4K>;
          Sat,  4 Mar 89 05:19:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YY3vS7y00UkZ029k4a@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  4 Mar 89 05:16:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #276

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 276

Today's Topics:
		    E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
		      Re: Photo identification?
		  Re: mailing list for space digest
		    For the People of Planet Earth
	      Re: Forbes article on manned space program
	 Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 20:18:39 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation

I've received several inquiries about E'Prime Aerospace Corporation so
here is some information that I've gathered.

(For more complete information contact Mike Sprigg 800/525-4348 and ask for
 E'Prime's business plan document.)

E'Prime Aerospace Corporation (EPAC) was formed in February of 1987 to
enter the commercialization of space as a satellite launch service
organization and as consultants to both government and industries in
space commercialization.

The founders, headed by Bobby G. Davis, are mainly the old-line Apollo
era Kennedy Space Center types who decided it was rather ridiculous for
the US to be falling behind in space transportation given the maturity 
of booster technology.  They are doing something about it.

What they are doing is setting up a fairly diversified launch services
business with projected revenues through 2000 of $508M in
sounding rockets (short duration microgravity environments), $3.38B
U. S. Government orbital flights, $5.74B commercial orbital flights
and minor income from a variety of other activities.

The foundation of their business is the solid rocket motor technology
developed for the MX (Peacekeeper) missile for the Air Force.  They
have EXCLUSIVE rights to this booster technology which consists of
composite case SRBs with over $50B invested development costs.  The
Peacekeeper vehicle has flown 17 times.  It has not failed yet.  

Their boosters require only about 20 people to run a launch as opposed
to a couple hundred for a TITAN or DELTA type vehicle and over 6,000
for a Shuttle launch.  These are the people who have watched poor 
systems engineering in the STS drive operational costs for launch
through the ionosphere so they are painfully aware of the importance
of choosing the right system for operational economy.  They expect
to be able to set up and launch one of their "S-series" rockets within
3 days -- a figure not unreasonable given that this sort of "stand-by"
capability is exactly why the Air Force invested so much in the Peacekeeper
technology.

They have already gone through the main red-tape barriers with the
launch of a sounding rocket from Cape Canaveral AFB last year (the
first totally private commercial launch).  The Air Force has granted
them the right to use their facilities and services for launch.

The S-series vehicles are made up of one or more MX booster segments
standing alone, stacked and/or strapped together.

Here are the payload capabilities:

VEHICLE  LEO     GTO     PLANETARY    SCHEDULED  CONFIGURATION  REMARKS
S1       2,500   975     675          4Q 1990    1 stage        1,200 Polar
S2       6,500   2,400   1,625        3Q 1991    2 stage        4,200 Polar
S3       11,000  4,200   2,900        3Q 1992    2 stage w/2 strap-ons
S4       17,500  6,500   4,500        3Q 1993    2 stage w/3 strap-ons

S1 has no current or proposed competitors except government surplus
vehicles such as Scout and Minuteman.

S2 competes with McDonnel Douglas Delta family, Japan's proposed H-1
and China's Long March 3.

S3 competes with the high end Delta's, the H-2 and low end Ariane III.

S4 competes with GD Atlas-Centaur, Ariane III/IV and Martin Marietta
Titan III.  (nondefense application of Titan III is limited due to
defense contract ties)

They expect pricing to be from $25M to $60M for the above vehicles.

EPAC is a publically traded stock.  To the best of my knowlege, the
only brokerage selling it is First Eagle, Inc.  For more information
on the stock contact Mike Sprigg (the guy with E'Prime's business plan)
at 800/525-4348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 15:18:37 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Photo identification?

>From article <15152@cup.portal.com>, by PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble):
> Someone handed me copies of two satellite photos. These have identification
> lines reading
>   1615 26FE79 35A-2   00952 23132 SB39N121W-2
>   1645 26FE79 35A-2   00954 23132 SB39N121W-2
> 
> Can anyone tell me how do decode this? Can you tell me where these came from?

I have no idea, but I'll guess...

Well, the first two fields are not too difficult - clearly the images
were taken at 1645 and 1645 on 26 Feb 1979.  Hmm, problem, thats only a
third of an orbit - bad news if the pictures are really of the same
area.  Part of the last field is fairly obvious too, the subsatellite
point was at latitude 39N, longitude 121W.  So what is 00952 and 00954?
Seems to increase with time, so is probably some kind of image sequence
number.  It cant be an orbit number because 30 min separation means the
pictures would be taken on the same orbit. Maybe the 1615 and 1645 arent
times after all. 23132 is the right sort of number to be an orbit number,
if so and assuming a 105 minute orbit the satellite was launched around 
Aug 1974. So if your picture is in color I would guess that it came
from Landsat 2, launched in Jan 1975; (if in B&W it might be from
a military weather satellite, but I doubt it). I dont know about 35A-2
or "SB". Check with Eosat Corp and see if they can help you.

Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 11:37:49 GMT
From: shelby!Portia!hanauma!joe@decwrl.dec.com  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: mailing list for space digest


	Please, please, please, if you want to unsubscribe to sci.space
or be removed from a mailing list, DON'T blast a message to the entire
world! It's very annoying to many people!! Find out the correct way to do it!!

	Of course this message itself is in that category, for which I
apologize... I just have seen one too many "please remove me from the space
digest mailing list" messages here. It wouldn't be so bad if there were
some global way of KILLing them... now THERE'S a good use for AI!
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 04:45:54 GMT
From: att!whuts!lcuxlm!smd@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Friends of Earth)
Subject: For the People of Planet Earth


gP@ky



Dear folks,

Although hesitant, I have been asked by some "friends" to please post 
this message to a number of newgroups.  It is for informational 
purposes only, for those who wish to hear.  Any gripes or questions or 
sharings should be by email and NOT posted to the net.  A summary of 
positive replies will be made on talk.religion.newage, where future 
postings of this nature will be made.  Even if you have little 
interest in our Space Brothers, please simply listen to the message 
without judging, as much as possible, and record that you have read 
such information.  This will be important in understanding the future 
of our Planet Earth. 
=====================================================================

                     .\:|/,
                     -- o --
PEOPLE OF PLANET EARTH '|\`

Your planet is nearing the period in its evolution when it shall pass 
from the third dimension (that which you experience as your 
surroundings now) into the fourth dimension of existence.  This shall 
be a great change in the physical, mental and emotional nature of 
human beings as well as a dramatic change in the nature of your 
planet.

Had you, the people of earth, evolved peacefully without producing 
collective negative frequencies of thought forms which now surround 
your planet, this transition from the third dimension into the fourth 
reality would be a simple rephasing of the electrical poles of your 
planet and no greater disturbance than going to sleep and awakening to 
a beautiful new day.

However, your planet is in imminent danger or cataclysmic upheavals 
because of the disruption in the magnetic field surrounding your earth 
and caused by the tremendous negative vibrations you have been 
transmitting to one another for these past eons of time.  The wars, 
cruelty, atomic havoc and nonsensical destruction of yourselves and 
your environment through greed and hatred have added extra collective 
negative energy to the poles of your planet.  It may very soon tilt 
further on its axis than necessary to make this transition, creating a 
period of instability and destruction to the surface of your planet 
through resulting earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions and 
windstorms of unprecedented velocities.  This unnecessary violence 
will be a period of cleansing for your earth as foretold by your 
prophets and the reason we are here to observe and offer help.

Yes, we are here in the millions from worlds already into our fourth 
dimension and beyond, hence you of the third dimension see us not.  
Our presence is to fulfill our mission of brotherly love, deep 
concern, and to urge you to help yourselves before it is too late!

You see, people of earth, we represent a great Confederation of 
Planets, all of whom have long given up war and violence as a solution 
to our problems.  We are here on a mission of love from the Alliance 
for Peace representing th Intergalactic Council whose authority comes 
from the Spiritual Hierarchy of this Solar System.  As beings who have 
achieved both fourth and fifth dimensional consciousness, our desire 
after earth's purification will be to help teach humanity how to use 
the mind to create consciously all that it needs.  This information 
will not be given until after the earth stabilizes in its fourth 
dimension so that it will not be used to control or manipulate others 
or to destroy.

We cannot interfere with your free will... it is the law. So we wait 
and watch and reveal ourselves in your skies briefly to provoke mental 
stimulation, yet not panic.  Wake up! The time for past ridicule, 
suspicion and fear must come to an end.  For now, due to your 
ignorance of cosmic facts, your very lives are at stake!

The method of travel beyond your third dimension is by star ship, 
airavanga, etc., for there are multitudinal designs including what you 
call saucers.  We move with magnetic flow on lines of force through 
the roadways of the universe.  It is no mystery.  Should your axis 
move beyond its norm, threatening life upon your planet, we will use 
these conveyances as a means to evacuate YOU WHO HAVE RAISED YOUR 
PERSONAL VIBRATION TO A HIGHER DEGREE by practicing brotherly love and 
human kindness.  Only these people can stand the higher frequencies of 
the fourth dimension you are soon to enter.

How do you raise your personal vibration while there is yet time? Any 
immature emotion such as hatred, revenge, jealousy, competitiveness, 
suspicion, greed, cruelty, selfishness and fear the produces "up-tight 
tensions" must be overcome.  We implore you to remove these blocking 
thoughts, accepting your God-given responsibility for yourself and 
your world by achieving a level of self discipline and awareness of 
cosmic law, which disallows death and destruction of any life form.  
Your mind and hearts will open wide to allow the Creator's love to 
flow through you.  It is very simple, as are all truths.

If negation remains as it is around your planet when this great change 
occurs, REMAIN CALM, realizing while all around you may be chaotic, 
that your deliverance is present.  Step into the levitation beams that 
will be projected to earth from our ships.  You will be reunited with 
your families and loved ones in a safer atmosphere, experiencing a 
tremendous feeling of love which is our very presence and motivation.

Much effort on your part to do these things, to help yourselves, has a 
twofold benefit.  The negative  burden of your planet will begin to 
dissipate, lessening much of the violence from nature that we now 
foresee while you as a person will be raising your personal vibrations 
becoming at one with the new fourth dimension and all its glories.  
For your see, people of earth, your courageous planet is destined to 
become one of the most beautiful stars in the universe.  A planet of 
shining light and love!  Here, you will rejoin the remainder of the 
universe in brotherly love and fellowship with God the Father Creator.

Do try to understand these concepts, although we know it is difficult 
for the three dimensional mind which has not yet detached from the 
fears locked into the subconscious.  However, it is better to know of 
these things to come than not to know.  Heed these words, for surely 
as the sun moves from east to west so shall these events come to pass. 
Your planet is going to evolve with or without you.  Meditate/pray to 
find your truth.  Peace and Love of the Radiant One be with you... 
Adonai.

						ASHTAR COMMAND
============
For more information contact:
Guardian Action International
PO Box 27725
Salt Lake City, UT  84127

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 17:09:52 GMT
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Forbes article on manned space program

In article <91062@sun.uucp> msodos%amanda@Sun.COM (Martin Sodos) writes:

>It is noted that merely rotating a space station is not a reasonable
>solution, the example given being that to generate 1 g at 1 rotation per
>minute requires a station either 10 miles wide, or a tether with a counter-
>balance of the same length, Not a trivial engineering problem.

Isn't this wrong, or has Unix totally rotted my brain?

Angular velocity of 0.105 rad/s and required centripetal acceleration
of 9.81 m/s^2 works out at a radius of 890m, for a total diameter of
just under 1.8km.

That's about 1.1 miles for you mediaevalists.  I thought only Weekly
World News made order-of-magnitude mistakes?

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 04:11:07 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

In article <1989Feb27.172800.17809@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <730@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> >The time has never been better to develop an orbiting, tele-operated
> >materials-processing and biological experimentation laboratory. With
> >skillful miniaturization, an unmanned laboratory could be lofted
> >by a fairly small, and thus inexpensive, expendable launcher...
> 
> In, say, 1999, when development of the laboratory is complete.  If then.

Isn't that about when NASA's Space Station is set to start becoming
productive? Assuming we haven't blown the rest of the shuttle fleet in
the meantime? I'd bet we could build a mass-producible teleoperated
laboratory by then for less money than we're about to throw at the
Station. And the payoff would be massive. We'd be _much_ closer to
establishing _real_ space industry with such equipment.

> This is *well beyond* current teleoperator technology ...

Of course. That's why we need to put our best people on it. Never
underestimate what determined people with a burning vision can do :-).

Perhaps my optimism is fueled by ignorance, but I can't really see
what the major obstacle to teleoperation is, other than neglect.  In
principle there's nothing to it---just track the operator's limb and
head movements, and make the robot do the same thing, and (here's the
catch, I know) feed back information quickly and completely enough to
the operator to yield "transparency." 

The propagation delays to LEO will probably be a big problem, with all
the relay stations getting in the way (we do not soon forget the
lessons of USENET). However, what's wrong with putting the labs in
geosynchronous orbit? Sure, the lift costs are a bit higher, but
you'll get line-of-sight transmission with no relay station delays.
And without life support to weigh things down, getting to GEO should
be a bargain compared to a manned mission to LEO. Let's see, light
travels at about 3x10^8m/s, and GEO is ca. 35x10^7m away, giving a
theoretical minimum round-trip time of ca. 0.2 sec. That should be
well within reason. We could put the satellite a bit lower if
necessary, say to keep it in view for an eight-hour shift, to shorten
the propagation delay and save on launch costs.

I've not (yet) had the opportunity to play with a teleoperated robot,
but I understand it can be great fun. With enough bandwidth, clever
data compression, and high-fidelity displays, the average earth-bound
Joe could have most of the sensory experience of going to space. For
one heck of a lot less money. Think of the impact on the minds of the
public if we set up viewing rooms where people could put on 20
megapixel-by- 24 color bit-plane binocular head-tracking display
goggles and check out the planet they live on. You could recruit an
army of space-oids in a matter of weeks. 

The entertainment aspects of teleoperation technology will probably
drive more than a little of its development. In particular, I have
heard from an associate that a small entertainment firm in New York
City has developed an inexpensive dataglove. They have an order for
800,000 units from a major toy manufacturer who is going to
incorporate them into a user-interface for a video game. We'll see
this hitting the market by year's end, my source says. That's only the
easier 1/2 of teleoperation, I know. But we'll soon see hobbyists
hacking together their own teleoperated toy robots, and then they'll
start getting together with the model rocketeers...This is enormously
more accessible to private citizens than any manned project is going
to be for a long, long time.

> I agree that the teleoperator development in question is worth pursuing.

I'm relieved. For a brief instant there, I was worrying that I had
read Henry "Take the Long View" Spencer all wrong.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #276
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Mar 89 07:06:07 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06756>; Sun, 5 Mar 89 04:11:24 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  5 Mar 89 04:11:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oY4D0by00Vs1I2t08j>;
          Sun,  5 Mar 89 03:30:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.EY4Cpky00UkZ836058>;
          Sun,  5 Mar 89 03:18:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <MY4CnCy00UkZ034U4F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  5 Mar 89 03:16:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #277

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 277

Today's Topics:
      LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
		       Re: Cylinder on Titan IV
		       Re: Small french shuttle
    Air Force C-5 to transport Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)
			     rail launch
		Space News 5: Week ending Feb 28,1989
			     Space Digest
		 Re: First concert from space--update
		     response to Bowery and CDSF
		 Re: First concert from space--update
		     Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
		  Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 19:12:51 GMT
From: elbereth.rutgers.edu!wasrud@rutgers.edu  (Jeffrey Wasrud)
Subject: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN


We've just recieved word from a colleague that Landsats 4 and 5 are to be shut
off in early March.  Our congressman are going to meet in committee
soon to discuss this matter.  If you believe that we should not let
the Russians, Japanese, French, Canadians, and Indians take over the
land remote sensing buisness (as it looks like they are going to do),
we urge you to write to your congressman, senator, or anyone else in a
position to do something about this.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 16:17:50 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Cylinder on Titan IV

In article <7341@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> rcj@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Robert Johnson) writes:
>Quick question:  On page 35 of the February 20, 1989 issue of Aviation
>Week & Space Technology, there is a picture of the Titan IV...What the 
>hell is that red cylinder on the right hand solid booster?

I think it contains the fluid which is injected into the nozzles of the solid
boosters for directional control purposes. This is an alternative to swivelling
the nozzle itself; the injected fluid creates a shockwave which deflects
the main exhaust flow of the solid booster.
This would make sense, but might not be correct of course...
Alternatively, it is a fire-extinguisher.  :-)


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  |  att!groucho!sw, sw@groucho.ATT.COM
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 89 17:43:47 EST
From: Jon Kjoll <PH509003%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Small french shuttle

I don't want to destroy space dreams, but the order

        France
        Germany
        Great Britain

looks strikingly close to the order in which I suspect these three counties
to further develop their nuclear delivery systems and space war protection.
Anyone has the latest uppdate on China, India, Pakistan and Israel and local
SDI projects ??

    Jon Kjoll
    pH509003%BROWNVM.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 16:43:22 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Air Force C-5 to transport Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  February 27, 1989

David B. Drachlis
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.


RELEASE:  89-

AIR FORCE C-5 TO TRANSPORT HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE


     NASA announced today that a modified Air Force C-5A Galaxy 
will be used to transport the Hubble Space Telescope from its 
assembly contractor in California to its launch site at the 
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.  Shipment is scheduled to take place 
in the August 1989 timeframe.

     The agency previously was studying two options for shipment 
of the optical observatory, scheduled for launch aboard the Space 
Shuttle in December.  The other option was to move the telescope 
by Military Sealift Command ship.  The decision to transport the 
telescope by air was made following tests which confirmed that 
the Air Force C-5A aircraft would meet transportation 
requirements.

     "We opted for the C-5 because it will require significantly 
less shipment time and provide us more flexibility in our 
shipment schedule," explained Wendell Elrod, Hubble Space 
Telescope transportation manager at the Marshall Space Flight 
Center, Huntsville, Ala., the NASA center responsible for overall 
management of the telescope project.  

     The telescope is presently undergoing final assembly and 
checkout activities in a clean room at the Lockheed Missiles and 
Space Company, Sunnyvale, Calif.

     The Hubble Space Telescope will provide astronomers with a 
view of planets, stars and other objects about 10 times better 
than they now have with their best optical telescopes on Earth, 
once the telescope is in orbit above the atmosphere.

     The Hubble Space Telescope was developed by NASA and its 
partners, including the European Space Agency, under the auspices 
of the Office of Space Science and Applications at NASA 
Headquarters, Washington D.C.  NASA's Goddard Space Flight 
Center, Greenbelt, Md., developed the science instruments and 
will operate the telescope and manages the Space Telescope 
Science Institute, which will be responsible for the telescope's 
observing agenda.  The Johnson Space Center, Houston, is 
responsible for Shuttle operations during the mission to deploy 
the telescope.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 11:42:31 EST
From: rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele)
Subject: rail launch


100,000G's?  I guess it isn't man rated then.:-).  Seriously, this could be
useful, if only for moving raw materials into space.  Assuming a manned
presence in LEO, it is conceivable that some kind of "pick up" of the
launched "bullets" from the rail gun could be done, using some kind of
external system to convert the balistic trajectory into an orbit.  Then
the material could be used for construction in space, or possibly for
re-supply (though you wouldn't be able to send the eggs and white bread,
even the milk bottles might get damaged:-).

Aside to all the "flamers" on the net:  Lighten up a little, will you?  This
is supposed to be fun.  What good is a glorious adventure to the limits
of the universe if it's not fun?:-)
                Jim
                rachiele@nadc.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 16:51:50 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space News 5: Week ending Feb 28,1989

I've been preparing a weekly news summary for our public affairs
office and it was suggested to me that there might be sufficient
interest on the net to warrant posting it. Here is this week's
as a sample. Iff sufficient people mail me to express interest,
I will post more of these.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan's Space Report

Feb 28, 1989 (No. 5)

As reported last week, the first US launch of the year went off
perfectly.  The Navstar GPS-13 satellite, officially named 'USA-35', has
now circularised its orbit at 20000 km altitude.  The next Navstar/Delta-2
launch is set for April. 

Japan's scientific space agency ISAS (Institute of Space and
Astronautical Sciences) launched the Akebono ('Dawn') satellite from
Kagoshima Space Center on Feb 21 into an elliptical polar orbit.  The
satellite, also known as EXOS-D, will study the formation of aurorae. 

A Japanese commercial communications satellite, JCSAT 1, is set for
launch aboard a European Ariane 4 rocket this week.  The rocket will
also carry Europe's first Operational Meteosat weather satellite into
orbit. 

The space shuttle Discovery is still on target for a mid-March
launch at Kennedy Space Center. A launch date will be set next week.


Other events:

Kosmos-2001, launched Feb 14 by a 'Molniya' booster, is a missile early
warning satellite operated by the PVO (Soviet Air Defence Forces). 

Kosmos-2002, launched Feb 14, is a small military satellite whose
mission is unknown.  The USSR launches several satellites each year in
this 'minor military' category; the small satellites do not maneuver and
reenter after one or two years.  Possible missions include radiation
measurement, atmospheric studies, cloud cover monitoring, communications
security monitoring, and technology development. 

Kosmos-2003 is a GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) spy satellite, based
on the old Vostok spacecraft.  It was launched on Feb 17 and will
probably land in Kazakhstan on Mar 3. 

Kosmos-2004 was launched on Feb 22. No details yet.

The 75th Soviet Ministry of Communications 'Molniya-1' comsat
was orbited on Feb 15. 

Major launches due in March include Space Shuttle Mission STS-29,
a European Ariane 44LP launch with a Swedish comsat, and a Soviet 
Progress cargo freighter. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa               |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 15:01:12 GMT
From: psgdc!jm@uunet.uu.net  (Raistlin Majere)
Subject: Space Digest

I would also like to be put on the mailing list.  Whomever does this,
forgive me for not e-mailing, but I have no idea who or where you are.

Thanks in advance.

Raist



          \   Raistlin Majere  
O=========|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  UUNET!PSGDC!JM
          /   Vienna, Virginia

Please send the Digest to:
Raistlin Majere
8016 Harbor Place
Frederick, Maryland   21701

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 19:56:47 GMT
From: dvnspc1!tom@burdvax.prc.unisys.com  (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1885@randvax.UUCP>, talmy@randvax.UUCP (Shel Talmy) writes:
> 
> A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to 
> stage the first ever concert from space.  A large portion of the proceeds
> from this venture is to be donated to various charities.

Hold on to your hats ... "Disaster Area" is on the way!


-- 
Tom Albrecht			"So long, and thanks for all the fish."

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 19:35:54 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (d.l.skran)
Subject: response to Bowery and CDSF

I agree strongly with Mr. Chisholm that CDSF(or something like it)
would be a valuable complement to the space station, but in  no way
replaces it. Mr. Bowery is doing the project a dis-service by advocating
it in this way.

CDSF advocates should consider the following points:

	1)funding CDSF may put SPACEHAB(the mid-deck expander) out
	of business
	2)no commercial company is willing to fund CDSF.

As far as I'm concerned, SPACEHAB, CDSF, and the space station are
all useful projects that serve different needs. However, some way
must be found so that CDSF is not a direct attack on SPACEHAB.

I believe the best approach is to delay constructing CDSF until SPACEHAB
is flying, and the full-scale space station is well under-way(say four years).
At this point CDSF can be built without directly threatening either project.
The real use of CDSF will be for industrial production using techniques 
developed on SPACEHAB/Shuttle and the Space station. Note that CDSF is 
essential to achieve highest-quality microgravity. We can envision a holo
of CDSFs flying with the station and serviced/repaired as needed by
astronauts with MMUs/OMVs.

A final point should be considered:
	3)the ESA will build a CDSF equivalent anyway; perhaps some
	American company should just buy one from them.


Dale Skran

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 10:29:04 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick!arg@uunet.uu.net  (A Ruaraidh Gillies)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <10325@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>I usually applaud activities designed to promote charity and I don't really
>want to spoil anyone's fun, but it seems to me that our space program (and
>that of the Soviets) has suffered egregiously from people who want to turn it
>to some nonscientific purpose.  The shuttle program suffered a spectacular
>setback, not just because astronauts died, but because certain politicians
>wanted to turn it into a real media event.  There is no justification whatever
>for sending Senators, teachers, and singers into orbit.  The Soviet Union
>shouldn't be sending up astronauts from different nations just to score
>political points.
> [etc, etc. You probably read it first time round]

Shortly after the mini-series Space was televised here in Britain (August
1987) I went and bought the book from which the series was made. This was
because our vieo had gone on the blink and I wanted to see the ending.
Although the story was fictional, it was strongly tied-in with the actual
American space program from 1945 onwards.
  One of the German scientists the Americans picked up from Peenemunde (the
German rocket development base) was constantly of the view that manned
missions as a whole were pointless. He was against the Apollo missions, saying
that the extra cost in sending up men was exorbitant. The answer he was always
given was that the American public wouldn't be interested in machines bouncing
around on the Moon, and wanted good ol' red-blooded American astronauts (yeah!
Hail to the Chief... :-). He was, naturally, much more in favour of the Viking
missions to Mars in '76. I can't help wondering what this character would
have thought of the Challenger mission and the proposed manned mission to
Mars.
+============================================================================+
 Contact me on:     | Ruaraidh Gillies   | The world is peopled by many minds
  arg@uk.ac.warwick | 2nd year Comp Sci  | whirling faster than the wind
   or               | Warwick University | Solving a dilemma of life and death
  arg@warwick.UUCP  | Coventry CV4 7AL   | trying to make some sense of it all
                    | Great Britain      |   Good luck, bad luck (H. Jones)
+============================================================================+

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 22:02:09 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <699@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> In article <126@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
> > Alaska is the only (Earth-bound) U.S. frontier. 
> 
> How about our continental shelves? International waters?  70% of our
> planet's surface is essentially undeveloped. We still have geographic
> frontiers (no need to get abstract, either).

Fine.  Now how many people live at these particular frontiers?
Especially *on* the conshelf?

How many live in the Alaskan frontier?

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 17:38:20 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation

In article <8902280436.AA04940@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@ANGBAND.S1.GOV writes:
>...Their boosters require only about 20 people to run a launch as opposed
>to a couple hundred for a TITAN or DELTA type vehicle and over 6,000
>for a Shuttle launch...  They expect
>to be able to set up and launch one of their "S-series" rockets within
>3 days -- a figure not unreasonable given that this sort of "stand-by"
>capability is exactly why the Air Force invested so much in the Peacekeeper
>technology.

Uh, let us not forget that Delta started out as Thor, a USAF missile which
could be launched in 15 minutes by a crew of 9.  Just because the hardware
was originally designed for a fast simple launch doesn't mean that's the
way it will be in practice.  (Although EPAC should be able to do a lot
better than NASA...)
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #277
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Mar 89 04:01:24 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02620>; Mon, 6 Mar 89 03:37:05 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  6 Mar 89 03:36:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0Y4Y10y00Ui3IEuU44>;
          Mon,  6 Mar 89 03:24:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.YY4Xw1y00UkZA4805B>;
          Mon,  6 Mar 89 03:19:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EY4Xt3y00UkZM46U4M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  6 Mar 89 03:16:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #278

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 278

Today's Topics:
		    Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins
		  Re: For the People of Planet Earth
		 Re: First concert from space--update
	 Fun with electromagnetic catapults: *IEEE Magnetics*
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			  Re: edwards base?
			  Fletcher and Facts
			Re: Fletcher and Facts
		    Re: NSS Hotline Update 2/24/89
		  Re: Re: The never-ending argument
		  Recovering sunken Mercury capsule
			 manned vs. unmanned
		       Re: the un/manned debate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 89 01:17:13 GMT
From: att!alberta!access!edm!real!f9.n342.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Dan.Charrois@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dan Charrois)
Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins

Hello there.  I have called your board a few times and have noticed these 
NASA prediction bulletins up there.  I thank you greatly for making these 
available to us via this network (to save the monumental costs of calling 
long-distance all the time...)  However, I am stuck with a somewhat 
non-standard computer (read not IBM-compatible).  Therefore, the software 
which you have available on your BBS won't work with my system (a Coco) 
and I'm at a loss on what to make of those bulletins.  It does appear 
though as if it comes from a simple database of orbital elements for the 
satellites...  I'm a programmer and thus could create my own version of 
those programs which determine the positioning of these satellites. 
However, as you no doubt realize, I need to know which numbers represent 
what as given in the prediction bulletins.  Would you happen to know 
which elements are fielded to what, or know where I could get ahold of 
such information?  If I knew what the numbers represented, I could get 
started in satellite observations... it has always appeared fascinating 
to me...
  Thanks in advance........Dan



--  
Dan Charrois - via FidoNet node 1:342/1
UUCP: ...!alberta!edm!real!9!Dan.Charrois
ARPA: Dan.Charrois@f9.n342.z1.FIDONET.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 20:52:15 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: For the People of Planet Earth

In article <2077@lcuxlm.ATT.COM> smd@lcuxlm.ATT.COM (Friends of Earth) writes:
>

[foretelling floods, earthquakes, plagues of locusts, cats and dogs
living togethers,...]

>For your see, people of earth, your courageous planet is destined to 
>become one of the most beautiful stars in the universe.  

(in my best Sam Kinison voice)
Oh God !   The Earth is going to ignite in a fireball of
nuclear fusion !  Ohh ! OOOOOOHHHH!!  

Guess I shouldn't invest in hydrogen futures, huh ?

Gee, I sure hope those space aliens can take a joke  !  8-)

>						ASHTAR COMMAND

Do the aliens realize that they're named after two major byproducts
of cigarette smoking ?



------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 06:11:18 GMT
From: yalevm!HOWGREJ@yale-bulldog.arpa
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1989Feb26.013809.13032@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
 
>                Predictably, the simplest and crudest one -- China's --
>is the low bidder for current launch contracts, the most experienced
>one -- the Soviet Union's -- is not far behind, and the newest and most
>factionalized one -- NASA and the US aerospace contractors -- is dead
>last.
 
Note that China's launch price is "artificially low" - they're setting
them below cost to attract customers.  The US, once again saving us from
low launch costs, negotiated a deal with them to raise the costs after a
few cheap ones.  But it'll still be thousands of $/lb below the US cost,
no doubt.
 
Greg Howard                     HOWGREJ@YALEVM

------------------------------

Date:     Wed,  1 Mar 89 18:56 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Fun with electromagnetic catapults: *IEEE Magnetics*
Original_To:  SPACE

Run to the nearest engineering library, space cadets!  The January
1989 issue of *IEEE Transactions on Magnetics* is out. It contains
about 660 pages of pure reading pleasure from the Fourth Symposium on
Electromagnetic Launch Technology in Austin, Texas last year.  A
handful of the papers are directly relevant to space launch
applications (which, I suppose, means that the idea is moving into
the mainstream), and the rest are concerned mostly with the dirty
details of EM launchers.

Read about compulsators, ultracapacitors, homopolar generators,
electrothermal launchers, plasma armatures, explosive foil injection,
and ignitron tubes.  I don't know what all this stuff means, but
it has a certain musical quality when you read it aloud, a little
like a *Doctor Who* episode with no picture...

Of course, I am already working with an electromagnetic launcher
with a high rate of fire (average of 1E13 payloads per minute)
and fairly satisfactory muzzle velocity (3,720,000% of orbital
velocity).  But the payload mass is rather limited-- a real challenge
to the lightsat people.  And the air resistance is murder.

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with Free
     ~  Nobel Prizewinner Inside!   Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed,  1 Mar 89 12:31:19 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  
(Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <6592@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU 
>(Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>>>... 2.7 tons were reserved for a modified Apollo 
>>>capsule  for emergency return.
>>>
>>	That's some modification...the CSM weighed 55,000 lbs...

>Sounds like they were planning to use just the CM, not a full CSM, although
>they'd have had to goose the life support up a bit.

>>... you have to bring more people back now, which should account for
>>most of it...

>A stock Apollo CM could hold five people with minor modifications; such
>a configuration was planned in detail for the Skylab rescue plan (which
>was never used, since none of the Skylab crews needed rescuing).  This
>by itself wouldn't add much.

The CM carried only enough fuel for a retro burn to deorbit, as I recall.
What were they planning to use to get off the lunar surface?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 03:40:30 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!ufqtp!lauderda@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Walter Lauderda)
Subject: Re: edwards base?

In article <Added.4Y2QZUy00Ui3EOsU99@andrew.cmu.edu> IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (nicholas c. hester) writes:
>is the base that the airforce built for the launching of shuttles closed perma-
>nently or is it used for unmanned rockets? also, is there any chance of it bein
>g used for shuttles? i'm sorry that i don't remember the name of the base.
>
>=Nick Hester=
>ia80024@maine.bitnet

     The base to which you are referring to is Vandenberg AFB, CA.  It is the   site of the Western Space and Missile Range and is used to conduct a number of  ICBM test flights and unmanned launches (satellites, etc...).  An old launch padwas refurbished to provide the platform for shuttle launches, but this pad has 
been mothballed.  Vandenberg was selected because launches to the south would 
only be over ocean and would allow for insertion into polar orbits.  The payloadcapacity of the shuttle would have been less because of launches in a direction other than east.  To the best of my knowledge, there are no plans to launch any shuttles from Vandenberg now.  Edwards AFB, CA is the primary landing site for  all current shuttle missions (LOTS of room to land).  Hope this is what you 
wanted.


				Walter Lauderdale

 
"My thoughts are my own; no one else's.  If they weren't, they wouldn't be mine"

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 08:30:52 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Fletcher and Facts


In his speech to the Explorers' Club, NASA Administrator James
Fletcher said:

>   About a third of our total effort is focused on keeping the Space
> Shuttle program moving usefully forward, and half again as much
> goes to the science and applications experiments that are steadily
> expanding the sphere of human knowledge.

If "effort" translates as "budget", this should mean that half of
NASA's budget is spent on science and applications.  I was sure this
was wrong but didn't have the references handy.  Then in his
newsletter "What's New" (posted in sci.physics), Robert L. Park
wrote: 

> 4. NASA HAS BEEN SHORTCHANGING SPACE SCIENCE ACCORDING TO BILL
> NELSON (D-FL), chair of the House Subcommittee on Science, Space
> and Technology.  At Thursday's hearing on the FY 90 budget request,
> NASA Administrator James Fletcher was questioned about the impact
> of Space Station Freedom on other programs.  NASA made a commitment
> to Congress to apply 20% of the budget to space science.  Nelson
> produced graphs showing it was only 18%; Fletcher thought that was
> close.  

Neither 18% nor 20% is at all close to 50%, so I wonder what Fletcher
could have been talking about.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 23:41:45 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Ralf Brown)
Subject: Re: Fletcher and Facts

In article <1268@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu> willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes:
}In his speech to the Explorers' Club, NASA Administrator James
}Fletcher said:
}>   About a third of our total effort is focused on keeping the Space
}> Shuttle program moving usefully forward, and half again as much
}> goes to the science and applications experiments that are steadily
}> expanding the sphere of human knowledge.
}
}If "effort" translates as "budget", this should mean that half of
}NASA's budget is spent on science and applications. 
}
}> to Congress to apply 20% of the budget to space science.  Nelson
}> produced graphs showing it was only 18%; Fletcher thought that was
}> close.  
}
}Neither 18% nor 20% is at all close to 50%, so I wonder what Fletcher
}could have been talking about.

I bet he was referring to "budget remaining after administrative overhead",
in which case 12% of the total budget goes to the shuttle, 18% to science, 6% 
to other real work, and 64% to the beaurocrats....

-- 
{harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) 
ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make.
FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler
BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something?
--

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 16:44:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 2/24/89


/* Written  8:26 pm  Feb 26, 1989 by jordankatz@cdp.UUCP in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
/* ---------- "NSS Hotline Update 2/24/89" ---------- */

Its been rumored that Henry Cooper will be named by President
Bush to Head the National Space Council.  
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

Is that the same Henry Cooper who writes `Letter from the Space
Center' for _The New Yorker_, and who wrote _A House in Space_ and
_Before Liftoff_?

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 18:45:13 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfclm!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Re: The never-ending argument

>Wrong.  That is not my premise.  My premise is that manned space
>flight will not be developed until we develop manned spaceflight.
>This is obvious to the point of being a tautology.  Sending out

Gee, Mike....that IS a tautology!  



Bob Myers            | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but  
{the known universe} |  most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."
!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |                        - Winston Churchill

------------------------------

Date:     Wed,  1 Mar 89 18:13 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Recovering sunken Mercury capsule
Original_To:  SPACE

This popped up in the February 1989 issue of *Sea Technology* (Volume
30, No. 1, page 9), an ocean engineering trade magazine. Headline
is "Texas Group Gets Go-Ahead to Salvage *Liberty Bell 7* Capsule."

Gus Grissom's Mercury capsule sank, as everybody knows, in 5000 meters
of ocean on 21 July 1961. NASA has now sanctioned an attempt by
Subsurface Technologies (Subtek), of Fort Worth, to recover it.  They
have a new widget called EMS-3, vaguely described as combining several
metal detection and electronics technologies, which "scans the sea
bottom to locate targets but also can 'see' several thousand feet
[!--WSH] below the ocean floor."

I guess if you had a new sensor technology and you needed investors,
it would make sense to grab publicity by going after some fairly
famous underwater target.  The *Titanic* is taken, and the Loch Ness
Monster is too slippery.  *Liberty Bell 7* seems like a good choice.
I sure wonder how this thing works. Well, if I get *really* curious, I
can always phone Fort Worth.

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with Free
     ~  Nobel Prizewinner Inside!   Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 10:13:20 EST
From: rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele)
Subject: manned vs. unmanned


It is clear to me that what is needed is a balance between manned, unmanned,
and r&d activities to further Earth's space expansion.  Yes, Paul, we do
need the manned experience in space, and yes, it is expensive this year.
But if it is true that no plans are currently being pursued for the rail
gun launch system, or laser or ram launch systems, this is clearly an
almost (almost?) criminal lack on the part of NASA and the Soviet space
agency.  I also agree that unmanned exploration of the solar system is
needed.
  Of course, the bulk of the money will need to be spent on manned missions,
since unmanned missions and launch system prototypes just don't cost as
much.  But I'm sure no one on this net questions that the seed money for
the R&D leg of the tripod is perhaps the most necessary.

           Jim
           rachiele@nadc.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 23:07:38 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <604780518.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> 
> If instead of doing technology research, NACA had been the central
> agency controlling all aircraft development and use, we would still be
> discussing the incredible technological feat of delivering 100 tons of
> payload across the Atlantic using a $1000000000 fleet of scaled up
> Wright Flyers and a series of tethered floating landing fields in the
> Atlantic...

No we wouldn't.

We'd be buying and flying European and/or Japanese aircraft.  They were
all involved with fighting a war a while back that drove such development.

Maybe we'll end up buying space services without having to bother with a
shooting war.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #278
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Mar 89 23:38:01 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02157>; Mon, 6 Mar 89 10:06:36 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  6 Mar 89 10:06:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YY4dZKy00Ui3M13EAp>;
          Mon,  6 Mar 89 09:44:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.QY4dRfy00UkZI4ZE5o>;
          Mon,  6 Mar 89 09:36:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wY4dQ0y00UkZE4Xk48@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  6 Mar 89 09:34:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #279

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 279

Today's Topics:
		Re: Recovering sunken Mercury capsule
			    External tanks
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		       Re: the un/manned debate
		 Pittsburgh L5 operating CBB for NSS
    Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
			     Mailing List
		      Harvard Dept. Space News.
  Re: Air Force C-5 to transport Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #257
			    Re: arguments
		      Re: Photo identification?
			    Re: arguments
		 Re: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
		 Re: First concert from space--update
		       Re: the un/manned debate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 01:52:13 GMT
From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!seldon@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Joe Walker and Hal Jr.)
Subject: Re: Recovering sunken Mercury capsule

In article <Added.IY38myy00Ui3MWh095@andrew.cmu.edu> HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>This popped up in the February 1989 issue of *Sea Technology* (Volume
>30, No. 1, page 9), an ocean engineering trade magazine. Headline
>is "Texas Group Gets Go-Ahead to Salvage *Liberty Bell 7* Capsule."

  Gee..after all these years...I wonder how much of it is left?

Seldon

------------------------------

Date: Wed,  1 Mar 89 12:52:13 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: External tanks
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

I heard an article on NPR this morning on the way to work about the
External Tank Corporation.  Nothing that I hadn't heard before (use E.T.s
for telescopes by filling them with CO2 and looking for gamma rays, use
them for garbage cans for the Space Station, etc), but on this program
they interviewed some NASA official and asked him why they never put the
E.T.s into orbit after taking them 99% of the way there, when the cost
to put that amount of mass in orbit would be $300 million if done any other
way.  He mumbled that it had never been proven to be cost effective.  I wonder
what paragon of economic efficiency he was comparing it with.  The shuttle?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov, speaking for myself only)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 11:10:36 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

While it may be possible to build a robot hand with present or near future
technology, it won't be useful for space operations. The had will very 
likely be the most complicated, delicate, and least reliable piece of
equipment on the space station. This will likely be true for a very long
time to come.

The most immediate application for such thing will be in hazardous areas
of earthbound industries. Where you can bring the hand back quickly for
human servicing.

  ++PLS

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1989 13:35-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

> More generally, the most striking thing about most of the reports that
> attempt to set goals for future unmanned activity is the near-complete
> lack of any underlying long-term vision.  They have no goals, just some
> missions they want to fly.

I agree utterly with Henry. That's why I believe NASA should, if it is
not completely  disbanded, be limited by mandate to doing onthing but
preliminary technology development. They should be completely out of
the planetary science and research business.

I would like to see them with a mandate to test laser launchers, rail
guns, ram accelerators, sky hooks, tethers, ion engines, solar sails,
CELSS. The list could go on for pages. The technology they develop
should be available for the overly conservative
don't-try-anything-new-on-my-experiment planetary people to use if they
wish, and for private companies to develop as they wish, just as NACA
did in the 1930's.

If instead of doing technology research, NACA had been the central
agency controlling all aircraft development and use, we would still be
discussing the incredible technological feat of delivering 100 tons of
payload across the Atlantic using a $1000000000 fleet of scaled up
Wright Flyers and a series of tethered floating landing fields in the
Atlantic...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1989 18:38-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Pittsburgh L5 operating CBB for NSS

CBB with daily upates of material from NASA, NASA Select and other
sources is available at

	412-366-5208

Please call in and check out what happens when a professional writer
runs a CBB.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 20:14:47 GMT
From: dvnspc1!tom@burdvax.prc.unisys.com  (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN


Could you post details about committees, committee members, etc. so that
we can write?  Where is the decision made, what government agencies?


-- 
Tom Albrecht

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 14:09:00 GMT
From: pur-phy!tippy!fireman@ee.ecn.purdue.edu
Subject: Mailing List


  You will find a list of all mailing lists along with their respective
contacts in NEWS.NEWUSERS along with a few other NEWS groups.
  
  Mailing to the moderator will do much more good than posting here.

         Rob Dale

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 19:32:42 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Harvard Dept. Space News.


	To Jonathan McDowell:  Please continue posting your Space News
    reports to the newsgroups.  I find them quite interesting and
    informative, and give coverage in several areas not currently done
    in sci.space.  

        I tried to send you a mail message, but it bounced.

	Larry

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 16:27:27 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Air Force C-5 to transport Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)

In article <22311@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>     NASA announced today that a modified Air Force C-5A Galaxy 
>will be used to transport the Hubble Space Telescope from its 
>assembly contractor in California to its launch site at the 
>Kennedy Space Center, Fla...  The other option was to move the telescope 
>by Military Sealift Command ship...

In case anyone is wondering why this decision is being made now, as
opposed to years ago (given that the HST launch is far behind its original
schedule), the modified C-5A wasn't available until very recently.  The
modifications are for carrying big USAF space hardware, presumably spy
satellites, but the HST will fit.

>     "We opted for the C-5 because it will require significantly 
>less shipment time and provide us more flexibility in our 
>shipment schedule,"...

It will also greatly improve security, not an entirely trivial issue.
The HST would be a terrorist's dream of a hostage.  Nobody was terribly
happy about sending an astronomically :-) expensive, irreplaceable payload
all that way (via the Panama Canal) by ship.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 17:47:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!noe@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #257


>> what about: there's  a guy i know who uses his cat to clean his instrument.
>> he removes the optical component package at the viewing end and slides the
>> animal through the tube to pick up the dust.
> 
> If you look through the tube at the same time, would you get a CAT
> scan? :-)

No, you'd get your nose clawed up.  This is known to the cat as a "stalking
game" and to the person doing it as "one of the stupidest, most painful things
I've ever done".

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 23:35:56 GMT
From: spl1!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <154@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
> 
> >This is an arguement that will never be resolved. There are those like me
> >who support a Manned Program, and nothing you say will change our minds.
> 
> This is really too bad.  I hope for the sake of space enthusiasts everywhere
> that people like you are a small, small minority.
Listen dip! if you want to include something I say in your message, then 
by god, include it all! don't go paraphrasing and cutting out parts of
my sentences and paragraphs to further your viewpoint.
what I said was:

------
This is an arguement that will never be resolved. There are those like me
who support a Manned Program, and nothing you say will change our minds.
And those like yourself and Mr. Dietz, who oppose a Manned Program in the
present, and nothing I or anyone else will say will change your minds.

Not that I am saying that any of us (your group or mine) is closed minded.
I just feel that this is a subject that neither of us will budge on.
---
Now in the context of the other sentences, I hope that my meaning is
clearer. This arguement has been going on between you, Dietz and Mr.
Spencer for over a month. Have your convinced Spencer of your viewpoint?
Have I or Spencer convinced you of our viewpoints? [I am not implying that
Henry Spencer and I agree on all views but I support many of his]

******NO *********
And I was just saying that In *MY* opinion, nothing anyone says is going
to change *YOUR* mind. is it? You will always find some rationale to 
refute anybody elses viewpoint and support your own. You have so far!

To me this is like argueing politics or religion. There will be no
solution.



--
PS: Net: I am sorry for this seemingly immature response, but it really
irks me when someone twists my words.

-- 
John Sparks      // Amiga  |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks 
               \X/  UUCP   |  >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 << 
 
I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 09:46:40 GMT
From: shelby!Portia!hanauma!joe@labrea.stanford.edu  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: Photo identification?

>Well, the first two fields are not too difficult - clearly the images
>were taken at 1645 and 1645 on 26 Feb 1979.  Hmm, problem, thats only a
>Jonathan McDowell

Interesting, can it be a coincidence that Feb 26, 1979 was the
date of the most recent total eclipse of the sun in the continental US?

(Speaking of which --- there's a partial eclipse on Mar 7 for Western N.A.)
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 20:11:08 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <392@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
>This is an arguement that will never be resolved. There are those like me
>who support a Manned Program, and nothing you say will change our minds.
>And those like yourself and Mr. Dietz, who oppose a Manned Program in the
>present, and nothing I or anyone else will say will change your minds.
>
>Not that I am saying that any of us (your group or mine) is closed minded.
>I just feel that this is a subject that neither of us will budge on.

> This arguement has been going on between you, Dietz and Mr.
>Spencer for over a month. Have your convinced Spencer of your viewpoint?

Actually, our positions are not all *that* far apart.  Mostly, the
difference is in how fast we expect launch costs to drop.  I expect
they will come down slowly.  Henry (and many others, I hazard) are
counting on private firms to do orders of magnitude better than NASA,
and to do it soon.  My mind would be changed if someone could
demonstrate that launch costs would be (picking numbers out the air)
$200/lb to LEO in fifteen years, from the current $4K/lb or so (would
anything change *your* mind?).  Past history is not reassuring.  I
don't see costs coming down if NASA continues to spend so little money
on developing new launcher technologies.  Ah well, maybe ALS or NASP
will save us (:->).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 01:35:03 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!regnery@husc6.harvard.edu  (George Regnery)
Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


  For the orbital element program, does someone have a pascal or c program
that will seperate it the satellite info?  If not, I'll write one.  i just
don't want to spend alot of time writing one and see that someone else has
done the same?  Please mail me a public domain copy if you have one.  And if
not, I'll write one in Pascal and upload it here or mail it to those that want
it.  (I don't know C.....  YET!)


-- 
George M. Regnery       ! Worcester     ! Albedo 0.39    ! Going on means      
regnery@wpi.wpi.edu  OR ! Polytechnic   !  --Vangelis    ! going far. Going
regnery@wpi.bitnet      ! Institute     ! (a good album) ! far means returning.
CompuServe: 73300,3655  ! (Worc, Mass.) ! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=!     --Tao Te Ching

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 13:18:59 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <380@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM>, tom@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
}In article <1885@randvax.UUCP>, talmy@randvax.UUCP (Shel Talmy) writes:
}> A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to 
}> stage the first ever concert from space.  A large portion of the proceeds
}> from this venture is to be donated to various charities.
}
}Hold on to your hats ... "Disaster Area" is on the way!

And if they get the orbit right, the audience will even be at the optimum 37-
mile distance....  (sorry, couldn't resist)

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 18:22:42 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <91929@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>Maybe we'll end up buying space services without having to bother with a
>shooting war.

Surprise surprise, people are already doing this.  Of course, since the 
only major suppliers are the Soviets, you may have to fight a shooting war
with the US State Department to be allowed to buy...
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #279
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Mar 89 18:48:33 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA08302>; Tue, 7 Mar 89 04:12:37 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  7 Mar 89 04:12:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QY4tILy00Vs1I2:UYF>;
          Tue,  7 Mar 89 03:38:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.8Y4t1py00UkZ86Ok4H>;
          Tue,  7 Mar 89 03:19:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gY4szfy00UkZI6NE5M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  7 Mar 89 03:16:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #280

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 280

Today's Topics:
     USSR's Phobos II probe takes second pictures of Martian Moon
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 10:36:30 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: USSR's Phobos II probe takes second pictures of Martian Moon

     The USSR's Phobos II probe has successfully completed its second 
photographic set of the Martian moon Phobos.  However, Radio Moscow has 
announced (Mar. 1 - 3) that the pictures were taken, on Feb. 28 - Mar. 1,
at 300 to 440 Km (187 - 275 mi), much further than the 100 - 150 Km 
(63 - 94 mi) expected distance for this pass.  That first estimate was 
made from the initial orbital parameters calculated from the Feb. 22 
picture set (done by comparing Phobos' position against known stars).  
The problem here is to get the orbits (in position and time) of both the 
probe and the moon known sufficiently well to allow an approach within 
80 meters (270 ft.) at the final pass at the beginning of April.
     Soviet Aerospace (Feb. 20) reports that infra red studies of the 
Martian surface will allow better mineralogical mapping of the planet. 
Also the surface of Phobos itself has been found to be 20 degrees hotter 
than expected (they do not say but I expect Celsius unites).  Also the 
next Russian Mars probe will be in 1994 and include both a Soviet/French 
balloon rover and a surface station.
     One correction from a previous posting.  The closest pictures that 
Viking Orbiter 1 took of Phobos were from 480 Km (300 mi) distance, not 
the 612 Km (382 mi) value that I posted earlier (though perhaps still 
closer photos were taken - would someone at JPL please post the correct 
number).
     The Phobos II mission is now in its most critical phase.  The next 
set of burns must be just right to make the landing attempt.  The 
Russians have a lot of prestige going on this one, plus the more 
exciting tremendous scientific gain for themselves and the world.  This 
is one of the most important planetary missions of this decade, ranking 
up there with the Voyager encounters.  Yet the press coverage has been 
rather small (the first photos were only shown in a few places).  Is 
this indicative of the public/press lack of interest in unmanned probes 
or only the East/West barriers?

                                             Glenn Chapman
                                             MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 89 17:22:21 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #467 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 54.89660121 0.00000414           48736-3 0  1866
2 00424  80.4642  37.4987 0024630  63.5421 296.8339 13.67080569317332
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 58.95016117 0.00000001           10000-3 0  6719
2 08820 109.8090 192.6664 0044866 339.1900  20.6625  6.38663226 43655
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 56.07907456 -.00000006                   0  2295
2 10061   6.8861  69.6230 0007504 183.5561 176.6154  1.00267108  4256
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 57.26765817 0.00000012                   0   385
2 10684  63.5280 104.2847 0106974 198.1821 161.5430  2.00561935 66304
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 57.22359504 -.00000028                   0  9595
2 10893  64.5327 345.1109 0149391  28.2117 332.6106  2.00559810 79121
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 55.13410862 0.00000087           10000-3 0  5950
2 10953   5.7224  75.3789 0010406 170.6948 186.6390  1.00284521  1507
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 56.02641380 0.00002380           88902-3 0   796
2 10967 108.0119  56.6550 0001708 292.7022  67.3911 14.34333551558009
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 47.06824264 -.00000028                   0  9844
2 11054  64.0923 341.9188 0052091 117.2116 243.3248  2.00560185 75934
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 57.64813371 0.00000012                   0  1072
2 11141  63.5237 104.1689 0056622 320.7757  38.8909  2.00552675 74849
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 55.06256904 0.00001655           71541-3 0  8134
2 11416  98.5054  55.4533 0013069  82.7189 277.5507 14.25505400501785
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 57.04184847 0.00045810           10636-2 0  8621
2 11703  28.4985 337.4506 0003051 259.0978 100.9234 15.40992165502612
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 54.11105719 -.00000028                   0  8450
2 11783  63.8961 341.3703 0139181  62.2446 299.1884  2.00566098 64718
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 31.83054292 -.00000125           10000-3 0   505
2 11964   5.1628  75.4889 0035056  93.1723 267.2187  0.99232053   679
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 55.97802354 -.00000249           10000-3 0  6986
2 12472   2.2581  81.8541 0006155 322.0738  38.3930  1.00279935 27488
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 56.90981140 0.00057728           11928-2 0  4656
2 12888  97.5763 104.5142 0002091  30.0894 330.0247 15.45636833411727
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 45.67438189 0.00000448           39388-3 0  6234
2 13113  82.5440 156.1349 0016619  50.1258 310.1384 13.83937442348297
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 58.52153521 0.00014255           38630-3 0  4578
2 13138  51.6097 133.0271 0001493  21.8055 338.3287 15.37891114391299
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 56.94185363 0.00000737           38325-3 0  7502
2 13718  81.2454  30.3649 0055338 316.8476  42.8344 14.13098466319842
IRAS       
1 13777U          89 54.49055910 0.00000606           44674-3 0  6136
2 13777  99.0508 253.1280 0011879 264.0188  95.9590 13.98545766310302
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 57.18028782 0.00000121                   0  9133
2 14050   1.0230  84.0966 0001158 265.8465  95.1463  1.00271615  5491
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 44.26633241 -.00000008           10000-3 0  3805
2 14129  26.6809 280.2786 6055766  17.2066 356.6793  2.05878097 14662
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 55.19891594 0.00000011                   0  6072
2 14189  63.1539 102.8905 0133816 214.8575 144.3379  2.00572535 41174
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 54.98388436 0.00000911           38862-3 0  6943
2 14452  81.1622  46.9821 0096566  63.3267 297.7911 14.22014081276450
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 56.04726735 0.00001128           26015-3 0  6593
2 14780  98.1834 120.3711 0002411 196.6437 163.4685 14.57138586265233
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 51.11886565 0.00003072           60718-3 0  4119
2 14781  98.0217 113.2791 0012975 334.6593  25.4035 14.63015973265428
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 56.61253979 0.00034572           74048-3 0  7680
2 14898  28.5073 238.3879 0002931  65.2114 294.8143 15.43380403274152
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 54.25727434 0.00000011                   0  6254
2 15039  62.8975 102.2306 0016051 280.2314  79.6734  2.00564557 34438
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 53.11283506 0.00000305           26575-3 0  9259
2 15099  82.5292  97.9067 0012490 194.8229 165.2562 13.83614838234206
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 59.14363796 -.00000028                   0  5777
2 15271  63.3995 341.0251 0099817 318.7981  40.4804  2.00563946 31649
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 56.51636158 0.00003661           53980-3 0  9809
2 15331  82.5348  81.4843 0026710  87.1882 273.2308 14.74886012237753
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 54.89618662 0.00001908           10654-2 0  3350
2 15427  99.1382  39.6904 0013944 271.7457  88.2141 14.11854017216463
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 56.40925582 0.00000229           19636-3 0   543
2 15516  82.5350  33.6579 0018173  69.8106 290.5016 13.84037948205597
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 58.97619070 0.00142848           37068-2 0  1804
2 16095  51.6086 130.8126 0001505 340.0854  18.8717 15.37952435391363
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 55.80900170 0.00000011                   0  2972
2 16129  63.6754 102.7382 0115282 150.5772 210.1575  2.00565282 24783
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 56.67141442 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8062
2 16191  82.5489 314.6025 0018911 217.4372 142.5499 13.16861784160841
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 56.71607563 0.00000318           27622-3 0  4642
2 16408  82.5366 308.2995 0014884 255.3354 104.6139 13.84127307160130
Mir        
1 16609U          89 58.55934439 0.00032020           27751-3 0  7117
2 16609  51.6199 195.2934 0009040  64.8483 295.4568 15.68787694174051
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 59.71763200 0.00001911           91576-3 0  3798
2 16613  98.7075 135.8582 0001774 105.0555 255.0625 14.20019889 69302
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 56.74059231 0.00000455           40029-3 0  2805
2 16735  82.5378 335.0407 0014644 330.7979  29.2409 13.83865345139045
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 59.17321438 0.00002956           43806-3 0  5322
2 16881  82.5241 138.7097 0025097  94.5802 265.8295 14.74625767139227
EGP        
1 16908U          89 52.39127110 -.00000032           50187-4 0  1185
2 16908  50.0134 294.0547 0011349  52.8679 307.3191 12.44375265114992
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 38.07742442 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1299
2 16909  50.0179 338.2722 0011061  13.5524 346.5603 12.44397497113209
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 56.56136282 0.00000884           41055-3 0  1957
2 16969  98.6495  89.1279 0013145 210.8253 149.2153 14.22837126128063
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 57.01462540 0.00000177           15034-3 0  2274
2 17290  82.4664 242.9385 0012373 211.0700 148.9716 13.83669198108246
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 32.87866317 -.00000103           10000-3 0  2270
2 17561   0.0936 256.3952 0004029 308.3915 155.2428  0.99988189   408
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 58.94147556 0.00076114           64797-3 0  6841
2 17845  51.6211 193.3410 0008630  62.1770 297.7604 15.68842483110381
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 59.14771684 0.00000206           21587-3 0  6833
2 18129  82.9305 318.7092 0012256   1.6595 358.4546 13.71947670 84442
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 59.74230074 0.00202677  20953-4  24771-3 0  9087
2 18225  71.8835 346.4759 0009455 220.6694 139.3604 16.07803679 93906
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 56.02152460 0.00000444           39473-3 0  2457
2 18312  82.5596 308.4176 0012403 144.7916 215.4060 13.83433497 77000
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 56.99603652 0.00000328           28394-3 0   887
2 18820  82.5420   8.9071 0015677 218.7896 141.2143 13.84100723 54301
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 40.26552022 0.00000016           10000-3 0   300
2 19216  57.3661 220.4414 6656511 198.6348 115.5647  2.09697875  5057
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 56.61020462 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1404
2 19336  82.5415 254.6109 0016841  98.4446 261.8541 13.16854525 28222
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 56.93903815 0.00000735           43023-3 0   489
2 19531  98.9286   1.5588 0011984 181.5048 178.6086 14.10838628 21785
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89 58.87780739 0.00055047           47121-3 0   967
2 19660  51.6167 193.6718 0009379  59.8648 300.2381 15.68834174 14697
1989 001A  
1 19749U          89 40.54122425 0.00000021           10000-3 0   386
2 19749  64.8623 174.9880 0005168 283.2404  76.6691  2.13102189   665
1989 001B  
1 19750U          89 40.59991529 0.00000021           10000-3 0   450
2 19750  64.8828 174.9892 0004542 255.2470 104.6752  2.13102350   664
1989 001C  
1 19751U          89 40.53193346 0.00000021           10000-3 0   377
2 19751  64.8741 174.9866 0009234 258.6758 101.1945  2.13155878   668
1989 004A  
1 19765U          89 54.19227353 0.00000128           10000-3 0   339
2 19765   1.3989 275.6559 0003155   5.8146 353.6677  1.00268906   297
1989 005A  
1 19769U          89 55.10021662 0.00001025           40018-3 0   306
2 19769  74.0516 316.4605 0024727 272.7543  87.0772 14.30612361  4073
1989 005B  
1 19770U          89 50.86702685 0.00001455           54285-3 0   215
2 19770  74.0501 323.9885 0010082 334.3912  25.6812 14.32723153  1159
1989 006A  
1 19772U          89 55.48390477 0.00000159           10000-3 0   118
2 19772   0.2087 251.0704 0000423 199.4920 274.2401  1.00549883   274
1989 006B  
1 19773U          89 51.59748649 -.00000028           10000-3 0   223
2 19773   8.3619 304.3248 7193679 197.0819 112.5227  2.25492156   564
1989 007A  
1 19774U          89 59.74838115 0.00860388  35015-4  34496-3     830
2 19774  64.7308 234.4718 0101634 104.4135 256.8950 16.11540937  5030
1989 004F  
1 19776U          89 51.66873718 -.00000014           10000-3 0   157
2 19776   1.4337 275.9987 0024481 313.1242  46.1872  0.97994013   271
1988 095F  
1 19777U          89 51.96943673 -.00000106           10000-3 0   151
2 19777   1.2029 275.1382 0012733  74.3464 285.1558  0.97939774   266
1989 008A  
1 19783U          89 59.89695884 0.00048206           41226-3 0   297
2 19783  51.6185 188.4651 0008383  75.0267 285.0933 15.68926096  2923
1989 009A  
1 19785U          89 56.73881784 0.00000004                   0   144
2 19785  82.6202  26.4497 0013337 359.5698   0.5403 12.64001214  1910
1989 009B  
1 19786U          89 56.44782998 0.00000004                   0    83
2 19786  82.6223  26.6771 0003088  43.0972 317.0362 12.61808705  1257
1989 009C  
1 19787U          89 56.51810065 0.00000004                   0    90
2 19787  82.6137  26.6020 0006102   8.7818 351.3381 12.62575376  1872
1989 009D  
1 19788U          89 56.98409471 0.00000004                   0   143
2 19788  82.6185  26.3026 0009775 353.2644   6.8313 12.63354945  1946
1989 009E  
1 19789U          89 57.04838105 0.00000004                   0   120
2 19789  82.6104  26.2249 0016336 353.7212   6.3674 12.64579928  1802
1989 009F  
1 19790U          89 58.06703936 0.00000004                   0    94
2 19790  82.6184  25.5720 0020046 346.4755  13.5780 12.65340173  2080
1989 009G  
1 19791U          89 48.15844392 0.00000004                   0    52
2 19791  82.6117  31.9738 0035307 188.6063 171.2854 12.54766929   813
1989 010A  
1 19792U          89 59.75118384 0.00012183           10918-3 0   252
2 19792  82.3577  41.3771 0038211  65.6456 294.8491 15.67125428  2833
1989 011A  
1 19796U          89 60.15196515 -.00000876           36749-2 0   160
2 19796  62.8382 157.1306 7357118 318.3258   4.6555  2.00621730   318
1989 011B  
1 19797U          89 59.60136482 0.01001475  37001-4  12487-2 0   318
2 19797  62.7768 105.6762 0200628 119.9113 242.2703 15.78885793  2262
1989 011C  
1 19798U          89 60.14856509 0.03210568  39482-4  10833-2 0   303
2 19798  62.8282 102.8134 0140331 119.4982 242.3041 16.05522227  2379
1989 011D  
1 19799U          89 46.21217484 0.00000057           10000-3 0    21
2 19799  62.8541 159.1949 7346517 318.2136   4.6149  2.02856895    30
1989 012A  
1 19800U          89 59.75050530 0.00324518  15863-4  80923-3 0   406
2 19800  65.8376 348.8520 1348092 142.3414 228.0117 13.13878489  1836
1989 012B  
1 19801U          89 59.25791545 0.00646766  16434-4  14068-2 0   335
2 19801  65.8427 349.8186 1327767 142.4156 227.8853 13.19624603  1762
GPS-0012   
1 19802U          89 56.07071015 0.00000015           10000-3 0    89
2 19802  55.1294 216.2430 0090905 180.3094 179.6527  2.01388764   178
1989 013C  
1 19804U          89 55.28212454 0.00224925  83456-6  16498-2 0   130
2 19804  37.3550 206.1528 6067167 206.4758 102.4213  4.05271697   369
1989 014A  
1 19807U          89 59.81941201 0.00000067           36515-3 0   167
2 19807  62.9344 341.0921 7425430 279.8521  11.0735  2.00594854   288
1989 014B  
1 19808U          89 59.76264817 0.05140174  41234-4  98380-3 0   349
2 19808  62.9508 291.7467 0074890  66.0269 295.0984 16.23456931  2123
1989 014C  
1 19809U          89 59.58893690 0.01072291  10266-4  13993-2 0   243
2 19809  62.9425 293.1537 0115305  67.6367 293.9596 15.94662356  2087
1989 014D  
1 19810U          89 52.78757589 -.00000087           11447-2 0    28
2 19810  62.9621 342.1172 7370636 279.9669  11.4271  2.07324028   146
1989 015A  
1 19818U          89 59.74414371 0.00203792  11992-4  12317-3 0   244
2 19818  62.8061 278.4438 0027160 119.6496 240.7296 16.17105436  1791
1989 016A  
1 19822U          89 60.12343702 0.00026169           19924-2 0   156
2 19822  75.1047 102.7287 4335826 153.9594 236.6441  6.81709945   490
1989 016B  
1 19823U          89 58.09250413 0.00319385  28585-4  17374-2 0    72
2 19823  74.5706  95.2199 0182616 164.0143 196.1210 15.59722519   806
1989 016C  
1 19824U          89 56.30543156 0.00050937           38172-2 0    31
2 19824  75.1252 104.4708 4335169 156.1634 232.2492  6.81930101   237
1989 017A  
1 19826U          89 58.45853538 0.00043523           48219-1 0   157
2 19826  82.9460 228.4136 0029058 262.5678  97.1870 13.71053278   732
1989 017B  
1 19827U          89 57.57794104 0.00000253           26344-3 0   142
2 19827  82.9488 229.0590 0024430 253.9487 105.8571 13.72564721   607
1989 018A  
1 19851U          89 59.73617018 0.00000006                   0    49
2 19851  82.5186 245.5953 0013434 251.1574 108.9075 13.83764481    71
1989 018B  
1 19852U          89 60.09769138 0.00000116           10000-3 0    49
2 19852  82.5210 245.3061 0016572 241.7251 118.2740 13.83467912   130
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #280
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Mar 89 20:07:58 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01449>; Tue, 7 Mar 89 06:09:44 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  7 Mar 89 06:09:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.MY4uy4y00jZdA2105J>;
          Tue,  7 Mar 89 05:31:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.QY4ulty00UkZQ6ZU4Q>;
          Tue,  7 Mar 89 05:18:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UY4ukFy00UkZA6Y050@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  7 Mar 89 05:16:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #281

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 281

Today's Topics:
	      Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology
		  Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
		  Re: For the People of Planet Earth
		       Re: "Centrifugal forces"
			  Re: External tanks
		       RE: the un/manned debate
			  Re: External tanks
		     ISEECO please call home....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 06:11:46 GMT
From: algor2!jeffrey@uunet.uu.net  (Jeffrey Kegler)
Subject: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology

Some years ago, I studied astrology, but never found chart interpretations to
correspond with the people for whom I was doing the charts.  Since then, I
have tried to figure out if there is a way to test the claims of astrology
scientifically.  Of course, the majority of scientists are firmly convinced
that astrology has no validity, but this is different from having proof.

Previous studies have been from one camp or the other.  Pro-astrology forces
have come up with weak statistical evidence, and anti-astrology forces have
torn that evidence to pieces.

I have just completed a study which uses Reichler's "Baseball Encyclopedia",
which presents a well-audited group of statistics in a difficult field of
human endeavor.  These statistics have the advantage that I cannot be accused
of cooking them.  Prior studies have studied "eminent physicists" or whatever,
where the researcher decided who was eminent.  Judicious selection of
borderline cases can seriously bias a sample, especially a small one.  I used
the A's and B's where both a complete date of birth (day, month and year) and a
state or country of birth were available.  Several statistics were examined,
but the best data was for "the single most difficult thing to do in sport"
--get a major league base hit.

I tried many methods of analysis, all of which gave similar results to the one
I am about to present.  Here is a list of aspects for which rank
correlation of orb (closeness of the aspect) with career hits has better
than a .05 (1 in 20) level of significance, using rank correlation.

       Aspect                    D         Prob D       RS       Prob RS

Aries Neptune Opposition     125708640      0.000     -0.175      0.000
Neptune Pluto Square          90512944      0.000      0.154      0.000
Aries Pluto Trine            120891576      0.000     -0.130      0.000
Neptune Pluto Trine           93505600      0.000      0.126      0.000
Uranus Pluto Opposition       93872048      0.000      0.123      0.000
Neptune Pluto Conjunction     94217008      0.000      0.119      0.000
Neptune Pluto Opposition      94217008      0.000      0.119      0.000
Aries Pluto Square            94264088      0.000      0.119      0.000
Aries Neptune Conjunction     94839664      0.001      0.114      0.001
Uranus Neptune Trine         119292816      0.001     -0.115      0.001
Saturn Uranus Opposition      96095072      0.002      0.102      0.003
Uranus Pluto Conjunction     117933960      0.003     -0.102      0.003
Aries Pluto Quintile          96657528      0.004      0.097      0.004
Uranus Neptune Opposition     96710632      0.004      0.096      0.005
Aries Jupiter Quintile       116642920      0.009     -0.090      0.008
Mercury Saturn Opposition     98103312      0.014      0.083      0.014
Venus Jupiter Trine          116082856      0.014     -0.085      0.013
Mars Saturn Quintile         115898664      0.016     -0.083      0.015
Aries Pluto Sextile          115875216      0.016     -0.083      0.015
Aries Uranus Conjunction     115737880      0.018     -0.082      0.016
Moon Mercury Sextile         115412992      0.023     -0.078      0.021
Moon Pluto Square            115278192      0.025     -0.077      0.023
Venus Pluto Trine             98936512      0.025      0.075      0.027
Venus Mars Square             98965280      0.026      0.075      0.027
Aries Neptune Quintile        99040496      0.027      0.074      0.029
Sun Neptune Conjunction       99362264      0.034      0.071      0.036
Aries Pluto Opposition       114742384      0.036     -0.072      0.034
Jupiter Neptune Quintile      99489808      0.037      0.070      0.039
Aries Mercury Quintile       114716576      0.037     -0.072      0.034
Sun Jupiter Square           114508088      0.042     -0.070      0.040
Uranus Neptune Conjunction   114441104      0.044     -0.069      0.041
Neptune Pluto Quintile        99790192      0.045      0.067      0.048
Uranus Pluto Trine            99867696      0.047      0.067      0.050
Jupiter Neptune Trine         99869256      0.047      0.067      0.050
Aries Pluto Conjunction       99908880      0.048      0.066      0.052

I won't explain the statistics involved at any great length. What follows will
assume you have looked it up in a statistics book, already knew it, or don't
really care much.  D is the sum of the squared difference of the ranks, Prob
D is the probability its deviation from the expected value is significant, RS
is the correlation coefficient of the ranks and Prob RS is the probability it
is significant.  Low Prob D or Prob RS indicate that the null hypothesis (that
the aspect given does not predict career hits) may be rejected with only
that much risk of an error.

We'll also take a fast pass over the astrology.  I call 0 degrees Aries,
the (relatively) fixed point at the start of the zodiac, and the Moon planets,
even though they are not.  A conjunction is an angle of 0 degrees between two
planets.  An opposition is an angle of 180 degrees, a trine one of 120 degrees,
and a square one of 90 degrees.  Rarely used are the sextile, taken here as an
angle which is any multiple of 60 degrees, and never used by the ancients was
the quintile, an angle involving a multiple of 72 degrees.

The 10 highest correlations involve planets unknown to the inventors of
astrology.  The 14 highest involve two "slow" planets.  Here the gradual
tendency of batting averages to decline is probably what is showing up.  The
indirect correlation with the gradual trend over time swamps any effects which
are more strictly astrological.  The 15th highest correlation is the Aries
Jupiter Quintile, a relatively slow variant of an obscure aspect.  The 16th
highest correlation is the Mercury Saturn Opposition.  An opposition is
traditionally a "difficult aspect" and we would expect to see a similar effect
from the other "difficult aspect" of Mercury Saturn--the square.  The levels
of significance there are .149 and .141--and the direction of the correlation
is the opposite!

Even the Mercury Saturn Opposition has a .014 level of significance.  That is,
if we decide it does affect career hits, we have a 1.4% chance of being
wrong.  Since we have taken a brute force approach--testing 540 different
aspects all at once, a spurious correlation at this level is hardly
surprising.  What is surprising is the that the 120 aspects among the slow
planets (0 degrees Aries, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) constitute the
top 14 aspects in the correlations.  The odds against that occurring by chance
are well over one in 6 billion.

It is in the nature of statistical evidence that it is hard to make an
absolutely final case, but this study would have to be a disappointment to
anyone seeking evidence for astrology.
-- 

Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists,
jeffrey@algor2.UU.NET or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
1788 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 14:53:00 GMT
From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@bellcore.com
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation


Just out of curiousity, how does a commercial firm get EXCLUSIVE rights to
a technology developed for the U.S. Air Force?  ( I'm assuming that E'Prime
didn't develop this technology with its own money, more likely you and I
paid for it with our generous contributions to Uncle Sam each paycheck ).

Please don't take this as a criticism of the company, a private competitor
to the vicious Arianne monopololy on commercial spaceflight is welcome ...
( Many, many smiley faces intended )

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 00:34:23 GMT
From: att!ihlpa!rjp1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: For the People of Planet Earth

Z


In article (Friends of Earth) writes:
> =====================================================================
> 
>                      .\:|/,
>                      -- o --
> PEOPLE OF PLANET EARTH '|\`
> 
> Your planet is nearing the period in its evolution when it shall pass 
> from the third dimension (that which you experience as your 
> surroundings now) into the fourth dimension of existence.  This shall 
> be a great change in the physical, mental and emotional nature of 
> human beings as well as a dramatic change in the nature of your planet.


What I want to know, is, what about the Vogons???  You know, those guys
up in those huge yellow, slab-like spaceships??  That float in the air
much in the same way that bricks don't?   Yeah!  Those guys!!   B^) 

Just puttin on my peril-sensitive sunglasses now...

--									    --
rj pietkivitch							att!ihlpa!rjp1

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 20:16:48 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: "Centrifugal forces"


>From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
>Ah yes.  I believe the story (which appeared in the now defunct
>Galaxy) was called "Jogging Up Main Street".  
>...Jogging would
>cause the colony to spin up very slightly as long as the runner kept
>moving, but as soon as he stopped, the extra spin would disappear
>(considering the mass of a runner vs. the colony, the effect would be
>unnoticable).

Ah, but if the joggers never stopped (dedicated jogging teams running
in shifts) the increased acceleration would remain. If the number of
joggers or their average speed were to increase, the total acceleration
would also increase. (OK, maybe the overall *magnitude* of the effect
would not be all that significant, but the *principle* remains valid :-)

Similarly, in a nonrotating colony, joggers could control the attitude
of the craft. Skylab used flywheels for this purpose. The joggers (see
A&S Museum film loop) were merely recreational.

Disclaimer: maybe I should have waited 30 days (from March 2) to post this.
                                      John Roberts
                                      cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 18:20:08 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: External tanks

In article <890301125213.00000133CE3@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>...they interviewed some NASA official and asked him why they never put the
>E.T.s into orbit after taking them 99% of the way there, when the cost
>to put that amount of mass in orbit would be $300 million if done any other
>way.  He mumbled that it had never been proven to be cost effective...

He's probably right.  The thing is, what do you use that mass for, and how?
Remember that the cost has to include reduced payload (it is no longer the
case that the shuttle flies a special maneuver just to drop the tank, so
you no longer save anything by avoiding said maneuver) and whatever system
you devise to keep the thing up there after the shuttle leaves (it will
not stay up long by itself, it's too big and too light).  If you're going
to keep it up there very long, you need to either wrap it in something or
remove the insulation, *after* launch, because the insulation will outgas
and "popcorn" and add to the space-debris problem in a nasty way.  If you
want to use it as a pressurized container, you need space-debris protection,
as the tank walls are not very thick and will get punctured soon.  Since
NASA is paranoid about another Skylab, you *must* have an ultra-reliable
de-orbit system to ensure that if worst comes to worst, the thing can be
brought down in a halfway controlled way.  And so forth...  And *then*
you have to use it for something.  Yes, it's a lot of mass, but it's not
in a terribly convenient form.  It really isn't quite as simple as it
looks -- the folks looking at converting one to a gamma-ray telescope have
significant problems to solve.

And of course, in any situation where the answer isn't blindingly obvious,
the only way you can *prove* that something is cost-effective is to try it.
Until then, the nay-sayers can always imagine more problems that might occur.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 14:00:32 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: the un/manned debate

In article <8902272332.AA16989@crash.cs.umass.edu>, ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
}
}    I just read the march 1989 Scientific American article "U.S. Access
}    to Space".  This is a companion to last month's article on the Soviet
}    space program.  The march article describes the "Shuttle-C" which
}    has not been extensively discussed on the net.
}...
}    At $1.5B it is a relatively cheap project. (Sci.Am p.38)  This is

Maybe cheap by current NASA standards, but it's an awful large sum for
basically sticking together existing components.  In addition, it will NOT be
cheap to launch, as it uses Space Shuttle Main Engines, which are by no means
cheap even when reused instead of launching an expendable.  The proposed
solution to this is to fly the SSME's ten times or so on the shuttle, and then
use them on the Shuttle-C, which of course severely restricts how often S-C
flies.

}    The "proponants maintain that the vehicle could be operational as
}    early as 1994 and estimate that it could lift between 100,000 and
}    150,000 pounds to the space station's orbit" (S.A. P.38).

Tsk, tsk.  After several years of study, it will now take five years to make
an operational system of mostly-existing components.  The Saturn V was
designed and built from scratch in rather less than five years--*without*
years of study.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 15:22:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ois.db.toronto.edu!hogg@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: External tanks

In article <890301125213.00000133CE3@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>I heard an article on NPR this morning on the way to work about the
>External Tank Corporation...
>...they interviewed some NASA official and asked him why they never put the
>E.T.s into orbit after taking them 99% of the way there, when the cost
>to put that amount of mass in orbit would be $300 million if done any other
>way.  He mumbled that it had never been proven to be cost effective.  I wonder
>what paragon of economic efficiency he was comparing it with.  The shuttle?

That sounds like the wrong answer.  The orbit that an ET would achieve
would be a low one, and the surface-area-to-mass ratio is very high.
This means that a tank will reenter fairly soon if action isn't taken
to keep it up there.  Given the Challenger launch hiatus, *not* storing
tanks in orbit on spec turns out to have been the right decision.
Twenty-four ETs raining down could be called bad publicity...

NASA has introduced their ``ETs for free'' deal, but there are a few
caveats to it.  First, each request must explain how a tank's orbit is
to be controlled.  Second, the organization placing the bid must be
judged to be stable, i.e., unlikely to suddenly fold.  In almost all
other cases, this would be a case of fattening the aerospace oligopoly
at the expense of the young, lean and mean.  In this instance, however,
it's reasonable.  I don't know how much (if any) of an ET would
actually reach the surface if it were allowed to decay from orbit, but
it would be impolitic to bombard the Middle East with American space
junk.
-- 
John Hogg			hogg@csri.utoronto.ca
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1989 14:31-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: ISEECO please call home....

ISEECO:

One of our people here at Pittsburgh L5 may have access to some unused
green house space in a year or so. If you are interested contact Frank
Kopriver at 412-466-0990 and tell him I told you to call.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #281
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Mar 89 06:14:16 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01610>; Wed, 8 Mar 89 05:49:15 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  8 Mar 89 05:49:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UY5E0Vy00jZdI1Xk5k>;
          Wed,  8 Mar 89 05:27:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.cY5DsSy00UkZQ9n05L>;
          Wed,  8 Mar 89 05:19:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UY5Dpuy00UkZM9lU5U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  8 Mar 89 05:16:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #282

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 282

Today's Topics:
      USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir
			   SSI Lunar Probe
			 Re: SSI Lunar Probe
			   Canaveral Tours
		      Re: Pigs will be pigs ...
	    Re: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology
			 planetary chemistry
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			 New mode of travel ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 14:30:08 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir 

    On Mar. 5th the Soviets announced on short wave the separation of the
Progress 40 tanker from the Mir/Kvant space station and destroyed by
reentry in the atmosphere.  Progress 40 carried up about 2.3 tonnes of 
supplies up on Feb 10, making this 21 day docking period on the short 
side for such cargo craft (35 days is more typical).  Progress 41 will 
probably be launched within the next few days.  This rapid turn around
in Progress 40 also suggests that they are still on track for the launching
of the new expansion module in for April.  There would be little need to
quickly bring up more supplies if there was going to be a delay in docking
the large, 20 Tonne module to Mir's front (ball) port section.  Since that
will probably force the tying up of the rear (supply) port with the
Soyuz TM-7 capsule for several months a rapid run up in supplies before 
that occurs is expected.  The exact timing of the Progress 41's ejection
will be an important indicator here.
    More surprising than this undocking were some rather interesting experiments
they performed with Progress 40.  Just before separation the cargo craft
unfolded and refolded a set of external support structures to be used in 
future for mounting test samples on.  Mention was made of a special metal
that took a specific shape on unfolding (is this one of the shape changing
metals which will return to a set pattern when heated above some temperature,
or simply some other sort of deployable structure?).  These tests were done
under the command and observation of the cosmonauts on Mir.  One question
here is were they just using the Progress as a convent test vehicle, or
does this suggest this building up to the a more complicated Progress biased
free flyer.  The Russians have previously talked about having a Progress
type craft dock with the station, be serviced by the cosmonauts (removing
processed materials and inserting new supplies) then undock and fly near the 
Mir while ultralow gravity experiments are performed.  Progress 32 back in
Nov. 17, 1987, undocked from the station, then backed away and flew near it
for a while.  That was possibly a test of one aspect of the free
flyer, while this may be another.  Another point to keep in mind is that
the Soviets have already stated that the Progress series is undergoing
a  redesign. This is not too surprising since the first of these cargo
craft, Progress 1, flew in Jan. 1978 to Salyut 6, and there have only 
been minor changes since then.
   On Mir itself Alexander Volkov and Sergei Krikalev (Soyuz TM-7) just 
passed 100 days in orbit on Mar. 6th, while Dr. Valrey Polyakov (Soyuz TM-6) 
has been up there for 189 days.  Take them for what they are worth but there
are some reports that Polyakov may not come down in April (I have not see
the actual article as of yet though Jonathan McDowell of Harvard related
the info to me).  Considering that Polyakov was originally expected
to land Dec. 21 he may just be getting a bit worried about when he is going
to come down.
    I find it interesting in the middle of the manned vs unmanned debat here
the Soviets maintain a continously crewed space station while sending at 
the same time their most complicated interplanetary mission to Mars.  Maybe
we should learn a bit from their style of space operations.
 
                                                      Glenn Chapman
                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 17:17:44 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: SSI Lunar Probe


from:  INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd
       HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20
       (503) 752-7717
       Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330
       Greg Goebel

date:  Thu Mar  2 09:12:54 PST 1989

I write a small science-and-technology newsletter for HP and ran the
following article on a new Space Studies Institute project:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* One of the most interesting things I ran across this month was a special
report issued by the Space Studies Institute -- a non-profit organization at
Princeton that investigates long-term technologies for space exploration.

I have been a passive member of SSI for years; I send them a little money every
now and then, get their newsletters, read them casually, and file them.  But
this special report got me excited.

SSI has done practical research towards exploitation of lunar resources for
years; and one project they have been pursuing is a search for volatile
substances on the Moon.

The Moon has plenty of oxygen, chemically locked in the materials that make up
its crust; but it has no atmosphere and, as far as can be seen, no light,
volatile substances like water or methane that contain hydrogen.  A lunar
source of hydrogen would provide lunar miners both with water and a high-grade
rocket propellant; without it, all water in space would have to be exported
from the Earth -- which would be prohibitively expensive.

However, the axis of the Moon's rotation is virtually at a right angle to the
plane of its motion around the Sun (it only is off by 2 degrees) and this
orientation has been stable for a long time.  Comets contain volatile
substances, and are known to collide with the Earth; comet collisions with the
Moon in the past could've scattered volatiles all over the surface.  Most of
the volatiles would have escaped into space over time; but those that fell into
craters near the poles -- into crevices where, due to the Moon's axis of
rotation, the sun never shines -- might remain frozen, and accumulate.

A simple space probe, armed with a gamma-ray spectrophotometer, could orbit the
Moon's poles to search for the frozen volatiles (and for ices of the volatiles
buried under the surface).

SSI has several proposals for a Lunar Polar Probe.  By far the most interesting
is one that would be launched from the Space Shuttle -- carried into orbit as a
"getaway special" (GAS) cargo.

The getaway specials are payloads that fit into unused crevices of the
Shuttle's cargo bay; they are usually the size of trashcans, and are carried
aloft at special rates, which have allowed even high schools to perform
experiments in space.

SSI's Lunar GAS probe would be extremely rudimentary:  it would contain a
gamma-ray spectrophotometer on an extensible boom, control and communications
electronics, twin solar panels for power, and an ion engine.

Ion engines are a speculative technology that has been studied since serious
space exploration began; such an engine is basically a electrical accelerator
that expels an ionized heavy gas (xenon, in this case) at extremely high
velocity.  Ion engines have low thrust, but they are very efficient in terms of
propellant mass (due to the high exhaust velocity) and can be powered by solar
arrays.

The LGAS probe would be ejected from the Shuttle; then it would deploy its
solar panels and begin a slow spiral away from the Earth that would place it
into lunar polar orbit in about two years' time.

If LGAS should happen, it would be a landmark in space exploration --
even if it did not reveal deposits of lunar volatiles.  Large space projects
are difficult to justify in a time of budget deficits, take a long time to
implement, and are vulnerable to protracted delays or cancellation.  A larger
number of smaller projects would be much more practical -- Freeman Dyson refers
to this as the "quick is beautiful" approach.

If the LGAS was developed through a combination of private funds and government
research grants, it would be the first citizen's interplanetary probe -- and
would lead the way towards a lower-cost approach to planetary exploration, as
well as more sophisticated private space exploration ventures.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone know what the status of this project is?  Have any cost
estimates been made?  Is there any attempt to get funding for it?

It would seem that, given the long flight time of the LGAS probe and the
need to get input for national space strategies in the near future, SSI must
act quickly on this.   

                                                  regards -- gvg

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 89 04:02:55 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: SSI Lunar Probe

In article <101270005@hpcvlx.HP.COM> gvg@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel) writes:
>Does anyone know what the status of this project is?  Have any cost
>estimates been made?  Is there any attempt to get funding for it?

    Quoting the SSI Special Report "Lunar Prospector Probe":

    "First, we are attempting to show NASA and key national leaders
     the importance of a quick and simple lunar mission
     which could detect possible water ice at the poles."
     ...
    "Secondly... we are working towards a partially or perhaps completely
     privately funded class of lunar probes."

    Planned 1989 activities include a lunar prospector workshop
preceding the 1989 Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing and a
session on lunar polar science at the 20th Lunar & Planetary Institute
Conference. One of the International Space University's summer '89
projects will be the design of lunar orbiting probes.  Also, SSI has
contracted with ExtraTerrestrial Materials, Inc., to manage a working
group to design a probe.

>It would seem that, given the long flight time of the LGAS probe and the
>need to get input for national space strategies in the near future, SSI must
>act quickly on this.

    The ion drive is only one possibility. Another is to use a surplus
Atlas booster. See the special report for photos and lots more info.

    One more quote from the SSI report:

    "SSI's extensive work on the lunar polar prospector has been made
possible by the contributions of the members and Senior Associates of
the Institute."

    If you want to see this project happen, I suggest sending SSI lots
of money ($25/year for a subscription to the newsletter is at least a
start). SSI is at:

    Space Studies Institute
    PO Box 82
    Princeton, NJ 08542
    609-921-0377

    Send me email if there are more questions.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "Totally bounded: A set that can be patrolled by a finite number
     of arbitrarily near-sighted policemen."    A. Wilonsky, 1978

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 21:27 PST
From: Steve oliphant <oliphant.pa@Xerox.COM>
Subject: Canaveral Tours
Cc: oliphant.pa@Xerox.COM

I am going to be in Florida next weekend and was considering driving down
to Cape Canaveral and taking a tour. Does anyone know what tours are
offered, when they are offered and whether you should have a reservation?
Now if I'm really lucky there will be a shuttle launch. Thanks.

Steven Oliphant

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 07:36:25 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Pigs will be pigs ...

In article <8902201702.AA17105@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.TI.COM (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror) writes:
<If I put up a private imaging satellite, then I can also have multiple ground
<stations, and no country can stop me from producing pictures, until one
<of them (choice of two) turns my bird into a metorite.  If someone wants
<to put a new missle/ship/plane/girlfriend out in the daylight, I should
<be able to take a picture of it.  An analogy would be your 55 Chevy.  If
<you don't want me taking pictures of it, leave it in the garage.  The danger
<of owning curiosities is that it makes people curious.

Don't be so quick to assume that only the US and the USSR can eliminate
your satellite. Since it will be in a low orbit, all that is needed is
a launcher that can boost 50 kilos or so to that altitude. Not orbit it
just get it up there. 

Make the 50 kilos a weak explosive charge surrounded by BBs, nails, or
whatever. Launch at the right time and detonate and your satellite will
plow through a cloud a BBs at a relative velocity of 8 km/s. Bye-bye
satellite. 

The hardest part is launching and guidance. Note also that the rocket 
and most of the payload will fall back to earth. This minimizes the
space junk.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 22:38:25 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@yale-bulldog.arpa  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology

In article <255@algor2.UUCP> jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:
>
>It is in the nature of statistical evidence that it is hard to make an
>absolutely final case, but this study would have to be a disappointment to
>anyone seeking evidence for astrology.
>-- 
>
>Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists,
>jeffrey@algor2.UU.NET or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
>1788 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090


What, pray tell, is the model for any of these planets having anything to
do with base hits?

Why would anyone waste time testing a theory without a model? Why not
test for correlations with the insect population for that year? Or the
average age of the guests on the Ed Sullivan show? Or, etc, etc....

I'd be more interested in things like the effect of temperature, humidity
or morning breakfasts on base hits....:-) 



    Paul K. Rodman 
    rodman@mfci.uucp
    __... ...__    _.. .   _._ ._ .____ __.. ._

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 03 Mar 89 12:41:54 EST
From: Eric Harnden <EHARNDEN%AUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      planetary chemistry

     I recently spoke to a chemist who described to me a new molecular state
being explored called a 'superstate'. This is, as far as I can remember, when
a gas or fluid is brought to its' critical point (boiling point for a fluid),
but kept under severe pressure. When the critical point is passed, the molecule
undergoes a change into its superstate, rather than what would be its' normal
transition. I'm not sure what the properties of this state are. For some gases,
like Co2, I understand that non-toxic corrosivity is one characteristic.. or
something like that. At any rate, the parameters required in order to achieve
the superstate are not actually that outrageous. The temperature need only be
that of the critical point (for Co2, it's like 32c), and the pressure is on
the order of fifty atmospheres. It struck me that this could describe the
condition of the Venusian and/or Jovian atmosphere at some given altitudes.
Could the atmospheres of these planets be in 'superstates' at some layers?
How would this affect the surrounding layers? What properties would they have
with regard to the reflection/absorption/transmittance of solar radiation?
Do superstate molecules mix? Just what kind of bizarre soup might be present?

Eric Harnden (Ronin)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 13:30:34 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <1989Feb21.175527.8993@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>my point:  historically, colonization has often been a one-way trip with
>return difficult or impossible, and it is not ridiculous to assume the

Note also, the colonies in different parts of the world today are those
which managed to survive. Many colonies failed within a few years of
their founding, killing most if not all of the colonists.

There is no reason to suppose that space colonies should be any easier
to start, and lots to suggest that it would be a lot harder.

But there wouldn't be any shortage of volunteers.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 10:21:37 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!tcdcs!tcdmath!kpower@uunet.uu.net  (Kenneth Power)
Subject: New mode of travel ?



	I saw in a T.V. article last night (Disscusion about the 20th 
anniversary of the first flight of Concord) that McDonnell-Douglas were working
on a supersonic "jet" which will leave the athmosphere during flight and will
have Tokyo-Los Angles trip time of two hours.
	Does anyone have any more information on this project,will it follow
a ballistic trajectory ,will passengers experience zero gravity during flight,
(if it goes into space will we have to be NASA employees to fly in it :-)???
	Thanks in advance.

-- 
Kenneth Power           | Mail to :-
Theoretical Physics     | kpower@maths.tcd.ie  (Please do)
Trinity College Dublin  | KGPOWER@vax1.tcd.ie  (Avoid if possible)
Ireland.                | mtsu0147@icl.tcd.ie  (Never (emergency's excepted))

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #282
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Mar 89 06:42:31 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01901>; Thu, 9 Mar 89 05:42:25 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  9 Mar 89 05:42:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kY5Z6Sy00UkTM2JE5r>;
          Thu,  9 Mar 89 05:27:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.IY5YzXy00UkZQ=YE4R>;
          Thu,  9 Mar 89 05:20:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY5YwTy00UkZ8=Wk4M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  9 Mar 89 05:17:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #283

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 283

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Pivoting solar arrays
			 heavylift launchers
		  Re: E'Prime and news about Thiokol
		     Future of the Space Station
	    Re: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			 Immune System at 0G
		     Re: LANDSAT TO BE TURNED OFF
		 Re: First concert from space--update
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			Babies born in space.
			  Re: 1992 moon base
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1989 15:05-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Pivoting solar arrays

You should check on some back issues of Tech Briefs. NASA has developed
solar arrays that have small cells behind a honeycomb of parabolic
reflectors. Not only is the intensity on the given cell increased, but
no tracking is required for a fairly wide range of sun angles.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 89 20:33:40 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: heavylift launchers

In article <240aa600@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>... After several years of study, it will now take five years to make
>an operational system of mostly-existing components.  The Saturn V was
>designed and built from scratch in rather less than five years--*without*
>years of study.

While I am second to nobody in my admiration for the Saturn V, let us not
get too carried away here.  The Saturn V wasn't *quite* that quick a job.
F-1 engine development, in particular, started earlier than you'd think.
(It was likely to be a useful engine even though nobody knew what kind of
booster would be built using it or what kind of missions would be flown.)
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 17:04:53 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: E'Prime and news about Thiokol

>From article <8902280436.AA04940@crash.cts.com>, by jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery):
> The S-series vehicles are made up of one or more MX booster segments
> standing alone, stacked and/or strapped together.
> 
> Here are the payload capabilities:
> 
> VEHICLE  LEO     GTO     PLANETARY    SCHEDULED  CONFIGURATION  REMARKS
> S1       2,500   975     675          4Q 1990    1 stage        1,200 Polar
> S2       6,500   2,400   1,625        3Q 1991    2 stage        4,200 Polar
> S3       11,000  4,200   2,900        3Q 1992    2 stage w/2 strap-ons
> S4       17,500  6,500   4,500        3Q 1993    2 stage w/3 strap-ons

This sounds like a great idea to me. I've actually tried to get some
rocket people I know thinking about something like this. Glad to hear	
it is being done.

I do have a few questions. What do you mean by "MX booster segment?"
The MX is a 3 stage booster, none of the stages are segmented. 

Each stage is manufactured by a different company. I know folks who've
worked on the 1st and 3rd stages. Thiokol and Hercules are about 80
miles from each other right here in Utah.

	stage	manufacturer

	  1	  Morton Thiokol
	  2	  Aerojet
	  3	  Hercules

Which stages are they using? I assume that they are using the Thiokol
1st stage for the S1. Is the S2 a 1st and 2nd stage MX? Or is it 2 1st
stages stacked?

Thiokol has killed almost as many people with its MX 1st stage as it
has with its Shuttle SRBs. During production of the MX 1st stage the
Air Force supended payments to Thiokol and refused to accept motors
because of the poor quality of the motors as built by Thiokol.

The MX 1st stage motors are built at the same plant, under the same
management, as the Shuttle SRBs. Thiokols quality problems with the MX
were going on at the same time as their redesign of the SRBs.

I heard on the radio this morning that because of the public relations
problems caused by the destruction of the Challenger, Morton Thiokol
is spliting into 2 different companies. One, to be called "Thiokol,"
will take over all the aerospace operations of Morton Thiokol. The
other, to be called "Morton International," will have everything else
that is currently part of Morton Thiokol.

Maybe the new Thiokol will be able to solve some of its problems.
There are Thiokol motors that have never had a flight failure. (The
Castor motors used on Delta and the first Delta IIs.) I hope they can
get back to being that kind of company. But without the Air Force on
sight inspectors enforcing quality I wouldn't buy a Thiokol motor.

I wonder if anyone has tried to get "exclusive rights" to commercial
use of the Trident or Trident II motor sets?

				Bob P.

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 23:07:00 GMT
From: pur-phy!tippy!fireman@ee.ecn.purdue.edu
Subject: Future of the Space Station


>From USA Today, Thursday, March 2, 1989.

SPACE STATION UP IN AIR AS TO SIZE, SCOPE
  by Paul Hoversten/USA Today

  The centerpiece of the U.S space program is but a series of blueprints
and mockups, even after four years of work and $2 billion in expenses.
  That's because there's disagreement about the purpose and scope of the
space station Freedom, a $32 billion laboratory to be operational by 1998.
  "It's being sold as one very large structure to do multiple things," says
David Webb, a National Commission on Space member.  "What we need are multiple
space stations."
  In congressional hearings this week, NASA officials defended their request
for $2 billion - twice last year's amount - to keep work going.
  NASA confidently touts Freedom as "The Next Logical Step."  Envisioned:
a science lab, processing workshop, observatory and an outpost for moon or
Mars missions.
  Japan, Canada and Europe are partners in the station, twice as big as the
Soviet Mir.  A final design is due in 1992.
  NASA Administrator James Fletcher says: "You can't do manned exploration in
space without the station."
  Some say NASA is going in the wrong direction.
  The United States could build a bigger space station for less money by using
spent external tanks from the shuttle, says Eugene Meyers, author of "External
Tank Solutions," out in July.
  Each tank - eight times the volume of Freedom - is jettisoned just short of
orbit and burns up in the atmosphere.  "It would be more profitable all
around to put these tanks to work," says Meyers.
  Others, like Webb, advocate several smaller stations, each with a 
specific purpose.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 89 15:39:00 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!powi@louie.udel.edu  (Peter Owings)
Subject: Re: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology


	I just can't believe that someone still takes astrology serious
enough to study it...

	Peter..

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 89 01:40:09 GMT
From: ubvax!weitek!sci!daver@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate


Hmm.  That reminds me.  I was reading in the SMITHSONIAN BOOK OF FLIGHT
(fun book) that the Wright brothers had just about killed the US airplane
business with lawsuits over patent violations.  As a result, the Europeans
moved into the forefront of airplane development, despite the initial
US lead.  I don't know how applicable this is to the privitization of
space, but can imagine parallels.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Sender: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM
Date: 3 Mar 89 11:02:48 PST (Friday)
Subject: Immune System at 0G
From: Swenson.osbunorth@Xerox.COM
Cc: Swenson.osbunorth@Xerox.COM


Anybody notice the survey article in the current Analog which points out
that time at 0G may depress the human immune system?

Bob Swenson
Swenson.pa@Xerox.COM

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 89 18:40:06 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: LANDSAT TO BE TURNED OFF

wasrud@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Jeffrey Wasrud) writes:
>
>A previous posting duplicated the letter many people recieved from the
>president of EOSAT, confirming the shutdown of Landsats 4 and 5.  I
>beg you to write and/or call and/or fax your opinions to your
>congressional delegates and all others concerned.
>
>Landsat has proven to be the most economical way to collect remotely
>sensed data.

How can something be called "economical" when there are not enough
paying users to cover operating expenses, much less amortize the cost
of building and launching the satellites?  Indeed, what is the
relevance of the asking price for Landsat tapes when their operation is
subsidized?

>For seventeen years we have shown the world pictures of itself, in
>good times and in bad, in order that we may make rational decsions
>about our precious, limited resources.

The latest decision of Congress is, apparently, that Landsat is not a
good use for our precious, limited resources.  There are not enough
paying customers for the supposedly important information Landsat
provides.

Ask yourself this: if Landsat is such a great investment, why can't
EOSAT raise money itself to keep the satellites operating?

>Would we have known as much about Chernobyl without satellites?

Arguably, yes.  Glasnost, you know.  Landsat images provided little
information.

>I'm tired and I ramble.  I am ashamed today to be an American.  I hope
>my congressman can make me proud again.

Reports in the press say former supporters of Landsat in Congress have
grown tired of endless subsidies and ever-receding breakeven points.
It doesn't help that studies have just come out saying that remote
sensing will not be profitable before the next century, if then.
Yet another over-hyped space industry.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 18:48:26 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick!arg@uunet.uu.net  (A Ruaraidh Gillies)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1989Feb24.175109.11738@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <10325@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>>...  There is no justification whatever
>>for sending Senators, teachers, and singers into orbit.  The Soviet Union
>>shouldn't be sending up astronauts from different nations just to score
>>political points...
>
>They aren't any more; all future foreign cosmonauts will be paying
>passengers.  It would surprise me greatly if Orbit Productions got a free
>ride.  Almost certainly they will be asked to pay the commercial price
>for their trip.
>
>What, pray tell, is wrong with carrying people into orbit for a fee?
>The airlines carry senators, teachers, and singers into the sky all the
>time.  "Things that make profits don't have to make excuses."

The fact is that there's a helluva difference between airlines sending up
non-airline people and space agencies sending up non-space people. Sure, it's
exciting and if I got the chance I'd jump at it like a shot, but the fact
is that at the moment pure passenger space flights are unfeasible. When the
Wrights got their plane working in 1912 they weren't trying to book passengers
within 24 hours (despite what Bob Newhart came up with in "Merchandising
the Wright Brothers"!). NASA, ESA and whoever control Soviet, Chinese, etc
space flights are not yet *ready* to start into human commerce. Remember, the
Challenger tragedy put back the US space program by 32 months. On the 25th
Shuttle flight, it all went wrong. It took *loads* more than 25 flights before
airliners were conceived, and now they are so common that although
disasters happen, people will still step on a plane the next day.

Challenger alerted the world to the fact that space travel is not the easiest
thing in the world, and should not be taken for granted. Until it is, we
should stick to what it's best for - satellite launches, and the
'enclosing' of our world.

"Statistics prove that flying is the safest way to travel - I don't know
how much consideration they've given to walking." (Shelly Berman)
+============================================================================+
Contact me on:     | Ruaraidh Gillies   |"The world is peopled by many minds
 arg@uk.ac.warwick | 2nd year Comp Sci  | whirling faster than the wind
  or               | Warwick University | Solving a dilemma of life and death
 arg@warwick.UUCP  | Coventry CV4 7AL   | trying to make some sense of it all"
                   | Great Britain      |   Good luck, bad luck (H. Jones)
+============================================================================+

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 89 03:13:50 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!jhunix!ins_atge@g.ms.uky.edu  (Thomas G Edwards)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

Concerning the Shuttle-C, if it indeed is a heavy lift vehicle,
my opinion is that we need it in a serious way.

Our current space shuttle is an example of huge amounts of thrust...
with much of it not aimed at carrying the payload, but using much
to launch the aerodynamic surfaces and passenger compartment.

To sum up what the space program needs:
1)  Manned missions are needed, for a human hand is still one of the
    best tool positioning devices we have.
    However, we do not need a re-usable shuttle to have a manned mission.

2)  Satellite retrieval is needed (though perhaps max 5 times a year!) 
    This is a job which the shuttle excels at.

3)  Unmanned Heavy Lift Vehicles are needed, to get things of
    large size into orbits without making many launches
    with human assembly (which would probably be more costly and
    dangerous).

4)  Which type of space vehicle should be used to deliver small
    satellites?  The space shuttle _can_ do it, but is it
    really cheaper than smaller reusable rockets over the long
    run? This needs to be answered.

-Thomas G. Edwards

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 89 18:19:29 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Babies born in space.

I would like to have some informations on the following subject:

What would be the reactions of an child conceived in space,
who spend its featal time in space, is born in space, live a few
years in space ?

Could anyone tells me if any studies have been made on the
reaction of the immune system, psychology, agility under 0g
conditions and problems that he/she would have on hearth,
bornwith instinctive reactions... etc..

Thanks,

Jean-Marc Debaud.
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 89 18:47:34 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

>From article <15238@cup.portal.com>, by PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble):
> While it may be possible to build a robot hand with present or near future
> technology, it won't be useful for space operations. 

How about several years old technology? They've been around for a
while now. Check out the Utah/MIT hand for instance.

> The had will very 
> likely be the most complicated, delicate, and least reliable piece of
> equipment on the space station. This will likely be true for a very long
> time to come.

I'd like to know what you base this on. You don't seem to know that
robot hands exist. So I suspect you don't know how they are built.
What pieces of equipment are you comparing it against? They look
tougher, and simpler, than human hands to me.

			Bob P.

Need to change my .signature file.

	The world is already wierder than science fiction CAN imagine.

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

		Reality is what you make of it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #283
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Mar 89 05:01:17 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01269>; Fri, 10 Mar 89 04:07:29 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 10 Mar 89 04:07:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YY5sNJy00UkTM2KUxt>;
          Fri, 10 Mar 89 03:25:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.kY5sGny00UkZACb05M>;
          Fri, 10 Mar 89 03:17:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kY5sFPy00UkZ0CZU4N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 03:16:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #284

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 284

Today's Topics:
		   Space Shuttle Keplerian Elements
		 Re: First concert from space--update
		      Re: Babies born in space.
		      Re: Babies born in space.
			  Re: Mars the Movie
		    Saturnian atmospheric featurs
		     Manned vs. Unmanned (again)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #257
		      Re: Photo identification?
			  Forward Unlimited
	      Re: European Space Policy ... (SPACE #270)
		       Re: Black hole trolling
			  Re: 1992 moon base
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 08:50:13 GMT
From: jarthur!jlulejia@uunet.uu.net  (John J. Lulejian)
Subject: Space Shuttle Keplerian Elements

I am interested in obtaining a rough set of Keplerian Elements for the next
shuttle mission.  It is supposed to lift off on Saturday and I would like to
run some orbit calculations before then.  Also, once it has reached a stable
orbit, I would appreciate it if someone would post or send me the current
Keplerian element set.

Thanks.

John Lulejian (KA6TCY)

President
Claremont Colleges Amateur Radio Club

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 89 22:51:39 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1399@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes:
>>What, pray tell, is wrong with carrying people into orbit for a fee?
>>The airlines carry senators, teachers, and singers into the sky all the
>>time.  "Things that make profits don't have to make excuses."
>
>The fact is that there's a helluva difference between airlines sending up
>non-airline people and space agencies sending up non-space people...

Please explain:  what *is* the difference?

>When the
>Wrights got their plane working in 1912 they weren't trying to book passengers
>within 24 hours...

The Soviets have been flying Soyuz missions for a lot more than 24 hours.
And the "A" booster they use to launch it has flown over 1000 times,
starting with Sputnik 1 (and that doesn't count its still-earlier history
as an ICBM).

>... at the moment pure passenger space flights are unfeasible.
>... NASA, ESA and whoever control Soviet, Chinese, etc
>space flights are not yet *ready* to start into human commerce...

ESA and the Chinese, true.  NASA, yes with reservations.  The Soviets?
Nonsense.  *They* have truly operational space systems.  "A" boosters
have been rising from the pad at least once a week for two decades now.
They *are* ready to start human commerce -- they're quoting prices and
flight dates today.

>Challenger tragedy put back the US space program by 32 months...
>... It took *loads* more than 25 flights before
>airliners were conceived, and now they are so common that although
>disasters happen, people will still step on a plane the next day.

The latest major Soviet space problem -- the Soyuz reentry foulup -- put
their program back maybe two or three weeks.  They know how to manage
problems, as opposed to running in circles and screaming for a year first.
(Apollo 1 put the US space program back only 18 months -- the situation
is deteriorating, not improving, as the US gets more experience.)  They
still have problems, but their cosmonauts get into the capsule a few
weeks later with reasonable confidence that the situation is under control.
Which it is.  The USSR is a spacefaring nation; they have routine access
to space.  Don't lump them in with NASA.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 89 00:38:14 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

In article <8Y42Wly00XokQ3qUUv@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>What would be the reactions of an child conceived in space,
>who spend its featal time in space, is born in space, live a few
>years in space ?
>
>Could anyone tells me if any studies have been made on the
>reaction of the immune system, psychology, agility under 0g
>conditions and problems that he/she would have on hearth,
>bornwith instinctive reactions... etc..

None has been done whatsoever.  At least not by us.  I don't
know if MIR does any animal experiments.

This is one of the many things that can't be done with robot probes.
The only way we are ever going to find out is to put up a permanent
space station, raise some animals in it (you don't want to try this
with humans first!), and see what happens.

I wonder if it would be necessary to send up pregnant female rats,
though.  I'm not sure rats have enough brains to figure out how to
accomplish zero-G sex.  (This sounds silly, but may be a serious
question for animal studies.  Depending on the animal.  Monkeys might
do better.)  I am very interested in the results from raising several
generations of rats or spider monkeys or whatever in zero-G.

Of course, the robots-can-do-everything people don't seem to think
there's a bit of value in this kind of research.  After all, I can hear
them say, living in zero-g is utterly pointless; we should wait until
we've got gravity generators.  (arf!)  Or, nobody in the entire future
history of the human race is ever going to want to live in space, so
it's an irrelevant question.  (arf! arf!)
-- 
"Ain't nothin' in the middle                  Mike Van Pelt
o' the road, 'cept a yellow                   Video 7
line and dead 'possums."                      ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 89 01:11:20 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

In article <8Y42Wly00XokQ3qUUv@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>What would be the reactions of an child conceived in space,
>who spend its featal time in space, is born in space, live a few
>years in space ?

Nobody knows.  For a guess, development before birth would probably be
nearly normal, since the fetus is pretty much weightless (floating in
fluid).  Details might differ, perhaps important ones.  Afterwards, it's
impossible to say.

>Could anyone tells me if any studies have been made on the
>reaction of the immune system, psychology, agility under 0g
>conditions and problems that he/she would have on hearth,
>bornwith instinctive reactions... etc..

Basically, no.  It's never been tried, and we have no idea how much of
our 1G experience is applicable.  Some human psychology is "wired in",
instinctive or nearly so, but how much?  As for physiology, we don't
fully understand the effects of free fall on *adults*, never mind babies.
The one prediction that seems safe is that such a baby would have a lot
of trouble if suddenly placed in a 1G field.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  5 Mar 89 11:43:21 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@naif.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Mars the Movie
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

I saw in _Sky & Telescope_ that the Astronomical Society of the Pacific
is marketing "Miranda The Movie", along with a flick about Uranus titled
"I Have Seen Such Things" (which I believe I have seen in the auditorium
here), for what is doubtless a reasonable price if they only expect to
sell a handful.  Possibly the same group plans to market "Mars The Movie"
(bundled with what?  "War Of The Worlds"?).

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  5 Mar 89 11:47:32 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@naif.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Saturnian atmospheric featurs
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

The current issue of _Astronomy_ carries a short piece near the beginning on
how a guy pieced together pictures of Saturn and put them through
transformations to get a polar view, and discovered that the north pole is
surrounded by hexagonal jetstreams.  Is there any precedence for this 
elsewhere in atmospheric dynamics?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  4 Mar 89 11:11:33 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Manned vs. Unmanned (again)
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo) writes:

>Polls show that the public prefers unmanned planetary probes
>over manned missions.

What is your source on this please?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 89 12:18:39 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #257

>slides his cat through the tube....

Now how does he get rid of the cat hair??

  ||PLS

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 89 12:26:56 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: Photo identification?

>Interesting, can it be a coincidence that Feb 26, 1979 was the date of the
>most recent total eclipse of the sun in the continental US?

Not a coincidence at all. One of them is a very beautiful shot of the
moon's shadow on the Earth. I'd like to know what spectral band these
photos used and if it is possible to find an IR cloud cover photo of the
same scene. 

My eye says that this was taken from geosync orbit. My very uninformed
guess is that it is from GOES West.

  ++PLS

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  5 Mar 89 11:05:23 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Forward Unlimited
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

I responded to an earlier posting in SPACE Digest advertising Bob Forward's
MIRROR MATTER newsletter by sending a postcard to the address asking to be
put on the mailing list.  I've met Dr. Forward before and knew he was a
generous man, but still was not prepared for about 1 lb of newsletters and
technical report that arrived in a thick envelope the other day!

Now, I see from the back of one newsletter that the NSS is doing printing
and mailing for him, at cost.  Nevertheless, I assume that he's paying
out of his own pocket the approximately $1 per issue per subscriber, so
I'm going to send him a small donation.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 06 Mar 89 10:43:05 SET
From: ESC1325%ESOC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: Re: European Space Policy ... (SPACE #270)
Date: 06 March 1989, 10:12:58 SET
From: Lutz Massonne             (+49 6151) 886.701   ESC1325  at ESOC
To:   SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU

To understand the ESA policy one should note that ESA is
  1 - a multi-national organisation
  2 - a non-profit organisation

Point 1 implies a complicated decision process and several constraints
on the ESA policy.

E.g. the mebership of neutral countries as Switzerland and Sweden
forbids ESA to think about any military space activities.  This was one
major point in the Space Station negotiations with NASA.  The ESA
projects are divided up into the scienitific projects. The participation
on these projects is mandatory for all ESA members, the decisions on the
scientific projects come from the ministerial council.

The ESA members have decidided on a long term science programme called
"Horizon 2000" which defines some major "cornerstone missions" which are
funded by a long-term financial planning.  Of course, some discissions
about priorities etc. are giong on all the time.

On the other hand, the application projects are not mandatory for all
ESA member states. Here the national policies are involved.  Hermes for
example is one of these programmes, the development of the space station
module and the man-tended free flyer is another.  For all projects the
involved member states are eager to get exactly the amount of money they
pay back to their countries, either as harware orders to the national
industries or in the form of studies and software development contracts.

Point 2 is the reason for the founding of companies like Arianespace,
Eumetsat and Eutelsat.  The parts of the space business that become
self-financing like the launch business, the selling of communication
channels and weather images and in future perhaps the remote sensing
(SPOT was a national french development, but ERS-1 is an ESA project)
have to be taken out of ESA.  However, some activities remain at ESA,
like the operations of the Meteosat weather satellites which are based
here at the ESOC.  In future the operations will be much more
de-centralised.  A number of control centres based in several member
states will be set up, each supporting a specific mission.  For the
manned european missions the final planning is not yet finalised, but I
think that to get the large amounts of money needed nearly every member
state will get a "part of the cake".  Maybe the Hermes operations will
be based in France, the Space station module centre in Italy and the
Man-tended free flyer centre in Germany.  ESA establishments will then
perform the overall coordination and the mission planning.

Concerning the national influence, the British policy is perhaps the
most "money-return" oriented.  The French have a strong feeling about
national pride, and most of the projects that are future-oriented and
ensure European self-reliance and autonomy have been initiated by them.
They pay a large share for them, too.  The German space policy was for a
long time driven by the support of a strong cooperation with NASA.
Therefore the German money mostly went not into the "autonomous"
projects like Ariane but into the Spacelab development.  After the
negative experiences with NASA cooperation and the public criticism in
Germany the German space policy seems to have changed a bit in the last
years.  The smaller member states don't have much influence on ESA
policy.  Italy is a strong supporter of the manned space programme, and
many of the other member states support the European space activities as
a way to improve their own aerospace industry.

I hope these lines may help the people on the "other side" to understand
what's going on here.

Regards, Lutz

Disclaimer:
These are my personal views on the ESA policy. Neither ESA
nor mbp are responsible for them or are obliged to share them.

+--------------------------------------+
| Lutz Massonne    ESC1325@ESOC.BITNET |
| European Space Operations Centre     |
| Robert-Bosch-Str. 5                  |
| D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG                |
+--------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 89 22:30:53 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Black hole trolling

In article <605212786.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>What would happen if someone dropped a sensor on a tether through the event
>horizon of a black hole while in orbit just above the event horizon?
>
>Would the tensile strength be guaranteed to be exceeded for an arbitrarily
>small distance across the membrane? Would reeling it in require
>"infinite energy"?
>
>My intuition says it won't work, but won't tell me why...
	Easy.  The forces that hold a macroscopic object together are
electromagnetic.  They require the exchange of virtual photons between
the particles to be held together.  When the object extends across the
event horizon, the photons can no longer go from the atoms inside the
black hole to the atoms outside.  Thus the tether is neatly sliced.
	The only problem with this is that we haven't got a theory of
quantum gravity.  Hawking radiation, which is based on quantum jumps
across an event horizon from inside to outside, messes things up.
Might there be a physicist out there who can state that quantum
tunneling occurs too infrequently to be of use in holding the tether
together, or is this still too poorly understood?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 89 10:58:04 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

Bob,
  Then would you please enlighten us with some information on the current
status of robot hands?

  Let's take a specific case. I want the robot to open a screwed on access
cover, remove a circuit card from a card case, put it into a test fixture,
run test points on the traces (let's say .03" design rules), and finally
remove and replace a soldered chip and reassemble the unit. Can you point
to any of this being done even in a controlled ground environment?

  ++PLS

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #284
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Mar 89 06:39:03 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01929>; Fri, 10 Mar 89 05:30:16 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 10 Mar 89 05:30:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UY5u5wy00UkTM2pE5m>;
          Fri, 10 Mar 89 05:21:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.cY5u3ny00UkZ4Cm04V>;
          Fri, 10 Mar 89 05:18:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kY5u2Fy00UkZ8CkU4Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 05:16:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #285

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 285

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again)
			       Re: arf!
			 Black hole trolling
		  Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation
		   Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again)
		 Re: arf! (Paul Dietz barking... :-))
		      Re: Babies born in space.
			NASA Bulletins request
	     Solar Eclipses -- any effect on Satellites?
		      Re: Photo identification?
			    Re: arguments
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 89 22:26:04 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again)


 minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo) writes:
> 
>Polls show that the public prefers unmanned planetary probes
>over manned missions.
> 
The subject line says it all.  A good poll is at best a poor random sample
taken by a group usually advocating or opposing the subject of the poll.

A good PR man can write a poll which has leading questions which make the
result inevitably what he/she wants it to be.  Psychology in action.
You could probably commission a poll and have the results come out in
favor of banning all forms of civilization and crawling back into the
trees!  All it takes is the right pollster.

So I repeat an earlier call.
What is the source of this poll?  Unless I see the poll, and the questions
put forth, I remain skeptical.  (Of course, I'm skeptical about most 
things :-) :-) :-) :-) ).

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

Useful criticism always appreciated.  Senseless flames always discarded.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 89 13:49:11 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: arf!


In article <253@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

>This [experiments in fetal development in zero gee] is one of the many
>things that can't be done with robot probes.  The only way we are ever
>going to find out is to put up a permanent space station, raise some
>animals in it (you don't want to try this with humans first!), and see what
>happens.

Why is it not possible to launch pregnant rats (for example) in an
unmanned returnable capsule?

>Of course, the robots-can-do-everything people don't seem to think
>there's a bit of value in this kind of research.  After all, I can hear
>them say, living in zero-g is utterly pointless; we should wait until
>we've got gravity generators.  (arf!)  Or, nobody in the entire future
>history of the human race is ever going to want to live in space, so
>it's an irrelevant question.  (arf! arf!)

One need not believe that "robots can do everything" to think that
sending men into space now is a waste of money.  Nor is anyone, as far
as I know, proposing building "gravity generators", unless Mike means
spinning structures.

The parodic statement that no one in the history of the human race is
ever going to want to live in space is especially interesting.  Mike,
are you proposing that if research is going to be useful anytime in
the future, no matter how distant the application, then we must spend
as much as possible *right now* on that research?  I'll suppose you'll
next be pushing for NASA to start a crash research program on FTL
starships (arf!).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1989 13:39-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Black hole trolling

What would happen if someone dropped a sensor on a tether through the event
horizon of a black hole while in orbit just above the event horizon?

Would the tensile strength be guaranteed to be exceeded for an arbitrarily
small distance across the membrane? Would reeling it in require
"infinite energy"?

My intuition says it won't work, but won't tell me why...

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 06:30:27 GMT
From: ube.CS.ORST.EDU!willitd@cs.orst.edu  (Don Willits)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation

At the last Lunar Base & Space Activities symposium in Houston (April 88), there
was some discussion about teleoperation.  One gentlemen (I don't remember his
name) described an experiment in which a  TV camera and remote driving set-up
was installed on a Go-Kart.  A five second time delay was then created between
the camera's transmission and the video display where the driver was seated.
The driver then had to negotiate an obstacle course of moderate difficulty.

And in every case, nobody was able to successfully negotiate the course.

This is strictly second hand - it might be interesting for someone out there
with more electronic equipment than I (and a go-kart - or something equally
useful) to experiment with this - and give a little bit better results than
my memory.

Don Willits
willitd@urania.cs.orst.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 03:05:31 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again)

In article <67@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
> minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Polls show that the public prefers unmanned planetary probes
>>over manned missions.
>The subject line says it all.	A good poll is at best a poor random sample
>taken by a group usually advocating or opposing the subject of the poll.

    Furthermore, the answers may seem to say what you want until
examined carefully. An example that comes to mind is a poll I saw in
the NY Times a few years ago asking whether people thought more money
should be spent on various types of gov't activities. NASA got ~65% in
favor. Wonderful, right? More than half the population wants an
expanded space program.

    - - -

    Well, no. NASA was next to *bottom* of the list. The usual social
programs were at the top. Guess who wins in a time of massive
deficits, if only this poll were considered.

    Simply put, the public doesn't give a damn about space compared to
day-to-day quality of life issues, and neither do the politicians. The
poll Nick quotes may be honest and perfectly correct, and also be
meaningless.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Those what cannot remedy the past can pretend to repeal it."
	- Attributed to Santa Ana by Owl

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 03:07:56 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: arf! (Paul Dietz barking... :-))

In article <1989Mar6.084911.4781@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Why is it not possible to launch pregnant rats (for example) in an
>unmanned returnable capsule?

If all you're interested in is birth and the period immediately before
and after, this should work.  I don't think anybody's built an automatic
life-support system that can keep rats alive and healthy for long periods
in space, which is what you'd really like.  (To judge by the Spacelab
experience, we don't know how to keep *anything* alive and healthy up
there if it isn't smart enough to use the Shuttle toilet...)
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 00:02:38 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpscdc!chris@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Chris Schiller)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

>/ hpscdc:sci.space / henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) /  5:11 pm  Mar  4, 1989 
>In article <8Y42Wly00XokQ3qUUv@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>>What would be the reactions of an child conceived in space,
>>who spend its featal time in space, is born in space, live a few
>>years in space ?
>
>Nobody knows.  For a guess, development before birth would probably be
>nearly normal, since the fetus is pretty much weightless (floating in
>fluid).  Details might differ, perhaps important ones.  Afterwards, it's
>impossible to say.


I think I once heard that cell differentiation may be in part affected
by gravity.  I'm a little suprised that noone has performed any of these
experiments...

Chris Schiller
hplabs!hpscdc!hpsctcd!chris
chris%hpsctcd@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 89 16:45:39 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!charlie@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charlie Thompson)
Subject: NASA Bulletins request

This is to TS Kelso:   

I enjoy the NASA prediction bulletins and use them for NOAA tracking
MIR, AO-13, etc.  There are however some satellites in your list that
I know nothing about.  Could you possibly post  one or two sentences
describing each one?  I'm sure most people in rec.ham-radio and sci.space
would find it interesting reading.   I use QT 3.2 for NOAA tracking. I receive
images using an R-7000 and hombrew IBM board along with MF 3.3 for
display software. 

 
Regards,
 Charlie Thompson WB4HVD
 Motorola DSP Operation
 Austin, TX

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 11:54:38 GMT
From: shelby!Portia!hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@decwrl.dec.com  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Solar Eclipses -- any effect on Satellites?


	The eclipse today got me to thinking; does anything
special happen when a satellite sails through the umbra of
the moon? Is there any special precaution that has to be
taken against the "unexpected" heat/cold shock? Has a satellite
ever taken a picture of the moon in front of the sun? Etc?
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Sender: DLynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM
Date: 7 Mar 89 09:33:25 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Re: Photo identification?
From: DLynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM
Cc: DLynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM


It appears that the 1615 is a time (probably GMT) and 26FE79 is the date.
Since the times are 30 minutes apart, one has to assume that these were
taken by a geosynchronous satellite (low orbit satellites can't see the
same place a half hour later), so probably a weather satellite.

The interesting thing about the date and time is that at about 1630 GMT on
that date, a total eclipse of the sun was passing through the area of
Yakima Washington (I was there observing the eclipse).  I have seen weather
satellite shots taken at this time to show the movement of the moon's
shadow passing over the earth during an eclipse, but the shots should be of
Washington, not the Sacramento California area, which is where the probable
latitude and longitude lie (39N, 121W).  If the pictures cover an extremely
wide area (like several states), then perhaps this is the famous pair to
show the shadow moving.

But I must end this message now, as I have to go outside to observe a solar
eclipse (only partial though) going on as I write this message.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 89 17:54:12 GMT
From: asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@noao.edu  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: arguments

To Nick Szabo:
I apologize for my rude response the other day. I was feeling irritated
and I didn't realize how bad my first letter (the one you quoted) sounded.
I got irritated thinking that you irresponsibly cut and pasted my
message to suit your own meanings. What I didn't realize was what my
message actually sounded like. I am not the most eloquent  writer.

I was not implying that anyone was completly closed to the view
points of the other side. It's just that I see it as each group
feels very strongly about their particular viewpoints and it would
take an absolute irrefutable arguement to convince either of them
to take the side of the other. Now, this is just my opinion. I
don't think anyone can come up with an no-holes irrefutable arguement.
It's too easy to find some piece of information somewhere that will
support the other sides viewpoint and refuting the first sides arguement.

But, also, like Paul recently said:


>Actually, our positions are not all *that* far apart.  Mostly, the
>difference is in how fast we expect launch costs to drop.  I expect
>they will come down slowly.  Henry (and many others, I hazard) are
>counting on private firms to do orders of magnitude better than NASA,
>and to do it soon.  My mind would be changed if someone could
>demonstrate that launch costs would be (picking numbers out the air)
>$200/lb to LEO in fifteen years, from the current $4K/lb or so (would
>anything change *your* mind?).  Past history is not reassuring.  I
>don't see costs coming down if NASA continues to spend so little money
>on developing new launcher technologies.  Ah well, maybe ALS or NASP
>will save us (:->).

>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu



I agree! (wonders upon wonders!) 
Even though I support manned space flight right now, I think NASA is failing
at it miserably. The Shuttle program has become nothing more than a space
freight service for satelite launching/repair, a space taxi, and lab for
DOD experiments for SDI. That's wrong and a waste of money. NASA should be
a scientific organization dedicated to expanding man's knowledge in space.
Here is where the manned/unmanned group disagrees:  I think that we need
both men and machines in space *now*; the unmanned group thinks that men
should wait because it's too expensive. 

I think that if NASA would allow/help private  industry to do what they
do with the shuttle now, and started working on some other innovative
ventures, we would be better off. NASA should put effort into the 
space plane project, unmanned and manned exploration of the planets,
and yes the space station (although I would like to see a lunar base too)

And once NASA has the space plane worked out, they could pass that technology
down to the private industry also. Scaled down a bit in performance, 
it would make a terrific sub-orbital passenger plane, eh?
NASA should stick to R & D and leave the routine to
industry. In my opinion, that would justify the money spent. If NASA spent
$XXX billion on developing a space plane, then did with it what they do
with the shuttle (ACME Satelite repair) then the money would be wasted.
However, If they let private industry take the space plane and use the
technology to start our own space satelite repair service, and improve
our jet liners, It would be a tremendous return on investment. And NASA
would be free to go on and explore/discover new frontiers.




-- 
John Sparks      // Amiga  |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks 
               \X/  UUCP   |  >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 << 
 
Beware of quantum ducks: Quark, Quark.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #285
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Mar 89 04:07:40 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA13872>; Sat, 11 Mar 89 03:34:42 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 11 Mar 89 03:34:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kY6BTvy00Ui343ykRR>;
          Sat, 11 Mar 89 03:25:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.sY6BOYy00UkZ8K=05L>;
          Sat, 11 Mar 89 03:19:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY6BLTy00UkZEK9U5N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 03:16:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #286

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 286

Today's Topics:
		    Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins
			Space News 1989 Mar 7
		  Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation
	    Re: Mondale and (or vs.) space (was Re: Nerva)
		 Re: First concert from space--update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 15:09:52 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins

In response to the person who wanted to know about the satellites
listed in Dr. Kelso's bulletins:

 -  Alouette 1 
  First Canadian satellite, an ionospheric beacon launched in 1962.
 -  LAGEOS     
  NASA Laser Geodynamic Satellite; passive reflector for geodetic studies
 -  GOES 2     
 -  GOES 3     
 -  GOES 4     
 -  GOES 5     
 -  GOES 6     
 -  GOES 7     
  NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite; take weather
  pictures over the US. GOES 2-6 still relay data but imagers broken.
  Please note spelling; many people confuse with GEOS. 
 -  GPS-0001   
 -  GPS-0002   
 -  GPS-0003   
 -  GPS-0004   
 -  GPS-0006   
 -  GPS-0008   
 -  GPS-0009   
 -  GPS-0010   
 -  GPS-0011   
  Space Command's Navstar Global Positioning System. These Block 1 Navstars
  formed part of an initial test constellation.
 -  SeaSat 1   
  NASA oceanographic satellite; failed after 6 months due to short circuit.
  US Navy Geosat now repeating the mission.
 -  NOAA 6     
 -  NOAA 9     
 -  NOAA 10    
 -  NOAA 11    
  NOAA Tiros N weather satellite, sun synchronous polar orbiter for closeup
  satellite weather photos.
 -  Solar Max  
  NASA solar observatory, repaired 1984, sadly to be abandoned.
 -  UOSAT 1    
 -  UOSAT 2    
  University of Surrey satellite, amateur educational satellite developed
  by Martin Sweeting and colleagues at Guildford, England; launched piggyback.
 -  OSCAR 10   
  AMSAT-DL amateur radio comsat
 -  FO-12      
  'Fuji', Japan Amateur Satellite 
 -  AO-13      
  AMSAT amateur radio comsat
 -  RS-10/11   
  Soviet Kosmos navigation satellite with amateur radio transponders
 -  Meteor 2-08
 -  Meteor 2-09
 -  Meteor 2-10
 -  Meteor 2-11
 -  Meteor 2-12
 -  Meteor 2-13
 -  Meteor 2-14
 -  Meteor 2-15
 -  Meteor 2-16
 -  Meteor 2-17
  Soviet Hydrometeorological Service weather satellite
 -  Meteor 3-1 
 -  Meteor 3-2 
  Soviet Hydrometeorological Service weather satellite, new version
  under R&D
 -  Salyut 7    -  Cosmos 1686
 -  Mir         -  Kvant       -  Soyuz TM-7 
  Soviet space stations
 -  IRAS       
  NASA/Netherlands/UK infrared astronomy survey satellite, died 1983 when
  helium ran out after mission completed.
 -  LandSat 5  
  EOSAT remote sensing satellite, due to have been turned off Mar 89 due
  to lack of Congressional support.
 -  LDEF       
  NASA Long Duration Exposure Facility, to be belatedly retrieved by
  Shuttle in 1990.
 -  Cosmos 1602
 -  Cosmos 1766
  Soviet Okean oceanographic satellite with radar imaging
 -  SPOT 1     
  French remote sensing satellite (Satellite Probatoire pour l'Observation
  de la Terre)
 -  EGP        
  'Ajisai', NASDA (Japan) passive geodetic satellite, like Lageos
 -  Cosmos 1870
  Soviet large oceanographic platform; possibly Salyut based.
 -  1989 001A  
 -  1989 001B  
  Kosmos-1987, Kosmos-1988 navigation satellites
 -  1989 001C  
  Kosmos-1989 'Etalon' passive geodetic target, like Lageos
 -  1989 004A  
  Soviet Gorizont comsat
 -  1989 005A  
  Soviet ? KGB ? low orbit comm relay 
 -  1989 005B  
  RN Kosmos final stage
 -  1989 006A  
  INTELSAT VA F15 geostationary comsat for international comms
 -  1989 006B  
  Ariane V28 third stage
 -  1989 007A  
  Kosmos advanced recon satellite
 -  1989 004F  
 -  1988 095F  
  RN Proton Blok-DM final stages in near-synchronous orbit
 -  1989 008A  
  Progress-40, now deorbited
 -  1989 009A  
 -  1989 009B  
 -  1989 009C  
 -  1989 009D  
 -  1989 009E  
 -  1989 009F  
  Kosmos-1994 thru 1999, Soviet ?Navy? small geodetic or comms payloads
 -  1989 009G  
  RN Tsiklon final stage
 -  1989 010A  
  Kosmos-2000 Priroda mapping satellite
 -  1989 011A  
  Kosmos-2001 early warning satellite
 -  1989 011B  
  RN Molniya Blok-I stage
 -  1989 011C  
  RN Molniya final stage adaptor
 -  1989 011D  
  RN Molniya Blok-L stage
 -  1989 012A  
  Kosmos-2002 small military satellite
 -  1989 012B  
  RN Kosmos final stage
 -  GPS-0012   
  Block II Navstar GPS; (NOTE TO TS KELSO: Are you sure this is
  GPS-12? I thought it was GPS-13, with GPS-12 held as a ground spare).
 -  1989 013C  
  Pam-D stage
 -  1989 014A  
  Soviet Molniya-1 comsat
 -  1989 014B  
  RN Molniya Blok-I stage
 -  1989 014C  
  RN Molniya final stage adaptor
 -  1989 014D  
  RN Molniya Blok-L stage
 -  1989 015A  
  Kosmos-2003 Vostok class recon satellite
 -  1989 016A  
  Akebono, ISAS (Japan) auroral observatory
 -  1989 016B  
  Mu 3S-II second stage
 -  1989 016C  
  Mu 3S-II third stage
 -  1989 017A  
  Kosmos-2004 Soviet navy navigation satellite
 -  1989 017B  
  RN Kosmos final stage
 -  1989 018A  
  Meteor-2 (18) Soviet weather satellite
 -  1989 018B  
  RN Tsiklon final stage

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 15:13:37 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space News 1989 Mar 7

I've had a general positive response and no complaints, so
I will continue to inflict these on you...
===========================================================

Jonathan's Space Report

Mar 7, 1989 (No. 6)

Kennedy Space Center, Fla:
----------------------------
Space Shuttle Mission STS-29 is due to be launched on Mar 13 from Launch
Complex 39-B, Kennedy Space Center, using Orbiter 103 (Discovery).  The
main payload is a Contel,Inc.  Tracking and Data Relay Satellite which
carries an IUS upper stage to deliver it to geostationary orbit.  The
TDRS satellite will replace TDRS-1, launched in 1983, as the operational
TDRS EAST satellite.  The crew of Discovery are Capt.  Michael Coats,
Col.  John Blaha, Col.  James Buchli, Dr.  James Bagian, and Col. 
Robert Springer.  (Source: NASA)

Mir Space Station, Low Earth Orbit:
-------------------------------------
The Progress-40 robot cargo freighter undocked from the Mir space
station on Mar 5.  According to Soviet reports, after it undocked it
deployed a special structure designed for holding equipment and
experiments.  Progress-40 was due to be de-orbited over the Pacific
Ocean and destroyed; the launch of Progress-41 is expected in the next
few days. (Source: Radio Moscow via Glenn Chapman)

Geostationary Transfer Orbit
--------------------------------- 
Ariane flight V29 was launched on Mar 6 from the Centre Spatial Guyanais
in South America.  The Ariane 44LP vehicle placed two satellites into
elliptical transfer orbit: EUMETSAT's MOP 1 (Meteosat Operational
Programme) weather satellite and Japan Satellite Communications Co's
JCSAT 1 comsat. The satellites will enter geostationary orbit in the
next few days. (Source: Arianespace, Inc; CNN)


Other events: (Source: NASA Two Line Orbital Elements and SPACEWARN)

Kosmos-2004 was launched on Feb 22 by Kosmos rocket from Plesetsk.  It
is a Soviet Navy navigation satellite, part of a system of six
satellites closely analogous to the US Navy Transit NNS system. 

The 18th GMS (Soviet Hydrometeorological Service) Meteor-2 weather
satellite was launched from Plesetsk on a Tsiklon rocket on Feb 28. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 14:14:20 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation

In article <9258@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> willitd@urania.cs.orst.edu writes:

> At the last Lunar Base & Space Activities symposium in Houston (April
> 88), there was some discussion about teleoperation.  One gentlemen (I
> don't remember his name) described an experiment in which a TV camera
> and remote driving set-up was installed on a Go-Kart.  A five second
> time delay was then created between the camera's transmission and the
> video display where the driver was seated.  The driver then had to
> negotiate an obstacle course of moderate difficulty.

> And in every case, nobody was able to successfully negotiate the course.

I don't think this proves anything, except that a 5-second delay means
you cannot operate a Go-Kart at normal speed.  Need I remind you that
teleoperation of a lunar rover was accomplished years ago by the Soviets?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 00:56:00 GMT
From: adelie!mirror!frog!john@XN.LL.MIT.EDU  (John Woods)
Subject: Re: Mondale and (or vs.) space (was Re: Nerva)

In article <3280@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
> In article <604525968.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> >The Congressional names to damn for all eternity are William Proxmire
> >and Walter Mondale. [. . .]
> 	I know why you list William Proxmire in this, but what did Walter
> Mondale do against space, and when?

Many ask, "What DIDN'T Walter Mondale do against space?"  Though I don't have
much in the way of concrete figures handy, I understand that he led the fight
to end Apollo -- from the beginning of the Apollo program.  He certainly led
the fight against funding the shuttle, resulting in the engineering compromises
that we all now know all too well.  I can't find his actual voting record in
the SPACEPAC publication I have handy, but over the last 25 years, Mondale
sponsored the following amendments:

	HR 16516, amendment to delete $110 million from space shuttle and
	space station design.  Rejected 29-56, 6 May 1970.

	HR 7109, amendment to FY 1972 NASA Authorization bill, deleting
	$138 million from the shuttle and $118 million for facilities
	construction.  Rejected 22-64, 29 June 1971.

	HR 14070, amendment to the FY 1973 NASA Authorization bill to delete
	ALL, that's right, ALL funding ($228 million) for the space shuttle.
	Rejected 21-61, 11 May 1972.

The SPACEPAC publication only lists votes on "bills which were contested and
forced members to take a stand one ways or another on an issue."  In essence,
when back-door political machinations broke down and they actually had to
publicly admit to what they were doing...

[By the way, my .signature does not refer to Mondale.  In fact, it is a purely
hypothetical statement on Will's part.  Yet somehow, it seems so fitting... ]


-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

"He should be put in stocks in Lafeyette Square across from the White House
 and pelted with dead cats."	- George F. Will

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 89 19:59:52 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Rick Wojcik)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1989Feb24.175109.11738@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>They aren't any more; all future foreign cosmonauts will be paying
>passengers.  It would surprise me greatly if Orbit Productions got a free
>ride.  Almost certainly they will be asked to pay the commercial price
>for their trip.

My reading aof Orbit Productions was that they would pay any "reasonable" fee.
They didn't say what they considered reasonable.  Given the limited number of
flights into space, I don't know what price I would fix on it.  When you send
singers up, you lose priceless opportunities for scientists to acquire more
knowledge about that environment.  I don't feel that the price of their ticket
should be limited to training fees, rocket fuel, insurance, etc.  They should
also have to pay something for the scientific research that they would
displace.  

>What, pray tell, is wrong with carrying people into orbit for a fee?
>The airlines carry senators, teachers, and singers into the sky all the
>time.  "Things that make profits don't have to make excuses."

The Senator from Utah got to travel into space at taxpayer expense.  He didn't
defray his own costs.  He was in a position where he could use his public
trust to inflate his ego--the first sitting public official to take a space
flight.  The space program is not, and never was, a profit-making enterprise.
We all wish that it could be, but it is still a research program.  The viable
commercial uses of space do not include public transportation and media
extravaganzas at this time.  If Orbit Enterprises could actually bring in
enough funds to *increase* scientific research, then I would be in favor of
it.  As it stands, I doubt that they could defray all of their expenses.  That
means that the public has to foot part of the bill, and people with more
compelling reasons for taking the flight get bumped off of it.

>You should not need permission from government bureaucrats to go into
>space for purposes *you* consider worthwhile, assuming that you can pay
>the fare and that there's a vacant seat.  It's truly mind-blowing that
>to book a spaceliner seat in the "Free" World you need a very good reason,
>years of patience, and approval from 57 layers of bureaucrats, while to
>book one behind the Iron Curtain you just need the fare in hard currency.

Indeed it is, since neither the US nor the USSR is set up to sell commercial
flights into space.  The Soviet taxpayer has very little to say about how the
Communist Party decides to promote its cause.  (I doubt that they send anyone
up for hard currency alone.)  And you certainly *should* need permission from
government officials to use public resources to promote your own private
agenda.  The space shuttle fleet is far from being a commercial airline.  If
you want to take a shuttle into space, then build your own.


-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #286
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Mar 89 06:41:59 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01290>; Sat, 11 Mar 89 05:52:51 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 11 Mar 89 05:52:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oY6DFky00Ui3I4Sk5E>;
          Sat, 11 Mar 89 05:26:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.QY6D:Py00UkZ8KJ04j>;
          Sat, 11 Mar 89 05:19:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EY6D83y00UkZ4KHU5U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 05:16:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #287

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 287

Today's Topics:
		 Re: SR71 to be retired October 1st.
		   Condensed CANOPUS, January 1989
		 Pegasus 3rd stage static test firing
			 Solar flare and Mir
		       Re: Solar flare and Mir
		       looking for a simulator
		      Re: Babies born in space.
    Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir
	    Re: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology
		     Rats in Space (was Re: arf!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 13:22:38 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: SR71 to be retired October 1st.

In article <6083@leadsv.UUCP>, pat@leadsv.UUCP (Pat Wimmer) writes:
> [. . . discussion of SR-71 alternative missions . . .]
>     Put yourself in the perspective of the Soviet Union.  You know
>     you cannot knock down the plane with conventional weapons.
> . . .

Is this true? Why? On television (the show Wings, I think) I saw stuff
about old ABM type missiles that could take out incoming ICBMs
(assuming single warhead, no decoys, etc.) Why shouldn't they be able
to take out something doing a measly Mach 3 or 4?

This brings to mind a question I asked a while back that no one
answered but which still intrigues me.

If/when an aerospace plane is developed with orbital, sub-orbital
ballistic, and hypersonic air capabilities, the line between recon
satellites and recon airplane overflights will be changed to a
continuum. I assume that the Russians and Americans would shoot down
any airplane overflight but we allow satellites to pass overhead.

Where could the new line be drawn? Have there been any official policy
pronouncements on the issue?

jim
symon@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 23:31:44 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Condensed CANOPUS, January 1989


Here, at last, is the condensed CANOPUS for January 1989.  There are
12 articles, 4 given in condensed form and 8 by title only.  The NASA
FY-1990 budget request will be posted separately.  CANOPUS is
copyright American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, but
distribution is encouraged.  See full copyright information at end.

Contents of this posting:
NASA'S OFFICE OF EXPLORATION RELEASES ANNUAL REPORT - can890101.txt - 12/19/88
SHUTTLE-C MOCKUP IS STARTED - can890102.txt - 12/20/88
SPACE SHUTTLE STATUS - can890103.txt - 12/21/88
NASA/USBI SIGN BOOSTER CONTRACT EXTENSION - can890108.txt - 12/29/88

NASA'S OFFICE OF EXPLORATION RELEASES ANNUAL REPORT - can890101.txt - 12/19/88

The report was described by the past and current assistant
administrators for exploration, John Aaron (now a special assistant
to the director of Johnson Space Center) and Frank Martin,
respectively.

The latest Code Z report focuses on manned missions to the Moon and
Mars.  Notably absent are the robotic exploration of the solar system
and the Mission to Planet Earth outlined in Ride's original report.
Aaron said these were not examined because they are being implemented
at various levels. A number of planetary missions are being developed
or proposed, and the Earth mission will be developed as the Earth
Observing System.

According to NASA, a "major conclusions in the report is that
independent of what type of future exploration course is chosen, the
United States must now lay the foundation by beginning a modest but
vital effort in detailed research, technology development and
concentrated studies in addition to a sustained commitment to the
current ongoing NASA programs.  By pursuing a modest near-term
investment of resources in the 1990s in long lead technologies and
capabilities, the U.S. will preserve the ability to pursue a wide
range of opportunities at the turn of the century."

SHUTTLE-C MOCKUP IS STARTED - can890102.txt - 12/20/88

A full-scale Engineering Development Unit for the Shuttle-C program
is being assembled at Marshall Space Flight Center using leftovers
from the early days of the Shuttle program.

SPACE SHUTTLE STATUS - can890103.txt - 12/21/88

Processing of the three Space Shuttle orbiters is proceeding
normally, according to NASA reports. Two minor propulsion problems
have been reported.

A small crack has been found in the bearing of a Space Shuttle main
engine flown early this month on STS-27, but the impact on the
planned STS-29 launch in February is uncertain, according to NASA.

A small nick has been found in an O-ring of an STS-27 booster, but it
caused no problem in the mission, NASA stated in announcing that
disassembly of the STS-27 solid rocket boosters at Cape Canaveral has
been completed and the post-flight assessment team members are
returning to their respective organizations.

The overall condition of the boosters is excellent.  While
disassembling the nozzle of the lefthand SRB, the inspectors did note
a small nick in the "wiper O-ring."  This would have occurred during
assembly of the nozzle into the rest of the solid rocket motor,
according to Royce Mitchell, SRM Project Manager at Marshall Space
Flight Center.  "The nick did not interfere with the O-ring's
function during nozzle assembly, which is to wipe the joint adhesive,
a polysulfide material, ahead of it and protect the primary O-ring
from contamination," Mitchell said.  No degradation in performance
resulted, and the joints performed as intended, he added.

NASA/USBI SIGN BOOSTER CONTRACT EXTENSION - can890108.txt - 12/29/88

     NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., and USBI
Co., a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp., Hartford, Conn., have
finalized the restructuring of USBI's Space Shuttle solid rocket
booster assembly and refurbishment contract.  The new contract
significantly increases the scope of work.  The extension, effective
Sept. 30, 1989, through Sept. 30, 1994, adds $1 billion to the total
contract value for the assembly and refurbishment of Space Shuttle
solid rocket boosters.  This brings the total contract value to $1.6
billion.

----------------END OF CONDENSED CANOPUS-----------------------------

This posting represents my own condensation of CANOPUS.  For clarity,
I have not shown ellipses (...), even when the condensation is
drastic.  New or significantly rephrased material is in {braces} and
is signed {--SW} when it represents an expression of my own opinion.
The unabridged CANOPUS is available via e-mail from me at any of the
addresses below.

Other articles, not posted:
PLANETARY RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS RELEASED - can890104.txt - 12/29/88
NASA LAUNCH SCHEDULE IN CANOPUS - CAN890105.TXT - 1/3/89
{available in on-line CANOPUS}
SHUTTLE-C USER'S WORKSHOP PLANNED - can890106.txt - 1/3/89
SPACE STATION FREEDOM POWER SYSTEMS TESTING FACILITY TO OPEN - can890107.txt -
1/3/89 {at NASA Lewis}
TANNER NAMED DIRECTOR SPACE STATION FREEDOM PROGRAM - can890109.txt - 1/3/89
{E. Ray Tanner, formerly at Marshall}
NASA SEEKS NEW STARTS FOR TWO PLANETARY MISSIONS - can890110.txt - 1/9/89
{NASA budget request, to be posted separately}
SHUTTLE NOTES - can890111.txt - 1/17/89, mod 1/20/89
NASA REDEFINES SPACE CREWS; PICKS IML-1 PAYLOAD SPECIALISTS - can890112.txt -
1/17/89

Copyright information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; 
e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded).  Send
correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 89 20:56:59 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Pegasus 3rd stage static test firing


Today, March 6, 1989, the 3rd stage of Pegasus was successfully tested
in a static firing. This is the only static test that will be
conducted on the 3rd stage. My understanding is that a stage will only
be tested once unless the first test is a failure.


			Bob P.

P.S.

Hopefully this will get to you before you read about it in Aviation
Leak. 
-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 14:27:42 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu  (Steve Masticola)
Subject: Solar flare and Mir


I heard on NPR last night that the largest solar flare in 5 years
happened a couple days ago. The electrons from the flare are due to
reach Earth in about 12 hours (6 PM EST).

This made me wonder whether the Mir cosmonauts are in danger, and if
so, what precautions they can take. It seems like the biggest problem
they'd have would be X-rays from the electrons striking Mir's hull.
Comments? 

- Steve (masticol@paul.rutgers.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 17:11:41 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Re: Solar flare and Mir

In article <Mar.8.09.27.41.1989.20617@paul.rutgers.edu>, masticol@paul.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:
> 
> I heard on NPR last night that the largest solar flare in 5 years
> happened a couple days ago. The electrons from the flare are due to
> reach Earth in about 12 hours (6 PM EST).
> 
> This made me wonder whether the Mir cosmonauts are in danger, and if
> so, what precautions they can take. 

  They are still below the Van Allen radiation belts, which ought to help.
If they were on an interplanetary flight they might have more of a problem. 
See James Michener's 'Space' for a fictional treatment of this.
Of course, they can always jump into their Soyuz and be back on earth in 
an hour, although not necessarily at the most ideal landing site :-) 


                      Marc Bonin

                      University of Texas at Austin

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 08 Mar 89 09:58:13 EST
From: Eric Harnden <EHARNDEN%AUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      looking for a simulator

     First, my apologies to the Usenet people. I had assumed that when
I sent a memo to space-request, it would be gated by an administrator, as
opposed to simply distributed into the net as by space. Also, my thanks to
the responses on the question of digest operation.
     What I really want now, though, is a program or group of programs to
simulate various aspects of orbital and/or celestial mechanics. Even a non-
game space shuttle simulator would be interesting. I have IBM/CMS, AT&T UNIX,
Macintosh, and IBM PC available as platforms, and compilers for C, Pascal, and
LISP for most of them, so any source would probably be of some use. Yes, I can
run FORTRAN, but would certainly prefer not to. Anything out there in the
public domain?

Eric Harnden (Ronin)
EHARNDEN@AUVM

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 17:10:07 GMT
From: silver!compton@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Dave Compton)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

In article <1989Mar5.011120.24045@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
:In article <8Y42Wly00XokQ3qUUv@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
:>What would be the reactions of an child conceived in space,
:>who spend its featal time in space, is born in space, live a few
:>years in space ?
:
:Nobody knows.  For a guess, development before birth would probably be
:nearly normal, since the fetus is pretty much weightless (floating in
:fluid).  Details might differ, perhaps important ones.  Afterwards, it's
:impossible to say.

	You are correct in saying that it is impossible to say exactly
what will happen, but we can make some logical guesses.
Psychologically, I don't think there will be much harm.  The
adaptability shown by the young(of humans and other mammals) will let
them cope with the situation.  Physically, there is a high probability
that there could be major problems with the development of a
functional muscular system.  Most of you probably know that the
Russians have had problems with muscle degeneration in cosmonauts.  It
would be interesting to see what would happen to young animals.

dave
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| compton@silver.bacs.indiana.edu     |  These are only my opinions,          |
| iuvax!silver!compton@iuvax          |  but I'm an opinionated person!       |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 13:19:24 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir

>    I find it interesting in the middle of the manned vs unmanned debat here
>the Soviets maintain a continously crewed space station while sending at 
>the same time their most complicated interplanetary mission to Mars.  Maybe
>we should learn a bit from their style of space operations.

Yes.  What, in particular, should we learn from the observation that
even with a launcher 4 or 5 times cheaper than the shuttle (Proton),
they have a space station only a fraction the size of Skylab?  Perhaps
that NASA's priorities are seriously skewed?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 21:33:21 GMT
From: att!homxb!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Re: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology

In article <1014@ur-cc.UUCP>, powi@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Peter Owings) writes:
> 
> 	I just can't believe that someone still takes astrology serious
> enough to study it...
> 
> 	Peter..

About ten years ago, I read in some magazine (how's that for citing
accurate references?) that the USofA supported about 25000 astrologers
at an average salary of something like 60000$/year and about 2500 
professional astronomers at about 30000$/year. I doubt that we're doing 
any better now. Anyone have any accurate ideas on current number of 
astronomers and average salaries? I know their average salary, at least
that component due to astronomy, but how many amateur astronomers are
there in this country, and elsewhere?

Tim Ebersole  mtuxo!tee

-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 16:50:58 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu
Subject: Rats in Space (was Re: arf!)

From: dietz

In article <1989Mar7.030756.5859@utzoo.uucp> you write:
>>Why is it not possible to launch pregnant rats (for example) in an
>>unmanned returnable capsule?
>
>If all you're interested in is birth and the period immediately before
>and after, this should work.  I don't think anybody's built an automatic
>life-support system that can keep rats alive and healthy for long periods
>in space, which is what you'd really like.  (To judge by the Spacelab
>experience, we don't know how to keep *anything* alive and healthy up
>there if it isn't smart enough to use the Shuttle toilet...)

The question about rats was in response to someone claiming that a
space station is necessary to study *fetal* development.  One should
be able to rig up a pregnant rat so that food/water are supplied by
tubes and the rat is immobilized in a harness that sucks away waste
products.  Indeed, didn't the Soviets orbit a biosatellite just
recently (the one in which a monkey got an arm free)?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #287
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Mar 89 04:14:06 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA11815>; Sun, 12 Mar 89 03:43:12 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 12 Mar 89 03:43:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cY6Wcxy00Ui304t0AM>;
          Sun, 12 Mar 89 03:28:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.QY6WUAy00UkZELEk4B>;
          Sun, 12 Mar 89 03:19:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0Y6WRBy00UkZALDE5B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 89 03:16:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #288

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 288

Today's Topics:
    Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir
		   Calling all Irish Space Fans...
	   ISECCo Director going on spring break vacation.
		 Re: First concert from space--update
			  Re: 1992 moon base
		       Re: Teleoperated Robots
		 Re: SR71 to be retired October 1st.
    Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir
    Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir
		 Re: First concert from space--update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 18:20:54 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir

In article <8903071930.AA18546@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>... Dr. Valrey Polyakov (Soyuz TM-6) 
>has been up there for 189 days.  Take them for what they are worth but there
>are some reports that Polyakov may not come down in April...
> Considering that Polyakov was originally expected
>to land Dec. 21 he may just be getting a bit worried about when he is going
>to come down.

Note that Polyakov, who seems to be staying up on a sort of improvised basis,
has already been up twice as long as the US record.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1989 12:49-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Calling all Irish Space Fans...

If current plans do not fall into disarray (ie $$$$$ or maybe #####), I
will be moving to Belfast sometime in the month of July. 

I've been damn near threatened that I will form an Irish Space Society
or face the wrath of numerous friends in the US space movement. Now,
since I am going there to start a small branch of a small company
(the Belfast branch will be an R&D office of one), I don't really
expect to have much time to do anything but work my tail off. But I
would certainly be interested in TALKING to anyone interested in space
exploration and settlement who wants to get something going AND WANTS
TO RUN IT. (!!!!! Not I !!!!!)

I am also interested in anyone there who might be able to assist in me
getting a network connection. I will have a NeXT machine with me.
(Without a network feed I will turn brown, crinkle up and blow away you
know.)

PS: My mothers side were O'Neills, I spend my evenings drinking
Guinness and playing guitar in Pittsburgh pubs, so what better
qualifications could you ask for now?

PPS: Are there any libertarians in Ireland?

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Wed, 08 Mar 89 18:56:05 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Robert Jessie Hale III           <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  ISECCo Director going on spring break vacation.

   I would like to say again thanks to all of you have expressed interest
in ISECCo.   I know I have not sent any messages to space digest for some
time with my full time job and classes encroching upon my donated time to
ISECCo.    An new update will be sent out soon, or after I get back from
my first vacation in a long time.   I will be gone for two weeks and their
may be no one to answer my mail.  Please send all request and other
corespendence to FSRRC@ALASKA and Ray Collins  himself will reply to you.
Thanks again.
                           Robert J. Hale III
                           FNRJH@ALASKA
                           :ISECCo Director.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 18:16:38 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <10575@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>... Given the limited number of
>flights into space, I don't know what price I would fix on it.  When you send
>singers up, you lose priceless opportunities for scientists to acquire more
>knowledge about that environment...

Why "priceless"?  The Soviets have had no hesitation in putting a price
on it.  They seem to feel that they have enough flights available that
they can afford to sell a few.  They're right.

>I don't feel that the price of their ticket
>should be limited to training fees, rocket fuel, insurance, etc.  They should
>also have to pay something for the scientific research that they would
>displace.  

The Soviets already have a policy to the effect that the price is negotiable
if the passenger will be doing experiments that are of interest to them, so
in effect any full-fare passenger is paying a premium for displacing science.

>The Senator from Utah got to travel into space at taxpayer expense...

Agreed that this was reprehensible.  However, it's totally irrelevant to
what I was saying.  Senators do not get free rides on airlines.

>... The space program is not, and never was, a profit-making enterprise.
>We all wish that it could be, but it is still a research program.  The viable
>commercial uses of space do not include public transportation and media
>extravaganzas at this time...

Speak for your own country, comrade. :-)  Truly spacefaring nations (there
is currently one on Earth) can afford to use space for many purposes.

>Indeed it is, since neither the US nor the USSR is set up to sell commercial
>flights into space...

Please read the following sentence very carefully.  The USSR is selling
commercial flights into space, today.  This is a verifiable fact; call them
up and ask them.

>...(I doubt that they send anyone up for hard currency alone.)

Practically speaking, probably not... but a rough back-of-the-envelope
estimate suggests that the $10-12 million that they charge (last I heard)
plausibly does cover one person's share of the launch costs completely.
I doubt very much that the Soviets would be seriously losing money on it.

>... The space shuttle fleet is far from being a commercial airline...

At one time, there were people who were interested in taking it over and
operating it as a commercial venture.  It's become a bit less attractive
since, but US government policy has a lot to do with that.  (An airliner
crash does not shut down an airline for 2-3 years.)
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 15:29:58 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

>From article <15457@cup.portal.com>, by PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble):
> Bob,
>   Then would you please enlighten us with some information on the current
> status of robot hands?

Take a look at some back issues of Scientific American. An afternoon
in the library can save megabytes on the net. And no I'm not going to
do it for you. 

>   Let's take a specific case. I want the robot to open a screwed on access
> cover, remove a circuit card from a card case, put it into a test fixture,
> run test points on the traces (let's say .03" design rules), and finally
> remove and replace a soldered chip and reassemble the unit. Can you point
> to any of this being done even in a controlled ground environment?
> 
>   ++PLS

Do you want it in a autonomous robot or in a teleoperated hand arm
combo? I've talked about this stuff at length on the net in the last
few months.

Here is one of the messages I posted on the subject:

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Nov 88 11:10:22 EST
From: vn
Subject: Re: Teleoperated Robots
Newsgroups: sci.space

A few months ago I attended a presentation by Dr. Steven Jacobsen
(SP?) about the work his group is doing on teleoperated robots and
other things. This is the group that brought you the dextrous hand.

One of the things they are developing under contract to the U.S. Navy
is a teleoperated robot designed to be mounted on the front of a deep
diving submarine. It will have two arms, with hands, and a head, with
eyes, mounted on a torso that is mounted on the end of what looks like
a heavy duty robot arm. It will provide the operator with binocular
vision and tactile feedback from the hands and arms. The operator will
wear the control mechanism and be able to see and feel what the robot
is manipulating. The operator will stay on the surface.

My understanding is that no amount of suit will allow humans to use
their hands to manipulate objects on the ocean floar at the depths
where this robot is intended to be used. LEO isn't so bad by
comparison.

So it would seem that teleoperated robots are under development. I'd
hope they will be (almost) off the shelf items in just a few years.

It would seem to me that you need teleoperated robots before you can
even start trying to develop autonomous robots. You need a body before
you can really know what the brain must do.

			Bob P.


Note that your orignal posting was about the existence of robot hands,
not complete robots. From what I have seen of the actual hardware and
films of it in use the hands and arms that currently exist could do
the job you describe. I don't know if anyone has written the code
needed for an autonomous robot to do the job. But, that is a different
subject isn't it.


			Bob P.
-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 19:45:14 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!jhunix!ins_atge@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Thomas G Edwards)
Subject: Re: SR71 to be retired October 1st.

In article <7134@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
>In article <6083@leadsv.UUCP>, pat@leadsv.UUCP (Pat Wimmer) writes:
>> [. . . discussion of SR-71 alternative missions . . .]
>>     Put yourself in the perspective of the Soviet Union.  You know
>>     you cannot knock down the plane with conventional weapons.
>> . . .
>
>Is this true? Why? On television (the show Wings, I think) I saw stuff
>about old ABM type missiles that could take out incoming ICBMs
>(assuming single warhead, no decoys, etc.) Why shouldn't they be able
>to take out something doing a measly Mach 3 or 4?

  The people on sci.military may be able to do better than me,
but the Nike-Zeus ABM system first introduced in the US
consisted of a nuclear weapon abord the interceptor which would
explode, destroying the RV.  Yes, this would still lead to civilian
deaths by radiation, but the idea was to protect "hardened"
targets (i.e. missile silos and the "Crystal Palace").
  Nike-Zeus's were very slow and operated deep in the atmosphere.
Nike-X, the next deveopment, was a faster rocket with phased-array
radar aids, to intercept RV's higher in the atmosphere.  It would 
stil result in major civilian losses.
   Later came the Spartan, which had a much larger range than the
Nike-X, and would generate intense X-rays above the atmosphere which
would knock out several RV's (and every electical circuit in the U.S. ;-)
   The Spartans were used in protection of missile silos, called
the Safeguard system.  Their first use was a protection scheme for
cities called Sentinel, but that was dropped.  
   During the late '70's and '80's, a program called LoADs was developed
top create a new low-altitude nuclear interceptor device which would
create even more civilian deaths than Spartans.  I believe they were
never installed.
    Basically, we have yet to deploy a "convential" weapon to take
out ICBM's.  There is an SDI experiment dealing with this.

(see _Strategic Defenses_, a look at SDI circa 1984 by Office of
Technology Assesment, for more info on ABM weapons and their
role in policy)
-Thomas Edwards

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 22:30:51 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ignac Kolenko)
Subject: Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir

In article <1989Mar8.081925.26615@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Yes.  What, in particular, should we learn from the observation that
>even with a launcher 4 or 5 times cheaper than the shuttle (Proton),
>they have a space station only a fraction the size of Skylab?  Perhaps
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that NASA's priorities are seriously skewed?


what exactly are the dimensions of both Mir and Skylab???
somehow, the term "fraction the size" makes Mir sound like its no bigger
than a washroom, compared to a department store sized Skylab!

oh, btw, whatever happened to the ESA Spacelab. i remember reading
so much about this about 7 or 8 years ago from NASA publications that i
sent away for. if i recall correctly, only one shuttle flight went up with
the Spacelab. was it a successful mission?? was it too costly??

also, why can't the u.s. send up a duplicate of Skylab?? like, if they
did it once, why can't they do it again?? imagine, there would be no need
to re-engineer a new space station, since they already had one design that
appeared to work correctly. and according to the above quoted article,
the u.s. would have the largest space station in orbit again!!! :-)


(somehow, size of space station does not instantly equate to quality
scientific experiments)


-- 
Ignac A. Kolenko          watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac      

"Perhaps if we built this large wooden badger ..."
   - from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 89 16:54:51 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir

In article <330@electro.UUCP> ignac@electro.UUCP (Ignac Kolenko) writes:
>what exactly are the dimensions of both Mir and Skylab???
>somehow, the term "fraction the size" makes Mir sound like its no bigger
>than a washroom, compared to a department store sized Skylab!

I don't have numbers handy, I'm afraid, but Paul is right:  Mir is much
smaller than Skylab.  (Well, Mir in its current configuration.)  Hardly
a surprise, since they used a much smaller launch vehicle for it.  But
unlike Skylab, they've already expanded Mir once (with Kvant) and more
expansion is coming.

If you look at photos of the inside of Mir, "no bigger than a washroom"
is not that much of an exaggeration.  Amazing that they've actually had
men living in that little thing for over a year.  Their resources may
be limited, but they're not short of determination.

>oh, btw, whatever happened to the ESA Spacelab. i remember reading
>so much about this about 7 or 8 years ago from NASA publications that i
>sent away for. if i recall correctly, only one shuttle flight went up with
>the Spacelab. was it a successful mission?? was it too costly??

Spacelab worked, and there are more Spacelab flights planned.  Not as many
as were originally anticipated, but that's true of most everything in the
US space program these days...  You'll start seeing Spacelab missions as
soon as the "core" of screaming-high-priority missions is dealt with, in
a year or so.

>also, why can't the u.s. send up a duplicate of Skylab?? like, if they
>did it once, why can't they do it again?? imagine, there would be no need
>to re-engineer a new space station, since they already had one design that
>appeared to work correctly...

In fact, we've got a (formerly) flight-ready Skylab:  Skylab II, in the
Smithsonian.  (Please, not "the backup Skylab", it was built to fly.)
What we don't have is a booster that can launch it.  It's much too big
for the shuttle.

Skylab also had one big defect, which would take at least some redesign
to fix:  it was not designed to be resupplied in space.  Most of its
supplies went up with it.  The Soviets have got this licked for Mir,
but the US has no equivalent of the Progress freighter.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1989 11:18-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

I disagree with Mr. Gillies. An industry is ready for passenger service
as soon as they can find someone who is willing to buy a full cost
recovery ticket despite the real or percieved risk level.

And if you can take out a life insurance policy on them, so much the
better.

Imagine placing a SpaceHab module a shuttle with an extra 3 passengers
in it at $10M each. It would pay for nearly 10% of the real cost of the
flight (including R&D amortization) even at low flight rates. I'm quite
sure there are enough wealthy oldsters out there to bring in an extra
$100M or so a year.

I would rather see that done by a private company. If the government
had the smarts to do it, they'd probably turn it into a permanent low
volume price gouging (or heavily tax subsidized money loser) monopoly
like they do with everything else.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #288
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Mar 89 07:20:07 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02183>; Sun, 12 Mar 89 05:47:16 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 12 Mar 89 05:47:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oY6YIjy00UkTA2rU4s>;
          Sun, 12 Mar 89 05:23:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.4Y6YEMy00UkZILQE4Q>;
          Sun, 12 Mar 89 05:19:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UY6YBpy00UkZQLOk5R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 89 05:16:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #289

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 289

Today's Topics:
		       Reminders for Old Farts
		 Robot hands (Science News article).
		   Re: Rats in Space (was Re: arf!)
		     Re: LANDSAT TO BE TURNED OFF
		  Re: For the People of Planet Earth
		       Re: the un/manned debate
	      Re: The manned/unmanned debate, ESA policy
   Re: USSR's Phobos II probe takes second pictures of Martian Moon
		   Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again)
    Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir
	      National Space Council (from: What's New )
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Mar 89 04:00:14 PST
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1
follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.

------------------------------

Date:     Thursday, 9 March 1989 1206-EST
From: DAVID%PENNDRLS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject:  Robot hands (Science News article).

Some more fuel for the 'practicality of robot hands' debate:

The February 18th Science News has an interesting article on
a joint project between Columbia University and the Steinway
Piano Company.  The project's principle investigator is
Moshe Shoham, a mechanical engineer at Columbia.  His objective
is to build a robot capable of taking over the job of finishing a
Steinway:

  "By assembling existing robotic components in new ways and
   using novel computer control tactics, Shoham hopes to build
   a tireless, boredom-immune robot that finishes piano cases
   as finely as an experienced human worker but in far less
   time."

Sounds to me like a true leading edge *application* (as opposed to
research project).  A somewhat different problem from a
tele-operated rig, but the 'hand' technology involved is parallel:

  "...the robot must adapt to the subtle variations of each
   hand fashioned piano.  It must be dexterous enough to
   reach every part of each piano case, and sensitive enough
   to 'know' how much pressure it is applying to the flat,
   curved, and oddly shaped surfaces."

Dexterity and feedback are also primary requirements for a
tele-operation rig, I would think.

Building this robot is not going to be a trivial problem.  It is
certainly not 'off the shelf':

  "[Shoham notes that] good, reliable force control is a rare
   robotic skill. [...] Most current robots cannot respond fast
   enough to the force sensor's flow of information."

It sounds like he is using a more-or-less standard robot of some
sort, since it is described as coming with its own controller.
To this he adds another control computer to deal with the force
sensor data and to feed back information to the control computer.

Aside from the feedback/control problem, other problems are things like
how to deal with changing the sandpaper on a sanding block.  For these,
Shoham expects he may have to design 'robot friendly' finishing tools.
Presumably changing sandpaper is a hard problem because it is a task
with many complex variables; a problem in control that would not arise
if a human were directing the hand via tele-operation, assuming the
hand was dexterous enough.

A problem intrinsic to a force-feedback hand is that "the rubbing
machine's vibrations could 'confuse' the force sensor, causing
the robot to apply improper forces to the piano case."  What this
says to me is that force-feedback is by no means a 'solved problem';
if you want to deal with a wide variety of applications of the
hand there is a lot of work to be done on making the force sensing
reliable.

Overall I am encouraged by the article: a complex application of a
force-feedback robot is reasonably close to commercial application,
which puts us that much closer to 'off the shelf' force-feedback
tele-operation.  But it definitely looks like Henry is right as far
as the short term goes.  We need a lot more research and development
before tele-operated experiments in orbit can become routine.  Funny,
that sounds like a statement I've read recently about manned operations
in space . . .

We should be doing both.

-- R. David Murray    (DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET, DAVID@PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU)

P.S.: I agree that unmanned space exploration is ridiculously under-
funded compared to manned space (insofar as you can separate the two
cleanly). It is criminal that experiments get dropped and maybe (if we're
lucky) replaced with something less capable as a 'cost savings measure'.
When you've already agreed to send the probe, you bloomin' well ought
to send along the best instruments you can get your hands on!

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 23:58:29 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rats in Space (was Re: arf!)

In article <1989Mar8.115058.7932@cs.rochester.edu> dietz writes:
>>... I don't think anybody's built an automatic
>>life-support system that can keep rats alive and healthy for long periods
>>in space, which is what you'd really like...
>
>The question about rats was in response to someone claiming that a
>space station is necessary to study *fetal* development...

The discussion was about both pre- and post-natal development, not just
fetal development.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1989 10:59-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: LANDSAT TO BE TURNED OFF

> of building and launching the satellites?  Indeed, what is the
> relevance of the asking price for Landsat tapes when their operation is
> subsidized?

As in many other areas of our economy, the distortion of the marker via
subsidies has become necessary to undo the damage caused by other
distortions.

The fact that EOSAT can not supply proprietary data, ie they can not
supply specific images to a company willing to pay for specific images,
somewhat limits they utility of the LANDSAT's.

Let's face it, the fact that LANDSAT's broadcast unencrypted data means
that the only thing EOSAT can really charge for is the image processing
and a premium for the pictures that doesn't exceed the cost and hassle
(and probable missing of a great deal of data) of someone putting up
their own earth station. Yes, for any small user this would be silly.
But it means that there is no one to charge real costs to Standard Oil
or someone else who might REALLY need the data. Push up the price on
SOCO and I'll bet they'd just put up their own dish.

So there is no way they can make enough money to build new satellites.
And on top of it, they got shnookered on the contract to start with.
Given the constraints (above) they were forced to accept, they
realistically insisted that the government subsidize the system to pay
for it's own stupidity. The ink was hardly dry before the government
welched on the deal. Had the people in government been subject to
normal contract law, EOSAT could have voided the contract and sued
the crooked butts off the US government.

This is very similar to the situation with foodstamps (and any of a
hundred other areas I could come up with, with a bit of research). We
subsidize poor farming practices, crop monocultures and soil
destruction by overfarming because the farmers have the clout to put
their hands in your wallet, and then have to pay again to subsidize the
poor who can afford the price supported food that we paid to price
support.

Don't you just LOVE government?

An extra quiz for 10 points:

	What do tax subsidized streets and tax subsidized rapid transit
have in common with the above?

	What about tax subsidized irrigation water and tax subsidized
efforts to do something about ecological problems caused by lowered
water tables and lake levels?

	What about tax subsidized grazing, mining and logging  and tax
subsidized environmental efforts to undo the damage?

	How about tax subsidized shuttles and stations and the need for
tax subsidies to private rockets and stations?

Anyone see a pattern?

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 89 15:01:00 GMT
From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@bellcore.com
Subject: Re: For the People of Planet Earth


Thank you for this enlightening posting,
  now I'll finally be able to sleep peacefully in the knowledge
  that the benine space aliens will make it all better.

			      Lowly Three Dimensional Human Underling

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 89 01:19:17 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!robina@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Robin Adams)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate


It has just occurred to me, that if life on Earth is not an accident, then we 
are just as likely to find Dinosaurs on another planet as we are intelligent 
life.

...Maybe we 'should' send an unmanned probe.



					   o         o                o
                                              o                  o
					o                  o            o
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
						    |       |
						    |       |   Robin
						   /---------\  Adams

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Mar 89 11:14:55 SET
From: ESC1325%ESOC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: Re: The manned/unmanned debate, ESA policy

Date: 09 March 1989, 11:05:40 SET
From: Lutz Massonne             (+49 6151) 886.701   ESC1325  at ESOC
To:   SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: The manned/unmanned debate, ESA policy

The february 1989 ESA bulletin contains an article from the French
minister of research and technology, Hubert Curien, why France chose
to support manned space activities, an overview of the
Hermes development programme and (as in every issue) an overview
of the status of all ESA space programmes.

The ESA bulletin can be ordered *free of charge* (at least in Europe,
I don't know about postal charges for US) from

ESA Publications Division
ESTEC, Postbus 299
2000 AG Noordwijk
The Netherlands

For somebody interested in the European space activities the ESA bulletin
may contain useful information.

Regards, Lutz

Standard disclaimer implied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lutz Massonne, mbp Software&Systems GmbH     ESC1325@ESOC.BITNET
European Space Operations Centre
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG
------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 02:00:19 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!yunexus!geac!geaclib!rae%geac.uucp@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Reid Ellis)
Subject: Re: USSR's Phobos II probe takes second pictures of Martian Moon

glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
|Also the surface of Phobos itself has been found to be 20 degrees
|hotter than expected (they do not say but I expect Celsius unites).

Most definitely.  Only the US and Burma use non-metric units.

|the press coverage has been rather small (the first photos were
|only shown in a few places).  Is this indicative of the
|public/press lack of interest in unmanned probes or only the
|East/West barriers?

I'd say the East/West barriers.  I have seen a number of 'spots'
abnout the upcoming Neptune encounter for Voyager [is it 1 or 2?]
but none for the far more interesting, spectacular Mars mission
[since it's much closer to its objective].  You would think that
all those nice pictures would bring in the advertising dollars and
thus networks would grab it, but nothing yet..
					Reid
---
rae@geac.uucp (Reid Ellis)
176 Brookbanks Dr, Don Mills ON, Canada, M3A 2T5, +1 416 446-1644
Copyright 1989 Reid Ellis; you may redistribute only if your recipients may.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 13:58:03 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again)

In article <67@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
}A good PR man can write a poll which has leading questions which make the
}result inevitably what he/she wants it to be.  Psychology in action.

And then there are phone-in polls, which are the worst kind, since only the
most motivated will self-select themselves to be in the sample.  And the most-
motivated are usually the ones who are unhappy with the status quo....

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 89 16:39:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir

In article <1989Mar8.081925.26615@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>... What, in particular, should we learn from the observation that
>even with a launcher 4 or 5 times cheaper than the shuttle (Proton),
>they have a space station only a fraction the size of Skylab? ...

Probably that they just haven't got around to launching the rest of it yet.

The US ("international") space station will also be smaller than Skylab.
(By internal volume, based on the last numbers I heard, which admittedly
are pretty old.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 18:45:51 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Sparks)
Subject: National Space Council (from: What's New )

I found this on sci.physics. It has some relevance to this group so
I am posting the relevant parts here. 

============================================================================

In article <2028@pur-phy>, piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) writes:
 > 
 > Posted: Fri  Mar  3, 1989   4:35 PM EST              Msg: EGIJ-3435-7606
 > From:   RPARK
 > To:     WHATSNEW
 > 
 > WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 3 March 1989                   Washington, DC
 > 
 > 2. A NATIONAL SPACE COUNCIL WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY PRESIDENT BUSH
 > to oversee the implementation of his space policy.  In a report
 > to Congress issued Wednesday, he gave the composition of the 10-
 > member council.  It will be headed by the Vice President and will
 > include several cabinet officers, the NASA Administrator, the
 > Director of the CIA, the Director of OMB, the National Security
 > Advisor and the White House Chief of Staff--but it will not
 > include the President's Science and Technology Advisor.  This
 > conspicuous omission suggests that the Science Advisor will be as
 > lightly regarded in this Administration as he was in the last.


READ: Boy are we in for it! What does the Director of the CIA have to do
with space? Oh, yea... spy satelites. Looks like they have all the
spy and defense deptartment bozos on the 'council' and no scientists
or space experts. This bodes very badly. Must mean that they are taking
SDI seriously, to the exclusion of anything else, like scientific 
knowledge. There is more to this article, so here it is with no
more of my 'pithy' commentary: -jrs

 > 
 > 3. SALARY IS THE MAIN OBSTACLE IN RECRUITING A SCIENCE ADVISOR,
 > according to Rep. Ritter (R-PA).  This is consistent with rumors
 > that only corporate executives are on the short lists for both
 > NASA Administrator and Science Advisor.  Clearly, the $71,700
 > salary would entail much less of a sacrifice for an academic.
 > 
 > 4. PRIORITIES FOR THE AMERICAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EFFORT were
 > discussed this week in two days of hearings before the Science,
 > Research and Technology Subcommittee of the House.  Several
 > witnesses commented on the disproportionate emphasis on Defense
 > R&D.  Bill Brinkman of Bell Labs remarked that although large R&D
 > expenditures on defense "may create technology spinoff, it also
 > creates a culture not oriented toward commercial product
 > realization.  Its net contribution to civilian R&D is small." 
 > George Keyworth of the Hudson Institute commented on the relative
 > value of the SSC and the Space Station, "one of which represents
 > a national commitment to excellence and leadership in research,
 > and the other of which is an investment in neither excellent
 > science nor excellent technology."   Rep. David Price (D-NC)
 > asked which was which.  Keyworth responded that the space station
 > represents nothing new; "it is the past brought forward."
 > 
 > 
 > Robert L. Park  (202) 232-0189      The American Physical Society
 >  

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-- 
John Sparks      // Amiga  |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks 
               \X/  UUCP   |  >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 << 
 
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #289
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Mar 89 05:58:02 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00656>; Mon, 13 Mar 89 05:42:23 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 13 Mar 89 05:42:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UY6tVYy00Ui3E4aE5N>;
          Mon, 13 Mar 89 05:31:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.UY6tMty00UkZAMwk5O>;
          Mon, 13 Mar 89 05:21:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <MY6tI-y00UkZQMvE4h@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 05:16:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #290

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 290

Today's Topics:
		   space news from Dec 19/26 AW&ST
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 03:45:23 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Dec 19/26 AW&ST

[There was a single issue for the 19th and 26th of December.  Alas, this
was a special issue on Space Business, and it's just crammed with relevant
stuff.  If you're wondering why I haven't been posting for a while, it's
been partly because doing this one looked like a real chore.  In sheer
self-defence, I'm simply going to skip much -- I'm running too big a
backlog to do the multi-part posting that would be needed to do it justice.]

Editorial urging Bush administration to do what Reagan failed to do:  set
and stick to a consistent policy, so that would-be space entrepreneurs
know the ground rules.

Japan's BS-2B TV-broadcast satellite loses its backup telemetry encoder
(the primary one failed a year ago); operations are not affected yet, but
diagnosis of any problem would be difficult.

OSC/Hercules to offer a variant of the Pegasus third stage for payloads
that need extra power:  a 1.5kW solar array can be carried to orbit in
the avionics bay, without affecting payload volume.

Tile materials and technicians may have to be diverted from refurbishing
Columbia (due to fly in July, with tile work the limiting factor) to
get Atlantis ready to launch Magellan at the end of April.  (Atlantis
took more tile damage than expected on STS-27.)

Minor design changes in Hermes:  it has shrunk slightly, and the conical
adapter fitting it to Ariane 5 stays with it in orbit.  The adapter can
be used to carry the airlock/docking unit or part of the payload.

Defense Secretary Carlucci approves upgrading the Miracl experimental
laser for antisatellite tests and satellite vulnerability research.
It will not cost much.  Some USAF officials opposed it, on the grounds
that it would start another Asat battle with Congress.

Another win for humans over machinery :-) in space:  when Aerospatiale's
ERA deployable space structure failed to deploy from Mir, Alexander Volkov
waited until Mir was out of contact with ground stations and then started
kicking ERA's canister, which did the trick.

DoD defers decision on wide-area surveillance part of Air Defense Initiative,
putting the USAF space-based radar program on hold for another year.

First commercial launch of Ariane 4 successful on Dec 10, carrying Astra 1A
(Luxembourg TV broadcast) and Skynet 4B (British military comsat).

Many pages of commercial-space coverage.  US commercial spaceflight has
been hurt by government policy vacillation; experiences like CDSF and
Landsat have, according to Charlie Walker (three-time commercial Shuttle
astronaut) "tainted space commercialization... Potential investors have
seen this and decided this area is too weird to get involved in."  The
stock-market crash and all the launch failures didn't help either.
(However, foreign investors are reported by some to be less timid.)
Some commercial-space companies basically exist in name only, with their
original plans indefinitely on hold.

David Thompson, president of Orbital Sciences, revives the idea of the
government paying for payload lofted to orbit.  He proposes a million
pounds a year, starting in the mid-90s, participation restricted to
commercial operators who can launch at under $1000/pound.  [Note that
he obviously thinks OSC/Hercules could make money at that price.  The
current US prices are $3000-$5000/lb for the biggest launchers, and worse
for the small ones, depending on exactly which numbers you look at.]

The backlog of small commercial payloads waiting for shuttle secondary-
payload space remains monumental.  The space station may not be the
answer, either:  Christopher Podsiadly (head of 3M's space research
group), for example, fears that the bureaucracy of getting things to
and from the station will be prohibitive.  (He's also worried about
the possibility of another long hiatus in shuttle flights if there is
another accident.)

Article about the very different Eosat and Spot situations.  David
Julyan, execVP of Spot Image US, observes that *he* can say convincingly
that *his* company has an ongoing commitment to more satellites and to
continuity of data, which Eosat can't.

Art Dula, US rep for Soviet space products, reports that some US
government agencies are buying Soviet space photos from Soyuzkarta via
him.  He won't say who; "if I did that, they wouldn't be customers
any more".  Soyuzkarta delivery is slow and they can't deliver digital
data, because their satellites are film-return types, but they give
5-meter resolution (unenhanced), which is better than anyone else.

Protein crystal growth in free fall is a major boom area, since
good crystals are vital for determining molecular structure and they
are hard to grow on Earth.  Small experiments were run on STS-26.
Payload Systems Inc. has contracted with Glavkosmos to fly six
commercial protein-crystal payloads aboard Mir; the first goes up
in July, although it will be a "pathfinder" mission aimed mostly
at checking out the hardware.  The European Intospace consortium
is launching protein-crystal payloads piggyback on Chinese capsules.
A Spacelab mission in 1991 will carry an experimental system that
will allow monitoring of crystal growth by astronauts and interactive
modification for better results.

3M is investing heavily in space-based materials research, primarily
basic research rather than immediate product development.  They are
sticking to a long-term plan made years ago; Challenger delayed it
slightly but has not altered it significantly.  [I'm glad to see that
there is *one* US organization with its head on straight.  Too bad
there aren't more...]

Generally, small US companies offering support services are doing
better than big ones with independent projects.  The big independent
projects have a nasty tendency to be heavily dependent on the government.

There is skepticism about NASA's latest notion about private funding
for space-station auxiliaries.  The government would be the major
customer, and it is virtually impossible for the government to sign
multi-year contracts or contracts with cancellation penalties.  The
investors are expected to be unenthusiastic.

The US launch industry is in good shape right now, but will have lean
years to weather when the current payload backlog is exhausted.  The
habit of depending on the government won't help; Martin Marietta's
president observes that there is *no* commercial launch industry in
existence right now, only various degrees of government support.
Long March will be a nasty competitor; if there is a quota on Long
March launches, there will be a problem deciding who gets them (they
will probably remain cheaper than Western launches).

Arianespace fears that ALS will end up being government subsidized,
and says that it does not think factor-of-ten reductions in launch
costs are possible with chemical rockets.  [Obviously they haven't
talked to OSC lately.]

[Speaking of OSC...]  OSC/Hercules reports strong interest in Pegasus
launches, which is gratifying because the uncertainty of the market
is the biggest problem for small-launcher proponents.  Pegasus's fairly
low cost ($6M for a turnkey mission, half the going rate) and flexibility
(air launch means full choice of orbits and the ability to bring the
launch site to the customer) are credited.  OSC/Hercules will be
acquiring a commercial transport as a launch aircraft for non-government
payloads; it will be ready for service in 1990.  Their central base
of operations is likely to be at Mojave, since it has good weather,
long runways, and a research/test orientation, but there are other
possibilities (notably Hawaii, which is keen on getting into the space
industry) and no final decision has been made.

Amroc plans a suborbital launch in summer, another a couple of months
later, and an orbital launch in early 1990.  Customers are starting
to appear.

LTV, which makes the Scout, has decided that it's still primarily a
government contractor.  It is interested in commercial business but
does not think there is enough of a market to build hardware on
speculation for it.

Comsat orders are picking up, as companies start to gear up to replace
aging satellites.

Satellite owners are decidedly annoyed with the US government:  between
unilateral cancellation of their shuttle contracts, inordinately slow
government response on insurance issues, and restrictions on use of
foreign launchers, they have reason to be displeased.  At least one
ex-holder of Shuttle launch slots is considering suing.

Geostar now thinks that "the market for knowing where others are is
greater than 10 times the market for knowing where you are", at least
among its current customer base (trucking companies and such).

Austria has signed with Glavkosmos for a commercial flight of an Austrian
to Mir, with Britain, Germany, Malaysia, and India negotiating.  France
has been firmly told that there will be no, repeat no, more free flights:
"Our policy now is:  if you want to fly, buy a ticket."  The Soviets are
also busily signing agreements to fly unmanned payloads, with Payload
Systems' contract for microgravity flights considered a major victory
since it's their first US customer.  They are also offering other countries
the option of docking their own specialized modules with Mir; India is
reported to be interested.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 89 00:26:48 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #469 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 63.89854980 0.00000257           30006-3 0  1882
2 00424  80.4627  28.6258 0024407  41.4515 318.8480 13.67084277318567
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 65.05724189 0.00000001           10000-3 0  6803
2 08820 109.8095 194.7537 0044802 337.9568  21.9238  6.38662994 44047
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 59.07082254 -.00000006                   0  2311
2 10061   6.8938  69.5835 0006252 178.6371 181.5061  1.00267564  4285
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 62.75218337 0.00000012                   0   419
2 10684  63.5164 104.1001 0106871 198.8253 160.8748  2.00562239 66412
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 57.22359504 -.00000028                   0  9595
2 10893  64.5327 345.1109 0149391  28.2117 332.6106  2.00559810 79121
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 62.12210261 0.00000087           10000-3 0  6005
2 10953   5.7460  75.1720 0003733  31.3394 328.8795  1.00282705  1573
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 64.04674896 0.00001305           50715-3 0   871
2 10967 108.0125  73.1738 0001547 266.8238  93.2735 14.34350991559156
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 57.53898598 -.00000028                   0  9859
2 11054  64.0927 341.5867 0051927 117.6617 242.9243  2.00560603 76144
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 61.13847739 0.00000012                   0  1087
2 11141  63.5255 104.0602 0057317 320.5992  39.0611  2.00552791 74914
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 63.41518743 0.00001273           55354-3 0  8167
2 11416  98.5043  63.5496 0013278  57.0136 303.2296 14.25524914502975
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 61.05671476 0.00041400           95169-3 0  8677
2 11703  28.4962 309.5877 0004110 319.0470  40.9814 15.41289544503236
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 54.11105719 -.00000028                   0  8450
2 11783  63.8961 341.3703 0139181  62.2446 299.1884  2.00566098 64718
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 63.06867812 0.00000085           10000-3 0   532
2 11964   5.2447  74.8076 0024531  81.4499 279.5304  0.99401478   986
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 61.96072541 -.00000249           10000-3 0  7025
2 12472   2.2737  81.7955 0001948 316.8753  43.5275  1.00277865 27549
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 65.06540645 0.00048703           98331-3 0  4730
2 12888  97.5794 113.0487 0002049 127.8562 232.3110 15.46358204412984
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 61.21842502 0.00000386           33829-3 0  6268
2 13113  82.5442 143.7908 0016067   7.4087 352.7290 13.83949232350442
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 65.66897369 0.00014005           37703-3 0  4647
2 13138  51.6108  98.2316 0001978  47.9158 312.1784 15.38113892392390
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 62.88953119 0.00000627           32555-3 0  7523
2 13718  81.2450  24.5469 0055184 299.7486  59.8179 14.13104379320681
IRAS       
1 13777U          89 64.36334979 0.00000099           81334-4 0  6162
2 13777  99.0508 262.8715 0012013 236.6357 123.3650 13.98547244311684
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 61.16865767 0.00000120                   0  9148
2 14050   1.0331  84.0376 0001145 265.3126  95.5027  1.00273286  5534
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 62.72138113 0.00000001           10000-3 0  3851
2 14129  26.6140 277.2360 6061757  22.2090 355.7324  2.05889934 15049
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 60.18460760 0.00000011                   0  6085
2 14189  63.1435 102.7312 0133978 215.0906 144.0870  2.00572470 41272
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 62.09041545 0.00000706           29958-3 0  6961
2 14452  81.1631  39.8629 0096542  42.7604 318.1004 14.22022581277464
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 64.63083607 0.00000381           89486-4 0  6638
2 14780  98.1814 128.8013 0002709 164.2467 195.8897 14.57138812266487
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 62.60860166 0.00002486           49241-3 0  4143
2 14781  98.0196 124.4444 0012356 295.8048  64.1838 14.63074434267104
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 62.43157210 0.00028895           61226-3 0  7751
2 14898  28.5084 197.8479 0003201 120.1452 239.9164 15.43674016275055
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 61.73617302 0.00000011                   0  6291
2 15039  62.8895 101.9941 0015851 282.5440  77.4093  2.00566384 34582
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 62.07991624 0.00000249           21561-3 0  9269
2 15099  82.5284  90.7732 0012994 168.4061 191.7378 13.83618259235444
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 65.12672736 -.00000028                   0  5847
2 15271  63.3918 340.8325 0099591 318.9353  40.3028  2.00563753 31763
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 63.97906512 0.00002708           39804-3 0  9856
2 15331  82.5338  74.6000 0026830  64.9937 295.4086 14.74920440238853
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 63.68378243 0.00000733           42252-3 0  3394
2 15427  99.1351  48.6326 0014333 246.4287 113.5380 14.11866355217703
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 63.27708110 0.00000235           20181-3 0   557
2 15516  82.5363  28.1973 0018316  52.3563 307.9256 13.84041130206544
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 65.99383686 0.00008586           23523-3 0  1874
2 16095  51.6068  96.6536 0001097  29.9366 330.1868 15.38118720392443
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 62.78925363 0.00000011                   0  2989
2 16129  63.6871 102.5291 0115322 150.7138 210.0233  2.00565234 24926
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 63.12955915 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8079
2 16191  82.5490 310.0375 0018928 199.8230 160.2158 13.16863227161692
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 63.65576299 0.00000223           18996-3 0  4665
2 16408  82.5368 302.7813 0014847 233.6439 126.3337 13.84129548161098
Mir        
1 16609U          89 65.69300504 0.00055285           46538-3 0  7280
2 16609  51.6258 158.9202 0011831  88.7649 271.4006 15.69204247175175
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 65.63637378 0.00001692           81280-3 0  3856
2 16613  98.7079 141.6832 0001819 106.2848 253.8606 14.20028150 70147
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 63.75386668 0.00000400           35048-3 0  2817
2 16735  82.5417 329.4720 0013805 311.4532  48.5422 13.83871055140016
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 64.60157951 0.00003104           45972-3 0  5381
2 16881  82.5259 133.6994 0025166  77.9154 282.4828 14.74659502140029
EGP        
1 16908U          89 52.39127110 -.00000032           50187-4 0  1185
2 16908  50.0134 294.0547 0011349  52.8679 307.3191 12.44375265114992
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 38.07742442 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1299
2 16909  50.0179 338.2722 0011061  13.5524 346.5603 12.44397497113209
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 65.07029446 0.00000713           33451-3 0  1981
2 16969  98.6494  97.4845 0013313 185.3337 174.7703 14.22848821129271
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 63.88429834 0.00000143           12017-3 0  2287
2 17290  82.4660 237.4255 0012559 190.5351 169.5545 13.83670199109193
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 32.87866317 -.00000103           10000-3 0  2270
2 17561   0.0936 256.3952 0004029 308.3915 155.2428  0.99988189   408
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 65.94774995 0.00057844           48583-3 0  6914
2 17845  51.6251 157.6241 0012155  89.1811 271.0491 15.69235814175219
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 65.93020051 0.00000131           13335-3 0  6909
2 18129  82.9294 313.7009 0011772 343.1119  16.9636 13.71948898 85372
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 65.66599711 0.00138672  94930-5  24943-3 0  9172
2 18225  71.8846 330.5524 0010418 256.5247 103.4612 16.01420140 94853
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 64.04956588 0.00000249           21654-3 0  2478
2 18312  82.5573 302.0577 0012969 123.1953 237.0445 13.83435929 78111
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 63.79127606 0.00000324           28123-3 0   890
2 18820  82.5431   3.5103 0015930 198.5135 161.5455 13.84105086 55245
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 40.26552022 0.00000016           10000-3 0   300
2 19216  57.3661 220.4414 6656511 198.6348 115.5647  2.09697875  5057
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 63.44830983 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1455
2 19336  82.5363 249.7771 0017948  82.9781 277.3293 13.16854286 29123
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 64.74012887 0.00000795           46383-3 0   519
2 19531  98.9286   9.3098 0012294 159.5045 200.6624 14.10850883 22887
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89 65.82038424 0.00055981           47094-3 0  1032
2 19660  51.6248 158.2661 0011659  89.0948 271.1431 15.69218278175190
1989 001A  
1 19749U          89 40.54122425 0.00000021           10000-3 0   386
2 19749  64.8623 174.9880 0005168 283.2404  76.6691  2.13102189   665
1989 001B  
1 19750U          89 40.59991529 0.00000021           10000-3 0   450
2 19750  64.8828 174.9892 0004542 255.2470 104.6752  2.13102350   664
1989 001C  
1 19751U          89 40.53193346 0.00000021           10000-3 0   377
2 19751  64.8741 174.9866 0009234 258.6758 101.1945  2.13155878   668
1989 004A  
1 19765U          89 54.19227353 0.00000128           10000-3 0   339
2 19765   1.3989 275.6559 0003155   5.8146 353.6677  1.00268906   297
1989 005A  
1 19769U          89 55.10021662 0.00001025           40018-3 0   306
2 19769  74.0516 316.4605 0024727 272.7543  87.0772 14.30612361  4073
1989 005B  
1 19770U          89 50.86702685 0.00001455           54285-3 0   215
2 19770  74.0501 323.9885 0010082 334.3912  25.6812 14.32723153  1159
1989 006A  
1 19772U          89 55.48390477 0.00000159           10000-3 0   118
2 19772   0.2087 251.0704 0000423 199.4920 274.2401  1.00549883   274
1989 006B  
1 19773U          89 51.59748649 -.00000028           10000-3 0   223
2 19773   8.3619 304.3248 7193679 197.0819 112.5227  2.25492156   564
1989 007A  
1 19774U          89 62.29088547 0.00835695  34441-4  42765-3     888
2 19774  64.7310 224.9743 0118332 120.8668 240.4748 16.05799532  5440
1989 004F  
1 19776U          89 51.66873718 -.00000014           10000-3 0   157
2 19776   1.4337 275.9987 0024481 313.1242  46.1872  0.97994013   271
1988 095F  
1 19777U          89 51.96943673 -.00000106           10000-3 0   151
2 19777   1.2029 275.1382 0012733  74.3464 285.1558  0.97939774   266
1989 008A  
1 19783U          89 63.71849452 0.00003037           27833-4 0   400
2 19783  51.6277 168.9888 0010703  78.1709 282.0745 15.69333518  3521
1989 009A  
1 19785U          89 64.10007655 0.00000004                   0   152
2 19785  82.6210  21.7655 0013300 342.6503  17.4136 12.64001191  2848
1989 009B  
1 19786U          89 64.05975057 0.00000004                   0    90
2 19786  82.6234  21.8542 0002898  31.3906 328.7356 12.61808837  2212
1989 009C  
1 19787U          89 64.04615570 0.00000004                   0   103
2 19787  82.6141  21.8207 0005863 352.0436   8.0561 12.62575495  2829
1989 009D  
1 19788U          89 64.11153859 0.00000004                   0   154
2 19788  82.6184  21.7715 0009753 336.7874  23.2773 12.63354838  2840
1989 009E  
1 19789U          89 64.08980311 0.00000005                   0   131
2 19789  82.6106  21.7340 0016252 337.9437  22.0954 12.64579821  2692
1989 009F  
1 19790U          89 64.07632704 0.00000004                   0   108
2 19790  82.6190  21.7386 0019973 332.7979  27.2071 12.65340209  2845
1989 009G  
1 19791U          89 61.07567539 0.00000004                   0    64
2 19791  82.6136  23.8826 0035855 159.5753 200.6770 12.54767430  2435
1989 010A  
1 19792U          89 60.77283220 0.00014266           12775-3 0   266
2 19792  82.3579  40.2654 0038261  61.9617 298.5588 15.67155301  2994
1989 011A  
1 19796U          89 66.13351813 -.00000955           22408-2 0   231
2 19796  62.8405 156.2654 7353319 318.3543   4.6976  2.00611985   437
1989 011B  
1 19797U          89 65.33778090 0.01961743  38863-4  14970-2 0   401
2 19797  62.7700  83.5571 0147978 120.4704 241.2056 15.95442474  3176
1989 011C  
1 19798U          89 62.62084462 0.29802126  42801-4  70096-3 0   390
2 19798  62.8172  92.8540 0046650 122.1973 238.7142 16.39916086  2778
1989 011D  
1 19799U          89 65.32784530 -.00000342           24944-2 0    57
2 19799  62.8666 156.4037 7326558 318.2251   4.7315  2.04040220   425
1989 012A  
1 19800U          89 65.67840213 0.00346905  15766-4  86448-3 0   492
2 19800  65.8310 335.1541 1329421 139.5865 231.2232 13.18050063  2615
1989 012B  
1 19801U          89 65.45264221 0.00720530  16724-4  15393-2 0   437
2 19801  65.8419 335.3299 1290428 139.4337 231.0528 13.28145480  2586
GPS-0012   
1 19802U          89 64.49837497 0.00000015           10000-3 0   156
2 19802  55.1136 215.9184 0077528 186.7844 173.0720  2.01900554   343
1989 013C  
1 19804U          89 65.81146327 0.00264623 -13430-5  12098-2 0   265
2 19804  37.3405 198.7189 6037026 216.5320  81.0312  4.10513830   798
1989 014A  
1 19807U          89 65.30314679 -.00000055          -48464-3 0   212
2 19807  62.9427 340.2213 7424463 279.8932  11.0865  2.00593770   398
1989 014B  
1 19808U          89 60.74344577 0.18223557  43095-4  37255-3 0   398
2 19808  62.9459 287.7376 0033092  67.6443 292.9038 16.43042898  2280
1989 014C  
1 19809U          89 66.19531504 0.03145319  40050-4  12742-2 0   352
2 19809  62.9336 267.1476 0061733  66.6851 294.3405 16.18020606  3148
1989 014D  
1 19810U          89 64.84643643 -.00000195           64021-3 0    97
2 19810  62.9561 340.1318 7369344 280.0738  11.4162  2.07327375   397
1989 015A  
1 19818U          89 61.90778066 0.00294881  12933-4  16483-3 0   286
2 19818  62.8099 269.7257 0026393 119.0150 241.4217 16.18124008  2140
1989 016A  
1 19822U          89 63.49848558 0.00025734           19835-2 0   189
2 19822  75.1055 101.1833 4334266 151.9305 240.5644  6.81880939   722
1989 016B  
1 19823U          89 63.98682863 0.00331809  31987-4  16332-2 0    94
2 19823  74.5636  82.4802 0170099 148.5022 214.9771 15.63814556  1723
1989 016C  
1 19824U          89 64.51686538 0.00047300           36063-2 0   122
2 19824  75.1727 100.6841 4330083 151.2282 241.8624  6.82686484   792
1989 017A  
1 19826U          89 66.33991597 0.00043634           48219-1 0   255
2 19826  82.9585 222.6150 0030763 230.4046 127.9963 13.71183980  1819
1989 017B  
1 19827U          89 64.57605096 -.00013905          -15239-1 0   195
2 19827  82.9489 223.8953 0024485 233.2269 126.4884 13.72515595  1569
1989 018A  
1 19851U          89 64.00231668 0.00000117           10000-3 0   114
2 19851  82.5185 242.1954 0013415 238.1615 121.8239 13.83754707   676
1989 018B  
1 19852U          89 64.43688596 0.00000116           10000-3 0    83
2 19852  82.5184 241.8514 0016545 225.1634 134.8182 13.83520734   737
1989 019A  
1 19862U          89 66.31735697 0.00693834  40085-4  32552-3 0   126
2 19862  62.8034  17.6643 0092139 114.4305 246.7940 16.11533904   735
1989 019B  
1 19863U          89 66.23480646 0.05679732  41700-4  81186-3 0   149
2 19863  62.7735  17.8322 0044166 110.3888 250.3066 16.30984235   724
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #290
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Mar 89 09:56:29 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01589>; Tue, 14 Mar 89 04:28:18 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 14 Mar 89 04:28:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QY7Awdy00Ui344NE5g>;
          Tue, 14 Mar 89 03:37:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.gY7AgNy00UkZ0PmU4X>;
          Tue, 14 Mar 89 03:19:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <MY7AdRy00UkZEPl05B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 03:16:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #291

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 291

Today's Topics:
   Re: USSR's Phobos II probe takes second pictures of Martian Moon
		       Re: heavylift launchers
		       Re: heavylift launchers
    Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #284
		      Re: Babies born in space.
		       Re: heavylift launchers
NASA Goddard Center requests commercial launch services proposals (Forwarded)
    Artificial clouds to be visible in Canada and U.S. (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 89 05:36:43 GMT
From: nolan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Michael C. Nolan)
Subject: Re: USSR's Phobos II probe takes second pictures of Martian Moon

In article <8903061536.AA06523@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>
>     The USSR's Phobos II probe has successfully completed its second 
>photographic set of the Martian moon Phobos.  However, Radio Moscow has 
>announced (Mar. 1 - 3) that the pictures were taken, on Feb. 28 - Mar. 1,
I saw a couple of them yesterday at a seminar given by a Dr. Morov.  They
were nice considering how new they are.  One had the moon against the limb
of mars, and not even a mosaic.
-- 
nolan@hiips.lpl.arizona.edu;   ...!noao!solpl!hiips

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 16:33:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: heavylift launchers


	I'm still missing something - why not start cranking out Saturn V's
again? Would it be as difficult as building a new launcher? I was surprised
when I found out that the Saturn lifts about 40% *more* than Energiya (sp?)
(140 tonne vs. 100 tonne) to LEO. Are the designs for the Saturn available
to space companies? 

Alan M. Carroll          "And then you say,
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu     We have the Moon, so now the Stars..."  - YES
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 89 19:09:09 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: heavylift launchers

In article <218100011@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>	I'm still missing something - why not start cranking out Saturn V's
>again? Would it be as difficult as building a new launcher? I was surprised
>when I found out that the Saturn lifts about 40% *more* than Energiya (sp?)
>(140 tonne vs. 100 tonne) to LEO. Are the designs for the Saturn available
>to space companies? 

The plans for the Saturn V are incomplete; much of it was been tossed
out in the garbage years ago.  The tooling was broken up and sold as
scrap.  All that's left is a couple of the Saturn V's themselves, one
of which is rusting away on the lawn outside the visitors center at the
Johnson Space Center in Houston.  There are also a few of the F-1
engines in storage somewhere, but to build more it would be necessary
to start from scratch.

And today's NASA is not the NASA of the 60's.  The people who built the
Saturn V are dead, retired, or about to retire, and the paper-pushing
bureacrats are in charge.  These are the people who say that it would
be impossible to put a man on the moon again in less than 10 years,
even though it only took us 8 years from a standing start 20 years ago.

Did you read the news item about how NASA is trying to put all the
expertise of the retiring engineers into an expert system so things can
keep going after they've left?  That gives me cold chills ... Very
strongly reminds me of one of the 'racial memory playback' scenes in
_Planet of the Apes_.  (The book, not the movie.)
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                 Video 7              ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
"... Local prohibitions cannot  block advances in military and commercial
technology.... Democratic movements for local restraint can only restrain
the world's democracies, not the world as a whole." -- K. Eric Drexler

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 89 21:30:03 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick!arg@uunet.uu.net  (A Ruaraidh Gillies)
Subject: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <1989Mar4.225139.20609@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1399@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes:
>>The fact is that there's a helluva difference between airlines sending up
>>non-airline people and space agencies sending up non-space people...
>
>Please explain:  what *is* the difference?
The difference is that the airlines are set up as passenger movement
companies. NASA is an organisation with the job of implementing the
American Space Program. Space flight is risky stuff, and whilst flying from
Heathrow to JFK is no walk in the park, it's an awful lot easier and common.
NASA does not have the job of giving American schoolchildren lessons from a
few hundred miles up.

>The Soviets have been flying Soyuz missions for a [long time].
>And the "A" booster they use to launch it has flown over 1000 times,
>starting with Sputnik 1 (and that doesn't count its still-earlier history
>as an ICBM).
Yes but they haven't been trading as a flashy airline (who wants to take
off from Baikonur and land in Soviet Central Asia for the sheer hell of it?
:-])

>>... at the moment pure passenger space flights are unfeasible.
>>... NASA, ESA and whoever control Soviet, Chinese, etc
>>space flights are not yet *ready* to start into human commerce...
>
>ESA and the Chinese, true.  NASA, yes with reservations.  The Soviets?
>Nonsense.  *They* have truly operational space systems.  "A" boosters
>have been rising from the pad at least once a week for two decades now.
>They *are* ready to start human commerce -- they're quoting prices and
>flight dates today.
OK, I'll cede to you here - you obviously know your stuff (what do *you* do in
a zoology department? :-])

>>Challenger tragedy put back the US space program by 32 months...
>>... It took *loads* more than 25 flights before
>>airliners were conceived, and now they are so common that although
>>disasters happen, people will still step on a plane the next day.
>
>The latest major Soviet space problem -- the Soyuz reentry foulup -- put
>their program back maybe two or three weeks.
Have to admit defeat here - never heard of it. However, it *sounds* as if
no-one was killed, and so they thanked God [:-)] and got on with tracking down
the problem. When an entire orbital vehicle explodes, killing all aboard, many
people are too shocked to think about getting back to business. I remember
Sally Ride said that no astronaut was going to get in a Shuttle until they
were sure it was safe. It's always a possibility (I agree unlikely) that
the Soviet authorities *told* some astronauts "Get in there now!" if they
didn't like the idea, so soon after a near disaster.

>They know how to manage
>problems, as opposed to running in circles and screaming for a year first.
>(Apollo 1 put the US space program back only 18 months
  ^^^^^^^^
  Was this the launch pad fire that killed Grissom et al?

I still stick by my original thinking that nothing good will come of
sending civilians into space for nothing more than propaganda and adventure
+============================================================================+
Contact me on:     | Ruaraidh Gillies   | "Many men have tried."
 arg@uk.ac.warwick | 2nd year Comp Sci  | "They tried and failed?"
  or               | Warwick University | "They tried and died."
 arg@warwick.UUCP  | Coventry CV4 7AL   | (Rev Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam &
                   | Great Britain      |  Paul Atreides -- Dune)
+============================================================================+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1989 13:12-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
To: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Cc: space@andrew
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #284

But wouldn't that mean that an object free falling across the membrane
would be dissociated into elementary particles as it fell through? Or
can we assume that the time duration of the dissociation is so small for
the falling object that the particles have no time to move or change
state before its neighbors pass through and reinstate their forces on
it?

This might mean that inside a black hole an object is not only unable
to move in +r, but it may be impossible for it to stand still without
turning into a cloud of particles. Would their be a critical velocity
at which it must travel in +r? Might this be the free fall velocity?

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 16:37:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.


	I saw a report recently that had a Get-Away-Special mission that was
sending up half of a set of ``identical'' chicken eggs, the other half staying
on the ground as a control group. While not exactly human development, I'd
say it's certainly a first step in such research.

Alan M. Carroll          "And then you say,
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu     We have the Moon, so now the Stars..."  - YES
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 15:50:24 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdls!rbk@hplabs.hp.com  (Richard Katz)
Subject: Re: heavylift launchers

In article <240aa600@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>... After several years of study, it will now take five years to make
                                                    **********
>an operational system of mostly-existing components.  The Saturn V was
>designed and built from scratch in rather less than five years--*without*
>years of study.

I remember reading a couple of years ago that it would take over 10
years to redevelop the Saturn V - I think this was an AW&ST article.
Anyways, you can't engineer things today nearly as fast as in the 60's
as a result of NASA's beaurocracy (yeah, I can't spell).  

rich katz
hewlett packard
p o box 7050
colorado springs, co
80933-7050

email: rbk@hpctdlb.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 89 00:43:11 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Goddard Center requests commercial launch services proposals (Forwarded)


Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     March 9, 1989

Jim Elliott
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.


RELEASE:  89-29

NASA GODDARD CENTER REQUESTS COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES PROPOSALS


     NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has 
requested proposals from commercial sources to launch three 
identified satellites and options for NASA to order up to 12 
additional launches, if exercised, over the next 5 years. 

     The three identified satellites for which launch services 
would be be procurred under the request for proposals (RFP) are 
the Wind, Geotail and Polar satellites of the International Solar 
Terrestrial Physics Projects.  Their launches are scheduled in 
1992 and 1993.

     The RFP calls for 5 of the 15 launches to be high 
inclination (polar) launches and the other 10 to be low 
inclination (equatorial).  Polar launches normally are conducted 
from the West Coast and equatorial from the East Coast.

     Under the agreement, the contractor would furnish all 
supplies, including the launch vehicle, facilities, personnel, 
and services necessary to design, produce, test, integrate and 
launch the missions into the required orbit.

     The Orbital Launch Systems Project Office at Goddard will 
oversee the contractor activities provided under this contract.  
Proposals from commercial interests are to be submitted by May 8.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 89 00:52:22 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Artificial clouds to be visible in Canada and U.S. (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     March 10, 1989

Joyce B. Milliner
Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va.


RELEASE:  89-30

ARTIFICIAL CLOUDS TO BE VISIBLE IN CANADA AND U.S.


     Four suborbital rockets, two Black Brant Xs and two Nike-
Orions, are scheduled to be launched from Canada during the next 
few weeks as part of a major NASA sounding rocket campaign.

     Two of the rocketborne scientific experiments, programmed to 
create artificial clouds at high altitudes over Canada, are 
scheduled for launch during late March from Canada's Churchill 
Research Range on Hudson Bay.  These colorful barium releases 
will be visible, cloud cover permitting, to residents in Central 
and Eastern Canada and in North-central United States, according 
to the experimenters.

     The other two rockets, carrying upper atmosphere experiments 
which will not be visible to residents, are scheduled to be 
launched between March 16 and March 24.

     The objective of the barium release payloads is to measure 
electric fields aligned with the Earth's magnetic field.  Such 
fields are thought to be responsible for accelerating electrons 
to create aurora but their locations and strengths have not been 
well established by measurements.  Using the barium ions as 
optical tracers, the electric fields are measured by observing 
how the motion of the barium ions deviates from the predictable 
motion that comes from the initial injection velocity and 
gravitational and "magnetic mirror" forces.

     The launch window period is March 25 through April 11 with 
launch opportunities each day in the late evening and early 
morning.  If required, there is a second launch window in late 
April through early May.  Clear weather conditions are required 
at the ground observing sites. 

     Three-stage Black Brant X suborbital rockets will be used to 
loft the barium payloads.  The Black Brant XB is a solid-
propellant rocket about 48 feet long and 18 inches in diameter.

     There will be two barium releases from each rocket payload, 
one before and one after apogee.  The two explosive releases will 
occur from each payload at altitudes of 483 and 555 miles over 
the center of Hudson Bay.

     The time of the launches is selected so the releases occur 
either in the post-twilight or pre-dawn period when the payloads 
are in sunlight but observers on the ground are in darkness.  
Project officials expect them to be visible as far away as 
Chicago.

     Following each release, the barium is quickly ionized 
(becomes electrically charged) by the sunlight.  The ejected 
barium first appears greenish-white in color, becomes yellowish 
and then turns to a purplish hue.  The newly-created barium ions 
spiral around magnetic field lines and rapidly move along the 
magnetic field lines away from the Earth.  

     Each release will produce two luminous streaks of barium 
ions which absorb and re-emit sunlight.  One is a "pencil like" 
beam of ions that will travel rapidly to altitudes greater than 
12,425 miles above the Earth's surface.  The other streak does 
not have the high velocity of the first and will rise to 
altitudes of only 1243 to 1864 miles .  The fast, high altitude 
streak probably will not be visible to the naked eye after about 
5 minutes.  The lower altitude low velocity streak will remain 
visible for 20 or more minutes.

     The "pencil-like" beams of barium ions will be tracked by 
electronic intensified cameras from sites located at Churchill 
and Gillam, Canada, and Los Alamos, N.M,; Houston; Richmond Hill, 
Pa.; and Millstone Hill, Mass.  Scanning photometers will observe 
from Calgary, Canada, and from Richland, Wash.; Seeley Lake, 
Mont.; Boulder, Colo.; and Channing, Mich.

     The U.S. observing teams come from the Goddard Space Flight 
Center, Johnson Space Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Naval Research Laboratory, 
Technology International Corp., University of Alaska, Boston 
University, plus a team from University College, London.  

     In the other two missions of the 1989 campaign, Nike-Orion 
rockets will carry a cryogenic whole-air sampler (CWAS) payload 
weighing over 400 pounds into the upper stratosphere to study the 
polar ozone problem and the greenhouse effect.

     The CWAS payload was developed by the University of 
Pittsburgh for NASA's Upper Atmosphere Research Program to 
investigate the sources and losses of carbon dioxide, Nitrous 
Oxide, Nitric Oxide and Methane and other trace constituents that 
play a role in the ozone chemistry of the middle atmosphere over 
an altitude range of 19-47 miles.  The payload also will provide 
an accurate technique for calibrating UARS, a remote-sensing 
satellite scheduled to be launched by NASA from the Shuttle 
during September 1991.

     The CWAS experiments are part of a major NASA effort to 
study the chemistry of the lower atmosphere at northern 
latitudes.  These launches will complement the extensive aircraft 
and ground-based observations by NASA's polar expedition to 
Norway this winter.

     The CWAS payload measures the density and altitude 
distribution of the major and minor chemical species in air.  
This objective is accomplished by collecting large whole-air 
samples during the upleg portion of the flight, returning them to 
the Earth by parachute and ultimately analyzing the samples at 
the University of Pittsburgh.  A novel refrigeration technique is 
used to freeze the air entering the payload in specially-prepared 
collection cells kept at -436 degrees F. during flight.

     W. A. Brence, Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), is the NASA 
campaign manager.  Dr. Robert Hoffman, NASA Goddard Space Flight 
Center, Greenbelt, Md.,is the principal investigator for the two 
Black Brant X launches, and Dave Kotsifakis is the NASA WFF 
payload manager.  Dr. Edward C. Zipf, University of Pittsburgh, 
is the principal investigator for the two Nike-Orion launches.  
Bruce Scott is the NASA WFF payload manger.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #291
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Mar 89 06:27:25 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01337>; Tue, 14 Mar 89 05:36:29 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 14 Mar 89 05:36:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wY7CUUy00UkTA2kU4N>;
          Tue, 14 Mar 89 05:23:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.AY7CQAy00UkZ8PwU41>;
          Tue, 14 Mar 89 05:18:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gY7CO8y00UkZMPv058@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 05:16:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #292

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 292

Today's Topics:
		   robot hands (was 1992 moon base)
			  ISECCo   UPDATE #6
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
		     NASA FY-1990 Budget Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 11:27:57 EST
From: rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele)
Subject: robot hands (was 1992 moon base)


>  Let's take a specific case. I want the robot to open a screwed on access
>cover, remove a circuit card from a card case, put it into a test fixture,
>run test points on the traces (let's say .03" design rules), and finally
>remove and replace a soldered chip and reassemble the unit. Can you point
>to any of this being done even in a controlled ground environment?

For maintenence of military computers in the field, it is not assumed that
the human can do even this much.  The fault localazation software on our system
is required to print out a list of cards, in order, to replace.  And the
doors on the cabinet has handles.  This would make it a little easier.  A
more difficult task might be screwing in a connector without bending any
of the pins (although you may have trouble finding a human who can do this
reliably.:-)


>  ++PLS

                    Jim
                    rachiele@nadc.arpa

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Fri, 10 Mar 89 09:14:16 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Robert Jessie Hale III           <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  ISECCo   UPDATE #6

   As a reminder I will be off the computer for two weeks.   March 11-27.
Please send all request and comments to FSRRC@ALASKA and ISECCo will reply
as soon as possible.   Please include Mail address.


#24 ACAD3A::FSRRC       Thu 09 Mar 1989  23:35  ( 145)


March 8, 1989
ISECCo PROJECT UPDATE #6:  Crops cycling.

Background:
     Dinner in a small, closed ecology is not a matter of simply choosing
what you want to eat just before you begin cooking, or even a day or  two
before:  it  must be planned months in advance.  The diet  must  be  pre-
calculated  months  in advance of consumption for the food to  be  eatten
must  be grown first.  I doubt it will have to be QUITE this  strict;  if
you could not stand to have carrots & fish for dinner you could get  away
with  substituting cabbage & worms--but the carrots & fish would have  to
be  eatten the next night, or shortly thereafter for in a closed  ecology
all food must be cycled (and the occupant is the 'cycler'!).
     Calculations involve the time required for the desired crop to grow,
quantity  needed, calories required and nutritional data.   Naturally  if
you  want to have carrots for dinner a month from now you better  already
have  them  in  the ground or you won't be able to harvest  them  on  the
desired  date.  Quantity needed for each crop is determined by a  balance
between  the calorie requirement, the nutrient requirement and what  else
is  to  be  eatten.   Calories are easy to look  up,  as  is  nutritional
information.   These calculations may or may not be performed  in  actual
biosphere operation--since we will be gradually building up the ecosystem
we  should  be able to maintain a balanced diet by careful  attention  to
planting schedules.  We may, however, wish to write a computer program to
do  these calculations so as to maintain more complete records and so  we
can more easily trace any problems which may occur.
     Crops  take  a  preductable  length of time to  grow  from  seed  to
harvest.  This time, combined with the rate of consumption determines the
rate  at which the plant should be planted.  Since plants do not have  to
be harvested on a fixed date, but rather over a range of dates, plantings
of  somewhat  larger  batches than that for a single meal  may  be  used.
However the overall effect will be a continuous planting schedule, rather
than  the usual method of planting all your 'acerage' at  once--and  then
harvesting all at once.
     Food  storage in the Biosphere is very limited due to the fact  that
food  is,  in  essence, essential elements locked up  as  the  foodstuff.
Those  elements are required by the biosphere to continue operation.   An
example is carbon dioxide (not quite an element, I realize, but it  makes
the  point);  a single potatoe will require more carbon dioxide  in  it's
growth than there is in the atmosphere in the biosphere.  Should you then
put that potatoe in the 'fridge and save it you have, in essence, removed
all  the carbon dioxide from the air.  Naturally there are  other  things
going  on  to  replentish the carbon dioxide, but  the  amount  you  have
removed  will  decrease  the  efficency of the  system  and  should  more
potatoes be added to your storage bin you will quickly run into  trouble.
Therefore  food  storage,  beyond  a very short  period,  will  be  quite
limited.

Current status:
     We  have  begun a gradual build-up of  hydroponic  food  production.
Our method aims to be providing enough food to support one person by  the
time the Biosphere shell is finished.  Since this is likely several years
away  we  are  progressing  slowly; there is  no  reason  to  finish  the
hydroponics systems and have no place to put them!
     This  is not to say we are not progressing.  We are well on our  way
towards  our initial goal of producing 25% of the food required  for  one
person;  the  hydroponics boxes are built and in place and  some  of  the
watering systems have been built.  We have planted 37 plants, 17 of which
have  germinated  (the  potatoes,  which  are  the  furthest  along,  are
'crawling'  all  over  everywhere!)  Crop plantings shall  proceed  on  a
regularly  in  the desire of producing a constant flow of food  from  the
hydroponics.  This crop cycling usually is not practical in an unenclosed
environment  due to weather considerations.  In a controlled  environment
it is not only possible but desireable for it increases the  productivity
by  allowing plants of a given size to occupy only the space  needed  for
photosynthesis--in a natural environment moving the plants around so they
occupy a minimum of space is impractical (to say the least!).
     Since  we are not working with a total system yet ridged cycling  of
planting  dates is not yet needed.  We are planting on a 2-3  week  cycle
right now, though not everything being grown is planted at each planting.
As  the system works towards completion these planting dates will  become
more  and more frequent and less and less flexibility can be  allowed  as
the consumption of these plants provides more of the person's diet.  When
the system is complete plant cycling will be fairly fixed, especially  in
terms  of  calorie & nutrient production requirements.  Thus,  while  any
given  crop  may  be substituted the total production must  result  in  a
sufficient number of calories and nutrient for the Biosphere inhabitant.

Conclusion:
     Most  plants require 75-100 days to mature in an ideal  environment.
This  requires that each plant to be eatten must be planted that  far  in
advance of the desired date of consumption.  Animal food sources must  be
similarly  managed.   While not completely  inflexible  this  requirement
shall  require considerable forethought in order to maintain an  adequate
diet.
     Larger systems will provide increasing flexibility, but in a  system
the size we are constructing crop cycling becomes of prime importance  in
the  regulation  of  food supply.  Improper planning will  result  in  an
inadequate diet.  This is the reason we are begining to plan crop cycling
and  management  this soon in our efforts; while not needed now  it  will
become critical as the crops move toward providing one person's food.   A
good cycling schedule should be implimented from the beginning to  assure
a minimum of 'peaks' and 'valleys' in food production.

ON other matters:
     Our contract to lease the land on which the Biosphere is to be built
is  moving ahead, and it is expected to be signed well in advance of  the
May deadline.
     While we have not done too much on aero-space craft design since the
last  report  on it we are devoting the majority of our next  meeting  to
mapping out a strategy for design of our test model.  While this  project
is not currently active, and will not be for some time to come, we feel a
that the complexity of the project requires much advance planning for  it
to  succeed.  Therefore we shall continue to have occasional meetings  to
address the problems which will slow or prevent this project so that when
we  have  the necessary funding to proceed we will have a good  idea  the
direction we will need to proceed in!
     After considerable though I have come to the conclusion we will need
to build the Biosphere shell in such a fashion that we can use it in both
a pressurized mode and a de-pressurized (partially, of course!) mode.   I
would  hope we could attain +/- 5 psi, though we may have to  settle  for
slightly less.  The reason for this is the conflicting data I have  found
which is sufficiently confusing to allow me to question what is the  best
pressure.  To add to the confusion some kinds of plants may prefer higher
pressures while others may prefer lower.  Building the Biosphere shell so
that it can do both will nkwhat complicate the airlock but I feel  that
the added experimental flexibility will be well worth it.
     While  not directly related to ISECCo, my project of re-building  my
airplane, a Piper Super Cub, I though I would give a little update on  it
since many of our members have expressed interest in the project.  (Rides
are  a distinct possibility to those who are dedicated  members--and  can
get here!)  Over the winter I have progressed from aiming to do a  simple
recover job of the fabric to doing a complete strip job of the plane.   I
had  been planning on getting it back in the air and then doing the  rest
of  the job in a year or so, but once I got it all apart in the garage  I
figured  I probably should do everything and save myself from  having  to
tear  it  apart again.  (Not to mention I had some unexpected  free  time
this winter!)  I am (finally) at the point where things begin going  back
together  again; I have stripped the frame of everything, sandblasted  it
and  it is ready to paint.  Then I shall put the new tin I made  in,  re-
fabric  it,  put the engine back on, paint it, paint the wings,  put  the
wings back on and...look, is it a bird?  Naw, just Ray out playing  eagle
again...(unfortunately  to accomplish these tasks shall be  rather  time-
comsuming--I am into the project around 800 manhours already, and by  the
time I'm done it may top 1100!)

     Any  of  you who haven't yet joined and are interested   do  get  in
touch  with us.  Our minimum membership is only $5 for an entire  decade.
Anyone who wants  to  join can just send Robert,  FNRJH@ALASKA, or myself
a  note  on here  (PLEASE include a regular mail address: we have  had  a
number  of responses which we have been  unable to  answer  over  BITNET!)
and we'll send you a letter with the information we'll need. Alternatively
you can write ISECCo, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks, AK 99706.

                                              --Ray :: President, ISECCo
[end]
Robert J. Hale III
ISECCo Director

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 89 00:43:15 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <1529@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes:
>In article <1989Mar4.225139.20609@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>The latest major Soviet space problem -- the Soyuz reentry foulup -- put
>>their program back maybe two or three weeks.
>Have to admit defeat here - never heard of it.

This is the one where the Soyuz returning from Mir couldn't fire its
retrorockets.  They were temporarily stranded; low on oxygen, and could
neither get back to Mir or reenter.  The good 'ol sensation-mongering
USA TV networks were full of lots of hand-wringing about how the
cosmonauts were going to run out of air shortly.  Except for one
interview with James Oberg, where he said the cosmonauts were in no
danger, and would reenter on the next orbit.

He was right.

I think it was some kind of computer problem; they just overrode it and
fired the retros manually.

I think the most interesting Soviet failure was the one with the Indian
'guest cosmonaut', in which the booster blew up on the pad.  The
escape tower worked perfectly, and cosmonauts survived, though slightly
mashed due to the high g-forces of escape tower rockets.

(Good heavens, that newsgroups line!!  I'm paring that down to reason.
rec.music.misc!??!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!)
-- 
"It was more dangerous to drive                 Mike Van Pelt
away from Three Mile Island than                Video 7
to stay there." -- Dr. Bruce Ames.              ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 89 22:22:01 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: NASA FY-1990 Budget Request


Here is the NASA budget request for fiscal year 1990 (beginning
October 1, 1989).  This is President Reagan's budget request,
submitted before he left office in January, but as far as I know, the
Bush administration has not made any changes.  In fact, Richard
Darman, Bush's director of OMB, has testified to Congress strongly in
favor of the NASA budget in general and the Space Station program in
particular.  Of course, it remains to be seen what Congress will
actually appropriate, both in total amount and in the various
programs.  (And I'm willing to take a fairly large bet that they
won't act on it at all by October 1.)

The budget and the comments below are from CANOPUS, as condensed by
me.  See copyright information at end.  --SW

NASA SEEKS NEW STARTS FOR TWO PLANETARY MISSIONS - can890110.txt - 1/9/89

"New starts" are sought for the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby and
Cassini Saturn/Titan missions in the fiscal 1989 budget proposed
today for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  The
$13.3 billion budget plan is almost $2.4 billion higher than the
current $10.9 billion budget NASA has for fiscal 1989. The largest
increase is a $1.1 billion jump for the Space Station program. Small
gains are made in physics and astronomy and other science budgets,
and the NASA payroll is to increase by 700 permanent positions.

The CRAF and Cassini missions are proposed as a dual new start to
save money (compared to two separate programs) by using a common
Mariner Mark II bus design and spares.

Funds for several programs--Hubble Space Telescope, Gamma Ray
Observatory, Galileo, and Magellan--drop as these projects approach
flight in 1989.  Others--Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility, Global
Geospace Science--rise sharply compared to FY89 funds.

In releasing the budget proposal, NASA Administrator James Fletcher
noted that the FY90 budget "is almost exactly the amount forecast a
year ago when we presented the FY l989 budget to Congress."  He later
commented that, "The budget provides $2 billion to move ahead with
development of the Space Station.  We are moving toward a first
element launch in early l995 with a capability for man-tended
research activity by the end of that year and a permanently manned
capability by the end of l996.

		     NASA FY 1990 BUDGET SUMMARY
			(Millions of Dollars)
 
	    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

                                             FY1989    FY 1990

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT                     4266.6     5751.6
SPACE FLIGHT, CONTROL & DATA COMM.           4464.2     5139.6
CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES                    275.1      341.8
RESEARCH & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT                1891.6     2032.2
INSPECTOR GENERAL                              (8.6)       8.8
                                                                      
     TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY                 10897.5    13274.0
===========================                 =======    =======

{Format of the following section is slightly confusing; totals in
each category are given first, followed by the items making up that
total.  Pay attention to the indentation.  I've added the word
"total" to what I think are appropriate lines, but I may well have
erred.  Only the first two categories above were included.--SW}

DETAILED BREAKDOWN                          FY 1989    FY 1990

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT                     4266.6     5751.6 (TOTAL)
===========================                 =======    =======

Space Station                                 900.0     2050.2

Space Transportation Capability Development   681.0      639.0 (total)
  Spacelab                                     88.6       98.9
  Upper Stages                                138.8       88.6
  Engineering & Technical Base                155.4      189.8
  Payload Operations & Support Equipment       64.7       81.1
  Advanced Programs                            52.7       48.7
  Tethered Satellite System                    26.4       19.9
  Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle                  73.0      107.0
  Advanced Launch System                       81.4        5.0

Space Science & Applications                 1830.2     1995.3 (total)

  Physics and Astronomy (total)               734.1      894.5
   Hubble Space Telescope Development          95.9       67.0
   Gamma Ray Observatory Development           41.9       26.7
   Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility        16.0       44.0
   Global Geospace Science                     64.4      112.3
   Payload & Instrument Development            81.7       71.4
   Shuttle/Spacelab Payload Mission
    Management & Integration                   69.7       86.1
   Space Station Integrated Planning
         & Attached Payloads                    8.0       23.0
   Explorer Development                        82.1       93.2
   Mission Operation & Data Analysis          143.2      204.8
   Research & Analysis                         85.8      112.5
   Suborbital Program                          45.4       53.5

  Life Sciences (total)                        78.1      124.2
   Human Space Flight & Systems Engineering    27.6       42.8
   Space Biological Sciences                   10.1       27.6
   Research & Analysis                         40.4       53.8

  Planetary Exploration (total)               416.6      396.9
   Galileo Development                         73.4       17.4
   Ulysses Development                         10.3        4.5
   Magellan Development                        43.1     
   Mars Observer                              102.2      100.5
   Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby/Cassini      0.0       30.0
   Mission Operations & Data Analysis         110.7      155.4
   Research & Analysis                         76.9       79.1

  Space Applications                          601.4      579.7

   Earth Sciences (total)                     413.7      434.3
    Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite        94.2       73.9
    Ocean Topography Experiment                83.0       72.8
    Scatterometer                              10.6       13.8
    Earth Science Payload Instrument Dev.      46.4       66.5
    Airborne Science & Applications            23.0       19.7
    Geodynamics                                32.9       38.0
    Missions Operations & Data Analysis        17.6       24.8
    Research & Analysis                       106.0      124.8

   Materials Processing                        75.6       92.7

   Space Communications                        92.2       18.6

   Information Systems                         19.9       34.1

Commercial Programs                            44.7       61.0 (total)
  Technology Utilization                       16.5       22.7
  Commercial Use of Space                      28.2       38.3

Aeronautical Research & Technology            404.2      462.8 (total)
  Research & Technology Base (total)          315.6      335.7
  Systems Technology Programs                  88.6      127.1
    (Materials & Structures Systems Tech.)    (19.2)     (30.3)
    (Rotorcraft Systems Technology)           ( 4.8)     ( 4.9)
    (High-Performance Aircraft
      Systems Technology)                     (11.0)     (34.9)
    (Advanced Propulsion Systems Technology)  (13.9)     (14.5)
    (Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation)        (39.7)     (42.5)

Space Research and Technology                 295.9      338.1 (total)
  Research & Technology Base                  134.1      130.1

  Civil Space Technology Initiative (total)   121.8      144.5
    (Propulsion)                              (36.1)     (37.4)
    (Vehicle)                                 (13.3)     (36.0)
    (Information Technology)                  (15.9)     (15.6)
    (Large Structures & Control)              (19.5)     (18.9)
    (Power)                                   (11.1)     (10.7)
    (Automation & Robotics)                   (25.9)     (25.9)

  Pathfinder Program (total)                   40.0       47.3
    (Surface Exploration)                     ( 8.5)     ( 9.3)
    (In-Space Operations)                     (15.0)     (15.6)
    (Humans in Space)                         ( 6.0)     ( 6.3)
    (Space Transfer)                          ( 5.5)     ( 6.1)
    (Mission Studies)                         ( 5.0)     (10.0)

  In-Space Flight Experiments                   0.0       16.2

Transatmospheric Research & Technology         69.4      127.0

Safety, Reliability & Quality Assurance        22.4       23.3

University Space Science & Technology
  Academic Program                            (22.3)      35.0

Tracking & Data Advanced Systems               18.8       19.9

SPACE FLIGHT, CONTROL & DATA COMM.           4464.2     5139.6 (TOTAL)
==================================           =======    =======

Shuttle Production & Capability Development  1128.2     1305.3 (total)
  Orbiter Operationalal Capability            281.8      237.0
  Propulsion Systems                          582.2      727.3
  Launch & Mission Support                    264.2      341.0

Space Shuttle Operations                     2305.2     2562.7 (total)
  Flight Operations                           685.7      772.6
  Flight Hardware                            1112.7     1236.5
  Launch & Landing Operations                 506.8      553.6

Expendable Launch Vehicles                     85.5      169.5

Space & Ground Networks, Communications
  & Data Systems                              945.3     1102.1 (total)
  Space Network                               483.9      582.3
  Ground Network                              228.1      269.6
  Communications & Data Systems               233.3      250.2
===========================                 =======    =======


Copyright information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; 
e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded).  Send
correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #292
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Mar 89 13:12:50 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05838>; Wed, 15 Mar 89 09:19:24 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 15 Mar 89 09:19:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UY7aywy00UkTI2cU80>;
          Wed, 15 Mar 89 09:14:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.EY7apAy00UkZQU=E4P>;
          Wed, 15 Mar 89 09:03:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cY7al=y00UkZ0U9k4L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 08:59:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #293

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 293

Today's Topics:
	      shuttle observation/satellite mailing list
		       Shuttle Orbital Elements
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #284
		 Re: First concert from space--update
		 Re: First concert from space--update
    Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
	    Re: National Space Council (from: What's New )
		   Space station & stone-age units
    Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
    Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
			 Call Dial-A-Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 89 22:33:23 GMT
From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: shuttle observation/satellite mailing list


Hello!

Since there were a few requests, I'll keep everyone up to date on
the shuttle orbit over usenet.  

I run a mailing list type of operation which provides subscribers
(with elementary knowledge of astronomy) with weekly satellite
predictions custom-calculated for their location.  I'd be glad to do
shuttle predicitons this way for any one who wants me to.  Note that
the list is not limited to the shuttle; you can choose any satellites
you want.  In particular, most subscribers view Mir, and they are 
having lots of fun doing it.

If you would like to sign up, you MUST send me the following info.
Remember, send ALL of the below, because I am going to be in a rush
processing the flood of requests and may not have time to look things
up for you and/or write back.

The info needed is:

Your location name,
     latitude, longitude (nearest 0.01 deg), 
     elevation,
     time zone, 
     daylight savings time (I know the rules for the US, so US
	people do not need to mention this.) 
     which satellites you would like to see (I'll assume the shuttle with
	everyone, but if you would like more, say so.)
     email address, esp. if it is tricky.

Now, on to the shuttle.  With the current launch date, March 13th 1307 UTC,
the elements will be:

Epoch: 89072.785417
Incl:  28.5
RAAN:  198.1
Perg:  0
MA  :  0
Eccn:  0
M.M.:  15.863538
Rev.:  5

Rev.:  5

Remember, to see the shuttle well on this mission you need to be SOUTH
OF 40 degrees north, and NORTH of 40 Degrees SOUTH, and preferrably at
most around 30 degrees N.  If you live outside this band, you will NOT
see the shuttle unless you are a VERY experienced observer.  Also, the
Southern Folks will have to wake up EARLY, before dawn, to see it.

I'll keep you all up to date,

Rich N1FMM, fanatic satellite watcher

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 20:40:35 GMT
From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: Shuttle Orbital Elements



Hi!

Discovery launched at 14:57 UTC today, as most of you know by now;
here is the element set:

Epoch: 89072.8618056
Inclination: 28.5
RA of Node: 225.7024
Eccentricity: 0 (assumed)
Argument of Perigee: 0 (assumed)
Mean anomaly: 0 
Mean Motion: 15.863538
Epoch Rev: 5

Have fun!

Rich

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 15:22:03 -0500
From: kpmancus@bogey.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus)
To: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU, phoenix!kpmancus@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #284
Cc: space@andrew

	Good question.  It does seem that it should be dissociated
as it passes through, independeently of the tidal forces acting on it.
I have no idea whether there is a critical velocity for it to survive.
There certainly can't be any tension on the cable!

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 89 21:06:13 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Rick Wojcik)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1989Mar8.181638.1769@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Why [are space flights] "priceless"?  The Soviets have had no hesitation in
>putting a price on it.  They seem to feel that they have enough flights available that
>they can afford to sell a few.  They're right.

Soviet politicians, like ours, wish to exploit the space program to achieve
short term political goals.  Right now, it tickles their fancy to have the
appearance of routine space flights when our program is in disarray.  They
aren't just selling flights.  They are broadcasting a propaganda message.  How
much profit do you think they make by 'selling' their flights to to
Westerners?  This is not a commercial exercise.  It is a propaganda exercise.
And Soviet science suffers from these kinds of shenanigans.  (The CPSU has a
long history of trashing science in the interest of politics.)

Each space flight is priceless because we can only afford to support a limited
number.  We know so little about space and its effects on humans that we need
every opportunity to expand our knowledge.  We are still in the stage of
trying to find commercial value in space research.  We don't find out anything
by sending entertainers into orbit.  All we do is lose an opportunity to learn
more about a very hostile environment.  I believe that the survival of the
human race is ultimately at stake.  We might survive the damage to our
biosphere and the depletion of our non-renewable resources if we learn how to
colonize space.  Perhaps polluting industries can be moved off-planet.
Perhaps new sources of energy and raw materials can be developed.  There is
always the danger that space flight will be ended permanently because we can
no longer afford the resources to sustain it.  I hope that we can make manned
space flight commercially viable before that happens.  Send the singers up
later--when we really can justify the extravagance.  We are still trying to
bootstrap our space program.

>The Soviets already have a policy to the effect that the price is negotiable
>if the passenger will be doing experiments that are of interest to them, so
>in effect any full-fare passenger is paying a premium for displacing science.

Even Jake Garn did some 'useful' things.  But there is enough work up there so
that it is more cost-effective to let scientists perform the experiments.
They, at least, know what they are doing.

>Agreed that this was reprehensible.  However, it's totally irrelevant to
>what I was saying.  Senators do not get free rides on airlines.

Really?  You've never heard of political junkets?  :-)  What you mean is that
the airlines don't reimburse the government for our perpipathetic pols.  

>>... The space program is not, and never was, a profit-making enterprise.
>>We all wish that it could be, but it is still a research program.  The viable
>>commercial uses of space do not include public transportation and media
>>extravaganzas at this time...
>Speak for your own country, comrade. :-)  Truly spacefaring nations (there
>is currently one on Earth) can afford to use space for many purposes.

You insist that the space program turns a profit?  Do you have an estimate on
how much money it brings into the national treasury?  How much do you think
the Soviets are making?  This is indeed good news.

>Please read the following sentence very carefully.  The USSR is selling
>commercial flights into space, today.  This is a verifiable fact; call them
>up and ask them.

Call up who?  Pravda?  The Soviet Embassy in Washington?  The State Bureau for
Never Lying to the Public?  That's a branch of the KGB.  :-)

>At one time, there were people who were interested in taking it over and
>operating it as a commercial venture.  It's become a bit less attractive
>since, but US government policy has a lot to do with that.  (An airliner
>crash does not shut down an airline for 2-3 years.)

The 2-3 year shutdown took place, in part, because our politicians had turned
the event into a media spectacle.  We've had astronauts die before.  Their
deaths are as tragic as anyone's, but they're paid to take risks.  The point
of putting a civilian teacher up there was to demonstrate the safety and
competence of our space program.  The public really had their attention
focused on that flight.  Do you really think that this is the time to send up
a bunch of entertainers?  Another disaster with them, and you can kiss our
space program goodbye.  The idea of getting people to "take over" our space
program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it
was impractical.  It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free market
was the answer to everything.  Right now, space is a venture for governments,
not private industries.  We all look forward to the day when that changes, if
it ever gets a chance to change.


-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 89 17:27:22 GMT
From: uhccux!lee@humu.nosc.mil  (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

>From article <10644@bcsaic.UUCP>, by rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik):

"...  Send the singers up
"later--when we really can justify the extravagance.  We are still trying to
"bootstrap our space program.

What's 'bootstrapping', Rick?  When you expend resources in such a way
as to gain more resources, right?  The space program will be voted
more money by congress when congressmen think it will make them
popular to do that.  Then the way to bootstrap is to spend on
public relations and promotion so that space begins to sound fun,
because that's what our citizens value.  You're a serious minded
person -- if most voters were like you, that wouldn't be an appropriate
strategy.  But arguing for more funds on the grounds that it will
increase the chance we will have colonies before we make our planet
unlivable, which we surely will sooner or later, is just not
going to work.  I would favor a strategy that works over one that
sounds high-minded.

		Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 12:31:51 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Sirald@uunet.uu.net  (Andrew Lionel Dalrymple)
Subject: Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN


Question -- if they are to be shut-off, can they ever be
remotely reactivated?  Seems like such a waste shut them
down when while they still work.  Why not just let them
idle?

Landsat -- is that not what we need more of in the first
place to grab the wheather forcasts?

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 89 17:47:06 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: National Space Council (from: What's New )

In article <435@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
> > 2. A NATIONAL SPACE COUNCIL WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY PRESIDENT BUSH
> > to oversee the implementation of his space policy.  In a report
> > to Congress issued Wednesday, he gave the composition of the 10-
> > member council.  It will be headed by the Vice President and will
> > include several cabinet officers, the NASA Administrator, the
> > Director of the CIA, the Director of OMB, the National Security
> > Advisor and the White House Chief of Staff...
>
>... What does the Director of the CIA have to do
>with space? Oh, yea... spy satelites. Looks like they have all the
>spy and defense deptartment bozos on the 'council' and no scientists
>or space experts. This bodes very badly. Must mean that they are taking
>SDI seriously, to the exclusion of anything else...

I think you're over-reacting.  The idea is to get all the government
agencies with major space interests involved, and the scientists and
space experts are all with NASA.  With the exception (mentioned in the
original piece) of the President's Science Advisor, what other high-
level government bureaucrats speak for the constituency you're thinking
of?  Most government civilian space activity goes through NASA; that may
not be a good thing, but it's a fact.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, the military space budget has been
larger than the civilian space budget since well before SDI.

I agree that the proposed NSC lineup does not sound impressive, but for
different reasons:  it incorporates too many high-level bureaucrats who
will be unable to meet frequently, meaning that it will have a hard time
getting anything done.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 89 04:26:58 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Space station & stone-age units

According to a contact at NASA, the space station as it is currently
planned is going to have a mix of English and Metric parts.  This
means that they have to have two sets of tools, and other such 
nonsense.

According to that contact, this was decided when Dale Myers, a former
high official at Rockwell who is now the Deputy Administrator of NASA,
upon hearing that the space station would use metric parts said
"What?!, METRIC?! - Why that's UN-AMERICAN!", and decreed that
stone-age barleycorn & King George's shoe size measurements shall be
used on the space station.

Does anyone else have any information on this outrage?
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
Video 7                                   No whimper, no blast.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                 His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 89 22:50:39 GMT
From: portal!atari!apratt@uunet.uu.net  (Allan Pratt)
Subject: Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN


Dan Quayle, of all people, seems to have found some money to keep
Landsat going.  It was in the SF Chronicle of Tuesday, March 7, 1989.
He didn't say where he got the money.  (VP Quayle is Chairman of some
national space committee or other; others will know better than I.)

============================================
Opinions expressed above do not necessarily	-- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp.
reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else.	  ...ames!atari!apratt

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 89 17:23:07 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN

In article <1376@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes:

>Dan Quayle, of all people, seems to have found some money to keep
>Landsat going.  It was in the SF Chronicle of Tuesday, March 7, 1989.
>He didn't say where he got the money.  (VP Quayle is Chairman of some
>national space committee or other; others will know better than I.)

He got it from various government agencies that use Landsat data.  So
some customers are willing to pay for its operation.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 89 22:47:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: Call Dial-A-Shuttle


CALL DIAL-A-SHUTTLE      1-900-909-NASA

Space Shuttle Discovery is ready once again to take to the skies,
as well as outer space.  The five person astronaut team is
scheduled to ride Discovery into Earth Orbit on Monday, March 13.

The shuttle crew will test hardware that will help America build
Space Station Freedom in the 1990's and deploy a 19 ton
communications relay satellite.  The astronauts will also conduct
a wide range of experiments, from charting environmental hazards
around the globe to growing protein crystals in microgravity that
could lead to cures for certain medical diseases.  As the third
shuttle flight since the loss of Challenger and its crew, the
mission will further qualify space shuttle vehicles for safe and
reliable human transportation into space.

Dial-A-Shuttle based at Johnson Space Center in Houston will be
providing round-the-clock coverage during this exciting five day
mission.  You'll be able to listen to the astronauts talking live
to Mission Control.  When live coverage is not available, you'll
hear our informed reports and news updates, including background
information on the mission from space experts.

ALL ON DIAL-A-SHUTTLE.  1-900-909-NASA. 
(Toll charges apply $2.00 first minute, 45 cents for each
additional minute.)

For more information contact the NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY:
    Leonard David,  (202) 543-3991
    Charles Miller, (202) 543-1900

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #293
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Mar 89 15:02:09 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03157>; Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:45:50 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:45:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IY7yyNy00Ui3M3Z089>;
          Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:32:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.wY7yo:y00UkZA0s04T>;
          Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:21:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cY7ymry00UkZE0qU5r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:19:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #294

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 294

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Jan 2 AW&ST
			  Auroras seen in CA
		       Space News Mar 14, 1989
			  NORTHERN LIGHTS!!
			     Lunar Robot?
    Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir
		      NSS Hotline Update 3/10/89
			      star data
		      Re: Babies born in space.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 04:10:38 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Jan 2 AW&ST

[The summaries are going to be terser and more selective than usual
until I cut the backlog down some.]

Tentative restraint-of-trade agreement reached with China on Long March:
China will launch at most nine international comsats through 1994 and
"maintain prices on par with the world market".  All is not rosy, however;
Arianespace wants to know why Washington has been dithering for years on
similar negotiations with it, and the USSR wants to know why US comsats
can be launched on Chinese launchers but not Soviet ones.

Titov and Manarov are in good shape after a year in space; they were
walking hours after landing.  French doctor (participating because
Chretien came down on the same Soyuz) says they looked drawn and pale,
with problems maintaining upright position, on emergence from the Soyuz,
but were walking with assistance three hours later, and appeared nearly
normal (walking without assistance, with no special support clothing,
although still fatigued) two days later.  Whatever the Soviets are
doing -- intensive exercise before return is certainly part of it --
it's working.

Titov/Manarov/Chretien reentry delayed several hours due to computer
problems aboard Soyuz.  A new reentry program, intended to compensate
for the problems last September, had a bug.  A replacement program
was entered and reentry was normal, two orbits late.

Soviets revise Mars plans (subject to final approval).  1994 mission
will include orbiter, balloon, "small meteorological stations" on
the surface, and possibly penetrators.  One objective will be site
selection for a rover mission in 1996.

However, the Soviets will be doing something in 1992 after all:  a
lunar orbiter with remote-sensing equipment, to select sites for
future exploration.  A possible future mission is sample return from
the lunar farside in 1996.

USAF awards major design and technology contracts for ALS.

Fletcher has resigned, effective "at the pleasure of the president".
[No surprise, he was expected to leave.]  No word yet on replacement.

Considerable turnover in crucial Congressional committees; some worry
at NASA, although on the whole the changes are improvements.  NASA's
ambitious budget proposals will still get a rough time though.  Of
particular note is considerable feeling in Congress that too much
space-station money is being spent on hiring managers and too little
on hardware.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 06:54:11 GMT
From: Portia!hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@labrea.stanford.edu  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Auroras seen in CA


	There is a very large sunspot group tracking across the Sun
these days. I saw it by projecting an image onto a piece of paper using
ordinary 7X35 binoculars. I mean this group is BIG.

	I am told there was quite a good aurora display visible here
at Stanford from around 11:45 to Midnight PST Sunday night. The northern
sky up to about 30 degrees above the horizon turned bright red and purple.
Just a few minutes ago I watched a weak but discernible aurora visible
along the Northern Horizon for a few minutes. Then it died away again.
It was the wrong color (red-purple) to be city light glare (white-yellow).

	If you are interested in seeing an Aurora, but live too far south
to normally see them, keep your eyes open the next week! You may get
your chance! Good luck!

Flame:
	I missed the one last night because I was in my office. I'm
on the 5th floor above street level in an office bordering an exterior
wall. If I want to see the sky I have to take the elevator to the basement
and then climb up a flight of stairs. Stanford seems to have the idea
grad students are most productive in a proper cave atmosphere.
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 14:52:45 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space News Mar 14, 1989


Jonathan's Space Report

Mar 14, 1989 (No. 7)

Space Shuttle Mission STS-29 was launched on Mar 13 at 1457 UT from Launch
Complex 39-B, Kennedy Space Center. Orbiter OV-103 'Discovery' is
carrying out experiments on the effects of free fall on living
organisms, and testing components being designed for use on the Space
Station.

The TDRS-4 Tracking and Data Relay Satellite, owned by Contel, Inc., was
launched by IUS rocket yesterday from low earth orbit after it was
deployed from the cargo bay of the spaceship Discovery. The TDRS
satellite will enter geostationary orbit and replace TDRS-1 as the
TDRS EAST satellite.

Other events: (Source: NASA Two Line Orbital Elements and SPACEWARN)

Kosmos-2005 was launched on Mar 3 by Soyuz rocket from Plesetsk.  It
is a Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU) advanced reconnaissance satellite.

The Kosmos-2000 mapping satellite and the Kosmos-2003 spy satellite have
completed their missions and landed in Kazakhstan, USSR. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 16:31:04 GMT
From: iris!heberlei@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu  (Todd)
Subject: NORTHERN LIGHTS!!


I saw the Northern Lights last night from Sacramento (actually Davis).
The light was big and pretty darn bright.  Unfortunately, by the time
I got my camera loaded up with film, the light had faded.  My father
called me from Merced (in the central valley) to tell me about it, and
my friend's sister claims to have seen it from Santa Barbara.

What surprised me the most was that I didn't see it in the 11:00 news.
I haven't seen a paper this morning, so I don't know if they mention
it.  One of the biggest astronomical events (in my eyes anyways) this
year (maybe decade), and our local news crews miss it!

Will this solar activity be any danger to the people or equipment in
the shuttle?


Todd Heberlein
heberlei@iris.ucdavis.edu	128.120.57.20

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 89 19:30:00 GMT
From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@bellcore.com
Subject: Lunar Robot?


There is an article in the March 5th EE Times about a radio astronomy 
observatory on the moon that will be erected and maintained by a robot
vehicle.

According to the article:
  A concept designed by Battelle calls for a six wheeled, 3100 pound vehicle
  with two arms mounted near the front and a payload bay to carry 600
  very low frequency antennae that it would set up as the pbservatory in a
  crater on the far side of the moon.
  The vehicle would be powered by four radio-isotope thermoelectric generators
  with secondary lithium batteries for peak loading.  It would navigate over
  a 5,000 km range with an inertial navigation system with laser triangulation
  calibration.
  The vehicle will map the entire area before building the observatory. On-
  board sensors will help it avoid dangerous objects, and it will be designed
  to stop and await commands from earth if it encounters objects it does not
  recognize.
  The concept calls for speeds of up to 3 km/hour and a capability to
  negotiate slopes of up to 30 degrees, climb over foot-high obstacles and
  cross crevasses up to 1-m wide.
  The vehicle would be expected to operate on the lunar surface for 7 to 10
  years.

Does anyone out there have any idea on the likelyhood of this coming to pass?

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 89 12:48:34 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir

In article <330@electro.UUCP>, ignac@electro.UUCP (Ignac Kolenko) writes:
}also, why can't the u.s. send up a duplicate of Skylab?? like, if they
}did it once, why can't they do it again?? imagine, there would be no need
}to re-engineer a new space station, since they already had one design that
}appeared to work correctly. and according to the above quoted article,
}the u.s. would have the largest space station in orbit again!!! :-)

Except we'd first have to re-engineer the Saturn V*, which is not too easy,
as was discussed in detail here a while ago.  Also, I think the addition of
the next expansion module to Mir will bring its volume up over the volume of
Skylab (if it isn't already).

[*] Skylab was a modified upper stage of a Saturn V, outfitted with life
support, etc.
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 89 22:45:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update 3/10/89


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week 
ending March 10, 1989. 

Early Fri. morning engineers began the 56 hour countdown to 
launch of the first space shuttle mission of the year.  Countdown 
to liftoff of the Space Shuttle Discovery began at 12:01am EST, 
with a call to stations.  Monday's liftoff is scheduled for 8:07am. The
shuttle will deploy the $100 million Tracking Data Relay Satellite for
NASA as well as perform numerous on board experiments.   

President Bush, in a one page report filed with congress on March 
1, has outlined the composition and structure of the National Space 
Council.  The council will have four key responsibilities which 
include: Overseeing national space policy implementation; Review 
and recommend policy modifications to the President; Address major 
space related policy issues between civil and military space 
issues; Foster cooperation, coordination, technology and 
information exchange between civil and military sectors to avoid 
duplication of effort.  

In addition the council will include 10 cabinet level officials with
various jurisdictions related to space activities.  These positions
include the Nasa Administrator, Director of the Office of Management &
Budget, the Chief of Staff to the President, the assistant of National
Security Affairs, the director of the CIA, and secretaries of Defense,
Commerce and Transportation.   

There has been mixed reaction to the composition and structure of 
the national space council on Capital Hill. Advocates of civil 
space say that the appointment of Mark Albrecht to the position of 
staff director will skew the council in favor of the military space 
program.  Yet Rep. Bill Nelson said that the fact that Chief of Staff
John Sununus' inclusion on the council in combination with Vice
President Quayle's participation should create a better environment for
space policy decision making. 

Sally Ride, America's first woman space traveler, in testimony to the 
the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee 
called on Congress to support Mission to Planet Earth.
The program, which will utilize instruments on the future space 
station, polar orbiting platforms, and over 1,000 instruments 
deployed in the oceans and on land all over the world is estimated 
to cost between $20 to $30 billion dollars over the next 20 years.  
She stated that as well as understanding the earth system better, 
the ability to foresee drought, unusual rainfall patterns, and even 
detect concentration of fish will prove it has economic as well as
scientific benefits.   

Landsats 4 & 5, which were scheduled to be shut off by the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration due to lack of funding has 
been resusitated  by Vice President Quayle.  The $9.4 million required
to keep the satellites running through FY'89 will come from the agencies
that use the data.  Quayle, the chairman of the National Space Council
declined to say just how much was raised or by whom. 

Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has asked for proposals from 
commercial launch providers to launch at least three satellites 
with the possibility of launching 12 more.  In the proposal, the 
commercial launch servicer will provide the launch vehicle, 
facilities, personnel, and services associated with launching the 
missions into their required orbit.  Proposals must be submitted 
by May 8. 

A meeting in London last week called for a total ban on the use of 
gasses which destroy the ozone layer by the end of the century.  
This position was supported by the Unites States and the European 
Economic Community, but was resisted by the USSR, China and India.  
The USSR could not accept the recently discovered notion that CFC's 
are destroying the ozone layer, and wanted better grounded data 
before moving ahead.  China and India felt that they needed to use 
the gasses in their industry to catch up with the west and resent 
the west for using this crisis to hold back the economies of the 
developing world. 

This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space Society's
Space Hotline for the week ending March 10, 1989.   

We would like to invite everyone to call our Dial-a-Shuttle service
during the upcoming Discovery mission.  Hear the Astronauts and Ground
Control 24 hours a day during the mission.  Take part in the 
mission by calling 1-900-909-NASA (that's 1-900-909-NASA).  Toll charges
are 2.00 for the first minute and $.45 for each additional 
minute.

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 11 Mar 89 09:19:57 EST
From: Eric Harnden <EHARNDEN%AUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      star data

     Fairly recently, some mention was made of interest in obtaining data
on star positions in a machine-readable format. I have heard that NSSDC
has just installed a CD-ROM pre-mastering workstation. The first CD-ROM
developed by them conatins 31 astronomical source catalogs from the
archives of the Astronomical Data Center. The ADC documents and distributes
more than 500 catalogs of data for stellar and non-stellar objects, and this
first release represents the most ofetn-requested and scientifically
valuable data sets. Ecah of the catalogs on the CD-ROM is presented in text
file format and as Flexible Image Transport System tables. Complete docs
are included. The ADC CD-ROM apparently will be distributed to any parties
who can access disks mastered in the ISO 9660 format. This requires users
of IBM PC/clones to have the Microsoft CD-ROM Extensions Version 2.0.
Rudimentary browsing software for FITS tables on MS-DOS machines will be
provided by the ADC. Users on Sun and MicroVax cpus should make sure that
the OS can handle ISO 9660 format.

Eric Harnden (Ronin)
<EHARNDEN@AUVM>
The American University Physics Dept.
(202) 885-2758

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 89 01:38:49 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!robina@uunet.uu.net  (Robin Adams)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

In article <8Y42Wly00XokQ3qUUv@andrew.cmu.edu>, jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
> I would like to have some informations on the following subject:
> 
> What would be the reactions of an child conceived in space,
> who spend its featal time in space, is born in space, live a few
> years in space ?
> 
> Could anyone tells me if any studies have been made on the
> reaction of the immune system, psychology, agility under 0g
> conditions and problems that he/she would have on hearth,
> bornwith instinctive reactions... etc..
>
The holistic evidence is beginning to point to the fact that 0G is not good
for humans (-0G, not Space as a whole). Some mammalian studies (ref: COSMOS 
Mission Results / Ames / 89-18) have shown a decrease in immune functions 
(vitality?), a curbing of fast muscle response (agility), and a reduced testes 
weighting (virility). Most of this does not seem insummountable - Use of 
hormones, exercise, etc.

The good news is that there seems some evidence of enlightment in humans. More 
than a few astronauts seem to have got quite spiritual (even religious) after 
spending time in space. However, I'm sure that has much more to do with their 
changed environmental perspective as a whole than 0G.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #294
*******************


Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Mar 89 15:23:44 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04396>; Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:49:50 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0Y7yzSy00jZd01D1YW>;
          Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:33:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.YY7yrxy00UkZI0y05H>;
          Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:25:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <MY7yqfy00UkZ40wU56@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:23:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #295

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 295

Today's Topics:
		  Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation
    Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
		       Re: Babies born in space
		      Re: Babies born in space.
			Here they go again...
		  Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation
		      Re: Babies born in space.
		       Re: heavylift launchers
		      Re: Babies born in space.
		      Re: Babies born in space.
		  Re: E'Prime and news about Thiokol
			   Re: Lunar Robot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 09:40:57 EST
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation
To: MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU

I agree with Paul Dietz about this: 
	I don't think this proves anything, except that a 5-second
	delay means you cannot operate a Go-Kart at normal speed.
	Need I remind you that teleoperation of a lunar rover was
	accomplished years ago by the Soviets?

I met one of the Lunakhod drivers many years ago and he said it was
fun to drive.  Why are people so skeptical of telepresence when
successful control of systems involving delay are all around us?  I
think it is because of the myth that the mind makes direct contact
with the world through the body. Bad metaphysics makes bad
engineering.  Instead, one should consider a more realistic model of
how we interact with the world:

	The human sensory-processing-motor loop takes about T= 1/6 second.
	Therefore, with delay D, we can work at speed T/(D+T).

So, with 1 second delay, you should be able to work at 1/7 real time.

For an orbiting space station, with good communication, the delay
could be held to 2/3 second using geo relays, or to 1/6 second using a
chain of earth-based or LEO relays - so we could operate between 1/2
and 1/5 real time speeds.  There might be some special difficulties at
the 1/2 speed rate.  But I have seen no evidence that there are
difficulties at slower rates.

Such delays should be very tolerable, because the power and weight
requirements for a telerobot should be, I estimate, over 200 times
smaller than for a human.  If we also recognize that a person can work
attentively less than 1/4 time (6 hours/day), we have a payload gain
of over 800.  So, even with a slowdown of order 8, telepresence gains
us a productivity advantage of 100 per unit mass in orbit!
Accordingly, I believe that a telepresence-based space laboratory
could do the same or better at a much lower cost.  "Remotely-manned"
is better than either "manned" or "automated".

The telepresence equipment could surely be developed in 4 or 5 years,
because the engineering is not especially hard.  NASA should have done
it already, but it is never too late to start.

P.S	I propose the verb to "teep", for operating things by remote control.
	Teeping is fun and safe.	

	Marvin Minsky

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 89 00:52:45 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN

In article <1989Mar11.122307.18100@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1376@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes:
>>Dan Quayle, of all people, seems to have found some money to keep
>>Landsat going.
>He got it from various government agencies that use Landsat data.  So
>some customers are willing to pay for its operation.

I just heard about that, and was going to post but y'all beat me to it.

I'll have to look up that newspaper item.  The way I heard it, Quale
dug up about $5M to keep Landsat going for another couple of months.
Congressman George Brown (D-CA) has written a letter to Bush urging
that Landsat be kept going.  The letter was co-signed by a bunch of
congressmen; it might not be a bad idea to (1) find out if your
congresscritter co-signed it, and (2) give him an "attaboy" if he did.

(Why "of all people"?  You don't believe everything the newsdroids
on TV tell you, do you?)
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                                 "Hey, hey, ho ho,
Video 7                                       Western culture's got to go."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                        Stanford students and faculty.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 10:56:10 PST
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: Babies born in space

vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

> I'm not sure rats have enough brains to figure out how to
>accomplish zero-G sex.

Who needs brains when you have natural selection? :-)

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 89 07:11:43 GMT
From: jarthur!jokim@uunet.uu.net  (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

This is my first posting so please excuse any botches :-)

I vaguely recall (sorry, don't remember where) a study that found out
that fetal development in bird eggs involved the cells at the bottom of
the undifferentiated cell mass *always* differentiated into the head (or
some other specific body part--I don't remember).  The obvious
conclusion would be that gravity provides a sort of compass for the same
types of cells (neural, muscular, etc) to aggregate in the same place.
I think the source went on to say something about babies conceived and
developed without gravity possibly ending up as just a mass of cells.

I think the next shuttle flight (or one forthcoming) involves an
experiment about this.

John H. Kim
jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU
uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 89 21:43:27 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Here they go again...

I noticed an article in today's (3/12/89) NY Times about the shuttle.
The article comments on the tight schedule of launches this year due
to all the constraints from interplanetary launch windows, the decay
of LDEF's orbit, and delays so far.  The Dec. launch of HST is
described as "success oriented" (read: don't count on it).

The article observes that NASA is back to its old practice of
cannibalizing orbiters to get spare parts, a practice that the Rogers
commission explicitly criticized.  The MEC replacement for the current
launch came from Columbia.  Other examples were alluded to but not
decribed.  I guess buying an adequate supply of spare parts was just
too expensive.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 89 18:44:37 GMT
From: mist!ruffwork@cs.orst.edu  (Ritchey Ruff)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation

In article <553934.890311.MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>[...] NASA should have done
>it already, but it is never too late to start.

Well, some people at NASA Ames Human Factors are working on the hardware
for this.  Mike McGreevy and Scott Fisher have been working on a
"virtual workstation environment".  It includes 3D head mounted display
with motion and positional sensing, gloves that allow the computer to
track the hands (it's "shape"---finger positions---and its location)
and they are working on sound (so that as you walked around in the
virtual environment any sounds would seem to stay stationary).

They are also working in cooperation with JPL on a remote controlled
hand: you move your hand in the glove, and the robotic hand mimics
your action.

There was a Scientific American (10-87) that talks of this work.

They list possible applications like: 
	- ad hoc repair and/or retrieval of GEO-sync satellites, 
	- remote exploration of planets from orbit,
	- supervising automaticed robots.

>P.S	I propose the verb to "teep", for operating things by remote control.
>	Teeping is fun and safe.	
>	Marvin Minsky

I always liked "waldo" (trivia: which sci-fi author came up with this term?).

--Ritchey Ruff			ruffwork@cs.orst.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 00:42:58 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

_

	This is actually in response to several of the recent sci.space
articles about embryonic development in zero gravity.

In article <466@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jokim@jarthur.UUCP (John H. Kim) writes:
>I vaguely recall (sorry, don't remember where) a study that found out
>that fetal development in bird eggs involved the cells at the bottom of
>the undifferentiated cell mass *always* differentiated into the head (or
>some other specific body part--I don't remember).  The obvious
>conclusion would be that gravity provides a sort of compass for the same
>types of cells (neural, muscular, etc) to aggregate in the same place.
>I think the source went on to say something about babies conceived and
>developed without gravity possibly ending up as just a mass of cells.

	The problem with generalizing observations of birds, reptiles, and
amphibians to all vertebrates is that these vertebrates (and at least most if
not all fish) have very large yolky eggs whose cell division is distorted by
the yolk, which is itself influenced by gravity (it is heavier, so non-yolky
parts of the egg float over it.  Thus it makes sense that embryonic
development in these animals might evolve to take cues from gravity.  Effects
of gravity on Xenopus development have already been demonstrated, but of
course the effect of zero gravity has not been tested.  Thus, even this is
not necessarily an example of Xenopus (or its ancestors) having evolved
specifically to take a cue from gravity, but may just be an example of
development proceeding abnormally as a result of gravity in the wrong
direction.  Reason for suspecting the latter comes from the same experiments
showing the effects of gravity in the wrong direction, in which some of the
eggs are immune to these effects -- the immunity has been shown to be directly
correlated with rigidity of the cytoplasm of the eggs, which tends to prevent
the cytoplasm from being sheared out of alignment with the cortex (which is
what usually happens to eggs held at the wrong orientation).  I got this
information in personal communication with the principal investigators
performing these experiments and discovering the effect of cytoplasmic
rigidity:  Tony Neff and George Malacinski at Indiana University.  (This
information is also published, but I can't remember which journal it was
published in.)

	Even if the above-mentioned vertebrates do take actual developmental
cues from gravity, it is unlikely that mammals do so.  First of all, mammalian
eggs are very small (microscopic) and do not have much yolk, so forces of 1
gravity are unlikely to effect them unless they have a specific gravity
detection capability.  Even more important, it would be very detrimental for
mammalian embryos (other than those of monotremes such as platypuses) to
depend on gravity in order to develop properly, because they are carried
within their mother, which provides them with many advantages but also means
that it is impossible to guarantee a constant direction of gravity in any but
the largest mammals (and even these roll over occasionally) and impossible to
guarantee even a predominant direction of gravity in highly active mammals
such as tree-climbers and burrowing mammals.  Therefore it seems highly likely
that early mammalian embryonic development will be much affected by zero
gravity unless the physiological state of the mother is altered too much.

	The upshot of all this is that if you want to eat pork or beef in
space you need only have enough room to grow the animals (-: and some
appropriate device to alleviate the obvious problems that will develop in a
barn in zero-gravity :-), but if you want chicken or frog legs you are going
to have to import these items or bring a centrifuge.  8-)

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 89 21:45:57 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: heavylift launchers

In article <218100011@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>	I'm still missing something - why not start cranking out Saturn V's
>again? Would it be as difficult as building a new launcher? ...

No, but it's not orders of magnitude easier, either.  A substantial amount
of the engineering would have to be re-done, especially the development
and testing of the engines.  The Boeing/Hughes "Jarvis" study very badly
wanted to use Saturn V engines rather than Shuttle engines, but eventually
had to give up on the idea.  "When we dropped it, it broke."

Don't forget that all the launch facilities have been rebuilt for the
Shuttle, too.

>... Are the designs for the Saturn available to space companies? 

I imagine so.  What's lacking is the capital to do anything about it.
It would cost a lot, and there are no guaranteed customers.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 00:47:18 GMT
From: amara!khai@uunet.uu.net  (S. Khai Mong)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

What about the position of the fetus in the womb?  And the orientation of 
the baby during delivery?  Surely gravity factors into these.
--
Sao Khai Mong:   Applied Dynamics, 3800 Stone School Road, Ann Arbor, Mi48108
(313)973-1300 (uunet|sharkey)!amara!khai  khai%amara.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 05:23:32 GMT
From: texbell!nuchat!eliz@bellcore.com  (Elizabeth Nuchia)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

In article <218100013@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>	I saw a report recently that had a Get-Away-Special mission that was
>sending up half of a set of ``identical'' chicken eggs, the other half staying
>on the ground as a control group. While not exactly human development, I'd
>say it's certainly a first step in such research.

I believe that this experiment is a student experiment and will be flying
in the crew cabin middeck area.  Get-Away-Specials are not necessarily
student experiments and are flown in cannisters located in the payload bay.

The sponsor of the chicken egg experiment is Kentucky Fried Chicken.  It was 
originally manifested on 51-L, this one is a replacement.
-- 

Elizabeth Nuchia      Lockheed Engineering Sciences Company
uunet!nuchat!eliz     2400 NASA Rd. 1,  Houston, Texas  77258
(713) 334 6720	      I don't speak for Lockheed or NASA, and vice versa.

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 89 08:20:56 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: E'Prime and news about Thiokol

Bob Pendleton writes:
> ... What do you mean by "MX booster segment?"
> The MX is a 3 stage booster, none of the stages are segmented.

The configuration table I gave was incorrect.  Bob is correct that the
MX is a 3 stage configuration.

E'Prime (after talking directly to a company representative) is
using the first 2 stages of the MX configuration exactly as currently
manufactured.  The third stage will be contract/mission specific.

The strap-ons will be the same as the first stage.

I'm curious as to how E'Prime gets away with saying that out of 17 test
flights none have failed when Bob claims that the MX booster produced by
Thiokol has killed several people.  Were the ground tests a disaster followed
up by a streak of good luck?  What sort of quality controls were imposed by
Thiokol on the flight-bound boosters to make them so reliable?  What
additional safety measures were imposed by the Air Force?  Since a decent 
solid rocket inspection system costs a small fraction of a launch (only about
$2million amortized over many launches) I would guess E'Prime could afford
to put all Thiokol's boosters through their own inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 16:47:35 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Lunar Robot?

In article <191700020@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes:
>There is an article in the March 5th EE Times about a radio astronomy 
>observatory on the moon that will be erected and maintained by a robot
>vehicle...
>Does anyone out there have any idea on the likelyhood of this coming to pass?

It's just another design study.  Probability near zero in the current climate.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #295
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Mar 89 04:12:23 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA09616>; Fri, 17 Mar 89 03:18:16 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 17 Mar 89 03:18:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IY8=tHy00UkT41YU84>;
          Fri, 17 Mar 89 03:14:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YY8=ePy00Ui34=TE9C>;
          Fri, 17 Mar 89 02:58:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.0Y89MRy00UkZ43VE5l>;
          Fri, 17 Mar 89 00:22:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sY89I2y00UkZ03Tk4I@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 00:17:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #296

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 296

Today's Topics:
			 Soviet space program
		  Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation
			  CDSF Serendipity!
		  Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
		  Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
		    Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look
		    Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look
				Sanger
		     orbital dynamics & plotting
		 Re: Space station & stone-age units
		       Re: Black hole trolling
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 23:34:05 GMT
From: tramp!khaytsus@boulder.colorado.edu  (Max Khaytsus)
Subject: Soviet space program



 I am currently doing a project for one of my classes and would appreciate
getting some badly needed info.  (I assume this is the best place to post,
since there is no sci.ussr.space  :-)

 My project is on the history of Russian spaceflight and I have with plenty
of success researched the local libraries and goverment publications
offices and gathered information up through March 1986, but this leaves me
with a three year gap of information.

 Here's the information that I need:

 1) Soviet manned flights since Soyuz T-15a/MIR 1/Salyut-7 on 3/13/86.
    Names and significant acheivements would be nice too.

 2) Information on MIR 1 and whatever orbiting labs put up since then.

 3) Information of Salyut-7.  What happened to it?  At last note it was
    still a functional lab.  Were there more Salyut space stations later?

 4) Anything available on the statistics for the Soviet Shuttle, including
    a possible operation date.

 5) Any other big Soviet developments in space.

 I am unable to make my way to this group often, so a mailed responce would
be much better, but I will do my best to drop by here.  any help offered will
be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

                       Max

------------------------------------------
khaytsus@tramp.UUCP
khaytsus@tramp.Colorado.EDU
..!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!{tramp!}khaytsus

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 08:49:57 GMT
From: shelby!Portia!hanauma!joe@decwrl.dec.com  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation


	I remember reading an article describing how they train pilots
of Oil Tankers. They sit them in a very small very slow motor boat in
a small pond, and put HUGE delays on all the controls, like 30 seconds.
The article said that for a while the pilots would crash the boat against
the walls, etc, etc, but with a little practice they would learn to pilot
it exactly where they wanted to go without thinking.

	Your body gets by with the "huge" delays in our bizarre
electrical - chemical circuitry because the feedback loops can be
cut short in certain critical cases. If you start to burn your hand,
it jumps away from the heat literally before you have time to think
about it. You can, on the other hand, also override such reflexes by
conscious effort. Other more complicated things, like learning to shut
your eye when you hear a certain tone, can be "hardwired" into your lower
brain with a little practice. (Really!) Etc.

	Mammalian nerves carry signals faster than "more primitive"
life's did, and yet 100 foot long dinosaurs whose nervous system probably
took half a second to carry a signal from their hind feet to their
head and back evidently walked around on irregular terrain at respectable
speeds without tripping over their own feet.

	It seems to me that telepresence shouldn't be ruled out. We
just need to train people to get used to it, and learn enough robotics
to have some "reflexes" handled locally.
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 89 07:51:21 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: CDSF Serendipity!

We've had unexpected success!

The House Armed Services Committee is willing to introduce a bill
allowing the Air Force to support a Commercially Developed Space 
Facility to allow research in microgravity materials processing of
the next generation of semiconductor materials.

Please send expressions of your support to the Hon. Mr. Dellums and the
Hon. Mr. Bates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 17:40:10 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation

textbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@bellcore.com writes:
>Just out of curiousity, how does a commercial firm get EXCLUSIVE rights to
>a technology developed for the U.S. Air Force?

That's the question I've been asking of quite a few people and I have
yet to get a clear answer.  If anyone knows how E'Prime Aerospace managed
to get exclusive rights to MX booster technology, please leave a message
on the net or to me in email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 20:05:06 GMT
From: osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu!ryan-s@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (stephen)
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation


  
  Does anybody have any opinions about which of the small launch companies
(E'Prime, OSC/Hercules, Space Services, Amroc, etc.) have any chance of 
commercial success?  In talking to their broker, it seems E'Prime is having
some difficulties (although I'm not sure what they are), while we have been
hearing some good things about OSC/Hercules and Space Services (i.e. that
they have some customers lineds up).  Any thoughts?

.Steve

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 20:08:13 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look

In article <15453@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>Lawrence C Foard says:
>The big stumbling block in fusion energy has been instabilities in plasma
>confinement.  You try to compress a plasma in a magnetic bottle, and the
>plasma leaks through like it was made of cheesecloth.

Topology has a lot to do with plasma instability, for example,
Stellarators are very touchy, tokamaks less so and Spheromaks are
even ideally MHD STABLE!  Confinement suffers if the plasma energy
is increased (i.e. heated --as by absorbing power from particle
beams, RF, etc ) without also correspondingly increasing the energy
density (pressure) of the confining magnetic field.  The latter is
accomplished in adiabatic toroidal compression.

>This is the main problem with achieving pure fusion energy.  The pressures
>and densities which are required are so high, they are beyond technology
>for the foreseeable future (some people involved in the effort would
>dispute this).

This said "main problem" is machine dependent, and is true of 
devices --magnetic fusion devices-- that utilize externally applied 
pressure (usually magnetic coils) very inefficiently to generate 
thermonuclear plasma pressure.  In the CIT tokamak, for example, 
pressure of nearly one kilo atmosphere of peak magnetic pressure
produced by the toroidal field coils near the inner wall is necessary 
to stably confine a plasma of less than five atmospheres pressure.  
In the Spheromak the situation is somewhat reversed since the maximum 
pressure on the external conducting shell can be exceeded by plasma 
pressure on the minor toroidal axis by a factor of three or so.

We have proposed an advanced form of the Spheromak, the PLASMAK 
plasmoid, which contains all energetic (relativistic) currents with 
a plasma conducting spherical shell or Mantle which is located at outer
surface of the vacuum field - and impinging inner surface of a high
pressure gas blanket.  During a powerful formation EMP, the dense 
plasma Mantle is formed along with the central doughnut like Kernel
toroidal plasma.  The thermonuclear Kernel plasma is centrally 
suspended by its surrounding vacuum magnetic field and in turn
that vacuum field is trapped like a pupae in a cocoon by the
highly conducting energetic inner surface currents of the Mantle.

Within the Kernel energetic currents impart stability against
resistive modes as well as long magnetic lifetimes and excellent 
particle confinement times.  The Mantle makes it fluid (mechanically) 
compressible, and consequently pressures great enough to burn deuterium +
helium-3 or hydrogen + boron-11 appear feasible.  Power densities
could exceed multimegawatt per cubic centimeter, thus making this
concept the most compact of all power sources.  That means that 
operating "aneutronically" (no radiation), efficiently, and with 
both compact size and mass each of many other very useful 
applications would avail themselves to a commercial solution.   

Efficiencies, other properties such as ADSACH and comparison to other
devices are discussed in a special issue of "FUSION TECHNOLOGY"  for 
this month of March.  Article name is 'PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for
Energy Intensive Space Applications'.

The pessimistic prediction of a rather stodgy, tainted fusion future
beginning after 2050 is not so completely secure. IF PLASMAK(tm) 
technology proves out, aneutronic fusion can happen in as soon as ten
years, and it would then open space to an extension of the biosphere,
with a much cleaner earth resulting from economical replacement of
today's more polluting energy forms.  

		Sweepingly innovative ideas are never planned for
                      and therefore, can not be funded. 

+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 02:55:25 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look

In article <1114@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>We have proposed an advanced form of the Spheromak, the PLASMAK 
>plasmoid, ...
> ... consequently pressures great enough to burn deuterium +
>helium-3 or hydrogen + boron-11 appear feasible.  ... That means that 
>operating "aneutronically" (no radiation), efficiently, and with 
>both compact size and mass each of many other very useful 
>applications would avail themselves to a commercial solution.   
 ...
>IF PLASMAK(tm) 
>technology proves out, aneutronic fusion can happen in as soon as ten
>years, and it would then open space to an extension of the biosphere,
>with a much cleaner earth resulting from economical replacement of
>today's more polluting energy forms.  

Fascinating... Do you have any more information?  I'd like to take
a look at it.

Fusion power has been "Real Soon Now" ((TM) Jerry Pournelle) for as
long as I can remember.  Lots of tantalizing hints of breakthroughs
come and go (whatever happened to Migma?) but nothing ever seems to
come of it.  I'd really like to see fusion work!

I think, though, that pushing "no radiation" in an attempt to placate
those who run screaming in horror at the word "radiation" is futile.
The core group of these people is implacable.  Even though radiation is
going to be less of a problem with fusion than with fission, the
"problem" is not going to go away.  (If you're doing D-T fusion, you're
going to have a hard time avoiding some T-T fusion, too.) That's not to
say it isn't a problem that can be dealt with.  But then, the
radioactivity of fission plants can be dealt with, too, as the French
are so ably demonstrating.

Besides, I'm convinced that what's really behind a lot of the "No
Nooks" crowd is an agenda which does not include any sources of
electricity.  As Amory Lovins said, "It would be nothing short of
disastrous if we were to discover a source of cheap, clean, abundant
energy."  These people are going to be chaining themselves to the gates
of your construction sites no matter how safe and clean your plant is,
as soon as they perceive a risk that you might be sucessful.

As the whole fission flap shows, facts don't matter.  Public perception
does.  If we don't figure out some way to ignore the technophobes, in 
the same way that the Flat Earth Society is ignored, we're on a fast
track back to the 12'th century no matter how sucessful PLASMAK is.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
Video 7                                   No whimper, no blast.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                 His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 22:22:37 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Sanger

Science reports that the West German government has decided to fund
initial work on Sanger.  A concept which has been kicking around for a
few years, Sanger would use turboramjet engines to propel a winged
first stage to Mach 5, at which point a LOX/LH2 propelled second stage
 -- either an unmanned expendable cargo rocket (like Pegasus) or a
reusable winged manned vehicle -- would be released to ascend to
orbit.

This seems like a better idea than HOTOL or NASP: no need to take the
entire vehicle to orbit or to make the first stage capable of flight
at extreme hypersonic speeds.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 17:11:47 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!ecf!apollo@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Vince Pugliese)
Subject: orbital dynamics & plotting

Our research group is interested in obtaining
a package, or packages (PD preferable), that
marries both orbital dynamics and the plotting 
of such orbits. Any and all information would
be appreciated.
                 Thanks in advance,
                 Vince Pugliese
                 apollo@ecf.toronto.edu
                 apollo@ecf.utoronto.ca

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 01:35:32 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Space station & stone-age units

In article <266@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

>According to a contact at NASA, the space station as it is currently
>planned is going to have a mix of English and Metric parts.  This
>means that they have to have two sets of tools, and other such 
>nonsense.

This passes understanding.  However, it does bring up an interesting issue.
A month or so ago I made the heretical statement that the USA ask for
technical specs for Soviet docking and fastening interfaces and adopt them 
as an international standard.   Nobody commented on this.  On second
thought, though, there a third set of standards, those used by the ESA.

It seems pointless to establish three separate sets of standards for 
simple matters that will become very important to clients building 
commercial space packages - different types of onboard power, different
docking hardware, oddball connections, materials with dissimilar ratings
and physical characteristics.  Is there any move now to standardize
such user-interface criteria, so that it's possible to build one probe
and (in theory) fly it on whatever carrier has the best deal/time frame/
service?  

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 15:44:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Black hole trolling


/* Written  4:30 pm  Mar  6, 1989 by kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
	Easy.  The forces that hold a macroscopic object together are
electromagnetic.  They require the exchange of virtual photons between
the particles to be held together.  When the object extends across the
event horizon, the photons can no longer go from the atoms inside the
black hole to the atoms outside.  Thus the tether is neatly sliced.
/* - - */
Wouldn't that imply that anything going across the horizon would be reduced
to fundamental particles? The nucleons wouldn't be able to exchange strong
force particles (pions?), and the quarks wouldn't be able to exchange gluons,
etc.

But I've always thought that this is all moot, anyway. Given the prior existence
of a black hole (without worrying about where it came from), my understanding
is that due to time dilation effects, it would take an infinite amount of time
for anything to fall from (mostly) flat space across the horizon*. So, nothing's
fallen in yet into any black hole (assuming a finitely old universe). One might
also ask how fast an infalling object is going when it crosses the horizon,
assuming it fell from flat space.
-------------------
* `infinite time' for an observer in flat space, finite for the object itself


Alan M. Carroll          "And then you say,
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu     We have the Moon, so now the Stars..."  - YES
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #296
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Mar 89 05:30:12 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03167>; Fri, 17 Mar 89 04:05:12 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 17 Mar 89 04:05:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UY8A6jy00jZdE0pUIG>;
          Fri, 17 Mar 89 03:28:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.8Y8=way00UkZ43m05e>;
          Fri, 17 Mar 89 03:17:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sY8=vYy00UkZA3kU5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 03:16:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #297

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 297

Today's Topics:
		 Re: First concert from space--update
		 Re: space news from Dec 19/26 AW&ST
	    Re: National Space Council (from: What's New )
		       Moronic TV news coverage
		     Re: Moronic TV news coverage
		       Re: Babies born in space
		    Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look
		    Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins
		  Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 00:58:45 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Rick Wojcik)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <3436@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>... But arguing for more funds on the grounds that it will
>increase the chance we will have colonies before we make our planet
>unlivable, which we surely will sooner or later, is just not
>going to work.  I would favor a strategy that works over one that
>sounds high-minded.

We disagree (as usual, my friend :-) over tactics.  I, too, favor policies
that work.  Unlike you, I believe that such policies are not inconsistent with
ones that sound high-minded.  You and I both remember an era--under John
Kennedy--when high-mindedness got things done.  I consider your tactics to be
pandering, and ultimately self-defeating.  The public can always be fed bread
and circuses.  But if it is treated as capable of making responsible and
intelligent decisions, it might begin to behave as if it could.  Treat the
public like a child that needs to be coddled, and it will behave like one. 

-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 10:28:34 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: space news from Dec 19/26 AW&ST

In article <1989Mar13.034523.10259@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry
Spencer) writes:
>Art Dula, US rep for Soviet space products, reports that some US
>government agencies are buying Soviet space photos from Soyuzkarta via
>him.  He won't say who; "if I did that, they wouldn't be customers
>any more".  [. . .]

	I can see it now:  "_The New York Times_, September 7, 1990:
Intelligence Scam Exposed:  Heads Will Roll.  Associated Press, Washington,
D. C. -- Today White House Officials confirmed that an investigation of the
use of illegally-purchased Soviet satellite photographs by the Central
Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense is in progress.  In the
second of two hastily-arranged press conferences, President Bush promised to
'carry the investigation to the fullest extent,' and blamed the situation on
the Carter Administration. . . ."

:-) -- We hope. . .

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 16:13:34 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: National Space Council (from: What's New )

In article <241920f4@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>}... it incorporates too many high-level bureaucrats who
>}will be unable to meet frequently, meaning that it will have a hard time
>}getting anything done.
>
>Should we count that as a blessing?

I doubt it.  Their underlings will not wait for direction from up above,
but will press on regardless.  As we've seen in the last few years, that
doesn't work too well.  Whether it would work better with direction from
on high is a good question, but it could hardly be much worse.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 14:35:48 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@yale-bulldog.arpa  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Moronic TV news coverage



After watching another shuttle launch and flipping desperately between
channel 4 and CNN, I very much wish for a channel that would tell
the commentator to SHUT-UP during the launch.

CNN loves to play video games and share the NASA video feed (shrunk to
a tiny box) with a mugshot of some moron telling me useless crud.

Channel 4 had some bimbo saying things like: "Their waiting for the 
visibility to get better than 7 miles per hour". Or gems like "The
Challenger successfully underwhent SRB seperation". Arrrrgggghhh.

Can't I PLEASE hear and see the NASA feeds? Do we have to have the
lowest common denominator?

I fondly remember the days when good 'ol Walter Cronkite would
cut over to the NASA feed at t- 1 minute and STAY there until near
orbit was acheived. 

Please, please folks write your major networks and tell them to
shut the f**k up!  NASA folks, help!


    Paul K. Rodman 
    rodman@mfci.uucp
    __... ...__    _.. .   _._ ._ .____ __.. ._

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 02:25:05 GMT
From: ogccse!littlei!opoxsrv.i.intel.com!tim@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Moronic TV news coverage

In article <704@m3.mfci.UUCP> rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) writes:
>
>
>After watching another shuttle launch and flipping desperately between
>channel 4 and CNN, I very much wish for a channel that would tell
>the commentator to SHUT-UP during the launch.

In Portland, OR (Rogers Cable TV) there were two channels that had pure
NASA feeds (NASA Select?).  These were a local cable access channel and
(more importantly) CSPAN-II, one of the congressional channels.  I know
that the local channel was set to start the NASA feeds at 12:30 am pacific
time.  I don't know when CSPAN-II started their coverage, but there was NO
ancher person overdubbing, other than the official NASA lady (which you
would get even if you had a direct downlink from NASA Select.  Check to see
if your local cable has CSPAN-II (I watched it over the local channel because
the local had a jumpy picture).

Tim Forsyth
Intel Corporation
OEM Platforms Operation
Hillsboro, Oregon
tim@opoxsrv.i.intel.com

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 23:57:07 EDT
From: Colin Hunter <CHUNTER%UMAB.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <SPACE@Andrew.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Babies born in space

From:

m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu writes

> I saw a report recently that had a Get-Away-Special mission that was
>sending up half of a set of ``identical'' chicken eggs, the other half
>staying on the ground as a control group. While not exactly human
>development, I'd say it's certainly a first step in such research.

This sounds like an almost useless experiment if the intention is to
extrapolate the results they will obtain to human foetal development. Earlier
postings suggesting sending up pregnant rats were bad enough. There are just
so many differences between human and rat embryology (gestational period,
placental structure and brain development, to name but a few) that proposing
to use rats as a suitable model for human pregnancy would give results that
would be next to meaningless as far as humans are concerned. Pregnancy is such
a species specific phenomenon that the only model I would lend any credence to
as far as humans are concerned would be the chimpanzee.

The egg experiment could be of use in investigating avian (and maybe eve
reptillian) embryogenesis and would obviously be of interest if a colony
wanted to maintain chickens as livestock for food. Beyond that, this idea is
strictly for the birds.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 11:38:38 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look

In article <269@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1114@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>>We have proposed an advanced form of the Spheromak, the PLASMAK 
>>plasmoid, ...
>> ... consequently pressures great enough to burn deuterium +
>>helium-3 or hydrogen + boron-11 appear feasible.  ... That means that 
>>operating "aneutronically" (no radiation), efficiently, and with 

>... Do you have any more information?  I'd like to take
>a look at it.    ... . .  (whatever happened to Migma?) 

The reference noted in my previous article appears in a supplement 
to "FUSION TECHNOLOGY" which covers reviewed papers from The 
American Nuclear Society's Salt Lake Meeting on "The Technology 
of Fusion Energy".  The proceedings are just now being shipped 
by the printer to libraries and participants, although I have 
not yet received my copy.  The article title is: 'PLASMAK(tm) 
Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications'.   

The article also briefly discusses MIGMA.  Basically, progress on 
Migma has been quite steady to date.  However, it must reach several 
orders of magnitude higher plasma density before it will be commercially 
successful.  Each order of magnitude increase in density represents 
a new development or research challenge and an evolved MIGMA device.  
Each level requires millions of dollars and at least one or two years 
time.  Also, there is a chorus of theorists chanting "instability"
at each level of density, but so far so good.  It would be great
if Migma and the PLASMAK(tm) concept both worked.  The former
would be a sort of thermonuclear birthday candle, while the
latter, with its deca-gigawatt output, would be more like an
electric cutting torch by comparison.  


>I think, though, that pushing "no radiation" in an attempt to placate
>those who run screaming in horror at the word "radiation" is futile.

Not Quite so!!  That is not the engineering reason for greatly minimizing 
or zeroing the "radiation problem."  Let me explain and put aside the 
biological/environmental effects which can be discussed elsewhere. 

Certain applications need very high power density with little
cooling. To fly from the earth's surface to Mars surface and turn
around and fly back again within four to six weeks, requires an
extremely low mass but exceptionally powerful energy device that
can heat planetary atmospheric gases for reaction mass during 
boost phase and then "transform" to closed cycle electric power 
generation, which in turn drives a small reaction mass to great
velocities, i. e. a plasmoid accelerator interplanetary rocket 
engine. 

The very energetic (fast) neutron flux from a D-T reaction carries 
most of the reaction energy and would penetrate a dense gas blanket 
and deposit that energy in the inertial compression driven walls.  
The walls would not be insulated from the fusion energy as they would
be by a dense blanket gas in an aneutronic burner.  Consequently,
they would change state (i. e. melt to liquid or sublimate to gas
or plasma).  Therefore, NEUTRONIC burners (as with D-T) can NOT burn
at much power density. Tokamaks face the "wall power limit" and that
results in a few watts per cubic centimeter from the fuel plasma. 
Consequently, tokamaks are colossal in size.  By comparison the volume 
of the compressed thermonuclear plasma in a 60 hertz three phase (180 
pulse burns/second) 10 gigawatt PLASMAK burner is about that of a 
small plum.  

It is only natural that if the aneutronic fuel contains millions of 
times the energy per unit mass as common chemical fuels, then the burn
power density should also be substantially higher, and with a developed 
PLASMAK device it will be.   Yet there is no risk that it will
become unstable and ignite or explode outside of a controlled burn
that takes place in the normally functioning engine.  The fuel
itself is not dangerous.  On the other hand NEUTRONIC fuels such
as tritium or certain plutonium/uranium isotopes are hazardous. 

>radioactivity of fission plants can be dealt with, too, as the French
>are so ably demonstrating.

Hmmmm?  I understand they handle their alcohol a diluted sip at a
time so well, that, it is now impossible to find an imbibing French
continental who can remember the details of his/her own experiences 
in the second world war.  Handling is relative.  

>.. .   If we don't figure out some way to ignore the technophobes, in 

Probably a form of xenophobe.  I worry more about the investor
that a few years ago considered IBM clones a "really high risk," and
the tons of people apparently hooked on credit instead of piling up 
stock in companies on the cutting edge of technology. 

+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 15:08:04 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!regnery@husc6.harvard.edu  (George Regnery)
Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins

In article <125.24094E2D@real.FIDONET.ORG>, Dan.Charrois@f9.n342.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dan Charrois) writes:
> Hello there.  I have called your board a few times and have noticed these 
> NASA prediction bulletins up there.  I thank you greatly for making these 
> available to us via this network (to save the monumental costs of calling 
> long-distance all the time...)  However, I am stuck with a somewhat 
> non-standard computer (read not IBM-compatible).  Therefore, the software 
> which you have available on your BBS won't work with my system (a Coco) 
> and I'm at a loss on what to make of those bulletins.  It does appear 
> though as if it comes from a simple database of orbital elements for the 
> satellites...  I'm a programmer and thus could create my own version of 
> those programs which determine the positioning of these satellites. 
> 
  I have a CoCo 2 and converted a Basic program from IBM PCs to do what you
want.  It isnt too hard to make the conversions, because they both use
MicroSoft Basic.  The program will display all of the data, but takes two
screens due to the strange screen size of the CoCo...  If you have a CoCo 3,
the program from the IBM should run directly after width80, because the screen
size is the same and CoCo 3 basic is nearly exactly like PC Basic (except
Graphic Commands I think).  I have a lot of CoCo Software for Astronomy.  If
you or anyone else wants any, just send me a message...


-- 
George M. Regnery       ! Worcester     ! Albedo 0.39    ! Going on means      
regnery@wpi.wpi.edu  OR ! Polytechnic   !  --Vangelis    ! going far. Going
regnery@wpi.bitnet      ! Institute     ! (a good album) ! far means returning.
CompuServe: 73300,3655  ! (Worc, Mass.) ! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=!     --Tao Te Ching

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 17:08:34 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation

In article <12477749495031@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu> RYAN-S@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu (stephen) writes:
>  Does anybody have any opinions about which of the small launch companies
>(E'Prime, OSC/Hercules, Space Services, Amroc, etc.) have any chance of 
>commercial success? ...

OSC/Hercules seems to be going great guns; I'd bet on them.  E'Prime I
don't know about.  Space Services has a sounding-rocket launch coming up,
but they've been shopping for orbital-launch customers for a long time
without success; there doesn't seem to be anything *wrong* with them, but
nothing ever seems to happen.  Amroc is financially tight but making
progress; I question the need for their new rocket technology, but they
are making it work.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #297
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Mar 89 07:00:46 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00599>; Fri, 17 Mar 89 06:08:21 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 17 Mar 89 06:08:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gY8Bo2y00Vs1I1LU4E>;
          Fri, 17 Mar 89 05:25:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.MY8BhLy00UkZI3wk50>;
          Fri, 17 Mar 89 05:18:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY8BgWy00UkZQ3vE4u@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 05:17:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #298

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 298

Today's Topics:
		  JPL's Space Science Sampler CD-ROM
		      Re: Babies born in space.
		     hearing impairments in space
		       International Standards
	      NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
NASA and Japan sign Space Station Memorandum of Understanding (Forwarded)
		     Re: Moronic TV news coverage
		  Soviets and collapsing Telescopes
Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)
		       Re: Black hole trolling
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 13:26:04 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: JPL's Space Science Sampler CD-ROM

Eric Harnden wriets:
>   
>   Fairly recently, some mention was made of interest in obtaining
>   data on star positions in a machine-readable format.  I have
>   heard that NSSDC has just installed a CD-ROM pre-mastering
>   workstation.  The first CD-ROM developed by them conatins 31
>   astronomical source catalogs from the archives of the
>   Astronomical Data Center.  

I don't know if it is the same thing, but I just bought from NSSDC
a CD-ROM with several astronomical catalogs, tables, maps and planetary
images.  

The disk was produced by JPL and is called the Interactive Data
Interchange (IDI) 1986 Science Sampler Disk.  Apparently it is a
grab-bag of files collected during a workshop whose primary goal was to
test the feasibility of exchanging and collecting space data via
computer networks.  The files that made their way into the IDI disk are
a quite mixed lot.  Many of the files are random samples of larger data
sets that hopefully one day will be published on their own.  

The data on the disk (some 600 Megabytes) includes, among other things 

  * some star catalogs.
  
  * the IRAS (Infra-Red Astronomy Satellite) point
    source catalog.
    
  * a few radar and landsat(?) images of the Earth.
  
  * altitude maps (artificial images where brighter = higher)
    of the continental US, almost complete.
    
  * some images of the oceans (temperature and clorophyll concentration).
  
  * a table of planetary features (craters, mountains, etc) 
    with names and locations.
  
  * miscellaneous Halley Watch observations for comet Crommelin.
  
  * some geological maps and miscellaneous data for Mars.
  
  * a dozen images of Phobos (Viking? Mariner?).
  
  * a couple hundred Voyager images of Jupiter, Saturn, and their satellites.
  
So far I have only had time to browse through the Voyager images.
Note that these are RAW images, with all the pixel defects,
registration marks, missing scanlines, exposure errors, and so forth.
They are *monochrome* images (taken through several filters, though),
with 800x800 pixels at 8-bits per pixel.  (That is about 650KBytes per
image, so don't ask me to post them to the net!) Whether you will find
them exciting or boring will depend on how interested you are in
planetary exploration: their visual impact is is not great, but the
resolution is the best you can get on this planet. 

Obviously, you need access to a computer with a 
greyscale display and a CD-ROM drive to make use of this disk.
It won't play on a Videodisc player...

Bundled with the CDROM comes a floppy disk with IMDISP, an Image
Display Program written by JPL that runs on MS-DOS PC's with
VGA/EGA/PGA/CGA cards.  The package also includes a 60-page manual for
IMDISP and the IDI CD-ROM.  All this for $50 (Well worth it, IMHO).

It seems that JPL is preparing a (multi-volume?) CD-ROM with all
Voyager images taken during the Uranus encounter, which eventually will
be available through NSSDC.  

The address to write to is

  Attn: Patricia Ross, Manager, Request Coordination
  National Space Science data Center (NSSDC)
  Central data Services Facility
  Goddard Space Flight Center
  Code 633.4
  Greenbelt, Maryland 20771
  Phone (301)286-6695
  
Enjoy

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPACTDISCLAIMER: I am not a relative, employee, or stockholder of the
U. S. Government.  My only relation to JPL and the NSSDC is that of a
satisfied armchair astronomer.  Digital Equipment Corporation neither
endorses nor disawows the opinions expressed herein; quite the opposite. 
Any errors or omissions in the above should be regarded as valuable 
contributions to the reader's life experience.  Void where restricted
or prohibited by law.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 12:01:15 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!jack@uunet.uu.net  (Jack Campin)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

In all this attention to foetal development, the mother seems to been forgotten
about.  Since bones lose a lot of calcium in zero-G, and pregnancy requires a
lot of calcium for the baby, there may well be serious problems for her; and
some of the chemical fixes that might prevent decalcification are hazardous
to the foetus.

-- 
Jack Campin  *  Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND.    041 339 8855 x6045 wk  041 556 1878 ho
INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk    USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp
JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs     PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 17:38 EST
From: KROVETZ@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: hearing impairments in space

Does anyone have any information about how hearing impairments
affect performance in space?  I remember reading an article that
claimed some kinds of impairments give a benefit in terms of
balance, but I don't know if any experiments have been conducted
in a weightless environment.

Thanks,
Bob

krovetz@cs.umass.edu or
krovetz@umass.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 22:56:15 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: International Standards

>From article <4400@drivax.DRI>, by macleod@drivax.DRI (MacLeod):
> A month or so ago I made the heretical statement that the USA ask for
> technical specs for Soviet docking and fastening interfaces and adopt them 
> as an international standard.   Nobody commented on this.  On second
> thought, though, there a third set of standards, those used by the ESA.

Part of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project was the development of a new
docking adaptor.  I vaguely remember that the agreement for ASTP
included the provision that the new adaptor would be used in future
missions by the US and USSR.  Can anyone confirm or deny that this
provision was part of the agreement?  And does anyone know whether
the current Soyuz/Mir adaptors are made according to the ASTP
specifications?
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 21:47:50 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  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
RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS-29     
1 19882U 89 21  A 89 73.16458310  .00000249  00000-0  00000 0 0    77
2 19882  28.4613 223.2113 0023004 194.1713  98.3518 15.84881046    80
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 16:55:02 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA and Japan sign Space Station Memorandum of Understanding (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     March 14, 1989

Debra Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.


RELEASE:  89-32

NASA AND JAPAN SIGN SPACE STATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING


     NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher and the Ambassador 
of Japan to the United States H. E. Nobuo Matsunaga today signed 
the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the U.S. National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the government of Japan 
on cooperation in the detailed design, development, operation and 
utilization of the permanently-inhabited, civil space station, 
which the U.S. calls Freedom.  The agreement was signed at a 
brief ceremony at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

     Comparable MOUs with the European Space Agency and Canada 
were signed, along with an inter-governmental agreement, in a 
ceremony held at the U.S. State Department last September.  The 
MOUs signed between NASA and its three partners focus on 
programmatic and technical aspects of the cooperative effort and 
establish the management mechanisms necessary to carry out the 
Freedom program.  

     The MOU with Japan will enter into force upon written 
notification by each party that all procedures necessary for its 
entry into force have been completed.  Until then, Japan will 
continue to work under an extension of the MOU signed with NASA 
in May 1985 at the start of the space station program's 
definition and preliminary design phase.

     Under the agreements, Japan will provide the Japanese 
Experiment Module (JEM) to the Freedom program.  The JEM, to be 
permanently attached to the space station base, consists of a 
pressurized laboratory module, at least two experiment logistics 
modules and an exposed facility, which will allow experiments to 
be exposed to the space environment. 

     Experimenters will conduct materials processing and life 
sciences research in the laboratory module, while the logistics 
module can be used to ferry materials between the station and 
Earth and for storing experimental specimens and various gases 
and consumables.

     Space Station Freedom is an international space complex 
comprising a permanently-inhabited base and unmanned scientific 
platforms to be placed into orbit in the mid 1990's.  The mission 
of the Freedom program is to provide for the United States and 
its international partners -- Canada, Japan and 9 European 
nations -- a diverse set of capabilities permitting humans to 
live and work in space for extended periods of time.  

     The station will enable fundamental research in materials 
and life sciences, support observations of the Earth, its solar 
system and the universe and provide the on-orbit test bed for the 
development of advanced technologies necessary for human 
exploration of the solar system.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 18:03:55 GMT
From: csd4!mcp2@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Michael C Polinske)
Subject: Re: Moronic TV news coverage

In article <518@gandalf.littlei.UUCP> tim@opoxsrv.i.intel.com.ogc.edu writes:

   In Portland, OR (Rogers Cable TV) there were two channels that had pure
   NASA feeds (NASA Select?).  These were a local cable access channel and
   (more importantly) CSPAN-II, one of the congressional channels.  I know
   that the local channel was set to start the NASA feeds at 12:30 am pacific
   time.  I don't know when CSPAN-II started their coverage, but there was NO
   ancher person overdubbing, other than the official NASA lady (which you
   would get even if you had a direct downlink from NASA Select.  Check to see
   if your local cable has CSPAN-II (I watched it over the local channel
   because the local had a jumpy picture).

I don't know about the lauch coverage, but I do know that a public
access channel on our cable system has a continuous coverage of the
shuttle mission.  They have done this one time before also but I do
not believe they do this for secret missions.  In the corner of the
screen it shows something like this:

SCHOOL CABLE TV
NASA [LIVE]

It shows this even when I know that I saw it early.  so the cable
system must put it in.  I was wondering what network carried such
continuous, uncommentated (word?) coverage of a space flight.

   Tim Forsyth
   Intel Corporation
   OEM Platforms Operation
   Hillsboro, Oregon
   tim@opoxsrv.i.intel.com

--
|snail mail: Michael Charles Polinske	|email:	mcp2@csd4.milw.wisc.edu	|
|	     5730 North 68th St.	|			       	|
|	     Milwaukee, WI 53218	|Telephone: 1+(414) 461-3717   	|

------------------------------

Date:     15-MAR-1989 12:54:47 GMT
From: ZDAC131@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK
Subject:  Soviets and collapsing Telescopes
Site:     King's College London (U.K.)
Reply-To: ZDAC131@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK
Sender: Malcolm_Hey <ZDAC131@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK>

I recomend you read Scientific American FEBRUARY 1989 (Volume 260).
It contains a interesting article part written by Sally Ride,
titled 'Soviets in Space' (page 18-26).
This includes a few interesting pictures including a cutaway diag.
of Mir, and a large photo of a horizontal stacked Buran Shuttle on
its Energia in the hanger.
The articles main task is to sum-up the Soviet Space capability, and
establish a clear picture of the Soviet space plan. Nothing is left
to chance, with mention of nearly all Soviet rockets and Space stations
capabilities and roles etc. The picture painted is a worrying one,
especially when compared to the US.

Also in the same volume (page 10) is a light-hearted article titled
'In Memoriam', concerning the collapse of a 300ft radio telescope in West
Verginia in November'88. At risk of copyright, here is a short extract:

"Birds..liked to roost in the receiver horns, far above in the dish.
To avoid climbing up ...someone installed an electronic scare-crow,
a tone generator that produced cosmic sounding bleeps and bloops that
were audible all around the area. We would tell tourists that bleeps were
signals being received from space..and the visitors went away satisfied."
(Article by Tony Rothman)
                Malcolm

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 10:45:28 GMT
From: orion.cf.uci.edu!dkrause@ucsd.edu  (Doug Krause)
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)

In article <22768@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>     As a result, the STS-26 photographs captured details not 
>usually seen in Shuttle photography: for the first time, an 
>aircraft was photographed generating a contrail; individual 
>buildings could be seen in the Canary Islands; a line of 
>electrical transmission pylons was seen in southern Sudan; and 
>oil platform flares were seen in the Gulf of Campeche.

Could these be seen without the cameras?  I ask because we've
all been told that the Great Wall is the only manmade object
visible from space.

Douglas Krause            "You can't legislate morality" -George Bush
---------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine    ARPANET: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu
Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA   BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 14:12:27 GMT
From: sgi!shinobu!scotth@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Scott Henry)
Subject: Re: Black hole trolling

>  kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space :
> 	Easy.  The forces that hold a macroscopic object together are
> electromagnetic.  They require the exchange of virtual photons between
> the particles to be held together.  When the object extends across the
> event horizon, the photons can no longer go from the atoms inside the
> black hole to the atoms outside.  Thus the tether is neatly sliced.

This is incorrect. The definition of the event horizon is the point at
which photons cannot escape to *infinity*. This in no way implies that
they cannot cross the event horizon, they just cannot make it very far
past it (depending on how deep they started). The bonds between atoms
(nucleons) would begin to behave *oddly* as the energy of the virtual
photons (gluons) would be different as seen by the higher and the lower
(gravitationally speaking) particles. How oddly? Who's interested in a PHd
thesis (maybe only a Masters)? 

--
---------------------
              Scott Henry <scotth@sgi.com>
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #298
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Mar 89 10:24:14 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01140>; Mon, 20 Mar 89 09:33:22 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 20 Mar 89 09:33:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sY9EQsy00Vs1M1CU4e>;
          Mon, 20 Mar 89 09:14:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.oY9EFky00UkZI:OE5i>;
          Mon, 20 Mar 89 09:02:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY9EDHy00UkZQ-Mk4u@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 08:59:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #299

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 299

Today's Topics:
	      NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
	  USSR's Phobos II makes orbital adjustment at Mars
		  USSR's Progress 41 docks with Mir
	      NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
		     space news from Jan 9 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 01:04:03 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  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
RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS-29     
1 19882U 89021  A 89075.63222967  .00000000  00000-0  00000-0 0 00153
2 19882 028.4619 204.9202 0024308 220.5990 139.3286 15.84275610000486
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 89 23:34:39 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: USSR's Phobos II makes orbital adjustment at Mars

     On Mar. 15th the USSR announced that the Phobos II probe's orbit
was adjusted to make a closer match to the orbit of the Martian moon.  
This does not appear to be the final burn, which will occur shortly 
before rendezvous, but just an smaller adjustment.   Current passes 
(Feb. 19 and Feb. 28th) yielded closest approaches of 300 - 440 Km 
(188 - 275 mi), not as near as the 100 - 150 Km (63 - 94 mi) the 
Russians have been desiring.  After the final matching (about the end 
of this month) the Soviets will eject the main retro engine section, 
and last approach will be done using hydrazine thrusters.  Timing
for these burns will probably be set by the next set of pictures which
should quantify the orbits of both probe and Phobos much better.
    To date the only pictures that I have seen printed of Phobos were
in the New Scientist (Mar. 4).  That article also described the next
Soviet Mars mission, slated now for 1994.  This will use the Proton
booster (20 Tonnes to orbit), rather than the much newer Energiya
(100 Tonnes to orbit) due to the reliability of the Proton (standard
conservative Soviet design - Energiya has only flown twice).  The main
bus of the probe will be similar to that of the current Phobos probes,
but with two main orbital instrument sections.  The first, massing 
160 Kg (352 lbs), will observe the Mars itself, while the second, 40 Kg
(88 lbs) will inspect the solar wind around the planet.  Lander sections
will contain one or two balloon systems (probably French/Soviet designs),
which will use solar heating to lift off the surface and fly during the
day, then land at night as they cool for ground measurements.  There will
also be a couple of penetrators which will be implanted in the soil.
While the article does not state it all previous discussions have
noted that there will be two such probes launched to the planet.
Considering the loss of Phobos I that conservative approach will
probably be continued by the Soviets.
    The Phobos mission now within weeks of its most critical period -
can the Russians pull it off?  Nothing that I have seen in the past
few weeks says they will not.

                                             Glenn Chapman
                                             MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Mar 89 22:49:19 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: USSR's Progress 41 docks with Mir

     The Soviets announced the docking of the Progress 41 tanker with 
the Mir/Kvant space station Mar. 19th, after its launch on Mar. 17.
This will bring about 1 tonne of supplies and 1.3 tonnes of 
fuel/air/water to Mir.  This is the 17th supply craft, and the 26th
vehicle to dock to Mir.  A comparison of how much Mir has been used
over the older Salyut 6 and 7 space stations is that those previous
systems had only had 12 Progress craft each dock with them.  Also note
that Progress 40 left Mir on Mar. 5th.  This is a somewhat longer
time during which no Progress was attached to Mir than expected,
especially if they are going to get another cargo craft up before
the mid April crew switch off.  This in turn is indicative of
no expansion module being launched before that switchoff, as had
been originally planned.  Rumors to that effect have been circulating
for several weeks.
    On board the station Dr. Valrey Polyakov has just exceeded 202 days
in orbit, putting him in 14th place in zero G experience.  More
interesting is on the 14th the short wave stated that he had just
given the crew a complete physical.  In the 19th report again
Alexander Volkov and Sergei Krikalev (Soyuz TM-7, up for 113 days)
were mentioned as the crew, which will be coming down.  However,
Polyakov was talked about separately.  This is giving yet
more indications that Dr. Polyakov may not be landing in April.
In addition the replacement cosmonauts are now described as "another 
long duration crew", a term which has not been used for the Soyuz TM-7
team.  The term appears to be applied to cosmonauts exceeding 1/2 year
in space now.  Thus the new mission may be another space endurance
record mission, again confirming the good results of the year long
mission of Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov in 1988.
    When a nation has an operating space station it has the flexibility
to change mission plans in orbit quickly.  The US, Europe and Japan
will only have that capability only when they have their own home 
in orbit.

                                                   Glenn Chapman
                                                   MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 23:10:18 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  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
RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS-29     
1 19882U 89 21  A 89 75.88416932 -.00173436  00000-0 -74311-3 0   174
2 19882  28.4395 203.0386 0024478 222.6431 137.2274 15.84213241   522
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 89 04:33:08 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Jan 9 AW&ST

Cosmic Background Explorer, slated for Delta launch this summer, has now
been loaded with liquid helium in preparation for launch.

NOAA and CNES begin formal negotiations aimed at possible merger of
Landsat and Spot systems.

National Academies of Sciences and Engineering report to Bush says the
space station should be undertaken after, not before, long-term goals
(e.g. return to the Moon, manned flight to Mars) are selected... which
should be a high priority.

Soviets plan two consecutive medium-duration missions to Mir, pending
full analysis of data from the year-long mission.  The current crew
will be up until April or May, followed by a two-man crew which will
stay up until October or so.

Speaking of the one-year crew...  Soviets say:  "We're one step closer
to Mars...  Our initial observations of Titov and Manarov show they are
in great shape..."

Soviet Mars-mission planning is moving ahead.  One approach would be
launch of living quarters on one Energia, followed by the Mars lander
and the Earth return module on another, followed by fuel and nuclear-
electric propulsion systems on several more.  The total crew would be
four, with two going down to the surface.

AW&ST visit to Baikonur sees second Soviet shuttle orbiter nearing
completion, as well as test models of it.  Two test models had a
pair of unusual pods, resembling jet-engine nacelles but not in
the same place as the jet pods used on the atmospheric-flight-test
model (which also had the mystery pods).  The Soviets refuse to
explain.

Soviets comment that six people is really too many for Mir -- when it
had that many recently (the two one-year cosmonauts, two visitors,
Dr. Poliakov, and Chretien), it had trouble with temperature and
humidity buildup.  They say this will be remedied when the long-awaited
expansion modules are added.

Glavkosmos signs definitive marketing agreement with Space Commerce
Corp. of Houston [this is Art Dula's bunch], giving the latter
exclusive US marketing rights for Soviet space services, hardware, and
data.  SCC has been marketing Soviet launch services for some time, but
will now also handle Mir payload space, payloads on unmanned recoverables,
Soviet comsats, data from navigation and ocean-sensing satellites, images
taken from Mir, and Soviet space-program technical literature.  In the
past, customers like Payload Systems Inc. (which is flying payloads aboard
Mir) have dealt direct with Glavcosmos.  SCC is also arranging inspection
trips to Baikonur for businessmen interested in Soviet launch services;
there is considerable interest in public tours.

Trials of telephone service from trans-Atlantic airliners, using Inmarsat
satellites, will start soon.  Two British Airways 747s will be the trial
aircraft; the price will be about $10/minute.  Experiments are also
underway to evaluate automatic position reporting for aircraft via
satellites, which could greatly simplify oceanic air-traffic control.
Position reporting is easy to do because it needs little bandwidth
and cheap antennas (voice is harder, with current satellites).  The
major obstacles to satellite-based oceanic traffic control are not
technical but political:  traditionally, responsibility for traffic
control over oceans rests with the nearest country, to get the best
use out of limited communications range, and a more efficient scheme
using satellites and a few consolidated control centers would mean
loss of revenue, employment, and prestige for some countries.

First Pegasus launch (scheduled for July) will probably carry a Glomar
experimental message-relay satellite for DoD and a pair of gas-release
canisters for NASA ionospheric research.  Launch will be into polar
orbit from off Vandenberg.  The original payload plan was a cluster
of small store/dump comsats, but they have been postponed due to the
slight element of risk in using the first launch of a new booster.
This will be the second Glomar (an earlier one went up on a shuttle
in 1985); they are aimed at demonstrating feasibility of using small
satellites to relay data from (and commands to) small military sensors.
A particular application is data relay from antisubmarine-warfare
sensors scattered on the Arctic ice, to help track Soviet submarines
under it.  NASA jumped at the chance to use the rest of the Pegasus
payload for gas-release tests, several of which had to be dropped from
the NASA/DoD CRRES satellite when it was shifted from the shuttle to
an expendable.  This will replace one of two planned Scout launches
with canisters, which would have cost more and taken longer.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #299
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Mar 89 17:06:36 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04089>; Mon, 20 Mar 89 10:16:17 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 20 Mar 89 10:16:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cY9F1Vy00UkTM2ik5y>;
          Mon, 20 Mar 89 09:53:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.0Y9EwTy00UkZ8:gE4V>;
          Mon, 20 Mar 89 09:48:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4Y9Euby00UkZ8-ek4N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 09:45:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #300

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 300

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		     Re: Solar cells on the moon
		  Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
			      Re: Sanger
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 89 01:25:56 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #475 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 68.94840570 0.00000294           34341-3 0  1891
2 00424  80.4626  23.6487 0024405  28.5759 331.6713 13.67087650319256
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 74.45271146 0.00000001           10000-3 0  6975
2 08820 109.8128 197.9779 0044671 335.7756  24.0671  6.38661432 44643
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 68.04644161 -.00000005                   0  2341
2 10061   6.9162  69.4719 0006129 178.1090 182.0834  1.00268529  4377
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 69.73250309 0.00000012                   0   453
2 10684  63.5269 103.8596 0105781 200.4815 159.1665  2.00562739 66555
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 57.22359504 -.00000028                   0  9595
2 10893  64.5327 345.1109 0149391  28.2117 332.6106  2.00559810 79121
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 74.09045489 0.00000091           10000-3 0  6119
2 10953   5.7704  75.1189 0005449  44.9125 315.3038  1.00268491  1691
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 67.04562361 0.00001269           49441-3 0   881
2 10967 108.0137  79.3458 0001798 272.2250  87.8680 14.34359074559585
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 66.51382421 -.00000028                   0  9861
2 11054  64.0900 341.3052 0051928 117.7110 242.8546  2.00560710 76323
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 67.62051951 0.00000012                   0  1103
2 11141  63.5265 103.8557 0060586 322.7958  36.9243  2.00556827 75045
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 70.43411263 0.00001128           49240-3 0  8184
2 11416  98.5045  70.3576 0013464  36.4876 323.7239 14.25539196503974
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 74.51944929 0.00076066           16652-2 0  8796
2 11703  28.4905 216.0036 0005689 133.6979 227.3771 15.42682958505319
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 71.06309858 -.00000028                   0  8497
2 11783  63.8869 340.8455 0140384  62.0847 299.3608  2.00566819 65058
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 63.06867812 0.00000085           10000-3 0   532
2 11964   5.2447  74.8076 0024531  81.4499 279.5304  0.99401478   986
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 70.93583218 -.00000249           10000-3 0  7075
2 12472   2.2934  81.6721 0000847 310.0573  50.4614  1.00273426 27634
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 73.08728008 0.00061940           12101-2 0  4819
2 12888  97.5734 121.4367 0002429 123.0981 237.0917 15.47253811414228
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 67.58061359 0.00000237           20395-3 0  6288
2 13113  82.5415 138.7347 0015117 352.0579   8.0382 13.83950639351327
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 74.69913171 -.00027107          -70203-3 0  4764
2 13138  51.6073  54.2568 0002375  73.6903 286.5055 15.38497639393781
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 71.31539952 0.00000333           17021-3 0  7554
2 13718  81.2496  16.3080 0055004 275.2404  84.2509 14.13107860321878
IRAS       
1 13777U          89 69.37128844 -.00000012           42906-5 0  6192
2 13777  99.0494 267.8193 0012258 221.4519 138.5722 13.98546540312380
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 70.14476420 0.00000120                   0  9173
2 14050   1.0569  83.9331 0000675 276.1676  85.0792  1.00276083  5624
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 70.49271510 -.00000036           10000-3 0  3896
2 14129  26.5524 275.5927 6074543  24.7104 355.1329  2.05881509 15201
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 69.65747160 0.00000011                   0  6112
2 14189  63.1566 102.4423 0134266 215.0670 144.1057  2.00572118 41464
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 71.30770276 0.00000727           30922-3 0  6983
2 14452  81.1626  30.6265 0096040  16.5827 343.8463 14.22035837278779
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 71.63495049 0.00000596           14227-3 0  6686
2 14780  98.1824 135.6846 0002787 157.8185 202.3001 14.57151890267505
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 65.13902769 0.00002404           47669-3 0  4153
2 14781  98.0194 126.9038 0012236 287.7031  72.2822 14.63085604267471
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 72.51478339 0.00031196           64767-3 0  7806
2 14898  28.5085 127.5565 0002111 215.6622 144.4994 15.44285810276615
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 70.71069479 0.00000011                   0  6330
2 15039  62.8930 101.7093 0015810 277.7435  82.1364  2.00564408 34762
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 67.50354942 0.00000126           10457-3 0  9286
2 15099  82.5278  86.4572 0013590 153.1713 207.0150 13.83618331236192
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 72.60572609 -.00000028                   0  5936
2 15271  63.4119 340.5781 0100229 318.7815  40.5353  2.00565228 31911
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 68.93144955 0.00003143           46231-3 0  9870
2 15331  82.5321  70.0300 0026279  50.3370 310.0157 14.74953425239588
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 63.68378243 0.00000733           42252-3 0  3394
2 15427  99.1351  48.6326 0014333 246.4287 113.5380 14.11866355217703
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 63.27708110 0.00000235           20181-3 0   557
2 15516  82.5363  28.1973 0018316  52.3563 307.9256 13.84041130206544
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 75.15382893 0.00006245           17173-3 0  1966
2 16095  51.6134  52.0441 0002134  91.7578 268.5219 15.38524210393858
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 70.26808115 0.00000011                   0  3011
2 16129  63.6790 102.2941 0115375 150.6513 210.0660  2.00565165 25073
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 63.12955915 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8079
2 16191  82.5490 310.0375 0018928 199.8230 160.2158 13.16863227161692
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 73.99298480 0.00000266           22911-3 0  4676
2 16408  82.5361 294.5581 0016087 198.2880 161.7815 13.84134591162522
Mir        
1 16609U          89 74.66914503 0.00026498           21459-3 0  7422
2 16609  51.6236 113.1046 0011323 119.5498 240.6458 15.70511461176587
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 74.79621863 -.00032887          -15613-1 0  3953
2 16613  98.7051 150.6976 0001542  87.0811 273.0219 14.20033550 71443
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 63.75386668 0.00000400           35048-3 0  2817
2 16735  82.5417 329.4720 0013805 311.4532  48.5422 13.83871055140016
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 74.44016722 0.00009307           13813-2 0  5484
2 16881  82.5240 124.6148 0024685  48.3797 311.9501 14.74748993141479
EGP        
1 16908U          89 66.68751816 -.00000018           17735-3 0  1194
2 16908  50.0132 250.1037 0011436  89.1702 271.0451 12.44376385116772
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 67.55289774 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1333
2 16909  50.0189 247.6702 0011159  89.9444 270.2664 12.44398451116874
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 71.61016418 0.00000742           34688-3 0  2002
2 16969  98.6494 103.9071 0013641 166.0184 194.1374 14.22859192130203
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 63.88429834 0.00000143           12017-3 0  2287
2 17290  82.4660 237.4255 0012559 190.5351 169.5545 13.83670199109193
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 32.87866317 -.00000103           10000-3 0  2270
2 17561   0.0936 256.3952 0004029 308.3915 155.2428  0.99988189   408
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 75.17827854 0.00038911           31190-3 0  7015
2 17845  51.6293 110.4567 0010992 101.8930 258.8280 15.70555162112936
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 73.00439553 0.00000170           17573-3 0  6975
2 18129  82.9281 308.4778 0011363 323.2538  36.7918 13.71951210 86345
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 74.71553814 0.00110533  71046-5  16460-3 0  9312
2 18225  71.8798 306.2685 0010375 241.6358 118.3055 16.04635406 96301
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 64.04956588 0.00000249           21654-3 0  2478
2 18312  82.5573 302.0577 0012969 123.1953 237.0445 13.83435929 78111
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 74.70698855 0.00000371           32259-3 0   901
2 18820  82.5438 354.8413 0016596 166.6208 193.5467 13.84113443 56755
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 66.48753782 -.00000081           10000-3 0   312
2 19216  57.2987 217.0442 6676889 200.1058 111.0424  2.09707010  5605
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 71.04618470 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1499
2 19336  82.5420 244.4030 0017707  65.2762 294.9030 13.16852140 30126
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 72.75390703 0.00000734           42965-3 0   532
2 19531  98.9307  17.2754 0012555 136.8927 223.3236 14.10862315 24016
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89 75.17822463 0.00082710           65146-3 0  1145
2 19660  51.6231 110.4870 0014087 127.7999 232.6771 15.70602226 17251
1989 004A  
1 19765U          89 54.19227353 0.00000128           10000-3 0   339
2 19765   1.3989 275.6559 0003155   5.8146 353.6677  1.00268906   297
1989 005A  
1 19769U          89 55.10021662 0.00001025           40018-3 0   306
2 19769  74.0516 316.4605 0024727 272.7543  87.0772 14.30612361  4073
1989 005B  
1 19770U          89 50.86702685 0.00001455           54285-3 0   215
2 19770  74.0501 323.9885 0010082 334.3912  25.6812 14.32723153  1159
1989 006A  
1 19772U          89 55.48390477 0.00000159           10000-3 0   118
2 19772   0.2087 251.0704 0000423 199.4920 274.2401  1.00549883   274
1989 006B  
1 19773U          89 51.59748649 -.00000028           10000-3 0   223
2 19773   8.3619 304.3248 7193679 197.0819 112.5227  2.25492156   564
1989 007A  
1 19774U          89 62.29088547 0.00835695  34441-4  42765-3     888
2 19774  64.7310 224.9743 0118332 120.8668 240.4748 16.05799532  5440
1989 004F  
1 19776U          89 51.66873718 -.00000014           10000-3 0   157
2 19776   1.4337 275.9987 0024481 313.1242  46.1872  0.97994013   271
1988 095F  
1 19777U          89 51.96943673 -.00000106           10000-3 0   151
2 19777   1.2029 275.1382 0012733  74.3464 285.1558  0.97939774   266
1989 009A  
1 19785U          89 64.10007655 0.00000004                   0   152
2 19785  82.6210  21.7655 0013300 342.6503  17.4136 12.64001191  2848
1989 009B  
1 19786U          89 64.05975057 0.00000004                   0    90
2 19786  82.6234  21.8542 0002898  31.3906 328.7356 12.61808837  2212
1989 009C  
1 19787U          89 64.04615570 0.00000004                   0   103
2 19787  82.6141  21.8207 0005863 352.0436   8.0561 12.62575495  2829
1989 009D  
1 19788U          89 64.11153859 0.00000004                   0   154
2 19788  82.6184  21.7715 0009753 336.7874  23.2773 12.63354838  2840
1989 009E  
1 19789U          89 64.08980311 0.00000005                   0   131
2 19789  82.6106  21.7340 0016252 337.9437  22.0954 12.64579821  2692
1989 009F  
1 19790U          89 64.07632704 0.00000004                   0   108
2 19790  82.6190  21.7386 0019973 332.7979  27.2071 12.65340209  2845
1989 009G  
1 19791U          89 61.07567539 0.00000004                   0    64
2 19791  82.6136  23.8826 0035855 159.5753 200.6770 12.54767430  2435
1989 011A  
1 19796U          89 70.12140472 -.00000961           23892-2 0   271
2 19796  62.8312 155.6785 7351306 318.3537   4.7200  2.00603065   519
1989 011B  
1 19797U          89 70.37006797 0.12769756  42801-4  61542-3 0   507
2 19797  62.7603  63.4907 0045084 114.8928 246.3227 16.36287379  3980
1989 011D  
1 19799U          89 68.75865655 -.00000506          -29417-3 0    82
2 19799  62.8505 155.8716 7323117 318.2753   4.8050  2.04037207   494
1989 012A  
1 19800U          89 74.83654793 0.00360239  16930-4  88354-3 0   652
2 19800  65.8292 313.8043 1299279 135.3015 236.0662 13.24935973  3825
1989 012B  
1 19801U          89 72.57976900 0.00866603  17259-4  17207-2 0   557
2 19801  65.8366 318.4255 1247956 135.9891 235.1050 13.38327896  3530
GPS-0014   
1 19802U          89 70.93695796 0.00000015           10000-3 0   167
2 19802  55.1211 215.6503 0077655 186.9612 172.8939  2.01900521   472
1989 013C  
1 19804U          89 70.90285396 0.00300086 -25323-5  13233-2 0   351
2 19804  37.3343 195.0818 6017787 221.5148  72.4137  4.13532728  1008
1989 014A  
1 19807U          89 71.28462592 0.00001945           11644-1 0   297
2 19807  63.0119 339.2517 7422463 279.9523  11.0108  2.00627083   517
1989 014D  
1 19810U          89 65.81107676 -.00000255           62080-3 0   108
2 19810  62.9567 339.9715 7369174 280.0823  11.4029  2.07328796   419
1989 016A  
1 19822U          89 69.80598863 0.00027144           21343-2 0   231
2 19822  75.0950  98.3043 4331461 148.1647 247.6056  6.82203347  1152
1989 016B  
1 19823U          89 73.36878892 0.00959722  32847-3  36439-2 0   158
2 19823  74.5644  62.0285 0146876 122.6314 240.3979 15.72650683  3199
1989 016C  
1 19824U          89 69.49785080 0.00045100           34493-2 0   194
2 19824  75.0909  98.4320 4327449 148.2662 247.4149  6.83128512  1136
1989 017A  
1 19826U          89 75.09768636 0.00000354           38350-3 0   309
2 19826  82.9514 216.1894 0029278 215.1836 144.7754 13.71039891  3010
1989 017B  
1 19827U          89 68.87720873 -.00000094          -10878-3 0   284
2 19827  82.9506 220.7351 0024358 224.9208 134.9975 13.72510970  2159
1989 018A  
1 19851U          89 64.00231668 0.00000117           10000-3 0   114
2 19851  82.5185 242.1954 0013415 238.1615 121.8239 13.83754707   676
1989 018B  
1 19852U          89 69.21001521 0.00000116           10000-3 0    92
2 19852  82.5180 238.0499 0016562 211.5528 148.4640 13.83521605  1394
1989 019A  
1 19862U          89 75.13342138 0.00555426  40002-4  24662-3 0   407
2 19862  62.8054 342.4945 0122957  42.7842 306.6441 16.06397438  2156
1989 020A  
1 19874U          89 71.10990743 -.00000159           10000-3 0    32
2 19874   0.0915 350.2090 0022111 128.0584 241.8479  1.00289695    49
1989 020B  
1 19876U          89 71.42102676 -.00000092           10000-4 0    47
2 19876   1.1762 298.2176 0041723  30.5265 328.6898  1.00534537    49
1989 020C  
1 19877U          89 69.76624827 0.00049673           51558-2 0    92
2 19877   7.1750 330.3833 7322242 180.3416 178.5125  2.25166267    97
TDRS 3     
1 19883U          89 74.01620620 0.00000119           10000-3 0    23
2 19883   0.1556  42.6847 0021228 249.2811  67.7728  1.00432302    25
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 21:16:11 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Solar cells on the moon

In article <8902280411.AA08018@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>power storage (3 weeks or more). A pivoting solar array would cost much
>more than one just laid flat on high ground, and would only collect about
>60% more power (at the equator). It would, however, provide full power 

*ONLY* 60% ?  seems like a lot of power to give up to me.
-- 
Jim Benz 		     jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem 
University of Pittsburgh					 answers,
UCIR			     (412) 648-5930			 hang up!

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 23:35:52 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation

>From article <12477749495031@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, by RYAN-S@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu (stephen):
> 
>   
>   Does anybody have any opinions about which of the small launch companies
> (E'Prime, OSC/Hercules, Space Services, Amroc, etc.) have any chance of 
> commercial success?  In talking to their broker, it seems E'Prime is having
> some difficulties (although I'm not sure what they are), while we have been
> hearing some good things about OSC/Hercules and Space Services (i.e. that
> they have some customers lineds up).  Any thoughts?
> 
> .Steve

I'm biased. My wife and I own a bunch of Hercules stock. The joint
venture with OSC is a very small part of Hercules Aerospace divisions
total business. And Hercules Aerospace is only part of Hercules' total
business. I bought Hercules stock before they went into the commercial
launch business.

The other companies on your list look awfully iffy to me. But then I'm
a very conservative investor. 

			Bob P.
-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 17:12:29 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sanger

In article <1989Mar14.172237.29235@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Science reports that the West German government has decided to fund
>initial work on Sanger... turboramjet engines to propel a winged
>first stage to Mach 5, at which point a LOX/LH2 propelled second stage
>... would be released to ascend to orbit.
>
>This seems like a better idea than HOTOL or NASP: no need to take the
>entire vehicle to orbit or to make the first stage capable of flight
>at extreme hypersonic speeds.

Uh, well, provided you don't call Mach 5 "extreme".  Sanger has been
presented as a more modest, technologically straightforward alternative 
to Hotol, but that first stage doesn't sound modest or straightforward
to me.  The last big hypersonic aircraft was the XB-70, which was only
built for Mach 3 and was still mind-bogglingly difficult and costly.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #300
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Mar 89 08:24:24 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02445>; Tue, 21 Mar 89 00:59:12 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 21 Mar 89 00:59:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QY9Rtby00Ui3Q3uE8i>;
          Tue, 21 Mar 89 00:32:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.IY9Rl:y00UkZAB9E53>;
          Tue, 21 Mar 89 00:23:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QY9RhUy00UkZEB7k5l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 00:19:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #301

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 301

Today's Topics:
			      Re: Sanger
			Re: NORTHERN LIGHTS!!
			      Re: Sanger
		      Re: Babies born in space.
Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)
		 Re: Space station & stone-age units
		   Re: NASA FY-1990 Budget Request
		  Re: E'Prime and news about Thiokol
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 14:09:14 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Sanger

In article <1989Mar14.172237.29235@cs.rochester.edu,
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: 
> . . . Sanger would use turboramjet engines to propel a winged 
> first stage to Mach 5, at which point a LOX/LH2 propelled second stage 
> -- either an unmanned expendable cargo rocket (like Pegasus) or a 
> reusable winged manned vehicle -- would be released to ascend to 
> orbit.  

I would think that the greatest advantage an air launch would have
over ground launch would be initial altitude not initial speed. Mach 5
is pretty tough to achieve with a cargo vehicle and is only about 20%
of orbital speed so why bother getting up to that speed with your
launcher/first stage? Sounds like a lot more trouble and expense than
a traditional first stage, even after initial development costs.

Getting up to good altitudes might be useful, though, to get above all
that air resistance. Let the air help you instead of fighting you.
Design your aircraft first stage to achieve maximum altitude and
forget about speed except as it comes along as a free bonus.

Is the battle against high density air also a small percentage of the
effort and not worth it? How much of the work of an expendable first
stage could be done with an aircraft without significant design
innovation? Would effort be more profitably expended in going for
altitude or speed? What's the d/d$?

jim
symon@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 16:34:55 GMT
From: sunkisd!concour!patrice@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Patrice Scattolin)
Subject: Re: NORTHERN LIGHTS!!


>
>Will this solar activity be any danger to the people or equipment in
>the shuttle?

	I don't know aqbout that but what I know for a fact is that
the magnetic storm causing the Northern Lights is being blame for
a province wide power failiure that lasted around 7 to 8 hours. Apparently
the change in magnetic fields induces curents in the transmission lines
making the voltage fluctuate from 736 KV to 700 KV to 800 KV and resulted
in equipement failiures.

	They are pretty but they are trouble!



_____________________________________________________________________
Patrice Scattolin.		Concordia University, Montreal Canada
patrice@concour.cs.concordia.ca
"I live so far North that Santa lives two blocks down the street."

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 22:47:52 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Sanger

In article <7234@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
> In article <1989Mar14.172237.29235@cs.rochester.edu,
> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: 
> > . . . Sanger would use turboramjet engines to propel a winged 
> > first stage to Mach 5, at which point a LOX/LH2 propelled second stage 
> > -- either an unmanned expendable cargo rocket (like Pegasus) or a 
> > reusable winged manned vehicle -- would be released to ascend to 
> > orbit.  
> 
> I would think that the greatest advantage an air launch would have
> over ground launch would be initial altitude not initial speed. Mach 5
> is pretty tough to achieve with a cargo vehicle and is only about 20%
> 
I have done some back-of-the-envelope calculations to check out the
advantages of speed at release of the orbital vehicle.  (Note:  these
are only rough calculations, intended only to demonstrate a point).

In all cases, it is assumed that the payload is released at an altitude
sufficiently large to neglect most air frictional effects.  (Note 2.  This
perhaps implies use of rockets to provide the final acceleration of the
carrier vehicle.)

Assuming Isp = 400 (which gives exhaust velocity of 4000 m/sec)

   Mach # at launch       Mass Ratio
         1                  5.27
         2                  4.90
         3                  4.56
         4                  4.24
         5                  3.96
         6                  3.68
         7                  3.43
         8                  3.19

Mass ratio is the ratio of fuel and structure at launch to the mass of
the structure delivered to orbit.  

A few important features stand out here.  First, if you can get to
altitude where air resistance is negligible, the usable payload becomes
a large fraction of the launch weight ( 19% - 31% ).  Of course, you
have to then figure what fraction of the vehicle can actually be devoted
to payload and what is structural weight.  Second, like all chemical
rockets, trade-offs are an integral part of the game.  Accelerating the
'aircraft' carrier to a decent Mach number will eat fuel, which means that
the structural weight of the carrier becomes non-negligible.  Higher Mach
numbers require technology like air-turbo ramjets or such, which aren't
exactly off-the-shelf items, or rockets, which means dual power sources
and more parasitic weight.  In addition, atmospheric heating of the carrier
will necessitate some form of heat shielding, which increases the parasitic
weight.  Counting the carrier, the usable payload fraction is quickly 
diminishing to single digit percentages (or less!!).

As with all rocket design, the final configuration will inevitable be a
compromise.  Still, air launch does promise something--I read that OSC's
Pegasus gains about 15% in usable payload by air launch at Mach 0.8. 
Just imagine the gain if they had an XB-70 to launch from... :-) :-) :-)


**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

Useful criticism always appreciated.  Senseless flames always discarded.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 23:11:51 GMT
From: asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@noao.edu  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: Babies born in space.

In article <218100013@s.cs.uiuc.edu>, carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> 
>    I saw a report recently that had a Get-Away-Special mission that was
> sending up half of a set of ``identical'' chicken eggs, the other half staying
> on the ground as a control group. While not exactly human development, I'd
> say it's certainly a first step in such research.
> 
> Alan M. Carroll          "And then you say,

Yes, I heard about this recently. I believe they went up on todays launch
of Discovery [today is March 13, 1989]. 

But what I wonder about in these experiments is how do they know that the
results they get back on the space eggs are the result of the micro-gravity
environment and not some damage caused by the hi-g blast off and shaking?

If you hatch scrambled eggs do you get scrambled chickens? :-)




-- 
John Sparks      // Amiga  |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks 
               \X/  UUCP   |  >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 << 
 
Chicken Little only has to be right once.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 16:53:10 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                March 14, 1989

James Hartsfield
Johnson Space Center, Houston


RELEASE: 89-

DISCOVERY'S RETURN-TO-FLIGHT PHOTOGRAPHS RECORD MANY FIRSTS


     Earth observation photographs taken by Discovery's crew 
during America's return to piloted space flight in 1988 were 
among the clearest in more than 20 years, and they captured a 
variety of environmental conditions.

     Included in the astronauts' photography from the September 
1988 mission is a photograph showing at least a 1 million square-
mile smoke cloud over South America's Amazon River basin and, in 
Africa, evidence of flooding in areas that have experienced a 
lengthy drought.

     Due to an unexpected improvement in atmospheric clarity over 
the Northern Hemisphere, the Discovery crew could distinguish 
ground details about 700 miles away from their spacecraft, much 
farther than has been normal for Space Shuttle flights.  
Visibility over the Northern Hemisphere during STS-26 was the 
best since the 1960s Gemini Program flights.

     In total, the crew took 1,505 photographs of Earth during 
the 4-day mission.  Discovery was launched into an orbit that 
kept it above only the tropical and subtropical regions of 
Earth.  That orbit took the spacecraft over about half of Earth's 
surface, covering parts of 122 nations and regions that hold 
about 75 percent of the world's population.

     Photographs show a dense, white smoke cloud, the result of 
tropical forest, pasture and croplands being cleared and burned, 
completely obscuring the ground over much of South America's 
Amazon River basin.  If placed over the United States, the same 
cloud would cover an area of the country more than three times 
the size of Texas.  

     It is the largest and thickest accumulation of smoke ever 
photographed by astronauts, much larger than the previous largest 
smoke cloud photographed by astronauts over the same region in 
1984.

     STS-26 also photographed smoke clouds over Sumatra and 
Borneo, Indonesia, Madagascar, eastern Africa, northern Australia 
and Bolivia.  Some photographs show apparent irrigation features 
in the tropics -- in areas that normally receive 100 inches of 
annual rainfall.

     In Africa, the "green line" of vegetation that generally 
marks the southern boundary of the Sahara Desert had moved the 
farthest north it has been in astronaut photography since 1965.  
Also, standing water was photographed in the Sahara.

     For the first time in Shuttle history, Africa's Niger river 
was photographed in full flood and out of its banks.  Photographs 
of the Blue and White Nile rivers also showed evidence of recent 
flooding.

     Throughout eastern Africa, the landscape was tinted with 
green, a condition never before seen in this region during the 
Shuttle program.  Still, Africa's Lake Chad and Lake Nasser, two 
lakes that have long been studied by space photography, were at 
the lowest levels ever photographed by astronauts.  Since 1960, 
Lake Chad's surface area is estimated to have declined by more 
than 90 percent.

     The extreme atmospheric clarity over the Northern Hemisphere 
during the mission was due, at least in part, to the absence of 
major global duststorms.  Duststorms of million-square mile 
dimensions over northern Africa, even extending halfway across 
the Atlantic Ocean, were photographed during 1984 and 1985 
Shuttle flights.  But no such African duststorms were seen during 
STS-26, nor were major duststorms observed elsewhere.

     A lack of recent major volcanic eruptions, which cause dust 
in the upper atmosphere, also may have contributed to the extreme 
clarity.

     As a result, the STS-26 photographs captured details not 
usually seen in Shuttle photography: for the first time, an 
aircraft was photographed generating a contrail; individual 
buildings could be seen in the Canary Islands; a line of 
electrical transmission pylons was seen in southern Sudan; and 
oil platform flares were seen in the Gulf of Campeche.  STS-26 
also photographed the effects of Hurricane Gilbert on the Mexican 
Gulf Coast and five volcanoes with signs of eruptive activity.

     Earth photography from the Space Shuttle is managed by the 
Space Shuttle Earth Observations Office at the Johnson Space 
Center.  The office trains Shuttle crews in Earth photography, 
selects targets for photography for each mission and analyzes the 
resulting photographs.  In addition, research is conducted by 
specialists in environmental sciences, biology, climatology, 
geology and other fields using data obtained with Shuttle 
photography.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 19:36:39 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Space station & stone-age units

In article <4400@drivax.DRI> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>A month or so ago I made the heretical statement that the USA ask for
>technical specs for Soviet docking and fastening interfaces and adopt them 
>as an international standard.   Nobody commented on this.  On second
>thought, though, there a third set of standards, those used by the ESA.

I didn't see that message, but it certainly sounds like a good idea.
It's kind of like the IBM PC -- it may not be the best, but there
are more of them out there than there are of everything else
put together.  And certainly the Soviets have more docking experience
than everyone else put together.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt            Video 7            ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
There are  no perfect  power sources.   There is no  such thing as
100% perfect safety.  There is no such thing as zero environmental
impact  short  of the entire human race committing  mass  suicide.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 21:58:50 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NASA FY-1990 Budget Request

In article <1282@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu>, willner@cfa250 (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes:
>
>Here is the NASA budget request for fiscal year 1990 (beginning
>October 1, 1989).

>		     NASA FY 1990 BUDGET SUMMARY
>			(Millions of Dollars)
> 
>	    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

>Shuttle Production & Capability Development  1128.2     1305.3 (total)
>Space Shuttle Operations                     2305.2     2562.7 (total)

>Expendable Launch Vehicles                     85.5      169.5


Is it any wonder that the dream is dead at NASA?


William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 89 23:26:20 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: E'Prime and news about Thiokol

>From article <8903091638.AA05474@crash.cts.com>, by jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery):
> I'm curious as to how E'Prime gets away with saying that out of 17 test
> flights none have failed when Bob claims that the MX booster produced by
> Thiokol has killed several people.  Were the ground tests a disaster followed
> up by a streak of good luck?  

It was a manufacturing accident. While pulling the casting core out of
a motor something happened. Some how the crew running the operation
wound up un the bunker with the pulling equipment. Somehow the motor
fired. All the men on the crew were killed. Morton Thiokol settled out
of court. They also paid some large federal fines for safety
violations.

What it comes down to is that no one seems to know what happened
because all the equipment that was supposed to be monitoring the
operation was broken. Based on the little that was in the local papers
all the safety equipment was broken and had been for some time. It
seems the Air Force contract required the equipment to be their, but
didn't require it to work. So Morton decided to risk the lives of the
crew to save the cost of a repairs.

> What sort of quality controls were imposed by
> Thiokol on the flight-bound boosters to make them so reliable?  What
> additional safety measures were imposed by the Air Force?  Since a decent 
> solid rocket inspection system costs a small fraction of a launch (only about
> $2million amortized over many launches) I would guess E'Prime could afford
> to put all Thiokol's boosters through their own inspections.

I don't know. I believe that the Air Force refused delivery on some
motors. Not all the MX motors that were manufactured for flight
testing were actually launched. At least once the Air Force stopped
progress payments on MX to Morton Thiokol. They were not resumed until
acceptable motors were shipped.

			Bob P.
-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #301
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Mar 89 04:52:16 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01375>; Tue, 21 Mar 89 03:58:44 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 21 Mar 89 03:58:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gY9UPIy00Ui303t08m>;
          Tue, 21 Mar 89 03:24:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.AY9UJ1y00UkZMBQ05p>;
          Tue, 21 Mar 89 03:18:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IY9UHmy00UkZMBOU4-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 03:16:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #302

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 302

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SSI Lunar Probe
		 Re: Space station & stone-age units
			      Re: Sanger
			      Re: Sanger
			 Shuttle Experiments
		       Statistics and astrology
			    US/USSR costs
   New earthquake faults discovered with Landsat images (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 17:41:31 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: SSI Lunar Probe

In article <101270005@hpcvlx.HP.COM> gvg@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel) writes:
>SSI has several proposals for a Lunar Polar Probe.  By far the most interesting
>is one that would be launched from the Space Shuttle -- carried into orbit as a
>"getaway special" (GAS) cargo.
[....]
>The LGAS probe would be ejected from the Shuttle; then it would deploy its
>solar panels and begin a slow spiral away from the Earth that would place it
>into lunar polar orbit in about two years' time.

Well, if they don't get bending metal soon they'll be beaten to it.

The March 1989 issue of "Spaceflight", on page 83, reports
that the Soviets (who else?) intend to launch a probe called
"Luna '92" to map the lunar surface including the polar
regions to a resolution of a few metres.

The craft will be based on the basic design and systems of
the Phobos spacecraft and will carry cameras, gamma and
x-ray spectrometers, an infra-red spectrometer and a
magnetometer.

And on looking for volatiles on the Moon.

A TV Science programmme in the UK (The Sky at Night) last
week mentioned that a greek scientist has produced firm
evidence for the so-called Transient Lunar Phenomenon (TLPs).

He has taken a series of photographs which show what appears
to be a temporary bright cloud of material in a crater.

Examination of the camera and photographs appear to rule out
optical effects.

Some people believe TLPs to be the outgassing of volatile
substances like water from deep below the Moon's surface.

Comments?
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 17:19:59 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space station & stone-age units

In article <4400@drivax.DRI> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>A month or so ago I made the heretical statement that the USA ask for
>technical specs for Soviet docking and fastening interfaces and adopt them 
>as an international standard.   Nobody commented on this.  On second
>thought, though, there a third set of standards, those used by the ESA.
>...Is there any move now to standardize
>... user-interface criteria, so that it's possible to build one probe
>and (in theory) fly it on whatever carrier has the best deal/time frame/
>service?  

Ha ha.  Ho ho.  You really think there are standards within NASA and ESA?
It is to laugh, pretty much.  The only place where anything is standardized
is in places where multiple interchangeable parts absolutely have to exist,
notably modules for space stations.  It's not a question of reconciling
three standards, it's a question of reconciling dozens.

On the specific question of man-capable docking ports, things aren't so
bad.  There are only two or three standards for that.  The US space
station standard is probably the best for the users, although it's not
ideal for the vehicle designers (it's big).

There has been talk of international standards for manned-spacecraft
docking ports, but so far it's all just talk.

>It seems pointless to establish three separate sets of standards for 
>simple matters that will become very important to clients building 
>commercial space packages - different types of onboard power, different
>docking hardware, oddball connections, materials with dissimilar ratings
>and physical characteristics

Things like power may be hopelessly irreconcilable.  The US is hell-bent
on its insane 20kHz power system for its space station, and nobody in
their right mind will adopt that.  Certainly the Soviets won't; they
prefer cheap hardware that works.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 05:35:17 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Sanger

>This seems like a better idea than HOTOL or NASP: no need to take the
>entire vehicle to orbit or to make the first stage capable of flight
>at extreme hypersonic speeds.
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

If I'm not mistaken, the original concept for the space shuttle called for
a manned, reusable plane to carry the shuttle to an altitude from which it
could make orbit by itself.  The solid-rocket boosters were a cost-saving
plan when the budget got cut.

Wouldn't a re-activiation of this design objective be one of the least
costly and most safe ways of turning our technological duckling into a
technological swan?

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 17:17:39 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sanger

In article <78@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>... Still, air launch does promise something--I read that OSC's
>Pegasus gains about 15% in usable payload by air launch at Mach 0.8. 

As I recall, the velocity is a relatively minor consideration -- it's
the altitude that helps Pegasus significantly.  (It might be different
if a hypersonic carrier aircraft were available, but none is.)

>Just imagine the gain if they had an XB-70 to launch from... :-) :-) :-)

At least one study for a successor to the X-15 was figuring on using an
XB-70 launch.  This pretty much died when the second XB-70, the one of
choice for this job for some reason, got wiped out in a mid-air collision.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:36:45 EDT
From: Eric Wallis <347DODT%CMUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Shuttle Experiments

With all of NASA's budget cuts and cost overruns doesn't it seem a little(?)
ridiculous for our astronauts to be WASTING valuable time, and consequently
money, performing such useless activities as studying chicken egg embryo
developement and rat leg healing. Grante in the (much) distant future we
could gain valuable, aplicable, knowledge... but for now don't you think
this time and money could be used for more practicle, usefull purposes?
                          Respectfully,
                          Eric Wallis
                          Central Michigan University

=========================================================================
347DODT @ CMUVM.BITNET  * " May fortune favor   * " Houston, we have
ERIC E. WALLIS          *   the foolish...      * a negative on that
NO MORE BURRITOS!!!!!   * -- Admiral James T.   * orbit trajectory..."
CENTRAL MICH UNIV       *    Kirk ( NCC- 1701)  * --- Calvin and Hobbes
=========================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 23:44:50 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Statistics and astrology


>>It is in the nature of statistical evidence that it is hard to make an
>>absolutely final case, but this study would have to be a disappointment to
>>anyone seeking evidence for astrology.
>>Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists,
>>jeffrey@algor2.UU.NET or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
>>1788 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090
>What, pray tell, is the model for any of these planets having anything to
>do with base hits?
>Why would anyone waste time testing a theory without a model? Why not
>test for correlations with the insect population for that year? Or the
>average age of the guests on the Ed Sullivan show? Or, etc, etc....
>I'd be more interested in things like the effect of temperature, humidity
>or morning breakfasts on base hits....:-) 
>    Paul K. Rodman 
>    rodman@mfci.uucp

The forces described by astrology may not have any significant effect on
humanity, but the institution of astrology does have a strong influence.
It effects the views of a large part of the population toward science and
logical thought. The wife of a recent president scheduled important
government actions and decisions based on the predictions of an astrologer
(Read "Stranger in a Strange Land"). The Ed Sullivan worshippers, if there
are any, have much less influence on human society. Since astrology makes
claims about the future, its validity can be tested to some extent by
statistical analysis. In particular, it is plausible to infer that base
hits, which are of great personal importance to professional players, ought
to be influenced by the "astrological forces", as shown by correlation with
some astrological phenomenon, if these forces indeed have considerable
influence over human existence, as claimed by the astrologers. (The test
is more valid if it is established in advance that the players are unaware
of any astrological predictions while they play.) If someone is willing
to undertake this job at his own expense, it would appear that he is
performing a valuable service.

A similar experiment was performed a year or two ago, to determine whether
a specific cryogenic treatment would improve the mechanical properties of
tool steel. Test subjects used treated and untreated tools, without knowing
which was which, with the net result that no significant improvement was
found. Assuming test conditions were properly controlled, I would consider
this a legitimate scientific inquiry.

By the way, the moon, by providing variable illumination at night and
influencing the tides, has a demonstrable influence on animal and human
activity, on a month-by-month basis.
                                       John Roberts
                                       roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 22:53:33 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: US/USSR costs


>    I find it interesting in the middle of the manned vs unmanned debat here
>the Soviets maintain a continously crewed space station while sending at 
>the same time their most complicated interplanetary mission to Mars.  Maybe
>we should learn a bit from their style of space operations.
 
>                                                      Glenn Chapman
>                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab

One thing I would like to learn about the Soviet space program is how much
it costs. I have seen numerous postings on the net comparing the American
and Soviet space programs, but never a solid attempt to estimate the
actual cost to the Soviets of a specific launch or of their entire space
program. It is probable that the cost to launch a person into orbit is
less than that of the US, but by how much? I suspect that the quoted price
of $10 million for a launch is heavily subsidized. There are at least three
plausible incentives for maintaining an artificially low rate:
 - Prestige: It is politically valuable to be able to claim that you can
     conduct a manned launch for only $10 million.
 - Foreign Exchange: The USSR has only a limited supply of Western currency
     for the purchase of food, technology, and military secrets (at bargain
     rates). Thus a US dollar can be considerably more useful to the Soviets
     than its exchange equivalent in rubles.
 - Economies of scale: The ability to maintain a high volume of launches
     and to accelerate the learning curve (and possibly to discourage the
     competition) can make it economically attractive to sell products or
     services for less than the actual cost. This has been a favorite
     Japanese strategy for years.

Similarly, the Energiya is a fine booster, and has enjoyed two demonstration
launches, but this does not guarantee that it is not fabulously expensive
to build and launch.

To reiterate my main point, I have seen many *qualitative* comparisons
of the costs of the Soviet and American space programs, with the general
"feel" that the Soviet program is more cost-efficient, but unless there
is a reasonable estimate of the actual numbers, a *quantitative* 
comparison is impossible, and the usefulness of any resultant analysis
is severely limited.
                                   John Roberts
                                   roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 03:43:08 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: New earthquake faults discovered with Landsat images (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.               March 15, 1989

Mary Hardin
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 

RELEASE: 89-33

NEW EARTHQUAKE FAULTS DISCOVERED WITH LANDSAT IMAGES


     Several previously unknown geological faults, some of which 
may be active, have been discovered in the central and eastern 
Mojave Desert in California by geologists at NASA's Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., and Louisiana 
State University analyzing images from an Earth-orbiting Landsat 
satellite. 

     The strike-slip faults were identified by images taken by 
the Thematic Mapper (TM) instrument on Landsat 5, which obtains 
images simultaneously in seven bands at optical and infrared 
wavelengths.  Scientists used the TM images as a "map" which 
pointed them in the right direction to locate and confirm the 
faults in the field.

     JPL's Dr. John Ford, who helped locate and verify the faults 
in the field, said that "without Thematic Mapper images we would 
not have found the faults and TM images may enable us to find 
many more unmapped faults in the Mojave."

     The newly observed faults are located in and near the 
unpopulated Bristol Mountains and Cady Mountains.  Scientists 
have determined that the faults in the Bristol Mountains are 
overlain by unconsolidated alluvial fan debris (gravel) and are 
probably inactive.  In contrast, faults lying to the west (Cady 
Mountains) cut all deposits and are seismically active.   The 
faults all form part of a complex regional network of right-slip 
faults that run between the Death Valley region and the San 
Andreas Fault System.

     The newly observed faults are much smaller and less active 
than the San Andreas Fault but they all show evidence of a strike 
slip, Ford said.  During an earthquake, movement on a strike-slip 
fault is dominantly horizontal and parallel to the trend of the 
fault.  Scientists are now trying to determine how the newly 
observed faults fit into the regional structure in this part of 
the Earth's crust.

     The faults add new pieces to the geological puzzle of how 
the Death Valley Fault zone and the San Andreas Fault system are 
related in space and time.  The presence of these newly observed 
faults indicates that there are other yet-to-be discovered faults 
in the area.

     The research is being conducted by geologists, Dr. John P. 
Ford, Dr. Robert E. Crippen and Dr. Ronald G. Blom of JPL and 
Professor Roy K. Dokka of the Department of Geology and 
Geophysics, Louisiana State University.

     The project is funded by NASA's Land Processes Branch of the 
Office of Space Science and Applications, Washington, D.C.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #302
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Mar 89 09:02:46 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02007>; Tue, 21 Mar 89 05:31:52 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 21 Mar 89 05:31:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8Y9W9by00UkTQ1E0BZ>;
          Tue, 21 Mar 89 05:22:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.sY9W5qy00UkZEBpU5g>;
          Tue, 21 Mar 89 05:18:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4Y9W4Gy00UkZIBo055@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 05:16:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #303

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 303

Today's Topics:
			      Re: Sanger
			      Re: Sanger
			      Re: Sanger
			      Re: Sanger
		   Re: Soviet Space Flight Tickets
			Rockoon's (was Sanger)
		Manned vs. unmanned mission popularity
Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)
		  Re: babies in space (and 'waldo')
		       Re: Teleoperation delays
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #298
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 15:36:24 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Sanger

In article <78@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
> I have done some back-of-the-envelope calculations to check out the
> advantages of speed at release of the orbital vehicle.  (Note:  these
> are only rough calculations, intended only to demonstrate a point).
> 
> In all cases, it is assumed that the payload is released at an altitude
> sufficiently large to neglect most air frictional effects.  . . .

You don't mention the mass ratio for standing start at sea level
(considered common knowledge I suppose, but I'm just a voyeur) but
your numbers suggest to my envelope-back that the benefits of added
speed at launch probably don't warrant the investment in a Mach 5
launch vehicle.

> . . .  Still, air launch does promise something--I read that OSC's
> Pegasus gains about 15% in usable payload by air launch at Mach 0.8. 

And that's still down in pretty thick air, isn't it? So how about Mach 0.0 
at 125,000 ft. under a set of monster balloons?

jim
symon@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 22:41:26 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Sanger

In article <15877@cup.portal.com>, mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> >This seems like a better idea than HOTOL or NASP: no need to take the
> >entire vehicle to orbit or to make the first stage capable of flight
> >at extreme hypersonic speeds.
> >
> If I'm not mistaken, the original concept for the space shuttle called for
> a manned, reusable plane to carry the shuttle to an altitude from which it
> could make orbit by itself.
> 
> Wouldn't a re-activiation of this design objective be one of the least
> costly and most safe ways of turning our technological duckling into a
> technological swan?

The idea, while quite noble on the surface, is ignoring one basic fact.
We would have to admit that the shuttle is not the best system possible,
dig up the old designs, then sell them to Congress, which controls the
purse-strings.  Remember Congress?  That's the same group which gave us
the shuttle-as-we-know-it in the first place through budget cutting and
other political tricks, resulting in a less-than-optimal, compromised
vehicle.

A better idea would be, in the words of Henry Spencer, to have a private
vehicle which "embarrassed NASA and the Air Force" by its operation.
I.e., cheap, simple, and reliable.  (Sorry if the quote isn't quite
perfect, Henry! :-) :-) )


**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

Useful criticism always appreciated.  Senseless flames always discarded.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 21:07:45 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Sanger

In article <7284@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
> your numbers suggest to my envelope-back that the benefits of added
> speed at launch probably don't warrant the investment in a Mach 5
> launch vehicle.
> 
>  So how about Mach 0.0 
> at 125,000 ft. under a set of monster balloons?
> 

I just calculated the theoretical mass ratio, using the same assumptions
as before (i.e. negligibly small air resistance, Isp = 400).  If, at 125K
altitude, the air is negligibly thin, then orbital velocity can be
attained with a mass ratio of (roughly speaking) 5.75.

I agree with your point.  Unless Mach 5 can be attained VERY cheaply, then
it simply isn't worth the cost.  An additional point is that getting a
carrier to Mach 5 at high altitude would either require dual engines 
(i.e. turbojet and ramjet, turbojet and rocket, etc, ad nauseum) or something
akin to an air-turbo ramjet.

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

Useful criticism always appreciated.  Senseless flames always discarded.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 03:03:56 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Re: Sanger

> > >
> > If I'm not mistaken, the original concept for the space shuttle called for
> > a manned, reusable plane to carry the shuttle to an altitude from which it
> > could make orbit by itself.
> > Wouldn't a re-activiation of this design objective be one of the least
> > costly and most safe ways of turning our technological duckling into a
> > technological swan?
> ...
> We would have to admit that the shuttle is not the best system possible,
> dig up the old designs, then sell them to Congress, which controls the
> purse-strings.  Remember Congress?  That's the same group which gave us
> the shuttle-as-we-know-it in the first place through budget cutting and
> other political tricks, resulting in a less-than-optimal, compromised
> vehicle.
> 
  Not exactly. Congress , while by no means blameless, did not turn the 
shuttle into a hodgepodge of fiscal compromises.  Blame Dick Nixon, who
got Congress to cut the shuttle budget in half TWICE. 

History shows that the President, not Congress, is the principal architect
of space policy , and that Congress generally gives him the program he wants.
JFK wanted a big space program , he got it.  LBJ carried on the legacy, 
Congress went along.  Nixon didn't want much of a space program and Congress
was quite willing to cut Apollo 18-20, chop the shuttle development budget.

                     Marc Bonin

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1989 12:44-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Flight Tickets

> Call up who?  Pravda?  The Soviet Embassy in Washington?  The State Bureau
> for Never Lying to the Public?  That's a branch of the KGB.  :-)

No. Call Up Art Dula in Houston. His company is the US sales rep. for
Glavkosmos.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 07:32:36 GMT
From: uxc!garcon!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Andrew Higgins)
Subject: Rockoon's (was Sanger)

In article <7284@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) 
writes:

> your numbers suggest to my envelope-back that the benefits of added
> speed at launch probably don't warrant the investment in a Mach 5
> launch vehicle.
> 
> So how about Mach 0.0 
> at 125,000 ft. under a set of monster balloons?

This idea of a "rockoon" has been around for quite a while.  It was 
pioneered by Dr. James Van Allen (forgive me, Henry) in 1952 for cosmic ray 
research.

In 1957, the Air Force fired a series of balloon-suspended rockets into 
space.  Known as Project Farside, the experiments were a pioneering 
achievement and succeeded in setting an altitude record which remained 
unbroken even after Sputnik I.

The Farside vehicle was lifted to an altitude of 100,000 ft by a large 
helium-filled polyethylene balloon.  The rocket itself consisted of four 
solid fueled stages (Thiokol Recruits and Arrow II's) with a small (4 X 6 
inches) payload package.

The six Farside tests were conducted from the remote Eniwetok Atoll (yes, 
the same as the first megaton H-bomb test) at the Marshall Islands in the 
Fall of 1957.  The balloon-rocket assembly took two hours to rise to the 
designated altitude.  The rockets were spectacularly launched *through* the 
balloon (the Air Force captured some impressive ground based pictures).  
Because the rocket was already above 90% of the Earth's atmosphere, the 
vehicle was allowed to accelerated at a rate which would burn up a similar 
ground launched vehicle.  The total duration of powered flight was around 
30 seconds.

Unfortunately, the rocket traveled too fast for radar tracking, so altitude 
was judged by crude optical and radio means.  The highest officially 
recorded altitude was 3,100 miles, although the vehicle could have easily 
reached 4,000 miles.

The payloads on the Farside rockets were alternated between magnetometers 
and Geiger counters.  Had the most successful Farside launch carried a 
Geiger counter rather than a magnetometer, it very likely would have 
discovered the Van Allen radiation belts.

More elaborate plans were drawn up for Farside II, which would have been 
able to deliver a payload to the Moon, thus living true to its name.  
Farside II, however, was not able to compete with the Thor Able Moon 
rocket, which was chosen for the job in January 1958.  Farside II never got 
farther than the design stage.

After the IGY, larger rockets became more accessible, and the ideal of 
balloon launched rockets slipped out of vogue, with the exception of a 
single Japanese firing in 1961.  The Japanese continue to use balloons to 
test launch scaled models of the H-II.
--
Andrew J. Higgins	             | Illini Space Development Society
404 1/2 E. White St apt 3            | a chapter of the National Space Society
Champaign IL  61820                  | at the University of Illinois
phone:  (217) 359-0056               | P.O. Box 2255 Station A
e-mail: ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu | Champaign IL  61825
                 ^^^^^^
"When the Waters were dried an' the earth did appear,...The Lord He created
 the Engineer"
 - Rudyard Kipling

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 10:11:21 PST
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Manned vs. unmanned mission popularity

Noticing the attention in the media to the shuttle mission, and the comments 
from the politicians (such as Bush's recommitment to the space station), I
have to wonder about the unknowable value to the space program that this
constitutes, and compare it to what I've seen for unmanned missions: were the
first encounters with the planets Saturn and Uranus the banner items on the
network news?  Did they prompt talk from politicians about specific missions
that should be funded?  Oh, I know talk is cheap on Capitol Hill, but it's
a step up from silence.

With the attention that Y.A.S.M. (yet another shuttle mission) gets from the
public, it doesn't seem likely that carrying out unmanned but economical
missions until we can "afford" manned missions would be a viable strategy,
because of the precipitous drop in support ("Why should we give you money
for lunar colonies when you're just going to spend it on an asteroid sampling
mission?") it would engender.  Note that this does not translate into an
endorsement of the U.S. space shuttle.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 10:41:08 PST
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)

orion.cf.uci.edu!dkrause@ucsd.edu  (Doug Krause) writes:

>In article <22768@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>>     As a result, the STS-26 photographs captured details not 
>>usually seen in Shuttle photography: for the first time, an 
>>aircraft was photographed generating a contrail; individual 
>>buildings could be seen in the Canary Islands; a line of 
>>electrical transmission pylons was seen in southern Sudan; and 
>>oil platform flares were seen in the Gulf of Campeche.

>Could these be seen without the cameras?  I ask because we've
>all been told that the Great Wall is the only manmade object
>visible from space.

Depends how good your eyesight is... 8-)

I don't know how the Great Wall thing got started, but I'm sure that you
need a telescope to see it, in which case the field is wide open.

pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 17 Mar 89 07:30:14 EST
From: Eric Harnden <EHARNDEN%AUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: babies in space (and 'waldo')

this, like other input on the subject, has no direct bearing on human
embryo development, but is interesting: i understand that frog eggs,
or some order like that, will develop on their own into (haploid?..
one set of genes) animals, if pricked with a pin, and that their
orientation is determined by the position of the rupture.

yes, the name 'waldo' will have to stick... after all, they're already in
use. devices controlled by remote communications have the hobbyist's name
of RC, and that might well become the functional term for what's being
described. it really all depends on what the people who are building  the
things do with their spare time.. that often is the source for new
nomenclature (i mean.. 'quarks' for crying out loud!). the name 'waldo'
comes from robert a. heinlein, and was the name of the central character
in the story of the same name, about a paralyzed man who invents the device
for his own use.
more to the point... i think that it's inevitable that such things will come
into use, and i'm not really sure why there is a 'debate' for mr. minsky to
reply to... but i think that, while his data is of course correct, there is
a point missing. the delay time is real, and has one of two possible results.
the delay will either require that the operator think D time ahead (where D
is the *cumulative* roundtrip delay), which may be possible for simply driving
a motorized device across a land/station-scape, or, when the imprecision
inherent in such a mode is unacceptable, will have to wait D time between
initiation of each step in a movement task. this waiting will be of such an
order as to allow the operator to relax his concentration between each command,
without actually having time to think about anything else. this sort of stop-go
in his head will have the same effect that it does driving in city traffic:
fatigue will set in quickly. how might we reduce its' effects?

Eric Harnden (Ronin)
<EHARNDEN@AUVM>
The American University Physics Dept.
(202) 885-2758

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 89 05:04:26 GMT
From: mailrus!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!grasp.cis.upenn.edu!ulrich@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Nathan Ulrich)
Subject: Re: Teleoperation delays

In article <Added.kY8E0yy00Ui38LWE9t@andrew.cmu.edu> EHARNDEN@AUVM.BITNET (Eric Harnden) writes:
>the delay time is real, and has one of two possible results.
>the delay will either require that the operator think D time ahead (where D
>is the *cumulative* roundtrip delay), which may be possible for simply driving
>a motorized device across a land/station-scape, or, when the imprecision
>inherent in such a mode is unacceptable, will have to wait D time between
>initiation of each step in a movement task.
>Eric Harnden (Ronin)
><EHARNDEN@AUVM>
>The American University Physics Dept.
>(202) 885-2758

There is at least one other possibility, one that my advisor, Richard Paul,
is working on with some of the students in our lab.  If we can design a
system that can model the environment and display the situation as it will
appear D time in the future (a kind of high-tech astrology), then the operator
can be dealing with tasks *as they happen*, albeit in this "virtual world"
we have created.  The system will display the predicted future on a video 
screen, and the operator will respond to it, just in time for his commands to
reach the real situation after the communications delay.

Obviously, this approach is only as good as the accuracy of the predictions,
but it hopefully will recognize and wait when something outside of its realm
of expertise or knowledge appears.  And the longer the delay D, the more likely
the virtual world to be wrong.  But for delays of a few seconds, and many of
the repetitive and simple tasks expected, this could be a great help.

I'm not directly involved with the project, but I'm following its progress 
with interest.  They are initially using a smaller domain, a small robot
arm and a linked graphics model on an IRIS that matches it exactly, kinemat-
ically and dynamically.  Preliminary results are encouraging.

Nathan Ulrich
ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1989 13:04-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #298

Scott Henry:

So we are back to the situation of having a tether crossing the event
horizon which can remain intact, cannot transmit information and cannot
be retracted, or at least so I would presume. This is getting messy...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #303
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Mar 89 05:24:29 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05542>; Wed, 22 Mar 89 04:03:22 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 22 Mar 89 04:03:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UY9pWmy00UkT81XU4Q>;
          Wed, 22 Mar 89 03:26:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.gY9pPdy00UkZQESE4X>;
          Wed, 22 Mar 89 03:18:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AY9pNny00UkZEEQk4F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 03:16:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #304

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 304

Today's Topics:
		  Maybe *more* low-latitude auroras!
		  Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation
			    March 17, 1989
		      CDSF Celibration at Tuscon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 14:23:00 CDT
From: "PAT REIFF" <reiff@spacvax.rice.edu>
Subject: Maybe *more* low-latitude auroras!
To: "space+" <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: reiff@spacvax.rice.edu
Reply-To: "PAT REIFF" <reiff@spacvax.rice.edu>

The Northern lights were spectacular, seen over Texas all the way to 
Brownsville (many rural residents were concerned about brush fires).
My friends at MIT say that another lesser (3.5 instead of 4.5) but better-
placed flare went off yesterday.  Look for more exciting activity late
Friday night or Saturday night (maybe not as low down as Texas, but
lower latitudes than usual).  No real risk to astronauts  - the high
energy ions and electrons are very prompt (v~c), but only at high 
latitudes.  The auroral electrons and ions are kilovolt energies, and
readily shielded by minimum amounts of aluminum or glass shielding.
The astronauts might get some spectacular photos, though (I wonder if
they were able to get a shot with their IMAX camera?).  
  Since the DMSP spacecraft were operating, we should be able to get
some good black and white images of the aurora over the U.S.  I don't
know whether Dynamics Explorer was well placed to get a good auroral
image.

------
>From the First Space Science Department (celebrating its 25th anniversary):   
                                                   :      _^ ^_    ____
     Patricia H. Reiff                             :     / O O \   |GO \
     Department of Space Physics and Astronomy     :     \  V  /   |OWLS\
     Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892       :    / ""R"" \__/
     internet:  reiff%spacvax.rice.edu@rice.edu    :    \ ""U"" /
     SPAN:      RICE::REIFF                        :    _/|\ /|\_
     telemail:  [preiff/edunet] mail/usa           :My kids don't agree 
                                                   :with me; why should
                                                   :anyone else?
    
------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 11:44 EST
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation

    A very simple experiment might provide some of the "touch and feel"
    of teleoperation for those without access to a mechanism with
    adjustable delays in the controls.
    
    Try doing various things while wearing heavy gloves with a slow
    strobe light for illumination.  Better still, get one of the mechanical
    claws that are used to remove merchandise from the top shelf of
    department stores.
    
    The strobe light causes a variable delay between the current state
    of the world, and your information about it.  This differs from
    a constant delay, but should have some resemblance.
    
    Chris Eliot
    University of Massachusetts at Amherst

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:51:37 -0900
Reply-To: <FSRRC%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FSRRC%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: <FSRRC%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  March 17, 1989

ISECCo UPDATE #7: Questions & answers.
     The  following  is  a letter written to me by Rob  Vingerhoeds,  who  is
writing  an article about ISECCo for a Dutch magazine.  Since many  of  these
questions  are frequently asked by other people I thought it would be a  good
idea to release the entire 'discussion' as an update!

>Dear Ray Collins,
>
>Herewith, we send you some questions which we have about ISECCo. Actually, we
>have some more questions, but we want to formulate them, depending on the
>answers you will give to these questions.

>1. The ISECCo organisation

>- who are the people behind ISECCo, what is their background and what is their
>  educational level (e.g. you are still looking for an aerospace engineer, so
>  probably you are not aerospace professionals)
     ISECCo  currently has somewhat over 50 members.  The majority  of  these
members are in graduate school, seeking a master's degree or a Ph.D.  We  are
pretty  well  spread out over the US, and have members in Canada,  India  and
Australia.
     Our key members are:
     Ray  Collins,  Fairbanks AK: Founder, President  &  Director;  currently
studying toward a Ph.D. in Biospherics.  Also owns a construction company and
has a number of planes.  Backing ISECCo will full extent of resources.
     Debi  Wilkinson,  Tallahassee  FL:  Co-founder  &  Director;   currently
studying toward a Ph.D. in Physics.
     Robert  J. Hale III, Fairbanks AK: General Director & Director of  Aero-
space  Plane  division;  while not interested in going to  space  Robert  has
donated more time than most other members!
     Beth  Hayward,  Anchorage AK: Director & General Secretary.
     Rich Kline, Tallahasse FL: Treasurer.
     Joe Beckenback: Pasadena (CalTech), CA: Vice President.

>- why are you doing it, is it an ideal you want to fulfil
     I,  personally, am doing it because space has always intrigued me and  I
want to help in my own small way.  Most of our members are keenly  interested
in the cutting edge of technology and want to do what they can to have  space
colonization become a reality.

>- in what for a term you want to accomplish all these plans, do you think it
>  is really possible with this limited amount of people and time (15 hrs/month)
     Our biosphere project is a 10 year project.  The aerospace craft project
is  a 15 year project.  Other ideas which ISECCo may possibly work on in  the
future extend well into the next century.
     Not  sure where you got the 15 hours/month--I am currently  working  for
ISECCo 50+ hours/month.  Our total monthly labor is running slightly over 100
hours/month; this summer (5/1-9/30) we already have more than 2,000  manhours
pledged.   Money  is a bit tighter, but over the last 12 months we  have  had
over  $70,000  in  materials and cash pledged.  If our  current  growth  rate
continues we will have more than 500,000 members and a budget in the hundreds
of millions of dollars by the year 2000 (though I don't really expect to keep
up the current growth rate).

>- is your work not already undertaken somewhere else (e.g. the aerospace plane
>  is presently being studied in the UK, Germany, Japan, and no doubt the US),
>  so things might be done twice
     ISECCo has no intention of duplicating anyone else's effort.  To prevent
duplicate  efforts  we have already proposed a number  of  affiliations  with
other  space  groups.  We have concentrated our efforts in areas  that  other
effort   has  been  slight  or  non-existant  (e.g.  a  small,   pioneer-type
biosphere); the aero-space plane project has not yet formulated a path but it
is  our  intention  to  work on key portions  of  the  technology  (e.g.  our
hypersonic  model--the initial phase of our aero-space plane project--to  use
for  testing SCRAM jets, material technology {strength and heat  resistance},
and  aerodynamics--there  is currently no method of testing at  speeds  above
10,000 mph).  Whether we will actually BUILD an aero-space plane is something
which may or may not occur.  Many of our members are keen on the idea, but if
there is another device already built that meets the requirements of a  cheap
space  transportation system then we wouldn't.  I should also point out  that
there  are  many  different kinds of airplanes, and I  see  no  reason  there
shouldn't be more than one kind of aero-space planes too!

>- can you do with a relatively small group, with no doubt very motivated
>  people, the same work where in other parts of the world thousands of people
>  are working on full time. If you only look at the aerospace plane you will
>  see this will become an enormous project.
     This  question directly addresses the reason why, in spite of  the  keen
interest our members have in developing aerospace plane technology, our first
project  is  the  biosphere.   The biosphere is  withing  our  financial  and
manpower  means.  With a track record behind us (the biosphere) we will  have
shown the dedication needed to attract the people and money to develope  more
ambitious projects.
     You might say, however, 'Where there is a will there is a way.'  We have
the will.  We seek the way...

>2. The Biosphere

>- what criteria do you follow in your construction of your biosphere, will it
>  act as a single cell in space, or has it to become a part within a space
>  station, or planet based base. If it has to exist on its own, the
>  construction will be more difficult and complex (e.g. pressure resistant)
     The  only  criteria  we have for our biosphere is  that  the  biological
materials   must  cycle.   Thus  the  only  things  permitted  to  pass   the
world/biosphere barrier are energy and mechanicals like light bulbs.  So yes,
it  will have to be pressure resistant.  Especially since future  experiments
will be to determine the best pressure for high productivity.

>- so far you only looked at the food supply (hydroponics) in the biosphere,
>  does the biosphere also contains other parts such as the working environment
>  for the astronauts and do you look at the integration of this in the
>  biosphere
     Our  biosphere's only function is to develope the technology  needed  to
cycle  biological materials.  This project is not intended to look  at  other
aspects of working and living in space.  Since it will be inhabited full time
we  have  to have a living area, but this living area has not  been  designed
with space application in mind.

>- your present research is done with plants that grow under gravity influence,
>  do you know how these behave in microgravity or a gravity force different
>  from earth
     This  is  an excelent question which we have not been able  to  properly
address.   Our  current thinking is to develope the technology on  earth  and
then make the adaptations necessary for space applications.  Any  suggestions
on how to determine the gravitaional limits would be appreciated.  I  suspect
that  an orbiting biosphere will have to have artificial gravity  (i.e.  spun
for  centrifigal  gravity) for the Soviets have had a great deal  of  trouble
getting plants to mature in space.

>- you will test the biosphere during one year, does this mean that a person
>  will have to live during that year from the products the biosphere produces
>  will that person will live for one year in the biosphere
     Yes;  the  person will have to be sealed inside the  biosphere  for  one
year; testing includes atmospheric balance.

>- you say you will only allow an energy input in the biosphere, in space where
>  are you going to get it from (batteries, solar cells)
     Space power production is not being addressed.  I would think,  however,
that  direct  sunlight  would be used in all  possible  instances  (naturally
for lunar systems during the lunar night some alternative would be needed).

>3. Other projects

>- the other projects are not so well described as the biosphere is, in
>  particular the hydroponics, could you tell us more about the other plans
>  and how far they already are
     Our  hydroponics  are  not well defined yet since we do  not  know  what
system will prove the most productive.  We are currently experimenting with 4
different types of systems; a drip system, a hay-based system, a ceramic bead
base and a gravel system.
     The drip system is a series of individual plants and a nutrient solution
is dripped onto the roots.  The plant is started in flats and when 6" tall is
transplanted into a plastic container (painted black to reduce algae growth).
A  series  of  these containers, each with  it's  individual  'dripper',  are
arranged on a tray (4'x8') and as the plants grow they are spaced farther and
farther apart, so at all times you have a minimum amount of unused space.
     The hay-based system is a bed of hay in a 4'x4' tray.  Twice a day  this
hay  bed  is watered with a nutrient solution.  We are  currently  growing  4
potatoes  to be used in this system (for space considerations the plants  are
started in separate containers until they are big enough so space will not be
too  badly wasted!).  In the biosphere the 'hay' will be from such things  as
plant stalks and other vegtable waste.  After it has started to decompose  we
will put it into the biodegredation units for nutrient extraction.
     The gravel system is the classical method of growing hydroponics.  While
the  weight  of  the  gravel  will preclude use in  areas  that  it  must  be
transported to (eg LEO) it will have excelent application on other  planetary
surfaces.
     The last method we are experimenting with is a medium of ceramics.   Our
initial  experiments are growing a lot of algae (the ceramics,  being  white,
allow light to penetrate into the medium).  Enclosing the medium seems to  be
the  best way to overcome the problem.  This is 'watered' with  the  nutrient
solution in the same manner as the classical gravel system.  The advantage of
the ceramics is that the weight is about .5% (.005) that of a gravel system.

>- in the case of the aerospace plane, do you pay attention to propulsion,
>  construction  and materials, and  the aerodynamical aspect. Do you think
>  you could handle all these subjects in a small group. Only on the area of the
>  the propulsion technology for the Hotol a big group of engineers and
>  technicians is working more than 40 hours a week.
     While  the  aero-space plane is NOT an active project at the  moment  we
have  been  doing  a  little speculating  about  design  means  and  methods.
Basically  this is too big a project for us to undertake at this time, and  I
have  stated  to  our members several times that we will not  even  begin  to
seriously  consider the project until we have a million dollars committed  to
it,  along with 50 man-years in pledges (our current status is 14, so we  are
approaching that goal!)
     Private enterprise design and developement of a project such as this  is
very  different to government R&D, so comparisons should be made  with  care.
When  trying  to  come up with figures for the amount of  time  and  money  I
compare  this project with the Voyager aircraft (the plane that  flew  around
the world non-stop).  I would guess that project is around 1% as difficult as
the  aero-space  plane.  Their cost was around one million  and  20,000  man-
hours.   Extrapolation would put our costs for a completed project at  around
$100,000,000 and 2,000,000 man-hours.  This is not a completely  unreasonable
figure,  even  for an organization of our size.  Especially since we  do  not
intend to tackle actual contruction of a full scale aero-space plane for many
years, if ever.

>- in the case of the propulsion why do you choose for three propulsion cycles,
>  namely, jet engine, scramjet and rockets. Why not, as it is the case for
>  Hotol work with dual cycle engines (which is more advanced)
     At this point any methods of propulsion are pure speculation.   However,
to speculate (a favorite hobby of mine!) the reason for a multiple of engines
is that you can then 'leave behind' those engines you are through with.   Why
carry  all  that  weight up to orbit (the dual cycle engines  are  much  more
weighty  than  a single-method engine--though not twice as heavy  this  extra
weight boosted to orbit is just that much less that you have to carry up  and
back)?  As you will note the HOTOL device flopped...!!  Please take note that
I  am  NOT  an  aero-space  engineer and as  such  anything  I  say  is  just
speculation  and will probably have little bearing on how the  actual  design
will be...

>- you mentioned somewhere a costprice for lauch of $250/lb. We have doubts
>  about whether this is a real figure, even when your labor is for free
     Current  cost  to launch a pound into orbit in fuel is on the  order  of
$25.   Since our craft is expected to have an orbited weight of  4,000#  this
comes  out  to a fuel cost of $100/lb ($25/lb*4,000lb/1,000  lb  payload)  of
payload delivered to orbit.  Given the facts that we hope to reduce the  fuel
requirements  by  1/3  to 1/2 using SCRAM-jets instead  of  rockets  for  our
initial  boost;  the  fact  that our ship MUST  be  SIMPLE  and  require  few
repairs/maintainence  between flights; the fact that our labor is  free;  the
fact that we hope to have many of our materials donated and the fact that our
overhead will be very low (due to donated labor) I don't feel that $250/lb is
TOO outragious.  Anyhow this is how I came up with the numbers, which, again,
I  am no aero-space engineer and these numbers may or may not have any  basis
in fact.  Show me any expenses I've left off and I'll be happy to modify  the
figures!

>- why are you making two models of your space plane (one for a test flight
>  out)
     I  am  not  sure  that  we will be making 2  models;  only  one  may  be
necessary.  However most of our members think that two will be needed for the
engine  testing  is  expected  require a very  different  setup  to  properly
simulate  full  scale design.  Actually I expect to build many  more  than  2
models since I would be astonished if we were successful in getting it  right
the first time!

>As mentioned in the beginning, there are more questions on our minds, but
>maybe some of them will be answered in these questions as well.

>We hope answering these questions will not take too much of you time and we
>want to thank you in advance.


>Rob Vingerhoeds

>P.S. We already have started with the article itself and the questions given
>are related to it directly. We hope to be able to finish the article in the
>first presentable version around easter. The deadline the magazine has for us
>is at april 10th.                                                          RV

     Any  of  you who haven't yet joined and are interested   do  get  in
touch  with us.  Our minimum membership is only $5 for an entire  decade.
Anyone who wants  to  join can just send Robert,  FNRJH@ALASKA, or myself
a  note  on here  (PLEASE include a regular mail address: we have  had  a
number  of responses which we have been  unable to  answer  over  BITNET!)
and we'll send you a letter with the information we'll need. Alternatively
you can write ISECCo, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks, AK 99706.

                                              --Ray :: President, ISECCo

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 07:52:32 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: CDSF Celibration at Tuscon

With the CDSF bill wired for passage, space activists from around the
country are headed to Tuscon for a celibration this weekend.  We'll
be touring Biosphere II and some of us will head north for Arcosanti
after the banquet Saturday!  

Every now and then there are victories!  With the gold-plated NASA
Space Station now doomed, maybe we can begin laying the ground-work
for a REAL space station based on an evolutionary progression from
extended duration orbiters to CDSFs to international cooperative
research leading finally to a rational space station which should be
buildable, then, in a period of 2 to 3 years.  We might even get a
space station built this way before NASA could get the first module
off the ground!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #304
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Mar 89 06:13:32 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01017>; Wed, 22 Mar 89 05:33:56 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 22 Mar 89 05:33:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EY9rDdy00UkTA1Jk5x>;
          Wed, 22 Mar 89 05:22:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.AY9rA0y00UkZ8Ee04J>;
          Wed, 22 Mar 89 05:18:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EY9r-sy00UkZ8EcU4q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 05:17:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #305

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 305

Today's Topics:
			    Teleoperation
		GM Sunrayce 1990--the Stanford entry.
		       Moronic TV news coverage
		       Re: Black hole trolling
			      Re: Sanger
		 Re: space news from Dec 19/26 AW&ST
		 Re: space news from Dec 19/26 AW&ST
		   Samara Probe for Remote Imaging
		 Re: Samara Probe for Remote Imaging
		 Re: Samara Probe for Remote Imaging
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 89 21:59:38 GMT
From: fas.ri.cmu.edu!schmitz@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Donald Schmitz)
Subject: Teleoperation

In article <Added.kY8E0yy00Ui38LWE9t@andrew.cmu.edu> (Eric Harnden) writes:
...
>reply to... but i think that, while his data is of course correct, there is
>a point missing. the delay time is real, and has one of two possible results.
>the delay will either require that the operator think D time ahead (where D
>is the *cumulative* roundtrip delay), which may be possible for simply 
>driving a motorized device across a land/station-scape, or, when the 
>imprecision inherent in such a mode is unacceptable, will have to wait D 
>time between initiation of each step in a movement task. this waiting will 
>be of such an order as to allow the operator to relax his concentration 
>between each command, without actually having time to think about anything 
>else. this sort of stop-go in his head will have the same effect that it 
>does driving in city traffic: fatigue will set in quickly. how might we 
>reduce its' effects?

I have heard anecdotal evidence that rapid fatigue does occur for long delay
(> 0.5 sec) teleoperation - also that the delay causes a very cautious
operation, such as breaking a move up into a number of very short, slow
moves.   One solution is to provide the operator with a non-delayed
simulation of the robot/workspace, supposedly this brings the efficiency up to
what is expected by imposing the delay (Dr. Minsky's calculation).  Still, it
seems likely that with lots of practice (years), operators may be able to 
adapt to the delay, much as humans adapt to other un-natural situations, such
the famous inverting eye-glasses experiment, or developing the eye-hand
coordination needed for video games, driving, etc.  (although after
adapting, they may not be able to handle real-time responses again - I'm
not sure I'd want to try this).

Don Schmitz
--

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 89 22:15:32 GMT
From: Portia!hhughes@labrea.stanford.edu  (Mohamad Ali)
Subject: GM Sunrayce 1990--the Stanford entry.

General Motors is sponsering a SOLAR POWERED CAR RACE in the summer of 1990.
A few students at Stanford have decided to build a vehicle to enter in the
race.  Still in its infancy, the project has already attracted a dazzling
array of highly talented individuals.  Our designs represent technology at
its frontier.

However, despite the fact the Stanford is known to the world as a rich
institution, we cannot expect from the university but a small fraction
of what it will cost to put the vehicle together.

We are more than willing to accept contributions in the form of money, 
parts (production line or  experimental) or just simply advice.

If anyone out there knows of an organization that might support our
effort, please send me a name and address at:

hhughes@portia.stanford.edu   (415) 329-1047

Thank you,
Mohamad.
Manager of Finances,
Stanford Solar Car Project 1990.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 10:30:50 PST
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Moronic TV news coverage

mfci!rodman@yale-bulldog.arpa  (Paul Rodman) writes:

>After watching another shuttle launch and flipping desperately between
>channel 4 and CNN, I very much wish for a channel that would tell
>the commentator to SHUT-UP during the launch.

>Can't I PLEASE hear and see the NASA feeds? Do we have to have the
>lowest common denominator?

Isn't NASA Select available on some cable feeds?  Perhaps you should be
talking to your local cable franchise.

When there's a launch I go to JPL's mission control center, they slave the
video screens to the feeds from the Cape and JSC.  I had the same reaction
to the network commentators as you a long time ago.

pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:43 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Re: Black hole trolling

Scott Henry writes:

>>  kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space :
>>     Easy.  The forces that hold a macroscopic object together are
>> electromagnetic.  They require the exchange of virtual photons between
>> the particles to be held together.  When the object extends across the
>> event horizon, the photons can no longer go from the atoms inside the
>> black hole to the atoms outside.  Thus the tether is neatly sliced.
>
>This is incorrect. The definition of the event horizon is the point at
>which photons cannot escape to *infinity*. This in no way implies that
>they cannot cross the event horizon, they just cannot make it very far
>past it (depending on how deep they started). The bonds between atoms
>(nucleons) would begin to behave *oddly* as the energy of the virtual
>photons (gluons) would be different as seen by the higher and the lower
>(gravitationally speaking) particles. How oddly? Who's interested in a PHd
>thesis (maybe only a Masters)?

     This is inherently incorrect.  Double-null coordinates on the event
horizon have a light-cone parallel to the event horizon surface, which
means that no particle can cross the event horizon itself.  He would do
better to read how Hawkings, Wheeler, Israel, and others talk about the
event horizon, rather than stating a partial definition and then making
an illogical extrapolation.

     The first appender is correct - the tether will be sliced.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 09:14:36 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!draken!tut!router!opmvax!siili@uunet.uu.net  (Tero Siili)
Subject: Re: Sanger

In article <7234@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
> In article <1989Mar14.172237.29235@cs.rochester.edu,
> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: 
>> . . . Sanger would use turboramjet engines to propel a winged 
>> first stage to Mach 5, at which point a LOX/LH2 propelled second stage 
>> -- either an unmanned expendable cargo rocket (like Pegasus) or a 
>> reusable winged manned vehicle -- would be released to ascend to 
>> orbit.  
> 
> Is the battle against high density air also a small percentage of the
> effort and not worth it? How much of the work of an expendable first
> stage could be done with an aircraft without significant design
> innovation? Would effort be more profitably expended in going for
> altitude or speed? What's the d/d$?

I believe, that the ideas behind the Sanger concept are twofold: the purpose
is to develop a first stage for orbital launches and use the same development
for a Mach 5 hypersonic passenger plane. As an hypersonic transport, the
Sanger would carry 130 passengers a distance of approx. 13 000 km(8100 miles
for those, who still use archaic units...). 
The second idea is to have a space transportation system, which would be able 
to lift-off from Europe but still be able to launch to any inclination orbit. 
This would be achieved by cruising after take-off e.g. to equator and 
separating the second stage only after that. 
Third factor is, that by combining the first stage/hypersonic transport 
concepts and using the Hermes experience in the Horus(the manned second stage)
development, the development costs could be reduced. Planned launch costs with
Horus would be 10-15 % of Hermes launch cost and with Cargus(unmanned second 
stage) one third of the Ariane V cost.
Additional advantage - according to two-year old info - would be, that Sanger
presumably could take off from an ordinary airport, unlike HOTOL. The reason
for this is(if my recollection is correct), that Sanger first stage uses
turbojets at low speeds and changes to ramjet operation after Mach 1 AND
the engines use kerosene as fuel.  HOTOL takes off using rocket operation
AND uses liquid hydrogen as propellant; rocket take-off is apparently noisy 
and perhaps the use of LH2 at take-off creates additional risks. The Sanger
second stage, Horus, is using LO2/LH2 combination.
As a conclusion, the advantages of the Sanger concept are in its flexibility
and reusability and the in fact, that the technologies assumedly are not as
complex as the ones developed for the NASP(e.g. turboramjet vs. scramjet
and no SSTO capability). 

References: 
Article 'Future Spaceplanes' in 'Spaceflight', June 1987. Nos. 6/7, vol.
29. A brief story of a presentation by Dr. H. Kuczena of the company MBB.
'The German SANGER Space Transport System'. Presentation material/brochure
by MBB/May 1986.

regards,

Tero Siili
Finnish Meteorological Institute,
Dep. of Geophysics
siili@csc.fi

P.S. For further info on Sanger, contact MBB directly; if necessary, I can
post their PR division address

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 17:52:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: space news from Dec 19/26 AW&ST


/* Written  9:45 pm  Mar 12, 1989 by henry@utzoo.uucp in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
/* ---------- "space news from Dec 19/26 AW&ST" ---------- */
(...)
The US launch industry is in good shape right now, but will have lean
years to weather when the current payload backlog is exhausted.  The
habit of depending on the government won't help; Martin Marietta's
president observes that there is *no* commercial launch industry in
existence right now, only various degrees of government support.
Long March will be a nasty competitor; if there is a quota on Long
March launches, there will be a problem deciding who gets them (they
will probably remain cheaper than Western launches).
/* - - - - */
Sally Ride was here at the U of I recently, and she had a chart with
``Expected payload needs'' and ``Expected payload capacity'' in lbs/year,
and the first was significantly larger than the latter, not even
counting any SDI launches. I believe she was only counting government
(NASA & DoD) capacity, so it may be that this excess would not legally be
able to spill into the private sector.

Alan M. Carroll          "And then you say,
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu     We have the Moon, so now the Stars..."  - YES
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 89 03:06:26 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from Dec 19/26 AW&ST

In article <218100015@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>The US launch industry is in good shape right now, but will have lean
>years to weather when the current payload backlog is exhausted...
>
>Sally Ride was here at the U of I recently, and she had a chart with
>``Expected payload needs'' and ``Expected payload capacity'' in lbs/year,
>and the first was significantly larger than the latter, not even
>counting any SDI launches...

In any such comparison, one has to delete shuttle-unique payloads and
those that are committed to the shuttle by administrative decision.
The *shuttle* has a serious capacity shortage that will not soon clear
up.  Pseudo-commercial expendables, however, won't be in quite such
short supply once the Challenger backlog clears.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 04:06:00 GMT
From: pur-phy!tippy!fireman@ee.ecn.purdue.edu
Subject: Samara Probe for Remote Imaging


Reprinted from "NASA Tech Briefs," February, 1989.

"This conceptual device would scan automatically, without costly aiming
 or stablizing devices."

   - NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California


  A proposed imaging probe would descend through the atmosphere of a planet,
obtaining images of the ground surface as it travels.  The probe could be
released from an aircraft over the Earth or from a spacecraft over another
planet.
  The probe would have a body and a single wing shaped like much like a
samara - a winged seed like those of maple trees.  It would therefore rotate
as it descends, providing a panoramic view of the terrain below.  The probe
would radio the image obtained by its video camera to the aircraft or
spacecraft overhead.
  The probe would be simple and inexpensive.  It would contain no moving parts
and would need no fuel or power for scanning, because its panning motion
would be imparted by aerodynamic forces.  Several such probes could provide 
comprehensive, detailed maps of a region without the complexity of horizontal
travel on the surface or through the atmosphere.
  The wing would be propeller shaped and would be pitched for the desired rate
of descent and rotation.  The camera (or radar) would be mounted on the lower
part of the probe at a fixed angle with the repect to the spin axis.  The field
of view of the camera lens would determine the required amount of overlap of
the image on successive rotations; a wider angle would cause more - and
earlier - overlap.  The resolution of the image would increase gradually as
the probe approaches the surface.
  The upper surface of the wing could carry solar-cell panels, if necessary,
to supply power to the camera and transmitter.  The transmitting antenna would
be embedded in the probe.  The wing could also a Sun sensor to furnish data on
orientation and spin to aid in subsequent processing of the images.  (Image
processing would be required to remove effects due to nutation and wind drift.)
A second wing, like that on certain seeds, could be added to slow the descent
and reduce nutation.

[This work was done by James D. Burke of Caltech for NASA's Jet Propulsion
 Laboratory.]

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 18:22:09 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Samara Probe for Remote Imaging

In article <10900004@tippy> fireman@tippy.uucp writes:
>Reprinted from "NASA Tech Briefs," February, 1989.
>
>[...]  The probe would have a body and a single wing shaped like much like a
>samara - a winged seed like those of maple trees.  It would therefore rotate
>as it descends, providing a panoramic view of the terrain below.  The probe
>would radio the image obtained by its video camera to the aircraft or
>spacecraft overhead. [...]

This sounds like an excellent idea - a very (conceptually) simple method
of scanning large areas and obtaining high-res pictures nearer the surface. 
The probe might even survive the landing, but the camera might not see much...

The weight of the wing and fixed camera would have to be less than the weight
of a scanning camera and parachute for the method to be more efficient on
a weight basis, though, but it would be inherently more reliable.

A fast "shutter speed" (or perhaps some simple rotational motion compensation)
would be required to prevent blurring of the pictures. There is some trade-off 
here, as a larger wing would decrease the spin rate, but would increase the weight 
of the probe. The blurring of the pictures could be a real problem for such "way-out"
bodies as Titan and Triton, where the Sun's light is obviously much dimmer than
for Venus, the Earth and Mars. For the same reason, batteries would have to
be substituted for the solar cells (and might be required anyway.)

How the probe would actually enter an atmosphere (from orbital velocity) is
another interesting subject - could the outside of the probe be made out of 
carbon-carbon compounds, like parts of the Shuttle? Hmmm....

I'd be interested in finding out more about this whole idea!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 89 05:45:37 GMT
From: phoenix!mbkennel@princeton.edu  (Matthew B. Kennel)
Subject: Re: Samara Probe for Remote Imaging

In article <287@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
}In article <10900004@tippy} fireman@tippy.uucp writes:
}}Reprinted from "NASA Tech Briefs," February, 1989.
}}
}}[...]  The probe would have a body and a single wing shaped like much like a
}}samara - a winged seed like those of maple trees.  It would therefore rotate
}}as it descends, providing a panoramic view of the terrain below.  The probe
}}would radio the image obtained by its video camera to the aircraft or
}}spacecraft overhead. [...]
}
}This sounds like an excellent idea - a very (conceptually) simple method
}of scanning large areas and obtaining high-res pictures nearer the surface. 
}The probe might even survive the landing, but the camera might not see much...
}
}<deleted>
}
}A fast "shutter speed" (or perhaps some simple rotational motion compensation)
}would be required to prevent blurring of the pictures. There is some trade-off 
}here, as a larger wing would decrease the spin rate, but would increase the weight 
}of the probe. The blurring of the pictures could be a real problem for such "way-out"
}bodies as Titan and Triton, where the Sun's light is obviously much dimmer than
}for Venus, the Earth and Mars.

Presumably, one could use CCD's, which have close to single-photon
sensitivity.  (So do dark-adapted human eyes, believe it or not!)
If the ambient enviroment is sufficiently cold, cryogenic equipment
might not be necessary.


Matt Kennel
mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #305
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Mar 89 01:37:30 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04804>; Thu, 23 Mar 89 01:01:41 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 23 Mar 89 01:01:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kY:88Qy00Ui3Q8EkFf>;
          Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:35:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.EY:7uYy00UkZ8HfU5=>;
          Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:20:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UY-7sey00UkZAHe055@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:18:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #306

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 306

Today's Topics:
	 STUDY OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY -- *LONG* FILE!
		     Re: Moronic TV news coverage
		  Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
		   History of Air-Launched Rockets
			  Re: US/USSR costs
			Soviet APT Satellites
		      Simulating Teleoperations
			    What? METRIC?
		    Re: Simulating Teleoperations
		     Re: International Standards
	   On teleoperation for 1992 moon base, or whatever
		    Re: Simulating Teleoperations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 89 21:34:59 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: STUDY OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY -- *LONG* FILE!

The following is a fascinating look at the commerical launch industry.
Due to net constraints, footnotes and graphs have been removed from this
version.  This is a LONG FILE - you may want to print it out before
reading it.  If you'd like a laser printed copy with footnotes and
graphs, send $5 to:  Eric W. Tilenius, 332 Walker Hall, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544.

THE UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY: An Economic Study of the
Issues Regarding Privatization.

[ ... ]

I.  ABSTRACT

    The United States private payload launch industry is in flux.
The industry faces changing regulations, growing international and
domestic competition, and uncertain demand. The transitory nature of the
market as it emerges from a government-controlled monopoly and moves
toward a competitive situation is indicative of a market not in long-
term equilibrium.

    This research paper analyzes, from a microeconomic framework,
the issues and economic factors involved in the near-term move of the
market toward long-term equilibrium.  It finds that, after years of
government launch subsidies, the government will need to do more than
just talk about privatization if the industry is to move to equilibrium:
the government must be a purveyor of launch services from the private
sector and it must assure access to infrastructure.

[ ... ]

Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Princeton University | 11 Prospect Drive South  | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
332 Walker Hall      | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08544  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-734-4911         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

[ This paper, which runs over 1400 lines, is available in its entirety,
  including a long list of references, by sending a note to
  space-request@andrew.cmu.edu and requesting the commercial launch
  study.  -Ed]

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 06:35:13 GMT
From: vsi1!wyse!mips!prls!philabs!linus!alliant!werme@apple.com  (Ric Werme)
Subject: Re: Moronic TV news coverage

In article <704@m3.mfci.UUCP> rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) writes:

>After watching another shuttle launch and flipping desperately between
>channel 4 and CNN, I very much wish for a channel that would tell
>the commentator to SHUT-UP during the launch.

I just turned down the volume and dialed 900-909-NASA for Dial-A-Shuttle,
a service of the National Space Society (202-543-1995).  I forget how much
it costs, but it beats listening to TV morons.
-- 

| A pride of lions              | Eric J Werme                |
| A gaggle of geese             | uucp: decvax!linus!alliant  |
| An odd lot of programmers     | Phone: 603-673-3993         |

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 10:55:01 PST
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation

mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  
(Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <12477749495031@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu> RYAN-S@osu-20.ircc.ohio->state.edu (stephen) writes:
>>  Does anybody have any opinions about which of the small launch companies
>>(E'Prime, OSC/Hercules, Space Services, Amroc, etc.) have any chance of 
>>commercial success? 

>[synopses of above companies]

Anyone know what happened to MMI and their plans for launching their `Space
Van' from a floating platform off Pago Pago?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 89 01:29:34 GMT
From: uxc!garcon!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Andrew Higgins)
Subject: History of Air-Launched Rockets

While we're discussing air-launched rockets, I am curious about their origins.  
According to _History_of_Rocketry_and_Space_Flight_ (Von Braun and Ordway), in 
the 1950's, sounding rockets known as "Rockaire" were launched from jets such 
as the F-86D at an altitude of 7 miles.  The rockets soared as high as 30 
miles.

More interestingly, in 1958, six Caleb rockets were launched from F-4D 
airplanes with the intention of reaching *orbit*.  Apparently, none of the 
vehicles successfully orbited, but I would nonetheless be very interested in 
the mission configuration, and similarities it might have to the much talked 
about Pegasus.  Does anyone know anything more about these tests?
--
Andrew J. Higgins	             | Illini Space Development Society
404 1/2 E. White St apt 3            | a chapter of the National Space Society
Champaign IL  61820                  | at the University of Illinois
phone:  (217) 359-0056               | P.O. Box 2255 Station A
e-mail: ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu | Champaign IL  61825
                 ^^^^^^
"When the Waters were dried an' the earth did appear,...The Lord He created
 the Engineer"
 - Rudyard Kipling

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 18:51:45 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: US/USSR costs

In article <8903170353.AA25291@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>... It is probable that the cost to launch a person into orbit is
>less than that of the US, but by how much? I suspect that the quoted price
>of $10 million for a launch is heavily subsidized.

At optimistic US launch prices ($3000/lb), $10M will put 3300 lbs into
orbit.  I don't know offhand just how much a Soyuz weighs, but a ton and
a half does not sound like too little to be one person's share of a three-
man spacecraft.  Given that the Soviets almost certainly have rather lower
launch costs than the US -- for one thing, they mass-produce most of the
hardware -- I find it hard to see how they can be losing money on it.

>There are at least three
>plausible incentives for maintaining an artificially low rate: 
>...
> - Economies of scale: The ability to maintain a high volume of launches
>     and to accelerate the learning curve (and possibly to discourage the
>     competition) can make it economically attractive to sell products or
>     services for less than the actual cost...

I rather doubt that the Soviets are expecting enough of a rush of Western
customers to significantly improve their existing economies of scale.
We're talking about a space program that has a launch every three or four
*days*, remember.

>Similarly, the Energiya is a fine booster, and has enjoyed two demonstration
>launches, but this does not guarantee that it is not fabulously expensive
>to build and launch.

Energia costs are an open question, since it's a new booster using some
new technology.  I would note, however, that (a) cost per pound to orbit
for the Saturn V was not significantly higher than current US launchers,
and (b) Energia is supposedly already committed to production volumes
(first batch of 50) that most Western launcher manufacturers can only
dream about.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 89 15:23:12 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!frank@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Frank Abernathy)
Subject: Soviet APT Satellites

On 3-17-89, at 1355 and 2320UTC I copied APT transmissions from Soviet
satellites on 137.300 MHZ.

These were not, by TS Kelso's Kep. bulletins, the normal guys I've copies.

Generally, I can copy Meteor 2-16, 2-17 and 3-2; when they decide to 
transmit over north America.

I loaded in the parameters from Kelso's Bulletin #469 for Meteors 2-08, 2-09,
2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 3-1 and 3-2 as well as COSMOS
1602, 1686, 1766 and 1870.

Then redid the orbital runs, with ORBITS-III, and NONE of these showed up
as valid for my location.  Location is 30.27N, 97.75W at ~250amsl.
(MET 3-1 did show up in the ORBITS info for the 1355 pass, but not the 2320)

So, maybe it was met 3-1 as well as another SAT not mentioned above.

If anyone has any info on which Satellites these were, please let me know.

frank
..!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!frank

Thanks !

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 89 02:15:49 GMT
From: uxc!garcon!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Andrew Higgins)
Subject: Simulating Teleoperations

Our local NSS chapter recently examined the problem of simulating the round 
trip time delay involved with teleoperations.  We decided to build a 
variable time delay into the control unit of a Radio Shack remote 
controlled toy truck [I really shouldn't take credit for the idea, since we 
were inspired by a SSI display that involved similar modifications to Radio 
Shack toy robots].  The results were quite interesting.

By setting the time delay at about 2.5 seconds, you can simulate
a lunar teleoperation.  Control with this much delay is *extremely* 
difficult.  Although at first you may think that you can move a bit and 
wait to see the result of your command, it is not so easily done.   For 
example, one part of our "simulated lunar landscape" was a steep ramp 
followed by a sharp left turn.  To make it up the ramp, your truck has to 
build up enough kinetic energy and not stop at anytime on the way up.  But 
once at the top, your vehicle has to bank sharply, so you must anticipate 
when to send the command to turn let.  This is not an easy task.
--
Andrew J. Higgins	             | Illini Space Development Society
404 1/2 E. White St apt 3            | a chapter of the National Space Society
Champaign IL  61820                  | at the University of Illinois
phone:  (217) 359-0056               | P.O. Box 2255 Station A
e-mail: ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu | Champaign IL  61825
                 ^^^^^^
"When the Waters were dried an' the earth did appear,...The Lord He created
 the Engineer"
 - Rudyard Kipling

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:07 EST
From: John Taylor <V131Q5CG%UBVMS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: What? METRIC?

>Date: 11 Mar 89 04:26:58 GMT
>From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
>Subject: Space station & stone-age units
[...]
>According to that contact, this was decided when Dale Myers, a former
>high official at Rockwell who is now the Deputy Administrator of NASA,
>upon hearing that the space station would use metric parts said
>"What?!, METRIC?! - Why that's UN-AMERICAN!", and decreed that
>stone-age barleycorn & King George's shoe size measurements shall be
>used on the space station.
>Does anyone else have any information on this outrage?

        No info, but I also think this is outrageous. Drop the stupid
"American" (read also as British, but they were smart enough to get rid of
it) system! I don't want some overpaid MBA making decisions like this- no
offense intended to intelligent MBA's, of course.
        Does someone have Dale Meyers' address?

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
John Taylor   -- SUNY at Buffalo    |
                                    |  Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu
            New York:               |  Bitnet:   v131q5cg@ubvmsc
       "The Vampire State"          |
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 89 22:06:53 GMT
From: uxc!garcon!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Andrew Higgins)
Subject: Re: Simulating Teleoperations

From: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio)

>> By setting the time delay at about 2.5 seconds, you can simulate
>> a lunar teleoperation.  Control with this much delay is *extremely* 
>> difficult.  Although at first you may think that you can move a bit and 
>> wait to see the result of your command, it is not so easily done.   For 
>> example, one part of our "simulated lunar landscape" was a steep ramp 
>> followed by a sharp left turn.  To make it up the ramp, your truck has to 
>> build up enough kinetic energy and not stop at anytime on the way up.
>
>         Obviously this toy truck was not designed for off-road operation.  A
> vehicle that is properly designed for off-road operation on any planet,
> whether remote-controlled or not, should not have to depend on building up
> kinetic energy to get over an obstacle, since this is quite hazardous when
> working on unknown terrain even when not using remote control.

I concur (but unfortunately, Radio Shack builds their toys to children's 
specifications, not space enthusiasts').  There are, however, some operations 
(such as drilling or heavy lifting) which are dependent on kinetic energy and 
that don't allow you to stop and wait for your machine to catch up.  Imagine 
trying to fly a spacecraft over the lunar surface while having to come to a 
complete stop every 2.6 seconds.  Clearly the incremental approach (i.e., the 
"stop and wait" approach to teleoperations) has limitations.
--
Andrew J. Higgins	             | Illini Space Development Society
404 1/2 E. White St apt 3            | a chapter of the National Space Society
Champaign IL  61820                  | at the University of Illinois
phone:  (217) 359-0056               | P.O. Box 2255 Station A
e-mail: ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu | Champaign IL  61825
                 ^^^^^^
"When the Waters were dried an' the earth did appear,...The Lord He created
 the Engineer"
 - Rudyard Kipling

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 15:42:14 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: International Standards

>From article <1436@cfa200.cfa250.harvard.edu>, by willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123):
[ ASTP docking adaptor: used by USSR subsequently?]

I also remember the idea that the adaptor would become standard; but I think it was
more of an assumption made by the US side than anything that was in the 
official accords; I cant find a copy of those, dooes anyone have them?
Anyway the system has not been used subsequently, and the current Soyuz/Mir
units are the old probe and drogue type. The Lyappa system to be used to handle
the Mir modules does have a petal-type adaptor, but it is a much smaller
system and is not a ring system of the ASTP type.

- Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 18 Mar 89 16:59 CST
From: <SCOTT%GACVAX1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  On teleoperation for 1992 moon base, or whatever

If Microsoft can create a very true to life flight simulator, why can't
someone create a robot simulator? Just give if a map of the ground, which
wouldn't need to cover a HUGE area or anything, and the basic abilities
(speed, turning radius, shock handling ability, etc) of the robot, and let
it go. Introducing a delay in the loop would be simplicity itself. I'm sure
this would work, at least to test things out. My friends and I have played
enough video games to learn that reaction speed can be aquired, after lots
of "training". I've seen enough flight simulators, (even on the Apple II!)
that are pretty good. They seem to be able to fly and display good resolution,
using tricks, albeit. Given a "normal" computer, like a SUN, VAX, or what-not,
it should be fairly routine to simulate it in real-time, which would of
necessity be slower than the real time for an airplane. Also, aren't there
shuttle simulators out there? That would be a trick. Try flying the shuttle
with a 1/2 second time delay ...

Right?

Scott Hess
Gustavus Adolphus College
St. Peter, Mn.
<scott@gacvax1.bitnet>

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 89 03:12:33 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Simulating Teleoperations

In article <632@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Andrew
Higgins) writes:
|Our local NSS chapter recently examined the problem of simulating the round 
|trip time delay involved with teleoperations.  We decided to build a 
|variable time delay into the control unit of a Radio Shack remote 
|controlled toy truck [. . .]
|
|By setting the time delay at about 2.5 seconds, you can simulate
|a lunar teleoperation.  Control with this much delay is *extremely* 
|difficult.  Although at first you may think that you can move a bit and 
|wait to see the result of your command, it is not so easily done.   For 
|example, one part of our "simulated lunar landscape" was a steep ramp 
|followed by a sharp left turn.  To make it up the ramp, your truck has to 
|build up enough kinetic energy and not stop at anytime on the way up.  But 
|once at the top, your vehicle has to bank sharply, so you must anticipate 
|when to send the command to turn let.  This is not an easy task.

	Obviously this toy truck was not designed for off-road operation.  A
vehicle that is properly designed for off-road operation on any planet,
whether remote-controlled or not, should not have to depend on building up
kinetic energy to get over an obstacle, since this is quite hazardous when
working on unknown terrain even when not using remote control.  That is, the
vehicle should have enough starting torque, as any good terrestrial off-road
vehicle should, to start moving up any safely-climbable slope from a
standstill.  This is not too hard to accomplish with today's (or even
considerably older) technology -- use of series-wound DC or variable-frequency
synchronous motors geared down sufficiently would satisfy this requirement.
The brushes or slip-rings will eventually wear out, but at least you won't
have to worry about having a wreck because you had to zoom up a slope whose
upper end you didn't know about.

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #306
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Mar 89 04:26:09 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05307>; Thu, 23 Mar 89 03:44:55 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 23 Mar 89 03:44:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gY::Y1y00UkT41OkZr>;
          Thu, 23 Mar 89 03:21:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.QY::Uay00UkZIHz045>;
          Thu, 23 Mar 89 03:17:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <oY--Tny00UkZ8HxU4r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 03:16:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #307

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 307

Today's Topics:
       Soviet Phobos II in synchronous orbit with Martian moon
		   Space station & stone-age units
			    Voyager update
		 Re: Samara Probe for Remote Imaging
		     NASA FY-1990 Budget Numbers
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #297
		       Moronic TV news coverage
		    NSS Hotline Update for 3/17/89
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:55:38 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: Soviet Phobos II in synchronous orbit with Martian moon

     The Soviet's announced on short wave (Mar. 21) that the Phobos II probe 
has made another orbit change.  This burn puts the probe in synchronous
orbit with the Martian moon, making it one of the final velocity changes
before the rendezvous.  This position will be maintained for some period
while additional pictures are taken of the surface to determine the
accuracy of this orbit.  All of this suggests that we are probably within
a week or two of the final approach.  However, no statements were made as
to the ejection of the main engine system, which should occur just prior
to rendezvous
     The original plans call this for the probe to move to within 60 Km 
(35 mi) of Phobos and stay there with it solar cells orientated so that 
the batteries may be fully charged.  Then using hydrogen peroxide
jets the final run will begin with it approaching to about 2 Km (1.25 mi)
of Phobos, maintaining the antenna towards earth.  Using the jets it
will aim to get within 30 to 80 m ( 98 - 260 feet) of the surface
and hover there for about 20 minutes.  The craft at that point
will be moving about 2 - 5 m/sec (7 - 16 ft/sec) horizontally over
the surface with the laser altimeter maintaining the altitude to
avoid major surface highs.  Note, the orbital velocity at the surface
of phobos is about 11 m/sec (37 ft/sec) by my calculations, so the probe
is really not in orbit about Phobos during this rendezvous.  Since
the approximate mean surface gravity of Phobos is 1.6 cm/sec/sec 
(0.0016 earth G).  Thus it would take about 2 minutes for the probe to 
fall a 100 meters (330 ft) height.  Also this gravity value is 
significantly variable over the surface since the moon is not 
spherical - 28 x 23 x 20 Km ( 17 x 14 x 12 mi) as measured on
the 3 major axis.  The escape velocity, by the way, is about 16 m/sec 
(52 ft/sec).  All of this shows that the jets will be a significant
factor in maintaining that altitude.  
   After this period during which the photographs, laser and ion 
spectrographic, radar, X-ray etc. (I will post details later)
observations are done the two landers will be release just prior to
the main probe leaving the satellite.  The probe will move off 2 km from
the moon, and maintain contact with the landers.  After this it will move
off to a 9700 Km (6030 mi) orbit to observe the surface. (Phobos II orbital 
plans from "Race to Mars" by Miles and Booth).
    We are only days away now from this attempt.

                                                      Glenn Chapman
                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 10:03:22 EST
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  Space station & stone-age units
To: MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Re: SPACE Digest V9 #296

I encountered one industry that tolerates english and metric units.
We were buying some fabric in Kyoto, for dressmaking.  The stuff was
sold by the meter-yard!  Really.

Reason simple.  When you cut off a length you use the meter-stick for
measure, because Japan is metric.  But the cloth is woven on old
english-type looms which all were 72 inches wide, so the stuff still
comes in two-yard widths.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 09:37:41 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Voyager update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Excerpted without permission from NASA Voyager Bulletin, Mission Status Report 
# 85, March 3, 1989 [stuff in square brackets is mine]:

It's not just a fuzzy tennis ball after all...
----------------------------------------------

A bright cloud feature on Neptune, similar to spots seen by planetary
astronomers using Earth-based telescopes, is visible in images taken by
Voyager 2 on January 23, 1989 when the spacecraft was about 309 million
kilometers (185 million miles) from the planet.  The fact that distinct
cloud features are visible while the spacecraft is still so distant suggests
that pictures taken as Voyager 2 approaches its August 1989 flyby of Neptune
will show far more detail than was visible in the atmosphere of Uranus,
which Voyager 2 encountered in January 1986.  (Due to the lack of visible
cloud features, Uranus has been lightheartedly described as a "fuzzy blue
tennis ball," and less kindly as bland.)

The cloud is at about 30 degrees south latitude, and its motion during the
time between images is consistent with the 17- to 18-hour rotation period
derived from observations with Earth-based telescopes.  The January images
show details as small as about 6000 kilometers (3500 miles).  The cloud
has not yet been confirmed to be any of the cloud features seen on Neptune
by Drs. Richard Terrile of JPL and Brad Smith of the University of Arizona
at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile, in 1983, or by Dr. Heidi Hammel of JPL
at the University of Hawaii's Mauna Kea facility in 1988.  The features
seen from these Earth-based telescopes were best seen through methane filters
not available on Voyager 2, and imaging scientists have been somewhat concerned
that such features might not be visible to Voyager 2's cameras.

The mottled appearance of Neptune in these frames is likely to be "noise"
in the camera system.  Color versions of these images, assembled from pictures
taken through violet, clear, and orange filters, show a dark band of clouds
encircling the planet's southern pole.  [...]  The natural color of Neptune
is a pale blue-green, caused by the absorption of red light by methane gas
in the planet's atmosphere.

[...] Spacecraft review
      -----------------

[...] At launch, each spacecraft carried about 105 kilograms (232 pounds)
of hydrazine.  During its 11.5 years in space, Voyager 2 has used about
60 kilograms (140 pounds) of hydrazine.

[...] Each Voyager is powered by three radioisotopic thermoelectric generators
(RTGs), which produce electrical energy throutgh the conversion of heat
generated by the radioactive decay of plutonium-238.  At launch, the power
output of the RTGs was about 423 watts.  The power output steadily declines
as the plutonium decays, and is now about 380 watts.  The science instruments
require about 105 watts, or about the same wattage as a typical light bulb.

[...]  Instrument Description and Health
       ---------------------------------

[...] Each Voyager spacecraft carries two imaging cameras: a 200-mm,
f/3.5 wide-angle camera using a refracting telescope and a 1500-mm f/8.5
narrow-angle (telephoto) camera using a reflecting telescope.  Each camera
carries a one-inch selenium-sulfur vidicon to convert an optical scene into
electrical signals.

Each frame consists of 640,000 pixels, each of which is expressed as a level
of gray on a scale from 0 (black) to 255 (white).  [...]  The sensitivity
of the filters ranges from 3460 (ultraviolet) to 6184 angstroms (red-orange).
[...]

Voyager 2's narrow-angle camera has dust specks on the vidicon which result
in faint, doughnut-shaped blemishes in images [what do they expect, it's
been twelve years since the maid came].  In addition, the emission of the
vidicon cathode in the narrow-angle camera has decreased since launch.

[...]  The photopolarimeter measures the way light is scattered from particles
in an atmosphere or on a surface.  By studying the polarization of reflected
light as ther lighting geometry changes during a flyby, scientists can make
inferences about the nature of a planetary surface or atmosphere.  The
photopolarimeter can also be used to study rings by measuring the intensity
of a background star as the starlight passes through the rings.

The photopolarimeter consists of a 200-mm Cassegrain telescope with filters,
polarization analyzers, and a photomultiplier tube to convert incoming light
into electronic signals.  It covers three wavelengths in the region between
265 and 750 millimicrons.  Five of the eight original filters and four of
the eight original analyzers are no longer accessible.  [...]

Voyager 2's Health
------------------

Both Voyagers have experienced several health problems since launch, some
minor and some rather major ones.  Nevertheless, mission controllers have
in every case been able to identify the problems and provide a way to continue
to meet mission objectives.

In September 1977, about a month after launch, Voyager 2 suffered a hardware
failure in the FDS [flight data subsystem - one of the computers].  As a
result, 15 engineering measurements can no longer be made (about 215
engineering measurements remain).

In 1978, eight months after launch, Voyager 2's main radio receiver failed,
and a tracking loop capacitor failed in the backup receiver.  As a result,
Voyager 2 can receive signals in only a narrow "window" of frequencies--and
the window slides.  The window is about 1000 times narrower than it originally
was, and temperature changes in the radio receiver of even 1/4 degree cause
the window to slide up or down in frequency.  Temperature changes can be
caused by heat generated by the spacecraft's electronics.  The flight team
has devised a rigorous routine for commanding the spacecraft.  Signals are
sent several times at different frequencies to determine the receiver's
current frequency "window".  Commands are then transmitted, after calculating
where the receiver's "window" will be, and taking into account how the signal
frequency will change due to the Earth's rotation and other motions.

[...]  In August 1981, just after Voyager 2 passed Saturn, the scan platform
quit moving.  Three years of intensive analysis and testing of similar parts
on Earth, and of the scan platform on Voyager 1, led to a failure model
and to guidelines for safe usage of the platform.  The failure has been
attributed to a lack of full lubrication of the bearing area between the gear
and pin in the azimuth actuator.  Lubricant has probably migrated back to
the bearing surfaces, healing the problem.  Adherence to the guidelines
for safe usage permitted Voyager to complete a successful encounter with
Uranus in 1986, returning some of the highest resolution images ever taken
of solar system bodies.  [...]

Just days before its closest approach to Uranus, Voyager 2 suffered the
loss of one word of memory in one FDS processor.  As a result, bright and
dark streaks appeared in images.  Only imaging data was affected, and a
software patch was sent to bypass the failed bit.

Despite a little arthritis, a little hearing problem, and some loss of memory,
Voyager 2 is still in excellent operating condition, and gaining rapidly
on Neptune and Triton.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 18:40:55 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!powi@rutgers.edu  (Peter Owings)
Subject: Re: Samara Probe for Remote Imaging

In article <10900004@tippy> fireman@tippy.uucp writes:
>
>Reprinted from "NASA Tech Briefs," February, 1989.
>
>"This conceptual device would scan automatically, without costly aiming
> or stablizing devices."
>
>   - NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California


	I would think the most costly part of this device would be
the detectors.  Is there a plan to try to recover them before they
spiral into the Earth's/planet's surface?  Otherwise I would think
it fairly costly  to drop these detectors only to have them smashed
on some planet.

	Peter Owings			powi@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
	University of Rochester, Department of Physics and Astronomy

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 19:43:40 GMT
From: vsi1!wyse!mips!prls!philabs!ttidca!sorgatz@apple.com  ( Avatar)
Subject: NASA FY-1990 Budget Numbers

In article <21672@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>Here is the NASA budget request for fiscal year 1990 (beginning
>>October 1, 1989).
>>		     NASA FY 1990 BUDGET SUMMARY
>>			(Millions of Dollars)
>>Shuttle Production & Capability Development  1128.2     1305.3 (total)
>>Space Shuttle Operations                     2305.2     2562.7 (total)
>
>>Expendable Launch Vehicles                     85.5      169.5
>
>Is it any wonder that the dream is dead at NASA?
>William Baxter

 This is an astute point, but what I wonder is how much of each of these
numbers is the cost of management vs. tech support/hardware??

 Does anyone have access to the information ???

 Would they be willing to post it??

 ...why NOT?

 Maybe I could write some letters...

-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:29:46 EDT
From: "ERIC E. WALLIS" <347DODT%CMUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V9 #297

Speaking of buying Soviet satelite photographs... when are we going to
get a look at their photos from Mars?

=========================================================================
347DODT @ CMUVM.BITNET  * " May fortune favor   * " Houston, we have
ERIC E. WALLIS          *   the foolish...      * a negative on that
NO MORE BURRITOS!!!!!   * -- Admiral James T.   * orbit trajectory..."
CENTRAL MICH UNIV       *    Kirk ( NCC- 1701)  * --- Calvin and Hobbes
=========================================================================

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 17 Mar 89 10:36:05 EDT
From: Bill Sallee <SYSBILL%UKCC.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Moronic TV news coverage

The network coverage now doesn't seem to be as bad as it was in the
1960s.  Most of those guys came from radio and were incessant talkers.
I think anyone who strangled them on the air would have been let go by
any jury.  I've never heard of CSPAN-II (Lexington, KY) but we do have
CSPAN.  I never thought to check that channel at launch time.  Commercial
free coverage would be a real bonus also.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 89 17:46:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update for 3/17/89


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending 
March 17, 1989. 

With the closing of the STS-29 mission, the crew of the Space Shuttle 
Discovery are ending their mission by stowing gear and wrapping up 
experiments.  The landing is scheduled for 9:32am EST Saturday morning at 
Edwards Air Force Base in Calif.  A turnout of 20,000 spectators is 
expected to watch Discovery land. 

Friday morning President Bush called the crew to congratulate them on a 
successful mission which was the first of his new administration.  In the 
conversation he stated that the space program, especially the space station
is an investment in our future.  He went on to say that even though we are 
living through difficult budgetary times he is determined to go forward 
with a strong, active space program. 

The mission so far has been one of qualified success. Successes included 
the deployment of $100 million Tracking Data Relay Satellite, protein 
crystal growth experiments, and various other life sciences experiments.  
Problems arose as the false readings in the hydrogen storage tank number 3,
a broken IMAX movie camera belt, and the fluid ammonia heat exchange
experiment. All remedied eventually, but they did cause headaches for the
crew.  

The first generation heat exchange system designed to be used on the space 
station did not work as planned due to air bubbles that kept the ammonia 
fluid from radiating heat into space.  Firing the motors of Discovery did 
not free the air bubbles in the 50 foot pipe, so the crew will flush the 
pipe and give it one more try prior to landing.  Using the IMAX camera the 
crew filmed environmentally sensitive areas of the earth including a huge 
smoke cloud over the Amazon, and the Sahara Desert. 

Meanwhile back at Kennedy Space Center..... 
NASA officials stated that preparations for the launch of the Space Shuttle
Atlantis and its Magellan Venus Radar Mapping probe are right on the mark 
for launch on April 28, 1989.  The launch is time critical since the window
for the Magellan spacecraft lasts only until May 25th.  The Magellan Radar 
Mapper will map about 90% of the planet's surface after making its 26 
million mile journey to the cloudy planet. 

Tennesse's Democratic Senator Al Gore told NASA officials that they must
come up will better budgetary justification for the space station if the
rest of the Senate is to approve the $2.1 billion needed for the program. 
The Senate Science, Technology and Space subcommittee Chairman asked them
to provide justification in terms of foreign policy and technological
justifications.  Other Senators wanted to know how the program benefits the
every day individual living in places such as New York City or the
Mississippi Delta.   

NASA space station chief James Odom responded by asking the Senate to 
approve the 22% NASA budget increase because any significant cut would kill
the space station program.  In addition he stated that an action such as 
that would be irresponsible due to the fact that we've made so many 
commitments and agreements with foreign partners. 

NASA Administrator Dr. James Fletcher and the Japanese Ambassador to the US
signed a memorandum of understanding which spells out the details of 
cooperation on development of the space station.  The Japanese will 
contribute to the station by providing a permanent experimentation module 
in which materials processing and life sciences experiments will be 
conducted. 

Science writer Carl Sagan in testimony to the House Space Sciences and 
Applications Subcommittee last week stated that the Moon is a dead end and 
that Mars should be the next target of exploration for NASA.  He went on to
state that the Moon is not a stopping point between the space station and 
Mars and is a waste of time and resources.  A manned mission to Mars would 
cost about $60 to $100 billion dollars spread out over 20 years. 

Meanwhile back at the Commerce Dept. officials there have been busy 
rescinding their orders given last week to turn off Landsats 4 & 5.  
Operation of the satellites will continue while the White House reviews the
matter further. California Democratic Representative George Brown, Jr.
initiated a letter signed by 103 other members of Congress addressed to
President Bush and Vice President Quayle asking them to make sure that the
$9.4 million is found to keep the satellites running till the end of the
fiscal year. 

JPL scientists have discovered several unknown active fault lines in the 
Mojave Desert in CA.  The discovery was made from data obtained by the 
Thematic Mapper instrument aboard Landsat 5. 

The Soviet space probe Phobos, which is in orbit about Mars, is drawing 
closer to its destination the moon Phobos.  On April 1 the spacecraft will 
pass within 150 feet of the lopsided moon and deploy two landers.  One 
lander will harpoon itself into the surface while the other hops around on 
the surface.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #307
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Mar 89 06:09:48 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01532>; Thu, 23 Mar 89 05:57:11 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 23 Mar 89 05:57:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0Y:AM:y00Vs181i046>;
          Thu, 23 Mar 89 05:25:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.wY:AEwy00UkZMI904E>;
          Thu, 23 Mar 89 05:17:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4Y-AE2y00UkZAI7U4V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 05:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #308

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 308

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Black hole trolling
		  Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
		     Re: Statistics and astrology
		   Re: Moronic Television Coverage
			 Commercial Spaceport
	    Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
		       Re: Black hole trolling
		      Re: Cost of USSR launches
			     loft-1 info
	   PHOBOS INFO (was NSS Hotline Update for 3/17/89)
		       RE: Shuttle Experiments
Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)
		   Re: Clarity of shuttle pictures
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 89 21:44:27 GMT
From: rti!talos!kjones@mcnc.org  (Kyle Jones)
Subject: Re: Black hole trolling

kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU:
> The forces that hold a macroscopic object together are electromagnetic.
> They require the exchange of virtual photons between the particles to be
> held together.  When the object extends across the event horizon, the
> photons can no longer go from the atoms inside the black hole to the atoms
> outside.  Thus the tether is neatly sliced.

Scott Henry writes:
> This is incorrect. The definition of the event horizon is the point at
> which photons cannot escape to *infinity*.

No, it is not.  The very name `event horizon' suggests that this definition is
incorrect.  Events occuring within the region enclosed `event horizon' cannot
be observed outside that region.  This implies that no photons within that
region can exit that region.  Stephen Hawking theorizes that some photons can
in fact escape due to fluctuations in the event horizon due to quantum
effects.  But this does not change the basic definition of the event horizon.

kyle jones   <kyle@odu.edu>   ...!uunet!talos!kjones

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 89 22:59:45 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation

In article <8903171855.AA18044@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>Anyone know what happened to MMI and their plans for launching their `Space
>Van' from a floating platform off Pago Pago?

Last I heard they were still around, but the state of their plans I don't
know.  I am not optimistic about them:  their plans steadily got more
ambitious (first a 747 launch, then a new-build launch aircraft, now
a floating platform to start from), which isn't a good sign.  It's all
superficially plausible, but where will they ever get the money?
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 89 00:03:51 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Statistics and astrology

In article <8903170444.AA25322@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>, roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
> In particular, it is plausible to infer that base
> hits, which are of great personal importance to professional players, ought
> to be influenced by the "astrological forces", as shown by correlation with
> some astrological phenomenon, if these forces indeed have considerable

I agree that the study was worthwhile, but it ignored the effect
of astrological forces on a small but important minority of
baseball players for whom it is of great personal importance that
there NOT be base hits, and whose playing skills in fact do
significantly negatively impact the other players' batting performance.

These players are commonly referred to as "pitchers."
If they have a good day when the batters also have a good day,
do the effects cancel out?
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen
"Anyone can build a conservative design, given liberal resources." -- MJK

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 89 22:50:58 GMT
From: att!alberta!ubc-cs!eric!eric.mpr.ca!rosenave@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dennis Rosenauer)
Subject: Re: Moronic Television Coverage



Many people have complained about rotten television coverage of
shuttle missions.  I have also complained about this and gotten
nowhere.  So I simply did a bit of shopping and put together a
TVRO (that is a home television receive earth terminal) and now
I get NASA Select without all the BS.  If one is willing to do
a bit of shopping there are quite a few used satellite TVROs
available now since the pay television operators started
scrambling because nobody wants to pay more for it.  So look
around and with a bit of effort you can have coverage without
all the announcer BS.

So check out the garage sales and the want-ads, I have a 10 foot
antenna on my TVRO and the whole thing cost me $600.  Not bad
considering what people pay for personal computers these days!

---
from sharp minds come ... pointed heads

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 89 19:53:33 GMT
From: att!codas!ablnc!rcpilz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robert C. Pilz)
Subject: Commercial Spaceport


I saw yet another article about a commercial spaceport effort in
Florida. There are 3 competitors for this scheme: Military, Other
Countries and Other States. There are 3 feasible sites in Florida:
The abandoned Air Force pads in Brevard County, an abandoned city
of Shiloh - in Brevard and Volusia Counties near Titusville, and
Cape San Blas in the Florida panhandle.
The military is an obvious competitor. Currently, any commercial
launch can be bumped without a moment's notice by a military
launch. So it is important for commercial launch companies
to develop alternate sites for commercial launches. 
The second area of competition is other countries. New joint
ventures such as Australia and Japan are teaming up day by day.
The commercial launches in these countries are heavily subsidized
by the governments, making the bid to launch foreign country's
equipment an uphill battle.
The third area of competition is from other states. Hawaii has
two potential sites and Virginia wants to develop an existing
NASA facility on Wallops Island off the southeast coast. Earlier,
California made efforts but has dropped the ball. (This was
due to the "Great Tax Revolt.")
Florida has a lot going for it because of the existing infrastructure.
I think private companies could beat some of the rates charged
for NASA launches. For one thing, a private company would not
have its parts coming from all over (Mass., Utah, Texas, etc.)
more of the parts of the vehicle would come from locally developed
facilities.
There is some opposition to the $10 Million to explore the
Florida Spaceport, the money could be better used for child care,
etc., but that might be too short-sighted. There is the threat
to the fragile Florida ecology; the wild life, water, and air.
Then, again this may create yet another silicon valley explosion.
R. C. Pilz
AT&T IMS
Orlando, FL

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 89 15:17:15 GMT
From: jfcl.dec.com!imokay.dec.com!borsom@decvax.dec.com  (Doug Borsom)
Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle

In article <983@afit-ab.arpa> tkelso@afit-ab.arpa (TS Kelso) gives
numbers for the orbit of STS-29:

>STS-29     
>1 19882U 89 21  A 89 73.55415843 -.00101560  00000-0 -41670-3 0    87
>2 19882  28.4595 220.3275 0023371 200.1716 159.8216 15.84857645   147

Can someone tell me what orbital attribute each of these numbers
describes or point me to a book that does so?  Thanks.

Disclaimer:  Any ignorance expressed in this message is purely my own.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 89 05:26:42 GMT
From: tektronix!tekecs!nobody@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (-for inetd server command)
Subject: Re: Black hole trolling

Arnold Gill writes:
>
>     This is inherently incorrect.  Double-null coordinates on the event
>horizon have a light-cone parallel to the event horizon surface, which
>means that no particle can cross the event horizon itself.
> . . . .
>     The first appender is correct - the tether will be sliced.
>
Then again, since virtual photons violate conservation of energy, 
and virtual pions violate conservation of mass, who knows what
might happen when you spin a yo-yo into a black hole?

What I have a little trouble buying is the concept of an expanding
universe.  I have heard that astronomers can determine the distance
of an object by its red-shift.  This is supposedly because the entire
universe is expanding, and the objects with the highest velocity will
thus be farther away.

This all seems to assume that the observed red-shift of distant galaxies
is due to the Doppler effect.  It makes sense to me that a lot could
happen to a photon in 10 billion-odd years to shift its frequency around
a little bit!!  I'd be interested in what the astronomers in the group
have to say about this.

Kendall Auel				   ^ ^
					  /O O\
Tektronix, Inc.				  | V |
Information Display Group		/  """  \
Interactive Technologies Division	/ """"" \
(kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM)		 /|\ /|\

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1989 13:21-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Cost of USSR launches

I have heard anything from $600-$800/lb (full recovery cost) for the
old soviet boosters versus $2000-$5000/lb (and more) for the space
shuttle.

The biggest difference is that the soviet booster, primitive though it
may be, is turned out on an active assembly line. They have been
producing them for decades and have achieved a very high level on the
production learning curve and the economies of stable production and
economies of scale.

Whereas the US launch vehicles are produced either hand made one at a
time or in batch runs of new models with high setup costs.

It really is no wonder they can charge $10M. I would actually not be
surprised if that is their actual cost recovery plus profit figure.
When it comes to space, their government is much better at it than our
government.

But when our private sector finally gets its toe hold, they'll ALL be
left in the dust.

=========================================================================
If man were meant to be governed,		ANARCHY NOW
birth would require a committee			Dale Amon
meeting.
=========================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 89 15:43:43 GMT
From: ecsvax!hunnic@mcnc.org  (Jeff Hunnicutt)
Subject: loft-1 info


a while back i recall seeing some discussion of the loft-1 
launch from cape canaveral.our machines archives did not contain
the articles on this.can anyone enlighten me on this launch ?
mainly the specs of the rocket,the telemetry involved and whom
was responsible for the idea inception,permission,and construction
of the rocket and launch.any information would be appreciated.



jeff hunnicutt @ university of n.c. wilmington

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 89 17:36:46 GMT
From: killer!pollux!ti-csl!m2.csc.ti.com@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Dane Meyer)
Subject: PHOBOS INFO (was NSS Hotline Update for 3/17/89)

Ken Scofield asked me to post this (he has no access to the net).  He is
very interested in information about Phobos.  Please post any info of
general interest here -- or other nitty gritty can be mailed directly.
Thanks.
                                                                              
Dane Meyer  (Texas Instruments, Dallas)
                                                                 
ARPA/CSnet: dmeyer@csc.ti.com
UUCP:       {convex!smu im4u texsun pollux iex rice}!ti-csl!dmeyer

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >The Soviet space probe Phobos, which is in orbit about Mars, is drawing 
 >closer to its destination the moon Phobos.  On April 1 the spacecraft will 
 >pass within 150 feet of the lopsided moon and deploy two landers.  One 
 >lander will harpoon itself into the surface while the other hops around on 
 >the surface. 

  ...150 *feet*!!??!!  I had no idea it planned to skim that close.  I'm used
to figures measured in *miles*!  Ok, so here's a question for ya:  How do the
landers decelerate, and/or what is their speed relative to Phobos?  I'm gonna
take a guess here at my own question:  I suppose the orbiter has been 
injected into an orbit nearly identical to that of Phobos, only very slightly
closer to the planet (Mars).  This way, it will gradually 'catch up' to
Phobos, because with a slightly smaller orbital radius, the orbital velocity
must be slightly faster.  When the orbiter draws near to Phobos, it will be
captured by Phobos' gravity and caused to orbit Phobos.  The orbital speed
around Phobos is probably tiny (a few tens of miles per hour?), and so the
landers could 'freefall' to the surface with little more than a slightly
bumpy landing.  I'd guess the 'hopper' could almost 'bounce' back into
orbit under the right conditions!  The harpoon, of course, keeps the other
one stuck tight to its target.

  Can anyone tell me what's REALLY going to happen here?

Ken Scofield   Hewlett Packard, Corvallis, Oregon
  ARPA: kas@hp-pcd.hp.com
  UUCP: {convex rice rudgers ames}!hp-pcd!hpcvic!kas

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 15:25:21 CST
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (The unexpected is our normal routine)
Subject: RE: Shuttle Experiments


>With all of NASA's budget cuts and cost overruns doesn't it seem a little(?)
>ridiculous for our astronauts to be WASTING valuable time, and consequently
>money, performing such useless activities as studying chicken egg embryo
>developement and rat leg healing. Grante in the (much) distant future we
>could gain valuable, aplicable, knowledge... but for now don't you think
>this time and money could be used for more practicle, usefull purposes?
>                          Respectfully,
>                          Eric Wallis
 
Think long term!  What should we do, wait thirty years and break a persons
leg to see how it heals.  Even though I posted a missive which some felt
was critical of basic research (it really wasn't), the sort of experiments
you seem to be knocking are what needs to be done.  We don't have enough
experience in space to be doing anything but building block research.

And while my heaters are on, what sort of research did you have in mind?

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 89 13:08:18 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@uunet.uu.net  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)

>From article <22768@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, by yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee):

> DISCOVERY'S RETURN-TO-FLIGHT PHOTOGRAPHS RECORD MANY FIRSTS
> 

Are such photographs to be published by NASA? Any information as to how one
can obtain them in the UK?

Andy

-- 
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, UK
JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk   BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1989 13:07-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Clarity of shuttle pictures

>     A lack of recent major volcanic eruptions, which cause dust 
> in the upper atmosphere, also may have contributed to the extreme 
> clarity.

>     As a result, the STS-26 photographs captured details not 
> usually seen in Shuttle photography: for the first time, an 
> aircraft was photographed generating a contrail; individual 

I wonder if this is really due to clearer air or due to a policy
change. I've been told how back in the 60's security types made sure
that cameras were defocused to prevent it from getting out just how
much could be seen from space. Makes me wonder if it's all just a cover
story so no one has to admit past hanky panky due to top secret
policy...

Interesting that there should be such high clarity despite:

>      It is the largest and thickest accumulation of smoke ever 
> photographed by astronauts, much larger than the previous largest 
> smoke cloud photographed by astronauts over the same region in 
> 1984.

Lets just say that I'm not a trusting soul.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #308
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Mar 89 07:47:22 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01302>; Fri, 24 Mar 89 07:04:54 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 24 Mar 89 07:04:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sY:Tisy00Ui3I4ik5d>;
          Fri, 24 Mar 89 03:26:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.oY:Tcjy00UkZ4L9E4B>;
          Fri, 24 Mar 89 03:20:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QY-TZVy00UkZ0L7k5y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 03:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #309

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 309

Today's Topics:
	    Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
			      Space News
		       RE: Black hole trolling
		     Re: Solar cells on the moon
		       Re: Congressional Blame
Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)
Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)
		   Re: Moronic Television Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 16:42:23 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?

    A very astounding breakthrough just may have been made in nuclear
fusion.  According to both the Financial Times (Mar 23, pg. 1, 26, and 22)
and the Wall Street Journal (Mar. 23, b1 & b8) two scientist will announce
indications of room temperature fusion of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) inside
a solid material today at the University of Utah.  These are not off the 
wall guys - the FT points out that both are experimental experts in 
electrochemistry (Dr. Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University UK,
Dr. Stan Pons of University of Utah).  Fleischmann is also a fellow of 
the Royal Society in London.  I will summarize the articles but suggest
that you get hold of the FT one (the WSJ was written by someone who really
does not know the details).  I have added some physics info to make it
more understandable.
    The process they are using consists of the following.  Consider an
electrochemical cell (like a battery) with a platinum electrode, a heated
palladium electrode in a bath of heavy water (deuterium oxide).  Flow current
from the palladium (negative electrode) to the platinum electrode (positive 
one).  At some current the deuterium flow into the palladium, combined with
the effect of the material itself, causes the deuterium nuclei to come
together and fuse into helium 3 plus a neutron (with 3.27 MeV of energy) 
or tritium plus hydrogen (with 4.03 MeV, 1 MeV = 1.6E-13 Joules of energy).
(My speculation the fusion processes here are not certain).
To show the real strangeness here note that the repulsive forces from the
positive charges on the two nuclei normally require temperatures 
of 50 - 100 Million degrees to overcome (high temp. mean the atoms are
travelling very fast and so when they collide they overcome the repulsion
to get close enough together to have fusion occur).  This room temp. 
result is obviously very unusual.  What really indicates that fusion has
occurred is that the FT article states they saw fusion products, gamma
rays, tritium and neutrons, none of which are generated by chemical processes.
It is especially the neutrons that are important - that shows that fusion
occurred.  People at the UK Atomic Energy Authority say they know of the
work and are treating it seriously.  The article has been submitted to the
British science journal Nature.  Just my own speculation but one
thing that may agree with this is that there is a material called Zeolite
which stores hydrogen at densities higher than that of liquid hydrogen.
This shows that solids can force hydrogen atoms closer together than they
normally would be.
     There is a news conference that will be held today at U of Utah.  If
there is anyone who can get more information on this please send it to me.

                                                      Glenn Chapman
                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab
                                                      glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 89 14:40:01 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space News

Jonathan's Space Report

Mar 21, 1989 (No. 8)

Space Shuttle Mission STS-29 ended on Mar 18 with the landing of
Discovery on concrete RW 22 at Edwards.  Atlantis has been mated with
the STS-30 stack at Kennedy Space Center; it has been in the VAB since
Mar 12 and is due to be moved to pad 39B tonight (Mar 21/22).

The Soviet Union has launched the Progress-41 robot cargo tanker, and
docked it with the Mir orbital station on Mar 19. 

The SDIO Delta Star launch has been delayed.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 89 17:38:10 GMT
From: killer!pollux!ti-csl!m2.csc.ti.com@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Dane Meyer)
Subject: RE: Black hole trolling

The following response was generated by a physicist who wishes to remain
anonomous to avoid megabytes of mail being sent to him.  But he agreed
to let me post his comments for your information.

                                                                              
Dane Meyer  (Texas Instruments, Dallas)
                                                                 
ARPA/CSnet: dmeyer@csc.ti.com
UUCP:       {convex!smu im4u texsun pollux iex rice}!ti-csl!dmeyer

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

<<< 	Easy.  The forces that hold a macroscopic object together are
<<< electromagnetic.  They require the exchange of virtual photons between
<<< the particles to be held together.  When the object extends across the
<<< event horizon, the photons can no longer go from the atoms inside the
<<< black hole to the atoms outside.  Thus the tether is neatly sliced.

	Too simplified!  The answer below is actually more accurate.

<<This is incorrect. The definition of the event horizon is the point at
<<which photons cannot escape to *infinity*. This in no way implies that
<<they cannot cross the event horizon, they just cannot make it very far
<<past it (depending on how deep they started). The bonds between atoms
<<(nucleons) would begin to behave *oddly* as the energy of the virtual
<<photons (gluons) would be different as seen by the higher and the lower
<<(gravitationally speaking) particles. How oddly? Who's interested in a PHd
<<thesis (maybe only a Masters)? 

	A full detail of this interaction in a closed reference frame
	would probably be worth a PhD!!!  The problem is that an
	outsider would never be able to see the 'fishing line' cross the
	event horizon.  When the hook was sent out... it would appear to
	approach the horizon but due to extreme time dilation (the
	lengthening of observed time intervals) the hook would only
	approach the event horizon and then APPEAR to take forever to
	reach it.  In the frame of the hook, it would cross the event
	horizon and then the physics turns weird because of the phase
	transition to a space-like object rather than the time-like
	object we normally know.  The top of the hook could send a
	signal (say electrostatic) to the bottom of the hook but the
	bottom of the hook could not respond.  So the attractive forces
	which keep ordinary matter ordinary would only work one
	directionally but the gravitational force would work in the
	opposite direction and at enormously greater magnitudes.  So the
	hook (and also the line) would gradually get stretched more and
	more.  Simultaneously (if that means anything to an object with
	3 time coordinates), the very atoms of the hook would gradually
	separate with the more massive ones accelerating faster than the
	lighter ones.  Eventually (as if that means anything either),
	the very nuclei would get stripped apart with neutrons
	accelerating toward the black hole faster than the protons and
	much faster than the electrons!  Everything would shred into
	fundamental matter!!!  BUT this would not happen in time but
	over some distance measure!!!  Or some such thing.  I've
	forgotten some of the details (I took the graduate 'GRAVITATION'
	course about 5 years ago).  Such things like electromagnetism
	get affected and temperature has a weird meaning and time has
	3 coordinates and space only has 1 coordinate and so on!!!

	Take my word for it...  the effects inside of the event horizon
	of a black hole are weird*weird*weird!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 18:59:20 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Solar cells on the moon

>From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
>Subject: Re: Solar cells on the moon

>In article <8902280411.AA08018@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>>power storage (3 weeks or more). A pivoting solar array would cost much
>>more than one just laid flat on high ground, and would only collect about
>>60% more power (at the equator). It would, however, provide full power 

>*ONLY* 60% ?  seems like a lot of power to give up to me.

It may seem like a lot, but you should remember that land area and solar
energy are now effectively unlimited on the surface of the moon, so the
figures of greatest interest are the cost and reliability of a total system
to provide the power needed. For an initial lunar station, with components
manufactured on earth and transported to the moon, structural members cost
about as much per pound as solar cells. In spite of the low gravity and
lack of wind, it would be very difficult to design and build a large tracking
system that could be easily transported and assembled on the moon. If use
of a tracking solar array raises the peak power cost by a factor of 2-4
(a cautiously pessimistic estimate), but you only get ~60% more total power,
then it may be a poor economic decision to choose a tracking system.

There are many factors going into the choice of a lunar power system, some of
them discussed in the original posting. A tracking system provides a longer
period of peak power output, but can be expected to be much less reliable.
(In calculating power collection, I use a simplifying assumption from a
book on solar power, that the power produced by a solar cell, as a ratio to
peak power, is directly proportional to the sine of the angle of the
incident light. By integration over 180 degrees or pi radians, the energy
gathered by a passive collector is 2 / pi, or ~64% of the power gathered
in the same time by a collector pointed directly at the source.) If the
tracking collector gets stuck pointed at the horizon, it will gather power
only 25% of the time, with total energy collection half that of a passive
system pointed straight up. Passive or active reflectors are another option
to consider.

Some people feel that the best initial lunar power system would be a solar
thermal system, with heat storage underground for use during the lunar night.
                                   John Roberts
                                   roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1989 13:32-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Congressional Blame

>  Not exactly. Congress , while by no means blameless, did not turn the 
> shuttle into a hodgepodge of fiscal compromises.  Blame Dick Nixon, who

If you want to see what congressional micromanagement does to
government agencies, I recommend you read "The Unexpurgated Grace
Commission Report". I believe it is available from the Cato Institute
in DC. The version released by the Reagan administration was sanitized
so as not to offend powerful men.  But the original authors had rights
to their work and later published the original, WITH names of all the
very guilty parties.

If you want to see how corrupt your government is (and very
nonpartisanly corrupt) read this report. I recommend you have nothing
breakable or crushable near you while your read it.

I still don't believe NASA can lead us into space, but this book shows
clearly one of the reasons they and other agencies do such atrociously
poor jobs.

And PS: I do basically agree with Marc's article.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 89 05:33:05 GMT
From: urania.CS.ORST.EDU!willitd@cs.orst.edu  (Don Willits)
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)

I had the privlege to meet Pat Jones who works at the Lunar and Planetary 
Institute in Houston, and conducts much of the preliminary work on Shuttle
photography, as well as astronaut briefings.  As a result, I have two
comments:

1)  The Great Wall *IS NOT* the only man-made object visible from orbit.  If
I remember correctly, it is the only one visible *FROM THE MOON*.  Many of
the slides taken from shuttle (that Pat showed in the lecture series she held
here at Oregon State) show CLEAR and RECOGNIZABLE signs of human habitation.
>From tankers dumping oil at sea to cities themselves (such as Moscow, Rome,
New York, and a personal favorite of the astronauts:  Houston)

2)  For anyone wishing to obtain copies of photos taken from Shuttle, the
Lunar and Planetary Institute sells several excellent slide sets (put together
by Pat).  For more information, contact:

Lunar and Planetary Institute
3303 NASA Road One
Houston, TX  77058-4399  U.S.A.

LPI also offers a number of other slide sets as well as a number of interesting
books.  Write them for a catalog.

Don Willits
willitd@urania.cs.orst.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 89 03:36:59 GMT
From: beowulf!carraghe@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Robert Carragher)
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)

In article <22768@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>Charles Redmond
>NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                March 14, 1989
>
>James Hartsfield
>Johnson Space Center, Houston
>
>
>RELEASE: 89-
>
>DISCOVERY'S RETURN-TO-FLIGHT PHOTOGRAPHS RECORD MANY FIRSTS
>[lots of stuff on pictures deleted]

Can we actually get these?  (free/$$$)  If so, what is the place to
mail requests?  Thanks.

Please reply via email to avoid flooding the net with answers to
these (probably) oft-asked questions.

					Bob Carragher

Reply: rcarragher@ucsd.edu     These opinions represent those of my
   OR  rcarragh@ucsd.edu       company!
                                       -- Representative
if the above didn't work.                 Me, Myself, and I, Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 89 23:37:26 GMT
From: naucse!rrw@arizona.edu  (Robert Wier)
Subject: Re: Moronic Television Coverage




 If you'd like better coverage of the shuttle flights, you might
 try your local cable-tv company.  Back before the FCC deregulated
 cable, most systems had to devote a certain number of channels to
 "public interest" and "local interest" programming.  Some still do
 this in order to maintain good will with local regulating agencies
 (although they can no longer really regulate).  

 When I was at my last school in Fort Worth, Texas I beat on the local
 cable company for about a year to provide continuous coverage of
 manned missions taken from the NASA Select satellite transponder.
 It was a real hassel, since the cable company didn't really want to
 do it, and required me to do things like get permission from NASA
 in writing that is was ok to rebroadcast.  At any rate, by 
 invoking the use of the school's public access channel, getting
 IEEE to sponsor (in a political, not fiscal way) the coverage, and
 generally pointing out that there were a large number of scientific
 and engineering type subscribers in the area (due to the presence
 of General Dynamics, etc) I got it going.  

 I was gratified to see that the coverage was listed in the local
 newspaper as a "special service" to the community.


   - Bob Wier                                College of Engineering
  Flagstaff, Arizona                      Northern Arizona University
  ...arizona!naucse!rrw |  BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | *usual disclaimers*

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #309
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Mar 89 01:18:31 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA19926>; Sat, 25 Mar 89 01:03:26 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 25 Mar 89 01:03:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sY:m=iy00Ui382FUIz>;
          Sat, 25 Mar 89 00:26:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.wY:m6Qy00UkZANkk4p>;
          Sat, 25 Mar 89 00:20:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YY-m57y00UkZ8NjE51@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 89 00:19:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #310

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 310

Today's Topics:
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
			 Recovery of Salyut 7
		       Re: Commercial Spaceport
		   Re: orbital dynamics & plotting
		   Re: orbital dynamics & plotting
		      Re: Rockoon's (was Sanger)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #302
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 89 05:46:49 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <1529@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes:
>>>The fact is that there's a helluva difference between airlines sending up
>>>non-airline people and space agencies sending up non-space people...
>>
>>Please explain:  what *is* the difference?
>
>The difference is that the airlines are set up as passenger movement
>companies...

They are set up as passenger and freight movement companies, actually.
The Soviet space-launch operation appears to be set up the same way.
The US shuttle tries to work that way, despite various protestations
to the contrary motivated by recent politics.

>NASA is an organisation with the job of implementing the
>American Space Program. Space flight is risky stuff, and whilst flying from
>Heathrow to JFK is no walk in the park, it's an awful lot easier and common.

Didn't used to be.  Airlines got started back when airflight was also
risky and uncommon.

>>The Soviets have been flying Soyuz missions for a [long time].
>Yes but they haven't been trading as a flashy airline (who wants to take
>off from Baikonur and land in Soviet Central Asia for the sheer hell of it?
>:-])

They've been trading as a boring, drab, state-run airline, actually.
What else?  As for the location, what matters is not the destination but
the ride!  Perhaps you wouldn't take that ride if offered; I would!!
I couldn't care less how boring the starting and ending points are.
(Come to that, central Florida isn't too thrilling a place, either.
I've been there.  I wasn't bored; I had launch 41C to keep me interested.
I wouldn't expect to be bored at Baikonur, either.)

>... When an entire orbital vehicle explodes, killing all aboard, many
>people are too shocked to think about getting back to business.

Curiously so, since the same effect doesn't operate for oh-so-much-more-
reliable airliners.

> I remember
>Sally Ride said that no astronaut was going to get in a Shuttle until they
>were sure it was safe.

Sally Ride did not speak for all the astronauts.  If post-Challenger
flights had continued, urgent payloads only, volunteer crews only,
there would have been no shortage of astronauts volunteering.  Some
of them said so at the time (quietly, because the official NASA
position was as Sally Ride described).  Remember, many of these people
are/were test pilots, accustomed to flying vehicles which are known to
be risky.  Others were scientists who simply wanted to fly again, and
if that meant some risks, fine.  Taken at literal face value, Ride's
statement is nonsense -- the shuttle is not, and will never be, safe
in any absolute sense.  Just like aircraft.

>>(Apollo 1 put the US space program back only 18 months
>  ^^^^^^^^
>  Was this the launch pad fire that killed Grissom et al?

Yes.

>I still stick by my original thinking that nothing good will come of
>sending civilians into space for nothing more than propaganda and adventure

I still stick by *my* response, that nothing good comes of sending civilians
up in aircraft for nothing more than visiting relatives, and this obviously
should be forbidden as a silly waste of resources, even if said civilians
can pay the fare and the airline is making a profit on it.

[From Rick Wojcik's posting, same theme:]

>>Why [are space flights] "priceless"?  The Soviets have had no hesitation in
>>putting a price on it...
>
>Soviet politicians, like ours, wish to exploit the space program to achieve
>short term political goals.  Right now, it tickles their fancy to have the
>appearance of routine space flights when our program is in disarray...

What on Earth (or in space :-)) are you talking about?  They don't need
to have the "appearance" of routine space flights -- they have routine
space flights, and have had them for years.

>They
>aren't just selling flights.  They are broadcasting a propaganda message.  How
>much profit do you think they make by 'selling' their flights to to
>Westerners?  This is not a commercial exercise.  It is a propaganda exercise.

I don't deny that they are exploiting it for all the political gain they
can get.  However, it is a mistake to assume that they're subsidizing it.
I've previously posted a back-of-the-envelope calculation showing that,
at their current prices, it is almost impossible for them to be losing
money on it.  I, for one, think they're making a real, cash profit.

>Each space flight is priceless because we can only afford to support a limited
>number...

What do you mean "we", comrade? :-)  Speak for your own country, which flies
fewer payloads in a year than the Soviets fly in a month.  Saying something
is "priceless" is a debating tactic, not a statement of fact.  There is
always a price.

>We know so little about space and its effects on humans that we need
>every opportunity to expand our knowledge...

Don't you think this knowledge is likely to be expanded by flying a wider
cross-section of people than athletic professional astronauts?

>... There is
>always the danger that space flight will be ended permanently because we can
>no longer afford the resources to sustain it.

Nonsense.  Spaceflight consumes an utterly negligible fraction of the
world's resources, especially when it is done economically and efficiently
(not a US specialty).  What is dangerously low is not resources, but will.
In the US, that is.

>Even Jake Garn did some 'useful' things.  But there is enough work up there so
>that it is more cost-effective to let scientists perform the experiments.
>They, at least, know what they are doing.

Tell that to NASA, which prefers professional astronauts (who are *not*,
repeat *not*, scientists -- ask a scientist).

>>Speak for your own country, comrade. :-)  Truly spacefaring nations (there
>>is currently one on Earth) can afford to use space for many purposes.
>
>You insist that the space program turns a profit?  Do you have an estimate on
>how much money it brings into the national treasury?  How much do you think
>the Soviets are making?  This is indeed good news.

It certainly doesn't bring any money into the US treasury; note that my
comments addressed only spacefaring nations, which the US is not, despite
clumsy attempts in that direction.  As for the Soviets, they're working
on it.  Remember that their treasury and their economy are one and the
same, so they can count up indirect benefits as well as direct ones.

>>... The USSR is selling
>>commercial flights into space, today.  This is a verifiable fact; call them
>>up and ask them.
>
>Call up who?  Pravda?  The Soviet Embassy in Washington? ...

The embassy could probably refer you to the right place:  Space Commerce
Corp. in Houston, the US representatives for most Soviet space services.

>...  The point
>of putting a civilian teacher up there was to demonstrate the safety and
>competence of our space program.

I've heard this theory a number of times since Challenger, but as near
as I can tell it was never advanced earlier.  The real motive behind
the Citizens In Space program (of which Teacher In Space was the first
phase) was to give US citizens some feeling of involvement in a program
that they had no hope of ever participating in personally.  Certainly
the participants had no illusions about it being safe -- note that
practically none of the applicants withdrew after Challenger.

>The public really had their attention focused on that flight.

Really?  I detected no signs of such great excitement at the time.
"Another shuttle flight?  Yawn.  Oh, the teacher is going up on this
one?  Must be thrilling for her students.  Yawn."

>Do you really think that this is the time to send up
>a bunch of entertainers?

Why not, if they make it clear that they understand the risks?

>Another disaster with them, and you can kiss our
>space program goodbye. 

If it happened in the US, perhaps.  But the problem will be the same if
that disaster happens with only professional astronauts aboard.

>The idea of getting people to "take over" our space
>program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it
>was impractical.  It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free market
>was the answer to everything...

Yes, ridiculous uncommercial people like Boeing.  And it went out the
window because NASA wasn't interested in relinquishing control, despite
a few encouraging noises early on.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 89 22:52:09 GMT
From: vsi1!wyse!mikew@apple.com  (Mike Wexler)
Subject: Recovery of Salyut 7

I was reading in Space Flight that the Soviets are planning on recovering
Salyut 7 using Buran. I was wondering what their reason for this 
mission was? I can think of several possibilities:
	1. to test out Burans recovery capabilities
	2. to keep it from crashing onto somebody's head
	3. so they can analyze the effects of long term exposure to LEO.
	4. to refurbish it for relaunch
	5. some of the above
	6. all of the above
	7. none of the above.
Does anyone know when they are planning on doing this and whether or not
it will be broadcast?
Mike Wexler(wyse!mikew)    Phone: (408)433-1000 x1330
Moderator of comp.sources.x

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 89 19:20:30 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!bturner@hplabs.hp.com  (Bill Turner)
Subject: Re: Commercial Spaceport

(Caveat, my mind is like a sieve, but anyway...)

CH2M Hill, an engineering firm in Corvallis, got a contract to do the
feasibility study of an Australian spaceport.  I can't remember any details
of it -- anyone else know more?

--Bill Turner

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 89 18:39:36 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!tcdcs!vax1!belld@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: orbital dynamics & plotting

In article <809@mv03.ecf.toronto.edu>, apollo@ecf.toronto.edu (Vince Pugliese) writes:
> Our research group is interested in obtaining
> a package, or packages (PD preferable), that
> marries both orbital dynamics and the plotting 
> of such orbits. Any and all information would
> be appreciated.
>                  Thanks in advance,
>                  Vince Pugliese
>                  apollo@ecf.toronto.edu
>                  apollo@ecf.utoronto.ca

		A friend mentioned MacSat a couple of days ago. I don't know
if it's PD but it does produce a world map with a plot of the orbit. It also
gives times of visibility. Hopefully I'll get a chance to see it work soon.
-- 
	Derek Bell
*************************      
*  dbell@maths.tcd.ie	*      Are you seriously suggesting that coconuts
*  belld@vax1.tcd.ie	*                migrate???   
*************************                  - Monty Python & the Holy Grail

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 89 21:46:39 GMT
From: brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Adam Brody)
Subject: Re: orbital dynamics & plotting


I wrote an orbital trajectory planning program that runs with Excel on the
Macintosh.  It does not provide a ground trace but rather responds to user-
supplied burn inputs along 3 axes.  COSMIC is currently looking it over
and should post an article about it in Tech Briefs soon.  If your need is im-
mediate, let me know and we can probably work something out.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 89 18:38:00 GMT
From: uxd.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!daniel@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Rockoon's (was Sanger)


> I believe, that the ideas behind the Sanger concept are twofold:
> ....
> according to two-year old info - would be, that Sanger
> presumably could take off from an ordinary airport

I heard recently from a man who was conducting aerodynamic simulation
for the Sanger, that the Sanger would probably be 100 meters long and
have 6 engines, each with a diameter of about 5 meters.  I seriously
doubt that the Sanger will be able to take off and land from a typical
jet port!

He also said that realistically, the Sanger developement was in its
early stages.  The Sanger craft will probably not fly before 2050.

-- Daniel Pommert

email.internet:	daniel@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
email.bitnet:	daniel@uiucvmd

phone:	(217) 333-8629

post:	DCL Rm, 150
	1304 W. Springfield
	Urbana, IL  61801-2987

where:	40  6 47 N Latitude
	88 13 36 W Longitude

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 22 Mar 89 15:15:45 EST
From: ERIC WALLIS <347DODT%CMUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V9 #302

     Volatiles in the moon? Unlikely, as a geology major I can say that
volatiles(if you mean hydrocarbons such as gas) would require the burying
and heating of dead plants and animals... unlikely on a lifeless body.
     Water? as far as I know the moon is nothing more than a large block
of basalt, any water would have been driven off during the moons creation.
and with no atmospheric pressure to speak of how could water be maintained?

=========================================================================
347DODT @ CMUVM.BITNET  * " May fortune favor   * " Houston, we have
ERIC E. WALLIS          *   the foolish...      * a negative on that
NO MORE BURRITOS!!!!!   * -- Admiral James T.   * orbit trajectory..."
CENTRAL MICH UNIV       *    Kirk ( NCC- 1701)  * --- Calvin and Hobbes
=========================================================================

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #310
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Mar 89 04:35:56 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA13147>; Sat, 25 Mar 89 03:44:29 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 25 Mar 89 03:44:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QY:olFy00Ui3M2FURe>;
          Sat, 25 Mar 89 03:22:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.oY:ohIy00UkZMO3U5U>;
          Sat, 25 Mar 89 03:18:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AY-og6y00UkZ0O205-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 89 03:17:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #311

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 311

Today's Topics:
			Why NASA is in trouble
	    Were remote manipulators ever called Waldoes?
	Good stuff on TV (A&E Cable to show Apollo 11 footage)
		 Using the Shuttle for higher orbits
			  Sojuskarta Photos
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 00:33:55 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Why NASA is in trouble

After a message I left flaming NASA for, among all the usual things,
expecting to replace all its retiring expertise with an "Expert
System", I received the following Email.  I thought it should be
posted, but the sender didn't wish his name attached to it.  He did
give his permission for me to be post it without his name.
----------------------------------------

Mike -

I saw your message on Heavy Lift Launchers from March 10 (sent to the
space news feed) as a part of the Space News Digest on ARPAnet.  A
couple of minor corrections on the Saturn V.  The two left over S-Vs
are at Marshall and at JSC, but the one at JSC is not in front of the
visitor's center, but is at the parking lot.  (A minor nit to pick, I
know.)

Castigating NASA for the long lead time to develop a new launcher is
not wholly appropriate.  Several major differences exist between the
NASA of the Apollo days and the NASA of today.  First, NASA had a
stable budget that was not as subject to Congressional Micro-management
and program stretchouts.  If the money needed was allocated and was
promised to be adequate (barring a war or other disaster) for the
scheduled program, it would make things easier.  For examples of the
problems that unstable funding and program strechouts lead to, read the
histories of the Shuttle program in "Challenger: A Major Malfunction"
and "Prescription for Disaster".  In addition, 60% of this fiscal
year's Space Station budget will not be available until May or June.
This means that for 40% of the money, 58 to 66% of the year's work is
to be done.  Yes, some equipment can be purchased at year's end, but
right now the Station is in the design phase, which is engineering
labor intensive, not hardware intensive.  This is due to a political
ploy by the Democrats, which would have allowed Dukakis to kill the
Station and move the money to aid for the homeless.

Second, NASA was put under the DOD procurement regulations, making any
significant ($100,000+) purchase a nightmare of paperwork.  For
something as big in $$ as a heavy lift vehicle it would take 2-3 years
to: write a Request For Information & Request For Proposal (RFP), get
the RFP approved by purchasing and legal, issue the RFP, wait 3+ months
for questions from the bidders, write the responses to the questions
(this has to be done by taking all the questions and writing a document
which answers all the questions without giving away the questions),
wait 3-6 months to get proposals from the vendors, set up a place for
the Source Evaluation Board to review the proposals and read them, and
finally (3-6 months more) award the contract.  This assumes that there
won't be a preliminary weeding out of bidders to 2 or 3 finalists, as
was done with Shuttle.  {Shuttle had 4 bidders at the first cut - I
think they were Rockwell, Boeing, Grumman and McDonnell-Douglas, then
it was cut to 2 - Rockwell and ?Grumman.  The Boeing proposal was a
fully reusable liquid fueled system with a flyback first stage and
higher payload, but was deemed too expensive to develop.  The Grumman
candidate shuttle had a higher payload, but a lower crossrange landing
capability and DOD did not want to use a vehicle that could not
guarantee an emergency landing outside a Communist country.}

Then, if anyone protests to the GAO, add 6+ months for the protest to
be looked at and ruled on.  (The validity of the protest has nothing to
do with anything these days - recently the contract for the Advanced
SRB for the Shuttle was narrowed down to 2 competitors from 5 or so - a
small Canadian company with only a few employees and no track record in
large boosters has protested and is now delaying the bidding process!)
So, in order simply get the program rolling will take 2-3 years.  Even
small purchases take a lot of time - it takes 4-6 weeks to buy a PC
around here.  I've got a PO for a Mac IIx in the works and it has been
there for 30 days now.  It took 2 weeks to get it signed off.

Third, NASA doesn't have the money to do what they did in Apollo - try
several lines of attack to the problem so as to have a backup if one of
them is a dead end.  The LEM that was finally used in Apollo was the
secondary contractor design.  Fourth, NASA (and its support
contractors) are having a hard time in recruiting engineers.  The
average government engineer starts out at $26,500 (for FY 88) and the
average nationwide was $30,500.  That $4000/yr difference is harder to
overcome, as the benefits of civil service are not what they used to be
- the retirement, insurance, etc. are all now on a par with private
industry levels or are more expensive.  In addition, all new civil
servants are now part of Social Security.  The only significant
advantage of civil service is a more liberal vacation policy.  It is
hard to get someone to take pay that starts out 15% below average, work
in grungy buildings, in crowded offices, put up with the B.S. and
paperwork and expect the pay gap to get worse as time goes by.  The
glory of working on the space program doesn't sell as well as it did in
the 60s.  I am making 20% less than my former co-workers at my old job
- and I have more experience and a MS degree to boot.  Recruiting at
NASA Ames in the SF Bay Area is a nightmare - after 10 years experience
you might make $42000/yr or so.  That doesn't go far when 1 BR
apartments are $700/month and houses are $200k.  The government tends
to get two kinds of engineers to apply - those that want to work on the
projects the government does, and those that can't find jobs anywhere
else.  In the Apollo days, the first kind of applicant overwhelmed the
second at NASA.  NASA has seen a reversal of that since the early 70s.
Draw your own conclusions for the other agencies.  The pay issue goes
all the way to the top of NASA managers - the head of JSC (a 2.5
billion+ enterprise with 5-6000 employees and contractors) can only
make about $72000 a year with a small bonus added on.  The starting
salary for a lawyer in New York City at an established firm is $69,000
and for MBA type it is in the 50s, so why should a good manager stay
around and make 50% of what he could in private industry?  What seems
to happen is that many managers bail out to industry as soon as they
have 20-25 years in at NASA and have a good pension built up for
retirement and then go to industry to add a second pension and make
some bucks.

On the subject of the expert systems article in the New York Times -
the writer had it somewhat wrong.  The INCO expert system that was
shown in the picture is not intended to capture the expertise of
retiring NASA engineers.  The AI aspect of the project is a minor part
of its success.  It has been well-accepted here at JSC more due to its
fast, readable data displays and flexible human interface than any AI
content.  The expert system in it is relatively small and not very
sophisticated (which was intentional - in a project that is as
mission-critical as this, you walk before you run).  The current
displays in mission control are cryptic and use a lot of hexadecimal
codes to display fault info.  The controllers have to memorize them or
look them up in books, which is time consuming and unwieldy.  (If this
sounds very stone-age, remember that the shuttle had a mid-70s
technology freeze for the electronic systems, and mission control is
driven by a bunch of old IBM mainframes with 80x24 character displays
and simple vector graphic displays like the old Tektronics 4000 series.)

There is a department working on a project to do design knowledge
capture for the space station.  The station will be on orbit for 30+
years, so NASA realizes that the designers will be moving on and will
not be around to answer all the questions that will come up during
operations.  So, a project that will capture the reasons for design
decisions, the tradeoffs, the pitfalls and possible problems and
failure modes is being launched.  It is hoped to put most of this
information into a database that will be available for future reference
and possibly for use in building expert systems.  NASA is very
conservative when it comes to AI, so don't expect that the engineers
will be replaced by black boxes anytime soon.  In any case, if the
expertise of a retiring engineer can be captured, that is better than
not having it at all.  I don't see why it should upset you.

NASA is not solely the province of evil moneywasters that intend to
sacrifice the future of the space exploration to the USSR.  There are a
lot of good people here that are looking down the road and want to do a
good job.  However, when Congress says design to cost not specifications
as happened on Shuttle, delays, stretchouts and overruns will (and did)
happen.  It really chaps me to see some of the uninformed, polemical
drivel that is put out on the net as the "truth" about NASA.  NASA is
not perfect.  NASA is not the ultimate example of what government
should be.  NASA is a human institution, with all the problems that
entails.

(name deleted by request)

---------------------------------
He's right.  Let's not forget, there are still some good people
at NASA, and they deserve better than they're getting from the
twits in Congress.
-- 
"Ain't nothin' in the middle                  Mike Van Pelt
o' the road, 'cept a yellow                   Video 7
line and dead 'possums."                      ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 22 Mar 89 10:06 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Were remote manipulators ever called Waldoes?
Original_To:  SPACE


Recent discussion on teleoperation in Space Digest has revived the word
"waldo" to describe a mechanical hand.  I had some trouble with this word
some years ago, and I'd like to ask about it...

I was working on a museum exhibit which dealt with "how science fiction
has influenced the real-world development of spaceflight."  One of the examples
that came up was the oft-repeated story that Robert Heinlein's novella "Waldo,"
written in the 1940s, gave a name to the remote manipulators developed for
handling radioactive materials.  I decided to look into this a bit.

Fermilab has a number of engineers who are experts with decades of experience
in the remote-manipulator field.  Somewhat to my surprise, they had never
heard the name "waldo" before.   I didn't research this exhaustively, but
I began to suspect that "waldo" is a word that never did go into general
use among manipulator people.

It is an observed fact that most science fiction fans believe that "waldo"
is the accepted name for mechanical hands.  This story is widely repeated
and has been embedded in SF-techie folklore for a generation now.

Here's what I think may have happened:

1. Heinlein writes a popular story in *Astounding Science Fiction* in which
remotely controlled hands are called "waldoes."

2. In some laboratory somewhere, a group of engineers working on remote
manipulators decides to call their device a "waldo." At least one of them reads
*Astounding* (obviously).  Maybe they inform the rest of the technical
community through conference papers, etc., or maybe they don't; at any rate,
the name does not catch on.

3.  The *Astounding* reader writes a letter to the magazine reporting that
his lab has called their manipulator a "waldo."

4.  John Campbell, editor of the magazine and an inveterate booster of hard
SF, either prints the letter or mentions it in an editorial.  Chances are
he will repeat the story many times over the years, as he loves to tell
people how good SF is at influencing technology.

5. The "waldo" story becomes a canard, repeated by SF writers and fans for
decades, though remote-manipulation engineers who are *not* SF fans are
ignorant of it.

Now I don't have much evidence to back this scenario, though it fits the meager
facts I know about manipulators, folklore, and the way Campbell's mind worked.
I am hoping that somebody who knows more about the history of manipulators, or
who has seen discussion in the pages of *Astounding/Analog*, will be able to
provide more information.  If there are newsgroups relevant to teloperation,
remote manipulation, or robot hands, maybe some kind soul will cross-post.

(Apologies for the slender relevance to space!)

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with Free
     ~  Nobel Prizewinner Inside!   Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 89 21:32:53 GMT
From: att!homxb!homxc!mrb1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (M.BAKER)
Subject: Good stuff on TV (A&E Cable to show Apollo 11 footage)

Hi ----

The following is excerpted from the March 13th issue of
"Broadcasting" magazine (usual copyright stuff applies, I'm
sure, so "Thanks and a tip of the SRB" to them).

Twenty years after the actual event, Arts & Entertainment cable network
will rebroadcast NBC News' coverage of Apollo 11's July 20, 1969
landing on the moon.  Entitled "Moonwalk: As It Happened--1969",
the footage will air in three parts: "Liftoff" on July 16;
"Moonwalk" on July 20, and "Recovery" on July 24.  Each part
will be aired exactly 20 years to the minute after NBC News first
began live television coverage.

Hope this is of interest to many newsgroup readers.  I was 12 then,
and there are probably more than a few people reading this who weren't
even born in 1969 --- so this should be a quite an opportunity to
see and tape this programming.

M. Baker
homxc!mrb1

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 22 Mar 89 16:20 EDT
From: <K_MACART%UNHH.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Using the Shuttle for higher orbits


      Has anyone seen any studies to show if the shuttle could achieve a
higher (geostationary even?  escape trajectory (to moon)) if it filled a
good portion of the cargo bay with a fuel pod?  Once (if) a station gets made,
it could drop off cargo there, load a tank into the bay (even another external)
and take off from there.   Admittedly they need to man rate it for up to 30
days or more, but hey, why not?   I know they are thinking of developing a
space "tug" for geo orbit transfer, but the shuttle would make a good
intermediate step if it can get the capability.  Think of all the LEM type
vehicles a fully loaded shuttle could hold in lunar orbit.  The problem would
no doubt be that the shuttle wasn't made for the higher radiation possibilities
or the longer duration voyages.  Any opinions?

                                Korac MacArthur
                                K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 22 Mar 89 08:25:29 PST
From: greer%utd201%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Sojuskarta Photos
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"

>From March 13 Space_Digest

>Art Dula, US rep for Soviet space products, reports that some US
>government agencies are buying Soviet space photos from Soyuzkarta via
>him.  He won't say who; "if I did that, they wouldn't be customers
>any more".  Soyuzkarta delivery is slow and they can't deliver digital
>data, because their satellites are film-return types, but they give
>5-meter resolution (unenhanced), which is better than anyone else.
>
>Henry Spencer

A related story appeared in The Dallas Morning News on March 20, 1989.
Here is a greatly condensed version.

        Fort Worth Firm Spies Market for Soviet Satellite Photos
                 by Susan Waller /staff writer, DMN/

     Forth Worth geologist Dr. Velon Minshew heads two-man operation for
  ContiTrade Services Corp. to market hi-res pictures from Soviet FTO
  Sojuskarta.  Contitrade's contract marks first release of hi-tech Soviet
  photography to Western world.
     The higher [than LandSat] resolution photos may face some
  international opposition.  Feds are resisting widespread availability of
  [hi-res sat photos], which may limit ContiTrade's sales.
     ContiTrade will sell the unretouched photos or will digitalize [sic]
  them.  "The cost depends on how detailed the customer wants to get, but
  a top-of-the-line color positive runs about $1000," said Russ Irons,
  director of ContiTrade's computer-applications division.
     "The Soviets will sell the data at 60 meters digitalized, but we can
  beat that already," Dr. Morgan [geologist at TCU] said.  "If you have
  the raw data that can be digitalized, you have much more control of
  the image."
     Soviets unlikey to face competition from U.S..  "The feeling is that
  the cost of putting up the system is going to restrict the commercial
  usage.  *All our launches are via the shuttle; we don't have launch
  vehicles for commercial use*," Mr. Doyle [of the U.S. Geological
  Survey] said.  [My italics.]
     ContiTrade Services is international merchant bank with >10000
  employees worldwide; delivers financial services to trading community.
     Photos from Sojuskarta can include any area except Soviet Union,
  China, and other socialist countries.  The agreement gives ContiTrade
  exclusive rights to market the space photos in Western hemisphere,
  excluding Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Nicaragua, and Cuba.


----
"Pave Paradise,				|         Dale M. Greer
	 put up a parking lot."		|   Center for Space Sciences
		-- Joni Mitchell	| University of Texas at Dallas
					| UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

P.S.  
Some of the spelling on the net has always been atrocious, and now some of
the grammar is difficult to follow as well, and not just from those Quebecers
either.  But mainly I'm getting tired of seeing "arguement" and "argueing",
words which come up often on any net, and which are correctly spelled
"argument" and "arguing".

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #311
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Mar 89 06:24:21 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00580>; Sat, 25 Mar 89 05:51:35 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 25 Mar 89 05:51:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YY:qV6y00UkTE1ik98>;
          Sat, 25 Mar 89 05:22:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.kY:qSJy00UkZ0OCE5R>;
          Sat, 25 Mar 89 05:19:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kY-qQUy00UkZMOAk44@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 89 05:17:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #312

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 312

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Manned vs. unmanned mission popularity
		     Re: Solar cells on the moon
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #302
			   Re: loft-1 info
		    Statistics (was: Astrology...)
		       RE:  USSR launch prices
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #302
		       Primordial Hydrocarbons
			"Piddle On The Pad"...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 89 21:55:56 GMT
From: thumper!gamma!pyuxp!nvuxj!nvuxr!deej@faline.bellcore.com  (David Lewis)
Subject: Re: Manned vs. unmanned mission popularity

In article <8903171811.AA17990@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
> Noticing the attention in the media to the shuttle mission, and the comments 
> from the politicians (such as Bush's recommitment to the space station), I
> have to wonder about the unknowable value to the space program that this
> constitutes, and compare it to what I've seen for unmanned missions: were the
> first encounters with the planets Saturn and Uranus the banner items on the
> network news?

Uh, well, yes.  As I recall (being rather young at the time), the
Voyagers' flybys of Saturn (and Jupiter) were very big news items.  Big
ticket items on network news, front-page items of weekly newsmagazines,
and so on.

However, I also think that the Uranus flyby wasn't nearly the item that
the others were.

I also note that the last shuttle launch wasn't nearly the news item
that the September Discovery launch was.  Here in the NYC area, the
networks were showing soaps all morning until about five minutes after
the countdown resumed (I seem to recall coming back at about T-4).  On
the evening news, it was about the third-fourth item -- "Oh, by the way,
another shuttle went up again..." kind of thing.

The reason?  Americans bore easily.  Voyager is flying by another
planet?  Big deal.  We already saw Jupiter and Saturn, what's so
exciting about another planet?  The shuttle is taking off again?  So
what?  We've proven we can get back into space.  It flew in September. 
(*I* know that was a different shuttle.  Joe Average American doesn't
know nor care.)

It's not a question of manned vs. unmanned.  It's a question of
capturing the public's imagination vs. the public remaining blase'.  If
you capture the public's imagination, if the public thinks that space is
exciting, the pols will listen.  If the public thinks that space is
boring and useless, the pols will listen.
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David G Lewis			 "somewhere i have never travelled..."
Bellcore						  201-758-4099
Navesink Research and Engineering Center       ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 89 22:36:21 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Solar cells on the moon

In article <8903212359.AA08574@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
: ... If use
: of a tracking solar array raises the peak power cost by a factor of 2-4
: (a cautiously pessimistic estimate), but you only get ~60% more total power,
: then it may be a poor economic decision to choose a tracking system.

Why do you need a tracking system to get most of the sunlight?  Perhaps most
of the time you don't need the other 40% of the power, but when you do, you
just send someone out with a bit of tubing and aluminized mylar to put up
a mirror on the back side of the solar array to reflect light down onto
the array.

Maybe aligning the mirror is one of those daily chores for what's-his-name's
kid...

While we're at it, how much power would a solar array put out in earthshine
compared to sunshine?  Enough to keep the Dust Buster charged up?  At night
you set up mirrors on both sides to focus earthshine on your array.  And
you don't have to change them for two weeks.

Perhaps with newer pulsed soliton lasers that don't diverge much you could
power the solar array from earth at night.  I hear FELs are getting pretty
efficient.  Tune the FEL to emit the best frequency for the potatoes growing
next to the array.  Call it a spin-off from SDI...

Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 04:44:18 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #302

In article <Added.UY_0i1y00Ui3Mhhk9N@andrew.cmu.edu>, 347DODT@CMUVM.BITNET (ERIC WALLIS) writes:
> 
>      Volatiles in the moon? Unlikely, as a geology major I can say that
> volatiles(if you mean hydrocarbons such as gas) would require the burying
> and heating of dead plants and animals... unlikely on a lifeless body.

 Perhaps I could prevail upon a geology major to elucidate the assumptions
 underlying the above hypothesis. I know it's the usual assumption among
 us lay people that oil and gas are somehow byproducts of the decomposition
 of life forms, but is this the only way hydrocarbons can form. E.g. wouldn't
 methane form if carbon and hydrogen (not uncommon elements I believe) were
 subjected to some appropriate heat/pressure? Thus, might there not be some
 hydrocarbons if they were trapped deeply in moon's crust? In fact might it 
 be possible that hydrocarbon compounds preceded life on Earth?

 m wooding

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 17:04:14 GMT
From: att!ihlpb!rjungcla@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Re: loft-1 info

>a while back i recall seeing some discussion of the loft-1 
>launch from cape canaveral.our machines archives did not contain
>the articles on this.can anyone enlighten me on this launch ?
>mainly the specs of the rocket,the telemetry involved and whom
>was responsible for the idea inception,permission,and construction
>of the rocket and launch.any information would be appreciated.

The folowing response is from my posting of about late January 1989:

5.  >A high power rocket built by North Coast Rocketry and carrying a 
    >research payload was recently launched (past 6 months) from Cape 
    >Canaveral after months of red tape. 

Mark Johnson (Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM) reports info on LOFT-1:
   The flight was launched from Canaveral Air Force Station on November
   17, 1988 at 0745 EST, reaching an altitude of 3.25 miles. (LC 47 was 
   the launch site, using a modified Loki-Dart launcher; telemetry was 
   set up at LC 41). The vehicle itself and the Vulcan N5000-20 motor 
   performed essentially perfectly, although E-Prime's aneroid 
   main-chute deployment feature failed to eject...it was rigged to 
   reduce drift by holding the main chute until the vehicle reached an 
   altitude of 3000 feet on the way down, and it got fried by the 
   ejection charge on the motor, which was used to eject a 24" (or so)
   drogue chute.  The drogue chute thus was the only recovery system 
   on the bird, which suffered only minor damage on splashdown.
 
   The flight vehicle was recovered within 1 hour of the flight, and 
   was opened up in front of the news media shortly thereafter. 
   Telemetry data was received the entire time the vehicle was airborne.

   Several NAR members were involved in the project in various ways:
   (The LOFT effort is NOT an NAR activity, but rather one that some 
   NAR members branched out into by applying their model rocket 
   technology and experience.)

   Matt Steele, part-owner of North Coast Rocketry, designed the 
	vehicle and did some or most of the construction.  Project 
	engineer with Morton Thiokol-Huntsville. 
   J. Wayne McCain, a PhD candidate at Univ. of Alabama/Huntsville, 
	was payload integration manager.  Wayne is an amateur radio 
	operator.
   David Babulski, longtime MR telemetry builder (his series is 
	currently running in AmSpam), ran the telemetry ground station 
	for the flight. Dave is employed as a curriculum developer/trainer 
	with Harris/3M in Atlanta (copiers, fax machines, etc.)
	Dave is also an amateur radio operator.

   Some other details...one of the original payloads scheduled to be 
   launched on LOFT was a high-school biology experiment, coordinated 
   by Dave Babulski, from Brookwood High School (east suburban Atlanta).
   When LOFT was repeatedly delayed, Dave, Wayne, and North Coast put 
   together a replacement vehicle, called BABE-2 (the original 
   experiment package was BABE-1), which was flown from Huntsville 
   (Redstone Arsenal) last spring. This vehicle was powered by a
   Vulcan I283 and reached an altitude of 10,000 feet...15,000 had been
   projected but a structural failure occurred in the bird at Mach 2+ 
   causing the vehicle to break up and the payload did a free-ballistic
   number.  The experiment package was recovered with only minor damage,
   somewhat surprisingly; I think telemetry even survived the aerial 
   breakup although it stopped rather suddenly on meeting the region of
   extreme drag coefficient known as earth.

Another friend of mine reports that details of this flight are reported
in a recent issue (January?) of Discovery magazine.

R. Michael Jungclas                    UUCP:      att!ihlpb!rjungcla 
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.       Internet:  rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 19:58:15 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Statistics (was: Astrology...)


>From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
>> In particular, it is plausible to infer that base
>> hits, which are of great personal importance to professional players, ought
>> to be influenced by the "astrological forces", as shown by correlation with
>> some astrological phenomenon, if these forces indeed have considerable

>I agree that the study was worthwhile, but it ignored the effect
>of astrological forces on a small but important minority of
>baseball players for whom it is of great personal importance that
>there NOT be base hits, and whose playing skills in fact do
>significantly negatively impact the other players' batting performance.

>These players are commonly referred to as "pitchers."
>If they have a good day when the batters also have a good day,
>do the effects cancel out?

I suspect that the study is about the most detailed one that can be done
without a greatly increased effort to find data. You would have to research
actual astrological predictions concerning the relative effectiveness of
offensive and defensive efforts, find out which players had read astrological
forecasts, etc. You could try correlations just for pitchers, but they form
a smaller statistical sample, and are more prone to the whims of managers
than other players. The study as it stands looks for *any* correlation,
positive or negative, and you would not expect any possible "opposing
influences" to always exactly cancel out.

Many laymen would be shocked to find out that some of the most cherished
statistical models are used, not because they are proven to have the best
fit to real-world situations, but because using any other model would
greatly increase the difficulty of the calculations. There is considerable
temptation to force a measured real-world parameter to fit a given model,
such as by eliminating "obviously spurious" data points. I had an older
friend who got in trouble (company politics) when he decided to use a
standard model to predict the size distribution of rocks on the moon.
(This was before anything had landed on the moon, and they wanted to predict
the conditions a lander might encounter.)

Some of my favorite horoscopes come from MAD Magazine. Two that I remember:
"Your chemistry teacher knows it was you."
"Your day will start out terribly, but then take a turn for the better. A
promotion and a big raise at work enable you to pay for your emergency
brain surgery."
                                     John Roberts
                                     roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 23 Mar 89 19:16 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  RE:  USSR launch prices

John Roberts writes:

>One thing I would like to learn about the Soviet space program is how much
>it costs. I have seen numerous postings on the net comparing the American
>and Soviet space programs, but never a solid attempt to estimate the
>actual cost to the Soviets of a specific launch or of their entire space
>program. It is probable that the cost to launch a person into orbit is
>less than that of the US, but by how much? I suspect that the quoted price
>of $10 million for a launch is heavily subsidized. There are at least three
>plausible incentives for maintaining an artificially low rate:

[...  stuff deleted ...]

> - Economies of scale: The ability to maintain a high volume of launches
>     and to accelerate the learning curve (and possibly to discourage the
>     competition) can make it economically attractive to sell products or
>     services for less than the actual cost. This has been a favorite
>     Japanese strategy for years.

Yes, it's called competition.  The Japanese are good at it.  This is usually
considered to be something good, unless Americans are on the wrong end of
the deal - then it is labeled unfair trading practices.

     The general comments sound like typical American geocentrism to me.  Why
must the rest of the world pay the inflated prices that Americans, with their
artificially stimulated (by the military-industrial complex) economy, are
willing to pay?  Cheap labour exists all over the world, especially behind
the Iron Curtain, and it has little to nothing to do State subsidies.

     A similar situation was the economic blackmail that the US used against
the Chinese and their fledgling space program.  Talk about slimy tactics!
So what if the Chinese launches are cheaper?  Isn't economic competition
something that Americans love to preach?  It is likely to be due to the
Chinese labour/bureauocracy costs being much lower than the American ones,
as well as the use of cheaper, older, but often more reliable,
technological systems.  If you can't compete on the world market place,
then get out or adjust your prices.  Just don't use a bludgeon on someone
else just because you don't like the way that they are running their
business!  Mafia tactics rule in the US Government's economic policies.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 12:33:38 GMT
From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #302

In article <Added.UY_0i1y00Ui3Mhhk9N@andrew.cmu.edu> 347DODT@CMUVM.BITNET (ERIC WALLIS) writes:
>     Volatiles in the moon? Unlikely, as a geology major I can say that
>volatiles(if you mean hydrocarbons such as gas) would require the burying
>and heating of dead plants and animals... unlikely on a lifeless body.
>     Water? as far as I know the moon is nothing more than a large block
>of basalt, any water would have been driven off during the moons creation.
>and with no atmospheric pressure to speak of how could water be maintained?
[]
Thomas Gold, an astronomer/geologist, has suggested that there are plenty of
hydrocarbons on Earth that are _not_ due to metamorphosis of dead plant
and animal matter.  Having heard him speak on this topic, I can say that 
he makes a convincing case.  Some outfit in Sweden is digging for some of
his "primordial" hydrocarbons on the rim of an ancient meteor strike.

Comets seem to contain quite a bit of water ice, as well as other ices.
Some asteroids are "too dark", suggesting presence of some carbon compounds.
The temperature and pressure regime of space allows the presence of some
energetically strange organic compounds, reagents that would be quite 
chemically useful if they could be harvested.

Caveat:  I have met geologists, I know geologists, I have worked with
geologists; but I am no geologist.  I'm not an astronomer, either.

-- 
John Sahr,                          School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall   
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

ARPA: johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 20:46:14 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Primordial Hydrocarbons

In article <986@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu.UUCP (John Sahr) writes:
<In article <Added.UY_0i1y00Ui3Mhhk9N@andrew.cmu.edu> 347DODT@CMUVM.BITNET (ERIC WALLIS) writes:
<>Volatiles in the moon? Unlikely, as a geology major I can say that
<>volatiles(if you mean hydrocarbons such as gas) would require the burying
<>and heating of dead plants and animals... unlikely on a lifeless body.

<Thomas Gold, an astronomer/geologist, has suggested that there are plenty of
<hydrocarbons on Earth that are _not_ due to metamorphosis of dead plant
<and animal matter.  Having heard him speak on this topic, I can say that 
<he makes a convincing case.  Some outfit in Sweden is digging for some of
<his "primordial" hydrocarbons on the rim of an ancient meteor strike.

As luck would have it, last night's NOVA episode was on exactly
this topic.  The outfit in Sweden found methane, but not enough
to make the well viable at this time.  They said that the gas
had been verified as being of non-biological origin, but they
didn't explain how they had verified this.

It should be noted that this site is an area that has been
repeatedly scoured clean by glaciers, and by the "biological
origin only" theory, they shouldn't have found *any* methane.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                                When guns are outlawed,
Video 7                                      only Carl Rowan will have guns.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 01:11:24 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Sirald@uunet.uu.net  (Andrew Lionel Dalrymple)
Subject: "Piddle On The Pad"...

Could someone strike up a description of what happens to
launch-pads (towers and all) after a lift-off?  I was told
that ALL articles (excluding the cement) is scraped after
a launch.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #312
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Mar 89 01:26:48 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA08317>; Sun, 26 Mar 89 00:45:36 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 26 Mar 89 00:45:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sY=7F:y00Ui3I2508v>;
          Sun, 26 Mar 89 00:25:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.IY=7B8y00UkZMOvU5q>;
          Sun, 26 Mar 89 00:21:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EY=7-ky00UkZAOu05V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 89 00:18:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #313

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 313

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
	       Re: PHOBOS INFO (was NSS Hotline Update
	  Looking for animation to support Lunar Prospector
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 00:30:27 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #480 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 78.75530353 0.00000529           62408-3 0  1926
2 00424  80.4658  13.9897 0024248   3.5275 356.6085 13.67101431320591
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 79.46363731 0.00000001           10000-3 0  7075
2 08820 109.8178 199.6897 0044693 334.7978  25.0409  6.38664049 44969
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 74.02987874 -.00000005                   0  2358
2 10061   6.9315  69.3997 0005954 177.2840 182.8361  1.00269103  4431
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 78.70726412 0.00000012                   0   565
2 10684  63.5311 103.6168 0106439 199.6399 159.9997  2.00562048 66732
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 75.17357186 -.00000028                   0  9649
2 10893  64.5409 344.5503 0151702  28.3912 332.4453  2.00558954 79486
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 75.08001118 0.00000092           10000-3 0  6177
2 10953   5.7985  72.0474 0007842 244.6990 115.4087  1.00271624    02
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 80.99351769 0.00002009           75537-3 0   965
2 10967 108.0109 108.0800 0001544 262.0919  98.0013 14.34426451561584
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 72.49708031 -.00000028                   0  9897
2 11054  64.0876 341.1158 0053101 117.2122 243.3465  2.00560498 76445
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 76.59444471 0.00000012                   0  1281
2 11141  63.5285 103.5758 0048429 319.2268  40.4871  2.00575486 75223
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 77.45287059 0.00002982           12743-2 0  8240
2 11416  98.5048  77.1682 0013375  19.0823 341.0856 14.25585592504970
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 76.71848517 0.00066012           14330-2 0  8843
2 11703  28.4986 200.7134 0003602 105.2988 254.4675 15.42966736505655
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 75.05171758 -.00000028                   0  8520
2 11783  63.9376 340.6669 0137591  62.1949 299.2383  2.00566712 65137
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 63.06867812 0.00000085           10000-3 0   532
2 11964   5.2447  74.8076 0024531  81.4499 279.5304  0.99401478   986
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 73.92726843 -.00000249           10000-3 0  7081
2 12472   2.3037  81.6572 0001215 323.2468  37.1665  1.00272457 27666
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 77.80682747 0.00069475           13183-2 0  4904
2 12888  97.5720 126.3722 0002614 107.3943 252.4805 15.48064947414959
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 77.55763725 0.00000409           35950-3 0  6309
2 13113  82.5421 130.8102 0014838 322.7517  37.2668 13.83959735352701
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 79.63530820 -.00005607          -13913-3 0  4833
2 13138  51.6116  30.1945 0002304  91.0016 269.1765 15.38753796394541
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 77.82946894 0.00000791           41235-3 0  7599
2 13718  81.2502   9.9406 0055044 256.4961 103.0090 14.13123167322794
IRAS       
1 13777U          89 77.38397339 0.00000329           25368-3 0  6213
2 13777  99.0472 275.7221 0012721 198.5046 161.5666 13.98552501313502
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 78.12263806 0.00000118                   0  9189
2 14050   1.0781  83.9014 0001492 284.2447  77.0995  1.00279157  5702
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 70.49271510 -.00000036           10000-3 0  3896
2 14129  26.5524 275.5927 6074543  24.7104 355.1329  2.05881509 15201
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 75.14176849 0.00000011                   0  6124
2 14189  63.1634 102.2709 0134326 215.0993 144.0664  2.00571799 41579
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 78.06222113 0.00002095           89992-3 0  7022
2 14452  81.1659  23.8591 0095398 357.1090   2.9512 14.22069085279739
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 81.45445098 0.00002083           47180-3 0  6807
2 14780  98.1787 145.3256 0005234 140.4094 220.1165 14.57151043268930
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 73.14050688 0.00002569           50826-3 0  4170
2 14781  98.0197 134.6837 0012496 261.4704  98.5268 14.63126659268642
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 78.32953417 0.00045067           91774-3 0  7895
2 14898  28.5078  86.9852 0002535 293.3758  66.6718 15.44874012277514
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 70.71069479 0.00000011                   0  6330
2 15039  62.8930 101.7093 0015810 277.7435  82.1364  2.00564408 34762
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 77.91689995 0.00000206           17586-3 0  9291
2 15099  82.5268  78.1722 0013945 124.7829 235.4687 13.83622718237636
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 75.09859740 -.00000028                   0  5969
2 15271  63.3948 340.5164 0099884 319.0764  40.1223  2.00563690 31964
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 77.95382160 0.00007280           10713-2 0  9932
2 15331  82.5367  61.7069 0026037  21.8099 338.4114 14.75078798240918
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 76.93585771 0.00001711           95676-3 0  3454
2 15427  99.1373  62.1303 0014880 206.6706 153.3703 14.11902595219579
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 80.33806368 0.00000744           65884-3 0   629
2 15516  82.5376  14.6307 0017751   7.3308 352.8107 13.84062743208907
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 77.88176524 0.00006274           17173-3 0  1995
2 16095  51.6102  38.7385 0001960  94.5538 265.6683 15.38665164394278
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 77.74693852 0.00000011                   0  3022
2 16129  63.6917 102.0647 0115300 150.7451 209.9816  2.00565156 25222
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 80.52855433 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8111
2 16191  82.5492 297.7399 0019605 155.8355 204.3702 13.16865349163980
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 81.00490629 0.00000431           37709-3 0  4716
2 16408  82.5362 288.9815 0016423 179.3529 180.7911 13.84142613163493
Mir        
1 16609U          89 80.39453676 0.00057652           44585-3 0  7496
2 16609  51.6237  83.8266 0010939 140.2602 219.7953 15.71240974177481
SPOT 1     
1 16613U 86019  A 89081.34891990  .00000000  00000-0  00000-0 0 04052
2 16613 098.7024 157.1452 0000779 074.5793 285.6025 14.20068879072374
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 80.09398052 0.00000497           43803-3 0  2840
2 16735  82.5397 316.4880 0013126 263.0589  96.9095 13.83886611142273
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 79.52884301 0.00004898           72530-3 0  5543
2 16881  82.5242 119.9137 0024322  32.4477 327.8286 14.74782968142223
EGP        
1 16908U          89 66.68751816 -.00000018           17735-3 0  1194
2 16908  50.0132 250.1037 0011436  89.1702 271.0451 12.44376385116772
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 67.55289774 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1333
2 16909  50.0189 247.6702 0011159  89.9444 270.2664 12.44398451116874
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 78.22025078 0.00001355           61955-3 0  2051
2 16969  98.6498 110.3998 0014082 147.6243 212.5813 14.22885227131143
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 80.37144991 0.00000319           27873-3 0  2335
2 17290  82.4644 224.2021 0014217 142.1984 218.0265 13.83680546111478
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 32.87866317 -.00000103           10000-3 0  2270
2 17561   0.0936 256.3952 0004029 308.3915 155.2428  0.99988189   408
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 76.95966614 0.00039351           31190-3 0  7031
2 17845  51.6204 101.3881 0011860 130.8425 229.5488 15.70806527113213
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 79.05754797 0.00000608           65897-3 0  7021
2 18129  82.9259 304.0023 0010606 303.6905  56.3207 13.71957111 87171
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U 87064  A 89081.31830501  .00239209  00000-0  00000-0 0 09399
2 18225 071.8754 288.4722 0010265 229.7619 130.3216 16.07465903097367
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 80.53951016 0.00000362           31921-3 0  2510
2 18312  82.5541 288.9898 0013806  81.8702 278.4034 13.83446049 80398
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 80.99609503 0.00000626           55178-3 0   954
2 18820  82.5412 349.8408 0016659 151.4112 208.8157 13.84127593 57625
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 66.48753782 -.00000081           10000-3 0   312
2 19216  57.2987 217.0442 6676889 200.1058 111.0424  2.09707010  5605
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 80.99942882 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1546
2 19336  82.5412 237.3532 0018434  37.9830 322.2461 13.16854787 31432
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 78.21452833 0.00001279           73316-3 0   586
2 19531  98.9305  22.7023 0013344 123.6682 236.5795 14.10885239 24783
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89 77.08685853 0.00083448           65146-3 0  1168
2 19660  51.6217 100.7379 0011797 127.0762 233.0647 15.70850647 17559
1989 004A  
1 19765U          89 54.19227353 0.00000128           10000-3 0   339
2 19765   1.3989 275.6559 0003155   5.8146 353.6677  1.00268906   297
1989 005A  
1 19769U          89 55.10021662 0.00001025           40018-3 0   306
2 19769  74.0516 316.4605 0024727 272.7543  87.0772 14.30612361  4073
1989 006A  
1 19772U          89 55.48390477 0.00000159           10000-3 0   118
2 19772   0.2087 251.0704 0000423 199.4920 274.2401  1.00549883   274
1989 007A  
1 19774U          89 62.29088547 0.00835695  34441-4  42765-3     888
2 19774  64.7310 224.9743 0118332 120.8668 240.4748 16.05799532  5440
1989 009A  
1 19785U          89 64.10007655 0.00000004                   0   152
2 19785  82.6210  21.7655 0013300 342.6503  17.4136 12.64001191  2848
1989 009B  
1 19786U          89 64.05975057 0.00000004                   0    90
2 19786  82.6234  21.8542 0002898  31.3906 328.7356 12.61808837  2212
1989 009C  
1 19787U          89 64.04615570 0.00000004                   0   103
2 19787  82.6141  21.8207 0005863 352.0436   8.0561 12.62575495  2829
1989 009D  
1 19788U          89 64.11153859 0.00000004                   0   154
2 19788  82.6184  21.7715 0009753 336.7874  23.2773 12.63354838  2840
1989 009E  
1 19789U          89 64.08980311 0.00000005                   0   131
2 19789  82.6106  21.7340 0016252 337.9437  22.0954 12.64579821  2692
1989 009F  
1 19790U          89 64.07632704 0.00000004                   0   108
2 19790  82.6190  21.7386 0019973 332.7979  27.2071 12.65340209  2845
1989 009G  
1 19791U          89 61.07567539 0.00000004                   0    64
2 19791  82.6136  23.8826 0035855 159.5753 200.6770 12.54767430  2435
1989 011A  
1 19796U          89 70.12140472 -.00000961           23892-2 0   271
2 19796  62.8312 155.6785 7351306 318.3537   4.7200  2.00603065   519
1989 011D  
1 19799U          89 68.75865655 -.00000506          -29417-3 0    82
2 19799  62.8505 155.8716 7323117 318.2753   4.8050  2.04037207   494
1989 012A  
1 19800U          89 75.81756769 0.00347003  16404-4  85006-3 0   669
2 19800  65.8270 311.5020 1296343 134.8360 236.4657 13.25605130  3959
1989 012B  
1 19801U          89 73.69979937 -.02887515  17218-4 -51246-2 0   560
2 19801  65.8239 315.7017 1243427 135.5400 235.7857 13.40299809  3688
GPS-0014   
1 19802U          89 70.93695796 0.00000015           10000-3 0   167
2 19802  55.1211 215.6503 0077655 186.9612 172.8939  2.01900521   472
1989 013C  
1 19804U          89 73.79405384 0.00396263 -28712-5  16148-2 0   380
2 19804  37.3842 193.0170 6003260 224.3294  68.9879  4.15875089  1123
1989 014A  
1 19807U          89 73.77669857 0.00000818           45909-2 0   320
2 19807  62.9908 338.8975 7424406 279.9051  10.8010  2.00621212   561
1989 014D  
1 19810U          89 74.01083987 0.00000351           53426-3 0   119
2 19810  62.9638 338.6130 7367741 280.1537  11.3209  2.07313260   583
1989 016A  
1 19822U          89 78.45474634 0.00027893           22863-2 0   331
2 19822  75.1114  94.3353 4326466 142.9786 256.6972  6.82723171  1744
1989 016B  
1 19823U 89016  B 89081.29587005  .00773634  00000-0  00000-0 0 00305
2 19823 074.5686 044.4816 0125969 101.3219 260.2745 15.83310232004454
1989 016C  
1 19824U          89 79.44848572 0.00054829           43302-2 0   249
2 19824  75.1096  93.8605 4319426 142.2524 259.1648  6.84257340  1818
1989 017A  
1 19826U          89 79.47638162 0.00000359           38850-3 0   349
2 19826  82.9517 212.9735 0029626 202.5847 157.4022 13.71043896  3615
1989 017B  
1 19827U          89 77.91681824 0.00000442           47097-3 0   313
2 19827  82.9509 214.0777 0024396 199.4009 160.6223 13.72519946  3398
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89 78.82541950 0.00000117           10000-3 0   128
2 19851  82.5202 230.3900 0013784 195.0377 165.0437 13.83758831  2721
1989 018B  
1 19852U          89 78.90090543 0.00000116           10000-3 0   102
2 19852  82.5191 230.3355 0016771 183.3673 176.7381 13.83523905  2731
1989 019A  
1 19862U 89019  A 89081.89849932  .00767727  00000-0  00000-0 0 00549
2 19862 062.7914 315.4540 0119578 071.1423 290.3589 16.06913630003259
1989 020A  
1 19874U          89 73.10431533 -.00000158           10000-3 0    41
2 19874   0.1274 335.1659 0023518 153.3454 231.7427  1.00290604    65
1989 020B  
1 19876U          89 79.37758420 -.00000035           10000-4 0    95
2 19876   1.1668 297.9366 0041442  30.8537 328.4381  1.00536011   127
1989 020C  
1 19877U          89 78.13484681 0.00084699           77497-2 0   115
2 19877   7.0418 326.4962 7311789 187.5757 146.5446  2.26699269   272
TDRS 3     
1 19883U          89 74.01622933 0.00000119           10000-3 0    33
2 19883   0.1513  45.8853 0021229 245.8687  68.0145  1.00432301    20
1989 022A  
1 19893U 89022  A 89080.64762892  .00012876  00000-0  00000-0 0 00120
2 19893 062.8455 330.1231 0064955 229.2408 130.3938 15.65993924000797
1989 022B  
1 19894U 89022  B 89081.26661088  .00954962  00000-0  00000-0 0 00092
2 19894 062.8353 327.0974 0083449 109.7680 251.3387 15.96777556000907
Progress 41
1 19895U          89 77.78709353 0.00074099           28460-3 0    98
2 19895  51.6394  97.2334 0074933 178.5585 181.7440 15.82283664   320
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 04:55:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: Re: PHOBOS INFO (was NSS Hotline Update


Ken, the deal is that the probe PASSES and not ORBITS the moon Phobos.  The
escape velocity of the moon is 6 mi/hr.  And yes the original figure is 150
feet not miles, and that was confirmed to me by DR. LOU FRIEDMAN dir. of the
planetary society apon his return from the USSR, after meeting with some
big shots there.  As for the velocity of the landers, 150 is no great distance
to pick up any speed.  The harpoon needs as much velocity as it can get so that
it will stick into the surface.  The hooper is about the size of a basketball
and really doesn't hop, I think it kind of rolls, but I'm not sure.  It seems to
me that in such a low gravity environment the hooper can be lightly accelerated
from the spacecraft so that it could achieve a soft landing.  The harpoon will
need all the help it can get, especially it the surface is solid rock!  
The last I hear, the USSR issued a news blackout on Phobos so something must
be a miss (This is just rumor so don't expect to see that last sentence in the
hotline till I can confirm it!).

      Digitally Yours                       -Jordan Katz-
                                            -NSS Hotline Editor-
                                            -NSS Computer Network Coordinator-

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 23 Mar 89 20:40 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Looking for animation to support Lunar Prospector
Original_To:  SPACE

Is there anybody out there who can contribute computer animation services
to a worthy space project?

Recently a Lunar Prospector Team has been formed to construct, launch, and
utilize data from a small satellite that will orbit the Moon and perform a
global survey of mineral resources.  This effort has the strong support of
leaders of many space-advocacy organization, including the Space Studies
Institute, the National Space Society, the World Space Foundation, the Lunar
Society, the Space Frontier Foundation, and Students for the Exploration and
Development of Space.  The Space Studies Institute has committed funds for an
instrument design workshop and for a full payload design, which will result in
blueprints and working subsystems for the spacecraft.

A major effort to raise support for the Lunar Prospector, in the form of funds,
services, and a launch, must be mounted soon.  We must make presentations to
many different people to explain the project and solicit their help.   Rick
Tumlinson, a professional video producer, has offered to contribute his time
and effort to create a videotape which will be a keystone of these
presentations.

The video would be enhanced if high-quality animation sequences could be made
to explain the mission profile and the spacecraft configuration.  We cannot
budget for such animation at commercial rates.  But perhaps there's somebody a
graphics hardware or software company, or a video production shop, or a
university graphics lab reading this.  If you would be willing to donate
broadcast-quality animation *pro bono*, we would be very interested in
discussing the details.

Contact Rick Tumlinson of the Space Studies Institute at (609)721-0377 (days)
or (212)255-2317 (evenings).  Or e-mail to me.

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with Free
     ~  Nobel Prizewinner Inside!   Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #313
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Mar 89 04:52:50 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00853>; Sun, 26 Mar 89 04:19:08 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 26 Mar 89 04:19:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gY=9tYy00Ui3Q2005g>;
          Sun, 26 Mar 89 03:25:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.QY=9nky00UkZ8PAE47>;
          Sun, 26 Mar 89 03:18:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YY=9lly00UkZAP-k5v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 89 03:16:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #314

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 314

Today's Topics:
	 Encouraging US launch industry (was: US/USSR costs)
		  Success with cold fusion reported
	   Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			Re: Sojuskarta Photos
		       Re: Commercial Spaceport
			    Re: Astrology
		     Re: Solar cells on the moon
			 US/USSR launch costs
			volatiles on the Moon
		     What can you see from space?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 21:59:45 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Encouraging US launch industry (was: US/USSR costs)


>From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
>The biggest difference is that the soviet booster, primitive though it
>may be, is turned out on an active assembly line. They have been
>producing them for decades and have achieved a very high level on the
>production learning curve and the economies of stable production and
>economies of scale.
>Whereas the US launch vehicles are produced either hand made one at a
>time or in batch runs of new models with high setup costs.
>But when our private sector finally gets its toe hold, they'll ALL be
>left in the dust.

During the discussion of the Advanced Launch System, it was pointed out that
one of the major difficulties will be getting enough business to achieve 
significant economies of scale and a rapid learning curve. This is a problem
that effects all US launch services, and could become more severe when there
are numerous companies competing. Commercial demand for launches is currently
restricted mainly to communications satellites and fairly limited in volume,
and is not likely to expand much until launch costs are a *lot* lower. The
greatest hope for expanded launch demands (and the only current hope for
interplanetary flights) in the near future is in government-sponsored launches.
Another problem is that many of the launch companies are startups, and thus
unable to afford long periods of below-cost operation to attract business.
In other words, the US commercial space industry is likely to have a lot
of trouble developing and expanding, unless deliberate measures are taken to
encourage its growth.

Some possibilities:
- Expand demand for launches
  - Encourage US companies to buy US launch services, discourage use of
    foreign launch services (already being done)
  - Persuade US industry to buy more launch services
  - Increase government purchases of private launch services
    - Decrease use of government-built launchers, except for experimental
      development (beginning to be implemented)
    - Launch lots of inexpensive earth-observation and interplanetary probes
      (suggested by Nick Szabo and others)
    - More SDI (gasp!) and other military launches on private launchers
- Reduce costs/risks to private launch companies
  - Legislation of liability limitations (proposed)
  - Reduce paperwork requirements
  - Private launch facilities (likely to be done)
  - Long-term government contracts, difficult for the government to break
  - Encourage large corporations to buy small launch companies, to finance
    them during the initial loss period
  - Subsidies (shudder!) - Many other countries subsidize launch services,
    and it could be argued that we should too, in order to establish a
    "level playing field"
  - Tax incentives for greater investment in private launch services

I don't necessarily support any of these, but they seem to be the main options.

If the government is to help a private US launch industry to get established,
the trick is to encourage it to become both economical and self-supporting.
In long-term contracts, for instance, the government could agree to buy the
first few launches at high rates, with a fixed schedule of price reductions
for subsequent launches. This would enable a startup company to obtain the
experience and capital it needs to function economically.
                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 16:09:48 GMT
From: glacier!jbn@labrea.stanford.edu  (John B. Nagle)
Subject: Success with cold fusion reported


     The University of Utah has announced that researchers there have achieved
"a sustained thermonuclear reaction at room temperature".  A press conference
will be held there this afternoon.  Papers have been submitted to Nature.
An article appears on page B1 of today's Wall Street Journal.  Few details are
available at this time.

     If this is not bogus, it is the biggest development in energy production
since nuclear fission.

					John Nagle

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 21:55:49 GMT
From: vlsi!glenn@XN.LL.MIT.EDU  (Glenn Chapman)
Subject: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?


    A very astounding breakthrough just may have been made in nuclear
fusion.  According to both the Financial Times (Mar 23, pg. 1, 26, and 22)
and the Wall Street Journal (Mar. 23, b1 & b8) two scientist will announce
indications of room temperature fusion of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) inside
a solid material today at the University of Utah.  These are not off the 
wall guys - the FT points out that both are experimental experts in 
electrochemistry (Dr. Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University UK,
Dr. Stan Pons of University of Utah).  Fleischmann is also a fellow of 
the Royal Society in London.  I will summarize the articles but suggest
that you get hold of the FT one (the WSJ was written by someone who really
does not know the details).  I have added some physics info to make it
more understandable.
    The process they are using consists of the following.  Consider an
electrochemical cell (like a battery) with a platinum electrode, a heated
palladium electrode in a bath of heavy water (deuterium oxide).  Flow current
from the palladium (negative electrode) to the platinum electrode (positive 
one).  At some current the deuterium flow into the palladium, combined with
the effect of the material itself, causes the deuterium nuclei to come
together and fuse into helium 3 plus a neutron (with 3.27 MeV of energy) 
or tritium plus hydrogen (with 4.03 MeV, 1 MeV = 1.6E-13 Joules of energy).
(My speculation the fusion processes here are not certain).
To show the real strangeness here note that the repulsive forces from the
positive charges on the two nuclei normally require temperatures 
of 50 - 100 Million degrees to overcome (high temp. mean the atoms are
travelling very fast and so when they collide they overcome the repulsion
to get close enough together to have fusion occur).  This room temp. 
result is obviously very unusual.  What really indicates that fusion has
occurred is that the FT article states they saw fusion products, gamma
rays, tritium and neutrons, none of which are generated by chemical processes.
It is especially the neutrons that are important - that shows that fusion
occurred.  People at the UK Atomic Energy Authority say they know of the
work and are treating it seriously.  The article has been submitted to the
British science journal Nature.  Just my own speculation but one
thing that may agree with this is that there is a material called Zeolite
which stores hydrogen at densities higher than that of liquid hydrogen.
This shows that solids can force hydrogen atoms closer together than they
normally would be.
     There is a news conference that will be held today at U of Utah.  If
there is anyone who can get more information on this please send it to me.

                                                      Glenn Chapman
                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab
                                                      glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa
                                                      glenn@vlsi.ll.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 21:39:28 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Sojuskarta Photos

In article <890322082529.1856@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> greer%utd201%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
>     Photos from Sojuskarta can include any area except Soviet Union,
>  China, and other socialist countries.

	Huh?  I understand the Soviets not selling photos of the Soviet
Union or countries in their sphere of influence, but China?  Since
when have the Soviets ever done ANYTHING for the Chinese?  Not
all Socialist countries are allied in any way with the Soviets!

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 18:28:56 GMT
From: leah!rpi!pawl6.pawl.rpi.edu!ncc1701@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Mark O. Chadwick)
Subject: Re: Commercial Spaceport

In article <854@ablnc.ATT.COM> rcpilz@ablnc.ATT.COM (Robert C. Pilz) writes:
>...Hawaii has
>two potential sites and Virginia wants to develop an existing
>NASA facility on Wallops Island off the southeast coast. Earlier,
>California made efforts but has dropped the ball. (This was
>due to the "Great Tax Revolt.")

Does anyone else know anything about the current status of the spaceport
on the Big Island of Hawaii?  I went to a pseudo-news conference involving
a space group lead by (former?) councilman Mufi Hanneman a few years ago,
and at that time, it seemed like such a site would have a 60% or so chance
of being approved.
I'd really like to know what it's current status is.  Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ncc1701@pawl.rpi.edu       | Live long and prosper, Spock
USERGDES@rpitsmts.bitnet   | I shall do neither.  I have killed my
 (Mark Chadwick)           |    captain...and my friend

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 17:18 EDT
From: Why is there only one Monopolies Commission? <CALVIN%JHUIGF.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Astrology

John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> writes:
>The forces described by astrology may not have any significant effect on
>humanity, but the institution of astrology does have a strong influence.
>It effects the views of a large part of the population toward science and
>logical thought.

All too true.

>By the way, the moon, by providing variable illumination at night and
>influencing the tides, has a demonstrable influence on animal and human
>activity, on a month-by-month basis.

In what way? And how seriously? I mean, do ya have some sources?

I mean, maybe the moon has some effect on noctournal animals, but if you're
trying to defend the age-old astrologer's "the moon effects the tides, and
they're water, and since the human body is 98% water, the moon must affect
people" argument, then I would really love to see some data on that.


Damian Hammontree                                      CALVIN@JHUIGF.BITNET
System Programmer                                      DAMIAN@JHUIGF.BITNET
Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore      (310) 327-2959
============== What do you get if you multiply six by nine? ===============
  Standard disclaimer follows.... 8^)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 14:13:05 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ois.db.toronto.edu!hogg@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Solar cells on the moon

In article <4639@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes:
>Perhaps with newer pulsed soliton lasers that don't diverge much you could
>power the solar array from earth at night.  I hear FELs are getting pretty
>efficient.  Tune the FEL to emit the best frequency for the potatoes growing
>next to the array.  Call it a spin-off from SDI...

A novel and interesting idea, and worth looking into for a nearside base.
It's unfortunate that this wouldn't work for a farside observatory.
Unless, of course, SDI was raided some more: put one or more mirrors
into orbit around the moon to reflect the beam farside.

(I suspect that there are cheaper ways to acquire this technology than
SDI...)
-- 
John Hogg			hogg@csri.utoronto.ca
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 20:33:33 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: US/USSR launch costs

>From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)

>In article <8903170353.AA25291@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>...
>>There are at least three
>>plausible incentives for maintaining an artificially low rate: 
>>...
>> - Economies of scale: The ability to maintain a high volume of launches
>>     and to accelerate the learning curve (and possibly to discourage the
>>     competition) can make it economically attractive to sell products or
>>     services for less than the actual cost...

>I rather doubt that the Soviets are expecting enough of a rush of Western
>customers to significantly improve their existing economies of scale.
>We're talking about a space program that has a launch every three or four
>*days*, remember.

That's a good point, but it can still work the other way. In an unregulated
market, unlimited cheap foreign launch services can keep US companies from
achieving significant economies of scale, thus tending to prevent them from
becoming serious competitors in the future. US government and industry seem
aware of this possibility, as shown by the negotiations with China toward
limiting the number of launches for US customers.

>>Similarly, the Energiya is a fine booster, and has enjoyed two demonstration
>>launches, but this does not guarantee that it is not fabulously expensive
>>to build and launch.

>Energia costs are an open question, since it's a new booster using some
>new technology.  I would note, however, that (a) cost per pound to orbit
>for the Saturn V was not significantly higher than current US launchers,
>and (b) Energia is supposedly already committed to production volumes
>(first batch of 50) that most Western launcher manufacturers can only
>dream about.

This brings up another point. If the Energia proves to be a reliable and
economical booster, it might be a good idea for the US to swallow its pride
and develop its own heavy booster based on the Energia. Though the Soviets
did not copy the US Space Shuttle exactly, they obviously learned a lot
from its design description and from its observed good and bad properties.

>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

"Passengers are reminded before disembarking to make sure they have sufficient
yen deposited for a return passage."
                                       John Roberts
                                       roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 16:42:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: volatiles on the Moon

In article <Added.UY_0i1y00Ui3Mhhk9N@andrew.cmu.edu> 347DODT@CMUVM.BITNET (ERIC WALLIS) writes:
>     Volatiles in the moon? Unlikely...
>     Water? as far as I know the moon is nothing more than a large block
>of basalt, any water would have been driven off during the moons creation.

The suggestion is not that they've been there from the beginning, but that
they arrived later due to comet impacts.

>and with no atmospheric pressure to speak of how could water be maintained?

The same way it's maintained on comets:  extreme cold (there are probably
crater floors near the lunar poles which never get sunlight) and layers of
less-volatile material on top.

How likely it is that there actually *are* significant volatiles in lunar
polar craters depends on who you ask.  You can find people who will assure
you that the idea is ridiculous and has been totally discredited; you can
also find people who will assure you that the objections are fallacious
or incomplete and the possibility still exists.  The question simply isn't
settled, and probably won't be until suitable remote-sensing instruments
are placed into lunar polar orbit.  It looks like the Soviets may do so
in 1992.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 21:27:39 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: What can you see from space?

In article <9555@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> willitd@urania.CS.ORST.EDU (Don Willits) writes:
<I had the privlege to meet Pat Jones who works at the Lunar and Planetary 
<Institute in Houston, and conducts much of the preliminary work on Shuttle
<photography, as well as astronaut briefings.  As a result, I have two
<comments:
<
<1)  The Great Wall *IS NOT* the only man-made object visible from orbit.  If
<I remember correctly, it is the only one visible *FROM THE MOON*.  Many of
<the slides taken from shuttle (that Pat showed in the lecture series she held
<here at Oregon State) show CLEAR and RECOGNIZABLE signs of human habitation.
<From tankers dumping oil at sea to cities themselves (such as Moscow, Rome,
<New York, and a personal favorite of the astronauts:  Houston)

	I am fairly sure that this is incorrect.  That the great wall
is visible from the moon is a myth of unknown origin.  You cannot
possibly see ANY man-made object from 240,000 miles away with 
the naked eye.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #314
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Mar 89 04:32:33 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00741>; Mon, 27 Mar 89 04:17:29 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 27 Mar 89 04:17:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AY=Syvy00UkT41iUBY>;
          Mon, 27 Mar 89 03:24:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.MY=Su5y00UkZ4QGU5C>;
          Mon, 27 Mar 89 03:19:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sY=Srey00UkZ0QF05t@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 03:16:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #315

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 315

Today's Topics:
		Red Shift (was Re:Black Hole Trolling)
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	    Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	  Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
		    Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins
		      Re: volatiles on the Moon
		       Re: Sources of hydrogen?
			    Re: Astrology
		      Re^2: Black hole trolling
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			   Re: loft-1 info
----------------------------------------------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 02:22 EST
From: John Taylor <V131Q5CG%UBVMS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Red Shift (was Re:Black Hole Trolling)

>>     This is inherently incorrect.  Double-null coordinates on the event
>>horizon have a light-cone parallel to the event horizon surface, which
>>means that no particle can cross the event horizon itself.
>> . . . .
>>     The first appender is correct - the tether will be sliced.
>>
>Then again, since virtual photons violate conservation of energy,
>and virtual pions violate conservation of mass, who knows what
>might happen when you spin a yo-yo into a black hole?
>
>What I have a little trouble buying is the concept of an expanding
>universe.  I have heard that astronomers can determine the distance
>of an object by its red-shift.  This is supposedly because the entire
>universe is expanding, and the objects with the highest velocity will
>thus be farther away.

        Farther shifted to the red side, i.e. Longer Wavelengths

>This all seems to assume that the observed red-shift of distant galaxies
>is due to the Doppler effect.  It makes sense to me that a lot could
>happen to a photon in 10 billion-odd years to shift its frequency around
>a little bit!!  I'd be interested in what the astronomers in the group
>have to say about this.

        I'm no astronomer, but I think that the generally consistent
red-shift received (over a long period of time) would tend to rule out error
due to non-constant "disturbances". The only other thing I can think of,
offhand, that would change a wavelength would be a change in the density of
the transmission medium. This really wouldn't factor in because the
open-space variation isn't that much and local extremes (near planets, etc.)
would shorten the wavelength only while the wave is in the higher density
(these points are tough to get across in a few words). Don't think of the
photon as a particle, think of it as a wave (or wavefront).

        Now, if I may ask a question, would someone please explain how the
"event horizion" is defined? I'm finding references to it somewhat
confusing.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
John Taylor   -- SUNY at Buffalo    |
                                    |  Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu
            New York:               |  Bitnet:   v131q5cg@ubvmsc
       "The Vampire State"          |
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 10:02:45 GMT
From: sgi!koontz%oregon@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1098@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) writes:
> I'm wathing an interview with the discoverers right now on MacNeil-Lehrer.

> 	But anyway, these guys say they've had bottles producing heat
> continuously for hundreds of hours in experiments over the last year, and
> that their experiments could essentially be duplicated using the resources
> of a high school chemistry classroom.

Yes, but can someone comeup with a nuetron reflector which can be engaged
in microseconds?

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 21:07:19 EST
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
To: MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU

Chapman remarked that "the repulsive forces from the
positive charges on the two nuclei normally require temperatures 
of 50 - 100 Million degrees to overcome...".

Here is a thoery of what is happening -- IF it is happening.  Thermal
fusion requires a very high temperature because at lower speeds each
proton will scatter the other before colliding, if they are slightly
misaligned. As I recall, the cross section in normal matter is about
10**-10 (because a nuclear diameter is about 10**-5 of an atomic
diameter).  However, if the protons are perfectly aligned, the fusion
temperature is quite modest -- I think of the order of kilovolts.  But
normally, there is no way to align them well enough at low energy
because of the uncertainty principle.  It could be that if the protons
(that is, deuterons) were suitably bound in a larger solid-state
matrix (e.g., a crystal, as in the Mossbauer effect) then the
alignment could be better because of a higher effective mass.

But I can't figure out how to get the required kilovolts into that
solution with electrodes.  Maybe they simply use a very fast, high
voltage pulse?  Why is the palladium heated?  Perhaps somehow to
reduce the capacitance at the interface to permit a large enough
electric field.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 06:52:33 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1098@Portia.Stanford.EDU> bugboy@Portia.UUCP (Michael Frank) writes:
>I'm wathing an interview with the discoverers right now on MacNeil-Lehrer.
>You know, it just sounds too good to be true.  Maybe these guys are pulling
>an elaborate April Fools' joke.  Either that, or it's going to be
>bigger than the high-temperature superconductors.  Guaranteed Nobel prizes.

This is one fantastic piece of news.  Of course, I haven't seen any of
these reports yet, and it could be an elaborate April Fools
conspiracy.  If this is an April Fools joke, I'm sending Guido and
Bruno over to pay a little visit to the person or persons
responsible...

But seriously, if this is what it sounds like, it's essentially
unlimited free energy.  Amory Lovins is probably chewing the wallpaper
off the walls of his $500,000 All-Solar house at this moment.
("Nothing short of disatrous" is, I believe, his stated opinion of the
prospect of cheap, clean, abundant energy.)

There is, however, a rather large fly in the ointment.  There are two
places on this planet you can get platinum-group metals in quantity.
Both of these countries could become the super-OPEC of the 21'st
century.

One of them is the Soviet Union.

The other is South Africa.

We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum-
group metals.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                 Video 7              ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
"... Local prohibitions cannot  block advances in military and commercial
technology.... Democratic movements for local restraint can only restrain
the world's democracies, not the world as a whole." -- K. Eric Drexler

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 13:48:57 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?

(In the following, preface all references to the discovery with
modifiers like "reported", "claimed", etc. and statements by
"assuming it is not a hoax...".)

I believe the discovery might be what is known as "pycnonuclear
fusion", meaning fusion induced by high densities rather than high
temperatures.

Even in thermonuclear fusion, the fuel nuclei do not have enough
energy to actually touch, in a classical sense.  Rather, they can come
close enough so that they can tunnel together in the very short time
before they scatter.  In pycnonuclear fusion, the atoms are compressed
statically.  They therefore have a much longer time in which to
tunnel.  However, because the tunneling rate goes down exponentially
with distance, they still must be quite close.  The nuclei need not be
moving -- pycnonuclear fusion can proceed even at absolute zero.

I wonder if the reaction proceeds by one deuteron tunneling into the
other, forming a compound nucleus that splits, or by the tunneling of
a single nucleon from one nucleus to the other.

One of the researchers said on Macneil-Lehrer that the densities achieved
are the same as gaseous D2 compressed to 10^27 atmospheres (!).  I would
like to know how this was computed.

Nowhere on the news was it reported how fast the reaction actually
goes, although it was implied that the energy released exceeded the
energy supplied.

It might be possible to use slightly enriched water to suppress D+D
reactions in favor of H+D-->He3+gamma reactions.  This would be
largely aneutronic.

I imagine there might be problems in operating a reactor at high
temperatures -- the water would boil, and deuterium would diffuse
rapidly out of the electrode.  Perhaps one could use high pressure to
raise the boiling point, or inject deuterons with a low energy ion
beam.  Also, one could achieve high thermodynamic efficiencies by
stopping the neutrons and gamma rays in a separate, insulated high
temperature collector.

Nuclear proliferation may have just become a lot easier.  I am
moderately surprised that it wasn't classified.  Maybe it will be
now? :-)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 17:03:23 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!axion!sjeyasin@uunet.uu.net  (swaraj jeyasingh)
Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins

>From article <1338@wpi.wpi.edu>, by regnery@wpi.wpi.edu (George Regnery):
I have a lot of CoCo Software for Astronomy.  If
> you or anyone else wants any, just send me a message...
> 

I have been trying to write my own without much success. I only have a
Commodore 128 at the moment but hope to get an Amiga or Atari 520 soon.

I am more interested in plotting satellite orbits than star maps, so
if you have anything useful I'd be interested.

Thanks


Swaraj Jeyasingh                       sjeyasingh@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk
G24/SSTF
British Telecom Research Labs
Ipswich IP5 7RE
United Kingdom

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 18:37:28 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: volatiles on the Moon

Wouldn't the light being reflected from the moon show spectrum signatures from
the various elements located in the moon, or at least the surface?  This could
tell us for sure.

-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 00:33:12 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sources of hydrogen?

In article <191700021@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes:
>If the answers to [deep lunar gas] are maybe, what would be the logical
>way to proceed with prospecting likely Lunar sites?

Returning to the Moon would be a good start.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 17:12:27 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Astrology

In article <Added.MY_DYiy00Ui3Q=lE8q@andrew.cmu.edu> CALVIN@JHUIGF.BITNET (Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?) writes:
}John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> writes:
}>The forces described by astrology may not have any significant effect on
}>humanity, but the institution of astrology does have a strong influence.
}>It effects the views of a large part of the population toward science and
}>logical thought.
}
}All too true.
}
}>By the way, the moon, by providing variable illumination at night and
}>influencing the tides, has a demonstrable influence on animal and human
}>activity, on a month-by-month basis.
}
}In what way? And how seriously? I mean, do ya have some sources?
}
}I mean, maybe the moon has some effect on noctournal animals, but if you're
}trying to defend the age-old astrologer's "the moon effects the tides, and
}they're water, and since the human body is 98% water, the moon must affect
}people" argument, then I would really love to see some data on that.

Ask your wife or girl friend...

(hint: ask for PERIODic events with a CYCLE of appox a lunar month.)

Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 17:05:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!axion!stc!idec!camcon!cpc@uunet.uu.net  (Chris Cracknell)
Subject: Re^2: Black hole trolling

scotth@harlie.sgi.com (Scott Henry) writes:

>This is incorrect. The definition of the event horizon is the point at
>which photons cannot escape to *infinity*. This in no way implies that
>they cannot cross the event horizon, they just cannot make it very far
>past it (depending on how deep they started). The bonds between atoms

   This is incorrect.  Consider a photon inside the event boundary.   It
crosses a little way outside the boundary, is then outside the boundary, and
can escape as well as any photon that started outside the boundary.   Thus 
contradicting your definition of the event horizon.   Hawking showed that 
matter can escape the event horizon, though only in a limited way.   This 
mechanism (Hawking's) considers quantum fluctuations to produce a particle/
antiparticle pair separated by the boundary.   The particle may be able to
get away, leaving its antiparticle behind inside the event horizon to 
annihilate the original particle.   Thus the black hole loses mass equivalent 
to one particle, and a particle can be found outside the event horizon.   Note
the particle hasn't actually CROSSED the event horizon.

Chris Cracknell

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 15:17:48 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <18213@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) writes:
}
}     The University of Utah has announced that researchers there have achieved
}"a sustained thermonuclear reaction at room temperature".  A press conference
}will be held there this afternoon.  Papers have been submitted to Nature.
}An article appears on page B1 of today's Wall Street Journal.  Few details are
}available at this time.

Heard Teller on the radio this morning saying that it might set his "maybe
in 40 years" way off.  It was also on page 3 of the Washington Post, and it
sounds 1) simple 2) odd. 

A neutron flux from a chemical reaction!?!?!?!?!

}     If this is not bogus, it is the biggest development in energy production
}since nuclear fission.

I'd say "fire", since fission has never been all that easy to use, and if this
works like the write up you could put a reactor under the hood of a car.



The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 05:32:57 GMT
From: orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!harlie.ics.uci.edu!sarrett@oberon.usc.edu  (Wendy Sarrett)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?


To follow up - I heard them interviewed on McNeil/Learer tonight and they
stated that the results will be published in May.



Wendy Sarrett
(sarrett@ics.uci.edu)
Department of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 17:01:44 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: loft-1 info

In article <9974@ihlpb.ATT.COM> rjungcla@ihlpb.ATT.COM (R. M. Jungclas) writes:
>Another friend of mine reports that details of this flight are reported
>in a recent issue (January?) of Discovery magazine.


The article in question was in the February issue of Discover...about 2.5 
pages, with a shot of the vehicle and some of the principals involved, along
with a truly gorgeous takeoff photo. The picture shows the bird at an altitude
of perhaps 200 ft with a truly impressive sooty gray smoke cloud, characteristic
of the Vulcan "Smoky Sam" propellant recipe (derived, I believe, from a 
US Navy recipe)
-- 
Mark Johnson (Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM) WB9QLR/0 (Monon RR enthusiast)
NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS  phone: (316)636-8189    
email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson 
US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #315
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Mar 89 06:21:55 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00574>; Mon, 27 Mar 89 05:49:29 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 27 Mar 89 05:49:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0Y=UiQy00Vs1416E4n>;
          Mon, 27 Mar 89 05:23:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.QY=UdOy00UkZEQQU4B>;
          Mon, 27 Mar 89 05:18:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sY=UcAy00UkZIQP04Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 05:16:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #316

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 316

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Rockoon's (was Sanger)
		      Re: volatiles on the Moon
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	  Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
		  Re: Soviet space and life science
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	  Re: Were remote manipulators ever called Waldoes?
	  Re: Were remote manipulators ever called Waldoes?
			 Sources of hydrogen?
		     Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			    Re: Astrology
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: PHOBOS INFO (was NSS Hotline Update for 3/17/89)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 22:58:41 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rockoon's (was Sanger)

In article <45000028@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> daniel@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>He also said that realistically, the Sanger developement was in its
>early stages.  The Sanger craft will probably not fly before 2050.

I trust this date is an error or misunderstanding.  It would be laughably
obsolete, probably in an unpredictable way, by then.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 00:35:35 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: volatiles on the Moon

In article <1208@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>Wouldn't the light being reflected from the moon show spectrum signatures from
>the various elements located in the moon, or at least the surface? ...

Nobody expects volatiles to be sitting within a few light wavelengths of the
surface, which is all this will tell us about.  What we need are more
penetrating forms of radiation, like gamma rays.  For practical reasons,
these have to be sensed from close up.  Hence the importance attached to
a lunar polar orbiter with a gamma-ray spectrometer.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 09:20:21 GMT
From: oliveb!pyramid!ncc!apss!nmm@apple.com  (Neil McCulloch)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1098@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) writes:
> I'm wathing an interview with the discoverers right now on MacNeil-Lehrer.
> You know, it just sounds too good to be true.  Maybe these guys are pulling
> an elaborate April Fools' joke.  Either that, or it's going to be
> bigger than the high-temperature superconductors.  Guaranteed Nobel prizes.

Yes sounds very much like an April Fools' joke. Especially since there's
an international connection.

But darn it, if it is, it's not fair since April Fools' jokes should be
confined to the first of April on pain of death!

However, I am reminded of when I first read in the New Scientist of the
plutonium release from Windscale decades ago, complete with diagrams
of leukemia rates and so on. It was so dramatic and being in their April 1
issue, I didn't believe it. It was only several years later that I realised
it was a true report based on fact. Or was it...

neil

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 19:18:17 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?

In article <1989Mar24.084857.22929@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Nuclear proliferation may have just become a lot easier.  I am
>moderately surprised that it wasn't classified.  Maybe it will be
>now? :-)

Maybe that's why they announced their discovery in such a (for
a scientific discovery) funny way.  With a short-notice press
conference and media coverage, the secret is out.  The newspaper
article I looked at seemed to imply that some of the skepticism
of the scientific community was based on the unorthodox method
of the announcement.  (Plus the sheer effrontery of a couple of
_chemists_ claiming to fuse hydrogen in an electrolytic cell!)
-- 
The powers not  delegated to the United States by the | Mike Van Pelt
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are | Video 7
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.| ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
U. S. Constitution, Ammendment 10.  (Bill of Rights)  |

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 21:19:33 GMT
From: jlg@lanl.gov  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Soviet space and life science

>From article <2981@eos.UUCP>, by eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya):
> [...]
> And don't expect them to tell you anything if they themselves don't
> learn anything either.

Exactly.  But a negative result on an experiment is just as valuable
as a positive one.  The Soviets are somewhat reticent to discuss
expensive failures however.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 19:32:32 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <290@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, glenn@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Glenn Chapman) writes:
> 
>     A very astounding breakthrough just may have been made in nuclear
> fusion.  According to both the Financial Times (Mar 23, pg. 1, 26, and 22)
-----Stuff deleted----
>     The process they are using consists of the following.  Consider an
> electrochemical cell (like a battery) with a platinum electrode, a heated
> palladium electrode in a bath of heavy water (deuterium oxide).  Flow current

I read somewhere not very authoritative (I can't remember, but I don't read
autoritative magazines much) that "cold," or muon-catalyzed, fusion would
be expected to occur at about 900 C or so. I can hardly wait for real news
on how this "Pd-Pt catalyzed" fusion can be sustained with essentially no
rise in temperature. Any speculations available?

My trusty dictionary indicates Palladium is used as a catalyst in 
hydrogenation processes, so there is some justification for why it might
be useful in a process involving Deuterium. However, this reaction is not
all that interesting to me since it produces nasty fast neutrons. I know
there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with
no gamma rays or neutrons; I seem to recall these involve carbon as one 
of the "reactants." Anyone know what these particular fusion reactions 
are, or have a reference I could look this up in? Perhaps this 
fusion-catalyzing process will turn out to be more general once it's 
understood. (I like to leap before I look.) I'd even accept a process 
which had to occcur at 100 C, if it was clean in a non-gamma ray, 
non-neutron producing sort of way. If I had any choice in the matter.

===============
-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 17:08:36 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Were remote manipulators ever called Waldoes?

In article <Added.gY9wtjy00Ui3MRa081@andrew.cmu.edu> HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
}Here's what I think may have happened:
}
}1. Heinlein writes a popular story in *Astounding Science Fiction* in which
}remotely controlled hands are called "waldoes."

I do not believe that they were named at all in the book.  Waldo was the
name of the more than a little odd individual (with MS?) who lived in
orbit and was REAL weak that invented/used them both locally and as 
teleoperators onto earth.

I believe "Waldo and Magic, Inc." was the name of the book...


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 20:05:07 GMT
From: kanefsky@UMN-CS.CS.UMN.EDU  (Steve Kanefsky)
Subject: Re: Were remote manipulators ever called Waldoes?

In article <3459@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>In article <Added.gY9wtjy00Ui3MRa081@andrew.cmu.edu> HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>>1. Heinlein writes a popular story in *Astounding Science Fiction* in which
>>remotely controlled hands are called "waldoes."

>I do not believe that they were named at all in the book.  Waldo was the
>name of the more than a little odd individual (with MS?) who lived in
>orbit and was REAL weak that invented/used them both locally and as 
>teleoperators onto earth.

>I believe "Waldo and Magic, Inc." was the name of the book...

Actually, there were two novelettes contained in the one book.  One
was _Waldo_, and the other was _Magic,_Inc._


----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kanefsky
CSci Department, University of Minnesota Twin Cities
kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 14:36:00 GMT
From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@bellcore.com
Subject: Sources of hydrogen?


On a recent NOVA, (The world is full of oil), they featured an atronomer
(sorry, I don't remember his name) who suspects that a large amount of the 
Earth's hydrocarbons are of non-organic origin.  To support his theory, a 
test well was drilled in Sweden, with no conclusive results.
The program mentioned that non-organic Methane was found, but that it was
not in "large quantities".  I have no idea what their idea of large is, but
that any Methane was found at all leads me to the following queries...


If Methane does exist "deep within the Earth", would it be at all resonable
to assume that this might be the case for the Moon also?

If the answer to part one is maybe, would Methane recovered from deep wells
on the Moon be a more viable option for obtaining Lunar Hydrogen than 
extracting the Hydrogen deposited in Lunar soil by the Solar wind?

If the answers to part one and two are both maybe, what would be the logical
way to proceed with prospecting likely Lunar sites?

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 16:48:22 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@husc6.harvard.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons

In article <291@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> In article <986@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu.UUCP (John Sahr) writes:
> <In article <Added.UY_0i1y00Ui3Mhhk9N@andrew.cmu.edu> 347DODT@CMUVM.BITNET (ERIC WALLIS) writes:
> <>Volatiles in the moon? Unlikely, as a geology major I can say that
> <>volatiles(if you mean hydrocarbons such as gas) would require the burying
> <>and heating of dead plants and animals... unlikely on a lifeless body.

I'm not sure what compounds are beings discussed here.  However, the
solar system is full of "organic" compounds in places where no life
has been found, or is likely to exist.  Carbon is a very common atom
in the universe and its compounds occur under a wide variety of
conditions.  Carbon chains have even been detected in interstellar
space.  In any case, methane, ammonia and all sorts of other gunk
are found on the outer planets and most of their moons.

> <Thomas Gold, an astronomer/geologist, has suggested that there are plenty of
> <hydrocarbons on Earth that are _not_ due to metamorphosis of dead plant
> <and animal matter.  Having heard him speak on this topic, I can say that 
> <he makes a convincing case.  Some outfit in Sweden is digging for some of
> <his "primordial" hydrocarbons on the rim of an ancient meteor strike.

The reason Gold is treated as an child idiot by most the geological community
has nothing to do with the plausibility of non-biological hydrocarbons.
Rather it is firmly believed that the primordial Earth lost the overwhelming
majority of these early on.  The claim that a negligible amount is left
is based on an analysis (I have been told) of drilling success rates.  If
Gold were right then random drilling should be far more effective than
it is.

-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 23:54:16 GMT
From: steinmetz!nuke!oconnor@uunet.uu.net  (Dennis M. O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

An article by mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) says:
] There is, however, a rather large fly in the ointment.  There are two
] places on this planet you can get platinum-group metals in quantity.
] [...] One of them is the Soviet Union. The other is South Africa.

There's a third large source : auto junkyards. TONS of platinum anyway.
I don't know if palladium is in catalytic converters or not.

My Rubber Bible says palladium can be found in North America, Australia,
and Ethiopia as well as USSR and SA. It says Ontario is a "considerable"
source of Platinum and Palladium.

Palladium can absorb 600 times it's own volume (at STP) of hydrogen,
and hydrogen difuses readily through it according to the CRC. Platinum
also absobs lots of hydrogen.

Palladium melts at 1552 degrees-C, platinum at 1772 degrees-C, so these
little fusion cells can run easily hot enough to generate high-pressure
steam for turbines if melting the electrodes is the only limitation.

Be careful with platinum around hydrogen : if any oxygen gets mixed in,
the mess will explode do to platinum's catalytic properties, says CRC.

My 12-yr old CRC quotes palladium at $80/troy-ounce,
and platinum at $150/troy-ounce. For reference, gold was $200/ounce.
--
 Dennis O'Connor   oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP  ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa
 "Jethro Tull won the Heavy Metal/Hard Rock Grammy. Clearly, I am a MetalHead."

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 19:52:49 GMT
From: beowulf!velasco@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Gabriel Velasco)
Subject: Re: Astrology


	In a previous article, it was mentioned that the moon has an influence
on humans, possibly because of its effect on the tides.
	A hint was given to ask a female about a periodic event with a cycle of
approximately one lunar month.
	When my wife was pregnant, a doctor told her that sometimes they pre-
fer to think of a full term pregnancy as 10 lunar months.

- Gabriel

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 03:52:45 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <13437@steinmetz.ge.com> oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP writes:
>An article by mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) says:
>] There is, however, a rather large fly in the ointment.  There are two
>] places on this planet you can get platinum-group metals in quantity.
>] [...] One of them is the Soviet Union. The other is South Africa.
>
>There's a third large source : auto junkyards. TONS of platinum anyway.
>I don't know if palladium is in catalytic converters or not.

Just platinum, I'm pretty sure.  As for quantity, though, I think it
is somewhat less than "TONS".  There's a verrrry thin layer of platinum
flashed over a ceramic.  

>My Rubber Bible says palladium can be found in North America, Australia,
>and Ethiopia as well as USSR and SA. It says Ontario is a "considerable"
>source of Platinum and Palladium.

The Sudbury nickel deposit in Ontario is, I think, the biggest source
outside of SU & SA.  Interestingly enough, it's an old impact site of
a nickel-iron asteroid.  These have a good bit of platinum group metals
mixed in with the nickel and iron.  One good earth-orbit-intersecting
asteriod could probably supply all our needs for the next millinium.
Of course, the way things are going in THAT department, we'd have to
by asteroid platinum and palladium from the Soviet Union, too.
-- 
"I hate trolls.  Maybe I could metamorph it into    | Mike Van Pelt
 something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed,     | Video 7
 fire-breathing dragon."  -- Willow.                | ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 03:56:07 GMT
From: phoenix!mbkennel@princeton.edu  (Matthew B. Kennel)
Subject: Re: PHOBOS INFO (was NSS Hotline Update for 3/17/89)

In article <72854@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> DMeyer@m2.csc.ti.com (Dane Meyer) writes:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The Soviet space probe Phobos, which is in orbit about Mars, is drawing 
> >closer to its destination the moon Phobos.  On April 1 the spacecraft will 
> >pass within 150 feet of the lopsided moon and deploy two landers.  One 
> >lander will harpoon itself into the surface while the other hops around on 
> >the surface. 
>
>  ...150 *feet*!!??!!  I had no idea it planned to skim that close.  I'm used
>to figures measured in *miles*!  Ok, so here's a question for ya:  How do the
>landers decelerate, and/or what is their speed relative to Phobos?

I don't know what the speed is, but apparently they're doing laser-ranging
and real-time on-board orbital adjustments.  They're also using a
laser to burn up parts of the surface and analyze the absoprtion
properties of the gas.

Yup, they're not "catching up" with US experimental space science, they've
blown us away.  The hottest US technology of 1975 that's launched in 1990
(galileo) can't compare to 1989 Russian "3-5 years behind US" technology
that's flying in '90.


>
>Ken Scofield   Hewlett Packard, Corvallis, Oregon
>  ARPA: kas@hp-pcd.hp.com
>  UUCP: {convex rice rudgers ames}!hp-pcd!hpcvic!kas

Matt Kennel
mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #316
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Mar 89 05:49:02 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA12808>; Tue, 28 Mar 89 03:56:34 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 28 Mar 89 03:56:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cY=o7Cy00Ui341sUJI>;
          Tue, 28 Mar 89 03:26:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.EY=o0By00UkZ02A05s>;
          Tue, 28 Mar 89 03:19:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <EY=nxdy00UkZI2-U5N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 03:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #317

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 317

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Jan 16 AW&ST
		      Re^2: Babies born in space
	      Second call for votes on sci.edu newsgroup
	  Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	  Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
	  Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
  APRIL 11 -- PRINCETON SPACE POLICY CONFERENCE -- DON'T MISS THIS!
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 04:50:26 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST

Cover:  photo of the systems-test prototype of the Soviet shuttle,
in its bay at Baikonur.

Galileo's maneuvering thrusters returned to MBB for testing and modification.
They can overheat, it turns out.  This was discovered fortuitously during
experiments with TVSat 1, the abandoned German comsat that failed to deploy
one solar array -- it used similar thrusters.  Galileo planners want
to see reliable thrusters several weeks before Galileo goes to the Cape
on May 12, otherwise the schedule will be in trouble.

Japan's IASA and NASDA are studying [unmanned] lunar rovers for possible
launch in the next decade.

Retiring SecCommerce William Verity denounces NASA and its contractors
for restricting the US space program to their own interests, saying
that the shuttle is a trucking operation, the space station is unnecessary,
and NASA should be ordered back to science and exploration.  "Will a
future Christopher Columbus study space science, only to discover his
career options are limited to a government bureaucracy that runs a
glorified trucking operation or a cost-plus contractor that just fills
orders?"

USAF FY90-91 budget plans include no funding for Asat work.

Pentagon board suggests that the Army should take the lead in Asat efforts,
partly because the Army is considered most likely to cooperate with other
services if things get serious.  (The USAF is bowing out, and the Navy is
not interested unless the weapon is sea-based.)  Stiff Congressional
opposition is expected if any serious attempt is made to get an Asat
program going again.  It is not clear whether Congress will balk at
the proposed conversion of the Miracl experimental laser for Asat tests.
The tests are aimed at resolving some doubts about how vulnerable
satellites are to lasers.

The An-225 Mria begins flight tests.  [This is the giant cargo aircraft
fitted to carry Soviet shuttle components externally.]

Soviets reveal they have twice space-tested a new nuclear reactor design,
Topaz, using thermionic technology well in advance of the US thermoelectric
designs (which have never flown) (the US has avoided thermionics, partly
because the technology is considered unproven and risky).  One Topaz ran for
six months, the other for a year; future versions are aimed at a three-year
lifetime, while five years at several hundred kilowatts (the tests were
10 kW) looks feasible.  To cap it off, the Soviets have informally
indicated that they are interested in selling Topazes to the US!  [The
Soviets have been talking about nuclear-electric rockets for a manned
Mars mission.  Sounds like they're already testing hardware for it.]

More photos and coverage from Baikonur.  Buran's mission was nearly letter-
perfect, including landing 1.5 m from the runway center line despite an
18 m/s (40 mph) crosswind 30 degrees from the centerline.  Soviets say
their thermal tiles are designed for about 10 reentries before replacement,
and admit that applying them to the shuttle is difficult.  Final checkout
of the second orbiter should be completed this year; apparently there is
still some uncertainty about its name.  The Soviets are starting to use
"Buran" as a generic name for their shuttle, creating some confusion.
Photo of orbiter #2 surrounded by workstands.  Buran was parked outside
during the visit (in subzero weather) for inspection of propellant tanks.
AW&ST says the orbiter building looks frankly shabby from outside, although
workmanship is much better on the inside -- evidently outside appearance
was not a priority.  Igor Volk and Rimantas Stankiavicius are in training
for the first orbital shuttle mission.

Photos of the launch pad used for the first Energia mission.  Soviets say
it is earmarked for non-shuttle missions.

Letter in the letter column observes that in 1984, AW&ST published a
drawing of the Soviet shuttle with some lettering that made no sense
at the time:  just aft of the mid-deck, it was labelled "Buran"!
Somebody knew the name of the thing four years before the Soviets
revealed it...
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 16:56:52 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!axion!stc!idec!camcon!cpc@uunet.uu.net  (Chris Cracknell)
Subject: Re^2: Babies born in space

CHUNTER@UMAB.BITNET (Colin Hunter) writes:

>From:

>m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu writes

>> I saw a report recently that had a Get-Away-Special mission that was
>>sending up half of a set of ``identical'' chicken eggs, the other half
>>staying on the ground as a control group. While not exactly human
>>development, I'd say it's certainly a first step in such research.

>This sounds like an almost useless experiment if the intention is to
>extrapolate the results they will obtain to human foetal development. Earlier

   Much of early embryogenesis is very species-independant.   (This is often
quoted as a piece of evidence for related ancestry of vertebrates.)   I
have an embryologist friend currently studying bird eggs mainly because 
it is easy to get to the embryo without worrying about having to cut open
and keep alive a mother.   I suspect that this is a major reason for using 
eggs in such a study.

Chris Cracknell

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 22:02:56 GMT
From: lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Subject: Second call for votes on sci.edu newsgroup

This is the second call for votes for the proposed sci.edu newsgroup, just
in case you missed it the first time.

I lost three votes (sorry).  One from a lady with a first name of Lili, from
CMU I believe, and one from a gentleman from AT&T.  The third I can't remember
anything about, other than it was a yes vote.  I received these around March
14th.  If you voted around this time and you want to be certain I have your
vote, just vote again.  I will check for duplicates in the final tally.

Here is some repeated information from the first call for votes:

I had to post this twice since postnews wouldn't let me post to 16 newsgroups
at once, please reply to this only once.

As a reader of many of the sci and comp newsgroups I have seen a lot of
material that is discussed more appropriately in a general education forum.
Unfortunately, such a news group does not exist.  Hence, sci.edu.  It
would be used to bring general discussion of education, and in particular
science education, into one news group.

Votes will be collected until April 6th.  If the number of yes votes exceeds
the number of no votes by 100, the newsgroup will be created.

If you are for or against this proposed newsgroup send me your vote along
with your email address.  Just replying to this article (the R command in
rn) should get it to me.  If that does not work, try manually sending it to:
lvc@cis.ohio-state.edu (...!osu-cis!tut!lvc might work too).  As a last resort,
try the address lvc@cbnews.att.com (...!att!cbnews!lvc).  Group or posted
votes will not be counted.

I will not be able to reply to you individually until after the voting period
is over.

Followups to this article have been directed to news.groups.  Thank you for
your vote.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, lvc@cis.ohio-state.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 04:24:03 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?

In article <1989Mar24.084857.22929@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Nuclear proliferation may have just become a lot easier...

Only if the thing can be made to explode, which isn't at all clear.
It doesn't sound significantly more useful for breeding plutonium than
an ordinary reactor, and reactors are not hard to build if you are not
too worried about efficiency and safety.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 04:13:42 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <4380@mtuxo.att.com> tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes:
>...there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with
>no gamma rays or neutrons; I seem to recall these involve carbon as one 
>of the "reactants." Anyone know what these particular fusion reactions 
>are, or have a reference I could look this up in? ...

The major ones are deuterium plus helium-3 yielding helium-4 plus proton
(unfortunately there is also some tendency for the deuterium to react
with itself, so neutron emission isn't zero; also, helium-3 is rare and
extremely expensive) and boron-11 plus proton yielding helium-4 (works
fine but rather harder to ignite).
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 04:55:21 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?

In article <563256.890324.MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>Here is a thoery of what is happening -- IF it is happening.  Thermal
>fusion requires a very high temperature because at lower speeds each
>proton will scatter the other before colliding, if they are slightly
>misaligned... ...if the protons are perfectly aligned, the fusion
>temperature is quite modest -- I think of the order of kilovolts...
>But I can't figure out how to get the required kilovolts into that
>solution with electrodes...

The alternative is that this is non-thermal fusion.  The temperatures
are not an end in themselves:  they are a way of pushing nuclei very
close together.  As Paul Dietz speculated, this may be pycnonuclear
fusion:  fusion induced by pressure rather than temperature.  I'm more
than slightly surprised that they can get enough pressure out of
chemical bonds, mind you...
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 04:19:07 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?

Let us all be very cautious about this; while it sounds promising, there
have been major scientific false alarms before.  (For example, there were
a number of high-temperature-superconductor false alarms before Bednorz
and Muller hit the jackpot -- this was one reason why their report was
slow to be accepted.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 03:10:34 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: APRIL 11 -- PRINCETON SPACE POLICY CONFERENCE -- DON'T MISS THIS!


                             S   P   A   C   E   :

            SMALL STEPS AND GIANT LEAPS FOR THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS

  An Evening-Long Public Forum to Explore What's Next for America in Space.

 Sponsors: Princeton University, The Planetary Society, National Space Society

                          TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 7:30 pm
               McCosh Hall Auditorium 50, Princeton University

Almost twenty years have past since America first landed a man on the moon.
What  have we learned since then?  What should our goals be for the next
twenty years?  What policy decisions must be made now to achieve these goals?

The top space experts from across the nation are coming to Princeton University
to explore these questions.  This exciting and informative public forum will
feature talks, a panel discussion, and a question and answer session with these
eleven leaders who are shaping tomorrow's realities:

HARRISON SCHMITT:  Former astronaut and former U.S. Senator (New Mexico);
     One of only 12 men to walk on the moon.  Currently studying how to
     integrate the three planetary missions (Earth, Moon, Mars).

GEORGE BROWN:  Congressman for California; author of the Space Settlement Act.

FREEMAN DYSON:  One of the foremost thinkers of our time.  Currently at the
     Institute for Advanced Study. Author of _Weapons_and_Hope_, _Disturbing
     _the_Universe_, and _Infinite_in_All_Directions_.

GEORGE KOOPMAN:  President and CEO, American Rocket Company (Amroc).

JEREMIAH P. OSTRIKER:  Director, Princeton University Observatory.  Chairman,
     Princeton Astrophysics Department.  Served on the National Academy of
     Sciences' Committee on Space Policy.

HARLAN SMITH: Director of the McDonnell Observatory, University of Texas.

TOBIAS OWEN:  Professor of Astronomy, SUNY-Stony Brook; Noted space author.

JAMES BURKE:  Technical Editor of The Planetary Report, Technical Staff, JPL.

ALAN LADWIG:  Director of Special Projects, Office of Exploration, NASA.

GREGG E. MARYNIAK:  Executive Vice President of the Space Studies Institute;
     Professor of Space Resources & Manufacturing, International Space Univ.

J. RICHARD GOTT, III:  Professor of Astronomy at Princeton University.

Tickets for this extraordinary event are available to the public for just
five dollars each.  Use the form below to order advance tickets.  If spaces
are left, tickets will also be sold at the door.  For further information,
call (609) 734-4911, day or evening.

Tickets for a special banquet with the speakers are available $40/plate.
Banquet starts at 5:30 pm.  (This is a fund raiser to help raise needed
money for the event, too, so we appreciate all ticket purchases!)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Please send me _____ tickets at $5 each to attend the Space Forum on Tuesday,

April 11 and _____ banquet tickets at $40 a plate.  Total enclosed: $______

Please make checks payable to Princeton Planetary Society.  Orders received
after April 5 will be held at the door.  Orders for banquet tickets must be
received by April 5.  A map and directions will be included with your tickets.

Name:_______________________________________ Phone: ________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________________________

City, State, ZIP ___________________________________________________________


Please return this form to: Princeton Planetary Society
                            332 Walker Hall
                            Princeton University
                            Princeton, NJ 08544

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Princeton University | 11 Prospect Drive South  | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
332 Walker Hall      | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08544  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-734-4911         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 04:57:58 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1989Mar25.041342.25786@utzoo.uucp> I wrote:
>>...there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with
>>no gamma rays or neutrons...
>
>The major ones are deuterium plus helium-3 yielding helium-4 plus proton...
>... and boron-11 plus proton yielding helium-4 ...

Oops, I should amend that:  those are the major reactions that don't yield
neutrons.  If you're after a reaction that doesn't yield gamma rays, you
may be looking for a long time.  Almost any nuclear process yields gamma
rays to some extent.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #317
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Mar 89 06:52:42 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00973>; Tue, 28 Mar 89 05:37:25 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 28 Mar 89 05:37:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wY=pnfy00UkTE1mk4Q>;
          Tue, 28 Mar 89 05:22:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.cY=pkMy00UkZE2Kk5W>;
          Tue, 28 Mar 89 05:19:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wY=pi8y00UkZE2JE5t@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 05:16:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #318

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 318

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
		    UFO Technology Puzzle Revealed
			UFO Technology Update
		    Re: Re^2: Black hole trolling
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
	  Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
			  Re: Teleoperation
			   Bored of space?
		    Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look
	  Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 06:38:57 GMT
From: phoenix!mbkennel@princeton.edu  (Matthew B. Kennel)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?

In article <563256.890324.MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>Chapman remarked that "the repulsive forces from the
>positive charges on the two nuclei normally require temperatures 
>of 50 - 100 Million degrees to overcome...".
>
>Here is a thoery of what is happening -- IF it is happening.  Thermal
>fusion requires a very high temperature because at lower speeds each
>proton will scatter the other before colliding, if they are slightly
>misaligned. As I recall, the cross section in normal matter is about
>10**-10 (because a nuclear diameter is about 10**-5 of an atomic
>diameter).  However, if the protons are perfectly aligned, the fusion
>temperature is quite modest -- I think of the order of kilovolts.  But
>normally, there is no way to align them well enough at low energy
>because of the uncertainty principle.

I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe that you need to have the 
center-of-momentum energy greater than the Coulomb barrier (q1q2/r)
at r =aprrox 2 fermi (= 2 x 10^-15 m!!).  I don't think that
exactly "head-on" and almost exactly "head-on" will make that much
of a difference.

  It could be that if the protons
>(that is, deuterons) were suitably bound in a larger solid-state
>matrix (e.g., a crystal, as in the Mossbauer effect) then the
>alignment could be better because of a higher effective mass.
>

Effective mass usually only comes into play in the band-theory of
electrons---because of the exclusion principle the electrons can't pile into
the low lying energy levels, thus the highest states have energies way above
the ambient temperature (50,000K vs. 300K).  But, in metals at least, this
means 1eV instead of 1/40 eV.  Even if there were enough H's for a similar
thing to happen, I don't think there would be near enough to get over the
coulomb barrier for the nuclei in any obvious way.  

>But I can't figure out how to get the required kilovolts into that
>solution with electrodes.  Maybe they simply use a very fast, high
>voltage pulse?  Why is the palladium heated?  Perhaps somehow to
>reduce the capacitance at the interface to permit a large enough
>electric field.

I don't really know.  They claim that the palladium "traps hydrogen".
In the lattice structure are some spaces where hydrogen can collect.
It's attracted into these spaces by the electric potential.  Perhaps
there's some electronic screening effect that lowers the coulomb
barrier tremendously?

Matt

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 08:25:10 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc!andrew@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (andrew)
Subject: UFO Technology Puzzle Revealed


			UFO TECHNOLOGY

Consider the properties of the following object. A superconducting current
loop is created inside a shape formed by the slicing of a cube, with a
square hole in the centre. It's thus a square, thin, single-turn coil.
Create a rectangular superconducting, hollow box of depth greater than half 
the coil (nondiagonal) dimension. Embed the coil inside the box such that
the coil and box main axes are orthogonal, and such that the lower half of
the coil is inside the box. Put a lid on the box (in some way) so that the
lower half of the coil is now totally enclosed, and the lid does not make
electrical contact with the coil (insulated slots, or whatever).

Apply an external magnetic field to the system parallel to the coil axis.
Is there a net translational force on the coil? Two sides cancel, while
the third side produces a net force. Therefore, in the earth's magnetic
field a decrease in weight will be observed (unless you have it upside
down!). Wow.

Notes
1. Superconductors are perfect shields of magnetic fields; ergo
2. The bottom half of the coil is "invisible" to the external field
3. The flux in the coil is quantised and may not change; ergo
4. Energy is supplied from the external field.

Who needs fusion? ....come fly with me, let's play among the stars....
============================================================================
	DOMAIN: andrew@logic.sc.nsc.com  
	ARPA:   nsc!logic!andrew@sun.com
	USENET: ...{amdahl,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,sun}!nsc!logic!andrew

	Andrew Palfreyman				408-721-4788 work
	National Semiconductor	MS D3969		408-247-0145 home
	2900 Semiconductor Dr.			
	P.O. Box 58090					there's many a slip
	Santa Clara, CA  95052-8090			'twixt cup and lip
============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 08:27:00 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc!andrew@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (andrew)
Subject: UFO Technology Update


			CHEAP UFO TECHNOLOGY - UPDATE

Problems were experienced lifting the large Whirlpool super-refrigerator,
as room temperature superconductors could not be found, so Deuterium fusion
was harnessed instead using dissipative conductors - good ol' copper.
The same old box and coil was used, but due to the enormous power:weight
ratio of the "Mr. Fusion" unit, liftoff was still achieved, despite the
lack of Meissner effect assist. Now the energy came from the power source,
not the external field. This was a relief to owners of compasses. The hot
magma circulation was gradually slowing down, and the North Pole now lay
somewhere in Tuscaloosa.

Assuming:		B (earth's mag)   = 1E-5 wb/m**2
(round numbers)		g (earth's grav)  = 10 m/s**2
			r (spec res Cu)   = 1E-8 ohm.m
			d (density Cu)	  = 1E4 Kg/m**3

We need, for liftoff, 	B*I*L > M*g,	which cranks into
			W/M > 1E8	watts/Kg (no form factor dependence)

The original fusion unit provided about 20W/cc (2E3 watts/Kg : Pons &
Fleischmann) but enhancements of order 1E5 better power:weight ratio
did the trick. Performance in space with the solar wind gave
acceptable acceleration levels even with the Mk I fusion unit.
				...on Jupiter or Mars...
============================================================================
	DOMAIN: andrew@logic.sc.nsc.com  
	ARPA:   nsc!logic!andrew@sun.com
	USENET: ...{amdahl,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,sun}!nsc!logic!andrew

	Andrew Palfreyman				408-721-4788 work
	National Semiconductor	MS D3969		408-247-0145 home
	2900 Semiconductor Dr.			
	P.O. Box 58090					there's many a slip
	Santa Clara, CA  95052-8090			'twixt cup and lip
============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 89 20:51:44 GMT
From: sgi!shinobu!scotth@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Scott Henry)
Subject: Re: Re^2: Black hole trolling

In article <2737@titan.camcon.co.uk> cpc@camcon.co.uk (Chris Cracknell) writes:

> scotth@harlie.sgi.com (Scott Henry) writes:
> 
> >This is incorrect. The definition of the event horizon is the point at
> >which photons cannot escape to *infinity*. This in no way implies that
> >they cannot cross the event horizon, they just cannot make it very far
> >past it (depending on how deep they started). The bonds between atoms
> 
>    This is incorrect.  Consider a photon inside the event boundary.   It
> crosses a little way outside the boundary, is then outside the boundary, and
> can escape as well as any photon that started outside the boundary.   Thus 
> contradicting your definition of the event horizon.   Hawking showed that 
>
> Chris Cracknell

My statement might very well be incorrect (it's been many years since I've
studied this stuff), but yours is not a good argument against it. A more
precise statement is that any photon "escaping" from at or "below" the
event horizon would gravitational red-shift away to nothing before it
reaches infinity. That is, no matter how much energy a photon has as it
crosses the event horizon (ignoring for the moment if other aspects
prevent it from happening at all), it will all be "lost" "fighting against
gravity" (to be rather anthropomorphic about it). But then, maybe I'll
just flame myself for being to lazy to go get out my old textbooks and
look up the real answer :-) ^2. BTW, all this discussion has only applied
to Schwartzschild (non-rotating) black holes. The problem is much more
complicated with Kerr (rotating) black holes, since, among other things,
there is not "a" event horizon. I'm going to have to stop here before I
really have to flame myself!

--
---------------------
              Scott Henry <scotth@sgi.com>
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 06:49:28 GMT
From: pdn!rnms1!alan@uunet.uu.net  (0000-Alan Lovejoy(0000))
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <3451@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>I'd say "fire", since fission has never been all that easy to use, and if this
>works like the write up you could put a reactor under the hood of a car.

Does this mean that "Sun" will be putting out a portable workstation that
doesn't even need batteries? :-) :-) :-)


Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL.
Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne.  They do not speak for me. 
__American Investment Deficiency Syndrome => No resistance to foreign invasion.
Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 14:53:39 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?

>>Nuclear proliferation may have just become a lot easier...
>
>Only if the thing can be made to explode, which isn't at all clear.
>It doesn't sound significantly more useful for breeding plutonium than
>an ordinary reactor, and reactors are not hard to build if you are not
>too worried about efficiency and safety.

A DD fusion reactor could make neutrons with the release of about 7
MeV per neutron, vs. something like 100 MeV/neutron in a fission
reactor.  A fission reactor will therefore need a larger cooling
system than a fusion plutonium breeder.  A 1 MW (thermal) DD reactor
running for 1 year should produce 40 moles of neutrons, or about 10
kilograms of plutonium if captured in a uranium blanket.  The DD
reactor would burn perhaps 300 grams of deuterium, vs. tons of heavy
water or graphite needed for a fission reactor using natural uranium.

Comments on sci.physics that the Utah people have detected 9 orders of
magnitude too few neutrons is bizarre, and either suspicious (maybe
fusion is occuring only at low power levels, with the other heating
due to some spurious cause) or reason for jubilation, if for some
incredible reason they are doing fusion without making much radiation.
Or, perhaps there was a confusion between the demo experiment at the
press conference and the higher power experiments.  Fleischman did
warn people not to try to replicate the experiment before they read
the paper, apparently because of radiation dangers.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1989 14:35-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Teleoperation

Hmmm. I just thought of another thing to be dealt with, from real life
experience.

You are driving up a hill at a steep angle when you suddenly loose some
traction due to unstable soil on one side. Your vehicle starts to slew
left. If you don't react INSTANTLY, you will turn sideways far enough
that you will roll the vehicle. In real time it is no problem (usually)
to correct. At the very least you let off the gas and back down
the hill so you can try again.  How do you deal with it in 2.5 second
delay?

I really don't think anything but slow moving operations on level
ground will be possible until we have quite sophisticated AI systems
that can handle such emergencies first and tell you about them later.

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 25 Mar 89 09:07:38 PST
From: nagy%warner.hepnet@LBL.Gov (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru)
Subject: Bored of space?
X-St-Vmsmail-To: LBL::"space+@andrew.cmu.edu"

> The reason?  Americans bore easily.  Voyager is flying by another
> planet?  Big deal.  We already saw Jupiter and Saturn, what's so
> exciting about another planet?  The shuttle is taking off again?  So
> what?  We've proven we can get back into space.  It flew in September.
> (*I* know that was a different shuttle.  Joe Average American doesn't
> know nor care.)
     
Is it really that Average American get bored easily?  Or is it that
the people in charge of our broadcast industry and network news
are bored by anything not absolutely new or sensational?

On the other hand, I still get a tear in my eye when I look up at
a full moon and remember than 12 humans have been there and back...


= Dr. Frank J. Nagy   "VAX Guru & Wizard"
= Fermilab Research Division/Electrical and Electronics Dept/Controls Group
= HEPNET: WARNER::NAGY (43198::NAGY) or FNAL::NAGY (43009::NAGY)
= BitNet: NAGY@FNAL
= USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/220 Batavia, IL 60510

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 06:19:17 GMT
From: yamnet!rcsh@uunet.uu.net  (/999999999)
Subject: Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look


CBS evening news just carried a story of what they called a "Major
Breakthrough", it concerned cold fusion. Anyone know any details?
The news cast was a best weak, and had no real details. I am skeptical,
shocked, and a little frightened (chemical fusion? bathtub nukes?)
Edward Teller was interviewed, saying he saw this a breakthrough.

Anyone know any details at all?  What's the deal?


--
Greg Noel [Gn] Delphi Information Systems, Westlake Vlg, Ca. 
"Better Living Through Chemistry" -Old Dupont Slogan

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 16:01:12 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?

mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) writes:

>Effective mass usually only comes into play in the band-theory of
>electrons---because of the exclusion principle the electrons can't pile into
>the low lying energy levels, thus the highest states have energies way above
>the ambient temperature (50,000K vs. 300K).  But, in metals at least, this
>means 1eV instead of 1/40 eV.  Even if there were enough H's for a similar
>thing to happen, I don't think there would be near enough to get over the
>coulomb barrier for the nuclei in any obvious way.  

There are a class of compounds called "heavy fermion" compounds that
were all the rage among superconductivity researchers before the high Tc
discoveries.  In these compounds, some electrons have enormous effective
masses - as much as the mass of a proton.  I was wondering if such
an electron would also have a proportionally smaller "effective wavelength",
and therefore be able to make deuterons come closer together, much as
a negative muon does in mu-cat fusion.

I would like to know if Pons and Fleischman have done a control with
ordinary water.  If they were giving a press release, they really
should also have handed out preprints.  It's not as if someone else is
now going to steal the credit, and if it's all a mistake their names
are s**t no matter what they do now.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 06:24:39 GMT
From: pdn!rnms1!alan@uunet.uu.net  (0000-Alan Lovejoy(0000))
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <296@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>There is, however, a rather large fly in the ointment.  There are two
>places on this planet you can get platinum-group metals in quantity.
>Both of these countries could become the super-OPEC of the 21'st
>century.
>
>One of them is the Soviet Union.
>
>The other is South Africa.

There is also a device called the "fusion torch," which can transmute 
elements (platinum from mud, if you like).  Of course, this requires
very advanced controlled-fusion reactors...

>We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum-
>group metals.

Then we also need either very advanced AI, very advanced biotechnology,
or artificial gravity: It appears that low gravity fields shut down the 
human immune system in a way similar to the AIDS virus.  Humans will NOT 
be spending any appreciable percentage of their lives in space until we 
can fix our immune systems so that they tolerate low gravity,  or until
we can provide gravity artificially.  As things stand, a career as an
asteroid miner would not last long...

>Mike Van Pelt                 Video 7              ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
>"... Local prohibitions cannot  block advances in military and commercial
>technology.... Democratic movements for local restraint can only restrain
>the world's democracies, not the world as a whole." -- K. Eric Drexler


Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL.
Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne.  They do not speak for me. 
__American Investment Deficiency Syndrome => No resistance to foreign invasion.
Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #318
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Mar 89 01:26:46 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA12457>; Wed, 29 Mar 89 01:01:11 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 29 Mar 89 01:01:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cYA6cTy00Ui381gE8l>;
          Wed, 29 Mar 89 00:31:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.cYA6Rry00UkZI4ck59>;
          Wed, 29 Mar 89 00:19:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QYA6Q1y00UkZA4bE4v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 00:17:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #319

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 319

Today's Topics:
		      NSS Hotline Update 3/24/89
		Would you like to go to Mars in 1992?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	   Re: Simulating Teleoperations, off road handling
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			   CDSF Celebration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 20:56:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update 3/24/89


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending
March 24, 1989.

Last Wednesday Dr. James Fletcher resigned as NASA Administrator.  His
resignation will become effective April 8th, and will end the longest
amount of time that one person has been the NASA Administrator.  Serving as
NASA Administrator from 1971 to 1977, he was primarily responsible for
selling the Space Shuttle Program to then President Nixon.  In 1986 he 
took over the NASA Administrator position once again to supervise NASA's
recovery from the Challenger accident, and to push the program into a
system that put more emphasis on quality control and safety.  On April 8,
Deputy Administrator Dale Myers will become acting Administrator until
President Bush appoints a new Administrator.

NASA and the space industry are growing concerned over President Bush's
lack of action on key issues despite his strong vocalization of support for
the civil space program.  An indication of Bush's support will be reveled
in how strongly the Administration fights for the NASA budget.  OMB
Director Richard Darman has come out in favor of the budget and that's a good
start.  A second concern is about the time it has been taking to fill key
appointments.  And the fact that the National Space Council despite having
a director still has no office and staff, and awaits an executive order
from Bush to set up shop.  

At Kennedy Space Center...

On Thurs. 8am the Space Shuttle Atlantis completed its roll out to the pad,
where the $530 million Magellan Venus Radar Mapping probe sits in a clean
room waiting to be installed into Atlantis's cargo bay.  Magellan is the
first planetary mission to be launched by the US since 1978.  In addition
the radar mapping probe is the first interplanetary probe built to be
launched specifically on the Space Shuttle.  The launch is scheduled to
take place on April 28, 1989 and must commence by May 23, 1989 while the
launch window to Venus is open.

Today the Discovery Orbiter is scheduled to arrive at Kennedy Space Center
at 5pm.  Discovery, that just returned from its five day mission last week
is reported to be in excellent condition.  Although technician are checking
out two small leeks that occurred in Discovery's main engine no. 1.

As part of a large NASA sounding rocket program, two Black Brant Xs and two
Nike-Orions are scheduled to be launched from Canada's Churchill Research
Range on Hudson Bay.  Two of the rockets carrying colorful barium releases,
will be visible, if cloud cover permits, to individuals in Eastern and Central
Canada, and in the North Central US.  They're scheduled to launched in late
March.  The other two rockets were scheduled to have been launched this
past week, and carried upper atmosphere experiments which are not visible
to individuals on the ground.

Last Thursday the DOT's Office of Commercial Space Transportation issued a
revised commercial launch manifest which calls for 23 launches.  The first
of the commercial launches will take place on March 29th.  Space Services
Incorporated will launch a sounding rocket carrying microgravity experiments,
from the White Sands missile test range in New Mexico.  The launch will
provide seven minutes of 0g for the six materials processing experiments
designed and constructed by the University of Alabama Consortium for
Materials Processing.  To meet regulations to get a license to launch the
mission, SSI must have $1 million in liability for damage to Govt. property,
and $10 million in coverage for third party property.

Transportation Secretary Samuel Skinner stated that the US is moving into
an era of commercial space operations signified by the US launch industry
moving off the drawing board and into operations.

Friday's (March 24th) issue of the New York times features National Space
Society activists Glenn H. Reynolds, NSS council S.Neil Hosenball and C.
Dennis Ahearn in an article about space law.  The article outlines these
lawyers participation in current issues of space law especially those
pertaining to commercial launch services.  

The Soviet news agency TASS reported that an unmanned Progress 41 supply
spacecraft that was launched on March 16, has docked with the Mir Space
Station.  The docking was carried out through the coordinated use of
onboard automated equipment, ground controllers and two Mir Cosmonauts.

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 27 Mar 89 07:37:35 PST
From: anderson%asuipf.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV (Don)
Subject: Would you like to go to Mars in 1992?
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space@andrew.cmu.edu",ANDERSON    


MS/PhD level software designer/programmer wanted for the NASA Mars
Observer spaceflight project.  Work involves the development of instrument
command and data analysis software for an imaging infrared spectrometer.
Both a background in physical sciences and mathematics, and strong
UNIX/C, DBMS, and graphics experience are desired.  Salary commensurate
with experience.  Send letter of interest, resume, and names of three
references/letters of recommendation to:

Don Anderson
Geology Department
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85287-1404.
602-965-6336

uucp:  sun!sunburn!tes!anderson

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 00:37:53 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <5849@pdn.nm.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>>We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum-
>>group metals.
>
>Then we also need either very advanced AI, very advanced biotechnology,
>or artificial gravity: It appears that low gravity fields shut down the 
>human immune system in a way similar to the AIDS virus.  Humans will NOT 
>be spending any appreciable percentage of their lives in space until we 
>can fix our immune systems so that they tolerate low gravity,  or until
>we can provide gravity artificially.  As things stand, a career as an
>asteroid miner would not last long...

Nonsense.  Supplying artificial gravity using centrifugal force is no big
deal, although getting the radius long enough to avoid inner-ear problems
is certainly a nuisance.  People have designed current-technology Mars
missions which have artificial gravity.

You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem:  better
space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, or just being
patient and persistent with unmanned missions (the main penalty of not
having on-site intelligence for asteroid mining is that any serious mistake
means that operations stop until replacement hardware arrives).

It is also an unproven conjecture that advanced biotechnology will be
needed to deal with the immune-system problem.  There might be some
simple fix.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 19:03:03 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ois.db.toronto.edu!jdd@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  ("John D. DiMarco")
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <5849@pdn.nm.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>Then we also need either very advanced AI, very advanced biotechnology,
>or artificial gravity: It appears that low gravity fields shut down the 
>human immune system in a way similar to the AIDS virus.  Humans will NOT 
>be spending any appreciable percentage of their lives in space until we 
>can fix our immune systems so that they tolerate low gravity,  or until
>we can provide gravity artificially.  As things stand, a career as an
>asteroid miner would not last long...
>
Why not a rotating astronaut habitat? Centrifugal forces could provide
"artificial gravity" at the rims of such a habitat. It's not really a new
idea... Thus an asteroid miner would be able to spend some time in a >0 G
environment.

>Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL.

-- 

John DiMarco	* We will live in the light *	jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net
jdd@db.toronto.edu 	jdd@db.utoronto.ca	jdd@db.toronto.cdn
{uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax!utcsri,decwrl!utcsri}!db!jdd	jdd@utcsri.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1989 14:17-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Simulating Teleoperations, off road handling

I wonder if Lucius has ever driven off road. I have.

You bet your sweet A** you have to take running starts. The scenario
discussed by Andy Higgins is not that unusual for real off road 4x4
driving in hill country.

I might also add that one of the maxims of off road driving is "You
WILL get stuck". That is why it is always wise to go four wheeling with
at least 2 vehicles so that one can either:

	a) pull you out
	b) help you fix what you broke
	c) go for help (or more beer while you wait)

You'd better think in terms of the equivalent for your lunar
teleoperation unless you are willing to leave the lunar surface strewn
with stuck buggies.

Driving off road in REAL time on unknown ground takes skill and
attention. (I won't claim a terribly high level of skill, although I
did once drive down some stairs) Teleoperation of a vehicle on rough
unknown ground is going to be APPALLINGLY difficult unless you limit
your travel to relatively flat areas and keep your velocity very low.
(the Lunikhod approach).

I would suggest that legged vehicles such as the Mras Rover concept
being worked on here at CMU are much better suited to remote
teleoperation than wheeled vehicles simply because they DON'T have the
same "GUN IT, DROP THE CLUTCH, TAKE THE HILL AND SLAM ON THE BRAKES AT
THE TOP" type of control needed for operating a wheeled off road
vehicle.

Even if you were driving tanks, you still have to have fine control to
take on obstacles. Ask your nearest Army type.

PS: At least on the moon I couldn't get stuck in the middle of a
river...

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 02:56:15 GMT
From: xanth!nic.MR.NET!shamash!com50!questar!dave@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?


On McNeil Lehrer one the researchers implied that they had
a theoretical basis for pursuing this idea.  An AP article said
they put $100K of 'their own' money (I assume 'their own' means the
department's) because the idea was so unconventional.
Any clues as to what the basis they were working from was? At least
one good enough to risk $100K on it?

The AP article and I believe the interview said they had taken
4 years to confirm their results.  Has no one else in the fusion
community heard about this or started some of their own work?

According to Glen Chapman's summary of the Financial Times article (thanx)
these guys have a decent rap.  Their conduct on the ML interview
didn't suggest any moment-of-glory aspirations but they did sound
as though they had expected a very skeptical reaction.  Now these guys
are smart.  Wouldn't they have done A LOT of homework to be as sure
as possible their careers didn't become,  as Paul Deitz said, s**t
when they announced cold fusion.

  Cold fusion and warm superconducters ... who'd a thunk rec.humor's
  oxymorons would spread here  (and who would have wanted it too :-)
-- 
David Becker 
and another bug bites, and another bug bites   another bug bites the dust
db@kolonel.MN.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 00:12:18 GMT
From: art@cs.ucla.edu  (Arthur P. Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <13437@steinmetz.ge.com> oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP writes:
>
>My 12-yr old CRC quotes palladium at $80/troy-ounce,
>and platinum at $150/troy-ounce. For reference, gold was $200/ounce.
>--
The closing quotes Thursday March 23 on the commodities exchange
were platinum $546/troy oz and palladium $146/troy oz.  

Arthur Goldberg                          Illegitimati Non Carborundum
3680-D Boelter Hall
UCLA Computer Science Department
LA, Ca. 90024
(213) 825-2864
art@cs.ucla.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 22:49:00 GMT
From: mtxinu!taniwha!paul@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul Campbell)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <13437@steinmetz.ge.com> oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP writes:
>My 12-yr old CRC quotes palladium at $80/troy-ounce,
>and platinum at $150/troy-ounce. For reference, gold was $200/ounce.


Buy palladium futures now :-)

	Paul


-- 
Paul Campbell, Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul 
"'Give me your tired, your poor - I'll piss on them' that`s what the
Statue of Bigotry sais. 'Let`s club them to death, get it over with
and just dump them on the Boulevard'" - Lou Reed, "New York"

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 05:50:47 GMT
From: phoenix!jsm@princeton.edu  (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

One thing that bugs a lot of people about this discovery is that based on the
news reports, not very many neutrons are produced  -- supposedly they are
off by 9 orders of magnitude according to conventional theory. Here is
a short explanation about the conventional theory of D-D reactions.

[begin theory]

	There are two fusion reactions involving D-D. They are

                  3
	D + D ->   He + n (neutron energy about 2.5 MeV)

	D + D ->   T  + p (proton energy about 1 MeV).

	For interaction energies above 10 keV, the cross section of the
two reactions and hence the reaction rates are about the same. These
have been measured with accelerators. These data agree well with the
cross-sections obtained by doing a WKB approximation of a Coulomb 
barrier penetration problem. According to theory and the data a high
temperatures, there is a slight dependence on the spin orientation of the
D-D at high temperatures. Even if the deuterium ions are spin-polarized,
at high temperature you will always see at both neutrons and protons.
So most think that at room temperature both reactions would also 
happen at about the same rate.  Therefore 4 watts of fusion power
probably would produce 0.5 watt or so of 2.5 MeV neutrons. This supposedly
is a big neutron source -- people exposed to it for some period of
time may lose hair or even die. 

[end theory]

	So if it is fusion and their neutron counts are off by a factor of 1e-9
(as was claimed in the press conference I think),  then the aneutronic (second)
branch seems to be dominant. So does anyone remember enough WKB theory to
figure out if the spin-dependence of the cross-sections can account for this
large number?

       One more thing, it is hard to tell sometimes on a mass spectrometer
if you have Helium-3 or Tritium. Mass spectrometers measure
the charge-to-mass ration. So singly-ionized helium-3 would show up as
mass 3, Tritium would show up as 3, and doubly-ionized helium would be
mass/q of 1.5. Tritium beta-decays to helium-3, so eventually all of
the tritium (half-life about 12-13 yrs) would wind up as helium-3.


	Scott

P.S. Most of this stuff is from memory, so might be useful to double check,
but I think most are right to about 20% or so.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 21:32:37 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: CDSF Celebration


Space activism is alive and well in Tucson!

Some 70 people toured the Space Bispheres Ventures facility in Oracle
Junction, AZ.  Many of us later celebrated our successful efforts to
kill the NASA Space Station.  Now we can get on with a real space
program.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #319
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Mar 89 04:00:44 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA14453>; Wed, 29 Mar 89 03:34:14 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 29 Mar 89 03:34:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oYA99gy00Ui341Z0VU>;
          Wed, 29 Mar 89 03:23:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.AYA95Wy00UkZQ4wE4r>;
          Wed, 29 Mar 89 03:18:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YYA93uy00UkZ04uk4t@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 03:16:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #320

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 320

Today's Topics:
			 Re: CDSF Celebration
   Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts
			     NASA Select
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
   Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts
			     ISF Tortures
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 23:28:45 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: CDSF Celebration

In article <22072@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>Many of us later celebrated our successful efforts to kill the NASA
>Space Station.  Now we can get on with a real space program.

    I believe you're sadly mistaken in assuming political manuevering
is somehow relevant to a "real space program." This is the same trap
L5/NSS fell into in the early 80's and never escaped.

    There's something very amusing in seeing people who regularly
castigate the space shuttle and virtually every other aspect of NASA,
pushing a man-tended facility which requires the shuttle.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "Totally bounded: A set that can be patrolled by a finite number
     of arbitrarily near-sighted policemen."    A. Wilonsky, 1978

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 02:00:36 GMT
From: mailrus!shadooby!wisner@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bill Wisner)
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts

>1)  The Great Wall *IS NOT* the only man-made object visible from orbit. [...]
>From tankers dumping oil at sea to cities themselves (such as Moscow, Rome,
>New York, and a personal favorite of the astronauts:  Houston)

Er, these don't count as objects, do they?

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 26 Mar 89 21:37:45 EST
From: Lou Surface <BISURFAC%ECUVM1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      NASA Select

I got a chance to watch the NASA select channel coverage of the
shuttle launch and an Air Force Delta launch.  I was
of course impressed with the coverage, especially the isolated
camera views of the shuttle launch. I was suprised to see the
amount of coverage on the Delta, considering its payload was an
SDI package. My question is why were there no cabin views during
the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch
on any mission - from Apollo to STS. Is this due to G-force limits
on operating cameras? - that would be suprising. Or is there some
classified ritual that occurs at T minus 0?

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 07:17:15 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc!andrew@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (andrew)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?


It's a nice twist that Palladium is named after the Greek hero Pallas, whose
image was held as the safeguard for Troy. The fate of Troy is infamous...

However, a palladium actually means "a safeguard" which might come in
useful (at a level appealing to the subconscious) when we need to deal
with the no-nukes lobby! It's maybe a safeguard against OURSELVES
trashing our environment - just in time?

Terrorists, using the freebee neutrons plus spent uranium might however see
the resultant plutonium as their own safeguard...

At least an asteroid is named after Pallas, and, if we can't use fusion
to get more Pd, this will encourage the space mining program no end.
(Jerry Pournelle's "A Step Farther Out" gives a good quantitative intro.
on energy/ cost estimates).

It must be clear to everyone, if this turns out to be for real, that this
is rather bigger than the discovery of fire - it's the hardest test of the
maturity of our species that we've yet had. Excuse the hyperbole - but I
wasn't trying to be dramatic.
============================================================================
	DOMAIN: andrew@logic.sc.nsc.com  
	ARPA:   nsc!logic!andrew@sun.com
	USENET: ...{amdahl,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,sun}!nsc!logic!andrew

	Andrew Palfreyman				408-721-4788 work
	National Semiconductor	MS D3969		408-247-0145 home
	2900 Semiconductor Dr.			
	P.O. Box 58090					there's many a slip
	Santa Clara, CA  95052-8090			'twixt cup and lip
============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 03:40:31 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts

In article <235@shadooby.cc.umich.edu> wisner@shadooby.cc.umich.edu (Bill Wisner) writes:
>>1)  The Great Wall *IS NOT* the only man-made object visible from orbit. [...]
>>From tankers dumping oil at sea to cities themselves (such as Moscow, Rome,
>>New York, and a personal favorite of the astronauts:  Houston)
>
>Er, these don't count as objects, do they?


Nope, they don't.  Not only is the Great Wall visible from orbit, the 
CERN accelerator, (in Geneva?), as well as the Fermilab accelerator, is
visible.  When the SSC is done, that, too, will be visible.


MATTHEW THOMAS DELUCA
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprmd
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 06:25:18 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: ISF Tortures

United States Congressional Record
Hearings of the HUD Independent Agencies Committee, Subcommittee on
Appropriations, April 19, 1988

Testimony of James Fletcher, NASA Administrator

  Mr. FLETCHER.  CDSF has two modes, and we have to be careful to
differentiate between those two modes.  There is the attached mode, in
which there is a great interest at NASA in using it.  That is when it
is attached to the Shuttle, either without the extended duration
capability or expecially with the extended duration capability.  We
can do a lot of microgravity research in that mode.

  The other mode is the free flying mode.  For that there is more
commercial interest, because they want to try out the kinds of
payloads that they may be facing on the Space Station in that free
flying mode.  As far as I can see, NASA is very interested in the
attached mode and the commercial sector is more interested in the free
flying mode...

  Mr. BOLAND.  We included $25 million to initiate the ISF in last
year's appropriation bill.  The Administration jumped on our band wagon
and actively endorsed the concept.  NASA, which I must admit it did not
come as a complete surprise, responded by saying "NASA itself has no
requirements for the particular capability that ISF is proposing in the
1991-1995 time frame." ...

  As you know, we wrote the Science Committee and indicated that we
would not proceed with this program and that we would rescind the $25
million until they authorized it.  Now whether or not the ISF is
ultimately authorized is an unknown at this particular time.  We
understand that while you have been testifying in support of the ISF,
or at least testifying to some degree of support, some of the NASA
Space Station contractors have been actively working against it.  That
is par for the course.  Frankly, I think it is kind of sad because if
we do lose ISF, this country could be left without any microgravity
capability beyond the modest level we have from our Shuttle-constrained
Spacelab.  We will be left without any capability for many, many
years...

  Let me ask you, Mr. Administrator, and Jim Rose--I assume that in
view of the fact you have requested no funding for the program in 1989,
you would have no objection to our rescinding the $25 million in 1988.

  Mr. FLETCHER.  Mr. Chairman, we are in a complicated situation right
now.  I would have no objection if you rescinded it...


----

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 01:33:37 GMT
From: pdn!rnms1!alan@uunet.uu.net  (0000-Alan Lovejoy(0000))
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1989Mar26.003753.11770@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Nonsense.  Supplying artificial gravity using centrifugal force is no big
>deal, although getting the radius long enough to avoid inner-ear problems
>is certainly a nuisance.  People have designed current-technology Mars
>missions which have artificial gravity.

I'm not a spececraft engineer, so I won't debate you on the practicality of
designing centrifugal gravity craft.  I had heard that this was not so simple
as all that, however.  Perhaps I have heard wrong.  Any spacecraft engineers
care to comment?

>You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem:  better
>space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, ...

Yup. Missed that one.  Don't think it likely in the short term (30 years).
Anyone know better?

>...or just being
>patient and persistent with unmanned missions (the main penalty of not
>having on-site intelligence for asteroid mining is that any serious mistake
>means that operations stop until replacement hardware arrives).

Such unattended operations have never been attempted on this scale.  It is
far from proven that it is ECONOMICALLY workable.  But you're right:  I didn't
list it as a possible solution, even though it clearly might be.  Satisfied now?

>It is also an unproven conjecture that advanced biotechnology will be
>needed to deal with the immune-system problem.  There might be some
>simple fix.

But will we know what that fix is without advanced biotechnology?  We still
haven't cured the common cold or AIDS, both of which may have simple fixes
as well.  How long have we had the technology to do what the people at the
University of Utah have claimed to do?  They stumbled on their alleged 
effect essentially on a hunch that they admit was a million-to-one longshot
(speaking figuratively)!

Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL.
Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne.  They do not speak for me. 
__American Investment Deficiency Syndrome => No resistance to foreign invasion.
Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 17:23:07 GMT
From: trantor.harris-atd.com!x102c!ferguson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (ferguson ct 71078)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <13437@steinmetz.ge.com> oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP writes:
			 <much stuff deleted>
>Be careful with platinum around hydrogen : if any oxygen gets mixed in,
>the mess will explode do to platinum's catalytic properties, says CRC.

The world has plenty of experience in handling high-pressure,
hydrogen-rich gasses in the presence of platinum.  Look at a catalytic
cracking unit in any oil refinery.  You just purge them real good and
the operating pressure tends to prevent further air encroachment.

Chuck Ferguson             Harris Government Information Systems Division
(407) 984-6010             MS: W1/7732  PO Box 98000  Melbourne, FL 32902
Internet:                  ferguson@cobra@trantor.harris-atd.com
uunet:                     uunet!x102a!x102c!ferguson

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 16:27:35 GMT
From: amdcad!crackle!prem@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Prem Sobel)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <5853@pdn.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.paradyne.com (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>>You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem:  better
>>space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, ...
>
>Yup. Missed that one.  Don't think it likely in the short term (30 years).
>Anyone know better?

Unless I have slipped a decimal point. It is under 1.6*10^9 miles round
trip to/from the asetroid belt. This is a distance of:

	D=5280*1.6*10^9 feet

which if one went at 1g until half way then at 1g to slow down would take:

	D=0.5*g*t^2, g=32ft/sec/sec

	t=sqrt(5280*10^8) ~= 73*10^4 sec ~=200 hours ~= 9 days

Allowing a few days for mining activities it is only 2 weeks total.
Since the object is to get an energy source and one is getting far more
than one uses this should be reasonable.

Prem

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 21:39:22 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <5853@pdn.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.paradyne.com (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>>You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem:  better
>>space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, ...
>
>Yup. Missed that one.  Don't think it likely in the short term (30 years).
>Anyone know better?

The Soviets are talking nuclear-electric propulsion for a manned Mars
mission circa 2005-2010.  Soon enough for you?

I agree that it's not likely in the US unless changes are made.

>>...or just being
>>patient and persistent with unmanned missions (the main penalty of not
>>having on-site intelligence for asteroid mining is that any serious mistake
>>means that operations stop until replacement hardware arrives).
>
>Such unattended operations have never been attempted on this scale.  It is
>far from proven that it is ECONOMICALLY workable...

It's not the approach I'd choose, but with enough patience and enough
replacement hardware it would work.  How economical it would be depends
on a lot of assumptions.

>>It is also an unproven conjecture that advanced biotechnology will be
>>needed to deal with the immune-system problem.  There might be some
>>simple fix.
>
>But will we know what that fix is without advanced biotechnology? ...

Plain, ordinary medical research may well suffice.  Note, I'm not saying
that it *will*, just that it is an exaggeration to say that we *need*
advanced biotechnology for it.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 22:34:43 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <24998@amdcad.AMD.COM> prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) writes:
>which if one went at 1g until half way then at 1g to slow down would take:
>
>	t=sqrt(5280*10^8) ~= 73*10^4 sec ~=200 hours ~= 9 days
>
>Allowing a few days for mining activities it is only 2 weeks total.
>Since the object is to get an energy source and one is getting far more
>than one uses this should be reasonable.
>
>Prem

     A few problems here...

     I don't have the figures to work it out available at this moment, but
to accelerate a spaceship for 4.5 days at 1 gravity and then decelerate that
same ship for another 4.5 days would take astronomical amounts of fuel, 
measured in the hundreds of thousands of tons, if not millions.  Of course,
since the object of the mission is to get asteriod ores (not fuel, by the way),
the fuel for the return trip must be carried on board, and this fuel must be
sufficient to accelerate and decelerate the loaded ship.  WE're looking at 
fuel requirements in the tens of millions of tons.  I don't see this kind
of capability with forseeable technology anytime in the next thirty years.

MTD



-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprmd
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 01:44:56 GMT
From: csli!jkl@labrea.stanford.edu  (John Kallen)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I
am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction?
Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does
the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here?
[I've forgotten all my nuclear physics :-) ]
_______________________________________________________________________________
 | |   |   |    |\ | |   /|\ | John Kallen            
 | |\ \|/ \|  * |/ | |/|  |  | PoBox 11215             "Life. Don't talk to me 
 | |\ /|\  |\ * |\ |   |  |  | Stanford CA 94309        about life."         
_|_|___|___|____|_\|___|__|__|_jkl@csli.stanford.edu___________________________

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #320
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Mar 89 10:06:35 EST
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01617>; Wed, 29 Mar 89 06:18:18 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 29 Mar 89 06:18:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UYA:vty00Ui3E1iE52>;
          Wed, 29 Mar 89 05:25:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.MYA:pcy00UkZM56E5V>;
          Wed, 29 Mar 89 05:18:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cYA-o3y00UkZA54k4b@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 05:16:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #321

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 321

Today's Topics:
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
      Re: Good stuff on TV (A&E Cable to show Apollo 11 footage)
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			       biomass
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
 Astronaut Hauck departing NASA for Navy post at Pentagon (Forwarded)
      Environmental Impact Statement for ASRM issued (Forwarded)
			   Re: NASA Select
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			       Aurora?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 15:41:53 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <290@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> glenn@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>occurred.  People at the UK Atomic Energy Authority say they know of the
>work and are treating it seriously.  The article has been submitted to the

I don't want to dampen people's hopes too much, but the TV
news programmes here carried the reports and made it clear
in their reports that people at Draesbury laboratory, one of
the UK research labs, had been trying to replicate the
experiment for the last fortnight without any success.

The only safe prediction that can be made at the moment, is
that the anti-nuclear people are already thinking up
campaigns to prevent the use of this technique if it works.
Hydrogen and platinum? That causes explosions! Ban it now!!!
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 22:22:50 GMT
From: hypatia!phil@rice.edu  (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Good stuff on TV (A&E Cable to show Apollo 11 footage)

In article <6041@homxc.ATT.COM> mrb1@homxc.ATT.COM (M.BAKER) writes:
>Hope this is of interest to many newsgroup readers.  I was 12 then,
>and there are probably more than a few people reading this who weren't
>even born in 1969 --- so this should be a quite an opportunity to
>see and tape this programming.

I was 8.  My parents let me stay up to watch it.  They would have probably
forced me had I not been so willing.  But then I fell asleep right before
the big event.  Sigh.  I will certainly be watching or taping this
program!

			William LeFebvre
			Department of Computer Science
			Rice University
			<phil@Rice.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 18:50:45 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <13437@steinmetz.ge.com> oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP writes:

>There's a third large source : auto junkyards. TONS of platinum anyway.
>I don't know if palladium is in catalytic converters or not.

Don't mean to ruin your day, but the catalytic converters on scrap cars are
usually the first thing that a junk-man goes after....it does have the
highest rate of return (in terms of dollars per time/effort expended).


Neal

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 15:30:36 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: biomass

> Although technician are checking out two small leeks that occurred
> in Discovery's main engine no. 1.

Did one of the On-Orbit Human Sustenance experiments go wild and spread
to unauthorized areas?

jim
symon@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 02:08:37 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Eric_B_DeWitt@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

The fact is it was THERE money the department where they worked did NOT put
any money into it??? Seems trange?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 15:46:33 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1989Mar25.041342.25786@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <4380@mtuxo.att.com> tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes:
>>...there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with
>>no gamma rays or neutrons; I seem to recall these involve carbon as one 
>>of the "reactants." 

> .. .   . . boron-11 plus proton yielding helium-4 (works
>fine but rather harder to ignite).

The protium-boron (isotope 11 -- the common one) is the reaction
that forms a carbon (isotope 12) which then immediately fissions to three
helium isotope-four atoms and 8.7 MeV  of energy, if I recall.  

This fission, incidentally, does not come under the proscription
'What G-- has joined, let no man put asunder'.  

>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

WHAT? - Russians will use PLASMAK(tm) p-B11 propulsion engines, first?

In the relatively near future, the Room Temperature Fusion fusion 
technology, should be able to provide the "fusion battery" to cold
start more powerful forms of thermonuclear fusion such as PLASMAK(tm)
aneutronic devices.  

+-------------------------------------------------------************
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075              ** FUSION **
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222      *** this ***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP             ** decade **
+-------------------------------------------------------************
   Made it!!! --  with months to  spare.                  --------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 00:55:13 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Astronaut Hauck departing NASA for Navy post at Pentagon (Forwarded)

Sarah Keegan
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     March 23, 1989

Jeffrey E. Carr
Johnson Space Center, Houston


RELEASE:  89-39

ASTRONAUT HAUCK DEPARTING NASA FOR NAVY POST AT PENTAGON

     Three-time spaceflight veteran Capt. Frederick Hauck (USN), 
crew commander of the first post-Challenger Shuttle mission, has 
announced that he will leave NASA on April 3 to join the Pentagon 
staff of the Chief of Naval Operations.  Hauck will serve as 
Director of Navy Space Systems Division, reporting in late May.

     "My 11 years with NASA have been extremely rewarding.  I'll 
miss the challenging environment and the people.  I am looking 
forward to continuing my career in the Navy and to the new 
challenges it provides," said Hauck.

     Selected as an astronaut in January 1978, Hauck made his 
first Shuttle flight as pilot on mission STS-7 in June 1983.  
That mission featured the deployment of two communications 
satellites, the first STS deployment and retrieval demonstration 
in space and the first formation flying of the orbiter with a 
free-flying satellite (SPAS-01).

     In November 1984, Hauck was STS-51A mission commander, the 
first space salvage mission in history.  Hauck and crew retrieved 
and returned to Earth the Palapa B-2 and Westar VI communications 
satellites after deploying Anik D-2 and LEASAT-1 satellites.

     Following the Challenger accident, he was appointed 
Associate Administrator for External Relations at NASA 
Headquarters, Washington, D.C., in August 1986.

     Hauck returned to the astronaut office in February 1987 when 
he was named to command the first post-Challenger mission, STS-
26.  In September 1989, the mission deployed the Tracking and 
Data Relay Satellite (TDRS-C) and conducted 11 mid-deck 
experiments.  Hauck has logged more than 436 hours in space.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 00:51:57 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement for ASRM issued (Forwarded)

Sarah Keegan
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    March 21, 1989

Jerry Berg
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.


RELEASE:  89-37

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR ASRM ISSUED


     NASA has issued the final environmental impact statement for 
the planned Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) project, an 
approximately 5-year-long program to design, develop, test and 
evaluate the next-generation Space Shuttle solid rocket motor.

     Issuance of the statement completes a key step in the 
agency's process of assessing environmental factors associated 
with locating the major ASRM production and testing facilities at 
one or more of three government-owned locations.

     NASA's preferred site for ASRM production is the Yellow 
Creek property in extreme northeastern Mississippi, presently in 
the custody and control of the Tennessee Valley Authority.  The 
preferred site for motor testing is John C. Stennis Space Center 
near Bay St. Louis, Miss.

     In addition to those two locations, the environmental impact 
statement addresses impacts at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla.  
The Kennedy center is included because it was among the three 
government-owned property options examined by NASA last year 
prior to the selection of Yellow Creek and Stennis as the 
preferred sites.

     The statement also summarizes NASA's consideration of 
several ASRM design alternatives and their differing effects on 
the project's environmental impact.  Another option considered in 
the assessment process is the "no-action" alternative -- that is, 
to halt the ASRM project and continue to use the current 
redesigned solid rocket motor for Shuttle flights into the next 
century.

     NASA, with support and encouragement from Congress, has been 
developing plans for an improved solid rocket motor since late 
1986.  The project was begun in response to a need to enhance 
Shuttle safety and reliability over the many years in the future 
that the Shuttle will continue to be a principal U.S. launch 
vehicle.  Another key objective is to achieve significantly 
improved booster performance compared to the current solid rocket 
motor.  In addition, the new motor would establish a strong 
technical foundation for future advances in the solid fuel 
propulsion area.

     NASA is currently evaluating proposals from two teams of 
companies who responded to a 1988 request for proposals inviting 
bids for the design, development, test and evaluation of the 
ASRM.  The contractors also proposed on the design, construction 
and operation of the manufacturing plant, static testing facility 
and all other associated facilities.  Proposals were received 
from Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Calif., along 
with Aerojet Solid Propulsion Co., Sacramento, Calif. (which 
would be its principal subcontractor); and a joint venture known 
as Hercules-Atlantic, consisting of Hercules Inc., Magna, Utah, 
and Atlantic Research Corp., Gainesville, Va.

     Selection of the prime contractor is planned for this 
spring, and the approximately 5-year-long effort would lead to 
delivery of the first set of flight motors by 1994.  NASA's plan 
is for a 3-year, phase-in period during which the ASRM would 
replace the current motor.

     NASA has committed to a variety of steps aimed at avoiding 
or minimizing potential environmental impacts from the ASRM 
project.  These mitigative measures are outlined in the document.

     The final version of the statement includes and reflects 
consideration of comments received from interested agencies, 
organizations and individuals following last December's 
publication of a draft version of the document.  An additional 
30-day opportunity for review began with today's issuance of the 
final statement.  Following that, signing of a Record of Decision 
by NASA's associate administrator for space flight will mark 
completion of the environmental impact assessment process for the 
ASRM program.

     Groundbreaking at the ASRM production site is expected to 
begin in June 1989.

     Copies of the environmental impact statement are available 
for examination and copying at public libraries in communities 
near the three candidate sites, at NASA Headquarters and the 
agency's field centers.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 21:34:37 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA Select

In article <Added.4Y=O_Wy00Ui30R7E8O@andrew.cmu.edu> BISURFAC@ECUVM1.BITNET (Lou Surface) writes:
>... My question is why were there no cabin views during
>the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch
>on any mission - from Apollo to STS. Is this due to G-force limits
>on operating cameras? - that would be suprising. Or is there some
>classified ritual that occurs at T minus 0?

There's no special problem with it that I'm aware of.  I'd assume that
the reason is (a) the view would be boring, and (b) the astronauts'
conversations are considered private unless explicitly transmitted.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 02:41:12 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <7739@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>measured in the hundreds of thousands of tons, if not millions.  Of course,
>since the object of the mission is to get asteriod ores (not fuel, by the way),
>the fuel for the return trip must be carried on board, and this fuel must be
>sufficient to accelerate and decelerate the loaded ship.

    Probably not, since we suspect many asteroids of being
volatile-rich. Fuel and reaction mass, all in one. I was unable to
find any information on D/H ratios in a quick glance through my copy
of _Asteroids_, but the Phobos mission may provide info in short
order, if their mass spectrometer determines D abundance.

    This is aside from there being no need to accelerate at 1G in
either direction for other reasons.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "Totally bounded: A set that can be patrolled by a finite number
     of arbitrarily near-sighted policemen."    A. Wilonsky, 1978

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 17:07:32 GMT
From: ecsvax!dukeac!jek@mcnc.org  (James Kittock)
Subject: Aurora?


Well, I'm sort of sorry to just be getting in to this aurora discussion late,
but what with spring break and all, I've had trouble catching up on the
volume of unread news...

Discovering that others had seen a similar optical effects on the night of
Monday March 13 intrigued me, because I had been very perplexed by the sky
that night.  My experience occurred on a hike from Shining Rock to Flower Gap
in the Pisgah National Forest of western North Carolina (how's that for
accuracy :-).  About 1 or 2 hours after sunset (I was backpacking, so I didn't
have a watch) myself and my nine crewmembers noticed the sky starting to 
LIGHTEN, and to our amazement, it went from a faint purplish color to a blood
red that just about scared me shitless.  We discussed it briefly, since none
of us was an astronomical expert, and concluded that it was unlike any aurora
we had ever heard described, since it had almost zero dynamics (i.e. no moving
curtains of light, etc.) and was almost uniformly red (no greens or blues).  
The light covered the northern 1/2 to 3/4 of the sky from the west horizon to
almost the east horizon.  At the time, I convinced myself that it was some
very strange post-sunset glow off high clouds (or something!!!), but between
the sky, the high winds we experienced that night, and the number of flashing
lights (probably planes, but when you're in the middle of a bald gap on a 
freaky night, your imagintation does wonders for you) in the sky, I think
most of my crew was wondering if it wasn't an Apocalyptic sky...  Not to tie
this in to the other "discussions" in sci.astro, but if little green men had
landed and said "take me to your leader" I wouldn't have been to surprised.

Anyways, the effect lasted a good 4 or more hours, until (I would estimate)
midnight or 1 am.  Oh-- and there were also a number of whitish streaks that
were either illuminated contrails (when I still believed the clouds idea) or
god knows what else-- they spanned 1/4 to 1/2 the sky and it was a bit
disconcerting when two of them made a gigantic "V" in the SOUTHERN sky...

Sorry to have taken so much bandwidth, but please e-mail me or post if your
particular version of the aurora sounds like ours (verified by about 30 other
people...) visually, if not psychologically.



-- 
james kittock - Duke '92 - P.O. Box 5750, Duke Station, Durham NC 27706-5750 
"...I had a mad impulse to throw you down on the lunar surface!" -- Woody Allen
ph#: (919) 684-7008 (but usually running from class to class before 4 p.m.)
  ...!(decvax|mcnc)!ecsgate!jek@dukeac   or   jek@dukeac.ac.duke.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #321
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Apr 89 12:35:16 EDT
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01745>; Thu, 30 Mar 89 07:54:11 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 30 Mar 89 07:54:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AYAUu8y00UkTQ1wkhI>;
          Thu, 30 Mar 89 06:24:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sYAPYjy00UkTQ1rZMR>;
          Thu, 30 Mar 89 00:20:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.sYAPYQy00UkZA9:U5o>;
          Thu, 30 Mar 89 00:20:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wYAPWiy00UkZI99042@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 00:18:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #322

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 322

Today's Topics:
		       Re: US/USSR launch costs
	   NASA Administrator Fletcher resigns (Forwarded)
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1989 12:40-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: US/USSR launch costs

I could generate a great deal more on this subject, but I suggest that
anyone who is really interested in the economic effects of government
subsidies and "assistance" read a book translated from french a few
years back: "Tomorrow, Capitilism" by Henri LePage.

It has an excellent summary of the effects (or lack of them) of much
touted government interference with the market place. He thoroughly
debunks the myth that the government assistance to the railroads in the
last century had any serious impact on economic growth, other than to
guarantee that the railroads fell into a mode of operation that
guaranteed their eventual demise as the primary carrier. Econometric
models have shown that if the railroads had not been assisted at all,
the effect on US growth would have been the equivalent of 1 - 2 years
delay.

The new breakthrough in fusion, if it pans out will be just one more
example of the way government fails to have the economic effects it
claims it will have. 30 years and untold billions (US billions, not
European billions) have been spent on big bureaucratic science and the
preservation of reputations and pet projects. And along come two guys
with a neat idea and their own money to create a fusion process people
will be able to build for high school science projects. Consider the
effects on economic growth if those funds had been left IN the
marketplace to be used by the creators of the wealth instead of by
societal parasites working off stolen goods.

Whatever people may say, the government and NASA space programs are
irrelevant to the long term development of space. They have spent a
drop in the bucket compared to what willoccur once private investment
begins to get a return, and most of the expenditures have been for
things that aren't needed, are too costly, or that have been build and
discarded. Much of the funds goes into paper studies that are worthless
duplication of paper studies made 30 years ago.

Don't take my word for it. Read Henri LePage. It is probably the best
book on economics I have read in many years. Kudos to the French!!!

Oh, and in answer to Mr Roberts. Why is the demand for launches in the
US so low? Why are US comsats such giant expensive affairs instead of
the smaller, cheaper throw away technology used by the USSR? Might it
be that the super reliable very heavy lift vehicle is a flawed economic
concept at this time? Might it be that what we need are lots of low
throw weight pipes with rocket fuel putting up non aerospace technology
small sats that "usually" work? We might have had a market place were
staellite reliability and rocket cost had driven each other instead of
the government distorted situation we now have.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 23:18:32 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Administrator Fletcher resigns (Forwarded)

David W. Garrett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     March 21, 1989


RELEASE:  89-36

NASA ADMINISTRATOR FLETCHER RESIGNS


     NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher submitted his 
resignation today to President Bush, effective April 8, 1989.

     Fletcher, who was brought back for a second term as 
administrator after the Challenger accident, says that with the 
successful conclusion of the third post-Challenger Space Shuttle 
mission, he feels that he can safely place the leadership of NASA 
in another's hands.

     The letter to the president pledges to continue to work with 
his successor when appropriate.  Fletcher said, "It has been a 
pleasure to serve you, both in your capacity as vice-president 
and in recent weeks as president.  I look forward to an eminently 
successful Bush presidency."

     Fletcher first served as NASA administrator from April 1971 
to May 1977.  He was called back by President Reagan in May 1986 
with a mandate to get the Space Shuttle flying again safely.  By 
virtue of the two terms, Fletcher has served as NASA 
administrator longer than anyone.

     Effective April 8, Deputy Administrator Dale Myers will 
become acting administrator pending a new presidential 
appointment.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 05:03:09 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <8299@csli.STANFORD.EDU> jkl@csli.stanford.edu (John Kallen) writes:
>I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I
>am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction?
>Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does
>the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here?

Uncharged particles in general are much more penetrating, because they
interact more weakly with matter.  This has several implications,
including the need for massive shielding for personnel and electronics.
For really high-power applications like fusion rocketry, everything near
the engine gets hot, instead of just the engine, due to neutron heating.
Neutrons also tend to make the shielding (etc.) radioactive, which adds
a nasty waste-disposal problem.  Finally, protons can be controlled
and bullied around with magnetic fields, which neutrons ignore.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 04:11:49 GMT
From: prism!dsm@gatech.edu  (Daniel McGurl)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <7739@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>     A few problems here...
[lines deleted]
>the fuel for the return trip must be carried on board, and this fuel must be
>sufficient to accelerate and decelerate the loaded ship.  WE're looking at 
>fuel requirements in the tens of millions of tons.  I don't see this kind
>of capability with forseeable technology anytime in the next thirty years.
>Matthew DeLuca
>Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
>uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprmd
>ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu

Ah, but you miss a critical point, the only fuel required is to get out to the
Asteroid belt.  Getting the asteriods back involves just giving them a push
of sorts (unless you are in a hurry-- sure this may take a few years for them
to get back to earth orbit).  Also, the space ship could probably slow in a
way similar to the shuttles when it returns to Earth, just use the atmosphere
as a speed brake.
-- 
Daniel Sean McGurl                       "He's got to make his own mistakes,
Office of Computing Services              and learn to mend the mess he makes."
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta Georgia, 30332                                ARPA: dsm@prism.gatech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 06:40:46 GMT
From: steve@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Steve Philipson)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <1989Mar22.054649.15822@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <1529@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes:
 
> >NASA is an organisation with the job of implementing the
> >American Space Program. Space flight is risky stuff, and whilst flying from
> >Heathrow to JFK is no walk in the park, it's an awful lot easier and common.
> 
> Didn't used to be.  Airlines got started back when airflight was also
> risky and uncommon.

   True, but aircraft could be bought in quantity by single companies with
the express intent of making a profit.  Space flight has taken considerably
larger investment to get going, with a large percentage of it coming from
public funds.  Perhaps we haven't let private companies jump into space,
but the government hasn't been overwhelmed with requests from companies 
desiring to build AND FINANCE entire launch systems (including launch pads 
and recovery facilities) on their own.  


> Tell that to NASA, which prefers professional astronauts (who are *not*,
> repeat *not*, scientists -- ask a scientist).

   Tell *that* to Taylor Wang at JPL.  If he's not a professional scientist,
who is?  There are career astronauts who are not primarily research
scientists, but we send up people who are as mission specialists, as we
did with Taylor and others.  Surely this fact hasn't escaped your attention?

 
> It certainly doesn't bring any money into the US treasury; note that my
> comments addressed only spacefaring nations, which the US is not, despite
> clumsy attempts in that direction.  As for the Soviets, they're working
> on it.  ...

   Come on, Henry! Give it a rest!!  You clearly don't care much for NASA
and the US space program, but you're letting your dogma get the best of
you.  "Seafaring" as a noun is defined "a mariner's calling". "Spacefaring"
could thus be defined as an astronaut's calling.  The US has career
astronauts, we have been sending them into space for some two and a half
decades, and we continue to do so.  Perhaps we don't do it at the rate
that the Soviets do, but does that mean it isn't happening?  And that 
we're not working on it?  There are sure a lot of people working hard 
on space projects that would be surprised to find that their jobs and
work aren't real.

   You also should have noticed that the US government is not in the
business of making money, so it's no surprise that monies don't flow
rapidly into the national treasury as a result of the space program.
Many launches are "reimbursable" though, meaning that the government
is paid back for the services that are provided.  We've got quite a
few commercial space vehicles in operation.  They are mainly 
communication systems, but they are there and producing revenue.
   

  [re: the last flight of Challenger and the Teacher In Space program]
 
> Really?  I detected no signs of such great excitement at the time.
> "Another shuttle flight?  Yawn.  Oh, the teacher is going up on this
> one?  Must be thrilling for her students.  Yawn."

   If you had read the papers at the time, or watched TV news, you might
have noticed that her students were cheering wildly at launch, to the
point that many of them initially did not notice the explosion.  It
WAS a big deal to them, even though it might not have been a big deal
to you.  There were many people excited by the idea of "just plain
folks" going into space.  


   Henry, it is clear that you are well versed in space activities, and 
also that you're clearly not happy with the way the US is doing things.
Still, it doesn't mean that the US is always in the wrong and can't do 
anything right, which is what you regularly appear to be saying.  Lighten 
up a little, and try to see things in a more balanced light.  The USSR
may have a much higher launch rate, and may be committing more resources
to space exploration and operations than is the US, but that is no reason
to denigrate everything that is done here.  Most of us applaud Soviet 
accomplishments, and hope that they will move our leaders to increase our 
rate of space activity.  

   The US has a political system in which decisions are made by consensus.
Various needs are argued and weighed in public debate, albeit imperfectly 
at times.  As a result, we often don't do things in the best way we could,
and policies sometimes result that no one is perfectly happy with.  The 
Soviets don't have that problem (yet), and their leadership can set 
priorities and direct efforts to accomplish them with far less in the way 
of dissent.  If they have an edge because of the differences in political 
systems, we just have to chalk that up to part of the price of democracy.  

   Citizens in this country can, and do, work to get more support for 
space activities, but we work within the constraints of our system.  You 
seem to be upset with us for not doing enough.  So what are YOU doing to 
promote space exploration?

   

   Just for the record:  No, I am NOT employed by NASA.
-- 

						   Steve
					(the certified flying fanatic)
					    steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 05:19:28 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <8299@csli.STANFORD.EDU> jkl@csli.stanford.edu (John Kallen) writes:
>I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I
>am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction?
>Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does
>the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here?
>[I've forgotten all my nuclear physics :-) ]

	The neutrons aren't necessarily bad for the reaction, but they aren't
good for your health.  Protons would also be bad if they got into you, but
being charged, they will lose energy rapidly upon passing through any matter
and are therefore easily stopped, whereas neutrons, having no charge, only
lose energy slowly (generally by crashing into a nucleus, which is not
necessary for stopping protons) and therefore require considerably more
shielding to stop, and make the shielding radioactive besides.  Yes, Coulomb
repulsion of a proton by a nucleus does play a role -- the higher the atomic
number of the nucleus, the faster the proton has to be moving to react with it
instead of being deflected by it.  This means that protons moving at the
minimal speeds needed for fusion of light elements (up to boron) will not be
able to make shielding radioactive, provided that the shielding is made of
something at least as heavy as carbon (preferably a little heavier than that,
just to provide a little safety margin).  On the other hand, even very slow
neutrons can react with nuclei and thus have the potential to make things
radioactive.  Thermal neutrons (that is, neutrons moving at speeds expected
for room temperature) have been successfully used as a mutagen (source of
information:  _Genetic Mutations of Drosophila melanogaster_) (although this
may be partly due to the fact that the neutrons themselves are radioactive).

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 20:16:37 GMT
From: dbh106%psuvm.BITNET@jade.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

Bravo!  Bravo!!  The researchers at the University of Utah should be
congratulated for their breakthrough.  Does this mean the environmentalists
will have to find another line of work, with all the possible ways that
a clean power source could be used to alleviate the pollution problem?

CONGRATULATIONS UU!

Awaiting further developments,

Dan Harter
DBH106@PSUVM.BITNET
Penn State University
DBH10

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 17:30:30 GMT
From: steinmetz!davidsen@uunet.uu.net  (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <5849@pdn.nm.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:

| Then we also need either very advanced AI, very advanced biotechnology,
| or artificial gravity: It appears that low gravity fields shut down the 
| human immune system in a way similar to the AIDS virus.  Humans will NOT 
| be spending any appreciable percentage of their lives in space until we 
| can fix our immune systems so that they tolerate low gravity,  or until
| we can provide gravity artificially.  As things stand, a career as an
| asteroid miner would not last long...

  What are the parameters on this? I know the Russians had people in
orbit for almost a year (didn't they?) and didn't seem to have problems.
They were visited by other cosmonauts during the time so they weren't in
a sterile atmosphere.

  I want to make a hypothesis: we won't go the the belt in any short
time unless we actually get room temperature fusion working. Given that
a fusion powered ship seems a certainty. Can I assume a hydrogen ram
jet? I will guess that the distance is 61 million miles. If you assume
that the constant acceleration is 1 fps^2 I think it takes about 13.1
days for the trip. At 1/10G it would take 7.3 days.

  If I didn't drop a deciaml place we are taking about a short journey
here... even assuming 0.1 fps^2 I get 41.5 days. This sounds too good to
be true, and if you extrapolate to 4.5 lightyears it still looks like
space flight is possible.
________________________________________________________________

Since this sounds too good to be true, here's what I did:

 1) S = at^2 / 2
 2) t = sqrt(2S / a)
	if we assume that we accellerate half way and
	decellerate half way
 3) t = 2 * sqrt(S / a)
	S = 65e6 * 5280 (feet)
	  a	sec	days
	====================
	  .1	3589317  41.5
	 0.1	1135041  13.1
	 3.2	 634507   7.3

If I didn't make a silly mistake in the equasions, which seems likely
given the results, or if I have overestimated the power of a fusion
powered hydrogen ram jet, please let me know.

Also if someone has info on such a jet as far as implementation or power
it would help quantify the discussion.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@crd.GE.COM)
  {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #322
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Mar 89 15:49:33 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA28220>; Thu, 30 Mar 89 08:56:37 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 30 Mar 89 08:56:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4YAVuwy00UkT41wklo>;
          Thu, 30 Mar 89 07:34:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gYASA5y00Ui304sEo4>;
          Thu, 30 Mar 89 03:19:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.wYAS:uy00UkZ49S04z>;
          Thu, 30 Mar 89 03:18:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IYAS9hy00UkZE9QU5e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 03:16:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #323

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 323

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Jan 23 AW&ST
		     Fusion --- What's going on?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		 Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri
	   Re: far side of the Moon photo mission (ussr's)
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		India, Brazil, China, etc. space progs
			  Re: Tilenius paper
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 03:54:36 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Jan 23 AW&ST

NOAA is now "in the doghouse" for talking to France about a Landsat-Spot
merger without informing the State Dept., etc. etc., that it was talking
to a foreign government.  However, obviously its biggest botch was never
mentioning this to Eosat, which is supposed to be running Landsat.  "We
didn't know about it until we read it in Aviation Week", says Eosat's
president.  NOAA says it was inappropriate for Eosat to be involved,
and denies that Spot Image was involved on the French side.  Spot Image,
however, says it was kept fully informed and provided input.  France
thinks any merged scheme should be based on the French organization,
with data sales separate from -- and not expected to repay -- the
space segment's funding.  Spot is calling the proposed system "Super Spot".

Meanwhile, Eosat asks for emergency funding to keep Landsats 4 and 5
running, with NOAA saying "it's your problem", and threatening to turn
the satellites off if no money is found.  [It was found, in the end,
although not by Eosat.]

British Aerospace completes new solar arrays for the Hubble telescope,
with about 10% more output than the original ones, easing simultaneous
use of multiple instruments.

Formation of the National Space Council gets off to a bureaucratic start,
with some of Quayle's staff, who know little about space, in charge of
interviewing potential Council staff.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, new chairman of NASA's Senate Appropriations
subcommittee, declares strong support for space but warns NASA that the
budget situation is bad and the space station needs better reporting
of life-cycle costs and better justification.

USAF cannot meet its 1989 launch targets:  70% will be good performance.
Titan 4 and Delta 2 have both slipped due to hardware problems associated
with re-starting closed facilities.  Among other complications, storage
space at the Cape is so short that the USAF is asking the USN for the
loan of some warehouse space belonging to the Trident program.

Slight slip in Discovery's launch schedule, and the discovery of the
bearing crack that ended up causing a much larger slip.

Atlantis's tiles are not as badly damaged as first thought.  Insulation
falling from both the external tank and the nose of the right SRB is
believed to have been to blame for the damage.

Controversy over space reactors grows.  Scientists say that the new
Soviet Topaz reactors have been emitting enough gamma rays to shut down
Solar Max's gamma-ray spectrometer about half the time, and Japan's
Ginga X-ray satellite has also been affected.  There is concern about
effects on the Gamma Ray Observatory, slated for launch next year.
Unfortunately, politics have gotten mixed in, with SDIO alleging
(correctly) that some of the anti-orbital-reactor people are motivated
more by SDI's dependence on nuclear power sources than by concern over
scientific impact of reactors.

USAF and SDIO plan $8G order in 1990 for the Boost Surveillance and
Tracking System, which will double as the first operational part of
SDI and a maneuverable, hardened early-warning system to replace the
current Defense Satellite Program satellites.  Critics say that DoD
has at least eight DSPs in inventory at the moment, enough to last
until the year 2000, and there is no need for a replacement.

NASA FY90 budget requests full funding for the space station plus new
starts for a pair of planetary missions:  Cassini (essentially a
Galileo mission to Saturn) and CRAF (Comet Rendezvous, Asteroid Flyby).
CRAF would launch in 1995 on a Titan-4-Centaur, for a 1998 flyby of
asteroid Hamburga [really] and rendezvous with comet Kopff in Aug 2000.
Cassini would leave for Saturn in Aug 1996, on a similar booster, with
arrival in 2002 after one or two asteroid flybys.  The planetary missions
are probably safe, but the station funding is anyone's guess.

Pentagon asks 50% budget hike for SDI in FY90; absolutely nobody seriously
expects them to get it.  Critics say many of the tests SDI is planning
in the next two years are on the edge of violating the ABM Treaty.  Also,
that 50% includes the thin edge of the wedge labelled "Phase 1 Deployment",
and Congress will *not* like that.

Galileo's thrusters are fixed and re-acceptance tests are about to start.
This is on the critical path for launching on time in October.  About
three weeks of margin remain if nothing goes wrong.  The changes will
reduce thruster efficiency about 5%, and may require eliminating one of
the two asteroid flybys or one of the Jovian-satellite encounters,
although there is hope for the full mission.  JPL is very grateful that
they didn't launch in 1986; a workaround for the thruster problems would
probably not have been possible.  The problem was discovered during
experiments with TVSat 1, Germany's TV-broadcast satellite that was
written off after one solar array failed to deploy:  it was being used
as an operational testbed when its thrusters failed.  When run nonstop,
the thrusters tend to overheat and destroy themselves.  Worse, there
is a "hot start" problem when pulsing the thrusters, which can ruin
the thrusters in seconds.  MBB is investigating why these problems
weren't found during development.  Minor design differences between
Galileo and TVSat 1 may account for the hot-start problem not showing
up on TVSat 1 (or on the French TDF-1, which has the same thrusters,
now being operated in pulsed mode to avoid the overheating problem).
Small plumbing changes remove the hot-start problem, and changes in
mixture ratio and flow rate remove the overheating problem.  However,
the latter set of changes reduce specific impulse from 280 to 270 s,
cutting about 10 kg off Galileo's fuel reserve.  This is of some
concern because the fuel reserve for Galileo's full mission varied
from 50 kg to zero, depending on what assumptions were made about
things like navigational error and launch date.  If Galileo gets off
on time (Oct 12) and errors are at the 50% level, reserve should be
30-40 kg.  Eliminating the second asteroid flyby would save about
40 kg, and eliminating one satellite encounter would save about 15.

Soviets plan to fly their MMU tethered to Mir, even though it is capable
of independent flight.  They say "maybe later -- not needed right now".

Aerospatiale ERA deployable structure failed to deploy from Mir on
command, and efforts to open it using ERA's vibration system failed.
Soviet controllers conferred over options and French mission personnel
tried to figure out why it had jammed, while Mir went out of tracking-
station range for a few minutes.  When contact was reestablished, the
cosmonauts reported that ERA was deployed.  Video images transmitted
later show Volkov kicking the ERA canister; he says it deployed a few
centimeters per kick.  Cause of the deployment problem is not fully
understood, but moisture inside the unsealed canister may have frozen.
The problem lengthened the Volkov/Chretien EVA from 5 hours to 6.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

From: ota
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 13:43:09 MST
Subject: Fusion --- What's going on?

Does anyone know actually when the article will come out in Nature?
Science?  Enquirer?  If the reports are true, then this appears to be
the answer to all of mankind's problems.  Once again, technology has
come to the rescue rather then require us to solve our problems the
hard way....

David Birnbaum		New Mexico State University	Small Systems

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Find me at:   dbirnbau@nmsu.edu    VTIS001@NMSUVM1.bitnet   /dev/null  |
|                                                                         |
|   "It shouldn't be a suprise to anyone when the network screws up;      |
|    the suprise should be that the dang thing works at all!"             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 17:45:38 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <369@hydra.gatech.EDU> dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Daniel McGurl) writes:
>Ah, but you miss a critical point, the only fuel required is to get out to the
>Asteroid belt.  Getting the asteriods back involves just giving them a push
>of sorts (unless you are in a hurry...

Pushing even a small asteroid -- say a mere million tons -- into an orbit
that crosses Earth's is going to require more than a little bit of fuel.

>... Also, the space ship could probably slow in a
>way similar to the shuttles when it returns to Earth, just use the atmosphere
>as a speed brake.

At the kinds of velocities we've been talking about, no it can't.
Aerobraking works fine at a few kilometers per second.  At thousands of
kps, it doesn't work at all:  you have your choice of vaporizing, slamming
into the ground and making a large crater, or zipping off into space after
losing only a small fraction of your speed.  There is no way you are going
to lose hundreds or thousands of kps of speed in a distance of a few
thousand kilometers without vaporizing.  (Not to mention the small problem
that this involves decelerations of many thousands of Gs.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 20:26:49 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri

Henry Spencer posts:

:Let us all be very cautious about this; while it sounds promising, there
:have been major scientific false alarms before.  (For example, there were
:a number of high-temperature-superconductor false alarms before Bednorz
:and Muller hit the jackpot -- this was one reason why their report was
:slow to be accepted.)

Caution is fine, but I'm too excited to keep still.  Given the energy
density figures from preliminary reports, how much of a scale-up
will it take for a constant-boost ship capable of going to Proxima
Centauri?  Assume refueling there.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm guilty of the cardinal sin of THINKING BIG
again...

I vote for calling it PROMETHEUS.


Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 23:48:35 GMT
From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: far side of the Moon photo mission (ussr's)

In article <47974@philabs.Philips.Com>, rfc@briar.philips.com (Robert Casey) writes:
> I seem to remember that the Russians flew a photo mission in '59 to take a
> picture of the farside of the Moon, and that the picture came out very fuzzy.
> I don't know of any immediate retries of this mission to get better pictures.
> Anyone know why?  Maybe they didn't have more launch vehicles to use for such
> a mission?  Or the results they did get were the best they could do back in
> '59?  (maybe they couldn't aim the camera too accurately back then, so they
> took a picture of a large field of view, which the Moon occupies a small area
> of, to be sure of getting the Moon at all.  Then the picture we did get to
> see was edited to throw out the large area of black sky?  This would make for
> poor resolution of the Moon.)?

There were attempts at followup missions, a list of which follows.  There
weren't any successes by either the US or the USSR for years, however.  I
tabulated known attempts by both countries from the "TRW Space Log 1957-1987"
"*" indicates a successful mission. "?" means it didn't look like a success
to me.  I've never seen a table like this, and it is interesting to note
parallels and differences between the two programs.  It sure looks like
Luna 3 was a lucky fluke in the failure-prone first five years of lunar
probes.  The next glimpses of the far side didn't occur for almost seven
years.  After compiling these tables, I have more appreciation of the Soviet
Union's serious competition in the race for the moon, and note the fact that
there has yet to be a complete, multi-spectral survey of the moon by either
country.

Table I.  USSR Unmanned Lunar Probes

 Luna 1     Jan.  2, 1959  Missed moon by 3728 miles
 Luna 2     Sep. 12, 1959  Impacted on moon
*Luna 3     Oct.  4, 1959  Photographed lunar far side for 40 minutes
 None       Jan.  4, 1963  Never left parking orbit; decayed Jan. 5, 1963
 Luna 4     Apr.  2, 1963  Failed soft lander; missed moon by 5282 miles
 Luna 5     May   9, 1965  Impacted on moon; soft landing failed
 Luna 6     June  8, 1965  Failed soft lander; missed moon by 100,000 miles
 Luna 7     Oct.  4, 1965  Impacted on moon; soft landing failed
 Luna 8     Dec.  3, 1965  Impacted on moon; soft landing failed
*Luna 9     Jan. 31, 1966  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos for 3 days
 Kosmos 111 Mar.  1, 1966  Suspected lunar probe failure; decayed 
*Luna 10    Mar. 31, 1966  Lunar orbiter; returned data for 54 days
*Luna 11    Aug. 24, 1966  Lunar orbiter; returned data for 38 days
*Luna 12    Oct. 22, 1966  Lunar orbiter; photographed moon from stable orbit
*Luna 13    Dec. 21, 1966  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil data
 Zond 4     Mar.  2, 1968  Failed lunar mission?
?Luna 14    Dec. 21, 1966  Lunar orbiter; passive gravity experiments
*Zond 5     Sep. 15, 1968  Lunar fly-around with return to earth; ocean recovery
*Zond 6     Nov. 10, 1968  Lunar fly-around with return to earth; land recovery
*Luna 15    Jul. 13, 1969  Lunar orbiter; orbit altered twice
*Zond 7     Aug.  8, 1969  Lunar fly-around with return to earth; land recovery
*Luna 16    Sep. 12, 1970  Lunar sample return
 Zond 8     Oct. 20, 1970  Missed moon
*Luna 17    Nov. 10, 1970  Unmanned lunar rover
?Luna 18    Sep.  2, 1971  Orbited moon for 54 orbits
*Luna 19    Sep. 28, 1971  Lunar orbiter; photographed moon
*Luna 20    Feb. 14, 1972  Lunar sample return
*Luna 21    Jan.  8, 1973  Unmanned lunar rover
*Luna 22    May  29, 1974  Lunar orbiter
 Luna 23    Oct. 28, 1974  Crashed on moon
 None       Oct. 16, 1975  Lunar probe; failed to orbit
*Luna 24    Aug.  9, 1976  Lunar sample return

Table II.  USA Unmanned Lunar Probes

 None            Aug. 17, 1958  Lunar probe; first stage failed
 Pioneer 1       Oct. 11, 1958  Failed to reach moon; decayed Oct. 12, 1958
 Pioneer 2       Nov.  8, 1958  Lunar probe; third stage ignition unsuccessful
 Pioneer 3       Dec.  6, 1958  Failed to reach moon; decayed Dec. 7, 1958
 Pioneer 4       Dec.  6, 1958  Lunar probe; missed moon by 37,300 miles
 Ranger 1        Aug. 23, 1961  Never left earth orbit; decayed Aug. 30, 1961
 Ranger 2        Nov. 18, 1961  Never left earth orbit; decayed Nov. 20, 1961
 Ranger 3        Jan. 26, 1962  Lunar probe; missed moon by 22,862 miles
 Ranger 4        Apr. 23, 1962  Impacted on moon; experiments failed to work
 Ranger 5        Oct. 18, 1962  Lunar probe; missed moon by 450 miles
 Ranger 6        Jan. 30, 1964  Impacted on Moon; television system malfunctioned
*Ranger 7        Jan. 30, 1964  Impacted on Moon; returned 4308 photos
*Ranger 8        Feb. 17, 1965  Impacted on Moon; returned 7137 photos
*Ranger 9        Mar. 21, 1965  Impacted on Moon; returned 5814 photos
*Surveyor 1      May  30, 1966  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos for 44 days
*Lunar Orbiter 1 Aug. 10, 1966  Lunar orbiter; returned data for 19 days
 Surveyor 2      Sep. 20, 1966  Crashed on moon
*Lunar Orbiter 2 Nov.  6, 1966  Lunar orbiter; returned 205 frames
*Lunar Orbiter 3 Feb.  4, 1967  Lunar orbiter; returned 182 frames
*Surveyor 3      Apr. 17, 1967  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil data
*Lunar Orbiter 4 May   4, 1967  Lunar orbiter; returned 163 frames
*Lunar Orbiter 5 Aug.  1, 1967  Lunar orbiter; orbited for 6 months
*Surveyor 4      Apr. 17, 1967  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil data
*Surveyor 5      Sep.  8, 1967  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil data
*Surveyor 6      Nov.  7, 1967  Soft-landed on moon; first rocket takeoff from moon
*Surveyor 7      Jan.  7, 1968  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil data
(and just for some comparison dates:
*Apollo 11       Jul. 16, 1969	First manned landing on moon and return
 . . .
*Apollo 17       Dec.  7, 1972	Last manned landing on moon and return)


Doug Mink
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Internet:  mink@cfa.harvard.edu
Bitnet:    mink@cfa
SPAN:      cfa::mink
Phone:     (617)495-7408

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 10:34:34 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!kocic@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Miroslav Kocic)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported


The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the
Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns.  First, what if fusion
turns out to create problems we don't foresee?  We didn't foresee radioactive
waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage, and, if history teaches
anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price.  Second, what
if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production?  I can imagine
a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 09:02:44 GMT
From: barilvm.bitnet!f44169@cunyvm.cuny.edu  (Gerald Steinberg)
Subject: India, Brazil, China, etc. space progs


I am trying to collect information of the space efforts of Third World countrie
s (not US, Ussr, W. Europe).  I am intrested in military and civil applications
, actual launches and planned programs, etc.
Bibliographic information (good articles and books) would also help.
(I have been throught Aviation Week since 1985 - not much there.)

Any help would be appreciated.  Please send replies directly to me as i do not
always have access to the net.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1989 12:49-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Tilenius paper

I found Eric's paper quite interesting. I would also refer people
interested in this area to:

	The Private Solution to the Space Transpotation Crisis
		James Bennet & Phil Salin
	(Spacepac occassional paper 87-3. Try Scott Pace)

	Economics on the Space Frontier: Can We Afford It
		Gordon Woodcock
	(try asking through the NSS office if they can get copies of
	 it. My copy is a prepublication draft Gordon gave me and I
	 don't remember where it was eventually published)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #323
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Mar 89 14:34:56 EST
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA27056>; Thu, 30 Mar 89 06:21:16 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 30 Mar 89 06:21:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0YATzEy00Vs1E10U5C>;
          Thu, 30 Mar 89 05:22:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.QYATusy00UkZI9c056>;
          Thu, 30 Mar 89 05:17:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cYATtyy00UkZQ9aU4A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 05:16:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #324

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 324

Today's Topics:
		   Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			space shuttle landing
		     Re: Room Temperature Fusion
		     Re: Room Temperature Fusion
		    Moon Myths (was re:Astrology)
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 20:23:37 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

(This posting was downloaded from Paranet Alpha)

#: 173737 S10/Paranormal Issues
    19-Mar-89  21:29:00
Sb: DISCOVERY/UFO?
Fm: Bert 71450,3504
To: ALL

I just received a rather remarkable phone call from Bob Oechsler, MUFON
investigator from Annapolis, MD, who also has his own nationally broadcast UFO
radio talk show.  Bob asked me to upload the following information.

On Tuesday March 14, 1989 at 6:42 am the following message was received by a
UFO investigator in Baltimore through WA3NAN (Goddard) amateur radio
transission from the orbiter Discovery.  "Houston, this is Discovery.  We
still have the alien space craft, uhh, under observance."  The transmission
was picked up on a Radio Shack scanner tuned to 147.45 mhz.

According to Bob, he and his colleagues have found that the transmission
matches up with NASA tapes except that there is a "blank space" in the tape
where the above transmission occurred.  (Possibly bleached out?) They are
currently doing voice print analyis in an effort to match the specific voice
with one of the astronauts.  They will compare to voices of all of the
astronauts recorded during the Today Show interview.  They should know "for
sure"  in about a week.

Bob would very much appreciate it if anyone who may be able to corroborate
this transmission would call him at 301-798-1503.   About 15 minutes prior to
the transmission there was a broadcast about "a fire on board".  There is
speculation that this may have been a code to switch frequencies or to stop
feed to the public domain.  He would this also like to hear if anyone can
corroborate anything about a "fire."

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 19:59:45 GMT
From: steinmetz!sunspot!blackje@uunet.uu.net  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

A colleague here at GE Research met the news with the typical
"pooh-pooh; April fool" reaction -- until he found out who
the two scientists involved were.... 
He said he has known those guys for 25 years; and they are "rock solid."

I'm inclined to believe them, too.

What REALLY upset me was that the local TV station covered it 
VERY briefly on Friday;  in their "Your Money" segment!
They moaned and groaned and complained that this might "put
thousands of people out of work;" they were more concerned with
maintaining the "status quo" than about freezing in the dark. 
---- techno-illiterates!     I guess I'll switch to PBS.

--Emmett
	J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
	blackje@crd.ge.com;   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje


--Emmett
	blackje@crd.ge.com
	...uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

	GE Research; K1-3C26
	Schenectady, NY 12345

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 17:35:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <24998@amdcad.AMD.COM> prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) writes:
>Unless I have slipped a decimal point. It is under 1.6*10^9 miles round
>trip to/from the asetroid belt...
>which if one went at 1g until half way then at 1g to slow down would take:
>	t=sqrt(5280*10^8) ~= 73*10^4 sec ~=200 hours ~= 9 days

Accelerating at 1G (9.81 m/s/s, the Imperial units are useless garbage
when it comes to calculations like this) for 200 hours is a total
delta-V of about 7e6 m/s (7000 kps).  If we assume a mass ratio of 10,
which means the ship is mostly fuel but still manageable for a single
stage, exhaust velocity is 7e6/ln(10), about 3000 kps.  Assuming a
100-ton (metric) ship (fully fueled), we "burn" 0.125 kg/s.  (We will
ignore the change in thrust needed to maintain a constant 1G, and
assume constant thrust for the moment.)  Accelerating that mass flow
to 3000 kps requires 0.5*0.125*(3e6*3e6) == 560e9 watts of power,
assuming no losses.  Building a half-terawatt power plant that weighs
only a few tons is going to be, um, a challenge.  I don't think we're
going to see 1G missions to the asteroids right away.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 20:11:18 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!wicat!keithm@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Keith McQueen)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

Just a thought...

What are the implications of this for terrorist activities?
Will this make cheap available nuclear weapons possible?


Shudder!  I hope not!


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| Keith McQueen, N7HMF            Organization: Wicat Systems, Inc.   |
| 1116 Graff Circle               Work (801)224-6605x422              |
| Orem, Utah 84058                Packet:    N7HMF @ NV7V             |
| Home (801)224-9460              Voice: 147.340 MHz or 449.675 MHz   |
|     =====>  My opinions are all mine...  <=====                     |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 15:28:19 GMT
From: steinmetz!davidsen@uunet.uu.net  (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <296@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

| We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum-
| group metals.

  I'm not disagreeing, but what's the source of that info. Some
meteoriods have been found to contain pgroup metals in iron-nickel
mixes, but has someone done a reasonable analysis somehow of what's in
the belt?
================================================================
New mailing address: wedu@crd.ge.com

We are no longer ge-crd.arpa and mail will stop working to that address
in the *very* near future.

Note: flames and hate mail may still use the old address ;-{
================================================================
We now return you to our regularly scheduled signature...

-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@crd.GE.COM)
  {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 20:25:08 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <13467@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <296@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>| We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum-
>| group metals.
>
>  I'm not disagreeing, but what's the source of that info. Some
>meteoriods have been found to contain pgroup metals in iron-nickel
>mixes, but has someone done a reasonable analysis somehow of what's in
>the belt?

Well, we haven't actually gone out there and assayed any asteroids,
of course, but the nickel-iron meteorites found on Earth have all
contained a significant percentage of Pt-group.  The Sudbury deposit
in Canada is the remains of an ancient asteroid strike, and it supplies
Pt/Pd/Ir and such as a byproduct.  And the iridium in the K-T boundary
layer is considered pretty convincing evidence for the Alvarez 
theory that a major asteriod strike is responsible for the massive
wave of extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous.

So platinum group metals being available from asteroids seems a pretty
good bet.  If we can get out there.  And especially, if we can find any
that don't have Soviet claims already staked, which may be a considerable
problem by the time Our Congress finally gets off their backsides.
-- 
"Ain't nothin' in the middle                  Mike Van Pelt
o' the road, 'cept a yellow                   Video 7
line and dead 'possums."                      ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 19:42:49 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!ch-tkr@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Timothy K Reynolds)
Subject: space shuttle landing

When the space shuttle Atlantis lands at Edwards AFB, I would reeeeealy
like to be there. I have read letters on the news-group telling me what
to take along, but what do I have to get to watch. Do I have to get some
kind of a pass to get on base? Please tell me what the deal is! And
while I am asking who would I have to beg to get real close, if you know
what I mean. Please help, I know that you guys out pthere must know
someone. I am just a student who life dream is to watch the shuttle land
from the front row.

				     Thank You,
				     Patrick R. Jones

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 28 Mar 89 11:16:05 PST
From: greer%utd201%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"

    I just heard an interview with Stanley Pons on 'The Osgood File',
Charles Osgood, The CBS Radio Network.  He says two eminent physicists
looked at his work and said everything looked cool.  He also said skeptics
and beleivers alike should wait till May when the paper is published, and
that he thought full scale applications ought to be delayed 20 years, so
sufficient environmental impact studies could be made.

----
"Pave Paradise,				|         Dale M. Greer
	 put up a parking lot."		|   Center for Space Sciences
		-- Joni Mitchell	| University of Texas at Dallas
					| UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::GREER

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 03:12:30 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!regnery@husc6.harvard.edu  (George Regnery)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion

In article <890328111605.2a52@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV>, greer%utd201%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
> 
>     I just heard an interview with Stanley Pons on 'The Osgood File',
> Charles Osgood, The CBS Radio Network.  He says two eminent physicists
> looked at his work and said everything looked cool.  He also said skeptics
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Did he say everything looked cool?  (As in room temperature?) ;)

George M. Regnery        ! Worcester     ! Albedo 0.39    ! Going on means      
regnery@wpi.wpi.edu  OR  ! Polytechnic   !  --Vangelis    ! going far. Going
regnery@wpi.bitnet       ! Institute     ! (a good album) ! far means returning.
CompuServe: 73300,3655   ! (Worc, Mass.) ! *PREFER BITNET*!     --Tao Te Ching

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 28 Mar 89 09:20:32 PST
From: hairston%utdssa%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Moon Myths (was re:Astrology)
X-St-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::JPLLSI::"space@angband.s1.gov"

In an earlier issue John Roberts asks the right question:
>>I mean, maybe the moon has some effect on noctournal animals, but if you're
>>trying to defend the age-old astrologer's "the moon effects the tides, and
>>they're water, and since the human body is 98% water, the moon must affect
>>people" argument, then I would really love to see some data on that.

to which Jim Merritt replies
>Ask your wife or girl friend...
>(hint: ask for PERIODic events with a CYCLE of appox a lunar month.)
 
The idea that the human female menstrual cycle is somehow connected to the lunar
cycle has been circulating for years (millenia?), but age doesn't make it any 
more correct.  For starters the lunar cycle (full moon to full moon) is 
29.53  days while the human menstrual cycle is (on average) 28, so the
two AREN'T even the same period.   And if you're female (or are male and have
a wife or significant other you can ask about this) then you know that 28 days
is a nice average, but rarely do you hit exactly 28 days (or 29.53 days for
that matter).  There is quite a range of lengths of menstrual cycles both
between individuals and at different times within the life of an individual.
The length of an individual's cycle is determined by environmental and 
biological factors (overall health, nutrition, exercise, stress, illness, age, 
medication, etc.) but not by the gravity of the moon.  The gravitational pull of
the moon on a human body is roughly equal to the gravitational pull of a
couch you're sitting on.  (If you calculate the tidal difference, the couch
overwhelms the moon by a factor of a million or so...)

What is happening is that people are confusing correlation with causation,
the lunar cycle is a handy rule of thumb for timing menstrual cycles, but that
doesn't mean that one is causing the other.  (This fallacy shows up far too
often in all sorts of arguments, such as "Lack of prayer in public schools
has caused the downfall of the American education.  Since prayer was been
banned in the early 60's, the national average SAT scores have dropped by
x points..."  Both statements are true, prayer was banned and SAT scores have
fallen, but that doesn't mean one is the cause of the other.)  

Another version of the argument runs something like "it's part of evolutional 
history of us.  Our ancestors were amphibians/fish/whatever that had reproduc-
tive cycles tied to the tides, much like the spawning of comtemporary grunions."
This argument at least tries to give us a causative agent, but if it were true
then most (if not all) descendents of those early amphibians or whatever would
have fertility cycles tied to the lunar cycle.  Instead, examining the cycle 
for various mammals shows that the lengths of their periods are all over the 
place ranging from mice and rats with a cycle of 5 days to 37 days for chimp-
anzees.  The only other mammal that matches the human cycle of 28 days is the 
opossum.

Suppose for a minute that there WAS a causative agency between the lunar cycle
and the menstrual cycle.  That would mean somehow the phase of the moon is 
triggering the menstrual period of human females.  That would mean that at some
point in the cycle (say first quarter) ALL the women on Earth would begin having
their period and the sanitary products on supermarket shelves would all disap-
pear at once.  Instead, what really happens is that the number of women having 
their period at any one time is uniformly spread throughout the lunar cycle,
which is the same thing as saying there is no causative connection between the
two.  In fact, (taking this to its absurd extreme) if there REALLY was a tidal
cause affecting the menstrual cycle, the 29.53 day lunar cycle is the wrong one
to look at.  Instead we should see women following the earthly tides and having
two menstrual cycles per day!  (I will refrain from making any sexist jokes in
poor taste here.)

Then Gabriel Velasco pointed out:
>When my wife was pregnant, a doctor told her that sometimes they pre-
>fer to think of a full term pregnancy as 10 lunar months.

So what?  Human pregnancies run for roughly 10 menstrual cycles for biological
reasons that have nothing to do with any astronomical influences.  They can
just as easily think of the pregnancy lasting 280 solar days, three quarters of
one orbit of the earth around the sun, one third of the time between oppositions
with Mars, the length of time between the first and last appearance of Venus
as either an evening or morning star [now THAT'S too much of a coincidence, 
there MUST be a connection!  :^) ], one fifth of a presidential term of office,
etc.

If you want to dig further in these and other lunar cycle myths check out "Moon
Madness" by George Abell in the book "Science and the Paranormal" edited by
George Abell and Barry Singer (Scribner, 1981) or the article "The Moon Was 
Full, and Nothing Happened" in the Winter 85-86 issue of "Skeptical Inquirer".

Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--Univ of Texas at Dallas
SPAN address  UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON
______________________________________________

I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the University of Texas System's opinion about 
menstrual cycles is, but I sure they must have one....somewhere.....and I'll
bet we disagree....

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 00:15:25 GMT
From: meccts!meccsd!scj@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu  (Scotian)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

Miroslav Kocic writes:
|The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the
|Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns.  First, what if fusion
|turns out to create problems we don't foresee?  We didn't foresee radioactive
|waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage,

How on earth do you come to this conclusion?

|and, if history teaches
|anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price.  Second, what
|if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production?  I can imagine
|a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen.

I'm sure you can...
-- 
..............................................................................
Scott C. Jensen
scj@mecc.MN.ORG

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #324
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Apr 89 02:20:10 EDT
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06090>; Fri, 31 Mar 89 00:55:27 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 31 Mar 89 00:55:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.EYAkiQy00Ui3Q7kk46>;
          Fri, 31 Mar 89 00:25:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.wYAkdLy00UkZM=dE5p>;
          Fri, 31 Mar 89 00:19:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <8YAkcCy00UkZ0=bk5A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 00:18:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #325

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 325

Today's Topics:
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
			  Re: Tilenius paper
	       Re: Using the Shuttle for higher orbits
    Financing arranged for ammonium perchlorate plant (Forwarded)
			 Human Immune System
		       Fusion news implications
	space vs. immune system (was Room Temperature fusion)
	       Space salvage, and the Paradox of Firsts
			  Fusion Spacecraft?
	       Pickle-jar fusion spurs palladium prices
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 16:30:54 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!siddarth@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Siddarth Subramanian)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes:
>
>The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the
>Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns.  First, what if fusion
>turns out to create problems we don't foresee?  We didn't foresee radioactive
>waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage, and, if history teaches
>anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price.  Second, what
>if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production?  I can imagine
>a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen.

Wow. Some people really love to  pour cold water on  things before they even
get off the  ground. Here we're  discussing a method  that  has not even been
well  documented yet. We don't know if it's  economically feasible or even
theoretically   sound. To  go from here  to H-bombs  in one step does take
a lot of  imagination.

While  I agree  with  the need for  caution  in  looking at any new process
or technique, I believe  that  something as important as room-temperature
fusion  should first be studied for its merits as an  energy source. As
for H-bombs, note  that many  do-it-yourself  guides  have been  written for
producing fission bombs  already. Fortunately  for  mankind, few people 
combine both genocidal instincts and the intelligence  required   to make
such a bomb. Even  the worst terrorist groups have not  resorted to bomb
production. There's no  reason to think they're  going to now.


-------
SIDDARTH SUBRAMANIAN
siddarth@cs.utexas.edu     "$#$#^&^*())*&&^hghg@44*&^##[][]" - R2D2

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 23:39:49 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Tilenius paper

In article <607110561.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>	Economics on the Space Frontier: Can We Afford It
>		Gordon Woodcock
>	(try asking through the NSS office if they can get copies of
>	 it. My copy is a prepublication draft Gordon gave me and I
>	 don't remember where it was eventually published)

    _SSI Update_, May/June 1987.
    Back issues may be available directly from SSI (PO Box 82,
Princeton, NJ 08540). The intro also mentions that this paper was
presented at the AAAS (presumably, also in 1987).
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Thus Mathematics helps / our brains and hands and feet
      and can make / a race of supermen out of us.''
	- The Education of T. C. Mits

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 00:04:52 GMT
From: attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@uunet.uu.net  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: Using the Shuttle for higher orbits

K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET writes:

>                                                  Think of all the LEM type
> vehicles a fully loaded shuttle could hold in lunar orbit.

  Think of how many more it could hold if the wings and other aerodynamic
stuff was removed.  Well, it couldn't hold *more* of them, but it would be
able to get them there more efficiently.

  The shuttle IS a "shuttle".  It goes up, and it comes down.  For tasks like
going to the Moon, a new vehicle is in order.
--
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 20:50:19 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Financing arranged for ammonium perchlorate plant (Forwarded)

Sarah Keegan
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     March 28, 1989


RELEASE:  89-40

FINANCING ARRANGED FOR AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE PLANT


     Western Electrochemical Company, Cedar City, Utah, has 
finalized arrangements for private financing through Security 
Pacific Bank Washington, Seattle, for construction of an ammonium 
perchlorate (AP) production plant to be located in Cedar City.

     Western Electrochemical Company is a subsidiary of Pacific 
Engineering and Production Company (PEPCON) and an AP 
subcontractor to Morton Thiokol Inc., manufacturer of the Space 
Shuttle solid rocket motor.  Construction of the Cedar City plant 
is underway and production is expected to begin in the summer of 
1989.  Western Electrochemical plans to repay the privately 
financed capital investment in the new plant within 7 years.

     AP is an oxidizing chemical used in virtually all solid 
propellant rocket motors, including the Space Shuttle's solid 
rocket motor.  NASA and the Department of Defense have agreed to 
combined purchases of 20 million pounds a year of AP for 7 years 
from Western Electrochemical Company.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 03:35:01 GMT
From: pdn!rnms1!alan@uunet.uu.net  (0000-Alan Lovejoy(0000))
Subject: Human Immune System

In article <13468@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <5849@pdn.nm.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>
>| Then we also need either very advanced AI, very advanced biotechnology,
>| or artificial gravity: It appears that low gravity fields shut down the 
>| human immune system in a way similar to the AIDS virus.  Humans will NOT 
>| be spending any appreciable percentage of their lives in space until we 
>| can fix our immune systems so that they tolerate low gravity,  or until
>| we can provide gravity artificially.  As things stand, a career as an
>| asteroid miner would not last long...
>
>  What are the parameters on this? I know the Russians had people in
>orbit for almost a year (didn't they?) and didn't seem to have problems.
>They were visited by other cosmonauts during the time so they weren't in
>a sterile atmosphere.

Since several people have asked, here is a bibliography on this issue:


References: Effects of Hypogravity on the Human Immune System

1. "Microorganisms in the Space Environment,"
   Horneck et al., Science, July 1984, pg. 226

2. "Humoral Immunity at Zero G,"
   Voss et al., Science, July 1984, pg. 214

3. "Effect of Hypogravity on Human Lymphocyte Activation,"
   Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Jan., 1980, pg. 30

4. "Effects of Simulated Weightlessness on IFN Production,"
   Sommerfield et al., Journal Of IF Research, 1982, pg. 462

5. "Influence of Spaceflight on RBC,"
   Talbot et al., FASEB Proceedings, Aug 1985, vol. 45 No. 9

6. "Results Of Space Experiment Program Interferon,"
   Talas et al., Acta Microbiologia Hungarica, 1983, vol. 30

7. "The Immune System and Effect of Hyper- and Hypogravity,"
   Caren et al., Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Nov. 1984, pg. 1063

8. "The Effect of Space Flight on Immunocompetence,"
   Cogoli et al., Immunology Today, 1985, vol. No. 6, pg. 1

9. "The Effects of Space Flight on Immunocompetence,"
   Immunology Today, Vol. 8, No. 7, 1987, pg 197

10. Biomedical Research Program, NASA
    =================================

    Chief, Space Medicine Branch/EB
    Life Sciences Division
    NASA Headquarters,
    Washington D.C. 20546
    USA

I am not a biologist or medical doctor, so please don't ask me for any
professional opinions on this stuff!  Hope this helps.

Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL.
Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne.  They do not speak for me. 
__American Investment Deficiency Syndrome => No resistance to foreign invasion.
Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 04:52:48 GMT
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Kevin William Ryan)
Subject: Fusion news implications

   Looking at the traffic concerning the announcements of possible room
temp fusion, I noticed a couple of common threads which I thought could
use some comment.

1)  FUSION ENGINES
   I suspect that we may _never_ get a fusion torch with this method.
Room temp fusion (henceforth RTF) requires that the fusion take place in
a palladium matrix.  High power densities would, first, melt the
palladium electrode, not to mention boil the surrounding water, and
second, would still be IN the palladium - not spitting reation mass out
the back.  I see RTF as a great power source, which could drive more
conventional electric or thermal engines.  High efficiency rockets
require high velocity exhaust - RTF implies low temperatures and hence
slow moving particles.  The only thing that might be moving fast is the
neutron flux, which is non-directional and highly unpleasant.

2)  CHEAP NUKES!!
   This requires comment from the particle physics folks out there.  Are the
neutrons emitted from RTF sufficient to create fussionable materials?  Please
post some knowledge for us poor untutored ones who know not the nuclear
cross section of common elements.

3)  UNLIMITED CHEAP POWER
   The age-old promise of nuclear fission, and the holy grail of fusion.
This one sounds good, folks, that's for certain.  Possible show inhibitors
(but not stoppers) are: neutron flux; lower than expected according to first
reports, but still there, tritium as waste; tritium falls into that unpleasant
class of isotopes with a half-life (12 years) long enough to be tough to
contain and short enough to cause damage - show me an isotope with a 500K year
half-life, and I'll build a bed out of it :-), and finally the apparent need
for D-D reactions.  Deuterium is not too hard to get, but neither is it
exactly common.  It will cost something to produce it on large scale basis.
   First reports on RTF claim that the process will be easily scaled to
produce power, which I tend to believe based on what I've heard so far.  If
everything works out as stated I can see large pressurised deuterium-enriched
vessels heating the first stage of steam turbine power plants, essentially
replacing the core of a nuclear reactor with a rather cleaner and much cheaper
heat source.


   All in all, I'm tickled pink by the news.  Hope it all works out.  With our
experience in fission plants, perhaps our grain of salt is big enough to
prevent some of the difficulties we've had with those.
                                                    kwr

   "Jest so ya know..."
P.S.  Anyone out there have decent information on RTF being possible with
     D-H reactions vs. D-D reactions?

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 22:51:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space vs. immune system (was Room Temperature fusion)

>References: Effects of Hypogravity on the Human Immune System

Note that of the ten references, all but #9 and #10 (which is an address
rather than a publication) are badly dated, since most of the really
long-flight space experience has been accumulated in the last few years.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 29 Mar 89 17:44 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Space salvage, and the Paradox of Firsts
Original_To:  SPACE


Peter Yee (trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov) posted a NASA press
release by Sarah Keegan and Jeffrey Carr about Capt. Frederick Hauck, USN.

     "In November 1984, Hauck was STS-51A mission commander, the
first space salvage mission in history.  Hauck and crew retrieved
and returned to Earth the Palapa B-2 and Westar VI communications
satellites after deploying Anik D-2 and LEASAT-1 satellites."

Apollo 12 landed on the Moon near the old Surveyor 3 spacecraft, and Bean
and Shepard removed a few parts for study on Earth.  Doesn't this count
as "the first space salvage mission?"  I think if you try to deny it, you'll
find yourself getting real fussy about the definition of "salvage."

I'm a little disturbed that the people writing NASA's press releases still
emphasize "firsts" so often, despite all the criticism lobbed at such practices
over the years.

The 14 March release (by Charles Redmond and James Hartsfield) Peter posted in
Space Digest v9 n301 was even worse: "DISCOVERY'S RETURN-TO-FLIGHT PHOTOGRAPHS
RECORD MANY FIRSTS...For the first time in Shuttle history, Africa's Niger
river was photographed in full flood and out of its banks...for the first time,
an aircraft was photographed generating a contrail..."

There's a basic dichotomy that Space Cadets suffer.  Space flights should be
Special Events, and we should drop everything else and watch them, and soak up
every detail we can find, because we want to share in the great adventure.
(Remember getting a TV in your classroom to watch Mercury and Gemini launches?)
But space flights should be Routine Events, a part of everyday life, a casually
accepted reminder that our race can get people and hardware into orbit any time
it really wants to.

We love to hear about every detail of this stuff, but we also want our world to
become a "spacefaring civilization," and in a spacefaring civlization one more
launch or one more landing would be no big deal.  Our press seems to have come
down mostly on the side of No Big Deal, leaving us space freaks to scramble for
information wherever we can get it.  Reporters don't cover every moment of a
transatlantic marine voyage.  And if you hung out at the airport, interviewing
pilots, crew, and mechanics about this afternoon's upcoming flight to Podunk,
and asking them their opinion about the future of aviation (sometimes known as
"the U.S. manned air program")-- well, you'd be considered dotty at best.  See
the paradox?

I suppose we should be grateful for NASA Select, and sci.space, and the few
magazines that do cater to the likes of us.  And to those NASA publicists
tirelessly searching for new "firsts."

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with Free
     ~  Nobel Prizewinner Inside!   Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 17:57:50 GMT
From: att!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Sparks)
Subject: Fusion Spacecraft?

If this cold fusion process is for real, I was wondering what it would mean
for space craft? Is there anyway to convert such power into a motive force
for a space craft? 

Basically, you get heat out from the reaction, correct? But you have to keep
the heat low enough not to melt the electrodes. How could this be converted
into a 'rocket'?

Using the 'old' method of thermonuclear fusion, you would have a far more
intense reaction that you could use for propulsion, if you could find a way
to contain the reaction. But with this new version of fusion (if it is for
real and efficient enough to be practical), you don't need sophisticated
containments such as magnetic bottles, just enough shielding from the 
radiation. But the reaction basically generates heat, so the question is
how do you convert that [relatively small] heat energy into propulsion for a
space craft?

Could this revolutionalize the space industry?



-- 
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks  | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
______________|          sparks@corpane.UUCP          | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
 
If a town has one lawyer, he starves; if it has two lawyers, they both get rich

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 29 Mar 89 14:47 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Pickle-jar fusion spurs palladium prices
Original_To:  SPACE

art@cs.ucla.edu  (Arthur P. Goldberg) wrote:
"The closing quotes Thursday March 23 on the commodities exchange
were platinum $546/troy oz and palladium $146/troy oz."

On Monday, March palladium went up to $150.35, a gain of about 3%... but it only
gained about thirty cents in Tuesday's market.

Caveat: This is the first time I ever looked up palladium commodities, so
there may be error in my reading of the listings.  Particle beams, I
understand, but commodities... (-:

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with Free
     ~  Nobel Prizewinner Inside!   Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #325
*******************
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Apr 89 03:33:20 EDT
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02947>; Fri, 31 Mar 89 05:18:36 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 31 Mar 89 05:18:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYAnGZy00Ui347kk9A>;
          Fri, 31 Mar 89 03:19:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.wYAnEKy00UkZQ=w04z>;
          Fri, 31 Mar 89 03:17:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wYAnDEy00UkZA=uU4m@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 03:16:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #326

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 326

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		      Re: volatiles on the Moon
		   NSS Board of Governers Statement
		      NSS Space Policy Platform
			Fletcher's replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 13:30:56 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <4440@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>
>On Tuesday March 14, 1989 at 6:42 am the following message was received by a
>UFO investigator in Baltimore through WA3NAN (Goddard) amateur radio
>transission from the orbiter Discovery.  "Houston, this is Discovery.  We
>still have the alien space craft, uhh, under observance."  The transmission
>was picked up on a Radio Shack scanner tuned to 147.45 mhz.
>
This is patently ridiculous, thinking that this is actually an alien spacecraft
sighting.  Most likely, this was either a bit of humor, or the 'alien' 
spacecraft is 'alien' only in the sense that it was not made in the US (most
likely Soviet).  First of all, if there really was an alien craft, and the crew
wanted to say something to Houston about it and wanted to keep it secret, they
would *not* broadcast over an open, unencrypted channel that every Tom, Dick,
and Harry with a $99.95 scanner could pick up.  More likely, if an alien ship
did appear near the shuttle, the crew would turn around and head for home, under
orders from the ground, since they're not equipped for alien contact.  Finally,
any *real* aliens would make contact with government officials, and we can 
assume that this didn't happen, since at last check, Bush was at some elementary
school, talking about U.S. drug policy.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 19:53:46 GMT
From: sun.soe.clarkson.edu!nelson@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu  (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <7751@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:

   This is patently ridiculous, thinking that this is actually an
   alien spacecraft sighting.  Most likely, this was either a bit of
   humor, or the 'alien' spacecraft is 'alien' only in the sense that
   it was not made in the US (most likely Soviet).
That's a guess that is totally unsubstantiated by the [skimpy] facts.

   First of all, if there really was an alien craft, and the crew
   wanted to say something to Houston about it and wanted to keep it
   secret, they would *not* broadcast over an open, unencrypted
   channel that every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a $99.95 scanner could
   pick up.
Accidents *do* happen.

   More likely, if an alien ship did appear near the shuttle, the crew
   would turn around and head for home, under orders from the ground,
   since they're not equipped for alien contact.  Finally, any *real*
   aliens would make contact with government officials, and we can
   assume that this didn't happen, since at last check, Bush was at
   some elementary school, talking about U.S. drug policy.
More guesses.  How do you know that?  I counter your skepticism with my
skepticism.

I think that a piece of hard evidence could be found if several people
can be found who heard the report of the "fire" and the "alien craft"
transmissions, AND they are missing from official NASA recordings.
If that's the case, then it lends substance to Stanford T. Friedman's
accusations of a government coverup.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
If you can, help others.  If you can't,       |        Leftoid and proud of it
at least don't hurt others--the Dalai Lama    |

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 23:38:48 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <NELSON.89Mar29145346@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
> In article <7751@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
> 
>    This is patently ridiculous, thinking that this is actually an
>    alien spacecraft sighting.  Most likely, this was either a bit of
>    humor, or the 'alien' spacecraft is 'alien' only in the sense that
>    it was not made in the US (most likely Soviet).
>
> How do you know that?  I counter your skepticism with my
> skepticism.
> 
> I think that a piece of hard evidence could be found if several people
> can be found who heard the report of the "fire" and the "alien craft"
> transmissions, AND they are missing from official NASA recordings.
> If that's the case, then it lends substance to Stanford T. Friedman's
> accusations of a government coverup.
> --

I will admit, the evidence for my conclusion is as skimpy as the
evidence for the UFO theory, but let's be realistic.  Astronauts have
been seeing 'UFO's' since the dawn of the space age, and the vast
majority, if not all, have been sightings of expended booster segments,
ejected garbage, and frozen urine.  Each time, the UFO crowd came
running, and each time there was a very reasonable explanation for the
phenomenon.  Each time, the UFO crowd then claimed that there was a
massive coverup.  Well, it's been a quarter of a century now since these
sightings from sapce have started, and I find it difficult to believe
that an event of such magnitude as contact with alien life or alien
technology could be kept secret.  When alien life *does* contact us (and
I am of the opinion that we are not alone in the universe, although I am
not on the edge of my seat, waiting for them to come along), it will hit
us like a ton of bricks.  Two tons of bricks.

A very possible explanation of this occurrence comes to mind: since the
frequency of the alleged transmission is in the middle of the commercial
radio band, it is possible that someone with a radio set to that
frequency broadcast the two items to see what happened, knowing that
someone might be listening.  A pretty good joke, if you ask me.

Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 05:55:15 GMT
From: nunki.usc.edu!sawant@oberon.usc.edu  (Abhay Sawant)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

>>Unless I have slipped a decimal point. It is under 1.6*10^9 miles round

AAAARGH!!!!!   Why so many people here using fps?  I thought higher
education in the US used SI only.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 05:16:51 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!dambrose@apple.com  (David Ambrose)
Subject: Re: volatiles on the Moon

In article <1208@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>Wouldn't the light being reflected from the moon show spectrum signatures from
>the various elements located in the moon, or at least the surface?  This could
>tell us for sure.
>
	Only if the spectrograph were looking at the right place at the
right time.  There have been ongoing programs to try and record gaseous
outbursts from the lunar surface.  There are only a few isolated areas
which are suspected of this type of activity.  The crater Aristotle is
the only one that comes to mind.

	The outgassings as observed,  result in cloudiness above the
lunar surface.  these can be seen in modest instruments.  The
Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers is coordinating the
program.


-- 
Rational Thinking's goal is to separate one's reaction from reality.
David L. Ambrose, --  Digital Research, Inc          ...!amdahl!drivax!dambrose
SPECIFIC DENIAL: Don't blame DRI.  They wouldn't approve of this anyway. r}ix
NO CARRIER

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 19:29:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Board of Governers Statement


THE NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY BOARD OF GOVERNOR'S STATEMENT*


               AN AGENDA FOR ADVENTURE


	The National Space Society believes...

* That Humankind is entering a new era of dramatic exploration
and discovery.  Indeed, humanity's very future will depend
on human exploration of our solar system, the birthplace of our
species.  As adventurers, we can now prepare a roadmap, first into
the inner solar system, and then outward, eventually, to the
stars...

* That for humankind to realize our future in space, we must begin
by initiating a decade of doing.  We have studied where we can go
in space--we should embark now, on the grand adventure that
awaits...

* That this adventure should not solely be a governmental activity,
but should solicit the best minds of private enterprise...

* That current efforts are inadequate to achieve the goals of an
exciting future.  That to accelerate the process, we must educate
the public and build a level of public consciousness and a
continuity of support for space exploration...

* That to build a critical mass for an aggressive era of space
exploration and development, the National Space Society needs to
build a strong membership, representative of all sectors of our
public...

* That this will require full use of educational networking, and
creative use of mass media...

In summary:  after over three decades of space exploration we stand
ready to put in place an agenda for adventure--befitting
humankind's thirst for exploration, discovery and expansion--beyond
the shores of earth to the new lands and resources of our future. 











* Drafted and approved at the Board meeting held January 13-15,
1989 in Scottsdale, AZ.

** An Official NSS Information Release **        Jordan Katz

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 19:27:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Space Policy Platform


THE 1989 SPACE POLICY PLATFORM OF THE NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY

	The National Space Society (NSS) endorses the vision of the
National Commission on Space as the proper focus for the American
space program. We believe the technologies and industries created
on the space frontier in the next few decades will drive the
world's leading economies in the next century.
	Our role is to educate the public on the benefits of space
development and work with allied organizations to create the
cultural and political context for an open frontier in space.
	We believe the United States must be a leader on that
frontier, or it will cease to be the great hope for human liberty
and freedom.

What Steps Need to be Taken?

Take the Lead in Space Transportation
     1. Establish a national policy goal of radically lowering the
cost of manned and unmanned access to space.  New initiatives
should be encouraged from the civil, military, industrial, and
scientific space communities. 
     2. Provide assured access to space with a robust mixed fleet,
including the Shuttle, and new heavy lift launch vehicles.  Ensure
a robust industrial infrastructure to support the fleet.
     3. Promote the international competitiveness of the U.S.
commercial launch vehicle industry.
     4. Pursue the development of advanced air-breathing launch
vehicles with the National Aerospace Plane Program.  At the same
time, continue evolutionay improvements of the Shuttle to enhance
its effectiveness.
     5. Initiate development efforts to improve the capabiity and
efficiency of in-space transportation systems for manned and
unmanned missions beyond Earth orbit.

Learn How to Work in Space
     1. Build the Space Station Freedom to create the enabling
technologies and knowledge for people to live and work in space.
     2. Develop capabilities for the routine performance of space
construction, servicing, and in-space repair tasks.  Initiatives
are needed in human extravehicular activities (EVA), teleoperation,
and robotic spacecraft.
     3. Establish a permanent manned return to the Moon by the
early 21st Century as a Space Station mission requirement. 
Evolutionary growth of the Station complex should support the
creation of multiple facilities in low Earth orbit. 

Open the Frontier
     l. Establish scientific and resource extraction facilities on
the Moon.  Mission requirements should emphasize the greatest
possible degree of self-sufficiency.
     2. Promote renewed study of solar power satellites to provide
energy to space facilities and potentially to the Earth. 
Construction and operation of such satellites should emphasize
economic benefits and environmental acceptability.
     3. Explore the Solar System using manned and unmanned
expeditions.  Priority missions should be those with clear
scientific and potential economic value.
     4. Pursue a long-term goal of extending human life beyond
Earth's atmosphere, leading ultimately to the establishment of
space settlements throughout the Solar System.

Reform the Governmental Environment for Space Policy
     1. Increase the efficiency of the interagency process and
provide timely resolutions to space policy questions.  The national
security, civil government, and commercial sectors of space
activity are recognized as having distinct functions that promote
U.S. interests.
     2. Oppose the so-called Moon Treaty, and open discussions with
signatories to the l967 Outer Space Treaty and the l972 Liability
Convention on measures to speed the commercial development of space
for all parties.
     3. Establish a national policy goal of sustained industrial
expansion into space, assisted but not controlled by government
agencies. 

Revitalize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
     1. Provide the resources and management focus for NASA to
perform leading edge research and development in space. Areas for
special attention include propulsion, life sciences, automation,
robotics and artificial intelligence technologies, space power
systems, microgravity research, and the processing of non-
terrestrial materials.
     2. Provide limited exemptions from Federal civil service
regulations to enable NASA centers to attract the vital talent it
needs for its leadership and oversight roles. 
     3. Increase NASA's budget commensurate with its mission.  A
minimum of $14 billion is required for fiscal year l990.




          

   


[This was provided by Jordan Katz: National Computer Networking Coordinator;
of The National Space Society.

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 29 Mar 89 08:33:47 PST
From: hairston%utdssa%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Fletcher's replacement
X-St-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::JPLLSI::"space@angband.s1.gov"

I saw a rumor in the New York Times science section a few weeks ago and I'm
surprised to see it hasn't shown up on the net yet.  Anyway, they ran a short
article about Fletcher's resignation and added at the bottom that "White 
House sources" (founts of all knowledge that they are) have said that Bush's
choice for a replacement is Frank Borman, former astronaut and former head
of Eastern Airlines.  (We've been joking that this means he's going from 
managing the shuttle to managing the Shuttle.)  Supposedly the announcement
will be made as soon as the FBI check is finished.  

Any comments?  (Personally, I would like to see Pete Conrad as head of NASA...)


Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--University of Texas at Dallas
SPAN address  UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON

"I'm a solipsist, but of course that's just one man's opinion." 
(stolen from Raymond Smullyan's book "5000 BC and Other Philosophical 
Fantasies")

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #326
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Apr 89 03:43:24 EDT
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AB03378>; Fri, 31 Mar 89 06:15:03 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 31 Mar 89 06:14:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYAp:ry00jZdQ31044>;
          Fri, 31 Mar 89 05:28:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.4YAp1:y00UkZIA6k4W>;
          Fri, 31 Mar 89 05:17:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wYAp09y00UkZIA5E5V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 05:16:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #327

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 327

Today's Topics:
			 more on cold fusion
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			   PHOBOS 2 dead ?
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
	      Room Temperature fusion, expert skepticism
			   Re: Cold Fusion
			       Magellan
				Phobos
		     Skepticism is not ostrichism
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 29 Mar 89 11:54 EDT
From: <K_MACART%UNHH.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  more on cold fusion


        I think if this is legitimate Great, if it is tabloid filler, they
should and will be skewered alive by the scientific community.  I wonder
when they will come out with a "Mr. Fusion" for my 71 Datsun 510?  Regular
gas is getting real hard to find, and my mileage isn't what it used to be. ;)

        Seriously, though, when you hear it being knocked by "eminent"
scientists, see if that person is working for a current fusion project
or an energy company.....since their livelyhoods are at stake, their opinions
are biased (in my opinion, etc.).  I applaud them for the "outrageous" way
they released their info.  That way, if it is legitimate, enough people all
over have the basic details to check it out, and no government or industry
can squash it before it gets out, ala the 400 mpg engine.  If it is garbage,
they look like fools,  if it's not.....


        By the way, anyone know how difficult it is to get the Deuterium out
of seawater?  The process efficiency might determine how expensive fusion
could get.  I heard somewhere that a gram of D = 2400 barrels of fuel oil
if it is all fused into He and you use all the energy (WSJ article, so
no guarantee of accuracy).
                                Korac MacArthur

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        No accountability of opinion required   :p
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 19:47:52 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <3276@nunki.usc.edu> sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) writes:
>AAAARGH!!!!!   Why so many people here using fps?  I thought higher
>education in the US used SI only.

Nope.  My aerospace engineering courses use FPS routinely.  I hate it.



-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 08:12:36 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!axion!phoebe!sjeyasin@uunet.uu.net  (swaraj jeyasingh)
Subject: PHOBOS 2 dead ?


Just heard on the radio (BBC World Service) last night that the Soviets
have lost contact with PHOBOS 2. Anyone out there know anything ?
No further info was given on that broadcast which I first heard at 2300GMT
on Tuesday 28th and again at 0600GMT on Wed 29th.



(Usual disclaimer etc )
Swaraj Jeyasingh                        sjeyasingh@axion.bt.co.uk
British Telecom Research Labs
Martlesham Heath,
IPSWICH
 UK

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 16:24:01 GMT
From: encore!cloud9!jjmhome!cpoint!alien@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Alien Wells)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes:
>
>The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the
>Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns.  First, what if fusion
>turns out to create problems we don't foresee?  We didn't foresee radioactive
>waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage, and, if history teaches
>anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price.  Second, what
>if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production?  I can imagine
>a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen.

	1) The problems with fission WERE forseen at this stage with fission.
In fact, one of the two original designs submitted to the government when it
requested proposals for fission power plants could not melt down (similar to
most US university reactors).  The US govt made a decision that meltdowns
were unlikely enough that they were not an issue, and required all utilities
to use light water reactors instead.  When the utilities objected (utilities
are, after all, extremely conservative) the US govt assumed all liabilities
from a catastrophic meltdown.  Of course, they recently decided that was
unfair and capped what the govt will pay ... In addition, radioactive waste
was considered a problem immediately.  Again, utilities were unwilling to
come to the table until the US govt assumed all responsibility for waste
disposal.  Of course, the govt did nothing ...

	2) History does not teach us that everything has a proportional 
price, it teaches us that people will use something until its price is as
much as the benefit.  Before cars, there were serious concerns that horse
waste (manure) was destroying public health and would destroy cities as
viable entities.  Cars pushed transportation down to the middle and lower
classes and saved cities until the price got to the break-even point.

	3) You cannot make an H-bomb with catalized fusion of the type 
described.  That is as silly as saying you can make an atom bomb from
radioactive watch dials.

-- 
=============================================================================
		A path is a terrible thing to waste ...
	decvax!frog!cpoint!alien	bu_cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
=============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 15:23:46 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <3015@eos.UUCP> steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) writes:
>Soviets don't have that problem (yet), and their leadership can set 
>priorities and direct efforts to accomplish them with far less in the way 
>dissent.  If they have an edge because of the differences in political 
>systems, we just have to chalk that up to part of the price of democracy.  

The first dissent is already showing.

In the recent soviet elections, Boris Yeltzin was elected to
represent Moscow with 90% of the vote. He was standing
against the official Communist party candidate.

One of his election promises is to cut the Soviet spending
on space exploration and spend the money on housing or
other public projects to improve the quality of life for the
ordinary citizen.

Sounds quite familiar.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 13:20:09 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: Room Temperature fusion, expert skepticism

In article <13470@steinmetz.ge.com>, blackje@sunspot.steinmetz (Emmett Black) writes:
> . . .
> I'm inclined to believe them, too.
> 

I'm inclined not to. My father is a theoretical physicist who worked
for years in plasma research. I called and asked him "Say Dad, do you
suppose if I squeezed some deuterium into a metal lattice it might
fuse?" He just said, "No."

Then again, there is a wild, cheering, science enthusiast in the back
of my head yelling, "Experts have been wrong before, wrong before,
wrong before!" I bet my father has the same demon in action but
probably under many more muffling layers of knowledgable skepticism.

jim
symon@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1989 11:31-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion

Question:

	If the fusion is occuring because of the "overlap" of the wave
functions, could it be that the cross section for the proton branch and
the neutron branch are sensitive to the precise distance? Can you
effectively "tune" the n,p output by controlling the distance?

I am suggesting (with out the experience to go off solving wave
functions myself) that the lattice separation in the Palladium may
control which reaction occurs. We would never have seen this before
because we have not had atoms at "static" distances from each other, we
have been slamming them as close together as possible as quickly as
possible.

Can anyone do the math? Seems like this might be down Bill Higgins or
Mr. Koloc's alley.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 16:38:10 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Magellan
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

The following is excerpted without permission from NASA Activities, February
1989, Volume 20, #2:

                  Magellan: Exploring Venus as Never Before
                  -----------------------------------------

Scheduled for launch April 28, 1989, aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis,
the spacecraft Magellan will conduct the most comprehensive observation
of the surface and gravitational features of Venus ever undertaken.
During its 243-day (one Venus rotation) primary mission, the spacecraft
will map up to 90% of the planet with high-resolution imaging radar.

[...]

Magellan's high-resolution radar will reveal surface features as small as
273 to 377 yards [by curious coincidence, these figures just happen to
be close to 250 to 345 meters...].  This performance exceeds that of all
previous U.S. and Soviet missions to the sister planet.

[...]

After launch from the shuttle, Magellan will be propelled onto its Venus
trajectory by an Inertial Upper Stage, two-stage booster rocket.  Once away
from the gravitational pull of Earth, the spacecraft will cruise for 15
months (1.5 orbits of the Sun) before reaching its destination.  [...]

Magellan is a 7,826-pound, three-axis-stabilized craft.  Solar panels and
three gyroscopic momentum wheels will provide energy and control the motion
of the spacecraft.

Onboard electrical power will be supplied by the two solar panels, totalling
15.1 square yards.  The array will always be pointed towards the Sun, despite
the changing Earth-Sun-spacecraft geometry during the mission, and will
be capable of producing 1,029 watts during the mapping phase.  Two
nickel-cadmium batteries will provide power during times of solar occultation
and allow normal spacecraft operations independent of solar illumination.

[...]

With conventional radar, the resolution of an image depends on antenna size:
the bigger the antenna, the better the resolution.  A large antenna on a
spacecraft, however, would be expensive and difficult to manipulate.  To
solve this problem, Magellan's synthetic aperture radar (SAR) will create
high-resolution radar images by using computer processing on Earth to simulate
a large antenna on the spacecraft.  The onboard radar system will operate
as though it has a huge antenna, hundreds of yards long, when the antenna
is actually 12 feet in diameter.

During the 37.2-minute data acquisition phase of each orbit, the SAR will
transmit several thousand pulses of radio energy each second.  [...] the
pulses will illuminate a 15.5-mile-wide swath of the planet's surface [...].

[...]

Magellan's orientation will be carefully controlled by three momentum wheels,
assisted, when necessary, by 12 small gas-thruster motors.

Magellan is managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif
[yay!].

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 07:02:24 GMT
From: jarthur!dwilliam@uunet.uu.net  (David L. Williamson)
Subject: Phobos

I just saw a report on the news stating that contact with the Phobos probe
currently in orbit around Mars has been lost.  This would appear to be a
major blow to the Soviet exploration of Mars.  Anybody have better
information about precisely what's going on???

						-/ david /-

--------------------------------------------
Bitnet:  DWILLIAMSON@HMCVAX
Snail :  David L. Williamson
         Platt Campus Center
         Harvey Mudd College
         Claremont, CA  91711

Disclaimer:    Who would WANT to think anything that I think of?!?!?

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 03:23:04 GMT
From: leah!rpi!sun.soe.clarkson.edu!nelson@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Skepticism is not ostrichism

UFO drivel is NOT welcome in sci.space [1], but there is no talk.ufos.
Followups to sci.misc.

    [1] Fortunately, this isn't drivel.  Yet.  We're still operating in the
    sci.entific realm here.

In article <7765@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:

   In article <NELSON.89Mar29145346@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
   > In article <7751@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
   > 
   >    This is patently ridiculous, ... Most likely ...
   >
   > How do you know that?  I counter your skepticism with my
   > skepticism.

   I will admit, the evidence for my conclusion is as skimpy as the
   evidence for the UFO theory, but let's be realistic.
So why do you advance further guesses below?  Your skepticism seems to be
as hard a belief as the UFOnatics.  Skepticism means looking at the facts,
and if the facts say "we don't know", then we don't know.
   Astronauts have been seeing 'UFO's' since the dawn of the space
   age, and the vast majority, if not all, have been sightings of
   expended booster segments, ejected garbage, and frozen urine.
So?  Most lottery tickets aren't winners either.  That doesn't mean that
*all* lottery tickets are losers.
   Each time, the UFO crowd came running, and each time there was a
   very reasonable explanation for the phenomenon.
Not true.  There is always a small percentage of unexplainable occurrences.
Whether you believe these are noise or genuine UFOs depends upon your beliefs.
   Each time, the UFO crowd then claimed that there was a massive
   coverup.
Unfortunately for you, the coverup explanation fits many facts just as well
as the no-UFOs explanation.  For example, many of Philip Klass's objections
to the MJ-12 papers can be answered by "of course that would happen if it were
being covered up."
   Well, it's been a quarter of a century now since these sightings
   from space have started, and I find it difficult to believe that an
   event of such magnitude as contact with alien life or alien
   technology could be kept secret.
Unfortunately, you can't prove a negative, so we're back to beliefs again.
   When alien life *does* contact us (and I am of the opinion that we
   are not alone in the universe, although I am not on the edge of my
   seat, waiting for them to come along), it will hit us like a ton of
   bricks.  Two tons of bricks.
More guesses.
   A very possible explanation of this occurrence comes to mind: since the 
   frequency of the alleged transmission is in the middle of the commercial
   radio band, it is possible that someone with a radio set to that frequency
   broadcast the two items to see what happened, knowing that someone might be
   listening.  A pretty good joke, if you ask me.
More guesses.  If you don't know, just say so.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
If you can, help others.  If you can't,       |        Leftoid and proud of it
at least don't hurt others--the Dalai Lama    |

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 23:09:21 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <7751@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:

>More likely, if an alien ship
>did appear near the shuttle, the crew would turn around and head for home, under
>orders from the ground, since they're not equipped for alien contact.

I thought this whole thing was some kind of early April Fool's joke, but now
this! What do you mean "not equipped for alien contact." (maybe you have been
reading too much science fiction) I didn't know that our government or space
program even had any "rules" for alien contact, much less that they have
special "equipped for alien contact" shuttles!

>Finally, *real* aliens would make contact with government officials

Don't you think that they would seek out some more intelligent examples of our
species?

>and we can assume that this didn't happen, since at last check, Bush was at
>some elementary school, talking about U.S. drug policy.

Like I said, why not some more intelligent examples of our species (or maybe
they communicate by reading lips! :-)?

Cheers,


Neal

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #327
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Apr 89 14:27:20 EDT
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07893>; Sat, 1 Apr 89 09:35:03 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  1 Apr 89 09:34:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UYB=ppy00jZdA73E5R>;
          Sat,  1 Apr 89 07:16:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QYB8UDy00jZdE6605:>;
          Sat,  1 Apr 89 03:28:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.cYB8Lly00UkZ8DOk4k>;
          Sat,  1 Apr 89 03:18:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YYB8JVy00UkZEDNE5O@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  1 Apr 89 03:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #328

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 328

Today's Topics:
			     SSI Flight?
			 cold fusion seminar
			Soviets Lose Phobos-2
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		    Building a fusion-based rocket
		  Re: Building a fusion-based rocket
		Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible
	       Re: Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri
	   Re: far side of the Moon photo mission (ussr's)
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		    Re: NSS Space Policy Platform
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 00:03:10 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: SSI Flight?

I heard a brief news item on the radio this morning to the
effect that SSI had recently flown a bird with a 600lb.
payload.  Apparently suborbital.

Was I maybe not yet awake?

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 21:53:43 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!ch-tkr@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Timothy K Reynolds)
Subject: cold fusion seminar

On Friday, March 31 1989 at 2:15pm Dr. Stanley Pons will present a
seminar on Cold Fusion.  The seminar will be held in room 2008 of the
Henry Eyring Building on the campus of the University of Utah.

I know that due to time and geographical constraints this bit of info
is not going to do you much good, but I'm going and hopefully I can post
a digest of the seminar to the net.

ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu			Behind the Zion curtain.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 14:58:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: Soviets Lose Phobos-2


According to the Washington Post (March 29, 1989), the Soviet Mission
Control has lost communications with its remaining Phobos-2 Mars moon
spacecraft.  The article stated that communications were lost when the
spacecraft was turned in order to photograph a moon.  No mention was
made of which moon it was trying to photograph.  Last September the
Soviet's lost communications with its sister probe Phobos-1.

Jordan Katz                      Source: Washington Post; March 29, 1989

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 16:01:13 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!varvel@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Donald A. Varvel)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <392@wicat.UUCP> keithm@wicat.UUCP (Keith McQueen) writes:
>Just a thought...
>
>What are the implications of this for terrorist activities?
>Will this make cheap available nuclear weapons possible?
>
>
>Shudder!  I hope not!
>
I don't think so.  There are reasons terrorists have never
stooped to mass destruction, even beyond the technical
difficulties.

There are dams that if destroyed at the proper moment would
kill on the order of hundreds of thousands of people.  Why
hasn't that happened?

Terrorism is political.  It thrives on publicity and the
natural sympathy most people have for the underdog.  Using
simple, home-made weapons to embarass major powers is perfect.
Underdog-lovers send money, and certain nations protect
them.  Destroy a city and there's nowhere to hide.  What's the
point?

This doesn't rule out the insane, of course.

-- Don Varvel ({tektronix,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!varvel)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 16:16:20 GMT
From: encore!cloud9!jjmhome!cpoint!alien@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Alien Wells)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <77762DBH106@PSUVM> DBH106@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>Bravo!  Bravo!!  The researchers at the University of Utah should be
>congratulated for their breakthrough.  Does this mean the environmentalists
>will have to find another line of work, with all the possible ways that
>a clean power source could be used to alleviate the pollution problem?

I dare say that a lot of them will attack this just as strongly as they have
attacked fission.  After all, the neutron emmissions will cause the 
containment to slowly become radioactive, so there will still be some 
hazardous waste to deal with (albeit orders of magnitude less than other
power sources).  Nuclear and radioactive are extremely emotionally laden
words with great camera appeal.

In addition, I expect the government to try to limit the use (if it works)
to utility use only for two reasons.  First, there will be political pressure
to protect the structure of utilities, despite the reality that we would
be better off putting one of these in everyone's home and eliminiating the
power grid.  Second, the US government tries to restrict access to heavy
water, one of the reasons that heavy water reactors (which cannot melt
down) are illegal for commercial (even utility) use in the US (they are
standard issue in Canada).

-- 
=============================================================================
		A path is a terrible thing to waste ...
	decvax!frog!cpoint!alien	bu_cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
=============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 21:02:38 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <301@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>... The Sudbury deposit
>in Canada is the remains of an ancient asteroid strike, and it supplies
>Pt/Pd/Ir and such as a byproduct...

Last I heard, the geologists were still split on whether the Sudbury ore
body is the asteroid itself or magma brought up from deep deposits by
the heat of the strike.  One should be cautious about using this as
evidence.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 22:12:13 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Building a fusion-based rocket


	I've been trying to figure out how to get a "heat-pump" effect
to use the fusion system to pump up a heat exchanger to a reasonable
temperature.  That is, assume that our fusion source will remain at
the boiling point of water regardless of what mass flow of coolant
we pass through it.  What coolant should we choose to allow a
production of temperature of ~3000 K on the other end?

	To see this more clearly, see the following picture.

	|----------|	->	   ------		->	  -----------
	|		   ------------| 2  |-------------|			|
	|		   ------------|	|-------------|			|
	|		   |		   ------			  |			|
	|	1	   |							  |		3	|
	|		   |			  ------		  |			|
	|		   |--------------|    |----------|			|
	|		   |--------------| 4  |----------|			|
	|----------|			  ------		  -----------


	1>  This is the fusion reactor.  Presumably it uses liquid D2O
		at very high temperature.  Ideally it should run at 650 C
		or so, and very high pressure.  It vaporizes the working fluid.

	2>	This compressor compresses the working fluid (presumably a
		metal or mixture of metals -- NaK perhaps?) to much higher
		pressure.  In doing so it also raises the temperature.

	3>	This is the combustion chamber.  The working fluid, at high
		(preferably > 2000 C) temperature, goes through a heat exchanger
		which heats reaction mass (probably but not necessarily H2)
		and lets it flow through a standard rocket nozzle.

	4>	The working fluid is now liquid again.  It flows through a
		nozzle at (4) which drops it back to low pressure.  It
		then reenters (1) as a low pressure liquid again.

	This is basically a heat pump cycle, but at high temperatures.  We
certainly can't use water or Freon as the working fluid!  I haven't
worked out yet just how much of the energy producing the high temperature
at (3) comes from the heat at (1) and how much comes from the electrical
energy put in the compressor at (2).  We assume that a second cycle
operates between (1) and a low temperature radiator to produce the
electrical energy (through a turbine generator).
	Still in the thinking stage....



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 00:36:02 GMT
From: oliveb!oliveb.OLIVETTI.COM@apple.com  (Philip Stephens)
Subject: Re: Building a fusion-based rocket

>From article <7473@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus):
> 
> 	1>  This is the fusion reactor.  Presumably it uses liquid D2O
> 		at very high temperature.  Ideally it should run at 650 C
> 		or so, and very high pressure.  It vaporizes the working fluid.

Why boil the D2O?  Better to pressurize it so it remains in contact (very
high pressure at 650 C, so I'm not sure how hot you can practically run
if following my suggestion), and use a non-Pd heat sink to transfer the
heat energy to another working fluid.

The rest I have no comment on; I'm really thinking more in terms of generating
electricity, so anything over 200 C would do pretty well; for driving any
working fluid out a rocket nozzle, much higher temperatures would certainly
seem desirable.
 
'Take what you can use, leave the rest'.	---Phil		(prs@oliven)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 00:56:36 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!csuna!abcscagz@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Jeff Boeing)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible

In article <5700009@silver> commgrp@silver.bacs.indiana.edu writes:
>
>With fusion power, transmutation of elements is economical. So is 
>reclaiming them from sea water, and so is going to the asteroids!


   With HOT fusion power, transmutation is economical.  With fusion power that
yields a net power output of 3 Watts, occurring at room temperature, you have
just about as much of a chance of turning something into Platinum as you do of
causing all the air molecules in the room to simultaneously jump one foot to
the left.
   Time to start sending round-trip spacecraft to the asteroid belt, isn't it,
guys?

-- 
Jeff Boeing:  ...!csun.edu!csuna!abcscagz    (formerly tracer@stb.UUCP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brilliance!  That's all I can say . . . sheer, unadulterated brilliance!"
                         -- Wile E. Coyote, Super-Genius

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 21:06:17 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri

In article <4441@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>... Given the energy
>density figures from preliminary reports, how much of a scale-up
>will it take for a constant-boost ship capable of going to Proxima
>Centauri?  Assume refueling there.

Massive.  Colossal.  Nearly impossible.  Fusion is only marginally viable
as an interstellar propulsion system at all, never mind constant-boost!
Effective interstellar propulsion requires antimatter rockets at least,
and preferably systems like the Bussard ramjet or the laser sail that
escape from some of the limitations of rockets.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 21:04:18 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: far side of the Moon photo mission (ussr's)

In article <1452@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> mink@cfa.harvard.EDU (Doug Mink) writes:
>*Surveyor 4      Apr. 17, 1967  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil data

Check your data, please, Surveyor 4 was a failure if I'm not mistaken.
Its transmitter went dead in mid-flight.  It conceivably may have made a
successful landing, since landing was completely automatic, but it returned
no data of any kind.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 01:17:44 GMT
From: tektronix!gvgpsa!johna@uunet.uu.net  (John Abt)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes:
>
>The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the
>Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns.  First, what if fusion
>turns out to create problems we don't foresee?  We didn't foresee radioactive
>waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage, and, if history teaches
>anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price.  Second, what
>if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production?  I can imagine
>a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen.

With unlimited cheap and pollution-free energy available, we won't be
talking about the greenhouse effect, it will be the furnace effect.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 05:50:24 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@labrea.stanford.edu  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NSS Space Policy Platform

In article <246900013@cdp>, jordankatz@cdp writes:
>
>THE 1989 SPACE POLICY PLATFORM OF THE NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY

Do they want to:

>     1. Establish a national policy goal of radically lowering the
>cost of manned and unmanned access to space.
>     2. Provide assured access to space with a robust mixed fleet ...
>     3. Promote the international competitiveness of the U.S.
>commercial launch vehicle industry.
>     5. Initiate development efforts to improve the capabiity and
>efficiency of in-space transportation systems ...
>     2. Develop capabilities for the routine performance of space
>construction, servicing, and in-space repair tasks.
>     3. Explore the Solar System ...

(For the purposes of this statement, please forget momentarily there has
been no progress toward these goals under NASA oversight during the past
two decades.)

Or do would they rather:

>     4. Pursue the development of advanced air-breathing launch
>vehicles with the National Aerospace Plane Program.
>     1. Build the Space Station Freedom ...
>     3. Establish a permanent manned return to the Moon ...
>     l. Establish scientific and resource extraction facilities on
>the Moon.
>     1. Provide the resources and management focus for NASA to
>perform leading edge research and development in space. 
>     2. Provide limited exemptions from Federal civil service
>regulations to enable NASA centers to attract the vital talent it
>needs ...

In any case, the bottom line is:

>     3. Increase NASA's budget commensurate with its mission.  A
>minimum of $14 billion is required for fiscal year l990.

It's a shame that the National Space Society leaders have not seen fit
to take input on questions of policy from members.  Since joining, I
have seen no attempt on their part to encourage debate of policy issues
on any level of the organization.  Instead, they send out questionnaires
asking whether we should (a) Build the Space Station, (b) Go to the
Moon, or (c) Go to Mars.

Some NSS chapters are discussing issues of policy.  If you want to join
us, send me email.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

San Diego L5, pronoun,  1. An organization working to foster the 
creation of a spacefaring civilization through public outreach,
occasional political action, and establishing an appropriate
philosophical basis for informed policy decisions.  2. A disease that
infects NSS chapters causing them to refuse orders from headquarters to
engage in NASA boosting and other anti-space activities.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 20:46:25 GMT
From: sgi!key!jsp@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (James Preston)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <4440@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
}On Tuesday March 14, 1989 at 6:42 am the following message was received by a
}UFO investigator in Baltimore through WA3NAN (Goddard) amateur radio
}transission from the orbiter Discovery.  "Houston, this is Discovery.  We
}still have the alien space craft, uhh, under observance."  The transmission
}was picked up on a Radio Shack scanner tuned to 147.45 mhz.

Can you say, "April fool"?

--James Preston

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #328
*******************


Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Apr 89 08:42:36 EST
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01284>; Sat, 1 Apr 89 07:58:23 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  1 Apr 89 07:58:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYBA8Oy00Ui3MGcUB3>;
          Sat,  1 Apr 89 07:35:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.cYB:8Ly00UkZ8DZUgf>;
          Sat,  1 Apr 89 05:19:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wYB-6ey00UkZ4DY042@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  1 Apr 89 05:17:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #329

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 329

Today's Topics:
   Soviet Phobos II probe fails just before final approach to moon
		   Soviet Satellite Photos for Sale
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
	    Re: Room Temperature fusion, expert skepticism
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #321
			   Re: NASA Select
		     Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons
			    Two questions.
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Apr 89 00:51:21 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: Soviet Phobos II probe fails just before final approach to moon

     On Mar. 29th the Soviet Union's Phobos II probe suffered a fatal 
failure.  On Mar. 21st it had undergone the final maneuver, placing it in 
synchronous orbit with the Martian moon.  On Mar. 26th pictures of Phobos 
had been taken from about 150 Km (94 mi) from away. On the 27/28th a second 
close up set was being taken.  This was to generate the final orbital 
measurements to insure the close approach could be done about 1 week later.  
On the Phobos probes the antenna system is not mounted on its own transport 
platform (as is done on most US probes).  Instead the vehicle was commanded 
to turn away, take the pictures, then return contact to Earth control.  
However, in this case the probe rotated away, but never came back.  
Compounding the problem of regaining command was the fact that it had 
previously lost its main transponder, a 50 Watt system, and was now 
operating on this 5 Watt backup.  Thus there are two main probable failure 
points, the first being that the control system broke down thus leaving the 
probe unable to get back to Earth alignment.  The other possibility is that 
the transmitter died, and there was no backup left.  Electronic equipment 
often fails just when it is turned on again, as would be the case with this 
observation method (the 30 Megabit memory could hold 1100 picture sets so 
there was no need to transmit these in real time).  It is not obvious which 
problem occurred here though some reports say that faint signals were 
received from Phobos II after this failure.  The NY Times quotes Nikotal 
Simyonov as saying "it would be very difficult at this point to get a 
response form the spacecraft".  The more time the craft is without earth 
command the more likely it will loss the sun alignment for its solar cells, 
thus suffering a power deficit also.
    Note that the mission was not a complete failure.  Even with the data 
obtained at this point the probe has produced the "the highest quality 
images of yet obtained of Phobos".  In addition at Mars itself the infrared 
spectra give much compositionial information about the planet's surface and 
atmosphere, while the planetary magnetic field has been measured.  Never 
the less there is bitter loss at missing the Phobos landing by only a few 
days. (Boston Globe and New York Times, Mar. 30)
    One comment here, the researchers at the Soviet IKI institute, which 
were in charge of the probe, have been pushing the line that unmanned 
systems are cheaper and more reliable than manned ones.  They have been 
strongly suggesting that robots would be better to explore Mars rather than 
a manned mission.  After this high profile mission failure they could find 
their case substantially harder to present in the USSR.
    [Personal note - why is it that things only go really wrong with the 
Russian program when I am off on a trip, and hence without my shortwave.  
At one earlier conference the Soyuz TM-6 re-entry problem occurred.  Sorry 
for the delay in posting this but I just got back.]
    So the Russians failed in this attempt on Mars.  It was a loss to us
all (no US probe for Phobos is scheduled yet, and probably would not occur 
before 2000 AD).  It will be interesting to see if they launch a second try 
in the 1990 or 1992 windows, if they can analyze the failure cause.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 04:05:01 GMT
From: crdgw1!steinmetz!sunspot!blackje@uunet.uu.net  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Soviet Satellite Photos for Sale

[reported in April 1989 IEEE Spectrum; summary follows:]

The USSR is selling satellite photographs of areas all over the world
(with the notable exception of their own back yard) through a subsidiary
of the Continential Grain Company, based in New York City.
The photos boast a resolution as fine as 5 meters (16.4 feet for those 
people still hung up on archaic measurements; (they can handle decimals,
can't they?))  -- prices range from $300 to $1200 each.

The New York Times reported that "U.S. experts believe that the photos
were taken by spy satellites" ... 
Most of the available photos are of areas of reasonably heavy military
activity;  places like North Dakota (missile silos), Seattle, WA (subs),
and even some nice shots of the Peoples Republic of China.

Rumor has it that the US Government is now considering releasing some
of its OWN nice photographs;  ... operators are standing by ...

The Soviet photos are available from Sojuskarta;
contact ContiTrade Services Corp, 277 Park Ave., New York, NY 10172,
or call them at 212/207-5588 (what? no 800 number?!) ...

--Emmett
	J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
	blackje@crd.ge.com;   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 22:43:45 GMT
From: salt.uucp!dan@uunet.uu.net  (Dan Williams)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

from (Miroslav Kocic)
> The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity
> of the Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns.  First, what
> if fusion turns out to create problems we don't foresee?  We didn't
> foresee radioactive waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this
> stage, and, if history teaches anything, it teaches that every benefit
> has a proportional price.  Second, what if cold fusion becomes the
> crack-cocaine of energy production?  I can imagine a thousand fanatics in
> 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen. 

	We don't even know if a chemical H-bomb is a feasable idea with
this technology.  I think it may be a little premature to start talking
about the sky falling.  Any way the word is out and at this point there is
probably no way you can shut this discovery down.  Once people kown that a
thing is doable then they will find a way to do it.  If the price for the
technology is too high then it won't be used.  There will be a price.
Nothing comes for free.
	In an interview I heard, one of the researchers was talking about a
period of twenty years while they look into the possiblities of this
discovery, like scaling up the size, investigating changes, enviromental
impact, and anything else their fertile little brains can come up with.  I
think twenty years is a little pesimistic on their part since there will be
a lot of presure to speed up development.  But on the plus side you can bet
that there will be not a little money thrown their way.  I think this will
tell you that they are approaching this discovery with all appropriate
caution.  There will be enough people looking at this to enumerate any
problems we can think of. If we can't think of a problem that may manefest
itself in the future then there is no way we could have known and we will
deal with it when it comes.

	Now if only this is for real then these postings have some meaning. 
 _______________________________________________________
|   fusion is a reality                                 |
|   Dan Williams 		 uunet!salt!dan		|
|   MCDONNELL DOUGLAS 	 Denver CO			|
|   Any opinions expressed by me are not the 		|
|   opinions of McDonnell Douglas.			|up.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 04:23:34 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion, expert skepticism

In article <7486@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
>I'm inclined not to. My father is a theoretical physicist who worked
>for years in plasma research. I called and asked him "Say Dad, do you
>suppose if I squeezed some deuterium into a metal lattice it might
>fuse?" He just said, "No."

Whatever is going on inside that palladium -- assuming that there is
anything going on in there -- it is *not* a plasma phenomenon, so asking
a plasma physicist won't necessarily give a meaningful answer.  Better
would be to ask a chemist specializing in the subject just how close
hydrogen atoms get inside palladium, and then ask a physicist just how
close they have to get for interesting things to happen.

Unfortunately, this may -- repeat, may -- be like asking a 19th-century
physicist what he thinks of the possibility of a single bomb capable of
destroying an entire city.  There may, pure and simple, be some new and
hitherto-unsuspected effect involved, in which case *any* expert opinion
is valueless.

If you had asked a superconductivity expert, several years ago, whether
complex copper oxides would superconduct at liquid-nitrogen temperatures,
the odds are pretty good that he would have said "no".  There is still
no theoretical understanding of how liquid-nitrogen superconductors work;
the old BCS theory, which quite successfully explained superconducting
metals, cannot possibly be stretched to cover the new superconductors,
and there is no replacement theory in sight yet.  Remember that example
when assessing theoretical opinions about this issue.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1989 12:18-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #321

>... My question is why were there no cabin views during
>the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch

I have seen two different films with out of the window pictures during
launch.

Both were quite impressive.

The earlier one was in a film from Rockwell, and you could watch the
horizon as the sky turned darker and darker blue.... and then suddenly
the sky was BELOW you, a thin film visible on the horizon.


The other showed more clearly than any numbers how fast the shuttle
picks up speed. The shots were from the last Spacelab flight (Chang
Diaz, monkey shit, etc) and was in a northerly trajectory that seemed
to parallel the East coast of the US. You could watch the coast of
Florida slowly appear and then Georgia slide into view, and then in
rapidly increasing succession you passed everything up to Boston.
Marvelous piece of film.

Incidentally, a scientist crew member who was on the flight was giving
a talk and told of the problems of prefitted trojan-like male urine
collection devices. The fit tends to not be very good under several g's
and stress. Remember that there are crewmembers in seats above other
crew members during the boost phase.  Space flight isn't ALL glory you
know.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 00:19:53 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: NASA Select

[]

In article <1989Mar27.213437.22701@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <Added.4Y=O_Wy00Ui30R7E8O@andrew.cmu.edu> BISURFAC@ECUVM1.BITNET (Lou Surface) writes:
>>... My question is why were there no cabin views during
>>the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch
>>on any mission - from Apollo to STS. Is this due to G-force limits
>>on operating cameras? - that would be suprising. Or is there some
>>classified ritual that occurs at T minus 0?

Several reasons I can think of:
  1) The ground controllers probably don't want to clutter up the
  shuttle's comm channels with an unecessary  wide-band transmission, 
  otherwise known as TeeVee. Since the launch is perhaps the most
  communications intesive portion of the flight, I sure that all
  conceivable channels are reserved for more valuable information.

  2) The shuttle's cameras are pretty big dudes, long boxes around
  6"x6"x18" or so. They have got to be pretty heavy (>15 pounds) once
  you add in the electronics, massive zoom lenses and motors to drive
  them, etc. The mounts for the cameras are petty flimsy, and would never
  work in 1G. Launch video would require the manufacture of special
  mounting brackets.

  3) No classified ritual, as I've seen many a film taken of the crew 
  during launch. (Unless they scratch themselves in certain interesting
  places that might not be too appealing :-).

  There were two U.S missions which did have video during launch :

  Gordon Cooper's Mercury flight, Faith 7. They were trying out an 
  experimental slow-scan tv system which transmitted back pictures
  at about 2 seconds/frame.

  The other was the Apollo-Soyuz launch. There was a camera tucked under the
  right control panel looking up at the crew during the launch sequence.
  It's quite an interesting sequence.

On STS-30, they'll be trying out a Sony cam-corder. This might pave the
way for small, lightweight cameras which might conceivably be left on
during the launch sequence.


>There's no special problem with it that I'm aware of.  I'd assume that
>the reason is (a) the view would be boring, 

Any more "boring" than 38 minutes of a crewmember throwing switches in 
the Aft flight deck? :-) 

>and (b) the astronauts'
>conversations are considered private unless explicitly transmitted.

The cameras do not come equipped with microphones, so any internal
conversations would not be transmitted.

>-- 
>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  <-great signature Henry

          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 03:20:36 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons

Mike Van Pelt writes;
> The outfit in Sweden found methane... the gas
> had been verified as being of non-biological origin, but they
> didn't explain how they had verified this.

Carbon contains two stable isotopes, carbon-12 and carbon-13.
During photosynthesis, the carbon retained in plant tissue is enriched
in carbon-12 (relative to non-biogenic carbon, such as diamond). Thus methane
of biogenic origin is usually enriched in carbon-12.

Tom O'Reilly
oreilly@hpldsla

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 05:52:49 GMT
From: nunki.usc.edu!sawant@oberon.usc.edu  (Abhay Sawant)
Subject: Two questions.


1.  I thought the idea of having spacecraft merely 'nudge' asteroids
towards earth was really neat.  Question: won't it be awfully hard to
get the exact trajectory of the asteroid correct?  Even if we're going
to be satisfied with getting it within (say) 15k km. from the center
of the earth (assume we can easily recover anything in this range),
isn't it going to be awfully hard to give the asteroid the correct
velocity vector?  Especially when you consider the awkward shape,
distribution of mass of the critter (i'm thinking engineering here).

2.  If it's not very hard getting some kind of hot fusion going, isn't
it a easy solution to the radioactive waste problem to chuck it into a
merrily burning fusion reaction?  Alternatively, shoot it into the
center of the sun.  Alternatively, shoot it at the stars.  Why have we
only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far?

	-ajay

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 09:30:26 GMT
From: shelby!csli!cphoenix@decwrl.dec.com  (Chris Phoenix)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> johna@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes:
>>[quotation deleted]
>With unlimited cheap and pollution-free energy available, we won't be
>talking about the greenhouse effect, it will be the furnace effect.

Not necessarily.
Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of
land into mirrors.  Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it
smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal.
I don't know the statistics on the amount of energy in sunlight falling on
the earth, but it's some amazing number of times greater than the amount
of energy we use.  In other words, we could compensate for all the energy 
we use by covering a relatively small part of the earth's surface with
mirrors to reflect all the heat back out into space.  The greenhouse effect
probably traps much more heat than would be produced by any fusion we could
use.  Worrying about a "furnace effect" from fusion is almost as groundless
as worrying about one from solar energy.  (That came up in sci.nanotech a 
while ago, and I gave the same answer except, "Imagine how cheap it would
be, with nanotechnology, to...")

Chris Phoenix
cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #329
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Apr 89 15:46:05 EDT
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA14112>; Sun, 2 Apr 89 01:26:43 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  2 Apr 89 01:26:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gYBP7qy00jZdA7208Y>;
          Sun,  2 Apr 89 00:39:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.MYBOsDy00UkZ4EGE4V>;
          Sun,  2 Apr 89 00:22:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gYBOq7y00UkZ0EEk5G@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  2 Apr 89 00:20:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #330

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 330

Today's Topics:
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		Bad news about Hubble Space Telescope
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
			  Re: Two questions.
		     "This space for rent" on Mir
		      Solar Eclipse in July 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 19:51:34 GMT
From: pasteur!washoe.Berkeley.EDU!kring@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Chuck Kring)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes:
> Path: pasteur!ames!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!shelby!csli!cphoenix
> From: cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
> Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.space,sci.environment,misc.headlines,sci.misc
> Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported
> Message-ID: <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>
> Date: 30 Mar 89 09:30:26 GMT
> References: <18213@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <3451@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <77762DBH106@PSUVM> <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM>
> Sender: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
> Reply-To: cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix)
> Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
> Lines: 22
> Xref: pasteur sci.research:876 sci.space:10590 sci.environment:731 misc.headlines:12080 sci.misc:3720
> 
> In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> johna@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes:
> 
> Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of
> land into mirrors.  Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it
> smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal.

Not to flame, but this is one of the stupidest ideas that I've read in this 
group.  In addition to totally destroying part of the environment, it simply 
will not work for two reasons:

    1> Deserts get cold at night because there is little vegetation or 
       water in the atmosphere to hold the heat.  Reflecting it during the 
       day would not significantly increase amount of heat which is radiated
       over time.

    2> If the greenhouse effect were a problem, then much of the reflected 
       sunlight would get trapped on the way back up and end up warming the 
       atmosphere anyway.

Finally, unlimited power does not imply cheap power.  Cold fusion aside,
everything that I've heard about fusion implies that it will be very 
expensive.  I haven't heard anyone who would really know claim that cold
fusion will be cheap.  How much does palladium cost?  How long will it 
last in in a fusion environment?

I hope that if you are ever in a position to make decisions which will affect 
the envorinment, you will give more thought about the ramifications of your
position.

Chuck Kring
UC Berkeley CAD Group
kring@ic.Berkeley.EDU

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 30 Mar 89 8:10:48 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:  Bad news about Hubble Space Telescope

The following posting just showed up on the latest RISKS Digest; I checked
the past SPACE Digests and didn't find it there, so I'm sending in a copy
to get the information over here. If it turns out to be a duplicate, my
apologies. The info in here is alarming. Considering the enormous slippage
in the HST launch date, it is rather incredible. It appears that if the 
HST had been launched on time according to the original schedule, it 
could not have been used due to this software problem! So all that delay 
was not necessarily a bad thing. Yet the entire system may STILL not be
ready, even after having given the software side vast amounts of extra
development time during all these years of delayed launch. 

This is very depressing...

Will Martin

[This info also provided by: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> -Ed]

Item from RISKS:
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 14:57:02 PST
From: eggert%stand@twinsun.UUCP (Paul Eggert)
Subject: Will the Hubble Space Telescope Compute?

M. Mitchell Waldrop's article (_Science_, 17 March 1989, pp 1437-1439) on
SOGS is notable for its coverage accessible to the general scientific public,
and for its claim that the software engineering community has switched to
rapid prototyping.  Selected quotes follow.
  -- Paul Eggert, Twin Sun Inc. <aerospace.aero.com!twinsun!eggert>

		Will the Hubble Space Telescope Compute?

	Critical operations software is still a mess--the victim of
	primitive programming methods and chaotic project management

First the good news: two decades after it first went into development, the
$1.4-billion Hubble Space Telescope is almost ready to fly....

But now the bad news: the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore still
has dozens of programmers struggling to fix one of the most basic pieces of
telescope software, the $70-million Science Operations Ground System (SOGS)....
It was supposedly completed 3 years ago.  Yet bugs are still turning up ... and
the system currently runs at only one-third optimum speed....  If Space
Telescope had been launched in October 1986, as planned at the time of the
Challenger accident, it would have been a major embarrassment: a superb
scientific instrument crippled by nearly unworkable software....

[chronology:
	1980-1	2"-thick requirements doc. written by NASA-appointed committee
	1981	contract awarded to TRW; peak team included 150 people
	1983	first software components delivered
	later	SOGS declared utterly unsuitable.]

The problem was basically a conceptual one.  NASA's specifications for SOGS had
called for a scheduling algorithm that would handle telescope operations on a
minute-by-minute basis....  The tacit assumption was that the system would
schedule astronomers on a monthly and yearly basis by simply adding up
thousands upon thousands of these minute-by-minute schedules.

In fact, that tacit assumption was a recipe for disaster....  The number of
possible combinations to consider rises much faster than exponentially....
In the computer science community, where this phenomenon has been well known
for about 40 years, it is called ``the combinatoric explosion.''  Accepted
techniques for defusing such explosions call for scheduling algorithms that
plan their trips with a road map, so to speak. And SOGS simply did not have it.

In addition to performance issues, however, SOGS was also deficient in basic
design terms.  ``SOGS used last-generation programming technology,'' says one
senior programmer....  ``SOGS was designed in such a way that you couldn't
insert new releases without bringing down the entire system!  For days!'' says
the science institute's associate director for operations, Ethan Schreier....
Indeed, the fundamental structure of SOGS is so nonmodular that fixing a bug in
one part of the program almost invariably generates new bugs somewhere else....

So, where did SOGS go wrong?...

One of the main villains seems to have been the old-line aerospace industry
approach to software development....  In the wider computer science community
this Give-Me-The-Requirements approach is considered a dismal methodology at
best...  Modern programming practice calls for ... a style known as ``rapid
prototyping''...

Even more fundamental ... few people at NASA were even thinking about
telescope operations in the early years....  the Space Telescope project as a
whole was saddled with a management structure that can only be described as
Byzantine....  At the hardware level the chaos at the top was reflected in a
raft of independently developed scientific instruments and onboard computers,
none of which were well coordinated with the others.  Indeed, the presumption
was that any such problems would be taken care of later in the software....

So, is SOGS fixed now?

Maybe.  With TRW's help, the institute has spent the past several years beating
the system into shape....  On the other hand, such progress has come at a
price.  SOGS now consists of about 1 million lines of programming code, roughly
ten times larger than originally estimated.  Its overall cost has more than
doubled, from $30 million in the original contract to roughly $70 million....

In both NASA and Pentagon contracting, the cost of the old-line approach is
becoming all too apparent.  Indeed, it has become a real sore point in the
computer community.

``It's the methodology that got us to Apollo and Skylab,'' says [James] Weiss
[data systems manager for Space Telescope at NASA headquarters].  ``But it's
not getting us to the 1990s.  The needs are more complex and the problems are
more complex.''

``SOGS,'' he says, ``is probably the last example of the old system.''
***End of Posting***

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 05:48:33 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1989Mar29.210238.4205@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
<Last I heard, the geologists were still split on whether the Sudbury ore
<body is the asteroid itself or magma brought up from deep deposits by
<the heat of the strike.  One should be cautious about using this as
<evidence.

Now that's fascinating.  Perhaps if you dig deep enough anywhere,
you'll hit platinum-rich material.  (Hopefully the mantle would be
deep enough!)  Maybe we should have continued the Mohole project.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
Video 7                                   No whimper, no blast.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                 His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 18:42:17 GMT
From: rochester!kodak!elmgate!maa@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Mark Armstrong SOFT)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <2182@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes:
> 
> In addition, I expect the government to try to limit the use (if it works)
> to utility use only for two reasons.  First, there will be political pressure
> to protect the structure of utilities, despite the reality that we would
> be better off putting one of these in everyone's home and eliminiating the
> power grid.  

Be the first on your block with your own fusion reactor!!! What a great idea,
we can all have our table top fusion reactor which will create some steam
which will drive the turbines which are connected to a generator -)-). Yep, this
has to be much cheaper than buying electric from those mean old utility 
companies. Just buy the wife a lead jacket when she does the laundry in the 
basement in case those nasty radioactive stuff happens to leak.

Why do you think it would be more efficient to produce your own electricity
instead of buying it from utilities?? What would be the cost of such system,
$5,000 sounds realistic. How about maintanence cost, $500 per year. What about
the radioactive waste, I guess we could water the lawn with it. This is reality.


Mark Armstrong

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 18:40:34 GMT
From: voder!blia!blic!miket@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Tossy)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

>>
>>I'm not sure that distributed energy production has anything intrinsically
>>going for it that centralized doesn't - basically the centralization is
>>a response to economics just like centralized food production (they call
>>them farms, meat packers, grain co-ops, etc.), centralized news media (I
>>suppose we COULD all do our own investigative reporting), centralized
>>traffic control (again - we could all get 4X4's and take off cross-country),
     
>Ok Bob, think for a second.  Energy production is not analogous to
>telecommunications OR food production.  The most important factor is
>the distribution loss (either I2 x R or thermal) that result from
>trying to produce energy in one location and move it to another.
>Producing energy locally would make us a much less energy intensive
>nation.  The only disadvantage to local energy production is that
>utilities don't make as much money. :-)

Seems to me that the distribution loss is not "the most important factor".
There are others.  As with today's fossil fuel plants, the cold fusion plants
may turn out to be more efficent at larger sizes.  The cost of the operations
staff  (unless you believe these cells can operated without staffing)
could make some centralization cost effective. Even if they can operate
unmanned then perhaps maintainance might still make for less expensive
centralized operation (it maybe cheaper to ship "cheap fusion power"
over an existing power grid than to move maintainance personnel from house to 
house).  Again depending upon the technology, it maybe cheaper to build
less capacity and use the existing powergrid to load balance than it would
be to build enough capacity for each site to meet its peak demand.  (My
house uses little energy during the day and my office uses little power
at night.  Today with centralized power production we can share the installed
power plant capacity - not so without a power grid.)

Other arguments are possible of course. An assembly line might produce 
standard units at a low enough cost as to make decentralization possible.
Or perhaps something in between, perhaps neighborhood power stations?

You can even envision that "advanced countries" like the U.S. would
adopt a centralized approach because of our existing power grid, while
"developing countries" might go for a distributed approach and avoid the
capital investment of building a power grid. (Look at railways, very few
developing countries find them cost effective to build, but most countries
that developed during the rail age find them cost effective to maintain.)

As always it is going to get down to economics (plus other social
considerations).  Unfortunately for those environmentalists who like to
snipe at utilities the truth is that utilities do perform a socally useful
function and that usefulness may very well continue even if cold fusion
works.

Final point: being "much less energy intensive nation" is not a "goodness"
in isolation.  There is nothing morally superior about using less energy, per
say.  The problem of energy use comes from the side effects that our
current energy production techniques.  Would you believe that using less
energy was good if all our energy was produced with alternative methods like
solar?  Reducing the cost of energy has been traditionally how societies
have increased the value of human labor, and I think that is a moral goodness.
I'm glad I live in a society of "mechanical slaves" instead of human ones.

--Mike Tossy

(No I don't work for a Utility.)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 18:54:27 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Two questions.

In article <3288@nunki.usc.edu>, sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) writes:
> 
> 1.  I thought the idea of having spacecraft merely 'nudge' asteroids
> towards earth was really neat.  [...]

Nudging them towards the Earth is one thing, getting them to match the
Earth's velocity is quite another! The alternative is to send them in a 
Hohman (sp?) transfer orbit to the Earth, this requires the minimum ammount of
energy up front and at arrival. Still, we are talking about (for current
technology) staggering ammounts of energy (for an asteroid worth mining).

Stabilisation should not be a problem; it is made easier by good choice of
propulsive site and automatic attitude control.

> 2.  If it's not very hard getting some kind of hot fusion going, isn't
> it a easy solution to the radioactive waste problem to chuck it into a
> merrily burning fusion reaction?  Alternatively, shoot it into the
> center of the sun.  Alternatively, shoot it at the stars.  Why have we
> only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far?

The Sun wouldn't notice, sending it into "empty" space is perhaps
short-sighted. Anyway, no-one will get away with actually launching the 
stuff in the first place, for fear of an accident...
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 09:40:03 PST
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: "This space for rent" on Mir

I just heard on the radio that you can now buy advertising space on Mir
(a couple of years ago I would have assumed it was an April Fool's joke).
You can buy a patch on a cosmonaut's spacesuit, or a 2-lb cargo that you can
proclaim "has flown in space", or an ad on the Mir hull, or a billboard at
the Baikonur launch pad.  It boggles the mind.  I wonder if they'll consider
inserting promos for sponsors in the voice links?  "Comrade, the Bulova
time is 00:30 Zulu..."

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 18:21:39 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!pasek@uunet.uu.net  (Michael A. Pasek)
Subject: Solar Eclipse in July 1991

Excuse me if this is not the proper forum, but....
I heard that there will be a total solar eclipse in July 1991, that will be
visible (full) in Hawaii and (partial) in the Western U.S.  Can anybody out
there tell me EXACTLY when this will occur ?  I would like to make plans
now to be in Hawaii when it does happen, and to be on the right side of
the islands for viewing, etc.  Please e-mail responses.  Thanks.

M. A. Pasek          Switching Software Development         NCR Comten, Inc.
(612) 638-7668              CNG Development               2700 N. Snelling Ave.
pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM                               Roseville, MN  55113

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #330
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Apr 89 10:23:44 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01338>; Sun, 2 Apr 89 07:42:24 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  2 Apr 89 07:42:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4YBRU7y00UkTQ2g0J4>;
          Sun,  2 Apr 89 03:21:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.AYBRQry00UkZIEZk4V>;
          Sun,  2 Apr 89 03:18:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AYBRPZy00UkZ0EYE5G@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  2 Apr 89 03:16:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #331

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 331

Today's Topics:
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		      foriegn QSL card procedure
		   Re: Furnace Effect?..no worries
		  Room-temperature fusion (caution)
			    Goldstone tour
		    SInfo on Biosphere III please.
		      Re: space shuttle landing
		      US/USSR prices (followup)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 06:47:41 GMT
From: agate!web-2h.berkeley.edu!128a-3cl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Anon <agate!web-2h.berkeley.edu!128a-3cl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <11685@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> kring@washoe.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kring) writes:
>In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes:
>> In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> johna@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes:
>> 
>> Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of
>> land into mirrors.  Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it
>> smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal.
>
>Not to flame, but this is one of the stupidest ideas that I've read in this 
>group.

Skipping a bit...


>    2> If the greenhouse effect were a problem, then much of the reflected 
>       sunlight would get trapped on the way back up and end up warming the 
>       atmosphere anyway.
	
Not to flame :) , but this is not strictly true.  The greenhouse effect
requires sunlight to be absorbed by something, and the energy to be reemitted
in frequencies which are absorbed more efficiently by the atmosphere.  A
mirror, or a region with a high albedo (such as a snow-field) reflects sunlight
rather than absorbing/reemitting it.  This can have a net cooling effect,
and there is speculation that this is one mechanism which maintains the
cool temperatures in an ice age.



	--MYC

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 14:47:55 GMT
From: vsi1!wyse!mips!prls!philabs!briar.philips.com!rfc@apple.com  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: foriegn QSL card procedure

Can someone tell me how one goes about getting QSL cards from international
stations?  How do QSL brearus work, and how do I use them?  In particular, I
contacted on 10m these stations: YU2NY,YV6PM,YV4WT,P43HM,XE2FU,LZ9A?,HK1LDG
Maybe someone could e-mail me what brearus one would use for these stations,
and what the procedure is.
thanks in advance,  73 de WA2ISE

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 14:16:02 GMT
From: meccts!meccsd!vin@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu  (Vincent J. Erickson)
Subject: Re: Furnace Effect?..no worries

The greenhouse effect and the furnace effect could both be compensated
for in the following way:  Call 3M up; order many square kilometers of
mylar; place mylar in solar orbit just indise the Earth's so it blocks
a small percentage of the sun's rays. Result; a lowering of the
Earth's temperature.

A more elegant solution might be a sunscreen, rather than a reflector.
A large enough piece of mylar which allows all the visible light, but
reflects some of the infra-red light. This would keep shadows from
projecting on the Earth. This same method would be useful for blocking
ultraviolet radiation in the event we destroy the ozone layer as
well.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 13:07:51 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Room-temperature fusion (caution)


A few years ago, somebody came here and gave a talk on muon-catalyzed
room temperature fusion. One of the things that came out was that it
really is a room temperature phenomenon. If the temperature rises above
a certain low value, it stops working. This is good in the sense that it 
can not be used directly as a fusion bomb, but poses a problem for power
collection. The proposed method was to use heat engines that operate on
a low temperature differential, such as the Stirling engine. While the
mechanism for the electrolytic fusion is not known or has not been disclosed,
it may similarly be limited to moderate temperatures. If this is the case,
perhaps the best hope for a space drive is an electric generator driving
an ion engine. Even with the required hardware and shielding this could
be attractive for long-term, low-thrust missions, but you can forget all 
about 1G drives.

Of course, the phenomenon must first be verified by duplication, and its
parameters established.
                                       John Roberts
                                       roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 22:17:23 GMT
From: price@marlin.nosc.mil  (James N. Price)
Subject: Goldstone tour

-------
To sci.astro folks,

My wife and I got a personal tour of the Goldstone Tracking
Facility on the high desert of California last week.  It's easy to
arrange (if nothing else is going on) and one can't be anything
but amazed by the size and complexity of the instruments in the
Deep Space Network!  Contact me if you'd like the name and number
of the guy to call.  Plan on a good chunk of the day--it's truly
in the boonies.

--Jim Price, ARPANET:  PRICE@NOSC.MIL

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 15:47:00 GMT
From: inmet!ishmael!inmet!authorplaceholder@bbn.com
Subject: SInfo on Biosphere III please.


Pardon me if this is not the correct forum, but I am curious as
to the Biosphere III experiment that was taking place in Arizona.

Biosphere I is Earth.  

Biosphere II is the shrimp/algae aquarium designed by NASA - about
the size of a volleyball. 

Biosphere III, as I remember it, is a sealed habitat covering several
acres of land with several different environmental areas (rain forest,
savanah, desert, etc) and representative life forms for each
environment.  It is inhabited by four couples, all scientists and was
supposed to run for five years.  The only things which were to enter
the habitat were sunlight and electrical power (for the computers, etc).

Does anyone have any pointers to a report on this?  I think the five
year period is substantially up.  

Please send e-mail as to references (either in literature or other
discussion groups) and I'll post a summary if there's enough information.

Thanks in advance.

				Michael Tighe
				Intermetrics Inc
				Cambridge, MA 
				ph: (617) 661-1840

				Internet:  inmet.inmet.com
				UUCP: ... decvax!seismo!think!inmet!tighe
				  or: ... cca!mirror!inmet!tighe

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 18:02:47 GMT
From: iconsys!lane@uunet.uu.net  (Ed Lane)
Subject: Re: space shuttle landing





>From: ch-tkr@wasatch.UUCP (Timothy K Reynolds)

>	    When the space shuttle Atlantis lands at Edwards AFB, I
>	    would reeeeealy like to be there. I have read letters on the
>	    news-group telling me what to take along, but what do I have
>	    to get to watch. Do I have to get some kind of a pass to get
>	    on base? Please tell me what the deal is! And while I am
>	    asking who would I have to beg to get real close, if you
>	    know what I mean. Please help, I know that you guys out
>	    there must know someone. I am just a student who life dream
>	    is to watch the shuttle land from the front row.
>
>						 Thank You,
>						 Patrick R. Jones



I attended a shuttle landing on June 24, 1985.  My brother lives in nearby
Palmdale which was convienent since the landing was at 7:00am PDT.  Quite an
event-- something like a combination "trekkie" convention and RV caravan,
I would assume.  The experienced observers seemed to watch the event in
"simul-vision".  This is accomplished by watching the event on satillite
TV just outside your RV in the spectator parking lot at Edwards AFB.
Another memory is of a man on a recumbant(sp?) bicycle equipped with an
American flag on a rod (presumably for safety and patriatism).  This man
was able to carry an aluminum step ladder which he later deployed to sit
and watch the event through binoculars above a crowd of onlookers gath-
ered at the fenced parking lot.  The actual landing is brief and diffi-
cult to see with the unaided eye or a 50mm camera lens for that matter
(all I had at the time).  The actual landing is hard to see from the
spectators area without a telescope but the experienced observers would
watch the event on TV via satillite dish outside their RV.  The pictures
I have from that event are rather disappointing but the memories are
still endearing.  No pass is required for the spectator lot but this is
an extremely poor vantage point for seeing the landing.  The "multi-
sonic boom" phenomenon is experienced from this vantage point however as
the shuttle passes directly overhead (at considerable altitude) before
it turns to land.  I estimate that the shuttle is about 1/2 mile from
the parking lot when it comes to a stop.  From this distance the shuttle
looks like a lizard lying on a dry lake bed at 50 yards away :-)  It may
be possible to get a better vantage point on-base but in '85 shuttle
landings were still pretty well attended events and even the cheap-seats
off-base caused traffic congestion of major proportions (The re-cyclist
had the right idea).  Don't know the situation now so you might call Ed-
wards AFB for more recent info.

...............................................................................
Ed Lane				uunet!iconsys!lane
Software Engineer
SANYO/ICON			Telephone: (801) 225-6888
Orem, Utah			FAX: (801) 226-0651

"According to the source code this is appropriate behavior." -- T.Kimpton
...............................................................................

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 13:04:42 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: US/USSR prices (followup)


>From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
>John Roberts writes:
>> - Economies of scale: The ability to maintain a high volume of launches
>>     and to accelerate the learning curve (and possibly to discourage the
>>     competition) can make it economically attractive to sell products or
>>     services for less than the actual cost. This has been a favorite
>>     Japanese strategy for years.

>Yes, it's called competition.  The Japanese are good at it.  This is usually
>considered to be something good, unless Americans are on the wrong end of
>the deal - then it is labeled unfair trading practices.

The actual situation is a lot more complicated than this. When a company
introduces a product into a market for which competing products already exist,
it must strive for market share (customer base) and sufficient volume of
business to assure a rapid learning curve and reasonable economies of scale.
Toward this purpose, the company is often willing to sell the product for an
artificially low price with reference to its current production costs, 
accepting limited profits or even losses until it has established a market
position. At this point prices are set at a more reasonable level. (The
price may not actually go up, since production costs may have gone down.)
As long as no fraud is involved and the company is merely seeking to become
one competitor among many, this is considered proper business practice.
If, however, a company is trying to drive its competitors out of major
contention altogether, so it can control the market, this is considered
restraint of trade, and is illegal in the US. Note that it is not necessary
to drive the competitors entirely out of business. If their sales volume
can be reduced to the point that they no longer enjoy economies of scale,
they may not have sufficient funds to operate at a loss in order to restore
volume, or they may become convinced that they can not make a profit on the
product in question, and give it up. A clever company introducing an entirely
new product will lower the price as its production costs drop, making it
difficult for a new company to enter the market with a low sales volume.
(The typical US corporate approach is to charge what the market will bear
until a competitor comes along with lower prices and takes away most or
all of the business.)

This technique has been applied throughout modern history. After the
American Revolution, England tried to discourage the development of 
US industry by making manufactured articles available at low prices.
Rockefeller of Standard Oil used to cut prices in local areas to kill
off small competitors, then raise the prices again. The Japanese
semiconductor manufacturers allegedly dropped $4 billion by underpricing
DRAM chips in an effort to knock out all competitors in the DRAM market.

>     The general comments sound like typical American geocentrism to me.  Why
>must the rest of the world pay the inflated prices that Americans, with their
>artificially stimulated (by the military-industrial complex) economy, are
>willing to pay?  Cheap labour exists all over the world, especially behind
>the Iron Curtain, and it has little to nothing to do State subsidies.

Americans are not anxious to lower American wages to the levels found
elsewhere in the world, though the current trade policy leaves things
headed in this direction. I was not talking about the international market,
just the domestic market. The US should not hope to do business abroad
unless its prices are competitive. A very common practice in Japan is for
a new business to be protected within the country by steep import tariffs,
until it is large enough to compete in other countries. Because of its
low volume and inexperience, the US private launch industry must be
considered a new business. If competing nations employ this technique,
why shouldn't the US do the same?

>...If you can't compete on the world market place,
>then get out or adjust your prices.  Just don't use a bludgeon on someone
>else just because you don't like the way that they are running their
>business!  Mafia tactics rule in the US Government's economic policies.

Not as much as in many other parts of the world.

If you will reread the original posting, I was not accusing the Soviets of
a conspiracy. I was stating that they have several incentives to employ
economically attractive business practices which would cause us to have
a distorted view of the overall efficiency of their program. Many people
say that the Soviet space program is much better than ours, so we should
do everything the way they do. I was pointing out that we do not really
have a complete picture of their space program, since they choose to
keep their costs secret. That does not in any way imply that we could
not benefit by copying *some* of what they have done.

>                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
>Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
>gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
>                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                              John Roberts
                              roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #331
*******************
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Apr 89 02:49:32 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04755>; Mon, 3 Apr 89 01:15:43 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  3 Apr 89 01:15:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYBkIEy00jZd82X0Qj>;
          Mon,  3 Apr 89 00:46:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.0YBjz7y00UkZ4FN04C>;
          Mon,  3 Apr 89 00:23:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0YBjwzy00UkZ0FLU4f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  3 Apr 89 00:21:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #332

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 332

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Jan 30 AW&ST
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
			    out the window
			   Re: Cold Fusion
	  Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
	    Need lunar and planetary surface-features data
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 23:39:36 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Jan 30 AW&ST

US antimatter research (notably for space propulsion) is being affected
by a shortage of antiprotons.  CERN, the only major source at present,
dedicates its supply to basic research [and also has political reservations
about involvement in anything that hints of military applications, even
fairly innocuous ones like space propulsion].  DoD considers it urgent
to develop a domestic antiproton source; modification of the SSC is being
looked at.

Interior Dept's Bureau of Land Management is evaluating use of Geostar
to track its own aircraft in flight.

China's first polar-orbit metsat, which failed after 39 days in flight,
may have died because of attitude-control problems.  (It is also known
to have had overheating problems in its imager, but image quality was
nevertheless good.)

Future of SDI deployment uncertain under Bush.  He is thought likely to
take treaty compliance more seriously than Reagan did, and the limited
usefulness and high price of a treaty-compliant system will probably
scuttle it.

Arianespace hopes to launch 13 payloads on 9 Arianes this year, to help
clear its growing backlog.  Tentative FY88 financial results for Arianespace
show it making a profit of about $17M on revenues of $612M.  Formal signing
of contracts for the 50-unit production batch of Ariane 4s is imminent.
There is slight disappointment at managing only 7 launches, rather than
the planned 8, in 1988, but the performance was still credible.

Britain is reconsidering the idea of taking a limited role in Ariane 5,
despite its earlier complete rejection of the program.  The possible
limited role would be through a bilateral deal with France rather than
direct participation at the ESA level.  This would give British industry
Ariane 5 contracts without compromising the rejection of a direct role
for the government.

SEP [which builds Ariane engines] will test-fire an uncooled high-temperature
composite nozzle on an Ariane third-stage engine.  The carbon / silicon
carbide composite retains strength up to 1800C, eliminating the complexity
and mass of the cooling system needed for metal nozzles.  This is strictly
a technology testbed; no application to production Ariane third stages is
planned at present.

GOES-West's imager fails, putting the US back to one Clarke-orbit metsat
again.  GOES-East is being shifted to a more central position to give
better coverage of winter storms; it will be shifted back somewhat in
spring for hurricane monitoring.  The outer fringes of the coverage areas,
notably Alaska, Hawaii, and the eastern Caribbean islands, will see
reduced warning time for serious storms.  The failure was expected, as
GOES-West was beyond its rated lifetime and the encoder lamp that failed
is a known trouble spot with the old GOES design.  GOES-East has enough
fuel to operate until mid-1990, when the first next-generation GOES will
be launched.

QM-8 SRB firing on Jan 20, the low-temperature test, was successful.
This officially concludes the SRB redesign program, although plans are
in the works for ongoing tests on a more relaxed schedule.  The only
test specifically planned yet is one in spring 1990 to qualify the use
of ammonium-perchlorate oxidizer from Pacific Engineering's new plant.

Coverage of the decision to replace Discovery's oxygen turbopumps.
There was some consideration of postponing the mission, since the pad
absolutely had to be clear by March 14 to avoid delays for Magellan,
but not launching TDRS-D would have threatened postponement of the
Hubble telescope launch, which NASA preferred to avoid.

Last Intelsat 5 went up on Ariane Jan 26.

DoT sets insurance minima for commercial launches:  Martin Marietta and
McDonnell Douglas must buy $80M of insurance for commercial Titan and
Delta launches, General Dynamics $75M for each commercial Atlas.  These
numbers are for damage to government property; third-party liability
insurance will also be required, but this will be set individually for
each launch for now.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 00:20:15 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Rick Wojcik)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)


    Henry Spencer has been arguing that (1) it is currently possible to send
manned missions into space at a profit,  (2) the Soviets are already doing so,
and (3) there is nothing wrong with sending up nontechnical passengers, as
long as they can pay for their passage.  In particular, he believes that we
ought to consider broadcasting entertainment spectacles such as rock concerts
from the space shuttle.  We both probably agree that space should be developed
commercially, but we disagree on how to go about that now.  I prefer to limit
manned missions almost exclusively to scientific and professional personnel
who can make the most efficient use of these extremely expensive missions.  I
consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of
precious technology.

Henry Spencer responds to a previous posting of mine:
> What on Earth (or in space :-)) are you talking about?  [The Soviets] don't
> need to have the "appearance" of routine space flights -- they have routine
> space flights, and have had them for years.

I suppose that we could quibble over how to interpret the word 'routine'.
There is little question that the Soviets have been exploiting their
consistency for propaganda value, as you yourself admit.  They have timed some
events to embarrass us.  I wish that Congress would get more embarrassed, but
they seem to have pretty thick skins.  As I understand it, the main mission of
Soviet manned flights is to explore the effects of long stays in space on the
human body.  The Soviet government has given the impression that it is willing
to sell space on missions--to our embarrassment, since we 'capitalists' don't
have any missions to sell.  That's neat propaganda, which you seem to have
taken at face value.

> I don't deny that they are exploiting it for all the political gain they
> can get.  However, it is a mistake to assume that they're subsidizing it.
> I've previously posted a back-of-the-envelope calculation showing that,
> at their current prices, it is almost impossible for them to be losing
> money on it.  I, for one, think they're making a real, cash profit.

"Back-of-the-Envelope?"  I'm not familiar with that accounting software.  :-)
Did you count development costs on the back of your envelope?  Did you place a
value on displaced scientific research?  Well, perhaps it is the 'back-of-the-
envelope' method that has turned the Soviet economy into such a roaring
success.  ;-)

> Don't you think...knowledge is likely to be expanded by flying a wider
> cross-section of people than athletic professional astronauts?

How, pray tell?  Why would we learn more by sending up poorly-trained people
who are less cost-effective at carrying out the missions?  If you are
concerned about the physical fitness of astronauts, I'm sure that we could
find a few flabby scientists to send up.  :-)

>>... There is
>>always the danger that space flight will be ended permanently because we can
>>no longer afford the resources to sustain it.
>Nonsense.  Spaceflight consumes an utterly negligible fraction of the
>world's resources, especially when it is done economically and efficiently
>(not a US specialty).  What is dangerously low is not resources, but will.
>In the US, that is.

Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.  I meant budgetary resources.  Space
research and development is tremendously expensive.  It is a strain on both us
and the Soviets.  There is constant pressure to cut back on it.  Given that
our priorities are constantly shifting, scientific research in space--which
has no immediate, tangible return--is a tempting target for budget cutters.
The environment is already noticeably out of whack.  I think that we are going
to be diverting major resources into our own survival in a couple of decades.
We may need the space technology to solve some of those problems, but it will
be harder to scrape up the money resources in the future.

>...Remember that [the Soviet] treasury and their economy are one and the
> same, so they can count up indirect benefits as well as direct ones.

Sorry, but I don't know what it means to say that their treasury and economy
are one and the same.  They are subject to the same economic laws that we are.
What benefits do they count up that we don't?  

[on calling up the Soviets to verify Spencer's 'facts']
> The [Soviet] embassy could probably refer you to the right place:  Space
> Commerce Corp. in Houston, the US representatives for most Soviet space
> services. 

Gosh.  Space Commerce Corp.  You wouldn't be confusing manned missions with
satellite missions, would you?  I don't deny the profitability of putting up
unmanned satellites.  That is much less expensive and difficult than manned
missions.  The fact that the Soviets advertise the availability of manned
space flight doesn't mean that they intend to sell it to all comers or that
they are making a profit on it.  I imagine that they take a very close look at
who gets to go up in the limited number of flights that they can afford each
year.  Unlike you, I believe that propaganda value is the sole criterion for
selling flights to nontechnical people. 

>>The idea of getting people to "take over" our space
>>program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it
>>was impractical.  It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free
>>market was the answer to everything...
>Yes, ridiculous uncommercial people like Boeing.  And it went out the
>window because NASA wasn't interested in relinquishing control, despite
>a few encouraging noises early on.

I would be interested in clarification here.  Do you mean that Boeing, or some
other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight
program?  I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any
such desire.  What for?  They are working with the government, which is the
only conceivable customer for manned space flight right now.  Who was that
stubborn, hidebound NASA supposed to relinquish control to?  There ain't
nobody there.  That's why I called the idea impractical.  Only governments can
afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now.


-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 16:55:24 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@g.ms.uky.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: out the window

In article <607281503.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
}>... My question is why were there no cabin views during
}>the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch
}
}I have seen two different films with out of the window pictures during
}launch.
}
}Both were quite impressive.

I saw a film taken during re-entry.  Looking out of the window into an
orange glow MUST cause some interesting feelings...


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 23:23:18 GMT
From: salt.uucp!dan@uunet.uu.net  (Dan Williams)
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion


	Just saw an Associated Press story claiming that James Fletcher
will be returning to the University of Utah to Head the states efforts to
cash in on the cold fusion breakthrough.  How about that for a cold fusion
space Tie in?   
	The Governor of Utah is trying to break loose $5 million for this
program.  Sounds a little light to me but they sure are acting fast.
	Also it looks like someone at the March 23 news conference stole
all the diagrams illustrating the process.  Look for news organizations
with exclusive diagrams. 

 _______________________________________________________
|   Fusion is a reality.  Just ask the Governor of Utah |
|   Dan Williams 		 uunet!salt!dan		|
|   MCDONNELL DOUGLAS 	 Denver CO			|
|   Any opinions expressed by me are not the 		|
|   opinions of McDonnell Douglas.			|

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 19:46:16 GMT
From: jarthur!jokim@uunet.uu.net  (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?


In response to a few statements made on this subject:

Sifting through other other newsgroups, mainly sci.physics, sci.research
and sci.chem provides a wealth of additional information on this subject.
Anyone *really* interested in this (like me) should temporarily subscribe
to these groups (and any others you find).  Here the answers to a few
questions brought up in this newsgroup.

The little gizmo has (reputedly) put out 4W for 1W put into it for
>100 hours.

The reason for the disclosure to the (inaccurate) public press is that
someone leaked it.  The two original guys had planned to keep it under
wraps until the April or May edition of Nature (yes, they submitted it
and it was accepted).

A recent posting in sci.chem described the gizmo in detail.  I don't
know what the info source was but you should check it out if you're
following this.

:-) I can just see me in my old age:  "Grandpa, what was the world like
before we had energy from fusion?" :-)

JK
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU | think of something very clever 
uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim  | to use as a disclaimer)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 13:54:48 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <2182@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes:
}power sources).  Nuclear and radioactive are extremely emotionally laden
}words with great camera appeal.

Yeah, that's why Nuclear Magnetic Resonance is now called Magnetic Resonance
Imaging.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 22:47:50 GMT
From: mcdchg!ddsw1!karl@rutgers.edu  (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <2182@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes:
>In addition, I expect the government to try to limit the use (if it works)
>to utility use only for two reasons.  First, there will be political pressure
>to protect the structure of utilities, despite the reality that we would
>be better off putting one of these in everyone's home and eliminiating the
>power grid.  

This I agree with whole-heartedly.  But the cat is now out of the bag, as it
were, and they'll NEVER stuff it back in should this technology pan out --
especially if it can be done with other, more common metals!

I wish the government good luck in trying to stop people from utilizing this
technology -- on just what grounds could they possibly manage to pull THAT
one off?

>Second, the US government tries to restrict access to heavy
>water, one of the reasons that heavy water reactors (which cannot melt
>down) are illegal for commercial (even utility) use in the US (they are
>standard issue in Canada).

Why is this so?  What in the dickens is so wonderful or terrifying about
heavy water (outside of this obvious application)?  Heck, it's present in 
SEAWATER -- no, not in high quantities, but it's there.  Nearly anyone who 
has the money and equipment should be able to extract it from the sea; I 
can't understand why they would not want it available..... perhaps I've 
missed something important here.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 15:52:17 GMT
From: ecsvax!dukeac!tcamp@mcnc.org  (Ted A. Campbell)
Subject: Need lunar and planetary surface-features data


I am currently engaged in work on a crude space-flight simulation 
program.  At this point the program can depict the earth as seen from 
particular orbits, utilizing earth surface-feature data from the 
"Micro World Database" which has been distributed publicly.  

I would like to have similar data on the moon and planets (at least 
planets about whose surface features much is known).  If anyone on 
the net has access to this sort of information (legitimately 
available, I'd be greatly interested).  Some parameters follow: 

(a) I can translate a number of different data formats, 
but I will eventually want the data in ASCII-readable form, 
since it will be utilized on both Unix-based and PC-style 
computers, with significant differences in their binary data
formats.  

(b) I am looking for mappings of surface features such as maria,
craters, large-scale mountain ranges, rilles, and the like.  

(c) The data needs to be indexed according to latitude and 
longitude coordinates.  

(d) The data should preferably take the form of l-l coordinates 
for points to be connected in lines, with some form of code 
indicating what type of surface features the lines indicate.  

(e) For my purposes, I need rather low-resolution data.  
The earth coordinates I use include only continental and 
island coastlines, and amount to about 2000 l-l points.  
Large-scale databases would have to be scaled down, and 
so some form of prioritization of coordinates would be 
helpful in larger databases.  

I'd also be interested in knowing if other similar projects
are underway (or have been completed).  I'll appreciate 
any help or advice.  

Ted A. Campbell
Duke University
Durham, NC

...!{ethos,ecsgate}!dukeac!tcamp
...!{ethos,ecsgate}!dukeac!numen!tcamp[A[A[B[B
tcamp@dukeac

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #332

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Apr 89 06:20:03 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00482>; Mon, 3 Apr 89 04:43:20 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  3 Apr 89 04:43:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wYBmbcy00UkTA2TUlb>;
          Mon,  3 Apr 89 03:23:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.MYBmXby00UkZMFgU4R>;
          Mon,  3 Apr 89 03:18:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <wYBmWHy00UkZMFf04E@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  3 Apr 89 03:17:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #333

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 333

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
		      Mir Launch Manifest, 1989
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
			  Re: Two questions.
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
			more on Liberty Bell 7
       chauvinism (was : Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?)
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 14:54:24 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <10245@nsc.nsc.com> ken@nsc.nsc.com (Ken Trant) writes:
>
>article <7751@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) says:
>
>% any *real* aliens would make contact with government officials, and we can 
>% assume that this didn't happen, since at last check, Bush was at some elementary
>% school, talking about U.S. drug policy.  
>
> We should have talked to you for the best information on alien encounters
>since you apparently know exactly what is needed, who the aliens would talk
>to.  BTW which govt have the ET's decided to contact when the get here?. 
>Maybe they are democrates and are waiting to talk to the Congress?. :-)

C'mon, think about it.  You're an alien, attempting to make a friendly contact
with Earth.  How would you do it?  Assume you have a basic knowledge about
the political and social structure of the planet.  You could (1) tell Dan
Rather.  Well, remember what happened in 1938, with the War of the Worlds
broadcast?  Panic across the Northeast United States.  Humanity tends to be
an irrational crowd at times, and with the recent (over the last few years)
spate of nasty alien movies, we night very well have a repeat.  If I was an
alien (actually, the allegation haas been made  :-), I would start from the 
top down.  I think that the population as a whole would take the news better
from the government than from Dan Rather.

As to who the aliens would contact...well, where would the best place be?  I
would vote for the United States, because (1) by almost any standard, we are 
the most advanced nation on earth, and (2) the U.N. (for all it's worth) is
located here, which (I assume, of course) would be an important location to
the aliens, since it is the closest thing we have to anything resembling a
world government.  

Of course, I were the alien, I would come back in about a century; I don't thinkwe're really ready to deal with aliens.  A previous poster mentioned that this
is not really the appropriate place for this discussion, so if anyone cares 
to continue it, send me mail.



-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 17:32:16 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Mir Launch Manifest, 1989

The Soviets have released some information about their Mir schedule
for the rest of the year; together with some information from J. Oberg
and some estimates of my own, here is the expected activity for 1989-90.
Details of the Sep/Oct activity are based on Oberg's scenario. You are
warned that all attempts at detailed forecasts of Soviet space activity
have traditionally turned out to be totally wrong. Enjoy!

Progress-41 undock from rear port			Apr early?
Soyuz TM-8 launch, dock to rear port			Apr 19
	EO-4 Crew: Aleksandr Viktorenko, Aleksandr Balandin
Soyuz TM-7 undock from front port, land			Apr 29
	EO-3 Crew: Aleksandr Volkov, Sergey Krikalyov, Valeriy Polyakov 
Soyuz TM-8 move to front port				May 1?
Progress-42 launch, dock to rear port			May
Progress-42 undock					Jun
Progress-43 launch, dock to rear port			Jun
Progress-43 undock					Jul
Progress-44 launch, dock to rear port			Jul
Progress-44 undock					Aug
Soyuz TM-8 move to rear port				Sep
Doosnashcheniya modula launch, dock front port		Sep
D-modula move to side port 1				Sep
Soyuz TM-9 launch, dock front port			Oct
	EO-5 Crew: Not yet selected; possibly Anatoliy Solovyov, Aleksandr Serebrov
Soyuz TM-8 undock rear port				Oct
	EO-4 Crew: Aleksandr Viktorenko, Aleksandr Balandin
Progress-45 launch, dock rear port			Oct/Nov
Progress-45 undock from rear port			Nov
Soyuz TM-9 move to rear port				Dec
Tekhnologicheskaya modula launch,dock front port	Dec
T-modula move to side port 2				Dec
Soyuz TM-9 move to front port				Dec
Progress-46 launch, dock rear port			1990 Jan?


Long term scenario, caveat emptor:

Soyuz TM-10						1990 Apr
	EO-6 crew replaces EO-5
Soyuz TM-11						1990 Oct
	EO-7 crew replaces EO-6
Soyuz TM-12						1991 Apr
	EO-8 crew replaces EO-7
Soyuz TM-13						1991 Oct
	Visiting crew, with Austrian cosmonaut
Soyuz TM-14						1992 Apr
	Visiting crew, with French cosmonaut	
Soyuz TM-15						1992 Oct
	EO-9 crew replaces EO-8

2 more modules to be added in this time period.
Mir 2 not expected until late 1990s.


 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 19:37:01 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc!ken@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Ken Trant)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?


article <7751@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) says:
% Xref: nsc sci.space:10486 rec.ham-radio:1579 talk.rumors:907 misc.headlines:11954
% In article <4440@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
%%On Tuesday March 14, 1989 at 6:42 am the following message was received by a
%%UFO investigator in Baltimore through WA3NAN (Goddard) amateur radio
%%transission from the orbiter Discovery.  "Houston, this is Discovery.  We
%%still have the alien space craft, uhh, under observance."  The transmission
%%was picked up on a Radio Shack scanner tuned to 147.45 mhz.
%%
% This is patently ridiculous, thinking that this is actually an alien spacecraft
% sighting.  Most likely, this was either a bit of humor, or the 'alien' 
% spacecraft is 'alien' only in the sense that it was not made in the US (most
% likely Soviet).  First of all, if there really was an alien craft, and the crew
% wanted to say something to Houston about it and wanted to keep it secret, they
% would *not* broadcast over an open, unencrypted channel that every Tom, Dick,
% and Harry with a $99.95 scanner could pick up.  More likely, if an alien ship

I think the poster suggested that the "fire on board" statement might have been
prearranged code to switch to another channel. Not to unlikely.

% did appear near the shuttle, the crew would turn around and head for home, under
% orders from the ground, since they're not equipped for alien contact. Finally,

what equipment would you take to an alien encounter?. How are the astronauts 
not equipt to handle an encounter with aliens?.

% any *real* aliens would make contact with government officials, and we can 
% assume that this didn't happen, since at last check, Bush was at some elementary
% school, talking about U.S. drug policy.  

 We should have talked to you for the best information on alien encounters
since you apparently know exactly what is needed, who the aliens would talk
to.  BTW which govt have the ET's decided to contact when the get here?. 
Maybe they are democrates and are waiting to talk to the Congress?. :-)


-- 
PATH= Second star to the right,          {...Ken Trant...}
      and straight on till morning 
National SemiConductor, 1135 Kern Ave. M/S 7C-266; Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Uucp: ...{pyramid,sun,amdahl,apple}!nsc!ken

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 18:33:40 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Two questions.

In article <3288@nunki.usc.edu> sawant@nunki.usc.edu () writes:
>
>1.  I thought the idea of having spacecraft merely 'nudge' asteroids
>towards earth was really neat.  Question: won't it be awfully hard to
>get the exact trajectory of the asteroid correct?  

Good thought, kind of like playing intergalactic billards with egg shaped
balls.

>2.  If it's not very hard getting some kind of hot fusion going, isn't
>it a easy solution to the radioactive waste problem to chuck it into a
>merrily burning fusion reaction?  Alternatively, shoot it into the
>center of the sun.  Alternatively, shoot it at the stars.  Why have we
>only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far?

The only easy hot fusion that I know of (given my admittedly limited knowlage
on the subject) is that in an H-Bomb, the side effects of this would be a
bit dramatic (as well as noisy).  

The idea of launching the wastes into space has been thought of by others, 
but can you imagine what would have happened if the Challenger
was carrying up a load of spent fuel cores. There would be radioactive
pellets scattered about most of the eastern seaboard.  Does anyone know
how far away from the Cape that pieces of the Challenger were found?

Even with the use of a rail launcher the risks would be high.  There is still
a chance that a structural failure or failure on the part of the power supply
that could dump the load in the middle of someones lap.

The idea is good but the risks make it unusable.


-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 11:14:58 GMT
From: sgi!shinobu!shinobu.sgi.com!watson@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (David Watson)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported


In article <1008@blic.BLI.COM> miket@blic.BLI.COM (Mike Tossy) writes:


   [...] depending upon the technology, it maybe cheaper to build
   less capacity and use the existing powergrid to load balance than it would
   be to build enough capacity for each site to meet its peak demand.  (My
   house uses little energy during the day and my office uses little power
   at night.  Today with centralized power production we can share the
   installed power plant capacity - not so without a power grid.)

This implies something that deserves explicit mention: there is nothing
I know of that makes a "grid" incompatible with decentralizing energy
production.  In at least some places, individuals with windmills sell 
their surplus power back to a utility.  If each household made enough
power on the average, couldn't we still use the "grid" just to balance the
load?  What if utilities stopped producing and became brokers?

			-D.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 15:07:28 GMT
From: pdn!rnms1!ard@uunet.uu.net  (0000-Akash Deshpande(0000))
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <11685@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> kring@washoe.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kring) writes:
>In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes:
>> Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of
>> land into mirrors.  
>
>    1> Deserts get cold at night because there is little vegetation or 
>    2> If the greenhouse effect were a problem, then much of the reflected 

and spacecrafts and airplanes will have a real problem. Gives a new meaning to
mirage, though. And isn't there a plane called mirage, tying all these together?
-Akash

Akash Deshpande					ATT Paradyne
uunet!pdn!ard					Mail stop LG-129
(813) 530-8307 o	 			Largo, Florida 34649-2826
Like certain orifices, every one has opinions. I haven't seen my employer's!

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 17:18:41 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!dover!waters@rutgers.edu  (Mike Waters)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <10245@nsc.nsc.com> ken@nsc.nsc.com (Ken Trant) writes:

>I think the poster suggested that the "fire on board" statement might have been
>prearranged code to switch to another channel. Not to unlikely.

Yes I think that would be the LAST code I would pick. Something like "I need
to send you some numbers" would get far less unwelcome attention and is just
as distinctive. 

Airports use similar codes in paging, they NEVER announce: "Fire and Bomb
Squad report to gate 6". It comes out as: "Mr Williams please meet your party
at gate 6 right away." The reasons are pretty obvious in both cases. If Mr
Williams is the head to the fire and bomb squad for that shift it is both
secure and known to everyone who needs to know.

-- 
*Mike Waters    AA4MW/7  ...!sun!sunburn!dover!waters OR moto@cad.Berkley.EDU*
"Calvin Coolidge was the greatest man who ever came out of Plymouth
Corner, Vermont."
		-- Clarence Darrow

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 18:29:09 CST
From: hmueller@cssun.tamu.edu (Harold E Mueller)
Subject: more on Liberty Bell 7

April issue of "Skin Diver" (p. 122) has a note about the planned recovery
of Liberty Bell 7.  Note says Subsurface Technologies (Subtek), a Fort Worth,
TX organization specializing in underwater artifact recovery, has been
given NASA sanction to recover the capsule.  Subtek has created the Liberty
Bell 7 Recovery Foundation to run the operation.  Capsule will be located with
a Subtek-developed device called EMS-3; no details on it.  Capsule is at
5000 meters, "the deepest manned recovery ever attempted."  Recovery
will be carried live from "a deep diving research submarine with
specially designed underwater television cameras" and a "floating marine
archaeology facility with live television broadcasting capabilities."
Subtek also plans to recover Spanish treasure ships and give artifacts 
to museums.  Contacts:  Robert Fuller or Larry Moore, Liberty Bell 7
Foundation, 6618 Azle Avenue, Fort Worth, TX 76135, (817) 237-5490.

Hal Mueller                  hmueller@cssun.tamu.edu
Grad Student, CS Dept.       n270ca@tamunix (Bitnet)
Texas A&M University         (409) 846-5462

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 22:18:38 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: chauvinism (was : Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?)

In article <7787@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
> [...]
> As to who the aliens would contact...well, where would the best place be?  I
> would vote for the United States, because (1) by almost any standard, we are 
> the most advanced nation on earth, [...]

I think you are lucky that usually postings to sci.space are restricted
to the USA, otherwise you would soon be buried in flames by a lot of 
Europeans and Japanese, and quite a few other nationalities too.
Canadians are probably too polite to even comment on your statement, :-),
but it really bugs me...

I can't believe that attitude, it usually goes hand-in-hand with
"the USA is the only real free country in the world", etc....
Contrary to popular opinion, people can (and do) say anything they like
(without resorting to libel and slander, of course) in quite a few other
countries around the world. 

I suppose any further discusions in this vein should be restricted
to sci.politics or whatever; I don't read those groups anyway. |-O
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 06:09:20 GMT
From: att!alberta!ncc!atha!rwa@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Ross Alexander)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1989Mar26.003753.11770@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Nonsense.  Supplying artificial gravity using centrifugal force is no big
> deal, although getting the radius long enough to avoid inner-ear problems
> is certainly a nuisance.
[...]
> You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem:  better
> space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, or just being

As a matter of fact, if your propulsion technology is good enough, it
will supply artificial gravity all by itself - one gravity constant
boost is artificial gravity by any reasonable definition of the term.
:-)

	Ross

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #333
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Apr 89 10:38:22 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01160>; Mon, 3 Apr 89 08:15:40 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  3 Apr 89 08:15:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EYBqfiy00Vs1E1IU56>;
          Mon,  3 Apr 89 08:00:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.YYBqS3y00UkZEG4U5c>;
          Mon,  3 Apr 89 07:45:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IYBqQ9y00UkZMG305b@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  3 Apr 89 07:43:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #334

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 334

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
 summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89 (long, > 200 lines )
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
		       Re: Recovery of Salyut 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 23:56:29 GMT
From: xanth!hoptoad!hsfmsh!mhyman@g.ms.uky.edu  (Marco S. Hyman)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <7767@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
> In article <355@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
> >
> >Ah, but who said they would want to contact the US government!   :->
> >("Wellcome, Comrad Alien")
> >-- 
> Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on 
> Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
> Earth.  Compared to the U.S., the Soviet Union is third-rate, at best.  

Exactly! Assuming capitalistic aliens, which country has a bigger potential
for exploitation, uh sales.

--marc
-- 
//Marco S. Hyman
//UUCP:   ...!sun!sfsun!hsfmsh!mhyman
//Domain: sfsun!hsfmsh!mhyman@sun.com

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 04:51:09 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!ch-tkr@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Timothy K Reynolds)
Subject: summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89 (long, > 200 lines )


            The following  is the  text of  a handout which was given to
            most of  the attendees of Dr. Pons seminar at the University
            of Utah  on 3/31/89.   (reprinted w/o permission, but it was
            freely distributed)

            ^^^^^^^^^^^^begin text^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

                       BACKGROUND FOR NUCLEAR FUSION SEMINAR
                              FRIDAY, MARCH 31,  1989
                        2008 HENRY EYRING CHEMISTRY BUILDING

            An article  written by  Drs. B.  Stanley  Pons  and  Martin
            Fleischman describing their nuclear fusion research at the U
            of U  has been  accepted for  publication by the "Journal of
            Electroanalytical Chemistry."   The  article is  expected to
            appear in the publication in late April or early May.

            In the  article the researchers state: "We conclude that the
            conventional deuterium  fusion reactions  are only  a  small
            part of  the overall  reaction scheme and that other nuclear
            processes must be involved."

            There is  not yet a complete understanding of where the heat
            is coming  from.   Fusion occurs  in the  cells  but  fusion
            reactions do  not account for all the heat that is observed.
            As we  stated at  the press  conference  last  week  and  on
            several occasions since then, the investigators believe that
            no chemical reaction can account for the heat output so they
            attribute it to nuclear processes.

            Evidence for  nuclear fusion  includes; generation  of  heat
            over long  periods that is proportional to the volume of the
            electrode and  reactions that  lead  to  the  generation  of
            neutrons and  tritium  which  are  expected  by-products  of
            nuclear fusion.

            The researchers have also co-authored and submitted a second
            article to "Nature" for consideration for publication

            Dr. James J. Brophy
            Vice President for Research
            University of Utah

            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^end text^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

            What follows  is a  summary of  my notes from the lecture by
            Dr. Pons.   Due to limited seating, I watched the lecture on
            a projection TV.  Not very good resolution, so I missed some
            of the  equations,   but I think I got most of it.  Also the
            physicist in our group didn't get a seat in either lecture hall
            and was  not able  to verify  my notes/impressions.   He did
            look at my notes with me though and helped clear some things
            up.

                          Electrochemically Induced Fusion


                               By Dr. B. Stanley Pons

            Dr. Pons  began with a brief history of the work began by he
            and Fleischman.   Initially,  their interests  were  in  the
            development of  a metallic  hydrogen material  for use  as a
            semiconductor.   They realized  that immense  pressures were
            required in  a lattice  for this  to occur.   However,  they
            theorized that  it would  be possible  to  bring  about  the
            equivalent  of  this  immense  pressure  by  electrochemical
            methods.   From these  initial musings, they also considered
            whether this  "electrochemical pressure"  could be  used  to
            fuse like nuclei (deuterium).

            The initial  experiment used  a cube of Pd (size not stated)
            in D2O at high current density (again not stated).  A Geiger
            counter was  used to  detect any  radiation from  the fusion
            reaction of  D.   However no  radiation was  detected.   The
            experiment was discontinued by reducing the current density,
            and shortly  thereafter (overnight  I think is what he said)
            the   experimental    apparatus   was   vaporized.      Left
            approximately 1/10 of the initial Pd.

            Current apparatus  uses a Pd rod in 0.1M D2O in a cell which
            has been  widely seen in the media.  It consists of a Pd rod
            surrounded by  a Pt  coil in a special made glass container.
            There are  openings for  charging and  adding D2O, measuring
            temperature, and  heaters.   The use  of  rod  gives  better
            control of the surface to volume ratio.  During electrolysis
            of the D2O the following reactions take place:

                            D2O + e-   <--->   Da + OD-
                                  Da  <--->  Dlat
                           Da + D2O + e-  <--->  D2 + OD-

            where Da is deuterium adsorbed on the surface of the Pd rod,
             and Dlat is deuterium diffused into the lattice of the Pd.

            Before the  surface of  the electrode  is saturated with Da,
            the D  diffuses into  the lattice  of the  Pd.  The evidence
            suggests that  the deuterium  diffuses into  the lattice  as
            deuterons and  electrons.  The electrons go to the k band of
            the lattice.

            Dr. Pons  stated that  the potential of this electrochemical
            couple is 0.8V.  In terms of pressure to get the same degree
            of difference in chemical potential = 10**27 atmospheres.

            Dr. Pons  explained a  control experiment  where they used a
            closed cell  to detect  tritium (else  some tritium would be
            lost as  by exchange  with D2O).   Tritium was detected, and
            its concentration  increased over  time.   Also the  neutron
            flux was  measured as  10**4 n/s.   This  is 3X  higher than
            background and  was  considered  statistically  significant.
            However, the  reactions to  produce tritium  and 3He  do not
            explain the amount of heat produced.

            In this  same vein,  he pointed  out that  their experiments
            indicated that  the heat  produced was  proportional to  the
            volume of  the electrode  used, not  the surface area of the
            electrode.     This  indicates   that  the  process  is  not
            electrochemical in  nature.   An energy density of 26W/cc of
            electrode was  calculated.   One experiment  produced 4MJ of
            heat in 120 hours.  He reiterated that this could not be due
            to any known physical or chemical process.  Since the fusing
            of deuterium  is only  part of  the overall reaction scheme,
            other as  yet unknown processes produce the rest of the heat
            which  is   detected.    Dr.  Pons  believes  these  unknown
            processes must be nuclear processes.

            He also  surmised that  the  deuterons  existed  in  the  Pd
            lattice as  a low  temperature plasma  which is  shielded by
            electrons.

            Dr.  Pons  then  answered  several  questions  from  Faculty
            members (there  were no  microphones in  the room  with  the
            graduate  students  where  I  was).    The  content  of  his
            responses are summarized below.

            This reaction  is diffusion  controlled, with  the diffusion
            coefficient for deuterons in Pd given as 10^-7 cm^2/s.

            The production  rate of  tritium was  found to match that of
            the neutrons.

            Although the  cross-section of  Pd is too small to allow for
            significant reaction  with energetic  neutrons, it may react
            with neutrons back-scattered from the heavy water.  No assay
            of the  Pd electrodes  has  been  undertaken  to  check  for
            activation by-products of Pd.

            The ignition/vaporization  of  the  initial  experiment  was
            caused by  a steep  concentration  gradient  of  D+  as  the
            current  density   was  decreased.     This   gave  rise  to
            compression (even  greater than  *normal*) as the D+ species
            moved out  from the  lattice in  a radial  direction.   This
            "shock" resulted in the vaporization.

            No 2.45Mev neutrons were detected.  He speculated that these
            neutrons may be consumed by reaction with Li:

                        7Li + n + 2.45MeV ---> 3T + 3He + n
                           6Li + n ---> 3T +3He + 4.5MeV

            The concentration  of the  deuterons in  the Pd  lattice  is
            greater than  0.67 (deuterons/Pd  atoms) and is estimated to
            be 1.0  -  1.2.    They  are  believed  to  cluster  at  the
            octahedral sites  in the  Pd (Pd  has a  face centered cubic
            crystal structure).

            In looking  for products of fusion, 3He was not seen but 4He
            was.   Part of  the reason  for not seeing 3He is due to the
            apparatus  used   (apparently   not   very   airtight)   and
            instruments used.

            Other metals  (which  were  not  specified)  were  tried  as
            electrodes but  no heat  was detected.   Radiation  was  not
            monitored.

            No experiments  have been  carried out in magnetic fields to
            determine quadrupole  effects.   He admitted  that spin-spin
            interactions could have an effect.

            The reaction  is diffusion controlled.  In a 0.4 - 0.5mm rod
            with X=10^-7 cm^2/s, the time required to start the reaction
            is [ (0.2)^2 / X ].

            He did  not know the effective mass of the electron carriers
            in the Pd matrix.

            He felt  that the  addition of  hydrostatic pressure  to the
            cell would  have a  negligible affect  on the  rate  of  the
            reaction.  The potential gradient at the D2O Pd interface is
            on the  order of  10^12 V/m.    This  gradient  can  not  be
            achieved in gas or vacuum phase conditions.

            They have recently achieved a 1W in 10W out energy ratio.

            Essentially no  neutrons or  tritium are  detected until the
            fusion process begins.

            He jokingly  predicted that  100 years  would be  needed  to
            bring this technology to commercial use.

            He admitted that the results were just as puzzling to him as
            they are to many others.  He openly admits that much more work
            is needed to understand this phenomenon.  (He did not seem to
            resent any questions, and was honest in his responses.)

            He ended  his talk  with a  WARNING.   Please do  not DO NOT
            attempt to  repeat this  experiments until you have read the
            journal  articles  or  have  consulted  with  Drs.  Pons  or
            Fleischman directly.  The initial experiment which vaporized
            is no  joke.   Please consult  with them  or  wait  for  the
            articles to  appear before  you begin  a possibly  dangerous
            experiment.  Please act responsibly in this regard.

            [Please remember, these are my personal notes taken during a
            lecture presented in less than optimum conditions.  If there
            are any  gross errors,  they are  probably my  fault.   As I
            said, I  briefly went over these notes with a physicist from
            or lab,  and he  did  not  point  out  any  glaring  errors.
            Nonetheless, the  information presented  is essentially that
            presented by  Dr. Pons.   No  sound or video recordings were
            allowed, so  the opportunity  to check my notes was limited.
            In other words please don't flame me.]

            ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu            Behind the Zion Curtain

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 02:49:13 GMT
From: xanadu!michael@apple.com  (Michael McClary)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes:
>
>[...] if history teaches
>anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price.

Actually, history teaches no such thing.  Benefits and prices of any given
discovery or invention don't correlate.  Those with prices up to their
benefits tend to be developed and used (unless something cheaper does the
job as well or better).  Those with excessive prices are discarded.  This
creates the illusion of proportional cost.

Once this illusion is set in your mind, everything new with improved price/
performance makes you think "there's got to be a catch", and sends you on
a search to find the catch.  If you can't accept the lack of a catch, you 
can never end your search, and can never go beyond what had been done before.

This is not to say such a search is folly.  Many things DO have catches,
and these need to be discovered.  But be prepared to acknowledge real wonders
now and then.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 18:59:38 GMT
From: nsc!ken@decwrl.dec.com  (Ken Trant)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

article <7767@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) says:
% Xref: nsc sci.space:10525 rec.ham-radio:1611 talk.rumors:915 misc.headlines:12001
% In article <355@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
%>Ah, but who said they would want to contact the US government!   :->
%>("Wellcome, Comrad Alien")
%>-- 
% Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on 
% Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
% Earth.  Compared to the U.S., the Soviet Union is third-rate, at best.  

 Assumming of course that the aliens believe paving over the earth is a sign
of an advanced civilization and not a sign of a very primative culture.

 Ken-
-- 
PATH= Second star to the right,          {...Ken Trant...}
      and straight on till morning 
National SemiConductor, 1135 Kern Ave. M/S 7C-266; Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Uucp: ...{pyramid,sun,amdahl,apple}!nsc!ken

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 14:16:20 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Recovery of Salyut 7

In article <2168@wyse.wyse.com> mikew@wyse.com (Mike Wexler) writes:
>mission was? I can think of several possibilities:

>	3. so they can analyze the effects of long term exposure to LEO.

This seems like the best reason for bringing Salyut 7 down
in one bit. Taking it apart in a laboratory back on Earth
will provide the Soviets with a lot of very valuable
information on how materials and machinery wear and
deteriorate during long term exposure to conditions in orbit.

Build for a short lifetime, analyse anything that goes
wrong, re-design, re-build. That seems to be the usual
Soviet space exploration technique.

Contrast with the NASA method of a designing the space
station to have a 30 year life expectancy, using new alloys
and plastics, none of which have had any long term exposure
to conditions in orbit.
	Bob.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #334
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Apr 89 04:20:38 EDT
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07992>; Tue, 4 Apr 89 01:08:49 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  4 Apr 89 01:08:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oYC5:Ty00Ui3MBl04s>;
          Tue,  4 Apr 89 00:29:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.EYC53ly00UkZA3Sk4g>;
          Tue,  4 Apr 89 00:21:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AYC52Hy00UkZ83RE5K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  4 Apr 89 00:20:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #335

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 335

Today's Topics:
			  Undeliverable mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 10:26 GMT
From: PMDF Mail Server <Postmaster@ccuab1.uab.es>
Subject: Undeliverable mail

The message could not be delivered to:

Addressee: DZ1004
Reason:
  %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user DZ1004 at node CCUAB1

----------------------------------------

Received: from JNET-DAEMON by ccuab1.uab.es; Mon, 3 Apr 89 09:55 GMT
Received: From EB0UB011(MAILER) by EBCCUAB1 with Jnet id 7129 for
 DZ1004@EBCCUAB1; Sat,  1 Apr 89 03:05 GMT
Received: by EB0UB011 (Mailer X1.25) id 0902; Sat, 01 Apr 89 03:02:24 HOE
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 16:51:49 EST
From: space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #323
Sender: space-request+@andrew.CMU.EDU
To: Andreu Grau <DZ1004@ccuab1.uab.es>
Reply-to: space+@andrew.CMU.EDU
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was SPACE@UGA
Comments: To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 323

Today's Topics:
             space news from Jan 23 AW&ST
             Fusion --- What's going on?
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
         Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri
       Re: far side of the Moon photo mission (ussr's)
        Re: Success with cold fusion reported
        India, Brazil, China, etc. space progs
              Re: Tilenius paper
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 03:54:36 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
 (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Jan 23 AW&ST

NOAA is now "in the doghouse" for talking to France about a Landsat-Spot
merger without informing the State Dept., etc. etc., that it was talking
to a foreign government.  However, obviously its biggest botch was never
mentioning this to Eosat, which is supposed to be running Landsat.  "We
didn't know about it until we read it in Aviation Week", says Eosat's
president.  NOAA says it was inappropriate for Eosat to be involved,
and denies that Spot Image was involved on the French side.  Spot Image,
however, says it was kept fully informed and provided input.  France
thinks any merged scheme should be based on the French organization,
with data sales separate from -- and not expected to repay -- the
space segment's funding.  Spot is calling the proposed system "Super Spot".

Meanwhile, Eosat asks for emergency funding to keep Landsats 4 and 5
running, with NOAA saying "it's your problem", and threatening to turn
the satellites off if no money is found.  [It was found, in the end,
although not by Eosat.]

British Aerospace completes new solar arrays for the Hubble telescope,
with about 10% more output than the original ones, easing simultaneous
use of multiple instruments.

Formation of the National Space Council gets off to a bureaucratic start,
with some of Quayle's staff, who know little about space, in charge of
interviewing potential Council staff.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, new chairman of NASA's Senate Appropriations
subcommittee, declares strong support for space but warns NASA that the
budget situation is bad and the space station needs better reporting
of life-cycle costs and better justification.

USAF cannot meet its 1989 launch targets:  70% will be good performance.
Titan 4 and Delta 2 have both slipped due to hardware problems associated
with re-starting closed facilities.  Among other complications, storage
space at the Cape is so short that the USAF is asking the USN for the
loan of some warehouse space belonging to the Trident program.

Slight slip in Discovery's launch schedule, and the discovery of the
bearing crack that ended up causing a much larger slip.

Atlantis's tiles are not as badly damaged as first thought.  Insulation
falling from both the external tank and the nose of the right SRB is
believed to have been to blame for the damage.

Controversy over space reactors grows.  Scientists say that the new
Soviet Topaz reactors have been emitting enough gamma rays to shut down
Solar Max's gamma-ray spectrometer about half the time, and Japan's
Ginga X-ray satellite has also been affected.  There is concern about
effects on the Gamma Ray Observatory, slated for launch next year.
Unfortunately, politics have gotten mixed in, with SDIO alleging
(correctly) that some of the anti-orbital-reactor people are motivated
more by SDI's dependence on nuclear power sources than by concern over
scientific impact of reactors.

USAF and SDIO plan $8G order in 1990 for the Boost Surveillance and
Tracking System, which will double as the first operational part of
SDI and a maneuverable, hardened early-warning system to replace the
current Defense Satellite Program satellites.  Critics say that DoD
has at least eight DSPs in inventory at the moment, enough to last
until the year 2000, and there is no need for a replacement.

NASA FY90 budget requests full funding for the space station plus new
starts for a pair of planetary missions:  Cassini (essentially a
Galileo mission to Saturn) and CRAF (Comet Rendezvous, Asteroid Flyby).
CRAF would launch in 1995 on a Titan-4-Centaur, for a 1998 flyby of
asteroid Hamburga [really] and rendezvous with comet Kopff in Aug 2000.
Cassini would leave for Saturn in Aug 1996, on a similar booster, with
arrival in 2002 after one or two asteroid flybys.  The planetary missions
are probably safe, but the station funding is anyone's guess.

Pentagon asks 50% budget hike for SDI in FY90; absolutely nobody seriously
expects them to get it.  Critics say many of the tests SDI is planning
in the next two years are on the edge of violating the ABM Treaty.  Also,
that 50% includes the thin edge of the wedge labelled "Phase 1 Deployment",
and Congress will *not* like that.

Galileo's thrusters are fixed and re-acceptance tests are about to start.
This is on the critical path for launching on time in October.  About
three weeks of margin remain if nothing goes wrong.  The changes will
reduce thruster efficiency about 5%, and may require eliminating one of
the two asteroid flybys or one of the Jovian-satellite encounters,
although there is hope for the full mission.  JPL is very grateful that
they didn't launch in 1986; a workaround for the thruster problems would
probably not have been possible.  The problem was discovered during
experiments with TVSat 1, Germany's TV-broadcast satellite that was
written off after one solar array failed to deploy:  it was being used
as an operational testbed when its thrusters failed.  When run nonstop,
the thrusters tend to overheat and destroy themselves.  Worse, there
is a "hot start" problem when pulsing the thrusters, which can ruin
the thrusters in seconds.  MBB is investigating why these problems
weren't found during development.  Minor design differences between
Galileo and TVSat 1 may account for the hot-start problem not showing
up on TVSat 1 (or on the French TDF-1, which has the same thrusters,
now being operated in pulsed mode to avoid the overheating problem).
Small plumbing changes remove the hot-start problem, and changes in
mixture ratio and flow rate remove the overheating problem.  However,
the latter set of changes reduce specific impulse from 280 to 270 s,
cutting about 10 kg off Galileo's fuel reserve.  This is of some
concern because the fuel reserve for Galileo's full mission varied
from 50 kg to zero, depending on what assumptions were made about
things like navigational error and launch date.  If Galileo gets off
on time (Oct 12) and errors are at the 50% level, reserve should be
30-40 kg.  Eliminating the second asteroid flyby would save about
40 kg, and eliminating one satellite encounter would save about 15.

Soviets plan to fly their MMU tethered to Mir, even though it is capable
of independent flight.  They say "maybe later -- not needed right now".

Aerospatiale ERA deployable structure failed to deploy from Mir on
command, and efforts to open it using ERA's vibration system failed.
Soviet controllers conferred over options and French mission personnel
tried to figure out why it had jammed, while Mir went out of tracking-
station range for a few minutes.  When contact was reestablished, the
cosmonauts reported that ERA was deployed.  Video images transmitted
later show Volkov kicking the ERA canister; he says it deployed a few
centimeters per kick.  Cause of the deployment problem is not fully
understood, but moisture inside the unsealed canister may have frozen.
The problem lengthened the Volkov/Chretien EVA from 5 hours to 6.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

From: ota
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 13:43:09 MST
Subject: Fusion --- What's going on?

Does anyone know actually when the article will come out in Nature?
Science?  Enquirer?  If the reports are true, then this appears to be
the answer to all of mankind's problems.  Once again, technology has
come to the rescue rather then require us to solve our problems the
hard way....

David Birnbaum        New Mexico State University    Small Systems

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Find me at:   dbirnbau@nmsu.edu    VTIS001@NMSUVM1.bitnet   /dev/null  |
|                                                                         |
|   "It shouldn't be a suprise to anyone when the network screws up;      |
|    the suprise should be that the dang thing works at all!"             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 17:45:38 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
 (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <369@hydra.gatech.EDU> dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Daniel McGurl) writes:
>Ah, but you miss a critical point, the only fuel required is to get out to the
>Asteroid belt.  Getting the asteriods back involves just giving them a push
>of sorts (unless you are in a hurry...

Pushing even a small asteroid -- say a mere million tons -- into an orbit
that crosses Earth's is going to require more than a little bit of fuel.

>... Also, the space ship could probably slow in a
>way similar to the shuttles when it returns to Earth, just use the atmosphere
>as a speed brake.

At the kinds of velocities we've been talking about, no it can't.
Aerobraking works fine at a few kilometers per second.  At thousands of
kps, it doesn't work at all:  you have your choice of vaporizing, slamming
into the ground and making a large crater, or zipping off into space after
losing only a small fraction of your speed.  There is no way you are going
to lose hundreds or thousands of kps of speed in a distance of a few
thousand kilometers without vaporizing.  (Not to mention the small problem
that this involves decelerations of many thousands of Gs.)
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 20:26:49 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri

Henry Spencer posts:

:Let us all be very cautious about this; while it sounds promising, there
:have been major scientific false alarms before.  (For example, there were
:a number of high-temperature-superconductor false alarms before Bednorz
:and Muller hit the jackpot -- this was one reason why their report was
:slow to be accepted.)

Caution is fine, but I'm too excited to keep still.  Given the energy
density figures from preliminary reports, how much of a scale-up
will it take for a constant-boost ship capable of going to Proxima
Centauri?  Assume refueling there.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm guilty of the cardinal sin of THINKING BIG
again...

I vote for calling it PROMETHEUS.


Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 23:48:35 GMT
From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: far side of the Moon photo mission (ussr's)

In article <47974@philabs.Philips.Com>, rfc@briar.philips.com (Robert Casey)
 writes:
> I seem to remember that the Russians flew a photo mission in '59 to take a
> picture of the farside of the Moon, and that the picture came out very fuzzy.
> I don't know of any immediate retries of this mission to get better pictures.
> Anyone know why?  Maybe they didn't have more launch vehicles to use for such
> a mission?  Or the results they did get were the best they could do back in
> '59?  (maybe they couldn't aim the camera too accurately back then, so they
> took a picture of a large field of view, which the Moon occupies a small area
> of, to be sure of getting the Moon at all.  Then the picture we did get to
> see was edited to throw out the large area of black sky?  This would make for
> poor resolution of the Moon.)?

There were attempts at followup missions, a list of which follows.  There
weren't any successes by either the US or the USSR for years, however.  I
tabulated known attempts by both countries from the "TRW Space Log 1957-1987"
"*" indicates a successful mission. "?" means it didn't look like a success
to me.  I've never seen a table like this, and it is interesting to note
parallels and differences between the two programs.  It sure looks like
Luna 3 was a lucky fluke in the failure-prone first five years of lunar
probes.  The next glimpses of the far side didn't occur for almost seven
years.  After compiling these tables, I have more appreciation of the Soviet
Union's serious competition in the race for the moon, and note the fact that
there has yet to be a complete, multi-spectral survey of the moon by either
country.

Table I.  USSR Unmanned Lunar Probes

 Luna 1     Jan.  2, 1959  Missed moon by 3728 miles
 Luna 2     Sep. 12, 1959  Impacted on moon
*Luna 3     Oct.  4, 1959  Photographed lunar far side for 40 minutes
 None       Jan.  4, 1963  Never left parking orbit; decayed Jan. 5, 1963
 Luna 4     Apr.  2, 1963  Failed soft lander; missed moon by 5282 miles
 Luna 5     May   9, 1965  Impacted on moon; soft landing failed
 Luna 6     June  8, 1965  Failed soft lander; missed moon by 100,000 miles
 Luna 7     Oct.  4, 1965  Impacted on moon; soft landing failed
 Luna 8     Dec.  3, 1965  Impacted on moon; soft landing failed
*Luna 9     Jan. 31, 1966  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos for 3 days
 Kosmos 111 Mar.  1, 1966  Suspected lunar probe failure; decayed
*Luna 10    Mar. 31, 1966  Lunar orbiter; returned data for 54 days
*Luna 11    Aug. 24, 1966  Lunar orbiter; returned data for 38 days
*Luna 12    Oct. 22, 1966  Lunar orbiter; photographed moon from stable orbit
*Luna 13    Dec. 21, 1966  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil data
 Zond 4     Mar.  2, 1968  Failed lunar mission?
?Luna 14    Dec. 21, 1966  Lunar orbiter; passive gravity experiments
*Zond 5     Sep. 15, 1968  Lunar fly-around with return to earth; ocean recovery
*Zond 6     Nov. 10, 1968  Lunar fly-around with return to earth; land recovery
*Luna 15    Jul. 13, 1969  Lunar orbiter; orbit altered twice
*Zond 7     Aug.  8, 1969  Lunar fly-around with return to earth; land recovery
*Luna 16    Sep. 12, 1970  Lunar sample return
 Zond 8     Oct. 20, 1970  Missed moon
*Luna 17    Nov. 10, 1970  Unmanned lunar rover
?Luna 18    Sep.  2, 1971  Orbited moon for 54 orbits
*Luna 19    Sep. 28, 1971  Lunar orbiter; photographed moon
*Luna 20    Feb. 14, 1972  Lunar sample return
*Luna 21    Jan.  8, 1973  Unmanned lunar rover
*Luna 22    May  29, 1974  Lunar orbiter
 Luna 23    Oct. 28, 1974  Crashed on moon
 None       Oct. 16, 1975  Lunar probe; failed to orbit
*Luna 24    Aug.  9, 1976  Lunar sample return

Table II.  USA Unmanned Lunar Probes

 None            Aug. 17, 1958  Lunar probe; first stage failed
 Pioneer 1       Oct. 11, 1958  Failed to reach moon; decayed Oct. 12, 1958
 Pioneer 2       Nov.  8, 1958  Lunar probe; third stage ignition unsuccessful
 Pioneer 3       Dec.  6, 1958  Failed to reach moon; decayed Dec. 7, 1958
 Pioneer 4       Dec.  6, 1958  Lunar probe; missed moon by 37,300 miles
 Ranger 1        Aug. 23, 1961  Never left earth orbit; decayed Aug. 30, 1961
 Ranger 2        Nov. 18, 1961  Never left earth orbit; decayed Nov. 20, 1961
 Ranger 3        Jan. 26, 1962  Lunar probe; missed moon by 22,862 miles
 Ranger 4        Apr. 23, 1962  Impacted on moon; experiments failed to work
 Ranger 5        Oct. 18, 1962  Lunar probe; missed moon by 450 miles
 Ranger 6        Jan. 30, 1964  Impacted on Moon; television system
 malfunctioned
*Ranger 7        Jan. 30, 1964  Impacted on Moon; returned 4308 photos
*Ranger 8        Feb. 17, 1965  Impacted on Moon; returned 7137 photos
*Ranger 9        Mar. 21, 1965  Impacted on Moon; returned 5814 photos
*Surveyor 1      May  30, 1966  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos for 44 days
*Lunar Orbiter 1 Aug. 10, 1966  Lunar orbiter; returned data for 19 days
 Surveyor 2      Sep. 20, 1966  Crashed on moon
*Lunar Orbiter 2 Nov.  6, 1966  Lunar orbiter; returned 205 frames
*Lunar Orbiter 3 Feb.  4, 1967  Lunar orbiter; returned 182 frames
*Surveyor 3      Apr. 17, 1967  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil
 data
*Lunar Orbiter 4 May   4, 1967  Lunar orbiter; returned 163 frames
*Lunar Orbiter 5 Aug.  1, 1967  Lunar orbiter; orbited for 6 months
*Surveyor 4      Apr. 17, 1967  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil
 data
*Surveyor 5      Sep.  8, 1967  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil
 data
*Surveyor 6      Nov.  7, 1967  Soft-landed on moon; first rocket takeoff from
 moon
*Surveyor 7      Jan.  7, 1968  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil
 data
(and just for some comparison dates:
*Apollo 11       Jul. 16, 1969    First manned landing on moon and return
 . . .
*Apollo 17       Dec.  7, 1972    Last manned landing on moon and return)


Doug Mink
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Internet:  mink@cfa.harvard.edu
Bitnet:    mink@cfa
SPAN:      cfa::mink
Phone:     (617)495-7408

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 10:34:34 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!kocic@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
 (Miroslav Kocic)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported


The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the
Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns.  First, what if fusion
turns out to create problems we don't foresee?  We didn't foresee radioactive
waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage, and, if history teaches
anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price.  Second, what
if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production?  I can imagine
a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 09:02:44 GMT
From: barilvm.bitnet!f44169@cunyvm.cuny.edu  (Gerald Steinberg)
Subject: India, Brazil, China, etc. space progs


I am trying to collect information of the space efforts of Third World countrie
s (not US, Ussr, W. Europe).  I am intrested in military and civil applications
, actual launches and planned programs, etc.
Bibliographic information (good articles and books) would also help.
(I have been throught Aviation Week since 1985 - not much there.)

Any help would be appreciated.  Please send replies directly to me as i do not
always have access to the net.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1989 12:49-EST
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Tilenius paper

I found Eric's paper quite interesting. I would also refer people
interested in this area to:

    The Private Solution to the Space Transpotation Crisis
        James Bennet & Phil Salin
    (Spacepac occassional paper 87-3. Try Scott Pace)

    Economics on the Space Frontier: Can We Afford It
        Gordon Woodcock
    (try asking through the NSS office if they can get copies of
     it. My copy is a prepublication draft Gordon gave me and I
     don't remember where it was eventually published)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #323
*******************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #335
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Apr 89 06:34:28 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04468>; Tue, 4 Apr 89 04:04:12 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  4 Apr 89 04:04:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YYC7pCy00jZd41QEFW>;
          Tue,  4 Apr 89 03:31:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.8YC7eTy00UkZ03jU5J>;
          Tue,  4 Apr 89 03:19:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <0YC7cky00UkZ43i04v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  4 Apr 89 03:17:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #336

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 336

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Feb 6 AW&ST
	       Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
			  Re: Two questions
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
			    alien contact
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 02:42:21 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Feb 6 AW&ST

[A light news week, for no particularly obvious reason.]

Japan is considering transferring its comsat programs to commercial
hands in a few years.

Satellite launch-insurance rates are falling, as successful launches
continue.

Rockwell proposes building another set of shuttle structural spares for
NASA.  The original structural-spares set is being used to build the
new orbiter.

Japan flies another quarter-scale model of the H-2 booster, successfully.

NASA's general counsel advises that the legal requirement that NASA's
top two officials come from "civilian life" precludes hiring James
Abrahamson (ex-head of SDI) as head of NASA, despite frequent mention
of his name in that connection.  He is a retired military officer,
receiving a military pension and subject to the military code of justice.

Recent Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting decision requires private
funding for several NASA projects, notably the Flight Telerobotic Servicer
for space station assembly.  NASA plans a May contract to build the
servicer and related equipment for shuttle tests, but OMB refused funding
for it.  General opinion is that this is crazy, since the government is
probably the only customer.  Worse, this was in the middle of the contract
competition, which made no provision for private funding.  Industry says
it will not pay for the development work without strong guarantees of
recovering their investment.  This probably will not kill the servicer,
but it will delay it, and NASA is caught in between, because Congress
ordered that the servicer be tested and deployed before similar Canadian
hardware could be ready.  [Congress, of course, is also the bunch that
is constantly harping on how expensive the space station is getting.
Parochial pork-barrel projects like this are a significant reason.]
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 14:17:58 GMT
From: mcvax!cernvax!jon@uunet.uu.net  (jon)
Subject: Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion


This is a summary of a talk given by Professor Fleischmann at CERN, Geneva
on Friday 31st March. I should point out that I am a computer programmer and
not a physicist or a chemist, so therefore not all my understanding of the
facts may be 100% correct, but I kept notes so hopfully the following will
make some sense. Also this was strictly a scientific seminar, no questions
were allowed on the non-scientific aspects of the talk. In fact the camera
crews of various TV stations were asked to leave before the talk began.
But they were given a chance to interview Professor Fleischmann after the
seminar.

  It has taken Prof. Fleischmann and his collegue 5 years to get this far
and they had hoped to keep the experiment secret for about another 18 months
so they could be 100% certain of the results. But the results where "leaked"
(This was news to me, any confirmation?), and then they had the "awful news
conference", as he called it. They also funded the experiment privately
because they didn't think anyone would give them money for such a mad idea.

  The equation in the at the  palladium cathode is as follows

     D2O + e- <=> Dabs + OD-

     Dabs <=> Dlattice

     Dabs + D2O + e- <=> D2 + OD-

     Dabs = Absorbed Deuterium

     Dlattice = Deuterium in the Palladium lattice

     The deuterium in the lattice is very mobile.

He then said something that I quite didn't understand and gave the figure
of 0.8eV. I think this is the potential of the deuterium in the lattice.
This 0.8eV is equivalent to a pressure of 10^27 atm for gaseous deuterium.

The QM of the s-electron density of the Deuterium is VERY strange and is
not understood.

In the lattice the following nuclear reactions occur

   2D + 2D -> 3T + 1H + 4.03MeV

   2D + 2D -> 3He + n + 3.77Mev

Their first experiment was with a palladium cube, this finished when the
cube ignited, in the nuclear sense. The conclusion of this is that this
reaction does not fail safe. When it starts to run hot it runs very hot.
The cube almost burnt down their fume cupboard. But at least the effects
are not quite as serious as a meltdown of a fission reactor.

They then tried sheets before finally trying rods. These rods a 10cm long
and have diameters of 1mm ,2mm and 4mm. The best results are with the 4mm rod
therefore the reaction is dependent on volume as opposed to surface area, it
also seems to be dependant on temperature.

After 100 hours the measured output was 5MJ / cm3. They managed to detected
neutrons, gamma-rays and 5 fold increase in the tritrium in the heavy water.
They didn't manage to get a energy spectrum for the neutrons.

They calulated there are 10^4 neutron producing events/sec but to account
for the energy released there must be 10^13 events/sec, this means that
the prefered reaction path does not produce neutrons. They do not know
what this path is but lithium was being mentioned.

The efficiency of their cell is "miserable" and their best result was 111%
of breakeven (i.e. 100% => power in == power out), but they predicte that
with a properly designed cell their efficiency could be over 1200%, i.e.
10 times out what you put in.

It takes 3 months to charge a cell before it starts to produce anything.


That's the end of my notes, now for some editorial comments.

I personally could see nothing wrong with his explanation of the phenomena,
there is no known chemical reaction which can produce the amounts of energy
involved. It has to be nuclear fusion. Whether or not this is going to have
any practical use is still to be seen, as Prof. Fleischmann said a lot of
work now has to go into understand why and how this is happening. There
were some very worried theoretical physicists leaving the hall after the
talk, and there were mumbles about rewriting the theory of quantum mechanics.

The are going to be a hell of a lot of papers on cold fusion in the next
years!!

*---------------------------------------------------------------*
|                                                               |
| Jon Caves             {world}!mcvax!cernavx!jon               |
| Division DD,          jon@cernvax.cern.ch                     |
| CERN CH-1211,                                                 |
| Geneva 23,            "Quote? I haven't got time to think     |
| Switzerland.             of a quote!"                         |
|                                                               |
*---------------------------------------------------------------*

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 18:55:40 GMT
From: rochester!rocksanne!helium!eschbach@rutgers.edu  (Reiner Eschbach)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?


>Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on 
>Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
>Earth.

Ever been to Europe ? Or ever checked population densities ?

Reiner

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 20:44:11 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <707@rocksanne.UUCP> eschbach@helium.UUCP (Reiner Eschbach) writes:
>
>>Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on 
>>Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
>>Earth.
>
>Ever been to Europe ? Or ever checked population densities ?
>
>Reiner

No, I haven't.  But the population density of Europe is only slightly greater
than that of the U.S., and we do have a greater infrastructure than Europe, 
however you care to measure it.  If you want population density, look to 
some of the African nations, or perhaps India.  

Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 23:17:44 GMT
From: ap10+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Anand Patwardan)
Subject: Re: Two questions


To: Outbound News <outnews+ext.nn.sci.space@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Two questions, Radioactive waste disposal



The option of disposing radioactive waste into space has been thought of -
off and on. The problem seems to be one of volume and weight; there is just
an enormous amount of the waste lying around.

If you consider that even getting 2000 Kg satellites into geo stationary
orbits is a non-trivial task and all our planetary space probes are very
light and compact; even getting a small part of the stuff out into space and
ensuring that it does get into the sun(which seems the most feasible alt-
ernative) will probably be very difficult.
Perhaps when(or if) the space station is built, it will be easier to send
packets of the "hottest" wastes into the sun ( or into orbits around other
planets).... by launching them from space.


Anand Patwardhan
EPP, CMU

----------------

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 19:39:21 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rlc4_ltd@rutgers.edu  (Richard Connell)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

This is getting lengthy...

In article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>...I prefer to limit
>manned missions almost exclusively to scientific and professional personnel
>who can make the most efficient use of these extremely expensive missions.  I
>consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of
>precious technology.

	Well, if you want to get the average person interested, and thereby
get monies from our government, I think you had better be ready to cater to
such a 'frivilous waste of precious technology'.  I mean, really, is the
average person going to want to support something that they see as a waste of
their money, just because it is an advance in technology.  What ever happened
to the end-user?  Who isbenefitting from this technology, and why aren't they
seeing the results.  I have noticed that there is a question of NASA needing
money to perform experiments, and the fact that the media no longer focuses
on the launches as much, because there is nothing new, it is some experiment
that does not seem to have a real affect down here, where everyone else is.
	For this reason, just about any use of space that will catch people's
attention is, I feel, not a waste of resources, or money.  If you want to 
keep it technical, how about such projects as trying to stay on the moon?
Or other places in space?

[arguement about soviets and economy deleted]

>> Don't you think...knowledge is likely to be expanded by flying a wider
>> cross-section of people than athletic professional astronauts?
>
>How, pray tell?  Why would we learn more by sending up poorly-trained people
>who are less cost-effective at carrying out the missions?  If you are
>concerned about the physical fitness of astronauts, I'm sure that we could
>find a few flabby scientists to send up.  :-)
>

	By exposing more people to space, you get a wider variety of opinions
about ways that it could be used.  If you send up untrained personnel, then 
you will get uneducated, and unbiased reactions to the situation.  If you
send up a load of artists and musicians, then there will be a whole new
look at the idea of going into space.  Also this would focus more attention
on the program itself, and what it could accomplish...
	And if things went bad, what would a few less artists and singers do 
to the world, just space em...:-)

	It is my opinion that the more people we get into space, the more
interest there will be in it for the average person.  I have no 
rargument that it should start with techies, people who know all about it, 
but there comes a time when even these people are not going to have any idea
of what in the world is going on.  And in this case, your average carpenter
might be better equipped to handle the situation, who can really say.
	Plus, once (or if) there is ever a space station, are we going to
want to pay big bucks to a person trained in aerospace technologies to 
take out the garbage?  I don't think so.  That person can be put to a much
better use working in the science feild.  And this will be the same with all
the technical fields, so who takes out the trash?  Who provides for a little
relaxing entertainment every once in a while, etc?  Highly trained people in
the fields of science are not going to be the people to do this, or at least
not on the basis that normal people would need.

>>>The idea of getting people to "take over" our space
>>>program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it
>>>was impractical.  It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free
>>>market was the answer to everything...
>>Yes, ridiculous uncommercial people like Boeing.  And it went out the
>>window because NASA wasn't interested in relinquishing control, despite
>>a few encouraging noises early on.
>
>I would be interested in clarification here. Do you mean that Boeing, or some
>other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight
>program?  I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any
>such desire.  What for?  They are working with the government, which is the
>only conceivable customer for manned space flight right now.  Who was that
>stubborn, hidebound NASA supposed to relinquish control to?  There ain't
>nobody there.  That's why I called the idea impractical. Only governments can
>afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now.

	Missed the beginning of this discussion, so please excuse me if 
I am going off on something that I know nothing about, but why do all the
flights into space have to be of a scientific nature.  If they all are
scientific now, when will the commercial interest get involved?  In any 
serious way that is, for they are already interested.  Look at all the
communication sattelites that are up there.
	So when do the normal people get a chance to see space?  I thought
that the teacher in space program was a good start, and am very saddened by
the way that it ended.  These are the sorts of programs that are going to get
you the money, and the resources that you need to continue the program in a 
useful way.
	
	Have fun, and please do send flames, I will welcome them, it's cold
here in Rochester.

                       	| Ricky Connell| rlc4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
                       	|--------------| NOTES_RCON@uordbv.BITNET
    -------            	|Disclaimer : 	-----------------------------------
  /   ___   \   Happy   | A disclaimer??? Why a disclaimer???  Who really
 /    (O)    \  Mutants | cares whose opinion this is I'm borrowing!
(             ) For     |--------------------------------------------------
 \   )---(   /  Nuclear | "No matter where you go, there you are." -B.Bonzai
  \         /   Energy  | "Let's show this prehistoric b***h how we do 
    -------             |  things downtown!" -- Ghostbusters

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 22:52:26 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <7767@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
 
>Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on 
>Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
>Earth.  Compared to the U.S., the Soviet Union is third-rate, at best.  

And don't forget that the US probably puts out more RF energy than any
other nation on the earth, which is a sure sign of a scientifically
advanced culture (even if most of it is soap operas and cartoons!).



Neal

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 22:45:41 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: alien contact

In article <7787@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>As to who the aliens would contact...well, where would the best place be?  I
>would vote for the United States, because (1) by almost any standard, we are 
>the most advanced nation on earth, and (2) the U.N. (for all it's worth) is
>located here...

Of course, if they consider spaceflight a major sign of civilization, then
there's absolutely no doubt about where they will go:  Baikonur.  Or just
possibly Plesetsk, although if they're being attentive to things like the
activity around Mir it'll be Baikonur for sure.  The other spaceports on
Earth are insignificant by comparison to either of those two.  Between them
they handle 80%+ of Earth's space traffic.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #336
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Apr 89 07:35:44 EDT
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00964>; Tue, 4 Apr 89 05:31:25 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  4 Apr 89 05:31:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYC9SYy00UkTM1c05r>;
          Tue,  4 Apr 89 05:23:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.0YC9OSy00UkZE3uE4O>;
          Tue,  4 Apr 89 05:19:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sYC9NFy00UkZE3sk4l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  4 Apr 89 05:17:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #337

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 337

Today's Topics:
			  Re: alien contact
	       Re: Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri
	       Re: Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		    Re: US/USSR prices (followup)
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
			     Cold Fusion
	      Crescent sighting: Thu/Fri 6/7 April 1989
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 01:04:06 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: alien contact

In article <1989Apr1.224541.22308@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Of course, if they consider spaceflight a major sign of civilization, then
>there's absolutely no doubt about where they will go:  Baikonur.  Or just
>possibly Plesetsk, although if they're being attentive to things like the
>activity around Mir it'll be Baikonur for sure.  The other spaceports on
>Earth are insignificant by comparison to either of those two.  Between them
>they handle 80%+ of Earth's space traffic.
>-- 
You fail to realize, I feel, that by the standards of a civilization that can
send ships to the stars, neither we nor the Russians have any claim to being
a space-faring civilization.  Besides, I doubt that self-respecting aliens
would have as their sole criterion of civilization the number of cheap 
chemical rockets that could be sent up.  Quality versus quantity, I'd choose
quality every time.

Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 00:46:14 GMT
From: cbmvax!jesup@rutgers.edu  (Randell Jesup)
Subject: Re: Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri

In article <1989Mar29.210617.4334@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <4441@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>>... Given the energy
>>density figures from preliminary reports, how much of a scale-up
>>will it take for a constant-boost ship capable of going to Proxima
>>Centauri?  Assume refueling there.
>
>Massive.  Colossal.  Nearly impossible.  Fusion is only marginally viable
>as an interstellar propulsion system at all, never mind constant-boost!
>Effective interstellar propulsion requires antimatter rockets at least,
>and preferably systems like the Bussard ramjet or the laser sail that
>escape from some of the limitations of rockets.

	However, _really_ cheap energy might make anitmatter propulsion
far more feasible (though still expensive, it's an engineering problem -
we can make and store anti-matter, just not well, since the need for such
engineering has been small so far.)

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 05:40:27 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc!andrew@apple.com  (andrew)
Subject: Re: Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri


I think that interstellar hydrogen exists. Add energy; there's your 
deuterium for your palladium. Also, low temperatures exist (3 deg K). 
There's the environment for energy storage in (even an old-type) superconductor.
Now we have energy storage and generation of ideal type. What's the catch?
(is it in making the deuterium - or is there enough out there already?).
=====
Andrew Palfreyman 		USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 		there's many a slip
							'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 05:12:40 GMT
From: att!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

<"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?">

In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>, kocic@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Miroslav Kocic) writes:
> . . . what if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy
> production?  I can imagine a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist
> cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen.

Seems to me that rec.arts.sf-lovers is the "right" group to discuss the
social implications of cheap, simple fusion.  It's certainly the right
group for my response to the above, taken from Larry Niven's story,
"ARM" (from THE LONG ARM OF GIL HAMILTON, 1976, p. 118 of my paperback
copy; the story first appeared in 1975):

	Monitoring of technology is necessary enough, but may have
	happened too late.  There are enough fusion power plants and
	fusion rocket motors and fusion seawater distilleries around to
	let any madman or group thereof blow up the Earth or any
	selected part of it.

In Niven's future history, the risk is worth it.  I hope it is in ours!

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.
(If you have opinions on discussing fusion in the SF group, send me
e-mail; I'll post a summary to the various groups.)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 22:10:48 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: US/USSR prices (followup)

In article <8903311804.AA13068@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>If, however, a company is trying to drive its competitors out of major
>contention altogether, so it can control the market, this is considered
>restraint of trade, and is illegal in the US. Note that it is not necessary
>to drive the competitors entirely out of business. If their sales volume
>can be reduced to the point that they no longer enjoy economies of scale,
>they may not have sufficient funds to operate at a loss in order to restore
>volume, or they may become convinced that they can not make a profit on the
>product in question, and give it up...

Restraint of trade is illegal in the US only when it's not the government
doing it.  Consider what the shuttle almost did to expendable launchers.
Consider, for that matter, what the US has just done to China's sales
prospects for Long March.  One hopes that the Chinese will not give up
on Long March, despite the (so far) successful US attempts at restraint
of trade.  
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 08:11:24 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!csuna!abcscnge@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

[reasons for aliens to land in the US deleted]

Besides, they have ELVIS (and the WWII bombers from Mars) , and HE ( and they)
came from the good old U-S-of-A.


-- 
Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl
UUCP:  ...!sm.unisys.com!csun!csuna.csun.edu!abcscnge
-- unless explicitly stated above, this article not for use by rec.humor.funny
-- Disclaimers?  We don't need no stinking disclaimers!!!

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 08:00:39 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

Matthew T. DeLuca wrote:
>   
>   Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most
>   advanced nation on Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in
>   the U.S.  than anywhere else on Earth.

I disagree; from orbit, the most advanced nation on Earth is clearly
Brazil.  More oxygen-producing machines there than anywhere else.
Not to mention the largest H2O transportation network in the world.  

Actually, if I were an alien looking for fun, I would head straight for
the place with the largest and sunniest beach, or the most spectacular
ski resort (North Africa and Antarctica, respectively).  

        :-) Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
        stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In their gun-rack they placed three rifles and three hunting-pieces
    that could fire explosive bullets, along with a good supply of powder
    and ammunition.  

    ``Who knows whom or what we will have to deal with,'' said Michel
    Ardan.  ``Men or beasts may take a dim view of our visit.  And so we
    must take every precaution.''
        -- Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The above etc. etc.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 09:41:23 GMT
From: mcvax!cernvax!jon@uunet.uu.net  (jon)
Subject: Cold Fusion

Professor Fleischmann one of the authors of the paper on
sustained nuclear fusion at room temperature is giving a special
seminar a CERN this afternoon ... I'll try to keep notes of the
relevant points and will post a resume after the talk. At least I
should be able to get a good idea if this a realistic method of
producing power or if it is just a laboratory quirk.

*---------------------------------------------------------------*
|                                                               |
| Jon Caves             {world}!mcvax!cernavx!jon               |
| Division DD,          jon@cernvax.cern.ch                     |
| CERN CH-1211,                                                 |
| Geneva 23,            "Quote? I haven't got time to think     |
| Switzerland.             of a quote!"                         |
|                                                               |
*---------------------------------------------------------------*

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 20:33:52 GMT
From: heddaya@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Abdelsalam Heddaya)
Subject: Crescent sighting: Thu/Fri 6/7 April 1989

[I am posting this for:
	    (Mohib N. Durrani) mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
 so, please reply to him.  Thanks.    ---AH]
******************************************************************************

                       Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
  ( I begin with the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )
 
         THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
           102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027
 
         SUBJECT: CRESCENT MOON: FIRST VISIBILITY (every lunar month)
        **************************************************************
 
            NEXT CRESCENT (NEW) MOON:  1989 APR  6/7 (Thu/Fri)   (*) 
 
            for the  9th. Islamic Month of RAMADAN (fasting), 1409,
         starting on Fri/Sat  7/8  Apr 1989, for USA and S.America, and
              on Sat 8  Apr 1989, for points West of San Francisco.
 
   (*)      Hilal (crescent) sightings would be in the evenings, 
        at least 10 minutes after sunset, usually before 20 minutes, 
   and upto 40 to 90 minutes after sunset; near and along the sun's path.
 
        We are conducting research/survey on the recorded WORLD-WIDE
          first sightings of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" 
                  in the evenings, for every lunar month.
                    Some TECHNICAL INFO. is at the end.
 
                  PHOTOGRAPHS / SLIDES ARE MOST WELCOME
               since they are very helpful in the research.
 
              Please also pass on the request to your friends
               who are interested in astronomy/physics and to 
                 your local amateur astronomy associations.
 
                  We would very much like to hear from you.
                Please respond either by email or by letter.
 
       The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL
          and fine tune some parameters regarding SCATTERING/VISION.
 
 
  When reporting actual Crescent-Hilal sightings, (even if you do not see it)
                        PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
 
Was Hilal visible to naked eye?......... Hilal sighted in binoculars?.........
EXACT TIMES: Complete Sunset at......... Hilal First Visible....... End.......
Weather condition: Rel.Humidity......... Temperature..... Pressure............
Sky near western horizon: Clear?........ Hazy?........... Cloudy?.............
Observer: Age.... Eyesight: Glasses?.... Far sighted?.... Near sighted?.......
Name....................... Date........ Location.............................
 
                                 Thanks.
 
        Email to:  mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
 
        Mail:      Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America
 
 
        Some ORBITAL details for the SUN and MOON:
 
        Lunation No.: 820
        New Moon (not crescent visible moon): 
        1989 Apr  6d 03h 33m UT (Universal Time)
       (Universal Time, i.e. mean solar time on the meridian of Greenwich)
 
          EQUATORIAL coords.(for 0h UT)         ECLIPTIC coords.(for 0h UT)
   Date   Sun      Sun      MOON    MOON        Sun        MOON      MOON
   APR    R.A.     Decl.    R.A.    Decl.       Long.      Long.     Lat.
   '89    Alpha    Delta    Alpha   Delta       Lambda     Lambda    Beta
          hr       deg      hr      deg         deg        deg       deg
 
    6      1.00     6.40     0.79    8.65        16.32      14.20    3.31
    7      1.06     6.77     1.72   15.23        17.30      29.43    4.23
    8      1.13     7.15     2.70   20.81        18.28      44.49    4.85
 
 
       1989 APR  6 (Thu)   (event times are the approximate
                              local standard mean times)
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     SUN     MOON   at Sunset
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
 
        MECCA-S.Arabia 20  320    18 15   18 43    12 02    DIFFICULT
        MOSCOW-USSR    56  320    18 48   19 48    12 35    DIFFICULT
        CAIRO-Egypt    30  330    18 21   18 57    12 48    DIFFICULT
        ISTANBUL-Turk  40  330    18 29   19 12    12 56    DIFFICULT
        CAPETOWN-S.Af -35  340    17 48   17 46    12 55    IMPOSSIBLE
        LAGOS-Nigeria  10  355    18 10   18 38    14 17    DIFFICULT
      # GREENWICH-Engl 50    0    18 40   19 40    15 07    PROBABLE
        DAKAR-Senegal  10   20    18 10   18 42    16 02    PROBABLE
        RIO DeJENEIRO -20   45    17 57   18 14    17 24    DIFFICULT
        PARAMARIBO-Suri 0   55    18 06   18 38    18 13    PROBABLE
      # NEW YORK-USA   40   75    18 29   19 36    19 56    PROBABLE
      # SAN FRANCISCO  40  120    18 29   19 46    22 56    MOST PROBABLE
 
      # (add 1 hr to event time, for Daylight saving time)
      
      *************    International Date Line     ***********************
 
       1989 APR  6 (Thu)   (event times are the approximate 
                              local standard mean times)
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     SUN     MOON   at Sunset
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
 
        SIDNEY-Austra -35  210    17 48   17 35     4 15    IMPOSSIBLE
        TOKYO-Japan    35  220    18 25   18 41     5 32    IMPOSSIBLE
        PEKING-China   40  245    18 29   18 53     7 16    IMPOSSIBLE
        JAKARTA-Indon -10  250    18 01   18 04     7 08    IMPOSSIBLE
        DACCA-B.Desh   20  270    18 15   18 34     8 48    IMPOSSIBLE
        AGRA-India     30  280    18 21   18 47     9 32    IMPOSSIBLE
        PESHAWAR-Pak   35  290    18 25   18 55    10 12    IMPOSSIBLE
        BUKHARA-USSR   40  295    18 29   19 05    10 36    IMPOSSIBLE
        TEHRAN-Iran    35  310    18 25   19 00    11 32    IMPOSSIBLE
 
                  For most of these cities (Sidney-Tehran)
              the Cresent will be VISIBLE on  Fri 7  Apr 1989.
 
    Please note that the Islamic dates start from sundown of a previous day.
******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 03:09:54 GMT
From: winter@apple.com  (Patty Winter)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?


Hey, gang, this series had only a marginal connection to rec.ham-radio
in the first place (because the transmission was heard via a rebroadcast
by the Goddard Amateur Radio Club) and has now gotten totally away from
that aspect. All further followups to more appropriate newsgroups, please.

BTW...

In article<7765@pyr.gatech.EDU>ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU(Matthew T. DeLuca)writes:
>A very possible explanation of this occurrence comes to mind: since the 
>frequency of the alleged transmission is in the middle of the commercial
>radio band, it is possible that someone with a radio set to that frequency
>broadcast the two items to see what happened, knowing that someone might be
>listening.  A pretty good joke, if you ask me.

The original posting said that the transmission had been monitored 
from the above-mentioned GARC rebroadcast, which was on 147.45 MHz in the
amateur radio 2-meter band, not on a commercial band. The transmissions
are in FM, so although it's theoretically possible for someone to capture
the frequency away from GARC, a more likely result of putting another
transmitter on that frequency would be a collision of the signals such
that neither transmission would be intelligible. So I doubt that it was
a spoofed signal on top of the real one. 


Patty

=============================================================================  
Patty Winter N6BIS                        DOMAIN: winter@apple.com
AMPR.ORG: [44.4.0.44]                     UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun}!apple!winter
=============================================================================

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #337
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Apr 89 03:04:09 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03763>; Wed, 5 Apr 89 00:46:22 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  5 Apr 89 01:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYCOCXy00UkTI1dEE4>;
          Wed,  5 Apr 89 00:27:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.oYCO8Ky00UkZM6EU5e>;
          Wed,  5 Apr 89 00:20:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QYCO6My00UkZM6D04l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  5 Apr 89 00:18:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #338

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 338

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 22:57:19 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #483 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 82.26819637 0.00000575           67866-3 0  1937
2 00424  80.4656  10.5279 0024122 354.8183   5.2733 13.67106533321076
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 83.53500926 0.00000018           81508-1 0  7096
2 08820 109.8154 201.0809 0044803 333.8408  25.9848  6.38664335 45229
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 81.01082882 -.00000005                   0  2361
2 10061   6.9494  69.3193 0005800 178.9196 181.2384  1.00269853  4507
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 79.70447855 0.00000012                   0   578
2 10684  63.5326 103.5903 0106305 199.5907 160.0427  2.00561509 66754
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 75.17357186 -.00000028                   0  9649
2 10893  64.5409 344.5503 0151702  28.3912 332.4453  2.00558954 79486
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 75.08001118 0.00000092           10000-3 0  6177
2 10953   5.7985  72.0474 0007842 244.6990 115.4087  1.00271624    02
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 80.99351769 0.00002009           75537-3 0   965
2 10967 108.0109 108.0800 0001544 262.0919  98.0013 14.34426451561584
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 78.97907784 -.00000028                   0  9904
2 11054  63.9957 340.9358 0055354 115.1245 245.4920  2.00560942 76574
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 82.57719097 0.00000012                   0  1296
2 11141  63.5293 103.3925 0057789 321.2892  38.3616  2.00576657 75348
Anik B1    
1 11153U          89 75.84942236 -.00000241           10000-3 0  6468
2 11153   2.3953  80.9797 0004030 208.9466 152.3930  0.99820806   237
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 83.41866031 0.00002726           11651-2 0  8261
2 11416  98.5032  82.9519 0014149   0.1377 359.9706 14.25616527505821
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 88.16102073 0.00049374           10237-2 0  8973
2 11703  28.4976 120.9751 0002844 207.9314 151.9045 15.44344414507426
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 79.04049011 -.00000028                   0  8552
2 11783  63.9123 340.5843 0139883  62.0793 299.3703  2.00566965 65218
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 63.06867812 0.00000085           10000-3 0   532
2 11964   5.2447  74.8076 0024531  81.4499 279.5304  0.99401478   986
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 81.90592186 -.00000248           10000-3 0  7101
2 12472   2.3281  82.7281 0002101 323.4202  36.0666  1.00269242 27745
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 83.10593172 0.00074016           13661-2 0  4949
2 12888  97.5717 131.9264 0002975 103.9909 256.1691 15.48841632415771
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 81.60626106 0.00000455           40076-3 0  6318
2 13113  82.5409 127.5913 0014673 311.0143  48.9763 13.83964336353263
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 88.59642786 0.00067493           17049-2 0  4969
2 13138  51.6127 346.5081 0001876 121.8069 238.3190 15.39176762395927
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 87.24648156 0.00000759           39432-3 0  7619
2 13718  81.2478   0.7280 0055248 229.0030 130.6342 14.13137627324125
IRAS       
1 13777U          89 83.39345809 0.00000440           33101-3 0  6236
2 13777  99.0488 281.6517 0012935 179.8951 180.2126 13.98558927314347
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 82.11145027 0.00000118                   0  9200
2 14050   1.0891  83.8398 0001173 356.8754   4.5394  1.00280495  5740
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 70.49271510 -.00000036           10000-3 0  3896
2 14129  26.5524 275.5927 6074543  24.7104 355.1329  2.05881509 15201
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 75.14176849 0.00000011                   0  6124
2 14189  63.1634 102.2709 0134326 215.0993 144.0664  2.00571799 41579
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 86.08308297 0.00001675           71826-3 0  7054
2 14452  81.1663  15.8259 0095242 334.1204  25.5234 14.22092271280878
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 83.99511686 -.00000661          -14168-3 0  6818
2 14780  98.1747 147.8181 0004239 126.6118 233.5397 14.57135344269300
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 83.19302412 0.00004002           78489-3 0  4226
2 14781  98.0086 144.4433 0012087 225.6234 134.3949 14.63235521270115
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 81.94670412 0.00042958           86603-3 0  7945
2 14898  28.5065  61.7161 0001638 326.5841  33.4733 15.45168543278076
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 70.71069479 0.00000011                   0  6330
2 15039  62.8930 101.7093 0015810 277.7435  82.1364  2.00564408 34762
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 81.96652208 0.00000226           19422-3 0  9314
2 15099  82.5261  74.9487 0014250 114.3039 245.9602 13.83624864238198
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 86.56644251 -.00000028                   0  5995
2 15271  63.3902 340.1489 0099681 319.5804  39.7393  2.00564501 32195
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 87.92511666 0.00004235           62117-3 0    18
2 15331  82.5387  52.5083 0024833 351.3903   8.6370 14.75177086242384
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 88.84117156 0.00000585           34132-3 0  3532
2 15427  99.1389  74.2567 0015516 172.1952 187.9481 14.11926448221256
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 87.92865313 0.00000725           64063-3 0   634
2 15516  82.5420   8.5977 0016977 346.8683  13.2008 13.84073746209957
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 88.01208978 0.00008238           21906-3 0  2061
2 16095  51.6136 349.3575 0003157 122.5683 237.6545 15.39111877395837
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 87.22027654 0.00000011                   0  3061
2 16129  63.6864 101.7749 0115278 150.6071 210.1972  2.00564960 25413
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 87.51853394 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8133
2 16191  82.5481 292.7953 0020237 137.1796 223.0958 13.16866314164901
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 88.01681010 0.00000258           22187-3 0  4733
2 16408  82.5323 283.3976 0016361 160.7953 199.3826 13.84145248164469
Mir        
1 16609U          89 88.69248476 0.00130946           12473-2 0  7631
2 16609  51.6253  41.7267 0019519  55.1178 305.0803 15.65637875178788
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 88.88823478 0.00000328           17166-3 0  4157
2 16613  98.7026 164.5619 0001576  74.3851 285.7517 14.20024395   870
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 87.61326522 0.00000463           40696-3 0  2859
2 16735  82.5382 310.5092 0012926 238.1531 121.8353 13.83892977143317
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 88.07755117 0.00001911           28105-3 0  5604
2 16881  82.5224 112.0162 0023143   6.2335 353.9357 14.74826432143480
EGP        
1 16908U          89 81.62627618 -.00000017           18257-3 0  1208
2 16908  50.0068 204.1897 0011435 125.4888 234.7023 12.44376707118637
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 83.69611252 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1370
2 16909  50.0189 198.0467 0011097 130.5680 229.6122 12.44398749118887
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 88.76806281 0.00001076           49539-3 0  2115
2 16969  98.6445 120.7523 0014837 119.2502 241.0158 14.22912574132646
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 85.79480361 0.00000410           36128-3 0  2357
2 17290  82.4629 219.8462 0014006 131.1100 229.1272 13.83687294112226
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 79.00000000 -.00000036           10000-3 0  2483
2 17561   0.0499 141.6476 0001458  24.4393 262.7327  1.00272839   861
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 88.05414150 0.00070868           68437-3 0  7108
2 17845  51.6272  44.9691 0017298  50.2553 309.7157 15.65619254114956
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 87.07978700 0.00000514           55569-3 0  7081
2 18129  82.9242 298.0751 0010415 279.1634  80.8233 13.71959925 88275
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 88.42002509 0.00144345  10099-4  27252-3 0  9516
2 18225  71.8780 269.3297 0011107 261.6184  98.5042 16.00564432 98508
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 87.48260703 0.00000279           24356-3 0  2530
2 18312  82.5529 283.4854 0013779  64.8873 295.3705 13.83448350 81352
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 87.93575691 0.00000388           33782-3 0   979
2 18820  82.5486 344.3364 0017779 130.8831 229.3833 13.84135258 58582
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 76.49871160 -.00000119           10000-3 0   328
2 19216  57.2888 215.7028 6682305 200.6960 108.5716  2.09700996  5811
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 87.07773939 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1592
2 19336  82.5436 233.0708 0019733  20.7544 339.4282 13.16855001 32231
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 87.85911303 -.00000290          -15115-3 0   631
2 19531  98.9315  32.2892 0013455  98.3123 261.9585 14.10906494 26143
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89 87.92653345 0.00026551           26157-3 0  1243
2 19660  51.6269  45.6213 0019028  51.5199 308.7472 15.65543902 19252
1989 007A  
1 19774U          89 62.29088547 0.00835695  34441-4  42765-3     888
2 19774  64.7310 224.9743 0118332 120.8668 240.4748 16.05799532  5440
1989 009A  
1 19785U          89 64.10007655 0.00000004                   0   152
2 19785  82.6210  21.7655 0013300 342.6503  17.4136 12.64001191  2848
1989 009B  
1 19786U          89 64.05975057 0.00000004                   0    90
2 19786  82.6234  21.8542 0002898  31.3906 328.7356 12.61808837  2212
1989 009C  
1 19787U          89 64.04615570 0.00000004                   0   103
2 19787  82.6141  21.8207 0005863 352.0436   8.0561 12.62575495  2829
1989 009D  
1 19788U          89 64.11153859 0.00000004                   0   154
2 19788  82.6184  21.7715 0009753 336.7874  23.2773 12.63354838  2840
1989 009E  
1 19789U          89 64.08980311 0.00000005                   0   131
2 19789  82.6106  21.7340 0016252 337.9437  22.0954 12.64579821  2692
1989 009F  
1 19790U          89 64.07632704 0.00000004                   0   108
2 19790  82.6190  21.7386 0019973 332.7979  27.2071 12.65340209  2845
1989 009G  
1 19791U          89 61.07567539 0.00000004                   0    64
2 19791  82.6136  23.8826 0035855 159.5753 200.6770 12.54767430  2435
1989 011A  
1 19796U          89 70.12140472 -.00000961           23892-2 0   271
2 19796  62.8312 155.6785 7351306 318.3537   4.7200  2.00603065   519
1989 011D  
1 19799U          89 68.75865655 -.00000506          -29417-3 0    82
2 19799  62.8505 155.8716 7323117 318.2753   4.8050  2.04037207   494
1989 012A  
1 19800U          89 75.81756769 0.00347003  16404-4  85006-3 0   669
2 19800  65.8270 311.5020 1296343 134.8360 236.4657 13.25605130  3959
1989 012B  
1 19801U          89 73.69979937 -.02887515  17218-4 -51246-2 0   560
2 19801  65.8239 315.7017 1243427 135.5400 235.7857 13.40299809  3688
GPS-0014   
1 19802U          89 70.93695796 0.00000015           10000-3 0   167
2 19802  55.1211 215.6503 0077655 186.9612 172.8939  2.01900521   472
1989 013C  
1 19804U          89 73.79405384 0.00396263 -28712-5  16148-2 0   380
2 19804  37.3842 193.0170 6003260 224.3294  68.9879  4.15875089  1123
1989 014A  
1 19807U          89 73.77669857 0.00000818           45909-2 0   320
2 19807  62.9908 338.8975 7424406 279.9051  10.8010  2.00621212   561
1989 014D  
1 19810U          89 74.01083987 0.00000351           53426-3 0   119
2 19810  62.9638 338.6130 7367741 280.1537  11.3209  2.07313260   583
1989 016A  
1 19822U          89 78.45474634 0.00027893           22863-2 0   331
2 19822  75.1114  94.3353 4326466 142.9786 256.6972  6.82723171  1744
1989 016B  
1 19823U 89016  B 89081.29587005  .00773634  00000-0  00000-0 0 00305
2 19823 074.5686 044.4816 0125969 101.3219 260.2745 15.83310232004454
1989 016C  
1 19824U          89 79.44848572 0.00054829           43302-2 0   249
2 19824  75.1096  93.8605 4319426 142.2524 259.1648  6.84257340  1818
1989 017A  
1 19826U          89 79.47638162 0.00000359           38850-3 0   349
2 19826  82.9517 212.9735 0029626 202.5847 157.4022 13.71043896  3615
1989 017B  
1 19827U          89 77.91681824 0.00000442           47097-3 0   313
2 19827  82.9509 214.0777 0024396 199.4009 160.6223 13.72519946  3398
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89 86.92384539 0.00000117           10000-3 0   160
2 19851  82.5276 223.9522 0016558 168.9063 191.2473 13.83764541  3843
1989 018B  
1 19852U          89 85.77129740 0.00000116           10000-3 0   129
2 19852  82.5204 224.8665 0017372 163.3799 196.7935 13.83526194  3688
1989 019A  
1 19862U          89 88.67656886 0.00899102  39563-4  40839-3 0   707
2 19862  62.7887 288.4915 0120418  92.5815 268.9378 16.06613827  4332
1989 020A  
1 19874U          89 87.06339145 -.00000150           10000-3 0    83
2 19874   0.0997 330.2385 0022931 155.9890 233.9784  1.00288762   206
1989 020B  
1 19876U          89 88.32673665 0.00000031           10000-4 0   137
2 19876   1.1360 297.8762 0041348  31.6392 326.8058  1.00537248   214
1989 020C  
1 19877U          89 88.63911588 0.00063493           72083-2 0   151
2 19877   7.0067 322.0288 7296529 196.3321 109.6416  2.28199816   513
TDRS 3     
1 19883U          89 84.96599351 0.00000150           10000-3 0    74
2 19883   0.1723  43.3983 0021399 253.4486  62.9265  1.00458708   115
1989 022A  
1 19893U          89 89.07599591 -.00011829          -10090-3 0   243
2 19893  62.8445 298.6618 0061020 230.7484 128.8279 15.66186821  2113
1989 022B  
1 19894U          89 88.98281208 0.02391897  41113-4  97433-3 0   243
2 19894  62.8246 296.4983 0041967 111.2796 249.3527 16.20509934  2144
Progress 41
1 19895U          89 87.92651307 0.00048690           47372-3 0   169
2 19895  51.6320  45.6167 0019128  44.8512 315.2767 15.65546704  1910
1989 024A  
1 19900U          89 88.41448575 0.00539415  15741-3  50422-3 0   142
2 19900  64.7448  20.8360 0036745  76.9723 283.7002 16.10273099   956
1989 025A  
1 19902U          89 88.00525718 -.00000006                   0    44
2 19902  74.0136  28.7483 0049200  90.1669 270.5020 12.57623458   562
1989 025B  
1 19903U          89 88.01195026 -.00000007                   0   110
2 19903  74.0132  28.7630 0040567 100.8874 259.6743 12.55708039   564
1989 025C  
1 19904U          89 84.02938342 -.00000006                   0    34
2 19904  74.0104  34.0947 0029732 109.6944 250.7667 12.53878951    62
1989 025D  
1 19905U          89 88.02500757 -.00000007                   0    35
2 19905  74.0136  28.8073 0020481 106.4604 253.8700 12.51975167   538
1989 025E  
1 19906U          89 88.03187920 -.00000007                   0    85
2 19906  74.0139  28.7860 0009702 115.0553 245.1498 12.50018001   562
1989 025F  
1 19907U          89 87.95900993 -.00000006                   0    44
2 19907  74.0137  28.9366 0009971 188.5529 171.5348 12.47956657   526
1989 025G  
1 19908U          89 87.96554175 -.00000006                   0    76
2 19908  74.0134  28.9470 0013398 245.5245 114.4407 12.46071959   554
1989 025H  
1 19909U          89 87.97329813 -.00000006                   0    44
2 19909  74.0140  28.9302 0026223 243.4625 116.3735 12.43850589   518
1989 025J  
1 19910U          89 85.10277736 -.00000006                   0    34
2 19910  74.0142  32.7971 0136011 267.5206  91.0257 12.23017704   190
1989 026A  
1 19911U          89 88.75576140 0.00011495           47240-3 0    90
2 19911  47.6897  17.0006 0015476 347.8220  12.1893 15.24372995   738
1989 021D  
1 19913U          89 80.13828946 0.00000154           10000-3 0    16
2 19913   2.0886  56.8259 0048464 195.7694 165.1608  1.00598890    08
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #338
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Apr 89 05:57:40 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03539>; Wed, 5 Apr 89 04:01:33 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  5 Apr 89 05:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AYCQyuy00jZdE1a0AH>;
          Wed,  5 Apr 89 03:35:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.oYCQj=y00UkZQ6XE4t>;
          Wed,  5 Apr 89 03:18:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UYCQhey00UkZM6Vk55@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  5 Apr 89 03:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #339

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 339

Today's Topics:
		      NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
		       Space News, Mar 29, 1989
		       More Success with Fusion
		   Solid State Fusion for Launchers
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #324
   Olde Tyme Measurements (No wonder the world is eating our lunch)
		       Re: Recovery of Salyut 7
		  Russian unmanned missions to Mars
		       Re: cold fusion seminar
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 22:07:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending
March 31, 1989.

Thursday the nations first privately owned spacecraft was launched by Space
Services Inc.  The Starfire 1-Model rocket carried the Consort-1 payload on
a ride for a total of 15 minutes.  The rocket climbed to an altitude of 198
miles above the earth, the payload of experiments experienced about 7
minutes of near zero gravity.  Space Services executives were very
satisfied with the launch and stated that this was the first of many.

White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater called NASA associate administrator
for space flight Rear Adm. Richard Truly, a leading candidate for the
position of NASA administrator.  The problem is that Rear Adm. Truly's
active status in the Navy puts his appointment in conflict with section 202
of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.  The section says NASA
shall be headed by an Administrator who shall be appointed from civilian
life by the President with the consent of the Senate.  The White House
could ask Truly to resign his commission; ask Congress for a waiver or
other ways around the law.  But Fitzwater was unclear in confirming whether
a waiver was already asked for or not.

Dr. James Fletcher the resigning NASA administrator confirmed in Washington
DC last Wed. that he will head a $5 million dollar effort by the University
of Utah to expand experimentation into Nuclear Fusion.  Last week the
chairman of the Chemistry Dept. and a British Professor at the University
of Utah reported they had sustained nuclear fusion in glass flasks at room
temperature for several hours.  If this experiment can be verified than the
potential for production of clean, safe, simple electric power is enormous. 
Some 200 private companies have expressed interest in the process already.

Meanwhile at Kennedy Space Center...

Atlantis's pad has been closed since Wed. so workers can load propellants
into the solid rocket booster hydraulic power units, the auxiliary power
units, the reaction control system, and orbital maneuvering system pods. 
The last of three new oxidizer turbo pumps arrived at KSC on thursday.  The
new pumps will be installed on Atlantis when the pad is reopened.  The
launch of Atlantis is still scheduled to take place April 28, 1989. 

8 of the 32 chicken embryos taken aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery's last
mission were dead on arrival.  One of Discovery's crew suggested that the
experiment might show that life cannot begin anew in that environment.  The
8 embryos that died were part of 16 which were fertilized the day before
liftoff, the other 16 were fertilized nine day prior to launch.  April 1st
is when the first batch of chicks are expected to hatch.  

During the last launch of Discovery NASA engineers used a High Definition
Television system to record the event.  HDTV with its 1,125 line video
image makes it comparable to 35mm film.  Normal television has a 330 line
video image.  The HDTV system will allow for quicker analysis of launch
related curiosities, such as the tank insulation which broke loose and
damaged the heat tiles of Atlantis last time it was launched.  The system
was comprised of three HDTV cameras from Sony, a Southern Bell fiber optic
communication link which relayed the images to video monitors and VCR's
from Sony.  

On Wed. Soviet Scientists reported that they had lost contact with their
second unmanned Mars Moon probe Phobos-2.  Although all is not lost stated
some scientists, there is a slight chance of reestablishing communications
with the craft.  Technicians are determining whether it problem is a
navigational error or a auxiliary transmitter has failed.  Monday April 3,
the USSR will brief NASA officials and Tue. April 4, will hold a press
conference.  The loss of the spacecraft concerns would be space partners
with the Soviets, about the risk of putting to much faith in the Soviet
Planetary program.  The failure should reduce some of the pressure that's
been building on the US to decide whether it wants to collaborate or go
forward with its own aggressive Mars exploration strategy. 

The USSR has gone madison avenue?  In its quest to be a constant record
breaker the Soviet Union will be the first country to sell advertising in
space.  For a mire (ha, ha) $620,000 you get your corporate logo on:
cosmonauts' space suits; Launch site billboards: Three minute commercial
filmed by the cosmonauts; Two 6' by 9' signs on the side of Mir!  Tass
announced Wed. that a Swiss Ad firm signed a contract.

This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space Society's Space
Hotline.  This message will next be updated April 7, 1989.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 22:38:14 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space News, Mar 29, 1989


Jonathan's Space Report

Mar 29, 1989 (No. 9)

The third US satellite launch of the year was carried out successfully
on Mar 24.  The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) Delta
Star satellite was orbited by a Delta 3920 launch vehicle from Kennedy
Space Center.  Delta Star's mission is to detect and observe rocket
launches, in order to develop antimissile weapons. 

Space Shuttle Mission STS-30 is on Pad 39B and due for launch at the end
of April.  The Magellan probe to Venus will be deployed from orbiter
OV-104 Atlantis on its fourth mission.  Crew are David Walker, Ron
Grabe, and mission specialists Dr.  Norman Thagard, Dr.  Mary Cleave and
Mark Lee.  Dr.  Cleave will be the first woman to fly in space since the
Challenger accident. 

The Soviet Union lost contact with its Phobos-2 probe on Mar 27. 
Attempts continue to contact the probe, but it is not likely to be
recovered.  Another orbital manever had been made on Mar 15 to continue
the rendezvous with the Martian moon Phobos.  It had been planned to
attempt a landing on Phobos in the coming weeks. 


Other news:

Kosmos-2006, launched on Mar 14, is a medium resolution spy
satellite operated by the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence).

Kosmos-2007 was launched on Mar 23. No data yet.

Kosmos-2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014, and 2015 were launched by a
single Kosmos booster on Mar 24.  They are believed to be small
communications relay satellites used by the Soviet Navy. 

Space Services Inc carried out its first commercial launch of a
suborbital Starfire sounding rocket on Mar 29.  The payload was Consort
1, a set of materials processing experiments. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

From: ota
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 01:44:52 MDT
Subject: More Success with Fusion

I received some really neat information from some "highly placed sources
at Los Alamos National Labs."  A quick synopsis:

Supposedly, LANL has managed to reproduce the reaction.  "According to
destroying a hood, the experiment melted a four inch hole through a
concrete floor.  No one was killed, amazingly enough.  [...]  Los Alamos
measured incredible quantities of gamma radiation and fast neutrons.
Kids, don't try this at home."  This is quoted from someone else, who
got it direct from LA.

However, the public relations officer (Jeff Schwarts) for LA
specifically denies that the experiment has been duplicated...yet.

All I know is that I'm excited...let's hope that this IS true and not
another scientific mistake.

Some of this (I can't tell how much) came from the physics digest, so
check over there for more information.

David Birnbaum.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Find me at:   dbirnbau@nmsu.edu    VTIS001@NMSUVM1.bitnet   /dev/null  |
|                                                                         |
|   "It shouldn't be a suprise to anyone when the network screws up;      |
|    the suprise should be that the dang thing works at all!"             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 21:30:50 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

The apparent absence of major neutron emission and hot waste from the
solid state fusion discovery raises the possibility of resurrecting
nuclear rockets for launchers.

I see two possibilities.  The first is to use heat from a solid state
fusion reactor to heat hydrogen, NERVA style.  This would require that
the power density be a couple of orders of magnitude higher than that
claimed by Pons & Fleischmann.  For on-orbit use the power density
need not be as high.

The second possibility is to use a smaller fusion reactor to preheat
fuel and/or oxidizer before injection into a conventional chemical
engine.  This would increase the Isp beyond that possible with
chemical fuels alone.

For use in launchers, we'd want a fusion reactor that (1) can be shut
down in seconds, (2) has high power density, and (3) operates at high
temperature.  (3) might mean we want a material with a higher melting
point than palladium (hafnium, maybe?).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1989 14:42-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #324

> if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production?  I can imagine
> a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen.

This could well be true in a way you are not considering. Attempts to
force individuals into a particular mold has graudally pushed people
from relatively safe marijuana from known sources to more and more
potent (and more easily smuggled) drugs from unknown and dangerous
sources.

Likewise, with a technology this simple, attempts to prevent its use
will lead to a new growth industry for organized crime. They'll be
selling D2O, platinum and palladium right along with the crack and
assault guns and everything else that governments try to stop.

And like crack, the jusry rigged home built generators will kill people
and have a vast social cost that would not occur if the thing were out
in the open and usable within a reasonable legal system.

If people want something and it is possible for it to be supplied, (ie
it exists or can be made to exist) it WILL be supplied, regardless of
the size of the effort made to stop it.

The price will rise until it is sufficient to counter the enforcement
efforts with arms, bribery, overthrow and control of small governments
and corruption of large ones.

The social cost of stopping people from doing what they want to do will
almost invariably be far higher than to let them alone and create
institutions able to deal with problems that are open to inspection
rather than hidden in an underground.

If this fusion technique is for real, it is going to spread faster than
a fission reaction, and there ain't NOBODY going to be able to stop it.
Those who do will get squashed flat. When it's steamboat time you
steam, and if you don't get your canoe out of the way in time, you
better know how to swim.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 19:26:09 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Olde Tyme Measurements (No wonder the world is eating our lunch)

gatech.EDU>
Sender: 
Reply-To: macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Digital Research, Monterey, CA
Keywords: 

In article <7761@pyr.gatech.EDU: ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
:In article <3276@nunki.usc.edu: sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) writes:
::AAAARGH!!!!!   Why so many people here using fps?  I thought higher
::education in the US used SI only.
:
:Nope.  My aerospace engineering courses use FPS routinely.  I hate it.

WHAT? Say it ain't so.  They're probably expounding phylogiston theory over
in the chem labs and trying to find the aether in the physics department.
It's no forking wonder that US students rank so far behind other countries'
graduates.

Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 19:24:36 GMT
From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!garcon!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@rutgers.edu  (Andrew Higgins)
Subject: Re: Recovery of Salyut 7

In article <2168@wyse.wyse.com> mikew@wyse.com (Mike Wexler) writes:

> mission was? I can think of several possibilities:
>       [reasons for recovery of Salyut 7]
>  	3. so they can analyze the effects of long term exposure to LEO.

I've also heard a 4th reason (a bit more PR oriented) for this mission:
displaying Salyut 7 at the Paris 1992 Air Show.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	          |     Illini Space Development Society
 ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu     |     a chapter of the National Space Society
 phone: (217) 359-0056            |     at the University of Illinois
          P.O. Box 2255 - Station A, Champaign, IL  61825
"We are all tired of being stuck on this cosmical speck with its monotonous
 ocean, leaden sky and single moon that is half useless....so it seems to me
 that the future glory of the human race lies in the exploration of at least 
 the solar system!"                          - John Jacob Astor, 1894

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 02:02:15 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Russian unmanned missions to Mars


     It's interesting to note, isn't it, that for all the Russian talk about
sending men to Mars, they have yet to send one successful mission to the 
planet.  I don't think that we'll be seeing any manned Soviet missions to the
red planet until they get their probes in order.  Curiously, they have good
enough luck with Venus, so it's not like they are completely deficient in 
sending probes beyond the moon's orbit.  Anyone believe in jinxes?

Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 07:35:56 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!James_J_Kowalczyk@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: cold fusion seminar

Well, the seminar today at U of U by Stan Pons was poorly planned.
About 2,000 people showed up for the 350 seats.  So, they had another 300
or so "over-flow" seats in a room with a live video broadcast.

Anyway, I did manage to get some data:

The cell contains D2O, and LiOH.
The Pd anode is a wire of about 4-5 mm diameter.
Since the diffusion rate of D2 into Pd is ca. 10^-7 / sec,
the apparatus must be running "a few weeks" to set up equilibrium 
conditions before fusion can occur.

They have measured 2 meV gamma rays.
They have measure neutrons being emitted at ca. 2x10^4 neutrons/sec.
They have measure tritium released at the same rate as the neutrons
("within experimental error").
They have not measured the energy of the neutrons, but expect them to
be 2.4 m eV.
They have seen Helium 4, but not Helium 3 (!?), but are still looking.

They don't think the neutrons are interacting with the palladium, but
they have checked their palladium by elemental analysis after use, and
they have not seen any evidence for changes.

They had been getting out 4 times the energy put in as of last Thursday,
but now it is up to 7-10 times (ignoring the heat produced at the cathode).
That is, they are getting 26 times the energy put in, but most of it is
Joule heating of the wires and heat produced by electrolysis of D2O.

Warning by Pons:  Don't try this without the proper precautions.
Once after they had set up equilibrium conditions, they accidentally
halved the current density in the Pd, and the Pd vaporized and all the 
D2O boiled away.  Also, those neutrons are nothing to fool around with.


**I am writing this with the aid of notes, but I do not guarantee that
I have not made any mistakes.  If something sounds ludicrous, I am sure
you will let me know.** :)


Jim Kowalczyk

Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #339
*******************

Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Apr 89 20:10:46 EDT
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02623>; Wed, 5 Apr 89 05:30:30 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  5 Apr 89 06:30:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UYCSYFy00UkTQ1tk5S>;
          Wed,  5 Apr 89 05:23:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.oYCSVBy00UkZA6i04g>;
          Wed,  5 Apr 89 05:19:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UYCSTJy00UkZ46gU4I@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  5 Apr 89 05:17:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #340

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 340

Today's Topics:
 Re: Soviet Phobos II probe fails just before final approach to moon
		 Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
			  Re: alien contact
		  want E. St. Louis contacts (LONG)
			  Re: alien contact
			 Deuterium extraction
    Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 00:54:09 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Soviet Phobos II probe fails just before final approach to moon

First of all, I wish to thank Glenn Chapman for his *very* valuable
postings.  They alone are reason enough to subscribe to this
newsgroup. 

Still, I can't resist replying to his editorial:
>
>   One comment here, the researchers at the Soviet IKI institute,
>   which were in charge of the probe, have been pushing the line
>   that unmanned systems are cheaper and more reliable than manned
>   ones.  They have been strongly suggesting that robots would be
>   better to explore Mars rather than a manned mission.
>   After this high profile mission failure they could find their
>   case substantially harder to present in the USSR.  

Well, it is certainly true that all manned Mars missions to date were
100% successful and cost practically nothing.  I am even willing to
believe that this will remain true for many, many years to come.  

Unfortunately, those missions haven't return much useful data, have
they...  

                ;-) Jorge Stolfi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      ``I mean it is not enough to launch a projectile and give it no
    further thought.  We must follow it throughout its course, until
    the moment it hits the target.'' 
      ``Well!'' exclamed the general and the major, a bit taken aback by
    the idea.  
      ``Absolutely,'' Barbicane spoke with self-assurance. ``Absolutely.
    Otherwise the experiment would be pointless.''
        --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are just opinions.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 22:49:16 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

In article <1989Mar31.163051.5961@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>The second possibility is to use a smaller fusion reactor to preheat
>fuel and/or oxidizer before injection into a conventional chemical
>engine.  This would increase the Isp beyond that possible with
>chemical fuels alone.

I doubt the practicality of this.  Existing oxyhydrogen rockets already
run fuel-rich partly to *cool* the exhaust a bit (and thus reduce thermal
dissociation of water into oxygen and hydrogen).  It might help the less
energetic fuels like hydrazine, but why bother?  If the power densities
stay low, the big use will probably be as a power source for electrical
propulsion in space.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 15:29:13 GMT
From: pilchuck!ssc!fylz!fyl@uunet.uu.net  (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes:
| In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> johna@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes:
| >>[quotation deleted]
| >With unlimited cheap and pollution-free energy available, we won't be
| >talking about the greenhouse effect, it will be the furnace effect.

| Not necessarily.
| Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of
| land into mirrors.  Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it
| smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal.
| I don't know the statistics on the amount of energy in sunlight falling on
| the earth, but it's some amazing number of times greater than the amount
| of energy we use.  In other words, we could compensate for all the energy 
| we use by covering a relatively small part of the earth's surface with
| mirrors to reflect all the heat back out into space.  

The way I read this, you said we should build cheap fusion reactors to
supply our energy needs and they build mirrors to reflect an equal amount
of energy back into space to keep the earth from heating up.  Richt?

Might I suggest that it would be easier and cost less if you just built
the mirrors to reflect the energy into a collection system and used that
energy.  Or is this too low tech?

-- 
Phil Hughes  -- FYL -- 8315 Lk City Wy NE -- Suite 207 -- Seattle, WA 98115
	
{uw-beaver!tikal,uunet!pilchuck}!ssc!fylz!fyl

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 04:05:41 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: alien contact

In article <7806@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>>Of course, if they consider spaceflight a major sign of civilization, then
>>there's absolutely no doubt about where they will go:  Baikonur...
>You fail to realize, I feel, that by the standards of a civilization that can
>send ships to the stars, neither we nor the Russians have any claim to being
>a space-faring civilization...

True.  However, the Soviets are clearly much the closer.

>Besides, I doubt that self-respecting aliens
>would have as their sole criterion of civilization the number of cheap 
>chemical rockets that could be sent up.  Quality versus quantity, I'd choose
>quality every time.

Yup, clearly the people who can fly an entirely unmanned shuttle mission
with a crosswind landing and a launch in freezing weather, perfectly,
the first time, are ahead on quality.  Same conclusion -- they'll go to
Baikonur.

I think our hypothetical visitors would be more impressed by a pair of
small, shabby space stations in orbit than by a pair of gleaming marvels
of technology, one strewn in pieces over Australia and the other still on
paper after nearly a decade of studies.

Or by a pair of ambitious, failed Mars probes against a complete absence
of planetary missions for a decade.

Or by people who can build launchers that can go up on schedule twice a
week, year after year, against people who can't seem to launch anything
on schedule.

Or, in general, by results in cheap black ink on newsprint, against
glossy airbrushed four-color brochures full of broken promises.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 00:29:12 GMT
From: jerbil@csvax.caltech.edu  (Stainless Steel Gerbil [Joe Beckenbach])
Subject: want E. St. Louis contacts (LONG)


	sci.space purists might want to hit 'n'....
Flames to me welcomed as long as it's e-mail.
NO FLAMES TO THE NEWSGROUPS PLEASE!

	Rationale behind posting to:
sci.space-- wide audience, possible space anti-funding hooks pointed out
misc.misc-- most appropriate group
comp.society.futures-- philosophy behind the posting


	In Saturday's LA Times, Section I, page 26, I read an article entitled
"Long Crippled by Financial, Social Woes, / East St. Louis is Now Fearing 
the Worst".  It seems that the housing project of Villa Griffin acquired a
two-to-five acre sewage 'lake' last December when a sewer collapsed.  Nor is
this reportedly an isolated case in this town.  Illinois Governor Jim Thompson
(in the words of the article, not direct quote) "said that the state will
not help bail the city out as long as Mayor Carl E. Officer remains in power."
The article goes on to chronicle some of the other woes threatening the 
stability of the town, including health menace due to the overflowing and
broken sewers.  An Associate Circuit Judge has ordered that the sewage problem
be solved by the first of June.  And a state task force questions whether the
city can provide '"the basic municipal services required to to ensure public 
safety and the welfare of its citizenry."'
the federal government".


	Ocean Arks International, founded by two of the New Alchemy Institute's
original founders, designed and helped install the Harwich, Massachusetts, septage
purification setup.  This twenty-five-tank, one-trough layout runs the septage
through half the tanks, then the trough, and the rest of the tanks, with floating
plants in the tanks and marsh plants in the trough.  The results?  I quote from
New Alchemy Quarterly, [Winter 1988, #34] page 15:

	"... the Harwich plant has proven an unqualified success. It is removing
	 99% of the ammonia and 99% of the phosphorus from the septage wastes.
	 The nitrate levels being discharged are one-tenth of those considered
	 safe for well water and the effluent has officially been pronounced
	 as very high-quality water.  In just a few months, the Harwich
	 experiment has made a significant breakthrough in cost-effective,
	 environmentally safe, waste water treatment."

The New Alchemy Institute has a long history of incorporating the cycles and
mechanisms of nature into solutions to many and varied problems.  Some of the
NAI people supposedly joke about being 'in the world-saving business'.


	Wink wink nudge nudge say no more.  Any Washington University students,
or anyone else in the St. Louis metropolitan area, please help me get word of
this successful solution to the people who can use the help.  In particular,
several names were mentioned in the newspaper article:

1- St. Clair County State's Attorney John Baricevic, who has launched a grand
	jury investigation into the city's finances, and also was one of the
	lawyers involved in the effort to force a 1 June solution deadline.
2- [State?] Associate Circuit Judge Sheila O'Brien, the judge who ordered the
	1 June solution deadline.
3- Sister Julia Huiskamp. a nun who runs a Catholic Urban Charities program
	at Villa Griffin, who was quoted as saying the conditions were Third-World.
4- Joseph T. Kurre, "director of an East Side Health District clinic, who is 
	fearful that the sewage problems throughout the city could cause
	outbreaks of serious diseases, such as diphtheria, tetanus, and cholera."
5- Katherine Ashford, a resident of Villa Griffin, who was mentioned in passing
	in the article.


	The connection to space efforts?  One, that solutions to most of the
life-sciences problems in closed-ecosystem efforts seem partially addressed
and even implemented under the guise of 'ecologically sound practices' such
as the above, which are economically viable even without the underlying 
philosophical basis which motivated the 'radical' solution.  Two, that when the
environmental push was less intense, and the infrastructure of cities were less
loaded by people and the ravages of time, the anti-space lobbies were justifying
removal of money to spend on earth-bound social projects.  If the space efforts
do not provide spin-offs to solve immediate and pressing problems, such as for
East St. Louis' sewage crisis, then it will be easier for politicians to draw
money from "unproductive" space efforts in order to help keep ground-dwellers
alive.  Ecological insights could be one such spin-off.

	AGAIN, flame me if you wish, but by e-mail.  Flaming in a newsgroup
when e-mail is available tends to make me lose respect for the flamer.


	Material taken from LA Times, Saturday 1 April 1989, and New Alchemy
Quarterly, Winter 1988 [#34].  LA Times copy quoted without explicit permission;
New Alchemy copy quoted with explicit permission for "nonprofit educational
purposes provided that credit is given to the _New_Alchemy_Quarterly_".
-- 
Joe Beckenbach			   |	How can we dream of the stars 
jerbil@csvax.caltech.edu	   |	if the table is bare
Caltech 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125  |	and the water is opaque and brown?

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 15:33:53 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: alien contact

In article <1989Apr2.040541.28890@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <7806@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>>Besides, I doubt that self-respecting aliens
>>would have as their sole criterion of civilization the number of cheap 
>>chemical rockets that could be sent up.  Quality versus quantity, I'd choose
>>quality every time.
>
>Yup, clearly the people who can fly an entirely unmanned shuttle mission
>with a crosswind landing and a launch in freezing weather, perfectly,
>the first time, are ahead on quality.  Same conclusion -- they'll go to
>Baikonur.
>
An unmanned shuttle landing...does this impress you, Henry?  I'm not         
particularly impressed.  Sure, it's a neat trick, but we (and the Russians)
have had microwave landing systems for aircraft for years, and adapting it to
a shuttle is no big deal.  The U.S. is fully capable of the same thing, but
why bother?  There's absolutely no use for an unmanned shuttle mission that
I can think of.  Incidentally, the U.S. shuttle is fully capable of landing 
automatically; all the pilot has to do is lower the wheels and step on the
brakes.  As for the launch, the Russian shuttle did not go up the first time,
nor the second, as far as I know.  And like it's American counterpart, it
was delayed numerous times throughout development, with both technical 
problems and political ones.  And it's not particularly superior in technology,
either.  I heard recently that the tiles are expectd to have to be replaced
every ten flights or so.  Like I said, I'm really not overly impressed.
I will grant, however, that the Soviets have no real problem with cold weather
launches.  Working from Florida, we never had to develop this capability, and
we paid dearly for it.  I just hope we learned a lesson.

>I think our hypothetical visitors would be more impressed by a pair of
>small, shabby space stations in orbit than by a pair of gleaming marvels
>of technology, one strewn in pieces over Australia and the other still on
>paper after nearly a decade of studies.
>
You might be right, here.  Of course, in five or six years, assuming no
development problems and no erosion of political will, the tables will be
turned.  Let's just hope the aliens wait that long.  :-)

>Or by a pair of ambitious, failed Mars probes against a complete absence
>of planetary missions for a decade.

Sure, they'll be impressed here.  Not only were these two probes failures,   
every other probe they've sent there has failed.  I'll put our planetary
exploration program up against the Russians any day.  Who has sent the only
successful probes to Mars?  Who has sent the only probes *period* to 
Mercury?  Jupiter?  Saturn?  Uranus?  And coming this August, Neptune?  For
that matter, who has sent the only manned missions to another celestial
body?  I will admit, we should have followed up the Apollo missions, but
let's face it, the Soviet planetary science program is nothing compared to
the U.S.  Assuming nothing goes wrong (fingers crossed), we'll be sending
new probes out to Venus, to get the highest quality maps of that planet ever,
and a followup mission to Jupiter, which will not only do extensive studies of
the moons, but will make the first penetration of the atmosphere of a gaseous
planet.  And these aren't just paper dreams; Magellan is ready to go, within
the month, and Galileo is just waiting for the launch window.

>
>Or by people who can build launchers that can go up on schedule twice a
>week, year after year, against people who can't seem to launch anything
>on schedule.
>
There's a difference between sending unmanned missions up on schedule and 
sending manned missions up.  There's a lot more to the manned mission.  We
launch our unmanned missions on schedule just fine.  The only delays here are
those caused by not enough boosters, which is the direct result of poor
policy-making with regard to expendable boosters in the Seventies.  And our
manned flights don't run that far behind, either.  

>Or, in general, by results in cheap black ink on newsprint, against
>glossy airbrushed four-color brochures full of broken promises.
>-- 
>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How are they going to ask for passports and visas?  They can't even get the 
customs station to work properly!

Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 31 Mar 89 11:39 EDT
From: <K_MACART%UNHH.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:    Deuterium extraction


    I asked how to extract Deuterium in a previous posting, and got a
response from a person at Perdue.  They wanted me to pass it on the net:

        Apparently, all you have to do is electrolysis.  The heavy water stays
longer, so you stop when you have 1/1000 your initial volume (the concentration
of Deuterium in seawater). Assume you first have to distill all the salt,
biomass and pollution out first, if you can.   They then electrolyze the heavy
water to collect the pure ionized Deuterium gas, add electrons and finis.

        Seems reasonably simple, so that cold fusion is probably a false start,
because the fuel is easy to produce, the method is somewhat easy to use, and
it seems too good to be true.  Time (and trial and error) will tell.

                                Korac MacArthur

=============================================================================
                   generic disclaimer
=============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 07:02:50 GMT
From: ndsuvm1!ndsuvax!ncoverby@cunyvm.cuny.edu  (Glen Overby)
Subject: Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST)


In article <1989Mar28.045026.7380@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Cover:  photo of the systems-test prototype of the Soviet shuttle,
>in its bay at Baikonur.
                ^^^^^^^

If I recall correctly what was said in James Oberg's _Red Star in Orbit_,
the city of Baikonur doesn't even exist!  It was a cover-up (that they're
still using) to keep the US (and others) from knowing their exact launch
site (then Tyrantrum[sp]).

Now my question: where is the true place that the Soviet shuttle (and other
space shots) is launched from?  I seem to recall hearing one time about two
locations.  Latitude and Longitude would be nice to know, too.
--
                Glen Overby     <ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu>
        uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby (UUCP)   ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #340
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Apr 89 05:16:41 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03263>; Thu, 6 Apr 89 01:37:59 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  6 Apr 89 02:37:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AYCk2vy00Vs1M1A0BN>;
          Thu,  6 Apr 89 02:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4YCjK=y00Vs1A190gl>;
          Thu,  6 Apr 89 01:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.8YCjD8y00UkZ4:lU4f>;
          Thu,  6 Apr 89 00:21:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <gYCjBEy00UkZ0-k05L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  6 Apr 89 00:19:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #341

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 341

Today's Topics:
			  Undeliverable mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 07:05 GMT
From: PMDF Mail Server <Postmaster@ccuab1.uab.es>
Subject: Undeliverable mail

The message could not be delivered to:

Addressee: DZ1004
Reason:
  %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user DZ1004 at node CCUAB1

----------------------------------------

Received: from JNET-DAEMON by ccuab1.uab.es; Thu, 6 Apr 89 07:04 GMT
Received: From EB0UB011(MAILER) by EBCCUAB1 with Jnet id 9306 for
 DZ1004@EBCCUAB1; Thu,  6 Apr 89 07:04 GMT
Received: by EB0UB011 (Mailer X1.25) id 1828; Thu, 06 Apr 89 07:01:50 HOE
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 11:38:08 EST
From: space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #338
Sender: space-request+@andrew.CMU.EDU
To: Andreu Grau <DZ1004@ccuab1.uab.es>
Reply-to: space+@andrew.CMU.EDU
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was SPACE@UGA
Comments: To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 338

Today's Topics:
              NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 22:57:19 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #483 -
Alouette 1
1 00424U          89 82.26819637 0.00000575           67866-3 0  1937
2 00424  80.4656  10.5279 0024122 354.8183   5.2733 13.67106533321076
LAGEOS
1 08820U          89 83.53500926 0.00000018           81508-1 0  7096
2 08820 109.8154 201.0809 0044803 333.8408  25.9848  6.38664335 45229
GOES 2
1 10061U          89 81.01082882 -.00000005                   0  2361
2 10061   6.9494  69.3193 0005800 178.9196 181.2384  1.00269853  4507
GPS-0001
1 10684U          89 79.70447855 0.00000012                   0   578
2 10684  63.5326 103.5903 0106305 199.5907 160.0427  2.00561509 66754
GPS-0002
1 10893U          89 75.17357186 -.00000028                   0  9649
2 10893  64.5409 344.5503 0151702  28.3912 332.4453  2.00558954 79486
GOES 3
1 10953U          89 75.08001118 0.00000092           10000-3 0  6177
2 10953   5.7985  72.0474 0007842 244.6990 115.4087  1.00271624    02
SeaSat 1
1 10967U          89 80.99351769 0.00002009           75537-3 0   965
2 10967 108.0109 108.0800 0001544 262.0919  98.0013 14.34426451561584
GPS-0003
1 11054U          89 78.97907784 -.00000028                   0  9904
2 11054  63.9957 340.9358 0055354 115.1245 245.4920  2.00560942 76574
GPS-0004
1 11141U          89 82.57719097 0.00000012                   0  1296
2 11141  63.5293 103.3925 0057789 321.2892  38.3616  2.00576657 75348
Anik B1
1 11153U          89 75.84942236 -.00000241           10000-3 0  6468
2 11153   2.3953  80.9797 0004030 208.9466 152.3930  0.99820806   237
NOAA 6
1 11416U          89 83.41866031 0.00002726           11651-2 0  8261
2 11416  98.5032  82.9519 0014149   0.1377 359.9706 14.25616527505821
Solar Max
1 11703U          89 88.16102073 0.00049374           10237-2 0  8973
2 11703  28.4976 120.9751 0002844 207.9314 151.9045 15.44344414507426
GPS-0006
1 11783U          89 79.04049011 -.00000028                   0  8552
2 11783  63.9123 340.5843 0139883  62.0793 299.3703  2.00566965 65218
GOES 4
1 11964U          89 63.06867812 0.00000085           10000-3 0   532
2 11964   5.2447  74.8076 0024531  81.4499 279.5304  0.99401478   986
GOES 5
1 12472U          89 81.90592186 -.00000248           10000-3 0  7101
2 12472   2.3281  82.7281 0002101 323.4202  36.0666  1.00269242 27745
UOSAT 1
1 12888U          89 83.10593172 0.00074016           13661-2 0  4949
2 12888  97.5717 131.9264 0002975 103.9909 256.1691 15.48841632415771
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 81.60626106 0.00000455           40076-3 0  6318
2 13113  82.5409 127.5913 0014673 311.0143  48.9763 13.83964336353263
Salyut 7
1 13138U          89 88.59642786 0.00067493           17049-2 0  4969
2 13138  51.6127 346.5081 0001876 121.8069 238.3190 15.39176762395927
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 87.24648156 0.00000759           39432-3 0  7619
2 13718  81.2478   0.7280 0055248 229.0030 130.6342 14.13137627324125
IRAS
1 13777U          89 83.39345809 0.00000440           33101-3 0  6236
2 13777  99.0488 281.6517 0012935 179.8951 180.2126 13.98558927314347
GOES 6
1 14050U          89 82.11145027 0.00000118                   0  9200
2 14050   1.0891  83.8398 0001173 356.8754   4.5394  1.00280495  5740
OSCAR 10
1 14129U          89 70.49271510 -.00000036           10000-3 0  3896
2 14129  26.5524 275.5927 6074543  24.7104 355.1329  2.05881509 15201
GPS-0008
1 14189U          89 75.14176849 0.00000011                   0  6124
2 14189  63.1634 102.2709 0134326 215.0993 144.0664  2.00571799 41579
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 86.08308297 0.00001675           71826-3 0  7054
2 14452  81.1663  15.8259 0095242 334.1204  25.5234 14.22092271280878
LandSat 5
1 14780U          89 83.99511686 -.00000661          -14168-3 0  6818
2 14780  98.1747 147.8181 0004239 126.6118 233.5397 14.57135344269300
UOSAT 2
1 14781U          89 83.19302412 0.00004002           78489-3 0  4226
2 14781  98.0086 144.4433 0012087 225.6234 134.3949 14.63235521270115
LDEF
1 14898U          89 81.94670412 0.00042958           86603-3 0  7945
2 14898  28.5065  61.7161 0001638 326.5841  33.4733 15.45168543278076
GPS-0009
1 15039U          89 70.71069479 0.00000011                   0  6330
2 15039  62.8930 101.7093 0015810 277.7435  82.1364  2.00564408 34762
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 81.96652208 0.00000226           19422-3 0  9314
2 15099  82.5261  74.9487 0014250 114.3039 245.9602 13.83624864238198
GPS-0010
1 15271U          89 86.56644251 -.00000028                   0  5995
2 15271  63.3902 340.1489 0099681 319.5804  39.7393  2.00564501 32195
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 87.92511666 0.00004235           62117-3 0    18
2 15331  82.5387  52.5083 0024833 351.3903   8.6370 14.75177086242384
NOAA 9
1 15427U          89 88.84117156 0.00000585           34132-3 0  3532
2 15427  99.1389  74.2567 0015516 172.1952 187.9481 14.11926448221256
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 87.92865313 0.00000725           64063-3 0   634
2 15516  82.5420   8.5977 0016977 346.8683  13.2008 13.84073746209957
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 88.01208978 0.00008238           21906-3 0  2061
2 16095  51.6136 349.3575 0003157 122.5683 237.6545 15.39111877395837
GPS-0011
1 16129U          89 87.22027654 0.00000011                   0  3061
2 16129  63.6864 101.7749 0115278 150.6071 210.1972  2.00564960 25413
Meteor 3-1
1 16191U          89 87.51853394 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8133
2 16191  82.5481 292.7953 0020237 137.1796 223.0958 13.16866314164901
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 88.01681010 0.00000258           22187-3 0  4733
2 16408  82.5323 283.3976 0016361 160.7953 199.3826 13.84145248164469
Mir
1 16609U          89 88.69248476 0.00130946           12473-2 0  7631
2 16609  51.6253  41.7267 0019519  55.1178 305.0803 15.65637875178788
SPOT 1
1 16613U          89 88.88823478 0.00000328           17166-3 0  4157
2 16613  98.7026 164.5619 0001576  74.3851 285.7517 14.20024395   870
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 87.61326522 0.00000463           40696-3 0  2859
2 16735  82.5382 310.5092 0012926 238.1531 121.8353 13.83892977143317
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 88.07755117 0.00001911           28105-3 0  5604
2 16881  82.5224 112.0162 0023143   6.2335 353.9357 14.74826432143480
EGP
1 16908U          89 81.62627618 -.00000017           18257-3 0  1208
2 16908  50.0068 204.1897 0011435 125.4888 234.7023 12.44376707118637
FO-12
1 16909U          89 83.69611252 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1370
2 16909  50.0189 198.0467 0011097 130.5680 229.6122 12.44398749118887
NOAA 10
1 16969U          89 88.76806281 0.00001076           49539-3 0  2115
2 16969  98.6445 120.7523 0014837 119.2502 241.0158 14.22912574132646
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 85.79480361 0.00000410           36128-3 0  2357
2 17290  82.4629 219.8462 0014006 131.1100 229.1272 13.83687294112226
GOES 7
1 17561U          89 79.00000000 -.00000036           10000-3 0  2483
2 17561   0.0499 141.6476 0001458  24.4393 262.7327  1.00272839   861
Kvant
1 17845U          89 88.05414150 0.00070868           68437-3 0  7108
2 17845  51.6272  44.9691 0017298  50.2553 309.7157 15.65619254114956
RS-10/11
1 18129U          89 87.07978700 0.00000514           55569-3 0  7081
2 18129  82.9242 298.0751 0010415 279.1634  80.8233 13.71959925 88275
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 88.42002509 0.00144345  10099-4  27252-3 0  9516
2 18225  71.8780 269.3297 0011107 261.6184  98.5042 16.00564432 98508
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 87.48260703 0.00000279           24356-3 0  2530
2 18312  82.5529 283.4854 0013779  64.8873 295.3705 13.83448350 81352
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 87.93575691 0.00000388           33782-3 0   979
2 18820  82.5486 344.3364 0017779 130.8831 229.3833 13.84135258 58582
AO-13
1 19216U          89 76.49871160 -.00000119           10000-3 0   328
2 19216  57.2888 215.7028 6682305 200.6960 108.5716  2.09700996  5811
Meteor 3-2
1 19336U          89 87.07773939 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1592
2 19336  82.5436 233.0708 0019733  20.7544 339.4282 13.16855001 32231
NOAA 11
1 19531U          89 87.85911303 -.00000290          -15115-3 0   631
2 19531  98.9315  32.2892 0013455  98.3123 261.9585 14.10906494 26143
Soyuz TM-7
1 19660U          89 87.92653345 0.00026551           26157-3 0  1243
2 19660  51.6269  45.6213 0019028  51.5199 308.7472 15.65543902 19252
1989 007A
1 19774U          89 62.29088547 0.00835695  34441-4  42765-3     888
2 19774  64.7310 224.9743 0118332 120.8668 240.4748 16.05799532  5440
1989 009A
1 19785U          89 64.10007655 0.00000004                   0   152
2 19785  82.6210  21.7655 0013300 342.6503  17.4136 12.64001191  2848
1989 009B
1 19786U          89 64.05975057 0.00000004                   0    90
2 19786  82.6234  21.8542 0002898  31.3906 328.7356 12.61808837  2212
1989 009C
1 19787U          89 64.04615570 0.00000004                   0   103
2 19787  82.6141  21.8207 0005863 352.0436   8.0561 12.62575495  2829
1989 009D
1 19788U          89 64.11153859 0.00000004                   0   154
2 19788  82.6184  21.7715 0009753 336.7874  23.2773 12.63354838  2840
1989 009E
1 19789U          89 64.08980311 0.00000005                   0   131
2 19789  82.6106  21.7340 0016252 337.9437  22.0954 12.64579821  2692
1989 009F
1 19790U          89 64.07632704 0.00000004                   0   108
2 19790  82.6190  21.7386 0019973 332.7979  27.2071 12.65340209  2845
1989 009G
1 19791U          89 61.07567539 0.00000004                   0    64
2 19791  82.6136  23.8826 0035855 159.5753 200.6770 12.54767430  2435
1989 011A
1 19796U          89 70.12140472 -.00000961           23892-2 0   271
2 19796  62.8312 155.6785 7351306 318.3537   4.7200  2.00603065   519
1989 011D
1 19799U          89 68.75865655 -.00000506          -29417-3 0    82
2 19799  62.8505 155.8716 7323117 318.2753   4.8050  2.04037207   494
1989 012A
1 19800U          89 75.81756769 0.00347003  16404-4  85006-3 0   669
2 19800  65.8270 311.5020 1296343 134.8360 236.4657 13.25605130  3959
1989 012B
1 19801U          89 73.69979937 -.02887515  17218-4 -51246-2 0   560
2 19801  65.8239 315.7017 1243427 135.5400 235.7857 13.40299809  3688
GPS-0014
1 19802U          89 70.93695796 0.00000015           10000-3 0   167
2 19802  55.1211 215.6503 0077655 186.9612 172.8939  2.01900521   472
1989 013C
1 19804U          89 73.79405384 0.00396263 -28712-5  16148-2 0   380
2 19804  37.3842 193.0170 6003260 224.3294  68.9879  4.15875089  1123
1989 014A
1 19807U          89 73.77669857 0.00000818           45909-2 0   320
2 19807  62.9908 338.8975 7424406 279.9051  10.8010  2.00621212   561
1989 014D
1 19810U          89 74.01083987 0.00000351           53426-3 0   119
2 19810  62.9638 338.6130 7367741 280.1537  11.3209  2.07313260   583
1989 016A
1 19822U          89 78.45474634 0.00027893           22863-2 0   331
2 19822  75.1114  94.3353 4326466 142.9786 256.6972  6.82723171  1744
1989 016B
1 19823U 89016  B 89081.29587005  .00773634  00000-0  00000-0 0 00305
2 19823 074.5686 044.4816 0125969 101.3219 260.2745 15.83310232004454
1989 016C
1 19824U          89 79.44848572 0.00054829           43302-2 0   249
2 19824  75.1096  93.8605 4319426 142.2524 259.1648  6.84257340  1818
1989 017A
1 19826U          89 79.47638162 0.00000359           38850-3 0   349
2 19826  82.9517 212.9735 0029626 202.5847 157.4022 13.71043896  3615
1989 017B
1 19827U          89 77.91681824 0.00000442           47097-3 0   313
2 19827  82.9509 214.0777 0024396 199.4009 160.6223 13.72519946  3398
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89 86.92384539 0.00000117           10000-3 0   160
2 19851  82.5276 223.9522 0016558 168.9063 191.2473 13.83764541  3843
1989 018B
1 19852U          89 85.77129740 0.00000116           10000-3 0   129
2 19852  82.5204 224.8665 0017372 163.3799 196.7935 13.83526194  3688
1989 019A
1 19862U          89 88.67656886 0.00899102  39563-4  40839-3 0   707
2 19862  62.7887 288.4915 0120418  92.5815 268.9378 16.06613827  4332
1989 020A
1 19874U          89 87.06339145 -.00000150           10000-3 0    83
2 19874   0.0997 330.2385 0022931 155.9890 233.9784  1.00288762   206
1989 020B
1 19876U          89 88.32673665 0.00000031           10000-4 0   137
2 19876   1.1360 297.8762 0041348  31.6392 326.8058  1.00537248   214
1989 020C
1 19877U          89 88.63911588 0.00063493           72083-2 0   151
2 19877   7.0067 322.0288 7296529 196.3321 109.6416  2.28199816   513
TDRS 3
1 19883U          89 84.96599351 0.00000150           10000-3 0    74
2 19883   0.1723  43.3983 0021399 253.4486  62.9265  1.00458708   115
1989 022A
1 19893U          89 89.07599591 -.00011829          -10090-3 0   243
2 19893  62.8445 298.6618 0061020 230.7484 128.8279 15.66186821  2113
1989 022B
1 19894U          89 88.98281208 0.02391897  41113-4  97433-3 0   243
2 19894  62.8246 296.4983 0041967 111.2796 249.3527 16.20509934  2144
Progress 41
1 19895U          89 87.92651307 0.00048690           47372-3 0   169
2 19895  51.6320  45.6167 0019128  44.8512 315.2767 15.65546704  1910
1989 024A
1 19900U          89 88.41448575 0.00539415  15741-3  50422-3 0   142
2 19900  64.7448  20.8360 0036745  76.9723 283.7002 16.10273099   956
1989 025A
1 19902U          89 88.00525718 -.00000006                   0    44
2 19902  74.0136  28.7483 0049200  90.1669 270.5020 12.57623458   562
1989 025B
1 19903U          89 88.01195026 -.00000007                   0   110
2 19903  74.0132  28.7630 0040567 100.8874 259.6743 12.55708039   564
1989 025C
1 19904U          89 84.02938342 -.00000006                   0    34
2 19904  74.0104  34.0947 0029732 109.6944 250.7667 12.53878951    62
1989 025D
1 19905U          89 88.02500757 -.00000007                   0    35
2 19905  74.0136  28.8073 0020481 106.4604 253.8700 12.51975167   538
1989 025E
1 19906U          89 88.03187920 -.00000007                   0    85
2 19906  74.0139  28.7860 0009702 115.0553 245.1498 12.50018001   562
1989 025F
1 19907U          89 87.95900993 -.00000006                   0    44
2 19907  74.0137  28.9366 0009971 188.5529 171.5348 12.47956657   526
1989 025G
1 19908U          89 87.96554175 -.00000006                   0    76
2 19908  74.0134  28.9470 0013398 245.5245 114.4407 12.46071959   554
1989 025H
1 19909U          89 87.97329813 -.00000006                   0    44
2 19909  74.0140  28.9302 0026223 243.4625 116.3735 12.43850589   518
1989 025J
1 19910U          89 85.10277736 -.00000006                   0    34
2 19910  74.0142  32.7971 0136011 267.5206  91.0257 12.23017704   190
1989 026A
1 19911U          89 88.75576140 0.00011495           47240-3 0    90
2 19911  47.6897  17.0006 0015476 347.8220  12.1893 15.24372995   738
1989 021D
1 19913U          89 80.13828946 0.00000154           10000-3 0    16
2 19913   2.0886  56.8259 0048464 195.7694 165.1608  1.00598890    08
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #338
*******************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #341
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Apr 89 06:41:50 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03788>; Thu, 6 Apr 89 04:15:29 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  6 Apr 89 05:15:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YYCm6My00jZd41mU8t>;
          Thu,  6 Apr 89 04:36:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.8YClqHy00UkZ4=2E5l>;
          Thu,  6 Apr 89 03:19:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <oYCloyy00UkZ0=0k42@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  6 Apr 89 03:18:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #342

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 342

Today's Topics:
			  Undeliverable mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 07:51 GMT
From: PMDF Mail Server <Postmaster@ccuab1.uab.es>
Subject: Undeliverable mail

The message could not be delivered to:

Addressee: DZ1004
Reason:
  %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user DZ1004 at node CCUAB1

----------------------------------------

Received: from JNET-DAEMON by ccuab1.uab.es; Thu, 6 Apr 89 07:50 GMT
Received: From EB0UB011(MAILER) by EBCCUAB1 with Jnet id 9480 for
 DZ1004@EBCCUAB1; Thu,  6 Apr 89 07:50 GMT
Received: by EB0UB011 (Mailer X1.25) id 2108; Thu, 06 Apr 89 07:47:17 HOE
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 89 08:45:51 EST
From: space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #329
Sender: space-request+@andrew.CMU.EDU
To: Andreu Grau <DZ1004@ccuab1.uab.es>
Reply-to: space+@andrew.CMU.EDU
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was SPACE@UGA
Comments: To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 329

Today's Topics:
   Soviet Phobos II probe fails just before final approach to moon
           Soviet Satellite Photos for Sale
        Re: Success with cold fusion reported
        Re: Room Temperature fusion, expert skepticism
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #321
               Re: NASA Select
             Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons
                Two questions.
        Re: Success with cold fusion reported
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Apr 89 00:51:21 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: Soviet Phobos II probe fails just before final approach to moon

     On Mar. 29th the Soviet Union's Phobos II probe suffered a fatal
failure.  On Mar. 21st it had undergone the final maneuver, placing it in
synchronous orbit with the Martian moon.  On Mar. 26th pictures of Phobos
had been taken from about 150 Km (94 mi) from away. On the 27/28th a second
close up set was being taken.  This was to generate the final orbital
measurements to insure the close approach could be done about 1 week later.
On the Phobos probes the antenna system is not mounted on its own transport
platform (as is done on most US probes).  Instead the vehicle was commanded
to turn away, take the pictures, then return contact to Earth control.
However, in this case the probe rotated away, but never came back.
Compounding the problem of regaining command was the fact that it had
previously lost its main transponder, a 50 Watt system, and was now
operating on this 5 Watt backup.  Thus there are two main probable failure
points, the first being that the control system broke down thus leaving the
probe unable to get back to Earth alignment.  The other possibility is that
the transmitter died, and there was no backup left.  Electronic equipment
often fails just when it is turned on again, as would be the case with this
observation method (the 30 Megabit memory could hold 1100 picture sets so
there was no need to transmit these in real time).  It is not obvious which
problem occurred here though some reports say that faint signals were
received from Phobos II after this failure.  The NY Times quotes Nikotal
Simyonov as saying "it would be very difficult at this point to get a
response form the spacecraft".  The more time the craft is without earth
command the more likely it will loss the sun alignment for its solar cells,
thus suffering a power deficit also.
    Note that the mission was not a complete failure.  Even with the data
obtained at this point the probe has produced the "the highest quality
images of yet obtained of Phobos".  In addition at Mars itself the infrared
spectra give much compositionial information about the planet's surface and
atmosphere, while the planetary magnetic field has been measured.  Never
the less there is bitter loss at missing the Phobos landing by only a few
days. (Boston Globe and New York Times, Mar. 30)
    One comment here, the researchers at the Soviet IKI institute, which
were in charge of the probe, have been pushing the line that unmanned
systems are cheaper and more reliable than manned ones.  They have been
strongly suggesting that robots would be better to explore Mars rather than
a manned mission.  After this high profile mission failure they could find
their case substantially harder to present in the USSR.
    [Personal note - why is it that things only go really wrong with the
Russian program when I am off on a trip, and hence without my shortwave.
At one earlier conference the Soyuz TM-6 re-entry problem occurred.  Sorry
for the delay in posting this but I just got back.]
    So the Russians failed in this attempt on Mars.  It was a loss to us
all (no US probe for Phobos is scheduled yet, and probably would not occur
before 2000 AD).  It will be interesting to see if they launch a second try
in the 1990 or 1992 windows, if they can analyze the failure cause.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 04:05:01 GMT
From: crdgw1!steinmetz!sunspot!blackje@uunet.uu.net  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Soviet Satellite Photos for Sale

[reported in April 1989 IEEE Spectrum; summary follows:]

The USSR is selling satellite photographs of areas all over the world
(with the notable exception of their own back yard) through a subsidiary
of the Continential Grain Company, based in New York City.
The photos boast a resolution as fine as 5 meters (16.4 feet for those
people still hung up on archaic measurements; (they can handle decimals,
can't they?))  -- prices range from $300 to $1200 each.

The New York Times reported that "U.S. experts believe that the photos
were taken by spy satellites" ...
Most of the available photos are of areas of reasonably heavy military
activity;  places like North Dakota (missile silos), Seattle, WA (subs),
and even some nice shots of the Peoples Republic of China.

Rumor has it that the US Government is now considering releasing some
of its OWN nice photographs;  ... operators are standing by ...

The Soviet photos are available from Sojuskarta;
contact ContiTrade Services Corp, 277 Park Ave., New York, NY 10172,
or call them at 212/207-5588 (what? no 800 number?!) ...

--Emmett
    J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
    blackje@crd.ge.com;   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 89 22:43:45 GMT
From: salt.uucp!dan@uunet.uu.net  (Dan Williams)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

from (Miroslav Kocic)
> The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity
> of the Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns.  First, what
> if fusion turns out to create problems we don't foresee?  We didn't
> foresee radioactive waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this
> stage, and, if history teaches anything, it teaches that every benefit
> has a proportional price.  Second, what if cold fusion becomes the
> crack-cocaine of energy production?  I can imagine a thousand fanatics in
> 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen.

    We don't even know if a chemical H-bomb is a feasable idea with
this technology.  I think it may be a little premature to start talking
about the sky falling.  Any way the word is out and at this point there is
probably no way you can shut this discovery down.  Once people kown that a
thing is doable then they will find a way to do it.  If the price for the
technology is too high then it won't be used.  There will be a price.
Nothing comes for free.
    In an interview I heard, one of the researchers was talking about a
period of twenty years while they look into the possiblities of this
discovery, like scaling up the size, investigating changes, enviromental
impact, and anything else their fertile little brains can come up with.  I
think twenty years is a little pesimistic on their part since there will be
a lot of presure to speed up development.  But on the plus side you can bet
that there will be not a little money thrown their way.  I think this will
tell you that they are approaching this discovery with all appropriate
caution.  There will be enough people looking at this to enumerate any
problems we can think of. If we can't think of a problem that may manefest
itself in the future then there is no way we could have known and we will
deal with it when it comes.

    Now if only this is for real then these postings have some meaning.
 _______________________________________________________
|   fusion is a reality                                 |
|   Dan Williams          uunet!salt!dan        |
|   MCDONNELL DOUGLAS      Denver CO            |
|   Any opinions expressed by me are not the         |
|   opinions of McDonnell Douglas.            |up.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 04:23:34 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
 (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion, expert skepticism

In article <7486@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon)
 writes:
>I'm inclined not to. My father is a theoretical physicist who worked
>for years in plasma research. I called and asked him "Say Dad, do you
>suppose if I squeezed some deuterium into a metal lattice it might
>fuse?" He just said, "No."

Whatever is going on inside that palladium -- assuming that there is
anything going on in there -- it is *not* a plasma phenomenon, so asking
a plasma physicist won't necessarily give a meaningful answer.  Better
would be to ask a chemist specializing in the subject just how close
hydrogen atoms get inside palladium, and then ask a physicist just how
close they have to get for interesting things to happen.

Unfortunately, this may -- repeat, may -- be like asking a 19th-century
physicist what he thinks of the possibility of a single bomb capable of
destroying an entire city.  There may, pure and simple, be some new and
hitherto-unsuspected effect involved, in which case *any* expert opinion
is valueless.

If you had asked a superconductivity expert, several years ago, whether
complex copper oxides would superconduct at liquid-nitrogen temperatures,
the odds are pretty good that he would have said "no".  There is still
no theoretical understanding of how liquid-nitrogen superconductors work;
the old BCS theory, which quite successfully explained superconducting
metals, cannot possibly be stretched to cover the new superconductors,
and there is no replacement theory in sight yet.  Remember that example
when assessing theoretical opinions about this issue.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1989 12:18-EST
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #321

>... My question is why were there no cabin views during
>the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch

I have seen two different films with out of the window pictures during
launch.

Both were quite impressive.

The earlier one was in a film from Rockwell, and you could watch the
horizon as the sky turned darker and darker blue.... and then suddenly
the sky was BELOW you, a thin film visible on the horizon.


The other showed more clearly than any numbers how fast the shuttle
picks up speed. The shots were from the last Spacelab flight (Chang
Diaz, monkey shit, etc) and was in a northerly trajectory that seemed
to parallel the East coast of the US. You could watch the coast of
Florida slowly appear and then Georgia slide into view, and then in
rapidly increasing succession you passed everything up to Boston.
Marvelous piece of film.

Incidentally, a scientist crew member who was on the flight was giving
a talk and told of the problems of prefitted trojan-like male urine
collection devices. The fit tends to not be very good under several g's
and stress. Remember that there are crewmembers in seats above other
crew members during the boost phase.  Space flight isn't ALL glory you
know.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 00:19:53 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: NASA Select

[]

In article <1989Mar27.213437.22701@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
 writes:
>In article <Added.4Y=O_Wy00Ui30R7E8O@andrew.cmu.edu> BISURFAC@ECUVM1.BITNET
 (Lou Surface) writes:
>>... My question is why were there no cabin views during
>>the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch
>>on any mission - from Apollo to STS. Is this due to G-force limits
>>on operating cameras? - that would be suprising. Or is there some
>>classified ritual that occurs at T minus 0?

Several reasons I can think of:
  1) The ground controllers probably don't want to clutter up the
  shuttle's comm channels with an unecessary  wide-band transmission,
  otherwise known as TeeVee. Since the launch is perhaps the most
  communications intesive portion of the flight, I sure that all
  conceivable channels are reserved for more valuable information.

  2) The shuttle's cameras are pretty big dudes, long boxes around
  6"x6"x18" or so. They have got to be pretty heavy (>15 pounds) once
  you add in the electronics, massive zoom lenses and motors to drive
  them, etc. The mounts for the cameras are petty flimsy, and would never
  work in 1G. Launch video would require the manufacture of special
  mounting brackets.

  3) No classified ritual, as I've seen many a film taken of the crew
  during launch. (Unless they scratch themselves in certain interesting
  places that might not be too appealing :-).

  There were two U.S missions which did have video during launch :

  Gordon Cooper's Mercury flight, Faith 7. They were trying out an
  experimental slow-scan tv system which transmitted back pictures
  at about 2 seconds/frame.

  The other was the Apollo-Soyuz launch. There was a camera tucked under the
  right control panel looking up at the crew during the launch sequence.
  It's quite an interesting sequence.

On STS-30, they'll be trying out a Sony cam-corder. This might pave the
way for small, lightweight cameras which might conceivably be left on
during the launch sequence.


>There's no special problem with it that I'm aware of.  I'd assume that
>the reason is (a) the view would be boring,

Any more "boring" than 38 minutes of a crewmember throwing switches in
the Aft flight deck? :-)

>and (b) the astronauts'
>conversations are considered private unless explicitly transmitted.

The cameras do not come equipped with microphones, so any internal
conversations would not be transmitted.

>--
>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  <-great signature Henry

          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 03:20:36 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons

Mike Van Pelt writes;
> The outfit in Sweden found methane... the gas
> had been verified as being of non-biological origin, but they
> didn't explain how they had verified this.

Carbon contains two stable isotopes, carbon-12 and carbon-13.
During photosynthesis, the carbon retained in plant tissue is enriched
in carbon-12 (relative to non-biogenic carbon, such as diamond). Thus methane
of biogenic origin is usually enriched in carbon-12.

Tom O'Reilly
oreilly@hpldsla

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 05:52:49 GMT
From: nunki.usc.edu!sawant@oberon.usc.edu  (Abhay Sawant)
Subject: Two questions.


1.  I thought the idea of having spacecraft merely 'nudge' asteroids
towards earth was really neat.  Question: won't it be awfully hard to
get the exact trajectory of the asteroid correct?  Even if we're going
to be satisfied with getting it within (say) 15k km. from the center
of the earth (assume we can easily recover anything in this range),
isn't it going to be awfully hard to give the asteroid the correct
velocity vector?  Especially when you consider the awkward shape,
distribution of mass of the critter (i'm thinking engineering here).

2.  If it's not very hard getting some kind of hot fusion going, isn't
it a easy solution to the radioactive waste problem to chuck it into a
merrily burning fusion reaction?  Alternatively, shoot it into the
center of the sun.  Alternatively, shoot it at the stars.  Why have we
only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far?

    -ajay

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 09:30:26 GMT
From: shelby!csli!cphoenix@decwrl.dec.com  (Chris Phoenix)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> johna@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com.GVG.TEK.COM (John
 Abt) writes:
>>[quotation deleted]
>With unlimited cheap and pollution-free energy available, we won't be
>talking about the greenhouse effect, it will be the furnace effect.

Not necessarily.
Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of
land into mirrors.  Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it
smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal.
I don't know the statistics on the amount of energy in sunlight falling on
the earth, but it's some amazing number of times greater than the amount
of energy we use.  In other words, we could compensate for all the energy
we use by covering a relatively small part of the earth's surface with
mirrors to reflect all the heat back out into space.  The greenhouse effect
probably traps much more heat than would be produced by any fusion we could
use.  Worrying about a "furnace effect" from fusion is almost as groundless
as worrying about one from solar energy.  (That came up in sci.nanotech a
while ago, and I gave the same answer except, "Imagine how cheap it would
be, with nanotechnology, to...")

Chris Phoenix
cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #329
*******************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #342
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Apr 89 07:14:48 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00581>; Thu, 6 Apr 89 05:30:25 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  6 Apr 89 06:30:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oYCneJy00UkT01n04:>;
          Thu,  6 Apr 89 06:23:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.8YCnaty00UkZM=AE5J>;
          Thu,  6 Apr 89 05:19:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sYCnYgy00UkZ8=-k5h@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  6 Apr 89 05:17:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #343

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 343

Today's Topics:
			  Undeliverable mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 08:27 GMT
From: PMDF Mail Server <Postmaster@ccuab1.uab.es>
Subject: Undeliverable mail

The message could not be delivered to:

Addressee: DZ1004
Reason:
  %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user DZ1004 at node CCUAB1

----------------------------------------

Received: from JNET-DAEMON by ccuab1.uab.es; Thu, 6 Apr 89 08:26 GMT
Received: From EB0UB011(MAILER) by EBCCUAB1 with Jnet id 9653 for
 DZ1004@EBCCUAB1; Thu,  6 Apr 89 08:26 GMT
Received: by EB0UB011 (Mailer X1.25) id 2393; Thu, 06 Apr 89 08:23:11 HOE
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 06:35:27 EST
From: space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #336
Sender: space-request+@andrew.CMU.EDU
To: Andreu Grau <DZ1004@ccuab1.uab.es>
Reply-to: space+@andrew.CMU.EDU
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was SPACE@UGA
Comments: To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 336

Today's Topics:
             space news from Feb 6 AW&ST
           Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion
         Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
         Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
              Re: Two questions
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
         Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
                alien contact
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 02:42:21 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
 (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Feb 6 AW&ST

[A light news week, for no particularly obvious reason.]

Japan is considering transferring its comsat programs to commercial
hands in a few years.

Satellite launch-insurance rates are falling, as successful launches
continue.

Rockwell proposes building another set of shuttle structural spares for
NASA.  The original structural-spares set is being used to build the
new orbiter.

Japan flies another quarter-scale model of the H-2 booster, successfully.

NASA's general counsel advises that the legal requirement that NASA's
top two officials come from "civilian life" precludes hiring James
Abrahamson (ex-head of SDI) as head of NASA, despite frequent mention
of his name in that connection.  He is a retired military officer,
receiving a military pension and subject to the military code of justice.

Recent Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting decision requires private
funding for several NASA projects, notably the Flight Telerobotic Servicer
for space station assembly.  NASA plans a May contract to build the
servicer and related equipment for shuttle tests, but OMB refused funding
for it.  General opinion is that this is crazy, since the government is
probably the only customer.  Worse, this was in the middle of the contract
competition, which made no provision for private funding.  Industry says
it will not pay for the development work without strong guarantees of
recovering their investment.  This probably will not kill the servicer,
but it will delay it, and NASA is caught in between, because Congress
ordered that the servicer be tested and deployed before similar Canadian
hardware could be ready.  [Congress, of course, is also the bunch that
is constantly harping on how expensive the space station is getting.
Parochial pork-barrel projects like this are a significant reason.]
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 14:17:58 GMT
From: mcvax!cernvax!jon@uunet.uu.net  (jon)
Subject: Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion


This is a summary of a talk given by Professor Fleischmann at CERN, Geneva
on Friday 31st March. I should point out that I am a computer programmer and
not a physicist or a chemist, so therefore not all my understanding of the
facts may be 100% correct, but I kept notes so hopfully the following will
make some sense. Also this was strictly a scientific seminar, no questions
were allowed on the non-scientific aspects of the talk. In fact the camera
crews of various TV stations were asked to leave before the talk began.
But they were given a chance to interview Professor Fleischmann after the
seminar.

  It has taken Prof. Fleischmann and his collegue 5 years to get this far
and they had hoped to keep the experiment secret for about another 18 months
so they could be 100% certain of the results. But the results where "leaked"
(This was news to me, any confirmation?), and then they had the "awful news
conference", as he called it. They also funded the experiment privately
because they didn't think anyone would give them money for such a mad idea.

  The equation in the at the  palladium cathode is as follows

     D2O + e- <=> Dabs + OD-

     Dabs <=> Dlattice

     Dabs + D2O + e- <=> D2 + OD-

     Dabs = Absorbed Deuterium

     Dlattice = Deuterium in the Palladium lattice

     The deuterium in the lattice is very mobile.

He then said something that I quite didn't understand and gave the figure
of 0.8eV. I think this is the potential of the deuterium in the lattice.
This 0.8eV is equivalent to a pressure of 10^27 atm for gaseous deuterium.

The QM of the s-electron density of the Deuterium is VERY strange and is
not understood.

In the lattice the following nuclear reactions occur

   2D + 2D -> 3T + 1H + 4.03MeV

   2D + 2D -> 3He + n + 3.77Me

Their first experiment was with a palladium cube, this finished when the
cube ignited, in the nuclear sense. The conclusion of this is that this
reaction does not fail safe. When it starts to run hot it runs very hot.
The cube almost burnt down their fume cupboard. But at least the effects
are not quite as serious as a meltdown of a fission reactor.

They then tried sheets before finally trying rods. These rods a 10cm long
and have diameters of 1mm ,2mm and 4mm. The best results are with the 4mm rod
therefore the reaction is dependent on volume as opposed to surface area, it
also seems to be dependant on temperature.

After 100 hours the measured output was 5MJ / cm3. They managed to detected
neutrons, gamma-rays and 5 fold increase in the tritrium in the heavy water.
They didn't manage to get a energy spectrum for the neutrons.

They calulated there are 10^4 neutron producing events/sec but to account
for the energy released there must be 10^13 events/sec, this means that
the prefered reaction path does not produce neutrons. They do not know
what this path is but lithium was being mentioned.

The efficiency of their cell is "miserable" and their best result was 111%
of breakeven (i.e. 100% => power in == power out), but they predicte that
with a properly designed cell their efficiency could be over 1200%, i.e.
10 times out what you put in.

It takes 3 months to charge a cell before it starts to produce anything.


That's the end of my notes, now for some editorial comments.

I personally could see nothing wrong with his explanation of the phenomena,
there is no known chemical reaction which can produce the amounts of energy
involved. It has to be nuclear fusion. Whether or not this is going to have
any practical use is still to be seen, as Prof. Fleischmann said a lot of
work now has to go into understand why and how this is happening. There
were some very worried theoretical physicists leaving the hall after the
talk, and there were mumbles about rewriting the theory of quantum mechanics.

The are going to be a hell of a lot of papers on cold fusion in the next
years!!

*---------------------------------------------------------------*
|                                                               |
| Jon Caves             {world}!mcvax!cernavx!jon               |
| Division DD,          jon@cernvax.cern.ch                     |
| CERN CH-1211,                                                 |
| Geneva 23,            "Quote? I haven't got time to think     |
| Switzerland.             of a quote!"                         |
|                                                               |
*---------------------------------------------------------------*

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 18:55:40 GMT
From: rochester!rocksanne!helium!eschbach@rutgers.edu  (Reiner Eschbach)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?


>Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on
>Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
>Earth.

Ever been to Europe ? Or ever checked population densities ?

Reiner

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 20:44:11 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <707@rocksanne.UUCP> eschbach@helium.UUCP (Reiner Eschbach) writes:
>
>>Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on
>>Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
>>Earth.
>
>Ever been to Europe ? Or ever checked population densities ?
>
>Reiner

No, I haven't.  But the population density of Europe is only slightly greater
than that of the U.S., and we do have a greater infrastructure than Europe,
however you care to measure it.  If you want population density, look to
some of the African nations, or perhaps India.

Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 23:17:44 GMT
From: ap10+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Anand Patwardan)
Subject: Re: Two questions


To: Outbound News <outnews+ext.nn.sci.space@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Two questions, Radioactive waste disposal



The option of disposing radioactive waste into space has been thought of -
off and on. The problem seems to be one of volume and weight; there is just
an enormous amount of the waste lying around.

If you consider that even getting 2000 Kg satellites into geo stationary
orbits is a non-trivial task and all our planetary space probes are very
light and compact; even getting a small part of the stuff out into space and
ensuring that it does get into the sun(which seems the most feasible alt-
ernative) will probably be very difficult.
Perhaps when(or if) the space station is built, it will be easier to send
packets of the "hottest" wastes into the sun ( or into orbits around other
planets).... by launching them from space.


Anand Patwardhan
EPP, CMU

----------------

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 19:39:21 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rlc4_ltd@rutgers.edu  (Richard Connell)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

This is getting lengthy...

In article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>...I prefer to limit
>manned missions almost exclusively to scientific and professional personnel
>who can make the most efficient use of these extremely expensive missions.  I
>consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of
>precious technology.

    Well, if you want to get the average person interested, and thereby
get monies from our government, I think you had better be ready to cater to
such a 'frivilous waste of precious technology'.  I mean, really, is the
average person going to want to support something that they see as a waste of
their money, just because it is an advance in technology.  What ever happened
to the end-user?  Who isbenefitting from this technology, and why aren't they
seeing the results.  I have noticed that there is a question of NASA needing
money to perform experiments, and the fact that the media no longer focuses
on the launches as much, because there is nothing new, it is some experiment
that does not seem to have a real affect down here, where everyone else is.
    For this reason, just about any use of space that will catch people's
attention is, I feel, not a waste of resources, or money.  If you want to
keep it technical, how about such projects as trying to stay on the moon?
Or other places in space?

[arguement about soviets and economy deleted]

>> Don't you think...knowledge is likely to be expanded by flying a wider
>> cross-section of people than athletic professional astronauts?
>
>How, pray tell?  Why would we learn more by sending up poorly-trained people
>who are less cost-effective at carrying out the missions?  If you are
>concerned about the physical fitness of astronauts, I'm sure that we could
>find a few flabby scientists to send up.  :-)
>

    By exposing more people to space, you get a wider variety of opinions
about ways that it could be used.  If you send up untrained personnel, then
you will get uneducated, and unbiased reactions to the situation.  If you
send up a load of artists and musicians, then there will be a whole new
look at the idea of going into space.  Also this would focus more attention
on the program itself, and what it could accomplish...
    And if things went bad, what would a few less artists and singers do
to the world, just space em...:-)

    It is my opinion that the more people we get into space, the more
interest there will be in it for the average person.  I have no
rargument that it should start with techies, people who know all about it,
but there comes a time when even these people are not going to have any idea
of what in the world is going on.  And in this case, your average carpenter
might be better equipped to handle the situation, who can really say.
    Plus, once (or if) there is ever a space station, are we going to
want to pay big bucks to a person trained in aerospace technologies to
take out the garbage?  I don't think so.  That person can be put to a much
better use working in the science feild.  And this will be the same with all
the technical fields, so who takes out the trash?  Who provides for a little
relaxing entertainment every once in a while, etc?  Highly trained people in
the fields of science are not going to be the people to do this, or at least
not on the basis that normal people would need.

>>>The idea of getting people to "take over" our space
>>>program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it
>>>was impractical.  It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free
>>>market was the answer to everything...
>>Yes, ridiculous uncommercial people like Boeing.  And it went out the
>>window because NASA wasn't interested in relinquishing control, despite
>>a few encouraging noises early on.
>
>I would be interested in clarification here. Do you mean that Boeing, or some
>other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight
>program?  I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any
>such desire.  What for?  They are working with the government, which is the
>only conceivable customer for manned space flight right now.  Who was that
>stubborn, hidebound NASA supposed to relinquish control to?  There ain't
>nobody there.  That's why I called the idea impractical. Only governments can
>afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now.

    Missed the beginning of this discussion, so please excuse me if
I am going off on something that I know nothing about, but why do all the
flights into space have to be of a scientific nature.  If they all are
scientific now, when will the commercial interest get involved?  In any
serious way that is, for they are already interested.  Look at all the
communication sattelites that are up there.
    So when do the normal people get a chance to see space?  I thought
that the teacher in space program was a good start, and am very saddened by
the way that it ended.  These are the sorts of programs that are going to get
you the money, and the resources that you need to continue the program in a
useful way.

    Have fun, and please do send flames, I will welcome them, it's cold
here in Rochester.

                           | Ricky Connell| rlc4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
                           |--------------| NOTES_RCON@uordbv.BITNET
    -------                |Disclaimer :     -----------------------------------
  /   ___   \   Happy   | A disclaimer??? Why a disclaimer???  Who really
 /    (O)    \  Mutants | cares whose opinion this is I'm borrowing!
(             ) For     |--------------------------------------------------
 \   )---(   /  Nuclear | "No matter where you go, there you are." -B.Bonzai
  \         /   Energy  | "Let's show this prehistoric b***h how we do
    -------             |  things downtown!" -- Ghostbusters

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 22:52:26 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <7767@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:

>Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on
>Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
>Earth.  Compared to the U.S., the Soviet Union is third-rate, at best.

And don't forget that the US probably puts out more RF energy than any
other nation on the earth, which is a sure sign of a scientifically
advanced culture (even if most of it is soap operas and cartoons!).



Neal

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 22:45:41 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
 (Henry Spencer)
Subject: alien contact

In article <7787@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>As to who the aliens would contact...well, where would the best place be?  I
>would vote for the United States, because (1) by almost any standard, we are
>the most advanced nation on earth, and (2) the U.N. (for all it's worth) is
>located here...

Of course, if they consider spaceflight a major sign of civilization, then
there's absolutely no doubt about where they will go:  Baikonur.  Or just
possibly Plesetsk, although if they're being attentive to things like the
activity around Mir it'll be Baikonur for sure.  The other spaceports on
Earth are insignificant by comparison to either of those two.  Between them
they handle 80%+ of Earth's space traffic.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #336
*******************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #343
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Apr 89 13:13:05 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04242>; Fri, 7 Apr 89 01:25:52 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  7 Apr 89 02:25:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IYD4Piy00Ui3M1tSk5>;
          Fri,  7 Apr 89 01:28:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.YYD4IBy00UkZ0Dpk4O>;
          Fri,  7 Apr 89 00:20:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <kYD4Ggy00UkZMDoE5O@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  7 Apr 89 01:18:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #344

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 344

Today's Topics:
	       POssible confirmation of nuclear fusion?
		       Re: Deuterium extraction
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #331
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #322
		 Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
	Rosen named Acting Associate Administrator (Forwarded)
 Re: Soviet Phobos II probe fails just before final approach to moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 16:29:28 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: POssible confirmation of nuclear fusion?


>From today's New York Times:                       

"Two Hungarian scientists have reportedly reproduced an experiment in which
researchers said they created nuclear fusion at room temperatures, the Hungariannews agency, MTI, said today."
.
.
.
"The agency said Dr. Gyula Csikai and Dr. Tibor Sztaricskai of the Experimental
Physics Department at Lajos Kossuth University at Debrecen conducted their 
experiment March 31.  But the agency did not say how much power had been
produced."

Hmmm...

This public service announcement brought to you by...


Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 23:49:27 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Deuterium extraction

In article <Added.EYBTt7y00Vs142oE8l@andrew.cmu.edu> K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET writes:
>        Apparently, all you have to do is electrolysis.  The heavy water stays
>longer, so you stop when you have 1/1000 your initial volume...

Actually this is an inefficient way to make heavy water; it was used in
early experiments, and is still used for final purification, but there
are more efficient (although more complex) ways to do the early stages.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1989 12:40-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #331

> Rockefeller of Standard Oil used to cut prices in local areas to kill
> off small competitors, then raise the prices again. The Japanese

Please verify. According to some authors this is a myth that is
unsupported by actual hard data from the period. Not having seen the
data either way, I will not claim which side is right, only point out
that it is not a proven statement.

> Americans are not anxious to lower American wages to the levels found
> elsewhere in the world, though the current trade policy leaves things

Too true. In a truly competitive world economy wages and prices world
wide would be driven to a median. The overly low would rise to meet the
overly high. So obviously, those who HAVE will use the government to
keep it at the expense of those who HAVE NOT. It is as true of the big
aerospace companies as it is of the typical mill worker. Management and
labor both wish to use the power of government to hold or enlarge their
peice of the pie at the expense of others who are not so fortunate.
Can't let those <fill in your favorite slur> get on the first rung...

> unless its prices are competitive. A very common practice in Japan is for
> a new business to be protected within the country by steep import
> tariffs,

And as long as the Japanese are willing to subsidize my purchase of
goods, fine. Their loss improves my living standard by allowing me to
purchase more goods and services for the same dollars than I would have
otherwise. Thus I get my stereo AND some other goods as well. Everyone
gains except the people who supply the subsidy. And if it is indeed a
case where the particular business gets a foothold and kills off it's
competition, then I suggest that you buy stock in the winner and invest
your profits in space business. You CAN buy from the Tokyo Exchange,
although not a lot of individuals do so. Of course I would also like to
totally discontinue all defense expenditures on their behalf. That
would put our economies on a more equal footing.

>business!  Mafia tactics rule in the US Government's economic policies.

I agree totally. The US subsidizes industries massively. Some are
blatant like the way the american farmer uses government to ripoff the
public. Others are not so blatant, as in the massive defense spending
used to support uncompetitive aerospace firms. Others are almost
criminal, as in the quota structures set up on behalf of particular
industry lobbies, usually by the method of buying a congressman and
getting him to log roll with other bought congressmen. Yes, certain
PARTICULAR subsidies may be less that elsewhere, but when you toss in
the sneaky ones, our government ain't no better than the Japanese. If
not worse.

Once a government grows past a small Jeffersonian size, it becomes a
status quo institution whose sole purpose is to make sure those
currently on top stay there. This is the reason why laissez faire never
had a chance here or anywhere else. Those who have would rather not
have to work (to societies benefit) to keep it. Not even a monopoly is
bad if they know their business is at risk if they don't provide fair
service and fair prices. Governments provide the service of insuring
that such competition is kept down "at gunpoint".

Speaking of monopolies. I'm gleefully visualizing the collapse of all
the public power utilities if this fusion technique pans out. "Natural"
monopolies are a figment of the imagination.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 06:59:47 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@uunet.uu.net  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <5849@pdn.nm.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
<There is also a device called the "fusion torch," which can transmute 
<elements (platinum from mud, if you like).  Of course, this requires
<very advanced controlled-fusion reactors...

Actually at *much* lower temperatures, *all* molecules break down and 
*any* material fed into the torch will be "totally" ionized. Feed 
anything in, run the plasma thru a *giant* mass spectrograph and get
ISOTOPICALLY PURE elements out. (He3 and H3 have diufferent masses
as do all the other "same weight" isotopes)

Room te,p superconductors would help, but aren't *neccessary*. I like
this gizmo because it solves a lot of waste problems. Any chemical waste
is no problem, and nuclear wastes can be concentrated to pure elements
which can either be used in isotope generators or buried somewhere safe.
(after all, what percentage of most radioactive waste is *really* 
radioactive? Most is just "contaminated".)

Even if this sort of thing required a plant so large that we could only
have one per state it would still be useful. It isn't practical now due
to energy costs. But if cold fusion is practical.... wow!

-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 19:01:20 GMT
From: shelby!csli!cphoenix@decwrl.dec.com  (Chris Phoenix)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <291@fylz.UUCP> fyl@fylz.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes:
>In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes:
>| In other words, we could compensate for all the energy 
>| we use by covering a relatively small part of the earth's surface with
>| mirrors to reflect all the heat back out into space.  
>
>The way I read this, you said we should build cheap fusion reactors to
>supply our energy needs and they build mirrors to reflect an equal amount
>of energy back into space to keep the earth from heating up.  Richt?
>
>Might I suggest that it would be easier and cost less if you just built
>the mirrors to reflect the energy into a collection system and used that
>energy.  Or is this too low tech?
>
This is a lot harder to do.
For one thing, for a collection system the mirrors have to track the sun,
and reflect all the energy to one point.   With a reflective system they 
just have to get it anywhere above the horizon.
A collection system may not put the energy where we want it, and will require
storage facilities.

Assuming fusion reactors are easy enough to build to be useful at all, it
will be a lot easier to put a reactor where we want the power and the
simple mirrors where there's a lot of sun and unused land, than to try to
build and use a solar power plant.

In response to some earlier questions:  The greenhouse effect would not 
reflect the light back down to earth.  It reflects heat generated when 
light is absorbed by the earth.  If light hits mirrors, it will be broadcast
as light instead of heat.  This is the crucial difference.

Obviously, there would be environmental problems with coating a lot of the 
earth with mirrors.  But I don't see how they could be worse than those 
caused by our present fossil-fuel system.  We probably wouldn't need to 
coat all that much to make the difference--almost certainly less land area
than would be covered by water if the ice caps melted.

I'm not saying that this would necessarily be a good idea to do, just that
it would be a good idea to consider.  If I actually propose doing it, then
you can flame me for destroying the environment.

Chris Phoenix
cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1989 13:18-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #322

> but the government hasn't been overwhelmed with requests from companies 
> desiring to build AND FINANCE entire launch systems (including launch pads 
> and recovery facilities) on their own.

Hawaii
Florida
Australia.

And AMROC is building their own facility at Vandenburg because it is
too costly to get through the GOVERNMENT approval process for setting
up a launch range. The insanities of environmental impact statements
and risks to Hysterical Landmarks at VAFB (General Curtis LeMay's
summer cottage no less) make such construction difficult and costly
even on an existing range.

> Still, it doesn't mean that the US is always in the wrong and can't do 
> anything right, which is what you regularly appear to be saying.
> Lighten

If they are doing anything right, I'd love to know what it is.

> at times.  As a result, we often don't do things in the best way we could,
> and policies sometimes result that no one is perfectly happy with.

Reference: See "The Unexpurgated Grace Commission Report" for concrete
examples of the above decision making process.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 17:34:51 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>The second possibility is to use a smaller fusion reactor to preheat
>>fuel and/or oxidizer before injection into a conventional chemical
>>engine.
>
>I doubt the practicality of this.  Existing oxyhydrogen rockets already
>run fuel-rich partly to *cool* the exhaust a bit (and thus reduce thermal
>dissociation of water into oxygen and hydrogen).

So, a fusion preheated chemical rocket would be even more fuel rich.
In the limit, no oxygen is used at all, and the system is a purely nuclear
rocket.

I can also imagine a nuclear scramrocket.  A fusion NERVA rocket is used
as a fuel injector into a supersonic airstream, which serves as a thrust
augmentor.  This might be a better use of a nuclear rocket, since
peak power required is lower.

>If the power densities
>stay low, the big use will probably be as a power source for electrical
>propulsion in space.

I have a feelin that power densities can be increased markedly.  For
example, go to thinner pieces of Pd.  If lithium is involved in the
reaction, use purified Li6 (boosts the power density by a factor of
5).  Boost the amount of deuterium in the lattice by upping the
current density.  Try DT instead of D.

I've heard a report that the reaction doesn't work at high enough
temperatures, though.  Time to look for a better metal.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 21:40:11 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Rosen named Acting Associate Administrator (Forwarded)

Mary Sandy
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     March 30, 1989


RELEASE:  89-41

ROSEN NAMED ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR


     NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher today named Dr. 
Robert Rosen as acting associate administrator for aeronautics 
and space technology (OAST), effective April 2.  Rosen has served 
as deputy associate administrator OAST since March 1986.

     Rosen replaces acting associate administrator Dr. William F. 
Ballhaus, Jr. who returned to his permanent position as director 
of NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.

     In his new position, Rosen will be responsible for the 
direction of NASA's aeronautics and space technology programs as 
well as for the institutional management of NASA's Ames Research 
Center, Langley Research Center and Lewis Research Center.

     Rosen joined NASA Headquarters in April 1985 as the 
director, propulsion, power and energy division, OAST.  Prior to 
coming to NASA, Rosen held key positions in private industry, 
including Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, Calif., 1979-1985, and 
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, Huntington Beach, Calif., 
1968-1979

     Rosen received a bachelor of science degree in 1960 from the
University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla; a master of science 
degree in 1962 from Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.; a 
mechanical engineering degree in 1966 from the California 
Institute of Technology, Pasadena; and a Ph.D. in 1968 from the 
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

     A New York City native, Rosen and his family are residents 
of Vienna, Va.  He is married to the former Gail Brock and they 
have two sons.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 09:51:03 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Soviet Phobos II probe fails just before final approach to moon

Friday's LA Times had some interesting speculation as to the underlying causes
of the problems with the Phobos probes. They said the probes were the first of a
new type manufactured by a government contractor independent of the scientists
at the "Soviet Space Research Institute". The Times said that these basic probes
(to which the various experiments and other unique hardware are added)
have poor communication and computer facilities, and little redundancy, and
that they are the cause of the phobos problems. Appearantly the USA is not the
only country which has problems with lowest bid hardware from independent
government contractors.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #344
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Apr 89 14:22:25 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04586>; Fri, 7 Apr 89 03:48:26 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  7 Apr 89 04:48:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MYD6zyy00Ui3I1x6hM>;
          Fri,  7 Apr 89 04:23:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.IYD6vUy00UkZIE8U4C>;
          Fri,  7 Apr 89 03:18:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <IYD6tly00UkZ8E705x@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  7 Apr 89 04:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #345

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 345

Today's Topics:
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		 Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
Re: summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89 (long, > 200 lines )
    Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST)
		       Request for information
		  Re: Building a fusion-based rocket
		  Space applications of cold fusion
		 Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
		 Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
			     Cold fusion
			 Add to mailing list
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 89 23:18:40 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM>, johna@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes:
> 
> With unlimited cheap and pollution-free energy available, we won't be
> talking about the greenhouse effect, it will be the furnace effect.

The greenhouse effect is not due to the release of energy from burning
fossil fuels.  It is due to the accumulation of carbon dioxide (and other
gases) in the atmosphere which affects the retention of solar radiation.
Heating the planet as direct effect of power generation would take
an enormously greater per capita consumption of energy for the whole
planet than the present per capita use in the USA.  In other words,
the use of fusion power as a source of energy is less of a problem
from the point of view of the greenhouse effect than any other
energy generation scheme, with the exception of fission power.
I include solar energy here because solar collectors tend to locally
decrease the albedo of the Earth.

An example of a real problem with cold fusion (as reported in the press,
I make no claims for its reality) would be its tendency to irradiate
its container vessel with neutrons (producing some quantity of
low level radioactive waste) and release tritium (a nasty isotope
of hydrogen with a tendency to get absorbed into body tissues and
a half life short enough to give a healthy dose of radiation per unit
time).  The first may less of an issue with cold fusion than hot if
the claim of a low neutron yield holds up.  The second requires
some care (although the short half life might make waste disposal
a manageable problem).  I have no idea, in practical terms, how
much it will cost to deal with these issues, but if you want to
speculate about problems with cold fusion they make a good starting
point.  Thermonuclear fusion has lots of problems as previously
discussed here and elsewhere.

I note that given sufficiently cheap energy it is possible to overcome
most pollution problems associated with modern industry. 
-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 12:10:33 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers


Most postings to this newsgroup seem to assume that the discovery of
cold fusion is a great boon to the exploration and colonization of
space.  This does not seems obvious to me.  From what I have read
so far, cold fusion may help space exploration only a litle,
and hamper space colonization quite a lot.

Let's assume that cold fusion will indeed turn out to be a source of
cheap energy, and not a mere laboratory curiosity.  Still, it seems a
safe bet that it will take at least 5 to 10 years for cold fusion power
sources to become sufficiently efficient, practical, and reliabe to be
used in space.  Even then, there is no indication that cold fusion will
be of any use as a first-stage propulsion system.  At this point, the
only use for cold fusion in space that seems plausible enough is as a
source of electricity, which could perhaps be used by relatively
low-thrust ion motors.  Note that energy is only a small fraction of
the cost of a launch, so cheap energy on the ground will not make space
launches much cheaper.   

On the other hand, cheap energy on the Earth means there won't be any
need for solar power satellites (SPS).  Now, SPSes are the only
large-scale space operation that is not obviously an economical
nonsense.  Without SPSes, space colonies would lose their main raison
d'etre; and without space colonies, there is hardly any reason to
consider lunar and asteroid mining.  (By the way, cheaper energy would
make possible to exploit many low-grade ore bodies that now are
uneconomial, so mining the asteroids for the Earth market would make
even less sense that it does now.) 

To summarize, I bet that in the foreseeable future cold fusion may turn
out to be of some use *in* space, but it will not make going *to* space
any easier.  In fact, if it is successful, it will make the
colonization of space a lot harder to sell.  

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
                stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``My dear listeners,'' he went on, ``if we are to believe certain
    narrow-minded people --- and what else can we call them? --- humanity
    is confined within a circle of Popilius from which there is no escape,
    condemned to vegetate in this globe, never able to venture into
    interplanetary space! That is not so! We are going to the moon, we
    shall go to the planets, we shall travel to the stars just as today
    we go from Liverpool to New York, easily, rapidly, surely, and the
    oceans of space will be crosed like the seas of the moon!''
        --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)       
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Opinions are just opinions.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 06:51:10 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: summary of Dr. Stanley Pons seminar of 3/31/89 (long, > 200 lines )

In article <1495@wasatch.UUCP> ch-tkr@wasatch.UUCP (Timothy K Reynolds) writes:
>            No 2.45Mev neutrons were detected.  He speculated that these
>            neutrons may be consumed by reaction with Li:
>
>                        7Li + n + 2.45MeV ---> 3T + 3He + n
>                           6Li + n ---> 3T +3He + 4.5MeV

	Neither of these equations is balanced -- the first contains 3 protons
and 5 neutrons on the left as opposed to 3 protons and 4 neutrons on the
right; the second contains 3 protons and 4 neutrons on the left as opposed to
3 protons and 3 neutrons on the right.  Also, are you sure the second reaction
is supposed to be exothermic?  I think I have seen these before, but I can
only remember the first one with any degree of accuracy:

	(7)Li + n --> (3)H + (4)He + n

where the neutron comes out slower than it went in (thus supplying the energy
for the reaction).  I can't remember whether the second reaction should be

	(6)Li + n --> (3)H + (4)He

or

	(6)Li + n --> (3)H + (3)He + n

with the neutron again coming out slower than it went in.  I saw these
equations (obviously only one version of the second one, but I can't remember
which one) in some report on conventional fusion experiments discussing ways
to breed tritium.  (I think this report was from the Princeton Plasma Fusion
Physics Laboratory, but couldn't swear to that.)

	My other question is:  these people used a cell with palladium and
platinum electrodes and heavy water.  Where would the lithium come from?  I
didn't hear any mention of lithium in the electrodes or in the solution
before this article that I am replying to.

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 14:37:55 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST)

>From article <2500@ndsuvax.UUCP>, by ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby):
> If I recall correctly what was said in James Oberg's _Red Star in Orbit_,
> the city of Baikonur doesn't even exist! 

The main Soviet launch site really is called Kosmodrom Baykonur.  There
is a huge sign saying "Baykonur" at the entrance! It should not be
confused with the village of Baykonur some 200 km uprange.  The
cosmodrome lies several miles from the city of Leninsk, which was built
on the site of the small town of Tyuratam; Western sources still
sometimes refer to the launch site as Tyuratam. The Soyuz pads
at Baykonur are located at 46.0 degrees N, 63.5 to 64.0 degrees E.
The SS-9 pads are at about 63.0 degrees E, and Proton and Energia
are somewhere inbetween. It is a huge place. (Coordinates based
on Landsat photos and on working back the orbital ground tracks.)


 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Apr 89 16:40:45 CDT
From: "Patrick Tebbe" <C487031@umcvmb.missouri.edu>
Subject: Request for information

I'm sending this as a member of a group at the University of
Missouri-Columbia, under the direction fo Dr. Sam Haddad, who is trying
to organize a model rocketry competition which will be presented to the
AIAA(American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics), hopefully to
be established as a contest for university and college chapters across
the nation. We are looking for information and suggestions, particularly
on any existing contests.  How are they organized, what are the
requirements, ect.? Also, who could we contact for more information or
support?  It will work best for all if any replies could be sent
directly to me.  Any help is appreciated, thanks for everyones time.
Patrick Tebbe c487031@umcvmb BITNET  University of Missouri-Columbia

------------------------------

Date: 3 April 1989 17:36:47 CST
From: "Tom Kirke 996-4961" <U15305%UICVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Building a fusion-based rocket

oliveb!oliveb.OLIVETTI.COM@apple.com  (Philip Stephens) writes.

>From article <7473@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
> (Keith P. Mancus):
>>
>>     1>  This is the fusion reactor.  Presumably it uses liquid D2O
>>         at very high temperature.  Ideally it should run at 650 C
>>         or so, and very high pressure.  It vaporizes the working fluid.
>
>Why boil the D2O?  Better to pressurize it so it remains in contact (very
>high pressure at 650 C, so I'm not sure how hot you can practically run
>if following my suggestion), and use a non-Pd heat sink to transfer the
>heat energy to another working fluid.

At 650C it does not matter what the pressure is.  I do not have the data
for D2O but the critical temperature for H2O is 374C.  Above 374C H2O has
only one phase, a fluid, at ANY pressure.  I agree that higher pressures
give better heat transfer but whether or not to boil is not a question.

Tom Kirke

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  3 Apr 89 15:14 CST
From: Scott Hess <SCOTT@GACVAX1.Bitnet>
Subject: Space applications of cold fusion
Original_To:  BITNET%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

What with all of the speculation on this new cold-fusion, I was thinking
of its applications to space. Beyond using it for power while in orbit,
and on the ground, I was wondering on ways to use it in launching. I can
think of a bunch of ways: atomic ramjets, launching tracks (accelerate it
up to escape velocity, and let it go), vertical launching tracks (same idea,
but tracks pointing up instead of horizontally - requires alot more
acceleration), one of those solid elevator things from Arthur C. Clarke's
"Fountains of Paridise". One device I've read about in Jerry Pournelle's
"High Justice" used lasers. It seems that a powerful ground-based laser
is fired into a cavity at the bottom of the spacecraft. It is pulsed on
and off, at a high speed. The cavity is vented in such a way that it draws
in air. The laser heats the air very quickly, so the air pushes out the
bottom, propelling the craft. Then more air is brought in ... Basically
a ramjet with half the engine ground-based. I believe that I read elsewhere
that Pournelle is on an advisory commitee to the president, and the original
proposal for SDI called for large ground-based lasers, and orbiting mirrors.
Besides being simpler and easier to maintain, this setup could be used with
the above scheme to launch.
     
My basic question is this: Does this work? I think that an upward force
can be exerted, but is it enough? This only can work where there is enough
atmosphere, so it would have to be able to aquire a pretty good acceleration.
In the book it seems the acceleration was 10G, for about 30s. I don't know
if that's enough. Also, unmanned pods got something like 30G. This seems
a bit high, to me.
     
Scott Hess,
<Scott@gacvax1.bitnet>

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 17:38:16 GMT
From: iconsys!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Muhlestein)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

[ mention is made of use of fusion energy for launch ]

Could someone comment on the use of cheap energy to power some kind
of laser launch system?  I remember reading somewhere about a design
in which argon gas in the launch vehicle was heated by a (very large)
ground-based laser system.

Maybe some of the SDIO research may yet come in handy!


-- 

	Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc.

uunet!iconsys!mmm

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 00:00:00 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

In article <351@iconsys.UUCP> mmm@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Muhlestein) writes:
>Could someone comment on the use of cheap energy to power some kind
>of laser launch system? ...

Energy is not the major bottleneck in laser-launch systems, unless you
want to launch seriously big payloads in one lump.  Beam-directing optics
are probably the biggest challenge.

>Maybe some of the SDIO research may yet come in handy!

The US laser-launcher research program is indeed relying on SDI to build
big lasers and figure out how to point them; they're working on the other
engineering problems of the scheme.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 11:49:39 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Cold fusion

If this is valid, how might it affect the cost of antimatter production?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1989 9:53:38 PDT
From: Bill Yeager <yeager@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Add to mailing list

Would it be possible to send this digest to

incoming-space@sumex-aim.stanford.edu

This is NOT a mail distribution list, but rather an alias to a program that
builds a bulletin board. We use it to centralize our disk space for
digests and the like?

Thanks,

Bill Yeager

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #345
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Apr 89 15:40:05 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01990>; Fri, 7 Apr 89 06:49:24 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  7 Apr 89 07:48:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IYD8lry00Ui3M1ak4x>;
          Fri,  7 Apr 89 06:25:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.MYD8hDy00UkZQEHE4E>;
          Fri,  7 Apr 89 05:20:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QYD8fLy00UkZ8EFk5w@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  7 Apr 89 06:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #346

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 346

Today's Topics:
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
			     Bored public
    Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST)
		     Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #332
	   Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary
	 Re: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary
			   Re: Cold Fusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 17:45:29 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <3015@eos.UUCP> steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) writes:
>> ... Airlines got started back when airflight was also risky and uncommon.
>
>   True, but aircraft could be bought in quantity by single companies with
>the express intent of making a profit.  Space flight has taken considerably
>larger investment to get going, with a large percentage of it coming from
>public funds...

Aircraft capable of carrying useful passenger loads were more expensive
than you think, especially compared to the purchasing power of the fledgling
airlines.  The fact is, airlines which tried to make money carrying
passengers and ordinary freight consistently went broke in the early years.
The US airline industry, and its aircraft suppliers, were kept alive by
lucrative government air-mail contracts.  No equivalent for spaceflight
has yet appeared.

>Perhaps we haven't let private companies jump into space,
>but the government hasn't been overwhelmed with requests from companies 
>desiring to build AND FINANCE entire launch systems (including launch pads 
>and recovery facilities) on their own.  

There has been ample interest, but a distinct lack of cooperation from the
government.  Remember the proposals for privately-financed shuttle orbiters?
NASA basically "considered" them until they died.  Amroc *wanted* to set up
their own launch facility, as I recall, but ran into so many government
obstacles that they gave up and are building a launch pad at Vandenberg
instead, under the government's thumb (precisely where the government
wants them, of course).

>> ... NASA, which prefers professional astronauts (who are *not*,
>> repeat *not*, scientists -- ask a scientist).
>
>   Tell *that* to Taylor Wang at JPL.  If he's not a professional scientist,
>who is? ...

I'm not familiar with Wang's status -- is he a mission specialist, or just
a payload specialist?  (The latter will fly damn seldom under NASA's post-
Challenger policies:  only when NASA can't find any excuse to avoid it.)
If he's a career astronaut (mission specialist or pilot), he will probably
find it impossible to maintain an active scientific career -- that's been
the experience of others.

>... "Seafaring" as a noun is defined "a mariner's calling". "Spacefaring"
>could thus be defined as an astronaut's calling.  The US has career
>astronauts, we have been sending them into space for some two and a half
>decades, and we continue to do so.  Perhaps we don't do it at the rate
>that the Soviets do, but does that mean it isn't happening? ...

One did not call a nation "seafaring" because it occasionally sent out
a small ship on a brief voyage.  That term was applied only when the
nation was persistently active on a considerable scale, so that the
nation and its people had routine access to the seas for any purpose
that appeared worthwhile.  The US does not have routine access to space
(the shuttle program specifically promised it, and failed to deliver).
It has occasional, brief, extremely expensive access to space for a few
people.  Take a look at the backlog of payloads if you doubt this -- and
those were the payloads that had already fought their way through the
enormous bureaucracy that surrounds the shuttle.  Then talk to the
US microgravity experimenters who are booking payload space on Soyuz
flights to Mir because they can't get it on the shuttle.

>  [re: the last flight of Challenger and the Teacher In Space program]
> 
>> Really?  I detected no signs of such great excitement at the time.
>> "Another shuttle flight?  Yawn.  Oh, the teacher is going up on this
>> one?  Must be thrilling for her students.  Yawn."
>
>   If you had read the papers at the time, or watched TV news, you might
>have noticed that her students were cheering wildly at launch...

I'd probably be cheering at the launch too, if my sister were going up.
So what?  I was talking about general public interest, not that of a handful
of people with indirect personal involvement.

>   Citizens in this country can, and do, work to get more support for 
>space activities, but we work within the constraints of our system.  You 
>seem to be upset with us for not doing enough.  So what are YOU doing to 
>promote space exploration?

For one thing, I keep trying to prod people into looking at the situation
in the US and realizing just how bad it really is.  Never mind the really
optimistic predictions; merely looking at the predictions made early in
the current shuttle program is enough to make you cry.  The dream may be
alive, but not at NASA headquarters.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  3 Apr 89 20:58 CST
From: Scott Hess <SCOTT@GACVAX1.Bitnet>
Subject: Bored public
Original_To:  BITNET%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

To you who wonder if its really the public bored with things, or if its
the execs at NBC (fill in your favorite station here), where've you been!
The main thrust of the masses today is away from knowledge of technology,
and towards use of it. Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile
Island? There was such a small chance of explosion there that it was almost
unworthy of talking about. Since nuclear is associated with bomb, tho, we
have to live with it.
     
I'm an undergrad right now, and I see it all the time (tendency away from
technology). Most of my friends are in the sciences, but I'd be willing to say
that those not in the sciences aren't too interested in them, in general. This
is not to say things are black and white. Anything having to do with physics,
computers, or math is viewed with distaste by many, many people. The fear of
math is going to kill us. People think its great that we have birds flying,
but they don't understand what is happening. I'd bet that most people couldn't
name Newton's laws. They don't think its 'magic', but it is close enough that
there is no difference. I'll admit, I don't understand biology, but I can
follow the basics. Same with most other subjects. But most poly sci majors
probably wouldn't get far in physics ... same with much of the social sciences.
     
I guess mayhaps most of this doesn;t belong here, but I hope everybody reading
thinks about how things are out there. One cannot really judge what everybody
thinks of his area of work by listening to those he hangs around with the
most. The people you hang with are those who have similar interests, and they
will only enforce your own biases.
     
Anyway,
Scott Hess
<Scott@gacvax1.bitnet>

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 15:27:25 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST)

In article <2500@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu (Glen Overby) writes:
>If I recall correctly what was said in James Oberg's _Red Star in Orbit_,
>the city of Baikonur doesn't even exist!  It was a cover-up...
>
>Now my question: where is the true place that the Soviet shuttle (and other
>space shots) is launched from? 

The Baikonur Cosmodrome.  That is its official name.  The name is indeed
a relic of a deception attempt, since the town of Baikonur -- which does
exist -- is far away and has nothing to do with the Cosmodrome.

>I seem to recall hearing one time about two locations.

The other major Soviet launch site is Plesetsk; the traffic is split
about 50-50.  Plesetsk is primarily military and has been very highly
secret until quite recently.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 18:36:56 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!draken!chalmers!tekno.chalmers.se!f86_lerner@uunet.uu.net  (Mikael Lerner)
Subject: Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons

In article <291@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> <Thomas Gold, an astronomer/geologist, has suggested that there are plenty of
> <hydrocarbons on Earth that are _not_ due to metamorphosis of dead plant
> <and animal matter.  Having heard him speak on this topic, I can say that 
> <he makes a convincing case.  Some outfit in Sweden is digging for some of
> <his "primordial" hydrocarbons on the rim of an ancient meteor strike.
> 
> As luck would have it, last night's NOVA episode was on exactly
> this topic.  The outfit in Sweden found methane, but not enough
> to make the well viable at this time.  They said that the gas
> had been verified as being of non-biological origin, but they
> didn't explain how they had verified this.

	Please, notice the word 'digging'! The drill hasn't stopped
	yet! Almost a kilometer of drilling remains. The goal is
	7500 m, where the large amounts of gas is thought to be found.
	
	Anyway, the methane concentration has increased steadily
	with increasing depth. And the latest news I have read,
	says that the bottom of the hole is filled with oil, and
	preliminary analysis shows that this oil is of the same
	type found in small amounts on other places in the neighbor-
	hood.

	So ... We keep our fingers crossed.


Mikael Lerner                               "This is the way the world ends,
F86_Lerner@tekno.chalmers.se                 not with a bang, but a whimper."
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden                      T.S. Eliot

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1989 17:58-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #332

> I would be interested in clarification here.  Do you mean that Boeing, or some
> other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight
> program?  I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any

Where have you been the last decade? There have been at least two
efforts to commercialize the shuttle that had sufficient financial
backing to do it. NASA filibustered them both because NASA had no
INTENTION of letting go.

The first venture was with William Sword and FEDEX. The second was
Astrotech with Willard Rockwell. I am an acquaintance of the former
president of Astrotech (he was my "big name" co-chair for the 1987 SDC)
and was at one point told by him that the shuttle launch costs would
drop by half on the day they took over. Unfortuneately they never got
the chance to try. I suspect that the death blow to their effort was
the fact that Jim Fletcher went back to NASA. He had been on their board of
directors here in Pittsburgh and it would not have looked good...

> nobody there.  That's why I called the idea impractical.  Only governments can
> afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now.

Bullshit.

ON ANOTHER FRONT:

>	Just saw an Associated Press story claiming that James Fletcher
> will be returning to the University of Utah to Head the states
> efforts to

I had not heard, but not surprising. My old address book listing for
him says:

	OLDREF:		University of Pittsburgh
			(Whitehead Professor Of Energy Research and
			Technology (84-3/86))

So why not?

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 14:58:34 GMT
From: beta!mwj@lanl.gov  (William Johnson)
Subject: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary

In article <3604@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
> In article <1495@wasatch.UUCP> ch-tkr@wasatch.UUCP (Timothy K Reynolds) writes:
> >            No 2.45Mev neutrons were detected.  He speculated that these
> >            neutrons may be consumed by reaction with Li:
[...]
> 	Neither of these equations is balanced --[...]

Apparently the posting you cite was garbled, because you are obviously right.
However, I would like to point out that the most mystifying thing about the
Fleischmann-Pons experiment -- and many things about it are mystifying -- is
that *none* of the nuclear physics makes sense.  I say this not implying that
F&P don't know what they are talking about, but rather that many things about
the experiment -- notably the enormous dearth of neutrons observed relative to
the energy allegedly released -- fly in the face of what we *think* we know
about (d,d) reactions.  Until we have a better idea of just what is happening
in this experiment, I would take any and all postings dealing with reaction
mechanisms with a large grain of salt.

> 	My other question is:  these people used a cell with palladium and
> platinum electrodes and heavy water.  Where would the lithium come from?  I
> didn't hear any mention of lithium in the electrodes or in the solution
> before this article that I am replying to.

This one is a lot easier.  The lithium was added (as deuterated lithium
hydroxide, 0.1 molar solution) before the start of the experiment, probably
to make sure that the solution was a nice, highly-conductive electrolyte.
(Distilled water, remember, isn't very good at carrying a current.)  Whether
the lithium participates from a nuclear point of view -- i.e., is required
for the cell to work -- is completely unclear to us kibitzers; it would be
interesting to hear the F&P viewpoint on this.

-- 
"One thing they don't tell you about doing	| Bill Johnson
experimental physics is that sometimes you	| Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory
must work under adverse conditions ... like	| {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj}
a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann)	| (mwj@lanl.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 19:29:49 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary

In article <24015@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:

>However, I would like to point out that the most mystifying thing about the
>Fleischmann-Pons experiment -- and many things about it are mystifying -- is
>that *none* of the nuclear physics makes sense.  I say this not implying that
>F&P don't know what they are talking about, but rather that many things about
>the experiment -- notably the enormous dearth of neutrons observed relative to
>the energy allegedly released -- fly in the face of what we *think* we know
>about (d,d) reactions.

Everyone has been assuming that the neutrons are coming from catalyzed
dd reactions.  If, instead, some exotic fusion reaction was occuring
-- say, Li6 + d -- we'd expect some neutrons anyway.  First, a fast
charged fusion product would occasionally break up a deuteron before
stopping.  Second, deuterons would occasionally be scattered and fuse
with another deuteron.

Some proposed experiments:

(1) Measure the ratio of neutron rate/power density as the density
   of d atoms increases.  It should increase if this model is true.

(2) Measure the neutron spectrum -- it should differ considerably from
   that of cold dd fusion.

(3) Try to detect energetic fusion product nuclei by mixing the Pd
   with beryllium and observing the neutron flux.

(4) Try to observe fusion products directly by using a low energy deuterium
   ion beam to saturate a very thin target of Pd.  Turn off the beam
   and observe any charged particles emitted.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1989 17:34-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion

A quick look at E. Brit. came up with two methods of D2/H2 separation.

There earliest one is electrolysis. H2O splits easier than D20 so
electrolysis gradually enriches the solution. This was the earliest
technique used.

A slightly later technique uses liquid hydrogen/deuterium and relies on
a slight difference in boiling points.

It was mentioned that there were more modern cost effective methods,
but no other details were given.

I also applaud the way in which F&P made their announcement. If this
technique is for real, there are trillions of dollars at stake, massive
international redistributions of wealth and power...

By giving out the essential details to the entire world in a surprise
press conference, they prevented any attempts at applying the
"Born secret" farce that is applied to things nuclear (in what I
consider a gross violation of the first amendment).

They may also have done it to insure their safety. There is real money
involved here. Not to mention the potential collapse of OPEC, some of
whose members are not known for their 20th century civilization.

------ IF ------- this is for real. I keep expecting to wake up.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #346
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Apr 89 02:16:35 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04793>; Sat, 8 Apr 89 00:49:18 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  8 Apr 89 01:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYDNWQy00UkTA2TUFZ>;
          Sat,  8 Apr 89 01:29:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.gYDNQyy00UkZAH704m>;
          Sat,  8 Apr 89 00:23:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <AYDNOBy00UkZIH5U4=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  8 Apr 89 01:20:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #347

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 347

Today's Topics:
		Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed
		   Re: space news from Feb 6 AW&ST
		     Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
			   Re: Bored public
		Cold Fusion Power: Too Cheap to Meter?
    4th Int. Symposium on Spatial Data Handling - Call for Papers
			   Re: Bored public
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 20:00:46 GMT
From: crdgw1!steinmetz!sunspot!blackje@uunet.uu.net  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed

This morning's issue of the Wall Street Journal carries an article
which indicates that scientists at the Brookhaven National Laboratory
has *tentatively* [ my emphasis ] confirmed the discovery of room temperature
fusion by Jones, Palmer, et.al. at Brigham Young.

"We're not absolutely certain" ... but they detected fusion generated 
neutrons that are consistent with the Brigham Young result.
[ the Brigham Young group claims results that are significantly more
  modest than those claimed by Pons and Fleischmann... ]

This represents the first reported U.S. confirmation of the cold 
fusion phenomenon;  Csikai and Sztaricskai at Debrecen (Hungary) 
reported that they reproduced the phenomenon on 31 March 1989.
To date, no US laboratories have reported replication of the more
controversial Fleischmann-Ponds experiment.
A researcher at Lawrence Berkeley Labs says that if the finding is
confirmed "It would be the most significant discovery since fire."
(of course the local news media will report it in their "Money" segment
 and complain that it might put a few people out of work :-)

The Fleischmann-Ponds experiment remains controversial, and a good many
reputable scientists are skeptical;  one is quoted as saying:
	"Who knows, maybe Pons and Fleischmann have invented 
	 the worlds most interesting battery"

The Wall Street Journal article is *must* reading (on page B4).


--Emmett
	J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
	blackje@crd.ge.com;   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 06:45:50 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 6 AW&ST

Henry Spencer writes:
>   
>   [Congress, of course, is also the bunch that is constantly
>   harping on how expensive the space station is getting.
>   Parochial pork-barrel projects like this are a significant
>   reason.] 

Congress, of course, is also the bunch that was told that the Space
Station was going to cost $8 billion, approved it, and soon afterwards
was told that the real cost was more like $30 billion.  

                Jorge Stolfi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Certain cannonades in the Civil War had cost one thousand dollars a
  shot.  President Barbicane's shot, unique in the annals of gunnery,
  might cost five thousand times as much.  
      --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: yes.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 04:22:08 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons

In article <662@tekno.chalmers.se>, f86_lerner@tekno.chalmers.se (Mikael Lerner) writes:
< In article <291@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
< > <Thomas Gold, an astronomer/geologist, has suggested that there are plenty of
< > <hydrocarbons on Earth that are _not_ due to metamorphosis of dead plant
< > <and animal matter.  Having heard him speak on this topic, I can say that 
< > <he makes a convincing case.  Some outfit in Sweden is digging for some of
< > <his "primordial" hydrocarbons on the rim of an ancient meteor strike.
< > 
< > As luck would have it, last night's NOVA episode was on exactly
< > this topic.  The outfit in Sweden found methane, but not enough
< > to make the well viable at this time.  They said that the gas
< > had been verified as being of non-biological origin, but they
< > didn't explain how they had verified this.
< 
< 	Please, notice the word 'digging'! The drill hasn't stopped
< 	yet! Almost a kilometer of drilling remains. The goal is
< 	7500 m, where the large amounts of gas is thought to be found.

 When do they expect to finish the hole? Are they finding more/less
 gas/oil than expected? Sources?

 m wooding

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 19:35:12 GMT
From: psivax!quad1!ttidca!hollombe@uunet.uu.net  (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <1052@elmgate.UUCP> maa@elmgate.UUCP (Mark Armstrong SOFT) writes:
}... Just buy the wife a lead jacket when she does the laundry in the
}basement in case those nasty radioactive stuff happens to leak.

First, there's nothing radioactive to leak.  The working fluids are all
quite safe.  Only the shielding will become radioactive, if there's
significant neutron emission.

Second, why put one in the basement?  I'd expect mine to be buried a ways
down under my back yard.

}Why do you think it would be more efficient to produce your own electricity
}instead of buying it from utilities?? What would be the cost of such system,
}$5,000 sounds realistic. ...

That's about what I cost it out to.  I'd cheerfully pay $5000 to be energy
independent.

}... How about maintanence cost, $500 per year. ...

A quart of heavy water has enough energy to power my house for the rest of
my life and beyond.  The only moving parts are in the generator (probably
a stirling cycle engine.  Steam turbines aren't efficient enough at that
scale).  Under current law, the utilities are required to buy any excess
power I can generate and put on the grid.  I'll bet I can break even on
maintenance just doing that.

}... What about
}the radioactive waste, I guess we could water the lawn with it.  This is
}reality.

What radioactive waste?  The inside of some of the shielding may get a
little hot, assuming neutron emission is a problem, but it's several feet
of solid lead and reinforced concrete, buried under ground.  The working
fluids pose no hazard.  If (worst case) an earthquake breaks the whole
thing open I'll have a nasty, expensive clean up job (for which I'll carry
insurance), but the general environment won't be damaged.

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)  Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI                                                 Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 05:55:33 GMT
From: pyramid!nsc!andrew@lll-lcc.llnl.gov  (andrew)
Subject: Re: Bored public

In article <Added.sYC327y00UkT0Wc09Z@andrew.cmu.edu>, SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET (Scott Hess) writes:
> The main thrust of the masses today is away from knowledge of technology,
> and towards use of it. [...]
> I see it all the time (tendency away from technology). Anything
> having to do with physics, computers, or math is viewed with distaste
> by many, many people. The fear of math is going to kill us. [..]

This started in the sixties, where emphasis on introspection and subjectivity
was paramount. I think the tendency is not directly Luddite, but more a
desire to balance. As numerous examples illustrate, the leverage of the 
modern technology toolkit allows a few people to cause (wreak) enormous
effect on the surroundings - latest example being one man in Alaska.

This "out-of-controlness" is emphasised by the accelerating growth of new
technology and understanding thereof, and the increasing hopelessness of
closing the chasm between 1st and 3rd world nations under this scenario.

All this doesn't deeply worry me (mainly because I'm a 1st-worlder maybe!)
since, as this half-century is unprecedented technologically, it's to be
expected that vast upheavals and irrational, unsettled responses will
exist. The state of change is unlikely to change, but rather augment;
so we'd better get used to confusion - including Crystal Strokers.
Sometimes these people do annoy me though - I then fantasise about the
'B'-Ark to Golgafrincham. Advertising executives, p.r. people.....
=====
Andrew Palfreyman 		USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 		there's many a slip
							'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <EYCAQ0y00UkZA484Zy@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-Date: Tue,  4 Apr 89 08:45:36 -0500 (EST)
ReSent-From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-To: Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date:    Mon, 3 Apr 89 16:58:19 PDT
From: greer%utd201%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Cold Fusion Power: Too Cheap to Meter?
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE-request@angband.s1.gov"

    We won't know for sure about this "cold" fusion stuff till the paper
is published in May, but the possibilities seem so exciting, I decided to
do some research and some back of the envelope calculations to try to get
a realistic handle on the meaning of this thing, to whit: 

      1 electron volt (ev) = 4.5e-26 kilowatt-hour
      1 D-D reaction = about 4 Mev = about 1.8e-19 kw-h
      My household average monthly energy consumption = about 1000 kw-h
      1e3/1.8e-19 = about 6e21, or .01 gram-mole of D-D reactions

    We need two D nuclei per reaction, so 40 milligrams of D will serve
me for a month.  There are about 1000 months in 83 years, so in a
lifetime I would probably use 40 grams of D, or about 200 grams of D2O,
an amount which can be found in about 1000Kg of water, which is 1 cubic
meter, or about 250 gallons in non-SI units. 
    Convenient that it works out to such nice round numbers, isn't it? Of
course, I've put a little slop in my calc's, and I'm assuming 100%
efficiency, but my figures are in the ballpark (I think).  Also,
according to Tim Reynolds' article in SPACE_DIGEST V9 #334, there are
other reactions going on that generate more heat than the D-D reactions. 

    So what'll this do to your monthly electricity bill?  About ten years
ago, the closed-market price of D2O was about $230/Kg, which brings my
per month cost to about 5 cents.  The D2O market is closed because the
U.S. doesn't want D2O to be readily available since heavy water fission
reactors can be used to make plutonium.  I don't know how much Pd would
be used. 
    
    As for bombs, this thing could probably help a medium-sized nation
transmute U238 to Pu, and the tritium could be used to make fusion
enhanced weapons, where tritium and other things are used to produce
enough neutrons to considerably reduce the amount of Pu required for
criticality.  A U238 reflector around such a device would be transumted
to Pu and add to the explosive power as well.  All this might be a little
sophisticated for Libya, but maybe Argentina? 


----
"Pave Paradise,				|         Dale M. Greer
	 put up a parking lot."		|   Center for Space Sciences
		-- Joni Mitchell	| University of Texas at Dallas
					| UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 16:24:55 GMT
From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: 4th Int. Symposium on Spatial Data Handling - Call for Papers


I have been asked to post this (do not respond to me):
From: "Kurt E. Brassel" <K505820%CZHRZU1A.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>


                        Call for Papers

       4th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling
       ----------------------------------------------------

                       July 23-27, 1990
                      Zurich, Switzerland


The 4th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling will be held at
the University of Zurich, Switzerland. As its predecessors this
interdisciplinary meeting is sponsored by the Commission on Geographic
Information Systems of the International Geographical Union and will
emphasize research issues rather than applications. The conference will
focus on the following topics:

   - Algorithms and data models for applications in
            computational geometry
            spatial knowledge representation
            spatial decision analysis
            automatic recognition of spatial structures
            digital surface modelling
            handling and representation of space-time data
            cartographic visualization and generalization
   - Spatial languages and user interfaces
   - System design and architectures for data integration
   - Amplified intelligence concepts for spatial data handling
   - Spatial data handling approaches for alternative system
     architectures (neural nets, parallel processing).


The official language of the meeting will be English. The conference
will consist of sessions with presentations of approx. 20 minutes; a few
selected papers of special merit will be given 30 minutes of time and
will be the subject of prepared discussion. Researchers are invited to
submit abstracts of 500-700 words length to the organizing committee no
later than October 1, 1989. Abstracts must carry the full name and
mailing address of the author(s), and possibly an electronic mail
address. The abstracts will be evaluated by an international program
committee. Persons submitting abstracts will be notified of the decision
of the committee no later than December 15, 1989 and final papers will
be required in camera-ready form no later than April 1, 1990. The number
of participants to the conference will be restricted; active
participants will be given priority.


Abstracts and inquiries should be directed to:

Professor Kurt Brassel
Geographisches Institut        Telephone: 0041-1-257 5151
Universitaet Zuerich           Telefax:   0041-1-257 4004
Winterthurerstrasse 190        e-mail:    K505820@CZHRZU1A.bitnet
CH-8057 Zuerich, Switzerland


P.S. Due to technical reasons we had to resubmit this shipping.
     Sorry, if we have bothered you twice. We appreciate any further
     distribution of this announcement.
Acknowledge-To: <K505820@CZHRZU1A>

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 14:03:20 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@CS.YALE.EDU  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Bored public

In article <Added.sYC327y00UkT0Wc09Z@andrew.cmu.edu> SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET (Scott Hess) writes:
>and towards use of it. Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile
>Island? There was such a small chance of explosion there that it was almost
>unworthy of talking about. 

An explosion no, but the chances of a meltdown were quite good. Most average
folks are pretty well informed that an explosion isn't the real danger
after seeing the "china syndrome", which broke at around the same time.

If you've ever read the transcript of what took place at TMI
it boggles the mind. The fact that the core was "rubblized" and nothing
worse happened is pretty much blind fate. Lots of stupidity in evidence.

For example, once the core was exposed (water level too low due to
human error) the control rods are exposed to oxygen and started to burn.
Anyone in the control room could have deduced this was happening as the
temperature of the steam in the vessel was superheated. Looking
at the pressure and temp of the steam, and referring to any set of 
steam tables would have told them so. Why didn't they pick up on this?
Why, there wasn't anyone in the building, at the time, with more than a
high school education. Also, I don't think there were any
steam tables to be had. (Nor a computer to do it for you.) 

Millions of valves, gauges and dials, and not enough neurons to
deal with all that information.

----------------

The point of this reply is actually to underscore my agreement with some
of what you say. But, 3 Mile Island *was* a dangerous fiasco, in my opinion,
because of the moronic engineering for human factors, and the cavalier
attitude toward licensing reactor control room personell. Both however
may have roots in more basic problems.



    Paul K. Rodman 
    rodman@mfci.uucp
    __... ...__    _.. .   _._ ._ .____ __.. ._

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #347
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Apr 89 06:09:14 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04110>; Sat, 8 Apr 89 03:51:55 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  8 Apr 89 04:51:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MYDQ5uy00Ui3Q25UA:>;
          Sat,  8 Apr 89 04:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.8YDQ26y00UkZQHMk4z>;
          Sat,  8 Apr 89 03:19:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <UYDPzty00UkZ8HLE48@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  8 Apr 89 04:16:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #348

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 348

Today's Topics:
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		   NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		    Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
		    Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		  Cold fusion: chemical explanation?
  Someone Please Post/Email Recent OSCAR-9 CCD Image Data? Beg, Beg.
Re: Someone Please Post/Email Recent OSCAR-9 CCD Image Data? Beg, Beg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 17:29:52 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <296@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>Both of these countries could become the super-OPEC of the 21'st century.
>One of them is the Soviet Union. The other is South Africa.
>We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum-
>group metals.

With cheap fusion, should be no problem to get there.  Strap a couple of
ion thrusters to a mass driver, program it to clamp itself onto a suitable
asteroid, and start throwing rocks.  Sounds like a great idea for a startup
company and it just may be the impetus the space program needs to make all
our Star Trek dreams come true.  People at NASA keep griping about needing
industrial applications for space.  Hell, it might even be possible to 
build colonies on Ganymede - with cheap power, you could melt gigantic
underground caverns in solid rock with glass sides capable of pressurization.
And why even bother with planets at all, just build free-flying self-contained
colonies in solar orbit.  Turn Earth into a big nature preserve - no humans
allowed without a permit and a guide.  Giant leap for mankind indeed.  Let's
get out of this womb and see what's really out there.
-- 
Jim Benz 		     jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem 
University of Pittsburgh					 answers,
UCIR			     (412) 648-5930			 hang up!

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 89 22:57:47 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the satellite user community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.  The most current orbital elements
from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513)
427-0674, and are updated several times weekly.  Documentation and tracking
software are also available on this system.  The Celestial RCP/M may be
accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit, no parity.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:

AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed;
           blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.  (Decimal point assumed)
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:

NOAA 6
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978

Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 16:56:28 GMT
From: ucsdhub!sdsu!frost@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Richard Frost)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <4182@ttidca.TTI.COM>, hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes:
> In article <1052@elmgate.UUCP> maa@elmgate.UUCP (Mark Armstrong SOFT) writes:
> [...]
> }Why do you think it would be more efficient to produce your own electricity
> }instead of buying it from utilities?? What would be the cost of such system,
> }$5,000 sounds realistic. ...
> 
> That's about what I cost it out to.  I'd cheerfully pay $5000 to be energy
> independent.
> 
> }... How about maintanence cost, $500 per year. ...
> 
> A quart of heavy water has enough energy to power my house for the rest of
> my life and beyond.  The only moving parts are in the generator (probably
> a stirling cycle engine.  Steam turbines aren't efficient enough at that
> scale).  Under current law, the utilities are required to buy any excess
> power I can generate and put on the grid.  I'll bet I can break even on
> maintenance just doing that.
 
*** Note ***

Although utility companies are required to by any excess power you generate
YOU are responsible for purchasing a synchonous interface to the grid ( a
synchronous inverter if you're generating DC) plus a new meter and pay for
periodic calibration inspections by the utility company.

So if there is any merit to the giant 'hill of salt' speculation that we
could all have fusion generators in our backyard, be prepared to add an
additional $1500 to your overhead costs plus $100 to your annual cost.


Richard Frost		E-mail:	sdsu!frost@ucsd.edu

- a scientist is someone who learns more and more about less and less
  until they know everything about nothing!	(Ziman)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 15:00:10 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hp-ses!hpcc01!hpwrce!howeird@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Howard Stateman)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89

>This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending
>March 31, 1989.
>8 embryos that died were part of 16 which were fertilized the day before
>liftoff, the other 16 were fertilized nine day prior to launch.  April 1st
>Hotline.  This message will next be updated April 7, 1989.
>----------
This is useless information, unless they did a control group which did
not go into space. If they did, I'd like to know how many of the eggs
fertilized the day before the launch were dead by the time the shuttle 
landed (of those eggs which were fertilized but not launched). If they
didn't, I'd like to know why not, and what makes them think they are
doing an experiment worth paying any attention to.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 20:21:15 GMT
From: dftsrv!nssdcs!pipes@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (David Pipes )
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89


     Howeird,
     (Cool name...)
     CBS News stated, several days after the landing, that the 
experiment was done with a control group, and implied that none had
died from that group (it could have been that only the 'expected'
number had died...I am not sure.  What floored everyone is that the
expected results were on the order of deformities, low hatching weight
or the like.  No one expected dead chickens.  Furthermore, it appears
that the most vulnerable ones were those in very early stages of 
development.  This could be very important to people who want to design
long-term life support systems in which animals would be bred in orbit.
Gravity might be a necessary ingredient for reproduction.
     As to why anyone should consider this worth paying attention to,
well, you tell me.  You certainly seem interested in the results and
methods! :-)

| EMail: pipes@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov        David Pipes      |
| Vox: (301) 286-2248                                       |
| These opinions are mine, not my employers.  You may share |
| them, but please put them back neatly when you are done.  |

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 19:34:10 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1989Mar26.003753.11770@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Nonsense.  Supplying artificial gravity using centrifugal force is no big
>deal, although getting the radius long enough to avoid inner-ear problems
>is certainly a nuisance.  People have designed current-technology Mars
>missions which have artificial gravity.

Well, if you are going to assume *lots* of relatively free fusion energy,
why not just accelerate at 1G or some appreciable fraction thereof, until 
you are halfway there, then turn around and decelerate at the same rate?
Voila.  Artificial gravity with no inner ear problems. And no coriolis.
Just a brief period of 0G at turnaround.  An old Sci-Fi trick that still
works.  If going to the outer planets or the asteroid belt, trip times of
a few weeks or months sound about right.
-- 
Jim Benz 		     jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem 
University of Pittsburgh					 answers,
UCIR			     (412) 648-5930			 hang up!

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 02:52:27 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Cold fusion: chemical explanation?

I vaguely recall a posting to sci.space several months ago saying that
the chemical reaction 
    
    H + H -> H2

is very exothermic, to the point that atomic hydrogen---if it could be
stored in large quantities---would make an even better rocket fuel than
H2 + F2.  

If this is true, maybe this explains the amazing amounts of energy
claimed by Fleischman and Pons.  A block of palladium saturated with
atomic hydrogen in close to 1:1 atomic ratio may well pack more
chemical energy than the same volume of TNT.  This seems enough to blow
up a lab bench and blast small holes in concrete.

>From my armchair laboratory, I conjecture that hydrogen can be absorbed
into palladium in two forms, as isolated atoms (as in the F&P
experiment) or as H2 molecules (as in the usual pressure-driven
absorption).  In the F&P experiment, once the electrode is saturated
with atomic hydrogen, any additional H atoms that are forced into it
will react exothermically with the absorbed H to form adsorbed H2.
This could be the source of the extra heat measured at low-power
experiments.  

The power surges and explosions could also be explained if the single-H
hydride is less stable than the H2 form at higher temperatures.
In fact, it could also explain why power surges happen when the current
is reduced (particularly with spongy electrodes): the atomic H starts
to diffuse out of the palladium, and recombines as soon as it reaches
the surface.  The heat thus produced raises the temperature of the
eletrode, which drives more H out, which produces more heat, and so on.  

If this makes sense, then the extra energy detected by F&P is
energy that was stored into the electrode during the charging period.
I believe that in normal electrolysis the reactions at the hydrogen
electrode are something like this

   H3O+ + e- + electrical energy  -->  H2O + H
   
   H + H --> H2 + heat
   
which add up to

   2H3O+ + 2e-  + electrical energy --> 2H2O + H2 + heat

In the F&P experiment, during the "charging" phase, the reactions are
something like

   H3O+ + e- + electrical energy --> H2O + H
   
   H + Pd  --> PdH (single-H form)
   
and during the "production" phase

   2 (PdH) --> Pd2H2 (molecular-H form) + heat  
  
Does this make any sense? (As you can tell, I am no chemist.)

                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the whole, though, the reaction was excellent in the scientific
    world, and from there it passed on to the general public who took a
    passionate interest in the question.  That was important, since the
    masses were expected to subscribe huge sums.
        --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: see previous message.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 15:28:47 GMT
From: attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!brambo!wwg@uunet.uu.net  (Warren W. Gay)
Subject: Someone Please Post/Email Recent OSCAR-9 CCD Image Data? Beg, Beg.

Could someone kindly post the data from the OSCAR-9 CCD image that 
was recently taken.  I do not have the equipment to receive it.

If someone could please, pretty please, post the data. I'll 
gladly do the work to convert it to Postscript so I can print it.
I'll also gladly share the Postscript file if I have any success.
Uuencoded is FB.

This will make a nice Amateur Radio Club presentation topic too; thanx
in advance.  I'm sure that other netters would chomp at the bit, to
print a satellite image on their laser printers!

So, please, please, pretty please with sugar on it, can someone post
the image data?  I'll even mail you a cat or three for the effort!
Postage paid! (I have 3 cats-- ie. 3 too many!)

73s de VE3WWG.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 14:52:38 GMT
From: m2c!ulowell!tegra!vail@husc6.harvard.edu  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Re: Someone Please Post/Email Recent OSCAR-9 CCD Image Data? Beg, Beg.

In article <561@brambo.UUCP> wwg@brambo.UUCP (Warren W. Gay) writes:

   Could someone kindly post the data from the OSCAR-9 CCD image that 
   was recently taken.  I do not have the equipment to receive it.

   If someone could please, pretty please, post the data. I'll 
   gladly do the work to convert it to Postscript so I can print it.
   I'll also gladly share the Postscript file if I have any success.
   Uuencoded is FB.

I, too would be very interested in this as well.  I have the FBM
conversion software and could redistribute it in other formats for
people (like .PCX, .GIF, .TIF, Sun raster, postscript images etc.).

I can also generate high resolution (4000dpi) paper or film images if
anyone is interested.

ALSO, I would be interested in the formats from UoSat-2 and the micro
sats.  I am working towards an automated image gathering system.

Much Thanks...  jv

"....say you're thinking about a plate of shrimp...
..and someone says to you `plate,' or `shrimp'......"
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail  | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435  | N1DXG @ 145.110-, 444.2+, 448.625-
 -----

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #348
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Apr 89 07:24:37 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00465>; Sat, 8 Apr 89 05:42:54 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  8 Apr 89 06:42:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AYDRr2y00UkTQ2eU48>;
          Sat,  8 Apr 89 06:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.gYDRmty00UkZQHWk4t>;
          Sat,  8 Apr 89 05:19:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4YDRkXy00UkZQHVE5a@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  8 Apr 89 06:17:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #349

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 349

Today's Topics:
	   NASA selects Small Explorer missions (Forwarded)
		Re: Space applications of cold fusion
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		    Global positioning satellites?
	     Re: Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion
			  Re: Space problems
		 Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
			Space visible objects
			     I surrender!
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
		       Re: Deuterium extraction
		 Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
			 Re: Babies in Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 19:10:21 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects Small Explorer missions (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      April 4, 1989


RELEASE:  89-43

NASA SELECTS SMALL EXPLORER MISSIONS


     Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, associate administrator for NASA's 
Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA), today announced 
the selection of the first Small Explorer missions, which will 
study some of the most important questions in space physics, 
astrophysics and upper atmosphere science.

     Termed Small Explorers, these spacecraft weigh approximately 
400 lbs. and can be launched from available Scout-class 
expendable launch vehicles.  

     The Small Explorer Program, a vital element of the OSSA 
strategic plan, provides frequent flight opportunities for highly 
focussed and relatively inexpensive space science missions.  
These missions allow critical training opportunities for the next 
generation of scientists and engineers.

     The selected studies, chosen from 51 submissions, propose 
the following:

o    A study of solar energetic particles, anomalous cosmic rays, 
galactic cosmic rays and magnetospheric electrons would be 
launched in mid-1992.  Called Solar, Anomalous and Magnetospheric 
Particle Explorer, this study was proposed by Dr. Glenn M. Mason, 
University of Maryland, College Park, and 10 co-investigators 
from American and German institutions.
     
o    A study of how molecular clouds collapse to form stars and 
planetary systems, called the Submillimeter Wave Astronomy 
Satellite, would be launched in mid-1993.  The principal 
investigator is Dr. Gary J. Melnick, Harvard-Smithsonian Center 
for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass., heading a team of 11 co-
investigators from institutions across the U.S. and Cologne, 
Germany.

o    An investigation of the processes operating within the 
auroral region, called Fast Auroral Snapshot Explorer, would be 
launched in late 1993.  Dr. Charles Carlson, University of 
California, Berkeley, is the principal investigator.  The co-
investigators are from Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory, 
Calif., and the University of California at Berkeley and Los 
Angeles.

o    A study of stratospheric ozone is the mission of the Total 
Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS).  It will provide daily mapping 
of global ozone and detect global ozone trends.  TOMS was 
proposed by Dr. Charles E. Cote and nine co-investigators, all 
from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md.  
This investigation is a high-priority Earth observing mission 
that is critical to monitoring long-term stratospheric ozone 
depletion trends.

     The Small Explorer Program is managed by the GSFC Special 
Payloads Division.  Costs for developing such spacecraft and 
instrument payloads are expected to average $30 million.

     The Explorer Program is a long-standing NASA program for 
launching small and moderate-sized space science mission 
payloads.  Over 75 U.S. and cooperative-international scientific 
space missions have been part of the Explorer Program.  For 
example, the International Ultraviolet Explorer, which produced 
astronomical data for more than 1,400 articles in scientific 
journals, continues to operate after more than 10 years in Earth 
orbit.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 16:40:30 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space applications of cold fusion

In article <Added.sYBzIGy00UkT8Q409X@andrew.cmu.edu> SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET (Scott Hess) writes:
>... One device I've read about in Jerry Pournelle's
>"High Justice" used lasers. It seems that a powerful ground-based laser
>is fired into a cavity at the bottom of the spacecraft. It is pulsed on
>and off, at a high speed. The cavity is vented in such a way that it draws
>in air. The laser heats the air very quickly, so the air pushes out the
>bottom, propelling the craft. Then more air is brought in ... Basically
>a ramjet with half the engine ground-based...
>My basic question is this: Does this work? ...

In principle it ought to, although arranging for the laser to heat the
centimeters of air in the cavity but *not* the kilometers of air in the
rest of the beam path is a bit tricky.

The US has a small research program on laser launchers, although they're
currently focusing on rockets rather than air-breathing systems.  It is
hoped that SDI will develop the necessary lasers and optics.  It looks
both feasible and promising.  In particular, with short-pulse lasers,
it scales down well.  Launching capsules weighing tons takes formidable
power sources and lasers, but if you're willing to settle for something
smaller, the system (and its budget) gets much more manageable.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 15:19:10 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes:
>Not necessarily.
>Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of
>land into mirrors.  Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it
>smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal.
How about just painting all roofs in all our cities white?  Sounds a lot 
cheaper, and should work almost as well.  If you are going to melt deserts,
you probably will :
1) generate a *lot* more heat than you reflect
2) piss off a *lot* of environmentalists
3) kill off a *lot* of wildlife
4) change permanently a *lot* of weather patterns
5) blind a *lot* of airline pilots
6...infinity) your own imagination can fill in the rest

What a dumb idea

-- 
Jim Benz 		     jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem 
University of Pittsburgh					 answers,
UCIR			     (412) 648-5930			 hang up!

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 00:11:52 GMT
From: apple.com!gak@apple.com  (Greg Kimberly)
Subject: Global positioning satellites?

I'm interested in information on how to use the civilian global 
positioning satellites. Can anyone give me a pointer to some sources, 
and/or a short summary of how they work?

Thanks in advance

Greg

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 12:21:06 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion

 mcvax!cernvax!jon@uunet.uu.net  (jon) writes:

>Their first experiment was with a palladium cube, this finished when the
>cube ignited, in the nuclear sense. 
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does this mean in this context, please?  I have heard the term applied only
to the break-even point in fission reactors.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  4 Apr 89 22:00 CST
From: Scott Hess <SCOTT@GACVAX1.Bitnet>
Subject: Re: Space problems
Original_To:  BITNET%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

>From Henry Spencer:
>>>It is also an unproven conjecture that advanced biotechnology will be
>>>needed to deal with the immune-system problem.  There might be some
>>>simple fix.
>>
>>But will we know what that fix is without advanced biotechnology? ...
>
>Plain, ordinary medical research may well suffice.  Note, I'm not saying
>that it *will*, just that it is an exaggeration to say that we *need*
>advanced biotechnology for it.
     
I agree with this, but my question is - What is advanced biotechnology,
then? I suppose one could argue that ALL advanced biotechnology was ordinary
medical research, at some time or another. Same with most other subjects.
I would call anything that helps astrounauts (or cosmonauts) to survive
in space pretty advanced. I would doubt if its something extremely simple.
The Col Fusion in Utah thing is NOT ordinary medical research, either, so
that can't be used to say it may be very simple. Not to say it won't.
     
Of course, if it is something very simple - how are we to find out? We really
haven't got the time or space for experiments which we can't give a good
reason why they'd work. If you went out to try a year ago to try to get money
to research the possibility of fusion induced by pallidium absorbtion, I
don't think you'd have gotten the money. Same thing here. Until we can throw
up alot more "borderline" experiments, we probably won't see any simple
procedures to guard against immuno-whatever problems.
     
Scott Hess,
<Scott@gacvax1.bitnet>

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 00:35:49 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!censor!jeff@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Jeff Hunter)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

In article <13667@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> Most postings to this newsgroup seem to assume that the discovery of
> cold fusion is a great boon to the exploration and colonization of
> space.  This does not seems obvious to me.  From what I have read
> so far, cold fusion may help space exploration only a litle,
> and hamper space colonization quite a lot.
> ... 
>   Note that energy is only a small fraction of
> the cost of a launch, so cheap energy on the ground will not make space
> launches much cheaper.   

	Some rocket designer who's name escapes me noticed the same thing
and proposed the Big Dumb Booster (BDB). The theory is that if the cost
of the rocket structure is much greater than the fuel, then making the 
structure cheaper (and therefore heavier) will easily offset the 
additional cost in fuel to lift it.
	Using fuel costs of two years ago he figured that it would be 
much cheaper to make huge boosters out of sheet steel (?) with last
generation rockets than the current practice of using ultra-thin aluminum
shells with every-last-drop-performance motors.
	Anything that drops the cost of LOx and liquid hydrogen just makes
this approach more attractive.

	I realize that there's more cost than just the rocket & fuel,
but the BDB should have it's uses.
-- 
      ___   __   __   {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff  (416-595-2705)
      /    / /) /  )     -- my opinions --
    -/ _ -/-   /-     No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent. 
 (__/ (/_/   _/_                                   Greg Bear

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  4 Apr 89 10:32 CST
From: Scott Hess <SCOTT@GACVAX1.Bitnet>
Subject: Space visible objects
Original_To:  BITNET%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Why would only the Great Wall be visible? How about the pyramids?
What about the Superdome? I know, THAT's probably not visible, but the
pyramids should be.
     
Scott HEss,
<Scott@gacvax1.bitnet>

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 13:58:45 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: I surrender!

Okay!

Upon rechecking my figures, I realized that the graph from which I got my
'slightly greater' population density used a shading for the U.S. and Europe
that classified the regions as having a density of 50 to 500 per square mile.
Needless to say, the U.S. and Europe are on different ends of the spectrum.
However, Europe as a whole (East and West) has, (according to composite figures
from various recent issues of Time and National Geographic) roughly 510
million people (this excludes European Russia, by the way) in an area of about
3.8 million sq. mi, giving a density of approximately 134 people/sq. mi.  If
you look at the mainland U.S., and remove the desert regions (remember, no 
deserts in Europe), the density goes to roughly 100.  Of course, this doesn't
count...

However, the main part of this posting:  In my earliest posting, I should have
said 'by almost any standard, we are the most *technologically* advanced nation
around...'.  I thought I made this clear in my more recent postings; I am not
degrading any other part of the world with respect to the U.S.  I have nothing
but respect for the nations of Europe (with the exception of France), and  
although I have not had the opportunity to visit there, I do plan to do so
in the future.  I am not claiming moral, ethnic, racial, or political        
superiority, just technological.  I hope this posting makes this clear enough;
if not, send mail.  I plan to post no further on this subject.


Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 16:59:09 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>human body.  The Soviet government has given the impression that it is willing
>to sell space on missions--to our embarrassment, since we 'capitalists' don't
>have any missions to sell.  That's neat propaganda, which you seem to have
>taken at face value.

The Japanese seen to have taken it at face value too.

They just signed a deal to send a journalist on a week long
trip to Mir in 1992.

Standard price tag and contract conditions.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 03:04:44 GMT
From: agate!saturn!ssyx.ucsc.edu!spcecdt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Space Cadet)
Subject: Re: Deuterium extraction

In article <1989Apr2.234927.15218@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
*Actually this is an inefficient way to make heavy water; it was used in
*early experiments, and is still used for final purification, but there
*are more efficient (although more complex) ways to do the early stages.

    Could you give us some details?

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 15:25:46 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@g.ms.uky.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

In article <1989Mar31.163051.5961@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
}The apparent absence of major neutron emission and hot waste from the
}solid state fusion discovery raises the possibility of resurrecting
}nuclear rockets for launchers.
}
}For use in launchers, we'd want a fusion reactor that (1) can be shut
}down in seconds,


Paul, the CURRENT launchers cannot be shut down in seconds.  Why put
restrictions on something that are not currently met?

(solid-fuel boosters turn 'on' fine, but 'off' is a b*tch!)


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 05 Apr 89 19:45:50 EDT
From: Colin Hunter <CHUNTER%UMAB.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <SPACE@Andrew.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Babies in Space

From: Colin Hunter

mcvax!ukc!axion!stc!idec!camcon!cpc@uunet.uu.net (Chris Cracknell) writes:

> Much of early embryogenesis is very species-independent.  (This is often
> quoted as a piece of evidence for related ancestry of  vertebrates.)   I
> have an embryologist  friend currently studying bird eggs mainly because
> it is easy to get to  the  embryo  without  worrying about having to cut
> open and keep alive a mother.  I suspect that this is a major reason for
> using eggs in such a study.

There  are  a  great  many  differences  between  avian  &  reptilian, and
mammalian  embryology, one of the most critical being the mode development
from the egg stage.

Birds produce an enormous, fertilised egg  containing  large  reserves  of
mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes, macromolecule precursors, etc.  The contents of the
egg  then  go  on  to  produce  an embryo through rapid cell division, but
without much change in embryo mass.

Mammals,  on  the  other  hand  produce  a  tiny  egg,  which  upon  being
fertilised, goes on to multiply many times (about 2^55 generations, taking
into account cell death) along with considerable RNA synthesis.

I fully agree that bird eggs make  a  much  easier model to work with than
any placental animal, but this does not make them a  *suitable* model from
the  point of view of ever being able to apply the  results  to  non-avian
systems.  Besides, how  can  you  completely allow for all the differences
between the experimental and control groups such that micro-gravity is the
*only* variable.  You really need fertilisation  and normal gestation time
in  a  micro-gravity  environment.   Embryological experiments should wait
until Freedom is operational.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #349
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Apr 89 03:38:33 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03072>; Sun, 9 Apr 89 01:36:45 EST
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  9 Apr 89 02:36:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AYDj37y00jZdM2=0A=>;
          Sun,  9 Apr 89 01:57:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.AYDiW1y00UkZEIZ055>;
          Sun,  9 Apr 89 00:22:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <MYDiTuy00UkZ8IXU4p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  9 Apr 89 01:19:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #350

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 350

Today's Topics:
		    Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
		    Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
		   Re: space news from Jan 30 AW&ST
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
	 Re: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
	 Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact)
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
Outgoing NASA head focuses on budget, Space Station issues (Forwarded)
			   Asteroid mining
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		       Re: Deuterium extraction
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 15:39:19 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@g.ms.uky.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89

In article <1190001@hpwrce.HP.COM> howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) writes:
}>This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending
}>March 31, 1989.
}>8 embryos that died were part of 16 which were fertilized the day before
}>liftoff, the other 16 were fertilized nine day prior to launch.  April 1st
}>Hotline.  This message will next be updated April 7, 1989.
}>----------
}This is useless information, unless they did a control group which did
}not go into space.
They did, of course.

}If they
}didn't, I'd like to know why not, and what makes them think they are
}doing an experiment worth paying any attention to.

I would not extend opinions on technical competence on the performance of
experiments further than personal experience.

Or perhaps that WAS your way of doing it?  How often have your experiments
crashed because of leaving out the control group?


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 02:59:43 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89

In article <3573@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>In article <1190001@hpwrce.HP.COM> howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) writes:
>}>8 embryos that died .. This is useless information, unless they did a
>}control group which did not go into space.
>They did, of course.

What did they do to the controls?  I would expect that you'd want at least
two groups of controls -- one to just sit there, the other to run through
a simulation of the non-microgravity part of a shuttle flight.  Shake 'em,
rattle 'em, and centrifuge them at 3G for a while.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                      "Nobody's life, liberty, or property
Video 7                             are safe while Congress is in session."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                        -- Will Rogers

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 5 Apr 89 05:19:30 PDT
From: nagy%warner.hepnet@LBL.Gov (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru)
Subject: Re: space news from Jan 30 AW&ST
X-St-Vmsmail-To: SPACE_DIGEST

> Subject: space news from Jan 30 AW&ST
> US antimatter research (notably for space propulsion) is being affected
> by a shortage of antiprotons.  CERN, the only major source at present,
> dedicates its supply to basic research [and also has political reservations
> about involvement in anything that hints of military applications, even
> fairly innocuous ones like space propulsion].  DoD considers it urgent
> to develop a domestic antiproton source; modification of the SSC is being
> looked at.
     
This is a great example of how confused our government is.  Fermilab
makes antiprotons, stores antiprotons and uses antiprotons.  I know that
for a while we surpassed CERN in antiproton production, though this might
no longer be true (CERN was planning/installing an upgrade to improve
the rate of antiproton production and collection the last I heard).

This is all rather moot however, since the antiproton beams being stored
at either CERN or Fermilab qualify as high-grade vacuums at best.  Also,
the Robert Forward "wallplug" efficiency of antiproton production at
either lab is laughably small.


= Dr. Frank J. Nagy   "VAX Guru & Wizard"
= Fermilab Research Division/Electrical and Electronics Dept/Controls Group
= HEPNET: WARNER::NAGY (43198::NAGY) or FNAL::NAGY (43009::NAGY)
= BitNet: NAGY@FNAL
= USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/220 Batavia, IL 60510

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 00:32:54 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

Along the lines, what other nifty spacecraft are lying in the ocean?
There must be dozens of V-2's off the English coast, plus a few launched
in "46 and "47 from Cape Canaveral and the USS Norton Sound.

A few years ago, someone mentioned some Apollo hardware was in the ocean
(I think it was the LEM from Apollo-13).

Could someone post a brief list of the most interesting or historic hardware
at the bottom of the sea (preferably with approximate location and depth)?

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 15:14:11 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!arnief@uunet.uu.net  (Arnie Frisch)
Subject: Re: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary

In article <24015@beta.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
> In article <3604@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
> > In article <1495@wasatch.UUCP> ch-tkr@wasatch.UUCP (Timothy K Reynolds) writes:




> > 	My other question is:  these people used a cell with palladium and
> > platinum electrodes and heavy water.  Where would the lithium come from?  I
> > didn't hear any mention of lithium in the electrodes or in the solution
> > before this article that I am replying to.
> 
> This one is a lot easier.  The lithium was added (as deuterated lithium
> hydroxide, 0.1 molar solution) before the start of the experiment, probably
> to make sure that the solution was a nice, highly-conductive electrolyte.
> (Distilled water, remember, isn't very good at carrying a current.)  Whether
> the lithium participates from a nuclear point of view -- i.e., is required
> for the cell to work -- is completely unclear to us kibitzers; it would be
> interesting to hear the F&P viewpoint on this.
> 


It is interesting to note that Jones specifically stated that you
needed to have co-deposition of metal at the cathode to make his
experiment work - i.e. to have fusion.  He described his electrolyte as
an un-optimized solution of metal salts (including Lithium).  Pons also
used Lithium salts, but there was no mention of its importance to the
experiment - other than the fact that it improved the conductivity of
the solution.

Hmmmmm!



Arnold Frisch, Tektronix Laboratories: arnief@tekgvs

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 23:32:09 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!tmurphy@husc6.harvard.edu  (Tom [Chris] Murphy)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <16680@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>A few years ago, someone mentioned some Apollo hardware was in the ocean
>(I think it was the LEM from Apollo-13).

There's no way a LEM could survive re-entry.  The thing is EXTREMELY flimsy,
I once heard (in a book by Michael Collins I think) that a technician once
dropped a wrench through the hull.

Tom



-- 
Thomas C. Murphy         Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab
Internet:   tmurphy@zaphod.wpi.edu   tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu
BITNET:     TMURPHY@WPI              CompuServe: 73766,130
               "I drank what?" - Socrates

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 21:54:48 GMT
From: amdahl!pacbell!qvax2!jerry@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jerry Gardner @ex2561)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <1989Apr3.174529.1476@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>For one thing, I keep trying to prod people into looking at the situation
>in the US and realizing just how bad it really is.  Never mind the really
>optimistic predictions; merely looking at the predictions made early in
>the current shuttle program is enough to make you cry.  The dream may be
>alive, but not at NASA headquarters.
>-- 
>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu


I'm curious, how's the Canadian space program doing these days?



Jerry Gardner, NJ6A        Qantel Business Systems
			   {hplabs,pacbell,ihnp4}!qantel!qvax2!jerry
Disclaimer?  We don't need no stinking disclaimers!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 12:01:31 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact)

 ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:

>  There's absolutely no use for an unmanned shuttle mission that
>I can think of.  

Well, let's start with the possibilities for additional payload if you've
designed your shuttle so that you can remove the life-support systems
fairly easily (anyone know whether this can be done with Buran?)
And then you can fly missions that are outside the envelope of human
comfort/survivability, e.g. duration (no running out of air), acceleration
(high g forces), radiation (flying during solar flares),... anyone got any more ideas?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 19:48:55 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <17272@cisunx.UUCP> jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (James C. Benz) writes:
>Well, if you are going to assume *lots* of relatively free fusion energy,
>why not just accelerate at 1G or some appreciable fraction thereof, until 
>you are halfway there, then turn around and decelerate at the same rate?

Because the power requirements are not merely high, but staggering, if
the fuel consumption is to be kept sane.  I did the calculation in sci.space
a week or two ago; it was way up in the terawatts, as I recall, given some
reasonable assumptions.  Never mind generating it; merely handling that
much power is a horrendous problem.  1% inefficiency means you have to
dissipate gigawatts of heat.

Someday; not today.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 18:53:53 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Outgoing NASA head focuses on budget, Space Station issues (Forwarded)

Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      2 p.m. EDT
                                                    April 5, 1989

N89-29

NOTE TO EDITORS:

OUTGOING NASA HEAD FOCUSES ON BUDGET, SPACE STATION ISSUES

     In his final speech as NASA Administrator, Dr. James 
C. Fletcher today called Space Station Freedom "a tempting 
target" for budget-cutters and warned that significant reductions 
in the program would have dire consequences for the nation's 
future in space.

     "It's time this fact is understood," Dr. Fletcher said at 
the Fifth National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colo.  
"If cut significantly, Space Station Freedom will be cancelled 
and we will deliver a clear message to our children and the rest 
of the world:  The United States intends to leave the business of 
space exploration to others."  The symposium is sponsored by the 
U.S. Space Foundation.

     Fletcher acknowledged he's been accused of "crying wolf" 
about NASA budget cuts.  But "when the wolf is at the door, as it 
has been for the last three years," he said, "it's prudent to 
sound an alarm."

     Reflecting on his service as NASA administrator, Fletcher 
said he would be "returning to private life with the deep 
satisfaction of having participated in a truly extraordinary 
reversal of our national fortunes."  He was named to the position 
-- his second appointment as head of NASA -- 4 months after the 
Challenger accident.

     "We have weathered severe setbacks.  Chastened by the hard 
lessons of crisis, we have recovered and returned to the task 
ahead," he said.  "Today, NASA is a strong and flexible 
instrument of national policy, an instrument I confidently hand 
over to my successor."

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 19:39:01 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc!andrew@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (andrew)
Subject: Asteroid mining

Recent postings have discussed the economics of asteroid mining in light
of the possible future need to "go and get some more palladium". Here is
some data which might come in handy:

1. Metals requirements
----------------------
In 1967 US produced 3e8 tons of iron, steel, rolled iron, aluminium,
copper, zinc and lead = 3e11 Kg.
Assuming 3% ore @ 3.5gm/cc, US produced an equivalent sphere 1.7 Km diameter.
At 250 million US population, US produced about 1000 Kg per capita.
To supply the whole world at this (first world) rate requires 5e12 Kg total.
Assuming 3% ore @ 3.5gm/cc, this is an equivalent sphere 4.5 Km in diameter,
weighing 5e9 tons or 5e12 Kg.
There exist at least 40,000 asteroids larger than 5 Km in diameter.

2. Asteroid mining energy considerations
----------------------------------------
The deltaV from the Belt to Earth is 7 Km/s. Moving 5e12 Kg of asteroid
needs 1e20 joules (about 1% of world's annual (1978) energy use).

Reproduced without permission from "A Step Farther Out" by Jerry Pournelle
=====
Andrew Palfreyman 		USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 		there's many a slip
							'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 19:30:07 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <16680@cup.portal.com>, mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> Along the lines, what other nifty spacecraft are lying in the ocean?

Unfortunately, unlike the Liberty Bell 7, I think that most (if not all)
other space-related objects on the see floors are there because the object
in question crashed into the sea, either by design or by accident, and will
therefore be heavily damaged, at best!

Some examples are the boosters from STS-4 (see the recent Shuttle postings,
thanks!), one of the earlier Mariner probes and who-knows how many pieces
of satellites and spacecraft that survived re-entry, for instance the
plutonium-powered thermionic generator of Apollo 13's LEM.

I remember reading somewhere about one of the early nuclear "missiles",
called the Snark (basically a large unmanned winged  projectile).
Apparently there were a lot of problems with launch and guidance systems,
and the term "Snark infested waters" became a well-used phrase by those
involved in the project...

Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 16:58:52 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!mips!jimiii@apple.com  (Jim Warford)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <3634@sdsu.UUCP> frost@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Frost) writes:
>
>Although utility companies are required to by any excess power you generate
>YOU are responsible for purchasing a synchonous interface to the grid ( a
>synchronous inverter if you're generating DC) plus a new meter and pay for
>periodic calibration inspections by the utility company.
>
I believe you also have to provide 1 million dollars in liability insurance
just in case your equipment malfunctions and wreaks havoc on the electric
companies equipment.
--jimiii@mips.com

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 19:53:32 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Deuterium extraction

In article <6829@saturn.ucsc.edu> spcecdt@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Space Cadet) writes:
>>... more efficient (although more complex) ways to do the early stages.
>
>    Could you give us some details?

Unfortunately I don't remember them very well.  Basically, the difference
in mass is enough to produce a slight difference in chemical reaction rates.
Cycle the stuff through a well-chosen reaction over and over again and you
get a fair degree of isotope separation.  This is much more energy-efficient
than electrolysis.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #350
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Apr 89 06:23:48 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00453>; Sun, 9 Apr 89 05:24:39 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  9 Apr 89 05:24:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYDkmLy00jZdE2BU8U>;
          Sun,  9 Apr 89 03:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.wYDkDwy00UkZEIuE4X>;
          Sun,  9 Apr 89 03:19:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0YDkBFy00UkZIIsk4a@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  9 Apr 89 03:16:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #351

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 351

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
			  Re: Two questions.
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
			    Re: Astrology
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 89 00:30:37 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #484 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 93.68505076 0.00000462           54375-3 0  1952
2 00424  80.4662 359.2804 0023720 325.2295  34.7159 13.67115617322634
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89 90.89479552 0.00000018           82211-1 0  7141
2 08820 109.8162 203.6051 0044842 332.9563  26.8448  6.38624638 45699
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 87.99135342 -.00000005                   0  2386
2 10061   6.9664  69.2213 0005901 181.6735 178.4370  1.00270933  4571
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89 89.17780630 0.00000012           10000-3 0   677
2 10684  63.5154 103.3964 0106672 199.9597 159.6600  2.00563332 66948
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 87.14022241 -.00000028                   0  9662
2 10893  64.5412 344.1818 0152150  28.4921 332.3685  2.00558999 79726
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 91.03781924 0.00000091           10000-3 0  6225
2 10953   5.8394  71.8491 0005923 277.8997  83.0665  1.00276940   161
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 93.05798768 0.00001303           50513-3 0  1009
2 10967 108.0107 132.9064 0002200 270.6354  89.4453 14.34463573563319
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 88.95103552 -.00000028                   0  9937
2 11054  64.0847 340.6029 0053753 117.3660 243.2331  2.00561106 76779
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 82.57719097 0.00000012                   0  1296
2 11141  63.5293 103.3925 0057789 321.2892  38.3616  2.00576657 75348
Anik B1    
1 11153U          89 75.84942236 -.00000241           10000-3 0  6468
2 11153   2.3953  80.9797 0004030 208.9466 152.3930  0.99820806   237
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 87.41921808 0.00001830           78783-3 0  8297
2 11416  98.5062  86.8418 0012581 353.8047   6.2978 14.25624132506392
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89 94.04043872 0.00048563           98776-3 0  9007
2 11703  28.4979  79.9497 0003034 285.3507  74.6722 15.44904947508332
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 93.99816576 -.00000028                   0  8639
2 11783  63.8815 340.1031 0141156  62.3409 299.1405  2.00567245 65515
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 79.16256479 -.00000027           10000-3 0   550
2 11964   4.7480  76.5766 0158284  23.3347 332.9824  0.99391558  1149
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 87.89192575 -.00000248           10000-3 0  7136
2 12472   2.3453  82.6349 0003235 323.7799  36.6114  1.00267719 27801
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 87.62758864 0.00061702           11193-2 0  5005
2 12888  97.5654 136.6665 0003089  67.4405 292.7136 15.49386215416470
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 81.60626106 0.00000455           40076-3 0  6318
2 13113  82.5409 127.5913 0014673 311.0143  48.9763 13.83964336353263
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89 93.66049883 -.00003863          -92439-4 0  5032
2 13138  51.6086 321.8075 0001942 136.8534 223.2222 15.39322686396701
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 87.24648156 0.00000759           39432-3 0  7619
2 13718  81.2478   0.7280 0055248 229.0030 130.6342 14.13137627324125
IRAS       
1 13777U          89 93.83845646 0.00000618           45451-3 0  6249
2 13777  99.0498 291.9594 0013193 150.3211 209.8780 13.98571694315809
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 89.08974395 0.00000116                   0  9221
2 14050   1.1063  83.7067 0001223 340.4033  20.4933  1.00283679  5810
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 88.94857491 -.00000040           10000-4 0  3912
2 14129  26.4661 272.9031 6054805  29.5004 354.0930  2.05883157 15588
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 75.14176849 0.00000011                   0  6124
2 14189  63.1634 102.2709 0134326 215.0993 144.0664  2.00571799 41579
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 86.08308297 0.00001675           71826-3 0  7054
2 14452  81.1663  15.8259 0095242 334.1204  25.5234 14.22092271280878
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89 93.60900110 0.00000483           11705-3 0  6994
2 14780  98.1758 157.2601 0004170 107.7612 252.5007 14.57088316270708
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 87.56947974 0.00003367           66127-3 0  4251
2 14781  98.0054 148.6937 0012203 210.7283 149.3168 14.63261902270755
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 93.05265419 0.00034545           67795-3 0  8010
2 14898  28.5079 344.1120 0001509  89.9500 270.1065 15.45936704279793
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89 93.14724337 0.00000010                   0  6422
2 15039  62.9041 100.9941 0015681 277.8643  82.0033  2.00564665 35215
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 81.96652208 0.00000226           19422-3 0  9314
2 15099  82.5261  74.9487 0014250 114.3039 245.9602 13.83624864238198
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 95.04255486 -.00000028                   0  6054
2 15271  63.3909 339.8744 0099639 319.7185  39.6048  2.00563911 32367
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 88.87474108 0.00004343           63672-3 0    31
2 15331  82.5387  51.6323 0024723 348.2178  11.8479 14.75185955242524
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 89.33722228 0.00000605           35187-3 0  3544
2 15427  99.1390  74.7621 0015550 170.8065 189.3398 14.11927176221322
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 91.76007674 0.00000617           54387-3 0   648
2 15516  82.5417   5.5521 0016648 336.1967  23.8398 13.84077454210486
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89 93.79031978 0.00044594           11264-2 0  2112
2 16095  51.6132 321.1647 0003901 151.2293 208.7619 15.39358354396727
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 92.70461715 0.00000011                   0  3082
2 16129  63.6906 101.6030 0115390 150.6673 210.0326  2.00564969 25528
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89 91.62134550 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8147
2 16191  82.5442 289.8870 0020420 127.8309 232.4658 13.16866338165440
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89 91.92033922 0.00000216           18410-3 0  4749
2 16408  82.5324 280.2916 0016458 149.8844 210.3261 13.84146309165001
Mir        
1 16609U          89 93.67036765 0.00025745           24797-3 0  7702
2 16609  51.6247  16.4689 0019102  75.1336 285.1395 15.66127384179565
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89 93.89094889 -.00000629          -28689-3 0  4192
2 16613  98.7035 169.4837 0001382  73.7145 286.4209 14.20031130  1580
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89 91.58980541 0.00000389           34044-3 0  2865
2 16735  82.5381 307.3483 0013154 224.8115 135.1952 13.83894300143863
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89 94.99775496 0.00002174           31987-3 0  5664
2 16881  82.5203 105.6219 0022512 343.0120  17.0021 14.74857020144508
EGP        
1 16908U          89 81.62627618 -.00000017           18257-3 0  1208
2 16908  50.0068 204.1897 0011435 125.4888 234.7023 12.44376707118637
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 83.69611252 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1370
2 16909  50.0189 198.0467 0011097 130.5680 229.6122 12.44398749118887
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 89.40092669 0.00001042           47994-3 0  2121
2 16969  98.6444 121.3733 0014808 117.5622 242.7063 14.22913885132736
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89 91.72433166 0.00000343           30046-3 0  2367
2 17290  82.4692 215.0930 0014387 114.5067 245.7601 13.83690465113048
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 79.00000000 -.00000036           10000-3 0  2483
2 17561   0.0499 141.6476 0001458  24.4393 262.7327  1.00272839   861
Kvant      
1 17845U          89 92.77704271 0.00048265           46076-3 0  7154
2 17845  51.6302  21.0089 0018026  60.7001 299.6302 15.66050339115696
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89 92.84121067 0.00000129           13051-3 0  7158
2 18129  82.9247 293.8180 0010319 260.7680  99.2270 13.71960401 89063
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89 94.54162523 0.00153839  11656-4  26036-3 0  9594
2 18225  71.8760 252.9345 0010890 255.7563 104.3711 16.02448201 99485
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89 91.53274366 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2558
2 18312  82.5514 280.2583 0014349  52.4094 307.8372 13.83449912 81918
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89 91.91159914 0.00000335           29133-3 0   986
2 18820  82.5481 341.1785 0017844 120.0043 240.2873 13.84137464 59137
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 89.37166448 -.00000028           10000-3 0   346
2 19216  57.2895 213.9669 6688587 201.4192 106.6281  2.09699506  6084
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89 93.15604056 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1636
2 19336  82.5417 228.7741 0020594  10.6475 349.5078 13.16855025 33036
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 89.27742398 0.00000633           37351-3 0   641
2 19531  98.9319  33.6982 0013387  94.2072 266.0630 14.10910964 26340
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89 93.86181886 0.00035472           33624-3 0  1316
2 19660  51.6430  15.5126 0025887  94.1808 266.3307 15.66143287 20184
1989 011A  
1 19796U          89 70.12140472 -.00000961           23892-2 0   271
2 19796  62.8312 155.6785 7351306 318.3537   4.7200  2.00603065   519
1989 011D  
1 19799U          89 68.75865655 -.00000506          -29417-3 0    82
2 19799  62.8505 155.8716 7323117 318.2753   4.8050  2.04037207   494
1989 012A  
1 19800U          89 75.81756769 0.00347003  16404-4  85006-3 0   669
2 19800  65.8270 311.5020 1296343 134.8360 236.4657 13.25605130  3959
1989 012B  
1 19801U          89 73.69979937 -.02887515  17218-4 -51246-2 0   560
2 19801  65.8239 315.7017 1243427 135.5400 235.7857 13.40299809  3688
GPS-0014   
1 19802U          89 70.93695796 0.00000015           10000-3 0   167
2 19802  55.1211 215.6503 0077655 186.9612 172.8939  2.01900521   472
1989 013C  
1 19804U          89 73.79405384 0.00396263 -28712-5  16148-2 0   380
2 19804  37.3842 193.0170 6003260 224.3294  68.9879  4.15875089  1123
1989 014A  
1 19807U          89 73.77669857 0.00000818           45909-2 0   320
2 19807  62.9908 338.8975 7424406 279.9051  10.8010  2.00621212   561
1989 014D  
1 19810U          89 74.01083987 0.00000351           53426-3 0   119
2 19810  62.9638 338.6130 7367741 280.1537  11.3209  2.07313260   583
1989 016A  
1 19822U          89 78.45474634 0.00027893           22863-2 0   331
2 19822  75.1114  94.3353 4326466 142.9786 256.6972  6.82723171  1744
1989 016B  
1 19823U 89016  B 89081.29587005  .00773634  00000-0  00000-0 0 00305
2 19823 074.5686 044.4816 0125969 101.3219 260.2745 15.83310232004454
1989 016C  
1 19824U          89 79.44848572 0.00054829           43302-2 0   249
2 19824  75.1096  93.8605 4319426 142.2524 259.1648  6.84257340  1818
1989 017A  
1 19826U          89 79.47638162 0.00000359           38850-3 0   349
2 19826  82.9517 212.9735 0029626 202.5847 157.4022 13.71043896  3615
1989 017B  
1 19827U          89 77.91681824 0.00000442           47097-3 0   313
2 19827  82.9509 214.0777 0024396 199.4009 160.6223 13.72519946  3398
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89 90.75610708 0.00000117           10000-3 0   199
2 19851  82.5221 220.8847 0015046 160.1383 200.0366 13.83770013  4379
1989 018B  
1 19852U          89 87.94089069 0.00000116           10000-3 0   130
2 19852  82.5200 223.1366 0018296 155.4542 204.7493 13.83527160  3984
1989 019A  
1 19862U          89 95.12275817 0.00946225  39673-4  42772-3 0   851
2 19862  62.7868 262.6573 0114960 128.3397 232.5572 16.07713223  5373
1989 020A  
1 19874U          89 87.06339145 -.00000150           10000-3 0    83
2 19874   0.0997 330.2385 0022931 155.9890 233.9784  1.00288762   206
1989 020B  
1 19876U          89 89.32382638 0.00000037           10000-4 0   153
2 19876   1.1354 298.3516 0041213  32.1598 326.6707  1.00537241   228
1989 020C  
1 19877U          89 94.75127070 0.00054406           60542-2 0   179
2 19877   7.0031 319.7005 7291933 201.1459  97.0995  2.28813204   656
TDRS 3     
1 19883U          89 84.96599351 0.00000150           10000-3 0    74
2 19883   0.1723  43.3983 0021399 253.4486  62.9265  1.00458708   115
1989 022A  
1 19893U          89 89.07599591 -.00011829          -10090-3 0   243
2 19893  62.8445 298.6618 0061020 230.7484 128.8279 15.66186821  2113
1989 022B  
1 19894U          89 93.21274122 0.21953696  43985-4  15544-3 0   415
2 19894  62.8131 279.1293 0007916  93.1810 267.4023 16.52865505  2832
Progress 41
1 19895U          89 94.88270168 0.00040252           38213-3 0   221
2 19895  51.6232  10.3135 0018651  80.9334 279.4640 15.66256225  3009
1989 024A  
1 19900U          89 95.12786310 -.00258025          -28332-3 0   274
2 19900  64.7442 355.8954 0026385  45.4011 315.0276 16.09161592  2035
1989 025A  
1 19902U          89 91.90280530 -.00000006                   0    58
2 19902  74.0141  23.4915 0049314  84.2934 276.3739 12.57623530  1052
1989 025B  
1 19903U          89 91.91544232 -.00000007                   0   121
2 19903  74.0138  23.5159 0040744  94.7620 265.8092 12.55708456  1050
1989 025C  
1 19904U          89 91.92781622 -.00000006                   0    50
2 19904  74.0138  23.5172 0029948  93.6541 266.7937 12.53833377  1056
1989 025D  
1 19905U          89 91.94013363 -.00000006                   0    42
2 19905  74.0139  23.5825 0020492 100.4576 259.8783 12.51975143  1028
1989 025E  
1 19906U          89 91.95313548 -.00000006                   0    97
2 19906  74.0141  23.5704 0009832 108.7047 251.5073 12.50017440  1057
1989 025F  
1 19907U          89 91.88673998 -.00000006                   0    54
2 19907  74.0138  23.7315 0009992 181.8487 178.2528 12.47956395  1014
1989 025G  
1 19908U          89 91.89920453 -.00000006                   0    80
2 19908  74.0136  23.7538 0013309 239.2518 120.7222 12.46072638  1044
1989 025H  
1 19909U          89 91.91398589 -.00000006                   0    50
2 19909  74.0143  23.7496 0026175 237.4564 122.3956 12.43850994  1006
1989 025J  
1 19910U          89 90.09205718 -.00000006                   0    51
2 19910  74.0139  26.4893 0136020 260.4384  98.1260 12.23018730   808
1989 026A  
1 19911U          89 94.52629740 0.00013032           55936-3 0   187
2 19911  47.6884 347.2051 0019999  34.4121 325.7865 15.22711599  1610
1989 021D  
1 19913U          89 90.07589308 0.00000151           10000-3 0    24
2 19913   2.1183  56.3549 0026633 209.8394 150.7565  1.00609025   100
1989 027A  
1 19919U          89 94.73165030 -.00000072           10000-3 0    22
2 19919   0.1465  48.5060 0670995 170.8512 135.5534  1.10430102    19
1989 027B  
1 19920U          89 92.78502498 -.00077767  20853-4 -27406-2 0    26
2 19920   3.9303  39.3381 7321278 178.9008 188.3347  2.26974481    19
1989 028A  
1 19921U          89 95.27156280 0.00092034           96188-1 0    52
2 19921  82.9613 140.0526 0038627 294.7502  65.0000 13.73921931    73
1989 028B  
1 19922U          89 94.98022494 0.00004154           42681-2 0    11
2 19922  82.9597 140.2694 0031100 290.4400  70.2314 13.75812519    37
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 14:53:55 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Two questions.

In article <3288@nunki.usc.edu> sawant@nunki.usc.edu () writes:
>merrily burning fusion reaction?  Alternatively, shoot it into the
>center of the sun.  Alternatively, shoot it at the stars.  Why have we
>only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far?

"Shoot it" how?  On a shuttle flight?  There would be a lot more red faces
if one of these babies blew up than there were over a few humans getting
blown up on Challenger.  Can you say "world wide atmospheric contamination"?
Can you say "Environmental impact statement"?
-- 
Jim Benz 		     jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem 
University of Pittsburgh					 answers,
UCIR			     (412) 648-5930			 hang up!

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 15:58:34 GMT
From: janus!bwood@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Blake Philip Wood)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <16680@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>Along the lines, what other nifty spacecraft are lying in the ocean?
>There must be dozens of V-2's off the English coast, plus a few launched
>in "46 and "47 from Cape Canaveral and the USS Norton Sound.

Wouldn't any V-2's have been destroyed upon impact with the water? 


                              Blake P. Wood
                              U.C. Berkeley, EECS
                              Plasma Materials Processing Group
                              bwood@janus.berkeley.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 13:36:10 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Astrology

In article <Added.MY_DYiy00Ui3Q=lE8q@andrew.cmu.edu> CALVIN@JHUIGF.BITNET (Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?) writes:
>I mean, maybe the moon has some effect on noctournal animals, but if you're
>trying to defend the age-old astrologer's "the moon effects the tides, and
>they're water, and since the human body is 98% water, the moon must affect
>people" argument, then I would really love to see some data on that.

Not to lend any support to pseudo-science, but an interesting thing to look
at in this respect is the police blotter of any large urban area on the
night of a full moon.  I have heard the same story from several police
officers here in Pittsburgh - craaazy things happen when there's a full
moon, not just your run-of-the-mill stabbings and domestic violence, but
the truly bizzarre.  Of course, this is probably purely subjective - people
see a full moon and all their inhibitions go out the window, but an 
interesting phenomenon nonetheless.
-- 
Jim Benz 		     jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem 
University of Pittsburgh					 answers,
UCIR			     (412) 648-5930			 hang up!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #351
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Apr 89 07:59:48 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00935>; Sun, 9 Apr 89 06:57:57 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  9 Apr 89 06:57:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYDmQay00jZdA2GU5g>;
          Sun,  9 Apr 89 05:49:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.kYDlzey00UkZMJ805H>;
          Sun,  9 Apr 89 05:18:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <oYDlxwy00UkZMJ6U4t@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  9 Apr 89 05:16:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #352

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 352

Today's Topics:
				Ozone
     Astronauts named for two space science missions (Forwarded)
		    Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
			Re: Apollo [non] Fire
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
		 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
			      Re: Ozone
		    Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
			Magellan's Trajectory
		      Re: Magellan's Trajectory
		    Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
			  Re: alien contact
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		      Re: Magellan's Trajectory
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 22:20:44 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!parsely!agora!ihf1!hutch@uunet.uu.net  (Stephen Hutchison)
Subject: Ozone

In article <1410@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> vin@meccsd.UUCP (Vincent J. Erickson) writes:
<...>
>A more elegant solution might be a sunscreen, rather than a reflector.
>A large enough piece of mylar which allows all the visible light, but
>reflects some of the infra-red light. This would keep shadows from
>projecting on the Earth. This same method would be useful for blocking
>ultraviolet radiation in the event we destroy the ozone layer as well.

Could some kind person clarify this for me?  I've been told by an acquaintance
who I would expect to have some knowledge of chemistry, that the Ozone layer
gets rebuilt at night (since catalysts work both ways) and that it may actually
be rebuilt somewhat in excess of the day's losses.  Has anyone tested this?
He seemed convinced it was true and adequately explained the difference between
the expected readings and the actual measurements.

Hutch

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 23:23:46 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Astronauts named for two space science missions (Forwarded)

Barbara Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    April 5, 1989

Jeffrey Carr
Johnson Space Center, Houston


RELEASE:  89-44

ASTRONAUTS NAMED FOR TWO SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS

     Astronaut crew members have been named for two scientific 
Space Shuttle missions scheduled for launch in 1990.

     USAF Col. Steven R. Nagel will be commander of the Space 
Shuttle Discovery on mission STS-37.  USMC Lt. Col. Kenneth
D. Cameron will serve as pilot.  Mission specialists are USAF
Lt. Col. Jerry L. Ross, Jay Apt, Ph.D., and Linda M. Godwin, 
Ph.D.

     Following Discovery's launch next April, the crew will 
deploy the Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO) from the payload bay using 
the Shuttle's robot arm.  The GRO will explore gamma ray sources 
throughout the universe, studying the origin of our own galaxy 
and others, and examining quasars, pulsars and supernova remnants 
from an altitude of 243 miles above the Earth.

     USMC Col. Bryan D. O'Connor will be commander of STS-40, the 
space and life sciences-dedicated mission, SLS-1.  Serving as 
pilot aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia will be USAF Col. John
E. Blaha.  Also named as a mission specialist is Tamara E. 
Jernigan.

     SLS-1 mission specialists M. Rhea Seddon, M.D., and James
P. Bagian, M.D., and payload specialists F. Drew Gaffney, Ph.D., 
and Robert W. Phillips, Ph.D., were named previously.

     Inside a pressurized laboratory fixed in Columbia's payload 
bay, the SLS-1 crew will conduct more than two dozen life 
sciences investigations in the microgravity environment.  Launch 

     Nagel has flown twice in space -- as a mission specialist on 
Shuttle mission STS 51-G in June 1985 and as pilot on STS 61-A in 
October 1985.  He was born Oct. 27, 1946, in Canton, Ill.

     Cameron will make his first space flight.  He was born
Nov. 29, 1949, in Cleveland, Ohio.

     Ross has previously flown on two Shuttle missions, STS 61-B 
in November 1985 and STS-27 last December.  Ross was born Jan. 
20, 1948, in Crown Point, Ind.

     Apt will make his first space flight.  He was born April 28, 
1949, in Springfield, Mass., but considers Pittsburgh, Pa., to be 
his hometown.

     Godwin also will make her first flight in space.  She was 
born July 2, 1952, in Cape Girardeau, Mo.

     O'Connor has flown previously as pilot on STS 61-B in 
November 1985.  After the Challenger accident, he was named 
chairman of NASA's Space Flight Safety Panel.  O'Connor was born 
Sept. 6, 1946, in Orange, Calif., but considers Twentynine Palms, 
Calif., to be his hometown.

     Blaha made his first space flight last month as pilot of 
STS-29.  He was born Aug. 26, 1942, in San Antonio, Texas.

     Jernigan will make her first flight in space.  She was born 
May 7, 1959, in Chattanooga, Tenn., but considers Santa Fe 
Springs, Calif., to be her hometown.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 13:47:00 GMT
From: pur-phy!tippy!fireman@ee.ecn.purdue.edu
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89


Yes, there was a control group of 16 that was not launched....  The 
experiment was based here at Purdue so I have been hearing a lot of it
lately, I'll try to drum up some paper articles to post here.

                   Rob Dale - tippy!fireman@newton.physics.purdue.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 02:30:44 GMT
From: epiwrl!parker@uunet.uu.net  (Alan Parker)
Subject: Re: Apollo [non] Fire

In article <16278@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes:
>When Apollo 13 had an electrical fire, loss of some power and system
>failure, they said "uh, Houston, we have a problem." somewhat toned
>down for public consumption.
>

There was no electrical fire.  A tank ruptured.  I suspect that the time
of that transmission, that is exactly all they knew; that "we have a
problem".

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 04:28:55 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (John S. Watson)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)


Any chance that a German V-2 could be stuck in the mud off Prenemunde (sp?)?

John S. Watson, Civil Servent from Hell        ARPA: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov 
NASA Ames Research Center                      UUCP:  ...!ames!watson
Any opinions expressed herein are, like, solely the responsibility of the, like,
author and do not, like, represent the opinions of NASA or the U.S. Government.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 13:27:20 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <748@m3.mfci.UUCP>, rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) writes:
}In article <16278@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes:
}>When Apollo 13 had an electrical fire, loss of some power and system
}>failure, they said "uh, Houston, we have a problem." somewhat toned
}>down for public consumption.
}I belive the quote was "Uh, Houston, we have a problem here.".
}
}I think toned down due to the nature of the Astronaut saying it, not for
}any worry of public consumption.

Then again, when Challenger exploded, the special report on CBS started with
"There has been a major malfunction...."

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 13:41:19 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Ozone

In article <609@ihf1.UUCP>, hutch@ihf1.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) writes:
> [...] I've been told by an acquaintance who I would expect to have some 
> knowledge of chemistry, that the Ozone layer gets rebuilt at night 
> (since catalysts work both ways) and that it may actually
> be rebuilt somewhat in excess of the day's losses.  [...]

Ozone molecules are formed by the action of UV light on oxygen (smell an
EPROM eraser after it has been used!). 
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 20:07:51 GMT
From: aablue!jb@uunet.uu.net  (John B Scalia)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89

In article <147@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> pipes@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Pipes ) writes:
>     Howeird,
>     (Cool name...)
>     CBS News stated, several days after the landing, that the 
>experiment was done with a control group, and implied that none had
>died from that group (it could have been that only the 'expected'
>number had died...I am not sure.  What floored everyone is that the
>expected results were on the order of deformities, low hatching weight
>or the like.  No one expected dead chickens.  Furthermore, it appears
>that the most vulnerable ones were those in very early stages of 
>development.  This could be very important to people who want to design
> [some deletions]

I have to question whether some conclusions may be being drawn here that
absolutely cannot be made. Without some definitive details as to the time
of embryo death, how can we decide that "spaceflight" is not conducive to
reproduction. I'd really like to know more details about this. For
instance, did all the embryos die at once or over a period? Were they killed
at liftoff, due to G-stresses? Could we design an experiment to fertilize
additional eggs once space-borne and allow them to come to term? Really,
I believe this is opening a can worms, not answering anything.
----
-- 
A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio +1 216 794-8803 voice
UUCP:	   {uunet!}aablue!jb	Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
FidoNet:   1:157/697		wants to spend their life in an institution.
EchoNet:   US:OH/AKR.0

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 14:16:19 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@rutgers.edu  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Magellan's Trajectory


   I've read that Magellan will take 15 MONTHS to reach Venus. A minimum 
energy Hohman trajectory from Earth to Venus only takes on the order of 8
months or so.  Anyone know why they are sending it on such a roundabout 
trajectory ??? 


                   Marc  Bonin

                  University of Texas at Austin

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 00:15:22 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!tmurphy@husc6.harvard.edu  (Tom [Chris] Murphy)
Subject: Re: Magellan's Trajectory

In article <11788@ut-emx.UUCP> bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
>   I've read that Magellan will take 15 MONTHS to reach Venus. A minimum 
>energy Hohman trajectory from Earth to Venus only takes on the order of 8
>months or so.  Anyone know why they are sending it on such a roundabout 
>trajectory ??? 

Apparantly the optimum launch time for a Venus trajectory is in October,
which is when Galileo will be launched to Juptier.  Because the liquid-fuel
Centaur stage will not be carried aboard the shuttle, a less powerful solid
rocket must be used to launch the Jupitee probe, requiring a gravitational
assist from Venus.  So Magellan must settle for a less optimum launch
time.  (Galileo will take some 2.5 years to get to Jupiter I believe.)

Tom

-- 
Thomas C. Murphy         Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab
Internet:   tmurphy@zaphod.wpi.edu   tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu
BITNET:     TMURPHY@WPI              CompuServe: 73766,130
               "I drank what?" - Socrates

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 14:11:24 GMT
From: dftsrv!nssdcs!pipes@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (David Pipes )
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89

In article <560@aablue.UUCP> jb@aablue.UUCP (John B Scalia) writes:
>
>I have to question whether some conclusions may be being drawn here that
>absolutely cannot be made. Without some definitive details as to the time
>of embryo death, how can we decide that "spaceflight" is not conducive to
>reproduction. I'd really like to know more details about this. For
>instance, did all the embryos die at once or over a period? Were they killed
>at liftoff, due to G-stresses? Could we design an experiment to fertilize
>additional eggs once space-borne and allow them to come to term? Really,
>I believe this is opening a can worms, not answering anything.

     I agree that the experiment poses more questions than it answers.
All of those you list are good, but the point is that no one seemed to
expect that they would actually have to be tried (at least, that is the
impression the Washington Post gave in their article.)  Now that the 
last of the eggs sent up have died -- even those which survived the trip
 -- it still seems that no one understands why.  So perhaps some of
these possible experiments will happen.
     The original poster wondered why we should do them at all.  I just
pointed out that there are things which we don't know which could be
useful in the future.
>----
>-- 
>A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio +1 216 794-8803 voice
>UUCP:	   {uunet!}aablue!jb	Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
>FidoNet:   1:157/697		wants to spend their life in an institution.
>EchoNet:   US:OH/AKR.0



| EMail: pipes@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov        David Pipes      |
| Vox: (301) 286-2248                                       |
| These opinions are mine, not my employers.  You may share |
| them, but please put them back neatly when you are done.  |

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1989 12:50-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: alien contact

> Yup, clearly the people who can fly an entirely unmanned shuttle mission
> with a crosswind landing and a launch in freezing weather, perfectly,
> the first time, are ahead on quality.  Same conclusion -- they'll go to
> Baikonur.

Gee, is this some comment about that other shuttle? The one that blows
up in freezing weather, can't take off in a crosswind and can't land near
its takeoff site because of crosswind limitations?

Naaahh.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 16:12:08 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@purdue.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1989Apr5.194855.4674@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
}In article <17272@cisunx.UUCP> jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (James C. Benz) writes:
}>Well, if you are going to assume *lots* of relatively free fusion energy,
}>why not just accelerate at 1G or some appreciable fraction thereof, until 
}>you are halfway there, then turn around and decelerate at the same rate?
}
}Because the power requirements are not merely high, but staggering, if
}the fuel consumption is to be kept sane.  I did the calculation in sci.space
}a week or two ago; it was way up in the terawatts, as I recall, given some
}reasonable assumptions.

uh, friend...

Maybe terawatt-hours? terawatt is, I believe, power, not energy....

And as such, while the momentary power requirements would be in terms of
watts, that would say nothing about the energy requirements (except, 
perhaps, for peak load).

I hope you watched your units in your calculations...


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 17:39:22 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Magellan's Trajectory

In article <11788@ut-emx.UUCP> bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
>
>   I've read that Magellan will take 15 MONTHS to reach Venus. A minimum 
>energy Hohman trajectory from Earth to Venus only takes on the order of 8
>months or so.  Anyone know why they are sending it on such a roundabout 
>trajectory ??? 

I believe that they're doing something like a 'double Hohman' orbit; the 
first loop in, Venus will be somewhere else, but the second time, it will
be there.  The launch window for a 'single Hohman' is in October, which
they're reserving for Galileo; the decision to abandon the Centaur liquid-
fuel booster can be thanked for this.  Instead of a direct shot to Jupiter,
Galileo will make a loop in towards Venus, out to Earth, and (I think) 
a *second* loop in to Venus and Earth before heading out, to build up
velocity.  Since the double loop orbit is the only option for a while, they 
went ahead and took it, to get the thing off the ground.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #352
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Apr 89 05:36:10 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03466>; Mon, 10 Apr 89 03:15:48 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 10 Apr 89 03:15:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MYE3PKy00Vs141O0AF>;
          Mon, 10 Apr 89 01:08:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.IYE2jDy00UkZ8JpE48>;
          Mon, 10 Apr 89 00:21:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4YE2gPy00UkZQJnk47@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 00:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #353

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 353

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Babies in Space
			Hubble Space Telescope
		  Re: Building a fusion-based rocket
			    Re: Astrology
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
			 Re: Babies in Space
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
		Re: Cold fusion: chemical explanation?
		   Re: Furnace Effect?..no worries
			    Re: Astrology
		   Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages
		      Re: Magellan's Trajectory
		       DSN mission launch dates
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 15:32:37 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space

In article <Added.YYCeMEy00Ui3QGsE9s@andrew.cmu.edu> CHUNTER@UMAB.BITNET (Colin Hunter) writes:
>... You really need fertilisation  and normal gestation time
>in  a  micro-gravity  environment.   Embryological experiments should wait
>until Freedom is operational.

Why wait?  Fly them on Mir.  It's cheaper, too.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 18:23:26 GMT
From: pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Philip Verdieck)
Subject: Hubble Space Telescope



This maybe the stupidest question, especially if its
allready been asked and answered since the point where
I saw an article here mentioning it (early march/late feb).
So if its been discussed, ignore this cause I'll catch up,
but.....

What are the capabilities for rotating this baby and using it for
spying purposes???

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 15:15:49 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Building a fusion-based rocket

>From article <7473@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus):
> 
> 	I've been trying to figure out how to get a "heat-pump" effect
> to use the fusion system to pump up a heat exchanger to a reasonable
> temperature.

What follows has so many assupmptions and so much speculation in it
that I'd call it science fiction rather than speculation.

>From all I've heard and read about FP fusion I'd try to make
precharged lattice pellets. That is, pellets of some fusion catalyst
already charged with fusile material. It look like these pellets could
be ignited by passing a current through them.

You would feed pellets one at a time into a chamber and detonate them.
Sort of a tame Orion.

Fusion aided chemical explosives might also become reality. Micro
pellets could be imbedded in a solid explosive or floated in a
chemical fuel, like kerosene, with fusion being started by the heat
released by burning the fuel.  Fusion assisted solid and liquid fuel
rockets may be possible.

Wild speculation. But it's fun.

			Bob P.

-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 14:15:22 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun1!gsh7w@purdue.edu  (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Astrology

James C. Benz writes:
#Not to lend any support to pseudo-science, but an interesting thing to look
#at in this respect is the police blotter of any large urban area on the
#night of a full moon.  I have heard the same story from several police
#officers here in Pittsburgh - craaazy things happen when there's a full
#moon, not just your run-of-the-mill stabbings and domestic violence, but
#the truly bizzarre.

Nick Sandulek, an astronomer at Case-Western Reserve in Cleveland, did
a 13 year study of police records and found NO correlation of crimes
with the phase of the moon. He did fine a LARGE correlation of the day
of the week, Friday and Saturday. Published in The Skeptical Inquirer.

-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 22:20:26 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

In article <wYCugSy00Ui0E0kWMI@andrew.cmu.edu>, pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes:
> 
> What are the capabilities for rotating this baby and using it for
> spying purposes???

According to the NASA material I have, the HST is a low-light telescope,
meaning that it cannot view bright objects like the sun, moon, or the Earth.
However, the KH-12 reconaissance satellite (wasn't this launched recently?)
is a close cousin of the HST, except it can view the earth.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 19:59:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space

Colin Hunter (CHUNTER@UMAB.BITNET) writes:

> ...how  can  you  completely allow for all the differences
> between the experimental and control groups such that micro-gravity is the
> *only* variable.  You really need fertilisation  and normal gestation time
> in  a  micro-gravity  environment.   Embryological experiments should wait
> until Freedom is operational.

If you want to get experimental results sometime in the next
decade, embryological experiments should be done on Mir. All
indications are that the Soviets are willing to coopoerate fully
with anybody wishing to rent space in their lab.
-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 15:17:01 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!tmurphy@husc6.harvard.edu  (Tom [Chris] Murphy)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <389@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>
>plutonium-powered thermionic generator of Apollo 13's LEM.
>

HUH?  All American (and probably all Soviet) manned spacecraft use 
fuel cells for electrical generation.  The U.S. doesn't make much use
at all of nuclear-powered satilites, except for deep-space probes.

Tom



-- 
Thomas C. Murphy         Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab
Internet:   tmurphy@zaphod.wpi.edu   tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu
BITNET:     TMURPHY@WPI              CompuServe: 73766,130
               "I drank what?" - Socrates

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 15:37:50 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <530@qvax2.UUCP> jerry@qvax2.UUCP (Jerry Gardner) writes:
>>...The dream may be alive, but not at NASA headquarters.
>
>I'm curious, how's the Canadian space program doing these days?

Lousy.  Our glorious government, in its (minimal) wisdom, has tied it much
too closely to the US program.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 06:33:23 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!James_J_Kowalczyk@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Cold fusion: chemical explanation?

stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
        [portions deleted]
>If this makes sense, then the extra energy detected by F&P is
>energy that was stored into the electrode during the charging period.
        [more deleted]
>Does this make any sense? (As you can tell, I am no chemist.)
>
>                Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center

Pons & Fleischman have apparently taken into acount all the energy
put into the system during the multi-week "charge-up" time.
The energy out is still calculated as more than put in.

Jim Kowalczyk
Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 00:27:18 GMT
From: attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@uunet.uu.net  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: Furnace Effect?..no worries

In article <1410@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG>, vin@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Vincent J. Erickson) writes:
> The greenhouse effect and the furnace effect could both be compensated
> for in the following way:  Call 3M up; order many square kilometers of
> mylar; place mylar in solar orbit just indise the Earth's so it blocks
> a small percentage of the sun's rays. Result; a lowering of the
> Earth's temperature.

  Let us assume we wish to block 1% of the sun.   A simple calculation shows
a disk 638km in radius is needed (at least).  If this disk is to be 1mm in
thickness, and if mylar has a density of 50kg/m^3 (ridiculously low), a total
mass of 6.39e10kg will have to be placed in 'solar orbit'.  I think a shuttle
can put some 30000kg into earth orbit (we will blithely assume earth orbit
== solar orbit), so the Great Mylar Sun Shade will need about 2 million shuttle
launches...

  Hey, if it will help the space program, I'm all for it... :-)

-- 
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 15:44:55 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Astrology

In article <17348@cisunx.UUCP> jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (James C. Benz) writes:
>... I have heard the same story from several police
>officers here in Pittsburgh - craaazy things happen when there's a full
>moon...

When you correct for better light (which facilitates outdoor activities)
and the tendency for the phase of the Moon to line up with weekends for
several months at a time (this matters, if only because weekend alcohol
consumption is much higher than on weekdays), the effect vanishes.  Hospital
staff say the same thing, but studies of the hospital records do not
bear them out.

>... Of course, this is probably purely subjective - people
>see a full moon and all their inhibitions go out the window, but an 
>interesting phenomenon nonetheless.

It's even more subjective than that:  policemen, hospital staff, etc.
remember weird things that happen at the full moon, discount them
when they happen at other times, and forget the times when the moon was
full and nothing significant happened.  This is how most superstitions
get started.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 13:57:23 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages

In article <8904051901.AA12276@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>
>Well, let's start with the possibilities for additional payload if you've
>designed your shuttle so that you can remove the life-support systems
>fairly easily (anyone know whether this can be done with Buran?)
>And then you can fly missions that are outside the envelope of human
>comfort/survivability, e.g. duration (no running out of air), acceleration
>(high g forces), radiation (flying during solar flares),... anyone got any more ideas?
>
Okay , I suppose there is are possible uses for an unmanned shuttle.  However,
it appears to me you're going to have most of the disadvantages of manned
flight with none of the advantages.  You still have an incredibly complex
flying machine that will be subject to the majority of the same delays, since
at a cost of a billion dollars or so per shuttle, you're going to want to 
be *very* sure it's in working order when you go up.  And if a fuse blows
while it's up, there's nobody there to fix it, and you have to send a second
mission up to take care of the problem.  I don't think you can get much 
outside the envelope of human survivability, either.  The shuttle generally
runs at max performance anyway (the throttle-back is to keep the dynamic
pressure down on the orbiter's structure), and I don't think you'd want to
fly during the output of a flare; can't the radiation scramble the electronics?
I suppose if you had a payload that you *had* to fly without people, you 
might conceive of trying it, but otherwise, I wouldn't risk it.





-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 01:23:18 GMT
From: osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu!ryan-s@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (stephen)
Subject: Re: Magellan's Trajectory

Check out the April issue of Discover for the answer to this and other
questions about Magellan.  (Pretty good article.)

.Steve

------------------------------

Date: Thu,  6 Apr 89 11:40:06 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: DSN mission launch dates
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Just discovered that this message which I tried to send out on 3/11
and had assumed was in a digest that I missed never made it, so here
it is, albeit slightly dated:

I just got a list of launch dates for missions supported by the DSN 
through 1990.  I don't have a glossary, so if you don't know what
one of these acronyms means, don't ask me.

STS-30 (MAGELLAN)	4/28/89
DFS-1			5/5/89    (but maybe 3/31 or 4/4 depending on Ariadne
				   manifest)
TV-SAT-2		7/13/89   (6/29 is possible early launch date)
COBE			5/89
SPOT-2			5/15/89
STS-28  (DOD)		7/1/89
GMS-4			8/1/89
STS-33			8/10/89
FLTSATCOM-F8		9/89
STS-34 (GALILEO)	10/12/89
STS-32			11/13/89
STS-31 (HST)		12/11/89
STS-36			12/11/89  (no, it doesn't make sense to me either)
MUSES-A			EARLY 90
TDF-2			1/15/90
DFS-2			1/15/90   (could be launched separately from TDF-2)
ROSAT			2/90
GOES-I			3/90
STS-35			3/1/90
EUTELSAT		4/1/90    (with Ariadne; 3/1 with Atlas-Centaur)
STS-37			4/5/90
STS-38			5/10/90
STS-40			6/7/90
STS-39  (GRO)		7/19/90   (Gamma-Ray Observatory)
BS-3a			8/1/90  
STS-41			9/10/90
STS-42  (TDRS-E)	10/5/90
STS-43			11/8/90
GOES-J			12/90
STS-44 (ULYSSES)	12/20/90
STS-45			1/31/91

There's also a note that Kourou is closed August and mid-December to
mid-January.

We all know how rapidly these things change, so if any of the above is
completely risible by the time it reaches you, don't blame me!

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 20:08:23 GMT
From: crdgw1!steinmetz!sunspot!blackje@uunet.uu.net  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported


> ... put a reactor under the hood of a car...

not very likely.  you have a shielding and weight problem.
you might see fusion powered locomotives.

--Emmett
	J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
	blackje@crd.ge.com;   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #353
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Apr 89 07:24:53 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00866>; Mon, 10 Apr 89 05:44:24 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 10 Apr 89 05:44:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8YE64zy00jZdQ2J05K>;
          Mon, 10 Apr 89 04:09:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.wYE5JPy00UkZMK8k5J>;
          Mon, 10 Apr 89 03:18:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYE5HNy00UkZ8K7E5g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 03:16:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #354

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 354

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Feb 13 AW&ST
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			NASA tank reuse fiasco
		       Re: Re: Babies in Space
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #344
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
		     Re: DSN mission launch dates
		A brief history of Soviet Mars probes.
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 02:56:52 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Feb 13 AW&ST

Construction of the mobile service tower for the Titan 4 pad at
Vandenberg may be delayed due to incorrect fasteners:  some of the
one-inch-dia. bolts are too small for the nuts, causing stripping
of threads.  Martin Marietta and the USAF are trying to decide what
to do.  [Uh, change bolt suppliers?]

NASA FY90 budget gets bipartisan support at its first Senate subcommittee
hearing.

Phobos 2 enters Mars orbit Jan 29.  [I'll skip the details, since we
all know that Phobos 2 is now dead.  They really should have launched
three of them.]

Discovery launch preparations continue, with replacement liquid-oxygen
pumps about to arrive at KSC.  Data from the #3 engine on Atlantis
shows that its cracked bearing was present at launch -- vibration levels
were higher than usual, although within operating limits for the engine.

Inmarsat decides to investigate using its satellites for land-mobile
communication, in addition to their maritime and aviation roles.

Test-firing of Pegasus third-stage engine is imminent [went fine].
The test will be run by a Pegasus flight computer in a blockhouse.
A second-stage motor firing will follow in late March, and a first-
stage motor in April.  Only one test of each motor will be done
before first flight.  Hercules has started construction on the
first flight motors.

The first Pegasus is still on schedule for launch in late July.
Scaled Composites [Rutan's company] has finished the top half of the
wing and is finishing the bottom half.  Subcontractors are starting
to deliver flight hardware.  A captive flight test on a B-52, using
an inert model now under construction, will occur in late June.
Two captive flight tests of the first Pegasus will be run before it
is launched.  Launch will be off Vandenberg.  Assuming success, the
second Pegasus goes up in September.

The B-52 being government-owned, OSC is evaluating proposals from a
number of aircraft cargo and leasing companies to provide either a
Lockheed Tristar or a Boeing 747 for commercial Pegasus launches;
OSC's studies showed these aircraft to be preferred.  A 747 would
carry Pegasus under its wing the same way the NASA B-52 will; a
Tristar would carry it under the belly, with Pegasus's tail sticking
up into the unpressurized cargo hold through a slot.  European and
Japanese companies, in addition to US ones, have offered aircraft
leases on "interesting" terms.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 00:47:37 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tbetz@rutgers.edu  (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

Quoth mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) in <296@v7fs1.UUCP>:
[ "April Fool!" >SFX of four legs breaking< deleted ]

|There is, however, a rather large fly in the ointment.  There are two
|places on this planet you can get platinum-group metals in quantity.
|Both of these countries could become the super-OPEC of the 21'st
|century.
|
|One of them is the Soviet Union.
|
|The other is South Africa.
|
|We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum-
|group metals.
|-- 
|Mike Van Pelt                 Video 7              ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

Mike, you raise a good point... but can some more experienced
folks here figure out how hard it would be, given a starter
supply of Palladium and some other, more available elements, to
recombine those more available elements and come out of it with
Palladium?  I mean, with a fusion plant, this shouldn't be >too<
difficult.

And of course, this will play >hell< with those who promote a
return to the Gold Standard!  ;^)



-- 
     "Still I sing bonny boys, bonny mad boys,       | Tom Betz, 114 Woodworth 
            Bedlam boys are bonny,                   | Yonkers, NY 10701-2509
   For they all go bare, and they live by the air,   |     (914) 375-1510
 And they want nor drink nor money." - Steeleye Span |    tbetz@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 01:33:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1!tbetz@rutgers.edu  (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

Quoth alan@rnms1.paradyne.com (0000-Alan Lovejoy) in <5853@pdn.paradyne.com>:
|In article <1989Mar26.003753.11770@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
|>Nonsense.  Supplying artificial gravity using centrifugal force is no big
|>deal, although getting the radius long enough to avoid inner-ear problems
|>is certainly a nuisance.  People have designed current-technology Mars
|>missions which have artificial gravity.
|
|I'm not a spececraft engineer, so I won't debate you on the practicality of
|designing centrifugal gravity craft.  I had heard that this was not so simple
|as all that, however.  Perhaps I have heard wrong.  Any spacecraft engineers
|care to comment?
|
|>You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem:  better
|>space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, ...

And, of course, if you keep your acceleration (a fusion powered
drive would seem to be just the ticket for this) at a pretty
constant 1 G, you can avoid the effects of 0 G pretty much
altogether.  Of course, to keep your v below c, you may have to
be decelerating at 1 G almost as much as you are accelerating at
1 G, with brief spurts of 0 G while you're turning the ship
around... and this doesn't help with the problem of guys out
mining the asteroids.  Perhaps they could sleep in ships doing
the grand tour at 1 G to and from where they work.





-- 
     "Still I sing bonny boys, bonny mad boys,       | Tom Betz, 114 Woodworth 
            Bedlam boys are bonny,                   | Yonkers, NY 10701-2509
   For they all go bare, and they live by the air,   |     (914) 375-1510
 And they want nor drink nor money." - Steeleye Span |    tbetz@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 06:07:21 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc!andrew@sun.com  (andrew)
Subject: NASA tank reuse fiasco

I was horrified to read that more than $8B has already been junked by
discarded fuel tanks; about $300M per tank. Over the next 10 years, with
10,000 tons of tankage to be *nearly* put into orbit, the loss of 30 ton
tanks would amount to a cool $100B more. That's $100,000,000,000.
Each empty tank weighs more than the total shuttle payload!

How is it possible for rational men to continue such a profligate policy
for such a long time? That's MY money, you know (and yours).
It's dubious that anyone associated with such a scandal could dare call
himself a manager, much less an engineer; I have a much better word.
Perhaps a stint assisting with the education of America's homeless
millions would jerk these jerks back to reality.

Wouldn't it be so nice just to attach a parasitic mini-thruster and
control system to all tanks, just to go that last ten yards?
They would be so useful to have around; unlike NASA "technical managers".
	Despairingly,
=====
Andrew Palfreyman 		USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 		there's many a slip
							'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 17:10:09 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpcllmv!jbc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jeff Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Re: Babies in Space

>There  are  a  great  many  differences  between  avian  &  reptilian, and
>mammalian  embryology, one of the most critical being the mode development
>from the egg stage.
>
>Mammals,  on  the  other  hand  produce  a  tiny  egg,  which  upon  being
>fertilised, goes on to multiply many times (about 2^55 generations, taking
>into account cell death) along with considerable RNA synthesis.
>
>I fully agree that bird eggs make  a  much  easier model to work with than
>any placental animal, but this does not make them a  *suitable* model from
>the  point of view of ever being able to apply the  results  to  non-avian
>systems.  Besides, how  can  you  completely allow for all the differences
>between the experimental and control groups such that micro-gravity is the
>*only* variable.  You really need fertilisation  and normal gestation time
>in  a  micro-gravity  environment.   Embryological experiments should wait
>until Freedom is operational.

Here Here!  I think we should send up a dozen pregnant women on the next
shuttle.  Let's write a letter to NASA.

-Jeff Caldwell
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
| Disclaimer: He without a claim has nothing to disclaim. |
 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 14:35:12 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)


Ignore my last posting...I misread unmanned for manned...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 21:58:47 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <1749@wpi.wpi.edu> tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) writes:
>In article <389@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>>
>>plutonium-powered thermionic generator of Apollo 13's LEM.
>>
>HUH?  All American (and probably all Soviet) manned spacecraft use 
>fuel cells for electrical generation.  The U.S. doesn't make much use
>at all of nuclear-powered satilites, except for deep-space probes.

The generator in question was to be used to power (and heat) the instruments
left on the Moon. Wasn't it called "SNAPS" or something? I guess my
original statement was somewhat misleading. 

(By the way, other than the new shuttle, the Soviets have always used solar
power and/or batteries for their manned spacecraft.)
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 07 Apr 89 13:21 PDT
From: Pete Nielsen                         <CSMSPCN@OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #344

Please remove me from this list. My addresses are:

CSMSPCN@UCLAMVS  (Bitnet)
CSMSPCN@OAC.UCLA.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 21:52:18 GMT
From: vygr!mae@sun.com  (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO})
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

>In article <3015@eos.UUCP> steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) asks Henry:
>>   Citizens in this country can, and do, work to get more support for 
>>space activities, but we work within the constraints of our system.  You 
>>seem to be upset with us for not doing enough.  So what are YOU doing to 
>>promote space exploration?

Henry is AW&ST_compress(1). Isn't that enough {:_>)?


#mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-40
#"There's nothing human that's alien to us." - A. Einstein

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 21:01:21 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: DSN mission launch dates

In article <890406114006.000007572C1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
> [interesting list of potential launch dates]
> DFS-1			5/5/89    (but maybe 3/31 or 4/4 depending on Ariadne
                                                                      ^^^^^^^
"Ariadne" is the (pseudo-) collumnist in "New Scientist". You probably mean
"Ariane", I hope!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 14:07:49 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: A brief history of Soviet Mars probes.


         Although the Soviets certainly have not had the best of luck in 
    exploring the planet Mars with unmanned space probes - particularly
    in comparison to their Venus missions - they have had at least one
    completely successful Mars mission, with a number of partial successes, 
    and a few firsts at the Red Planet.

         The only completely successful Soviet Mars probe was MARS 5,
    launched in 1973 and began orbiting Mars in February of 1974.  Together
    with its sister probe, MARS 4, the orbiter took sixty photographs of
    the planet's surface, comparable in quality to the photos taken by the
    United States' MARINER 9 probe, which had studied Mars two years earlier. 

         The rest of the unmanned space vehicles identified as Mars probes
    have not been as fortunate, but something was learned and achieved
    on all those missions.  During the period from 1960 to 1971, there 
    were also at least nine Mars attempts which did not even make it past
    Earth orbit, and these were never officially identified by the Soviets 
    as Mars probes.

         The first announced unmanned probe to Mars was launched in 
    November of 1962:  MARS 1 got as far as 53 million kilometers from 
    Earth before radio contact was lost in March of 1963.  It did 
    eventually pass Mars at a distance of 193,000 kilometers, but no 
    data was ever returned.

         There was a nine-year gap between MARS 1 and the next "official" 
    Mars missions, MARS 2 and 3.  Both launched early in 1971, MARS 2 
    reached the planet in November and went into orbit, dropping a lander 
    to the surface in the process.  Though the lander apparently crashed
    instead of soft-landing as intended, the probe does hold the distinction
    of being the first human-made vehicle to reach Mars' surface.  The
    problem was blamed on the huge dust storm enveloping the planet at 
    the time, which was also affecting the observations being made by
    MARINER 9, already in orbit, and MARS 3, which also placed a lander
    on the surface the next month.  This lander did reach the planet intact, 
    but only transmitted some useless data for twenty seconds before going 
    silent.  The MARS 3 orbiter did function well, but it and its sister 
    probe only returned a few poor photos of the dust-shrouded planet.

         The next "gap" in Soviet Mars exploration was far shorter and much 
    more ambitious:  Four unmanned vehicles were sent to Mars in 1973 - two 
    orbiters (MARS 4 and 5) and two flyby/landers (MARS 6 and 7), all
    arriving at their destination the next year.

         MARS 4 went into a solar instead of Martian orbit when its
    breaking rockets did not fire as planned.  The probe did manage
    to send back a few surface photos before passing its target into 
    interplanetary space.  MARS 5 was discussed above.  MARS 6 sent a 
    lander to the surface as the main bus flew past, but the lander 
    signals ceased just a few seconds before touchdown.  The lander did 
    return information on the thin Martian atmosphere while it was 
    descending.  MARS 7 was not able to aim its lander properly, and it
    missed the Red Planet by 1,300 kilometers, sailing off into solar 
    orbit.    
    
         No doubt discouraged by the results of the MARS series, the
    Soviets did not send another unmanned probe (not even an unofficial
    attempt) until 1988, with the launchings of PHOBOS 1 and 2.  Their
    unfortunate demise is well-known to USENET readers.

         This may come off as a bit naive, but perhaps these difficulties 
    will encourage the Soviets to cooperate even more with the U.S. and 
    other space-faring nations in planetary exploration.  With our combined 
    technologies, studying the other worlds and eventually sending humans 
    to them should become a far easier task, and perhaps also ease political 
    tensions through friendly cooperation.

         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 15:59:11 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun1!gsh7w@g.ms.uky.edu  (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

In article <wYCugSy00Ui0E0kWMI@andrew.cmu.edu> (Philip Verdieck) writes:
#
#What are the capabilities for rotating this baby and using it for
#spying purposes???

Not much, since the detectors are sensitive enough to burn out. A
KH-11 or KH-12 will do the job for you though.

-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #354
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Apr 89 08:23:23 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00664>; Mon, 10 Apr 89 06:54:17 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 10 Apr 89 06:54:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYE7PXy00Vs1A1L04o>;
          Mon, 10 Apr 89 05:41:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.MYE75ky00UkZ4KGk54>;
          Mon, 10 Apr 89 05:18:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYE73uy00UkZQKFE5y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 05:16:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #355

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 355

Today's Topics:
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
			      Re: Ozone
		      Re: Magellan's Trajectory
		Was: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
		       constant-boost rocketry
		  Re: Building a fusion-based rocket
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			  Information needed
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
			  Space News, Apr 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 17:19:48 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <1749@wpi.wpi.edu> tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) writes:
>>plutonium-powered thermionic generator of Apollo 13's LEM.
>
>HUH?  All American (and probably all Soviet) manned spacecraft use 
>fuel cells for electrical generation.  The U.S. doesn't make much use
>at all of nuclear-powered satilites, except for deep-space probes.

ALSEP, the Apollo Lunar-Surface Experiment Package, carried starting
with Apollo 13, used an isotope generator so that it could continue to
operate (and keep warm, for that matter) in the lunar night.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 09:06:15 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!James_J_Kowalczyk@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Ozone

hutch@ihf1.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) writes:
>Could some kind person clarify this for me?  I've been told by an acquaintanc
>who I would expect to have some knowledge of chemistry, that the Ozone layer
>gets rebuilt at night (since catalysts work both ways) and that it may 
>actually
>be rebuilt somewhat in excess of the day's losses.  Has anyone tested this?
>He seemed convinced it was true and adequately explained the difference 
>between
>the expected readings and the actual measurements.

     The ozone layer is produced by the action of ultraviolet light on
oxygen in the upper atmosphere.  Thus, it is replenished during daylight,
not at night.  
     I don't know what you mean by "since catalysts work both
ways".  First of all, not all catalysts work "both ways", and secondly
(if I may assume that you are referring to "catalytic" destruction of
ozone by chloride radicals) the process by which chloride radicals (from
chloroflourocarbons) destroy ozone would definitely not be occur in the
reverse spontaneously.

Jim Kowalczyk
Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu

[What a cross-post!  Only group missing was sci.chem :-) 
 I will only see follow-ups in sci.misc and sci.chem]

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 14:39:38 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Magellan's Trajectory

In article <1760@wpi.wpi.edu> tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) writes:
> (Galileo will take some 2.5 years to get to Jupiter I believe.)

That was the original flight time, I believe.  The new time, with the Venus
double-loop, will be on the order of 5.5 years.  

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 15:34:39 GMT
From: m2c!ulowell!tegra!vail@husc6.harvard.edu  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Was: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <243a1438@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
   In article <748@m3.mfci.UUCP>, rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) writes:
   }In article <16278@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes:
   }>When Apollo 13 had an electrical fire, loss of some power and system
   }>failure, they said "uh, Houston, we have a problem." somewhat toned
   }>down for public consumption.
   }I belive the quote was "Uh, Houston, we have a problem here.".
   }
   }I think toned down due to the nature of the Astronaut saying it, not for
   }any worry of public consumption.

   Then again, when Challenger exploded, the special report on CBS started with
   "There has been a major malfunction...."

I remember a half hour or more after the fact the term "apparent
explosion" being used by NASA.  The disclaimer being they had not
verified whatever data that would confirm there was an explosion.

BTW (getting a bit farther off track) I was amazed and impressed
watching the tapes of the control room.  Talk about cool.  Just a
second or two of silence then the controller with something like:
"lock you consoles, get hardcopy of your screens, protect all your
data sources, fire off a message to the press..."

Another tense time was when they almost aborted to Spain when it
looked like some kind of valve in the main engines was bad.  The
controller (a woman whose name I forgot) made the quick decision to
continue which turned out to be correct as the indicator or sensor was
the part that was bad.

If anyone has details here I would like to refresh my memory on this.
(sorry, no dynamic refresh....)

"The crux of the biscuit, is the apostrophe" -- This is the dog talking...
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail  | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435  | N1DXG @ 145.110-, 444.2+, 448.625-
 -----

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 14:32:00 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <400@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>
>(By the way, other than the new shuttle, the Soviets have always used solar
>power and/or batteries for their manned spacecraft.)

Soviet RORSAT's (Radar Ocean Reconaissance SATellite) use nuclear reactors for
power, since the power consumption of a powerful radar is quite impressive.
If nothing else, the Soviet satellite that came down in Canada in 1979 was
nuclear, and the Canadians were less than pleased with the radioactive debris
strewn across the Yukon.  Also, the Russians are saying that they want to 
sell their new Topaz reactor to other nations for space applications.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 19:44:27 GMT
From: phoenix!mbkennel@princeton.edu  (Matthew B. Kennel)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

In article <1343@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>In article <wYCugSy00Ui0E0kWMI@andrew.cmu.edu> (Philip Verdieck) writes:
>#
>#What are the capabilities for rotating this baby and using it for
>#spying purposes???
>
>Not much, since the detectors are sensitive enough to burn out. A
>KH-11 or KH-12 will do the job for you though.
>
>-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
> USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
> Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
> UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

My father, who is on various NASA committees, claims that a KH-11/12
is essentially a Hubble Telescope pointing down.  2-3 meter primary,
>2 gigadollars, many tons.  I suspect that it's not the optics on
the space telescope that make it unsuitable for spying, but the lack
of encryption for the beamed-down data.  

Does the space telescope have cryostats?  By "burn out" do you mean
boil away?  (i.e. does do IR?)  Or are CCD's damaged permanently from
high fluxes?  What happens if a 10 GeV proton decides to deposit
its energy in the CCD chip?

Matt Kennel
mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 17:36:33 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: constant-boost rocketry

In article <1589@attdso.att.com> tim@attdso.att.com (Tim J Ihde) writes:
>Of course further research is needed here, but maybe .5G would be good
>enough?  Or .25?  I can't believe these problems (originally we were talking
>about immune system difficulties in extended free fall, I believe) magically
>appear at 1G - epsilon.

Probably not.  But our experience with partial gravity is a total of a few
man-days in 1/6 G.  (And you thought our experience with free fall was
limited...)  How much you need is an open question.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 17:47:44 GMT
From: tektronix!psueea!psu-cs!sandym@uunet.uu.net  (Sandy Michael)
Subject: Re: Building a fusion-based rocket


Why on Earth do you want a fusion powered _rocket_?  Sounds like a total
waste of energy. ;*)

How about a fusion powered electricity generator powering an ion drive!!!

Real big Deuterium tanks and a load of Palladium and reactor shielding and
all that fun stuff.  Depending on the size of the tanks to payload ratio
you could get into some relativistic effects even.  Maybe .1 c if you're
cheap with the deuterium.  For probes with light payload you might get
some stuff to the nearer stars by 2100.  

What technology do you see the Earth having by the year 3000?
Michael Sandy
mehawk@reed.uucp

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 21:19:27 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!rolls!attdso!tim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Tim J Ihde)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <1989Apr5.194855.4674@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
<In article <17272@cisunx.UUCP> jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (James C. Benz) writes:
<>Well, if you are going to assume *lots* of relatively free fusion energy,
<>why not just accelerate at 1G or some appreciable fraction thereof, until 
<>you are halfway there, then turn around and decelerate at the same rate?

<Because the power requirements are not merely high, but staggering, if
<the fuel consumption is to be kept sane.  . . . way up in the terawatts . . .
<. . . 1% inefficiency means you have to dissipate gigawatts of heat.

Hmmm . . . good point.

Of course further research is needed here, but maybe .5G would be good
enough?  Or .25?  I can't believe these problems (originally we were talking
about immune system difficulties in extended free fall, I believe) magically
appear at 1G - epsilon.

-- 
Tim J Ihde				INTERNET:   tim@attdso.att.com
(201) 898-6687				UUCP:	    att!attdso!tim
"Blimey - this redistribution of wealth is more complicated than I'd thought!"
		- Dennis Moore and various Presidents

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1989 14:40-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Information needed

I and a coauthor are nearing the end of draft 2 of a rather large SF
novel (10 years in the making), and I need a few pieces of information.

What would be the appearance of the plume from an antimatter rocket
using Hydrogen? I would presume the Hydrogen comes out the nozzle as a
plasma of protons and electrons that gradually recombine and give off
EM.

Can anyone describe the appearance of such a plume?

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 17:33:28 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <3582@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>}>why not just accelerate at 1G or some appreciable fraction thereof...
>}
>}Because the power requirements are not merely high, but staggering, if
>}the fuel consumption is to be kept sane.  I did the calculation in sci.space
>}a week or two ago; it was way up in the terawatts, as I recall...
>
>Maybe terawatt-hours? terawatt is, I believe, power, not energy....

They asked about power, so I answered with power.  Terawatts.  A constant-
boost system needs a constant amount of power (ignoring possible throttle
changes as vehicle mass changes), which can be calculated fairly easily.
In this case it wasn't necessary to figure total energy requirement; it
sufficed to show that the continuous power requirement was enormous, hence
extremely difficult to handle.

>And as such, while the momentary power requirements would be in terms of
>watts, that would say nothing about the energy requirements (except, 
>perhaps, for peak load).

Energy requirement dictates how much fuel you have to carry.  Power
requirement dictates how heavily-built the engine and support hardware
must be.  The former tends to be the dominant problem with chemical rockets
and the like, but the situation changes for high-energy systems.  It's not
hard to figure out that a fusion rocket will have really major cooling
problems, for example.  Constant-boost systems are especially bad because
if you're going to thrust for days at a time, your fuel consumption has
to be pretty low, which means you have to put *lots* of energy into that
small amount of fuel to get reasonable thrust.  (An equivalent way of
looking at it is that constant-boost systems reach very high velocities,
which is expensive in either fuel or energy -- your choice.)

(PS:  Why are you talking about "momentary" power requirements for a
constant-boost system?)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 08:21:27 GMT
From: gondor.cs.psu.edu!sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu  (Mark A. Sobolewski)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

>In article <1989Apr5.194855.4674@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
><In article <17272@cisunx.UUCP> jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (James C. Benz) writes:
><>Well, if you are going to assume *lots* of relatively free fusion energy,
><>why not just accelerate at 1G or some appreciable fraction thereof, until 
><>you are halfway there, then turn around and decelerate at the same rate?
>
><Because the power requirements are not merely high, but staggering, if
><the fuel consumption is to be kept sane.  . . . way up in the terawatts . . .
><. . . 1% inefficiency means you have to dissipate gigawatts of heat.

    For the record... I get 1 gigawatt for a 20 kilo-ton (metric) mass
accelerating at 1g.  (P=E/t, delta(v)=g*delta(t) (1 second),E=0.5mv^2,
20,000,000kg)  (minimum power consumption of course).

    While not a very large ship....  It still has enough room
for a lifesystem, fusion plant, super-conductors (to push against the
interstellar flux, possibly)  with room left over for landing vehicles.

    Don't expect one in 10 years.  But I would not be surprised if I see
one made in my lifetime. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sobolewski   "If you're going to lose anyway, you might as well win."
sobleski@gondor.cs.psu.edu      #include<std.disclaimer>

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 15:44:00 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space News, Apr 6


Jonathan's Space Report

Apr 6, 1989 (No. 10)


The Swedish Space Corp. broadcasting satellite, Tele-X, was launched
on Apr. 1 by Ariane 2 flight V30 from Kourou, South America. It is
now in geostationary orbit.


Preparations continue for the launch of Soyuz TM-8 on Apr 19
and Space Shuttle mission STS-30 on Apr 28.

The Soviet Kosmos-1993 recon satellite landed on March 27 after a two 
month mission.


All a bit quiet, really..  I bet something really exciting happens while
I'm away down in DC for the weekend. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #355
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Apr 89 06:47:10 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03632>; Tue, 11 Apr 89 01:38:11 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 11 Apr 89 01:37:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wYEMI7y00jZd82YkM=>;
          Tue, 11 Apr 89 00:54:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.oYELocy00UkZ4NGk5V>;
          Tue, 11 Apr 89 00:20:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <wYELmcy00UkZ0NFE5T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 00:18:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #356

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 356

Today's Topics:
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
	General Aviation and Space Flight (gov't intervention)
		       Asteroids and Pd fusion
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
	      Re: A brief history of Soviet Mars probes.
			Re: Apollo [non] Fire
			   Re: UFO/Shuttle
			Re: Aliens and the law
	  Reply to the message about general science boredom
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 08:05:15 GMT
From: att!alberta!ubc-cs!van-bc!sl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <530@qvax2.UUCP> jerry@qvax2.UUCP (Jerry Gardner) writes:
}In article <1989Apr3.174529.1476@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
}>the current shuttle program is enough to make you cry.  The dream may be
}>alive, but not at NASA headquarters.

}I'm curious, how's the Canadian space program doing these days?

At least we don't delude ourselves into thinking we have one.

Who's the bigger fool: Canada for realizing that it can't afford one, or the
US for totally mis-managing their's.

-- 
Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 21:25:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>... In particular, he believes that we
>ought to consider broadcasting entertainment spectacles such as rock concerts
>from the space shuttle...

Not precisely right; what I believe is that we should consider not
*forbidding* others from doing so, provided they can pay a fair price
for it.  This is supposed to be the "free world", remember?  Where most
commercial activity is undertaken by individuals, not by the government,
and usually without having to beg permission first?

>... I prefer to limit
>manned missions almost exclusively to scientific and professional personnel
>who can make the most efficient use of these extremely expensive missions...

Who defines "most efficient"?  Given that these missions *are* very costly,
especially on US launchers, should not some weight be given to the ability
of the would-be launchee to pay for it?  Don't you think that public support
for the shuttle would be higher if there was some chance that a mere mortal
could get to fly on it?  (The old idea of a "shuttle lottery" had merit.)
Should "most efficient" be defined the democratic way -- popular vote -- or
by Mama Knows Best?  (If the latter, who gets to be Mama?)

>I consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of
>precious technology.

Yeah, isn't it dreadful how much money goes into silly media events, money
that could go into some truly *worthy* cause?  "Worthy" as defined by us,
of course.

Who defines what's a "frivolous waste" and what isn't?

>...The Soviet government has given the impression that it is willing
>to sell space on missions--to our embarrassment, since we 'capitalists' don't
>have any missions to sell.  That's neat propaganda, which you seem to have
>taken at face value.

Yeah, isn't it dreadful how that propaganda is being taken at face value
by gullible people like France, Britain, Austria, Japan, Indonesia, ...
all of whom are negotiating to take the Soviets up on the offer.  And by
India, which is paying for commercial launches on Soviet boosters.  And
by Payload Systems, which is paying for launch of a microgravity payload
to Mir in a few months.  Amazing how convincing that propaganda is; it
seems to have convinced the Soviets too.

>> I've previously posted a back-of-the-envelope calculation showing that,
>> at their current prices, it is almost impossible for them to be losing
>> money on it...
>
>Did you count development costs on the back of your envelope?  Did you place a
>value on displaced scientific research?

What development costs?  The hardware is 20 years old and long since paid for.
What displaced scientific research?  Soyuz can hold either two or three crew;
almost certainly paying passengers will simply go up as a third crewman on a
flight that would normally have carried two.  (I greatly doubt that the
Soviets are so hungry for cash that they'll displace missions they would
have flown anyway.)

>Well, perhaps it is the 'back-of-the-
>envelope' method that has turned the Soviet economy into such a roaring
>success.  ;-)

Perhaps it is the 'back-of-the-envelope' method that has turned the Soviet
space program into such a roaring success.  It certainly seems to work
better than the US's 'paperwork-by-the-kiloton' method.

>>... What is dangerously low is not resources, but will.
>>In the US, that is.
>
>Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.  I meant budgetary resources.  Space
>research and development is tremendously expensive...

Again I say:  nonsense.  Space activity is a minute fraction of the US
government budget, far less expensive than many other activities.  Again
I say, more explicitly:  what is lacking is not resources, but will.
The US could triple its spaceflight funding without measurable impact on
the budget, if the will was there.  It's not.

>> The [Soviet] embassy could probably refer you to the right place:  Space
>> Commerce Corp. in Houston, the US representatives for most Soviet space
>> services. 
>
>Gosh.  Space Commerce Corp.  You wouldn't be confusing manned missions with
>satellite missions, would you?

Nope.  SCC is the US marketing rep for unmanned launches, Soyuz launches,
space on Mir, tours of Baikonur, you name it.  Almost everything except
Soyuzkarta earth-resources images.

>>>The idea of getting people to "take over" our space
>>>program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it
>>>was impractical.  It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free
>>>market was the answer to everything...
>>Yes, ridiculous uncommercial people like Boeing...
>
>I would be interested in clarification here.  Do you mean that Boeing, or some
>other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight
>program? ...

In a word, yes.  Look up the history of Astrotech, for starters.  It wasn't
the only one, either.  As I recall, there were two bids that got as far as
formal proposals (which NASA sat on until they died) and several informal
expressions of interest (including at least one from Boeing, which has
wanted to get into the spaceflight business for a long time).

>...I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any
>such desire.  What for?  They are working with the government, which is the
>only conceivable customer for manned space flight right now...

So what?  You can make lots of money selling services to the government,
even services nobody else would buy.  Ask any defence contractor.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 21:20:24 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: General Aviation and Space Flight (gov't intervention)

In article <1989Apr3.174529.1476@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Aircraft capable of carrying useful passenger loads were more expensive
>than you think, especially compared to the purchasing power of the fledgling
>airlines.  The fact is, airlines which tried to make money carrying
>passengers and ordinary freight consistently went broke in the early years.
>The US airline industry, and its aircraft suppliers, were kept alive by
>lucrative government air-mail contracts.  No equivalent for spaceflight
>has yet appeared.

Airlines are still going broke, and the survivors are often hurting.  Under
government regulation, "the trains ran on time"; after decades of doing
"business" in this way, one might expect it to take a decade or more to
convert over to an unregulated system.  Unfortunately the airlines are such
vital services that the public won't stand for much in the way of chaos; I
suspect the carriers are closer to re-regulation than they realize.  Part
of the blame for the chaos goes to the *non*-deregulation of gate slots at
airports - _Reason_ magazine had a good article about this recently.

I hope that the same thing doesn't happen to the US space program - i.e.,
years of operation as a state-operated and regulated monopoly, losing money
and remaining noncompetitive - then a catastrophic deregulation that follows
creating an even bigger problem.

Michael SLoan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 01:53:06 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc!andrew@apple.com  (andrew)
Subject: Asteroids and Pd fusion


The following quantifies the use of the stored energy from P&F Pd to
get to the asteroid belt, for which a deltaV of 7 Km/s is required.
It's assumed that the heat energy is used, stored at about 1e9 J/Kg of
Pd. The existence of a heatsink at 3 degK should be a great help for
the engine design. I am assuming no use of fusion particle byproducts
and am neglecting the weight of deuterium required.

If <m> is the mass of the (non-exhausting) Pd fuel and <M> the asteroid 
mass returned, the available energy is 1e9.m, and the energy required for
the return trip is 0.5(dV**2)(M + 2.m). Thus for a positive energy budget,
M < 40m. Since it is unlikely that Pd ore is present at 2.5% richness,
the fuel weight will exceed the mined weight of Pd - unless mining is done
_in situ_. In any case, iron, nickel etc. will be capable of being
returned in the raw ore state in quantities about equal to the fuel
weight, assuming 3% ore quality.

Taking 5% of the current annual Pd supply as fuel (reasonable for a major
global undertaking like this) or (3.5/20) Moz ~= 5000 Kg.
I am at a loss to specify the power available, which would allow the
calculation of the total trip time - any data, anyone?
=====
Andrew Palfreyman 		USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 		there's many a slip
							'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 20:40:19 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <9217@dasys1.UUCP>, tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) writes:
> And, of course, if you keep your acceleration (a fusion powered
> drive would seem to be just the ticket for this) at a pretty
> constant 1 G, you can avoid the effects of 0 G pretty much
> altogether.  Of course, to keep your v below c, you may have to
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
> be decelerating at 1 G almost as much as you are accelerating at
> 1 G, with brief spurts of 0 G while you're turning the ship

 Is there a missing smiley? Remember 186000mps is not just a
 good idea; IT'S THE LAW!

 m wooding

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 16:11:31 GMT
From: tank!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1!lusgr@handies.ucar.edu  (STEVE ROSEMAN)
Subject: Re: A brief history of Soviet Mars probes.

In article <8904071407.AA05539@decwrl.dec.com>, klaes@mtwain.dec.com 
(CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
>... 
>          There was a nine-year gap between MARS 1 and the next "official" 
>     Mars missions, MARS 2 and 3.
>... 
>          Larry Klaes

Thanks for the interesting article, Larry.  I did find 1 omission, though.

On November 30, 1984, Russia launched Zond-II, "soon noticed that the power
supply of their spacecraft was only half of what is should have been. 
..several weeks later the power supply of Zond-II dropped to zero; the 
spacecraft was useless."  (From Willy Ley, 'Rockets, Missles, and Men in
Space')

I would not have even noticed (or cared), if I hadn't had the book on my
desk to return to the library today.

-- 

Steve Roseman
Lehigh University Computing Center
LUSGR@VAX1.CC.Lehigh.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 17:16:33 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo [non] Fire

In article <2668@epiwrl.EPI.COM> parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) writes:
>There was no electrical fire.  A tank ruptured...

Close but no cigar; there was a fire *inside* the tank -- degraded Teflon
insulation burning (!!) in supercritical LOX -- which raised the pressure
enough to rupture the tank.  It was not an electrical fire except that a
spark from the tank heater's contacts presumably set it off.

>... I suspect that the time
>of that transmission, that is exactly all they knew; that "we have a
>problem".

What they knew was that (a) they'd heard a loud noise and felt a bump and
(b) they were starting to see indications of electrical problems.  "We
have a problem" was a reasonable thing to say, given that they didn't
understand what was wrong yet but knew it looked serious.  Remember that
test pilots are trained to be calm and factual in a crisis.  (The first
trouble call from Apollo 1 was not "help!" or "fire!" or "get us out!"
but "fire in the spacecraft!", an unambiguous report of what was wrong.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 00:22:35 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: UFO/Shuttle

In article <3074.2438CE46@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Jim.Grubs@f1.n234.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Grubs) writes:

>I have been following the thread of stories about the alleged UFO sighting 
>during STS-19. I am relieved (?) to discover there is a topic for dispute more 
>stupid than the Code War. Rage on, guys, I love it!!!

I did the original posting, and I have checked back on ParaNet Alpha
(1-303-431-1343) to see if there has been any further information.  The
original poster noted that immediately after he announced the incident on
Compuserve that discussion group crashed for about 15 minutes, which he 
claims "never happens".  

As I have said, my rule in fringe stuff like this is, "read everything,
believe nothing." 

Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 89 23:13:40 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Aliens and the law

In article <8904032324.AA20569@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

::what equipment would you take to an alien encounter?. How are the astronauts 
::not equipt to handle an encounter with aliens?.
:
:Among other things, the body of law is not ready for such an encounter. I
:believe I read somewhere that if intelligent aliens were to land in the
:US, they would be legally classified as animals (and a non-native species
:without an import license at that). 

I will have to dig out the reference, but I have seen a federal legal
citation that makes civilian contact with aliens a rather serious felony, 
with a provision to hold the contactee indefinitely without any recourse.
It may have been a hoax, but it looked real.

Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Apr 89 02:04 EDT
From: John Taylor <V131Q5CG@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Reply to the message about general science boredom

>Date: Mon,  3 Apr 89 20:58 CST
>From: Scott Hess <SCOTT@GACVAX1.Bitnet>
>Subject: Bored public
 
>The main thrust of the masses today is away from knowledge of technology,
>and towards use of it. 

	American masses; you can't say this about the Japeneese, and several 
other countries, for that matter...

>Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile
>Island?

	This annoys me also. The whole accident was simply a recirculating
pump failure; it was blown *way* out of proportion.
 
>They don't think its [technology is] 'magic', but it is close enough that
>there is no difference.

	This is everywhere; Crystal Gayle was on the Tonight Show last week 
with her Crystals that "vibrated at the same frequency as water." She seemed 
to think that this was benefical because, hey, she's mostly water anyway. 
{sigh}

>I guess mayhaps most of this doesn't belong here, [...]

	And maybe it does. This board is used for discussion of lots of 
things not pertaining directly to Space; this is so, presumably, because alot 
of 'things not pertaining directly to Space' must be changed before there is 
more than a meager flow of "discussionable" material.


	You're not the only one who worries about the scientifically vacuous 
public; they're the key to getting what we all want: lots of US space activity.
Let's hope President Bush does, in fact, become "The Education President" so 
the next generation won't have to deal with these problems.

>Scott Hess <Scott@gacvax1.bitnet>

------------
John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo
Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #356
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Apr 89 22:31:54 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00803>; Tue, 11 Apr 89 05:08:01 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 11 Apr 89 05:07:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8YEOUVy00UkT41y0Jv>;
          Tue, 11 Apr 89 03:24:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.QYEOOdy00UkZQNXU50>;
          Tue, 11 Apr 89 03:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYEONLy00UkZ0NW04F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 03:16:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #357

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 357

Today's Topics:
	      Metric-is-UNAMERICAN Myers to head NASA !?
		     Re: Fusion newgroup proposal
	    Re: Room Temperature fusion, expert skepticism
	    Power Requirements for Constant-Thrust Rockets
		     Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion
		       NSS Space Hotline Update
		 Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
		 Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 05:15:19 GMT
From: steinmetz!sunspot!blackje@uunet.uu.net  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Metric-is-UNAMERICAN Myers to head NASA !?


> Deputy Administrator Dale Myers to head NASA !

don't forget who was responsible for adopting non-Metric
units of measurement on the space station!
does this look like a good sign to you?

And guess where Fletcher went?

The story I've heard is that he's off to the University of Utah;
to head up the Room-temperature Fusion project ... the one for which the
Utah Legislature was having a special session to appropriate a budget!




--Emmett
	J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
	blackje@crd.ge.com;   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 05:01:22 GMT
From: steinmetz!sunspot!blackje@uunet.uu.net  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Re: Fusion newgroup proposal

In article <1417@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> Scott Jensen writes:
>Steve Fischer writes:
>|I suggest an alternative name:  sci.physics.fusion
>|No mistaking the topic there!
>
>Alot  of the discussion started by this cold fusion topic has been along
>the lines of 'utopia here I come' and 'oh no, megadeath', and these
> ...
>have a more general fusion group as a sci group.
>-- 
>..............................................................................
>Scott C. Jensen
>scj@mecc.MN.ORG

 ... and the way the drivel has been turned up on this topic
     it would appear that we need SEVERAL new news groups:

	talk.fusion, soc.fusion, alt.fusion, AND sci.physics.fusion

So let's PLEASE try to show some restraint - there are several good
books in the library - please look there before posting any more
questions on the order of "where does heavy water come from?" ...

This is why "real scientists" don't read news. 
Thanks for your support. (flame-off)

--Emmett
	J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
	blackje@crd.ge.com;   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 19:23:16 GMT
From: steinmetz!sunspot!blackje@uunet.uu.net  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion, expert skepticism

> another contributor writes: "I'm inclined not to..." 

after getting more detailed information, I have become considerably
more skeptical -- original statement of "inclined to believe" was
based purely on reputation and recommendation of colleagues who know
both F&P personally.

now, after having read the F&P paper and two BYU papers [Jones, et.al],
i tend to be skeptical of the F&P results (the BYU claims are more
reasonable, more modest, [and have been tentatively confirmed at
Brookhaven]) --- even my colleague who has know F&P for 25 years
now shakes his head in disbelief.

 ... i may be skeptical, but i'd really LOVE to see them turn
     out to be right after all!



--Emmett
	J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
	blackje@crd.ge.com;   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 19:20:04 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@rutgers.edu  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Power Requirements for Constant-Thrust Rockets

sobleski@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Mark A. Sobolewski) writes:
>
> ><Because the power requirements are not merely high, but staggering, if
> ><the fuel consumption is to be kept sane.  . . . way up in the terawatts . . .
> ><. . . 1% inefficiency means you have to dissipate gigawatts of heat.
> 
>     For the record... I get 1 gigawatt for a 20 kilo-ton (metric) mass
> accelerating at 1g.  (P=E/t, delta(v)=g*delta(t) (1 second),E=0.5mv^2,
> 20,000,000kg)  (minimum power consumption of course).
> 
 
What you seem to be trying to calculate here is the power associated with
the change in the kinetic energy of the spacecraft, as measured in some
appropriate frame of reference. If so, you've done your calculation wrong.
Consider this:

E = 0.5 * m* v**2

P = dE/dt = d(0.5 * m* v**2)/dt
          = 0.5 * m * d(v**2)/dt (assuming dm/dt to be zero)
          = 0.5 * m * 2 * v * dv/dt (chain rule)
          = mvg

where v is the velocity measured with respect to the reference frame used,
and dv/dt is assumed to have the value of g. Thus, the power required
is a function of velocity of the spacecraft.

Now, what reference frame shall we use? If we use a frame attached to the
spacecraft, then v is always zero, and so P=0. Not a very useful result...
Let's use a frame such that v=0 just at the moment that the rocket starts up
(ie. a frame at rest with respect to the starting point of the spacecraft).
Then, v increases linearly with time, and so P increases linearly with time.
E then measures the kinetic energy of the spacecraft, as measured in the
reference frame that we have chosen.

This is all not very useful. If we chose a >>different<< reference frame, we
could easily have P being >>negative<< (for at least part of the time). When
considering a rocket engine's power, what we really want to look at is
the rate of kinetic energy being imparted to the >>reaction mass<<
being expelled by the spacecraft, measured in the spacecraft's frame of
reference. Consider an infinitesimally small particle of reaction mass, dM,
which is initially at rest in the spacecraft, but is then expelled at a
velocity of V. The change in kinetic energy of this particle is then

dE = 0.5 * dM * V**2

Therefore,

P = dE/dt = 0.5 * V**2 * dM/dt

That is, power consumption of the engine (assuming perfect efficiency) depends
on exhaust velocity V, and mass flow rate dM/dt. In order to accelerate at a
constant thrust, while conserving reaction mass, high exhaust velocities are
required; this tends to require a very high-powered engine. Current rocket
vehicles achieve a high acceleration by using a high value of dM/dt; of course,
this depletes their reaction mass rapidly. Constant-thrust ion-powered engines
use an extremely low value of dM/dt, and a very high value of V; ecen so, they
require a lot of electrical power to drive them (this is why they are not common
on current satellites -- what you save in reaction mass due to the high V,
you lose in the mass of the solar array that you need to power the ion engine).

I hope this clears things up a bit.
(I also hope that I've avoided any errors here!)

-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 21:29:05 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion

In article <10346@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
>... The existence of a heatsink at 3 degK should be a great help for
>the engine design...

Not as much as you think.  Getting the heat out to that heatsink is
*not* a trivial problem.  The shuttle uses the entire inner surface of
its payload-bay doors as a heat radiator.  If you look at pictures of
the space station, you'll see two sets of big flat panels sticking
out -- solar panels, and radiators.  Fusion rockets are likely to have
quite serious cooling problems, at least in high-performance versions.
(Chemical rockets dump heat into their fuel, but a high-performance
fusion rocket doesn't use fuel quickly enough for that approach to work.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 03:44:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Space Hotline Update


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week
ending April 7th, 1989.

At the Kennedy Space Center.......

On Friday Astronauts completed running through the final hours of
a practice countdown exercise on the shuttle Atlantis.  The
Atlantis will launch the Magellan Venus Radar Mapper to map the
cloud shrouded surface of Venus with a Synthetic Aperture Radar
instrument.  This high priority payload must be launched during
the April 28 through the end of May launch window.  The launch is
scheduled for April 28 at 2:24pm EDT.  Launch technicians have run
into some minor problems in the past week, but so far April 28 is
still viable.  The formal launch date will be set at the flight
readiness review, which will take place on April 13 and 14.

It is expected that the White House will soon formally nominate
Rear Adm. Richard Truly, currently deputy administrator for Space
Flight, to be the NASA Administrator.  In addition current Marshall
Space Flight Center director J.R. Thompson is expected to be
nominated for the NASA deputy Administrator position.  The White
House is expected to get a waiver from congress to allow Truly to
keep his active status as a Naval officer so he will not loose his
military pension.

At the Fifth National Space Symposium resigning NASA administrator
James Fletcher declared that the civil space program has recovered
from the Challenger disaster, but struggles to keep its budget in
tact.  In his farewell speech Fletcher warned that America's future
in space will be in jeopardy if Congress cuts its $13 billion
dollar budget.

Rep Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) stated during a hearing of his Space
Sciences and Applications Subcommittee that, he personally favors
a manned, multi-national mission to Mars.  But that's the sort of
goal that President Bush must set.  Dr. Thomas O. Paine stated
during the hearing that, strong Presidential leadership in
advocating long range goals so that the NASA/Industry/University
environment will be motivated by the sense of a common direction
and purpose, thereby maximizing the research dollar.

	The President of the National Space Society, Charles Walker
testified to the same committee, "that the National Space Society's
members wish delivered to the members of this subcommittee and your
colleagues throughout Congress is not one laden with technological
arguments or of budgetary wizardry. It is a message, plain and
simple, in the tradition of the American dream and the American
spirit - we believe that United States must be a leader on the
space frontier, or it will cease to be the great hope for human
liberty and freedom."

Eight more chicken eggs that rode on the Space Shuttle Discovery
that were scheduled to hatch this last weekend have died.  32
fertilized chicken eggs were sent up, 16 fertilized 9 days in
advance and 16 fertilized 2 days in advance.  All the younger eggs
died, and the older ones all survived.  The results of the
experiment has raised concern that some species of plants and
animal need gravity to reproduce.

Astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz has developed a coffee maker for the
Space Shuttle program so that the Astronauts could get a decent cup
of joe during the missions.  The coffee maker brews a cup of coffee
in 45 seconds, no mess, and uses less coffee beans.  Called the
Elan Galileo, it will fly on the Atlantis Orbiter during its
Galileo mission in October.  It's due out in stores sometime this
summer for about $100.00.

In a 12th successful launch in a row, Arianespace launched an
Ariane-2 rocket carrying a Nordic tv satellite into low earth
orbit.  The launched occurred last Sat. night, 24 hours late due
to technical problems.  19 minuets into the flight the satellite
was ejected into an egg-shaped transfer orbit so that it can
achieve geo-stationary orbit.

The Soviet Union has revealed the details of the lose of their
Mars/Phobos Moon probe at an international press conference last
Monday.  They stated that spacecraft's radio transmitter which was
under program to remain silent during a photography session, was
expected to switch back on, but never did.  Ground control was able
to re-establish a link for about 13 minuets till the transmitter
went silent and has been ever since.  

Stefania Follini who's been living in a 10' by 10' room in a cave
in Carlsbad New Mexico is after 81 days of isolation, lost in time.
When scientists asked her (on March 31, 1989) what the date was,
she responded Feb. 22.  As an experiment that the Pioneer Frontier
Explorations and Researchers of Anocana, Italy is sponsoring, Ms.
Follini has been sealed off from the outside world except by
computer, for 81 days and will be for another four to five months,
to study the physical and psychological effects of insolation
experienced during long duration space travel. Scientist monitor
her with hidden cameras and microphones.  Ms. Follini now stays
awake for 30 hour stretches, and considers it a normal working day.

This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space
Society's Space Hotline.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 15:38:30 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!virginia!uvacs!rwl@purdue.edu  (Ray Lubinsky)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

In article <13667@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> 
> On the other hand, cheap energy on the Earth means there won't be any
> need for solar power satellites (SPS).  Now, SPSes are the only
> large-scale space operation that is not obviously an economical
> nonsense.  Without SPSes, space colonies would lose their main raison
> d'etre; and without space colonies, there is hardly any reason to
> consider lunar and asteroid mining.  (By the way, cheaper energy would
> make possible to exploit many low-grade ore bodies that now are
> uneconomial, so mining the asteroids for the Earth market would make
> even less sense that it does now.) 

I hate to break the news to you, but SPS never had a chance anyway.  For
starters, it requires a huge infrastructure, massive startup costs, and
potential biohazard (at least, I'll pass on living anywhere near the microwave
collectors, thank you).  What reason is there to believe that states and
businesses would not turn to some more mundane sources of energy with lower
initial costs as opposed to something that might turn a profit twenty or
thirty years after beginning development?  I'll admit that SPS is a rational
plan in the long run, but (especially in the Reagan Era of quick profits and
leveraged buyouts) that kind of rationality is not likely to make it on to
anyone's agenda.

There will be plenty of reasons for people to inhabit space when the time
comes.  But they will be evolutionary reasons not revolutionary initiatives.
Personally, I imagine that after some substantial (on orbit) research of 0 G
materials processing, there will be hundreds of reasons for the development and
habitation of LEO and the Moon.

-- 
| Ray Lubinsky                         rwl@trinity.cs.virginia.edu (Internet) |
|                                      rwl@virginia                  (BITnet) |
| Department of Computer Science,      ...!uunet!virginia!uvacs!rwl    (UUCP) |
| University of Virginia               (804) 979-6188                 (voice) |

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 23:43:06 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

In article <3073@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU> rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
>... What reason is there to believe that states and
>businesses would not turn to some more mundane sources of energy with lower
>initial costs as opposed to something that might turn a profit twenty or
>thirty years after beginning development?  ...

Most other *large-scale* energy sources also involve high capital costs
and very long payback times, these days.  Not to mention environmental
problems.  It is not immediately obvious that powersats are inferior in
these respects.  Where they do have a problem is that they're novel and
untried.  The power industry considers multi-billion-dollar investments
fairly routine -- yes, folks, there *are* non-government investors who
can put up capital on that scale -- but *only* for well-proven systems
where eventual profits are virtually certain.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #357
*******************


Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Apr 89 11:03:09 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00714>; Tue, 11 Apr 89 06:09:26 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 11 Apr 89 06:09:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QYEQGuy00Ui3I1cU5Q>;
          Tue, 11 Apr 89 05:26:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.UYEQARy00UkZMNiE53>;
          Tue, 11 Apr 89 05:19:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0YEQ-Yy00UkZINgk47@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 05:17:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #358

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 358

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Building a fusion-based rocket
			      Re: Fusion
			Re: Information needed
			Rockefeller reference
		  Re: Building a fusion-based rocket
			aborts and non-aborts
		    Creating Palladium by fusion?
		     Re: DSN mission launch dates
		      Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco
		     Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion
			  Re: alien contact
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 21:34:31 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Building a fusion-based rocket

In article <943@psueea.UUCP> sandym@psu-cs.cs.pdx.edu (Sandy Michael) writes:
>Why on Earth do you want a fusion powered _rocket_?  Sounds like a total
>waste of energy. ;*)
>
>How about a fusion powered electricity generator powering an ion drive!!!

That's a fusion-powered rocket too; you're confusing definitions.

Bear in mind that your generator will have an efficiency of about 30-40%
at best.  It's not clear which is best.

>... Depending on the size of the tanks to payload ratio
>you could get into some relativistic effects even.  Maybe .1 c if you're
>cheap with the deuterium.  For probes with light payload you might get
>some stuff to the nearer stars by 2100.  

Not with ion rockets.  Please do the arithmetic before suggesting this.
Ion rockets simply don't have a high enough exhaust velocity, at least
with current ion-rocket technology.

>What technology do you see the Earth having by the year 3000?

Thoroughly impossible to predict.  2100 is bad enough.  (There are people
still alive today who remember a time when man could not fly and radio
did not exist.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1989 11:41-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Fusion

George:

The trouble I see with the mono-atomic H idea is that there is no
"excess energy". The Palladium electrode is merely a storage device
that stores a portion of the input energy used in the electrolysis, and
then releases it quickly. Keep in mind that Fleischman and Pons are
claiming significantly LARGER output than input after the charging
period.

I don't think your idea explains the energy output, although it may
explain the shutdown problem. If you are correct, you should be able to
run the same experiment with plain water and get the same result, sans
energy EXCESS.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 19:20:04 GMT
From: blake!wiml@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: Information needed

In article <607977617.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>I and a coauthor are nearing the end of draft 2 of a rather large SF
>novel (10 years in the making), and I need a few pieces of information.
>What would be the appearance of the plume from an antimatter rocket
>using Hydrogen? I would presume the Hydrogen comes out the nozzle as a
>plasma of protons and electrons that gradually recombine and give off
>EM.
>Can anyone describe the appearance of such a plume?

   An "antimatter rocket"? By that, do you mean a rocket using only antimatter
(hydrogen & antihydrogen) or a more conventional rocket using antimatter as a
power source and hydrogen as the reaction mass? If the former, there would be
no 'plume'; the exhaust would consist only of high energy photons. (These might make interesting effects in an atmosphere ... such as irradiating a significant
portion of a planet ...)
  If the latter, the plume cold be anything, although I wold gess (%$ my yoo key is broken)  that the hotter the plme (IE, plasma) the more efficient the rocket.

  =-=-=--* Disclaimer: I know nothing.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1989 11:52-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Rockefeller reference

Some days back I posted that the Standard Oil "scandal" may not
actually have been fact. For those interested, I have found a
reference.

John McGee, "Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case," in
The Competitive Economy: Selected Readings, ed. Yale Brozen
(Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1975). p. 403.

"Judging from the Record, Standard Oil did not use predatory price
discrimination to drive out competing refiners, nor did its pricing
practive have that effect... I am convinced that Standard Oil did not
systematically, if ever, use local price cutting in retailing, or
anywhere else, to reduce competition. To do so would have been foolish;
and, whatever else has been said about it, the old Standard
organization was seldom criticized for making less money when it could
readily have made more."

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 21:29:19 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Building a fusion-based rocket

In article <943@psueea.UUCP> sandym@psu-cs.cs.pdx.edu (Sandy Michael) writes:
>
>Why on Earth do you want a fusion powered _rocket_?  Sounds like a total
>waste of energy. ;*)
>
>How about a fusion powered electricity generator powering an ion drive!!!
>
>mehawk@reed.uucp

	Because we don't have the capability to put big payloads into orbit
cheaply.  You'll never be able to do that with an ion drive.  While
deep space missions are useful, the urgent need NOW is Real Cheap
missions to LEO and GEO.
	I realize that flying nuclear-powered rockets in the atmosphere
is tricky.  The heat exchanger has to be very permeable to heat while
blocking any significant (nuclear) radiation from getting to the
reaction mass.  But the idea isn't mine; Eugene Sanger discusses
both convective fission rockets and nuclear hypersonic ramjets
in _Space Flight_ (an excellent read).  He shows that for a nuclear
(fission) powered rocket launching from Earth, the payload is
approximately 20% of the takeoff weight.  (Note that it has been ~10
years since I read this book, so please excuse me if I'm garbling
his arguments.)
	The spaceplane is more practical if it is based on a nuclear
engine (this is also discussed in _Space Flight_).  The higher
Isp you can get from a nuclear engine (corresponding to exhaust
velocities of approximately 10-12 km/sec in vacuum) makes these
vehicles considerable more efficient.
	I've been playing around with these ideas for the past 4 years.
Lots of back-of-the-envelope stuff.  Now if Third Millenium Inc.
just gets their funding soon (they're interested in hiring me).....
	Feel free to send mail if you want to discuss this.

	-KPM
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 21:08:25 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: aborts and non-aborts

In article <467@atlas.tegra.UUCP> vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) writes:
>Another tense time was when they almost aborted to Spain when it
>looked like some kind of valve in the main engines was bad...

It was temperature sensors going bad, actually.  This sort of false common
failure (affecting all engines) is particularly nasty because there are
times during climb when a multiple engine failure is unsurvivable.

Actually, if you want an example of a controller coolly overriding failing
hardware, consider the incident during the Saturn I program when something
appeared to go wrong shortly before launch and the launch was scrubbed as
per the rules... only to have Kurt Debus, who knew the hardware pretty well,
override the scrub and order the launch to proceed!  It did; perfect flight.

(For those who don't know the name, Debus was one of Von Braun's old crew
and was head of KSC during Apollo.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 17:46:30 GMT
From: ogccse!blake!wiml@husc6.harvard.edu  (William Lewis)
Subject: Creating Palladium by fusion?


    I doubt it is possible to do any sort of fusion beyond, maybe, Lithium using
this new palladium method ... the hydrogen [deuterium] has to diffuse into the
palladium electrode, from what I hear, and it might be difficult to get the
palladium to diffuse out =8) 

  ---- Tagline-less ...

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 17:54:15 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ois.db.toronto.edu!hogg@purdue.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: DSN mission launch dates

In article <408@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>"Ariadne" is the (pseudo-) collumnist in "New Scientist". You probably mean
>"Ariane", I hope!

Well, the latter is just the French translation of the former.  Hats
off to ESA for coming up with the name.  Has there been any other in
the history of space exploration that was half so fitting?
-- 
John Hogg			hogg@csri.utoronto.ca
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 21:23:53 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco

In article <10316@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
>I was horrified to read that more than $8B has already been junked by
>discarded fuel tanks; about $300M per tank...
>Wouldn't it be so nice just to attach a parasitic mini-thruster and
>control system to all tanks, just to go that last ten yards?

As has been mentioned a number of times in the past (sigh), it is not
that simple.  Tanks left to themselves in orbit will not stay there for
long -- they are too big and too light, air drag will bring them down.
Keeping them up is not a trivial problem, especially if you insist on
using only fully-proven technology (which is considered a requirement
when the risks include dropping many tons of metal on a city somewhere).
If you *do* manage to get them to stay up, the insulation on them
will "popcorn" in vacuum, adding considerably to the space-debris problem.
Taking the tank up into orbit is not free with trajectories used nowadays.
Finally, space debris has a good chance of puncturing the tanks before
too very long, so you have to protect them if you want them to stay intact.
All these things can be solved, but the solutions cost money and add
weight, and it is difficult to show specific *short-term* benefits to
justify this.  (Congress essentially refuses to take a long-term view
of anything involving money.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 89 03:01:13 GMT
From: nsc!andrew@decwrl.dec.com  (andrew)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion

In article <1989Apr8.212905.131@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <10346@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
> >... The existence of a heatsink at 3 degK should be a great help for
> >the engine design...
> 
> Not as much as you think.  Getting the heat out to that heatsink is
> *not* a trivial problem.  The shuttle uses the entire inner surface of
> its payload-bay doors as a heat radiator.  If you look at pictures of
> the space station, you'll see two sets of big flat panels sticking
> out -- solar panels, and radiators.  Fusion rockets are likely to have
> quite serious cooling problems, at least in high-performance versions.

Thanks - I didn't know that. Since we're talking about interplanetary
travel, the convential cylinder is about the dumbest design then (except
the sphere).
Maybe we'll see "flatfish" formed from a triple laminate, whereby
the outer layers reflect off sun energy and provide shadow for the inner
heatsink surface. This design only works well if the outer layers are
capable of continuous movement, else the effective heatsink temperature
would increase. This is just off the top of my head.
=====
Andrew Palfreyman 		USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 		there's many a slip
							'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 01:38:49 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: alien contact

In article <7810@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>>Yup, clearly the people who can fly an entirely unmanned shuttle mission
>>with a crosswind landing and a launch in freezing weather, perfectly,
>>the first time, are ahead on quality.  Same conclusion -- they'll go to
>>Baikonur.
>>
>An unmanned shuttle landing...does this impress you, Henry? ...

In a crosswind greater than anything the US shuttle has ever dared try,
landing within a few feet of the runway center line, yes it does impress me.

>I will grant, however, that the Soviets have no real problem with cold weather
>launches.  Working from Florida, we never had to develop this capability...

Correction:  the US *thought* it never had to develop this capability.

>> [space stations]
>You might be right, here.  Of course, in five or six years, assuming no
>development problems and no erosion of political will, the tables will be
>turned...

Except by that time, the Soviets will be getting ready to launch Novy
Mir, which will re-turn the tables.  At the current rate of progress in
the US, it may even come first.  As for "no development problems", note
that the Hubble telescope had a lot of difficulties because it had two
"prime" contractors, with NASA trying to do the coordination between them.
The space station has *four*.

>... I'll put our planetary
>exploration program up against the Russians any day.  Who has sent the only
>successful probes to Mars?  Who has sent the only probes *period* to 
>Mercury?  Jupiter?  Saturn?  Uranus?  And coming this August, Neptune?  For
>that matter, who has sent the only manned missions to another celestial
>body?  ...

The US, decades ago, before it lost interest.  If we're discussing history
rather than current abilities, we might ask who launched the first Earth
satellite, the first man in orbit, and the first man-made objects to reach
the surfaces of the Moon, Mars, and Venus.

>... Assuming nothing goes wrong (fingers crossed), we'll be sending
>new probes out to Venus, to get the highest quality maps of that planet ever,

Do remember that the highest-resolution maps of Venus existing right now
came from Soviet missions.  This is another catchup mission.

>... these aren't just paper dreams; Magellan is ready to go, within
>the month, and Galileo is just waiting for the launch window.

Before being too impressed by this, look up when those projects were started
(long ago), when they were originally supposed to be launched (long ago), and
how many other projects of that magnitude are in the pipeline (none).

>>Or by people who can build launchers that can go up on schedule twice a
>>week, year after year, against people who can't seem to launch anything
>>on schedule.
>>
>There's a difference between sending unmanned missions up on schedule and 
>sending manned missions up...

Oh, agreed.  The Soviets do both better.

>We launch our unmanned missions on schedule just fine.

Really?  The USAF thinks it will be doing well in 1989 if it manages to
launch 70% of the payloads it had hoped to launch this year.

>>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>How are they going to ask for passports and visas?  They can't even get the 
>customs station to work properly!

They'll have plenty of time to try again before they start allowing
foreigners to visit.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #358
*******************
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Apr 89 03:41:09 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04646>; Wed, 12 Apr 89 02:58:29 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 12 Apr 89 02:58:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYEh0sy00Ui3Q1f0N1>;
          Wed, 12 Apr 89 00:27:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.YYEgu6y00UkZ8Q4k4f>;
          Wed, 12 Apr 89 00:20:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <UYEgsSy00UkZQQ3E4u@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 00:18:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #359

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 359

Today's Topics:
		 Soviet Mir space station in trouble
			   Gigantism of SPS
		 Assaying likely asteroids from afar
	       Re: Assaying likely asteroids from afar
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		       Reminders for Old Farts
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
	     jim benz and kicking us off dis heah planet
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
	   Re: far side of the Moon photo mission (ussr's)
       constant-boost fusion spaceships, power requirements of
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 23:57:37 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: Soviet Mir space station in trouble

     The Soviet Union has suffered a serious problem with its Mir 
space station.  What exactly is wrong was not stated but on April 11
Radio Moscow announced that the current crew (Dr. Valrey Polyakov, 
Alexander Volkov and Sergei Krikalev) will be returning to earth on
April 27th.  They are currently preparing the station for operation in
an unmanned automatic mode.  Originally Soyuz TM-8 was scheduled for
launch on April 19th to bring a two man crew of Alexander Viktorenko
and Alexander Balandin.  It is not likely that the problem is with the new
crew (there is always a backup team) or the launcher/capsule.  If that
was the case they would probably just have ordered the current crew to
stay up there another two months until the next launch window, in mid
June.  There Soyuz TM-7 is about 4 months old at this point, 6 is the
maximum they keep capsules up there for.  Also, they have in the
past sent a Soyuz up on automatic to a space station to replace a capsule
that was suspect (in June 1979 Soyuz 34 was sent up to Salyut 6 to replace
the Soyuz 32 which had exceed the [then] 90 day limit because of the 
failure of Soyuz 33 to dock to the station).  All of this suggests that
there has been some failure on board the Mir station.  There have been
some rumors that there were problems with the gyroscopes in the Kvant
section, but if these were true that should not be reason for leaving 
Mir unmanned (it was run without them for many months even with the
Kvant module attached).  However, it cannot be a life threatening problem;
an emergency landing at this time would be relatively safe, and the
normal Mir launch/landing window opens on April 19th.  Thus this crew
is coming down near its expected time of April 29th.  There was no statement
as to the cause of the problem, not in the keeping with the current
Glasnost tendency.  After the Phobos II loss and the sinking of the Mike
class nuclear submarine it appears that one more failure was a bit more
than the news service could take in a one month period.  One can
speculate that they are studying the situation and will send up a repair
crew after the proper equipment has been manufactured.
     Thus it appears that there will be a hiatus in the permanent presence
of humans in space.  The Russians came close, but it looks like they will
not pull it off.  On the other hand they did get a 26 month run - mankind's
best result so far.

                                                      Glenn Chapman
                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 89 15:55:42 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Gigantism of SPS

In article <3073@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU> rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes:

>I hate to break the news to you, but SPS never had a chance anyway.  For
>starters, it requires a huge infrastructure, massive startup costs, and
>potential biohazard (at least, I'll pass on living anywhere near the microwave
>collectors, thank you).

SPS gets more practical if you posit the existence of moderately
efficient sun-pumped lasers.  At constant beam power density, the
power output of an SPS scales linearly with the wavelength of the
beam.  If a lambda = 1 cm system needs 10 GW, a 1 micron system could
operate at 1 MW.  The aperture of the transmitter and receiver shrink
by a factor of 100.  Probably it pays to make the beam a bit more
intense to burn through clouds.

Of course, you'd need some way of efficiently converting laser light
to electricity.  That should be easier than converting sunlight, since
laser light is far brighter and is monochromatic.  I believe 50%
efficiency has already been attained with PV cells with the proper
bandgap.
	
The start-up costs of making the SPS factory are still exorbinant.

> Personally, I imagine that after some substantial (on orbit) research
> of 0 G materials processing, there will be hundreds of reasons for the
> development and habitation of LEO and the Moon.

This man is an optimist.  I think zero-gee materials processing will
have very limited market penetration, and will no more promote
habitation of the Moon than did the comsat industry.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 89 11:35:29 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Assaying likely asteroids from afar


 ;To supply the whole world at this (first world) rate requires 5e12 Kg total.
 ;Assuming 3% ore @ 3.5gm/cc, this is an equivalent sphere 4.5 Km in diameter,
 ;weighing 5e9 tons or 5e12 Kg.
 ;There exist at least 40,000 asteroids larger than 5 Km in diameter.
 ;
 ;2. Asteroid mining energy considerations
 ;----------------------------------------
 ;The deltaV from the Belt to Earth is 7 Km/s. Moving 5e12 Kg of asteroid
 ;needs 1e20 joules (about 1% of world's annual (1978) energy use).
 ;
 ;Reproduced without permission from "A Step Farther Out" by Jerry Pournelle

In a note to Mike Van Pelt I suggested that we take one of the one-shot SDI
lasers, aim it at a likely asteroid, and light if off.  This should give us
enough reflected signal to spectrographically assay the rock (or metallic
lump, we would hope).

Mike replied that it sounded feasible except for the political constraints of
the treaty which bans atomic explosions in space.  I'm sure he's correct, but
it would be nice, in the current thaw in the cold war, if we could convince
them that we weren't up to something.  After all, I'm sure they would rather
see them pointed someplace else. 

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 89 20:38:58 GMT
From: pyramid!nsc!andrew@lll-lcc.llnl.gov  (andrew)
Subject: Re: Assaying likely asteroids from afar

In article <4528@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
> In a note to Mike Van Pelt I suggested that we take one of the one-shot SDI
> lasers, aim it at a likely asteroid, and light if off.  This should give us
> enough reflected signal to spectrographically assay the rock (or metallic
> lump, we would hope).

What immediately springs to mind here is the possibly of _in situ_ smelting.
It's been suggested by others that a solar mirror melting arrangement might
do it, but (without doing the calculation) this sounds impractical.
Such a laser would come in very handy. I'm not sure whether it would be
practical to leave it in earth orbit though; fine control at this range
and relative velocity would make smelting haphazard and dangerous for the
local-to-asteroid miners B^) Smelting before transportation can be extremely
cost-effective, especially if the ore is not particularly rich.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 03:48:12 GMT
From: attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!moegate!soley@uunet.uu.net  (Norman S. Soley)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <3634@sdsu.UUCP> frost@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Frost) writes:
>In article <4182@ttidca.TTI.COM>, hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes:
>> In article <1052@elmgate.UUCP> maa@elmgate.UUCP (Mark Armstrong SOFT) writes:
>> [...]
>> }Why do you think it would be more efficient to produce your own electricity
>> }instead of buying it from utilities?? What would be the cost of such system,
>> }$5,000 sounds realistic. ...
>> 
>> That's about what I cost it out to.  I'd cheerfully pay $5000 to be energy
>> independent.
>
>Although utility companies are required to by any excess power you generate
>YOU are responsible for purchasing a synchonous interface to the grid ( a
>synchronous inverter if you're generating DC) plus a new meter and pay for
>periodic calibration inspections by the utility company.
>
>So if there is any merit to the giant 'hill of salt' speculation that we
>could all have fusion generators in our backyard, be prepared to add an
>additional $1500 to your overhead costs plus $100 to your annual cost.

OK let's take it as a given that the Pons & Flieshmann experiment, refined,
optimised, and engineered for a few years results in practical generators
small enough to bury in one's backyard (personally I think that, initially
at least, P&F derived fusion will only be economically practical in power 
plant sizes).

In order for the current power grid to work it is necessary to balance
the input and output of the system, or at least attempt to. The amount of
power generated by windmills and small hydro-electric plants is a drop in
the bucket so the utilites don't worry about it. Most utilities have a 
centre where they do load balancing, turning on and off generating
capacity as it's needed. It's a complex and delicate system, for example 
the infamous New York blackout of the 60's resulted from a single blown 
relay near Kingston, Ontario that took enough load off the grid suddenly 
to crash the whole shooting match, everyone turning their TV's off 
at the end of the Tiny Tim's wedding episode of the Tonight show came "this
close" to putting the whole continent in darkness. A power grid consisting of
large numbers of small generators, if possible at all, would require a
massive automated control system, and think of the administrative headache of
deciding who's generators to take off-line at any point in time. Of course one
might ask: if small generators are that cheap and easy why tie them into a
grid at all?
-- 
Norman Soley - The Communications Guy - Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Until the next maps go out:	moegate!soley@ontenv.UUCP 
if you roll your own: 	uunet!{attcan!ncrcan|mnetor!ontmoh}!ontenv!moegate!soley
I'd like to try golf, but I just can't bring myself to buy a pair of plaid pants

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 04:00:11 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1
follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 89 20:42:50 GMT
From: !cmx!amax.npac.syr.edu!anand@cunyvm.cuny.edu  (Anand Rangachari)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope


  Did anybody read the interesting article in the journal Nature about
the Hubble space telescope?

It seems that 6 important bolts which hold a mirror assembly within
the tube are not properly secured with epoxy and may come loose
due to the vibration caused by the launch.

Right now, a special platform is being constructed which will allow
a worker to enter the telescope without touching the sides of the tube.
The worker will then apply the six tiny blobs of epoxy.

The whole thing will cost $350,000.

R. Anand            Internet: anand@amax.npac.syr.edu
                    Bitnet:   ranand@sunrise

------------------------------

Subject: jim benz and kicking us off dis heah planet
From: IA80024%MAINE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester)
Date:    Sun, 09 Apr 89 15:00:59 EDT

jim- i'm sorry, but i refuse to leave this planet if i'm not allowed back on to
live. i was borne here and no one has the right to move me off.

=nick=
ia80024@maine.bitnet
ia80024@maine.maine.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 12:47:53 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

m2c!wpi!tmurphy@husc6.harvard.edu  (Tom [Chris] Murphy) writes:

>In article <16680@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>>A few years ago, someone mentioned some Apollo hardware was in the ocean
>>(I think it was the LEM from Apollo-13).

>There's no way a LEM could survive re-entry.  The thing is EXTREMELY flimsy,
>I once heard (in a book by Michael Collins I think) that a technician once
>dropped a wrench through the hull.

I believe that the LEM carried an RTG which was projected to survive re-entry
intact.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 89 21:51:32 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: far side of the Moon photo mission (ussr's)

In article <1989Mar29.210418.4272@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1452@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> mink@cfa.harvard.EDU (Doug Mink) writes:
>>*Surveyor 4      Apr. 17, 1967  Soft-landed on moon; returned photos and soil data
>
>Check your data, please, Surveyor 4 was a failure if I'm not mistaken.
>Its transmitter went dead in mid-flight.  It conceivably may have made a
>successful landing, since landing was completely automatic, but it returned
>no data of any kind.
>-- 

The Surveyor 4's signal abruptly cut off about 40 seconds after the beginning
of the main retromotor ignition, about 1 1/2 seconds before burnout. The
spacecraft was at 49,000 feet above the lunar surface. JPL tried for the
next day to re-establish contact, but was unable to. 

After a "thorough investigation", the review board could not determine the
cause of the failure, but concluded that it was a fluke so no spacecraft
resdesign was carried out.


mike

          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 02:34:50 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: constant-boost fusion spaceships, power requirements of

In article <4448@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> sobleski@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Mark A. Sobolewski) writes:
>><....the power requirements are not merely high, but staggering, if
>
>    For the record... I get 1 gigawatt for a 20 kilo-ton (metric) mass
>accelerating at 1g.  (P=E/t, delta(v)=g*delta(t) (1 second),E=0.5mv^2,
>20,000,000kg)  (minimum power consumption of course).

Ah, but that's for acceleration from 0 to (roughly) 10 m/s.  Do the same
computation for 1000 to 1010 m/s and you get about 10 terawatts.  Yet
obviously the same rocket hardware would do either job using the same
amount of fuel and energy.  Clearly you're not measuring what you think
you are.  What you are measuring is the amount of energy needed to do
that bit of accelerating by pushing on a fixed object.  That is, with
a catapult rather than a rocket.  The math is right, but you have to
apply it to what you're actually pushing on, which for a rocket is its
exhaust jet.

>    While not a very large ship....  It still has enough room...

Actually it's pretty sizable, I'd say.  That's the size of an Invincible-
class aircraft carrier.  For solar-system work we can build them a lot
smaller.  However, let's assume that mass for convenience.  Now, the
power requirement to expel a jet with a mass flow of (dm/dt) and an
exhaust velocity of v_exh is 0.5 * (dm/dt) * v_exh^2.  So we need to
figure out the mass flow and exhaust velocity.

Mass flow depends on how long a mission we want to fly and how much
fuel we want to carry.  Let's say we're going to the asteroid belt
and back.  In very round numbers, that's a round trip of 1e9 km.
For continuous acceleration (i.e. one half of each leg of the trip),
time = sqrt(2*distance/acceleration) = sqrt(2*250e9/10) = 224000.
That's a quarter of the trip, so the whole thing is 900000 seconds,
about 10 days.  As for fuel, if we don't want the fuel tank to
dominate the whole ship, a fuel fraction of maybe 10% is tops.
So that's 2e6 kg of fuel, giving a fuel flow of about 2 kg/s.  Clearly
fuel pumps, at least, will not be a problem.

Now, what about exhaust velocity?  There are roundabout ways to
compute that, but thrust = (dm/dt) * v_exh due to conservation of
momentum, so we can do it fairly directly.  Thrust to push 20e6 kg
along at 1 gee will be about 200e6 newtons.  (We assume a constant
thrust; in practice one would throttle back a bit as the ship burned
off fuel, to keep acceleration constant, but that complicates the
arithmetic no end and does not affect the result much.)  So v_exh =
200e6/2 or about 100e6 m/s.  The numerate reader will have gone
"gulp!" on seeing that number, since it is about 1/3 of the speed
of light.  Clearly spaceship Invincible's engines are going to be
a pretty remarkable piece of engineering.  But we press on...

We now have the numbers we need.  Assuming 100% efficiency and no
losses whatever, spaceship Invincible's fusion generator output needs
to be 0.5 * 2 * 100e6^2 = 10 petawatts.  The numerate reader is
having a terrible coughing fit at this point.  For the innumerate:
a petawatt is a million gigawatts, and the entire power output of Earth,
right down to cooking fires, is a small fraction of *one* petawatt.
Clearly, Invincible's generators are, um, impressive pieces of
engineering in their own right.

Clearly 100% efficiency is optimistic.  Let's say it's only 99.99%.
Then Invincible's cooling system has to dissipate a mere terawatt
of heat.  (The numerate reader's coughing fit returns.  A terawatt
roughly equals the electrical power generation of North America.)
The easiest way of cooling something is with flowing fluid; radiating
heat into space is much more hassle.  Assume we use water; it's cheap
and available in quantity, and it's a good coolant.  Melting from
ice and boiling to steam both introduce hassles, so let's say our
input is water just above freezing and output is water just below
boiling.  That's a temperature rise of about 100 C.  The heat capacity
of water is roughly 4200 joules/kg/C, so each kilo absorbs 420e3 J.
So to carry away 1e12 W, we need about 2400 tons per second.  Oops.
Spaceship Invincible has a *bad* cooling problem.

What's more, the numerate reader, having recovered from his coughing,
observes that since E=mc^2, boosting the fuel to 1/3 of the speed of
light requires converting about 5% of its mass to energy (we speak
sloppily here for clarity; physicist readers will please keep quiet).
No wonder the power requirement was massive.  The n.r. goes on to
observe that fusion simply doesn't convert that big a fraction.
Invincible's power requirement just cannot be met by fusion, period.
Antimatter might do; Invincible would need to burn about 50 grams
per second (remember that each gram annihilates its own mass in
normal matter).  Optimistic fans of antimatter propulsion think that
straightforward application of current technology might perhaps get
antimatter prices down to $1M/mg.  Invincible's operating costs will
then be fifty billion dollars per second.  I don't think even DoD
can afford to fly this spaceship.

I could go on, computing things like radiation output from the power
system, size of heat radiators, etc., but the numbers all come out to
be preposterous.  Not just difficult, but beyond current abilities by
so many orders of magnitude that straightforward extrapolation of
today's technology won't do -- breakthroughs will probably be needed.

The moral of the story is, don't get intoxicated by the possibility of
easy fusion.  It may give us the solar system, but it will not give us
1G constant-boost spaceships.  They are fundamentally hard to build;
still better technology will be needed.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #359
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Apr 89 05:32:56 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00891>; Wed, 12 Apr 89 06:24:18 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 12 Apr 89 06:23:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cYEjjEy00UkT41o0o1>;
          Wed, 12 Apr 89 03:33:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.0YEjXFy00UkZAQME4o>;
          Wed, 12 Apr 89 03:20:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYEjTYy00UkZEQKk4k@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 03:16:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #360

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 360

Today's Topics:
			   Re: NASA Select
		Re: Russian unmanned missions to Mars
		     Soviet Mars probes - ZOND 2.
		QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH.
			 Re: Gigantism of SPS
			 Re: Gigantism of SPS
			Re: Apollo [non] Fire
			Re: Apollo [non] Fire
			  Re^2: bored public
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
	       U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)
			Re: Re^2: bored public
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 17:44:11 GMT
From: crdgw1!steinmetz!sunspot!blackje@uunet.uu.net  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Re: NASA Select

In article <23198@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>In article <1989Mar27.213437.22701@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In article <Added.4Y=O_Wy00Ui30R7E8O@andrew.cmu.edu> BISURFAC@ECUVM1.BITNET (Lou Surface) writes:
>>>... My question is why were there no cabin views during
>>>the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch
>>>on any mission - from Apollo to STS. 

I worked at JSC during the Apollo-Soyuz (spelling?) mission,
and I distinctly remember seeing "cabin views" during the mission.
I also remember watching the crew mount "special" cameras in the 
cabin for the "network tv" link.  

--Emmett
	J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
	blackje@crd.ge.com;   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 00:05:57 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Russian unmanned missions to Mars

In article <7807@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>
>     It's interesting to note, isn't it, that for all the Russian talk about
>sending men to Mars, they have yet to send one successful mission to the 
>planet.  I don't think that we'll be seeing any manned Soviet missions to the
>red planet until they get their probes in order.  Curiously, they have good
>enough luck with Venus, so it's not like they are completely deficient in 
>sending probes beyond the moon's orbit.  Anyone believe in jinxes?
>
>-- 

Ahhh, but this might actually serve to promote a manned Mars mission, since
both problems would have been easily correctable were a pilot on board.

The Soviets have demonstrated fairly reliable technology in the fields of
propulsion, long term life support and communications. They have also proven
technology in interplanetary navigation as demonstrated by the Venus, Hally's
and Mars probes. Their problems come from (at least with the Phobos probes)

1. Ground Control error (should have been recoverable with proper onboard
   software)

2. Some sort of small electrical problem (easily overcome by a cosmonaut
   on station . . . "I detect a problem with the AE-35 unit, Yuri. . .")

I would be hesitant to give them the contract for the Mars lander, since
that must work reliably the first time, but perhaps they could handle the
orbital module.


          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 17:53:00 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Soviet Mars probes - ZOND 2.


	In regards to Steve Roseman's reply about the 1964 Soviet Mars
probe ZOND 2, I purposely omitted it from my list because all information
I read on it stated that the probe was a "test vehicle" for future 
unmanned Mars missions, and was not sent to Mars (at least the Soviets
claim this was not its goal).  I do appreciate your inclusion of it,
though, as it did play an important role in that program, even though
it did not go to the planet directly.

	Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 89 21:33:44 EDT
From: Jean Hill <344IZDA%CMUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH.

     DEAR SUBSCRIBERS:
          I am a new participant in this discussion group.  I would like to
     know more about the program for the astronauts in the United States and
     the qualifications needed to be accepted into this program.  If anyone has
     any information regarding this subject, please pass it on to me.

         Besides being interested in space and NASA in the United States, I am
     also interested in aviation, at which I am currently working on my pilot's
     license.  I have a couple of questions regarding the Stealth(F-19 Fighter)
     I know it's highly classified, but I was wondering what high-tech
     modifications it holds and the recorded speed of the aircraft?  Also what
     will be it's main objective? Fighter? Recon.?  I realize this is a
     discussion group about space, but any information will be helpful. Thanks.
                                   Jean (344IZDA@CMUVM)
Acknowledge-To: <344IZDA@CMUVM>

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 15:19:44 GMT
From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: Gigantism of SPS

In article <1989Apr9.115542.15142@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <3073@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU> rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
>
>>I hate to break the news to you, but SPS never had a chance anyway.  For
>>starters, it requires a huge infrastructure, massive startup costs, and
>>potential biohazard (at least, I'll pass on living anywhere near the microwave
>>collectors, thank you).
>
>SPS gets more practical if you posit the existence of moderately
>efficient sun-pumped lasers.  At constant beam power density, the
>power output of an SPS scales linearly with the wavelength of the
>beam.  If a lambda = 1 cm system needs 10 GW, a 1 micron system could
>operate at 1 MW.  The aperture of the transmitter and receiver shrink
>by a factor of 100.  Probably it pays to make the beam a bit more
>intense to burn through clouds.

I made a few "envelope" calculations on this idea.
Postulates: 
1: the heat capacity of air at constant pressure is about 1 kJ/*K
2: a cloud is opaque until the temperature rises above dew point,
	so that raising the gas temperature a few degrees makes it clear.
3: 1 micron energy is about the same as visible, so clouds look like you
 	and I think they look.

Then, the beam power per linear meter to penetrate a cloud deck of depth
D, moving at windspeed V, with temperature deficit T is

P = 10^3 * D * T * V W/m (where the 10^3 is the heat capacity).

Consider clouds that are 1 km thick, wind speed of 10 m/s, and a 
temperature deficit of 1 degree need to heat the air so that it becomes
clear.  Then the minimum beam power to penetrate the cloud is 10^7 W
per meter (an odd unit), and all of this power went to heat the cloud,
and is not available for power collection.

In other words, if you have got a 1 GW optical laser, with uniform, circular
beam pattern, then it has to be less than 100 meters in diameter for any
of the power to get through to the ground (through the specified cloud).  

Furthermore, we all know that clouds are white, and they are white because
they scatter light.  Scattered light won't heat the cloud, and won't wind
up at your collector.  Also, consider that I have completely neglected 
the conductivity of the air, which is going to remove some of the heat
especially for narrow beams.  In addition, the presence of a hot vertical
column of air surrounded by cold air is gong to be a ripe candidate for
instabilities which will try hard to disrupt the column, such as the
"firehose" instability.

Final postulate: my calculations are more or less correct.

Given the above postulate, I think that "optical" SPS can be ruled out
for continuous powering of cloudy places.

caveat: I could be wrong. I often am.

-- 
John Sahr,                          School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall   
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

ARPA: johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 15:31:47 GMT
From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: Gigantism of SPS

In article <1013@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu.UUCP (John Sahr) writes:
>I made a few "envelope" calculations on this idea.
>Postulates: 
>1: the heat capacity of air at constant pressure is about 1 kJ/*K
                                                             ^^^^^
Those units should have been 1 kJ/*K /m^3 (i.e., 1kJ/*K per cubic meter).
Sorry about that.
-- 
John Sahr,                          School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall   
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

ARPA: johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 89 22:18:21 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net  (John Gregor)
Subject: Re: Apollo [non] Fire

In article <2668@epiwrl.EPI.COM> parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) writes:
>In article <16278@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes:
>>When Apollo 13 had an electrical fire, loss of some power and system
>>failure, they said "uh, Houston, we have a problem." somewhat toned
>>down for public consumption.
>There was no electrical fire.  A tank ruptured.  I suspect that the time
>of that transmission, that is exactly all they knew; that "we have a
>problem".

Well first, the astronauts didn't know what had happened.  Just a 'thud'
when no 'thud' should have happened.  They didn't even know then that it
was a tank had ruptured (probably the 0 pressure clued them in real fast 
though).

Second, it was an electrical fire.  A short (of a sensor?) in the O2 tank
caused the teflon coating of the tank to ignite.  Amazing what burns in
pure O2 under pressure. :-)

-- 

John Gregor                                       johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@pyramid.COM

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 00:13:58 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Apollo [non] Fire

In article <712@ecrcvax.UUCP> johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes:
<In article <2668@epiwrl.EPI.COM> parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) writes:
<>In article <16278@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes:
<>There was no electrical fire.  A tank ruptured.  I suspect that the time
<>of that transmission, that is exactly all they knew; that "we have a
<>problem".
<
<Well first, the astronauts didn't know what had happened.  Just a 'thud'
<when no 'thud' should have happened.  They didn't even know then that it
<was a tank had ruptured (probably the 0 pressure clued them in real fast 
<though).
<

At first, the crew thought that some pressure relief valve popped open 
as was prone to happen from time to time, so they shrugged it off.

The real indication of trouble came when they noticed the power and
oxygen meters start to do strange things that they wern't supposed to,
and that something was being vented into space.
          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 89 08:22:43 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!mucs!liv-cs!zanussi@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re^2: bored public

> Sometimes these people do annoy me though - I then fantasise about the
> 'B'-Ark to Golgafrincham. Advertising executives, p.r. people.....
> =====
> Andrew Palfreyman

B-Ark *FROM* Golgafrincham, surely? ;-)

Peter Anderton
(aka Zanussi)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 89 18:32:06 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

> 
> What are the capabilities for rotating this baby and using it for
> spying purposes???
>

Why bother?  A KH-12 recon satellite is undoubtedly comparable in
mirror size and probably uses better technology, optimized to such a purpose.

Greg Goebel
Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330
(503) 752-7717
INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd
HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 16:00:38 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)

In article <1989Apr10.013849.26958@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <7810@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:

>>You might be right, here.  Of course, in five or six years, assuming no
>>development problems and no erosion of political will, the tables will be
>>turned...
>
>Except by that time, the Soviets will be getting ready to launch Novy
>Mir, which will re-turn the tables.  At the current rate of progress in
>the US, it may even come first.  As for "no development problems", note
>that the Hubble telescope had a lot of difficulties because it had two
>"prime" contractors, with NASA trying to do the coordination between them.
>The space station has *four*.
>
What wondrous capabilities is New Mir expected to have that Freedom won't?
>From what I have heard of the Novy Mir project (which, admittedly isn't much,
it sounds like another tin can station, or perhaps two tin cans stuck together.
Again, assuming no further delays (I can always hope), I feel fairly sure that
our station will be better.  As to the contractors, there is a difference 
between two contractors working on one object and four (admittedly, this is 
three too many) working on several separate objects.  If they can just keep
the connectors standard, this might not be too much of a problem.

[Me going on about the achievements of the American planetary exploration 
program.  Edited for brevity's sake...]
>
>The US, decades ago, before it lost interest.  If we're discussing history
>rather than current abilities, we might ask who launched the first Earth
>satellite, the first man in orbit, and the first man-made objects to reach
>the surfaces of the Moon, Mars, and Venus.
>
And what are the current abilities of the Soviet planetary program?  Not a
whole lot, from what I can see.  The Soviets have done precisely two things
that we haven't:  send a flyby to a comet, and get better pictures of Venus.
If you think about it, all planetary exploration is in the past; there are no
'new' missions functioning, and only one 'old' mission returning signifigant
new data.  And for repetition's sake, we are sending out Magellan and 
Galileo, to make the definitive map of Venus and the only comprehensive
study of the moons of Jupiter, and the only penetration of the atmosphere
of a gas giant.  What do the Soviets have in the pipeline in this class?  As
for our pipeline, we have Cassini (for Saturn) and the Mars Geology/Climatology
Observer (have they come up with a spiffier name for this yet?).  Not a large
number, but I prefer quality over quantity.

>>... Assuming nothing goes wrong (fingers crossed), we'll be sending
>>new probes out to Venus, to get the highest quality maps of that planet ever,
>
>Do remember that the highest-resolution maps of Venus existing right now
>came from Soviet missions.  This is another catchup mission.
>
The entire history of space exploration is a tradeoff between the U.S. and the
USSR.  They held the lead initially, then we took it and held it through the 
early Seventies, and now the Russians are back, and look to hold it until the 
mid-Nineties.  And then, who knows?  If we succeed with our plans, we will
certainly be in as good of shape as the Russians, perhaps better.

>>>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>>>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>How are they going to ask for passports and visas?  They can't even get the 
>>customs station to work properly!
>
>They'll have plenty of time to try again before they start allowing
>foreigners to visit.

And again, and again, and again...ad nausaeum.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 01:29:49 GMT
From: nsc!andrew@decwrl.dec.com  (andrew)
Subject: Re: Re^2: bored public

> > Sometimes these people do annoy me though - I then fantasise about the
> > 'B'-Ark to Golgafrincham. Advertising executives, p.r. people.....
> > =====
> > Andrew Palfreyman
> 
> B-Ark *FROM* Golgafrincham, surely? ;-)
> 
> Peter Anderton
> (aka Zanussi)

It was my mistake. Of course, it is rumoured to have been built by outside
contractors, and the thought of it arriving fresh, new and empty to receive
all the telephone sanitiser etc. population would have justified the "to".
But I'm lying!	Andrew

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #360
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Apr 89 13:35:22 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01039>; Wed, 12 Apr 89 07:57:58 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 12 Apr 89 07:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYElUly00Ui341jE4a>;
          Wed, 12 Apr 89 05:34:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.sYElFKy00UkZ4QWE5U>;
          Wed, 12 Apr 89 05:18:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYElDpy00UkZ8QUk52@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 05:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #361

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 361

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Soviet Mars probes - ZOND 2.
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
			   Power vs Energy
		  Possible Life on Venus: A Question
		Re: Possible Life on Venus: A Question
			 Questions and Henry
	    Eggs in space (was NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89)
		     Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		   Re: space news from Feb 13 AW&ST
		     Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 18:42:01 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probes - ZOND 2.

In article <8904101356.AA02908@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
>
>	In regards to Steve Roseman's reply about the 1964 Soviet Mars
>probe ZOND 2...

I always thought that the Zond series was a potential lunar capsule, to      
compete with Apollo, and when Apollo 11 landed, the series was allowed to
'die'.  What's the real story?

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 06:50:52 GMT
From: ucsdhub!sdsu!frost@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Richard Frost)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <16627@electron.mips.COM>, jimiii@mips.COM (Jim Warford) writes:
> In article <3634@sdsu.UUCP> frost@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Frost) writes:
> >
> >Although utility companies are required to by any excess power you generate
> >YOU are responsible for purchasing a synchonous interface to the grid ( a
> >synchronous inverter if you're generating DC) plus a new meter and pay for
> >periodic calibration inspections by the utility company.
> >
> I believe you also have to provide 1 million dollars in liability insurance
> just in case your equipment malfunctions and wreaks havoc on the electric
> companies equipment.
> --jimiii@mips.com

In my experience with such projects, no liability insurance was required by
the homeowner.  Such sites were in rural areas of Northern California
(San Francisco is in the middle of the state!!)   --------
and the electric power being generated was only a few kilowatts.

On a different note, several folks have mentioned that cheap fusion powered
generators won't affect auto's too much.   Think again.  Electric autos are
becoming a reality -- witness the Solar Max.  Not that I would recommend
a solar or a fusion source IN a commuter car.  How about we just charge 'em
off the grid, or at home?  However, I agree that the overhead to convert
your auto or for GM to tool up for electric autos is staggering.  But really
people, we need to slow down our exhaust emmisions while we've still got a
healthy atmosphere.

sdsu!frost@ucsd.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 00:09:34 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <1726@wpi.wpi.edu> tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) writes:
<In article <16680@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
<>A few years ago, someone mentioned some Apollo hardware was in the ocean
<>(I think it was the LEM from Apollo-13).
<
<There's no way a LEM could survive re-entry.  The thing is EXTREMELY flimsy,
<I once heard (in a book by Michael Collins I think) that a technician once
<dropped a wrench through the hull.
<

The LM was called "the Tissue Paper Spacecraft", and was little more than
a mylar balloon. I heard the story that during a ground test, the Apollo 12
astronauts, Al Bean and Pete Conrad poked a hole in the thing.


          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 12:35:30 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!aplvax.jhuapl.edu!jwm@g.ms.uky.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Power vs Energy


Concur that power is an issue in general in space flight, but it should
not be near the issue that ENERGY is. 

The space shuttle can do 5 g.  That is power.  Note that we have been able to
do moderate accelerations for a long time.  However, we have no way to let it
out of LEO not due to power constraints, but due to energy constraints.

Ref terawatts.  We have had a hand-portable device capable of putting out
appox 3000 terawatts for a REAL brief period and have had it for a couple of
decades.  But it doesn't do it very long (appox .1 microseconds - 99.9% in
the last .07 microseconds of operation) so again an energy constraint, not
a power constraint. 

The "we need power to push the ship" comes from all the mass on-board to
supply energy (power for an extended period).  The limiting factor is
energy available, not power.  The momentum change required for motion
is gives energy requirements, not power.

(as a btw, I heard on the radio this morning that the University of Texas has
duplicated the University of Utah's "fusion in a jar"!)



Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 89 17:30:26 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Possible Life on Venus: A Question


There is a question that has been distrubing me lately,

We discover not a long ago living "parasites" that are
very close to paramecia organism very deep in the
Atlantique Ocean. What is surprising is the capacity of
those organism to live and reproduce in very hot water
located near permanent volcanic activities.

According to common knowledge (I am a logician not
a biologist) I thougth that proteins as well as DNA chains
could not be replicated and therefore not formed under high
temperature.

Does anybody knows what is going on there ?

Furthermore, my understanding was that the reasons above
(temperature, pressure) were the motive why scientist could
not beleive of forms of life on Venus. So do we have to scrap
this belief and restart again ?

Or am I missing anything here ?

Jean-Marc Debaud
Carnegie-Mellon U.
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu
jd3l@mri.contrast.cs.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 16:26:50 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Possible Life on Venus: A Question

In article <kYDtAmy00Xoe43iElp@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>There is a question that has been distrubing me lately,
>
>We discover not a long ago living "parasites" that are
>very close to paramecia organism very deep in the
>Atlantique Ocean. What is surprising is the capacity of
>those organism to live and reproduce in very hot water
>located near permanent volcanic activities.

	Are you sure that these organisms are similar to paramecia?  I have
heard of archaebacteria living in very hot water, but no eukaryotes.  At any
rate, if they are free-living, they are not parasites.

>According to common knowledge (I am a logician not
>a biologist) I thougth that proteins as well as DNA chains
>could not be replicated and therefore not formed under high
>temperature.

	Certain proteins are stable at quite high temperatures (80`C is not
uncommon), and using various measures an organism can stabilize its proteins
and DNA.  Such measures include maintaining very high internal salt
concentrations and other means of ensuring that the ratio of water to
everything else is small (but nonzero).

>Furthermore, my understanding was that the reasons above
>(temperature, pressure) were the motive why scientist could
>not beleive of forms of life on Venus. So do we have to scrap
>this belief and restart again ?
>
>Or am I missing anything here ?

	One requirement of terrestrial life is that the water within it be
liquid, whatever the temperature and pressure.  Things have been found that
can grow at 135`C, and certain archaebacteria have successfully been cultured
in the laboratory at 112`C.  However, all of these organisms must be kept
under enough pressure to keep them from boiling when they are grown at those
temperatures.  Such pressures are found at the bottom of our oceans.  However,
at temperatures over the critical point of water, such as those found on
Venus, no amount of pressure will keep the water liquid.  Therefore, life with
a terrestrial biochemistry will not be able to exist on Venus.  Of course,
this does not rule out some form of life with a totally different kind of
biochemistry.

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 18:41:55 GMT
From: rochester!rocksanne!bozo!kirby@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Mike Kirby (co-op))
Subject: Questions and Henry

Two Questions:

1)  Henry, do you have anything positive to say about the U.S. space program?
    I mean do we do anything right anymore?

2)  What is the pegasus?

Michael Kirby
mpk9172@ritvax.bitnet
mpk9172%ritcv@rit.cs.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 17:15:34 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Eggs in space (was NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89)

Someone missed a great oportunity:

CapCom:  Columbia, Houston here, good morning.

Columbia: Theres no one here but us chickens, cluck, cluck...
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 21:10:17 GMT
From: pacbell!pbhya!whh@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion

In article <1989Apr8.212905.131@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <10346@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
> >... The existence of a heatsink at 3 degK should be a great help for
> >the engine design...
> 
> Not as much as you think.  Getting the heat out to that heatsink is
> *not* a trivial problem.  The shuttle uses the entire inner surface of
> its payload-bay doors as a heat radiator.  If you look at pictures of
> the space station, you'll see two sets of big flat panels sticking
> out -- solar panels, and radiators.  Fusion rockets are likely to have
> quite serious cooling problems, at least in high-performance versions.
> (Chemical rockets dump heat into their fuel, but a high-performance
> fusion rocket doesn't use fuel quickly enough for that approach to work.)

As I recall--and I'm sure I'll get some fairly hot replies if I'm wrong--
that the rate of radiation of energy varies as the 4th power of the 
absolute temperature.  Since the Shuttle is working a rather low temperatures,
it's no surprise that it needs a large surface.  It is also short on
total energy supplies.  For a fusion rocket, why not use a small, very hot,
radiator to take advantage of increased radiator effectiveness?  (This
*ought* to work for the Shuttle, too, and I don't know why it wasn't done.
Possibly because of limitations in working fluids?)

   --Hal

=========================================================================
  Hal Heydt                             | In the old days, we had wooden
  Analyst, Pacific*Bell                 | ships sailed by iron men.  Now
  415-645-7708                          | we have steel ships and block-
  whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM                 | heads running them. --Capt. D. Seymour

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1989 11:17-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

> And of course, this will play >hell< with those who promote a
> return to the Gold Standard!  ;^)

Only those who are religious about the particular monetary standard.
Most gold standard supporters just want money to be a competitive
market like anything else.  There can be government script, private
bank notes, gold, silver, hog bellies, rights to energy output units,
whatever. It really doesn't matter so long as the money supply is not
in monopolistic hands.  And doesn't it seem rather foolish to have the
"one and only official" money printed by the same people who have the
power to tax and spend? There seems to be a tiny conflict of interest
here...

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 15:19:34 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 13 AW&ST

In article <1989Apr10.025652.28387@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Phobos 2 enters Mars orbit Jan 29.  [I'll skip the details, since we
>all know that Phobos 2 is now dead.  They really should have launched
>three of them.]

    Perhaps the effort would better be spent putting more reliable
hardware on board the spacecraft, and better trained personnel on the
ground. Of what use would *three* failed Mars probes be? :-)

    Unrelated topic: anyone interested in sharing a hotel room at
the Chicago Space Development Conference? Respond by email, please.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``God is more interested in your future and your relationships
      than you are.'' - Billy Graham

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 21:25:22 GMT
From: cbmvax!jesup@uunet.uu.net  (Randell Jesup)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion

In article <1989Apr8.212905.131@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <10346@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
>>... The existence of a heatsink at 3 degK should be a great help for
>>the engine design...
>
>Not as much as you think.  Getting the heat out to that heatsink is
>*not* a trivial problem.  The shuttle uses the entire inner surface of
>its payload-bay doors as a heat radiator.  If you look at pictures of
>the space station, you'll see two sets of big flat panels sticking
>out -- solar panels, and radiators.  Fusion rockets are likely to have
>quite serious cooling problems, at least in high-performance versions.
>(Chemical rockets dump heat into their fuel, but a high-performance
>fusion rocket doesn't use fuel quickly enough for that approach to work.)

	There's a bit of confusion here (especially in the original
message).

	First, the fuel (for energy) is deuterium.  Second, the fuel (in
terms of reaction mass) is fairly arbitrary.  Hydrogen isn't bad, but it's
pretty light.  Mercury (as in ion engines) is nice and heavy, makes for
good specific impulse for an electric engine.  In addition, given minimal
mining ability, mass from the asteroid can be used if need be.

	Second, while not 3 deg K, the asteroids mass might make a nice,
convenient heat sink.  Also, its surface makes a nice place to put radiators.

	Third, so long as you don't care how fast the asteroid get to you,
you can use an arbitrarily small amount of palladium for the fusion reactor.
Remember, the fuel is the deuterium.  So what if it takes a few centuries? :-)
The real question is to figure out how many watts can be produced/cc (F&P
results may not be indicative of what is possible, especially with D-T or
T-T fusion, but they get 26w/cc); and then figure out the efficiency of your
heat engine and specific impulse of your fuel, etc; and then figure out how
long it takes to produce the delta-v.

	Of course, I'm no rocket scientist.  :-)

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #361
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Apr 89 02:31:52 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01771>; Thu, 13 Apr 89 21:51:09 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 13 Apr 89 21:50:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cYF4xOy00Vs1E1BE8O>;
          Thu, 13 Apr 89 03:42:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.sYF4bQy00UkZA4wE5C>;
          Thu, 13 Apr 89 03:18:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYF4Zvy00UkZ04uk4X@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 03:17:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #362

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 362

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Feb 20 AW&ST
     Re:  Success with cold fusion reported, (Really Power Grids)
		     Re: DSN mission launch dates
		   Re: space news from Feb 13 AW&ST
		       Re: Questions and Henry
		  Re: Building a fusion-based rocket
			 Re: Power vs Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 03:01:51 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Feb 20 AW&ST

[A correction:  despite the comments in AW&ST, folks from both Fermilab
and CERN have pointed out that Fermilab currently holds the record as
the world's biggest antimatter source.  Not that that's such a massive
distinction, mind you:  if all the antiprotons produced to date were
combined with positrons to make antihydrogen, there would be roughly
enough to fill an anti-ping-pong ball at one atmosphere.  (My thanks to
a friend at CERN for this information.)]

India asks France for technological assistance in launch-vehicle
development, specifically nozzle design, cryogenic propulsion, and
clustering of liquid engines.  [Fat chance.]

First Delta 2 launch successful Feb 14.

NASA is upset about a coming personnel crisis:  70% of its senior
managers are eligible for retirement within two years, and many of
them are expected to leave.  Fletcher says the situation is "desperate".
(AW&ST's editorial this week inquires why this problem took Fletcher
et al by surprise, given that it's been obvious since the hiring freezes
in the 1970s that there would be few middle-aged managers to replace the
old ones.)  NASA is considering ideas ranging up to turning several of
the NASA centers into contractor-run facilities.  The problem is that
NASA cannot afford to pay enough to keep its managers or hire people
with equivalent experience.  There has also been an unusually high
number of resignations among newly-hired managers of late.  [To be
blunt, if NASA forgets silly ideas like privatizing some of the centers
and just tries to muddle through, this could be the best thing that's
happened to it in a long time.  NASA's supervisor:worker ratio today is
much too high, twice what it was during Apollo.  Putting some of the
relatively young and inexperienced people in positions of responsibility
might be just what's needed to get things moving again.]

Florida governor asks state legislature to set up a Spaceport Authority
to establish commercial launch facilities at the Cape (preferably using
some existing mothballed pads) and a sounding-rocket range on property
owned by Eglin AFB.  The Bush Administration supports the idea in general.
Many people doubt that there is enough long-term demand to justify such
a project, though.

Arianespace signs contracts for the production batch of 50 Ariane 4s.
The bulk buy is expected to cut costs by about 20%.

Article on preparations for the first Titan 4 launch, which will carry
an upgraded-version Defense Support Program early-warning satellite.
The infrared telescope is expected to return useful intelligence data
as well; the latest upgraded version is known to be capable of
tracking aircraft if they are using afterburners.  Among other minor
improvements, this DSP version has computer and software improvements to
manage its own systems and station-keeping if cut off from ground command.
The next one, to go up on the shuttle next year, will add a laser
communications system which will link it to other DSP satellites,
allowing "sideways" data relay to circumvent jamming.  There is a faction
which wants to continue upgrading the DSP series rather than replacing
it with the SDI-developed BSTS system.  An interesting set of photos
comparing successive generations of DSP birds, with successively more
elaborate sensors and bigger solar arrays.

Navy begins construction of four Lightsats for launch this fall, pulling
ahead of the USAF (which fought the concept for a while).  The first
three, carrying various experimental packages, will go up together on
a Scout (probably).  The fourth, carrying an experimental system to
locate sources of radio interference, is almost finished but does not
have a definite launcher yet:  Scout and Pegasus are possibilities.
[Smells like they want to use Pegasus but don't want to say so until
it flies successfully.]  These are basically R&D missions, although
they may have some operational utility if they work well.  The official
position right now is that these are "niche" spacecraft that cannot
replace the big expensive ones.  [That may change if they work well.]

NRC report says SDI beam-weapon work implicitly assumes availability
of advanced space power sources, on which little work is being done.
One significant issue, for example, is whether exhaust and vibration
from chemical systems make them unacceptable; only analytical studies
have been done on this, with inconclusive results, and the space
experiments that would settle the question are several years off and
have low priority.

USAF building special single-point suspension facility to study the
control dynamics of large lightweight space structures.

Pratt&Whitney offers various upgrades for the RL10 engine to Centaur
customers; business is booming.  Some of the upgrades are derived
from work done on the late, lamented Shuttle-Centaur program.

Study commissioned by Comsat Corp. shows satellites holding their own
against fiber-optic cables for the near future.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 10 Apr 89 8:17:08 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL>
To: sgi!shinobu!shinobu.sgi.com!watson@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Cc: space@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject:  Re:  Success with cold fusion reported, (Really Power Grids)

>This implies something that deserves explicit mention: there is nothing
>I know of that makes a "grid" incompatible with decentralizing energy
>production.  In at least some places, individuals with windmills sell 
>their surplus power back to a utility.  If each household made enough
>power on the average, couldn't we still use the "grid" just to balance the
>load?  What if utilities stopped producing and became brokers?

I had just recently read an article on home power generation in a back
issue of "Blair & Ketchum's Country Journal" magazine -- July 1985, p. 54.
The article is on hydro power, but the issues regarding tying into the
power grid are applicable to any source.

"A generator must turn at a constant speed to produce electricity at
a constant voltage. There are two basic ways to keep that speed
constant. One is to make sure that the generator is always running under
the same load -- a full load. Since a home's electric needs change as
heating units and appliances go on and off, a switching mechanism can be
built into the power plant. The house gets whatever it needs, and the
remainder can be sold to the power company."

"There are some complications with this... One is that the equipment to
connect with the utility system isn't cheap. [A 50 kW unit's tie-in
circuitry] cost about $8000, although power sales will eventually recover
that cost. Another difficulty, an ironic one for someone with a generator
in the yard, is that when the commercial power is off you can't be running
your generator and so you won't have power either...

That's because such connected generators ... need commercial power to keep
them in step with the rest of the system, unless they have costly additional
control mechanisms. Besides that, if the power is off somewhere else in the
utility grid, the power company can't let you keep gnenerating, even if you
had those controls. ... They have crews out fixing the lines. The power is
supposed to be off in those lines. But if you're generating, and you're
connected, then there's power going into those lines that are supposed to be
dead. The lineman could get the last surprise of his life..."

[The other one of the "basic ways" mentioned above is what the subject
of the article does -- he has a quick-acting governor that controls the
flow of water into his turbine and thus varies the electricity produced
directly with the demand.]

Anyway, there can be cost and operational disadvantages from having
individual home generator units tied into the power grid. I must admit
that I like the idea of total independence from commercial power, but I
tend to think that it is still probably more feasible to stay with
central generators and existing distribution grids in built-up areas.
Where the home-fusion plant sounds good, though, is in isolated areas.
It, along with satellite communications, can give rise to more and more
isolated individual smallholdings, independent fiefdoms scattered about
in areas now too inhospitable to support them currently. Now, there are
only a few such, all based on farming, like some of the polygamists'
compounds you hear about at times on "tabloid TV". With independent power
and satellite commo, though, somebody with other skills, like
programming or writing or what-have-you, could live in such a fashion too. 

Myself, I always had an idea that it would be interesting to live isolated
in the middle of a mesa big enough to have radial Beveredge antennae (these
are very good but very long short- and medium-wave wire antennae) going
off in about 8 directions... (Probably spelled wrong -- my references
aren't here.) Can't usually get much water in such a situation, though, and,
while solar power might produce enough to live on, a fusion plant would give
enough for air-conditioning and maybe some way to get water... 

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 17:50:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: DSN mission launch dates


/* Written  2:40 pm  Apr  6, 1989 by PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
/* ---------- "DSN mission launch dates" ---------- */
I just got a list of launch dates for missions supported by the DSN 
through 1990.  I don't have a glossary, so if you don't know what
one of these acronyms means, don't ask me.
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

BS-3a	?

COBE		Cosmic Background Explorer
			Determine the spectral anisotropy of the
			cosmic microwave background

DFS	?	Deutsches something-or-other, I think...

EUTELSAT	EUropean TELecommunications SATellite

FLTSATCOM	FLeeT SATellite COMmunications
			U.S. Navy communciations satellite

GALILEO			Mission to explore Jupiter and its moons

GMS	?

GOES		Geostationary-Orbit Earth-observation Satellite
			Meteorological mission in Clarke orbit

GRO		Gamma Ray Observatory

HST		Hubble Space Telescope

MAGELLAN		Mission to map the surface of Venus

MUSES-A	?

ROSAT		ROentgen SATellite
			NASA/West German co-operative mission for
			X-ray astronomy

TDF	?

TDRS		Tracking and Data Relay Satellite

ULYSSES		(Formerly ISPM--International Solar Polar Mission)
			Investigate the properties of the heliosphere
			(The Sun and its environment).


Kevin Kenny			   UUCP: {uunet,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
Illini Space Development Society   ARPA Internet or CSNet: kenny@CS.UIUC.EDU
P.O. Box 2255, Station A
Champaign, Illinois, 61825	   Voice: (217) 333-5821

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 02:13:01 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 13 AW&ST

In article <7686@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>... They really should have launched three of them.]
>
>    Perhaps the effort would better be spent putting more reliable
>hardware on board the spacecraft, and better trained personnel on the
>ground. Of what use would *three* failed Mars probes be? :-)

Of what use would one successful one be?  Note that they didn't lose
P2 to P1's problem.  They probably wouldn't have lost the hypothetical
P3 to P2's problem -- and P2 was pretty close to the key part of the
mission.  One more might have been enough to push the next mistake past
the Phobos encounter.  The way you find out about these things is to try
them.  The major factor in how quickly you learn is how often you try.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 02:32:17 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Questions and Henry

In article <713@rocksanne.UUCP> kirby@bozo.UUCP (Mike Kirby (co-op)) writes:
>1)  Henry, do you have anything positive to say about the U.S. space program?
>    I mean do we do anything right anymore?

Oh, once in a while.  Why, you did something right as recently as 1965. :-)

More seriously, I am quite excited about both Magellan and Galileo.  They
are basically the last big things out of the Apollo-era pipeline, with
very little left in the pipe behind them... but they're nifty all the same.

Much more significantly, the US is possibly the only country that can
really open the skies to mankind.  And despite recent setbacks, it still
has a fair chance of doing it.  The key is to look at private industry,
not government; the US government will never accomplish it, but the US
is nearly unique in being a place where private industry can have a
try at it without having to sell their souls to the government first.

>2)  What is the pegasus?

Pegasus is one of the brightest spots in the picture right now:  a small
air-launched space launcher, being built as a joint project by Orbital
Sciences and Hercules.  Although I'm rooting for them all the way, their
biggest accomplishment will be secure if they launch once and then go
broke:  they've built Pegasus in about two years for about $60M [I may
have that number slightly wrong, but that's the right area].  Even if
they go under after their first launch, they'll have proved that you
don't have to do things the NASA way, spending billions and taking decades.
Private investors can't afford to sink billions of dollars in space
projects and wait decades for possible return... and NASA, from its
entrenched position as The Experts on the matter, naturally assures
them that there is no other way.  Two years and $60M is a very different
story.  If OSC/Hercules get one bird into orbit, others will follow.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 21:04:46 GMT
From: psivax!quad1!ttidca!sorgatz@uunet.uu.net  ( Avatar)
Subject: Re: Building a fusion-based rocket

In article <943@psueea.UUCP> sandym@psu-cs.cs.pdx.edu (Sandy Michael) writes:
>
>What technology do you see the Earth having by the year 3000?
>Michael Sandy


 Given the actual mission progress since 1945, the current technology, the
extreme attitudes of American management, the inertia-bound political process
that technology must beg it's funds under...plus a few fudge factors...I'd
guess that by the year 3000, if there is no total planetary war to wipe out
the Race..figure maybe we'll have come back up to having SATURN 5's and be
looking at building a real Lunar Colony!

 No :-)'s here! The space effort is being ruined by the big-EGO managers of
NASA, and their "Good-Ole-Boys-Network". Most of these clowns have swell,
college degrees in Mech. Eng. or whatever, but they've never turned a wrench,
cut a part, or designed their way out of an airline barf-bag!! They've all
gone to management "Charm School", and "know" how to motivate! Big !@#$%^ deal!

 I openly challenge anyone with the balls to respond, to explain the huge gap
between NASA management salaries and those of the NASA Engineering staffers.

 They can also explain the nepotism, the wasted paper-chase-studies, the whole
series of bad decisions that lead to the Challenger mess..and then, if it's
not too much trouble, they can explain how, (in light of all this) useful
this 'profession' named management is.

 Scientists and Engineers do not need 5 layers of useless dross between
themselves and the Congress, it only makes the work more expensive and
slower, when is this going to change? By the year 3000? I hope so...
-- 
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 02:09:20 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Power vs Energy

In article <3603@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
>Concur that power is an issue in general in space flight, but it should
>not be near the issue that ENERGY is. 

It depends on what kind of propulsion we are talking about.  With current
systems, yes, energy is the big problem.  Rocket engines actually handle
rather a lot of power -- an SSME is 5-7 gigawatts, as I recall -- but they
cope by keeping it at arm's length, pushing waste heat back into the fuel
as fast as it (the heat) leaks out.  Trouble is, when you hike the exhaust
velocity (and hence the thrust per kilo of fuel) a few orders of magnitude,
this approach stops working so well.  Will cold fusion get us to that point?
Good question -- wait and see.  Hot fusion probably would; if you look at
artists' conceptions of things like inertial-confinement fusion rockets,
you'll see big radiator fins up forward.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #362
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Apr 89 17:03:28 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01118>; Thu, 13 Apr 89 23:34:53 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 13 Apr 89 23:34:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYF6Q6y00UkT01vk5=>;
          Thu, 13 Apr 89 05:23:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.MYF6Lmy00UkZ45704W>;
          Thu, 13 Apr 89 05:18:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YF6KFy00UkZM55U4H@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 05:17:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #363

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 363

Today's Topics:
	      The Soviet ZOND probes to Venus and Mars.
		 Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and oth
			   AD Astra Delay!
			  Aliens and the law
	    Cross posting evil ( was Re: Power vs Energy)
		       Re: Questions and Henry
		     Re: DSN mission launch dates
	      Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH.
Astronaut Qualification Requirements (was Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS...)
			  Space terminology
			 Re: Power vs Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 21:26:00 GMT
From: renoir.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: The Soviet ZOND probes to Venus and Mars.


         I have apparently confused my Soviet ZOND Mars probes (and we 
    all know how painful that can be):

         ZOND is the Soviet word for "probe".  Three probes designated 
    ZOND were sent to the two planets nearest Earth in the early 1960s.
    ZOND 1 was a failed attempt at a Venus flyby in 1964.  ZOND 2 was
    launched on November 30, 1964, possibly as a flyby photographic 
    mission of Mars with a lander capsule.  Contact was lost with ZOND 2 
    in April of the following year.  It did pass within 1,500 kilometers
    of the planet on August 6, 1965, less than one month after the 
    successful flyby mission of the U.S. MARINER 4 probe, which took 
    the first close-up photos (22 in all) of the Martian surface.

         ZOND 3 was launched on July 18, 1965.  Though originally intended 
    as a Mars probe, ZOND 3's mission was changed to an "engineering test"
    when the Soviets missed the Mars launch window opportunity.  ZOND 3
    first flew by Earth's Moon, where it took the first photos of the
    lunar farside since LUNA 3 in 1959.  It then headed out into inter-
    planetary space, where it continued to function and communicate out
    to the orbit of Mars, though ZOND 3 was nowhere near the planet at 
    the time the probe crossed its orbit.

         The three ZOND probes all bore a great resemblance and had similar 
    design functions to the VENERA probes to Venus of that time period.         

         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 19:10:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!p.cs.uiuc.edu!silber@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and oth


>>
>>plutonium-powered thermionic generator of Apollo 13's LEM.
>>

>HUH?  All American (and probably all Soviet) manned spacecraft use 
>fuel cells for electrical generation.  The U.S. doesn't make much use
>at all of nuclear-powered satilites, except for deep-space probes.

The LEM had what what was essentially a nuclear battery to power the
scientific experiments left behind.  (These were intended to provide years
of useful data.)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 04:33:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: AD Astra Delay!


   	An Announcement From....	                                   
     The Headquarters of....        
 	The National Space Society 	 


Due to unforseen circumstances beyond the control of the Staff of
Headquarters, the magazine AD ASTRA will once again be delayed. 
Members should expect to see the new issue by mid-April.  Our
apologies for the delay.



April 4, 1989

The Management!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 09:50:05 EDT
From: loeb@math.mit.edu
To: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com
Cc: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Aliens and the law

Please send me that reference you mentioned about alien law.

Yours                   +-----------------------------------------------------+
Daniel E. Loeb          | Internet:     loeb@math.mit.edu                     |
del^2                   | ATT:          617/776-1605 (w/ Answering Machine)   |
                        | Bitnet:       s19990@mitvma.bitnet                  |
"I'm a vegeterarian not | UUCP:         trout!pnet01!pro-angmar!loeb          |
because I love animals, | USnail:       45 Concord Avenue, Apartement 32,     |
but because I hate      |               Somerville, MA 02143-3939, USA        |
plants."                | MIT:          2-032, x2190                          |
                        +-----------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 17:07:06 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Cross posting evil ( was Re: Power vs Energy)

>Article about power and energy

Please edit newsgroups lines.  This article had nothing to do with astronomy.
That's why I unsubscribe from certain newsgroups.

Yet another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 14:50:33 GMT
From: osu-cis!netsys!lamc!well!tneff@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Questions and Henry

In article <713@rocksanne.UUCP> kirby@bozo.UUCP (Mike Kirby (co-op)) writes:
>1)  Henry, do you have anything positive to say about the U.S. space program?
>    I mean do we do anything right anymore?

If the above quoted poster (or anyone else) wants to see something
positive about the US space program in this newsgroup, let him write it
himself.  The nice thing about sci.space.* is the high signal/noise
ratio.  Henry is, as it turns out, one of the reasons this is true.  It
is better to contribute something substantive of your own than to
attack what someone else chooses to contribute.  Sounds like a line worth
adding to Eugene's next oldfarts message...
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 15:26:30 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: DSN mission launch dates

>From article <21900051@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, by kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu:
> > /* Written  2:40 pm  Apr  6, 1989 by PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

Here are the acronyms Kevin didnt list:
BS-3A		Broadcsting Satellite (NASDA,Japan)
DFS		Deutsche Fernsehen Satellit (DFVLR, Fed Rep of Germany)
GMS		Geostationary Meteorological Satellite (NASDA,Japan)
MUSES-A		I forget the acronym, but it is an ISAS,Japan lunar probe.
		(Mu Space Exploration Sat???)
TDF		Telediffusion de France (a French TV network)


 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 18:15:18 GMT
From: tank!eecae!shadooby!sharkey!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@handies.ucar.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH.

In article <Added.QYEJkdy00Ui30C8k9D@andrew.cmu.edu> 344IZDA@CMUVM.BITNET (Jean Hill) writes:
>          I am a new participant in this discussion group.  I would like to
>     know more about the program for the astronauts in the United States and
>     the qualifications needed to be accepted into this program...

I don't know what the formal qualifications are, but here are some practical
comments I contributed to Eugene's seemingly-defunct frequently-asked-space-
questions postings a while ago:

------------
Q. How do I become an astronaut?

A. We will assume you mean a NASA astronaut, since it's probably impossible
	for a Westerner to get into the Soviet program, 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.  Be in good physical condition, with good eyesight.
	(DO NOT get a radial keratomy in an attempt to improve your vision;
	its long-term effects are poorly understood.  For that matter, avoid
	any other significant medical unknowns.)  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 the security people
	consider 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).
	Think space:  they want highly motivated people, so lose no chance
	to demonstrate motivation.  Keep trying.  Be lucky.
------------
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 23:33:17 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Astronaut Qualification Requirements (was Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS...)

In article <1989Apr11.181518.3936@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <Added.QYEJkdy00Ui30C8k9D@andrew.cmu.edu> 344IZDA@CMUVM.BITNET (Jean Hill) writes:
>>          I am a new participant in this discussion group.  I would like to
>>     know more about the program for the astronauts in the United States and
>>     the qualifications needed to be accepted into this program...
>
>I don't know what the formal qualifications are...

The information below is from the NASA Announcement for Mission
Specialist and Pilot Astronaut Candidates.  This is available from:

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidate:

1) Bachelor's degree from an accedited 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 military or civilian Class II flight physical and includes the
following specific standards:

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

	Blood pressure:
		140/90 measured in a sitting position.

3) Height between 60 and 76 inches.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilot Astronaut Candidate:

1) Bachelor's degree from an accedited institution in engineering,
biological science, physical science, or mathematics.  An advanced
degree is desirable.  Quality of academic preparation is important.

2) At least 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft.  Flight
test experience is highly desireable.

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 a sitting position.

4) Height between 64 and 76 inches.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 03:21:29 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!acu@purdue.edu  (Floyd McWilliams)
Subject: Space terminology


	An interesting question came up in conversation a few minutes ago:

	If an object is in orbit around a larger body, that object is
called a "satellite."  So what is the larger body called?

--
"Life's for my own, to live my own way."
Floyd McWilliams			mentor.cc.purdue.edu!acu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 14:03:31 GMT
From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: Power vs Energy

In article <3603@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
>Concur that power is an issue in general in space flight, but it should
>not be near the issue that ENERGY is. 

Regardless of whether it should be the case, Mr. Merrits comments about
Henry Spencer's power requirements were irrelevant, as the issue was 
"How much power does it take to push a 20 ton space ship at 1g with reaction
engines"

>The space shuttle can do 5 g.  That is power.  Note that we have been able to
>do moderate accelerations for a long time.  However, we have no way to let it
>out of LEO not due to power constraints, but due to energy constraints.
[]
>The "we need power to push the ship" comes from all the mass on-board to
>supply energy (power for an extended period).  The limiting factor is
>energy available, not power.  The momentum change required for motion
>is gives energy requirements, not power.
[]
This is not true.  If you double the rate at which you expel mass, you halve
the exhaust velocity required for the same thrust (force), and halve the
power required to produce that thrust.  However, mass is precious on a long
flight, so high power processing may be more important than high energy 
storage important (i.e., you're willing and able to store a lot of energy).

Ultimately, both power and energy are constrained in real designs; costs
are associated with increasing either.  The trick is to trade them off
sensibly.
-- 
John Sahr,                          School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall   
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

ARPA: johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #363
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Apr 89 07:59:50 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02694>; Fri, 14 Apr 89 03:31:50 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 14 Apr 89 03:31:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AYFLAVy00Ui341lUZn>;
          Fri, 14 Apr 89 00:27:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.kYFL8Ry00UkZI=h05i>;
          Fri, 14 Apr 89 00:22:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYFL7-y00UkZ0=fU4V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 00:21:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #364

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 364

Today's Topics:
		 ASCII versions of Cold Fusion papers
      Mir problem identified - difficulty with the power system
		 Jobs on Mars Observer Camera project
		   Re: Soviet Mars probes - ZOND 2.
		       Re: Questions and Henry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 10:08:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 393+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: ASCII versions of Cold Fusion papers

I have ascii version of both the Fleischmann&Pons (UofU) paper and the
Jones&Palmer (BYU) paper available.  If you would like to see one or both mailed
to you let me know.  Send a note to space-request@andrew.cmu.edu specifying
which you'd like and I'll get them out ASAP.

While this is not entirely space related I thought there would be enough
interest for warrant a message.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 14:12:14 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: Mir problem identified - difficulty with the power system

     More details have come out about the problem on board the USSR's
Mir/Kvant space station.  Bill Lane at Boston University has reported
to me that on Apr. 12th the Soviet evening TV news had
Valeri Ryumin (head of cosmonaut training, and former cosmonaut with 326
days in orbit on 3 flights) detailing the main difficulty, a problem in 
the station power system.  The electricity coming out the solar cells 
shows the correct levels but at the batteries there has been a continuous 
decline in the power available to run the station and charge the storage 
unites.  This is not a life threatening problem, and they wish the crew to
make more measurements.  However, it was stated that they needed to bring
the crew down to talk to them after April 27th.  This is strange: one 
would think that it would be better to let the crew stay up and work on 
the problem, shipping up the repair materials they require by Progress 
tanker (crews have repaired the previous Salyut 7 station even without 
training for the work that they did).  
   General Vladimir Dzhanibekov (5 time cosmonaut) has been put in 
charge of a committee to study the situation and report what repairs can 
be done.  There is a certain irony here; in June '85 Dzhanibekov and Viktor
Savinykh flew up in Soyuz T-13 to try and save the crippled Salyut 7 space
station.  Again this was a power problem, with them needing to repair
the batteries of the station and directly connect them to the solar cells.
One can see the committee's report being present and then him being
told to go up there and save the station again.
   There have been some reports, especially a wire service article originating
from the Los Angles Times, that the station was being closed down for
economic reasons.  It is true that the next expansion module has been
delayed to the fall, so that would say the crew would be just holding
the fort until that time.  On the other hand, Pay Load Systems Inc. was
just about to do their crystal growth experiments on Mir.  If you are trying
to establish yourself in the business you would not close down the station
just when the first paying customer comes up.  My contacts there said they
new this delay was coming for the past week, but had no details. Also the 
Financial Times (London) reported on Apr. 3 that the British have just bought 
a Mir visit for 1991 at the cost of 15 million pounds ($25 million).  The 
contract was to be signed during General Secretary Gorbachev's visit to 
the UK (though the BBC short wave announced it was signed on Apr. 12th).  
A company called Britain in Space was created to run this project and the
money as donated from private sources.  Note, this is a private not a 
government contract.  Considering that the Austrians and French already 
have contracts for such missions to Mir, while a Japanese journalist 
contract is about to be signed, the argument that the Soviet program is being 
scaled back to reduce costs seems rather strange.  At the same time as the 
LA article appeared the report on Radio Moscow was stating how space 
activities had returned 1.5 billion roubles (about $400 million) to their 
economy so far this year in the commercial area alone.  
    All of this suggests that there are difficulties on Mir and the Soviets
have decided to remove the crew.  This is most sensible if the power problems 
means the crew could be in danger, while not allowing worthwhile activities
to occur.  Combined with the delay in the expansion modules, which certainly
will not be launched if there are difficulties on the station, 
the crew is coming down, leaving the station unmanned for the next few 
months.  It does not seem that suddenly the Russians have come to the
conclusion that manned activities do not pay, as these western press
report would have us believe.  Mean while the US House Appropriations
Committee is voting on the transfer of $600 million in 1988 year funds 
from the NASA space station budget to the Veterans Administration.
There certainly are those that want to convince the public that
manned activities should be abandoned.

                                            Glenn Chapman
                                            MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 10:04:01 MST
From: mc%miranda.uucp@moc.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Mike Caplinger)
Subject: Jobs on Mars Observer Camera project

------ message #1 -----
In 1992, the United States will launch the Mars Observer spacecraft to
conduct an extensive survey of Mars from low polar orbit. One of its
instruments, the Mars Observer Camera (MOC), will be the most advanced
imaging experiment ever flown on a planetary mission.  The MOC
consists of three optical systems -- a narrow-angle camera that will
take pictures at about 1.5 meter/pixel resolution (8 to 80 times
better than the best Viking photos) and dual wide-angle cameras that
will map the entire planet in two colors at lower resolution.  The
instrument is controlled by a set of custom gate arrays and an
NS32C016 microprocessor, with 12 megabytes of RAM for image storage.
The MOC is being designed and built by a small team of faculty, staff,
and contractors associated with Arizona State University and Caltech.

We are presently staffing the MOC software development group at ASU.
Our primary activity over the next three years is to build the MOC
Ground Data System (GDS), which will almost completely automate
planning, operations, and data management for the MOC.  The GDS will
allow scientists to target observations interactively, using an image
database containing mapping products and all the pictures taken by
Viking.  It will then automatically schedule these observations and
translate them into MOC commands for transmission to the spacecraft,
as well as reconstruct and archive returned images and monitor
instrument telemetry.  During the mission, MOC operations will be
entirely and autonomously controlled at ASU using 56Kb network
connections to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.

In addition, starting in 1990 we will be responsible for maintenance
of the MOC flight software, and after launch, for the development of
science analysis tools for use by the MOC science team.

We are looking for a software engineer to work on all of these
activities.  The ideal candidate will be a generalist -- in the past
year, our work has spanned the spectrum from research in computer
vision, graphics, and AI expert systems to Unix device drivers and
low-level assembly language programming.  A strong academic background
and at least five years' experience in computer science are required;
an advanced degree is preferred.  Salary will be negotiable and
competitive with industry standards, but we want someone who is
primarily interested in this job for its own sake.  Opportunities to
participate in research both in computer science and planetary science
are available.  The position will be as a staff member at Arizona
State University and includes an excellent benefits package.

MOC facilities presently consist of a network of Sun workstations,
Macintosh personal computers, and a Pixar II image computer.  More
hardware will be acquired as the project continues.  We also have
access to the ASU Cray-1 supercomputer.

If you're interested and feel you're qualified, please mail a resume
with three references to

Dr. Michael Caplinger
Mars Observer Camera Project
Department of Geology
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-1404

Please mail a paper copy.  Do *not* reply to the sender of this
message, especially if you're reading it in netnews.  If you want to
email a copy in addition to the paper copy, please note the addresses
below.

If you have any questions, call me at (602) 965-5173 or send email to
mc@moc.jpl.nasa.gov (ARPA) or ucbvax!sun!sunburn!miranda!mc (UUCP).

------ message #2 -----
Mars Observer Camera Update (and plug for job offering)

It's been a couple of years since we put out a message about the Mars
Observer Camera (MOC), so we thought people might like to know its
status.  Also, we're plugging a job opportunity, listed in net.jobs
and various other places.  [the above notice -Ed]

Memory refresh: Mars Observer is the next U.S. mission to Mars.
Originally scheduled for a 1990 launch, it was postponed for two years
owing to launch vehicle problems (it was planned to be a Shuttle
launch).  Launch is now scheduled for September 16, 1992 aboard a
Titan III.  Arrival is in August 1993, operations begin November 1993
and continue for a full martian year (687 days).  Despite some serious
setbacks last year, MO still carries the most sophisticated remote
sensing package yet flown in space: a high sensitivity gamma ray
spectrometer to determine elemental composition, a thermal emission
spectrometer to determine mineral and rock composition, a
pressure-modulated infrared radiometer to map the pressure and
temperature field of the atmosphere, a laser altimeter capable of
measuring height differences of about 2 m over a 150 m footprint, a
magnetometer and electron reflectometer to search for and map martian
magnetic anomalies, a ultrastable radio oscillator to allow precision
spacecraft tracking to map gravity anomalies, and the camera.

The MOC is the most advanced camera yet flown to another planet.  It
consists of a 3.5 m focal length, f/10 telescope which, combined with
a custom CCD line array, provides better than 1.5 m per pixel from 360
km altitude.  Acquiring data at 40 Mbits/sec, the narrow angle camera
data passes through an ASIC for realtime image compression, and then
into a 12 Mbyte RAM buffer for storage and later playback to the
spacecraft data system.  Other gate arrays serve as communications
controllers.  All of this is under the control of a 32-bit
microprocessor (the NS32C016).  The wide angle cameras (11.5 mm focal
length, f/6.5 - one each optimized for blue and red wavelengths) have
horizon-to-horizon views of Mars, which allow daily global images to
be accumulated much like NOAA and DMSP weather satellites cover the
Earth.

The MOC engineering model is presently under construction.
Perkin-Elmer and Composite Optics, Inc. are assembling the optics and
graphite-epoxy structure.  The rad-hard gate arrays are being
manufactured at UTMC in Colorado Springs, and the custom CCDs at the
Ford Aeronutronics foundry in Newport Beach.  This will all be put
together at Caltech.  First electrons should flow through the thing in
late May, and full-up testing of the EM should begin by mid-summer.

Because of its electronics, the MOC has also been at the center of an
international agreement for joint Soviet/French/American operations at
Mars in 1995.  The Soviet Mars 94 mission will carry 2 to 4
French-made balloons with cameras.  An agreement has been reached to
fly a French radio receiver on Mars Observer to acquire data from
these balloons and to feed them into the MOC for processing and
downlink to Earth.  This will allow the return of almost an order of
magnitude more data than originally planned by the French and Soviets,
mostly pictures with resolutions approaching a few millimeters.

All of the experiment planning, operations, and analysis will be
performed remote from the traditional site of such activities, the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.  Each experiment, including the camera, will be
run autonomously by the Principal Investigator at his home
institution.  Developing the hardware/software system to do this the
sole responsibility of the PI.  We're now into the second year of our
four-year effort to put together an automated system that will allow two
to three people to do what has, in the past, required 20 to 40 people.
Take a look at our job ad if you're interested in more info on this
part of our work.

Well, that's the short summary.  Anyone interested in more 
information can contact:

Mike Malin (MOC Principal Investigator)
Dept. of Geology, Arizona State Univ., Tempe, AZ 85287-1404
malin@moc.jpl.nasa.gov (ARPA)
ucbvax!sun!sunburn!miranda!malin (UUCP)
asuipf::malin (SPAN)

or

Mike Caplinger (MOC Ground Data System Design Scientist)
Dept. of Geology, Arizona State Univ., Tempe, AZ 85287-1404
mc@moc.jpl.nasa.gov (ARPA)
ucbvax!sun!sunburn!miranda!mc (UUCP)
asuipf::mc (SPAN)

If you missed the job ad, look in Space Digest on ARPA or misc.jobs
or sci.space on Usenet, or mail to Mike Caplinger, addresses above.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 15:18:10 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probes - ZOND 2.

>From article <430@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca):
> I always thought that the Zond series was a potential lunar capsule, to      
> compete with Apollo, and when Apollo 11 landed, the series was allowed to
> 'die'.  What's the real story?

Zond is just Russian for 'probe'. There were really 2 series of spacecraft
using the Zond name, completely unrelated. Zond 1-3 were probes of the 
Venera-2 class, used for testing Mars and Venus probes in solar orbit.
They were built on the same spacecraft bus as Venera-2 to Venera-8 and Mars-1.
Zond 4-8 were modified Soyuz spacecraft assigned to the lunar program, and
(I think) called Zond just to confuse the issue.

Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 14:27:52 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Questions and Henry

In article <1989Apr11.023217.16622@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>More seriously, I am quite excited about both Magellan and Galileo.  They
>are basically the last big things out of the Apollo-era pipeline, with
>very little left in the pipe behind them... but they're nifty all the same.

    Disagree. After VOIR was cancelled in 81-82, Magellan was what they
managed to replace it with. This can hardly be called Apollo-era.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``One never knows... Deacon now wants to conduct population
      explosion tests *underground*.'' - Molester Mole

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #364
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Apr 89 08:29:48 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00795>; Fri, 14 Apr 89 06:11:09 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 14 Apr 89 06:10:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YYFO3qy00jZdI1kU85>;
          Fri, 14 Apr 89 03:42:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.MYFNgmy00UkZ4A0U4Y>;
          Fri, 14 Apr 89 03:18:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YFNfay00UkZI=z05A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 03:16:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #365

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 365

Today's Topics:
		    NSS Testemony House of Reps I
	       Re: Assaying likely asteroids from afar
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 04:29:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Testemony House of Reps I



************************************************************************
*                                                                      *
*    The following is a 300+ line text file, it would be advantagous   *
*    To down load it and read it on your local computer!               *
*                                                                      *
*    Description:  Charles Walker; National Space Society President    *
*                                  Former Shuttle Payload Specialist.  *
*    Congressional Testemony; April 2, 1989.                           *
*                                                                      *
*    Enjoy!                                Jordan Katz                 *
*                                          NSS BBS Co-ordinator        *
*                                                                      *
************************************************************************

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the subcommittee:

	Thank you for this opportunity today to express the hopes,
dreams and aspirations of the National Space Society before this
hearing on the institutional issues facing the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. The Space Society is a growing
organization, representing the shared vision of upwards of 25,000
members and 125 chapters primarily situated here in the United
States. 

	The National Space Society is a family of organizations which
includes the non-profit educational `mothership', NSS; the
grassroots lobby, Spacecause; and the political action committee
Spacepac. 

	So you can see that space advocates are beginning to organize
in much the same fashion as many other politically astute advocacy
groups have done in the past. Space activists are determined to
become major players on the public policy stage. 

	Our vision is clear: to create a spacefaring civilization
which will establish communities beyond the Earth; to promote the
exploration and economic development of space; and to advocate the
opening of the space frontier.

	One step to realize this vision -- a vision common not only
among our members but, we believe, this nation as a whole -- is
that the National Space Society fully supports the 1990 Bush
Administration budget request for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration of $13.3 billion.

	The message, then, that the Space Society's members wish
delivered to the members of this subcommittee and your colleagues
throughout Congress is not one laden with technological arguments
or of budgetary wizardry. It is a message, plain and simple, in
the tradition of the American dream and the American spirit - we
believe that United States must be a leader on the space frontier,
or it will cease to be the great hope for human liberty and
freedom.

	Public opinion polls and the National Commission on Space,
heard our citizenry clearly articulate their common vision of an
open frontier in space...they want Americans in space...carrying
out a human adventure...pushing expansion as an economic necessity.


	As to the frequent calls for another review of our nation's
goals in space or a study on our space program -- we call for a
moratorium on the like. This nation's goals in space were stated
succinctly in the President's National Space Policy Directive. What
is needed is an integrated strategy to achieve those goals, Such
as was delineated by the National Commission on Space. The nation
should quickly develop that strategy and get on with our nation's
destiny in space. 


	Further delay only exacerbates the many problems we very
likely would experience as a second-rate space power. The long term
consequences of our near-term decisions dictate that we justify
funding for the civil space program.

	We wish to submit to you that the United States can no longer
afford to weigh social programs against the attributes of the space
program. Our space enterprise is a social program...it benefits our
society by providing jobs. It promotes the general welfare and
secures our freedoms. It challenges our creative instincts. And it
harnesses our esprit de corps to transform space into, not only a
medium for exploration, but as a locale for business and commerce.

	As you know, the United States has been engaged in exploring
and utilizing space for over three decades. To assist you in
gauging just what that thirty years means in terms of productivity
and jobs for the country, I would like to call your attention to
a recently issued study by the NASA Alumni League.

	According to the report, which, incidentally will be updated
with 1990 estimates on April 20th, NASA procurement expenditures
in 1987 immediately generated 210,000 private-industry jobs and
twice as much business activity as the agency spent within a year.
The space agency's 1987 $8.6 billion procurement resulted in $17.8
billion in sales within private industry, including over $2 billion
in corporate profits and $5.6 billion in Federal, state and local
government tax revenues. 

	Space agency spending, for example, created significantly more
blue-collar and lesser-skilled jobs than it did for the scientists
and engineers traditionally associated with space activities.

	This report clearly demonstrates that in terms of industry
sales and jobs every state benefits substantially from the U.S.
Space Program: indeed, most of these benefits went to states other
than those receiving the prime contract awards. The biggest state
"winners" include many that few analysts perceive as being closely
tied to the Program, such as New Jersey, Arizona, Kansas, Illinois,
Tennessee, Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina.

	Among the major conclusions of this study are:

	o	The total (direct plus indirect) economic and
employment benefits are between two and three times larger than is
usually assumed, and are much more pervasive than is generally
recognized.

	o	The major beneficiaries--specific industries,
		occupations, and states--include many which have
		heretofore not been linked closely to the Space Program
		or to NASA procurement.

	o	The 1987 NASA procurement had a multiplier effect on
 		the economy of 2.1 for the entire nation, and 14 states
		had a multiplier effect of 2 to 1 or greater, ranging
		from 12.1 in Indiana to 2.2 in New Jersey.


	This type of analysis, while based on well established and
validated economic methodology, has never before been applied to
the U.S. Space Program or to the NASA budget. The findings of this
study are crucial for emphasizing the total (direct + indirect)
economic benefits of NASA Programs to the nation as a whole and to
individual states and cities...in defending NASA budget
requests...and in justifying increased Federal spending for an
ambitious Space Program during the 1990s.


	In broader terms, opening the frontier of space repeats in
many ways the historical uncertainties that surrounded previous
explorations in this country.

	Recall the epic journey of Lewis and Clark, the acquisition
of new land through the Louisiana Purchase, or the investment
needed for that "frozen wasteland" called Alaska, better known in
history books as "Seward's Folly". 

	Since earliest times, expansion into new regions are met by
skepticism and uncertainty of value, potential for high risk, and
fortitude required to tame an unknown environment.

	Today, space represents a new competitive territory for
commercial opportunity. New goods and services for people here on
Earth can be derived from space commerce. Tapping the unique vantage
point of space can lead to prospecting for new energy sources, and
better stewardship of our globe's delicate biosphere.
	
	Further, the vacuum and microgravity found in Earth orbit may
lead to improved manufacturing processes or techniques to produce
superior electronic components to life-saving pharmaceuticals.

	Simply put, given the pioneering spirit that opened up
previous frontiers, in this our newest arena economic expansion may be
as unbounded as space itself.


	The Space Society also wishes to suggest a political framework
for space supporters - NASA programs complement domestic and
international initiatives of both the Administration and the Congress.
In areas as diverse as the environment, education, economic
competitiveness, and international cooperation issues, NASA and our
nation's fledgling commercial interests can and should play a key
role. We urge you to make this point a part of the political dialogue.


	The Space Society notes the gathering support for Mission to
Planet Earth as an objective for the country's space program. My
own experiences, accumulated during three Shuttle missions, have
greatly strengthened my kinship with this exquisite Earth. 
	
	The Earth moves in space, clearly a spaceship itself. The
atmosphere is a thin blue halo at the edge of the Earth's sphere.
The seas and oceans are jewel-like with deep blue azure and green.
And the land: infinitely textured, covered with green life, ruddy
sands or white snow. But there are signs of concern. The skies are
stained and smeared by haze. Rivers and seas are discolored with
the silt from forest-cleared land.

	Our home planet is showing visible wear - we must understand
better the interrelationships of man and the Earth's environment
on a global scale.

	We strongly urge this subcommittee to assist in the
implementation of a multi-agency plan to globally sense our
environment and better evaluate the stresses and strains placed on
our planet by our species. Our planet is painfully overdue for an
examination.

	Indeed, we should not only implement an international, global
health check of our world, but we must maintain systematic, ongoing
programs to evaluate the condition of our planet. 

	The rescue of the Landsat program from an illogical early
demise was applauded by our members, and we hope that a long-term
solution can be found for its funding problems.

	There can be no end to Mission: Earth...we must maintain our
earthbound "launching pad" while we peer spaceward. When celestial
travelers from Earth return to the planet after a long voyage in
the distant future, they should find their home planet as pristine
as when they departed.

	
	Early this year in Phoenix, I had the pleasure of co-chairing
with our Board of Governors Chairman, Hugh Downs, a meeting of the
Society's Board members and invited dignitaries. 

	At that meeting, comprised of individuals from various walks
of life...including an artificial intelligence expert to present
and former members of Congress, a movie producer and actress to
space scientists and an Apollo moonwalker...we crafted a document
which observed that humankind is, indeed, entering a new era of
dramatic exploration and discovery. Humanity's very future will
depend on human exploration of our Solar System.


	More importantly, this group declared that we have studied
far too long where we can go in space. We must now embark on the
grand adventure that awaits by initiating a "Decade of Doing." 

	But let me offer some specific objectives. The National Space
Society considers as paramount the Space Station Freedom project
and a concurrent Mission: Earth program. We wish to enumerate a
long-term civil space goal:

	The expansion of the human presence and activity beyond Earth
orbit into the Solar System. Establishment of a permanent return
to the Moon as the next major step after the Space Station Freedom
would support eventual human missions to Mars and beyond.

	The Space Society sees this goal as a necessary step on the
way to opening the space frontier. From such a permanent lunar
outpost, the Moon's resources can be processed to help reduce the
cost of space exploration and development. Processed oxygen,
derived from lunar soil, can accelerate the rate at which future
frontiers could be developed. The lunar base would also assist the
opening of Mars and its valuable moons by testing and improving
space-related equipment and techniques for long duration human
space exploration. Lunar development is, in the long-term, the most
effective way to explore and develop the entire Solar System for
the benefit of all humankind.

	The establishment of the Lunar objective will set in motion
our governmental space expertise, unleash the creative and
innovative talent found in our industries, universities, and
colleges, and space the imagination of our youth who hunger for
the knowledge that America has a future is space.


	By clarifying our objectives in space -- in great measure, by
adopting the 1986 recommendations of the National Commission on
Space -- we build upon thirty years of space experience. This year
alone, Americans will be witness to privately funded space
launchings; a fly-by of the mysterious planet Neptune by our 
Voyager II interplanetary probe; the launchings of the Magellan
probe to Venus and the Galileo spacecraft to Jupiter; and the
deployment above the Earth of the historic Hubble Space Telescope.

	The anchoring in space of the Hubble Space Telescope deserves
special attention. In many ways, the Space Telescope is not a
telescope at all. It is a microscope : the Universe can be explored
in the most minuscule of detail. Hubble is also a time machine to
further our knowledge of our cosmic origins and perhaps our
cosmological destiny. Its light gathering power and host of
sensitive equipment will enable us to explore the possibility of
other planets circling distant stars.


	In summary, space exploration and development is part and
parcel of America's future. The benefits of becoming a spacefaring
civilization are economic, educational, environmental, political,
social and spiritual. What we learn as humanity ventures into space
can provide new perspectives on the global environment and bestow
both domestic and international benefits for the well-being of
all.	

	To repeat: the greatest spinoff of the space program is not
the tangible: teflon, and Tang and jobs. Nor is it the intangible:
the promise of pharmaceuticals or faster computers. 

	No, the greatest spinoff of the space program is its
uniqueness as the vehicle to our future in space, the next
frontier.

	An underlying message we would like to leave with you today
is for the members of the Congress to utilize the resources of the
new space advocates -- the National Space Society - as a trumpeter
of national opinion.Call upon us as advocates for what you and the
people believe.

	Through our family of organizations we can help this
subcommittee communicate with other members of Congress in shaping
our nation's space endeavor. National Space Society's leadership
and our entire membership are communicating the importance of space
to all levels of society, from the halls of the Congress to schools
and meetings in communities across the country and the world.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 16:32:26 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!i.cc.purdue.edu!f3w@purdue.edu  (Mark Gellis)
Subject: Re: Assaying likely asteroids from afar

I found the recent articles about using lasers at long range to investigate
asteroids very interesting.  A shame about the treaty that prevents us 
from using such a device...or does it?

I think it would be legitimate to redefine the bomb used to power the laser
(please correct me if I am getting any details wrong) as a "power source"
rather than a weapon; after all, a weapon is something that can be used
against someone else and this device is not a nuclear explosive designed
for attacking people and territory.  As for the laser itself, is the treaty
a ban on all nuclear devices or simply nuclear bombs; if the latter, a
"nuclear laser" would not be covered anyway, now would it?

Plus, if we simply fired this thing at the asteroid and got our information,
and no one was hurt because it had, in fact, been used as a scientific
instrument and not a weapon (that is, we present the Soviets with a fait
accompli) what are they going to do about it?  Complain to the UN?  They'll
look stupid and they know it.  Fire their own lasers at other asteroids
to prevent an "asteroid gap"?  Good!  More data will come in and we will
all know more about the asteroids.  Use it as an excuse to build their
own nuke weapons in space?  Possibly, but then WE would have a legitimate
right to complain to the UN and, besides, for the time being, the Soviets
want to build their economy, not new weapons, so as long as we did not
present a threat (which might be achieved by immediately sharing all
data we get about the asteroids with them, or something like that), we
could probably get away it.

Any thoughts on this?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #365
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Apr 89 09:10:42 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00994>; Fri, 14 Apr 89 07:37:03 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 14 Apr 89 07:36:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYFPVBy00Ui3A2105R>;
          Fri, 14 Apr 89 05:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.UYFPRLy00UkZIA:U5W>;
          Fri, 14 Apr 89 05:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <wYFPQ2y00UkZ8A904F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 05:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #366

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 366

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
			Re: Space terminology
		   Re: space news from Feb 20 AW&ST
	     Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)
			   On sun blocking
			    Re: Empty Mir?
	      UFOs (Aliens), mir, and our space station
		  Re: U.S. vs Soviet space stations
	    Re: Soviets will suspend manned space program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 13:07:27 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!draken!chalmers!tekno.chalmers.se!f86_lerner@uunet.uu.net  (Mikael Lerner)
Subject: Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons

In article <2888@daisy.UUCP>, wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) writes:
> < > As luck would have it, last night's NOVA episode was on exactly
> < > this topic.  The outfit in Sweden found methane, but not enough
> < > to make the well viable at this time.  They said that the gas
> < > had been verified as being of non-biological origin, but they
> < > didn't explain how they had verified this.
> < 
> < 	Please, notice the word 'digging'! The drill hasn't stopped
> < 	yet! Almost a kilometer of drilling remains. The goal is
> < 	7500 m, where the large amounts of gas is thought to be found.
> 
>  When do they expect to finish the hole? Are they finding more/less
>  gas/oil than expected? Sources?
> 

	In July if everything works well. It probably won't. The bottom
	of the hole has been redrilled 4 or 5 times by now due to all
	problems...

	They have found significant amounts of gas, which seems to
	originate from the interior of Earth. BUT, it is far from
	beeing commercial, and I doubt that this will change when
	they finish. The idea right now is that there is a
	layer of compact rocks at approximately 7500 m and that
	the gas accumulates below this layer. Seismological measure-
	ments indicate that there is such a layer. However, these
	measurements have also pointed out several possible layers
	at lower depth, but no gas has shown up yet. The rocks are so
	crushed that the gas slowly coming from below, probably
	finds its way up to the surface at the same rate.

	The hole will probably show that Gold was right ( :-) ), but it
	will probably not suply Sweden with cheap gas... ( :-< )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikael Lerner                               "This is the way the world ends,
F86_Lerner@tekno.chalmers.se                 not with a bang, but a whimper."
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden                      T.S. Eliot

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 89 18:13:54 EDT
From: R3CGD%AKRONVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU

Hi there,

     Gentlemen and ladies, a story from the real world.  I am student
teaching in a high school of students ranging from lower lower class to
upper middle class.  While observing a lower track science course, I
overheard the following during a unit on solar energy, "You mean that
there are places on the earth where it's, like, dark and people are, like
, sleeping?"  This kind of question isn't too far removed from the norm.
It is easy to forget that the common individual is highly misinformed when
you spend a great deal of time in higher education or research.

     The state of education is in dire straits but not entirely due to bad
educators.  After student teaching I am blameing it on braindead students.

                                    Chip Dawes
                                    R3CGD@AKRONVM

Disclaimer:  I don't work for anyone, so my boss can't get into trouble for
            any thing I say

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 00:49:37 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!pt@uunet.uu.net  (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <16627@electron.mips.COM> jimiii@mips.COM (Jim Warford) writes:
>In article <3634@sdsu.UUCP> frost@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Frost) writes:
>>
>>Although utility companies are required to by any excess power you generate
>>[discussion of expensed you would incur]
>I believe you also have to provide 1 million dollars in liability insurance


Wait a minute here!  Aren't we forgetting something? If people are going
to put fusion reactors in their back yards, what the heck is the power
company going to need to buy you power for?  Sure, the law in some
states requires the utility to buy back power, but who are they going to
sell it to?

"For sale, 2 bedroom condo, must sell, can't fit a fusion reactor in the
closet"
-- 
Paul Tomblin,  First Officer, Golgafrinchan B Ark       | PANIC - Bad Neuron
    UUCP:   nrcaer!cognos!geovision!pt ??               | address list.
    Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here aren't      | "My brain hurts"
    necessarily even mine!                              |

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 04:24:49 GMT
From: blake!wiml@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: Space terminology

In article <2323@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> acu@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Floyd McWilliams) writes:
>	If an object is in orbit around a larger body, that object is
>called a "satellite."  So what is the larger body called?

   The larger body is called the "primary" ...

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 07:40:17 GMT
From: cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Charles Daffinger)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 20 AW&ST

In article <1989Apr12.030151.7181@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Pratt&Whitney offers various upgrades for the RL10 engine to Centaur
>customers; business is booming.  Some of the upgrades are derived
>from work done on the late, lamented Shuttle-Centaur program.
>

What was the Shuttle-Centaur program, and why did it croak?




-charles
-- 
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  (812) 339-7354
cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu              {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Apr 89 22:48 CST
From: Scott Hess <SCOTT%GACVAX1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)

}In article <Added.MY_DYiy00Ui3Q=lE8q@andrew.cmu.edu> CALVIN@JHUIGF.BITNET (Why
} is there only one Monopolies Commission?) writes:
}>I mean, maybe the moon has some effect on noctournal animals, but if you're
}>trying to defend the age-old astrologer's "the moon effects the tides, and
}>they're water, and since the human body is 98% water, the moon must affect
}>people" argument, then I would really love to see some data on that.
}
}Not to lend any support to pseudo-science, but an interesting thing to look
}at in this respect is the police blotter of any large urban area on the
}night of a full moon.  I have heard the same story from several police
}officers here in Pittsburgh - craaazy things happen when there's a full
}moon, not just your run-of-the-mill stabbings and domestic violence, but
}the truly bizzarre.  Of course, this is probably purely subjective - people
}see a full moon and all their inhibitions go out the window, but an
}interesting phenomenon nonetheless.
}--
}Jim Benz              jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem

OR, More than likely, they see these weird happenings, and notice there's
a full moon. Probably not too noticable if you go at the end of the year
and look where there was a full moon, and also elsewhere, for weird things.
If there is a correlation, could it be the increased visibility? If its
dark out, nobody will see you doing weird things, and most weird things
are done for attention (subconcious, maybe).

Scott Hess,
<Scott@Gacvax1.bitnet>

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Apr 89 22:59 CST
From: Scott Hess <SCOTT%GACVAX1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  On sun blocking

Using sun blocking films, or whatnot, would take a LOT of material. Hopefully,
before the time comes when we need it, we can manufacture it at the place
its needed (space). could also make much better stuff, I assume, if we use
all the neato effects null gravity is supposed to give. To take care of the
size problems, maybe the whole thing could be moved in closer to the sun? I
can foresee problems, tho, because to keep it in time with the earth, it
would have to be a forced orbit. Maybe we can use sun blockers like in
Larry Niven's Ringworld (if we could do that ...)

Scott Hess,
<Scott@Gacvax1.bitnet>

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 18:25:47 GMT
From: aero!venera.isi.edu!rogers@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Craig Milo Rogers)
Subject: Re: Empty Mir?

from the Los Angeles Times, Wed 12 Apr 89, Part I page 10:

	In Sign of Budget Crubch, Soviets Will Shut Space Lab

"MOSCOW -- The Soviet Union's three-year-old orbiting space station
Mir will be evacuated at the end of this month and mothballed, Soviet
authorities disclosed Tuesday amid indications that the Kremlin is
sharply scaling back its ambitious space program."

	Summary of the rest of the article:

1)	The cosmonauts on board are deactivating and mothballing Mir.
	The 19 Apr 89 replacement crew is canceled.

2)	Mir add-on modules are postponed.

3)	The shutdown may be linked to attempts to reduce the Soviet
	Union's $160 billion deficit this year, as well as popular
	disenchantment with the space program.

4)	The Soviet manned space program has been strongly criticized
	by the Soviet Academy of Sciences as expensive and unproductive.

5)	Consumer goods production will take a higher priority role
	in Soviet planning.  "Mars, Venus, the stars will be there
	10 years from [now], just as they are today."

6)	Mir's shutdown may be linked to the failure of the Phobos
	probes.


	So much for the content of the LA Times article.  Here's
speculation on my part:  the Soviet manned space program was precariously
supported, and a primary goal was developing technology for a manned Mars
expedition, say by 2017.  Failure of the Phobos probes required that
the Mars expedition be postponed, hence manned adaptation work in Mir is
no longer high priority.  On the other hand, there may have been a
failure with Mir itself, as was implied by Glenn Chapman's message.

	Of course, this probably means that the $10 million "tourist
class" reservations are cancelled.

	I believe that the Mir shutdown is a major blow to the US
pro-NASA manned space community, as it eliminates the "keeping up with
the Joneses" argument.  It will be much more difficult to defend the
budget for the NASA space station now.  Jim Bowery, rejoice.

					Craig Milo Rogers

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Apr 89 17:29 CST
From: Scott Hess <SCOTT%GACVAX1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  UFOs (Aliens), mir, and our space station

on UFOs (aliens)

>article <7767@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) says:
>% Xref: nsc sci.space:10525 rec.ham-radio:1611 talk.rumors:915
> misc.headlines:12001
>% In article <355@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>%>Ah, but who said they would want to contact the US government!   :->
>%>("Wellcome, Comrad Alien")
>%>--
>% Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on
>% Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
>% Earth.  Compared to the U.S., the Soviet Union is third-rate, at best.
>
> Assumming of course that the aliens believe paving over the earth is a sign
>of an advanced civilization and not a sign of a very primative culture.
>
> Ken-

Very good point. An optimistic view of our future sees us controlling the
population explosion (yeah, right), and also our wanton environmental
destruction, and getting back to basics, in a new way. Say we got transfer-
booths (Star Trek, here we come). If they were simple enough, and robust
enough, we could move our houses anywhere, raising the population in most
areas, but cuttin down on the concentrations. Hopefully cutting down on
pollution also. Maybe, on the surface, we'd appear to have an agratarian
society, while actually, we would have to be plus plus advanced.

Mir and our space station

>This seems like the best reason for bringing Salyut 7 down
>in one bit. Taking it apart in a laboratory back on Earth
>will provide the Soviets with a lot of very valuable
>information on how materials and machinery wear and
>deteriorate during long term exposure to conditions in orbit.
>
>Build for a short lifetime, analyse anything that goes
>wrong, re-design, re-build. That seems to be the usual
>Soviet space exploration technique.
>
>Contrast with the NASA method of a designing the space
>station to have a 30 year life expectancy, using new alloys
>and plastics, none of which have had any long term exposure
>to conditions in orbit.
>    Bob.

It looks like the main difference is in outlook. We comp. sci. people get
told again and again that engineers don't just build a bridge and hope it
works. It has to works the first time. Meanwhile, software tends to get
built incrementally. First, a working version is built and then its added
on to. This has its advantages and disadvantages, most of which are hard
to tell which they are. The main reason engineers can build a bridge the
first time and have it work at all is that there are proven bridge-building
rules, tested over thousands of years. The environment, while not perfectly
known, is pretty much a constant and can be planned for. When programming
computers, one must plan for every possible outcome, because some idiot
(read as novice user, ie: not the original programmer) will come along and
crash it, along with 3 months of irreplacable data. But, I don't see any
rules for the users coming along in the near future. Maybe 1,000 yrs from
now ... :)

Anyway, the way I see it, we haven't got any rules for building in space,
and at the rate we're going its going to take a while to get any. So
prototyping spacestations/craft is the way to go. NASA could put together
their 10**n (where n->infinity) dollar spacestation, and have it not work
any longer than Mir II, a conglomeration of components. Or better yet, design
this thing and end up continually adding to it in the prototyping tradition
anyway.

Scott Hess,
<Scott@Gacvax1.bitnet>

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 13:52:51 GMT
From: mailrus!shadooby!accuvax.nwu.edu!tank!shamash!com50!questar!dave@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: U.S. vs Soviet space stations

In article <7904@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
> What wondrous capabilities is New Mir expected to have that Freedom won't?
> From what I have heard of the Novy Mir project (which, admittedly isn't much,
> it sounds like another tin can station, or perhaps two tin cans stuck together

Two tin cans in space are worth one gold brick on the ground.

> Again, assuming no further delays (I can always hope), I feel fairly sure that
> our station will be better.  As to the contractors, there is a difference 
Mir proved they can continuously operate a tin can for years and they now know
alot more than NASA about what would make a nifty space station.  The
Novy Mir can be expected to be much better at its mission than our Gold Brick.


> And again, and again, and again...ad nausaeum.
at least they do try again and again. what would happen to NASA's
planetary budget if it had a couple spectacular failures?  Without its
string of spectacular successes in planetary stuff would the program
even exist?
-- 
David Becker 
and another bug bites, and another bug bites   another bug bites the dust
db@kolonel.MN.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 22:44:29 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Soviets will suspend manned space program

In article <12284@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, yee@scam.berkeley.edu (Peter Yee) writes:
> 	In an abrupt turnabout on its premier space achievement, the Soviet
> Union has decided to suspend its manned space program at the end of this
> month, apparently for economic reasons.
> 
     Wow.  But whatever the balance sheet may say, I seriously doubt the 
Soviets will stay on the ground for long.  A lot of the Soviet's prestige
in the last couple of years has come from their manned space activities, and
I seriously doubt they want to give it up.  Besides, the hard currency brought
in from flying foreign missions is important to the Soviet economy.

Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #366
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Apr 89 05:32:25 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03877>; Sat, 15 Apr 89 03:05:25 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 15 Apr 89 03:05:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wYFgFKy00Ui3E1yUNv>;
          Sat, 15 Apr 89 00:26:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.8YFg=Zy00UkZ40kk53>;
          Sat, 15 Apr 89 00:19:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <UYFg-Gy00UkZ80jE5Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 89 00:18:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #367

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 367

Today's Topics:
	      Version of Fleischmann&Pons paper in troff
		       Space News Apr 13, 1989
       United Nations : Debate on Sharing Outer Space Benefits
			      Empty Mir?
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
			     USA vs. USSR
			 Magellan Fact Sheet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 14:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 1012+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Version of Fleischmann&Pons paper in troff

I also have a version of the Fleischmann&Pons paper available in troff format
which includes the equations and tables.  It is quite a good job done by Dermot
Harriss (dgharriss@watmath.waterloo.edu).  It is available via ftp from his
machine or if you can't reach there, I can mail you a copy.  His original
message follows; if you need a copy by netmail send a note to
space-request@andrew.cmu.edu and specify TROFF format.
        Ted Anderson

> *Excerpts from mail.fusion: 13-Apr-89 Fleischmann & Pons paper in.. Dermot G.*
> *Harriss@watmat (471)*
> Troff source for the pre-publication revision of the paper submitted by
> M. Fleischmann & S. Pons to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on
> March 11/20, may be obtained via anonymous ftp from watmath.waterloo.edu
> (129.97.128.1) in ~ftp/cold-fusion/fp.t or from watmsg.waterloo.edu
> (129.97.129.9) in ~ftp/pub/cold-fusion/fp.t
> Includes the three figures.  To format, you need the eqn, tbl, & pic
> pre-processors, and the `ms' macro package.
> Cheers,
>                                                       -- Dermot

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 15:36:00 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space News Apr 13, 1989


Jonathan's Space Report

Apr 13, 1989 (No. 11)


The Soyuz TM-8 mission to Mir has been cancelled. The Soyuz TM-7
crew will land on Apr 27 leaving the Mir station unpiloted for
the first time in over two years.

The STS-30 mission is still scheduled for Apr 28.

Kosmos-2007, launched on Mar 23, is an advanced digital imaging
spy satellite operated by the GRU.

Kosmos-2016, launched on Apr 4, is a navigation satellite.

Kosmos-184, one of the early Meteor weather satellites launched
into a 600 km orbit in 1967, reentered in early April after
20 years of atmospheric drag had reduced its altitude to only
150 km.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 04:30:45 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: United Nations : Debate on Sharing Outer Space Benefits


Ported to UseNET from UNITEX Network
                      201-795-0733
          via Rutgers FidoGATEway

     LEGAL SUB-COMMITTEE CONTINUES DEBATE ON SHARING OUTER SPACE BENEFITS 

PR   The Legal Sub-Committee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer 
Space continued consideration this morning of sharing the benefits of outer 
space, hearing statements by the representatives of the Federal Republic of 
Germany, Brazil, Austria, United States, Ecuador, Argentina, India, Chile,
Sweden, Soviet Union, France, Netherlands and Canada. 

     The representative of Austria submitted a proposal for establishing a
working group to deal with the question, pursuant to a 1988 General Assembly
resolution. 

     The Sub-Committee will continue its debate at its next meeting, at 3 p.m.
today.

     Outer Space Benefits 

     The Legal Sub-Committee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer 
Space this morning met to continue consideration of sharing the benefits of 
outer space.

     Statements 

     JURGEN REIFARTH (Federal Republic of Germany) said there was only a very 
small real demand for national space law; only space activities carried out by
private entities might require national legal provisions.  The Space Station
Agreement concluded by member States of the European Space Agency, the United 
States, Japan and Canada provided the basis for a genuine partnership and 
could serve as a model for future international co-operation in space and with
developing countries. 

     FLAVIO MIRAGAIA PERRI (Brazil) said the range of technological knowledge 
on space activities was large and diverse and reflected profound changes in 
other technologies.  The progress in this field had had revolutionary effects 
on humanity, but the gap between the countries possessing such advanced 
knowledge and the rest of the world had widened.

     The Committee's task should be to define a comprehensive new framework 
aimed at enhancing international co-operation to ensure a better distribution 
of scientific and technological knowledge among all nations, without
discrimination of any kind.  The Committee should take a realistic approach,
acknowledging the world as it existed and as it might be.  It must depart from
strict concepts of national interest in favour of an approach which emphasized
global interdependence.  While remaining cognizant of the matter of common
responsibility before mankind, it must review present privileges and rights 
with the aim of rectifying inequalities for the benefit of all.  The Committee
must consider legal aspects to the application of principles of space law with
those aims in mind. 

     With regard to international agreements relevant to the principle on 
space benefits, the Committee should extract from collective texts the
philosophical underpinnings of international co-operation.  The working groups
on that matter should work in an objective manner to keep their work positive,
constructive and non-confrontational. 

     PETER HOHENFELLNER (Austria) proposed a working group on the subject of
sharing outer space benefits consisting of a four-step approach.  First would 
be consideration of the national legal frameworks relating to the development 
of the application of the principles of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty in the
light of replies by Governments to the Secretary-General's request for their
views.  Second would be consideration of relevant international agreements. 
Member States would be requested to provide their views on that subject prior 
to the 1990 session of the Legal Sub-Committee. 

     The third step, he went on, would be consideration of the information
obtained by Member States and of the results of the Sub-Committee's review of 
the subjects in a working group, to be established not later than the 1991

session of the Sub-Committee.  Fourth, would be continued consideration of the
item in the working group until the Sub-Committee concluded that the
satisfactory outcome of the substantive deliberation had been achieved. 

     KENNETH HODGKINS (United States) said Austria's proposal closely tracked 
a proposal made by his own country, and he would give it full consideration.

     JOSE S. VALENCIA (Ecuador) saw the Committee's task as fruitful and
firmly grounded in international law and the Charter.  This was in the
interest of all States, and especially those of the developing countries. 
Legal machinery for the carrying out of this process was clearly defined and
should be implemented in a spirit of international co-operation.  Developing
countries today had limited space capability but there was an awakening of
interest in this area.  Ecuador supported the constructive work of the
Sub-Committee in the common interests of all mankind. 

     HOLGER MARTINSEN (Argentina) said countries without a developed space
industry had difficulty in having specific legislation related to the article 
of the 1967 Space Treaty which called for the free use and exploration of 
outer space.  Regarding priority on agenda items, it would be necessary to
begin a process of identifying the needs of States, and, in the areas where 
they had common interests, legal instruments could be elaborated to cover 
those needs.

     He said national needs could be deduced from the space plans being 
considered, including space science, remote sensing, natural resources, 
transmission of images and satellites.  The benefits from all those areas 
could be applied specifically in helping solve local and regional problems and
improve the standard of living in Argentina.

     Consideration of outer space benefits should be given the same importance
as the other items on the Sub-Committee's agenda, he went on.  While there
might be differences as to when the proposed working group should begin its 
work, there was unanimity concerning its establishment. 

     RAMA RAO (India) said the national legal framework study and the review
of international agreements were important components of the principles under 
consideration, but there were other aspects which required further study.  As 
a developing country committed to the peaceful uses of outer space, India 
called for the early establishment of a working group to study these issues.

     RAIMUNDO GONZALEZ (Chile) said he still had some doubts regarding the
Austrian proposal.  First of all, would it not lead to the elaboration of 
legal restraints?  Secondly, was there a deadline for the working group?  If
so, it was not good to make any pre-judgements along those lines. 

     The central concept of international co-operation was the main problem on
which attention should be focused, he continued.  It was emphasized both in 
the 1967 Space Treaty and in the United Nations Conference on the Exploration 
and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE 82).  States parties to the Treaty 
should carry out their outer space activities in conformity with international

law; there was a clear-cut distinction between international co-operation as a
legally binding obligation and international understanding or assistance.  The
rights of developing countries were clearly reflected in the Treaty and 
embodied in the agenda item under consideration.

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Crime Stoppers Against the New Age Hustle (1:107/501)

--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG


-- 
Patt Haring 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 89 09:28:58 EDT
From: Lee Brotzman <ZMLEB@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Subject:      Empty Mir?

   Chalk up another one for incomplete new stories...

   This morning, as I was struggling to come awake, I heard on the radio
(CBS Radio News feed) that when the current crew of the Mir space station
departs for the Earth, there will be no replacement, leaving Mir
unoccupied for the first time in two years.
   Now the part that I have trouble believing:  "The Soviet Union is
abandoning their manned space program because of budget problems."
(The quote is as close as my bleary ears can make it.)
   Can anyone confirm (a) that Mir will be temporarily empty, and/or (b) the
possibility that Mir will remain empty permanently or at least for
an extended period of time.
   Please no speculation, just hard information, preferably with sources
I can check for myself.  I would especially like to hear from Glenn Chapman,
if possible.

-- Lee Brotzman, ST Systems Corp.
-- Astronomical Data Center, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
-- BITNET:  ZMLEB@SCFVM      Internet: zmleb@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov
-- All of the above statements are the product of a deranged mind,
-- and as such, they should not be taken seriously.
--
-- Isn't cold fusion how eskimos are made?

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 15:21:11 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

>From article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP>, by rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik):
> Only governments can
> afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now.

Our news feed has been out for about 2 weeks. So I'm coming in to this
discussion without a lot of context. What research are you talking
about? I'm not aware of any research that needs to be done on ways to
put people in orbit.

In general I think the US space program suffers from an illness of
wealth and bureaucracy. We do thing the most expensive way possible
because we can afford to and it serves the bueacracy to do so.

			Bob P.
-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 89 18:22:25 CDT
From: Andy Edeburn <SEAG19%SDNET.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      USA vs. USSR

 Hey!  Isn't it kind of ridiculous to sit and attempt to compare the US
space program along with the Soviet program?  The programs are so entirely
different that any attempt at comparison is futile.  The plain and simple
truth is that the Soviets, even with out-dated technology, are miles ahead
of us in the exploration (or exploitation) of space.  I admit that FREEDOM
is a noble plan, but if it flies as late as the shuttle did, we'll be
waiting until the year 2000 for a permanent space station.  The idea is not
to compete with the Soviets, but to work with them.  Closed minds towards
the skies will close the skies.

-------------------------------------------
Andy Edeburn           BITNET: SEAG19@SDNET
Computing Center
South Dakota State University
Brookings, SD  57007
-------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 14:15:00 GMT
From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!mike@bellcore.com
Subject: Magellan Fact Sheet



			     MAGELLAN FACTS

The Magellan Spacecraft will be launched from Atlantis (STS-30).
The spacecraft will be sent by the Inertial Upper Stage on an
The selected trajectory has a heliocentric transfer angle slightly
greater than 540 degrees and requires 15 months of flight time.

Upon arrival at Venus in August 1990, the spacecraft will use its
solid rocket motor to get into an elliptical near-polar orbit
around Venus.  During a mapping period of 8 months, the Synthetic
Aperture Radar (SAR) will be used to obtain radar images of 70 to 
90% of the planet, with a resolution about ten times better than
that achieved by the Soviet's Venera 16 and 16 missions.

Precise radio tracking of the spacecraft will provide gravity    
information.  The resulting geological maps will permit the first
global geological analysis of the planet comparable to those that
have been done for the other planetary bodies of the inner solar
system.




		      Major Mission Characteristics

Launch Date:                        April 28 - May 24, 1989
Launch Vehicle:                     Shuttle/IUS
Interplanetary Cruise:              442-468 days
Venus Arrival:                      August 10, 1990
Mapping Orbit Period:               3.15 Hours
Radar Mapping:                      37 minutes/orbit
Mapping Orbit Inclination:          86 degrees
Superior Conjunction:               October 26 - November 9, 1990
End of Nominal Mission:             April 28, 1991
Data Gap Recoverable:               June 27, - July 10, 1991

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #367
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Apr 89 06:35:04 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00506>; Sat, 15 Apr 89 05:49:47 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 15 Apr 89 05:49:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oYFisfy00UkTA25UIJ>;
          Sat, 15 Apr 89 03:24:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.4YFimHy00UkZQ14E5s>;
          Sat, 15 Apr 89 03:17:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0YFilLy00UkZE12k4z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 89 03:16:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #368

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 368

Today's Topics:
     Myers' statement on Truly, Thompson nominations (ForwardeD)
			long ago and far away
	      Soviets will suspend manned space program
	    Re: Soviets will suspend manned space program
			 Re: Shuttle Centaur
			      Re: Ozone
			   Re: Bored public
		      RE: Hubble Space Telescope
		    Re: RE: Hubble Space Telescope
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 03:13:38 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Myers' statement on Truly, Thompson nominations (ForwardeD)

David W. Garrett                           April 12, 1989
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.


N89-31

NOTE TO EDITORS/PROGRAM DIRECTORS

MYERS' STATEMENT ON TRULY, THOMPSON NOMINATIONS

     Dale D. Myers, acting administrator, National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, made the following statement after 
President Bush's nomination of Radm. Richard H. Truly to be NASA 
administrator and J.R. Thompson to be deputy administrator.

     "I am delighted by President Bush's nomination of Dick Truly
to be the next Administrator of NASA.  During the past three 
years I have come to know Adm. Truly and his capabilities well.  
His experience and accomplishments demonstrate that he is well 
qualified to lead America's civil space program into a period of 
significant expansion of scientific, commercial and exploratory 
activities.

     "The new Administrator will be inheriting an organization of 
people who demonstrated anew their ability and determination by 
the way they recovered from the Challenger disaster and returned 
the nation to space flight. 

     "In nominating J.R. Thompson, who currently heads our 
Marshall Space Flight Center, to be the agency's deputy 
administrator, the President has created a superb team to guide 
NASA into the future.

     "All of my colleagues at NASA are delighted with these 
nominations."

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 17:30:25 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: long ago and far away

28 years ago today, April 12, Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space.

His successors are still using most of the hardware that got him there,
and very successfully too.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 19:45:53 GMT
From: pasteur!scam.berkeley.edu!yee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Peter Yee)
Subject: Soviets will suspend manned space program



[Disclaimer:  This represents personal input, and should not be construed as
official NASA policy or comment.  I'm typing in the following article so that
those folks who have been raising questions about the shutdown on Mir can get
some info from the regular news service. -PEY]

[Reprinted without permission.  Typographical errors are my fault -PEY]

Kathy Sawyer
The Washington Post

	In an abrupt turnabout on its premier space achievement, the Soviet
Union has decided to suspend its manned space program at the end of this
month, apparently for economic reasons.

	The decision was conveyed in an announcemet by the Soviet news agency
Tass that the space station Mir, the world's only permanently manned outpost
in space, will be left unmanned for the first time in more than two years after
the current, three man crew returns to Earth on April 27.

	Tass made no mention of a space mission scheduled for April 19 that
was to have sent two replacement cosmonauts to Mir.  That launch has apparently
been canceled.

	American space consultant and author James Oberg, an exper on the
Soviet space effot, called the Soviet decision a "stunning turnaround" for
space program that "was on such a roll two years ago.  They've been smacked
in the face with . . . Gobachev's need for short-term economic improvement."

	The decision, which followed days of rumors, came on the heels of the
Soviets' loss of two unmanned probes to Mars' moon Phobos, another high-
visibility and scientifically ambitious project, which cost $500 million and
involved scientists from 13 nations.

	It also come in the midst of an unprecedented push by the Soviets to
market their space services abroad.  Mir's fist commercial payload, an
American pharmaceuticals experiment, was to have flown aboard the space
station soon.

	No official reason has been given for the evacuation of Mir, but a
science writer for the Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda, Vladimir
Gubaryev, suggested last week that growing public criticism of the high cost
of space activity is a factor.

	During the recent political campaign to elect a revamped Soviet
legislature, political mavericks such as Boris Yeltsin, the ousted
Communist Party leader of Moscow, gained strong popular support for
advocating the need to divert resources from the space program toward
production or more and better quality consumer goods.

	"If they shut id down, they will some serious adverse press," said
Nicholas Johnson of Teledyne Brown Engineering in Colorado, who publishes
an annual report on the Soviet space program.

	But Johnson cautioned against drawing dramatic conclusions.  "Even
this, combined with the Phobos failure, is no worse than all the problems
they had last year.  The problem is with the perception.  These are their
two most visible program. . . .There's noeveidence to suggest the Soviet
program is in dire straits."

	Long-duration human space filght is one of the few areas in which
the Soviet Union holds an undisputed lead over the United States.  Mir --
the Russian word peace -- has been occupied continously for more than 800
days by a succession of crews, the first such permanently manned space
outpost in history.

	Analysts speculated that the Soviets have reached a "rational
decision" based on financial balance sheet that they should evacuate Mir
until at least one of two major additions being prepared for the station is
ready for launch, possibly late this year.  Those two modules, each the
size of the core station, would together double the size of Mir, Oberg
said.  Both have suffered preparation delays.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 03:33:19 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@rutgers.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Soviets will suspend manned space program

If the shuttle was still grounded, this would be disconcertingly
reminiscent of Gibson & Sterling's "Red Star, Winter Orbit."

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 16:10:57 GMT
From: roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Timothy Roberts)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Centaur


	In response to the question "what is shuttle centaur and why did it
die?" I say this:
	The shuttle Centaur project was to be a high energy upper stage for
the space shuttle allowing deep space probes and *very* heavy clark orbit
satellites to be launched from the shuttle payload bay.  The vehicle was 
actually little more than an expanded centaur upper stage from the Atlas
ELV with dumping capabilities to ensure safe shuttle landing weights.  The
fuel was hydrazine and highly caustic.  Thus (in the event of aborted take-
off) the fuel would have had to be dumped over uninhabited areas at low 
altitudes to prevent possible serious damage to the environment.  Then the
Challenger was destroyed and crew safety ruled out the use of the upper stage
altogether.  This may be one of the decisions that limits the shuttle to
use as something very different than its original designs.  Deep space probes
must now use the Inertial Upper stage and take ridiculous time periods to get
where they need to go.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 00:33:51 GMT
From: tektronix!psueea!parsely!agora!ihf1!hutch@uunet.uu.net  (Stephen Hutchison)
Subject: Re: Ozone

In article <16803@cup.portal.com> James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com writes:
:hutch@ihf1.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) writes:
:>Could some kind person clarify this for me?  I've been told by an
:>acquaintance who I would expect to have some knowledge of chemistry,
:>that the Ozone layer gets rebuilt at night (since catalysts work both
:>ways) and that it may actually be rebuilt somewhat in excess of the
:>day's losses.  Has anyone tested this?
:
:     The ozone layer is produced by the action of ultraviolet light on
:oxygen in the upper atmosphere.  Thus, it is replenished during daylight,
:not at night.  

That's what I thought the model was.  Has it been verified?  CAN it be
verified?

:     I don't know what you mean by "since catalysts work both
:ways".  First of all, not all catalysts work "both ways", and secondly
:(if I may assume that you are referring to "catalytic" destruction of
:ozone by chloride radicals) the process by which chloride radicals (from
:chloroflourocarbons) destroy ozone would definitely not be occur in the
:reverse spontaneously.

I am quoting my acquaintance; I have no reason to think that catalysts
have any universally consistent behaviour.  Other than catalyzing.
I will remain skeptical of the claims pending more concrete information.

:Jim Kowalczyk
:Kowalczyk@chemistry.utah.edu
:
:[What a cross-post!  Only group missing was sci.chem :-) 
I posted as a follow-up to "Greenhouse effect" - see the massive References:
line in the header? - anyway, I forgot to trim the Newsgroups: line.  

Hutch

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 01:01:15 GMT
From: sco!joed@uunet.uu.net  (Joe Di Lellio)
Subject: Re: Bored public

In article <Added.sYC327y00UkT0Wc09Z@andrew.cmu.edu> SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET (Scott Hess) writes:

[stuff about people being afraid of technology]

I'm afraid I agree completely. There is quickly developing a huge majority
of people who not only know little about technical related subjects, but are
downright proud of it. I'm still a student at UCSC (well, sort of;>), and I 
know of several non-science major types (as well as a few soft science types
[like ecology or sociology] who should _not_ have this attitude) who brag 
about it. It's being considered popular, even healthy, attitude to have.

Its things like this that really scare me. Seeing Joe Average have an aversion
to these things is painful, but acceptable. Having a sociologist know nothing
about statistics, or an ecologist who "doesn't DO chemistry and math", spooks
the hell out of me. We might as well go back to checking chicken entrails and 
tea leaves.

-Joe Di Lellio, just lacking a .sig for the moment.

P.S. The above mentioned eco major is the same one who dislikes (if we ever
     had the reason for it) dumping nuke waste into the sun, since "it will
     all come back to us in the solar wind", or in deep space, since "there's
     only so much space out there".

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 17:57:05 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: RE: Hubble Space Telescope

There was a posting a few days back concerning the Hubble Space Telescope
concerning its possible use as a recon satellite.

I posted a response saying a KH-12 was probably better for the purpose,
and got some (friendly) mail over it with a few comments.  I replied
that I was just parroting material from a recent SCIENCE article on spy 
sats ... and received a suggestion that I post that article.

So ...

Greg Goebel
Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330
(503) 752-7717
INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd
HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 17:57:35 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: RE: Hubble Space Telescope

Spy Satellites:  Entering a New Era

   Daniel Charles

   SCIENCE / VOL 243 / 24 MAR 89 / PP 1541-1543

* After waiting two years for the return of the space shuttle, America's
intelligence agencies have begun to launch a constellation of new spy
satellites.  All three of the shuttle launches since the Challenger accident
have added important links to this surveillance network.  By the end of 1989,
if all goes well, three new reconnaissance spacecraft will be in orbit,
collecting unprecedented amounts of information on military "targets" around
the world.

The first of the new satellites flew into orbit last December aboard the
shuttle Atlantis; it is apparently a high-resolution radar-reconnaissance
satellite, the first such military satellite that the US has put into orbit.
The system's codename is apparently Lacrosse (but was earlier referred to as
Indigo).

Late this year, the first two KH-12 spy satellites are scheduled to fly into
orbit aboard Titan IV rockets.  The KH-12 is the latest and most advanced in a
long line of photoreconnaissance satellites, which use a powerful telescope to
take pictures in the visible and infrared.

Equally important in this network are the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
System (TDRSS) satellites, the third of which was launched by Discovery in
March.  Although the military capabilities of TDRSS are secret, most observers
believe that Lacrosse is using the satellite to relay its data back to Earth.
The KH-12's images will probably be relayed through TDRSS as well.

TDRSS is where NASA's science missions and the secret world of military
reconnaissance come in close contact.  Both the military and the shuttle are
"priority 1" users of TDRSS's communications channels.  The satellite's data
flow is scheduled by computer at the TDRSS ground station, located at the White
Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

Lower priority users of TDRSS, such as the Hubble Space Telescope or the
Landsat Earth-Imaging satellites, must submit their requests to use TDRSS
without knowing which times are blocked out for military use.

The peak rate at which the HST's instruments will send data through TDRSS -- 1
megabit per second (MBPS) -- is a trickle compared with the flood of data
generated by the new spy satellites.  Synthetic-aperature radars like Lacrosse,
in particular, tend to swamp any available data relay, because transmission
capacity and available computing power, not the radar itself, generally limit
the quality and size of the images that the system can produce.

Robert Cooper, former head of DARPA (now president of Atlantic Aerospace
Electronics Corporation) noted in an interview that a radar system with a
resolution of 1 foot can generate raw data at a rate of many billions of bits
per second -- far beyond the capacity of any existing links in space.
.PAGE_BREAK



Reducing the raw data to images -- a data stream small enough for TDRSS to
handle -- would require the world's largest supercomputers on board the
spacecraft, said Cooper.  A more likely way of getting around the data
bottleneck is for Lacrosse only to operate intermittently, storing burst of
data on recorders.  These devices could then transmit the data at a slower rate
through TDRSS to Earth.

NASA plans to launch its own imaging radar as part of its Earth Observing
System (EOS) sometime in the late 1990s.  The instrument will detect objects
roughly 30 meters across in a swath 50 kilometers wide, with less detail when
the swath is expanded to its maximum width of 700 kilometers.  The data rate of
its transmissions is limited to 300 MBPS, the maximum capacity of TDRSS' two
high-capacity channels.  "The data rate limits everything.  It limits
resolution, gray scale accuracy, and field of view," said one of EOS' designers
at JPL.

Because Lacrosse's performance is limited by the capacity of TDRSS, the
pictures it furnishes are less detailed than those from optical systems like
the KH-12, which can detect objects only a few inches across.  According to
John Pike of the American Federation of Scientists, Lacrosse can probably
detect objects as small as 1 meter across, since that level of detail is
necessary to identify important items like Soviet mobile missiles.

The radar's chief advantage, however, is its ability to see through the clouds
that generally hide much of the Soviet Union and Europe.

Compared with the novelty of Lacrosse, the KH-12 is practically a known
quantity.  In fact, it probably bears a strong resemblance to the HST, since
both were built to fit inside the shuttle cargo bay.  The primary mirror of the
KH-12's telescope can be little larger than the HST's.

As a comparison, a telescope with the HST's power in an orbit 200 nautical
miles above the earth could detect objects on the surface 7 inches across.
According to Pike and Jeffrey Richelson of the private National Security
Archive, the KH-12 carries a large quantity of fuel so that it can maneuver to
a low 100-mile orbit to see details half as large.  In order to counter the
distortions caused by the atmosphere, spy satellites use computer-controlled
"adaptive optics" that vary the surface of the mirror minutely.

Detecting ever smaller objects, however, is no longer the key to more effective
spying from space, according to reconnaissance experts.  The greatest technical
challenges now lie in programming high-speed computers to unearth valuable
information buried in the mountain of data.

Technical experts for the CIA, the Pentagon, and the National Reconnaissance
Office now are struggling to harness computers to the task of filtering out
data sent down from space.  Computers, says former Air Force Secretary Edward
Aldridge (now president of McDonnell Douglas Electronics Corporation),
eventually may help solve a typical dilemma confronting intelligence analysts:
"Somewhere in that data there is a target.  Now, how do you find it ... unless
you take the population of the United States and make them photo interpreters?"
.PAGE_BREAK



The sheer volume of data streaming down through TDRSS, threatening to overwhelm
even armies of analysts, is one source of pressure to automate the
interpretation of photographic intelligence.  But skyrocketing demands on the
intelligence system are even more important.

Rather than simply monitor known sites, such as missile silos and airfields,
satellites are now required to find and track Soviet nuclear missiles that move
about from day to day.  This will be necessary to verify future arms control
treaties, but the Air Force also has a less enlightened aim:  targeting the
missiles for destruction in wartime.

"As we see [Soviet] leadership and military forces becoming more mobile, it's
putting more demands on us to detect, localize, and hold at risk those forces,"
said Aldridge.  "The biggest difficulty is not searching the target area.  Even
if the sensor has flown over the target, and it is in the database, it still
has to be found."

Computers can search the data from a wide area, looking for an electronic
signal that matches the known return from a Soviet missile launcher.  But while
simple in concept, teaching computers to recognize an object -- particularly
when the Soviets are hiding the targets under cover and behind trees -- has
proved difficult in practice.  "We're still 5 years away from the point where
some data comes in and rings a bell and says I've got a target X in location
Y," said Aldridge.

The most valuable contribution of computer analysis, said Thomas Rona, deputy
director of the White House Science Office, may be in integrating information
from various sensors, so that one instrument can correct the other's blind
spots.  While the KH-12 might be fooled by a plastic decoy built to look like a
tank, for example, the radar of Lacrosse could immediately tell the difference.
"All sensors lie a little," said Rona.  "The reason that you coalesce
information from all sorts of sensors is that you don't trust any of them."
Attempts to write software capable of integrating data from many sources,
however, have run into major problems, and are not expected to be available for
several years.

Complicating the job even more is the growing demand for data from satellites.
Not only the President, but every major military commander around the world can
now request pictures from satellites to help plan military operations.

The trend began ten years ago, when the armed forces started a program called
TENCAP (Technical Exploitation of National Capabilities) aimed at making
information from space reconnaissance available to military commanders.  In
1981, the Marines established a TENCAP elective at their staff college; with
the knowledge of TENCAP's existence, under the pressure of crises (such as the
military operations in Beruit and the Persian Gulf) decisions were made to
distribute information that had once been kept under tight control.
.PAGE_BREAK



Said Donald Latham, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence:  "We can move imagery today, worldwide, with
our communications systems.  We've even got suitcase versions of these systems,
where you can look at [an image] and do things with it -- all with soft copy,
without film."

It now takes only hours for a picture of a particular scene to get from the
satellite to the military commander who ordered it.  In the future, said
Aldridge, field commanders may be able to look at a scene at the very moment
that the satellite is photographing it.

These technical marvels do not come cheap.  The Army is estimated to have
spent somewhere between $840 million and $1 billion during the past decade on a
single system, called the All Source Signal Analysis System, that is designed
to distribute information from various intelligence sources to Army commanders.
Primarily because of problems with software, its delivery is estimated as 2 or
3 years and several hundred million dollars away.

According to published reports, the White House has agreed to a demand by the
Senate Intelligence Committee that it spend $6 billion on improving
surveillance systems during the next 5 or 6 years.  The FAS' Pike estimates
that each KH-12 satellite costs between $1.5 and $2 billion, excluding launch
costs.

[<>]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #368
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Apr 89 08:02:13 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00741>; Sat, 15 Apr 89 07:04:49 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 15 Apr 89 07:04:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYFkd9y00UkTM1Vk4r>;
          Sat, 15 Apr 89 05:24:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.cYFkX4y00UkZ81CE5v>;
          Sat, 15 Apr 89 05:17:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYFkVdy00UkZE1Ak4v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 89 05:16:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #369

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 369

Today's Topics:
		   Re: space news from Feb 13 AW&ST
		       Re: Questions and Henry
	       Soviet shutdown of manned space program
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
		   Re: space news from Feb 20 AW&ST
		      Re: long ago and far away
			 SPACE Digest V9 #361
			   Re: Bored public
			     Cold fusion
			 Russian sneakiness?
		 List of Space Launches, Jan-Mar 1989
		UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 89 14:59:02 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 13 AW&ST

In article <1989Apr11.021301.16521@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> [Problem with Phobos probes]
> [..................... The way you find out about these things is to try
> them.  The major factor in how quickly you learn is how often you try.

Another point of view is that with careful systems design and good engineering
you don't need to learn from your mistakes. That is what engineering is all
about. For instance, see the many successful Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager and
Viking missions.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 15:43:42 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Questions and Henry

In article <7702@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>... Magellan and Galileo.  They
>>are basically the last big things out of the Apollo-era pipeline, with
>>very little left in the pipe behind them... but they're nifty all the same.
>
>    Disagree. After VOIR was cancelled in 81-82, Magellan was what they
>managed to replace it with. This can hardly be called Apollo-era.

But it's a cut-down version of an Apollo-era project, which is why I
referred to it as coming out of the Apollo-era pipeline.  Remember that
both of these projects have had a gestation period of 15-20 years.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 12 Apr 89 15:21 EDT
From: <K_MACART%UNHH.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Soviet shutdown of manned space program


  I just heard that the CCCP is not putting up manned missions for a while
(anyone heard how long?).   Maybe all the discussion of how much the sov
governments subsidises things is true.  Could be there is a big shakedown in
their equivalent of OMB.  My theory is that they are conserving resources for
upcoming grandiose missions.  Possiblities:  a series of more Mars probes
(hopefully triple redundant :)   ), a big manned construction effort to
use shuttleski to put up VERY big space station later (not likely if their
budget is in trouble, and they can't also send up a lot of Energias), or
maybe waiting 5 or 10 years to go for the gold...manned Mars mission (again
highly unlikely if they don't even have probe success).  I hope it isn't
what it looks like on the surface... economic surgery to save a drowning
economic system.  I'd say the latter if you hear about unilateral MAJOR cuts
in military spending.   Maybe they want to get into the fusion game ala Pons
et al to avoid the above disasters later.  Cheap power might save economically
depressed industrial powers (like ours).  One can only hope.

                                Korac MacArthur

******************************************************************************

                NO DISCLAIMER REQUIRED  (ha!)

******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 09:34 EST
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

    > What are the capabilities for rotating this baby and using it
    for
    > spying purposes???
    >
     
    Why bother?  A KH-12 recon satellite is undoubtedly comparable in
    mirror size and probably uses better technology, optimized to such
    a purpose.
    
    
    =========
    
    Much more interesting is the question of how well a KH-12 or KH-11
    would work as an astronomical observatory if it were rotated 180
    degrees.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 15:59:22 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 20 AW&ST

In article <19530@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) writes:
>>...  Some of the [RL10] upgrades are derived
>>from work done on the late, lamented Shuttle-Centaur program.
>
>What was the Shuttle-Centaur program, and why did it croak?

Since the demise of the Space Tug early in shuttle development, any
shuttle payload that wants to go beyond low Earth orbit has needed an
upper stage of some kind.  The Inertial Upper Stage (nee Interim Upper
Stage) is okay for many things, but is short on performance for seriously
demanding missions, like large deep-space missions and boosting really
heavy loads into Clarke orbit.  So NASA undertook to develop a version
of Centaur optimized for the shuttle cargo bay.  (Basically this meant
fatter tanks.)  This would give much higher performance, since Centaur
is oxygen/hydrogen against IUS's solid fuel.  Originally Shuttle-Centaur
was earmarked to launch Galileo, Ulysses, Magellan I think, and at least
some USAF payloads.  There were some complications, like needing a way
to dump the Centaur fuel if an emergency landing was needed, but things
were more or less on track for Galileo and Ulysses in late spring 1986.

Then Challenger exploded.

In the safety hysteria that followed, Shuttle-Centaur was cancelled on
the grounds that having cryogenic fuels in the payload bay somehow
presented safety problems that were utterly beyond NASA's ability to
solve.  What this really meant was that NASA didn't feel like solving
them just then, and the people who needed Shuttle-Centaur didn't have
enough political clout to keep the program alive.  Some of the other
post-Challenger safety restrictions have since been relaxed, but the
momentum was lost on Shuttle-Centaur and there is no chance of reviving
it now.  (If there were no other way to launch Galileo, the situation
might be different, but the Galileo people have found that by making
some sacrifices, they can use an IUS.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 13:53:59 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: long ago and far away

In article <1989Apr12.173025.23295@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 28 years ago today, April 12, Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space.
> 
> His successors are still using most of the hardware that got him there,
> and very successfully too.
> -- 
AH, so they are.  Unfortunately, it seems that the Soviet space program has 
been costing too much for the economy to support.  Does anyone have the cost
(in dollars) of the Russian space program?  The Soviet GNP for a recent year
was somewhere around 2.1 trillion dollars, and the gov't budget (total) was
800 billion, including the 160 billion deficit.  Perhaps someone can come up
with the costs of the Russian program as a percentage, and compare it to the
U.S. budget.  Perhaps we *have* won the Cold War; we've driven each other into
the ground, but we have better shovels!  :-)

Incidentally, the first flight of Columbia was 8 years ago today, and while 
we're on a history kick, the Civil War started 128 years ago...

Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 11:17:58 MST
From: SHAVER@EPG1-HUA.ARPA
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #361

Reference to the Utility Companies required to buy power.

I am a director of a Co-Op power company. We must buy the power, the
conditions are determined partially by the FERC or PURPA (I can't
remember which) and partially by the regulating state organization and
partially by the rules and regulations within the power company.

The utilities pay only for avoided cost. The safety comes largely from
the situation where the utility power is shut down for service and the
consumer supplies power to the dead lines and injures a workman. Other
than that, fuses provide reasonable protection against most accidents.

The utility might get concerned if the consumer equipment generates
noise on the line which interferes with other customer radio or TV
reception, which in remote areas is already marginal.

Small, unreliable power sources really don't do anyone much good.  They
may pay for themselves in the power not purchased from the utility.
Large plans in the megawatt region pose problems of reliability,
supplies greater than the distribution network can handle (the company
probably didn't plan on accepting large amounts of power at that
location) and may have to reconstruct its transmission system to account
for the extra supply.  Not very neat nor tidy.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 12:18:01 GMT
From: nsc!andrew@decwrl.dec.com  (andrew)
Subject: Re: Bored public

In article <2404@viscous.sco.COM>, joed@sco.COM (Joe Di Lellio) writes:
> P.S. The above mentioned eco major is the same one who dislikes (if we ever
>      had the reason for it) dumping nuke waste into the sun, since "it will
>      all come back to us in the solar wind", or in deep space, since "there's
>      only so much space out there".

Don't worry about this. We will conduct a survey as soon as we figure
out cheap personal spaceflight, and these people will simply not be
issued a licence! They will be confined to earthbound automatic robotic
transport (which they can't fix) and counting leaves, while we
selectively colonise somewhere we don't tell them about. Just
fantasising...actually, these people provide some entertainment, which
would be lacking in a monobloc of pure science types. We should
therefore take some technocrets along rather as one would transport
one's personal menagerie of pets :-) Even alien telephones need sanitation..
=====
Andrew Palfreyman 		USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 		there's many a slip
							'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 18:08:41 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!varvel@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Donald A. Varvel)
Subject: Cold fusion

In nearly all chemical reactions, deuterium reacts exactly
the same as normal hydrogen.  (Rates may differ slightly
in a few cases.)  This leads to the obvious question:

Has the Pons et. al. experiment been run with two setups
identical except that one uses deuterium and the other
ordinary hydrogen?  Vastly different results would be an
indication (although not a proof) that something other
than ordinary chemical reactions was going on.

-- Don Varvel ({tektronix,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!varvel)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 14:53:40 GMT
From: prism!dsm@gatech.edu  (Daniel McGurl)
Subject: Russian sneakiness?

Anyone happen to notice the timing of the Russian announcement that they 
will be leaving Mir unmanned for a time?  Seems to me that this announcement
comes a suspicous time, when you consider that the funding for Freedom is
coming up for a vote.  Also, one must consider just last week there were 
announcements about sending products up to the station just to say "They've
been in space."  

While I know that this may get flames from people who say "Freedom has other
uses"  (which I completely agree with), I think that politicians would 
be more likely to kill the project if we wouldn't be perceived as being far
behind any more.

Comments? 
-- 
Daniel Sean McGurl                       "He's got to make his own mistakes,
Office of Computing Services              and learn to mend the mess he makes."
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta Georgia, 30332                                ARPA: dsm@prism.gatech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 18:11:36 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: List of Space Launches, Jan-Mar 1989

Space Launches 1st Qtr 1989
---------------------------
		  
No.	Date	Satellite	 Agency    Launched by      From   Status at 1 Apr 89

01A  Jan 10  Kosmos-1987         GK        GK    Proton     KB     64.9 deg,19113x19147 km
01B  Jan 10  Kosmos-1988         GK                "               64.9 deg,19114x19146 km
01C  Jan 10  Kosmos-1989(Etalon) GK                "               64.9 deg,19102x19150 km
02A  Jan 12  Kosmos-1990         TsP GUGK  GK    Soyuz      KPL    Landed KRZ Feb 11
03A  Jan 18  Kosmos-1991         GRU       GK    Soyuz      KB     Landed KRZ Feb 1
04A  Jan 26  Gorizont            MSvyazi   GK    Proton     KB     GEO at 53 deg E
05A  Jan 26  Kosmos-1992         KGB?      GK    Kosmos     KPL    772x807 km, 74 deg
06A  Jan 27  Intelsat VA F15     INTELSAT  AE    Ariane V28 CSG    near GEO,drift over IOR
07A  Jan 28  Kosmos-1993         GRU       GK    Soyuz      KB     Landed KRZ?, Mar 27
08A  Feb 10  Progress-40         GK        GK    Soyuz      KB     Deorbited over POR Mar 7
09A  Feb 10  Kosmos-1994         VMF?      GK    Tsiklon    KPL    82.6 deg 1397x1416 km
09B  Feb 10  Kosmos-1995         VMF?              "               82.6 deg 1414x1417 km
09C  Feb 10  Kosmos-1996         VMF?              "               82.6 deg 1409x1416 km
09D  Feb 10  Kosmos-1997         VMF?              "               82.6 deg 1402x1416 km
09E  Feb 10  Kosmos-1998         VMF?              "               82.6 deg 1392x1416 km
09F  Feb 10  Kosmos-1999         VMF?              "               82.6 deg 1386x1416 km
10A  Feb 10  Kosmos-2000         TsP GUGK  GK    Soyuz      KPL    Landed KRZ Mar 2
11A  Feb 14  Kosmos-2001         PVO       GK    Molniya    KPL    62.8 deg 693x39672 km
12A  Feb 14  Kosmos-2002         ?         GK    Kosmos     KPL    65.8 deg 181x2052 km
13A  Feb 14  Navstar GPS 14?     USAF      USAF  Delta 184  CCAFS  55.1 deg 19861x20269 km
14A  Feb 15  Molniya-1           MSvyazi   GK    Molniya    KB     63.0 deg 475x39879 km
15A  Feb 17  Kosmos-2003         GRU       GK    Soyuz      KPL    Landed KRZ Mar 3
16A  Feb 21  Akebono (EXOS-D)    ISAS      ISAS  Mu-3SII-3  KagSC  75.1 deg 281x10428 km
17A  Feb 22  Kosmos-2004         VMS       GK    Kosmos     KPL    83.0 deg 974x1018 km
18A  Feb 28  Meteor-2            GUGMS     GK    Tsiklon    KPL    82.5 deg 940x962 km
19A  Mar  3  Kosmos-2005         GRU       GK    Soyuz      KPL    62.8 deg 171x291 km
20A  Mar  6  JCSAT 1             JCSAT     AE    Ariane V29 CSG    GEO at 152 deg E
20B  Mar  6  Meteosat 4 (MOP 1)  EUMETSAT          "               nr. GEO,at 7W, drift E
21A  Mar 13  OV-103 Discovery    NASA      NASA  STS 29     KSC    Landed EAFB Mar 18
21B  Mar 13  TDRS 4              Contel            "               GEO 168W drifting E
22A  Mar 14  Kosmos-2006         GRU       GK    Soyuz      KPL    Landed KRZ Mar 31
23A  Mar 14  Progress-41         GK        GK    Soyuz      KB     Docked to Mir,358x383 km
24A  Mar 23  Kosmos-2007         GRU	   GK	 Soyuz	    KB     64.7 deg, 217x304 km
25A  Mar 24  Kosmos-2008         VMF?      GK    Kosmos     KPL    74 deg 1395x1471 km
25B  Mar 24  Kosmos-2009         VMF?              "               74 deg 1409x1473 km
25C  Mar 24  Kosmos-2010         VMF?              "               74 deg 1425x1472 km
25D  Mar 24  Kosmos-2011         VMF?              "               74 deg 1440x1472 km
25E  Mar 24  Kosmos-2012         VMF?              "               74 deg 1457x1472 km
25F  Mar 24  Kosmos-2013         VMF?              "               74 deg 1465x1481 km
25G  Mar 24  Kosmos-2014         VMF?              "               74 deg 1471x1492 km
25H  Mar 24  Kosmos-2015         VMF?              "               74 deg 1470x1511 km
26A  Mar 24  Delta Star (USA-36) SDIO      USAF  Delta 183  CCAFS  47.7 deg 482x503 km

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms:

AE        Arianespace, Inc. 
CCAFS     Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
Contel    Continental Telephone  Inc.  (USA)
CSG       Centre Spatial Guyanais, Kourou, Guyane, S. America
EAFB      Edwards AFB, California
EUMETSAT  European Meteorological Satellite Organization
GEO       Geostationary Earth Orbit
GK        Glavkosmos SSSR (Soviet Central Space Agency)
GPS       Global Positioning System
GRU       Glavnoye Razvedivatel'noye Upravileniye (Soviet Military Intelligence)
INTELSAT  International Telecommunications Satellite Organization
IOR	  Indian Ocean Region
ISAS      Institute for Space and Astronautical Sciences, Japan
JCSAT     Japan Satellite Communications Co.
KagSC     Kagoshima Space Center, Kagoshima, Japan
KB        Kosmodrom Baykonur, Kazakhstan
KGB       Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti SSSR (Soviet State Security Committee)
KPL       Kosmodrom Plesetsk, Russia
KRZ       Kazakhstan Recovery Zone (* my nomenclature)
KSC       Kennedy Space Center, Florida
MOP       Meteosat Operational Programme
MSvyazi   Ministerstvo Svyazi (Soviet Ministry of Communications)
NASA      US National Aeronautics and Space Administration
POR	  Pacific Ocean Region
PVO       Protivo-Vosdushnaya Oborona (Soviet Air Defense Force)
SDIO      Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, US Dept of Defense
STS       Space Transportation System
TDRS      Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
TsP GUGK  Tsentr "Priroda",Glavniye Upravileniye Geodesiy i Kartographiy
	  ("Nature" Center, Soviet Central Geodesy and Cartography Agency)
USAF      United States Air Force
VMF       Voenno-Morskoy Flot (Soviet Navy)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 05:51:22 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!acorn!ixi!clive@uunet.uu.net  (Clive)
Subject: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets

According to BBC Ceefax news this morning (Thursday), the UK's first
astronaut will be launched by the Soviets in 1991. The astronaut will
spend a maximum of two weeks on Mir. A formal agreement will be signed
tomorrow.

The item stated that plans for a Briton to fly on the shuttle were
abandoned after Challenger.
-- 
Clive D.W. Feather           clive@ixi.uucp
IXI Limited                  ...!mcvax!ukc!acorn!ixi!clive (untested)
                             +44 223 462 131

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #369
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Apr 89 05:14:52 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04194>; Sun, 16 Apr 89 04:34:37 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 16 Apr 89 04:34:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4YG1Rjy00UkTM1UUB:>;
          Sun, 16 Apr 89 00:32:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.kYG1Ivy00UkZ41xE4H>;
          Sun, 16 Apr 89 00:23:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <IYG1Eyy00UkZ81vk5P@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 89 00:19:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #370

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 370

Today's Topics:
			More Economics (long)
		      Re: More Economics (long)
			    Mir Evacuation
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
			   Re: USA vs. USSR
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 18:06:06 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: More Economics (long)


>From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU

>> Rockefeller of Standard Oil used to cut prices in local areas to kill
>> off small competitors, then raise the prices again. The Japanese

>Please verify. According to some authors this is a myth that is
>unsupported by actual hard data from the period. Not having seen the
>data either way, I will not claim which side is right, only point out
>that it is not a proven statement.
I haven't found anything mentioning this specific technique, though it was
presented as fact in school. There are numerous references claiming that
the ruthless anticompetitive techniques in general practiced by the Standard
Oil Trust, and the resultant public outrage, were largely responsible for
the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which forced a reorganization of
Standard Oil. The specific technique described would work best against a
geographically localized startup company. (Legend has it that around the
1960's, gas stations near to one another would conduct "gas wars", cutting
prices in an apparent effort to drive one another out of business.) The
analogous technique in a global market is to cut prices everywhere, then
subsist on reduced revenues or savings until the opponent gives up. This
has been and is being practiced with many specific products.

>> Americans are not anxious to lower American wages to the levels found
>> elsewhere in the world, though the current trade policy leaves things
>Too true. In a truly competitive world economy wages and prices world
>wide would be driven to a median. The overly low would rise to meet the
>overly high. So obviously, those who HAVE will use the government to
>keep it at the expense of those who HAVE NOT. 
...
>Can't let those <fill in your favorite slur> get on the first rung...
If I am not anxious for my salary to be equated to that of a Chinese factory
worker, it could be that I am not so much unwilling for the Chinese worker
to get higher pay as to have my pay reduced to a few hundred dollars a year.
As a consumer, I do not have any moral obligation to trade in such a manner
that I am worse off than before I started.

>> unless its prices are competitive. A very common practice in Japan is for
>> a new business to be protected within the country by steep import
>> tariffs,

>And as long as the Japanese are willing to subsidize my purchase of
>goods, fine. 
A subsidy for exported goods is not quite the same as a protected domestic
market. The Japanese follow both of these practices, but under different
circumstances.

>Their loss improves my living standard by allowing me to
>purchase more goods and services for the same dollars than I would have
>otherwise. Thus I get my stereo AND some other goods as well. Everyone
>gains except the people who supply the subsidy. 
This analysis completely ignores the factor of time, and certain properties
of the money supply. Such a practice can be beneficial to the consumer in
the short run, yet harmful in the long run. A dollar in the domestic money
supply is reused several times a year, so the "effective" money supply is
the actual number of dollars present times a certain multiplier. (I'm not
certain, but I seem to recall the multiplier as being at least 3-5.) When
you spend a dollar overseas which does not return because of a trade 
imbalance, the effective domestic money supply is reduced by a similarly
disproportionate amount, reducing opportunities for domestic spending
and investment, and hurting domestic business. Since domestic business is
the source of most of the wealth in the US, the long-term effect is that
American wealth and income decreases. In the meantime, the foreign suppliers
can take the dollars they have retained from the trade imbalance, and use them
to buy up American real estate and productive capacity. When they have a
certain percentage of domestic productive capacity and the overall market,
they can stop holding prices artificially low, and reap the profits to make
up for their initial "sacrifice". Thus an export subsidy, properly handled,
is a long-term investment.

>And if it is indeed a
>case where the particular business gets a foothold and kills off it's
>competition, then I suggest that you buy stock in the winner and invest
>your profits in space business. You CAN buy from the Tokyo Exchange,
>although not a lot of individuals do so. 
Can a US citizen buy *voting* shares in a Japanese company (in Japan), and
can a US company buy controlling interest? I had the impression that this
is not permitted except under certain unusual circumstances. The US is
comparatively very lenient in allowing Japanese and European companies to
buy US productive capacity.

>Yes, certain
>PARTICULAR subsidies may be less that elsewhere, but when you toss in
>the sneaky ones, our government ain't no better than the Japanese. If
>not worse.
I don't think they're even in the same class. Almost every aspect of the
Japanese economy is highly distorted by government intervention and
government-encouraged business collaboration, to an extent that astonishes
residents of the US.

>Speaking of monopolies. I'm gleefully visualizing the collapse of all
>the public power utilities if this fusion technique pans out. "Natural"
>monopolies are a figment of the imagination.
This will happen in the short-to-medium term only if you can take advantage
of economies of scale in manufacturing, and if there is no significant
economy of scale in power production. I'm not convinced from what we've seen
so far that this will be the case. A plausible scenario is that if everyone
buys home fusion plants, they can have power for only twice the utility
price for fusion power, while if only a few people buy fusion plants, the
power will cost five to ten times the utility rate.

This is drifting considerably from the initial topic, which was the
economics of launch services, and the relation between new and established
foreign launch services for US payloads, and startup private US launch
services. To summarize:
 - The US government has decided for a variety of reasons that it would be
   a good idea to encourage the development of many new private launch
   services.
 - Not everyone in the government or in NASA agrees with this idea, so progress
   has been slower than might be wished, but some progress is being made.
 - Many of those on the net have also stated that they favor the formation
   of such services, and feel that in the long run they could be of benefit
   to both the US and the global space programs.
 - One of the chief factors that would tend to encourage the formation of
   new private launch services is the current shortage in supply of domestic
   launches.
 - The new private launch services are likely to be expensive by world
   standards in the short run, but as they gain in sales volume and experience,
   prices are expected to drop. The only new domestic launch prices I have
   heard so far are higher per pound than even shuttle launch costs.
 - Many of the new launch companies have limited resources and can not afford
   to operate a long time at a loss.
 - Given the experience and the vitality of some of the foreign launch
   services, few if any of the domestic startup launch services are likely
   to survive, unless there is some overt form of protection or promotion.
 - There are a number of options available for such protection or promotion,
   all of which have been heartily condemned, even though they have been
   used at some point by all of the successful foreign launch services.
                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 03:23:50 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: Re: More Economics (long)

roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) <8904132206.AA10304@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> :
-
-	[ ... ]			. (Legend has it that around the
-1960's, gas stations near to one another would conduct "gas wars", cutting
-prices in an apparent effort to drive one another out of business.)


Oh my...  I remember gas wars in Toledo in the late 60's.  A couple of
stations in particular went at it repeatedly -- every so often the prices
would drop from around 37 cents/gal to 17 cents or thereabouts, stay for a
couple of weeks, then go back up.  (I might be off a bit on the exact
prices.  I think it got down to a dime/gal once, though.) Occasionally
one of them would change management, but it was a choice corner, and
somebody always bought in.

It was easy to recognize a gas war; stations frequently put sandwich
boards out with suggestive messages like

	"GAS WAR!  LOWEST PRICE!"

Not exactly a big secret.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 17:09:27 GMT
From: aero!venera.isi.edu!rogers@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Craig Milo Rogers)
Subject: Mir Evacuation

from The Los Angeles Times, Thu 13 Apr 89, part I page 2:

	The Soviet space station Mir will stay in mothballs for three
months because of delays in preparing equipment that cosmonauts need
to perform experiments aboard the spacecraft, Soviet news reports
said.  ...  "The facility will be left unmanned ... due to delays with
the preparation of two research modules" that will be attached to the
main craft, Deputy Flight Director Viktor Blagov told the Tass news
agency.  This was the first explanation of why the project was being
suspended.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 17:44:00 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <Added.gYF=wUy00jZd06108j@andrew.cmu.edu>, K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET writes:
> 
>   I just heard that the CCCP is not putting up manned missions for a while
> (anyone heard how long?).
> My theory is that they are conserving resources for upcoming grandiose
missions... [possible Soviet plans here]

Could be, but I think it far more likely that Gorbachev has realized that with
the straits the economy is in, the Soviet Union will fall further and further
behind the West in economic power and technological capability unless the
government devotes more resources to projects that benefit the consumer.  The
military and space programs (these two are linked fairly closely, as in any 
space program) take up a very large percentage of the GNP, something in the 
range of 20 to 30 percent.  The U.S. total is something like 6 percent.  No
country can devote that large of a fraction of it's productivity to something
that is an effective drain.  This is why we *are* seeing cutbacks in the 
Soviet military, such as the withdrawl from Afghanistan and the (proposed)
500,000 man cutback in Eastern Europe.  For these same reason, I don't think 
we'll see a Soviet Mars mission for a *long* time.  Any trip to Mars is going
to be pretty expensive, and to maintain a presence will be several times more
so.  I don't think the Soviets are going to repeat the mistake we made with 
Apollo, that is, if they go somewhere, they're going to go to stay.  A more
likely scenario, in my opinion, is a Soviet lunar mission, to gain the
experience with manned planetary exploration needed for Mars, at a much
closer locale. Besides, it would cost less.

Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 19:45:33 GMT
From: spdcc!ftp!jbvb@husc6.harvard.edu  (James Van Bokkelen)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <7940@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
> In article <Added.gYF=wUy00jZd06108j@andrew.cmu.edu>, K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET writes:
> > 
> >   I just heard that the CCCP is not putting up manned missions for a while
> > (anyone heard how long?).
> > My theory is that they are conserving resources for upcoming grandiose
> missions... [possible Soviet plans here]
> .... I think it far more likely that Gorbachev has realized that with
> the straits the economy is in, the Soviet Union will fall further and further
> behind the West in economic power and technological capability unless the
> government devotes more resources to projects that benefit the consumer...

They may also be re-thinking many engineering issues in light of cold fusion.
After all, a (low) powered orbit to Mars with a fusion-electric ion drive
would be greatly preferable to a mostly-coasting trip with RTG electrical
power.  Faster, less consumables to haul, more power to use maintaining the
environment inside.  Son-of-Mir might also be affected.

(with rose-tinted glasses in place...)

-- 
James B. VanBokkelen		26 Princess St., Wakefield, MA  01880
FTP Software Inc.		voice: (617) 246-0900  fax: (617) 246-0901

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 17:26:45 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: USA vs. USSR

In article <Added.EYExoLy00Ui3AX2k8Y@andrew.cmu.edu> SEAG19@SDNET.BITNET (Andy Edeburn) writes:
>
> Hey!  Isn't it kind of ridiculous to sit and attempt to compare the US
>space program along with the Soviet program?

Not really.  All I wanted was a comparison of the amount of money each nation 
devoted to their respective programs.  Besides, while they are ahead, they're
not so far ahead that the programs are incomparable, and they're not so far 
ahead that we can't catch them, if we show enough political will.

Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #370
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Apr 89 08:40:13 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00980>; Sun, 16 Apr 89 07:40:23 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 16 Apr 89 07:40:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gYG401y00UkTM1TEMu>;
          Sun, 16 Apr 89 03:26:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.cYG3tVy00UkZM2C04L>;
          Sun, 16 Apr 89 03:18:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0YG3r1y00UkZI2AU4T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 89 03:16:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #371

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 371

Today's Topics:
	     Book - Knowledge-Based Systems in Astronomy
	     Re: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)
	       Re: Soviet Mir space station in trouble
	     Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #361
	  Re: Eggs in space (was NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Book - Knowledge-Based Systems in Astronomy
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 11:51:20 -0700
From: "George R. Cross" <cross@cs2.wsu.edu>

This is a nice collection of papers about KBS in Astronomy. Heck and Murtagh
did a careful and complete job of putting it together in a very readable
form.  Contents follow.

@Book{329,
  title = 	"Knowledge-Based Systems in Astronomy",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin",
  note = 	"ISBN 0--387--51044--3 (USA), ISBN 3--540--51044--3
		 (Europe)"
}

@InBook{329-1,
  author = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  title = 	"Foreword",
  chapter = 	"1",
  pages = 	"1--2",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-2,
  author = 	"G. Miller",
  title = 	"Artificial Intelligence Applications for Hubble Space
		 Telescope Operations",
  chapter = 	"2",
  pages = 	"5--31",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-3,
  author = 	"M. D. Johnston",
  title = 	"Knowledge-Based Telescope Scheduling",
  chapter = 	"3",
  pages = 	"33--49",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-4,
  author = 	"D. Teuber and P. Schuecker and H. Horstmann",
  title = 	"Survey Work with Automated Data Analysis",
  chapter = 	"4",
  pages = 	"53--68",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-5,
  author = 	"G. R. Cross and R. Gupta",
  title = 	"Distributed Point-Pattern Matching",
  chapter = 	"5",
  pages = 	"69--77",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-6,
  author = 	"M. C. Maccarone and R. Buccheri",
  title = 	"Decision Problems in the Search for Periodicities in
		 Gamma-Ray Astronomy",
  chapter = 	"6",
  pages = 	"79--87",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-7,
  author = 	"M. J. Kurtz",
  title = 	"Classification and Knowledge",
  chapter = 	"7",
  pages = 	"91--106",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-8,
  author = 	"R. W. Miller",
  title = 	"WOLF -- A Computer Expert System for Sunspot
		 Classification and Solar Flare Prediction",
  chapter = 	"8",
  pages = 	"107--120",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-9,
  author = 	"M. Thonnat and A. Bijaoui",
  title = 	"Knowledge-Based Classification of Galaxies",
  chapter = 	"9",
  pages = 	"121--159",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-10,
  author = 	"F. Murtagh and A. Heck and R. Rampazzo",
  title = 	"Classification of IUE Spectra: A Rule Based Approach",
  chapter = 	"10",
  pages = 	"161--167",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-11,
  author = 	"V. Di Ges\`u",
  title = 	"Representation of Knowledge Using Fuzzy Set Theory",
  chapter = 	"11",
  pages = 	"171--189",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-12,
  author = 	"A. Accomazzi and G. Bordogna and P. Mussio and A. Rampini",
  title = 	"An Approach to Heuristic Exploitation of Astronomers'
		 Knowledge in Automatic Interpretation of Optical Pictures",
  chapter = 	"12",
  pages = 	"191--212",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-13,
  author = 	"H.-M. Adorf",
  title = 	"Connectionism and Neural Networks",
  chapter = 	"13",
  pages = 	"215--245",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

@InBook{329-14,
  author = 	"R. Albrecht",
  title = 	"Applications of AI in Astronomy: A View Towards the Future",
  chapter = 	"14",
  pages = 	"247--258",
  publisher = 	"Springer--Verlag",
  year = 	"1989",
  editor = 	"A. Heck and F. Murtagh",
  volume = 	"329",
  series = 	"Lecture Notes in Physics",
  address = 	"Berlin"
}

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 20:09:00 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)

In article <7904@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>What wondrous capabilities is New Mir expected to have that Freedom won't?

Turn it around:  what wondrous capabilities is Freedom expected to have
that Mir doesn't?  Yes, it will be bigger... but Skylab was bigger yet
(yes, last I heard Freedom's internal volume will be less than that of
Skylab), and Novy Mir will probably take the record, given the size of
launch vehicle its designers have available.

>>As for "no development problems", note
>>that the Hubble telescope had a lot of difficulties because it had two
>>"prime" contractors, with NASA trying to do the coordination between them.
>>The space station has *four*.
>
> As to the contractors, there is a difference 
>between two contractors working on one object and four (admittedly, this is 
>three too many) working on several separate objects.  If they can just keep
>the connectors standard, this might not be too much of a problem.

I'm sure NASA thought the same for the Hubble telescope.  It *didn't work*.
Somebody needs to be in charge, and NASA is not competent to do it.

>> [past glories of US planetary missions]
>... What do the Soviets have in the pipeline in this class?

What does the US have in the pipeline in this class?  Mars Observer is
deliberately a rather unambitious mission.  Cassini and friends can't
really be said to be in the pipeline yet -- they've been trying to get
in for years.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 23:21:00 GMT
From: pur-phy!tippy!fireman@ee.ecn.purdue.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Mir space station in trouble


USA Today reported that they just didn't need to keep it manned now.

  Rob Dale
   tippy!fireman@newton.physics.purdue.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 01:15:37 GMT
From: arc!ken@apple.com  (Ken Stuart)
Subject: Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)


	There has actually been a scientific proof of astrology by
   someone named Gauquelin.  He correlated certain objectively
   definable qualities as well as certain professions versus natal
   positions of the planets, and found correlations far beyond chance,
   statistically.  Many sceptics have tried to find holes in the
   research, to no avail.  Natually, the media (as well as textbook
   writers) only believe what they would like to believe, so this has
   never received any publicity - even though it is built on far more
   evidence than the theory that if you eat chlorestorol and saturated
   fats you will have a greater chance of getting heart disease.  Such
   people would find their world views disturbed by the possiblity of
   things like astrology being real.  [Most people believe in the
   existence of atomic bombs, even though they've never seen an atomic
   bomb or reactor, nor have the faintest idea how they work.]

	An odd study was done by someone named Nelson, who was trying to
   find ways to predict periods of short wave radio interference.  He
   accidentally found an over 90% correlation that the positions of
   the planets affect the level of interference.  An episode was
   mentioned where there was heavy interference that suddenly
   dissipated at the exact moment when a trine was achieved between
   two planets.

	Please bear in mind that astrology bears no more relationship
   to 'Your Horoscope' columns in the daily newspaper than Dostoevsky
   does to the tabloids.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 13:20:57 GMT
From: att!homxb!homxc!gfv@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (G.VALVO)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

>From article <596@geovision.UUCP>, by pt@geovision.uucp (Paul Tomblin):
> 
> Wait a minute here!  Aren't we forgetting something? If people are going
> to put fusion reactors in their back yards, what the heck is the power
> company going to need to buy you power for?  Sure, the law in some
> states requires the utility to buy back power, but who are they going to
> sell it to?

How about industries or large apartment complexes who don't want to
spend the money for a large scale dedicated reactor?  Also, these things
would surely require some skill and training to operate and maintain.
The fusion reaction itself is only the first step to electric power.
How would the electricty be generated, boilers?  steam turbines?  direct
conversion?  These are all non-trivial operations.  I don't think I
want everyone in my neighborhood operating a thermonuclear device in
their back yard.


					Greg

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 89 15:21:44 CDT
From: "Karl G. Hursey" <E305A2%TAMVM1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V9 #361


>Date: 10 Apr 89 12:35:30 GMT
>From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!aplvax.jhuapl.edu!jwm@g.ms.uky.edu
> Meritt)
>Subject: Power vs Energy
> ... stuff deleted
>(as a btw, I heard on the radio this morning that the University of Tex
>duplicated the University of Utah's "fusion in a jar"!)
Uhmmmm, I haven't heard that UT did it but some folks here at Texas A&M
have reported a (at least partial) replication.
(Well, it matters in Texas!  :-)
                        -Karl (E305A2@TAMVM1)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 21:05:36 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hp-ses!hpcc01!hpwrce!howeird@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Howard Stateman)
Subject: Re: Eggs in space (was NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89)

>/ hpwrce:sci.space / pipes@nssdcs (David Pipes ) /  7:11 am  Apr  6, 1989 /
     >The original poster wondered why we should do them at all.  I just
>pointed out that there are things which we don't know which could be
>useful in the future.
>| EMail: pipes@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov        David Pipes      |

I phrased my posting poorly, it looks like. I was not trying to question
the wisdom of doing such an experiment. I was questioning the wisdom of
doing an experiment without a control group (or three). The space news
postings are usually very complete, and the omission of any mention of
a comparison of the spaceflight results to those of a control group
caused me to assume there was no control group. 

Thanks to all of you who filled me in with the control group info. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Stateman, Hewlett-Packard Response Center, Mountain View, CA
howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM      or     hplabs!hpwrce!howeird
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sysop of the Anatomically Correct BBS (415) 364-3739
"Don't put all your eggs in one basket"
                            -- Old Folk Saying
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #371
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Apr 89 04:10:56 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03200>; Mon, 17 Apr 89 03:00:05 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 17 Apr 89 02:59:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EYGKYYy00UkTE1UUs8>;
          Mon, 17 Apr 89 00:33:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.0YGKOmy00UkZ437E4S>;
          Mon, 17 Apr 89 00:23:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYGKKOy00UkZM35k5A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 00:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #372

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 372

Today's Topics:
		       Rail-Guns and Asteroids
		     Re: Rail-Guns and Asteroids
	   Acting NASA Administrator to resign (Forwarded)
		      Re: long ago and far away
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
	       Re: Soviet Mir space station in trouble
      Re: Thermal Pollution (was: Fusion: Expendible resources)
	thermal pollution (was: Fusion: Expendible resources)
	      Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets
	     Re: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)
			 Venus radar mappers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 16:02 EST
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Rail-Guns and Asteroids

    Would it be reasonable to use Rail-Guns in mining an asteroid. 
    I am thinking that a large pellet of metal could be fired from an
    asteroid based mining unit back to earth or the moon.  The pellet
    could either be tracked and caught when it gets near the earth,
    or it could be fired so it hits the moon, and then retrieved from
    the (new) lunar crater.  The shape and composition of a pellet would
    not be important.  Presumably, it should be small enough so that
    it could not survive reentry on earth.  (Decreases liability
    insurance.)  The rail gun could be operated with fusion or solar
    generated electricity.
    
    The advantage of this scheme is that a mining operation could return
    a continuous supply of raw materials, without requiring complex
    rockets to return it.  The only rockets/chemical fuel needed would
    be to transport the mining equipment and miners to the site, and
    return the miners.
    
    Could this scheme be used in reverse?  Could water, food, fuel and
    other supplies be sent to mars or an asteroid mining site using
    rail guns?
    
    Chris Eliot
    Umass Amherst

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 03:15:39 GMT
From: blake!wiml@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: Rail-Guns and Asteroids

In article <8904122007.AA10396@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>    Would it be reasonable to use Rail-Guns in mining an asteroid. 
>    I am thinking that a large pellet of metal could be fired from an
>    asteroid based mining unit back to earth or the moon. ...

   The problem is that any pellet massive enough to send to Earth (or the moon
or...) would be massive enough to make the railgun recoil quite a bit. Either
you can make the railgun very massive (by using the unused bits of asteroid
as a momentum sink), or try to make the recoil push the railgun in a useful
direction (such as the next asteroid down the line.) The problem with the latter
is that Earth would probably not always be the best direction to throw
something to get said something to the asteroid belt. 
>                                                     ...   The pellet
>    could either be tracked and caught when it gets near the earth,
>    or it could be fired so it hits the moon, and then retrieved from
>    the (new) lunar crater. ... 

Of course, you'd lose quite a bit of material blasted away by the impact.
Very impracticl / inefficient.
>                    .... The shape and composition of a pellet would
>    not be important. ...
  Huh? The composition not important? Why do you go to all this trouble
to fire garbage pellets at Earth? I'd at least want the pellets to be
something I can use!
>          ....  Presumably, it should be small enough so that
>    it could not survive reentry on earth.  (Decreases liability
>    insurance.)  
	[stuff about reuseability & electrical-powered-ness of railguns]
   Why railguns? Why not magnetic linear accelerators? Or giant electrically
powered catapults (the miners can grow their hair long, you see, and...)?

>    rockets to return it.  The only rockets/chemical fuel needed would
>    be to transport the mining equipment and miners to the site, and
>    return the miners.

  Why use miners at all? Strikes me this could be more easily automated...
which makes the whole package cheaper, lighter, etc.   

~~~~~~~~.sigs in spaaaaaace!~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 23:14:25 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Acting NASA Administrator to resign (Forwarded)

David W. Garrett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.


RELEASE:  89-49

ACTING NASA ADMINISTRATOR TO RESIGN


     Dale D. Myers, the acting NASA administrator, has announced 
his plans to resign effective May 13, 1989.

     Myers, acting administrator since April 8, 1989, served as 
the NASA deputy administrator from Oct. 6, 1986, when he was 
called back to NASA by President Reagan.  During this tenure, 
Myers was instrumental in guiding NASA through the period of 
recovery following the Challenger accident of Jan. 28, 1986.  

     Some major accomplishments during this period were the 
substantial redesign of the Space Shuttle system including the 
solid rocket motor and the subsequent return to manned space 
flight in September 1988; reorganizing the Space Shuttle 
management structure and centralizing the Space Station 
management; and the reinstitution of a mixed fleet strategy using 
commercial expendable launch vehicles in addition to the Shuttle.

     In his letter of resignation to President Bush, Myers wrote, 
"I am most grateful for the opportunity to be of service to the 
Nation.  I will continue to support you and this administration 
to the best of my ability in the years to come."

     Myers has served two tours at NASA Headquarters -- his 
present position and earlier as the associate administrator for 
manned space flight from 1970 to 1974.  He also served as under 
secretary, U.S. Department of Energy from 1977 to 1979.  From 
1974 to 1977, he was vice-president, Rockwell International, and 
president, North American Aircraft, El Segundo, Calif.

     Born on Jan. 8, 1922 in Kansas City, Mo., Myers is a 
graduate of the University of Washington, Seattle, with a B.S. in 
aeronautical engineering.  He received an honorary doctorate from 
Whitworth College, Spokane, Wash., and distinguished service 
medals from both NASA and the Energy Department.  He was elected 
to the National Academy of Engineering in 1974.

     Myers is married to the former Marjorie Williams of Seattle 
and they are the parents of two daughters.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 19:25:22 GMT
From: att!homxb!homxc!brt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (B.REYTBLAT)
Subject: Re: long ago and far away



Not so long ago, nor as far away:

On april 12, 1981, STS-1 lifted off from pad 39-(A or B, Henry?).

Ben Reytblat
no cute signature
no cute disclaimer

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 04:57:20 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <Added.gYF=wUy00jZd06108j@andrew.cmu.edu> K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET writes:
>  I just heard that the CCCP is not putting up manned missions for a while
>(anyone heard how long?).   Maybe all the discussion of how much the sov
>governments subsidises things is true.  Could be there is a big shakedown in
>their equivalent of OMB...

Or could be they simply have technical problems on Mir and this is a
temporary exigency.  Frankly, folks, the only *fact* we have right now
is that there will be an interruption in the continuous manning of Mir.
I don't think I've ever seen such elaborate pyramids of speculation
built on such slender evidence.  To make anything deep and significant
out of this, you basically need to assume that the Soviet space program
is run in the same chuckleheaded what-shall-we-do-in-space-today fashion
as the US space program (and indeed, most programs of any kind that are 
funded on a year-to-year basis by democratic governments).  That's what
it takes to justify an abrupt shutdown of a major ongoing program.
To date, there is no sign whatever of the Soviets employing this
particular form of mismanagement.  (They have their own forms, heaven
knows, but this isn't one of them.)  It would be very suprising to see
such a radical change now.

It's enough to make one suspect that some of the speculators have private
axes to grind.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 16:53:08 GMT
From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net  (John E Van Deusen III)
Subject: Re: Soviet Mir space station in trouble


I have read speculation that after the failures of Phobos I and II and
in consideration of the minimal gains that can be derived from beating
the US in a race in which it declines to participate, the Soviets
decided that the money spent upon an aggressive manned space program
could better be spent on earth.  They are simply cutting back.
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865

uunet!visdc!jiii

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 21:40:20 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stda.jhuapl.edu!jwm@purdue.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Thermal Pollution (was: Fusion: Expendible resources)

In article <33@boston-harbor> kdo@lucid.com writes:
}In article <7695@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> tbrakitz@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Byron Rakitzis) writes:
}>
}>I think there's a far more important long-term concern which we must
}>bring to our attention: thermal pollution. Whereas solar, wind etc.
}>power essentialy harness the energy in the environment, fusion would
}>place all this "extra" energy previously stored in deuterium nuclei
}>into the environment. I would not be surprised if we found ourselves,
}>in the long term, having to limit the use of such non-reversible
}>processes as deuterium-fusion.
}
}If you are talking about thermal pollution of the earth as a whole
}it's not likely to become a big problem unless we become incredibly
}profligate with energy usage.  There are many orders of magnitude
}between the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun and the
}amount that human beings use currently.  We can increase our energy
}usage quite a bit before heating the earth will be a problem.

If we start throwing so much energy around that the waste starts cooking
us we'll also have enough on hand to move the planet away from that
nastey old unpredictable star heating up the works.

Puppetteers: mind sending the specs via Niven?
;-)


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 11:58:48 GMT
From: spdcc!eli@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Steve Elias)
Subject: thermal pollution (was: Fusion: Expendible resources)

In article <3637@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
!In article <33@boston-harbor! kdo@lucid.com writes:
!} tbrakitz@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Byron Rakitzis) writes:
!}!
!}!I think there's a far more important long-term concern which we must
!}!bring to our attention: thermal pollution. Whereas solar, wind etc.
!}!power essentialy harness the energy in the environment, fusion would
!}!place all this "extra" energy previously stored in deuterium nuclei

	fusion isn't the only power source that could add to our 
	thermal problems.  how about nuclear fission?  solar satellites?

!}If you are talking about thermal pollution of the earth as a whole
!}it's not likely to become a big problem unless we become incredibly
!}profligate with energy usage.  There are many orders of magnitude
!}between the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun and the
!}amount that human beings use currently.  We can increase our energy
!}usage quite a bit before heating the earth will be a problem.

	we've got about a factor of 100 or 1000 to go before we reach
	the same power level as that received via solar flux...
	but our energy usage is growing by 7% a year or so.  it won't
	take too long to reach that factor of 100.  (these numbers 
	have been bandied about sci.physics/misc for the last year or so.)

!If we start throwing so much energy around that the waste starts cooking
!us we'll also have enough on hand to move the planet away from that
!nastey old unpredictable star heating up the works.

	what you really mean is that we'll be off planet by then, 
	spending our heat/energy where it won't toast the earth's
	environment...  right?  there are surely more direct thermal
	dangers than 'waste heat', today.  but we shouldn't ignore
	potential or current environmental problems just because we'll
	be able to 'escape to space' some day...
-- 
   Steve Elias (eli@spdcc.com);(6172399406)
     "Space is small.  The planets are big." -- Heinlein

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 07:46:48 GMT
From: mcvax!hp4nl!esatst!neil@uunet.uu.net  (Neil Dixon)
Subject: Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets

In article <135@ixi.UUCP> clive@ixi.UUCP (Clive) writes:
>According to BBC Ceefax news this morning (Thursday), the UK's first
>astronaut will be launched by the Soviets in 1991.

1991, Thatcher's next election year. A cheap publicity stunt is
obviously more important than any participation in Europe's own
(albeit flawed) manned space program. It will be interesting to see
how this can be justified, since their is no obvious profit to be
made; but then again, there's always the T-Shirts, Commemorative Book,
Record, Video, etc :-).

Disclaimer: I'm sure nobody in ESA agrees with me.
-- 
Neil Dixon <neil@yc.estec.nl> UUCP:...!mcvax!esatst!neil, BITNET: NDIXON@ESTEC
Thermal Control & Life Support Division (YC) 
European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC),
Noordwijk, The Netherlands.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 14:55:56 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)

In article <1989Apr13.200900.4891@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <7904@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
> >What wondrous capabilities is New Mir expected to have that Freedom won't?
> 
> Turn it around:  what wondrous capabilities is Freedom expected to have
> that Mir doesn't?  Yes, it will be bigger... but Skylab was bigger yet
> (yes, last I heard Freedom's internal volume will be less than that of
> Skylab)...
An article on the space station was in the May 1989 issue of Discover that 
came out yesterday.  Showed the latest design for the station: two 40-foot
U.S. modules (1 hab, 1 lab), 1 40-foot ESA module (lab), and 1 20-foot
Japanese module (lab).  Also included is a 20-foot free-flying ESA module
for long-term, sensitive experiments.  Solar arrays provide 224,000 watts of 
power.  This seems to be a bit more voluminous than a gutted Saturn V third
stage, and the power supply will allow us to run fairly energy-intensive 
projects.  Incidentally, you avoided my question: you were going on about
the probable superiority of Novy Mir...again, what greater capabilities will
it have?

> >> [past glories of US planetary missions]
> >... What do the Soviets have in the pipeline in this class?
> 
> What does the US have in the pipeline in this class?  Mars Observer is
> deliberately a rather unambitious mission.  Cassini and friends can't
> really be said to be in the pipeline yet -- they've been trying to get
> in for years.

I wouldn't call Mars Ovserver unambitious.  From the looks of it, it is a
fairly sophisticated mission that will multiply our knowledge of Mars 
manyfold.  We're beyond the days of the numerous, cheap probes whose sole
mission was to survive long enough to snap pictures.  We have pictures; now
the mission is a lot more complex, and you can't have five or ten of them 
in the planning stage; it's just too expensive.  Last I heard, Cassini was
entering the pipeline; there was something in an AvWeek article about funding,
although I don't remember what issue.  It's going to be a while before Cassini
goes anywhere, but then again, Saturn's not leaving the system anytime soon,
either.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 14:52:32 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Venus radar mappers


>From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Re: alien contact

>In article <7810@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>>... Assuming nothing goes wrong (fingers crossed), we'll be sending
>>new probes out to Venus, to get the highest quality maps of that planet ever,

>Do remember that the highest-resolution maps of Venus existing right now
>came from Soviet missions.  This is another catchup mission.

My understanding of the situation is that the best existing radar map of
*most* of the planet was produced by a US probe. Soviet probes then provided
a higher resolution map, but only of a small fraction of the surface, around
25%. Now another US probe is supposed to produce a map with still higher
resolution, and again of nearly all the surface. It seems to me that this is
not a matter of "catching up", but of two separate programs with different
agendas, which have been working with one another in a cooperative manner.

It often appears that there is a tacit understanding between the planetary
science programs of the US and the USSR which tends to limit duplication
of effort. There is also sometimes direct cooperation, as in the case of
the Phobos probes and of several Venus probes. This cooperation has continued
even at times when the official relations between the two countries were
very poor.
                                 John Roberts
                                 roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #372
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Apr 89 06:23:42 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00565>; Mon, 17 Apr 89 05:58:42 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 17 Apr 89 05:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0YGN6Xy00Ui3Q1m0Jh>;
          Mon, 17 Apr 89 03:26:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.8YGN0zy00UkZA3Ok4g>;
          Mon, 17 Apr 89 03:20:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYGMxIy00UkZ03NE5F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 03:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #373

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 373

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Feb 27 AW&ST
			    Re: Empty Mir?
		      Re: long ago and far away
				Ariane
		     Re: Rail-Guns and Asteroids
	     Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)
		      Chicken embryos and zero G
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #366
		     Re: Rail-Guns and Asteroids
     Re: United Nations : Debate on Sharing Outer Space Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 03:06:25 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Feb 27 AW&ST

Chinese becomes a customer for Soyuzkarta, buying images of China from the
Soviets.  China has a Landsat receiving station, but apparently wants to
hedge its bets in case the US lets Landsat die.

Team from Payload Systems Inc. visits Moscow, delivering training models
of their protein-crystallization experiment that will fly on Mir later
this year.  A Soviet team will visit Boston in March to certify the
hardware for flight, and PSI will visit Baikonur in April to sort out
preflight procedures.  Launch is set for mid-June, with a stay in orbit
lasting until October.  [I would assume that the dates on this have slipped
a little bit in the light of the hiatus in manned activity on Mir.]

Quayle wants -- guess what -- another major review of space policy.
"This has US space managers rolling their eyes in frustration."  Quayle
*is* making noises about getting things done thereafter, though.

Aerospace Plane project in middle of major progress review.  The necessary
air-breathing propulsion efficiencies appear possible, although the X-30
will probably have a rocket engine for final boost.  Aerospace-plane work
is now consuming 60% of the US's supercomputer capacity, it is reported.
FY90 budgeting is a cloud on the horizon, though, since a lot of spaceplane
funding comes out of DoD even though near-term military applications are few.

Negotiations with Britain on spaceplane collaboration are underway.

Japan is generally considered the biggest competitor in the spaceplane
business, with propulsion and materials work receiving funding similar
to that in the US and technical progress impressive.

Los Alamos proposes to build a lunar-surface simulation facility for
testing lunar mining and construction hardware.  They would like a
small amount of NASA funding for it; so far, no response from NASA.
Los Alamos says that paper studies of lunar base operations, notably
oxygen production, are beginning to peter out for lack of experimental
results.

Picture of Mir mockup with mockup of the first expansion module attached.

Opinions differ on how quickly the US needs to upgrade its ability to
detect possible future space-weapons activity.  It is important to spot
testing, because operational deployment would be much harder to detect --
weapons on standby would give little indication of their nature.

Negotations on a space-weapons control treaty were progressing well when
they were suspended for the US elections, with few major issues still open.

Subject to final approval by member states, ESA has selected Matra's
design for the Columbus polar platform, over British Aerospace's.  The
Matra design is based on Matra's "Mk. 2 service module" design that will
be used for Spot 4 and the Helios spysat.  Ironically, despite BA's design
losing, BA will be prime contractor, because Britain is taking the lead
in financing the polar platform.

Matra has begun initial hardware work for Helios, which is scheduled to
be operational in 1993.

Japan launches Exos-D auroral-research satellite successfully Feb 22.

Pratt & Whitney's redesigned shuttle-main-engine turbopumps will fly on
a shuttle mission in 1992.  Certification tests will end in June 1991,
after which P&W will deliver four pumps (a flight set plus a spare) for
installation in an unspecified orbiter.  [When last heard from, there
was no commitment to fly the P&W pumps.  Rocketdyne would undoubtedly
prefer it had stayed that way...]

USAF is refurbishing the F-1 engine test stands at Edwards for use in
engine testing for ALS.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 15:42:14 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!jack@uunet.uu.net  (Jack Campin)
Subject: Re: Empty Mir?


ZMLEB@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov (Lee Brotzman) wrote:
  
> This morning, as I was struggling to come awake, I heard on the radio (CBS
> Radio News feed) that when the current crew of the Mir space station departs
> for the Earth, there will be no replacement, leaving Mir unoccupied for the
> first time in two years.

> Now the part that I have trouble believing:  "The Soviet Union is abandoning
> their manned space program because of budget problems."

New Scientist (15/4/89, p.20) reports that an editorial in Pravda (the week
before) seems to be supporting people within Glavkosmos who want to push the
Soviet space programme towards concentration on remote-sensing satellites.  So
there may be something to this.  Anyone got access to the Pravda piece and
know how to read between the lines?

-- 
Jack Campin  *  Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND.    041 339 8855 x6045 wk  041 556 1878 ho
INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk    USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp
JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs     PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 20:01:26 GMT
From: bunny!hhd0@husc6.harvard.edu  (Horace Dediu)
Subject: Re: long ago and far away

In article <457@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
> In article <1989Apr12.173025.23295@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > 28 years ago today, April 12, Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space.
> > 
> > His successors are still using most of the hardware that got him there,
> > and very successfully too.
> > -- 
> AH, so they are.  Unfortunately, it seems that the Soviet space program has 
> been costing too much for the economy to support.  Does anyone have the cost
> (in dollars) of the Russian space program?  The Soviet GNP for a recent year
> was somewhere around 2.1 trillion dollars, and the gov't budget (total) was
> 800 billion, including the 160 billion deficit.  Perhaps someone can come up
> with the costs of the Russian program as a percentage, and compare it to the
> U.S. budget.  Perhaps we *have* won the Cold War; we've driven each other into
> the ground, but we have better shovels!  :-)

I would not lend any arbitrarily minuscule proportion of credulity to any
figure coming out of the official Soviet Union.  In a state controlled
totaliatrian regime GNP is not defined, nor is a "Budget".  The state is the
nation and the GNP is the budget.  Everyone works for the state and the
state owns, buys and sells everything.  We cannot transplant economic terms
defined by free markets to communist systems.  

Remember, the Soviets lie routinely about everything.  The testimony of a
perjurer shall never again be considered in a court of law.  Id est, I trust
nothing they say and anything the CIA may estimate, is up to
interpretation.

> Matthew DeLuca                      :
> Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
> ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :           do not question.
                                       Indeed^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 10:57:38 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Ariane

Anyone know where the Ariane rockets are manufactured, and how they get them
to Kourou?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 03:41:11 GMT
From: biar!trebor@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Rail-Guns and Asteroids

In article <8904122007.AA10396@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>    Would it be reasonable to use Rail-Guns in mining an asteroid. 

Given that for each reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction, it
would make more sense to use the Railgun as a thruster; by ejecting a few
percent of the mass of the asteroid at high velocity, one could move the
asteroid to the vicinity of earth, where it would be convenient to mine.

And of course, since we want to be tidy, we can probably work it out so that
the "thrust pellets" end up hitting Jupiter or one of the other gas giants
so as to avoid littering.

-- 
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  ...!uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP
"The NY Times is read by the people who run the country.  The Washington Post
is read by the people who think they run the country.   The National Enquirer
is read by the people who think Elvis is alive and running the country..."

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 18:39:01 GMT
From: oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Douglas Harper)
Subject: Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)

In article <190@arc.UUCP>, ken@arc.UUCP (Ken Stuart) writes:
> 
> 	There has actually been a scientific proof of astrology by
>    someone named Gauquelin.  He correlated certain objectively
>    definable qualities as well as certain professions versus natal
>    positions of the planets, and found correlations far beyond chance,
>    statistically.  Many sceptics have tried to find holes in the
>    research, to no avail.
     [claims of bias elided]

I find this hard to believe.  The scientific evidence I've heard of is
very much the other way.  Can the poster give the title of a book or a
reference to a learned journal?  What skeptics have tried and failed
to refute this?

> 	An odd study was done by someone named Nelson, who was trying to
>    find ways to predict periods of short wave radio interference.  He
>    accidentally found an over 90% correlation that the positions of
>    the planets affect the level of interference.  An episode was
>    mentioned where there was heavy interference that suddenly
>    dissipated at the exact moment when a trine was achieved between
>    two planets.

Where was this study published?  What were the specific claims made?
"0ver 90% correlation between the positions...interference" is too
vague to be scientifically meaningful.

About the exact moment:  let's set aside all relativistic difficulties
with simultaneity and causation, and interpret the statement made as
generously as possible.  The question arises: so what?  One coincidence
proves nothing.  If there were a recurring pattern, that would be
another thing.

Besides, what does this dubious bit of astrophysics have to do with
astrology?  I find the leap from short wave radio to personality types
a long one to make.

> 	Please bear in mind that astrology bears no more relationship
>    to 'Your Horoscope' columns in the daily newspaper than Dostoevsky
>    does to the tabloids.

Where can one find in written form the testable claims of this higher
astrology?

-- 
Douglas Harper              |      "Confess, or we bring the rabbit back in."
Odyssey Research Associates | oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu       ARPA
301A Harris B. Dates Drive  | {allegra,rochester}!cornell!oravax!harper  UUCP
Ithaca, NY 14850-3051       | (607) 277-2020 extension 276

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 10:15 EDT
From: John Taylor <V131Q5CG@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Chicken embryos and zero G

>Eight more chicken eggs that rode on the Space Shuttle Discovery
>that were scheduled to hatch this last weekend have died. [..] All the 
>younger eggs died, and the older ones all survived.  The results of 
>the experiment has raised concern that some species of plants and
>animal need gravity to reproduce.

	Why is the _absence_ of gravity the only thing being considered 
here? In order to get into space, these embryos had to endure approximately 
3G (I'm guessing about the actual number); couldn't permanent damage have 
occured before they even got into space?


-------------
John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo
Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1989 10:03-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #366

> first time and have it work at all is that there are proven bridge-building
> rules, tested over thousands of years. The environment, while not perfectly
> known, is pretty much a constant and can be planned for. When
> programming

The word you are looking for is complexity. Bridges are based on fairly
simple equations that describe them as a unit, and then constructed
from materials that are put together in fairly well defined ways. The
material strength margins are large enough to insure success in most
cases. (See Sci Am article on Roman aqueduct design margins) Only
rarely, when pushing materials technology do things like "Galloping
Gertie" occur that actually have dynamic effects. And even then, the
oscillatory motions are not that complex.

There is also a difference is scaling. If you double the size of a
bridge, you do not necessarily double the design complexity. If you
double the size of a computer program, you get an exponential increase
in complexity.

Not to disparage Mech E's and aerospace types too much though. The
margins in FLYING machines (not space shacks) are tight, the energy
densities etc are high and the interaction complexity does tend to
scale poorly. A space shuttle has more in common with a large computer
program, and a bridge has more in common with a properly designed space
station. (One whose form follows its function and market requirements,
and whose weight margins and technologies are selected by tradeoffs
between materials costs and launch costs, and performance costs of off
the shelf devices like 400hz power systems are traded off against the
cost of development of untried new 20Khz devices)

> crash it, along with 3 months of irreplacable data. But, I don't see any
> rules for the users coming along in the near future. Maybe 1,000 yrs from
> now ... :)

Much of the work in areas like Object Oriented programming and infant
theoretical work in agora (market-based) software systems, are aimed at
creating software IC's and adaptive "trust" networks so that complexity
in software will also be constrained to a linear growth rate.

As one sage (I think it might have been Perlis) said, computer science
will amount to something when programmers learn to stand on each others
shoulders instead of each other's toes....

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 13:48:59 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Rail-Guns and Asteroids

In article <8904122007.AA10396@crash.cs.umass.edu>, ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
> 
>     I am thinking that a large pellet of metal could be fired from an
>     asteroid based mining unit back to earth or the moon.  The pellet
>     could either be tracked and caught when it gets near the earth,
>     or it could be fired so it hits the moon, and then retrieved from
>     the (new) lunar crater.  

With a pellet velocity of a few kilometers per second, all that could
be retrieved from the pellet's crater would be memories...   ;-)
"Catching" the pellet suffers from the same problem.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 21:56:07 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stda.jhuapl.edu!jwm@purdue.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: United Nations : Debate on Sharing Outer Space Benefits

In article <1545@ccnysci.UUCP> patth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes:
}
}Ported to UseNET from UNITEX Network
}                      201-795-0733
}          via Rutgers FidoGATEway
}
}     LEGAL SUB-COMMITTEE CONTINUES DEBATE ON SHARING OUTER SPACE BENEFITS 
}
}     JURGEN REIFARTH (Federal Republic of Germany)  
}     FLAVIO MIRAGAIA PERRI (Brazil)  
}     PETER HOHENFELLNER (Austria) 
}     KENNETH HODGKINS (United States)  
}     JOSE S. VALENCIA (Ecuador) 
}     HOLGER MARTINSEN (Argentina) 
}     RAMA RAO (India) 
}     RAIMUNDO GONZALEZ (Chile) 

Anmd just how active ARE the "SPACE BENEFITS" programs from these countries?
And why isn't the Soviet Union here?

Or are we just looking at the farm animals trying to decide on how to slice
the hen's bread?

(is the word "sharing", or should it be "taking"?)


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #373
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Apr 89 08:05:35 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00793>; Mon, 17 Apr 89 07:23:23 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 17 Apr 89 07:23:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kYGOray00UkT82fU5L>;
          Mon, 17 Apr 89 05:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.QYGOkdy00UkZQ3ZU5q>;
          Mon, 17 Apr 89 05:19:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <AYGOhoy00UkZQ3Y04w@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 05:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #374

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 374

Today's Topics:
			 Heat sinks in space
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
	     Re: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
		      Re: long ago and far away
	    Re: Soviets will suspend manned space program
			      Re: Ariane
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
	      Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 14:26:51 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Heat sinks in space


>From: pacbell!pbhya!whh@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Wilson Heydt)
>In article <1989Apr8.212905.131@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> In article <10346@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
>> >... The existence of a heatsink at 3 degK should be a great help for
>> >the engine design...
>> 
>> Not as much as you think.  Getting the heat out to that heatsink is
>> *not* a trivial problem.  The shuttle uses the entire inner surface of
>> its payload-bay doors as a heat radiator.  
>As I recall--and I'm sure I'll get some fairly hot replies if I'm wrong--
>that the rate of radiation of energy varies as the 4th power of the 
>absolute temperature.  Since the Shuttle is working a rather low temperatures,
>it's no surprise that it needs a large surface. 

Remember that the shuttle bay is normally pointed at the Earth. Thus it does
not usually take advantage of the 3K heat sink available.

Also remember that concentrating the waste heat to increase the rate of
radiation requires further energy expenditure and consequent heating, which
must be taken into account.

>From the CRC handbook:
  Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation. - The energy radiated in unit time by a
  black body is given by E = K * (T^4 - T0^4), where T is the absolute
  temperature of the body, T0 the absolute temperature of the surroundings,
  and K a constant.
                                     John Roberts
                                     roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 14:22:18 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <631@ftp.COM> jbvb@ftp.COM (James Van Bokkelen) writes:
>
>They may also be re-thinking many engineering issues in light of cold fusion.

I'm not so sure of this.  Considering that nobody (including the crowd here at
Georgia Tech (their neutron counter was faulty...they're rerunning the          experiment)) has 100% conclusively demonstrated nuclear fusion with breakeven
potential.  We still don't really have a solid theory, unless you count the
(still secret, patent pending) MIT claim.  Are the Soviets going to cut back
their current program just to pursue something that *may* pan out sometime
in the next 15 to 20 years?  I don't think so.  If there really is an across    the board cutback in the Soviet program, I still think the reason is economic.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 17:22:12 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)

In <some article that causes the dreaded "%interp buffer overflow" from rn>,
    Henry Spencer writes:
>Turn it around:  what wondrous capabilities is Freedom expected to have
>that Mir doesn't?  Yes, it will be bigger... but Skylab was bigger yet
>(yes, last I heard Freedom's internal volume will be less than that of
>Skylab), and Novy Mir will probably take the record, given the size of
>launch vehicle its designers have available.

    It seems to me that a better indicator of capability is not
volume, but surface area. Skylab's huge internal spaces weren't very
productive - the hardware has to be attached somewhere. (Great for
recreation, though :-)

    Cutting radius of a cylinder in half decreases volume by x4, but
area by only x2. This seems like a good deal, as long as there's
enough room to work and move about in. It also makes modules easier to
launch.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``The tuba recital is one of the most memorable experiences of
      music school.''
	- Seen on a bulletin board in the UNC Music School

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 16:49:06 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <1989Apr14.045720.15637@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <Added.gYF=wUy00jZd06108j@andrew.cmu.edu> K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET writes:
> >  I just heard that the CCCP is not putting up manned missions for a while
> >(anyone heard how long?).   Maybe all the discussion of how much the ...

>  ... To make anything deep and significant
> out of this, you basically need to assume that the Soviet space program
> is run in the same chuckleheaded what-shall-we-do-in-space-today fashion
> as the US space program (and indeed, most programs of any kind that are 
> funded on a year-to-year basis by democratic governments).  ...

Just to be really tangential, maybe "Glasnost, Perestroika, Democracia"
is leading them to the same kind of space program the US has. At a recent
Planetary Society seminar at Princeton (I want to publicly thank Eric
Tilenius for setting this up) James Burke, who is the technical editor for 
The Planetary Report and works at JPL, mentioned that the Soviet Space folk
are now having trouble getting multi-craft missions approved. Where they
used to send zillions of less-expensive probes, expecting to learn from
the failures of the first few, such as the Venera probes, they now build
just a few very expensive probes. They have still been getting approval
to send more than one probe on a mission (e.g., Phobos), but it is much
harder to get this approval now. (The US stopped this with the Surveyors,
I think.) The unmanned vs. manned debates are just as strong there as here 
(e.g., "unmanned" proponents criticism, at the Soviet Academy of Sciences, 
of the Buran shuttle program as expensive and capable of little science). 
Now there is speculation of cutbacks in their manned-space program. Sound
like familiar chuckleheadedness? Maybe we should write to Gorbachev 
suggesting the USSR doesn't have to follow the US model in everything.

Speaking of writing to political people, Rep. George R. Brown, Jr. of CA
was also at the seminar. He said at the end he was charged up by the sessions
and would go back to Washington with renewed vigor for the upcoming budget
fights. One problem is the lack of specific public support. Polls indicate
that 78% of the American public want a space program, but there are
virtually no pro-space lobbyists in Washington, and very little mail
from constituents. It's very easy for pro-space Congressmen to get worn
down by other groups. Harlan Smith was also at the session, and mentioned
just being in Washington talking to Congressmen about various science and
space issues. Many of them said he was the only scientist who they had
ever talked to about policy matters, and often he was followed by a group
of, for example, 50 farmers from Arkansas demanding some specific action.
Harrison Scmidt was also at Princeton, and mentioned the same apparent lack 
of specific support for various space-related issues when he was a Senator.
My point being, write letters to your congressmen; not rambling, incoherent
diatribes against the system, but clear, concise expressions of your
support for various specific space-related activities, policies, bills, ...
Or even against, if you feel that would best support our path to space.
Talk to your friends about it, teach kidlings about the benefits of space,
organize and support lobbying efforts which support your positions. A lot
of words pass over the net. Take some of the time you spend on net activities
to try to keep your congressmen informed about space. Support those actively
trying to boost the space program, and maybe the upcoming NASA budget fights
will not be devastating as is now likely.


-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 16:50:59 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <Added.gYF=wUy00jZd06108j@andrew.cmu.edu>, K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET writes:
> 
>   I just heard that the CCCP is not putting up manned missions for a while
> (anyone heard how long?).
> My theory is that they are conserving resources for upcoming grandiose
> missions... [possible Soviet plans here]

My pet theory is that they are slacking off a bit to let the US catch up.

It is hard to push an aggressive and expensive space program when people
have to wait in line to buy meat and bread, and even harder when the nearest
compitition is fairly far back (at least in the eyes of the public).

If you stop to look at it, the USSR has excelled in the production of
lift vehicals, but are not as far advanced in other areas such as remote 
control of these vehicales.  The US has been working in less flashy areas.
Both countries are now is a re-grouping phase, getting there tecnology and 
politics in line for further exploration.


-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 21:16:19 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: long ago and far away

In article <6331@homxc.ATT.COM> brt@homxc.ATT.COM (B.REYTBLAT) writes:
>On april 12, 1981, STS-1 lifted off from pad 39-(A or B, Henry?).

Pad 39A.  Mission 51L was the first to use 39B.  (There was considerable
speculation about whether this might have been a factor in the disaster,
but that appears to be have fairly conclusively disproven.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:30 GMT
From: netsys!lamc!well!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Soviets will suspend manned space program

If any reminder were needed that the space race is "over" or
at least unrecognizable, consider how it felt to hear about
these recent Soviet setbacks with FOBOS and MIR.  "Say it ain't
so!" was the emotion that hit me each time, and I don't think
I'm alone.  Especially with the stagnation of our own program, 
we need every space success we can get, be it Soviet, European
or whatever.
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 89 01:06:19 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Ariane

>From article <8904141757.AA03101@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, by pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott):
> Anyone know where the Ariane rockets are manufactured, and how they get them
> to Kourou?

Mostly in Toulouse (France) I think; the solids are made in Italy. Some of the stages are flown in 
by special cargo Airbus, but the first stage at least goes by ocean barge, I believe.
Maybe someone can confirm this.

Jonathan McDowell.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 17:03:05 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <1989Apr14.045720.15637@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>To make anything deep and significant
>out of this, you basically need to assume that the Soviet space program
>is run in the same chuckleheaded what-shall-we-do-in-space-today fashion
>as the US space program (and indeed, most programs of any kind that are
>funded on a year-to-year basis by democratic governments).  That's what
>it takes to justify an abrupt shutdown of a major ongoing program.

    This explains the remarkable success of Soviet 5-year plans in
agriculture and the like, I suppose.

    The Soviet space program is about the *only* large-scale activity
they do well, and it's at large (hidden) cost to their economy. I see
no reason to assume they will continue to be as vigorous in space as
has been the case over the last 15 years. They might, but Soviet
planners don't seem to be any more competent than ours (at best).

    Followups to talk.politics.soviet, please.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``There ain't hardly nothin' cuter nor a sleepin' baby tad
      lessen it's a pork chop'' - Churchy La Femme

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 19:42:07 GMT
From: sei!firth@PT.CS.CMU.EDU  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets

In article <135@ixi.UUCP> clive@ixi.UUCP (Clive) writes:
>According to BBC Ceefax news this morning (Thursday), the UK's first
>astronaut will be launched by the Soviets in 1991.

In article <1019@esatst.yc.estec.nl> neil@esatst.UUCP (Neil Dixon) writes:
>1991, Thatcher's next election year. A cheap publicity stunt is
>obviously more important than any participation in Europe's own
>(albeit flawed) manned space program.

First, the venture has nothing to do with Mrs Thatcher, since it is
entirely privately financed.  The British government's depressing
lack of interest in space is at least consistent, and a tribute to
their predecessors who wanted to retrocede Canada to the French
because it was of no economic benefit.

Secondly, Britain doesn't have "election years".  The Prime Minister
can request a dissolution of Parliament at any time, and this is
customarily followed by a General Election.

Finally, what's this 'Europe' stuff?  There is only one working space
program in Europe; it's been working since 1957, and it is run from
Moscow.  The only way the EC bureaucrats will get men into space is
by building a 300km-high butter mountain under them.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #374
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Apr 89 02:17:14 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04623>; Tue, 18 Apr 89 01:41:40 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 18 Apr 89 01:41:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4YGfY9y00UkTI2gkoC>;
          Tue, 18 Apr 89 00:26:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.IYGfUuy00UkZM6Bk4R>;
          Tue, 18 Apr 89 00:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <EYGfTSy00UkZM6AE5Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 00:21:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #375

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 375

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 89 19:11:50 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #488 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89 97.63703378 0.00000395           46348-3 0  1963
2 00424  80.4666 355.3872 0023657 315.2295  44.6894 13.67117024323178
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89102.95233723 0.00000002                   0  7248
2 08820 109.8190 207.7331 0044815 329.7407  30.0589  6.38664001 46464
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89 97.96349401 -.00000005                   0  2422
2 10061   6.9909  69.0864 0005712 179.2621 180.7574  1.00272007  4677
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89101.64278053 0.00000012           10000-3 0   844
2 10684  63.5551 102.9227 0106741 199.4452 160.1637  2.00561449 67190
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89 99.10688766 -.00000028                   0  9683
2 10893  64.5276 343.8154 0152337  28.4753 332.4004  2.00558582 79963
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 91.03781924 0.00000091           10000-3 0  6225
2 10953   5.8394  71.8491 0005923 277.8997  83.0665  1.00276940   161
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89 99.05526804 0.00001104           43456-3 0  1024
2 10967 108.0105 145.2542 0002291 284.0186  76.0652 14.34475601564170
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89 98.92310625 -.00000028                   0  9969
2 11054  64.0744 340.2970 0053746 117.3674 243.2303  2.00560877 76978
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89 97.53403217 0.00000012                   0  1359
2 11141  63.5331 102.9378 0057820 321.2007  38.4171  2.00576130 75648
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89 98.50829740 0.00001120           48840-3 0  8340
2 11416  98.5053  97.6051 0011242 319.1943  40.8384 14.25648773507975
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89103.08123493 0.00058459           11491-2 0  9137
2 11703  28.4994  16.7756 0002108   7.4104 352.6546 15.45891368509734
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89 97.98686903 -.00000028                   0  8664
2 11783  63.8836 339.9768 0141229  62.4107 299.0618  2.00566986 65592
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89 97.86162717 -.00000248           10000-3 0  7195
2 12472   2.3549  82.4520 0003544 327.7240  31.5527  1.00264031 27901
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89 98.60213918 0.00064017           11071-2 0  5097
2 12888  97.5648 148.1913 0003572  67.2249 292.9463 15.50735176418178
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 96.06559998 0.00000220           18836-3 0  6340
2 13113  82.5382 116.0956 0013725 266.6835  93.2733 13.83970380355261
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89102.94303824 0.00059823           14865-2 0  5166
2 13138  51.6104 276.5105 0001414 180.1825 179.9264 15.39733803398130
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89 96.16784756 0.00000372           19043-3 0  7647
2 13718  81.2500 352.0059 0055180 202.9914 156.8813 14.13140881325382
IRAS       
1 13777U          89 98.56013419 0.00000513           38187-3 0  6252
2 13777  99.0498 296.6185 0013260 138.4443 221.7724 13.98576212316461
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89 89.08974395 0.00000116                   0  9221
2 14050   1.1063  83.7067 0001223 340.4033  20.4933  1.00283679  5810
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89 98.17631485 0.00000002                   0  3934
2 14129  26.4531 271.3989 6054626  31.9599 353.4785  2.05880931 15775
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89 96.58038916 0.00000011                   0  6194
2 14189  63.1737 101.6009 0134611 215.3364 143.7845  2.00571206 42000
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 99.16958415 0.00000975           41635-3 0  7103
2 14452  81.1701   2.7187 0094206 296.2117  62.9398 14.22114372282736
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89101.98670436 0.00002915           65667-3 0  7102
2 14780  98.1738 165.4829 0004151  94.7525 265.4169 14.57124889271929
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89 95.57002775 0.00002447           48257-3 0  4300
2 14781  98.0078 156.4687 0012594 184.7624 175.3464 14.63297605271929
LDEF       
1 14898U          89 98.53911172 0.00035405           68608-3 0  8067
2 14898  28.5062 305.7421 0001640 147.9961 212.1480 15.46303749280645
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89100.12746134 0.00000010                   0  6451
2 15039  62.9088 100.7713 0015649 276.1019  83.7339  2.00564680 35353
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89 96.35710405 0.00000196           16774-3 0  9321
2 15099  82.5271  63.4990 0014995  78.2178 282.0661 13.83630288240185
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89 98.53270487 -.00000028                   0  6127
2 15271  63.3889 339.7616 0099705 319.7971  39.5139  2.00563771 32430
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89 96.26799050 0.00003956           57892-3 0    57
2 15331  82.5399  44.8122 0023876 323.7227  36.2359 14.75246918243615
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89 96.42363485 0.00000836           47796-3 0  3554
2 15427  99.1388  81.9811 0015803 151.2156 208.9890 14.11939156222322
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89 99.78434652 0.00000509           44717-3 0   666
2 15516  82.5414 359.1742 0016250 313.5225  46.4560 13.84084761211595
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89102.94302415 0.00016369           41664-3 0  2181
2 16095  51.6095 276.5112 0001937 168.9499 191.0779 15.39708114398136
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 99.68483095 0.00000011                   0  3104
2 16129  63.6929 101.3877 0115346 150.6370 210.0223  2.00564927 25669
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89102.86607656 0.00000044           10000-3 0  8161
2 16191  82.5437 281.9317 0020477 101.3767 258.9627 13.16867340166927
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89102.47429805 0.00000211           17933-3 0  4767
2 16408  82.5311 271.8907 0016908 120.9640 239.3181 13.84150446166467
Mir        
1 16609U          89102.92687494 0.00059506           65460-3 0  7830
2 16609  51.6244 329.5228 0012793 182.8931 177.2200 15.62480343181017
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89102.90985111 0.00000194           10000-3 0  4296
2 16613  98.7019 178.3561 0001114  64.5110 295.5706 14.20033419  2865
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89103.01331180 0.00000246           21207-3 0  2887
2 16735  82.5364 298.2636 0013542 190.5263 169.5612 13.83896792145443
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89102.46055986 0.00002482           36535-3 0  5757
2 16881  82.5228  98.7258 0021545 317.5457  42.4045 14.74898016145604
EGP        
1 16908U          89 96.32406974 -.00000011           22475-3 0  1213
2 16908  50.0128 159.0059 0012094 162.7914 197.3332 12.44377601120463
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 83.69611252 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1370
2 16909  50.0189 198.0467 0011097 130.5680 229.6122 12.44398749118887
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89 98.89382834 0.00000936           43313-3 0  2144
2 16969  98.6423 130.6919 0014857  92.0456 268.2411 14.22930050134081
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89102.28173095 0.00000375           32931-3 0  2385
2 17290  82.4687 206.6284 0014547  85.8840 274.3987 13.83698225114506
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 96.76000789 -.00000036           10000-3 0  2513
2 17561   0.0788 102.8111 0001270  89.1425 168.0185  1.00272633  1046
Kvant      
1 17845U          89102.92674909 0.00040301           44625-3 0  7248
2 17845  51.6288 329.5203 0013618 187.5147 171.9101 15.62467253117283
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89100.86343442 0.00000417           44884-3 0  7230
2 18129  82.9225 287.8876 0010641 235.0151 125.0041 13.71963799 90160
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89102.71212717 0.00196899  19201-4  27731-3 0  9741
2 18225  71.8759 230.9742 0010647 246.8612 113.1633 16.05502582100790
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89102.38130210 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2586
2 18312  82.5530 271.6742 0013383  27.2982 332.8879 13.83451581 83412
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89102.97162720 0.00000286           24743-3 0  1005
2 18820  82.5460 332.3925 0018138  91.6737 268.6501 13.84143245 60668
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 89.37166448 -.00000028           10000-3 0   346
2 19216  57.2895 213.9669 6688587 201.4192 106.6281  2.09699506  6084
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89102.42315186 0.00000406           10000-2 0  1727
2 19336  82.5498 222.1996 0017804 350.8080  10.2434 13.19497204 34253
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89 97.14900325 0.00000810           47129-3 0   665
2 19531  98.9332  41.5246 0013472  73.1405 287.1242 14.10925555 27455
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89102.92689874 0.00042324           46857-3 0  1398
2 19660  51.6222 329.5268 0012411 179.8707 180.3679 15.62467849 21600
GPS-0014   
1 19802U          89 70.93695796 0.00000015           10000-3 0   167
2 19802  55.1211 215.6503 0077655 186.9612 172.8939  2.01900521   472
1989 016A  
1 19822U          89 78.45474634 0.00027893           22863-2 0   331
2 19822  75.1114  94.3353 4326466 142.9786 256.6972  6.82723171  1744
1989 016B  
1 19823U 89016  B 89081.29587005  .00773634  00000-0  00000-0 0 00305
2 19823 074.5686 044.4816 0125969 101.3219 260.2745 15.83310232004454
1989 016C  
1 19824U          89 79.44848572 0.00054829           43302-2 0   249
2 19824  75.1096  93.8605 4319426 142.2524 259.1648  6.84257340  1818
1989 017A  
1 19826U          89 79.47638162 0.00000359           38850-3 0   349
2 19826  82.9517 212.9735 0029626 202.5847 157.4022 13.71043896  3615
1989 017B  
1 19827U          89 77.91681824 0.00000442           47097-3 0   313
2 19827  82.9509 214.0777 0024396 199.4009 160.6223 13.72519946  3398
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89103.04827285 0.00000117           10000-3 0   220
2 19851  82.5242 211.0981 0015949 128.0660 232.1947 13.83777833  6073
1989 018B  
1 19852U          89 87.94089069 0.00000116           10000-3 0   130
2 19852  82.5200 223.1366 0018296 155.4542 204.7493 13.83527160  3984
1989 019A  
1 19862U          89 95.12275817 0.00946225  39673-4  42772-3 0   851
2 19862  62.7868 262.6573 0114960 128.3397 232.5572 16.07713223  5373
1989 020A  
1 19874U          89 87.06339145 -.00000150           10000-3 0    83
2 19874   0.0997 330.2385 0022931 155.9890 233.9784  1.00288762   206
1989 020B  
1 19876U          89 94.29713181 -.00000042           10000-4 0   164
2 19876   1.1453 297.7800 0010668  36.1305 322.6241  1.00103247   276
1989 020C  
1 19877U          89 94.75127070 0.00054406           60542-2 0   179
2 19877   7.0031 319.7005 7291933 201.1459  97.0995  2.28813204   656
TDRS 3     
1 19883U          89 84.96599351 0.00000150           10000-3 0    74
2 19883   0.1723  43.3983 0021399 253.4486  62.9265  1.00458708   115
1989 022A  
1 19893U          89 89.07599591 -.00011829          -10090-3 0   243
2 19893  62.8445 298.6618 0061020 230.7484 128.8279 15.66186821  2113
Progress 41
1 19895U          89102.92713922 0.00038512           42670-3 0   291
2 19895  51.6227 329.5164 0014260 187.1233 174.4941 15.62462032  4268
1989 024A  
1 19900U          89102.72667590 0.00414823  89886-4  45696-3 0   428
2 19900  64.7376 327.7932 0036694  83.3515 277.1294 16.07851601  3257
1989 025A  
1 19902U          89 99.06156081 -.00000007                   0    68
2 19902  74.0141  13.8336 0049494  73.2493 287.3985 12.57623911  1956
1989 025B  
1 19903U          89102.98860951 -.00000007                   0   142
2 19903  74.0142   8.6303 0040841  77.8490 282.7135 12.55708074  2441
1989 025C  
1 19904U          89103.01752506 -.00000006                   0    75
2 19904  74.0147   8.6622 0030055  76.9106 283.5300 12.53834224  2449
1989 025D  
1 19905U          89 99.05128100 -.00000007                   0    50
2 19905  74.0131  14.0900 0020498  89.7729 270.5674 12.51974917  1919
1989 025E  
1 19906U          89102.99666641 -.00000006                   0   123
2 19906  74.0144   8.8835 0009898  90.9430 269.2756 12.50017584  2437
1989 025F  
1 19907U          89103.02866308 -.00000006                   0    75
2 19907  74.0147   8.9696 0010125 164.9766 195.1587 12.47956765  2401
1989 025G  
1 19908U          89 99.04402191 -.00000007                   0    91
2 19908  74.0140  14.3210 0013151 228.8129 131.1786 12.46072793  1930
1989 025H  
1 19909U          89103.01224865 -.00000006                   0    72
2 19909  74.0147   9.1588 0025960 220.9966 138.9131 12.43851519  2388
1989 025J  
1 19910U          89 97.37151382 -.00000006                   0    67
2 19910  74.0133  17.2845 0135980 250.1613 108.4718 12.23017776  1692
Delta Star 
1 19911U          89102.72280624 0.00011886           49084-3 0   310
2 19911  47.6843 304.8765 0013857  69.3879 290.7898 15.24195635  2864
1989 021D  
1 19913U          89 90.07589308 0.00000151           10000-3 0    24
2 19913   2.1183  56.3549 0026633 209.8394 150.7565  1.00609025   100
1989 027A  
1 19919U          89102.43060426 0.00000101                   0   131
2 19919   0.3205 167.9143 0016582 103.3167  88.6100  1.00460181    98
1989 027B  
1 19920U          89100.62330520 0.00226103  19926-4  70245-2 0   233
2 19920   3.9748  34.9724 7297842 186.5520 154.6272  2.30178997   192
1989 028A  
1 19921U          89103.06389929 0.00000187           18820-3 0   223
2 19921  82.9598 134.3054 0038540 272.3244  87.3489 13.73915815  1147
1989 028B  
1 19922U          89102.17993997 -.00005554          -57459-2 0   170
2 19922  82.9742 134.9658 0032029 259.9808  99.7760 13.75759101  1020
1989 029A  
1 19923U          89102.74252299 0.00118895  13968-4  15040-3 0   216
2 19923  62.8050 330.5917 0050244  67.5222 293.0854 16.04669333   994
1989 029B  
1 19924U          89102.94182754 0.01706541  41746-4  51642-3 0   188
2 19924  62.7853 329.3576 0004035 202.8366 157.3179 16.26496196  1039
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #375
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Apr 89 06:05:09 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00563>; Tue, 18 Apr 89 05:51:14 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 18 Apr 89 05:51:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wYGiDpy00Vs101EkMZ>;
          Tue, 18 Apr 89 03:30:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.YYGi4ay00UkZ46SU5h>;
          Tue, 18 Apr 89 03:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <AYGi3Yy00UkZ06R04v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 03:16:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #376

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 376

Today's Topics:
		   Congresscrittercommittees (long)
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 16:54:57 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Congresscrittercommittees (long)

This is the new listing of _Committee Assignments for the 101st Congress_,
taken from the March _NASA Activities_.  

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
------------------------
("*:" indicates freshman member, new to committee.  "**" indicates senior
member, new to committee.)

Committee on Science, Space and Technology
------------------------------------------
Democrats (29):
Robert A. Roe (NJ), Chairman
George E. Brown, Jr.  (CA)
James H. Scheuer (NY)
Marilyn Lloyd (TN)
Doug Walgren (PA)
Dan Glickman (KS)
Harold L. Volkmer (MO)
Howard Wolpe (MI)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Ralph M. Hall (TX)
Dave McCurdy (OK)
Norman Y. Mineta (CA)
Tim Valentine (NC)
Robert G. Torricelli (NJ)
Rick Boucher (VA)
Terry L. Bruce (IL)
Richard H. Stallings (ID)
James A. Traficant, Jr. (OH)
Lee H. Hamilton (IN)
Henry J. Nowak (NY)
Carl C. Perkins (KY)
Thomas McMillen (MD)
David E. Price (NC)
David R. Nagle (IA)
James A. Hayes (LA)
David E. Skaggs (CO)
Jerry F. Costello (IL) *
Harry A. Johnston (FL) *
John Tanner (TN) *

Republicans (19):
Robert Walker (PA)
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)
Claudine Schneider (RI)
Sherwood L. Boehlert (NY)
Tom Lewis (FL)
Don Ritter (PA)
Sid Morrison (WA)
Ron Packard (CA)
Robert F. Smith (OR)
Paul B. Henry (MI)
Harris W. Fawell (IL)
D. French Slaughter, Jr. (VA)
Lamar S. Smith (TX)
Jack Buechner (MO)
Constance Morella (MD)
Christopher Shays (CT)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA) *
Steven H. Schiff (NM) *
Tom Campbell (CA) *

Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications
----------------------------------------------
Democrats (16):
Bill Nelson (FL), Chairman
Harold L. Volkmer (MO)
Norman Y. Mineta (CA)
Robert G. Torricelli (NJ)
Richard H. Stallings (ID) **
James A. Traficant, Jr. (OH)
Carl C. Perkins (KY)
Tom McMillen (MD)
David R. Nagle (IA)
Jimmy Hayes (LA)
David E. Skaggs (CO)
Harry A. Johnston (FL) *
James H. Scheuer (NY)
Marilyn Lloyd (TN) **
Ralph M. Hall (TX)
John Tanner (TN)

Republicans (10):
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) **
Tom Lewis (FL)
Ron Packard (CA)
Robert C. Smith (NH)
D. French Slaughter, Jr. (VA)
Lamar Smith (TX) **
Jack Buechner (MO)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA) *
Constance A. Morella (MD)
Steven H. Schiff (NM) *


Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials
------------------------------------------------------
Democrats (7):
Tim Valentine (NC), Chairman
Dan Glickman (KS)
Dave McCurdy (OK)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Henry J. Nowak (NY) **
Jimmy Hayes (LA)
Tom McMillen (MD)

Republicans (4):
Tom Lewis (FL)
Christopher Shays (CT) **
Dana Rohrabacher (CA) *
Tom Campbell (CA) *

Committee on Appropriations
---------------------------
Jamie L. Whitten (D-MS), Chairman
Silvio Conte (R-MA), Ranking Minority

Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies
----------------------------------------
Democrats (6):
Bob Traxler (MI), Chairman
Louis Stokes (OH)
Lindy Boggs (LA)
Alan B. Mollohan (WV)
Jim Chapman (TX) **
Chester Atkins (MA) **

Republicans (3):
Bill Green (NY)
Lawrence Coughlin (PA)
Jerry Lewis (CA)

Committee on the Budget
-----------------------
Democrats (21):
Leon E. Panetta (CA), Chairman **
Thomas S. Foley (WA)
Marty Russo (IL)
Ed Jenkins (GA)
Marvin Leath (TX)
Charles E. Schumer (NY)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Jim Slattery (KS)
James L. Oberstar (MN)
Frank J. Guarini (NJ)
Richard J. Durbin (IL)
Mike Espy (MS)
Dale Kildee (MI) **
Anthony Beilenson (CA) **
Jerry Huckaby (LA) **
Martin Olav Sabo (MN) **
Bernard Dwyer (NJ) **
Howard Berman (CA) **
Robert E. Wise, Jr. (WV) **
Marcy Kaptur (OH) **
John Bryant (TX) **

Republicans (14):
Bill Frenzel (MN) **
Willis D. Gradison, Jr. (OH)
William F. Goodling (PA)
Denny Smith (OR)
William M. Thomas (CA)
Harold Rogers (KY)
Richard Armey (TX)
Jack Buechner (MO)
Amo Houghton (NY)
Jim McCrery (LA)
John Kasich (OH) **
Dean A. Gallo (NJ) **
Bill Schuette (MI) **
Helen Delich Bentley (MD) **

UNITED STATES SENATE
--------------------

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
-------------------------------------------------
Democrats (11):
Ernest F. Hollings (SC), Chairman
Daniel K. Inouye (HI)
Wendell H. Ford (KY)
J. James Exon (NE)
Albert Gore, Jr. (TN)
John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
Lloyd Bentsen (TX)
John Kerry (MA)
John B. Breaux (LA)
Richard Bryan (NV) *
Chuck Robb (VA) *

Republicans (9):
John C. Danforth (MO)
Bob Packwood (OR)
Larry Pressler (SD)
Ted Stevens (AK)
Bob Kasten (WI)
John McCain (AZ)
Conrad Burns (MT) *
Slade Gorton (WA) *
Trent Lott (MS) *

Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space
---------------------------------------------
Democrats (6):
Albert Gore, Jr. (TN), Chairman
John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
Lloyd D. Bentsen (TX)
John D. Kerry (MA)
Richard Bryan (NV) *

Republicans (4):
Larry Pressler (SD)
Ted Stevens (AK) **
Bob Kasten (WI) **
Trent Lott (MS) *
Chuck Robb (VA) *

Committee on Appropriations
---------------------------
Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), Chairman
Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR), Ranking Minority

Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies
----------------------------------------
Democrats (6):
Barbara A. Mikulski (MD), Chairman
Patrick J. Leahy (VT)
J. Bennett Johnston (LA)
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ)
Wyche Fowler (GA) **
Robert Kerrey (NE) **

Republicans (5):
Jake Garn (UT)
Alfonse M. D'Amato (NY)
Charles E. Grassley (IA)
Don Nickles (OK)
Phil Gramm (TX) **

Committee on the Budget
-----------------------
Democrats (13):
Jim Sasser (TN), Chairman
Ernest F. Hollings (SC)
J. Bennett Johnston (LA)
Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (MI)
J. James Exon (NE)
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ)
Paul Simon (IL)
Terry Sanford (NC)
Timothy E. Wirth (CO)
Wyche Fowler, Jr. (GA)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Christopher J. Dodd (CT)
Chuck Robb (VA) *

Republicans (10):
Pete V. Domenici (NM)
William L. Armstrong (CO)
Rudy Boschwitz (MN)
Steve Symms (ID)
Charles E. Grassley (IA)
Bob Kasten (WI)
Don Nickles (OK)
Warren B. Rudman (NH)
Christopher Bond (MO) **
Phil Gramm (TX) **

I corrected 5 errors in the original (mainly layout) while typing this,
so there may be errors in content; I can only vouch for a tiny fraction
of that.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 18:33:06 GMT
From: psivax!quad1!ttidca!hollombe@uunet.uu.net  (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <6316@homxc.UUCP> gfv@homxc.UUCP (G.VALVO) writes:
}The fusion reaction itself is only the first step to electric power.
}How would the electricty be generated, boilers?  steam turbines?  direct
}conversion? ...

Stirling cycle engines may be best for back yard use.  Turbines aren't
efficient at low and intermittent power levels.

}... These are all non-trivial operations.  I don't think I
}want everyone in my neighborhood operating a thermonuclear device in
}their back yard.

Similar attitudes and arguments were put forth at the introduction of the
mass produced automobile and, probably, the bow and arrow.  Technology
marches on.

It occurs to me that most urban dwellers will probably continue to get
their power from the grid for some time.  The first uses of home fusion
power will be for isolated installations.  I'd love to be able to
homestead some back-country acreage and still have the technological
comforts of urban living available (without paying megabucks for the power
company to run lines to me).

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)  Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI                                                 Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #376
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Apr 89 07:42:07 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00812>; Tue, 18 Apr 89 07:02:33 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 18 Apr 89 07:02:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0YGjt3y00Ui341V04s>;
          Tue, 18 Apr 89 05:22:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.EYGjpby00UkZ86dE55>;
          Tue, 18 Apr 89 05:18:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YGjoJy00UkZ06bk4q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 05:17:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #377

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 377

Today's Topics:
		    NSS Hotline Update for 4/14/89
       Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact)
	       US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
	      Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
		     SETI: When and where to look
     Re: Information Needed (on plume from antimatter H2 rocket)
			   Re: Bored public
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 89 05:02:00 GMT
From: sgi!arisia!cdp!jordankatz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: NSS Hotline Update for 4/14/89


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending
April 14, 1989.

The STS-30 mission of the space shuttle Atlantis and its Magellan payload
have been approved for launch April 28th at 2:24 pm EST. Office of space
flight director Richard Truly made the announcement, saying that there
was "much work to do and little contingency time."

During a key main engine test, a valve failed to work in engine no. 1. 
To make up for lost time technicians have been repairing the valve
with parts from Discovery's main engine.  The space shuttle Atlantis
will be deploying the Magellan Venus Radar Mapper, to map the surface
of Mars through it dense layer of sulfuric acid laden clouds.

President Bush has nominated Rear Adm. Richard Truly to the post of
NASA Administrator.  Truly will be the first astronaut to head the
agency and also the first military officer as well.  In order for
Truly to become administrator, the White House had to ask Congress for
a waiver to the Space Act of 1958, essentially letting Truly retire from
the Navy, but being able to defer his pension during his years as
administrator.  

President Bush also nominated the current Director of the Marshall
Space Flight Center J.R. Thompson to the post of NASA Deputy
Administrator.

Acting NASA Administrator Dale Myers turned in his resignation to
be effective May 13, 1989.  Myers took over for James Fletcher after
he retired April 8, 1989. This is Myers' second tour of duty at NASA,
first as associate administrator for manned space flight from 1970 to
1974, and when President Regean called him back to NASA after the
Challenger Disaster till now.

The Soviet Union has decided to temporarily vacate the Mir space station;
a move that was prompted by delays in the preparation of two new modules
for the soon-to-be vacant platform.  Flight Director Viktor Blagov stated
that the station will only be unmanned for several months until the two
research modules are completed and ready for launch.  Glavcosmos Chairman
Alexander Sunayev confirmed that there would be no missions this year
involving the new Soviet Space Shuttle Buran.  

In the international community, there has been mixed reaction to the
announcement that the Soviets would be leaving the Mir space station
"untended".  The development may provide the U.S. with an opporunity to
gain the high ground regarding the civilian space program in general and
international cooperation specifically.  While the Soviets had taken
advantage of the Challenger accident to attract international partners,
arguments can now be made that it is the U.S. and not the Soviets that
can be counted on in the long run to stand by their commitments to human
expansion into the solar system.




The action also points out the importance of building a fully capable
space station such as the International Space Station Freedom.  The Mir
space station had greatly reduced capabilities allowing for limited
research in life sciences and materials processing.  It appears the
Soviets will now wait until additional capability is added to the station
in order to commit further ressources to permanent humaned presence.

PAUSE

The pro-space lobby Spacecause continues to urge space advocates to write
or call members of the House of Representatives Committee on
Appropriations regarding an effort to scuttle the space station program.
An amendment to the fiscal year 1989 supplemental appropriations bill has
been introduced by the committee's minority leader, Massachusetts Rep.
Silvio Conte. Conte's amendment would transfer nearly $600 of station
funding to other domestic programs. Rumour has it that if the House
approves this measure, the Senate is sure to go along. Space advocates
have a chance to send a clear signal of support for the space station
program.

In other news from inside the beltway, the special budget negotiating
group which has been working for the past month on its recommendations
for a budget framework for fiscal year 1990 has reached an agreement.
The group, consisting of executive branch members and congressional
leaders, will suggest that next year's spending be frozen at current
services + 4%. This agreement will set overall limits, which means that
individual accounts could grow but that the bottom line must remain at
the agreed upon level. Despite White House rhetoric to the contrary, the
space station program was not protected. It follows that congressional
democrats will not want to go it alone in station support; therefore,
space advocates will be called upon soon to flex their muscle. When the
targets and time frame have been selected, it will reported on the
HOTLINE, the space bulletin boards, and through the SPACE PHONE TREE.


The National Research Council published a report stating that there is
no need for the Commercially Developed Space Laboratory that the
Regean Administration called for last year as a stepping stone to the
larger Space Station Freedom.  The report confirmed that the majority
of experiments for which the commercially developed space facility is
designed can be handled aboard existing facilities on the Space
Shuttle until the Space Station is built.  To Joe Allen, president of
Space Industries, designers of the Commercially Developed Space
Laboratory, the report was encouraging because it is stated that there
would eventually be a need for one.

NASA has selected the first Small Explorer missions.  The Small
Explorers are small satellites weighing approximately 800 lbs. and can
be lunched by Scout-class expendable launch vehicle.  This program
will provide frequent flight opportunities for specialized inexpensive
space science missions.  All four of the selected missions out of the
51 submitted are Astronomy related missions.

Marshall Space Flight Center has started a new program to share
scientific and engineering data from flight experiments with American
Universities and Colleges.  The program will make available data
generated during space missions in exchange for the analysis and
interpretations from faculty members and students.  In addition
Universities will be encouraged to create outreach programs that would
take the excitement of the space program to the secondary and
elementary schools in their area.

This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space Soceity's
Space Hotline!

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 01:33:25 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact)

In article <8904051901.AA12276@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
> And then you can fly missions that are outside the envelope of human
> comfort/survivability, e.g. duration (no running out of air), acceleration
> (high g forces), radiation (flying during solar flares),... anyone got any more ideas?

  1) the 3g acceleration limit for a shuttle is a structural limitation, not a
     human one.  At least, this is the impression I get from my readings.
     That it also fits nicely with human limits is either a fluke (I hope), or
     NASA designed with the comfort-limit in mind, shaving weight/strength for
     payload capacity (eeek!).   I am beyond myself here, though, wondering if
     "stronger == heavier" is really true...

  2) if payload weight is a problem, why not split it into two shuttle
     launches?  They are, after all, supposed to be cheap...

    Remember that the shuttle was designed as a thing to get stuff into
orbit and then come back for some more.  Flying a thing like that into really
weird orbits or under "anomalous" conditions is probably not a good idea.

  Why not use a nice expendable?  Of all the ideas you have, is a reflyable
reentry vehicle truly needed?  Will not a simple capsule Apollo-style suffice
if you want to get something back?
-- 
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 89 22:59:02 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

I have received requests for the citation which covers the
illegal aspects of man-ET encounters.  I am quoting here from the
enigmatic KRILL document previously posted here.

"Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of
citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14,
Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted
7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing).  The Code
specifies up to a year in jail and a 5000 dollar fine.  The NASA
authorities can examine you to determine if you have been "ET
exposed", and can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be
broken, even by court order."

Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 89 02:57:27 GMT
From: biar!trebor@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets

In article <1019@esatst.yc.estec.nl> neil@esatst.UUCP (Neil Dixon) writes:
>1991, Thatcher's next election year. A cheap publicity stunt is ...

If it is a publicity stunt, I can assure you, cheap it will not be.
Very expensive is more like it.

;^)
-- 
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  ...!uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP
"The NY Times is read by the people who run the country.  The Washington Post
is read by the people who think they run the country.   The National Enquirer
is read by the people who think Elvis is alive and running the country..."

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 15 Apr 89 08:04:32 PDT
From: nagy%warner.hepnet@LBL.Gov (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope
X-St-Vmsmail-To: SPACE_DIGEST

>Does the space telescope have cryostats?  By "burn out" do you mean
>boil away?  (i.e. does do IR?)  Or are CCD's damaged permanently from
>high fluxes?  What happens if a 10 GeV proton decides to deposit
>its energy in the CCD chip?

Nope, no cryostats on the HST.  Also, at 10 Gev, a proton is a minimum
ionizing particle and will pass right through the CCD chip (here I'm
assuming the chip is rather thin) since it takes a bit of material
to stop a 10 Gev proton.  According to my Range-energy tables, I'm
guessing it would talk about 2000 cm (within a factor or 2) of silicon
to stop a 10 Gev proton.

What is likely to happen is that the energy deposition by the passage
of the proton will knock lose more than enough electrons to glitch
several pixels for the current picture.  I doubt that there will be
any permanent damage by such high energy protons (low energy, 10s MeV,
solar protons are likely to be an entirely different story).


= Dr. Frank J. Nagy   "VAX Guru & Wizard"
= Fermilab Research Division/Electrical and Electronics Dept/Controls Group
= HEPNET: WARNER::NAGY (43198::NAGY) or FNAL::NAGY (43009::NAGY)
= BitNet: NAGY@FNAL
= USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/220 Batavia, IL 60510

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 89 05:07:23 GMT
From: hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@hplabs.hp.com
Subject: SETI: When and where to look

A few days ago, "Nova" dealt with the search for extraterrestrial 
intelligence. After watching the program, I got an idea.

The major problems in attempting radio contact are the questions of
"where" and "when". There are many billions of stars to examine, and
even if by chance a radiotelescope were aimed at a star system that was
home to intelligent life, the E.T.'s at the other end might not be
broadcasting or listening in our direction.

Suppose that two planets in solar systems many light years apart harbor
advanced civilizations. Both planets suspect that there are other intelligent
beings in the galaxy, but don't know when and where to point their radio
antennae.

Somehow, the two planets need to make a reasonable guess at space-time 
coordinates at which to attempt contact with the other. Let's look at 
a rather bizarre analogy. Suppose two people are in a huge deserted city.
Neither person is sure the other exists, but suspects it. Suppose there
is a clocktower in the city. Every day at noon, the clocktower rings its
bells. If I were one of the two people, I would reason as follows; "Although
I don't know the space-time coordinates of the other person, I know that
there is a very distinct event in space-time in this city; at the clock
tower at noon each day. The other person must be aware of this special
coordinate also. If she wants to meet me, maybe she'll be there.
I'll go there tomorrow at noon." If the other person also uses this 
reasoning, there will be a meeting.

Is there a similar space-time marker in the galaxy? I think a supernova
explosion might qualify. The light from the explosion travels outward as a 
spherical front. Thus, the "event surface" is a spherical shell traveling
outward from the supernova. An intelligent creature might reason as follows;
"If I see a supernova go off, I'll calculate it's exact coordinates. Then
I'll start broadcasting to every other star on my event surface (i.e., at
the same distance as I am from the supernova). If other intelligent creatures
get the same idea, and they lie on my event surface, they'll start 
broadcasting to me also. I'll be sure to meet a girl that way!"  

For this method to work there must be a planet with intelligent life on
the same event surface as we. Does anyone out there know how many stars lie
on our event surface of supernova 1987a?

Does this idea make any sense, or am I just blathering?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
186,000 miles per second:	|  Tom O'Reilly at HP Lab Data Systems
It's not just a good idea...	|
it's the Law! - A. Einstein	|  oreilly@hpldslq.HP.COM
----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 15 Apr 89 08:18:58 PDT
From: nagy%warner.hepnet@LBL.Gov (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru)
Subject: Re: Information Needed (on plume from antimatter H2 rocket)
X-St-Vmsmail-To: SPACE_DIGEST

>What would be the appearance of the plume from an antimatter rocket
>using Hydrogen? I would presume the Hydrogen comes out the nozzle as a
>plasma of protons and electrons that gradually recombine and give off EM.

>From this description, I assume you are talking about a rocket whose
working fluid and reaction mass is liquid hydrogen into which a small
amount of antimatter is introduced.  The resulting annihilation of a
small amount of the hydrogen and the antimatter heat the working fluid
to a plasma and thus powers the rocket.  The resulting exhaust is
a proton-electron plasma and a storm of photons.  My guess for what you
might see:

	1. A bright gamma ray source from astern due to the annihilation
	   reactions (primarily pi-zero production and subsequent decay)

	2. lots of radio emission from electron synchrontron radiation
	   (assuming magnetic fields are present in the rocket nozzle
	    and/or the interplanetary/interstellar medium) and from
	    bremstrahlung (braking radiation) possibly from the exhaust
	    interacting with the surrounding medium.

	3. Astern of the ship, where the plasma begins to neutralize
	   (protons and electrons recombine) should be a bright
	   UV source since many of the most prominent hydrogen lines
	   are in the UV.  In this same region should be a smaller
	   visible glow, probably skewed toward the blue end of the
	   spectrum, as protons and electrons form highly excited
	   hydrogen atoms (the UV then comes from the de-excitation
	   of these atoms - Lyman alpha and Lyman beta lines).

These statements apply to an observer whose velocity is non-relativistic
with respect to the antimatter rocket although interaction with the
surrounding medium might slow the plasma before recombination occurrs.

These guesses from:


= Dr. Frank J. Nagy   "VAX Guru & Wizard"
= Fermilab Research Division/Electrical and Electronics Dept/Controls Group
= HEPNET: WARNER::NAGY (43198::NAGY) or FNAL::NAGY (43009::NAGY)
= BitNet: NAGY@FNAL
= USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/220 Batavia, IL 60510

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 89 19:20:57 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!powi@rutgers.edu  (Peter Owings)
Subject: Re: Bored public

In article <2404@viscous.sco.COM> joed@sco.COM (Joe Di Lellio) writes:
>
>I'm afraid I agree completely. There is quickly developing a huge majority
>of people who not only know little about technical related subjects, but are
>downright proud of it. I'm still a student at UCSC (well, sort of;>), and I 

	I just want to know how many of these technology haters are running
home to their CD players and microwaves and have 150 clear channels beamed
to them from the netherworld...

	Peter...
	powi@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
	University of Rochester

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #377
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Apr 89 01:40:50 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04993>; Wed, 19 Apr 89 01:08:13 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 19 Apr 89 01:07:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0YH0dEy00Ui3M1Tkku>;
          Wed, 19 Apr 89 00:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.8YH0Zay00UkZQ:604p>;
          Wed, 19 Apr 89 00:22:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYH0Wqy00UkZE-4U5W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 00:19:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #378

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 378

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Bored public
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
			 re: Walker testimony
	     Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)
		   bored public, Three Mile Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 18:21:38 GMT
From: jerbil@csvax.caltech.edu  (Stainless Steel Gerbil [Joe Beckenbach])
Subject: Re: Bored public

>> Joe Di Lellio  (joed@sco.com)
>  andrew@nsc.nsc.com

>> P.S. The above mentioned eco major is the same one who dislikes (if we ever
>>      had the reason for it) dumping nuke waste into the sun, since "it will
>>      all come back to us in the solar wind", or in deep space, since "there's
>>      only so much space out there".
>
>Don't worry about this. We will conduct a survey as soon as we figure
>out cheap personal spaceflight, and these people will simply not be
>issued a licence!

	Are you sure you're willing to risk the loss of the revenue that such
a group can conceivably generate?  Look, we're not going to see cheap personal
spaceflight with enough volume to allow anyone into space who can't pull his
or her own weight.  The most valuable space assets for a good while promise
to be informational and rather high-tech; how many of those types will be
able to pull their weight?  Right, only the ones who act as the "dumb" lab
technicians-- and even "dumb" lab technicians tend not to have this type of
attitude!

	So who needs to worry about giving them licenses?  The slots for flight
seats will be small in number, and have science-related strings attached in
the first place:  it's not even going to look attractive to them.  Later,
when Earth's population is straining the limits, the colonies will be able
to ask for the best of the non-science people who still have something of
an open mind.  Or, to follow history, the colonies will get anyone given them,
and try to incorporate the newcomers.  Survival from there is up to them.

-- 
Joe Beckenbach			   |	LUNA HOTEL: $99,999 for 2 people for
jerbil@csvax.caltech.edu	   |	  2 weeks; includes flights to and
Caltech 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125  |	  from Terran Spaceport Alpha.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 89 01:07:09 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <1989Apr6.153750.25859@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <530@qvax2.UUCP> jerry@qvax2.UUCP (Jerry Gardner) writes:
> >>...The dream may be alive, but not at NASA headquarters.
> >I'm curious, how's the Canadian space program doing these days?
> Lousy.  Our glorious government, in its (minimal) wisdom, has tied it much
> too closely to the US program.

... and a last check, the Great Problem to be solved was where the
headquarters should go (I recall it is to be in Montreal, but that just
raised the further Problem of where *exactly* in Montreal it should go.. sigh).
-- 
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 89 10:03:22 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: re: Walker testimony

Charles Walker, employee of McDonell Douglas and NASA astronaut
posing as a representative of the "grassroots" before Congress
gives testimony:

>         Thank you for this opportunity today to express the hopes,
> dreams and aspirations of the National Space Society before this
> hearing on the institutional issues facing the National Aeronautics
> and Space Administration. The Space Society is a growing
> organization, representing the shared vision of upwards of 25,000
> members and 125 chapters primarily situated here in the United
> States. 
That is -- 25,000 subscribers to a heavily censored space magazine
who, 20 years after Apollo, are so desparate to see progress in space
they are willing to put up with any amount of incompetence and
corruption in NASA, because NASA is, quite by design, the only
hope offered them.

>         The National Space Society is a family of organizations which
> includes the non-profit educational `mothership', NSS; the
> grassroots lobby, Spacecause; and the political action committee
> Spacepac. 
The non-profit "mothership" has a phone-tree used exclusively for
political activities, its most heavily supported committee is the
legislative committee and its board of directors is both heavily
interlocked with the other, overtly political, organizations and
is tightly controlled by aerospace insiders (such as John Logsdon
who, at once, proclaims himself to be a Washington insider
and also a representative of the grassroots).  The IRS should
investigate whether the 501C3 status of NSS is valid even in
the letter of the law anymore.  Write your congressman ASAP and 
ask him/her to recommend that the IRS do so.

>         So you can see that space advocates are beginning to organize
> in much the same fashion as many other politically astute advocacy
> groups have done in the past. Space activists are determined to
> become major players on the public policy stage. 
Advocates of, by and for the aerospace industry and NASA engergetic
in their anti-space porkbarrel activism.

>         One step to realize this vision -- a vision common not only
> among our members but, we believe, this nation as a whole -- is
> that the National Space Society fully supports the 1990 Bush
> Administration budget request for the National Aeronautics and
> Space Administration of $13.3 billion.
In other words, NASA and McDonnell Douglas support Mike Walker,
their astronaut, in asking Congress to appropriate them more money.  
The magazine with circulation of 25,000 is promoting the naive
and still (even after Challenger) dominant view that the way
to space is through government funded development and operations.

Now comes a classic paragraph virtually bursting at the seams
with Freudian slips:
>         We wish to submit to you that the United States can no longer
> afford to weigh social programs against the attributes of the space
> program. Our space enterprise is a social program...it benefits our
> society by providing jobs.  It promotes the general welfare and
> secures our freedoms. It challenges our creative instincts. And it
> harnesses our esprit de corps to transform space into, not only a
> medium for exploration, but as a locale for business and commerce.
"THE space program" (emphasis by Charlie Walker in his recent
Ad Astra president's column) certainly does challenge our creative
instincts -- to figure out a way around THE space program into space.
It harnesses our esprit de corps and keeps it harnessed to the
interests of the government spoon-fed aerospace industry and NASA
bureaucrats.  It is a social program that benefits and promotes
the general welfare of Charlie Walker, McDonnell Douglas and friends.

>         As you know, the United States has been engaged in exploring
> and utilizing space for over three decades. To assist you in
> gauging just what that thirty years means in terms of productivity
> and jobs for the country, I would like to call your attention to
> a recently issued study by the NASA Alumni League.
The main thing it did for the country was provide three decades of
job security for members of the NASA Alumni League and an environment
conducive to writing marketing hype thinly disguised as a study.

Finally, the portion of the "testimony" that I find, personally,
most offensive:
>         The Space Society notes the gathering support for Mission to
> Planet Earth as an objective for the country's space program...
>
>         We strongly urge this subcommittee to assist in the
> implementation of a multi-agency plan to globally sense our
> environment and better evaluate the stresses and strains placed on
> our planet by our species. Our planet is painfully overdue for an
> examination.
> 
>         There can be no end to Mission: Earth...we must maintain our
> earthbound "launching pad" while we peer spaceward. When celestial
> travelers from Earth return to the planet after a long voyage in
> the distant future, they should find their home planet as pristine
> as when they departed.

As the person who coined the phrase "Mission: Earth", edited the
NSS pamphlet by that name and initiated some of the earliest
cooperative work between the Sierra Club and space activists,
which most recently led to the adoption of a jointly written
policy on the greenhouse effect by the Sierra Club, I denounce
this attempt by NASA to continue its pattern of eliminating
indpendent scientific inquiry by controlling all activity
in earth observation.
		   
Normally, it would be sufficient to simply guarantee that other
agencies such as NOAA, NSF, EPA etc. had independent resources to
establish earth observation programs of their own.  However, given
NASA's position and history of refusing to release scientific
data critical to the environment while misreporting such data (much
to the detriment of the environment), it is essential that NASA be 
PROHIBITED from soaking up the vital and limited resources earmarked 
for environmental applications of space science.  

We must enable a variety of independent agencies to pursue the 
acquisition of this critical information without bureaucratic impedement 
in the guise of "coordination."  They must be given independent 
budgets adequat to purchase launch services and build remote 
observation satellites.  NASA must be restricted to planetary missions 
other than "Mission: Earth."

All who are truly concerned about the environment should
recognize that Charlie Walker and NASA are more concerned 
with capitalizing on the precious growing awareness that our
planet is in danger to garner a few more dollars for NASA than 
they are with the fact that allowing NASA to play its typical 
games in this arena places our planet in peril.  

Please do your part to stop NASA and its associated industrial
concerns from inadvertently destroying the environment through
the blind pursuit of a political formula that has worked for
them in the past.

Write your congressman and demand that NASA be limited to
exploration of OTHER PLANETS.  Demand also more money for
a variety of agencies OTHER THAN NASA to pursue INDEPENDENT 
environmental research including earth observation from space
with their own probes and satellites.  He is your representative
and this is your money.  Let him know what you think.  From
personal experience, I know it works to talk to your congressmen
about these issues.

Of secondary importance is that the relationship between the
"NSS family of organizations" and the aerospace establishment
be investigated by congress, with special attention being paid
to claims of "grassroots advocacy" by tightly interlocking
boards of directors packed with aerospace insiders, continually
badgering congress with 501C3-supported phone tree activations
to give NASA as much money as it wants for what ever it wants.

We have them on the run.

Strike while the iron is hot!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 89 11:32:40 GMT
From: Portia!hanauma!joe@labrea.stanford.edu  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)

In article <190@arc.UUCP> ken@arc.UUCP (Ken Stuart) writes:
>
>	There has actually been a scientific proof of astrology by
>   someone named Gauquelin.

Astrology was pretty well developed a couple of thousand years ago, right?
The planets have noticeable effects that can be predicted by Astrology, right?

	>>> Then why didn't astrologers discover Uranus? <<<

I mean, they had a LONG TIME to do it in.
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 89 15:52:54 EDT
From: Kenneth Ng <KEN%ORION.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      bored public, Three Mile Island


:Date: 4 Apr 89 14:03:20 GMT
:From: mfci!rodman@CS.YALE.EDU  (Paul Rodman)
:Subject: Re: Bored public
:
:In article <Added.sYC327y00UkT0Wc09Z@andrew.cmu.edu> SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET
(Scott
: Hess) writes:
:>and towards use of it. Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile
:>Island? There was such a small chance of explosion there that it was almost
:>unworthy of talking about.
Actually there was appparently an explosion in the containment building
9 hours and 50 minutes into the accident.  Maximum estimated over-
pressure was 28 PSI.  This pressure spike caused the containment
building sprinklers to kick in.  Calculations (not mine) show that
if all the hydrogen possible had been generated from the zircronium
water reaction had been ignited, the containment building would have
held together.

:An explosion no, but the chances of a meltdown were quite good. Most average
:folks are pretty well informed that an explosion isn't the real danger
:after seeing the "china syndrome", which broke at around the same time.

Even if the reactor did melt down completely, Peehs and INTER estimate
between 4 and 13 days to erode through the 20 foot concrete basement.
INTER also shows that the molten mass would have cooled down enough
to solidify in 1-2 days.  After that one still has to reach water.
Area artesian water is found at 300-800 feet down, but none has ever
been found in the core holes drilled down to 150 feet (I presume they
plugged them up after they drilled them :-)).

:If you've ever read the transcript of what took place at TMI
:it boggles the mind. The fact that the core was "rubblized" and nothing
:worse happened is pretty much blind fate. Lots of stupidity in evidence.
:For example, once the core was exposed (water level too low due to
:human error) the control rods are exposed to oxygen and started to burn.

Er, um, first of all the control rods themselves did not burn, it was
the fuel rods.  What happened was that the residue heat raised the
fuel temperature to about 4000 degrees F.  At about 3000 F, zirconium
reacts with water to form zirconium dioxide plus hydrogen.  To avoid
this, reactors are not supposed to exceed 2,200 F.  What was not
acceptable was the fact that the hydrogen was produced at 500 times
the capability of the hydrogen recombiners built at the time.

This is not to say that nothing went wrong at TMI-2.  Plenty went
wrong, plenty was not designed right.  What struck me the most for
being designed wrong was the PORV (Pilog Operated Relief Valve) which
stuck open.  The operator console had a light indicating the position
of the valve.  Rather than indicating the real position of the valve
(open or closed) it indicated whether or not power was applied to
the soloniod to open or close the valve!  What *IDIOT* designed this?

I've read and studied the transcript printed in the President's
Report.  It's quite shocking, and makes one wonder about who is
being hired to run these things.  But, on the other hand, one could
argue that in spite of all the screwups, we still didn't have a
worst case accident. 1/2 :-)


References:
INTER: a program designed to predict the effects of molten fuel and
concrete.  Also known as CORCON at Sandia Corp.

Peehs: "Analysis of a hypothetical core meltdown accident at a
pressurized water reactor", Siemans Forsch.  U. Entwerke, Berischte
Band 8, 1979, No. 2.

Staff Reports to The President's Commission on The Accident at
Three Mile Island.

:The point of this reply is actually to underscore my agreement with some
:of what you say. But, 3 Mile Island *was* a dangerous fiasco, in my opinion,
:because of the moronic engineering for human factors, and the cavalier
:attitude toward licensing reactor control room personell. Both however
:may have roots in more basic problems.
:    Paul K. Rodman
:    rodman@mfci.uucp
:    __... ...__    _.. .   _._ ._ .____ __.. ._
True, when high school graduates think Gorbachev is a Russian athlete
and can't even identify the capital of the United States, something
is wrong (ref: recent ABC special on education in America).

Kenneth Ng
TEIES Project
ken@orion.bitnet

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #378
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Apr 89 05:32:41 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00804>; Wed, 19 Apr 89 05:18:55 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 19 Apr 89 05:18:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gYH3CMy00Ui301V0Rv>;
          Wed, 19 Apr 89 03:24:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.gYH3:jy00UkZQ:L04b>;
          Wed, 19 Apr 89 03:18:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4YH397y00UkZQ-JU5X@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 03:16:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #379

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 379

Today's Topics:
		       failures and engineering
			 Re: Power vs Energy
			  Re: Mir Evacuation
		   Re: SETI: When and where to look
			  Information wanted
		     Re: failures and engineering
		 Re: bored public, Three Mile Island
	    Summary of manned and unmanned space missions
		   Re: SETI: When and where to look
		  Re: NSS Hotline Update for 4/14/89
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 89 01:51:23 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: failures and engineering

In article <411@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>> .................... The way you find out about these things is to try
>> them.  The major factor in how quickly you learn is how often you try.
>
>Another point of view is that with careful systems design and good engineering
>you don't need to learn from your mistakes. That is what engineering is all
>about. For instance, see the many successful Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager and
>Viking missions.

Yup, see them -- but study them properly.  Mariner 2, struggling past Venus
with one problem after another developing.  The early Pioneers, a total
disaster area.  Voyager 2, limping towards Neptune with its primary command
receiver dead and its backup one ailing (and don't blame this on the length
of the mission -- the problems developed almost immediately after launch),
not to mention the lubrication problems in the scan platform.  The Viking 1
lander, dead before its time due to human error back on Earth.

And let us not forget Seasat, with its slip-rings failing less than three
months after launch.  TDRS-1, with various electronic ailments fouling it
up to the point where it's been officially retired to standby status, now
that a replacement is finally in position.  Galileo, which is damned lucky
that it *didn't* fly in spring 1986, because its thruster system had *two*
disastrous design flaws, found only a few months ago, that would have made
it the most long-awaited and expensive failure in the history of planetary
exploration.  The GOES satellites, failing one after another as the lamps
in their scanner encoders burned out.

I repeat my comment:  the major factor in how quickly you learn is how
often you try.  It is *not* possible to get everything right the first
time.  NASA, ESA, etc. like to pretend otherwise, but the universe has
a habit of reminding them that they're wrong.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 89 01:46:36 GMT
From: xanadu!michael@apple.com  (Michael McClary)
Subject: Re: Power vs Energy

In article <3618@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>In article <1989Apr11.020920.16400@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>}In article <3603@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
>}>Concur that power is an issue in general in space flight, but it should
>}>not be near the issue that ENERGY is. 
>}
>}It depends on what kind of propulsion we are talking about.  With current
>}systems, yes, energy is the big problem.  
>
>}Good question -- wait and see.  Hot fusion probably would; if you look at
>}artists' conceptions of things like inertial-confinement fusion rockets,
>}you'll see big radiator fins up forward.
>
>I sort of like the Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Clarke originally specified big radiator fins for the Discovery.  They were
discarded when the image-makers pointed out that the half-informed would
start wondering about wings on a spacecraft, and this would distract them
from the rest of the movie, ruining their enjoyment.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Apr 89 09:16:32 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: Mir Evacuation

aero!venera.isi.edu!rogers@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Craig Milo Rogers) writes:

>	The Soviet space station Mir will stay in mothballs for three
>months because of delays in preparing equipment that cosmonauts need
>to perform experiments aboard the spacecraft, Soviet news reports
>said.  ...  "The facility will be left unmanned ... due to delays with
>the preparation of two research modules" that will be attached to the
>main craft, Deputy Flight Director Viktor Blagov told the Tass news
>agency.  This was the first explanation of why the project was being
>suspended.

This is starting to sound like Skylab... anyone know how often Mir has
to be reboosted?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 89 15:42:06 GMT
From: ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: SETI: When and where to look

In article <1850010@hpldsla.HP.COM> oreilly@hpldsla.HP.COM writes:
>For this method to work there must be a planet with intelligent life on
>the same event surface as we. Does anyone out there know how many stars lie
>on our event surface of supernova 1987a?
>
>Does this idea make any sense, or am I just blathering?

Probably lots -- 1987a was ~160,000 light-years away.

It's a neat idea, unfortunately it has the problem of the delay for
signal propagation from us to wherever. If we started transmitting
as soon as we saw 1987a, then the closest star wouldn't hear from us
for over three years.

There are two ways to get around this, however. The first would be to,
on detecting a major event, start broadcasting immediately in the opposite
direction (on the assumption that anyone "farther away" will aim their 
radio telescopes at 1987a and detect us). Another would be to generate
a noticeable event and then start broadcasting (now that we've got your
attention...). Of course, if you could generate a noticeable event, why
bother with radio. Just trigger a series of novas in a ascending sequence
of prime numbers....
-- 
Never be angry when a fool acts like a		David Pugh
fool.  It's better when fools identify		....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep
themselves...it removes so much uncertainty.
			--Lord Peace
--

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 89 08:03:24 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!jelynch@uunet.uu.net  (james e lynch)
Subject: Information wanted

A
I am looking for information on the amount of Dose that the astronauts received on their flight.  Information on the proton flux would also be very useful.  Finally, could anyone comment on the possibility of the embryo deaths being due to radiation damage.  I heard that there was an increase proton flux, due to solar activity and due to a geomagnetic storm. Reply to


                 jelynch@hubcap.clemson.edu

since I do not subsribe to this new service.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 89 17:16:49 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: failures and engineering

In article <1989Apr16.015123.602@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <411@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>>> .................... The way you find out about these things is to try
>>> them.  The major factor in how quickly you learn is how often you try.
>>
>>Another point of view is that with careful systems design and good engineering
>>you don't need to learn from your mistakes. That is what engineering is all
>>about. For instance, see the many successful Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager and
>>Viking missions.
>
> [Long history of Western space failures here.  I would assume that Soviet
   craft never fail, from this list.  Removed for brevity's sake.]
>
>I repeat my comment:  the major factor in how quickly you learn is how
>often you try.  It is *not* possible to get everything right the first
>time.  NASA, ESA, etc. like to pretend otherwise, but the universe has
>a habit of reminding them that they're wrong.

I see.  So, according to your hypothesis, the Soviets you so dearly love should
by now have colonized Mars, instead of scratching their heads and wondering 
why their probes fail one after another.  They've been sending probes one after
another for twenty-five years now, and have yet to have one work properly.
Experience is an excellent teacher; in the early years of space exploration, 
there was no substitute.  But this is 1989, not 1959.  We've sent out our
dozens and dozens of probes, and we've learned from our mistakes.  Today, there
is *no substitute* for solid engineering; Stuart is absolutely correct.  For
some reason, the Soviets seem to have failed to realize this.

I noticed that in your roll call of broken satellites and probes, you included 
Voyager 2.  This is a perfect example of how a space probe should be designed;
*in spite* of the fact that there are point failures on board, it *still 
works*.  Voyager is out there laying the groudwork for the future exploration
of the solar system, and you're sitting here on Earth complaining about the
lube job.  I feel sure that if it had been a Soviet probe, you'd be singing 
it's praises almost daily.  In the end, all I can say is that while the Soviets
keep sending probes out, "gaining experience", we're the ones with the 
working spacecraft.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 89 18:38:20 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: bored public, Three Mile Island

>       I just want to know how many of these technology haters are running
> home to their CD players and microwaves and have 150 clear channels beamed
> to them from the netherworld...
> 
>       Peter...
>       powi@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
>       University of Rochester

The most extreme example of anti-technological nonsense I ever saw was the lady
English Lit professor I once met who was extremely indignant because many
modern writers were using word processors.

I didn't say anything.  I was much too astonished.  I thought later that the
only response I could've made was:  "You're natural and organic.  You use an
electric typewriter."  But arguing with such people is both rude and futile.

Nowdays, I have my stock answer:  "On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate
the importance of this issue?"

The SF writer John Varley once wrote a throwaway story in which he was the
protagonist.  He was trying to get his publisher to advertise his books as
"Varleyarns! -- 100% composed by hand -- No word processors used!"  The
difference between Mr. Varley and my lady professor acquaintance was that
Varley was being ridiculous on purpose.

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 752-7717                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 04:26:41 GMT
From: vax5!pc3y@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: Summary of manned and unmanned space missions

Does anyone know if there exists somewhere an electronic summary of the
specs and results of manned an unmanned space missions to date?

I'm interested in enlarging my very patchy knowledge of early space
missions.  Any information (or the title of a good book on the subject)
would be greatly appreciated.

Eric Weisstein

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 04:45:27 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: SETI: When and where to look

In article <1850010@hpldsla.HP.COM> oreilly@hpldsla.HP.COM writes:
>Is there a similar space-time marker in the galaxy? I think a supernova
>explosion might qualify. The light from the explosion travels outward as a 
>spherical front. Thus, the "event surface" is a spherical shell traveling
>outward from the supernova. An intelligent creature might reason as follows;
>"If I see a supernova go off, I'll calculate it's exact coordinates. Then
>I'll start broadcasting to every other star on my event surface (i.e., at
>the same distance as I am from the supernova). If other intelligent creatures
>get the same idea, and they lie on my event surface, they'll start 
>broadcasting to me also. I'll be sure to meet a girl that way!"  

My goodness, it has been quite a while since I read a brilliant original
thought on the net.  Give this man a cigar!  (Or a tofu snack since this
is the 80's.)  I like it.  I don't have the number he wants, but I do
have two thoughts in followup:

 * Since we want the intersection of two spherical shells you actually
have a toroidal locus to deal with.  I'm not even sure any of it
intersects our galaxy, since 1987A is in the Magellanics.

 * To be any fun, this idea needs to use smaller, more local events.
The problem is that each anomalous occurrence like a nova only defines
a thin torus of candidates for any given star.  What one needs is
something that happens to lots of stars but is still unmistakeable.  I
suggest long term variable star minima.  Every one defines an event
torus, and there's a new one every day, week, month or year, depending
on how close to home you want to stay.
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 05:29:44 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update for 4/14/89

In article <246900021@cdp> jordankatz@cdp.UUCP writes:
>
>This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending
>April 14, 1989.

It's also a sprinkling of warmed over AP headlines atop an indigestable
goo of political tub thumping.  >>YECCCCHH!<< as MAD used to say!

>The Soviet Union has decided to temporarily vacate the Mir space station;
>a move that was prompted by delays in the preparation of two new modules
>for the soon-to-be vacant platform.  Flight Director Viktor Blagov stated
>that the station will only be unmanned for several months until the two
					    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					    remember this!
>research modules are completed and ready for launch. ...
>             The development may provide the U.S. with an opporunity to
>gain the high ground regarding the civilian space program in general and
	  ^^^^^^^^^^^
	  in several months??
>international cooperation specifically.  While the Soviets had taken
>advantage of the Challenger accident to attract international partners,
>arguments can now be made that it is the U.S. and not the Soviets that
>can be counted on in the long run to stand by their commitments to human
>expansion into the solar system.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry reading this.  If the
international community wanted to draw any conclusions at all from the
Mir hiatus, and it doesn't seem to me they really should, it would be
that NEITHER of the original space dinosaurs can be trusted, and it's
time to flock to Japan/Ariane/Long March.  The US could not be *less*
poised to make hay out of anything the Soviets do or don't do in
space at the moment.  Our little manifest is backlogged for years.

>The action also points out the importance of building a fully capable
>space station such as the International Space Station Freedom.  

***SURPRISE!!***

Never guessed that was coming, didyuh Vern? [Behave, Tom...]

>								The Mir
>space station had greatly reduced capabilities allowing for limited
	       ^^^
	       Note past tense here!
	       Obits, get me rewrite...
	       
>research in life sciences and materials processing...

The fun question here is, reduced from what?  From what the US
Space Station is supposed to be if we ever build it?  That's
creative use of the language.

I deleted the beltway blather comprising the remainder of what
should by rights be a talk.politics article, not sci.space.
Give me a break.

--

Thought on Space Station FREEDOM: If they reactivated Vandenberg
to launch Station modules on unmanned shuttles, could we rename
the launch facility the MAXI-PAD??

-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #379
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Apr 89 07:05:40 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00697>; Wed, 19 Apr 89 06:26:36 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 19 Apr 89 06:26:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AYH4yAy00UkT42IU4X>;
          Wed, 19 Apr 89 05:21:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.kYH4vNy00UkZQ:Wk4e>;
          Wed, 19 Apr 89 05:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYH4u9y00UkZI-VE5v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 05:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #380

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 380

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
		  Help wanted for shuttle sighting.
	Deadline set for next astronaut selection (Forwarded)
			    Re: Empty Mir?
	      Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets
			   '60 Soviet Blast
		     Re: failures and engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 17:04:37 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <7754@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>To make anything deep and significant
>>out of this, you basically need to assume that the Soviet space program
>>is run in the same chuckleheaded what-shall-we-do-in-space-today fashion
>>as the US space program (and indeed, most programs of any kind that are
>>funded on a year-to-year basis by democratic governments).  That's what
>>it takes to justify an abrupt shutdown of a major ongoing program.
>
>    This explains the remarkable success of Soviet 5-year plans in
>agriculture and the like, I suppose.
>    The Soviet space program is about the *only* large-scale activity
>they do well, and it's at large (hidden) cost to their economy...

Note, I didn't say that they were particularly good managers in general,
or even that their space program was terribly well managed.  What I said
was that they can make long-term plans and stick to them.  Not necessarily
good plans... but at least they don't get radically revised every year.

The fact is, sudden cancellation of a major program ought to be something
that happens once in a blue moon, when truly staggering problems appear
out of nowhere without warning.  Major programs should never reach the
status of being major without a clear understanding that they are desirable
and practical, and a clear commitment to adequate funding for the lifetime
of the program.  Doing otherwise is spectacularly wasteful.  Unfortunately,
the US government in particular (but it's not the only one) now treats
waste as a way of life and major program cancellations as an everyday event.
This has had devastating effects on the people who are trying to get work
done.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 18:41:00 GMT
From: uccba!ucqais!graines@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Gary Raines)
Subject: Help wanted for shuttle sighting.

Recently someone posted the net address of a newsletter/information source
that would caculate optimal viewing times for large orbital elements (shuttles,
Mir, Soyuz, etc.) given a viewers longitude, latitude, and altitude.  Due to a
recent local system diaster I have lost this reference.  Would someone please 
mail me the address of this newsletter/information source?

Thanks in advance for the assistance.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 18:23:54 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Deadline set for next astronaut selection (Forwarded)

Barbara Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     April 17, 1989

Jeffrey Carr
Johnson Space Center, Houston


RELEASE:  89-50

DEADLINE SET FOR NEXT ASTRONAUT SELECTION


     Applications received by NASA on or before June 30, 1989 
will be considered in the next astronaut candidate selection, now 
planned for early 1990.  The selection will be the first in the 
regular 2-year selection cycle announced last year.

     After 6 months of screening, medical evaluations and 
interviews, the astronaut candidate class of 1990 will be 
announced in January, and candidates will report to the Johnson 
Space Center, Houston, in July.

     NASA will continue to accept and review applications from 
the general public on an ongoing basis.  Those received after 
June 30 will be eligible for consideration in the 1992 
selection.  The number of selections made every 2 years will be 
based on projected requirements.

     Applications can be obtained by writing to the following 
address:  NASA, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
          Astronaut Selection Office
          ATTN: AHX
          Houston, Texas  77058.  
Applicants must be citizens of the United States.

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 11:58 EDT
From: "Life's so long when you're lonely." <CALVIN%JHUIGF.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>

bunny!hhd0@husc6.harvard.edu  (Horace Dediu) writes:

>I would not lend any arbitrarily minuscule proportion of credulity to any
>figure coming out of the official Soviet Union.  In a state controlled
>totaliatrian regime GNP is not defined, nor is a "Budget".  The state is the
>nation and the GNP is the budget.  Everyone works for the state and the
>state owns, buys and sells everything.  We cannot transplant economic terms
>defined by free markets to communist systems.

>Remember, the Soviets lie routinely about everything.  The testimony of a
>perjurer shall never again be considered in a court of law.  Id est, I trust
>nothing they say and anything the CIA may estimate, is up to
>interpretation.

(Sorry, I *couldn't* let this just sit...)

Yep. Once a bad-un, always a bad-un. A tiger can't change his stripes. People
don't ever change. Glasnost is just a big hoax for them damn commies to lull
us into a false sense of security and spy on us. Yup. Bein' a red-blooded
'Merican, nothing upsets me more than the thought of them damn ruskies. Can't
trust 'em. They all lie. Hell, let's nuke 'em while we can.

Damn commies.

(Does this make you feel more comfortable, Horace? GOD FORBID we should get
along with them or, even worse, promote cooperation and understanding, right?)


Damian Hammontree
System Programmer, Johns Hopokins School of Medicine, Baltimore

PS - Apologies to those on this newsgroup who are above this and who wish to
discuss REAL stuff. I just felt it needed saying.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 02:30:46 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!yunexus!maccs!gordan@rutgers.edu  (Cheerfully Anachronistic Turnip Venerator)
Subject: Re: Empty Mir?

In article <2789@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>
>New Scientist (15/4/89, p.20) reports that an editorial in Pravda (the week
>before) seems to be supporting people within Glavkosmos who want to push the
>Soviet space programme towards concentration on remote-sensing satellites.  So
>there may be something to this.  Anyone got access to the Pravda piece and
>know how to read between the lines?


The article in question is on page 3 of Pravda, 8 Apr 89, written by A.
Pokrovskii (no affiliation given).  The following is a summary and
paraphrase of some of the main points.  Sorry for the sloppy
stream-of-consciousness style here, I'm too lazy to write this up more
carefully.


The article is critical of the secretiveness of Soviet space
organizations.  Just like in the bad old days, many state organizations
use a policy of secrecy not only to safeguard legitimate state secrets,
but also to cover up mistakes, bungling, and slackness.  The space
program alas, fall into the same category.

Problems with computer programming are noted during the reentries and
landing of both the Soviet-Afghan and Soviet-French missions.  So the
problem of Phobos-1 being lost due to its being sent an incorrect
command was not an exceptional case.  No comment was forthcoming on the
part of the flight-control organizations in the face of previous Pravda
articles on these flights (15 sept, 22 dec).

Other examples of lack of openness on the part of Soviet space
organizations:

In a pre-launch interview Sergei Krikalev talked about a new module for
Mir, which would contain, among other equipment, spacesuits for
autonomous movement [MMUs?].  Now the flight is almost over, and it's as
if no one has ever heard of this new module.  Maybe there are technical
difficulties, but if so the public ought to be informed.

Mentions that before the launch of the French-Soviet mission, there was
a press conference in Leninsk with French & Sov space representatives.
The sign on the building where it was held was changed from "Officer's
Garrison" to "House of Culture".  Why?  Who were we trying to fool?
Ourselves?

This secretiveness will not go unpunished.  Recently, with regret, but
understanding he was coming from, read words of playwright Viktor Rozov,
sharply critical of "billions of rubles" spent on the Phobos probes.
And he's not the only one.  Some candidates for the house of people's
deputies included a point in their election campaigns about cutting
space exploration expenses.  Well-known author Chingiz Aitmanov, already
elected a deputy, says we must think over these "astronomical
expenditures".

What a contrast to the sincere outbursts of enthusiasm and pride after
Gagarin's flight.  What's happening to our space program?

It's broken up into many different bureaucratic organizations and
administrations, each pulling for its own interests.  Hard to get
straight answers as a result, hard to pin down responsibility, hard to
find out where the money is being spent, or even how much.

Still remember how "Interkosmos" president B. Petrov hemmed and hawed
uncomfortably at a 1975 press conference when asked by American
journalists how much the Soviet Union had spent on the Apollo-Soyuz
mission.  Not much has changed over 13 years, judging by the performance
of O. Shishkin at a press conference about Energiya.

Not enough benefits trickling down into the Soviet economy.
Particularly, remote-sensing photos & other data not benefiting forest,
farming, fisheries management... a lot of data just sitting in archives,
monopolized by "Priroda" organization.

Soviet space program should place an emphasis on international
cooperation in "global ecological monitoring", as recommended at the UN.
None of the current Soviet space organizations is capable of doing this
on its own; they must be united under competent leadership.

Very sharp criticism of Buran.  Much was said and written about it, but
after the unmanned test flight it got stuck in the hangars at Baikonur.
Is it not to be considered a reliable component of the same
tried-and-true system of orbital stations and expendable rockets?  Are
there technical problems with it?  As before, we can only guess, no
information is leaking out to us from those hangars.  But even so it is
clear that billions of rubles so much needed by the economy are sitting
idle for a long time.

After problems with Phobos-2, deeper analysis of the situation and
examination of problems organized by 12 specialized groups of engineers
and scholars.  Here we go again with committees and subcommittees.
Convenient to spread the blame around.  No clear vision of future
development of soviet space program, of how to apply its results to
benefit the economy.  And, apparently, it makes sense to the deputies of
the future Supreme Soviet to include this problems in their sphere of
interests.



Remember, the above is just a (very) loose paraphrase.  None of
the phrasing above should be even remotely construed as a quote.
Reading it over, the original article is not nowhere near as
blunt or direct as the above summary makes it out to be.

The article does not appear to be an editorial, just an ordinary
article.  What hidden agenda, if any, the author may have is not clear.
Note, just because it was published in Pravda doesn't mean (especially
these days) that it's "official" policy.  The Soviets are passionate
readers and love to carry on debates in the pages of periodicals; it's
likely that a reply politely begging to differ will soon be published in
the pages of this same (or some other) publication.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 14:40:24 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets

In article <1019@esatst.yc.estec.nl> neil@esatst.UUCP (Neil Dixon) writes:
>1991, Thatcher's next election year. A cheap publicity stunt is
>obviously more important than any participation in Europe's own
>(albeit flawed) manned space program. It will be interesting to see
>how this can be justified, since their is no obvious profit to be
>made; but then again, there's always the T-Shirts, Commemorative Book,
>Record, Video, etc :-).

The mission is to be paid for by a consortium of british
industrial companies who have experiments they want done
in a weightless conditions.

The soviets are reported to be interested enough in the
results of the experiments to reduce the cost of the flight
in return for access to results of the experiments.

The British Government isn't involved except to sign the
bits of paper allowing the flight to go ahead.

Rumor has it that astronaut will be a civilian test
pilot or scientist. Details of the selection procedures
are to be announced in the next few weeks.

None of this, of course, will prevent Mrs. Thatcher claiming
full and sole credit for bringing about the flight.

Especially with a general election coming up.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 01:17:31 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!franny.Berkeley.EDU!c8-1eb@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Rachel David)
Subject: '60 Soviet Blast

Here is an article of possible interest, reprinted from "The San Jose
Mercury News," 4/17/89:

	SOVIETS BLAME SPACE RACE FOR BLAST IN 1960

		The Soviet Union lifted the veil Sunday on the worst disaster
        of their space program with a magazine article that blamed a 1960 
	launchpad explosion on the race to catch up with the United States.
		The weekly Ogonyok said program workers flouted safety rules
	in their haste to develop the first Soviet intercontinental ballistic
        missile, the R-16.     
		Sunday's article said the 1960 accident incinerated victims on 
	the launchpad, including the director of its rocket program.
		Chief Artillery Marshal Mitrofan Nnedelin, a World War II 
	veteran serving as the first commander of the newly created Soviet
	rocket forces, was about 60 feet from the missile when it exploded,
	the article said.
		The magazine said "a significant number" of people died in the
	explosion and fireball at the secret launch pad at Tura-Tam near the 
	Aral Sea.  It said "practically nothing was left - only some metal 
	change, keys, etc."
		Accounts of the disaster have circulated abroad, but Ogonyok's
	report was the first in official Soviet media.


Robert Ferguson, U.C. Berkeley

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 13:36:06 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: failures and engineering

In article <1989Apr16.015123.602@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> [stuff by me about successful planetary missions]
 
> Yup, see them -- but study them properly.  Mariner 2, struggling past Venus
> with one problem after another developing.  The early Pioneers, a total
> disaster area.  Voyager 2, limping towards Neptune with its primary command
> receiver dead and its backup one ailing (and don't blame this on the length
> of the mission -- the problems developed almost immediately after launch),
> not to mention the lubrication problems in the scan platform.  The Viking 1
> lander, dead before its time due to human error back on Earth.
  
OK, so things do break - but with careful analysis and/or use of back-up
systems, Mariner 2 and Voyager 2 were (and are) highly succesful missions.
Both Viking landers lasted longer than the designed for "primary mission"; 
the human error after that was sad, though.

> [Seasat slip-ring failure, TDRS-1 electronic problems [???], Galileo
>  thruster problems, GOES encoder failures]
  
The last GOES which failed had already outlived its expected lifespan.

> I repeat my comment:  the major factor in how quickly you learn is how
> often you try.  It is *not* possible to get everything right the first
> time.  NASA, ESA, etc. like to pretend otherwise, but the universe has
> a habit of reminding them that they're wrong.

I'd say that on the whole NASA has had more first time successes than
the Soviets, especially in the field of planetary exploration. This must
say something for JPL's and contractors' designs.

Don't get me wrong though, I'd be the first one to suggest we should have 
*more* missions!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #380
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Apr 89 05:19:55 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05608>; Thu, 20 Apr 89 04:16:05 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 20 Apr 89 04:15:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYHJhTy00Ui3Q2DE9:>;
          Thu, 20 Apr 89 00:24:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.MYHJdyy00UkZ4D=U4a>;
          Thu, 20 Apr 89 00:20:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYHJbky00UkZID-049@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 00:17:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #381

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 381

Today's Topics:
			  Space News Apr 18
  Commercial sounding rocket press briefing set April 21 (Forwarded)
			    RE: Astrology
		     Re: Rail-Guns and Asteroids
       Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact)
		     Re: Rail-guns and Asteroids
	     Re: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)
	       Re: Assaying likely asteroids from afar
		     Re: failures and engineering
		     Neville Shute's "Slide Rule"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 17:57:44 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space News Apr 18

Jonathan's Space Report

Apr 18, 1989 (No. 12)

The Soyuz TM-7 crew are winding up their research program
on the Mir orbital station. Mir is to be abandoned while
a new crew is trained to repair the electrical power system.

The STS-30 mission is still scheduled for Apr 28.

The 23rd Raduga ('Rainbow') geostationary comsat was launched by Proton
from Baykonur on Apr 14. The satellite is used principally for Soviet government
and military communications.

Other news:

Kosmos-2016, launched on Apr 4, is a VMF (Soviet Navy) navigation satellite,
part of a system analogous to the USN Transit.

Kosmos-2017, launched on Apr 6, is a GRU spy satellite based on the Vostok
design. It is expected to land on Apr 20.

The SAGE (Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment) satellite 
reentered on Apr 11. The NASA satellite was used in 1979-81 to study the ozone
layer as part of the Applications Explorer program.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 18:26:12 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Commercial sounding rocket press briefing set April 21 (Forwarded)

[Query:  Does anyone object to seeing NTEs?  Is there any interest in this
sort of material?  -PEY]

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     April 17, 1989


N89-34:  COMMERCIAL SOUNDING ROCKET PRESS BRIEFING SET APRIL 21


     NASA will hold a press conference at 12:30 p.m., Friday, 
April 21, to discuss the experiment results from the March 29 
commercial sounding rocket launch at White Sands Missile Range 
and plans for NASA support of additional commercially-provided 
flights.

     The Consort 1 mission, developed and managed by a NASA 
Center for the Commercial Development of Space located at the 
University of Alabama-Huntsville, was launched on a privately 
furnished rocket in the first federally-licensed commercial 
launch by a U.S. firm.

     Participants will include James T. Rose, NASA assistant 
administrator for commercial programs; Dr. Francis Wessling, 
associate director, consortium for materials development in space 
at the University of Alabama-Huntsville; and Donald K. "Deke" 
Slayton, Space Services Inc., Houston.

     The press conference will be conducted in the 6th floor 
auditorium, NASA Headquarters, 400 Maryland Ave., S.W., 
Washington, D.C.

     The briefing will be carried live by NASA Select television 
on Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, at 72 degrees west longitude, with 
interactive question-and-answer capability.

------------------------------

Date: 17 April 1989 17:29:10 CDT
From: "Tom Kirke 996-4961" <U15305%UICVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Subject: RE: Astrology

pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz) writes:

>Not to lend any support to pseudo-science, but an interesting thing to look
>at in this respect is the police blotter of any large urban area on the
>night of a full moon.  I have heard the same story from several police
>officers here in Pittsburgh - craaazy things happen when there's a full
>moon, not just your run-of-the-mill stabbings and domestic violence, but
>the truly bizzarre.  Of course, this is probably purely subjective - people
>see a full moon and all their inhibitions go out the window, but an
>interesting phenomenon nonetheless.


The (R)eader, a free weekly newspaper here in Chicago, ran an article on this
about 2 years ago.  Despite the anecdotal evidence of Police, cabbies, etc
there is no evidence to back this claim.  Hospital admisssions, arrests,
and violent deaths are NOT correlated to the lunar phase.

To quote Sherlock Holmes, "There is nothing so tragic as a beautiful theory
destroyed by an ugly fact."

Tom Kirke

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 10:47:00 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: Rail-Guns and Asteroids

 ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU writes:

>   Would it be reasonable to use Rail-Guns in mining an asteroid. 
>   I am thinking that a large pellet of metal could be fired from an
>   asteroid based mining unit back to earth or the moon.  The pellet
>   could either be tracked and caught when it gets near the earth,
>   or it could be fired so it hits the moon, and then retrieved from
>   the (new) lunar crater.  The shape and composition of a pellet would
>   not be important.  Presumably, it should be small enough so that
>   it could not survive reentry on earth.  (Decreases liability
>   insurance.)  The rail gun could be operated with fusion or solar
>  generated electricity.

Hopefully the asteroid you're mining is still sufficiently massive by the time
you're finished that you don't alter its orbit too much with all this momentum 
you're transferring... :-)

I would think it would be very expensive to recover metals from a high-
velocity impact crater on the Moon, when you could simply build another
mass driver in lunar orbit to receive the incoming load, at the same time
generating a fair amount of electrical power.  Of course, you'd have to have
either *very* good aim or a very wide mouth on your driver.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 16:47:46 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact)

In article <1989Apr12.213326.16850@ziebmef.uucp> mdf@ziebmef.uucp (Matthew Francey) writes:
>  1) the 3g acceleration limit for a shuttle is a structural limitation, not a
>     human one.  At least, this is the impression I get from my readings.

There are tradeoffs here.  Higher acceleration is generally more efficient,
as you spend less time fighting gravity.  On the other hand, it needs more
powerful engines and heavier structure, and it's harder on the payloads.
The shuttle was specifically intended to be gentle with payloads (including
passengers), and I think this was the biggest consideration in picking the
peak acceleration.  Undoubtedly the current shuttle hardware is no heavier
than it has to be for that acceleration, meaning that you couldn't fly it
much harder.

3G is the usual rule of thumb for acceleration acceptable to a healthy
adult without prior preparation or selection.  Carefully selected and
trained astronauts can take rather more; the Saturn V accelerations were
considerably higher near upper-stage burnout.

(P.S. The hopes that the shuttle would be particularly gentle with payloads
have not panned out too well -- the engines are close to the payloads and
the vibration level is high.  There were also some other problems that
interfered with the original hope that shuttle payloads could be more
lightly built than those for expendables.  In particular, NASA paranoia
got in the way.  Shuttle payloads have to be able to take a 9G crash
load -- at right angles to the thrust axis! -- without breaking, even
though such a crash has a pretty good chance of breaking the shuttle
around them.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 09:04:29 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Rail-guns and Asteroids

In biar!trebor@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> In article <8904122007.AA10396@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
> >    Would it be reasonable to use Rail-Guns in mining an asteroid. 
> 
> Given that for each reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction, it
> would make more sense to use the Railgun as a thruster; by ejecting a few
> percent of the mass of the asteroid at high velocity, one could move the
> asteroid to the vicinity of earth, where it would be convenient to mine.

The problem with moving asteroids around rather than returning mass to
Earth via rail-gun pellets is that the amount of time it takes to
move an asteroid makes it much less economic given interest costs
of capital equipment.  This is a factor which none of the asteroid
advocates have taken into account in their comparisons with lunar
resources.

Even though delta-v to many asteroids may be lower than access to
lunar material, round-trip time for the equipment ends up dominating
the cost optimization.

Therefore, using a rail-gun, mass-driver or any other high-speed
delivery mechanism for asteroidal material IS the best use of
those technologies rather than moving the asteroids to Earth.

In any case, if someone decided to begin moving an asteroid toward
Earth so they could mine it, I think I would take it upon myself
to preemptively assasinate them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 16:37:44 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)

In article <476@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>> (yes, last I heard Freedom's internal volume will be less than that of
>> Skylab)...
>... the latest design for the station: two 40-foot
>U.S. modules (1 hab, 1 lab), 1 40-foot ESA module (lab), and 1 20-foot
>Japanese module (lab)...
> This seems to be a bit more voluminous than a gutted Saturn V third
>stage...

Look at the numbers, not at the appearance.  Even the third stage of a
Saturn V was *big*.

I admit that I haven't checked the numbers myself lately, mind you.

>... Incidentally, you avoided my question: you were going on about
>the probable superiority of Novy Mir...again, what greater capabilities will
>it have?

The fast answer is:  probably, more of everything.  It is also likely to
have some practical advantages, like using proven hardware, as opposed to
(for example) Freedom's insane 20kHz power system that nobody knows how
to build yet.

>> What does the US have in the pipeline in this class?  Mars Observer is
>> deliberately a rather unambitious mission.  Cassini and friends can't
>> really be said to be in the pipeline yet -- they've been trying to get
>> in for years.
>
>I wouldn't call Mars Ovserver unambitious.  From the looks of it, it is a
>fairly sophisticated mission...

It has grown some in the building, but it started out to be one of the
SSEC's "Observer class" missions, deliberately kept modest in hopes of
keeping costs low and permitting stable funding for an ongoing series.
(See below.)

>... We're beyond the days of the numerous, cheap probes whose sole
>mission was to survive long enough to snap pictures...

There are still a lot of places in the solar system that would benefit from
those numerous, cheap probes with cameras.  The real problem is that NASA
has forgotten how to build them.

>.... now
>the mission is a lot more complex, and you can't have five or ten of them 
>in the planning stage; it's just too expensive...

The Observer class was specifically supposed to get us away from the one-
shot funding problem, by being cheap enough that a continuous pipeline
could be maintained on a constant yearly budget.  There is precedent for
this:  the Explorer series of near-Earth science missions has worked very
well on that basis.  The Observers don't seem to have managed it, alas.

>Last I heard, Cassini was entering the pipeline...

No, it's still banging on the door trying to get in.  What you read about
in AW&ST was NASA *proposing* it and CRAF, in a package deal, as the FY90
new-project start.  It remains to be seen whether Congress will buy it;
the package-deal business, in particular, is new and may not get a very
warm reception.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 22:19:02 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!robina@uunet.uu.net  (Robin Adams)
Subject: Re: Assaying likely asteroids from afar

In article <3085@i.cc.purdue.edu>, f3w@i.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Gellis) writes:
> Plus, if we simply fired this thing at the asteroid and got our information,
> and no one was hurt because it had, in fact, been used as a scientific
> instrument and not a weapon (that is, we present the Soviets with a fait
> accompli) what are they going to do about it?  Complain to the UN?  They'll
> look stupid and they know it.  Fire their own lasers at other asteroids
> to prevent an "asteroid gap"?  Good!  More data will come in and we will
> all know more about the asteroids.  Use it as an excuse to build their
> own nuke weapons in space?  Possibly, but then WE would have a legitimate
> right to complain to the UN and, besides, for the time being, the Soviets
> want to build their economy, not new weapons, so as long as we did not
> present a threat (which might be achieved by immediately sharing all
> data we get about the asteroids with them, or something like that), we
> could probably get away it.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?


I'm not at all sure how this line of thinking help's the spirit of detente,
but anyway.....

If your not in Earth orbit, I would think that the U.S. (or whoever, for
that matter) would be outside the bounds of the treaty. So that could be Sun 
orbit or half a dozen other types of orbit, some of which might take you
conveniently close to the asteroid objective(s). I'm assuming that the analysis
would be done in space and the data transmitted to earth.

Of course, one would need a little time on their hands....

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 06:35:22 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: failures and engineering

In article <486@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
> [Long history of Western space failures here.  I would assume that Soviet
>   craft never fail, from this list.  Removed for brevity's sake.]
 
>I see.  So, according to your hypothesis, the Soviets you so dearly love
 
>Voyager is out there laying the groudwork for the future exploration
>of the solar system, and you're sitting here on Earth complaining about the
>lube job.  I feel sure that if it had been a Soviet probe, you'd be singing 
>it's praises almost daily.  

WELL, I'm certainly glad to see we got a REAL AMERICAN here! Courageously
attacking the heathens who dare to criticize the US and say anything good
about the Soviets. I hereby nominate Matthew for the sci.space Joe McCarthy
award [insert overly loud canned applause here].

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 03:50:17 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!bucket!loop!keithl@uunet.uu.net  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Neville Shute's "Slide Rule"

Suggested reading:  "Slide Rule" by Neville Shute, 1954.

This partial autobiography deals with Shute's years as an aviation designer
in Britain and later as the head of Airspeed Ltd.  The first half describes
the development of the Vickers R100 airship, in competition with the Labour
government's ill-fated R101 airship, and makes some points about government
versus private design efforts.  Some of the R101 screwups resemble those made
on the Space Shuttle 50 years later - like launching in bad weather.

The rest of the book follows Airspeed Ltd. from a fledgling ( :-) ) company
to a staff of 1000, in the midst of the Depression.  Interesting to folks
considering high-tech startups, less so to back-room types.

The writing is not as good as Shute's fiction, and I disagree with some of
what he says.   However, many of his observations are applicable today, to
space development or technology in general.  I read it after a good review by
Phil Salin, one of the principle investors in American Rocket Company, so you
guys are stuck with the book report, instead of rec.zeppelins.

-- 
Keith Lofstrom    keithl@loop    tektronix!tessi!qiclab!loop!keithl
Launch Loop, P.O. Box 1538, Portland, Oregon 97207   (503)-628-3645

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #381
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Apr 89 06:10:43 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00861>; Thu, 20 Apr 89 05:51:59 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 20 Apr 89 05:51:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYHMK=y00UkTI2JkN3>;
          Thu, 20 Apr 89 03:24:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.kYHMFVy00UkZEDT05L>;
          Thu, 20 Apr 89 03:19:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YHMDMy00UkZ0DRU5d@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 03:16:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #382

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 382

Today's Topics:
	    Re: 'Europe stuff' (was: Re: UK astronaut...)
			      Re: Ariane
		     Disarmament and Outer Space
	       Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 09:26:40
From: Lutz Massonne <ESC1325@ESOC> (+49-6151-886-701) <ESC1325@ESOC.PROFS>
Subject: Re: 'Europe stuff' (was: Re: UK astronaut...)

(Flame on)

I am surprised to see Hermes being launched from a butter mountain
instead of a Ariane 5 ...
The US people should not mix up the EC bureaucracy with the ESA
bureaucracy. ESA is not the EC, it has different member states
and there is one big difference: ESA works.

The European Space Program has perhaps more limited goals than the
US and USSR programs, but the science program as well as the
commercial programs have produced a lot of remarkable results.
The manned space effort of ESA has just started (not counting
the Spacelab which is infrequently launched by a shuttle),
but its prospects of getting astronauts into space are not
worse than those of Arianespace to get a significant part of
the worlds commercial launch market.

(Flame off)

To be serious: for a entirely civilian program (as far as this
is possible) the ESA space program is remarkably well funded
and successful.

Regards, Lutz

Disclaimer: This mailing expresses my personal opinions only,
neither mbp's nor ESA's. I accept no liability for any of my
statements and give no guarantee for their correctness.
Some parts of this mail may be meant humorous or are simply cynic.

+------------------------------------------------------+
| Address: Dr. Lutz Massonne, OAD/mbp, ESOC,           |
|          Robert-Bosch-Str.5, D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG   |
+------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 09:15:19
From: Lutz Massonne <ESC1325@ESOC> (+49-6151-886-701) <ESC1325@ESOC.PROFS>
Subject: Re: Ariane

A good description of the Ariane 4 manufacturing and transportation
can be found in the 'esa bulletin' no. 55 from august 1988.

The 1st stage of the launcher is is integrated at Aerospatiale in France,
the 2nd stage is integrated at MBB-Erno in the Fed. Rep. of Germany
and the 3rd stage is again integrated at Aerospatiale.
The liquid strap-on boosters are integrated at MBB-ERNO (FRG) and the
solid strap-ons are integrated at SNIA-BPD in Italy.

All Ariane launcher parts are brought to the port of Le Havre by vessel
from Les Mureaux on the river Seine about nine weeks prior to the launch.
The all is shipped in special containers (including the propellants
except the liquid oxygen, which is produced in Kourou) to
Cayenne in French Guiana.
Some ten days later the vessel arrives at the port of Cayenne and launcher and
propellants are transferred by road to the launch site, some 15km west
of Kourou.
Transfer to the launch pad takes place about two weeks before launch.

The payload will be flown to Kourou.

The industrial capabilities allow at present the production of
eight Ariane-4 launchers in a nominal production cycle
and up to ten per year by shift working.
The ELA-2 launch complex at Kourou is also capable of supporting
ten launches per year.

Arianespace plans to produce and launch about 70 Ariane-4's.

In overall 50 european companies are involved in Ariane-4 production,
providing employment for about 10000 people.
Eight firms are main contractors for the major elemtens of the launcher.

However, I have no information about the inner-european transport of
the launcher parts prior to the final integration and shipping
from Les Mureaux. Personally I suspect that the involved firms follow
the normal european customs and transport by road or railway,
and use air transport for time-critical items.

I hope this provides some more information

Lutz

+------------------------------------------------------+
| Address: Dr. Lutz Massonne, OAD/mbp, ESOC,           |
|          Robert-Bosch-Str.5, D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG   |
+------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 20:37:58 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: Disarmament and Outer Space


Ported to UseNET from UNITEX Network
                      201-795-0733
          via Rutgers FidoGATEway


*DISARMAMENT and OUTER SPACE
     
     GENEVA, 11 April -- The Conference on Disarmament heard a
     statement today by the representative of the Federal Republic of
     Germany on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.
     
     Paul Joachim von Stuelpnagel (Federal Republic of Germany)
     said increasing numbers of States were becoming space Powers or
     were participating in important programmes for the exploration
     and utilization of outer space. All States could be threatened
     by a possible misuse of outer space.  Despite the special
     responsibility and obligation of the two principal space Powers,
     the regulation of outer space and the prevention of an arms race
     in outer space could not be left entirely to bilateral
     negotiations between the two major Powers.  At a propitious
     time, the Conference on Disarmament had to play its role in that
     field.  Nothing, however, should be done that would hinder the
     success of bilateral negotiations on outer space issues.
     
     One of the most important permanent obligations of the Ad
     Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space
     was to examine ways and means of developing and broadening the
     basis of consensus, he said.  As long as divergencies on
     substance and methodology prevailed, it did not make sense to 
     call for "negotiations" without knowing precisely what objective
     was to be reached nor having agreed on the need, purpose and
     prospect for any of the intended conventions, treaties,
     amendments or regulations that were urged to be elaborated.
     *    Press Release DC/2239 of 5 April should have had the symbol
     DCF/22.       Press Release DCF/22 of 7 April should have had
     the symbol DCF/23. 
     
     The work of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an
     Arms Race in Outer Space would, inevitably, be incomplete and
     not succeed in making substantial progress unless a real effort
     was made to analyse the nature and completeness of the existing
     outer space legal regime.  The Committee needed to consider
     whether the legal outer space regime needed to be complemented
     and how it could be improved. 
     
     He said two approaches, which were principally different,
     had been taken by the Ad Hoc Committee to the objective of
     improving the protection for satellites:  the prohibition of
     ASATs or of all weapons that could attack objects in outer
     space; and the indirect protection of satellites to minimize the
     possibility of hostile action against them (for example, by
     agreed "rules of the road").  It had become evident that it was
     technically difficult to distinguish between satellites that
     needed to be protected and satellites that would not be covered
     by a possible legal "immunity".  Because many non-dedicated
     ASATs existed (for example, anti-ballistic missile (ABM)
     systems, any kind of long-range ballistic missiles, satellites
     with inherent ASAT capabilities, and so on), a comprehensive ban
     on all of those systems would be neither verifiable nor
     acceptable to all parties concerned.  The Federal Republic of
     Germany had conducted research and was prepared to offer its
     findings by contributions of scientific experts during the summer
     session of the Conference.
     
     It may be difficult to accept, but it seemed that a ban on
     ASAT means would only be effective if all weapons were
     prohibited that were capable of attacking objects in relevant
     orbits, he said.  The subject of an ASAT ban concerned basic
     questions of the strategic stability between the major nuclear
     Powers.  Those questions were still under consideration in the
     bilateral negotiations. 
     
     The Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in
     Outer Space should make a comprehensive effort to determine to
     what extent the existing legal regime could be completed and
     reinforced, he said.  It should work for a greater observance of
     the existing provisions of the outer space legal regime, for
     more precise definitions, for more commonly shared
     interpretations, for improving norms and, finally, for
     elaborating more provisions of a legal nature.
     

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Crime Stoppers Against the New Age Hustle (1:107/501)

--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG


-- 
Patt Haring 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 23:07:02 GMT
From: haven!vrdxhq!daitc!ida.org!roskos@purdue.edu  (Eric Roskos)
Subject: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!

Well, I scoffed when I read the recent postings in rec.ham-radio about the
UFO, but then I was standing in the check-out line at Giant (world's
slowest cashiers) and saw the following headline on "Weekly World News":

"US Astronauts' close encounter rocks NASA!  SPACE SHUTTLE WAS INVADED BY 
ALIENS  Star creatures boarded discovery -- and ... radio conversations
prove it, experts say".

Here's a short excerpt from the article, which closely parallels what
was reported earlier in sci.space and rec.ham-radio:

A 200-foot UFO buzzed last month's space shuttle flight and there are
even more serious allegations that a pair of bug-eyed extraterrestrials
took control of the craft while they inspected its cargo!

London's respected Daily Star newspaper, which has a circulation of 1.3
million, broke the story that included sensational testimony from a
stable of scientists and UFO researchers who claim to have tapes of
conversations between the shuttle and mission control. 

In a mind-blowing interview, former NASA mission specialist Bob Oechsler
of Baltimore, MD stunned Daily Star readers when he revealed that he was
in posession of a tape that described the shuttle's incredible UFO
encounter. 

The veteran space flight specialist, who worked at the famed Goddard
Space Flight Center located near Washington, DC, refused to say where he
got the explosive tape. 

But he told The NEWS in a telephone interview that he has commissioned a
sophisticated voice-print analysis to determine if it really is the
shuttle telling mission control: "Houston, this is Discovery.  We still
have the alien spacecraft under observation."

			* * *

The Daily Star rocked Europe by additionally reporting that a *ham radio
operator* claims to have heard a shuttle astronaut say: "Houston, we
have a `fire'" -- which is widely believed to be a NASA [term] for a
UFO. 

Those reports, while sensational, paled before yet another allegation
from Dr.  Marcel Ponte.  In Paris, the founder and president of the
watchdog group, UFO Truth, said he can prove that space aliens boarded
the shuttle and inspected its cargo....  He also claimed to have heard
an alleged conversation between the shuttle and mission control that
says:

"Houston, this is Discovery.  We have alien spacecraft.  200 feet.  Blue.
Cargo hold.  Controls useless.  A pair.  Bug eyed.  We are invaded."

The brief transmission was allegedly made when the Discovery was in the
20th hour of its five-day mission. 

[End of excerpt.]

The article also includes an "artist's conception of chilling encounter
in space," depicting an object resembling a plumber's helper with a disc
brake rotor attached to the bottom of it, pointing a long, antenna-like
object at the shuttle, which has its cargo door open and and astronaut
precariously perched on the back, near the tail fin, as if he is about
to fall backward with surprise.  He appears to be holding a suitcase. 

A few pages later in the newspaper, it has this testimonial from a reader
in Wales:

Editors: I am 14 years old and have never been to America, but I can see
your country must be a truly exciting place to live.  My dad went to New
York for business and brought me a Weekly World News so I could read
about life in America.  I have read the stories over and over.  The
people there do such wonderful things, and I know it is a fascinating
place to be. 

The newspapers here don't tell us about things like space ships and space
aliens and reincarnation.  I'm going to save all my money and come to America, 
where life must be great fun.

[End of quote.]

It certainly is inspiring that one can read news reports in the Usenet weeks
before they appear in the Weekly World News.
-- 
Eric Roskos (roskos@CS.IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 22:17:56 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <7967@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc (Eric William Tilenius) writes:
>The National Space Society has initiated a phone tree alert 

>Say that you urge the Congressman to "SUPPORT FULL FUNDING FOR THE
>SPACE STATION."                       --------------------
>-------------

In discussing the budget priorities for NASA in FY 1989, the HUD
Independant Agencies Committee Chairman, Mr. Boland, pointed out that
full funding of the Space Station and protection of the Space Shuttle
program from cuts would require elimination of every other increase over
FY 1988.

Here is a list of (most of) those other programs:

Orbital Manouvering Vehicle
Tethered Satellite System
Hubble Space Telescope Development
Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility
Global Geospace Science Program
Explorer Development
Suborbital Program
Life Sciences Flight Experiments
Galileo Development
Ulysses
Mars Observer
Airborne Science and Application
Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
Ocean Topography Experiment
Materials Processing
Information Systems
Technology Utilization
Materials and Structures Research and Technology
Rotocraft systems Technology
Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation
Space Propulsion Research
Space Vehicle Research
Large Structures and Control
Power Systems
Automation and Robotics
Pathfinder Program
Transatmospheric Research and Technology
Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance
Tracking and Data Advanced Systems
ELVs
Second TDRS
CDSF


Remember this when somebody tells you that full funding for THE space
station is vitally important to our future in space.  Given the proposed
funding curve for the space station, it will only get worse.


William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #382
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Apr 89 07:13:29 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00755>; Thu, 20 Apr 89 06:46:40 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 20 Apr 89 06:46:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8YHO3ly00UkTA2J059>;
          Thu, 20 Apr 89 05:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.cYHO0oy00UkZADd04P>;
          Thu, 20 Apr 89 05:17:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYHNzfy00UkZQDbU57@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 05:16:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #383

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 383

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Assaying likely asteroids from afar
		Re: Possible Life on Venus: A Question
      The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)
			 Re: U.S. vs Soviets
	     Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
		  Any other ISU students out there?
	      Re:US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
		  Proposed lunar simulation facility
		     Re: Rail-Guns and Asteroids
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
	     Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 15:10:49 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Assaying likely asteroids from afar

In article <3085@i.cc.purdue.edu> f3w@i.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Gellis) writes:
>Plus, if we simply fired this thing at the asteroid and got our information,
>and no one was hurt because it had, in fact, been used as a scientific
>instrument and not a weapon (that is, we present the Soviets with a fait
>accompli) what are they going to do about it?  Complain to the UN?  They'll
>look stupid and they know it.  Fire their own lasers at other asteroids
>to prevent an "asteroid gap"?  Good!  More data will come in and we will
>all know more about the asteroids.  Use it as an excuse to build their

Or maybe they might go to Red Alert and launch on warning.  That would 
really generate some data, and maybe even turn the Earth into an asteroid
we could all study at liesure.  Assuming of course that anyone's left to
benefit from the knowledge.

-- 
Jim Benz 		     jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem 
University of Pittsburgh					 answers,
UCIR			     (412) 648-5930			 hang up!

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 14:52:52 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Possible Life on Venus: A Question

In article <kYDtAmy00Xoe43iElp@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>
>There is a question that has been distrubing me lately,
>
>We discover not a long ago living "parasites" that are
>very close to paramecia organism very deep in the
>Atlantique Ocean. What is surprising is the capacity of
>those organism to live and reproduce in very hot water
>located near permanent volcanic activities.
>According to common knowledge (I am a logician not
>a biologist) I thougth that proteins as well as DNA chains
>could not be replicated and therefore not formed under high
>temperature.
>Or am I missing anything here ?

Maybe so.  I assume you are referring to clam-tubeworm-crab ecosystems
found near rift vents on the ocean floor.  My understanding (just a layman,
not a marine biologist) is that these creatures live in zones of *higher
than the surrounding water* temperature, not actually zones of very high
temperature, but warmer than the temperature of deep-ocean water which is
very cold.  The zone of truly high temperature around such vents must be
either very small, since water would transport heat away from them rapidly,
or the water would just boil at that point and steam bubbles would be
apparent at the surface.  Of course, huge steam bubbles rising from the
ocean surface would have led to the discovery of such sites a long time
ago and would not have waited till the 1980s.  And even around such hot
sites, there would be zones of decreasing temp including some quite 
comfortable zones for life.
-- 
Jim Benz 		     jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem 
University of Pittsburgh					 answers,
UCIR			     (412) 648-5930			 hang up!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 10:11 EDT
From: John Taylor <V131Q5CG@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)

 
>Date: 14 Apr 89 18:33:06 GMT
>From: psivax!quad1!ttidca!hollombe@uunet.uu.net  (The Polymath)
>Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported 

>In article <6316@homxc.UUCP> gfv@homxc.UUCP (G.VALVO) writes:
>}The fusion reaction itself is only the first step to electric power.
>}How would the electricty be generated, boilers?  steam turbines?  direct
>}conversion? ...
> 
>Stirling cycle engines may be best for back yard use.  Turbines aren't
>efficient at low and intermittent power levels.

	The "Buffalo News" ran a story about the Stirling a couple of days 
ago; of course, the object wasn't to explain the Stirling, but to defame it 
and then use it to beat Sen. Alfonse D'amato over the head with (he 
initiated substantial funding for Stirling R&D). The whole premise of the 
story was the uselessness of the Stirling and what a waste of taxpayer money 
it is. 

	Anyone have any comments? Would someone explain the operating 
principle(s)?


-------------
John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo
Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 15:31:27 GMT
From: dogie!indri!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: U.S. vs Soviets

In article <1989Apr17.163744.709@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
}In article <476@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
}>> (yes, last I heard Freedom's internal volume will be less than that of
}>> Skylab)...
}>... the latest design for the station: two 40-foot
}>U.S. modules (1 hab, 1 lab), 1 40-foot ESA module (lab), and 1 20-foot
}>Japanese module (lab)...
}> This seems to be a bit more voluminous than a gutted Saturn V third
}>stage...
}
}Look at the numbers, not at the appearance.  Even the third stage of a
}Saturn V was *big*.
}
}I admit that I haven't checked the numbers myself lately, mind you.
}
}>... Incidentally, you avoided my question: you were going on about
}>the probable superiority of Novy Mir...again, what greater capabilities will
}>it have?
}
}The fast answer is:  probably, more of everything.  It is also likely to
}have some practical advantages, like using proven hardware, as opposed to
}(for example) Freedom's insane 20kHz power system that nobody knows how
}to build yet.

You missed a rather major point: Mir (and add ons) will have significantly
more altitude than the Skylab(s) do.  One is scattered over Australia, another
is in the Air and Space Museum.  Mir is above the ground, and will probably
stay there for quite a while longer.  I count the absence of sea-level
pressure on the hull as a significant advantage.

Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 17:38:02 GMT
From: lindy!kevin@labrea.stanford.edu  (Kevin J. Burnett)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!


Isn't The Star the same one who had Yuri Geller up in a balloon sending out
psychic beams to people who were supposed to draw the item on which he was
concentrating?  Also hasn't it featured Sam Fox's two greatest assets?

I suppose that compared to the Weekly World News, the Star may be considered
'respected'.

:-) :-) :-)
-- 
Kevin Burnett, KC6AOA			AMPR.ORG: 44.4.0.231
"She was an acrobat's daughter, she swung by her teeth from a noose;
 but then one day, her dentures gate way, and she flew through the air
 like a goose." - Daffy

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 20:42:21 GMT
From: oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!briar.philips.com!rfc@apple.com  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <7940@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>  I don't think the Soviets are going to repeat the mistake we made with 
>Apollo, that is, if they go somewhere, they're going to go to stay.  A more
>likely scenario, in my opinion, is a Soviet lunar mission, to gain the
>experience with manned planetary exploration needed for Mars, at a much
>closer locale. Besides, it would cost less.
>
>-- 
We should go back to the Moon so we can refresh our experience with such
missions.  It's getting to be 20 years ago that we did Apollo, and soon we
will "forget" how to do it.  
We could spend longer periods of time exploring, etc this time.  
But can we afford to pay for it?

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 00:36:54 GMT
From: a.gp.cs.cmu.edu!mwm@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Mark Maimone)
Subject: Any other ISU students out there?


	I'd like to get in touch with people who attended ISU'88 at MIT, or
will attend ISU'89 in Strasbourg, France.  If funding comes through, I hope
to attend this year's program in the physical sciences dept.  Let's talk
before July!

	For the uninitiated:  the International Space University runs a
two-month summer program for graduate students, designed to educate them in
the physical, engineering, economic and political realities of working in
space.  Last year 105 grad students from 20 countries attended the program
at MIT, and worked with 60 space professionals to design a lunar colony for
10-15 people (the results will be presented at the SSI conference in
Princeton this May).  I think this year's design projects will be a lunar
probe and a variable gravity research facility.

	I'd like to hear more about the program from people who've
participated (or will participate) in it.  Please send e-mail to:

	Arpa: mwm@cs.cmu.edu
	Uucp: cmcspt!mwm@cs.cmu.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Maimone		phone:(412) 268 - 7698
CMU Computer Science	email:mwm@cs.cmu.edu
Grad Student, vocal jazz and P.D.Q. Bach enthusiast
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Maimone		phone:(412) 268 - 7698
CMU Computer Science	email:mwm@cs.cmu.edu
2nd year Grad Student and pro. jazz singer (well, I DID get paid; twice!)
--

------------------------------

Date:       Tue, 18 Apr 89 13:26:49 BST
From: ZZASSGL@CMS.MANCHESTER-COMPUTING-CENTRE.AC.UK
Myname:     Geoff. Lane. (Phone UK-061 275 6051)
Subject:    Re:US citizen - ET contact legal penalties



>"Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of
>citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14,
>Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted
>7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing).  The Code
>specifies up to a year in jail and a 5000 dollar fine.  The NASA
>authorities can examine you to determine if you have been "ET
>exposed", and can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be
>broken, even by court order."
>Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

Then why have we not seen NASA leaping into action to investigate
all these "I was captured by Aliens who stole my Genes!" stories
that keep getting published??????

Geoff. Lane.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 13:46:47 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Proposed lunar simulation facility


>From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: space news from Feb 27 AW&ST
...
>Los Alamos proposes to build a lunar-surface simulation facility for
>testing lunar mining and construction hardware.  They would like a
>small amount of NASA funding for it; so far, no response from NASA.
>Los Alamos says that paper studies of lunar base operations, notably
>oxygen production, are beginning to peter out for lack of experimental
>results.

Is that a computer simulation testbed, or an actual physical construction
to emulate the lunar terrain?
                                John Roberts
                                roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 15:40:49 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Rail-Guns and Asteroids

In article <8904122007.AA10396@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>
>    Would it be reasonable to use Rail-Guns in mining an asteroid. 
>    I am thinking that a large pellet of metal could be fired from an
>    asteroid based mining unit back to earth or the moon.  The pellet
>    could either be tracked and caught when it gets near the earth,
>    or it could be fired so it hits the moon, and then retrieved from
>    Could this scheme be used in reverse?  Could water, food, fuel and
>    other supplies be sent to mars or an asteroid mining site using
>    rail guns?

Ahah, something I've thought about for years!  Why not send a rail gun to
an asteroid and use it for propulsion of the asteroid, and bring it back
to earth orbit whole, or relatively so?  Surely accelerating chunks of rock
to high velocities would impart some Gs to the asteroid the gun is mounted on.
Shoot the rocks out into interstellar space and bring back the whole asteroid.
No catcher, no crew needed, no Lunar Environmental Impact (giggle) statement.
And a nice well-behaved earth-satellite consisting of many tons of useable ore.
I seem to remember reading this in some early NASA fluff back in the '60s when
I was a mere tad.
-- 
Jim Benz 		     jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem 
University of Pittsburgh					 answers,
UCIR			     (412) 648-5930			 hang up!

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 13:53:15 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

There are some of us out here who support the exploration and utilization
of space and yet who also believe that the development of the proposed
space station is an inefficient (and hence inappropriate) expenditure of 
scarce resources.

Just a reminder ;-).
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 23:31:12 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <23268@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>In article <7967@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc (Eric William Tilenius) writes:
>>The National Space Society has initiated a phone tree alert 
>
>>Say that you urge the Congressman to "SUPPORT FULL FUNDING FOR THE
>>SPACE STATION."                       --------------------
>>-------------
>
>In discussing the budget priorities for NASA in FY 1989, the HUD
>Independant Agencies Committee Chairman, Mr. Boland, pointed out that
>full funding of the Space Station and protection of the Space Shuttle
>program from cuts would require elimination of every other increase over
>FY 1988.          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What does "would require" mean -- that Boland isn't willing to increase
funding for the entire space program, just shuffle around space funds
internally?

If it's possible to divert funds away from NASA to VA, it should also be
possible to shift funds to NASA from other programs.

Of course, whether it's politically likely is another story...

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 18:16:17 GMT
From: rochester!rocksanne!bozo!kirby@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Mike Kirby (co-op))
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!


>Editors: I am 14 years old and have never been to America, but I can see
>your country must be a truly exciting place to live.  My dad went to New
>York for business and brought me a Weekly World News so I could read
>about life in America.  I have read the stories over and over.  The
>people there do such wonderful things, and I know it is a fascinating
>place to be. 
>
>The newspapers here don't tell us about things like space ships and space
>aliens and reincarnation.  I'm going to save all my money and come to America, 
>where life must be great fun.

No wonder the rest of the world holds us in such low opinion....

I wonder if that reporter has access to the net?  

Michael Kirby
mpk9172@ritvax.bitnet		Works
mpk9172%ritcv@cs.rit.edu	Works on a good day
kirby.wbst128@xerox.com		Never tried it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #383
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Apr 89 03:05:41 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05688>; Fri, 21 Apr 89 01:06:15 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 21 Apr 89 01:06:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYHes0y00UkT41JUBb>;
          Fri, 21 Apr 89 00:28:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.8YHemdy00UkZEGbE4O>;
          Fri, 21 Apr 89 00:23:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYHeiqy00UkZ8GZk4T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 00:19:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #384

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 384

Today's Topics:
	 Planitary Positions vs short wave radio propagation
		     Re: failures and engineering
		  shuttle design and low g tolerance
	     Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
	      Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH.
    Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)
		Is 'better than gravity assist' used?
    Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)
		      Vol 375 and Yes I am back.
	     Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)
		     Re: failures and engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sender: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM
Date: 18 Apr 89 17:52:16 PDT (Tuesday)
Subject: Planitary Positions vs short wave radio propagation
From: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM
Cc: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM


Items ran in Space Digest v9 nos 371 & 373 about someone who could predict
inteference in long distance short wave radio transmission.

There was an article about this in Analog many years ago.  
This is from memory, so I may not have all the facts correct.  If anyone
can locate the original, it would help this discussion.

1. The Earth is, at least in a manner of speaking, inside the atmosphere of
the Sun.
2. The orbit of the Earth is an elipse, with one focus at, not the center
of the Sun, but the CG of the solar system.
3. Jupiter and Saturn have enough mass to move the CG of the solar system
away from the center of the Sun if they are in the correct positions.
4. As the locations of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn move, the position of
Earth relative to the surface of the Sun and so Earth's depth in the solar
atmosphere varies.
5.  Therefore, the number (and type?) of particles bombarding the earth
changes depending on the relative positions of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn.
As the number of particles changes, so does the strength and location of
the electrically charged layers in the atmosphere which reflect radio
signals and make long distance short wave radio possible.  
Conclusion:  Short wave radio propigation is changed by the relative
positions of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn.

According to the article, this person had about 93% success in predicting
interference.  He never missed, but sometimes the interference he predicted
did not, in fact, occur.  He, according to the item, made his living by
forcasting these disturbances to the radio communications companies.

I make no claim as to the accuracy nor to the spelling of the above.

Bob Swenson 
Swenson.osbunorth@Xerox.COM

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 14:40:08 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdke!rbk@hplabs.hp.com  (Richard Katz)
Subject: Re: failures and engineering

/ hpctdke:sci.space / henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) /  6:51 pm  Apr 15, 1989 /
In article <411@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>> .................... The way you find out about these things is to try
>> them.  The major factor in how quickly you learn is how often you try.
>
>Another point of view is that with careful systems design and good engineering
>you don't need to learn from your mistakes. That is what engineering is all
>about. For instance, see the many successful Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager and
>Viking missions.

Yup, see them -- but study them properly.  Mariner 2, struggling past Venus
with one problem after another developing.  The early Pioneers, a total
disaster area.  Voyager 2, limping towards Neptune with its primary command
receiver dead and its backup one ailing (and don't blame this on the length
of the mission -- the problems developed almost immediately after launch),
not to mention the lubrication problems in the scan platform.  The Viking 1
lander, dead before its time due to human error back on Earth.

And let us not forget Seasat, with its slip-rings failing less than three
months after launch.  TDRS-1, with various electronic ailments fouling it
up to the point where it's been officially retired to standby status, now
that a replacement is finally in position.  Galileo, which is damned lucky
that it *didn't* fly in spring 1986, because its thruster system had *two*
disastrous design flaws, found only a few months ago, that would have made
it the most long-awaited and expensive failure in the history of planetary
exploration.  The GOES satellites, failing one after another as the lamps
in their scanner encoders burned out.

I repeat my comment:  the major factor in how quickly you learn is how
often you try.  It is *not* possible to get everything right the first
time.  NASA, ESA, etc. like to pretend otherwise, but the universe has
a habit of reminding them that they're wrong.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
----------

------------------------------

Subject: shuttle design and low g tolerance
From: IA80024%MAINE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester)
Date:    Wed, 19 Apr 89 15:34:07 EDT

from what i have read of the shuttle design, the 3g limit is to permit an easie
r ride for the astronauts, since non-military personnel were to be used. this w
ould preclude the rigorous training required of the mercury thru apollo astrona
uts, who had to withstand high g forces (5g?).

=nick=
ia80024@maine.bitnet
ia80024@maine.maine.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 20:16:04 GMT
From: mas1!condor@apple.com  (Rick Kawala)
Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

In article <4549@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
> I have received requests for the citation which covers the
> illegal aspects of man-ET encounters.  I am quoting here from the
> enigmatic KRILL document previously posted here.
> 
> "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of
> citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14,
> Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted
> 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing).  The Code
> specifies up to a year in jail and a 5000 dollar fine.  The NASA
> authorities can examine you to determine if you have been "ET
> exposed", and can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be
> broken, even by court order."
> 
> Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

I called a friend of mine who's a paralegal and asked him to look
this thing up. He told me that it citation was incomplete, that
one has to say "Code of Federal Regulations", <subsection>, Title 14,
Section 1211, where <subsection> can be replaced with things like
"Coast Guard Regulations" or something. Otherwise, you're faced
with too many books to look through. It's something like saying
"It's in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, page number 432" but not
saying which volume of EB you're referring to. If anyone has any
more information, I'd love to hear about it.

Rick Kawala
Contracted to Measurex Automation Systems
I disclaim everything

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 14:42:36 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!hwee!sutherla@uunet.uu.net  (I. Sutherland)
Subject: Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH.

In article <1989Apr11.181518.3936@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>A. We will assume you mean a NASA astronaut, since it's probably impossible
>	for a Westerner to get into the Soviet program, and the other nations

  Well I wouldn't be too sure about that one, it now seems likely that Britain's
first man ( somehow I doubt that person is the right word to use ) in space
will be travelling on a Russian mission. I haven't seen any real details but
I'm sure one newspaper gave a date of 1991.
  I saw the announcement quite recently, in fact it was probably while
Gorbachov(sp?) was on his visit to this country.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 07:03:48 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)

In article <Added.cYGoAJy00UkT8_tk9j@andrew.cmu.edu> V131Q5CG@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (John Taylor) writes:

>The "Buffalo News" ran a story about the Stirling a couple of days 
>ago; of course, the object wasn't to explain the Stirling, but to defame it 
>and then use it to beat Sen. Alfonse D'amato over the head with (he 
>initiated substantial funding for Stirling R&D). The whole premise of the 
>story was the uselessness of the Stirling and what a waste of taxpayer money 
>it is. 

Hmmm....objective news reporting at its best again. Didn't anyone ever tell
these newspaper clods that they are supposed to report the news in an
objective fashion?

Anyway, I seem to remember reading a short blurb in a magazine (Popular
Science? Scientific American?) about a Sterling engine that the military
has been working on recently. No regular Stirling is this....it integrates
the latest in high-tech microprocessor control. Supposedly the Air Force
has several passenger vans running this engine for experimental purposes.
One of the nice features is that, being an external combustion engine, the
Stirling can burn almost any fuel, including the left-over transmission and
lubricating oil from jet engines, which the Air Force used to throw
away (ie, spend money disposing of properly).

Also, the nice thing about the new Stirling was that the microprocessor
control made it have accelleration comparable to a similar sized gasoline
engine....one of the problems with the older Stirlings was that the
acceleration was poor.

Contrasting with the article in the "Buffalo News" as mentioned above, the
article I read was objective in its reporting, but the quotes from the Air
Force personnell involved made it seem they were pretty happy with their
success so far.

>Would someone explain the operating principle(s)?

Cannot remember any specifics, but the stirling engine uses external
combustion to heat a working fluid, unlike the internal combustion engine
that is in all motor vehicles mass produced today, where the gasoline or
diesel is the fuel and working fluid both. In the stirling engine, the
vaproization and condensation of the working fluid transfer the heat and
is the cause of the mechanical motion. Someone more mechanically inclined
than I will have to provide more details.



Neal

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 01:17:16 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!draken!chalmers!ce.chalmers.se!afs-news!hacke7!d5kwedb@uunet.uu.net  (Kristian Wedberg)
Subject: Is 'better than gravity assist' used?

Gravity assist has been used many times, by the Voyager-probes for instance.
The way I understand it, however, is that if you use a part of your fuel
just when you swing by the moon/planet/sun, you can reach a higher
velocity than if you use it all up when you start the voyage.

Is this so and has it been used, or did I break something in the energy-laws?


	-kitte

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 16:33:55 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)

In article <5474@lynx.UUCP>, neal@lynx.uucp (Neal Woodall) writes:
}Anyway, I seem to remember reading a short blurb in a magazine (Popular
}Science? Scientific American?) about a Sterling engine that the military
}has been working on recently. No regular Stirling is this....it integrates
}the latest in high-tech microprocessor control. Supposedly the Air Force
}has several passenger vans running this engine for experimental purposes.
}One of the nice features is that, being an external combustion engine, the
}Stirling can burn almost any fuel, including the left-over transmission and
}lubricating oil from jet engines, which the Air Force used to throw
}away (ie, spend money disposing of properly).
}
}Also, the nice thing about the new Stirling was that the microprocessor
}control made it have accelleration comparable to a similar sized gasoline
}engine....one of the problems with the older Stirlings was that the
}acceleration was poor.

I remember reading about an experimental passenger car using a Sterling engine
in Popular Science circa 1982/83.  The reporter who test drove it said that
there was very little difference from an internal-combusion gasoline engine
except for a 30-second warmup on starting.
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Wed, 19 Apr 89 13:15:12 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: ROBERT J HALE                    <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Vol 375 and Yes I am back.

   That is right I am alive.   Back from KOREA.   I am overrun with
work and my colleg courses.   Not much ISECCo mail from me for a while.

   Now my question.   Vol 375 of the NASA perdiction,  How do you read
and use the data?   I think this was asked before but I would like someone
to E-mail it to me.

   Thanks for everyone being so patient with my replys since I went on
vacation.   Now for some space time so I can catch up on what is happening
at ISECCo.
                                Robert J. Hale III
                                ISECCo Director.
 P.S.   I know this is not Astronomy, but does anyone have a recomdation
of a good book on building a Dobsonian telescope.   Have you read one that
covers the new light and portable designs.   RJH

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 20:24:55 GMT
From: arc!arc.UUCP@apple.com  (Ken Stuart)
Subject: Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)


	Here are the references some of you requested concerning the
scientific research on astrology.  Several books and articles have
been written by the authors; only the first is listed.

	John Nelson
	(Short-wave Radio Propagation Analyst in the 
	 Solar and Ionospheric Research Department at
	 RCA Corporation 
	 from 1946-1968)
	"Cosmic Patterns: Their influence on Man and his communication"
	1974 (book)

	Michel Gauqelin, PhD
	"Astrology and Science"
	1970 (book)(1966 in French)

Also, in the process of getting you the above specifics, I came across
the following book yesterday, which discusses these works (as well as
others published by NASA employees who feared being ridiculed if they
presented the material to NASA):

	H.J. Eysenck
	D.K.B. Nias
	"Astrology: Science or Superstition"
	1982 (book)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 14:36:24 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdke!rbk@hplabs.hp.com  (Richard Katz)
Subject: Re: failures and engineering

>/ hpctdke:sci.space / ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) / 10:16 am  Apr 16, 1989 /
>I noticed that in your roll call of broken satellites and probes, you included 
>Voyager 2.  This is a perfect example of how a space probe should be designed;
>*in spite* of the fact that there are point failures on board, it *still 
>works*.  Voyager is out there laying the groudwork for the future exploration
>of the solar system, and you're sitting here on Earth complaining about the
>lube job.  I feel sure that if it had been a Soviet probe, you'd be singing 
>it's praises almost daily.  In the end, all I can say is that while the Soviets
>keep sending probes out, "gaining experience", we're the ones with the 
>working spacecraft.

I believe that your analysis is superficial.  You say that voyager is
a perfect example of how a spacecraft should be designed - in spite of
failures it still works.  Nothing against voyager and the people who
worked on it - I am just commenting on your argument.  First, we are
lucky it works at all.  As Henry pointed out, the receiver failures
occurred early in the mission.  One is lost and the other only works
in a very limited bandwith, not the way it was supposed to.  

The cause of the failure should be examined before it is stated
whether voyager was the perfect way to go about doing things.  What
happened?
        - design fault?
        - workmanship error?
        - test error?
        - the unforseeable?

If voyager indeed does work at all because we are lucky, then you are
condoning a very flawed decision process.

Also, if memory serves me correctly, voyager had some last second
fixes at the pad, and some late modifications that let the dual
command systems both operate contributing to the success of the
missions from the added processing power.

I don't think that with the current spacecraft the US can afford to
keep shooting them out.  Galileo cost over a billion dollars and has
been in development for over a decade.  Magellan, which uses a lot of
Galileo spares I believe is over $500 million dollars.  A little to
expensive and too long a wait for "engineering" missions.  

Then again, there are better ways for NASA to do business.

rich katz
hewlett packard
p o box 7050
colorado springs, co
80933-7050

email: rbk@hpctdlb.hp.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #384
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Apr 89 06:22:45 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00654>; Fri, 21 Apr 89 05:51:33 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 21 Apr 89 05:51:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.YYHhVdy00Vs1M14ENw>;
          Fri, 21 Apr 89 03:29:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.0YHhKMy00UkZIGt05r>;
          Fri, 21 Apr 89 03:17:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <UYHhJFy00UkZIGrU5N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 03:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #385

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 385

Today's Topics:
		     take Platygaeanism elsewhere
    Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)
	     Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
Multi-colored, artificial cloud to be visible along East Coast (Forwarded)
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 12:52:02 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!aplvax.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: take Platygaeanism elsewhere

In article <845@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> troly@math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes:
}>answer this: what is the actual shape of the earth?
}
}   It would certainly be nice to know the answer to this! The problem
}is that although we can see (as I have shown earlier) that the conventional
}round-earth theories must be rejected on a number of grounds, there are still
}too many flat possibilities. The LA Platygaean Society welcomes attempts
}to refute these theories, so that we can arrive at the truth through a 
}process of elimination.

You cannot find out something through elimination unless you have a complete
set to work from.  You are a couple of cans short of a six-pack.

}PS  Please don't lump platygaeanism in with creationism, it makes much
}more sense. Thanx.

It makes almost as much sense, true.

However, since this is talk.origins:

talk.origins            Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!).

And you have said you are not creationism and clearly are not evolution
will you take this sh*t elsewhere?!?!?


suggestions:
talk.bizarre            The unusual, bizarre, curious, and often stupid.
	This sounds like an excellent location for flat earthers

misc.misc               Various discussions not fitting in any other group.
	It reallt DOESN'T fit any rational place.

alt.flame               Alternative, literate, pithy, succinct screaming.
	need I say more?

sci.space               Space, space programs, space related research, etc.
	you seem to try to bring in the shape of space (to compensate for
	your misviews of the shape of the earth).  This would have some
	severe cosmological implications

sci.astro               Astronomy discussions and information.
	ibid.

alt.weemba              Talk & flames about the one & only Weemba.
	nothing else there seems to pertain...

news.groups             Discussions and lists of newsgroups.
	why don't you make one up?

rec.arts.sf-lovers      Science fiction lovers' newsgroup.
	"flat earth" is definitely a science fiction idea at best.

rec.humor               Jokes and the like.  May be somewhat offensive.
	at least it is an offensive joke

sci.misc                Short-lived discussions on subjects in the sciences.
	you seem to try to pretend it is a science, and it does not clearly
	fit in any other science group.  We can hope for short-lived.

sci.physics             Physical laws, properties, etc.
	You will need something to account for the apparent discrepancy
	between physical laws (gravity, light travel paths,...) and your
	absurd theories.

talk.philosophy.misc    Philosophical musings on all topics.
	sounds sort of right...


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 15:54:10 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)

> The "Buffalo News" ran a story about the Stirling a couple of days 
> ago; of course, the object wasn't to explain the Stirling, but to defame it 
> and then use it to beat Sen. Alfonse D'amato over the head with (he 
> initiated substantial funding for Stirling R&D). The whole premise of the 
> story was the uselessness of the Stirling and what a waste of taxpayer money 
> it is. 
> 
> Anyone have any comments? Would someone explain the operating 
> principle(s)?
> 
> -------------
> John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo
> Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
> Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu
> ----------

* Hm, that question really put a sparkle in my eyes -- I've been tinkering
(on paper, at least) with stirlings off-and-on for a long time.

* The Stirling is an external combustion engine -- one applies heat to one
cylinder that contains a piston; the heated gas expands and drives the piston
for the power stroke; in the compression stroke, the heated gas is passed
through a heat-storage system (or "regenerator") to a second cylinder that
contains a second piston (or "displacer").

In this second cylinder, the heated gas is cooled and then compressed again by
the displacer -- and transferred back (with reheating from the regenerator)
into the power piston for the next cycle.

There are various architectures for stirlings -- in some of them, the two
cylinders are ingeniously "folded" into one cylinder.  (The Stirling engine
that NASA has been working with, I recall, actually has twin opposed stirling
engines in a single module.)

Stirlings are somewhat mechanically complicated (whether they are inerently
more complicated than a normal reciprocating internal-combustion engine I
cannot say) and they have so far shown inferior power-to-weight ratios (though
that may be true only because they have had less development than other
engines).

Their absolute beauty is that they are, as I said, _external_ combustion
engines -- you can run 'em off anything: gasoline, jet fuel, wood, coal,
solar power, cowflops, you name it.  Their most practical application right
now is as a motive source for underveloped areas where their ability to
operate off of rice hulls and the like is valuable.

They are conceptually elegant.  Their future potential is an open question.

* I wrote all this off the top of my head; I have notes at home, and I've
been wanting to assemble them into something more coherent for a long time.
If anyone's interest, let me know, I'll cook it up and post it.

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 752-7717                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

		    Wednesday, 19 April 1989 08:47:37 AM PDT

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 89 04:50:16 GMT
From: att!kitty!larry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Larry Lippman)
Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

In article <1796@mas1.mas.UUCP>, condor@mas1.UUCP (Rick Kawala) writes:
> > I have received requests for the citation which covers the
> > illegal aspects of man-ET encounters.  I am quoting here from the
> > enigmatic KRILL document previously posted here.
> > 
> > "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of
> > citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14,
> > Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted
> > 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing).  The Code
> > specifies up to a year in jail and a 5000 dollar fine.  The NASA
> > authorities can examine you to determine if you have been "ET
> > exposed", and can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be
> > broken, even by court order."
> 
> I called a friend of mine who's a paralegal and asked him to look
> this thing up. He told me that it citation was incomplete, that
> one has to say "Code of Federal Regulations", <subsection>, Title 14,
> Section 1211, where <subsection> can be replaced with things like
> "Coast Guard Regulations" or something. Otherwise, you're faced
> with too many books to look through.

	Your paralegal friend should go back to school; the citation is
quite complete.

	"14 CFR Part 1211" does IN FACT pertain to "extraterrestrial
exposure" (the CFR term used).

	14 CFR 1211 derives its authority from U. S. Code Title 18,
Section 799, "Violation of regulations of National Aeronautics and
Space Administration", which states:

	"Whoever willfully shall violate, attempt to violate, or conspire
to violate any regulation or order promulgated by the Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the protection or
security of any laboratory, station, base or other facility, or part
thereof, or any aircraft, missile, spacecraft, or similar vehicle,
or part thereof, or other property or equipment in custody of the
Administration, or any real or personal property or equipment in the
custody of any contractor under any contract with the Administration
or any subcontrator of any such contractor, shall be fined not more
than $ 5,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

	While my organization library has the full text of the U. S.
Code, we have comparatively few CFR sections (the full CFR is hundreds
of volumes), so I do not have the explicit text of 14 CFR 1211.  However,
I do have the CFR index which clearly states that the above section does
in fact pertain to "extraterrestrial exposure".

	I find it somewhat difficult to believe, however, that the cited
CFR section "can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be broken,
even by court order."  Any law is subject to judicial review, and it is
clearly unconstitutional to create a law which could not be subject to
judicial review or otherwise mitigated by "court order".  In general,
any detention pursuant to law of a living person (under the circumstances
I have to add this "qualifier") can be subject to judicial review through
a special proceeding of habeas corpus (or possibly mandamus, depending upon
the circumstances).

	I suspect, however, that this CFR section has yet to be tested
through judicial review. :-)

	My curiosity is now piqued, so if I have a chance in the next
few days, I may swing by the SUNY at Buffalo Law Library and look up the
actual section.

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<>  UUCP:  {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  VOICE: 716/688-1231, 716/773-1700        {att|hplabs|utzoo}!/
<>  FAX:   716/741-9635, 716/773-2488      "Have you hugged your cat today?"

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 89 18:23:43 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Multi-colored, artificial cloud to be visible along East Coast (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Joyce B. Milliner
GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va. 


RELEASE:  89-55

MULTI-COLORED, ARTIFICIAL CLOUD TO BE VISIBLE ALONG EAST COAST


     A rocketborne scientific experiment, programmed to create an 
artificial cloud at high altitudes, is scheduled for launch 
Sunday evening, April 23, from NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center's 
Wallops Flight Facility on Virginia's Eastern Shore.

     A three-stage suborbital rocket, the Black-Brant X will 
carry two canisters of barium to be ejected 90 seconds apart at 
an altitude of about 300 statute miles.  The barium will create 
an artificial greenish-purple cloud which can be visible for 
approximately 20 minutes to residents, using binoculars, along 
the U.S. East Coast from Canada to Florida and as far west as 
Ohio.

     The objective of this launch is to investigate Nobel prize 
winner Dr. Hannes Alfven's critical velocity effect theory, which 
has been used to explain details in the early formation of the 
solar system.  In 1954, Alfven, University of California, San 
Diego, proposed that if an element in a nearly neutral plasma 
became ionized when it attained a flow velocity which depended on 
its ionization potential, then several facets of the structure of 
the solar system could be explained.  This could explain the 
differing chemical compositions of the planets and whether they 
were formed during a gaseous or plasma transition.

     The launch is scheduled about 9:40 p.m. EDT from Wallops 
Island, Va., during a launch window that opens April 24 and 
extends through May 6.  Since the data will be obtained 
optically, clear weather conditions are required at the ground 
observing sites in Virginia, Massachusetts and North Carolina.  
Delays could occur due to operational constraints or cloud cover 
at the ground-based camera sites so the launch will be scheduled 
on a day-to-day basis.

     The two canisters of barium will be ejected and detonated -- 
one as the payload ascends and one as it descends -- thus 
creating two separate jets of gas near the apogee altitude of 300 
miles.  

     The explosives will simulate the fast-moving gas during the 
formation of the solar system.  Sensors on-board the payload will 
record characteristics of the heated plasma in the neutral jet.  
Researchers from the ground, by using low-light-level television 
cameras, will determine injection extent, velocity profile and 
percentage of ionization.  Radar will measure ionospheric 
parameters prior to and during the experiments.

     Dr. Roy Torbert, principal investigator from the University 
of Alabama, Huntsville, said, "We conducted a similar flight from 
Wallops in 1986.  However, this launch will allow for a higher 
ambient plasma than occurred during the early morning flight in 
1986."

     Other researchers include Gerhard Haerendel and Arnoldo 
Valenzuela, Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, 
Munich, West Germany; Gene Wescott and Hans Nielson, University 
of Alaska-Fairbanks; Jason Providakes and Mike Kelley, Cornell 
University; John Foster, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
Kay Baker, Utah State University; Fritz Primdahl, Danish Space 
Research Institute; and C.G. Falthammar and V. Brenning, Royal 
Institute of Technology, Sweden.  The NASA Wallops payload 
manager is Paul Buchanan and project engineer is Debra Frostrom.

     This scientific mission is part of the overall NASA Sounding 
Rocket Program managed at Wallops.  This program consists of 
approximately 40 sounding rockets launched each year from various 
worldwide locations.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 89 09:08:18 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <1989Apr18.193113.22586@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>In article <23268@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>full funding of the Space Station and protection of the Space Shuttle
>>program from cuts would require elimination of every other increase over
>>FY 1988.          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>What does "would require" mean -- that Boland isn't willing to increase
>funding for the entire space program

The committee recommended an increase of $1.7 billion over the FY 1988
NASA budget.  Even with this handsome increase, the choices mentioned
were necessary.  The "cuts" are taken from the proposed funding levels.

What do you think Fletcher thinks of the "cuts" the committee mentioned:

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Some of the problems that led to the [Challenger]
accident were caused by this continual pressure, downward pressure on
the budget over the years.  We are trying to make up for some of the
testing, for example, in the Space Shuttle that was missing in the early
days.  ...

  Mr. BOLAND.  Dr. Fletcher, you don't contend that the accident
occurred as a result of budget pressure, do you?  Did you just say that?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  It did occur because cuts were made, apparently over
the years, in testing of some of the components of the Space Shuttle.
Part of the problems [sic] that we are facing now were due to lack of
testing in the early days of the Space Shuttle program.

  Mr. BOLAND.  I have a feeling the accident happened not because of
budget pressures but because somebody along the line was not listening.

  Mr. GREEN.  That is plainly the case.  Plenty of people in NASA knew
of the problem with the O rings and yet they didn't so much as tell
your Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel there was a problem that ought to
be looked at.  So it is not as much a lack of tests didn't [sic]
disclose the problem, the problem was known to a large number of people
who didn't tell anyone.

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Before we get too far down this road, Mr. Chairman, I
want to way the cuts in NASA budget in those early years were not make
by this Committee.  They were made by OMB.  We signed up to it.  So I am
not blaming Congress for this.  This was done by us, but it was done, I
think in retrospect, carelessly.  Testing that should have been done was
not done.  New we are saying yes, we had better do it now if we want to
have a viable shuttle program.

---------

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

How would Eastern Airlines do if the federal government took it over?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #385
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Apr 89 05:37:54 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00956>; Fri, 21 Apr 89 06:47:10 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 21 Apr 89 06:46:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sYHjAcy00UkTQ19k56>;
          Fri, 21 Apr 89 05:23:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.cYHj8Ey00UkZEH404E>;
          Fri, 21 Apr 89 05:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYHj5oy00UkZAH2U5J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 05:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #386

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 386

Today's Topics:
		   Re: SETI: When and where to look
		    Conte's Bill (was NSS update)
       Re: Planitary Positions vs short wave radio propagation
NASA selects flight telerobotic servicer development contractor (Forwarded)
	  Equations of artificial satellites' motions wanted
       CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Creation of a sci.earth newsgroup.
	      Cold fusion neutron flux anomaly explained
			     Re: Geostar
Space shuttle acceleration limits (was RE:Unmanned shuttle advantages)
		   Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 13:58:09 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: SETI: When and where to look

In article <4739@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>on detecting a major event, start broadcasting immediately in the opposite
>direction (on the assumption that anyone "farther away" will aim their 
>radio telescopes at 1987a and detect us). Another would be to generate

You mean like something like broadcasting pulses at twice
the (theoretical) maximum that a pulsar could?

Like the pulses detected for a short time from 1987a and
which haven't been seen again since?

Wouldn't work. People would find some explanation unless it
was so unambiguous to be judged a fake.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 14:28 EDT
From: John Taylor <V131Q5CG@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Conte's Bill (was NSS update)

>An amendment to the fiscal year 1989 supplemental appropriations bill has
>been introduced by the committee's minority leader, Massachusetts Rep.
>Silvio Conte. 

	Isn't Barney Frank from Mass. too? What is it with these guys? Maybe 
someone needs to take an offensive approach: accuse them of discrimination 
against... uh ... those who want to explore space!?!

>Conte's amendment would transfer nearly $600 [million?] 
>of station funding to other domestic programs. 

	Just out of curosity, has anyone noticed a correlation between 
left/right political leanings and support of space and science? Or is it 
just random?


-------------
John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo
Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu

P.S.  W. Baxter (Oakland), send e-mail! I lost your address...

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 89 01:52:04 GMT
From: erc@tybalt.caltech.edu  (Eric R. Christian)
Subject: Re: Planitary Positions vs short wave radio propagation

In article <890418-181721-109@Xerox> "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@XEROX.COM writes:
>
>Items ran in Space Digest v9 nos 371 & 373 about someone who could predict
>inteference in long distance short wave radio transmission.
>
>There was an article about this in Analog many years ago.  
>This is from memory, so I may not have all the facts correct.  If anyone
>can locate the original, it would help this discussion.
>
... Deleted are several steps explaining that Jupiter and Saturn can change
    The distance from the Earth to the Sun and therefore change the
    charged particle flux.
>Conclusion:  Short wave radio propigation is changed by the relative
>positions of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn.
>
>According to the article, this person had about 93% success in predicting
>interference.  He never missed, but sometimes the interference he predicted
>did not, in fact, occur.  He, according to the item, made his living by
>forcasting these disturbances to the radio communications companies.
>
>I make no claim as to the accuracy nor to the spelling of the above.
>
>Bob Swenson 
>Swenson.osbunorth@Xerox.COM

This is easily proved wrong.  Jupiter is about 1 thousandth the mass of the
Sun and so therefore moves the center of mass of the system about 1/1000
of its distance from the Sun, or about 800,000 km.  Saturn's effect is
about half of that.  Combined Jupiter and Saturn have less than a one
percent effect on the 150,000,000 km distance from the Earth to the Sun.
The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit changes this distance by more than
3 percent.  However, these efects are overshadowed by the variability of
the solar wind.  Both the solar wind speed and the number of particles
change by about 50% over the 11 year solar activity cycle, and there are
lots of short term variations.  On top of this, solar flares can increase
the flux of particles by orders of magnitude.  Solar flares are the real
culprit when it comes to radio interference.

Eric R. Christian                         RADIO INTERFERENCE CAUSED BY ALIEN
erc@tybalt.caltech.edu                    SPACECRAFT EXHAUST!  --  Future
echristian@lheavx.gsfc.nasa.gov           Weekly World News article

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 89 18:17:47 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects flight telerobotic servicer development contractor (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Michael Braukus
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.


RELEASE:  89-54

NASA SELECTS FLIGHT TELEROBOTIC SERVICER DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTOR 


     NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has 
selected the Martin Marietta Space Systems Co., Denver, Colo., to 
negotiate a cost-plus-award-fee contract for the flight 
telerobotic servicer (FTS) for use in the assembly and 
maintenance of Space Station Freedom, scheduled to be deployed in 
the mid-1990's.

     The contract, expected to be effective on July 1, 1989, will 
consist of the delivery of flight hardware and software for three 
missions which consist of two demonstration test flights (DTF) 
aboard the Space Shuttle and an operational system for Space 
Station Freedom.  In addition, the contract will contain an 
option for engineering support during the life of the contract.

     The total cost, excluding fee, as proposed by Martin 
Marietta for the basic effort, is approximately $297 million with 
an additional cost of almost $6 million for the option.

     The contract will provide for the design, development, test, 
integration, launch support, training and ground support systems, 
mission operations support and sustaining engineering of all 
hardware and software required for the FTS program missions.  It 
also includes two Space Shuttle DTF's and the launch of the final 
FTS on one of the S.S. Freedom assembly flights.  This effort, 
anticipated to extend through 1998, will be performed primarily 
at Martin Marietta's facilities in Denver, Colo.

     A key element of the Freedom program, the FTS will employ 
technolgies not used on previous NASA spacecraft.  Spinoffs from 
robotic technologies developed in the FTS program are expected to 
advance U.S. industrial automation capabilities.

     Space Station Freedom will be a permanently manned base in 
low-Earth orbit for conducting scientific research, developing 
new technologies and enabling human exploration of the solar 
system.  The United States, Japan, Canada and nine European 
countries, through the European Space Agency, are contributing 
elements to the program and will share in its utilization.  A 
crew of eight will permanently work and live aboard Freedom, 
which will be designed to operate for several decades, well into 
the 21st century.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 05:05:40 GMT
From: peregrine!ccicpg!cci632!rit!ultb!ritcsh!john@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (John Bisaillon)
Subject: Equations of artificial satellites' motions wanted


    I am planning to write software that will predict common and useful
information about the position and motion of an artificial satellite.
I want to be able to just input the time and the current orbital elements of
a particular satellite.  I need to know the equations of motion that
use orbital elements and a given time to predict the three dimensional
position of the satellite.  Extremely high accuracy in terms of calculations
is not needed.  Any infomormation on existing equivalent public domain
software is also appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

--

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 01:27:52 GMT
From: leah!ss6349@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Steven H Schimmrich)
Subject: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Creation of a sci.earth newsgroup.


   I would be interested  in  seeing  the  creation  of  an  unmoderated
newsgroup  entitled SCI.EARTH as a forum for discussion of topics within
the earth  sciences.   

   There currently exist no newsgroups  for  the  discussion  of  topics
within  the  fields of geology, meteorology, and oceanography other than
where they might fit into other SCI newsgroups (groups such as  SCI.BIO,
SCI.ASTRO, SCI.PHYSICS, SCI.CHEM, SCI.SPACE, etc.).  I believe that this
would be a broad enough  newsgroup  (encompassing  such  disciplines  as
geology,    seismology,    paleontology,    meteorology,    climatology,
oceanography,  etc.),   one   that   would   generate   interest   among
non-professionals  in  the  above  fields  (I can envison discussions on
earthquake risks, the extinction of the dinosaurs, certain  claims  made
by  creationists, ice ages, the changing climate, the greenhouse effect,
el nino, etc.), and one that would fill a  definite  gap  (there  is  no
analogous newsgroup -- especially for geology-related topics).

   This posting is to find out if there is enough interest out there  in
net  land for the creation of a SCI.EARTH newsgroup. If there is, a call
for votes will be the next step.

   THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR VOTES -- Don't send them!

 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
| Steven H. Schimmrich                    | Internet : ss6349@leah.albany.edu |
| Department of Geological Sciences       |  "The Rock Men are very primitive |
| State University of New York at Albany  | Flash, they have no science."     |
| Albany, New York 12222  (518) 442-4470  |                      Dr. Zarkhov. |
 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 17:42:06 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Cold fusion neutron flux anomaly explained
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

An article in yesterday's _Los Angeles Times_ reported experiments at
Stanford that had detected Helium-4 as a product of the Pons-Fleischmann
experiment.  This suggests that instead of decaying into He-3 and a neutron,
as in "normal" fusion, the He-4 is so tightly contained within the palladium
lattice that it transfers its energy to the lattice through heat and only
rarely emits a neutron, explaining the low neutron counts.

Stanford also reported that they had performed the same experiment with
H2O instead of D2O (which P-F had reportedly notdone because it would have
damaged the elctrode, which was expensive -- this from _New Scientist_),
and detected no heat.  This thing is looking better all the time.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 17:16:32 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision!gd@uunet.uu.net  (Gord Deinstadt)
Subject: Re: Geostar

I'm looking for the address (email or regular), or a phone number,
for Geostar.  They're the people that make a navigation system using
satellite transponders.  Also, is there anybody else in this business?
Send replies to gd@geovision, or post them if you don't mind boring
everybody else in sci.space.

Enquiring truckers want to know...

Thanks.

Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with GeoVision. I'm posting this
on behalf of another person in my consulting company.
-- 
Gord Deinstadt           gd@geovision.uucp

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 13:21:12 EDT
From: ellis@csd360a.erim.org
Sender: ellis@csd360a.erim.org
Cc: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Space shuttle acceleration limits (was RE:Unmanned shuttle advantages)

With regard to the 3g acceleration limit, I assume that this is the
nominal limit for a mission provided nothing goes wrong. If the
mission has to be aborted early in the launch the maneuver required to
return to ground results in accelerations up to 7g. I also recall
(although this is a little fuzzy) that when we did the vibration
testing of the ATMOS experiment for SPACELAB 3 that the accelerations
went up to 10g.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 15:11:13 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages

mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Matthew Francey) writes:

>In article <8904051901.AA12276@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NA>SA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>> And then you can fly missions that are outside the envelope of human
>> comfort/survivability, e.g. duration (no running out of air), acceleration
>> (high g forces), radiation (flying during solar flares),... anyone got any mo>re ideas?

[...]

> if payload weight is a problem, why not split it into two shuttle
>     launches?  They are, after all, supposed to be cheap...

"supposed" is the operative word here... I suspect that there was a :-)
missing from your posting.  Besides, some large vehicles do not divide
easily in half (otherwise we might have been tempted to retain the
Atlas-Centaur booster for Galileo).

>    Remember that the shuttle was designed as a thing to get stuff into
>orbit and then come back for some more.  Flying a thing like that into really
>weird orbits or under "anomalous" conditions is probably not a good idea.

The original posting was talking about the *Soviet* shuttle, and I'm not
sure that they would have designed Buran in the way you describe given that
they also decided to design it free from the need for human presence.  A
poster appeared to claim that this provided negligible advantage and I was
taking issue with them.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 05:29:03 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <233@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>There are some of us out here who support the exploration and utilization
>of space and yet who also believe that the development of the proposed
>space station is an inefficient (and hence inappropriate) expenditure of 
>scarce resources.
>
>Just a reminder ;-).
>-- 

Another reminder. NASA is a government bureaucracy and so is by its nature
inefficient. Furthermore, government is the only current source of the amount
money needed to build large scale space hardware (with the possible exception
of unmanned satellite launchers). So we're pretty much stuck with that
inefficiency.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #386
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Apr 89 08:55:18 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02134>; Sat, 22 Apr 89 18:51:06 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 22 Apr 89 18:50:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4YIBwLy00jZdM1BUY5>;
          Sat, 22 Apr 89 16:23:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cYI7I2y00Vs1A1WE4f>;
          Sat, 22 Apr 89 08:51:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.IYI2YDy00UkZIL4k49>;
          Sat, 22 Apr 89 03:26:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYI2Qhy00UkZ0L3E4y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 89 03:18:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #387

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 387

Today's Topics:
		      Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco
		      Fer-de-lance by TE Bearden
	     Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)
	     Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
			   Stirling Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 14:33:36 GMT
From: janus!bwood@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Blake Philip Wood)
Subject: Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco

In article <361@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>I used to wonder if it would be possible to redesign the ET so that:
>1) They could be taken to orbit
>2) The end caps could be removed
>3) The internal pressure vessels could be removed.

The current (May 1989) issue of the IEEE's newsletter "The Institute" has
an article about how NASA has decided ot allow the University Corporation
for Atmospheric Research to use the intertank ring to house suborbital
experiments on five upcomming shuttle flights.  It also says that "in later
years,... UCAR and NASA will boost the tanks into orbit, where they will
be modified, outfitted, and made available to 'any responsible party' for
scientific or commercial purposes."

By the way, UCAR is a "30 year old not-for-profit consortium of 58 
universities that grant Ph.D.s in atmospheric, oceanic, or related 
sciences."



                              Blake P. Wood
                              U.C. Berkeley, EECS
                              Plasmas and Non-Linear Dynamics
                              bwood@janus.Berkeley.EDU

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 13:40:24 EDT
From: fuzzy@aruba.arpa (John Karabaic)
To: "physics@unix.sri.com"%aagate.dnet@wpafb-avlab,
        "space+@andrew.cmu.edu"%aagate.dnet@wpafb-avlab, baker@aruba.arpa
Subject: Fer-de-lance by TE Bearden


***************************************************************************
Advance Note: none of this reflects official US Government or Air Force
Policy, opinions or ongoing programs.  
***************************************************************************

My boss, who has a wonderful sense of humor, gave me this somewhat
off-the-wall book to read in my spare time.  The book is called
Fer-de-lance, by TE Bearden, LtCol, USA, Ret., and it is basically a
set of briefing charts, background text for the person giving the
briefing, and set answers to a number of questions. 

The premise of the book is that Nikola Tesla discovered a unifying
force way back when which can do some pretty amazing things.  The
physics is not clear (to me, at least), but it has something to do
with the Aharonov-Bohm effect, Theordor Kaluza's unified field theory,
and vacuum potentials.  Of course, Bearden would be a lot more
credible if he stuck to the physics and explained it clearly, but he
claims the Soviets are using it to destroy space shuttles, Titan
Missiles, and cargo planes carrying American troops.  

Anybody on either physics or space hear about this before?  The guy
definitely seems looney-tunes, but I took quantum mechanics and
electrodynamics six years ago so I can't judge right away without
investing some time.  Anyone have any references on this guy's work?
Full book info is:  Fer-del-lance, A Briefing on Soviet Scalar
Electromagnetic Weapons, By T E Bearden.  Library of Congress Number
UG 486.5 B42 1986.  Published by Tesla Book Company (which appears to
be Bearden's company), Ventura, CA.  1987.  ISBN 0-914119-03-6.

Respond to me directly and I'll summarize.  Unless you have something
really amusing to share...
	    Lt John S. Karabaic (fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa)
     WRDC/TXI                    513 255 5800          It's not just a job.
     WPAFB, OH 45433-6543        AV 785 5800            It's an indenture.
			    These opinions are mine.
	    I cannot confirm or deny whether anyone else holds them.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 20:58:31 GMT
From: uhccux!osborne@humu.nosc.mil  (Larry Osborne)
Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

In article <1796@mas1.mas.UUCP>, condor@mas1.UUCP (Rick Kawala) writes:
> In article <4549@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
> > I have received requests for the citation which covers the
> > illegal aspects of man-ET encounters. [plus some more, 
    not really relevant here]

then Kawala goes on:
 
> I called a friend of mine who's a paralegal and asked him to look
> this thing up. He told me that it citation was incomplete, that
> one has to say "Code of Federal Regulations", <subsection>, Title 14,
> Section 1211, where <subsection> can be replaced with things like
> "Coast Guard Regulations" or something. Otherwise, you're faced
> with too many books to look through. It's something like saying
> "It's in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, page number 432" but not
> saying which volume of EB you're referring to. If anyone has any
> more information, I'd love to hear about it.

I asked one of our students who works in the government documents 
department of the library and she dug it up in about fifteen minutes.
(When in doubt, ask a librarian.)

She made me a copy, and the reference is on page 115.  At the top
of page 114 is printed "14 CFR Ch. V (1-1-88 Edition), and at the top
of 115 is "National Aeronautics and Space Administration".  I hope
that is enuf for you to find a copy locally.

I know from nothing about governments, documents, regulations, or laws, 
but the second section of PART 1211 -- EXTRATERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE (section
1211.101) is headed "Applicabil

All the standard disclaimers (and as many of thhe special ones as
possible) apply.


-- 
osborne@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (preferred)      | Larry N Osborne
osborne@uhccux.bitnet                           | SLIS, 2550 The Mall
                                                | University of Hawaii at Manoa
or via W.A.S.T.E                                | Honolulu, Hawaii  96822

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 22:04:00 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)

Barbara Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Jerry Berg
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.


RELEASE:  89-57

NASA SELECTS CONTRACTOR TO DEVELOP ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR


     NASA today announced selection of Lockheed Missile Systems 
Division, Sunnyvale, Calif., for final negotiations leading to 
the award of a contract to design, develop, test and evaluate a 
Space Shuttle advanced solid rocket motor (ASRM) and a contract 
for construction of facilities for production and testing of the 
ASRM hardware.  The effort also will include an option for 
production of up to 44 motor sets.  The new motor will replace, 
in the mid-1990s, the current Shuttle redesigned solid rocket 
motor.

     Lockheed is teamed with Aerojet Space Booster Co., 
Sacramento, Calif., as its principal subcontractor on the ASRM 
program, and Rust International, Birmingham, Ala., as its 
facility contractor.

     The total cost for the approximately 7-year development 
project and facility work is estimated by Lockheed to be in 
excess of $1.1 billion dollars.  The precise values of both 
contracts will be determined in negotiations between NASA and 
Lockheed.

     The ASRM program goal is to enhance Shuttle system 
reliability, safety and performance.  It will improve system 
safety and reliability through quality and reproducibility 
enhancements, which in turn will result from optimum application 
of state-of-the-art automation and process control technology.

     The ASRM also is intended to provide the Shuttle with the 
capability to lift heavier payloads into orbit, with the design 
goal being an increase of at least 12,000 pounds over the current 
payload delivery performance.

     The major new facilities to be built for the ASRM project 
will be those required for production of motor segments, nozzles 
and associated hardware, at a rate of up to 30 motors per year.  
The facilities are planned for construction at the Yellow Creek 
site in extreme northeastern Mississippi, near the city of 
Iuka.  The property is presently in the custody and control of 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, pending transfer of ownership to 
NASA.

     Additional specialized facilities will be constructed at the 
John C. Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Miss., for 
ground testing of the ASRM.  The Stennis Center has long been 
NASA's primary testing center for liquid fueled rocket engines 
and now will have the unique test stands and apparatus required 
for static firing of powerful solid rocket motors.  It also is  
planned that a part of the effort will be done utilizing NASA's 
existing facilities at the Michoud Assembly Facility near New 
Orleans.

     As part of the ASRM procurement, NASA officials requested 
and considered private-financing options for construction of the 
ASRM facilities, in addition to "up-front" government funding of 
the construction.  NASA will negotiate with Lockheed on the basis 
of privately-financed construction.  A bill providing for the 
Government's assumption of termination liability to contract on 
this basis is pending Congressional authorization.

     In addition to the design, development, test and evaluation 
work, the primary ASRM contract will require Lockheed to produce 
the first 12 operational motors for use in a flight verification 
program consisting of six Shuttle missions.  The projected 
schedule calls for delivery of the first flight set of motors in 
1994.  NASA plans to phase-in the ASRM hardware over 
approximately a 3-year period, after which use of the redesigned 
solid rocket motor will be discontinued.

     As part of their proposals, ASRM offerors were each required 
to submit a production pricing proposal under which NASA, at its 
option, may order up to 88 motors beyond the initial 12.  If the 
maximum quantity were ordered, it would consist of 40 operational 
flight sets (80 motors) and eight production verification motors 
for use in ground tests, and is estimated by Lockheed to be near 
$1 billion.

     Lockheed was selected after an exhaustive review of the 
technical, management and cost proposals received in response to 
NASA's August 1988 request for proposals.  

     Major Lockheed subcontractors and their places of 
performance are:  Aerojet Space Booster Co.; Aerojet Solid 
Propulsion Co., Sacramento; Babcock and Wilcox, Barberton, Ohio; 
Morton Thiokol Space Operations, Brigham City, Utah; Lockheed 
Austin Division, Austin, Texas; and Rust International. 

     The Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has 
management responsibility for the ASRM and will directly manage 
performance of the contract.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 01:29:39 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

In article <3815@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> osborne@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Larry Osborne) writes:
> In article <4549@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
> > I have received requests for the citation which covers the
> > illegal aspects of man-ET encounters. 
>At the top of page 114 is printed "14 CFR Ch. V (1-1-88 Edition), and
>at the top of 115 is "National Aeronautics and Space Administration".
...
>I know from nothing about governments, documents, regulations, or laws, 
>but the second section of PART 1211 -- EXTRATERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE (section
>1211.101) is headed "Applicabil

Some of the message seems to have been cut off.

I wonder what the original date of this law is?  I suspect that it
dates back to the Apollo moon missions, and the "Extraterrestrial
exposure" they're talking about is material of extraterrestrial origin,
i.e., moon rocks.  This is back when they were worried about the
possibility of some disease organism against which we'd have no
defenses.  I remember a reporter or two managing to get themselves
'contaminated', and ending up locked up with the astronauts in
quarantine for the duration.  (I wonder if the reporter did that
deliberately...)  Given the concerns, which in retrospect seem rather
silly, the law would seem reasonable, since otherwise you'd have some
reporter getting contaminated and obtaining a court order to grant him
his Constitutional right to spread Virus X to the world at large.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                     "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in 
Video Seven                        front of Congressional hearings."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                        -- Meryl Streep

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 89 17:26:59 GMT
From: tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Mike Butts @ APD x1302)
Subject: Stirling Engines

The subject of Stirling engines has come up in sci.space and alt.fusion.  I found a
very good article in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, complete
with diagrams of several forms, graphs of power and efficiency vs. temperature
difference, photos of actual engines, and references.  I'll try to summarize here, 
but it's worth looking at the article.

The Stirling Engine converts any form of heat differential into mechanical work.
It has a cold end and a hot end, with a sealed working fluid (hydrogen) which is
put through a pressure/volume/temperature cycle:  Compress it on the cold end,
shift that compressed gas to the hot end, where it expands against the piston,
shift the hot uncompressed gas to the cold end where it is cooled and compressed
again.  The work from hot expansion exceeds the work of cold compression.
The efficiency depends primarily on the difference between the hot and cold
temperatures, according to the Carnot cycle, and secondarily on a large number
of engineering factors.

Actual engines have been built in the 5HP to 500HP range.  Pictures of two engines are
shown, one built by Philips in Holland and the other by GM.  Since it works from
steady heat, these engines have a burner at one end, burning anything from gasoline
to olive oil.  Cooling is done with water and a radiator, as in a car.  The
efficiency-temperature curve shows up to 40% efficiency has been measured on
an actual engine, with a burner temperature of 800 degrees C.  This drops to about 5% 
at 200 degrees C.  I don't recall the cooling temperature, but it must be something 
like 100 degrees C.

The energy breakdown is said to be 40% work, 10% burner exhaust, and 50% into
the cooling system.  Since the engine has a closed cycle, far more heat is dissipated
by the cooling system than with internal combustion, where the exhaust carries away 
most of the waste heat.  Thus the cooling system must be much larger than in cars.  
The torque is nearly constant per rotation and over speed for multi-cylinder
engines.  Speed is controlled by varying the pressure of the working fluid.  The engine 
is perfectly balanced, the pistons move according to sinusoids, and there are no 
explosive power events, so it is extremely smooth and quiet in operation.
(I want to drive one of these!)

We can easily imagine a palladium fusion reactor mounted to the head of a Stirling
engine.  The operating temperature is extremely important, as that determines efficiency.
800 degrees C is below the melting point of palladium, so we may hope that such
an engine will come to pass.  If the cost and efficiency are right, we might see 
fusion-driven Stirling engines running cars (which are very clean and quiet and have 
enormous grilles).  An engine like that would also be ideal for a home power station, 
generating electricity from the crankshaft and heating the house with the coolant.

If such a device could be manufactured economically, it would be a tremendous boon to 
developing nations, who could get high-grade power where and when needed, without
big capital investments in power stations and distribution systems, and without
the pollution and economic miseries of oil.

If and only if Pons is right, if enough palladium or a substitute can be found, cheap
enough, if it's as free of radiation as Pons says it is, if it can be made to run at
a high enough temperature for thermal efficiency, if it can be engineered, if it is
appropriate for intermittent use, etc.  Very big ifs, but we will certainly see!

Please followup to alt.fusion.
-- 
Mike Butts, Research Engineer         KC7IT           503-626-1302
Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton OR 97005
...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts OR  mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM
These are my opinions, & not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #387
*******************


Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Apr 89 08:44:20 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01618>; Sat, 22 Apr 89 15:47:56 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 22 Apr 89 15:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYI5fMy00Ui381hk95>;
          Sat, 22 Apr 89 06:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.gYI4ECy00UkZ0LCk4q>;
          Sat, 22 Apr 89 05:21:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YI4=hy00UkZILBE5S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 89 05:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #388

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 388

Today's Topics:
 Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) Project (Fact Sheet) (Forwarded)
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
			   postmortem on L5
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 16:41:49 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) Project (Fact Sheet) (Forwarded)


           ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR (ASRM) PROJECT

     The Advanced Solid Rocket Motor project is intended to 
substantially improve the flight safety, reliability and 
performance of the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters for the 
many years in the future that the Shuttle will remain a principal 
U.S. launch vehicle.

     Key objectives of the project are to achieve significant 
improvements over the current Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor in 
the areas of:

   o  Flight safety design margins;
   o  System reliability, through enhancements in motor quality
      and reproducibility;
   o  Booster performance, along with the related aspect of
      Shuttle payload capacity; and
   o  Reduced overall program cost, through increased efficiency.

     In terms of performance, the Shuttle's projected 12,000-
pound extra lifting capability with the new motors will enable 
additional payload deliveries equivalent to 2.4 Shuttle missions 
per year, above the currently planned maximum of 14 per year.

     In addition to improved safety, reliability and performance, 
the next-generation booster project promises several broad 
national benefits.  For example, it will strengthen the nation's 
existing technology foundation as a base for future advances in 
solid fuel propulsion.  It will help promote a competitive solid 
rocket motor industry and reduce Shuttle operational costs.

     Substantial improvements are possible because of great 
technological progress made by the solid rocket motor industry 
since the current Shuttle booster was designed.  Some of the most 
significant strides have been in process control technology and 
automation, which enable achieving a high degree of product 
reproducibility and reliability.

     These improvements will be incorporated in modern production 
facilities that are to be built for the Advanced Solid Rocket 
Motor project and which will have a capacity of producing up to 
30 motors per year.  The facilities are planned for construction 
at the Yellow Creek site in extreme northeastern Mississippi, 
which is NASA's preferred site for the hardware production.

     Additional specialized facilities will be built at the John 
C. Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Miss., NASA's 
preferred location for ground testing of the motors.  It also is 
planned that part of the effort will use NASA's existing 
facilities at the Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans.

     The Advanced Solid Rocket Motor development program is 
expected to take approximately 5 years, with first use of the new 
motors in a Shuttle flight possible by 1994.  The cost of design 
and development is estimated at just under $1 billion, exclusive 
of facility costs, which are estimated at between $200 and $300 
million.  The design and development cost will include delivery 
of rocket motors for six Shuttle missions (which will save $170-
180 million currently being paid for the old-technology motors).

     Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., manages 
the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor program for NASA.

Evolution of ASRM

     Since 1977, the Space Shuttle has consisted of a manned 
reusable orbiter, an expendable external tank for its liquid 
propellants, and two recoverable and reusable solid rocket 
boosters.  Each booster comprises several subsystems, the largest 
of which is the solid rocket motor with its igniter and nozzle.

     In 1986, following the Challenger accident, NASA contracted 
for a redesigned solid rocket motor, which would incorporate a 
number of design changes determined to be necessary before the 
Shuttle could return to flight.  The redesign effort was oriented 
toward providing a motor that is safe to fly, while at the same 
time keeping impact to the Shuttle launch schedule at a 
minimum.  Therefore, the redesign was based on use of existing 
hardware wherever possible, without compromising safety.

     To meet its longer-term solid rocket motor requirements, 
NASA in March 1987 presented to Congress an acquisition strategy 
and plan.  The plan analyzed three options:  recompeting the 
redesigned solid rocket motor; continuing single-source 
procurement of the redesigned motor; or proceeding with an 
Advanced Solid Rocket Motor, which had already been the subject 
of NASA-funded studies by industry.

     NASA recommended the third option, and in October 1987,
through the NASA Authorization Act of 1988, Congress indicated 
its approval for that approach.  In March 1988, NASA published an
acquisition plan detailing how it would implement the Advanced
Solid Rocket Motor program.  With issuance of the request for
proposals in August 1988, the procurement began in earnest.
Evaluation of proposals has been under way since November 1988,
and selection of a prime contractor is expected to be announced
this month (April 1989).

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 89 14:29:49 GMT
From: stsci!sims@noao.edu  (Jim Sims)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

HST will OFTEN be pointed at the Earth (the HSP even has an EARTH-CALIB mode)
You won't 'burn-up the sensors' unless you point it at the sun...
 (of course the data probably won't be worth much since it won't focus at
  -only- 200 miles & the target is REAL bright compared to most of what it was
  designed to look at)



-- 
    Jim Sims      Space Telescope Science Institute      Baltimore, MD
             UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
    ARPA:  sims@stsci.edu                           SPAM:  SCIVAX::SIMS

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 19:57:31 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <10547@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>... NASA is a government bureaucracy and so is by its nature
>inefficient. Furthermore, government is the only current source of the amount
>money needed to build large scale space hardware (with the possible exception
>of unmanned satellite launchers)...

This is tautological.  Government is the only current source of the amount
of money needed to build large-scale space hardware THE GOVERNMENT WAY.
Of course, if you ask the government, they will assure you that it's the
only way.  Even though doing the same things privately costs an order of
magnitude less.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 21:08:47 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: postmortem on L5

Readers may recall that I commented, a few months ago, on the L5 Society's
prolonged illness and eventual demise-by-merger.  A little while later,
I got the following as mail from Keith Henson.  He included a covering note
saying it was okay to post it if I felt it would do some good.  I think
it might; at the very least it's fascinating history.

Note that it's definitely one man's view, and that I don't necessarily
agree with it all.  The occasional typo and misspelling are as I received
it; out of a combination of respect for source material and laziness, I
haven't made any attempt to fix them.

-------------
 
Postmortem on L5  (Editorial note.  This was rejected by the new
NSS publication--too spicy.)
 
 
"O'Neill Testifies Before Congress--. . . Target dates for this
proposal are the establishment of a construction site in 1982 and
completion of the initial L-5 community of 10,000 people in 1988.
The first (SPS) power would be beamed to earth in 1989." *L5
News*, Vol. 1, #1
 
 
   By H. Keith Henson, (Officially) a Founder of the Society.
 
 
The dust has settled after the merger and the name change attempt
has been discredited.  Has the promise of the merger been
fulfilled?  Is the human habitation of space cause better off?
 
No way.
 
Membership drifts downward from a level only half that need to
support NSS unless continually pumped up by expensive membership
drives. Volunteers are in short supply. *Space World* is insipid
to the point of nausea.  *Ad Astra* (the new publication) faces
similar prospects. The space shuttle flies again, but there
is no sense of direction. Malaise hangs heavy over NSS and the
rest of the space community is not much better off.
 
How different from the "good old days" when (in spite of the fact
that we never accomplished much) the Society grew and waxed in
influence on a combination of enthusiasm, intense personal
dedication, and sacrifice.
 
What changed?  Is there anything we can do to recapture the
spirit of that era?  Is there anything (before reaching the holy
grail of nanotechnology) we can do that would help bring about
the human habitation of space?
 
Far from being a rhetorical question, tentative answers to these
cultural dynamics questions can be found using the new mental
tools of memetics.* Those who are upset by the "N" word or the
"M" word should stop reading here.  For the rest, a little
history is in order.
 
-----------
footnote If you are not up on memetics, see "Memetics, the
Science of Information Viruses" in *Whole Earth Review* Winter
1987 or the Science Fact article in the August 1987 issue of
*Analog*.
-------------
 
The space colony dream (a meme) grew in the mind of Dr. Garard
O'Neill from his own work, that of his students, and fragments of
previous dreams (Tsiolkowsky, Cole, Bernal, and others) in the
late sixties and early seventies.  In September of 1974 (the year
that also saw the first small conference at Princeton) Dr.
O'Neill' space colony meme made the big time (small b) with a
publication in the September 1974 issue of *Physics Today*.
 
Because of my long standing and locally known interest in space
development (thanks to the late Robert Heinlein) and my more
recent concerns about preceived resource limits, Dan Jones, an
occasional rock climbing partner of mine with a PhD in physics
knew I would be interested--infectable, nay, I was actively
seeking infection with a meme like this.  He brought me a copy of
Dr. O'Neill's article within hours of that issue reaching Tucson.
(The "Colonies in Space" article ranks high on the list of "most
xeroxed" in the world.)
 
After reading it, I immediately tried to find anything else that
had been published on space colonies. The only other material
available was an interview with Dr. O'Neill that had been
published in *Mercury* about the same time.  He mentioned a small
conference on space colonies that was being planned at Princeton
the following May. Despite the fact that I was nearly broke from
starting a business, had never been to a conference before, or
given a paper at a meeting, or even been on the campus of an Ivy
League school, I was so motivated by the meme that I made it to
the 1975 Space Manufacturing Conference, and, with my former
wife, gave a paper on space agriculture that covered all the
major points involved in environmental control and growing food
for thousands of people in space. (Much of the paper, I must
admit, was cribbed from Heinlein's *Farmer in the Sky*).  Perhaps
half of the major players in the post '72 space movements found
out about the space colony dream, were similarly affected, and
were drawn to that conference.
 
A few months before the conference, Dr. O'Neill had melded into
the space colony dream the solar power from space (SPS) concept
invented by Dr. Peter Glaser (he holds the soon-to-run-out
patent).  This was the last major ingredient needed to put the
space colony meme into an intensely infective form, at least for
some people. Energy from space provided a rational for building
colonies in space, especially in the memetic environment induced
by energy crisis of the early seventies.  Ideas with far less
promise (but shorter time and size scales) *were* converted into
reality. Anyone driving through the California passes can see
them, vast fields of windmills built on tax breaks.
 
At the conference, Dr. O'Neill gave a Spook-like presentation on
building SPS's and space colonies (literally) from moon dust.
His studies (rational enough to be published in *Science*) made
it seem logical that the habitation of space with all that
attractive new land could be started by a short term industrial
development project of 10 to 15 years.  For those of us raised on
science fiction, (at least for those who would actually go into
space if we were given the chance) the space colony/SPS meme was
terribly compelling.
 
The '75 SMF conference was a intense, almost religious,
experience. It will be a bright spot in the memory of the "world
savers" who were there as long as any of us are left alive to
remember it. I hope that somewhere a tape survives of the
impassioned banquet speeches, and the dire warnings from shell
shocked NASA representatives that if Proxmire got wind of this
craziness he would "kill the Shuttle."
 
The space colony idea inspired a vast outpouring of effort from
those of us who "caught" it. Summer studies ('75, '76 and '77)
put the design into a form that has not changed noticeably in the
last decade. Mid-1975 saw the abortive start of "High Frontier,"
and in September the less-than-auspicious founding of the L5
Society.
 
Late in '75 the fledgling Society put in an appearance at the
"Doom and Gloom" Limits to Growth conference near Houston. Our
star was Dr. Peter Vajk who (in the process of folding in energy
from space to the computer models) had begun to suspect that the
Limits to Growth models were "cooked."  I wouldn't mention LTG,
but the growth in popularity of one meme often depends on the
cultural environment (or memetic ecosystem) set by other memes.
The space colony/SPS prospects of nearly limitless energy and
materials stands in stark contrast to LTG. Though I can't prove
it, I think that the LTG "dreary, limited, hopeless future" meme
created a cultural environment where a contrasting meme of
bright, exciting prospects such as space colonies/SPS could
infect those dismayed by the LTG meme.
 
In 1976 the space colony/SPS idea began to spread widely. Those
most infected joined the L5 Society.  L5 grew beyond the first
two hundred or so who had direct contact with Dr. O'Neill. The
Society made its first appearance at a World Science Fiction
convention (MidAmericon) at the urging of the noted science
fiction author, and later L5 activist, Dr. Jerry Pournell. A
letter in Playboy by science fiction author Robert Anton Wilson,
promotion by Dr. Timothy Leary (who had independently come to the
conclusion that we needed to leave the planet) and a continuing
series of articles in magazines and newspapers were significant
factors in the spreading of the space colony idea and the growth
of L5 that year.
 
Funding for space colony/space manufacturing/extraterrestrial
resources studies never amounted to much, but SPS funding under
the Department of Energy peaked at about $10 million a year in
the late '70s. Several companies, notably Boeing, worked on it.
The L5 Society got involved in one of those glorious waste of
money by a liberal administration, a study of how the space buffs
felt about SPS.
 
The end of the SPS funding came in 1979.  I still have a plastic
portfolio dated April 22-25 1980 from a national conference that
was held in Lincoln, Nebraska to officially report on the success
of the technical and economic studies, and unofficially moan
about the political end of a project that had been kicked back
and forth between NASA and DOE, and died on the rocks of cheaper
oil and four year planing horizons.
 
With the SPS economic rational gone, the believability of space
colony dream suffered. As prospects for near term space
habitation faded, the rational for an L5 Society faded, but the
publicity stirred up by the Moon Treaty fight kept the moribund
Society growing in numbers (if not dedication) for some time.
 
In July of 1979 the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses
of Outer Space reported out the long awaited Moon Treaty for
ratification by the member states.   Defeating the Moon Treaty is
generally considered to be the peak of L5's influence.  In a
nutshell, a meme (the treaty) which evolved in the minds of a
number of international lawyers to socialize the resources of
the universe clashed with the frontier-libertarian-free
enterprise space colony memes carried in the minds of a lot of L5
members.  So far, the treaty-meme has lost.
 
Jerry Driggers, an aerospace engineer much taken by Dr. O'Neill's
ideas (he gave a major paper at the '75 conference and was at all
the summer studies) took over as L5 president right in the middle
of the Moon Treaty fight.
 
The ebbing of the energy crisis made it unlikely that SPS funding
would be resumed any time soon. With no other hook to hang space
colonies on, Jerry made a conscious choice, to direct the Society
away from space colonies and into the NASA political support
role--particularly pushing for the space station-- that NSI
should have filled, but never did very well. Since then, the
focus has been reaching the broader base of space support at the
cost of diluting the intensity.
 
In retrospect (and certainly with no blame on Jerry Driggers) I
think this was a serious mistake.  The meme of expansion into
space by government projects involving a few astronauts has wider
appeal, but the appeal is quite weak. It motivates only a very
few civic minded techno-nerds to work hard for it compared to the
number of us who will bust ass even for a remote prospect that
they could personally go into space.  Long ago Dr. O'Neill
attributed the attractiveness of his ideas to the personal
opportunity factor. (see *The High Frontier*, pg 251.) This
change in focus, or if you will, meme switch, pulled the heart
out of L5 and put NSI and L5 into almost the same memetic
"ecological niche."  It made a merger, or the demise of one of
the two almost inevitable.
 
The two organizations were also put into direct competition for
financial resources.  Jerry's attempts to raise money for the
Society from the aerospace industry (which had long supported
NSI) to support this redirection of effort was a failure, and a
personal disaster.  It is easy to see why he thought the
aerospace industry would provide support. L5 had come to national
attention over the Moon Treaty*, and Jerry had the help of Dr.
Thomas Paine who was head of NASA during the Apollo landings and
Lee Ratiner, a negotiator for the government on the Law of the
Sea treaties and hero of the Moon Treaty fight.  But it is hard
to invade someone else's niche. The aerospace companies were
comfortable with NSI.  Even if NSI didn't accomplish much, it was
unlikely to embarrass them, and the same could not be said of L5.
 
During the early years, the space shuttle (one of the keys to
O'Neill's space colony dream) kept falling further and further
behind its projected flight date.  This hurt the believability
factor as well. While it finally started flying in 1981 it never
reached the projected flight rate, and the cost per pound lifted
to orbit has continued to soar, especially since the Chalenger
blew up. While "extraterrestrial materials multiplier" might
compensate for the rising cost, it doesn't look like cargo space
to Low Earth Orbit to start a manufacturing facility could be
obtained from NASA for any price.  It is fairly clear that some
other--perhaps non-governmental--transportation will be needed
to colonize/industrialize space.
 
--------------
(footnote)
(NSI never took a stand on the Moon Treaty, I have been told that
NSS did take a formal position against the treaty about a year
after the merger, but I am uncertain where this was reported.)
--------------
 
No reason to go, and no way to get there. Does this glum picture
leave us with any hope? What would induce people in the US or
elsewhere to tap the resources of space, and coincidentally give
the space nuts among them a chance for at least a weekend in
orbit? A few years ago, I considered the SDI project the only
current possibility, but SDI seems less and less likely, not
because it isn't a better idea than the alternatives, but because
the idea has become stale, and the perceived threat of nuclear
war has declined.  Also, the current proposals do not require
extraterrestrial resources, and that is the *only* way (prior to
nanotechnology) that more than a handful of people will get into
space.
 
My current best guess is that concerns about the greenhouse
effect will bring the SPS meme back into popularity. This country
isn't going to tolerate hotter and hotter summers if there is
anything we can do about it. SPS is the only option for baseload
electric power currently known that makes no acid rain, carbon
dioxide, or nuclear waste. The greenhouse effect is also a long
term concern, longer than the time scale on which space industry
could be established. This should insulate the memes on which the
project will depend from losing influence over four year
political cycles and short term fluctuations in the price of
energy. The August 30 *San Jose Mercury News* carried a long
article by the well known science writer William J. Broad
discussing SPS as a greenhouse solution. This might be an early
sign of a resurgence of the SPS meme.
 
Of course, SPS built from earth resources, perhaps by robots,
won't help us space buffs get off the mudball either.  The idea
of building SPS out of extraterrestrial materials has to become
the accepted approach. The physics/engineering/economics seems to
be favorable, but there are problems.  Foremost is the
mind-boggling number of steps required to get from today to SPS
power through manufacturing facilities based on extraterrestrial
resources.
 
The environment in which the space colony/SPS meme grew during
the early days of L5 just wasn't fertile enough to get itself and
those who believed in it into space.  In memetic terms we could
say the idea did not infect enough people long enough, and strong
enough, for the economic and political factors, like those that
built the windmills (taxmills?) to come into play.  But the space
colony/SPS idea did spread far enough for it to be considered as
a solution to a another perceived problem a decade latter.
 
Last summer I visited Grand Coulee dam, a project in its day as
ambitious as SPS (and coincidentally it produces about the same
amount of power as *one* SPS.)  The people who promoted Grand
Coulee dam worked on it for decades, promoting it primarily to
lift water for irrigation on the fertile, but dry, plateau. It
was finally built for another reason entirely, to provide jobs in
response to P(a great depression, and secondarily to pump water
(few at the time thought that much electric power would ever be
needed). It was pressed into use to supply electricity to Boeing
during WW II, and now it is mostly used to supply peaking power
to the Northwest.
 
There are no Columbias left to dam, but geosync can hold enough
SPS's to entirely phase out the use of coal.
 
Can we do anything to speed the acceptance of SPS from
extraterrestrial material? Will the environmental groups take
over promoting SPS?  Should we leave it to them? I cannot answer.
Memetics is far from an exact science, and behavior of a meme in
the "meme pool" of human culture may be like other unpredictable
(that is chaotic) systems.  After an epidemic (memetic or
otherwise) gets started, its short term course can be predicted
with considerable accuracy.  It is also possible to say that the
environment (low immunity for example) is conducive to an
epidemic. But a community can go on for an unpredictable time
before one actually happens.
 
In a similar way, the SPS/space colony idea is out there, and the
memetic environment might be changing in ways that improve its
chances for infecting large numbers of people strongly enough for
it to become reality.  This leads to an interesting possibility.
Maybe we should not be talking about the SPS solution just yet.
It might be better for us to terrify everyone by talking about
140 degree summer heat, hurricanes of 250 miles per hour, and
introduce the SPS solution to this nightmare only after the
public is in a panic.
 
If SPS were to be promoted from within the NSS, the narrow focus
of NSS on a NASA space station would have to be changed. It is
not obvious to me that the existing governmental agencies
concerned with space are appropriate to build or even oversee
building "solar power dams" in space.  NASA is a trembling shadow
of its former glory, and the shuttle is not the vehicle for the
job of building a solar power industry in space. The traditional
approach is to abandon the old and start anew. Perhaps in a few
years we will be hearing about SPS planing by the straight
shooters at DCDC, the Department of Carbon Dioxide Control.
 
Postscript on "Postmort"
 
"Our clearly stated long range goal will be to disband the
society in a mass meeting at L-5."
                                      Ibid.
 
Did I *really* think an organization with the audacious goal of
disbanding at a mass meeting in space would actually accomplish
that?  Immaterial.  Without exciting and ambitious goals people
never accomplish anything.
-------------
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #388
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Apr 89 06:28:36 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01158> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sun, 23 Apr 89 06:14:39 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 23 Apr 89 06:14:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8YINLty00UkTQ2YU5L>;
          Sun, 23 Apr 89 05:23:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.gYININy00UkZ4MK05O>;
          Sun, 23 Apr 89 05:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <oYINFcy00UkZAMIU4J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 05:16:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #389

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 389

Today's Topics:
	    Phobos II failure analysis - hit near Phobos?
     Mobile satellite system proven in airborne test (Forwarded)
	      Re: Is 'better than gravity assist' used?
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
	      Re: Is 'better than gravity assist' used?
	     Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
		 Hardened chips...   Rest of message.
    Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST)
NASA to support commercial development sounding rocket flights (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 02:42:59 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: Phobos II failure analysis - hit near Phobos?

    The USSR has declared the Phobos II probe dead in orbit according to 
Radio Moscow (Apr. 18/19).  A commission has been set up to study the 
failure, but some information is now available.  On Mar. 27th at 3:59 p.m. 
Moscow Time (7:59 am EDT) the probe was ordered to turn towards the Phobos 
for almost the final picture set.  Phobos II, which does not have its 
antenna mounted on a separate pointing platform, was to turn back to the 
Earth for signal transmission by 6:59 - 7:05 p.m. (AW&ST Apr. 17) However, 
no radio source was at time on earth, though at 8:50 p.m. they regained the 
signal for 13 min.  Indications are that it was not a transmitter failure 
as was first thought, though this is the backup 5 Watt radio, not the 
main 50 Watt one which failed in January.  Instead, in an interview with 
Roald Segdeev (former director of the Institute for Cosmic Research (IKI)), 
it was revealed that the probe has been found to be rotating unexpectedly. 
The Russians suggest the probe probably collided with something near  
Phobos, either particles in orbit near the moon, or possibly debris from 
the separated main propulsion section (suggested by Jonathan McDowell at 
Harvard).  Another possibility not mentioned by the Soviets was simply a 
hydrazine thruster failed (either stuck on or off).  They are worried 
that the probe may crash onto the Martian moon as this current orbit 
is unstable, according to James Oberg (Soviet Aerospace Apr. 3).
   A latter short wave report stated that the Phobos II mission had 
achieved 75% of the intended studies of Mars.  The probe 
made excellent studies of the Martian magnetic field, the plasma  
density around the planet and infrared observations of the surface. 
However, originally it was to stay in the original orbit with a 
closest approach to the planet of 800 Km. (500 mi.) for 25 days,  
but only 14 days were spent before the orbit was raised to 6300 Km 
(3940 mi.)  This considerably reduced the accuracy of Mars observations.   
The probe did obtain pictures of Phobos from less than 100 Km (63 mi.) much 
closer than the Viking orbiter did at 480 Km (300 mi.).  The Soviets 
claim these are the best photos so far of the Martian moon.  There is  
some uncertainty in this as Viking had better cameras, but clearly 
Phobos II took more pictures.  In all the probe obviously obtained much data, 
but probably it not three-quarters of the original planned mission. 
Never the less, this was the most successful of the USSR's Mars  
missions.
   Indications are that the Russians are considering using the ground 
test vehicle as a full system and launching it for a duplicate mission 
in 1992.  The next two launch windows open in Sept. 1990 and Oct. 1992. 
Unfortunately, 1988 was the best launch window until 2001 (taking the 
least energy).  Probably they would have to use what is called a type II 
Hohmann transfer orbit, which is slower but takes less energy just to 
be able to run a similar mission.  Skipping the 1990 mission probably 
is necessary just to do the checkout of this craft, and to do the 
programming to prevent the problems that killed the Phobos I probe 
in Sept. '88.
   As Groucho Marx used to say "Close but no cigar" for this Soviet 
Mars mission.

                                                Glenn Chapman
                                                MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 16:40:36 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Mobile satellite system proven in airborne test (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim 
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     April 20, 1989

Franklin O'Donnell 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.


RELEASE:  89-56

MOBILE SATELLITE SYSTEM PROVEN IN AIRBORNE TEST


     A two-way digital voice terminal for land, aeronautical or 
maritime mobile communications has been demonstrated in the field 
for the first time by researchers from NASA's Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

     The trial, which took place in late March 1989, is believed 
to be the first-ever field test of a state-of-the-art, low-bit-
rate voice coder over an on-orbit satellite in a commercial 
application.

     During the tests, researchers used a voice terminal on a 
Boeing 727 to communicate with a ground station in Southbury, 
Conn.  The jet, based out of Atlantic City, N.J., was airborne 
over the eastern U.S. seaboard during the tests.  Signals were 
relayed between the plane and ground by an orbiting satellite 
operated by the International Maritime Satellite (Inmarsat) 
organization.

     "The system we demonstrated is a type that would be 
beneficial for planes in transit over the Atlantic Ocean," said 
Dr. William Rafferty, manager of JPL's Communications Section, 
which conducts the Mobile Satellite Experiment (MSAT-X) program 
for NASA.

     Planes flying over the Atlantic currently must relay 
communications at times through other planes on the ocean 
route.  A mobile satellite communication system would link each 
plane to ground stations via satellite.

     The terminal system demonstrated during the test uses a 4.8-
kilobit-per-second digital voice system developed at JPL.  
Advanced digital modulation and coding techniques are used to 
achieve a highly efficient channel bandwidth of 5 kilohertz.

     Under the MSAT-X program, JPL has been developing 
technologies that would be useful in mobile satellite systems.  
Areas of research include mechanically and electronically steered 
vehicle antennas, modulation encoding and networking methods.

     A fully developed mobile system would use satellites to 
extend mobile telephone services to remote ground users and to 
users in the air and on the sea who cannot be served by cellular 
telephone systems.

     In addition to planes and ships, such a system also could 
serve such users as private drivers, cross-country trucks, 
forestry personnel and law-enforcement agents.

     JPL's role is strictly to develop new technologies required 
for a mobile satellite system.  NASA plans to seek cooperative 
agreements with the commercial operator of a first-generation 
satellite system whereby the space agency will launch the first 
satellite.  In exchange, NASA would be able to conduct technology 
validation experiments using a small percentage of the 
satellite's capacity for the first 2 years of operation.

     Rafferty said plans call for an MSAT-X land mobile 
experiment in Australia during July 1989.  The location of that 
test will make use of a favorably situated on-orbit satellite.

     The March test was made possible through the cooperation of 
the Federal Aviation Administration, which operates the Boeing 
727 research jet used in the experiment.  Inmarsat and its U.S. 
signatory, Comsat Inc., provided ground facilities.

     MSAT-X is funded by the Communications and Information 
Systems Division of NASA's Office of Space Science and 
Applications.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 89 19:03:52 GMT
From: jarthur!jokim@uunet.uu.net  (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Is 'better than gravity assist' used?

In article <473@vice2utc.chalmers.se> d5kwedb@dtek.chalmers.se (Kristian Wedberg) writes:
>Gravity assist has been used many times, by the Voyager-probes for instance.
>The way I understand it, however, is that if you use a part of your fuel
>just when you swing by the moon/planet/sun, you can reach a higher
>velocity than if you use it all up when you start the voyage.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't you mean "than if you didn't use any of your fuel"?

You can achieve velocities higher than possible with your fuel with
simple gravity assist.

I don't think this would be used even if it is possible (I think it is).
Planetary scientists seem to be very patient (how many years has it been
since the voyagers were launched?) so I don't think they'd mind waiting
a few more months to save a little fuel.  Remember, you have all the
time in the world (or at least all the time in the radioactive power
source) but only so much fuel.  The only reasons I could see for this
are:

1) Your flyby of a planet and its moons requires you to use your fuel
   in order to get to the next planet.  The goal of this would be more
   for adjusting your trajectory than trying to increase velocity.

2) You're going to pass the last planet and you want to set a new speed
   record for a manmade object in contact with the earth :-)  Or you
   just might want the higher velocity to study something.

3) You have an emergency which requires all this velocity.

Hmm, I suppose number (1) would be okay if you felt using your fuel was
worth getting there a little earlier.

btw, how did this message get from Sweden to California in one day?
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU | think of something very clever 
uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim  | to use as a disclaimer)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 00:13:24 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <10547@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU 
(John McKernan) writes:
>So we're pretty much stuck with that [refering to the government's and 
NASA'S] efficiency.

Agreed.  Our efforts to influence the space program by trying to influence
congress make me think of *indirect* Brownian motion --- if such a thing
exists :-).
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 20:24:00 GMT
From: sco!joed@uunet.uu.net  (The little bug on your shoulder)
Subject: Re: Is 'better than gravity assist' used?

In article <473@vice2utc.chalmers.se> d5kwedb@dtek.chalmers.se (Kristian Wedberg) writes:
>Gravity assist has been used many times, by the Voyager-probes for instance.
>The way I understand it, however, is that if you use a part of your fuel
>just when you swing by the moon/planet/sun, you can reach a higher
>velocity than if you use it all up when you start the voyage.
>
>Is this so and has it been used, or did I break something in the energy-laws?
>
>
>	-kitte


	Well, I'm not exactly sure about using a burst of fuel while
moving thru the gravity well, but I do know that the vehicle is tapping
the gravitational potential energy of the planet (oh, I can just here the
ecologists now - "just think of the irreparable harm of draining a planet's
energy"). Think of it like a basketball that rolls along the rim of a basket,
and emerges with more momentum than it hit the basket with (another image
of ecologists attempting to get basketball banned because of what its doing
to the planet ;)).

	I remember once seeing a plan in which a starship would potential energy 
of a binary system, where one of the stars is a white dwarf. Kinda neat,
and accelerates you by 1/30th the speed of light (zoom!).


Joe DiLellio <"Can I color in the whites of your eyes & staple your lips shut?">
...!uunet!sco!joed         New    E-mail   Old       ...!ucbvax!ucscf!oprjcd
joed@sco.COM          <--Paths  Addresses  Paths-->    oprjcd@ucscf.ucsc.EDU
...!spl1!sco!joed [My opinions. Mine mine mine, hahahaha!]  oprjcd@ucscf.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 89 17:39:32 GMT
From: portal!atari!daisy!wooding@uunet.uu.net  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

In article <3104@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
> 	I find it somewhat difficult to believe, however, that the cited
> CFR section "can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be broken,
> even by court order."  Any law is subject to judicial review, and it is
> clearly unconstitutional to create a law which could not be subject to
> judicial review or otherwise mitigated by "court order".  In general,
> any detention pursuant to law of a living person (under the circumstances
> I have to add this "qualifier") can be subject to judicial review through
> a special proceeding of habeas corpus (or possibly mandamus, depending upon
> the circumstances).

 I hate to obfuscate these legal issues, but the premise that "Any law is
 subject to judicial review" is not at all clear (at least to me). E.g see
 Article III, section 2, 3rd paragraph: [Supreme Court has jurisdiction] 
 "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall
 make." My reading of this is that the Constitution itself explicitly
 provides Congress with the power to exclude the jurisdiction of the
 courts. So, if you cavort with ETs ... :-)

 m wooding

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Fri, 21 Apr 89 17:18:07 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: ROBERT J HALE                    <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Hardened chips...   Rest of message.

Sorry about that.  The mailer decided to send the message and I can't kill
it once it has hit the net.   I would like to know if there is a generic
way one hardens the chips.  Can I harden my own chips, (not likly).  Where
can I buy hardened chips.   What is the percentage cost increase (percentage)
for a chip hardened over not hardened.   Thanks.

                                    Robert J. Hale III
                                    FNRJH@ALASKA
                                    ISECCo  Director.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 12:18:41 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!sunic!ericom!kk36.ericsson.se!etxbrfa@uunet.uu.net  (Bj|rn Fahller TT/MLG)
Subject: Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST)

In article <1989Apr3.152725.29641@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <2500@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu (Glen Overby) writes:
>>If I recall correctly what was said in James Oberg's _Red Star in Orbit_,
>>the city of Baikonur doesn't even exist!  It was a cover-up...
>>
>>Now my question: where is the true place that the Soviet shuttle (and other
>>space shots) is launched from? 
>
>The Baikonur Cosmodrome.  That is its official name.  The name is indeed
>a relic of a deception attempt, since the town of Baikonur -- which does
>exist -- is far away and has nothing to do with the Cosmodrome.
>
>>I seem to recall hearing one time about two locations.
>
>The other major Soviet launch site is Plesetsk; the traffic is split
>about 50-50.  Plesetsk is primarily military and has been very highly
>secret until quite recently.

Secret until how recently? In northern Sweden, where I come from, Rocket
launces from the Pletetsk base (Not more than 300kms from the Swedish border),
have been seen at night time for quite a few years now.


---------------------------------------------------------------\_
SNAIL: Bjoern Fahller           Vox humana:  (+46) 8 - 719 62 52 \_
       ERICSSON TELECOM         Fax machina: (+46) 8 - 740 28 34_/
       Dept. KK/ETX/TT/MLG    ,--------------------------------/
       S-126 25 STOCKHOLM   ,/        "The more you know,
       SWEDEN             ,/           the better you realize
-------------------------/             how little you know"
Please DO comment on my language.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 16:42:37 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA to support commercial development sounding rocket flights (Forwarded)

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   April 21, 1989

RELEASE:  89-58

NASA TO SUPPORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SOUNDING ROCKET FLIGHTS


     The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
announced today support for a series of commercial sounding 
rocket flights that will provide opportunities for the 
exploration of industrial space applications by NASA-sponsored 
Centers for Commercial Development of Space (CCDS).

     Following the successful flight of Consort 1, a package of 
materials science investigations launched March 29 atop a 
commercially-provided rocket at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., 
NASA's Office of Commercial Programs has decided to extend 
funding support for a series of similar flights.

     NASA will provide funds to help support the costs of payload 
development and launch services for two additional sounding 
rocket flights in FY 1990 and is planning to support from two to 
four flights annually thereafter depending on requirements.

     The Consort 1 mission was conceived and managed by the 
Consortium for Materials Development in Space at the University 
of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH).  The mission represented a pilot 
project in which $1.4 million in NASA grant monies, provided to 
the UAH Center for Commercial Development, financed the purchase 
of commercial launch services and payload integration.

     "This experiment in private sector space operations worked 
marvelously," said James T. Rose, NASA assistant administrator 
for commercial programs.  "The launch was a first for the U.S. 
commercial space transportation industry, proving that a private 
provider can efficiently serve the requirements of a commercial 
user with a minimum of government involvement."

     Follow-on, sounding rocket flights will be procured and 
managed by the UAH CCDS, who also will integrate and prepare for 
flight the payload investigations conceived and developed by 
participating CCDS and their industry partners.

     NASA's Office of Commercial Programs, Washington, D.C., 
created in 1984 to provide a focus for efforts to encourage 
greater private sector involvement and investment in the nation's 
civil space program, is responsible for the establishment and 
management of the 16 CCDS.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #389
*******************
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Apr 89 06:14:35 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00820>; Mon, 24 Apr 89 05:49:22 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 24 Apr 89 05:49:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UYIgm0y00UkT42ZkNg>;
          Mon, 24 Apr 89 03:28:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.gYIgf2y00UkZENNk4F>;
          Mon, 24 Apr 89 03:20:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <wYIgbly00UkZENME5U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 03:17:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #390

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 390

Today's Topics:
   Progress 41 ejected as crew prepares to leave USSR's Mir station
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
		      Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco
		    Re: Fer-de-lance by TE Bearden
		     Radiation hardened chips...
			 Shuttle Acceleration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 20:05:25 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: Progress 41 ejected as crew prepares to leave USSR's Mir station

     On board the Mir/Kvant space station on Apr. 23 Dr. Valrey Polyakov 
became the physician with the most orbital time by exceeding 236 days, 
the record set by Dr. Oleg Atkov on Soyuz 10B/Salyut 7 in Oct. 1984.  
Dr. Polyakov is now the tenth most experienced cosmonaut.  Alexander 
Volkov and Sergei Krikalev who arrived on Soyuz TM-7 in November, have 
now been up for 147 days.  The crew is making the final preparations for 
coming down on Apr. 27th and preparing to leave the station in the 
unmanned mode for several months.  As part of this the Progress 41 cargo 
craft's engines substantially boosted Mir's altitude by about 40 Km (25 
mi) to form a 400 x 372 km (250 x 232 mi) orbit.  Thus the station can 
go for several months now without requiring Mir's own engines or 
reboost.  On Apr. 20th Radio Moscow announced Progress 41 had been 
ejected and entered the atmosphere, hence leaving the rear docking port 
free for the next crew or other craft to service the station.  (Also 
AW&ST Apr. 17)
     There is some controversy concerning the reason for the leaving Mir 
unmanned.  The conflict in the media, both western and eastern, is 
between the closing down of the station for because of high program 
costs, as compared to a short term suspension due to technical problems. 
Confirmation of the report on Soviet TV about the power loss (see my 
Apr. 13th posting) was given in an Aviation Week article on Apr. 17th.  
All reports agree that there has been a progressive decline in the 
station power, which will require a mission to repair the station in 
about August.  On the short wave they have stated that the next mission 
will go up and then two expansion modules (about 20 Tonnes each - the 
mass of Mir's core section) will be launched nearly simultaneously.  
This will allow them to dock one section, transfer it to the side port, 
then rapidly dock the second section.  The will allow them to minimize 
the problems with asymmetry that will occur when Mir has only one module 
docked to the side.  The problems with the gyroscopic momentum wheel 
system have probably forced easy of maintaining stability to become a 
very important issue for them.
    On the other hand many press reports have tended to focus on 
statements like that of Boris Yeltsins during the Moscow election 
campaign of "Bread not Sputniks."  The New York Times (Apr. 19) ran an 
article that quoted Viktor Blagov as stating that the close down was to 
save money rather than for technical reasons.  On Soviet television 
there was a news interview with another official which stated that yes 
the station was unmanned to save money until the new modules were ready 
in the fall.  However, when asked about the power problems the answer 
was that Mir was three years old and previous stations had run into 
problems that required repairs at about that age [especially Salyut 7 in 
June 1985].  Hence some repair needs should be expected.  Also the new 
modules would add solar panels which will add more power to the station.  
Meanwhile on the short wave on Apr. 18th the Soviets listed the number 
of paying customers that will be sending people to Mir in the future.  
These are the Japanese in May 1991, British in 1991/92 for a 14 day 
mission, the French in 1991/92 for a two month flight, and an Austrian 
in 1992 for an 8-10 day visit.  The Japanese visit is especially 
interesting as the Tokyo Broadcasting System is paying for a journalist 
to fly, the first to do so (the NASA Journalist in Space program was 
cancelled).  Indeed there is an interesting rivalry in this launch as 
NASDA, the main Japanese space agency, is scheduled to fly an astronaut 
on the shuttle the summer of the same year. (New Scientist Apr. 1).
    All of this suggests that there are technical problems with Mir.  
but does not answer the question as to whether the Russian manned space 
program is being significantly scaled back for economic reasons.  
Historically the soviets have said that they are reducing some activity 
because of economic reason, when really the difficulties were technical 
(eg. the Tu-144 supersonic transport).  They have been very reluctant to 
admit problems with their equipment.  My personal feeling is this is a 
case of the station having some power problems which reduces the 
experiments the cosmonauts can do while possibly putting them at risk if 
things get much worse (the life support system takes a considerable 
fraction of the power).  Meanwhile delays in the modules mean the new 
experiments the crew were to perform are not yet ready.  Hence, the risk 
of maintaining the crew up there under these circumstances is not 
balanced by a gain of more scientific information.  Thus, in some ways 
both views are correct, both economics and technical problems are saying 
bring the crew down.  To put this in perspective consider that this 
hiatus is rather a short period between long duration space station 
crews by historical standards.  Outside of Mir's 26 month continuous 
occupation there are only two times since 1978 when the period between 
extensive visits was 3 months or less.  Indeed such delays are common in 
all the world's space programs; the NASA Discovery launch, scheduled for 
Aug. 10th has just been set back until Nov. while the next ESA's Ariane 
4 flight is now delayed due for technical reasons.
     Thus it is with some amusement that I have watched a number of 
people post notices, based on the western media economic statements, of 
how this indicates the Russian program is going to fall apart, just as 
one would expect from a Communist run system.  Until I see more 
evidence, such as a failure of the mission to go up in Aug./Sept., there 
little proof to back up this belief.  Only time will tell whether the 
USSR has dropped out of the race toward being the first human space 
faring nation, or just has stumbled and will rise again.
     Unfortunately, I will be away giving some lectures for the next two 
weeks so it will not be possible for me to post the events of the Soyuz 
TM-7 landing.  If someone else out there in netland follows the program 
would they please do so to keep the others informed.  Thank you in 
advance.

                                           Glenn Chapman
                                           MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 89 22:05:25 GMT
From: stsci!berry@noao.edu  (Jim Berry)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

>From article <1343@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, by gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy):
> In article <wYCugSy00Ui0E0kWMI@andrew.cmu.edu> (Philip Verdieck) writes:
> #
> #What are the capabilities for rotating this baby and using it for
> #spying purposes???

> Not much, since the detectors are sensitive enough to burn out. A
> KH-11 or KH-12 will do the job for you though.

Funny how we seem to go through this every six months or so.

In general, the instruments on board will not 'burn out' if they get
pointed at the Earth, although I don't think that either the Faint Object 
Camera or the Faint Object Spectrograph would fare very well...

In fact, the current method for flat-fielding the Wide Field/Planetary
Camera is to take several 'smears' of the cloud covered Earth at different
angles as it goes by under the telescope, trying to get a flat gray.

A couple people have toyed around with linear deblurring algorithms, but
just for fun, though.  HST simply isn't equipped to take pretty pictures
of Grandma's House.

Put the right gadgets onto an HST frame and you get a KH-12.  They use us
to test all of the equipment before they use it on the KH-12 - I think
that's why nobody ever got upset about us sitting around at Lockheed taking
up space - people were getting experience handling a "KH-12".

- Jim

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Berry                         | UUCP:{arizona,decvax,hao}!noao!stsci!berry
Space Telescope Science Institute | ARPA:   berry@stsci.edu
Baltimore, Md. 21218              | SPAM:   SCIVAX::BERRY, KEPLER::BERRY

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 14:42:08 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco

In article <1989Apr8.212353.76@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <10316@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
>>I was horrified to read that more than $8B has already been junked by
>>discarded fuel tanks; about $300M per tank...
>>Wouldn't it be so nice just to attach a parasitic mini-thruster and
>>control system to all tanks, just to go that last ten yards?
>
>As has been mentioned a number of times in the past (sigh), it is not
>that simple.  Tanks left to themselves in orbit will not stay there for
>long -- they are too big and too light, air drag will bring them down.
>Keeping them up is not a trivial problem, especially if you insist on
>using only fully-proven technology (which is considered a requirement
>when the risks include dropping many tons of metal on a city somewhere).
>If you *do* manage to get them to stay up, the insulation on them
>will "popcorn" in vacuum, adding considerably to the space-debris problem.

I used to wonder if it would be possible to redesign the ET so that:

1) They could be taken to orbit
2) The end caps could be removed
3) The internal pressure vessels could be removed.

This would leave you with quite a few long tubular tank skins. Now, assuming
that spacewalkers could handle the job, you take up some adaptors and join
the tanks end-to-end - eventually forming a ring. Some of the discarded end-caps
and pressure vessels could be stuck on at trendy angles, the rest carefully
chucked into Earth atmosphere to burn up (better get that bit right :-)).

Even if the ring you've built couldn't be used as a space-station, it
might be a semi-cheap way of testing the technology needed to build a *real*
space station.

I assume that the ET is carefully redesigned to allow this re-use. I don't
propose that this is viable with the present ET design.

Comments appreciated - flames to /dev/null please!
Steve

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 22:38:26 GMT
From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Fer-de-lance by TE Bearden

In article <8904211740.AA01982@wpafb-avlab.arpa> fuzzy@aruba.arpa (John Karabaic) writes:
>Full book info is:  Fer-del-lance, A Briefing on Soviet Scalar...
>Anybody on either physics or space hear about this before?

    Just to give you an idea, when the local New-Agers opened a shop,
this was on the shelves next to the UFO and Antigravity books.
    This topic isn't relevant to sci.space, so followups are
redirected to misc.misc.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "I met a wonderful new man. He's fictional, but you can't have everything."
	- Cecelia, _The Purple Rose of Cairo_

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Fri, 21 Apr 89 17:11:31 -0900
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: ROBERT J HALE                    <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Radiation hardened chips...

   Was wondering if anyone out there can tell me how the manufactures
make or harden chips for use in orbit...    Please Email it to me.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Apr 89 01:54 EDT
From: John Taylor <V131Q5CG@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Shuttle Acceleration

>Date: 17 Apr 89 16:47:46 GMT
>From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact)
 
>There are tradeoffs here.  Higher acceleration is generally more efficient,
>as you spend less time fighting gravity.  

	Less time fighting gravity? I can't see what time has to do with it.
If you disregard friction momentarily (read as non-conservative forces), 
then you simply must supply an energy to the shuttle of (Potential + 
Kenetic)=(mgh + .5mv**2); this has nothing to do with how fast the shuttle 
accelerates.
	Now, bring back in friction (air resistance, for example). If you 
accelerate faster, you develop more speed at a lower altitude; this means 
that you have to do more work (i.e. waste energy) because the air is denser 
closer to the earth.
	I can't see how larger accelerations would be more efficent; I can 
see how it would *less* efficent...


-------------
John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo
Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #390
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Apr 89 07:29:15 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00972>; Mon, 24 Apr 89 06:40:42 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 24 Apr 89 06:40:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4YIiS2y00UkTM2CU5x>;
          Mon, 24 Apr 89 05:23:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.8YIiNUy00UkZMNXk5u>;
          Mon, 24 Apr 89 05:18:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4YIiM2y00UkZ4NWE5n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 05:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #391

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 391

Today's Topics:
		  Condensed CANOPUS - February 1989
	       MUFON Journal "alien spacecraft" article
		    Re: STS-30 Press Release pack
			    Re: Astrology
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 05:05:24 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - February 1989


Here is the condensed CANOPUS for February 1989.  There are
11 articles.  CANOPUS is copyright American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, but distribution is encouraged.  See full copyright
information at end.  

CONTENTS -- 6 ARTICLES CONDENSED OR IN FULL

ESA SCIENCE LAUNCH DATES - can890211.txt - 2/14/89
NASA SEEKS PROPOSALS FOR ORBITAL DEBRIS RADAR - can890205.txt - 1/1989
NASA PLANNING REUSABLE REENTRY SATELLITE - can890206.txt - 1/18/89
IMAGE PROCESSING TO RELIEVE VISION PROBLEMS - can890207.txt - 1/18/89
ASTRONOMY PHASE-A STUDIES - can890209.txt - 2/14/89
NASA ANNOUNCES EARTH OBSERVATION SYSTEM INVESTIGATIONS - can890201.txt 
   - 2/13/89 
-------------------------------------------------------------------

ESA SCIENCE LAUNCH DATES - can890211.txt - 2/14/89

ESA Scientific Missions (as of January 1989)

HIPPARCOS         Astrometry       June 1989       Ariane 4
ISO               IR Astronomy     April 1993      Ariane 4
SOHO              Solar Physics    March 1995      Shuttle
Cluster           Plasma Physics   December 1995   Ariane 5
XMM               X-ray Astronomy  mid-1998        Ariane 4

(Some) Astrophysics Missions of Other Agencies

GRANAT            X & Gamma-ray Ast. 1989          Proton
Spectrum-X        X-ray Astronomy    1992          Proton
Astro-D           X-ray Astronomy    1992          M-3SII-3
SAX               X-ray Astronomy    1993          Atlas Centaur

NASA SEEKS PROPOSALS FOR ORBITAL DEBRIS RADAR - can890205.txt - 1/1989

     NASA has requested proposals from industry for a ground-based
radar that will quantify and characterize debris orbiting between 180
to 360 miles above Earth.  The radar would have the capability of
detecting debris as small as 1 centimeter in diameter, contrasted
with the 10-centimeter capability of current radar systems.

     Information is extremely limited about the number and size of
small debris pieces at the operational altitude range of the space
station.  Preliminary experiments, using radar astronomy facilities,
have suggested that the number of small debris particles at these
altitudes may be higher than expected.  The new radar will provide
definitive information about such debris, determining its size,
altitude and orbital inclination.

NASA PLANNING REUSABLE REENTRY SATELLITE - can890206.txt - 1/18/89

     NASA officials at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) have released a
request for proposals for continued studies and design of an unmanned
reusable reentry satellite (RRS) that could significantly expand
NASA's capability to investigate the weightlessness environment.

     The RFP calls for the design of an almost completely reusable
spacecraft that could be processed and readied for reflight in 2
months, allowing for several flights each year. The vehicle will be
roughly 6 feet in diameter and weighing more than 2,000 pounds with a
useful payload of 500 pounds. Designs are expected to be derivatives
of the Department of Defense Discovery satellite or NASA's Gemini and
Apollo vehicles of the 1960s.  Upon completion of the flight, the RRS
would reenter and soft-land at a designated ground-site where
scientists and engineers would have immediate access to the
experiments.

IMAGE PROCESSING TO RELIEVE VISION PROBLEMS - can890207.txt - 1/18/89

     Image processing techniques developed by the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory for the Mariner 4 mission to Mars have been adapted to
offer new hope to sufferers from maculopathy or central spot
blindness.  This disability affects a small fraction of 1 percent of
young people, rising to afflict some 20 percent of those over 75.  It
is regarded as a leading cause or form of blindness in the U.S. and
Europe, though it does not constitute total blindness.

ASTRONOMY PHASE-A STUDIES - can890209.txt - 2/14/89
By Christoph Winkler, Peter Jakobsen and Urban Frisk -- ESTEC
{By European Space Agency}

     The GRASP (Gamma-Ray Astronomy with Spectroscopy & Positioning)
Phase-A study (SCI(88)2) showed that the GRASP mission was
technically feasible and that all scientific requirements could be
fulfilled.  The requirement to maintain GRASP as a purely European
mission within the financial constraints of a `Horizon 2000 blue box'
was a major task requiring a novel approach for ESA, i.e. the re-use
of existing or planned developments.  In view of the common
requirements of the GRASP and the XMM payloads, though with less
demanding requirements for GRASP, the XMM cornerstone mission
spacecraft bus was investigated in detail.

     The Lyman Phase A Report (SCI(88)3) described an ESA-only
mission concept for Lyman involving a purpose-built spacecraft and a
shared Ariane launch into a 48-hour high-earth orbit. However, the
ESA study also demonstrated that such a mission was not possible
within the financial boundaries of a medium-sized mission in the
Horizon 2000 long-term plan without substantial contributions from
other collaborating agencies. An agreement was reached between ESA,
NASA and Canada concerning cooperation on the Lyman mission.
Reflecting the relative financial contributions, the observing time
would have been shared equally between ESA and NASA with a smaller
share going to Canada.

     As a consequence of the ESA decision to select Huygens/Cassini,
the FUSE/Lyman study by NASA, focussing on a mission involving a
slightly smaller payload mounted on a re-usable Explorer platform
operating from low-earth orbit, will nonetheless still investigate
the joint concept. The results of the NASA FUSE study will be subject
to a competitive selection next summer along with three other
competing Explorer missions.

     The QUASAT Phase A Report (SCI(88)4) demonstrated the very
strong scientific case for space-VLBI and that such a project was
technically feasible. QUASAT has always been considered as a joint
ESA/NASA project. Before the Challenger accident the partnership was
equal but afterwards it was assumed to be an ESA-led project with
minor NASA and Canadian support.  The non-selection of QUASAT for a
Phase A study within the US Explorer program confirmed this model.
The ESA study however came to the conclusion that the mission could
not be undertaken within the financial boundaries of a medium-sized
mission of Horizon 2000.

NASA ANNOUNCES EARTH OBSERVATION SYSTEM INVESTIGATIONS -
can890201.txt - 2/13/89

A total of 551 individual investigators have been named to teams for
the Earth Observing System (EOS) in what may be the largest single
science selection by NASA in the last decade. EOS will comprise a
complex instrumentation array aboard the manned Space Station and
unmanned polar orbit platforms, all designed to provide a
comprehensive survey of the Earth from orbit with instruments
complementing each other over a long period of time.

NASA received 455 proposals. The selection includes 24 instrument
investigations, 6 research facility instrument investigation team
leaders and 87 team members, and 28 interdisciplinary investigators
(20 U.S. and 8 foreign). The various teams selected comprise 551
individuals from 168 institutions, universities or laboratories in 32
states and, including the U.S., 13 countries. 

RESEARCH FACILITY INSTRUMENTS .
Research facility instrument team members and team leaders for the
six NASA research facility instruments were selected. Each of the
instruments is planned to fly on one of the polar platforms.

o Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) will measure atmospheric
temperature, moisture and other properties as a function of height
above the ground with an accuracy and resolution far surpassing
current operational satellite instruments. AIRS Team Leader -
Moustafa T. Chahine, JPL

o Geodynamics Laser Ranging System (GLRS) is a laser ranging system
for the study of the Earth's crustal movements in earthquake prone
regions and across tectonic plate boundaries by precisely determining
the locations of special mirrors set up on the ground. GLRS can also
measure the surface height profile of glaciers and the polar ice
sheets to determine how fast they are growing or shrinking. GLRS Team
Leader - Steven Cohen, NASA-Goddard.

o High Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (HIRIS) is an imaging
spectrometer providing highly programmable localized measurements of
geological, biological, and physical processes. HIRIS Team Leader -
Goetz, Alexander F. H., University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (JPL will
manage the facility).

o Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder (LAWS) is a lidar (laser detection
and ranging) system for direct measurement of tropospheric wind
velocities by observing the Doppler shift in light reflected from
wind born dust. LAWS Team Leader - Baker, Wayman E., NOAA/NMC,
Washington, DC.(MSFC will manage the facility)

o Moderate Resolution Imaging spectrometer (MODIS) is an imaging
spectrometer for the measurement of biological and physical processes
in the study of terrestrial, oceanic and atmospheric phenomena. MODIS
Team leader - Vincent V.  Salomonson, NASA-Goddard.

o Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is an imaging radar which can see
through clouds to observe properties relating to the geology,
hydrology, and ecology of the land as well as sea ice and ocean
waves. SAR Team Leader - Charles Elachi, JPL, Pasadena, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------
Other articles presented by title only or very briefly:

CONDITION OF QM-8 SOLID ROCKET MOTOR FIELD JOINTS - can890202.txt - 2/7/89
{no anomalies}
ENGINE FIRING WILL COMPLETE INITIAL TECHNOLOGY TEST BED TEST SERIES -
can890203.txt - 2/14/89  {scheduled Feb. 23}
BALLHAUS RETURNS TO AMES RESEARCH CENTER - can890204.txt - 2/1/89
{as director}
HORIZON 2000 IMPLEMENTATION - can890208.txt - 2/14/89 {ESA funding}
HIPPARCOS - can890210.txt - 2/14/89

----------------END OF CONDENSED CANOPUS-----------------------------

This posting represents my own condensation of CANOPUS.  For clarity,
I have not shown ellipses (...), even when the condensation is
drastic.  New or significantly rephrased material is in {braces} and
is signed {--SW} when it represents an expression of my own opinion.
The unabridged CANOPUS is available via e-mail from me at any of the
addresses below.

Copyright information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; 
e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded).  Send
correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 18:31:22 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!nobody@uunet.uu.net  (-for inetd server command)
Subject: MUFON Journal "alien spacecraft" article


The following article appears in the current issue of the MUFON UFO
Journal, No. 242, April 1989.  (MUFON is an acronym for Mutual UFO
Network, the largest public UFO investigative organization in the world
-- about 2000 members at last count.)

-----------

NEWS FlASH

Donald B. Ratsch, MUFON member in Baltimore, Maryland, has been monitoring
the radio broadcasts from the space shuttle Discovery through WA3NAN, the 
club station of the Goddard Amateur Radio Club in Greenbelt, MD, 
transmitting on 147.450 MHZ.  At 6:35 a.m. EST on March 14, 1989, he 
heard this statement, "we have a problem -- we have a fire."  (This might
have been the first clue to the resultant electrical problem that was
subsequently repaired.)

The most interesting transmission occurred seven minutes later at 6:42 a.m.
EST, when one of the astronauts made this statement "Houston (from) Discovery,
we still have the alien spacecraft under observance."  Don Ratsch called
Walt Andrus [who is the chief administrator of MUFON] and played the tape
recording over the telephone on the morning of March 14, 1989.  Further
analysis of the tape is now being conducted by qualified personnel in 
Maryland as of Sunday, March 19th.  Preliminary analysis of the voice by
comparison methods indicates that the astronaut making the second
transmission was probably either Michael L. Coats, Commander of Discovery
or John E. Blaha, the pilot.  We hope to provide more details in the May
issue of the Journal on this exiting event.

-------

If anyone on the net can add substantive information to this account,
please email me or post to the net.

I will watch for additional material in the next MUFON UFO Journal and
post it to the net.  

Thanks, Keith Rowell



-Keith Rowell, Tektronix, Wilsonville, OR   keithr@tolkien.WV.TEK.COM

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 01:31:36 GMT
From: attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@uunet.uu.net  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: STS-30 Press Release pack



First, I would like to thank Mr. Yee for posting the "press kit".  Real
information is always like a breath of fresh air...

But there seems to be a problem.  The IUS described in the kit does not seem
capable putting Magellan into an Earth-escape trajectory.

Here is the IUS as described:
	mass at ignition 15160kg (excludes Magellan)
	total mass at ignition 20750kg (includes Magellan)
	1st stage: burn time 150s thrust 187000N fuel 9700kg
		burn rate 65kg/s
		exhaust velocity 2.88km/s
	2nd stage: burn time 108s thrust  80000N fuel 2700kg
		burn rate 25kg/s
		exhaust velocity 3.20km/s

Here is how it is used:
	initial orbit is 297x297km (6675x6675km from geocentre)
		orbital speed is 7.73km/s.

	first stage burn
		the delta-V comes to 2.88*ln(20750/(20750-9700)) = 1.81km/s

	1st stage separate
		an unknown mass is jettisoned.  See below...

	wait 150s
		from the 1st stage burn, the resulting orbit has a semi-major
		axis of 14000km, and an eccentricity of 0.523.  Assuming that
		the IUS/Magellan is at the perigee of this orbit
		then at the end of the 150s wait, IUS/Magellan
		is now 6730km from the geocentre, and its speed is 9.49km/s.

	second stage burn
		the escape velocity at this point (6730km) is 10.88km/s.
		So, the IUS must now supply a velocity increment of at least
		1.39km/s.  From this, we can calculate the >minimum< mass of
		the jettisoned 1st stage.  Sparing the details, it comes to
		3390kg.

And this is the problem.  The inert (non-fuel) mass of the IUS at launch is
15160 (total IUS) - 9700 (total 1st stage fuel) - 2700 (total 2nd stage fuel)
= 2760kg.

It seems that a piece of Magellan will have to be disposed of as well.

Can someone explain this away?  Perhaps the engines on the IUS have a strange
thrust curve?  Maybe the data in the press-kit was incorrectly/badly rounded?
NASA has made a horrible mistake?  I can't use a calculator?
-- 
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 10:07:07 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!bru-cc!me85mda@uunet.uu.net  (M D Ayton)
Subject: Re: Astrology

It just occured to me; how did the astrologers manage so well without
noticing that up to comparatively recently they were three planets
short? Since the existence of a further planet "X" is theorised, will
they admit that their horoscopes aren't quite as accurate ( >8-) ) as
they might be? The peepul have a right to know!

Martin.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #391
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Apr 89 06:40:16 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00575>; Tue, 25 Apr 89 05:23:20 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 25 Apr 89 05:23:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8YJ1wVy00Vs1E2CkFc>;
          Tue, 25 Apr 89 03:32:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.UYJ1igy00UkZAPHU4:>;
          Tue, 25 Apr 89 03:18:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYJ1h9y00UkZMPG04-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 03:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #392

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 392

Today's Topics:
		      Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco
		       Re: Soviet Launch Sites
      Re: Deadline set for next astronaut selection (Forwarded)
		     Re: failures and engineering
	     Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
		      manned spaceflight funding
		  Re: Conte's Bill (was NSS update)
		      Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco
		       Re: Shuttle Acceleration
			  NASA-Marshall node
		Re: Proposed lunar simulation facility
		 Re: Close encounter with an asteroid
		 Re: Close encounter with an asteroid
			U4MIR, U5MIR Contacts
			   Asteroid Nearby
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 21:50:38 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco

In article <361@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>I used to wonder if it would be possible to redesign the ET so that:
>
>1) They could be taken to orbit

They can be already; it simply costs something.

>2) The end caps could be removed
>3) The internal pressure vessels could be removed.

There are no end caps or "internal pressure vessels"; an External Tank
is a LOX tank and an LH2 tank joined together and coated with ablative
insulation.  There is no separate outer skin, unless you count the short
ring that joins the two tanks.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 21:53:36 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Launch Sites

In article <258@ericom.ericsson.se> etxbrfa@kk36.ericsson.se (Bj|rn Fahller TT/MLG) writes:
>>The other major Soviet launch site is Plesetsk; the traffic is split
>>about 50-50.  Plesetsk is primarily military and has been very highly
>>secret until quite recently.
>
>Secret until how recently? In northern Sweden, where I come from, Rocket
>launces from the Pletetsk base (Not more than 300kms from the Swedish border),
>have been seen at night time for quite a few years now.

It's been known in the West for a long time.  But the Soviets have not
officially admitted its existence until recently, and it has been very
strictly off-limits to Westerners.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 21:39:33 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Deadline set for next astronaut selection (Forwarded)

In article <23996@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>     NASA will continue to accept and review applications from 
>the general public on an ongoing basis...

Note that, looking at who got picked in the last few years, the odds of
getting selected are minimal unless you work for NASA.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 21:44:02 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: failures and engineering

In article <449@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>OK, so things do break - but with careful analysis and/or use of back-up
>systems, Mariner 2 and Voyager 2 were (and are) highly succesful missions.

Very true.  But one should keep a sense of perspective:  those missions
had a certain amount of luck as well.  I've observed before that a failure
in such a mission is "just one of those things you have to expect", while
a success is "a magnificent triumph demonstrating how well this approach
works".

>I'd say that on the whole NASA has had more first time successes than
>the Soviets, especially in the field of planetary exploration. This must
>say something for JPL's and contractors' designs.

Yes, this is clearly true.  Don't mistake me; NASA and ESA undoubtedly
build very good spacecraft as a result of the effort to get everything
right the first time.  But "very good" is not "perfect".
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 21:56:05 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

In article <335@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>... I remember a reporter or two managing to get themselves
>'contaminated', and ending up locked up with the astronauts in
>quarantine for the duration.  (I wonder if the reporter did that
>deliberately...)  ...

I hadn't heard about that one, but at least one geologist got "contaminated"
accidentally and found that it ended up being a heaven-sent opportunity to
debrief the astronauts at length -- something that was otherwise almost
impossible, since NASA gave it a low priority.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 09:01:52 GMT
From: indri!polyslo!jmckerna@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <1989Apr21.195731.5636@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>This is tautological.  Government is the only current source of the amount
>of money needed to build large-scale space hardware THE GOVERNMENT WAY.
>Of course, if you ask the government, they will assure you that it's the
>only way.  Even though doing the same things privately costs an order of
>magnitude less.

Government is the only current source of funds for a manned space effort 
regardless of which WAY it is done (excluding repitions of things that have
already been done, such as simply putting a man up for a few orbits. It might
be exciting if a private company did that, but it would not advance knowledge
in manned space). This also applies to unmanned deep space research.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 22:16:49 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: manned spaceflight funding

In article <10597@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>>This is tautological.  Government is the only current source of the amount
>>of money needed to build large-scale space hardware THE GOVERNMENT WAY...
>
>Government is the only current source of funds for a manned space effort 
>regardless of which WAY it is done (excluding repitions of things that have
>already been done, such as simply putting a man up for a few orbits. It might
>be exciting if a private company did that, but it would not advance knowledge
>in manned space)...

If you insist on excluding everything that has been done already, you've
excluded space stations (of which there have been half a dozen already),
trips to the Moon, long-duration stays in space, etc etc... many of which
promise to provide useful new knowledge.

There is considerable precedent, in other areas, for private funding of
science and exploration.  Roald Amundsen had no government funding for
his trip to the South Pole.  Fleischmann and Pons had no government funding
for their cold-fusion research.  [Please refer arguments about whether the
results are real or not to alt.fusion.]  Bednorz and Muller had no
government funding for their Nobel-Prize-winning work on superconductors.
The Voyager round-the-world flight was privately funded.  Several current
projects for big astronomical telescopes are privately funded.

For that matter, there was no shortage of private interest in funding
space shuttle orbiters, including at least two companies which clearly had
the financial resources for it.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 15:43:04 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Conte's Bill (was NSS update)

In article <Added.0YHW9Py00UkTE3jU8o@andrew.cmu.edu> V131Q5CG@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (John Taylor) writes:
>	Just out of curosity, has anyone noticed a correlation between 
>left/right political leanings and support of space and science? Or is it 
>just random?

In this country, the UK, None whatsoever.

The excuses made by an extreme left wing member of the
Labour Governemt of the early 1970s when cancelling
various British space projects of the day, Mr Anthony
Wedgewood Benn, are EXACTLY the same as a member of Mrs T's
Government when extracting the last drop of financial
blood from the dismembered remains of British space research.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 02:46:43 GMT
From: yalevm!HOWGREJ@CS.YALE.EDU
Subject: Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco

In article <361@cybaswan.UUCP>, iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
 
>In article <1989Apr8.212353.76@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In article <10316@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
>>>I was horrified to read that more than $8B has already been junked by
>>>discarded fuel tanks; about $300M per tank...
 
Whoa! Is this right?  I didn't see the original posting, but $300M seems
waaaay too high.  Anyone have a published reference for this figure?
 
                                          Greg

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 21:59:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Acceleration

In article <Added.4YI1Eqy00UkT4XOk8C@andrew.cmu.edu> V131Q5CG@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (John Taylor) writes:
>>There are tradeoffs here.  Higher acceleration is generally more efficient,
>>as you spend less time fighting gravity.  
>
>	Less time fighting gravity? I can't see what time has to do with it.

Remember that slow, ponderous rise of the Saturn V off the pad?  Well, of
those 7.5 million pounds of thrust, 6+ were doing nothing but holding the
thing up against gravity.  Only the remaining 1.5- were accelerating the
rocket upwards.  That's an expensive way to gain velocity, which is one of
the reasons why the shuttle takes off rather more briskly.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 17:48:40 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: NASA-Marshall node


	Could someone tell me what the node name of MSFC (Marshall
Space Flight Center) is?  In fact, could someone state
the general pattern of the nasa.gov.whatever nodenames?

	Note to Ken Jenks:  I lost track of your new address.
Thanks for the 'space jobs' posting; it was an enormous help.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 21:44:55 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Proposed lunar simulation facility

In article <8904181746.AA07962@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>>Los Alamos proposes to build a lunar-surface simulation facility for
>>testing lunar mining and construction hardware...
>
>Is that a computer simulation testbed, or an actual physical construction
>to emulate the lunar terrain?

The latter, complete with vacuum chamber etc.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 21:10:33 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Close encounter with an asteroid

Next time we should paint a giant Bull's eye somewhere facing up.
Planetary science in action. ;)

Longish signature follows "Type 'n' now"

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 21:37:40 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: Re: Close encounter with an asteroid

eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) <3338@eos.UUCP> :
> Next time we should paint a giant Bull's eye somewhere facing up.
> Planetary science in action. ;)

Trust someone who likes living on fault lines to suggest this!

> Longish signature follows "Type 'n' now"

Well, at least you didn't put your targeting coordinates in your signature,
like some people.


Remember that Peter Benchley always kept his umbrella fully deployed, to
prevent being struck by asteroids.  Claimed a 100% success rate, too....

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 02:00:17 GMT
From: w3vh!rolfe@uunet.uu.net  (Rolfe Tessem)
Subject: U4MIR, U5MIR Contacts


Well, just as the Mir cosmonauts are closing up shop, I managed to
finally work both the current crew (I think).  On 4/16 at 13:58 GMT I
worked U5MIR almost by accident -- I just happened to be in the shack
with the radio tuned to 145.550, and today (4/23) I worked U4MIR at
almost the same time -- 14:51 GMT.  I assume that these callsigns
represent each member of the crew, respectively.  The cosmonaut signing
U4MIR spoke decidedly better english, but neither was much for chitchat :-).

I believe I did understand that they were closing down operations until
August.  Is that the general understanding?  

Does anyone have the names of the current crew handy?

-- 
UUCP:         uunet!w3vh!rolfe 			| Rolfe Tessem
INTERNET:     rolfe@w3vh.uu.net			| P.O. Box 793
AMPRNET:      rolfe@pc.w3vh.ampr.org [44.44.0.2]| Great Barrington, MA 01230
PACKET RADIO: w3vh@wa2pvv 			| (413) 528-5966

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 06:51:33 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Asteroid Nearby

[Following is the text of a NASA press release.  Apologies if someone
else posts the same thing, but I haven't seen it yet.  Followups to
sci.astro are probably best.]

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     April 19, 1989
(Phone:  202/453-1548)

NASA ASTRONOMER DISCOVERS "NEAR-MISS" ASTEROID THAT PASSED EARTH

     An asteroid, a half-mile or more in diameter, passed within a
half million miles of the Earth - about twice the distance to the
moon - on March 23, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
said today.

     "On the cosmic scale of things, that was a close call," said Dr.
Henry Holt.  Holt is a University of Arizona astronomer who
discovered the asteroid while working on a U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) project, funded by NASA, to detect and track unknown asteroids
that cross the orbit of the Earth.  The project is headed by Dr.
Eugene Shoemaker, USGS.

     Dr. Bevan French, advanced program scientist for NASA's Solar
System Exploration Division, Washington, D.C., said that if the
asteroid had collided with the Earth, the impact would have been
equivalent to the explosion of 20,000 hydrogen bombs creating a
crater 5 to 10 miles in diameter - "enough to destroy a good-sized
city."  Landing in the ocean could have been worse since huge tidal
waves could have been created that would sweep over coastal regions,
he said.

     Although scientists do not know the asteroid's exact size, they
believe it to be over a half-mile in diameter.  A 6-mile- diameter
asteroid hit the Earth about 65 million years ago.  It is popularly
believed that this caused a global catastrophe that destroyed the
dinosaurs.

     The asteroid, currently designated 1989FC, came closer to Earth
than any recorded since Hermes in l937, according to Dr.  Brian
Marsden, director of the Minor Planets Center at the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, Mass.  Hermes passed the Earth
at approximately the same distance as 1989FC.

     The observatory, which is the international clearinghouse for
such discoveries, recorded the discoveries of about 1,800 asteroids
[This sounds far too high to me.  Maybe it includes recoveries of
previously known asteroids.  Or maybe I'm all wet.--SW]
in l988.  In the designation l989FC, l989 is the year of discovery; F
indicates discovery in the sixth half-month of the year (i.e. the end
of March); C indicates that the asteroid was the third discovered in
that period.  If the asteroid is successfully observed on two
subsequent approaches to Earth, Holt will be entitled to name it.

     Holt discovered the asteroid on a series of photographic plates
taken March 31 using the 18-inch Schmidt telescope at the California
Institute of Technology's Mount Palomar Observatory in California.

   The object - estimated to be travelling 46,000 miles an hour -
appeared as a trail of light in two photographs of the sky near the
constellation Coma Berenices.  They were taken an hour apart.  The
asteroid was detected when the two photographic plates were examained
under a stereo microscope.  "I knew it was travelling fast by the
elliptical spot that it created," said Holt.

     During the week following the discovery, subsequent observations
of l989FC were made by Holt and other astronomers to determine its
orbit.  Like the Earth, l989FC takes about a year to go around the
Sun.  But its orbit is highly elliptical and extends past the orbit
of Mars and inward past the orbit of Venus.  Asteroid 1989FC is now
moving rapidly away from the Earth and Sun.  It will return, crossing
the Earth's orbit again in early October 1989, this time at a greater
distance from Earth.

     Asteroid l989FC is only one of about 30 Earth-crossing asteroids
that have been discovered, although there may be many more.
Estimates range from several hundred to more than a thousand.  Holt
and Shoemaker regularly observe the sky during the "dark of the
moon," the period just before and just after the new moon.

-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #392
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Apr 89 06:41:38 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00665> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 25 Apr 89 06:35:41 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 25 Apr 89 06:35:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IYJ3pqy00Vs101NE5S>;
          Tue, 25 Apr 89 05:43:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.0YJ3cKy00UkTE2e040>;
          Tue, 25 Apr 89 05:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.YYJ3bey00UkZ8PRk54>;
          Tue, 25 Apr 89 05:27:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <IYJ3Rmy00UkZ0PQk4n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 05:16:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #393

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 393

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Shuttle Acceleration
	     Re: MUFON Journal "alien spacecraft" article
		Re: Proposed lunar simulation facility
			  NSS Hotline Update
	       Re: Is 'better than gravity assist' use
	      Re: Is 'better than gravity assist' used?
		    Condensed CANOPUS - March 1989
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 14:23:11 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle Acceleration

In article <1989Apr22.215957.4317@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
}In article <Added.4YI1Eqy00UkT4XOk8C@andrew.cmu.edu> V131Q5CG@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (John Taylor) writes:
}>>There are tradeoffs here.  Higher acceleration is generally more efficient,
}>>as you spend less time fighting gravity.  
}>
}>       Less time fighting gravity? I can't see what time has to do with it.
}
}Remember that slow, ponderous rise of the Saturn V off the pad?  Well, of
}those 7.5 million pounds of thrust, 6+ were doing nothing but holding the
}thing up against gravity.  Only the remaining 1.5- were accelerating the
}rocket upwards.  That's an expensive way to gain velocity, which is one of
}the reasons why the shuttle takes off rather more briskly.

As an analogy, consider a bank loan.  The lower your payments (i.e. lower
acceleration), the longer it takes to pay back, and the higher the total
cost, since a larger portion of each payment goes to interest (i.e. fighting
gravity) rather than the principal (i.e. accelerating).
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 19:18:59 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Re: MUFON Journal "alien spacecraft" article

In article <11322@tekecs.GWD.TEK.COM>, nobody@tekecs.GWD.TEK.COM (-for inetd server command) writes:
> 
 [much preceding baloney deleted]

   
> The most interesting transmission occurred seven minutes later at 6:42 a.m.
> EST, when one of the astronauts made this statement "Houston (from) Discovery,
> we still have the alien spacecraft under observance."  Don Ratsch called
[more baloney deleted] 

April fools day was 3 weeks ago in case you missed it.
      
> I will watch for additional material in the next MUFON UFO Journal and
> post it to the net.  

May I suggest pseudo.sci.bs as the appropriate forum   for this National
Enquirer type garbage  ???
  

                    Marc Bonin
                       
                    Dept. of Aerospace Engineering
                    University of Texas at Austin

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 13:02:48 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Proposed lunar simulation facility

In article <1989Apr22.214455.3661@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <8904181746.AA07962@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
> >>Los Alamos proposes to build a lunar-surface simulation facility for
> >>testing lunar mining and construction hardware...
> >
> >Is that a computer simulation testbed, or an actual physical construction
> >to emulate the lunar terrain?
> 
> The latter, complete with vacuum chamber etc.

And I suppose they will manage 1/6 g also?  What about the differences 
between selenology and geology?  Is our desert dry enough to simulate
lunar aridity?  

There are construction and mining techniques which can be used in 1/6 g which
cannot be used in 1 g and vice versa.  It is not just the vacuum.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 16:18:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week
ending April 21, 1989.

The National Space Society would like to congradulate all space
advocates who urged defeat of Rep. Silivo Conte's proposed Space
Station killer amendment.  The move, which would have transferred
FY'89 dollars for NASA to other domestic programs, was withdrawn
by the Massachusetts republican.  The first stone has been cast. 
Your voices have been heard, but a lot more talking will have to
be done to save space!

At Kennedy Space Center........
Preparations are being made for the launch of the Space Shuttle
Atlantis and ultimately the deployment of the Magellan Venus Radar
Mapping spacecraft.  Close out of the orbiter had thus far gone
smoothly, and the power up test of the Magellan spacecraft was
nominal.  The scheduled launch date for the mission is Friday April
28 at 2:24pm in the afternoon with a 23 minute launch window.

The Space Shuttle Columbia continues to undergo testing this week,
with checkouts of the main propulsion systems and life support
systems.  The orbiters main engines are scheduled to be installed
next week.

With the stroke of a pen President Bush signed the executive order
this week establishing the National Space Council.  During the
ceremony in Vice President Dan Quayle's office, Bush stated that
the National Space Council will provide coherence, continuity and
commitment to the US exploration and development of space.  Mark
Albrecht, a former national security advisor for Sen. Pete Wilson,
is director of the council.

Administration sources say that the Defense Resources Board has
recommended cutting all funding for the development of the National
Aerospace Plane.  Meanwhile, supporters of the research project
scrambled to get high level support for the NASP.  Currently at
least seven members of congress have written President Bush to try
to head off the decision.  The project would be handed over to NASA
dispite the fact that there is no extra money in NASA's budget to
take on more than 20% of the development costs.  By slashing the
DoD's funding of the program, the project would effectively be
killed.

The much anticipated launch of the Hubble Space Telescope might be
put off until 1990.  Nasa's reassessment of the 1989 Shuttle
schedule has shown that the Columbia orbiter will not be available
for launch until July 31, 1989 instead of July 1, 1989.  Meaning
that a launch must be bumped in order to accommodate the launch
window of the Galileo Jupiter Spacecraft.  NASA currently does not
have the Orbiters, hardware and manpower to support its full 1989
launch schedule.

A rather large asteroid passed within half a million miles of the
earth undetected last March 23rd.  If the asteroid would have
struck the earth it would have caused widespread damage to the
planet.  The impact would have been equal to setting off 20,000 one
megaton nuclear weapons in the same spot, which would create a
crater between 5 and 10 miles wide and about a mile deep.  The half
mile diameter asteroid orbits the sun at about 46,000 miles an hour
in an elliptical orbit that crosses the Earth orbit about once a
year.  The passage was the closest since 1937, and could come even
closer in the future.

In order to save money the Soviet Union will vacate their Mir space
station temporarily until a new research module is available for
deployment.  The three cosmonauts aboard the platform are preparing
to return to Earth around April 27.  Some foreign observers of the
Soviet manned space program have reported difficulties with the
station, including high temperature problems, a pressure leak, a
faulty power supply, and a water leak behind a panel which could
pose electrical problems.

The Soviets have completely failed at all attempts of trying to
reestablish communications with the Phobos-2 space probe.  A three
week effort by scientists to save the probe are over.  The loss of
the two Phobos spacecraft have cost the Soviets $435 million and
its international partners $96 million.  

Due to vibration problems, Arianespace has delayed the launch of
its Ariane 44L booster for several weeks.  Based on the first three
launches of the Ariane 4, there has been an indication that the 44L
with its four liquid strap on boosters, will encounter severe
vibrations in its third stage and payload sections of the core
Ariane 4 vehicle.  The launch which was scheduled for April 28,
will be delayed till engineers can run additional tests on the same
booster equipment.

We would like to invite everyone to call our Dial-a-Shuttle service
during the upcoming Atlantis mission.  Hear the Astronauts and
Ground Control 24 hours a day during the mission.  Take part in the
mission by calling 1-900-909-NASA (that's 1-900-909-NASA).  Toll
charges are 2.00 for the first minute and $.45 for each additional 
minute. 

This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space
Society's Space Hotline.  I will be attending the launch of the
Space Shuttle Atlantis, as well as the rest of the Space Hotline
Staff, so the next update will be filed live from the Kennedy Space
Center April 28, 1989.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 20:13:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Is 'better than gravity assist' use


	Yes, you do get "more" out of your fuel if you burn it at the
bottom of a fly-by. This is because the fuel has gravitic potential energy
that is converted to kinetic as you fall down the gravity well. This would
normally be re-converted to potential as you leave the well, but not if
you leave the fuel behind (i.e., burn it). So, by burning at the bottom,
you gain not only the "normal" boost you would expect, but also get the
gravitic potential. This is in addition to the momentum you steal from the
planet's orbital momentum by doing the fly-by. I don't know the relative
magnitudes though, and am too lazy to figure them out.

Alan M. Carroll                "And then you say,
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu           We have the Moon, so now the Stars..."  - YES
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 89 12:51:07 GMT
From: erc@tybalt.caltech.edu  (Eric R. Christian)
Subject: Re: Is 'better than gravity assist' used?

In article <473@vice2utc.chalmers.se> d5kwedb@dtek.chalmers.se (Kristian Wedberg) writes:
>Gravity assist has been used many times, by the Voyager-probes for instance.
>The way I understand it, however, is that if you use a part of your fuel
>just when you swing by the moon/planet/sun, you can reach a higher
>velocity than if you use it all up when you start the voyage.
>
>Is this so and has it been used, or did I break something in the energy-laws?
>
>
>	-kitte

There are two different processes involved here.  A gravity assist uses the
fact that you are falling into a moving gravity well (such as a planet) to
give you a higher velocity in another reference frame (such as the Solar
System).  In the spacecraft-planet center of mass frame (essentially the planet
CM) you come out of the gravity well with the same speed as when you went in
just as you would expect.  Your extra energy is taken from the planet.

The other process comes about because thrusters give you DELTA V not DELTA E.
Your DELTA E is proportional to V * DELTA V, so if you use your thrusters
at your lowest point in the gravity well, when your velocity is the highest,
you get more kinetic energy out of the same thrust.  This will end up
giving you more velocity when you come out of the gravity well than if you
had fired your thrusters at another time.

Dr. Eric R. Christian              ALIEN SPACECRAFT STEALING EARTH'S ORBITAL
erc@tybalt.caltech.edu             ENERGY!  Earth to spiral into Sun!
echristian@lheavx.gsfc.nasa.gov    Future Weekly World News article

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 08:35:27 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - March 1989


Here is the condensed CANOPUS for March 1989.  There are 7 articles.
CANOPUS is copyright American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, but distribution is encouraged.  See full copyright
information at end. 

-------------- CONTENTS -- 3 ARTICLES CONDENSED -----------------

INTENSE MAGNETIC STORM - can890301.txt - 3/13/89
CURRENT SOLAR ACTIVITY - can890303.txt - 3/17/89
NASA GODDARD CENTER REQUESTS COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES PROPOSALS -
    can890304.txt - 3/31/89 
-----------------------------------------------------------------

INTENSE MAGNETIC STORM - can890301.txt - 3/13/89

"The Magnetic Storm of March 13, 1989: Good News and Bad News for
    Spacecraft Operators"  (From the Space Environment Services
    Center, Boulder, CO) 

The most intense geomagnetic storm in 3 years (and possibly since
1960) began on 13 March, 1989.

Under the category of BAD news, both surface and deep dielectric
charging associated problems are expected to plague many spacecraft,
especially platforms in high inclination orbits, during this period
of high activity. In addition, owing to rapid fluctuations in the
relative altitude of the magnetosphere, geosynchronous satellites
will periodically be directly exposed to the space environment.  For
low altitude spacecraft, drag will become a problem due to increased
atmospheric density caused by high solar fluxes and geomagnetic
activity.

Now for the GOOD news.  Because of the relative increase in the
density of solar wind plasma associated with this extreme geomagnetic
activity, the flux of galactic cosmic rays is reduced over normal
background levels (a Forbush decrease).  Therefore, the number of
galactic cosmic ray single event upsets (SEUs) are expected to be
depressed over normal levels.  Every cloud has a silver lining.

CURRENT SOLAR ACTIVITY - can890303.txt - 3/17/89
Contributed by Joe Allen

Since Monday morning, 6 March, there have been several large flares
per day.  The largest, measured by GOES sensors but off scale at
maximum, was rated X15 in X-rays and 3B optically.  It was
long-lasting, about 16 hours.  On Friday, 10 March, an X4 flare
-occurred that was optically rated 4B -- the largest area and
intensity rating possible (some have speculated the largest area
flare ever seen).

Because of its location near the Sun's East limb, the large Monday
flare only caused a relatively minor geomagnetic storm on 8 March;
however, a long- lasting proton event was announced by the NOAA Space
Environment Lab's Space Environment Services Center (SESC).  The
X14/3B flare also was rich in par- ticles and radio bursts and would
have had greater impact at Earth if it had occurred closer to Central
Meridian.  The Friday flare produced a much larger magnetic storm,
possibly of historical significance.

NASA GODDARD CENTER REQUESTS COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES PROPOSALS - 
can890304.txt - 3/31/89

   NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has requested
proposals from commercial sources to launch three satellites in the
International Solar-Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program, plus options
for NASA to order up to 12 additional launches over the next 5 years.
The three ISTP satellites for which launch services would be be
procurred under the RFP are the Wind, Geotail and Polar.  Their
launches are scheduled in 1992 and 1993.

   Under the agreement, the contractor would furnish all 
supplies, including the launch vehicle, facilities, personnel, 
and services necessary to design, produce, test, integrate and 
launch the missions into the required orbit.

---------------- Other Articles by Title Only-----------------------

NEXT CDAW WORKSHOP SERIES SCHEDULED - can890302.txt - 3/15/89
{Coordinated Data Analysis Workshops}
NASA AND JAPAN SIGN SPACE STATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - can890305.txt -
3/31/89
CONTRACTS AWARDED FOR ADVANCED LAUNCH SYSTEM ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT PROPULSION 
- can890306.txt - 3/31/89 
RECENT NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS - can890307.txt - 3/31/89

----------------END OF CONDENSED CANOPUS-----------------------------

This posting represents my own condensation of CANOPUS.  For clarity,
I have not shown ellipses (...), even when the condensation is
drastic.  New or significantly rephrased material is in {braces} and
is signed {--SW} when it represents an expression of my own opinion.
The unabridged CANOPUS is available via e-mail from me at any of the
addresses below.

Copyright information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; 
e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded).  Send
correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #393
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Apr 89 05:46:50 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00442>; Wed, 26 Apr 89 04:44:52 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 26 Apr 89 04:44:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gYJL5Py00UkTM1cV8f>;
          Wed, 26 Apr 89 03:35:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.kYJKzJy00Vs1QFkE50>;
          Wed, 26 Apr 89 03:29:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.EYJKxBy00UkZQU6E5Y>;
          Wed, 26 Apr 89 03:27:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YJKnJy00UkZ4U5E5X@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 03:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #394

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 394

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
	       CRIT rocket launch window starts tonight
		  NASA : Artificial Cloud Experiment
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 17:34:56 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #492 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89101.73537768 0.00000356           41671-3 0  1970
2 00424  80.4672 351.3506 0023201 305.0980  54.7985 13.67119181323739
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89108.58962209 0.00000002                   0  7331
2 08820 109.8216 209.6637 0044872 328.9969  30.7860  6.38664407 46829
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89104.94416293 -.00000005                   0  2434
2 10061   7.0087  69.0094 0005669 179.8388 180.1884  1.00272796  4749
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89107.62596719 0.00000012           10000-3 0   930
2 10684  63.5792 102.7459 0106822 199.7596 159.8268  2.00561097 67312
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89104.59162752 -.00000028                   0  9719
2 10893  64.5187 343.6374 0152303  28.5130 332.3613  2.00557888 80076
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 91.03781924 0.00000091           10000-3 0  6225
2 10953   5.8394  71.8491 0005923 277.8997  83.0665  1.00276940   161
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89106.09849548 0.00001180           46130-3 0  1037
2 10967 108.0099 159.7562 0002826 268.2744  91.8082 14.34494936565188
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89104.90637752 -.00000027                   0  9989
2 11054  64.0738 340.1072 0053762 117.6057 243.0146  2.00560865 77093
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89102.51965625 0.00000011                   0  1371
2 11141  63.5348 102.7832 0058119 321.1931  38.4008  2.00575557 75748
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89105.45640165 0.00001373           59455-3 0  8361
2 11416  98.5072 104.3510 0010253 297.7131  62.3005 14.25670374508964
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89106.11501573 0.00058890           11434-2 0  9151
2 11703  28.4990 355.5634 0002926  53.3994 306.6892 15.46241749510204
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89104.96706191 -.00000028                   0  8696
2 11783  63.8820 339.7400 0141108  62.5557 298.9095  2.00567108 65732
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89100.85614927 -.00000247           10000-3 0  7205
2 12472   2.3643  82.4149 0003452 327.4595  32.7390  1.00262818 27936
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89106.60042392 0.00074227           12288-2 0  5223
2 12888  97.5630 156.6223 0002010 193.4152 166.7158 15.51928771419411
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89 96.06559998 0.00000220           18836-3 0  6340
2 13113  82.5382 116.0956 0013725 266.6835  93.2733 13.83970380355261
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89108.07008769 -.00012022          -29313-3 0  5310
2 13138  51.6093 251.4821 0000843 217.1542 142.7566 15.39927709398926
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89106.64686081 0.00000411           21053-3 0  7653
2 13718  81.2487 341.7581 0055551 172.8523 187.3451 14.13149655326863
IRAS       
1 13777U          89105.49954650 0.00000303           23545-3 0  6286
2 13777  99.0495 303.4663 0013510 120.9399 239.2941 13.98580158317437
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89107.03070960 0.00000111                   0  9328
2 14050   1.1563  82.2013 0000526  19.4413 340.3060  1.00288735  5992
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89105.46152848 -.00000014                   0  3941
2 14129  26.4208 270.1678 6055322  34.0870 353.0560  2.05882075 15923
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89108.04758867 0.00000011                   0  6216
2 14189  63.1765 101.2367 0134737 215.4525 143.6541  2.00570974 42231
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89 99.16958415 0.00000975           41635-3 0  7103
2 14452  81.1701   2.7187 0094206 296.2117  62.9398 14.22114372282736
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89108.57886894 0.00001613           36768-3 0  7194
2 14780  98.1721 171.9511 0004597  67.9121 292.2432 14.57149339272883
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89105.62166034 0.00002757           54165-3 0  4340
2 14781  98.0058 166.2259 0013661 149.9982 210.2152 14.63355756273395
LDEF       
1 14898U          89106.60477724 0.00038931           73865-3 0  8131
2 14898  28.5066 249.2922 0000733 274.7468  85.3383 15.46919143281891
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89103.11898257 0.00000010                   0  6479
2 15039  62.9115 100.6846 0015771 276.1841  83.6302  2.00564709 35417
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89104.81786028 0.00000240           20698-3 0  9337
2 15099  82.5276  56.7691 0014936  56.3043 303.9563 13.83634830241357
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89107.50741122 -.00000028                   0  6146
2 15271  63.3833 339.4767 0099592 319.8949  39.4348  2.00564271 32610
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89104.27134469 0.00004403           64389-3 0   108
2 15331  82.5412  37.4307 0023067 296.6247  63.2594 14.75318706244792
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89105.42328670 0.00001078           60987-3 0  3592
2 15427  99.1405  91.1529 0016288 127.0708 233.1954 14.11956644223595
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89106.65193500 0.00000492           43176-3 0   697
2 15516  82.5390 353.7120 0015591 293.3627  66.5888 13.84090960212546
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89107.81049569 0.00067735           16681-2 0  2239
2 16095  51.6103 252.7475 0001144 207.9925 151.8635 15.39949823398883
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 99.68483095 0.00000011                   0  3104
2 16129  63.6929 101.3877 0115346 150.6370 210.0223  2.00564927 25669
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89106.89290231 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8197
2 16191  82.5435 279.0815 0021029  92.3554 268.0033 13.16867900167457
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89106.88381489 0.00000229           19562-3 0  4793
2 16408  82.5312 268.3816 0017237 109.1666 251.1372 13.84152794167071
Mir        
1 16609U          89108.17258843 0.00032582           42647-3 0  7955
2 16609  51.6220 303.0479 0032092 233.3036 126.5814 15.57680869181835
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89107.84211112 0.00000730           36068-3 0  4374
2 16613  98.7010 183.2062 0000993  79.4794 280.6539 14.20035624  3561
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89106.98984327 0.00000214           18321-3 0  2915
2 16735  82.5361 295.1013 0013704 178.7690 181.3508 13.83897603145995
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89108.36280116 0.00002770           40792-3 0  5814
2 16881  82.5215  93.2725 0021226 296.2779  63.6152 14.74934292146472
EGP        
1 16908U          89 96.32406974 -.00000011           22475-3 0  1213
2 16908  50.0128 159.0059 0012094 162.7914 197.3332 12.44377601120463
FO-12      
1 16909U          89 83.69611252 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1370
2 16909  50.0189 198.0467 0011097 130.5680 229.6122 12.44398749118887
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89103.53475572 0.00000976           45074-3 0  2155
2 16969  98.6420 135.2470 0014892  79.5658 280.7197 14.22939623134742
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89106.33112180 0.00000401           35314-3 0  2415
2 17290  82.4694 203.3866 0014650  78.4659 281.8144 13.83702112115066
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 96.76000789 -.00000036           10000-3 0  2513
2 17561   0.0788 102.8111 0001270  89.1425 168.0185  1.00272633  1046
Kvant      
1 17845U          89107.72223985 0.00137382           17532-2 0  7292
2 17845  51.6219 305.3037 0032623 233.5383 119.2589 15.57677543118033
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89107.86463593 0.00000188           19580-3 0  7305
2 18129  82.9228 282.7142 0010943 213.6222 146.4218 13.71965897 91120
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89108.68901419 0.00237505  28488-4  28321-3 0  9829
2 18225  71.8769 214.8393 0010266 243.0934 116.8715 16.08169818101759
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89106.86536204 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2610
2 18312  82.5543 268.1203 0012715  14.9863 345.1672 13.83453191 84034
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89107.01972882 0.00000272           23458-3 0  1033
2 18820  82.5455 329.1756 0018223  80.8225 279.4997 13.84145105 61224
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 89.37166448 -.00000028           10000-3 0   346
2 19216  57.2895 213.9669 6688587 201.4192 106.6281  2.09699506  6084
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89106.89449671 0.00000410           10000-2 0  1768
2 19336  82.5446 219.0305 0017389 324.7174  35.2778 13.20140040 34845
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89105.87146616 0.00000949           54910-3 0   670
2 19531  98.9347  50.1997 0013283  50.1500 310.0839 14.10943162 28689
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89107.85017448 0.00046590           60427-3 0  1441
2 19660  51.6200 304.6602 0034163 232.0416 118.6707 15.57666600 22370
GPS-0014   
1 19802U          89 70.93695796 0.00000015           10000-3 0   167
2 19802  55.1211 215.6503 0077655 186.9612 172.8939  2.01900521   472
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89106.01283733 0.00000117           10000-3 0   246
2 19851  82.5252 208.7385 0015924 121.6804 238.5911 13.83780670  6486
1989 018B  
1 19852U          89 87.94089069 0.00000116           10000-3 0   130
2 19852  82.5200 223.1366 0018296 155.4542 204.7493 13.83527160  3984
1989 019A  
1 19862U          89 95.12275817 0.00946225  39673-4  42772-3 0   851
2 19862  62.7868 262.6573 0114960 128.3397 232.5572 16.07713223  5373
1989 020A  
1 19874U          89 87.06339145 -.00000150           10000-3 0    83
2 19874   0.0997 330.2385 0022931 155.9890 233.9784  1.00288762   206
1989 020B  
1 19876U          89 94.29713181 -.00000042           10000-4 0   164
2 19876   1.1453 297.7800 0010668  36.1305 322.6241  1.00103247   276
1989 020C  
1 19877U          89 94.75127070 0.00054406           60542-2 0   179
2 19877   7.0031 319.7005 7291933 201.1459  97.0995  2.28813204   656
TDRS 3     
1 19883U          89 84.96599351 0.00000150           10000-3 0    74
2 19883   0.1723  43.3983 0021399 253.4486  62.9265  1.00458708   115
1989 022A  
1 19893U          89 89.07599591 -.00011829          -10090-3 0   243
2 19893  62.8445 298.6618 0061020 230.7484 128.8279 15.66186821  2113
Progress 41
1 19895U          89107.85018485 0.00037853           49395-3 0   344
2 19895  51.6246 304.6665 0032299 230.5750 120.1832 15.57678115  5036
1989 024A  
1 19900U          89108.62809915 0.00408916  85566-5  41028-3 0   548
2 19900  64.7344 305.8340 0055007  84.5653 276.0494 16.07413721  4200
1989 025A  
1 19902U          89107.01572725 -.00000006                   0    92
2 19902  74.0147   3.1049 0049489  61.1769 299.4245 12.57624126  2954
1989 025B  
1 19903U          89106.97176076 -.00000006                   0   175
2 19903  74.0140   3.2753 0040857  71.6803 288.8690 12.55708099  2941
1989 025C  
1 19904U          89107.00662505 -.00000007                   0   102
2 19904  74.0158   3.3204 0030054  71.3370 289.0949 12.53834581  2941
1989 025D  
1 19905U          89107.04132845 -.00000007                   0    83
2 19905  74.0136   3.4249 0020597  77.4635 282.8722 12.51975250  2914
1989 025E  
1 19906U          89106.99794332 -.00000006                   0   159
2 19906  74.0150   3.5632 0009950  85.0480 275.1707 12.50017822  2932
1989 025F  
1 19907U          89107.03654697 -.00000006                   0   100
2 19907  74.0149   3.6598 0010144 158.9633 201.1839 12.47957051  2905
1989 025G  
1 19908U          89106.99162771 -.00000006                   0   102
2 19908  74.0143   3.8286 0013109 216.5772 143.4383 12.46072924  2925
1989 025H  
1 19909U          89107.03335704 -.00000006                   0   107
2 19909  74.0152   3.8727 0026006 214.9716 144.9628 12.43851805  2889
1989 025J  
1 19910U          89108.24993836 -.00000006                   0   110
2 19910  74.0143   3.5191 0135015 235.0735 123.7552 12.23004508  3025
Delta Star 
1 19911U          89108.68764159 -.00001311          -46074-4 0   389
2 19911  47.6830 274.0427 0013271  99.6107 260.5397 15.24307716  3778
1989 021D  
1 19913U          89102.00056367 0.00000102           10000-3 0    76
2 19913   2.1466  56.3372 0027703 206.8325 152.9773  1.00614969   229
1989 027A  
1 19919U          89108.41252706 0.00000063           10000-3 0   197
2 19919   0.0956 100.3697 0004004 282.7043 336.9206  1.00270933    38
1989 027B  
1 19920U          89106.21871672 0.00125308  19209-4  39454-2 0   294
2 19920   4.0088  33.7107 7284022 190.2770 130.8007  2.31923985   321
1989 028A  
1 19921U          89106.99648472 0.00000188           18812-3 0   243
2 19921  82.9595 131.4049 0038521 261.3708  98.3085 13.73917329  1683
1989 028B  
1 19922U          89105.59815171 -.00001460          -15129-2 0   222
2 19922  82.9572 132.4115 0031794 250.8145 108.9594 13.75760484  1499
1989 029A  
1 19923U          89108.63544501 0.00286934  41073-4  12954-3 0   343
2 19923  62.8051 307.0272 0033532 114.5728 245.9081 16.20347190  1949
1989 030A  
1 19928U          89108.04050261 -.00000016           10000-3 0    52
2 19928   1.4293 276.3255 0007897  63.7398 295.5956  0.97694360    57
1980 030D  
1 19931U          89105.99064633 -.00000004           10000-3 0    18
2 19931   1.4781 276.7380 0015314  24.6682 334.6142  0.98010950    39
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 15:19:36 GMT
From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (John Sahr)
Subject: CRIT rocket launch window starts tonight

The CRIT sounding rocket launch window opens tonight (Monday).  The
scheduled launch time is 9:28 PM (EST), and if conditions are not
favorable, succesive nights will be tried.  If you are on the Eastern
Seaboard, you should be able to see the barium bursts, about 30 degrees
above the horizon.  The apogee is east of Wallops Island, VA, so from
New York, look southeast, and from Florida, look northeast.

A similar launch and burst a few years ago was visible from Ithaca, NY.

The burst is made in dark atmosphere, but the barium is aimed upwards
and will eventually enter sunlit atmosphere.  Look for a blue-green
patch, about the size of the Moon.

We are supporting this launch with the Cornell University Portable Radar
Interferometer (CUPRI), currently set up in Ithaca, NY.  The CUPRI 
detects coherent plasma irregularities in the lower ionosphere.

For information about this radar, and the launch in general, contact

John Sahr   johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu  or  johns@alfven.ee.cornell.edu
                                    or
Dr. Jason Providakes   jason@alfven.ee.cornell.edu
-- 
John Sahr,                          School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall   
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

ARPA: johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 17:46:59 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: NASA : Artificial Cloud Experiment


Ported to UseNET from UNITEX Network
                      201-795-0733
          via Rutgers FidoGATEway


*NASA: ARTIFICIAL CLOUD EXPERIMENT 

Paula Cleggett-Haleim 
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
(Phone:  202/453-1548)                             April 20, 1989 

Joyce B. Milliner 
GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va. 
(Phone:  804/824-1579)

MULTI-COLORED, ARTIFICIAL CLOUD TO BE VISIBLE ALONG EAST COAST


     A rocketborne scientific experiment, programmed to create an
artificial cloud at high altitudes, is scheduled for launch Sunday
evening, April 23, from NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center's Wallops
Flight Facility on Virginia's Eastern Shore.

     A three-stage suborbital rocket, the Black-Brant X will carry two
canisters of barium to be ejected 90 seconds apart at an altitude of
about 300 statute miles.  The barium will create an artificial
greenish-purple cloud which can be visible for approximately 20 minutes
to residents, using binoculars, along the U.S. East Coast from Canada to
Florida and as far west as Ohio.

     The objective of this launch is to investigate Nobel prize winner
Dr. Hannes Alfven's critical velocity effect theory, which has been used
to explain details in the early formation of the solar system.  In 1954,
Alfven, University of California, San Diego, proposed that if an element
in a nearly neutral plasma became ionized when it attained a flow
velocity which depended on its ionization potential, then several facets
of the structure of the solar system could be explained.  This could
explain the differing chemical compositions of the planets and whether
they were formed during a gaseous or plasma transition.

     The launch is scheduled about 9:40 p.m. EDT from Wallops Island,
Va., during a launch window that opens April 23 and extends through May
6.  Since the data will be obtained optically, clear weather conditions
are required at the ground observing sites in Virginia, Massachusetts
and North Carolina.  Delays could occur due to operational constraints
or cloud cover at the ground-based camera sites so the launch will be
scheduled on a day-to-day basis.

     The two canisters of barium will be ejected and detonated -- one as
the payload ascends and one as it descends -- thus creating two separate
jets of gas near the apogee altitude of 300 miles.  formation of the
solar system.  Sensors on-board the payload will record characteristics
of the heated plasma in the neutral jet.  Researchers from the ground,
by using low-light-level television cameras, will determine injection
extent, velocity profile and percentage of ionization.  Radar will
measure ionospheric parameters prior to and during the experiments.

     Dr. Roy Torbert, principal investigator from the University of
Alabama, Huntsville, said, "We conducted a similar flight from Wallops
in 1986.  However, this launch will allow for a higher ambient plasma
than occurred during the early morning flight in 1986."

     Other researchers include Gerhard Haerendel and Arnoldo Valenzuela,
Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Munich, West Germany;
Gene Wescott and Hans Nielson, University of Alaska-Fairbanks; Jason
Providakes and Mike Kelley, Cornell University; John Foster,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Kay Baker, Utah State University;
Fritz Primdahl, Danish Space Research Institute; and C.G. Falthammar and
V. Brenning, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.  The NASA Wallops
payload manager is Paul Buchanan and project engineer is Debra Frostrom.

     This scientific mission is part of the overall NASA Sounding Rocket
Program managed at Wallops.  This program consists of approximately 40
sounding rockets launched each year from various worldwide locations.
     
 

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Crime Stoppers Against the New Age Hustle (1:107/501)

--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG


-- 
Patt Haring 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #394
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Apr 89 06:13:30 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00872> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 26 Apr 89 06:03:55 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 26 Apr 89 06:03:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AYJMoky00jZd01:E5C>;
          Wed, 26 Apr 89 05:34:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.gYJMZYy00UkZQUFU4Q>;
          Wed, 26 Apr 89 05:18:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YJMXwy00UkZIUE05r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 05:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #395

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 395

Today's Topics:
		 Barium Cloud Experiment (Forwarded)
			     ET exposure
			Re: NSS Hotline Update
			    Re: Gauquelin
				Tesla
			    Private Space
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 18:17:19 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Barium Cloud Experiment (Forwarded)

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    April 24, 1989


ADVISORY


The rocketborne scientific experiment, carrying two canisters of 
barium that will release a multi-colored artificial cloud, will 
occur tonight at 9:32 p.m. EDT pending weather conditions.

The experiment was scheduled for release Sunday but was postponed 
due to minor technical problems.

The cloud is expected to be visible along the East Coast.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1989 15:25-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: ET exposure

> "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of
> citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14,
> Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted
> 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing).  The Code

I hereby publicly and solemnly swear that I will break this law if ever
given the opportunity. Furthurmore I will make any and all information so
gained fully public regardless of personal consequences.

Admittedly, it is rather unlikely that I'll have said opportunity. But
it's the thought that counts...

If true, this kind of statist garbage is why we need the libertarian
movement around. SOMEONE has stand up and tell the government to go
**** itself.

						Smash the State,
						Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 17:43:23 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update

In article <246900022@cdp> jordankatz@cdp.UUCP writes:

>Your voices have been heard, but a lot more talking will have to
>be done to save space!

I didn't realize space was in danger :-).

>[refering to the creation of the National Space Council] Bush stated that
>the National Space Council will provide coherence, continuity and
>commitment to the US exploration and development of space.

One way to provide those desireable qualities is to have a political
consensus; we don't seem to have one.  Another way is to insulate the
agency from political forces.  Appointing a policy committee which has
the vice president as its chair guarantees, in my opinion, the reverse.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1989 15:13-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Gauquelin

For a thorough rebuttal to the Gauquelin paper, check back issues of
the Skeptical Inquirer, somewhere back around 79-80 I think.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 14:06:14 EDT
From: Henry_Edward_Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Tesla

In "Subject: Fer-de-lance by TE Bearden," fuzzy@aruba.arpa (John Karabaic)
says, 
>
>	My boss, who has a wonderful sense of humor, gave me this somewhat
>	off-the-wall book to read in my spare time.  The book is called
>	Fer-de-lance, by TE Bearden, LtCol, USA, Ret., and it is basically a
>	set of briefing charts, background text for the person giving the
>	briefing, and set answers to a number of questions.
>
>	The premise of the book is that Nikola Tesla discovered a unifying
>	force way back when which can do some pretty amazing things... Anyone
>	have any references on this guy's work?
>
Well, I think that there are a number of scientific questions about some of
Tesla's more outlandish claims, such as having received radio messages from
extra-terrestrials. I think that this, along with Tesla's many personal
peculiarities (such as his germ phobia and his insistence on exactly
calculating the cubic contents of his food before eating) has led many of
his valid achievements to be overlooked. 
-
I have published a rather lengthy historical article on Tesla in the August,
1988 edition of "Full Disclosure," some excerpts from which are quoted or
paraphrased below.
-
Tesla was born between July 9 and 10, at exactly midnight, in 1856 in the
Yugoslavian village of Smiljan, in Croatia (now part of Yugoslavia.) He
invented the alternating current in 1883, and emigrated to America the next
year. He died in 1943.
-
Tesla invented the Tesla Polyphase System (now commonly known as the
alternating current) in use throughout the world today. Marconi's patents
for radio were voided by the Supreme Court in 1944 on the grounds that Tesla
had invented radio before Marconi. Tesla also invented and demonstrated a
great many other devices, such as the first hydro-electric generating plant
at Niagara Falls, the Tesla Coil, radio controlled teleoperated boats and
submarines, and the carbon-button lamp. 
-
The Smithsonian Magazine recently carried a  list of some of Tesla's other,
less well-known patents and inventions:
>
>	...florescent lights, x rays, the electron microscope, microwave
>	transmission, satellite communication, solar energy, guided missiles,
>	computers, the automobile speedometer, television, vertical takeoff
>	aircraft, and radar."
>
It is the strange behavior of the U. S. government following Tesla's death
which gives the most historical credence to claims that there are other
"lost" works of Tesla. The following is quoted from my Full Disclosure
article:
>
>	Tesla died in his sleep on January 7, 1943, at the age of 86.
>
>	Although Tesla had been a naturalized American citizen for more than 50
>	years, since July 30, 1891, his papers and effects were impounded by
>	the FBI. They were then released into the custody of the Office of
>	Alien Property (OAP).
>
>	Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show some of
>	the reasons for keen interest in the documents apparently shown by the
>	U. S. government. A letter from January 8, 1943, [the day after Tesla's
>	death] from an agent in the New York Bureau, named Foxworth, to the
>	head of the New York division of the agency described some of the
>	reasons that the FBI wanted the documents secured:
>>
>>	EXPERIMENTS AND RESEARCH OF NIKOLA TESLA, DECEASED
>>	
>>	Espionage -- M. Nikola Tesla, one of the world's most outstanding
>>	scientists, died January seventh, nineteen forty-three at the Hotel
>>	New Yorker, New York City. During his lifetime, he conducted many
>>	experiments in connection with the wireless transmission of electrical
>>	power... and what is commonly called the death ray.
>>
>	Foxworth went on to describe other putative inventions of Tesla, such
>	as a "working model" of a "revolutionary type of torpedo" and perfected
>	plans for his wireless power transmission scheme. 
>
>	The bulk of Tesla's papers were later given into the custody of the
>	Yugoslav government. However, some of Tesla's papers seem to have
>	disappeared into the U. S. military research complex. As late as
>	September 5, 1945, Col. Holliday of the Equipment Laboratory,
>	Propulsion and Accessories Subdivision, wrote to Lloyd L. Shaulis of
>	the OAP in Washington, confirming an agreement for the photocopying of
>	documents of Tesla's and certifying that the information would be used,
>	"in connection with projects for National Defense by this department."
>
>	Since that time, the United States has officially denied knowing of the
>	existence of any secret Tesla papers. However, one Tesla biographer,
>	Margaret Cheney, has reported that many of the lost papers are kept in
>	a secret library at a Federal agency known to her, but unrevealed for
>	reasons of national security. She states that she believes that the
>	archives contain such lost Tesla works as, "Art of Telegeodynamics, or
>	the Art of Producing Terrestrial Motions at a Distance," "New Art of
>	Projecting Concentrated Non-Dispersive Energy Through Natural Media,"
>	and "A Method of Producing Powerful Radiations."
>
As for Col. Bearden, I can only offer the following quote from a 1984
article in the New York Times regarding a Tesla Symposium at Colorado
College in Colorado Springs:
>
>	Thomas E. Bearden, a retired nuclear engineer and army war games
>	analyst, noted what he said were a number of designs for making weapons
>	based on Tesla's more exotic ideas. The hypothetical devices included
>	what he termed a Tesla Howitzer and a Tesla Shield that could allegedly
>	stop Soviet missiles.	
>
I recall that Glenn Hauser, on his "World of Radio" shortwave broadcast on
July 9 or 10, 1988, discussed the anniversary of Tesla's birth at some
length. As I recall, he referred to an article in a Chicago newspaper which
had said that several airline pilots had observed the rapid formation of
unusual circular clouds over Soviet Asia. It was stated that the almost
instant formation of these condensation clouds of several hundred miles in
radius could be related to the testing of a Tesla device "which could
instantly freeze whole armies into blocks of ice."
-
I also seem to recall a newspaper article in the late 1960's, I believe in
the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which described the exhibitation of a new
Israeli-built device which was demonstrated, as I recall, at a Canadian
bank. The device was used to "magnetize" paper money to the floor so that
robbers couldn't escape with it. It was also mentioned that an application
of the same principles used in the device could be used to make an
electronic shield which could defend planes from missiles. This is very
similar to some of Tesla's claims. Perhaps some of you all could check some
of these references out and then get back to me.
-
I will provide the entire electronic text of the Full Disclosure article on
Tesla (titled, "Tesla, the Modern Prometheus") to anyone who wants to
message me and request it. The back issue may be available from: Full
Disclosure, 1112 S. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, voice phone (313) 663-
8900 or (800) 832-4372 (outside Michigan only.)
-
For more information, see "Tesla, Man Out of Time," by Margaret Cheney
(1981); "Science," Vol 214, 30 Oct. 1981, pp. 521-525; "New York Times,"
Aug. 28, 1984, Sec. C, pp 1, 3; "Smithsonian," June, 1986, pp. 121-133.
-
I hope you will find this information interesting.
*
*	"Sacred cows make the best hamburger" - Abbie Hoffman, 1939-1989    *
*                                                                          *
*	Henry Edward Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu                                  *
*	Henry Edward Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu                                  *
*	"Arbor" on MacNet                                                   *
*                                                                          *
*	University of Michigan Computer Consultant                          *
*	sysop, Arbor Intelligent Systems                                    *
*	President, Althing Communications                                   *
*                                                                          *
*	disclaimer: "Reality is, above all, a scarce resource."             *
*	  -James W. Carey, "Mass Media and Critical Theory", p. 32, (1982). *

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 18:50:48 GMT
From: amdahl!ems!questar!dave@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (David Becker)
Subject: Private Space

Henry Spencer writes:
> John McKernan writes:
> > Furthermore, government is the only current source of the amount
> >money needed to build large scale space hardware (with the possible exception
> >of unmanned satellite launchers)...
> 
> Even though doing the same things privately costs an order of
> magnitude less.

NASA has long been critized here for being a government bureaucracy.
That means it is trying (now anyways) to explore space with pork-barrel hardware
and public-image timidity.

However, the government is the only organization that can afford to explore
space for its reasons (public image, Red Threat, constituent
contracting favors, spying ...).  Non-government people need a reason to spend
the 'order of magnitude less'.  I wish I could give some but I don't
see any exploration a private group could afford.

Does the experience of Pegasus and AMROC backup the 'order of
magnatude less' statement?  In other words, exactly how bad do these
efforts make NASA look?  By being American these projects might have
more influence toward some improvements at NASA.

Did the embarassment of telling China to raise their Long-March launch
prices have any impact?  Or what did Fletcher say when a congressional
committee asked when, if ever, he could make a launch for that much?
-- 
David Becker 
and another bug bites, and another bug bites   another bug bites the dust
db@kolonel.MN.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 12:30:17 GMT
From: schlep.dec.com!jfcl.dec.com!imokay.dec.com!borsom@decvax.dec.com  (Doug Borsom)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

I've been reading sci.space for about three months now, and
I would like to ask some questions that might have been discussed
earlier.  If so, I am sorry.  I am interested in responses and
suggestions as to publications I can go to for more information.
This posting is long.  I don't expect any one person to respond to
all of it.  Thanks.

I am interested in arguments for and against the manned space
program. Imagine talking to your congressman.  Assuming you are
for the manned program, what would you say to her/him to encourage
her/his backing of funding for manned space missions?

Keep in mind that the federal budget is finite in size; one
concern your congressman will have is that dollars for the
manned space program means fewer dollars for other programs.
Keep in mind, too, that the congressman is answerable to her/his
constituents;  the congressman needs strong arguments for the program
so that she/he can sell/defend the program to those she/he represents.

Would you back funding for the manned space program at the expense
of the unmanned program or other research programs, such as the
superconducting super collider?

If you are for the manned program, describe its unique benefits
that cannot be attained by the unmanned program or by earth-bound
research programs.

Are there compelling reasons why the manned program cannot
be done with the Soviets rather than in competition with them?

As your freshman composition instructor used to say, be specific.
I have heard the statement that for every dollar spent on the
US space program, X dollars have been returned. (I don't recall the
value of X, but it was greater than 1).  Assuming this to be true,
how does that return on investment compare with other possible
investments that could have been made?  And how much of that investment
return was specific to the manned space program as opposed to the 
unmanned program?

Assume your congressman is an intelligent person (if you have ever
dealt with  him or her, chances are you have discovered this to be
the case).  Be sophisticated in your arguments.  An approach that is
NOT likely to get you far: "If we don't do it, the Soviets 
(Japanese, whoever) will," unless you can support the contention that
such a situation is likely present a real military or economic threat
to the US.

To help put you in a frame of mind that might be useful when
formulating your arguments, the other day I saw a tv spot placed 
by a pro-space group.  The spot featured a pair of glasses that convert 
sounds into visual cues.  These glasses are intended to help those
with profound hearing impairment, and they are, the tv spot said,
the outgrowth of the space program.  

If I am a congressman considering how federal dollars should be spent,
how compelling do I find this argument? I have constituents who want
money for improved education programs, to fund AIDS research, to treat
babies born with drug dependencies, to retrain workers with jobs in
the smokestack sector, to improve medical care at VA hospitals, to
cleanup toxic dump sites, to fund fusion research, etc. And I can
still remember a town meeting when I was freshman congressman, and I
was confronted by a man who wanted more funding for housing for the
poor. This man was outraged that I had voted down a bill in support of
his program and voted for increased funding for the space program. He
had brought two large photos, one of a group of raggedy people living
under a highway overpass, the other of a lunar astronaut swinging a
golf club on the moon.

Clearly, any thorough defense of the manned space program will include
a statement of purpose and goals for the program.  I am very interested
in what people in this news group believe the purpose and goals
of the man space program are and/or should be.

If you believe that by restructuring the space program, funding for
the manned space program could come largely from private sources, 
(making the need for many of the preceding items academic) please 
say why and what kind of restructuring is needed.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #395
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Apr 89 05:15:28 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05630>; Thu, 27 Apr 89 04:31:00 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 27 Apr 89 04:30:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gYJg0iy00UkT01VEwy>;
          Thu, 27 Apr 89 03:24:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.kYJfuNy00UkZ4YzE5U>;
          Thu, 27 Apr 89 03:17:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYJftIy00UkZ4Yxk5q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 03:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #396

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 396

Today's Topics:
	    Barium Cloud Experiment (Update 2) (Forwarded)
		       Barium Cloud Experiment
	     Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
			Re: NSS Hotline Update
	  NASA Aircraft to Support Int'l. Global Ocean Study
     Associate Deputy Administrator Hinners to resign (Forwarded)
	   Odom announces retirement from NASA (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 89 23:09:16 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Barium Cloud Experiment (Update 2) (Forwarded)

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    April 25, 1989


ADVISORY


     NASA's rocketborne scientific experiment that will create 
colorful artificial clouds at high altitudes above NASA's Wallops 
Island, Va., range has been postponed for 24 hours because of 
unfavorable weather conditions.  The earliest launch time is 
approximately 9:31 p.m. EDT tomorrow, pending a 1:30 p.m. weather 
briefing. 

     Almost perfect weather conditions are needed at the optical 
observation sites.  The cloud is expected to be visible along the 
East Coast.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 89 20:53:45 GMT
From: bbn.com!koolish@bbn.com  (Dick Koolish)
Subject: Barium Cloud Experiment


There is a recorded message about the barium cloud experiment launch
at the Wallops Is Audio News Service.  Phone is 804-824-2050.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 89 23:39:39 GMT
From: uhccux!osborne@humu.nosc.mil  (Larry Osborne)
Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

In article <335@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> In article <3815@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> osborne@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Larry Osborne) writes:
> >1211.101) is headed "Applicabil
> 
> Some of the message seems to have been cut off.
> 

Yes, it does seem so.

Your speculation that this is moon-mission inspired seems well founded.
The source is given as "SOURCE 34 FR 11975, July 16, 1969, unless
otherwise noted."  Several times the document refers to the Lunar 
Receiving Laboratory at the Houston Manned Spacecraft Center.

To summarize what seems to have been deleted from my previous message,
the applicability is stated as "...all NASA manned and unmanned space
missions which land on or come within the atmospheric envelope of
a celestrial body and return to the Earth."

This limitation is comforting, considering some of the other provisions.

Section 1211.102 (Definitions), defines "extraterrestrially exposed" as
anything that touches or comes within the atmospheric envelope of any 
other celestial body, or has "touched directly or been in close proximity
to (or been exposed indirectly to) any person, property, animal or
other form of life or matter [!] which has been extraterrestrialy exposed...".

Section 1211.104  (Policy), gives NASA the right to:

     "Determine that a particular person, property, animal, or other form 
of life or matter whatever is extratrestrially exposed and quarantine such 
person, property, animal, or other form of life or matter whatever.  The 
quarantine may be based only on a determination, with or without the benefit 
of a hearing, that there is probably cause to believe that such person, 
property, animal or other from of life or matter whatever is 
extraterrestrially exposed."

     It also gives NASA the authority to put quarantine stations
anywhere in the US and to hire guards.

     Comfortingly, the last paragraph of the section says that if
you're quarantined you can call your lawyer "at the earliest practicable
time".

Section 1211.107 says that NASA can refuse to release you even if you
have a court "request, order, or demand".

Frankly, every time I read a law or federal regulation I get the same 
reaction I do to medical journals.  It's a wonder we aren't all dead
or in jail. :^)  Mostly I take it on faith that the government won't
run hog-wild with all the authority we give them, and that my liver
won't pack up just because I can't see why it keeps on working.  

-- 
osborne@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (preferred)      | Larry N Osborne
osborne@uhccux.bitnet                           | SLIS, 2550 The Mall
                                                | University of Hawaii at Manoa
or via W.A.S.T.E                                | Honolulu, Hawaii  96822

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 21:08:48 GMT
From: unmvax!indri!polyslo!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!cew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update

In article <238@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu.UUCP (steve emmerson) writes:
>In article <246900022@cdp> jordankatz@cdp.UUCP writes:
>
>One way to provide those desirable qualities is to have a political
>consensus; we don't seem to have one.  Another way is to insulate the
>agency from political forces.  Appointing a policy committee which has
>the vice president as its chair guarantees, in my opinion, the reverse.

It requires political force to isolate an agency from political forces.  In
Washington, it usually requires either a strong congressional coalition
(consensus is an illusion) or a strong president.

With regards to space, we have not had a strong president with vision since
Johnson.  Where would we be if he had not mucked up his foreign policies?

		Craig
-- 
====================================================================
ARPA: 	cew@venera.isi.edu
PHONE:	(213)822-1511 ext. 111
USPS:	USC Information Sciences Institute
	4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100
	Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Slogan:	"nemo me impune lacessit"
====================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 17:54:48 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: NASA Aircraft to Support Int'l. Global Ocean Study


Ported to UseNET from UNITEX Network
                      201-795-0733
          via Rutgers FidoGATEway


*NASA AIRCRAFT TO SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL OCEAN STUDY 
     
Paula Cleggett-Haleim 
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     April 19, 1989 
(Phone:  202/453-1548)

Joyce B. Milliner 
Goddard/Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va.
(Phone:  804/824-1579)

     NASA's highly instrumented, remote sensing aircraft will
participate in an international oceanographic experiment, called the
Global Ocean Flux Study (GOFS), to determine the capacity of the world's
oceans to assimilate and store excess carbon dioxide (CO2) from Earth's
atmosphere.

     The study results are critical to predicting potential temperature
increases in world climate due to the large increase in atmospheric CO2
caused by the burning of fossil fuels.  The increased atmospheric carbon
dioxide may lead to a warmer Earth through the "greenhouse effect."

     The ocean is an important reservoir for CO2.  Some estimates
indicate that the ocean has absorbed nearly half of the increased CO2
produced.  Additionally, CO2 constantly is being exchanged between the
ocean and atmosphere.  A vital input needed for climactic research is
predicting the portion of the CO2 entering the ocean that will be
effectively trapped or removed.

     In polar regions, the cold ocean surface layer sinks in some areas
and becomes part of deep ocean bottom water where the entrained CO2 is
effectively removed from contact with the atmosphere for long periods of
time.

     A second important process is removal of CO2 by biological
processes.  Carbon dioxide from the surface layer is utilized in the
marine photosynthetic process where CO2 is combined with water to form
biomass.  Some of this biomass is consumed in the marine food chain
where a portion is released back into the water column and potentially,
to the atmosphere through respiration.

     An unknown amount of plant and animal biomass sinks through the
water column to the sea floor.  Knowledge of these processes and rates
also will provide scientists with information to make improved estimates
of climactic changes.

     The NASA four-engine, P-3A turboprop aircraft, from Goddard Space
Flight Center's Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va., is
equipped to measure the concentration of phytoplankton biomass in the
upper ocean layer.  The primary instrument, the airborne oceanographic
lidar (AOL), will use a blue-green laser to stimulate fluorescence from
chlorophyll contained in phytoplankton, the microscopic plants at the
bottom of the marine food web.

     Previous aircraft chlorophyll fluorescence measurements have been
shown to be highly correlated with chlorophyll concentration
measurements made on board ships with standard pigment extraction
techniques.  In addition, other instrumentation associated with -- the
AOL will be used to measure solar induced responses associated with
phytoplankton in numerous bands spread across the entire visible
spectrum.

     Over the past decade, remote-sensing scientists have been
increasingly successful in deriving reliable chlorophyll concentration
values from certain combinations of these passive spectral bands.  The
combination of laser-induced fluorescence measurements and the passive
spectra will be used to further improve the potential for measuring
chlorophyll from solar induced ocean color alone.

     The Global Ocean Flux Study efforts include scientists and research
vessels from West Germany, Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands and
the United States.  The study is expected to continue over the next 10
years, each year concentrating on resolving unknown aspects involving
the marine carbon and related biogeochemical cycles.

     The initial experiment involves studies of the spring phytoplankton
bloom in the eastern North Atlantic Ocean.  The U.S. research vessel,
the Atlantis II from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, has placed
instrumented moorings at two sites along the 20 west meridian.  The
Atlantis II, along with research vessels from the other participating
nations, will study related phytoplankton productivity as the bloom
moves northward in response to increasing solar radiation and the
development of thermal stratification in the upper ocean.

     The NASA aircraft will participate in the spring bloom study for a
6-week period beginning April 20.  The aircraft surveys will be staged
from Lajes, Azores; Shannon, Ireland; and Keflavik, Iceland.

     The NASA aircraft will be used to map 62 to 124 mile areas of the
ocean surrounding each of the moorings.  Maps showing the regional
concentration of chlorophyll and sea surface temperature will be sent to
the research vessels through a satellite transmission.


     Knowledge of the distribution of phytoplankton and sea surface
temperature will be used by the scientists on board the research vessels
to position the ships during the experiment and thus, optimize the
time-series sampling conducted from the ships.  Following the completion
of aircraft deployment, the surface layer chlorophyll maps, developed
from the airborne data, will be used to aid in the interpretation of the
observations made from the individual research vessels.

     Launches of satellite ocean color scanners, proposed for the
mid-late 1990's, will enable remote sensing scientists to gauge surface
layer phytoplankton and production over wide areas of the ocean on a
continual basis, considerably augmenting measurements made from ships
and aircraft.

     Similar chlorophyll estimates made from the coastal zone color
scanner, an ocean scanner on NASA's Nimbus 7 spacecraft which functioned
for an 8-year period beginning in 1978, have allowed scientists from
Goddard Space Flight Center's Laboratory for Oceans to provide maps of
world-wide chlorophyll distribution which have been very valuable in
planning the Global Ocean Flux Study.

     There currently are no ocean color satellite sensors in orbit.  The
earliest that such a satellite could be placed in orbit is late in 1992,
which is the proposed launch date for the Compact Wide Field
Spectrometer ocean color sensor.

* Origin: UNITEX --> Crime Stoppers Against the New Age Hustle (1:107/501)

--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG


-- 
Patt Haring 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 18:18:39 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Associate Deputy Administrator Hinners to resign (Forwarded)

[I wonder how these next three release are going to look. -PEY]

Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     April 24, 1989


RELEASE:  89-60

ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR HINNERS TO RESIGN


     Dr. Noel W. Hinners, third ranking official of NASA and the 
principal senior assistant to the administrator and deputy 
administrator, today announced his resignation from the agency, 
effective May 14, 1989.

     "I regret leaving before the transition to the new NASA 
administration is complete," Hinners said, "but uncertainty in 
interpretation of new post-employment laws led me to move the 
date forward.  I am heartened, however, by knowing that the 
incoming administrator and his deputy will provide excellent 
leadership and advocacy of NASA and its institution."

     Hinners also serves as the NASA chief scientist and oversees 
the institutional management of the agency.  As NASA chief 
scientist, he is the principal adviser to senior management on 
agency-wide aspects of NASA's scientific activities.

     Before his appointment to senior headquarters management in 
June 1987, Hinners served 5 years as director of the Goddard 
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.  From 1979 to 1982, he was 
director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space 
Museum, Washington, D.C., and from 1974 to 1979 he served as NASA 
associate administrator for space science.  Hinners joined NASA 
in 1972 as deputy director of lunar programs, Office of Space 
Science, NASA Headquarters.

     Hinners began his career in space exploration in 1963 with 
Bellcomm, Inc., working on the Apollo program with emphasis on 
the selection of lunar landing sites and design of scientific 
tasks for the astronauts.

     He received NASA Distinguished Service Medals for his 
leadership of the space science program and for contributions to 
the Viking and Voyager programs.  He also has been awarded the 
Presidential Rank of Meritorious and Distinguished Executive.

     Hinners was educated at Rutgers University, California 
Institute of Technology and Princeton University, where he 
received his doctorate in geochemistry and geology in 1963.  He 
is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi, the American 
Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement 
of Science and the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 18:19:25 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Odom announces retirement from NASA (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   April 24, 1989


RELEASE: 89-61

ODOM ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT FROM NASA


     James B. Odom, associate administrator for the Space Station 
Freedom program, announced today he will retire from NASA on 
April 30.  "After 33 years, I've decided to make a career 
change," Odom said.  "I regret the timing of my decision, but the 
impact of some upcoming changes on government retirees made it 
such that I did not get to pick the most desirable or optimum 
time to retire."  Tom Moser, deputy associate administrator for 
the Freedom program will serve as acting associate administrator 
until Odom's successor is named.

     Odom was appointed associate administrator for the space 
station program in April 1988.  He came to Washington, D.C., from 
the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, Ala., where 
he had served in a number of key positions over the past 30 
years.  Among the positions he held at Marshall were director of 
the Science and Engineering Directorate, manager of the Space 
Telescope Project and manager of the External Tank Project.

     He has received numerous awards in recognition for his 
contributions to the space program, including the NASA 
Exceptional Service Medal for work on the second stage of the 
Apollo Saturn rocket and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal for 
work on the Space Shuttle program.  Odom was twice awarded the 
Presidential Rank of Meritorious and Distinguished Executive for 
his efforts on the External Tank program and was most recently 
recognized by the National Space Club with the Astronautics 
Engineer Award for his engineering and management leadership.

     Odom began his engineering career with the Chemstrand Corp., 
Decatur, Ala.  In 1956 he joined the U.S. Army's rocket research 
and development team as a systems engineer at Alabama's Redstone 
Arsenal, and transferred to the MSFC in 1959 prior to its formal 
establishment in July 1960.

     Odom was educated in Alabama at Troy State College and 
Auburn University where he earned a bachelor of science degree in 
mechanical engineering.  He and his wife June will return to 
Alabama upon his retirement.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #396
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Apr 89 06:17:57 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00645>; Thu, 27 Apr 89 05:42:39 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 27 Apr 89 05:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sYJhk0y00Ui3I19U5Z>;
          Thu, 27 Apr 89 05:23:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.IYJhfZy00UkZ8Z9E4T>;
          Thu, 27 Apr 89 05:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYJhdYy00UkZ4Z7k4a@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 05:16:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #397

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 397

Today's Topics:
  McBride to leave NASA; Brand named commander of STS-35 (Forwarded)
		Re: Proposed lunar simulation facility
	     Re: CRIT rocket launch window starts tonight
		   RE: SETI: Where and when to look
			 Re: postmortem on L5
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
		      Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco
		 NSS conference internet get together
			      Re: Tesla
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
		     Info on Past Space Missions
	     Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 18:23:01 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: McBride to leave NASA; Brand named commander of STS-35 (Forwarded)

Sarah Keegan
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     April 24, 1989

Jeffrey Carr
Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

RELEASE:  89-62

MCBRIDE TO LEAVE NASA; BRAND NAMED COMMANDER OF STS-35


     Astronaut Jon A. McBride (Captain, USN) has announced his intention
to leave NASA effective May 12, 1989.

     McBride was named last year to command the STS-35 (ASTRO-1)
mission, scheduled for launch in March 1990.  He will be succeeded as
STS-35 commander by Vance D. Brand.

     McBride was selected as an astronaut in August 1978.  He was the
lead T-38 chase pilot for STS-1, the maiden voyage of Columbia in April
1981, and a Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in the Mission Control Center
for Shuttle flights STS-5, STS-6, and STS-7.

     He flew in space as pilot aboard Challenger on STS 41-G in October
1984.  McBride was scheduled to fly next in March 1986 as the commander
of STS 61-E.  The flight was one of several deferred by NASA in the wake
of the Challenger accident in January 1986.

     McBride recently completed an assignment at NASA Headquarters,
Washington, D.C., as the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Congressional Relations, a post he held since September 1987.

     He has also announced his intent to retire from the Navy in 
the near future.  McBride said, "I've spent an extremely 
rewarding 25 years with NASA and the Navy.  This move has been a 
very difficult decision for me.  But in the final analysis, I 
felt it was time to make a career change and return to West 
Virginia.  I'll continue to follow developments in the space 
program with keen interest".

     Brand joined NASA as an astronaut in 1966.  He flew as 
Apollo command module pilot on the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project 
mission in 1975.  Brand has also flown as commander of Shuttle 
missions STS-5 in November 1982 and STS 41-B in February 1984.  
Brand currently serves as JSC's Assistant Manager for Space 
Station Integration and Assembly.  He was born on May 9, 1931 in 
Longmont, CO.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 05:01:39 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Proposed lunar simulation facility

In article <1253@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>> >>Los Alamos proposes to build a lunar-surface simulation facility for
>> >>testing lunar mining and construction hardware...
>> >Is that a computer simulation testbed, or an actual physical construction
>> >to emulate the lunar terrain?
>> The latter, complete with vacuum chamber etc.
>
>And I suppose they will manage 1/6 g also?  What about the differences 
>between selenology and geology?  Is our desert dry enough to simulate
>lunar aridity?  

1/6 G obviously they can't manage.  That's about the only real problem
I know of.  They can't get genuine lunar soil in that quantity, but its
mechanical and chemical properties are well enough understood to do a
plausible simulation, I would think.  Dryness will not be an issue in
vacuum.

>There are construction and mining techniques which can be used in 1/6 g which
>cannot be used in 1 g and vice versa.  It is not just the vacuum.

Agreed.  Given the impossibility of testing such techniques on Earth, they
probably will not be used in any first-generation lunar facility.  Methods
that can be tested will be used instead.  I don't see this as a horrendous
loss.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 19:17:13 GMT
From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: CRIT rocket launch window starts tonight

In article <1044@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU (John Sahr) writes:
>The CRIT sounding rocket launch window opens tonight (Monday).  The
>scheduled launch time is 9:28 PM (EST), and if conditions are not

Alas, the launch has been scrubbed for tonight.  It seems that appropriate
paperwork to clear the launch with the FAA got snagged.
-- 
John Sahr,                          School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall   
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

ARPA: johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 14:31:36 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law)
Subject: RE: SETI: Where and when to look

hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@hplabs.hp.com write:

       ...etc...

>Somehow, the two planets need to make a reasonable guess at space-time 
>coordinates at which to attempt contact with the other. Let's look at 
>a rather bizarre analogy. Suppose two people are in a huge deserted city.
>Neither person is sure the other exists, but suspects it. Suppose there
>is a clocktower in the city. Every day at noon, the clocktower rings its
>bells. If I were one of the two people, I would reason as follows; "Although
>I don't know the space-time coordinates of the other person, I know that
>there is a very distinct event in space-time in this city; at the clock
>tower at noon each day. The other person must be aware of this special
>coordinate also. If she wants to meet me, maybe she'll be there.
>I'll go there tomorrow at noon." If the other person also uses this 
>reasoning, there will be a meeting.

A brilliant suggestion.  My only problem is the assumption that others think
the same way.  What if the other person in town is deaf, or frightened of
loud sounds?

On the other hand, by broadcasting not to those who are parallel to us,
but to those who have yet to observe the given event, chances of reception
are greatly increased.  If we assume (that dangerous word again!) that by
the time we have registered the event as occuring and started transmitting
is the same time interval which an alien system would experience (and there
is not evidence to refute that :-)), then the following scenerio might take
place:

"Look Dr. Bloop, a supernova!"
"Quick, point everything we have at it"
next day
"Now we are receiving some sort of binary encoded transimission, maybe there
is another intelligent lifeform out there!  Quick, send the Beserkers!"
(Sorry, I just had to)

The other alternative would be some sort of man made event.  My office mate
suggests blowing up the sun, but I think that as a little drastic.  The
only real requirements would be that it is detectable at some extreme distance
(25,000 ltyrs?) and obviously artificial.  Making the sun nova would fit
this, but what could we do within current (or near term) technology?  I
still like my nucleat flare gun, but suspect it a little short on the range.

Comments?  This is a great idea, and I would like to do my part to make
it better (or is it tear it to shreds? :-) )

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 20:53:01 GMT
From: usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!cew@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Re: postmortem on L5

In article <1989Apr21.210847.6901@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> ...
>   By H. Keith Henson, (Officially) a Founder of the Society.
> 
> 
>Far from being a rhetorical question, tentative answers to these
>cultural dynamics questions can be found using the new mental
>tools of memetics.* ...
>-----------
>footnote If you are not up on memetics, see "Memetics, the
>Science of Information Viruses" in *Whole Earth Review* Winter
>1987 or the Science Fact article in the August 1987 issue of
>*Analog*.
>-------------

Any online resource for "Memetics?"  From its use in the article, it seems to
mean "idea."

		Craig

ARPA: 	cew@venera.isi.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 14:58:44 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!


(Sorry for posting this reply, but my mailer couldn't find "imokay.dec.com").

You will find cogent arguments about some negative aspects of the manned
space program in a Scientific American article authored by James
Van Allen (yes, _that_ Van Allen).  The issue appeared a few months
(six?) prior to the Challenger disaster (I'm sorry I can't be more specific).

As to the "beneficial spin-offs" argument, I belive a study by the 
Office of Techology Assesment found that direct funding of technology
was three times as efficient in generating results for a given amount of
investment than the spin-off phenomena.

Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 16:18:15 GMT
From: janus!bwood@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Blake Philip Wood)
Subject: Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco

In article <416@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> HOWGREJ@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
> 
>Whoa! Is this right?  I didn't see the original posting, but $300M seems
>waaaay too high.  Anyone have a published reference for this figure?

The recent article in IEEE's "The Institute" quoted $50M per tank, but 
said it was in the 100M's when you factored in what it costs to get it
way up in the sky.

                              Blake P. Wood
                              U.C. Berkeley, EECS
                              Plasmas and Non-Linear Dynamics
                              bwood@janus.Berkeley.EDU

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1989 17:54-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: NSS conference internet get together

I will once again be chairing an informal meeting of space digest
people at the NSS International Space Development Conference. Anyone
who is intending to be in Chicago for it, let me know.

Bill Higgins has notified me that our time slot will be 09:00 or 10:00
on Monday 5/29/89, and we will have about 45 minutes. Any ideas on
subject matter are welcome.

One area of particular interest to me is the interconnection of various
CBB's with us, for trading of information. I would like to see Space
Digest appearing on all those various space interest bb's out there.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 89 03:17:43 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Ralf Brown)
Subject: Re: Tesla

In article <2973414@ub.cc.umich.edu> Henry_Edward_Hardy@UB.CC.UMICH.EDU writes:
}I have published a rather lengthy historical article on Tesla in the August,
}1988 edition of "Full Disclosure," some excerpts from which are quoted or
}paraphrased below.
[...]
}I will provide the entire electronic text of the Full Disclosure article on
}Tesla (titled, "Tesla, the Modern Prometheus") to anyone who wants to
}message me and request it. The back issue may be available from: Full
}Disclosure, 1112 S. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, voice phone (313) 663-
}8900 or (800) 832-4372 (outside Michigan only.)

To save Henry some work, the full text is now available for anonymous FTP
from CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.222.173] as file "tesla.msg" in directory 
/afs/cs/user/ralf/pub.  Be sure to "cd" there directly first, or you'll get
an error message (that's how our anon FTP works...).
-- 
{harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) 
ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make.
FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler
BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something?
--

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 89 07:56:32 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <10547@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
>			   government is the only current source of the amount
>money needed to build large scale space hardware
>John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.

What gave you this idea?  The current Forbes Magazine lists the 500
largest American companies by various characteristics.  There are 35
with 1988 *profits* of over $1 billion, and 90 with *profits* of over
$500 million.  This is enough money to develop space even at the NASA
prices.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 89 22:33:19 GMT
From: vax5!pc3y@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: Info on Past Space Missions

Does anyone know if there exists somewhere an electronic summary of the
specs and accomplishments of past manned and unmanned space missions?  If
not, can anyone recommend a good book on the subject?

I'm trying to enlarge my patchy knowledge, especially with respect to
earlier missions.

Thanks in advance...


                                     Eric Weisstein

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 25 Apr 89 9:47:44 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:  Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

Hi, all!

Just caught up with the last 15 or so Space Digests, and noted the
discussion about the NASA regulations on ET contact; so I went down to
the library and got out 14 CFR Part 1211 and herewith is the first part
of that. I'm not typing in a lot of this; CFR's are in most public
library systems and are fairly readily available. Also, most of it isn't
really of much interest. The relevant section is on pages 115 thru 118
of the volume of 14 CFR that has parts 1200 to the end of that segment.
This is the edition as of 1 January 1988; it has purple covers. (The
CFRs are issued in a staggered form throughout the year, as the editing
is completed. Not all the 88 issues are yet out, and 89 hasn't begun
yet. The previous 87 issue has green covers; the colors change each time
so you can glance at the shelves and see which have been updated and
which have not yet been reissued.)

***Begin quote from CFR***

14 CFR 1211

Sections:

1211.100 Scope
1211.101 Applicability
1211.102 Definitions
1211.103 Authority
1211.104 Policy
1211.105 Relationship with Departments of Health, Education and Welfare
         and Agriculture
1211.106 Cooperation with States, territories, and possessions
1211.107 Court or other process
1211.108 Violations


1211.100 Scope.

This part establishes:

(a) NASA policy, responsibility and authority to guard the Earth against
any harmful contamination or adverse changes in its environment resulting
from personnel, spacecraft and other property returning to the Earth
         [Note -- my emphasis here ----->  ]  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
after landing on or coming within the atmospheric envelope of a
celestial body; and

(b) Security requirements, restrictions and safeguards that are
necessary in the interest of the national security.

1211.101 Applicability.

The provisions of this part apply to all NASA manned and unamanned space
[Note -- my emphasis here ----->  ]  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
missions which land on or come within the atmospheric envelope of a
celestial body and return to Earth.

***End of quote from the CFR*** (Those two sections are complete, though.)

The next two pages concentrate on quarantine details and general
legalese. One paragraph clearly states that all persons quarantined are
to be allowed to contact their legal representatives as soon as possible,
so the implications in other postings of being held incommunicado are
not all that likely. (Still *possible*, but it would be against the
regs, for what that's worth... :-)

Anyway, note the portions I emphasized above. This specifically does NOT
apply to ETs coming in from outside, but only to NASA missions. If you
read just the first paragraph, though, you *could* say that this will
apply to the Second Coming... :-) [They'd have a hard time establishing
jurisdiction in that case, I suppose...]

The other aspect of this that I find interesting is what may be
interpreted as the "we are the cops of the world" attitude in the
reference to "guard the Earth", not "the nation" or any other limiting
term. I doubt that phrasing is used anywhere else in the CFRs... Not
that I disapprove -- it is a realistic attitude, after all. Another odd
coincidence is that I noticed a copy of "The Andromeda Strain" on the
paperback-exchange rack right by the CFR's as I was doing this... :-)

Mayhap this info will put the speculation to rest...

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #397
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Apr 89 07:18:53 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01101>; Fri, 28 Apr 89 05:39:08 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 28 Apr 89 05:38:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYK16xy00UkT41gEdW>;
          Fri, 28 Apr 89 03:24:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.0YK12Oy00UkZEcnU4d>;
          Fri, 28 Apr 89 03:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYK0zWy00UkZ0cm04f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 89 03:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #398

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 398

Today's Topics:
		 STS-30 Dial-A-Shuttle Press Release
		   Habitating Mars: humourous look
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
 Re: Progress 41 ejected as crew prepares to leave USSR's Mir station
		     Re: failures and engineering
		    Re: manned spaceflight funding
Re: Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) Project (Fact Sheet) (Forwarded)
    WANTED: Shuttle transmission frequencies (or HF feed of NASA)
			  Goddard Leadership
	     Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!
			    Telsa Article
			NASA personell offices
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 04:28:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: STS-30 Dial-A-Shuttle Press Release


CONTACT:                                          For Immediate Release
Leonard David
David Brandt
                        Dial-A-Shuttle Update:
              STARS ON EARTH BRING YOU OUR STARS IN SPACE

        DIAL-IT 900 SERVICE ALLOWS PUBLIC TO HEAR LATEST NEWS AND      
         VOICES OF ASTRONAUTS; STAR TREK CREW TO ADD COMMENTARY
	   	      		DIAL 1-900-909-NASA
                                                                       

The National Space Society has announced that it will provide continuous
24-hour Dial-A-Shuttle coverage of America's pioneering step toward
Earth's mysterious sister planet Venus.

Fictional spacefarers from the popular TV show "Star Trek - The Next
Generation"  and ABC News broadcaster Hugh Downs will participate with
the regular team of announcers in providing  live coverage of the STS-30
mission from the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. 

The Dial-A-Shuttle team will offer news updates, interviews, and feature
stories wrapped around all available live conversation between the
astronauts aboard the shuttle orbiter Atlantis and NASA's mission
control.

The coverage will commence two hours prior to the launch from Kennedy
Space Center in Florida of Atlantis and her Magellan scientific probe.
This will be the first American planetary mission since 1978 and the
first planetary probe to be carried aboard the shuttle. STS-30 mission
Commander David M. Walker and his crew of four will deploy the $378
million spacecraft about six hours after launch. 

The crew will release the probe from the shuttle's payload bay, and a
rocket attached to Magellan will send the spacecraft toward Venus on a
466-day voyage. Once in orbit around Venus, Magellan will use high-
resolution radar to make the most detailed topographical map of the
landscape of the second planet from the Sun. 

Secondary experiments will keep the four man, one woman crew busy for
four days, at the end of which the orbiter will land at Edwards Air
Force Base in California. Dial-A-Shuttle service will cease after the
post- flight press conference.

Dial-A-Shuttle is produced by the National Space Society in cooperation
with AT&T's Dial-it 900 Service program and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
                                                                       

EDITORS NOTE: PLEASE INFORM YOUR READERS/LISTENERS/VIEWERS THAT THERE IS
A TOLL CHARGE FOR DIAL-A-SHUTTLE; IT IS $2.00 FOR THE FIRST MINUTE, 45
CENTS FOR EACH ADDITIONAL MINUTE.

ASSIGNMENT EDITORS CAN FOLLOW THE MISSION ON A REAL-TIME BASIS BY
CALLING DIAL-A-SHUTTLE - NO NEED TO WAIT FOR WIRE SERVICE REPORTS.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 18:05:46 GMT
From: mvac23!thomas@louie.udel.edu  (Thomas Lapp)
Subject: Habitating Mars: humourous look

Here is something I came across in the USA Weekend in this Sunday's paper.
It was describing a discussion with a NASA research scientist about whether
or not Mars could be inhabited.  The comments included the facts that in
order to live there, we would need to raise the temperature 100 degrees and
improve the atmosphere.  It then went on to say that the authors of the
article felt it would also require:
" - Its own football team, to take on all visitors
  - Day-care centers
  - A New Age radio station
  - Automatic Teller Machines
  - Chinese carryout or pizza delivery
  - VCR tape rentals
  and
  - A decent deli"

Just something to brighten your day.

                         - tom
==============================================================================
                                          ! WARNING: site 'mvac' will be no
uucp:     ...!udel!mvac23!thomas          !          more soon.  Send all mail
Internet: mvac23!thomas@udel.edu          !          to site 'mvac23' instead.
Internet: mvac23!thomas@udel.edu          !          Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 04:43:51 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <23567@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>In article <10547@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
>>			   government is the only current source of the amount
>>money needed to build large scale space hardware
>>John L. McKernan.                Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
>
>What gave you this idea?  The current Forbes Magazine lists the 500
>largest American companies by various characteristics.  There are 35
>with 1988 *profits* of over $1 billion, and 90 with *profits* of over
>$500 million.  This is enough money to develop space even at the NASA
>prices.

Yep William, these companies sure do have a lot of money. Why don't you
speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily 
spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such. Some of them do a
lot of advertising and maybe if you can figure a promotional angle you could
get $10,000.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 89 06:01:44 GMT
From: yalevm!HOWGREJ@CS.YALE.EDU
Subject: Re: Progress 41 ejected as crew prepares to leave USSR's Mir station

In article <8904240005.AA29889@ll-vlsi.arpa>, glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>                                   As part of this the Progress 41 cargo
>craft's engines substantially boosted Mir's altitude by about 40 Km (25
>mi) to form a 400 x 372 km (250 x 232 mi) orbit.  Thus the station can
>go for several months now without requiring Mir's own engines or
>reboost.  On Apr. 20th Radio Moscow announced Progress 41 had been
>ejected and entered the atmosphere, hence leaving the rear docking port
>free for the next crew or other craft to service the station.
 
It just occurred to me today (now, I know this is not an original concept
but I have never heard it applied specifically to the Soviet program)
just how much energy Mir forfeits when they dump a Progress.  Just attach
a (very strong) line to Mir and Progress, reel it out a few dozen km, and
cut it off.  This would dump Progress right into the atmosphere and
considerably boost Mir's orbit.  I've read articles about the idea before
(one in S&T a couple years ago, and others) that mentioned doing this
with Freedom and the Shuttle, but Mir already has to dump a lot of mass
on a regular basis.  How tough would this be for them to do?  The only
problem I see would be with the strength of the cable.  I know that the
US Tethered Satellite System uses a 1kg/km cable capable of holding at
least a few 100 kgs; a bunch of these would probably do the trick.  Is
this a realistic thing for the Soviets to do?  It would certainly save
a couple hundred kg of fuel.  Anyone have any stats on cable strength, or
ideas on the practicality of the Soviets using this technique?
 
Greg Howard                     HOWGREJ@YALEVM
"No quotes, my .sig died..."

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 21:54:49 GMT
From: jarthur!jokim@uunet.uu.net  (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: failures and engineering

In article <3880005@hpctdke.HP.COM> rbk@hpctdke.HP.COM (Richard Katz) writes:
>
>Also, if memory serves me correctly, voyager had some last second
>fixes at the pad, and some late modifications that let the dual
>command systems both operate contributing to the success of the
>missions from the added processing power.

off the subject but...

If *my* memory serves me correctly, there were three voyager craft.
The first to be launched had problems which couldn't be fixed within
the launch window so they swapped it with the second.  It (the first)
became voyager 2 (yes, V2 was launched before V1).  I'm not sure
what happened with the craft that became voyager 1.  Does anyone know?
And what about the third craft?  Is it the one on display at JPL?
I know they used it to figure out what was going on with the platform
sticking on V2 before its encounter with Uranus.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU | think of something very clever 
uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim  | to use as a disclaimer)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 04:35:26 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: manned spaceflight funding

In article <1989Apr22.221649.4810@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <10597@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>>Government is the only current source of funds for a manned space effort 
>>regardless of which WAY it is done 
>
>There is considerable precedent, in other areas, for private funding of
>science and exploration.  Roald Amundsen had no government funding for
>his trip to the South Pole.  Fleischmann and Pons had no government funding
>for their cold-fusion research.  [Please refer arguments about whether the
>results are real or not to alt.fusion.]  Bednorz and Muller had no
>government funding for their Nobel-Prize-winning work on superconductors.
>The Voyager round-the-world flight was privately funded.  Several current
>projects for big astronomical telescopes are privately funded.

Funding for research in the US is complex. There is R&D which the government
won't fund but private industry will, there is R&D which private industry
might fund but doesn't because government is providing the money, and there
is R&D that only the government will fund. Most space R&D is funded by the
government, and I think it's unlikely (to say the least) that private
industry would start doing things like unmanned planetary probes and a lot of
manned space R&D if NASA stopped doing them.

There might be a few private efforts like those refered to above (F&P spent
$100,000 over five years, how much space R&D can you do for that much money?).
I don't doubt that such efforts would get orders of magnitude more out of
their money. But NASA spends 10+ billion every year, and even with all the
waste, your just not going to get as much done without the government. There
are certainly much better ways that money could be spent. If the shuttle
program had been done using a guaranteed market and private shuttles we
probably would have ended up with a much better shuttle for a lot less money.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 89 16:17:11 GMT
From: usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!rod@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: Re: Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) Project (Fact Sheet) (Forwarded)

In article <24200@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>
>           ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR (ASRM) PROJECT
>
>     In terms of performance, the Shuttle's projected 12,000-
>pound extra lifting capability with the new motors will enable 
>additional payload deliveries equivalent to 2.4 Shuttle missions 
>per year, above the currently planned maximum of 14 per year.

I thought that most of the time these days, the number one constraint
on payload weight was the amount that the shuttle could safely land with
in the event of an abort. Will they really let it fly with heavier payloads?

	--Rod

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 89 23:33:22 GMT
From: cunixc!kingdon@columbia.edu  (John Kingdon)
Subject: WANTED: Shuttle transmission frequencies (or HF feed of NASA)


With the Space Shuttle ATLANTIS (STS-30) scheduled to launch in a few days
(April 28, 1824 UTC), I am interested in finding out if WA3NAN or some other
Amateur Radio station will put the NASA feed onto HF (shortwave).  I enjoyed
listening during the last flight and hope there is continuing service from the
Amateur community.  Could someone please send to me (or post) a list 
(preferably for HF) which gives the list of this Amateur service or some of 
NASA's feeds?

Thanks much,  John Kingdon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 John Kingdon  (212)-678-1689             |  CompuServe 71471, 1062
 UUCP ...!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!kingdon |  ARPA kingdon@cunixc.columbia.edu
 BITNET kingdon@cunixc.bitnet             |  or kingdon@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 20:49:53 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Goddard Leadership

> NASA GODDARD CENTER REQUESTS COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES PROPOSALS - 
> can890304.txt - 3/31/89
> ...
>    Under the agreement, the contractor would furnish all 
> supplies, including the launch vehicle, facilities, personnel, 
> and services necessary to design, produce, test, integrate and 
> launch the missions into the required orbit.

NASA Goddard is showing leadership.  Thank god there is SOME
leadership potential within the NASA ranks!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 17:35:29 GMT
From: titan!phil@rice.edu  (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!

In article <891@csed-55.IDA.ORG> roskos@ida.org (Eric Roskos) writes:
>The Daily Star rocked Europe by additionally reporting that a *ham radio
>operator* claims to have heard a shuttle astronaut say: "Houston, we
>have a `fire'" -- which is widely believed to be a NASA [term] for a
>UFO. 

It is ludicrous to believe that they would have established "fire" as a
code word for a UFO during shuttle operations.  What if they really *had*
a fire on board?  That is too dangerous a situation to confuse with a
"close encounter".  If they said they had a fire, they probably did have a
fire....

Geeeezz....where do they get this stuff?

			William LeFebvre
			Department of Computer Science
			Rice University
			<phil@Rice.edu>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 13:10:37 CDT
From: Eddie Mikell <eddie@CC.MsState.Edu>
Subject: Telsa Article

Could someone mail me the address of Mr. Hardy (the gentleman who sent the 
brief article about Telsa to the Digest)?  My copy managed to disappear.

Thanks

Eddie Mikell
Eddie@cc.msstate.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 18:15:39 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: NASA personell offices

Some time ago, someone was kind enough to post a listing of the personel
offices at various NASA facilities.  Wouldn't you know, that I paid no
attention.  Now, I sure could use that list.  If anyone has a copy,
would you please, please e-mail me a copy?

Thanks in advance.

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            enuxha.kluksdah@eas.asu.edu
	    enuxc1.kluksdah@eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

Useful criticism always appreciated.  Senseless flames always discarded.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #398
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Apr 89 08:46:23 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01252>; Fri, 28 Apr 89 06:18:46 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 28 Apr 89 06:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UYK2qQy00UkTE2eE5z>;
          Fri, 28 Apr 89 05:23:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.4YK2mOy00UkZ4cyE4K>;
          Fri, 28 Apr 89 05:19:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYK2k6y00UkZ0cwk52@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 89 05:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #399

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 399

Today's Topics:
    U.S. launches most ambitious space science period (Forwarded)
  Re: U.S. launches most ambitious space science period (Forwarded)
		 Re: RE: SETI: Where and when to look
			    Re: ET contact
	     Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!
		 Re: RE: SETI: Where and when to look
			Colonization problems
Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)
	     Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!
		    Re: manned spaceflight funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 21:59:27 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: U.S. launches most ambitious space science period (Forwarded)

[No flames about the lofty language in this one, please. :-)  -PEY]

Graciela Iguina
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     April 26, 1989


RELEASE:  89-63

U.S. LAUNCHES MOST AMBITIOUS SPACE SCIENCE PERIOD


     America's planetary exploration program, which almost became 
an "also ran," will reassume world leadership with the launch of 
the Magellan spacecraft to Venus, the head of NASA's space 
science program said today.

     Dr. Lennard A. Fisk said the Magellan launch on Friday will 
mark the beginning of a "new golden age of space science" with 36 
major missions in the next 5 years.  "If we are smart, we will 
use these missions to conduct the biggest and the most public 
science and engineering lesson ever for the youth of this 
nation."

     "There is no task more important for a government than to 
instill in its people the conviction that the future will be 
brighter than the present," Fisk said.  While conceding that 
there are national defense and poverty problems in this country, 
Fisk stated that funds have been committed for these activities 
and that "somewhere among these expenditures that are based on 
fear and on injustice, there also should be expenditures based on 
hope for a brighter tomorrow."

     Fisk said that the United States is again the leader in 
planetary exploration and "we are determined that never again 
will this leadership be allowed to pass from us."

     Two days from now, the Shuttle Atlantis will lift off from 
Kennedy Space Center, carrying the Magellan space probe destined 
for Venus.  "The Magellan mission alone will return more data 
than all previous planetary mission combined." 

     Fisk made these and other points:

     o Magellan will map the surface of Venus with a radar that 
has 10 times the resolution of any previous U.S. or Soviet 
mission.  

     Magellan will cover 90 percent of the planet as opposed to 
only 25 percent by the last Soviet mission and should answer the 
fundamental question of why Venus -- which is so similar to the 
Earth in size and location -- is so different.

     o NASA will complete the Hubble Space Telescope, the Gamma 
Ray Observatory, the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility and the 
Space Infrared Astrophysics Facility.  These four great 
observatories, spanning the electromagnetic spectrum from 
infrared to gamma rays, possess resolution and sensitivity never 
before possible in astronomy.

     o The Cosmic Backround Explorer this summer will probe the 
backround radiation left over from the birth of the universe -- 
the big bang.

     o The Astro Spacelab mission, next year, will make 
definitive measurements of the recent supernova -- the closest 
observable supernova in 400 years.

     o Ulysses will examine the poles of the sun, the Upper 
Atmospheric Research Satellite will study the Earth's atmosphere, 
Mars Observer exploration will follow in 1992 and Galileo will 
explore Jupiter and its moons in 1996.

     o The Earth Observing System (EOS) will study our planet 
from the polar platforms of Space Station Freedom, making 
continuous and comprehensive measurements of the Earth and what 
humans are doing to it.  EOS "will serve as a basis for sound 
policy decisions to protect the future of our planet...a graphic 
demonstration of American technology in space serving the peoples 
of the world."

     "We need to appreciate," Fisk said, "that with all these 
activities and plans, we are sending a simple but very powerful 
message -- that we are a nation that believes in its future."

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 22:58:14 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: Re: U.S. launches most ambitious space science period (Forwarded)

yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) <24514@ames.arc.nasa.gov> :
-[No flames about the lofty language in this one, please. :-)  -PEY]

At least we can get SOMEthing aloft!  :-)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 89 20:34:34 GMT
From: amdahl!bnrmtv!miket@apple.com  (Michael Thompson)
Subject: Re: RE: SETI: Where and when to look

>From article <8904241950.AA09264@ti.com>, by pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law):
> hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@hplabs.hp.com write:
>>Somehow, the two planets need to make a reasonable guess at space-time 
>>coordinates at which to attempt contact with the other. Let's look at 
> 
> The other alternative would be some sort of man made event.  My office mate
> suggests blowing up the sun, but I think that as a little drastic.  The
> only real requirements would be that it is detectable at some extreme distance
> (25,000 ltyrs?) and obviously artificial.  Making the sun nova would fit
> this, but what could we do within current (or near term) technology?  I
> still like my nucleat flare gun, but suspect it a little short on the range.
> 
> Comments?  This is a great idea, and I would like to do my part to make
> it better (or is it tear it to shreds? :-) )
> Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 

How about taking our nuclear stock pile (Both US and USSR) and putting them
in orbit about the sun.  They could be spread equally around the orbit
of Jupiter and exploded sequentially in an order that would indicate
intelligence.  The aliens would see this, hopefully have the technology to
detect a planet the size of Jupiter and then turn their radio telescopes
towards our solar system to find a strong transmitter of Radio Frequency
radiation which is the Earth.  We probably need a bigger firecracker than
a 100MT nuclear bomb to attract attention though.  How about creating
hundreds of tons of anti-matter and throwing it into the sun.  Now that
should make a nice display for several light-years around.

Hey, you asked for comments so don't blame me :-).

Mike Thompson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 18:06:19 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: ET contact

>From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
>Subject: ET exposure

>> "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of
>> citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14,
>> Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted
>> 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing).  The Code

>I hereby publicly and solemnly swear that I will break this law if ever
>given the opportunity. Furthurmore I will make any and all information so
>gained fully public regardless of personal consequences.

You'd probably be doing what the people who proposed the law had in mind.
It's probably not intended to discourage such contact (it was not publicized,
so most civilians wouldn't know about it). Once contact has been made, it
gives the authorities justification to grab you, pump you for information,
and make sure you haven't picked up any diseases. It's a way to "automatically
enlist" anyone who becomes involved. Of course, if you ask them, they have 
to *say* "we don't want you to do it".
                                        John Roberts
                                        roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 19:04:44 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!

No, actually "fire" is the NASA code-word for "Elvis".

Now you know.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 19:14:27 GMT
From: mcvax!hp4nl!botter!ark.cs.vu.nl!fjvwing@uunet.uu.net  (Wingerde van FJ)
Subject: Re: RE: SETI: Where and when to look

In article <5313@bnrmtv.UUCP> miket@bnrmtv.UUCP (Michael Thompson) writes:
>From article <8904241950.AA09264@ti.com>, by pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com 
>> oreilly@hplabs.hp.com write:
>>>Somehow, the two planets need to make a reasonable guess at space-time 
>>>coordinates at which to attempt contact with the other. Let's look at 
>>>(......) 
>> The other alternative would be some sort of man made event.  My office mate
>> suggests blowing up the sun, but I think that as a little drastic.  The
>> only real requirements would be that it is detectable at some extreme 
>> distance (25,000 ltyrs?) and obviously artificial.  
>> Dillon Pyron                         
>How about taking our nuclear stock pile (Both US and USSR) and putting them
>in orbit about the sun.  They could be spread equally around the orbit
>of Jupiter and exploded sequentially in 
>(more stuff about how to attract attention)
>Hey, you asked for comments so don't blame me :-).
>Mike Thompson

	Now ,I might be totally, inconcievably, way off here, but I remember 
reading somewhere about a plan to collect ,between two parabolic mirrors in 
space, some of the laserlight that some of the elements in the Martian 
atmosphere are supposed to emit as a result of being 'excited' by sunlight. 
Because the off the alignment of the mirrors , the light would be reflected 
between them until a nice beam was formed, which then would be 'shot' out into 
space because one off the mirrors would be only 99% reflective( somewhat like
in a normal laser).
	The beam would be supposed to be visible from a couple o' hundred 
lightyears away.  (Wouldn't like to be on the planet in it's path :-)
	I think this thread should further be pursued in misc.misc.
But there is something else about the plan that makes me wonder: Suppose
we create something like that, wouldn't the other intelligent life form
just try to come up with some natural explanation and not start listening 
because it's (in their eyes) a natural phenomenon anyway? I know that we
would .(Maybe those pulsars are beacons with atomic-clock accuracy
after all)(smiley?))
FJ!!

What Disclaimer?                                +---- ----+  /    /  
    I'll plead temporary insanity anyway.       /__      /  /    /     
                            fjvwing@cs.vu.nl   /     <__/  o    o

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 Apr 89 23:58 EST
From: "Kevin N. Gunn"                             <UNCKNG%UNC.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Colonization problems


  I am interested in learning more about the obstacles we face should we
(humanity) decide to establish permanent extraterrestrial colonies.  (I
actually mean permanent, self-sufficient colonies.)  One particular
problem which interests me is the effects of low gravity of growth and
development in organisms.  I've heard that fetal development in zero (or
micro) gravity results in abnormalities.  Does this carry over to low
gravity situations?  Does the Moon have enough gravity for normal fetal
development?  What about plant development?  Have any tests been run on
any of these questions?  I'm trying to pose this problem broadly in
order to get general information about growth and development of plants
and animals in low gravity environments, especially the Moon and Mars.
Any input is appreciated.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 89 22:01:50 GMT
From: ogccse!cvedc!nosun!fpssun.fps.com!celerity!dave@husc6.harvard.edu  (Dave Smith)
Subject: Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)

In article <24221@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>Barbara Selby
>Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
>
>Jerry Berg
>Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
>
>
>RELEASE:  89-57
>
>NASA SELECTS CONTRACTOR TO DEVELOP ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR
>

You would think that we would have learned not to send people up on Roman
candles by now.  Is there a valid reason for designing a new set of
solid boosters rather than replacing them with liquid fueled boosters?
(Other than economics.  I know NASA is cheap).


David L. Smith
FPS Computing, San Diego
ucsd!celerity!dave
"Repent, Harlequin!," said the TickTock Man

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 01:03:24 GMT
From: trantor.harris-atd.com!x102a!hnewstrom@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Harvey Newstrom)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!

In article <3174@kalliope.rice.edu> phil@Rice.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>In article <891@csed-55.IDA.ORG> roskos@ida.org (Eric Roskos) writes:
>>The Daily Star rocked Europe by additionally reporting that a *ham radio
>>operator* claims to have heard a shuttle astronaut say: "Houston, we
>>have a `fire'" -- which is widely believed to be a NASA [term] for a
>>UFO. 
>
>It is ludicrous to believe that they would have established "fire" as a
>code word for a UFO during shuttle operations.  What if they really *had*
>a fire on board?  That is too dangerous a situation to confuse with a
>"close encounter".  If they said they had a fire, they probably did have a
>fire....
>

More rumor stuff...

I was once told by a friend who worked on the apollo program that it is
standard procedure to switch to security channels when an emergency
situation comes up.  This is to prevent the media from jumping on
a situation before it is officially announced.

Since they did not want to tip off the media that they were concealing a
problem, the astronauts were told to make a brief statement about the
problem, such as "we have a fire" and then maintain radio silence and
wait for the ground crew to secure a channel.  It was also stated that such
a phrase could be used to request a secure channel even if there was no
actual problem.

I think this is probably where the rumor comes from.


_____
Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com) (uunet!x102a!hnewstrom)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 17:28:41 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: manned spaceflight funding


Two messages:

>From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: manned spaceflight funding

>There is considerable precedent, in other areas, for private funding of
>science and exploration.  Roald Amundsen had no government funding for
>his trip to the South Pole.  Fleischmann and Pons had no government funding
>for their cold-fusion research....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
>The new breakthrough in fusion, if it pans out will be just one more
>example of the way government fails to have the economic effects it
>claims it will have. 30 years and untold billions (US billions, not
>European billions) have been spent on big bureaucratic science and the
>preservation of reputations and pet projects. And along come two guys
>with a neat idea and their own money to create a fusion process people
>will be able to build for high school science projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's tempting to regard the Fleischmann-Pons research as an example
of private research with no "taint" of government spending, but I don't
think the evidence supports this view. For one thing, the research is being
carried out at a university, using university facilities. Universities
that conduct technical research typically derive much of their funding
directly or indirectly from the government. Fleischmann and Pons may
owe largely to government spending the fact that they were able to pursue
careers as academic researchers. In addition, recent news reports explicitly
describe government funding for this research. An article in the New York
Times (April 24, pp 1,B6) tells how they decided to attempt the experiment,
and to put up $100000. It goes on to relate that by "last fall", they had
started submitting grant applications to DOE. Another article in the April
26 issue (p A-16) states that they had $1.2 million in support from the 
Office of Naval Research, and that they hope to get an additional $25 million
from the Federal government. (They also hope that later grants and investments
by individuals and corporations will bring the total to $100 million.)

For space exploration, I agree that it may be possible to get private funding
for programs that promise a net return within ten years, or for relatively
inexpensive programs that can serve as tax write-offs. However, any expensive
programs with only long-term returns, or which return only "abstract" 
knowledge are unlikely to be funded by private industry in the US. A possible
alternate funding method is for "charity programs" to be set up similar to
the "Viking fund".
                                   John Roberts
                                   roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #399
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YYKf=1y00UkZ8kn05j>;
          Sun, 30 Apr 89 03:16:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYKf-oy00UkZAklE4l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 89 03:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #400

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 400

Today's Topics:
	     Barium Cloud Experiment (Update) (Forwarded)
		      Re: Colonization problems
  Re: WANTED: Shuttle transmission frequencies (or HF feed of NASA)
			  Some questions...
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #396
		   NASP (national aerospace plane)
 Re: Progress 41 ejected as crew prepares to leave USSR's Mir station
Private Space Companies (WAS Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)
			  Van Allen article
	Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
		      Re: Colonization problems
		     Some comments on comments...
Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 16:12:23 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Barium Cloud Experiment (Update) (Forwarded)

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    April 27, 1989


ADVISORY


     The rocketborne scientific experiment, programmed to create 
colorful artificial clouds at high altitudes above Wallops, 
Island Va., has been postponed due to technical problems.

     The experiment is tentatively rescheduled for Sunday, April 
30, at 9:36 p.m. EDT, pending favorable weather conditions.

     The launch window extends through May 7.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 23:18:31 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Colonization problems

In article <Added.gYJNFDy00Ui382=08K@andrew.cmu.edu> UNCKNG@UNC.BITNET ("Kevin N. Gunn") writes:
>...problem which interests me is the effects of low gravity of growth and
>development in organisms.  I've heard that fetal development in zero (or
>micro) gravity results in abnormalities.  Does this carry over to low
>gravity situations?  Does the Moon have enough gravity for normal fetal
>development?  What about plant development?  Have any tests been run on
>any of these questions? ...

Maybe.  Nobody knows.  Nobody knows.  Nobody knows.  No.

The sum total of human knowledge about low-gravity biological effects is
that a few days on the Moon didn't hurt the Apollo astronauts.  That's *it*.
Why?  Because it can't be simulated on Earth.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 20:08:51 GMT
From: ulysses!attibr!althea!eddjp@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dewey Paciaffi)
Subject: Re: WANTED: Shuttle transmission frequencies (or HF feed of NASA)

In article <1443@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> kingdon@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (John Kingdon) writes:
 
~Could someone please send to me (or post) a list 
~(preferably for HF) which gives the list of this Amateur service or some of 
~NASA's feeds?

Please post this info if possible.
I would like it also.

Thanks in advance.
Dewey

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 00:06:17 GMT
From: killer!rcj@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Robert Johnson)
Subject: Some questions...

Well, it's term paper time again, and I decided to finally do one on
my favorite subject (yes, you guessed it, space!).  Anyways, it's 
based on the first 119 days of the space race (the interval between
Sputnik I and Explorer) and there is some info I haven't been able
to locate:

      1) How long did Sputnik I&II and Explorer last?
      2) What were the EXACT dates when the above were launched?
      3) How much did Explorer weigh, and...
      4) How much did nukelear warheads weight in '57?

    Thanks in advance,
                 Robert

-- 
|  Robert C. Johnson                |  "Minds are like parachutes.       |
|   rcj@killer.dallas.tx.us         |   They only function when they are |
|   (214) 357-5306                  |   Open."  -Sir James Dewar         |

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 23:16:22 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <240@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>You will find cogent arguments about some negative aspects of the manned
>space program in a Scientific American article authored by James
>Van Allen...

Also some of the most spectacularly slanted reporting you've ever seen.
That article was interesting, yes; unbiased and objective, no.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1989 11:30-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #396

> Frankly, every time I read a law or federal regulation I get the same 
> reaction I do to medical journals.  It's a wonder we aren't all dead
> or in jail. :^)  Mostly I take it on faith that the government won't
> run hog-wild with all the authority we give them, and that my liver
> won't pack up just because I can't see why it keeps on working.  

The simple truth is that the United States has in place enormous police
state powers that are equal to anything you will find in the soviet
union. That is probably why our governments are suddenly getting along
so well. The only real difference I see is that the US has a population
with a history of civil disobedience, a strong and healthy underground
economy and a strong, healthy and organized freedom underground. Taken
together they make enforcement of anti-freedom laws pretty much a joke,
and a randomly enforced joke at that.

The current abortion bruhaha is another example. Even if the court
knocks down Roe vs Wade, it won't turn back the clock. The underground
is too big and too organized. Enforcement will simply radicalize more
people.  Hopefully towards the libertarian direction this time, since
the socialists got us into this mess by being such profound government
lovers. They centralized the power in order to "do good", and now we
are reaping the "benefits" as the power is used by those who love and
abuse power and privilege. It can only get worse before it gets better.
I'm confident it will get better in the long run, but I, for one, am
leaving the country in the interim. I have no intention in being around
when a new McCarthyism starts.

When the smell of monopolistic power is in the air, good people get
trampled in the stampede of the bad.

If I ever see an alien hitchhiking, I'll pick him up.  Then I'll help
him evade the "authorities". Hopefully I'll be able to convince him
Washington DC is a great site for an intersteller alien garbage dump.
It's already full of human garbage.

					Free Minds and Free Markets,
					Dale Amon

PS: I have NO intention on debating or discussing abortion here. My
statement is that the only effect of the supreme courts decision will
be whether a portion of the economy is above ground or below ground.
The women's (and other) networks are too big and well organized and there
aren't enough prisons to hold them(us) all.

=========================================================================
ET: don't call home.			Shoot a DEA agent for Abbie.
Your line is tapped.			One for the hipper...
=========================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 21:15:32 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!larryb@uunet.uu.net  (Larry Brader)
Subject: NASP (national aerospace plane)



I'm probably bring up a old subject...I'm trying to find out
the capabilities of the NASP?  I know its suppose to reach a 
LEO, but could it go higher...  Am I into the area of wishfull
thinking, yet : ) ? like payloads?

Also I have heard that the Japanese, Europe are designing a similar
space/aircraft. But I haven't heard anything similiar being built in
Russia.


-- 
Larry Brader  :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net
Of course these are my views, any resemblance to reality is merely 
a concidance.
"He's dead Jim, You grap his tricorder and I'll get his wallet"

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 17:09:15 GMT
From: well!tneff@apple.com  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Progress 41 ejected as crew prepares to leave USSR's Mir station

In article <424@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> HOWGREJ@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
>                                                   ...  I know that the
>US Tethered Satellite System uses a 1kg/km cable capable of holding at
>least a few 100 kgs; a bunch of these would probably do the trick.  Is
>this a realistic thing for the Soviets to do?  It would certainly save
>a couple hundred kg of fuel.  Anyone have any stats on cable strength, or
>ideas on the practicality of the Soviets using this technique?

According to a recent article in ASTRONOMY, the Tethered Satellite
System will use a multi-strand Kevlar cable weighing *4* kg/km and with
a breaking strength of 625kg.  This is an order of magnitude too weak
for something like a Progress module.

A tether would be a terrific thing to add to Mir, but for scientific
"yoyo" payloads rather than boosting.  It does take fuel to keep moving
Mir around, but that's the funny thing about the ~100 launch/yr USSR
space program.  Fuel ain't a problem.  You just send up another
Progress!

-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 23:52:19 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!larryb@uunet.uu.net  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Private Space Companies (WAS Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)

In article <23567@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>What gave you this idea?  The current Forbes Magazine lists the 500
>largest American companies by various characteristics.  There are 35
>with 1988 *profits* of over $1 billion, and 90 with *profits* of over
>$500 million.  This is enough money to develop space even at the NASA
>prices.
>
>William Baxter

A couple of weeks ago I remeber someone posted a brief note that 
Rockwell tried to buy the shuttle from NASA..  <I believe it was 
Henery S>..  Why didn't NASA sell them a couple of shuttles?

3M is very interested in space related research, and so are some other
companies <at least when NASA starting looking for clients they found
over 100 companies of various size interested>.  If a couple of 
company's like Rockwell, 3M and some others went in together they could
easily <?> afford their own shuttle system.  NASA could make money.
The companys wouldn't have to worry about being bumbed for any DOD flights,
or  NASA management.  Good PR for everyone... I'll be more then happy to
sign a waiver to fly aboard as payload specialist ;-) 

-- 
Larry Brader  :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net
Of course these are my views, any resemblance to reality is merely 
a concidance.
"He's dead Jim, You grap his tricorder and I'll get his wallet"

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 Apr 89 09:30:27 PDT
From: hairston%utdssa%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV
Subject: Van Allen article
X-St-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::JPLLSI::"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

In repsonse to Steve Emmerson mentioning of Van Allen's article in "Scientific
American" about the cuts in the unmanned space program to fund the shuttle and 
space station, it was (ironically) published in the January 1986 issue.  I was 
in the home stretch of finishing my doctorate in space physics when it came out
and it had been the subject of many discussions in the department for several
weeks before the Challenger exploded.

Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--Univ of Texas at Dallas
SPAN address   UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 19:29:56 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <1989Apr26.231622.2767@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <240@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
> >You will find cogent arguments about some negative aspects of the manned
> >space program in a Scientific American article authored by James
> >Van Allen...
> 
> Also some of the most spectacularly slanted reporting you've ever seen.
> That article was interesting, yes; unbiased and objective, no.

A bit of understatement that strongly argues for significant British
influence in Canada's past.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 16:34:41 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@purdue.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Colonization problems

In article <1989Apr26.231831.2938@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
}In article <Added.gYJNFDy00Ui382=08K@andrew.cmu.edu> UNCKNG@UNC.BITNET ("Kevin N. Gunn") writes:
}>...problem which interests me is the effects of low gravity of growth and
}>development in organisms.  I've heard that fetal development in zero (or
}>micro) gravity results in abnormalities.  Does this carry over to low
}>gravity situations?  Does the Moon have enough gravity for normal fetal
}>development?  What about plant development?  Have any tests been run on
}>any of these questions? ...
}
}Maybe.  Nobody knows.  Nobody knows.  Nobody knows.  No.
}
}The sum total of human knowledge about low-gravity biological effects is
}that a few days on the Moon didn't hurt the Apollo astronauts.  That's *it*.
}Why?  Because it can't be simulated on Earth.

Well, since I think that zero might qualify as low, I would not say that
"humans" don't know - I might say that non-soviets don't know, though...

(BTW:  Would MIR count as adrift and qualify under international salvage
laws, since it has been abandoned?)


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 17:47:23 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Some comments on comments...

I sometimes wonder if Henry writes the things he writes just to see if and
what reaction he gets...well, it works in my case...   ;-)

Henry Spencer writes:
> The Zoology department *here* isn't going to launch any Mars probes until
> somebody (i.e. the Soviets) finds life there.

Assuming that the statement was not entirely tongue-in-cheek, it seems that
the US wasted its time with Viking; it wouldn't have found life anyway 
because the landers had the wrong flag painted on them...

Henry Spencer writes:
> [list of mars probes] Ancient history, all of them.

I guess that implies that all the data they collected is useless too...

:-) ?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 16:32:44 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!ch-tkr@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Timothy K Reynolds)
Subject: Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)

In article <183@celit.UUCP>, dave@celerity.uucp (Dave Smith) writes:
> In article <24221@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> >RELEASE:  89-57
> >
> >NASA SELECTS CONTRACTOR TO DEVELOP ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR
> >
> 
> You would think that we would have learned not to send people up on Roman
> candles by now.  Is there a valid reason for designing a new set of
> solid boosters rather than replacing them with liquid fueled boosters?
> (Other than economics.  I know NASA is cheap).
> 
> 
> David L. Smith
> FPS Computing, San Diego
> ucsd!celerity!dave

You might want to check a recent edition of Aerospace America for an article
on liquid boosters as replacements for the SRB's.  I think it was the April
edition.

Anyway they detailed some of the problems and benefits of liquid boosters.
For some reason the diadvantages are easier to remember (is it because I'm
out here in Utah where they make the SRB's?).  The liquid boosters would
be much larger in diameter and length, requiring redesign of the mating
hardware.  Also, performance was not as good as solids.  And finally, there
were questions of reusability, how does salt water affect the motors
etc.  It has been a while since I read the artcle so take this with an
appropriately sized grain of salt.

cheers				ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #400
*******************
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Apr 89 06:55:35 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00741>; Sun, 30 Apr 89 05:56:53 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 30 Apr 89 05:56:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EYKh0Sy00Ui3A17E5O>;
          Sun, 30 Apr 89 05:21:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.cYKgxSy00UkZQkxk4u>;
          Sun, 30 Apr 89 05:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYKgwPy00UkZIkwE5M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 89 05:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #401

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 401

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Shuttle Acceleration
		      Re: railguns and asteroids
      Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)
		Re: Stirling engines & fusion, rev. 2
		B E M (was Space Shuttle Attacked ...)
		Re: Proposed luner simulation facility
	     Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 89 21:00:53 GMT
From: hpfcdc!bayes@hplabs.hp.com  (Scott Bayes)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Acceleration

> 	Less time fighting gravity? I can't see what time has to do with it.
> If you disregard friction momentarily (read as non-conservative forces), 
> then you simply must supply an energy to the shuttle of (Potential + 
> Kenetic)=(mgh + .5mv**2); this has nothing to do with how fast the shuttle 
> accelerates.
> 
> -------------
> John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo
> Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
> Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu

For this one, I like analysis at the boundary condition. The one of interest
here is: burn enough fuel/time to accelerate at 9.8 m/sec in free fall. This
is the power needed to exactly balance the Earth's gravitation. Do that till
your fuel is all burned up. How far have you gone? Nowhere, as you used all
the fuel hovering stock still above the launch pad. Double the power output;
you burn the fuel in half the time (assuming linear function), but accelerate
at 1G of the Earth's surface during that time, giving you a net velocity, and
a net distance travelled at burnout.

I believe the discussion only applies in a significant gravity well, but
haven't looked to see how it applies where external fields (gravity wells)
are close to 0 relative to available acceleration. It's probably true that
delta-vee is proportional to 

integral over t over d of (A-a(d))

where A is the (constant) thrust acceleration available to the ship, t is the
time over which A is applied, d is distance from the gravity source, and a(d) 
is the gravitational acceleration value, which varies in the gravity well.

Scott Bayes

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 19:51 CST
From: Shallow thoughts for shallow minds <SCOTT%GACVAX1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: railguns and asteroids

article 1:
} ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU writes:
}
}>   Would it be reasonable to use Rail-Guns in mining an asteroid.
                ----- stuff deleted (how to get it to earth -----
}Hopefully the asteroid you're mining is still sufficiently massive by the time
}you're finished that you don't alter its orbit too much with all this momentum
}you're transferring... :-)
}
}I would think it would be very expensive to recover metals from a high-
}velocity impact crater on the Moon, when you could simply build another
}mass driver in lunar orbit to receive the incoming load, at the same time
}generating a fair amount of electrical power.  Of course, you'd have to have
}either *very* good aim or a very wide mouth on your driver.
}
}Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)
}

article 2:

]In biar!trebor@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
]
]> In article <8904122007.AA10396@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
]> >    Would it be reasonable to use Rail-Guns in mining an asteroid.
]>
]> Given that for each reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction, it
]> would make more sense to use the Railgun as a thruster; by ejecting a few
]> percent of the mass of the asteroid at high velocity, one could move the
]> asteroid to the vicinity of earth, where it would be convenient to mine.
]The problem with moving asteroids around rather than returning mass to
]Earth via rail-gun pellets is that the amount of time it takes to
]move an asteroid makes it much less economic given interest costs
]of capital equipment.  This is a factor which none of the asteroid
]advocates have taken into account in their comparisons with lunar
]resources.
]
]Even though delta-v to many asteroids may be lower than access to
]lunar material, round-trip time for the equipment ends up dominating
]the cost optimization.
]
]Therefore, using a rail-gun, mass-driver or any other high-speed
]delivery mechanism for asteroidal material IS the best use of
]those technologies rather than moving the asteroids to Earth.
]
]In any case, if someone decided to begin moving an asteroid toward
]Earth so they could mine it, I think I would take it upon myself
]to preemptively assasinate them.

]Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868

Really, now, I see absolutely no problems with moving the astroid to earth
:-)

A really neat way to do it would be to basically set up an ore processing
plant on the astroid. Then, depleted ore could be thrown away (via a railgun,
even though I cant see how, or a catapult, or something) to give thrust
towards your objective (earth). With your cold fusion generator, you could
probably build up a pretty decent thrust. Heck, just to be safe youll want
to pulverize your waste into dust, and then you can use ion drives. You
wont get the astroid here very soon (probably on the order of a year or
so), but by the time its here, itll basically be a hunk of processed metal.
Since itll be so big, and moving relatively slow, it probably wouldn't be
as hard to aim for the mouth of your linear accelerator, either. Or just
ditch it on the moon. But why? cant you send it into an orbit around the
moon? maybe a sweep around the earth to slow it down? itd be easier to pick
it up from orbit than to try to catch it, and if you put it in a stable
orbit, itll still be there later, while if you dont have anything there
to catch it when you should, your out of luck, 'cause itll breeze on through
the earth-moon system (hopefully).

Also, if you just cannot wait for your processed metal to get here, you
could build ion drive on one end of the astroid, and a railgun on the other.
shoot processed ore home, and waste behind.

The biggest problem I can really see is keeping your load balanced. As you
mine the atroid, its center of mass probably will change, and you engines
and accelerators all have to be set up correctly, else your astroid will
start tumbling. Then youd have a problem picking it up.

scott hess

Scott@gacvax1.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 20:51:44 GMT
From: genrad!dls@eddie.mit.edu  (Diana L. Syriac)
Subject: Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)

You would think that sci.space and sci.space.shuttle would be two
of the more liberal groups on the net, considering most of the
people who read it (or at least post to it) seem to be in the 
professional or technical fields.  'Twould seem this is not the
case, since some of them have blinders on as large as any of the
horses I've heard about in years past.  For those of you who don't
live in the "Land of Freedom", where men (and women) are allowed
to express their opinion on ANY subject, so long as it doesn't 
hurt anyone, please remember that a large portion of those who
read this don't condone their censorship.

UFOs are definitely pertinent to Space....last I heard, most of 
them are from OUTER SPACE.  Space shuttle news is also pertinent
to Space.  Whether these articles are simply a hoax or rumor or
whether they are factual is STILL undetermined.  Quite frankly
I enjoy this cheerful subject as a change of pace from some of
the critical articles which have been so prevalent of late.

Please continue to post these articles HERE where those of us
who are interested can follow the amusing tale.

I'm sure this will generate many more critical articles.  All I
can say is, I keep the "bit bucket" next to my desk.

>From one of the silent majority

->	    Diana L. Syriac						    <-
->USmail:   GenRad Inc., Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742  <-
->usenet:   {decvax,linus,mit-eddie,masscomp}!dls@genrad.com                <-
->tel:	    (508) 369-4400 x2459	I'D RATHER BE FLYING!!!		    <-

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 13:36:26 GMT
From: xanadu!michael@apple.com  (Michael McClary)
Subject: Re: Stirling engines & fusion, rev. 2

In article <1989Apr25.132913.1300@mntgfx.mentor.com>
mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts @ APD x1302) describes
stirling engines of the crankshaft kind.  There is another
that is interesting:

This sort has a fixed cylinder, a displacer piston mounted
to the power piston by a spring, a strong magnet mounted
on the power piston, and coils mounted on the cylinder.
The mass of the displacer piston and the spring tying
it to the power piston form a simple harmonic oscilator,
and at its resonant frequency the displacer lags the power
piston by 90 degrees.

Once you apply a temperature difference, initial small vibrations
at the resonant frequency become amplified by the engine, making
it self-starting.  The magnet and coil form an alternator, and
power is efficiently extracted as electricity.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 18:35:10 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law)
Subject: B E M (was Space Shuttle Attacked ...)

haven!vrdxhq!daitc!ida.org!roskos@purdue.edu  (Eric Roskos) reports:

>Well, I scoffed when I read the recent postings in rec.ham-radio about the
>UFO, but then I was standing in the check-out line at Giant (world's
>slowest cashiers) and saw the following headline on "Weekly World News":

     important stuff deleted, but you get the drift
>London's respected Daily Star newspaper, which has a circulation of 1.3
>million, broke the story that included sensational testimony from a
 
If you think that's sensational, check out page two (sexist comment)

>But he told The NEWS in a telephone interview that he has commissioned a
>sophisticated voice-print analysis to determine if it really is the
>shuttle telling mission control: "Houston, this is Discovery.  We still
>have the alien spacecraft under observation."

But maybe they had never seen a Blackbird from that angle.  :-)

>The Daily Star rocked Europe by additionally reporting that a *ham radio
>operator* claims to have heard a shuttle astronaut say: "Houston, we
>have a `fire'" -- which is widely believed to be a NASA [term] for a
>UFO. 

And "Houston, we have a 'UFO'" means they're using the extinguishers?


Those reports, while sensational, paled before yet another allegation
from Dr.  Marcel Ponte.  In Paris, the founder and president of the
watchdog group, UFO Truth, said he can prove that space aliens boarded
the shuttle and inspected its cargo....  He also claimed to have heard
an alleged conversation between the shuttle and mission control that
says:

"Houston, this is Discovery.  We have alien spacecraft.  200 feet.  Blue.
Cargo hold.  Controls useless.  A pair.  Bug eyed.  We are invaded."

The brief transmission was allegedly made when the Discovery was in the
20th hour of its five-day mission. 

[End of excerpt.]

>The article also includes an "artist's conception of chilling encounter
>in space," depicting an object resembling a plumber's helper with a disc
>brake rotor attached to the bottom of it, pointing a long, antenna-like
>object at the shuttle, which has its cargo door open and and astronaut
>precariously perched on the back, near the tail fin, as if he is about
>to fall backward with surprise.  He appears to be holding a suitcase. 
 
Someone appears to be reading too much Vonegut.

>Editors: I am 14 years old and have never been to America, but I can see
  and so on...
This last one frightens me.  When my sister's pen pal came to visit a few
years ago, he was surprised that no one was wearing a gun!  And he was
supposedly educated (product of UK, can anyone there tell me who has the
worse school system?).  From this kind of thinking, we (Mercans) are preceived
as some sort of wild yet facist country, where hundreds die in our very
capital (oops).  But I digress.
-- 
>Eric Roskos (roskos@CS.IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.ARPA)

Thank you Eric, I've worked way late, still have too much to do, but this
article has done something for my day.

Dillon Pyron                         | When my opinions match my employer's
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | I will be self employed.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | If you think you're better than your
                                     | congressperson, run against him/her

------------------------------

------------------------------

Date:       Fri, 28 Apr 89 08:43:30 BST
From: ZZASSGL@CMS.MANCHESTER-COMPUTING-CENTRE.AC.UK
Myname:     Geoff. Lane. (Phone UK-061 275 6051)
Subject:    Re: Proposed luner simulation facility


Would it not be cheaper just to go to the Moon?

Geoff.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 17:47:29 GMT
From: sco!natei@uunet.uu.net  (Nathaniel Ingersoll)
Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

In article <Added.0YJ8MDy00Ui3M_6083@andrew.cmu.edu> wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
:Hi, all!

[ quote from NASA legal stuff about policing the earth ]
:
:(a) NASA policy, responsibility and authority to guard the Earth against
:any harmful contamination or adverse changes in its environment resulting
:from personnel, spacecraft and other property returning to the Earth
:         [Note -- my emphasis here ----->  ]  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:after landing on or coming within the atmospheric envelope of a
:celestial body; and

I find this interesting - they're only concerned about things that are
"returning" to the Earth; therefore someone (something?) comes from somewhere
else and is not "returning", it's out of their legal scope!

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 19:11:08 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <3761@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble?
>
>That looked _NEAT_!!!!!  That thing sitting there bursting its jets holding
>a hover was slick!!!  

Yeah, it looked really neat.  Just one question: What's the difference
between the smart pebble concept and placing smart interceptor
missiles in orbit?

Is this anything like the Thor idea (ala Footfall)?  (Use rockets for aiming,
but rely on gravity for acceleration.)

>(hear the crowd in the background?)

I think enthusiastic would be an understatement :-).
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 21:16:02 GMT
From: greg@june.cs.washington.edu  (Greg Barnes)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <3761@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
>See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble?

I thought they were known as 'brilliant' pebbles.

My question:  Do these things have something to do with the 'thousand
points of light' we've been promised?

Followups to talk.rumors.

					Greg Barnes
					greg@cs.washington.edu
------------------------------------------------
April 27:  In the first test of the $512 billion Star Wars on Drugs program, 
an orbiting laser-equipped satellite successfully vaporizes three city blocks
believed to contain a suspected drug pusher.
			--- Dave Barry's "1988 in Review"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #401
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 May 89 07:08:19 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00931> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 1 May 89 07:05:07 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  1 May 89 07:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MYL2Msy00Vs141JE53>;
          Mon,  1 May 89 05:41:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.4YL25zy00UkZ0mJU4T>;
          Mon,  1 May 89 05:21:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYL21ky00UkZ0mI05D@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  1 May 89 05:16:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #402

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 402

Today's Topics:
		    space news from March 6 AW&ST
	     Space shuttle rebroadcast frequencies given
			  I'll vouch for her
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #398
		 A Call to Arms: ABC Challenger Movie
		  Re: Asteroid/Earth Close Encounter
		      Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco
		    News of the Week  Apr 28, 1989
Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)
		   Re: SETI: Where and when to look
		   Re: Some comments on comments...
			    Smart Pebbles
			       Re: CETI
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 01:11:49 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 6 AW&ST

Aerospace plane project expects to declassify a lot of engine info as part
of upcoming security review.

Discovery [this is old news, obviously] will use one or more wastewater
dumps to study dispersal of the clouds of ice crystals that result.
Previous missions have flown through their own ice clouds several times.

Theater military commanders express strong support for the new Asat
program.

Mark Albrecht, Senate staff member with defense background, named as
staff head of National Space Council.  There is concern that the Council
will not have enough funding to operate effectively; OMB has granted
only $150k this year.

Employees at Italian Space Agency threaten strike over vagueness of
employment terms and inability to get answers; "no one wants to make
decisions".  This is on top of controversy caused by a call for new
astronaut candidates only weeks before final selection of an Italian
payload specialist for the tethered-satellite shuttle mission in 1991;
the announcement was extremely vague.

SDI prepares to launch the Delta Star mission, which will use various
sensors to observe sounding-rocket and satellite launches to gain more
information about rocket plumes and the Earth background.  At least one
shuttle mission will be included in the list of "targets".  Delta Star
is also notable for going from drawing pad to launch in one year.

General Dynamics arranges with European insurers to provide liability
insurance for 15 Atlas launches.

USAF Weapons Lab to build large high-resolution telescope for optical
tracking and optical compensation research.  Two other telescopes,
already part of the "Starfire" optical range, will move to the same
site near Albuquerque.  The main telescope will be a 3.5m reflector,
with  mirror spin-cast by U of Arizona.  U of A is happy about this
because USAF financial support will permit improving facilities and
speeding up delivery of other mirrors meant for astronomical telescopes.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 17:05:37 GMT
From: cunixc!kingdon@columbia.edu  (John Kingdon)
Subject: Space shuttle rebroadcast frequencies given

=======>         WA3NAN will broadcast STS-30 on 7183Khz(LSB)     <=========
(they have a morse given ID perodically, and a voice message ID, tune in the
station and wait.  (There is more to do than play with communications!))


	I have just logged WA3NAN in 7183 Khz(LSB) from New York City.  WA3NAN
is the club station of the Godard Amature Radio Club (located in Greenbelt,
Maryland) which in the past has given monitors a great service by broadcasting
the Air to Ground communications for Shuttle missions.  The recorded message
says that they will be providing the same service for mission 30 of the Space
Shuttle (STS-30), which is due to launch in about and hour and a half.
	If WA3NAN works this mission like it has in the past, they will
re-broadcast NASA live during the day, and will work some Ham traffic after
dropping the feed at night.  The Ham chatter after the feed drops is also
quite interesting.  This station should be active all weekend (assuming things
work as they have in the past).


John Kingdon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 John Kingdon  (212)-678-1689             |  CompuServe 71471, 1062
 UUCP ...!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!kingdon |  ARPA kingdon@cunixc.columbia.edu
 BITNET kingdon@cunixc.bitnet             |  or kingdon@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 13:16:00 GMT
From: genrad!wvo@eddie.mit.edu  (William V. Ogert)
Subject: I'll vouch for her


I'll vouch for Diana.  She's a very intellegent person. A BS in Computer
Science, A math major, member of the National Honor Society.

Diana is also a Private Pilot working on an instrument rating and very
interested and well versed in space activities.

She's no airhead.


ME?    I'm the airhead.   :-)

bILL oGERT
(Commercial,Instrument, ASEL/AMEL,CFII with an ASEE)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1989 10:51-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #398

> There might be a few private efforts like those refered to above (F&P spent
> $100,000 over five years, how much space R&D can you do for that much money?).
> I don't doubt that such efforts would get orders of magnitude more out of

I would point out that (assuming F&P pans out) they accomplished for
$100,000 what governments around the world have spent up in the range
of $10^11 on. So how much space development can be accomplished for
$100K? Who knows? 5 years ago, how much fusion research would you have
said could be done for $100K?

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 16:04:09 GMT
From: blake!jeffg@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Jeffrey D. Goldader)
Subject: A Call to Arms: ABC Challenger Movie

CNN said this morning that ABC is going to make a 3 hr movie about the
Challenger disaster.  It sounds like a docudrama.

ABC insists on going forward with the project despite objections from
the families of the astronauts who died aboard Challenger.  The writer
and producer say they will try to be faithful to what really happened.

I don't believe I am the only one who is shocked and outraged at the 
thought of the worst space disaster showing up as the ABC Sunday Night
Movie.  I can just see it now: "Tonight, on the ABC Sunday Night Movie:
See the story that shocked the world, as the space shuttle explodes.
With an all-star cast....."

If you do not wish to see 51-L trivialized as a ghoulish sweeps-week
extravaganza, please write to ABC and voice your opposition.  I was
able to get the address of the entertainment division, but the story
on CNN indicated ABC News would be involved with the film.

The place to write is:

Robert Iger
ABC Entertainment President
2040 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA  90067

Could someone please post the address of ABC News?  My letter goes out
tomorrow....

Jeff Goldader
University of Washington, Depts. of Astronomy and Physics
jeffg@blake.acs.washington.edu
jeffg@uw-beaver!blake.UUCP

_______________________________
Disclaimer:  The above opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the
University of Washington Departments of Astronomy and Physics, or those
of the University itself.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 22:48:53 GMT
From: ns!logajan@UMN-CS.CS.UMN.EDU  (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Asteroid/Earth Close Encounter

Daniel Hinojosa writes:
> I read an article in the L.A. Times about this event. Seems the asteroid
> in question came amazingly close to earth. That is, amazingly close
> in the overall scope of the universe. 500 million miles close.

I recall seeing a movie film of an object that skimmed through the earths
atmosphere (over Colorado, I believe.)  I forget how big it was, but it
stayed in the atmosphere for a few minutes, and it didn't burn up.  It
just kept going back out into solar orbit.

-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -

------------------------------

Date: Fri 28 Apr 89 10:55:35-PDT
From: Brian Keller <B.BSK@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco

bwood@janus.Berkeley.EDU comments
>
>In article <416@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> HOWGREJ@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
>>
>>Whoa! Is this right?  I didn't see the original posting, but $300M seems
>>waaaay too high.  Anyone have a published reference for this figure?

>The recent article in IEEE's "The Institute" quoted $50M per tank, but
>said it was in the 100M's when you factored in what it costs to get it
>way up in the sky.

I think the $300M figure is on the order of what it would cost to launch a
comparable mass of payload, e.g. a couple space station modules.  Since the
tank weighs about 78100 lbs dry * $3800 / lb = $300M.  Or, including the
cost of the tank:  $50M + 78100 * $3200 / lb = $300M.  Depends what you
consider the launch cost/lb to be, but its usually in the $2000-$5000 range.

                                       Brian S. Keller
                                       B.BSK@macbeth.stanford.edu
-------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 20:14:31 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of the Week  Apr 28, 1989


Jonathan's Space Report

Apr 28, 1989 (No. 13)

The Soyuz TM-7 crew undocked from the Mir station and landed in 
Kazakhstan on Apr 27, leaving space unoccupied by humans for the
first time since Feb 1987.

The Progress-41 cargo freighter undocked from the Mir complex last week
and reentered.

The attempt to launch STS-30 was scrubbed today at T-31s, 1428 UT on Apr
28 with an RSLS abort. The nature of the problem is not yet clear and
while a launch attempt tomorrow is possible, I suspect it is not likely.

Kosmos-2018 has been launched, details next week. Sorry to
be a bit scrappy this week, I've been away.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[... Driving down the Pasadena freeway last weekend, I turn the radio on
and hear...  none other than the famous Henry Spencer expounding on cold
fusion! Quite a shock....  ]

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 21:42:09 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)

In article <10707@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
>							   Why don't you
>speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily 
>spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such.

Perhaps you have not noticed, but many smaller companies are already
spending money on their own launch systems.  The primary obstacle to
further investment in space systems and services is the central planning
of "The Space Program" at NASA.  The situation will only change when
people stop perpetuating the myth that no one but NASA has enough money.

You began by saying that only NASA has enough money, and therefore we
had to put up with them.  Now you are admitting that the money is there,
but that only NASA will spend it.  It's another short step to realize
that NASA is in fact *preventing* the money from being spent.

Suggested Reading: The Permanant War Economy, Seymour Melman, Touchstone
		   (Simon & Schuster, Inc.)  ISBN 0-671-60643-3

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 89 00:18:13 GMT
From: blake!wiml@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: SETI: Where and when to look

In article <8904241950.AA09264@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law) writes:
[city & clocktower analogy deleted]
>A brilliant suggestion.  My only problem is the assumption that others think
>the same way.  What if the other person in town is deaf, or frightened of
>loud sounds?
  
  If the other person in town is deaf, then we have problems, because different
events are perceieved as 'noticeable' by the different people. If on the other
hand they are simply frightened of loud sounds, that is no problem. The idea
was to broadcast with the supernova; but we certainly are frightened of the
'loud saound' that the supernova is! We wouldn't want to BE there, but it is
a marker, and we could perhaps hang a banner from a ledge of it.

>"Now we are receiving some sort of binary encoded transimission, maybe there
>is another intelligent lifeform out there!  Quick, send the Beserkers!"
>(Sorry, I just had to)
  <grin>

>The other alternative would be some sort of man made event.  My office mate

  How about exploding fusion bombs? They produce a lot of interesting 
radiations. If we exploded enough, and in a pattern, it might be noticeable
to alien astronomers. (Those Earthlings are blowing each other up again,
Dr. Bloop...) Getting more powerful, we could make lots of antimatter (that's
the hard part =8) ) and annihilate it in a binary type transmission.
  I have read several stories in which aliens find us from nuclear explosion
... it seems a reasonable idea. The problem, I suppose, is that we don't
know WHERE they are, and the inverse square law takes its toll...

 \|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/\|/

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 17:51:28 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Some comments on comments...

>Henry Spencer writes:
>> The Zoology department *here* isn't going to launch any Mars probes until
>> somebody (i.e. the Soviets) finds life there.

>> [list of mars probes] Ancient history, all of them.
>
You comments, Henry, would make some sense if the Soviets were maintaining 
a vigorous program of planetary exploration.  However, this does not appear
to be the case.  As for your 'ancient history' disclaimer, *all* space
probes are ancient history; there is not *one* new probe on the way as I type
this, although this should change in the next 24 hours.  As a matter of fact,
there is only *one* probe out there doing *anything*...Voyager.  

You seem to put a lot of faith in a program that has the exact same problem as
you say the U.S. program has: all talk and no action.  I've been reading lots
and lots in the last few years about the Soviet's plan for Mars, and every new
article that comes out has the official target date slipping further and furtherback; I saw 1999 a few years ago, then I started seeing 'just after the turn
of the century.'  Yesterday, I read an article that reported on what the Sovietswere planning...the date for the Russian Mars landing?  Somewhere between 
2010 and 2015.  

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     :          [This space for rent]
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 13:15:42 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!aplvax.jhuapl.edu!jwm@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Smart Pebbles


See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble?

That looked _NEAT_!!!!!  That thing sitting there bursting its jets holding
a hover was slick!!!  

Watch the nets around it...

(hear the crowd in the background?)

Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Apr 89 14:28:23 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@naif.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: CETI
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

amdahl!bnrmtv!miket@apple.com  (Michael Thompson) writes:

>We probably need a bigger firecracker than
>a 100MT nuclear bomb to attract attention though.  How about creating
>hundreds of tons of anti-matter and throwing it into the sun.  Now that
>should make a nice display for several light-years around.

Since the Sun converts 4 million tons of matter to energy every second,
what makes you think this would be detectable against the Sun's normal
output at interstellar distances?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #402
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 May 89 07:11:57 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00754>; Tue, 2 May 89 06:01:13 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  2 May 89 06:01:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AYLJgmy00jZdQ1BERM>;
          Tue,  2 May 89 03:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.kYLJP1y00UkZMpSE5b>;
          Tue,  2 May 89 03:20:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYLJLoy00UkZ8pQk45@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  2 May 89 03:17:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #403

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 403

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
			    Voyager model
Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)
    Re: Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)
		   Re: SETI: Where and when to look
		Re: Proposed luner simulation facility
			      Scrubbed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 89 15:25:37 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #496 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89113.07897483 0.00000305           35694-3 0  1986
2 00424  80.4670 340.1740 0022771 274.7601  85.0934 13.67125583325282
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89112.97418241 0.00000002                   0  7409
2 08820 109.8203 211.1666 0044889 327.7292  32.0598  6.38664544 47106
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89108.93345390 -.00000005                   0  2469
2 10061   7.0081  69.1005 0005687 179.3832 180.6406  1.00273101  4785
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89112.61189933 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1010
2 10684  63.5715 102.5842 0107060 199.3682 160.2045  2.00561416 67413
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89111.57222263 -.00000028                   0  9731
2 10893  64.5216 343.4269 0152916  28.5525 332.3410  2.00557950 80219
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89 91.03781924 0.00000091           10000-3 0  6225
2 10953   5.8394  71.8491 0005923 277.8997  83.0665  1.00276940   161
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89114.04815401 0.00001250           48585-3 0  1070
2 10967 108.0102 176.1220 0003183 250.3937 109.6855 14.34518135566321
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89110.88956344 -.00000027                   0    08
2 11054  64.1068 339.9142 0053639 117.7381 242.8496  2.00560582 77213
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89111.49381530 0.00000011                   0  1409
2 11141  63.5331 102.5136 0058051 321.0962  38.4894  2.00575349 75925
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89109.45677940 0.00001426           61722-3 0  8376
2 11416  98.5076 108.2339 0010075 285.8462  74.1607 14.25682879509533
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89114.69640745 0.00050655           95412-3 0  9215
2 11703  28.4991 295.4924 0001945 134.8897 225.1861 15.47129726511535
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89110.95011505 -.00000027                   0  8734
2 11783  63.8826 339.5883 0142047  62.1537 299.2857  2.00567636 65857
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89106.84052885 -.00000247           10000-3 0  7210
2 12472   2.3494  81.8640 0003170 331.9169  29.0130  1.00262579 27994
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89114.33520483 0.00063427           10145-2 0  5325
2 12888  97.5635 164.7507 0000401 330.4074  29.7198 15.52937293420615
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89110.45259458 0.00000247           21203-3 0  6350
2 13113  82.5365 104.6563 0013814 222.8933 137.1155 13.83977270357253
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89114.75375383 0.00018932           47265-3 0  5401
2 13138  51.6094 218.8377 0000675 248.0340 112.0581 15.40190720399950
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89113.58562930 0.00000430           22130-3 0  7669
2 13718  81.2474 334.9705 0056002 153.0568 207.3533 14.13155794327847
IRAS       
1 13777U          89109.50580424 0.00000122           97521-4 0  6292
2 13777  99.0513 307.4207 0013226 110.2776 249.9777 13.98579896317994
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89109.02958625 0.00000112                   0  9345
2 14050   1.1560  83.2356 0000751  57.6322 302.5760  1.00284381  6017
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89105.46152848 -.00000014                   0  3941
2 14129  26.4208 270.1678 6055322  34.0870 353.0560  2.05882075 15923
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89108.04758867 0.00000011                   0  6216
2 14189  63.1765 101.2367 0134737 215.4525 143.6541  2.00570974 42231
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89114.57770491 0.00000784           33355-3 0  7122
2 14452  81.1677 347.2837 0093723 251.4163 107.6792 14.22138786284927
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89112.90498625 -.00003089          -68097-3 0  7255
2 14780  98.1728 176.1920 0005152  57.0421 303.1351 14.57115364273516
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89109.24561230 0.00002816           55308-3 0  4356
2 14781  98.0066 169.7456 0013456 139.2231 220.9963 14.63377428273929
LDEF       
1 14898U          89110.28165028 0.00038630           72580-3 0  8163
2 14898  28.5046 223.5376 0001494 336.9298  23.0901 15.47197974282464
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89111.09643208 0.00000010                   0  6514
2 15039  62.8876 100.4261 0015284 275.2647  84.5587  2.00564793 35577
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89110.81990912 0.00000287           24985-3 0  9359
2 15099  82.5281  51.9959 0014814  40.8796 319.3481 13.83639288242189
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89112.99192858 -.00000028                   0  6163
2 15271  63.3823 339.3007 0099581 320.0031  39.3248  2.00564590 32723
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89113.76640889 0.00003303           48182-3 0   145
2 15331  82.5423  28.6725 0022420 263.0534  96.8090 14.75386083246191
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89110.87971667 0.00000887           50547-3 0  3618
2 15427  99.1397  96.7124 0016312 113.0414 247.2509 14.11964381224369
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89112.14599119 0.00000423           36934-3 0   715
2 15516  82.5380 349.3428 0015534 277.0718  82.8663 13.84094179213307
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89114.68880657 0.00068318           16681-2 0  2309
2 16095  51.6052 219.1623 0001008 267.3156  92.4304 15.40205884399948
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89 99.68483095 0.00000011                   0  3104
2 16129  63.6929 101.3877 0115346 150.6370 210.0223  2.00564927 25669
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89112.81917230 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8203
2 16191  82.5412 274.8840 0021209  76.4494 283.8948 13.16867709168233
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89112.88363127 0.00000261           22402-3 0  4804
2 16408  82.5312 263.6067 0017458  93.3847 266.9311 13.84156620167908
Mir        
1 16609U          89114.84685467 0.00101979           14556-2 0  8104
2 16609  51.6218 269.6078 0020468 248.4696 111.3513 15.55215204182875
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89116.01560766 0.00000504           25454-3 0  4449
2 16613  98.7005 191.2457 0000787  61.7133 298.4240 14.20019436  4722
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89112.91848142 0.00000195           16568-3 0  2929
2 16735  82.5355 290.3862 0014159 161.9162 198.2507 13.83899367146817
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89112.90812130 0.00002627           38651-3 0  5852
2 16881  82.5190  89.0709 0021439 279.6374  80.2448 14.74958086147146
EGP        
1 16908U          89110.45964276 -.00000029           66726-4 0  1226
2 16908  50.0094 115.5450 0011499 200.0590 159.9794 12.44377637122222
FO-12      
1 16909U          89112.36835661 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1414
2 16909  50.0159 109.9094 0011193 203.0127 157.0209 12.44399273122451
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89103.53475572 0.00000976           45074-3 0  2155
2 16969  98.6420 135.2470 0014892  79.5658 280.7197 14.22939623134742
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89112.69442788 0.00000346           30353-3 0  2428
2 17290  82.4701 198.2803 0014306  62.2930 297.9679 13.83707130115942
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89 96.76000789 -.00000036           10000-3 0  2513
2 17561   0.0788 102.8111 0001270  89.1425 168.0185  1.00272633  1046
Kvant      
1 17845U          89113.88195155 0.00123935           17532-2 0  7348
2 17845  51.5229 274.3573 0027211 252.2567 101.8395 15.55169713118992
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89114.86582786 0.00000514           55511-3 0  7373
2 18129  82.9235 277.5386 0011378 193.0842 167.0019 13.71968627 92080
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89115.49363524 0.00150975  11246-4  26390-3 0  9941
2 18225  71.8744 196.5900 0010586 259.5581 100.4587 16.01907444102842
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89112.36194490 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2620
2 18312  82.5539 263.7633 0012626 359.5693   0.5451 13.83455360 84797
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89112.51356958 0.00000259           22329-3 0  1046
2 18820  82.5452 324.8106 0018271  65.6539 294.6525 13.84147608 61983
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 89.37166448 -.00000028           10000-3 0   346
2 19216  57.2895 213.9669 6688587 201.4192 106.6281  2.09699506  6084
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89112.57871439 0.00000411           10000-2 0  1784
2 19336  82.5477 214.9880 0018392 313.8243  46.2033 13.20145285 35597
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89111.54455513 0.00000898           52061-3 0   702
2 19531  98.9351  55.8418 0013218  34.9329 325.2707 14.10953152 29482
Soyuz TM-7 
1 19660U          89114.84685097 0.00041710           60427-3 0  1505
2 19660  51.6230 269.6085 0020411 248.5811 111.2182 15.55204654 23462
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89101.18994180 0.00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   277
2 19802  55.1429 214.4439 0068844 159.0987 200.7743  2.00628732  1086
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89112.95424474 0.00000117           10000-3 0   278
2 19851  82.5274 203.2164 0016436 103.4763 256.8229 13.83784795  7440
Cosmos 2005
1 19862U          89 95.12275817 0.00946225  39673-4  42772-3 0   851
2 19862  62.7868 262.6573 0114960 128.3397 232.5572 16.07713223  5373
MOP-1      
1 19876U          89 94.29713181 -.00000042           10000-4 0   164
2 19876   1.1453 297.7800 0010668  36.1305 322.6241  1.00103247   276
MOP-1 R/B  
1 19877U          89 94.75127070 0.00054406           60542-2 0   179
2 19877   7.0031 319.7005 7291933 201.1459  97.0995  2.28813204   656
Progress 41
1 19895U          89114.96498249 0.09427593  59046-4  96083-4 0   578
2 19895  51.6236 267.3630 0103260 273.5098  85.3964 16.34668136  6162
Cosmos 2007
1 19900U          89111.68155825 0.00328568  53900-4  45747-3 0   599
2 19900  64.7376 294.5535 0046890 113.4393 247.1709 16.03352976  4699
Cosmos 2008
1 19902U          89116.00392757 -.00000006                   0   119
2 19902  74.0150 350.9818 0049383  47.6256 312.8966 12.57624316  4085
Cosmos 2009
1 19903U          89115.97367855 -.00000006                   0   194
2 19903  74.0136 351.1735 0040920  57.9208 302.5814 12.55708122  4073
Cosmos 2010
1 19904U          89116.02198481 -.00000007                   0   123
2 19904  74.0169 351.2452 0029998  57.7151 302.6852 12.53835344  4072
Cosmos 2011
1 19905U          89115.99017871 -.00000007                   0   100
2 19905  74.0133 351.4784 0020649  63.6620 296.6555 12.51975370  4035
Cosmos 2012
1 19906U          89116.04082705 -.00000007                   0   173
2 19906  74.0154 351.5364 0009996  71.0983 289.1155 12.50018203  4069
Cosmos 2013
1 19907U          89116.01420355 -.00000006                   0   122
2 19907  74.0155 351.7657 0010079 145.8879 214.2831 12.47957635  4029
Cosmos 2014
1 19908U          89115.74202185 -.00000006                   0   121
2 19908  74.0137 352.2749 0013011 203.8083 156.2365 12.46073020  4011
Cosmos 2015
1 19909U          89116.04063931 -.00000007                   0   121
2 19909  74.0160 352.0316 0026013 201.5921 158.4034 12.43852318  4006
Cos 2008-15
1 19910U          89113.23932265 -.00000006                   0   147
2 19910  74.0126 357.2113 0134375 228.1294 130.8211 12.23001671  3636
Delta Star 
1 19911U          89115.83185253 -.00008444          -34058-3 0   490
2 19911  47.6782 237.1065 0009644 138.5781 221.4369 15.23615754  4861
TDRS 3 R/B 
1 19913U          89107.96552245 0.00000064           10000-3 0    80
2 19913   2.1480  56.9953 0026789 207.3139 152.4783  1.00616442   288
1989 027A  
1 19919U          89113.39894763 0.00000063           10000-3 0   207
2 19919   0.0946  90.6478 0003727 295.9918 333.3798  1.00272578    82
1989 027B  
1 19920U          89114.79886834 -.00017012  18753-4 -33283-3 0   339
2 19920   4.1357  30.3578 7283793 197.2940 109.3972  2.32327065   539
1989 028A  
1 19921U          89115.44425943 0.00000182           18204-3 0   260
2 19921  82.9588 125.1737 0038485 237.5676 122.1754 13.73920071  2843
1989 028B  
1 19922U          89113.23468080 -.00001314          -13627-2 0   257
2 19922  82.9562 126.7599 0032388 228.5918 131.2450 13.75739276  2542
1989 029A  
1 19923U          89108.63544501 0.00286934  41073-4  12954-3 0   343
2 19923  62.8051 307.0272 0033532 114.5728 245.9081 16.20347190  1949
1989 030A  
1 19928U          89114.18446076 -.00000101           10000-3 0   131
2 19928   1.4167 276.9524 0007185  72.3219 287.3922  0.97711980   117
1980 030D  
1 19931U          89110.07558107 -.00000034           10000-3 0    54
2 19931   1.4567 276.8115 0016913  16.9941 342.2992  0.97926874    78
1989 031A  
1 19938U          89116.30574742 0.00535186  39473-4  31446-3 0   166
2 19938  62.8101  54.5664 0114541  61.6925 299.7005 16.04977918   896
1989 031B  
1 19939U          89114.70890945 0.22749251  44161-4  21521-3 0   195
2 19939  62.7672  60.5627 0024095 131.3155 230.2342 16.49282026   644
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Apr 89 14:25:42 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@naif.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Voyager model
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

jarthur!jokim@uunet.uu.net  (John H. Kim) writes:

>And what about the third craft?  Is it the one on display at JPL?

The "Voyager" on display here is a model made out of cardboard, plastic,
wood, occasionally metal.  I believe the third craft is in the Smithsonian.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 89 23:29:38 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)

In article <8094@venera.isi.edu> cew@venera.isi.edu.UUCP (Craig E. Ward) writes:
>>(Other than economics.  I know NASA is cheap).
>                                ^^^^
>                                Wrong!  Congress is cheap, and short sighted.

Right!  NASA is *expensive*, not cheap!
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 21:09:01 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpcllmv!jbc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jeff Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)

>Please move this topic to talk.rumors!!!
>
> Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA

But seriously, folks!  I heard it was a 200 foot likeness of Elvis that
attacked the shuttle.  He fogged up the windows and started singing Jail House
Rock until the shuttle commander used the Canadian arm to hit him on the nose.
What do you have to say about that, Stuart?

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 89 04:59:39 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: SETI: Where and when to look

In article <1799@blake.acs.washington.edu> wiml@blake.acs.washington.edu (William Lewis) writes:
:   How about exploding fusion bombs? They produce a lot of interesting 
: radiations. If we exploded enough, and in a pattern, it might be noticeable
: to alien astronomers. (Those Earthlings are blowing each other up again,
: Dr. Bloop...) Getting more powerful, we could make lots of antimatter (that's
: the hard part =8) ) and annihilate it in a binary type transmission.

Why are you making it so difficult?  Just modulate the output of the sun.

Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 89 23:39:38 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Proposed luner simulation facility

In article <28.Apr.89.08:43:30.BST.ZZASSGL@UK.AC.MCC.CMS> ZZASSGL@cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk writes:
>Would it not be cheaper just to go to the Moon?

Not if the US government is doing it.  Remember the price tag for Apollo?
Double it.  Or worse.  And it will take longer, too.

Of course, if you used Proton launches to put the hardware into orbit,
and had it built by non-aerospace companies, you could be right.  Boy,
would NASA be pissed off at you, too.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 18:37:37 GMT
From: ncrlnk!wright!thor.UUCP@uunet.uu.net  (Student of Dr. Shock)
Subject: Scrubbed!


	Atlantis scrubbed at 0:00:31 due to pump problems.

	I thought you changed the oil!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #403
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 May 89 08:08:51 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AB01119>; Tue, 2 May 89 07:20:51 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  2 May 89 07:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYLLRyy00jZd81:k4Y>;
          Tue,  2 May 89 05:40:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.8YLL9oy00UkZIpd05J>;
          Tue,  2 May 89 05:18:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YLL8Zy00UkZ0pbU4A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  2 May 89 05:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #404

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 404

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Private Space
		      Re: Colonization problems
			  Re: Voyager model
		   Re: Some comments on comments...
			   Re: ET exposure
		     Re: Private Space Companies
		  Re: Asteroid/Earth Close Encounter
		 Re: NASP (national aerospace plane)
		   Re: Some comments on comments...
		Re: Re: Asteroid/Earth Close Encounter
Private Space Companies (WAS Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)
		  Earth based - will it always win?
Re: McBride to leave NASA; Brand named commander of STS-35 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 15:54:05 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space

In article <2503@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG> dave@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG (David Becker) writes:
>Does the experience of Pegasus and AMROC backup the 'order of
>magnatude less' statement? 

Very cautiously, yes.  The caution is necessary because neither has yet flown.

>In other words, exactly how bad do these efforts make NASA look?

Not very, because NASA hasn't been in the expendable-launcher business, or
the small-launcher business, for quite a while.

>Did the embarassment of telling China to raise their Long-March launch
>prices have any impact?  Or what did Fletcher say when a congressional
>committee asked when, if ever, he could make a launch for that much?

As near as I can tell, insofar as Congress cares, it is still buying the
NASA/NASA-contractor party line that it's impossible to reduce costs very
much.  (Taking the hardware out of the hands of NASA and the USAF and
having them buy launch services has already produced modest cost savings.)
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 15:59:51 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Colonization problems

In article <3753@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>}The sum total of human knowledge about low-gravity biological effects is
>}that a few days on the Moon didn't hurt the Apollo astronauts.  That's *it*.
>
>Well, since I think that zero might qualify as low, I would not say that...

The discussion was about low, not zero, gravity, so the Soviets don't know
anything either.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 89 23:34:23 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Voyager model

In article <890428142542.000018DC091@naif.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@NAIF.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>>And what about the third craft?  Is it the one on display at JPL?
>
>The "Voyager" on display here is a model made out of cardboard, plastic,
>wood, occasionally metal.  I believe the third craft is in the Smithsonian.

The Smithsonian has a depressingly large collection of ex-flight-ready
hardware, in fact:  Voyager 3, Viking 3, a real Lunar Module (not a mockup
or test article), Skylab II, ...
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 89 23:46:53 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Some comments on comments...

In article <570@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>... As a matter of fact,
>there is only *one* probe out there doing *anything*...Voyager.  

You're forgetting Pioneer Venus and Giotto, at a minimum.

>You seem to put a lot of faith in a program that has the exact same problem as
>you say the U.S. program has: all talk and no action...

The Soviets have had schedule slips.  However, while the US program is
pretty nearly all talk and no action, the Soviet one is mostly talk but
some action.  They have, after all, launched two more Mars missions this
decade than the US has.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 89 04:39:10 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: ET exposure

> > "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of
> > citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14,
> > Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted
> > 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing).  The Code
> 
> I hereby publicly and solemnly swear that I will break this law if ever
> given the opportunity. Furthurmore I will make any and all information so
> gained fully public regardless of personal consequences.
> 
> Admittedly, it is rather unlikely that I'll have said opportunity. But
> it's the thought that counts...
> 
> If true, this kind of statist garbage is why we need the libertarian
> movement around. SOMEONE has stand up and tell the government to go
> **** itself.
> 
> 						Smash the State,
> 						Dale Amon

Why do you think an ET would want to talk to you?  Why do total strangers
knock on your door?  There's about a 90% chance (I'm correct in about 90%
of my estimates :-) that such an ET would be some kind of missionary.

Have you thought of the damage which could be wrought by being exposed
to ET ideas?  What if they're preaching some super-effective form of
Communism or Jehovah's Witnesses or something?

"Hi.  We're from the planet Kolob and we'd like you to ask yourself if
you died right now, are you sure you would go to dimension 5?  If you're not 
sure, we have some free information pills we'd like to leave with you.
We're sure you would find them very interesting and tasty."

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 17:19:01 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <3897@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) writes:
>A couple of weeks ago I remeber someone posted a brief note that 
>Rockwell tried to buy the shuttle from NASA..  <I believe it was 
>Henery S>..  Why didn't NASA sell them a couple of shuttles?

Because NASA does not want to turn the shuttle, or any other NASA activity,
over to anybody else.  NASA wants to stay in control.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 89 23:01:52 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Asteroid/Earth Close Encounter

In article <1339@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>Daniel Hinojosa writes:
>> I read an article in the L.A. Times about this event. Seems the asteroid
>> in question came amazingly close to earth. That is, amazingly close
>> in the overall scope of the universe. 500 million miles close.
>
>I recall seeing a movie film of an object that skimmed through the earths
>atmosphere (over Colorado, I believe.)  I forget how big it was, but it
>stayed in the atmosphere for a few minutes, and it didn't burn up.  It
>just kept going back out into solar orbit.

Yes, I was going to mention this too but was too lazy at the time. It 
was in August '77 or '78 I believe - a mountain-sized object passed 
through the upper layers of Earth's atmosphere traveling approximately 
South to North over the Rockies from Mexico to Canada. Many thousands 
of people saw the massive "contrail" and some saw the tumbling body 
itself. In the Rockies' high tourist season everyone has a camera, so 
there were lots of pictures taken, including some 8mm color movies. It 
made the cover of S&T a few months later, you could check the back 
issues. I wish the 8mm shots were available on video, I remember 
seeing them at the time and it is *TRULY* chilling. Even though it 
merely grazed the wispy upper stratosphere, eyewitnesses said they 
could HEAR it this thing.  You know the line: "Be afraid... be VERY
afraid"!
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 89 15:58:42 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASP (national aerospace plane)

In article <3888@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) writes:
>the capabilities of the NASP?  I know its suppose to reach a 
>LEO, but could it go higher... 

Not very.  Getting into LEO is hard enough.

>Am I into the area of wishfull thinking, yet : ) ? like payloads?

The only aerospace plane that actually has funding is the X-30, whose
payload will be two pilots and whatever they can put in their pockets.

>Also I have heard that the Japanese, Europe are designing a similar
>space/aircraft. But I haven't heard anything similiar being built in
>Russia.

Japan is interested in aerospace planes and is doing vigorous research
on materials and propulsion, but has no immediate plans to build one.
The Europeans are interested in the general idea but aren't doing much
direct work on it at present.  (Note, I speak of aerospace planes --
planes that can fly up into orbit under their own power -- not spaceplanes
that are launched by conventional expendable boosters.  Both the Japanese
and the Europeans have active projects aimed at the latter.)  I suspect
Soviet technology is not up to an aerospace plane just yet.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 89 23:38:08 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Some comments on comments...

In article <506@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>> The Zoology department *here* isn't going to launch any Mars probes until
>> somebody (i.e. the Soviets) finds life there.
>
>Assuming that the statement was not entirely tongue-in-cheek, it seems that
>the US wasted its time with Viking; it wouldn't have found life anyway 
>because the landers had the wrong flag painted on them...

Not quite what I meant.  The reason I said that is that the Soviets are
the only ones still looking for life on Mars, so they are the only ones
likely to find it.  Official NASA policy is that there is no life on Mars,
so it is not worth flying hardware to look for it.

>> [list of mars probes] Ancient history, all of them.
>
>I guess that implies that all the data they collected is useless too...

No, but it's not relevant to a discussion of the death and decay of the
US space program today.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 89 17:45:59 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Re: Asteroid/Earth Close Encounter

> 
> I recall seeing a movie film of an object that skimmed through the earths
> atmosphere (over Colorado, I believe.)  I forget how big it was, but it
> stayed in the atmosphere for a few minutes, and it didn't burn up.  It
> just kept going back out into solar orbit.
>  
> John M. Logajan
>

Yeah, I remember that, it was back in the 70s, I think.  SKY & TELESCOPE
ran some of the pictures ... it skipped into the atmosphere in the
Southwest and ran roughly parallel to the Rockies until it skipped out
at roughly the Canadian border.

Pro and dedicated-amateur astronomers will no doubt be posting full
details presently.

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 752-7717                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1989 14:11-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Private Space Companies (WAS Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)

If you want to get an idea of what NASA is like from the perspective of
a private launch entrepreneur who has been on the "recieving end" (bend
over and get out the vaseline) of NASA's "commercial space policy",
read the letter to the editor in Ad Astra (April issue I think) from
George Koopman and James Bennet, the principals in Amroc.

Anyone who knows Tom Heppenheimer (a regular contributer to Omni,
Reason, etc) can also hear some similar tales.

NASA is a status quo bureaucracy. They will smile at you and talk and
talk... And then give it to you in the back. Or elsewhere.

I've heard even more blatant stories from the Beggs years.
F'r'instance, one woman I know was in a room where NASA officials were
discussing with some large aerospace companies how they would handle
commercialization and "get rid of the small operators". If the wording
she passed on to me was accurate, they were quite blatant about it.

Things have toned down a little since Beggs was in (he was a statist of
the worst kind), but that does not mean NASA is actually "helpful".

I've also heard some stories about what went on (from someone who was
present for some of the meetings) with NASA officials in Keyworth's
office during the Beggs years. Shall I simply say that they knew ahead
of time that the station would not cost $8B and leave it at that?

All of it is very, very predictable if you look at NASA through Public
Choice Theory glasses instead of rose tinted ones.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 89 04:13:25 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Earth based - will it always win?

Now that I have a REAL newsfeed I want to toss something out for 
discussion. I was struck by an article in this week's SCIENCE NEWS - 
it seems Venus radar mapping has taken a quantum jump in quality 
*before* Magellan's launch (and long before we get Magellan results, 
given its slooow trajectory). To recollect, Pioneer gave radar maps 
with ~ kilometer resolution. Venera was about a hundred times better 
over its limited area of coverage. Magellan is supposed to be about 
forty times better than that (and cover more of the planet). But 
here's a radio astronomer at Arecibo with some new techniques turning 
out Earth-based radar pictures four times better than Venera! That's 
ten times worse than Magellan will be, if and when (knock tiles), but 
it's RIGHT HERE and available for study now. SN printed one of his 
images (of the Thea Mons area, a complex volcano/rift zone) and it's 
amazing. And there's no battery to run down! You want more, go back to 
Arecibo and do it again. Can't crash, no chance of a missed thruster 
command or a locked gimbal to screw things up. (The antenna can't even
collapse a la Greenbank, Arecibo's a mesh bowl dug into the ground.)

All of which brings me to a question I've often wondered about. Given 
enough time and ingenuity can't we nearly always do better here on 
Earth? Yes, we are crushed by 1G and swamped in a gaseous muck that 
blocks some wavelengths and distorts most of the rest. Those are 
TECHNICAL challenges. We're supposed to be good at technical 
challenges. If the money spend on HST, for instance, had been poured 
into adaptive optics instead (as is now belatedly being done for Star 
Wars), might we be imaging Io from Hawaii today? Instead of waiting 
decades for the next probe to get built, you might have to wait nine 
months for your slot on the National Adaptive Optical Telescope to 
come up... during which time it's doing useful work for others of 
course. 

Now unmanned probes like Magellan and HST are hardly the top money 
wasters, I grant you -- building "Freedom" (to be launched from its 
own "Maxi-Pad" no doubt <grin>) so PhD's can melt blobs of yttrium or 
whatever absolutely dwarfs the unmanned program in the waste category. 
As does building orbiting zappers to destroy missiles when it would be 
so much cheaper and easier to dismantle them down here. But still, 
pure science is the one who's really getting the shaft. Should we 
concentrate on ground based work and de-emphasize space based 
observation until some smart cookie makes it a lot cheaper and easier 
to get up there? I hope I have framed the question usefully. 

-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 89 04:20:07 GMT
From: att!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Re: McBride to leave NASA; Brand named commander of STS-35 (Forwarded)

In article <24382@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>      Astronaut Jon A. McBride (Captain, USN) has announced his 
> intention to leave NASA effective May 12, 1989.
>      McBride was named last year to command the STS-35 (ASTRO-1) 
> mission, scheduled for launch in March 1990.

If an astronaut with a guaranteed seat isn't interested in sticking
with the program, imagine how the rest of NASA (orbit-bound and
otherwise) must feel!

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #404
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 May 89 06:38:24 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00701>; Wed, 3 May 89 05:50:25 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  3 May 89 05:50:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYLefgy00UkTA1ZEdq>;
          Wed,  3 May 89 03:32:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.sYLeT2y00UkZMtP04N>;
          Wed,  3 May 89 03:18:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YLeR2y00UkZQtNU5g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  3 May 89 03:16:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #405

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 405

Today's Topics:
Re: McBride to leave NASA; Brand named commander of STS-35 (Forwarded)
		Re: Earth based - will it always win?
		   NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
		Re: Earth based - will it always win?
    Re: Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)
    Re: Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)
		       Re: wireless electricity
			Re: Asteroid Encounter
		      Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 89 15:45:41 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Re: McBride to leave NASA; Brand named commander of STS-35 (Forwarded)

In article <2843@pegasus.ATT.COM> psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes:
>In article <24382@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>>      Astronaut Jon A. McBride (Captain, USN) has announced his 
>> intention to leave NASA effective May 12, 1989.
>>      McBride was named last year to command the STS-35 (ASTRO-1) 
>> mission, scheduled for launch in March 1990.
>
>If an astronaut with a guaranteed seat isn't interested in sticking
>with the program, imagine how the rest of NASA (orbit-bound and
>otherwise) must feel!

I believe the three men who left NASA were doing so because of a new law
that takes effect next month governing NASA employees and their ability to
take jobs in industry.  By leaving now, they beat the deadline and will
not have problems getting new jobs.

Also, please remember, that the first 'A' in NASA stands for Aeronautics.
We do more than space flights.

							-Peter Yee
							yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov
							ames!yee
PS Standard disclaimers.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 89 23:38:03 GMT
From: rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Rick Francis Golembiewski)
Subject: Re: Earth based - will it always win?

From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
>Should we concentrate on ground based work and de-emphasize space based 
>observation until some smart cookie makes it a lot cheaper and easier 
>to get up there? I hope I have framed the question usefully. 

For some things, definately yes, for others no... Ideally we should
only use space for the experiments/manufacture etc. that is cheaper,
then Earth based, or that is impossible from earth (ie, how does one
simulate 0 G for a long period of time on earth?).  There are a few
important realities to keep in mind: If space is de-emphasized, the
chances are that very few 'smart cookies' are going to be working on
making it a lot cheaper and easier to get up there.  Also remember
 that putting money into research won't necessarily get you the desired
 results (NASA has shown this many times, remember how the shuttle was
 supposed to be INEXPENSIVE?), so if all the money that went into say
 HST or Magellian, may not have produced the necessary technology, the
 people who had the $$$ made the descision to us space, and you can be
 fairly certain that they made the descision for a reason. They knew
 they could build a space telescope, and that there is already a
 shuttle system to deploy it etc.  Did they consider an earth based
 telescope?  Probabily, however the problems associated with the
 atmosphere can not be eliminated easily, it may well take more $$$
 invested in R&D in order to get a system that is not nearly as good as
 HST.  In science there are alaways a few ways to do a particular experiment,
 and a few different experiments to learn the same thing, so you have
 to learn to pick the best that you can within your resources.
 Remember that money isn't the only resource, manpower and time are two
 other important ones, so if you only have a staff of say 10 people,
 then you can't expect to develope new areas of technology in a reasonable
 amount of time, however if you have the money you can have some engineers make
 a satellite for you, and have NASA launch it...  It is up to the
 scientists to pick the most efficient way to learn new information,
 however scientists are people too, so they might just make a mistake
 and end up spending more then they though...

//     Rick Golembiewski  rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu  \\
\\       #include stddisclaimer.h               //
 \\  "I never respected a man who could spell" //
  \\               -M. Twain                  //

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 89 15:26:12 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the satellite user community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.  The most current orbital elements
from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513)
427-0674, and are updated several times weekly.  Documentation and tracking
software are also available on this system.  The Celestial RCP/M may be
accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit, no parity.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:

AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed;
           blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.  (Decimal point assumed)
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1; plus sign = 2)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:

NOAA 6
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978

Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 89 19:39:37 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@g.ms.uky.edu  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Earth based - will it always win?

In article <14295@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

> [discussion of radar at arecibo looking at venus]

> All of which brings me to a question I've often wondered about. Given 
> enough time and ingenuity can't we nearly always do better here on 
> Earth?

Depends. At some wavelengths you can see through the atmosphere, no matter
how much time and ingenuity you put into it. And to consider a few
silly and/or serious cases:

    you can't take a picture of the far side of the moon from the earth :-)
    you can't put two radio interferometer elements farther apart than
      one earth diameter on the earth (oh, QUASAT, when will you fly)
    you can't pick up soil samples on mars and return them to the earth
      without leaving your living room
    you can't measure cosmic rays out at Neptune without going there

Finally, one might note that Aricebo would be expensive to build today,
and the radio astronomy community probably could never get they money ---
the Air Force originally built it for ionospheric research.

> (The antenna can't even
> collapse a la Greenbank, Arecibo's a mesh bowl dug into the ground.)

See that big receiver thingie sitting 500 feet off the ground in
the middle? Wonder how much that weighs? It's only held up by a few
cables... fortunately it was probably built with a larger safety margin
than the 300'.

> Should we 
> concentrate on ground based work and de-emphasize space based 
> observation until some smart cookie makes it a lot cheaper and easier 

Some things must be done from space. Some things are cheaper to do from
space than from the ground.

------
Greg Lindahl                |
gl8f@virginia.{edu,bitnet}  |   Veraj Programistoj ne uzas PASCAL-on

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 89 05:38:09 GMT
From: att!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Re: Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)

In article <20041@genrad.UUCP>, dls@genrad.uucp (Diana L. Syriac) writes:
> UFOs are definitely pertinent to Space....last I heard, most of 
> them are from OUTER SPACE.

UFO's are, by definition, unidentified.  Some are natural phenomena,
seen in unexpected ways.  I've seen a couple of those myself, such as an
airliner at sunset, reflecting light to look like windows in a flying
saucer.  None are clearly, indisputably from outer space.

As for "close encounters of the third kind" . . . I remember reading a
serious book on UFO's, by someone who thought some of them really were
spacecraft from Out There.  His section on personal encounters ended by
saying that such stories "travelled at the speed of lie."  The rest of
us are even more skeptical.  Certainly, no one to my knowledge has
increased our understanding about space (or our ability to go there) by
studying UFO's.

Most of us aren't interested in hearing about flying saucers, and most
"flying sorcerers" aren't interested in what we talk about here.

> Diana L. Syriac, {decvax,linus,mit-eddie,masscomp}!dls@genrad.com
That should be either dls@generad.com or {decvax,linus,...}!genrad!dls
(mixing at's and bang's can be hazardous to your e-mail's health).

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 89 14:03:15 GMT
From: usc!nunki.usc.edu!manderso@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Mark Anderson)
Subject: Re: Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)

>In article <20041@genrad.UUCP>, dls@genrad.uucp (Diana L. Syriac) writes:
>> UFOs are definitely pertinent to Space....last I heard, most of 
>> them are from OUTER SPACE.
>
>Most of us aren't interested in hearing about flying saucers, and most
>"flying sorcerers" aren't interested in what we talk about here.
>
>Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories

UFO's can't be any more far out than some of the more "scientific" 
arguments posted here, such as blowing up the Sun or mining asteroids.
Loosen up a little.
					Mark

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 89 03:41:40 GMT
From: att!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Re: wireless electricity

<"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?">

In article <269@poppy.warwick.ac.uk>, phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) writes:
> There have been recent sugestions that a satellite in a
> geostationary orbit could use a high power microwave transmitter to
> transmit power to earth, this would mean that the solar cells picked
> up more light than they would on earth.

Recent?  These proposals were first made in the seventies.  The
original proposal was made by Peter Glaser (of Arthur Little, I think).
Princeton's Gerard K. O'Neill suggested that, rather than lifting all
that mass from the Earth, it would be cheaper to build a lunar colony,
get all the mass from the Moon, and build the solar power satellites
from space habitats.  I did my term paper for Engineering Economics on
O'Neill's proposal back in 1977 or 1978.

What effect would that kind of microwave flux have on birds, crops,
people, and the environment in general?  No one knows.  Terrestrial
fusion might well be cheaper, and looks from here to be much simpler.

Please follow-up to sci.space.

> Stuart Millington.

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 15:21:07 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Asteroid Encounter

I have a set of old photocopies and clippings at home that I have slowly
been "digitizing" (the hard way -- eyes on text, fingers on keyboard)
as a means of keeping them organized.

I have two on meteor strikes.  They're a little old, but as long as I'm
writing them up I might as well post them, since they're still interesting.  

This one's on Dr. Shoemaker of the USGS.  I have a SKY & TELESCOPE article
on the Tunguska strike which I'll post later this week.

    | Greg Goebel
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 15:21:48 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter

Dealing With Threats From Space

   Michael Lemonick

   TIME / 9 JUN 86 / P 65

   It is a sunny afternoon in Karachi, and streets of Pakistan's largest
   city are crowded with shoppers, apparently unconcerned about the rising
   tension between Pakistan and India.  Suddenly a second sun bursts into
   view overhead, so bright it temporarily blinds thousands and so hot it
   blisters the skin.  Thirty seconds later, the shock wave hits, 
   crumbling buildings and throwing people to the ground.  To the 
   Pakistanis, only one explanation is possible for the tremendous blast:
   India has launched a nuclear attack.  They immediately order their bombers,
   armed with atomic bombs, to strike back at India, which responds in kind.
   Only later do the surviving officials learn of their mistake.  The 
   object that exploded over Karachi was not a nuclear weapon but a large
   meteor hurtling in from outer space.

Though this sounds like the plot for a TV movie, Eugene Shoemaker, a respected
US Geological Survey scientist, is concerned that just such an event -- and an
unwarranted reaction -- could occur.  Shoemaker expressed his fears at a 
Baltimore meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU):  "The effect of a
meteor blast appears the same as a high-altitude nuclear explosion," he said.
"If this happens in the wrong place, people will think they've been nuked."

Meteors, which are asteroids or cometary debris that has entered the
atmosphere, continually shower the Earth.  Most of them are small and either
break up or are burned to ash by friction.  But, explains Shoemaker, the
incineration of larger asteroids is far more violent.  As asteroid 80 feet
across, striking the atmosphere at 50,000 MPH, compresses the air in its path
so much that in effect the asteroid is stopped dead in its path, converting
kinetic energy almost instantaneously into heat, light, and a powerful shock
wave.  That causes a tremendous explosion, in this case equivalent to a
one-megaton bomb.

If a meteor were to burst in the atmosphere tomorrow, Shoemaker says, "the
Soviets and the US would know what it was" and not react militarily.  Their
detectors could distinguish between a nuclear explosion -- which generates
million-degree temperatures, X-rays, and gamma rays -- and an exploding meteor
-- which would produce considerably lower temperatures and no deadly radiation.
But smaller nations, unaware of the nature of the blast, might react violently.
Says Shoemaker:  "Suppose it happens over Syria or Pakistan?"  He proposes that
the US immediately try to determine whether the explosion was of cosmic origin
and notify the affected nation.

Since 1973, Shoemaker has been photographing the sky in search of asteroids
that periodically cross the Earth's orbit and thus pose a danger of collision.
To date, he says, 57 such asteroids at least 1 km in diameter have been
catalogued.  In addition, about three Earth-crossing comets are detected each
year.  From the rate at which new Earth-crossers are detected, Shoemaker
estimates that there are some 2,000 asteroids in this category and that 100
comets intersect the Earth's orbit every year.

His calculations suggest that asteroids packing the explosive energy of one
megaton should enter the atmosphere on an average of once every 30 years,
larger asteroids with a 20-megaton punch every 400 years, and a 1 km, 10,000
megaton comet or asteroid once in 100,000 years.

This century has already seen a major meteorite blast.  In 1908, either an
asteroid or comet exploded about five miles above the remote Stony Tunguska
River region of Siberia, igniting and flattening trees over hundreds of square
miles.  From descriptions of the blast and photographs of the damage,
scientists have estimated that the object was at least 200 feet across and
caused a 12-megaton explosion.

Depending on their velocity, size, and composition, some meteors survive the
fiery trip through the atmosphere at hit the ground, at which point they are
called meteorites.  Most are in the form of pebbles or small rocks, but
occasionally they are much larger.  Scientists think it was a 130-foot chunk of
meteoric iron that hit Arizona with a force of 15 megatons between 20,000 and
50,000 years ago, digging a crater three-quarters of a mile across and 600 feet
deep.

But even greater menace lurks in the darkness of space.  Scientists have
speculated that objects as large as several miles across have crashed into the
Earth, spewing millions of tons of debris into the atmosphere, blotting out the
Sun for months or years, and causing mass extinctions of life -- including,
many believe, the dinosaurs.  Of the known larger Earth-crossers, none seem to
pose a threat in the near future.  But, says Shoemaker, "until we have tracked
all of them, something could sneak up on us."

What if a large asteroid or comet is discovered heading for the Earth?  At the
AGU meeting, Shoemaker and colleage Alan Harris, of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena, California, suggested that the intruder could be
diverted by landing a thrusting device on it.  As a last-ditch effort, a small
nuclear warhead could be detonated on or near it.  Says Shoemaker:  "We have
the technology to do that right now."  But if the explosion simply broke the
meteorite into large chunks, the danger would only be multiplied.  "The more
prudent solution," says Harris, "is to burrow a substantial charge into the
object and blow it to smithereens."

[<>]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #405
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 May 89 08:18:16 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01043>; Wed, 3 May 89 07:05:16 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  3 May 89 07:05:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYLgNEy00UkT41V05m>;
          Wed,  3 May 89 05:28:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.oYLgFNy00UkZQta04u>;
          Wed,  3 May 89 05:20:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYLgC7y00UkZ8tYU4h@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  3 May 89 05:16:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #406

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 406

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
			   Magellan update
		Re: Earth based - will it always win?
		       Re: wireless electricity
    Re: Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)
			    Re: Near miss
		Re: Earth based - will it always win?
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
			Magellan update update
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
	     Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 10:47:16 GMT
From: blake!sealion@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (sealion)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <1989Apr28.151108.15074@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
> In article <3761@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
> >
> >See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble?
> >
> >That looked _NEAT_!!!!!  That thing sitting there bursting its jets holding
> >a hover was slick!!!  
> 
> Yeah, it looked really neat.  Just one question: What's the difference
> between the smart pebble concept and placing smart interceptor
> missiles in orbit?

The film shows the first full-bore laboratory test of what is sometimes 
referred to as a "smart bullet". The space based weapon is designed to 
eliminate it's  target (ICBMs) through high speed collision during the 
boost and mid-course phases of flight. No warhead needed. The same
concept as a bullet. Simply a kinetic weapon. Very effective.
Eventually, the size of the weapon is supposed to be reduced to that of
a basketball with a weight of about 15 lbs. Thus the name "Brilliant
Pebbles".


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't
 believe this to be a coincidence." || - Jeremy S. Anderson   12/15/88  

#include <disclaimer.h>                       sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  1 May 89 15:03:57 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Magellan update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

This is most of the text of a recorded announcement made available to JPL
employees: 


This is the JPL broadcast news service prepared at 2pm PDT, Sunday April 30. 

Since Friday's launch attempt the Magellan spacecraft and the attached IUS
booster have remained in the payload bay of Atlantis. 

The payload's state of health is being monitored by telemetry and the trickle
charge has been reestablished on the flight batteries aboard Magellan.  Control
of the payload continues to be via the Magellan ground station and the IUS
checkout station which are located at the Kennedy Space Center. 

The Magellan receiver lockup observed after the MYLAR [?] tracking station
switched to high power shortly before launch received troubleshooting
yesterday.  There was no damage to the receiver as a result of the occurrence,
however, while Magellan's computer is designed to preclude receiving
inadvertent commands, there was a reverification of the spacecraft onboard
computer software Friday night. 

Yesterday propellants were offloaded from Atlantis' external tank and the
rotating service structure was moved back in place back around the vehicle.
Workers have opened up the orbiter's aft compartment and are removing
insulation from the liquid hydrogen pump recirculation package.  Engineers are
planning to conduct checks of the pump power lines and replace at least one of
the pumps tonight. 

Tomorrow checks of the new pump will begin.  These pumps circulate liquid
hydrogen to the main engines and condition them prior to starting these
engines.  The 3 pumps are contained as a package in the orbiter's aft
compartment and each is about the size of a softball. 

Scaffolding has been erected on the pad to gain access to the exterior four
inch liquid hydrogen recirculation line between the orbiter and the external
tank.  Managers decided to replace the line because of vapors seen escaping
minutes after the launch scrub.  The vapors indicate the presence of a pinhole
in the seal. 

Workers are removing insulation around the line today and are scheduled to
remove the line late tonight. Tomorrow the new line will be installed and
secured in place. 

STS-30 pilot Donald Walker and commander David Grabe left the Kennedy Space
Center today for Houston today.  The 3 mission specialists left yesterday. 

The whole crew will practice in the shuttle simulator in Houston during the
next few days. 

[Launch has been rescheduled for Thursday since this recording.] 

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 19:12:01 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner P-316 x57123)
Subject: Re: Earth based - will it always win?

>From article <14295@bfmny0.UUCP>, by tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff):
> All of which brings me to a question I've often wondered about. Given 
> enough time and ingenuity can't we nearly always do better here on 
> Earth? Yes, we are crushed by 1G and swamped in a gaseous muck that 
> blocks some wavelengths and distorts most of the rest. [...]
>  Should we 
> concentrate on ground based work and de-emphasize space based 
> observation until some smart cookie makes it a lot cheaper and easier 
> to get up there? I hope I have framed the question usefully. 

A fair and useful question indeed.  Let's consider the four Great
Observatories: Hubble Space Telescope, Gamma Ray Observatory,
Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility, and Space Infrared Telescope
Facility.  (The first two are approved projects, AXAF is
conditionally approved, and SIRTF is on schedule for "new start"
approval in FY 1992 or 1993.  My comments about SIRTF apply equally
well to the Infrared Space Observatory, an approved ESA project.)

The main justifications for HST were improved spatial resolution,
increased wavelength coverage, and darker sky background (compared to
ground-based telescopes).  It is possible, as you suggest, that
adaptive optics might provide the improved resolution.  Indeed,
interferometric techniques should give much higher resolution than
HST.  However, all these techniques are limited either to bright
objects or (for adaptive optics) to a small field of view near a
bright object.  The increased wavelength coverage (primarily in the
ultraviolet, but also in the infrared for the second-generation
instruments) and the darker sky cannot be attained from the ground.

For the other three Great Observatories, essentially none of their
work can be done from the ground.  The atmosphere simply does not
transmit X-rays or gamma rays.  In the case of SIRTF, while a small
portion of the infrared spectrum does reach the ground, the
atmosphere is so bright at these wavelengths that ground-based
telescopes will always be a factor of 1000 times less sensitive and
thus are wholly unable to study many types of objects.  (Improved
detectors will not overcome the sensitivity limit, since the noise
source is the sky photons and not the detector.)

These limits do not seem to be technical; at least, no advance in
technology that I can conceive of will remove them.  (Unless you want
to talk about removing the atmosphere altogether :-) ) If we want to
do the types of observations the Great Observatories will, we will
have to go above the atmosphere.  Platforms other than satellites,
i.e.  balloons, sounding rockets, and aircraft, can perhaps be used,
but these are not really cheaper on a per-observing-minute basis.

There is still a question, as always in setting priorities for
science funding, whether the particular observations to be made are
worth the mission cost.  Certainly the process must consider what
else could be done with the money.  Another consideration must be
whether improved technology, either in instrumentation or in launch
costs, could make the mission cheaper or better.  Obviously setting
priorities is not an objective process, and reasonable people will
disagree.  However, it certainly seems fair to say that many of the
observations made from space cannot be replaced by ground-based
observations.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 05:29:09 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!dover!fullmer@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Glen Fullmer)
Subject: Re: wireless electricity

In article <2841@pegasus.ATT.COM> psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes:
>In article <269@poppy.warwick.ac.uk>, phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) writes:
>> There have been recent sugestions that a satellite in a
>> geostationary orbit could use a high power microwave transmitter to
>> transmit power to earth, this would mean that the solar cells picked
>> up more light than they would on earth.
>
>Recent?  These proposals were first made in the seventies.  The

Didn't Nikola Tesla transmitted wireless power sufficient to light a light 
bulb over a considerable distance sometime near the turn of the century?

Old?  Who's old?  Some of us have better memories than others!-- 
  _____     _  "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence" 
 {____/    //  "over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
      \   // _  __Richard P. Feynman, Appendix F of Shuttle Disaster Report
 {____/  </_</_/ / <_  {sun!sunburn | cadillac} !dover!fullmer

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 18:13:40 GMT
From: nsc!ken@decwrl.dec.com  (Ken Trant)
Subject: Re: Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)

% Please continue to post these articles HERE where those of us
% who are interested can follow the amusing tale.
% 


  Hear! HEAR!, I agree 104%.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 May 1989 16:51-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Near miss

> atmosphere (over Colorado, I believe.)  I forget how big it was, but it
> stayed in the atmosphere for a few minutes, and it didn't burn up.  It
> just kept going back out into solar orbit.

There is a color picture in a back issue of National Geographic. IT was
a feature article on meteors and such. Within the last 5 years I
believe.

The hunk of rock was big enough to have taken out a good size town. Up
in the 10KT (?) range of energy, had it struck.

When you start thinking about Tunguska, the early 70's pass above, the
.5M mile misses of really big stuff in the last 25 years ...  it makes
you feel like you're sitting on the bulls eye of some cosmic dart
game.

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 16:36:43 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpscdc!chris@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Chris Schiller)
Subject: Re: Earth based - will it always win?

     I took a spacecraft design course at the University of Colorado
which was taught by engineers from Martin Marietta in Denver.
Most of them worked on the Magellan project.  I remember them
mentioning that an investigation was performed to determine whether
an Earth-based or probe-based radar would give better resolution
of Venus.  If I am remembering correctly, the studies showed that a 
spacecraft could do it better, but not by much.  The investigation
was done in the early eighties, and the ground based technology may 
have come a long way since then.  Of course if Magellan would have 
been launched when scheduled, September '86, the primary mission 
would have been completed long ago.  I also think I remember some 
complaints about the decision to not allow Centaur on the shuttle.
The less energetic IUS really restricts the available transfer
orbits, and gives rise to some of the present hurried and frantic
shuttle launch activities.

Chris Schiller
uucp: hplabs!hpscdc!hpsctcd!chris
smtp: chris@hpsctcd
arpanet: chris%hpsctcd@hplabs.hp.com

Many hands make light work:  Somewhere between the wave and particle theories.

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 15:45:07 GMT
From: att!oucsace!mstuard@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Stuard)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <1829@blake.acs.washington.edu>, sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu (sealion) writes:
> In article <1989Apr28.151108.15074@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
> > In article <3761@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
> > >That looked _NEAT_!!!!!  That thing sitting there bursting its jets holding
> > >a hover was slick!!!  
> 
> The film shows the first full-bore laboratory test of what is sometimes 
> referred to as a "smart bullet". The space based weapon is designed to 
> eliminate it's  target (ICBMs) through high speed collision during the 
> boost and mid-course phases of flight. 

If this is to be a space based weapon why would there be ground based test
of this nature.  I would think that the manuverability and acceleration
requirements would be different in orbit than in a 1g atmospheric situation.
We know that it can accelerate at at least 1g and is quite manuverable 
(based on the apparent stability during the hoverv) but what real data about
its capabilities in orbit can be determined in this test.

Though it was really neat to watch.

-- 
 Deviant  disclaimer: OOP! ACK! DON'T PANIC, It's not that important anyhow.
                  /-> mstuard @ ace.cs.OHIOU.EDU
 Michael J. Stuard--> cs614   @ ouaccvmb.BITNET 
                  \-> 73100,3646 @ Compuserve(checked every blue moon or two)

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  1 May 89 15:48:28 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Magellan update update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

A new status report was just posted for Magellan at 3pm, PDT, Monday May 1st:

Officials at Kennedy Space Center in Florida have announced a new launch date
of Thursday, May 4th for the shuttle at 10:48 PDT.  The weather is expected
to be good at Kennedy on Thursday, but will begin to degrade on Friday and be
poor over the weekend. 

The next status report is scheduled for May 2nd at 1pm PDT.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 19:23:15 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!larryb@uunet.uu.net  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <3761@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble?
>
Yes... It was impressive.  I only counted 5 thrusters on the cyclinder. They 
mention on TV is was 6feet long and weighed about 150lbs (fully fueled?).

The test route that object followed was rise 8feet (?) move horizontally
along long axis about 10-15 feet, hover and shutoff.

The center engine provided the main lift, and the 4 on the one end controlled
movement. I must have missed something because with just the 4 controllers
on the cyclinder it must be hard to move horizontally without spining 
around the center.  They have very sensitive accelometers in order to  
adjust the 4 engines to maintain control.

The engines look very similiar to Williams International ceramic engines
that they have been developing.  I saw them in some trade magzines a few
years ago.  They didn't mention anything about thrust ratio's, burn rate,
or engine life span.  I believe that they burn a solid fuel.  
I wonder if they would be useful on a Getaway special, or probe.  

I wonder if the military will ever allow them for use in the civilian 
world.  Only when they have an antimatter engine ;-( 

-- 
Larry Brader  :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net
Of course these are my views, any resemblance to reality is merely 
a concidance.
"He's dead Jim, You grap his tricorder and I'll get his wallet"

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 13:20:00 GMT
From: genrad!dls@husc6.harvard.edu  (Diana L. Syriac)
Subject: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE

The June issue of Final Frontier is one of the best I've seen in a long time.
I'd recommend it as excellent reading for anyone who's interested in Space
Tourism.

Among other things, it has an article describing the "Ultimate Vacation", plus
lists all of the various "Space-on-Earth" camps available in the US, plus lists
all the organizations (including address)which have taken an active interest in
promoting future space tourism.  There's an article on Artificial Gravity being
studied here in Massachusetts; there's a large article on the International
Space University, started at MIT (but worldwide) a couple of years ago;  another
article on Spaceplanes.

And on top of all that, they still have room to describe the STS-29 shuttle 
mission file and the new STS-30 Magellan project.  Plus, there's a "phone in
your vote" poll on Citizen's in Space.  Phone is 1-900-786-3663 ($1.25 per
phone call, touch tone phones only), and question is:
"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"

This is definitely a collector's items when it comes to space magazines.

Back issues (and subscriptions) can be ordered thru:

Final Frontier
PO Box 20089
Minneapolis, MN 55420

Subscription is $14.95 for one year (6 issues), back issues are "$5.00 for
each issue plus $2.50 postage and handling".  You can also use a credit card
by phoning 612-884-6420.

I have no affiliation whatsoever with Final Frontier, I'm just an interested
reader.


->	    Diana L. Syriac						    <-
->USmail:   GenRad Inc., Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742  <-
->usenet:   {decvax,linus,mit-eddie,masscomp}!dls@genrad.com                <-
->tel:	    (508) 369-4400 x2459	I'D RATHER BE FLYING!!!		    <-

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #406
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 May 89 10:18:22 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01125>; Thu, 4 May 89 08:51:54 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  4 May 89 08:51:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYLzify00Ui3M1CmNu>;
          Thu,  4 May 89 03:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.AYLzawy00UkZAvnU5:>;
          Thu,  4 May 89 03:20:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYLzX6y00UkZ4vm04r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  4 May 89 03:16:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #407

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 407

Today's Topics:
		    space news from March 13 AW&ST
		     Re: Private Space Companies
		      Governmental restrictions
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
	       Destruction of organic material on Mars
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
			Magellan Launch Window
		      flames about my signature
			    Voyager update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 04:55:45 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 13 AW&ST

[This issue has a big spread on "Mission to Planet Earth", the new name
for various Earth-sensing activities considered as one great aggregate.
I'll only skim the surface.]

Editorial observing that MtPE is being discussed as Commerce is working
on shutting down Landsat, and suggesting that Commerce has bungled
Landsat commercialization and the program should be taken away from them.
[Seems to me the mess is at least half Congress's fault.]

NASA forms Lunar Exploration Science Working Group to "develop new
strategies" for future exploration of the Moon.

OSC and its Space Data subsidiary start building a $14M assembly/test
facility in Phoenix, including thermal-vacuum test chamber and a
vibration-test facility for Pegasus etc.

USAF mothballing of the Vandenberg shuttle pad to be completed by the
end of Sept.

First Boost Surveillance and Tracking System satellites will not be
able to hand off targeting data to interceptor systems, although they
will be designed to permit later upgrades.  This change is intended to
help defuse treaty-compliance criticism of the SDI satellites, but it
may intensify the debate over whether BSTS is enough of an improvement
over existing warning satellites to be worth $8G.

Senate panel generally backs MtPE project, but raises concerns about
coordination:  "Management by a loose confederation of agencies is a
prescription for disaster".

Ariane launches JCSAT 1 and Meteosat MOP1 (Japanese comsat and European
weather satellite resp.) March 6, after a four-day delay due to a strike
by tracking crews and another two-day delay due to problems with umbilical
connectors.  Arianespace says contingency margins are adequate to cover
this delay and the rest of the 1989 schedule should not slip as a result.

Quayle intercedes to prevent Landsat shutdown.  New interim plans calls
for agencies using Landsat data to chip in to keep the satellites going;
details being worked out.  Commerce insists that Eosat Inc., the nominal
operator of the satellites, should contribute.  The underlying problem
is that the satellites are well past their their design lifetime (although
in another way this is a blessing, since no replacements are yet ready),
and the beancounters hadn't planned for continued funding.

Studies done for Congress and Commerce find that remote sensing is not
yet a commercially viable field, although this will improve considerably
in the next decade.  The studies were finished last summer, but were
withheld until Rep. George Brown threatened legislation to break them
loose.  Landsat, in particular, with its 30m resolution, is not even
competitive, much less viable.  The Geosat Committee, a group of
remote-sensing users, calls Commerce and NOAA leadership in remote
sensing "nonexistent", says US government basically doesn't care about
having a secure source of such data.  "Apparently this is because US
government needs can be met by classified means and US civil needs be
damned..."  Rep. Dave McCurdy says Congress is fed up with the Landsat
mess, and in particular the way it's being run into the ground by the
beancounters:  "The OMB has lost sight of the forest.  They're among
the trees and weeds right now.  There are guys in green eyeshades in
a basement somewhere deciding our space policy."

Canada exercises its associate membership in ESA, formally notifying
ESA of its intent to participate in Hermes and contribute funding for
it.  Canadian companies will get a commensurate amount of work; this
will probably mean building the flight simulators [CAE of Montreal is
one of the world's biggest simulator suppliers] and perhaps some work
in "aerodynamics and robotics".

Europe may move Meteosat 3 to provide better Atlantic weather coverage
in the wake of the GOES failure in January, although this will depend
on Meteosat MOP1 entering service successfully.

Two-page spread, the "first picture of the global biosphere", using
Nimbus 7 phytoplanton data for the oceans and NOAA 7 polar-metsat
vegetation data for land.  More images of various kinds, some fairly
striking, illustrating the MtPE coverage.

MtPE costs for the US will run $15G-$30G, depending on how ambitious the
project is; the major difference between low and high is a system of
five Clarke-orbit satellites to supplement low-polar-orbit instruments.
Bush has said he supports MtPE; next year he gets to prove it, when NASA
asks for $100M+ for instrument development.  Both the White House and
Congress are thought to like the idea.

Red letter day:  James Van Allen actually says something I agree with! :-)
He supports MtPE but would be happier if the polar platform were split
into a larger number of smaller satellites, to reduce integration problems
and minimize the consequences of a launch failure.  He also says that
making the polar platform officially part of the space station is
"political fraud" and the two should be separated.  Space-station managers
agree, saying that commonality is minimal, the joint organization is
clumsy, and the separation will happen eventually anyway.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 23:33:34 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!larryb@uunet.uu.net  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <1989Apr28.171901.21135@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>A couple of weeks ago I remeber someone posted a brief note that 
>>Rockwell tried to buy the shuttle from NASA..  <I believe it was 
>>Henery S>..  Why didn't NASA sell them a couple of shuttles?
>
>Because NASA does not want to turn the shuttle, or any other NASA activity,
>over to anybody else.  NASA wants to stay in control.
>-- 
>Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology

I don't think it's just NASA.  Working as a ex-consultant for some of the
aerospace companies, there's definately an old boy network and they
are definately making money with there current scheme. Our phrase
for it was welfare for engineers. ;-)  ... Before flammage read ::
I'm not even talking about quality of engineers, BUT of the assine
projects I have seen money wasted on and not thought out.  Anyway
I digress from private space companies.

How much of Arianne is private?  Does Europe have  any totally private
space outfits?

Biosphere II is being supported by 1 indivual.  I cann't see him
spending all this money on Biohabs and not be planning on something
space related.  Given that the Biosphere II project will be over in
3 years, and I have heard rumours about Biosphere III .  And lets give
them about 5 years for that project ... add 3 years for fudge factor.
So in about 11 years the group will have extensive knowledge of 
building a Biohabs . Also given our current rate of space growth. He'll
launch BioSphere IV into space with Russia, or Arianne.

-- 
Larry Brader  :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net
Of course these are my views, any resemblance to reality is merely 
a concidance.
"He's dead Jim, You grap his tricorder and I'll get his wallet"

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 15:46:52 GMT
From: cadnetix.COM!cadnetix!beres@uunet.uu.net  (Tim Beres)
Subject: Governmental restrictions

In article <609694218.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>[Eloquent arguments against statism, etc.]
>I'm confident it will get better in the long run, but I, for one, am
>leaving the country in the interim. I have no intention in being around
>when a new McCarthyism starts.

I usually respect, if not always agree with your postings.  However...
You argue that "people" will, via the underground economies and 
organizations, move towards libertarianism if and when the Supreme Court/
administration/moral guardians/et al *really* flog away at liberties.  No
problem with that argument (e.g., Roe v. Wade gets tossed back to the states
- you better believe that *my* legislature will protect a woman's freedom
of choice)  But then you state that you are outta here.  All talk I'm 
afraid.  Why don't you stay and lead or work towards these goals?

On space:  There are a few efforts happening using the net as a crucible,
namely ISECCO's biosphere, the "model" orbital plane (sorry if misnamed)
and various organizational efforts.  Some thoughts:

	-  In lieu of governemental impedances on private sector space 
	   efforts, what type of organization (public or private corp.,
	   representative or total democracy, 100% enfranchisment, secede
	   from the US and start your own country (-: ...)
	-  What long term hazards do you foresee with the (assume US) gov't
	   "handling" of your space efforts.
	-  Quasi-rhetorical question:  Assuming a private space colony, what
	   type of gov't or management structures would appeal to you and 
	   what would actually work.


				Tim
	   
------>MY SOAPBOX (I speak for myself)
 "You are going to hang from the neck until you're dead, dead, dead", Judge to
   Alferd Packer, alleged Colorado cannibal, who died, died, died in his 60's
Tim Beres   beres@cadnetix.com  {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 06:25:43 GMT
From: dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!aplcen!jhunix!ins_apw@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Philip Wong)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

----- News saved at 2 May 89 06:22:34 GMT
Where did you see this film (or magazine)?  I missed a few posts about the
'pebbles', but want to see it in action...

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 May 89 11:28:12 EDT
From: Henry_Edward_Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Destruction of organic material on Mars

In "Re: Some comments on comments...," Henry Spenser writes:
>
>In article <506@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>>> The Zoology department *here* isn't going to launch any Mars probes until
>>> somebody (i.e. the Soviets) finds life there.
>>
>>Assuming that the statement was not entirely tongue-in-cheek, it seems that
>>the US wasted its time with Viking; it wouldn't have found life anyway
>>because the landers had the wrong flag painted on them...
>
>Not quite what I meant.  The reason I said that is that the Soviets are
>the only ones still looking for life on Mars, so they are the only ones
>likely to find it.  Official NASA policy is that there is no life on Mars,
>so it is not worth flying hardware to look for it.
>
I have just returned from a trip to D. C. While there, I had time to visit 
the Smithsonian and observe the graveyard of American space technology. The
Viking exhibit was especially interesting. While its true that the exhibit
said that Viking had found no evidence of life on Mars, the display also
contained this interesting statement:
>
>Martian surface chemistry may in fact result in the destruction of organic
>material.
>
The question is, why, and more importantly, how?
-
*   "If viruses are outlawed, only outlaws will have viruses"             *
*                                                                         *
*   Henry Edward Hardy                                                    *
*   University of Michigan Computer Consultant                            *
*   sysop, Arbor Intelligent Systems                                      *
*   President, Althing Communications                                     *
*                                                                         *
*   Henry Edward Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu                                    *
*   Henry Edward Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu                                    *
*   "Arbor" on MacNet                                                     *
*                                                                         *
*   disclaimer: "You might as well say that 'you breathe when you sleep'  *
*    is the same as 'you sleep when you breathe.' said the Hatter."       *

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 15:31:31 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <1829@blake.acs.washington.edu> sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu (sealion) writes:
>Eventually, the size of the weapon is supposed to be reduced to that of
>a basketball with a weight of about 15 lbs. Thus the name "Brilliant
>Pebbles".

Uh, you're thinking of either an early stage or one of the more conventional
kinetic-energy weapons.  "Brilliant Pebbles" is aiming at things one or two
orders of magnitude smaller than that.  (The earlier KE weapons are called
"smart rocks".)
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 1 May 89 15:49:14 PDT
From: greer%utdssa%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Magellan Launch Window
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov"

	Anybody out there know why the Magellan launch window is so narrow?
I'm talking about the time-of-day dependent window rather than the one that
depends on the day-of-year of the two planets.
	A co-worker suggested orbital inclination is the key element in
interplanetary launches.  I checked out the geometry of the launch on our
globe and found that at the initial launch time, the Cape was not quite at
its closest approach to the Earth's orbital plane, and its velocity vector
was pointing slightly toward solar south.  I assume this positioning minimizes
the fuel required to get Magellan into Venus' orbital plane.  Is this right,
or is there something else to it?

-- Dale M. Greer -- Center for Space Sciences / University of Texas at Dallas
-- UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSI::GREER

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 18:23:24 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: flames about my signature

I've heard that there has been some more flaming about my dreadful anti-
American signature, although I haven't seen much of it myself.  I would
observe that the effort spent flaming about it is better spent writing
to, or going to see, your Congressthing.  The biggest problem spaceflight
has is that so many of the people who "support" it are completely unwilling
to get off their behinds and *do* something to support it.

(That doesn't necessarily mean supporting *government* spaceflight; the
government has important effects on private spaceflight too.)

As for "Canada: 0 tries" and the like, note that Canada is an associate
member of the European Space Agency (didn't realize we were a European
country, did you? :-)) and small Canadian participation in future ESA
planetary projects isn't unlikely.  We're already a minor partner in
the Hermes spaceplane project.  (You'll see that in my AW&ST summaries
shortly.)
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  2 May 89 15:47:17 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Voyager update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Excerpted from NASA's _Voyager Bulletin_, Mission Status Report No. 86,
April 19: 

                       Does Neptune have a Great Spot?
                       -------------------------------

A large dark spot and a dark band encircling the south polar region of Neptune
are visible in images acquired 90 minutes apart by Voyager 2 on April 3,
from a distance of 208 million km (129 million miles).  The spot rotates
around the planet in 17 to 18 hours.

[...] The spot extends from 20 degrees south to 30 degrees south latitude, and
spans 35 degrees in longitude [3 pictures are printed].  Relative to the size
of Neptune, the dimensions of the spot are comparable to Jupiter's Great Red
Spot. 

The images were taken through the narrow-angle camera's clear filter, which is
most sensitive to blue light. The spot is 10% darker than its surroundings. The
smallest object that can be seen in these images is about 3850 km (2400 miles)
across. 

Scientists have not yet determined whether this is the same spot seen in images
taken 70 days earlier in late January.  The spot seen in the January images
appears dark through the clear filter but bright through the orange filter.
Features seen through the orange filter may be at higher altitudes than those
visible in these most recent images.  [...] 

[Then there is an article about how the VLA in New Mexico is being arrayed with
the Goldstone antennae to augment the DSN: "... Use of the VLA will add the
equivalent of about one and a half 70-meter antennas to the Network." The VLA
is being upgraded with X-band receivers.  "Data from the VLA will be routed to
Goldstone via a microwave link using a geosynchronous satellite. At Goldstone
the signals received at VLA and Goldstone will be combined. The data will be
recorded at both sites to prevent loss of data should the satellite link
fail."] 

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #407
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 May 89 16:21:26 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02093>; Thu, 4 May 89 12:20:53 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  4 May 89 12:20:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYM1U0y00UkT01zk4G>;
          Thu,  4 May 89 05:29:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.IYM1KNy00UkZQvzU4R>;
          Thu,  4 May 89 05:19:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYM1Hzy00UkZMvy05K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  4 May 89 05:16:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #408

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 408

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Magellan update
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
		Re: STS-30 Dial-A-Shuttle Press Releas
			   Magellan update
Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)
			  Upcoming Launches
			   effects of space
		     Re: Private Space Companies
		  Private spending for space science
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #404
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 19:27:59 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!leem@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <890501150357.00001B116B1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
:This is most of the text of a recorded announcement made available to JPL
:employees: 
:
:
:This is the JPL broadcast news service prepared at 2pm PDT, Sunday April 30. 
:
:Since Friday's launch attempt the Magellan spacecraft and the attached IUS
:booster have remained in the payload bay of Atlantis. 
:
:The Magellan receiver lockup observed after the MYLAR [?] tracking station
                                                 ^^^^^
:[Launch has been rescheduled for Thursday since this recording.] 
:
:Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) 

That's MILA or MIL71, the Merritt Island Tracking Station which tracks
the launch vehicle and payload receiving the telemetry and
transmitting the uplink commands.  Except for the antenna, it is
pretty much like the GSTDN or DSN stations that do all of the orbital
( that TDRS does not) and deep space tracking.

Lee 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA|
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516      |
|UUCP: {ames!cit-vax,psivax}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem                        |
|ARPA: jpl-devvax!leem!@cit-vax.ARPA -or- leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV    |

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 04:38:36 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <1989Apr28.151108.15074@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>In article <3761@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:

>>See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble?

>Yeah, it looked really neat.  Just one question: What's the difference
>between the smart pebble concept and placing smart interceptor
>missiles in orbit?

Not much, as far as I can discern. The "smart rocks" or "brilliant pebbles"
are basically just kinetic-energy-kill devices, which rely on their on-board
computers for guidance and target acquisition and discrimination. What I
think is the most foolish aspect is the idea that each "brilliant pebble"
will be on "automatic" when it is in orbit, deciding on its own what to attack
and what to leave alone. With tens of thousands in orbit, there seems to be
too much chance of error.

>Is this anything like the Thor idea (ala Footfall)?  (Use rockets for aiming,
>but rely on gravity for acceleration.)

I was under the impression that Thor was ment to attack ground based targets,
but the kinetic-kill idea was similar.



Neal

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 14:22:03 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: STS-30 Dial-A-Shuttle Press Releas

In article <246900023@cdp> jordankatz@cdp.UUCP writes:
>
>CONTACT:									For Immediate Release
>Leonard David
>David Brandt
>                        Dial-A-Shuttle Update:
>              STARS ON EARTH BRING YOU OUR STARS IN SPACE
>
[stuff deleted]

Remember, that if you live near any of the NASA installations, they'll
probably be broadcasting the shuttle communications on some of the
ham radio channels. You may want to invest in a cheap police scanner
and monitor this yourself, without the nitwit commentary from Hollywood
stars.

In the South Bay Area, the Ames Research Center Amateur Radio Club will
be transmitting the audio on a frequency of 145.58 mhz. We've had reports
of reception as far south as King city and up beyond Marin. The radio clubs
for JPL, Goddard and Johnson likewise perform a similar service. And I wouldn't
be surprised if clubs in non-NASA areas were doing the same thing by
picking up the audio from the NASA Select satellite channel.

I myself pipe the audio through my stereo for the "true space experience" :-) 

mike

P.S. Anyone figure out why NASA was broadcasting video from the on 
pad camera "134" on Telstar 301?

          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  2 May 89 11:22:13 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Magellan update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Latest Magellan update recording, as of 4:30 pm PDT Monday May 1st:

[Repeat of new launch date/time and weather info]

The delay actually enhances the mission by making a propellant savings of at
least 5 kg of hydrazine possible [hydrazine is used for trajectory correction
maneuvers and attitude control].  There are a total of 133 kg hydrazine on
board Magellan.  The reason for the savings on propellant is that with the
later launch date the path to Venus is more direct, resulting in fewer TCMs.
For each 2kg of hydrazine saved, one complete Venus mapping cycle (which lasts
for 243 earth days) is possible; thus a savings of 5 kg could allow for 2 more
complete mapping cycles, or almost 2 more years (607.5 days) of mission
science.  Joe Cutting, mission design manager, stated that it is possible that
not all of this extra hydrazine will be used to extend space science; it could
be used for attitude control on the way. 

[Explanation of how lack of propellant results in loss of radio contact]

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 07:13:05 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)

In article <23748@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>In article <10707@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
>>							   Why don't you
>>speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily 
>>spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such.
>
>Perhaps you have not noticed, but many smaller companies are already
>spending money on their own launch systems.  The primary obstacle to
>further investment in space systems and services is the central planning
>of "The Space Program" at NASA.  The situation will only change when
>people stop perpetuating the myth that no one but NASA has enough money.

You failed to notice that the piece of my posting you quote above specifies
spending for planetary probes and manned space R&D. No private effort is 
spending significant amounts of money in these areas, and no organization
with hundreds of millions of dollars let alone billions shows any prospect of
doing so in the short term future. Furthermore the companies you refer to 
above are selling launch services using technology developed at government
expense. It is simply a fact that there is important research which will not
be done by private companies or individuals, and so must be done with
government money or something similar.

I agree that NASA is EXTREMELY wasteful, and that its GOVERNMENT money could
be much more efficiently spent (possibly by getting rid of most of NASA and
using simple nonmilitary style contracts with provisions that force the
return of money if the hardware doesn't deliver).

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 21:01:22 GMT
From: opus!dante!dbirnbau@lanl.gov  (David Birnbaum)
Subject: Upcoming Launches

Can anyone tell me how to find out a launch schedule for June at Kennedy
Space Center?  I'll be in Florida from June 1 to 4, and I'd like to see a 
launch if at all possible.

Thanks.


David Birnbaum                       "It shouldn't suprise anyone when the
Small Systems, Computer Center        net messes up; the suprise is that 
New Mexico State University           it works at all!
Find me at:  dbirnbau@nmsu.edu   VTIS001@NMSUVM1.BITNET  /dev/null

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 14:54:33 GMT
From: srcsip!m2!leilaj@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Leila Johannesen)
Subject: effects of space



I'm interested in finding out about any recent American or Soviet 
studies on deconditioning/psychomotor effects of space, particularly
as they might affect astronauts' operation of the spacecraft.
Can anyone refer me to a source, or does anyone know of any such
studies?

Thanks,
Leila Johannesen

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 15:54:03 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <3930@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) writes:
>How much of Arianne is private?  Does Europe have  any totally private
>space outfits?

Very little; essentially none.  European spaceflight is even more tied up
with governments than it is hereabouts.  There has been discussion of some
private projects in Europe, but nothing's happened.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 May 89 13:39:02 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Private spending for space science


>From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
>In article <10707@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes
>>							   Why don't you
>>speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily 
>>spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such.

>Perhaps you have not noticed, but many smaller companies are already
>spending money on their own launch systems.  The primary obstacle to
>further investment in space systems and services is the central planning
>of "The Space Program" at NASA.  The situation will only change when
>people stop perpetuating the myth that no one but NASA has enough money.

I don't think anyone here is seriously questioning the anticipated ability of
private companies to handle routine launches into earth orbit of paying
government payloads, communications/remote sensing satellites, commercial
microgravity research packages, and other "sure-fire" moneymakers. The problem
arises with projects that are almost certain to lose money (spinoffs aside)
in the short run (extraterrestrial human habitation), and in the long run
(Voyager, Galileo, HST, Magellan, and other "knowledge-oriented" programs).
It could be argued that nothing that doesn't promise a near-term profit
should be attempted, but I (and many others) happen to feel that there are
a considerable number of possible space-related projects which could have
a substantial benefit to humanity that one would not expect to be reflected
in a profit by the organization that undertakes them. Many of these projects
are affordable from the viewpoint of the government, but not from the view
of private industry, since they would reflect a net loss larger than an
individual corporation is normally willing to take.

Can you think of a plausible scenario by which private industry would
undertake to send sophisticated probes to Venus or Jupiter at its own
expense in the next 20 years? (I can, but there are some undesirable
side effects.)
                                 John Roberts
                                 roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 May 1989 17:35-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #404

> "Hi.  We're from the planet Kolob and we'd like you to ask yourself if
> you died right now, are you sure you would go to dimension 5?  If you're not 
> sure, we have some free information pills we'd like to leave with you.
> We're sure you would find them very interesting and tasty."

If they WERE any good, I'm certain Nancy Reagan would mess her diapers
trying to get people to just say NO.... :-)

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 04:31:31 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <3761@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:

>See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble?
>That looked _NEAT_!!!!!  That thing sitting there bursting its jets holding
>a hover was slick!!!  

I agree....even though I think that most of the money spent on SDI will turn
out to be a waste in the end, this kind of piqued my interest. I wonder where
one can get a copy of the video tape of the test?

The thing becomes really cool when you remember that it was dynamically
balanced in real time...there seemed to be one main motor that held the
mass up, and several smaler motors that provided balance/vector-thrust.

Does anyone have any idea as to what kind of motors the thing uses? They must
be some kind of throttleable liquid fueled motor. I wonder how much fuel the
thing can carry and how long it can remain aloft in the air.....riding on
a larger version might be quite fun!

>Watch the nets around it...

Yes, I couldn't tell if the nets were being burned through or not.

>(hear the crowd in the background?)

I would be pretty damn happy too....this kind of success means that they will
undoubtedly get major funding, and more toys to play with.

Of course, I am not so sure of the wisdom of the program itself, unless there
are also major changes in the US nuclear policy as a whole to accompany the
deployment of SDI (and what about the foolishness of having tens or thousands
of these things in orbit, all acting on their own....does anyone see any RISKs
involved here.....?




Neal

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 08:23:08 GMT
From: blake!sealion@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (sealion)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

[sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu ]

>> The film shows the first full-bore laboratory test of what is sometimes 
>> referred to as a "smart bullet". The space based weapon is designed to 
>> eliminate it's  target (ICBMs) through high speed collision during the 
>> boost and mid-course phases of flight. 

[mstuard@ace.cs.OHIOU.EDU]

> If this is to be a space based weapon why would there be ground based test
> of this nature.  I would think that the manuverability and acceleration
> requirements would be different in orbit than in a 1g atmospheric situation.
> We know that it can accelerate at at least 1g and is quite manuverable 
> (based on the apparent stability during the hoverv) but what real data about
> its capabilities in orbit can be determined in this test.

Good question. I would assume there was an emphasis on the tracking abilities
of the vehical. 

Interesting Note:

According to United Press Int., "SDI officials said the test cost $ 500,000,
about 1 percent of what it would have cost to test the device in space. The
reusable device itself cost $3 million."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't
 believe this to be a coincidence." || - Jeremy S. Anderson   12/15/88  

#include <disclaimer.h>                       sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #408
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 May 89 09:57:31 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01128>; Fri, 5 May 89 08:12:34 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  5 May 89 08:12:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UYMIl1y00UkTQ2jkct>;
          Fri,  5 May 89 03:25:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.cYMIg:y00UkZ120E5v>;
          Fri,  5 May 89 03:19:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0YMIdXy00UkZF1yk4k@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  5 May 89 03:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #409

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 409

Today's Topics:
			   STS-30 SCHEDULE
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #398
		Re: Private spending for space science
	   Giotto (was:"Re: Some comments on comments...")
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 00:24:16 GMT
From: millard@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Millard Edgerton)
Subject: STS-30 SCHEDULE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 STS-30 TV PLAN VALID MAY 2 1758Z             LAUNCH DAY             PAGE 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CDT    GMT     MET             OPERATION-EVENT-REMARKS           RESPONSIBLE
-----  -----  --------  ----------------------------------------  ------------
12:48  17:48   0:00:00  ****************************************
                        ****************************************

                                    LAUNCH OF STS-30
                                        FROM KSC

                        ****************************************
                        ****************************************

13:05  18:05   0:00:17  BEGIN OTV LAUNCH VIDEO FROM KSC.          KSC-NF-TV
                        (TIME = 35:00)

14:20  19:20   0:01:32  KSC POST-LAUNCH PRESS CONFERENCE.         KSC-PAO

15:20  20:20   0:02:32  KSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF GE DOMSAT.     KSC-NF-TV

15:20  20:20   0:02:32  BEGIN NASA SELECT TELEVISION              HOUSTON TV
                        PROGRAMMING FROM JSC VIA GE DOMSAT.

15:41  20:41   0:02:53  AOS HAWAII FOR DOWNLINK OF TV02           HOUSTON TV
                        MAGELLAN PRE-DEPLOY ACTIVITIES.
                        (ORBIT 3)

15:50  20:50   0:03:02  LOS HAWAII.

16:00  21:00   0:03:12  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (LEE BRISCOE, ASCENT FLIGHT DIRECTOR)

18:53  23:53   0:06:05  AOS HAWAII FOR DOWNLINK OF TV02           HOUSTON TV
                        MAGELLAN PRE-DEPLOY ACTIVITIES.
                        (ORBIT 5)

19:01   0:01   0:06:13  LOS HAWAII.

19:06   0:06   0:06:18  MAGELLAN DEPLOY (NOT TELEVISED LIVE).
                        (ORBIT 5)

20:58   1:58   0:08:10  AOS TDRE FOR VTR PLAYBACK OF TV02         HOUSTON TV
                        MAGELLAN DEPLOY.
                        (ORBIT 6)

21:13   2:13   0:08:25  LOS TDRE.

22:45   3:45   0:09:57  JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF GE DOMSAT.     HOUSTON TV
                        NASA SELECT AVAILABLE TO USERS OF JSC.

22:45   3:45   0:09:57  KSC SWITCH NASA SELECT ONTO GE DOMSAT.    KSC-NF-TV

22:45   3:45   0:09:57  LAUNCH REPLAYS.                           KSC-NF-TV

23:18   4:18   0:10:30  BEGIN CREW SLEEP PERIOD.

23:45   4:45   0:10:57  KSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF GE DOMSAT.     KSC-NF-TV

23:45   4:45   0:10:57  JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT ONTO GE DOMSAT.    HOUSTON TV


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 STS-30 TV PLAN VALID MAY 2 1758Z             LAUNCH DAY             PAGE 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CDT    GMT     MET             OPERATION-EVENT-REMARKS           RESPONSIBLE
-----  -----  --------  ----------------------------------------  ------------
23:45   4:45   0:10:57  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (MILT HEFLIN, ORBIT 2 FLIGHT DIRECTOR)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 STS-30 TV PLAN VALID MAY 2 1758Z             MAY 5                   PAGE 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CDT    GMT     MET             OPERATION-EVENT-REMARKS           RESPONSIBLE
-----  -----  --------  ----------------------------------------  ------------
 7:18  12:18   0:18:30  CREW WAKE UP.

 7:40  12:40   0:18:52  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (BILL REEVES, PLANNING FLIGHT DIRECTOR)

 9:00  14:00   0:20:12  REPLAY OF STS-30 FLT DAY 1 SHUTTLE TV.    JOHNSON TV
                        (ORBIT 14)

10:36  15:36   0:21:48  AOS TDRW FOR DOWNLINK OF TV04             HOUSTON TV
                        MIDDECK ACTIVITIES (FEA).
                        (ORBIT 15)

10:51  15:51   0:22:03  LOS TDRW.

12:13  17:13   0:23:25  AOS TDRW FOR VTR PLAYBACK OF TV02         HOUSTON TV
                        MAGELLAN DEPLOY.
                        (ORBIT 16)

12:28  17:28   0:23:40  LOS TDRW.

13:49  18:49   1:01:01  AOS TDRW FOR DOWNLINK OF TV03             HOUSTON TV
                        PAYLOAD BAY VIEWS (MLE).
                        (ORBIT 17)

14:04  19:04   1:01:16  LOS TDRW.

15:40  20:40   1:02:52  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (RON DITTEMORE, ORBIT 1 FLIGHT DIRECTOR)

18:39  23:39   1:05:51  AOS TDRW FOR DOWNLINK OF TV07             HOUSTON TV
                        MIDDECK ACTIVITIES (DTO 630)
                        (ORBIT 20)

18:54  23:54   1:06:06  LOS TDRW.

22:48   3:48   1:10:00  BEGIN CREW SLEEP.

23:40   4:40   1:10:52  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (MILT HEFLIN, ORBIT 2 FLIGHT DIRECTOR)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 STS-30 TV PLAN VALID MAY 2 1758Z             MAY 6                   PAGE 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CDT    GMT     MET             OPERATION-EVENT-REMARKS           RESPONSIBLE
-----  -----  --------  ----------------------------------------  ------------
 6:48  11:48   1:18:00  CREW WAKE UP.

 7:40  12:40   1:18:52  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (BILL REEVES, PLANNING FLIGHT DIRECTOR)

 9:00  14:00   1:20:12  REPLAY OF STS-30 FLT DAY 2 SHUTTLE TV.    JOHNSON TV
                        (ORBIT 30)

10:49  15:49   1:22:01  AOS TDRW FOR DOWNLINK OF TV03             HOUSTON TV
                        PAYLOAD BAY VIEWS (MLE).
                        (ORBIT 31)

11:04  16:04   1:22:16  LOS TDRW.

15:40  20:40   2:02:52  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (RON DITTEMORE, ORBIT 1 FLIGHT DIRECTOR)

16:33  21:33   2:03:45  AOS TDRE FOR DOWNLINK OF TV04             HOUSTON TV
                        MIDDECK ACTIVITIES (FEA).
                        (ORBIT 35)

16:48  21:48   2:04:00  LOS TDRE.

22:18   3:18   2:09:30  BEGIN CREW SLEEP PERIOD.

23:10   4:10   2:10:22  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (MILT HEFLIN, ORBIT 2 FLIGHT DIRECTOR)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 STS-30 TV PLAN VALID MAY 2 1758Z             MAY 7                   PAGE 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CDT    GMT     MET             OPERATION-EVENT-REMARKS           RESPONSIBLE
-----  -----  --------  ----------------------------------------  ------------
 6:18  11:18   2:17:30  CREW WAKE UP.

 7:10  12:10   2:18:22  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (BILL REEVES, PLANNING FLIGHT DIRECTOR)

 9:00  14:00   2:20:12  REPLAY OF STS-30 FLT DAY 3 SHUTTLE TV.    JOHNSON TV
                        (ORBIT 45)

 9:25  14:25   2:20:37  AOS TDRW FOR DOWNLINK OF TV06             HOUSTON TV
                        CREW CONFERENCE.
                        (ORBIT 46)

 9:40  14:40   2:20:52  LOS TDRW.

15:10  20:10   3:02:22  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (RON DITTEMORE, ORBIT 1 FLIGHT DIRECTOR)

20:00   1:00   3:07:12  REPLAY OF STS-30 FLT DAY 4 SHUTTLE TV.    JOHNSON TV
                        (ORBIT 53)

21:48   2:48   3:09:00  BEGIN CREW SLEEP PERIOD.

22:40   3:40   3:09:52  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (MILT HEFLIN, ORBIT 2 FLIGHT DIRECTOR)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 STS-30 TV PLAN VALID MAY 2 1758Z             LANDING DAY            PAGE 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CDT    GMT     MET             OPERATION-EVENT-REMARKS           RESPONSIBLE
-----  -----  --------  ----------------------------------------  ------------
 5:48  10:48   3:17:00  CREW WAKE UP.

 6:40  11:40   3:17:52  BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE OF SHIFT       JSC-PAO
                        PRESS CONFERENCE.
                        (BILL REEVES, PLANNING FLIGHT DIRECTOR)

11:45  16:45   3:22:57  JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF GE DOMSAT.     HOUSTON TV
                        NASA SELECT AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

11:45  16:45   3:22:57  DFRF SWITCH NASA SELECT ONTO GE DOMSAT.   DFRF-TV

13:44  18:44   4:00:56  ****************************************
                        ****************************************

                                      LANDING AT
                                        EDWARDS

                        ****************************************
                        ****************************************

15:15  20:15   4:02:27  BEGIN POST-LANDING PRESS CONFERENCE       DFRF-TV
                        FROM DFRF.


END OF MESSAGE

***************************************************************************
*  Intelligent people talk about ideas.   | Standard disclaimer(s)        *
*  Average people talk about things.      | Millard J. Edgerton, WA6VZZ   *
*  Small people talk about other people.  | millard@eos.arc.nasa.gov      *
*                -o-                      |         -o-                   *
*      Employed by Sterling Software at NASA Ames Research Center.        *
***************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 06:25:23 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #398

In article <609778297.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>I write:
>> There might be a few private efforts like those refered to above (F&P spent
>>$100,000 over five years, how much space R&D can you do for that much money?).
>> I don't doubt that such efforts would get orders of magnitude more out of
>> the money they spend.
>
>I would point out that (assuming F&P pans out) they accomplished for
>$100,000 what governments around the world have spent up in the range
>of $10^11 on. So how much space development can be accomplished for
>$100K? Who knows? 5 years ago, how much fusion research would you have
>said could be done for $100K?

What an excellent and practical idea (kind of like anarchism/libertarianism).
Let's halt all this wasteful spending on space research right now and wait
around for a couple of unknown and brilliant technology hackers to figure out
whatever it is we need to know to start the space age. Think of all that 
wasteful R&D money we'll save.


John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 19:56:25 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <8905021739.AA19290@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>, roberts@CMR (John Roberts) writes:
>It could be argued that nothing that doesn't promise a near-term profit
>should be attempted, but I (and many others) happen to feel that there are
>a considerable number of possible space-related projects which could have
>a substantial benefit to humanity that one would not expect to be reflected
>in a profit by the organization that undertakes them.

>						       Many of these projects
>are affordable from the viewpoint of the government, but not from the view
>of private industry, since they would reflect a net loss larger than an
>individual corporation is normally willing to take.

The only question is whether private groups will attempt these projects.
There is no doubt that they have the money.

How much did Pepsi spend on the last America's Cup "defense?"  How much
did Tang recover in sales from its space commercials?  What is the cost
of a minimal Lunar Polar Orbiter?

>Can you think of a plausible scenario by which private industry would
>undertake to send sophisticated probes to Venus or Jupiter at its own
>expense in the next 20 years?

How many of these missions will survive at NASA when competing for funds
with shuttle operations and the space station?

I do not advocate leaving all space research to private corporations.
But development and operations can and should be done by private
industry.  A look at the NASA budget reveals that the portion of the
budget devoted to research is miniscule when compared with that devoted
to development and operations.  This does keep their contractors happy.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 19:29:14 GMT
From: mcvax!hp4nl!botter!ark.cs.vu.nl!fjvwing@uunet.uu.net  (Wingerde van FJ)
Subject: Giotto (was:"Re: Some comments on comments...")

In article <1989Apr29.234653.24350@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
|In article <570@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
|>... As a matter of fact,
|>there is only *one* probe out there doing *anything*...Voyager.  
|You're forgetting Pioneer Venus and Giotto, at a minimum.
Giotto is functional? Please forgive me my ignorance, but what is it studying after
the Halley mission? Is it still returning data? Of what?What are it's mission
plans?

What Disclaimer?                                +---- ----+  /    /  
    I'll plead temporary insanity anyway.       /__      /  /    /     
                      FJ!!<fjvwing@cs.vu.nl>   /     <__/  o    o

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #409
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 May 89 16:27:47 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01865>; Fri, 5 May 89 11:15:18 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  5 May 89 11:14:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YYMKVDy00UkT01JE5x>;
          Fri,  5 May 89 05:24:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.AYMKPty00UkZJ2=04R>;
          Fri,  5 May 89 05:18:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0YMKOVy00UkZB29U5i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  5 May 89 05:17:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #410

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 410

Today's Topics:
		      Priorities at NASA? (long)
	 Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program
Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)
			      Re: Tesla
		   Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles
			 Re: Magellan update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 02:18:44 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Priorities at NASA? (long)


United States Congressional Record
Hearings of the HUD Independent Agencies Committee, Subcommittee on
Appropriations, April 19, 1988

Testimony of James Fletcher, NASA Administrator


  Mr. BOLAND.  Let me ask you whether or not the Space Shuttle still
retains the highest priority in the NASA budget request?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  The Space Shuttle is a broad series of things, but
getting it flying again is the highest priority, and following that
flying at a rate which is sufficient to work off the backlog is
certainly among the highest priorities.

  Mr. BOLAND.  We are going to have some difficult questions with
respect to where the priorities are, because this is what we will be
doing when we finish these hearings, and sometime in the next few
weeks we will sit down and mark up the entire bill.  If we are forced
to make cuts in the total NASA budget of $700,000,000 to $800,000,000,
would you recommend that we protect the funding for the shuttle above
all else?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  It is hard to say above all else, because it is hard
to say what that would do to the program.  But certainly the Space
Shuttle, both the return to flight of the Space Shuttle, which should
be in August, must be protected.  That is primarily the fiscal year
1988 budget.
  The fiscal year 1989 budget is primarily to keep the flight rate up
to help turn around the three orbiters that remain in a period of time
which will allow us to keep that flight rate up.  Those are certainly
high priorities.

  Mr. BOLAND.  Is there any other program within NASA that enjoys a
higher priority than the shuttle?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.  That is certainly
anomg the highest.  However, all the rest of the programs have high
priority, too.  The low priorities went by the wayside.

  Mr. BOLAND.  I understand they all have a priority.  I am just trying
to establish the fact of what NASA believes, and you as Administrator
believe, to be the highest priority within the NASA budget.

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Certainly flying at the rate that we aim to is among
the highest priorities.

...

  Mr. BOLAND.  Let's talk about the priority question again.  If the
shuttle has the highest priority, and you want us to try to protect
it, we still have to find $700,000,000 to $800,000,000 in cuts.  What
has the second highest priorities?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is a second
priority.  A Space Station is just as important as the Space Shuttle.

  Mr. BOLAND.  Of course, there is no Space Station without the Space
Shuttle, I take it, because if you don't have the kind of space
transportation system that is essential to have the kind of Space
Station you envision, then of course, I would think the shuttle would
enjoy the highest priority.

  Dr. FLETCHER.  You are quite right when you say there would be no
Space Station without a shuttle.  On the other hand, without a Space
Station, there will be no space program in the 1990's, no manned space
program.  We would really have to begin over again in terms of setting
our targets on human exploration of the solar system.

  Mr. BOLAND.  Let me try to give you a brief review and synopsys of
what this Committee's view is on funding of the Space Station in the
total budget picture.  Last year the budget summit forced us to cut
the station by $362,000,000 and we provided $424,000,000 as I
remember.  This year the request is for $967,000,000.  It is my view,
and I think probably the view of this Committee, that unless we can
fund the station at about $900,000,000, it doesn't make any sense to
fund it at all.  Because if you fund it at only $700,000,000, for
example, we will never get it built.  In fact, all we will be doing is
maintaining a base of people but we will never get any hardware.  So
tell us whether or not our view is correct.  Either the funding should
be at $900,000,000 or we don't fund it at all; how do you react to that?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Mr. Chairman, I think you are pretty close to the
mark when you say the $900,000,000 is about a minimum that makes sense
to go ahead with on the Space Station.  I am not prepared to say we
ought to just cancel the space program if we don't get that amount of
money.  In fact, I don't believe it is up to me to say.  The President
would have to sign up to that vecause he initiated the program in
1984.  But certainly if you start cutting much below the request of
the President, it doesn't make sense.
  Before this program is finished, we have got to be spending on the
Space Station something like at least $2 and a half billion a year,
and we aren't going to get there from here if we don't go much above
$900 million.

  Mr. BOLAND.  Now, if we fund the space station at $900 million in
1989 and we protect the shuttle from cuts, we have to find that $700
of $800 million somewhere else.  We will have to take virtually every
other increase for every probram above 1988.  That can include
Pathfinder, which is requested at $100 million; two or three of the
new expendable launch vehicles at various estimates from $43 million
to $60 million; the second TDRS tracking station; some salary money;
AXAF, the Advanced X-ray Facility and on and on.
  The point is that fiven our allocation under the 302(b) allocation
of the budget, if we are going to protect the shuttle and the station,
mearly everything else has to go.  Are you confortable with that, or
are you willing to accept that fact?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  I shudder every time you say you are going to have to
cut back $700 million from the request.  That in itself is
frightening.  Then when you start reeling off programs----

  Mr. BOLAND.  It is possible to do it with that size budget, isn't it?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  I can't really answer that.

...

  Mr. GREEN.  So I guess what we are asking you is do you want a space
program which is going to consist of a shuttle and Space Station and
really is going to have no money for mission to planet earth or new
science starts, and if not, then help us find a way within the
budgetary constraints we face.

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Mr. Green, you are absolutely right.  We are faced
with some tough decisions.  If you are not a reasonable optimist as
Administrator of NASA, you don't belong in that job.  I am optimistic
that somehow the Congress will come closer to the $11 plus billion
budget that the Senate Budget Committee voted on last week than the
lower figure you are discussing today.
  So maybe we are eternal optimists and will go down hoping for the
best.  I really cannot imagine not going ahead with all the programs
we have mentioned, particularly the ones the Chairman reeled off, such
as the AXAF----

  Mr. BOLAND.  You can't imagine not going ahead with AXAF?  Is that
what you are telling me?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Yes.

  Mr. BOLAND.  We are going to get into that a bit.  Even with the cut
of $700 million, you still have an increase of a billion dollars, $700
million over 1988.  That is correct, isn't it?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  That is correct, yes.

  Mr. BOLAND.  You have some problem with cutting some of the other
programs that I ticked off, plus others that are in the NASA budget.
What enjoys the highest priority again?  What about dropping the Space
Station and funding all those programs?  The answer is going to be no,
I know.

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Mr. Chairman, everything you said about the Space
Station is true.  If you start cutting it much below $900 million, you
night as well reconsider the program--unless you just want to keep it
all for the next Administration, but somebody just said you are
pushing the problem ahead if you do that.  But the same is true of
every one of these programs.

----
William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 23:09:04 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program

In article <10935@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>I agree that NASA is EXTREMELY wasteful, and that its GOVERNMENT money could
>be much more efficiently spent (possibly by getting rid of most of NASA and
>using simple nonmilitary style contracts with provisions that force the
>return of money if the hardware doesn't deliver).

Unfortunately, the problem goes deeper than that.  It's not just NASA.
The bigger problem is Congressional micromanagement and the constantly
changing budgets for every project.  For example, it is virtually
impossible for the government to promise money more than one year down
the road, or to sign a contract which contains cancellation penalties...
and any sane contractor is going to want such provisions in a "simple
nonmilitary style contract", because said contract probably calls for
payment on delivery rather than on contract signing, and no sane company
is going to agree to that without cancellation penalties.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 18:54:42 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)

In article <10935@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan)
writes:
>In article <23748@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>				    many smaller companies are already
>>spending money on their own launch systems.

>					my posting you quote above specifies
>spending for planetary probes and manned space R&D. No private effort is 
>spending significant amounts of money in these areas,

In most space programs the hardware is launched.  It would seem
reasonable to include the cost of launch in the cost of a project.  But
this is not the way NASA does it.  After all, if you add launch costs to
the Space Station project, you get a total of $61 billion.

As for investment in manned space R&D, why don't you express your views
to Space Industries, Inc.?  Was your statement meant to be justification
for the Space Shuttle and Space Station?

>	  It is simply a fact that there is important research which will not
>be done by private companies or individuals, and so must be done with
>government money or something similar.

Therefore it is of the utmost importance that we take the space service
business away from NASA and leave them with only research to do.  Their
track record clearly indicates a preference for big development
contracts which make aerospace companies happy, at the expense of space
science of all types.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 15:44:37 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: Tesla

I am feeling picky today, so sue me :-)

In article <2973414@ub.cc.umich.edu> Henry_Edward_Hardy@UB.CC.UMICH.EDU writes:
 
 >The Smithsonian Magazine recently carried a  list of some of Tesla's other,
 >less well-known patents and inventions:
 >>
 >>  ...florescent lights, x rays, the electron microscope, microwave
 >>  transmission, satellite communication, solar energy, guided missiles,
 >>  computers, the automobile speedometer, television, vertical takeoff
 >>  aircraft, and radar."

Just how do you invent or patent Xrays? Seems like they were already there.

 >>  disappeared into the U. S. military research complex. As late as
 >>  September 5, 1945, Col. Holliday of the Equipment Laboratory,
 >>  Propulsion and Accessories Subdivision, wrote to Lloyd L. Shaulis of
 >>  the OAP in Washington, confirming an agreement for the photocopying of
                                                             ^^^^^^^^
Photocopying?!? In 1945?!? I don't think so.

 >instant formation of these condensation clouds of several hundred miles in
 >radius could be related to the testing of a Tesla device "which could
 >instantly freeze whole armies into blocks of ice."

Alright! Now we have the answer to the Greenhouse Effect! Or at the very
least, a new appliance: The Microwave Freezer! Now we really can make 
milkshakes in the microwave.

Ok, Ok. so I got carried away. But it does sound flakey doesn't it? Like
something you would read in the National Enquirer. But I guess anything is
possible (except touching your elbow to your nose)  :-)

-- 
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] |          sparks@corpane.UUCP         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 
Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 02:51:22 GMT
From: roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Timothy Roberts)
Subject: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles

I saw the demonstration of the "Brilliant Pebbles" test vehicle on CBS
News and was intrigued.  Anyone who has ever fired a TOW or Dragon
missle has seen exactly this image of a "bobbing" rocket.  The Dragon
uses 36(?) one shot solid fuel motors set around its waist like rows of
tiny funnels.  All forward momentum comes from the explosive that
squirts the missle out of the tube.  The side motors fire when the
optical sight detects the missle dropping or straying from the
"imaginary crosshairs" on the target.  The missle itself produces an IR
source that the sight detects and compares to the crosshair position.
If the rocket's signal doesn't match the crosshairs, a pulse is sent
through a wire to the Dragon missle.  The Dragon then interprets the
pulse into which motors to fire to stay aloft/on target.  What this
looks like is a ping-pong ball falling down a long tube.  The
ball/missle bounces from side to side as it contacts the wall/Guidence
Corridor limit.

So what?  I am glad you asked.  Put the sight on the missle and you
don't need a wire.  Put the IR source on a missle plume and you've got
Brilliant pebbles.  This thing is circa Viet Nam War and I have toted
them all over Hawaii, Okinawa, and Thailand during my days in the Marine
Corps.  We were told the sighting system (which detaches from the
launcher tube and is used on the next rocket) cost about 15,000 bucks.
Each missle was on the order of $2000 and it went up in smoke when it
was fired.  That comes to $17K and a little bit of solder.  Someone
recently posted that the test vehicle for Smart Pebbles cost $500,000.

You decide.  Should I gain pleasure from the cheering of SDI engineers
or write to my congressperson to stop the use of taxes on something that
*VIOLATES* the ABM treaty.

I like big science.  I detest weapons based in space.  The Peace Shield
will make a lot of engineers rich and destabilize the current nuclear
standoff.

My last Question: If the Defense community and the science community are
so closely related, Why haven't I seen Quasar photos taken through KH-12
or Lacrosse Spysats?  Think about it folks, These things are up there
right now and they are used to take picture of where we already are.
You tell me which is more important to Congress, pushing the limits of
our view of the universe or going through eachothers shitcans looking
for intelligence secrets.

Okay.  Mr. Deitz, Mr. Spencer et al. The ball is in your
court.

Tat Tvam Asi, Svetakatu.                   Timothy P. P. Roberts
(That Thou Art, boy!)                      UW-Milwaukee, Dept. of Physics
2835 N. Pierce St Apt #1                   roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
Milwaukee, WI  53212                       (414) 265-1935

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 21:43:26 GMT
From: thorin!threonine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <890502112213.00001CA5251@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>The reason for the savings on propellant is that with the
>later launch date the path to Venus is more direct, resulting in fewer TCMs.

    So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the
window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus
injection? Atmospheric drag?
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "Opossums ran amok in Chapel Hill this weekend..."
	_The Daily Tar Heel_, 11/1/88

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #410
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 May 89 07:40:09 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00903>; Sat, 6 May 89 06:32:22 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  6 May 89 06:32:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8YMbPKy00jZdE1BUQC>;
          Sat,  6 May 89 00:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.UYMb=uy00UkZ95s05E>;
          Sat,  6 May 89 00:22:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0YMb-2y00UkZ15qU54@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  6 May 89 00:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #411

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 411

Today's Topics:
		       News of The Week, May 4
		Re: Private spending for space science
	     Re: Destruction of organic material on Mars
		  more on ET contact legal penalties
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
	       UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
				sci.x
			  KH12 for astronomy
		      Re: Colonization problems
	 Re: Giotto (was:"Re: Some comments on comments...")
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 22:42:59 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of The Week, May 4


Jonathan's Space Report

May 4, 1989 (no. 14)

The space shuttle Atlantis was launched at 18:47:00 GMT today
on the STS-30 mission. At 22:30 GMT the mission was proceeding
nominally and Magellan deployment was scheduled for 01:04 GMT.

The Progress-41 ferry seems to have run into trouble after undocking
from Mir on Apr 20.  Instead of being deorbited, according to NORAD
tracking it ended up in a 124x390 km orbit.  It then slowly decayed,
reentering at 1202 GMT on Apr 25 from an orbit with a perigee of 94 km. 
This could indicate an engine underburn, possibly due to lack of fuel
after the unplanned boost of the Mir station to a storage orbit. 

The Foton-2 materials processing flight was orbited on Apr 26 from
Plesetsk. Based on the Vostok craft, the satellite will remain in
orbit for several weeks and land in the USSR.


Kosmos-2018, launched on Apr 20, is a GRU recon satellite, 
for high resolution imaging. It will probably operate until
late June.

Another old weather satellite, Kosmos-206, reentered on Apr 22. Lots
of small debris is also reentering at the moment due to the solar
activity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 16:26:06 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <8905021739.AA19290@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>Can you think of a plausible scenario by which private industry would
>undertake to send sophisticated probes to Venus or Jupiter at its own
>expense in the next 20 years? ...

Why assume that *industry* has to do it?  What about the National Geographic
Society?  Or a university consortium?  Useful probes could be brought in at
a pricetag, even including launch at current prices, that a major fundraising
drive by such institutions could cover.  The hardware that Amsat uses for
Clarke-orbit amateur comsats would do for a lunar orbiter (the propulsion
requirements, in particular, are almost exactly the same for Clarke orbit
and lunar orbit), and inner-solar-system planetary missions are not all that
much more difficult.  Jupiter is a bit trickier but not impossible.

It *would* help a lot if the launch costs came down, though.

But there are few plausible scenarios for such things as long as it looks
easier to convince Congress to pick the taxpayers' pockets to pay for it.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 16:37:16 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Destruction of organic material on Mars

In article <3017282@ub.cc.umich.edu> Henry_Edward_Hardy@UB.CC.UMICH.EDU writes:
>... the display also
>contained this interesting statement:
>>
>>Martian surface chemistry may in fact result in the destruction of organic
>>material.
>>
>The question is, why, and more importantly, how?

The sort of highly-active surface chemistry that is vaguely waved around
as the explanation for the puzzling Viking life-detector results could be
expected to attack organic molecules, which are fairly fragile.

It is hard to be too specific, since (last I heard) nobody had a convincing
detailed proposal for how said surface chemistry works.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 17:25:22 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!nobody@uunet.uu.net  (-for inetd server command)
Subject: more on ET contact legal penalties


My thanks to Will Martin for typing in some of 14 CFR 1211 and giving us
his interpretation of its provisions.

Will said:

>Anyway, note the portions [of the 14 CFR 1211 text that he typed in]
>I emphasized above. This specifically does NOT
>apply to ETs coming in from outside, but only to NASA missions. 

>Mayhap this info will put the speculation to rest...

Now, Will, you should know better than that. . .

Here is another point of view on 14 CFR 1211 -- from the perspective of UFO
researchers who specialize in using the FOIA to extract UFO documents from
the US government.  Please note that they imply they have contacted
"NASA's general counsel Neil Hosenball" to interpret 14 CFR 1211 for them.

The following excerpt is from page 214 of:

Fawcett, Lawrence and Barry J. Greenwood. Clear Intent: The 
Government Coverup of the UFO Experience. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 
Prentice-Hall, 1984. 259pp. ISBN 0-13-136656-4.  A book based on 
FOIA-released, formerly classified UFO documents from the FBI, CIA, 
NSA, DIA, etc.

"A curious set of regulations exists within NASA.  Listed in the Code 
of Federal Regulations since 1969, 14 CFR 1211, as they are known, 
provide for the detention, examination, and decontamination of 
persons and things that have come in direct or indirect contact with 
a person, animal, or other form of life or matter that has 'touched 
directly or come within the atmospheric envelope of any other 
celestial body.'

Originally designed for our expeditions to the moon and, in fact, 
instituted only a few days before the first lunar landing, the 
regulations can be applied to space voyages by vehicles *not 
originating from Earth,* [emphasis in original] according to NASA's 
general counsel Neil Hosenball.  Theoretically, anyone who sees and 
approaches a UFO [= flying saucer] and, if lucky (?) enough, is able to 
touch the object, may be liable for a $5,000.00 fine and/or a year in 
prison if he or she does not submit to detention.

Now, we don't anticipate that such a thing will ever come down upon 
a UFO witness.  It would hardly be a way to reward someone with 
physical proof of UFO reality!  However, another problem surfaces 
and that is the fact that when such stories are circulated in the 
media, a potential witness could be frightened away from reporting 
a UFO encounter.  The threat of a fine and prison term for exposing 
the public to some as yet unknown peril may be impetus enough to 
remain silent.

One witness involved in the following encounter had precisely this 
fear in mind when he came forward to tell us what he had gone 
through."

Discussion of the December 30, 1980 Rendlesham Forest/USAFB 
Bentwaters landing/crash case in Britain immediately follows this quote.


-Keith Rowell, Tektronix, Wilsonville, OR   keithr@tolkien.WV.TEK.COM

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 20:17:55 GMT
From: jarthur!jokim@uunet.uu.net  (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles


I thought the test was really neat too.  Unfortunately, most of the
local news stations ran the tape just so you could hear all the
scientists and engineers in the background screaming and yelling.
I know the thing is for shooting down missiles, but the news stations
never got around to telling what the test was for.  What was so
great about the test that got everyone screaming?
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU | think of something very clever 
uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim  | to use as a disclaimer)

------------------------------

Date: Wed,  3 May 89 15:44 CST
From: Shallow thoughts for shallow minds <SCOTT@GACVAX1.Bitnet>
Subject: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
Original_To:  BITNET%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

}From: usc!nunki.usc.edu!manderso@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Mark Anderson)
}Subject: Re: Censorship ( was Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO!)
}
}>In article <20041@genrad.UUCP>, dls@genrad.uucp (Diana L. Syriac) writes:
}>> UFOs are definitely pertinent to Space....last I heard, most of
}>> them are from OUTER SPACE.
}>
}>Most of us aren't interested in hearing about flying saucers, and most
}>"flying sorcerers" aren't interested in what we talk about here.
}>
}>Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
}
}UFO's can't be any more far out than some of the more "scientific"
}arguments posted here, such as blowing up the Sun or mining asteroids.
}Loosen up a little.
}                    Mark
     
Nope, gotta put in my two bits here, Mark. Blowing up the sun and mining
asteroids are two things that are possible, but we haven't got the
ability to do it (yet). We KNOW that if you did certain things to the
sun, it would explode. Brute force method would be to crash a large body
(very large.  Much larger than Jupiter, say), and high speed (
relativistic, preferably, probably somthine on the order of 1/4-1/3 c)
into the sun, and voila, instant supernova! Granted, we won't be doing
anything remotely similar soon, but it still is possible. Easier: mining
the asteroids- we could do that by the turn of the century if we could
get our butts in gear. I doubt we will, though. Others: mine the moon,
move the Earth outward if we have too much greenhouse problem, terraform
venus/mars/a moon of jupiter, make jupiter into a small star, etc, etc.
These are all possible, and one could research it, and find out exactly
how to do it. Then it is an engineering problem.
     
        UFOs, though, are not proven to exist. There is absolutely no
firm ground to base their existence on. Just because the universe is so
huge that life MUST have evolved elsewhere has nothing to do with
whether or not that life is going to be dropping by earth. In fact, the
very fact that the universe IS huge enough that results have a chance to
be similar in seperate places works against aliens happening upon the
earth. A couple scenarios: 2001 - Theyve got von nuemann machines out
there putting up detectors in every star system they can find. There is
some sort of elemental force connected with life (Kirlian aura, maybe?)
and they are detecting this. There are worm-holes around all
solar-systems which route radio signals to them. Whatever you need. The
only problem is this: Any alien who can do any of these things must be
quite advanced. If they haven't yet come out to contact us, they must
have a reason. If their culture is too much for us to bear, then theyd
not want to contact us and destroy us. But any technology that thats
advanced enough to travel between stars should be able to quite easily
hide itself from us, even while cruising around the earth. But
seriously, why would they even have to do that? Im sure one could sit on
the moon with a large radio-receiver and get more information than if
they came directly to the earth. Over the airwaves theyd have MILLIONS
of people working on describing us, while they couldn't put too many
agents on earth without notice.
     
        UNLESS: maybe they enjoy reading the Examiner, the weekly world
news, and whatever else? Maybe well finally be sending off our first
manned interstellar mission, and theyll show up and steal the show.
Maybe ...
     
Nope. UFOs probably dont exist, and do not warrant discussion. If they
are aliens trying to avoid us, I doubt we could do much about them, so
ignore them. If they are toying with us, the best way to get them to
stop is to ignore them. If there is a valid reason we shouldn't have
contact with them yet, the best method would be to ignore them to save
our hides (souls?).  If they dont exist, why dont we ignore them? UFOs
are the realm of the mystical, not the scientific. Lets leave them
there.
     
This diatribe brought to you by:
Scott Hess,
Scott@gacvax1.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 1989 20:05:02 CDT
From: "Tom Kirke 996-4961" <U15305%UICVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Subject: sci.x

Can anybody tell me where the listservs for the sci.x's live?
I am especially interested in sci.chem and sci.astro.

tanxaboonch
                            |      All standard and non-standard
Tom Kirke                   |  disclaimers, declaimers, and claimers
U15305@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU     |                 apply.

We have discovered a *therapy* (NOT a cure) for the common cold,
                  play tuba for an hour.

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 16:57:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: KH12 for astronomy

In article <2354@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Timothy Roberts) writes:
>	[flaming about SDI deleted as irrelevant to sci.space]
>
>	My last Question: If the Defense community and the science
>	community are so closely related, Why haven't I seen Quasar
>	photos taken through KH-12 or Lacrosse Spysats? ...

Lacrosse is supposedly a radar satellite, not an optical one, so it
would be pretty useless for astronomy anyway.  The KH-12 optics, on the
other hand, are probably similar to those of the Hubble telescope.
But the sensors almost certainly aren't designed for it.  The optics are
probably up to the job, but the sensors are designed for looking at
brightly-lit objects through a blurry atmosphere going past at 8 kps, not
for long exposures of faint objects far away.

Besides, have you seen *any* photos taken through those birds?  Of course
not.  And you know why, too.  If such photos existed, they'd be secret.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 17:51:36 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jcbst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Colonization problems

In article <Added.gYJNFDy00Ui382=08K@andrew.cmu.edu> UNCKNG@UNC.BITNET ("Kevin N. Gunn") writes:
>
>  I am interested in learning more about the obstacles we face should we
>(humanity) decide to establish permanent extraterrestrial colonies.  (I
>actually mean permanent, self-sufficient colonies.)  One particular
>problem which interests me is the effects of low gravity of growth and
>development in organisms.  I've heard that fetal development in zero (or
>micro) gravity results in abnormalities.  Does this carry over to low
>gravity situations?  Does the Moon have enough gravity for normal fetal
>development?  What about plant development?  Have any tests been run on
>any of these questions?  I'm trying to pose this problem broadly in
>order to get   general information about growth and development of
>plants and animals in low gravity environments, especially the Moon and
>Mars.  Any input is appreciated.

At the risk of sounding like Howard Hughes, I would like to point out in 
this context that the human body is positively alive with microorganisms.
Thus, an extension of this question is, what are the possible effects of
prolonged weightlessness on common body flora?  Sounds like a simple enough
experiment to conduct - a culture of E-coli or something on a space platform
for an extended period.  Since most of these buggies exist in a fluid medium,
the effect of 0G will probably be minimal, since that is really their 
normal environment.  I doubt we can expect dragon-like Aliens to pop out
of some colonist's belly, but other things seem possible with a little
imagination.  I also welcome input.

INPUT!!!! More input!!!

-- 
Jim Benz 		     jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu     If a modem 
University of Pittsburgh					 answers,
UCIR			     (412) 648-5930			 hang up!

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 16:34:14 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Giotto (was:"Re: Some comments on comments...")

In article <2232@botter.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl () writes:
>|You're forgetting Pioneer Venus and Giotto, at a minimum.
>Giotto is functional? Please forgive me my ignorance, but what is it studying after
>the Halley mission? Is it still returning data? Of what?What are it's mission
>plans?

Giotto's official mission plans ended with Halley encounter, and there was
some doubt whether Giotto would survive that, but in fact it did.  There is
some damage; it is hard to say just how much, and in particular nobody is
too sure how well the camera is working.  Giotto is currently hibernating,
awaiting orders.  There is talk of using an Earth encounter a few years
from now to redirect it to another comet.  The first step would be to wake
it up and make a concerted effort to assess damage.  Nothing has been
decided yet and nobody is in a hurry, since orbital dynamics dictate a
delay anyway.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #411
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 May 89 07:57:33 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01068>; Sat, 6 May 89 07:08:08 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  6 May 89 07:07:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YYMdqoy00UkTE1KkRS>;
          Sat,  6 May 89 03:24:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.YYMdmOy00UkZN68k5O>;
          Sat,  6 May 89 03:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYMdjOy00UkZ567E52@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  6 May 89 03:16:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #412

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 412

Today's Topics:
	      NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
	      NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
			 Re: Magellan update
	    manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
		   Re: Some comments on comments...
			 Re: Magellan update
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
		Re: Private spending for space science
			 Re: Magellan update
			   JPL info needed.
			  Re: Voyager model
		 Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles
		Re: Private spending for space science
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 00:33:13 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  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
RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS-30     
1 19968U          89124.81499201  .00087149  00000-0  25599-3 0    28
2 19968  28.8878 340.6496 0006169 266.1842 346.0076 15.91174232    00
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 22:39:53 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  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
RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS-30     
1 19968U 89 33  A 89124.95919992  .00087028  00000-0  25599-3 0    37
2 19968  28.8865 339.5883 0006210 249.6494 110.2994 15.91147694    23
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 16:51:25 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <8008@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@threonine.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>The reason for the savings on propellant is that with the
>>later launch date the path to Venus is more direct, resulting in fewer TCMs.
>
>    So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the
>window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus
>injection? Atmospheric drag?

Not significant over that short a period, I'd say.  But if I'm not mistaken,
the IUS has a very limited period of autonomous operation; for example, it
has no solar panels and limited battery capacity.  Magellan would probably
be reasonably happy about it, perhaps with some minor modifications, but
the IUS isn't designed to be parked in orbit for any length of time.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 18:19:17 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

A while back, I help start the "manned vs. unmanned" debate by opining
that the manned program often obtains funding at the expense of the 
unmanned.

As I recall, Mr. Spencer disagreed.  He maintained, I believe, that unused 
funds from the the unmanned program are returned to the treasury rather
than being diverted to the manned program.

He may be right.

On the other hand, I didn't think that observation very relevant as 
I had in mind the congresional budgetary process rather than 
program cutbacks decided upon by the NASA administration (for whatever 
reason).  But, being a shy person, I didn't post a response ;-).

The referenced posting is, however, too golden an opportunity to pass up.
I interpret the testimony as supporting the proposition that the manned
and unmanned programs compete for funding.

Of course I'm wrong ;-).  Henry?
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 19:03:05 GMT
From: mcdchg!clyde!feg@rutgers.edu  (Forrest Gehrke)
Subject: Re: Some comments on comments...

In article <1989Apr29.234653.24350@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> The Soviets have had schedule slips.  However, while the US program is
> pretty nearly all talk and no action, the Soviet one is mostly talk but
> some action.  They have, after all, launched two more Mars missions this
> decade than the US has.
> -- 
> Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
> 2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Aside from all of the above, I read somewhere (source unremembered)
that the Russians lost one of their Phobos probes due to an
inadvertant steering of the probe's antenna away from earth
by a ground controller.  The same article mentioned that the
Magellan has an automatic sequence for the antenna dish to
seek earth in such an event.  Can anyone vouch for this
report?

Seems like such an obvious measure; I wonder why the Russians
failed to take it into account?

   Forrest Gehrke

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 14:49:10 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <8008@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@threonine.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes:
> [later Magellan launch windows are more fuel efficient]
>     So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the
> window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus
> injection? Atmospheric drag?

The batteries of the IUS and Magellan would run out of juice - Magellan's
solar panels won't be deployed until after the IUS burns.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 16:48:52 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <5537@lynx.UUCP> neal@lynx.UUCP (Neal Woodall) writes:
>>Yeah, it looked really neat.  Just one question: What's the difference
>>between the smart pebble concept and placing smart interceptor
>>missiles in orbit?
>
>Not much, as far as I can discern...

The "brilliant pebble" idea is to build *lots* of seriously small (mass
measured in *grams*, not kilograms) interceptors which are very highly
intelligent.  Many of the trickier problems of SDI arise from interceptors
being expensive and in short supply.  If they are cheap and abundant, you
don't *need* 100%-reliable discrimination of warheads from decoys, and you
don't *need* one-shot kills, and you don't *need* 100% performance from
the hardware in general.  Making them largely autonomous eliminates a lot
of the coordination problems; it means there will be overlap and redundancy
and some will be wasted, but if they're cheap and abundant, who cares?
Things like the "arm" and "disarm" decisions can still be centralized.

Now, how practical this is... is a good question.  Lowell Wood says that
something like 30 grams is enough to kill an ICBM.  Nobody, not even him,
expects to get the things anywhere near that small any time soon, but it
should be possible to do much better than the many-kilogram designs for
orthodox kinetic-energy weapons.  There are big questions about sensors,
software, and production costs yet to be dealt with, but the basic concept
does look better than conventional space-based interceptors.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 20:51:17 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <1989May3.162606.4307@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

<Why assume that *industry* has to do it?  What about the National Geographic
<Society?  Or a university consortium?  Useful probes could be brought in at
<a pricetag, even including launch at current prices, that a major fundraising
<drive by such institutions could cover.  The hardware that Amsat uses for
<Clarke-orbit amateur comsats would do for a lunar orbiter (the propulsion
<requirements, in particular, are almost exactly the same for Clarke orbit
<and lunar orbit), and inner-solar-system planetary missions are not all that
<much more difficult.  Jupiter is a bit trickier but not impossible.
<
<It *would* help a lot if the launch costs came down, though.
<
<But there are few plausible scenarios for such things as long as it looks
<easier to convince Congress to pick the taxpayers' pockets to pay for it.

	I think this is especially true if you consider that NASA has never
made any real effort to make money off of the very real demand for
color photos of various objects in the solar system.  Presumably the NGS
would not overlook this chance to get some of the money back.  Perhaps
when NASA's budget falls low enough...

-- 
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>
              <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're going to space if we have to walk."   -Jerry Pournelle, 1983

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 03:46:44 GMT
From: pgf@athena.mit.edu  (Peter G. Ford)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <1989May3.165125.5351@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <8008@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@threonine.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>    So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the
>>window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus
>>injection? Atmospheric drag?
>
>Not significant over that short a period, I'd say.  But if I'm not mistaken,
>the IUS has a very limited period of autonomous operation; for example, it
>has no solar panels and limited battery capacity.  Magellan would probably
>be reasonably happy about it, perhaps with some minor modifications, but
>the IUS isn't designed to be parked in orbit for any length of time.

The Magellan spacecraft would be quite happy to stay parked. In fact,
it deploys its solar panels before the IUS first stage is fired --
sounds stupid, but the STAR-48 Venus injection motor produces much
higher g-forces.  Anyway, better to deploy the panels than to risk
contaminating them with IUS exhaust.

Peter G. Ford <pgf@space.mit.edu>
MIT and Magellan Project

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 21:18:53 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!drutx!druhi!suelh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Sue Hendrix)
Subject: JPL info needed.


I have a friend who needs some info on JPL doings.

Specifically, what probes are out there now that JPL is keeping
an eye on, and getting telemetry from?

(This is to be used in a GURPS based role-playing game--a present 
day espionage-type game set at JPL.  So if any of you JPL types 
out there have any other ideas for the game, feel free to contribute. 
Please mark it as spoiler if you do, as I will be playing, and don't 
want to know more than is good for me.)

Thanks.
-- 
                                      Sue Hendrix, net.goddess
                                      att!drutx!druhi!suelh

It's a beautiful day, let's go boating.

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 01:19:18 GMT
From: crdgw1!ge-dab!sunny!harrison@uunet.uu.net  (Gregory Harrison)
Subject: Re: Voyager model

>The "Voyager" on display here is a model made out of cardboard, plastic,
>wood, occasionally metal.  I believe the third craft is in the Smithsonian.

There is another.  As president of DeVry Institute of Technology L5 Society,    
the chapter made a ~1/2 scale 95% accurate model of Voyager.  We had JPL plans
and photos, and the model is suspended in the Library in the Columbus OH 
DeVry Institute of Technology.  I think it came out beautifully.

Greg Harrison
The expressed opinions are mine, and are not meant to reflect those of GE.

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 06:28:01 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles

In article <2354@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Timothy Roberts) writes:

>	The Dragon uses 36(?) one shot solid fuel motors set
>	around its waist like rows of tiny funnels.

This sounds very much like the FLAG-E (Flexible Lightweight Agile Guided
Experiment) that was tested as part of a hyper-velocity atmospheric ICBM
interceptor experiment a few years ago (during the hey-day of the SCI
funding under the Reagan administration).

>	So what?  I am glad you asked.  Put the sight on the missle and
>	you don't need a wire.  Put the IR source on a missle plume and
>	you've got Brilliant pebbles.  This thing is circa Viet Nam War
>	and I have toted them all over Hawaii, Okinawa, and Thailand
>	during my days in the Marine Corps.

You make it sound so easy....but remember: the distance between "concept"
and "working prototype" in "project space" is often quite deceiving.
Putting the real-time inertial control onboard and having the rockets
fire controlled bursts (look at the video...the motors look like
liquid fueled to me) is probably more expensive than you think.

>	I like big science.  I detest weapons based in space.  The 
>	Peace Shield will make a lot of engineers rich and destabilize
>	the current nuclear standoff.  

I agree with you about the "big science" and "space based weapons", but if
you think any "engineers" will get rich off of this, you are mistaken. Maybe
some big conglomerates will reap tremendous profits, but the guys who do
the actual work will still get their regular salaries, and I know from
experience, this is no way to get rich!


Neal

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 18:28:06 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <8905021739.AA19290@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>, roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
> 
> >From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
> >In article <10707@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes
> >>							   Why don't you
> >>speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily 
> >>spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such.

>			......................
 
> Can you think of a plausible scenario by which private industry would
> undertake to send sophisticated probes to Venus or Jupiter at its own
> expense in the next 20 years? (I can, but there are some undesirable
> side effects.)

We have millions of people who believe in funding space research.  What I
have been proposing all along is that these people be allowed to set up
corporations, profit and non-profit, for this purpose.  More than one will
be needed, because we have the manned vs unmanned dispute.  

These corporations could act in concert with governments and industrial 
firms.  But the US government must allow these corporations to act without
governmental approval.

Let the people who believe in space fund it.  But do not ask them to fund it
under the control of the government.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #412
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 May 89 11:28:50 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01710>; Sat, 6 May 89 09:55:14 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  6 May 89 09:54:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wYMfbpy00Ui3A1m05U>;
          Sat,  6 May 89 05:25:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.gYMfXRy00UkZ16HU49>;
          Sat,  6 May 89 05:20:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YMfUPy00UkZ16G04S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  6 May 89 05:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #413

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 413

Today's Topics:
		Re: Private spending for space science
		       SETI:  What has it done
		  orbital element tracking software
			      Re: Tesla
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
			  Re: Smart Pebbles
			 Re: Magellan update
			    RE: Near miss
	      Re: B E M (was Space Shuttle Attacked ...)
			  RE: Smart Pebbles
			Re: KH12 for astronomy
     Re: Myth: Only a Government can ... and space week question.
		Re: Private spending for space science
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 21:20:10 GMT
From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <1283@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>We have millions of people who believe in funding space research.

    We have polls showing millions of people support NASA.  Those same
polls show that they support government entitlement programs to a far
greater degree (for good reason :-).  There are very few govt.
activities the public does *not* support to a greater degree than
NASA, at least in the polls I've seen.

>Let the people who believe in space fund it.  But do not ask them to fund it
>under the control of the government.

    I give the Space Studies Institute $300/year (to increase once I
have a real income), along with a few thousand other people
contributing similar amounts. This is a far greater level of support
than the typical "space activist". If a significant fraction of these
"millions of people" did the same, a private space program would be a
reality. Since we don't see this level of support, I think it's fair
to say that the public's interest in space does not extend to
their bank accounts.

    I don't buy the argument that the mere existence of NASA somehow
prevents people from funding non-govt. space activities. That's part
of the whole NASA-bashing ideology that's developed over the last 3
years, which provides lots of inflammatory comments but little
constructive action. There are many ways to help bring about the sort
of space activities we dream of, but many people would rather talk
about how the evil NASA big-aerospace loving statist bureaucrats are
solely responsible for the lack of a vigorous space program, instead
of making a personal commitment of time and money.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.''
	- Ronald Reagan

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 17:40:45 GMT
From: blake!mm@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Eric Gorr)
Subject: SETI:  What has it done

I have heard a lot about SETI and was wondering if all you experts could tell
me what exactly the research has provided.  What I am wondering is along
the lines of the research into the Star-Wars space defence system has
given us better lasors, etc.. and reseach in space travel, has produced 
velcro which is used in many other places.
 
thanx..

------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <oYM4TGy00UkZEwCEJ8@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-Date: Thu,  4 May 89 08:53:38 -0400 (EDT)
ReSent-From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-To: Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 May 89 18:28:14 CDT
From: "Bill Ball" <C476721@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: orbital element tracking software

Citing (w/o permission) from Jeff Angus, "Expert Systems Take Off"
Infoworld, April 24, 1989, p. 46.

"Joe Burger, an aerospace engineer, is selling a product he used VP Expert
to develop, called Space History. The product is designed to find in the sky
the 2,140 satellites launched since Sputnik, or to try to identify a flying
object as a specific satellite, or retrive general information about world
space programs. The $199 product is available from Space Analysis &
Research Inc., 6957 Blackhawk Place, Colorado Springs, Co. 80919; (719)
599-3886."



No connection with any of the above, just thought some of y'all would be
interested...............


Bill Ball                           BITNET: c476721@UMCVMB
Dept. Political Science             INTERNET: c476721@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU
U. Missouri - Columbia

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 15:37:22 GMT
From: aablue!jb@uunet.uu.net  (John B Scalia)
Subject: Re: Tesla

In article <589@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
>I am feeling picky today, so sue me :-)
>
> [Reference to prior article about Tesla inventions and a possible
>  government cover-up deleted]
>                    
>Photocopying?!? In 1945?!? I don't think so.
>
Uh, John. In case you haven't noticed this year is the 50th anniversary
of Chester Carlson's invention: xerography. In fact, in 1945 the Haloid/
Xerox Company produced and sold a unit known as the Xerox Standard. (As
told to me just this morning, by a Xerox rep who used to work on them.)
Why, if you haven't noticed, they even introduced all their newest units
with numbers beginning with 50 to commemorate this!

>Ok, Ok. so I got carried away. But it does sound flakey doesn't it? Like
>something you would read in the National Enquirer. But I guess anything is
>possible (except touching your elbow to your nose)  :-)

I think you got a little carried away, but don't worry about it. IMHO,
Tesla was a very brilliant man, but even he got a little carried away. :-)

-- 
A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio +1 216 794-8803 voice
UUCP:	   {uunet!}aablue!jb	Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
FidoNet:   1:157/697		wants to spend their life in an institution.
EchoNet:   US:OH/AKR.0

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 13:26:31 GMT
From: ssc-vax!dickey@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <1989May2.153131.3001@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> "Brilliant Pebbles" is aiming at things one or two
> orders of magnitude smaller than that.  (The earlier KE weapons are called
> "smart rocks".)

Will the next stage of development be "Genius Sand?"

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 15:31:58 GMT
From: uflorida!indri!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@g.ms.uky.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <2631@ssc-vax.UUCP> dickey@ssc-vax.UUCP) writes:
}In article <1989May2.153131.3001@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
}> "Brilliant Pebbles" is aiming at things one or two
}> orders of magnitude smaller than that.  (The earlier KE weapons are called
}> "smart rocks".)
}
}Will the next stage of development be "Genius Sand?"


Yes.

subscribe to sci.nanotech.  Group description follows:
sci.nanotech            Self-reproducing molecular-scale machines. (Moderated)

Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 16:45:32 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <542@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>, sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
> In article <8008@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@threonine.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes:
> > [later Magellan launch windows are more fuel efficient]
> >     So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the
> > window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus
> > injection? Atmospheric drag?
 
> The batteries of the IUS and Magellan would run out of juice - Magellan's
> solar panels won't be deployed until after the IUS burns.

Oops - Magellan's solar panels *will* be deployed before the IUS burn, so it
is just the IUS's batteries that can run down. I am not sure if the IUS's
inertial navigation system can keep the necessary accuracy if left in orbit
for a few weeks or so, either.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 May 89 13:54:54 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law)
Subject: RE: Near miss

Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

>When you start thinking about Tunguska, the early 70's pass above, the
>.5M mile misses of really big stuff in the last 25 years ...  it makes
>you feel like you're sitting on the bulls eye of some cosmic dart
>game.

As my father might have said, "Shit son, we ain't even on the board!"

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 15:18:29 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!acorn!ixi!clive@uunet.uu.net  (Clive)
Subject: Re: B E M (was Space Shuttle Attacked ...)

In article <8904272347.AA08923@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.TI.COM (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law) writes:
>haven!vrdxhq!daitc!ida.org!roskos@purdue.edu  (Eric Roskos) reports:
>>London's respected Daily Star newspaper

"Daily Star", "respected", cough, choke, etc.
It is difficult to cope with these two in the same sentence.

>>which has a circulation of 1.3 million

Good heuristic for UK national papers:
the higher the circulation, the ...
... lower the respectability
... smaller the physical size
... larger the typeface
... lower the s/n ratio
... lower the amount of news in it
... higher the number of nipples per issue.
-- 
Clive D.W. Feather           clive@ixi.uucp
IXI Limited                  ...!mcvax!ukc!acorn!ixi!clive (untested)
                             +44 223 462 131

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 May 89 13:44:08 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law)
Subject: RE: Smart Pebbles

att!oucsace!mstuard@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Stuard) asks:

>If this is to be a space based weapon why would there be ground based test
>of this nature.  I would think that the manuverability and acceleration
>requirements would be different in orbit than in a 1g atmospheric situation.
>We know that it can accelerate at at least 1g and is quite manuverable 
>(based on the apparent stability during the hoverv) but what real data about
>its capabilities in orbit can be determined in this test.

The reason for not testing outside, to say nothing of space, is that to
do so violates some provision of the ABM Treaty, which our glorious leaders
have already decided may or may not apply in some or all of the circumstances
here, sort of.

Anyways, my understanding of this weapon is that it will be about 20cm in
diameter, and may have some sort of contact explosive to enhance the impact
damage, but not a warhead.

And what happens when one decides to shoot at the shuttle?

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 21:25:07 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!ljw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (les.j.wu)
Subject: Re: KH12 for astronomy

In article <1989May3.165757.5468@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>                                        ......  The KH-12 optics, on the
> other hand, are probably similar to those of the Hubble telescope.
> But the sensors almost certainly aren't designed for it.  The optics are
> probably up to the job, but the sensors are designed for looking at
> brightly-lit objects through a blurry atmosphere going past at 8 kps, not
> for long exposures of faint objects far away.
> 
> Besides, have you seen *any* photos taken through those birds?  Of course
> not.  And you know why, too.  If such photos existed, they'd be secret.
> -- 
> Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
> 2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Actually, some photos of a Russian ship yard were published a couple of
years ago by Jane's Defense Weekly.  The guy who leaked them was
prosecuted and went to prison.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les J. Wu					AT&T Bell Laboratories
(UUCP) att!whuxr!ljw				One Whippany Road
(arpa) ljw%whuxr@research.att.com		WH 14A-260
						Whippany, NJ 07981
*** STANDARD DISCLAIMERS APPLY ***		Tel: (201)386-3495
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 21:46:36 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can ... and space week question.

>From article <23748@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter):
) In article <10707@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
))							   Why don't you
))speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily 
))spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such.
) 
) Perhaps you have not noticed, but many smaller companies are already
) spending money on their own launch systems.  

Hercules Aerospace is not a small company. They are spending hundreds
of millions of dollars of their own money on getting into the private
space launch business.

As the DOD/NASA trough dries up expect to see more and more major
aerospace companies going into private space in a big way. All these
companies are in business to make money. When they can't make it off
of the government they will figure out how to make it off the private
sector.

Graham-Ruddman(sp?) may be the key to private space operations.

			Bob P.

P.S.

What are you doing to celebrate space week? It looks like we have
enough displays lined up to fill a shopping mall, a planetarium, and a
convention center. With any luck we will have both astronauts and
cosmonauts as guest speakers. It looks like we will have displays from
both NASA and the Soviet Union also.

It is, after all, the twentieth anniversary.
-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 17:24:25 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <1989May3.162606.4307@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <8905021739.AA19290@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
> >Can you think of a plausible scenario by which private industry would
> >undertake to send sophisticated probes to Venus or Jupiter at its own
> >expense in the next 20 years? ...
> 
> Why assume that *industry* has to do it?  What about the National Geographic
> Society?  Or a university consortium? 
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   You are forgetting something here.  Where would universities get the money
to fund a research project like this??  Probably the same place they get most
of their research funds. The biggest source of research funding in the U.S.
are ( ask any grad student :-) ) 

             (1)  Dod
             (2) National Science Foundation (NSF)  and other gov agencies

    So saying that universities could replace government funded space probes
is a bit circular.

     I do like the idea of a National Geographic sponsored probe

   "Contribute $100 and get a 24 x 36 full color print of Saturn "



                        Marc Bonin



                    Dept. of Aerospace Engineering 
                   University of Texas at Austin

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #413
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 May 89 08:20:12 EDT
Received: by PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id <AA00920>; Sun, 7 May 89 07:36:51 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  7 May 89 07:36:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cYMz1dy00Ui3M1oUFJ>;
          Sun,  7 May 89 03:29:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.EYMys7y00UkZJ7D05N>;
          Sun,  7 May 89 03:19:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYMypXy00UkZ57BU4a@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  7 May 89 03:16:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #414

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 414

Today's Topics:
	    Space salvage (was RE: Colonization problems)
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
		    Wireless electricity and Tesla
			    Shuttle audio
		 Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles
			Govt. vs. Small Launch
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 May 89 13:59:48 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law)
Subject: Space salvage (was RE: Colonization problems)

haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@purdue.edu  (Jim Meritt) writes:

>(BTW:  Would MIR count as adrift and qualify under international salvage
>laws, since it has been abandoned?)


Got some plans we should know about?

Salvage laws only came about when there were enough ships to make it worth
while.  Besides, I can leave my ship at anchor (the analogy here) and go
into town if I leave the correct set of lights burning.  But if you want
to try something, I'll post your bail!!!

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 19:13:52 GMT
From: vygr!mae@sun.com  (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO})
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <2635@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>
>If an asteroid misses the Earth by 500,000 km, that is about 80 Earth
>radii.  Let us comapre this to more familiar events and see how this
>compares.  The mean radius of a car is about 2 meters.  80 times 2
>meters is 160 meters (525 feet.).  If a car crosses a 4 way intersection
>while you are that far away, do you call it a near miss? I think not.
>The collision cross section of an irplane is 20 meters in the horizontal
>radius and 4 meters in the vertical direction.  A crossing at 1600
>meters horizontal separation (1 mile) is hardly a near hit, as is
>320 meters (1000 feet) in the vertical direction.
>

Carried to an absurd length(reducio ad absurtum(sd?)), let's assume
that instead of a another car crossing an intersection a couple of
blocks away, a 747 crashes. Or an atomic bomb goes off? (Phewww! just
missed me (:-).

Please note in the following re-post:

"His[ Eugene Shoemaker, a respected US Geological Survey scientist]
calculations suggest that asteroids packing the explosive energy of one
megaton should enter the atmosphere on an average of once every 30 years,
larger asteroids with a 20-megaton punch every 400 years, and a 1 km, 10,000
megaton comet or asteroid once in 100,000 years."

Maybe we should consider a cheap form of insurance, like a radar satellite
or two pointing out instead of in(of course the shuttle would carry them right)?

Note the Siberian comet/asteroid was estimated at 12-megaton, about 80 years 
ago(so we have 320 years {:->).


# mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-04
"I'd rather sniff French shit for 5 years then eat
Chinese shit the rest of my life"  -Ho Chi Minh-

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 May 89 18:02:26 EDT
From: Henry_Edward_Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Wireless electricity and Tesla

In:  Subject: Re: wireless electricity,
cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!dover!fullmer@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu 
 
(Glen Fullmer) writes, 
 
> Didn't Nikola Tesla transmitted wireless power sufficient to
light a light bulb over a considerable distance sometime near the
turn of the century? 
 
In her biography of Tesla, Margaret Cheney writes, 
 
> With his giant oscillator he believed he had set the earth in
electrical resonance, pumping a stream of electrons into it at a
rate of 150,000 oscillations per second. The resulting pulsations
had a wavelength of about 6,600 feet. Tesla concluded that they
expanded ever outward over the bulge of the earth, first in
increasing circles and then in ever smaller ones yet with growing
intensity, and converged at a point on the globe directly opposite
from Colorado Springs -- that is, slightly west of the French
islands of Amsterdam and St. Paul in the Indian Ocean. Here,
according to his experimental results, a great electrical "south
pole" was created with a stationary wave that rose and fell in
unison with his transmissions from his "North Pole" at Colorado
Springs. Each time the wave receded, it was reinforced and sent
back more powerfully than before to the antipode. 
> 
> Had the earth been capable of perfect resonance, the results could
have been catastrophic, but since it was not, the effect, he
believed, was merely to make available at any point on the Earth
energy that could be drawn off with a simple piece of equipment.
This would included the elements of a radio tuning unit, as ground
connection, and a metal rod the height of the house. Nothing more
would be needed to absorb household electricity from the waves
rushing back and forth between the north and south poles. He did
not, however satisfactorily prove this claim... 
> 
> It has been reported by various writers that during his power
transmission experiments in Colorado, Tesla succeeded in lighting
up a bank of two hundred 50 watt incandescent lamps wirelessly,
at a distance of twenty-six miles from his station. In his own
writings, however, no such claim is ever made, nor is there other
evidence that he did so. What he actually wrote was that, by the
use of  the magnifying transmitter, he had passed a current across
the globe sufficient to light more than two hundred incandescent
lamps. 
 
Our library computer here at the University of Michigan, MIRLYN,
lists the following books about Tesla: 
 
Cheney, Margaret. 
  Tesla, man out of time / Margaret Cheney. -- Englewood Cliffs,
N.J. : Prentice-Hall, c1981. 
xvi, 320 p., 16 pages of plates : ill. ; 24 cm. 
Includes index. 
Bibliography: p. 291-308. 
ISBN 0-13-906859-7 : $14.95 (est.) 
 
Martin, Thomas Commerford, 1856-1924. 
  The inventions, researches and writings of Nikola Tesla,
<microform> with special reference to his work in polyphase
currents and high potential lighting, by Thomas Commerford Martin. 
New York, The Electrical engineer, 1894. 
xi, 496 p. front. (port.) illus., diagrs. 24 cm. 
  Includes three lectures by Tesla: I. Experiments with alernate
currents of very high frequency, and their application to methods
of artificial illumination, delivered before the American institute
of electrical engineers at Columbia college, N.Y., May 20, 1891.--II.
Experiments with alternate currents of high potential and high
frequency, delivered before the Institution of electrical engineers,
London, Feb. 3, 1892.--III. On light and other high frequency
phenomena, delivered before the Franklin institute, Philadelphia,
Feb., 1893, and before the National electric light association, St.
Louis, March, 1893. 
Microfiche (negative). <New York, New York Public Library,
Photographic Service> 1968. 10 microfiches. 11 x 15 cm. 
 
O'Neill, John J. (John Joseph), 1889- 
  Prodigal genius; the life of Nikola Tesla, by John J. O'Neill.  New
York,  N.Y., I Washburn, inc. <1944> 
4 p.L., 3-326 p. front. (port.) 23 cm. 
 
Rauscher, Elizabeth A. 
  Electromagnetic phenomena in complex geometries and nonlinear
phenomena, non-Hertzian waves and magnetic monopoles / by
Elizabeth A. Rauscher. -- Millbrae, Calif. : Tesla Book Co., 1983,
c1982. 
141 p. ; 28 cm. 
Includes bibliographical references. 
ISBN 0-9603536-9-0 (pbk.) : $15.50 
 
Tesla, Nikola, 1856-1943. 
  Moji pronalasci = My inventions / Nikola Tesla ; preveli Tomo
Bosanac, Vanja Aljinovic ; urednik Branimira Valic. -- Zagreb :
Skolska knjiga, 1977. 
108 p. : ill. ; 29 cm. 
English and Serbo-Croatian in opposite columns. 
Text originally published in Electrical experimenter in 1919. 
Published on the occasion of the celebration of the 120th
anniversary of the birth of Nikola Tesla organized by the Yugoslav
Academy of Arts and Sciences. 
 
Tesla, Nikola, 1856-1943.  .
..Colorado Springs notes, 1899-1900 / Nikola Tesla ; <scientific
commentaries by Aleksandar Marincic ; the manuscript of Nikola
Tesla prepared for publication by the Nikola Tesla Museum,
Beograd>. -- Beograd : Nolit, 1978. 
436, <1> p. : ill. ; 29 cm. 
Bibliography: p. 435-<437> 
 
Tesla, Nikola, 1856-1943. 
  Experiments with alternate currents of high potential and high
frequency : a lecture delivered before the Institution of Electrical
Engineers, London / by Nikola Tesla ; with an appendix by the same
author on The transmission of electric energy without wires :
reviewing his recent work, and presenting illustrations from
phootographs never beforep  ublished : with a new portrait and a
biographical sketch of the author. -- New ed. -- Hawthorne, Calif. :
Omni Publications, 1979, c1904. 
ix, 162 p. : ill., port. ; 23 cm. 
Reprint. Originally published: New York : McGraw-Hill, 1904. 
 
Tesla Centennial Symposium (1984 : Colorado Springs, Colorado) 
Proceedings of the Tesla Centennial Symposium held at Colorado
College, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States of America,
August 9-12, 1984 : celebrating a century of electrical progress. 
Colorado Springs, Colo. : International Tesla Society, Inc., c1985. 
 
 *   Henry Edward Hardy                                                    * 
 *   University of Michigan Computer Consultant                            * 
 *   sysop, Arbor Intelligent Systems                                      * 
 *   President, Althing Communications                                     * 
 *                                                                         * 
 *   Henry Edward Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu                                    * 
 *   Henry Edward Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu                                    * 
 *   "Arbor" on MacNet                                                     *

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 17:14:39 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Shuttle audio

In article <24815@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>Remember, that if you live near any of the NASA installations, they'll
>probably be broadcasting the shuttle communications on some of the
>ham radio channels. You may want to invest in a cheap police scanner
>and monitor this yourself, without the nitwit commentary from Hollywood
>stars.
>
What about Shortwave, does any one know of a frequency that we could tune
into on the shortwave band.  It would seem to me that there are far more
SW receivers that VHF and SW has a much larger coverage.  
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 22:31:46 GMT
From: nprdc!malloy@ucsd.edu  (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles

In article <2354@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Timothy Roberts) writes:
>	I like big science.  I detest weapons based in space.  The 
>	Peace Shield will make a lot of engineers rich and destabilize
>	the current nuclear standoff.  

It may sound facetious, but to quote a bumper sticker I saw recently:

	STOP SDI -- MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR NUCLEAR WARHEADS



 Sean Malloy					| "The proton absorbs a photon
 Navy Personnel Research & Development Center	| and emits two morons, a
 San Diego, CA 92152-6800			| lepton, a boson, and a
 malloy@nprdc.navy.mil				| boson's mate. Why did I ever
						| take high-energy physics?"

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 06:41:55 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Govt. vs. Small Launch


>From hearings of the House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology, J61 S42 100th No. 68, September 15, 1987, "Commercial Launch
Industry"

Testimony of Mr. KOOPMAN of American Rocket Co., Mr. KADAR of Conatec,
Inc., and Mr. CHAFER of Space Services, Inc.


  Mr. NELSON.  So, I take it from your testimony that the government
has not been forthcoming in suggesting the government range cost, the
tooling and equipment cost.

  Mr. KOOPMAN.  In our case, sir, in American Rocket's case, we have
just received a relatively detailed and precise estimate of the range
costs for our activities through our first two launches.  So, in our
case the Air Force has been forthcoming.

  Mr. NELSON.  And the rest of you?

  Mr. KADAR.  In our experience with costing from the U.S. Government,
we have never had the opportunity to try any with NASA.  We are still
waiting for a MOA, but we have had very quick response from the Army
and the Navy personnel in departments at the White Sands Missile
Range.  The costs they have given us are excellent.  They are in as
much detail as we would like to see them.  They put us in a very
competitive mode, and once we get NASA's costs rolled into there, then
we can get up and running.

  Mr. CHAFER.  We submitted what undoubtedly will be the model for your
ISA as well several months ago in order to get a number from NASA.  We
have gotten one, but it is not an official number.  It's a "we think
we can do it for this" kind of number.  We are still looking for that
official number because that drives our launch site choice, and are
having some problems bidding fixed price launches to people in the
United States and around the world with us having to take the risk of
the dosts.  So, we are still waiting for an official number from NASA.

  Mr. NELSON.  If the model agreement is not changed, are what you
saying is it is going to be bad news for you?

  Mr. KOOPMAN.  Yes, sir.

  Mr. KADAR.  It is too open ended.  We are liable for everything.

...

  Mr. WALKER.  As I understand it, your testimony has been that there
is, indeed, a market for your product.  Is that fair--

  Mr. KADAR.  Yes.

  Mr. KOOPMAN. Yes.

  Mr. WALKER.  And that the main thing which stands in the way of you
marketing your products successfully is in large part government.

  Mr. KADAR.  Directly and indirectly.

  Mr. WALKER.   Directly and indirectly?

  Mr. KADAR.  Undirectly through the insurance requirements placed on
us, directly from a slow process to get proper agreements effected.

  Mr. WALKER.  Getting away from---I understand you have testified,
and I don't want to go over a lot of additional ground here.
  But getting away from the specifics of arguments that you may have
internally about Air Force agreements and so on, if we were to develop
a policy right now, if we were to build upon the present policy, what
are the three things you need most from the Congress and from the
Government to assure that a large percentage of our launch capacity in
the next 5 years is coming from the commercial sector?

  Mr. CHAFER.  A statement that the Government won't compete with
private launch providers; a statement that realistic regulatory
aspects will be placed on us with regard to insurance liability and
user agreements; and a statement that on a case-by-case basis, as the
Government requires it, they will buy commercial launch services on a
turnkey basis.

  Mr. KADAR.  I have to agree with the three points that Mr. CHAFER
made.  They are exactly the problems we would like to overcome.

  Mr. WALKER.  Let's take that final point.  If you knew that NASA was
going to buy commercial launch services rather than fly its own
vehicles, that could be a mahor incentive toward moving you into the
commercial market?

  Mr. KADAR.  Absolutely.

  Mr. KOOPMAN.  Sir, I mentioned before that we have a situation with
the financial community where there is still a large perception that
the government does not really mean what it says about buying launch
services.  I have been told point blank that not only do they not
believe that the government will buy launch services from us, but that
in addition, they will never let us fly a nonmilspec rocket.
  I think that a simple, clear direction that wherever possible
that--for example, to use the analogy of the airline business, that
the fovernment buy tickets to get from here to Los Angeles and not
airplanes, that that alone and a powerful, simple statement by the
Congress to that effect would be one of the most positive direct and
immediate things that this Congress could do to encourage the
development of this business.

  Mr. WALKER.  Well, I can understand why the industry does not believe
it.  I for one don't believe it either at the present time.  I think we
have been pushing.  We have sent all kinds of signals that that is what
we want to have done, and the fact is that I still have the feeling
that there are an awful lot of people who are trying to frustrate the
will of Congress and a number of other people in terms of how they fly
in the future.  And that does not give very much of a financial
incentive to the investment community.

  Mr. KOOPMAN.  And the second thing--again, I am not a lawyer and I
can't opine on what in fact needs to be changed.  I suspect that very
little, if anything, needs to be changed in order to have a much more
equitable division of risk.  But it is clear that the division--right
now if with none of myu people around our launch complex, a government
employee breaks into the complex and sets off something which drops on
downtown Santa Barbara, under the current agreement this is 1,000
percent American Rocket Co.'s responsibility.  I don't think that that
is the way to encourage a commercial launch undustry in this country.

  Mr. WALKER.  Each of you represents a segment of the industry.  We
have you on a panel here of small launch providers.  But you are
probably experts as well in something which I think has a good deal of
bearing on the work of this subcommittee.  And that is, if we were to
give you the kinds of incentives that you need to become providers on a
day-to-day basis of launch services, how much of the gap that we are
now hearing about in terms of on-orbit capabilities could the
commercial sector pick up?   I assume that you all are familiar with
the newspaper articles that have been out, the Newsweek articles and
all of that.  Is the commercial sector now in a position of being able
to fill that gap with the appropriate incentives?

  Mr. KOOPMAN.  With the appropriate incentives if you include the three of
us sitting here, plus at least the three larger players who come on in
the next panel, Mc-DAC, Martin Marietta and General Dynamics, I would
say absolutely yes.  And I wouldn't want to make a prediction, but I
would think that if you want to put this country back on its feet, so
to speak, in the launch business, that with the proper incentives, you
are looking at a very few years before we are once again leaders in
the world.

----
William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #414
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 May 89 08:06:56 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00939>; Mon, 8 May 89 07:01:33 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  8 May 89 07:01:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.YYNFaty00jZdE1FU8r>;
          Mon,  8 May 89 00:38:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.oYNFLdy00UkZ183056>;
          Mon,  8 May 89 00:22:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YNFJey00UkZF81U48@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  8 May 89 00:19:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #415

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 415

Today's Topics:
		    space news from March 20 AW&ST
		Re: Private spending for space science
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #407
		   Re: SETI: Where and when to look
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
		      Re: Magellan launch window
		Re: Earth based - will it always win?
		    File Server for Space Digest?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 23:46:18 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 20 AW&ST

[This is the "Aerospace Forecast & Inventory" issue, heavy on overviews
and tables and light on current news.]

An amazing picture of the "waveguide labyrinth" (its official name) for
an Intelsat 6.  Or rather, one of the eight for each Intelsat 6.  Looks
like a map of an ant colony, done in aluminum and the size of a tabletop.
They provide beam shaping for the main transmit and receive beams,
including pattern switching depending on whether the satellite is over
the Atlantic, Pacific, or Indian Ocean.  Intelsat would like to replace
them with active-element phased-array systems, once costs come down a
bit further; this would permit post-launch pattern changes and simplify
satellite design.

SDI proposes start of production of a "conventional" strategic defense
system in 1994-5, but Abrahamson [recently retired as SDI director] says
that the "Brilliant Pebbles" concept is probably superior.

Postmortem on the March 13 Discovery launch and mission.  They got off
in time to clear the pad for Magellan, despite some tense moments.  [As
most everybody has probably heard, Magellan is on its way now.  Okay, so
I'm a bit behind...]  NASA used some revised weather-management methods,
notably having alternative trajectory profiles ready in case of unusual
wind patterns aloft.  It paid off; one of the alternate profiles was in
fact used, after it became clear that high-altitude winds differed from
the historical average that's used to plan the main profile.

The third operational TDRS was deployed successfully, completing the
operational system for the moment and permitting closure of six more
tracking stations (net saving, $35M/yr).

Tests of the "Share" advanced heat-pipe radiator design being considered
for the space station did not go well.  Basically, it didn't work, and
it overheated when experimental heaters were switched on.  Current guess
is that bubbles in the fluid system were to blame, although an attempt
to dislodge them with orbiter thruster firings wasn't successful.  The
station engineers report that they have learned quite a bit and may want
to fly the experiment again.

DoD says the new Asat project will yield a system that could be fielded
in the mid-90s, assuming it survives the inevitable political battles.
The initial design is likely to be a surface-launched rocket carrying
an optical homing head; both sea and land-based options are available.
The Pentagon wants to spend almost $200M in FY90 on it; Congress isn't
expected to be too happy about it.  One problem is that there is no
agreement about how capable the Soviet Asat system (which is believed
to have been operational for about a decade, but has not been tested
recently) is.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 04:58:07 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <8040@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@alanine (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>    I don't buy the argument that the mere existence of NASA somehow
>prevents people from funding non-govt. space activities.

Let us say, then, the practices of NASA.  You obviously don't know
anyone who is trying to break into the launch business.

>							  That's part
>of the whole NASA-bashing ideology that's developed over the last 3
>years, which provides lots of inflammatory comments but little
>constructive action. 

My, how experiences differ.  Among "space activists" I know, only the
"NASA-bashers" do anything.  The rest of them are too busy pretending
that they will one day sway public opinion so overwhelmingly in favor of
NASA that the resultant budget increases will force us to have a space
program.

>				      many people would rather talk
>about how the evil NASA big-aerospace loving statist bureaucrats are
>solely responsible for the lack of a vigorous space program, instead
>of making a personal commitment of time and money.

If we give the evil NASA big-aerospace loving statist bureaucrats enough
of our own time and money they will come around?

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 00:52:00 GMT
From: ima!mirror!frog!john@decvax.dec.com  (John Woods)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <23567@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
> In article <10547@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
> >			   government is the only current source of the amount
> >money needed to build large scale space hardware
> What gave you this idea?  The current Forbes Magazine lists the 500
> largest American companies by various characteristics.  There are 35
> with 1988 *profits* of over $1 billion, and 90 with *profits* of over
> $500 million.  This is enough money to develop space even at the NASA
> prices.
> 
Perhaps, but any of those companies threatening to spend $1 billion
on a project with more than a 3-month payback are going to be facing
a raft of hostile takeover attempts by people who'd rather have the
cash instead...

-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 May 1989 15:55-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #407

>	-  In lieu of governemental impedances on private sector space 
>	   efforts, what type of organization (public or private corp.,
>	   representative or total democracy, 100% enfranchisment, secede
>	   from the US and start your own country (-: ...)

Starting a country might not be such a bad idea. Maybe the libertarian
group that tried this in the Pacific will get their country back
through world court someday. However, I don't think statists of any
ilk, east or west, are interested in a living example of true freedom
existing anywhere. How would the US feel if it could not longer claim
to be the best of a bad lot?

>	-  What long term hazards do you foresee with the (assume US) gov't
>	   "handling" of your space efforts.

The US government space program will piddle away billions of dollars
and decades of time. Then they'll start buying tickets from Amroc.

>	-  Quasi-rhetorical question:  Assuming a private space colony, what
>	   type of gov't or management structures would appeal to you and 
>	   what would actually work.

Mutual contract for all rights and responsibilities. No person can be
forced to do anything they have not specifically agreed to in writing
and without duress. If a particular colony has contractual
requirements for coming on board, then you read the fine print and
either join or don't join.

Beyond contract there should be a minimal Bill of Rights that
guarantees the right to go elsewhere and take out what you brought in.
The Bill of Rights would be a standard portion of all contracts on all
settlements. If someone signs on to a settlement that does not have it,
caveat emptor.

As to the particular type of settlement I would wish to be a member of:

It would be a joint stock company with the residents all acting as
shareholders. If you sell your last share, you are no longer a resident
and must either leave or find a sponsor.

Since the cost of the overall project would be quite large and probably
beyond the means of the residents, there would be a considerable amount
of control initially residing in a private organization on Earth.
Prefereably this would be an organization of people of similar beliefs.
For my settlement it would be an international share holder corporation
limited to shareholders who have signed the Libertarian Pledge, and
possibly the Covenant as well. I expect some time in the next century
the costs of space settlements will come down and the economic clout of
libertarians will come up and meet it. Probably about the time I'm 90
or so. But hey, I intend to go skiing on Ganymede when I'm 120, so no big
deal!

No connection to any government on Earth would be allowed, not even to
the UN. No "government" would be allowed on board. Strictly laissez
faire in economics and social behavior. Income from operations of the
settlement would go to support the operations and any profits would be
split among the shareholders according to their holdings. Shareholders
could increase or decrease their holdings with the caveat mentioned
earlier. Police, "military", courts, life support, all would be private
corporations.

If you want to know how all this would work, I'd have to give you a
bibliography for a small library. I don't expect to convince anyone of
the workings of freedom in a few thousand words on a network when it
takes VOLUMES to describe and explain each of the issues involved.  (In
1000 words or less, describe the entire social and political structure
of the USA in detail sufficient to convince a nitpicking doubter who is
unfamiliar with any of the principles or philosophy by which it
operates that it will be a functioning society.)  Possibly the simplest
way to get a feel for it is to go read some of L. Neil Smith's science
fiction novels.  "The Probability Broach" will give you a good "gut"
feel for the kind of society and settlement that I would want to live
in. (But, since it doesn't exist here on earth and won't exist in space
for quiet a few decades, at least I can go somewhere where the beer is
good and the people are friendly and always ready for a good crack...)

I could go on, but I think I've given enough of a rough outline. True,
in 1990 it's laughable. In 2000 it will be merely silly. In 2020 it
won't seem so farfetched. And in 2040... who knows?

					Free Minds and Free Markets
					(or at least a pint of Guinness),
						Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 17:15:33 GMT
From: sumax!amc-gw!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: SETI: Where and when to look

In article <8904241950.AA09264@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law) writes:
>hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@hplabs.hp.com write:
>
>>Somehow, the two planets need to make a reasonable guess at space-time 
>>coordinates at which to attempt contact with the other.
>>   [deleted stuff]

>A brilliant suggestion.  My only problem is the assumption that others think
>the same way.  What if the other person in town is deaf, or frightened of
>loud sounds?
>
>On the other hand, by broadcasting not to those who are parallel to us,
>but to those who have yet to observe the given event, chances of reception
>are greatly increased.  
>  [deleted stuff]

I don't think this would increase the chance of reception since you would
be forced to brodcast along the line of sight of the event. This would
make the number of systems very few and far between. The wave front idea
is *excellent*, since you would have a sphere of reception the radius of
which is the distance to the event.  Someone else mentioned that the nearer
the event the better and suggested a long period variable (Good idea).
I think that ordinary novae occur much more frequently than Super Nova
and are generally closer than most Supernovae (usually extra-galactic).



Now, is there intelligent life at SETI, and are they listening???

-- 
 _____   Kevin Bagley  Global Tech. Int'l Inc., Mukilteo WA 98275  206-742-9111
  )___)  __    _   _   UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin
_/___)  (__(__(_)_/_)_ ARPA:uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu
_______________/  Disclaimer...  "I did not say this. I am not here."

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 17:43:33 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@handies.ucar.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <1351@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes:
>> largest American companies by various characteristics.  There are 35
>> with 1988 *profits* of over $1 billion, and 90 with *profits* of over
>> $500 million.  This is enough money to develop space even at the NASA
>> prices.
>> 
>Perhaps, but any of those companies threatening to spend $1 billion
>on a project with more than a 3-month payback are going to be facing
>a raft of hostile takeover attempts by people who'd rather have the
>cash instead...

Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747.  (Note:  not even
borrowed money, *its own* money.)  And did the same thing again with
$2 billion for the 757 and 767.  Airliners have payback periods somewhat
longer than three months.  Nobody has yet mounted a takeover attempt.

Boeing actually is a good bet for a company that just might get into the
space business.  It's been interested for a long time.  And it has money...
(The current price of a 747 is $100M+.  The profit margin is reputed to be
25% or more.  The airlines would dearly love to see a competitor for the
747, but none is in sight, so Boeing has a captive market.  747s are
selling like crazy; Boeing is building them as fast as it can.)  Remember
that they (with Hughes) offered to build the Jarvis heavylift booster out
of their own pockets, if NASA and the USAF would guarantee a market.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 21:38:34 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Magellan launch window

In article <890505103055.000004130A3@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
 
> I'm told that Galileo will pass Magellan and actually arrive at Venus
> earlier.  So much for ideas of Galileo taking pictures of Magellan.
> I wonder how close Magellan will come to Pioneer 10?

Assuming no exceptional course changes, not very close I hope!
Pioneer 10 it outside the known solar system, you probably meant
Pioneer Venus, I assume...

Let's hope Galileo will be launched on time.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 21:29:28 GMT
From: dd2f+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Daniel Alexander Davis)
Subject: Re: Earth based - will it always win?

Steve W.P. writes:
>From article <14295@bfmny0.UUCP>, by tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff):
>> All of which brings me to a question I've often wondered about. Given 
>> enough time and ingenuity can't we nearly always do better here on 
>> Earth? Yes, we are crushed by 1G and swamped in a gaseous muck that 
>> blocks some wavelengths and distorts most of the rest. [...]
>>  Should we 
>> concentrate on ground based work and de-emphasize space based 
>> observation until some smart cookie makes it a lot cheaper and easier 
>> to get up there? I hope I have framed the question usefully. 
>
>...The main justifications for HST were improved spatial resolution,
>increased wavelength coverage, and darker sky background (compared to
>ground-based telescopes).  It is possible, as you suggest, that
>adaptive optics might provide the improved resolution.  Indeed,
>interferometric techniques should give much higher resolution than
>HST.  However, all these techniques are limited either to bright
>objects or (for adaptive optics) to a small field of view near a
>bright object.  The increased wavelength coverage (primarily in the
>ultraviolet, but also in the infrared for the second-generation
>instruments) and the darker sky cannot be attained from the ground.

Still, going to Mars is very different from putting HST in earth's 
orbit.  While HST is not on the Earth (well, rather it is.  Shit.),
it is "earth-based."  My question is whether a project to examine
the solar system from orbit using HST, or some other, future
on orbit facility wouldn't do a better job.  

One main point is that to get samples of soil and such, we have to go 
there, but I still think some laser, bounced off Mars would give some
nice spectroscopy.  However, for the heavy atmosphere planets, I 
know we will have to go there.

Dan Davis, inc.
A Division of Igor's Corrupt Capitalist Empire. 
Also a major in mathematics/guitar at Carnegie Mellon.

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Fri, 05 May 89 15:20:55 -0900
Reply-To: <TSKGG%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: <TSKGG%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Kevin Griffin (TSKGG@ALASKA)     <TSKGG%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  File Server for Space Digest?

  Is there cu
rrently a file-server for space digest? If so, what is the network
address? If not what are the possibilities of setting one up?
Please respond directly to,
                        Kevin Griffin
                        TSKGG@ALASKA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #415
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 May 89 07:53:21 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00968>; Mon, 8 May 89 07:12:34 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  8 May 89 07:12:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gYNI1Wy00Ui3A1=kEb>;
          Mon,  8 May 89 03:23:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.kYNHwxy00UkZF8KU4K>;
          Mon,  8 May 89 03:18:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YNHvfy00UkZR8J05f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  8 May 89 03:17:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #416

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 416

Today's Topics:
		    space news from March 27 AW&ST
		Re: Private spending for space science
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #407
		    Monitoring of Shuutle systems
	   Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE
			    Asteroid query
		 Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles
		       Space software problems
		Re: Private spending for space science
		     is the world still there????
	   Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 03:32:50 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 27 AW&ST

Satellite controllers fired Gstar-3's thrusters for a total of 48 hours
in Jan and Feb to move it closer to Clarke orbit (it was placed in the
wrong orbit last fall by a motor failure).  It's now in an orbit where
it may be of some use:  Geostar (the commercial navsat firm) hopes to
begin using its part of the satellite this fall.

Soviet Union delays launch of the first Mir add-on module, due to delays
in completion of the second add-on, which must follow the first fairly
quickly to keep the configuration symmetrical.

Quayle makes favorable noises about Brilliant Pebbles SDI concept.

Discovery lands after highly successful mission.  NASA had hoped to
conclude the mission with a crosswind landing, but the winds didn't
cooperate and NASA instead used the concrete runway at Edwards so
that hard-surface braking tests could be run.  [Radical, innovative
thought:  if they want landing and braking tests, why not dust off
Enterprise and run some more 747 drop tests?  Nah, too simple and
effective.]  NASA says the orbiter is in good shape, with tile damage
much reduced from what Atlantis took on the previous mission.  A small
leak in the #1 engine's cooling system was found, which permitted a bit
of hydrogen to leak into the exhaust; it definitely was not there before
launch.  The engine will be replaced before Discovery flies again in
August.  There was an earlier pinhole leak in a similar area of an engine
flown on STS-26, although the two do not seem related.  The next mission
(Atlantis) is not expected to be affected.

Space Services readies "Consort 1" commercial sounding rocket mission for
launch at White Sands; the customer is NASA, on behalf of a microgravity
research consortium including U of Alabama and several companies.  The
two-stage Starfire rocket uses a first stage from Morton Thiokol [boo]
and a second stage from Bristol Aerospace [yay] [Canadian content here].

Pictures from the late lamented Phobos 2, including one quite striking
one of Phobos against the Martian horizon.

Intelsat will buy three Ariane launches and two Atlas launches for the
Intelsat 7 series, starting in 1992.

Italian Space Agency to buy a 1993 Atlas launch for the SAX X-ray satellite.

NASA picks Atlas as the baseline launcher for the NASA/ESA solar
heliospheric observatory ("Soho"), set for launch in 1995.

[Sounds like a good year for General Dynamics.]

Atlantis moves to pad 39B March 22.

Stephanie Lee-Miller, top public affairs official at Dept of Health and
Human Services, named to head Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
Commercial space people were sort of hoping for someone with experience
in (a) business, (b) space, or (c) high technology; no such luck.

Intel 386 flies in space [gag barf puke excuse me a moment...] [...okay,
I'm back and will try to be brave... :-)] as NASA evaluates an updated
version of the Grid Systems laptops that it has been using on shuttle
missions since 1983.

Letter from Richard Anglin of Los Angeles, saying that NASA is overlooking
the fundamental problem leading to its personnel crisis:  the lack of
leadership and vision in NASA's upper levels and in the White House.
The people now being lost joined during "the Kennedy era -- a time of
vision and commitment to leadership and excellence".  "The Reagan era
was filled with empty words about space.  There was no vision and
certainly no commitment to leadership or excellence.  Whether President
Bush chooses to overturn the legacy of his predecessor remains to be
seen."
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 21:41:34 GMT
From: dd2f+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Daniel Alexander Davis)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

There is an article about making money off of
Landsat images in the April or May Ad Astra.
a)It gives some information.
b)I do not know enough to know 
  whether the article wants people to keep it at NASA or
  privatize it;  So I have no idea how it is slanted.

Dan Davis,
Disclaimer:  I don't even work for THOSE kinds of people. (Yet.)

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 23:55:20 GMT
From: uflorida!indri!aplcen!arrom@g.ms.uky.edu  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #407

>>	-  In lieu of governemental impedances on private sector space 
>>	   efforts, what type of organization (public or private corp.,
>>	   representative or total democracy, 100% enfranchisment, secede
>>	   from the US and start your own country (-: ...)
>Starting a country might not be such a bad idea. Maybe the libertarian
>group that tried this in the Pacific will get their country back
>through world court someday. ...

Could someone please give me some details on this?  Trying to start a
country?

(Note the Followup-to line)
--
"Do you know what this is????"  "No, what?"  "I don't know either..."
  -- Who said it, what story?

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 22:20:04 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!gary@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Gary Wells)
Subject: Monitoring of Shuutle systems

I have been pondering the events leading up to the most recent shuttle mission
scrubbing, and have a question that I can come up with no reasonable answer for.
I'm hoping some one in the areospace industry can shed some light on this:

As reported here in the local paper, the scrub occurred when a 25Amp surge was
detected in a circuit which normally carries 2Amps.  OK, so there's a short
somewhere, we scrub and fix.  

Question: How do we _know_ it was a 25A surge in a 2A circuit?  I can't beleive
that the instrumentation is that overbuilt generally.  My experience is that a
2A circuit is lucky to have instrumention to 5A.  Sure, there should be some 
burned out parts, which we could duplicate and see where similar damage occurs.
It don't think the circuits would be that overbuilt either, that they could
accept a 10 fold increase in current without damage.

So, what's the answer?  Are the circuits built to withstand this kind of over-
load condition?  Are the instruments normally capable of reading 10 times the
expected values under monitor?  If so, what is the rationale used to justify
the additional costs and weight (for flight components)?  Or does this
particular circuit normally carry large amounts of current, just not at this 
point in the flight?

Nosey people want to know!

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still working on _natural_ intelligence.

gary@percival   (...!tektronix!percival!gary)

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 18:10:47 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE

>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
>>
>>No.
>>
>	Why do you say this?  I think the answer is most definitely
> yes.

Well, maybe.

There.  Now we've heard all the possible answers.  Anyone care to give some
REASONS for their pet position?

Personally, I'd give a qualified "no."  At present, a seat on the shuttle
is simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
most certainly do NOT have at present).  As much as I'd LIKE to see (and BE)
an "ordinary citizen" flying in the Shuttle, there's simply no argument I
can make for spending zillions to put him/her/me there.

Some may argue that such a program hads "publicity value", that it puts
the "common man" in touch with the space program.  Well, NASA could spend
a *little* money on some publicity for the astronauts and mission specialists
who NEED to be there; after all, they're not supermen/women.  The Original
Seven ("The Sacred Seven") were promoted as national heroes.  The current
crop of astronauts are faceless technicians as far as the general public is
concerned, yet it's still their butts on the line - and piloting the Shuttle
strikes me as a much more demanding task than riding a can up and down.
Not to belittle the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo astronauts - they were, after all,
riding that can into the Great Unghknown - but this still isn't a commuter
flight!


Bob Myers  KC0EW   HP Graphics Tech. Div.|  Opinions expressed here are not
                   Ft. Collins, Colorado |  those of my employer or any other
{the known universe}!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |  sentient life-form on this planet.

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 17:09:55 GMT
From: jim@XN.LL.MIT.EDU  (Jim Washburn)
Subject: Asteroid query



	A few days ago someone mentioned the close encounter of
an asteroid thru the atmosphere.  It was also mentioned that some 
good photos were to be found in Sky & Telescope of 1977 or 1978
of this event.  The object passed over the rocky mountains then
bounced back into space rather than hitting the earth.
	Well I have searched the magazine for both of those years
and did not find any reference, photo or news whatsoever.  Does anybody
have any other information?  I would like to see these pictures.

			-- Jim Washburn

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 21:32:34 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!censor!jeff@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Jeff Hunter)
Subject: Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles

In article <1879@skinner.nprdc.arpa>, malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes:
> ... 	| "The proton absorbs a photon
> ...	| and emits two morons, a
> ... 	| lepton, a boson, and a
> ...	| boson's mate. Why did I ever
> ...	| take high-energy physics?"

	The reaction (as described) exibits a clear violation of the 
conservation of parody. To balance it you must add the chargeless gnutrino.

	I hope this rekindles your interest in fundamental particles :-)	

-- 
      ___   __   __   {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff  (416-595-2705)
      /    / /) /  )     -- my opinions --
    -/ _ -/-   /-     No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent. 
 (__/ (/_/   _/_                                   Greg Bear

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 May 89 11:38:00 EDT
From: Henry_Edward_Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Space software problems

New York Times Reports Shuttle Software Patch
 
Excerpted from the New York Times 5-5-89 edition 
by Henry E. Hardy
 
[...] In checking the Magellan's control systems two weeks ago, 
engineers detected and corrected one potentially catastrophic 
problem. A design flaw was found in the software for the spacecraft's 
computer. If the craft were to lose its proper orientation to the Sun 
and the Earth, the flaw could have prevented the spacecraft from 
regaining its bearings. The result could have been the loss of the 
spacecraft, as it failed to get enough solar energy to run its 
electronics and thus could no longer keep its antenna pointed at to 
Earth.
   Project officials said engineers devised a "patch," a substitute set of 
instructions, to override the design flaw.
   John H. Gerpheide, the Magellan project manager at the Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., said: We're convinced that 
we've got a good fix on the problem. The fix has been tested and 
thoroughly reviewed. We don't have any concern at all."
   Errors in computer instructions were said to have been the cause of 
the failure of Phobos 1, an unmanned Soviet spacecraft, as it was 
headed to Mars last September. The spacecraft tumbled out of 
control. And the craft, unable to keep its solar panels pointed to the 
Sun, ran out of electricity.
   The companion craft, Phobos 2, made it to an orbit of Mars and 
then failed as it was maneuvering to drop scientific instruments on 
the tiny Martian moon Phobos. Soviet scientists who were here to 
view the launching of the Atlantis said the cause of the Phobos 2 loss 
was still unclear.
 
*     Henry Edward Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu                                *
*     Henry Edward Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu                                *
*     "Arbor" on MacNet                                                 *
*       University of Michigan Computer Consultant                      *
*       sysop, Arbor Intelligent Systems                                *
*       President, Althing Communications                               *
*     disclaimer: I could be a brain in a box     - Descartes           *

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 17:29:31 GMT
From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <24051@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>My, how experiences differ.  Among "space activists" I know, only the
>"NASA-bashers" do anything.  The rest of them are too busy pretending
>that they will one day sway public opinion so overwhelmingly in favor of
>NASA that the resultant budget increases will force us to have a space
>program.

    Gerry O'Neill by and large ignores NASA, and SSI and Geostar and
are doing lots of interesting things.  The effort spent NASA-bashing
has accomplished nothing comparable.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
UNDERWHELMING OFFER OF THE MONTH:
    "Please feel free to skip the payment on this month's statement.
     Normal finance charges will apply." - NCNB VISA

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 19:57:12 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: is the world still there????

Is the world receiving any mail that I am trying to send out?
We did have a major system crash, and some of the software may
no longer be working.  Such as 'mail'.  
As you may or may not all know, I have been trying to keep a mailing
list for a 'private spaceplane' project.  Well, it appears that 
everything I am sending via e-mail is not getting anywhere.  I've 
been trying to send updates, etc, and no-one is responding.  So, I
pose this question--is my mail getting anywhere?

Please respond if you were on, or want to be on, the mailing list.
Thanks.  (I am including 2 alternate paths, just in case!)

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
	kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu     (???  may work  ???)
	kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu     (very reliable!)

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 17:30:58 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE

In article <11630002@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>	Why do you say this?  I think the answer is most definitely
>> yes.
>
>Well, maybe.
>
>There.  Now we've heard all the possible answers.  Anyone care to give some
>REASONS for their pet position?
>
I said 'no' for much the same reason Bob did; with all the budgetary problems
NASA and the federal government are having, I cannot see spending a couple 
of million dollars in training plus whatever 'cost' there is in lofting the
extra 160 pounds to orbit.  There's been muted chuckling at the Soviets in the
past on their 'guest cosmonaut' program, sending up some chap from Angola or 
someplace for three days to float about, to 'improve relations' with that 
country on the ground.  I see much the same thing here, except NASA is trying
to improve its image with the people of its own country.  Recently, the 
Russians sent up a French 'guest'; this is fine, since (I think) there
was a serious French experiment on board.  But our doing the same with a
schoolteacher just doesn't wash with me.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     :          [This space for rent]
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #416
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 May 89 11:45:53 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01628>; Mon, 8 May 89 09:59:10 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  8 May 89 09:59:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYNJkfy00Ui381F05n>;
          Mon,  8 May 89 05:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.oYNJh5y00UkZF8UU4C>;
          Mon,  8 May 89 05:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <AYNJfky00UkZR8T04J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  8 May 89 05:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #417

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 417

Today's Topics:
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
			   Magellan update
		      Re: Magellan launch window
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
		 Re: Myth: Only a Government can ...
		     Institute for Advanced Study
		Re: Private spending for space science
		Re: Private spending for space science
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #408
		     Re: News of The Week, May 4
		      Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch
		Re: Private spending for space science
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 20:46:03 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <243@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>The referenced posting is, however, too golden an opportunity to pass up.
>I interpret the testimony as supporting the proposition that the manned
>and unmanned programs compete for funding.
>
>Of course I'm wrong ;-).  Henry?

They compete for funding priority.  Once priorities are set, money taken
out of high-priority projects doesn't get put back into lower-priority
projects.  One may argue about NASA's current set of priorities, but as
long as they remain, attacking manned spaceflight is a pointless waste
of time for the unmanned-spaceflight advocates:  it will not put more
money in their budgets.

I don't read the testimony in question as carrying any implication that
anyone *seriously* proposes gutting the lower-priority projects for the
sake of the shuttle or the station, either.  Fletcher is against it.
And his questioners are not saying that it's a realistic idea:  they're
presenting it as an absurdity to try to convince him to make station and
shuttle cuts.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri,  5 May 89 10:10:58 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Magellan update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Here's most of the text of the latest recorded announcement at JPL:

This is the JPL broadcast news service 9:30 pm PDT May 4.

[...] Magellan was deployed at 6:02 pm PDT, the first IUS burn occurred at 7:01
pm PDT, the second IUS burn at 7:06 pm PDT, and separation was confirmed at
7:27 pm.  Once placed into an orbit around the Sun from which it will intercept
Venus, Magellan will cruise for 15 months.  There will be 3 trajectory
correction maneuvers, the first will occur 15 days after launch [and I'm told
that the trajectory is so good that this will be at most 3 m/s], the second 345
days later, and the last 17 days before Magellan reaches Venus orbit to ensure
correct arrival conditions.  The landing of the space shuttle Atlantis is
scheduled for 12:44 pm PDT Monday May 8, and there will be a post-landing press
conference at 2:15 pm PDT. 

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

For those of you who can't get enough of disclaimers: I'm not responsible
in any way for the content of the message.  I just call up the number and
type in what's said, editing slightly for the benefit of this group.

------------------------------

Date: Fri,  5 May 89 10:30:55 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Magellan launch window
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

greer%utdssa%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

>	Anybody out there know why the Magellan launch window is so narrow?
>I'm talking about the time-of-day dependent window rather than the one that
>depends on the day-of-year of the two planets.

During today's launch the KSC staff were saying that the later bound was
constrained by the lighting conditions at transatlantic abort sites.
(Watta launch.  Who says this business is boring?)  I don't know what
constrains the earlier bound (it was uncharacteristically late in the
day).  Magellan doesn't leave Earth orbit for another six hours, so
obviously they make several revs first.

I'm told that Galileo will pass Magellan and actually arrive at Venus
earlier.  So much for ideas of Galileo taking pictures of Magellan.
I wonder how close Magellan will come to Pioneer 10?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 07:23:52 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

Scott Hess (Scott@gacvax1.bitnet) concludes a thoughful "diatribe" with:
Nope. UFOs probably dont exist, and do not warrant discussion. If they are
aliens trying to avoid us, I doubt we could do much about them, so ignore
them. If they are toying with us, the best way to get them to stop is to
ignore them. If there is a valid reason we shouldn't have contact with them
yet, the best method would be to ignore them to save our hides (souls?).
If they dont exist, why dont we ignore them? UFOs are the realm of the
mystical, not the scientific. Lets leave them there.
---------------
I disagree.  UFOs *do* exist, I made a considerable number of them in the
early '60.  Mine were mostly candle lighted, lifted by natural gas balloons
and they caused an simply awful fuss in the Tucson newspapers.  Till we got
caught the were certainly "unidentified flying objects."  Years later I
found that a second cusin of mine had been doing the same in Albuquerque
about the same time.  Must say I agree with Scott about aliens, though :)
Keith Henson (hkhenson@cup.portal.com)

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 17:33:03 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@handies.ucar.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can ...

In article <1303@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>Hercules Aerospace is not a small company. They are spending hundreds
>of millions of dollars of their own money on getting into the private
>space launch business.

Uh, on what project?  If you're thinking of Pegasus, it has a total budget
of only about $70M, and a good bit of that is coming from OSC (which *is*
a small company).  Well-designed small launchers don't *need* hundreds of
millions of dollars... :-)

(Well, yes, I admit this argument is a little weak because (a) Pegasus
is using Hercules production facilities whose capital costs are not
being charged against it, and (b) Pegasus is probably not Hercules's
only project.)
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 May 89 09:10:14 EDT
From: ross@mackeson.ias.edu (Mark Ross)
Subject: Institute for Advanced Study


To whom it may concern,

Please put me on your "SPACE Digest" mailing list.  My email
address is ross@guinness.ias.edu and my U.S. mail address
(should you require it) is 

			Institute for Advanced Study
			South Olden Lane
			Princeton, NJ  08540

			c/o Mark E. Ross (Fuld 323)

					Thank you,

					Mark Ross

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 17:35:27 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@handies.ucar.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <12775@ut-emx.UUCP> bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
>> ..........Or a university consortium? 
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   You are forgetting something here.  Where would universities get the money
>to fund a research project like this?? ...

Have you looked at how much a prominent university can raise in a big,
well-run drive to recruit private funding?  Hint:  it's a lot.

Agreed that the first impulse of most universities would be to go begging
to the government, but it's not the only way.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 22:20:39 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <8049@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@alanine (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>    Gerry O'Neill by and large ignores NASA, and SSI and Geostar and
>are doing lots of interesting things.  The effort spent NASA-bashing
>has accomplished nothing comparable.

It would be a terrible mistake to believe that the problem of NASA
interference with space exploration and development will go away if we
ignore it.  And we are spending 11.5 billion on NASA this year.

You seem to have the false impression that "NASA-bashing" is confined to
idle conversation.  Many "NASA-bashers" are doing things: writing
legislation (to kill the space station, for example) working with
congressmen, attempting to start companies which will provide space
services, demonstrating to other people that under NASA we have no space
program.

It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other
pro-space activities.  It is ignorance of the facts and the problems,
something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology.  If nothing
else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 May 1989 10:17-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #408

> expense. It is simply a fact that there is important research which will not
> be done by private companies or individuals, and so must be done with
> government money or something similar.

The "something similar" is a more ethical approach that does not
require the use of stolen goods (taxes to those of different ideology).

I am aware of at least three different models. One is the industry
consortium like MCC. Another is the private research institute, like
SSI. The third is the private foundation that specializes in assisting
research of a particular type. I'm certain that creative minds can come
up with lots of others.

You might say, "but what if they can't raise enough money?" My answer
is: it is an unethical act to force those who do not desire something
to pay for it, no matter HOW much YOU (and I) want it. Doing so is a
criminal act, no different from walking into their apartment and
forcing them to write out a check to your favorite charity ... while
you hold a gun to their head.

It makes no  sense to me how people can believe they are morally
relieved of the wrongness of their acts by having a third party (the
government, or a mafia strongarm man) do their evil deeds for them.

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 20:10:13 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: News of The Week, May 4


         #    #  ####### ####### ######          #     # ######
         #   #   #       #       #     #         #     # #     #
         #  #    #       #       #     #         #     # #     #
         ###     #####   #####   ######          #     # ######
         #  #    #       #       #               #     # #
         #   #   #       #       #               #     # #
         #    #  ####### ####### #                #####  #

   ####### #     # #######          #####  ####### ####### ######
      #    #     # #               #     # #     # #     # #     #
      #    #     # #               #       #     # #     # #     #
      #    ####### #####           #  #### #     # #     # #     #
      #    #     # #               #     # #     # #     # #     #
      #    #     # #               #     # #     # #     # #     #
      #    #     # #######          #####  ####### ####### ######

    #     # ####### ######  #    #                # ####### #     #   ###
    #  #  # #     # #     # #   #                 # #     # ##    #   ###
    #  #  # #     # #     # #  #                  # #     # # #   #   ###
    #  #  # #     # ######  ###                   # #     # #  #  #    #
    #  #  # #     # #   #   #  #            #     # #     # #   # #
    #  #  # #     # #    #  #   #           #     # #     # #    ##   ###
     ## ##  ####### #     # #    #           #####  ####### #     #   ###


    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 752-7717                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 00:10:47 GMT
From: tank!shamash!com50!questar!dave@handies.ucar.edu  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch


What is the difference between civilian spec and mil spec launch
hardware that was mentioned by Koopman (see below)?

My impression is that Nasa and DoD launchers are
modifications of old ICBM's which naturally were mil-spec.  That would
mean lots of redundacy and hardening for a WWIII environment.

What are the military specifications and which would apply only for WWIII
and which would AMROC and Co need anyway?
Is there a "milspec" factor in ground facilities and procedures where this
same distinction can be made?

William Baxter writes: 
: 
: From hearings of the House of Representatives Committee on Science and
: Technology, J61 S42 100th No. 68, September 15, 1987, "Commercial Launch
: Industry"
: 
: Testimony of Mr. KOOPMAN of American Rocket Co., Mr. KADAR of Conatec,
: Inc., and Mr. CHAFER of Space Services, Inc.
: 
:   Mr. KOOPMAN.  Sir, I mentioned before that we have a situation with
: the financial community where there is still a large perception that
: the government does not really mean what it says about buying launch
: services.  I have been told point blank that not only do they not
: believe that the government will buy launch services from us, but that
: in addition, they will never let us fly a nonmilspec rocket.
-- 
David Becker 
and another bug bites, and another bug bites   another bug bites the dust
db@kolonel.MN.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 01:52:13 GMT
From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <24083@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>You seem to have the false impression that "NASA-bashing" is confined to
>idle conversation.  Many "NASA-bashers" are doing things: writing
>legislation (to kill the space station, for example) working with

    To get guaranteed govt. support for the CDSF, for example.
After all, it's pushed by a small company which NASA is supposedly out
to get, so CDSF must be a better place to put federal subsidies than
the space station.

>attempting to start companies which will provide space services

    There are certainly people like Koopman who are trying to start
companies and doing lots of NASA-bashing (or "NASA-bashing", if you
prefer), on the side. There are also people starting companies
without the bashing.

>It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other
>pro-space activities.	It is ignorance of the facts and the problems,
>something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology.  If nothing
>else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts.

    More of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" ideology.
Save it. I don't think NASA is any more to be trusted than the Social
Security Administration, but I don't react to that by making continual
anti-NASA postings containing, for example, carefully selected quotes
from Congressional testimony by NASA officials.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``The experiment must be wrong'' - Richard Feynman (as quoted by
    Eugen Merzbacher), upon hearing that experimental data did not
    agree with theoretical predictions. Feynman was correct :-)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #417
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 May 89 07:32:50 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00733>; Tue, 9 May 89 06:09:46 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  9 May 89 06:09:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gYNahNy00UkTI1tV9x>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 00:39:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.gYNabuy00UkTEa1U5Q>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 00:33:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.4YNaawy00UkZJJ2U4w>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 00:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYNaR0q00UkZFJ1U4P@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  9 May 89 00:21:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #418

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 418

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		Re: Private spending for space science
		Re: Private spending for space science
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 21:16:08 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #502 -
STS-30     
1 19968U 89 33  A 89126.72091695  .00031482  00000-0  11766-3 0   107
2 19968  28.8886 326.5631 0026645 215.8116 144.0468 15.85763178   309
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89119.51919572 0.00000275           32047-3 0  1991
2 00424  80.4663 333.8261 0022640 256.9862 102.8734 13.67128515326169
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89122.36967015 0.00000002                   0  7412
2 08820 109.8204 214.3843 0044909 325.8128  33.9779  6.38664061 47700
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89117.90800610 -.00000006                   0  2547
2 10061   7.0357  68.9139 0005601 179.2928 180.6915  1.00274611  4879
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89122.58387580 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1071
2 10684  63.5432 102.2652 0107371 199.0126 160.5606  2.00561011 67619
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89111.57222263 -.00000028                   0  9731
2 10893  64.5216 343.4269 0152916  28.5525 332.3410  2.00557950 80219
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89117.95792983 0.00000084           10000-3 0  6448
2 10953   5.8887  71.6153 0006583 255.9114 103.9827  1.00285240   437
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89121.02145934 0.00001111           43657-3 0  1096
2 10967 108.0075 190.4711 0002745 234.1947 125.8844 14.34533203567320
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89119.36580285 -.00000027                   0    52
2 11054  64.0818 339.6548 0054541 117.1794 243.4103  2.00561431 77381
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89117.47659210 0.00000011                   0  1417
2 11141  63.5366 102.3203 0058083 321.0487  38.5336  2.00575203 76048
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89122.08938020 0.00001222           53076-3 0  8411
2 11416  98.5063 120.4924 0009918 246.3203 113.6921 14.25712490511336
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89120.69398548 0.00055520           10219-2 0  9254
2 11703  28.4987 253.4607 0001705 191.7425 168.3153 15.47784769512464
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89119.92475236 -.00000027                   0  8757
2 11783  63.8692 339.3120 0142379  62.1227 299.3639  2.00567478 66038
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89115.81390816 -.00000246           10000-3 0  7237
2 12472   2.3140  84.2086 0003172 329.7158  27.6449  1.00256452 28089
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89115.54504393  .00013766  00000-0  51748-3 0  1772
2 12887  97.6880 139.9001 0003409  90.5448 269.6160 15.27279449417119
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89121.09898916 0.00068785           10633-2 0  5374
2 12888  97.5604 171.8782 0000897 147.6401 212.4697 15.53859889421662
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89110.45259458 0.00000247           21203-3 0  6350
2 13113  82.5365 104.6563 0013814 222.8933 137.1155 13.83977270357253
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89121.69579074 0.00035420           86645-3 0  5524
2 13138  51.6104 184.9249 0000756 311.0022  49.0387 15.40446949401023
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89113.62903427  .00002004  00000-0  45488-3 0  9194
2 13367  98.2165 177.9866 0002811  35.4502 324.7493 14.57112293360127
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89116.98419522 0.00000451           23221-3 0  7681
2 13718  81.2469 331.6462 0056312 143.3794 217.1272 14.13159299328329
IRAS       
1 13777U          89115.94442776 -.00000043          -17922-4 0  6318
2 13777  99.0484 313.7735 0013671  95.9280 264.3430 13.98578929318893
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89116.00961755 0.00000120                   0  9371
2 14050   1.1696  83.4928 0000584 194.8330 163.9434  1.00257297  6081
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89118.08889975 -.00000002          -51681+0 0  3964
2 14129  26.3399 268.1164 6055304  37.3937 352.2227  2.05880716 16180
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89120.51197520 0.00000010                   0  6247
2 14189  63.1818 100.8446 0135011 215.4953 143.6040  2.00570446 42489
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89118.09553179 0.00000704           29902-3 0  7142
2 14452  81.1656 343.7555 0093775 241.1071 118.0674 14.22141862285423
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89120.59589979 0.00000868           20260-3 0  7364
2 14780  98.1716 183.7450 0003529  45.7467 314.3877 14.57117629274632
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89114.23701940 0.00002712           53287-3 0  4365
2 14781  98.0075 174.5965 0013581 125.0138 235.2245 14.63403308274656
LDEF       
1 14898U          89120.72869032 0.00033122           60796-3 0  8267
2 14898  28.5046 150.3186 0001749  98.4973 261.5607 15.47852003284086
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89117.57811348 0.00000010                   0  6559
2 15039  62.9110 100.2412 0015391 275.9497  83.8607  2.00564906 35700
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89118.77440559 0.00000304           26557-3 0  9367
2 15099  82.5290  45.6712 0014652  21.1986 338.9780 13.83644510243284
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89120.96939771 -.00000028                   0  6184
2 15271  63.3787 339.0459 0099499 320.1074  39.2165  2.00564748 32885
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89119.12416610 0.00003462           50484-3 0   160
2 15331  82.5422  23.7314 0022255 244.6445 115.2551 14.75423002246980
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89122.14677923 0.00000759           43529-3 0  3664
2 15427  99.1416 108.1958 0016467  82.7989 277.5052 14.11981070225953
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89120.09790295 0.00000354           30830-3 0   730
2 15516  82.5372 343.0195 0015178 253.1745 106.7711 13.84097874214406
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89121.69579828 0.00016432           40833-3 0  2366
2 16095  51.6073 184.9243 0001077 334.7551  25.3204 15.40439069401023
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89121.12422950 0.00000011                   0  3124
2 16129  63.7081 100.7309 0115410 150.5877 210.0687  2.00564772 26095
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89115.85828279 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8215
2 16191  82.5420 272.7374 0021122  70.9834 289.3575 13.16868043168635
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89115.84739158 0.00000253           21731-3 0  4810
2 16408  82.5311 261.2476 0017540  85.7702 274.5464 13.84157896168318
Mir        
1 16609U          89121.73239582 0.00020734           33283-3 0  8246
2 16609  51.6211 235.3272 0011312 250.7323 109.2326 15.52941335183940
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89122.99120016 0.00000345           17967-3 0  4514
2 16613  98.7007 198.1058 0000531  68.4555 291.6853 14.20039284  5714
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89115.88279849 0.00000178           15130-3 0  2936
2 16735  82.5350 288.0280 0014358 153.7143 206.4750 13.83899951147226
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89120.84530188 0.00001924           28195-3 0  5912
2 16881  82.5241  81.7377 0021421 252.2013 107.6841 14.74998915148317
EGP        
1 16908U          89110.45964276 -.00000029           66726-4 0  1226
2 16908  50.0094 115.5450 0011499 200.0590 159.9794 12.44377637122222
FO-12      
1 16909U          89112.36835661 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1414
2 16909  50.0159 109.9094 0011193 203.0127 157.0209 12.44399273122451
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89114.50409837 0.00000777           36204-3 0  2160
2 16969  98.6403 146.0116 0014573  49.4956 310.7489 14.22958934136301
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89115.22528347 0.00000343           30168-3 0  2438
2 17290  82.4706 196.2522 0014290  55.6694 304.5815 13.83708811116291
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89113.58957768  .00000187  00000-0  16549-3 0   954
2 17527  99.1501 185.5030 0000837 119.8671 240.4688 13.94830615110769
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89115.70765195 -.00000038           10000-3 0  2611
2 17561   0.1243  98.4452 0002548 173.3379  88.1959  1.00274602  1234
Kvant      
1 17845U          89121.73238681 0.00029374           46759-3 0  7417
2 17845  51.6212 235.3227 0011576 251.6274 108.2944 15.52955103120215
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89121.86700973 -.00000111          -12941-3 0  7444
2 18129  82.9233 272.3646 0011914 173.7751 186.3514 13.71969700 93044
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89122.67045190 0.00140338  10231-4  21638-3 0    75
2 18225  71.8732 177.3247 0010634 249.7024 110.2642 16.04030085103996
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89115.39952766 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2635
2 18312  82.5529 261.3540 0012524 351.1259   8.9663 13.83456337 85210
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89115.91107135 0.00000244           20871-3 0  1059
2 18820  82.5448 322.1108 0018343  56.9733 303.3185 13.84148812 62451
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 89.37166448 -.00000028           10000-3 0   346
2 19216  57.2895 213.9669 6688587 201.4192 106.6281  2.09699506  6084
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89114.98768533  .00002979  00000-0  44205-3 0  3520
2 19274  82.5192 185.7830 0024113  48.5712 311.7482 14.74569133 43244
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89121.01046131 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1840
2 19336  82.5476 209.0222 0016064 263.3975  96.5314 13.16922605 36704
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89111.54455513 0.00000898           52061-3 0   702
2 19531  98.9351  55.8418 0013218  34.9329 325.2707 14.10953152 29482
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89112.65814275  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   301
2 19802  55.1161 213.9967 0069734 154.7705 205.7027  2.00553753  1314
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89119.10025885 0.00000116           10000-3 0   296
2 19851  82.5291 198.3252 0016753  89.6634 270.6447 13.83788336  8290
Cosmos 2007
1 19900U          89111.68155825 0.00328568  53900-4  45747-3 0   599
2 19900  64.7376 294.5535 0046890 113.4393 247.1709 16.03352976  4699
Cosmos 2008
1 19902U          89116.00392757 -.00000006                   0   119
2 19902  74.0150 350.9818 0049383  47.6256 312.8966 12.57624316  4085
Cosmos 2009
1 19903U          89115.97367855 -.00000006                   0   194
2 19903  74.0136 351.1735 0040920  57.9208 302.5814 12.55708122  4073
Cosmos 2010
1 19904U          89116.02198481 -.00000007                   0   123
2 19904  74.0169 351.2452 0029998  57.7151 302.6852 12.53835344  4072
Cosmos 2011
1 19905U          89115.99017871 -.00000007                   0   100
2 19905  74.0133 351.4784 0020649  63.6620 296.6555 12.51975370  4035
Cosmos 2012
1 19906U          89116.04082705 -.00000007                   0   173
2 19906  74.0154 351.5364 0009996  71.0983 289.1155 12.50018203  4069
Cosmos 2013
1 19907U          89116.01420355 -.00000006                   0   122
2 19907  74.0155 351.7657 0010079 145.8879 214.2831 12.47957635  4029
Cosmos 2014
1 19908U          89115.74202185 -.00000006                   0   121
2 19908  74.0137 352.2749 0013011 203.8083 156.2365 12.46073020  4011
Cosmos 2015
1 19909U          89116.04063931 -.00000007                   0   121
2 19909  74.0160 352.0316 0026013 201.5921 158.4034 12.43852318  4006
Cos 2008-15
1 19910U          89113.23932265 -.00000006                   0   147
2 19910  74.0126 357.2113 0134375 228.1294 130.8211 12.23001671  3636
Delta Star 
1 19911U          89115.83185253 -.00008444          -34058-3 0   490
2 19911  47.6782 237.1065 0009644 138.5781 221.4369 15.23615754  4861
TDRS 3 R/B 
1 19913U          89112.93435508 0.00000028           10000-3 0   119
2 19913   2.1633  57.0036 0026791 207.9139 151.7442  1.00619254   335
1989 027A  
1 19919U          89115.39349429 0.00000064           10000-3 0   215
2 19919   0.0999  92.6385 0003757 294.6060 332.8282  1.00274867   104
1989 027B  
1 19920U          89119.09018115 -.00044246  19062-4 -69849-5 0   349
2 19920   4.5235  17.2364 7326100 212.1714  83.2276  2.31530723   635
1989 028A  
1 19921U          89122.43552170 0.00000152           15077-3 0   273
2 19921  82.9594 120.0189 0038515 217.6923 142.1535 13.73921585  3800
1989 028B  
1 19922U          89117.08932977 0.00000059           54697-4 0   296
2 19922  82.9550 123.9075 0033528 215.3243 144.7293 13.75750065  3071
1989 030A  
1 19928U          89122.22498242 -.00000150           10000-3 0   254
2 19928   1.4185 277.4404 0003404  53.6683 305.7365  1.00290090   190
1980 030D  
1 19931U          89116.20366990 -.00000107           10000-3 0    97
2 19931   1.4446 276.8658 0017895  17.3869 342.2987  0.97928741   136
Cosmos 2018
1 19938U          89123.19428103 0.01682685  41813-4  30095-3 0   337
2 19938  62.8086  27.0561 0077868  90.4647 270.6656 16.23540855  2002
1989 032A  
1 19941U          89122.72449744 0.00177456  96630-5  24965-3 0   165
2 19941  62.8194  36.4275 0116782 112.3689 248.9900 15.93523479   963
1989 032B  
1 19942U          89122.39234276 0.01499538  39749-4  12695-2 0   130
2 19942  62.8072  37.5799 0092994 117.6501 243.3884 16.04265094   915
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 08:09:46 GMT
From: indri!polyslo!jmckerna@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <1989May5.173527.20962@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Have you looked at how much a prominent university can raise in a big,
>well-run drive to recruit private funding?  Hint:  it's a lot.
>
>Agreed that the first impulse of most universities would be to go begging
>to the government, but it's not the only way.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that a well run University program could
spend money ten times more efficiently than NASA. Universities don't spend
money that efficiently, so even with NASA's huge waste I don't think you'd get
much more than a factor of 10 improvement. That's still over a billion
a year. Granted that a LARGE consortium of universities MIGHT be able to raise
that much money on a yearly basis, their spending priorities are such that
they could not spend anything like that much money on space R&D. They would
spend the money on administration buildings and personnel, academic buildings
and professors, and all the things universities like. They would never spend
a billion a year of their own money just on space, even if they could raise
that much. I think the same argument applies to as little as 100 million a
year.

In my opinion, at least for the foreseeable future, it is just a
fact that you can't get as much done in planetary probes and manned space as
NASA without government money. We probably should do whatever little we 
can to improve the way NASA spends money, though I fear there is precious 
little we can do.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 08:35:47 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <1989May5.173527.20962@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Have you looked at how much a prominent university can raise in a big,
>well-run drive to recruit private funding?  Hint:  it's a lot.
>
>Agreed that the first impulse of most universities would be to go begging
>to the government, but it's not the only way.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that a well run University program could
spend money 20 times more efficiently than NASA. Universities don't spend
money that efficiently, so even with NASA's huge waste I don't think you'd get
much more than a factor of 20 improvement. That's still over 500 million
a year. Granted that a LARGE consortium of universities MIGHT be able to raise
that much money on a yearly basis, their spending priorities are such that
they could not spend anything like that much money on space R&D. They would
spend the money on administration buildings and personnel, academic buildings
and professors, and all the things universities like. I think the same
argument applies to as little as 100 million a year.

In my opinion, at least for the foreseeable future, it is just a
fact that you can't get as much done in planetary probes and manned space as
NASA without government money. We probably should do whatever little we 
can to improve the way NASA spends money, though I fear there is precious 
little we can do.

NOTE: Here's a little preemptive repition for NASA bashers like William Baxter
or whoever. I'm talking about planetary probes, manned space and the like, not
private satellite launchers. Furthermore I am talking about government vs
private money. If you want to change the way NASA spends its government money
in the direction of CDSF or whatever, that's fine with me. NASA should get
out of the launch business entirely.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 22:48:21 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <246@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>I would not be surprised if Congress decided to rearrange it's space
>priorities based on testimony that the manned program is grossly
>inefficient...

It would surprise me.  They've been hearing such claims for 30 years, and
nothing has happened.  Congress has generally been quite happy to go along
with giving big projects priority over small ones (e.g. letting Galileo
eat most of the planetary-probe budget year after year).
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #418
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 May 89 07:53:17 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00812>; Tue, 9 May 89 06:30:07 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  9 May 89 06:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MYNdWSy00jZdQ1AkQK>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 03:52:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.UYNdB1y00UkTAcIE4d>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 03:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.QYNd=Hy00UkZRLAk5W>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 03:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <oYNd1PC00UkZNL=k4o@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  9 May 89 03:16:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #419

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 419

Today's Topics:
		Re: Private spending for space science
		     DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
			  Meme me up, Scotty
		      Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413
		     NASA-bashing, NASA-boosting
			 Re: Magellan update
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413
			  Citizens in Space
		Admission to Astronomy Ph.D. programs
		 citizens in space -- risk silliness
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #412
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 01:34:05 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <8052@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@alanine (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>In article <24083@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>		      Many "NASA-bashers" are doing things: writing
>>legislation (to kill the space station, for example) working with
>
>    To get guaranteed govt. support for the CDSF, for example.

To get government to purchase hardware and services from companies that
are willing to provide it, rather than developing, building and
operating it in house.  Purchase of CDSF (A Space Station) is just one
example.  Purchase of launch services is another.  The principle is
quite general.

>    There are certainly people like Koopman who are trying to start
>companies and doing lots of NASA-bashing (or "NASA-bashing", if you
>prefer), on the side. There are also people starting companies
>without the bashing.

I challenge you to find the head of a space service company start-up who
thinks that NASA is not inhibiting his operation.

>>It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other
>>pro-space activities.	It is ignorance of the facts and the problems,
>>something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology.  If nothing
>>else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts.
>
>    More of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" ideology.

Nonsense.  Informing people about a problem which requires concerted
effort to correct, what you call "NASA-bashing," has nothing to do with
separating the world into two neat components.

>			      I don't react to that by making continual
>anti-NASA postings containing, for example, carefully selected quotes
>from Congressional testimony by NASA officials.

Why don't you go to the library and find out how typical they are.  You
will be very surprised.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:       Sun, 07 May 89 00:02:53 EST
From: EDWARDJ%RMC.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject:    DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

A while back, I saw a TV feature (on 60 Minutes, or some such
show) about the contractor responsible for building the guidance
system of the MX missile. It seems they were experiencing
difficulty getting parts on time. In order to complete the
guidance mechanisms on time, their engineers went across the
street to the local Radio Shack, and bought their parts there!
When the genuine parts eventually showed up, they were discarded.
Otherwise the company would have had to explain why they had more
of these components in stock than they should have. The bogus
guidance mechanisms were installed in the missiles, but during
subsequent testing, many of them were found to be defective.
     I'm sure that many people out there know a great deal more
about this story than I do. However, it got me to wondering. Space
probes like Magellan cost an incredible amount of money. Even
earth orbiting communications and earth-imaging satellites cost a
great deal. How much of this cost is really necessary to the
function of the equipment, and how much of it is due to the habit
of organizations like NASA and the Defense Department gold-plating
everything. Could someone with the technical know-how build a
useful satellite out of components bought at the local Radio Shack
and hardware store? I just saw some video shot from Atlantis with
a home video camera. It may not have been a KH-12, but it sure
looked impressive!
     Now, I realize there are problems associated with the
operation of any piece of electronics, even after it has been
flawlessly designed and launched. My PC at home has instructions
not to spill coffee inside it - no problem with a satellite (or
with my PC - I don't drink coffee). Do not subject the equipment
to excessive vibration - more of a problem with our hypothetical
space probe.
     What about heat - the cooling fan in my PC wouldn't be much
use in a vacuum. How do you control the temperature of electronics
in space, to prevent them from overheating? How do you tell
whether they are in danger of overheating? Down here you might use
a thermistor as a temperature sensor, but, like all semi-conductor
devices, thermistors are presumably subject to radiation damage
that changes their performance. What kind of radiation fields and
particle fluxes would you encounter in LEO? Clark orbit? Wherever
Magellan is at the moment? How would you deal with them?
(Remember, for the purposes of this exercise, you aren't NASA, you
are J.Doe, building your own space probe. We'll leave aside for
the moment the problems and costs of actually launching the thing)
     Finally, I notice that Robert Hale is wondering where to get
radiation hardened chips. Does this mean he has already figured
out answers to all my questions, and has ISECCO gone beyond
designing the biosphere project, and reached the stage of
designing their first space probe?

Jeremy Edward
7-MAY-89
EDWARDJ@RMC

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 15:12:17 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Meme me up, Scotty

I wonder if some one of our glorious New Age types on the net could 
post an explanation in 25 words or less of what the difference is 
between a "meme" and an "idea." I keep seeing this word crop up in the 
more holistic crystalline postings but it always seems to mean "idea" 
in context. (I know someone else mentioned this a while back, can't 
find it in the archive, sorry whoever you are.) I suspect a meme is 
just an idea with tailfins, but I wanna know for sure. 
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 22:01:44 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch

In article <2566@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG> dave@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG (David Becker) writes:
>What is the difference between civilian spec and mil spec launch
>hardware that was mentioned by Koopman (see below)?

The main difference is that mil spec requires strict conformance to several
hundred pounds of regulations and specifications, and paperwork, inspections,
and testing to prove it.  This does amazing things to the price tag.

It's not *all* the contractor's fault when he charges $400 for a hammer.
A fair chunk of it is mil spec compliance costs.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:29-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413

> Actually, some photos of a Russian ship yard were published a couple of
> years ago by Jane's Defense Weekly.  The guy who leaked them was
> prosecuted and went to prison.

The photos also appeared (naturally) in Aviation Leak.

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 02:08:50 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: NASA-bashing, NASA-boosting

In article <11097@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
>			        We probably should do whatever little we 
>can to improve the way NASA spends money, though I fear there is precious 
>little we can do.

We can do nothing until we understand the way NASA spends money now.  As
soon as you start to inform people about this, you are labelled a
"NASA-basher."

Here is a case in point:

>NOTE: Here's a little preemptive repition for NASA bashers like William Baxter
>or whoever. I'm talking about planetary probes, manned space and the like, not
>private satellite launchers. 

Fact:  We have just finished a decade without any planetary probes.
Fact:  We have just finished a three year period without any manned operations.
Fact:  These accomplishments came under the present system of centrally
       planned and managed space operations, overseen by NASA.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 20:19:12 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdke!rbk@hplabs.hp.com  (Richard Katz)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

-In article <8008@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@threonine.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes:
-> [later Magellan launch windows are more fuel efficient]
->     So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the
-> window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus
-> injection? Atmospheric drag?
-
-The batteries of the IUS and Magellan would run out of juice - Magellan's
-solar panels won't be deployed until after the IUS burns.
              *******************************************

According to Aviation Leak and Spook Technology, April 24, 1989, p. 47

        Ten minutes after deployment, the crew will attempt to observe
        the opening of Magellan's solar panels.  The solar arrays will
        be deployed before the first-stage IUS burn because the arrays
        could be damaged by IUS thruster firings if left in their
        stowed position.

rich katz
hewlett packard
p o box 7050
colorado springs, co
80933-7050

email: rbk@hpctdlb.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:31-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413

>    So saying that universities could replace government funded space probes
> is a bit circular.

In a sense, yes. But it is also a move in the right direction, away
from centralization and outside of the government/military procurement
mechanism, outside the congressional micromanagement, outside the
career bureaucrat/aerospace old boys network.

In a university, if the funding on a research project is a bit short,
you get some grad students to improvise something. In government you
extend the project five years and spend several times the original
specification.

Of course there is the pork barrel problem still. Since universities
are now lining up oinking at the feeding trough like everyone else
instead of going through peer review.

Hmmm. A modest suggestion. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a
regularly published Black List of Universities. The higher their pork
rating, the lower their rating? And if they exceed a certain value of
evasion of peer review, scientists and researchers simply boycott
working at them?

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 18:42:40 GMT
From: vax5!gjuy@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: Citizens in Space

Diana L. Syriac writes: "Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary
 citizens on the shuttle?"
Matthew DeLuca says: No.
Rick Connell says: "Why do you say this?  I think the answer is most
 definitely yes.

Now for my two cents worth.  (BTW I goofed and forgot to include Matt's
article where he describes his reasons.)  I am in the ROTC at Cornell and
one of the things they stress here is our professionallism.  I was appaled
at the Challenger incident.  First because it happened at all but more
importantly at the fact that the family of the officers were sueing the
government.  I am sorry but that is wrong.  I am going to make a pledge to
defend our constitution.  That pledge implies that I am willing to die for
my country, in fact I expect that if there is a war I most likely going to
die.  (Us pilot types have an annoying tendency to attract a hell of a lot af
attention) The fact that the families of the officers, sworn to the country
sued shows that there is no way that there is no way we should put (pardon
me) normal citizens into space.  Not yet.  All of Matt's arguements about
cost of seats, training etc.  hold as well.
-- 
| Andrew D. Williams| gjuy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
|-------------------| gjuy@cornella.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 21:53:09 GMT
From: hubcap!jelynch@gatech.edu  (james e lynch)
Subject: Admission to Astronomy Ph.D. programs

I am graduating from Clemson University with an M.S. in physics, specializing
in astronomy, and desire to enter an astronomy Ph.D. program. I am especially
interested in extragalactic astronomy. If possible, I would like  to enter a 
program this fall, but would consider admission for the following spring 
semester. I have no geographical preference. Since I do not subscribe to
this bulletin board regularly, please forword all responses to my e-mail
address. My e-mail address is: 
                                  spascar@prism.clemson.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 21:56:24 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <11630002@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
>...simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
>"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
>most certainly do NOT have at present)...

Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
offered as an argument against private citizens in space.  Of course it's
not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
How can the thing be safe enough to fly (volunteer) government employees
but not safe enough to fly (volunteer) private citizens?  This argument
appears totally bogus.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:14-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #412

> Seems like such an obvious measure; I wonder why the Russians
> failed to take it into account?

Because they didn't learn from the lesson of the american Viking probe
which had it's antenna turned downwards by an erroneous remote program
change...

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 04:33:21 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

> Nope, gotta put in my two bits here, Mark. Blowing up the sun and mining
> asteroids are two things that are possible, but we haven't got the ability

The same person who thinks blowing up the sun is possible says:

>         UFOs, though, are not proven to exist. There is absolutely no firm
> ground to base their existence on. Just because the universe is so huge
> that life MUST have evolved elsewhere has nothing to do with whether or
> Scott@gacvax1.bitnet

It seems inconsistent to me to accept blowing up the sun as a topic of
intelligent discussion, while rejecting contact with ET's as utterly
frivolous.

There are some important things to consider, with regard to ET's.  We must
have a plan for dealing with them NOW, before it happens;  otherwise we will
follow our instincts or an ad hoc plan, and screw everything up.

Note that the Apollo astronauts were subjected to quarantine on return to
Earth.  Obviously NASA takes ET contact very seriously.

Could an alien virus or bacteria infect us?  Or could one of ours infect
them?  I would not want to be responsible for the kind of plagues which
occurred following contact between Old World explorers and the natives
of the New World.

I would guess that Earth organisms can't infect aliens, or theirs infect
us, because our chemistry is likely to be different in significant ways.
Only a few viruses, such as rabies, can affect humans as well as other
animals.  Bacteria and other microorganisms are a bit less specific;
I would certainly be very hesitant to release yeast on the planet of
the potato-heads.

But there is one kind of virus which can infect any form of intelligent
life.  I am speaking, of course, about memes.  Imagine the kind of
destruction we would be causing if we exposed a peaceful, traditional 
society to Marxism or the Bible (or both).  Imagine the kind of destruction
they could cause if they infected us with a super-UFO-Nazi religion.

"Have you accepted Zzyzzybalubah as your personal saviour?  If not,
you're facing the fires of hell.  We've come to your planet to carry
the message of the Lord to you, so you may share in the glorious
afterlife in dimension 5 that Zzyzzybalubah has prepared for you.
And if you don't get the message, we're going to roast the whole planet."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #419
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 May 89 10:16:05 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01413>; Tue, 9 May 89 08:54:27 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  9 May 89 08:54:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYNf1ty00UkT41NE5p>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 05:33:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.cYNexty00Ui3I2ZU4v>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 05:29:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.UYNewQy00UkZ9Mf05L>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 05:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYNemYW00UkZNMe04R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  9 May 89 05:17:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #420

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 420

Today's Topics:
			Re: Meme me up, Scotty
		Re: Private spending for space science
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
		Re: Private spending for space science
     SSI Description (Was Re: Private spending for space science)
		Re: Private spending for space science
		Re: Private spending for space science
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
		Re: Private spending for space science
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 19:44:03 GMT
From: dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!aplcen!arrom@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

>...I suspect a meme is 
>just an idea with tailfins, but I wanna know for sure. 

If I understand it correctly, it basically is an idea with tailfins.  The
tailfins are basically the concept that ideas can go through natural
selection and some ideas have properties more conducive to spreading than
others, and thus spread more.

I don't see anything wrong with this concept itself, but I am skeptical of
over-applying it because it is often used in ad-hominem attacks:

"So many people hold opinions disagreeing with me not because they have
examined the facts and came to a different conclusion, but rather because
the opposing opinion is a meme which spreads easily."

"The two sides of this position have approximately equal validity; after
all, they're both memes.  So you can't say your position is better." [usually
not used too soon after the previous one, of course]

etc...
--
"Do you know what this is????"  "No, what?"  "I don't know either..."
  -- Who said it, what story?

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:20-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

I'm glad to hear that Jonathan is one of the people who put his money
where his mouth is. I also put int $300/yr to Space Studies Institute,
and $100/yr to another organization.

Jonathon and I might have some disagreements, but I'm sure he'll agree
with me that if you ain't puttin' your share into SSI, you should
probably just shut up and stop whining about the non-space program. If
you want to complain, pay your dues first. Money talks.

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 15:42:12 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <1989May5.204603.24435@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp 
(Henry Spencer) writes:

>One may argue about NASA's current set of priorities, but as
>long as they remain, attacking manned spaceflight is a pointless waste
>of time for the unmanned-spaceflight advocates:  it will not put more
>money in their budgets.

I would not be surprised if Congress decided to rearrange it's space
priorities based on testimony that the manned program is grossly
inefficient.  That being the case, I would not be surprised if the 
unmanned program received increased funding.

>I don't read the testimony in question as carrying any implication that
>anyone *seriously* proposes gutting the lower-priority projects for the
>sake of the shuttle or the station, either.  Fletcher is against it.
>And his questioners are not saying that it's a realistic idea:  they're
>presenting it as an absurdity to try to convince him to make station and
>shuttle cuts.

As I read the testimony, Fletcher appeared to be even _more_ against 
the idea of cutting the shuttle or station.  And since a decision _will_
be made...

In budgets, push often does come to shove ;-).
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 02:39:30 GMT
From: osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu!ryan-s@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (stephen)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

  Could someone brief us on what Space Studies Institute is doing?
  I sent for info a while back and never got it.
 
  ..Steve

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 04:34:20 GMT
From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: SSI Description (Was Re: Private spending for space science)

In article <12491977067011@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu> RYAN-S@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu (stephen) writes:
>  Could someone brief us on what Space Studies Institute is doing?
>  I sent for info a while back and never got it.

    Sure.  This is a reposting from last November.  This is mostly
drawn from published SSI material and the "Confidential Letter to
Senior Associates" they send to people who give them lots of money (I
recommend doing this :-). Corrections & enhancements appreciated, as
I expect I'll be posting and emailing this periodically in the future.

    Quoted material below is drawn from SSI's own literature; anything
else is mine. Please direct any further questions to me via email and
I'll attempt to answer.

---------------------------- clip-n-save ---------------------------------------

Quick summary:

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

    One year of the SSI newsletter for $25, but you should really send
    as much as you can afford. I'm in for $300/year and plan to
    increase the amount when I start making real money. Contributions
    are tax-deductible.

What is SSI?

   "The Space Studies Institute grew out of the research of Dr. Gerard
    O'Neill into the possibilities for human colonies in space,
    industry based on extraterrestrial materials, and the return to
    Earth of wealth generated in space."

   "SSI's first goal is to complete the hardware research that will
    make possible the productive use of the abundant resources of
    space. Its second goal, for which the attainment of the first is
    essential, is to bring about the formation of a private or
    government space program, in the US or abroad, on the economic
    scale of the Alaskan Pipeline, to exploit those resources
    carefully without environmental damage. Once these critical steps
    are taken, we at SSI feel that the construction of human
    colonies in space will be an inevitable result, and with it
    the opening of a new ecological range for humanity."

What has SSI accomplished?

    * Development of several generations of working mass drivers,
      designed to transfer lunar material into space at very low cost.

    * Completed and ongoing research projects in such areas as:

	- Near-term use of shuttle External Tanks.
	- Construction of Solar Power Satellites using mostly (>99% by
	    mass) extraterrestrial materials.
	- Asteroid retrieval and mining scenarios.
	- Low-cost lunar polar prove to search for volatiles. One
	    high-risk concept would be launched from a shuttle
	    Get-Away Special canister and achieve lunar orbit in 2
	    years using an ion drive.

    * Chemical and physical processing of lunar materials:

	- HF acid leach process for chemical separation, developed by
	    Rockwell under contract to SSI.
	- Magnetic and electrostatic separation techniques.
	- Glass/glass composites and concretes from lunar regolith for
	    use as bulk construction material.

    * Lunar Systems Study focusing on "the most cost-effective means
	of initiating space resource utilization at the earliest
	possible date."

    * Runs the biennial Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing
	(coming up May 10-13 1989), and co-sponsors other conferences
	including the annual Space Development Conference.

How is SSI funded?

   "In order to maintain its independence and therefore its ability to
    carry out research on a logical, continuing basis unaffected by
    politics, the Space Studies Institute draws its main support from
    a large number of individual donations... Support for SSI includes
    donations given annually by Subscribers, and on a five-year pledge
    basis by Senior Associates."

    In the longer term, SSI owns a substantial amount of stock in
    Geostar Corporation. Geostar was founded by O'Neill and offers
    satellite location and messaging services. This is potentially a
    very lucrative market. If Geostar succeeds, SSI's share of the
    company will provide "a value sufficient for the Institute to
    carry out its full program including actual operations in space."

What SSI is not:

    SSI is not dependent on government funding. O'Neill was burned by
    this before and seems to want to avoid government entanglements at
    all costs.

    Despite being supported by individuals, SSI is not a membership
    organization such as NSS or the Planetary Society.	What you get
    is a bimonthly update from the Institute and periodic requests for
    more money targeted to specific new research projects. The only
    reason to join is if you believe, as I do, that SSI stands a good
    chance of success. If you do believe this, SSI provides a great
    opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    SUSHIDO: the Way of the Tuna

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 02:59:51 GMT
From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <610482043.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Jonathon and I might have some disagreements, but I'm sure he'll agree
       a
>with me that if you ain't puttin' your share into SSI, you should
>probably just shut up and stop whining about the non-space program. If
>you want to complain, pay your dues first. Money talks.

    Damn straight. My usual offer of more info about SSI on email
request goes here.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``There ain't hardly nothin' cuter nor a sleepin' baby tad
      lessen it's a pork chop'' - Churchy La Femme

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 04:29:39 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <24106@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>    To get guaranteed govt. support for the CDSF, for example.
>
>To get government to purchase hardware and services from companies that
>are willing to provide it, rather than developing, building and
>operating it in house...

It is important to decide whether one gives priority to ideological purity
or to spaceflight.  While I agree that it would be nice if the government
were not involved at all, if spaceflight has priority then the government
does have a role to play.  Specifically, the same role it played for
aviation:  developing technology, and encouraging commercial activity by
guaranteeing markets until commercial demand materializes.  This approach
was outstandingly successful for getting commercial aviation going quickly.
The government-does-everything approach to spaceflight, by contrast, has
been a disaster.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 03:35:29 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <1989May6.215624.21265@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp 
(Henry Spencer) writes:

>Of course it's
>not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?

Probably not completely, and I would be very surprised if her family did.

On the other hand, if one is made fully aware of the risks, I agree with
you.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 03:45:25 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <1989May6.224821.22302@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp 
(Henry Spencer) writes (regarding the scenario of Congress deciding
to rank the unmanned program above the manned):

>It would surprise me.  They've been hearing such claims for 30 years, and
>nothing has happened.  Congress has generally been quite happy to go along
>with giving big projects priority over small ones (e.g. letting Galileo
>eat most of the planetary-probe budget year after year).

Ha!  I would have used the shuttle (and now Freedom) for my example ;-).

Seriously though, perhaps Congress is now getting proof?

Then again, perhaps not.  Still, one must keep trying.
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 04:25:39 GMT
From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <24106@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>I challenge you to find the head of a space service company start-up who
>thinks that NASA is not inhibiting his operation.

    Remove "space service" and replace "NASA" with the appropriate
agency, and this is just as true of any startup in any field.

>Nonsense.  Informing people about a problem which requires concerted
>effort to correct, what you call "NASA-bashing," has nothing to do with
>separating the world into two neat components.

    Perhaps it will clarify things a bit if I say that, while I
believe NASA to be an obstacle to private space operations in certain
respects, I find this a perfectly natural reaction of a government
bureaucracy defending its territory, not a conspiracy on the part of a
monolithic, incompetent NASA. The latter is the impression your
postings usually leave, and I don't find that an effective way of
informing people about the problem. It's more the tone than the
content of the NASA-bashing which I object to.

    Backing away from this particular flamefast a bit: many space
activists have strong convictions on the Way to get things moving
again, which involve far-reaching and highly unlikely changes in NASA
such as "get them out of the space transportation business." I feel
it would be more effective to try and gradually move the agency
towards a research agenda than to attempt a complete upset, because
there is a larger chance of gradual changes happening.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "Totally bounded: A set that can be patrolled by a finite number
     of arbitrarily near-sighted policemen."    A. Wilonsky, 1978

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 15:07:11 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <247@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>In article <1989May6.215624.21265@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp 
>(Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>Of course it's
>>not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
>
>Probably not completely, and I would be very surprised if her family did.

One, her family has nothing to do with it.

Two, I think she understood the risks fully.  During her training, she was
taught about the various aborts that were possible; abort on pad (get the
hell out of the shuttle...), RTLS, AOA, ATO...you get the picture.  Somehow,
I think she got the picture that things *could* go wrong.  I feel sure she
knew the risks and was willing to accept them.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #420
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 May 89 04:31:51 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05851>; Wed, 10 May 89 03:36:13 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 10 May 89 03:36:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYNvdRy00UkTM1ukE3>;
          Wed, 10 May 89 00:28:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.kYNvYoy00UkZBS2U5D>;
          Wed, 10 May 89 00:23:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4YNvWA200UkZ9S104e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 10 May 89 00:20:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #421

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 421

Today's Topics:
		   Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
		Spaceplane mailing list--where is it?
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
 Request for information on space industrialization, asteroids, etc.
		  Private Funding of Space Projects
		   Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
     Logo selected for Space Station Freedom program (Forwarded)
			Re: Meme me up, Scotty
			    SETI question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 23:55:53 GMT
From: ogccse!blake!sealion@husc6.harvard.edu  (sealion)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

In article <890507.00035565.022098@RMC.CP6>, EDWARDJ@RMC.BITNET writes:


[Stuff deleted]
>                 Could someone with the technical know-how build a
> useful satellite out of components bought at the local Radio Shack
> and hardware store?

This is exactly what some some students an faculty at Utah State 
University and Weber State College, Ogden, Ut. did a few years back.
The satellite was named NUSAT ( Northern Utah SATellite). 

If I remember correctly, the satellite was intended to assist in the 
calibration of ham radio antennas. Mounted on a tripod with a spring
in between, it was deployed from a Get-Away-Special canister.

  The diagram below gives the basic appearence of the setup.


                         _______________
                        ()|   _______   |
                          |  /       \  |
                          | /_________\ |
                          | \         / |
			  |  \_______/  |
                          |  (-------)  |
			  |  //  |  \\  |
                          | //   |   \\ |
    			  |//    |    \\|
                          ---------------

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't
 believe this to be a coincidence." || - Jeremy S. Anderson   12/15/88  

#include <disclaimer.h>                       sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 16:13:59 GMT
From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <247@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
|In article <1989May6.215624.21265@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp 
|(Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|>Of course it's
|>not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
|
|Probably not completely, and I would be very surprised if her family did.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|On the other hand, if one is made fully aware of the risks, I agree with
|you.
|-- 
|Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
|SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
|UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
|"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

Christa McAuliffe was an intelligent, educated woman.  Do you mean to tell us 
that she got on a vehicle fueled by tons of hydrogen and oxygen, that had flown
less than twenty-five times, went through all the training that NASA gives the
shuttle crew, and failed to understand the risk that she was taking?
Or are you referring to the fact that certain program managers witheld some
information on risk factors from the crew, as grounds that no one on the shuttle
fully understood what risks they were taking?

On the contrary, I think shuttle crew probably know better than anyone, what 
risks they are taking. (Drilling in emergency procedures tends to give you
a good idea of what could possibly go wrong).  Christa McAuliffe understood
the risks as well as anyone else and put her life on the line because she 
believed in space and education.  In that sense she accomplished her mission.
Those who really look back will see a women (and the rest of the crew) who 
believed in opening up outer space and was willing to risk her life to be a part
of that effort.

I think the Challenger crew would be appalled at the idea of their families 
bringing suit as a result of their deaths.  It cheapened everything they
dedicated their entire lives to.  Just another indicator of what a sick, 
litiguous society this can be.  

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd			* 
CFI Aspen Flying Club			* Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.				* 
*******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 20:51:23 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Spaceplane mailing list--where is it?


	What happened to the spaceplane mailing list?  Is it defunct?
I received one startup message stating the list existed and requested
that I confirm reception, which I did.  Since then I've heard nothing.
I tried sending mail to Norman but received no answer.  So, what
happened?  Have I "fallen off" of it, or did it quietly disappear?

-- 
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>
              <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're going to space if we have to walk."   -Jerry Pournelle, 1983

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 18:42:24 GMT
From: umigw!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <1011@dinl.mmc.UUCP> holroyd@dinl.UUCP (kevin w. holroyd) writes:
>Or are you referring to the fact that certain program managers witheld some
>information on risk factors from the crew, as grounds that no one on the 
>shuttle fully understood what risks they were taking?

Something like that.  Do you know if she was told that one study 
(the Air Force's I believe) estimated that 25 flights was the mean 
time to catastrophic failure due to SRB malfunction?
-- 
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 12:14:28 GMT
From: unmvax!indri!polyslo!usc!nunki.usc.edu!manderso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mark Anderson)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

>From: SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET (Shallow thoughts for shallow minds)
> ....     
>Nope. UFOs probably dont exist, and do not warrant discussion. If they are
>aliens trying to avoid us, I doubt we could do much about them, so ignore
>them. If they are toying with us, the best way to get them to stop is to
>ignore them. If there is a valid reason we shouldn't have contact with them
>yet, the best method would be to ignore them to save our hides (souls?).
>If they dont exist, why dont we ignore them? UFOs are the realm of the
>mystical, not the scientific. Lets leave them there.
>     
>This diatribe brought to you by:
>Scott Hess,
>Scott@gacvax1.bitnet

It always amazes me to stare into the sky on a clear night and see
the light from stars that are so far away it is unimaginable to
try and grasp the size of this universe.  Then I wonder and analyze
what could be out there, what kind of natural phenomenon exist.  It
is clear, by observing the history of human developement, that our
understanding of the universe is limited and has been evolving throughout
the years.  It is also clear, that in my lifetime, my children's lifetime,
and their grandchildren's lifetimes that we will not be able to reach
and network the stars using present day technology and knowledge.  We
limit ourselves to the speed of ight.

If you can accept an argument that life must be evolving somewhere else
besides earth, then life must be evolving in many places, probably in
different phases of developement.  A mere extra million years of knowledge
and understanding to a civilization should give them the ability, not
just to visit other star systems, but also to network them together.  Just
try and imagine our planet in a million years. (If we can keep from blowing
it up a few times.)

Maybe the Sun is part of a star network that has been colonized by a 
nation of beings unknown to us.  Maybe there is an intergalactic United
Nation like system set up which we unknowingly are part of.  Our 
ability to keep track of activities and collate information about
what is going on on our planet is increasing every day.  If UFO's
exist, verifiable proof will emerge.  At least it is something to look
forward to.  The fact that proof of extraterrestrial intelligent life 
in the universe
could happen here on our own planet, is something to look forward to, and
could be achievable within our lifetime.  

Science has grown out of the search of the mystical.  Many phenomenon
once thought of as mystical were eventually explained through scientific
theories.  I am not necessarily supporting the claim that the space
shuttle was attacked by a 200 foot UFO.  I am just trying to put across
the point that if we just keep our eyes and ears open,  there may be
more on this planet than we originally thought.

  					Mark

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 02:16:58 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!i.cc.purdue.edu!f3w@purdue.edu  (Mark Gellis)
Subject: Request for information on space industrialization, asteroids, etc.

Hi.  I am looking for information concerning the use of asteroids and
moons (either our Moon or the moons of other planets) for space-based
industry.  What I am interested in finding out is how you would go about
breaking up a large moon or asteroid to facilitate mining and/or refining
and/or other industrial processes.

For example, the mass of a 100-km. asteroid would be about one million
times that of a 1-km. asteroid, but would we be able to utilize the whole
thing without breaking it up?.  Even with no atmosphere and microgravity,
would be able to simply tunnel the entire asteroid?  Or would we have
to break it up somehow to get at those raw materials?  If so, how would
we go about doing it?  Would it be possible to simply find "fault" lines
or stress regions and chip the asteroid apart with explosives (or nukes)?
Does anyone have any other suggestions?  (Please include any references
that you think might help.)

Incidently, the mass of even larger objects is even more tempting.  A
space-industrialized society would find the mass of Ceres (or any of the
dozen or so really large asteroids, or any of the medium-sized moons of
Saturn or Uranus a very tempting prize, even though a lot of the mass of
the latter is going to be water ice there will be a lot of organic chemicals,
and a fair-sized chunk of silicon, metals, etc.)

Why break up the asteroids instead of simply hollowing them out and living
in them?  My own opinion--which could very well be wrong--is that people 
would probably enjoy living in large cylinder habitats like the ones 
described by Gerald O'Neill.  (By the way, while I agree with his design 
idea, I think the habitats will have to larger than he thinks for large
populations--when the world is only a few hundred square kilometers,
people will need lots of room per person.)
 

Anyway, please post or email any ideas you have on this subject.   Thanks
in advance.
 

     Mark Gellis
     f3w@i.cc.purdue.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 7 May 89 18:11:50 PDT
From: David_Michelson@mtsg.ubc.ca
Subject: Private Funding of Space Projects

Several postings during the last few weeks have suggested that private
and/or non-profit groups could do worthwhile space research if they
were given the chance... 
 
On that note, what is happening with the World Space Foundation and
their plans to develop/launch/operate a prototype Solar Sail?
 
                                 David G. Michelson
                                    PhD Candidate
                            University of British Columbia

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 22:20:21 GMT
From: blake!wiml@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

In article <890507.00035565.022098@RMC.CP6> EDWARDJ@RMC.BITNET writes:
   [.....]
>everything. Could someone with the technical know-how build a
>useful satellite out of components bought at the local Radio Shack
>and hardware store? I just saw some video shot from Atlantis with
>a home video camera. It may not have been a KH-12, but it sure
>looked impressive!

    Seems to me I remember an article about this in a magazine a while back,
maybe a year or 8 months ago. It covered some people who built satellites
on their own. The satellites were called OSCAR ### (i.e., OSCAR 1, OSCAR 2,
and so on) They were launched in extra spaces of boosters being used for
other purposes (communications satellites) and so they didn't have much
choice about the orbits. However, the article said that many were operating
at the time it was written. I forget what theyw were geing used as.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 03:48:42 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <248@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>>... Congress has generally been quite happy to go along
>>with giving big projects priority over small ones (e.g. letting Galileo
>>eat most of the planetary-probe budget year after year).
>
>Ha!  I would have used the shuttle (and now Freedom) for my example ;-).

Too obvious. :-)  It seems to be necessary to remind people that it's not
just the big *manned* projects that destroy worthwhile smaller-scale work
by gobbling up all the funding.  Big projects of any kind have powerful
bureaucratic empires and clusters of contractors surrounding them, and
small projects can't muster that kind of clout when funding crunches come.

>Seriously though, perhaps Congress is now getting proof?

I see no sign that anything has changed, really.  Proof has been available
for a long time; Congress chooses to disregard it for the same old reasons.
(Surely you don't think it's an accident that things like the space station
and major military projects have contractors in as many states as possible!)
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 06:36:12 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Logo selected for Space Station Freedom program (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                        May 5, 1989


RELEASE:  89-68

LOGO SELECTED FOR SPACE STATION FREEDOM PROGRAM


     NASA's Office of Space Station today issued its official 
logo for the permanently manned space station, which is called 
Freedom.  The logo was designed by Justin Associates of 
Washington, D.C.

     "With the adoption of the logo, the Freedom program has a 
symbol that will distinguish it from all others," said Tom Moser, 
acting associate administrator for the space station program, in 
announcing the new logo.

     The logo depicts a stylized version of the Freedom program's 
manned base featuring two of its most dominant features -- the 
pressurized modules where space station crew members will work 
and live and the large solar panels.  The circular shape in the 
background represents both the Earth and other planets.  An 
important element of the logo is the name, Freedom, which was 
announced last year by former President Ronald Reagan.

     Space Station Freedom will be an international space complex 
used for fundamental research in the materials and life sciences, 
and to explore the Earth and outer space.  Ultimately, Freedom 
will be an orbital stepping stone for extending human presence 
beyond Earth orbit into the solar system.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 03:53:50 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

Tried to send mail to Tom Neff, but for some reason, the Portal mailer
will not recognize his address tonight.

Meme and memetics are *not* new age chatter.  The concept is straight out
of the work of the formost evolutionary biologist of our time, Richard
Dawkins of Oxford, author of The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker
among others.  It is a recognition that we share the planet (and are 
host to) a lifeform based on replicating information.  The intertwined
evolution of humans and memes (in the aggregate, culture) is simplier to
understand than considering only humans.  With memes, Jim Jones and the
Childrens Crusade are understandable.  Keith Henson

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 17:52:17 GMT
From: blake!mm@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Eric Gorr)
Subject: SETI question

I was just wondering...we are pumping all kinds of money into seti research
and I was wondering what extra is comming out of it.  For instance, in
other space related research, came better lasers and velcro...what is
seti producing that will be able to be implemented in other areas?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #421
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 May 89 07:13:24 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00801>; Wed, 10 May 89 06:24:54 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 10 May 89 06:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYNyIGy00jZd81FkMF>;
          Wed, 10 May 89 03:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.YYNy9Gy00UkZ1SHUgf>;
          Wed, 10 May 89 03:18:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <oYNy7ry00UkZ5SG04g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 10 May 89 03:17:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #422

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 422

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLE
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
			 more 747 drop tests?
			Re: Meme me up, Scotty
			Re: Meme me up, Scotty
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
		   Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
			Re: Citizens in Space
			Re: Citizens in Space
      Apollo 11 Crew 20th Anniversary Press Conference Scheduled
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
			Re: Meme me up, Scotty
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 19:02:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLE


/* Written  4:56 pm  May  6, 1989 by henry@utzoo.uucp in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
offered as an argument against private citizens in space.  Of course it's
not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
/* End of text from s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

Ah, but the question is did the *public* (who influence the government
that pays for such things) know that? IMHO McAuliffe would probably have
been very disappointed that the accident did as much damage to the space
program as it did. The public (for reasons I don't profess to understand)
seems to accept the deaths of "professionals" doing dangerous things much
more than "amueters" - r.e., when a test plane crashes and the _professional_
test pilot is killed, there is no large outcry. Put a private citizen on
a B-1 and have a fatal crash, and watch the plane testing program shut
down. And of course, it is far easier in this country to win a lawsuit which
the surviving relatives are guaranteed to file if the "victim" wasn't
a "professional". I personally believe in individual responsibility, but
that's unusual these days in the U.S. of A.

Alan M. Carroll                "And there you are
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu           Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'"
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 17:29:49 GMT
From: grits!ddavey@bellcore.com  (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <1989May8.033250.18780@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> Discovery lands after highly successful mission.  NASA had hoped to
> conclude the mission with a crosswind landing, but the winds didn't
> cooperate and NASA instead used the concrete runway at Edwards so
> that hard-surface braking tests could be run.  [Radical, innovative
> thought:  if they want landing and braking tests, why not dust off
> Enterprise and run some more 747 drop tests?  Nah, too simple and
> effective.]  NASA says the orbiter is in good shape, with tile damage

The 747 that was used for the drop tests is the same one that is
used to ferry the orbiters from Edwards to KSC.  Currently, there is
only one such specially modified 747 in existence.  It is therefore
one of the single points of failure for the entire shuttle system.
Without it, shuttles don't get ferried and the system stops.
I hope NASA uses it only for missions that it alone can carry out.
Since there is at least a possibility of doing crosswind landings
and/or hard surface braking tests each time the orbiters land, without
risking the 747, it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until
a second ferry vehicle is available.


                                  |     ___  ___         ___ ___  __   ___
Doug Davey                        |    /__/ /__ /   /   /   /  / /__> /__
bellcore!rruxi!ddavey             |   /__/ /__ /__ /__ /__ /__/ /  \ /__
                                  |

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 01:43:23 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: more 747 drop tests?

In article <15988@bellcore.bellcore.com> ddavey@grits.UUCP (Doug Davey) writes:
>The 747 that was used for the drop tests is the same one that is
>used to ferry the orbiters from Edwards to KSC.  Currently, there is
>only one such specially modified 747 in existence.  It is therefore
>one of the single points of failure for the entire shuttle system.
>... it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until
>a second ferry vehicle is available.

One will be as soon as NASA gets around to it.  The aircraft has already
been bought and is in storage (!) awaiting the modifications.  Getting it
going wouldn't be a problem if there was a specific reason.  Dusting
off Enterprise and making it flight-ready, with up-to-date landing gear
and brakes, would probably take longer.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 03:43:36 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

from "Memetics, the Science of Information Viruses" _Whole Earth Review_,
Winter '87.  (An edited reprint of the Memetics article in Analog, Aug. '87

"Meme is similar to "idea," but not all ideas are memes.  A passing idea which
you do not communicate to others, or one which fails to take root in others,
falls short of being a meme.  The important part of the "meme about memes" is
that memes are subject to adaptive evolutionary forces very similar to those
that select for genes.  That is, their variation is subject to selection in
the environment provided by human minds, communications channels, and the vast
collection of cooperating and competing memes that make up human culture."
Keith Henson (hkhenson@cup.portal.com)
 
PS I have an unpublished manuscript, "Memes, Meta-Memes and Politics" that
I could mail out (60k?) or post to the net if anyone knows where it should
go. HKH

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 04:20:19 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) after giving a reasonable definition
of meme, voices two objections:
---------
>I don't see anything wrong with this concept itself, but I am skeptical of
>over-applying it because it is often used in ad-hominem attacks:
 
>"So many people hold opinions disagreeing with me not because they have
>examined the facts and came to a different conclusion, but rather because
>the opposing opinion is a meme which spreads easily."

>"The two sides of this position have approximately equal validity; after
>all, they're both memes.  So you can't say your position is better." [usually
>not used too soon after the previous one, of course]

I would be interested in seeing an ad-hominem attack example, but you have
missed the additional concept of a meta-meme.  A meta-meme is a meme which
exerts selective pressure on other memes.  The primary example would be the
scientific method.  Keith Henson
.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 21:47:33 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@purdue.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <1989May6.215624.21265@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
}In article <11630002@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
}>>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
}>...simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
}>"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
}>most certainly do NOT have at present)...
}
}Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
}the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
}offered as an argument against private citizens in space.  Of course it's
}not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
}How can the thing be safe enough to fly (volunteer) government employees
}but not safe enough to fly (volunteer) private citizens?  This argument
}appears totally bogus.

I am inclined to believe that those flying understood the risks.
I am also inclined to believe (based upon court cases) that those left
behind do not.

Until they both do, can it.



The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 19:51:28 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!briar.philips.com!rfc@uunet.uu.net  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

Could someone with the technical know-how build a
>useful satellite out of components bought at the local Radio Shack
>and hardware store? 
>(Remember, for the purposes of this exercise, you aren't NASA, you
>are J.Doe, building your own space probe. We'll leave aside for
>the moment the problems and costs of actually launching the thing)
>Jeremy Edward
>7-MAY-89
>EDWARDJ@RMC

Something like this has been done on the various OSCAR amateur radio
satellites.  I don't know much details, but those interested could call up the
ARRL (a national amateur radio club) in Newington, CT  203-666-1541 and they
should be able to direct you to knowledgable people.
73 de WA2ISE

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 03:24:53 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space


Andrew D. Williams| gjuy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu responding to earlier posts:
Now for my two cents worth.  (BTW I goofed and forgot to include Matt's
article where he describes his reasons.)  I am in the ROTC at Cornell and
one of the things they stress here is our professionallism.  I was appaled
at the Challenger incident.  First because it happened at all but more
importantly at the fact that the family of the officers were sueing the
government.  I am sorry but that is wrong.  <reasons deleted>
-----------
While I agree that there is a certain amount of reason to your arguments,
the fact that NASA management over ruled engineers who were pleading for
them to wait for warmer weather takes the Challenger out of the "accident"
category, and I think opened the door to a suit.  Keith Henson

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 01:24:32 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space

In article <18082@cup.portal.com> hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes:
>While I agree that there is a certain amount of reason to your arguments,
>the fact that NASA management over ruled engineers who were pleading for
>them to wait for warmer weather takes the Challenger out of the "accident"
>category, and I think opened the door to a suit.  Keith Henson

Point of fact: The management in question, which overruled the
engineers, was Moron Fireball management, not NASA.  In phone
conference with NASA, the engineers said no-go, the MT management said
"Hold just a minute", put the speakerphone on hold, chased all the
engineers out of the room, then got back on the line and said
"Everything is fine."

True, maybe NASA should have smelled a rat.  And there were other
places where NASA was to blame.  But NASA did not have the information
that the engineers opposed the launch.
-- 
"I hate trolls.  Maybe I could metamorph it into    | Mike Van Pelt
 something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed,     | Video 7
 fire-breathing dragon."  -- Willow.                | ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 16:46:42 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: Apollo 11 Crew 20th Anniversary Press Conference Scheduled

Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via 
  The Rutgers FidoGATEway
  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733

We want ** your ** news bulletins:
  (FAX: 212-787-1726 : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
or ...!rutgers!rubbs!107!501!James.Waldron
or waldron@newport.rutgers.edu
or unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

*APOLLO 11 CREW 20TH ANNIVERSARY PRESS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED

     In preparation for the upcoming 20th anniversary of the
first manned lunar landing, the Apollo 11 astronauts will 
participate in a press conference in Wash., D.C., May 26, 1989. 

     The press conference with Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and
Michael Collins will begin at 10:30 a.m. EDT in the NASA
Headquarters 6th floor auditorium, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

     Due to the limited time available, it will not be possible 
to schedule individual media requests for interviews with the 
crew.  However, an audio and video tape of interviews will be 
prepared by NASA where the most anticipated questions will be 
asked.  These tapes will be available by June 9.  A transcript of 
the press conference will be available by June 5. 

     This material will be available to bonafide news media 
representatives by calling or writing:

         Audio Visual material: 
              Broadcast and Audio Visual Branch - LMD 
              NASA Headquarters, Wash., D.C.  20546 
              (Phone:  202/453-8594)

         Transcript:
              News and Information Branch - LM
              NASA Headquarters, Wash., D.C.  20546 
              (Phone:  202/453-8400)

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)

--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

-- 
Patt Haring                  | My other site is a  Public Access UN*X 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | system: The Big Electric Cat  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET         | 1-212-879-9031  patth@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 15:26:33 GMT
From: ecsvax!cjl@mcnc.org  (Charles J. Lord)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

Henry made two interesting observations in his capsulation of the 
3/27 AvLeak that merit further discussion.

First off, the suggestion to use Enterprise for further braking
and crosswind tests is invalid - if my understanding of the
differences between the designs is correct.  The Enterprise was
a design that was improved upon in the competing configuration that
became the Columbia/Challenger/Discovery/Atlantis series.  There
are too many structural (and I believe aerodynamic) differences
between the two - enough to make the conversion of Enterprise to
a functional shuttle.  For these reasons, it is my guess that the
craft would not fly exactly the same nor have the same hard braking
response in drop tests.  Otherwise, it is an intriguing thought...

If they were hard up enough to do drop tests, why not drop one of the
flying shuttles?  (Other than that it would delay the turnaround
to flight readyness at KSC)

Second... Now, I agree that a 68030 in orbit is nicer than an 80386,
but really, Henry - isn't a '386 better than the 8088 that was in
the old GRIDs they *were* using? ;-)
-- 
 *  Charles Lord               ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl  Usenet (old) *
 *  Cary, NC                   cjl@ecsvax.UUCP            Usenet (new) *
 *  #include <std.disclamers>  cjl@ecsvax.BITNET          Bitnet       *
 *  #include <cutsey.quote>    cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu      Internet     *

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 01:21:38 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

Okay, so from mail and followups the consensus seems to be that a
"meme" is an idea that gets passed around as opposed to expiring
quietly in the author's cranium.  I am less than certain that this
is a distinction that required a new word (much less a new "discipline")
but that's in the eye of the beholder I guess.

I apologize for dragging this into sci.space.  Now can we get back
to UFO's and comparing forms of government? <wink>

-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 13:06:22 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <1989May6.215624.21265@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
}Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
}the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
}offered as an argument against private citizens in space.  Of course it's
}not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
}How can the thing be safe enough to fly (volunteer) government employees
}but not safe enough to fly (volunteer) private citizens?  This argument
}appears totally bogus.

Especially in view of the fact that very few of the other "teacher in space"
candidates withdrew after Challenger.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #422
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 May 89 09:44:18 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01341>; Wed, 10 May 89 08:45:20 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 10 May 89 08:44:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYO08My00jZdI1TU5m>;
          Wed, 10 May 89 05:34:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.IYNzvmy00UkZRSTE4T>;
          Wed, 10 May 89 05:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <AYNzsbq00UkZFSRk54@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 10 May 89 05:17:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #423

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 423

Today's Topics:
			    Tesla coverups
		 Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles
		Re: Earth based - will it always win?
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
	   Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE
			Re: Meme me up, Scotty
		   Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
		   Re: Some comments on comments...
			Re: Citizens in Space
	Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)
			      Re: Giotto
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 May 89 16:58:49 EDT
From: fuzzy@aruba.arpa (John Karabaic)
To: "Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu"@aagate.arpa
Cc: "space+@andrew.cmu.edu"@aagate.arpa
Subject: Tesla coverups


	So, as far as can be determined, the documents remain at Wright
	Patterson to this day. Perhaps Lt. John S. Karabaic 
	(fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa), who posted the first question 
	regarding Tesla and the book "Fer-del-lance, A briefing on Soviet 
	Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons", By T E Bearden, and who appears 
	to work at this self-same Wright-Patterson AFB would care to
	comment. Perhaps Lt. Karabaic's boss REALLY has a "sense of humor."

OK, OK, I confess.  We've been interrogating the aliens in Hangar 18 and
they are confirmed statist radical communist imperialists (no
fooling!) who plan to invade Friday, 19 May.  Since the Soviets
and Chinese are in cahoots with them, we desperately need to develop
these weapons.  The records Henry Hardy speaks of were put on base
somewhere around 1947, but when the Army Air Corps became the Air
Force on 1 September 1947, they got lost during the moving (damn
low-bid moving company...).  We're desperately trying to piece
together the secrets of that Croatian-American hero, Nick Tesla (my
father hails from Punat, Croatia, himself).  

If we recover the information in those documents, we will go to
Congress with a proposal to develop the weapons.  Given the nature of
military procurement and the Fairness in Contracting Act, we should
have production articles (notice I didn't say prototypes, much less
working prototypes) by August of 1994.  We plan to use concurrent
engineering to cut risk and speed the schedule.

Of course, by then the aliens should be comfortably settled in and
have their Toyotas paid off.

I'm glad I got that off my chest.
!!!!!!!!!!!!Don't use *reply*; our mailer is not working properly!!!!!!!!!!!
	    Lt John S. Karabaic (fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa)
     WRDC/TXI                    513 255 5800          It's not just a job.
     WPAFB, OH 45433-6543        AV 785 5800            It's an indenture.
			    These opinions are mine.
            I separate from the USAF 19 May; no one cares what I say.


PS For those who got this far and aren't chuckling yet, this is a
joke.  For Henry, there are 40,000 employees on this base (the largest
single-site employer in Ohio; enough wasted lives to make a
Libertarian out of Sen Paul Simon).  I wouldn't doubt that if those
records *did* exist here they aren't accessible now.  Ever see
*Raiders of the Lost Ark*?  There are a whole lot of buildings here on
base which look like that final scene in the basement.  If you're
interested in looking for that stuff, file under the Freedom of
Information Act.  Part of the Air Material Command became Air Force
Systems Command Aeronautical Systems Division in the early 60's, so
try them and Air Force Logistics Command, another organization sprung
from the loins of Air Materiel Command.  You might want to try AFSC
Electronic Systems Division at Hanscom AFB in Massachusetts, also.
Good luck.  

I'll say "hello" to the aliens in Hangar 18 for everyone :-)

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 15:02:23 GMT
From: unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!cveg!hcx!jws3@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (JAMES WILLIAM SMITH)
Subject: Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles


In article <1879@skinner.nprdc.arpa>, malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes:
> It may sound facetious, but to quote a bumper sticker I saw recently:
> 
> 	STOP SDI -- MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR NUCLEAR WARHEADS

I think the correct wording of that sticker should be:

   PROMOTE SDI -- MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR 1 PER 1000 NUCLEAR WARHEADS

Food for thought:  if only one missile per 1000 (or 10,000 or 1E8) gets
through a Peace Shield, and you want 100 missiles to get through, how
many missiles do you have to build to reach your goal?

Happy Arms Race,

 /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|  James W. Smith, University of Arkansas   |                                | 
|  ...uunet!harris.cis.ksu.edu!jws3@hcx     |    We must love one another    |
|  harry!hcx!jws3@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu       |            or die.             | 
|  Telenet:  jws3@130.184.7.209             |                  --A. Clarke   |
|  515 Skyline Dr., Fayetteville, AR 72701  |                                |
 \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 15:48:38 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Earth based - will it always win?

>From article <sYMV8sy00Uo5M=lFYk@andrew.cmu.edu>, by
dd2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Alexander Davis): 
> Still, going to Mars is very different from putting HST in earth's 
> orbit.  While HST is not on the Earth (well, rather it is.  Shit.),
> it is "earth-based."  My question is whether a project to examine
> the solar system from orbit using HST, or some other, future
> on orbit facility wouldn't do a better job.  

The answer is a definite "maybe."  Or rather, it depends on what you
want to do.  Planetary missions are not particularly more expensive
than large instruments in Earth orbit, so if you only want to look at
one planet, it's probably better to go there.  On the other hand, if
you want to examine several planets with the same instrument, you
might as well build just one and keep it nearby, unless the type of
instrument requires a close approach (e.g. magnetic field/charged
particle measurements).

The above reasoning may give a sense of the usual reasoning, but in
planning real missions, the details matter, and one has to decide on
a case-by-case basis.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 15:03:51 GMT
From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <249@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>		<stuff deleted>
>Something like that.  Do you know if she was told that one study 
>(the Air Force's I believe) estimated that 25 flights was the mean 
>time to catastrophic failure due to SRB malfunction?

Is that really important?  I wonder if good old Chris Colombus got any
estimates of his chances of success before he charged off?  At some
point in life, people have to take responsibility for their actions.  She
CERTAINLY had enough information available to her to make a decision. Can
you imagine a test pilot's family suing the government because he wasn't 
shown a metallurgical report about a rivet contained in his airplane that
caused a catastrophic failure?  The shuttle is STILL an experimental 
vehicle, and I hate to sound morbid but, in all probability, we haven't
lost the last one.  In fact, I would say that even if the shuttle program
continues at its present rate (God forbid; hopefully it will get better) it
is almost certain that we will lose another one.  Will their families be
able to find someone to blame, thus bringing forth another lawsuit?  You
can ALWAYS find someone to blame for something, but the real truth is these
people (shuttle crew) know they are taking risks, and have chosen to take
those risks.  They may not know ALL of the risks, no one EVER does, but
they do know that what they are doing is dangerous, and THEY have made the
decision (not their lawyers).

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd			* 
CFI Aspen Flying Club			* Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.				* 
*******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 17:50:15 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE

In article <11630002@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
>
>Personally, I'd give a qualified "no."  At present, a seat on the shuttle
>is simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
>"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
>most certainly do NOT have at present).  As much as I'd LIKE to see (and BE)
>an "ordinary citizen" flying in the Shuttle, there's simply no argument I
>can make for spending zillions to put him/her/me there.
>
Gee, the accounting course I'm taking this quarter DOES have some merit...

When you are counting the cost of putting a person into space, you can not
count the costs that would be incured anyway.  For example, there is a certain
depreciation cost for the use of the SSME and SRB motors, they only last for
just so many launches, the depreciation would be the cost to develop and build
the engine / number of expected uses.  These costs are fixed overhead, and 
(by standard accounting practices) not included in the costs used to make the 
decision on if the person should fly or not.  Since your going to launch 
anyway, this extra person is just a leveraged benefit.

Of course there are real costs to putting this extra person into space.  The
cost of extra fuel, extra food, water, toilet paper...  Does anyone know
the cost of these things? It can't be too high with the price that NASA 
charges on some of its "getaway specials".  Of course the cost of life 
insurance may be a little overwhelming.

Disclaimer:  I'm afraid I haven't priced liquid oxygen lately.
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 03:53:00 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

> I wonder if some one of our glorious New Age types on the net could 
> post an explanation in 25 words or less of what the difference is 
> between a "meme" and an "idea." I keep seeing this word crop up in the 
> 
>     "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

Memes have no connection with the New Age, which is just old-fashioned
spiritualism polished up and set on a shelf with a new, higher price tag.

But getting back to your question, memes are a subset of ideas.  An idea
like "I think I'll have eggs for breakfast." is not a meme because it is
not contagious.  But an idea like "Soup is good food." can become a meme
when people find it to be a useful rule of thumb when planning meals for
their children.  Of course it is even more of a meme when it harnesses
the replication machinery of mass media backed up by millions of dollars
from a soup company.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 17:42:21 GMT
From: agate!shelby!Portia!Jessica!paulf@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

In article <1931@blake.acs.washington.edu> wiml@blake.acs.washington.edu (William Lewis) writes:
>    Seems to me I remember an article about this in a magazine a while back,
>maybe a year or 8 months ago. It covered some people who built satellites
>on their own. The satellites were called OSCAR ### (i.e., OSCAR 1, OSCAR 2,
>and so on) They were launched in extra spaces of boosters being used for
>other purposes (communications satellites) and so they didn't have much
>choice about the orbits. However, the article said that many were operating
>at the time it was written. I forget what theyw were geing used as.

The OSCAR satellites (as opposed to Oscars, which are milsats) are built by
any of a number of organizations within the amateur radio community.  Their
primary mission is to provide reliable VHF and UHF communication between
properly equipped amateur stations, although two satellites (OSCARS 9 and 11,
built by the University of Surrey) are planetary science experiments.

We build the world's cheapest satellites.

-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX      | "Research Scientists need Porsches, too!"
->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU |			-- Bloom County

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 21:47:19 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Some comments on comments...

In article <45698@clyde.ATT.COM> feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke) writes:

>I read somewhere (source unremembered)
>that the Russians lost one of their Phobos probes due to an
>inadvertant steering of the probe's antenna away from earth
>by a ground controller.

>Seems like such an obvious measure; I wonder why the Russians
>failed to take it into account?

For the same damn reason they would build a radar spysat powered by a
nuclear reactor with no radiation shielding....see this month's Sky
and Telescope for a description on how the Soviet Rorsats have been
screwing up US and Japanese gamma ray orbiting observatories.


Neal

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 16:05:42 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space

>From article <18554@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>, by gjuy@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU:
> I was appaled at the Challenger incident.  First because it
> happened at all but more importantly at the fact that the family of
> the officers were sueing the government. ...The fact that the
> families of the officers, sworn to the country sued shows that
> there is no way we should put (pardon me) normal citizens into space.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Christa McAuliffe's
family has sued over the Challenger accident.  Doesn't this imply
that _only_ "normal citizens" should fly in space?
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 12:21:14 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)

In article <101270016@hpcvlx.HP.COM> gvg@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel) writes:
>
> [lost of stuff deleted]
>
>Since 1973, Shoemaker has been photographing the sky in search of asteroids
>that periodically cross the Earth's orbit and thus pose a danger of collision.
>To date, he says, 57 such asteroids at least 1 km in diameter have been
>catalogued.  In addition, about three Earth-crossing comets are detected each
>year.  From the rate at which new Earth-crossers are detected, Shoemaker
>estimates that there are some 2,000 asteroids in this category and that 100
>comets intersect the Earth's orbit every year.
>
>His calculations suggest that asteroids packing the explosive energy of one
>megaton should enter the atmosphere on an average of once every 30 years,
>larger asteroids with a 20-megaton punch every 400 years, and a 1 km, 10,000
>megaton comet or asteroid once in 100,000 years.
>
>This century has already seen a major meteorite blast.  In 1908, either an
>asteroid or comet exploded about five miles above the remote Stony Tunguska
>River region of Siberia, igniting and flattening trees over hundreds of square
>miles.  From descriptions of the blast and photographs of the damage,
>scientists have estimated that the object was at least 200 feet across and
>caused a 12-megaton explosion.
>

Arthur C. Clarke's book "Rendezvous with Rama" postulated that Earth needed to
be warned about approaching meteorites after several near-misses such as those
described above. Deep-space tracking stations were deployed to detect
such objects sufficiently early that countermeasures could be brought into
play to defend the planet if required.

I suspect that you'd need an awful lot of detector probes to cover the
approaches to Earth. Assuming you put them out in orbit around the sun a bit
furthur out than Mars, would you get sufficent warning to launch defensive
missiles? Does anyone know if it's better to make those probes sun-orbiters
or far-out Earth orbiters? Obviously, you'd need fewer probes if they orbited
Earth, but would that give sufficient warning time? I suspect not somehow.

Steve

P.S. I wonder if A.C.C reads the Net?
-----------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Steve Hosgood BSc,                             | Phone (+44) 792 295213
Image Processing and Systems Engineer,         | Fax (+44) 792 295532
Institute for Industrial Information Techology,| Telex 48149
Innovation Centre, University of Wales, +------+ JANET: iiit-sh@uk.ac.swan.pyr
Swansea SA2 8PP                         | UUCP: ..!ukc!cybaswan.UUCP!iiit-sh
----------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            My views are not necessarily those of my employers!

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 15:58:22 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Giotto

In article <2232@botter.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl () writes:
>Giotto is functional? Please forgive me my ignorance, but what is it studying after
>the Halley mission? Is it still returning data? Of what?What are it's mission
>plans?

Giotto is currently in "hibernation" in a solar orbit.

ESA has just finished a preliminary series of tests on how
well it has survived, and will re-activate it early next and
cary out a full performance evaluation.

If everything goes well, and it is decided to proceed,
Giotto will use the Earth's gravity during its close approach
on July 2, 1990 to alter its course to intercept comet
Grigg-Skellerup on July 10, 1992.
	Bob.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #423
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 May 89 03:34:01 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04376>; Thu, 11 May 89 02:49:50 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 11 May 89 02:49:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QYOEmHy00UkT42J0JK>;
          Thu, 11 May 89 00:31:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.AYOEhSy00UkZ1TJU4X>;
          Thu, 11 May 89 00:26:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0YOEfuO00UkZ1TI04f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 11 May 89 00:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #424

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 424

Today's Topics:
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #416
   Tesla, X-Rays, photocopying, and the "microwave freezer effect"
		 Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles
		 Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles
	       Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLE
     Hubble Space Telescope, orbit and data format/relay question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 23:55:19 GMT
From: david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (David Robinson)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <1989May8.033250.18780@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
| Discovery lands after highly successful mission. [...]
|  [...] A small
| leak in the #1 engine's cooling system was found, which permitted a bit
| of hydrogen to leak into the exhaust; it definitely was not there before
| launch.  The engine will be replaced before Discovery flies again in
| August.  There was an earlier pinhole leak in a similar area of an engine
| flown on STS-26, although the two do not seem related.  The next mission
| (Atlantis) is not expected to be affected.

Is this a similar problem to the cooling problem that caused the first
launch attempt of Atlantis to be scrubbed?  If so 3 failures in this
one system seems fairly high.

-- 
	David Robinson		elroy!david@csvax.caltech.edu     ARPA
				david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov	  ARPA
				{cit-vax,ames}!elroy!david	  UUCP
Disclaimer: No one listens to me anyway!

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 May 1989 10:55-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #416

>     Gerry O'Neill by and large ignores NASA, and SSI and Geostar and
> are doing lots of interesting things.  The effort spent NASA-bashing
> has accomplished nothing comparable.

That's the point. The effort spent NASA-cheerleading has accomplished
nothing comparable.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 May 89 18:51:10 EDT
From: Henry_Edward_Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Tesla, X-Rays, photocopying, and the "microwave freezer effect"

In "Subject: Re: Tesla,"
att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU 
(John Sparks) raises some interesting points about Tesla. I might
characterize these skeptical points as:
 
1)   Tesla and X-rays
2)   Could documents be photocopied in 1945
3)   The "Microwave Freezer" effect
 
With regard to X-rays, Margaret Cheney, a Tesla biographer has
this to say:
>
> When Professor Roentgen announced his discovery of
X-rays in December of that year [1894,] Tesla immediately forwarded
shadowgraph pictures to the German, who replied: "The pictures are
very interesting. If you would only be so kind as to disclose the
manner in which you obtained them."
>
> The [Michael] Pupin claim to have been the first in the United 
States experimenting with vacuum-tube discharges would have been
unlikely even if Tesla had not preceded him. [...] after Roentgen's 
announcement a dozen claims were made to "firsts" in the X ray. 
Tesla never made any such claim on his own behalf. [...]
>
> But [according to an article by Noel F. Busch in Life magazine 
for July 15, 1946...] "Nikola Tesla took a picture of Mark Twain 
under a Geissler tube which proved to be no picture of Twain but a
good one of the adjusting screw of the camera lens. [...] Neither 
Tesla nor [the reporter's source for the story, photographer
Edward R.] Hewitt realized until a few weeks later, when Roentgen
announced the discovery of X-rays, that the picture of Twain was in
fact an example of X-ray photography, the first ever made in the U.
S." This is, of course, hardly proof of priority of invention, which
includes more than achieving accidental effects, but it does suggest
how far advanced Tesla's research was at this time.(Cheney, pp.
100-103)
>
So Tesla has at best a claim to have accidentally produced
X-rays in the course of other experiments, without apparently giving
great thought to the phenomena at the time until after the fact of
Roentgen's announcement. Now, if he had gone out and held a press
conference first, maybe he could have applied for government funding in 
advance of any substantial results anyway (;-!).
 
As for the photocopying of documents, Margaret Cheney is quite 
specific in saying that these were "photostats:"
>
> [...] between 19445 and 1947 an interesting exchange of letters
and cables occurred among the Air Technical Service Command at Wright
Field, Ohio, in whose Equipment Laboratory much top-secret research
was being performed, Military Intelligence in Washington, and the 
Office of Alien Property -- subject, files of the late Nikola Tesla.
>
> On August 21, 1945, the Air Technical Service Command requested
permission from the commanding general of the U. S. Army Air Force 
in Washington, D. C. , for Private Bloyce D. Fitzgerald to go to 
Washington for a period of seven days "for the purpose of securing 
property clearance on impounded enemy property."
>
> On September 5, 1945, Colonel Holliday of the Equipment Laboratory,
Propulsion and Accessories Subdivision, wrote to Lloyd L. Shaulis 
of the OAP in Washington, confirming a conversation with Fitzgerald 
and asking for PHOTOSTATIC COPIES [emphasis mine] of the exhibits 
annotated by Trump from the estate of Tesla. It was stated that the 
material would be used "in conjunction with projects for National 
Defense by this department," and that all of it would be returned 
in a reasonable length of time.
>
> That was the last time that the Office of Alien Property [OAP] 
or any other federal agency admitted to having possession of Tesla's 
papers on beam weaponry. Shaulis wrote to Colonel Holliday on 
September 11, 1945,saying, "The materials requested have been 
forwarded to Air Technical Service Command in care of Lt. Robert E. 
Houle. These data are made available to the Army Air Force by this 
office for use in experiments; please return them." They were never 
returned.
>
> These were the full PHOTOSTATIC COPIES not merely the abstracts. 
OAP has no record of how many copies were made by those who examined 
the files with Dr. Trump. The Navy has no record of Tesla's papers, 
no federal archives has any record of them.
>
> Curiously, four months after the PHOTOSTATS had been sent to Wright
Field, Col. Ralph Doty, the chief of Military Intelligence in 
Washington wrote James Marham of Alien Property [OAP] indicating 
that they had never been received: "This office is in receipt of a 
communication from Headquarters, Air Technical Services Command, 
Wright Field, requesting that we ascertain the whereabouts of the 
files of the late scientist, Dr. Nichola [sic] Tesla, which may
contain data of great value to the above Headquarters. It has been
indicated that your office might have these files in custody. If this
is true, we would like to request your consent for a representative of
the Air Technical Service to review them. In view of the extreme
importance of these files, we would like to request that we be
informed of any attempt by any other agency to obtain them."
>
> "Because of the urgency of this matter, this communication will
be delivered to you by a Liaison Officer of this office in the hope
of expediting the solicited information."
>
> The "other" agency that had the files, or should have had them, 
was the Air Technical Service Command itself! Colonel Doty's letter, 
which was classified under the Espionage Act, was declassified on 
May 8, 1980.
>
> [...] on October 24, 1947, David L. Baselon, assistant attorney
general and director of the Office of Alien Property, wrote to the
commanding officer of the Air Technical Service Command , Wright 
Field, Dayton, Ohio, regarding the Tesla PHOTOSTATS that had been 
sent by registered mail on or about September 11, 1945, to Colonel 
Holliday, at the latter's request.
>
> "Our records do not reveal that this material has been returned,"
said Baselon. He sent a description and asked that it be returned.
>
> Obviously at least one of Tesla's papers had reached Wright
Field, because on November 25, 1947, there was a response to the
Office of Alien Property from Colonel Duffy, chief of the Electronic
Plans Section, Electronic Subdivision, Engineering Division, Air
Material Command, Wright Field. He replied, "These reports are now in
the possession of the Electronic Subdivision and are being
evaluated...." He believed that the evaluation should be completed by
January 1, 1948, and "At that time your office will be contacted with
respect to final deposition of these papers."
>
> There is no written record that OAP ever sought further to have 
the documents returned, and they were not returned.
>
So, as far as can be determined, the documents remain at Wright
Patterson to this day. Perhaps Lt. John S. Karabaic 
(fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa), who posted the first question 
regarding Tesla and the book "Fer-del-lance, A briefing on Soviet 
Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons", By T E Bearden, and who appears 
to work at this self-same Wright-Patterson AFB would care to
comment. Perhaps Lt. Karabaic's boss REALLY has a "sense of humor."
 
For more information about photocopying at this time (early
1940's) see:
 
Greenwood, Herbert William. 
Document photography, individual copying and mass recording 
/ H. W.Greenwood. 2nd ed.
London, Focal Press <1943>  163 p. illus. 
 
SUBJECT HEADINGS (Library of Congress):
     Photocopying processes
LOCATION: GRADUATE LIBRARY
CALL NUMBER:  TR 470 .G82
 
Since this book is listed on MIRLYN, it may be available from the
University of Michigan via interlibrary loan.
 
Moving on to the third question, that of the reported condensation 
clouds ("microwave freezer effect") reported on the "World of Radio" 
broadcast. This question is one which I really cannot resolve, and I 
think it must be consigned to the department of rumors unless and 
until someone else on the net can corroborate these claims.
 
Certainly, it is no solution to the greenhouse effect. Even if it is
possible to cool a local area through the use of some sort of Teslian
technology, the net result must still be more entropy in the system as
a whole. "Microwave milkshakes," perhaps, but don't hold your breath.
Other than this, I can offer only one final tidbit from the Cheney
book:
>
> [The magnifying] transmitter, which he developed in Colorado, 
he would later claim as his greatest invention. Indeed, it is the 
Tesla invention that continues to fascinate many of his modern
followers the most. Whenever and wherever in recent years phenomena
have been detected, resulting from powerful radio signal pulsed at
very low frequencies [a la Project ELF in Wisconsin and Northern
Michigan,] journalists speak knowingly [?] of the Tesla effect. The
Russians, it is claimed, are using a giant Tesla magnifying
transmitter to modify the world's weather, creating extremes of ice
and drought. It is said to cause periodic disruption of radio
communications in Canada and the United States with attendant
brain-wave interference and vague symptoms of physical distress, not
to mention sonic booms [like the New Jersey "airquakes" of the
1970's??] and almost anything else not otherwise explicable.
Indeed,it was this same fabulous invention that Robert Golka in
recent years tried to replicate, with considerable success, at
Wendover, Utah, for the study of ball lightning, in conjunction with
research in nuclear fusion.
>
> But, what exactly was it? [Tesla's explanation, quoted from
'Electrical Experimenter' June 1919:] "...it is a resonant 
transformer with a secondary in which the parts, charged to a high
potential, are of considerable area and arranged along ideal 
enveloping surfaces of very large radii of curvature, and at proper 
distances from one another thereby insuring a small electric surface 
density everywhere so that no leak can occur even if the conductor 
is bare. It is suitable for any frequency, from a few to many 
thousands of cycles per second, and can be used for the production 
of currents of tremendous volume and moderate pressure [Tesla often 
used fluid-mechanical analogies for describing electricity] or of 
smaller amperage and immense electro-motive force. The maximum 
electric tension is merely dependant on the curvature on which the 
charged elements are situated and the area of the latter."
>
> [...] it is a resonant transformer which, besides possessing these
qualities, is accurately proportioned to fit the globe and its 
electrical constants and properties, by virtue of which design it 
becomes highly efficient and effective in the wireless transmission 
of energy. Distance is then absolutely eliminated, there being no 
diminution in the intensity of the transmitted impulses. It is even 
possible to make the actions increase with the distance from
the plant according to an exact mathematical law." [!]
>
I hope that persons having more comments, information, or questions 
on Tesla will feel free to message me at one of the addresses below. 
I hope that this will have addressed adequately the questions raised 
by the estimable Mr. Sparks.
 
*     "Machines only will meet in mortal combat. It will be a     *
*       veritable war of Science" -Hugo Gernsback, c. 1925        *
*                                                                 *
*     Henry Edward Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu                          *
*     Henry Edward.Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu                          *
*     "Arbor" on MacNet                                           *
*       Computer Consultant, University of Michigan               *
*       sysop, Arbor Intelligent Systems                          *
*       President, Althing Communications                         *
*                                                                 *
*     disclaimer: "Just say know" -Dr. Timothy Leary, 1988        *

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 21:53:00 GMT
From: dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles

In article <2364@cveg.uucp> jws3@hcx.uucp (JAMES WILLIAM SMITH) writes:
}Food for thought:  if only one missile per 1000 (or 10,000 or 1E8) gets
}through a Peace Shield, and you want 100 missiles to get through, how
}many missiles do you have to build to reach your goal?

1. More than they have.
2. More than they can afford to build.
3. A larger fraction of the GNP than it takes to defend against with (bigger
marginal cost)
4. Not enough to make it a safe proposition.


More food for thought:
if only one meteor per 100000 gets through the atmosphere, how safe are
you from "the big one", and why not live in a really deep cave?



The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 01:23:37 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles

Remember, when the Peace Shield is installed, only the very BEST nukes
will make it through!!!
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 04:33:16 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLE

The canard that "McAuliffe knew the risks" is really starting to get 
my goat. First, neither McAuliffe nor anyone else on the crew knew 
what Roger Boisjoly and company at Thiokol knew, which was that O ring 
burn through was a tragedy waiting to happen. A fix was in the works 
but NASA management was too scared of falling further behind schedule 
(and Thiokol too scared of losing its contract) to play it safe till 
the fix arrived. Roll tape: 

	"MY GOD, THIOKOL, WHEN DO YOU WANT ME TO LAUNCH,
	NEXT APRIL?"	-- Larry Mulloy, NASA, Jan '86

It is one thing to say that the Challenger flight crew, like all
astronauts, knew there were risks.  It is another to realize that
RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE KNEW OF THE O-RING PROBLEM.  The bravery of the
crew was bravery betrayed.

Secondly, even if McAuliffe had personally known the risks, America's 
schoolchildren did not -- and they, not Christa, were the point of 
Teacher-In-Space. The glib curriculum handouts carried no footnotes of 
the form "NOTE TO TEACHER: They may all blow up. If so, turn to page 
38." The astronauts-to-be of my generation watched John Glenn and Neil 
Armstrong and knew where their future lay. The future astronauts of 
2006 have been handed the most exquisitely crushing aversion therapy 
anyone could devise. We'll see how they feel (and vote) later on. 
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 06:36:27 GMT
From: jrg@apple.com  (John R. Galloway)
Subject: Hubble Space Telescope, orbit and data format/relay question

There was some mention recently that data from the HST is passed around via
the TDRSS system.  I assume this means that the HST is NOT in a geosynchronus
orbit, right?

Some time ago during the Pioneer Jupitor fly by I remember some high school
using their dish to pick up the pictures.  These were not direct, but 
rebroadcasts from JPL of processed data.  What is the possibility of doing
this for the HST?  In the ultimate it would be really neat to come home
after a long day and instead of mindlessly watching MASH reruns to be able
to tune in and see what the HST was looking at, wow.  What is the data format
of the direct HST transmissions, are procesed images routinely retransmitted
in conventional formats?  I just can't get over how neat this would be, I may
have to go buy a dish if it turns out to be possible.

to other

apple!jrg	John R. Galloway, Jr.       contract programmer, San Jose, Ca

These are my views, NOT Apple's, I am a GUEST here, not an employee!!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #424
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 May 89 07:16:16 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00901>; Thu, 11 May 89 06:12:20 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 11 May 89 06:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kYOHIie00Ui3I1LUYS>;
          Thu, 11 May 89 03:24:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.YYOHCwy00UkZBTbk42>;
          Thu, 11 May 89 03:18:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYOHBlu00UkZFTaE5b@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 11 May 89 03:17:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #425

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 425

Today's Topics:
			   "Tesla coverup"
		      "Tesla coverup" revisited
	      Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?
	    Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?
   Re: Hubble Space Telescope, orbit and data format/relay question
		      Viking biology experiments
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
		   Re: Some comments on comments...
  (#2 in series) Tesla, X-Rays, photocopying, and the "microwave fr
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 May 89 04:12:04 EDT
From: Henry_Edward_Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu
Subject: "Tesla coverup"

"Name calling -- giving an idea a bad label -- is used to make us reject and    
condemn the idea without examining the evidence. Symbolized by the ancient
sign of condemnation used by the Vestal Virgins in the Roman Coliseum, a
thumb turned down."
 
"Card stacking involves the selection and use of fact or falsehoods, illus-
trations or distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to
give the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or 
product. Symbolized by an ace of spades, a card traditionally used to
signify treachery."
 
    -Propaganda Symbols developed by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis
       c. 1941 
        reprinted in Propaganda Review, Winter, 1988, p. 14
 
*     Henry Edward Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu                              *
*     Henry Edward Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu                              *
*     "Arbor" on MacNet                                               *
*        Computer Consultant, University of Michigan                  *
*        sysop, Arbor Intelligent Systems                             *
*        President, Althing Communications                            *
*     disclaimer: Animus ad amplitudinem Mysteriorum pro modulo suo   *
*        dilatetur; non Mysteria ad angustias animi constringantur.   *
*            -Viscount St Albans (Francis Bacon,) 1561-1626 AD        *

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 May 89 04:55:34 EDT
From: Henry_Edward_Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu
To: fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa, space@Andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: "Tesla coverup" revisited

Well, I read your posting for the second time, and this time I scrolled 
down to the tag. I guess the joke's on me. Sorry to be so oversensitive
about it, but when you posted your first message, I thought you really
wanted some information, and I went to some effort to check it out for
you. Since the history of communications technology is a particular area
of study for me (hope-to-be PhD student in Communications,) I guess I
just take these things more seriously than some other folks.
 
With regard to FOIA, a FOIA response to a request for this information      
dated July 30, 1980 from the Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Division,
WPAFB, states, "The organization (Equipment Laboratory) that performed
the the evaluation of Tesla's papers was deactivated sveral years ago.
After conducting an extensive search of lists of records retired by that
organization, in which we found no mention of Tesla' papers, we concluded
that the documents were destroyed at the time that the laboratory was
deactivated." (Cheney, p. 279)
 
There is a lawyer here in town (Ann Arbor) who has expressed an interest   
in pursueing FOIA requests for some additional material. Anyone interested
should let me know.
 
*    Henry Edward Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu                                    *
*    Henry Edward Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu                                    *
*    "Arbor" on MacNet                                                     *
*       University of Michigan Computer Consultant                         *
*       sysop, Arbor Intelligent Systems                                   *
*       President, Althing Communications                                  *
*    disclaimer: For I was envious of the arrogant, when I saw the pros-   * 
*       perity of the wicked...They set their mouths against the heavens,  *
*       and their tongue struts through the earth. Therefore the people    *
*       turn and praise them, and find no fault in them. -Psalm 73, RSV    *

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 15:23:11 GMT
From: renoir.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?


 	ON THIS DATE IN HISTORY (May 9):

 (1963)   The U.S. Air Force launches 400 million tiny copper needles
          into Earth orbit, despite protests they might play havoc with
          radio and optical astronomical observations.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 21:09:34 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?

klaes@renoir.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
>  (1963)   The U.S. Air Force launches 400 million tiny copper needles
>           into Earth orbit, despite protests they might play havoc with
>           radio and optical astronomical observations. 

Passive radio reflector, along similar lines to the "Echo" mylar "balloon"
satellites.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 21:34:24 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope, orbit and data format/relay question

In article <30334@apple.Apple.COM> jrg@Apple.COM (John R. Galloway) writes:
>There was some mention recently that data from the HST is passed around via
>the TDRSS system.  I assume this means that the HST is NOT in a geosynchronus
>orbit, right?

Right; it is in low orbit, partly because that's cheaper (HST is big and
heavy) and partly so it can be serviced.

>Some time ago during the Pioneer Jupitor fly by I remember some high school
>using their dish to pick up the pictures.  These were not direct, but 
>rebroadcasts from JPL of processed data.  What is the possibility of doing
>this for the HST?  ...

Not quite impossible, but not as simple as you think.  For one thing, it's
all digital data, no conventional video.  For another thing, only two of
the five instruments generate images at all.  For a third, the telescope
will spend a large fraction of its time simply moving from one target to
another, since its pointing system is not quick.

>... are procesed images routinely retransmitted
>in conventional formats? ...

I would guess that the White Sands TDRS station will simply pass the raw
data to the HST institute in Maryland, probably via commercial comsat but
not in any conventional format.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 17:19:00 EDT
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Viking biology experiments
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu


In the April 20, 1989 Nature (p. 633-635) a group from Worcester
Polytechnic in Massachusetts reports success in a careful attempt to
duplicate the Viking results. From the abstract:
	Here we propose a chemical model for these biology
	experiments in which the reactants are an inorganic
	nitrate salt, which has been partly photolysed by
	ultraviolet light, and a sparingly soluble metal
	carbonate such as calcite. The model reproduces the
	main effects seen, indicating that nitrates are present
	in the martian regolith as well as calcite (or some
	other carbonate with similar solubility).

Their labelled release and gas-exchange graphs fall exactly on the
Viking 1 & 2 curves.  A synopsis on the paper can be found in the
April 29 Science News, p. 266.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 21:20:47 GMT
From: att!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

In article <18016@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
writes:
>But there is one kind of virus which can infect any form of intelligent
>life.  I am speaking, of course, about memes.  Imagine the kind of
>destruction 

Or worse, Mimes! can you imagine our first ET Ambassador being followed around
by a clown, trying to imitate his every move and then being trapped in an
invisible box? Or the 'pull myself with an invisible rope' trick?

They would 'exerminate' us for sure. Matter of fact, I 
don't think we *do* have the right to call ourselves 'civilized' while
we allow and even 'condone' creatures such as Mimes. Or maybe they *are*
the aliens?....Hmmmmm Frightning Thought! 

-- 
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] |          sparks@corpane.UUCP         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 
186,000 miles per second: it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 21:29:55 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Some comments on comments...

In article <5572@lynx.UUCP> neal@lynx.UUCP (Neal Woodall) writes:
>>Seems like such an obvious measure; I wonder why the Russians
>>failed to take it into account?
>
>For the same damn reason they would build a radar spysat powered by a
>nuclear reactor with no radiation shielding...

Don't grump too much about that, since the US did exactly the same thing
a couple of decades ago.  Shielding is simply too heavy for space reactors;
the Soviets may have been inconsiderate but they were not stupid.

For that matter, don't complain too much about the Phobos problems with
wrong instructions causing loss of contact, since about the same thing
happened to the Viking 1 lander, and Magellan only just escaped a similar
problem when software bugs were found only weeks ago.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 14:02:04 GMT
From: asuvax!stjhmc!Henry_Edward_Hardy%UB.CC.UMICH.EDU@noao.edu  (Henry_Edward_Hardy@UB.CC.UMICH.EDU)
Subject: (#2 in series) Tesla, X-Rays, photocopying, and the "microwave fr


                       (Continued from previous message)


enveloping surfaces of very large radii of curvature, and at proper 
distances from one another thereby insuring a small electric surface 
density everywhere so that no leak can occur even if the conductor 
is bare. It is suitable for any frequency, from a few to many 
thousands of cycles per second, and can be used for the production 
of currents of tremendous volume and moderate pressure [Tesla often 
used fluid-mechanical analogies for describing electricity] or of 
smaller amperage and immense electro-motive force. The maximum 
electric tension is merely dependant on the curvature on which the 
charged elements are situated and the area of the latter."
>
> [...] it is a resonant transformer which, besides possessing these
qualities, is accurately proportioned to fit the globe and its 
electrical constants and properties, by virtue of which design it 
becomes highly efficient and effective in the wireless transmission 
of energy. Distance is then absolutely eliminated, there being no 
diminution in the intensity of the transmitted impulses. It is even 
possible to make the actions increase with the distance from
the plant according to an exact mathematical law." [!]
>
I hope that persons having more comments, information, or questions 
on Tesla will feel free to message me at one of the addresses below. 
I hope that this will have addressed adequately the questions raised 
by the estimable Mr. Sparks.
 
*     "Machines only will meet in mortal combat. It will be a     *
*       veritable war of Science" -Hugo Gernsback, c. 1925        *
*                                                                 *
*     Henry E. Hardy@ub.cc.umich.edu                              *
*     Henry E. Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu                              *
*     "Arbor" on MacNet                                           *
*       Computer Consultant, University of Michigan               *
*       sysop, Arbor Intelligent Systems                          *
*       President, Althing Communications                         *
*                                                                 *
*     disclaimer: "Just say know" -Dr. Timothy Leary, 1988        *

conference first, maybe he could have applied for government funding
in advance of any substantial results anyway (;-!).
 
As for the photocopying of documents, Margaret Cheney is quite 
specific in saying that these were "photostats:"
>
> [...] between 19445 and 1947 an interesting exchange of letters
and cables occurred among the Air Technical Service Command at Wright
Field, Ohio, in whose Equipment Laboratory much top-secret research
was being performed, Military Intelligence in Washington, and the 
Office of Alien Property -- subject, files of the late Nikola Tesla.
>
> On August 21, 1945, the Air Technical Service Command requested
permission from the commanding general of the U. S. Army Air Force 
in Washington, D. C. , for Private Bloyce D. Fitzgerald to go to 
Washingtonfor a period of seven days "for the purpose of securing 
property clearance on impounded enemy property."
>
> On September 5, 1945, Colonel Holliday of the Equipment Laboratory,
Propulsion and Accessories Subdivision, wrote to Lloyd L. Shaulis 
of the OAP in Washington, confirming a conversation with Fitzgerald 
and asking for PHOTOSTATIC COPIES [emphasis mine] of the exhibits 
annotated by Trump from the estate of Tesla. It was stated that the 
material would be used "in conjunction with projects for National 
Defense by this department," and that all of it would be returned 
in a reasonable length of time.
>
> That was the last time that the Office of Alien Property [OAP] 
or anyother federal agency admitted to having possession of Tesla's 
papers on beam weaponry. Shaulis wrote to Colonel Holliday on 
September 11, 1945,saying, "The materials requested have been 
forwarded to Air Technical Service Command in care of Lt. Robert E. 
Houle. These data are made available to the Army Air Force by this 
office for use in experiments; please return them." They were never 
returned.
>
> These were the full PHOTOSTATIC COPIES not merely the abstracts. 
OAP has no record of how many copies were made by those who examined 
the files with Dr. Trump. The Navy has no record of Tesla's papers, 
no federal archives has any record of them.
>
> Curiously, four months after the PHOTOSTATS had been sent to Wright
Field, Col. Ralph Doty, the chief of Military Intelligence in 
Washington wrote James Marham of Alien Property [OAP] indicating 
that they had never been received: "This office is in receipt of a 
communication from Headquarters, Air Technical Services Command, 
Wright Field, requesting that we ascertain the whereabouts of the 
files of the late scientist, Dr. Nichola [sic] Tesla, which may
contain data of great value to the above Headquarters. It has been
indicated that your office might have these files in custody. If this
is true, we would like to request your consent for a representative of
the Air Technical Service to review them. In view of the extreme
importance of these files, we would like to request that we be
informed of any attempt by any other agency to obtain them."
>
> "Because of the urgency of this matter, this communication will
bedelivered to you by a Liaison Officer of this office in the hope
ofexpediting the solicited information."
>
> The "other" agency that had the files, or should have had them, 
was the Air Technical Service Command itself! Colonel Doty's letter, 
which was classified under the Espionage Act, was declassified on 
May 8, 1980.
>
> [...] on October 24, 1947, David L. Baselon, assistant attorney
general and director of the Office of Alien Property, wrote to the
commanding officer of the Air Technical Service Command , Wright 
Field, Dayton, Ohio, regarding the Tesla PHOTOSTATS that had been 
sent by registered mail on or about September 11, 1945, to Colonel 
Holliday, at the latter's request.
>
> "Our records do not reveal that this material has been returned,"
said Baselon. He sent a description and asked that it be returned.
>
> Obviously at least one of Tesla's papers had reached Wright
Field, because on November 25, 1947, there was a response to the
Office of Alien Property from Colonel Duffy, chief of the Electronic
PlansSection, Electronic Subdivision, Engineering Division, Air
MaterialCommand, Wright Field. He replied, "These reports are now in
thepossession of the Electronic Subdivision and are being
evaluated...." He believed that the evaluation should be completed by
January 1, 1948, and "At that time your office will be contacted with
respect to final deposition of these papers."
>
> There is no written record that OAP ever sought further to have 
the documents returned, and they were not returned.
>
So, as far as can be determined, the documents remain at Wright
Patterson to this day. Perhaps Lt. John S. Karabaic 
(fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa), who posted the first question 
regarding Tesla and the book "Fer-del-lance, A briefing on Soviet 
Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons", By T E Bearden, and who appears 
to work at this self-same Wright-Patterson AFB would care to
comment. Perhaps Lt. Karabaic's boss REALLY has a "sense of humor."
 
For more information about photocopying at this time (early
1940's) see:
 
Greenwood, Herbert William. 
Document photography, individual copying and mass recording 
/ H. W.Greenwood. 2nd ed.
London, Focal Press <1943>  163 p. illus. 
 
SUBJECT HEADINGS (Library of Congress):
     Photocopying processes
LOCATION: GRADUATE LIBRARY
CALL NUMBER:  TR 470 .G82
 
Since this book is listed on MIRLYN, it may be available from the
University of Michigan via interlibrary loan.
 
Moving on to the third question, that of the reported condensation 
clouds ("microwave freezer effect") reported on the "World of Radio" 
broadcast. This question is one which I really cannot resolve, and I 
think it mustbe consigned to the department of rumors unless and 
until someone else on the net can corroborate these claims.
 
Certainly, it is no solution to the greenhouse effect. Even if it is
possible to cool a local area throughthe use of some sort of Teslian
technology, the net result must still bemore entropy in the system as
a whole. "Microwave milkshakes," perhaps, but don't hold your breath.
Other than this, I can offer only one final tidbit from the Cheney
book:
>
> [The magnifying] transmitter, which he developed in Colorado, 
he wouldlater claim as his greatest invention. Indeed, it is the 
Tesla invention that continues to fascinate many of his modern
followers the most. Whenever and wherever in recent years phenomena
have been detected, resulting from powerful radio signal pulsed at
very low frequencies [a la Project ELF in Wisconsin and Northern
Michigan,] journalists speak knowingly [?] of the Tesla effect. The
Russians, it is claimed, are using a giant Tesla magnifying
transmitter to modify the world's weather, creating extremes of ice
and drought. It is said to cause periodic disruption of radio
communications in Canada and the United States with attendant
brain-wave interference and vague symptoms of physical distress, not
to mention sonic booms [like the New Jersey "airquakes" ofthe
1970's??] and almost anything else not otherwise explicable.
Indeed,it was this same fabulous invention that Robert Golka in
recent years tried to replicate, with considerable success, at
Wendover, Utah, for the study of ball lightning, in conjunction with
research in nuclear fusion.
>
> But, what exactly was it? [Tesla's explanation, quoted from
'Electrical Experimenter' June 1919:] "...it is a resonant 
transformer with a secondary in which the parts, charged to a high
potential, are of considerable area and arranged along ideal 


                              (End of series)

--  
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!Henry_Edward_Hardy@UB.CC.UMICH.EDU
Internet: Henry_Edward_Hardy@UB.CC.UMICH.EDU@stjhmc.fidonet.org

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #425
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 May 89 08:40:23 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01276>; Thu, 11 May 89 07:31:23 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 11 May 89 07:31:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QYOJ1xG00UkTM0zk5v>;
          Thu, 11 May 89 05:21:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.gYOIz9y00UkZJTmk52>;
          Thu, 11 May 89 05:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYOIyCu00UkZJTlE5E@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 11 May 89 05:17:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #426

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 426

Today's Topics:
		Appropriate commercial industry role?
		      Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch
			 Re: Magellan update
			      Re:  Tesla
	   Re: Private spending for space science (summary)
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
Freedom program submits capital development plan to Congress (Forwarded)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #420
		      "Tesla coverup" revisited
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 19:27:11 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Appropriate commercial industry role?

I suggest the following question for discussion:

What is the appropriate role for commercial industry in a space program?


Let's discuss this from a *practical* point of view, rather than
ideological. 

Here are some related questions.  Please consider these as you ponder
answers to the question above.  Add more as you see fit.

What is the primary (non-political) barrier to space exploration and
development?

Does the Soviet success with low technology and mass production in their
space program indicate that refinement of existing technology is needed,
rather than development of new technology?

Does U.S. trouble with high technology space hardware (e.g. space
shuttle) indicate that refinement of existing technology is needed,
rather than development of new technology?

Is commercial industry well suited to refinement of existing technology?
To production of new technology?

Is government management well suited to refinement of existing
technology?  To production of new technology?

Can mass production of space hardware reduce costs more than
reusability?

Are incremental changes to space hardware possible during technology
development programs?

Is government planning of science projects conducive to good science?

Is there any way to provide government funding without central planning?

How can government foster development of private industries?

----

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 20:33:06 GMT
From: sei!firth@PT.CS.CMU.EDU  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch

In article <1989May6.220144.21379@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>It's not *all* the contractor's fault when he charges $400 for a hammer.
>A fair chunk of it is mil spec compliance costs.

Absolutely.  One of the questions I sometimes ask contractors unofficially
is how much of the cost of a project is consumed by simply generating
write-only documentation in compliance with specs.  Nobody has yet given
me an answer below 50%.  This is in addition to the cost of building the
real artifact to excessive specs.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 15:51:28 GMT
From: asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!illusion!marcus@noao.edu  (Marcus Hall)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <1989May3.165125.5351@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
]In article <8008@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@threonine.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
]>>The reason for the savings on propellant is that with the
]>>later launch date the path to Venus is more direct, resulting in fewer TCMs.

]>    So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the
]>window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus
]>injection? Atmospheric drag?

]Not significant over that short a period, I'd say.  But if I'm not mistaken,
]the IUS has a very limited period of autonomous operation; for example, it
]has no solar panels and limited battery capacity.  Magellan would probably
]be reasonably happy about it, perhaps with some minor modifications, but
]the IUS isn't designed to be parked in orbit for any length of time.

It would have taken a 10 day delay before it would have been necessary for
the cargo bay doors to be opened and the IUS batteries recharged, so I would
assume that the IUS could just as easily sit in orbit in the cargo bay for
just as long (although the shuttle couldn't sit on-orbit that long).  So, why
wasn't the original plan to get the shuttle up, then wait until the limit of
IUS batteries or shuttle on-orbit loiter befor deploying Magellan.  If it's
true that the 5-day delay saved 5Kg of fuel and the 2Kg was required for a
year's operation, it seems that waiting as long as possible (assuming that
you're ahead of optimal launch).  The IUS gets its INS aligned with the
shuttle after the shuttle aligns itself via star trackers.  The IUS would
have problems if this was done very long before its firing, but it should
be perfectly happy to wait in the cargo bay and be deployed late in the
mission.

There are several possibilities that I can think of for launching 6 hours
into the mission:

1) That's how they planned and practiced it.  It could be thought that if the
astronauts have to improvise something would be more likely to go wrong.

2) Launching first thing gives more on-orbit time to deal with things if there
is a failure of some sort.  Perhaps this would allow re-capture and return
of Magellan if the IUS fails to ignite?  I know that the mid-deck payload
was kept light to try to get maximum performance from the shuttlele; does
anybody know if the arm was removed to save weight?

marcus hall

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 9 May 89 8:46:01 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL>
To: att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Cc: space@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject:  Re:  Tesla

>I am feeling picky today, so sue me :-)
>
> >>  the OAP in Washington, confirming an agreement for the photocopying of
>                                                             ^^^^^^^^
>Photocopying?!? In 1945?!? I don't think so.

I'll be picky, too... :-)

"Photocopying" does NOT mean "Xeroxing", which of course was NOT around
in 1945. But photographic-based methods of document copying were
available. More involved, sloppier, and not as good as Xerography, but
still not uncommon. Have you ever seen "V-mail"? This was a method of
reducing the volume and weight of shipments of mail to servicemen
overseas during WWII; the writers wrote their letters on special forms,
which were photocopied and reduced in size and then sent to the addressee
at his overseas APO or FPO address. So photocopying was widespread and
available enough for such a use; it certainly was available for official
business like the copying of Tesla papers. 

Another example of early photocopies are the document copies you will
sometimes run across in the papers of older people, where the copy is a
negative. This format of photocopy was often used for running copies of
birth certificates and other official documents. I don't recall the name
of this type of photocopy, though. I believe this was common in the 30's.

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 14:44:44 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science (summary)

roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

>Among
>the projects that might not be too ambitious for an initial attempt are
>a lunar orbiter, as suggested by Henry, or a rendezvous with an earth-
>intersecting asteroid, as suggested by Paul Dietz and others.

A better initial private project would be a comprehensive search
for earth approaching asteroids (earth intersecting asteroids are
much easier to observe ;-)).

Actually, such a project has already been funded, and points up the
problems with private efforts.  The Spacewatch telescope in Arizona
was (is?) getting funds from the Planetary Society.  I am under the
impression that the effort there is seriously constrained by lack of
funding, and by now obsolete equipment; this could be wrong.  However,
computers are better now, and CCD technology continues to advance.
One can now buy small commercial cooled CCDs (integration time up to
an hour) for a bit over ten thousand dollars.  Building an automatic
asteroid searcher seems to me to be within the resources of a small
group of dedicated amateurs (assuming they have access to good skies).

In the meantime, a fellow named Zook at NASA is proposing (how
seriously I'm not sure) a widefield scope that could do electronic
asteroids searches.  Described briefly in the latest Final Frontier,
Zook's scope would be able to see down to magnitude 23.  It could spot
1 meter objects out to the moon, and 100 meter objects out to 0.5 AU.
Recall that it is estimated that there are several hundred thousand
EAAs greater than 100 m in diameter.

I think it would be an excellent project for NASA to locate most EAAs
> 100 meters in diameter, and also to do a comprehensive census on the
main belt (perhaps all asteroids > 1 km in diameter).  It becomes a
lot easier to plan a rendevous (or multiple fly-bys of different
asteroids) when there are lots of candidates.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 05:23:10 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!censor!jeff@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Jeff Hunter)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

In article <18016@cup.portal.com>, mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> >         UFOs, though, are not proven to exist. There is absolutely no firm
> > ground to base their existence on. Just because the universe is so huge
> > that life MUST have evolved elsewhere has nothing to do with whether or
> > Scott@gacvax1.bitnet
> 
> It seems inconsistent to me to accept blowing up the sun as a topic of
> intelligent discussion, while rejecting contact with ET's as utterly
> frivolous.
> 
	It looks to me like he was rejecting the "I had an alien space child"
fringe. (Says mother: "well junior is small and bald, and he looked kinda
blue for a minute there. That proves it don't it?")

> 
> But there is one kind of virus which can infect any form of intelligent
> life.  I am speaking, of course, about memes.  Imagine the kind of
> destruction we would be causing if we exposed a peaceful, traditional 
> society to Marxism or the Bible (or both).  Imagine the kind of destruction
> they could cause if they infected us with a super-UFO-Nazi religion.
> 
	I think that memes may be more species-specific than you think. For
example there are several multi-billion dollar industries based on the
meme that a young female is more desirable than an old one. For a 
hypothetical race where the female gets continuously "sexier" as she ages
don't expect wrinkle cream to sell well (unless it tastes good:-).








-- 
      ___   __   __   {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff  (416-595-2705)
      /    / /) /  )     -- my opinions --
    -/ _ -/-   /-     No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent. 
 (__/ (/_/   _/_                                   Greg Bear

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 06:30:24 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

manderso@nunki.usc.edu (Mark Anderson) in responding to a posting by Scott
Hess states:  It is also clear, that in my lifetime, my children's lifetime,
and their grandchildren's lifetimes that we will not be able to reach
and network the stars using present day technology and knowledge.  We
limit ourselves to the speed of ight.

Don't be so sure!  Nanotechnology, the atom-by-atom manipulation of matter
seems to lie within advances in engineering we can foresee.  If this is
true, and you want to go, there is nothing standing in your way to the stars
but your own failure of imagination.  (Cell repair machines would let you
live long enough to cross the galaxy--in style)  Keith Henson
PS, a paper "Megascale Engineering" I wrote discusses moving galaxies.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 15:42:24 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Freedom program submits capital development plan to Congress (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                        May 9, 1989


N89-38 Editors Note:

FREEDOM PROGRAM SUBMITS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONGRESS


     The Capital Development Plan for Fiscal Year 1990 has been 
sent to the Congress as required by the NASA Authorization Act of 
FY 1988.  

     The law requires NASA to submit an annual capital 
development plan through 1996.  The plan includes the estimated 
cost of all direct research and development; space flight, 
control and data communications; construction of facilities; and 
the research and program managment for the fiscal year involved 
and the two succeeding fiscal years.

     Copies of the plan are available in the NASA Newsroom or 
from the Public Affairs Officer for the Freedom Program.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 May 1989 16:33-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #420

> taught about the various aborts that were possible; abort on pad (get the
> hell out of the shuttle...), RTLS, AOA, ATO...you get the picture.  Somehow,

And I'm sure it would have been awfully hard to miss the fact that
there was NO abort option from them time of lighting the SRB's until
SRB burnout ~2 minutes later...

And still isn't.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 May 89 08:37:27 EDT
From: fuzzy@aruba.arpa (John Karabaic)
To: "Henry_Edward_Hardy@um.cc.umich.edu"@aagate.arpa
Cc: "space@andrew.cmu.edu"@aagate.arpa
Subject: "Tesla coverup" revisited


Whoops! I should check all my messages before replying! 

I'm not surprised HQ ASD replied in that way.  I'm a short-timer now,
but I'll refrain from saying anything about HQ's abilities (three-star
generals can probably arrange to have tours extended).  The prongs of
attack I suggested might work.  You just have to be patient and keep
trying.  

Thanks for the excellent references, by the way.  When I have time,
I'm going to to go through them.  Maybe I'll file some FOIA paperwork
myself.  
!!!!!!!!!!!!Don't use *reply*; our mailer is not working properly!!!!!!!!!!!
	    Lt John S. Karabaic (fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa)
     WRDC/TXI                    513 255 5800          It's not just a job.
     WPAFB, OH 45433-6543        AV 785 5800            It's an indenture.
			    These opinions are mine.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #426
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 May 89 03:21:23 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06429>; Fri, 12 May 89 02:20:56 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 12 May 89 02:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8YOZtTW00UkTE1=0Q8>;
          Fri, 12 May 89 00:32:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.gYOZkuy00UkZBXbE4f>;
          Fri, 12 May 89 00:23:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYOZiIS00UkZJXZk5b@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 12 May 89 00:20:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #427

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 427

Today's Topics:
		    space news from April 3 AW&ST
	       (#2 in series) NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 05:09:51 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bbn.com  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from April 3 AW&ST

USAF team tours Kourou to study Ariane launch facilities, notably the
site design that permits payload/vehicle stacking to be done away from
the launch pad, permitting one booster to be stacking while another
is readied for launch.  The USAF team is overseeing design of a new
Titan 4 launch site at Vandenberg.

US scientists examining protein crystals recovered from a Chinese
satellite observe that many were broken by reentry and landing forces.
Complete crystals are important for protein-structure determination.

Glavkosmos examines use of Proton to launch payloads to the US space
station.  Proton from Baikonur could take about 5.5 tons to the station,
a fair load despite the dogleg trajectory needed to reach the station's
orbit (which never gets as far north as Baikonur).

Phobos 2 contact lost March 27 after the spacecraft is ordered to turn to
photograph Phobos and then turn back, and doesn't turn back.  Similar
maneuvers earlier had no problems.  The ESA people (who had an experiment
on Phobos 2) say that the flight was not a total loss, since some of the
experiments had already returned quite a bit of data.

SDI's Delta Star plume-observation satellite launched (by Delta, obviously)
March 24.  A plan to have the satellite watch the second-stage de-orbit burn
was partly spoiled when a sensor door failed to open quickly enough, but
otherwise everything is working.  Delta Star's fuel is expected to last
about nine months, with primary objectives probably taken care of in the
first three.  It will watch a number of launches, including several
shuttles, some Deltas, some Titans, some underwater Trident 2 firings,
and several specially-instrumented Black Brant sounding rockets.

Delta Star was dubbed "Wooden Stake Spacecraft" [really -- you can see
that name painted on the side of the booster in the photos!] after a
crazy SDI scheme to have a joint US/Soviet team recover a package from
it and deliver it to Mir (!) was rejected last year with the comment
(from a White House official) "the concept's got a wooden stake driven
through its heart now, but you never know what's going to come out of
the SDI during the next full Moon".  [AW&ST notes that Delta Star was
launched three days after a full Moon!]

NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel recommends dropping the Advanced
Solid Rocket Motor project, on the grounds that ASRM safety will be
inferior to existing SRBs until considerable experience is built up,
and that the money would be better spent on other safety improvements.
The panel also observed that many of the manufacturing changes proposed
for ASRM could be applied to the existing SRBs.  NASA management agrees
that the existing SRBs could be improved, but wants ASRM partly so that
there is a second source for shuttle boosters.  Truly also observes that
money cut from ASRM probably wouldn't go into other safety work.  The
response from Congress is also a bit chilly:  the implication that the
shuttle still needs major safety improvements doesn't go over well after
all the money that's already been spent on safety, and the fact that
the panel didn't speak up earlier in ASRM's two-year history isn't well
liked either.  The betting is that NASA will basically ignore the panel,
which is widely considered ineffective and alarmist:  "The safety panel's
basic position has been to point with alarm to anything that could
happen... they have very little credibility as a result..."

The panel also urged more work on liquid boosters, observing that the
$4M NASA has spent on liquid-booster studies in the last two years has
lead to a clear conclusion that they have many advantages.  General
Dynamics, one of the study contractors, says liquid boosters could be
operational by 1996, only about two years behind ASRM.  They would
permit a boost-phase abort, could (if designed with engine clusters as
GD has proposed) operate despite a single engine failure, and would
give a much bigger performance improvement than the ASRM.  NASA
predictably says it would take longer and cost more.

Fire at Hercules Inc. destroys solid-booster-production equipment being
used to make Delta SRBs.  Hercules is unhappy but says that it's not a
disaster, since a second mixer facility was not damaged and a third is
already under construction.

Tokyo Broadcasting System signs with Glavkosmos to fly a Japanese journalist
to Mir for a week in 1991.  He would transmit daily TV and radio reports.
Price tag, about $11M.  Some Soviet commentators have protested that a
Soviet journalist should fly first!

More on Brilliant Pebbles.  Supporters observe that some of the money now
being spent on finding ways to attack mobile missiles might be more
productively spent on attacking them after launch -- they are much easier
to locate then!  Lowell Wood argues that B.P. could also be useful to the
reconnaissance community -- they would have a lot of sensing and computing
on board.  Wood is careful to say that if they were built, "they certainly
will be produced in the traditional fashion by one or more aerospace
companies".  [That is, aerospace contractors should not lobby against them
due to fears of lost business.  On the other hand, it's hard to reconcile
this business-as-usual view with Wood's expressed conviction that major
reductions in cost are possible -- not with business as usual, they're not!]

Japanese refine plans for their HOPE unmanned spaceplane, now aimed at
launch on an H-2 in 1996.  It looks rather like a shuttle orbiter
with a somewhat fatter fuselage and with the tailfin deleted and
replaced by wingtip fins.  It's much smaller, 8.8 tons total with a
6m wingspan.  The cargo bay is sized to hold three standard space station
equipment racks.  The Japanese are looking at high-temperature metal-skin
concepts, believing that tiles have durability and repair problems.

Japan investigates Liquid Air Cycle Engines (which liquify atmospheric
oxygen on the way up rather than carrying it all with them) for both
aerospace planes and conventional boosters.  The engine proper would
resemble the LE-7 oxyhydrogen rocket motor of the H-2.  One concept is
to replace each of the H-2's SRBs with a liquid booster using three
LACE engines, which would have almost double the performance despite
the weight penalty of air intakes and the liquifaction system.  The
engines would run as LACE up to about Mach 5 and 40 km, after which
it would run as a pure rocket.  Much existing cryogenic-rocket technology
would be directly applicable.  Mitsubishi has been working on LACE
heat exchangers for some time, and is testing small ones.

Final testing of the first Milstar comsat to start next year.  This
is the Pentagon's next-generation strategic-forces comsat.  Of note
is that Milstar will use satellite-to-satellite links to give global
coverage without ground relay stations.  The cross-links will run at
60 GHz, a frequency that is heavily absorbed by the atmosphere and
hence is hard to eavesdrop on from the ground.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 14:02:01 GMT
From: asuvax!stjhmc!TS.Kelso@noao.edu  (TS Kelso)
Subject: (#2 in series) NASA Prediction Bulletins


                       (Continued from previous message)


2 19851  82.5291 198.3252 0016753  89.6634 270.6447 13.83788336  8290
Cosmos 2007
1 19900U          89111.68155825 0.00328568  53900-4  45747-3 0   599
2 19900  64.7376 294.5535 0046890 113.4393 247.1709 16.03352976  4699
Cosmos 2008
1 19902U          89116.00392757 -.00000006                   0   119
2 19902  74.0150 350.9818 0049383  47.6256 312.8966 12.57624316  4085
Cosmos 2009
1 19903U          89115.97367855 -.00000006                   0   194
2 19903  74.0136 351.1735 0040920  57.9208 302.5814 12.55708122  4073
Cosmos 2010
1 19904U          89116.02198481 -.00000007                   0   123
2 19904  74.0169 351.2452 0029998  57.7151 302.6852 12.53835344  4072
Cosmos 2011
1 19905U          89115.99017871 -.00000007                   0   100
2 19905  74.0133 351.4784 0020649  63.6620 296.6555 12.51975370  4035
Cosmos 2012
1 19906U          89116.04082705 -.00000007                   0   173
2 19906  74.0154 351.5364 0009996  71.0983 289.1155 12.50018203  4069
Cosmos 2013
1 19907U          89116.01420355 -.00000006                   0   122
2 19907  74.0155 351.7657 0010079 145.8879 214.2831 12.47957635  4029
Cosmos 2014
1 19908U          89115.74202185 -.00000006                   0   121
2 19908  74.0137 352.2749 0013011 203.8083 156.2365 12.46073020  4011
Cosmos 2015
1 19909U          89116.04063931 -.00000007                   0   121
2 19909  74.0160 352.0316 0026013 201.5921 158.4034 12.43852318  4006
Cos 2008-15
1 19910U          89113.23932265 -.00000006                   0   147
2 19910  74.0126 357.2113 0134375 228.1294 130.8211 12.23001671  3636
Delta Star 
1 19911U          89115.83185253 -.00008444          -34058-3 0   490
2 19911  47.6782 237.1065 0009644 138.5781 221.4369 15.23615754  4861
TDRS 3 R/B 
1 19913U          89112.93435508 0.00000028           10000-3 0   119
2 19913   2.1633  57.0036 0026791 207.9139 151.7442  1.00619254   335
1989 027A  
1 19919U          89115.39349429 0.00000064           10000-3 0   215
2 19919   0.0999  92.6385 0003757 294.6060 332.8282  1.00274867   104
1989 027B  
1 19920U          89119.09018115 -.00044246  19062-4 -69849-5 0   349
2 19920   4.5235  17.2364 7326100 212.1714  83.2276  2.31530723   635
1989 028A  
1 19921U          89122.43552170 0.00000152           15077-3 0   273
2 19921  82.9594 120.0189 0038515 217.6923 142.1535 13.73921585  3800
1989 028B  
1 19922U          89117.08932977 0.00000059           54697-4 0   296
2 19922  82.9550 123.9075 0033528 215.3243 144.7293 13.75750065  3071
1989 030A  
1 19928U          89122.22498242 -.00000150           10000-3 0   254
2 19928   1.4185 277.4404 0003404  53.6683 305.7365  1.00290090   190
1980 030D  
1 19931U          89116.20366990 -.00000107           10000-3 0    97
2 19931   1.4446 276.8658 0017895  17.3869 342.2987  0.97928741   136
Cosmos 2018
1 19938U          89123.19428103 0.01682685  41813-4  30095-3 0   337
2 19938  62.8086  27.0561 0077868  90.4647 270.6656 16.23540855  2002
1989 032A  
1 19941U          89122.72449744 0.00177456  96630-5  24965-3 0   165
2 19941  62.8194  36.4275 0116782 112.3689 248.9900 15.93523479   963
1989 032B  
1 19942U          89122.39234276 0.01499538  39749-4  12695-2 0   130
2 19942  62.8072  37.5799 0092994 117.6501 243.3884 16.04265094   915
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology
0  6350
2 13113  82.5365 104.6563 0013814 222.8933 137.1155 13.83977270357253
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89121.69579074 0.00035420           86645-3 0  5524
2 13138  51.6104 184.9249 0000756 311.0022  49.0387 15.40446949401023
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89113.62903427  .00002004  00000-0  45488-3 0  9194
2 13367  98.2165 177.9866 0002811  35.4502 324.7493 14.57112293360127
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89116.98419522 0.00000451           23221-3 0  7681
2 13718  81.2469 331.6462 0056312 143.3794 217.1272 14.13159299328329
IRAS       
1 13777U          89115.94442776 -.00000043          -17922-4 0  6318
2 13777  99.0484 313.7735 0013671  95.9280 264.3430 13.98578929318893
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89116.00961755 0.00000120                   0  9371
2 14050   1.1696  83.4928 0000584 194.8330 163.9434  1.00257297  6081
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89118.08889975 -.00000002          -51681+0 0  3964
2 14129  26.3399 268.1164 6055304  37.3937 352.2227  2.05880716 16180
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89120.51197520 0.00000010                   0  6247
2 14189  63.1818 100.8446 0135011 215.4953 143.6040  2.00570446 42489
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89118.09553179 0.00000704           29902-3 0  7142
2 14452  81.1656 343.7555 0093775 241.1071 118.0674 14.22141862285423
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89120.59589979 0.00000868           20260-3 0  7364
2 14780  98.1716 183.7450 0003529  45.7467 314.3877 14.57117629274632
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89114.23701940 0.00002712           53287-3 0  4365
2 14781  98.0075 174.5965 0013581 125.0138 235.2245 14.63403308274656
LDEF       
1 14898U          89120.72869032 0.00033122           60796-3 0  8267
2 14898  28.5046 150.3186 0001749  98.4973 261.5607 15.47852003284086
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89117.57811348 0.00000010                   0  6559
2 15039  62.9110 100.2412 0015391 275.9497  83.8607  2.00564906 35700
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89118.77440559 0.00000304           26557-3 0  9367
2 15099  82.5290  45.6712 0014652  21.1986 338.9780 13.83644510243284
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89120.96939771 -.00000028                   0  6184
2 15271  63.3787 339.0459 0099499 320.1074  39.2165  2.00564748 32885
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89119.12416610 0.00003462           50484-3 0   160
2 15331  82.5422  23.7314 0022255 244.6445 115.2551 14.75423002246980
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89122.14677923 0.00000759           43529-3 0  3664
2 15427  99.1416 108.1958 0016467  82.7989 277.5052 14.11981070225953
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89120.09790295 0.00000354           30830-3 0   730
2 15516  82.5372 343.0195 0015178 253.1745 106.7711 13.84097874214406
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89121.69579828 0.00016432           40833-3 0  2366
2 16095  51.6073 184.9243 0001077 334.7551  25.3204 15.40439069401023
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89121.12422950 0.00000011                   0  3124
2 16129  63.7081 100.7309 0115410 150.5877 210.0687  2.00564772 26095
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89115.85828279 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8215
2 16191  82.5420 272.7374 0021122  70.9834 289.3575 13.16868043168635
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89115.84739158 0.00000253           21731-3 0  4810
2 16408  82.5311 261.2476 0017540  85.7702 274.5464 13.84157896168318
Mir        
1 16609U          89121.73239582 0.00020734           33283-3 0  8246
2 16609  51.6211 235.3272 0011312 250.7323 109.2326 15.52941335183940
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89122.99120016 0.00000345           17967-3 0  4514
2 16613  98.7007 198.1058 0000531  68.4555 291.6853 14.20039284  5714
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89115.88279849 0.00000178           15130-3 0  2936
2 16735  82.5350 288.0280 0014358 153.7143 206.4750 13.83899951147226
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89120.84530188 0.00001924           28195-3 0  5912
2 16881  82.5241  81.7377 0021421 252.2013 107.6841 14.74998915148317
EGP        
1 16908U          89110.45964276 -.00000029           66726-4 0  1226
2 16908  50.0094 115.5450 0011499 200.0590 159.9794 12.44377637122222
FO-12      
1 16909U          89112.36835661 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1414
2 16909  50.0159 109.9094 0011193 203.0127 157.0209 12.44399273122451
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89114.50409837 0.00000777           36204-3 0  2160
2 16969  98.6403 146.0116 0014573  49.4956 310.7489 14.22958934136301
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89115.22528347 0.00000343           30168-3 0  2438
2 17290  82.4706 196.2522 0014290  55.6694 304.5815 13.83708811116291
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89113.58957768  .00000187  00000-0  16549-3 0   954
2 17527  99.1501 185.5030 0000837 119.8671 240.4688 13.94830615110769
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89115.70765195 -.00000038           10000-3 0  2611
2 17561   0.1243  98.4452 0002548 173.3379  88.1959  1.00274602  1234
Kvant      
1 17845U          89121.73238681 0.00029374           46759-3 0  7417
2 17845  51.6212 235.3227 0011576 251.6274 108.2944 15.52955103120215
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89121.86700973 -.00000111          -12941-3 0  7444
2 18129  82.9233 272.3646 0011914 173.7751 186.3514 13.71969700 93044
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89122.67045190 0.00140338  10231-4  21638-3 0    75
2 18225  71.8732 177.3247 0010634 249.7024 110.2642 16.04030085103996
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89115.39952766 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2635
2 18312  82.5529 261.3540 0012524 351.1259   8.9663 13.83456337 85210
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89115.91107135 0.00000244           20871-3 0  1059
2 18820  82.5448 322.1108 0018343  56.9733 303.3185 13.84148812 62451
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 89.37166448 -.00000028           10000-3 0   346
2 19216  57.2895 213.9669 6688587 201.4192 106.6281  2.09699506  6084
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89114.98768533  .00002979  00000-0  44205-3 0  3520
2 19274  82.5192 185.7830 0024113  48.5712 311.7482 14.74569133 43244
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89121.01046131 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1840
2 19336  82.5476 209.0222 0016064 263.3975  96.5314 13.16922605 36704
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89111.54455513 0.00000898           52061-3 0   702
2 19531  98.9351  55.8418 0013218  34.9329 325.2707 14.10953152 29482
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89112.65814275  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   301
2 19802  55.1161 213.9967 0069734 154.7705 205.7027  2.00553753  1314
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89119.10025885 0.00000116           10000-3 0   296


                              (End of series)

--  
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!TS.Kelso
Internet: TS.Kelso@stjhmc.fidonet.org

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #427
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 May 89 07:14:12 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00749>; Fri, 12 May 89 06:09:33 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 12 May 89 06:09:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UYOcPse00UkTQ19EI0>;
          Fri, 12 May 89 03:25:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.cYOcJky00UkZ5Xuk4Y>;
          Fri, 12 May 89 03:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <wYOcHS-00UkZ5XtE45@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 12 May 89 03:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #428

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 428

Today's Topics:
	     Private spending for space science (summary)
			      Semiotics
	      Re: Spaceplane mailing list--where is it?
			Re: Upcoming Launches
		       Re: more 747 drop tests?
		  Life, the Universe and Everything
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #419
		       Reminders for Old Farts
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 May 89 09:05:49 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Private spending for space science (summary)


>From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

>In article <8905021739.AA19290@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>>Can you think of a plausible scenario by which private industry would
>>undertake to send sophisticated probes to Venus or Jupiter at its own
>>expense in the next 20 years? ...

>Why assume that *industry* has to do it?  What about the National Geographic
>Society?  Or a university consortium? ...
Good ideas, within the parameters of the funding available. A university
consortium could conceivably get private funding, or, even if funded by the
government, *might* be able to do the job more efficiently than through
direct government control.

>It *would* help a lot if the launch costs came down, though.
Yes, for both government and private payloads.

>But there are few plausible scenarios for such things as long as it looks
>easier to convince Congress to pick the taxpayers' pockets to pay for it.
More on this topic later.
>---------------------------------- 

Among the others who posted ideas on plausible private funding for research:

>From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)

>  ...I think this is especially true if you consider that NASA has never
>made any real effort to make money off of the very real demand for
>color photos of various objects in the solar system.  Presumably the NGS
>would not overlook this chance to get some of the money back.  Perhaps
>when NASA's budget falls low enough...
NASA makes its images available as the public-domain results of publicly
funded research, and allows private companies to handle the marketing.
Picture sales might be good for partial compensation, but as the sole
source of funding I don't think they would be adequate. Prices would probably
be high, especially for publication rights, and you might have to sign
"nondistribution" agreements. As a partial analogy, consider the commercial
imaging systems in earth orbit.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

>From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
>Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

>We have millions of people who believe in funding space research.  What I
>have been proposing all along is that these people be allowed to set up
>corporations, profit and non-profit, for this purpose.  More than one will
>be needed, because we have the manned vs unmanned dispute.  
I think I agree. Did you have in mind some of the organizations running on
money from investors, and others working with charitable donations?

>These corporations could act in concert with governments and industrial 
>firms.  But the US government must allow these corporations to act without
>governmental approval.
Not too likely (reread that last sentence :-). But the approval process could
and should be facilitated. Something on the order of the approval process for
a new airplane design and of a commercial flight plan might be adequate.
>------------------------------

>From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
...
>I am aware of at least three different models. One is the industry
>consortium like MCC. Another is the private research institute, like
>SSI. The third is the private foundation that specializes in assisting
>research of a particular type. I'm certain that creative minds can come
>up with lots of others.
>------------------------------

I think a number of these approaches could be workable. I would suggest
that those activists who feel that privately-funded interplanetary space
science is both practical and desirable at this time look at these and
other approaches for initiation of an actual project to show that it can
be done. (Probably several organizations are already doing this.) Among
the projects that might not be too ambitious for an initial attempt are
a lunar orbiter, as suggested by Henry, or a rendezvous with an earth-
intersecting asteroid, as suggested by Paul Dietz and others.

In the meantime, I would urge against making too strong an effort to
boot NASA out of the planetary space science business. It would be similar
to the decision several years ago to throw out proven booster technology
(Saturn and other expendables) in favor of the eventual development of 
other technologies. NASA has shown at least some ability to conduct
planetary space science. I regard the ideas of privately funded research
of this kind and of greatly lowered launch costs through private enterprise
as "plausible but unproven."

Responses to various claims of NASA interference with private planetary
space science (paraphrased):

 - "NASA has traditionally tried to discourage private launches"
  True, but this is supposed to be going away, and I think there are ways
  to encourage NASA not to drag its feet, short of totally closing it down.
  Any ideas?

 - "NASA gets all the money. People have to pay taxes to support NASA, so
    they can't afford to invest in space."
  This is similar to the manned vs unmanned budgetary debate. NASA gets
  only a small fraction of the total tax revenue. If NASA were abolished,
  I do not think that the average taxpayer, upon receiving his ~$50/year
  refund, would be likely to donate/invest any significant portion of it
  in space exploration. In other words, the funding sources for NASA and
  completely private exploration are not closely coupled.

 - "NASA is hogging up all the good places to send probes, so there's no
    incentive for anybody else to send up probes."
  I don't think NASA should be condemned for the interplanetary probes
  it has managed to send up. A few months ago, I posted a question asking
  what action would be advisable for the space program if "unlimited"
  information on space were already available free. The general response
  was that such a scenario was inconceivable; that there will always be
  highly desirable information that is not yet available.
                                John Roberts
                                roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 21:04:50 GMT
From: sei!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Semiotics

In article <4372318@um.cc.umich.edu> Henry_Edward_Hardy@UM.CC.UMICH.EDU writes:
>"Name calling -- giving an idea a bad label -- is used to make us reject and    
>condemn the idea without examining the evidence. Symbolized by the ancient
>sign of condemnation used by the Vestal Virgins in the Roman Coliseum, a
>thumb turned down."

It wasn't the Vestal Virgins; the signal to the victorious gladiator could
be given only by the magister ludi (though the crowd freely prompted him).
And the signal for "kill the loser", as any true Roman knows, was what
we now call THUMBS UP.

>"Card stacking involves the selection and use of fact or falsehoods, illus-
>trations or distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to
>give the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or 
>product. Symbolized by an ace of spades, a card traditionally used to
>signify treachery."

Wrong again.  The card in question is the Nine of Diamonds, familiarly
called "The Curse of Scotland" as a consequence of the historical
incident in question.

Obligatory spacey content: has Russia announced any plans for a new
Mars probe to replace the lost Phoboses? (phoboi?).  Given their
engineering attitude, I'd have expected one by now.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 17:00:17 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane mailing list--where is it?

In article <8199@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
> 
> 	What happened to the spaceplane mailing list?  Is it defunct?
> I received one startup message stating the list existed and requested
> that I confirm reception, which I did.  Since then I've heard nothing.
> I tried sending mail to Norman but received no answer.  So, what
> happened?  Have I "fallen off" of it, or did it quietly disappear?
> 
The summary line says it all.  Recently, I have had scads of problems with
my mail software (and the whole blasted system, for that matter!!!).  Seems
the system has been doing its yo-yo act--up, down, up,....
I'm trying to keep the list going, but it's rather trying under these
circumstances.  

YES!  The dream is alive.
YES!  I want to see something done, and be a part of doing it!
YES!  I'm still here.
YES!  I'm working on solving the problems I had.
YES!  You should be receiving all the backlisted updates soon.

Thanks for your patience.  


**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 19:22:10 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick!inmos!conor@uunet.uu.net  (Conor O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Upcoming Launches

In article <217@opus.NMSU.EDU> dbirnbau@nmsu.edu (David "Mephisto" Birnbaum) writes:
>Can anyone tell me how to find out a launch schedule for June at Kennedy
>Space Center?  I'll be in Florida from June 1 to 4, and I'd like to see a 
>launch if at all possible.

Ditto for the end of June and beginning of July.


-- 
Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd. JANET:    conor@inmos.co.uk
Disclaimer: All views are my own,         UUCP:     uunet!inmos!conor
            not those of INMOS.           INTERNET: @col.hp.com:conor@inmos-c

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 21:47:55 GMT
From: vygr!mae@sun.com  (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO})
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

Er...Pardon the dumb question, but what is the use of the 
crosswind tests?


# mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-04
"I'd rather sniff French shit for 5 years then eat
Chinese shit the rest of my life"  -Ho Chi Minh-

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 09 May 89 17:49:00 EDT
From: Chip Dawes <R3CGD%AKRONVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Life, the Universe and Everything

Hi There,

     Let me breifly introduce myself before I say goodbye.  I'm Chip Dawes.  I'
ve been listening in this semester while I've been student teaching.  Bitnet wa
s just opened to the students at Akron U and this has been my first experience
on the nets.
     I applaud you on your foreward thought.  Both the Nasa supporters and bash
ers seem to have the same thought in mind despite the fact that they disagree o
n how to accomplish it.  As a Non-techie I enjoyed the look at how engineers an
d (non-life) scientists think.
     Before I go, I wanted to tell you a bit of what I've experienced over the
semester.  As I have student taught, I have seen the effects of the lack of mot
ivation and the lack of independant thought have had on the experience of high
school students.  I ask you to remember that for every person like you there ar
e thousands of people who do not understand the importance of the projects that
 you work on.  Unfortunately, in an alleged democracy these are the people who
are makeing the decisions via their votes.
     I wish you luck as you try to solve the problems that face your dream.  I
urge you to put down your separate adgendas and organize so that something cons
tructive can be done despite the long odds that the government and the electora
te have decreed.  I'll be seeing you...


                                             Chip Dawes

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 19:36:13 GMT
From: aablue!jb@uunet.uu.net  (John B Scalia)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <1989May5.174333.21132@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
writes:
>[mucho deletions]
>
>Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747.  (Note:  not even
>borrowed money, *its own* money.)  And did the same thing again with
>$2 billion for the 757 and 767.  Airliners have payback periods somewhat
>longer than three months.  Nobody has yet mounted a takeover attempt.
>
>Boeing actually is a good bet for a company that just might get into the
>space business.  It's been interested for a long time.  And it has money...
>(The current price of a 747 is $100M+.  The profit margin is reputed to be
>25% or more.  The airlines would dearly love to see a competitor for the
>747, but none is in sight, so Boeing has a captive market.  747s are
>selling like crazy; Boeing is building them as fast as it can.)  Remember
>that they (with Hughes) offered to build the Jarvis heavylift booster out
>of their own pockets, if NASA and the USAF would guarantee a market.

True, Henry. However, and I believe the Boeing people could respond to this,
the 747 series was originally designed for a DOD request for a large troop/
cargo carrier. Boeing lost to the C-5 design. Essentially, they were then
stuck with a huge craft which most knowledgable aircraft people predicted
would be a white elephant in the commercial sector. Obviously, these
people were wrong. Thus, Boeing didn't design it for altruistic reasons.
The 757 & 767 were designed in response to Boeing's internal marketing
surveys and in response to the tremdous demand by nearly all the world's
airlines for improved, quieter, more fuel efficient, etc., versions of
their imminently successful 727 & 737 series.

Yours and other postings here reflect the nature that all of us "commercial"
as opposed to "academic" types have to deal in: IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS
WE HAVE TO MAKE MONEY AT IT! Given a rich, untapped market that some
company could exploit which its competitors cannot (at least as well),
guarantees this activity. Prove to me that I can make money there, and
obviously a whole lot of money, and I'll race to the bank to arrange
my products and people being there.

-- 
A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio +1 216 794-8803 voice
UUCP:	   {uunet!}aablue!jb	Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
FidoNet:   1:157/697		wants to spend their life in an institution.
EchoNet:   US:OH/AKR.0

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 May 1989 16:22-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #419

> afterlife in dimension 5 that Zzyzzybalubah has prepared for you.
> And if you don't get the message, we're going to roast the whole planet."

Which I only wish I could consdier this humorous. Unfortuneately the
Cretins and Muslins did essentially this to their "worlds". Maybe the
aliens are here and their trying to keep our blood thirsty religions
quarantined...

						Hail Eris!
						Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 May 89 04:00:15 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1
follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 13:35:34 GMT
From: att!cbnews!nak@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Neil A. Kirby)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <15988@bellcore.bellcore.com> ddavey@grits.UUCP (Doug Davey) writes:
>In article <1989May8.033250.18780@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

[Henry suggests that Enterprise be used for more tests]

>
>The 747 that was used for the drop tests is the same one that is
>used to ferry the orbiters from Edwards to KSC.  Currently, there is
>only one such specially modified 747 in existence.  It is therefore
>one of the single points of failure for the entire shuttle system.

    And there are four (oops, no, three) launch capable Orbiters.  And only
    one place to launch them from.  With any activity there is risk and
    expense.  Rather than test a $2.2G orbiter durring rentry, lets risk a
    museum piece and the 747.  For what another orbiter costs, you could
    almost buy Boeing (well not quite).

>Without it, shuttles don't get ferried and the system stops.

    Boeing, who is under market pressure to be quick and efficient, can
    probably turn out another modified 747 way before the board of inquery
    for any accident meets, much less decides anything.  I know that they
    have long lead times, but if they have space in their delivery
    schedules they could bump one up the pipeline.  

>I hope NASA uses it only for missions that it alone can carry out.

    Like dropping the Enterprise in flight tests.

>Since there is at least a possibility of doing crosswind landings
>and/or hard surface braking tests each time the orbiters land, without
>risking the 747, it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until
>a second ferry vehicle is available.

    So this gives us say 4-6 tests per year?  How often did Enterprise fly?
    Once a week?  Once a month?

    Let's do the thing that the Russians do so well - use what we have.
    Enterprise is PAID FOR.  Let it go back to work.

    Neil Kirby
    ...cbsck!nak

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #428
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 May 89 11:35:32 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01395>; Fri, 12 May 89 08:22:42 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 12 May 89 08:22:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYOeLP200jZdI0oU4z>;
          Fri, 12 May 89 05:37:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.AYOe78y00UkZ9Y4k46>;
          Fri, 12 May 89 05:20:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <sYOe47600UkZFY3E53@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 12 May 89 05:16:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #429

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 429

Today's Topics:
		   Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
			  Re: SETI question
Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
			Re: Citizens in Space
	   Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE
	      Re: Spaceplane mailing list--where is it?
	    Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?
	    Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 21:20:08 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

In article <890507.00035565.022098@RMC.CP6> EDWARDJ@RMC.BITNET writes:
>... Could someone with the technical know-how build a
>useful satellite out of components bought at the local Radio Shack
>and hardware store? ...

Yes, it can be done, especially if you do not insist on the thing being
able to run ten years without maintenance or working 100% the first time.
(Unfortunately, the high costs and limited schedule of current launches
strongly push you in that direction.)

>... Do not subject the equipment
>to excessive vibration - more of a problem with our hypothetical
>space probe.

Vibration and acceleration during launch are an issue, although not too
severe.  Human beings, after all, ride those things with no problem.

>     What about heat - the cooling fan in my PC wouldn't be much
>use in a vacuum. How do you control the temperature of electronics
>in space, to prevent them from overheating? How do you tell
>whether they are in danger of overheating? ...

Cooling *is* a problem.  Rumor hath it that some of the Soviet satellites
simply are pressurized with cooling fans inside.  This does simplify life.
The alternative is to use conduction cooling, with things like "cold rails"
carrying heat out by contact.  The way you tell is by modelling and (if
you have the chance) vacuum-chamber testing on Earth, assuming that you
don't have the chance to fly multiple attempts.  It's non-trivial.

>... What kind of radiation fields and
>particle fluxes would you encounter in LEO? Clark orbit? Wherever
>Magellan is at the moment? How would you deal with them?

LEO, nothing terribly serious, especially if you're in a low-inclination
orbit away from the South Atlantic Anomaly (an area where the inner Van
Allen belt is especially close to Earth).  Clarke orbit, fairly significant
because it is in the fringes of the outer Van Allen belt.  In-between
orbits are still worse, which is why you don't see them used much.
Interplanetary space, not very serious unless a major solar flare occurs.
Near encounters with Jupiter, the less said the better. :-) :-)

As for how you deal with them, basically you use radiation-hardened
components (which are available commercially but at scandalous prices),
try to select off-the-shelf parts which are fairly radiation-resistant,
provide redundancy when possible, and occasionally shield crucial items
a bit.  Basically, any useful overall shielding is too heavy, so the
electronics just has to sit there and take it.


The primary amateur satellite folks, so far, are the radio amateurs,
who have built and operated a dozen or so satellites quite successfully.
There have been little bits of interest from other groups, so far with
no actual flying hardware to speak of.  There was a bunch called the
Independent Space Research Group that was planning an Amateur Space
Telescope (on a smaller scale than the HST!); haven't heard how they're
doing lately.  There has been persistent talk about an Amateur Lunar
Polar Orbiter, as the mission doesn't seem significantly harder than
putting an amateur comsat in Clarke orbit and the payoff (to science
and to people interested in lunar bases and colonies) would be high.
The World Space Foundation has been working, slowly, on a prototype
solar-sail test spacecraft.  There are others.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 18:19:01 GMT
From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net  (John E Van Deusen III)
Subject: Re: SETI question

In article <1944@blake.acs.washington.edu> (Eric Gorr) writes:
> I was just wondering...we are pumping all kinds of money into seti
> research and I was wondering what extra is comming out of it.

I recently saw a discussion on CNN between Carl Sagan and Ted Turner.
Dr. Sagan said that SETI is 100% privately funded, primarily by the
Planetary Society.  In his opinion we were not getting much for the
money that we are pumping into SDI.  Dr. Sagan wanted to know why the
media did not expose SDI as a fraud; especially the way it was, and
still is, being sold to the public.  Mr. Turner made the observation
that it is impossible for a television station owner not to become rich,
so the media always represents the point of view of the wealthy.
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865

uunet!visdc!jiii

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 03:13:02 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpcllmv!jbc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jeff Caldwell)
Subject: Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)

>     Lockheed is teamed with Aerojet Space Booster Co., 
>Sacramento, Calif., as its principal subcontractor on the ASRM 
>program, and Rust International, Birmingham, Ala., as its facility contractor.
              ^^^^

Pretty scary name if you ask me.  Are they subcontracting out to Corrosion
Products Inc. and Deterioration Development also?:->

		Jeff Caldwell

Disclaimer: The opinions presented herein are my own and by no means are 
            those of my employer.  My opinions are also better than yours.

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 05:15:04 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!leibniz!schow@rutgers.edu  (Stanley Chow)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <575@aablue.UUCP> jb@aablue.UUCP (John B Scalia) writes:
>In article <1989May5.174333.21132@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
>writes:
>>[mucho deletions]
>>
>>Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747.  (Note:  not even
>>borrowed money, *its own* money.)  And did the same thing again with
>>$2 billion for the 757 and 767. 
>
>True, Henry. However, and I believe the Boeing people could respond to this,
>the 747 series was originally designed for a DOD request for a large troop/
>cargo carrier. Boeing lost to the C-5 design. Essentially, they were then
>stuck with a huge craft which most knowledgable aircraft people predicted
>would be a white elephant in the commercial sector. Obviously, these
>people were wrong. Thus, Boeing didn't design it for altruistic reasons.

I am sure Henry will correct you, but I so rarely get to post on this
group :-)

Boeing designed the 747 for long-haul pessanger traffic. As I understand
it, the 747 was designed more or less to spec. for PanAm.

This, of course, does not make it any more "altruistic". Boeing fully
intended to make money from the 747 (or any other plane it has ever made).
But, why is that a problem? Isn't that the American way?

If there is enough traffic (space traffic, that is), I am sure Boeing will
be happy to invest billions of dollars on a launch vehicle. The only question
is: How much traffic will there be? How soon will the traffic develope? How
much is it worth to the world?

If you answer little, long time, little to those questions, then of course
neither Boeing nor any other company will invest. On the other hand, there
are people who answer the questions differently.


Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
BNR		    UUCP:    ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
(613) 763-2831		     ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public
I am just a small cog in a big machine. I don't represent nobody.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 17:17:34 GMT
From: asuvax!anasaz!scott@noao.edu  (Scott Gibson)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space

In article <18554@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU> gjuy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Andrew D Williams) writes:
>one of the things they stress here is our professionallism.  I was appaled
>at the Challenger incident.  First because it happened at all but more
>importantly at the fact that the family of the officers were sueing the
>government.  I am sorry but that is wrong.  I am going to make a pledge to

I, too, was appalled and astounded that anyone could be surprised that
space flight is *dangerous*.

>attention) The fact that the families of the officers, sworn to the country
>sued shows that there is no way that there is no way we should put (pardon
>me) normal citizens into space.  Not yet.  All of Matt's arguements about

The fact that lawsuits are possible is certainly a concern; however, I
don't follow your argument.  You state that because families of MILITARY
OFFICERS sued, then CIVILIANS should be prohibitted from space.  It
would seem that military family attitudes have changed dramatically
since the days of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo - they now more closely match
those of their civilian counterparts (remember that civilian test pilots
were included in the original space program).

It seems clear that what is needed is an understanding on everybodies'
part that the space program is a dangerous undertaking, regardless
of whether it's NASA or a private enterprise, or who (if anyone) is
participating.  And to (hopefully) hold off the proponents of unmanned
space exploration:  *Everyone* should be able to see that the goal
of even the unmanned program is to eventually put people (military/
civilian) in space.

I applaud your sentiments regarding the lawsuits.  I personally feel
that if NASA had asked for more volunteers for a launch the day after
the Challenger incident, they would have had no problem filling
shuttle seats with enthusiastic space travellers.

Scott

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 18:41:24 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE

>When you are counting the cost of putting a person into space, you can not
>count the costs that would be incured anyway.  For example, there is a certain
>depreciation cost for the use of the SSME and SRB motors, they only last for
>just so many launches, the depreciation would be the cost to develop and build
>the engine / number of expected uses.  These costs are fixed overhead, and 
>(by standard accounting practices) not included in the costs used to make the 
>decision on if the person should fly or not.  Since your going to launch 
>anyway, this extra person is just a leveraged benefit.

Certainly; now justify the decision to send an "ordinary citizen" in place
of an additional mission specialist (or someone else who could really do some
good in that seat), or conversely, extending the mission by the appropriate
amount based on the savings in consumables obtained by NOT sending that Nth
person.  Or the value of sending up an additional 80 kg. or so of payload.

In addition, there WILL be additional costs (beyond consumables) in sending
the "ordinary citizen" into space.  We can expect to incur the cost of
training, outfitting, etc., not to mention whatever liability coverage is
deemed appropriate (legal waivers signed by the volunteer notwithstanding).
These will not be insiginificant, and would be much better spent elsewhere as
opposed to providing a "joy ride."



Bob Myers  KC0EW   HP Graphics Tech. Div.|  Opinions expressed here are not
                   Ft. Collins, Colorado |  those of my employer or any other
{the known universe}!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |  sentient life-form on this planet.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 18:57:39 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane mailing list--where is it?



Ditto.  If the list still exists, I'd like to be on it.

Bob Myers


Please use the following path instead of the one in the header:

myers%hpfcla@hplabs.HP.COM

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 18:18:41 GMT
From: wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU  (Bill Chiarchiaro)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?



This was Project West Ford conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology's Lincoln Laboratory in Lexington, MA.  The current issue
of The Lincoln Laboratory Journal (Spring 1989, Vol. 2, No. 1) has an
article by W. W. Ward and F. W. Floyd about the Lab's 30-year
involvement with space communications, and says the following about
West Ford (I paraphrase):

In August 1958, a series of high-altitude nuclear tests, known as
HARDTACK, was carried out over Johnston Island in the Pacific.  The
first of the thermonuclear explosions disrupted the ionosphere over a
vast area and interrupted many HF radio communications.  This halted
commercial trans-Pacific air transportation.  This raised the question
of how to maintain communications in the face of thermonuclear explosions
(please, no flames...).

Walter Morrow of Lincoln Laboratory (now the Director) and Harold
Meyer from TRW considered this problem during the Army's Project
Barnstable Summer Study in 1958.  They suggested that an orbiting
artificial reflector could replace the ionosphere.  Remember, the
feasibility of placing objects in orbit had just recently been
demonstrated.

Morrow and Meyer suggested a reflector comprising a pair of belts (one
circular polar and one circular equatorial) of resonant scatterers in
orbits a few thousand kilometers high.  The scatterers would be
lengths of wire (dipoles) resonant at the system's frequency of
operation.

Lincoln Laboratory proposed setting up a full-duplex link between Camp
Parks, CA and Westford, MA.  The orbiting dipoles would resonate at
about 8 GHz, and the terminals would transmit at 7.750 GHz and 8.350
GHz.  Each dipole would be #53 AWG copper wire (0.0007-in diameter)
0.7-inch long and would weigh 40 micrograms.  A total of 480 million
dipoles (about 19 kilograms) would be distributed into circular polar
orbits at an altitude of 3,600 kilometers.  The average separation
between dipoles would be about 0.3 kilometer.  The transmitters would
use sixty-foot diameter paraboloidal dishes with 20 kilowatts to 40
kilowatts of average power.  The receivers would have maser front ends
with a system noise temperature of about 60 K.  The modulation would
be multiple-frequency-shift keying using a bandwidth of about 4 MHz.

Lincoln Laboratory realized that there would great controversy over
putting all those dipoles in orbit.  Therefore, the experiment was
designed such that solar radiation pressure would cause the dipole's
orbits to decay within a few years.

Lincoln Laboratory presented the design for Project West Ford in 1960.
It was important to address the concerns of optical and radio
astronomers who believed that the project might interfere with their
observations.  The experiment had originally been called Project
Needles, but even the more benign "West Ford" still raised a clamor on
both sides of the Iron Curtain.  Finally, presidential approval was
given for a bare-minimum test.

On October 21, 1961, the first experiment was launched piggyback on
another payload from Vandenberg AFB, CA into a circular polar orbit.
However, the dipoles did not deploy properly.  A second launch was
carried off on May 8, 1963 and was more successful.  The dipole belt
formed over a period of 40 days with an estimated density of 5 dipoles
per cubic kilometer.  In the early stages of the experiment,
communications at up to 20,000 bits/second were achieved.  By early
1966, essentially all of the dipoles had decayed.  By that time,
active communications satellites were a reality, and no more West Ford
experiments were conducted.


Other References:

	"Project West Ford Issue," Proc. IEEE 52, 449-606 (1964).

	"Project West Ford" in Compendium of Communication and Broadcast
		Satellites - 1958 to 1980 (IEEE, New York, 1981), pp. 299-302.

	D. H. Martin, "West Ford," in Communication Satellites 1958-1988
		(Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA, 1988), pp. 8-9.

	P. Beckmann, Eco-Hysterics and the Technophobes (Golem Press, Boulder,
		CO, 1973), pp. 91-92

	I. I. Shapiro, "Last of the West Ford Dipoles," Science 154,
		1445 (1966).



Bill Chiarchiaro
MIT Lincoln Laboratory

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 17:30:47 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!timothym@uunet.uu.net  (Timothy D Margeson)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?

Well,

One reason could be a third stage explosion :-(

But then, maybe they were afraid of the repeaters that the amatuers had
been hearing?


-- 
Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-022                          @@   'Who said that?'  
Vancouver, WA. 98668
e-mail replies to: timothym@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #429
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 May 89 01:27:47 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04878> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 13 May 89 01:25:14 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 13 May 89 01:25:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8YOuu=i00Ui3Q12k4H>;
          Sat, 13 May 89 00:26:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.oYOuqqy00UkZFdLE5x>;
          Sat, 13 May 89 00:23:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <EYOuoSa00UkZBdJk4Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 13 May 89 00:20:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #430

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 430

Today's Topics:
		       News of the Week, May 11
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
			      Re: Giotto
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
			    Rad hard IC's
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
			Re: Citizens in Space
		   Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
      Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #421
			  Phobos replacement
			Re: Phobos replacement
	    Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #421
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 15:04:30 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of the Week, May 11


Jonathan's Space Report

May 11, 1989 (no. 15)

The space shuttle Atlantis landed at Edwards AFB on the main runway (RW22)
on May 8. 

The Magellan Venus Radar Mapper probe was launched by IUS rocket into solar
orbit on May 5 after its deployment from Atlantis.

A Titan 34D/IUS payload was launched toward geostationary orbit on May 10
from Cape Canaveral; its payload is probably a pair of Phase III Defense
Satellite Communications System (DSCS III) sats. This is the 5th US space
launch of the year.

The second 'Foton' satellite, launched on Apr 26, carries a French
materials processing experiment. It is due to land on May 12.

Kosmos-2019 was launched on May 5; no data yet.

The Kosmos-2017 Vostok-class recon satellite landed on about Apr 20
after 14 days in space.  Kosmos-2005, a long duration recon satellite,
landed on Apr 25, 5 days after being replaced by Kosmos-2018. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 17:12:48 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com!jfcl.dec.com!imokay.dec.com!borsom@decvax.dec.com  (Doug Borsom)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <1989May5.174333.21132@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747.  (Note:  not even
>borrowed money, *its own* money.)  And did the same thing again with
>$2 billion for the 757 and 767.  Airliners have payback periods somewhat
>longer than three months.  Nobody has yet mounted a takeover attempt.
>
While this refutes the statement in the posting Henry was replying to, it
shouldn't make anyone optimistic about the prospects of Boeing or any
other private company spending billions (or semi-billions) on projects 
for which the market prospects are *very* questionable.  Compared with
the payback chances for a space plane or shuttle-type vehicle, the
chances for the 7(456)7 were a sure thing.  

Boeing and the rest are going to invest big bucks only if they believe 
there's a good chance they'll make bigger bucks.

Of course I could be wrong.  That must be why Boeing, McD-Douglas, and
Lockheed all build commercial supersonic transports.

>....  Remember
>that they (with Hughes) offered to build the Jarvis heavylift booster out
>of their own pockets, if NASA and the USAF would guarantee a market.
>....

How daring of them. This usage badly stretches the notion of a privately 
funded space program. Did Boeing demand a similar market guarantee from the 
airline companies when it developed the 7(456)7?

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 15:34:34 GMT
From: jarthur!jokim@uunet.uu.net  (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Giotto

In article <1959@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>
>Giotto will use the Earth's gravity during its close approach
>on July 2, 1990 to alter its course to intercept comet
>Grigg-Skellerup on July 10, 1992.

I heard some (*gag*) press reports that they were going to recover
Giotto and check out some neat Halley's Comet samples that it got
sandblasted with.  Is this true (eventually?)
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU | think of something very clever 
uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim  | to use as a disclaimer)

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 15:18:38 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!briar.philips.com!rfc@uunet.uu.net  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something)
and was not flightworthy.  Any truth to this?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 May 1989 16:34-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Rad hard IC's

Harris makes them.

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 16:28:38 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <575@aablue.UUCP> jb@aablue.UUCP (John B Scalia) writes:
>>Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747...
>
>the 747 series was originally designed for a DOD request for a large troop/
>cargo carrier. Boeing lost to the C-5 design. Essentially, they were then
>stuck with a huge craft...

Partially true.  The design originated as the C-5's competitor.  However,
on losing that competition, the billion dollars got invested to turn that
military airlifter into a civilian airliner -- not a small job, and not
a trivial set of changes.  You can still see the airlifter in some overall
aspects of the design, notably the overhead flight deck -- to leave the
nose clear for cargo doors -- but the resemblance isn't that close any more.

>...Thus, Boeing didn't design it for altruistic reasons.

Boeing doesn't design *anything* for altruistic reasons!

>... Prove to me that I can make money there, and
>obviously a whole lot of money, and I'll race to the bank to arrange
>my products and people being there.

The problem with space is the "prove" part.  In the absence of something
like the air-mail subsidies that got aviation going, profits from space
look very uncertain and very speculative.  Boeing (for example) does have
billions to throw around if it wants to, but it can't spend them without
being able to make a fairly good case that profits will probably ensue.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 21:51:34 GMT
From: vygr!mae@sun.com  (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO})
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

There was an item on Boeing last night on Lehrer/MacNeil.

Boeing currently has a $70 Billion dollar backlog of planes
ordered. This is over 500 planes. Boeing has over 60%
of the market for commercial aircraft.

Boeing can produce 1 aircraft per day. 

So at ~ 140 Million per plane, Boeing will make 
$35M per plane(25% profit), times 365 planes per year, is
12 Billion dollars. Profit.

(I might have got the backlog number wrong).
# mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-04
"I'd rather sniff French shit for 5 years then eat
Chinese shit the rest of my life"  -Ho Chi Minh-

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 23:37:04 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space

In response to a posting of mine, Mike Van Pelt makes the point that the
engineers who said no launch were overruled by their mangements, not NASA.
So, sue Morton Fireball (which I think they did.)  Keith Henson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 May 89 13:07:35 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?


>Subject: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
>Could someone with the technical know-how build a
>useful satellite out of components bought at the local Radio Shack
>and hardware store? 
>(Remember, for the purposes of this exercise, you aren't NASA, you
>are J.Doe, building your own space probe. We'll leave aside for
>the moment the problems and costs of actually launching the thing)
>Jeremy Edward
>EDWARDJ@RMC

There's a wide range in the reliability/price tradeoff between what NASA
and the military do and what you can do with off-the-shelf Radio Shack
parts. With a little care and a slight increase in cost, you can greatly
increase the probability that your satellite/probe will work properly,
which makes a lot of sense when you consider launch costs and your 
investment of time.

  - The environmental conditions most likely to be a problem are vacuum,
    extreme temperatures, and thermal cycling. Find out what components are
    most likely to survive the expected conditions, by asking or by 
    experimentation. This can be especially critical for components such
    as batteries and electrolytic capacitors. The shock of takeoff is
    another factor which the completed structure of your device must be
    able to withstand.

  - If your design uses TTL digital logic, using 54-series parts is not
    much more expensive than using 74-series chips, and greatly extends
    the rated temperature range (some thermal protection may still be 
    required). Other technologies may be even better. A wide assortment of
    parts are available through mail order or from local distributors.

  - Good radiation hardness is difficult to achieve without specially-selected
    parts. Some circuit technologies are more resistant to radiation effects
    than others (I forgot which ones).

  - Consider using other techniques for reliable system design (redundancy,
    safety interlocks (an amateur satellite design a few years ago forgot 
    about that), diagnostics, status reports, reset capability, etc.)

  - Remember which parts of the satellites work well, for inclusion in future
    designs.
                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 11:39:53 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!acorn!ixi!clive@uunet.uu.net  (Clive)
Subject: Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)

In article <394@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>Arthur C. Clarke's book "Rendezvous with Rama" postulated that Earth needed to
>be warned about approaching meteorites after several near-misses such as those
>described above.
It wasn't a near miss. After the hit, there was no more Venice.
-- 
Clive D.W. Feather           clive@ixi.uucp
IXI Limited                  ...!mcvax!ukc!ixi!clive (riskier)
                             +44 223 462 131

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 May 1989 11:17-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #421

> dedicated their entire lives to.  Just another indicator of what a sick, 
> litiguous society this can be.

Should I ever be so lucky as to fly in space, I intend to add a clause
to my will that states that anyone who sues anything involved with
space gets zilch. And maybe I'd even add a letter damning them to
eternal hell fires and promising to haunt them for going against my
deepest beliefs. (@i(I) may not believe in such supernatural claptrap, but
maybe I'd make the guilty one(s) lose sleep the rest of their lives!)

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 15:54:48 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Phobos replacement

In article <3344@bd.sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>Obligatory spacey content: has Russia announced any plans for a new
>Mars probe to replace the lost Phoboses? (phoboi?).  Given their
>engineering attitude, I'd have expected one by now.

Advance peek at AW&ST:  there has been discussion of launching the third
Phobos, previously earmarked as a ground test article, in either the next
launch window (1990) or the one after (1992).

It's pleasant to see that the Soviets are willing to consider using such
hardware when it can no longer be of use to the original mission(s).
The Smithsonian is full of the US equivalent, notably Viking 3 and
Voyager 3.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 22:43:05 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Phobos replacement

Henry Spencer writes:
> [speculation about Soviets using 3rd Phobos probe]
> It's pleasant to see that the Soviets are willing to consider using such
> hardware when it can no longer be of use to the original mission(s).
> The Smithsonian is full of the US equivalent, notably Viking 3 and
> Voyager 3.

Ahh..back to *that* subject again! :-)

There is a *slight* difference though; both the Viking and Voyager easily
accomplished their primary missions, and more. But if the money had been
available, those extra missions could have been quite interesting...landing
the Viking lander in an area deemed unsafe for the first two, or flying
the Voyager on some very interesting but potentially hazardous Jupiter
fly-by, for instance. Ahh...dreaming is free!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 15:50:50 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?

In article <8905091523.AA01568@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@renoir.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
> (1963)   The U.S. Air Force launches 400 million tiny copper needles
>          into Earth orbit, despite protests they might play havoc with
>          radio and optical astronomical observations. 

It was an experiment at producing a radio reflector (sort of a passive
comsat) that would be effectively indestructible.  Basically didn't work.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:    Wed, 10 May 89 08:38 EDT
From: BJ Backitis (656-3799)               <FRANKB%CLEMSON.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
         (Information Systems Development)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #421


>
> Date: 7 May 89 22:20:21 GMT
> From: blake!wiml@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (William Lewis)
> Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
>
> (some stuff deleted)
>
>     Seems to me I remember an article about this in a magazine a while back,
> maybe a year or 8 months ago. It covered some people who built satellites
> on their own. The satellites were called OSCAR ### (i.e., OSCAR 1, OSCAR 2,
> and so on) They were launched in extra spaces of boosters being used for
> other purposes (communications satellites) and so they didn't have much
> choice about the orbits. However, the article said that many were operating
> at the time it was written. I forget what theyw were geing used as.
>
> ------------------------------
>
OSCAR stands for Orbital Sattelites Carrying Amateur Radio, and are
funded and built thru private concerns.  It is thru organizations such
as AMSAT-NA here in the US, plus other similiar ones in other countries,
that small communications sattelites are placed into orbit for use by
Amateur Radio Operators (i.e., Hams).  The original ones were in LEO,
are a number still are (FUJI-OSCAR 12, launched by Japan, and RS-10/11
launched by the Soviets), whiles others are in highly elliptical orbits
with apogees approaching near-geosynch orbital heights.  If I am not
mistaken, these sattelites have been built and launched without using
any Government funding.

************************************************************************
* Frank J. "BJ" Backitis, Jr.     * Disclaimer: My views are shared by *
* Information Systems Development * over 1 million inebraited tribbles *
* Clemson University, Clemson SC  * _________________________________  *
* FRANKB@CLEMSON.BITNET or        * Ham Radio Operators Do It With     *
* DISD@HUBCAP.CLEMSON.EDU         * More Frequency -- de KM4RB         *
************************************************************************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #430
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 May 89 05:44:27 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00596> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 13 May 89 05:39:02 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 13 May 89 05:38:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0YOxSZG00UkTI1MkJS>;
          Sat, 13 May 89 03:22:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.cYOxP1y00UkZJdc05t>;
          Sat, 13 May 89 03:18:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <EYOxNy600UkZNdaU4R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 13 May 89 03:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #431

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 431

Today's Topics:
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
			 Re: Magellan update
			 BITNET mail follows
			      Re: memes
			spaceplane propulsion
		       Re: more 747 drop tests?
			    Wyoming Bolide
			  Re: Wyoming Bolide
	    Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?
		      Re: spaceplane propulsion
	   Re: Private spending for space science (summary)
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 18:55:11 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

>>...simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
>>"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
>>most certainly do NOT have at present)...

>Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
>the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
>offered as an argument against private citizens in space.  Of course it's
>not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?


I should reiterate that the "safety argument" is NOT my basic objection to the
"ordinary citizen in space".  My objection is solely due to a belief that such
flights cannot be justified either in monetary cost or in the terms of putting
the "ordinary citizen" in space instead of a more qualified specialist (and
THAT really boils down to monetary cost, anyway!).  

However, many of those who are lined up for the chance to get in to space
have all the appearances of kids itching for that first spin in the car
without Dad in the right seat.  They're the "joy riders", who have no
reason or justification at all for *why* they should go to space, they just
wanna "do it."  In their cases, we should wait until United Airlines is
offering children's discounts on orbital trips.  This is NOT a blanket
condemnation of those who want to travel to space; as mentioned in my original
posting, I would definitely love the opportunity, but cannot presently
give any justification for my travelling to orbit.  I admit that I'd be a
"joy rider" myself - but I also voluntarily take myself out of the line for 
that very reason.


Bob Myers            | "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the 
{the known universe} |  will to find out, which is the exact opposite."      
!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |          - Bertrand Russell, _Sceptical_Essays_, 1928.

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 16:16:31 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com!jfcl.dec.com!imokay.dec.com!borsom@decvax.dec.com  (Doug Borsom)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

Can anyone tell me what advantages were gained by launching Magellan
from the space shuttle?  Is there any (nonpolitical) reason why
Magellan couldn't have been launched by an expendable (assuming
we had some) vehicle?

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 09:39-GMT
From: 67372111%NMSUVM1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject: BITNET mail follows

Subject: Re: More 747 Drop Tests?

In Vol 9., Issue 422 (10th May), Doug Davey (grits|ddavey@belcore.com) writes:
 writes:
>In article <1989May8.033250.18780@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
> writes:
>> ...Radical, innovative thought: if they want landing and braking tests, why
>> not dust off Enterprise and run some more 747 drop tests?...
>...
>... commmentary on 747 as critical point in testing...
>...
>Since there is at least a possibility of doing crosswind landings
>and/or hard surface braking tests each time the orbiters land, without
>risking the 747, it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until
>a second ferry vehicle is available.

A related question - how consistent has NASA been in upgrading the steering
and braking systems of Enterprise?  I was under the impression that this
was a continuous process, starting with major modifications to Columbia
in the 1983 - 84 time frame (remember when she just kind of "dissapeared"
for a while?).

Would it be feasible for NASA to upgrade Enterprise with the new braking
steering upgrades?  It would seem to me that they would have to make a
judgement call between the added cost and the extra margin of safety
that additional drop testing would allow.

              --Bruce A. Tankleff  <67372111@NMSUVM1>
                New Mexico State University
                Las Cruces, NM, USA

Disclaimer:  My mom thinks I ran down to the 7-11 3 years ago to get
             a gallon of milk.  Please don't tell her otherwise...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 May 89 12:17:52 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: memes


It seems to me that the concept of the "meme" is similar to the concept
of the Petri net: an unconventional approach used in an attempt to model
complex systems. The question is whether this approach is useful in obtaining
a simpler or more accurate model than is available from conventional methods.

The meme model seems to be an attempted mapping of the behavior and propagation
of ideas to the behavior and propagation of living organisms. I suspect that
some of the more outlandish operations of ideas, such as the fusion of
numerous well-developed ideas to form a new product, are such that finding an 
exact biological analogy would be stretching things quite a bit. One can
suppose, therefore, that a reasonable model for memes would have to be based
mostly on its own set of internal rules rather than an exact biological analogy.

Even when this is done, the model of a meme must be very complex in order to
produce a good model of human thought and behavior. There are many different
kinds and even classes of ideas that can be spread from person to person,
among which are:

- factual statements of existing conditions
- factual statements of past events
- speculations
- well-founded rumors
- poorly-founded rumors
- principles/ideals
- methods/techniques
- personal impressions
- prejudices/opinions
- lies/fiction

These different types of ideas behave in different ways, and have different
kinds of influence on the host humans and on other ideas. In addition, the
model must be "stretched" to include the various methods of propagation.
I suppose a book would be a collection of "dormant" memes. (How about
encrypted text for which the key is missing?) Does a piece of information
being processed by a computer count as a meme? Also remember that a meme
will "mutate" just about every time it propagates through a human. If
intelligent aliens exist (to return to the original topic), there must be
some reasonable model for their reaction to memes.

My question is not whether the concept of memes can be used to form a
model of the spread and application of ideas, but whether such a model
would be of any actual use, for predicting future events or for some
other application, which it can handle better than conventional methods.
                                      John Roberts
                                      roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 12:43:51 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: spaceplane propulsion

Ramjet vs rocket? Ramjet sounds great but from what's been said on the
net, high mach numbers bring on very tricky engine issues. Couldn't a
hybrid be built in which oxidizer injection is gradually increased as
altitude and speed begin to cause combustion problems? Eventually the
intake ports are closed and the motors are straight liquid fuel rocket
motors. (Don't the Russkies use kerosene in liquid rocket motors?) The
oxidizer doesn't begin to be consumed until most of the atmosphere is
behind you. Also you've made good use of atmospheric oxygen on the way
up (from air launch to start the ramjets and get above of the real
muck.) You avoid the really exotic realms by moving to well known
rocket technology as you begin to leave the well understood envelope
in ramjet technology.

Can you get really cheap air launch by dropping from a B52 or 747 and
diving this slippery little devil to reach ramjet ignition speeds?

jim
symon@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 15:51:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

In article <103946@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> mae@sun.UUCP (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO}) writes:
>Er...Pardon the dumb question, but what is the use of the 
>crosswind tests?

Establishing how well the shuttle lands in crosswinds.  This is of some
importance for using the runway at KSC, since it frequently has crosswinds.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 10 May 89 08:21:02 EST
From: Morven Wilson <MWILSON%RYERSON.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Wyoming Bolide

     Several people have asked for details of a bolide (bright meteor)
seen over the Teton range in western Wyoming a few years ago.
     You can find a picture of it (streaking across the sky) in the
National Geographic's book "Our Universe" (published in 1980, and again
in 1986; author Roy Gallant).  The picture is on page 148 in the 1986
edition, and about the same page in the original edition.
     The bolide is estimated at 1000 tons, 10m in diameter, 60Km altitude,
and travelling at 15Km per second.  It was seen and photographed by
several people, and a an amateur movie clip was shown on TV some years ago.
     The picture shows little more than a bright head and a long trail, but
it's enough to make you pause and think what might have happened if the
orbit/trajectory had been even slightly different.
     (PS: the book is intended for kids ... but it's still worth browsing!).

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 19:53:03 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Wyoming Bolide

In article <Added.EYO2heC00Ui304pk8t@andrew.cmu.edu> MWILSON@RYERSON.BITNET (Morven Wilson) writes:
>The bolide is estimated at 1000 tons, ...
>and travelling at 15Km per second.  

Quick calculation, kinetic energy = 1/2 mv^2, I get about
10^14 J.  About 23 kilotons if it had hit, about the
energy released by the Hiroshima bomb.
-- 
"I hate trolls.  Maybe I could metamorph it into    | Mike Van Pelt
 something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed,     | Video 7
 fire-breathing dragon."  -- Willow.                | ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 14:39:29 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nather@husc6.harvard.edu  (Ed Nather)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?

In article <580@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>, sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
> klaes@renoir.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
> >  (1963)   The U.S. Air Force launches 400 million tiny copper needles
> >           into Earth orbit, despite protests they might play havoc with
> >           radio and optical astronomical observations. 
> 
> Passive radio reflector, along similar lines to the "Echo" mylar "balloon"
> satellites.
> -- 

The "Echo" mylar balloon was used for a short time as a passive reflector and
it worked (sort of) but got punctured by dust grains (meteorites) and turned
from a sphere into a potato chip.  The microwave receiver built to detect
signals bounced off of it became "surplus" and was later used by Penzias and
Wilson to detect the 3 degree microwave background radiation -- residue of the
cosmic fireball from the Big Bang.

-- 
Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 21:31:36 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@rutgers.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: spaceplane propulsion

In article <8088@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
>Can you get really cheap air launch by dropping from a B52 or 747 and
>diving this slippery little devil to reach ramjet ignition speeds?

Why not just use conventional jets to get up to altitude, then power
dive straight down to ignite the ramjets?

(It would make for an exciting ride, at least :-)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 18:55:58 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science (summary)

In article <1989May9.104445.4142@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Actually, such a project has already been funded, and points up the
>problems with private efforts.  The Spacewatch telescope in Arizona
>was (is?) getting funds from the Planetary Society...

Credit Where Credit Is Due Dept.:  it is all too seldom acknowledged
(especially by the Planetary Society!) that private funding of this effort
was started by the World Space Foundation, with the Planetary Society
joining later.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 20:39:56 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdke!rbk@hplabs.hp.com  (Richard Katz)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

-Two, I think she understood the risks fully.  During her training, she was
-taught about the various aborts that were possible; abort on pad (get the
-hell out of the shuttle...), RTLS, AOA, ATO...you get the picture.  Somehow,
-I think she got the picture that things *could* go wrong.  I feel sure she
-knew the risks and was willing to accept them.
        

-On the contrary, I think shuttle crew probably know better than anyone, what 
-risks they are taking. ...


-Is that really important?  I wonder if good old Chris Colombus got any
-estimates of his chances of success before he charged off?  At some
-point in life, people have to take responsibility for their actions.  She
-CERTAINLY had enough information available to her to make a decision. Can
-you imagine a test pilot's family suing the government because he wasn't 
-shown a metallurgical report about a rivet contained in his airplane  that
-caused a catastrophic failure?  ...
-   ...           They may not know ALL of the risks, no one EVER does, but
-they do know that what they are doing is dangerous, and THEY have made the
-decision (not their lawyers).
        If it was known that there was a problem with the rivet, and
        that fact was concealed from the pilot/commander of the
        aircraft for political gain, I see nothing wrong with seeking
        compensation.  This is not a risk taken by a pilot testing an
        aircraft.  It would be a risk taken by the "manager."  The
        gain would be "meeting schedule," and the cost would be the
        pilot's life.  The parallel to the challenger is clear.
        Manager's made the decision about the risk, not the
        astronauts. 




        I think that the above opinions are confusing two issues, so
        I'll add my two cents.  The manned space program, and the
        shuttle program in particular, has rules governing the design,
        test, operation, certification, etc. for the entire program.
        Indeed, this is one factor that makes manned space flight very
        expensive.

        Even with the best of engineering and diligence on the part of
        all personnel, there is the risk of an _accident_ as a result
        of the unforseen or mistake.  It happens.  If this was indeed
        the case, then I agree, there would be no basis for lawsuits,
        etc.  Test pilots take these risks as well as astronauts.  It
        is part of the job.

        However, the Challenger disaster was not an accident.  There
        were many things wrong.  First, the SRB's were not qualified
        to the shuttle system's design temperature.  Maybe someone out
        there could state how this "fell through the cracks."  Flight
        hardware should be designed and tested to assure that it meets
        the operational requirements with margin.  Arguing about it
        the night before a launch is ludicrous.  I doubt that the
        shuttle astronauts and passengers were aware that the SRBs
        were not qualified.

        Second, there was a known (to some) problem with the SRBs.
        The astronauts were unaware of this, too.  Also, flying with
        this problem required a waiver.  Signing the waiver allowed
        the launch to be attempted.  So again, the assumptions about
        the risks were not valid.  The shuttle didn't meet the
        "advertised requirements."

        If the crew was aware of all the signed waivers, then ok, it
        was a concious decision to take the risks.  If not, then their
        families actions are justified, the courts can decide the
        issue according to law, and hopefully this will cause people
        to think about "breaking the rules" for political gain.

        rich katz
        hewlett packard
        p o box 7050
        colorado springs, co
        80933-7050

        email: rbk@hpctdlb.hp.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #431
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 May 89 06:54:18 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01004> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 13 May 89 06:50:58 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 13 May 89 06:50:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8YOzCke00UkTE1Rk4n>;
          Sat, 13 May 89 05:21:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.4YOz==y00UkZBdmk4T>;
          Sat, 13 May 89 05:18:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YOz-0G00UkZBdlE5U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 13 May 89 05:16:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #432

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 432

Today's Topics:
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
		  using Enterprise for braking tests
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
		       Re: more 747 drop tests?
			 Re: Magellan update
			 Re: Magellan update
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
			Re: Phobos replacement
			Re: Citizens in Space
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
			    Re: Semiotics
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 20:22:09 GMT
From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <3880008@hpctdke.HP.COM> rbk@hpctdke.HP.COM (Richard Katz) writes:
			stuff deleted
|        If it was known that there was a problem with the rivet, and
|        that fact was concealed from the pilot/commander of the
|        aircraft for political gain, I see nothing wrong with seeking
|        compensation.  
|			stuff deleted
|        I think that the above opinions are confusing two issues, so
|        I'll add my two cents.  The manned space program, and the
|        shuttle program in particular, has rules governing the design,
|        test, operation, certification, etc. 
			stuff deleted
|
|        However, the Challenger disaster was not an accident.  There
|        were many things wrong.  
			stuff deleted...  I doubt that the
|        shuttle astronauts and passengers were aware that the SRBs
|        were not qualified.
|
         Second, there was a known (to some) problem with the SRBs.
|        The astronauts were unaware of this, too.  Also, flying with
|        this problem required a waiver.  Signing the waiver allowed
|        the launch to be attempted.  
			stuff deleted 
|
|        If the crew was aware of all the signed waivers, then ok, it
|        was a concious decision to take the risks.  If not, then their
|        families actions are justified, the courts can decide the
|        issue according to law, and hopefully this will cause people
|        to think about "breaking the rules" for political gain.
|
|        rich katz
|        hewlett packard
|        p o box 7050
|        colorado springs, co
|        80933-7050
|

First of all my point about Chris Colombus was that in todays society,
that trip would have never come off.  We have developed a legal system
that attempts to make life risk free, or allows you take take risks only
if you know ALL the facts.  My point there, was that being HUMAN, it is 
impossible to know all the ramnifications and risks involved in any large 
program.  My third point is that the same type of people who write the 
laws (Congress...many of whom are lawyers) are the same type of people
who interpret the laws in court (lawyers again) to be judged by the same
type of person again (Judges  aka former lawyers).  These people all receive
monetary gain, in fact, their livlihood depends on these "rules".  I hardly
think any lawyer is unbiased when it comes to a large damage suit that he
is charging (20%? 50%?) of recovered damages for.  The sad thing is that
society believes this is their just due from life.  What guarentees has life
ever given?

Robert Heinlein had the right idea in several of his books regarding lawyers.

As for me, (a pilot, flight instructor and an engineer)  I'm
not expecting any absolute guarentees about the things I do.  When I go up
in a plane, I take the risk; not my lawyer.  Let the ones who are willing to
take the risks reach for the skies, the rest of you can stay on the ground
and argue about the legal aspects.


-- 
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd			* 
CFI Aspen Flying Club			* Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.				* 
*******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 10:48:11 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com!jfcl.dec.com!imokay.dec.com!borsom@decvax.dec.com  (Doug Borsom)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <1989May5.204603.24435@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>They compete for funding priority.  Once priorities are set, money taken
>out of high-priority projects doesn't get put back into lower-priority
>projects.  One may argue about NASA's current set of priorities, but as
>long as they remain, attacking manned spaceflight is a pointless waste
>of time for the unmanned-spaceflight advocates:  it will not put more
>money in their budgets.
>
I should think the whole point of promoting the unmanned program over
manned spaceflight program was to get NASA to change it's priorities.

A few weeks back I posted a request for arguments in favor of the
manned space program. I received one reply, which directed me to a
Scientific American article by Dr. James Van Allen, and which stated
the Van Allen article was against the manned space program (or at
least against the manned space station program).

Two follow-up postings (one of them from Henry) commented that the
Van Allen article was very biased. Neither of these postings bothered
to state why they believed the van Allen article was biased, and
neither refuted the article nor presented any argument for the manned
program.

In fact, not one person responded to my original posting with an
argument in favor of the manned space program. 

Maybe the subject of my posting simply isn't of interest to
subscribers to this news group.  But the appearance is that there
are no good arguments for a very expensive manned space program.

I have read (in A&AW) a transcript of a recent (past three weeks)
Congressional testimony in which a NASA administrator stated that the
purpose of the manned space station was to make Americans proud and to
create greater interest in students to pursue studies in engineering
(this is a paraphrase, but I believe it to be faithful in meaning to
the actual testimony). Anyone out there have other arguments they
would like to present?

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 20:19:19 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: using Enterprise for braking tests

In article <Added.UYO5X4K00Ui3MABE9u@andrew.cmu.edu> 67372111@NMSUVM1.BITNET writes:
>A related question - how consistent has NASA been in upgrading the steering
>and braking systems of Enterprise? ...

I expect that using Enterprise for such testing would probably require a
complete refit of brakes at least, and possibly landing gear as well.  It
would not be free, but I suspect it would be worthwhile.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 20:46:29 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <458@imokay.dec.com> borsom@imokay.dec.com (Doug Borsom) writes:
>... Neither of these postings bothered
>to state why they believed the van Allen article was biased...

Have you tried reading it critically?

>In fact, not one person responded to my original posting with an
>argument in favor of the manned space program. 

Have you considered the possibility (reality, actually) that the issue
was debated ad nauseum not too long ago and everyone, including potential
responders, is sick of it?  If you can't think of arguments yourself,
please go read any good book on manned spaceflight.  If what you want is
not information but debate, please go somewhere else.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 23:39:31 GMT
From: larson@unix.sri.com  (Alan Larson)
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

Does anyone actually know the risk level involved in drop testing the
shuttle?  How does that compare with the risk of landing with the
shuttle on the back on the 747?

Why not just dump the thing off the 747 in the vicinity of KSC on
the return trip, allowing a drop test, a shuttle landing at KSC,
and delivery, all in one trip.

(There may be some problems with keeping the shuttle powered up
for the duration of the trip across the country -- did the drop
tests use the APUs, or just batteries?)

	Alan

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 20:29:33 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <456@imokay.dec.com> borsom@imokay.dec.com (Doug Borsom) writes:
>Can anyone tell me what advantages were gained by launching Magellan
>from the space shuttle?  Is there any (nonpolitical) reason why
>Magellan couldn't have been launched by an expendable (assuming
>we had some) vehicle?

About the only advantage to doing the Magellan launch from the shuttle was
that some of the abort modes permitted bringing the bird back instead of
losing it.  (For example, in-orbit checkout of the IUS was done before
shuttle separation, so it could be brought back if something was wrong.)
This is not an entirely trivial issue when there is no backup hardware.

Otherwise, an expendable would have been fine, assuming that a sufficiently
large one was available.  I believe that at the moment none are, since the
USAF owns the Titans and is not willing to release any just now.  (There was
an inquiry as to whether a Titan 4 could be made available for Magellan
if it had to be postponed to the next launch window; the answer was "no".)
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 14:44:28 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <456@imokay.dec.com>, borsom@imokay.dec.com (Doug Borsom) writes:
> Can anyone tell me what advantages were gained by launching Magellan
> from the space shuttle?  Is there any (nonpolitical) reason why
> Magellan couldn't have been launched by an expendable (assuming
> we had some) vehicle?

   (1)  It's a bit heavy for anything else

   (2)  If all systems on Magellan are not go at deploy time, you bring it
        back,fix it, and try again.  With a Titan/Centaur, tough luck

                      Marc Bonin
                    University of Texas at Austin

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 21:49:30 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <457@imokay.dec.com>, borsom@imokay.dec.com (Doug Borsom) writes:
> In article <1989May5.174333.21132@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747.  (Note:  not even
>>borrowed money, *its own* money.)  And did the same thing again with
>>$2 billion for the 757 and 767.  Airliners have payback periods somewhat
>>longer than three months.  Nobody has yet mounted a takeover attempt.
>>
> While this refutes the statement in the posting Henry was replying to, it
> shouldn't make anyone optimistic about the prospects of Boeing or any
> other private company spending billions (or semi-billions) on projects 
> for which the market prospects are *very* questionable.  Compared with
> the payback chances for a space plane or shuttle-type vehicle, the
> chances for the 7(456)7 were a sure thing.  

Tell that to the AirBus people.  They should be greatly comforted.

>>....  Remember
>>that they (with Hughes) offered to build the Jarvis heavylift booster out
>>of their own pockets, if NASA and the USAF would guarantee a market.
>>....
> 
> How daring of them. This usage badly stretches the notion of a privately 
> funded space program. Did Boeing demand a similar market guarantee from the 
> airline companies when it developed the 7(456)7?

No.  But there already exists a world-wide market for transport
aircraft.  (Which got a major boost in the beginning with government
guarantees through mail contracts.)  Those guarantees aren't around
anymore, but they were important.

Care to try again?

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 14:47:37 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Phobos replacement

>From article <1989May10.155448.29065@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> It's pleasant to see that the Soviets are willing to consider using such
> hardware when it can no longer be of use to the original mission(s).
> The Smithsonian is full of the US equivalent, notably Viking 3 and
> Voyager 3.

I thought that Magellan was essentially made up of old Voyager etc. hardware?
Can anyone confirm which bits of Magellan are old engineering models?
Further back, we flew Mariner V using backup Mariner Mars 1964 hardware. 

 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 20:18:04 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space

In article <1861@anasaz.UUCP> scott@anasaz.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>... if NASA had asked for more volunteers for a launch the day after
>the Challenger incident, they would have had no problem filling
>shuttle seats with enthusiastic space travellers.

They'd have had no problem filling them with astronauts, for that matter,
if the mission was urgent.  Despite some official public claims otherwise,
there was no shortage of astronauts who were willing to take their chances
if there was a good reason.  (Say, getting Galileo off to Jupiter on time.)
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 20:22:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <52000@philabs.Philips.Com> rfc@briar.philips.com.UUCP (Robert Casey) writes:
>I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something)
>and was not flightworthy.  Any truth to this?

No damage that I know of.  It's overweight and well below normal orbiter
specs, but that's another story.  If you did a thorough refit on it, you
could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due
to the overweight structure.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 14:36:11 GMT
From: nprdc!malloy@ucsd.edu  (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: Semiotics

In article <3344@bd.sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <4372318@um.cc.umich.edu> Henry_Edward_Hardy@UM.CC.UMICH.EDU writes:
>>"Name calling -- giving an idea a bad label -- is used to make us reject and    
>>condemn the idea without examining the evidence. Symbolized by the ancient
>>sign of condemnation used by the Vestal Virgins in the Roman Coliseum, a
>>thumb turned down."
>
>It wasn't the Vestal Virgins; the signal to the victorious gladiator could
>be given only by the magister ludi (though the crowd freely prompted him).
>And the signal for "kill the loser", as any true Roman knows, was what
>we now call THUMBS UP.

I have always seen the signal described (in serious work, not the
dubiously researched movies about the period) as the fist extended
with the thumb up, then rotated so the thumb was horizontal, and the
thumb brought back to touch the chest.


 Sean Malloy					| "The proton absorbs a photon
 Navy Personnel Research & Development Center	| and emits two morons, a
 San Diego, CA 92152-6800			| lepton, a boson, and a
 malloy@nprdc.navy.mil				| boson's mate. Why did I ever
						| take high-energy physics?"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #432
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 May 89 06:14:41 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00778> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sun, 14 May 89 06:07:59 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 14 May 89 06:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wYPGmou00Vs180z0QB>;
          Sun, 14 May 89 03:37:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.oYPGWEy00UkZReu05N>;
          Sun, 14 May 89 03:19:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YPGTv600UkZJesU57@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 14 May 89 03:17:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #433

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 433

Today's Topics:
			Re: Citizens in Space
		      New Orbiter Name Announced
		      Re: spaceplane propulsion
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
In-flight liquification of air (was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)
			Re: Citizens in Space
	    Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
			    Wyoming Bolide
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
		  Kelso's NASA prediction Bulletins
		  Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 12:53:48 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space

In article <357@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> In article <18082@cup.portal.com> hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes:
> > . . . the fact that NASA management over ruled engineers . . .
> 
> Point of fact: The management in question, which overruled the
> engineers, was Moron Fireball management, not NASA. 

Point of what? 

        "MY GOD, THIOKOL, WHEN DO YOU WANT ME TO LAUNCH,
        NEXT APRIL?"    -- Larry Mulloy, NASA, Jan '86

Mulloy knew what was going on and pressured MT management. Both are
guilty and not just for "smelling" the rat.

I agree that the Challenger crew knew the risks. I don't think it
follows that if the crew had heard what the MT engineers had to say
the crew would have said "Let's go today."

jim
symon@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon

(Thanks to Tom Neff for the quote which I was only going to
paraphrase)

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 23:26:31 GMT
From: unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!garcon!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Andrew Higgins)
Subject: New Orbiter Name Announced

According to CNN, NASA has announced that the Challenger replacement orbiter
will be named Endeavour.  Note the English spelling with the "-our" (which is
fine with me, Anglophile that I am).  Since it is the English Endeavour, it
presumedly is named after Cook's ship which discovered New Zealand.

The space ship in _Rendezvous_with_Rama_ was also named Endeavour.  Maybe
their are some A. C. Clarke fans at NASA.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	          |     Illini Space Development Society
 ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu     |     a chapter of the National Space Society
 phone: (217) 359-0056            |     at the University of Illinois
          P.O. Box 2255 - Station A, Champaign, IL  61825
"We are all tired of being stuck on this cosmical speck with its monotonous
 ocean, leaden sky and single moon that is half useless....so it seems to me
 that the future glory of the human race lies in the exploration of at least 
 the solar system!"                          - John Jacob Astor, 1894

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 20:21:31 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: spaceplane propulsion

In article <8088@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
>...(Don't the Russkies use kerosene in liquid rocket motors?)

Yes, as does the US (Atlas and Delta, not to mention older hardware like
the Saturns).

>Can you get really cheap air launch by dropping from a B52 or 747 and
>diving this slippery little devil to reach ramjet ignition speeds?

Maybe.  There are limits to the speed that can be reached in a dive,
and also it will get you into thicker air quickly.  It may make more
sense to use, say, solid-fuel strap-ons to accelerate horizontally.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 20:43:02 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <457@imokay.dec.com> borsom@imokay.dec.com (Doug Borsom) writes:
>>....  Remember
>>that they (with Hughes) offered to build the Jarvis heavylift booster out
>>of their own pockets, if NASA and the USAF would guarantee a market.
>
>How daring of them. This usage badly stretches the notion of a privately 
>funded space program. Did Boeing demand a similar market guarantee from the 
>airline companies when it developed the 7(456)7?

Well, as a matter of fact, to a considerable extent, yes.  Boeing will
*not* start full development of a new airliner purely on speculation; it
wants to see contractually-committed customers first.  Not necessarily
enough to guarantee a profit -- it took over a decade for the 747 program
to repay its original investment -- but enough to take the worst of the
bite out of the startup costs.

Remember that this "usage", as you put it, also applies to the privately
funded airlines, which were built originally on air-mail contracts.
(Nobody was going to invest the necessary amount of money on speculation
that the passenger market would prove adequate, although in fact it did...
eventually.)
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 01:02:48 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: In-flight liquification of air (was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)

In article <1989May11.050951.11130@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry
Spencer) writes:
>Japan investigates Liquid Air Cycle Engines (which liquify atmospheric
>oxygen on the way up rather than carrying it all with them) for both
>aerospace planes and conventional boosters.  [. . .]

	How is liquification of air to be done without the use of horrendously
heavy equipment and huge energy expenditure?  (It seems that both would be
needed to liquify air, especially at the rate that would be needed.)

	Also, since air is only 21% oxygen, storage of liquified air would be
quite wasteful of weight and space.  Am I correct in assuming that none of the
liquified air would be stored (all used right away), and that liquid oxygen
for use after leaving the atmosphere would have been loaded before launch?  Or
has somebody developed some light equipment for rapid separation of nitrogen
from oxygen as well as liquifying air?

-- 
|   Lucius Chiaraviglio    |    Internet:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
Internet-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt Internet-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 19:13:20 GMT
From: mfci!hsi!derek@uunet.uu.net  (Derek Lee-Wo)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space

In article <18554@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU> gjuy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Andrew D Williams) writes:
>                                        ... I am going to make a pledge to
>defend our constitution.  That pledge implies that I am willing to die for
>my country, in fact I expect that if there is a war I most likely going to
>die.  (Us pilot types have an annoying tendency to attract a hell of a lot af
>attention) The fact that the families of the officers, sworn to the country
>sued shows that there is no way that there is no way we should put (pardon
>me) normal citizens into space.  Not yet.

I dis-agree with you. To begin with, no one is forcing a normal citizen into
space. If the US government asked me to go on the shuttle, I'll go. I
know what the risks are. I know that there is a chance I may be killed, but
I'd still go.

I could understand not sending citizens into space due to the cost. All you
readers out there opposed to sending citizens into space, suppose the cost
was trivial, but the risk was still the same, would you still be against
sending ordinary people into space??

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Derek Lee-Wo (Co-op),   Health Systems International, New Haven, CT 06511.   |
|E-mail address :- derek@hsi.com      ...!yale!hsi!derek                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 14:42:15 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?

>From article <1378@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>, by wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro):
> communications at up to 20,000 bits/second were achieved.  By early
> 1966, essentially all of the dipoles had decayed.  

Well, actually not the dipoles dispersed, and about a hundred clumps of
dipoles are still being tracked by NORAD. One decayed just a few weeks ago.


 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 20:06:07 GMT
From: cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!ns!ddb@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (David Dyer-Bennet)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <458@imokay.dec.com> borsom@imokay.dec.com (Doug Borsom) writes:

:In fact, not one person responded to my original posting with an
:argument in favor of the manned space program. 
:
:Maybe the subject of my posting simply isn't of interest to
:subscribers to this news group.  But the appearance is that there
:are no good arguments for a very expensive manned space program.

I suspect that, to most of us, the question of "Why should there be a manned
space program?" is pretty much equivalent to the question "Why should Marco
Polo sail out off the edge of the world?"  It's so transparently obvious
that it's not worth discussing.

That doesn't, of course, answer the question of whether the best way
to serve my long-term goals is to favor manned or un-manned
expeditions at this precise instant in time; but my feeling is that
what we really need is more experience with *living* in space.

-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, ddb@terrabit.fidonet.org, or ddb@ns.network.com
or ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb
or ...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb
or Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 9600hst/2400/1200/300

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 11 May 89 12:04:47 EST
From: Morven Wilson <MWILSON%RYERSON.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Wyoming Bolide

     Several of you have expressed interest in photos of the bolide (or
bright meteor) seen over the Teton range in western Wyoming.  The event
took place on 1972-August-10, and one photograph can be found in the book
"Our Universe" by Roy Gallant, published by National Geographic.
     The photo appears on page 148 in the 1986 edition (and about the same
place in the 1980 edition).
     The object is estimated at 10 metres across, 1000 tons, 60 Km high,
and travelling at 60Km/hour.  The picture shows a long bright trail and
a very bright "head" over some impressive Teton scenery.
     The book is really a kid's book but it's worth a browse!

(Forgive me if you get this message twice - my first posting seems to have
vanished in the network bit-bucket).

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 19:21:37 GMT
From: mfci!hsi!derek@uunet.uu.net  (Derek Lee-Wo)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

In article <3791@nunki.usc.edu> manderso@nunki.usc.edu (Mark Anderson) writes:
>     ... It is also clear, that in my lifetime, my children's lifetime,
>and their grandchildren's lifetimes that we will not be able to reach
>and network the stars using present day technology and knowledge.  We
>limit ourselves to the speed of ight.

I believe that there are UFOs out there. Whether or not some have visited
Earth is another story.

Sometimes I wish I were born a few hundreds years in the future. Could one
just imagine what it would be like to hop a space shuttle to another
planet as easily as we could now jump on a plane to London.

Now if only I could believe in re-incarnation :-)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Derek Lee-Wo (Co-op),   Health Systems International, New Haven, CT 06511.   |
|E-mail address :- derek@hsi.com      ...!yale!hsi!derek                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 May 89 09:20:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 774+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Kelso's NASA prediction Bulletins
CC: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)

I've gotten a couple of complaints about the long postings containing satellite
orbital elements.  While I understand that these are very useful for folks that
observe satellites I wonder how many people really use this information.
Perhaps if the number is fairly small a specific list could be set up the handle
distribution of the information to interested parties and a period note could be
sent to the entire list, advising new users of the existence of the special
interest group.

To get an idea of the numbers involves I'd appreciate responses from people who
regularly use the bulletins appearing on this list.  In addition I'd like notes
from people who think they are useful for some other reason and from people who
really don't like to see them.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 16:01:04 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST


Before Henry gets a chance to post his summary of the last week's Av Leak,
let me get my one shot in.

The USSR has (in conjunction with their US marketing firm) proposed using
Energia to boost the US space station components to orbit.  The rationale
is that it would save development costs for Shuttle C, and cut down the
number of Shuttle flights necessary to assemble the station.

On another page, there was a photo of the mockup of Shuttle C.

Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V????


**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 04:15:08 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

>   I suspect that, to most of us, the question of "Why should
>   there be a manned space program?" is pretty much equivalent to
>   the question "Why should Marco Polo sail out off the edge of
>   the world?" 

Yeah, why should he?  He did pretty well going the opposite way...

;-)

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 17:14:42 GMT
From: cgs@umd5.umd.edu  (Chris G. Sylvain)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <655@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>In article <1989May11.202243.1111@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
]] [Enterprise is] overweight and well below normal orbiter specs
]
] The very fact that it *is* overweight would be a problem in new landing
] tests, since landing weight is very important when it comes to landing gear
] and braking.  My guess is that, yes, we could refit it and use it for landing
] tests, but the data would not be fully indicative of the performance of the
] flight shuttle.

Think a little about the situation, please. The Enterprise weighs more *empty*
than the other shuttles. The other shuttles may or may not land empty on a
hard runway. The flight shuttle's brakes should stand up to a hard runway
landing *with margin*.

Now then, how better to test the upper limit of the margin??
-- 
--==---==---==--
.. Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, ..
   ARPA: cgs@umd5.UMD.EDU     BITNET: cgs%umd5@umd2
   UUCP: ..!uunet!umd5.umd.edu!cgs

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #433
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 May 89 07:44:15 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01182> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sun, 14 May 89 07:37:06 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 14 May 89 07:36:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wYPIJF:00Ui3Q1Xk8Q>;
          Sun, 14 May 89 05:22:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.sYPIFzy00UkZ9f5k50>;
          Sun, 14 May 89 05:18:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <wYPIERi00UkZ1f4E5Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 14 May 89 05:17:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #434

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 434

Today's Topics:
		Re: using Enterprise for braking tests
		  Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST
		 Re: citizens in space -- risk silli
		Re: using Enterprise for braking tests
			  NSS Hotline Update
		Re: Private spending for space science
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		       Re: more 747 drop tests?
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
       Why no Saturn V? (Was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 22:54:47 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: using Enterprise for braking tests

In article <1989May11.201919.950@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:


   In article <Added.UYO5X4K00Ui3MABE9u@andrew.cmu.edu> 67372111@NMSUVM1.BITNET writes:
>>A related question - how consistent has NASA been in upgrading the steering
>>and braking systems of Enterprise? ...

>I expect that using Enterprise for such testing would probably require a
>complete refit of brakes at least, and possibly landing gear as well.  It
>would not be free, but I suspect it would be worthwhile.

Don't forget the Convair 990 (now known as the LSRA, or Landing Systems
Research Aircraft).  This plane is at Ames-Dryden to have a Shuttle main
landing gear installed in the fuselage.  I think it will be just forward
of the 990 main landing gear.  When the Shuttle gear is extended, it's
below the 990 gear.  A fairly simple control system is being designed to
drive the system to match the Shuttle landing loads profile.  The pilot
just flies low (and level) over the runway and voila! you can assess the
improvements.

This should be _very_ interesting to watch from a safe distance :-)
Flight test is rarely boring.























--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 07:10:33 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST

In article <136@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V????

We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand
built rocket that was thrown away after every use. The idea of a reusable
rocket is really very sound in theory, although it turns out to be a bit
difficult to execute (especially by a government bureaucracy). With 20/20
hindsight a big dumb booster made with relatively low performance parts was
probably the way to go.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 16:55:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silli


	Is there a single manager that was involved in over-riding the
engineers and pushing the launch suffering any penalty for their stupidity
and arrogance? My guess is that the engineers were sacked and the managers
promoted.

Alan M. Carroll                "And there you are
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu           Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'"
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 23:00:53 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: using Enterprise for braking tests

In article <596@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:

   There seems to be plenty of speculation about using the good old
   Enterprise for landing and braking tests. Does any body know exactly
   what state that orbiter is in? I.e. avionics, power systems, external
   surfaces etc.

Enterprise never had TPS tiles; it's covered with black-painted plastic foam,
somewhat denser than styrofoam.  This was fragile and easily damaged--I have
a small chunk of it that I picked up off the hangar floor.

I suspect that anything useable in the other orbiters was cannibalized before
the vehicle went to the Smithsonian.

--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 20:08:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline Update:
Tuesday May 9, 1989.

Acting Nasa administrator Dale Myers stated that NASA will request
President Bush to terminate the Space Station program if congress
cuts anywhere from $600 to 800 million from the agencies FY'90
budget request.  Currently the House and Senate are both seeking
about a $1 billion cut from NASA's budget request.  Senator Barbara
Mikulski (D-MD) Chairperson of the HUD-IA subcommittee which funds
NASA, stated that she will do all she can to support NASA's budget
request, but the subcommittee should be prepared to trim NASA's
budget.  

The Space Shuttle Atlantis ended its mission with a perfect landing
on the Concrete runway, 22 at Edwards Air Force Base at 3:45pm EST
Monday May 8, 1989.  The mission's primary objective was met with
the successful deployment of the Magellan Venus Radar Mapping
Spacecraft.  The planetary probe, the first launched by the US in
11 years is, as of May 9, 1989, at least 700,000 miles from Earth,
streaking toward Venus.  JPL reports that the spacecraft is
operating normally without a clitch.  The overall flight of the
Shuttle Atlantis has gone fairly smooth, with the exception of a
broken fax machine, and a failed computer.  The crew wanted to fix
the fax machine themselves but were ordered not to by ground
control.  The failed computer brought science experiments to a halt
in the last day of the mission.  But in a space workers first, the
crew was able to replace the computer, in a first time ever in-
flight replacement of computer hardware.

18 members of the House of representatives lead by Rep. Dave
McCurdy called on Vice President Dan Quayle to maintain support for
the development of the National Aerospace Plane.  The National
Space Council is scheduled top meet May 25th to discuss the
program.  Acting NASA Adm. Dale Myers said that NASA has offered
to continue NASP Research for three or four more years before
conduction design and definition studies.  Under the
Administrations approach to the problem, NASA would do the work and
receive $100 million from the Pentagon to support the work.  Its
been estimated that it will require a $4 billion dollar investment
to get the NASP to the flight test phase by late '94 to early '95.

At KSC..
Three main engines were installed into the Space Shuttle Columbia
today, with testing scheduled to take place latter this week.  The
Orbiter's commode was reinstalled today with functional testing due
to be completed next week.  The Orbiter will remain in the OPF
until late June, when it will be moved to the VAB to be mated with
its external tank, and solid rocket boosters.

At the AIAA annual meetings last week Martin Marietta unveiled a
full size mockup to the Flight Telerobotic Servicer.  The servicer
is a crucial part of the space station because it will allow
assembly and repair of the Space Station with out Astronauts
leaving the work modules.  With most of the assembly work carried
out directly by robots the amount of time spent outside of the
station by the astronauts is minimized.  The robots are expected
to be test flown in 1991 and 1993.  

A Note to all Mississippi Phone Tree Participants:
The Appropriations Markup is scheduled to take place in the House
of Representatives before Memorial Day Recess!

*** Please Continue your CALLS and or LETTERS to: ***

Rep. Jamie Whitten - House Appropriations Chairperson.
     - Tell'm like it is!  Lets keep America in Space!

This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space
Society's Space Hotline.  This message will be updated May 14,
1989.

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 20:05:14 GMT
From: dd2f+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Daniel Alexander Davis)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

Tough.  I'm a college student going to Carnegie Mellon.
I make $5,000 a year.  I spend $20,000.  This has no indication
on how valuable my statements may or not be.  If you
think it does, we should step outside.  I'll even promise to
support space industries as soon as I'm able.  Thanks for
the understanding.

Dan Davis.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 18:40:32 GMT
From: unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!cveg!hcx!jws3@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (JAMES WILLIAM SMITH)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced


In article <13000@ut-emx.UUCP>, bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
> It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has
> a fictional counterpart

But Columbia has a fictional counterpart, tho it's more of a 
"sluttle" than a shuttle:

FRANK:  My assistants...
CROWD:  HEY FRANK, WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR COKE?
FRANK:  Columbia...

Doesn't UT show the RHPS anymore?  :-)

 /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|  James W. Smith, University of Arkansas   |                                | 
|  ...uunet!harris.cis.ksu.edu!jws3@hcx     |    We must love one another    |
|  harry!hcx!jws3@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu       |            or die.             | 
|  Telenet:  jws3@130.184.7.209             |                  --A. Clarke   |
|  515 Skyline Dr., Fayetteville, AR 72701  |                                |
 \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 17:44:44 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

In article <1989May9.014323.13717@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>One will be as soon as NASA gets around to it.  The aircraft has already
>been bought and is in storage (!) awaiting the modifications.  Getting it
>going wouldn't be a problem if there was a specific reason.  Dusting
>off Enterprise and making it flight-ready, with up-to-date landing gear
>and brakes, would probably take longer.

Why should NASA take the time and expense to drop the Enterprise when it can
do the tests with an actule mission thats already paid for?

-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 22:18:00 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <1989May11.202243.1111@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <52000@philabs.Philips.Com> rfc@briar.philips.com.UUCP 
>  (Robert Casey) writes:
>>I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something)
>>and was not flightworthy.  Any truth to this?

>   No damage that I know of.  It's overweight and well below normal orbiter
>   specs, but that's another story.  If you did a thorough refit on it, you
>   could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due
>   to the overweight structure.

I think that Robert Casey is referring to some testing that was done once it
was decided that the Enterprise absolutely, definitely would not be used for 
flight.  To test the ability of GVTs (ground vibration tests, a classical
structural test technique) to find damage in the Orbiters, structural elements
(i.e. wing spars) were cut.  GVTs run before and after the damage was inflicted
were then examined to see if they could be used in place of other methods 
(actual inspection, I think) to assess the structural integrity of the 
Orbiters, particularly for less than total damage to a structural element.  
The structural elements were cut to various depths, although I don't think
any were completely severed.  After all, it's still strong enough to be
ferried.

Thus, the Enterprise is _not_ flightworthy without structural refurbishment.

--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 09:24:52 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Why no Saturn V? (Was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)

>In article <136@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V????

The Saturn V was thrown away for the same reason that the ISF was
shunned.  It was the only way to protect a big, new project from a
comparison it could not withstand--the Space Shuttle compared with the
Saturn V, or the Space Station compared with ISF.  

The Saturn V was thrown away during James Fletcher's first stint as NASA
administrator.

The arguments made in favor of the Space Shuttle at the end of the
Apollo project are the same as those put forward now in support of NASP,
only more extreme.  The Shuttle was to use normal runways and air
traffic control, be fully reusable, cost $50 per pound to orbit
initially, dropping to $10 per pound with repeated use.  It was to push
the development of new technology in every related area.  All this with
an estimated development cost of $5 billion.

Believe it, or not.

----

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #434
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 May 89 05:39:15 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00771> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 15 May 89 05:37:07 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 15 May 89 05:36:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sYPbiFS00UkT0210hz>;
          Mon, 15 May 89 03:26:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.MYPbcuy00UkZBg6U5C>;
          Mon, 15 May 89 03:20:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <EYPbZhS00UkZ9g505c@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 15 May 89 03:17:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #435

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 435

Today's Topics:
		 Soviet Foton processing craft lands
			    Amroc on NASA
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
     Re: Why no Saturn V? (Was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)
		  Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST
	     Enterprise: will it ever fly,like Columbia ?
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		     International Space Station
		 Re: Private funding of space science
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 May 89 00:39:29 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: Soviet Foton processing craft lands

     On May 12th the USSR landed another Foton processing craft.  The Fotons 
are designed to do materials research experiments, mostly for foreign 
countries, and then return the samples to earth after about 2 weeks.  This 
particular craft brought back samples of optical glasses, semiconductors, 
and crystal growth experiment.  Interestingly the May 14th short wave 
announcement also stated that this particular Foton craft had been reused 
three times.
    On May 15th they announced that the large Antonov 225 cargo aircraft will 
be doing flight displays at the Pairs airshow.  The An-225 is the 200 Tonne 
capability plane with external mounts designed to carry the Soviet shuttle, 
and shuttle equipment.  It appears that the Buran, their shuttle, will not be 
displayed at this airshow, in spite of the rumors mentioned by Aviation Week.
    Materials processing for other countries is now an operational activity 
for the USSR's space program.  More importantly they are now getting multiple 
uses out of the processing laboratory.  We will see if can really expand their 
sales in that area.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 09:32:27 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Amroc on NASA


Letter to the Editor, Ad Astra, April, 1989
>From James C. Bennet and George A. Koopman of American Rocket Company


Laying Blame

We are the co-founders of American Rocket Company.  We have been
full-time, working commercial space entrepreneurs for 10 years and
have been space development advocates for even longer, having joined
the L5 Society in 1977.  We are dismayed by Charles Miller's
wishy-washy comments in the February Space Politics Forum, including
his comment that "nobody is to blame" at NASA for its hostile actions
toward commercial space ventures.

This failure to tell it like it is causes great harm to commercial
space efforts.  Further, coming from an official of NSS in its
official publication, it reinforces the broad perception that
NSS is a thinly-guised apologist and cheerleader for NASA.

As you must be aware, NASA has been actively hostile to commercial
space ventures since their first appearance.  In addition to numerous
malicious actions directed against American Rocket Company, NASA has
done substantial damage to Transpace Carriers, Conatec, Space
Industries, Astrotech and many other small, entrepreneurial ventures.
They have also threatened several large aerospace companies with
economic sanctions when those companies expressed interest in entering
and participating in commercial space ventures.

In short, NASA, the agency charged with leading this nation's space
exploration and exploitation, has consistently acted to advance its
short-term interest at the expense of the repeatedly stated national
goal of fostering commercial space development.  Past NASA
administrators have shamefully set agency interest above national
needs.

NASA's role to date in space commercialization has only resulted in
harm to the commercial sector.  It is a classic case of setting the
fox to guard the hen house.  It does no good to speak of "no blame"
when, indeed, individuals and offices at field centers and NASA
Headquarters can be assigned specific responsability for harm caused
to space ventures.  The first step in repairing damage is to
understand exactly what damage has been done and why it happened.  The
next step is to design fixes to assure that it does not happen again.
The third step is to create a new system in which the corrected parts
have useful, positive functions to carry out.

We have always believed that NASA has an important role to play in
space commercialization.  We have been waiting for NASA to begin
working in a positive fashion with commercail space firms to help
define that role.  But this will not happen unless and until past
errors have been identified and the reasons for those errors have been
corrected.

James C. Bennet, Vice President, External Affairs
George A. Koopman, President

American Rocket Company, Camarillo, California

----
William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

"We will not be intimidated by that evil Central American dictator whose
armed forces number almost as many as the undergraduates at UC
Berkeley."  El Presidente.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 14:01:07 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <966@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Andrew J. Higgins) writes:
>According to CNN, NASA has announced that the Challenger replacement orbiter
>will be named Endeavour....

>The space ship in _Rendezvous_with_Rama_ was also named Endeavour.  Maybe
>their are some A. C. Clarke fans at NASA.

Lest others on the net be tempted to draw the same erroneous conclusion,
let me point out that "Endeavour" drew a hefty plurality of votes in the
name submission contest held at US schools last year.  

NASA set strict rules and supplied "curriculum materials" so I suspect
they pretty much got the name they wanted.
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 14:46:29 GMT
From: spl@mcnc.org  (Steve Lamont)
Subject: Re: Why no Saturn V? (Was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)

In article <24343@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>only more extreme.  The Shuttle was to use normal runways and air
>traffic control, be fully reusable, cost $50 per pound to orbit

I can see it... "Shuttle Atlantis... you are number two for landing...
right behind the Cessna..." ;-)

							spl

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 14:17:57 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!larryb@uunet.uu.net  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST

In article <1989May11.050951.11130@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>US scientists examining protein crystals recovered from a Chinese
>satellite observe that many were broken by reentry and landing forces.
>Complete crystals are important for protein-structure determination.
>
>From what I understand they do most of the crystal analysis on earth.
Has anyone engineer a piece of test equipment to actual perform analysis
in space?  It would seem to make a alot of sense check out a micro-g crystal
structure in space in addition to analysis on earth.  Gravity and re-entry
will cause deformation to various crystaline structures.  

How about a satellite that grows crystals, performs analysis and beam the
information to earth?  I'm sure someone has already thought of it. Is it
possible, worthwhile, or simply another idea to be noted and log?

>-- 
>Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Space 90's :
Japan  buys NASA



-- 
Larry Brader  :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net
timesurfing the new temporal sport

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 03:11:15 GMT
From: tank!shamash!nic.MR.NET!thor.acc.stolaf.edu!thor.stolaf.edu!mcconnel@handies.ucar.edu  (Mark)
Subject: Enterprise: will it ever fly,like Columbia ?

I'm sorry, stupid, but curious. Could somebody tell me the purpose 
that Enterprise is used for and include a history of it ?
Please include why it doesn't fly like the other shuttles.

The new shuttles' name  is due to a 'name the shuttle contest',
not because of A.C Clarke, try elementary students, I think.
If I am wrong, I stand corrected.


.............Sen. Jake Garn didn't deserve to go on the shuttle.............

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 14:00:04 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <1989May11.204302.1629@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> Boeing will
> *not* start full development of a new airliner purely on speculation; it
> wants to see contractually-committed customers first.

I wasn't aware of this.  Does this mean that the 7J7, which is currently
under development (or has it gotten to flight tests?) already has some 
committed customers?  This seems unlikely, given the recent rush by the
airlines to order current models.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     :          [This space for rent]
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 16:31:45 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has
a fictional counterpart


Enterprise :  Obvious !
Discovery:   the ship from 20001
Challenger:  remember the Adventures of Tom Swift??? He had a ship called 
             the Challenger
Endeavour:   from 'Rendezvous with Rama'


                     Marc Bonin

                        University of Texas at Austin

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 18:29:38 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: International Space Station

Since the Soviet Space Station MIR carries experiments from many
nations, and since cosmonauts from several countries have visited it,
should call it the International Space Station?

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Thu, 11 May 89 22:23:49 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Private funding of space science

The government is the best source of support for research NOT development
(with exceptions for military civil service activities mentioned below).
Research results are KNOWLEGE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THINGS and belong
in the public domain.  Development results are the REDUCTION TO
PRACTICE OF INVENTIONS which belong to those who contributed the
capital and creativity necessary to bring the ideas to fruition.

While I contribute my personal finances to Space Studies Institute
as a Senior Associate (and have done so since 1981) I do so not
because I believe that organizations like SSI are, as a matter of
policy, the correct organizations to carry out space research.
I contribute to SSI because the government, due to its present
policy, has failed to support space research.

Quibble if you must on the precise boundry between research and
development.  It is clear that:

* The government is engaging in a lot of development (and even
  operations) at the expense of the availability of public
  funds for research (this includes NSF in its supercomputer
  network and superconducting supercollider, NASA in just about
  everything and DARPA in almost as much of what it does).

* This political bias is a direct result of political activities of 
  those who make money from these development activities.

* The knowlege base from which real development can be accomplished
  is stagnating due to neglect.

* The stagnation of basic knowlege is contributing to a stagnation of
  truly innovative development -- formerly the unique strength of 
  our country.

* The vicious cycle of government contract-dependence is leading to
  ever greater levels of political activities on the part of those
  who have become dependent on government contracts.

* The selective pressure on these firms being political rather than
  economic is resulting in the degradation of some of our best
  technical resources.

* The degradation of our technical resources in service of politics 
  is leading to ever decreasing levels of economic and ethical integrity.

* Those who continue, in the face of recent history and
  Eisenhower's warning against the "military industrial complex"
  almost 30 years ago, to lobby for the government to give them
  ever larger contracts "in the national interests" are, in fact, so 
  selfish and destructive to our country that they are properly
  called traitors.

* Attempts to justify the creation of ever larger bureaucracies 
  (such as the developing relationship between DoD and IBM)
  by pointing to "Japan Inc.", are playing directly into this 
  failure mode and must be treated as part of the problem.

To the extent that the government, for national security reasons,
must engage in development and operations, as in the case of
the branches of the military, this should be accomplished within
the purview and restrictions of civil service.  To stop the
vicious cycle of political action by those benifiting from
development spending, the Hatch Act must be extended to include
all those who receive non-entitlement income from the government,
including welfare recipients and those charging to government
contracts, as well as civil servants.

Anything short of these measures will be insufficient to
break this runaway positive feedback cycle.  The result 
will be catastrophic to our country and ourselves if we
do not act decisively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 13:56:06 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <1989May11.202243.1111@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>No damage that I know of.  It's overweight and well below normal orbiter
>specs, but that's another story.  If you did a thorough refit on it, you
>could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due
>to the overweight structure.

The very fact that it *is* overweight would be a problem in new landing
tests, since landing weight is very important when it comes to landing gear
and braking.  My guess is that, yes, we could refit it and use it for landing
tests, but the data would not be fully indicative of the performance of the
flight shuttle.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     :          [This space for rent]
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #435
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 May 89 10:31:04 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03897> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 15 May 89 10:25:13 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 15 May 89 10:25:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYPdRoG00Ui301bE5G>;
          Mon, 15 May 89 05:25:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.gYPdMhy00UkZJgEU4Y>;
          Mon, 15 May 89 05:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <sYPdK1a00UkZ1gD04Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 15 May 89 05:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #436

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 436

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #428
      Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
   Re: Hubble Space Telescope, orbit and data format/relay question
Revolving Door to Shut (was Re: Moser to leave NASA May 13 (Forwarded)
		Moser to leave NASA May 13 (Forwarded)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #428
		Re: using Enterprise for braking tests
Re: In-flight liquification of air (was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)
		       Re: more 747 drop tests?
			  Flying Enterprise
		Re: Private spending for space science
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 May 1989 11:15-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #428

> be done. (Probably several organizations are already doing this.) Among
> the projects that might not be too ambitious for an initial attempt are

In particular there is the very good work being done by SSI, and the
quite serious attempt, in progress, to jointly build and fly a Lunar
Polar Orbiter using the resources of the National Space Society, Space
Studies Institute, AMSAT, (and World Space Foundation?)

These types of efforts are really only JUST beginning to become
feasible. Partially it is a growing change of attitude. For many years
it was impossible to get people off their duffs because they were
willing to sit back and wait for the government to do it. They EXPECTED
the government to do it.

This malaise undermined a great deal of the vibrancy of this country
for a decade or more, but seems (in some circles at least) to be on the
wane. It is being replaced by the attitude that the government is
incompetant, corrupt and UNABLE to accomplish anything. Thus, if you
want anything done, you really do have to get off your buns and do
something about it yourself. Otherwise, it ain't a gonna happen. Ever.

Private projects can only work in this kind of atmosphere. Otherwise
people will not make the individual sacrifices necessary to make dreams
into reality.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 17:32:00 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)

In article <394@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>Assuming you put them out in orbit around the sun a bit
>furthur out than Mars, would you get sufficent warning to launch defensive
>missiles? Does anyone know if it's better to make those probes sun-orbiters
>or far-out Earth orbiters? Obviously, you'd need fewer probes if they orbited
>Earth, but would that give sufficient warning time? I suspect not somehow.
>

It would be interesting to know how far an earth based radar can reach with
the accuracy to detect killer rocks?
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 22:29:38 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

I wrote:
 I think that Robert Casey is referring to some testing that was done once it
 was decided that the Enterprise absolutely, definitely would not be used for 
 flight.  To test the ability of GVTs (ground vibration tests, a classical
 structural test technique) to find damage in the Orbiters, structural elements
 (i.e. wing spars) were cut. GVTs run before and after the damage was inflicted
 were then examined to see if they could be used in place of other methods 
 (actual inspection, I think) to assess the structural integrity of the 
 Orbiters, particularly for less than total damage to a structural element.  
 The structural elements were cut to various depths, although I don't think
 any were completely severed.  After all, it's still strong enough to be
 ferried.

 Thus, the Enterprise is _not_ flightworthy without structural refurbishment.

But I forgot to state specifically that the intentional damage was fairly
minor and that the vehicle is probably flightworthy for low airspeeds (low
qbars, actually) such as those encountered in the ALT program.  

I don't remember seeing any results of the study, either, so I can't comment
on how well it worked.
--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 21:48:56 GMT
From: dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!larry!jwp@speedy.wisc.edu  (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope, orbit and data format/relay question

In article <1989May9.213424.6185@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I would guess that the White Sands TDRS station will simply pass the raw
>data to the HST institute in Maryland, probably via commercial comsat but
>not in any conventional format.

It goes by DOMSAT to Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.
There, the "data capture facility" reblocks the data and processes
the Reed-Solomon error correction bits, and passes the data to
the Science Institute at JHU.
-- 
Jeff Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 01:21:22 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Revolving Door to Shut (was Re: Moser to leave NASA May 13 (Forwarded)

In case anyone hadn't noticed, the reason for this recent flurry of 
departures from NASA HQ is new ethics legislation designed to put a 
brake on the "revolving door" whereby executives shuttle back and 
forth from the aerospace industry to NASA and the Pentagon at N-year 
intervals, alternately selling things to the USG and then turning 
around and buying the same things *for* USG. As of June 1 (someone 
correct me if I got that date wrong, remembering from the papers) 
there has to be a "holding period" after you leave USG employ before 
you can work for one of your contractors. Measured in years. 

I wonder how the people at NASA who don't feel a burning urge to
slip out that revolving door before it closes, feel about the parade 
of veterans who evidently do.  I notice every press release makes
sure to include a few Ollie-esque lines about how the gol durn
Congress is forcing good people to leave, etc., etc.  My own feeling
is that anything we can do to increase the percentage of NASA people
who *don't* view their work as a rung on the ladder to the mahogany 
suite at Rockwell, will probably benefit the program in the long run.
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 19:47:02 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Moser to leave NASA May 13 (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 12, 1989


RELEASE:  89-72

MOSER TO LEAVE NASA MAY 13


     Thomas L. Moser, acting associate administrator for the 
Space Station Freedom program, will leave NASA effective May 
13.  Moser, who was appointed deputy associate administrator for 
the Freedom program last December, has been serving as the acting 
associate administrator since April 30.

     "My decision to leave is in no way a reflection on the 
status of the program," Moser said.  "I am convinced that the 
Space Station Freedom program is absolutely necessary for this 
country to maintain its leadership in space and that NASA, along 
with the contractor team and international partners, will make it 
a success given the proper support.  I'll sincerely miss NASA, 
but after 26 truly fulfilling years, I feel that it's the right 
time to go."

     Moser served as the first program director of the Freedom 
program, a position he held from October 1986 to December 1988.  
He oversaw the establishment of the Space Station Freedom Program 
Office located in Reston, Va., and guided the program through 
extensive reviews by the Administration and the National Research 
Council and through the formation of the design, development and 
technical support contractor teams for Freedom.

     Moser also helped put in place the structure for 
international cooperation in the Freedom program, which was 
formally adopted by the United States and the 11 participating 
countries last year.

     From February 1986 until he was named to the space station 
post, Moser was deputy associate administrator for space flight 
at NASA Headquarters.  Prior to that, he was director of 
engineering at Johnson Space Center, Houston.

     Moser began his career with NASA in 1963 as a mechanical 
systems design and analysis engineer.  From 1966 to 1971 he was 
the structural subsystem manager for the Apollo command module.  
In 1972, Moser was named head of structural design and manager 
for orbiter structure and thermal protection system.

     He became technical assistant to the JSC director in 1981 
and was named deputy manager, Orbiter Project Office, in 1982.

     Born Aug. 12, 1938, in Houston, Moser received a B.S. degree 
in mechanical engineering from the University of Texas in 1961, 
an M.S. degree in mechanical engineering from the University of 
Pennsylvania in 1963 and completed candidacy requirements for a 
Ph.D. at Rice University.

     Moser has received numerous honors, including the 
Presidential Rank of Meritorious Executive, the Exceptional 
Leadership Medal and Exceptional Engineering Medal and is a 
Fellow of the American Institute for Aeronautics and 
Astronautics.

     Moser and his wife, the former Nelwyn DeLaney, reside in 
Reston, Va.  They have two children, Matthew and Meredith.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 May 1989 11:34-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #428

> people were wrong. Thus, Boeing didn't design it for altruistic reasons.
> The 757 & 767 were designed in response to Boeing's internal marketing

Naturally they didn't. But Boeing has a history of risk taking with
large R&D projects. They did the 707 the same way. What Boeing has had
that no other giant aerospace "company" has had is the gumption to take
risks. Not for altruistic reasons. They bet the company on ideas that
will probably work but are a step ahead of everyone else.

Boeing is probably the only large aerospace firm that I have any
respect for at all.

The also declared, at high levels a long time ago, that they would
privately fund a launch vehicle when they felt it had a market. I
expect that time will come AFTER the small operators like AMROC create
whole new markets in the small cheap payload classes. There will never
be a significant launch business (in our terms) if comsats are the
business mainstay. They are big and they are few.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 14:19:35 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: using Enterprise for braking tests

There seems to be plenty of speculation about using the good old
Enterprise for landing and braking tests. Does any body know exactly
what state that orbiter is in? I.e. avionics, power systems, external
surfaces etc.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 16:27:53 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: In-flight liquification of air (was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)

In article <3961@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
>	How is liquification of air to be done without the use of horrendously
>heavy equipment and huge energy expenditure?  (It seems that both would be
>needed to liquify air, especially at the rate that would be needed.)

I don't understand all the details, but the heat exchangers Mitsubishi is
testing simply use liquid hydrogen to cool the air.  Liquid hydrogen is
the fuel anyway, so it's around, and it is a *very* good heat sink.

>	Also, since air is only 21% oxygen, storage of liquified air would be
>quite wasteful of weight and space.  Am I correct in assuming that none of the
>liquified air would be stored (all used right away), and that liquid oxygen
>for use after leaving the atmosphere would have been loaded before launch?

There has been talk of accumulating LOX on the way up, but I don't think
the Japanese are thinking of that; they just want to run the engine on
external air while they can.

>has somebody developed some light equipment for rapid separation of nitrogen
>from oxygen as well as liquifying air?

Simply enriching the liquid in oxygen, as opposed to complete separation,
should not be difficult, since liquid nitrogen boils at a lower temperature
than LOX.  In fact, with a well-adjusted heat exchanger the liquid will
probably be oxygen-enriched to begin with, as the oxygen will condense first.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 16:23:40 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

In article <30549@sri-unix.SRI.COM> larson@unix.sri.com (Alan Larson) writes:
>Does anyone actually know the risk level involved in drop testing the
>shuttle?  How does that compare with the risk of landing with the
>shuttle on the back on the 747?

Considerably higher.  The 747 with a shuttle on its back flies pretty
much like a heavily-loaded 747, which is not a terribly difficult thing
to land, given an adequate runway and good conditions.  A shuttle landing
is much dicier, with a very high descent rate and no chance of going
around for another try.

>(There may be some problems with keeping the shuttle powered up
>for the duration of the trip across the country -- did the drop
>tests use the APUs, or just batteries?)

The APUs are needed for any operation requiring hydraulic power, which
basically means takeoff and landing.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 20:45:50 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!kcarroll@uunet.uu.net  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Flying Enterprise

(re: suggestions for using Enterprise for shuttle braking tests)

Henry suggested in an earlier message that it wouldn't be too
difficult to refit Enterprise to be spaceworthy, although it
would have relatively little payload capacity, due to its
overweight structure. Low payload capacity was a good reason for
not making Enterprise spaceworthy, prior to the Challenger
explosion. Is this still the case? 

Consider that the current possible shuttle flight rate is quite
low, low enough to delay many payloads from flying for years.
What is the bottleneck keeping flight rates low? If it is
the amount of time required to turn a shuttle around after landing,
to make it ready for its next launch, then having an extra orbiter
in the queue should speed things up. While Enterprise couldn't be
used to fly Spacelab, it would presumably have >>some<<
useful payload capacity. Even if it was used only for flying
crews to and from the space station (whenever demand for that
particular activity picks up), by doing so it could take pressure
off of the other orbiters, allowing them to be used for other purposes.

Of course, if the bottleneck is caused by some other factor, 
adding Enterprise to the fleet mightn't help much. Any comments?
-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Fri, 12 May 89 20:33:52 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
>    To get guaranteed govt. support for the CDSF, for example.
>After all, it's pushed by a small company which NASA is supposedly out
>to get, so CDSF must be a better place to put federal subsidies than
>the space station.
A CDSF looking for a guaranteed market isn't as good as having CDSF 
up there ready and willing to accept customers.  It is a lot better
than wasting two decades and $60billion on tightening NASA strangle-
hold on competing domestic space activities (read Space Station Freedom).

>William Baxter writes:
>>It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other
>>pro-space activities.  It is ignorance of the facts and the problems,
>>something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology.  If nothing
>>else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts.
>
>    More of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" ideology.
Whoa!  Where did you read "if you're not with us, you're against us"
in Baxter's statements?  There are lots of problems to work on.  To
say that you, Jonathan Leech, are not working on the problem
of educating people about the negative influence NASA has on competing
domestic space activities is not to say you are part of the problem.  
However, when you go out of your way to try to discredit those who ARE 
trying to educate people about the problem, you succeed in making yourself 
part of the problem.  Cut it out and get back to work on your positive 
contributions.

>                    ...but I don't react to that by making continual
>anti-NASA postings containing, for example, carefully selected quotes
>from Congressional testimony by NASA officials.
Baxter's posting of Congressional testimony have contained
nothing BUT the exact words of those giving testimony -- no editorialization
or "clarification" is offered by Baxter in these postings.  I, for one,
greatly appreciate Baxter's efforts to dig out these pieces of history we
have difficulty accepting -- and doing so without biasing it with his
own interpretations and comments.  The fact that you find them so
discomforting, coupled with your other behavior on the net, indicates
to me that he is on the right track.  Keep it up William!  Leech is
about to snap to conciousness! (If we're all lucky. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #436
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 May 89 06:04:16 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01051> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 16 May 89 05:59:39 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 16 May 89 05:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0YPuB8y00Ui381cmVt>;
          Tue, 16 May 89 00:28:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.sYPu8py00UkZJl9U4Q>;
          Tue, 16 May 89 00:23:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <sYPu6La00UkZNl8042@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 16 May 89 00:20:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #437

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 437

Today's Topics:
		    space news from April 10 AW&ST
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 04:18:14 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from April 10 AW&ST

KSC engineers study photographs of Energia launch facilities, looking
for innovative ideas the US might adopt for ALS or Shuttle-C.

Soviet Union is developing a new Earth-resources satellite that will
provide images with 2m resolution for commercial sale.  It may have
radar imaging capability as well.

The latest Insat (Indian comsat) arrives at Astrotech's payload-processing
facility in Titusville -- the first customer in 18 months.  Insat is booked
for a Delta in May.

Space Industries Inc. (ISF/CDSF) and Payload Systems Inc. (materials
processing packages for flight aboard Mir, among others) merge.

Bush to name new head of NASA this week.  It will be Truly, with J.R.
Thompson (current head of Marshall) as deputy.  Truly's successor as
head of shuttle operations will probably be Crippen.

[Major article about ballistic-missile technology etc. in Third World.]
Analysis of Israel's satellite launch last September indicates a 156kg
satellite on a three-stage 25-ton booster.  (The orbit was 250x1150 km
and was nearly retrograde.)  [Replacing the third stage with a 500 kg
warhead would give a missile range of 7500 km, enough to reach Moscow.]

First priority of National Space Council will be the sad state of commercial
space activity.  The budget situation will limit what can be done.  Quayle,
on his first day as Council chairman, criticizes US dependence on foreign
launchers and puts a high priority on assuring commercial access to space.
He criticizes decision to allow US use of Long March:  "...a shameful event".
Soviets are thought to be planning to push for the same deal China got
(use approved but with limits on numbers).  Council to consider amount and
type of government support for commercializing space.  White House official
says government involvement appears necessary, due to poor health of the
industry.  He also says that Reagan administration's [harebrained] idea
of private financing for some NASA projects will be reexamined.  Quayle
says Council's initial focus will be on short-term problems rather than
long-term issues like Moon or Mars goals.  [Boo hiss, part of the idea of
the Council was to get away from the inability to think ahead.]  Things
that can be done in the next 10-15 years will be about as far as the
Council will go.  [Sigh, there was a time when that would have covered
either the Moon or Mars...]  Quayle warns that ambitious goals will run
head-on into the budget problems.  Quayle gives low priority to US-Soviet
cooperation, will put emphasis on strengthening US program.  The Council
will make an annual report to the president on US activity and policy;
the first report is due around the end of summer, in time to influence
the FY91 budget, and will undoubtedly examine the space station project
and its possible follow-ons.

Administration-Congress budget summit in progress, aimed at setting overall
funding levels for FY90.  Storm clouds are gathering for projects that
assume big increases, e.g. the space station.

Space entrepreneurs say there are promising signs, but the outlook remains
cloudy due to uncertainty about policy.  Joe Allen [ex-astronaut, now
president of Space Industries]:  "The problem is that there are too many
cooks in the commercial space policy stew -- the recipe never quite gets
finished... We have become increasingly sensitive and nervous about
policy that has no implementation plan behind it...  Even now the
Administration is promoting some commercial projects with very little
thought on how they are to be implemented..."  He takes a very dim view
of the Reagan nonsense about private funding for parts of the space
station, notably the robotic servicing system:  "When proposals like
that go to Capitol Hill they give space commercialization a bad name...
[They] come from the same bureaucratic network that tried to commercialize
the tracking and data relay satellite system and Landsat..."  Allen warns
that foreign competition is no longer "just on the horizon", it has arrived.

Galileo's thrusters have been cleared for flight and are being reattached,
putting Galileo back on schedule for the October launch.  Unfortunately,
there is bad news too:  NASA has decided to restrict the thrusters to
firing only short bursts, out of fear that sustained operation might
damage other nearby thrusters if overheating problems reappear.  This
does not hurt the efficiency of the thrusters, but it means that major
firings take place over longer periods, which *does* hurt the overall
fuel efficiency.  (There are other complications too, like limits on
Galileo's time in preferred thrusting attitudes when in the near-Sun
part of the mission, when solar heating can be a problem.)  Also, on
close inspection, some pulsed-thrust maneuvers that were in the flight
plan already were not examined closely enough, and they turn out to be
more expensive than expected.  Preliminary estimates, assuming that
unpredictable factors are at the 50% probability level, say that Galileo
is about 10 kg short of fuel for its full mission.  Eliminating one of
the two asteroid flybys would save about 40 kg, and each of the Jovian-
moon encounters (10 planned) costs about 20 kg.  No decision will be made
until after Venus encounter (next Feb), by which time Galileo's actual
flight performance will be known better.

Actually, only nine of the twelve thrusters tested 100% okay; one more was
rebuilt, the other two have minor problems -- not expected to endanger
the mission -- and are being put in positions where they will see only
light use.  Galileo will go to KSC mid-May and will launch, it is hoped,
Oct 12.  The window is Oct 12 through Nov 24, but fuel consumption will
be minimized with a launch in the first few days.  The next window is
in July 1991.

General Dynamics announces four commercial versions of the Atlas, the
biggest having four strap-on solid boosters to meet Intelsat's payload
requirements.  GD has committed itself to building 62 Atlases from 1990
to 1997.  [This isn't bad by Western standards, although it's nothing by
Soviet production-line standards.]

Soviets give up on Phobos 2.  Some limited signals were received after
the imaging session March 27, but full contact was not regained.  Those
signals are thought to have been from the omnidirectional antenna, not
the high-gain antenna, according to Dunayev (head of Glavcosmos), and
there were indications that Phobos 2 was spinning.  Attempts to command
it back to normal orientation were unsuccessful and no further signals
were heard.  The mission is not considered a complete failure, since
quite a bit of data was gathered earlier, including images of Mars and
Phobos.  One image appears to include an "odd-shaped object" between
the spacecraft and Mars; this might be debris in Phobos's orbit, or it
could be Phobos 2's jettisoned propulsion module.  [There has been some
speculation that a debris collision might have caused the failure, given
that P2 had conducted similar imaging maneuvers earlier with no problem.]

LTV and its Italian partner BPD are studying a souped-up version of the
Scout 2 launcher, with four strap-on SRBs derived from the ones BPD
builds for Ariane 4.  The previous Scout 2 concept used only two SRBs.
Market studies apparently indicate a desire for heavier payloads, notably
for microgravity work.  Italy's Aeritalia is studying a recoverable
capsule, dubbed Carina, sized to fly on Scout 2.

Dunayev says no Soviet shuttle missions are planned this year.  "We're
examining what the goal of our next mission will be..."  [Could this
be something to do with Mir's problems?]

USAF provides small-scale funding for work on high-efficiency solar cells
for spacecraft, notably multi-layer cells incorporating materials working
in different wavelength bands.
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 02:02:11 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #507 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89125.95941037 0.00000235           27246-3 0  2012
2 00424  80.4660 327.4794 0022438 239.5664 120.3261 13.67130780327043
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89116.76398009 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2238
2 03029  12.6680  24.5959 0014478 193.5736 166.3415  1.00272826 78628
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89129.25969005 0.00000002                   0  7441
2 08820 109.8224 216.7421 0044912 324.2239  35.5582  6.38663506 48142
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89121.89669422 -.00000006                   0  2577
2 10061   7.0490  68.8171 0006240 177.5835 182.3870  1.00274748  4915
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89128.56707222 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1119
2 10684  63.5468 102.0722 0106259 198.1496 161.3826  2.00560078 67736
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89111.57222263 -.00000028                   0  9731
2 10893  64.5216 343.4269 0152916  28.5525 332.3410  2.00557950 80219
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89120.94919771 0.00000083           10000-3 0  6457
2 10953   5.8987  71.5586 0006548 255.2643 104.6362  1.00286010   469
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89124.08970134 0.00001010           40090-3 0  1112
2 10967 108.0061 196.7846 0002261 240.8216 119.2692 14.34537768567765
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89125.34905905 -.00000027                   0    79
2 11054  64.0797 339.4702 0054588 117.3947 243.2054  2.00560969 77502
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89123.95790806 0.00000011                   0  1436
2 11141  63.5406 102.1174 0058051 321.0838  38.4680  2.00574926 76179
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89123.07190586 0.00000947           41478-3 0  8425
2 11416  98.5055 121.4478 0010492 241.5372 118.3683 14.25709701511478
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89128.49373497 0.00055138           98677-3 0  9379
2 11703  28.4983 198.7408 0000717  62.4287 297.6401 15.48587573513673
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89125.90779040 -.00000027                   0  8774
2 11783  63.8609 339.1134 0142537  62.2971 299.1877  2.00567478 66157
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89125.78624667 -.00000244           10000-3 0  7258
2 12472   2.4352  80.9552 0002430 346.4281  13.3933  1.00252549 28189
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89120.06556878  .00014499  00000-0  54262-3 0  1790
2 12887  97.6898 144.5622 0003310  67.1291 293.0364 15.27414116417801
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89129.08196932 0.00071565           10654-2 0  5463
2 12888  97.5584 180.3130 0002198 198.2232 161.9833 15.54885066422906
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89124.91183139 0.00000217           18563-3 0  6361
2 13113  82.5363  93.1597 0014455 178.6423 181.4774 13.83982980359259
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89128.96118431 0.00018172           44705-3 0  5624
2 13138  51.6084 149.4142 0001008   1.8376 358.2474 15.40669215402144
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89113.62903427  .00002004  00000-0  45488-3 0  9194
2 13367  98.2165 177.9866 0002811  35.4502 324.7493 14.57112293360127
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89123.00246039 0.00000496           25580-3 0  7693
2 13718  81.2459 325.7584 0056710 126.2826 234.3609 14.13166058329175
IRAS       
1 13777U          89121.38148785 -.00000036          -13175-4 0  6325
2 13777  99.0447 319.1374 0013659  82.1615 278.1101 13.98578632319651
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89116.70982300 -.00000236  00000-0  99999-5 0  7890
2 13969   3.4536  69.0376 0003115 201.1259 158.7213  1.00264213 88880
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89126.98353881 0.00000123                   0  9412
2 14050   1.1989  83.1750 0000261 278.3688  81.4828  1.00256498  6197
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89118.08895220 -.00000003          -54404+0 0  3972
2 14129  26.3614 268.0965 6056185  37.4444 352.2526  2.05880547 16184
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89120.51197520 0.00000010                   0  6247
2 14189  63.1818 100.8446 0135011 215.4953 143.6040  2.00570446 42489
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89124.07582663 0.00000632           26794-3 0  7154
2 14452  81.1649 337.7629 0093641 223.6540 135.7190 14.22147810286270
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89129.04217687 0.00001928           43762-3 0  7480
2 14780  98.1697 192.0312 0003708  32.8694 327.2727 14.57136858275866
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89124.21962848 0.00002252           44351-3 0  4406
2 14781  98.0064 184.2914 0014451  96.8987 263.3840 14.63442838276117
LDEF       
1 14898U          89124.59690181 0.00027797           50631-3 0  8328
2 14898  28.5042 123.1921 0001812 134.7341 225.3372 15.48043728284681
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89121.56689284 0.00000010                   0  6566
2 15039  62.8906 100.1234 0014574 277.1258  82.6987  2.00564370 35785
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89118.77440559 0.00000304           26557-3 0  9367
2 15099  82.5290  45.6712 0014652  21.1986 338.9780 13.83644510243284
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89120.96939771 -.00000028                   0  6184
2 15271  63.3787 339.0459 0099499 320.1074  39.2165  2.00564748 32885
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89128.68645734 0.00002796           40639-3 0   207
2 15331  82.5421  14.9099 0022885 210.3193 149.6684 14.75475383248394
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89124.27262667 0.00000618           35846-3 0  3673
2 15427  99.1420 110.3636 0016172  76.7978 283.4995 14.11982429226255
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89128.55583486 0.00000279           24148-3 0   776
2 15516  82.5364 336.2921 0014860 225.5314 134.4634 13.84100473215571
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89128.96118613 0.00022132           54198-3 0  2446
2 16095  51.6079 149.4157 0001507 359.0669   1.0240 15.40674055402148
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89121.12422950 0.00000011                   0  3124
2 16129  63.7081 100.7309 0115410 150.5877 210.0687  2.00564772 26095
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89128.77448126 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8264
2 16191  82.5474 263.6009 0020334  39.8568 320.4040 13.16869664170334
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89128.78669035 0.00000236           20168-3 0  4851
2 16408  82.5335 250.9541 0017843  53.0006 307.2780 13.84163773170109
Mir        
1 16609U          89129.00322511 0.00026899           42348-3 0  8351
2 16609  51.6207 199.1234 0011161 280.3842  79.5506 15.53316355185071
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89129.89627627 0.00000713           35239-3 0  4601
2 16613  98.7000 204.8971 0000452 118.3188 241.8047 14.20050406  6694
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89128.82454437 0.00000173           14612-3 0  2975
2 16735  82.5337 277.7338 0015284 118.9717 241.2975 13.83903885149016
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89129.79981138 0.00003574           52564-3 0  6001
2 16881  82.5253  73.4644 0022008 222.0373 137.9207 14.75052154149636
EGP        
1 16908U          89124.59521536 -.00000021           15842-3 0  1239
2 16908  50.0066  72.0873 0011518 236.4348 123.5387 12.44378007123984
FO-12      
1 16909U          89112.36835661 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1414
2 16909  50.0159 109.9094 0011193 203.0127 157.0209 12.44399273122451
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89117.94956787 0.00000757           35283-3 0  2177
2 16969  98.6406 149.3932 0014527  39.8819 320.3424 14.22964168136791
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89127.15642392 0.00000276           24027-3 0  2465
2 17290  82.4701 186.6877 0014299  22.1382 338.0371 13.83714652117946
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89120.69102403  .00000103  00000-0  10221-3 0  1020
2 17527  99.1505 192.5467 0001066 127.1675 232.9573 13.94832860111759
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89121.69105956 -.00000039           10000-3 0  2687
2 17561   0.0589 271.6829 0002253 222.1882 226.0727  1.00275624  1291
Kvant      
1 17845U          89127.84516411 0.00029688           46759-3 0  7468
2 17845  51.6245 204.8939 0010848 275.2943  84.6658 15.53253591121165
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89128.94111265 0.00000276           29346-3 0  7515
2 18129  82.9251 267.1373 0012452 154.6755 205.5039 13.71972239 94018
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89129.65063203 0.00179644  16440-4  24000-3 0   194
2 18225  71.8689 158.5250 0010373 239.8160 120.1773 16.06369805105111
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89127.76680225 0.00000218           18868-3 0  2669
2 18312  82.5523 251.5504 0012201 317.0176  43.0032 13.83461225 86927
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89127.98302863 0.00000158           13212-3 0  1093
2 18820  82.5436 312.5154 0018249  24.4075 335.7947 13.84150791 64126
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 89.37166448 -.00000028           10000-3 0   346
2 19216  57.2895 213.9669 6688587 201.4192 106.6281  2.09699506  6084
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89120.82339204  .00002047  00000-0  30281-3 0  3580
2 19274  82.5193 180.3923 0023621  30.6606 329.5918 14.74599897 44103
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89128.98780217 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1887
2 19336  82.5476 203.3816 0016010 243.5639 116.3838 13.16926611 37757
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89125.44347447 0.00000725           42422-3 0   734
2 19531  98.9359  69.6676 0012588 358.5960   1.5171 14.10972881 31442
TDRS 2     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89 88.95555250  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   220
2 19548   0.3759  85.6281 0002664 253.4727  20.8853  1.00266482   994
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89112.65814275  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   301
2 19802  55.1161 213.9967 0069734 154.7705 205.7027  2.00553753  1314
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89127.99386327 0.00000117           10000-3 0   339
2 19851  82.5319 191.2535 0016199  70.4876 289.8032 13.83793616  9523
Cosmos 2007
1 19900U          89111.68155825 0.00328568  53900-4  45747-3 0   599
2 19900  64.7376 294.5535 0046890 113.4393 247.1709 16.03352976  4699
Cosmos 2008
1 19902U          89116.00392757 -.00000006                   0   119
2 19902  74.0150 350.9818 0049383  47.6256 312.8966 12.57624316  4085
Cosmos 2009
1 19903U          89115.97367855 -.00000006                   0   194
2 19903  74.0136 351.1735 0040920  57.9208 302.5814 12.55708122  4073
Cosmos 2010
1 19904U          89116.02198481 -.00000007                   0   123
2 19904  74.0169 351.2452 0029998  57.7151 302.6852 12.53835344  4072
Cosmos 2011
1 19905U          89115.99017871 -.00000007                   0   100
2 19905  74.0133 351.4784 0020649  63.6620 296.6555 12.51975370  4035
Cosmos 2012
1 19906U          89116.04082705 -.00000007                   0   173
2 19906  74.0154 351.5364 0009996  71.0983 289.1155 12.50018203  4069
Cosmos 2013
1 19907U          89116.01420355 -.00000006                   0   122
2 19907  74.0155 351.7657 0010079 145.8879 214.2831 12.47957635  4029
Cosmos 2014
1 19908U          89115.74202185 -.00000006                   0   121
2 19908  74.0137 352.2749 0013011 203.8083 156.2365 12.46073020  4011
Cosmos 2015
1 19909U          89116.04063931 -.00000007                   0   121
2 19909  74.0160 352.0316 0026013 201.5921 158.4034 12.43852318  4006
Cos 2008-15
1 19910U          89113.23932265 -.00000006                   0   147
2 19910  74.0126 357.2113 0134375 228.1294 130.8211 12.23001671  3636
Delta Star 
1 19911U          89115.83185253 -.00008444          -34058-3 0   490
2 19911  47.6782 237.1065 0009644 138.5781 221.4369 15.23615754  4861
TDRS 3 R/B 
1 19913U          89112.93435508 0.00000028           10000-3 0   119
2 19913   2.1633  57.0036 0026791 207.9139 151.7442  1.00619254   335
1989 027A  
1 19919U          89115.39349429 0.00000064           10000-3 0   215
2 19919   0.0999  92.6385 0003757 294.6060 332.8282  1.00274867   104
1989 027B  
1 19920U          89119.09018115 -.00044246  19062-4 -69849-5 0   349
2 19920   4.5235  17.2364 7326100 212.1714  83.2276  2.31530723   635
1989 028A  
1 19921U          89122.43552170 0.00000152           15077-3 0   273
2 19921  82.9594 120.0189 0038515 217.6923 142.1535 13.73921585  3800
1989 028B  
1 19922U          89117.08932977 0.00000059           54697-4 0   296
2 19922  82.9550 123.9075 0033528 215.3243 144.7293 13.75750065  3071
1989 030A  
1 19928U          89129.21038742 -.00000148           10000-3 0   320
2 19928   1.4047 277.4123 0003377  53.0325 308.4736  1.00288691   265
1980 030D  
1 19931U          89120.28794469 -.00000086           10000-3 0   104
2 19931   1.4360 276.9114 0017922  17.2994 342.2434  0.97927701   174
Cosmos 2018
1 19938U          89130.07676773 0.01028110  40594-4  34004-3 0   505
2 19938  62.8030 359.5084 0094830  41.7330 319.1934 16.14702320  3118
Photon 2   
1 19941U          89129.68368390 0.00211766  10536-4  26651-3 0   284
2 19941  62.8200   9.2992 0108757 113.1765 248.0427 15.96437263  2079
1989 033C  
1 19970U          89127.88952142 0.00004776           16505-2 0    96
2 19970  27.9841 336.9823 6565246   5.5715 359.2068  3.20853436    96
1989 034A  
1 19972U          89129.64691383 0.00129928  39042-4  86795-4 0   147
2 19972  62.8514 351.8922 0124198 264.8695  93.7945 16.02061677   666
1989 034B  
1 19973U          89128.99638017 0.02648943  13782-4  11057-2 0   112
2 19973  62.8344 354.2390 0012752 267.8727  92.2376 16.22430539   565
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #437
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 May 89 05:53:32 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00846> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 16 May 89 05:48:39 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 16 May 89 05:48:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kYPwtCe00Vs1E1HVVP>;
          Tue, 16 May 89 03:31:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.kYPwhTy00UkZ5lLk4Z>;
          Tue, 16 May 89 03:18:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYPwgTy00UkZRlKE4N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 16 May 89 03:17:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #438

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 438

Today's Topics:
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
		 Re: Private funding of space science
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
     Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
			      Re: memes
			    Re: Near miss
		  Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
			Re: NSS Hotline Update
		  Re: In-flight liquification of air
	    Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 09:08:30 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick!nfs4!kgd@uunet.uu.net  (Keith Dancey)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <103026@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> mae@sun.UUCP (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO}) writes:

>
>But even greater menace lurks in the darkness of space.  Scientists have
>speculated that objects as large as several miles across have crashed into the
>Earth, spewing millions of tons of debris into the atmosphere, blotting out the
>Sun for months or years, and causing mass extinctions of life -- including,
>many believe, the dinosaurs.  Of the known larger Earth-crossers, none seem to
>pose a threat in the near future.  But, says Shoemaker, "until we have tracked
>all of them, something could sneak up on us."
>

My understanding is that the demise of the dinosaurs extended over a period
of order of magnitude of a thousand years.  Certainly long enough to place
doubt upon the viability of a single catastrophy such as the one mentioned.

If the palaeontological evidence is not contradicted (and I have understood
it correctly) then a *series* of such catastrophic strikes would be required.
 
That is not say a single catastrophy is ruled out, but it looks as though
its effects must be longer-lived than a few years.
 
As for tracking "all" large, earth-crossing asteriods, there is
a danger of conveying the unspoken idea that the number may be fixed and
finite for all time.  I think such a concept is also under question.
There is just the possibility that these bodies are disturbed out of
an otherwise harmless state by the dynamics of the galaxy.  This means
their numbers may be added to at any time unexpectedly.
 
-- 
Keith Dancey,                               UUCP:   ..!mcvax!ukc!rlinf!kgd
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, England  OX11 0QX             
Tel: (0235) 21900   ext 6756                JANET:       K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl.inf

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 09:28:40 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dr. Dereference)
Subject: Re: Private funding of space science

In article <8905120536.AA01379@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:
>The government is the best source of support for research NOT development
  [a whole lot deleted]

This idea is ok as a general principal but there are many exceptions. The
rest of the posting had some reasonable ideas but was very ideological and
simplified complex situations which have many exceptions.

In order to do a lot of R&D hardware needs to be developed (ie if you want to
explore the planets, you have to develop space probes). While the governemnt
certainly should not do the development itself, it still needs to fund the
development of hardware for R&D that will not be done privately. As for
government involvment in operations, the best people to operate the hardware
built for R&D are usually the scientists doing the R&D, who are usually
government employees (ie JPL). I agree that NASA should stop developing and
operating launch services itself and should buy such services from private
companies.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 18:35:22 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

derek@hsi.UUCP (Derek Lee-Wo) posts:
----------
Sometimes I wish I were born a few hundreds years in the future. Could one
just imagine what it would be like to hop a space shuttle to another
planet as easily as we could now jump on a plane to London.
 
Now if only I could believe in re-incarnation :-)
----------
If you have a background in physics, chemistry, or biology or even computers,
you might look into the emergence of nanotechnology from these disciplines.
Try reading _Engines of Creation_ by Eric Drexler, and if you buy it, consider
cryonics as a way to get you into the future.  Info from the non-profit
Alcor Life Extension Foundation can be obtained by writing them at 
12327 Doherty St.
Riverside, CA  92503
or call 800-367-2228 (714-736-1703 in California)  Keith Henson

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 13:03:55 GMT
From: castor.ucdavis.edu!ccs013@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu  (Jason)
Subject: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

In article <6101@nfs4.rl.ac.uk> kgd@inf.rl.ac.uk (Keith Dancey) writes:
>>Sun for months or years, and causing mass extinctions of life -- including,
>>many believe, the dinosaurs.
>My understanding is that the demise of the dinosaurs extended over a period
>of order of magnitude of a thousand years.

...etc....

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is this one of the theories (proofs) behind
 the "asteroid theory" of the extinction of the dinosaurs ?:

Layers of Iridium were found deep into the earth's crust ( i.e. in the layers
of the Grand Canyon).  Now, being that Iridium is rare on earth but found
to be relatively more bountiful in asteroids and meteors, it is suggested
that the layer of this element was put on our planet by an extremely large
(or as previously mentioned a few extremely large) asteroid(s) which hit
earth and caused the clouds of dust ...etc., which eventually killed off the
dinosaurs.  This dust, if the theory is accurate, was filled with Iridium and
when settled created a solid layer over years of rain, erosion ...etc...

Is this a widely accepted view? What are the opposing ideas?

   ___    ___   __    ___  )___    __________________________________
  (   |  '__|  (__   /  /  /  /    |       II Corinthians 10:17     |
   \  |  (__)\  __) /__/  /  /     +--------------------------------+
    \_| Internet: jygabler@ucdavis |"Why me?!", Garion said. "Do we |
      | BITNET:   jygabler@ucdavis | we have to go thru that again",|
      | UUCP:     ucdavis!jygabler | the dry voice retorted.        |

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 00:32:26 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

I recall that someone suggested that name on Usenet, shortly after the
Challenger explosion.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 19:02:53 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: memes

John Roberts (roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov) ends a rather thoughful post with:
>My question is not whether the concept of memes can be used to form a
>model of the spread and application of ideas, but whether such a model
>would be of any actual use, for predicting future events or for some
>other application, which it can handle better than conventional methods.
"Conventional methods" is a term which I do not understand, but as to
predicting future events, I have argued that the mutation/communication
complexity of the memetic ecosystem is subject to chaos, that is long
term projections are *impossible* for the same reason weather is.  Short
term projections, on the order of the popularity of a song or book can
be made (and are by conventional guesses).  As to the use of memetics,
I think its most useful application might be to teach people to be more
thoughtful about which ideas they accept into their minds.  (A 30k byte
article "Memes, Meta-Memes, and Politics" is available by email.)
Keith Henson (hkhenson@cup.portal.com)

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 09:01:49 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Re: Near miss

In article <610059087.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>> atmosphere (over Colorado, I believe.)  I forget how big it was, but it
>> stayed in the atmosphere for a few minutes, and it didn't burn up.  It
>> just kept going back out into solar orbit.
>
>There is a color picture in a back issue of National Geographic. IT was
>a feature article on meteors and such. Within the last 5 years I
>believe.
>

A thousand people will probably say this same thing, but here's my version:

The Geographic article is in the September '86 Issue, entitled "Meteorites:
Invaders from Space", pages 390-418. The photo mentioned above is on pages 416-
417. Very spectacular it is too.

Looking at it reminds me of a similar sort of picture that was (I think)
taken from a ship off Italy or Greece in about 1944. Similar bright spot with
a tail behind it, though the caption was more along the lines of "UFO sighted
over occupied Europe"....

Does anyone remember this one? I don't have any Geographics back that far, and
anyway, I think it was a newspaper photo.

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 00:59:46 GMT
From: att!oucsace!oucs!wright!cs7010d@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Student of Dr. Shock)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

in article <52000@philabs.Philips.Com>, rfc@briar.philips.com (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201) says:
> Xref: wright sci.space:9941 sci.space.shuttle:3068
> Posted: Wed May 10 11:18:38 1989
> 
> I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something)
> and was not flightworthy.  Any truth to this?

	The Enterprise was never spaceworthy, just a full scale test
bed for reentry/flight dynamics.  (Unless you mean not even able to do
this, anymore)

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 00:21:08 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

If you are really interested in this. I recommend the work and writings of
Preston Cloud.

Longish signature follows "Type 'n' now"

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 15:31:33 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update

In article <246900024@cdp> jordankatz@cdp.UUCP writes:
>
>This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline Update:
>Tuesday May 9, 1989.

[ a consistent waste of net bandwidth given the existing contributions
  of Peter Yee, Henry Spencer and (my fave) Jonathan McDowell, however
  since it keeps the NSS acronym in front of peoples' eyes, I suspect 
  we are stuck with it, sloganeering and all; so, Rolaids in hand, one 
  reads on... ]

>                                      The overall flight of the
>Shuttle Atlantis has gone fairly smooth, with the exception of a
>broken fax machine, and a failed computer.  The crew wanted to fix
>the fax machine themselves but were ordered not to by ground
>control.  

Not as trivial a problem as it sounds.  One of the few things they
had room to test given the Magellan weight constraints was a new
Text/Graphics System (TGS was the acronym I saw, if it's different
someone mail me) for uplinking charts and such.  Can someone post
details on the failure mode?  This could mean delays before it's 
operational.

[ that's one annoyance about these NSS screeds, they appear to be
  written down to the shoe clerk level.  Mustn't let annoying details
  interfere with the phone tree! ]
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 08:38:34 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: In-flight liquification of air

In article <3961@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
>	How is liquification of air to be done without the use of horrendously
>heavy equipment and huge energy expenditure?  (It seems that both would be
>needed to liquify air, especially at the rate that would be needed.)
>	Also, since air is only 21% oxygen, storage of liquified air would be
>quite wasteful of weight and space.

Air liquification is an approach the Japanese are taking in their aerospace
plane project. The whole point of such a plane is to drastically increase
performance over a rocket engine by using the oxygen in the air instead of
carrying all your oxydizer with you. So no, the plane would not carry
liquified air. The plane uses liquid hydrogen (its fuel) to liquify the air.
This is necessary because the engine operates at too high a pressure to
practically pump enough normal air into it.

The US aerospace plane project (NASP) is trying to build a scramjet
which uses carefully shaped scoops to bring air into the combustion chamber
without liquifying it. This requires speeds of around 2000 mph before the
engine will operate properly (fuel is liquid hydrogen), so another
engine/rocket must bring the plane up to that speed. The scramjet is
supposed to propel the plane all the way to orbital velocity (17,500 mph).
One major problem is that the hottest parts of the scramjet would be over
5000F (!), and the highest temperature jet engine parts currently built can
only withstand 2800F. I've read that this project is currently using over a
third of all the supercomputer time in the US. It comes as no surprise that
the military is interested in a jet with a top speed of 17500 mph, so the
project is funded by the military at 300 million a year.

The Germans have a somewhat different concept, though I don't know if it's
actually funded at this point. They use an airplane to carry a shuttle to
19 miles and 4500 mph, and then the shuttle separates and uses rockets for
the additional 13000 mph and 80 miles of altitude. This has the advantage
of requiring only current technology. Still, it doesn't seem very cost
effective to build a plane capable of carrying a shuttle to 19 miles and
4500 mph (not an easy plane to build) and then still have 80 miles and
13000 mph to go.

Note: This information is from an artical in the LA Times 5/8/89.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 15:43:42 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?

I remember seeing a report in the Science and the Citizen column in
Scientific American about a year ago, which said that a paint flake 0.2 mm
long had impacted a window on one of the space shuttles.  It left a crater
about 1 cm in diameter.

Imagine the effect of hitting a clump of copper wires!  Perhaps the proper
successor to smart rocks and brilliant peebles will be "genius dust".
These could be naked IC's powered by the sun and propelled by tiny ion
engines.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #438
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 May 89 07:28:00 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01182> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 16 May 89 07:23:52 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 16 May 89 07:23:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.MYPyWZO00Ui342Uk5P>;
          Tue, 16 May 89 05:23:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.gYPyRZy00UkZ5lWU5x>;
          Tue, 16 May 89 05:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYPyPyO00UkZFlV04u@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 16 May 89 05:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #439

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 439

Today's Topics:
	   UFOs and other bunk (getting tiring, isn't it?)
		   Long Duration Exposure Facility
		 Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
		 Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
			   heavy launchers
		 Re: citizens in space -- risk silli
	   Re: Enterprise: will it ever fly,like Columbia ?
		    Re: flames about my signature
Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)
		 Re: Private funding of space science
		   Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 May 89 15:08 CST
From: I am Beatrice <SCOTT@GACVAX1.Bitnet>
Subject: UFOs and other bunk (getting tiring, isn't it?)
Original_To:  BITNET%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

}From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
}> Nope, gotta put in my two bits here, Mark. Blowing up the sun and mining
}> asteroids are two things that are possible, but we haven't got the ability
}
}The same person who thinks blowing up the sun is possible says:
}
}>         UFOs, though, are not proven to exist. There is absolutely no firm
}> ground to base their existence on. Just because the universe is so huge
}> that life MUST have evolved elsewhere has nothing to do with whether or
}> Scott@gacvax1.bitnet
}There are some important things to consider, with regard to ET's.  We must
}have a plan for dealing with them NOW, before it happens;  otherwise we will
}follow our instincts or an ad hoc plan, and screw everything up.
     
Think they're gonna stop and ask permission to land unless they are peaceful?
And I don't THINK blowing up the sun is possible, I KNOW it is. Give me
all the extra-sun mass in the solar system, and time to get it accelerated
to a decent speed, and I'll get rid of that nasty sun. There is a basic
difference that I'm trying to get at - we've reason to believe that the
sun operates on nuclear fusion, and if we can add enough energy to it, it
will go out of "control" (as if its in control:{), and explode.
     
}Note that the Apollo astronauts were subjected to quarantine on return to
}Earth.  Obviously NASA takes ET contact very seriously.
     
I don't believe the Apollo astronauts ever came into contact with ETs.
     
}Could an alien virus or bacteria infect us?  Or could one of ours infect
}them?  I would not want to be responsible for the kind of plagues which
}occurred following contact between Old World explorers and the natives
}of the New World.
     
Seriously, if the Indians had known that we carried smallpox, etc, what
could they have done? Kindly asked us to leave, because we are dangerous
to them?
     
}I would certainly be very hesitant to release yeast on the planet of
}the potato-heads.
     
Sure, but I was arguing against US worrying about ETs landing here, not
US landing elsewhere.
     
}But there is one kind of virus which can infect any form of intelligent
}life.  I am speaking, of course, about memes.  Imagine the kind of
}destruction we would be causing if we exposed a peaceful, traditional
}society to Marxism or the Bible (or both).  Imagine the kind of destruction
}they could cause if they infected us with a super-UFO-Nazi religion.
}
}"Have you accepted Zzyzzybalubah as your personal saviour?  If not,
}you're facing the fires of hell.  We've come to your planet to carry
}the message of the Lord to you, so you may share in the glorious
}afterlife in dimension 5 that Zzyzzybalubah has prepared for you.
}And if you don't get the message, we're going to roast the whole planet."
     
So, what should we do? Anyone who can roast the whole planet obviously isn't
going to stop when we send up a couple hundred measly warheads, which we
cannot even do. And any preparations would probably backfire - "Uh, sir,
they seem to have weapons trained on us. Can I get rid of them?"
     
I guess I'm getting a bit tired of this. I personally am heavily into sci-fi.
I'd be very happy to have the aliens come tomorrow and save us from ourselves.
But realistically, I don't think its going to happen. More than likely,
any aliens that run across us would be tremendously advanced, and they should
have figured out some of the problems. Thats about the only chance we have.
     
The original settlers of America didn't come to destroy a millenia old culture,
(on both sides of the Atlantic), but they did nonetheless. And they knew more
about what was happening than the Indians ( and later, Negroes) did. But
they went ahead with it. I firmly believe that we don't have the ability
to detect and guard against anything subtle that aliens might bring. We
cannot even get rid of the common cold, which we've had thousands of years
to work with. As for psychological effects, we aren't even sure how seperate
peoples on the Earth relate to each other, much less advanced outsiders.
My opinion is that first WE ( western culture) should stop the changes we
are working (sometimes forcibly) in other cultures all over the world, before
we start worrying about problems with aliens changing us. Maybe we'll be
told that the Indians had it all right, and that there is going to be a
Galactic weeding out of all non-believers:-) This is just as valid as anything
else I've heard about aliens.
     
It is very hard to scientifically study something without the benifit of
a subject. We've gotten to watch supernovae and novae in many other galaxies,
and thus we can theorise about them. And to check up on our theories, we
wait until another happens somewhere. But with aliens, we have no subject
matter, and we have no idea where to look for them.
     
If there are aliens that come to Earth, I would greet them with open arms. But
until then, my plan is to be the alien coming to another's planet. Then
I'll worry about problems that I could cause them to have. If they are use
anerobic processes to survive, I won't try to up the oxygen content of their
atmosphere. If their atmosphere is a two to one mix of H and O, I won't
light my cigaretts:-)

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 07:57:35 GMT
From: blake!sealion@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (sealion)
Subject: Long Duration Exposure Facility

With the current backlog in payloads for the shuttle system, are 
there plans to recover the Long Duration Exposure Facility?

Thanks.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't
 believe this to be a coincidence." || - Jeremy S. Anderson   12/15/88  

#include <disclaimer.h>                       sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 20:28:19 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility

In article <2020@blake.acs.washington.edu> sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu (sealion) writes:
>With the current backlog in payloads for the shuttle system, are 
>there plans to recover the Long Duration Exposure Facility?

Yes.  NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 05:53:39 GMT
From: cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Charles Daffinger)
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility

In article <1989May13.202819.23389@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Yes.  NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
>and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter.

Just a silly question...  How much different is the orbit of LDEF to that
which the shuttle took to launch Magellan?  Would it have been possible
to retrieve LDEF on the shuttle after it launched Magellan?

-charles

-- 
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  (812) 339-7354
cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu              {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 20:14:37 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: heavy launchers

In article <11316@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>>Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V????
>
>We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand
>built rocket that was thrown away after every use...

This is a fairly circular statement.  The Saturn V was expensive, hand-built,
and non-recoverable because of the decision in the mid-60s to throw it away!
When Congress capped Saturn V production at 15, (a) all hopes of reducing
cost through volume went away, (b) it was no longer worth mechanizing the
production process as had been planned, and (c) all work on making Saturn V
stages recoverable stopped because it would never be done.  The original
plans for the Saturn V envisioned mechanized volume production and possible
recovery of at least the first stage in the long run.  This was when the
Saturn V was going to be NASA's heavy launcher well into the 1980s, launching
lunar missions, a space station or three, heavy planetary probes, and so on.

Blaming the NASA of the 70s for throwing away the Saturn V is pretty much
a mistake.  The real culprit is the Congress of the 60s.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 20:18:08 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silli

In article <218100019@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>	Is there a single manager that was involved in over-riding the
>engineers and pushing the launch suffering any penalty for their stupidity
>and arrogance? My guess is that the engineers were sacked and the managers
>promoted.

Pretty much so.  A few of the managers retired a little early on fat
pensions.  And NASA got billions to fix the problems, and passed on a
fair bit of it to Morton Thiokol.  M-T also had its monopoly on shuttle
boosters extended for several years.

Killing astronauts is good for business.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 20:27:36 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Enterprise: will it ever fly,like Columbia ?

In article <2100@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> mcconnel@thor.stolaf.edu () writes:
>I'm sorry, stupid, but curious. Could somebody tell me the purpose 
>that Enterprise is used for and include a history of it ?
>Please include why it doesn't fly like the other shuttles.

Enterprise was the first "real" orbiter to be built, and was used for the
approach-and-landing tests (dropped by 747) before the first space flights.
Enterprise was originally meant to be refitted for spaceflight (or at least
this was the official position), but the eventual decision was that it
was too far below the standard set by the later orbiters and the refit
wasn't worth it.  Instead, the structural "test article" was tested a bit
less severely than planned and was refitted to become Challenger.  The
Enterprise was used for various forms of ground testing and occasional
public display, and was ultimately donated to the Smithsonian.

Enterprise's original tentative name is said to have been Constitution.
It was renamed after a write-in campaign by Star Trek fans.  I think it was
after that that NASA decided a coherent naming policy was in order, and
laid down the rule that orbiters were to be named after historically
noteworthy explorer ships.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 04:31:43 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh!wcs@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: flames about my signature

In article <1989May2.182324.7264@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
] I've heard that there has been some more flaming about my dreadful anti-
] American signature, although I haven't seen much of it myself.  I would
	I haven't been flaming you, I've just had my .signature set to
# welcome, to mars, eh, hosers!  Have a brew and some donuts, eh?

] As for "Canada: 0 tries" and the like, note that Canada is an associate
] member of the European Space Agency (didn't realize we were a European
] country, did you? :-)) and small Canadian participation in future ESA

Oh, well, it was time for a new .signature anyway ...  Maybe

# Russkies 0/2 Yanks 0/0 Hosers 0/0, real soon now ...

		Naah ...
-- 
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs
	# also found at 201-271-4712 tarpon.att.com!wcs 
# But the treaty says we have to give Panama back to the Panamanians!
#    Don't worry - we'll think of something.  Corruption?  Yeah, that's it!

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 04:42:35 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh!wcs@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)

In article <24816@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) writes:
] [various authors and comments deleted
]<>>(Other than economics.  I know NASA is cheap).
]<Right!  NASA is *expensive*, not cheap!
]NASA's not cheap, congress is cheap.
	Excuse me there - that's my money you're asking them not to be
	cheap with.  If they weren't busy spending it all on
	invading small countries and buying large useless missles,
	maybe I'd have some of it around to invest in Space, Inc...

	Besides, it's *Congress* that's expensive, not cheap ...

][disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
	So are they taking taxation-stolen money away from the space
	program for you to read netnews with ( 1/2 :-)?) Admittedly, 
	my employer is a large defense contractor as well, so I'm
	hardly in a position to talk.
-- 
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs
	# also found at 201-271-4712 tarpon.att.com!wcs 
# But the treaty says we have to give Panama back to the Panamanians!
#    Don't worry - we'll think of something.  Corruption?  Yeah, that's it!

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 07:24:37 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Private funding of space science

In article <11362@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (Dr. Dereference) writes:
>In article <8905120536.AA01379@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:
>>The government is the best source of support for research NOT development
>>  [a whole lot deleted]
>In order to do a lot of R&D hardware needs to be developed (ie if you want to
>explore the planets, you have to develop space probes). While the governemnt
>certainly should not do the development itself, it still needs to fund the
>development of hardware for R&D that will not be done privately.

We don't really need to develop new technology or hardware.  We need to
build and launch hardware.  The Soviets have adequately demonstrated
that refinement of existing technology will serve quite well.

Every time NASA introduces a new, large program they claim that it will
involve development of new technology.  This is a *problem*.  While new
technology may be sexy, it is almost never cost effective.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 04:27:43 GMT
From: haven!umbc3!tron!carson@purdue.edu  (Dana Carson)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

>From todays fridaygram (inhouse newsletter) the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics has announced a competition to bring about
the launch of at least three solar sail vechiles: the Columbus 500 Space
Sail Cup 1992.  The craft representing the Americas, Europe and Asia
will journey from high Earth orbit to the Moon and possibly Mars.  The
event will commerate the 500th anniversary fo Columbus' discovery of the
New World.
   Last December the Columbus Quincntenary Jubilee commission,
established by Congress, approved the cup for 92.
   Project goals include expanding the frontiers of space explorarion
for all peoples and fostering scientific achievments to benifit Earths
civilazation.  Both corperate and acedemic communities are expected to
join forces in devloping a successful solar sail entry.
  Followed with a contact number for Westinghouse employees interested
in getting involved in design, building or contributing experiments.

Dana Carson
Westinghouse Electronic Systems Group  Mail Stop 1615
UUCP:carson@tron.UUCP 
     carson%tron.UUCP@umbc3.UMBC.EDU
     ...!netsys!umbc3!tron!carson
AT&T: (301) 765-3513
WIN: 285-3513

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 May 89 13:58:46 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!garcon!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Andrew Higgins) writes:

>According to CNN, NASA has announced that the Challenger replacement orbiter
>will be named Endeavour.  Note the English spelling with the "-our" (which is
>fine with me, Anglophile that I am). 

According to _Ad Astra_, "Endeavor" will be an alternate spelling.  I'm not sure
whether this means that they will be given equal time in press releases, or
whether one name will be painted on one side and one on the other, or why on
earth they felt it necessary to use non-American spelling at all...

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #439
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 May 89 06:14:06 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01005> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 17 May 89 06:09:02 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 17 May 89 06:08:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8YQFs8:00Ui3I2XEME>;
          Wed, 17 May 89 03:24:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.sYQFocy00UkZBoC04J>;
          Wed, 17 May 89 03:20:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYQFmC600UkZRoAU4q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 17 May 89 03:17:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #440

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 440

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
			 Re: heavy launchers
			 Re: heavy launchers
	  looking for informations about man-made biospheres
			   _Analog_ article
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
		       Be Nice to Junkies Week
      Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)
		 Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
		       Re: more 747 drop tests?
	    citizens in space -- Final Frontier runs poll
     Michaud's REACHING FOR THE HIGH FRONTIER (Pro-Space Groups).
		  Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 12:55:52 GMT
From: spl@mcnc.org  (Steve Lamont)
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility

In article <1989May13.202819.23389@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <2020@blake.acs.washington.edu> sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu (sealion) writes:
>>are there plans to recover the Long Duration Exposure Facility?
>
>Yes.  NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
                                                 ^^^^^^
Love your choice of words :-).

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 10:50:55 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dr. Dereference)
Subject: Re: heavy launchers

In article <1989May13.201437.23217@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <11316@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>>We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand
>>built rocket that was thrown away after every use...
>
>This is a fairly circular statement.  The Saturn V was expensive, hand-built,
>and non-recoverable because of the decision in the mid-60s to throw it away!
>When Congress capped Saturn V production at 15, (a) all hopes of reducing
>cost through volume went away, (b) it was no longer worth mechanizing the
>production process as had been planned, and (c) all work on making Saturn V
>stages recoverable stopped because it would never be done.  
>
>Blaming the NASA of the 70s for throwing away the Saturn V is pretty much
>a mistake.  The real culprit is the Congress of the 60s.

It's hardly surprising that congress refused to guarantee long term funding
for the Saturn program, few if any large procurment contracts are or have
been long term. If the "experts" would have told congress to stick with the
Saturn V post Apollo, congress most likely would have funded more of them. 
Although probably with another expensive, short term, and low volume contract.

The Saturn V was fairly expensive and a lot of people thought changing to a
fully reusable (that was the original plan) vehicle would save money over
the long run. As things worked out these people were tragically wrong, and
the US space program has been severely damaged for the last 15 years. I
think the major principle NASA violated in deciding to build the shuttle was
developing brand new technology when developing existing technology would
have worked very well.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 22:55:23 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: heavy launchers

In article <11401@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (Dr. Dereference) writes:
>It's hardly surprising that congress refused to guarantee long term funding
>for the Saturn program, few if any large procurment contracts are or have
>been long term. If the "experts" would have told congress to stick with the
>Saturn V post Apollo, congress most likely would have funded more of them. 
>Although probably with another expensive, short term, and low volume contract.

Then as now, while members of Congress raise some objections to
proposals from NASA, they usually deviate little from the advice of the
"experts."  The record of NASA in providing the appropriate leadership
is so poor, there is a clear need for an alternative source of
information, ideas, and proposals--a need for space activists.

How many readers consider themselves space activists?  How many have
debated the question of what constitutes a rational space program?  No
one bothered to reply to my question about the appropriate role of
private industry in a space program.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 17:43:20 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!ztivax!tumuc!lan!ocker@uunet.uu.net  (Wolfgang Ocker)
Subject: looking for informations about man-made biospheres


hello net!

i am urgently looking for every kind of information about man-made(artificial?)
biospheres. with biospheres, i mean "small" self-supporting biological
systems for missions in space, sea and other environments.
addresses of companies researching in biospheres or titles of books
are also very welcome ! :-)

please respond via e-mail.

thanx alot for your help in advance!
claus duerr

ps: i am using this account with the permission of my friend.
    answers will be forwarded to me.


-- 
  |  Wolfgang Ocker          |  ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de  |
  |  Lochhauserstr. 35a      |      pyramid!tmpmbx!recco!weo (home)      |
  |  D-8039 Puchheim         |     Technische Universitaet Muenchen      |
  |  Voice: +49 89 80 77 02  |          Huh, What? Where am I?           |

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 May 89 11:27:36 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: _Analog_ article

There's an interesting article on the economics of space settlement in the
May _Analog_.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 06:39:25 GMT
From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <657@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>> Boeing will
>> *not* start full development of a new airliner purely on speculation; it
>> wants to see contractually-committed customers first.
>
>I wasn't aware of this.  Does this mean that the 7J7, which is currently
>under development (or has it gotten to flight tests?) already has some 
>committed customers?  This seems unlikely, given the recent rush by the
>airlines to order current models.

I think your info is a bit out of date.  The 7J7 is nowhere near flight
tests, has never entered full-scale development, and is currently firmly
on the back shelf due to limited demand for it and soaring demand for
current models and derivatives thereof.  The fall in oil prices pretty
much killed the 7J7 for now.  Ask McDonnell Douglas why it still hasn't
officially launched the propfan MD-90; same answer.

It's very rare for an airline manufacturer to launch a new model without
"launch customers" (e.g., the large order from Pan Am [I think it was]
that launched the 747).  It's been done -- the BAe 146, I think -- but not
often.  I don't think Boeing has ever done it.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Sun, 14 May 89 13:31:20 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Be Nice to Junkies Week

Jon Leech writes:
>    Backing away from this particular flamefast a bit: many space
>activists have strong convictions on the Way to get things moving
>again, which involve far-reaching and highly unlikely changes in NASA
>such as "get them out of the space transportation business." I feel
>it would be more effective to try and gradually move the agency
>towards a research agenda than to attempt a complete upset, because
>there is a larger chance of gradual changes happening.

One of the best ways to move NASA toward a research agenda is to
remove their temptation to pour the vast bulk of their money into
space transportation (and other "infrastructure").  All this
"prepatory work for the day when everything will happen at once"
is an old story.  As an engineering manager who still works as an
engineer, I recognize that line as one given by people who aren't
doing work.  At some point you have to tighten the screws, insist
on a schedule of results and if those results aren't met, terminate.

NASA is a junkie.  If you want it to get a job and be productive, you
have to fight its addiction as well as showing it where the work is. 

(PS:  I do turn development projects around with this philosophy.  
      I also turn careers around with it.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 06:46:47 GMT
From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)

In article <1286@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>It would be interesting to know how far an earth based radar can reach with
>the accuracy to detect killer rocks?

For radars of practical size with practical power output, the range is
zero on an astronomical scale.  The trouble is that radar return is an
inverse *fourth power* function of distance, since the inverse-square law
gets you once in each direction.  And you thought inverse square was bad...
Arecibo, with the biggest dish on Earth (not even vaguely steerable) and
a monstrously powerful custom-built transmitter, can get useful radar
echos from *planets*... but it's not easy.  The biggest conventional
radars on Earth have trouble tracking inert objects out at Clarke-orbit
distances, one-tenth of the way to the Moon.  For a 100m rock at
planetary distances, forget it.  Optical tracking is much better -- it's
only inverse-square, since the Sun supplies the illumination.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 04:41:11 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility

In article <20714@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) writes:
>Just a silly question...  How much different is the orbit of LDEF to that
>which the shuttle took to launch Magellan?  Would it have been possible
>to retrieve LDEF on the shuttle after it launched Magellan?

I doubt it.  Magellan had to go into a very specific orbit; it would be
remarkable luck if it were similar to LDEF's.  Also, I suspect the IUS
cradle needed to carry Magellan up probably obstructs the payload bay
enough to interfere with retrieving LDEF (which fills most of the bay).
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 89 06:48:40 GMT
From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

In article <1287@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>Why should NASA take the time and expense to drop the Enterprise when it can
>do the tests with an actule mission thats already paid for?

More tests sooner, plus the ability to run tests in varying conditions
without increasing the risk of losing a nearly-irreplaceable real orbiter.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 04:31:43 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: citizens in space -- Final Frontier runs poll

The latest issue of Final Frontier [a magazine I think pretty well of,
and am thinking more highly of by the month] has a feature section on
"space tourism", including the following in a sidebar:

	Should NASA Resume Its Program To Take Ordinary Citizens On
	The Space Shuttle?

	Last January, NASA announced that its Spaceflight Participant
	Program was on indefinite hold.  Although the space agency is
	committed to the "long-term goal" of taking non-professionals
	up on the shuttle, flight opportunities for a Teacher-in-Space
	and Journalist-in-Space are not available at this time, and it
	could be many years before other "civilian" passengers are
	allowed to ride on the shuttle.

	Is that too long to wait?  We're interested in knowing your
	opinion.  Call 1-900-786-3663 and tell us what you think!
	$1.25 per call, flat rate, touch-tone phones only.  Callers...
	will be asked by former astronaut Buzz Aldrin for a yes/no
	response to the single question:  "Should NASA resume its
	program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"

	We'd also like your written answers to the following short survey
	on space tourism.  Send them to "Survey, PO Box 11519, Washington
	DC 20008".

	...the results from both the survey and the phone-in question
	[will be presented] to NASA, the National Space Council,
	congressional space committees, and other interested parties.

	1. Should a commercial, passenger-carrying "tourist module" be
	allowed to go into orbit in the cargo bay of the space shuttle,
	provided it pays for itself?

	2. Would you go on a tourist trip to Earth orbit?

	3. If so, how much would you be willing to pay?

	4. What would you see as the main attraction of a short trip
	into space?

	5. What would you consider an acceptable level of risk for you
	to go into space, on a scale of 1 to 5?  (1 = as risky as airplane
	travel, 5 = as risky as armed combat)

Note that they want written answers to go to that post-office box; posting
them to the net is pointless.  Note also that I have nothing to do with FF
and can't forward answers or respond to inquiries; the above is pretty
much everything the issue says about the matter.
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 16:43:45 GMT
From: renoir.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Michaud's REACHING FOR THE HIGH FRONTIER (Pro-Space Groups).


         A book I highly recommend to those of you who want to join and/or
    form various space groups and need some background information on
    doing so can obtain this help from Michael A. G. Michaud's 1986 book,
    REACHING FOR THE HIGH FRONTIER: THE AMERICAN PRO-SPACE MOVEMENT, 
    1972-84, by Praeger Publishers, 521 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10175
    (a division of Greenwood Press, Inc.), ISBN 0-275-92150-6 (paperback),    
    $17.95.  436 pages.

         Michaud's book not only gives an excellent history of the 
    development of U.S. (and British) space groups over the past decades,
    but also lists addresses of major space groups and has an excellent 
    bibliography.  The most interesting fact is that whenever NASA activity 
    goes on the wane, pro-space group activities increase.

         Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 15:49:42 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST

In article <11316@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
}In article <136@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
}>Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V????
}We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand
}built rocket that was thrown away after every use. The idea of a reusable
}rocket is really very sound in theory, although it turns out to be a bit
}difficult to execute (especially by a government bureaucracy). With 20/20
}hindsight a big dumb booster made with relatively low performance parts was
}probably the way to go.

Compared to the Shuttle, the Saturn *is* a BDB....  And, as has been discussed
many times before, there was a lot of politics involved in making sure that
the Saturn V would never fly again, even before the Shuttle was complete.
Why, oh why do we have to throw away proven hardware before the new technology
proves itself (or is even available, for that matter)?  The Soviets are still
launching many of their payloads on the same boosters they had 25 years ago,
and doing so in rain, freezing weather, snow storms, etc.  When you've used the
same launcher over a thousand times, you have a pretty good idea how it will
behave....

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
   Intelligence is when you spot a flaw in your boss's reasoning.  Wisdom is
   when you refrain from pointing it out.  --James Dent

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #440
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 May 89 07:18:17 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01200> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 17 May 89 07:15:22 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 17 May 89 07:15:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYQHbEi00Ui3I2:04o>;
          Wed, 17 May 89 05:22:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.0YQHYDy00UkZ1oME4U>;
          Wed, 17 May 89 05:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYQHVnW00UkZFoKk5x@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 17 May 89 05:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #441

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 441

Today's Topics:
			   Space Telescope
      Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)
			   Space Telescope
	       Re: UFOs and other bunk (getting tiring
		   Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
			 Re: heavy launchers
			Re: NSS Hotline Update
			  Re: Amroc on NASA
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #423
	   Apollo anniversary press conference (Forwarded)
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 13:54:19 GMT
From: oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Douglas Harper)
Subject: Space Telescope

Does anyone know to what frequencies of light the space telescope will
be sensitive?  Also, how is UV photometry done?  Aren't most
photosensors insensitive to UV?  Do UV sensor work on a different
principle from optical sensors?  Do they merely employ different
materials?

Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

-- 
Douglas Harper              |      "Confess, or we bring the rabbit back in."
Odyssey Research Associates | oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu       ARPA
301A Harris B. Dates Drive  | {allegra,rochester}!cornell!oravax!harper  UUCP
Ithaca, NY 14850-3051  USA  | (607) 277-2020 extension 276

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 15:20:05 GMT
From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)

In article <1989May13.064647.11585@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1286@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>>It would be interesting to know how far an earth based radar can reach with
>>the accuracy to detect killer rocks?
>
>For radars of practical size with practical power output, the range is
>zero on an astronomical scale.  The trouble is that radar return is an
>inverse *fourth power* function of distance, since the inverse-square law
>gets you once in each direction.  And you thought inverse square was bad...
>Arecibo, with the biggest dish on Earth (not even vaguely steerable) and
>a monstrously powerful custom-built transmitter, can get useful radar
>echos from *planets*... but it's not easy.  The biggest conventional
>radars on Earth have trouble tracking inert objects out at Clarke-orbit
>distances, one-tenth of the way to the Moon.  For a 100m rock at
>planetary distances, forget it.  Optical tracking is much better -- it's
>only inverse-square, since the Sun supplies the illumination.

Actually, the "inverse fourth power law" only applies to point targets,
that is, targets which are much smaller than the radar beam.  Other types
of targets are inverse square laws, such as ionospheres, which fill the
radar beam, and there are even a few inverse cube laws, such as E-region
backscatter (fills the beam one direction, but not two directions (sometimes)).

Asteroids are "inverse fourth power" objects, as Henry states.

Arecibo also does duty as an incoherent scatter (atmospheric) radar.  For
ball park estimates, these radars could spot a Canadian dime at a distance
of a thousand kilometers or so.  I'll point out that although the Arecibo
dish is not steerable, the antenna is somewhat steerable, because the
feed can be moved around.  There is another big radar in Peru, whose "dish"
is somewhat _larger_ than Arecibo's, the Jicamarca Radio Observatory near
Lima.  However, Arecibo has higher gain because of its higher radar operating
frequency, and there are other important differences.

Food for thought: suppose the maximum killer asteroid speed is 100 km/s.
If the entire sky is examined once a day, then to have at least a one day
warning for a "bullseye" asteroid, you need to be able to spot them when they
are about 8e6 km away, which is about 20 times the distance to the Moon.

Arecibo gathers signals from Io over about an hour. "But Io is really
far away, so that's pretty good, right?"  Well, no doubt about it, radar
observation of Io is neat, but Io is right where you expect it to be, and
it is as big as the Moon, and it isn't moving very fast, or rather, its
speed is known precisely ahead of time.  None of the above are true for
asteroids, and it makes a big difference for radars.  In fact, if all
you knew about Io was that it was "out there," it probably wouldn't be
found (by radar).  Yet Galileo found Io with a binocular power telescope,
and even he happened to be looking at Jupiter at the time---he knew where
to look.  Asteroids are solitary wanderers.

More food:  the mass (kinetic energy) of an asteroid varies as r^3,
while its radar cross section varies as r^2 (r is the asteroid radius).
>From the inverse-fourth power law for point targets, the range R at which
an asteroid of radius r is first detectable varies as r^(-1/2).  If you
think about it, this says that you'll always start seeing asteroids at 
about the same distance, at least the ones that are worth seeing.  I won't
go into it, but this has implications for the utility of Stealth technology.

Upshot: current radars are not even close to being able to usefully spot
the next author of a Meteor Crater or even of a Hudson's Bay.  Optical
searches are still the way to go.

>Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu


-- 
John Sahr,       Dept. of Electrical Eng., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
ARPA: johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 18:45:35 GMT
From: sgi!bam%rudedog.SGI.COM@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Brian McClendon)
Subject: Space Telescope

This may be old news, but in a small article in Sunday's (5/14) SJ
MercNews, They mentioned that the Hubble Space Telescope was getting
bumped back 3-5 months to make room for two military launches.

Excuse me for being impatient, but that _REALLY_ sucks.

			- brian

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Brian McClendon bam@rudedog.SGI.COM ...!uunet!sgi!rudedog!bam 415-335-1110
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   "Fuse Exxon" - me

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 21:20:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: UFOs and other bunk (getting tiring


/* Written  4:08 pm  May 13, 1989 by SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
/* ---------- "UFOs and other bunk (getting tiring" ---------- */
}From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
The original settlers of America didn't come to destroy a millenia old culture,
(on both sides of the Atlantic), but they did nonetheless.
/* End of text from s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

Sorry to disagree with you, but the Spaniards certainly intended to destroy
the cultures they found, and at best the North Americans settlers were
indifferent to such destruction. You should read some accounts of what was
done to the Mayan, Inca, and Aztec cultures and their records. They were
very deliberately erased from the face of the planet by their conquerors.

Alan M. Carroll                "And there you are
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu           Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'"
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 17:05:44 GMT
From: tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts@uunet.uu.net  (Mike Butts @ APD x1302)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

>From article <2125@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, by paulf@Jessica.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty):
> The OSCAR satellites (as opposed to Oscars, which are milsats) are built by
> any of a number of organizations within the amateur radio community.  Their
> primary mission is to provide reliable VHF and UHF communication between
> properly equipped amateur stations, although two satellites (OSCARS 9 and 11,
> built by the University of Surrey) are planetary science experiments.
> 
> We build the world's cheapest satellites.

The May 1989 issue of QST (an amateur radio magazine you can find in many 
libraries) carries a detailed article "Microsat: The Next Generation of 
OSCAR Satellites", part 1 of 2, p.37-40.  AMSAT-NA plans to launch 4 Microsats 
into sun-synchronous polar orbits, piggybacking on a single launch vehicle this 
year.  Microsats are 10 Kg cubes, about 230 mm on a side.  I recall hearing at 
a seminar that they cost only about $40K each.  They said the satellites are 
stabilized using permanent magnets and spun by photon pressure on one side of 
the antenna masts.  Simple!

The primary goal is to implement a digital store-and-forward message handling 
packet-radio satellite system available worldwide.  It is also a demonstration 
of what how small spacecraft can get using modern microelectronics.  The computer
has a NEC V40 (8088 clone) with 8MB of RAM disk.  The structure has been flight 
qualified for any of the world's currently available launchers.  One of the 
Microsats will carry a speech synthesizer, which will broadcast telemetry and 
messages receivable by school children using common scanners.  The article goes 
into detail on the conception, and on the power, radio and computer systems. 
Next month's article will carry operational details.

-- 
Michael Butts, Research Engineer       KC7IT           503-626-1302
Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, OR 97005
...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts  OR  mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM
Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corp.

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 17:18:56 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: heavy launchers

In article <11401@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>>... The Saturn V was expensive, hand-built,
>>and non-recoverable because of the decision in the mid-60s to throw it away!
>>When Congress capped Saturn V production at 15...
>
>It's hardly surprising that congress refused to guarantee long term funding
>for the Saturn program, few if any large procurment contracts are or have
>been long term. If the "experts" would have told congress to stick with the
>Saturn V post Apollo, congress most likely would have funded more of them...
>The Saturn V was fairly expensive and a lot of people thought changing to a
>fully reusable (that was the original plan) vehicle would save money...

You've missed my point slightly, I fear.  Note the date I gave.  This
particular decision was made long before the shuttle was seriously looked
at, and long before any serious post-Apollo planning was done.  The fateful
decision was made in the middle of Apollo, over NASA's strenuous objections.
The NASA administrator of the time -- Webb? -- had to fight hard just to
get authorization for 15.  It wasn't a refusal to guarantee long-term
funding, it was a specific decision that there would be no long-term
Saturn program at all.

Many people date the decline of the Saturn V to NASA's post-Apollo decision
not to retain Saturn V launch capability.  This is wrong; the original
Congressional decision to terminate production after 15, made much earlier,
was the real killer.  The loss of production capability made the inability to
launch the last two Saturn Vs a relatively minor issue.  (Admittedly it
would be useful now to have them, but realistically it just wouldn't have
happened.)
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 17:20:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update


Tom Neff writes:
>[ that's one annoyance about these NSS screeds, they appear to be
>  written down to the shoe clerk level.  Mustn't let annoying details
>  interfere with the phone tree! ]

Tom, I'm annoyed too at the level of the presentation, but, in
fairness to NSS, consider:
	- what we're seeing is a transcript of a 2-minute recorded
	  phone message.  There's a limit to how much detail you can
	  put into a couple of minutes of voice.
	- the message is aimed at a public of much less sophistication
	  than you or I.  In fact, it isn't composed for USENETters,
	  and Jordan posts it here to let us know what the NSS hotline
	  is saying.
I don't really see how the message could be much less simplistic than
it is, and still fit the required format.  Broadcast material,
speeches, and the like, when put in writing, always suffer by
comparison with material that was intended for print media.

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 13:24:27 GMT
From: tank!shamash!com50!questar!dave@speedy.wisc.edu  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: Amroc on NASA

" Letter to the Editor, Ad Astra, April, 1989
" From James C. Bennet and George A. Koopman of American Rocket Company
" ... 
" In addition to numerous
" malicious actions directed against American Rocket Company, NASA has
" done substantial damage to Transpace Carriers, Conatec, Space
" Industries, Astrotech and many other small, entrepreneurial ventures.
" They have also threatened several large aerospace companies with
" economic sanctions when those companies expressed interest in entering
" and participating in commercial space ventures.

Where can I look up details about this?  Or post if you know them.
-- 
David Becker 
and another bug bites, and another bug bites   another bug bites the dust
db@kolonel.MN.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 18:10:53 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #423

>From article <610818007.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU:
> I also seriously wonder if it is possible to hide a warhead at all. I
> wonder how much neutrino flux you get out of weapons grade Uranium,
> Tritium and Plutonium?

Not much.  Without looking them up, I think U(238) and Pu(239) are
both alpha emitters, which decay without neutrino emission.  (Though
there may be some neutrinos emitted later in the decay chain.)
Tritium emits a neutrino (actually an anti-neutrino) when it beta
decays.  U(235) decays at least partly by spontaneous fission (maybe
an alpha decay mode, too, but I don't know the branching ratios).
The fission process itself doesn't emit neutrinos, but the fission
products generally beta decay rapidly, each beta decay emitting an
anti-neutrino.

However, it's easy to show that the total emission is trivial.
Assume the mass is about 20 kg of fissionable material.  (About the
right order of magnitude for a small plutonium device.)  This is
about 5E25 atoms.  Instant decay of all of them would produce far
fewer than this number of neutrinos.  However, the Sun bombards each
square centimeter with something above 1E36 neutrinos each second
(above the Cl(37) detection threshold of a couple of MeV).  It takes
a giant tank (thousands of gallons) containing chlorine several
months to detect the solar flux.  

I suspect that gamma emission may be the most sensitive way of
detecting warheads, but I'm not familiar with the details.  I would
be surprised, though, if effective ranges were longer than a few
meters. 

Sorry this posting doesn't contain more specific numbers, but the
neutrino concept seems to be off by so many orders of magnitude that
I don't want to bother looking everything up.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 01:23:47 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Apollo anniversary press conference (Forwarded)

David W. Garrett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 15, 1989


N89-42

MEDIA TELEVISION ADVISORY

     In preparation for the 20th anniversary of the first manned 
lunar landing, the Apollo 11 astronauts will participate in a 
press conference in Wash., D.C., May 26, 1989.  The conference 
will begin at 10:30 a.m. EDT in the NASA Headquarters 6th floor 
auditorium, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

     TV cameramen are advised that camera-to-talent distance will 
be 40 feet for this conference.  It is suggested that cameramen 
be equipped with 14X or greater zoom lenses.

     Media reps planning to attend this conference must contact 
the Headquarters newsroom by May 22 to gain admittance to the 
conference.  The conference will be carried live (monitor only) 
on NASA Select television, Satcom F-2R, Transponder 13, at 72 
degrees West Longitude, 3960.0 MHz, audio 6.8 MHz.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 20:43:22 GMT
From: att!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

<1989May5.204603.24435@utzoo.uucp> <458@imokay.dec.com>
Sender: 
Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc.
Keywords: 

In article <458@imokay.dec.com> borsom@imokay.dec.com (Doug Borsom) writes:
>A few weeks back I posted a request for arguments in favor of the
>manned space program.
>Two follow-up postings 
>In fact, not one person responded to my original posting with an
>argument in favor of the manned space program. 
>
>Maybe the subject of my posting simply isn't of interest to
>subscribers to this news group.  But the appearance is that there
>are no good arguments for a very expensive manned space program.

I think you got the idea when you stated that the subject is not of any
interest. Not that most of us out there aren't interested but rather that we
are probably *tired* of arguing about it. You see, you just missed the
incredible 'manned-unmanned' debate by about 2 months. 

It was very heated and informative. I didn't save the articles but perhaps
someone out there did and could mail them to you. 

I venture to speculate that most people didn't respond to your posting because
they didn't want to stir up the whole mess again.

-- 
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] |          sparks@corpane.UUCP         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 
If a town has one lawyer, he starves; if it has two lawyers, they both get rich

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #441
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 May 89 02:06:41 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06954> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 18 May 89 01:57:52 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 18 May 89 01:57:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wYQYSOi00jZd41p0Jf>;
          Thu, 18 May 89 00:33:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.4YQYH0i00UkZE34E5L>;
          Thu, 18 May 89 00:21:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYQYEx600UkZ432k5X@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 18 May 89 00:19:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #442

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 442

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		  Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke
		 Re: citizens in space -- risk silli
			Re: Meme me up, Scotty
			Re: Meme me up, Scotty
			     Biosphere II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 17:26:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility


cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) writes:
<Just a silly question...  How much different is the orbit of LDEF to that
<which the shuttle took to launch Magellan?  Would it have been possible
<to retrieve LDEF on the shuttle after it launched Magellan?

No, the orbit of Magellan was constrained to significantly different
parameters.  Nevertheless, you needn't worry about `wasting' a Shuttle
mission on the LDEF retrieval; the STS-32 mission that retrieves LDEF-1
will be launching a Syncom IV communication satellite (#5 in the
series, if I'm not mistaken).

| /         o            Kevin Kenny                             (217) 333-5821
|<  /) |  | | |/\        Illini Space Development Society         o  ,    o  ,
| \ X_  \/  | | |        P.O. Box 2255                          40 07 N 88 13 W
kenny@cs.uiuc.edu        Station A       
uunet!uiucdcs!kenny      Champaign, IL 61825                 AD ASTRA PER ARDUA
k-kenny@uiuc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 20:05:05 GMT
From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@apple.com  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

In article <445@hsi86.hsi.UUCP> derek@hsi86.UUCP (Derek Lee-Wo) writes:
>I believe that there are UFOs out there. Whether or not some have visited
>Earth is another story.

They're not UFOs if they haven't visited Earth.  "Unidentified Flying
Objects," remember?  They have to be seen or detected to be UFOs.

>Sometimes I wish I were born a few hundreds years in the future.  
>Could one just imagine what it would be like to hop a space shuttle
>to another planet as easily as we could now jump on a plane to London.

Someone in 1700:  "Sometimes I wish I were born a few hundred years
in the future.  Could one just imagine what it would be like to hop an
airship to London as easily as we could now jump on a cart to town?"

Someone in 2300:  "I wish I were born a few hundred years in the future.  
Could one just imagine what it would be like to hop an intergalactic
liner to Andromeda as easily as we could now jump a shuttle to Titan?"

Somehow, I don't think you'd feel differently a few centuries hence. ;-)

>Now if only I could believe in re-incarnation :-)

Ever heard the variant on "life's a bitch, and then you die" that
goes: "... unless reincarnation is true, in which case life's a
bitch, and then life's a bitch, and then life's a bitch...."  ;-)

>Derek Lee-Wo (Co-op)

--
Michael McNeil			michaelm@3comvax.UUCP
3Com Corporation		hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
Mountain View, California	work telephone: (415) 969-2099 x 208

	What a wonderful and amazing Scheme have we here of the
	magnificent Vastness of the Universe!  So many Suns, so
	many Earths ... !  
		Christianus Huygens, *New Conjectures Concerning the
		Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions*,
		c. 1670

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 19:25:06 GMT
From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@apple.com  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <249@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>In article <1011@dinl.mmc.UUCP> holroyd@dinl.UUCP (kevin w. holroyd) writes:
>>Or are you referring to the fact that certain program managers witheld some
>>information on risk factors from the crew, as grounds that no one on the 
>>shuttle fully understood what risks they were taking?
>
>Something like that.  Do you know if she was told that one study 
>(the Air Force's I believe) estimated that 25 flights was the mean 
>time to catastrophic failure due to SRB malfunction?

I would think the proper interpretation of this statistic is that
there's a 4 percent risk per flight, rather than flight number 25
was bound to blow up.  Also, what did the other studies estimate?

>Steve Emmerson

--
Michael McNeil			michaelm@3comvax.UUCP
3Com Corporation		hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
Mountain View, California	work telephone: (415) 969-2099 x 208

	Life, even cellular life, may exist out yonder in the dark.  
	But high or low in nature, it will not wear the shape of man.  
	That shape is the evolutionary product of a strange, long
	wandering through the attics of the forest roof, and so
	great are the chances of failure, that nothing precisely
	and identically human is likely ever to come that way again.  
		Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1957

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 21:51:27 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <13000@ut-emx.UUCP>, bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
> It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has
> a fictional counterpart

Even it.  (Well, close.  Jules Verne named a space vehicle in one
of his stories "Columbiad", I think.)

> Enterprise :  Obvious !
> Discovery:   the ship from 20001
> Challenger:  remember the Adventures of Tom Swift??? He had a ship called 
>              the Challenger
> Endeavour:   from 'Rendezvous with Rama'

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 05:35:21 GMT
From: unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!garcon!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!schvland@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jeffrey Schavland)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <104932@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>In article <13000@ut-emx.UUCP>, bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
>> It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has
>> a fictional counterpart
>
>Even it.  (Well, close.  Jules Verne named a space vehicle in one
>of his stories "Columbiad", I think.)

The Columbiad was the gigantic Florida-based cannon in Jules Verne's "From the
Earth to the Moon."  The spacecraft fired from the cannon was not specifically
named, and was referred to only as the projectile or projectile-vehicle.
--
Jeffrey A. Schavland            |  Illini Space Development Society
P.O. Box 2308 - Station A       |  NSS chapter at the University of Illinois 
Champaign, IL  61825-2308       |   
(217) 352-5824 (home)           |  "I reject that [the Sherlock Holmes
(217) 333-1608 (work)           |  principle] entirely.  The impossible often 
                                |  has a kind of integrity to it which the
schvland@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu    |  merely improbable lacks."
schvland@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu       |  - Dirk Gently

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 06:13:24 GMT
From: voder!berlioz!andrew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Information @ Any Price )
Subject: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke

I read in NASA Technical Briefs that carbon fibre typically exhibits a
tensile modulus of 3.8e11 N/m^2. Although I don't know the density exactly,
the self-supporting vertical length is almost certainly in the 100's of 
miles range.

I recall reading a posting in this group about "The Tethered Satellite Project"
or similar, and so am prompted to ask:
	- what is being done?
	- how is the high end of the rope maintained? with what?
	- how much delta force is incurred by high-speed winds?
	- what implications has geosynchrony for the design?

Humorous references to the Indian Rope Trick will be ignored :-)
-- 
Andrew Palfreyman 		USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 		there's many a slip
							'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 22:33:34 GMT
From: versatc!mips!prls!philabs!linus!alliant!spain@apple.com  (Dave Spain)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silli

In article <1989May13.201808.23276@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <218100019@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>	Is there a single manager that was involved in over-riding the
>>engineers and pushing the launch suffering any penalty for their stupidity
>>and arrogance? My guess is that the engineers were sacked and the managers
>>promoted.
>
>Pretty much so.  A few of the managers retired a little early on fat
>pensions.  And NASA got billions to fix the problems, and passed on a
>fair bit of it to Morton Thiokol.  M-T also had its monopoly on shuttle
>boosters extended for several years.
>
>Killing astronauts is good for business.

I can't quite let this go by without a few comments:

1) ...and passed on a fair bit of it to Morton Thiokol.

Of course, who else would fix it?  The fact that M-T is currently a sole-source
supplier seems to me to be the crux of the matter.  Since it seems that only
the US government can afford "man-in-space", this leads to government
contracted business which in aero-space often leads to sole-source contracts.
Especially for space projects.  If there had been an SSME Crit 1 instead of a
solid we would be saying the same thing about Rocketdyne.  Does this make it
right?  No, but what alternatives do we have?  Shut down the program?

I'd LOVE to see multiple suppliers for Shuttle hardware. Unfortunately,
getting Congress to foot the excess up front $$ is a whole different matter.
Obviously, NASA is going to try to make do with whatever it gets, and the
contractors know this.

2) M-T also had its monopoly on shuttle boosters extended for several years.

I'm not so sure "extended" is the right word here. Probably "neglected"
is better. Congress seems in no rush to pay for having NASA go out and bid
replacements. 

I believe Aerojet has been contracted to build the upgraded SRB, and when
we become dependent on it and it fails and if M-T is no-longer in the SRB
business, who do you think is going to get the $$ to fix it?

Even if the government put clauses into its contracts that would require
sole contractors to pay the entire cost of fixes, (and get them to agree to
it) its not clear it would work. If the fix were too costly the contractor
would just go belly-up and leave the whole mess back with Uncle Sam.
Bottom line, this is a seller's market...

As an aside: What about criminal sanctions against the managers?

Here come the lawyers. Contractors WILL prepare themselves for this.
Contracts will be adjusted to minimize any liability, which will have to be
rigorously defined, not to mention intent, etc. etc.  Those in government
service will now have more than just economic reasons to look elsewhere for
employment.  Face it, this approch would not have and will not work.
(Oh, it might, if ALL you want to get from your contractors are NO-LAUNCH
recommendations...) Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse on this issue...

3) Killing astronauts is good business.

I think a more accurate concluding statement would be:

     "Killing astronauts is irrelavent to business..."

Particularly when its business-as-usual...

Disclaimer: These are my personal opinions, which from an intellectual
	    standpoint, are more like liabilities than property.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 00:58:08 GMT
From: att!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

< This stuff is pretty old (and has nothing to do with space; sorry!) >

In article <18085@cup.portal.com>, hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes:
> Tried to send mail to Tom Neff, but for some reason, the Portal mailer
> will not recognize his address tonight.

I have that problem all the time.  (Tom, I put your letter into the
alumni newsletter; I hope the electronic address you gave me is still
good!)

> Meme and memetics are *not* new age chatter.  The concept is straight out
> of the work of the formost evolutionary biologist of our time, Richard
> Dawkins of Oxford, author of The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker
> among others.

I don't think so.  I haven't read it, but I keep meaning to stop by the
library and read "As We May Think" by Vannevar Bush, which appeared in
the July 1945 (no kidding, nineteen forty-five!) issue of the ATLANTIC
MONTHLY.  Bush talks about a "memex" as the smallest kind of fact that
can exist without being decomposed into simpler facts (I may have this
all wrong), and essentially invents hypertext, except that the only
medium he had for it was microfilm.

Tell you what; I promise to read that article this weekend.  In the
meantime, if you want to chat about memes, memexes (memi?), and
memetics, send me mail with a suggestion about what group to put it in;
I'll summarize and post the responses some time next week.  Let's talk
about space!

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 02:50:47 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

hkhenson.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes:

 Meme and memetics are *not* new age chatter.  The concept is straight out
 of the work of the formost evolutionary biologist of our time, Richard
 Dawkins of Oxford, author of The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker
 among others.

Paul S. R. Chisholm (att!pegasus!psrc) replies:

 I don't think so.  I haven't read it, but I keep meaning to stop by the
 library and read "As We May Think" by Vannevar Bush, which appeared in
 the July 1945 (no kidding, nineteen forty-five!) issue of the ATLANTIC
 MONTHLY.  Bush talks about a "memex" as the smallest kind of fact that
 can exist without being decomposed into simpler facts (I may have this
 all wrong), and essentially invents hypertext, except that the only
 medium he had for it was microfilm.

Mr. Chisholm is wrong on all counts.  "Memex" has nothing to do with
"meme" except that it is based on the same root (which goes all the
way back to the Sanskrit "smarati" ("he remembers")).  Memetics is not
hypertext; hypertext is not memetics.

Please read your sources BEFORE posting.  Dawkins is widely published 
and available in better popular bookstores.  "As We May Think" was 
posted in its entirety on the net within the past year (on alt.hypertext,
I think).

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 15:48:26 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Biosphere II


Recently I visited the site of the "Biosphere II" project, which aims
to support humans in a closed environment for an extended period.
The current status is that construction of the large enclosure is
underway, with the exterior space frame support mostly up but little
if any of the glass installed.  Closure is now scheduled for
September 1990.  Sorry for the lack of further details, but the
conference I was attending took all my time, and I did not get a
decent tour.

(By the way, the conference center on the site is quite pleasant.  If
you are organizing a conference or workshop, you might want to
contact the manager: Sandy Parker, SunSpace Ranch Conference Center,
P.O. Box 689, Oracle, AZ 85623.  My guess is that they can accomodate
up to about 50 or 60 people.)
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #442
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 May 89 05:02:39 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00674> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 18 May 89 04:58:14 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 18 May 89 04:57:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cYQayee00UkTE1cENP>;
          Thu, 18 May 89 03:24:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.QYQatFq00UkZ83F04g>;
          Thu, 18 May 89 03:18:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYQary200UkZA3DU4B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 18 May 89 03:17:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #443

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 443

Today's Topics:
			  Sun Exploding (?)
			Re: Sun Exploding (?)
  Truly selects Keller as Associate Deputy Administrator (Forwarded)
			 Re: heavy launchers
		Re: funding large scale space hardware
	   Re: Private spending for space science (summary)
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
			     re: viruses
			 NASA SW Frequencies
			     re: viruses
		  Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 17:56:45 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Sun Exploding (?)

>From article <Added.0YP8iTe00UkTM=HU8L@andrew.cmu.edu>, by
SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET (I am Beatrice): 
> And I don't THINK blowing up the sun is possible, I KNOW it is. Give me
> all the extra-sun mass in the solar system, and time to get it accelerated
> to a decent speed, and I'll get rid of that nasty sun.
> [...] we've reason to believe that the
> sun operates on nuclear fusion, and if we can add enough energy to it, it
> will go out of "control" (as if its in control:{), and explode.

This will come as a surprise to those who study stellar interiors.
The Sun is non-degenerate throughout, so current theory rules out a
fusion explosion.  If you can show otherwise, the Astrophysical
Journal will be delighted to accept your paper.  (You are in good
company, though.  Asimov makes a similar mistake in _The Gods
Themselves._) 

You could perhaps destroy the Sun by dumping enough kinetic energy
into it.  However, essentially all the energy for disruption would
have to come from whatever you used to accelerate your projectile,
not from the Sun's fusion.  (To a factor of decent approximation, the
energy required is the number of atoms in the Sun times Boltzmann's
constant times the average temperature.  You might want to work out
the requisite speed for, say, Jupiter to acquire this much energy.)
It is not at all clear whether this method would work, though, since
the projectile might just go through without stopping.

Another method for destroying the Sun might involve using the tidal
force of a large black hole.  (Destruction of stars in this manner
has been suggested in quasars.)  You would presumably need one with
at least several times the Sun's mass, and the result probably would
not be an explosion anyway.

Stars with degenerate cores are another story entirely.  They really
can explode as novae or supernovae.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 20:42:36 GMT
From: unmvax!indri!aplcen!arrom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Sun Exploding (?)

>This will come as a surprise to those who study stellar interiors.
>The Sun is non-degenerate throughout, so current theory rules out a
>fusion explosion.  If you can show otherwise, the Astrophysical
>Journal will be delighted to accept your paper.  (You are in good
>company, though.  Asimov makes a similar mistake in _The Gods
>Themselves._) 

In _The Gods Themselves_, Asimov postulates the leakage of physical laws
from another universe into ours.  If you're allowed to change the laws
of physics, it's not wrong to say the sun can be made to blow up.
--
"Do you know what this is????"  "No, what?"  "I don't know either..."
  -- Who said it, what story?

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 21:26:34 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Truly selects Keller as Associate Deputy Administrator (Forwarded)

Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 16, 1989


RELEASE:  89-75

TRULY SELECTS KELLER AS ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR


     Acting NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly today named 
Samuel W. Keller to be associate deputy administrator, the third- 
ranking position at NASA.  In doing so, Truly moved quickly to 
address what he called his "first and top priority," filling 
vacant leadership positions at NASA Headquarters and field 
centers.

     Truly called Keller "one of NASA's best professionals.  He 
has a depth of experience and is just the kind of leader and 
decision-maker that NASA needs."

     Keller has served as deputy associate administrator for 
space science and applications since December 1977.  He succeeds 
Dr. Noel W. Hinners, who recently resigned.

     Truly made the announcement in a televised address to all 
NASA employees, his first official remarks as head of NASA.  He 
became acting administrator yesterday, and his nomination as 
administrator is expected to be addressed for confirmation by the 
Senate in coming weeks.  He noted that several top NASA officials 
recently have left the agency, many because of uncertainty over 
new post-employment laws and the failure of a proposed pay raise.

     "I will be filling other top jobs as quickly as I can," he 
said.  "I intend to do all that I can to ensure that NASA 
continues to maintain and attract a team dedicated to 
excellence."

     Truly also addressed fiscal issues, saying that "a 
particularly difficult battle" is being waged over NASA's fiscal 
year 1990 budget request.  "We are fighting potential cuts that 
could delay, trim down or even kill Space Station Freedom," he 
said.  "I want to assure you that I plan to fight those cuts all 
the way."

     "We can't afford to short-change Space Station Freedom or 
any other major program," Truly said.  "To do so would be to deny 
our own future as a nation.  And I don't believe that President 
Bush or the American people want that to happen."

     "We have great challenges ahead for the remainder of this 
century and well into the next," Truly told the NASA-wide 
audience.  "We've proven time and again that we can meet great 
challenges, and we will continue to move our country forward in 
space technology and aeronautics."

     Before coming to NASA Headquarters in 1975, Keller served as 
director of administration and management at Goddard Space Flight 
Center, Greenbelt, Md.  He also held other management positions 
at Goddard and previously worked at the Applied Physics 
Laboratory and the Naval Research Laboratory.

     He received a bachelor's degree in engineering from the 
University of Maryland and a law degree from George Washington 
University.  He was born in Grafton, W.Va., and is married to the 
former Carroll Williams.  They have two children.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 10:27:07 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dr. Dereference)
Subject: Re: heavy launchers

In article <1989May15.171856.2563@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>You've missed my point slightly, I fear.  Note the date I gave.  This
>particular decision was made long before the shuttle was seriously looked
>at, and long before any serious post-Apollo planning was done.  The fateful
>decision was made in the middle of Apollo, over NASA's strenuous objections.
> [deleted]
>Many people date the decline of the Saturn V to NASA's post-Apollo decision
>not to retain Saturn V launch capability.  This is wrong; the original
>Congressional decision to terminate production after 15, made much earlier,
>was the real killer.  The loss of production capability made the inability to
>launch the last two Saturn Vs a relatively minor issue.  

I believe I understood the point you were making Henry. My points, right or
wrong, were:
1. Congress (for whatever reasons) rarely funds a long production run for an
   expensive item. Thus while it was certainly both desirable and possible
   for congress to fund a true production line, it's not surprising that
   congress only funded 15 Saturns.

2. While congress refused to fund a true Saturn production line, it was 
   certainly possible for congress to restart Saturn production when post
   Apollo launchers were being considered.

3. Given that the Saturn was expensive, the idea that moving to a reusable
   launcher would save money in the long run had some theoretical merit.
   Congress would very likely have funded only a short production run again,
   and with reusable launchers you only need a short production run.

I don't think these points are strictly wrong, but I now agree with those who
have posted that abandoning an already proven and capable technology for one
difficult to develop was a very bad idea. That bad decision has done immense
damage to the US space effort.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 23:38:13 GMT
From: microsoft!bobal@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Allison)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <657@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>In article <1989May11.204302.1629@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> 
>> Boeing will
>> *not* start full development of a new airliner purely on speculation; it
>> wants to see contractually-committed customers first.
>
>I wasn't aware of this.  Does this mean that the 7J7, which is currently
>under development (or has it gotten to flight tests?) already has some 
>committed customers?  This seems unlikely, given the recent rush by the
>airlines to order current models.
>

In fact, the 7J7 project has been canceled for over a year now, because the
airlines could not decide what they wanted and Boeing wasn't willing to
risk trying to make up their minds for them.  Lower fuel costs also reduced
demand for a new-generation fuel-efficient aircraft.  This is one of the
reasons for rampant speculation over Boeing's $4B cash reserves, which are
no longer immediately needed to fund new aircraft development.  Also, given
record orders of existing aircraft types, the company probably is not
overly motivated to design a new model which might obsolete existing (and
profitable - each type has now paid itself off) types.

Bob Allison
uunet!microsoft!bobal

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 03:40:17 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science (summary)

In article <1989May10.185558.3080@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <1989May9.104445.4142@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> >Actually, such a project has already been funded, and points up the
> >problems with private efforts.  The Spacewatch telescope in Arizona
> >was (is?) getting funds from the Planetary Society...
> Credit Where Credit Is Due Dept.:  it is all too seldom acknowledged
> (especially by the Planetary Society!) that private funding of this effort
> was started by the World Space Foundation, with the Planetary Society
> joining later.

I would like to point out the the departed L5 Society also contributed a
modest amount to this effort. However, the Asteroid Search was origianlly
and continues to be mainly funded by WSF & NASA. Basically, the private
$$$ received here were peanuts and only supported a model level of 
effort. 

There are many problems with private funding of space effort, including
the simple fact that is much more socially respectable to contribute
to the UNITED WAY or MACRCH OF DIMES than to an "asteroid search."

I think a private space probe could could be done, 
but only with the help of several wealthy contributors.

Dale Skran
(not Amon)

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 06:06:48 GMT
From: ginosko!infinet!ulowell!hawk!rlevasse@uunet.uu.net  (Roger Levasseur)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <8905142058.AA29618@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:

>According to _Ad Astra_, "Endeavor" will be an alternate spelling.  I'm not sure
>whether this means that they will be given equal time in press releases, or
>whether one name will be painted on one side and one on the other, or why on
>earth they felt it necessary to use non-American spelling at all...
>

Captain James Cook who explored the Pacific Ocean in the late 1770's,
and charted Alaska and Hawaii sailed in ships named HMS Resolution
and HMS Endeavour.  If the shuttle is named after it, it would certainly
be silly to use another spelling.

As a side note, it was the school children who picked the name, but 
from what I gather (and I haven't seen the material that was distributed
by NASA) it would seem that the material made the name "Endeavour"
rather attractive for the kids to pick.

    -roger


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Roger Levasseur
University of Lowell
rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu

------------------------------

Date:        TUE 16 MAY 1989 16:24:00 EDT
From: Robert Nelson <FREE012%TRANSY.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Subject: re: viruses

I also recall the War of the Worlds account which had the -aliens-
dying from a bacteria common to Earth, common to man.  I do not know
how that would affect any -real- aliens, though.

Rob

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 23:32:00 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!sfn20715@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: NASA SW Frequencies


Just before the last shuttle liftoff, someone posted a list of frequencies
used by ground controll/tracking/etc used by NASA that could be recieved
using a short wave radio.  Could someone out there who saved this repost
it or mail it to me?  How about anyone out there who reguluarly uses a
SW radio to listen to NASA related activities telling me some interesting
frequencies.  (The more answeres I get the better!)

Please either post here or mail to sfn20715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu; thanks!
(PS, the sooner the better!)

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:

             //-o-\\                Keep your shields up!
      ____---=======---____
  ====___\   /.. ..\   /___====
//        ---\__O__/---        \\   sfn20715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
\_\                           /_/   s norton/honors/cerl

------------------------------

Date:        TUE 16 MAY 1989 15:26:00 EDT
From: Robert Nelson <FREE012%TRANSY.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Subject: re: viruses

I noticed that someone commented on waht would happen if we had contact
with ETs, and if we could get a virus from them or perhaps something
from -us- could affect them.  I turn your interest to the book/movie
_The_Andromeda_Strain_.  It depicts a scenerio that has a meteor landing
and there is a virus of sorts on it, actually I think that it is some
form of bacteria, which breaks down carbon compounds like plastics...
any comments?

Rob

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 08:41:33 GMT
From: unmvax!indri!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST

In article <246da016@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>In article <11316@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>> With 20/20
>>hindsight a big dumb booster made with relatively low performance parts was
>>probably the way to go.
>
>Compared to the Shuttle, the Saturn *is* a BDB  [deleted]
>Why, oh why do we have to throw away proven hardware before the new technology
>proves itself (or is even available, for that matter)? [deleted]

The Big Dumb Booster idea was not formulated as relative to the shuttle.
When it was built the Saturn used a lot of very advanced technology for its
time. It was a very complicated and high performance system. The BDB idea is
to make a booster using only a moderate level of technology with as few parts
and as simple a design as possible. This reduces performance but should
reduce cost and improve reliability. This idea has merit.

I stated in a recent posting that the major principle NASA violated in
developing the shuttle was developing new technology when existing technology
(Saturn V) was well suited to their needs. Indeed, since the BDB is an idea
that has not been developed, probably the best thing NASA could have done was
to continue work on the Saturn V. The shuttle project has resulted in immense
damage to the US space program.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #443
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 May 89 06:19:07 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00786> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 18 May 89 06:15:44 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 18 May 89 06:15:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cYQckwW00UkTI1hk5L>;
          Thu, 18 May 89 05:26:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.4YQcdoG00UkZ83P05:>;
          Thu, 18 May 89 05:18:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYQcbgu00UkZM3NU4B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 18 May 89 05:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #444

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 444

Today's Topics:
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
			Magellan & SRB exhaust
		      Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust
	Marine/Oceanography Programme at UN Maspalomas Meeting
	Applications of Space Technology to African Coast - I
	Applications of Space Technology to African Coast - II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 May 89 12:37:40 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Marc Bonin) writes:

>It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has
>a fictional counterpart

Well, there is the sailing ship _Columbia_ at Disneyland... surely that
qualifies as `fictional'...

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 12:41:11 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@uunet.uu.net  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Magellan & SRB exhaust

If the Shuttle crew were able to watch Magellan as it fired off on its
trip to Venus, would they have been able to see the exhaust plume from
its solid motor?

The reason I ask this fascinating :-) question is that, years ago when
I watched the later-Apollo LEMs leave the moon (by the miracle of TV), I
noted that no exhaust was visible - only the debris blasted from the top
of the descent stage.  If liquid fueled motors burn "invisibly" in the
vacuum of space, what about the solid rocket motors? 

Also, (rather naive question), would the shuttle have been "showered"
with any of the impurities from the Magellan solid motor exhaust at burn
time, even though it was obviously a long distance from it?

-- 
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND
JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk   BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 22:39:20 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust

In article <982@syma.sussex.ac.uk>, andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes:
> [...deleted...] If liquid fueled motors burn "invisibly" in the
> vacuum of space, what about the solid rocket motors? 

   There are some rather pretty pictures of an OMS burn and a "yaw" thruster
   firing as seen from the Shuttle's rear windows in the book _Entering Space_
   by Joseph Allen (mission specialist). They clearly show whitish plumes, but
   it dissipates within a meter or so for the thruster firing. Both OMS and
   attitude thrusters are liquid (hydrazine) fueled engines.

   Solid rocket motor should have a far more visible plume, because of the
   many solid exhaust products which will glow brightly. Just look at the
   Shuttle's boosters!

> Also, (rather naive question), would the shuttle have been "showered"
> with any of the impurities from the Magellan solid motor exhaust at burn
> time, even though it was obviously a long distance from it?

   Not so naive, because that it exactly why the Shuttle turns its undersurface
   towards where the probe/satellite starts its burn. The worry is that
   exhaust particles could damage or dirty the orbiter's windows.

   P.S. "Let's go Seagulls!" :-)
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 17:21:15 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: Marine/Oceanography Programme at UN Maspalomas Meeting

Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via 
  The Rutgers FidoGATEway
  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733

We want ** your ** news bulletins:
  (FAX: 212-787-1726 : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
or ...!uunet!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
or unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

*MARINE/OCEANOGRAPHY PROGRAMME AT UN MASPALOMAS MEETING

     MASPALOMAS, 10 May -- A paper on requirements and needed infrastructure
for a viable regional marine sciences/oceanography programme was presented
this morning as a concluding presentation in the United Nations Meeting of
Experts on Space Applications to Marine Resources and Coastal Management, in
Maspalomas, Canary Islands. 

     Following the presentation, participants were conducted on a tour of the 
Maspalomas Space Station of Spain's National Institute of Aerospace Technology
by the Director of the Station, Julio Melian. 

     In his presentation, V, Klemas, of the Centre for Remote Sensing at the
University of Delaware's College of Marine Studies, said successful 
applications of remote sensing to solve ocean and coastal problems required a 
number of key elements.  These included project planning, experimental design,
mathematical/physical modelling, remote-sensing data acquisition, field data
collection, data processing and storage, and information extraction.  Some of 
these steps could be carried out in local laboratories; others required 
regional collaboration if costs were to be minimized. 

     Satellite data, for example, should be received at a centralized,
regional facility, he said.  This facility should store and archive all raw 
data and provide a high-capacity image analysis system for users doing
advanced image analysis or requiring analysis of large ocean regions.  On the 
other hand, data processed to a higher level, including radiometric, geometric
and atmospheric correction, should be made available to scientists at local,
national laboratories for investigations of smaller high-intensity test sites.

     Just as satellite data-receiving stations should be shared on a regional 
basis, major field data collection platforms, such as large aircraft or 
research vessels, should not be duplicated locally, he stated.  The operating 
costs of four-engine aircraft and large ships were extremely high.  New 
aircraft and ship instruments were being developed which could be used on 

smaller platforms.  As a typical case, operating costs could be reduced from
$3,000 to $150 per hour.

     Training of new personnel must be carried out at both the regional and 
local level, according to the paper.  Regional workshops on new equipment and 
techniques were very useful, but it was at the local level that the trainee 
must receive the details of hands-on experience which regional workshops and
seminars could not provide.  Training experience had shown that classroom 
lectures by themselves were not sufficient to provide trainees with a working 
knowledge of the subject.  Therefore, a hands-on analysis of satellite data 
using computers, as well as field work, was recommended whenever possible.

     Workshops were most effective if several days of classroom lectures were 
followed by several days of case studies and several weeks of field work, the 
expert believed.  Students and scientists from developing countries must be 
trained at two levels.  They must be exposed to the latest techniques to
satisfy their curiosity and self-esteem, but must also be trained in
inexpensive, simple methods which could be implemented in their countries.  It
was important, when holding workshops overseas, to leave a permanent
capability behind.  Such institution building was vital.

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

-- 
Patt Haring                  | My other site is a  Public Access UN*X 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | system: The Big Electric Cat  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET         | 1-212-879-9031  patth@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 17:54:22 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: Applications of Space Technology to African Coast - I

Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via 
  The Rutgers FidoGATEway
  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733

We want ** your ** news bulletins:
  (FAX: 212-787-1726 : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
or ...!uunet!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
or unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

*APPLICATIONS OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY TO AFRICAN COAST I

     MASPALOMAS, 9 May -- A series of technical papers were presented today 
during the second day of a United Nations meeting on space applications to
marine resources and coastal management, being held in Maspalomas, Canary 
Islands.

     The meeting has been organized for the States of the Atlantic coast of 
Africa by the Space Applications Programme of the United Nations Outer Space
Affairs Division, in collaboration with the European Space Agency (ESA), the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), in co-operation with the Government of Spain. 

     Papers today dealt with such subjects as oceanic upwelling cells and 
various aspects of remote sensing, including the sensing of the physical and
biological properties of coastal waters; the monitoring of the marine 
environment, including water pollution; and coastal zone surveying and mapping

     Other topics discussed in today's presentation included experiences of 
the Canary Islands Centre for Fisheries Technology in remote sensing, space 
technology for search and rescue operations, and case studies on the use of 
recent marine-related remote-sensing projects in Cameroon, Guinea, Cote 
d'Ivoire, Morocco and Nigeria.

     Technical Papers 

     V. KLEMENS, Director of the Centre for Remote Sensing of the University
of Delaware, discusses in his paper the remote sensing of physical and
biological properties of coastal waters, estuaries and wetlands.  He said 
remote sensors, combined with ship measurements, could provide synoptic 
observations of coastal and estuary phenomena which varied rapidly in time and
space.  Coastal applications of remote sensing required a wide assortment of
sensors, including aerial film cameras for beach erosion and vegetation 
mapping; multispectral sensors for wetlands biomass and estuary water property

studies; thermal infrared scanners for mapping surface water temperatures and 
currents; and microwave devices for salinity or wave measurements.

     Recent progress in optical modelling and instrument design is making 
remote sensing of estuaries quite effective.  A variety of sensors are being
developed which can be flown on inexpensive small aircraft.  Deployed in
conjunction with satellites, such airborne sensors can observe tidal, seasonal
and annual variations and spacial distribution of phytoplankton blooms, 
sediment plumes, estuarine fronts and circulation patterns.  These new
techniques are enabling scientists to monitor the environmental quality of
coastal waters and compare the susceptibility for degradation of estuaries, as
required by the various national and international programmes.

     VITTORIN BARALE, specialist in remote sensing and oceanography at FAO, 
said in his paper that remote sensing was a powerful, if not exclusive, tool
for studying and monitoring environmental conditions of the sea surface.
Marine features accessible for remote observations of the sea surface are 
essentially colour temperature, texture and elevation.  As far as water 
quality, pollution and sediment transport are concerned, remote sensing of sea
surface colour can be particularly effective in providing large-scale,
long-term assessments of environmental conditions not attainable by other 
means.

     Visible remote-sensing techniques can be used to determine the presence
and abundance of water constituents such as biological pigments, suspended
sediments or other products of organic matter degradation.  Since water 
constituents act as tracers of various marine processes, colour patterns on 
the sea surface can also provide indications on the relationship between
forcing mechanisms and biological responses to the marine environment.  These 
capabilities render optical remote sensing a viable technique for marine
ecological assessments, although atmospheric processes may pose severe
limitations to its use. 

     MATS ROSENGREN, of the Swedish Space Corporation, presented a paper on 
remote-sensing technology as a tool in coastal zone surveying and mapping.  It
says that marine resources and coastal zone management were complex activities
requiring extensive sets of basic information describing the marine and land
environments.  Satellite and airborne remote sensing constituted effective
tools for collecting fundamental data for the surveying and mapping of coastal
zones.

     The unique strength of remote sensing was the possibility to get a 
detailed overview of a large area in a single image.  Applications included 
topographic and undersea mapping, continuous airborne patrolling of oil spill 
surveillance and other environmental controls.

     Satellite remote sensing is not suitable for monitoring rapidly changing 
phenomena within smaller areas.  In such cases, airborne remote sensing was an
alternative.

     The influence of changes in land use, agriculture and forestry can be
analysed by combining land use information, topographic data and drainage 
basins in a hydrological model of an area.  Most of this information can be 
obtained from remote-sensing data.

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

-- 
Patt Haring                  | My other site is a  Public Access UN*X 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | system: The Big Electric Cat  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET         | 1-212-879-9031  patth@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 17:56:10 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: Applications of Space Technology to African Coast - II

Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via 
  The Rutgers FidoGATEway
  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733

We want ** your ** news bulletins:
  (FAX: 212-787-1726 : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
or ...!uunet!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
or unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

*APPLICATIONS OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY TO AFRICAN COAST II

     JELLE U. KIELKEMA, Co-ordinator, Environmental Monitoring Group, Remote
Sensing Centre, FAO, describes the FAO's operational satellite environmental
monitoring for food security. 

     Since 1976, FAO's Remote Sensing Centre has been developing and testing
the operational use of data from environmental and earth resources satellites 
for improving information bases of the FAO Global Information and Early 
Warning System on Food and Agriculture and Desert Locust Plague Prevention
Programme at international, regional and national levels. 

     The paper describes ARTEMIS (Africa Real Time Environmental Monitoring 
using Imaging Satellites), FAO's operational satellite remote-sensing-based 
environmental monitoring system, which has been in operation at the FAOSensing
Centre since August 1988.  The ARTEMIS system was specifically designed and 
built for FAO by the National Aerospace Laboratory of the Netherlands, in 
co-operation with the United States National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the Goddard Space Flight Centre and the Universities of
Reading and Bristol.

     The paper also summarizes the development status of a dedicated satellite
communication system (DIANA) for transmission of the high-volume ARTEMIS
system and related products at FAO headquarters to users at regional and
national levels through the INTELSAT satellites.

     A paper by KOLA KUSEMIJO, of the Department of Biological Sciences at the
University of Lagos, deals with upwelling cells in the Atlantic coast of
Africa. 

     Upwelling areas, it is pointed out, are noted for their primary and
secondary productivity and fish production; they hold the greatest promise of 
fish production in tropical and sub-tropical areas. 

     It has been estimated that upwelling regions, totalling no more than 
0.1 per cent of the ocean surface, produce about half of the world's fish 
supply.  In the Atlantic coast of Africa, the major upwelling areas occur in
the waters off Mauritania, Senegal, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, Angola and Namibia. 

     The paper reviews aspects of the ecology of the upwelling cells in the 
Atlantic coast of Africa, with particular reference to their occurrence and 
reasonable distribution, and the hydrographic features affecting the abundance
of upwelling cells. 

     Total fish potential of the upwelling areas have not yet been fully
tapped.  There is also the possibility of commercially viable tuna fisheries. 

Further exploitation would require sufficient studies to monitor distribution 
and migration patterns.  Information gathered would be important in the 
regulation of fisheries in order to maintain a sustainable yield. 

     A second paper on upwelling was presented by ULO K. ENYENIHI, Director of
the Institute of Oceanography of the University of Calabar.  It describes the 
taxonomy, distribution, abundance, growth, psychology, migration and feeding
characteristics of phytoplanktons and zooplanktons, whose biological
activities in association with bacteria, in the presence of increased 
nutrients, govern the productivity of the region.  Their roles in the food
web, which results in the large fish stocks harvested by artisanal and
industrial fishermen of these coastal countries, are discussed. 

     The fisheries of the African coastal region are greatly influenced by
upwelling cells.  The result is a phenomenal change in composition of catches 
with the abundance of particular species.  The upwelling phenomenon brings
about movement of stocks parallel and nearer to the coast in the
Senegal-Mauritania and Congolese-Angolan sectors, thereby increasing the
capturability of the abundant stock for artisanal in-shore fishermen.  The
economic importance of this phenomenon and its effects on the biological
productivity of this regional sea is discussed. 

     Case Studies 

     Case studies were presented by Collins Ayamama Angwe of the Fisheries
Research Station of the Institute of Animal Research in Cameroon (on behalf of
Jean Folack, Research Officer with the Fisheries Research Station in Limbe, 
Cameroon); I.E. Timchenko, an oceanographer currently on contract with the
Government of Guinea; Vassiafa Diomande, Chief of the Remote Sensing Service
of the National Commission on Environment of Cote d'Ivoire; Abdellatif Orbi,
Chief of Oceanographic Services of the Maritime Institute in Casablanca,
Morocco; and Lawrence Folajimi Awosika, Senior Research Officer at the
Nigerian Institute for Oceanography in Lagos. 

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

-- 
Patt Haring                  | My other site is a  Public Access UN*X 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | system: The Big Electric Cat  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET         | 1-212-879-9031  patth@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #444
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 May 89 04:43:40 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00711> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 19 May 89 04:39:43 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 19 May 89 04:39:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EYQw5me00UkTI1hmMK>;
          Fri, 19 May 89 03:25:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.QYQvznm00UkZ86WE5K>;
          Fri, 19 May 89 03:19:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4YQvy5G00UkZI6Uk5N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 19 May 89 03:17:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #445

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 445

Today's Topics:
		    space news from April 17 AW&ST
			  NSS Hotline Update
			   Re: Biosphere II
	  What ever happened to the Hubble Space Telescope?
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
			Shuttle Orbiter Names
	  Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 02:49:15 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from April 17 AW&ST

NASA seeks exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act, to restrict
flow of data to foreign nations.  Congress isn't enthusiastic.

Production of ammonium perchlorate oxidizer at Pacific Engineering's new
plant will be delayed until May due to minor funding delays.

Goddard Spaceflight Center requests commercial launch services for three
satellites, with options for twelve more.  The three are Wind, Geotail,
and Polar, part of the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics project.

NASA approves expanded studies for a space-station rescue vehicle that
would remain docked to the station.  NASA may be hoping to use the studies
to shorten the "advanced definition" stage, once a new administrator is
in charge and can make decisions.

Army initiative to educate field commanders about the uses of space
capabilities is being hampered by excessive secrecy, says BG Robert
L. Stewart (ex-astronaut, dep. cmdr. Army Strategic Defense Command):
"The world of space reconnaissance is too closed... This is an area
that doesn't need to be guarded that closely any more..."

US military commanders express concern about lack of a US Asat system,
and about the "less operationally oriented" US launch systems (compared
to the Soviet ones).

DoD considers severe budget cuts for the Aerospace Plane; it is unlikely
that NASA could pick up the slack.

SDI reconsidering Brilliant Pebbles cost estimates.  SDI laser development,
in particular, has been moving very slowly and is eating up a lot of the
SDI budget, which dampens enthusiasm for costly new projects.

NRC panel tells NASA that the Commercially Developed Space Facility is
too expensive and not useful enough, and that most near-term microgravity
work can be done with an extended-duration shuttle orbiter.  It does say
that the idea should be reconsidered if the space station is delayed more
than a year or two.  [Do they *really* expect that it *won't* be delayed
at least that long???]  Panel says that NASA could build the platform for
only slightly more than it would cost to lease it.  [Oh really?]  CDSF
would give more power and better microgravity, but neither is critical
for near-term experimental work, says the panel.  Finally, panel says that
there is little chance of substantial commercial activity in microgravity
work in the near future.

Space Industries and others are not so sure.  SI points out that the panel
was solid basic-research people, and simply doesn't know what's going on
in the commercial world.  Max Faget [SI's founder] says stronger private-
sector role must be provided if the US civil space program is to succeed:
"The government has dominated, providing all the infrastructure to date.
Every time [it does] a program, it takes longer than before..."

Another industry official [unnamed] is strongly critical of the report,
saying that of course the panel found no need for more power or better
microgravity:  all the experiments they looked at were designed to fly
on the shuttle!  The shuttle imposes major constraints on designers.
"These guys recognized things, covered them up and then drew the most
negative conclusions possible.. The conclusions are very conservative.
They... reflect the stacking of the committee with fundamental scientists."
He says the panel based its conclusions mostly on "expert opinion" from
NASA.  Others who briefed the panel agree.

The Senate will conduct major commercial-space hearings in May, and will
presumably reexamine this issue.

Payload Systems' planned June 15-Oct 1 payload flight aboard Mir is now
in doubt due to the Soviet decision to leave the station unattended for
a while.  PS says it has not yet been officially told of any delay.
Soviet engineers have visited PS recently to start flight-approval
procedures for the equipment, which is scheduled to go to the USSR in May.
The PS experiment consists of three sealed modules which cannot be
examined in detail by the cosmonauts.  Each module contains a number
of solution wells, with a wall between two compartments broken by an
external thumbscrew to start the experiment.  The cosmonauts will
photograph the inside of each well through a window at the end, so that
PS can determine whether broken crystals were intact before reentry.

Speaking of Mir...  Mir cosmonauts prepare Mir for "two to three months"
of unmanned flight to give the USSR time to mount a repair mission to
deal with electrical-power problems.  Electrical failures have begun to
severely limit available power, a worrisome issue because life support
is the biggest power user.  A Soyuz mission carrying a repair crew will
be launched in the next 2-3 months.  This is the second time the Soviets
have had to do major repair work on a manned space station, the first
being Salyut 7.  The team that saved Salyut 7 has been put in charge of
assembling the Mir repair mission.  The Mir cosmonauts have been firing
Mir's engines to raise its orbit, to give it a longer unattended lifetime.

Management shakeup at IKI [the research institute; note this is an entirely
different organization from Glavcosmos, which runs Mir, launchers, and
the shuttle] is likely as a result of the Phobos failures.

USSR is tentatively considering use of the Phobos ground spare to refly
the Phobos mission, possibly in 1992.  (This indicates a conservative
approach in planning, since there is a Mars window in 1990.)

Soviet scientists criticize secrecy and poor planning in Soviet space
program, blaming disorganization and internal bickering for the lack of
fully-approved planetary missions after Phobos 1/2.

Soviets will probably bring their An-225 [their shuttle carrier] to
the Paris air show, and may show a shuttle orbiter as well.

Arianespace delays first flight of the Ariane 44L, the maximum-lift
configuration of Ariane 4.  There is concern about high vibration levels
seen in the third stage at liftoff in the initial Ariane 4 flights.
Arianespace says the delay will be "a few weeks"; the first Ariane 44L
had been scheduled for April 28.

Letter from David P. Gump:  "...Twenty-eight years after the Wright
Brothers, the general public could buy passenger tickets on a pan-European
airline.  Twenty-eight years after Yuri Gagarin, the general public is
permitted to clap when five government employees take a short ride costing
almost $500 million tax dollars.  Only priviate initiative, aided by
short-term government incentives, will ever open space to the rest of us..."
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 13:28:00 GMT
From: sgi!arisia!cdp!jordankatz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: NSS Hotline Update


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week 
ending May 14, 1989. 

Last week NASA announced an updated shuttle manifest. In order to make
certain that the Shuttle program is capable of launching the probe to the
Jovian planet on or about Oct. 12, NASA has scheduled only one shuttle
flight between the recent Magellan mission and the upcoming Galileo
mission. Originally, the Hubble Space Telescope was scheduled to be
launched in between the two planetary missions but has since been pushed
to Spring of next year. 

The manifest looks something like this: 
STS-28 July 31-DoD mission on Columbia; 
STS-34 October 12-Galileo on Atlantis; 
STS-33 mid-November-DoD mission on Discovery; 
STS-32 Syncom IV deployment/LDEF retrieval on Columbia; 
STS-36-DoD mission on Atlantis; 
STS-31-Hubble Space Telescope mission on Discovery; 
STS-35-ASTRO-Spacelab on Columbia.

With the completion of a rigorous six month application process, 
the NASA Safety, Reliability, Maintainability, and Quality Assurance
office has announced eight finalists for the NASA Excellence Award for
Quality and Productivity.  

The eight finalists are:  
Barrios Technology of Houston; Bendix Field Eng. Corp., Columbia, Md.;
Boeing Computer Support Service, Huntsville AL.;  Computer Sciences Corp.,
Houston, Tx.; EG&G FL, Inc. KSC FL.; Grumman Technical Services Div., 
Titusville FL.; Lockheed Eng. Corp., Downey CA.  The winner will 
be announced at NASA's sixth annual contract conference Oct. 31, 
1989. 

Rear Adm. Richard Truly stated to the Senate Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation subcommittee that the FY'90 budget is "as tight as 
a drumhead"; and that any cuts in the $13 billion requested budget would
threaten the safety of the space transportation system.  In short, 
either safety concerns would have to be forgone which Truly refused 
to back off on, or less flights would be planned for the future.  

Later in a round of debate between Senator Jake Garn and J.R.  Thomson,
current Director of MSFC and nominated to be NASA's Deputy Adm., Senator
Garn stated that developing the ASRM development is not worth the extra
cost and that if NASA's budget is cut, the ASRM program should be
dropped.  J.R. Thomas responded that the development of improved SSMEs
and ASRM are key programs in making the Shuttle system safer and that
possible catastrophic failures would be caused by the current SSME's and
SRMs.  The FY'90 request is for $496.6 million for the liquid SSME, and
$121.3 million for the ASRM, both will come on line some time in 1994 or
95.

Acting Associate Adm. of Space Station Freedom Thomas Moser 
resigned as of May 15 after working for NASA for 26 years.  He 
stated his resignation has nothing to do with the state of the 
program, it was just that it seemed like the right time to go. He may have
been refering to the ethics legislation which goes into effect this week,
which would severely limit the consulting and lobbying work which an ex-
employee can legally do in the first year after retirement.

President Bush has chosen the name 'Endeavour' for Orbiter Vehicle-106,
the Challenger replacement.  The name was selected out of 6,100 submittals
by both primary and secondary schoolchildren.  James Cook the was 
British explorer who first commanded the ship Endeavour on its 
maiden Voyage in Aug. 1768.  The discoveries that Cook made in 
navigation and exploration have led, at least in spirit, to the
possibilities of space exploration. 

At KSC.... 

The Space Shuttle Columbia has been undergoing basic main engine 
testing through out the week, with continued functional testing of 
waste containment systems, power units, fresh water systems and 
communication systems.  Additional tile work was scheduled to begin 
on Sunday in the area by the payload bay doors. 

An Air Force Titan 34D roared off the pad at 3:47 EDT from Cape 
Canaveral on May 10, launching a pair of advanced communications 
satellites to handle U.S. military and diplomatic communications.  
The exhaust of the booster set off several brush fires that kept 
the pad closed for three hours after the launch, no major damage was 
reported. 

Space Commerce Corp. of TX, who has signed an exclusive agreement 
with the Soviet Union to market the services of Soviet boosters, is going
to make a formal offer to launch Space Station Freedom components for 
a price.  In addition they will also start lobbying US companies 
to consider launching their payloads atop Soviet Boosters.  As far 
as NASA is officially concerned the answer is a strict no; it 
wishes them well but would in no way consider such an offer.  As 
far as commercial payloads are concerned there are specific State
Depratment policies forbidding such arrangements with the Soviets. 

This has been Jordan Katz Reporting for the National Space 
Society's Space Hotline.  The Next update will be on May 21, 1989.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 21:29:00 GMT
From: surya.cs.umd.edu!liu@mimsy.umd.edu  (Yuan Liu)
Subject: Re: Biosphere II

There is a one page description of Biosphere II in the current issue
of IEEE Computer Magazine as part of an article on rapid prototyping.

====================================================================
Yuan Liu
liu@brillig.umd.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 03:20:19 GMT
From: castor.ucdavis.edu!ccs013@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu  (Jason)
Subject: What ever happened to the Hubble Space Telescope?


After the Challenger explosion I stopped keeping track of all the reasons
for the delay with the H.S. Telescope.  Besides that tragedy, can anyone 
give me the other reasons behind its late arrival.

Jason Gabler   jygabler@ucdavis

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 18:28:55 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

>From article <13299@swan.ulowell.edu>, by rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu
(Roger Levasseur): 
> As a side note, it was the school children who picked the name, but 
> from what I gather (and I haven't seen the material that was distributed
> by NASA) it would seem that the material made the name "Endeavour"
> rather attractive for the kids to pick.

On the same note, can anyone confirm or refute my suspicion that the
name (HMS) Beagle was made rather unattractive?
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 06:16:59 GMT
From: unmvax!unm-la!hazel@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (AIDE Hugh Hazelrigg)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <6101@nfs4.rl.ac.uk> kgd@inf.rl.ac.uk (Keith Dancey) writes:
>My understanding is that the demise of the dinosaurs extended over a period
>of order of magnitude of a thousand years.  Certainly long enough to place
>doubt upon the viability of a single catastrophy such as the one mentioned.

What prevents the effects of a "single catastrophy [sic]" from propagating over
a period of a thousand years?  On a geological scale of time, the events of a 
thousand years constitute less than a footnote in a billion-page volume.  

Life on this planet seems to be pretty durable, in spite of its perceived 
fragility.  We, the living, while certainly not immune from geological, 
meteorological, or cosmological influences, won't go away overnight unless the 
whole planet is blasted to smithereens in one swell foop!  

Look:  a thousand years (or even five or ten) really is just a one-nighter 
(what a party!).  The earth may have lost a host of magnificent species, but 
did life disappear?

I believe the metorite/asteroid collision theory to be the best put forward to
date to explain the demise of the dinosaurs and their ecosystem. Your objection,
Keith, is ill-considered.

Hugh Hazelrigg
hazel@unm-la.lanl.gov
Disclaimer:  None.  I don't work for anyone who doesn't trust me implicitly.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 May 89 23:31:50 PDT
From: David_Michelson@mtsg.ubc.ca
Subject: Shuttle Orbiter Names

In an earlier response, a comment was made that all the orbiters
had fictional counterparts except for Columbia.  Wasn't the
"ship" in Jules Verne's novel called "Columbia"?
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
  David G. Michelson, PhD Candidate, University of British Columbia
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 00:49:26 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com!jfcl.dec.com!imokay.dec.com!borsom@decwrl.dec.com  (Doug Borsom)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <1383@ns.network.com> ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet) writes:
>
>I suspect that, to most of us, the question of "Why should there be a manned
>space program?" is pretty much equivalent to the question "Why should Marco
>Polo sail out off the edge of the world?"  It's so transparently obvious
>that it's not worth discussing.

I appreciate your point, Dave.
 
The pro-space arguments I was interested in were not intended for 
consumption by readers of this news group, who, you are probably right 
in suggesting, are pretty much sold on the idea.

The reasons for an aggressive space program, unfortunately, are 
not "transparently obvious" to most US citizens.  At least, not 
obvious enough to make them willing to actively back the program.

It seems to me that getting more of the public actively backing the
space program, and supplying legislators with compelling reasons for
voting funding for the space program (reasons the legislators can use
to justify their votes), are important, though unglamourous, ways
of promoting a government-backed program. Even if you believe in a
privately funded space program, it will be necessary to sell the
program to folks who don't initially share your enthusiams.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 08:42:10 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

> Alverz et al extinction theory as plausible.

Wait a minute! You make a good point that 1K years is just a small
amount of time on a geologic or planetary (or many other) time scales.
I don't quibble about that, but I can't agree you can't look at this
without so skepticism (like fusion, conductors, etc.)

Several years I went on one of the yearly Caltech ski trips, when
this theory was fresh on every's brain (probably about 1982/3).  Okay
we discuss work on ski trips (we all get our turn).
Luis and Walter (and all the others) still got lots of respect,
but one of the people who came up, Peter Ray, a botanist at Stanford,
I won't just say "He shot holes thru the theory," but he did raise
interesting unanswered questions from the botanical community.
None of the original LBL people addressed this questions.  You have
to study some of these questions in great depth and say, "Oh yeah?!
I didn't think about that simple idea which remains unanswered..."
Happens all the time.  Theories are scientific fads.  Good find
some serious skeptics, I won't try to paraphrase Peter's questions.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #445
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 May 89 06:38:28 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00540>; Fri, 19 May 89 05:43:54 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 19 May 89 05:43:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cYQxncu00Ui301NE5x>;
          Fri, 19 May 89 05:22:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.YYQxjPS00UkZ86i04V>;
          Fri, 19 May 89 05:18:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYQxiBq00UkZ46gU5T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 19 May 89 05:17:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #446

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 446

Today's Topics:
			Re: Phobos replacement
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
			Re: Sun Exploding (?)
	   Re: SPACE Digest V9 #433 - Prediction Bulletins
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
     NASA : Astronauts Named To 2 DOD Missions Scheduled for 1990
   Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
   Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
	Re: What ever happened to the Hubble Space Telescope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 May 89 19:36:29 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Phobos replacement


>From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Phobos replacement

>Advance peek at AW&ST:  there has been discussion of launching the third
>Phobos, previously earmarked as a ground test article, in either the next
>launch window (1990) or the one after (1992).

I believe I saw an article in the Washington Post in the last few weeks,
claiming that a Soviet spokesman had stated that the USSR has given up on
Phobos for the forseeable future and its next attempt in that part of the
system is to be a Mars probe in the early 1990's. (The US is planning one
around then too - will they use the same launch window?) Sorry, no hope of
finding the article again - the Post puts out ~10 pounds of news a week.

>It's pleasant to see that the Soviets are willing to consider using such
>hardware when it can no longer be of use to the original mission(s).
>The Smithsonian is full of the US equivalent, notably Viking 3 and
>Voyager 3.

It could be argued either way. Since these missions were for limited launch
windows, it probably made sense to build spares, and building three probably
did not cost a lot more than building two. Adding a third launch and all the
tracking and control to a mission that had already succeeded would raise
costs considerably. In any event. Voyager 3 (at least) is still useful to
the Voyager mission. I understand they take it down occasionally and run
tests on it to help diagnose bugs or estimate performance limits of the
other Voyager craft.
                                John Roberts
                                roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 89 17:49:26 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

>I could understand not sending citizens into space due to the cost. All you
>readers out there opposed to sending citizens into space, suppose the cost
>was trivial, but the risk was still the same, would you still be against
>sending ordinary people into space??

An interesting question, but perhaps an irrelevant one.  The question is
basically "Should the U. S. Government (in the form of NASA) revive its
program to send ordinary citizens into space?"  If the costs were trivial,
United Airlines would be offering LEO as a tourist attraction, and you'd just
be faced with a stack of liability waivers to sign before you got aboard.


Bob Myers  KC0EW   HP Graphics Tech. Div.|  Opinions expressed here are not
                   Ft. Collins, Colorado |  those of my employer or any other
{the known universe}!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |  sentient life-form on this planet.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 21:40:27 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Sun Exploding (?)

>From article <1255@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>, by arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee): 
> In _The Gods Themselves_, Asimov postulates the leakage of physical laws
> from another universe into ours.  If you're allowed to change the laws
> of physics, it's not wrong to say the sun can be made to blow up.

Sorry, since this wasn't the main point, I didn't clarify.  Asimov
postulated specifically that an increase in the strong interaction
coupling constant could make the Sun blow up.  That's nonsense.  (He
further postulated that the necessary increase was too small to be
detectable by terrestrial experiments.  Double nonsense; the strong
interaction coupling constant is easily measured, and any significant
variation would quickly be noticed.)  Of course, you are quite right
that allowing arbitrary changes in physical laws could perhaps make
the Sun blow up, but that's not what Asimov said.

(Though I personally enjoyed the book anyway, the blatant scientific
error was annoying.  Perhaps if this discussion continues, it should
be by e-mail or in rec.arts.sf-lovers.)
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Sender: "Charles_R._Garbowski.WBST102a"@Xerox.COM
Date: 17 May 89 10:43:32 PDT (Wednesday)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #433 - Prediction Bulletins
From: "Charles_R._Garbowski.WBST102a"@Xerox.COM
Cc: "Charles_R._Garbowski.WBST102a"@Xerox.COM
Reply-To: "Charles_R._Garbowski.WBST102a"@Xerox.COM

I don't use the prediction bulletins, but if they are useful for others -
fine. I'm real handy with the delete key.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 13:07:40 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!acorn!ixi!clive@uunet.uu.net  (Clive Feather)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <13000@ut-emx.UUCP>, bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
> It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has
> a fictional counterpart

The *BIG* cannon in Jules Verne's "From Earth to the Moon" was called
the "Columbiad". Close enough ?
-- 
Clive D.W. Feather           clive@ixi.uucp
IXI Limited                  ...!mcvax!ukc!ixi!clive (riskier)
                             +44 223 462 131

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 19:29:43 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <166@ixi.UUCP>, clive@ixi.UUCP (Clive Feather) writes:
> In article <13000@ut-emx.UUCP>, bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
> > It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has
> > a fictional counterpart
> 
> The *BIG* cannon in Jules Verne's "From Earth to the Moon" was called
> the "Columbiad". Close enough ?

The ultimate reusable booster!!!

It never leaves the ground.  Needs no refurbishing before reuse.
No need for downrange recovery ships, aircraft, or crews.

Probably exceeds local noise limits, though.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 14:06:08 GMT
From: xanth!aiko@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (John K Hayes)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth



It just so happens there is an article in the current issue of Nat'l 
Geographic (June, I think) that deals with mass extinctions.  It says that
most scientists now believe that the extinction of the dinasaurs was caused by
a single event as opposed to a gradual dying out.  They define the time
boundary of the Cretaceus (sp?) period (when there were dinasaurs) and the
Tertiary (sp?) period (when there weren't) as the K-T boundary.  There have 
been samples of quartz crystals found that date to around the K-T boundary
that show signs of stress to a degree such as that caused by a nuclear
explosion or an impact of a very large meteor.  
There has also been found a pencil thin layer in a chunk of rock of an element
commonly found in meteors but rarely on earth.  The layer in the rock where
this occurs corresponds roughly to the K-T boundary.  They estimate the meteor
to have been about 6 miles across which would produce the equivilent of
10,000 times all the world's nuclear explosives.

As for what happened after the impact, scientists differ.  Some propose that
90 % of the earth's forests caught fire.  Some say that if the impact were on
land it would produce a thick smog that would cause extreme cold; but if it
were at sea, it would send so much water vapor into the atmosphere that a 
greenhouse effect would produce extreme heat.  One scientist who has been
studying the Yellowstone fire proposes that even if the impact were at sea
it would have produced an explosion so great that most of the world would have
caught fire (I forget the specifics she detailed, but they were very
interesting).

Still others (but a minority now, I believe) maintain that the cataclysm
can be explained by earthly causes such as ice ages, volcanic activity,
shifting of the continents, etc.  But, there seems to be evidence that
suggests otherwise.
-- 
    ---{john hayes}  Old Dominion University; Norfolk, Virginia USA
                     internet: aiko@cs.odu.edu
                     Home: (804) 622-8348     Work: (804) 460-2241 ext 134  

                      <++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>
Are you a Have or a Have_Not?  Because if you're a Have_Not, you've probably
had it; whereas, if you're a Have, you've probably got it and are going to 
give it away at some point in the future!       --- The Clash
                      <++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 22:58:35 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: NASA : Astronauts Named To 2 DOD Missions Scheduled for 1990

Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via 
  The Rutgers FidoGATEway
  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733

We want ** your ** news bulletins:
  (FAX: 212-787-1726 : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
or ...!uunet!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
or unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

*NASA: ASTRONAUTS NAMED TO TWO DOD MISSIONS SCHEDULED FOR 1990 

     Shuttle crew members have been named for two Department of 
Defense-dedicated Shuttle missions scheduled for mid-1990.

     USAF Col. Richard O. Covey will command STS-38, a classified 
DOD mission aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis scheduled for 
launch in May 1990.  Covey's pilot will be USN Cmdr. Frank L. 
Culbertson.  Assigned as mission specialists are USMC Col. Robert 
C. Springer, USAF Maj. Carl J. Meade and USA
Capt. Charles D. "Sam" Gemar. 

     Named as mission specialists for Shuttle mission STS-39, an
unclassified DOD mission aboard Space Shuttle Discovery 
scheduled for launch in July 1990, are USAF Col. Guion S. 
Bluford, Jr., Richard J. Hieb and Charles Lacy Veach. 

     The early assignment of mission specialists to STS-39 will 
provide for long-range crew participation in payload training 
and integration.

     The remainder of the flight crew will be assigned later. 

     Covey has flown twice as pilot on missions STS-51I in August 
1985 and STS-26 in September 1988.  He was born Aug. 1, 1946, in
Fayetteville, Ark., but considers Fort  Walton Beach, Fla., to be 
his hometown. 

     Culbertson will make his first space flight.  He was born
May 15, 1949, in Charleston, S.C., but considers Holly Hill,
S.C., to be his hometown. 

     Springer has flown as a mission specialist on STS-29 in
March of this year.  He was born May 21, 1942, in 
St. Louis, Mo., but considers Ashland, Ohio, to be his hometown.

     Meade will make his first flight in space.  He was born
Nov. 16, 1950, at Chanute Air Force Base, Ill.

     Gemar, also making his first space flight, was born Aug. 4,
1955, in Yankton, S.D., but considers Scotland, S.D., to be his 
hometown. 

     Bluford is a veteran of two Shuttle missions, STS-8 in 
August 1983 and STS-61A in October 1985.  He was born Nov. 22,
1942, in Philadelphia, Pa.

     Hieb will make his first trip to orbit.  He was born 
Sept. 21, 1955, in Jamestown, N.D.

     Veach also will make his first space flight.  He was born
Sept. 18, 1944, in Chicago, Ill., but considers Honolulu, Hawaii, 
to be his hometown. 

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

-- 
Patt Haring                  | My other site is a  Public Access UN*X 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | system: The Big Electric Cat  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET         | 1-212-879-9031  patth@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 09:28:23 GMT
From: mcvax!inria!irisa!saouter@uunet.uu.net  (saouter yannick)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

In article <4300@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ccs013@castor.ucdavis.edu (Jason) writes:
> 
> In article <6101@nfs4.rl.ac.uk> kgd@inf.rl.ac.uk (Keith Dancey) writes:
> >>Sun for months or years, and causing mass extinctions of life -- including,
> >>many believe, the dinosaurs.
> >My understanding is that the demise of the dinosaurs extended over a period
> >of order of magnitude of a thousand years.
> 
> ...etc....
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but is this one of the theories (proofs) behind
>  the "asteroid theory" of the extinction of the dinosaurs ?:
> 
> Layers of Iridium were found deep into the earth's crust ( i.e. in the layers
> of the Grand Canyon).  Now, being that Iridium is rare on earth but found
> to be relatively more bountiful in asteroids and meteors, it is suggested
> that the layer of this element was put on our planet by an extremely large
> (or as previously mentioned a few extremely large) asteroid(s) which hit
> earth and caused the clouds of dust ...etc., which eventually killed off the
> dinosaurs.  This dust, if the theory is accurate, was filled with Iridium and
> when settled created a solid layer over years of rain, erosion ...etc...
>    
I have heard about it,too. Dinosaurs might have been killed, in this theory for
few reasons :
- Herbivorous ones starved to death as the big forests burned with the energy
developped with the hit,and as the others plants died because of the Sun to be
darkened by the clouds. Then carnivorous ones starved to death,too.

- They might have choked with the carbonic anhydrid developped by the fires.

- The fishes died with the disappearance of the plancton, due to the first
reason.

- They could have died with the chill of the Earth due to the clouds.

- Moreover Iridium is poisonous.

However, all the dinosaurs would have been to disappear, that is to say, even
turtles and iguanes. And when all the creatures to be killed, then a great time
would be needed to repair this catastrophe (the first oxygen producers appears
in the sea 2 000 000 000 years ago, and this hit occurs 65 000 000 years ago).

saouter@sigle.irisa.fr

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 14:42:34 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

In article <1212@irisa.UUCP>, saouter@irisa.UUCP (saouter yannick) writes:
> 
> - Moreover Iridium is poisonous.

In sufficient quantities it is.  In this case the amounts are probably not
biologically significant.

> 
> However, all the dinosaurs would have been to disappear, that is to say, even
> turtles and iguanes. And when all the creatures to be killed, then a great time
> would be needed to repair this catastrophe (the first oxygen producers appears
> in the sea 2 000 000 000 years ago, and this hit occurs 65 000 000 years ago).

Actually, turtles and iguanas are not dinosaurs, and they did not disappear
at the end of the Mesozoic.  My understanding is that the extinction of
terrestrial life can be summed up with the statement that everything weighing
more than 20kg died off.  However, the extinction was more sweeping than
this and many tiny  (and, of course, large) oceanic organisms died as well.
It is also true that this is not the most dramatic mass extinction in the
fossil record. 
-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 17:19:30 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Hubble Space Telescope?

In article <4325@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ccs013@castor.ucdavis.edu (Jason Gabler) writes:
>After the Challenger explosion I stopped keeping track of all the reasons
>for the delay with the H.S. Telescope.  Besides that tragedy, can anyone 
>give me the other reasons behind its late arrival.

A combination of not wanting to fly it on the first post-Challenger mission,
not wanting to fly it until the TDRS network for returning data from it was
relatively complete, and not being able to fly it until after flying a
couple of military missions to shut the USAF up.
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #446
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 May 89 05:32:18 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00370>; Sat, 20 May 89 04:29:28 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 20 May 89 04:29:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AYRFCuS00Vs101=0lU>;
          Sat, 20 May 89 03:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.sYRF6P600UkZ48tE4c>;
          Sat, 20 May 89 03:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYRF3XW00UkZ88rk4K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 20 May 89 03:16:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #447

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 447

Today's Topics:
		    News of the Week, May 18, 1989
			 re: Space Telescope
		       E'Prime Contract Rumor?
		Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke
		Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke
		  Dep. Sec'y. Defense Addresses AIAA
		      Re: Shuttle Orbiter Names
 NASA to feature Hubble Space Telescope at Paris Air Show (Forwarded)
		   Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
		   Long Duration Exposure Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 16:50:50 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of the Week, May 18, 1989


Jonathan's Space Report

May 18, 1989 (no. 16)

The second 'Foton' satellite, launched on Apr 26, landed on May 12 as
predicted.

Kosmos-2019 was launched on May 5; it is a GRU recon satellite.

Otherwise, it's all quiet on the High Frontier.....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed 17 May 89 10:30:25-PDT
From: Brian Keller <B.BSK@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Space Telescope

sgi!bam%rudedog.SGI.COM@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Brian McClendon) writes:

>This may be old news, but in a small article in Sunday's (5/14) SJ
>MercNews, They mentioned that the Hubble Space Telescope was getting
>bumped back 3-5 months to make room for two military launches.
>
>Excuse me for being impatient, but that _REALLY_ sucks.

Keep in mind that the military missions have been bumped back to assure
that Magellan and Galileo are launched within their critical launch windows.
There was supposed to be one more flight before Magellan that was delayed.
Two launches were supposed to occur before Galileo (both military), one
of which has been postponed.  So actually, space science has a priority
when a time element is involved, but the military has been waiting their
turn.  At least give them that much.

                                            - bsk -
-------

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Wed, 17 May 89 08:28:24 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: E'Prime Contract Rumor?

There are rumors to the effect that E'Prime Aerospace Corporation is
on the verge of signing a launch service contract using one of their
MX-based boosters.  Can anyone substantiate or dismiss this rumor?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 18:36:19 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke

One of the best references to this topic is from Science, I think about
1966.  The title (if you do a search) had the word "skyhook" in it.  If
I really dug throgh my files, I might be able to find a copy.  I do have
a program (in basic of all things) which calculates the diameter ratio
at the thickest point to the ground for geosync skyhooks.
Keith Henson

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 18:43:57 GMT
From: jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU!kstclair@cs.orst.edu  (Kelly St.Clair)
Subject: Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke

While "skyhook" may have been used in a few places, I believe that the most
commonly used term for the concept of an "elevator to orbit" is "beanstalk".
The reference of course is to Jack and the Beanstalk, the latter of which
reached up to the clouds.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 23:03:40 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: Dep. Sec'y. Defense Addresses AIAA

Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via 
  The Rutgers FidoGATEway
  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733

We want ** your ** news bulletins:
  (FAX: 212-787-1726 : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
or ...!uunet!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
or unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

REMARKS BY DEPSECDEF ATWOOD BEFORE AIAA 


     REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BY 
     THE HONORABLE DONALD J. ATWOOD 
     DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
     AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND
       ASTRONAUTICS (AIAA)
     CRYSTAL CITY, VA 
     WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1989 

     The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is an
outstand1ng professional organ1zation uniting people from industry,
8overnment, and academia for the advancement of science and engineering.
If we are to remain a competitive and innovative society, these three
groups must work together.  It is a privilege to oome before you as your
keynote speaker.

     It is also a privilege to have this group be the first I address as
Deputy Secretary of Defense.  I will discuss the issues Secretary Cheney
and I will be addressing over the next several months.  I want to leave
you feeling confident that our nation's defense is in sure and capable
hands.

     Although I was only recently confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I have
been working at the Pentagon for the last several months.  In this time,
I have been impressed with the commitment that exists within the Defense
Department to making sure that our armed foroes have the training and
equipment to meet any threat to our national security.  This is a
difficult task at anytime, but it is made more difficult by today's
rapid pace of global economic and political change.

     This morning I'd like to look at three issues that have our
immediate attention as we take the helm at the Pentagon -- the Fiscal
Year 1990 defense budget, improving the efficienoy of the Department,
and encouraging greater efficiency in the defense industry.

Fiscal Year 1990 Defense Budget:

     The most pressing issue, as you might expect, is next year's
defense budget.  Last week Secretary Cheney unveiled the revised Fiscal
Year 1990 budget which calls for a $10 billion reduction in defense
spending from the levels in the budget submitted by former President
Reagan in January.  This budget represents the fifth year in a row that
defense spending will have fallen in real terms.  The cuts that we have
been forced to make are significant and will test our ingenuity as we
strive to maintain our global commitments.  To meet this challenge, we
will be compelled to become more innovative in the acquisition and
deployment of our forces so that we can slmultaneously maintain a high
state of readiness and still meet our budget goals.

     As we sought ways to reduce defense spending, we were careful as to
how we make those reductions.  Although there are signs that important
political and military changes are occurring in the Soviet Union, any
changes in Soviet military doctrine have yet to go much beyond simple
rhetoric.  The Soviets under Mr. Gorbachev continue to modernize their
military forces.  Soviet military spending remains at 15 to 17 percent
of their Gross National Product while our spending is approximately five
percent of our GNP.  The Soviet Union is still producing 3500 tanks each
year, while we produce only 800.  We, therefore, cannot afford to be
premature in our actions.  We must wait for substantive measures on
their part before we readjust our military posture.

     In formulating the 1990 budget, our highest priority was to protect
the quality and readiness of American military forces.  Operation of our
sophisticated weapons systems requires highly skilled and motivated
personnel.  With our population of young men and women declining, it is
go1ng to get harder and harder to fill our ranks.  If we want to hire
and retain qualified people, we must pay them what they are worth.  But
pay is only part of the answer to a first-class work force.  Being able
to provide them with the training they need and desire is equally
important.  We won't keep many pilots if we don't have the funds for the
fuel to let them fly.  Tank commanders will seek employment elsewhere if
their equipment is unnecessarily idled due to a lack of spare parts.
Our budget provides for the fuel, munitions, and spares we need to keep
our force of military professionals trained and ready.

     When cutting defense spending, there is no simple way to avoid
affecting new weapons systems.  We tried to keep from stretching out
programs to the maximum extent possible because that creates enormous
inefficiencies.  Programs with proven technology were maintained at
economic produotion rates.  Programs with unproven technology or
programs whose benefits did not justify their costs became the best
candidates for elimination or, in some instances, continuation at
substantially reduced funding levels.  In the current fiscal
environment, there is no way to fund every weapon system and still have
enough money available for personnel and readlness needs.

     Defense has historically been subject to wide fluctuations in
spending levels.  In the 1970s defense spending dropped by 25 percent
after taking inflation into account.  During the first half of the 1980s
defense spending increased on average by nine percent each year, only to
be followed by five consecutive years of real reductions totaling twelve
percent.  Since 1970 this cyclical pattern of spending averages out to
below zero percent real growth.  In other words, if defense spending had
followed a path of zero real growth over the last two decades, the U.S.
probably could have obtained more defense for its money.

     This roller-coaster pattern of defense spending points out that
what we need more than anything else is a longer-term approach to the
budget prooess.  One giant step forward would be for Congress to approve
a biennial defense budget.  This was one of the recommendations of the
Packard Commission.  The Department has just submitted its second
biennial budget for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991.  Although there are many
supporters for such a budget 1n Congress, we have not convinced a
majority of the value in this approach.  If we want greater efficiency
in the defense budget, we must have greater stability in our funding
levels.

     Another solution that has already demonstrated significant
long-term savings is multi-year procurement.  From Fiscal Year 1982
through Fiscal Year 1989 we will save 9 billion dollars using this
method of procurement.  For Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 we have proposed
27 programs for multi-year procurement.  Greater stability in the budget
process would give us more military capability for the money we spend.

 
 * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

-- 
Patt Haring                  | My other site is a  Public Access UN*X 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | system: The Big Electric Cat  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET         | 1-212-879-9031  patth@dasys1.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 09:25:28 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Orbiter Names

David Michelson writes:
>
>   Wasn't the "ship" in Jules Verne's novel called "Columbia"?

As others pointed out, "Columbiad" was the name of the cannon, not of the
projectile:  


    Of course it was something just to contemplate this immense
    Columbiad, but to descend into its depths, that seemed to Americans
    the _ne plus ultra_ of happiness on Earth.  There was not one
    curiosity-seeker who did not want to give himself the pleasure of
    visiting the interior of that iron abyss.  A small carriage, let
    down by a steam-winch, made it easy for them to satisfy their
    curiosity.  They went wild.  Women, children, elderly people,
    everybody assumed the duty of penetrating the mysteries of the
    colossal cannon.  The fare for the descent was five dollars per
    person, and despite of this high price, during the two months
    preceding the launching, the influx of visitors enabled the Gun
    Club to pocket nearly five hundred thousand dollars.  
        --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)


Actually, neither the cannon nor the projectile had proper names.
"Columbiad" was the generic name of a type of large cast-iron cannon
used in the US Civil War; Verne just used that name synecdochically
(ahem!) to refer to the Gun Club's Privately Financed Fully Reusable
Man-Rated Solid-Fueled Single-Stage-To-Orbit Big Dumb Blaster.  

                Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 19:20:09 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA to feature Hubble Space Telescope at Paris Air Show (Forwarded)

David W. Garrett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   May 17, 1989


RELEASE:  89-76

NASA TO FEATURE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE AT PARIS AIR SHOW

     The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) will highlight the NASA 
exhibit at the 38th Paris Air Show, June 9-18.

     The NASA exhibit, housed in the United States National 
Pavilion, will focus on astronomy in general and the HST in 
particular.  The HST, a cooperative project with the European 
Space Agency and scheduled for launch by the Space Shuttle in 
early 1990, will allow astronomers to observe stars, planets and 
other objects 10 times more clearly than Earth-bound 
observatories.

     The centerpiece of the 7,000-sq.-ft. exhibit is a full-scale 
model of the HST with one side cutaway to show, through pulsed 
lighting, the interior components of the spacecraft.  Other NASA 
programs featured in the exhibit are Space Shuttle, Space Station 
Freedom, the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System, new space 
suit designs, the National Aero-Space Plane and other 
aeronautical subjects.  Also, to commemorate the 20th anniversay 
of the first moon landing, artifacts from the Apollo 11 lunar 
mission will be displayed.

     Prominently displayed outdoors near the entrance to the 
pavilion will be a 75-foot model of the National Aero-Space 
Plane.

     Several press events related to the exhibit are scheduled 
during the show.  June 9 has been designated Apollo 11 day when 
the first lunar landing astronauts - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin 
and Michael Collins - will participate in an afternoon press 
conference.  On June 12, astronauts Loren Shriver and Steve 
Hawley, members of the Space Shuttle/HST deployment crew, will 
meet the press.

     NASA has been a major participant at the Paris Air Show, Le 
Bourget, since the mid-1960s.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 19:44:00 GMT
From: apollo!ulowell!hawk!devans@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Daniel Evans)
Subject: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS


	My wife recently asked me about the Sun's partner, and I realized
I had forgotten almost everything I had read about it.

	A couple of years back, I had read some accounts about a tiny (non-
identical) "twin" of our sun, which swings by every few million years or so.
Someone referred to it as "Nemesis".

	How much evidence is there supporting this theory?  What are the de-
tails?  What kind of star is it?  How did they decide what its path is?  Is
it visible through a telescope?  Was this just a trendy theory that got tossed
out after a while?

	My wife's sixth-grade students want to know...

					Thanks in advance,

					Dan
					devans@hawk.ulowell.edu

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:        WED 17 MAY 1989 07:49:00 CDT
From: Andy Edeburn <CC62%SDSUMUS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Long Duration Exposure Facility


CDAF@IUVAX.CS.INDIANA.EDU writes:

>>Yes. NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
>>and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter.

>Just a silly question.. How much different is the orbit of LDEF to thatt
>which the shuttle took to launch Magellan?  Would it have been possible
>to retrieve LDEF on the shuttle after it launched Magellan?

 Orbital differences are not the problem. The problem is whether or not
the shuttle has the proper transport carriage to place the LDEF into for
a re-entry and landing.  I don't think that the shuttle would have had
the cargo space or the weight space to allow for an LDEF carriage
because of Magellan.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #447
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 May 89 11:04:35 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01744> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 20 May 89 10:38:14 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 20 May 89 10:37:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IYRGvuy00UkTE0pk5u>;
          Sat, 20 May 89 05:25:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.MYRGq3200UkZ894E4J>;
          Sat, 20 May 89 05:19:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYRGod600UkZQ92k4A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 20 May 89 05:17:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #448

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 448

Today's Topics:
			 Re: heavy launchers
		     Need help obtaining document
			  Star Dying out...
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
			Re: Phobos replacement
		Re: Kelso's NASA prediction Bulletins
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
			      Re: Giotto
			    RE: T.S. Kelso
			ultimate ASAT weapon??
			  private spaceplane
	       Magellan Status for 05/18/89 (Forwarded)
			   PHONE TREE ALERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 17:21:14 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: heavy launchers

In article <11483@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>2. While congress refused to fund a true Saturn production line, it was 
>   certainly possible for congress to restart Saturn production when post
>   Apollo launchers were being considered.

In theory.  In practice, the costs of the restart rise steadily with the
length of the shutdown... especially when the shutdown decision was not
"stop production for now" but "there will be no further production".
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 00:07:47 GMT
From: agate!shelby!Portia!jessica.stanford.edu!paulf@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Need help obtaining document

Help!  I'm trying to find information on the following reference:

"Contract End Item, Detailed Specifications (Prime Equipment), Part I,
Performance and Design Requirements for CEI 091T0914 Launch Processing
System Checkout, Control, and Monitor Subsystem Common Data Buffer
Assembly, Specification Number CP091T0914, NASA, John F. Kennedy Space
Center, 7-14-75"

This little beast was (is?) used as part of the Launch Processing System.
The contracter was Martin - Marietta.

If you have any information about this item, please send me mail; I need it
for my dissertation!


-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX      | "UNIX could use a more user - friendly front
->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | end.  Anyone still have a card reader?"

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 22:39:27 GMT
From: greppster@vax1.acs.udel.edu  (Paul R Grepps)
Subject: Star Dying out...

My girlfriend and I were driving home one night and we were looking at this
star that looked really bright.  It was around the middle of winter this year.
It was low in the sky, but I really don't remember what time it was or what
direction it was in.  So I quess that really doesn't identify the star.  There
were definitely no clouds in the sky.  It had been clear all day and was even
clear skies the next day.  So I'm sure that this did not have an effect on it
looking like it BURNT OUT.  We were just saying how nice the star looks every
night and just as we said that it got really bright and then IT WAS NO MORE.
Does anybody know anything about this?  Or was it maybe just something else?
I don't know what really happened and it freaked me out!  I used to watch that
star every night on the way to swim practice because the first time I saw
I always used to watch it to see if it moved because I thought it was a UFO.
I know it sounds crazy but, I really would like to know what I might have seen.

Thanks,
Paul

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 04:44:42 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <11630007@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>... If the costs were trivial,
>United Airlines would be offering LEO as a tourist attraction, and you'd just
>be faced with a stack of liability waivers to sign before you got aboard.

It's not that simple any more, in the US in particular.  Getting sworn
statements from your passengers that they understand the risks and are
taking them voluntarily will *not* protect you from the lawyers if
something -- anything -- goes wrong.  It may provide useful ammunition
for the enormously-expensive court battle, but it won't avert it.
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 04:42:15 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Phobos replacement

In article <8905172336.AA11856@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>claiming that a Soviet spokesman had stated that the USSR has given up on
>Phobos for the forseeable future and its next attempt in that part of the
>system is to be a Mars probe in the early 1990's. (The US is planning one
>around then too - will they use the same launch window?) ...

Launch windows for Mars occur about every two years, and are the same for
the US and the USSR :-).  Last I heard, Mars Observer was slated for 1992.
The Soviets could put Phobos 3 into the 1990 window if they tried hard,
but the AW&ST report suggested that if they try, they'll try in 1992 to
give them time to think and revise equipment.  The Soviets have some more
ambitious plans for either 1994 or 1996, I forget which.
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 13:52:03 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!ncrcan!brambo!wwg@rutgers.edu  (Warren W. Gay)
Subject: Re: Kelso's NASA prediction Bulletins

In article <4YOMW=W00UkZ1U64N0@andrew.cmu.edu> ota+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Ted Anderson) writes:
>I've gotten a couple of complaints about the long postings containing
>satellite orbital elements.  While I understand that these are very
>useful for folks that observe satellites I wonder how many people really
>use this information....
>	Ted Anderson

I for one want to put in my vote of *appreciation* for Kelso's NASA prediction
bulletins.  I don't see the once a week posting as a problem for those who
don't care either.  For those of us who enjoy satellite communications or just
tracking them, it sure is nice to have the up to date orbital elements!

Thank you T Kelso, keep up the good work.

73s de +             LSI represents Large Scale Investment,
VE3WWG |     transistors are "discrete", but tubes are just plain fun.
+------+    Bramalea Software Systems Inc...!utgpu!telly \ !brambo!wwg
               !{uunet!mnetor, watmath!utai}!lsuc!ncrcan /
                   telly!brambo!wwg@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca : Internet

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 14:51:14 GMT
From: bsu-cs!davodd@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (David Speakman)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS



I recall hearing that some circumstantial proof (sic) was that there is some
 unexplained disturbances in the orbits of the outer planets.  This was 
it was thought that this could indicate a tenth planet or Nemisis or
something totally different.

Davodd

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 12:24:46 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Giotto

In article <1217@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jokim@jarthur.UUCP (John H. Kim) writes:
>I heard some (*gag*) press reports that they were going to recover
>Giotto and check out some neat Halley's Comet samples that it got
>sandblasted with.  Is this true (eventually?)

No.

ESA currently doesn't have any way of retreiving a satellite.

Giotto isn't carrying enough fuel to slow down as it passes the Earth
(You can't just put on the brakes you know :->).

Giotto relied on the comet dust being ionised by the impact with the
first layer of the shield so that the expanding cloud of gas gets
stopped by the second layer.

And even if samples did survive the impact, there isn' any way for them
to be kept cold to preserve the more volatile (and interesting)
material.


The news yesterday was that Giotto is thought to be about sixty percent
operational, and that it still has sufficient fuel reserves to carry out
the mission to Grigg-Skellerup.

It is not expected to survive this encounter.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 17:00:21 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!frank@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Frank Abernathy)
Subject: RE: T.S. Kelso


In article <4YOMW=W00UkZ1U64N0@andrew.cmu.edu> ota+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Ted Anderson) writes:
>I've gotten a couple of complaints about the long postings containing
>satellite orbital elements.  While I understand that these are very
>useful for folks that observe satellites I wonder how many people really
>use this information....
>	Ted Anderson

>>I for one want to put in my vote of *appreciation* for Kelso's NASA prediction
>>bulletins.  I don't see the once a week posting as a problem for those who
>>don't care either.  For those of us who enjoy satellite communications or just
>>tracking them, it sure is nice to have the up to date orbital elements!
>>
>>Thank you T Kelso, keep up the good work.

>>73s de + VE3WWG (rest of Warren Gay's signature, brambo!wwg, deleted.)

I ALSO WISH TO THANK MR. T.S. KELSO FOR HIS PREDICTION BULLETINS!!!!!

They are very useful to the members of this group that use them, and this
is an effective way to get current info to a large group of people. 

For the folks on these newsgroups that don't wish to read them, use 'l' first
to see if there is anything you want to see, and use 'K' if not.  Individual
postings can be 'not read' by using 'n'.

Thank you for your patience in allowing those that do USE THE INFO provided
by Mr. Kelso to continue receiving it through this media.

Frank Abernathy
P.O. Box 4394
Austin, Texas 78765-4394

(512)-244-0625

By the way Warren, I can't seem to get E-mail to you anymore*, give me your
home address and I'll send you what I have if you still need it.

*it is My fault, not the networks.  :^)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 89 18:57:11 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?)
Subject: ultimate ASAT weapon??

While going through old papers, etc, I found a rather faded newspaper clipping
which I thought this group would "enjoy".  I don't have a date on it, but
assume that it is 1979-1981, as I was working on some "related" stuff and
would have clipped it.

The proposal involved some un-named (at least here) bad guys sending a lunar
probe to collect samples.  At some future date, it could return home and
enter a counter-orbit.  From somewhere above Clarke orbit, it would start
dumping it's payload of gravel and sand, and rapidly descend, scattering
some (in this article) 2 tons of goodies for everything in orbit to hit.
At high delta v!

There are some large holes in the article (written for mass consumption),
but the premise seems sound and sounds scary.  Of course, we know who the
un-named baddies were supposed to be, but what other holes are there in
this.  Some assumptions I have made:
    polar orbits will "get it" sooner or later, but should have a longer
    life span
    whomever does this has decided to live without satellites

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 16:57:08 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: private spaceplane

First, I will make the necessary apologies for cluttering this group with
what others may consider to be irrelevant junk.

That done, I'll get right to the heart of the matter.  Several months ago,
a flurry of postings circulated about a private spaceplane effort.  I undertook
the task of organizing a mailing list, and am trying to provide at least
some direction to an effort to see if a private spaceplane is viable.
First, the group will design a small-scale (i.e. homebuilt, garage scale)
       spaceplane.
Second, (and potentially more fun) the group will work on financing and 
       building this spaceplane.  (This is far in the future!)

One consequence is that we will become educated on the design tradeoffs,
etc. as we try our collective hand at spacecraft design.  Perhaps actual
construction is beyond the group--at this stage, none of us knows.  Even
so, the educational experience should be interesting.

If you are interested in joining the effort, or merely in following the
progress, all you need do is reply, and your name will be added to the 
list.  Please indicate with a brief letter what your background is, and
how you would like to participate.


**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
             kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu

alternate:   kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 20:47:42 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 05/18/89 (Forwarded)


                       MAGELLAN STATUS
                        May 18, 1989
 
 
     Twice daily momentum wheel desaturations were performed
as expected Wednesday at 00:45 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. PDT. The
daily star calibration was at 1 p.m. PDT and was performed
without difficulty. Both stars were detected and a full
attitude update was obtained. The problem experienced Tuesday
did not recur, but investigation continues into why the
spacecraft lost the star.
 
     Analysis of stored Launch Phase telemetry played back
last Friday and Saturday indicates the spacecraft's solar
panels were latched after the start of the first IUS burn. It
would appear that the burn acceleration did contribute to the
final latch of the panels, the project said today.
 
     The Cruise-2 computer command sequence which contains
Sunday's Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-1) is being
tested at the System Verifications Lab (SVL). But the command
data system breadboard was giving some difficulty which could
delay completion of the test prior to the Cruise-2 upload
Saturday. Project said the problem is receiving a lot of
attention.
 
 
     
 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance  From Earth (mi)              2,082,381.58 
     
     Velocity  Geocentric                   5,936.59 mph
               Heliocentric                 59,952.74 mph
 
     Round Trip Light Time                  11.1 sec

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 20:51:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: PHONE TREE ALERT






Phone Tree Alert

Date:          5/15/89

Subject:       Support for full funding for the Space Station.

Target:        Rep. Jamie L. Whitten, Chairman
               House Committee on Approrpriations

Address:       Hon. Jamie L. Whitten
               U.S. House of Representitives
               Washington, DC 20515-2401
               202-225-4306

Message:       Call or write Chairman Whitten expressing your
               support for full funding for the international
               space station project.

               The Senate goes out on Memeorial Day recess on 19
               May and the Hous goes out on 25 May.  Therefore,
               activists have until the 25th to target the
               chairman of this important committee.

               Activists should also try to make appointmnets
               with their congressional representatives durring
               this recess.  The next several weeks will be
               crucial to showing the political leadership that
               Americans want a space program which they can be
               proud of!

Add'l Brief:   In your letter or call, try to relate the space
               station to your representative's agenda.  Link
               station to jobs, international cooperation and
               economic competitiveness, the environment,
               education and anything else which may be important
               to the elected official.

               For tips on how to be especially effective, the
               Space Activists Handbook, available from SPACEPAC
               has some helpful hints.  Write or call David
               Brandt at NSS HQ.  Or inquire on this net to
               Jordan katz.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #448
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 May 89 04:33:16 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00458>; Sun, 21 May 89 04:46:31 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 21 May 89 04:46:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4YRaTXO00Vs1M2ak8W>;
          Sun, 21 May 89 03:40:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.UYRaAeS00UkZ4:4k4L>;
          Sun, 21 May 89 03:20:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYRa9Im00UkZ8-3E5-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 21 May 89 03:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #449

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 449

Today's Topics:
			   Andromeda Strain
		      Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust
   Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
			Re: Star Dying out...
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
		      Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust
		       The late NEMESIS Theory
			Giotto to be woken up
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 89 10:58 EST
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Andromeda Strain

    In the *movie* version it was not an asteroid, it was a space
    probe.  It has been a long time since I saw it, but there was I
    think the implication of a possibility that the probe was lanched
    by the military in order to collect extraterrestrial material.
    Also, It didn't decompose plastics at all.  It caused blood to
    coagulate comletely, which kind of slowed the heart down.  In the
    end it was found that it didn't do well in an oxygen environment.
    However, all of the high-tech machines broke down, for stupid reasons
    that the movie maker thought representative of engineering narrow
    mindedness, and so it took them much too long to figure this out.
    
    By the way, I do think it is possible that an extraterrestrial bug
    could cause problems on earth, although very unlikely. ~rI am thinking
    that something couldevolve to live in an incredibly harsh and spartan
    extraterrestrial environment by being able to extract energy from
    almost any kind of molecule.  }iConsider for example, molds and
    such.  They will grow on any kind of decomposing organic matter.
    They are not in any sense host-specific.  Now imagine one that grew
    much more rapidly in a suitable environment, say inside the lungs.
    
    Chris Eliot
    
    Umass/Amherst
    
    You can post this to the net, but don't expect me to defend any
    of it.

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 22:29:57 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust

In article <982@syma.sussex.ac.uk>, andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes:
> Also, (rather naive question), would the shuttle have been "showered"
> with any of the impurities from the Magellan solid motor exhaust at burn
> time, even though it was obviously a long distance from it?

It seems that damage to Shuttle windows from high speed particles
of sold exhaust is a real concern.  According to the Space Shuttle
Operator's Manual, the orbiter turns its windows away and the
crew watch the burn with the TV camera on the elbow of the
manipulator arm.

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 336 1051

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 13:16:50 GMT
From: mcvax!inria!irisa!saouter@uunet.uu.net  (saouter yannick)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

In article <13111@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes:
> It is also true that this is not the most dramatic mass extinction in the
> fossil record. 

Such collisions occurs about every 50 000 000 years and I've heard that others
species have disappeared as suddenly as the dinosaurs did, so earlier
collisions might be the cause for that, too.

Does anyone knows others example of strange disappearance ?

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 13:25:06 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc!taux01!amos@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: Star Dying out...

Have you heard about things called "planets", like, Venus?

They actually *move*!

-- 
	Amos Shapir				amos@nsc.com
National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
Tel. +972 52 522261  TWX: 33691, fax: +972-52-558322
34 48 E / 32 10 N			(My other cpu is a NS32532)

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 14:50:35 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nather@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ed Nather)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <13325@swan.ulowell.edu>, devans@hawk.ulowell.edu (Daniel Evans) writes:
> 	A couple of years back, I had read some accounts about a tiny (non-
> identical) "twin" of our sun, which swings by every few million years or so.
> Someone referred to it as "Nemesis".
> 
> 	How much evidence is there supporting this theory?

None.

>  What are the details?  

There aren't any.

> What kind of star is it?  

It is a mythical star.

> How did they decide what its path is? 

They were trying to explain "periodic" mass extinctions in the fossil record
by invoking comets to smash the earth and create a "gravitational winter" by
ruining the earth's ecology, on a regular basis.  The "periodicity" was, at
best, suspect, but why not try?  They invoked the mythical "Oort cloud" of
comets that supposedly (and invisibly) surrounds the solar system, and placed
the mythical "Nemesis" in an orbit that would perturb them periodically, thus 
raining destruction on our unsuspecting planet and its inhabitants.

> Is it visible through a telescope?

No.

>  Was this just a trendy theory that got tossed out after a while?

Yes.

> 	My wife's sixth-grade students want to know...

Teach them the difference between theory and observation, and you'll do
them a life-long favor.

-- 
Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 18:40:00 GMT
From: janus!bwood@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Blake Philip Wood)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <13325@swan.ulowell.edu> devans@hawk.ulowell.edu (Daniel Evans) writes:
>
>Someone referred to it as "Nemesis".
>	How much evidence is there supporting this theory?

Prof. Richard A. Muller, here at Berkeley, is the originator of this idea.
As of a year ago he had a project going to actively look for it.  About a 
year ago he wrote a book on the subject: "Nemesis".  I suggest you read
it for more details.  Contrary to other's postings, I don't think this is
a dead or discredited theory at all.


                              Blake P. Wood
                              U.C. Berkeley, EECS
                              Plasmas and Non-Linear Dynamics
                              bwood@janus.Berkeley.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 15:20:37 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <13325@swan.ulowell.edu> devans@hawk.ulowell.edu (Daniel Evans) writes:
>	A couple of years back, I had read some accounts about a tiny (non-
>identical) "twin" of our sun, which swings by every few million years or so.
>Someone referred to it as "Nemesis".

Last I heard, this idea was no longer taken seriously by most people.  It
appears unlikely that Nemesis's orbit would be stable against perturbations
by other stars over billions of years.  And the evidence for mass extinctions
occurring every N million years -- which is what Nemesis was supposed
to explain -- is not all that strong.  (Mass extinctions, yes, but not on
a clockwork-regular schedule.)

Definitely proving or disproving the idea is difficult, but it no longer
looks like a good bet.
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 14:03:55 GMT
From: mcdchg!illusion!marcus@rutgers.edu  (Marcus Hall)
Subject: Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust

In article <606@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>   ... that it exactly why the Shuttle turns its undersurface
>   towards where the probe/satellite starts its burn. The worry is that
>   exhaust particles could damage or dirty the orbiter's windows.

Are the windows considered more critical than the bottom tiles?  I guess they
are possibly more fragile, but the bottom tiles experience much higher
temperatures than the top surfaces.  I guess that we know that even with some
of the bottom tiles missing, the orbiter doesn't suffer too much damage, so
I guess that turning the bottom to the burn makes sense, but it doesn't seem
to be clearly the obvious thing to do.

marcus hall

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 22:33:46 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: The late NEMESIS Theory

I had to comment on the following exchange. I find Ed's response to be
uninformative (and even snide) despite being mostly factually correct.

>From article <13140@ut-emx.UUCP>, by nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather):
> In article <13325@swan.ulowell.edu>, devans@hawk.ulowell.edu (Daniel Evans) writes:
>> 	A couple of years back, I had read some accounts about a tiny (non-
>> identical) "twin" of our sun, which swings by every few million years or so.
>> Someone referred to it as "Nemesis".
>> 
>> 	How much evidence is there supporting this theory?
> 
> None.

Not exactly correct. Maybe the evidence is poor, but you should mention
what it is: extinction intervals and astroblem dating. Both are vaguely
consistent with periodic extinctions, but the dating of astroblems is
pretty vague, and the degree of extinctions depends a lot on interpretation.
The statistics of small samples prevents any conclusions, IMHO.

>>  What are the details?  
> 
> There aren't any.

There are lots of details - the depth and extent of one or more iridium
layers, the possible orbits of a NEMESIS type object, what it would
look like (i.e. how to detect it), the dating methods referred to above,
etc.

> 
>> What kind of star is it?  
> 
> It is a mythical star.

Very descriptive. You might have said that if it existed and had not
been detected, it would likely be in the southern hemisphere, that it
would be a faint red dwarf, massing at most 15% of the Sun, and that
it would be most detectable as an infrared source. To my mind, IRAS
would have been the most likely way to find it, and it is this failure
that was the telling blow (not that the other evidence wasn't pretty
bad anyway). 

> 
>> How did they decide what its path is? 
> 
> They were trying to explain "periodic" mass extinctions in the fossil record
> by invoking comets to smash the earth and create a "gravitational winter" by
> ruining the earth's ecology, on a regular basis.  The "periodicity" was, at
> best, suspect, but why not try?  They invoked the mythical "Oort cloud" of
> comets that supposedly (and invisibly) surrounds the solar system, and placed
> the mythical "Nemesis" in an orbit that would perturb them periodically, thus 
> raining destruction on our unsuspecting planet and its inhabitants.

The `mythical Oort cloud' is on much better theoretical and
observational ground that this denigration would imply. The recent
work indicates that most comets may be closer to the Sun (Uranus -
Neptune region) than was thought, and that we don't, for interesting
dynamical reasons, see them perturbed into the inner solar system as
often as those farther out. 

Granted, the path is entirely a result of trying to generate a
periodicity while making it hard to see or find the `comet perturber'.
None of it is direct observation, just a set of deductions from an
initial postulate.

>> Is it visible through a telescope?
> 
> No.
> 
Well, it ought probably to have been detectable by IRAS. Maybe.

>>  Was this just a trendy theory that got tossed out after a while?
> 
> Yes.
> 
No argument here.

>> 	My wife's sixth-grade students want to know...
> 
> Teach them the difference between theory and observation, and you'll do
> them a life-long favor.
> 
Absolutely.

One of the things that always bothered me about this whole `NEMESIS
did/didn't kill the dinosaurs' thing was that most people didn't
understand how the chain of reasoning went on NEMESIS, and that even
if some of the more exotic inferences were unlikely, that didn't rule
out other components of the scenario. 

For example, NEMESIS was postulated to explain a possible
*periodicity* of extincitions. If it doesn't exist, that doesn't mean
that a comet might not have killed off the dinosaurs, just that
extinctions aren't periodic after all. It might even be that *all*
such extinctions were caused by comets, but just that they aren't
really periodic.

And, most assuredly, if a comet had nothing to do with the K-T
extinction, that doesn't mean that comets and other objects don't
occasionally hit the Earth.

Several things would have to be verified for the entire NEMESIS theory
to be accepted. A short list, off the top of my head:

1) NEMESIS has to be located.
2) It has to have a stable enough orbit to have been around for 
   about 1 GY and five or six orbits, maybe more.
3) The outer Oort cloud must be perturbed by NEMESIS.
4) One or several comets must hit the Earth per cycle, depositing 
   Ir or some other tracer.
5) The iridium layer(s) must be of extraterrestrial origin.
6) There must be an Ir or other tracer layer at every extinction boundary.
7) Almost all (some random interlopers allowed) Ir layers around the 
   world should date to an extinction event.
8) The extinctions must happen very quickly.
9) The mechanism by which a comet impact or impacts actually kills large
   animals but not small must be understood. (also sea versus land animals.)
10) No more likely explanation must be available.

I don't think any of (1)-(9) are completely accepted, and most are not
accepted at all, except maybe (5). Note however, that should (1) and
(2) occur, the others become much more reasonable. 
Bill Wyatt, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
    UUCP :  {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
    ARPA:   wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
    SPAN:   cfa::wyatt                 BITNET: wyatt@cfa

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 17:07:57 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net  (Adrian Hurt)
Subject: Giotto to be woken up

A BBC TV programme, "Tomorrow's World", reported that the Giotto probe is to
be reawakened. Tests have shown that despite its battering from Halley's
Comet, 60% of the craft is still working, and there is still fuel on board.
The idea is that in July 1992, Giotto will intercept another comet. I have no
idea how that comet's name is spelt, but it sounded like Grig-Skellerup.

Anyone want to supply more detail, and in particular the correct spelling of the
comet's name?

 "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #449
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 May 89 01:35:59 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06568>; Mon, 22 May 89 00:36:43 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 22 May 89 00:36:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QYRslzy00UkT01PUB0>;
          Mon, 22 May 89 00:29:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.oYRsgTq00UkZ0:rU5U>;
          Mon, 22 May 89 00:23:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0YRsdzu00UkZ0-q05M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 22 May 89 00:20:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #450

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 450

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Private funding of space science
		      Re: spaceplane propulsion
			    Re: sci.astro
		 Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
			  Space food sticks
		      Re: ultimate ASAT weapon??
			 Re: _Analog_ article
   Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
			Re: Sun Exploding (?)
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
	       RE: citizens in space -- risk silliness
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Thu, 18 May 89 02:52:26 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Private funding of space science

Dr. Dereference (John L. McKernan) writes:
>In article <8905120536.AA01379@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:
>>The government is the best source of support for research NOT development
>
>In order to do a lot of R&D hardware needs to be developed ...
Dereferencing "R&D" we have:
"In order to do a lot of research and development, hardware needs to be
developed ..."

Aside from being circular, this illustrates the very muddled thinking
about research vs development that I was pointing out.  Try saying
"research" when you mean research and "development" when you mean
development.  The phrase "R&D", is a source of confusion.

>                                             ....While the governemnt
>certainly should not do the development itself, it still needs to fund the
>development of hardware for R&D that will not be done privately.  As for
>government involvment in operations, the best people to operate the hardware
>built for R&D are usually the scientists doing the R&D, who are usually
>government employees (ie JPL). 

The government needs to fund AND ENGAGE IN many kinds of development and
operations that cannot or should not be done privately.  In my original
message these exceptions are covered in the proposed extension of the Hatch 
Act which would prohibit political action by civil servants, contractors 
and nonentitlement welfare recipients.

PS: By the way, JPL is not under civil service.  JPL scientists are not
 "usually government employees"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 14:16:32 GMT
From: mcdchg!illusion!marcus@rutgers.edu  (Marcus Hall)
Subject: Re: spaceplane propulsion

In article <1989May11.202131.1056@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>...(Don't the Russkies use kerosene in liquid rocket motors?)
>
>Yes, as does the US (Atlas and Delta, not to mention older hardware like
>the Saturns).

Shouldn't this read:  "Atlas and Delta, not to mention NEWER hardware like
the Saturns"?

Some of the Atlas boosters recently launched (and I guess most of the Titan IIs
currently being re-furbished for launcher use) were older than the Saturn
program.

There are still new boosters being designed using the RL-10.  OK, so we've
thrown away the F-1 production, but we've also thrown away J-4 production.  It
seems that the J-4 would have been very attractive for use in smaller boosters.
The S-IV stage (from the Saturn I) used 6 RL-10 engines.  Its counterpart for
the Saturn IB, the S-IVB, used a single J-4.  The Centaur (upper stage for
Atlas, as well as other potential uses) has 2 RL-10 engines.

marcus hall

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 23:49:37 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: sci.astro

In article <1568@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> wyatt@cfatst.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes:
>I had to comment on the following exchange. I find Ed's response to be
>uninformative (and even snide) despite being mostly factually correct.

I think we are all getting a little tired of the circular topics,
the cross posting, etc.  I know that there are times I get pretty fed
up.  The different interfaces don't help either.  If I had to read
space or astro on a mail system, forget it.  There's no way, and
I know people who read this on IBM and VMS systems (and God knows what
else) without news software.

We have to do something about this.  I mean both Bill and Ed are among the
more respected posters to astro.  I've all but given up on sci.space
(but cron helps here, and others read for me).  We are entering the 6th
(by my count) discussion on personal optics (binocs this time, not
telescopes).  I've given up on volunteers from the human race, there are
few who have the time.  I have way too much with comp.graphics projects
and real work [if you only knew how many times I get ask this about myself,
or Henry, or others...]  I think we only need the kin to a grad or
undergrad student volunteer (we can teach him or her about cron).  We
just have to assemble the information.

I mean look at you two. Two of the net's finest.

Is this a gross generalization or what?

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 18 May 89 21:27:56 EDT
From: Lee Brotzman <ZMLEB@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Subject:      Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility



mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <2020@blake.acs.washington.edu> sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu
> (sealion) writes:
>>With the current backlog in payloads for the shuttle system, are
>>there plans to recover the Long Duration Exposure Facility?
>
>Yes.  NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
>and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter.

If NASA is so "terrified" of allowing a light-weight, sure-to-burn, satellite
like LDEF to reenter, then why is the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) being allowed
to reenter?  Although public relations may be part of it, I think that the
main reason to get LDEF is simply that it is useful to do so.  The materials
that were placed on it are pretty much useless now since they have had a
*really* long exposure (maybe not).  That doesn't mean the thing shouldn't be
brought back, looked over and possibly loaded up and re-launched.

I know you dislike NASA, Henry, but that's no reason to assign evil or petty
motivations to every operation.


-- Lee Brotzman (FIGI-L Moderator)
-- BITNET:   ZMLEB@SCFVM                 SPAN:  CHAMP::BROTZMAN
-- Internet: zmleb@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov   GEnie: L.BROTZMAN
-- The government and my company don't know what I'm saying...
-- Let's keep it that way.
-- Isn't Cold Fusion how Eskimos are made?

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 02:29:01 GMT
From: vax5!myk@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: Space food sticks

Well, I've been reading this group for more than two years (for many
more reasons than this), but I never saw this question go by -- perhaps
I wasn't looking closely enough.

IS there a recipe out there for 'space food sticks'?

I know NASA doesn't have one (because I wrote to them!).  Being young
and naive way back then, in the latter part of the 1960's (now I'm older,
at least) when these were sold in stores, I was under the impression that
Pillsbury (?) developed them under NASA contract, in which case the
formulation would be in the public domain.

Barring that, did someone save an empty box for lo these many years, and
does it say anything about being developed for NASA, and could you send
me the list of ingredients?  Seems to me a PlayDoh Fun Factory could do
the job of extruding, if you had the mix at just the right temperature
range...

P.S You have my permission to laugh, if you wish, but I'm quite serious.

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 03:20:28 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ultimate ASAT weapon??

In article <8905190002.AA23369@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?) writes:
>The proposal involved some un-named (at least here) bad guys sending a lunar
>probe to collect samples.  At some future date, it could return home and
>enter a counter-orbit.  From somewhere above Clarke orbit, it would start
>dumping it's payload of gravel and sand, and rapidly descend, scattering
>some (in this article) 2 tons of goodies for everything in orbit to hit.
>At high delta v!

Yup, somebody in the US discovered this possibility -- entering a retrograde
orbit via a lunar flyby and using it to wreak havoc -- some years ago and
quite a fuss was made over it.  Especially since there was some evidence,
looking at research topics in orbital mechanics and such, that the Soviets
might have been aware of the idea earlier.

>    polar orbits will "get it" sooner or later, but should have a longer
>    life span

Getting a complete shrapnel disk around Earth, enough to get low orbits
and polar orbits, would probably take prohibitive payload masses.  Just
wiping out Clarke orbit, on the other hand, is dead easy, since it is
*one* well-defined orbit.  With a lot of militarily valuable stuff in
it too.

It may not be a coincidence that the US's next-generation strategic-forces
comsat system, Milstar, will not use Clarke orbit.  (Or so I recall --
it's going to be in still higher orbits, well dispersed.)

>    whomever does this has decided to live without satellites

Not necessary.  Just make the payload ice cubes instead of gravel, so it
won't hang around.
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 89 05:34:38 GMT
From: dalsqnt!usl!usl-pc!jpdres10@uunet.uu.net  (Green Eric Lee)
Subject: Re: _Analog_ article

In message <8905141827.AA29450@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) says:
>There's an interesting article on the economics of space settlement in the
>May _Analog_.

There's a *naive* article on the economics of space settlement in the
May _Analog_. (yes, I read it. Yes, I couldn't keep from chuckling
over how pie-eyed these folks are about the prospects of going
space-walkin').

If any company today announced that it would invest ten billion
dollars over the next ten years to build a space manufacturing
facility, the corporate raiders would own it the next day -- to the
stockholder's relief. Building a new 5 billion dollar airliner is much
less risky -- you know you're going to sell SOME of them, eventually,
even if it takes more years than you'd like to recoup your investment.

--
|    // Eric Lee Green              P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509     |
|   //    {uunet!dalsqnt,killer}!usl!elg     (318)989-9849                  |
| \X/              >> In Hell you need 4Mb to Multitask <<                  |

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 03:18:20 GMT
From: bbn.com!ncramer@bbn.com  (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

In article <1216@irisa.UUCP> saouter@irisa.UUCP (saouter yannick) writes:
>In article <13111@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes:
>> It is also true that this is not the most dramatic mass extinction in the
>> fossil record. 
>
>Such collisions occurs about every 50 000 000 years and I've heard that others
>species have disappeared as suddenly as the dinosaurs did, so earlier
>collisions might be the cause for that, too.
>
>Does anyone knows others example of strange disappearance ?

I don't remember the numbers (in species/yr) offhand, but I've read
arguements (e.g. by S J Gould) that claim that we are *now* in the midst of
the one of greatest (if not in fact _the_ greatest) of mass extinctions of
all time.

If I recall right, the numbers work out to ~1 species/100,000 increase in
human population.

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 03:30:56 GMT
From: sun-barr!texsun!pollux!ti-csl!m2!gateley@decwrl.dec.com  (John Gateley)
Subject: Re: Sun Exploding (?)

In article <1255@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee (600.429)) writes:
<Someone else writes:
<>[The sun can't explode].  Asimov makes a similar mistake in _The Gods
<>Themselves._) 

<In _The Gods Themselves_, Asimov postulates the leakage of physical laws
<from another universe into ours.  If you're allowed to change the laws
<of physics, it's not wrong to say the sun can be made to blow up.

Perhaps the original poster was thinking about "The currents of space".
In this book, a sun is going to blow up, and it is probably similar
to our sun.

John
gateley@tilde.csc.ti.com

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 21:29:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!irwin@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth


/* Written  9:06 am  May 17, 1989 by aiko@cs.odu.edu in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
>this occurs corresponds roughly to the K-T boundary.  They estimate the meteor
>to have been about 6 miles across which would produce the equivilent of
>10,000 times all the world's nuclear explosives.

>    ---{john hayes}  Old Dominion University; Norfolk, Virginia USA
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

Would this not create the greatest of all earthquakes? I have read
peoples comments on meteor hits in the past, but have not seen any
reference to this aspect of it. You could be on the opposite side
of the planet from the hit, and when the shock wave traveled the
distance through the planet, the ground below you would suddenly
jump many feet up and down. Monster waves would also occur on the
oceans I would think. The entire planet would reverberate. I wonder
how long it would take to settle down.

Al Irwin

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 May 89 15:30:19 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?)
Subject: RE: citizens in space -- risk silliness

Risk management is very much a part of "big business" in this country. 
I just took a 1 day "class" in Risk Management - The Guaranteed Success.

Basically, Americans have become so complacent that we, as a whole, are
unwilling to take even slight risks.  Why else are CDs so popular, even
though I make twice as much with mutual funds and 100% returns on junk bonds?
Because the later involve some measure of risk.

In the case of the Challenger, the crew knew there was some measure of risk,
and choose to take it.  Because they did not know all the risks does not
negate the fact that they knew there were risks.  The families needed to
know that there were risks to be taken.  The lawsuits were, IMHO, improperly
aimed.  By concealing the flaws, M-T and NASA were quilty not of killing
anyone, but of preventing them from making a rational, informed decision.

This country was built on risk takers (my ancestors came over in the first
Jamestown boat), but now we are just a bunch of potatoes.  I know Shakespear
had the right idea.

Oh yeah, ordinary civilians have no right being in space, but when does
an "ordinary" civilian become astronaut material?  I'm a VAX/VMS internals
jock, but I am comfortable in an organic lab.  Do I have "the right
 stuff"?   :-)  (I'm from Texas, do I have "the Wright stuff" to get on?)
Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #450
*******************

Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 May 89 05:29:51 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04781>; Mon, 22 May 89 04:13:40 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 22 May 89 04:13:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8YRvNSm00UkTA1N0FB>;
          Mon, 22 May 89 03:27:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.YYRvFH600UkZQ=3U4a>;
          Mon, 22 May 89 03:18:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYRvDSy00UkZI=2042@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 22 May 89 03:16:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #451

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 451

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
		 Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
	       Magellan Status for 05/19/89 (Forwarded)
			      nasa sites
			  Re: Alien viruses
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
			New space shuttle name
		     Re: The late NEMESIS Theory
	     Re: Magellan Status for 05/19/89 (Forwarded)
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
		      Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust
		    Magellan Advisory (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 15:04:05 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@purdue.edu  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility

ZMLEB@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Lee Brotzman) writes:
>mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>...NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
>>and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter.
>
>If NASA is so "terrified" of allowing a light-weight, sure-to-burn, satellite
>like LDEF to reenter, then why is the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) being allowed
>to reenter?  Although public relations may be part of it, I think that the
>main reason to get LDEF is simply that it is useful to do so.  The materials
>that were placed on it are pretty much useless now since they have had a
>*really* long exposure (maybe not).  That doesn't mean the thing shouldn't be
>brought back, looked over and possibly loaded up and re-launched.
>

According to one of the recent issues of AWST, the SDI Organization is
keen on seeing LDEF retrieved. While most of the experiments (including
one from here at the U of T) were designed for a one-year mission,
and so will likely return poor results after an additional four years
in space, the SDIO is interested in the effects of the space environment
on the spacecraft's >>bus<<. SDI would result in a large number of
satellites being orbited, and left dormant for years at a time; they are
interested in finding out how typical satellite components stand up to
years of time in space. Also, they apparently plan to do tests on
some LDEF components, to determine how well they would stand up to
attack after being in space for a long time (ie. does the hardness
of a laser battle station deteriorate with time?).

A chilling note: the article states that, due to recent unexpectedly-
high levels of solar activity, LDEF's projected re-entry time is now
sooner than it was -- sometime in December 1989. The SDIO wants NASA
to mount a mission prior to December to do the retrieval; administrator Truly
says that it likely won't fly until mid-december, but that that's all right,
because the re-entry probably won't occur until >late< December.
The sticking point in the negotiations is that NASA only wants to
fly one mission between Galileo and Ulysses (I think that's the pair
they mentioned); the one flight is a DoD payload that's been delayed for quite
awhile now. To retrieve LDEF before re-entry, it looks like DoD will
have their payload bumped again (by NASA and SDIO), or else NASA will have
to fly a mission that they don't think  they have time to prepare for
(shades of early 1986). 
-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 15:48:35 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility

In article <Added.sYQqu3W00Ui30ItE8=@andrew.cmu.edu> ZMLEB@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Lee Brotzman) writes:
>>... NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
>>and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter.
>
>If NASA is so "terrified" of allowing a light-weight, sure-to-burn, satellite
>like LDEF to reenter, then why is the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) being allowed
>to reenter? ...

Because Solar Max is much smaller.  It's "just another satellite"; they
reenter all the time.  LDEF is one of the biggest things launched since
Skylab.  Remember, we are talking about public perceptions, and fears
thereof, not actual dangers.
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 18:33:11 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 05/19/89 (Forwarded)


			MAGELLAN STATUS
			May 19, 1989
 
 
	Daily momentum wheel desaturations continue as scheduled, twice
daily, 00:45 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. PDT, project said today.  The daily
star calibration also was performed without difficulty.  Both stars
were detected and a full attitude update was obtained.

	The temperatures of Rocket Engine Modules 3 and 4 continue to
slowly cool as the celestial geometry gradually changes. They are
running a steady 56-58 C (132.8-136.4 F) except during wheel
desaturations when they warm up into the 60s C (140-156 F), still
considerably below the design limit of 83 C (181.4 F).

	The Command Data System breadboard began working again in the
System Verification Lab and the test of Cruise)2 computer command
sequence, which holds the upcoming Trajectory Correction Maneuver, is
going well and nearing completion. Project will be prepared to upload
the sequence Saturday.

	A meeting today was scheduled to address solution options to
the three current problems: 1) Rocket Engine Module temperatures; 2)
star rejects during star calibrations; and 3) desaturation frequency.






	SPACECRAFT Distance  From Earth (mi)
	2,220,474

	Velocity  Geocentric                         5,905 mph
		  Heliocentric                      59,970 mph

	Round Trip Light Time                           12.2 sec

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 23:26:59 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: nasa sites

(Apologies for the use of the bandwidth--once again, the infamous
 evil e-mail system prevents direct response)

Joni Guldenpfennig,
I got your note, and tried to forward the info four different paths.
None of them worked.  Sorry.  Can you get me a better path?

N. Kluksdahl                          kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 May 89 11:03:53 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Alien viruses

>From: Robert Nelson <FREE012%TRANSY.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
>I noticed that someone commented on waht would happen if we had contact
>with ETs, and if we could get a virus from them or perhaps something
>from -us- could affect them.  I turn your interest to the book/movie
>_The_Andromeda_Strain_.  It depicts a scenerio that has a meteor landing
>and there is a virus of sorts on it, actually I think that it is some
>form of bacteria, which breaks down carbon compounds like plastics...
>any comments?

I don't think Crichton's story matches any plausible real-life scenario. In
the book/movie, an alien microorganism finds its way to Earth, and begins to
enthusiastically wipe out 99+% of the population in affected areas. Suddenly,
every one of the teeming trillions of organisms just happens to mutate into
harmless form (!) Another writer in this class is D.F. Jones (the Colossus
series), who has written novels filled with numbers that are off by dozens
of orders of magnitude.

Some science fiction writers *are* very careful with numbers (though they
can still mess up on the sociology, etc.) Robert Heinlein reported that in
the process of writing a novel, he had spent several days working on a set
of calculations, just so a single paragraph describing orbital maneuvers
would be accurate.
                               John Roberts
                               roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 10:56:37 GMT
From: bunny!krs0@husc6.harvard.edu  (Rod Stephens)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS


Read the book "NEMESIS". It's quite readable. As I read it the theory
is not dead. The author predicts that Nemesis (if it exists) would be
some sort of red dwarf (I think) that would be visible from the earth
but would be hard to tell apart from a bigger more distant star. He
implies there is some hope of locating it soon since imaging systems
are just about sensitive to record and analyze stuff of this brightness
now.

		Rod Stephens
		GTE Laboratories

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 May 89 12:04:48 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: New space shuttle name

ginosko!infinet!ulowell!hawk!rlevasse@uunet.uu.net  (Roger Levasseur) writes:

>Captain James Cook who explored the Pacific Ocean in the late 1770's,
>and charted Alaska and Hawaii sailed in ships named HMS Resolution
>and HMS Endeavour.  If the shuttle is named after it, it would certainly
>be silly to use another spelling.

If they named if after this particular ship, agreed.  AW&ST uses the name
"Endeavor" several times in the current issue with no allusion to any
alternate spelling, however, so it'll be interesting to see what actually
winds up on the side.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 14:19:44 GMT
From: sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@decwrl.dec.com  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: The late NEMESIS Theory

In article <1568@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, wyatt@cfatst.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes:
> 
> Several things would have to be verified for the entire NEMESIS theory
> to be accepted. A short list, off the top of my head:
> 
> ...list mostly deleted ..
> 5) The iridium layer(s) must be of extraterrestrial origin.

The original claim was that the K-T boundary had to be.  One
comment that I see periodically is that the same irridium anomaly
that shows up in meteorite abundances is also present (perhaps to
a lesser degree) in the mantle.  It follows that extensive volcanism
*might* have a similar effect.  Any geologists following this?

> 6) There must be an Ir or other tracer layer at every extinction boundary.

Although there have been some claims along these lines, I believe that
the K-T boundary is the only well accepted instance.  Given the claimed
periodicity and the existence of at least one more drastic (although
earlier) extinction this seems somewhat damning.

One point which I haven't seen treated much is the question of whether
it is even necessary to explain the (debatable) periodicity using
astronomy.  Mass extinctions
appear to follow from some combination of climate and biology.
Dropping rocks on everything (or comets) is simply a crude way to
ensure this.  However, climate and ecology are coupled, extremely
complicated nonlinear systems.  One might add geological processes,
including continental drift, to the  list as the source of episodes
of intense volcanism, disruption of ecological systems due to
the creation of land bridges, and changes in climatic patterns.
It is my understanding that such systems frequently show oscillations
on somewhat unpredictable time scales that may appear, at first glance,
crudely periodic. 

To take an extreme example, suppose mass extinctions are due entirely
to episodes of volcanism and the K-T boundary is either a coincidence
( comet(s) happened to hit close to such an episode) or simply reflective
of an unusually deep upwelling of mantle material during this episode.
Then one really needs to explain an approximate periodicity in certain
kinds of flow patterns in the Earth's core.  I don't think this would
strike anyone as particularly outrageous.

-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 19:15:24 GMT
From: cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Charles Daffinger)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 05/19/89 (Forwarded)

In article <25609@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>
>			MAGELLAN STATUS
>			May 19, 1989
> 
> 
>	Daily momentum wheel desaturations continue as scheduled, twice
>daily, 00:45 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. PDT, project said today.  The daily

What are these momentum wheel desaturations?






-charles


-- 
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  (812) 339-7354
cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu              {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 14:05:39 GMT
From: asuvax!anasaz!scott@noao.edu  (Scott Gibson)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <13000@ut-emx.UUCP> bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
>
>Enterprise :  Obvious !
>Discovery:   the ship from 20001
                            ^^^^^
			    ^^^^^
AAAAAHHHHHHHHH!  You mean this is really 19989??  I knew I was feeling
sort of run down.......( ;-) )

Scott

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 09:00:00 GMT
From: well!pokey@apple.com  (Jef Poskanzer)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In the referenced message, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) wrote:
}Last I heard, this idea was no longer taken seriously by most people.  It
}appears unlikely that Nemesis's orbit would be stable against perturbations
}by other stars over billions of years.

It doesn't have to be stable for billions of years, just for the few
hundred million that we can see in the fossil record.  This specious
objection comes straight from a Nature editorial, by the way.

Read "The Nemesis Affair: A Story of the Death of Dinosaurs and the
Ways of Science", by David M. Raup, 1986.  Read "Nemesis: The Death Star",
by Richard Muller, 1988.  Then decide.
---
Jef

            Jef Poskanzer   jef@helios.ee.lbl.gov   ...well!pokey
                      "Back off, man - I'm a scientist!"

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 16:05:44 GMT
From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust

In article <394@illusion.UUCP> marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) writes:
>		stuff deleted 
>Are the windows considered more critical than the bottom tiles?  I guess they
		stuff deleted

Only when it comes time to land and you can't see outside.

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd			* 
CFI Aspen Flying Club			* Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.				* 
*******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 23:40:16 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Advisory (Forwarded)

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
 
News Advisory   May 19, 1989
 
 
 
Editors:
The Magellan spacecraft, on a 15)month journey to Venus, will
perform a trajectory correction Sunday at 7 p.m. PDT. The
maneuver will increase the spacecraft's velocity 2.9 meters per
second, or about 6.6 miles per hour. It also will slightly alter
the course of the spacecraft's trajectory. Friday, Magellan was
moving at 59,970 miles per hour, relative to the sun.
 
Magellan, launched from the shuttle Atlantis May 4, is to map up
to 90 percent of the surface of Venus with imaging radar. It is
to be placed in Venus orbit Aug. 10, 1990. Seventeen days prior
to orbit insertion, Magellan will perform a second Trajectory
Correction Maneuver.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #451
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 May 89 00:56:34 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03995> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 23 May 89 00:52:49 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 23 May 89 00:52:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AYSBtv:00Ui380wEhS>;
          Tue, 23 May 89 00:31:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.AYSBos600UkZEBZ05B>;
          Tue, 23 May 89 00:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YSBmRe00UkZ4BXU4W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 23 May 89 00:22:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #452

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 452

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		    space news from April 24 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 May 89 18:40:30 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #512 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89136.49791445 0.00000267           31112-3 0  2022
2 00424  80.4645 317.0909 0022713 210.8187 149.1643 13.67136586328489
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89127.73360661 -.00000073  00000-0  99999-4 0  2251
2 03029  12.6818  24.5051 0014234 193.9434 165.9362  1.00272634 78738
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89135.83652910 0.00000003                   0  7458
2 08820 109.8245 218.9947 0044947 322.8698  36.9127  6.38663739 48567
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89131.86847866 -.00000008                   0  2599
2 10061   7.0726  68.7025 0005626 179.9219 179.9596  1.00276047  5016
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89133.05447275 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1130
2 10684  63.5466 101.9430 0107164 199.2154 160.3534  2.00560901 67827
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89129.52221167 -.00000028                   0  9760
2 10893  64.5219 342.8736 0153034  28.4994 332.3666  2.00557759 80574
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89128.92546343 0.00000081           10000-3 0  6520
2 10953   5.9287  71.4442 0006341 258.4427 101.3153  1.00288109   541
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U 78064  A 89128.06444437  .00000926  00000-0  37118-3 0  1136
2 10967 108.0054 204.9658 0002449 238.1763 121.9127 14.34544234568338
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89125.34905905 -.00000027                   0    79
2 11054  64.0797 339.4702 0054588 117.3947 243.2054  2.00560969 77502
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89131.43659752 0.00000011                   0  1454
2 11141  63.5451 101.8689 0058095 321.3066  38.3977  2.00575072 76328
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89132.40588058 0.00001033           45114-3 0  8458
2 11416  98.5051 130.5118 0011163 209.2778 150.7762 14.25728810512801
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89133.19727680 0.00054978           96642-3 0  9426
2 11703  28.4981 165.7004 0000739 293.1254  66.9057 15.49095345514406
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89133.88534167 -.00000027                   0  8825
2 11783  63.8458 338.8450 0144026  62.5373 299.0241  2.00567532 66313
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89130.77335271 -.00000244           10000-3 0  7275
2 12472   2.4466  80.8176 0010629 304.0809  55.8975  1.00253016 28234
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89125.56831730  .00013708  00000-0  51099-3 0  1824
2 12887  97.6898 150.2360 0003389  60.2965 299.8552 15.27558747418647
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89132.62089275 0.00074758           10910-2 0  5505
2 12888  97.5588 184.0531 0002736 172.4051 187.7261 15.55417431423457
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89124.91183139 0.00000217           18563-3 0  6361
2 13113  82.5363  93.1597 0014455 178.6423 181.4774 13.83982980359259
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89135.70655950 0.00017962           43849-3 0  5709
2 13138  51.6084 116.4367 0001259  36.4780 323.6238 15.40910602403186
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89129.07971959 -.00000204  00000-0 -40360-4 0  9372
2 13367  98.2150 193.2361 0002500 358.0182   2.0858 14.57108358362372
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89129.94112594 0.00000490           25224-3 0  7701
2 13718  81.2451 318.9695 0057021 106.9585 253.7852 14.13172603330155
IRAS       
1 13777U          89131.39710487 0.00000211           17054-3 0  6345
2 13777  99.0448 329.0129 0013530  57.7133 302.5352 13.98582995321055
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89124.68849603 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-5 0  7904
2 13969   3.4692  68.8073 0002579 235.8642 124.7845  1.00279160 88967
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89131.96872975 0.00000122                   0  9460
2 14050   1.2229  82.7444 0001134 162.1194 197.7197  1.00262600  6240
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89118.08895220 -.00000003          -54404+0 0  3972
2 14129  26.3614 268.0965 6056185  37.4444 352.2526  2.05880547 16184
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89129.48631023 0.00000010                   0  6254
2 14189  63.1906 100.5704 0135026 215.4978 143.5661  2.00570363 42660
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89131.04110243 0.00000539           22733-3 0  7177
2 14452  81.1637 330.7815 0094097 203.2535 156.4366 14.22153056287265
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89136.25233982 0.00001661           37865-3 0  7578
2 14780  98.1716 199.1065 0002998   7.8300 352.2920 14.57142043276910
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89131.19360724 0.00002147           42264-3 0  4433
2 14781  98.0025 191.0613 0014844  76.5627 283.7316 14.63471925277134
LDEF       
1 14898U          89132.00922053 0.00035015           62721-3 0  8403
2 14898  28.5054  71.1789 0001819 230.3829 129.6740 15.48552251285838
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89126.55275175 0.00000010                   0  6571
2 15039  62.8965  99.9595 0014758 276.4485  83.3452  2.00564289 35888
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89125.21029300 0.00000315           27521-3 0  9376
2 15099  82.5293  40.5530 0014313   4.2426 355.8844 13.83648813244172
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89120.96939771 -.00000028                   0  6184
2 15271  63.3787 339.0459 0099499 320.1074  39.2165  2.00564748 32885
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89131.06002461 0.00002835           41205-3 0   223
2 15331  82.5415  12.7195 0023043 201.9174 158.1061 14.75489092248747
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89133.27198562 0.00000603           35051-3 0  3712
2 15427  99.1416 119.5367 0016313  53.9162 306.3516 14.11996818227523
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89130.07392211 0.00000277           23977-3 0   788
2 15516  82.5363 335.0847 0014884 221.2669 138.7368 13.84101224215785
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89135.96599193 -.00002795          -61957-4 0  2515
2 16095  51.6000 115.1563 0007663 133.3592 226.9264 15.40899670403226
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89121.12422950 0.00000011                   0  3124
2 16129  63.7081 100.7309 0115410 150.5877 210.0687  2.00564772 26095
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89132.72531515 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8281
2 16191  82.5467 260.8058 0020043  28.1147 332.0994 13.16869605170859
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89130.81070922 0.00000232           19852-3 0  4875
2 16408  82.5337 249.3445 0017767  47.7129 312.5539 13.84164608170386
Mir        
1 16609U          89135.62905166 0.00028396           44074-3 0  8441
2 16609  51.6210 166.1111 0011089 307.7665  52.2272 15.53680670186106
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89136.94228989 0.00000333           17429-3 0  4680
2 16613  98.7392 211.8536 0000500 147.8127 212.2977 14.20043373  7697
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89130.84894711 0.00000170           14364-3 0  2996
2 16735  82.5336 276.1236 0015435 113.6629 246.6159 13.83904493149296
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89135.76928931 0.00003781           55566-3 0  6068
2 16881  82.5255  67.9486 0022649 201.0054 159.0243 14.75095022150519
EGP        
1 16908U          89131.98427533 -.00000073          -24061-3 0  1244
2 16908  50.0134  49.3821 0011043 255.9918 103.9689 12.44377303124900
FO-12      
1 16909U          89112.36835661 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1414
2 16909  50.0159 109.9094 0011193 203.0127 157.0209 12.44399273122451
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89132.22351507 0.00000736           34371-3 0  2189
2 16969  98.6404 163.3989 0013945 359.8655   0.2518 14.22985935138822
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89130.62729244 0.00000260           22518-3 0  2492
2 17290  82.4714 183.9079 0013976  14.2442 345.9110 13.83716094118428
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89128.65326055 -.00000355  00000-0 -25114-3 0  1102
2 17527  99.1524 200.4416 0000876 146.3991 213.7298 13.94839179112869
GOES 7     
1 17561U 87 22  A 89125.68024199 -.00000039  00000-0  99999-4 0  2695
2 17561   0.0464 275.1168 0002074 216.4571 228.4472  1.00274916  1331
Kvant      
1 17845U          89135.95063233 0.00044367           68238-3 0  7522
2 17845  51.6216 164.5051 0010822 297.7297  62.1840 15.53713572122427
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89135.86934258 0.00000097           99793-4 0  7581
2 18129  82.9248 262.0191 0012888 136.9758 223.2397 13.71974588 94962
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89136.69405275 0.00150883  11178-4  25588-3 0   329
2 18225  71.8692 139.5616 0009741 257.1865 102.8149 16.02437162106249
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89130.29810928 0.00000218           18868-3 0  2699
2 18312  82.5560 249.5485 0011261 308.3665  51.6485 13.83462453 87274
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89131.01908429 0.00000147           12233-3 0  1126
2 18820  82.5432 310.1016 0018107  16.1833 343.9895 13.84151340 64546
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 89.37166448 -.00000028           10000-3 0   346
2 19216  57.2895 213.9669 6688587 201.4192 106.6281  2.09699506  6084
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89128.89821660  .00003037  00000-0  45053-3 0  3669
2 19274  82.5171 172.9324 0022742   4.5741 355.5834 14.74635966 45299
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89135.44585169 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1942
2 19336  82.5466 198.8153 0016663 222.7610 137.2222 13.16847086 38602
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89131.25827359 0.00000995           57453-3 0   756
2 19531  98.9376  75.4564 0011625 341.3660  18.7056 14.10981357 32261
TDRS 2     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89 88.95555250  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   220
2 19548   0.3759  85.6281 0002664 253.4727  20.8853  1.00266482   994
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89112.65814275  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   301
2 19802  55.1161 213.9967 0069734 154.7705 205.7027  2.00553753  1314
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89133.92291971 0.00000116           10000-3 0   361
2 19851  82.5309 186.5291 0015670  54.4739 305.7882 13.83796358 10340
TDRS 3     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89127.78550279  .00000159  00000-0  99999-4 0   129
2 19883   0.1977  95.9364 0004462  85.5903 178.1761  1.00291982   280
Cosmos 2007
1 19900U          89111.68155825 0.00328568  53900-4  45747-3 0   599
2 19900  64.7376 294.5535 0046890 113.4393 247.1709 16.03352976  4699
Cosmos 2008
1 19902U          89116.00392757 -.00000006                   0   119
2 19902  74.0150 350.9818 0049383  47.6256 312.8966 12.57624316  4085
Cosmos 2009
1 19903U          89115.97367855 -.00000006                   0   194
2 19903  74.0136 351.1735 0040920  57.9208 302.5814 12.55708122  4073
Cosmos 2010
1 19904U          89116.02198481 -.00000007                   0   123
2 19904  74.0169 351.2452 0029998  57.7151 302.6852 12.53835344  4072
Cosmos 2011
1 19905U          89115.99017871 -.00000007                   0   100
2 19905  74.0133 351.4784 0020649  63.6620 296.6555 12.51975370  4035
Cosmos 2012
1 19906U          89116.04082705 -.00000007                   0   173
2 19906  74.0154 351.5364 0009996  71.0983 289.1155 12.50018203  4069
Cosmos 2013
1 19907U          89116.01420355 -.00000006                   0   122
2 19907  74.0155 351.7657 0010079 145.8879 214.2831 12.47957635  4029
Cosmos 2014
1 19908U          89115.74202185 -.00000006                   0   121
2 19908  74.0137 352.2749 0013011 203.8083 156.2365 12.46073020  4011
Cosmos 2015
1 19909U          89116.04063931 -.00000007                   0   121
2 19909  74.0160 352.0316 0026013 201.5921 158.4034 12.43852318  4006
Cos 2008-15
1 19910U          89113.23932265 -.00000006                   0   147
2 19910  74.0126 357.2113 0134375 228.1294 130.8211 12.23001671  3636
Delta Star 
1 19911U          89115.83185253 -.00008444          -34058-3 0   490
2 19911  47.6782 237.1065 0009644 138.5781 221.4369 15.23615754  4861
TDRS 3 R/B 
1 19913U          89112.93435508 0.00000028           10000-3 0   119
2 19913   2.1633  57.0036 0026791 207.9139 151.7442  1.00619254   335
TELE-X     
1 19919U          89115.39349429 0.00000064           10000-3 0   215
2 19919   0.0999  92.6385 0003757 294.6060 332.8282  1.00274867   104
1989 027B  
1 19920U          89119.09018115 -.00044246  19062-4 -69849-5 0   349
2 19920   4.5235  17.2364 7326100 212.1714  83.2276  2.31530723   635
Cosmos 2016
1 19921U          89122.43552170 0.00000152           15077-3 0   273
2 19921  82.9594 120.0189 0038515 217.6923 142.1535 13.73921585  3800
1989 028B  
1 19922U          89117.08932977 0.00000059           54697-4 0   296
2 19922  82.9550 123.9075 0033528 215.3243 144.7293 13.75750065  3071
Raduga 23  
1 19928U          89135.19033412 -.00000153           10000-3 0   420
2 19928   1.3614 277.6311 0002476  53.7599 305.9566  1.00268632   327
1980 030D  
1 19931U          89128.45891538 -.00000015           10000-3 0   131
2 19931   1.4156 276.8888 0017886  17.5390 342.5731  0.97924528   252
Cosmos 2018
1 19938U          89136.92147427 0.00841174  39986-4  32614-3 0   661
2 19938  62.7993 332.3288 0107663  65.4936 295.8174 16.10706091  4217
1989 033C  
1 19970U          89131.31720995 0.00005230           18262-2 0   131
2 19970  27.9809 335.0964 6564627   8.6770 358.6668  3.20891148   207
Cosmos 2019
1 19972U          89136.72980649 0.00457761  41030-4  49660-4 0   295
2 19972  62.8509 323.7150 0102260 266.8504  92.0572 16.20619941  1806
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 21:37:35 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from April 24 AW&ST

US government braces itself for an expected application to launch a US
commercial satellite on a Proton.  [There have been informal inquiries,
but nobody has actually taken the bull by the horns yet.]  This will
force the Bush Administration to state its formal policy on the matter.
[The Reagan Administration's policy was "when Hell freezes over".]

McDonnell Douglas and Aerojet General talk to Japanese about import of
Japanese rocket technology for US launchers.  The LE-7 large hydrogen
engine meant for Japan's H-2 is of particular interest.  [Rotsa ruck --
the last time this question was asked, about technology with rather
less commercial potential, the answer was "forget it".]

Cheney calls for termination of the Aerospace Plane, among other things,
to help get the DoD budget under control.  The White House does not like
the idea, and is moving to reverse DoD's internal decision to provide
zero funding for the project.  DoD has decided that military applications
are too far away to be worthwhile in the current budget climate.  NASA
provides some funding, but couldn't pick up the slack.  Worse, a large
chunk of the money has come from the contractors themselves, as a condition
of participation in the program, and the White House is very concerned
about what a cancellation would do to their willingness to bid on future
contracts.  The Japanese are already wooing some of them.

DoD considers dumping plans to start full-scale development of the Boost
Surveillance Tracking System in 1990, the first f-s-d for SDI.  BSTS has
been pushed as a logical successor to the current DSP early-warning
satellites, but many think upgrades to the current DSPs would provide
similar capabilities -- for the early-warning mission, not SDI -- at
lower cost.  Postponing BSTS would save money in the short term and
postpone a battle with Congress over deployment of strategic defences.

NASA picks Martin Marietta to build the Flight Telerobotic Servicer for
the space station.  [For those who don't know what this is, it's the
$297M effort mandated by Congress to duplicate Canada's contribution to
the space station.  Such wonderful things happen in times of tight budgets.]

Major coverage of impending Magellan launch, the first US planetary launch
in over ten years.  Magellan will make 1.5 orbits around the Sun before
reaching Venus, a necessity because Galileo occupies the normal Venus
launch window this year.  Magellan has had its problems of late, with
a broken nozzle on its IUS, a battery fire, the recent discovery
of a wiring error that would have prevented firing of Magellan's Venus-
orbit-injection motor, and various electronics problems.

Atlantis has been stripped down for the Magellan launch, with only two
small secondary payloads aboard, to give maximum yaw-steering performance
to get Magellan into the right parking orbit.  After launch, first the
IUS will be checked out and then the Atlantis crew will spend over an
hour shooting star sights and cross-checking the IUS's inertial systems
against the orbiter's, for maximum guidance accuracy.  Mission control
will then transmit updated information on Atlantis's exact orbit, for
transfer to the IUS's computers, before deployment.  Somewhat unusually,
Magellan's solar arrays will be deployed before the IUS firing; this is
to keep them out of the way of IUS thruster firings, which could affect
them in their stowed position.  They have to be able to take the 10G (!)
load of the Venus-orbit-injection firing anyway, so the 2G loads of the
IUS firings aren't a structural problem.

Arinc formally asks FCC for permission to build ground stations to provide
satellite communications services for aircraft, using Inmarsat satellites.
Arinc hopes to have Pacific service going by autumn, if the FCC approves.
Arinc wants to lease satellite services directly from Inmarsat, rather
than going through Comsat Corp, the US representative of Inmarsat.

[28 April issue of Science has major coverage on the effects of Soviet
orbiting reactors on gamma-ray astronomy satellites, including four
technical papers.  The story the technical papers tell isn't nearly as
bad as media coverage would have it.  The Solar Max gamma-ray instruments
are not "blinded" by the reactors in any literal sense; it's just that
the extra gamma output of the reactors fills up the rather limited data
storage in the instruments.  Also, the timings of reactor-caused gamma
events are fairly predictable:  Solar Max "sees" the reactors both
directly and by their electron/positron emission (which produces gamma
rays on arrival at Solar Max), but the direct gamma rays are "visible"
only during close orbital passes and the particles travel along Earth's
magnetic field in predictable paths.  If the number and power output of
orbiting reactors remain as they are now -- basically just the Soviet
radarsat program -- they will be a nuisance rather than a disaster for
gamma-ray astronomy.  In fact, observations of the positron-produced
gamma rays might be useful in atmospheric and magnetospheric studies,
since the positrons follow magnetic field lines and are easily stopped
by even traces of air -- the Solar Max data visibly shows the rise in
high-altitude air density from rising solar activity in recent years.
More and bigger reactors, especially in higher orbits, would create grave
problems, however.  The two Soviet tests of the Topaz reactor messed 
Solar Max up much more than the radarsats, because the Topazes were in
higher orbits where reactor-emitted particles last much longer.  The
radarsats are in very low orbits to keep radar power requirements
manageable (in fact, that's the whole reason why they use reactors --
solar panels would create too much air drag in such low orbits) and this
minimizes their impact on astronomy.]
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #452
*******************

Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 May 89 04:26:13 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA07603>; Tue, 23 May 89 03:42:20 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 23 May 89 03:42:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4YSEQ3u00Ui3I0wElP>;
          Tue, 23 May 89 03:24:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.wYSEM7m00UkZMBt05Y>;
          Tue, 23 May 89 03:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <IYSEKBG00UkZMBrU4l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 23 May 89 03:17:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #453

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 453

Today's Topics:
		       Ancient asteroid impact
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		      Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust
		     RE:  Space telescope delays
			   Andromeda Strain
			      Re: Giotto
   Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
   Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
			   explosive bolts
		     Re: The late NEMESIS Theory
   Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 May 89 15:57:36 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Ancient asteroid impact

>From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
>Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth
>> Alverz et al extinction theory as plausible.
>Luis and Walter (and all the others) still got lots of respect,
>but one of the people who came up, Peter Ray, a botanist at Stanford,
>I won't just say "He shot holes thru the theory," but he did raise
>interesting unanswered questions from the botanical community.

I think it's likely that a large object did hit the earth at about this time,
but there are a few obvious questions the popular presentations of the model
don't seem to address, which involve the weighting that should be used to
estimate the relative significance of factors, for calculations of the size
of the object involved, etc.

Under normal conditions, a sea bed being built up (later to be turned into
rock) would consist of inorganic matter washed from the land (clay, sand),
biologically produced material from the sea (CaCO3, later to be limestone),
and extraterrestrial matter from numerous tiny meteorites (rich in the
metals in question). One would expect the ratio of these materials not to
vary too much. At the point in time in question, however, the contribution
from living organisms (and by inference, the total number of living
organisms) drops off dramatically. The layers above and below are mostly
limestone, while the layer in question is mostly clay with a trace of
apparently extraterrestrial matter. Possible inferences other than the
stated model:

 - Something else killed the organisms, and only clay was left as the major
   contributor to the buildup. Deposition was much slower, so there was a lot
   more time for trace extraterrestrial material to appear and concentrate.

 - An asteroid did hit and kill life, but then during a long recovery period
   conditions were as described above, so only a portion of the material found
   is from the original asteroid, meaning that it was smaller than now thought.

 - The rate of deposition of clay was not constant, and in fact was much
   higher than usual during this period, skewing the results. (Something
   that killed the ground cover would probably lead to increased erosion.)

These alternate models could be tested to some extent, but reports in the
popular press don't say whether this has been done.
                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 14:24:36 GMT
From: asuvax!anasaz!scott@noao.edu  (Scott Gibson)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

Peter Scott writes:
>whether one name will be painted on one side and one on the other, or why on
>earth they felt it necessary to use non-American spelling at all...

The Endeavour is named for a British sailing vessel of some exploratory
reknown (in keeping with NASA's supposed policy of naming shuttles for
famous exploring vessels).  It seems silly to spell it Endeavor (because
we spell the word that way) when the original is clearly called Endeavour.
Simply put:  If the ship was named Endeavour, the shuttle should be too.

Scott

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 09:32:38 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@uunet.uu.net  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Re: Magellan & SRB exhaust

>From article <606@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>, by sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink):
>    ..... The worry is that
>    exhaust particles could damage or dirty the orbiter's windows.

Hmmm. Perhaps the orbiter should be fitted with windscreen wipers :-) :-)

Thanks for the answers to my queries. I'm impressed with the speed - I get
answers from the US within a couple of days of posting in the UK.

Cheers!
-- 
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND
JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk   BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 19 May 89 10:53 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  RE:  Space telescope delays

Henry Spencer writes:
>In article <4325@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ccs013@castor.ucdavis.edu (Jason Gabler)
> writes:
>>After the Challenger explosion I stopped keeping track of all the reasons
>>for the delay with the H.S. Telescope.  Besides that tragedy, can anyone
>>give me the other reasons behind its late arrival.
>
>A combination of not wanting to fly it on the first post-Challenger mission,
>not wanting to fly it until the TDRS network for returning data from it was
>relatively complete, and not being able to fly it until after flying a
>couple of military missions to shut the USAF up.

     I also seem to remember a lot of software difficulties, starting
right from the time of the Challenger explosion.  Included in this is a
new software bug that was discovered about 6 months ago, which they are
just fixing up right now.  For the programmers at the Space Telescope
Institute, the Challenger disaster was a godsend, because it gave them
the extra years they needed to finish AND clean up their software.

     And they still expect SDI to work correctly!  Hah!!

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 89 03:35:56 GMT
From: root@unix.sri.com
Subject: Andromeda Strain


    In the *movie* version it was not an asteroid, it was a space
    probe.  It has been a long time since I saw it, but there was I
    think the implication of a possibility that the probe was lanched
    by the military in order to collect extraterrestrial material.
    Also, It didn't decompose plastics at all.  It caused blood to
    coagulate comletely, which kind of slowed the heart down.  In the
    end it was found that it didn't do well in an oxygen environment.
    However, all of the high-tech machines broke down, for stupid reasons
    that the movie maker thought representative of engineering narrow
    mindedness, and so it took them much too long to figure this out.
    
    By the way, I do think it is possible that an extraterrestrial bug
    could cause problems on earth, although very unlikely. ~rI am thinking
    that something couldevolve to live in an incredibly harsh and spartan
    extraterrestrial environment by being able to extract energy from
    almost any kind of molecule.  }iConsider for example, molds and
    such.  They will grow on any kind of decomposing organic matter.
    They are not in any sense host-specific.  Now imagine one that grew
    much more rapidly in a suitable environment, say inside the lungs.
    
    Chris Eliot
    
    Umass/Amherst
    
    You can post this to the net, but don't expect me to defend any
    of it.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 89 03:06:00 GMT
From: root@unix.sri.com  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Giotto

In article <1217@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jokim@jarthur.UUCP (John H. Kim) writes:
>I heard some (*gag*) press reports that they were going to recover
>Giotto and check out some neat Halley's Comet samples that it got
>sandblasted with.  Is this true (eventually?)

No.

ESA currently doesn't have any way of retreiving a satellite.

Giotto isn't carrying enough fuel to slow down as it passes
the Earth (You can't just put on the brakes you know :->).

Giotto relied on the comet dust being ionised by the
impact with the first layer of the shield so that the
expanding cloud of gas gets stopped by the second layer.

And even if samples did survive the impact, there isn' any
way for them to be kept cold to preserve the more volatile
(and interesting) material.


The news yesterday was that Giotto is thought to be about
sixty percent operational, and that it still has sufficient
fuel reserves to carry out the mission to Grigg-Skellerup.

It is not expected to survive this encounter.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 16:11:10 GMT
From: tekbspa!optilink!cramer@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

In article <40171@bbn.COM>, ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
> In article <1216@irisa.UUCP> saouter@irisa.UUCP (saouter yannick) writes:
> >In article <13111@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes:
# ## It is also true that this is not the most dramatic mass extinction in the
# ## fossil record. 
# #
# #Such collisions occurs about every 50 000 000 years and I've heard that others
# #species have disappeared as suddenly as the dinosaurs did, so earlier
# #collisions might be the cause for that, too.
# #
# #Does anyone knows others example of strange disappearance ?
# 
# I don't remember the numbers (in species/yr) offhand, but I've read
# arguements (e.g. by S J Gould) that claim that we are *now* in the midst of
# the one of greatest (if not in fact _the_ greatest) of mass extinctions of
# all time.
# 
# If I recall right, the numbers work out to ~1 species/100,000 increase in
# human population.

I've read that the current rate of extinction is about 15 species/century --
which is clearly far lower than ~1 species/100,000 increase in human
population.

Of course, we still don't know all the species on the planet, and I 
very much doubt that we notice many that come and go anyway.

One of the Paleozoic extinctions involved 99% of all species then alive
being killed off.  But over what time scale?

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer                   {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Assault rifle possession is a victimless crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 89 06:36:07 GMT
From: bbn.com!ncramer@bbn.com  (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

In article <1493@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <40171@bbn.COM>, ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
># #Does anyone knows others example of strange disappearance ?
># 
># I don't remember the numbers (in species/yr) offhand, but I've read
># arguements (e.g. by S J Gould) that claim that we are *now* in the midst of
># the one of greatest (if not in fact _the_ greatest) of mass extinctions of
># all time.
># 
># If I recall right, the numbers work out to ~1 species/100,000 increase in
># human population.
>
>I've read that the current rate of extinction is about 15 species/century --
>which is clearly far lower than ~1 species/100,000 increase in human
>population.

CLAYTON

I checked my source for the above after I got home last night, and he was
claiming a loss of 10,000 species/yr but he didn't cite any sources.  This
does sound very high.  But on the other hand, it seems equally difficult to
believe we've only lost 13-14 species in all of the 20th century.  (I've
also seen figures in the 1-10/yr range.)

Do you (or anyone else) have specific references for what the actual value
of this rate is?

Thanks
NICHAEL

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 May 1989 14:53-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: explosive bolts

> Do you think that they could flip the explosive bolts that the shuttle is
> held on to the EFT with if an emergency arose?  Or would the shuttle be unable
> to do something like that?

No. SRB SEP any time before SRB burnout is nonsurvivable. The solids
would at worst burn the wings off the shuttle and at best simply tear
it apart from aerodynamic forces.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 89 14:26:14 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nather@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ed Nather)
Subject: Re: The late NEMESIS Theory

In article <1568@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, wyatt@cfatst.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes:
> I had to comment on the following exchange. I find Ed's response to be
> uninformative (and even snide) despite being mostly factually correct.

I thought facts informed.  I guess I was wrong.

> The `mythical Oort cloud' is on much better theoretical and
> observational ground that this denigration would imply.

Apparently you know of observational evidence that I don't -- would you
please cite it, bearing in mind that the theory was devised to explain the
origin of comets, so their presence is not evidence the theory is correct?
Theoretical ground does not, of course, constitute evidence.

Note that I did not say the theory was wrong, only unproven, and totally
lacking in observational evidence other than the known evidence it was
devised to explain.  It has proved to be unprovable, hence "mythical."
I guess I would like it to be correct, since it's plausible, but my
gullibility was shattered as a child by an unplanned close encounter
with the tooth fairy ...

-- 
Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 89 22:52:07 GMT
From: agate!web-2c.berkeley.edu!c60a-1hb@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (The Daimyo)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

In article <40227@bbn.COM> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>In article <1493@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>In article <40171@bbn.COM>, ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>># #Does anyone knows others example of strange disappearance ?
>># 
>># I don't remember the numbers (in species/yr) offhand, but I've read
>># arguements (e.g. by S J Gould) that claim that we are *now* in the midst of
>># the one of greatest (if not in fact _the_ greatest) of mass extinctions of
>># all time.
>># 
>># If I recall right, the numbers work out to ~1 species/100,000 increase in
>># human population.
>>
>>I've read that the current rate of extinction is about 15 species/century --
>>which is clearly far lower than ~1 species/100,000 increase in human
>>population.
>
>I checked my source for the above after I got home last night, and he was
>claiming a loss of 10,000 species/yr but he didn't cite any sources.  This
>does sound very high.  But on the other hand, it seems equally difficult to
>believe we've only lost 13-14 species in all of the 20th century.  (I've
>also seen figures in the 1-10/yr range.)
>
>Do you (or anyone else) have specific references for what the actual value
>of this rate is?

There is a theory that was proposed by the late Dr. Luis Alvarez and Dr.
Richard Muller on the topic of mass extinctions.  In the geological
record there is evidence of mass extinctions at regular intervals thru
out earth's history.  These extinctions occurred (don't quote me on
this, I'm doing it by memory) I think every 300 million years, at a
almost frightening regular interval.  The extinctions of the dinosaurs
was one and about 300 million years later, the extinction of pre-historic
mammals another.  Before then, the geological record shows extinction
after extinction at roughly 300 million year intervals.  The theory
proposed states that our Sun may have a companion star.  For years,
astronomers and astrophysicists had assumed that our sun was different
from the rest of the stars in the universe in that it was not part of
a binary system.  This theory states that our sun may have a companion
star that at its closest point to the earth (it still looks like a normal
star from a telescope at its closest point) crosses thru the comet belt
with enough gravitational disturbance to knock about a 300,000 (I think)
or so comets out of the cloud into the inner solar system.  The odds
worked out that one would hit the earth.
	For more information consult the book "Nemesis: the Death Star"
by Dr. Richard Muller.

Extinctions on the smaller scale, aka caused by man, continue on this
planet in several key places : 1South America 2Africa ...etc. the list
goes on.  The destruction of the Amazon to make farm land is by far
one of the fastest destruction of both animal and plant species in the
world.  The uniqueness of the Amazon enviroment is such that the plant
and animal species that live there cannot be found anywhere in the world.
In fact in a recent shuttle picture, the Amazon area was nothing but
smoke as the forest is being burned down.  In Africa, the desert grows.
Man's own folly is to blame for that disaster as well.  The interference
of well meaning foreigners to help the people has led to the destruction
of thousands of acres of land.  The digging of wells in areas with lush
vegetation was not only not productive but is the direct cause of the
growing deserts.  Herd animals, wild life, and man flock for miles around
just to get to this plentiful source of water.  In their rampage, the
vegetation is stripped, trees are cut down and tender vegetation
trampled.  What's left in a matter of months is a wasteland, a addition
to already expanding desert.  Destruction of trees has had a direct
impact on the ecosystem in Africa.  In areas where there are trees it
rains.  In areas where there were trees not long ago, it will rain for
a few years more.  In areas where trees were cut down a long time ago,
there is desert.  The ecosystem is destroyed the moment the native 
habitat is destroyed, and the weather adjusts accordingly.  The famine
in Africa will continue, probably and sadly, forever, unless the the
ecosystem is restored.  In the United States, coal burning plants have
destroyed forest land on the Eastern Sea Board and all over Eastern
Canada.  Lakes have so much acid content in them that the water is
poisonous.  In Europe, a similar situation exists in Germany, where
a huge portion of forest land has been labeled as doomed from the acid
rain.  In Chicago, the marble off the buildings is being dissolved by the
acid rain, of which sulfuric acid is a member.  When the habitats go,
so do the life forms that live within them.  Hopefully something can
be done to stop this.  Soon I hope.

Albert Sze-Wei Wang
------------------------------        
The Daimyo                   |      
c60a-1hb@widow.berkeley.edu  |      
------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #453
*******************

Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 May 89 06:34:04 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00547>; Tue, 23 May 89 05:41:07 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 23 May 89 05:40:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.MYSGBJK00UkTE3R08n>;
          Tue, 23 May 89 05:24:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.sYSG8Qe00UkZIC3k5Z>;
          Tue, 23 May 89 05:19:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYSG6Aa00UkZ0C2E4c@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 23 May 89 05:17:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #454

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 454

Today's Topics:
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
			   PHONE TREE ALERT
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
			 Re: Andromeda Strain
	       Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
		  Ballistic parachutes (was: Giotto)
			 Re: Andromeda Strain
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #432
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #443
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 May 89 13:01:48 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

Two notes on the Endeavour/Endeavor mix up (NASA *would* snatch confusion
out of the jaws of clearness now wouldn't they?? <grin>)

 1. The schools that submitted names split (unevenly) between the
British and American spellings also.  Evidently some of them had trouble
reading their predigested NASA "curriculum materials."  The original
vote tallies article has expired here, perhaps Peter could repost it
for posterity.

 2. AvWeek said 'Endeavor' in its announcement of the name selection.
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 18:12:47 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

>The ultimate reusable booster!!!

>It never leaves the ground.  Needs no refurbishing before reuse.
>No need for downrange recovery ships, aircraft, or crews.

>Probably exceeds local noise limits, though.

But was the Columbiad an "assault rifle"?

:-)


Bob "Of course, our fine, upstanding American hunters NEED 900-foot-long
     rifles for SPORTING PURPOSES!" M.

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Sat, 20 May 89 09:43:20 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: PHONE TREE ALERT

Phone Tree Alert

Date:          5/20/89

Subject:       Terminate spending for NASA's space station program

Target:        Rep. Jamie L. Whitten, Chairman
               House Committee on Approrpriations

Address:       Hon. Jamie L. Whitten
               U.S. House of Representitives
               Washington, DC 20515-2401
               202-225-4306

Message:       Call or write Chairman Whitten expressing your
               support for his opposition to further wasteful
               spending on NASA's space station project.

               The Senate goes out on Memeorial Day recess on 19
               May and the Hous goes out on 25 May.  Therefore,
               activists have until the 25th to target the
               chairman of this important committee.

               Activists should also try to make appointments
               with their congressional representatives durring
               this recess.  The next several weeks will be
               crucial to showing the political leadership that
               Americans want a space program which they can be
               proud of!

Add'l Brief:   In your letter or call, try to relate the waste
               on the space station program to fact that while
               his favorite programs are being cut to the bone,
               NASA and aerospace contractors are posing as a
               grassroots space activist network to ensure continued
               budget inflation for themselves.  

               For tips on how NASA and aerospace contractors 
               are successfully posing as grassroots activists,
               read the Space Activists Handbook, available from 
               SPACEPAC.  Write or call David Brandt at NSS HQ.  
               Or inquire on this net to Jordan Katz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 20:49:45 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <13140@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
>In article <13325@swan.ulowell.edu>, devans@hawk.ulowell.edu (Daniel Evans) writes:
>> 	A couple of years back, I had read some accounts about a tiny (non-
>> identical) "twin" of our sun, which swings by every few million years or so.
>> Someone referred to it as "Nemesis".
>> 	How much evidence is there supporting this theory?
>
>None.
>>  What are the details?  
>There aren't any.
>> How did they decide what its path is? 
>
>They were trying to explain "periodic" mass extinctions in the fossil record
>by invoking comets to smash the earth and create a "gravitational winter" by
>ruining the earth's ecology, on a regular basis.  The "periodicity" was, at
>best, suspect, but why not try?  They invoked the mythical "Oort cloud" of
>comets that supposedly (and invisibly) surrounds the solar system, and placed
>the mythical "Nemesis" in an orbit that would perturb them periodically, thus 
>raining destruction on our unsuspecting planet and its inhabitants.
>

Oh, come now!  I take it, Ed, that you will not consider Nemesis to
exist unless/until it is directly observed.  Does this mean you won't
accept the existence of electrons until someone takes a photograph of one?

The Nemesis hypothesis postulates that the Sun is part of a binary
star system. At perihelion (closest approach to the Sun), the 
companion passes through
the quite non-mythical Oort cloud (a large and only roughly-defined
region surrounding the Solar System where, based on numerous
observations of first-pass and long-period comets, most comets
appear to originate).  The companion is big enough and slow-moving
enough to "scramble" the orbits of many comets, some of which
fall into the inner solar system (most are ejected into deep space).
This creates a "comet shower" lasting of order 1 million years,
during which the Earth is much more  (10x) likely to be hit by 
a comet than usual.  

	The existence of Nemesis was proposed to account for a
26 million year periodicity in the fossil extinction record,
combined with strong evidence that at least one extinction
(the Cretaceous-Tertiary, 65 Myears ago) was caused by some sort
of large-body impact).
The periodicity (with some changes in best-fit timing) remains statistically
significant after several years of (often very skeptical) analysis;
the most recent results involve tracking the extinction rate for
some 10,000 genuses (originally only a few hundred families were 
tracked).  The theory made several predictions, notably that
impact craters would also be found to be concentrated at 
regular time intervals, and that multiple impacts would occur at
each extinction, spread over of order 1 Myear.
(since, if at least one impact
occurs on each "pass", the "average" number of impacts must be 
greater than one).


	The known orbital period gives the size of the orbit:
the major axis of the orbit is 2.7 light years.  The requirement
to go through the Oort cloud gives a 
"most probable" ellipticity of about 0.7, as I recall.  
Passing stars "frequently" (every few Myear) come closer than
the companion to the sun, but they have relatively high
velocity (they're not bound to the Sun) and do not strongly
perturb either the companion or the comet cloud.  Over
about 1 billion years, though, they would be expected to 
disrupt such a weakly bound pair; this means that either the
companion was only captured ~1 Gyear ago or (more likely) it
used to be closer in and has been kicked out to its current
distance in the last ~1 Gyear.

>> What kind of star is it?  
>It is a mythical star.
>> Is it visible through a telescope?
>No.

	The companion star has a mass between approximately
.01 and .1 solar masses.  Smaller and it would require a very unlikely
orbit to produce the postulated effects; larger and it would be
too conspicuous an object to have been overlooked so far.  This 
makes it a "brown dwarf", probably too small to have significant
fusion going on, and too cold (surface temperature below 2000 degrees)
to produce significant visible light, though it should be
a fairly bright infrared source.  It might, however, be bright
enough to look like a very dim red star; as such it would
be (at first look) indistinguishable from numerous red dwarfs and
particularly from much more distant red giant stars.  UC Berkeley
is still running a search that will inspect all catalogued faint red stars in
the northern hemisphere looking for "parallax" -- evidence that
the star is close, because it moves against the background.
However, a failure of this search will not rule out a companion, 
just prove that it is not a) bright in the visible and b) in the
northern hemisphere.  Note that there is no a priori reason for the companion
to lie in the plane of the solar system; it could be anywhere in the sky.


The Nemesis hypothesis is indeed "just" a hypothesis, in that there
is no direct confirmation.  The two predictions above, however, have
certainly not been disproved, and there is some evidence in their
favor -- some periodicity in the handful of well-dated craters, and
some evidence for multiple impacts at the major extinctions, including
evidence for _both_ ocean and land impacts at the CT boundary.
Currently no other theory accounts as well for periodicity of either
extinctions or craters, or for multiple impacts.

>
>>  Was this just a trendy theory that got tossed out after a while?
>
>Yes.
>
 No, absolutely not.  It is a speculative theory, but one which
has some support and no contradictory evidence.

>> 	My wife's sixth-grade students want to know...
>
>Teach them the difference between theory and observation, and you'll do
>them a life-long favor.
>

	Agreed.  But make sure they neither accept theories as fact
_nor_ dismiss them as falsehoods.

>-- 
>Ed Nather
>Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin

Jordin Kare
Special Projects Group, LLNL
-formerly at- U. C. Berkeley/ Lawrence Berkeley Labs.

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 12:45:30 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!djm@uunet.uu.net  (D Murphy)
Subject: Re: Andromeda Strain

In article <8905181459.AA03853@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>    
>    By the way, I do think it is possible that an extraterrestrial bug
>    could cause problems on earth, although very unlikely. ~rI am thinking
>    that something couldevolve to live in an incredibly harsh and spartan
>    extraterrestrial environment by being able to extract energy from
>    almost any kind of molecule.  }iConsider for example, molds and
>    such.  They will grow on any kind of decomposing organic matter.
>    They are not in any sense host-specific.  Now imagine one that grew
>    much more rapidly in a suitable environment, say inside the lungs.
>    
>    Chris Eliot

This comment perhaps shouldn't be here - but in support of the above there
is a terrestrial equivalent (New Jersey'll hate this, creeping alt.sex
into sci.space :-)). I read once that syphillis (and perhaps one or 2 other
`venereal' diseases were at one time indigenous to certain parts of Africa
where they grew outside the body in warm, moist conditions. Upon being
inadvertently taken to Europe they were only able to survive in areas of
the body which were 1. Accessible from the outside, 2. Warm and damp and
3. Not full of nasty enzymes which would try to digest the organisms.


Murff....

JANET: djm@uk.ac.ed.etive      Internet: djm%ed.etive@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk   
       Murff@uk.ac.ed.emas-a             Murff%ed.emas-a@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
       trinity@uk.ac.ed.cs.tardis        trinity%ed.cs.tardis@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
D.J. Murphy     *Artificial* intelligence ?  Evidently.....

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 18:10:53 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

>>... If the costs were trivial,
>>United Airlines would be offering LEO as a tourist attraction, and you'd just
>>be faced with a stack of liability waivers to sign before you got aboard.

>It's not that simple any more, in the US in particular.  Getting sworn
>statements from your passengers that they understand the risks and are
>taking them voluntarily will *not* protect you from the lawyers if
>something -- anything -- goes wrong.  It may provide useful ammunition
>for the enormously-expensive court battle, but it won't avert it.

Still irrelevant, Henry; I claim that if the costs were trivial, SOMEBODY
would be offering a "tourist ride"; the fact that this is not happening
means that we cannot yet ignore cost in the "ordinary citizen in space"
question, which was my original point.


Bob Myers            | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but  
{the known universe} |  most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."
!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |                        - Winston Churchill

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 89 16:06:09 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu  (Steve Masticola)
Subject: Ballistic parachutes (was: Giotto)

Bob Gray writes:

> Giotto isn't carrying enough fuel to slow down as it passes
> the Earth (You can't just put on the brakes you know :->).

Maybe you can put on the brakes. IF Giotto survives, and can be
steered to the vicinity of Earth, could it use the upper atmosphere to
brake into LEO or permanent orbit, without melting itself in the
process? If so, it might be possible to recover nonvolatile comet
remnants from the wreckage at a later date. I believe the term for
this maneuver is "ballistic parachuting."

- Steve (masticol@paul.rutgers.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 08:11:17 GMT
From: shelby!Portia!hanauma!joe@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: Andromeda Strain

In article <31625@sri-unix.SRI.COM> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>    Now imagine one that grew
>    much more rapidly in a suitable environment, say inside the lungs.

Interesting idea. I think this would pretty much happen with regular Earth
bugs, except for our immune system actively preventing it (isn't this what
actually kills most AIDS patients, in fact?). So the question is, how
specific to Earth-based life are the methods our immune system uses to
recognize and zap interlopers? Could we imagine some nasty alien bug which
likes warm, moist, carbon-rich environments as energy sources, is not very
picky about what it eats, and which our immune system doesn't even see or
can't even scratch? (Finally, a posting to sci.space within Henry's nominal
field of expertise?!)
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 19:03-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #432

> In fact, not one person responded to my original posting with an
> argument in favor of the manned space program. 

The answer is that the group is bored silly by this topic. It was
beaten to death with a dead heron only a few months ago. If you are
truly interested, go back through the last few years of archives of
Space Digest. You will find enough discussion to not only put you to
sleep, but to put you into a very deep coma.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 20:40-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #443

> It is not at all clear whether this method would work, though, since
> the projectile might just go through without stopping.

I have my doubts about this statement. Fusion all occurs at the core,
and energy is transported between various layers in convection cells.
There are also acoustic waves that generate some of the cell pattern at
the surface. A body going through the sun would massively disrupt what
is currently a very stable situation. I don't think I would want to be
anywhere in the neighborhood when the experiment was tried.

I have no idea what would happen. I doubt anyone else does either.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #454
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 May 89 14:31:17 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02602> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 24 May 89 14:27:06 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 24 May 89 14:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EYSixUK00Vs1I1dk8V>;
          Wed, 24 May 89 14:07:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.4YSeH6y00UkZE0n04V>;
          Wed, 24 May 89 08:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYSeF3a00UkZE0lU5u@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 24 May 89 08:47:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #455

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 455

Today's Topics:
			  NSS Hotline Update
		 Re: private funding of space science
		  Re: space news from April 17 AW&ST
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #442
	      Re: New shuttle name: definitely ENDEAVOUR
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #435
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #441
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #431
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #439
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #442
			 Re: Andromeda Strain
		     Re: Ancient asteroid impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 04:11:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update



This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline, for the week
ending May 21, 1989.

As of May 19th, the Magellan Venus Radar Mapping Spacecraft was speeding
along at 59,970 miles per hour relative to the sun, towards Venus on its
fifteen month voyage to map the planet through its thick
cloudy atmosphere.  The spacecraft will be placed in orbit about
Venus on Aug. 10, 1990.

Incoming Nasa Administrator Richard Truly wasted no time in filling
a vacuum created by the recent migration of upper level managers
from top NASA positions.  Truly named William B. Lenoir to head
the Space Station Freedom program in a move to integrate its
management with that of the space shuttle program.  In addition
Truly appointed Richard Kohrs, a top shuttle official at JSC as
Headquarter's director of design, development and operations for
the Space Station.  Ray Tanner the current director of the program
since Jan., will become deputy director in the new management
scheme.  Recently 25 top NASA managers left the agency for private
industry over vague wording of new ethics regulations and
Congress' recent rejection of a 50% pay raise for federal workers.

NASA and the FAA are investigating the near miss of STS-30
Atlantis commander David Walker's T-38 training jet and a
commercial airliner.  The incident occurred at 6:35pm on May 17,
when Walker was on route from Ellington Airforce Base near Houston
to Andrews Air Force Base in Washington.  It was reported that the
NASA training jet was flying lower than its assigned altitude and
came too close to a jumbo jet approaching Dulles International
Airport.  Walker reported the near miss to Air Force base officials
once he landed at Andrews.

In a letter to Sen. Barbara Mikulski, former NASA acting
administrator Dale Myers wrote that cutting $400 million from the
$2.1 Billion FY '90 request for the space station program would be
a disastrous mistake.  A $600 million dollar cut from the $3
Billion FY '91 request for the space station program would decrease
the NASA budget in the short run, but would result in a $1 Billion
increase over the life of the program.  Past cuts in the space
station program has caused a two year delay in the program,
prompting managers to compact the working schedules so that there
is no slack remaining in meeting major milestone dates for
deployment of the station.

In response to a National Research Council study, NASA said that
it will not continue with a Commercially Developed Space Facility.  The
study concludes that sucha facility will cost more than $2 Billion to
build and microgravity experiments planned between now and the
deployment of the space station can adequately be carried out on the
Shuttle, Sounding Rockets and Airplanes.  NASA officials agreed with
the study and they feel that other types of programs will benefit from
private sector participation, such as Boeing's privately financed Space
Station Logistics System.  In addition SpaceHab is creating commercial
markets for its Space Shuttle Module, and the ASRM production facility
will be developed through private investment.

Stefania Follini who has been living in a plexiglas habitat 30 feet
underground in a cave since Jan. 13 as part of an experiment to
determine the effects of isolation on humans, has completely lost
track of time.  She is providing data which is closely being
followed by JSC scientists, who are interested in how the isolation
of long duration space flight will effect humans.  After four
months of isolation Follini stays awake for 24 hours at a time, and
sleeps for 10.  In reality, her perceived current date is actually
several weeks behind the actual date on the calendar.  She keeps herself
occupied with music, judo, and a paper chess set which she
constructed herself.

A leading Soviet official wants a NASA type agency for the USSR. 
In addition he stated that half the instruments aboard the now
vacant MIR Space Station are inoperable.  Chief Cosmonaut-in-
training, Vladimir Shatalov, told Isvestia newspaper last Wednesday
that over the past three years cosmonauts have been wasting time
and energy on repairing faulty equipment that didn't function
properly.  He stated that much of the time instrumentation was
never tested prior to being launched.  In addition he went on to
say that the space program is not providing much in the way of spin-
offs for the Soviet economy and that they should be following the
American example by establishing a NASA like-agency that has near
complete jurisdiction over space activities.

This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space
Society's Space Hotline.  Hope to see you at next week's Space
Development Conference in Chicago. The Hotline will be updated
next on May 30th.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 May 89 16:52:04 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: private funding of space science
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space%andrew.cmu.edu@jato"

unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dr. Dereference) writes:

> As for
>government involvment in operations, the best people to operate the hardware
>built for R&D are usually the scientists doing the R&D, who are usually
>government employees (ie JPL). 

Minor point, but virtually no-one at JPL is a government employee.  We
work for Caltech.  I have heard no complaints.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 89 17:40:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: space news from April 17 AW&ST


I think we'd get much better results if NASA took the budget for Freedom
(N billion dollars), cut it in 2, and put $(N/2) gigabucks in a Swiss Account
and said "First one to build a space station able to support X people
and ship Y pounds to&from it a year gets it". We (the taxpayers) would save
money, get a better product faster this way. My anarchist friend claims that
the current setup is a classic example of the triumph of process over result.

Alan M. Carroll                "And there you are
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu           Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'"
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 20:36-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #442

>I don't think so.  I haven't read it, but I keep meaning to stop by the
> library and read "As We May Think" by Vannevar Bush, which appeared in
> the July 1945 (no kidding, nineteen forty-five!) issue of the ATLANTIC

Memex is the name of the machine he designs. The article is reprinted
in a book called "The New Papyrus", a book containing everything you
ever wanted to know about CD-ROM. And more. I picked up a copy at the
CMU bookstore a couple years back. It might be floating around other
university bookstores and is certainly orderable. I've also seen it in
some B Daltons.

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 15:26:23 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: New shuttle name: definitely ENDEAVOUR

>From article <8905191904.AA05195@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, by pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott):
> If they named if after this particular ship, agreed.  AW&ST uses the name
> "Endeavor" several times in the current issue with no allusion to any
> alternate spelling, however, so it'll be interesting to see what actually
> winds up on the side.

The NASA press release consistently used the British spelling in its
press release and specified that it was named after Cook's ship.

 Aviation Week is simply *wrong*, and I have written to them to point
this out. 

Here are extracts from the NASA press release...


5/10/89: PRESIDENT BUSH NAMES REPLACEMENT ORBITER "ENDEAVOUR" 
 
RELEASE:  89-70
 

     President Bush today chose the name "Endeavour" for the new 
Space Shuttle orbiter, currently under construction.
 
     The name Endeavour resulted from a nationwide orbiter-naming 
competition [...]

     In the Division II category (grades 7 through 12), the winning team
[...] developed a math magazine, "Math Exploration with James Cook,"
[...] and created a play, "Where On Earth?...," comparing Cook's
18th-century sea exploration to the Space Shuttle "Endeavour's"
20th-century space exploration.  [...] The name had to be that of a
seafaring vessel used in research or exploration.  Both winning teams
proposed the name "Endeavour."
 
     Endeavour was the first ship commanded by James Cook, a 
British explorer, navigator and astronomer.  In August 1768, on 
Endeavour's maiden voyage, Cook observed and recorded the transit 
of the planet Venus.  In the view of the students, Cook's 
navigations, explorations and discoveries eventually led man to 
the possibilities of space exploration.  
 
     "In selecting the name Endeavour, the students and the 
President have identified a name that symbolizes perfectly NASA's 
goals of space exploration and discovery," said Dale D. Myers, 
NASA's Acting Administrator.  "The nation can rest assured that 
we will use this ship with the same commitment that Captain Cook 
used his in the pursuit of new knowledge to benefit all mankind."
 
[...] Endeavour is scheduled to be completed in 1991 with her maiden
voyage scheduled for March 1992. 
                            -  end  -

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 19:21-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #435

> have been space development advocates for even longer, having joined
> the L5 Society in 1977.  We are dismayed by Charles Miller's
> wishy-washy comments in the February Space Politics Forum, including

While I agree with the letter 100%, I wish to point out that Charlie
Miller is really a very good person, and in fact came into NSS from the
L5 side of the merger.

					Ad Astra,
					Dale Amon

PS: A general note to all: we should all agree that it is okay to disagree
strongly on issues, to flame eloquently ... and still get along as
fellow human beings.

(The mapping of ideology to the set of my friends is not a one to one
mapping ... my very closest and most trusted friend is a european
socialist.)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 20:28-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #441

> Sorry this posting doesn't contain more specific numbers, but the
> neutrino concept seems to be off by so many orders of magnitude that
> I don't want to bother looking everything up.

Don't be sorry for posting good solid info. It's fun to toss out
creative speculation. You just happened to have the special knowledge
close to hand to squash an infant idea. Many are born, but few grow
up...

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 18:40-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #431

> posting, I would definitely love the opportunity, but cannot presently
> give any justification for my travelling to orbit.  I admit that I'd be a

I partially agree with your sentiments. However, the only valid
justification I can think of for ANY person flying in space is that
they are picking up the tab. He Who Pays, Flys.

The partial justification for the citizen is space program is that many
people are paying, and at least a few random representatives of the
people who are picking up the tab should get something for their money.

Remember, the money that is used to put astronauts in space is not the
governments money. It is my money. It is your money. 

My attitude is, if they want my money, they can damn well fly me in
space to get it. Otherwise screw 'em.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 20:05-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #439

> Blaming the NASA of the 70s for throwing away the Saturn V is pretty much
> a mistake.  The real culprit is the Congress of the 60s.

Ah Henry. The last of my preconceptions dies. I hadn't thought the real
rot went back to the mid 60's!

It's enough to make one an anarchist :-)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 20:32-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #442

> Ever heard the variant on "life's a bitch, and then you die" that
> goes: "... unless reincarnation is true, in which case life's a
> bitch, and then life's a bitch, and then life's a bitch...."  ;-)

Or the Alcor version, "Life's a bitch, and then you freeze".... :-)

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 23:59:04 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Andromeda Strain

In article <2422@Portia.Stanford.EDU> joe@hanauma.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>... So the question is, how
>specific to Earth-based life are the methods our immune system uses to
>recognize and zap interlopers?

Hard to say for sure.  The methods are effective across a fairly broad
spectrum of nasties.  On the other hand, there are some it seems to be
persistently unable to deal with.  Perhaps more relevant are cases when
a new disease was introduced to populations that had no experience with
it.  The results often weren't nice.  Most everyone's heard about smallpox
versus North American Indians.  Syphilis in Europe seems to have been
the other way around:  current best guess is that it was a relatively
mild and possibly even non-venereal disease among the Indians, but in
its early years in Europe, after Columbus's crews brought it back, it
was a fearful thing and quickly killed most who caught it.  It's hard
to say whether the comparatively mild short-term effects of the current
form are the result of partial immunity or of selection for milder forms
(a disease which quickly kills its host does not spread nearly as well
as one which leaves the host alive for a while).

Mind you, this is with bugs that are close enough to our own biochemistry
that they like nibbling on us.

>Could we imagine some nasty alien bug which
>likes warm, moist, carbon-rich environments as energy sources, is not very
>picky about what it eats, and which our immune system doesn't even see or
>can't even scratch?

It's possible.  Last I heard, there just doesn't seem to be any natural
immunity to AIDS, for example -- we're very lucky that it doesn't spread
easily.

>(Finally, a posting to sci.space within Henry's nominal
>field of expertise?!)

No such luck, so take the above with a grain of salt -- I'm a systems
programmer with an unusual employer, not a zoologist.
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 16:41:03 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Ancient asteroid impact

In article <8905191957.AA17124@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

< discussion about varying rates of deposition in the ocean biasing the
  iridium levels >

This doesn't explain why the iridium layer has also been found in
continental sediments.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #455
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 May 89 18:56:40 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00813>; Wed, 24 May 89 14:36:01 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 24 May 89 14:35:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EYSitLq00jZd81G0Eq>;
          Wed, 24 May 89 14:03:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.gYSeLKG00UkZM0xk5:>;
          Wed, 24 May 89 08:53:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYSeKV-00UkZM0wE4W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 24 May 89 08:52:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #456

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 456

Today's Topics:
			  Mars Rover Status
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #448
		Re:Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #432
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #440
   Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
			     Launch noise
	     Re: Magellan Status for 05/19/89 (Forwarded)
		  Geosynchronous debris cleanup law?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 17:07:29 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Mars Rover Status

Perhaps someone from JPL can answer this one.

I've been looking at the technical papers published on the Mars rover
project, and the article "A Vision System for a Mars rover" in SPIE
Mobile Robots II (1987) says that the planned launch date is 1998.

Is this still the current launch date, and has NASA made a commitment
to fly the rover yet?  If not, when does NASA need to commit the
funding in order to meet the 1998 launch date?  Do the chances seem
good that NASA will do it?

			Thanks in advance,

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 21:16-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #448

> While going through old papers, etc, I found a rather faded newspaper clipping
> which I thought this group would "enjoy".  I don't have a date on it, but


This sound like James Oberg. There was an article on this idea in OMNI
magazine also, which was definitely by Oberg.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 03:26-EDT 
From: Hans.Moravec@ROVER.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re:Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke


The Italian-NASA tethered ionospheric probe was scheduled to
fly this year until the Challenger explosion. I read a new
date for it recently, perhaps 1991.  Here are some older
references on orbital tethers, technical and fictional:

--------------------------------

Y. Artsutanov, V Kosmos na Elektrovoze (To Space by Funicular Railway),
Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 31, 1960
(contents described in Lvov, Science 158, p 946, November 17, 1967).

J.D. Isaacs, A.C. Vine, H. Bradner, G.E. Bachus, Satellite Elongation
into a True "Sky-Hook", Science 151 p 682, February 11, 1966 and 152,
p 800, May 6, 1966.

Y. Artsutanov, (The Cosmic Wheel), Znanije-Sile (Knowledge is Power)
No. 7  p 25, 1969.

G. Polyakov, A Space "Necklace" About the Earth.
NASA technical memorandum TM-75174,
(translation of "Kosicheskoye 'Ozhere'ye' Zemli " in
Teknika Molodezhi, No. 4, 197, pp. 41-43)

J. Pearson, The Orbital Tower: A Spacecraft Launcher Using the Earth's
Rotational Energy, Acta Astronautica 2, p 785,  September/October 1975.

J. Pearson, Using The Orbital Tower to Launch Earth Escape Payloads Daily,
27'th IAF Congress, Anaheim, Ca., October 1976. AIAA paper IAF 76-123.

J. Pearson, Anchored Lunar Satellites for Cis-Lunar Transportation
and Communication, European Conference on Space Settlements and Space
Industries, London, England, September 20, 1977. in Journal of the
Astronautical Sciences.

H.P. Moravec, A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook, 23rd AIAA
Meeting, The Industrialization of Space, San Francisco, Ca., October
18-20, 1977, also Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 25,
October-December, 1977.

Roger D. Arnold and Donald Kingsbury,  The Spaceport,
Part 1: Analog v99 #11  November 1979  pp 48:67  and
Part 2: Analog v99 #12  December 1979  pp 61:77

J. Pearson, Lunar Anchored Satellite Test, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Conference,
Palo Alto, Ca., August 7-9, 1978, AIAA paper 78-1427.

H.P. Moravec, Skyhook!, L5 News, August 1978.

Arthur C. Clarke, The Fountains of Paradise,
    Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1978.

Charles Sheffield, The Web Between the Worlds, Ace SF, 1979.

Charles Sheffield, How to Build a Beanstalk,
    Destinies Vol 1 #4, Aug-Sep 79, pp 41:68,  Ace books.

Charles Sheffield, Skystalk, Destinies Vol 1 #4, Aug-Sep 79, pp 7:39

H.P. Moravec, Cable Cars in the Sky, in The Endless Frontier, Vol. 1,
Jerry Pournelle, ed., Grosset & Dunlap, Ace books, November 1979, pp. 301-322.

R.L. Forward and H.P. Moravec,  High Wire Act, Omni, Omni publications
international, New York, July 1981, pp. 44-47.

Charles Sheffield, Summertide, Destinies Vol 3 #2, Aug 81, pp 16:84

Report on the Utilization of the External Tanks of the Space
Transportation System, proceedings of a workshop held at the
UC San Diego, La Jolla, California, August 23-27, 1982,
under NASA contract  #NAS 8-35037 from the Marshall Space
Flight Center.  ** Section III: Tethers and External Tanks **

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 18:52-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #432

> in a plane, I take the risk; not my lawyer.  Let the ones who are willing to
> take the risks reach for the skies, the rest of you can stay on the ground
> and argue about the legal aspects.

I heartily agree. If you are afraid to die, go live in a deep hole.

I can't even afford an airplane because of all the rich lawyers, and
I'm really kind of sick of it. My recommendation is that we chuck them
all out the air lock. Let the wimps stay on the ground and huddle
together looking for absolute safety. I'll take my chances shooting for
the stars.

There is no difference between procedural slip ups, human error, human
miscalculation and hardware faults.  They are part of the risk
calculation. On new systems, the risk is unknown. If you are realistic
about it, you will go into each flight assuming you could buy the farm. And
then you just don't worry about it cause you'll never know what hit you
anyway. If you return in one piece, you flip your lucky penny and go
have a drink.

No, I am not know and never have been a test pilot. But I've been in
risk situations that would curl your hair. And my attitude is
unchanged. I take a risk. I accept the associated unknowns. What
happens is my own responsibility. Caveat Emptor is the whole of the
law.

	"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" -- W. Shakespeare
					Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 20:15-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #440

>         A book I highly recommend to those of you who want to join and/or
>    form various space groups and need some background information on
>    doing so can obtain this help from Michael A. G. Michaud's 1986 book,

My one claim to fame and I got left out of the book! He described the
startup of "Scientists for A Manned Space Station" effort back in about
1984, something that I had a fairly hefty role in. Some of the old
timers on Space Digest may remember it. (ah the misguided efforts of
youth). :-)

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 18:42:57 GMT
From: tekbspa!optilink!cramer@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

In article <40227@bbn.COM>, ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
> In article <1493@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <40171@bbn.COM>, ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
# ## #Does anyone knows others example of strange disappearance ?
# ## 
# ## I don't remember the numbers (in species/yr) offhand, but I've read
# ## arguements (e.g. by S J Gould) that claim that we are *now* in the midst of
# ## the one of greatest (if not in fact _the_ greatest) of mass extinctions of
# ## all time.
# ## 
# ## If I recall right, the numbers work out to ~1 species/100,000 increase in
# ## human population.
# #
# #I've read that the current rate of extinction is about 15 species/century --
# #which is clearly far lower than ~1 species/100,000 increase in human
# #population.
# 
# CLAYTON
# 
# I checked my source for the above after I got home last night, and he was
# claiming a loss of 10,000 species/yr but he didn't cite any sources.  This
# does sound very high.  But on the other hand, it seems equally difficult to
# believe we've only lost 13-14 species in all of the 20th century.  (I've
# also seen figures in the 1-10/yr range.)
# 
# Do you (or anyone else) have specific references for what the actual value
# of this rate is?
# 
# Thanks
# NICHAEL

Nope.  I sure would like to see some numbers.  Now that I think about
it, I think what I had read (in a newspaper, so probably false) was
that over the time man has been on the planet, there has been an
average loss of 15 species/century -- not the same as the rate for
this century.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer                   {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Assault rifle possession is a victimless crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 16:49:21 GMT
From: xanth!aiko@g.ms.uky.edu  (John K Hayes)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <21900054@m.cs.uiuc.edu> irwin@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>/* Written  9:06 am  May 17, 1989 by aiko@cs.odu.edu in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
>>this occurs corresponds roughly to the K-T boundary.  They estimate the meteor
>>to have been about 6 miles across which would produce the equivilent of
>>10,000 times all the world's nuclear explosives.
>
>>    ---{john hayes}  Old Dominion University; Norfolk, Virginia USA
>/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
>
>Would this not create the greatest of all earthquakes? I have read
>peoples comments on meteor hits in the past, but have not seen any
>reference to this aspect of it. You could be on the opposite side
>of the planet from the hit, and when the shock wave traveled the
>distance through the planet, the ground below you would suddenly
>jump many feet up and down. Monster waves would also occur on the
>oceans I would think. The entire planet would reverberate. I wonder
>how long it would take to settle down.
>
>Al Irwin



Yes, it would seem to explain how practically all life would have been 
destroyed.  I'm sure it would have taken quite a while for things to settle
down and new life to develop.  The article describes these massive extinctions
as a rebirth of the planet with one dominant species being replaced by the
next.  I wonder who's next....
-- 
    ---{john hayes}  Old Dominion University; Norfolk, Virginia USA
                     internet: aiko@cs.odu.edu
                     Home: (804) 622-8348     Work: (804) 460-2241 ext 134  

                      <++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>
Are you a Have or a Have_Not?  Because if you're a Have_Not, you've probably
had it; whereas, if you're a Have, you've probably got it and are going to 
give it away at some point in the future!       --- The Clash
                      <++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 23:32:57 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <11630009@hpfcdj.HP.COM>, myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
> >The ultimate reusable booster!!!
> 
> >It never leaves the ground.  Needs no refurbishing before reuse.
> >No need for downrange recovery ships, aircraft, or crews.
> 
> >Probably exceeds local noise limits, though.
> 
> But was the Columbiad an "assault rifle"?

Nope.  It doesn't accept an n-round clip.

> :-)
> 
> 
> Bob "Of course, our fine, upstanding American hunters NEED 900-foot-long
>      rifles for SPORTING PURPOSES!" M.

Yow!!  What are they gunning for?!  (Congresscritters are hardly big game,
though they might be classed as varmints.)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 May 89 14:28:09 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Launch noise

>From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)

>In article <166@ixi.UUCP>, clive@ixi.UUCP (Clive Feather) writes:
>> The *BIG* cannon in Jules Verne's "From Earth to the Moon" was called
>> the "Columbiad". Close enough ?

>... Probably exceeds local noise limits, though.

This is a legitimate concern for any earth-based ballistic launcher (explosive,
electromagnetic, etc.) Even if the noise of the initial impulse can somehow
be controlled, a projectile of the size generally mentioned would create a
tremendous sonic boom, which I suspect would be painfully loud even many miles
away. This would place constraints on a suitable location for such a launcher.

Have any studies been conducted on the magnitude of the noise problem?
                                      John Roberts
                                      roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 19:00:22 EDT
From: Colin Hunter <CHUNTER%UMAB.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <SPACE@Andrew.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 05/19/89 (Forwarded)

From: Colin Hunter

trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee) writes:


>             MAGELLAN STATUS
>             May 19, 1989

:Craft details/problems deleted:

>    SPACECRAFT Distance  From Earth (mi)
>    2,220,474
>
>    Velocity  Geocentric                         5,905 mph
>              Heliocentric                      59,970 mph
>
>    Round Trip Light Time                           12.2 sec

If  you  are only going to give us a date, these figures show considerable
redundancy as far as  accuracy  is  concerned.   It is very interesting to
have the distance from Earth given to 7 significant figures, etc, but this
is meaningless without an equally accurate time also being stated.  Can we
assume noon (GMT, EDT, PDT)?

J. Colin R. Hunter                       |
Department of Microbiology & Immunology  |
University of Maryland at Baltimore      |  BITNET: CHUNTER@UMAB

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 19:41:40 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!hutto!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Melton)
Subject: Geosynchronous debris cleanup law?



I've just been reading "Adventures in Celestial Mechanics" by Victor G.
Szebehely, 1989 University of Texas Press.  On page 132, is reads:

"Collisions with orbital debris, such as parts of inactive satellites,
rocket bodies, parts of missiles, etc. present very serious danger to
the functioning of satellites, space stations and space vehicles in
general.  At high altitudes, the dispersion of debris is such that the
probability of impact is small.  The geosynchronous altitude is an
exception since only recently it became mandatory that inactive
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
communications satellites be removed.  At low altitudes the probability
of impact is reduced since the "space garbage" sooner or later reenters
the atmosphere and burns up."

What does this mean?  Did somebody pass a law?  Obviously inactive
satellites can't remove themselves.  Is somebody going to fund an
international orbit guard? 
--

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #456
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 May 89 04:16:50 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02605>; Thu, 25 May 89 03:36:48 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 25 May 89 03:36:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0YSubGm00Vs141a0F9>;
          Thu, 25 May 89 03:23:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.4YSuX9200UkZM5rk4T>;
          Thu, 25 May 89 03:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYSuVL200UkZQ5qE4N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 25 May 89 03:16:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #457

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 457

Today's Topics:
		Re: Kelso's NASA prediction Bulletins
		Re: Geosynchronous debris cleanup law?
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
		     Re: Ancient asteroid impact
   Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
	  momentum wheel desaturations (was Re: Magellan...)
		    Re: Talking about something...
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
			 Re: Andromeda Strain
			  Minimalist design
		 Extinctions: Asteroids and Dinosaurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 May 89 09:12:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 377+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Re: Kelso's NASA prediction Bulletins
CC: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)

I'd like to thank everyone for their responses to my survey about interest in TS
Kelso's orbital elements.  I was more or less flooded with replies, virtually
all of which indicated an interest in continuing access to this information.  I
will try and do something to make it a bit easier for people who don't want to
see them, but I can't promise anything soon.
        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 18:15:26 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!bturner@hplabs.hp.com  (Bill Turner)
Subject: Re: Geosynchronous debris cleanup law?

> What does this mean?  Did somebody pass a law?  Obviously inactive
> satellites can't remove themselves.  Is somebody going to fund an
> international orbit guard? 

Sure, brilliant pebbles to shoot them puppies down!  (Causing even more
junk in geosynchronous orbit....)

--Bill Turner (bturner@hp-pcd.hp.com)

Oh, by the way, :-)

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 20:55:00 GMT
From: apollo!ulowell!cg-atla!welch@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (John Welch)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <13325@swan.ulowell.edu>, devans@hawk.ulowell.edu (Daniel Evans) writes:
> 
> 	My wife recently asked me about the Sun's partner, and I realized
> I had forgotten almost everything I had read about it.
> 
> 	A couple of years back, I had read some accounts about a tiny (non-
> identical) "twin" of our sun, which swings by every few million years or so.
> Someone referred to it as "Nemesis".
> 
> 	How much evidence is there supporting this theory?  What are the de-
> tails?  What kind of star is it?  How did they decide what its path is?  Is
> it visible through a telescope?  Was this just a trendy theory that got tossed
> out after a while?
> 
> 	My wife's sixth-grade students want to know...
> 
> 					Thanks in advance,
> 
> 					Dan
> 					devans@hawk.ulowell.edu

 Well, I hope this provides some help for you... As far as I understand
the theory, Nemesis is supposed to part of a binary star sysytem with
our sun, Sol, as it's partner. It was predicted to have a period of
about 20 million years, I think. This number, if I have the right
number, corresponds to periods of mass extinction on the Earth. The
theary is that, as Nemesis entered our star system, it would pass
through the asteroid belt. Nemesis' gravity would  disrupt the orbit of
some asteroids, and send them crashing to Earth. The resulting disaster
would in turn cause the mass extinctions. 

 As far as I know, there is no astronomical support for this theory,
since Nemesis would not now be visible to any astronomers. As for the
thoery being trendy... A lot of theories have been proposed to account
for mass extinctions, some just got more attention in the popular
press.

 I hope I was some help.

		John Welch
		AFGA Compugraphic
		Wilmington Ma, 01887
		{decvax|ima|ulowell|cgeuro}!cg-atla!welch

 P.S. Sorry to waste the bandwidth, the mailer wasn't quite sure where
you lived :)

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 20:41:19 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Ancient asteroid impact

John Roberts (roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov) asked several questions on alternate
ways to explain the evidence of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundry clay.  While
I don't think that much of the philosoply mixed into the work, _The Great
Dying_ by Kenneth J. Hsu gives an extremely good history of the work over
the last decade or so which has built up a very good picture of what happened
to life on earth and in the ocean when the big one hit.  The picture is
*much* more complex than it would seem, and I strongly recommend the book.
Keith Henson

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 17:23:10 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

I have also heard a story about a mammoth that was found frozen in Siberia,
death was purported to have been caused by freezing, with tropical plants
still in its mouth.  

I know Van Donigan (sp?, author of charriots of the gods and other such drivle) used this as proof that an advanced intellegent life existed back then.

Last I heard, he was doing 5-10 for fraud...

-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 22 May 89 16:21:38-PDT
From: Brian Keller <B.BSK@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: momentum wheel desaturations (was Re: Magellan...)

cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Charles Daffinger) writes:

>In article <25609@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
>writes:
>>
>>                       MAGELLAN STATUS
>>                       May 19, 1989
>>
>>
>>       Daily momentum wheel desaturations continue as scheduled, twice
>>daily, 00:45 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. PDT, project said today.  The daily
>
>What are these momentum wheel desaturations?

Momentum wheels are one of several methods of controlling the orientation
(attitude) of a spacecraft.  When perturbations occur (due to the slight
pull of planet gravitation or solar wind or solar radiation pressure),
the spacecraft spins up its momentum wheels so that the spacecraft remains
at the desired orientation.  Effectively, the spacecreaft "pushes" against
the momentum wheel (through a motor) to stay as desired.  The momentum 
wheels can also be used to make small attitude adjustments, for example,
if they are doing test adjustments or something, they might use these.

After using these for a while, they can build up too much momentum (spin),
they need to despin the wheels.  They do this by kicking on the thrusters
in the appropriate direction and torquing on the momentum wheels in the
other.  Thus they are "desaturated".  They are probably doing the de-
saturations twice a day so that they only have to do brief engine bursts,
probably to be conservative and not jiggle the communications link.

One of the benefits of momentum wheels is that if you have a periodic
perturbation, such as when you are in an orbit, the momentum wheel will
be spun up one way to counteract it and then the other way as the pert-
urbation shifts.  Thus, the momentum wheels are spun up then spun down.
If you use thrusters, you need to fire first the one way, then the other,
rapidly using up the precious fuel.

I'm not sure exactly how Magellan attitude control is set up, but I assume
the above applies.  Hope this helps!

                                               Brian S. Keller
-------

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 06:13:33 GMT
From: oliveb!tymix!3comvax!michaelm@apple.com  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Talking about something...

In article <1279@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>2. a prediction: Find a planet in orbit around its primary in which the
>temperature does not drop below the freezing point of water over a
>majority of the surface at any time and which the temperature is never
>above the boiling point of water anywhere on the surface at any time
>and on which hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon are plentiful and readily
>accessable and that this situation has existed for a period of an
>apparent 3.5 million years and you will find evidence of catabolism and
>metabolism.

I assume you mean 3.5 *billion* years.  Such a long period of time
should be more than sufficient, since there's strong evidence that
life existed within the first 1 billion years of Earth's formation.

Also, a nit:  your definition would exclude the Earth.  There are a
number of places on the surface of the Earth (Yellowstone, Kilauea,
etc.) where the temperature does regularly exceed the boiling point.
Nearly any other "Earthlike" planet would also have such hot spots.

In fact, there's good reason to believe that planets that do *not*
undergo plate tectonics like Earth would not, in the long run, be
able to support life.  Organic compounds have a tendency to migrate
downwards and eventually end up covered by sediments on the bottom
of the sea.  Without plate tectonics to subduct seabottom material
down into the mantle and later release it back to the surface via
volcanoes, there would eventually be no carbon left at the surface
for life to use.  (This may be what happened in the case of Mars.)  

Harvard University's Michael McElroy estimates that the average
carbon atom has made this trip between the surface of the Earth and
mantle and back some *thirty times* over the Earth's entire history.

--
Michael McNeil			michaelm@vax.3Com.Com
3Com Corporation		hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
Mountain View, California	work telephone: (415) 969-2099 x 208

	Life, even cellular life, may exist out yonder in the dark.  
	But high or low in nature, it will not wear the shape of man.  
	That shape is the evolutionary product of a strange, long
	wandering through the attics of the forest roof, and so
	great are the chances of failure, that nothing precisely
	and identically human is likely ever to come that way again.  
		Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1957

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 11:32:47 GMT
From: genrad!dls@husc6.harvard.edu  (Diana L. Syriac)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <1903@anasaz.UUCP> scott@anasaz.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>Peter Scott writes:
>>whether one name will be painted on one side and one on the other, or why on
>>earth they felt it necessary to use non-American spelling at all...
>
>The Endeavour is named for a British sailing vessel of some exploratory


I thought it was interesting to note that the latest issue of AWST 
dated 15-May-89 spelled the name "Endeavor", NOT "Endeavour".....

->	    Diana L. Syriac						    <-
->USmail:   GenRad Inc., Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742  <-
->usenet:   {decvax,linus,mit-eddie,masscomp}!genrad!dls  or dls@genrad.com <-
->tel:	    (508) 369-4400 x2459	I'D RATHER BE FLYING!!!		    <-

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 03:18:16 GMT
From: att!pacbell!cpro!asgard@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (J.R. Stoner)
Subject: Re: Andromeda Strain

[Note Followup-To]

>From article <8905181459.AA03853@crash.cs.umass.edu>, by ELIOT@cs.umass.edu:
>     In the *movie* version it was not an asteroid, it was a space
>     probe.

Both the movie and book used Project Scoop as a method of gathering space
material, presumable for biowar material.

>     It has been a long time since I saw it, but there was I
>     think the implication of a possibility that the probe was lanched
>     by the military in order to collect extraterrestrial material.
>     Also, It didn't decompose plastics at all.  It caused blood to
>     coagulate comletely, which kind of slowed the heart down.  In the
>     end it was found that it didn't do well in an oxygen environment.

Partially correct.  The first virulent form of the organism coagulated blood
but mutated into a form inimicable to plastic.  That is how the F-4 crashed
and how the lab seals of the lab were compromised.  If the organism had not
mutated then Hall would have died when he cut the isolation suit in the
emergency.

>     However, all of the high-tech machines broke down, for stupid reasons
>     that the movie maker thought representative of engineering narrow
>     mindedness, and so it took them much too long to figure this out.

The people in the lab were *not* informed of the crash and problems around
Piedmont because of a sliver of paper jamming a teletype bell - silly but
representative of limitations of 1965 technology.  It is fortunate they
*did* find out about the crash so they could warn of the energy efficency of
the organism and the consequences of carrying out directive 7-12.

>     By the way, I do think it is possible that an extraterrestrial bug
>     could cause problems on earth, although very unlikely. I am thinking
>     that something could evolve to live in an incredibly harsh and spartan
>     extraterrestrial environment by being able to extract energy from
>     almost any kind of molecule.  Consider for example, molds and
>     such.  They will grow on any kind of decomposing organic matter.
>     They are not in any sense host-specific.  Now imagine one that grew
>     much more rapidly in a suitable environment, say inside the lungs.

Actually I would not be surprised there is a biological isolation lab in
this country.  I would guess it is located at either Brookhaven or Oak
Creek.  There are also the CDC labs for that kind of thing.  They seem to
have no shortage of P4 rated labs.

>     You can post this to the net, but don't expect me to defend any
>     of it.
-- 
				| J.R. (May the Source be With You) Stoner
"Dying is easy -		| {amdahl,hplabs,decwrl}!pacbell!cpro!asgard
	Comedy is hard."	| asgard@cpro.uucp	asgard@well.uucp
				| asgard@wotan.uucp	asgard@fafner.uucp

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 May 89 17:49:27 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Minimalist design


>From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
>Imagine the effect of hitting a clump of copper wires!  Perhaps the proper
>successor to smart rocks and brilliant peebles will be "genius dust".
>These could be naked IC's powered by the sun and propelled by tiny ion
>engines.

Don't laugh too hard. Some people I know at a government lab developed a 
device to be used in tracking honeybees, in preparation for the invasion
of the "killer" bees from the south. The device is essentially a bare chip,
glued to the back of the bee. A portion of the chip is doped to act as a solar
cell, providing power. The chip gives off a signal (infrared or radio
frequency - I forgot which) that can be detected as the bees fly past
the receiving equipment.

It is hoped that eventually various kinds of miniature "machinery" can be
built onto the surface of a silicon wafer.
                                  John Roberts
                                  roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 18:16:26 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!timothym@uunet.uu.net  (Timothy D Margeson)
Subject: Extinctions: Asteroids and Dinosaurs

Hi,

The current issue of Scientific American has an excellant article on the
extintion matter.

There have been extinctions of small and large scale every 26 million years
since fossil records began in the precambrian epoch.

Sometimes the extinctions appear instantaneous, other times they occur over
millions of years.

There is a new hypothesis about the dinosaur extintion that the impact of a
large body into Earth would spatter superheated matter over a vast area of
the planet. This with the fireball would superheat the atomospheric gases
and ignite fires over 90% of the planets surface. Soot has been found in the
iridium layer in several sites around the world.

The article also points out that the 26 million year periodicity meets 
roughly with the rate at which the solar system moves through the arm of our
galaxy and some correlation is plausible.

The current rate of extintions is remarkable. The exact numbers escape me 
but are on the order of 1 per hour in the Amazon region. We ARE in one of
the largest extinctions in the planets history.

The largest extinction was one in which 90% of the oceanic life died. That
particular extinction was hypothesized as caused by environmental change.

What the article points out (and the Shuttle photos of the Amazon I just
received) is that the current burning of forests and coal are making species
drop like flys. The effects are not reversible.

PS: those photos of the Amazon fires have to be seen to be believed. The
smoke covers the ENTIRE BASIN, from the Andes in Columbia and Peru to the
ocean and isle of Marajo. Look at a map for these places to see how large
an area we are talking about. In one of the photos is a detailed close up
of one fire plume estimated to be the size of all the Yellowstone fires
combined - but this Amazon burn is for clearing purposes! The smoke is so
dense over the basin that the sky probably can't be seen from the ground.
Perhaps in the outer regions one could see the ball of the sun, but I'd bet
you wouldn't have to squint.




-- 
Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-022                          @@   'Who said that?'  
Vancouver, WA. 98668
e-mail replies to: timothym@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #457
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 May 89 02:12:56 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA09431>; Fri, 26 May 89 00:39:59 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 26 May 89 00:39:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.MYTB7qW00Ui3A17FAY>;
          Fri, 26 May 89 00:26:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.wYTB4JO00UkZAC5E4l>;
          Fri, 26 May 89 00:22:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <EYTB27K00UkZ4C3k4r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 26 May 89 00:20:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #458

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 458

Today's Topics:
			 Article by Karl Hess
	Rate of Extinction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs )
			re: Space food sticks
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
			Re: Minimalist design
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
	   Re: Extinctions: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (WHY?)
			   Re: Extinctions
			Sci.Space.Shuttle (?)
	   Memes: can memetic theory explain this episode?
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
			    Spencer Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 May 1989 16:16-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Article by Karl Hess

FYI: Libertarian Party News, May/June 1989, p3

		++++++++++++++

	Tools of Technology are Tools of Liberty
		by Karl Hess

Never has it seemed more clear that the tools of technology are indeed
the tools of liberty.

Look at the major advances swirling radiantly on the edge of our
futures: cold fusion, superconductivity, practical space travel,
nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and the endless bounty of
information storage, retrieval and transfer.

The list alone is enough to cause a libertarian to cheer.

Every one of those advances has come farthest in those places where
people are the most free to pursue independent and individual research.
None has emerged specifically because of a socialist or command economy
or social system. The space travel item, admittedly, is a bit iffy. It
has in fact, been a scoialist enterprise so far even in this country.
But what of @i(practical) space travel, the sort of technology that
will get the next century's pioneers out into the asteroid belt to mine
and build?

The age of non-state space travel is just beginning. There's no reason
to believe that the efforts of independant people will not exceed the
efforts of bureaucratized people in space travel as they have in every
other area where the two have contended.

Think of the libertarian implications of the whole array. Cold fusion
opens up a vast energy base that should end the politics of petroleum
and uranium and put energy squarely back into the free market.
Superconductivity envisions ways to use and move energy efficiently,
everywhere and anywhere - perhaps dealing new blows to the increasingly
useless notion of national boundaries.

Nanotechnology, manufacturing at the atomic level, envisions a world in
which purpose can quickly and materially turn into plan by rearranging
and and redirecting the basic particles of the inorganic world, in ways
roughly comparable to the already burgeoning pricesses of doing that in
the organic world through genetic engineering.

The wonderfully "subversive" impact of information-spreading, even in
socialist lands, or in the private and public bureaucracies of
democracies, is well known and does not seem stoppable.

For members of the Libertarian Party, whose work, by definition, is
political, these matters may seem uselessly distant from the immediate
concerns of repealing bad laws, defeating worse ones, and getting our
neighbors even to listen.

Everyone certainly senses how greatly the world is changing and how
rapidly. Libertarian common sense is more and more a shared common
sense. Yet it certainly cannot hurt to have at least in our own minds a
vision of the future that takes all of the magnificent technology into
consideration.

Libertarians can surely and passionately expand on the old adage and
proudly say that we "think galactically and act locally."

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 22:22:09 GMT
From: xanth!nic.MR.NET!thor.acc.stolaf.edu!larsonjs@g.ms.uky.edu  (James S. Larson @ St. Olaf College)
Subject: Rate of Extinction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs )

There has been recent discussion as to the rate of extinction of species.
Some sources said that the rate was only a few dozen a century.  While
that may have been true in the past, the rate has increased dramatically
this century.

According to Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management (edited by Dr. Norman
Meyers, 1984), the annual rate of extinction was less than 1 before
1900.  In 1950 it grew to 6/yr.  In 1975 it was 400/yr.  The projection
for 1990 was 10,000/yr. and the forecast for 2000 was 50,000/yr!!!!

They say "Current estimats suggest that we are losing one species a day
from the 5-10 million species thought to exist.  By the time human
populations reach some sort of ecological equilibrium with their
one-Earth habitat, at least a quarter of all species could have
disappeared."  (p. 155)

This is getting off the topic of the newsgroup, but it illustrates that
we don't need to wait for a one-in-a-million-years asteroid in order
to destroy life on earth.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Larson			|	"What?  You mean behind the rabbit?"  |
| larsonjs@thor.acc.stolaf.edu	|	    -Monty Python and the Holy Grail  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon 22 May 89 16:00:56-PDT
From: Brian Keller <B.BSK@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Space food sticks

< vax5!myk@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu talks about getting the recipe for space
  food sticks >

Yummy!!  I just barely remember eating space food sticks when I was real
little, but they sure were good.  Remember how they had peanut butter, 
chocolate, chocolate fudge, and another flavor or two!  My mom says they
became more and more expensive until nobody bought them anymore, so Pilsbury
stopped making them.  Hard to believe they could be very expensive.  If you
ever find out a recipe, let me know.  Maybe that's how I first became
interested in the space program - eating astronaut food as a little kid!

                                                    Brian S. Keller
-------

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 21:45:48 GMT
From: oliveb!tymix!3comvax!michaelm@apple.com  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <11740@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@helios.ee.lbl.gov> writes:
}In the referenced message, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) wrote:
}>Last I heard, this idea was no longer taken seriously by most people.  It
}>appears unlikely that Nemesis's orbit would be stable against perturbations
}>by other stars over billions of years.
}
}It doesn't have to be stable for billions of years, just for the few
}hundred million that we can see in the fossil record.  This specious
}objection comes straight from a Nature editorial, by the way.
}
}Read "The Nemesis Affair: A Story of the Death of Dinosaurs and the
}Ways of Science", by David M. Raup, 1986.  Read "Nemesis: The Death Star",
}by Richard Muller, 1988.  Then decide.

I haven't read these books, admittedly.  However, would you
mind informing me how Nemesis could possibly have gotten into
a stable (or otherwise) orbit around the sun, if it *wasn't*
an original companion of the sun since the sun's formation?

>            Jef Poskanzer   jef@helios.ee.lbl.gov   ...well!pokey

--
Michael McNeil			michaelm@vax.3Com.Com
3Com Corporation		hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
Mountain View, California	work telephone: (415) 969-2099 x 208

	But what comes after?  What passes when all Creation
	is destroyed, when the gods are dead, and the chosen
	warriors, and the races of men?  ...  Will there be
	gods again; will there be any earth or heaven?  
		*The Ragnarok*

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 06:11:34 GMT
From: voder!berlioz!andrew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Information @ Any Price )
Subject: Re: Minimalist design

In article <8905222149.AA25332@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>, roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
> ...The device is essentially a bare chip,
> glued to the back of the bee. A portion of the chip is doped to act as a solar
> cell, providing power...
> It is hoped that eventually various kinds of miniature "machinery" can be
> built onto the surface of a silicon wafer.

Ahhh - the primitive beginnings of miniature robotics glimmer dimly.
Soon roaches, wasps and hordes of safari ants under radio control descend
upon the unwitting...<fill in the blanks>. It sure beats having to develop
one's own actuators and stabilisation equipment. Now hand me that mantis
neuron map...!!....what's that on my leg? is it wired?
-- 
Andrew Palfreyman 		USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 		there's many a slip
							'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 06:39:41 GMT
From: agate!shelby!Portia!hanauma!joe@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <8946@xanth.cs.odu.edu> aiko@cs.odu.edu (John K Hayes) writes:
>Would this not create the greatest of all earthquakes? I have read
>people's comments on meteor hits in the past, but have not seen any
>reference to this aspect of it.

	I'm not sure about REALLY big hits, but I can tell you that
with ordinary Earthquakes there is a practical upper limit to the amount
of shaking possible, at around 9.2 or so on the Richter scale. A very
few earthquakes achieve this (Alaska, 1964; Chile, 1963 (hope I have
the dates right)). If you pump in more energy beyond this it goes into
locally tearing up rocks, and doesn't propagate away as seismic waves.

	So I wouldn't expect meteors to cause damage far away from the
impact site by standard earthquake-style shaking.

	Incidentally, some geophysicists are waiting quite impatiently
for another mag 9 mega-quake. Such quakes excite the normal modes of the
Earth. For the Chile quake instruments were still recording the ground
all over the Earth moving up and down, up and down, about a millimeter
every hour, a month after the quake. The instruments are _much_ more
sensitive now! Piddling quakes like magnitude 6 or 7 aren't much good.
All the magnitude 7 quakes together sum to only a tiny fraction of
the energy release of one 8 or 9 quake. (Energy goes up about a factor
of 32 with each step on the Richter scale. Don't believe the papers when
they say 10. That number is for ground motion.)
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 13:31:47 GMT
From: titan!phil@rice.edu  (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Extinctions: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (WHY?)

In article <4792@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes:
>The current issue of Scientific American has an excellant article on the
>extintion matter.

So why is this stuff still being cross-posted to sci.space.SHUTTLE?
Is the shuttle going to become extinct because of an asteroid?

			William LeFebvre
			Department of Computer Science
			Rice University
			<phil@Rice.edu>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 May 1989 12:54-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Extinctions

> I've read that the current rate of extinction is about 15 species/century --

This number has got to be wrong. Maybe 15 Chordata species per century.
There are probably more than 15 insect species lost per year in the
Amazon ALONE since the Brazilian government started shipping its
"surplus population" out to slash and burn.

------------------------------

Date:     23-MAY-1989 15:35:57 GMT
From: ZDAC131@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK
Subject:  Sci.Space.Shuttle (?)
Site:     Topical Paradise, KCL London, England
Sender: Malc <zdac131@ELM.CC.KCL.AC.UK>


I've just finished wading through 40 of the latest back issues, and
I found and subsequently lost ;-) a reference to Sci.Space.Shuttle.
Please would someone send me the subscription e-mail address for it.

Re: UFO saga.
    The highly credible British Newspaper the "Sunday Sport" regularly
carries stories of UFO contacts and ET wierdness. (Usually sandwiched between
pictures of topless 'ladies')
"How to tell if your Grandmother is an Alien"
"World War II bomber found on Moon"
So let us PLEASE confine UFO 'discussions' to such reputable and respectable
publications, and spare our humble Sci.Space. :-)
                        Malc

Disclaimer: My friends may purchase items of the above mentioned, I just
        read what they stick on my door ;-)

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 02:54:15 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Memes: can memetic theory explain this episode?

>From my modest readings in Memetics I think that the writers are reifying
significance out of little real substance.  But I could be wrong.  In any case,
I'd like to see a memetic analysis of one of my favorite stories in 
cultural anthropology.  Aside from any facts I may have garbled, the story is
real.

The US maintains one or more isolated research stations at or near the 
South Pole, where they recieve few visitors and where radio conditions are
such as to prevent contact with the rest of the world for long periods.
According to the story, there are two shifts sent there, a summer shift and
a winter shift.  The winter shift has, as one might imagine, the harder time,
spending virtually six months underground in artificial conditions.

One fall the winter team was checking in.  They arrived with their personal
gear and a supply of cultural artifacts designed to entertain and divert
them during their stay.  VCR machines and videotapes were very popular.

After some time the crew had looked at all the available tapes, theirs
and their friends, and were starved for input.  Then some genius took
three of the VCRs and the stack of tapes and began to create a sort of
vernacular art-form consisting of snips of this and that.  According to
the story, he used westerns, Disney movies, pornography, and recordings
previously made from television, among other sources.  It was spliced together
to form a two-hour long, uh, "media event".

>From reports, it was hilarious, and the crew watched it over and over. 
And over and over.  Soon the dialogue which accompanied various scenes
began to creep into conversations at the base; doings and events were 
described in terms of events from the tape.  The tape soon became the 
yardstick with which life and activity was explained and rationalized.

One sees the punchline coming.  When the summer shift arrived, according
to the story, they could *hardly communicate* with the inhabitants.  Some
synergistic effect of the isolation, the mad genius of the tape's author,
and the personalities of the crew members had generated mass schizophrenia.

It might be instructive to get parallel analyses of this even from a 
fundamentalist Xtian, a Scientologist, a General Semanticist, a Freudian 
psychoanalyst, a memeticist, and Buckminster Fuller.  I wish it were 
possible.

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 18:11:24 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!bru-cc!me85mda@uunet.uu.net  (M D Ayton)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

>Oh, come now!  I take it, Ed, that you will not consider Nemesis to
>exist unless/until it is directly observed.  Does this mean you won't
>accept the existence of electrons until someone takes a photograph of one?

No, and photographs can be faked - I may not even believe my very own mark I
eyeball!

B->

Martin.      me85mda@me.brunel.ac.uk
             me85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk

(PS For those who missed the smiley - I am joking)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 May 1989 12:46-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Spencer Report

> NASA picks Martin Marietta to build the Flight Telerobotic Servicer for
> the space station.  [For those who don't know what this is, it's the
> $297M effort mandated by Congress to duplicate Canada's contribution to
> the space station.  Such wonderful things happen in times of tight budgets.]

I'm not sure which stench is stronger here. The smell of Pork or the
smell of Nationalism.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #458
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 May 89 00:37:21 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03045> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 27 May 89 00:34:58 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 27 May 89 00:34:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MYTWBMu00Ui3815UVG>;
          Sat, 27 May 89 00:26:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.MYTW9KC00UkZEFkU4I>;
          Sat, 27 May 89 00:21:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4YTW7Lq00UkZAFj05n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 27 May 89 00:19:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #459

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 459

Today's Topics:
	       Magellan Status for 05/22/89 (Forwarded)
	       Magellan Status for 05/23/89 (Forwarded)
	       Magellan Status for 05/24/89 (Forwarded)
	       Magellan Status for 05/25/89 (Forwarded)
		       News of the Week, May 24
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
		     Oort cloud is not `mythical'
		       Teach your children well
		     Re: The late NEMESIS Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 05:28:17 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 05/22/89 (Forwarded)

[I was on travel the past few days, hence the late postings. -PEY]

MAGELLAN STATUS
May 22, 1989
 
 
        Twice daily momentum wheel desaturations were performed with
nominal results Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Daily star
calibrations also were performed and both stars, Alpha Boots and
Gamma Crux, were detected and a full attitude update was
obtained.
 
        The flight team has been authorized to implement a plan to
alternate use of the high-gain and medium-gain antennas at
different attitudes to collect rocket engine module (REM)
temperature data over a period between days 150 and 190. The
information is expected to help in developing a solution to the
anticipated overheating of the REMs when the spacecraft moves
closer to the sun.
 
        On Saturday, the Cruise-2 sequence was uploaded to the
spacecraft. It included the trajectory correction maneuver
commands for Sunday's rocket burn which project said was "to
perfection." Cruise-2 also will provide commands for the next 12
days.
 
 
 
        
        SPACECRAFT
        Distance  From Earth (mi)                   2,642,052 
        
        Velocity  Geocentric                         5,802 mph
                  Heliocentric                      60,057 mph
 
        Round Trip Light Time                           14.1 sec

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 05:29:03 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 05/23/89 (Forwarded)


                         MAGELLAN STATUS
                          May 23, 1989
 
 
     All Magellan spacecraft systems were working well today. The
Navigation Team continued to refine its estimate of the accuracy
of the Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM) Sunday which appears
to be extremely precise.
 
     Twice daily momentum wheel desaturations and the daily star
calibration were performed as expected.
 
     The X-band was turned on Monday afternoon and the spacecraft
maneuvered to point the high-gain antenna to Earth for 10 hours
of activity. Just before midnight (PDT) the spacecraft was turned
to again aim the medium-gain antenna at Earth.
 
     The first very long baseline interferometry (VLBI)
measurements were taken Monday using 34-meter DSN stations at
Goldstone and Madrid. Also, engineering telemetry recorded
during the TCM Sunday night was successfully played back at 115.2
kilobits per second to Goldstone and relayed to JPL.
 
 
 
 
     
 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance  From Earth (mi)                   2,780,923 
     
     Velocity  Geocentric                         5,770 mph
               Heliocentric                      60,091 mph
 
     Round Trip Light Time                           14.9 sec

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 05:30:14 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 05/24/89 (Forwarded)

MAGELLAN STATUS
May 24, 1989
 
 
        The twice daily momentum wheel desaturations and the daily
star calibration were performed as expected.
 
        Analysis of stored trajectory correction maneuver (TCM)
data confirmed the burn last Sunday was every bit as successful
as first indicated. 
 
 
 
 
        
 
        SPACECRAFT
        Distance From Earth (mi)                   2,919,025 
        
        Velocity  Geocentric                         5,738 mph
                  Heliocentric                      60,128 mph
 
        One Way Light Time                           15 sec

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 23:13:01 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 05/25/89 (Forwarded)


                         MAGELLAN STATUS
                          May 25, 1989
 
 
     Plans are being made to place in Magellan's Cruise 4 and 5
computer command sequences information to help develop a solution
to the rocket engine module overheating problem. Starting with
Cruise-4, which will be uploaded on June 9, the spacecraft will
be turned 180 degrees around an axis through the medium-gain
antenna (MGA) to collect thermal data in a new attitude.
 
     Also, two new stars will be added to the star calibration
sequence in Cruise-4. The spacecraft will scan the stars of a
different spectral class to assist in adjusting the star-scanner
acceptance criteria and on-board attitude determination. Those
scans will not be updated, however.
 
     The twice daily momentum wheel desaturations and the daily
star calibration were performed routinely Wednesday.
 
     Project has determined the time of day Magellan will reach
its aim point at Venus on August 10, 1990. Without further
trajectory correction it would be 10:30 a.m. PDT. Another
trajectory correction maneuver scheduled for December, however,
will skew that time by several minutes.
 
 
 
 
 
 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                   3,056,363 
     
     Velocity  Geocentric                         5,706 mph
               Heliocentric                      60,169 mph
 
     One Way Light Time                           15.2 sec

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 21:02:21 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of the Week, May 24

Jonathan's Space Report

May 24, 1989 (no. 17)

Delta II launch due for tonight if weather allows; Kosmos-2020 is up. 
The first launch of the Ariane 44L due soon.  Rather a quiet patch at
the moment, though. 

Have a nice long weekend; I'm forced to take it off as our system will
be down for upgrade!

-Jonathan

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 14:07:04 GMT
From: nih-csl!jim@uunet.uu.net  (jim sullivan)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <723@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> me85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk (M D Ayton) writes:
>>Oh, come now!  I take it, Ed, that you will not consider Nemesis to
>>exist unless/until it is directly observed.  Does this mean you won't
>>accept the existence of electrons until someone takes a photograph of one?
>
>No, and photographs can be faked - I may not even believe my very own mark I
>eyeball!
>
>Martin.      me85mda@me.brunel.ac.uk

	I hope that I am reading this right because I must get out my
	flame-thrower:
	FLAME ON
	Do I take it that Ayton wants Ed to "consider" the existance of
	Nemesis without any evidence?  I know of a lot of evidence of the
	existance of electrons but very little if any evidence for the
	existance of Nemesis.  And DON'T call periodic extinctions
	evidence.  There are many theories around for the extinctions
	and Nemesis is the least favored.  I, for one, would like to
	know how a binary star system could form with an orbital period of
	20 million years with the companion getting close enough to disrupt
	the asteriod belt with the planets all seeming to have very stable
	orbits.  If you want someone to "consider" a theory without any
	evidence, call it religion, and not science.
	FLAME OFF	


					Jim Sullivan
					jim@nih-csl.dcrt.nih.gov

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 23 May 89 14:54 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Oort cloud is not `mythical'

Ed Nather writes:
>Note that I did not say the theory was wrong, only unproven, and totally
>lacking in observational evidence other than the known evidence it was
>devised to explain.  It has proved to be unprovable, hence "mythical."
>I guess I would like it to be correct, since it's plausible, but my
>gullibility was shattered as a child by an unplanned close encounter
>with the tooth fairy ...

     I think it would be a good idea if you checked your dictionary
again.  Mythical does not mean unproven - rather it is something
fictional, usually with supernatural overtones.  And fictional means
that something is not true.  I agree that the location of the Oort cloud
is in dispute, and that its existence is circumstantial.  It is NOT,
however, mythical or fictional.  Rather, it is a scientific theory like
any other, one that fits the available data reasonably well and better
than any similar theory about the origin of comets.

     Your misuse of the word `mythical' insults the astronomical
community, of which you are yourself a member.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
gill @ qucdnast.bitnet                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 May 89 14:45:26 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?)
Subject: Teach your children well

>From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
>From article <13140@ut-emx.UUCP>, by nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather):
>> In article <13325@swan.ulowell.edu>, devans@hawk.ulowell.edu (Daniel Evans) writes:
>>> 	A couple of years back, I had read some accounts about a tiny (non-
>>> identical) "twin" of our sun, which swings by every few million years or so.
>>> Someone referred to it as "Nemesis".

  [bunch of ASCII deleted]
>
>>> 	My wife's sixth-grade students want to know...
>> 
>> Teach them the difference between theory and observation, and you'll do
>> them a life-long favor.
>> 
>Absolutely.
If anyone here wishes to make one positive impact on space or anything in
the realm of science,  teach your children and your neighbors basic principles
of science.  Observation, experimentation, the "scientific method".

I am never so frustrated and morose about our prospects for the future as
when I find someone misunderstanding science.  Phrases like "it's been
light-years since I saw home" (_Hard Time on Planet Earth_) or the number
of people who use the word new-cue-ler to describe a certain energy source
are just chops at our scientifc position.

Kids who learn basic scientific principles and core mathematics will never
be hurting for jobs.  I just fear that they may find themselves in too much
demand.

more paranoia in the public interest form
Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 22:35:07 GMT
From: oliveb!tymix!3comvax!michaelm@apple.com  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: The late NEMESIS Theory

In article <13185@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
writes:
>In article <1568@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, wyatt@cfatst.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt)
>writes:
>>Several things would have to be verified for the entire NEMESIS theory
>>to be accepted. A short list, off the top of my head:
>>
>>...list mostly deleted ..
>>5) The iridium layer(s) must be of extraterrestrial origin.
>
>The original claim was that the K-T boundary had to be.  One
>comment that I see periodically is that the same irridium anomaly
>that shows up in meteorite abundances is also present (perhaps to
>a lesser degree) in the mantle.  It follows that extensive volcanism
>*might* have a similar effect.  Any geologists following this?

I'm not a geologist, though I've been trying to follow this subject.  
>From what I've been able to determine, a number of geologists agree
with you.  However, there's stress on the *might*.  There's little
evidence for such a major episode of volcanism at the proper time.

>>6) There must be an Ir or other tracer layer at every extinction boundary.
>
>Although there have been some claims along these lines, I believe that
>the K-T boundary is the only well accepted instance.  Given the claimed
>periodicity and the existence of at least one more drastic (although
>earlier) extinction this seems somewhat damning.

I agree that the evidence for meteoric impacts as the cause of
other major extinction events is not particularly convincing.

>One point which I haven't seen treated much is the question of whether
>it is even necessary to explain the (debatable) periodicity using
>astronomy.  Mass extinctions appear to follow from some combination
>of climate and biology.  Dropping rocks on everything (or comets) is
>simply a crude way to ensure this.  However, climate and ecology are
>coupled, extremely complicated nonlinear systems.  One might add
>geological processes, including continental drift, to the list as
>the source of episodes of intense volcanism, disruption of ecological
>systems due to the creation of land bridges, and changes in climatic
>patterns.  It is my understanding that such systems frequently show
>oscillations on somewhat unpredictable time scales that may appear,
>at first glance, crudely periodic. 

The nice thing about the iridium layer and other evidence (see below)
for an impact catastrophe as the explanation for the K-T extinction
events is that it *is* evidence.  In the past there were an endless
number of theories explaining the demise of the dinosaurs (everything
from egg-eating mammals to little green hunters in flying saucers),
but nary a shred of evidence for any of them.  This is much better.

I shan't argue in favor of periodicity -- I don't see it myself.  
However, "mere" climate change, although certainly capable of
instigating large scale extinction events (and, I admit, once
such extinctions begin in tightly coupled ecologies, who knows
where they will end), still seems to me wholly insufficient in
causing the extinction of every land animal over 1 Kg in size,
and three quarters of all species, land and water, on the Earth.

>To take an extreme example, suppose mass extinctions are due entirely
>to episodes of volcanism and the K-T boundary is either a coincidence
>(comet(s) happened to hit close to such an episode) or simply reflective
>of an unusually deep upwelling of mantle material during this episode.
>Then one really needs to explain an approximate periodicity in certain
>kinds of flow patterns in the Earth's core.  I don't think this would
>strike anyone as particularly outrageous.

Extreme volcanism as a explanation of the K-T extinctions, though
perhaps not ruled out by the iridium layer (due to the possibility of
an unusually deep upwelling of mantle material, as you say), *does*
seem to be eliminated by the occurrence of shocked quartz, which has
been found at the K-T boundary all over the world.  Not only is it
thought that no volcanic eruption is violent enough to produce the
shocked quartz in the first place (I understand it has been found
in the past only at meteorite impact sites and nuclear tests), but
it is also believed that no volcanic eruption is violent enough to
have blasted the shocked quartz fragments out of the atmosphere so
they could thereupon rain down on the opposite side of the Earth.

The evidence for the reality of a single meteoric-impact extinction
catastrophe says nothing, of course, about the existence of Nemesis.

It seems to me that detractors of the impact explanation of the K-T
extinctions (I'm not accusing you of this, Ethan!) *and* proponents
of the Nemesis explanation for "periodic" extinction events are
both being reduced to arguing *possibility* rather than probability.  

Yes, it *might* be possible that a massive volcanic eruption would
mimic at least some of the evidence for a K-T impact.  It *might* be
possible that a Nemesis star could withstand eons of extremely tenuous
orbit around the sun, in order to generate the not-particularly-glaring
periodicities we think we see in the geological record.  But where,
pray tell, is the evidence for a volcanic eruption?  Where is Nemesis?
These are handwaved away with talk about "But... it's *possible*!"

> I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
> I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
> there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
>    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

--
Michael McNeil			michaelm@vax.3Com.Com
3Com Corporation		hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
Mountain View, California	work telephone: (415) 969-2099 x 208

	A luminous star, of the same density as the Earth, and
	whose diameter should be two hundred and fifty times
	larger than that of the Sun, would not, in consequence
	of its attraction, allow any of its rays to arrive at us;
	it is therefore possible that the largest luminous bodies
	in the universe may, through this cause, be invisible.  
		P. S. Laplace, *Le Systeme du monde*, vol. II, 1795

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #459
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 May 89 03:34:52 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA10356> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 27 May 89 03:33:12 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 27 May 89 03:33:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UYTYmri00UkT01ukUF>;
          Sat, 27 May 89 03:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.QYTYj2q00UkZ8G3E5Y>;
          Sat, 27 May 89 03:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <AYTYhVi00UkZ4G1k5p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 27 May 89 03:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #460

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 460

Today's Topics:
		       RE: Space Digest V9 #443
	 Re: Memes: can memetic theory explain this episode?
		  Re: For the People of Planet Earth
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
	     Re: Magellan Status for 05/19/89 (Forwarded)
		Re: Geosynchronous debris cleanup law?
			   Mass extinctions
			 Re: Andromeda Strain
		     Re: Teach your children well
		      Re: spaceplane propulsion
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 May 89 15:16:38 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?)
Subject: RE: Space Digest V9 #443

In a Larry Niven novella (The Fourth Profession), the Monks have a device
("wheapon") about the size of a locomotive which can somehow cause the sun
to go out of sequence and pop.  Mr. Niven is very careful not to specify
any details, but could some sort of energy weapon do this?

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 03:09:59 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Memes: can memetic theory explain this episode?

Wow I haven't seen the story of THE MOVIE! posted in quite a while.
Is it always MacLeod who posts it or does the, er, meme get around?
It's a favorite of mine too.  I do think it needs backing up, I mean
is it fiction or can someone cite a reference?
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 20:41:39 GMT
From: jarthur!bevans@uunet.uu.net  (Brian Evans)
Subject: Re: For the People of Planet Earth

In article <2077@lcuxlm.ATT.COM> smd@lcuxlm.ATT.COM (Friends of Earth) writes:
>A summary of 
>positive replies will be made on talk.religion.newage, where future 
>postings of this nature will be made.

Which is where the original posting should have been made in the first
place.  I mean really, "Friends of Earth," didn't you get the picture
the LAST time you posted this that IT DOESN'T BELONG ANYWHERE EXCEPT
TALK.RELIGION.NEWAGE!

-- 
Brian Evans			    "It has been scientifically proven
bevans@hmcvax.bitnet		     that scientists cause cancer in
bevans@jarthur.claremont.edu         laboratory rats."
or !uunet!jarthur!bevans

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 18:10:43 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <6101@nfs4.rl.ac.uk> kgd@inf.rl.ac.uk (Keith Dancey) writes:
>My understanding is that the demise of the dinosaurs extended over a period
>of order of magnitude of a thousand years.  Certainly long enough to place
>doubt upon the viability of a single catastrophy such as the one mentioned.
>If the palaeontological evidence is not contradicted (and I have understood
>it correctly) then a *series* of such catastrophic strikes would be required.
> 
>That is not say a single catastrophy is ruled out, but it looks as though
>its effects must be longer-lived than a few years.

	There is some belief that a gravitational perturbation of the
cometary cloud could produce "showers" of comets in the inner solar system.
Don't take "showers" too literally - it means a handful of hits over
long periods of time - but this has some bearing on your comments.

	Yow! Get off the net for two weeks, come back to 600 articles in
sci.space. :-)

	Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
	Apple Integrated Systems, San Jose
	__@/

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 16:31:57 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 05/19/89 (Forwarded)

In article <Added.YYS95hG00Ui38Rx09B@andrew.cmu.edu>, CHUNTER@UMAB.BITNET (Colin Hunter) writes:
> 
> trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> 
> >             MAGELLAN STATUS
> >             May 19, 1989
> >
> >    SPACECRAFT Distance  From Earth (mi)
> >    2,220,474
> >
> >    Velocity  Geocentric                         5,905 mph
> >              Heliocentric                      59,970 mph
> >
> >    Round Trip Light Time                           12.2 sec
> 
> If  you  are only going to give us a date, these figures show considerable
> redundancy as far as  accuracy  is  concerned.   It is very interesting to
> have the distance from Earth given to 7 significant figures, etc, but this
> is meaningless without an equally accurate time also being stated.  Can we
> assume noon (GMT, EDT, PDT)?

Actually, you've missed the point of this data, that the very foundations
of modern physics are so much quicksand:

     2 x (SPACECRAFT Distance from Earth)/("Round Trip" Light Time =

          2 x 2,220,474 miles/12.2 sec = 364,012.13 miles/sec

The previous record for photon travel was 186,282.etc. miles/sec. However, 
there are rumors steriods (or some recreational drug) were used to produce 
the new record, so it may not be ratified.

Of course, there may just be reporting error, so that 12.2 seconds is the
one-half Round Trip Light Time. The foundations of physics may solidify, 
but other problems arise:

 Index of Refraction = 186,282/(2,220,474/12.2) = 186,282/182006 = 1.0234934

>From a problem set on page 115 of Electromagnetism by Slater and Frank, 1947,
this is higher than the 1.00015 refractive index of H2 and comparable to
the refractive index of air at about 72 atmospheres. I understand that
sunspot activity can expand the earth's atmosphere, but something seems
to be out of kilter. This may have something to do with the Mystery of
the Missing Mass, subtitled Close That Universe After You're Done With It. 
However, it appears unlikely to be of much help in resolving the Problem 
of Not Enough Solar Neutrinos.

I suppose there could still be a problem with the reporting of the results,
but so what.

=============================
-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 17:16:44 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Geosynchronous debris cleanup law?

In article <101270023@hpcvlx.HP.COM> bturner@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Bill Turner) writes:
>> What does this mean?  Did somebody pass a law?  Obviously inactive
>> satellites can't remove themselves.  Is somebody going to fund an
>> international orbit guard? 

There is a general convention, widely supported and complied with although
not carrying the force of law anywhere (that I'm aware of), that a comsat
which is about to run out of stationkeeping fuel should use the last bit
of fuel to leave Clarke orbit.  Given the relatively small amount of fuel
available for the maneuver, this usually means moving into a slightly
higher or lower orbit rather than anything really drastic, but that's
enough to take it out of the high-traffic area.
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:       Tue, 23 May 89 18:42:45 EST
From: JC%RMC.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu
Subject:    Mass extinctions

I  recently heard that species (both flora and fauna)  are becoming extinct
at a rate of 25 to 30 per  day.  This  works  out to 10000 per year,  which
agrees  with  a previous posting to SPACE.  As we  discuss  the  intriguing
possibility of  a  renegade  chunk  of  rock  slamming  into the planet and
causing  mass  extinction,  we  are  doing a fine  job  ourselves  in  that
direction.  When you get up to go to  work tomorrow morning,  there will be
ten less species alive on our planet that when you went to sleep.

     "Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big
      mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place.  And
      some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no
      one should ever have left the oceans."
                                                --Douglas Adams

John Coughlin, BULL Kingston         (613) 541-6439         <JC@RMC.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 23:26:07 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh!ijk@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (ihor.j.kinal)
Subject: Re: Andromeda Strain

In article <1989May21.235904.29836@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) followups
an article in sci.space.

I've added sci.med, since that seems more appropropriate'

[original poster said]:
> >Could we imagine some nasty alien bug which
> >likes warm, moist, carbon-rich environments as energy sources, is not very
> >picky about what it eats, and which our immune system doesn't even see or
> >can't even scratch?
> 

> It's possible.  Last I heard, there just doesn't seem to be any natural
> immunity to AIDS, for example -- we're very lucky that it doesn't spread
> easily.
> 

In today's NY TIME, Science section, there's an article about a blood
carried parasite, found in many people of Latin America - it's not
quite as fatal as AIDS, but can be QUITE nasty, and not much
can be done to stop its spread. [can cause heart failure - and they
won't bother with a heart transplant, since it will get that also].

Apparently, the body's immune system does not react much against it,
so tests for its presence are currently NOT reliable. 
[makes you want to be sure not to get sick to need a transplant :-) ].

Also, there are other diseases that our immune system seem to
be not very effective against:

	malaria, tapeworms, and most recently of note: LYME disease
	
	[see last week's Newsweek for some interesting reading on LYME disease:
	 if the disease is not caught in its early stage 
	{and some 25% of the people don't show any symptoms, so early detection
	is difficult } you are doomed to very EXPENSIVE drug treatments
	at $1000 a treatment, and they that don't necessarily work. 
	While seldom fatal, it can be serious.
	

SUMMARY:  I'm not sure we need alien invaders, thank you.


Ihor Kinal
cbnewsh!ijk

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 03:13:19 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Teach your children well

In article <8905231950.AA01928@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?) writes:
>I am never so frustrated and morose about our prospects for the future as
>when I find someone misunderstanding science.  Phrases like "it's been
>light-years since I saw home" (_Hard Time on Planet Earth_) ...

What is the difference between "light-years since I saw home" and
"miles to go before I sleep"?  Both describe a journey in terms of
the distances involved.
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 14:56:54 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh!dlj@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (david.l.jacobowitz)
Subject: Re: spaceplane propulsion

In article <395@illusion.UUCP>, marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) writes:
> In article <1989May11.202131.1056@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> There are still new boosters being designed using the RL-10.  OK, so we've
> thrown away the F-1 production, but we've also thrown away J-4 production.  It
> seems that the J-4 would have been very attractive for use in smaller boosters

Jeez, is there anything we *didn't* throw away?
--------------------------------------------
usual disclaimer implied
"F-1 Engines?  We don't need no stinkin' F-1 Engines."

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 89 09:15:43 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick!nfs4!kgd@uunet.uu.net  (Keith Dancey)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <1128@unm-la.UUCP> hazel@unm-la.UUCP (Hugh Hazelrigg) writes:
>In article <6101@nfs4.rl.ac.uk> kgd@inf.rl.ac.uk (Keith Dancey) writes:
>>My understanding is that the demise of the dinosaurs extended over a period
>>of order of magnitude of a thousand years.  Certainly long enough to place
>>doubt upon the viability of a single catastrophy such as the one mentioned.
>
>What prevents the effects of a "single catastrophy [sic]" from propagating over
>a period of a thousand years?  On a geological scale of time, the events of a 
>thousand years constitute less than a footnote in a billion-page volume.  
>
True.  But you are forgetting that geology was not the issue in the
article on the relatively sudden extinction of dinasaurs.
The issue was whether a single impact could effect *meteriological*
conditions such that a species would become extinct.  For instance,
whether polluted skies would effect food chains and temperature.  But
if that scenario was to be true, then SURELY a species would die within
its lifetime.  If one dinosaur could survive its entire life under these
conditions, then so could another, and so on.  If dinosaurs took a 
thousand years to become extinct, what finished off the last one that
*didn't* manage to kill its immediate forbears.  If anything, one would
assume that survivors of the first five hundred years would have been
selected to manage better under the austere conditions, rather than
the opposite.  It is also reasonable to assume that these hostile
conditions would *gradually* improve with time, thus *increasing*
the chances of species survival, rather than the opposite.
>
>Look:  a thousand years (or even five or ten) really is just a one-nighter 
>(what a party!).  The earth may have lost a host of magnificent species, but 
>did life disappear?
>
When you are talking about *dramatic* changes in climate and food chains
critically effecting species survival, then the time scales involved must
be of the order of seasons, rather than thousands of years.  One year of
darkness is all that it would take to destroy vegetarian dinosaurs.  But
they lasted for generations.  How?  And if even a single generation could
survive lower temperatures, why couldn't others?

>I believe the metorite/asteroid collision theory to be the best put forward to
>date to explain the demise of the dinosaurs and their ecosystem. Your objection,
>Keith, is ill-considered.
>
Far from it.  There are enormous problems with a *single* catastrophy such
as an asteriod strike *if* the palaeontological evidence is to be believed
(unless dinosaurs lived a thousand years, that is :-).
-- 
Keith Dancey,                               UUCP:   ..!mcvax!ukc!rlinf!kgd
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, England  OX11 0QX             
Tel: (0235) 21900   ext 6756                JANET:       K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl.inf

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #460
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 May 89 05:35:49 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00720> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 27 May 89 05:33:45 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 27 May 89 05:33:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4YTaXbG00Ui340rU53>;
          Sat, 27 May 89 05:22:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.QYTaTIW00UkZMGBU5G>;
          Sat, 27 May 89 05:18:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <wYTaRwu00UkZ0GA05b@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 27 May 89 05:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #461

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 461

Today's Topics:
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
			   Re: Launch noise
		     Spaceplane Propulsion (LACE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 00:58:16 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <6235@nfs4.rl.ac.uk> kgd@inf.rl.ac.uk (Keith Dancey) writes:
: True.  But you are forgetting that geology was not the issue in the
: article on the relatively sudden extinction of dinasaurs.
: The issue was whether a single impact could effect *meteriological*
: conditions such that a species would become extinct.  For instance,
: whether polluted skies would effect food chains and temperature.  But
: if that scenario was to be true, then SURELY a species would die within
: its lifetime.  If one dinosaur could survive its entire life under these
: conditions, then so could another, and so on.

Yes, but that's not really the issue.  To guarantee eventual extinction
you only have to reduce the rate of survival (to reproductive age) to
less than 2 per dinosaur family.  We all know that changes in
temperature affect fertility, not to mention fecundity...   :-)
And there could well be some relationship between temperature and
mortality.  Especially with large egg layers.  So meteorology can
certainly have long term effects on a species.

(What actually happened was the dinosaurs had an industrial revolution with
all the iron in the asteroid, and the standard of living went too high,
and too many of them became dinks.)

: If dinosaurs took a 
: thousand years to become extinct, what finished off the last one that
: *didn't* manage to kill its immediate forbears.

Probably loneliness.    Only 1/3 :-)

: If anything, one would
: assume that survivors of the first five hundred years would have been
: selected to manage better under the austere conditions, rather than
: the opposite.  It is also reasonable to assume that these hostile
: conditions would *gradually* improve with time, thus *increasing*
: the chances of species survival, rather than the opposite.

There are several things to say about that.  If you trigger a mini ice
age it could well last longer than 1000 years.  Moreover, as the
dinosaurs get sparser, it becomes more difficult to find a mate and
de-sparsify the dinosaurs, a nasty form of feedback.  And even if
conditions are improving gradually, the land is now overrun with little
varmints who have a faster selection cycle and took advantage of the
new conditions while the bigger folk were still squeaking by.  Perhaps
the initial catastropic conditions favored small critters that could
get by eating almost anything, even tough dinosaur eggs.  Or malnourished
dinosaurs trying to babysit their eggs.

It's also vaguely possible that the dinosaurs adapted to the cold, but at
the price of losing the ability to adapt to the heat again.  We don't know
enough about dinosaur genetics to rule it out.  (At least, I don't.)

: >Look:  a thousand years (or even five or ten) really is just a one-nighter 
: >(what a party!).  The earth may have lost a host of magnificent species, but 
: >did life disappear?
: >
: When you are talking about *dramatic* changes in climate and food chains
: critically effecting species survival, then the time scales involved must
: be of the order of seasons, rather than thousands of years.  One year of
: darkness is all that it would take to destroy vegetarian dinosaurs.  But
: they lasted for generations.  How?  And if even a single generation could
: survive lower temperatures, why couldn't others?

Maybe they were allergic to the ragweed that grew so well in the cooler
climate.  I think every day I spend in these Santa Ana winds takes several
hours off my life.  (Beats having the smog though.)

If the chaoticists are to be believed, something much less dramatic
than an asteroid is capable much greater consequences than mere
extinction of dinosaurs.  Why, the flap of a butterfly's wing today may
influence whether the universe collapses next week...  well, perhaps
that's a wee bit exagerated...  Still and all, non-linear systems (and
we're not just talkin' weather) can behave oddly under seemingly mild
perturbations.  Let's remember that ecological niches aren't cast in
concrete, but at least partly in the flesh of whatever else wants to
occupy the neighboring niches, not to mention the same niche.  And
precedence matters--last one there is a rotten dinosaur egg!

: >I believe the metorite/asteroid collision theory to be the best put forward
: >to date to explain the demise of the dinosaurs and their ecosystem. Your
: >objection, Keith, is ill-considered.
: >
: Far from it.  There are enormous problems with a *single* catastrophy such
: as an asteriod strike *if* the palaeontological evidence is to be believed
: (unless dinosaurs lived a thousand years, that is :-).

It doesn't take much imagination to see that *something* changed to off
all the dinosaurs.  Just because we have difficulty imagining how the
bullet got from the smoking gun to the victim doesn't mean it didn't (or did).
To bend another saying to our use, we might say that "Absense of imagination
implies imagination of absence."  Just because I can't see the connection
doesn't mean there isn't one.  The "enormous problems" with a single
catastrophe are mostly problems in our head, because we ain't smart enough.
(Nothing personal, Keith.   :-)

I've got it now!  The asteroid hit an oil field situated over a fluorite
deposit sitting on a huge salt dome, and filled the atmosphere with
chlorofluorocarbons.  Anything that couldn't hide under a log and didn't
have fur or feathers had increased risk of skin cancer for the next
N thousand years.   :-)

Yes, unlikely.  But we don't know how many times Mother Nature tried before
she hit the jackpot.  Unlikeliness isn't a big problem in my book.

Go ahead, flame me, I've already reproduced.

Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
"So many programs, so little time..."

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 04:10:36 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Launch noise

In article <8905221828.AA22915@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>>From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
>
>>In article <166@ixi.UUCP>, clive@ixi.UUCP (Clive Feather) writes:
>>> The *BIG* cannon in Jules Verne's "From Earth to the Moon" was called
>>> the "Columbiad". Close enough ?
>
>>... Probably exceeds local noise limits, though.
>
>This is a legitimate concern for any earth-based ballistic launcher (explosive,
>electromagnetic, etc.) Even if the noise of the initial impulse can somehow
>be controlled, a projectile of the size generally mentioned would create a
>tremendous sonic boom, which I suspect would be painfully loud even many miles
>away. This would place constraints on a suitable location for such a launcher.
>
>Have any studies been conducted on the magnitude of the noise problem?
>                                      John Roberts
>                                      roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

It's been a significant concern for laser launching -- enough to 
generate a couple of calculations.  Typical numbers are that a
100 MW launch system generates 80-90 db noise levels -- 
10 km from the launcher!  I've occasionally been known to suggest
modulating the laser rep rate (nominally ~100 Hz) to play
a really impressive bass line for a rock concert :-)

Along the same lines, someplace I have a nice PR mailing from
a small company promoting the electromagnetic launcher concept
that shows an artist's conception of a launcher seen from the
exit end.  The view is of a cliff face with the launcher end
embedded in it, with a line of something (power poles?) stretching
off along the far side of the ridge to show how long the thing is.
In the foreground is a nice cigar-shaped projectile flying out of
the launcher mouth.  And at the top of the cliff, perhaps 50 feet
from the launcher mouth, is a nice modern-looking control building....

with big plate glass windows!

	Jordin (Big Noise) Kare

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 07:01:06 GMT
From: oliveb!mipos3!omepd!mipon2!larry@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Larry Smith)
Subject: Spaceplane Propulsion (LACE)


In article <11357@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
^^Air liquification is an approach the Japanese are taking in their aerospace
^^plane project. The whole point of such a plane is to drastically increase
^^ ...

In article <8088@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
^^net, high mach numbers bring on very tricky engine issues. Couldn't a
^^hybrid be built in which oxidizer injection is gradually increased as
^^altitude and speed begin to cause combustion problems? Eventually the
^^intake ports are closed and the motors are straight liquid fuel rocket
^^ ...

** Long reply. **


Following is some information from one of the Japanese papers presented
at the First International Conference on Hypersonic Flight In The 21st Century.
This conference was held Sept 20-23, 1988 at the University of North Dakota.
The conference was attended by almost all significant international SSTO
(Single Stage To Orbit) projects. The exception was the Russians, who were
invited and said that Mr. A. Tupolev would give a paper, but he did not
appear. When asked later why he didn't appear, he replied: "The time for
talk has passed. Now it is time to work!" The conference was co-sponsored
by: NASA, ESA, AIAA, IEEE/AESS, NAL/STRG, AAS.

The paper is entitled: "A Concept of LACE For Space Plane To The Earth Orbit"
Authors: Hiroyuki Hirakoso, Teruyuki Aoki
	 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.
	 Engine Engineering Dept.

	 Tetsuichi Ito
	 National Space Development Agency of Japan

The paper made the following justification for air breathing engines:

	To successfully design a reusable space plane that can carry
        payloads into orbit, its important to decrease structural 
        weight and increase Isp (Specific Impulse). Isp is the more
        important of the two to increase. Currently, the most practical 
        way to significantly raise Isp, is with a Air Breathing Engine
        (ABE). 

        (The equation for rocket Isp is (Thrust / Propellant Weight Flow Rate).
        The Isp equation must be different for ABEs, because of ram
        pressure increases to thrust (depending on ram engine type).
        A rocket has momentum thrust and pressure thrust components
        only, in its thrust term. The propellant weight flow rate
        for a ABE probably only counts onboard propellant as well.)

        Performance, as measured by Isp, of LOX/LH2 
        (Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Hydrogen) rocket engines is reaching its
        theoretical limit. 

        60%-70% of carried propellants in a LOX/LH2 rocket, are used to
        attain an altitude of 40KM.

The paper made the following justification for a LACE air breathing engine:

	Air above 40KM (~131,000 ft.) is too thin to sustain a Air Breathing
        Engine.

        LACE can perform the total mission. It can accelerate from zero 
        velocity on a runway/launch pad, to Mach 10 at an altitude of 40KM, 
        to orbital velocity via traditional rocket propulsion in the upper 
        atmosphere.

        LACE is a derivative of the rocket engine and inherits many rocket
        engine characteristics.

        LACE represents a lower development risk in that it builds on the same
        base of cryogenic technology used for current LOX/LH2 rockets.

The principle behind a LACE engine is the liquifying of air via a cryogenic
propellant. LH2 is used as the cryogenic because it has a boiling point
(20 deg. K) below that of oxygen (90 deg. K) which makes up roughly 21% of air.
LH2 is circulated through a number of cooling tubes (the Japanese have a
experimental heat exchanger for a 10 ton thrust LACE with 10,000 cooling
tubes), and intake air is circulated through the cooling tube structure.
As a result of this, some of the air is liquified and pools, I assume,
at the bottom of the heat exchanger. The circulated LH2, heats up, and becomes
H2 gas. The hydrogen and liquid air then eventually mix in the rocket's
combustion chamber.

Now, as you can see, the weight of the heat exchanger is a key factor.
They published a table with rough-estimate, engine weight components, for a
different, projected 100 ton thrust class LACE engine. There was supporting
material for their estimation of a sub 1000 Kg Heat Exchanger. It looks
like they have done allot of work on this.

    Air Intake:        200 Kg
    Air Liquifier:     900 Kg
    Liquid Air Spray:  200 Kg
    Rocket Engine:    1600 Kg
    Accessories:       100 Kg
    -------------------------
    Total:            3000 Kg

The total air-handling mechanism (Intake, Liquifier, Air Spray) is just
under the weight of the rocket itself (there may be a air compressor
with a 10 to 1 pressure ratio as well, see LACE techniques below). 

The paper also had block diagrams of 7 different LACE engine techniques.
These techniques describe different ways in which liquification can be
performed and how it would be integrated with the rocket engine. 

They also presented two engine schematics. One for a vertical launch 
LACE where 6 - 100 ton thrust LACE engines, with their tankage, replace
the Solid Rocket Boosters of their H2 rocket. The Isp of the vertical
launch LACE was 700 sec (at sea level static). 700 sec is a LOW Isp
for a ABE. The reason this one is so low, is that this LACE still
burns LOX, even in Air Breathing Mode, but at a lower mixture ratio
than a standard LOX/LH2 engine. The liquid air augments the LOX
in this engine. They say the Isp is still nearly double a standard
LOX/LH2 engine (I thought LOX/LH2 engines have Isp's of ~450).
They claim they can triple their payload with this
technique!! Thrust/Weight was 33/1. The Mixture ratio for a LACE
is expressed as the Liquification Ratio (LR). For a liquid rocket,
mixture ratio is Oxidizer Flow Rate/Fuel Flow Rate, and for a typical
Booster LOX/LH2 engine, mixture ratio is in the 3-4 range (I think). For 
a LACE, LR is Air Flow Rate/Fuel Flow Rate. The LR for this vertical 
launch LACE engine is 6.28/1.0. They intend to build vertical launch LACE
boosters as soon as they're feasable. The other LACE schematic was for a Space 
Plane. It had an Isp of 2600 sec, and a LR of 10.37/1.0. Both of their 
engine designs use several of the following techniques at the same time.

Basic LACE:

                [ LH2 Tank ]
                     |
                     v
                [ LH2 Pump ]
                     |
                     |
------------         v                                       __/
<Air Intake|->-[Heat Exchanger]-->---[liquid air pump]-->---|__  Thrust ->
------------         |                                        ^\
                     |                                        |
                     ------ gaseous H2 ------------------------

Comments:
    This is the simplest form of LACE. Only LH2 is used for liquification.
    The LR is limited to around 4, and therefore hydrogen rich.
    A lower Isp is thus attained.


Oxygen Separation LACE:

                [ LH2 Tank ]
                     |
                     v
                [ LH2 Pump ]              [Liquid Nitrogen]
                     |                           ^
                     |                           |
------------         v                           |            __/
<Air Intake|->-[Heat     ]-->---[liquid]-->--[Nitrogen ]-->--|_    Thrust ->
------------   [Exchanger]      [air   ]     [Separator]       ^\
                     |          [pump  ]                       |
                     |                                         |
                     ------ gaseous H2 -------------------------

Comments:
    The poor mixture ratio of the Basic LACE is improved by making the
    oxygen more concentrated by extracting Nitrogen.


LOX Spray LACE:

                [ LH2 Tank ]
                     |
                     v
                [ LH2 Tank ]
                     |
                     |
------------         v                                          __/
<Air Intake|->-[   Heat Exchanger]-->---[liquid air pump]-->---|__  Thrust ->
------------     ^   |                                           ^\
                 |   |                                           |
                 |   ------ gaseous H2 ---------------------------
                 |
              [LOX Pump]
                 ^
                 |
              [LOX Tank]

Comments:
    To improve the poor mixture ratio of the Basic LACE, LOX is sprayed
    into the sucked-in air. This increases the oxygen concentration, 
    and lowers the temperature of the air. Both contribute to increase
    the liquification of the air. The LOX tank is small compared to
    what is normally carried on a LOX/LH2 rocket. 


Tank Return LACE:

                           [ LH2 Tank ]
                              |     ^
                              v     |
             [ Main ]   [ LH2  ]    |
             [ LH2  ]-<-[ Boost]    |
             [ Pump ]   [ Pump ]    |
                     |    |         |
                     |    |  _______^
------------         v    v  |                                  __/
<Air Intake|->-[   Heat Exchanger]-->---[liquid air pump]-->---|__  Thrust ->
------------     ^   |                                           ^\
                 |   |                                           |
                 |   ------ gaseous H2 ---------------------------
                 |
              [LOX Pump]
                 ^
                 |
              [LOX Tank]

Comments:
    This scheme uses the heat sink capability of the LH2 storage to cool 
    down the gaseous H2 after circulating in the heat exchanger. They
    also use this technique with the onboard LOX in some of their
    designs, to have it help liquification as well.


Air Compressor LACE:

                [ LH2 Tank ]
                     |
                     v
                [ LH2 Pump ]
                     |
                     |  ------------[Liquid Air Pump]-------
                     |  |                                  |
------------         v  |                                  v     __/
<Air Intake|->-[Heat     ]-->---[Air       ]-->-[Heat     ]-->--|_    Thrust ->
------------   [Exchanger]      [Compressor]    [Exchanger]       ^\
                     |                                            |
                     |                                            |
                     ------ gaseous H2 ----------------------------

Comments:
    Increased air pressure from a air compressor, increases the 
    liquifying temperature of the air. Compressed air is sent to the next
    heat exchanger, where it is liquified more easily. The air compressor
    doesn't have to be so big because of the first stage heat exchanger
    cryo-cooling the air. Liquid air is extracted from the first stage
    heat exchanger output for efficiency of the air compression process.


Liquid Air Spray LACE:

                [ LH2 Tank ]
                     |
                     v
                [ LH2 Pump ]
                     |
                     |  ---[Liquid Air Pump]-------
                     |  |                         |
------------         v  |                         v          __/
<Air Intake|->-[Heat     ]-->---[Air       ]-->-[Mixer]-->--|_    Thrust ->
------------   [Exchanger]      [Compressor]                  ^\
                     |                                        |
                     |                                        |
                     ------ gaseous H2 ------------------------

Comments:
    An optimization of the Air Compressor LACE. Spraying 
liquid air can replace the last heat exchanger stage (weight savings).


Expansion Turbine LACE:

                 [ LH2 Tank ]
                      |
                      v
                 [ LH2 Pump ]
                      |
                 -----u-----------------------------
                 |    |                            ^         
------------     v    v                            |             __/
<Air Intake|->-[Heat     ]-------- air -------->[Heat     ]--->-|_    Thrust ->
------------   [Exchanger]                      [Exchanger]       ^\
                 |    |                            ^              |
                 |    |                            |              |
                 |    |-------->[Expansion ]--------              |
                 |    |         [Turbine   ]                      |
                 |    |                                           |
                 |    ------------- gaseous H2 --------------------
                 |
                 |     /
                 -----|  H2 Exhaust
                       \

Comments:
    After the first pass of the LH2 through the heat exchanger,
it becomes a gas. The gas is expanded through an expansion
turbine so that it can be chilled for re-use in another heat exchanger
stage.

General Comments:

The Japanese still have allot of work to do. Example, what about
humidity? Ie: Ice and CO2 (for that matter) buildup on the heat exchanger.
I mentioned heat exchanger weight already. Liquid Air pumps have to
be developed. A variable intake and exhaust nozzle for the very
wide performance range of this engine have to be designed.

The LACE concept originated in the USA in the late 50's. I think the Air
Force, back then, funded some research in this area. They found it to be
unfeasable, and dropped it, but materials science has sure improved
since then.

Personally, I'm glad the NASP consortium is exploring scramjets,
turbo-ramjets, and LACEs. But instead of developing one engine
technology only, why don't they develop several, and test fly them both.
They could have Pratt and Whitney develop scramjets and turbo-ramjets, and 
let Rocketdyne develop the LACE principle, instead of having them both 
do scramjet designs. After reading about LACEs I'm left with the feeling
that they might be easier to do than scramjets, because we're talking
about a Mach 5-10 air breathing engine (LACE), versus a Mach 25 air
breathing engine (scramjet). But don't get me wrong, scramjets and 
turbo-ramjets are VERY important to develop ! At least we could use
LACEs on our vertical launched rockets as well.

Larry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #461
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 May 89 00:46:21 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05553> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sun, 28 May 89 00:44:22 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 28 May 89 00:44:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8YTrP:i00Vs1Q0tE5U>;
          Sun, 28 May 89 00:34:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.EYTrDm:00UkZAH1E5M>;
          Sun, 28 May 89 00:22:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <AYTrC1a00UkZIGzk58@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 28 May 89 00:20:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #462

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 462

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		     Re: Teach your children well
	 Re: Memes: can memetic theory explain this episode?
		      How Hubble will get there
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
		     Re: Teach your children well
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 May 89 19:04:55 GMT
From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #517 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89144.84085712 0.00000430           50573-3 0  2049
2 00424  80.4625 308.8650 0022906 189.7346 170.3394 13.67144906329624
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89127.73360661 -.00000073  00000-0  99999-4 0  2251
2 03029  12.6818  24.5051 0014234 193.9434 165.9362  1.00272634 78738
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89143.19631086 0.00000003                   0  7558
2 08820 109.8282 221.5191 0044873 321.2712  38.4832  6.38663632 49032
GOES 2     
1 10061U 77048  A 89141.83993263 -.00000009  00000-0  00000 0 0  2633
2 10061   7.0900  68.5793 0005415 177.7014 182.0551  1.00278098  5110
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89139.53623295 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1216
2 10684  63.5532 101.7321 0107762 199.2805 160.2727  2.00560981 67950
GPS-0002   
1 10893U 78 47  A 89137.99862650 -.00000028  00000-0  00000 0 0  9798
2 10893  64.5286 342.6121 0155489  29.3287 331.4770  2.00556930 80740
GOES 3     
1 10953U 78062  A 89140.89064257  .00000079  00000-0  99999-4 0  6581
2 10953   5.9601  71.3115 0005919 277.4090  82.2234  1.00281321   663
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U 78064  A 89140.05821680  .00001244  00000-0  48309-3 0  1169
2 10967 108.0055 229.6754 0002670 252.3859 107.6979 14.34578957570057
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89135.81972682 -.00000027                   0    90
2 11054  64.0718 339.1421 0055368 117.0090 243.5906  2.00561124 77719
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89141.40778364 0.00000011                   0  1521
2 11141  63.5617 101.5565 0058415 321.3702  38.1743  2.00573960 76520
NOAA 6     
1 11416U 79 57  A 89136.05520938  .00001106  00000-0  48169-3 0  8460
2 11416  98.5063 134.0541 0011216 198.4608 161.6187 14.25737820513324
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89145.11070757 0.00048275           81458-3 0  9520
2 11703  28.5030  81.9387 0001476 341.0583  18.9937 15.50251710516253
GPS-0006   
1 11783U 80 32  A 89141.86267015 -.00000027  00000-0  00000 0 0  8900
2 11783  63.7306 338.5710 0149556  63.7630 297.7776  2.00568572 66472
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U 81049  A 89141.74455507 -.00000241  00000-0  99999-4 0  7296
2 12472   2.5243  79.7760 0005046 217.5212 142.9813  1.00246455 28347
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89143.57846926  .00017523  00000-0  63915-3 0  1962
2 12887  97.6872 168.8171 0002308  45.9003 314.2431 15.28222761421396
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U 81100  B 89143.10166730  .00067182  00000-0  92658-3 0  5696
2 12888  97.5557 195.1436 0003104 183.5591 176.5650 15.56982352425081
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U 82 25  A 89139.29870599  .00000250  00000-0  21521-3 0  6386
2 13113  82.5366  81.7237 0015637 137.6013 222.6358 13.83990228361241
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89144.65553428 0.00003151           79420-4 0  5834
2 13138  51.6103  72.6642 0001022  57.3969 302.7369 15.41205394404568
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89142.60765872  .00000084  00000-0  23629-4 0  9598
2 13367  98.2136 206.5783 0001250 317.8153  42.2975 14.57098905364345
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89137.44615328 0.00000555           28639-3 0  7736
2 13718  81.2435 311.6245 0057220  86.1533 274.6209 14.13181782331215
IRAS       
1 13777U          89138.33645661 0.00000549           40687-3 0  6361
2 13777  99.0461 335.8582 0014071  37.9801 322.2356 13.98592460322020
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89139.64876346 -.00000233  00000-0  99999-5 0  7943
2 13969   3.4033  71.0328 0001971  74.8900 284.3462  1.00275010 89114
GOES 6     
1 14050U 83 41  A 89141.94134694  .00000122  00000-0  00000 0 0  9544
2 14050   1.2346  83.2478 0000938 146.6872 212.4016  1.00267368  6346
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U 83 58  B 89133.63044561 -.00000018  00000-0  00000 0 0  3986
2 14129  26.2912 265.5123 6056158  41.6955 351.1922  2.05880761 16508
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89136.96497340 -.00000008          -60386+2 0  6286
2 14189  63.1877 100.3306 0135226 215.5846 143.4804  2.00569782 42818
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U 83109  A 89136.52887798  .00000543  00000-0  22931-3 0  7189
2 14452  81.1629 325.2796 0094384 187.1890 172.7941 14.22158661288040
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89144.62994452 0.00006161           13753-2 0  7674
2 14780  98.1682 207.3241 0002078   1.2280 358.9388 14.57142270278133
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U 84 21  B 89139.19293824  .00002536  00000-0  49730-3 0  4474
2 14781  98.0032 198.8283 0014858  53.1318 307.1367 14.63517545278309
LDEF       
1 14898U 84 34  B 89142.89756837  .00030579  00000-0  53333-3 0  8528
2 14898  28.5068 354.7032 0002762 343.6675  16.3330 15.49287204287528
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89136.02595318 0.00000010                   0  6602
2 15039  62.9135  99.6471 0015753 274.1210  85.6726  2.00564301 36071
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U 84 72  A 89139.67288665  .00000399  00000-0  35094-3 0  9392
2 15099  82.5317  29.0563 0013120 325.0580  34.9696 13.83660067246174
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89136.42575814 -.00000028                   0  6210
2 33271  63.3738 338.5510 0099419 320.5931  38.7289  2.00565115 33196
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U 84105  A 89143.06318279  .00002575  00000-0  37305-3 0   241
2 15331  82.5408   1.6440 0024026 162.3622 197.8382 14.75550734250515
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89141.35005720 0.00000911           51801-3 0  3738
2 15427  99.1413 127.7700 0016179  31.8599 328.3547 14.12013078228664
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89138.96557245 0.00000230           19654-3 0   803
2 15516  82.5355 328.0112 0015387 194.4767 165.5957 13.84103834217011
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89144.85006596 -.00002817          -61957-4 0  2619
2 16095  51.6091  71.7119 0001229  34.7504 325.4212 15.41205907404593
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89137.07911354 0.00000011                   0  3148
2 16129  63.7070 100.2358 0115839 150.3801 210.2537  2.00564823 26411
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89140.70296138 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8300
2 16191  82.5502 255.1708 0019818  10.0172 350.1329 13.16870093171907
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89140.71391474 0.00000269           23213-3 0  4903
2 16408  82.5360 241.4687 0017121  23.1854 337.0072 13.84170127171759
Mir        
1 16609U          89144.63267446 0.00013525           21094-3 0  8584
2 16609  51.6215 121.2206 0011213 341.2191  18.8603 15.54108918187506
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89144.83383565 -.00012831          -60515-2 0  4758
2 16613  98.7380 219.6453 0000973 142.1438 217.9730 14.19988763  8818
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89140.82632696 0.00000312           27212-3 0  3004
2 16735  82.5355 268.1911 0015883  87.7838 272.5142 13.83911192150676
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89144.72318619 0.00007518           11055-2 0  6145
2 16881  82.5262  59.6751 0023158 171.4161 188.7288 14.75169015151833
EGP        
1 16908U 86 61  A 89142.42533593 -.00000045  00000-0 -43229-4 0  1259
2 16908  50.0135  17.2815 0011058 280.6652  79.2940 12.44377531126207
FO-12      
1 16909U 86 61  B 89141.68312223 -.00000025  00000-0  99999-4 0  1456
2 16909  50.0144  19.7909 0011031 275.9006  84.0546 12.44399338126104
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89141.36433320 0.00000842           39080-3 0  2201
2 16969  98.6398 172.3670 0013451 333.4036  26.6449 14.23003626140124
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89140.09985266 0.00000219           18837-3 0  2518
2 17290  82.4671 176.3094 0013541 348.5954  11.4894 13.83719409119734
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89142.64089760 -.00000551  00000-0 -39713-3 0  1250
2 17527  99.1503 214.3116 0001278 102.9883 257.1399 13.94849764114814
GOES 7     
1 17561U 87 22  A 89141.63589100 -.00000041  00000-0  99999-4 0  2745
2 17561   0.0121 303.4742 0001425 197.7392 218.8261  1.00277144  1497
Kvant      
1 17845U          89144.82553237 0.00045071           68238-3 0  7619
2 17845  51.6198 120.2628 0011673 343.1042  16.6913 15.54129731123801
RS-10/11   
1 18129U 87 54  A 89142.87048828  .00000182  00000-0  18865-3 0  7657
2 18129  82.9270 256.8466 0013166 119.4720 240.7770 13.71976888 95929
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89144.74157572 0.00152150  11958-4  22408-3 0   477
2 18225  71.8672 117.9276 0010137 242.5711 117.4063 16.04795694107537
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89140.27866792 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2712
2 18312  82.5559 241.6411 0010789 275.9094  84.0851 13.83468294 88652
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89140.85010641 0.00000180           15185-3 0  1135
2 18820  82.5420 302.2807 0016805 350.6080   9.4762 13.84154451 65900
AO-13      
1 19216U          89 89.37166448 -.00000028           10000-3 0   346
2 19216  57.2895 213.9669 6688587 201.4192 106.6281  2.09699506  6084
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89142.87602340  .00001279  00000-0  18757-3 0  3819
2 19274  82.5154 160.0157 0021512 318.1038  41.8482 14.74688316 47359
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89140.91635919 0.00000390           10000-2 0  1971
2 19336  82.5438 194.9494 0016861 208.3214 151.6986 13.16845822 39329
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89141.32770476 0.00000752           43887-3 0   771
2 19531  98.9370  85.4729 0011599 313.1175  46.9025 14.10998035 33684
TDRS 2     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89 88.95555250  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   220
2 19548   0.3759  85.6281 0002664 253.4727  20.8853  1.00266482   994
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89138.08673647  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   368
2 19802  55.1186 213.0064 0068830 155.7676 204.6269  2.00554512  1820
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89139.85198623 0.00000116           10000-3 0   381
2 19851  82.5223 181.7988 0015571  33.1244 327.2402 13.83799887 11168
TDRS 3     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89140.54014464 -.00000206  00000-0  99999-4 0   145
2 19883   0.2650  70.1857 0004792  60.6512 229.2573  1.01123680   422
1989 027B  
1 19920U          89119.09018115 -.00044246  19062-4 -69849-5 0   349
2 19920   4.5235  17.2364 7326100 212.1714  83.2276  2.31530723   635
Cosmos 2016
1 19921U          89122.43552170 0.00000152           15077-3 0   273
2 19921  82.9594 120.0189 0038515 217.6923 142.1535 13.73921585  3800
1989 028B  
1 19922U          89117.08932977 0.00000059           54697-4 0   296
2 19922  82.9550 123.9075 0033528 215.3243 144.7293 13.75750065  3071
Raduga 23  
1 19928U          89137.18522349 -.00000154           10000-3 0   446
2 19928   1.3545 277.7136 0002516  53.1772 306.5633  1.00268455   345
1980 030D  
1 19931U          89128.45891538 -.00000015           10000-3 0   131
2 19931   1.4156 276.8888 0017886  17.5390 342.5731  0.97924528   252
Cosmos 2018
1 19938U          89138.65810262 0.00948361  40344-4  31726-3 0   701
2 19938  62.7992 325.3796 0098866  65.6693 295.4718 16.13844776  4494
1989 033C  
1 19970U          89137.23696754 0.00005355           18531-2 0   152
2 19970  28.0053 331.8252 6564429  14.0215 357.8855  3.20955312   392
1989 036A  
1 19986U          89145.16571216 0.00758760  34632-4  31407-3 0   218
2 19986  64.7820  77.3863 0120024  88.1646 268.1558 16.07714677  1235
1989 037A  
1 20000U          89145.23895233 0.00129520  54825-5  10994-3 0    67
2 20000  69.9539  79.5998 0048321  13.5132 346.6679 16.10742593   138
1989 037B  
1 20001U          89144.98924932 0.02785553  20643-4  12706-2 0    44
2 20001  69.9617  80.3629 0050215  63.2940 297.4536 16.18400335    94
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 22:27:43 GMT
From: biar!trebor@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Teach your children well

In article <8905231950.AA01928@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?) writes:
>I am never so frustrated and morose about our prospects for the future as
>when I find someone misunderstanding science.  Phrases like "it's been
>light-years since I saw home" (_Hard Time on Planet Earth_) ...

	This is known as the ``Kessel Run Syndrome'' and is
	a cliche in the movie business, as are computers with
	lots of flashing lights, etc.

-- 
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP
``The worst thing about being a vampire is that you can't go to matinees
  and save money anymore.''

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 02:45:53 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Memes: can memetic theory explain this episode?


Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod) recently posted a story
about a South Pole group which (under the influence of a spliced 
together tape) had reached the state where they could hardly communicate
with the summer shift change.  He requested input from "a memeticist" to
explain what was going on.  From the memetics viewpoint human minds are
as vulnerable to some classes of memes as computers are to computer
viruses.  The origin of this vulnerability is the ability of people to
learn from each other.  Just as computers can communicate viruses to
each other, we can communicate accents, jokes, social movements, etc.
I find (to my great annoyance) that I pick up "you know" if I am in the
presence of people who use it.  There is no simple way I can see to
get around this vulnerability; our cells can't give up replicating DNA
to avoid viruses, and we can't give up our ability to learn from one
another.  In the particular environment involved in this case, even
those slow to pick up others' traits would get them from incessant 
exposure.  As to the details of why this spliced tape had such a
strong effect in this particular case, I would very much like more
details and a cance to look at the tape.  Keith Henson

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 15:00:01 GMT
From: phil@rice.edu  (William LeFebvre)
Subject: How Hubble will get there

[ Excuse the cross-posting, please. ]

Here's something I found out yesterday.  Currently, the Hubble Space
Telescope is being stored in California.  Everyone knows that it is going
to be launched (some day) on a shuttle from the Cape (Florida east coast).
But apparently, the only safe way to transport it is by boat.  Which means
it will almost certainly have to go thru the Panama canal.........Let's
hope things improve down that way in the next year.    Sigh.

			William LeFebvre
			Department of Computer Science
			Rice University
			<phil@Rice.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 00:44:06 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

In article <3313@kalliope.rice.edu> phil@rice.edu () writes:
>it will almost certainly have to go thru the Panama canal.........Let's
>hope things improve down that way in the next year.    Sigh.

Fortunately, the situation has changed.  The USAF has refitted a couple
of C-5s to carry large military space payloads, and one of them will be
borrowed to take HST to the Cape.  The possibility of encountering trouble
going via Panama wasn't entirely lost on NASA, although they were thinking
of terrorism rather than unstable governments (officially, at least).  But
until the C-5 refit was well underway, there wasn't an alternative.
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 13:41:45 GMT
From: ecsvax!ruslan@mcnc.org  (Robin C. LaPasha)
Subject: Re: Teach your children well

> >>> 	My wife's sixth-grade students want to know...
> >> 
> >> Teach them the difference between theory and observation, and you'll do
> >> them a life-long favor.
> >> 
> >Absolutely.
> 
> I am never so frustrated and morose about our prospects for the future as
> when I find someone misunderstanding science.  Phrases like "it's been
> light-years since I saw home" (_Hard Time on Planet Earth_) or the number
> of people who use the word new-cue-ler to describe a certain energy source
> are just chops at our scientifc position.
> 
> Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 

Not to diverge too far into sci.lang's proper territory here,
but I suspect that the nuclear > nucular stuff is an unconscious
reversal.

Things like that tend to happen with l's and r's; I caught a
linguistics professor saying that, tried to point it out to
him, but he wouldn't acknowledge (1)that he'd said anything
but the standard version, and (2)that there was a difference...
such stubbornness!

In other words, I'd say it's a language issue rather than
one of scientific information.  

Oh, I'm five hundred light-years away from home...
(See?  Maybe we can fight back with folk songs?!)
;^) ;^) ;^)
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Robin LaPasha               |Deep-Six your
ruslan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu    |files with VI! ;^) ;^) ;^)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #462
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 May 89 05:35:37 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00693> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sun, 28 May 89 05:33:51 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 28 May 89 05:33:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oYTvdI600Ui3E0tk4n>;
          Sun, 28 May 89 05:22:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.kYTvZpa00UkZEHNE5O>;
          Sun, 28 May 89 05:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <IYTvY9m00UkZ8HLk5C@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 28 May 89 05:16:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #463

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 463

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Launch noise
		   Re: Re: Private Space Companies
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
			 Re: Andromeda Strain
		     Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs
		   Re: Re: Private Space Companies
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		     Re: Teach your children well
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
		  Proposed improvements for Arecibo
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 23:06:17 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@PT.CS.CMU.EDU  (Ralf Brown)
Subject: Re: Launch noise

In article <24394@mordor.s1.gov> jtk@mordor.UUCP (Jordan Kare) writes:
}>[noise from non-rocket launchers]
}It's been a significant concern for laser launching -- enough to 
}generate a couple of calculations.  Typical numbers are that a
}100 MW launch system generates 80-90 db noise levels -- 
}10 km from the launcher!  I've occasionally been known to suggest
}modulating the laser rep rate (nominally ~100 Hz) to play
}a really impressive bass line for a rock concert :-)

Almost good enough for "Disaster Area" :-)  A quick off-the-cuff calculation
gives me 170 dB at the vehicle--rather painful, I would imagine.






(for those not familiar with the reference, "Disaster Area" is a rock group
in _Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_ which plays such loud music that the
optimum distance from the speakers is 37 miles....)

-- 
{harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) 
ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make.
FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler
BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something?
--

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 89 14:46:34
From: Lutz Massonne <ESC1325@ESOC> (+49-6151-886-701) <ESC1325@ESOC.PROFS>
Subject: Re: Re: Private Space Companies

In his recent posting (SPACE Vol.9 Issue 408) Henry Spencer said that
"very little; essentially none" of Ariane is private.
I don't agree to this point of view.

The Ariane launches are at present marketed by Arianespace, a private
company intending to make money out of this business. The launcher are
built to their orders by European aerospace firms, most of them are
private companies.

The Ariane rockets were developed by ESA, a multi-government agency, but
now ESA itself has to *BUY* the launchers and launch services from
Arianespace. The development costs of the launcher are have thus not been
paid by Arianespace, but this is also true for some of the US private
launch enterprises (I remember that some of them uses MX technology -
I suppose MX was developed from the taxpayers pockets).

Therefore I consider Arianespace as a private company, and they
are making money from space business (IMHO the only way to keep
a space effort alive in the present budget-cutting times).

The deeper sense behind this is, of course, ESA's status as 1) non-profit
and 2) non-military organisation.

To overcome 1) is in the interest of every taxpayer in Europe (and Canada :-)),
overcoming 2) is in the interest of some ESA member states (note that
a British military communications sat was launched by Ariane(space) quite
recently).

Disclaimer: This mailing expresses my personal opinions only,
neither mbp's nor ESA's. I accept no liability for any of my
statements and give no guarantee for their correctness.
Some parts of this mail may be meant humorous or are simply cynic.

+------------------------------------------------------+
| Address: Dr. Lutz Massonne, OAD/mbp, ESOC,           |
|          Robert-Bosch-Str.5, D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG   |
+------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 17:30:43 GMT
From: dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!larry!jwp@speedy.wisc.edu  (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

In article <3313@kalliope.rice.edu> phil@rice.edu () writes:
>Here's something I found out yesterday.  Currently, the Hubble Space
>Telescope is being stored in California.  Everyone knows that it is going
>to be launched (some day) on a shuttle from the Cape (Florida east coast).
>But apparently, the only safe way to transport it is by boat.  Which means
>it will almost certainly have to go thru the Panama canal.........Let's
>hope things improve down that way in the next year.    Sigh.


The boat plan has been changed.  It was going to go by the "Greenwave",
a Navy ship.  Now it's going by air (some reject C5, I hear).
-- 
Jeff Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 20:24:02 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun5.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w@g.ms.uky.edu  (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

In article <3313@kalliope.rice.edu> phil@rice.edu () writes:
>[ Excuse the cross-posting, please. ]
>
>Here's something I found out yesterday.  Currently, the Hubble Space
>Telescope is being stored in California.  Everyone knows that it is going
>to be launched (some day) on a shuttle from the Cape (Florida east coast).
>But apparently, the only safe way to transport it is by boat.  Which means
>it will almost certainly have to go thru the Panama canal.........Let's
>hope things improve down that way in the next year.    Sigh.
>

Actually it will go in a C5A transport plane. It was going to go by
boar, but recently it was determined that the place could carry the
load. The people at STSCI are much happier with it travelling by
plane. 



-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 89 17:41:18 GMT
From: pyramid!prls!philabs!gotham!ursa!jmd@decwrl.dec.com  (Josh Diamond)
Subject: Re: Andromeda Strain

In article <8905181459.AA03853@crash.cs.umass.edu> ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>
>    In the *movie* version it was not an asteroid, it was a space
>    probe.  It has been a long time since I saw it, but there was I
>    think the implication of a possibility that the probe was lanched
>    by the military in order to collect extraterrestrial material.
>    Also, It didn't decompose plastics at all.  It caused blood to
>    coagulate comletely, which kind of slowed the heart down.  In the
>    end it was found that it didn't do well in an oxygen environment.
>    However, all of the high-tech machines broke down, for stupid reasons
>    that the movie maker thought representative of engineering narrow
>    mindedness, and so it took them much too long to figure this out.
>
	[second paragraph omitted]
>    
>    Chris Eliot

Sorry. Watch the movie again....

You are partially correct: In the *movie* version it was a space probe.  
The probe was specifically designed to scoop up particles from the upper 
atmosphere.  The organism was fount on a small particle which was found 
in/on the probe.

However your statement that "It didn't decompose plastics at all" is false.
In fact, it mutated into a form which was non-harmful to animal life, but
which did decompose plastics.  It was then found that the organism could not
survive in an alkaline environment -- like the ocean.  They couldn't use 
"The Bomb" to eradicate it, because that would either make it grow faster,
or mutate it again.  So they just let it go, figuring it would die when the 
rain washed it down into the ocean.

				More ravings from...

						  	Josh

-- 
Josh Diamond			{philabs.phillips.com, sun.com}!gotham!ursa!jmd
				      ...!{sun, philabs, pyrnj}!gotham!ursa!jmd

We're on an express elevator to hell -- GOING DOWN!!

------------------------------

Sender: "Dennis_C._Brantly.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Date: 23 May 89 05:14:00 PDT (Tuesday)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs
From: Brantly.WBST129@Xerox.COM
Cc: Brantly.WBST129@Xerox.COM


RE: "Does anyone knows others example of strange disappearance ?"

The June 89 issue of Astronomy has an excellent article titled "Piecing
Together Earth's Early History" by William K. Hartmann, that has an
interesting statement:

"Environmental scientist James C. Walker has suggested that the early
lmbrium-scale impacts that occured intermittently may have caused several
extinctions of the earliest lifeforms, but after each such event, life
restarted.  Sketchy evidence for such as idea comes from the observation
that later fossils (such as at 3.1 billion and 2.7 billion years ago) may
not be decended from the earliest fossil species.  The creation of life may
thus have begun and ended several times over before the rain of impacts
decreased enough to let life endure."

So don't just think that mass extinctions involved just a portion of life
on Earth, some could have involved all of life (on Earth).

Dennis

Brantly:WBST129:Xerox

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 16:48:03 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <Added.MYSjRKu00UkTQ=BE51@andrew.cmu.edu> ESC1325@ESOC.PROFS (Lutz Massonne, +49-6151-886-701) writes:
>In his recent posting (SPACE Vol.9 Issue 408) Henry Spencer said that
>"very little; essentially none" of Ariane is private.
>I don't agree to this point of view.
>
>The Ariane launches are at present marketed by Arianespace, a private
>company intending to make money out of this business. The launcher are
>built to their orders by European aerospace firms, most of them are
>private companies.

In theory.  In practice, Arianespace has about enough authority of its own
to blow its nose without government permission, and the aerospace firms
are in a similar situation.  There is a nominal financial separation between
the governments and the companies, but in reality the governments are still
in charge.  The financial separation breaks down whenever it gets in the
way, e.g. for new development.

>... The development costs of the launcher are have thus not been
>paid by Arianespace, but this is also true for some of the US private
>launch enterprises...

In fact it's true for all of the major "private" launch suppliers in the
US, which is why I put "private" in quotes.  The separation between the
companies and the government is very thin there too.  General Dynamics,
to pick only one example, basically does what the US government tells it
to do, because the US government is all that keeps GD alive.

Boeing -- which is not currently in the space-launch business, although
it has a long-standing interest in the notion -- is probably the only
big aerospace company in the world that can afford to go its own way
and make its own decisions.

The only truly private launch enterprises in the world are some of the
new ones in the US, which may have government customers but have no
government subsidies and no major government influence on management
(and no history of government work to drive efficiency down and costs up).
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 22:15:55 GMT
From: pacbell!ditka!bucket!leonard@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <21213@genrad.UUCP> dls@genrad.UUCP (Diana L. Syriac) writes:
<In article <1903@anasaz.UUCP> scott@anasaz.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
<>Peter Scott writes:
<>>whether one name will be painted on one side and one on the other, or why on
<>>earth they felt it necessary to use non-American spelling at all...
<>
<>The Endeavour is named for a British sailing vessel of some exploratory
<
<
<I thought it was interesting to note that the latest issue of AWST 
<dated 15-May-89 spelled the name "Endeavor", NOT "Endeavour".....

I'd chalk this up to the now "standard" use of spell-checker programs
*instead* of proofreaders. Any spellchecker sold in the US is going to
tell you to change Endeavour to Endeavor (and colour to color). I wouldn't
be very surprised to hear that many of the "or" spelling votes from the
schools were from teachers *mistakenly* correcting the spellling.
-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 06:30:01 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Teach your children well

In article <14345@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

>>I am never so frustrated and morose about our prospects for the future as
>>when I find someone misunderstanding science.  Phrases like "it's been
>>light-years since I saw home" (_Hard Time on Planet Earth_) ...

>What is the difference between "light-years since I saw home" and
>"miles to go before I sleep"?  Both describe a journey in terms of
>the distances involved.

Or how about people who describe distances in terms of time? Examples:
"The shopping mall is only 15 minutes from here", or "it is about an hour
to the city."

It seems to me that the original poster made a misinterpretation of the
phrase he posted....I don't really see what is "wrong" about describing
a journey in terms of distance rather than time, or vice-versa.



Neal

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 89 17:20:52 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

>From Radio-Electronics magazine, June 1989 issue, page 6:
 
"The results of a survey entitled "Engineers Preview Highlights of the
22nd Century City" were presented by Robert E. Hogan, president of the
American Consulting Engineers Council, during National Engineers Week
(February 19-25, 1989).  The survey, which was distributed to over 2,000
American engineers of all disciplines, asked the respondents to describe
in detail the technological advances that would be achieved by the 22nd
century.
    While some of the results came as no surprise--we will live to an
average age of 80 to 100, and critical environmental problems will include
lack of clean air and water and hazardous waste disposal--others were more
innovative.  More than one-third of those surveyed believe that we will
communicate with extraterrestrials;  that we will inhabit the Moon and
man-made planets; and that artificial body parts will be so commonplace
that they will be sold as "off-the-shelf" items to be purchased as needed."

How do you like them apples?  ET's and space habitats lumped together.
Think about that the next time you look for a consultant.  Maybe that would
be a good screening question, "Do you believe Earth is being visited by ET's?"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 May 89 14:29:12 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Proposed improvements for Arecibo


(From the May 1989 issue of Sky & Telescope)

The 1000-foot radio telescope at Arecibo Observatory has a spherical rather
than parabolic nonmoving dish, so the telescope can be "pointed" in different
directions by moving the pickup point. Unfortunately, this induces spherical
aberration (the received energy does not all focus on a single point), so
a 96-foot line of receivers must be used as the pickup. It is proposed that
this system be replaced [or augmented, so the telescope can "point" in
two directions at once?] by small secondary and tertiary reflectors, shaped
to correct for spherical aberration, so the signal can be focused into a single
feed horn. The two smaller reflectors would hang over the main dish from the
central pickup, and would be surrounded by an 80-foot geodesic dome structure
to shield them from earth-based radio noise. This modified receiver is called
a Gregorian subreflector.

Additional proposed improvements include putting up a 60-foot metal mesh fence
around the main dish to reduce noise, and replacing the current 450,000 watt
radar transmitter with a 1,000,000 watt system.

It is expected that these modifications will improve sensitivity for radio
astronomy by a factor of 10, and for radar studies of the solar system by
a factor of 40. Anticipated new targets for radar mapping include asteroids,
comets, the moons of Mars, and the surface of Titan (!)

The expected cost for these modifications is $20 million. NASA has offered
to provide half of that, but finding the remaining $10 million has been a
problem. There is some hope that it can be obtained from NSF. [Private
donations for astronomy, while often substantial, seem to be biased in favor
of optical astronomy.]
                             John Roberts
                             roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #463
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 May 89 04:32:52 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00545> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 29 May 89 04:31:22 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 29 May 89 04:31:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYUD:Ri00jZdA0qkAh>;
          Mon, 29 May 89 03:34:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.4YUCw6G00UkZMILk5e>;
          Mon, 29 May 89 03:19:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YUCtku00UkZEIKE4T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 29 May 89 03:17:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #464

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 464

Today's Topics:
		     space news from May 1 AW&ST
		Re: Proposed improvements for Arecibo
			   Magellan update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 May 89 03:23:20 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 1 AW&ST

Editorial criticizing both DoD for trying to refuse further funding for
the Aerospace Plane and NASA for offering to scale it down to an "unfocused,
interminable technology research effort".

Soviets offer to sell multispectral digital images at 4-5m resolution, price
negotiable.  [Previously the only thing they've sold at that resolution has
been actual photographs on film; most of their customers want digital data.]

Spot's 1988 fiscal year a considerable success.  In FY87 60% of Spot sales
were to the French government, but that percentage is now down to 30%,
mostly because of nearly 100% growth in overall sales.

NASA offers to take over the Aerospace Plane, converting it to a technology
development effort.  3-4 years from now, with the technology well pinned
down, NASA would ask DoD to fund the test vehicle.  The result, obviously,
would be about a 4-year delay in the first flight.  [If lucky, that is.]

DoD budget cutting delays Boost Surveillance Tracking Satellite system,
SDI's foot in the door toward full deployment, six months.  This slips
a full-scale development decision to next year, to everyone's relief.

Volkov, Krikalev, and Polyakov return from Mir April 27, leaving Mir
unmanned until August.  The next crew's major task will be to activate
the two planned add-on modules.  Soviets deny reports of electrical
power problems aboard Mir, although there are reports from people
monitoring Mir radio traffic of discussions of electrical difficulties.
Kvant's astrophysics instruments will continue to transmit data while
Mir is unmanned.

NASA picks Lockheed/Aerojet team to build the ASRM, despite safety panel
urgings that the project be dropped.  Truly says the panel did not have
current information due to restrictions imposed by the bidding process,
and they will now be fully briefed.  The government-owned plant to build
the new SRB will be privately financed, postponing the need for NASA to
supply funds for it.  Financial details have not been revealed.  There
is debate about whether this is really going to save money, although the
point may be moot since OMB refused to let NASA spend anything on it in
FY1990.  NASA will need special approval from Congress to sign a deal
with a cancellation penalty, to protect the financiers.  The plant will
supposedly ship its first flight-cleared motors in 1994, after which use
of the current Morton Thiokol SRBs will be phased out over three years.
Apart from getting rid of MT [about time!], the new motors will boost
shuttle payload by about 12 klbs.  The new motors will have one less
field joint and the joint design will be different, but details will not
be disclosed until negotiations are complete.  Aerojet says the joints
are designed so that the seals can be inspected right up to the moment
the joint is locked in place, another improvement.  The new motor is
slightly fatter than the old one -- diameter 150in instead of 146in --
allowing an extra 200 klbs of fuel per motor.  Motor performance will
be tailored to eliminate the need to throttle back the SSMEs during the
period of maximum aerodynamic pressure, another safety win.

NASA begins to review space station to decide whether to delay, scale
down, or just cancel if anticipated budget cuts happen.  House subcommittee
tells NASA to figure out by May 6 what it would do about a $400M cut in
the $2G station budget for FY90, plus $500-600M off FY91.  The cuts are
not yet firm but are widely considered inevitable.  NASA has spent over
$1G to date and would need to spend another $2G or so in termination fees
etc. if the project were cancelled, but this is still small compared to
the full cost of the project.  NASA continues to make noises about killing
the project if it is cut too far, but will not say how far is too far;
rumor hath it that $1.5G is about right.

Station managers deny that there are any plans for a scaled-down station
if the current one dies, but Marshall is known to have looked at the idea.
Cancellation would, of course, mean reneging on the agreements with Canada,
Europe, and Japan, at a time when the USSR is wooing potential international
partners in its space program.  NASA says termination would be a disaster
that would conclusively prove the US is not a reliable partner.  [Actually
many already tend to feel that way, but station cancellation would remove
any lingering doubts.]  The station does have quiet a bit of Congressional
support, but Congress is running out of innovative ways to fund it.  NASA
is not keen on a suggestion that DoD chip in, as NASA thinks such funding
unreliable and the loss of control too severe.

Rep. Lawrence Coughlin suggests reversing the no-commercial-payloads policy
of the shuttle, in hopes that it will start earning its keep again.  "We
need a return on our investment."  [Lordy.]

Subcommittee criticizes NASA for not (quite) meeting its commitment to
spend 20% of its budget on space science.  Sharp criticism of cancellation
of $25M for Gravity Probe B, but NASA says money is tight and it was not a
high priority.

Subcommittee warns NASA not to spend money on the Crew Emergency Rescue
Vehicle for the station until the subcommittee sorts out NASA's funding.
NASA would like to contract for design studies.  Dale Myers, acting NASA
administrator, says NASA is still not sure how capable the vehicle needs
to be, and more study is needed to produce a full definition of the types
of emergencies that might require the vehicle.  [Isn't there anybody in
NASA who can make a decision without 50 kg of paper to back him up?!?]

West German government approves formation of, essentially, a German Space
Agency with central responsibility for planning and execution of government
space activities.  Oddly, it will be government-funded but nominally a
private corporation.

US and USSR agree to develop "joint operational performance standards" for
Navstar and Glonass so civil users, notably aviation, can easily use both.

Soviets have apparently decided not to bring a shuttle orbiter to the Paris
airshow, although the An-225 Mriya, its carrier aircraft, will appear.

Eosat recommends US government fund Landsat 7, to maintain US leadership
and avoid a data gap late in the 1990s.  Landsat 4 and 5 are on their
last legs, especially financially, and Landsat 6 will not be ready for
launch until 1991; a data gap is probable.  Another is likely in 1996 or
thereabouts if a decision on Landsat 7 is not made soon.  However, Eosat
says the US probably can't get more than about 10% of the satellite data
market in the late 90s even if Landsat 7 goes up.  Among other consequences,
this makes private funding of L7 quite impossible.  There are other reasons
for that too.  Will data from the Mission To Planet Earth program be made
available without charge?  Will US weather-satellite data continue to be
available at a nominal cost?  (Eosat says this has lost them customers
already.)  What happens if a satellite fails unexpectedly, given that there
are no backups and no prospect of finding enough money to insure the
operational birds?  Will Congress reverse its earlier decision to prohibit
a merger of the weather and Earth-resources satellites under private
management (which would permit cost savings by merging satellites, and
make government weather-satellite money available)?  The National Space
Council is studying future US involvement in remote sensing, including
the possibility of getting out of the business; a report including
recommendations to Bush is expected this month.

Italian Space Agency awards its first contracts, for work on the SAX
X-ray satellite and the SAR-X imaging-radar shuttle payload.  There
is concern that the agency needs to start moving a bit more quickly or
a number of programs will be hurt by slow decision-making; the SAX and
SAR-X decisions came at the last possible minute.

First Commercial Titan launcher arrives at the Cape.

NASA to test a parafoil system, developed by Pioneer Aerospace, for
precision landings by parachute of launcher components weighing up to
60 klbs.  The parafoil, a gliding parachute, looks okay on paper, but
reefing [gradual opening] is utterly necessary because parafoils open
very abruptly, and reefing big parafoils is tricky.  Pioneer has a
new approach.  Parafoils have a particular advantage over conventional
parachute systems because by flaring a parafoil (making an abrupt pull-up
to trade forward speed for a reduction in sink rate), the landing can be
made gentle enough to eliminate the need for retrorockets or other
impact-cushioning devices.
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 02:26:21 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Proposed improvements for Arecibo

In article <8905251829.AA07652@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>The expected cost for these modifications is $20 million. NASA has offered
>to provide half of that, but finding the remaining $10 million has been a
>problem. 

Just to keep it in perspective, $10 million equals 18 PM (Pentagon-Minutes).
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 May 89 12:06:57 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Magellan update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

From:	EXOS%"9102509824@DCEESL.DAS.NET" 24-MAY-1989 06:25
To:	PJS
Subj:	 IV

Return-path: <daslink!dasnet!DCEESL!9102509824@Sun.COM>
Received: from 10909C0 (Sun.COM) by grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV
          id 00001EC0002 ; Wed, 24 May 89 06:25:14 PST
Received:  from sun.Sun.COM (sun-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA15725; Wed, 24 May 89 06:28:16 PDT
Received:  from daslink.UUCP by sun.Sun.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0)
	id AA10643; Wed, 24 May 89 06:28:17 PDT
Date:  24 May 89 06:03:00 PDT
Message-Id:  <8905240603.AA100@DCEESL.DAS.NET>
To:  PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV



TO:      PETER SCOTT
FROM:    TERRY T.
DATE:    5/24/89
RE:      INSIGHT IV


I'm still in France (Nice - Insight 1). Todays victory is that I
got my EZlink to work here (after several Frenchmen said
"impossible...you can't...).

Yes tell George M-M our current numbers and that it is possible
we will have only one ropes day. I have already told him this
about a month ago. You can bring him up to date. We'll have the
final number when the training begins. Maybe there will be many
like me who show up on the last day.

If the final numbers are low (below 50) I don't want to use Bill
Herz this year. Budget reasons. I haven't heard anything from
Holly about Herz. Maybe you can get me the info. Has she
contacted him? If so, what is his fee? Where did she leave off
with him?

No, we didn't deliberately schedule Cara to conflict with the
picnic. When we first laid out the IV schedule, we didn't know
about the conference schedule. Maybe Cara can creatively combine
what she does with the picnic...
Take care.

TT

P.S. As you can see (below) I'm still getting 2 - 4 copies of
your EZlink messages.
================================================================


/MBX
EASYLINK MBX 4353940A001 23MAY89 22:05/06:55 EST
FROM: 9103803354 DAS-LMS
      D A SYSTEMS INC
TO:   62811079

SUBJ: IS_IV
Hi.

Boy, I hate to say this.

Enrollment is still 32 + 7-10 South Americans (couldn't believe
it.  Is
someone picking them off as them come through the door?).

IF we have less than 60 people you know that we will do the
ropes on one day instead of two.

Our own logistical preparations are flexible; I'm not even
concerned about Sally.  I do think that we owe George a
timely decision, since he has a team to coordinate and
other factors that cost him money.  Especially in view of
what he told me a few months ago about needing to know as
soon as possible if we went on one day instead of two, when
that was an extremely remote possibility.

I can discuss the situation with him if you give me an idea
of what position you want to take.  There's a good chance I'll
see him or Gail on Saturday (27th); I'm going to Running Springs
to show a bevy of lawyers around the accident scene and they
tell
me that George or Gail will be there.  I'm sure he'll want to
know how enrollment is going for IV.  I wouldn't want to strain
our relations with George by holding back on information that
affects him.

Other stuff: Holly tells me that Bill Herz is unconfirmed as
yet.  Is this just a formality, or is there a real possibility
that he won't be there?  Do you have a phone number for him
so I can ask him what he needs for logistical support?

Love,
     Peter
Still holding out for 80 (remembering a couple of Leadership
trainings where enrollment was similarly hair-raising).

-----------------
62840442:
DEST: [DEX1PS]pjscott
SUBJ: IV

>From DASnet: [DEX1PS]pjscott

 MMMM


EASYLINK MBX 4353970A001 23MAY89 22:06/06:55 EST
FROM: 9103803354 DAS-LMS
      D A SYSTEMS INC
TO:   62811079

SUBJ: July_1

Am I missing something, or did we deliberately schedule Cara
on Saturday July 1, knowing that the picnic and Heartfelt
Project are that day?  Last time the picnic coincided with
IV ('87) it was a free day.

Holly (this is going to TT & HD): have the Cross pens been
ordered?  Do you have all the replies for the presenters'
dinner?

Love,
     Peter
----------------------------
62840442:
DEST: [DEX1PS]pjscott
SUBJ: IV

>From DASnet: [DEX1PS]pjscott

 MMMM


EASYLINK MBX 4382820A001 24MAY89 04:37/06:56 EST
FROM: 9103803354 DAS-LMS
      D A SYSTEMS INC
TO:   62811079

SUBJ: IS_IV
Hi.

Boy, I hate to say this.

Enrollment is still 32 + 7-10 South Americans (couldn't believe
it.  Is
someone picking them off as them come through the door?).

IF we have less than 60 people you know that we will do the
ropes on one day instead of two.

Our own logistical preparations are flexible; I'm not even
concerned about Sally.  I do think that we owe George a
timely decision, since he has a team to coordinate and
other factors that cost him money.  Especially in view of
what he told me a few months ago about needing to know as
soon as possible if we went on one day instead of two, when
that was an extremely remote possibility.

I can discuss the situation with him if you give me an idea
of what position you want to take.  There's a good chance I'll
see him or Gail on Saturday (27th); I'm going to Running Springs
to show a bevy of lawyers around the accident scene and they
tell
me that George or Gail will be there.  I'm sure he'll want to
know how enrollment is going for IV.  I wouldn't want to strain
our relations with George by holding back on information that
affects him.

Other stuff: Holly tells me that Bill Herz is unconfirmed as
yet.  Is this just a formality, or is there a real possibility
that he won't be there?  Do you have a phone number for him
so I can ask him what he needs for logistical support?

Love,
     Peter
Still holding out for 80 (remembering a couple of Leadership
trainings where enrollment was similarly hair-raising).

-----------------
62840442:

>From DASnet: [DEX1PS]pjscott

 MMMM


EASYLINK MBX 4382871A001 24MAY89 04:38/06:56 EST
FROM: 9103803354 DAS-LMS
      D A SYSTEMS INC
TO:   62811079

SUBJ: July_1

Am I missing something, or did we deliberately schedule Cara
on Saturday July 1, knowing that the picnic and Heartfelt
Project are that day?  Last time the picnic coincided with
IV ('87) it was a free day.

Holly (this is going to TT & HD): have the Cross pens been
ordered?  Do you have all the replies for the presenters'
dinner?

Love,
     Peter
----------------------------
62840442:

>From DASnet: [DEX1PS]pjscott

 MMMM

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #464
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 May 89 05:35:23 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00424> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 29 May 89 05:33:31 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 29 May 89 05:33:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oYUEibK00Ui3M0vE43>;
          Mon, 29 May 89 05:21:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.sYUEfnS00UkZMIWU5Z>;
          Mon, 29 May 89 05:18:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <EYUEeLa00UkZ8IV049@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 29 May 89 05:17:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #465

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 465

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Magellan update
		    "it's been light years . . ."
	  Re: SPACE Digest V9 #453 - Asteroids and Dinosaurs
		      Re: Space telescope delays
		     Re: Private Space Companies
	       Magellan Status of 05/26/89 (Forwarded)
		     Re: Private Space Companies
	    Oort cloud (was: Re: The late NEMESIS Theory)
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
			     Neptune pix
	    Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 02:29:13 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <890525120657.00001E562B1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
 [several K of mindless drivel via DASnet ]

I dunno about other folks but I am *SO GLAD* we are bridging to other nets!!!
:-)
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 18:40:03 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: "it's been light years . . ."

In article <5657@lynx.UUCP>, neal@lynx.uucp (Neal Woodall) writes:
> In article <14345@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> 
> >>I am never so frustrated and morose about our prospects for the future as
> >>when I find someone misunderstanding science.  Phrases like "it's been
> >>light-years since I saw home" (_Hard Time on Planet Earth_) ...
> . . .
> It seems to me that the original poster made a misinterpretation of the
> phrase he posted....I don't really see what is "wrong" about describing
> a journey in terms of distance rather than time, or vice-versa.
> 

I see. They meant it the way some story's trucker-hero would say,
"It's been five hundred miles since I saw home." Come on. You're being
overly generous, especially since this is a common mistake, and we're
talking about a throw away line in a typically dimwitted TV show
designed for the masses! Besides, even if the writers WERE waxing
poetic, my cynicism convinces me the usage was lost on 97% of the
audience and it just reinforced their misconception.

Reminds me of A&W Root Beer's ad campaign that said, "Wet your
appetite!" Aargh! Even if I could believe the writer intended the
mistake as cute irony, it was still a disservice.

jim
symon@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon

------------------------------

Sender: "John_A_Kostecki.WBST207V"@Xerox.COM
Date: 25 May 89 05:31:43 PDT (Thursday)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #453 - Asteroids and Dinosaurs
From: "John_A_Kostecki.WBST207V"@Xerox.COM
Cc: "John_A_Kostecki.WBST207V"@Xerox.COM
Reply-To: "John_A_Kostecki.WBST207V"@Xerox.COM

In article <agate!web-2c.berkeley.edu!c60a-1hb@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (The
Daimyo) writes:
>The extinctions of the dinosaurs was one and about 300 million years
later, 
>the extinction of pre-historic mammals another.  Before then, the 
>geological record shows extinction after extinction at roughly 300 million
>year intervals.

It's been a while since I've been actively involved in the geology "game"
so I'm not 100% familiar with all the literature.  There are some problems
with the numbers you mentioned.  I accept that you were doing it from
memory, so I don't want to act picky.  Anyway, about those extinctions:
	1) the final dinosaur extinctions occured about 110 - 90 million years
ago. This is coincidental with what we call the Cretaceous/Tertiary Event.
The event was marked not only by the passing of the last "dinosaurs", but
also marked the demise of several hundred marine plankton species.  Since
the study of marine phytoplankton (one-celled plants) was one of my areas
of concentration, I had to do some work on this stuff once.  The main
points are that dinosaurs weren't the only organisms effected by the
environment at the end of the Cretaceous, but also that this last major
extiction occured at about 90 mypb (mil yrs before present).
	2) the last major extinction prior to to Cretaceous/Tertiary was the
Permo/Triassic Event, which I think was about 450 mybp.  

Prior to that, there were other minor extinctions which might have wiped
out classes of species or entire phyla, but in most cases there are still
living decendents of these species.  One theory of the mass extinctions is
that there was some other factor in the environment which caused these mass
deaths.  Something which we also need to understand is that we, ie,
mankind, has been around for only a few tens of millions of years.  When
you consider that our accurate records have only been kept back to biblical
times (a span of 5000 years at best), and the major portion of the fossil
record goes back only to the Pre-Cambrian (Archeozoic), which is 600+ mybp,
our own records and recollections and comparisons of time are somewhat
warped.  What I mean is that a "mass extinction" in the fossil record may
represent 10s of millions of years in the older strata, and maybe several
hundred thousand years in the most recent events.  How do we compare the
extinctions of present day animal species with those which occured at the
Permo/Triassic Event?

Anyway, there were some other theories posed based on less spectacular
causes.  One is that the sea-floor spreading and continental drift which
are a major part of modern theories of plate tectonics and mountain
building, may also be the cause of major climatic or at least environmental
changes.  Lets look at the events occuring in the Mesozoic (450 - 90 mybp).

During the begining of this era, the Triassic strata in the US shows
evidence on the east coast of the initial stages of the breakup of a major
continent.  As we go into the Jurassic, there is evidence of large shallow
seas in the US midcontinent.  These shallow seas would have opened millions
of square miles of continental shelf to the species living at that time and
caused the vast "flowering" of species we see in the record.  The reason
for the shallow seas is interesting.  When I participated in a cruise
sponsored by the Deep Sea Drilling Project in 1980, one of the chief
scientists had proposed that this might have been caused by the increase in
sea-floor spreading rates seen at this time, ie, with all the lava pushing
up at the mid-ocean ridges, there was an increase in ocean floor volume and
thus the oceans were "pushed" upon the plains areas of all the continents.
These shallow seas did one other thing in that they caused a more temperate
climate and added more warm waters to the seas.  As the end of the Mesozoic
(Cretaceous) started to arrive, the spreading decreased, thus the volume of
the sea-floor decreased, therefore, the shallow seas were no longer there -
now only the thin continental shelves we see today.  This caused a major
ecological disaster because of the loss of this environment, greater
competition in the food chain, and only the strong or more biologically
successful survived.

The evidence of the asteroid/meteorite might be convincing as a means of
explaining the "last gasp" of the dinosaurs, but I'm not particularly
convinced that it was the ultimate cause.  Most of the similar types of
events in the past century, such as the explosion of the island of
Krakatoa, did lead to localized killings, but did not have much of a
world-wide impact, except for lowering average temperature a little and
prolonging the twilight times of the day for several years.  If we look at
Mt. St. Helens, the forrests denuded by the explosion are now growing back.
The question which this raises is what would the size of the asteroid have
to be to cause a mass extinction, but only be selective?  Remember, mammals
survived the Event, but most of them were small, just as some dinosaurs
species, so what was it that could have caused the problem?

Well, enough for now.

John A. Kostecki
Xerox Corp.
Webster, NY

------------------------------

Sender: "Dennis_C._Brantly.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Date: 25 May 89 04:46:56 PDT (Thursday)
Subject: Re: Space telescope delays
From: Brantly.WBST129@Xerox.COM
Cc: Brantly.WBST129@Xerox.COM


For those interested in the process by which time is to be allocated for
observational use of the Space Telescope, and/or how the Space Telescope is
to operate (blockage of large areas of viewing by the earth/sun, warm-up of
selected instruments, locking on a designated viewing area, etc.), I would
recommend an article in the June 89 issue of Astronomy magazine:

"From Idea to Observation: The Space Telescope at Work"; an astronomer's
request for observing time on the Hubble Space Telescope sets off a complex
sequence of scheduling, observing, and data analysis, by Ray Villard.

Dennis...
Brantly:WBST129:Xerox
Webster, NY

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 12:52:29 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <fdSp02Br2czg01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> reddy@uts.amdahl.com (T.S. Reddy) writes:
>> 
>     I doubt that Boeing can develop a new space vehicle given that it
>cannot even build a new airliner from scratch without collaborating with
>another company or without government aid.

     Er, what planes, what company, and what government?  I don't know about
all of their planes, but I don't recall the government subsidizing the
development of the 757 and 767, and I don't know what you mean by          
collaboration; Boeing is 'borrowing' workers from Lockheed, here in Atlanta,
and they do contract some of their work out ,butI don't think that qualifies
as collaboration.  I have to agree with Henry (I think it was Henry...); 
Boeing is probably the only company that can develop it's own launch system.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     :          [This space for rent]
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 22:27:03 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status of 05/26/89 (Forwarded)


                         MAGELLAN STATUS
                          May 26, 1989
 
 
     After today, the Magellan status reports will be available
only once a week, unless warranted by spacecraft activity.
 
     The twice daily momentum wheel desaturations and the daily
star calibration were performed routinely Thursday.
 
     Analysis of last Sunday's trajectory correction maneuver
indicates an achieved velocity of 2.967 meters per second,
versus a desired 2.935 meters per second. The execution error was
less than 1.1 percent.
 
     The final spacecraft parameters for Cruise-3, the next
spacecraft computer command sequence, have been given to the
spacecraft team's Upload Preparation Group. Cruise-3 will be
uploaded next Tuesday afternoon, May 30.
 
 
 
 
 
 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                   3,192,936 
     
     Velocity  Geocentric                         5,674 mph
               Heliocentric                      60,213 mph
 
     One Way Light Time                           17.5 sec

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 15:51:41 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@handies.ucar.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <fdSp02Br2czg01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> reddy@uts.amdahl.com (T.S. Reddy) writes:
>     I doubt that Boeing can develop a new space vehicle given that it
>cannot even build a new airliner from scratch without collaborating with
>another company or without government aid.

I'm not aware that it's ever had government aid for airliner development.
(Once or twice it has developed airliners that were related to, or
descended from, government projects.  Contrary to popular misconception,
the KC-135 and the 707 are **not** the same aircraft -- they don't even
have the same fuselage cross-section -- although they share a common
[privately funded] ancestor.)  As for collaboration with other companies,
certainly Boeing prefers to spread the investment and risk around as much
as it can -- who wouldn't? -- but there is no question that Boeing has
the resources to go it alone if necessary.

Boeing's current commercial order backlog is over 1500 airliners.  That's
over 75 BILLION dollars.  And you can bet they're making a profit on it.
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 23:40:48 GMT
From: usc!csun!solaria!ecphssrw%afws.csun.edu@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Stephen Walton)
Subject: Oort cloud (was: Re: The late NEMESIS Theory)

In article <13217@ut-emx.UUCP>, nather@ut-emx (Ed Nather) writes, in
response to Bill Wyatt (wyatt@cfatst.harvard.edu):

>Apparently you know of observational evidence that I don't -- would you
>please cite it, bearing in mind that the theory was devised to explain the
>origin of comets, so their presence is not evidence the theory is correct?

I was going to summarize a bunch of arguments here, but just re-read
the section of the text I used this year for intro astro (Abell,
Morrison, and Wolff, _Realm of the Universe_, 4th edition). An excerpt:

"Observationally, the aphelia of new comets typically have values near
50,000 AU.  This clustering of aphelion distances was first noted by
Dutch astronomer Jan Oort, who proposed in 1950 a scheme for the
origin of the comets that is still accepted today."

This passage was written by the second author, David Morrison, a very
well informed planetary astronomer of my acquaintance (I'm a solar
physicist, and thus not really qualified to pass judgement).  However,
Morrison goes on to write:

"Just because most new comets have _aphelia_ near 50,000 AU, we should
be careful not to conclude that the Oort cloud consists of billions of
comets in roughly circular orbits at this distance, like a shell
around the Sun.  There may be some comets in nearly circular orbits,
but if so, we have no evidence of them."

He then notes that a passing star can cause only small perturbations
in an orbit, so that a new comet with perihelion 1 AU cannot have had
a perhelion of more than a few AU on its previous orbit.  On the other
hand, this means that there must be many, many comets in the outer
solar system for every one which we observe;  Object Chiron is a
possible example, though a large one:  occultation measures give its
diameter as at least 100 km.

So, both Bill and Ed are partly right, I guess.  There is no evidence
for the spherical shell which is the picture most of us have of the
Oort cloud, but there are still many more comets in the outer solar
system.
--
Stephen Walton, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Cal State Univ. Northridge
RCKG01M@CALSTATE.BITNET       ecphssrw@afws.csun.edu
swalton@solar.stanford.edu    ...!csun!afws.csun.edu!ecphssrw

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 May 89 10:41:49 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

agate!shelby!Portia!hanauma!joe@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Joe Dellinger) writes:

>	Incidentally, some geophysicists are waiting quite impatiently
>for another mag 9 mega-quake. 

This is a great source of comfort to all of us in Southern California...

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 May 89 12:07:31 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Neptune pix
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

The latest issue of the JPL _Universe_ (in-house newspaper) has a couple of
pictures of Neptune, showing about the detail you get of Mars from a small
amateur scope (say, 6").  Unfortunately I can't reproduce them here, but the
caption is interesting nevertheless: 

NEARING NEPTUNE -- These Neptune images by Voyager 2 on April 26 were from 176
million kilometers (109 million miles).  The picture at right was taken five
hours after the left, during which time the planet rotated 100 degrees.  The
dark spot visible in the left photo was in images obtained three months earlier
[said dark spot is about the size and latitude of North Africa if the disk were
Earth's].  A brighter white spot, prominent earlier, has apparently faded.  The
white spot near the south pole in the right picture is new [looks slightly
smaller than Greenland, by the same analogy, tho' at the other end of the
planet].  It was visible faintly in a picture 18 hours earlier at the same
longitude. 

Can't wait for us to get close enough to resolve the 90-mile high statue of
Elvis which we *know* must be there :-) 

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 20:34:48 GMT
From: megatest!ivan@decwrl.dec.com  (Ivan Batinic)
Subject: Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.


	If memory serves me, this was known as the "Tingustu Event"
(or something close to that).  Witnessed by many from afar, there
were reports of extremely high-intensity light from the horizon.
An enormous circular section of forest was flattened and flash-
burned.  However, NO CRATER nor evidence of any crater exsists.

	Dr. C. Sagan speculated that this could be explained by the
advent of a "piece" of comet material (methane ice) impacting the
earth, causing a huge gas-explosion.

	I believe there are actual documents reporting the incident,
however I have no idea how to locate them.

	I hope I have not confused two separate events here.  It would
be amusing if "lightning" (as it were) did strike twice in one place!

	Ivan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISCLAIMER: Blah-blah, Woof! Woof!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #465
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 May 89 05:34:20 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00867> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 30 May 89 05:32:36 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 30 May 89 05:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UYUZqk600UkT02=05R>;
          Tue, 30 May 89 05:24:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.oYUZm7e00UkZIJb04r>;
          Tue, 30 May 89 05:19:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <oYUZjVK00UkZ4JZU5J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 30 May 89 05:16:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #466

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 466

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Private Space Companies
	      Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
		     Re: Private Space Companies
		   Re: Oort cloud is not `mythical'
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
	       Payload Status for 05/26/89 (Forwarded)
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
		Re: Proposed improvements for Arecibo
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
	     Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
	 Payload Status for 05/26/89 [Corrected] (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 05:56:25 GMT
From: amdahl!reddy@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (T.S. Reddy)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <1989May25.164803.1255@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <Added.MYSjRKu00UkTQ=BE51@andrew.cmu.edu> ESC1325@ESOC.PROFS (Lutz Massonne, +49-6151-886-701) writes:
...
> 
> Boeing -- which is not currently in the space-launch business, although
> it has a long-standing interest in the notion -- is probably the only
> big aerospace company in the world that can afford to go its own way
> and make its own decisions.
> 
     I doubt that Boeing can develop a new space vehicle given that it
cannot even build a new airliner from scratch without collaborating with
another company or without government aid.

-- 
T.S.Reddy

Arpa: reddy@uts.amdahl.com
uucp:...!{ames,decwrl,uunet,pyramid,sun}!amdahl!reddy

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 13:14:03 GMT
From: renoir.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.


        According to the May 1989 issue of the Boston L5/NSS SPACE NEWS
    newsletter on page 2, a relatively large meteorite struck the Soviet
    Union on February 12, 1947 only 400 kilometers (250 miles) from the
    city of Valivostok with the force of an atomic bomb.

        This event was unknown to me until this article.  Does anyone 
    have any further information on this meteorite strike?  Thanks.

        Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 15:40:00 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <718@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

   In article <fdSp02Br2czg01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> reddy@uts.amdahl.com (T.S. Reddy) writes:
   >> 
   >     I doubt that Boeing can develop a new space vehicle given that it
   >cannot even build a new airliner from scratch without collaborating with
   >another company or without government aid.

        Er, what planes, what company, and what government?  I don't know about
   all of their planes, but I don't recall the government subsidizing the
   development of the 757 and 767, and I don't know what you mean by          
   collaboration; Boeing is 'borrowing' workers from Lockheed, here in Atlanta,
   and they do contract some of their work out ,butI don't think that qualifies
   as collaboration.  I have to agree with Henry (I think it was Henry...); 
   Boeing is probably the only company that can develop it's own launch system.

--

The 707 was originally the KC-135.  Actually, Boeing proposed this
aircraft originally as being both military and civilian.  It was
bought by the Air Force and, some time after it entered military
service, Boeing asked the AF for permission to build and sell a
civilian version.  The AF agreed, probably partly on the basis that
economies of scale would keep costs down.

The 747 was initially proposed as an entry in the competition that the
C-5 won.  (That's why it has a through deck.)  I don't think that the
E-3 and SCA contributed to any economy of scale, however.  But, in
terms of subsidization, the 747-400 has winglets that were conceived
by a NASA aerodynamicist (Whitcomb or Jones, I don't remember) and
flown in a technology-demonstration program funded jointly by NASA and
the Air Force.

This latter makes a really good point.  Essentially all aerospace is
subsidized _somehow_ by military and government entities.  DARPA
subsidized superplastic forming.  NASA works on aircraft fuel economy
(e.g. supercritical wings and laminar flow).  Jet engine developement
by the Luftwaffe and RAE.  Practical rocketry from Germany.
Composites, fly-by-wire, telemetry, advanced instrumentation, hot
section materials, radar and other avionics, structures, on-board
computers, tooling, and so on.

Even Pegasus, which is touted as private enterprise at its best, is
subsidized by NASA providing the B-52 and the test range at a
ridiculously low cost.

I, incidentally, think that this is appropriate behavior on the part
of the government entities.  It's an important part of NASA's charter.
But it is a subsidy.
--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 17:29:13 GMT
From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net  (John E Van Deusen III)
Subject: Re: Oort cloud is not `mythical'

In article <Added.8YSP_oG00Ui3ILg08U@andrew.cmu.edu>
GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
>
> ... I agree that the location of the Oort cloud is in dispute, and
> that its existence is circumstantial.  ...

The evidence for the existence of the oort cloud seems to me to be
reasonably direct.  I think it is fairly well accepted that the solar
nebula cooled to form a broad band of planetesimals.  When the major
planets began to accrete, the orbits of the planetesimals were
perturbed.  In an episode of intense bombardment, perhaps 5 to 10
percent of the planetesimals were captured by the sun and major planets,
and the rest were flung out of the solar system.  The evidence to this
point is quite direct, including photographs that date the period of
bombardment.  To the extent that the solar nebula extended appreciably
beyond the orbit of Neptune, one would expect to find a band of
planetesimals, unperturbed by the major planets.
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865

uunet!visdc!jiii

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 12:59:43 GMT
From: stsci!sims@noao.edu  (Jim Sims)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

In article <3313@kalliope.rice.edu>, phil@rice.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
> [ Excuse the cross-posting, please. ]
> 
> Here's something I found out yesterday.  Currently, the Hubble Space
> Telescope is being stored in California.  Everyone knows that it is going
> to be launched (some day) on a shuttle from the Cape (Florida east coast).
> But apparently, the only safe way to transport it is by boat.  Which means
> it will almost certainly have to go thru the Panama canal.........Let's
> hope things improve down that way in the next year.    Sigh.
> 


For the (hopefully) last time, guys - 

 HST will arrive in Florida shortly before launch, transport is via modified
C-5A, courtesy U.S. Air Force (wonder why they need a C-5A to transport HST
sized/shaped cargo ;-) )


 yes, HST will occasionally look at the Earth, Moon, Sun (through the
"back-door" for UV Flood on the WFPC). No, the sensors won't burn out.
No, it won't focus that 'close' either (but the defocus/deblurring
algorithms are known :-) ).

'nuff said?
-- 
    Jim Sims      Space Telescope Science Institute      Baltimore, MD
             UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
    ARPA:  sims@stsci.edu                           SPAM:  SCIVAX::SIMS

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 17:16:19 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 05/26/89 (Forwarded)


                                   Payload Status Report
                                   Kennedy Space Center
                                   May 26, 1989

          George H. Diller


          Galileo/IUS-19  (Atlantis)

               The Galileo spacecraft left the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
          Pasadena, California on May 12 and arrived at KSC's SAEF-2
          planetary spacecraft checkout facility at 7:30 p.m. on May 16.
          Galileo and its support equipment were entered through the
          airlock and unloaded on May 17 and 18.  On May 19 Galileo was
          hoisted into a test stand and access platforms were moved into
          position around the spacecraft.  The Galileo probe arrived at KSC
          over a month ago on April 17, and has been in an adjacent SAEF-2
          test cell undergoing final assembly and checkout.  On May 23, it
          was moved into the SAEF-2 high bay with the Galileo orbiter to
          prepare it for integration scheduled for late next week.  This
          will be followed by the final buildup of the spacecraft during
          early June.

          Atlas Centaur AC-68/FltSatCom

               The AC-68 launch vehicle arrived at the Skid Strip on Cape
          Canaveral Air Force Station at 7:00 a.m. Wednesday, May 24.  It
          was offloaded and taken to Hangar J for receiving inspections.
          On or about Tuesday, May 30 the Atlas will be taken to Pad B at
          Launch Complex 36 for erection.  It will be followed by the
          erection of the Centaur stage approximately two days later.  The
          FltSatCom spacecraft is expected to arrive in mid-June.  The
          launch is expected to occur shortly after Labor Day.

          Delta/COBE

               The necessary refurbishment of Space Launch Complex 2-West
          at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California is complete.  Assembly
          and checkout of the spacecraft continues at NASA's Goddard
          Spaceflight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.  The launch of
          Delta/COBE is not expected to occur until at least the end of
          October.  The erection of the booster will begin when a launch
          time frame is determined.

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 16:54:09 GMT
From: att!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <104932@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
writes:
>In article <13000@ut-emx.UUCP>, bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes:
>> It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has
                                  ^^^^?
>> a fictional counterpart

Er, what about 'Atlantis'? Sure it's a mythical contenent, but what fictional
ship was it named after?

-- 
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] |          sparks@corpane.UUCP         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 
Mixed Emotions: When you see your mother-in-law back over a cliff in your
new Mercedes Benz.

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 18:23:35 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@CS.YALE.EDU  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Proposed improvements for Arecibo

In article <8905251829.AA07652@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>(From the May 1989 issue of Sky & Telescope)
>
>The 1000-foot radio telescope at Arecibo Observatory has a spherical rather
>than parabolic nonmoving dish, so the telescope can be "pointed" in different
>directions by moving the pickup point. Unfortunately, this induces spherical
>aberration (the received energy does not all focus on a single point), so
>a 96-foot line of receivers must be used as the pickup.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm. They meant to say a "linear feed antenna". The receivers are in a building,
far from the feed antenna!

My dad designed the antennas used at the Five College Radio Astronomy
Observatory in Mass. The array consisted of 4 120' spherical dishes, phased
together and used at meter-wavelengths to observe pulsars. The feed was
a funny looking pyramid-shaped log-periodic linear feed that he designed to
work at 150 and 450 Mhz. Like Arecibo the feed antenna moves to steer the
beam, rather than the whole antenna.

He always told me that it was no sweat building linear feeds. As a matter
of fact he said they were easier in some ways that dealing with a single
focus point.

I assume Arecibo's desire to dump the linear feed is because they are
doing much more centimeter stuff these days and at those frequencies
it IS hard to build an efficient linear feed (line losses for one thing!).

The Arecibo facility is quite incredible.


    Paul K. Rodman 
    rodman@mfci.uucp
    __... ...__    _.. .   _._ ._ .____ __.. ._

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 23:44:53 GMT
From: usc!csun!solaria!ecphssrw%afws.csun.edu@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU  (Stephen Walton)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

Whatever the merits of the Nemesis hypothesis, the KT event doesn't
fit it.  The clay abundances, such as the iridium anomaly and the
isotope ratios, point to the culprit as a nickel-iron asteroid.
Comets are ice plus carbonaceous chondrite stuff, and it would take
implausibly many of them to deposit significant heavy elements on the
Earth.
--
Stephen Walton, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Cal State Univ. Northridge
RCKG01M@CALSTATE.BITNET       ecphssrw@afws.csun.edu
swalton@solar.stanford.edu    ...!csun!afws.csun.edu!ecphssrw

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 12:06:34 GMT
From: usc!merlin.usc.edu!nunki.usc.edu!manderso@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU  (Mark Anderson)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

In article <18761@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>
>How do you like them apples?  ET's and space habitats lumped together.
>Think about that the next time you look for a consultant.  Maybe that would
>be a good screening question, "Do you believe Earth is being visited by ET's?"

If it was a question, most people, who believed or have experienced
something, would lie anyway.  The current perception is that believing in
ET visitations means that you have some sort of paranoic psychological
problem and belong in an institution.  This has caused many sightings
and personal experiences to go underground or unreported altogether.  Many
pilots, especially, are threatened by this fear.  It is kind of funny that
people would actually get upset at this.  It seems to rock some people's
total outlook on the way they view the world, therefore these people
pose a threat.  The popular view is that if ETs were here, we would know
about it for sure because we scientists are so smart.  Or why haven't
they made obvious contact, using our logic to justify theirs.

Anyway, I have evidence of ETs in my basement.  It is a 4'X10'X2" charred
piece of metal like material that floats in water.  I found it in the
desert a few miles outside of Las Vegas.  It has these funny little
symbols on it.  With all of this UFO paranoia going around, I think
I'll just hold on to it so as to not stir up any controversy.  Hope
the government doesn't monitor this net.

So much for that consulting contract.  (Oh well)

Mark
manderso@nunki.usc.edu

PS.  I tried to get into a psyche ward but it was full.  So I got a
	job instead.

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 22:25:56 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 05/26/89 [Corrected] (Forwarded)


                                   Payload Status Report
                                   Kennedy Space Center
                                   May 26, 1989

          George H. Diller


          Galileo/IUS-19  (Atlantis)

               The Galileo spacecraft left the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
          Pasadena, California on May 12 and arrived at KSC's SAEF-2
          planetary spacecraft checkout facility at 7:30 p.m. on May 16.
          Galileo and its support equipment were entered through the
          airlock and unloaded on May 17 and 18.  On May 19 Galileo was
          hoisted into a test stand and access platforms were moved into
          position around the spacecraft.  The Galileo probe arrived at KSC
          over a month ago on April 17, and has been in an adjacent SAEF-2
          test cell undergoing final assembly and checkout.  On May 23, it
          was moved into the SAEF-2 high bay with the Galileo orbiter to
          prepare it for integration scheduled for late next week.  This
          will be followed by the final buildup of the spacecraft during
          early June.



          Atlas Centaur AC-68/FltSatCom

               The AC-68 launch vehicle arrived at the Skid Strip on Cape
          Canaveral Air Force Station at 7:00 a.m. Wednesday, May 24.  It
          was offloaded and taken to Hangar J for receiving inspections.
          On or about Monday, June 5, the Atlas will be taken to Pad B at
          Launch Complex 36 for erection.  It will be followed by the
          erection of the Centaur stage approximately two days later.  The
          FltSatCom spacecraft is expected to arrive in mid-June.  The
          launch is expected to occur shortly after Labor Day.



          Delta/COBE

               The necessary refurbishment of Space Launch Complex 2-West
          at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California is complete.  Assembly
          and checkout of the spacecraft continues at NASA's Goddard
          Spaceflight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.  The launch of
          Delta/COBE is not expected to occur until at least the end of
          October.  The erection of the booster will begin when a launch
          time frame is determined.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #466
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 May 89 08:31:48 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01152> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 31 May 89 08:28:29 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 31 May 89 08:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.MYUuxSK00Ui3A2=lVr>;
          Wed, 31 May 89 05:24:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.YYUusRW00UkZ4MgE5m>;
          Wed, 31 May 89 05:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YUupgu00UkZ4Mek43@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 31 May 89 05:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #467

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 467

Today's Topics:
		Re: Proposed improvements for Arecibo
			Re: Space food sticks
		     Re: Private Space Companies
		    Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
     Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)
		Any non-shuttle launches worth seeing?
		French Geologist needs job information
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
	    Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
   Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
			Couple of recent books
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 06:17:50 GMT
From: jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Proposed improvements for Arecibo

In article <14351@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
: Just to keep it in perspective, $10 million equals 18 PM (Pentagon-Minutes).

Yeah, but that's over half a nuclear war.		      :-) ~ :-(

Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
"So many programs, so little time..."

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 01:42:32 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@rutgers.edu  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: Space food sticks

In article <18639@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU> myk@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU writes:
>                                      ... I was under the impression that
>Pillsbury (?) developed them under NASA contract, in which case the
>formulation would be in the public domain.

  I was under this impression as well when I asked Spar Aerospace for details
on the RMS for a shuttle (masses, moments, lengths, motor torques, etc...
enough to make a simulator for one).  I was bluntly told that such information
was "proprietary".
-- 
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 89 02:09:05 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <SHAFER.89May26084000@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
>The 707 was originally the KC-135...

As I've said elsewhere, this is a common misconception.  The two planes
look similar, and share a common ancestor (a Boeing private-venture
prototype whose designation I can't remember offhand), but in fact are
not very similar at the detailed hardware level.  The huge order the
USAF placed for KC-135s undoubtedly helped supply the cash to launch
the 707, but that's known as "making a profit", and is not normally
considered a form of subsidy. :-)

>The 747 was initially proposed as an entry in the competition that the
>C-5 won.  (That's why it has a through deck.) ...

True, but note (a) it lost, and (b) it cost Boeing something like a
billion dollars to launch it as a transport.  It wasn't until over a
decade later, at 747 number 400 or so, that it was in the black.

>... the 747-400 has winglets that were conceived
>by a NASA aerodynamicist (Whitcomb or Jones, I don't remember) and
>flown in a technology-demonstration program funded jointly by NASA and
>the Air Force.

Most aircraft on the planet owe some aspect of their design to technology
development done by NASA or its predecessor NACA.  (I would say "all",
and it's pretty nearly the truth, but there are still aircraft like the
original Wright Flyer that pre-date NACA.)

>This latter makes a really good point.  Essentially all aerospace is
>subsidized _somehow_ by military and government entities...

And of course, private industry subsidizes government entities in the
same way.  This really is not a particularly meaningful argument;
technology flows one way as often as the other.

>Even Pegasus, which is touted as private enterprise at its best, is
>subsidized by NASA providing the B-52 and the test range at a
>ridiculously low cost.

For government launches, and government launches only.  OSC/Hercules will
be buying or leasing a widebody transport for commercial flights.  The
only real subsidy here is DARPA's willingness to buy (at a fixed price)
the first launch of a new launcher -- a risky deal, mitigated somewhat
by the fact that OSC/H don't get paid if it fails.  There is nothing
unreasonable about using government facilities for government launches
without full cost reimbursement; just who would be reimbursing who?
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 89 02:10:55 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <678@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
>Er, what about 'Atlantis'? Sure it's a mythical contenent, but what fictional
>ship was it named after?

If I recall correctly (it's been so long since Eugene posted the
frequently-asked-questions list that I'm forgetting even the parts
I contributed :-)), the Atlantis was the first ship built specifically
for oceanographic research, a few decades ago.
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 12:29:30 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)

In article <24656@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> c60a-1hb@web-2c.berkeley.edu (The Daimyo) writes:
>Extinctions on the smaller scale, aka caused by man, continue on this
>planet in several key places : 1South America 2Africa ...etc. the list
>goes on.  The destruction of the Amazon to make farm land is by far
>one of the fastest destruction of both animal and plant species in the
>world.  The uniqueness of the Amazon enviroment is such that the plant
>and animal species that live there cannot be found anywhere in the world.
>In fact in a recent shuttle picture, the Amazon area was nothing but
>smoke as the forest is being burned down.

Does anyone reckon that an 'educate the Brazilians' campaign based on these
shuttle photos would do any good? I'd like to think so, but I don't really
believe anything short of direct action would solve the problem. After all,
it's like asking the original white settlers of what is now the USA and Canada
not to got west because they'll destroy the Amerinds. They'd have shot you
and continued regardless.

It *might* be possible to convince the Brazilian govenment and the World Bank
(the latter are probably really responsible for this disaster) by dragging them
to the nearest IMAX theatre (probably in the Smithsonian) and showing them the
films from the shuttle. Trouble is, the situation's out of their control by the
look of it.

Apart from the political repercussions, bombing the Trans-Amazonian highway
every fortnight is possibly the most likely saviour of the forest.

I wish I could put a smiley on that last paragraph, but I can't. If only the
photos and film would turn the tide, it would be a triumph for space technology
to solve an ecological problem.

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 10:05:30 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick!inmos!conor@uunet.uu.net  (Conor O'Neill)
Subject: Any non-shuttle launches worth seeing?

I realise that Shuttle launches are relatively few and far between,
but could anyone tell me if there are any other launches worth seeing
in early-mid July in Florida, and if so what I would have to do or where
I would have to go to see them.

-- 
Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd. JANET:    conor@inmos.co.uk
Disclaimer: All views are my own,         UUCP:     uunet!inmos-c!conor
            not those of INMOS.           INTERNET: @col.hp.com:conor@inmos-c

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 18:07:04 GMT
From: mcvax!inria!geocub!strandh@uunet.uu.net  (Robert Strandh)
Subject: French Geologist needs job information

[I am posting this message for a friend, a young man here in France.
Please send valid responses by paper to him or by e-mail to me:
	mcvax!inria!geocub!kc        Kathleen Callaway]

I am a French geologist living in Bordeaux.  I did my Doctorat de Troisieme 
Cycle (PhD disseration) on digital image processing as applied to geology, 
specifically to the study of porous rock.  I am very much interested also 
in astronomy and planetary geology.  

I would be delighted to add my skills and expertise in
image processing in geology and/or astronomy to projects in the US as a
post-doctoral fellow, researcher or intern.  I welcome  "leads" and 
contacts to observatories, labs, or private companies and I will reward 
valuable ones with a bottle of wine and foie gras.

Dominique Genty			Institut de Geodynamique
6, rue Rouget de l'Isle		Universite de Bordeaux III
33400 Talence			Avenue des Facultes
FRANCE				33405 Talence cedex
				FRANCE

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 10:29:47 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@uunet.uu.net  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

>From article <1531@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, by gsh7w@astsun5.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy):
> Actually it will go in a C5A transport plane. It was going to go by
> boar, but recently it was determined that the place could carry the load.
  ^^^^
Hmm, going back to using animal power are they? I know we're getting
more green-conscious, but this is going too far. I've heard about
horse-power, but pig-power takes a bit of thinking about.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Sorry folks, I couldn't resist that one!  Flames > /dev/null

-- 
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND
JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk   BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 89 17:19:06 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!dutchman@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan T Drummey)
Subject: Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.

In article <5414@surya.megatest.UUCP> ivan@surya.UUCP writes:
>
>	If memory serves me, this was known as the "Tingustu Event"
>(or something close to that).  Witnessed by many from afar, there
>were reports of extremely high-intensity light from the horizon.
>An enormous circular section of forest was flattened and flash-
>burned.  However, NO CRATER nor evidence of any crater exsists.

I believe you're referring to the Tunguska Event which occured in
Siberia in 1906.  You're right about the trees and lack of crater.
The flash was observed several hundred miles away, even to Moscow.
Science Fiction writers have used it as a plot device for years, as
have tabloid writers...

jonathan t drummey                        bitnet:
                                          dutchman@wpi.bitnet
box 375                                   
worcester polytechnic institute           internet:
worcester, ma  01609                      dutchman@wpi.wpi.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 89 07:11:09 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <734@solaria.csun.edu> ecphssrw@afws.csun.edu (Stephen Walton) writes:
>The clay abundances, such as the iridium anomaly and the
>isotope ratios, point to the culprit as a nickel-iron asteroid.
>Comets are ice plus carbonaceous chondrite stuff, and it would take
>implausibly many of them to deposit significant heavy elements on the
>Earth.

    It's a lot harder to observe objects which don't outgas, so who's to
say that metal-rich objects don't exist in the cometary halo?  We
don't even know if comets are truly primordial material. I think your
conclusion is too strongly stated given how little we really know.
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 89 22:54:53 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)

In article <463@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>it's like asking the original white settlers of what is now the USA and Canada
>not to got west because they'll destroy the Amerinds. They'd have shot you
>and continued regardless.

Speak for yourself, Yanqui. :-)  If they'd tried that in Canada, the RCMP
(or RNWMP or NWMP as it then was, depending on the year) would have hauled
them off to jail fairly promptly.  The Canadian West was very different
from the American West:  in Canada, the police arrived *before* the settlers.
Mostly because of lawless characters leaking up from down south, too.

The Mounties' job was to make sure that the Amerinds were destroyed in a
peaceful and superficially-lawful manner. :-(
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 89 13:05:02 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!bru-cc!me85mda@uunet.uu.net  (M D Ayton)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <1015@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:

>       FLAME ON
>       [ Hot stuff deleted ]
>	FLAME OFF	
>					Jim Sullivan
>					jim@nih-csl.dcrt.nih.gov

Martin reassembles himself from what charred remains are left on the floor...

Jim,

I'm sorry if I offended you old boy, my very short note was intended to be
firmly tongue in cheek. I didn't mean to poke fun at anyone in particular,
just the "if I can't feel it, see it or touch it, then it ain't there"
brigade. I didn't really mean to poke my nose in on the "Nemesis" debate at
all - I'm a mechanical engineering student and thus not at all qualified to
do so. I wasn't asking anybody to take anything on whatever evidence, merely
trying (and failing it seems) to inject some humour into the discussion by
making an obviously facile comment. I hope that somebody, somewhere, smiled.

For those of a more serious nature I did append a smiley to force the point,
but I think that you must have missed it.

Truce? Friends again? Pleeease.....

Martin.      me85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk
             me85mda@me.brunel.ac.uk

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 27 May 89 03:20:23 PDT
From: Ken Harrenstien <KLH@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Couple of recent books
Cc: KLH@SRI-NIC.ARPA

I ran across a couple of books in the local library recently which others
might want to know about.  I don't recall seeing them mentioned before,
which of course might only mean that I missed a message.

	"Faster Than Light -- Superluminal Loopholes in Physics"
	Nick Herbert (1988)

	"$PACE INC.: Your Guide to Investing in Space Exploration"
	Tom Logsdon (1988) ISBN: 0-517-56812-8

I haven't started the latter yet, but I finished and returned the
first (didn't note the ISBN, sorry).  FTL hopefuls will probably be
encouraged by the title and the first few chapters, but the author
seems to have his feet solidly planted after all and by the time the
book ends, every one of the promising ideas of the past several years
has been gently but firmly squashed.  He does give his own estimate of
the probabilities of success in each area and where he thinks people
should be looking.  Anyone who asks about FTL here should be pointed
at that book.

$PACE INC. (yes there really is a dollar sign in the title) looks like
exactly the kind of propaganda some recent queries have asked for.
I'll quote some of the jacket blurb here without further comment:
		-----------------------

"The next generation of billionaires is going to come from the business
of space." -- Art Dula, space industrialization expert, Houston, Texas.

Enormous financial rewards are in store for small and large companies,
private investors, scientist-entrepreneurs, and all those wise enough
to prepare now for the coming resurgence of the American space
program.  Such is the bullish message of "Space, Inc.", in which
space-program insider Tom Logsdon takes a comprehensive look at a wide
range of scientific and commercial ventures in space that the business
community can mine for profits, while helping to secure the nation's
technological competitiveness for the future.
	<...> Anyone with an innovative idea for producing <...> or for
exploiting <...> will be shown how to seek help in designing an
experimental package and raising the money to launch it.
	The tragic explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, Logsdon
argues, will only accelerate the movement of space exploration away
from NASA and into the private sector.  <etc etc>

-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #467
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Jun 89 06:47:31 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01980> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 89 06:43:54 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  1 Jun 89 06:43:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4YVERCG00Ui3E2yk4b>;
          Thu,  1 Jun 89 05:52:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.wYVDyzC00UkZ0Pz05Y>;
          Thu,  1 Jun 89 05:20:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <oYVDvle00UkZAPxU4t@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  1 Jun 89 05:16:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #468

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 468

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
		     Re: Teach your children well
			 nasa bulletin board
   Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)
   Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
	 Re: Memes: can memetic theory explain this episode?
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
	    Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
		   Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
	       Re: Extinctions: Asteroids and Dinosaurs
			     Mis-posting
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 May 89 19:54:50 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.

In article <2471@wpi.wpi.edu> dutchman@wpi.wpi.edu (Jonathan T Drummey) writes:
>
>I believe you're referring to the Tunguska Event which occured in
>Siberia in 1906.

We almost have it...the Tunguska event actually happened in 1908.  An 
interesting fact is that had the strike happened just four or five hours
later, it would have hit Moscow; the city is at the same latitude as
the strike.

-Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     :          [This space for rent]
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 89 13:43:06 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

-by gsh7w@astsun5.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy):
-> Actually it will go in a C5A transport plane. It was going to go by
-> boar, but recently it was determined that the place could carry the load.
-  ^^^^

andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) <1027@syma.sussex.ac.uk> :
-
-Hmm, going back to using animal power are they? I know we're getting
-more green-conscious, but this is going too far. I've heard about
-horse-power, but pig-power takes a bit of thinking about.

Virginia hams are justly famous.  And big, too...  If *these* pigs had
wings, they'd be C5A's.  Or maybe Boaring 747's.

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 16:51:50 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Teach your children well

The following is quoted from an article by Edwin Roedder in BOOKWATCH REVIEWS,
a newsletter which reviews school text books:

"These are straightforward errors of statement, not simple typographical
mistakes.  The student must 'unlearn' these erroneous 'facts' later, and,
just as in erroneous news stories in the mass media, the corrections
frequently do no catch up with the errors.  As a case in point, chosen
from many, the following is from the teacher's notes for the 5th grade
text:  'Some students may refer to full, half, and quarter moons.  Explain
that the full moon is still there but a shadow formed by Earth blocks some
of the sunlight reaching the moon.'  Many adults have this same misconception,
and I suspect that they were so taught in their elementary school.  This is
an excellent example of the novel and very appropriate concept:  the
Information Virus.  An author's error in a textbook acts like a 'living'
virus in that it reproduces itself and spreads by 'infecting' generations
of students, some of whom become teachers.  A few authors may also spread
the virus by copying previous textbooks, thereby perpetuating the error
even further."

You can help stop brain damage in the public schools by joining the National
Center for Science Education.  A subscription to their newsletter is only
$15/year.  Write to:

NCSE
P.O. Box 9477
Berkeley, CA
94709

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 89 19:14:33 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!ecf!murty@rutgers.edu  (Hema Sandhyarani Murty)
Subject: nasa bulletin board


I would like to know how to access the NASA Bulletin Board.  If anyone
knows the phone number,please let me know

Hema Murty
Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto,
4925 Dufferin St., Downsview, Ontario, M2M 3V8, Canada

edu%"murty@ecf.toronto.edu"

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 89 11:07:11 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)

The Daimyo wrote:
>   
>   The destruction of the Amazon to make farm land is by far one
>   of the fastest destruction of both animal and plant species in
>   the world.  ...  In fact in a recent shuttle picture, the
>   Amazon area was nothing but smoke as the forest is being burned
>   down.  

Steve Hosgood wrote:
>   
>   Does anyone reckon that an 'educate the Brazilians' campaign
>   based on these shuttle photos would do any good?  I'd like to
>   think so, but I don't really believe anything short of direct
>   action would solve the problem.   

......  seven million and eight, seven million and nine, seven million
and ten.  Well, I guess I am now cool enough to post a reply.  

I could write a long flame about what is behind this sudden interest in
the Amazon, and who is polluting whose air, and who needs to be
educated about what, and so on.  But this is sci.space, not soc.bigotry
talk.propaganda sci.misleading alt.scapegoat or rec.bully, so let me
just ask one technical question---in those famous Shuttle pictures, how
do you tell smoke from ordinary clouds?  

  ( Now, don't get me wrong---I fully agree that the steady destruction
  of the Amazon IS a a great disaster, and a great shame for my
  country.  Like most Brazilians, I can't find anything nice to
  say about our current government.  

  However, it is very hard for us third-worlders to keep these things
  straight in our minds, when we are bombarded with such incredible
  arrogance, hypocrisy, and prejudice as displayed in this posting and
  throughout the recent media campaign to "save the rainforest".  
  
  Gratuitous exaggerations like "the Amazon area was nothing but smoke"
  or "60,000 species extinctions per year" only serve to hurt the
  credibility of the precious few environmentalists among us, to make
  them look like traitors and instruments of foreign greed, and to make
  heroes out of those who are doing all the damage.  (And indeed, this
  campaign actually managed to *increase* our president's popularity,
  which had been scraping the bottom mud for most of his term.) 

  >   Apart from the political repercussions, bombing the
  >   Trans-Amazonian highway every fortnight is possibly the most
  >   likely saviour of the forest.  

  Just to be on the safe side, you should also block all the waterways,
  by dropping a few thousand nukes in the right places.  Also, you'd
  better get rid of all cities, farms and settlements by generously
  dousing them with napalm.  Hunting and fishing of endangered species
  can be discouraged by poisoning all wildlife with nerve gas.
  Acid rain (from SO2) and ozone depletion (from CFC's) will provide
  additional long-term protection.  Don't forget to spray Agent Orange
  over anything that's left of the forest, so that gold diggers can't
  hide under the foliage.  To finish off, you might want to dump a
  generous dose of CO2 into the atmosphere, which will stop soil
  erosion by getting rid of the rain...  

  
  Oh, but of course you will begin your `direct action' at home, right?
  Like, by bombing the Trans-Alaskan pipeline?  And shooting those
  lumberjacks who are cutting down the Northwest forests?  And blasting
  all those jillions of cars and power plants, which produce far more
  CO2 than all the forest-burning in the world?  

  >   I wish I could put a smiley on that last paragraph, but I can't.  

  Neither can I. )

                Jorge Stolfi

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 89 00:18:21 GMT
From: att!shuxd!devildog!hiker!starr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Starr)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)

In article <463@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>Does anyone reckon that an 'educate the Brazilians' campaign based on these
>shuttle photos would do any good? I'd like to think so, but I don't really
>believe anything short of direct action would solve the problem. 

Has space photos of the depleted ozone layer over Antartica stopped
the "civilized" population of the planet from recharging their
car air conditioners with Freon?  How about the styrafoam (sp?) cup
you drank your coffee out of?  What about the acid rain our factories
are causing in other countries (as well as on ourselves)?  

If we want to stop the destruction in a country which probably
suffers from the worse economy on earth we have to do it by
giving the Brazilians an economic alternative.  In other words,
the price will have to come out of all of our pockets if we
want to maintain a resource which affects the whole planet.

----
 __/\__  ********************  __/\__   |       starr@shuxd.att.com
 \    /  * Michael L. Starr *  \    /   |       att!shuxd!starr
  |/\|   ********************   |/\|    |       attmail!starr

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 May 89 14:51:31 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun5.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w@g.ms.uky.edu 
 (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>Actually it will go in a C5A transport plane. It was going to go by
>boar, but recently it was determined that the place could carry the
>load. 

This changes everything... how come no-one thought of using pigs for
transportation before?  Maybe NASA could ferry the shuttle from Edwards
to KSC with camels?  Obviously this is a consequence of budgetary
constraints, since animals are non-union.

Okay, pigs are not the same as boars... tusk, tusk...

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 89 17:18:15 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Memes: can memetic theory explain this episode?

> Wow I haven't seen the story of THE MOVIE! posted in quite a while.
> Is it always MacLeod who posts it or does the, er, meme get around?
> -- 
> Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff

Sounds like a very dangerous videotape.  Probably packed with highly
infectious memes.  If it's not destroyed, it should be kept in a 
glovebox at Fort Detrick, surrounded by armed guards with shoot-to-kill
orders.

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 89 07:37:57 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

In article <1531@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
gsh7w@astsun5.astro.Virginia.EDU.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ what a linefull!  :-)
>[. . .]
>Actually it will go in a C5A transport plane. It was going to go by
>boar, [. . .]
 ^^^^

	Having just a few hours come back from a pig roast, it occurred
to me that such methods of transport are rather risky.  Someone wanting
food for a festival might mistakenly interrupt operations.  8-)

|   Lucius Chiaraviglio    |    Internet:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
Internet-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt Internet-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 89 18:44:06 GMT
From: tekbspa!optilink!cramer@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.

In article <5414@surya.megatest.UUCP>, ivan@megatest.UUCP (Ivan Batinic) writes:
> 
> 	If memory serves me, this was known as the "Tingustu Event"
> (or something close to that).  Witnessed by many from afar, there
> were reports of extremely high-intensity light from the horizon.
> An enormous circular section of forest was flattened and flash-
> burned.  However, NO CRATER nor evidence of any crater exsists.

We spell it "Tunguska" in English, and you are confusing the 1908
Tunguska explosion with a multi-meteor arrival in 1947, also in
Siberia.  (Siberia is a BIG place -- not surprising it gets a lot of
collision).

> 	Ivan

>From the name, one might surmise that you are Russian.  My Russian
is very, very rusty.  How is Tunguska spelled in Russian?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer  "This is drugs. 
This is your brain on drugs.  Any questions?"  "Can I have a Brain McMuffin?"

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pro-hysteria.cts.com!dwelliver@angband.s1.gov
Date: Thu, 18 May 89 20:29:24 CST
From: mordor!rutgers!pro-hysteria.cts.com!dwelliver@angband.s1.gov (System Administrator)
Subject: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..


  I heard that Venus used to be a flourishing planet, and could have been much
like Earth, until the Greenhouse took into effect there. Does anyone know if
this is true, and if so, can you fill in a few details?  Thanks..

ProLine: dwelliver@pro-hysteria       UUCP: crash!pnet01!pro-hysteria!dwelliver
INET: dwelliver@pro-hysteria.cts.com  BBS: Hysteria (612)/557-2811 1200/2400
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-hysteria!dwelliver@nosc.mil

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 89 18:09:28 GMT
From: usc!csun!solaria!ecphssrw%bob.csun.edu@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU  (Stephen Walton)
Subject: Re: Extinctions: Asteroids and Dinosaurs

In article <4792@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM>, timothym@tekigm2 (Timothy D Margeson) writes:

>The current issue of Scientific American has an excellant article on the
>extintion matter.

Which I admit that I've not read yet.  However:

>The article also points out that the 26 million year periodicity meets 
>roughly with the rate at which the solar system moves through the arm of our
>galaxy and some correlation is plausible.

As the social scientists say, "Correlation is not cause and effect."
It is difficult to think of anything which would happen *every* time
the solar system went through a spiral arm which could cause
extinctions on Earth.  Contrary to popular belief, the steller density
(stars per cubic parsec) in spiral arms is the same as between the
arms; it is just that most of the new, hot, and therefore bright stars
are in the arms, causing them to stand out.  Yes, they have a higher
concentration of dust and gas too, but it is more like 1 atom/cc
instead of 0.1 atom/cc in the solar neighborhood.  Not enough to make
a difference.  A dense molecular cloud *might* cause enough absorption
to make the earth colder for a long period, but such clouds fill a
small proportion of the volume of even a spiral arm.
--
Stephen Walton, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Cal State Univ. Northridge
RCKG01M@CALSTATE.BITNET       ecphssrw@afws.csun.edu
swalton@solar.stanford.edu    ...!csun!afws.csun.edu!ecphssrw

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 May 89 08:25:06 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Mis-posting
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

It seems we have a mailer with a sense of humor... apologies for
wasting bandwidth with the wrong file recently... we now return you
to your regularly-scheduled newsgroup...

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 15:23:07 GMT
From: ccncsu!grieg.CS.ColoState.Edu!root@boulder.colorado.edu  (the root)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <29218@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> bwood@janus.UUCP (Blake Philip Wood)
writes:
>Prof. Richard A. Muller, here at Berkeley, is the originator of this idea.
>About a year ago he wrote a book on the subject: "Nemesis". 

I checked our libary listings and found
    Raup, David M. _The nemesis affair : a story of the death of
    dinosaurs and the ways of science_ -- New York : Norton, 1986.
    QB631.R38 (no ISBN shown)
There is no listing for Miller. Can anyone help?

    Randolph Bentson
    Computer Science Department
    Colorado State University
    Ft. Collins, CO 80523
	303/491-7016
    bentson@grieg.CS.ColoState.Edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #468
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Jun 89 07:50:33 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03163> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 2 Jun 89 07:49:44 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  2 Jun 89 07:49:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QYVZEz600Vs1M110EE>;
          Fri,  2 Jun 89 05:32:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.UYVZ3ya00UkZ0Spk5R>;
          Fri,  2 Jun 89 05:18:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYVZ1aG00UkZESoE4O@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  2 Jun 89 05:16:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #469

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 469

Today's Topics:
			  Private launchers
NASA Commercial Programs Office to exhibit at Paris Air Show (Forwarded)
			    gps satellites
		 Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
	 Magellan Status for 05/30/89 - 06/03/89 (Forwarded)
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
   Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)
		     Re: Private Space Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 May 89 22:54:32 GMT
From: ccncsu!handel.colostate.edu!bogartc@boulder.colorado.edu  (Chris Bogart)
Subject: Private launchers


   I understand there are, or have been, several private corporations working
on their own launch vehicles, under a loosening of restrictions on non-NASA
launches.  Does anyone know if any of these comanies still exist?  Please
reply by e-mail and I'll post a summary of responses I get.
   I'm interested more in for-profit companies intending to put up
communication satellites or whatever, than in futurist groups like the L-5
society.  Thanks for your help,


Chris Bogart         bogartc@handel.cs.colostate.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 89 16:28:17 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Commercial Programs Office to exhibit at Paris Air Show (Forwarded)

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 30, 1989

 
RELEASE:  89-81

NASA COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS OFFICE TO EXHIBIT AT PARIS AIR SHOW


     An exhibit featuring the cooperative efforts of NASA and 
U.S. industry to commercially develop space will be displayed in 
the United States National Pavilion at the 38th Paris Air Show, 
June 9-18.

     The exhibit highlights the development of commercial 
applications, and focuses on current research activities underway 
by NASA and U.S. companies through programs such as Joint 
Endeavor Agreements and the Centers for the Commercial 
Development of Space.

     Also displayed with the exhibit will be scale models of 
commerical space hardware provided by U.S. commercial space 
transportation firms, satellite manufacturers, and privately-
developed orbital laboratory facilities.

     The commercial programs exhibit will be located with U.S. 
industry displays and staffed by representatives of NASA's Office 
of Commercial Programs.

     The Office of Commercial Programs was created in 1984 to 
provide a focus for efforts to encourage greater private sector 
involvement and investment in the nation's civil space program.

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 89 15:12:29 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!wombat!george@apple.com  (George Scolaro)
Subject: gps satellites


I have just bought a handheld gps receiver from a company in L.A. called
Magellan. The unit works well, and is an impressive piece of technology.  My
question is: what is the schedule for more gps satellites going up. It seems
that there are 7 up now, as has been since the beginning of the year(?).
-- 
George Scolaro
george@wombat
(try {pyramid|sun|vsi1|killer} !daver!wombat!george)

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 89 19:55:55 GMT
From: agate!rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu!gckaplan@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (George Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS

In article <1928@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> bentson@grieg.CS.ColoState.Edu.UUCP (the  root) writes:
>In article <29218@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> bwood@janus.UUCP (Blake Philip Wood)
>writes:
>>Prof. Richard A. Muller, here at Berkeley, is the originator of this idea.
>>About a year ago he wrote a book on the subject: "Nemesis". 
>
>I checked our libary listings and found
>	...
>There is no listing for Miller. Can anyone help?

>From the MELVYL online catalog at UC Berkeley:

Author:        Muller, R. (Richard)
Title:         Nemesis / Richard Muller. 1st ed. New York : Weidenfeld &
                 Nicolson, c1988.
Description:   xiii, 193 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.

Notes:         Includes index.

Subjects:      End of the world (Astronomy)
               Planets, Minor.
               Extinction (Biology)

Call numbers:  UCB   Astronomy QB638.8 .M851 1988
               UCB   Main      QB638.8 .M851 1988
               UCB   Physics   QB638.8 .M851 1988

George C. Kaplan                Internet:  gckaplan@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu
Space Sciences Lab              UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!sag4.ssl!gckaplan
University of California        (415) 643-8610
Berkeley, CA  94720

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 89 22:04:37 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 05/30/89 - 06/03/89 (Forwarded)


                     MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS
                       May 30-June 3, 1989
 
 
     This is a weekly status report. The next report will be
issued June 5.
 
     The spacecraft is in good health following the long holiday
weekend. All momentum wheel desaturations and star calibrations
were performed routinely.
 
     The Attitude Control team determined on May 27 that a
ground software error was responsible for an attitude update
problem and the error is being corrected. No flight software
changes are required, but gain changes will be uploaded.
 
     The Cruise-3 computer command sequence was successfully
tested in the System Verification Lab and is to be uploaded this
afternoon.
 
     Cruise-3 contains wheel desaturations at 12:45 p.m. and
12:45 a.m. and the star calibration at 1 p.m. daily. It also
contains radio tests and arming of the Solid Rocket Motor on
June 7 at 3 p.m. Arming is done early so that any possible
problems later in the cruise will not prevent its arming. 

 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                    3,735,101 
     
     Velocity Geocentric                         5,531 mph
              Heliocentric                      60,293 mph
 
     One Way Light Time                           20.0 sec

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 89 03:26:59 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!ecf!murty@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Hema Sandhyarani Murty)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <8905290636.AA03541@crash.cts.com>, dwelliver@pro-hysteria.cts.COM (System Administrator) writes:
> 
>   I heard that Venus used to be a flourishing planet, and could have been much
> like Earth, until the Greenhouse took into effect there. Does anyone know if
> this is true, and if so, can you fill in a few details?  Thanks..
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________________


Venus has almost the same mass, size and density as the Earth, which has
earned the nickname 'Earths sister'.  However, there are some important
differences.  
 
Surface Venus temperature is 900 deg. F and surface Venus pressure is
90 atmospheres.
 
Its atmosphere is 96 percent  carbon dioxide and this is responsible for
the massive greenhouse effect - a planet-wide catastrophe.
 
The Earth also has a greenhouse effect due to its carbon dioxide and water
vapor.  The global temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing
point of water if not for the greenhouse effect.  Like Venus, the Earth
also has about 90 atmospheres of carbon dioxide; but it resides in the
crust as limestone and other carbonates and not in the atmosphere.
If the Earth were a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would
increase, driving some of the carbon dioxide out of the surface rocks,
generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which in turn would heat the
surface further.  A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates
into carbon dioxide and this would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect.
This is just what we think happened in the early history of Venus because
of Venus' proximity to the Sun.
 
This is warning to all of us life forms on this planet - burning fossil
fuels releases carbon dioxide into the air.  This is the only home we 
know.
 
Hema Murty
Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto
4925 Dufferin St., Downsview, Ontario, M3H 5T6 Canada

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 89 20:50:24 GMT
From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@apple.com  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)

In article <1989May27.225453.4952@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
writes:
>In article <463@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>>it's like asking the original white settlers of what is now the USA and
>>Canada not to got west because they'll destroy the Amerinds. They'd have
>>shot you and continued regardless.
>
>Speak for yourself, Yanqui. :-)  If they'd tried that in Canada, the RCMP
>(or RNWMP or NWMP as it then was, depending on the year) would have hauled
>them off to jail fairly promptly.  The Canadian West was very different
>from the American West:  in Canada, the police arrived *before* the settlers.
>Mostly because of lawless characters leaking up from down south, too.

I notice that the area of Indian reservations in western Canada
is similar to that of the western United States -- i.e., a small
percentage of the total land area.  Despite the vigilance of the
Mounties, the Indians don't seem to come out of it much better.

>The Mounties' job was to make sure that the Amerinds were destroyed in a
>peaceful and superficially-lawful manner. :-(

This is largely what happened in the United States as well.  It's
a myth that the Indian displacement was mostly accomplished by
massacre.  The Federal government was charged with protecting
the Indians' rights and made a considerable effort to do so --
but it was pretty much a matter of trying to hold back the sea.

In fact, your statement above could almost be a paraphrase of
what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote back in the 1830's, comparing
the U.S.'s approach to the Indians with that of the Spaniards:

	The Spaniards let their dogs loose on the Indians as if
	they were wild beasts; they pillaged the New World like a
	city taken by storm, without discrimination or mercy; but
	one cannot destroy everything, and frenzy has a limit;
	the remnant of the Indian population, which escaped the
	massacres, in the end mixed with the conquerors and
	adopted their religion and mores.  [FN: But one should
	not give the Spaniards any credit for this result.  If
	the Indian tribes had not been settled agriculturists when
	the Europeans arrived, no doubt in South America they would
	have been destroyed just as they were in the North.]

	On the other hand, the conduct of the United States
	Americans toward the natives was inspired by the most
	chaste affection for legal formalities.  As long as the
	Indians remained in their savage state, the Americans did
	not interfere in their affairs at all and treated them as
	independent peoples; they did not allow their lands to be
	occupied unless they had been properly acquired by contract;
	and if by chance an Indian nation cannot live on its
	territory, they take them by the hand in brotherly fashion
	and lead them away to die far from the land of their fathers.

	The Spaniards, by unparalled atrocities which brand them
	with indelible shame, did not succeed in exterminating the
	Indian race and could not even prevent them from sharing
	their rights; the United States Americans have attained
	both these results with wonderful ease, quietly, legally,
	and philanthropically, without spilling blood and without
	violating a single one of the great principles of morality
	in the eyes of the world.  It is impossible to destroy men
	with more respect to the laws of humanity.

		Alexis de Tocqueville, *Democracy in America*, 13th
		Edition, 1850, Edited by J. P. Mayer, Translated by
		George Lawrence, Anchor Books, Doubleday and Co., Inc.,
		New York, 1975, p. 339.

>Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

--
Michael McNeil			michaelm@vax.3Com.Com
3Com Corporation		hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
Mountain View, California	work telephone: (415) 969-2099 x 208

	We do not believe.  We fear.  
		Aua (a Central Eskimo shaman, when queried about Eskimo
		beliefs), from *Arctic Dreams: Imagination and Desire
		in a Northern Landscape*, by Barry Lopez, 1986

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 19:40:22 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <1989May26.155141.28293@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

   Contrary to popular misconception,
   the KC-135 and the 707 are **not** the same aircraft -- they don't even
   have the same fuselage cross-section -- although they share a common
   [privately funded] ancestor.)  

This is not a popular misconception.  Let's look at Jane's All the
World's Aircraft, which is a very authoritative source.  On page 238
of the 1976-77 edition we find the following:

Boeing Model 707

US Air Force designation: VC-137

   The prototype of the Boeing Model 707 was the first jet transport
designed as such to be completed and flown in the United States.  It
made its first flight on 15 July 1954.

   Designated Model 367-80, it was built as a private venture and was
used to demonstrate the potential of commercial and military
developments of the design for a period of more than 15 years.  During
its early test programme, it was fitted with a flight refuelling boom,
to prove the capability of this type of aircraft for refuelling
present and future jet bombers, fighters and reconnaissance aircraft
at or near their operational altitudes and speeds.  As a result, a
developed version was ordered in large numbers for the USAF under the
designation KC-135.

[stuff about donation of prototype to Smithsonian]

    On 13 July 1955 Boeing was given clearance by the USAF to build
commercial developments of the prototype concurrently with the
production of military KC-135 tanker-transports.  These transports
have the basic designations of Boeing 707 and 720, but were made
available in many versions, of which a total of 919 had been sold and
905 delivered by 31 August 1976 [when this went to press].  These
totals include five specially-equipped aircraft delivered to the USAF
under the designations VC-137A (now VC-137B) and VC-137C, and two
AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) aircraft which were used,
under the designation EC-177D, for competitive trial of
downward-looking radars.  They are now being used in the next phases
of the E-3A programme.

[gives specs of only version available, 707-320C]

End of excerpt.

Thus we see that a privately developed prototype became the VC-137
(probably A) which turned into the KC-135.  The Air Force then gave
Boeing _permission_ to build a commercial version, known as the 707
and 720, concurrently.  I'm not sure what is implied by this
permission, but it sounds like the Air Force had some sort of rights
which they shared with Boeing.  Having the Air Force pay for the jigs
and assembly-line setup makes it a lot cheaper to build the commercial
version.  The Air Force also paid for the CAT I testing, which would
have put the commercial version further up the maturity curve, even
though it would not suffice for the FAA certification.

On page 239, we also find, in reference to the 727, the following:

In other respects [refers to the innovative rear-engined layout] the
727 bears a resemblance to the 707 and 720 series.  It has an
identical upper fuselage section and many parts and systems are
interchangeable between the three types.

I guess this makes the 727 a KC-135/VC-137 derivative too. :-)

The Air Force paid for the YC-14 prototypes, since this was back in
the era of fly-offs.  This certainly contradicts the "Boeing has never
been paid by the government to build an aircraft" line.  They (Boeing)
spoke then of a commercial version, probably to compete with the L-100
(commercial version of the C-130).  They're also building the Osprey
and were talking about building a civilian version of this.  Boeing is
much less concerned about ideological purity than some people on the
net are.  Rather, they'll take any advantage they can (IMO as they
should) to continue building successful and profitable aircraft.

--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #469
*******************

Return-Path: <ota+space.mail-errors@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Jun 89 05:48:35 EDT
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01067> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 3 Jun 89 05:46:58 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  3 Jun 89 05:46:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.cYVuOxG00Ui3M1Hgp4>;
          Sat,  3 Jun 89 05:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.UYVu9cC00UkZ8WlU5N>;
          Sat,  3 Jun 89 05:18:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <sYVu7Gu00UkZQWk05E@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  3 Jun 89 05:16:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #470

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 470

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)
		       Re: nasa bulletin board
	    Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
		     RE: Teach your children well
	   Theory, speculation, and verification (abstract)
		     RE: Teach your children well
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
   Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)
	      Sun Busting (was Re: Space Digest V9 #443)
	   Re: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
	    Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
			The Cost of Launchers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 May 89 04:44:52 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <860@mv03.ecf.toronto.edu> murty@ecf.toronto.edu (Hema Sandhyarani Murty) writes:
>If the Earth were a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would
>increase, driving some of the carbon dioxide out of the surface rocks,
>generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which in turn would heat the
>surface further.  A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates
>into carbon dioxide and this would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect.

It's not that simple.  There was a paper in Science a year or so ago --
I can probably dig up an exact reference if really needed -- which went
into the details and established that Earth would not have a runaway
greenhouse effect even with far more CO2 than it has now.  There are
a number of complications, like the effect of clouds on climate (they
tend to cool the surface, on the whole).  The "habitable zone" around
the Sun is rather wider than was formerly thought; Earth is not on the
brink of becoming another Venus.

(Some have suspected that for a long time, mind you.  Considering all
the changes in the Sun and the Earth in the last few billion years,
it would require fantastic luck to keep Earth in the habitable zone
for this long if the zone was really as narrow as some claimed.)

This is not to say that we can't mess up our climate fairly thoroughly
with greenhouse *warming*, mind you.  (Assuming that perverse and uncaring
old Mother Nature doesn't throw an Ice Age at us first...  One should
not assume that the alternative to change is the status quo.  Usually
the alternative to change is another sort of change, not necessarily
a better one.)
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 89 14:12:50 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <1989May31.044452.19619@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>This is not to say that we can't mess up our climate fairly thoroughly
>with greenhouse *warming*, mind you.  (Assuming that perverse and uncaring
>old Mother Nature doesn't throw an Ice Age at us first...  

Something tells me that, whatever the ills of fossil fuels and the attendant
greenhouse effect, and whatever we have to do to get the problem under
control, the ONE thing we no longer need fear is another Ice Age!  If we
ever detected the signs, we could just burn coal for a couple of centuries.
(half :-) )
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 89 16:37:56 GMT
From: stsci!sims@noao.edu  (Jim Sims)
Subject: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)

Some current schedule item based on a preliminary LMSC schedule:


7/10  HST Horizontal - SMA Staking

10/18 Ship HST and GSE

10/22 Install PCS Simulator

11/27 - 12/21  Funct test, GST 8

1/11  Remove GSE cables

2/28 - 3/9 Move to PAD

3/26 - launch?


-- 
    Jim Sims      Space Telescope Science Institute      Baltimore, MD
             UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
    ARPA:  sims@stsci.edu                           SPAM:  SCIVAX::SIMS

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 89 18:11:38 GMT
From: millard@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Millard Edgerton)
Subject: Re: nasa bulletin board

In article <859@mv03.ecf.toronto.edu>, murty@ecf.toronto.edu (Hema Sandhyarani Murty) writes:
>
> I would like to know how to access the NASA Bulletin Board.  If anyone knows the phone number,please let me know
> 
> Hema Murty
> Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto,

The only public bbs operated by NASA is Space Link at Huntsville.
The phone number is 1-205-895-0028.  The bbs supports 300, 1200
& 2400 baud with 8 bits, no parity.
***************************************************************************
*  Intelligent people talk about ideas.   | Standard disclaimer(s)        *
*  Average people talk about things.      | Millard J. Edgerton, WA6VZZ   *
*  Small people talk about other people.  | millard@eos.arc.nasa.gov      *
*                -o-                      |         -o-                   *
*      Employed by Sterling Software at NASA Ames Research Center.        *
***************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 89 14:05:05 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!sunic!sics.se!sics!bruno@uunet.uu.net  (Bruno Poterie)
Subject: Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.

In article <1578@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

   In article <5414@surya.megatest.UUCP>, ivan@megatest.UUCP (Ivan Batinic) writes:

	[saying that Moscow could have been hit, but for a few hours]

..Or Copenhage, or Edinburgh, or Glasgow, all on the same line as well. Brrrrr....

     From the name, one might surmise that you are Russian.  My Russian
   is very, very rusty.  How is Tunguska spelled in Russian?  

   Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer  "This is drugs. 

Arg! "Your name is John. I deduce that you are English. How is the weather in London?"
Sorry ;-) ;-) I could not resist this one. If we are going to guess, the last name
would rather indicate a Yougoslav (Slovenian? Serb?), or maybe Slovaquian, origin.
But we are going too far from sci.space.

Bruno Poterie	bruno@inmic.se 
[italian first name, living in Sweden, full french nevertheless]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 May 1989 14:17-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: RE: Teach your children well

> Kids who learn basic scientific principles and core mathematics will never
> be hurting for jobs.  I just fear that they may find themselves in too much
> demand.

Sometimes when I hit the pub after working a 12 hour day, I very much
fear that the era of "The Marching Morons" has already arrived...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 May 89 12:25:20 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Theory, speculation, and verification (abstract)


It is not productive to say "there is no point in considering Theory X
because there is not sufficient evidence to prove it valid". Most new
theories start out as very tenuous constructions, extrapolated from
currently accepted models and limited observations. When the theoretical
model has become sufficiently substantial, theorists start asking "what would
be the implications of this model, and what tests might we use to try to
prove or disprove it?" If it is judged that there is sufficient interest and
a significant chance that the model could be correct, then time and money are
invested for further verification. The model may be disproven entirely, 
proven to the extent that it joins the body of "accepted knowledge", or
shown to be at least partially incomplete or incorrect. If the last happens,
the model may be modified, then subjected to further testing. Several
iterations may be necessary before acceptable results are produced.

The point is that inductive reasoning, taking what is known and extrapolating
into the unknown, is the major source of ideas on where to look next. 
Scientists speculate that Jupiter could conceivably have a ring, so the
Voyager probes are instructed to look for a ring, and one is found which
could have been missed otherwise. To abruptly dismiss any theory which is
not provable with data already available is to kill or greatly hamper the
acquisition of new knowledge.

It is can also be popular to claim that a theory has been "proven unprovable".
In some cases this is correct, as when a measurement is necessary that
violates the limits described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or
when it is necessary to analyze a past event for which it is known that no
evidence remains. In other cases, however, what is really meant is that we
have not yet found a satisfactory way to get the required information.
Since scientists have considerable input to policy decisions on what
experiments will be funded in the future, it is very important to make
this distinction.

The current "mythology" in science is that a theoretical model is considered
well on the way to acceptance if and only if it has sucessfully been used to
predict a future event or observation. The suspect must be observed shooting
another victim before he can be found guilty. The batter who misses the
first pitch verifies his theory on the second pitch that "you can't get out by
missing the ball". Proponents of Velikovsky point out that he predicted
Venus would be hot, so his theory that it had been shot out of the planet
Jupiter into its present orbit must be correct. 

Somehow that one verified prediction makes the theoretical model legitimate,
and proves that it isn't "just an explanation for the existing data". If
accumulated knowledge continues to grow, I suppose someday it will be
necessary to suppress certain experiments or keep their results secret,
so there will be unknown data that can be used to verify future theories. :-)

(OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a little.)
                                John Roberts
                                roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 May 89 11:43:56 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?)
Subject: RE: Teach your children well

Where in I get butchered for knocking the following usage:
"It's been light-years since I was home"

In context, this was (from memory):
"Been away from home long?"
"Forever"
"In know what you mean, it's been light-years since I was home"

In this context, it is obvious (to me) that the writers choose a distance
measure (light-years) when they wanted a time measure (epochs).  My basic
concern (ahhmm, SET SOAPBOX/ON) was using "pseudo-techincal" verbage without
understanding what it means, and spreading this confusion/misunderstanding.
Would it make anymore sense to say that it is only 3*10**9 meters until
work was over (about 10 light-seconds)?

Clearer??

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 89 20:10:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth


/* Written 12:41 pm  May 26, 1989 by pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
agate!shelby!Portia!hanauma!joe@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>	Incidentally, some geophysicists are waiting quite impatiently
>for another mag 9 mega-quake. 
This is a great source of comfort to all of us in Southern California...
/* End of text from s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
It's about time you wierdos in CaliforniA did something useful. Be sure to
take accurate notes when it hits.

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 89 17:25:24 GMT
From: sumax!amc-gw!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)

In article <8@hiker.UUCP> starr@hiker.UUCP (Michael Starr) writes:
>In article <463@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>>Does anyone reckon that an 'educate the Brazilians' campaign based on these
>>shuttle photos would do any good? 

        [environmental quibbling wiped]

>Has space photos

 [all stuff having nothing to do with sci.space deleted (majority of text)]


        Please remove the environmental whacking from this group.
        This is sci.space, and having the word 'space' in your text
        does not qualify this conversion as anything to do with
        space. Duke it out in sci.environment... PLEASE.

-- 
 _____   Kevin Bagley  Global Tech. Int'l Inc., Mukilteo WA 98275  206-742-9111
  )___)  __    _   _   UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin
_/___)  (__(__(_)_/_)_ ARPA:uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu
_______________/  Disclaimer...  "I did not say this. I am not here."

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 89 19:16:06 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bnr-public!hwt@rutgers.edu  (Henry Troup)
Subject: Sun Busting (was Re: Space Digest V9 #443)

... a device that could pop the Sun..
 
Sure, a modulator of the strong nuclear force could do this.  Of course,
we lack a theory on how to do this...
 

utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bnr-public | BNR is not 	| All that evil requires
hwt@bnr (BITNET/NETNORTH) 	     | responsible for 	| is that good men do
(613) 765-2337 (Voice)		     | my opinions	| nothing.

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 89 21:05:34 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

>innovative.  More than one-third of those surveyed believe that we will
>communicate with extraterrestrials;  that we will inhabit the Moon and
>man-made planets; and that artificial body parts will be so commonplace
>that they will be sold as "off-the-shelf" items to be purchased as needed."

>How do you like them apples?  ET's and space habitats lumped together.
>Think about that the next time you look for a consultant.  Maybe that would
>be a good screening question, "Do you believe Earth is being visited by ET's?"


Please note that the operative phrase in the above is "communicate with",
which does not imply physical contact - as the existence of this net
shows!  There are a good number of respectable researchers with a serious
interest in SETI, and it is not unreasonable to think that there might be
some success in this area within the next 200 years.  Visitation by little
green men is hardly necessary for the prediction to come true.


Bob Myers  KC0EW   HP Graphics Tech. Div.|  Opinions expressed here are not
                   Ft. Collins, Colorado |  those of my employer or any other
myers%hpfcla@hplabs.hp.com               |  sentient life-form on this planet.

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 89 19:52:37 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!zebra!vern@boulder.colorado.edu  (Vernon C. Hoxie)
Subject: Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.

In article <8905261314.AA12319@decwrl.dec.com>, klaes@renoir.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
> 
>         According to the May 1989 issue of the Boston L5/NSS SPACE NEWS
>     newsletter on page 2, a relatively large meteorite struck the Soviet
>     Union on February 12, 1947 only 400 kilometers (250 miles) from the
>     city of Valivostok with the force of an atomic bomb.
> 
>         This event was unknown to me until this article.  Does anyone 
>     have any further information on this meteorite strike?  Thanks.

My Cumulative Index to Scientific American lists an article in the June,
1950 issue. p42-43.  I have seen photographs published showing the trees
laid out worse than the Mt. St. Helen's fire storm.  There could be a
more recent article in SA but I can't find my new Index.


-- 
Vernon C. Hoxie		       {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!zebra!vern
3975 W. 29th Ave.					voice: 303-477-1780
Denver, Colo., 80212					 uucp: 303-455-2670

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 89 14:28:08 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: The Cost of Launchers

Space launches are expensive. It costs at least $1000 to put a
pound of payload into low earth orbit. Presumably this is largely
due to the fact that space >>launchers<< are expensive, and that
they are consumed as they are used (neglecting the shuttle, which
is expensive for other reasons). Large-scale space development
hinges on bringing launch costs down, to far below this level.
In order to do so, it seems to me that attention should be focused
on reducing the costs of the most expensive aspects of space launcher
construction/operations. The question is, what are these aspects?
Can anybody point me towards references that break down the costs
of building/operating space launch vehicles? Please reply directly,
using mail, and I will summarize and post any interesting information.
-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #470
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Jun 89 06:32:02 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00772> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sun, 4 Jun 89 06:30:04 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  4 Jun 89 06:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4YWBV=K00Ui3A1Dqcz>;
          Sun,  4 Jun 89 03:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.UYWBSQG00UkZMXgE51>;
          Sun,  4 Jun 89 03:17:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <oYWBQl200UkZ8Xek5f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  4 Jun 89 03:16:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #471

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 471

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
		       Re: nasa bulletin board
		   Space Shuttle Launch Schedule..
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 89 00:51:48 GMT
From: pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #520 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89150.84190835 0.00000133           15137-3 0  2080
2 00424  80.4624 302.9507 0023789 175.0514 185.0325 13.67142046330446
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89149.67299267 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2320
2 03029  12.7202  24.3096 0015222 196.7828 163.1216  1.00272718 78954
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89149.92972332 0.00000003                   0  7579
2 08820 109.8236 223.8184 0044846 319.9337  39.8050  6.38664073 49469
GOES 2     
1 10061U 77048  A 89149.81763132 -.00000010  00000-0  00000 0 0  2686
2 10061   7.1155  68.4603 0004922 171.5435 188.3122  1.00278249  5192
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89149.50819860 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1309
2 10684  63.5371 101.4278 0109314 199.7988 159.8053  2.00561985 68155
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89148.96805067 -.00000028                   0  9856
2 10893  64.5117 342.2726 0152776  27.6685 333.1555  2.00557521 80960
GOES 3     
1 10953U 78062  A 89146.87615079  .00000085  00000-0  99999-4 0  6687
2 10953   5.9817  71.1531 0008321 259.6318 100.4560  1.00258239   721
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U 78064  A 89150.09932679  .00000725  00000-0  29986-3 0  1191
2 10967 108.0040 250.3476 0002124 277.3693  82.7111 14.34597710571498
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89147.78608600 -.00000027                   0   152
2 11054  64.0382 338.7433 0055802 118.1535 242.4224  2.00561136 77953
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89149.38491247 0.00000011                   0  1584
2 11141  63.5501 101.3235 0058133 321.4205  38.1411  2.00573888 76688
NOAA 6     
1 11416U 79 57  A 89150.51193911 -.00000007  00000-0  49834-5 0  8523
2 11416  98.5047 148.0891 0012978 156.7468 203.4177 14.25759857515382
Solar Max  
1 11703U 80 14  A 89150.06671688  .00045330  00000-0  75270-3 0  9607
2 11703  28.5021  47.0234 0002833 255.6204 104.4185 15.50697899517029
GPS-0006   
1 11783U 80 32  A 89148.84274056 -.00000027  00000-0  00000 0 0  8975
2 11783  63.9196 338.3970 0143594  62.2868 299.2219  2.00568106 66618
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89145.73282747 -.00000239           10000-3 0  7326
2 12472   2.5405  79.3716 0010039 293.7824  66.1826  1.00241061 28380
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89150.06029053  .00015342  00000-0  55677-3 0  2018
2 12887  97.6857 175.5041 0001046  26.5192 333.5923 15.28418627422380
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U 81100  B 89149.59095894  .00062766  00000-0  83880-3 0  5754
2 12888  97.5557 202.0212 0003424 165.6585 194.4770 15.57847254426096
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89148.76940066 0.00000345           30017-3 0  6416
2 13113  82.5387  74.1975 0016446 111.9825 248.3052 13.83997751362553
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89151.78758558 -.00000766          -13222-4 0  5948
2 13138  51.6115  37.7712 0001220  77.1308 283.0233 15.41403818405662
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89149.61196256  .00001781  00000-0  40529-3 0  9671
2 13367  98.2121 213.4823 0000999 293.4727  66.5993 14.57112487365360
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U 82116  A 89150.40276132  .00000552  00000-0  28512-3 0  7795
2 13718  81.2429 298.9461 0057048  50.2719 310.3235 14.13198579333043
IRAS       
1 13777U          89147.56500528 0.00000601           44302-3 0  6376
2 13777  99.0469 344.9610 0013730  13.8169 346.3345 13.98604536323318
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89149.61374255 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-5 0  7988
2 13969   3.5156  68.2121 0001803 176.7894 182.5131  1.00270049 89218
GOES 6     
1 14050U 83 41  A 89146.92310479  .00000122  00000-0  00000 0 0  9577
2 14050   1.2425  83.2905 0000751  95.8917 261.4169  1.00268300  6392
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89150.14316711 -.00000059                   0  4015
2 14129  26.2371 262.7283 6055020  46.2646 350.0682  2.05883470 16846
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89148.43226801 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6305
2 14189  63.1918  99.9671 0135376 215.5812 143.4917  2.00569737 43042
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U 83109  A 89150.45925561  .00000557  00000-0  23519-3 0  7221
2 14452  81.1605 311.3133 0094927 146.9064 213.8010 14.22175474290020
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89149.36809990 -.00000029          -14315-5 0  7736
2 14780  98.1699 211.9668 0002023 330.7719  29.3704 14.57123578278829
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U 84 21  B 89150.06350849  .00000628  00000-0  12965-3 0  4531
2 14781  98.0039 209.3864 0013516  23.7706 336.3526 14.63547443279899
LDEF       
1 14898U 84 34  B 89148.69417077  .00028815  00000-0  49645-3 0  8578
2 14898  28.5081 313.9573 0003452  39.4458 320.5889 15.49621745288427
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89147.49354114 0.00000010                   0  6646
2 15039  62.9208  99.2776 0015115 271.4925  88.3151  2.00564522 36304
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89148.56732504 0.00000374           32939-3 0  9415
2 15099  82.5302  21.9813 0012837 298.2321  61.7481 13.83666647247402
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89148.89049507 -.00000028                   0  6242
2 33271  63.3657 338.1482 0099257 320.7210  38.5885  2.00565690 33448
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89149.03070666 0.00001200           17201-3 0   281
2 15331  82.5358 356.1315 0024931 143.3744 216.9185 14.75563395251395
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89149.07375996 0.00000107           69209-4 0  3841
2 15427  99.1413 135.6418 0015746  11.4412 348.7120 14.12019062229758
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89138.96557245 0.00000230           19654-3 0   803
2 15516  82.5355 328.0112 0015387 194.4767 165.5957 13.84103834217011
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89151.85241943 -.00002835          -61957-4 0  2670
2 16095  51.6094  37.4483 0001060  67.8925 292.2700 15.41404843405679
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89148.04813433 0.00000011                   0  3203
2 16129  63.7117  99.9004 0116162 150.2929 210.3535  2.00564873 26633
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89140.70296138 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8300
2 16191  82.5502 255.1708 0019818  10.0172 350.1329 13.16870093171907
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89148.23163761 0.00000302           26132-3 0  4927
2 16408  82.5365 235.4887 0016549   1.1904 358.9245 13.84175730172798
Mir        
1 16609U          89151.76951609 0.00017435           26647-3 0  8692
2 16609  51.6211  85.6244 0010988   7.8615 352.3235 15.54436576188615
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89149.83662635 0.00000632           31464-3 0  4791
2 16613  98.7375 224.5857 0000936 154.1147 206.0128 14.20010245  9526
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89140.82632696 0.00000312           27212-3 0  3004
2 16735  82.5355 268.1911 0015883  87.7838 272.5142 13.83911192150676
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89149.74268912 0.00001925           28085-3 0  6184
2 16881  82.5260  55.0350 0023624 155.7536 204.4824 14.75170243152574
EGP        
1 16908U          89145.87890812 0.00000055           69099-3 0  1272
2 16908  50.0175   6.6571 0009713 282.0437  77.9550 12.44380593126635
FO-12      
1 16909U          89148.83110640 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1463
2 16909  50.0170 357.8212 0010975 296.6076  63.3643 12.44400573126998
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89149.23942626 0.00000021           17945-4 0  2272
2 16969  98.6356 180.0901 0012673 308.6937  51.3113 14.23009753141244
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89148.05387406 0.00000371           32655-3 0  2539
2 17290  82.4608 169.9239 0012687 324.8226  35.1925 13.83725857120837
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89149.67053630  .00001131  00000-0  86793-3 0  1339
2 17527  99.1492 221.2879 0001937  71.0486 289.0942 13.94854734115790
GOES 7     
1 17561U 87 22  A 89149.61583261 -.00000041  00000-0  99999-4 0  2800
2 17561   0.0271  16.8204 0031102 110.6879 233.0812  1.00281019  1576
Kvant      
1 17845U          89151.89805994 0.00045646           68238-3 0  7678
2 17845  51.6278  84.9761 0012703  14.0883 345.8877 15.54458320124903
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89149.79868147 -.00000021          -29486-4 0  7717
2 18129  82.9263 251.7260 0013329 102.4408 257.8202 13.71978033 96871
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89151.78073733 0.00157230  13198-4  20163-3 0   596
2 18225  71.8645  98.9511 0010194 229.9927 130.1546 16.07038927108663
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89146.64305386 0.00000218           18868-3 0  2748
2 18312  82.5604 236.6086 0010778 254.0414 105.9591 13.83473063 89539
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89145.40416666 0.00000326           28299-3 0  1141
2 18820  82.5417 298.6621 0017084 336.3845  23.6539 13.84159088 66539
AO-13      
1 19216U          89130.85007881 -.00000125           10000-3 0   350
2 19216  57.2293 208.4090 6714358 203.7983  99.4234  2.09702882  6957
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89149.86475847  .00001430  00000-0  21025-3 0  3872
2 19274  82.5162 153.5530 0021085 293.7271  66.1721 14.74708443 48386
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89140.91635919 0.00000390           10000-2 0  1971
2 19336  82.5438 194.9494 0016861 208.3214 151.6986 13.16845822 39329
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89150.33338490 -.00000377  00000-0 -19957-3 0   854
2 19531  98.9366  94.4318 0011450 286.8789  73.1077 14.10999966 34950
TDRS 2     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89147.79361965  .00000135  00000-0  99999-4 0   245
2 19548   0.5694  80.5353 0001861 296.7251 343.3510  1.00283528  1587
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89138.08673647  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   368
2 19802  55.1186 213.0064 0068830 155.7676 204.6269  2.00554512  1820
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89148.60088249 0.00000117           10000-3 0   400
2 19851  82.5231 174.8320 0014727  12.1296 348.0215 13.83803940 12379
TDRS 3     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89146.47632124 -.00000244  00000-0  99999-4 0   166
2 19883   0.3089  66.8689 0007035  40.3705 252.8451  1.00553054    08
Raduga 23  
1 19928U          89137.18522349 -.00000154           10000-3 0   446
2 19928   1.3545 277.7136 0002516  53.1772 306.5633  1.00268455   345
1980 030D  
1 19931U          89128.45891538 -.00000015           10000-3 0   131
2 19931   1.4156 276.8888 0017886  17.5390 342.5731  0.97924528   252
Cosmos 2018
1 19938U          89138.65810262 0.00948361  40344-4  31726-3 0   701
2 19938  62.7992 325.3796 0098866  65.6693 295.4718 16.13844776  4494
1989 033C  
1 19970U          89146.89292825 0.00004135           15448-2 0   187
2 19970  27.9756 326.5141 6561442  22.7737 356.2819  3.21038637   706
1989 036A  
1 19986U          89151.73952592 0.00766075  35539-4  27543-3 0   321
2 19986  64.7785  52.8559 0083069  79.8644 281.2547 16.16019940  2299
1989 037A  
1 20000U          89151.75589042 0.00192517  55475-5  16446-3 0   188
2 20000  69.9521  60.0750 0049406  13.3631 346.7846 16.10484719  1183
1987 037CZ 
1 20003U          89140.52464093 0.00000008           10000-3 0    15
2 20003  72.8290 205.3591 0414065 169.8306 191.1830 12.32588625  7487
1987 020DA 
1 20004U          89144.20894406 0.00000016           10000-3 0    19
2 20004  73.6361 174.3386 0118944 257.9904 103.3069 12.82100499 65749
1989 038A  
1 20006U          89151.77221102 0.00053516           78866-4 0   195
2 20006  82.2974  34.3097 0012996 267.2968  92.5584 16.04622245  1034
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 89 17:44:32 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

In article <21276@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes:
--by gsh7w@astsun5.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy):
--> Actually it will go in a C5A transport plane. It was going to go by
--> boar, but recently it was determined that the place could carry the load.
--  ^^^^
-
-andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) <1027@syma.sussex.ac.uk> :
--
--Hmm, going back to using animal power are they? I know we're getting
--more green-conscious, but this is going too far. I've heard about
--horse-power, but pig-power takes a bit of thinking about.
-
-Virginia hams are justly famous.  And big, too...  If *these* pigs had
-wings, they'd be C5A's.  Or maybe Boaring 747's.

Sounds like a bunch of pork barrel politics to me.... :{)>
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 89 15:26:53 GMT
From: killer!mjbtn!raider!crc@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Charles Cain)
Subject: Re: nasa bulletin board

The only BBS that I am aware of that is run by NASA is the one in Huntsville
Alabama by Marshall Space Flight Center. I have called it on a couple of occasions but other than being able to read very current Shuttle Status Reports, I have
not been that impressed with it. If anyone would like the telephone number, hereit is.
			1-205-895-0028

You will have to register as a user but other than that, there are no hidden
charges. It is active 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Hope this helps.

Randy

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
DOMAIN: crc@raider.mfee.tn.us     |	      From NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE     
Satellite Engineer, TNN           |           Home of the Grand Old Opry!
PHONE:  (615-459-9449)            |                             
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: These words do not reflect or express the views of The Nashville
Network in any way. The words and the way they are used is solely MY FAULT!!!!!!-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Reply-To: dwelliver@pro-hysteria.cts.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 89 18:55:28 CST
From: dwelliver@pro-hysteria.cts.com (System Administrator)
Subject: Space Shuttle Launch Schedule..

  Does anyone have a Space Shuttle Launch Schedule that they could post on
here?  It just needs to be through atleast 1989 or 1990.. Thanks..

_______________________________________________________________________________

ProLine: dwelliver@pro-hysteria       UUCP: crash!pnet01!pro-hysteria!dwelliver
INET: dwelliver@pro-hysteria.cts.com  BBS: Hysteria (612)/557-2811 1200/2400
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-hysteria!dwelliver@nosc.mil
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date:       Thu, 01 Jun 89 14:35:43 EST
From: JC%RMC.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu
Subject:    Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..


mordor!rutgers!pro-hysteria.cts.com!dwelliver@angband.s1.gov writes:

>  I heard that Venus used to be a flourishing planet, and could have been much
> like Earth, until the Greenhouse took into effect there. Does anyone know if
> this is true, and if so, can you fill in a few details?  Thanks..

It's true!  I was having dinner with Elvis last week, and he told me that
he used to live on Venus,  which  apparently  used  to be a lot like Palm
Springs is today.  When the Venusian climate took a turn for the worse he
moved to Earth.  He got tired of all the media attention here, and is now
hiding out in the big UFO base under Baffin Island.

John Coughlin, BULL Kingston        (613) 541-6439       <JC@RMC.BITNET>

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 89 14:43:08 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!ecf!murty@rutgers.edu  (Hema Sandhyarani Murty)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <1989May31.044452.19619@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> It's not that simple.  There was a paper in Science a year or so ago --
> I can probably dig up an exact reference if really needed -- which went
> into the details and established that Earth would not have a runaway
> greenhouse effect even with far more CO2 than it has now.  There are
> a number of complications, like the effect of clouds on climate (they
> tend to cool the surface, on the whole).  The "habitable zone" around
> the Sun is rather wider than was formerly thought; Earth is not on the
> brink of becoming another Venus.
> 

I would be extremely interested in the Science article if you could give
me the reference.  If cloud cool the surface, then they don't seem to helping
Venus any.  Actually I think what you might be referring to is the fact
that on some planets, cloud cover prevents the heat from escaping and hence
tends to cool the higher atmosphere, which then becomes colder?
In ultraviolet light, a complex swirling weather system in the high
atmosphere of Venus can be seen.  The winds are around 100 m/s.  The
clouds of Venus turn out to be chiefly a concentrated solution of sulfuric
acid.  Even at its high, cool clouds things are hellish.  Down on the surface
it is always raining sulfuric acid!

  
Is there any danger of driving the environment of the Earth toward the   
planetary Hell of Venus or the global ice age of Mars?  The simple answer is
that nobody knows.  The study of global climate the comparison of the Earth 
with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development.

Hema Murty, Institute for Aerospace Studies
4925 Dufferin St, Downsview, Ontario, M3H 5T6, Canada

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #471
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Jun 89 06:23:34 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01888> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 5 Jun 89 06:21:57 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  5 Jun 89 06:21:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYWWcJq00Ui3I1RIFG>;
          Mon,  5 Jun 89 03:22:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.0YWWZ5W00UkZAYhU5e>;
          Mon,  5 Jun 89 03:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <EYWWX7a00UkZ8Yg05p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  5 Jun 89 03:16:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #472

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 472

Today's Topics:
      Spiral arms (was Re: Extinctions: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)
		       info request on MMI & ET
		    comet strike in the carolinas?
   Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)
	     Re: Magellan Status for 05/24/89 (Forwarded)
			  Re: HST (article)
		   Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST
		     Re: Private Space Companies
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		  Fictional counterpart for Atlantis
	      Re: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)
				Bitnet
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		    Space Station computer system
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 11:42:34 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Spiral arms (was Re: Extinctions: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)

usc!csun!solaria!ecphssrw%bob.csun.edu@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU  (Stephen Walton)
writes:
 
>Contrary to popular belief, the steller density
>(stars per cubic parsec) in spiral arms is the same as between the
>arms; it is just that most of the new, hot, and therefore bright stars
>are in the arms, causing them to stand out.

Okay, my cosmology is a little rusty here... but I thought that arms in
spiral galaxies were thought to be compression waves and therefore at
different times different parts of the galaxy would be in the arms, which would
preclude stellar differentiation on the basis of age?  Isn't the differentiation
between the disk and the halo, the Pop. I and II stars?  Or am I hopelessly
out of date?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 15:22:57 EDT
From: capnal@aqua.whoi.edu (Alan Duester)
Subject: info request on MMI & ET

Hi: This is a general request to the members of SPACE. If you have any
rumors, facts, or in-between information on either Third Millenium
(MMI) or External Tanks Corp. that is fairly recent (within the last
6-9 months), I'd appreciate it if you'd E-mail it to me. Thanks very
much.

Al Duester, Ocean Engineer, M/S S201
Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., Woods Hole, MA 02543
(508) 548-1400 X2474  (457-2000 TouchTone auto receptionist)
capnal@aqua.span    or   capnal@aqua.whoi.edu   
or A.DUESTER on GEnie

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 15:22:07 EDT
From: capnal@aqua.whoi.edu (Alan Duester)
Subject: comet strike in the carolinas?

"Carolina Bays", are they craters?

	Does anyone have any recent information on the geological features known as
the Carolina Bays?  These are elliptical dark splotches between 50m and 2000m in
long axis which occur along the coast from Georgia to Virginia.  There are about
a *million* of them and they all have the same major-minor axis ratio of about
2:1 and are *all* lined up with the major axis pointed NW-SE.  I find these
features intriguing but can't find any recent work on them at all.  There was a
book on them in the '50's (by someone named Johnson I think) which concluded
that "they were of complex origin" which means he couldn't figure it out.
(Remember this was before the era of space awareness and that many meteors would
be considered "ridiculously unlikely")
	I can't escape the conclusion that they are craters form a single massive
event (an ice meteor that fragmented on impact? isn't this a comet?) but they
look recent (to an untrained eye, at least, else the small ones would have been
wiped by surface erosion.)  The fact that all the axis line up leaves no other
explanation that I can see.
	These "features" show up best from the air as dark patches in newly plowed
fields or as swamps or even lakes for the larger ones.  I suspect they were all
originally lakes that filled into swamps, then got overgrown with forest till
they were cleared for fields only a few hundred years ago.  The boundary is
sharper than 1 m and they often have a slight raised rim.  I know that "all
craters are circles" but I've heard rumors that "hypervelocity pellets fired at
low angles into armor plate make ellipses." so this must be a grazing hit.  Yes,
they do overlap one another. No, they're not river meanders which are erratic.
These are *very* regular and I've seen *no* exceptions to the axis orientation.
	Serious problems remain.  Why do they only show on the coastal plain?  As
soon as the land rises, I don't find any.  Were sea level changes critical to
their formation or preservation?
	Most of my input comes from a set of aerial mosaics taken in the mid '50's
which show these features clearly. My father became interested during a flight
over the area in the late fifties and got the photos from the Dept. of
Agriculture that had done them for a land use survey.  We took a vacation down
thru the Carolinas in '58 and I remember swimming in one of the larger lakes.
I've not seen any recent imagery, but I haven't gotten around to ordering
Landsat or SPOT photos.
	I apologize if there's a lot of recent work and I just can't find it.  Every
geologist I ask draws a blank, mumbles "ox-bows" and changes the subject.  Right
now I'd bet on a comet.  I'll bet it was one hell of a show!

Dr. Albert M. Bradly, Research Specialist,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, MA  02543  (508) 548-1400 x2474

Telemail : A.BRADLEY/OMNET
abradley@aqua.whoi.edu *should* forward to above telemail account. For a better path,
send Email via: capnal@aqua.whoi.edu (Al Duester)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 10:34 EST
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)

   Date: 29 May 89 00:18:21 GMT
   From: att!shuxd!devildog!hiker!starr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Starr)
   Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)
    
   In article <463@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
   >Does anyo3 reckon that an 'educate the Brazilians' campaign based on these
   >shuttle photos would do any good? I'd like to think so, but I don't really
   >believe anything short of direct action would solve the problem.
    
   Has space photos of the depleted ozone layer over Antartica stopped
   the "civilized" population of the planet from recharging their
   car air conditioners with Freon?  

Yes, by US law production of freon will soon end.

Chris Eliot
Eliot@cs.umass.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 89 20:04:24 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 05/24/89 (Forwarded)

In article <25841@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>         SPACECRAFT
>         Distance From Earth (mi)                   2,919,025 
>         
>         Velocity  Geocentric                         5,738 mph
>                   Heliocentric                      60,128 mph
>  
>         One Way Light Time                           15 sec

 I assume that Geocentric velocity is in Earth origined coords,
 and Heliocentric in sun origined coords. But over the last two
 Magellan status - the Heliocentric velocity continued to increase
 but the Geocentric velocity decreased? The only explanation that
 comes to my mind is a change in Earth velocity wrto Sun?

 just curious - m wooding

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 89 16:58:48 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: HST (article)

This brings up an interesting article.  It was published in Science,
17 March 1989 entitled "Will the Hubble Space Telescope Compute?"

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 89 17:49:50 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!ch-tkr@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Timothy K Reynolds)
Subject: Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST

In article <1989May29.032320.2277@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> NASA picks Lockheed/Aerojet team to build the ASRM, despite safety panel
> urgings that the project be dropped.
>
> . . . . .  The plant will
> supposedly ship its first flight-cleared motors in 1994, after which use
> of the current Morton Thiokol SRBs will be phased out over three years.
> Apart from getting rid of MT [about time!], ......
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmmm.  When this contract award was announced, there was a big splash in the
Salt Lake City Deseret News about MT being a sub-contractor for Aerojet on this
proposal.  MT spokesman said how this will insure continued participation in
NASA and shuttle programs.  Perhaps Henry's farewell is a bit premature?


ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu

------------------------------

v	id AA13529; Thu, 1 Jun 89 22:28:21 -0700
Date: 1 Jun 89 15:49:48 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!sml@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Stuart Lewis)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

>  I doubt that Boeing can develop a new space vehicle given that it
>  cannot even build a new airliner from scratch without collaborating with
>  another company or without government aid.

WHOA!!! WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Boeing is *entirely* self sufficient when it comes to new airplane
development.  All of the Boeing planes were developed with in house
money and bold market gambles.  In fact, the 707 (Dash 80 or whatever
you choose - let's not get picky :-)), and the 747 development costs
nearly busted the company.

Boeing *does* consult very heavily with the airlines (read: custo-
mers) in all their endeavors.  "How many passengers?", "What kind of
range?", "How many galleys?", "Where do you want them?", "How many
engines?", "How many aisles?", "Gross payload?" etc, etc.

This ultra customer customization has in fact caused many of the
delays you read so much about in the press lately.  Seems that
Boeing has gone a little too far in pleasing the customers and every
plane down the line is a distinct original.  We've come out lately
and stated that this super customization is going to be scaled back
in the future.

However, a launch system *is* a different animal. Much fewer
customers - you can't afford to be patient to start turning a profit
after the 4 or 5 hundredth vehicle is sold/delivered like an
airplane.  So although I believe that Boeing does have the bucks to
develop their own launcher, business sense says that would be
foolish without some co-development monies or go ahead funding from
the gov't.  And don't be fooled - Arianne, like Airbus would roll
over and die without the consortium (sp?) funding - if Arianne says
they are making money it's because they have some creative
accountants doing some number shuffles.  Airbus though will stand on
it's own two feet before very long if they continue to chink away at
traditional Boeing niches.

Stuart Lewis
Boeing Aerospace
ssc-vax!sml

*******The opinions here stated do not necc'y reflect the position
of the Boeing Company, but are entirely my own observations - no one
else wants them so I thought bore you with them!*************

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 89 04:31:36 GMT
From: voder!parns!berlioz!andrew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Eraserhead @ The Noblest Explosion )
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..


Despite Venus' proximity to the sun, are there any models out there which
allow of surface temperature reduction to around the Earth's value?

The only one I've read about was in Jerry Pournelle's "A Step Farther Out",
where he mentions the "blue-green algae theory"; one hurls zillions of the
little monsters at the upper atmosphere, and they descend slowly,
anaerobically metabolising CO2 into O2 and water (or something like that)
so that eventually the cooling rains thus produced make it to the surface.

Is there any strong a priori reason why Venus could not be cooled by this
or any other terraforming idea? - is the proximity to the sun going to
defeat every attempt, even with radical restructuring of the atmosphere?
-- 
Andrew Palfreyman 		USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 		there's many a slip
							'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 Jun 89 01:28:49 CDT
From: "Eric Edwards" <C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Fictional counterpart for Atlantis

In a recent post John Sparks (sparks@corpand.uucp) said:
>ir, what about 'Atlantis'? Sure it's a mythical contenent, but what fictional
>ship was it named after?

Well if you pardon one letter, the "Atlantia" from the premier episode of
"Battlestar Galactica" fits the bill nicely.

On an ominous note: The Atlantia blew up in that episode.

Bitnet:    C506634@umcvmb.bitnet                    __________________________
Internet:  C506634@umcvmb.missouri.edu             / \.--------.           /  \
"The Amiga just isn't reliable enough unless you   |  | Eric   |---------+    |
know a lot about the machine" -- Jerry Pournelle   |  `--------'         !    |
  ================================================||  .--------.         !    |
"I did notice that at my party people stood in     |  | Edwards|_________+    |
 line to play with the Amiga"-- Jerry Pournelle    | /`--------'             |
                           BYTE, October '88       \__________________________/

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 89 16:02:36 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bnr-public!pdbain@uunet.uu.net  (Peter Bain)
Subject: Re: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)

In article <576@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes:
>Some current schedule item based on a preliminary LMSC schedule:
>7/10  HST Horizontal - SMA Staking
>10/18 Ship HST and GSE
>10/22 Install PCS Simulator
>11/27 - 12/21  Funct test, GST 8
>1/11  Remove GSE cables
>2/28 - 3/9 Move to PAD
Can you say "acronym overload"?  Jim, could you give us this in
English?  Thanks
         -peter

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 89 09:46 EDT
From: "New theories tend to wait for old theorists to die."
 <CALVIN@JHUIGF.BITNET>
Subject: Bitnet


Hello. I haven't received mail from SPACE-L or PHYSICS-L in about a week and
a half. Could I have been UNSUB'ed without my knowing it, or has there been
a problem with bitnet distribution, or has there just been no mail?

Please respond directly to me, CALVIN @ JHUIGF.BITNET

Thanks in advance for any/all replies.

Damian Hammontree
System Programmer, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 89 17:38:48 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <862@mv03.ecf.toronto.edu> murty@ecf.toronto.edu (Hema Sandhyarani Murty) writes:
>
>I would be extremely interested in the Science article if you could give
>me the reference.  If cloud cool the surface, then they don't seem to helping
>Venus any.  

There was a breif article in Discover this month about the early results of a
"EARTH ENERGY BUDGET" project.  It indicated there that the clouds formed over
land do indead reduce the heat due to the sun.  I don't have the article here
but can bring it in if there is some interest.
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 89 17:39:19 GMT
From: att!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Space Station computer system

Since there's so much interest in the Space *Shuttle* computer systems,
I thought you all might be interested in an article on the Space
*Station* computer systems.  "A System for the 21st Century" appears on
pp. 51-54 of the May 15, 1989, issue of DATAMATION (v. 35, #10).  Some
highlights:  they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's
(*please* no religious arguments here; maybe they'll wise up and use
<insert your favorite manufacturer>'s hardware instead), using
trackballs or force-resistant hand controllers instead of mice as
pointing devices, with 4 megabytes of RAM and running X-Windows,
networked with Fiber Distributed Data Interface and perhaps IEEE 802
(they didn't say if they meant Ethernet, Token Ring, or StarLAN).
There's also an Earth-bound system, the Software Support Environment
(SSE), for software development.  The whole deal will require 1,500,000
lines of Ada code, including 900,000 for the SSE.

DATAMATION has occasional reports on NASA computer efforts; see also
"Is Error-Free Software Achievable" in the February 15, 1989 issue.
(The answer seems to be yes, if you're willing to spend a kilobuck per
*line* of code.  Richard Feynman is quoted as saying shuttle software
was of the "highest quality".  The 500,000 lines of shuttle code have
had 0.1 errors per thousand lines of code; the norm is closer to ten.)

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #472
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Jun 89 03:40:30 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA16414> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 89 03:38:54 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  6 Jun 89 03:38:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYWrhi:00UkTM1AF1c>;
          Tue,  6 Jun 89 03:21:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.8YWrekq00UkZAcsU4T>;
          Tue,  6 Jun 89 03:18:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYWrd7W00UkZEcr04g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  6 Jun 89 03:16:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #473

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 473

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Private Space Companies
		   OSC Hercules Launch Information
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
	   Wanted: software to predict satellite sightings
Smith appointed Deputy Director, NASA Stennis Space Center (Forwarded)
			   Re: Spiral arms
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 89 18:26:30 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <SHAFER.89May26124022@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
>>  the KC-135 and the 707 are **not** the same aircraft...
>
>This is not a popular misconception.  Let's look at Jane's All the
>World's Aircraft, which is a very authoritative source.  On page 238
>of the 1976-77 edition we find the following...

Note carefully what Jane's is saying:  it is saying that the KC-135 and
the 707 were both derivatives of the privately-funded "dash 80" prototype,
that Boeing felt it advisable to ask USAF permission before building the
707, and that the 707 also entered military service as the VC-137 (and
other related designations).

>Thus we see that a privately developed prototype became the VC-137
>(probably A) which turned into the KC-135...

Uh, please re-read your own excerpt from Jane's, carefully.  The KC-135 
order came first, after which Boeing asked for (and got) permission to
work on a commercial dash-80 derivative in parallel, and said derivative
eventually became the 707 and the VC-137.

I did some digging in my library at home.  Said library unfortunately runs
more to fighters than transports, but I hit the jackpot in Bill Gunston's
"USAF: The Modern US Air Force".  For those who don't know the name, Gunston
today is a freelance military-aviation author, but back in the mid-50s he
was technical editor of Flight International, the British counterpart of
Aviation Week.  I think we can assume he knows what he's talking about.
In his section on the C-135 family, he says:

	Boeing risked more than the company's net worth to build a
	prototype jetliner, first flown in July 1954.  An important
	factor behind the gamble was the belief that the USAF would
	buy a jet tanker/transport to replace the Boeing KC-97 family,
	and this belief was justified by the announcement of an initial
	order for 29 only three weeks after the company prototype flew,
	and long before it had done any inflight refuelling tests.  The
	KC-135A Stratotanker differed only in minor respects from the
	original prototype, whereas the civil 707 developed in a parallel
	programme was a totally fresh design with a wider fuselage,
	airframe of 2024 alloy designed on fail-safe principles and
	totally revised systems...

And under VC-137:

	These aircraft bear no direct relationship to the prolific C-135
	family but were commercial airliners... bought off-the-shelf...

>The Air Force paid for the YC-14 prototypes, since this was back in
>the era of fly-offs.  This certainly contradicts the "Boeing has never
>been paid by the government to build an aircraft" line...

I don't think that I quite said that, given that the B-52, among others,
was a Boeing product.  But they've never had major government subsidies
to build a later-successful airliner.  (That last bit of weasel-wording
is necessary because of an example you missed:  the American SST.)

>... Boeing is
>much less concerned about ideological purity than some people on the
>net are.  Rather, they'll take any advantage they can (IMO as they
>should) to continue building successful and profitable aircraft.

Quite true.  And more power to them.  Unlike (say) McDonnell-Douglas,
while they are happy to take government money if offered, they don't
quake if the government scowls at them.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Sender: RPollard.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM
Date: 2 Jun 89 10:43:20 PDT (Friday)
Subject: OSC Hercules Launch Information
From: RPollard.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM
Cc: RPollard.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM

Does anyone on the net have any info about where OSC is in their
development of Hercules ?  Specifically I was looking for the date that
they expect to do the first launch.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 89 17:50:45 GMT
From: jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU!kstclair@cs.orst.edu  (Kelly St.Clair)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

> [Is there any reason that Venus could not be cooled and terraformed?]

Is there any reason (besides needing space so that we can keep breeding like
flies)s) that we should?

Most important of all:
Is there anything that gives us the *RIGHT* to remake another world in our
own image?

(Old discussion, I know, but I thought it should be said...)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 89 23:10:08 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!arrom@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

>Is there any reason (besides needing space so that we can keep breeding like
>flies)s) that we should?
>Is there anything that gives us the *RIGHT* to remake another world in our
>own image?

The same thing that allows us to farm, mine, build houses on, etc... our own
planet.  "Is there any reason (besides needing space so that we can keep
breeding like flies) that we should move out of the tropical regions in which
we evolved into climates which require us to ruin the natural surroundings
with dwellings to protect us from temperature extremes?  Is there anything
which gives us the *RIGHT* to build fires, grow plants, just to benefit our
own selfish species, etc..."
--
"The fact is self evident from the text and requires no supporting argument."
  --Tim Maroney

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 89 10:18:02 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!mucs!mario@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Wanted: software to predict satellite sightings

The regular postings of orbital elements sure *look* interesting, 
... but does anyone have PD software that can use these elements to
predict sightings?

Anything for UNIX or IBM PCs would be appreciated...

Mario Wolczko
   ______      Dept. of Computer Science    Internet:   mario@ux.cs.man.ac.uk
 /~      ~\    The University               USENET: mcvax!ukc!man.cs.ux!mario
(    __    )   Manchester M13 9PL           JANET:      mario@uk.ac.man.cs.ux
 `-':  :`-'    U.K.                         Tel: +44-61-275 6146  (FAX: 6280)
____;  ;_____________the mushroom project____________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 89 20:28:59 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Smith appointed Deputy Director, NASA Stennis Space Center (Forwarded)

David W. Garrett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       June 2, 1989


RELEASE:  89-85

SMITH APPOINTED DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NASA STENNIS SPACE CENTER


     The appointment of Gerald Smith as deputy director of NASA's 
John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC), Miss., was announced today by 
Center Director Roy Estess.  Smith will assume his new duties on 
June 17.

     Since 1986, Smith has managed the solid rocket booster 
project in the Shuttle Projects Office at NASA's George C. 
Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, Ala.  In April 
1985, he was detailed to NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., as 
acting chief, Engine Programs Branch, Shuttle Propulsion Division 
in the Office of Space Flight.

     Smith joined MSFC in September 1961 as a member of the 
former Structures and Mechanics Division.  From 1961 to 1963, he 
served in the U.S. Army and was then re-employed at Marshall in 
the Propulsion Division of the former Propulsion and Vehicle 
Engineering Laboratory.  

     In 1965, he left Marshall to work as a test and evaluation 
engineer in the Large Jet Engine Department at the General 
Electric Company.  He returned to Marshall in 1967 as part of the 
center's structures and propulsion effort.

     In 1974, he was assigned to the Office of the Associate 
Director for Engineering in the Science and Engineering 
Directorate.  In 1983, he became deputy manager of the Space 
Shuttle maine engine project in the Shuttle Projects Office.  In 
September 1984, he was appointed deputy associate director for 
engineering in the Science and Engineering Directorate.

     Smith earned bachelor's and master's degrees in aeronautical 
engineering at Auburn University, Ala., and a master's degree in 
administrative science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 89 18:30:19 GMT
From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Spiral arms

First, usc!csun!solaria!ecphssrw%bob.csun.edu@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU
(Stephen Walton) wrote:
>Contrary to popular belief, the steller density
>(stars per cubic parsec) in spiral arms is the same as between the
>arms; it is just that most of the new, hot, and therefore bright stars
>are in the arms, causing them to stand out.
 
Then in article <8906011842.AA08331@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, by
pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) replied:
> ... but I thought that arms in spiral galaxies were thought to be
> compression waves and therefore at different times different parts
> of the galaxy would be in the arms, which would preclude stellar
> differentiation on the basis of age?  Isn't the differentiation
> between the disk and the halo, the Pop. I and II stars?

These questions touch on a very active field of current research.  As
always, there is an interplay of theory and observation.  I'll try to
outline current ideas.  We should know a lot more in five years.

Spiral galaxies are conventionally considered to be made up of the
following parts: the "bulge" in the middle (round, radius around 3000
light-years); the "disk", which is very thin (say 500 ly) but of
large radius (say 50000 ly); and the "halo", which is roughly
spheroidal and about the same radius as the disk.  Some galaxies also
have "bars," which are bigger than the bulge but smaller than the
disk.  The Sun is located in the disk of the Milky Way galaxy, about
25000 ly from the center.  Halo stars generally have lower metal
abundance than disk stars and are called "Population II" stars versus
"Pop. I" in the disk.  Less is known about bulge stars, but it now
looks as though at least some of them have higher metal abundances
than disk stars.  Every star orbits in the gravitational field
established by all the other mass of the galaxy.

In the last several years, both theory and observation have come to
agree that most of the mass of spiral galaxies is in the halo but is
in some invisible form.  There simply are not enough halo stars
observed to add up to the necessary mass.  (In describing these
results for the Milky Way, the late Bart Bok used to refer to the
"bigger and better Galaxy.")  The nature of the invisible matter is
unknown, though it cannot be stars (say 0.1 solar mass or greater).
I think massive black holes (>10 solar masses) are also ruled out.
(This "hidden mass" is NOT the same as the "missing mass" supposedly
needed to close the Universe, though of course the two might be made
out of the same stuff.  The amount of "hidden mass" is only 1/50 to
1/10 of the "missing mass.")

Theory says that perturbations to the mass distribution in galaxies
can last for significant times if the perturbations have the right
form.  One form is spiral density waves.  The "pattern" of the waves
rotates at a different speed than do the actual stars in the disk, so
any given star alternately passes through high- and low-density
portions of the wave.  The density contrast is modest but non-zero.
An important research question today is how the observed spiral arms
are related to these theoretical density waves.

Spiral arms are much more conspicuous in blue light than in red
light.  The interpretation is that massive (thus blue and
short-lived) stars are preferentially concentrated in the spiral
arms, more concentrated in fact than stars of lower mass.  The most
likely explanation is that the density increase associated with
spiral density waves somehow enhances star formation.  The abundance
of bright stars - stars so massive that their lifetimes are less than
a galactic rotation period - is thus higher "downstream" of the
density waves.  Less massive stars, with long lifetimes, should be
slightly concentrated in the density wave itself, but these stars are
faint and thus hard to observe.  (Most of the visible light of a
"typical" galaxy comes from stars more massive than 2 solar masses,
whereas most of the mass is in stars less massive than the Sun.)
Infrared images, which are just now starting to be obtainable, should
give a much better picture of the mass distributions in galaxies.

I have cross-posted this to sci.astro and (with luck) directed
follow-ups there.  Please check the newsgroups line.

(P.S.  We have suffered two independent "system upgrades" in our mail
path, so please try again if you recently have failed to reach me.)


Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 89 15:59:13 GMT
From: asuvax!anasaz!scott@noao.edu  (Scott Gibson)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <1989May31.044452.19619@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>into the details and established that Earth would not have a runaway
>greenhouse effect even with far more CO2 than it has now.  There are
>a number of complications, like the effect of clouds on climate (they
>tend to cool the surface, on the whole).  The "habitable zone" around

I have seen this comment several times, and don't really understand it.
The surface of Venus is *completely* obscured by clouds.  While it makes
sense (or seems to) that clouds, by shading the surface, cool it - this
has not done much for the surface of Venus.  Clearly, the presence of
clouds does not necessarily stop a runaway greenhouse effect.

Of course, Venus *is* a little closer to the sun......

Scott

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 89 22:09:51 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <285@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Eraserhead @ The Noblest Explosion            ) writes:
>Is there any strong a priori reason why Venus could not be cooled by this
>or any other terraforming idea? ...

As I recall, from papers in JBIS and other places, the notion is not quite
impossible but it is difficult.  Getting rid of all that atmosphere is hard.
There are other problems in making Venus habitable too, like a grave shortage
of water and an excessively long rotation period.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #473
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Jun 89 05:36:44 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00508> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 6 Jun 89 05:34:24 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  6 Jun 89 05:34:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IYWtR0u00UkT82QE5Z>;
          Tue,  6 Jun 89 05:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.8YWtOwi00UkZId3U4W>;
          Tue,  6 Jun 89 05:17:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YWtO9S00UkZAd204e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  6 Jun 89 05:16:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #474

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 474

Today's Topics:
   CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long)
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		    Re: Amazon Forest Destruction
		  Aldrin & McConnell's MEN ON EARTH
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1989 15:01:28 EDT
From: Mohib N Durrani <mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: sky-fans@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: physics@unix.sri.com, space@angband.s1.gov, mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Subject: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long)

                       
                       Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
  ( I begin with the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )
         
         THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
           102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027
         
         SUBJECT: CRESCENT MOON: FIRST VISIBILITY (every lunar month)
        **************************************************************
            
            NEXT CRESCENT (NEW) MOON:  Sun  4 JUNE 1989  (*) 
              
              for the 11th. Islamic Month of ZUL-QA'DA, 1409,
      the month starting on Mon  5 June 1989, for USA and S.America, 
           possibly from points west of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and
            on Tue  6  June 1989, for all points West of Hawaii,
            till the places of first sighting of Sun  4 June.

           It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Crescent Moon to be visible 
                     on  Sat  3 June 1989, worldwide.
 
   (*)      Hilal (crescent) sightings would be in the evenings, 
        at least 10 minutes after sunset, usually before 20 minutes, 
   and upto 40 to 90 minutes after sunset; near and along the sun's path.
 
        We are conducting research/survey on the recorded WORLD-WIDE
          first sightings of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" 
                  in the evenings, for every lunar month.
                    Some TECHNICAL INFO. is at the end.
 
                  PHOTOGRAPHS / SLIDES ARE MOST WELCOME
               since they are very helpful in the research.
 
              Please also pass on the request to your friends
               who are interested in astronomy/physics and to 
                 your local amateur astronomy associations.
 
                  We would very much like to hear from you.
                Please respond either by email or by letter.
 
       The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL
          and fine tune some parameters regarding SCATTERING/VISION.
 
 
  When reporting actual Crescent-Hilal sightings, (even if you do not see it)
                        PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

HILAL was visible to naked eye?......... Hilal sighted in binoculars?.........
EXACT TIMES: Complete Sunset at......... Hilal First Visible....... End.......
HEIGHT-Degrees: Hilal highest........... Hilal lowest (faded/set).............
ORIENTATION: Ends of Hilal Curve:  Start at.......'O Clock:End at.....'O Clock
(Right is 3'O Clock:Bottom is 6'O Clock: Left is 9'O Clock:  Top is 12'O Clock)
WEATHER condition: Rel.Humidity......... Temperature..... Pressure............
Sky near western horizon: Clear?........ Hazy?........... Cloudy?.............
OBSERVER: Age.... Eyesight: Glasses?.... Far sighted?.... Near sighted?.......
Name....................... Date........ Location.............................
 
                                 Thanks.
 
        Email to:  mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
 
        Mail:      Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America
 
 
        Some ORBITAL details for the SUN and MOON:
 
        Lunation No.: 822
        NEW MOON (not crescent visible moon): 
        1989 June  3d 19h 53m UT (Universal Time)
       (Universal Time, i.e. mean solar time on the meridian of Greenwich)

          EQUATORIAL coords.(for 0h UT)         ECLIPTIC coords.(for 0h UT)
   Date   Sun      Sun      MOON    MOON        Sun        MOON      MOON
   JUNE   R.A.     Decl.    R.A.    Decl.       Long.      Long.     Lat.
   '89    Alpha    Delta    Alpha   Delta       Lambda     Lambda    Beta
          hr       deg      hr      deg         deg        deg       deg
 
    3 Sa   4.74    22.30     3.87   25.33        72.55      61.33    5.01
    4 Su   4.81    22.39     4.93   27.46        73.51      75.80    4.81
    5 Mo   4.88    22.48     6.00   27.75        74.47      89.97    4.31
 
 
       1989 JUNE  4 (Sun)  (event times are the approximate
                                  local mean times)
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     SUN     MOON   at Sunset
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
                                                            
        MECCA-S.Arabia 20  320    18 36   19 31    20 03    MOST PROBABLE
        MOSCOW - USSR  56  320    20 38   22 17    22 05    MOST PROBABLE
        CAIRO - Egypt  30  330    18 57   20 01    21 04    MOST PROBABLE
        ISTANBUL-Turk  40  330    19 25   20 37    21 32    MOST PROBABLE
        CAPETOWN-S.Af -35  340    16 56   17 18    19 43    PROBABLE
        LAGOS-Nigeria  10  355    18 18   19 14    22 05    MOST PROBABLE
                                                            
      % GREENWICH-Engl 50    0    20 03   21 34    24 10    MOST PROBABLE
                                                            
        DAKAR-Senegal  10   20    18 18   19 18    23 45    MOST PROBABLE
        RIO DeJENEIRO -20   45    17 28   18 14    24 35    MOST PROBABLE
        PARAMARIBO-Suri 0   55    18 02   19 01    25 49    VISIBLE
        BUNOS ARESarg -35   60    16 56   17 32    25 03    MOST PROBABLE
        LIMA-Peru S.A -10   80    17 45   18 44    27 12    VISIBLE
                                                            
      % (add 1 hr to event time, for summer DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME,
                  from early April to end of October)       
                                                            
                 For most of these cities (Mecca-Paramaribo)   
              the Cresent may be VISIBLE on  Sun  5 June 1989,
  hence the New Islamic Month of Zul Qa'da may start from  Mon  6 June 1989.
 
       1989 JUNE 4 (Sun)   (event times are the approximate
                                  local mean times)
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     SUN     MOON   at Sunset
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
                                                            
      % HALIFAX -CNDA  44   65    19 38   21 09    28 05    VISIBLE
      % NEW YORK -USA  40   75    19 25   20 53    28 32    VISIBLE
      % JACKSONVIL-Fl  30   80    18 57   20 19    28 24    VISIBLE
      % SAN DIEGO-USA  35  115    19 10   20 41    30 57    VISIBLE
      % SAN FRANCISCO  40  120    19 25   21 00    31 32    VISIBLE
      % VANCOUVER-CND  50  125    20 03   21 51    32 30    VISIBLE
                                                            
      % ANCHORAGE-Als  62  150    21 36    0 28    35 43    VISIBLE
      % HONOLULU -Hwi  20  160    18 36   20 04    33 23    VISIBLE
                                                            
      % (add 1 hr to event time, for summer DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME,
                  from early April to end of October)       
                                                            
              When the CRESCENT is visible on Sun  4 JUNE 1989  
      anywhere from Halifax, New York, Maimi, San Diego, San Francisco, 
       to Vancouver, then in the USA-CANADA the next Islamic month of 
                    Zul Qa'da starts on Mon  5 JUNE 1989.
                                                            
                                                            
               (INCREASE   date one day, if crossing   EAST TO WEST)
  ######################    INTERNATIONAL DATE LINE    ######################
               (DECREASE   date one day, if crossing   WEST TO EAST)
                                                            
                                                            
       1989 JUNE 4 (Sun)   (event times are the approximate 
                                  local mean times)         
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     SUN     MOON   at Sunset 
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
                                                            
        SIDNEY-Austra -35  210    16 56   16 56    11 03    IMPOSSIBLE
        TOKYO - Japan  35  220    19 10   19 57    13 57    DIFFICULT
        PEKING -China  40  245    19 25   20 21    15 52    PROBABLE
        JAKARTA-Indon -10  250    17 45   18 11    14 32    DIFFICULT
        DACCA -B.Desh  20  270    18 36   19 22    16 43    PROBABLE
        AGRA  - India  30  280    18 57   19 52    17 44    PROBABLE
        PESHAWAR -Pak  35  290    19 10   20 10    18 37    PROBABLE
        BUKHARA -USSR  40  295    19 25   20 30    19 12    PROBABLE
        TEHRAN - Iran  35  310    19 10   20 14    19 57    PROBABLE
                                                            
                  For some of these cities (Sidney-Tehran)   
              the Cresent may be VISIBLE on  Sun  4 June 1989,
   hence the New Lunar Month of Zul Qa'da may start on Mon  5 June 1989.
 
    Please note that the Islamic dates start from sundown of a previous day.


  ISLAMIC GREGORIAN  MOON - MOON - MOON - MOON - MOON        SUN - EARTH 
   YEAR     YEAR  (All times are in UT = Universal Time)
   MONTHS   LUNA.   NEW MOON   MOON-PERIGEE MOON-APOGEE      SUN/EARTH
             NO.  (NOT visible)  (nearest)  (farthest)
                       d  h  m        d  h        d  h         d  h 
   1409     1989
  5 JUMA-I   817  JAN  7 19 22   JAN 10 23   JAN 27 00    JAN  1 22 Perihelion
  6 JUMA-II  818  FEB  6 07 37   FEB  7 22   FEB 23 14    
  7 RAJAB    819  MAR  7 18 19   MAR  8 08   MAR 22 18    MAR 20 15 Equinox
  8 SHABAN   820  APR  6 03 33   APR  5 20   APR 18 21    
  9 RAMADAN  821  MAY  5 11 46   MAY  4 05   MAY 16 09    
 10 SHAWWAL  822  JUN  3 19 53   JUN  1 05   JUN 13 02    JUN 21 10 Solstice
*11 QADAH    823  JUL  3 04 59   JUN 28 04   JUL 10 21    JUL  4 12 Aphelion
 12 HAJJ     824  AUG  1 16 06   JUL 23 07   AUG  7 15    

   1410
  1 MUHARAM  825  AUG 31 05 44   AUG 19 12   SEP  4 08    SEP 23 01 Equinox
  2 SAFR     826  SEP 29 21 47   SEP 16 15   OCT  1 20    
  3 RABI-I   827  OCT 29 15 27   OCT 15 01   OCT 28 22    
  4 RABI-II  828  NOV 28 09 41   NOV 12 13   NOV 25 04    
  5 JUMA-I   829  DEC 28 03 20   DEC 10 23   DEC 22 19    DEC 21 21 Solstice
    
    Perihelion = Earth Closest to Sun      (Sun  moving FASTEST in sky-Jan  1)
    Equinox    = Earth has Equal Daylight and Darkness      (Mar 20 & Sept 23)
    Solstice   = Sun   apparantly Stationary in Declination 
                       (Maximum of Summer-June 21 OR Minimum of Winter-Dec 21)
    Aphelion   = Earth Farthest from Sun   (Sun  moving SLOWEST in sky-Jul  4)
    Perigee    = Moon  Closest to Earth    (Moon moving FASTEST in sky)
    Apogee     = Moon  Farthest from Earth (Moon moving SLOWEST in sky)
                                                               
 ****************************************************************************
 ****************************************************************************

	  APPROXIMATIONS TO DIRECTION OF KA'BA (MECCA Saudi Arabia)
	  
	In most places of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, an approximation 
	to the direction of KA'BA, to determine the direction of Salat 
	(prayers), can be obtained by noting the direction of your shadow 
	near the time of sunset.  The direction in which your shadow goes
	is usually a little north of east.  This is the direction in which
	salat can be performed, as an approximation.  This direction changes 
	during the different months of the year but is a good approximation 
	when there is no magnetic compass to determine the exact direction.

 ****************************************************************************

	Copyright Dr.M.N.Durrani, 1989
	Permission to copy for free distribution is granted to all,
	please do give credit and reference. Thanks
 
 	For further information, please feel free to contact:
 
        Mail:      Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America
  
        Email to:  mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
 
	
 ***************************** End of Document ******************************

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 89 20:44:57 GMT
From: bucsb!ckd@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <10957@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> kstclair@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU.UUCP (Kelly St.Clair) writes:
- > [Is there any reason that Venus could not be cooled and terraformed?]
- 
- Is there any reason (besides needing space so that we can keep breeding like
- flies)s) that we should?

Let's see... ever read a book called _Lucifer's Hammer_?  It's about what
might happen if a large comet struck the earth.  [It's not exactly paradise.]
I believe the proverb "Don't keep all your eggs in one basket" applies.

- Most important of all:
- Is there anything that gives us the *RIGHT* to remake another world in our
- own image?

Good question.  What gives us the right to do anything?  What gives me the
right to use electricity to read, say, rec.humor, instead of using it to
light mud huts in Africa?

- (Old discussion, I know, but I thought it should be said...)

Old, perhaps.  Interesting, still.  (IMHO.)
-- 
Chris Davis         ! ckd@{bu-pub,bucsb,bucsf}.bu.edu ! Disclaimer: you know.
Student Consultant  ! smghy6c@buacca.{bitnet, bu.edu} ! I don't agree with BU
Boston University   !          ckd@bucsb.UUCP         ! and they reciprocate.
  -- "I think I need a really good quote to put in my .signature." CKD --

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 89 12:09:16 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction

In article <8@hiker.UUCP> starr@hiker.UUCP (Michael Starr) writes:
>Has space photos of the depleted ozone layer over Antartica stopped
>the "civilized" population of the planet from recharging their
>car air conditioners with Freon?
>

We don't have that many car air conditioners over here - at 51 degrees North
you don't often need them! We do of course have fridges, aerosol cans etc etc.
I've been *most* surprised at the speed of the reaction from the average
guy on the street in Britain (and I think the rest of Europe's doing the same
sort of thing) concerning ozone.

Sales of aerosol cans fell through the floor when the ozone-hole thing got into
the headlines in the winter. Now, only a few months later you see labels
claiming 'ozone friendly' on all sorts of products that contain anything that
resembles a solvent. Car wax, shoe shine wax, aerosols, paint - you name it!

Joe Public is forcing a *big* change in things here. Even the traditionally
hard-nosed government we've got here at the moment has done some spectacular
U-turns on certain things recently.

>If we want to stop the destruction in a country which probably
>suffers from the worse economy on earth we have to do it by
>giving the Brazilians an economic alternative.  In other words,
>the price will have to come out of all of our pockets if we
>want to maintain a resource which affects the whole planet.
>

That's fair enough. "Our" money (i.e. World Bank's) put the roads into the
forest, I suppose "our" money ought to be used to fix the problem, but how?
On the whole, money can't buy such solutions.

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 89 21:58:09 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Aldrin & McConnell's MEN ON EARTH

RRR (recently read & recommended) Dept.:

MEN FROM EARTH, by Buzz Aldrin and Malcom McConnell (Bantam 1989). 
312pp. with index. ISBN 0-553-05374-4; Lib. Cong. number TL789.8.U6A49 
(that's a Cataloging In Publication [CIP] number, which sometimes 
changes when libraries stock it). About $19 in hardcover now, I 
wouldn't expect softcover for another 9-12 mos. 

In brief - a must for your space library. Aldrin was an early exemplar 
of the scientist/engineer astronaut as opposed to the Gordo Cooper 
"right stuff" test pilot model. His doctoral work at MIT on orbital 
rendezvous laid important groundwork for Apollo even before he became 
an astronaut. MEN FROM EARTH covers the space race from Peenemunde to 
Tranquillity Base comprehensively and with *no* wasted motion. 
Obviously the central attraction is Aldrin's account of Apollo 11 
itself. But there is much valuable stuff on Mercury, Gemini and also 
the competing Soviet effort. Aldrin draws on Oberg and other recent 
Western accounts of Soviet space history for this side, but also on 
declassified Soviet stuff and interviews with Soviet scientists. What
really excites is the juxtaposition in time, switching from Houston to 
Tyuratam to the White House as events progress. The sense of a *race* 
is completely convincing here. 

A word on McConnell - this is not just a dumb ghost writer playing the 
"as told to" game with a tongue tied celeb. He is a "name" in his own 
right -- his CHALLENGER: A MAJOR MALFUNCTION has pride of place on my 
shelf next to Henry SF Cooper's THIRTEEN: THE FLIGHT THAT FAILED as a 
definitive account of US space crises. The fusion of his talent with
Aldrin's knowledge has yielded an amazingly crisp book.

--- Table of Contents ---

Prologue: LUNAR MODULE EAGLE

Introduction: CAPE CANAVERAL

Chapter One: THE RACE BEGINS

Chapter Two: KRUSHCHEV'S GAMBIT, AMERICA'S RESPONSE

Chapter Three: "LEAD-FOOTED MERCURY"

Chapter Four: KENNEDY'S CHALLENGE

Chapter Five: SKIRMISHES

Chapter Six: STRATEGY

Chapter Seven: VOSHKOD VERSUS GEMINI

Chapter Eight: GEMINI TRIUMPHANT

Chapter Nine: YEAR OF DISASTERS

Chapter Ten: APOLLO RECOVERS

Chapter Eleven: APOLLO TRIUMPHANT

Chapter Twelve: THE LAST LAP

Chapter Thirteen: TRANQUILLITY BASE

Epilogue: VENTURING OUTWARD

Acknowledgments

References

Notes

Index

-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #474
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Jun 89 04:28:19 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05446> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 89 04:26:28 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  7 Jun 89 04:26:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4YXBUaC00Vs1Q1YUBt>;
          Wed,  7 Jun 89 04:09:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.AYXAlPC00UkZQi7k47>;
          Wed,  7 Jun 89 03:18:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YXAjRK00UkZIi6E5o@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  7 Jun 89 03:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #475

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 475

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		 Re: OSC Hercules Launch Information
		   Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
	      Re: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
	      Re: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)
	      Re: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		   Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST
	    Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
	       Re: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/
		    Re: Amazon Forest Destruction
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 89 21:26:17 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

Haven't tracked down the DATAMATION reference yet, but the critical 
question to me about Station computers is - will there be a 
distinction between station critical computer operations (guidance 
control etc) versus experiment support computing. It seems foolish to 
entrust flight dynamics to a desktop PC of any kind. On the other hand 
experiment support requires a coding platform common in academia and 
industry which makes PCs an OK choice (just as the upgraded GRiD 
laptop on the Shuttle will be - the predecessor was MSDOS capable but 
not PC compatible. It was used for experiment support but ground based 
investigators found it hard getting hardware to program). 
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 89 22:20:57 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: OSC Hercules Launch Information

In article <890602-105011-2653@Xerox> RPollard.ElSegundo@XEROX.COM writes:
>Does anyone on the net have any info about where OSC is in their
>development of Hercules ?  Specifically I was looking for the date that
>they expect to do the first launch. 

There were talking July this year.  I haven't seen a recent update on that,
but as far as I know they're still pretty much on schedule.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 89 11:14:53 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST

In article <1989May29.032320.2277@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>NASA to test a parafoil system, developed by Pioneer Aerospace, for
>precision landings by parachute of launcher components weighing up to
>60 klbs.  The parafoil, a gliding parachute, looks okay on paper, but
>reefing [gradual opening] is utterly necessary because parafoils open
>very abruptly, and reefing big parafoils is tricky.  Pioneer has a
>new approach.  Parafoils have a particular advantage over conventional
>parachute systems because by flaring a parafoil (making an abrupt pull-up
>to trade forward speed for a reduction in sink rate), the landing can be
>made gentle enough to eliminate the need for retrorockets or other
>impact-cushioning devices.
>-- 

Wasn't this originally invented by Dr Francis Rogallo in about 1963? The
project had been started in an attempt to come up with a method for dry-landing
Apollo (and other) manned space capsules. It was scrapped because NASA found
that the wet-landing system developed over many years worked OK and there
was no real need to change.

In 1968, N. Random Students in some American university 'discovered' Rogallo's
patents and made some crude triangular flying machines out of bamboo and
polythene sheeting. I've seen some film of these beasts - it's a surprise
that so few people got killed!

The modern derivatives are safer, have L/D ratios of about 14:1 and are called
Hang Gliders. I have one in my garage. I don't get much time to fly it these
days however :-(

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 89 17:19:41 GMT
From: pacbell!qvax2!jerry@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jerry Gardner @ex2561)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there



In article <1531@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun5.astro.Virginia.EDU.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>
>Actually it will go in a C5A transport plane. It was going to go by
>boar, but recently it was determined that the place could carry the
 ^^^^

Gee, that must have been one helluva big boar!


Jerry Gardner, NJ6A        Qantel Business Systems
			   {hplabs,pacbell,ihnp4}!qantel!qvax2!jerry

Disclaimer?  We don't need no stinking disclaimers!

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 89 22:19:41 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <10957@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> kstclair@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU.UUCP (Kelly St.Clair) writes:
>Is there anything that gives us the *RIGHT* to remake another world in our
>own image?

Is there any reason why we shouldn't?  Remember, we are bringing life into
a desert so desolate that it makes the Sahara look like the Amazon jungle.
Life gets almost everywhere on Earth by various means, and often greatly
alters the destination's environment to make it more hospitable.  Getting
into space, and growing there, is much harder; we are nature's answer to
that problem.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 89 14:11:42 GMT
From: stsci!sims@noao.edu  (Jim Sims)
Subject: Re: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)

In article <541@bnr-fos.UUCP>, pdbain@bnr-public.uucp (Peter Bain) writes:
> >Some current schedule item based on a preliminary LMSC schedule:
> >7/10  HST Horizontal - SMA Staking
> >10/18 Ship HST and GSE             Hubble Space Telescope
> >10/22 Install PCS Simulator        Pointing Control System
> >11/27 - 12/21  Funct test, GST 8   Ground System Test
> >1/11  Remove GSE cables
> >2/28 - 3/9 Move to PAD                (launch pad!!!!!!)

> Can you say "acronym overload"?  Jim, could you give us this in
> English?  Thanks
>          -peter

Even I don't know what all of em are....  (GSE)
-- 
    Jim Sims      Space Telescope Science Institute      Baltimore, MD
             UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
    ARPA:  sims@stsci.edu                           SPAM:  SCIVAX::SIMS

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 89 13:57:57 GMT
From: att!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

<1989May31.044452.19619@utzoo.uucp> <862@mv03.ecf.toronto.edu>
Sender: 
Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc.
Keywords: 

In article <862@mv03.ecf.toronto.edu> murty@ecf.toronto.edu (Hema Sandhyarani
Murty) writes:
>In article <1989May31.044452.19619@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry
Spencer) writes:
>> like the effect of clouds on climate (they
>> tend to cool the surface, on the whole).  The "habitable zone" around
>> the Sun is rather wider than was formerly thought; Earth is not on the
>> brink of becoming another Venus.
>> 

> If cloud cool the surface, then they don't seem to helping
>Venus any. 

I just watched a Nova episode that dealt with the greenhouse effect.
It was stated that the lower atmosphere clouds (cumulus) tend to cool the land
while upper atmosphere clouds (cirrus[?]) will act as a blanket and keep heat
in.  Scientist confirmed this by measuring temperatures above and below cumulus
clouds and above and below the upper atmosphere clouds.

Unfortunately excess greenhouse gases will cause the formation of more of
these upper atmosphere clouds, Nova said.

Nova also stated that CO2 was only one of the greenhouse gases, Methane and
Flourocarbons are also culprits. And both are on the rise. 

[sorry this went away form sci.space, I just saw the Nova episode and read
this thread and thought I would share what I heard]

-- 
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] |          sparks@corpane.UUCP         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 
If you've seen one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 89 18:57:30 GMT
From: indri!larry!jwp@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)

In article <541@bnr-fos.UUCP>, pdbain@bnr-public.uucp (Peter Bain) writes:
> >7/10  HST Horizontal - SMA Staking


Secondary Mirror Assembly.
-- 
Jeff Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 89 15:22:08 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bill@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bill Jefferys)
Subject: Re: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)

In article <582@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes:
#In article <541@bnr-fos.UUCP>, pdbain@bnr-public.uucp (Peter Bain) writes:
#> >Some current schedule item based on a preliminary LMSC schedule:
#> >7/10  HST Horizontal - SMA Staking
#> >10/18 Ship HST and GSE             Hubble Space Telescope
#> >10/22 Install PCS Simulator        Pointing Control System
#> >11/27 - 12/21  Funct test, GST 8   Ground System Test
#> >1/11  Remove GSE cables
#> >2/28 - 3/9 Move to PAD                (launch pad!!!!!!)
#
#> Can you say "acronym overload"?  Jim, could you give us this in
#> English?  Thanks
#>          -peter
#
#Even I don't know what all of em are....  (GSE)

Ground Support Equipment.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 89 22:24:33 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <862@mv03.ecf.toronto.edu> murty@ecf.toronto.edu (Hema Sandhyarani Murty) writes:
>I would be extremely interested in the Science article if you could give
>me the reference...

"Climatic Consequences of Very High Carbon Dioxide Levels in the Earth's
Early Atmosphere", by Kasting and Ackerman, Science 12 Dec 1986, p 1383.
(Longer ago than I thought.)  Both the early Earth and the present one are
safe against runaway greenhouse effect even with 100 atmospheres (!!) of
CO2.  The surface does get kind of hot in the more extreme cases, but the
oceans remain stable.  Actually, the worst area -- where Earth's atmosphere
is only marginally stable -- is at CO2 pressures of 0.1-1.0 atmospheres,
where surface temperature is raised substantially by greenhouse effect
but atmospheric pressure is not high enough to keep the stratosphere
relatively dry.  A modest increase in the brightness of the Sun could
drive such an atmosphere into runaway greenhouse, although it's stable
if left alone.

>If cloud cool the surface, then they don't seem to helping
>Venus any...

The effects of clouds vary a great deal.  They absorb outgoing radiant
heat, but they also reflect incoming light.  On Earth in most cases, the
net effect is cooling.  The Science paper doesn't actually figure clouds
in to any extent, it turns out -- I'd remembered that incorrectly.  They
discuss the matter, and attempt to allow for cloud effects in small ways,
but nobody knows how clouds would behave in a CO2-rich atmosphere.  They
say that it takes fairly pathological cases for clouds to contribute much
net warming on Earth.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 89 05:54:52 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST

In article <486@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>>NASA to test a parafoil system, developed by Pioneer Aerospace, for
>>precision landings by parachute of launcher components...
>
>Wasn't this originally invented by Dr Francis Rogallo in about 1963? ...

If I haven't got the terms mixed up, no, they are not the same thing.
Rogallo's concept was a flexible wing, with shape held by rigid members
or shroud lines or both.  Typically it had a single surface and was
triangular.  A parafoil is a gliding parachute, with two surfaces kept
apart by ram pressure and a rectangular shape.  Parafoils have largely
replaced circular parachutes for high-performance sport parachuting.
They are parachutes first and wings second.

>[Rogallo effort] an attempt to come up with a method for dry-landing
>Apollo (and other) manned space capsules. It was scrapped because NASA found
>that the wet-landing system developed over many years worked OK and there
>was no real need to change.

Not quite right, if I'm not mistaken.  According to Michael Collins's
"Liftoff", Apollo opted for a wet landing very early because it clearly
involved less on-board weight.  Gemini originally was going to use a
Rogallo wing in hopes of developing pinpoint landing techniques.  The
wing idea ran into problems, and Gemini's most important job was to
prove technology for Apollo, which wasn't going to use it anyway, so
Gemini switched to wet landing.  If Apollo's schedule had not forced
the issue, Gemini might well have stayed with the Rogallo wing; being
able to make a pinpoint landing on land was clearly superior to splashing
down in the ocean and having to be picked up.  The motive to change was
there all right, but short-term schedule problems took priority.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 89 18:00:44 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!ncrcan!ziebmef!hjsdvm@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Howard J. Scrimgeour)
Subject: Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.

In article <5414@surya.megatest.UUCP> ivan@surya.UUCP writes:
>
>	If memory serves me, this was known as the "Tingustu Event"
>(or something close to that).  Witnessed by many from afar, there
>were reports of extremely high-intensity light from the horizon.
>An enormous circular section of forest was flattened and flash-
>burned.  However, NO CRATER nor evidence of any crater exsists.

I'm afraid you're confusing two events. The one you're thinking of
is the "Tunguska" event, an explosion which took place in Siberia
in (I believe) 1910. I've heard it suggested that the absence of
a crater was due to the object bursting (vaporizing) some distance
above ground. This adds weight to the suggestion that the object was 
a cometary nucleaus (iceball) rather than a meteor.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Howard J. Scrimgeour, D.V.M.                                           |
| hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp       CIS:75126,2744                               |
| uunet!{utgpu!moore,attcan!telly}!ziebmef!hjsdvm                        |
| "We also walk dogs..."                                                 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 16:02:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/


/* Written 11:02 am  Jun  1, 1989 by pdbain@bnr-public.uucp in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
In article <576@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes:
>Some current schedule item based on a preliminary LMSC schedule:
>7/10  HST Horizontal - SMA Staking
>10/18 Ship HST and GSE
>10/22 Install PCS Simulator
>11/27 - 12/21  Funct test, GST 8
>1/11  Remove GSE cables
>2/28 - 3/9 Move to PAD
Can you say "acronym overload"?  Jim, could you give us this in
English?  Thanks
         -peter
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

GSE - Ground Support Equipment
GST - Ground Support Test [?]
HST - Hubble Space Telescope
PAD - Not an acronym.
SMA - Secondary Mirror Assembly

What's PCS?

A-T

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 18:30:33 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction

Article in the local news last night:
ozone was being destroyed by electrons coming from the magnetosphere 
this causing 14% of the ozone loss since 1975...  
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #475
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Jun 89 05:35:37 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00508> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 7 Jun 89 05:33:34 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  7 Jun 89 05:33:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oYXCa8S00Vs1I1FEg4>;
          Wed,  7 Jun 89 05:23:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.oYXCV2C00UkZ0iFk59>;
          Wed,  7 Jun 89 05:17:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YXCTYO00UkZMiEE50@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  7 Jun 89 05:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #476

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 476

Today's Topics:
		   Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST
 Tracking and Data Relay Satellite-4 declared operational (Forwarded)
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
		   Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST
		    Re: Amazon Forest Destruction
     First Apollo lunar exploration crew interviewed (Forwarded)
		  Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was
		  Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out"
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #472
		   Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST
			Space telescope optics
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 14:27:12 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh!mrb1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (maurice.r.baker)
Subject: Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST

In article <1989Jun4.055452.12921@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <486@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
> >>NASA to test a parafoil system, developed by Pioneer Aerospace, for
> >>precision landings by parachute of launcher components...
> >
> >Wasn't this originally invented by Dr Francis Rogallo in about 1963? ...
> 
> ......Deleted Henry's expalanation of Rogallowing vs. parafoil             
> 
> .....
> Gemini originally was going to use a
> Rogallo wing in hopes of developing pinpoint landing techniques.  The
> .....
> being able to make a pinpoint landing on land was clearly superior to splashing
> down in the ocean and having to be picked up.  The motive to change was
> -- 

Was there also some synergy here between the concept of "pin-point" landings
on terra firma, and the strong connection between Gemini and USAF ("Blue Ge-
mini"/MOL/etc.) ?  Particularly in light of Gemini capsule containing military
crews and/or classified documents, equip. etc. --- and landing in unfriendly
waters/territory.  I keep remembering space books from the eraly 1960s which
showed a Rogallo-wing equipped Gemini skidding to a stop on the land following
a visit to the MOL.  And the Gemini capsule had a USAF insignia painted on it.

Just a thought.....any other followups?

M. Baker
homxc!mrb1

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 21:46:19 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite-4 declared operational (Forwarded)

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 5, 1989

Jim Elliott
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

RELEASE:  89-86

TRACKING AND DATA RELAY SATELLITE-4 DECLARED OPERATIONAL


     NASA's Tracking and Data Relay Satellite-4 (TDRS-4) became 
operational Saturday, officials at NASA's Goddard Space Flight 
Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md., announced today.

     The 5,000-pound communications satellite assumed satellite 
communications responsibilities that were maintained by TDRS-1 
since April 1983.  

     TDRS-1 now is being moved to a new location, 79 degrees west 
longitude, where it will serve as a backup to TDRS-4 and TDRS-3, 
also known as TDRS-East and TDRS-West, respectively.  This move 
began Sunday at 11:30 a.m. EDT.

     This switchover represents the completion of the three-
satellite TDRS constellation.  This new space-based system, used 
for communications with the Space Shuttle and other spacecraft in 
low-Earth orbit, offers great advantages over the worldwide 
network of ground stations used since the inception of the U.S. 
space program.

     NASA's ground station network could only provide support for 
a small fraction -- typically 15 to 20 percent -- of each orbit 
period of the user spacecraft.  The TDRS network covers at least 
85 percent of each orbit period and facilitates a much higher 
information flow rate between the spacecraft and the ground.

     "TDRS-4 will be located at 41 degrees west longitude just 
off the coast of Brazil, and TDRS-3 is on station over the 
Pacific south of Hawaii at 171 degrees west longitude," according 
to Charles T. Force, acting associate administrator for Space 
Operations, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

     "TDRS-4's position was 47 degrees west longitude when it 
became operational.  The satellite is drifting at 1 degree a day 
and is expected to reach its permanent location on June 10," 
according to Roger Flaherty, GSFC's TDRS network director.  

     The TDRS system of satellite communications will support up 
to 23 user spacecraft simultaneously and provide both multiple-
access service that relays data from as many as 19 low-data-rate 
user spacecraft at the same time and a single-access service that 
provides two high-data-rate communications relays from each 
satellite.   The final testing required for "service acceptance" 
of the total system is scheduled to be completed by the end of 
August.

     The satellites are built by TRW, Redondo Beach, Calif., and 
are operated and owned by Contel Federal Systems, Fairfax, Va.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 14:08:41 GMT
From: stsci!sims@noao.edu  (Jim Sims)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

And the last unexplained TLA is

 GSE - Ground Support Equipment

(and yes, I promidse to be a good boy and _NOT_ post TLAs without translations
  from now on)



-- 
    Jim Sims      Space Telescope Science Institute      Baltimore, MD
             UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
    ARPA:  sims@stsci.edu                           SPAM:  SCIVAX::SIMS

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 14:55:50 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ut-emx.UUCP!clyde@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Clyde W. Hoover)
Subject: Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST

The very first model Revell model kit of the Gemini spacecraft I got
(circa 1964 or 5) had the parts to build it with landing skids.  There
was illustrated two landing methods - splashdown and parafoil.

Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  
	clyde@emx.utexas.edu; ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!clyde

Tip #268: Don't feel insecure or inferior! Remember, you're ORGANIC!!
	  You could win an argument with almost any rock!

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 01:43:56 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction

In article <1331@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>Article in the local news last night:
>ozone was being destroyed by electrons coming from the magnetosphere 
>this causing 14% of the ozone loss since 1975...  

Oh NOOOOO!!!!!   We've got to BAN all ELECTRONS before we all DIE!!!!!!!

Either that, or outlaw the magnetosphere.

I suspected from the beginning that the so-called 'ozone hole' was just
part of a natural cycle that we would have been seeing all along if we
had had satellites for decades.  It makes no sense whatsoever that a
fluorocarbon-induced hole would first appear over the south pole.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
Headland Technology/Video 7               No whimper, no blast.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                 His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 15:47:16 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: First Apollo lunar exploration crew interviewed (Forwarded)

Kenneth C. Atchison
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       June 5, 1989

NTE:  N89-44  FIRST APOLLO LUNAR EXPLORATION CREW INTERVIEWED

     As a part of its activities supporting commemoration of the 
first Apollo Program lunar landing and exploration mission, NASA 
will uplink via its NASA Select televison system a question and 
answer interview with the Apollo 11 Astronauts Neil Armstrong, 
Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins.

     Media representatives can downlink the interview at 1 p.m. 
EDT, Friday, June 9, from NASA Select, Satcom F2R, transponder 
13, C-bamd, located at 72 degrees W. longitude, frequency 3960.0 
MHz, vertical polarization, audio monaural 6.8MHz.  Running time 
is 32 minutes 38 seconds including 3 minutes of B-roll scenes at 
the end.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 89 20:15:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!zweig@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was


  Money can't make the idiots in South America stop chopping down the
rain forests, but lack of money would do the job nicely. I suggest we
start out with economic sanctions, then send the Army down there and
blow up a few plantations if that doesn't work. It's time to get tough,
before the environment we live in up here in Babylon gets ruined!

-Johnny I-guess-this-nonsense-in-Beijing-is-getting-to-me
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
 Department of Computer Science
--------------------------------Disclaimer:------------------------------------
   Rule 1: Don't believe everything you read.
   Rule 2: Don't believe anything you read.
   Rule 3: There is no Rule 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 04:53:05 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!sequent!jjb@uunet.uu.net  (Jeff Berkowitz)
Subject: Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out"

In article <1989Jun4.055452.12921@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <486@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>>>NASA to test a parafoil system, developed by Pioneer Aerospace, for
>>>precision landings by parachute of launcher components...
>>
>>Wasn't this originally invented by Dr Francis Rogallo in about 1963? ...
>
>If I haven't got the terms mixed up, no, they are not the same thing.

Henry's analysis of the difference is (as usual :-) correct.  Parafoil-
like designs, however, are in use both as kites and as human-carrying
gliders; the latter are popular especially in Europe.  Their advantage
over hang gliders is that the lack of airframe makes them easy to fold
into a backpack and carry; they have a relatively poor glide, however,
and appear to be difficult for humans to flare (and therefore land) safely.

I'd like to advance the idea of Rogallo or parawing vehicles for crew
escape from low earth orbit.  There are several (unlikely) failure modes
which leave the shuttle "stuck" in orbit.  If you thought the Challenger
accident was tough to stomach, imagine the spectre of a shuttle crew
dying in orbit.

Could an escape vehicle consisting of a small solid fuel rocket (for
deceleration burn) and collapsible wing be used in this situation?
After the burn you would be "dropping like a stone" toward incineration
in the atmosphere.  The only solution would be "skipping" off the
atmosphere to lose velocity (an idea proposed as early as WWII).
With a small computerized guidance system, might it be possible to
do this safely?  My knowledge of mach 17 aerodynamics at the edge of
space is, mmm, not quite up to answering this (to say the least).

As people (of whatever nationality) make increasing use of L.E.O.,
seems to me a system for getting them back down in an emergency
will assume increasing importance.  (And guess what?  I didn't
even talk to a patent lawyer before I posted this! :-).

Another ex-hang glider pilot...
-- 
Jeff Berkowitz N6QOM			uunet!sequent!jjb
Sequent Computer Systems		Custom Systems Group

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 89 23:52:31 GMT
From: bunny!hhd0@husc6.harvard.edu  (Horace Dediu)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

In article <546@pegasus.ATT.COM>, psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> highlights:  they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's
> pointing devices, with 4 megabytes of RAM and running X-Windows,
> networked with Fiber Distributed Data Interface and perhaps IEEE 802
> (they didn't say if they meant Ethernet, Token Ring, or StarLAN).
> There's also an Earth-bound system, the Software Support Environment
> (SSE), for software development.  The whole deal will require 1,500,000
> lines of Ada code, including 900,000 for the SSE.

AAAAAAUUUUGGHHHH!!
That's it!  I've had it!  If this is true, then I'm going to lose all
compassion for NASA.  IBM PS/2(!), Ada(!!), 4megs(!), the next century(!).
Doomed to fail.  :-)  (Sorry about the religion, but this is ridiculous!)

-- 
Horace Dediu            Goodbye, cruel world.                 GTE Laboratories
(617) 466-4111          #cd /;rm -Rf * &                      40 Sylvan Road
UUCP:  ...!harvard!bunny!hhd0                                 Waltham, MA 02254
Internet: hhd0@gte.com or hhd0%gte.com@relay.cs.net

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1989 15:19-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #472

> rumors, facts, or in-between information on either Third Millenium
> (MMI) or External Tanks Corp. that is fairly recent (within the last

Both still exist. I spoke briefly with Dee Ann Divis of MMI last week.
They are alive and well and still not funded on their big projects.

AMROC will be launching a suborbital (150 up and about the same down
range) flight with paying customers, one of which is a fascinating
re-entry/recovery parasol product test. Flight due near end of July.
Rocket is same, with fewer engines, as will be used for an orbital
flight due early 1990.

SSIA, as you probably know, has already done a 150 mi commercial
sounding rocket flight with 5 minutes microgravity (Starfire 1).

Pacific American is under wraps but has bent metal. Gary is not talking
much.

OSC/Hercules will be testing orbital capability over the next year.

A "commercial" Delta launch was supposed to occur on 5/31, but I've not
heard if it went off or not. (Well, it is commercial, but not in the
same build-your-own-from-scratch-with-private-venture-capital class as
the other named above.)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 17:18:08 GMT
From: ecsvax!cjl@mcnc.org  (Charles J. Lord)
Subject: Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST

In article <486@cybaswan.UUCP>, iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes:
> Wasn't this originally invented by Dr Francis Rogallo in about 1963? The
> project had been started in an attempt to come up with a method for dry-landing
> Apollo (and other) manned space capsules. It was scrapped because NASA found
> that the wet-landing system developed over many years worked OK and there
> was no real need to change.

Yes, but it was the Gemini that was outfitted at least on paper
for the Rogallo wing and skids (looked like water skis to me).
I seem to remember a 1:1 mockup in a drop test in Missles and
Rockets back in '63-64 or so...

BTW, wasn't the airfoil really invented by him earlier, like in the
mid-1950's?
-- 
 *  Charles Lord               ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl  Usenet (old) *
 *  Cary, NC                   cjl@ecsvax.UUCP            Usenet (new) *
 *  #include <std.disclamers>  cjl@ecsvax.BITNET          Bitnet       *
 *  #include <cutsey.quote>    cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu      Internet     *

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jun 89 16:56:05 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Space telescope optics


Several people have posted to the net stating that the Hubble Space Telescope
could not focus on an object as close as the earth. I tend to be somewhat
skeptical of this claim, because of the phenomenon known as depth of field.
In photography, it has been noted that objects slightly in front of or behind
the plane of optimum focus often come out in reasonable focus, because the
spread of light from these points is smaller than the effective "grain size"
of the film. Other things being equal, the higher the f-ratio of the system,
the greater the depth of field. In cameras, the depth of field is also
determined by focal length, the quality of the optics, and the maximum
acceptable degree of blurring (circle of confusion).

Of particular interest in this case is the hyperfocal distance of the system.
A camera which is focused at the hyperfocal distance is considered to have
acceptable focus out to infinity. It is generally also true that a system
focused at infinity will produce acceptable images of objects as close as the
hyperfocal distance. I have taken several pictures using a non-SLR camera
on a sunny day (aperture set very small => high f-ratio) of objects at a
great distance, which came out OK, even though I had carelessly left the
focus at 8 feet (!)

I believe the HST has a primary mirror 94 inches across, which is a tiny
fraction the distance from its projected orbit to the earth. I don't have
much information on the other parameters of the HST (primary focal length,
effective f-ratio, dimensions of optical sensors, etc.), but a few guesses
and application of the formulas used for cameras suggest that the
hyperfocal distance may be only a few miles. Does anyone have any better
numbers?
                          John Roberts
                          roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (new address)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #476
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Jun 89 05:31:49 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00607> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 8 Jun 89 05:29:05 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  8 Jun 89 05:28:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0YXXeMO00Vs1Q1505J>;
          Thu,  8 Jun 89 05:21:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.MYXXbNi00UkZQnD04B>;
          Thu,  8 Jun 89 05:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <EYXXZne00UkZQnBU4g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  8 Jun 89 05:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #477

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 477

Today's Topics:
		       Gemini and Rogallo wing
		  Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out"
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		    Re: Amazon Forest Destruction
 Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long)
 Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long)
Al Diaz selected as Deputy Associate Administrator for Science (Forwarded)
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		  Re: Space Station computer system
			       Magellan
		 Re: OSC Hercules Launch Information
			  Russians bomb U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 23:55:18 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Gemini and Rogallo wing

In article <1158@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mrb1@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (maurice.r.baker) writes:
>Was there also some synergy here between the concept of "pin-point" landings
>on terra firma, and the strong connection between Gemini and USAF ("Blue Ge-
>mini"/MOL/etc.) ? ...

Well, "synergy" in its exact sense -- two independent-looking things
reinforcing each other -- maybe a bit.  If what you mean is "cause-and-effect
relationship", I *think* the answer is no.  It was just two independent
aspects of the same spacecraft.

In any case, note that the Rogallo Gemini would not have had a long gliding
range, so it wouldn't have gotten a military crew out of hostile territory
in the event of a major guidance foulup.  The main importance of precision
landing was getting rid of the recovery fleet.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 16:14:50 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out"

In article <16879@sequent.UUCP> jjb@sequent.UUCP (Jeff Berkowitz) writes:
>I'd like to advance the idea of Rogallo or parawing vehicles for crew
>escape from low earth orbit...
>Could an escape vehicle consisting of a small solid fuel rocket (for
>deceleration burn) and collapsible wing be used in this situation?

There have been a number of proposals for crew escape from low orbit.
One almost inevitably ends up needing a heatshield of some sort, though,
after which a conventional parachute is usually preferred.  (The "almost"
is because I recall seeing one scheme using a rather unusual parachute
to do most of the declerating at very high altitude, high enough to keep
the heat loads down to what a conventional spacesuit could handle.)

There really doesn't seem to be a lot of advantage in using a wing for
this purpose.  The obvious ways of building a collapsible wing won't
stand up to reentry heat.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 13:06:36 GMT
From: dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@speedy.wisc.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <106@anasaz.UUCP> scott@anasaz.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
}In article <1989May31.044452.19619@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
}>
}>into the details and established that Earth would not have a runaway
}>greenhouse effect even with far more CO2 than it has now.  There are
}>a number of complications, like the effect of clouds on climate (they
}>tend to cool the surface, on the whole).  The "habitable zone" around
}
}I have seen this comment several times, and don't really understand it.
}The surface of Venus is *completely* obscured by clouds.  While it makes
}sense (or seems to) that clouds, by shading the surface, cool it - this
}has not done much for the surface of Venus.  Clearly, the presence of
}clouds does not necessarily stop a runaway greenhouse effect.


Quite the reverse, if they happen to have "windows" in the right bands...
Like Venus...

........................................................................
The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu  - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 15:52:59 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction

In article <386@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1331@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>>Article in the local news last night:
>>ozone was being destroyed by electrons coming from the magnetosphere 
>>this causing 14% of the ozone loss since 1975...  
              ^^^^
			  note number

>I suspected from the beginning that the so-called 'ozone hole' was just
>part of a natural cycle that we would have been seeing all along if we
>had had satellites for decades.  

Or rather, 14% of which we would have been seeing.  The other 86% remains
unaccounted for, with fluorocarbons a prime suspect.   IMHO 86% of an
environmental crime is still an environmental crime.  

A certain percentage of Amazon trees die every year anyway.  This does
not make the present day slash and burn disaster part of a "natural cycle."

>				It makes no sense whatsoever that a
>fluorocarbon-induced hole would first appear over the south pole.

Only a meterologist or planetary dynamics expert is entitled to make a
statement like this.  There have been articles in SCIENCE talking about
this very subject, and to some researchers at least it DOES make sense.
Perhaps a more accurate formulation would be "It makes no sense whatsoever
*to the layman* that a fluorocarbon-induced hole, etc etc" -- this would
be a true statement, for what it's worth.
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 00:04:49 GMT
From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net  (John E Van Deusen III)
Subject: Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long)


THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, 102 Earl
Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027 is currently posting
13000 bytes of material every month to sci.space concerning the
observability of the new moon in exotic places.  In article
<CMM.0.88.612903688.mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
mnd@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mohib N Durrani) writes:
>
>      DAKAR-Senegal  10   20    18 18   19 18    23 45    MOST PROBABLE

Although it would be necessary to compensate for elevation and
diffraction, it should be possible to calculate the day upon which to
begin the lunar calendar to any *reasonable* precision.  Surely two
people living in the same house would not start the month a day apart
because one happened to be up in the minaret 10 minutes after sun set?
If the new moon is theoretically visible but can not be seen because of
the occurrence of a sand storm or some other factor, how is the first
day of the lunar month determined?  Is this a big problem?

> ...
>       The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL
>          and fine tune some parameters regarding SCATTERING/VISION.

I should hope so.  If these are obsessive-compulsive religious
machinations, perhaps Cat Stevens could help me out with my phone bill.
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865

uunet!visdc!jiii

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 16:30:50 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long)

In article <553@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes:
>Although it would be necessary to compensate for elevation and
>diffraction, it should be possible to calculate the day upon which to
>begin the lunar calendar to any *reasonable* precision...

Like the man said, what's wanted is fine-tuning of models of the
atmosphere and vision.  The problem is, as I understand it, that the
religious rules are based on when the new moon can be *seen*, by
real observers (weather permitting), not on when it is theoretically
there.  This brings vagaries of the atmosphere and of human vision
into the picture, producing a mess.

It would be courteous for the size of the announcement to be cut down,
if possible.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 15:36:06 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Al Diaz selected as Deputy Associate Administrator for Science (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       June 6, 1989

RELEASE:  89-87

AL DIAZ SELECTED AS DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SCIENCE

     Alphonso V. Diaz today was named NASA's deputy associate 
administrator for space science and applications, effective
July 2.

     In making the announcement, Associate Administrator for 
Space Science and Applications Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, said: "Al's 
extensive NASA management experience and technical involvement 
with planetary exploration make him a logical choice to serve as 
deputy.  Al will be able to provide the Office of Space Science 
and Applications with internal expertise and a proven management 
ability."

     Diaz leaves the position of division vice president for 
space and aeronautics services, General Electric Government 
Services, Cherry Hill, N.J.  In this capacity, he was responsible 
for management of NASA-related services provided by GE at various 
NASA installations.  He joined GE in July 1988.

     Diaz agreed to return to NASA following discussions with 
NASA Acting Administrator Richard H. Truly and Dr. Fisk, who 
underscored to Diaz the agency's heavy space science schedule and 
the contributions Al could make because of his NASA and GE 
experience.

     While previously at NASA, Diaz set up the organization 
within the Space Science Office for coordinating with NASA's 
Office of Space Station.  He also had worked in NASA's Solar 
System Exploration Division.  Diaz began his NASA career at the 
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., in 1964 as a cooperative 
education student.  Later at Langley, he worked on the technical 
development of the Viking organic analysis experiment.

     Diaz received a bachelor of science degree from St. Joseph's 
University in 1966; a master's degree in physics from Old 
Dominion University in 1970; and a master's degree in management 
from Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a NASA-sponsored 
Sloan Fellow in 1986.  He was awarded the NASA Medal for 
Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1977 for his work on the 
Viking experiment.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 20:43:50 GMT
From: rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Rick Francis Golembiewski)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system


 > highlights:  they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's
 > pointing devices, with 4 megabytes of RAM and running X-Windows,
 > networked with Fiber Distributed Data Interface and perhaps IEEE 802

 That's pretty much outdated NOW, I don't see how they can hope to have
 enough computing power, unless they are going to use the model 80's as
 terminals... Also the model 80 is a BAD choice even for what is
 available NOW, even the modle 70 is a lot faster then the 80...  And
 Why have 30-40 of them?  Are there going to be THAT many people that
 need them?  I didn't think that the station was supposed to have a
 crew of 40... EEEK  This sounds really frightening MS-DOS in space,
 now I KNOW that the space program is in trouble...


//     Rick Golembiewski  rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu  \\
\\       #include stddisclaimer.h               //
 \\  "I never respected a man who could spell" //
  \\               -M. Twain                  //

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 00:09:23 GMT
From: xanth!paterra@g.ms.uky.edu  (Frank C. Paterra)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

In article <YYX3S6y00Wg90E8l5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
> 
>  > highlights:  they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's
>  > pointing devices, with 4 megabytes of RAM and running X-Windows,
>  > networked with Fiber Distributed Data Interface and perhaps IEEE 802
> 
>  That's pretty much outdated NOW, I don't see how they can hope to have
>  enough computing power, unless they are going to use the model 80's as
>  terminals... Also the model 80 is a BAD choice even for what is
>  available NOW, even the modle 70 is a lot faster then the 80...  And
>  Why have 30-40 of them?  Are there going to be THAT many people that
>  need them?  I didn't think that the station was supposed to have a
>  crew of 40... EEEK  This sounds really frightening MS-DOS in space,
>  now I KNOW that the space program is in trouble...
> 
> 
The poop as I know it -

The computer workstations on the space station, known as Multipurpose
Application Consoles or MPACs are based intel 80386 processors
running at 25 mhz.  The basic MPAC will consist of a Standard Data
Processor (SDP) which contains the data buss and a Network Interface
Unit (NIU).  The NIU allows the workstation to use the fiber-optic
based space station LAN.  Each SDP will contain at least one Embedded
Data Processor (EDP) (the 80386 computer).  The EDPs come one meg and
four meg models.  In addition the SDP can contain some number of I/O
driver cards to handle the user I/O.  The I/O devices will include
video (in and out), keyboards, trac-balls, audio (in and out), and
what ever else is needed to support a particular mission.

The Operating system that will be used is a derivative of Unix, and
there will be rack mounted workstations as well as portable ones.  The
portable workstations have to be plugged in to the Data Management
System (DMS) via one of the many ports available in both the lab and
the habitation modules before they can be used.

IBM is developing the workstations and the current mockup models are
PS/2 model 80s, cleverly hidden behind rack mockups.  The real
workstations, however, will not be model 80s.  Currently there are no
plans to use the 80486 or any other processor.

I'm currently working on a commonality study and have researched the
available information so I pretty sure this is correct.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Paterra            The above is my own opinion and nobody
paterra@cs.odu.edu       agrees with or condones what I said.

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  6 Jun 89 10:08:02 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Magellan
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

>From an in-house Magellan bulletin:

"The only problem that occurred during the launch phase was the failure
of the Magellan solar panels to lock in place prior to the IUS burns.
Again this potential problem had been anticipated and was easily corrected
by rotating the solar panels to an orientation that caused lockup during
the IUS burns.  Shortly thereafter the solar panels were rotated to acquire
the Sun and are providing power to the spacecraft at approximately the
expected levels."

In other words, if something sticks, give it a kick.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 16:58:14 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: OSC Hercules Launch Information

>From article <890602-105011-2653@Xerox>, by RPollard.ElSegundo@XEROX.COM:
) Does anyone on the net have any info about where OSC is in their
) development of Hercules ?  Specifically I was looking for the date that
) they expect to do the first launch. 

Would you believe OSC/Hercules and their development of Pegasus?
Hercules Aerospace has successfully test fired 2 of the 3 stages. From
what I hear you're looking at a first launch in July or August.

If I hear more I'll post it.

			Bob P.
-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 18:40:33 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Russians bomb U.S.


Another headline from the local news: 
(sorry but they didn't give much detail and what little they did give I 
have forgotten)

Upper stage from Proton booster crashs in U.S. near Canadian border.

Any one have any details?  
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #477
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Jun 89 03:54:33 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA13576> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 9 Jun 89 03:52:59 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  9 Jun 89 03:52:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.0YXr3Jq00Ui3I131cx>;
          Fri,  9 Jun 89 03:25:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.cYXqz4S00UkVI=kU4a>;
          Fri,  9 Jun 89 03:20:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <IYXqvXS00UkV0=j04R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  9 Jun 89 03:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #478

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 478

Today's Topics:
			   Garage Satelite
			Re: Russians bomb U.S.
			   Astronomy digest
	   Magellan Status for week of 06/06/89 (Forwarded)
	       Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #474
 Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long)
		      Re: Space telescope optics
		       NSS Space Hotline Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <kYXGHjy00UkZ0iiVtY@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-Date: Wed,  7 Jun 89 09:36:47 -0400 (EDT)
ReSent-From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-To: Bernie_DeGrunchy.WBST129@Xerox.com, Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: "Bernard_DeGruchy.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Date: 30 May 89 05:40:06 PDT (Tuesday)
Subject: Garage Satelite
From: "Bernie_DeGruchy.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Reply-To: DeGruchy.WBST129@Xerox.COM

 To whom it may concern:

       Somebody posted a notice seeking people that were interested in
designing a satelite for space and were looking for volunteers to join the
effort.  I read it and deleted it and then thought about it.  Well count me
in.
       My net address expires the end of June or before.  I am working a
contract which expires then.  However I have a home address which I can be
reached at and since I doubt that you'll be able to reach me by net in time
(the system is so slow here, besides we don't get all the postings here
anyway) here it is:

			Bernard DeGruchy
			4321 Ridge Road West
			Rochester, New York
					14626

       I am looking forward to hearing from you.  I am an Electronic
Technician who will be unemployed after June 30, 1989 so I will have time
on my hands if I can help out. (Hopefully this won't last long.)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 22:15:25 GMT
From: xanth!paterra@g.ms.uky.edu  (Frank C. Paterra)
Subject: Re: Russians bomb U.S.

In article <1333@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM>, johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
> 
> Another headline from the local news: 
> (sorry but they didn't give much detail and what little they did give I 
> have forgotten)
> 
> Upper stage from Proton booster crashs in U.S. near Canadian border.
> 
> Any one have any details?  

Please post any information!!  Also, what other large objects have
re-entered and crashed within the U.S.?

Frank Paterra
paterra@cs.odu.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 18:23:11 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Astronomy digest


[This is a highly condensed summary of selected items from the June, 1989
issue of Astronomy Magazine. See the magazine for details and good color
photographs.]

Editorial describing the difference between radioisotope thermal generators
(RTGs) and nuclear reactors. Explanation of why RTGs are safer, and why they
are necessary for work in the outer solar system and on the surface of Mars.

Voyager 2 images from 195 million miles reveal rotating cloud patterns on
Neptune. Flyby is scheduled for August 25, 3000 miles above the cloud tops.

A brief description of the Soviet astronomical facilities near Zelenchukskaya.
The RATAN 600 radiotelescope is a 600-meter ring made of 900 "flat, rectangular"
movable reflectors that focus on a central collector. (Arecibo has greater
collection area.) The 6-meter optical telescope has only about 170 nights
per year good for observing, with average seeing of 1 arcsecond. [The primary
mirror is very thick, and ambient temperatures must remain constant for a
long time (hours) for the mirror to focus properly.]

Description of a model of the early solar system, in which the planets are
made up of medium-sized "planetesimals". [See previous posting by Dennis
Brantly. If, as suspected, earth life was wiped out and started over several
times, this would be good news to those who hope to find life elsewhere,
since it would be the first direct evidence that the initiation of life
processes is not a "once in the universe" event.]

Very good article on the operational algorithm of the Hubble Space Telescope
[also described by Dennis Brantly]. Pointing at the sun would destroy the
instruments, but there is an automatic shutter override for safety. Pointing 
near a bright object lets extraneous light into the tube. The telescope can 
not be used within 50 degrees of the sun, or 20 degrees of the bright side
of the earth. The goal is to get the most and the best observations possible
within the position and time constraints. HST has an on-board computer which
handles most of the minute-to-minute control. For guidance, a catalog of
15 million stars has been produced. During a time exposure, HST must remain
stable to within .007 arcsecond [!] by use of reaction wheels.

Article covering several methods for estimating the distance to other
galaxies. This is a hot topic, because it affects the cosmological theories,
and some of the measures differ by a factor of two or more.

Saturn and Neptune pass within 18 minutes of each other on June 24. This may
make it easier for amateurs to locate Neptune, since Saturn isn't hard to find.

Timetables and charts for locating the planets and their moons.

Saturn will occult the star 28 Sagittarii slightly before 2 AM EDT on July 3.
The star should flicker as it passes through the rings. Astronomers use
occultations to probe planetary rings and atmospheres.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 17:26:46 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for week of 06/06/89 (Forwarded)


                     MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS
                             June 6
 
 
     This is a weekly status report. The next report will be
issued June 12.
 
     The spacecraft continues to operate routinely with twice
daily momentum wheel desaturations and once-a-day star
calibrations.
     
     Radio calibration tests will begin this month.
 
     Magellan engineers are periodically rolling the spacecraft
180 degrees about the Medium-Gain Antenna axis to obtain Rocket
Engine Module (REM) temperature data to update the temperature
model. Again, the higher than expected REM temperatures will
constrain use of the High-Gain Antenna and, consequently, the
Deep Space Network's Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI)
tests during the cruise. While this is not considered to be a
major problem, REM temperatures could constrain mapping
operations in the first cycle of an extended mission.
 
     Corrections to ground attitude control software have been
made which are believed to have solved an attitude knowledge
problem. Updates will be added to the flight attitude software
on Friday, June 9. One possible result of the attitude control
problem is mispointing the High-Gain Antenna on the order of one-
half a degree, which results in a small loss in the downlink
signal. The loss is not a problem at the present time because
there is more than adequate margin in the receiving antenna. Once
the attitude control knowledge problem is solved and the
subsystem calibrated, a High-Gain Antenna calibration will be
made to take out any mechanical or electrical offset.
 
     A technical briefing is scheduled for June 13 on the
attitude control knowledge problem and whether to continue
momentum wheel desaturations twice a day.
 
     The Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) temperature is at 31 degrees C
(87.8 F), close to the redline limit of 33 C (91.4 F) as the
nozzle points closer to the sun. This is being watched closely.
 
     Magellan has moved inward from Earth's orbit toward the
sun. Magellan was fired by the IUS in the opposite direction to
Earth's flight to slow the spacecraft down so it would fall
inward toward the orbit of Venus. In July the spacecraft will
begin to speed up relative to Earth and about August 1 it will
have caught up with Earth so that the sun, spacecraft and Earth
will be almost in a straight line. At about noon of each day, if
you could see Magellan, it would be overhead with the sun in the
background. 
 
 
 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                    4,502,212
     
     Velocity Geocentric                         5,291 mph
              Heliocentric                      60,719 mph
 
     One Way Light Time                           24.2 sec

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 89 21:25:00 GMT
From: sun-barr!texsun!texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!mike@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989


When are we going to see Salmon Rushdie sightings in sci.space?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1989 12:27-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #474

>Sales of aerosol cans fell through the floor when the ozone-hole thing got into
> the headlines in the winter. Now, only a few months later you see labels
> claiming 'ozone friendly' on all sorts of products that contain anything that
> resembles a solvent. Car wax, shoe shine wax, aerosols, paint - you name it!
>
> Joe Public is forcing a *big* change in things here. Even the traditionally
> hard-nosed government we've got here at the moment has done some spectacular
> U-turns on certain things recently.

Yet another example of how markets react faster and with less
sensitivity to entrenched interests than governments....

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 15:59:26 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long)

In article <553@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes:
>In article <CMM.0.88.612903688.mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
>mnd@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mohib N Durrani) writes:
>>       The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL
>>          and fine tune some parameters regarding SCATTERING/VISION.
>I should hope so.  If these are obsessive-compulsive religious
>machinations, perhaps Cat Stevens could help me out with my phone bill.

Well according to something in SCIENCE NEWS last year there is in fact
an ongoing research project in this area and the Muslims are providing
the impetus - lots of folks want to know about atmospheric refraction
and scattering as it relates to composition of the various layers; only
the Muslims need to do it for Allah's sake!

There's actually a tradition to this - the great Arab astronomers of
medieval times were glorifying Allah with their work too.  Whatever works...

I agree the volume of posting is excessive.  Perhaps the folks at Columbia
could switch to a mailing list and post a short pointer here.
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 04:27:28 GMT
From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Space telescope optics

In article <8906052056.AA05592@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>Several people have posted to the net stating that the Hubble Space Telescope
>could not focus on an object as close as the earth. I tend to be somewhat
>skeptical of this claim, because of the phenomenon known as depth of field.
...
> but a few guesses
>and application of the formulas used for cameras suggest that the
>hyperfocal distance may be only a few miles. Does anyone have any better
>numbers?

It is easy to see that when you focus an optical system at infinity,
the circle of confusion of an image at a finite distance is the size
of the aperture at that distance.  (The circle of confusion, when convolved
with the point-spread-function of a point at infinity, gives the point-
spread-function for a source at the finite distance.  The psf is larger
than the larger of the psf at infinity and the circle of confusion)
Think of it a parallax across the mirror.

This means that the HST cannot see objects smaller than its 2.4 m mirror,
compared to the pie-plate size of a Spy-sat.  (CPU-intensive deconvolution
can improve both of these somewhat)

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
	"Only 10% of the 4000 mile long coastline was affected."
		-Exxon's version of the oil spill as reported to stockholders

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 02:58:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Space Hotline Update


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week 
ending June 4, 1989. 

Vice President Dan Quayle, Chairman of the National Space
Council, reportedly stated during a luncheon meeting with
reporters on May 31st that the US will eventually win control of
space, and that he intends to be involved in some very difficult
decisions which will have to be made in regards to America's
future in space. He reportedly stated that he wants congressional
appropriators to understand that the administration wants to see
the Space Station Freedom program funded at an adequate level. 
Quayle reportedly said that the space race is not over, that we
will "win" due to our superior technology and that much remains
to be done.  He went on to say that the White House will soon
reveal its long term strategy for space. 

During his visit to London, President Bush issued a statement of 
approval to maintain funding for the continuing operations of 
Landsats 4 & 5 and the development and launching of Landsat 6.  
Keeping Landsats 4 & 5 operating will cost $5 million for the 
rest of FY'89, and $16 million for FY'90.  This decision was the 
first policy recommendation made by the newly formed National 
Space Council. 

The Long Duration Exposure Facility which was deployed during the
STS-13 mission in April of 1984 is scheduled to be retrieved by 
shuttle crews this December.  Once retrieved, the satellite will 
provide critical data on the long term effects of space exposure 
on various materials.  The LDEF, which is carrying 12 million 
tomato seeds as well as 50 other scientific and technological 
experiments, was originally scheduled to be retrieved in 1985.
Its retrieval was postponed at that time for a higher priority
mission, and then the Challenger disaster occurred before
retrieval could be rescheduled.  If the LDEF is not retrieved
during this December's mission it will re-enter the atmosphere
and burn up. 

This week the House Appropriations Committee will begin debate on
the FY'90 spending bill, which will decide how much each of its
13 subcommittees will receive for FY'90 under the current budget 
resolution.  The so-called 302b allocation is the block
allocation that goes to the House and Senate HUD-Independent
Agencies Subcommittee, which must allocate it between, NASA, HUD,
the Veterans Administration, EPA, and NSF, as well as others.  
Currently, Housing and Veterans groups see the $2.1 Billion 
program request for the Space Station as a prime target for cuts 
to support increased funding for their own agendas.   

The NSS family of organizations reminds spacers everywhere to
call and write Rep. Jamie Whitten, Chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee and the Chairman of the VA HUD-IA
subcommittee, Rep. Bob Traxler. Encourage them to support a
larger 302b block grant allocation for VA HUD-IA so that the
space station program gets fully funded for FY'90. Whitten's
phone number is 202-225-4306 and Traxler's is 202-225-2806. Space
station supporters can write to each at the U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. For more details call
David Brandt at Spacecause (202) 543-1900. 

It has been revealed that former NASA Administrator James 
Fletcher became a consultant to NASA the day after he retired. 
His contract is for $41,920 and not exceeding 130 days, a NASA
work statement revealed.  He will advise Administrator designated
Richard Truly and other top NASA officials on programs and
projects which he possesses a critical knowledge of.   

The first launch of the Ariane 44L booster has been delayed for 
at least another week, while Arianespace technicians and
engineers determine the source of a liquid hydrogen leak in the
third stage engine.  The launch which was originally scheduled
for May 26, but was delayed for a day when problems were
discovered between ground communications and the booster.  It was
postponed again last Saturday when a leak was discovered in the
third stage engine.  The booster will carry the Superbird A and
DFS Kopernikus 1 telecommunications satellites. 

As of Friday, June 2 the Magellan Venus Radar Mapping spacecraft 
is about 3,735,101 miles from earth traveling 60,293 miles per 
hour relative to the Sun.  The spacecraft is operating normally 
following the long holiday weekend. 

Stephania Follini, the woman who spent a record 130 days isolated
in a cave, was undergoing tests last week to determine the 
philological effects of her long term isolation experiment.  
Despite the fact that she's lost 17 pounds, she's reported to be
in good health, and at this point all test results have been
normal.   

This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space 
Society's Space Hotline for the week ending June 4, 1989.  This 
message will next be updated on June 11, 1989.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #478
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Jun 89 05:46:30 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01321> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 9 Jun 89 05:44:55 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  9 Jun 89 05:44:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYXswoe00jZdM1AE5v>;
          Fri,  9 Jun 89 05:34:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.8YXsjJy00UkVI=vE5t>;
          Fri,  9 Jun 89 05:20:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4YXsiBu00UkV8=tk4V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  9 Jun 89 05:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #479

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 479

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
	       Re: Getting news about China from space
		    Re: Amazon Forest Destruction
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		  Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out"
		      Re: Space telescope optics
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
			Re: Russians bomb U.S.
			Re: Terraforming Venus
			     Re: Magellan
Hartsfield to head Space Flight/Space Station Integration Office (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 89 19:14:29 GMT
From: china.uu.net!dan@uunet.uu.net  (Dan Williams)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <1989Jun3.220951.4252@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> There are other problems in making Venus habitable too, like a grave shortage
> of water and an excessively long rotation period.
	

	Does Venus really have a lack of Water?  I know it has no liquid
H2O but doesn't the atmosphere still hold the balance?  Also what about
vulcanism releasing water and more in the rocks?
	If we manage to cool the planet would water begin to collect?
Now the rotation period is a problem of a different magnitude.

-- 

| Dan Williams (uunet!china!dan) | FRP: It's not just a game,        |
|       MCDONNELL DOUGLAS        |            it's an adventure!     |
|           Denver CO            | "Of course thats just my opinion" |

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 03:34:14 GMT
From: usc!merlin.usc.edu!nunki.usc.edu!denniskr@cs.ucla.edu  (Dennis Kriz)
Subject: Re: Getting news about China from space


With the continuing crisis in China and with it for the most part being 
played out far from Tienanmen square these days, probably outside of Beijing
even, I was wondering ... could satellite photos from spacecraft like Spot
make any difference.  I mean that's how the networks covered the Chernobyl
accident when it first broke.  I doubt that such a satellite could detect
individual tanks but perhaps it could detect masses of them.  Maybe it could
detect them deployed by bridges, intersections and the like.  Any comments?

Dennis

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 17:38:01 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction

In article <14384@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <386@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>>In article <1331@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>>>Article in the local news last night:
>>>ozone was being destroyed by electrons coming from the magnetosphere 
>>>this causing 14% of the ozone loss since 1975...  
>              ^^^^
>			  note number

I must correct myself, the figure they said was 14% of the ozone.  That
is a significant amount since the ozone varies in thickness and is
thinest at the poles.

Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 03:26:29 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!ecf!murty@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Hema Sandhyarani Murty)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

> 	Does Venus really have a lack of Water?  I know it has no liquid
> H2O but doesn't the atmosphere still hold the balance?  Also what about
> vulcanism releasing water and more in the rocks?

A recent New Scientist article says the Venus may have had water at one
time.  Apparently, a measure of deuterium to hydrogen in the atmosphere
of Venus gives them the indication that at one time there was more
water.  When temperatures were lower, I suppose not all the water was
boiled away. They even suggest that at one time there may have been
large oceans of water on the surface of Venus.  Magellan is supposed to
look for signs of dried up river beds etc.

Hema Murty
Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto,
Downsview, Ontario, M2M 3V8 Canada

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 01:45:03 GMT
From: aeras!tneale@sun.com  (Tom Neale)
Subject: Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out"

In article <16879@sequent.UUCP> jjb@sequent.UUCP (Jeff Berkowitz) writes:

>Henry's analysis of the difference is (as usual :-) correct.  Parafoil-
>like designs, however, are in use both as kites and as human-carrying
>gliders; the latter are popular especially in Europe.  Their advantage
>over hang gliders is that the lack of airframe makes them easy to fold
>into a backpack and carry; they have a relatively poor glide, however,
>and appear to be difficult for humans to flare (and therefore land) safely.

On the contrary, ram air (squares as we call them) parachutes are quite
the norm in sport parachuting today.  Their glide is a respectible
3:1 or better (great when compared to a round parachute at <0.4:1).
Forward speeds are 20-30 MPH for most models.

Further, they are quite easy to flare and land safely. I have over 
1300 square jumps with no problems and landings are normally tippy-toe
soft. :-)

This is no longer shuttle related but I felt compelled to clear
up any mis-information about a subject near and dear to my heart.
-- 
Blue skies,	| ...sun!aeras!tneale	| 
		| in flight:     N2103Q	|         The hurrieder I go
Tom Neale	| in freefall:   D8049	|         the behinder I get.
		| via the ether: WA1YUB	|

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 17:43:33 GMT
From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Space telescope optics

In article <8906052056.AA05592@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) wrote: 
> Several people have posted to the net stating that the Hubble Space
> Telescope could not focus on an object as close as the earth. I
> tend to be somewhat skeptical of this claim, because of the
> phenomenon known as depth of field.
> ....
> but a few guesses and application of the formulas used for cameras
> suggest that the hyperfocal distance may be only a few miles. Does
> anyone have any better numbers?

Then in article <10915@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, 
palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) replied:
> It is easy to see that when you focus an optical system at
> infinity, the circle of confusion of an image at a finite distance
> is the size of the aperture at that distance.
> ...
> This means that the HST cannot see objects smaller than its 2.4 m
> mirror, compared to the pie-plate size of a Spy-sat.

My initial reaction was that Mr. Roberts was right, but a calculation
leads to the opposite conclusion.  (Thanks to Mr. Palmer for further
explication.)

If an optical system focused at infinity observes an object at
finite distance, the position of the image will be shifted.  The
amount of shift (for an object at distance d >> focal length) is 
  s = (F D)^2 / d , 
where F is the focal ratio of the system, and D is the diameter.
(Note that FD is the focal length.)

For HST observing the ground, the numbers (very roughly) are F=20,
D=2.4 m, and d=2E5 m.  Thus the focal shift is of order 12 mm.  The
blur circle produced by the focal shift (assuming we do not refocus
the telescope) is just s/F or about 0.6 mm in this case.  For
comparison, the diffraction blur circle is approximately 2.4 Fw,
where w is the wavelength.  This amounts to about 24 microns for HST
in visible light, so the Earth would not be observable by HST without
either refocusing or losing resolution.

In general, for a diffraction-limited optical system focused at
infinity, objects must be more distant than D^2/w to be effectively
"in-focus."  This is about 1E4 km for HST.

My guess is that the amount of focal shift is within the range of
adjustment for HST; if so, Mr. Palmers last statement needs the
qualifier "without refocusing."  Other forms of image blurring,
notably spacecraft motion, would also be important.  And the HST
instruments are not really designed for ground observations.
However, it's not hard to imagine an instrument very similar to HST
but designed specifically for ground observations.  Rumor has it that
some have been built.
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 18:48:51 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

In article <YYX3S6y00Wg90E8l5V@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:

>> highlights:  they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's

>EEEK  This sounds really frightening MS-DOS in space,
>now I KNOW that the space program is in trouble...

Who said that the computers had to run MS-DOS? Why not
some other operating system?

Neal

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 15:53:49 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <119@china.UUCP> dan@china.uu.net (Dan Williams) writes:
>	Does Venus really have a lack of Water?  I know it has no liquid
>H2O but doesn't the atmosphere still hold the balance?

Unfortunately, no:  when Venus's greenhouse effect ran away and the water
ended up in the atmosphere, at high altitudes solar radiation cracked it
to hydrogen and oxygen, and the hydrogen escaped into space.  Not a fast
process, but over time most of it went.  What little hydrogen is left is
noticeably deuterium-enriched because deuterium is twice as massive and
doesn't escape nearly as easily; this is the definitive evidence of what
happened.

> Also what about
>vulcanism releasing water and more in the rocks?

Not significant over time scales that humans care about.

>	If we manage to cool the planet would water begin to collect?

No, since there's none to collect.  We'd have to import it, perhaps from
the outer solar system.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 21:08:06 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <1989Jun7.155349.18236@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <119@china.UUCP> dan@china.uu.net (Dan Williams) writes:
> >	Does Venus really have a lack of Water?  I know it has no liquid
> >H2O but doesn't the atmosphere still hold the balance?
> 
> >	If we manage to cool the planet would water begin to collect?
> 
> No, since there's none to collect.  We'd have to import it, perhaps from
> the outer solar system.

Say, if we throw enough comets and other iceballs at Venus to get the
water back, and if they're placed correctly, maybe we could get the
planet's spin rate up some.

Probably not enough comets, huh?

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 14:05:20 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Russians bomb U.S.

In article <1333@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>
>Upper stage from Proton booster crashs in U.S. near Canadian border.
>
>Any one have any details?  
>-- 

According to the local paper (Atlanta Constitution, from AP report) the
stage did *not* crash, rather, its re-entry was visible from northern
Minnesota.  According to the report, the booster had launched three
satellites into orbit.

ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :

------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <YYXGEUu00UkZMiiVQT@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-Date: Wed,  7 Jun 89 09:33:20 -0400 (EDT)
ReSent-From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-To: Resend this message to: Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>,
    SAC.DYESGPF@E.ISI.EDU;
Date: 6 Jun 1989 16:17-CDT
Sender: SAC.DYESGPF@E.ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus
From: SAC.DYESGPF@E.ISI.EDU

Concerning the questions on planetary cooling caused by clouds vs
CO2 'Greenhouse' effect.  If I remeber correctly in one of my classes 
years ago the discussion came up about clouds of water-vapour being 
highly reflective to near infrared and visible light and less reflective
(Note: not transparent) to far infrared while CO2 is more reflective
to far infrared than to near thus accounting for CO2 being better at
trapping the longer wave-length far infrared which is generated when 
sunlight strikes a planetary surface.

Please if I have this information incorrect or backwards, be gentle 
with the flames as this is really out of my area, I have spent the past
21 years as a para-professional in Aerospace Medicine.

Al Holecek
<SAC.DYESGPF@E.ISI.EDU>

Disclaimer - the above is my own ramblings, but my bosses are welcome to 'em

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 17:18:33 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Magellan

In article <890606100802.00002D2D0D1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>
>In other words, if something sticks, give it a kick.
>

Rube Goldberg's law (my patrion saint):

If it dosn't work, use a bigger hammer.

An IUS is just about the biggest hammer I've seen yet.
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 23:10:56 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Hartsfield to head Space Flight/Space Station Integration Office (Forwarded)

Barbara E. Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       June 7, 1989

Billie A. Deason
Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

RELEASE:  89-88

HARTSFIELD TO HEAD SPACE FLIGHT/SPACE STATION INTEGRATION OFFICE

     Veteran astronaut Henry Hartsfield has been assigned 
temporary duty in the Office of Space Flight, NASA Headquarters, 
Washington, D.C., effective immediately.

     Hartsfield will serve as director of the Space Flight/Space 
Station Integration Office, reporting directly to the associate 
administrator for space flight.

     Hartsfield replaces astronaut Robert Parker who has returned 
to the Johnson Space Center to begin training for his mission 
specialist assignment on Space Shuttle mission STS-35, scheduled 
for launch in the spring of 1990.

     The Space Flight/Space Station Integration Office was 
established in 1987 to facilitate integration of the Space 
Station and its unique requirements into the Space Transportation 
System.  The office coordinates the exchange of information 
between the two programs and serves as a forum for resolving 
technical and programmatic issues.

     Hartsfield began his Air Force career in 1955 and is a 
graduate of the USAF Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, 
Calif.  He was an instructor there prior to his assignment in 
1966 to the USAF Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program as an 
astronaut.  After cancellation of the MOL program in June 1969, 
he was reassigned to NASA.  Hartsfield retired from the Air Force 
in August 1977 and remained in the astronaut corps.  He was pilot 
for STS-4 in June/July 1982 and commanded Shuttle missions STS 
41-D in September 1984 and STS 61-A in November 1985.  His most 
recent assignment was deputy director for flight crew operations 
at the Johnson Space Center.

     In addition to other awards, he has received the NASA 
Distinguished Service Medals in 1982 and 1988 and the NASA 
Exceptional Service Medal in 1988.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #479
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Jun 89 03:49:32 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA14573> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 10 Jun 89 03:36:26 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 10 Jun 89 03:36:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4YYA77:00Ui3M1J0h7>;
          Sat, 10 Jun 89 03:22:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.QYYA3cK00UkVQAxE5K>;
          Sat, 10 Jun 89 03:19:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <sYYA1MK00UkV8Avk5F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 89 03:16:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #480

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 480

Today's Topics:
		Looking for new Space Digest moderator
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #474
		   Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST
			    TDRSS question
		  Re: comet strike in the carolinas?
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		     Re: Gemini and Rogallo wing
			  Neptune animation
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
		Fluid Dynamics and Computer Animation
		  Re: comet strike in the carolinas?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri,  9 Jun 89 11:28:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 2838+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
Subject: Looking for new Space Digest moderator
CC: Space-Request <space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu>

I am leaving my job at CMU and will need to hand off the operation of the Space
Digest to someone else.  I've been running the digest for between 9 and 10 years
and through two jobs.  My new job will be much busier and I will no longer be
able to afford the time and attention to run the digest.  This is a call for a
volunteer to be the new moderator.

There are a few practical considerations.  The digest is mostly operated in the
Internet environment, which uses mail for distribution.  The netnews group
sci.space has totally different mechanisms and takes care of itself.  This means
that the moderator will need excellent access to the Internet and good
connections to Usenet, Bitnet, CSNet and other networks' gateways.

The digesting software provides semi-automatic operation and is mostly written
in gnu-emacs.  This is a widely available (free) editor which runs on most Unix
systems.  The current system also contains components to interface with CMU's
Andrew Mail System.  Since I previously ran the digest from a Sun NFS Unix
system, using Berkeley mail software, it shouldn't be too bad to adapt it to
most robust mail systems.  Ironically, the Unix systems on which this software
runs are also those systems which are least likely to use it because of the
availability of sci.space via Usenet.

As far as the time commitment goes I would estimate that you could operate the
digest in about 4 hours per week.  Perhaps someone could get by for less, and it
would be easy to spend more.  Clearly some extra time would be required
initially to get everything set up.  It is possible that the job could be split
among a group of people.  It would depend on what capabilities each brings to
the job but it seems that, archiving (which can take a fair amount of disk
space), mail distribution (which can impose quite a heavy load on the mailer),
and the digestification could be separated.  There are other possibilities.

The Space Magazine, which contains a subset of the submissions to the digest, is
reasonably well integrated into the digesting software and really adds very
little work to the process.  I would hope that this addition could be maintained
and grow with the change in moderators.

Because of my reluctance to make this change, and because the I have been very
busy with the job transition, I have put off sending this note to the last
minute.  Today is my last working day at CMU.  Monday I start at the new company
and will have no network access for at least a week.  After that, I hope to move
quickly to bring a new moderator up to speed.  If there are outages in the next
few weeks you will know why, please bear with me.

If you have some time to devote to maintaining and improving communication
between space enthusiasts here is your opportunity.  I look forward to hearing
from you.

        Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 17:15:38 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #474

In article <613153667.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>Yet another example of how markets react faster and with less
>sensitivity to entrenched interests than governments....

That could be good, or bad.  What if market research were responsable for
launching ICBMs?  I know several people who would like to nuke China right
about now, well, at least certain people over there.
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 01:37:13 GMT
From: aeras!tneale@sun.com  (Tom Neale)
Subject: Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST

In article <1989Jun4.055452.12921@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp
 (Henry Spencer) writes (and correctly I might add):

>If I haven't got the terms mixed up, no, they are not the same thing.
>Rogallo's concept was a flexible wing, with shape held by rigid members
>or shroud lines or both.  Typically it had a single surface and was
>triangular.  A parafoil is a gliding parachute, with two surfaces kept
>apart by ram pressure and a rectangular shape.  Parafoils have largely
>replaced circular parachutes for high-performance sport parachuting.
>They are parachutes first and wings second.
[actually without the lift effect from the wing they are lousy parachutes]

You've got the terms just right, Henry.  I think the technical term
is "ram air inflated, semi rigid airfoil. It was invented and patented
by Domina Jalbert in the 1960s.  Pioneer has been working on
this recovery system for many years.  It is a very, very large ram
air parachute (several thousand sqaure feet I think; sport parachutes
for 1 person are 150-300 sqaure feet). 

The really tricky part is the deployment (reefing) system that allows the 
thing to open slowly so as not to damage the payload or the parachute.
An abrupt opening at high speed will cause the fabric to fail and the
parachute to self destruct, or at least subject the payload to such a
high deceleration force (>>15 G) as to damage it.

Because of the extreme altitudes they can afford to open it very slowly,
like one or two cells (ram air compartments) at a time.  I don't know
how this is accomplished but I'll try to find out from some parachute
designing friends of mine.
-- 
Blue skies,	| ...sun!aeras!tneale	| 
		| in flight:     N2103Q	|         The hurrieder I go
Tom Neale	| in freefall:   D8049	|         the behinder I get.
		| via the ether: WA1YUB	|

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1989 10:50-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: TDRSS question

Does anyone know why NASA chose not to have a 3rd TDRS satellite over
India to complete the coverage? I thought the TDRS satellites could
also relay from one to the other, so a ground station there would not
be a necessity. I'm quite sure their ground link data rates are higher
speed.

I've piles of TDRSS info but I've not seen a single mention of why they
choose to leave the 15% LEO gap.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 18:35:53 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: comet strike in the carolinas?

I've read a little about those features, and the author ascribed
them to meteor strikes.  TOo long ago to remember where I read this.

A somewhat wilder theory has been printed to the effect that both
the Chicago fire of the 1870's and a series of even more destructive
forest fires in Wisconsin on the same day were started by a comet,
whose chunks included plenty of frozen methane gas.

Chicago firemen reported blue flames seemingly from nowhere in
the basement of houses (that presumably didn't have gaslight
hookups).  And the Wisconsin fires broke out over a wide area
nearly simultaneously.  Hard to believe that many careless milkmaids
let their cows kick over lanterns all at once ;-).
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen  knudsen@ihlpl.att.com
  Round and round the while() loop goes;
  "Whether it stops," Turing says, "no one knows!"

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 03:20:41 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!percival!parsely!bucket!leonard@uunet.uu.net  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <10957@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> kstclair@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU.UUCP (Kelly St.Clair) writes:
<> [Is there any reason that Venus could not be cooled and terraformed?]
<
<Is there any reason (besides needing space so that we can keep breeding like
<flies)s) that we should?

First of all, please note that the countries with the birth rates that
are greater than ZPG rates, are those that aren't fully industrialized yet.
(one of the "benefits" of giving them modern medicine, without a modern
industrial base or a western-style culture). Further discussion of *this*
point belongs in sci.environment.

Second, we may need to pratice terraforming on Venus so we can do it right
when we start terraforming *Earth*. I strongly suspect we may need to
restore an earth-like environment to this planet. :-(
<
<Most important of all:
<Is there anything that gives us the *RIGHT* to remake another world in our
<own image?
<
Well, we have at least as much "right" as did the blue-green algae that
through pollution, killed of 99% of all the species on Earth at the time.
Oxygen was a "pollutant" then. 

And the coral reefs are another example of a lifeform making *major* 
alterations in the planet.
-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 05:47:23 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <108671@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>Say, if we throw enough comets and other iceballs at Venus to get the
>water back, and if they're placed correctly, maybe we could get the
>planet's spin rate up some.
>
>Probably not enough comets, huh?

Probably not.  Dismantling one of the ice moons of the outer planets would
give us an adequate amount of water for Venus, but spinning it up is lots
harder.  I saw, in JBIS I think, a proposal to use the half-dozen biggest
asteroids to kill two birds with one stone:  blast most of the atmosphere
off into space and spin the planet up as well.  You can guess how. :-)
Unfortunately, even the big asteroids are not really as big as one would
like for the job -- the "day" would still be a week or so long.

Sure would be spectacular, though.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 21:41:40 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Re: Gemini and Rogallo wing

In article <1989Jun5.235518.23416@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In any case, note that the Rogallo Gemini would not have had a long gliding
>range, so it wouldn't have gotten a military crew out of hostile territory
>in the event of a major guidance foulup.  The main importance of precision
>landing was getting rid of the recovery fleet.
>-- 

Anyone with access to a National Geograpic collection may want to check out
the photo on page 370, March 1964. This shows an artist's impression of the
proposed Rogallo wing in action with Gemini. My apologies for linking this
project with Apollo in my earlier posting - I was working from memory, and
slipped up.

The wing design shown gets its rigidity from inflatable leading edges,
keel and cross-tubes! Hang Glider pilots who've ever flown a 'Bog Rog'
will also notice it has no keel pocket, which must have made it rather
difficult to steer.

As Henry says, it was expected to glide about 20 miles - not enough to escape
'enemy territory'.

Steve

------------------------------

Date: Thu,  8 Jun 89 16:19:46 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Neptune animation
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

The NAIF (Navigation Ancillary Information Facility) people here have a
little animation running on a Ramtek of the rotation of Neptune (just under
half a rotation).  You can clearly see the big spot at about 20 deg south,
and there appears to be a smaller white spot attached to it on the south
side.  The only banding visible is a broad slightly darker band from
around 70 to 80 deg south.  Too early to tell whether mottling on the
rest of the planet is noise in the system.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 14:27:39 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <1989Jun8.054723.15609@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Probably not.  Dismantling one of the ice moons of the outer planets would
>give us an adequate amount of water for Venus, but spinning it up is lots
>harder.  I saw, in JBIS I think, a proposal to use the half-dozen biggest
>asteroids to kill two birds with one stone:  blast most of the atmosphere
>off into space and spin the planet up as well.  You can guess how. :-)
>Unfortunately, even the big asteroids are not really as big as one would
>like for the job -- the "day" would still be a week or so long.

The worst problem with terraforming Venus is getting rid of the
oxygen.  Cloud-living algae would not work, since they would release
free oxygen.  Sixty-five bars of O2 would be as lethal as ninety bars
of CO2.  So, you shouldn't important water from the outer solar
system, but, rather, molecular hydrogen.

Perhaps a better method is to import deuterium, build a bunch of
*really* big bombs, and blast most of the CO2 into space.  This would
probably be fastest, and would let the surface cool quickly.  You'd
need several cubic miles of liquid deuterium, although I suspect very
large bombs could burn more exotic, less neutronic, fuels, since the
square-cube law helps.

Solving the length-of-day problem with orbiting mirrors/shades would be,
in comparison, an easy task.  You'd probably want shades anyway to keep
the temperature comfortable.

Then again, a Venus with a thick atmosphere has certain advantages as
a site for industrial operations (industrial scale transmutation, for
example, using the atmosphere as a radiator).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 20:55:35 GMT
From: m2c!umvlsi!mazzu@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jim Mazzu)
Subject: Fluid Dynamics and Computer Animation



Hello!

I would like to establish communication links with those of you
conducting R&D in FLUID DYNAMICS, TURBULENCE, SCIENTIFIC VISUALIZATION,
or COMPUTER ANIMATION.	

As a graduate student in Mechanical Engineering, I am producing
an educational video on Potential Flows.  The equations of motion
are used to create object and motion files, which are then viewed
and animated using AMIGA P/C's.  At this point, the sequences are
dumped directly to video.   

I am also conducting an analysis of wind data associated with a
330-KW horizontal axis wind turbine.
 
If you are interested in discussing any of these topics, please 
reply through e-mail.  I'm looking forward to hearing from you!

Jim Mazzu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 18:15:33 GMT
From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink, OIR)
Subject: Re: comet strike in the carolinas?

>From article <10766@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, by knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen):
> I've read a little about those features, and the author ascribed
> them to meteor strikes.  TOo long ago to remember where I read this.
> 
> A somewhat wilder theory has been printed to the effect that both
> the Chicago fire of the 1870's and a series of even more destructive
> forest fires in Wisconsin on the same day were started by a comet,
> whose chunks included plenty of frozen methane gas.
 
There is a book about this theory, "Mrs. O'Leary's Comet!", by Mel
Waskin, subtitled "Cosmic Causes of the Great Chicago Fire".  It was
published by Academy Chicago Publishers in 1985, just in time for
the Comet P/Halley hysteria.  The theory is that Comet Biela, which
was observed to split into two and then never seen again, died and
hit the earth.  The theory was first proposed by Ignatius Donnelly in
a book called "Ragnarok:  The Age of Fire and Gravel", first published
in 1883.  It seems to me to be somewhere between Velikovsky and reality
on the spectrum of believability.  Donnelly's theories, as described in
Waskin's introduction, are definitely Velikovskian (or, more accurately,
Velikovsky's ideas are Donnellian), and imply a gross misperception of
the nature of cometary matter.  Waskin's reinterpretation is less
scientifically implausible, but still requires some leaps (or maybe
jumps) of faith.

Doug Mink, skeptical astronomer

Internet:  mink@cfa.harvard.edu
BITNET:    mink@cfa
SPAN:      cfa::mink
Phone:     (617)495-7408
FTS:       830-7408
USMail:    CfA, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #480
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Jun 89 05:49:25 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00513> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 10 Jun 89 05:35:35 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 10 Jun 89 05:35:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wYYBrUW00Vs181R05n>;
          Sat, 10 Jun 89 05:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.UYYBnqu00UkVAB804x>;
          Sat, 10 Jun 89 05:18:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <UYYBmQi00UkV0B6U4K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 89 05:17:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #481

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 481

Today's Topics:
		     I'm getting too old for this
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
		     Kremlin reveals space budget
		     Re: Private Space Companies
		    Assessment of NASA management
		  Re: Assessment of NASA management
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
		  Re: Space Station computer system
    NASA Select TV to feature Voyager 2 Neptune images (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 15:02:44 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?)
Subject: I'm getting too old for this

I recently interviewed a potential summer hire who was very excited about
the upcoming 20th anniversary of Apollo 11.  Seems it's also her 20th birthday!

Arrrrggghhhhh!

Dillon Pyron
pyron@lvvax1.ti.com

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 11:39:00 GMT
From: xanth!paterra@g.ms.uky.edu  (Frank C. Paterra)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

In article <5706@lynx.UUCP>, neal@lynx.uucp (Neal Woodall) writes:
> In article <YYX3S6y00Wg90E8l5V@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
> 
> >> highlights:  they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's
> 
> >EEEK  This sounds really frightening MS-DOS in space,
> >now I KNOW that the space program is in trouble...
> 
> Who said that the computers had to run MS-DOS? Why not
> some other operating system?

The operating system will be a derivative of Unix, comforming to POSIX.


Frank Paterra                    Nobody believes or agrees with what I
paterra@cs.odu.edu               say.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 21:44:37 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

In article <583@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes:
>(and yes, I promise to be a good boy and _NOT_ post TLAs without translations
>  from now on)
>

Ok, so - er - what's a TLA please?

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 20:47:01 GMT
From: vygr!mae@sun.com  (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO})
Subject: Kremlin reveals space budget

>From the San Franscisco Examiner, Thursday, June 8, 1989.

"More than half goes for military use"

By Charles Mitchell
United Press International

Moscow - The Soviet Union, in its first public disclosure of how 
much it spends on the space program, revealed Wednesday that more 
than half of its annual $10.7 billion space budget is devoted to military use.

The revelation shattered one of the Kremlin's most effective 
international propaganda claims, that the bulk of the program 
is devoted to peaceful civilian uses.

Speaking at the first joint session of the Supreme Soviet, 
Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov also provided the first breakdown 
of the Soviet defense budget of $119.8 billion, first revealed by 
President Mikhail Gorbachev on May 30.

Both the military and space budgets had been closely guarded 
Soviet secrets, hampering arms-reduction talks.

Ryzhkov said $50.5 billion, or about 42 percent, of the military 
budget was used for procurement of arms, ammunition, and equipment.

By comparison, the United States spends about 28.6 percent of its 
nearly $300 billion annual military budget on procurement. 

The prime minister said research, development and testing accounted 
for $23.7 billion; personnel and maintenance of the army and navy, 
including food and wages, $31.3 billion; and construction projects, 
$7.13 billion. Another $3.6 billion went to military pensions and
$3.6 billion to miscellaneous expenses.

Ryzhkov also said military expenses would be subject to public 
scrutiny and would be decided just as civilian expenditures 
are - by debate and necessity.

In a startling disclosure, Ryzhkov said $6 billion, or 57 percent 
of the space budget, was devoted to military uses, dwarfing the 
$2.6 billion it says it spends on "science and economic" uses.

The remainder of the space budget, $2 billion, is devoted to the 
trouble-plagued Soviet space shuttle, which made an unmanned 
test flight last year before plans to send it into orbit manned 
were suspended indefinitly.

By comparison, NASA's budget for 1990 is $13 billion, 
excluding Air Force launches.

The Soviet space program has come under increasing pressure from 
the press and citizen's groups to justify its expense. Compared 
with the U.S. space program, there have been few technical spinoffs 
that have benefited the economy.

...

# mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-04
"The people are the water, the army are the fish" Mao Tse-tung

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 15:46:31 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <1989May27.020905.14088@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

   In article <SHAFER.89May26084000@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
   >The 707 was originally the KC-135...

   As I've said elsewhere, this is a common misconception.  The two planes
   look similar, and share a common ancestor (a Boeing private-venture
   prototype whose designation I can't remember offhand), but in fact are
   not very similar at the detailed hardware level.  The huge order the
   USAF placed for KC-135s undoubtedly helped supply the cash to launch
   the 707, but that's known as "making a profit", and is not normally
   considered a form of subsidy. :-)

   >The 747 was initially proposed as an entry in the competition that the
   >C-5 won.  (That's why it has a through deck.) ...

   True, but note (a) it lost, and (b) it cost Boeing something like a
   billion dollars to launch it as a transport.  It wasn't until over a
   decade later, at 747 number 400 or so, that it was in the black.

Yes, but USAF paid for the design.  Competitions like this are two-stage:
first USAF lets contracts for detailed design.  These are then assessed 
and _the_ contract for the aircraft is then awarded.  For a while in the
late 60s-early 70s USAF paid for two competeing aircraft, the YF-16/YF-17,
YC-14/YC-15, and A-9/A-10 fly-offs came from this.  USAF then went back to
the old system of assessing detailed designs.  Fly-offs are expensive.

   >Even Pegasus, which is touted as private enterprise at its best, is
   >subsidized by NASA providing the B-52 and the test range at a
   >ridiculously low cost.

   For government launches, and government launches only.  OSC/Hercules will
   be buying or leasing a widebody transport for commercial flights.  The
   only real subsidy here is DARPA's willingness to buy (at a fixed price)
   the first launch of a new launcher -- a risky deal, mitigated somewhat
   by the fact that OSC/H don't get paid if it fails.  There is nothing
   unreasonable about using government facilities for government launches
   without full cost reimbursement; just who would be reimbursing who?

I'm sorry, I was thinking NASA = government, not DARPA.  I thought
that DARPA was putting money into the developement phase, not just
buying a finished product.  The NASA subsidy includes all of the
initial flight test.  The only NASA "flights" that I've heard about is
a proposal to add a small instrumentation package to some of the early
flights.

A lot of my problem with the "scheming conspiring NASA management"
explanation of the limited privatization of space is my experience
with NASA management.  These people can't even manage a simple flight
program for a few years, so how can anyone believe that they can
manage a sophisticated conspiracy?  (I didn't write this and you
didn't read it, so there!)  Many (perhaps most) other NASA working
engineers will agree with me on this.
--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 19:05:35 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Assessment of NASA management

I wrote: <SHAFER.89Jun8084631@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> :
-
-A lot of my problem with the "scheming conspiring NASA management"
-explanation of the limited privatization of space is my experience
-with NASA management.  These people can't even manage a simple flight
-program for a few years, so how can anyone believe that they can
-manage a sophisticated conspiracy?

This probably should have been:

A lot of my problem with the "scheming conspiring NASA management"
explanation of the limited privatization of space is a congruence 
problem.  If you believe, as many apparently do, that these people
can't even manage an operational flight program for a few years, how
can you believe that they can manage a sophisticated conspiracy?
If nothing else, the turnover rate in the higher levels of management
is so high that word of this would have eventually gotten out.

I don't believe in conspiracies in general.  But I phrased my remark
poorly.  I don't believe that the space side of NASA is run as well
as it could be (or as well as I could run it :-)) but I firmly believe
that the _real_ problem is Congress and the tendency for non-technical
people to try to micromanage technical issues.  

I took a cheap shot at management and then sent it before I thought
about what I'd said.  That advice to newusers about thinking before
you hit send was forgotten since I was in a hurry to go down to the
hangar for the X-15 Symposium hardware display.  You should be here at
Dryden today!  It's the 30th anniversary of the first flight and we're
celebrating.  Ah, the good old days.  There are a lot of people here
who still look back with longing for a time when life was simple and
Headquarters and Congress just sent money.

(No, nobody said anything to me--my .sig's still accurate.)
--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 89 02:23:24 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Assessment of NASA management

In article <SHAFER.89Jun8120535@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
>A lot of my problem with the "scheming conspiring NASA management"
>explanation of the limited privatization of space is a congruence 
>problem.  If you believe, as many apparently do, that these people
>can't even manage an operational flight program for a few years, how
>can you believe that they can manage a sophisticated conspiracy?

No sophisticated conspiracy is needed for a bureaucracy to suppress its
competition. The reflexive use of its power and resources for
selfperpetuation is enough.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 16:16:25 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <218100022@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:

>>/* Written 12:41 pm  May 26, 1989 by pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
>>>agate!shelby!Portia!hanauma!joe@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>>>Incidentally, some geophysicists are waiting quite impatiently
>>>for another mag 9 mega-quake. 
>>This is a great source of comfort to all of us in Southern California...

> It's about time you wierdos in CaliforniA did something useful. Be sure to
> take accurate notes when it hits.

At least we've thought about quakes.  Just remember that the biggest
quake in the US was at New Madrid, near St. Louis, and it was felt in
New England.  When those brick walls shatter and your house ends up
_in_ the basement, you'll know why California houses look like they
do.  The Midwest isn't even instrumented!
--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 22:23:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system


/* Written 12:39 pm  Jun  2, 1989 by psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
/* ---------- "Space Station computer system" ---------- */
(...) with 4 megabytes of RAM and running X-Windows,
/* End of text from s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
4M & X-windows? Bahahahahahahahahahaha! They'd better fire 'em up now, if
they want to finish by next century. I can't believe this - as was mentioned,
these things are behind the times TODAY, much less in 5 or 10 years.

Alan M. Carroll                "And there you are
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu           Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'"
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 20:02:33 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Select TV to feature Voyager 2 Neptune images (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Robert MacMillin
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

N89-46
EDITORS NOTE:  NASA SELECT TV TO FEATURE VOYAGER 2 NEPTUNE IMAGES

     Beginning Tuesday, June 13, at noon EDT, a selection from the 
previous week's images of Neptune from the Voyager 2 spacecraft 
will be broadcast on the NASA Select TV system, Satcom F2R, 
transponder 13, every Tuesday through Aug. 8.  

     The broadcast of the images is expected to last about 1 hour 
and will show a replay of the first-order reconstruction of the 
Voyager's imaging system views of Neptune.  At the time of the 
first broadcast, Voyager 2 will be nearly 2-2/3 billion miles from 
Earth and approximately 71 million miles from Neptune.

     On June 5, the Voyager 2 spacecraft went into the observatory 
phase mode.  In this mode the spacecraft begins a series of near-
daily imaging observations of Neptune from afar.  Voyager planetary 
scientists will use these images to help study the Neptune atmos-
phere, already seen to be more turbulent than that of Uranus and 
possessing what appear to be variable "white" spots, covering 
portions of whole hemispheres.   The spots come and go with 
relative rapidity.  Dr. Brad Smith, University of Arizona, said, 
"Neptune is now more interesting that Uranus was even at close 
encounter."  Smith is the Voyager Imaging Team leader.

     The observatory phase runs from now through Aug. 6, when the 
scientific team goes into the "far encounter" phase.  Voyager's 
closest approach to Neptune, the "near encounter" phase, begins 
near midnight on Aug. 24.  At this point, the spacecraft will whisk 
past Neptune's cloud tops at an altitude of only about 3,000 miles, 
travelling at a velocity relative to Neptune in excess of 37,000 
miles per hour.

     The Voyager 2 spacecraft, along with its sister Voyager 1, 
were launched on Titan-Centaur vehicles in 1977 by NASA from the 
Kennedy Space Center, Fla., to take advantage of a rare (once every 
175 years) planetary alignment of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and 
Neptune.  This alignment allowed NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
(JPL), Pasadena, Calif., to swing both Voyager 1 and 2 from Jupiter 
to Saturn and, in the case of Voyager 2, from Saturn to Uranus and 
on to Neptune.  

     Without the advantage of gravity-assist trajectory maneuvers, 
neither spacecraft would have been able to encounter more than a 
single planet.

     The timetable for NASA Select replay of Voyager 2 images, 
along with the distance remaining to Neptune and the distance from 
Earth, is given below.

Date             Neptune Distance             Earth Distance

June 13          70.70 million miles          2.65 billion miles
June 20          64.40 million miles          2.65 billion miles
June 27          59.00 million miles          2.66 billion miles
*July 4          53.73 million miles          2.66 billion miles
July 11          48.30 million miles          2.664 billion miles
July 18          42.88 million miles          2.67 billion miles
July 25          37.45 million miles          2.678 billion miles
August 1         32.03 million miles          2.686 billion miles
August 8         26.60 million miles          2.696 billion miles

*(This date may move later in the week due to holiday observance.)

     The images to be replayed on NASA Select will include both the 
actual image of Neptune as seen by Voyager and engineering and 
science information about the conditions of the imaging system and 
lighting conditions.  This data will appear alongside each image of 
retransmissions but will be removed in later, more processed views.
Early transmissions will not show a great amount of detail and the 
planet will occupy only a small portion of the imaging frame.  
Detail will improve dramatically as the spacecraft nears Neptune.

     One-way light and radio transmission times between the Voyager 
2 spacecraft and the NASA Deep Space Network receiver facilities at 
Madrid, Canberra and Goldstone, Calif., range from 3 hours, 57 
minutes now to an expected 4 hours, 6 minutes at the closest 
approach.  It takes over 8 hours for commands, sent from JPL's 
Space Flight Operations Facility, Pasadena, to reach the Voyager 2 
spacecraft and be verified and sent back to Earth.

     Because the JPL facilities associated with the Voyager project 
are not completely geared up for the close encounter activity, 
these views will be released in video format via satellite only.  
There will be no capability to release individual still photos for 
the complete video series.  Current expectations, though, include 
the capability to release on a periodic basis, a set of hard copy 
views which have received the benefit of further computer 
enhancement.  JPL's complete computer processing capabilities will 
be up and running, though, for the encounter period from Aug. 21 
through Aug. 29.  Post encounter runs from Aug. 29 through Sept. 
11, at which time the Voyager 2 will return to interplanetary 
cruise mode.

     NASA will operate a full-time Voyager encounter news facility 
at the JPL Von Karman Auditorium from Aug. 21 through Aug. 29.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #481
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Jun 89 06:11:21 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00714> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sun, 11 Jun 89 05:55:40 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 11 Jun 89 05:55:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AYYX2Y:00Vs1A1Y05z>;
          Sun, 11 Jun 89 05:28:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.8YYWv1a00UkV0CJk52>;
          Sun, 11 Jun 89 05:20:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYYWrYS00UkVICIE4Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 89 05:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #482

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 482

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		      IAF Conference in Beijing
		    Re: Amazon Forest Destruction
		   Rogallo Airfoil -- Hang Gliders
	       NASA and... Re: Private Space Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 89 03:12:30 GMT
From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #525 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89157.86754168 0.00000213           24620-3 0  2091
2 00424  80.4621 296.0248 0023718 155.6253 204.6039 13.67146015331401
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89149.67299267 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2320
2 03029  12.7202  24.3096 0015222 196.7828 163.1216  1.00272718 78954
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89158.38567637 0.00000003                   0  7599
2 08820 109.8197 226.7210 0044700 318.3836  41.3682  6.38662070 50009
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89157.79484149 -.00000012                   0  2719
2 10061   7.1500  68.3218 0004834 174.9303 184.8978  1.00278755  5271
GPS-0001   
1 10684U 78020  A 89154.99280176  .00000011  00000-0  99999-4 0  1358
2 10684  63.5974 101.2224 0107906 199.2399 160.3070  2.00560763 68260
GPS-0002   
1 10893U 78 47  A 89155.94860726 -.00000028  00000-0  00000 0 0  9874
2 10893  64.5205 342.0628 0154010  33.0215 327.6124  2.00557286 81105
GOES 3     
1 10953U 78062  A 89152.85951013  .00000087  00000-0  99999-4 0  6719
2 10953   6.0153  71.0339 0008187 259.1605 100.6466  1.00259003   788
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89157.00253862 0.00001247           48426-3 0  1249
2 10967 108.0063 264.5632 0002142 254.9656 105.1243 14.34611118572489
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89149.78051209 -.00000027                   0   184
2 11054  64.0441 338.6859 0055726 118.2009 242.3824  2.00560930 77992
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89157.36203285 0.00000011                   0  1629
2 11141  63.5301 101.1021 0057650 319.2895  40.2100  2.00571033 76847
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89156.96829977 0.00000648           28851-3 0  8565
2 11416  98.5020 154.3545 0013779 145.1395 215.1190 14.25773144516303
Solar Max  
1 11703U 80 14  A 89157.72327677  .00048391  00000-0  78339-3 0  9679
2 11703  28.4994 353.0827 0000989  74.5414 285.5293 15.51408850518217
GPS-0006   
1 11783U 80 32  A 89155.32432403 -.00000027  00000-0  00000 0 0  9058
2 11783  63.8644 338.1835 0144272  62.5491 298.9165  2.00567545 66748
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89151.71442687 -.00000235           10000-3 0  7340
2 12472   2.6804  77.8890 0016316 288.6316  70.9873  1.00227059 28446
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89156.60679718  .00015853  00000-0  57173-3 0  2068
2 12887  97.6880 182.2654 0000396 200.3919 159.7305 15.28617038423387
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U 81100  B 89156.59034956  .00071304  00000-0  91852-3 0  5828
2 12888  97.5565 209.4585 0004073 155.7516 204.3998 15.58793637427184
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89153.75779508 0.00000135           11174-3 0  6434
2 13113  82.5379  70.2335 0017276  97.0930 263.2207 13.83994448363249
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89158.65941937 0.00015047           36051-3 0  6060
2 13138  51.6104   4.1369 0001119  94.7822 265.3617 15.41616261406724
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89156.61627008  .00001036  00000-0  23986-3 0  9764
2 13367  98.2143 220.3957 0001211 228.2426 131.8616 14.57117342366464
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89154.36762800 0.00000345           17589-3 0  7823
2 13718  81.2442 295.0687 0056657  39.6049 320.9220 14.13196111333601
IRAS       
1 13777U          89156.29281397 -.00000009           61384-5 0  6437
2 13777  99.0542 353.5645 0013956 347.4317  12.7346 13.98596407324532
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89154.60178946 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-5 0  8028
2 13969   3.5055  67.7147 0002838 173.0308 187.3950  1.00270271 89261
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89153.90780149 0.00000122                   0  9616
2 14050   1.2717  82.8382 0000982  98.2468 260.8166  1.00270264  6464
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89153.54280479 0.00000013                   0  4023
2 14129  26.1595 262.0607 6057650  47.2593 349.7425  2.05879739 16910
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89153.91660374 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6312
2 14189  63.1913  99.7926 0135633 215.6503 143.4008  2.00569487 43157
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89156.43944156 0.00000381           15912-3 0  7294
2 14452  81.1636 305.3226 0096099 130.1291 230.8462 14.22177446290873
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89158.15768858 0.00001555           35451-3 0  7869
2 14780  98.1675 220.5970 0001384 301.1908  58.9213 14.57141388280102
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U 84 21  B 89156.07984530  .00001438  00000-0  28557-3 0  4576
2 14781  98.0023 215.2271 0013183   4.9684 355.1705 14.63570408280770
LDEF       
1 14898U          89155.64857062 0.00028899           49128-3 0  8650
2 14898  28.5057 265.0544 0003245 104.7793 255.3382 15.49995112289508
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89151.48225839 0.00000010                   0  6652
2 15039  62.9223  99.1507 0014999 270.2019  89.5922  2.00564182 36381
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89157.02791328 0.00000161           13590-3 0  9466
2 15099  82.5320  15.2542 0011912 268.9715  91.0124 13.83664107248579
GPS-0010   
1 15271U 84 97  A 89152.87928308 -.00000028  00000-0  00000 0 0  6294
2 33271  63.3734 338.0248 0099459 320.7497  38.5890  2.00565485 33521
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89156.01534994 0.00001489           21421-3 0   341
2 15331  82.5415 349.6887 0025095 120.5130 239.8585 14.75583768252427
NOAA 9     
1 15427U 84123  A 89157.71860525  .00000648  00000-0  37478-3 0  3894
2 15427  99.1413 144.4575 0015350 347.3441  12.7345 14.12030179230979
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89156.89339982 0.00000074           60730-4 0   854
2 15516  82.5367 313.7440 0017357 143.7269 216.5114 13.84107411219493
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89158.83585434 0.00058245           13584-2 0  2744
2 16095  51.6178   3.1900 0002660 139.3297 220.6463 15.41660822406752
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89150.54107309 0.00000011                   0  3210
2 16129  63.7070  99.8202 0116069 150.1727 210.4520  2.00564694 26682
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89156.65824860 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8322
2 16191  82.5495 243.8905 0020643 332.1047  27.8885 13.16870105174001
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89156.18310770 0.00000462           40426-3 0  4989
2 16408  82.5376 229.1683 0015619 339.2890  20.8132 13.84176051173899
Mir        
1 16609U          89158.71196013 0.00028663           42699-3 0  8829
2 16609  51.6215  50.9765 0011146  31.9796 328.2200 15.54804135189690
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89158.99663685 0.00000501           25312-3 0  4918
2 16613  98.7388 233.6375 0001309 140.2959 219.8354 14.20018136 10823
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89156.73222092 0.00000013           66121-5 0  3020
2 16735  82.5386 255.5486 0015646  48.7058 311.5587 13.83913100152877
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89158.15357703 0.00002310           33714-3 0  6292
2 16881  82.5256  47.2669 0024334 129.1982 231.1389 14.75208581153812
EGP        
1 16908U          89156.64125584 -.00000117          -55032-3 0  1325
2 16908  50.0130 333.5864 0011329 320.2475  39.7655 12.44375157127976
FO-12      
1 16909U          89152.60589317 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1475
2 16909  50.0154 346.2148 0011477 307.2690  52.7074 12.44399464127468
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89157.04418106 0.00000574           27165-3 0  2335
2 16969  98.6341 187.7509 0012451 283.3939  76.5851 14.23021782142358
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89157.02026627 0.00000016           96346-5 0  2581
2 17290  82.4626 162.7317 0012119 298.0427  61.9554 13.83720481122071
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89156.19806567  .00000630  00000-0  49446-3 0  1404
2 17527  99.1492 227.7547 0001510  75.7479 284.3839 13.94857891116705
GOES 7     
1 17561U 87 22  A 89149.61583261 -.00000041  00000-0  99999-4 0  2800
2 17561   0.0271  16.8204 0031102 110.6879 233.0812  1.00281019  1576
Kvant      
1 17845U          89158.90479056 0.00015712           23773-3 0  7747
2 17845  51.6242  50.0156 0010842  35.2690 324.9851 15.54808319189727
RS-10/11   
1 18129U 87 54  A 89156.87274739  .00000084  00000-0  85960-4 0  7780
2 18129  82.9272 246.5054 0013326  84.2549 276.0150 13.71979456 97847
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89158.81042292 0.00118352  73031-5  21725-3 0   672
2 18225  71.8659  79.9345 0010266 264.6905  92.3119 16.01086068109797
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89156.69588611 0.00000218           18868-3 0  2793
2 18312  82.5546 228.6314 0010592 232.2131 127.8079 13.83475649 90928
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89157.04234437 0.00000037           28217-4 0  1193
2 18820  82.5428 289.4094 0015706 302.8763  57.0949 13.84156645 68140
AO-13      
1 19216U          89147.06007421 0.00000137           10000-3 0   364
2 19216  57.2077 206.1830 6723768 204.7577  96.6993  2.09696457  7298
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89156.85343458  .00001660  00000-0  24438-3 0  3956
2 19274  82.5149 147.0970 0020915 269.3891  90.4953 14.74728746 49415
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89150.86961681 0.00000391           10000-2 0  1997
2 19336  82.5400 187.9015 0017345 181.8200 178.2844 13.16851413 40634
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89155.08440135 0.00000407           24738-3 0   877
2 19531  98.9373  99.1616 0011111 271.2989  88.6925 14.11009896 35628
TDRS 2     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89153.77764324  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   261
2 19548   0.5410  85.9584 0002050  10.4654 263.5580  1.00263057  1649
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89149.55453412  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   391
2 19802  55.1217 212.5531 0068467 156.1953 204.1944  2.00554850  2053
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89157.06059677 0.00000116           10000-3 0   435
2 19851  82.5196 168.0940 0015567 347.0276  13.0475 13.83803570 13549
TDRS 3     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89150.45403160 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-4 0   175
2 19883   0.3186  66.7990 0006825  40.4800 252.7331  1.00552150    49
Raduga 23  
1 19928U          89137.18522349 -.00000154           10000-3 0   446
2 19928   1.3545 277.7136 0002516  53.1772 306.5633  1.00268455   345
Cosmos 2018
1 19938U          89138.65810262 0.00948361  40344-4  31726-3 0   701
2 19938  62.7992 325.3796 0098866  65.6693 295.4718 16.13844776  4494
1989 033C  
1 19970U          89146.89292825 0.00004135           15448-2 0   187
2 19970  27.9756 326.5141 6561442  22.7737 356.2819  3.21038637   706
1989 036A  
1 19986U          89158.72516372 0.00933509  34752-4  30927-3 0   479
2 19986  64.7749  26.6041 0126719 107.8717 253.8447 16.08569360  3424
1989 037A  
1 20000U          89158.76868187 0.00182558  57066-5  15239-3 0   356
2 20000  69.9518  39.0616 0051569  34.0882 326.3539 16.10572648  2315
1987 037CZ 
1 20003U          89140.52464093 0.00000008           10000-3 0    15
2 20003  72.8290 205.3591 0414065 169.8306 191.1830 12.32588625  7487
1987 020DA 
1 20004U          89144.20894406 0.00000016           10000-3 0    19
2 20004  73.6361 174.3386 0118944 257.9904 103.3069 12.82100499 65749
1989 038A  
1 20006U          89158.94465311 0.00077357  17856-5  12269-3 0   324
2 20006  82.2974  26.0061 0008772 262.7399  96.7999 16.03625608  2186
1989 039A  
1 20024U          89158.34461570 -.00000011           10000-3 0   121
2 20024  64.7902  51.6638 0001965 284.6664  75.3457  2.13101772   155
1989 039B  
1 20025U          89158.31809216 -.00000010           10000-3 0    97
2 20025  64.8364  51.6213 0113673 291.1005  67.7682  2.16717288   153
1989 039C  
1 20026U          89158.34187184 -.00000011           10000-3 0    84
2 20026  64.8236  51.6302 0008928 267.1252  92.8557  2.13204956   154
1989 034E  
1 20028U          89155.99092206 -.00000011           10000-3 0    28
2 20028  64.8153  51.7040 0011558 315.1604  44.8116  2.13482305    55
1989 040A  
1 20035U          89158.70342790 0.00150596  39980-4  80355-4 0   145
2 20035  62.8091  10.7940 0127542 254.9320 103.8667 16.03850365   980
1989 040B  
1 20036U          89158.95044221 0.22841742  43874-4  30520-3 0   195
2 20036  62.7812   9.2392 0014309 256.9397 104.2393 16.48178315  1032
1989 042A  
1 20045U          89158.93096889 0.00077411           79617-1 0    96
2 20045  82.9468   1.3146 0038105 294.9871  64.8534 13.75040412   100
1989 042B  
1 20046U          89158.93024002 -.00005552          -56739-2 0    51
2 20046  82.9387   1.3250 0031945 294.6488  65.1505 13.76490819   106
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 89 00:44:27 GMT
From: amdahl!johnm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (John Murray)
Subject: IAF Conference in Beijing

The IAF annual conference is scheduled for Beijing next October.
Given the current situation there, it may not happen. Has anyone
seen any information on this? For example, are any alternate
sites being considered? Is there some cutoff date beyond which
it couldn't be handled in Beijing, regardless of the situation?
Any information like this would be useful for decision-making and
work scheduling purposes.

Thanks,

John Murray (My own opinions, etc.)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 18:00:55 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!aipna!jdr@uunet.uu.net  (Julian Richardson)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction

>From article <386@v7fs1.UUCP>, by mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt):

> Oh NOOOOO!!!!!   We've got to BAN all ELECTRONS before we all DIE!!!!!!!

Ozone-friendly electrons, anyone? :O)

> I suspected from the beginning that the so-called 'ozone hole' was just
> part of a natural cycle that we would have been seeing all along if we
> had had satellites for decades.  It makes no sense whatsoever that a
> fluorocarbon-induced hole would first appear over the south pole.

Yes it does make sense (I think). Electrons get piped down onto the poles by
the Earth's magnetic field, so you'd expect the holes to appear there (first).
Apparently the antarctic has a weather system which is fairly isolated from the
rest of the world, so CFCs and breakdown products stay around longer there than
in the arctic where the air gets mixed up quicker.

     Julian

------------------------------

Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
X-Alternate-Route: user%node@mbunix.mitre.org
File-Id: Munck.Office-386.space.3821
Subject: Rogallo Airfoil -- Hang Gliders
Reply-To: munck@MITRE.org
Return-Receipt-To: munck@mbunix.mitre.org
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 89 09:19:59 EDT
From: Bob Munck <munck@mbunix.mitre.org>

> Wasn't this .. invented by Dr Francis Rogallo in about 1963?...

> ...In 1968, N. Random Students in some American university
> 'discovered' Rogallo's patents and made some crude triangular flying
> machines out of bamboo and polythene sheeting.

No, you're definitely wrong here.  These things existed as long ago as
the early 50's, and I can prove it!

Remember the episode of M*A*S*H where Klinger goes sailing over the
4077th in a nightgown and fuzzy pink slippers?  He was using a real
_Hang Glider_!  And that was in Korea (which I think is somewhere west
of LA) when Ike was President!!  So There!

                          -- Bob Munck, Somewhere in TV-Land

ps: Scotty, I'm still waiting.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 16:22:24 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: NASA and... Re: Private Space Companies

shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov <SHAFER.89Jun8084631@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> :
-
-A lot of my problem with the "scheming conspiring NASA management"
-explanation of the limited privatization of space is my experience
-with NASA management.  These people can't even manage a simple flight
-program for a few years, so how can anyone believe that they can
-manage a sophisticated conspiracy?


The old "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence"
view of things, describing the source of his paychecks....


-NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
-doing, and everybody's happy this way.


For your sake, I hope things *stay* this way  :-)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #482
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Jun 89 05:57:27 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01073> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 12 Jun 89 05:50:28 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 12 Jun 89 05:50:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYYs:bG00Vs1A1d04G>;
          Mon, 12 Jun 89 05:30:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.MYYrzN:00UkVADU04=>;
          Mon, 12 Jun 89 05:18:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <IYYrx-600UkVADSU48@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 89 05:15:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #483

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 483

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		    Correction on phone tree alert
		     Re: NSS Space Hotline Update
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
			   Saturn 5 Booster
		   Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
			     Missing mail
		       Reminders for Old Farts
		    Re: Amazon Forest Destruction
		  Re: Management of Scientific Data
		  Re: Space Station computer system
	       Re: Getting news about China from space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 17:00:39 GMT
From: xanth!paterra@g.ms.uky.edu  (Frank C. Paterra)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system


I don't know if this made it, so sorry if this is a repost.

In article <YYX3S6y00Wg90E8l5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick
 Francis Golembiewski) writes:
>
>  > highlights:  they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's
>  > pointing devices, with 4 megabytes of RAM and running X-Windows,
>  > networked with Fiber Distributed Data Interface and perhaps IEEE 802
>
>  That's pretty much outdated NOW, I don't see how they can hope to have
>  enough computing power, unless they are going to use the model 80's as
>  terminals... Also the model 80 is a BAD choice even for what is
>  available NOW, even the modle 70 is a lot faster then the 80...  And
>  Why have 30-40 of them?  Are there going to be THAT many people that
>  need them?  I didn't think that the station was supposed to have a
>  crew of 40... EEEK  This sounds really frightening MS-DOS in space,
>  now I KNOW that the space program is in trouble...
>
>
The poop as I know it -

The computer workstations on the space station, known as Multipurpose
Application Consoles or MPACs are based intel 80386 processors
running at 25 mhz.  The basic MPAC will consist of a Standard Data
Processor (SDP) which contains the data buss and a Network Interface
Unit (NIU).  The NIU allows the workstation to use the fiber-optic
based space station LAN.  Each SDP will contain at least one Embedded
Data Processor (EDP) (the 80386 computer).  The EDPs come one meg and
four meg models.  In addition the SDP can contain some number of I/O
driver cards to handle the user I/O.  The I/O devices will include
video (in and out), keyboards, trac-balls, audio (in and out), and
what ever else is needed to support a particular mission.

The Operating system that will be used is a derivative of Unix, and
there will be rack mounted workstations as well as portable ones.  The
portable workstations have to be plugged in to the Data Management
System (DMS) via one of the many ports available in both the lab and
the habitation modules before they can be used.

IBM is developing the workstations and the current mockup models are
PS/2 model 80s, cleverly hidden behind rack mockups.  The real
workstations, however, will not be model 80s.  Currently there are no
plans to use the 80486 or any other processor.

I'm currently working on a commonality study and have researched the
available information so I pretty sure this is correct.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Paterra            The above is my own opinion and nobody
paterra@cs.odu.edu       agrees with or condones what I said.

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 09 Jun 89 09:45:31 BST
From: ZZASSGL%cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK
Myname:   Geoff. Lane. (Phone UK-061 275 6051)
Subject:  Re: Space Station computer system

 
The recent description of the space station presented here sounded an
awful lot like a piece of "Gold Plating".  Why could not an existing
computer available off the shelf be used?  Why is a new version of Unix
required?

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 09:04:04 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hp-sde!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Correction on phone tree alert

In a prior phone tree alert to lobby for termination of further funding
for NASA's space station, I inadvertently left the name of a National 
Space Society representative at the end of the message.  Obviously,
the National SS does not share my desire to see funding for NASA's 
space station terminated and does not endorse, in any way, this phone
tree alert.

Further news on our efforts to terminate funding to NASA's space station
program:  Lobbyists for aerospace establishment companies are beginning
to retrench in preparation for the program's termination.  The latest
issue of "Ad Astra" magazine (the National SS organ) has articles on the
growing difficulties in budgetary fights for NASA's space station program.

It's too bad that Sandra Adamson fought efforts to have the National SS
support the Commercially Developed Space Facility (CDSF) when this option
was presented to her as a key member of the National SS Legislative
Committee in control of National SS phone tree activiations "because it
would threaten space station funding" (quote from 1988 Denver Space
Development Conference).  I guess Sandra, as a beltway consultant working
on the Space Station program, was more concerned about maintaining 
funding to herself than timely access to affordable on-orbit facilities
for the nation.

At $600 million fixed price within a few years, as opposed to $30 to $60
billion within a decade for the Space Station, CDSF is STILL an important
option that must be considered seriously.

Maybe the National SS will stop catering to the members of its Board
who received income from Space Station and start acting in the best
interests of a rational space policy once Space Station is cancelled
(but don't hold your breath).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 17:10:42 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!linus!munck@uunet.uu.net  (Robert Munck)
Subject: Re: NSS Space Hotline Update

>Vice President Dan Quayle, Chairman of the National Space
>Council, reportedly stated...
>...that the US will eventually win control of space ...

ALL of it?

>Quayle reportedly said that the space race is not over, that we
>will "win" due to our superior technology ...

(Quotes in original.)  Those in the upper levels of government really
believe that our technology is superior to everybody else, probably
because they spend a lot of time telling each other how wonderful it
is.  Somehow the almost daily failures of technology don't penetrate
this rosy haze.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 16:21:16 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <1989Jun3.220951.4252@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>As I recall, from papers in JBIS and other places, the notion is not quite
>impossible but it is difficult.  Getting rid of all that atmosphere is hard.
>There are other problems in making Venus habitable too, like a grave shortage
>of water and an excessively long rotation period.

One of the JBIS papers (Sorry, I've lost the exact
reference) considered these last two points the easier part
of the problem to solve.

They suggested using a ten megaton nuclear device to alter
the orbit of a particular asteroid to impact on Venus in the
right way to produce suitable length of day.

They also suggested an alternative method using a series of
suitably aimed comets instead. This would add Hydrogen to
the system and eventually create seas for suitable creatures
to live in as they consume the disolved CO2.

They also pointed out that one of the moons of Saturn seems
to be mostly water, and hitting Venus with it would solve
both problems at once.

They considered the major problem to be simply the rate at
which the planet could be cooled. There is a LOT of heat
contained in that atmosphere and top few miles of rock.

They estimated the entire project to take up to take a few
thousand years. So don't buy any real estate there yet.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 20:00:07 GMT
From: asuvax!hrc!gtephx!stymar@noao.edu  (Robert E. Styma)
Subject: Saturn 5 Booster


I have heard that we no longer have the plans to build a
Saturn 5 booster.  There is one laying on it's side at
the Johnson Space center.  I this just a mock up or could
it be reverse engineered from this model?

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 89 14:18:59 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

Last year, I posted a note about how the USSR's severe economic problems
makes the future of their space program uncertain.  The response on
this newgroup was, not surprisingly, mostly negative.  Panders of
red-scare warnings might want to read this:

Excerpts rom the NY Times, 6/9/89, page A6.  Dateline 8/8/89 Moscow:

"Radical Plan to Balance Soviet Budget"

Warning that the Soviet Union faces economic collapse within the next
few years, a prominent economist proposed an unorthodox plan today for
balancing the budget, including cutting aid to Cuba and Nicaragua, selling
land to farmers and slashing imports of American grain.

The economist, Nikolai P. Shmelyov, addressing a televised session of
the Congress of People Deputies, said his proposals stood little
chance of being approved, but without them the country could plummet
into anarchy or dictatorship.

...

... the government hoped to balance the budget by the mid-1990's
through steep cuts in military spending and industrial subsidies,
along with increased producitivity.

But Mr. Shmelyov said without what he called draconian measures, "we
might well have an economic crash within two or three years."

[ The article continues on, describing his plans for saving $6-8
billion/year by cutting off Cuba and Nicaragua, a plan to give farmers
$75/ton in hard currency for increased grain production rather than
buying American grain for $200/ton, selling farmland (!!) to reduce
the internal deficit, slashing farm subsidies, raising liquor
production to recapture taxes lost to bootleggers, and halting all
large-scale development projects for ten years. ]

------

If Soviet economists think the USSR is this close to the brink, and if
they are seriously proposing stopping all large scale *earth-bound*
development projects for a decade, it is unreasonable to expect them
to do much in space.  So much for the Great Red Hope, space fans.  I'd
not be surprised if they suspend their manned space program for a long
time, perhaps with an increased effort to export launch services.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 89 10:18 EDT
From: "Today, All Americans are Chineese." <CALVIN%JHUIGF.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Missing mail


Just a note to the many people who wrote me in response to my message that I
wasn't receiving SPACE-L messages... I just received the latest 3 digests, and
so it appears that it's working again. Thanks agian.

Damian Hammontree

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 89 04:00:13 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more
than 1 follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.
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:
please keep lines under 80 characters for those using ASCII terms (use <CR>).

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 17:54:34 GMT
From: ginosko!infinet!ulowell!tegra!vail@uunet.uu.net  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction

In article <386@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
   In article <1331@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
   >Article in the local news last night:
   >ozone was being destroyed by electrons coming from the magnetosphere 
   >this causing 14% of the ozone loss since 1975...  

Now I read this as %14 of the loss....  Does that mean that the other
%86 is from fluorocarbons?  Or is this mis-worded?

   I suspected from the beginning that the so-called 'ozone hole' was just
   part of a natural cycle that we would have been seeing all along if we
   had had satellites for decades.  It makes no sense whatsoever that a
   fluorocarbon-induced hole would first appear over the south pole.
It makes no sense until you understand it.  Maybe to someone who does
it makes perfect sense.

I have always suspected that it has something to do with penguins....

"I remember when the sea was full of fish with mysterious names:
Mudrake, Cornsweat, Yasmuda, and there wasn't much to do in a day."
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
 -----

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 89 23:29:59 GMT
From: bionet!kristoff@apple.com  (David Kristofferson)
Subject: Re: Management of Scientific Data

You might be interested in looking at the newsgroup
bionet.molbio.bio-matrix.  Your topic of interest is the subject of
this group as it applies to biology.
-- 
				Sincerely,

				Dave Kristofferson
				BIONET Resource Manager

				kristoff@net.bio.net
			     or	kristofferson@bionet-20.bio.net

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 89 00:13:41 EDT
From: Colin Hunter <CHUNTER%UMAB.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <SPACE@Andrew.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

From: J. Colin R. Hunter


In SPACE Digest Volume 9:Issue477, xanth!paterra@g.ms.uky.edu (Frank C.
Paterra) writes:

> The computer workstations on the space station, known as Multipurpose
> Application Consoles or MPACs are based intel 80386 processors
> running at 25 mhz.  The basic MPAC will consist of a Standard Data
                ^^^

25 _milli_ hertz!!!
I always thought that IBMs were slow, but I never realised that they were
*that* slow.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1989 16:41-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Getting news about China from space

> accident when it first broke.  I doubt that such a satellite could detect
> individual tanks but perhaps it could detect masses of them.  Maybe it could
> detect them deployed by bridges, intersections and the like.  Any comments?

This is why we need a mediasat (preferably non-american to put it
outside of the control of the DOD). Then we could let the whole world
see what is happening when a government turns on its own people like
the Chinese government has done.

We used to chant "The whole world's watching...." here when the police
beat people up in the streets during the anti-Vietnam years.* It's time
we had a satellite system to make it a true statement for all
inhabitants of planet Earth. Let no government hide it's violent nature
from world opinion.


* Incidentally, they still do on occasion. A Pittsburgh Pig was filmed
slugging a handcuffed kid in the face at a Grateful Dead concert here a
few months ago.  The pig got off without even a reprimand.
Nonetheless, the camera does hold them back from real excesses.
Usually.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #483
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jun 89 05:57:38 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00742> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 13 Jun 89 05:52:46 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 13 Jun 89 05:52:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oYZB7kK00Ui381GUMx>;
          Tue, 13 Jun 89 05:20:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.UYZB5=a00UkV41BU55>;
          Tue, 13 Jun 89 05:18:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYZB3Y200UkVM1A04T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 89 05:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #484

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 484

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out"
	  Astronaut "Pinky" Nelson to leave NASA (Forwarded)
			       Saturn V
		    Management of Scientific Data
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		    Re: asteroid almost hits earth
		    Condensed CANOPUS - 1989 April
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1989 16:12-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out"

> is because I recall seeing one scheme using a rather unusual parachute
> to do most of the declerating at very high altitude, high enough to keep
> the heat loads down to what a conventional spacesuit could handle.)

The first AMROC commercial suborbital flight has a paying customer
testing a parasol like device. It faces outward initially, I guesss
acting somewhat like a ballute. Then it flips over to act as a Mary
Poppins-like drogue chute. (That unfortuneately sums up my total
knowledge of the gadget. Maybe someone else who was at George's session
remembers more details. Glenn??)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 89 14:42:28 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Astronaut "Pinky" Nelson to leave NASA (Forwarded)

Barbara Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       June 9, 1989

Jeffrey Carr
Johnson Space Center, Houston


RELEASE:  89-89

ASTRONAUT "PINKY" NELSON TO LEAVE NASA


     Three-time space flight veteran George D. "Pinky" Nelson, 
Ph.D., will leave NASA on June 30 to accept academic and 
administrative positions at the University of Washington, 
Seattle.  Nelson has been named assistant provost at the 
university as well as an associate professor of astronomy.

     "I am excited with the prospects of a new challenge at the 
University of Washington in Seattle," Nelson said.  "At the same 
time, I know that I will miss NASA and the Johnson Space Center, 
especially the people.  I don't think there is a more dedicated, 
motivated and skilled group around.  Thanks to everyone for 
making the past 11 years so enjoyable."

     He added, "I hope to continue to promote the space program 
in my new career, because I believe that the exploration of space 
and the development of new technology is key to the future 
success of our civilization."

     Nelson joined NASA with the first Shuttle-era astronaut 
selection in January 1978.  While awaiting a flight crew 
assignment, he flew as scientific equipment operator aboard the 
WB-57F high-altitude research airplane, flew as chase plane 
photographer for Shuttle mission STS-1 and served as support 
crewman and Capcom for missions STS-3 and STS-4.

     He made his first flight as a mission specialist aboard the 
Space Shuttle Challenger on mission STS 41-C in April 1984.  The 
41-C crew successfully deployed the Long Duration Exposure 
Facility and retrieved, repaired and replaced into orbit the 
ailing Solar Maximum Satellite.  Nelson flew the Manned 
Maneuvering Unit and, with fellow crewman James "Ox" van Hoften, 
repaired and deployed the Solar Max during two spacewalks in the 
first space salvage operation in history.

     Nelson flew again in January 1986 aboard Columbia on mission 
STS 61-C which featured the deployment of the SATCOM KU 
satellite, experiments in astrophysics and materials processing, 
and a night landing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

     In September 1988, Nelson made his third flight as a mission 
specialist aboard Discovery on the first post-Challenger mission, 
STS-26.  Discovery's crew successfully deployed a Tracking and 
Data Relay Satellite (TDRS-C) and operated 11 mid-deck scientific 
experiments in returning the nation's Space Transportation System 
to flight.

     Nelson has a total of 411 hours in space aboard three 
different Shuttle orbiters, including 10 hours of spacewalk.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 89 10:55:25 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Saturn V

For the several correspondents who've recently posted questions about the
Saturn V, there's an excellent article in the June/July _Air & Space
Smithsonian_ (if I could only read 2 aerospace mags, they'd be that one
and _Final Frontier_; really good stuff).

Did any of the Saturn V first stages land in diveable water (sport scuba,
<150')?  If so, where???  One of those would make for terrific wreck
diving.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 89 17:52:20 GMT
From: ogccse!hitomi@husc6.harvard.edu  (Hitomi Ohkawa)
Subject: Management of Scientific Data


I would like to know if there are any research projects in various
areas of natural science 
that could be improved if there were a better form of data
management, e.g., a better database system that
enables you to correlate and to access relevant data efficiently
rather than a simple file system storing raw, unstructured data.
Examples that quickly come to mind include chemistry/biology
applications such as DNA databases, massive data handled
in astrophysics
and geology.  I am trying to come up with a design of
databases suited to scientific
applications, and collecting information on requirements
regarding management of scientific data, experimental or
otherwise.
Since I had been in physics before
I got into computer science, I am in particular interested
in physics application, though any information on the above
issue is greatly appreciated.  Below is my address;

Hitomi Ohkawa
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
Oregon Graduate Center
19600 N.W. Von Neumann Drive
Beaverton, Oregon 97006-1999
(503) 690-1151

hitomi@cse.ogc.edu (CSNET)

Thank you very much in advance.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1989 16:23-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

THEY NEVER LEARN DEPT...

> IBM is developing the workstations and the current mockup models are
> PS/2 model 80s, cleverly hidden behind rack mockups.  The real
> workstations, however, will not be model 80s.  Currently there are no
> plans to use the 80486 or any other processor.

It seems to me that there are loads of highly capable workstations that
can be bought off the shelf. If you want to get fancy, you can probably
pay a bit to get them repackaged in your favorite rack mount.

But developing a special workstation for use in a single space station
is utterly assinine. Whoever made the decision to reinvent yet another
wheel at great expense should be fired.

I really am getting tired of this kind of bullshit for brains design
methodology.  It's right up there with the power supplies that are
useless to anyone else. But then, maybe they had to design special
computers to run on their special power supplies. Have to justify them
somehow...

No wonder our $8B 1992 space station is going to cost $30B and be on
paper by 1998.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 21:02:01 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <5000@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes:
>....  Let's remember that ecological niches aren't cast in
>concrete...

What about all those alligators living in the New York City sewer system??

	Jordin Kare

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 89 18:44:24 GMT
From: frooz!cfashap!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - 1989 April


Here is the condensed CANOPUS for April 1989.  There are 12 articles.
(There was supposed to be a thirteenth, but I couldn't download it.
Maybe next month.)  CANOPUS is copyright American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, but distribution is encouraged.  See
full copyright information at end.

----------CONTENTS -- 5 ARTICLES CONDENSED----------------------
SMALL EXPLORERS SELECTED - can890403.txt - 4/4/89
COMMERCIAL ROCKET FLIGHT A SUCCESS - can890404.txt - 4/4/89
VOYAGER STATUS - can890408.txt - 4/3/89
"RED AIR" LAUNCHED FROM WALLOPS - can890411.txt - 4/11/89
SPACE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS STARTS - can890412.txt - 4/11/89
-----------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL EXPLORERS SELECTED - can890403.txt - 4/4/89

NASA today announced selection of four spacecraft {from 51 proposals
submitted!} in the Small Explorer program initiated in 1988. Small
Explorers weigh approximately 400 lbs. and can be launched from
available Scout-class expendable launch vehicles.

o Solar, Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer, Glenn M.
Mason, University of Maryland, College Park. A study of solar
energetic particles, anomalous cosmic rays, galactic cosmic rays and
magnetospheric electrons.  Launch in mid-1992.
     
o Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite, Gary J. Melnick,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass. A study
of how molecular clouds collapse to form stars and planetary systems.
Launch in mid-1993.

o Fast Auroral Snapshot Explorer, Charles Carlson, University of
California, Berkeley. An investigation of the processes operating
within the auroral region. Launch in late 1993.

o Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS), Charles E. Cote, NASA's
Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md. It will provide
daily mapping of global ozone and detect global ozone trends. This
investigation is a high-priority Earth observing mission that is
critical to monitoring long-term stratospheric ozone depletion
trends. No launch date given.

COMMERCIAL ROCKET FLIGHT A SUCCESS - can890404.txt - 4/4/89

The first commercially-procured and -licensed space launch was held
March 29 at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.  The 14-minute
Consort 1 mission carried a 650-pound materials science payload
developed by the Consortioum for Materials Development in Space at
the University of Alabama in Huntsville.  Launch services were
procured from Space Services Inc. of Houston, Texas.

VOYAGER STATUS - can890408.txt - 4/3/89

Editor's note: The following information is taken from the March 22
status report for the Voyager 2 spacecraft.

A bright cloud feature on Neptune, similar to spots seen by planetary
astronomers using Earth-based telescopes, is visible in images taken
by Voyager 2 on January 23, 1989, when the spacecraft was about 309
million kilometers from the planet. The fact that distinct cloud
features are visible while the spacecraft is still so distant
suggests that pictures taken as Voyager 2 approaches its August 1989
flyby of Neptune will show many more features than were visible in
the atmosphere of Uranus, which Voyager 2 encountered in January
1986.
---------- 
Spacecraft Review and Status

Both Voyager spacecraft have survived in space for nearly 12 years,
and although each has experienced some hardware failures, they are
still in robust health and capable of returning valuable scientific
data well into the next century.  Each Voyager is powered by three
radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), which produce
electrical energy through the conversion of heat generated by the
radioactive decay of plutonium-238. At launch, the power output of
the RTGs was about 423 watts. The power output steadily declines as
the plutonium decays, and is now about 380 watts. The science
instruments require about 105 watts.

----------
Instrument Descriptions and Health

{Most of the 10 science instruemnts are astonishingly healthy.  The
biggest loss seems to be in the photopolarimeter, where five of the
eight original color filters and four of the eight original
polarization analyzers are no longer accessible.}

----------
Voyager 2's Health 

Both Voyagers have experienced several health pblems since launch,
some minor and some rather major ones. Nonetheless, mission
controllers have in every case been able to identify the problems and
provide a way to continue to meet mission objectives.

In September 1977, about a month after launch, Voyager 2 suffered a
hardware failure in the FDS. {Flight Data Subsystem - collects and
formats all data, including compression and encoding.} As a result,
15 engineering measurements can no longer be made (about 215
engineering measurements remain).

In 1978, eight months after launch, Voyager 2's main radio receiver
failed, and a tracking loop capacitor failed in the backup receiver.
As a result, Voyager 2 can receive signals in only a narrow "window"
of frequencies -- and the window slides.  The flight team has devised
a rigorous routine for commanding the spacecraft.  Signals are sent
several times at different frequencies to determine the receiver's
current frequency "window". Commands are then transmitted, after
calculating where the receiver's "window" will be, and taking into
account how the signal frequency will change due to the Earth's
rotation and other motions.  The receiver problem occurred nearly a
year before Voyager 2 reached its first objective, the Jupiter
system, yet successful encounters of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus
followed.

In August 1981, just after Voyager 2 passed Saturn, the scan platform
quit moving.  The failure has been attributed to a lack of full
lubrication of the bearing area between the gear and pin in the
azimuth actuator.  Lubricant has probably migrated back to the
bearing surfaces, healing the problem.

Just days before its closest approach to Uranus, Voyager 2 suffered
the loss of one word of memory in one FDS processor. As a result,
bright and dark streaks appeared in images. Only imaging data was
affected, and a software patch was sent to bypass the failed bit.

"RED AIR" LAUNCHED FROM WALLOPS - can890411.txt - 4/11/89

RED AIR -- Release Experiments to derive Airglow Inducing Reactions
-- was designed to study the formation of ionospheric holes. Releases
of CO2 into the ionosphere at 70 km altitude cause a red airglow at
630 nm wavelength.  Two releases of carbon dioxide into this region
were conducted at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility at Wallops Island,
Va., recently.

SPACE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS STARTS - can890412.txt - 4/11/89

General Dynamics Space Systems Division has been awarded a $5.5
million, three-year contract to conduct a Space Transportation
Infrastructure Study (STIS) for NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
The objective is to develop recommendations for an integrated
transportation approach that will support space objectives and goals
and make best use of available and potential resources.

--------------SEVEN ARTICLES BY TITLE ONLY-----------------------

NASA PERSONNEL CHANGES - can890401.txt - 4/3/89
HIGH-ENERGY ASTROPHYSICS RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS - can890402.txt - 4/3/89
UPDATED VERSION OF "CURRENT SOLAR ACTIVITY - CAN890303.TXT" - CAN890405.TXT -
4/7/89
THOMPSON TO BE NASA DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR - can890406.txt - 4/5/89
SHUTTLE SCIENCE CREWS NAMED - can890407.txt - 4/5/89
MAGELLAN ON TRACK FOR LAUNCH - can890409.txt - 4/5/89
SATELLITE SERVICING CONFERENCE PLANNED - can890410.txt - 4/5/89

----------------END OF CONDENSED CANOPUS-----------------------------

This posting represents my own condensation of CANOPUS.  For clarity,
I have not shown ellipses (...), even when the condensation is
drastic.  New or significantly rephrased material is in {braces} and
is signed {--SW} when it represents an expression of my own opinion.
The unabridged CANOPUS is available via e-mail from me at any of the
addresses below.

Copyright information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu.)
Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you
are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or
as printout copies.  If you do, however, please send a brief message
to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies.  CANOPUS is
partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #484
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Jun 89 05:17:15 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06583> for roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov; Wed, 14 Jun 89 04:10:55 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 14 Jun 89 04:10:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gYZUSr:00UkT81jkEI>;
          Wed, 14 Jun 89 03:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.0YZUP9:00UkV05dE4L>;
          Wed, 14 Jun 89 03:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYZUND-00UkV85bk5H@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 03:16:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #485

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 485

Today's Topics:
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		    Space Station Computer System
		   Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
			 Re: Saturn 5 Booster
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		     Re: Private Space Companies
		   Frequently asked SPACE questions
			  The Space Magazine
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #481
			 Re: Saturn 5 Booster
		   NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
		  Re: Space Station Computer System
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 89 20:44:39 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpcllmv!jbc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jeff Caldwell)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

> This changes everything... how come no-one thought of using pigs for
> transportation before?  Maybe NASA could ferry the shuttle from Edwards
> to KSC with camels?  Obviously this is a consequence of budgetary
> constraints, since animals are non-union.
>  
> Okay, pigs are not the same as boars... tusk, tusk...
					  ^^^^  ^^^^

THAT'S IT! They should use elephants!  They would never forget their 
instructions, they would have little or no problem with freeway traffic
(just walk right over those little ferigner-type cars), and they would
not be subject to fluctuating oil prices.  And last I checked, an 
elephant could carry a heck of a lot more than a pig/boar (genus-species:
pigus-oinkus I think).

		-Jeff "Compilers are my life" Caldwell

P.S. Sorry, I thought I was reading farm-animals.pigs.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 89 23:16:56 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

In article <09.Jun.89.09:45:31.BST.ZZASSGL@UK.AC.MCC.CMS> ZZASSGL@cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.UK writes:
 
>Why could not an existing computer available off the shelf be used?

Hardware used in space is usually built to more stringent specs...it must
surivive vibration during liftoff, and is exposed to very energetic
particles (fast, heavy nuclei). The stuff being designed for the space
station may be similar in architecture to the IBM PS systems, but it
will most likely be built to space specs.

>Why is a new version of Unix required?

Unix is designed to be a timesharing system, and is not very good for
process control and data acquisition. Presumably, the space station
OS will need to be more oriented towards these things, with a more
predictable interrupt response time.



Neal

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 89 02:11 EDT
From: John Taylor <V131Q5CG@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Space Station Computer System

> highlights:  they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's
> pointing devices, with 4 megabytes of RAM and running X-Windows,
> networked with Fiber Distributed Data Interface and perhaps IEEE 802

	Why PS/2's? Why the Micro Channel bus in particular? If they want to 
use PC's, why not the (vastly superior) Apple Mac? Oh well... :(


-------------
John Taylor -- State University of New York at Buffalo
Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 89 06:15:49 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

In article <1989Jun9.101859.10907@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>If Soviet economists think the USSR is this close to the brink...

Economists, plural?  The news report mentioned only one... and he got
news coverage because (a) his opinion is unusual, and (b) it fits the
West's preconceptions of The Desperate Plight Of The Soviet Economy.

You can find economists who think the West is just as close to the brink.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 89 06:11:22 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn 5 Booster

In article <43b69bd5.f89b@gtephx.UUCP> stymar@gtephx.UUCP (Robert E. Styma) writes:
>...Saturn 5 booster.  There is one laying on it's side at
>the Johnson Space center.  I this just a mock up or could
>it be reverse engineered from this model?

That's a real Saturn V, NOT a mockup, NOT a model.  It was flight-ready
hardware once, earmarked for Apollo 19 I believe.  The one at KSC was
likewise once flight-ready.  The one at Huntsville was a "test article",
a pre-production Saturn V (not "5", please!) that probably could have
been flown in a pinch.  Now they have birds nesting in them...

Reverse-engineering from one of them is certainly possible but would be
a very long and expensive job.  The Saturn V is, alas, gone.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 89 06:13:49 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

In article <09.Jun.89.09:45:31.BST.ZZASSGL@UK.AC.MCC.CMS> ZZASSGL@cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.UK writes:
>The recent description of the space station presented here sounded an
>awful lot like a piece of "Gold Plating".  Why could not an existing
>computer available off the shelf be used?  Why is a new version of Unix
>required?

You are the victim of a fundamental misunderstanding: that the highest
priority of the space station program is to put a functioning space
station into orbit.  Wrong.  The highest priority is to maximize the
size of the station's bureaucratic empire within NASA.  Second is the
care and feeding of a number of large expensive pets, to wit the NASA
contractors.  Putting up working hardware runs a poor third, or the
thing would be up and operational by now.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 89 06:07:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <SHAFER.89Jun8084631@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
>I'm sorry, I was thinking NASA = government, not DARPA.  I thought
>that DARPA was putting money into the developement phase, not just
>buying a finished product...

Unless it's changed lately, nope, they're just buying a launch or two.
OSC and Hercules put up the develoment cash.  It's not as if it were an
enormous amount of money -- only about $70M as I recall.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 89 04:00:21 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Frequently asked SPACE questions

This is a list of frequently asked questions on SPACE (which goes back
before 1980).  It is in development.  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.

Questions fall into three basic types:
1) Where do I find some information about space?
Try you local public library first.  You do know how to use a library, don't
you?  Can't tell these days.  The net is not a good place to ask for
general information.  Ask individuals 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.  Sorry, have to take them case by case.

Initially, this message will be automatically posted once per month
and hopefully, we can cut it back to quarterly.  In time questions and
good answers will be added (and maybe removed, nah).

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 89 10:36:01 EDT
From: "GE: WE BRING GOOD THINGS TO LIFE" <LUBERECKI@scivax.STSCI.EDU>
Subject: The Space Magazine
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Ted,

     Can you subscribe me or send me info on how to subscribe to "The Space
Magazine"?  I currently receive Space Digest and enjoy it alot.  In your most
recent entry you mentioned The Space Magazine.  Any help would be greatly 
appreciated.

                                                     Thank you,

                                                     Tony Luberecki
                                          The Space Telescope Science Institute
                                                 Johns Hopkins University
                                                 Baltimore, Maryland 21218

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1989 13:37-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #481

> can't even manage an operational flight program for a few years, how
> can you believe that they can manage a sophisticated conspiracy?

I agree. I really doubt that many people consider that there is a
"conspiracy" per se. Just typical bureaucratic turf wars, infighting,
peter-principle management, rational self-interest of the individuals
in the aerospace-NASA-congress iron triangle. The system distorts the
market place in ways that are seriously damaging to private space ventures.

I refer you to books on Public Choice Theory, which allows you to
examine the failures of the governmentplace with some of the same
methodologies used for years on the marketplace.

Conspiracy theories are nothing but pterodactyl plop. Most people are
actually reasonably decent and do the best the can within the
institutional bars they live within. When those institutions are not
subject to market forces, the result is, ahh, shall we say, ahh,
non-optimal?

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 89 04:01:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!zweig@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Saturn 5 Booster


> /* ---------- "Saturn 5 Booster" ---------- */
> 
> I have heard that we no longer have the plans to build a
> Saturn 5 booster.  There is one laying on it's side at
> the Johnson Space center.  I this just a mock up or could
> it be reverse engineered from this model?

It's not the plans so much as the tools and dies that are no longer around.
They are tricky to reverse engineer (i.e. can you design a lathe based on
a table-leg?)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 89 03:12:54 GMT
From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the satellite user community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.  The most current orbital elements
from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513)
427-0674, and are updated several times weekly.  Documentation and tracking
software are also available on this system.  The Celestial RCP/M may be
accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit, no parity.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:

AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed;
           blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.  (Decimal point assumed)
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1; plus sign = 2)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:

NOAA 6
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978

Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 89 05:36:49 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Space Station Computer System

In article <Added.EYY=_8i00UkT4rWE9c@andrew.cmu.edu> V131Q5CG@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (John Taylor) writes:
>	Why PS/2's? Why the Micro Channel bus in particular? If they want to 
>use PC's, why not the (vastly superior) Apple Mac? Oh well... :(

The space station computers are going to use the UNIX operating system. UNIX
on the Mac (A/UX) is still quite immature. SCO Xenix or even IBM AIX is a
much more mature product.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 89 12:38:02 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect...

jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer) writes:

>I saw, in JBIS I think, a proposal to use the half-dozen biggest
>asteroids to kill two birds with one stone:  blast most of the atmosphere
>off into space and spin the planet up as well.  You can guess how. :-)

What sort of effect would this have on the temperature of the crust?  Wouldn't
it heat up most of the surface rock considerably?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov.earth)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #485
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Jun 89 05:31:43 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00610> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 14 Jun 89 05:28:00 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 14 Jun 89 05:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYZWCC200UkTQ13U5V>;
          Wed, 14 Jun 89 05:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.wYZW=1u00UkVM5nE51>;
          Wed, 14 Jun 89 05:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <oYZW9vi00UkV85lk5R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 05:16:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #486

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 486

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction
		   Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
		   Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
		   DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2
		  Re: Space Station Computer System
		   Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
   Solicitation package released for use of TDRS C-band (Forwarded)
		   Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
		   Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST
		   Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
		 Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 89 20:50:55 GMT
From: mcvax!fmr@uunet.uu.net  (Frank Rahmani)
Subject: Re: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction

> In article <8@hiker.UUCP> starr@hiker.UUCP (Michael Starr) writes:
>>If we want to stop the destruction in a country which probably
>>suffers from the worse economy on earth we have to do it by
>>giving the Brazilians an economic alternative.  
Knowing the Brazilians very well I can assure you that the only thing
they are suffering from is corruptness, immaturity and irresponsibility
in the handling of money. This goes from the political leaders down to
every civilian. Give them an "economic alternative" in order to save
the Amazonian djungles and they will spend the money before you can say
"hello". Don't imagine Brasil is some poor underdeveloped country. It's
number five on the list of blockfree nations and in resources about the richest country
on the world.The Brasilian culture is based on machoism and patriotism (and
the latter is very unique for a country that size and combination of
different population groups).Trying to tell a Brasilian NOT to cut the
rain forrest will only strengthen his decidedness to do so. Because
its HIS f***ing rain forrest! How would you as an American like other
people telling you what to do? But the Americans don't know anything
about patriotism. That's why they think they can buy 600 million people
with an "economic alternative"
cheers
fmr@cwi.nl
-- 
It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck?
Maintainer's Motto:
	If we can't fix it, it ain't broke.
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 89 12:04:52 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>... (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>If Soviet economists think the USSR is this close to the brink...

>Economists, plural?  The news report mentioned only one... and he got
>news coverage because (a) his opinion is unusual, and (b) it fits the
>West's preconceptions of The Desperate Plight Of The Soviet Economy.

>You can find economists who think the West is just as close to the brink.

The article also said:

  Mr. Shmelyov's speech was the most dramatic of several
  in which economists have said that President Mikhail Gorbachev's
  program for rescuing the stagnant Soviet economy will fail without
  more radical departures from Communist doctrine.

  ...

  Mr. Shmelyov, an economist at the Institute of the United States and
  Canada and a deputy elected on a slate representing the Academy of
  Sciences, has written several sharp critiques of Mr. Gorbachev's
  economic program that are credited with helping nudge the Soviet
  leader toward more far-reaching meaures.


So, more than one economist there does think their economy is in
trouble, and Mr. Shmelyov is not from the lunatic fringe.  Frankly,
don't you think the announcements of plans for large cuts in the
Soviet military are reactions to great economic distress?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 00:51:30 GMT
From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!dow@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Black hole in space)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

can someone give me a semi close figure on what the cost is for one of the
shuttles?

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:       Mon, 12 Jun 89 21:41:23 EST
From: EDWARDJ%RMC.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject:    DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2

     I have been reminded that space is a very harsh environment, with a
much greater probability for failure of electronic and mechanical systems.
Construction of a space probe out of inexpensive components might save a
significant proportion of the construction costs, but would lead to a
greater chance of mission failure and loss of the money invested in other
phases of the mission. [Query, did the Phobos probes fail because of the use
of cheap components, human error, both or neither?]
     This brings up a point : the relative costs of various phases of a
given probe/satellite program. Can anyone tell me how much design of the
Magellan probe cost? How much for components? Construction? Launch? How much
is now being spent administering the program, keeping an eye on it, making
course corrections, etc? Once it gets to Venus, how much will data
transmission/reception and signal processing cost? I don't suppose anyone
could predict just how much it will cost to actually interpret the
data...How about the relative costs of the different phases of programs
involving weather, navigation, and communication satellites?
     Various respondents to my first posting mentioned 'home built'
satellites (with somewhat less ambitious goals than Magellan) such as the
OSCAR series and NUSAT. How much did they cost? Could someone point me to a
good source on these and any similar projects? I'd prefer something readily
accessible (public or university library type accessible) and in a form that
a relatively ignorant lay-person like myself could understand and
assimilate. How about AMSAT? Was it a 'home built'? I was rather intrigued
by Henry's suggestion a few weeks back that it would make a good platform
for a lunar orbiter...

Jeremy Edward
EDWARDJ@RMC.BITNET

Am I required to have a disclaimer?

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 89 07:16:17 GMT
From: mcvax!hp4nl!mhres!hst@uunet.uu.net  (Klaas Hemstra)
Subject: Re: Space Station Computer System

Space station ?
What space station ?
Mir ?
I believe there are Russian computers in there :-)

At first it was fun following this discussion, but now it's like a discussion
from comp.arch etc. , RISC<->CISC, UNIX<->MS-DOS, IBM<->TheRestOfTheWorld etc.

Please stop that nonsens, wait until there is a real Space Station

						Klaas
Klaas Hemstra  (hst@mh.nl)                   |    /  / ,~~~  ~~/~~
uucp: ..{uunet!}hp4nl!mh.nl!hst              |   /--/  `-,    /  ___  |_/ |__|
Multihouse N.V., Gouda, the Netherlands      |  /  / ___/    /   ---  | \ |  | 
"Most of us mindreaders are atheist, you know" A song for Lya: George Martin

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 89 23:54:55 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

In article <1989Jun9.101859.10907@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>                 ...  So much for the Great Red Hope, space fans.  I'd
>not be surprised if [the Sovs] suspend their manned space program for a long
>time, perhaps with an increased effort to export launch services.

This is overdoing it and also silly. First, the cuts have been 
*proposed* not *implemented*. It remains to be seen what will finally 
happen. People propose all kinds of things over here too if you've 
noticed. Second, one should keep the glasnost effect in mind. Given 
the rocky history of the Soviet economy I'm sure there have been 
budget cuts in years past. The difference is, now we're hearing about 
them. People (and media) in the West are still having trouble dealing 
with what amounts to Evil Empire Meets C-SPAN. (CCCP-SPAN? <grin>) 
Populist anti-space rhetoric in the Chamber of Deputies (and there has 
been some) has no more necessary bearing on state policy than Jesse 
Helms' rants mean we're going to go out and nuke Castro tomorrow. 

Even with major cuts their program would still dwarf ours. In my 
opinion, their space program's history shows that what the Soviets 
fear most is not excess expense, but highly visible failures. Prestige 
is the issue. Charge what you must, but don't blow up on the pad or go 
beeping off on the wrong trajectory or dump dead cosmonauts on the 
Kazakhstan steppe -- that's when the s*** hits the fan. After a string 
of triumphs -- Energiya, Mir, the comet probe VeGa, Buran -- suddenly 
the Soviets look like utter fools in front of the world audience with 
back-to-back Fobos screwups. In this old days this would have meant 
secret demotions all around, and a bland TASS report that two Zonds 
recently completed their deep space missions and we're studying the 
data returned. :-) But nowadays Gorbachev has to take the public heat, 
albeit without any real political risk (contrast w/Krushchev). My guess
is his instinct for prestige will prevail, and he'll move forward
rather than retrench.  I would also be willing to bet he'll see what
we do with Station funding before committing his own space budget.

Anyway it's a total straw man to talk about a "Great Red Hope" as if
readers here have all been praying for the Soviets to do something
for us, and now they won't.  Most discussion here treats the massive
Soviet space presence as a commonplace fact, not some kind of "hope."

-- 
You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.
--
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 89 16:58:37 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Solicitation package released for use of TDRS C-band (Forwarded)

[Hope you hams find this useful. -PEY]

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     June 12, 1989


RELEASE:  89-91

SOLICITATION PACKAGE RELEASED FOR USE OF TDRS C-BAND


     NASA today released the solicitation package to 
organizations that have expressed interest in using the C-band 
capacity on two Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) for 
international telecommunications purposes.

     Eleven organizations have expressed interest in bidding for 
use of TDRS C-band services.  The price of the C-band capacity 
will be established competitively.  The deadline for bids is July 
7, 1989.

     Each satellite has twelve 36-Mhz C-Band transponders 
available.  The agreement requires the user to purchase the 
capacity from all transponders on both satellites, located at 41 
degrees west longitude and 171 degrees west longitude, for a 
period of 3 or 6 years.  NASA's mission will have priority over 
the use of satellite system operations.

     NASA will provide station-keeping control to 0.1 degree and 
operational tracking, telemetry and command for the spacecraft.  
The user will have responsibility for controlling and monitoring 
C-band transponder operations.  Users must obtain all approvals 
required by law, regulation and/or international agreement prior 
to using the system. 

     Current NASA regulations, that provide for availability of 
TDRS services to non-U.S. government users, do not apply to
C-band capacity.

     The two TDRS spacecraft are part of NASA's new space-based 
network for tracking and communication with the Space Shuttle and 
other spacecraft in low-Earth orbit.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 89 13:23:44 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget


My guess is that these figures are low by a factor of 2 or 3 for
propaganda purposes. They are totally unbelievable.

Dale not Amon Skran

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 89 19:39:20 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST

In article <332@aeras.UUCP> tneale@aeras.UUCP (Tom Neale) writes:
>In article <1989Jun4.055452.12921@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp
> (Henry Spencer) writes (and correctly I might add):
>
>>If I haven't got the terms mixed up, no, they are not the same thing.
>>...A parafoil is a gliding parachute, with two surfaces kept
>>apart by ram pressure and a rectangular shape.  Parafoils have largely
>>replaced circular parachutes for high-performance sport parachuting.
>>They are parachutes first and wings second.
>
>You've got the terms just right, Henry.  I think the technical term
>is "ram air inflated, semi rigid airfoil. It was invented and patented
>by Domina Jalbert in the 1960s.  Pioneer has been working on
>this recovery system for many years.  It is a very, very large ram
>air parachute (several thousand sqaure feet I think; sport parachutes
>for 1 person are 150-300 sqaure feet). 
>
>The really tricky part is the deployment (reefing) system that allows the 
>thing to open slowly so as not to damage the payload or the parachute.
>An abrupt opening at high speed will cause the fabric to fail and the
>parachute to self destruct, or at least subject the payload to such a
>high deceleration force (>>15 G) as to damage it.
>
>Because of the extreme altitudes they can afford to open it very slowly,
>like one or two cells (ram air compartments) at a time.  I don't know
>how this is accomplished but I'll try to find out from some parachute
>designing friends of mine.
>-- 
>Tom Neale	

 I'll just toss in a note here... the parafoil sport parachute
was indeed impractical because of the very high opening shock 
until about twenty years ago, when Steve Snyder (a world-class jumper
himself) invented and patented a sufficiently reliable slow-deployment
mechanism, and started marketing parafoil chutes, first as
Steve Snyder Enterprises, then as Paraflight, Inc.  The 
deployment mechanism uses (as I recall) a steel cable run through eyelets
attached to the chute; as the cable slides free the chute opens.

Steve Snyder has moved out of parachute manufacturing and now makes
and sells the "Paraplane" -- a parafoil wing attached to an
ultralight-styles chassis and engine that makes a very nice
personal airplane.  Not only does the wing fold up so you can
stuff the whole thing in the trunk of your car, but if the
engine ever fails, your parachute is already deployed!

As a side bit of irony, Steve, who has made uncounted parachute
jumps (after all, the rule for people who develop new parachute
gear is "you built it, you test it!") and done various other
high risk things like fly his own jet airplane, suffered his 
only serious injury a few years back... smashed his hip when
he fell off the roof of his house while installing a solar
water heater.  And they say solar energy is safe... :-)

Why do I know this? Steve happens to be a cousin of mine....

Jordin (What kind of a nut would jump out of a perfectly good airplane?) Kare

	jtk@mordor.UUCP	jtk@mordor.s1.gov

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 04:46:44 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

In article <14396@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>rather than retrench.	I would also be willing to bet he'll see what
>we do with Station funding before committing his own space budget.

    Oh no! Deadlock warning, Will Robinson!
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 04:03:50 GMT
From: blake!wiml@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2

In article <890612.21420918.098644@RMC.CP6> EDWARDJ@RMC.BITNET writes:
>
>     I have been reminded that space is a very harsh environment, with a
>much greater probability for failure of electronic and mechanical systems.
>   .... 
>phases of the mission. [Query, did the Phobos probes fail because of the use
>of cheap components, human error, both or neither?]

   As I recall ... the first failure was due to human error: one (1) character
was mistyped when sending a command to the probe, and as a result, the antenna
was aimed away from Earth, with no command to aim it back later. 
   I don't remember the reason for the other probe's failure, although I
think it was a probe failure and not an Earth failure... (?)

	--- phelliax
	    "Why can't you just throw the satellite REALLY HARD?"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #486
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jun 89 05:42:32 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00623> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 15 Jun 89 05:27:27 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 15 Jun 89 05:27:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wYZrHy200UkT01bk4z>;
          Thu, 15 Jun 89 05:21:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.IYZrFey00UkV871k4k>;
          Thu, 15 Jun 89 05:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4YZrDOG00UkVM70E5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 89 05:16:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #487

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 487

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Space Station Computer System
	      Committee On Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
		   Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
    China, Japan and Europe Space Programs - on PBS 6/13 and 6/20
	  September Georgia Star Party and SERAL Convention
	       Re: Getting news about China from space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 07:42:24 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Space Station Computer System

In article <Added.EYY=_8i00UkT4rWE9c@andrew.cmu.edu> V131Q5CG@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (John Taylor) writes:

>Why PS/2's? Why the Micro Channel bus in particular? If they want to 
>use PC's, why not the (vastly superior) Apple Mac? Oh well... :(

You are joking, right? While I am no fan of the IBM PC's and PS's, calling
the Mac a "superior" machine is kind of like saying that an amoeba is
superior to a bacteria.

What is it that you think makes the Mac so superior to the IBM? OK, so the
Motorola 68030 is a better processor than the 80386 (IMHO)...that doesn't
make the Mac a "superior" machine....

Maybe things have changed since the last time I looked inside a Mac, but
back then, they did not even have a DMA controler!!! They used programed
I/O to move data from the disk to memory!!! Yuck!

This is what I now like to refer to as "spin lock" (thanks, Kendall, for
this great new term!).

The only thing that makes the Mac any good at all is the Mac human interface,
this will probably not be of any consequence for the space station software.

Besides, as others on the net have pointed out, the space station machines
are NOT PS 2's, but rather are a new design based on Intel 80386 chips and
the micro channel bus. Perhaps the designers will have enough common sense
to put a few DMA channels on the thing.....

One thing I am kind of hazy on: what are the relative merits of the micro
channel vs. the NuBus? I am a VME man myself, so perhaps one of you "gurus"
out there could post some "pros and cons" of the two.



Neal		I am the NRA!

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 12:49:05 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: Committee On Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via 
  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733

We want ** your ** news bulletins:
  (FAX: 212-787-1726 : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
or ...!uunet!rutgers!rubbs!unitex

To subscribe to the UNITEX mailing list, send your subscription
request to:  unitex-request@rubbs.UUCP

COMMITTEE ON PEACEFUL USES OF OUTER SPACE


     The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space continued its general
exchange of views this morning, hearing 12 statements.

     Many representatives spoke of the need to establish a legal framework for
the peaceful uses of outer space and the sharing of space benefits with
developing countries.

     Statements were made by Nigeria, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia,
Mongolia, Pakistan, Japan, France, Canada, the Netherlands and Cuba.

     The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to conclude its general
exchange of views and take up the issue of ways and means of maintaining outer
space for peaceful purposes.

     Committee Work Programme

     The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space met this morning to
conclude its general exchange of views.

     Statements

     JOHN OBAKPOLOR (Nigeria) said the 1982 United Nations Conference on the
Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE 82) continued to
sustain hope in the abundant potential of multilateral co-operation.  The work
of the Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee attested to the conviction that,
given the necessary political will, the United Nations could play a decisive
role in securing outer space for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all
mankind.

     New challenges had been posed by technological achievement, he said.  The
question of remote sensing of the earth by satellites and the use of nuclear
power sources in space represented significant scientific progress in space
exploration but were also issues capable of producing dire consequences for
the security and environmental interests of many States if not correctly
handled.

     The questions of the delimination of outer space and the utilization of
the geostationary orbit were considerations of interest to many States, as
were their views about the type of activities being undertaken by spy
satellites and military-oriented spacecraft.  Greater attention must be
focused on those issues.

     In order to maintain outer space for peaceful use, hostile competition
and the arms race in outer space must be eliminated as obstacles to common
objectives, and viable peaceful international activities must be devised,
broadened and vigorously pursued at multilateral, regional and bilateral
levels, he said.  Availability of adequate resources for development
assistance, especially to the developing nations, and contributions to the
Outer Space Affairs Division, were vital ingredients to promote necessary
technical training programmes and educational opportunities which, among
others, could contribute to multilateral co-operation within the United
Nations.

     The question of remote sensing of the earth by satellites represented an
area where international co-operation could be enhanced, he said.  By enabling
developing countries to benefit directly and fully from the use of
remote-sensing technology through access to data reception and products from
remote sensing, international co-operation would invariably replace the
"current perception of opportunism and remote-sensing brigandage" which
commercialization of sensing activities tended to imply on the part of the
developed States.  Sharing of technologies, experiences and information in
that connection would thus promote the goals and objectives of remote
sensing.  Nigeria was also interested in preventing radioactive contamination
of the human environment and outer space by space debris.

     PAUL GRECU (Romania) said there was growing awareness in the
international community of the danger posed by the militarization of outer
space; every effort must be made to reverse that phenomenon.  All States
should contribute to the elimination of the nuclear-arms race, particularly in
outer space.  An important step towards that end would be the conclusion of an
international treaty on the use of outer space exclusively for peaceful
purposes, and an agreed legal framework to regulate the problems relating to
space vehicles, to protect the environment and avoid accidents.  The Committee
could play an important role in that process.

     He said the peaceful use of outer space should benefit all the countries,
particularly the developing countries.  Romania supported establishment of a
world space organization to foster co-operation in practical fields and to
assist developing countries in gaining access to the scientific, technological
and other applications resulting from space studies.  The United Nations
should promote co-operation among States, provide experts, programmes and
computer assistance to third world countries, organize international
scientific meetings and encourage data and information exchange on scientific
achievements and their practical applications.

     Regarding nuclear power sources in outer space, Romania supported
elaboration of an international legal instrument to increase security in that
area.  There was a need to establish a more precise definition of security
criteria and rules governing the use of such sources of energy than were
provided in International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) norms.  The
establishment of an outer space delimitation line should not prejudice the
interests of States in connection with the protection of their national air
space.  The geostationary orbit should be used more efficiently, equitably and

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

-- 
Patt Haring                  | Vote * YES * for creation of 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | misc.headlines.unitex  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET         | email votes to: patth@ccnysci.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 16:29:22 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

In article <14396@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

>Anyway it's a total straw man to talk about a "Great Red Hope" as if
>readers here have all been praying for the Soviets to do something
>for us, and now they won't.

By "Great Red Hope" I meant the attempts to use the example of the
Soviet space program to motivate the US government to spend more on
space (like the space station TV ad), and as a "proof" that it is
currently worthwhile to put men in space.  I didn't mean that the
Soviets would actually do something for us.

Come now, aren't you hoping for a "Sputnik, the Sequel" to shock
the government into spending more on NASA?

>  Most discussion here treats the massive Soviet space presence as a
> commonplace fact, not some kind of "hope."

By massive Soviet space presence, do you mean the large number of
cosmonauts in orbit right now?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 20:49:15 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: China, Japan and Europe Space Programs - on PBS 6/13 and 6/20


"Innovation," which airs at 9pm on PBS-Thirteen in the NJ-NY area, is
showing a 2-part program on the Chinese, Japanese and European space
programs, tonight, June 13, and next Tuesday, June 20. Other PBS
stations carry Innovation at other times and Channel 13 probably
rebroadcasts the show sometime during the week.

I would take any optimistic views of the Chinese program with a
grain of salt until the current mess in Beijing gets sorted out.
It seems likely that any civilian space initiatives will be set
back a few years, and that anything spent on space will likely be
for military purposes.

-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 13 Jun 89 22:33:33 CDT
From: walls%ssl.span@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
X-St-Vmsmail-To: FEDEX::"space+@andrew.cmu.edu"

I wanted to throw in a few comments on the discussion about the computers
planned for Space Station Freedom.  I didn't have anything to do with the
decision, or know much about the planned processors, but maybe I can throw
some light on some of the things that have come up.

Why not use an off the shelf computer?   Because space is very different than
a computer room, or even an office desk.  There is a lot more free radiation
to scramble chips, and although a crash on Earth is often annoying, it can be
fatal if it's attached to your air supply (and even more dangerous things!).
The closest to "off the shelf" that might be reasonable would be something that
DOD uses, which is "rad hard", or at least mil spec.  Pretty much all of those
are dogs for speed, and about as far from off the shelf as you can get.  The
80386 stuff is a leap forward, there.  People can at least write some of the
code on affordable, off-the-shelf '386 PC's.  Note that disk drives have never
been fully qualified, so big virtual memory machines are certainly not simple
to build.

Why not use off-the-shelf unix?   Do you want to bet your life Berkley unix
won't crash?  NASA is pretty fanatic about software verification, which means
having source around, another problem.  My guess is that the planned flight 
system involves some kind of Posix compliant OS, preferably government owned,
that integrates well with Ada, since everything is supposed to be in Ada.  
Just a guess.

Why so many?  A lot of them will be used as distributed controllers.  There
will be a processor in each experiment rack, just to keep track of power, 
thermal, life support, and other system parameters, as well as others as
needed for experiments.  These would normally never be acessed directly by
either an astronaut or from the ground.  Instead the data would be collected
and distributed by yet other processors.

The '486 isn't hopeless, either.  That would be the logical upgrade, even
if no plans are in the works yet.  The station will be there for thirty years,
so swapping out computer boards along the way is pretty much inevitable.


These comments are mine, and probably bear no relationship with the official
views of NASA or anybody else.

Bryan Walls
walls@ssl.msfc.nasa.gov
bwalls@nasamail.gov

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 18:22:38 GMT
From: cmpbsps@pyr.gatech.edu  (Don Barry)
Subject: September Georgia Star Party and SERAL Convention


                              ANNOUNCING

                      The 1989 Georgia Star Party
                                  and
                         1989 SERAL Convention

                           an activity of the

                  Astronomical Society of the Atlantic,
                        the Astronomical League,
            the Southeast Region of the Astronomical League,
          and the Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy

>From 28 September through 1 October, the Astronomical Society of the 
Atlantic will host the the Georgia Star Party(tm) at the Rock Eagle
4-H Convention center in the dark skies of the Georgia countryside.

Activities will include deep-sky observation, special talks by renowned
amateur and professional astronomers, workshops on aspects of amateur
astronomy, and also an astronomy swap and trade event.  Dr. Hal McAlister,
president of the International Astronomical Union's Commission on Binary
Star Research, will speak at the Saturday convention Banquet.  The 
Business meeting of the Southeast Region of the Astronomical League will
also be held.  

    Other speakers and tentative talks are:
      Dr. Douglas Gies  --  "The Case for Black Holes"
      Dr. Ingemar Furenlid --  "Spectroscopy and What Stars are Made Of"
      Dr. Bill Bagnuolo  --  "A Professional Telescope with Amateur Technology" 
      Mr. Ed Dombrowski  --  "The Cosmic Distance Ladder"
      Mr. Don Barry  --  "How to Make a Contribution to Astronomy" 
        (quite a few more are expected)

    The convention will be held at the Rock Eagle retreat some 50 miles east
of Atlanta.  The center features 56 cabins on a scenic lake, surrounded by
hardwood trees which will be entering autumn foliage.  

    A complete package, including three nights cabin accomodation, eight
meals, registration and all events, is available at very reasonable rate --
send mail for more information.  All organizations involved are non-profit.

    The convention begins Thursday September 28 at Noon and ends Sunday,
October 1 at 2 p.m.  Registration is available at standard rates until 
15 August and at a higher rate afterwards. 

     Registration information, scheduling of programs, and other 
inquiries may be made by electronic mail to 
     cmrfbaa@prism.gatech.edu
or by regular mail to
     Don Barry
     Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy
     Georgia State University
     Atlanta, Georgia  30303      (404) 651-2932

   Messages may also be left on the Society's answering machine at
   (404) 264-0451.  

   If you are an amateur astronomer, this is an event you won't want to miss.

   We'll see you in September!

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 89 14:32:44 GMT
From: usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!zardoz!tgate!irsx01!ka3ovk!drilex!axiom!linus!alliant!merk!spdcc!ftp!poopsie!seth@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Seth D. Hollub)
Subject: Re: Getting news about China from space

In article <4026@merlin.usc.edu> denniskr@nunki.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
>... could satellite photos from spacecraft like Spot
>make any difference.  I mean that's how the networks covered the Chernobyl
>accident when it first broke.  I doubt that such a satellite could detect
>individual tanks but perhaps it could detect masses of them.  Maybe it could
>detect them deployed by bridges, intersections and the like.  Any comments?

CNN reported in the last 24-36 hours that the US (govt) had satellite
images showing 300K troops in a ring around Bejing. Reportedly this caused
the US to encourage anyone who was planning to leave to expedite their
travel plans. No source for the images was mentioned, nor were the images
shown (not surprised).

Spot probably can't detect individual soldiers, but may be able to detect
masses of people and things. US platforms can detect individuals.

Seth
-- 
     "Segments: Just Say No!", "Whadya mean there's no control key?"
seth@vax.ftp.com, ...ftp!poopsie!seth, 18 Rindge Av, Camb. Ma, 02140 USA Earth

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #487
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jun 89 00:50:00 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA09817> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 89 00:44:33 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 16 Jun 89 00:44:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.gYa8A6e00Vs181IkE=>;
          Fri, 16 Jun 89 00:33:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.QYa84ta00UkV88=U5M>;
          Fri, 16 Jun 89 00:25:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYa82Pq00UkV08-04Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 89 00:22:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #488

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 488

Today's Topics:
       Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this
	    Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
		 Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2
      Outer Space Committee Concludes General Exchange of Views
    Re: Outer Space Committee Concludes General Exchange of Views
	   Magellan Status for week of 06/13/89 (Forwarded)
    Re: Outer Space Committee Concludes General Exchange of Views
			     Unsubscribe
     Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this
				   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 89 12:05:27 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this

In article <8906082336.AA04884@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?) writes:
>I recently interviewed a potential summer hire who was very excited about
>the upcoming 20th anniversary of Apollo 11.  Seems it's also her 20th birthday!

And on the same theme.

A news item on the TV at the weekend reported that Neil Armstrong,
accompanied Buzz Aldrin, will appear on a live TV special to
mark the 20th anniversary of the first manned moon landing.

The catch? The special is for a French TV company.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 89 17:43:28 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!tcdcs!tcdmath!dbell@uunet.uu.net  (Derek Bell)
Subject: Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.

In article <1989Jun3.140045.11889@ziebmef.uucp> hjsdvm@ziebmef.UUCP (Howard J. Scrimgeour) writes:
>The one you're thinking of is the "Tunguska" event, an explosion which took 
>place in Siberia in (I believe) 1910. I've heard it suggested that the absence
>of a crater was due to the object bursting (vaporizing) some distance
>above ground. This adds weight to the suggestion that the object was 
>a cometary nucleaus (iceball) rather than a meteor.

		The Tunguska event occurred in June(?), 1908, and was
investigated by one Leonid Kulik (sp?) early this century. He believed it
was a meteorite, mistaking holes formed by frost action for 'craterlets'.
The explosion flattened the forest for quite a distance, except at a point
directly under the explosion, hence the airburst. 
o
>| Howard J. Scrimgeour, D.V.M.                                           |
>| hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp       CIS:75126,2744                               |
>| uunet!{utgpu!moore,attcan!telly}!ziebmef!hjsdvm                        |


-- 
**********************	
* dbell@maths.tcd.ie *		This sentence no verb.  
* belld@vax1.tcd.ie  * 
**********************

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 89 02:26:13 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2

In article <890612.21420918.098644@RMC.CP6> EDWARDJ@RMC.BITNET writes:
> [Query, did the Phobos probes fail because of the use
>of cheap components, human error, both or neither?]

The LA Times claimed the following as possibly contributing to the Phobos
failure in an artical a month or two ago. They said that the probes were
built on a new standard probe platform that is supposed to be "factory
produced" (I don't know exactly what that means, I'm working from memory and
the artical was short on specifics) instead of hand built inorder to reduce
costs. The problem is that the new probes are lower quality, less reliable,
and have little redundancy built in (ie low cost).

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 12:50:12 GMT
From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu  (Patt Haring)
Subject: Outer Space Committee Concludes General Exchange of Views

Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via 
  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733

We want ** your ** news bulletins:
  (FAX: 212-787-1726 : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
or ...!uunet!rutgers!rubbs!unitex

To subscribe to the UNITEX mailing list, send your subscription
request to:  unitex-request@rubbs.UUCP

OUTER SPACE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES GENERAL EXCHANGE OF VIEWS

        Begins Discussion of Ways to Maintain Outer Space for Peaceful
    Purposes; Hears Introduction of Report by UN Space Applications Expert

     The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space this afternoon
concluded its general exchange of views, hearing a statement by China and by a
representative of the European Space Agency.

     The Committee then began a discussion on ways and means of maintaining
outer space for peaceful purposes, hearing a statement by a representative of
the Soviet Union, who repeated his Government's proposal for the establishment
of a world space organization to oversee international activities in space
development.

     The Committee also heard the introduction of a report of the United
Nations Expert on Space Applications, Adigun Abiodun, as it began
consideration of agenda items on the report of its Scientific and Technical
Sub-Committee, and on the implementations of the recommendations of the 1982
United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
(UNISPACE 82).

     The Committee will continue its discussion of the peaceful uses of outer
space, as well as on UNISPACE 82 and the Scientific and Technical
Sub-Committee report, at its next meeting, at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, 8 June.

     Committee Work Programme

     The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space met this afternoon to
conclude its general exchange of views, and to begin discussion of ways and
means of maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes, which had been
designated a matter of priority by the General Assembly.  (For background, see
Press Release OS/1419 of 2 June.)

     General Debate

     TANG CHENGYUAN (China) said China's space programme had registered
continuous and steady progress, and since last June it had successfully
launched three satellites, one of which contained some experimental equipment
from the Federal Republic of Germany.  It was the third time China had offered
such a service to a foreign country.  China had also successfully launched
25 man-made earth satellites.  It was conducting research into the development
of a new generation of low-cost, toxic-free and pollution-free launch rockets
with greater propelling power.

     The present trend towards relaxation in international relations had
created more favourable conditions for international space co-operation, he
said.  Through the Space Applications Programme, United Nations agencies had
provided the developing countries with technical consultations.  Within the
United Nations framework, a variety of training courses, symposiums and
workshops had been held, contributing to the co-ordination of space
activities.  Regional space co-operation agencies had also been strengthened.
Good results had already been achieved in the implementation of the
recommendations of the 1982 United Nations Conference on the Exploration and
Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE 82), he said.

     China would continue to make efforts for the implementation of the Space
Applications Programme.  Last September, China and the United Nations Outer
Space Affairs Division had co-sponsored in Beijing a symposium on progress in
the application of satellite telecommunications.  Last April, China and some
United Nations agencies had co-sponsored in Beijing a training course on
remote-sensing optics and the chemical image processing.  Next year, the
Chinese Government and United Nations agencies would co-sponsor an
international symposium on the utilization of space technology to combat
natural disasters.  China fully supported the activities concerning
international space year, and had already set up a preparatory committee on
the year to co-ordinate and prepare for such activities.

     The main task of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space was
the discussion of scientific, technical and legal questions concerning the
peaceful use of the outer space, he said, with the aim of strengthening
international co-operation in that area.  He expressed satisfaction at
progress made in the Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee on the use of
nuclear power sources, and said that progress made by the Legal Sub-Committee
had also been encouraging:  two principles on nuclear power sources had been
adopted and groundwork laid for agreement on other principles.

     JEAN ARETS, representative of the European Space Agency (ESA), and that
in 1989, the member States of the Agency were marking their twenty-fifth
anniversary of co-operation in outer space exploration.

     Reviewing relevant progress, he said in 1987, members had approved a
long-term plan which would guide Agency activities until the end of the
century.  In 1988, an intergovernmental agreement had been signed by the
United States, Japan, Canada and the European States taking part in the
Columbus programme, while the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of
the United States (NASA) and ESA had signed an agreement to develop a
programme for an international space station.  In addition, the thirtieth
launch of an Ariane rocket had just been completed.

     In the area of telecommunications, he said the EUTELSAT organization was
now completely operational.  In June 1989, the Olympus satellite, the largest
communications satellite built in Europe, would be launched.  The satellite
would allow the development of high definition television, as well as
experiments in using higher frequencies.  In the area of observation, the
first Meteosat satellite had been launched, which, together with another
satellite already in orbit, would contribute to the success of the
international space year by providing greater knowledge of the earth's
environment.  The ERS-1 satellite was open to international co-operation, and
agreements had been signed with the United States and Japan.

     Regarding the implementation of UNISPACE 82 resolutions, he said the

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
--  
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG

-- 
Patt Haring                  | Vote * YES * for creation of 
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | misc.headlines.unitex  
patth@ccnysci.BITNET         | email votes to: patth@ccnysci.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 20:12:09 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Phil Nelson)
Subject: Re: Outer Space Committee Concludes General Exchange of Views

In article <2258@ccnysci.UUCP> patth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes:
>Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via 
>  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733
>
>We want ** your ** news bulletins:
>  (FAX: 212-787-1726 : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
>or ...!uunet!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
>
>To subscribe to the UNITEX mailing list, send your subscription
>request to:  unitex-request@rubbs.UUCP
>
>OUTER SPACE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES GENERAL EXCHANGE OF VIEWS

... cut a lot of crap ...


 If I am ever able to build the sort of spaceship I would like, you can bet
it will be well armed. Why? Simply to keep cretins like the members of this
comittee from compelling me to live my life the way they think I should. I
would be perfectly peaceful in my well armed spaceship, as long as these
advocates of "One World" (read anthill) don't send the space police ("Oh,
did we forget to tell you about arms for the police?") to "educate" me. In
that case, I would send them a present - 100 Megatons should be about right,
proximity fused. Then they can attempt the pacification of Hell.

 I only hope some of use get off this Anthill before Big Brother shuts the
Human Race down for good.

>-- 
>Patt Haring                  | Vote * YES * for creation of 
>rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | misc.headlines.unitex  
>patth@ccnysci.BITNET         | email votes to: patth@ccnysci.UUCP


P.S. ...and don't call me Libertarian, I'm a member of the Republican Party.

P.P.S. Yes, these are DEFINITELY my own opinions. No, I'm not kidding.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 21:43:50 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for week of 06/13/89 (Forwarded)


                     MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS
                             June 13
 
 
     This is a weekly status report. The spacecraft continues
successful operation with twice daily momentum wheel
desaturations and once-a-day star calibrations.
     
     The Solid Rocket Motor was armed on June 5 to avoid any
later cruise problem that would preclude the arming.
 
     Several characterization tests were conducted during the
past week to define the telecommunications link between the
spacecraft Radio Frequency Subsystem (RFS) and the Deep Space
Network. Static Phase Error Tests were performed Monday and
Thursday to determine the spacecraft receiver's rest frequency.
An S-band test also was conducted Wednesday and will be repeated
Friday. After some minor lock-up problems, the tests were
satisfactorily completed.
 
     Cruise loads 4 and 4A were tested through the System
Verification Lab and were transmitted June 9.
 
     The Rocket Engine Modules (REMs), while well below upper
temperature limits now, will get warmer as the spacecraft draws
closer to the sun and will restrict use of the High-Gain Antenna,
and the Deep Space Network very long baseline interferometry
tests. Martin Marietta and JPL are formulating jointly a test
plan, using spare components, to determine the maximum safe
temperature for the REMs.
 
     The spacecraft team is analyzing another heat problem that
will drive the head-end temperature of the Solid Rocket Motor
case above the current flight limits. It is currently 32 C (89.6
F) with a current redline limit of 38 C (100.4 F). Morton
Thiokol is working with the team to examine the limits.
 
     
 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                    5,497,458
     
     Velocity Geocentric                         5,033 mph
              Heliocentric                      61,624 mph
 
     One Way Light Time                           29.5 sec

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 20:18:28 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Phil Nelson)
Subject: Re: Outer Space Committee Concludes General Exchange of Views


 The machine wouldn't send a five line .sig, so here's a shorter version-

-- 
Phil Nelson at (but not speaking for)                  OnTyme:NSC.P/Nelson
Tymnet, McDonnell Douglas Network Systems Company       Voice:408-922-7508
UUCP:{pyramid|ames}oliveb!tymix!pnelson              LRV:Component Station
"What we face is government troops and we have no guns."  -Chinese Student

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 89 12:13:46 SET
From: Jenny Franks <KA%DDAESA10.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Unsubscribe


Please remove me from your subscription list.

Thank you.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 14:06:27 GMT
From: voder!nsc!taux01!amos@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this

In article <2322@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>A news item on the TV at the weekend reported that Neil Armstrong,
>accompanied Buzz Aldrin, will appear on a live TV special to
>mark the 20th anniversary of the first manned moon landing.
>
>The catch? The special is for a French TV company.

I have just seen the interview the other day, and it was a sad scene
indeed - these guys are almost (?) 60!  And so, my childhood
heroes are old men now, and nobody is even planning on following
in their footsteps... :-( :-( :-(


-- 
	Amos Shapir				amos@nsc.com
National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
Tel. +972 52 522261  TWX: 33691, fax: +972-52-558322
34 48 E / 32 10 N			(My other cpu is a NS32532)

------------------------------

Date:        TUE 13 JUN 1989 09:11:00 EDT
From: Robert Nelson <FREE012%TRANSY.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Sender: "Allen Hinkle - TU Computing Center; (606)233-8134"
             <HINKLE0@TRANSY>
To: <SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Subject: 

   The TU computing center would greatly appreciate it if you would
remove FREE012@TRANSY from your mailing list.  The said person is a
student here and has gone home for the summer and will not return until
mid September.  Thank you.
                                             Allen Hinkle
                                             Programmer/Analyst
                                             TU Computing Center

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #488
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jun 89 03:46:52 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02976> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 89 03:38:52 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 16 Jun 89 03:38:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYa:e6S00Ui3M100Q1>;
          Fri, 16 Jun 89 03:21:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.gYa:aI:00UkVI8Q040>;
          Fri, 16 Jun 89 03:17:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8Ya-ZAi00UkVQ8OU4o@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 89 03:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #489

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 489

Today's Topics:
		      Test - astro,space,physics
     NASA, Amroc agree to critical chemical exchange (Forwarded)
			   Orbital queries
		   Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
				   
	Ozone depletion, atmospheric models, and public policy
			Don't mess with NASA?
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		    Re: How Hubble will get there
		  Re: comet strike in the carolinas?
		    comet strike in the carolinas?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 18:36:34 GMT
From: dasys1!mohib@nyu.edu  (Mohib)
Subject: Test - astro,space,physics

Test.

-- 
Mohib N Durrani
Big Electric Cat Public UNIX
..!cmcl2!{ccnysci,cucard,hombre}!dasys1!mohib

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 89 16:05:15 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA, Amroc agree to critical chemical exchange (Forwarded)

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 14, 1989

RELEASE:  89-92

NASA, AMROC AGREE TO CRITICAL CHEMICAL EXCHANGE

     Under a recent agreement between NASA and the American 
Rocket Company (AMROC), Camarillo, Calif., NASA has provided a 
critical chemical to the company for its scheduled launch of a 
commercial Single Module Launch Vehicle (SMLV) from Vandenberg 
Air Force Base, Calif., in July.

     AMROC's supply of hydrogen peroxide, used in the reaction 
control system of the SMLV, was found to be unusable upon 
delivery.  Replacement by the overseas manufacturer could not be 
delivered in time for the launch date.

     AMROC turned to NASA after exhausting attempts to acquire 
the chemical from other commercial sources.  NASA uses hydrogen 
peroxide in its Scout launch vehicle reaction control systems.  
Within 2 weeks, after determining that its Scout vehicle supplies 
were adequate to cover near-term demands, NASA provided two drums 
(about 600 lbs.) of the chemical to AMROC.

     "NASA's quick response and positive commitment aided us in 
holding our flight test schedules and target launch date for our 
customers," said George Koopman, president of AMROC.  "This is 
the kind of partnership, cooperation and support the commercial 
expendable launch vehicle (ELV) industry wants and needs."

     The chemical was provided to AMROC on a reimbursable basis 
from supplies at the Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, 
Va.  NASA will restore and expand its supply for Scout vehicles 
this fall.  NASA is assisting the commercialization of the 
nation's fledgling ELV industry by making available use of its 
unique personal expertise, services and facilities that are not 
available from the private sector.

     NASA also is purchasing its ELV launch services needs 
directly from commercial operators, whenever possible, to support 
its scientific and applications missions that are not assigned to 
fly on the Space Shuttle.  Missions that do not require the 
unique capabilities of the Space Shuttle are being placed on ELVs 
in support of NASA's policy to use a mixed fleet of Shuttles and 
ELVs to assure access to space for its programs.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 89 21:20:46 GMT
From: rsmith@louie.udel.edu  (R Timothy Smith)
Subject: Orbital queries


Two questions:

  1)  What activities would you use to convince students (say in the 4th- 
	through 9th-grade range) that the motion of the moon around the 
	earth and the earth around the sun (viewed from above the northern 
	hemisphere in space) are both counter-clockwise?  What alternatives 
	are there to noting times at which the moon or stars arrive at the 
	same point in the sky on consecutive nights?

  2)  Why do most space launches orbit west-to-east relative to the earth's 
	surface?  Obviously other possibilities exist (e.g., geosynchronous 
	and polar).  Nonetheless, I don't know of any that go east-to-west.  
	How come?

Thanks in advance for any insights -
								- Tim

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 89 14:44:02 GMT
From: beowulf!stramm@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Bernd Stramm)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

In article <5182@mtgzz.att.com> dls@mtgzz.att.com (d.l.skran) writes:
>
>My guess is that these figures are low by a factor of 2 or 3 for
>propaganda purposes. They are totally unbelievable.
>
>Dale not Amon Skran

Remember that their pricing is kind of artificial --- since they
don't have a market economy, the government basically sets the
prices of what they buy, so prices don't reflect "real" cost.

######################################################################
stramm%cs@ucsd.edu	ARPA (new) 	|	Bernd Stramm 
stramm@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu ARPA (old) 	| CSE Department, UC San Diego
bstramm@ucsd		BITNET 		| La Jolla, Ca 92093

------------------------------

Date:        WED 14 JUN 1989 09:03:00 EDT
From: "Allen Hinkle - TU Computing Center; (606)233-8134"
             <HINKLE0@TRANSY>
To: <SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Subject: 

   The TU computing center would greatly appreciate it if you would
remove FREE012@TRANSY from your mailing list.  The said person is a
student here and has gone home for the summer and will not return until
mid September.  Thank you.
                                             Allen Hinkle
                                             Programmer/Analyst
                                             TU Computing Center

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 15:36:00 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Ozone depletion, atmospheric models, and public policy


>From: ginosko!infinet!ulowell!tegra!vail@uunet.uu.net  (Johnathan Vail)
>In article <386@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>>I suspected from the beginning that the so-called 'ozone hole' was just
>>part of a natural cycle that we would have been seeing all along if we
>>had had satellites for decades.  It makes no sense whatsoever that a
>>fluorocarbon-induced hole would first appear over the south pole.
>It makes no sense until you understand it.  Maybe to someone who does
>it makes perfect sense.

This is not an entirely reasonable argument, since the proposed "fix" is
to undertake a presumably expensive switch to alternate products, with us
as consumers or taxpayers expected to foot the bill. The scientific community
appears to be very hesitant to provide the "general public" with sufficient
information to make an informed decision on the matter.

I went to our technical library looked through some books on ozone
depletion written since 1980, and came to the following conclusions:

 - The main reason the scientists are so hesitant at giving out authoritative
   information is that they don't have much themselves. Most of their work
   involves the construction of atmospheric models, which disagree with
   one another at many points. Whenever a new piece of information comes in,
   several models are killed off, and new ones are created to take their place.

 - It is generally agreed that an increase in the short wavelength ultraviolet
   light reaching the surface is undesirable. This light can be blocked by O3
   (ozone) or by O2 (regular oxygen). (The books don't really go into the
   relative effectiveness of the two.) Ozone is generated by lower-atmospheric
   processes and in the upper atmosphere when high energy UV light blasts an
   O2 molecule apart. Ozone eventually breaks down by itself, but the process
   can be speeded by the presence of certain substances or other conditions. 
   The rates of generation and breakdown determine the equilibrium level.

 - It has been determined that chlorine and certain other substances can speed
   the breakdown process in the upper atmosphere, lowering the equilibrium
   level of ozone. Chlorine can be released by the breakdown of CFCs from
   aerosol cans, refrigerators, etc. CFCs tend to break down very slowly,
   with an expected lifetime of 50-100 years. The free chlorine atoms last
   only a relatively short time, before combining with other substances and
   drifting back toward the troposphere. Thus any effects from CFCs build up
   only gradually, and take a long time to die out. This long-term effect is
   the main reason for concern.

 - Ozone depletion by chlorine is expected to be effective only in the upper
   atmosphere. If the current ozone layer were depleted, it is expected that
   more ozone would form lower down, but scientists basically have no idea
   on how much would form, and to what extent it would compensate for depletion
   of the upper layer. Ozone produced by humans at the surface would also
   block ultraviolet light to some extent.

 - There is very little interest in measuring the short wavelength ultraviolet
   light at the surface. Many (but not all) researchers seem to feel that 
   depletion of the current ozone layer would be directly proportional to
   increase of ultraviolet at the surface.

 - I would assume that the winter holes in the ozone layer at the poles
   are caused by depletion of the ozone when there is not much sunlight
   present. The ozone builds back up in the spring when the sun reappears.
   Of course, the ozone layer isn't really *needed* at night. Again, not
   much apparent interest in measuring UV levels at the ground.

 - Most or all of the chlorine in the upper atmosphere is assumed to be a
   result of human activity. Not much on the speculation that the ocean
   could be the source of much of the chlorine. (The ocean contains huge
   quantities of chlorine in the form of salt, and salt particles are known
   to travel at least into the upper troposphere.)

 - Though the books don't really specify, I presume that the breakdown model
   for the CFCs would be a standard exponential decay. If this is the case,
   then any effects would start to diminish almost immediately if the release
   of CFCs were suddenly stopped.

I believe this is a fairly accurate representation of much of the information
in the books I looked through. Any more authoritative information would be
welcome. In any event, it appears that the current political climate will
cause CFCs to be phased out, though Soviet physicists remain unconvinced
that there is solid evidence of a hazard. In a few years, the scientists
involved will give a sigh of relief and exclaim, "See? We saved the world!"
                                 John Roberts
                                 roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (new address)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 89 18:10:08 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Don't mess with NASA?

On my way into work this morning, as I passed Moffett Field,
I noticed a NASA helicopter hovering about the active runway.

What use could they have for a Bell HueyCobra (AH-1<mumble>)?

(I know, it's probably a testbed for some new rotor design,
but, on the other hand, perhaps someone is getting tired of
vocal critics... :} )

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 89 19:00:42 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <109957@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:

   On my way into work this morning, as I passed Moffett Field,
   I noticed a NASA helicopter hovering about the active runway.

   What use could they have for a Bell HueyCobra (AH-1<mumble>)?

   (I know, it's probably a testbed for some new rotor design,
   but, on the other hand, perhaps someone is getting tired of
   vocal critics... :} )

We have a B-52, fighters, and attack aircraft here at Ames-Dryden.  
Be nice!

(Do I really have to add the smiley?)
--

M F Shafer                                |Ignore the reply-to address
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility |Use shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 21:31:10 GMT
From: stsci!berry@noao.edu  (Jim Berry)
Subject: Re: How Hubble will get there

>From article <502@cybaswan.UUCP>, by iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood):
> In article <583@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes:
>>(and yes, I promise to be a good boy and _NOT_ post TLAs without translations
>>  from now on)
>>

> Ok, so - er - what's a TLA please?

> Steve

Three Letter Acronym.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Berry                         | UUCP:{arizona,decvax,hao}!noao!stsci!berry
Space Telescope Science Institute | ARPA:   berry@stsci.edu
Baltimore, Md. 21218              | SPAM:   SCIVAX::BERRY, KEPLER::BERRY

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 89 19:19:10 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: comet strike in the carolinas?


In NASA SP-486, "Geomorphology from Space", pp. 432-433, is a list
of 15 possible origins of the Carolina Bays, including meteor swarms
and spawning fish, and some nice photos showing the overlap and
alignment.

I'm not going to key in the whole thing, but they say that all
hypotheses except aeolian blowouts (deflation) are untenable.  They
say it happened in the Pleistocene, with wind and wave action
producing the alignment of the half million (!) lakes.  There are
references.

If the original poster will provide an address I will send a xerox
copy of the relevent pages.  Maybe s/he will key the whole thing in
for anyone else who's interested.

Incidently, this SP is really great.  Try to get a copy.
--

M F Shafer                                |Ignore the reply-to address
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility |Use shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 13:46:52 EDT
From: capnal@aqua.whoi.edu (Alan Duester)
Subject: comet strike in the carolinas?


Stu Friedberg  (stuart@cs.wisc.edu) replied:
>The need for a high water table accounts for the restriction to coastal
>areas (high confidence).  The large-scale orientation of geological
>strata of soluble mineral (e.g., limestone) accounts for the
>consistent orientation (moderate to low confidence).
>
>Of course, that's a hypothesis made in the absence of evidence.  I would
>expect both of your hypotheses could be easily falsified by cursory
>examination.  If location of soluble stone doesn't coincide with the
>Carolina Bays, mine can be discarded.  If evidence of splashing, fusion, 
>and foreign minerals is lacking, yours can be discarded.  (If we are
>talking tens or hundreds of thousands of grazing impacts there should
>be some remnant of the impacting meteors, wouldn't you agree?)

First, I agree emphaticaly that cursory examination could shoot down 
either hypothesis.  I am amazed that no one seems able to do so instantly 
by refering to some serious studies of the Bays.  

Second, these features *do* overlap as craters should.  You can see little
ones overlapping big ones and the other way around, as well as small 
ones completely contained within big ones. Some sort of soluble strata 
causing these features seems difficult to explain.

Third, if the features were created by a mostly-ice comet, I doubt if you'd
see any direct remains (specifically no magnetic anomoly).  You should see
some signs of shock structures in cores around the area however.  If all
the nearby strata were undisturbed, no meteors for sure.

>Re: Carolina bays.... Are you sure they're not glaciation features?

No, of course I'm not sure! I'm looking for hard evidence and am amazed 
there isn't much around.  Science doesn't move by evidence alone however. 
Suspicion and hunches about what is a productive avenue to follow are 
always important. I *suspect* that anything left by glaciers would be more 
erratic in shape.  I also have a hunch these might actually be craters in 
which case the ramifications re extinction events and environmental trauma
should be interesting.

>..It seems to me that common geological processes can create
>parallel, linear features that run considerable distances.
>I'm picturing parallel, linear folding and thrusting along
>a subduction zone, for example; followed by weathering, leaving you
>with a lot of aligned features such as lakes.
>
>What would be most telling would be if you could show that the
>common axis of these features was *contradictory* to some
>detectable geographical axis ... "the mountains go thisaway
>and these here bays all run cross-grain to 'em" .. that would
>be striking.

Yeah, I'd like to know what the strata around there really are.  Aligned 
near-linear geological structures are common, but perfect ellipses (lots
of 'em) sure look odd. Hence my interest.

If anyone is interested, send me a SASE and I'll send you xerox copies of
some of the photo mosaics I have. Snail mail address is Al Bradley, Woods
Hole Oceanographic, Woods Hole, Mass, 02543.  If anyone can find some hard
info on these things, I'd sure like to know.

Email c/o: capnal@aqua.whoi.edu

===============================================================================
Al Duester, Ocean Engineer, MS S201   #  SPAN: 6308::capnal or capnal@6308.span
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution  #  INTERNET:  capnal@aqua.whoi.edu
Woods Hole, MA  02543                 #  GEnie:  A.DUESTER
(508) 548-1400 x2474 (ans. Machine, voice messages,
(508) 457-2000 auto-receptionist for touch tone phones
===============================================================================

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #489
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jun 89 05:45:09 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00503> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 16 Jun 89 05:38:16 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 16 Jun 89 05:38:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cYaAObG00Ui301104o>;
          Fri, 16 Jun 89 05:21:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.8YaALwm00UkV08a05F>;
          Fri, 16 Jun 89 05:18:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <AYaAK2600UkV48YU4c@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 89 05:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #490

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 490

Today's Topics:
	 NASA issues updated mixed fleet manifest (Forwarded)
		    Planetoid 1989 FC information.
	       Payload Status for 06/15/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 89 19:23:32 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA issues updated mixed fleet manifest (Forwarded)

Barbara Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 14, 1989
                                                       2 p.m. EDT

RELEASE:  89-93

NASA ISSUES UPDATED MIXED FLEET MANIFEST


     NASA today issued an updated mixed fleet manifest projecting 
current planning for primary payloads for Space Shuttle missions 
and expendable launch vehicles (ELV) through Fiscal Year 1995.  
In addition to the changes in the Space Shuttle flight sequence 
through STS-37 announced on May 12, this latest launch schedule 
continues to reflect NASA's commitment to the various science 
disciplines.

     Following the successful launch of the Magellan spacecraft 
to Venus in May, the planetary schedule is maintained with the 
Galileo flight to Jupiter being readied for launch on Oct. 12, 
1989, and the Ulysses mission to study the sun scheduled for 
October 1990.  Additionally, the first of the great 
observatories, the Hubble Space Telescope, is now scheduled for 
launch aboard the orbiter Discovery in March 1990.

     In support of Earth sciences, six additional Shuttle Solar 
Backscatter Ultraviolet (SSBUV) missions have been added to the 
line-up and the four previously-manifested SSBUV missions have 
been accelerated.   The SSBUV instrumentation is a critical 
element in maintaining an accurate measurement of global ozone.

     Other major science mission changes include provisions for 
additional Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science 
flights, an Astro flight and a U.S. Microgravity Payload flight.

     Recognizing the significance of recovering the Long Duration 
Exposure Facility (LDEF), a retrieval mission is slated for 
December of this year.  The LDEF, a free-flying satellite 
carrying 57 science, technology and applications experiments, was 
deployed into orbit in 1984.  After more than 5 years in space, 
LDEF -- in danger of being destroyed on reentry if not recovered 
by early 1990 -- is a valuable respository of information on 
space environmental effects.

     The first three missions to begin assembling Space Station 
Freedom are baselined in the new flight schedule in 1995.  Also 
planned are two Flight Telerobotic Servicer-Demonstration Test 
Flights, a system being developed for the space station to assist 
in assembly, service and inspection of the manned base and 
attached payloads.

     In the international programs area, a third European 
Retrievable Carrier (Eureca-3L) is now slated for launch in May 
1995.  Eureca is a platform to be placed in orbit for 6 months, 
offering conventional services to experimenters.

     Two additional Spacehab modules have been booked, bringing 
the total number of planned flights to 6.  The Spacehab is a 
commercially owned, pressurized module for conducting experiments 
in a human-tended environment.

     The new manifest also features six Shuttle "flight 
opportunities," beginning in 1992.  Use of these flight 
opportunities by payloads which slip out of their planned time 
frame will minimize major manifest revisions and promote greater 
schedule stability in payload programs.

     NASA continues to employ ELVs for payloads not requiring the 
use of the Shuttle.  Three new launches have been added to the 
ELV line-up in 1995 including the Solar Heliospheric Observatory 
aboard an Atlas II, a Geostationary Operational Environmental 
Satellite on an Atlas I and the Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby 
marking NASA's first use of a Titan IV.

	- end -


EDITORS NOTE:  The June 1989 NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest is 
available in the NASA Headquarters and field center newsrooms.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 20:12:00 GMT
From: renoir.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Planetoid 1989 FC information.


         International Astronomical Union (IAU) Circular 4767 - 1989 April 7

         H. E. Holt and N. G. Thomas report their discovery of another fast
    moving asteroidal object on 0.46m Schmidt telescope films.  E. Bowell,
    Lowell Observatory, communicates the following measurements by S. J.
    Bus and H. E. Holt. 

         Five accurate positions measured from films taken March 31, April
    2, 3, 4 follow.  The "discovery" would have occurred between then and
    April 7, when the films were compared by blinking or in a stereoscopic
    comparator.  Brian Marsden computed the orbital elements, and it was
    noted that "...the object may have made a near-record close approach
    to...Earth on March 23.0 ET."  The asteroid was magnitude 16.5 and
    dimming rapidly at discovery.  It had reached about magnitude 12 at
    closest approach.  It was crossing over 30 degrees of sky per day at
    closest approach. 
  
         For all the orbitophiles out there, the improved orbital elements
    from IAUC 4771: 

         T = 1989 Jan.13.472 ET
         e = 0.36098
         q = 0.65447 AU
         a = 1.02418 AU
         [lower case omega] = 254.903 degrees
         [upper case omega] = 179.912 degrees
         i = 4.976 degrees
         n = 0.950910 degrees
         P = 1.04 years

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 13:59:27 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 06/15/89 (Forwarded)


                                   Payload Status Report
                                   Kennedy Space Center
                                   June 15, 1989
          George Diller

          Galileo/IUS-19

               Galileo was destacked during the last week of May for
          installation of Central Data System electronics and was followed
          by computer testing.  The umbrella-like high gain antenna, which
          is scheduled for installation at the end of June, underwent a
          deployment test on May 31.  Also that day, the probe was mated to
          the orbiter's despun section.  This section together section with
          the associated retro propulsion module has now been restacked
          with the spun bus.

               Electrical testing of individual spacecraft elements has
          been underway over the past week.  On Saturday, June 10, a "stand
          alone" mission sequence test was conducted to electrically verify
          the events which the spacecraft will perform from launch through
          separation from the Inertial Upper Stage.  The IUS will also
          perform this test later in the Vertical Processing Facility.

               Yesterday and today, June 14-15, a total of 1300 pounds of
          nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer is being loaded into a pair of
          onboard oxidizer tanks.  Next week the spacecraft will be fueled
          with 800 pounds of hydrazine.

               The Inertial Upper Stage is at Cape Canaveral Air Force
          Station.  Electrical testing has been underway on the second
          stage, and a nozzle cone extension test was recently completed.
          Preparations are underway for mating the first and second stage
          late this week.


          Atlas Centaur AC-68/FltSatCom F-8

               The Atlas first stage was erected in the gantry of Pad B on
          Launch Complex 36 on June 6.  The interstage adapter was attached
          on June 7.  The Centaur stage was hoisted into the gantry and
          mated to the Atlas on June 8.  Since that time, electrical
          hookups and attachment of umbilicals have been underway.  The
          work will be completed this week.

               A power-up of the booster is scheduled on or about June 22.
          The Terminal Countdown Demonstration (TCD), a tanking of the
          vehicle and simulated countdown, is scheduled for Aug. 9.

               The FltSatCom spacecraft is scheduled to arrive at Hangar AM
          on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on July 31.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #490
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jun 89 00:56:04 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03129> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 89 00:47:18 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 17 Jun 89 00:47:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gYaRC=200UkT01z09L>;
          Sat, 17 Jun 89 00:29:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.kYaR=:G00UkVQ9R04e>;
          Sat, 17 Jun 89 00:25:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYaR92S00UkVA9PU4U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 89 00:23:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #491

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 491

Today's Topics:
	       NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 5 of 6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 14:08:24 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 5 of 6)


                                                    Facility Module (FM).  
   
AMOS                 Air Force Maui Optical         Technology development/geophysical environment study.  
                     Station                        Calibrate AMOS ground-based electro-optical sensors and  
                                                    study on-orbit plume phenomenology using the Shuttle 
                                                    as a test object.  
   
AMPTE                Active Magnetosphere           Satellite to study transfer of mass from the solar wind to 
                     Particle Tracer Experiment     the magnetosphere. 
   
ANS                  Astronomical Netherlands       Study the sky in ultraviolet and x-ray from above the  
                     Satellite                      atmosphere.  
   
APE                  Aurora Photography             Enhance understanding of the geographic extent and 
                     Experiment                     dynamics of the aurora.  
   
ARABSAT              Arab Satellite                 Communications satellite of the Arab Satellite 
                                                    Communications Organization. 
   
ARC                  Aggregation of Red Cells       Studies aggregation of red cells and blood viscosity 
                                                    under low-g conditions.  
   
ASC                  American Satellite Company     A satellite to provide commercial communication service  
                                                    to continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska, and  
                                                    Puerto Rico. 
   
ASP                  Attitude Sensor Package        Foreign Reimbursable Hitchhiker-G payload. 
   


   
                                                   6.2 






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
ASTRO                Astronomy                      Program designed to obtain ultraviolet (UV) data on  
                                                    astronomical objects using a UV telescope. 
   
ATLAS                Atmospheric Laboratory         Measures long term variability in the total energy 
                     for Applications and           radiated by the sun and determines the variability in  
                     Science                        the solar spectrum.  
   
ATLAS I/II                                          Commercial intermediate class expendable launch vehicle. 
   
AUSSAT               Australian Communication       Direct broadcast communication satellite which provides  
                     Satellite                      services to continental Australia and off-shore  
                                                    territories. 
   
AXAF                 Advanced X-Ray Astronomy       A major free flying X-Ray observatory using a high 
                     Facility                       resolution telescope.  Designed to operate in orbit for  
                                                    15 years.  
   
B/U                  Back-up                        Provides calibration data for a global ozone monitoring  
                                                    program via observations of the Earth's ultraviolet  
                                                    adbedo and the solar ultraviolet spectrol irradiance.  
   
BBXRT                Broad Band X-Ray              Provides high resolution x-ray spectra for both point and  
                     Telescope                     extended sources, including stellar coronae, x-ray,  
                                                   binaries, active agalactic nuclei, and clusters of 
                                                   galaxies.  
   
BIOPLATFORM          Biological Platform            A recoverable free-flyer platform used to conduct life 
                                                    science experiments. 
   
C                    Commander                   Member of the Shuttle flight crew in command of the flight.  
   
   


                                                   6.3 






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM        NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
C360                 Cinema 360                    35mm motion picture camera for the purpose of  
                                                   photographing crew and mission activities. 
   
CANEX                Canadian Experiment           Canadian experiment conducted by Canadian Payload  
                                                   Specialist.  
   
CAPL                 Capillary Pump Loop           Experiment to quantify behavior of a full-scale  
                     Experiment                    capillary pumped loop heat transfer system in  
                                                   microgravity.  
   
CASSINI                                            Saturn Orbiter/Titan Probe complements CRAF mission by the 
                                                   study of physically and chemically primitive objects.  
                                                   Includes a rendevous with Saturn.  
   
CBDE                 Carbonated Beverage           Pepsico, Inc. experiment to evaluate packaging and 
                     Dispenser Evaluation          dispensing techniques for space flight consumption of  
                                                   carbonated beverages.  
   
CFES                 Continuous Flow               Demonstrates the technology of pharmaceutical  
                     Electrophoresis System        processing in space. 
   
CHAMP                Comet Halley Active           Observes Comet Halley on STS flights.  
                     Monitoring Program  
   
CHROMEX              Chromosomes Experiment        Investigation of the effects of space flight on plant  
                                                   tissue growth. 
   
CLOUDS               Structures Photography        Cloud formation, dissipation and opaqueness observations.  
                     Experiments 
   
   



                                                   6.4 






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
CMG                  Commercial Middeck-Galley     An Office of Commercial Programs payload utilizing 
                                                   the Orbiter Middeck Accommodations Rack. 
   
CNCR                 Characterization of           Microgravity effects on circadian rhythms of neurospora. 
                     Neurospora Circadian  
                     Rhythms in Space  
   
COBE                 Cosmic Background             Determines the spectrum anistropy of cosmic microwave  
                     Explorer                      background.  
   
COLDSAT              Cyrogenic On Orbit            Zero-g cryogenic fluids transfer experiment. 
                     Liquid Depot-Storage  
                     and Transfer  
   
COMSTAR                                            Communications satellite for COMSAT. 
   
CRAF                 Comet Rendevous Astroid       Explores two primitive bodies to gather new  
                     Fly-by                        information on the origin and evolution of the solar 
                                                   system, prebiotic chemical evolution and the orgin 
                                                   of life, and astrophysical plasma dynamics and 
                                                   processes. 
   
CRRES                Combined Release and          Satellite involving Active Plasma Experiments and  
                     Radiation Effects             the study of radiation effects of various spacecraft 
                     Satellite                     components.  
   
CRUX                 Cosmic Rays Upset             Studies on-orbit cosmic ray environments and monitors  
                     Experiment                    upsets on microcircuit devices.  
   
CRW                  Crew                          The Shuttle flight crew for a particular mission.  
   
   


                                                   6.5 






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
CSI (Mast)           Controls Structure               Experiments which are part of the OAST Control of  
                     Interaction (Mast)               Flexible Structures program.  Project to deploy  
                                                      structures in a microgravity environment from the  
                                                      Shuttle. 
   
CTM                  Collapsible Tube Mast            Foreign Reimbursable Hitchhiker-G payload. 
   
CVTE                 Chemical Vapor Transport         Commercial experiment utilizing the Orbiter middeck. 
                     Experiment  
   
CXE                  Commercial Cross-bay             An Office of Commercial Programs payload using an EOS  
                     Carrier (EOS type)               type cross-bay carrier.  
   
CXH                  Commercial Cross-bay             An Office of Commercial Programs payload using a 
                     Carrier                          Hitchhiker-M type cross-bay carrier. 
   
DAD                  Dual Air Density                 Measures global density of upper atmosphere and lower  
                                                      exosphere. 
   
DCE                  Droplet Combustion               Conduct droplet combustion experiments in microgravity 
                     Experiment                       to obtain fundamental measurements of burning rates  
                                                      and diameters. 
   
DEE                  Dexterous End Effector           Demonstrates a sensor for the Shuttle RMS which will 
                                                      allow for more precise crew control. 
   
DFI PLT              Development Flight               A pallet used to accommodate the DFI used on the first 
                     Instrumentation Pallet           four Shuttle flights.  
   
DFVLR                                                 Federal German aerospace research establishment. 
   


   
                                                   6.6 






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
DMOS                 Diffusive Mixing of              Grow crystals of organic compounds for research programs 
                     Organic Solutions                for the 3M Corporation's Science Research Laboratory.  
   
DOD                  Department of Defense 
   
DS                   Docking System                   Docking system for use in assembly and servicing of the 
ISF. 
   
DUR                  Duration                         Mission duration of each Shuttle flight. 
   
DXS                  Diffuse X-ray Spectrometer       Makes spectral observations of the diffuse galactic  
                                                      soft X-ray background to determine the ionic 
                                                      and elemental abundances and the plasma temperature  
                                                      of the hot phase of the interstellar medium. 
   
EASE/ACCESS          Experimental Assembly of         Obtains human factors data during assembly of structures 
                     Structures in EVA/Assembly       in space during Extra Vehicular Activity.  
                     Concept for Construction of 
                     Erectable Space Structures  
   
ECT                  Emulsion Chamber Technology      Evaluation and validation of high speed particle 
                                                      chamber technology and associated shielding  
                                                      techniques.  
   
EDO                  Extended Duration Orbiter      Kit added to Orbiter to extend energy resources to support 
                                                    mission duration up to sixteen days per kit. 
   
EEVT                 Electrophoresis Equipment        Technology demonstration of apparatus to evaluate the  
                     Verification Test                effects of electrophoresis on biological cells in 0-g. 
   



   
                                                   6.7 






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
ELRAD                Earth-Limb Radiance              Obtain measurements of earth-limb radiance for various 
                     Equipment                        positions of the sun from near limb up to 9 degrees  
                                                      below earth horizon. 
   
ELV                  Expendable Launch Vehicle 
   
EO                   Escape Orbit  
   
EOIM                 Evaluation of Oxygen            Determines effects of atomic oxygen degradation on 1100  
                     Interaction with Materials      candidate materials. 
   
EOS                  Electrophoresis Operations       A carrier developed for the planned follow-on to the
                     in Space                         Continuous Flow Electrophoresis System.
   
ERBS                 Earth Radiation Budget           Collects global earth radiation budget data. 
                     Satellite 
   
ESA                  European Space Agency 
   
ESMC                 Eastern Space and Missile        USAF organization headquartered at Patrick AFB, Florida. 
                     Center  
   
EURECA               European Retrievable             Platform placed in orbit for six months offering 
                     Carrier                          conventional services to experimenters.  
   
EUVE                 Extreme Ultraviolet           Produces definitive sky map and catalog of extreme 
                     Explorer                      ultraviolet portion of electromagnetic spectrum (100-1000  
                                                   angstroms).  
   
EXOSAT               ESA X-Ray Satellite           Provides continuous observations of x-ray sources. 
   
   


                                                   6.8 






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
EXPLORER A                                            Free flying scientific spacecraft that may be solar, 
                                                      celestial or earth pointing. 
   
FASE                 Fast Auroral Snapshot            An investigation of the processes operating within 
                     Explorer                         the auroral region.  
   
FDE                  Fluid Dynamics Experiment        A package of six experiments flown on the middeck that 
                                                      involve simulating the behavior of liquid propellants in 
                                                      low gravity. 
   
FEA                  Fluids Experiment Apparatus      A middeck payload sponsored by OCP and Rockwell  
                                                      International as part of a Joint Endeavor  
                                                      Agreement to perform floating zone crystal 
                                                      growth processing investigations on selected 
                                                      semi-conductor materials.  
   
FEE                  French Echocardiograph           Obtains on-orbit cardiovascular system data. 
                     Equipment 
   
FLT                  Flight                           The flight sequence number for Shuttle missions. 
   
FLT OPPTY            Flight Opportunity               A planned Shuttle flight without assigned payloads.  
                                                      Use of flight opportunities by payloads which slip 
                                                      out of their planned time frame will avoid major 
                                                      restructuring of the manifest, maintaining 
                                                      greater schedule stability for payload programs.  
   
FLTSATCOM            Fleet Communication              U.S. Navy communications satellite.  
                     Satellite 
   


   
                                                   6.9 






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
FM                   Facility Module                  A man-tended module in support of ISF providing  
                                                      space for middeck locker inserts and common  
                                                      racks for payload accommodations.  
   
FPE                  French Postural Experiment       Studies sensory-motor adaptations in weightlessness. 
   
FR                   Foreign Reimbursable             Foreign reimbursable Hitchhiker-G type payload.  
   
FSC                  Fleet Satellite                  U.S. Navy communications satellite (same as 
FLTSATCOM).  
                     Communications  
   
FSS                  Flight Support System            Support system used for revisit missions.  
   
FTS-DTF              Flight Telerobotic Servicer      Flight test of a Telerobotic concept for Space Station 
                     Demonstration Test Flight        attached payload assembly and maintenance, platform  
                                                      and satellite servicing, space station and maintenance 
                                                      assembly inspection. 
   
GALAXY                                                Hughes communications satellite. 
   
GALILEO                                               Investigates the chemical composition and physical state 
                                                      of Jupiter's atmosphere and satellites.  
   
GAS BRIDGE           Getaway Special Bridge          Structure in the payload bay that can hold up to twelve  
                                                     GAS canisters. 
   
GEOSTAR                                               Interactive radiodetermination satellite.  
   
GEOTAIL                                               Explore Geotail of the Earth Plasma Physics. 
   
   


                                                   6.10  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
GHCD                 Growth Hormone                   Microgravity effects on growth hormone distribution  
                     Concentration &                  of various plant life. 
                     Distribution in Plants  
   
GLOMR                Global Low Orbit Message         Packet data relay satellite. 
                     Relay 
   
GLOW                                                  Atmospheric luminosities investigation.  
   
GOES                 Geostationary Operational        NOAA weather satellites. 
                     Environmental Satellite 
   
GP                   Gravity Probe                 Scientific probe to test Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  
   
GRO                  Gamma Ray Observatory         Investigates extraterrestrial gamma-ray sources. 
   
GSO                  Geosynchronous Orbit  
   
GTO                  Geosynchronous Transfer 
                     Orbit 
   
HC-XX                Hughes Communications         Series of commercial communications satellites.  
   
HCMM                 Heat Capacity Mapping         Produces thermal maps for discrimination of rock types,  
                     Mission                       mineral resources, plant temperatures, soil moisture,  
                                                   snow fields, and water runoff. 
   
HE                   High Eccentricity Orbit 
   
HEAO                 High Energy Astronomical         Satellite to study energetic radiation from space. 
                     Observatory 
   
   

                                                   6.11  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  

   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
HELIO                Heliocentric  
   
HH-G                 Hitchhiker-Goddard               A Shuttle cargo bay payload carrier system for side  
                                                      wall experiments.  
   
HH-M                 Hitchhiker-Marshall              A Shuttle cargo bay across-bay carrier system for  
                                                      small experiments. 
   
HILAT                                                 Evaluate propagation effects of disturbed plasmas on 
                                                      radar and communications systems.  
   
HME                  Handheld Microgravity            Provides for middeck experiments of limited scope in 
                     Experiment                       order to allow for low-cost, timely testing of 
                                                      concepts or procedures, or the early acquisition of  
                                                      data.  
   
HPCG                 Handheld Protein Crystal         Develops techniques to produce in low-g protein crystals 
                     Growth                           of sufficient size and quality to permit molecular 
                                                      analysis by diffraction techniques.  
   
HPE                  Heat Pipe Experiment             Foreign Reimbursable Hitchhiker-G payload. 
   
HPTE                 High Precision Tracking          Demonstrates ability to propagate a low power laser beam 
                     Experiment                       through the atmosphere.  
   
HS-376 RET           HS-376 Retrieval                 Salvage of HS-376 communication satellites launched on 
                                                      the tenth Shuttle mission. 
   
HST                  Hubble Space Telescope         Observes the universe to gain information abouts its 
                                                    origin, evolution and disposition of stars, galaxies, etc. 
   
   

                                                   6.12  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
HST-REV              Hubble Space Telescope-          Revisit mission to the Hubble Space Telescope to replace 
                     Revisit                          science instruments on other orbital replacement units 
                                                      (ORU's). 
   
IBSE                 Initial Blood Storage            Evaluates changes in blood tissue during various storage 
                     Equipment                        conditions.  
   
IBSS                 Infrared Background           Obtains infrared measurements on rocket plumes, shortwave  
                     Signature Survey              infrared Earth-limb, Shuttle environment, and  
                                                   chemical release from the payload bay while  
                                                   detached in proximity to the Orbiter.  
   
ICBC                 IMAX Cargo Bay Camera 
   
IECM                 Induced Environment           A package of ten instruments designed to fly in the  
                     Contamination Monitor         Orbiter payload bay on a special pallet to check for 
                                                   contamination in and around the Orbiter.  It also  
                                                   has the capability to be operated on the end of the RMS  
                                                   outside of the payload bay.  
   
IEF                  Isoelectric Focussing         Gathers experimental data on the extent of electro-  
                     Experiment                    osmosis in space.  
   
IEH                  International Extreme-UV      Hitchhiker experiment to study ultraviolet emissions.  
                     Far-UV Hitchhiker 
   
IFCE/ESA             In-Flight Contamination       A group of sensors mounted on the ESA Mast to study the  
                     Experiment/ESA                contamination environment within 15 meters above the 
                                                   Shuttle bay. 
   
   


                                                   6.13  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
IG                   Igloo                         Structure which provides a pressurized and thermally 
                                                   controlled environment for Spacelab pallet subsystems. 
   
IMAX                 IMAX Systems Corp.,           A large screen motion picture format used by the NASA/ 
                     Toronto, Ontario, Canada      Smithsonian project documenting significant space  
                                                   activities.  
   
IML                  International Microgravity    Series of microgravity missions devoted to material and  
                     Laboratory                    life sciences studies. 
   
INCL                 Inclination                   Orbit inclination in degrees.  
   
INMARSAT             International Maritime        PAM-D2 class communications satellite to be used for 
                     Satellite Organization        international maritime communications services.  
   
INSAT                Indian Satellite              Communication and meteorological satellite for the 
                                                   government of India. 
   
INTELSAT             International Tele-           International telecommunications satellite network for 
                     communications Satellite      the International Telecommunications Satellite 
                                                   Organization.  
   
IOCM                 Interim Operational           Measures molecular and particulate contamination in  
                     Contamination Monitor         the cargo bay from prelaunch to post-landing.  
   
IR-IE                Infrared Imaging              Infrared video camera used to measure temperature  
                     Equipment                     gradients on the Orbiter surface.  
   
IRAS                 Infrared Astronomical         All sky survey for objects that emit infrared radiation. 
                     Satellite 
   
   

                                                   6.14  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
IRCFE                Infrared Communications          Demonstrates the feasibility of using diffuse infrared 
                     Flight Experiment                light as a carrier for STS crew communications.  
   
IRIS                 Italian Research                 Italian upper stage for use on the Shuttle.  
                     Interim Stage 
   
IRT                  Integrated Rendezvous            A target for testing of Shuttle Orbiter rendezvous 
                     Radar Target                     techniques and capabilities in orbit.  
   
ISAIAH               Israeli Space Agency             Gravity perceptions by hornets and their reactions to  
                     Investigation About Hornets      changes in gravity.  
   
ISC                  International Space              Commercial joint endeavor activity.  
                     Corporation 
   
ISF                  Industrial Space Facility        Commercially-owned, man-tended orbiting facility 
                                                      for research and manufacturing activities. 
   
ITV                  Instrumented Test Vehicle        Target for Anti Satellite. 
   
IUS                  Inertial Upper Stage             Upper stage system for Shuttle and Titan.  
   
IUTE                 Industry University              Series of Space Technology experiments.  
                     Technology Experiment 
   
L3                   Latitude/Longitude Locator       Tests the capability of a space sextant/camera system to 
                                                      locate earth surface targets within 10 nautical miles. 
   
LADD                 Lens Antenna Deployment          To demonstrate repeated deployment of a membrane antenna 
                     Demonstration                    including reliability, flatness, etc.  
   

   
                                                   6.15  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
LAGEOS               Laser Geodynamics             Spherical satellite covered with retroflectors which 
                     Satellite                     are illuminated by ground-based lasers to determine  
                                                   precise measurements of the Earth's crustal movements. 
                                                   Satellite is totally passive.  
   
LDEF                 Long Duration Exposure        Free-flying satellite providing accommodations for 
                     Facility                      experiments requiring long-duration exposure to the  
                                                   space environment. 
   
LEO                  Low Earth Orbit 
   
LFC                  Large Format Camera           Acquire synoptic, high-resolution images of the Earth's  
                                                   surface. 
   
LIFESAT              Life Sciences Satellite       Life science flights with micro-gravity as the 
                                                   primary objective. 
   
LITE                 Lidar In-Space                Project to demonstrate the Laser Detection and Ranging 
                     Technology Experiment         (Lidar) solid state system from space. 
   
LM                   Long Module                   Spacelab Crew Module.  
   
LO                   Lunar Observer                Geological, elemental, gravity, and magnetic field 
                                                   mapping of moon. 
   
M88-1                M88-1                         Evaluates the capability of man in space to enhance  
                                                   air, naval, and ground force operations and assesses 
                                                   the feasibility of observations of space debris while  
                                                   in orbit.  
   


   
                                                   6.16  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
MACSAT               Multi-Access Communications   DOD communications satellite.  
                     Satellite 
   
MAGELLAN                                           Spacecraft designed to globally map the surface of Venus.  
   
MAGSAT               Magnetic Field Satellite      Map the magnetic field of the earth. 
   
MBB                  Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm   A German industrial aerospace company. 
   
MD                   Middeck 
   
MLE                  Mesoscale Lightning           Record and observe the visual chracteristics of large  
                     Experiment                    scale lightning as seen from space using onboard TV

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #491
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jun 89 03:34:38 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA09598> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 89 03:27:34 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 17 Jun 89 03:27:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wYaTkLm00UkT820EFl>;
          Sat, 17 Jun 89 03:22:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.4YaTh:u00UkVQ9hk45>;
          Sat, 17 Jun 89 03:18:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4YaTfby00UkVM9gE4c@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 89 03:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #492

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 492

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Committee On Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 89 08:43:00 GMT
From: usc!polyslo!csun!fedeva!premise!mirror!frog!john@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (John Woods)
Subject: Re: Committee On Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

In article <2257@ccnysci.UUCP>, patth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes:
> 
> COMMITTEE ON PEACEFUL USES OF OUTER SPACE
> ...
>      New challenges had been posed by technological achievement, he said.  The
> question of remote sensing of the earth by satellites and the use of nuclear
> power sources in space represented significant scientific progress in space
> exploration but were also issues capable of producing dire consequences for
> the security and environmental interests of many States if not correctly
> handled.
> 
The cynic's translation: go ahead and predict our weather, but if we want to 
shoot our own people, NO PEEKING!
-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu
    People...How you gonna FIGURE 'em?
    Don't bother, S.L.--Just stand back and enjoy the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #492
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jun 89 05:44:29 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00486> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 17 Jun 89 05:35:48 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 17 Jun 89 05:35:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8YaVWBG00UkT02FE5Z>;
          Sat, 17 Jun 89 05:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.EYaVSAS00UkV49sU5p>;
          Sat, 17 Jun 89 05:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYaVQZq00UkVA9r05Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 89 05:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #493

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 493

Today's Topics:
	       NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 1 of 6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 14:03:24 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 1 of 6)

FORMAT REQUIREMENETS FOR THIS MANIFEST ARE AS FOLLOWS:

THE DOCUMENT MUST BE PRINTED IN "LANDSCAPE" NOT "PORTRAIT"
FORMAT USING 8 1/2 BY 11 PAPER.

THE LEFT MARGIN SHOULD BE SET AS CLOSE TO THE EDGE AS POSSIBLE
(EX: 5 CHARACTERS OR LESS FOR THE LEFT MARGIN)

THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS PER LINE MUST BE 105 OR GREATER

THE TEXT LENGTH PER PAGE MUST BE AT LEAST 42 LINES

PAGE NUMBERS THAT APPEAR IN THE MANIFEST (EX: 2.7) APPEAR
AT THE BOTTOM OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PAGES.

GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR RETRIEVAL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION.
























                                PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS


                                     NASA MIXED FLEET


                                         JUNE 1989





                                       SUBMITTED BY


                                      Jerry J. Fitts
                         Director, Transportation Services Office


                                        APPROVED BY


                                    George W. S. Abbey
                      Acting Associate Administrator For Space Flight



                                            -i-












                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS




        SECTION                                                         PAGES


        1       MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NOTES AND SUMMARY                  1.1-1.4

        2       SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS                      2.1-2.10

        3       ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS                          3.1-3.3

        4       PREVIOUS FLIGHTS                                        4.1-4.11

        5       PAYLOAD REQUESTS                                        5.1-5.22

        6       PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST                                    6.1-6.30















                                           -ii-
























                                         SECTION 1


                          MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NOTES AND SUMMARY

















                                             1











                                MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NOTES


    O   THIS MANIFEST INCLUDES PAYLOAD ASSIGNMENTS FOR SHUTTLE AND EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 
        VEHICLE (ELV) FLIGHTS THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1995.

    O   THE MANIFEST SERVES AS A BASELINE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES.  FIRM PRIMARY AND COMPLEX 
        SECONDARY SHUTTLE PAYLOAD ASSIGNMENTS ARE MADE DURING THE FORMAL INTEGRATION 
        PROCESS APPROXIMATELY 19 MONTHS PRIOR TO LAUNCH.  OTHER SECONDARY PAYLOAD 
        ASSIGNMENTS ARE FORMALIZED 12 TO 5 MONTHS PRIOR TO LAUNCH.

    O   THE MANIFEST INCLUDES COMPLEX SECONDARY PAYLOADS.  OTHER SECONDARY PAYLOADS ARE 
        SHOWN ONLY FOR FLIGHTS ON WHICH THEY ARE FORMALLY ASSIGNED.  SECONDARY PAYLOADS 
        ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE PAYLOAD REQUESTS, SECTION 5.0.

    O   THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT, PENDING REQUIREMENTS ARE NOTED "FOR NASA PLANNING 
        PURPOSES."

    O   THE MANIFEST SUPPORTS THE COMMERCIAL SPACE INITIATIVE ANNOUNCED WITH THE NATIONAL 
        SPACE POLICY, FEBRUARY 11, 1988.

    O   SHUTTLE FLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES ARE INCLUDED IN THIS MANIFEST.  USE OF THESE BY 
        PAYLOADS WHICH SLIP OUT OF THEIR PLANNED TIME FRAME WILL MINIMIZE MAJOR MANIFEST 
        REVISIONS, RESULTING IN GREATER SCHEDULE STABILITY IN PAYLOAD PROGRAMS.









                                            1.1















                                MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NOTES

                                        (continued)


    O   UPDATES TO THIS MANIFEST ARE INTENDED TO BE ISSUED ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.

    O   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

            TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OFFICE
            MAIL CODE MC
            NASA HEADQUARTERS
            WASHINGTON, DC 20546 -- USA
            TELEPHONE: (202) 453-2347 TELEX: 497-9843 NASA WSH
            FAX: (202) 426-6285
















                                            1.2










                                            SUMMARY

                                        BY FISCAL YEAR


  YEAR              FY 1989   FY 1990   FY 1991   FY 1992   FY 1993   FY 1994   FY 1995   TOTAL

                                  EQUIVALENT SHUTTLE FLIGHTS

PAYLOADS

  NASA                2.00*     5.57      5.85      8.96     10.64      9.04      9.97    52.03

  DOD                 2.00*     3.00      3.00      0.00      0.21      1.21      0.28     9.70

  ALL OTHER            --       0.43      1.15      2.04      2.15      2.75      2.75    11.27
                      -----     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----    -----
    TOTAL             4.00*     9.00     10.00     11.00     13.00     13.00     13.00    73.00



                            EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (ELV) FLIGHTS

VEHICLE CLASS

  SMALL                1*        1         1         1         2         2         1        9  

  MEDIUM              --         3         2         2         3         2         1       13  

  INTERMEDIATE         1*        1         1         3        --        --         2        8  

  LARGE               --        --        --        --        --        --         1        1
                     ----      ----      ----      ----      ----      ----      ----     ----
    TOTAL              2*        5         4         6         5         4         5       31 


    * total flights, planned and flown


                                              1.3







                                            SUMMARY

                                       BY CALENDAR YEAR


  YEAR              CY 1989   CY 1990   CY 1991   CY 1992   CY 1993   CY 1994   CY 1995   TOTAL

                                  EQUIVALENT SHUTTLE FLIGHTS

PAYLOADS

  NASA                3.57*     6.00      4.85      9.48     10.12     10.04     10.97**  55.03

  DOD                 2.00      3.00      2.00      0.14      1.07      0.21      0.28     8.70

  ALL OTHER           0.43       --       1.15      2.38      2.81      2.75      1.75    11.27
                     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----    -----
    TOTAL             6.00*     9.00      8.00     12.00     14.00     13.00     13.00**  75.00



                            EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (ELV) FLIGHTS

VEHICLE CLASS

  SMALL                1*        1         1         1         3         1         2**     10
 
  MEDIUM               1*        2         2         3         3         1         3**     15  

  INTERMEDIATE         1*        2         1         2        --        --         2        8  

  LARGE               --        --        --        --        --        --         1        1
                     ----      ----      ----      ----      ----      ----      ----     ----
    TOTAL              3*        5         4         6         6         2         8**     34 


   *  total flights, planned and flown
  **  includes flights projected for fourth quarter


                                              1.4



























                                           SECTION 2


                              SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS















                                               2







                                 **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ****  
                                              JUNE 1989 
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 28  | 89  7 31 |  XX| 5 |DOD                          |           | C:BREWSTER H. SHAW (COL., USAF)   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  |  X | X |                             |           | P:R. N. RICHARDS (CDR., USN)      |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:DAVID C. LEESTMA (CDR., USN)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:J. C. ADAMSON (LT. COL., USA)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:MARK N. BROWN (MAJ., USAF)     |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 34  | 89 10 12 |34.3| 5 |GALILEO             IUS      |SSBUV-01   | C:DONALD E. WILLIAMS (CAPT., USN) |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 160| 5 |IMAX-02             MD       |SE-82-15   | P:MICHAEL J. MCCULLEY (CMDR., USN)|  
|     |          |    |   |                             |GHCD       | MS:SHANNON W. LUCID (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |PM-01      | MS:ELLEN S. BAKER (M.D.)          |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |MLE-03     | MS:FRANKLIN R. CHANG-DIAZ (PH.D.) |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |STEX       |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |AMOS-03    |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 33  | 89 11 19 | XX | 5 |DOD                          |           | C:FREDERICK D. GREGORY (COL., USAF|  
|     |DISCOVERY | X  | X |                             |           | P:S. DAVID GRIGGS (RADM., USNR)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:F. STORY MUSGRAVE (M.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:KATHRYN C. THORNTON (PH.D.)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:MANLEY CARTER, JR. (CAPT., USN)|  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 32  | 89 12 18 |28.5| 5 |SYNCOM IV-05        UNIQUE   |CNCR-01    | C:DANIEL BRANDENSTEIN (CAPT., USN)|  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 190|10 |LDEF-RETR           N/A      |PCG-III-02 | P:JAMES WETHERBEE (LT. CMDR., USN)|  
|     |          |    |   |IMAX-03             MD       |FEA-02     | MS:BONNIE J. DUNBAR (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |AFE-02     | MS:DAVID LOW (M.S.-AERONAUTICS)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |MLE-04     | MS:MARSHA IVINS (B.S.-AEROSPACE)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |L3         |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |AMOS-04    |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
NOTE: IN THE MISSION INTEGRATION PROCESS, EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY ARE ENHANCED IF FLIGHT NUMBERS ARE
      MAINTAINED AFTER ASSIGNMENT AT 19 MONTHS BEFORE LAUNCH.  WITH MANIFEST CHANGES, NUMERICAL SEQUENCE
      OF EARLY FLIGHTS IS NOT MAINTAINED.   

   
                                                   2.1 






  
                                 **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ****  
                                              JUNE 1989 
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 36  | 90  2  1 | XX | 5 |DOD                          |           | C:J. O. CREIGHTON (CDR., USN)     |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | X  | X |                             |           | P:JOHN H. CASPER (COL., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:DAVID C. HILMERS (MAJ., USMC)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:R. M. MULLANE (COL., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:P. J. THUOT (LT. CDR., USN)    |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 31  | 90  3 26 |28.5| 5 |HST                 N/A      |           | C:LOREN J. SHRIVER (COL., USAF)   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 310| 5 |IMAX-04             ICBC+MD  |           | P:CHARLES F. BOLDEN (COL., USMC)  |  
|     |          |  X |   |                             |           | MS:STEVEN A. HAWLEY (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          | 330|   |                             |           | MS:B. MCCANDLESS II (CAPT., USN)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:KATHRYN D. SULLIVAN (PH.D.)    |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 35  | 90  4 26 |28.5| 7 |ASTRO-01            IG+2 PALL|           | C:VANCE D. BRAND (CIVILIAN)       |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 190| 9*|BBXRT-01            TAPS     |           | P:GUY S. GARDNER (COL., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:JOHN LOUNGE (M.S. ASTROPHYSICS)|  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:JEFFREY A. HOFFMAN (PH.D.)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:ROBERT A. R. PARKER (PH.D.)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:RONALD A. PARISE (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:SAMUEL T. DURRANCE (PH.D.)     |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 37  | 90  6  4 |28.5| 5 |GRO                 UNIQUE   |SSBUV-02   | C:S. R. NAGEL (COL., USAF)        |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 243| 5 |                             |           | P:K. D. CAMERON (LT. COL., USMC)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:JERRY L. ROSS (LT. COL., USAF) |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:JEROME APT (PH.D.)             |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:LINDA M. GODWIN (PH.D.)        |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
NOTE: IN THE MISSION INTEGRATION PROCESS, EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY ARE ENHANCED IF FLIGHT NUMBERS ARE
      MAINTAINED AFTER ASSIGNMENT AT 19 MONTHS BEFORE LAUNCH.  WITH MANIFEST CHANGES, NUMERICAL SEQUENCE
      OF EARLY FLIGHTS IS NOT MAINTAINED.   
   
* PLANS TO EXTEND TO 10 DAYS
   
   
                                                   2.2 






  
                                 **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ****  
                                              JUNE 1989 
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 38  | 90  7  9 | XX | 5 |DOD                          |           | C:R. O. COVEY (COL., USAF)        |  
|     |DISCOVERY | X  | X |                             |           | P:F. L. CULBERTSON (CDR., USN)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:R. C. SPRINGER (COL., USMC)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:CARL J. MEADE (MAJ., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:C. D. GEMAR (CAPT., USA)       |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 40  | 90  8 16 |39.0| 7 |SLS-01              LM       |GAS BRIDGE | C:B. D. O'CONNOR (COL., USMC)     |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 160| 8*|                             |           | P:JOHN E. BLAHA (COL., USAF)      |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:T. E. JERNIGAN (CIVILIAN)      |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:M. RHEA SEDDON (M.D.)          |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:JAMES P. BAGIAN (M.D.)         |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:F. D. GAFFNEY (M.D.)           |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:R. W. PHILLIPS (M.D.)          |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 41  | 90 10  5 |28.5| 5 |ULYSSES             IUS/PAM  |           |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 160| 5 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 39  | 90 11  1 |57.0| 7 |AFP-675             PALLET   |STP-01     | C:TBD                             |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 140| 8 |IBSS                SPAS     |           | P:TBD                             |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:TBD                            |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:TBD                            |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:G. S. BLUFORD (COL., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:R. J. HIEB (CIVILIAN)          |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:C. L. VEACH (CIVILIAN)         |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 42  | 90 12  6 |28.5| 7 |IML-01              LM       |GAS BRIDGE |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 160|9**|IMAX-05             N/A      |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
NOTE: IN THE MISSION INTEGRATION PROCESS, EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY ARE ENHANCED IF FLIGHT NUMBERS ARE
      MAINTAINED AFTER ASSIGNMENT AT 19 MONTHS BEFORE LAUNCH.  WITH MANIFEST CHANGES, NUMERICAL SEQUENCE
      OF EARLY FLIGHTS IS NOT MAINTAINED.   
   
* PLANS TO EXTEND TO 9 DAYS
** PLANS TO EXTEND TO 10 DAYS         
                                                   2.3 







                                 **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ****  
                                              JUNE 1989 
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 43  | 91  1 31 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-E              IUS      |SSBUV-03   |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 160| 5 |                             |SHARE II   |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |CVTE-01    |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 44  | 91  3  4 | XX | 5 |DOD                          |           |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | X  | X |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 45  | 91  3 28 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-01            IG+2 PALL|           |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 160| 9*|IMAX-06             MD       |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 46  | 91  5 16 |28.5| 7 |TSS-01              MPESS+1 P|EOIM-III/  |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 160| 7 |EURECA-1L           EURECA-A |TEMP2A-03  |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |IMAX-07             ICBC     |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 47  | 91  6 17 |44.0| 7 |SL-J                LM       |GAS BRIDGE |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 48  | 91  8 22 |33.4| 7 |STARLAB             LM+1 PAL |           |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 175| 7 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 49  | 91  9 30 |28.5| 6 |LAGEOS II           IRIS     |FTS-DTF-01 |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |GEOSTAR-01          PAM-D2   |CANEX-02   |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |ASP        |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 50  | 91 11 27 |57.0| 5 |UARS                N/A      |           |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 291| 5 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
* PLANS TO EXTEND TO 10 DAYS
   
   
   
   
                                                   2.4 







  
                                 **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ****  
                                              JUNE 1989 
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 51  | 92  1 16 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-01         SPACEHAB |CVTE-02    |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |EURECA-1R           EURECA-A |CXH-01     |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SSBUV-04   |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 52  | 92  2  6 |28.5| 7 |SL-D2               LM + USS |           |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9*|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 53  | 92  3  5 |28.5| 7 |USML-01             LM+EDO   |           |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 140|10**                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 54  | 92  4  6 |28.5| 7 |ASTRO-02            IG+2 PALL|           |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 190| 7 |BBXRT-02            TAPS     |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 55  | 92  5 18 |28.5| 5 |PUR-1                        |           |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 |USMP-01             MSL+MPESS|           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 56  | 92  6 15 |57.0| 7 |SRL-01              PALL+MPES|DEE        |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 145| 9 |                             |SDS-01     |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 57  | 92  7  9 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-02            IG+1 PALL|SPTN-02    |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 160| 7 |                             |SSBUV-05   |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 58  | 92  8  6 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY                    |           |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | TBD|TBD|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 59  | 92  8 27 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-02         SPACEHAB |CXH-02     |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 |SPAS-ORFEUS         ASTRO-SPA|           |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |GEOSTAR-02          PAM-D2   |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
* PLANS TO EXTEND TO 10 DAYS
** PLANS TO EXTEND TO 13 DAYS
   
   
                                                   2.5 






  
                                 **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ****  
                                              JUNE 1989 
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 60  | 92  9 30 | TBD| 7 |SLS-02              LM+EDO   |           |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | TBD|10*|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 61  | 92 11 12 |28.5| 7 |INMARSAT-01         PAM-D2   |SHOOT      |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |                             |SRAD/TPITS |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SPTN-DOD-01|                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 62  | 92 12 10 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-F              IUS      |CVTE-03    |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 5 |                             |SSBUV-06   |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 63  | 93  1 21 |28.5| 7 |IML-02              LM+EDO   |           |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 140|10*|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 64  | 93  2 22 |28.5| 5 |USMP-02             MSL+MPESS|HPE        |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |GEOSTAR-03          PAM-D2   |CXH-03     |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |IFCE/ESA   |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 65  | 93  3 15 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY                    |           |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | TBD|TBD|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 66  | 93  4  8 |28.5| 5 |WAMDII              TAPS     |FTS-DTF-02 |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 |                             |LITE-01    |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |STP-02     |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 67  | 93  5  3 |28.5| 7 |ASTRO-03            IG+2 PALL|           |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 190| 9 |BBXRT-03            TAPS     |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
* PLANS TO EXTEND TO 13 DAYS   
   
   
   
                                                   2.6 







  
                                 **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ****  
                                              JUNE 1989 
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 68  | 93  5 28 |28.5| 5 |HST REV-01          PALL+FSS |           |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | TBD| 5 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #493
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jun 89 04:18:15 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04603> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sun, 18 Jun 89 04:14:00 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 18 Jun 89 04:13:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYamLXG00Vs1A1Zm8:>;
          Sun, 18 Jun 89 00:32:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.QYamBii00UkVI:ZE4h>;
          Sun, 18 Jun 89 00:22:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YamAAG00UkVA-Xk4T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 89 00:20:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #494

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 494

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		  The BIG Bang: Asteroid hits Earth?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 89 00:28:06 GMT
From: helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucsd.edu  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #527 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89161.81944251 0.00000238           27616-3 0  2102
2 00424  80.4623 292.1299 0023976 145.2157 215.0573 13.67148387331942
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89160.08890248  .00000146  00000-0  14227-3 0  2689
2 00727  69.9021 112.7599 0011510 112.9001 247.3319 13.93530820291961
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89164.30359152  .00006474  00000-0  43704-3 0  3667
2 03019  64.0609 127.9910 0224269 229.7634 128.3741 14.89200941104501
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89149.67299267 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2320
2 03029  12.7202  24.3096 0015222 196.7828 163.1216  1.00272718 78954
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89164.12583296  .00017642  00000-0  11444-3 0  7270
2 04966  51.5545  41.2455 2529601 204.7799 140.7250 10.50639702551964
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89165.27568619 0.00000003                   0  7675
2 08820 109.8272 229.0809 0044834 316.3760  43.3548  6.38664395 50448
GOES 2     
1 10061U 77048  A 89160.78642280 -.00000012  00000-0  00000 0 0  2722
2 10061   7.1573  68.2858 0004828 174.9762 184.8818  1.00279079  5309
GPS-0001   
1 10684U 78020  A 89160.47745780  .00000011  00000-0  99999-4 0  1366
2 10684  63.5643 101.0750 0108047 199.0119 160.5538  2.00560250 68374
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89160.43623017 -.00000027                   0  9898
2 10893  64.5540 341.8856 0177819  32.2012 328.9083  2.00564224 81192
GOES 3     
1 10953U 78062  A 89163.82999455  .00000088  00000-0  99999-4 0  6777
2 10953   6.0412  70.8826 0008338 259.1647 100.5880  1.00263855   899
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89161.04680165 0.00001100           43216-3 0  1259
2 10967 108.0077 272.8939 0002674 250.3321 109.7513 14.34619331573065
GPS-0003   
1 11054U 78093  A 89162.74398608 -.00000027  00000-0  00000 0 0   292
2 11054  64.1381 338.3163 0054110 119.5563 240.9318  2.00561192 78259
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89158.35919056 0.00000011                   0  1630
2 11141  63.5388 101.0585 0057967 320.9217  38.6335  2.00572810 76861
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89164.05615841 0.00000993           43355-3 0  8599
2 11416  98.5064 161.2383 0013229 119.8461 240.4074 14.25791562517318
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89165.76097434 0.00079883           12366-2 0  9838
2 11703  28.4949 296.3605 0001975  80.0452 280.0372 15.52599037519465
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89161.80590743 -.00000027                   0  9124
2 11783  63.8754 337.9867 0143723  62.4276 299.0299  2.00567770 66876
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U 81049  A 89157.64231549 -.00000250  00000-0  00000 0 0  7357
2 12472   1.8778  85.7197 1331429 252.5655  92.4588  1.00222621 28483
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89163.08679497  .00021991  00000-0  78451-3 0  2143
2 12887  97.6883 188.9594 0001775 199.3928 160.7244 15.28902000424375
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U 81100  B 89164.09788149  .00109900  00000-0  13340-2 0  5966
2 12888  97.5541 217.4437 0002751 118.5053 241.6511 15.60230487428354
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U 82 25  A 89162.21632394  .00000230  00000-0  19721-3 0  6458
2 13113  82.5388  63.5122 0017242  75.3988 284.9100 13.83999952364410
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89165.91899965 0.00000120           75312-5 0  6162
2 13138  51.6107 328.5919 0000730  88.7777 271.3177 15.41948307407842
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89164.10121246  .00002157  00000-0  48880-3 0  9866
2 13367  98.2137 227.7793 0001842 187.7937 172.3241 14.57130881367550
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U 82116  A 89163.85489509  .00000496  00000-0  25529-3 0  7851
2 13718  81.2429 285.7850 0056547  12.7339 347.5260 14.13206970334948
IRAS       
1 13777U          89160.58514210 0.00000266           20964-3 0  6450
2 13777  99.0486 357.8002 0012979 335.8315  24.2213 13.98600555325134
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89154.60178946 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-5 0  8028
2 13969   3.5055  67.7147 0002838 173.0308 187.3950  1.00270271 89261
GOES 6     
1 14050U 83 41  A 89162.88397443  .00000122  00000-0  00000 0 0  9688
2 14050   1.2868  83.0205 0001205 113.3985 245.7938  1.00274617  6555
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U 83 58  B 89161.31370926 -.00000014  00000-0  00000 0 0  4054
2 14129  26.1961 260.8272 6054147  49.2622 349.3000  2.05881115 17078
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89160.89676463 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6335
2 14189  63.1913  99.5724 0135438 215.5985 143.4775  2.00569046 43294
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89165.30403770 0.00000916           38879-3 0  7349
2 14452  81.1637 296.4388 0096155 104.6106 256.5797 14.22199368292131
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89165.98581641 0.00002140           48427-3 0  7937
2 14780  98.1677 228.2758 0001391 229.4713 130.6444 14.57165277281240
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U 84 21  B 89162.64298710  .00001913  00000-0  37690-3 0  4604
2 14781  98.0020 221.6001 0012490 346.1783  13.9136 14.63600661281739
LDEF       
1 14898U 84 34  B 89164.08130250  .00040560  00000-0  67542-3 0  8739
2 14898  28.5028 205.7054 0002963 219.9609 140.1396 15.50614457290818
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89159.45974028 0.00000010                   0  6670
2 15039  62.9317  98.8889 0015106 268.2189  91.5956  2.00564194 36541
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U 84 72  A 89163.53603096  .00000245  00000-0  21205-3 0  9482
2 15099  82.5313  10.0791 0011772 251.0869 108.9025 13.83668421249478
GPS-0010   
1 15271U 84 97  A 89163.84834069 -.00000028  00000-0  00000 0 0  6428
2 15271  63.3626 337.6704 0099305 320.8603  38.5235  2.00565776 33743
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U 84105  A 89162.93203998  .00002000  00000-0  28825-3 0   373
2 15331  82.5385 343.3032 0025835  99.1089 261.3120 14.75614740253445
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89158.00204123 0.00000650           37541-3 0  3900
2 15427  99.1412 144.7463 0015352 346.5463  13.5297 14.12030578231018
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89164.84522434 0.00000227           19363-3 0   882
2 15516  82.5367 307.4208 0017738 121.5929 238.6983 13.84113086220592
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89165.98376601 0.00058825           13584-2 0  2803
2 16095  51.6079 328.2744 0000971 146.9100 212.9470 15.41957092407851
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89158.01997107 0.00000011                   0  3224
2 16129  63.7162  99.5870 0116233 150.2687 210.3718  2.00564376 26833
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89162.58453076 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8339
2 16191  82.5383 239.6829 0020196 319.5881  40.3695 13.16867816174782
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89164.56824171 0.00000275           23750-3 0  5024
2 16408  82.5355 222.5018 0015122 316.6219  43.3751 13.84178913175054
Mir        
1 16609U          89165.65250320 0.00041522           60358-3 0  8924
2 16609  51.6193  16.3198 0011047  54.7417 305.4995 15.55288983190771
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89165.83134144 0.00001023           49871-3 0  4963
2 16613  98.7387 240.3883 0001714 137.1829 222.9480 14.20033610 11798
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89164.68510943 0.00000378           32979-3 0  3046
2 16735  82.5384 249.2265 0015656  25.8705 334.3251 13.83923816153974
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89165.61459629 0.00003662           53547-3 0  6355
2 16881  82.5255  40.3714 0024773 106.3320 254.0688 14.75263560154912
EGP        
1 16908U          89160.41609554 0.00000031           52724-3 0  1349
2 16908  50.0120 322.0137 0011615 334.4225  25.5834 12.44378448128440
FO-12      
1 16909U          89152.60589317 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1475
2 16909  50.0154 346.2148 0011477 307.2690  52.7074 12.44399464127468
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89160.27856596 0.00000572           27020-3 0  2342
2 16969  98.6341 190.9234 0012468 273.7827  86.1925 14.23025501142819
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89165.04660351 0.00000132           10892-3 0  2613
2 17290  82.4679 156.3046 0011436 272.0732  87.9121 13.83724654123186
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89156.19806567  .00000630  00000-0  49446-3 0  1404
2 17527  99.1492 227.7547 0001510  75.7479 284.3839 13.94857891116705
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89164.57217153 -.00000042           10000-3 0  2835
2 17561   0.0551  31.9488 0027390 160.8269 167.0421  1.00277938  1727
Kvant      
1 17845U          89165.97379724 0.00016007           23773-3 0  7808
2 17845  51.6234  14.7124 0009304  53.7661 306.6538 15.55318522190829
RS-10/11   
1 18129U 87 54  A 89164.09264196  .00000355  00000-0  38000-3 0  7838
2 18129  82.9262 241.1742 0013215  67.2810 292.9736 13.71982829 98835
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89164.06514047  .00000411  00000-0  19631-3 0  8483
2 18187  65.0136  34.0112 0020265 258.3943 101.4841 14.29365930100538
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89165.61687422 0.00170364  14124-4  27410-3 0   785
2 18225  71.8677  61.6798 0011513 249.5737 110.5616 16.03282261110880
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89165.08527988 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2821
2 18312  82.5565 221.9897 0011183 201.1416 158.9291 13.83479798 92088
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89165.06614718 0.00000262           22580-3 0  1228
2 18820  82.5429 283.0331 0015364 278.2393  81.7027 13.84163976 69259
AO-13      
1 19216U          89147.06007421 0.00000137           10000-3 0   364
2 19216  57.2077 206.1830 6723768 204.7577  96.6993  2.09696457  7298
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89164.11336527  .00003033  00000-0  44894-3 0  4004
2 19274  82.5165 140.3874 0021118 243.7033 116.1904 14.74768465 50485
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89164.69785100 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2028
2 19336  82.5437 178.1283 0018262 150.6826 209.5335 13.16849053 42452
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89165.29545890 0.00000748           43625-3 0   914
2 19531  98.9386 109.3234 0011083 240.2040 119.8032 14.11027479 37067
TDRS 2     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89153.77764324  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   261
2 19548   0.5410  85.9584 0002050  10.4654 263.5580  1.00263057  1649
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89158.52933344  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   407
2 19802  55.1209 212.1893 0068654 156.4879 203.9307  2.00555259  2233
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89165.08646732 0.00000117           10000-3 0   453
2 19851  82.5201 161.7025 0014723 324.7567  35.2617 13.83805168 14650
TDRS 3     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89150.45403160 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-4 0   175
2 19883   0.3186  66.7990 0006825  40.4800 252.7331  1.00552150    49
Raduga 23  
1 19928U          89137.18522349 -.00000154           10000-3 0   446
2 19928   1.3545 277.7136 0002516  53.1772 306.5633  1.00268455   345
Cosmos 2018
1 19938U          89138.65810262 0.00948361  40344-4  31726-3 0   701
2 19938  62.7992 325.3796 0098866  65.6693 295.4718 16.13844776  4494
1989 033C  
1 19970U          89146.89292825 0.00004135           15448-2 0   187
2 19970  27.9756 326.5141 6561442  22.7737 356.2819  3.21038637   706
1989 036A  
1 19986U          89165.87746137 0.00677472  34187-4  33909-3 0   623
2 19986  64.7757   0.0904 0134294  91.1582 268.3884 16.02936554  4579
1989 037A  
1 20000U          89165.53766983 0.00279032  72104-5  20546-3 0   531
2 20000  69.9466  18.8009 0063679  76.8730 284.1091 16.10728669  3400
1987 037CZ 
1 20003U          89140.52464093 0.00000008           10000-3 0    15
2 20003  72.8290 205.3591 0414065 169.8306 191.1830 12.32588625  7487
1987 020DA 
1 20004U          89144.20894406 0.00000016           10000-3 0    19
2 20004  73.6361 174.3386 0118944 257.9904 103.3069 12.82100499 65749
RESURS-F   
1 20006U          89165.92983860 0.00219529  20739-4  30689-3 0   456
2 20006  82.2978  17.9165 0008896 232.5544 127.4920 16.05760550  3307
Cosmos 2022
1 20024U          89164.91424071 -.00000011           10000-3 0   205
2 20024  64.8189  51.4011 0002833 257.5172 102.4997  2.13102940   298
Cosmos 2023
1 20025U          89164.77809549 -.00000011           10000-3 0   162
2 20025  64.8429  51.3920 0113700 291.0653  67.7724  2.16717878   293
Cosmos 2024
1 20026U          89164.90833232 -.00000011           10000-3 0   153
2 20026  64.8234  51.4072 0009035 266.2187  93.7398  2.13204744   294
1989 034E  
1 20028U          89161.61198462 -.00000011           10000-3 0    47
2 20028  64.8329  51.5147 0012170 316.4894  43.4543  2.13482782   173
Cosmos 2025
1 20035U          89165.94967997 0.00463064  40862-4  51252-4 0   299
2 20035  62.8099 341.7122 0111384 266.1085  92.8394 16.18509460  2155
SuperBird A
1 20040U          89164.83976205 -.00000061           10000-3 0    53
2 20040   0.0589 106.6155 0024119 129.0388 124.2054  1.00477101    45
1989 041B  
1 20041U          89162.21620543 0.00000172                   0    18
2 20041   0.1933 212.9148 0027479  49.2796  97.3751  1.00362110    04
1989 041C  
1 20042U          89162.43582903 0.00036926           51620-2 0    35
2 20042   6.7600  47.0217 7296052 181.5234 173.9168  2.27844244   131
Cosmos 2026
1 20045U          89163.15145948 -.00004039          -42238-2 0   242
2 20045  82.9407 358.1898 0038797 281.5017  78.1965 13.75011098   688
1989 042B  
1 20046U          89158.93024002 -.00005552          -56739-2 0    51
2 20046  82.9387   1.3250 0031945 294.6488  65.1505 13.76490819   106
Molniya3-35
1 20052U          89164.88469278 -.00005552          -99560-1 0   112
2 20052  62.8158 103.7039 7375667 288.2857   9.4064  2.00424606   114
1989 043B  
1 20053U          89166.01974644 0.00912658  90785-5  17625-2 0   130
2 20053  62.8080  81.0241 0204302 120.4025 241.7616 15.72297788   998
1989 043C  
1 20054U          89165.99736639 0.00982670  11214-4  16238-2 0   136
2 20054  62.8194  81.3956 0265532 117.2561 245.6147 15.61644840   997
1989 043D  
1 20055U          89160.78681829 0.00000111           10000-3 0    26
2 20055  62.8264 104.2599 7416515 288.2307   9.0020  1.95978465    28
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89164.78376303 -.00000029                   0    30
2 20061  54.5521  30.8384 0034738 114.8951 245.4875  2.00515383   106
1989 044B  
1 20062U          89162.04639252 0.01173920 -17722-4  15018-2 0    26
2 20062  30.3174  22.9410 0541758  22.6645 339.4736 15.02368462    27
1989 044C  
1 20063U          89163.52176792 0.00145166  15749-4  15493-2 0    63
2 20063  37.5396  26.2534 6068206 198.8497 122.0620  4.04320914    91
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 19:38:09 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!csisles!mackeown@uunet.uu.net  (W. Mackeown)
Subject: The BIG Bang: Asteroid hits Earth?


Has anyone got any more details, eg. orbital parameters, for an object 
(an asteroid, I think) of 1km diameter, velocity 20000m/s, which apparently
came within 500000km of the Earth on 23 March 1989 and which has the
label FC1989 ?? Apparently FC1989 orbits the Sun >>every<< year. This year
it was pretty close, next year it may be closer still.

I read this in the newspapers, so it might have been fictitious. 

Reply by e-mail please ; I'll post a summary.

Thanks,

William Mackeown, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Bristol, BS8 1TR, UK
JANET: mackeown@uk.ac.bristol.cs
ARPANET: mackeown%cs.bristol.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
-- 
William Mackeown, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Bristol, BS8 1TR, UK
JANET: mackeown@uk.ac.bristol.cs
ARPANET: mackeown%cs.bristol.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #494
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jun 89 08:13:06 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01200> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sun, 18 Jun 89 08:10:12 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 18 Jun 89 08:10:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0YaozMG00Vs181W1MY>;
          Sun, 18 Jun 89 03:31:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.UYaon1K00UkVM:q04h>;
          Sun, 18 Jun 89 03:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <IYaolTi00UkVE-oU4t@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 89 03:16:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #495

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 495

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Space Station Computers
		     Chaotic Pluto == no Nemesis?
NASA Goddard to open Space Robotics Advanced Technology Facility (Forwarded)
		    RE:  Addition to mailing list
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1989 10:57-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Space Station Computers

> Why not use an off the shelf computer?  Because space is very different than
> a computer room, or even an office desk.  There is a lot more free radiation
> to scramble chips, and although a crash on Earth is often annoying,it can be
> fatal if it's attached to your air supply (and even more dangerous things!).
> The closest to "off the shelf" that might be reasonable would be something
> that DOD uses, which is "rad hard", or at least mil spec... The
> 80386 stuff is a leap forward, there.  People can at least write some of the
> code on affordable, off-the-shelf '386 PC's.  Note that disk drives have 
> never been fully qualified, so big virtual memory machines are certainly
> not simple to build.

There are some life critical support functions that may need extra
protections. But there appears to be a continuation of aircraft design
mentality here. In an aircraft things happen very quickly and need
instant response. In an orbiting shack there is very little that can go
wrong that doesn't give you hours if not days to deal with. So you lose
all power? Go fix it. You won't starve. You won't asphixiate for hours,
and if there are manual overrides on air supply, you won't asphixiate
at all. Your temperature might get unpleasant, but with 45 minutes sun
and 45 minutes shade, you should at least reach a balance.
So the O2  control craps out? Crack valves by manual and replace the
bad one. Meteor hole in a compartment? Get out, seal it off and go back
with a suit and patch it. I'd love to know exactly what a computer
could do that could cause harm faster than a human can react to shut it
down and correct the mistake. Even a bleed to vacuum is not going to be
that fast. And airlocks will be mechanically interlocked so that won't
happen either.

Lets leave the aircraft industry mentality in the air where it belongs.
A shack is a shack is a shack. If it's broke, go fix it. Maybe sit down
and think about it for an hour over a cup of tea first. No sense rushing.

> Why not use off-the-shelf unix?   Do you want to bet your life Berkley unix
> won't crash?  NASA is pretty fanatic about software verification,which means
> having source around, another problem.  My guess is that the planned flight 
> system involves some kind of Posix compliant OS,preferably government owned,
> that integrates well with Ada, since everything is supposed to be in Ada.  

Once again, so what? There are multiple machines. There are redundant
mechanical back ups. There are PEOPLE on board for chrissakes. If one
crashes, then reboot.

Besides, there are new UNIX like systems like CMU-MACH. Give it a few
years and I think it will be as solid as any operating system needs to
be. And it doesn't have many of the internal flaws that the standard
Unix has to live with. And who knows? Maybe they'll go public with it.

ADA is probably a mistake. I don't think I've met more than two people
who have written significant amounts of code in it. Object oriented
languages are the way the (non-government) world is going. This is just
another way in which the station is separating itself from the
mainstream of commercial technological development. Of course the use
of a UNIX clone will at least guarantee that the astronauts can smuggle
STARTREK on board. And I wonder if they will be on the INTERNET? That
could make for some interesting dialogue on Space(Digest) 1999...

> Why so many?  A lot of them will be used as distributed
> controllers.... Instead the data would be collected
> and distributed by yet other processors.

That is why an occasional crash is not serious. And SEU's ** can be
handled by parity memory, which most machines have.

> The '486 isn't hopeless, either.  That would be the logical upgrade, even
> if no plans are in the works yet.The station will be there for thirty years,
> so swapping out computer boards along the way is pretty much inevitable.

In thirty years the computer will walk on board by itself.*  Remember, 30
years ago computers were still discrete transistor and diode logic with
massive core memories of sometimes as much as MEGABYTE of memory. But
only the REALLY big ones. And they operated at hellacious speeds of a
few MILLION instructions per second! Some of them had high tech disk
drum memories that stood as high as a person. And there were probably
HUNDREDS of them in the US!!!

* You might mistake it for a CRAYnefly, so don't allow any flyswatters
on board :-)

** In line with the request for explaining such things, "Single Event
   Upset"

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 16:29:00 GMT
From: apollo!rehrauer@eddie.mit.edu  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Chaotic Pluto == no Nemesis?

I seem to recall a thread here some time ago about the "Nemesis" theory
of a large solar companion out in the hinterlands.  If my oft-faulty
memory serves me this time, I seem to recall that the supporters of the
Nemesis idea have used "otherwise unexplainable" quirks in Pluto's orbit
as circumstantial evidence to support it.

Well, I was interested to read in the May/June issue of _The_Planetary_
Report_ that there is observational evidence that many small bodies in
space -- e.g.: Saturn's moon, Hyperion; many asteroids and comets; and
_Pluto_ -- actually have chaotic orbits.  That is, "chaotic" in the sense
of the "new science of chaos" (of which I understand nothing) as opposed
to the sense in which "chaos rules my desk" (which I understand far too
well for comfort :^).

If true, along with the somewhat disquieting notion that "the eternal
clockwork" of the heavens is ultimately NOT very eternal, it would seem
to chop off one of the thickest legs the Nemesis people presently stand
upon.  Perhaps Pluto's orbit is quirky simply because it IS.

Would anyone knowledgeable about such things care to comment?  Is this
old-hat to sci.spacers?

-- 
>>> "Aaiiyeeeee!  Death from above!" <<<  | Steve Rehrauer
    Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168             | Apollo Computer, Inc.
    ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.com             | (A subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard)
"Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'.  Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 19:51:28 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Goddard to open Space Robotics Advanced Technology Facility (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 15, 1989

Michael J. Braukus
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.


RELEASE:  89-96

NASA GODDARD TO OPEN SPACE ROBOTICS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FACILITY

     NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., will 
open its new state-of-the-art robotics facility with a ribbon-
cutting ceremony on Tuesday, June 20, 1989.  The facility will 
play an important role in developing a space robot to do things 
never before done in space.

     The ribbon-cutting ceremony will begin at 10 a.m. EDT at the 
Building 11 facility.  A demonstration of the facility's robotics 
capabilities will follow the ceremony.

     The highly sophisticated facility will be used by Goddard's 
robotics team to create, test and evaluate new robotic 
technologies to support Space Station Freedom.

     As part of the Freedom project, Goddard manages the 
development of the Flight Telerobotic Servicer (FTS), a robotic 
device that combines teleoperation -- the using of a human 
operator to direct the machine -- and autonomous capabilities for 
performing tasks by itself but supervised by an astronaut.  
Martin Marietta Space Systems Co., Denver, Colo., was selected by 
NASA to develop the FTS.

     "The FTS will allow astronauts to accomplish routine work in 
space," said Ronald Browning, Goddard's deputy director for Space 
Station Freedom.  "FTS is designed to complement astronaut 
extravehicular activity and will be used both with and without a 
crewman."

     The new facility contains a gantry robot 40 feet wide, 60 
feet long and 20 feet high with six degrees of freedom, capable 
of lifting up to two tons of payload and applying 4000 foot-
pounds of torque.  

     Suspended from one mast of the gantry will be a set of 
teleoperated industrial arms, which will be used as an FTS 
operational simulator.  Another mast carries a grapple to emulate 
Freedom's remote manipulator system, which primarily will be used 
to transport payloads to and from the work site.

     The facility also includes an operator work station 
installed in a mockup of the Space Shuttle's aft flight deck.  
This simulator will permit teleoperation of the robot, providing 
valuable information about operating the FTS in the constrained 
environment of the Shuttle.

     Located in a glass enclosed mezzanine, overlooking the 
gantry robot, is what David Provost, head, robotics data systems 
and integration section, calls one of the unique technologies 
being developed by Goddard for the FTS project -- the Graphic 
Robot Simulator.

     "This computerized simulator uses animated graphics to 
determine such things as the robot's reach capability and 
collision avoidance information," said Provost.  "It allows our 
engineers to use engineering and design concepts to evaluate what 
would be seen at Freedom Station 6 or 7 years from now.

     "The simulator is a very cost-effective system.  It reduces 
the construction costs considerably for major spacecraft and 
instrument subsystems and makes results available in a much 
shorter time."

     Also located in the facility is a robotics test bed for the 
evaluation of various computers, software, mechanical arms and 
control devices.

     Commenting on the utilization of the robotics facility with 
the FTS project, Stanford Ollendorf, chief, telerobotics 
engineering office, said, "Goddard has been given a technical 
challenge to build a robot to do things which have never been 
done before in space."

     "With this facility and the team of specialists from 
universities, industry and other NASA centers, Goddard will have 
a positive impact not only on Freedom Station and the nation's 
space program but also on the U.S. ability to compete in world 
markets through technology transfer to private industry," 
Ollendorf continued.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 89 09:05:16 CDT
From: jay@snow-white.merit-tech.com (Jay Labhart)
Subject: RE:  Addition to mailing list



Would you please add this address to your mailing list.  


In addition I would like to find out about a space
program called 

  generic vhsic space born computer (gvsp?)


If any of your readers has any information concerning this
program it would be greatly appreciated.



Thank you

Jay Labhart
Merit Technology
(214) 248-2502

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #495
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jun 89 06:41:23 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01071> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 89 06:38:11 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 19 Jun 89 06:38:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYb7Jqm00Ui3017bFd>;
          Mon, 19 Jun 89 00:24:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.0Yb7H3a00UkV8=ek5J>;
          Mon, 19 Jun 89 00:21:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <UYb7FUO00UkV8=dE5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 89 00:19:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #496

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 496

Today's Topics:
	       NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 2 of 6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 14:05:00 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 2 of 6)

| 69  | 93  6 24 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-03         SPACEHAB |CMG-03     |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 160| 7 |EURECA-2L           EURECA-A |           |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |SFU-RETR            UNIQUE   |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 70  | 93  7 15 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-03            IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-07   |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 |SPAS-CRISTA         ASTRO-SPA|           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 71  | 93  8 12 |57.0| 7 |SRL-02              PALL+MPES|SDS-02     |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 145| 9 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 72  | 93  9  9 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY                    |           |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | TBD|TBD|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 73  | 93  9 30 |28.5| 5 |USMP-03             MSL+MPESS|CXH-04     |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 160| 7 |INMARSAT-02         PAM-D2   |IEH        |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |SATCOM              PAM-D2   |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 74  | 93 10 21 | TBD| 5 |OMV-01              N/A      |SSS        |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | TBD| 7 |WISP                OMV+PALL |           |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |SPTN-T                       |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 75  | 93 11 18 |28.5| 7 |SL-D3               LM + USS |           |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 160| 9 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
   
   
   
   
   
                                                   2.7 







  
                                 **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ****  
                                              JUNE 1989 
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 76  | 93 12 16 | XX | 5 |DOD                          |           |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | X  | X |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 77  | 94  1 13 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-04         SPACEHAB |S/C GLOW   |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 160| 5 |EURECA-2R           EURECA-A |CMG-04     |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 78  | 94  2  7 |28.5| 7 |ISF-01              FM+DS    |CAPL       |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 79  | 94  3  3 |28.5| 7 |USML-02             LM+EDO   |           |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 140|10*|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 80  | 94  3 24 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-G              IUS      |           |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 5 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 81  | 94  4 21 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-04            IG+1 PALL|SPTN-03    |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 160| 7 |                             |SSBUV-08   |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 82  | 94  5 12 |28.5| 5 |AAFE                2 PALLETS|REFLUX     |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 |                             |CXE-01     |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SPTN-DOD-02|                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 83  | 94  6  9 |39.0| 7 |SLS-03              LM+EDO   |           |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 160|10*|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 84  | 94  7 10 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-05         SPACEHAB |CSI-I      |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |                             | (MAST-I)  |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |XTE                 FSS      |STP-03     |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
 * PLANS TO EXTEND TO 16 DAYS
   
   
   
                                                   2.8 






  
                                 **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ****  
                                              JUNE 1989 
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 85  | 94  8  6 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY                    |           |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | TBD|TBD|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 86  | 94  9  8 |28.5| 5 |PUR-2                        |CXH-05     |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 |USMP-04             MSL+MPESS|FR-01      |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 87  | 94 10 13 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-H              IUS      |SSBUV-09   |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 5 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 88  | 94 11 20 |28.5| 7 |ISF-02              AM+DS    |SAMPIE/ESA |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 160| 7 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 89  | 94 12 13 |57.0| 7 |SRL-03              PAL+MPESS|CTM        |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 145| 7 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 90  | 95  1 12 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY                    |           |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | TBD|TBD|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 91  | 95  2  3 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-06         SPACEHAB |CXH-06     |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |                             |SPTN-DOD-03|                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 92  | 95  3  2 |28.5| 5 |SSF-01              UNIQUE   |           |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 220| 7 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 93  | 95  4 14 |28.5| 7 |IML-03              LM+EDO   |           |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 140|10*|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
 * PLANS TO EXTEND TO 16 DAYS
   
   
   
   
   
                                                   2.9 






  
                                 **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ****  
                                              JUNE 1989 
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 94  | 95  5 10 |28.5| 7 |ISF-03              FM+DS    |           |                                   |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 95  | 95  6  6 |28.5| 5 |SSF-02              UNIQUE   |           |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 220| 7 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 96  | 95  6 27 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY                    |           |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | TBD|TBD|                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 97  | 95  8  8 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-07         SPACEHAB |CXH-07     |                                   |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 160| 7 |EURECA-3L           EURECA-A |SPTN-DOD-04|                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 98  | 95  9  7 |28.5| 5 |SSF-03              UNIQUE   |           |                                   |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 220| 7 |                             |           |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 99  | 95  9 30 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-05            IG+1 PALL|SPTN-04    |                                   |  
|     |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 |                             |SSBUV-10   |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
   
   
   
   









   
                                                   2.10  


























                                                   SECTION 3


                                        ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS
















                                                       3







                                **** ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** 
                                        JUNE 1989 MANIFEST 
+------------+---------------+-----------------------------+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|    DATE    |  CLASS        | L A U N C H   V E H I C L E |PAYLOAD| LAUNCH |     PAYLOAD       |  
|  YR  MO    |               |         TYPE           INCL | ORBIT |  SITE  |                   |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   89 09    | INTERMEDIATE  | ATLAS CENTAUR 68 R    |28.5 |   GSO | ESMC   | FLTSATCOM-F8(NAVY)|  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   89 09    | SMALL         | SCOUT                 |TBD  |   TBD | WSMC   | MACSAT (NAVY)     |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   89 11    | MEDIUM        | DELTA 186             |99.0 |    SS | WSMC   | COBE              |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   90 01    | MEDIUM        | ATLAS 50E             |98.7 |    SS | WSMC   | NOAA-D            |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   90 02    | MEDIUM        | DELTA                 |57.0 |   LEO | ESMC   | ROSAT             |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   90 03    | SMALL         | SCOUT                 |TBD  |   TBD | WSMC   | SALT (NAVY)       |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   90 06    | INTERMEDIATE  | ATLAS CENTAUR         |18.0 |   GTO | ESMC   | CRRES             |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   90 10    | INTERMEDIATE  | ATLAS I               |28.5 |   GSO | ESMC   | GOES-I            |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   91 03    | SMALL         | SCOUT                 |TBD  |   TBD |  TBD   | USAF-1 (DOD)      |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   91 05    | MEDIUM        | ATLAS 34E             |98.7 |    SS | WSMC   | NOAA-I            |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   91 08    | MEDIUM        | DELTA                 |28.5 |   LEO | ESMC   | EUVE              |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   91 11    | INTERMEDIATE  | ATLAS I               |28.5 |   GSO | ESMC   | GOES-J            |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   92 05    | INTERMEDIATE  | ATLAS I               |28.5 |   GSO | ESMC   | GOES-K            |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  






                                                   3.1 






  
                                **** ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** 
                                        JUNE 1989 MANIFEST 
+------------+---------------+-----------------------------+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|    DATE    |  CLASS        | L A U N C H   V E H I C L E |PAYLOAD| LAUNCH |     PAYLOAD       |  
|  YR  MO    |               |         TYPE           INCL | ORBIT |  SITE  |                   |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   92 06    | SMALL         | SCOUT                 |TBD  |   TBD | WSMC   | SAMPE             |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   92 07    | MEDIUM        | TBD                   |28.7 |    HE | ESMC   | GEOTAIL           |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   92 09    | MEDIUM        | ATLAS 11E             |98.7 |    SS | WSMC   | NOAA-J            |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   92 09    | INTERMEDIATE  | TITAN III             |28.5 |    EO | ESMC   | MARS OBSERVER     |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   92 12    | MEDIUM        | TBD                   |28.7 |    HE | ESMC   | WIND              |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   93 01    | SMALL         | SCOUT                 |TBD  |   LEO |  SMR   | TOMS              |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   93 03    | MEDIUM        | TBD                   |28.7 |   GSO | ESMC   | MSAT              |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   93 06    | MEDIUM        | TBD                   |90.0 |    HE | WSMC   | POLAR             |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   93 06    | SMALL         | SCOUT                 |TBD  |   LEO | WSMC   | SWAS              |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   93 11    | MEDIUM        | TITAN II              |98.7 |    SS | WSMC   | NOAA-K            |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   93 12    | SMALL         | TBD                   |TBD  |   LEO |  TBD   | FASE              |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   94 06    | MEDIUM        | TBD                   |98.6 |   LEO | WSMC   | RADARSAT          |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   94 09    | SMALL         | TBD                   |TBD  |   TBD |  TBD   | SMEX-04           |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  







                                                   3.2 








                                **** ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** 
                                        JUNE 1989 MANIFEST 
+------------+---------------+-----------------------------+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|    DATE    |  CLASS        | L A U N C H   V E H I C L E |PAYLOAD| LAUNCH |     PAYLOAD       |  
|  YR  MO    |               |         TYPE           INCL | ORBIT |  SITE  |                   |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   95 03    | INTERMEDIATE  | TBD                   |28.5 |    HE | ESMC   | SOHO              |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   95 04    | MEDIUM        | TITAN II              |98.7 |    SS | WSMC   | NOAA-L            |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   95 06    | SMALL         | TBD                   |TBD  |   TBD |  TBD   | SMEX-05           |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   95 07    | INTERMEDIATE  | ATLAS I               |28.5 |   GSO | ESMC   | GOES-L            |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
|   95 08    | LARGE         | TITAN IV /CENTAUR**   |TBD  |  PLAN | ESMC   | CRAF**            |  
+------------+---------------+-----------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------------+  
 ** FOR NASA PLANNING PURPOSES





















                                                   3.3 


























                                                        SECTION 4


                                                    PREVIOUS FLIGHTS

















                                                            4







                                 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS ****  
   
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 1   | 81  4 12 |40.3| 2 |DFI                 DFI PAL  |OEX        | C:JOHN W. YOUNG (USN, RET.)       |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 172| 2 |                             |           | P:ROBERT L. CRIPPEN (CAPT., USN)  |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 2   | 81 11 12 |38.0| 2 |OSTA-1              PALLET   |OEX        | C:JOE H. ENGLE (COL., USAF)       |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 140| 2 |DFI                 DFI PAL  |IECM       | P:RICHARD H. TRULY (CAPT., USN)   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 3   | 82  3 22 |38.0| 2 |OSS-1               PALLET   |IECM       | C:JACK R. LOUSMA (COL., USMC)     |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 130| 8 |DFI                 DFI PAL  |OEX        | P:C. G. FULLERTON (COL., USAF)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SSIP(1)    |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |GAS TEST   |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |MLR        |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |EEVT       |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 4   | 82  6 27 |28.5| 2 |DOD 82-1                     |OEX        | C:T. K. MATTINGLY (CAPT., USN)    |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 162| 7 |DFI                 DFI PAL  |IECM       | P:H. W. HARTSFIELD (USAF, RET.)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |MLR        |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |CFES       |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |NOSL       |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SSIP(2)    |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |GAS(1)     |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 5   | 82 11 11 |28.5| 4 |SBS-C               PAM-D    |GLOW       | C:VANCE D. BRAND (CIVILIAN)       |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 160| 5 |TELESAT-E           PAM-D    |SSIP(3)    | P:R. F. OVERMYER (COL., USMC)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |GAS(1)     | MS:JOSEPH ALLEN (PH.D.-PHYSICS)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:W. B. LENOIR (PH.D.-SCIENCE)   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
   
   
   
   


   
                                                   4.1 






  
                                 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS ****  
   
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 6   | 83  4  4 |28.5| 4 |TDRS-A              IUS      |CFES       | C:P. J. WEITZ (CAPT., USN, RET.)  |  
|     |CHALLENGER| 150| 5 |                             |MLR,NOSL   | P:KAROL J. BOBKO (COL., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |GAS(3)     | MS:D. PETERSON (COL., USAF, RET)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:F. STORY MUSGRAVE (M.D.)       |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 7   | 83  6 18 |28.5| 5 |SPAS-01                      |CFES       | C:ROBERT L. CRIPPEN (CAPT., USN)  |  
|     |CHALLENGER| 160| 6 |OSTA-2              MPESS    |MLR        | P:F. H. HAUCK (CAPT., USN)        |  
|     |          |    |   |TELESAT-F           PAM-D    |GAS(7)     | MS:JOHN M. FABIAN (COL., USAF)    |  
|     |          |    |   |PALAPA-B1           PAM-D    |           | MS:SALLY K. RIDE (PH.D.-PHYSICS)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:NORMAN E. THAGARD (M.D.)       |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 8   | 83  8 30 |28.5| 5 |PDRS/PFTA                    |CFES       | C:RICHARD H. TRULY (CAPT., USN)   |  
|     |CHALLENGER| 160| 6 |OIM                          |RME        | P:D. C. BRANDENSTEIN (CDR., USN)  |  
|     |          |    |   |INSAT 1-B           PAM-D    |GAS(4)     | MS:D. A. GARDNER (LT. CDR., USN)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SSIP(1)    | MS:G. S. BLUFORD (MAJ., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:WILLIAM E. THORNTON (M.D.)     |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 9   | 83 11 28 |57.0| 6 |SPACELAB 1          LM+1P    |           | C:JOHN W. YOUNG (USN, RET.)       |  
|     |COLUMBIA  | 135| 10|                             |           | P:BREWSTER H. SHAW (CAPT., USAF)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:OWEN K. GARRIOTT (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:ROBERT A. PARKER (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:ULF MERBOLD, ESA (PHYSICIST)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:B. K. LICHTENBERG, MIT (PH.D)  |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
   
   
   
   



   
                                                   4.2 







  
                                 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS ****  
   
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 10  | 84  2  3 |28.5| 5 |SPAS-01A                     |ACES,IEF   | C:VANCE D. BRAND (CIVILIAN)       |  
| 41-B|CHALLENGER| 165| 8 |PALAPA B-2          PAM-D    |C-360b     | P:R. L. GIBSON (LT. CDR., USN)    |  
|     |          |    |   |WESTAR-6            PAM-D    |C-360c     | MS:BRUCE MCCANDLESS (CAPT., USN)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |RME,MLR    | MS:R. L. STEWART (LT. COL., USA)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |GAS(5)     | MS:RONALD E. MCNAIR (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SSIP(1)    |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |IRT        |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 11  | 84  4  6 |28.5| 5 |LDEF-1                       |RME,IMAX   | C:ROBERT L. CRIPPEN (CAPT., USN)  |  
| 41-C|CHALLENGER| 250| 7 |SMM REPAIR          FSS      |C-360b     | P:FRANCIS R. SCOBEE (USAF, RET)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SSIP(1)    | MS:GEORGE D. NELSON (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:TERRY J. HART (M.S.-ELEC ENG)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:JAMES D. VAN HOFTEN (PH.D.)    |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 12  | 84  8 30 |28.5| 6 |OAST-1              MPESS    |CFES III   | C:H. W. HARTSFIELD (USAF, RET.)   |  
| 41-D|DISCOVERY | 160| 6 |SBS-D               PAM-D    |IMAX       | P:M. L. COATS (CDR., USN)         |  
|     |          |    |   |TELSTAR 3-C         PAM-D    |RME        | MS:R. A. MULLANE (MAJ., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |SYNCOM IV-2                  |SSIP(1)    | MS:STEVEN A. HAWLEY (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |CLOUDS     | MS:JUDITH A. RESNIK (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:C. WALKER (MCDONNELL DOUGLAS)  |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 13  | 84 10  5 |57.0| 7 |OSTA-3              PALLET   |IMAX       | C:ROBERT L. CRIPPEN (CAPT., USN)  |  
| 41-G|CHALLENGER| 190| 8 |ERBS                         |RME        | P:JON A. MCBRIDE (CDR., USN)      |  
|     |          |    |   |LFC/ORS             MPESS    |GAS(8)     | MS:KATHRYN D. SULLIVAN (PH.D.)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |TLD        | MS:SALLY K. RIDE (PH.D.-PHYSICS)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |APE        | MS:D. C. LEESTMA (LT. CDR., USN)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |CANEX      | PS:MARC GARNEAU (NRCC, CANADA)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:P. SCULLY-POWER (NAVY CIVIL.)  |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
   
   
   
   
                                                   4.3 






  
                                 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS ****  
   
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 14  | 84 11  8 |28.5| 5 |HS-376 RETV(2)      2 PALLET |DMOS       | C:F. H. HAUCK (CAPT., USN)        |  
| 51-A|DISCOVERY | 160| 8 |TELESAT-H           PAM-D    |RME        | P:DAVID M. WALKER (CDR., USN)     |  
|     |          |    |   |SYNCOM IV-1                  |           | MS:ANNA L. FISHER (M.D.)          |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:D. A. GARDNER (CDR., USN)      |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:JOSEPH P. ALLEN (PH.D.)        |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 15  | 85  1 24 | XX | 5 |DOD                          |           | C:T. K. MATTINGLY (CAPT., USN)    |  
| 51-C|DISCOVERY | X  | 3 |                             |           | P:L. J. SHRIVER (LT. COL., USAF)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:J. F. BUCHLI (LT. COL., USMC)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:E. S. ONIZUKA (MAJ., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:GARY E. PAYTON (MAJ., USAF)    |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 16  | 85  4 12 |28.5| 7 |TELESAT-I           PAM-D    |CFES III   | C:KAROL J. BOBKO (COL., USAF)     |  
| 51-D|DISCOVERY | 250| 7 |SYNCOM IV-3                  |AFE        | P:DONALD E. WILLIAMS (CDR., USN)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |PPE/SAS    | MS:M. RHEA SEDDON (M.D.)          |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SSIP(2)    | MS:JEFFREY A. HOFFMAN (PH.D.)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |GAS(2)     | MS:S. DAVID GRIGGS (CAPT., USNR)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:C. WALKER (MCDONNELL DOUGLAS)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:E. JAKE GARN (U.S. SENATE)     |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 17  | 85  4 29 |57.0| 7 |SPACELAB 3          LM+MPESS |GAS(2)     | C:R. F. OVERMYER (COL., USMC)     |  
| 51-B|CHALLENGER| 190| 7 |                             |           | P:F. D. GREGORY (COL., USAF)      |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:DON L. LIND (PH.D.)            |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:NORMAN E. THAGARD (M.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:WILLIAM E. THORNTON (M.D.)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:L. VAN DEN BERG (EG&G CORP.)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:T. WANG (JET PROPULSION LAB.)  |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
   
   
   
   
   
                                                   4.4 






  
                                 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS ****  
   
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 18  | 85  6 17 |28.5| 7 |SPTN-1              MPESS    |FEE        | C:D. BRANDENSTEIN (CAPT., USN)    |  
| 51-G|DISCOVERY | 190| 7 |MORELOS-A           PAM-D    |FPE        | P:J. O. CREIGHTON (CDR., USN)     |  
|     |          |    |   |ARABSAT-1B          PAM-D    |ADSF       | MS:SHANNON W. LUCID (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |TELSTAR 3-D         PAM-D    |HPTE       | MS:S. R. NAGEL (LT. COL., USAF)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |GAS(6)     | MS:JOHN M. FABIAN (COL., USAF)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:SULTAN S. AL-SAUD (ARABSAT)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:PATRICK BAUDRY (FRANCE)        |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 19  | 85  7 29 |50.0| 7 |SPACELAB 2          IG+3P    |SAREX      | C:C. G. FULLERTON (COL., USAF)    |  
| 51-F|CHALLENGER| 174| 8 |                             |STTP       | P:ROY D. BRIDGES (COL., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |CBDE       | MS:F. STORY MUSGRAVE (M.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:ANTHONY W. ENGLAND (PH.D.)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:KARL G. HENIZE (PH.D.)         |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:LOREN W. ACTON (LOCKHEED)      |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:J-D. BARTOE (NAVY CIVILIAN)    |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 20  | 85  8 27 |28.5| 5 |AUSSAT-1            PAM-D    |PVTOS      | C:JOE H. ENGLE (COL., USAF)       |  
| 51-I|DISCOVERY | 190| 7 |ASC-1               PAM-D    |           | P:R. O. COVEY (LT. COL., USAF)    |  
|     |          |    |   |SYNCOM IV-4                  |           | MS:JAMES VAN HOFTEN (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |SYNCOM-SALVAGE               |           | MS:JOHN M. LOUNGE (M.S.)          |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:WILLIAM F. FISHER (M.D.)       |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 21  | 85 10  3 | XX | 5 |DOD                          |           | C:KAROL BOBKO (COL., USAF)        |  
| 51-J|ATLANTIS  | X  | 4 |                             |           | P:R. J. GRABE (LT. COL., USAF)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:ROBERT STEWART (COL., USA)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:DAVID HILMERS (MAJ., USMC)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:WILLIAM A. PAILES (MAJ., USAF) |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
   
   
   
   
   
                                                   4.5 






  
                                 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS ****  
   
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 22  | 85 10 30 |57.0| 8 |SPACELAB D-1        LM       |GLOMR      | C:H. W. HARTSFIELD (USAF, RET.)   |  
| 61-A|CHALLENGER| 175| 7 |                             |           | P:STEVEN R. NAGEL (COL., USAF)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:J. F. BUCHLI (COL., USMC)      |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:G. S. BLUFORD (COL., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:BONNIE J. DUNBAR (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:R. FURRER (DFVLR) (GERMANY)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:E MESSERSCHMID (DFVLR)(GERMANY)|  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:W. OCKELS (DFVLR) (DUTCH)      |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 23  | 85 11 26 |28.5| 7 |EASE/ACCESS         MPESS    |GAS(1)     | C:B. H. SHAW (LT. COL., USAF)     |  
| 61-B|ATLANTIS  | 190| 7 |MORELOS-B           PAM-D    |CFES       | P:B. D. O'CONNOR (LT. COL., USMC) |  
|     |          |    |   |SATCOM KU-2         PAM-D2   |IMAX       | MS:MARY L. CLEAVE (PH.D.)         |  
|     |          |    |   |AUSSAT-2            PAM-D    |DMOS       | MS:S. C. SPRING (LT. COL., USA)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |MPSE       | MS:JERRY L. ROSS (MAJ., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:RUDOLFO NERI VELA (MORELOS)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:C. WALKER (MCDONNELL DOUGLAS)  |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 24  | 86  1 12 |28.5| 7 |MSL-2               MPESS    |HH-G1      | C:R. L. GIBSON (CDR., USN)        |  
| 61-C|COLUMBIA  | 175| 6 |SATCOM KU-1         PAM-D2   |IR-IE      | P:C. F. BOLDEN (LT. COL., USMC)   |  
|     |          |    |   |GAS BRIDGE                   |HPCG       | MS:F. R. CHANG-DIAZ (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |IBSE       | MS:STEVEN A. HAWLEY (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |CHAMP      | MS:GEORGE D. NELSON (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SSIP(3)    | PS:ROBERT CENKER (RCA)            |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |GAS(13)    | PS:BILL NELSON (U.S. CONGRESSMAN) |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
   
   
   
   



   
                                                   4.6 






  
                                 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS ****  
   
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #496
*******************


Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jun 89 04:04:40 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA18538> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 19 Jun 89 04:01:58 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 19 Jun 89 04:01:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AYb9wvG00UkTI2PlZ1>;
          Mon, 19 Jun 89 03:22:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.wYb9suG00UkV8=vU5W>;
          Mon, 19 Jun 89 03:18:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <UYb9reO00UkVE=u04P@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 89 03:16:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #497

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 497

Today's Topics:
	 Re: Magellan Status for week of 06/13/89 (Forwarded)
			 Re: Orbital queries
		  Re: Space Station computer system
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 17:04:07 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for week of 06/13/89 (Forwarded)

yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
 
>                      MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS
>                              June 13

>      The Rocket Engine Modules (REMs), while well below upper
> temperature limits now, will get warmer as the spacecraft draws
> closer to the sun [...]
> [...]. Martin Marietta and JPL are formulating jointly a test
> plan, using spare components, to determine the maximum safe
> temperature for the REMs.

So what are they going to do? Turn the Sun down? Recall the spacecraft? :-)
(I know...)

That reminds me of a comment made by TRW after Pioneer 10 "officially" left the
solar system. It was along the lines that if something broke on the probe, it
was under warrantee, and all you had to do was take it back to TRW and they 
would fix it for free!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA    |     sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 23:47:21 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!jep@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Orbital queries


  jep in Response 1 forgot to .signature!
 
   jep@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu

      John E. Prussing
      Department of Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering
      University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 23:28:00 GMT
From: usc!polyslo!csun!fedeva!premise!mirror!frog!john@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (John Woods)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

In article <218100023@s.cs.uiuc.edu>, carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> 
> /* Written 12:39 pm  Jun  2, 1989 by psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
> /* ---------- "Space Station computer system" ---------- */
> (...) with 4 megabytes of RAM and running X-Windows,
> /* End of text from s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
> 4M & X-windows? Bahahahahahahahahahaha! They'd better fire 'em up now, if
> they want to finish by next century. I can't believe this - as was mentioned,
> these things are behind the times TODAY, much less in 5 or 10 years.
> 
OK, so what would you have them do?  Draw up all their plans with pencilled-in
boxes saying "Here Be Computeres"?  While I grant that their computer
contractor is relatively unlikely to ensure enough flexibility to change
the computer systems easily as technology advances, they are also unlikely
to absolutely enforce today's technology.  They have to design the things
sometime:  leaving the computers to the last minute and saying, "OK, hand
me a copy of PC Byte Week, let's see what's hot this month" certainly doesn't
allow for trivial details like checking for radiation hardness,  (unless
you don't mind if the Space Station computers only work 2 times in 3...)
or for verifying the software (if they start now, X11R4 might almost be
bug-free by 2001, from what I hear... :-)

Hot, sexy computers may be fine for a software-development LAN that goes
into operation next week and isn't expected to last two years, but that
isn't how you design large, real-world (or real-orbit :-) projects.  (Unless,
of course, you expect this to actually be a vapor-station, in which case
it's alright to design it with vapor-hardware running vapor-software... :-S )

-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu
    People...How you gonna FIGURE 'em?
    Don't bother, S.L.--Just stand back and enjoy the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #497
*******************
Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jun 89 01:01:53 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA11149>; Wed, 21 Jun 89 00:37:52 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 21 Jun 89 00:37:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QYblbse00Ui381:UN8>;
          Wed, 21 Jun 89 00:30:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.IYblVyq00UkVEDo04q>;
          Wed, 21 Jun 89 00:24:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYblRsa00UkV4DmU5R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 89 00:20:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #498

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 498

Today's Topics:
		     space news from May 8 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 89 03:06:10 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 8 AW&ST

[Don't remember whether I mentioned this last time or not...  One of
my German readers filled me in on why the new West German space agency
is technically a private company:  "In Germany all Government employees
are bound into a rather tight salary schedule which gives lower wages than
in the respective private sector.  Thus the new DARA (Deutsche Agentur
fuer Raumfahrt = German Space Agency) was formed as 'private' company to
be able to pay the salaries needed to get qualified staff."]

[For those interested in antimatter propulsion, CERN has just taken
back (from Fermilab) the world record for antiproton production.
The numbers still aren't high enough for any practical purpose except
producing Nobel Prizes, though.]

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, new chairman of one of the key Senate subcommittees
overseeing NASA funding, warns scientists that NASA funding is an investment,
not "a giveaway program or entitlement".

First formal meeting of the National Space Council will aim at setting a new
policy on remote sensing satellites.  Surprisingly, DoD is expected to support
continuing Landsat funding, as they make quite a bit of use of it.

Aerospace Plane project decides to continue parallel funding for both main
propulsion contractors through late 1990, instead of making a choice now.
Neither has a significant advantage, and they are different enough that
retaining both is felt to provide useful redundancy.  Of course, this does
complicate life for the airframe bidders, who have to be ready to handle
either.

Soviets slip first manned shuttle flight to 1992, to permit installation
and testing of advanced redundant flight-control systems.  [One would
suspect that completing development of said systems is the real issue.]
Soviet cosmonauts criticize current system as giving the crew inadequate
ability to intervene in case of trouble, and say that planning for orbital
flight tests is not well organized.  Igor Volk [chief test pilot for the
program] says that the next flight will not occur until late next year at
the earliest, and will be unmanned.  The third mission will probably be
manned, with Volk in command.

The Soviet shuttle cosmonauts are a separate group from the Soyuz crews.
They were selected primarily for aircraft flight-test experience and then
trained as cosmonauts, with training still putting considerable emphasis
on aircraft testing.

Boris Gubanov, principal designer of Energia, says Soviets are studying
a winged, flyback version of Energia's core, using shuttle technology.
Equipping the strap-on boosters with wings is also being looked at.  So
far the strap-ons have not been recovered, but they are built to use a
parachute recovery system now being developed.  Gubanov also says that
two upper stages are under development for Energia:  a "small propulsion
module", roughly similar to NASA's OMV, for maneuvering in low orbit, and
an oxyhydrogen upper stage to put 18 T into Clarke orbit, 32 T into lunar
trajectory, or 28 T into Mars/Venus trajectory.

Valery Barsukov, a prominent Soviet planetary scientist, says that Soviet
planetary activity will focus on Mars for the rest of the century, aiming
at an orbiter/lander mission in 1994, a rover/sample-return mission in
1998, and a manned mission hoped to occur before 2025.  The 1994 mission
will use two identical orbiter/lander spacecraft, with the lander carrying
an instrumented balloon, small "meteorological pods", and one or more
surface penetrators.  Consideration is being given to building two complete
backup spacecraft, which would be launched in 1996 to either repeat the
1994 mission if it failed, or conduct similar studies on Phobos.  He says
the Soviets have no immediate plans for Venus or the Moon, although they
are interested in joint lunar missions with the US.

Soviet Union and its US marketing rep, Space Commerce Corp, offer to supply
Energia launches to orbit the US space station.  This would save NASA the
multi-billion-dollar costs of developing its own Shuttle-C proposal.  The
Soviets have designed an Energia cargo pod with a 122x18ft volume, compared
to 82x15 for Shuttle-C.  Payload masses are similar -- 50-75 T -- but there
is a planned upgrade path that could put up to 200 T on Energia.  Specific
prices and schedules are not yet available, since Energia is not officially
operational yet, but price per kilo is expected to be comparable to that
of Proton [i.e., cheap] and the Soviets have said that if a customer with
a 100 T payload appeared, it could be in orbit next year.

SCC also plans to bid to Goddard under the upcoming procurement for
commercial sounding-rocket services, using Soviet Cyclone rockets.
Art Dula, its president, says:  "I'd like to bring some Soviet vehicles
over and launch them from [the Cape].  We're an American launch vehicle
service provider -- all the laws encourage launch vehicle service
providers from the US.  We are such a provider.  We happen to use
Russian hardware, just as [Space Services Inc] used Canadian hardware
[for its launch in March]."

Magellan is on its way, after an aborted launch attempt April 28 and a
successful one May 4.  The April attempt hit some computer problems first,
and this stalled launch long enough for a hydrogen recirculation pump to
short and stop.  The pumps circulate liquid hydrogen through the engines
to keep them cold and avoid thermal shock or formation of hydrogen-gas
bubbles on engine start.  The pumps stop 6 seconds before engine start
and the failure would not have endangered the shuttle.

The successful Magellan launch clears the Eastern Test Range for a number
of other missions which have been waiting impatiently, notably the
first Titan 4 (early-warning satellite), a Titan 34D (either a military
comsat or an eavesdropping satellite), and a pair of Deltas (a Navstar
and an Indian comsat).  Some of the scheduling pressure was relieved
when the USN postponed further Trident 2 testing to permit a nozzle
redesign in the wake of the March 21 failure.

NASA will recommend killing the space station if Congress orders a cut
or $600-800M or more.  Such a cut is not at all unlikely.  NASA is
fighting with one foot in a bucket because it's in the middle of a
management shuffle, with key people (notably Truly) holding office
on an acting basis only.

Senate criticizes lack of cooperation between DoD and NASA, notably
the USAF's unwillingness to let NASA use Titan 4s.  "[DoD wants] its
own little space empire."

SDI [!] encourages NASA to accelerate retrieval of LDEF.  LDEF will
reenter unless retrieved by the end of this year at the latest.  NASA
currently plans retrieval early in December, which is cutting it very
close, especially with the uncertainty of reentry predictions.  The
Hubble Telescope may slip [it did] to keep LDEF retrieval on schedule.
SDI (and NASA) are very keen on studying the effects of five years in
space on LDEF's systems, including support equipment that was not
originally meant as experiments.  Particularly interesting are effects
of atomic oxygen on composites and solar cells, the number of space-
debris and micrometeorite collisions, and the effects of thousands of
day/night thermal cycles.

NRC committee strongly supports construction of the Aerospace Plane
prototype to improve hypersonic technology, while warning that it may
not be able to achieve orbit even with an auxiliary rocket system.

USAF moves to "normalize" space operations, emphasizing launches by
military technicians rather than contractors [the "own little space
empire" rears its head again], and standardization of payloads and
interfaces to permit last-minute selection of hardware.  The USN, on
the other hand, is wondering whether it can depend on space assets
controlled by the USAF, and the Army can't get excited about the idea
at all.

Future SDI shuttle payloads will depend on cost and lead time.  A
senior SDI commander observes that preparing the Starlab (SDI Spacelab)
mission for flight included 26 boxes of paperwork to support a NASA
safety analysis, which seems excessive.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #498
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jun 89 03:27:43 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA11939> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 21 Jun 89 03:27:21 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 21 Jun 89 03:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EYbo8t:00Ui3E19EVo>;
          Wed, 21 Jun 89 03:22:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.MYbo4xC00UkVIE6k4J>;
          Wed, 21 Jun 89 03:18:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <sYbo3be00UkVME5E5p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 89 03:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #499

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 499

Today's Topics:
	       NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 6 of 6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 14:09:31 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 6 of 6)


                                                   cameras. 
   
MLR                  Monodisperse Latex            Produces monodisperse latex particles in the two to  
                     Reactor                       forty micron range.  
   
MO                   Mars Observer                 Spacecraft to study the surface, climate, gravitational, 
                                                   and magnetic fields of the planet, Mars. 
   
MO II                Mars Observer II              Spacecraft to study Martian upper atmosphere and 
                                                   ionosphere.  Precursor to Mars Rover Sample  
                                                   Return Mission.  
   
MORELOS                                            Mexican communication satellite system.  
   
MPESS                Mission Peculiar Equipment    Experiment carrier.  
                     Support Structure 
   
   


                                                   6.17  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                       DESCRIPTION  
   
   
MPSE                 Mexican Payload Specialist    Experiment performed by a Mexican payload specialist on  
                     Experiment                    the Shuttle flight which deployed the MORELOS satellite. 
   
MS                   Mission Specialist            A member of Shuttle flight crew primarily responsible for  
                                                   payload activity.  
   
MSAT                 Mobile Satellite              Satellite for developing advanced ground technologies and  
                                                   techniques for mobile communications via satellite.  
   
MSL                  Materials Science             A payload which remains attached to the Shuttle to 
                     Laboratory                    perform materials processing experiments in low-g. 
   
N/A                  Not Applicable  
   
NATO                 North Atlantic Treaty         Communications satellite for NATO. 
                     Organization  
   
NOAA                 National Oceanic and          Series of operational environmental satellites in polar  
                     Atmospheric Administration    orbit. 
   
NOSL                 Night/Day Optical Survey      Optical survey of lightning. 
                     of Lightning  
   
NOVA                                               Advanced Navy Navigation Satellite.  
   
NTE                  NASA Technology Experients  
   
OASIS                OEX Autonomous Supporting     Collects environmental data in the Orbiter during  
                     Instrumentation System        dynamic STS flight phases. 
   
OAST                 Office of Aeronautics and
                     and Space Technology 
   

                                                   6.18  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
OAST-1               Office of Aeronautics         A payload which remained attached to the Shuttle to  
                     and Space Technology-1        demonstrate a large light-weight solar array capable of  
                                                   being restowed in flight.  
   
OEX                  Orbiter Experiments           Series of engineering experiments on the Shuttle.  
   
OIM                  Oxygen Interaction with       Tests which obtained quantitative rates of oxygen  
                     Materials                     interaction with materials used on the Orbiter and 
                                                   advanced payloads. 
   
OMV                  Orbital Maneuvering           A deployable retrievable vehicle to be flown on the STS  
                     Vehicle                       to retrieve or insert payloads in orbits different from  
                                                   the Orbiter. 
   
ORS                  Orbiter Refueling System      An experiment to demonstrate the ability of the STS to 
                                                   perform on-orbit satellite refueling.  
   
OSCAR                                              U.S. Navy Navigational Satellite.  
   
OSL                  Orbiting Solar Laboratory     Provide detailed data on the sun, to augment our studies 
                                                   of distant stars and cosmic processes. 
   
OSS-1                Office of Space Science-1     Contamination monitor,microabrasion foil experiment, 
                                                   vehicle charging and potential experiment,Shuttle- 
                                                   Spacelab induced atmosphere,solar flare x-ray  
                                                   polarimeter, solar ultraviolet spectral irradiance 
                                                   monitor, plant growth unit, thermal canister 
   
OSTA-1               Office of Space and           Shuttle attached payload using the Shuttle Imaging Radar 
                     Terrestial Applications       (SIR-A) to obtain high resolution images of earth. 
   
   

                                                   6.19  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
OSTA-2               Office of Space and           Microgravity experiments.  
                     Terrestial Applications 
   
OSTA-3               Office of Space and           Acquire photographic and radar images of the Earth's 
                     Terrestial Applications       surface. 
   
P                    Pilot                         A member of the Shuttle crew whose primary responsibility  
                                                   is to pilot the Orbiter. 
   
PAL or PALL          Pallet                        Spacelab Pallet structure  
   
PALAPA                                             Synchronous satellite communication system for the 
                                                   Republic of Indonesia. 
   
PAM                  Payload Assist Module         An upper stage system used on the Shuttle and the  
                                                   Delta ELV. 
   
PCG                  Protein Crystal Growth        PCG activity in controlled temperature module. 
   
PDRS/PFTA            Payload Deployment and        First object to be deployed and retrieved by the remote  
                     Retrieval System/Payload      manipulator system and is used to test reaction of RMS 
                     Flight Test Article           joints.  
   
PIONEER VENUS                                      Remote sensing and direct measurements of Venus and  
                                                   its surrounding environment. 
   
PLAN                 Planetary Trajectory          High Energy Trajectory to Outer Planets. 
   
PM                   Polymer Microstructure and    Determines effects of weightlessness on morphological  
                     Morphology in Microgravity    formation of polymers as they undergo physical 
                                                   transition.  
   
   

                                                   6.20  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
POLAR                                              Polar Auroral Plasma Physics.  
   
POP                  Polar Orbiting Platform       U.S. platforms will orbit Space Station Freedom and  
                                                   perform remote sensing experiments.  
   
PPE                  Phase Partitioning            Study separation behavior of two phase system generated  
                     Experiment                    by the mixture in water of polyglucose and polyethylene  
                                                   glycol.  
   
PS                   Payload Specialist            A member of the Shuttle crew with primary responsibility 
                                                   for a particular payload or experiment.  
   
PUR                  Payload Under Review  
   
PVTOS                Physical Vapor Transport      Commercial joint endeavor activity with the 3M 
                     of Organic Solids             Corporation. 
   
RADARSAT             Radar Satellite               Remote free flyer sensing satellite that will monitor 
land,  
                                                   sea and ice for five years over the poles (U.S./ 
                                                   Canadian). 
   
RCA                  RCA American Communications   Series of communications satellites. 
                     Inc., (now GE American  
                     Communications, Inc.) 
   
RDE                  Radiation Detection           Demonstrates new radiation detection technology. 
                     Experiment  
   
REFLUX               Return Flux Experiment        Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology 
                                                   experiment carried on a Hitchhiker-G.  
   
   
                                                   6.21  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
RME                  Radiation Monitoring          Measures gamma radiation levels in the Shuttle 
                     Equipment                     environment. 
   
RMS                  Remote Manipulator System     A Canadian developed, remotely controlled (from the  
                                                   Orbiter crew cabin) arm for deployment and/or  
                                                   retrieval of payloads from the Orbiter payload bay.  
   
ROSAT                Roentgen Satellite          NASA/West German cooperative satellite for studying X-rays.  
   
S                    Scout                         Small Class Expendble Launch Vehicle.  
   
S/C GLOW             Spacecraft Glow               An experiment to study and evaluate the effects of 
                                                   temperature on the glow characteristics of materials 
                                                   exposed to high velocity atomic elements.  
   
S/R-A                Shuttle Imaging Radar-A 
   
SAGE                 Strategic Aerosol and         Map vertical profiles of the ozone, aerosol, nitrogen  
                     Gas Experiment                Rayleigh molecular extinction around the globe.  
   
SALT                 Special (Purpose Inexpen-     DOD payload. 
                     sive Satellite) Altimeter 
   
SAM                  Shuttle Activation Monitor    Collects gamma and x-ray data as a function of 
                                                   geomagnetic location from spacecraft materials.  
   
SAMPE                Solar, Anomalous, and         A study for solar energetic particles, anomalous cosmic  
                     Magnetospheric Particle       rays, galactic cosmic rays, and magnetospheric 
                     Explorer                      electrons. 
   
   


                                                   6.22  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
SAMPIE/ESA           Solar Array Module Plasma     An experiment to study the plasma interaction effects  
                     Interaction Experiment/       on solar arrays mounted on the ESA MAST which is 
                     European Space Agency         extended from the Shuttle Bay. 
   
SAREX                Shuttle Amateur Radio         Space to ground voice and slow scan TV.  
                     Experiment  
   
SAS                  Space Adaptation Syndrome     Study x-ray sources within and beyond the Milky Way  
                                                   galaxy.  
   
SATCOM                                             RCA communications satellite.  
   
SBS                  Satellite Business Systems    All digital domestic communication system servicing  
                                                   large industry, the government, etc. 
   
SDS                  Solar Disk Sextant            Studies solar pulsations, oblateness, and size.  
   
SE                   Student Experiment            Experiments for the Shuttle Student Involvement  
                                                   Program (SSIP).  
   
SFMD                 Storable Fluid Management     Demonstrates transfer of room-temperature fluids in  
                     Demonstration                 zero-g using various transfer techniques.  
   
SFP                  Space Flight Participant  
   
SFU-RET              Space Flyer Unit-             A reusable, retrievable unmanned free flyer to be launched 
                     Retrieval                     on the Japanese H-II rocket and retrieved by Shuttle.  
   
SHARE                Space Station Heat Pipe       Demonstrates and quantifies the thermal performance of a 
                     Advanced Radiator Element     high capacity, 50 foot, space constructible, heat pipe 
                                                   radiator element.  
   
   

                                                   6.23  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
SHEAL                Shuttle High Energy           Obtains images, spectra and timing data on celestial x-ray 
                     Astrophysics Laboratory       sources and the spectrum at the 30 ft. x-ray background. 
   
SHOOT                Super Fluid Helium            Demonstrates the feasibility of on-orbit transfer of 
                     On Orbit Transfer             superfluid helium using thermomechanical techniques. 
                     Demonstration 
   
SIRTF                Space Infrared Telescope     Will span the infrared part of the spectrum with a thousand- 
                     Facility                     fold increase in sensitivity.  
   
SKIRT                Spacecraft Kinetic Infrared   Measures the infrared emissions produced from spacecraft 
                     Test                          and optical surfaces in low earth orbit. 
   
SKYNET               SKYNET                        United Kingdom military communication satellite. 
   
SL-D1                Spacelab D-1                  First dedicated German Spacelab mission. 
   
SL-D2, -D3           Spacelab D2, D3               Second and third in a series of German Spacelab Missions.  
                                                   Objectives include microgravity research and technology  
                                                   preparation for Space Station use.  NASA participation 
                                                   planned on D2 and under discussion for D3. 
   
SL-J                 Spacelab J                    Combined Japanese/NASA Spacelab mission.  Objectives 
                                                   include life sciences, microgravity, and technology  
                                                   research.  
   
SLS                  Space Life Sciences           Investigates the effects of weightlessness exposure using  
                     Laboratory                    both man and animal specimens. 
   
SLSTP                Space Life Sciences           Series of payloads to support a broad range of life  
                     Training Program              science studies. 
   
   

                                                   6.24  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
SMEX                 Small Explorer                Payloads being designed to fly on Small Class ELV. 
   
SMR                  San Marco Range 
   
SMRM                 Solar Maximum Repair          Conducts a technology demonstration of the STS capability  
                     Mission                       to rendezvous, service, checkout and deploy. 
   
SOHO                 Solar Heliospheric            Provides optical measurements as well as plasma field and  
                     Observatory                   energetic particle observations of the sun system for  
                                                   studies of the solar interior, atmosphere and solar wind.  
   
SOLAR PROBE                                        Study unexplored region of the solar atmosphere, 
                                                   measure electromagnetic fields and study 
                                                   the particle populations close to the sun. 
   
SOOS                 Stacked OSCAR on Scout        Two OSCAR satellites.  
   
SPACEHAB                                           Commercially-owned pressurized module for conducting 
                                                   experiments in a man-tended environment. 
   
SPACELAB 1                                         Demonstrated Spacelab's capabilities for multidisciplinary 
                                                   research.  
   
SPACELAB 2                                         Demondtrated Spacelab's capabilities for multidisciplinary 
                                                   research and verified system performance.  
   
SPACELAB 3                                         Dedicated materials processing mission emphasizing 0-g 
                                                   research.  
   
SPARTAN-HALLEY                                     Search for molecules containing nitrogen, carbon or sulfur 
                                                   and observes the UV spectrum between 2100 and 3400A. 
   
   

                                                   6.25  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
SPAS                 Shuttle Pallet Satellite      Payload Carrier developed by MBB, W. Germany.  
   
SPAS-01/01A          German Shuttle Pallet         Demonstrates the utilization of the MBB platform and 
                     Satellite                     systems as a carrier for science experiments.  
   
SPAS-CRISTA          Cryogenic Infrared            A U.S./German Joint Aeronomy Payload intended to explore 
                     Spectrometer Telescope for    the variability of the atmosphere and to provide 
                     Atmosphere                    measurements that will complement those provided by UARS.  
   
SPAS-ORFEUS          Orbiting and Retrievable      A German developed payload to explore the distribution and 
                     Far and Extreme               character of absorbing material in the solar neighborhood  
                     Ultraviolet Spectrometer      and to perform direct observations of the direct 
                                                   interstellor component.  
   
SPTN                 Shuttle Pointed               X-ray astronomy, medium energy survey mission, using 
                     Autonomous Research Tool      retrievable free flyer.  
                     for Astronomy 
   
SPTN-DOD-XX          SPARTAN-DOD Payload           A series of DOD SPARTAN missions.  
   
SPTN-T               SPARTAN-Target                Target for OMV-1 demonstration flight. 
   
SRAD/TPITS           Shuttle Radiator Assembly     Evaluates on-orbit thermal performance of a  
                     Demonstration/Two Phase       representative portion of an integrated two-phase  
                     Integrated Thermal System     thermal bus and on-orbit constructability of Space 
                                                   Station radiator elements using Remote Manipulator 
                                                   System and Extra Vehicular Activity techniques.  
   
SRL                  Space Radar Laboratory        Series of flights to acquire radar images of the Earth's 
                                                   surface.  The images will be used for making maps, 
                                                   interpreting geological features, and resources studies. 
   
   

                                                   6.26  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
SS                   Sun Synchronous 
   
SSBUV                Shuttle Solar Backscatter     Series of flights to measure ozone characteristics of  
                     Ultra-Violet Instrument       the atmosphere.  
   
SSF                  Space Station Freedom         Series of flights to assemble and operate a Phase One  
                                                   Space Station. 
   
SSIP                 Shuttle Student Involvement 
                     Program 
   
SSS                  Satellite Servicer System     Demonstrates capability to perform autonomous fluid  
                                                   resupply within the Shuttle bay. 
   
STARLAB                                            DOD Spacelab mission.  
   
STEX                 Sensor Technology             Demonstrates radiation measurement technology. 
                     Experiment  
   
STP-XX               Space Test Program-0X         A series of payloads which include DOD STP secondary 
                                                   experiments. 
   
STTP                 Life Sciences Space           Develop and encourage interest on the part of college  
                     Technology Training Program   students in space biology and medicine.  
   
SWAS                 Submillimeter Wave            Study how molecular clouds collapse to form stars  
                     Astronomy Satellite           and planetary systems. 
   
SYNCOM               Hughes Geosynchronous         Provides communication services from geosynchronous orbit  
                     Communication Satellite       principally to the U.S. government.  
   
   

                                                   6.27  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
TAPS                 Two Axis Pointing System  
   
TBD                  To Be Determined  
   
TDRS                 Tracking and Data Relay       Series of NASA tracking, data and communications 
                     Satellite                     satellites to replace the ground based network.  
   
TELESAT              Canadian Telecommunication    Communication satellite built for Telesat Canada to  
                     Satellite                     provide voice and TV coverage to trans-Canada network of 
                                                   Earth stations.  
   
TELSTAR              AT&T Communications           AT&T COMSTAR replacement -- provides communication 
                     Satellite                     services to the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and  
                                                   Puerto Rico. 
   
TEMP                 Two Phase Mounting            Operates a mechanically pumped two phase head  
                     Plate Experiment              acquisition transport and rejection system in  
                                                   microgravity.  
   
TFS                  Thermal and Fluid Systems     Evaluates operational components in a zero-gravity 
                     Test                          environment features of thermal and fluid systems of 
                                                   the Space Station Freedom. 
   
TIP                  Transit Improvement Program   Improved configuration - Transit Navigation Satellite  
   
TIS                  Teacher in Space              Middeck locker supporting the Space Flight Participant 
                                                   Program's teacher in space.  
   
TLD                  Thermoluminescent             Obtains gamma ray measurements of the Shuttle  
                     Dosimeter                     environment. 
   
   

                                                   6.28  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
TOMS                 Total Ozone Mapping           Study of Stratospheric ozone.  
                     Spectrometer  
   
TOS                  Transfer Orbit Stage  
   
TSS                  Tethered Satellite System     System capable of deploying and retrieving satellite 
                                                   attached by a wire tether from distances up to 100 km from 
                                                   the Orbiter. 
   
U.S.                 United States 
   
UARS                 Upper Atmosphere              Satellite to study physical processes acting within and  
                     Research Satellite            upon the stratosphere, mesosphere, and lower thermosphere. 
   
UFO                  Ultra High Frequency          U.S. Navy communications satellite.  
                     Follow-On 
   
ULYSSES              Formerly ISPM (Inter-         Investigates the properties of the heliosphere (sun and  
                     national Solar Polar          its environment).  
                     Mission)  
   
USAF-01              USAF Satellite                Small ELV class spacecraft -- specifics TBD. 
   
USML                 United States                 Series of flights of a microgravity materials processing 
                     Microgravity Laboratory       laboratory attached to the Shuttle.  
   
USMP                 United States Microgravity    Conduct materials processing experiments in the micro- 
                     Payload                       gravity environment available in the Orbiter cargo bay 
                                                   while in low earth orbit.  
   
USS                  Unique Support Structures 
   
   

                                                   6.29  






                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****  
   
   
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME                                          DESCRIPTION  
   
   
UVLIM                Ultraviolet Limb Imaging      Establishes the earth and space extreme UV environment 
                     Experiment                    and observes space structure and time variation in 
                                                   segments of the 1100-3000 angstrom range.  
   
WAMDII               Wide Angle Michelson          Set of instruments which study upper atmospheric winds 
                     Doppler Imaging               from the Shuttle.  
                     Interferometer  
   
WESTAR               Western Union Telegraph       A C-band satellite to replenish and expand the Westar  
                     Communication Satellite       system (Western Union domestic communication system).  
   
WFF                  Wallops Flight Facility 
   
WIND                                               Satellite to measure solar wind input to magnetosphere.  
   
WISP                 Waves in Space Plasmas        An attached payload to conduct a series of active  
                                                   experiments using radio transmitters to perturb the  
                                                   space plasma environment.  
   
WSMC                 Western Space and Missle      A USAF organization with Headquarters at Vandenberg Air  
                     Center                        Force Base.  
   
XTE                  X-Ray Timing Explorer         A payload to be used in Earth orbit to investigate 
                                                   the physical nature of compact X-Ray sources by  
                                                   studying fluctuations in X-Ray brightness over time- 
                                                   scales ranging from microseconds to years. 
   
   
                                                   6.30

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #499
*******************
Return-Path: <@PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jun 89 05:34:37 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00425> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 21 Jun 89 05:34:08 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 21 Jun 89 05:34:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.wYbpsH600UkTM1dk5w>;
          Wed, 21 Jun 89 05:21:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.gYbppN600UkVIEEk4J>;
          Wed, 21 Jun 89 05:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYbpo3C00UkV0EDE4C@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 89 05:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #500

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 500

Today's Topics:
		     EMI/EMC TEST FACILITY WANTED
		 Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2
			    Let's go back
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 20:52:59 GMT
From: agate!sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu!egp@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Earl Powell)
Subject: EMI/EMC TEST FACILITY WANTED


The Space Sciences Laboratory of the University Of California, Berkeley is
looking for a California vendor and/or facility do EMC testing on it's
ATLAS 1 payload (FAUST). The test should be to MSFC-SPEC-521A, (Electromagnetic
Compatibility Requirements on Spacelab Payload Equipment) section 4.

This testing is a requirment of our verification plan.

Your help is appreciated.
Thank you
Earl Powell, Project Manager Faust

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 15:03:52 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2

In article <2393@blake.acs.washington.edu> wiml@blake.acs.washington.edu (William Lewis) writes:
>In article <890612.21420918.098644@RMC.CP6> EDWARDJ@RMC.BITNET writes:
>>phases of the mission. [Query, did the Phobos probes fail because of the use
>>of cheap components, human error, both or neither?]

>   I don't remember the reason for the other probe's failure, although I
>think it was a probe failure and not an Earth failure... (?)

A space exibition featuring some of the results from Phobos 2
opened at the Science Museum in London last week. In what
they called an exclusive report, C4 news interviewed some of
the Soviet scientists responsible for the Phobos mission.

Three very strange details of the mission were revealed.

First, a number of the images taken of an area near the
equator in the infra-red clearly show an area covered with a
series of regular rectangular features about two miles across.
One of these images was shown in the report, and is in the
exhibition. (Anyone in London reading this who has been to
the exhibition and care to comment?)

Second, one of the images shown features the shadow of what
could only be one of the Martian moons. Except that there
wasn't any moon in the place and time it would have to have
been to cast the shadow.

Third, Phobos 2 was transmitting an image to Earth when the
signal died. In the words of one of the scientists
interviewed, it "showed something that shouldn't have been
there". The report interpreted this to mean that the last
image shows some debris in the same orbit as the moon
Phobos, and that it was collision with this that destroyed
Phobos 2. The Soviets haven't released this image.

The report tried hard to avoid being identified with the
"little green men" and "faces on Mars" group, but I am
surprised that the "newspapers" which regularly feature that
type of article haven't caught onto this story yet.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 07:55:43 GMT
From: amdcad!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Let's go back

The 20th anniversary is coming up in a month.  To celebrate, the Smithsonian's
AIR AND SPACE June/July issue was dedicated to Apollo.  Anyway, it started
me wondering just what you'd need to get there again.  Using my CRC and a
calculator, i came up with the followin numbers (again, i'm good at making
simple arithmetic mistakes; if you find some, send me email):

Delta v		which

5.383 km/sec	Earth Orbit (500 km) to escape velocity (i was too lazy to
		figure a lunar transfer trajectory, this should be reasonably
		close)
1.360 km/sec	Lunar transfer to Lunar Orbit (100 km) (this is too high--
		it's to get from a hyperbolic orbit into lunar orbit)
1.363 km/sec	Lunar Orbit to Lunar Surface (this is too low--it doesn't
		count delta-v wasted fighting lunar gravity)
0.292 km/sec	Three minutes hover at the lunar surface (this is to make up
		for the previous entry being too low)
2.480 km/sec	Lunar transfer to Lunar Surface (if we don't want to go into
		a lunar orbit before hitting (crashing if the engines don't
		restart) into the moon) (again, this doesn't figure delta-v
		wasted fighting lunar gravity--add in the hover time).


The 5.4 km/sec figure is nasty; it sounds like we need LOx/LH.  Oh well.
When they come back to earth, they can use aerobraking, and either go into
LEO or do a direct reentry.

Let's do this in a big way, like in the A. C. Clarke stories.

Let's look at a cargo moonship first.  Say it's supposed to softland 20 tons
on the moon; the 20 tons to include engines and guidance and landing gear and
so on.  Clearly, that'd take the shortest path--blast from LEO directly to the
moon.  5.4 + 2.5 + .3 = 8.2 km/sec delta v.  The SSMEs have an Isp of 4.464
km/sec in vacuum; say we can get 4.4 km/sec.  That's a mass ratio of about
6.45 (wet weight to dry weight).  Call it 131 tons fuel,  4 tons tanks,
20 tons for the rest of the moonship; 155 tons total.  That allows a bit of
slop.  We could send up two dry cargo ships per shuttle load (i think--it
has about a 45 ton capacity, doesn't it?).  Fuel is, of course, a problem.
It seems the solution would be to ship up fuel as water to an orbiting cracker/
refigerator (use expendables for this).

I guess that of the 20 tons eventually soft-landed, 15 tons could be useful
payload.

Oh well.  The return trip is much simpler.  Let's say we take off 20 tons
from the moon, the 20 tons again including engines and guidance and all that
stuff.  This is 2.5 + .2 = 2.7 km/sec delta v.  Call it 18 tons fuel, .5
tons tanks, for a wet weight of 39 tons.

So.  One ship could be a return vessel (and a bit of fuel), another could be
more fuel for the return vessel, and one could be astronauts.  Probably on the
order of six  astronauts.  Send up ten vessels (three return, three fuel,
three astronauts, one general-purpose cargo) resupply periodically, always
send enough fuel in the resupply ships to keep at least one of the return
vessels fully fueled, in case of accidents.


Let's see.  At $6M/metric ton to LEO, that's about $3 billion for a set of
three moon ships.  Not including materials or development (there is a quote
from WIERD SCIENCE that would be appropriate here.  Something along the lines
of "Shut up.  I know what reality is.  This is fantasy.").


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #500
*******************

Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/cYc6Xiy00UkVAEyE5j>;
          Thu, 22 Jun 89 00:19:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <QYc6XZu00UkVAEwU5j@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 00:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #501

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 501

Today's Topics:
	       NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 3 of 6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 14:06:34 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 3 of 6)

+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 25  | 86  1 28 | -  | 7 |SPTN-HALLEY         MPESS    |TIS        | C:FRANCIS R. SCOBEE (USAF, RET)   |  
| 51-L|CHALLENGER| -  | - |TDRS-B              IUS      |FDE        | P:MICHAEL J. SMITH (CDR., USN)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |CHAMP      | MS:JUDITH A. RESNIK (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |RME        | MS:E. ONIZUKA (LT. COL., USAF)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SSIP(3)    | MS:RONALD E. MCNAIR (PH.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | PS:GREGORY JARVIS (HUGHES)        |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | SFP:CHRISTA MCAULIFFE (TEACHER)   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 26  | 88  9 29 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-C              IUS      |ADSF-02    | C:F. H. HAUCK (CAPT., USN)        |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 160| 4 |                             |PVTOS-02   | P:R. O. COVEY (COL., USAF)        |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |IRCFE      | MS:J. M. LOUNGE (M.S-ASTROPHYSICS)|  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SE-82-04   | MS:G. D. NELSON (PH.D-ASTRONOMY)  |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |PCG-II-01  | MS:D. C. HILMERS (LT. COL., USMC) |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |IEF-02     |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |HME-01     |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |ARC-02     |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |MLE-01     |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |ELRAD      |                                   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SE-82-05   |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 27  | 88 12  2 | XX | 4 |DOD                          |           | C:R. L. GIBSON (CDR., USN)        |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | X  | 4 |                             |           | P:GUY S. GARDNER (LT. COL., USAF) |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:R. M. MULLANE (COL., USAF)     |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:JERRY L. ROSS (LT. COL., USAF) |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:W. M. SHEPHERD (CDR., USN)     |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
   
   
   
   


   
                                                   4.7 






  
                                 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS ****  
   
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| FLT |   DATE   |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS   CARRIER  | SECONDARY |          CREW ASSIGNMENT          |  
|     |  ORBITER | ALT|DUR|                             | PAYLOADS  |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 29  | 89  3 13 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-D              IUS      |SHARE      | C:CAPT. M. L. COATS (CAPT., USN)  |  
|     |DISCOVERY | 163| 5 |IMAX-01                      |SE-83-09   | P:JOHN E. BLAHA (COL., USAF)      |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |PCG-III-01 | MS:JAMES F. BUCHLI (COL., USMC)   |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |CHROMEX    | MS:R. C. SPRINGER (COL., USMC)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |SE-82-08   | MS:JAMES P. BAGIAN (M.D.)         |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |AMOS-01    |                                   |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
| 30  | 89  5  4 |28.9| 5 |MAGELLAN            IUS      |FEA-01     | C:DAVID M. WALKER (CAPT., USN)    |  
|     |ATLANTIS  | 161| 4 |                             |MLE-02     | P:RONALD J. GRABE (COL., USAF)    |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |AMOS-02    | MS:NORMAN E. THAGARD (M.D.)       |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:MARY L. CLEAVE (PH.D.)         |  
|     |          |    |   |                             |           | MS:MARK C. LEE (MAJ., USAF)       |  
+-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+  
   
   
   
   















                                                   4.8 









                           PREVIOUS SCOUT LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHTS

PROGRAM INITIATION DATE:  1959                        FIRST FLIGHT:  1960
LAUNCHES TO DATE:         112                         LAUNCH VEHICLE SUCCESSES:  98

                                      LAST 20 FLIGHTS

                                                      FINAL PAYLOAD
LAUNCH DATE     LAUNCH VEHICLE   SPACECRAFT           ORBIT ACHIEVED   NOTES

OCT 12, 1975    S-195            TIP 2                LEO              SUCCESS
DEC 5, 1975     S-196            DAD                                   FAILURE
MAY 22, 1976    S-179            AIR FORCE            LEO              SUCCESS
SEP 1, 1976     S-197            NAVY                 LEO              SUCCESS
OCT 27, 1977    S-200            NAVY                 LEO              SUCCESS
APR 26, 1978    S-201            HCMM                 LEO              SUCCESS
FEB 18, 1979    S-202            SAGE                 LEO              SUCCESS
JUN 2, 1979     S-198            UK-6                 LEO              SUCCESS
OCT 30, 1979    S-203            MAGSAT               LEO              SUCCESS
MAY 14, 1981    S-192            NOVA I               LEO              SUCCESS
JUN 27, 1983    S-205            HILAT                LEO              SUCCESS
OCT 11, 1984    S-208            NOVA-III             LEO              SUCCESS
AUG 2, 1985     S-209            SOOS-I               LEO              SUCCESS
DEC 12, 1985    S-207            AFITV                LEO              SUCCESS
NOV 13, 1986    S-199            AF POLAR BEAR        LEO              SUCCESS
SEP 16, 1987    S-209            S00S-2               LEO              SUCCESS
MAR 25, 1988    S-206            SAN MARCO-DL         LEO              SUCCESS
APR 25, 1988    S-211            SOOS-III             LEO              SUCCESS
JUN 15, 1988    S-213            NOVA-II              LEO              SUCCESS
AUG 25, 1988    S-214            SOOS-IV              LEO              SUCCESS








                                            4.9







                       PREVIOUS DELTA LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHTS

PROGRAM INITIATION DATE:  1959                        FIRST FLIGHT:  1960
LAUNCHES TO DATE:         182                         LAUNCH VEHICLE SUCCESSES:  170

                                      LAST 20 FLIGHTS

                                                      FINAL PAYLOAD
LAUNCH DATE     LAUNCH VEHICLE   SPACECRAFT           ORBIT ACHIEVED   NOTES

JUL 16, 1982    163              LANDSAT-D            SS               SUCCESS
AUG 26, 1982    164              TELESAT-F            GSO              SUCCESS
OCT 28, 1982    165              RCA-E                GSO              SUCCESS
JAN 26, 1983    166              IRAS                 SS               SUCCESS
APR 11, 1983    167              RCA-F                GSO              SUCCESS
APR 28, 1983    168              GOES-F               GSO              SUCCESS
MAY 26, 1983    169              EXOSAT               HE               SUCCESS
JUN 28, 1983    170              GALAXY-A             GSO              SUCCESS
JUL 28, 1983    171              TELSTAR-3A           GSO              SUCCESS
SEP 8, 1983     172              RCA-6                GSO              SUCCESS
SEP 22, 1983    173              GALAXY-B             GSO              SUCCESS
MAR 1, 1984     174              LANDSAT-D PRIME      SS               SUCCESS
AUG 16, 1984    175              AMPTE                HE               SUCCESS
SEP 21, 1984    176              GALAXY-C             GSO              SUCCESS
NOV 14, 1984    177              NATO-3D              GSO              SUCCESS
MAY 3, 1986     178              GOES-G                                FAILURE
SEP 5, 1986     180              DOD-1                LEO              SUCCESS
FEB 26, 1987    179              GOES-H               GSO              SUCCESS
MAR 20, 1987    182              PALAPA B2P           GSO              SUCCESS
FEB 8, 1988     181              DOD-2                LEO              SUCCESS








                                           4.10








                          PREVIOUS ATLAS CENTAUR VEHICLE FLIGHTS

PROGRAM INITIATION DATE:  1958                        FIRST FLIGHT:  May 8, 1962
LAUNCHES TO DATE:         66                          LAUNCH VEHICLE SUCCESSES:     56

                                      LAST 20 FLIGHTS

                                                      FINAL PAYLOAD
LAUNCH DATE     LAUNCH VEHICLE   SPACECRAFT           ORBIT ACHIEVED   NOTES

AUG 8,1978      AC-51            PIONEER VENUS-2      HELIO            SUCCESS
NOV 13,1978     AC-52            HEAO B               LEO              SUCCESS
MAY 4, 1979     AC-47            FLTSATCOM-2          GSO              SUCCESS
SEP 20, 1979    AC-53            HEAO 3               LEO              SUCCESS
JAN 17, 1980    AC-49            FLTSATCOM-3          GSO              SUCCESS
OCT 30, 1980    AC-57            FLTSATCOM-4          GSO              SUCCESS
DEC 6, 1980     AC-54            INTELSAT V           GSO              SUCCESS
FEB 21, 1981    AC-42            COMSTAR D-4          GSO              SUCCESS
MAY 23, 1981    AC-56            INTELSAT V           GSO              SUCCESS
AUG 6, 1981     AC-59            FLTSATCOM-5          GSO              FAILURE
DEC 15, 1981    AC-55            INTELSAT V           GSO              SUCCESS
MAR 4, 1982     AC-58            INTELSAT V           GSO              SUCCESS
SEP 28, 1982    AC-60            INTELSAT V           GSO              SUCCESS
MAY 19, 1983    AC-61            INTELSAT V           GSO              SUCCESS
JUN 9, 1984     AC-62            INTELSAT V                            FAILURE
MAR 22, 1985    AC-63            INTELSAT VA          GSO              SUCCESS
JUN 29, 1985    AC-64            INTELSAT VA          GSO              SUCCESS
SEP 28, 1985    AC-65            INTELSAT VA          GSO              SUCCESS
DEC 4, 1986     AC-66            FLTSATCOM-7          GSO              SUCCESS
MAR 26, 1987    AC-67            FLTSATCOM-6                           FAILURE








                                           4.11
























                                         SECTION 5


                                     PAYLOAD REQUESTS



        NOTES:

        1.  INCLUDES PRIMARY, COMPLEX SECONDARY, AND OTHER MANIFESTED SECONDARY
            PAYLOADS.

        2.  REQUEST DATE:  LAUNCH DATE REQUESTED BY THE PAYLOAD ORGANIZATION

        3.  FLIGHT DATE :  LAUNCH DATE SHOWN IN THE MANIFEST.
                           IF NOT MANIFESTED, NO DATE IS GIVEN.







                                             5







                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|     TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| AAFE                | 2 PALLETS       |  94 08     | 94 05 12  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| AFE-02              | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  88 04     | 89 12 18  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY*    | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| AFP-675             | PALLET          |  89 03     | 90 11  1  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ALFE (STP-01)       | HH-G            |  89 07     | 90 11  1  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| AMOS-03             | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 07     | 89 10 12  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY*    | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| AMOS-04             | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 08     | 89 12 18  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY*    | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ASP                 | HH-G            |  88 11     | 91 09 30  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ASTRO-01            | IG+2 PALLETS    |  89 11     | 90 04 26  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ASTRO-02            | IG+2 PALLETS    |  91 01     | 92 04  6  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ASTRO-03**          | IG+2 PALLETS    |  93 04     | 93 05  3  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ATLAS-01            | IG+2 PALLETS    |  90 09     | 91 03 28  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ATLAS-02            | IG+1 PALLET     |  91 09     | 92 07  9  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ATLAS-03            | IG+1 PALLET     |  92 11     | 93 07 15  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ATLAS-04            | IG+1 PALLET     |  93 11     | 94 04 21  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ATLAS-05**          | IG+1 PALLET     |  94 11     | 95 09 30  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
   
*    Not a complex secondary payload 
**   For NASA planning purposes  
   
   
                                                  5.1  






  
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|     TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| AXAF                | UNIQUE          |  95 12     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| BBXRT-01            | TAPS            |  89 11     | 90 04 26  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| BBXRT-02            | TAPS            |  92 04     | 92 04  6  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| BBXRT-03**          | TAPS            |  93 05     | 93 05  3  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| BIOPLATFORM-01**    | N/A             |  98 01     |           | MEDIUM**           |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CANEX-02            | UNIQUE          |  85 12     | 91 09 30  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CAPL                | HH-G            |  91 01     | 94 02  7  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CASSINI**           | CENTAUR**       |  96 04     |           | TITAN IV**         |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CMG-01              | MIDDECK         |  91 07     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CMG-02              | MIDDECK         |  92 07     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CMG-03              | MIDDECK         |  93 01     | 93 06 24  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CMG-04              | MIDDECK         |  93 07     | 94 01 13  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CMG-05              | MIDDECK         |  94 01     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CMG-06              | MIDDECK         |  94 07     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CMG-07              | MIDDECK         |  95 01     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
   
**   For NASA planning purposes  
   
   
                                                  5.2  






  
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|     TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CMG-08              | MIDDECK         |  95 07     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CNCR-01             | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 02     | 89 12 18  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY*    | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| COBE                | N/A             |  89 06     | 89 11     | DELTA              |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| COLD-SAT**          | N/A             |  96 12     |           | MEDIUM**           |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CRAF**              | CENTAUR**       |  95 08     | 95 08     | TITAN IV**         |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CRRES               | N/A             |  90 06     | 90 06     | ATLAS-CENTAUR      |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CSI-I (MAST-I)      | MDM PALLET      |  94 11     | 94 07 10  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CSI-II**            | MDM PALLET      |  95 12     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CTM                 | HH-G            |  89 06     | 94 12 13  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CVTE-01             | MIDDECK         |  89 11     | 91 01 31  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CVTE-02             | MIDDECK         |  91 06     | 92 01 16  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CVTE-03             | MIDDECK         |  92 04     | 92 12 10  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXE-01              | UNIQUE          |  90 10     | 94 05 12  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-01              | HH-M            |  92 01     | 92 01 16  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-02              | HH-M            |  91 10     | 92 08 27  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
   
*    Not a complex secondary payload 
**   For NASA planning purposes  
   
   
                                                  5.3  







  
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|     TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-03              | HH-M            |  92 01     | 93 02 22  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-04              | HH-M            |  92 04     | 93 09 30  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-05              | HH-M            |  92 07     | 94 09  8  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-06              | HH-M            |  92 10     | 95 02  3  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-07              | HH-M            |  92 07     | 95 08  8  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-08              | HH-M            |  92 04     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-09              | HH-M            |  91 04     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-10              | HH-M            |  92 10     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-11              | HH-M            |  93 01     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-12              | HH-M            |  93 04     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-13              | HH-M            |  93 07     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-14              | HH-M            |  93 10     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-15              | HH-M            |  94 01     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-16              | HH-M            |  94 04     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-17              | HH-M            |  94 07     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
   

   
   
                                                  5.4  







  
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|     TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-18              | HH-M            |  94 10     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-19              | HH-M            |  95 01     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| CXH-20              | HH-M            |  95 04     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| DEE                 | GAS BEAM        |  91 01     | 92 06 15  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| DOD-02              | UNIQUE          |  89 07     | 89 07 31  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| DOD-03              | UNIQUE          |  89 11     | 89 11 19  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| DOD-04              | UNIQUE          |  90 02     | 90 02  1  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| DOD-05              | UNIQUE          |  90 07     | 90 07  9  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| DOD-06              | UNIQUE          |  91 03     | 91 03  4  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| DOD-07              | UNIQUE          |  93 12     | 93 12 16  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| DXS                 | UNIQUE          |  92 08     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| ECT                 | HH-M            |  91 10     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EOIM-III-02         | MPESS           |  91 01     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EOIM-III-03         | MPESS           |  92 06     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EOIM-III-04         | MPESS           |  94 01     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
   
   
   
                                                  5.5  







  
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|     TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EOIM-III/TEMP2A-03  | MPESS           |  90 06     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EURECA-1L           | EURECA-A        |  90 09     | 91 05 16  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EURECA-1R           | EURECA-A        |  91 03     | 92 01 16  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EURECA-2L           | EURECA-A        |  93 01     | 93 06 24  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EURECA-2R           | EURECA-A        |  93 06     | 94 01 13  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EURECA-3L           | EURECA-A        |  95 06     | 95 08  8  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EURECA-3R           | EURECA-A        |  95 12     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EUVE                | N/A             |  91 08     | 91 08     | DELTA              |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| EXPLORER A**        | TBD             |  96 04     |           | MEDIUM**           |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| FASE                | N/A             |  93 12     | 93 12     | SMALL              |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| FEA-02              | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 07     | 89 12 18  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY*    | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| FLTSATCOM-F8(NAVY)  | N/A             |  89 09     | 89 09     | ATLAS-CENTAUR      |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| FR-01**             | HH-G            |  92 06     | 94 09  8  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| FR-02**             | HH-G            |  92 06     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| FR-03**             | HH-G            |  92 06     |           | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
   
*    Not a complex secondary payload 
**   For NASA planning purposes  
   
   
                                                  5.6  






  
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|     TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| FTS-DTF-01          | UNIQUE          |  91 09     | 91 09 30  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| FTS-DTF-02          | UNIQUE          |  93 01     | 93 04  8  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GALILEO             | IUS             |  89 10     | 89 10 12  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GAS BRIDGE          | GAS BRIDGE      |  90 06     | 91 06 17  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GEOSTAR-01          | PAM-D2          |  91 08     | 91 09 30  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GEOSTAR-02          | PAM-D2          |  92 02     | 92 08 27  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GEOSTAR-03          | PAM-D2          |  92 08     | 93 02 22  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GEOTAIL             | TBD             |  92 07     | 92 07     | MEDIUM             |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GHCD                | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 02     | 89 10 12  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY*    | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GOES-I              | N/A             |  90 07     | 90 10     | ATLAS I            |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GOES-J              | N/A             |  91 11     | 91 11     | ATLAS I            |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GOES-K              | N/A             |  92 05     | 92 05     | ATLAS I            |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GOES-L              | N/A             |  95 07     | 95 07     | ATLAS I            |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GOES-M              | N/A             |  95 12     | 95 12     | ATLAS I            |    N/A           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| GRO                 | UNIQUE          |  90 01     | 90 06  4  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
   
*    Not a complex secondary payload 
   
   
                                                  5.7  







  
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|     TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HC-10               | UNIQUE          |  88 10     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HC-11               | UNIQUE          |  88 05     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HC-12               | UNIQUE          |  89 02     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HC-13               | UNIQUE          |  89 06     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HC-14               | UNIQUE          |  89 11     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HC-15               | UNIQUE          |  90 06     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HC-16               | UNIQUE          |  90 11     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HC-17               | UNIQUE          |  91 06     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HC-18               | UNIQUE          |  91 11     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HPE                 | HH-G            |  89 02     | 93 02 22  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HST                 | N/A             |  89 06     | 90 03 26  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HST REV-01          | PALL+FSS        |  93 06     | 93 05 28  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| HST REV-02          | PALL+FSS        |  97 01     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IBSS                | SPAS            |  89 06     | 90 11  1  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IEH                 | HH-G            |  92 06     | 93 09 30  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
   
   
   
                                                  5.8  







  
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|     TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IFCE/ESA            | HH-G            |  91 06     | 93 02 22  | SHUTTLE            |    SECONDARY     | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IMAX-02             | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 10     | 89 10 12  | SHUTTLE            |    ***           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IMAX-03             | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 12     | 89 12 18  | SHUTTLE            |    ***           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IMAX-04             | ICBC+MD         |  90 03     | 90 03 26  | SHUTTLE            |    ***           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IMAX-05             | N/A             |  90 12     | 90 12  6  | SHUTTLE            |    ***           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IMAX-06             | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  91 03     | 91 03 28  | SHUTTLE            |    ***           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IMAX-07             | ICBC            |  91 05     | 91 05 16  | SHUTTLE            |    ***           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IMAX-HST-R          | ICBC            |  93 06     |           | SHUTTLE            |    ***           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IMAX-MAST-I         | ICBC            |  94 11     |           | SHUTTLE            |    ***           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IMAX-SRL-01         | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  91 07     |           | SHUTTLE            |    ***           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IMAX-UARS           | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  90 10     |           | SHUTTLE            |    ***           | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IML-01              | LM              |  91 04     | 90 12  6  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IML-02              | LM+EDO          |  93 01     | 93 01 21  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IML-03              | LM+EDO          |  95 04     | 95 04 14  | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
| IML-04**            | LM+EDO          |  97 04     |           | SHUTTLE            |    PRIMARY       | 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+ 
   
**   For NASA planning purposes  
***  IMAX is manifested with the appropriate primary payloads
   
   
                                                  5.9  






  
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** 
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------------+------------------+

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #501
*******************
Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jun 89 05:27:22 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03314>; Thu, 22 Jun 89 04:11:21 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 22 Jun 89 04:11:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AYc9VGK00jZdI0v0FY>;
          Thu, 22 Jun 89 03:42:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.YYc9:S200UkVMFDU5Q>;
          Thu, 22 Jun 89 03:17:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYc991S00UkVEFC05B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 03:16:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #502

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 502

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Space Station Computer System
			 Re: Orbital queries
			  Books about Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 89 14:11:42 GMT
From: datapg!com50!questar!dave@uunet.uu.net  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: Space Station Computer System

In article <3251@mhres.mh.nl> hst@mh_co2.mh.nl (Klaas Hemstra) writes:
> Space station ?
> What space station ?
> Mir ?
> I believe there are Russian computers in there :-)

Could someone describe the computers and data network on Mir?
-- 
David Becker 
and another bug bites, and another bug bites   another bug bites the dust
db@kolonel.MN.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 23:47:17 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!jep@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Orbital queries


   Regarding #2:
A rocket sitting on the launch pad has a west-to-east
velocity due to the daily rotation of the earth. At the
equator this is about 464 m/s (approx. 1038 mph). At a 
latitude L it is 464 cos L m/s.  To launch into an east-to-west
"retrograde" orbit, one would have to expend fuel to cancel
this velocity component, rather than use it as a 
*freebie* in an easterly launch.  Satellites in geosynchronous
orbit also travel *west-to-east*, i.e. posigrade; it's
just that the earth rotates at exactly the same west-to-east
angular velocity as the satellite, so it appears motionless
over a point on the surface of the earth at the equator.
     For polar orbits, the easterly velocity of the launch
pad must be cancelled out exactly
and a northerly (or southerly) velocity added.  This is relatively
expensive
in terms of fuel (smaller payloads to orbit) and is
accomplished by launching toward the north-west; that's
why our polar orbit satellites are launched from
Vandenberg AFB in California out over the Pacific
Ocean.........wouldn't want to launch north-west from
Cape Canaveral.......TOO DANGEROUS!

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 11:25:28 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!tub!tubopal!opal!olaf@uunet.uu.net  (Olaf Heimburger)
Subject: Books about Space


A friend of mine is looking for some books, papers, or informations
about the followings topics:

 - Space projects on Earth
 - Future of Space Research
 - Computer Aided Astronomy

Please e-mail me your comments, suggestions, etc.

Regards,
--olaf

--
* Olaf Heimburger, The ISOTEXT Project, TU Berlin (West), Dep. of CS
* uucp: ...!pyramid!tub!olaf (US) ...!mcvax!unido!tub!olaf (Europe)
* <olaf@tub.UUCP> <olaf@db0tui6.BITNET> <olaf@tub.BITNET>
* >>> Have you hugged your Computer today?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #502
*******************

From:	EDU%"space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU" 22-JUN-1989 20:18:58.05
To:	NAGY
CC:	
Subj:	SPACE Digest V9 #503

Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by FNALC with RSCS id 1688
          for NAGY@FNALC; Thu, 22 Jun 89 20:18 CDT
Received: by PSUVM (Mailer R2.03B) id 3418; Thu, 22 Jun 89 21:17:21 EDT
Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 89 17:28:06 EDT
Reply-To:     space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Sender:       space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
From:         space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject:      SPACE Digest V9 #503
Comments: To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
To:           "'FRANK J. NAGY'" <NAGY@FNALC>, MIKE TRAYNOR <TRAYNOR@FNALC>
 
SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 503
 
Today's Topics:
           NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 4 of 6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 15 Jun 89 14:07:31 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest (Part 4 of 6)
 
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| INMARSAT-01         | PAM-D2          |  88 06     | 92 11 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| INMARSAT-02         | PAM-D2          |  94 04     | 93 09 30  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| INTELSAT VI-01      | UNIQUE          |  89 10     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| INTELSAT VI-02      | UNIQUE          |  90 04     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| INTELSAT VI-05      | UNIQUE          |  91 01     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-01              | FM+DS           |  94 02     | 94 02  7  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-02              | AM+DS           |  94 08     | 94 11 20  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-03              | FM+DS           |  95 02     | 95 05 10  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-04**            | AM+DS           |  95 08     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-05**            | AM+DS           |  96 02     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-06**            | AM+DS           |  96 08     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-07**            | AM+DS           |  97 02     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-08**            | AM+DS           |  97 08     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-09**            | AM+DS           |  98 02     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-10**            | AM+DS           |  98 08     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
**   For NASA planning purposes
 
 
                                                  5.10
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-11**            | AM+DS           |  99 02     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-12**            | AM+DS           |  99 08     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-13**            | AM+DS           |  00 02     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ISF-14**            | AM+DS           |  00 08     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| IUTE-05             | HH-M            |  95 06     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| L3                  | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 02     | 89 12 18  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY*    |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| LAGEOS II           | IRIS            |  90 06     | 91 09 30  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| LDEF-RETR           | N/A             |  89 07     | 89 12 18  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| LIFESAT-01**        | TBD             |  94 01     |           | MEDIUM**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| LIFESAT-02**        | TBD             |  94 06     |           | MEDIUM**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| LIFESAT-03**        | TBD             |  95 01     |           | MEDIUM**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| LIFESAT-04**        | TBD             |  95 06     |           | MEDIUM**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| LIFESAT-05**        | TBD             |  96 03     |           | MEDIUM**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| LIFESAT-06**        | TBD             |  96 09     |           | MEDIUM**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| LITE-01             | PALLET          |  92 10     | 93 04  8  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
*    Not a complex secondary payload
**   For NASA planning purposes
 
 
                                                  5.11
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| LUNAR OBSERVER**    | TBD             |  96 10     |           |
 INTERMEDIATE**     |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| MACSAT (NAVY)       | N/A             |  89 09     | 89 09     | SCOUT
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| MARS OBSERVER       | TOS             |  92 09     | 92 09     | TITAN III
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| MARS OBSERVER II**  | TBD             |  97 06     |           |
 INTERMEDIATE**     |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| MLE-03              | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 02     | 89 10 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY*    |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| MLE-04              | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 03     | 89 12 18  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY*    |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| MSAT**              | TBD             |  93 03     | 93 03     | MEDIUM**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| NOAA-D              | N/A             |  90 01     | 90 01     | ATLAS E
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| NOAA-I              | N/A             |  91 05     | 91 05     | ATLAS E
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| NOAA-J              | N/A             |  92 09     | 92 09     | ATLAS E
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| NOAA-K              | N/A             |  93 12     | 93 11     | TITAN II
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| NOAA-L              | N/A             |  95 04     | 95 04     | TITAN II
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| NOAA-M              | N/A             |  96 07     |           | TITAN II
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| NTE-02**            | TBD             |  96 06     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| NTE-03**            | TBD             |  97 01     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
*    Not a complex secondary payload
**   For NASA planning purposes
 
 
                                                  5.12
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| OMV-01              | N/A             |  93 12     | 93 10 21  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| OSL**               | TBD             |  95 08     |           | MEDIUM**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| PCG-III-02          | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 04     | 89 12 18  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY*    |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| PM-01               | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 02     | 89 10 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY*    |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| POLAR               | TBD             |  93 06     | 93 06     | MEDIUM
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| POP-I**             | TBD             |  96 10     |           | TITAN IV**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| POP-II**            | TBD             |  98 10     |           | TITAN IV**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| RADARSAT**          | TBD             |  94 06     | 94 06     | MEDIUM**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| RCA 3001            | PAM-D           |  90 06     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| RCA 4004            | PAM-D2          |  89 09     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| RCA 4006            | PAM-D2          |  91 06     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| REFLUX              | HH-G            |  92 12     | 94 05 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ROSAT               | N/A             |  90 02     | 90 02     | DELTA
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| S/C GLOW            | HH-M            |  92 06     | 94 01 13  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SALT (NAVY)         | N/A             |  90 03     | 90 03     | SCOUT
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
*    Not a complex secondary payload
**   For NASA planning purposes
 
 
                                                  5.13
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SAMPE               | N/A             |  92 06     | 92 06     | SCOUT
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SAMPIE/ESA          | HH-M            |  92 06     | 94 11 20  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SATCOM              | PAM-D2          |  91 07     | 93 09 30  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SDS-01              | HH-G            |  92 01     | 92 06 15  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SDS-02              | HH-G            |  93 01     | 93 08 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SE-82-15            | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  82 06     | 89 10 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY*    |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SFU-RETR            | UNIQUE          |  93 06     | 93 06 24  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SHARE II            | UNIQUE          |  91 01     | 91 01 31  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SHEAL II            | UNIQUE/TAPS     |  91 05     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SHOOT               | HH-M            |  92 03     | 92 11 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SIRTF**             | CENTAUR**       |  98 06     |           | TITAN IV**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SKIRT (STP-01)      | HH-G            |  89 07     | 90 11  1  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SL-D2               | LM + USS        |  90 10     | 92 02  6  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SL-D3               | LM + USS        |  92 10     | 93 11 18  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SL-J                | LM              |  90 10     | 91 06 17  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
*    Not a complex secondary payload
**   For NASA planning purposes
 
 
                                                  5.14
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SLS-01              | LM              |  90 03     | 90 08 16  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SLS-02              | LM+EDO          |  92 03     | 92 09 30  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SLS-03              | LM+EDO          |  94 06     | 94 06  9  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SLS-04              | LM+EDO          |  96 06     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SLS-05**            | LM+EDO          |  98 06     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SMEX-04             | N/A             |  94 09     | 94 09     | SMALL
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SMEX-05             | N/A             |  95 06     | 95 06     | SMALL
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SMEX-06             | N/A             |  95 12     | 95 12     | SMALL
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SMEX-07             | N/A             |  96 06     |           | SMALL
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SMEX-08             | N/A             |  96 12     |           | SMALL
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SMEX-09             | N/A             |  97 06     |           | SMALL
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SMEX-10             | N/A             |  97 12     |           | SMALL
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SOHO                | N/A             |  95 03     | 95 03     | INTERMEDIATE
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SOLAR PROBE**       | CENTAUR**       |  98 05     |           | TITAN IV**
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPACEHAB-01         | SPACEHAB        |  91 06     | 92 01 16  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
**   For NASA planning purposes
 
 
                                                  5.15
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPACEHAB-02         | SPACEHAB        |  92 10     | 92 08 27  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPACEHAB-03         | SPACEHAB        |  93 07     | 93 06 24  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPACEHAB-04         | SPACEHAB        |  93 12     | 94 01 13  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPACEHAB-05         | SPACEHAB        |  94 06     | 94 07 10  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPACEHAB-06         | SPACEHAB        |  94 12     | 95 02  3  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPACEHAB-07         | SPACEHAB        |  96 04     | 95 08  8  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPACEHAB-08**       | SPACEHAB        |  96 10     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPACEHAB-09**       | SPACEHAB        |  95 07     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPAS-CRISTA         | ASTRO-SPAS      |  93 05     | 93 07 15  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPAS-ORFEUS         | ASTRO-SPAS      |  91 05     | 92 08 27  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-02             | MPESS           |  89 01     | 92 07  9  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-03**           | MPESS           |  94 04     | 94 04 21  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-04**           | MPESS           |  95 04     | 95 09 30  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-DOD-01         | DOD MPESS       |  91 05     | 92 11 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-DOD-02         | DOD MPESS       |  92 05     | 94 05 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
**   For NASA planning purposes
 
 
                                                  5.16
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-DOD-03         | DOD MPESS       |  93 05     | 95 02  3  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-DOD-04         | DOD MPESS       |  94 05     | 95 08  8  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-DOD-05         | DOD MPESS       |  95 05     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-DOD-06         | DOD MPESS       |  96 05     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-DOD-07         | DOD MPESS       |  97 05     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SPTN-T              | MPESS           |  93 12     | 93 10 21  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SRAD/TPITS          | PALLET          |  92 01     | 92 11 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SRL-01              | PALL+MPESS      |  92 03     | 92 06 15  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SRL-02              | PALL+MPESS      |  93 08     | 93 08 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SRL-03              | PAL+MPESS       |  94 12     | 94 12 13  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-01            | UNIQUE          |  88 01     | 89 10 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-02            | UNIQUE          |  89 01     | 90 06  4  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-03            | UNIQUE          |  89 07     | 91 01 31  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-04            | UNIQUE          |  90 01     | 92 01 16  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-05            | UNIQUE          |  90 07     | 92 07  9  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
 
 
                                                  5.17
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-06            | UNIQUE          |  91 01     | 92 12 10  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-07            | UNIQUE          |  91 07     | 93 07 15  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-08            | UNIQUE          |  92 01     | 94 04 21  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-09            | UNIQUE          |  92 07     | 94 10 13  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-10            | UNIQUE          |  93 01     | 95 09 30  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-11            | UNIQUE          |  93 07     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSBUV-12            | UNIQUE          |  94 01     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-01              | UNIQUE          |  95 03     | 95 03  2  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-02              | UNIQUE          |  95 06     | 95 06  6  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-03              | UNIQUE          |  95 09     | 95 09  7  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-04              | UNIQUE          |  95 10     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-05              | UNIQUE          |  95 12     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-06              | UNIQUE          |  96 02     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-07              | UNIQUE          |  96 03     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-08              | UNIQUE          |  96 05     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
 
 
                                                  5.18
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-09              | UNIQUE          |  96 06     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-10              | UNIQUE          |  96 08     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-11              | UNIQUE          |  96 09     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-12              | UNIQUE          |  96 11     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-13              | UNIQUE          |  96 12     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-14              | UNIQUE          |  97 02     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-15              | UNIQUE          |  97 03     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-16              | UNIQUE          |  97 05     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-17              | UNIQUE          |  97 06     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-18              | UNIQUE          |  97 08     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-19              | UNIQUE          |  97 09     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSF-20              | UNIQUE          |  97 11     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SSS                 | UNIQUE          |  93 10     | 93 10 21  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| STARLAB             | LM+1 PAL        |  90 06     | 91 08 22  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| STEX                | MIDDECK LOCKER  |  89 04     | 89 10 12  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY*    |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
*    Not a complex secondary payload
 
 
                                                  5.19
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| STP-01              | HH-M            |  90 07     | 90 11  1  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| STP-02              | MPESS           |  92 08     | 93 04  8  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| STP-03              | MPESS           |  94 08     | 94 07 10  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SWAS                | N/A             |  93 06     | 93 06     | SCOUT
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| SYNCOM IV-05        | UNIQUE          |  89 07     | 89 12 18  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| TDRS-E              | IUS             |  90 03     | 91 01 31  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| TDRS-F              | IUS             |  91 08     | 92 12 10  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| TDRS-G              | IUS             |  91 12     | 94 03 24  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| TDRS-H**            | IUS             |  92 11     | 94 10 13  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| TFS-01              | HH-G            |  93 01     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| TFS-02              | HH-G            |  94 01     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| TOMS                | N/A             |  93 01     | 93 01     | SCOUT
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| TSS-01              | MPESS+1 PAL     |  90 10     | 91 05 16  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| TSS-02**            | MPESS+1 PAL     |  92 10     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| TSS-03**            | MPESS+1 PAL     |  94 10     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
**   For NASA planning purposes
 
 
                                                  5.20
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| UARS                | N/A             |  90 10     | 91 11 27  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| UFO-02              | UNIQUE          |  93 10     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| UFO-03              | UNIQUE          |  94 04     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| ULYSSES             | IUS/PAM         |  90 10     | 90 10  5  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| USAF-01             | N/A             |  91 03     |           | SCOUT
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| USML-01             | LM+EDO          |  92 03     | 92 03  5  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| USML-02             | LM+EDO          |  94 03     | 94 03  3  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| USML-03             | LM+EDO          |  96 03     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| USML-04             | LM+EDO          |  98 03     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| USMP-01             | MSL+MPESS       |  92 05     | 92 05 18  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| USMP-02             | MSL+MPESS       |  93 06     | 93 02 22  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| USMP-03             | MSL+MPESS       |  94 06     | 93 09 30  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| USMP-04             | MSL+MPESS       |  95 06     | 94 09  8  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| USMP-05**           | MSL+MPESS       |  96 06     |           | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| UVLIM (STP-01)      | HH-G            |  88 07     | 90 11  1  | SHUTTLE
      |    SECONDARY     |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
**   For NASA planning purposes
 
 
                                                  5.21
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS ****
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
|       PAYLOAD       |     CARRIER     |REQUEST DATE|FLIGHT DATE|
 TYPE/CLASS     |PRIMARY/SECONDARY |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| WAMDII              | TAPS            |  93 04     | 93 04  8  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| WIND                | TBD             |  92 12     | 92 12     | MEDIUM
      |    N/A           |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| WISP                | OMV+PALL        |  93 12     | 93 10 21  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
| XTE                 | FSS             |  93 11     | 94 07 10  | SHUTTLE
      |    PRIMARY       |
+---------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+--------------
 ------+------------------+
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                  5.22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        SECTION 6
 
 
                                                  PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            6
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****
 
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME
 DESCRIPTION
 
 
AAFE                 Aeroassist Flight              Experimental vehicle that
 simulates the atmospheric flight
                     Experiment                     phase of an Aeroassisted
 Orbital Transfer Vehicle (AOTV)
                                                    returning from
 geosynchronous orbit.  Provides
                                                    environmental and design
 data for an AOTV.
 
AC                   Atlas Centaur                  Intermediate Class
 Expendable Launch Vehicle.
 
ACES                 Acoustic Containerless         Technical demonstration to
 obtain early microgravity
                     Experiment System              tests of gas transport
 phenomena in a 3-axis levitation
                                                    furnace.
 
ADSF                 Automatic Directional          Technology demonstration of
 directional solidification
                     Solidification Furnace         of magnetic materials,
 immiscibles, and IR detection
                                                    materials.
 
AF Polar Bear        Air Force Polar Bear           Study atmospheric effects on
 electromagnetic
                                                    propagation.
 
AFE                  American Flight                Collects quantitative
 in-flight data on cardiovascular
                     Echocardiograph                changes in the crew.
 
AFITV                Air Force Instrumented         Anti-satellite target
 vehicle.
                     Test Vehicle
 
AFP-675              Cryogenic Infrared             Collects infrared data to
 support Strategic Defense
                     Radiance Instrument            Initiative program.
                     for Shuttle (CIRRIS)
 
ALFE                 Advanced Liquid Feed           Demonstrates performance of
 liquid feed system
                     Experiment                     components in low-gravity
 environment.
 
ALT                  Altitude                       Orbit altitude in nautical
 miles.
 
 
                                                   6.1
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                       **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST ****
 
PAYLOAD/ACRONYM                 NAME
 DESCRIPTION
 
 
AM                   Auxiliary Module               Provides consumables
 resupply, payload changeout
                                                    and additional on-orbit
 volume for the ISF
 
------------------------------
 
End of SPACE Digest V9 #503
*******************
Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Jun 89 00:37:51 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA10266> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 23 Jun 89 00:37:30 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 23 Jun 89 00:37:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.oYcPltG00UkTQ1:E85>;
          Fri, 23 Jun 89 00:28:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.MYcPg8a00UkVQGDk57>;
          Fri, 23 Jun 89 00:22:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <IYcPdwm00UkVAGCE58@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 89 00:20:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #504

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 504

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
	      Re^2: Getting news about China from space
		     Re: A&E Apollo XI coverage?
		     Re: NSS Space Hotline Update
			      Re: (none)
 Contractors selected for Advanced Launch System studies (Forwarded)
	     APOLLO 11 on Arts and Entertainment Channel.
				Re: UN
				Re: UN
		     longitude/latitude receiver
		       A&E Apollo XI coverage?
		   Re: Chaotic Pluto == no Nemesis?
	       Subject: Planetoid 1989 FC information.
		       Geomorphology from Space
			 Re: Orbital queries
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 89 23:09:00 GMT
From: usc!polyslo!csun!fedeva!premise!mirror!frog!john@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (John Woods)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <1989Jun8.054723.15609@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <108671@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
> >Say, if we throw enough comets and other iceballs at Venus to get the
> >water back, and if they're placed correctly, maybe we could get the
> >planet's spin rate up some.
> I saw, in JBIS I think, a proposal to use the half-dozen biggest
> asteroids to kill two birds with one stone:  blast most of the atmosphere
> off into space and spin the planet up as well.  You can guess how. :-)
> Unfortunately, even the big asteroids are not really as big as one would
> like for the job -- the "day" would still be a week or so long.

Did they consider a slingshot around the Sun to increase the terminal
velocity?  Is that even possible?  (If you ain't got enough m, try some v^2).
On the other hand, being closer to the Sun and more rigid, the tidal slowing
effect might be embarrasingly large in the middle run...


-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu
    People...How you gonna FIGURE 'em?
    Don't bother, S.L.--Just stand back and enjoy the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS...

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 09:01:29 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!acorn!camcon!cpc@uunet.uu.net  (Chris Cracknell)
Subject: Re^2: Getting news about China from space

seth@poopsie.UUCP (Seth D. Hollub) writes:

>Spot probably can't detect individual soldiers, but may be able to detect
>masses of people and things. US platforms can detect individuals.

>Seth

I believe that the best spatial resolution is achieved with satellites in
steerable elliptical orbits, ie. making low-level passes over areas of 
interest.   Spot and most other non-military remote sensing satellites fly
at nearly constant altitude, in regular orbits.

Bye.

Chris Cracknell

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 89 19:37:51 GMT
From: janus!bwood@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Blake Philip Wood)
Subject: Re: A&E Apollo XI coverage?

In article <1274@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> dpointer@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (David B. Pointer) writes:
>I remember reading in sci.space 2 months ago about the Arts and Entertainment
>cable channel's plans to rebroadcast the Apollo XI launch on June 16, the
>moon landing on June 20, and the capsule recovery on June 24 (i.e., 20
>years to the day after each event happened).  Well, I can't find the 
>broadcast listed today (June 16).  Anyone know what happened?  Did A&E
>scrap their plans?  Or was I just hallucinating?

You're one month off.  All these things happened in July 1969, not June.


                 Blake P. Wood - bwood@janus.Berkeley.EDU
                 Plasmas and Non-Linear Dynamics, U.C. Berkeley, EECS

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 89 22:47:21 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NSS Space Hotline Update

In article <246900028@cdp>, jordankatz@cdp writes:
>Stephania Follini, the woman who spent a record 130 days isolated
>in a cave, was undergoing tests last week to determine the 
>philological effects of her long term isolation experiment.  

She must have spent more time reading than we were led to believe!

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 15:11:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: (none)


But why, for instance, limit them to 4Meg of memory, when it is known that
that is just _not_ enough for UNIX in most cases, and certainly inadequate
for X-windows? I can see why making memory cards is hard - I don't see why
8 (or 16) M is much harder than 4M.

Alan M. Carroll                "And there you are
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu           Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'"
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 89 23:27:36 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Contractors selected for Advanced Launch System studies (Forwarded)

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Jerry Berg
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.


RELEASE:  89-99

CONTRACTORS SELECTED FOR ADVANCED LAUNCH SYSTEM STUDIES

     NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has 
announced the selection of three firms for negotiations leading 
to award of contracts for systems definition studies of two 
proposed new liquid-propellant rocket engines.

     The definition study efforts are part of the Space 
Transportation Engine Program, which could lead to development of 
the rocket engines to meet requirements of the Department of 
Defense/NASA Advanced Launch System program and other future U.S. 
launch system needs.

     The Advanced Launch System is intended to provide, by the 
1998-2000 time period, a dependable, reliable, high-capacity 
national launch capability while reducing by a factor of 10 the 
cost of placing payloads in Earth orbit.

     Each contract is expected to be valued at approximately $20 
million and will be a 36-month effort.  The firms selected for 
contract negotiations are Aerojet General Corp., Sacramento, 
Calif.; Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies Corp., 
West Palm Beach, Fla.; and Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell 
International, Canoga Park, Calif.  

    The engines to be defined for the Space Transportation Engine 
Program are:

    o   The Space Transportation Main Engine, which would use 
liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants and achieve a 
thrust level (in vacuum) of approximately 580,000 pounds.  The 
main engine would be used in the Advanced Launch System core 
stage and might also be employed in a booster application.

    o   The Space Transportation Booster Engine, which would use 
liquid methane and liquid oxygen propellants for a thrust (at sea 
level) of approximately 500,000 to 650,000 pounds.  The booster 
engine is envisioned as a derivative of the Space Transportation 
Main Engine, rather than a unique design.  A decision will be 
made later about whether this engine or the Space Transportation 
Main Engine will be used in the Advanced Launch System booster 
stage. 

     The emphasis in systems definition of both engines will be 
on use of innovative designs and approaches that will yield 
higher reliability, lower production cost and lower operational 
cost in the resulting engines, compared to existing liquid 
propellant rockets.  Both engines are to be designed for either 
reusable or expendable application.

     The definition study efforts will involve analyzing 
configuration options and associated tradeoffs and preparing 
preliminary designs, at the system, subsystem and component 
levels, for the two engine concepts.

    The three contracts to result from current negotiations will 
be closely coordinated with ongoing propulsion advanced 
development contracts aimed at demonstrating and providing 
sufficient maturity for new propulsion technologies which could 
be fed into the engine systems.  A selection of firms for 
negotiations leading to contracts in that area was announced by 
NASA in March 1989.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 89 22:19:00 GMT
From: renoir.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: APOLLO 11 on Arts and Entertainment Channel.


	A&E will be broadcasting the news coverage done for APOLLO 11 
in 1969, but it will be in July, *not* June as you wrote.  APOLLO 11
was launched from Cape Kennedy (now Cape Canaveral again) on July 16,
1969, landed on the Moon July 20, and returned to Earth on July 24.

	Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1989 12:05-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: UN

> the Soviet Union, who repeated his Government's proposal for the
> establishment 
> of a world space organization to oversee international activities in space
> development.

Ah those Terran Imperialists are at it again. Trying to make sure none
of those future colonials get out from under their bootheels...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1989 12:10-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: UN

> P.S. ...and don't call me Libertarian, I'm a member of the Republican Party.

You sound damn close. Sure you don't want to switch affiliation like
Ron Paul (and a few other elected or formerly elected Republicans) did?

I'd happily join my well armed vessel with yours in a mutual
self-defense peace treaty. ie, blow to pieces anyone who attempts to
raise our social consciousness at laser point...

Just agree not to try to tax me for your part of the defense budget and
don't ask what the 3 or 5 leaved plants in the hydroponics section
are... :-)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 89 17:14:29 GMT
From: quintro!wde@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (William D. Eaton)
Subject: longitude/latitude receiver

I need to know about equipment that will determine longitude and
latitude.  I have seen a demo on tv of a system that used a receiver
and (I presume) a constellation of satellites.  I'd like to know:


        A. How accurate is it ? (in feet or in seconds)

        B. How much does a receiver cost ?

        C. How much does a receiver weigh ? how big is it ?

        D. Who makes them ? & where can I get one ?

                                        I'd be obliged
                                        Bill Eaton

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 89 18:20:20 GMT
From: uxc!garcon!uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu!dpointer@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (David B. Pointer)
Subject: A&E Apollo XI coverage?

I remember reading in sci.space 2 months ago about the Arts and Entertainment
cable channel's plans to rebroadcast the Apollo XI launch on June 16, the
moon landing on June 20, and the capsule recovery on June 24 (i.e., 20
years to the day after each event happened).  Well, I can't find the 
broadcast listed today (June 16).  Anyone know what happened?  Did A&E
scrap their plans?  Or was I just hallucinating?

*dave


----------------------------------------------------------------------
  David Pointer                    Center for Supercomputing R&D
  dpointer@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu    305 Talbot Lab  104 S. Wright St.
  (217) 244-6392                   Urbana, IL  61801
----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 89 20:26:12 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Chaotic Pluto == no Nemesis?


 rehrauer@apollo.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes:

>I seem to recall a thread here some time ago about the "Nemesis" theory
>of a large solar companion out in the hinterlands.  If my oft-faulty
>memory serves me this time, I seem to recall that the supporters of the
>Nemesis idea have used "otherwise unexplainable" quirks in Pluto's orbit
>as circumstantial evidence to support it.

Well, no, since Nemesis, if it exists, would be about at apohelion
now, perhaps two light years away.

On the subject of Nemesis: Nature (6/8/89) has an article where some
researchers claim to have found two nonstandard amino acids (isovaline
and something else) in the clay for tens of centimeters above and
below the KT boundary layer, but not actually in the boundary.  These
amino acids (found in both L and R forms) are found in carbonaceous
meteorites, but are extremely rare on earth.

To me, this find seems consistent with a comet shower.  The earth
would pick up dust particles shed by comets throughout the shower, and
these small dust particles could perhaps decelerate gently enough in
the upper atmosphere.  The impact of a large comet with the earth
would heat and destroy any organic matter in the comet.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1989 12:39-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Subject: Planetoid 1989 FC information.

> International Astronomical Union (IAU) Circular 4767 - 1989 April 7

PLEASE keep posting these!!! Does the IAU have any kind of BB where
newly reported astronomical events, SN, Asteroids, etc are posted? That
kind of information would be a data feast for us all.

I usually have to dig through a number of publications to keep up with
this kind of info.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 18:18:26 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!dbg@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (dbg)
Subject: Geomorphology from Space

>
>In NASA SP-486, "Geomorphology from Space", pp. 432-433, is a list
>of 15 possible origins of the Carolina Bays, including meteor swarms
>
.
.
>Incidently, this SP is really great.  Try to get a copy.

I would very much like to get a copy.  Where do I look?

					Dave Green
					att!ihlpl!dbg

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 22:18:00 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxh.cso.uiuc.edu!jep@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Orbital queries


  Regarding #2:
A rocket sitting on the launch pad at the equator has an easterly
velocity due to the daily rotation of the earth
of about 464 m/s (1038 mph). At latitude L it is
464 cos L m/s.  To launch into an east-to-west (retrograde)
orbit one would have to expend the fuel to cancel out this
easterly velocity, rather than use it as a *freebie*
for an easterly launch.
  A satellite in geosynchronous orbit is also travelling
west-to-east, i.e. posigrade; it's just that the earth
is rotating beneath it at exaclty the same angular velocity.
  To establish a polar orbit one must expend the fuel to
exactly cancel the easterly velocity of the launch pad and then
add a northerly (or southerly) orbital velocity.  This is
expensive in terms of fuel required and results in smaller
payloads to orbit.  It is accomplished by launching north-west.
That's the reason U.S. polar orbit satellites are launched
from Vandenberg AFB in California out over the Pacific
Ocean.  Wouldn't want to launch north-west from
Cape Canaveral......TOO DANGEROUS!

           John E. Prussing
           Department of Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering
           University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
           ......
           jep@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #504
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Jun 89 05:18:41 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03568>; Fri, 23 Jun 89 03:35:42 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 23 Jun 89 03:35:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.EYcSMza00Vs1E12kJC>;
          Fri, 23 Jun 89 03:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.gYcSFLG00UkVEGTk5A>;
          Fri, 23 Jun 89 03:18:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4YcSDb-00UkVQGSE57@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 89 03:16:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #505

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 505

Today's Topics:
   Re: NASA, Amroc agree to critical chemical exchange (Forwarded)
		More on the SS computers and NuBUS/MCA
			 SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT
		      help name my missing book?
     Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		   Re: longitude/latitude receiver
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 89 22:42:54 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NASA, Amroc agree to critical chemical exchange (Forwarded)

In article <26964@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident (Peter E. Yee) forwards:
>Jim Cast
>Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 14, 1989
>
>RELEASE:  89-92
>
>     NASA also is purchasing its ELV launch services needs 
>directly from commercial operators, whenever possible, to support 
>its scientific and applications missions that are not assigned to 
>fly on the Space Shuttle.  Missions that do not require the 
>unique capabilities of the Space Shuttle are being placed on ELVs 
>in support of NASA's policy to use a mixed fleet of Shuttles and 
>ELVs to assure access to space for its programs.

Two questions for NASA fans: 

How many companies offer commercial launch services?  How many launches
has NASA purchased on a commercial basis?  (launch services, not launch
vehicles)

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17 Jun 89 00:33 EDT
From: John Taylor <V131Q5CG@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: More on the SS computers and NuBUS/MCA

>>Why PS/2's? Why the Micro Channel bus in particular? If they want to
>>use PC's, why not the (vastly superior) Apple Mac? Oh well... :(
 
>From: IN%"vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)"
>You are joking, right? While I am no fan of the IBM PC's and PS's, calling
>the Mac a "superior" machine is kind of like saying that an amoeba is
>superior to a bacteria.
 
	I don't get the signifigance; the Mac is faster, easier to use, and has
a better bus.

>What is it that you think makes the Mac so superior to the IBM? OK, so the
>Motorola 68030 is a better processor than the 80386 (IMHO)...that doesn't
>make the Mac a "superior" machine....

	No, not on the basis of the processor alone, although the memory
segmenting of the Intel chips is an obstacle not found in the Motorola
chips.
 
>The only thing that makes the Mac any good at all is the Mac human interface,
>this will probably not be of any consequence for the space station software.

	No? I think it would make things vastly easier. In additon, all the
Mac's "Human Interface" routines are in ROM which speeds execution and
simplifies programming, reduces RAM requirements, etc.

>are NOT PS 2's, but rather are a new design based on Intel 80386 chips and
>the micro channel bus. 

	Why Intel chips? I don't understand the constant use of these things;
the MC68030 is easier to program and is _signifigantly_ cheaper.

>Perhaps the designers will have enough common sense
>to put a few DMA channels on the thing.....
 
	Micro Channel has DMA...

>One thing I am kind of hazy on: what are the relative merits of the micro
>channel vs. the NuBus?
 
	This is a large part of my complaint. NuBUS is a much faster bus than
Micro Channel (37 MB/s vs 27 MB/s if I recall correctly); in addition, MCA 
stops the bus during the aforementioned DMA read/write (therefore active
cards have to temporarily stop comm. operations), MCA has no "backplane" (so
the processor, memory, and cards are all on the.. uh ... frontplane ...), 
and MCA has a narrower bandwidth than NuBUS. In addition, NuBUS bus
expanders are readily available, the standard expansion being to 14
slots. Oh yes, and NuBUS is a developed, "mature" bus, unlike MCA.
	A very extensive war was fought in the pages of "Control Engineering"
 this subject about 6 months to a year back; it's interesting reading... 

	I hope this qualifies as "Space-Related"...

-------------
John Taylor -- State University of New York at Buffalo
Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 89 13:23:58 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hp-sde!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT

SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT

TARGET:  Rep. Bill Nelson 
         Phone: 202/225-3671

OBJECTIVE:  Hold hearings on HR2674 -- The Commercial Space Transportation
Service Purchase Act of 1989 -- as soon as possible.

ACTION:  Dial Congressman Nelson's office at 202/225-3671, ask for
Jim Sutherland, his administrative aid.  Tell Mr. Sutherland that you
and other space activists are looking to Congressman Nelson to
hold hearings on HR2674 -- The Commercial Space Transportation Service
Purchase Act of 1989 -- as soon as possible.  Mention the benefits to Florida's
economy and prestige of its launch facilities becoming the primary space port 
for commercial launches in the continental United States.  Encourage Rep.
Nelson to give higher priority to funding Shuttle missions involving its
unique, manned, capabilities -- such as scientific research using SpaceLab 
and SpaceHab.  Mention the fact that more scientific research into microgravity
materials processing of gallium arsenide will lead to a more competative
place for the US in the world supercomputer market and that such research
has been lagging due to a lack of launch slots for SpaceLab and SpaceHab
missions.  Refer to Seymour Cray's new company, Cray Computer, and the fact
that it is basing its next generation supercomputer on gallium arsenide,
but must use small scale integration due to the poor quality of gallium
arsenide produced in 1G.

BACKGROUND:  The Commercial Space Transportation Service Purchase Act of
1989 provides a more robust market for commercial space transportation
service vendors by directing most government launches to the commercial
vendor with the lowest bid.  Exemptions are made for payloads which require
the Shuttle's unique capabilities, missions which must, for national 
security reasons, be launched by the government and current payloads
already scheduled to launch on the Shuttle.  HR2674 was introduced this
week by the Hon. Ron Packard with cosponsors spanning the entire political
spectrum, including the Hon. George Brown and the Hon. Ron Dellums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 89 18:19:57 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!tekig5!rbeville@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Beville)
Subject: help name my missing book?


	for posting in sci.astro and sci.space... have I got the
	correct newsgroups?...
	Hi, I loaned this years ago and they/it has gotten away:

	A stiff-cover paperback by an Army Air Corps officer that
	*properly* instructed  amateur rocket enthusiasts in the
	construction and launching of small solid fuel rockets...

	It contained:
	A treatment about the thrill of the hobby...  A sermon about
	accidents and safety...  The characteristics and requirements
	of a solid fuel propellant... some drugstore/hardware recipe/
	formulae for (several) solid fuels... Construction drawings &
	details for cardboard tube fusalages, nose cones and fins...
	how to build a engine test stand-bunker... how to build a
	launch bunker... how to build the launch igniter... how to
	supervise a launch... how to determine altitude achieved by
	rocket using protractors and trig tables... trig tables...

	It was written so us kids of the 'zip-gun' generation would
	stop blinding ourselves or blowing our hands off. (do you know
	how far a cherry bomb in a 1-1/2 inch pipe will throw a D-cell
	battery?   have you ever taken strike-anywhere matches....?)

	I date it pre- '47 because the author was A-A-Corps...
	Words like: amateur, rocket, handbook were in the title.
	So.... what was the name and author of my @#$%^&* book?

	THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR AN email REPLY...
	
	best regards, rbeville@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
	Bob Beville, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR 97077

   "UNKIND-1 to GLOWWORM-7-9-4...  break off your mission at t-minus-
   ten and evacuate the launch area....  copy?....." ssssssssssttttt!

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 89 14:37:47 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@uunet.uu.net  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this

> In article <8906082336.AA04884@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?) writes:
>I recently interviewed a potential summer hire who was very excited about
>the upcoming 20th anniversary of Apollo 11.  Seems it's also her 20th birthday!

Would this person's name be "Module" by any chance? I remember hearing
on the TV News at around the time of Apollo 11, that someone in the
States had named her newly-born daughter "Module". Wonder what she's
doing now. Might even have little space probes of her own :-)

-- 
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND
JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk   BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 89 02:42:48 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

> > >> they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's

That's a big purchase.  Did NASA get IBM to throw in on-site service
at no extra charge? And can an astronaut-technician take the cover off
a hard drive on an EVA without voiding the warranty? (After all, LEO
is a heck of a lot cleaner than the room where they build them thar
things.) Will the astronauts be able to dial an 800 telephone support
number from their desks, or will they have to go upstairs and use the
pay phone? Will the space station provide anonymous FTP? Will the
space station astronauts have NET access?

Is this what the VARS call a "vertical market?"

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 89 21:44:07 GMT
From: umigw!ibiza!dl@handies.ucar.edu  (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

> Article <SHAFER.89Jun14120042@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> From: shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

# In article <109957@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
#    What use could they have for a Bell HueyCobra (AH-1<mumble>)?
# 
# We have a B-52, fighters, and attack aircraft here at Ames-Dryden.  
# Be nice!
NASA Lewis may still have Robert Vesco's {sp} old Lear. Customs
used it for a long time, but I guess the Cocaine Cowboys were
outrunning it or something, because it appeared on the
(internal) govt surplus list. An old prof of mine got it for
zero g project use.
--
David Lesher wb8foz@mthvax.miami.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 89 17:24:15 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!wombat!george@apple.com  (George Scolaro)
Subject: Re: longitude/latitude receiver

In article <354@quintro.UUCP> wde@quintro.UUCP (William D. Eaton) writes:
>I need to know about equipment that will determine longitude and
>latitude.  I have seen a demo on tv of a system that used a receiver
>and (I presume) a constellation of satellites.  I'd like to know:
>
-- Stuff deleted --

One company that has such a device is listed below. The unit makes use
of GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites. There are currently
7 operational and turned on satellites. Last weekend another GPS satellite
was launched, it will probably take a month or so before they put it
on line (testing and stuff right now, I assume).

The address of the company that I bought a handheld unit is:

Magellan Systems Corp.
260 East Huntington Drive,
Monrovia, CA, 91016
(818) 358-2363, FAX (818) 359-4455

The unit has an RMS error of 30 metres in 2D. It operates on 6 AA batteries
or external power. It is basically water proof in construction and primarily
intended for boating use. It cost $2800 incl tax. Magellan recommends $3000
but your mileage will vary with the place you buy it from. The unit has just
come out on the market (I think I was one of the 1st to get a retail unit
since I had it on order for over a month, with continual calls to Magellan).
It has a 16x2 LCD panel with rubber membrane buttons for entering information
etc. The unit works very well and I am impressed on the ease of use. Magellan
did an excellent job on the user interface. The antenna is built in, the
whole unit is 8.75 in x 3.5 in x 2.13 in and weighs 29 oz with batteries.
Some of the other specs are:

- Time to first fix 3.5 minutes (2D) typical, in continuous operation.
- Time to subsequent fix 30 seconds (2D) typical.
- Memory: 50 user stored waypoints, 9 automatic way points.
- Time displayed to second.
- Can determine 2D fix with 3 satellites in view, or 3D fix (2D+altitude)
  with 4 satellites in view.
- Has an almanac that is updated from the satellites to determine satellite
  availability and status for any time up to 6 months in the future and at
  any user entered place on the earth. This is handy until full gps coverage
  occurs.
- Speed accurate to around 0.2 knots.
- Can be configured for nautical units, statute or metric.
- Handheld, no external connections, ie you can't hook it to a computer.

With the current satellite availability you get around 6 hours+ of coverage
per day. My prime reason for purchasing the unit was for going out 'bush'
in australia (my home country). I like going 4wding and oz is big enough,
with few enough roads that you can get lost in a big way (past experience).
And since it is such a flat country it is very hard to use natural formations
for navigating, even though there are excellent military maps available. The
GPS unit will certainly revolutionize trips to the back of beyond!

Well thats some of the features etc. I am very impressed with the unit.
Magellan certainly deserves to be successful in the personal gps market
place. I am pretty sure that they are the first to have a commercial gps
unit that is handheld at such a low price.

P.S. I have no affiliation with Magellan, just a real happy customer....
P.P.S I posted a while ago asking if anyone on the net knew the approx
schedule for future GPS launches, I still have no reply (hint for more
info)!
-- 
George Scolaro
george@wombat
(try {pyramid|sun|vsi1|killer} !daver!wombat!george)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #505
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Jun 89 06:25:26 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00697>; Fri, 23 Jun 89 05:30:56 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 23 Jun 89 05:30:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kYcU51O00UkTE11U4d>;
          Fri, 23 Jun 89 05:22:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.gYcU1:600UkV0Gdk5z>;
          Fri, 23 Jun 89 05:18:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYcU00-00UkVQGcE57@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 89 05:16:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #506

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 506

Today's Topics:
		 HST update - from the horse's mouth
		     Military and Civilian Space
      Re: Ozone depletion, atmospheric models, and public policy
		       RE: SPACE Digest V9 #494
      Re: Ozone depletion, atmospheric models, and public policy
		  How does one subscribe to this...
			 Re: Orbital queries
			  Re: Chaotic orbits
		      Re: Outer Space Committee
			      subscribe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 17 Jun 89 22:00 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  HST update - from the horse's mouth

     The following is amalgamated from my notes taken at the recent
(last week) American Astronomical Society meeting.  The talk was given by
A. Boggess from NASA/Goddard, and was an update on everything that is going
on with the Hubble Space telescope at this time.  My notes of the talk are
chicken scratches, so forgive any errors.

     The HST is set to launch March 26, 1990, but is actually ready to go at
any time before that.  As mentioned earlier, it is currently at Lockheed in
California and will be moved via an Air Force C5-A to Cape Kennedy.  Certain
final checks still need to be done before moving (and are currently in
progress).  These are:

     -  The cataloguing and closing off of all boxes on the HST.  (I guess
        that these are the accessible compartments on the outside of the
        HST.)  These will then not be opened again until the HST is in
        space, and then only if repair work need be done.  When this is
        completed, the only opening will be the main mirror aperture.

     -  It will then be moved into a horizontal position to be ready for
        packaging (into a special box designed by the Air Force) and shipping.

     -  Three potentially loose bolts on the secondary mirror must be checked.
        These will be replaced, with the new bolts being affixed with epoxy.

     As of June 1, 1989, the schedule for the HST is the following:

     July 10-11     Turn horizontal - replace nuts/bolts.
     July 24-28     Optical tests.
                      - illuminate with white light to look for dust/clean
                      - turn on the instruments, flood with white light,
                        and do final instrument alignment
     October 7-12   Ship to launch site.
     October 26 onward
                    Functional tests at Kennedy Space Centre.
     March 10       Place in shuttle and move to launch site
     March 26       Launch
                      - deploy within 2 days (thank you, now go away :-) )
     2 months of turn on testing
        -  power, maneuvering capability, then instruments
     Next 5 months
        -  basic calibrations, simple basic science (3 months, 2 months
           respectively, but intermingled)
     7 months after launch
        -  telescope is `open' for business to the general observing public
        -  currently, there is a 10-1 oversubscription for the available
           observing times (first year)

     There were also some comments made with respect to questions from the
audience.  Even with the solar maximum expected in the next few years, NASA
figures that HST will only require about 1 reboost every 5 years.  Any reboost
would require a shuttle flight by itself (someone explain this to me - I
didn't get a chance to ask), with the first one tentatively set for about 5
years down the road.  However, if it turns out that reboosts are required
more often, the HST would become uneconomical.  In fact, the suggestion was
made to move back the launch date if newer simulations show this to be the
case.  Nothing much else was said about that matter.

     For those of you who dislike the idea of spending so much money on
space-based research, you should be glad to hear that the 8-meter ground-based
telescopes look like they have a good chance of getting the funding needed.
Currently, the US will build one of them, and Canada and Great Britain will
split the second.  One will go to Mauna Kea, the other to Chile, with a 2:1:1
subscription ratio for the two instruments going to the countries involved.
Cost is currently estimated at about $60 million for the Hawaiian telescope,
and about $48 million for the Chilean one.  Some of the difference is due to
the Chilean instrument being built second, the rest, I think, is due to the
difference in labour costs.  By the way, don't quote me on the numbers, I
didn't write them down - they are accurate within $10 million (a lot better
than the government is capable of doing!).  There are, of course, 4 other
telescopes of the 8-meter class being built - by the Keck group, ESO, and Japan.

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
BITNET:  gill@qucdnast                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 89 17:24:17 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Military and Civilian Space

Should military and civilian space programs be separate in the US?  If
so, how can this be accomplished?  If not, what objections do you have?

Please e-mail replies to me.  I'll post a summary.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 89 23:40:49 GMT
From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net  (John E Van Deusen III)
Subject: Re: Ozone depletion, atmospheric models, and public policy

In article <8906141936.AA14067@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
> In article <386@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>> I suspected from the beginning that the so-called 'ozone hole' was
>> just part of a natural cycle that we would have been seeing all along
>> if we had had satellites for decades.  It makes no sense whatsoever
>> that a fluorocarbon-induced hole would first appear over the south
>> pole.

According to the Jan 1988 issue of Scientific American, pg 32., the
decline in springtime ozone levels over Antarctica was first identified
by Joseph C. Farman and his colleagues at the British Antarctic Survey.
They have monitored ozone levels directly over Halley Bay since *1956*.
Their work continued until the results were published in 1985.
Satellite observations beginning in 1971 completely confirm their work.
The mean value of 300 Dobson Units declined precipitously starting in
1976 and reached a low of 160 in 1985.

> ... the proposed "fix" is to undertake a presumably expensive switch
> to alternate products, with us as consumers or taxpayers expected to
> foot the bill. ...

John Roberts seems to be in general agreement with Mike Van Pelt's
statements.

> - It is generally agreed that an increase in the short wavelength
> ultraviolet light reaching the surface is undesirable. This light can
> be blocked by O3 (ozone) or by O2 (regular oxygen). (The books don't
> really go into the relative effectiveness of the two.)

For much of the following see "The Astrophysics of Suntanning" by
Bradley E Schaefer, NASA-Goddard Spaceflight Center, in SKY and
TELESCOPE, June 1988, pg. 595.

The most destructive UV-C radiation has a wavelength shorter than
2800 Angstroms.  It is so strongly absorbed by the earth's atmosphere
that it is seldom observed on the surface.  The observation that O2
absorbs "short wavelength ultraviolet light" is not relevant, because
UV-C does not reach the earth.  The burns, skin cancer, wrinkles,
blotchy pigmentation, and leathery skin resulting from prolonged exposure
to Sun light are the result of UV-B rays, 2800-3200 angstroms.  Oxygen
does NOT block UV-B.  For a standard ozone layer, (300 Dobson Units or
3 mmm STP), UV-B is dimmed 4.6 magnitudes per air mass.  Other factors
include scattering by air molecules, 1.2 magnitudes, and scattering by
dust, 0.2 magnitudes.

> CFCs tend to break down very slowly, with an expected lifetime of
> 50-100 years. The free chlorine atoms last only a relatively short
> time, before combining with other substances and drifting back toward
> the troposphere.

CFCs are almost impervious to breakdown by normal atmospheric processes,
and they persist until they diffuse into the stratosphere.  CFCs break
apart when they absorb UV radiation. The result is the release of a free
Chlorine atom.  When the free Chlorine encounters ozone, Chlorine
monoxide and an oxygen molecule are formed.  Once Chlorine monoxide
encounters a free oxygen molecule, the Chlorine atom is released, and
another molecule of O2 forms.  The Chlorine atom thus acts as a
*catalyst* for the destruction of ozone.  The only interference reaction
that removes the Chlorine atom is the reaction of Chlorine monoxide with
Nitrogen dioxide to form Chlorine Nitrate.
 
> - Ozone depletion by chlorine is expected to be effective only in the
> upper atmosphere. If the current ozone layer were depleted, it is
> expected that more ozone would form lower down ...

Ozone forms when UV radiation cracks an Oxygen molecule.  If the Ozone
layer is depleted, then this process should occur at lower elevations.
As stated above, the production of free Chlorine from CFCs uses exactly
the same mechanism.

> - There is very little interest in measuring the short wavelength
> ultraviolet light at the surface.

Because it does not exist.  See above.

> Many (but not all) researchers seem to feel that depletion of the
> current ozone layer would be directly proportional to increase of
> ultraviolet at the surface.

The fraction of light reaching the ground is 10^-kM/2.5
	where k is the absorption coefficient, shown above to be about
	6.0, and M is the number of Air Masses, 1 at zenith.

A ten percent reduction in Ozone results in over *50* percent increase
in UV-B radiation reaching the earth.

> - I would assume that the winter holes in the ozone layer at the poles
>   are caused by depletion of the ozone when there is not much sunlight
>   present. The ozone builds back up in the spring when the sun reappears.

The Antarctic Ozone hole forms in the spring!
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865

uunet!visdc!jiii

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 89 03:43 CST
From: IH04@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V9 #494


Re: GANYMEDE

I am a writer working on a project that puts life on Ganymede, and I'm
trying to decide what kind of differences a Ganymedan would have to
have to live on a giant ice-covered moon with low density, no
atmosphere to speak of and a greatly distant sun.  It seems to me that
there could be underground oceans heated by Ganymede's core, and some
kind of life could exist there, but my lack of expertise is really
showing as I develop this.  Can anyone help?            

Also, I'd like to know how I can find out if there are gold deposits
on Ganymede or any other body in our solar system.

Many thanks,
Rogers (IH04@NTSUVAXB)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 89 23:19:49 GMT
From: amdahl!pacbell!ditka!bucket!loop!keithl@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Ozone depletion, atmospheric models, and public policy

In article <8906141936.AA14067@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
> - There is very little interest in measuring the short wavelength ultraviolet
>   light at the surface. Many (but not all) researchers seem to feel that 
>   depletion of the current ozone layer would be directly proportional to
>   increase of ultraviolet at the surface.

There was an article in *Science* last year or so (Ref?) about actual, 
long term measurements of biologically active UV at various sites around
the US.  There has been a *slight decrease*. The sites included both
rural and urban measurements - the decrease is not due to local pollution.

Decreasing CFC use is still a good idea, as long as people show a little
perspective in what they replace it with, and how nasty they get about it.

Keith


-- 
Keith Lofstrom    keithl@loop    tektronix!tessi!qiclab!loop!keithl
Launch Loop, P.O. Box 1538, Portland, Oregon 97207   (503)-628-3645

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 89 12:01:47 MDT
From: gavron%dac@lanl.gov (Ehud Gavron, MS H828 (505)665-1131)
To: GOV@"space@angband.s1.gov", GAVRON%beta@lanl.gov
Subject: How does one subscribe to this...

subscribe
	How does one subscribe to this space digest?

	EG

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 89 23:49:00 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Orbital queries


>From rsmith@udel.edu:

>   2)  Why do most space launches orbit west-to-east relative to the earth's 
>	surface?  Obviously other possibilities exist (e.g., geosynchronous 
>	and polar).  Nonetheless, I don't know of any that go east-to-west.  
>	How come?

Many satellites *do* orbit in east-to-west (or retrograde) orbits.  Most are
in orbits which are just barely retrograde (i.e., an inclinations of just
greater than 90 degrees).

The only relatively equatorial retrograde satellite in my recent recollection
(and the most news worthy) is Ofek-1 launched by Israel last September using
a Shavit rocket.  If you consider Israel's geographic position relative to
the Mediterranean, it's fairly obvious why it was launched in this manner.

> Thanks in advance for any insights -

You're welcome.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	          |     Illini Space Development Society
 ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu     |     a chapter of the National Space Society
 phone: (217) 359-0056            |     at the University of Illinois
          P.O. Box 2255 - Station A, Champaign, IL  61825
"We are all tired of being stuck on this cosmical speck with its monotonous
 ocean, leaden sky and single moon that is half useless....so it seems to me
 that the future glory of the human race lies in the exploration of at least 
 the solar system!"                          - John Jacob Astor, 1894

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1989 11:38-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Chaotic orbits

> of the "new science of chaos" (of which I understand nothing) as opposed
> to the sense in which "chaos rules my desk" (which I understand far too

Look for the book by Gleick ("Chaos"). There is also a reasonably
stuffy "historical/philosophical" treatment by Ilya Prigogine himself. I
recommend them both.

A chaotic orbit is one that is bounded but never repeats exactly, ie it
is described by a strange attractor.

Normal orbits are just cases where the attractor has not bifurcated at
all. There is a series of bifurcations leading to chaotic regions. The
limits are still predictable and the object is well behaved, not
"random" in a gaussian sense. It is just impossible (in a
mathematically provable sense) to predict its future position at an
arbitrary time t in the future. The accuracy of the prediction is
sensitively dependant on the conditions at t0,  and two points
arbitrarily close together at t0 will be arbitrarily far apart at time
t sufficiently far in the future. You cannot measure better than
Heisenberg allows, therefore you cannot predict a chaotic orbit arbitrarily
far in the future.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 89 14:34:47 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%AI.AI.MIT.EDU@MINTAKA.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Outer Space Committee
To: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu
Cc: KFL%AI.AI.MIT.EDU@MINTAKA.lcs.mit.edu, Space@andrew.cmu.edu

> The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space ...

With China, the USSR Cuba, and other butchers as members.  Right.
I hope the US isn't involved.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 89 22:34:29 MDT
From: gavron%dac@LANL.GOV (Ehud Gavron, MS H828 (505)665-1131)
To: GOV@"space+@andrew.cmu.edu", GAVRON%beta@LANL.GOV
Subject: subscribe

subscribe space  Ehud Gavron
set ack
sub Ehud Gavron

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #506
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jun 89 00:59:17 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03339> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 24 Jun 89 00:58:54 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 24 Jun 89 00:58:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.sYcl21C00jZdQ0oE4o>;
          Sat, 24 Jun 89 00:39:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.oYckuT600UkVAI104g>;
          Sat, 24 Jun 89 00:31:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0Yckpuq00UkVIHzU4A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 89 00:26:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #507

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 507

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Orbital Queries
			* SpaceNews 19Jun89 *
		      Re: Outer Space Committee
		  Jonathan's Space Report, forwarded
		   Computers for the space station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 89 20:08:02 GMT
From: att!tsdiag!ka2qhd!kd2bd@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Magliacane Wall Township NJ)
Subject: Re: Orbital Queries


References: <17665@louie.udel.EDU>



Orbital inclination determines the apparent "direction" an earth satellite will
move when viewed on a map of the world. Orbital inclination is defined as the
angle between the orbital plane of a satellite and the equatorial plane of the
earth (the equator). The inclination can vary between 0 and 180 degrees.

A spacecraft will appear to move west-to-east if its orbital inclination is
between 0 and 90 degrees, while a spacecraft having an orbital inclination
between 90 and 180 degrees will appear to move east-to-west.

For example, the US Space Shuttles are usually launched into orbits having
inclinations between 28.5 and 57.0 degrees, and appear to move from west-to-
east, while OSCAR-11, an Amateur Radio communications satellite, appears to
move from east-to-west, since its orbital inclination is 98 degrees.

Another interesting point to note is that US Space Shuttles are ALWAYS launched
toward the East (over the Atlantic Ocean). This is the same direction as the
Earth's rotation. Therefore, the Earth gives the Shuttle an extra "push" into
orbit. Launching from the West coast would take a LOT more energy and fuel.

Also, the minimum orbital inclination of a Shuttle mission is 28.5 degrees --
the latitude of the Kennedy Space Center. This orbit is generated if the
orbiter is launched due East. If the Shuttle is launched either slightly North
OR South of due East, then the inclination is ALWAYS greater than 28.5 degrees.


-->> John A. Magliacane <<--


-- 
 UUCP   : ucbvax!rutgers!petsd!tsdiag!ka2qhd!kd2bd
 PACKET : KD2BD @ NN2Z (John)
          ..."There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to
          avoid the real labor of thinking." ....Sir Joshua Reynolds.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 89 17:18:15 GMT
From: att!tsdiag!ka2qhd!kd2bd@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Magliacane Wall Township NJ)
Subject: * SpaceNews 19Jun89 *


Bulletin ID: SPC90619

                              ---------
                              SpaceNews
                              ---------

                         MONDAY JUNE 19, 1989

SpaceNews originates at KD2BD in Wall Township, NJ, and is distributed weekly
around the world. It is available for UNLIMITED distribution.



* OSCAR-9 NEWS *
----------------
It looks like OSCAR-9 will NOT be taking any CCD pictures for some time.
A revised operating schedule was recently issued for OSCAR-9. Diary software
reloads will still take place on Tuesdays. Digitalker telemetry will follow.
The telemetry channels currently being downlinked via the Digitalker include:

08 : Battery Pack A Temperature (C)
18 : Battery Pack B Temperature (C)
22 : Battery Voltage +14V (Volts)
29 : Spacecraft -Y Facet Temperature (C)
35 : 145 MHz Beacon Output Power (UnCalibrateD)
39 : Spacecraft +Y Facet Temperature (C)
49 : Spacecraft +Z Facet Temperature (C)
59 : Spacecraft -Z Facet Temperature (C)

>From Thursday at around 12:00 UTC, the spacecraft will transmit the following
sequence of data at 1200 bits/second:

Telemetry              :  60 seconds
News Bulletin          :  60 seconds
Whole Orbit Data (WOD) : 150 seconds

This will continue until 06:00 UTC on the following Tuesday when the beacon
will switch off to help facilitate a software reload.

The recent solar flare has greatly increased OSCAR-9's orbital decay rate.
This means OSCAR-9 will come into range a few minutes before your predicted
times of AOS. Here is element set 588 for UO-9 as issued by NASA on 13Jun89:

Epoch  : 89 161.08290495
Incli  : 97.5527
RAAN   : 214.2327
Eccen  : 3.717E-04
ArgPer : 153.8947
MeanAn : 206.2960
MeanMo : 15.59543431
Decay  : 8.6255E-04
RevNum : 42788


* UoSAT-D NEWS *
----------------
Harold Price, NK6K has been performing some performance tests on the UoSAT-D
PCE, the Microsat CPU, and other machines. The results are summarised below.

Using a dhryston C benchmark from Sept. '86 DDJ p.88, here are some
performance numbers (using a 6MHz AT as the index).    The same compiler and
options were used (/AS /Ze /Zp /Ot /Gs ).  /Gs (no stack checking) was used
because the S/C stack check is different than the dos version.  Normally /G1
(80186 instruction set) would be used for S/C programs.

The RIC is the PC card we're using for the simulator and for SW development.

Device       CPU       Clock       dhrystons/sec     index

Toshiba 3200 80286     12 MHz      3762              2.03
AT Clone     80286      8 MHz      2145              1.16
IBM AT       80286      6 MHz      1850              1.00
UoSAT PCE    80C186    7.3728 MHz  1398 +            0.75
RIC          80186     7.3728 MHz  1391 +            0.75
AMSAT proto  V40       7.372 MHz   861               0.47
AMSAT flight V40       4.608 MHz   538*              0.29*
IBM PC       8088      4.77 MHz    1531              0.29

+ The timer resolution of 10ms gives an uncertainty of +/-14 counts,
  these numbers are equivalent.

* calculated based on clock speed difference from wirewrap.

The RIC, Microsat Prototype, and UoSAT tests were done under the kernal, so
clock and scheduler overhead are included.  Zero wait states were used.

[Story via OSCAR-9]


* OSCAR-11 NEWS *
-----------------
A new binary dump format is now operating in the Forth Diary cycle.
The general format of the packet is as follows:

Sync 1 - 50H
Sync 2 - 41H
Frame Count MSW
Frame Count LSW

...64 bytes of data...

Checksum MSW
Checksum LSW - 16 bit addition of all bytes excluding syncs.

This data is transmitted for 15 seconds after the news bulletin, between the
Single Event Upset (SEU) dump and the Whole Orbit Data (WOD) dump in the
current schedule, and contains engineering data. It is anticipated that WOD
using this "packet" format will be introduced into the Diary schedule soon.


* OSCAR-13 SCHEDULE *
---------------------
Date    : 14Jun89 until 16Aug89 | 16Aug89 until 16Nov89
Attitude:           180/0       |           210/0
Mode-B  :     MA   0 to MA 110  |     MA   3 to MA 160
Mode-JL :     MA 110 to MA 145  |     MA 160 to MA 200
Mode-B  :     MA 145 to MA 255  |     MA 200 to MA 240
OFF     :             %         |     MA 240 to MA   3
Mode-S  :     MA 150 to MA 160  |     MA 210 to MA 222

Also, for a trial period the OMNI-directional 70cm antenna will be connected
to the Mode-B RCVR from MA 20 to MA 40. These changes have been introduced to
enable stations who have access around perigee to experiment with perigee
operation.  Mode S unchanged. 14May89: BLON/BLAT 212.0/+2.4 with a drift rate
of 0.016/-0.061 deg/day, respectively.

Transponders will be in operation during the whole orbit from June 14 until
Aug 16 due to excellent sunangle and power budget. No perigee operation
between August and November due to perigee solar eclipses!


* FEEDBACK WELCOMED *
---------------------
Feedback regarding SpaceNews can be directed to the author (John) via any
of the following paths:

UUCP   : ucbvax!rutgers!petsd!tsdiag!ka2qhd!kd2bd
PACKET : KD2BD @ NN2Z


* SOURCES *
-----------
Some of the news contained in this SpaceNews issue was obtained via
OSCAR-9, OSCAR-11 and the KA2QHD and NN2Z PBBSs.


* AMATEUR RADIO: A Natural Resource *


<eof>


-- 
 UUCP   : ucbvax!rutgers!petsd!tsdiag!ka2qhd!kd2bd
 PACKET : KD2BD @ NN2Z (John)
          ..."There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to
          avoid the real labor of thinking." ....Sir Joshua Reynolds.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 89 14:59:36 GMT
From: bunny!hhd0@husc6.harvard.edu  (Horace Dediu)
Subject: Re: Outer Space Committee

In article <610774.890618.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> > The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space ...
> 
> With China, the USSR Cuba, and other butchers as members.  Right.
And Romania too, holy cow!  The bandits of the world telling us how to
behave!
> I hope the US isn't involved.
> 								...Keith
Me too.
-- 
Horace Dediu            Goodbye, cruel world.                 GTE Laboratories
(617) 466-4111          #cd /;rm -Rf * &                      40 Sylvan Road
UUCP:  ...!harvard!bunny!hhd0                                 Waltham, MA 02254
Internet: hhd0@gte.com or hhd0%gte.com@relay.cs.net

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 89 18:10:31 GMT
From: usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!zardoz!tgate!ka3ovk!drilex!axiom!linus!alliant!merk!spdcc!ftp!poopsie!seth@apple.com  (Seth D. Hollub)
Subject: Jonathan's Space Report, forwarded

Jonathan's Space Report

Jun 15, 1989 (no. 18)

Hello again girls and boys, I'm semi-back! We still dont have the usenet
back after our system upgrade, so I'm asking a friend to post this.  I
wont see the net for another week or so, so email me questions rather
than post them. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

OV-102 Columbia due to be moved to the VAB on Jun 29

Launches: I'll be chronological for a change...

USA-37, launched May 10 by Titan 34D/Transtage, is a Vortex telemetry
intelligence satellite according to AvLeak, rather than a pair of
comsats as reported earlier.  It is now in geostationary orbit. 

Kosmos-2020, launched May 17 by RN Soyuz from Baykonur, is a GRU recon
satellite expected to remain in orbit until mid-July.

Kosmos-2021, launched May 24 by RN Soyuz from Plesetsk, is another GRU
recon satellite, probably a Vostok-class payload, and probably landed
around Jun 7.  Meanwhile, Kosmos-2019 landed on May 18 after a 13 day
flight. 

The first Resurs-F satellite, launched May 25 also by RN Soyuz from
Plesetsk, is another Vostok-class payload, this time for earth resources
photography.  The data is used by the 'Priroda' center.  Other
satellites in the same series have flown under the Kosmos name, like
Kosmos-2000 earlier this year; civilian applications are slowly being
declassified and removed from the Kosmos series. 

Pravda reports that two separable 'Pion' air density research
subsatellites were carried into orbit with Resurs-F.  The satellites,
built by students at the Korolev Aviation Institute in Kubyshev, have
not yet been catalogued by NORAD. 

Three GLONASS navigation satellites, Kosmos-2022,2023,2024, were
launched on May 31 by RN Proton from Baykonur into 19000 km orbits. 

Yet another recon satellite, Kosmos-2025, orbited Jun 1 from Plesetsk;
no details yet on Kosmos-2026 launched Jun 7.

The first launch of the 44L version of Ariane 4 was successful on Jun 5.
The payloads were Superbird 1, a commercial Japanese comsat, and 
Kopernikus/DFS, a West German TV (Deutsche FernSehen) satellite.

Jun 8 saw the launch of the 38th Molniya-3 satellite by RN Molniya
from Plesetsk, into a 12 hour elliptical orbit.

The second Delta II launch finally got off the ground on Jun 10,
from pad 17 at Cape Canaveral, placing a USAF Navstar navigation
satellite (USA-38) in orbit.

Finally, on Jun 14 the first Titan IV was launched from pad 41 at
Cape Canaveral, carrying the first of a new generation of early
warning satellites toward geostationary orbit.



 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'
-- 
     "Segments: Just Say No!", "Whadya mean there's no control key?"
seth@vax.ftp.com, ...ftp!poopsie!seth, 18 Rindge Av, Camb. Ma, 02140 USA Earth

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 89 15:06:47 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Computers for the space station


There is at least one reason to hope that the "PC compatible" machines
will not be the ones in charge of critical functions such as life support.
In the past, NASA has tended to use specialized custom computers in its
spacecraft, with one result being that they pretty much had control over
any software that the machines could use. In the PC world, there are hundreds
or thousands of people hard at work writing and spreading software to damage
or scramble PCs and their memory systems. In the scenario described earlier,
one of the astronauts smuggles aboard a copy of "Star Trek" downloaded from
a BBS, which contains a virus. Or someone gets the bright idea that the station
computers should be linked via radio to a terrestrial network, from which they
are attacked by a worm. The interconnectivity of the proposed computers implies
that a virus on one machine could propagate its effects to all the other
machines. Imagine the astronauts finding out that their system has crashed,
and having to wait several hours for a reboot before they can adjust their
atmosphere (though there are hopefully manual overrides for such situations).
Alternatively, suppose a robot arm holding a long, heavy rod goes berserk and
starts flailing it around until it punches a hole through a wall. Of course,
it may be possible to guard against such occurrences by stringent safeguards
to prevent the introduction of harmful software.

There have been several complaints about the choice of the Posix operating
system, on the grounds that it would be an exotic and expensive system, and
"plain old Unix" would be just as good. As I understand it, Posix is just
an attempt by the federal government, in light of the many operating systems
and many versions of Unix available, to come up with a standard which can be
specified in procurement orders, so the users will know what they are
getting. It is generally expected that within a few years, most or all
government computer orders for Unix-like operating systems will include
Posix specifications, so from this viewpoint it makes sense for the space
station computers to be expected to meet this standard.

In the debate on the choice of Ada for much of the software, I would like to
point out that saying "Ada is undesirable because not many programmers I know 
program in Ada" is not entirely reasonable, because Ada is a young language,
and because not many programmers write software for the applications that are
the strong points of Ada. It has been claimed that a major purpose behind the
creation of Ada was to produce reliable software for real-time control in a
multiprocessor environment. If so, the space station should be a nearly ideal
environment for the use of Ada, assuming the computers are used largely to
control experimental processes. Though the speed and space efficiency of the
earliest compilers and compiled code were not impressive, they have continued
to improve, though it is not clear how far this improvement can go.

Dale Amon writes:
>...ADA is probably a mistake. ...Object oriented languages are the way the
>(non-government) world is going.
I have talked with several people who have studied Ada, and they claim that
object oriented programming is one of the major points of emphasis in the
design of the language.

There is a set of articles in the June 1 issue of Computer Design describing
changes in military procurement of mil-spec and off-the-shelf equipment and
relevant issues, plus the evolution and current status of Ada.

Incidentally, one application for which rapid response would be desirable is
maneuvers to avoid known large pieces of debris in orbit. Are there any 
proposals on this subject? I presume the simplest approach would be to use
earth-based tracking and computers to decide when there might be a hazard.
Low earth orbits continually change due to atmospheric drag, so periodic
inspection will be necessary in any event.
                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #507
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jun 89 03:27:50 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA10104> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 24 Jun 89 03:27:41 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 24 Jun 89 03:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYcnO:C00Ui3Q3A0BB>;
          Sat, 24 Jun 89 03:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.EYcnLYS00UkVAIF04M>;
          Sat, 24 Jun 89 03:19:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YcnJby00UkV0IDU5z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 89 03:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #508

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 508

Today's Topics:
			Moon landing nostalgia
			    IAU circulars
		 Re: Computers for the space station
		     Empty file found in mailbox.
	  NASA GIVES ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LAUNCH COMPANY!!
		       space station computers
	       Re: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <YYbcT5m00UkV8Cc34L@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 89 14:07:01 -0400 (EDT)
ReSent-From: Ted Anderson <ota+@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-To: Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 89 18:25:06 CDT
From: "Bill Ball" <C476721@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Moon landing nostalgia

Comments on two items celebrating the 20 anniversary of the Apollo 11
landing which I have come across recently:

Air & Space magazine June/July 1989.

A publication of the Smithsonian. The (almost) entire issue is devoted
to a variety of articles on the topic, most of them quite good (although
none quite as entertaining as the story of Howard Hughes' first flight
in the Lockheed Constellation found in the back of the issue). There is
more criticism of NASA than one might expect.

Man In Space A Time Television Special (60 min.)

Superb. The first 40 min. is a spellbinding review of the trip to
the moon with heavy (and IMHO entirely correct) emphasis on the story of
human endeavor rather than technological accomplishment. It, like the
Air & Space issue, brings home what a fluke the Apollo program
was--having more to due with the Bay of Pigs than with the exploration
of space. The last part of Man in Space somehow manages to cover every
argument about our continuing role in space which has been discussed on
this list in the past year including controversies over the shuttle, the
space station, a trip to mars, and a manned vs. an unmanned program.
How did they do all this in an hour? I don't know but it was *very*
impressive. A must see even if you don't spring for the commemorative
coins they are pushing in the commercials.

Bill Ball
Dept. Political Science
U. of Missouri - Columbia
C476721@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 89 14:26:38 GMT
From: frooz!cfashap!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: IAU circulars

>> International Astronomical Union (IAU) Circular 4767 - 1989 April 7
>
>PLEASE keep posting these!!! Does the IAU have any kind of BB where
>newly reported astronomical events, SN, Asteroids, etc are posted? That
>kind of information would be a data feast for us all.
>
>I usually have to dig through a number of publications to keep up with
>this kind of info.

This came up during the postings concerning SN1987A. The IAU circular
service is not free, although it is non-profit. It is run by Brian
Marsden, here at the Center for Astrophysics, as the `Central Bureau
for Astronomical Telegrams' and the `Minor Planet Center'. There are
generally one or two circulars per week. 

As I mentioned in March of 1987, no one especially minds an occasional
reposting of a circular in response to a specific question, but for
steady access, the subscription is required. The telegram service is
used internationally for timely bulletins and information disbursal,
and the subscriptions are what keeps the service going, so please
don't undermine the system! 

The cost for the circulars is US $4.50 per month or $7.50 per month if
you require an invoice. For double the above price (you also still get
the hardcopy), you can get remote login access to their computer
service.  It's a VMS microVax, accessable via at least SPAN and
TELENET that I know of and probably modems, too. 

For further information, contact the CBAT at 617-495-7244 or write:
  Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
  60 Garden Street
  Cambridge MA 02138


Bill Wyatt, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
    UUCP :  {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
    ARPA:   wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
    SPAN:   cfa::wyatt                 BITNET: wyatt@cfa

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 89 15:38:09 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Computers for the space station

In article <8906191906.AA17183@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>In the debate on the choice of Ada for much of the software, I would like to
>point out that saying "Ada is undesirable because not many programmers I know 
>program in Ada" is not entirely reasonable, because Ada is a young language...

Um, it's over a decade old, and is showing its age badly, actually...
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Jan 70 0:0:0 EST
From: Message Server
Subject: Empty file found in mailbox.

An empty file was found in your mailbox.  This can occur when
an attempt to deliver mail to you is unsuccessful.

Although the delivery attempt was unsuccessful, the mail is
not lost.  Further attempts to deliver the piece of mail will be
made until it is successfully delivered.

Note that delivery attempts will continue to fail if delivery of the mail will put
you over your File System quota.  The message system will not be
able to sucessfully deliver your mail until you have enough space
for the message.  To check your storage allocation on the Andrew File System,
use the `fs quota' command.

To reduce disk usage, you might
want to compress some of your files (using the compress or
compact commands) and/or delete old mail and unnecessary 
files such as 'core', checkpoint, and backup files.

Other reasons for delivery failure are transient in nature,
and will clear up without action on your part.  In fact, you may already have
received the mail that caused the empty file to appear.


File name: /afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/.MESSAGES/mail/space/incoming/+IYbQPb200UkVMBLHVC.
Written by: user Ted Anderson (7997).
Date and time of file writing: Tue Jun 20 01:15:53 1989

------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 89 11:57:26 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hp-sde!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: NASA GIVES ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LAUNCH COMPANY!!

NASA, AMROC AGREE TO CRITICAL CHEMICAL EXCHANGE

>                                    .....NASA provided two drums 
>(about 600 lbs.) of the chemical to AMROC.

Free world production capacity for hydrogen peroxide 882 million kg / year.

United States capacity: 226 million kg / year.

Current US consumption 150 million kg / year.

76 million kg / year unused US capacity.

Approximate wholesale value of 300kg H2O2 is a few hundred dollars.

NASA's budget last year was $10 billion.  

NASA's budget increase to this year's $13 billion has enabled NASA to provide
this critically needed chemical to a private launch company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 89 22:53:07 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space station computers

In article <218100025@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>... NASA should look to the future, not the past.
>
>A key point here is that none of this is very exotic - I have no doubt that
>such work is being done now in various places. NASA used to overpay to get
>components _past_ the state of the art, the antithesis of the Big Dumb Booster
>concept. Now, they're overpaying to get obsolete components, which combines
>the worst of both approaches.

In a lot of support hardware, actually, NASA has always been very conservative
and has deliberately used the previous generation of hardware when possible.
They do this for the same reason AT&T does it for switching systems:  maximum
reliability.  Being at the leading edge of the state of the art -- never mind
ahead of it -- tends to cost you a lot of reliability.  The attitude many PC
users have toward crashes would be grossly unacceptable for a computer center
on Earth, never mind one on a space station.

Mind you, one can argue -- I have, in other contexts -- that it's better to
design the system to recover from errors rather than avoid them in the first
place.  This massively reduces costs and lead times by permitting off-the-
shelf hardware (absolutely nothing on the space station is off the shelf,
not even the light bulbs).  There are only a very few systems which really
must be ultra-reliable because errors in them really are intolerable...
especially since the chance of error can never be 0 anyway.
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 89 18:58:14 GMT
From: hpfcdc!bayes@hplabs.hp.com  (Scott Bayes)
Subject: Re: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect...

> Did they consider a slingshot around the Sun to increase the terminal
> velocity?  Is that even possible?  (If you ain't got enough m, try some v^2).
> On the other hand, being closer to the Sun and more rigid, the tidal slowing
> effect might be embarrasingly large in the middle run...
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
> ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu
>     People...How you gonna FIGURE 'em?
>     Don't bother, S.L.--Just stand back and enjoy the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS...

I don't believe you can slingshot from any body if you start within and
stay within that body's escape speed. We can slingshot from Jupiter, because
we start with more than enough E to escape its gravity well, and escape
with even more (having stolen it from Big Jupe).

All the actions you describe would take place with Sol's gravity E-well,
and should be conservative wrt Sol.  But Jupiter might provide some
supercharging. Actually, I'd guess you want a reasonably massive body
(mass >> body to accelerate) with as high an orbital velocity as possible.

Scott Bayes

I hope the above is correct...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #508
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jun 89 05:28:41 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00523> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 24 Jun 89 05:28:32 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 24 Jun 89 05:28:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYcp:HK00Vs100pk57>;
          Sat, 24 Jun 89 05:21:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.YYcp76y00UkV4IP04A>;
          Sat, 24 Jun 89 05:18:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYcp5vK00UkV8INU4V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 89 05:16:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #509

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 509

Today's Topics:
Excerpts From Acting Administrator Truly's remarks at the National Space Outlook Conference (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 89 16:49:47 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Excerpts From Acting Administrator Truly's remarks at the National Space Outlook Conference (Forwarded)


          EXCERPTS FROM REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY:



                NATIONAL SPACE OUTLOOK CONFERENCE



               TYSON'S CORNER, VA.; JUNE 20, 1989





                        RICHARD H. TRULY



                    NASA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
























          EXCERPTS FROM REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY:

        NATIONAL SPACE OUTLOOK CONFERENCE; JUNE 20, 1989



     Thank you very much. I'm delighted to be here this morning.


     While not yet confirmed by the Senate to be NASA 

Administrator, I've been Acting Administrator for the past month 

or so.  It has been a stimulating and exciting experience, and I 

look forward to the challenges ahead ...and that's good, because 

there are plenty of them!


     But before I talk about those challenges, let me first talk 

about the state of NASA.  The bottom line is ... NASA is in fine 

shape today ... stronger and better than ever.  Jim Fletcher and 

Dale Meyers deserve the thanks of NASA and of the Nation.  They 

guided and inspired thousands of men and women on the 

NASA/industry team - including one Dick Truly - to give the best 

that is in them during the past three years.  J.R. Thompson and I 

intend to build on their achievements and move NASA and the 

nation forward in aeronautics and in space.


     We have some great challenges ahead of us in the civil space 

arena.  Later today, you'll be hearing details about NASA's 

agenda for the future.  For now, let me concentrate on that 

agenda's highlights, as I see them.






                               -2-



     First and foremost,  we've got to keep the Shuttle fleet 

flying ... flying safely at a sustainable and reasonable flight 

rate.  And with the hard work, followed by the successes we have 

enjoyed, I am confident we can do that.  The Shuttle features 

improved hardware safety margins, a strengthened and streamlined 

organization and a maximum emphasis on safety, reliability and 

quality. 


     As for the flight schedule, our present plans call for four 

more flights this calendar year, making a total of six for 1989; 

nine for 1990; and a gradual build-up to a dozen or so in the 

out-years.  The new orbiter, Endeavour, is scheduled for delivery 

in May 1991, and will make its first flight the following 

February.  During the next several years, the Shuttle will be the 

workhorse for a stunning array of scientific missions, including 

the Hubble Space Telescope, the Gamma Ray Observatory; Galileo to 

the planet Jupiter and Ulysses to investigate the Sun.  In 1995, 

the Shuttle will begin to haul into orbit the people and 

materials to begin construction of Space Station Freedom, as 

well.


     This clearly introduces another major challenge ... to 

ensure adequate funding to maintain the schedule for Space 

Station Freedom, which, as you know, we plan to start operating 

in the mid-1990s.






                               -3-



     Fiscal Year 1990 is a crucial year for NASA, and especially 

for Space Station Freedom.  It's the year we must turn the corner 

in the space station program and begin to move from concept to 

reality.  And if we are ever to put the meat on the bones of a 

definitive design, as planned, we will require not only an 

adequate budget, but a stable budget, as well.  I am committed to 

continuing the fight for such a budget, and to completing Space 

Station Freedom within it and on time!


     It is clear that Space Station Freedom represents our 

national commitment to the United States' future in space.  It is 

the vital link that joins the present to that future.  This 

project is the most complex international technological endeavor 

in history.


     We will build it and we will fly it!


     There are other important priorities for NASA in the civil 

space arena.  I am personally committed to maintaining a balanced 

NASA program across the board.  The manned space programs will be 

funded, but not at the undue expense of our important space 

science programs and other critical NASA priorities.






                               -4-



     In addition, we aim to develop an Advanced Solid Rocket 

Motor; to continue to support a revitalized Expendable Launch 

vehicle Program with growing private sector involvement; to 

develop the advanced "Pathfinder' technologies to support human 

exploration of the solar system; and to continue our efforts to 

further the commercial uses of space.


     And in that latter connection, I understand that you'll be 

hearing later from Jim Rose about what NASA is doing to encourage 

private sector investment and involvement in space.  So I'll use 

this opportunity to make only one point and one I feel strongly 

about:  Since its inception, NASA has been bending over backward 

to move the private sector into space and to further the goal of 

space commerce.  Clearly, then, I can't agree with those who say 

we've been dragging our feet in this area. That simply is not the 

case.


     Let me turn now to what I believe is our greatest challenge 

of all.  That is to maintain the vision of our ultimate destiny 

in space.  The Chinese have a saying:   "A journey of a thousand 

miles begins with a single step."  We've taken a single step ... 

a most vital step, by shaking off the bonds of gravity and moving 

off our home planet to visit near-Earth orbit and the Moon.  But 

we've only begun our journey. 






                               -5-



     Space Station Freedom will transform us from visitors to 

permanent residents of space.  Freedom will be the centerpiece of 

our space infrastructure for decades.  From Space Station 

Freedom, we will move out to realize our National Space Policy 

goal to expand the human presence and activities into the solar 

system.


     The United States also is investing in early technology for 

an Aerospace Plane, and we have defined a heavy-lift launch 

vehicle, based on Shuttle components, to move cargo into space 

more efficiently and effectively.


     Looking at Freedom, the Aerospace Plane and the heavy-lift 

launch vehicle programs in light of the history of the space age, 

one might have a feeling of "deja-vu".  As the philosopher George 

Santayana wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are 

condemned to repeat it."  So let's look back in history and 

remember.


     Yes, once we had a Space Station.  It was called Skylab, and 

was launched in 1973.  Skylab was occupied by three successive 

crews ... the last spent 84 days in space.  After that, Skylab's 

orbit began to decay.  The problem was to have been solved by a 

Space Shuttle flight.  As you know, that flight never took place 

because budget cuts delayed the Shuttle's development. Instead, 

Skylab re-entered and burned up in the Earth's atmosphere in July 

1979.






                               -6-



     Yes, once we had an experimental aerospace plane, as well.  

It was called the X-15.  This hypersonic, rocket-powered research 

aircraft set speed and altitude records.  It culminated a series 

of Air Force - NASA experimental aircraft with a very solid base 

of aerodynamic data.


     But the X-15 soared into history and earlier this month, 

NASA celebrated the 30th anniversary of its first flight.  Its 

potential successor would be the X-30, of the National Aerospace 

Plane Program. But because of budget problems, the X-30 may never 

get built.  Indeed, the future of the NASP program is by no means 

secure.


     And, of course, once we had a heavy-lift launch vehicle.  It 

was called Saturn V.  It lofted seven American astronaut crews, 

beginning with Apollo 8, to the Moon and its vicinity.


     To digress for a moment, let me say that I still envy those 

astronauts.  As one who has been lucky enough to have flown in 

space, I envy them for having flown beyond near Earth orbit ... 

some quarter of a million miles beyond.  But I'm especially in 

awe of the crew of Apollo 8 - Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill 

Anders.  They were the first to fly into that virtually unknown, 

unexplored envelope, and the first crew to sit on a Saturn V.






                               -7-



     The three-stage Saturn V was enormous.  As you may know, 

with its payload, it was as tall as a 36-story building.  The 

combined thrust of its five engines was seven and a half million 

pounds.  And thanks to a careful and extensive ground-testing 

program, Saturn was reliable.  There were 32 Saturn launches in 

all, including launches of the smaller Saturn 1 and Saturn 1B 

rockets.  All 32 were successful.


     After the Apollo program, the Saturn V's production lines 

were closed down. Records pertaining to Saturn were stored in the 

Federal Records Center in East Point, Georgia.  Today, it is not 

at all clear whether we have all the plans and documentation to 

build a Saturn V even if we wanted to. 


     But even if we had all the documentation needed to build the 

rocket, we still could not do so right away. We would have to 

start basically from scratch because the technology ... including 

the plants and the machine tools ... no longer exists.


     Today, three Saturn V rockets sit like dinosaur skeletons on 

the grounds of three NASA centers:  Johnson, Kennedy and 

Marshall.  Like Skylab and the X-15, the giant rocket's fate was 

sealed by a stringent budget climate.






                               -8-



     Next month we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of man's 

first landing on the Moon.  The Apollo 11 lunar landing will 

always rank as one of mankind's greatest voyages of discovery ... 

along with the journeys of Columbus, Magellan, Captain Cook and 

Lewis and Clark.


     Apollo at its peak consumed nearly four per cent of the 

Federal budget. For every dollar invested in Apollo, the program 

returned seven to eight dollars to our economy.


     Today, many of our most able thinkers believe that budget 

economies may well have spelled false economies for the nation's 

space program.  They say that if NASA's budget had been held at 

about four per cent of the Federal budget following Apollo that 

the United States would have completed a Space Shuttle, a 

permanently manned Space Station, a manned lunar base, and a 

manned mission to Mars - all before 1990.  That view is bolstered 

by an analysis included in a plan for the nation's future space 

program, published by the Presidentially-appointed National Space 

Task Force in 1969. 


     I have no way of knowing whether that would indeed be the 

case today.  But the facts speak for themselves.


     Fact Number One:  Six months before the end of the decade of 

the eighties, the United States has attained only one of those 

four objectives - the Space Shuttle.






                               -9-



     Fact Number Two:  Following peak funding in 1965, the NASA 

budget gradually dropped to below one per cent of the national 

budget and stayed there from Fiscal Year 1973 to Fiscal Year 

1988.


     Today, NASA's budget is up to one per cent of the national 

budget.  But it will have to increase significantly again when we 

adopt a specific program of human exploration of the solar 

system.  Such a program will be the logical extension of both our 

space policy goals and of our singular nature as humans. That 

nature drives us ever forward to know the unknown.


     At a time of budgetary contraction, and growing concern over 

domestic problems at home, it would be relatively easy for 

Americans to let their dream of exploring and expanding the space 

frontier slip away forever.


     Those who would have us become a second or a third rate 

power in space would slow down or cancel Space Station Freedom. 

They would slow down or cancel the National Aerospace Plane 

program. And they would oppose the development of a heavy-lift 

launch vehicle and the advanced "Pathfinder" technologies so 

necessary to build our future in space.


     To those who ask whether this country can afford to move 

forward in space, I say:  Can we afford not to?






                              -10-



     To those who view the awesome challenges we face and turn 

aside because they fear the future, I say:  We can prevail if we 

work together to rekindle the American spirit. 


     In challenging the nation with a manned lunar mission, 

President Kennedy said:  "The exploration of space will go ahead 

whether we join in or not.... We choose to go to the Moon in this 

decade, and do all the other things, not because they are easy, 

but because they are hard."


     President Kennedy didn't promise us the Moon. He challenged 

us to get there.  It ___ hard. But we accepted the challenge and 

rose to greatness.


     So here at this National Space Outlook Conference, I say 

that the outlook is an uplook.  NASA is poising itself to rise to 

greatness again.  Working together, with the will to achieve and 

a sustained national commitment, we can move forward ...  with 

all who share our values and our goals and want to join us to 

build a golden age of unlimited progress in space and here on 

Earth for all mankind.


     Thank you very much.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #509
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Jun 89 15:34:20 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00703>; Sun, 25 Jun 89 05:35:58 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 25 Jun 89 05:35:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.oYd8ZSe00UkTQ17kEy>;
          Sun, 25 Jun 89 03:27:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.8Yd8Tx200UkVEJSU4J>;
          Sun, 25 Jun 89 03:21:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYd8Pau00UkV0JR05A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 89 03:16:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #510

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 510

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		RE: Nemesis and Pluto's chaotic orbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 89 00:39:47 GMT
From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #531 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89170.38185254 0.00000411           48322-3 0  2126
2 00424  80.4642 283.6922 0024273 123.7629 236.5831 13.67157185333119
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89160.08890248  .00000146  00000-0  14227-3 0  2689
2 00727  69.9021 112.7599 0011510 112.9001 247.3319 13.93530820291961
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89164.30359152  .00006474  00000-0  43704-3 0  3667
2 03019  64.0609 127.9910 0224269 229.7634 128.3741 14.89200941104501
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89149.67299267 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2320
2 03029  12.7202  24.3096 0015222 196.7828 163.1216  1.00272718 78954
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89164.12583296  .00017642  00000-0  11444-3 0  7270
2 04966  51.5545  41.2455 2529601 204.7799 140.7250 10.50639702551964
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89171.53933622 0.00000004                   0  7751
2 08820 109.8287 231.2250 0044904 315.1453  44.5720  6.38664144 50844
GOES 2     
1 10061U 77048  A 89160.78642280 -.00000012  00000-0  00000 0 0  2722
2 10061   7.1573  68.2858 0004828 174.9762 184.8818  1.00279079  5309
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89164.46628671 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1387
2 10684  63.5575 100.9614 0108287 199.1817 160.4045  2.00560603 68450
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89160.43623017 -.00000027                   0  9898
2 10893  64.5540 341.8856 0177819  32.2012 328.9083  2.00564224 81192
GOES 3     
1 10953U 78062  A 89163.82999455  .00000088  00000-0  99999-4 0  6777
2 10953   6.0412  70.8826 0008338 259.1647 100.5880  1.00263855   899
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89165.02130226 0.00001235           47955-3 0  1263
2 10967 108.0087 281.0767 0002869 242.6736 117.4157 14.34631789573631
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89164.73853963 -.00000027                   0   330
2 11054  64.1430 338.2466 0053632 120.5033 240.1236  2.00561449 78291
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89165.33919356 0.00000011                   0  1662
2 11141  63.5432 100.8361 0057852 320.9315  38.6335  2.00572717 77005
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89164.05615841 0.00000993           43355-3 0  8599
2 11416  98.5064 161.2383 0013229 119.8461 240.4074 14.25791562517318
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89168.65293917 0.00083802           12738-2 0  9876
2 11703  28.4979 275.9371 0003667  83.8760 276.2277 15.53088570519911
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89161.80590743 -.00000027                   0  9124
2 11783  63.8754 337.9867 0143723  62.4276 299.0299  2.00567770 66876
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89 97.28408596 -.00000249           10000-3 0   569
2 11964   4.7936  76.3436 0158171  23.8450 337.0124  0.99392857  1324
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89165.62230441 -.00000249                   0  7360
2 12472   2.1442  85.5357 1339225 255.7898  88.3318  1.00210951 28564
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89163.08679497  .00021991  00000-0  78451-3 0  2143
2 12887  97.6883 188.9594 0001775 199.3928 160.7244 15.28902000424375
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89170.05990600 0.00113697           13101-2 0  6059
2 12888  97.5555 223.7870 0003516 160.6678 199.4694 15.61579442429284
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89168.14449764 0.00000296           25664-3 0  6472
2 13113  82.5388  58.8009 0017113  61.2725 299.0180 13.84004748365238
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89170.64980197 0.00020040           46821-3 0  6227
2 13138  51.6093 305.4174 0000775  86.9620 273.0565 15.42160880408573
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89164.10121246  .00002157  00000-0  48880-3 0  9866
2 13367  98.2137 227.7793 0001842 187.7937 172.3241 14.57130881367550
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89169.73127574 0.00000669           34600-3 0  7881
2 13718  81.2416 280.0325 0056843 355.9589   4.1128 14.13218188335772
IRAS       
1 13777U          89165.52134960 0.00000003           14308-4 0  6476
2 13777  99.0437   2.6715 0012528 322.7535  37.2771 13.98598385325821
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89154.60178946 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-5 0  8028
2 13969   3.5055  67.7147 0002838 173.0308 187.3950  1.00270271 89261
GOES 6     
1 14050U 83 41  A 89162.88397443  .00000122  00000-0  00000 0 0  9688
2 14050   1.2868  83.0205 0001205 113.3985 245.7938  1.00274617  6555
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89169.57001521 -.00000045                   0  4084
2 14129  26.1825 259.5000 6056079  51.5625 348.7012  2.05881929 17244
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89162.89108152 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6343
2 14189  63.1945  99.5091 0135456 215.5924 143.4837  2.00569040 43337
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89169.10308477 0.00001168           49730-3 0  7369
2 14452  81.1636 292.6320 0096238  93.7819 267.4378 14.22212994292671
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89171.20465093 0.00001341           30749-3 0  7986
2 14780  98.1680 233.3945 0001876 210.8645 149.2666 14.57128811282005
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89164.62556897 0.00002139           41992-3 0  4624
2 14781  98.0020 223.5255 0012844 338.9711  21.0988 14.63612938282022
LDEF       
1 14898U          89165.43276166 0.00042661           70740-3 0  8756
2 14898  28.5024 196.1901 0002140 223.3505 136.7037 15.50736356291029
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89170.92733944 0.00000010                   0  6732
2 15039  62.9305  98.5278 0015005 267.9471  91.8797  2.00564507 36774
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U 84 72  A 89163.53603096  .00000245  00000-0  21205-3 0  9482
2 15099  82.5313  10.0791 0011772 251.0869 108.9025 13.83668421249478
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89166.34115569 -.00000028                   0  6446
2 15271  63.3614 337.5928 0099329 320.9058  38.3791  2.00565854 33795
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89169.91632623 0.00002879           41594-3 0   428
2 15331  82.5339 336.8513 0026203  77.9801 282.4427 14.75663972254470
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89164.16675569 0.00000780           44610-3 0  3910
2 15427  99.1418 151.0306 0015023 329.2756  30.7558 14.12040210231889
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89169.39942960 0.00000315           27283-3 0   908
2 15516  82.5353 303.7960 0017991 109.9183 250.3922 13.84117699221223
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89170.71457288 0.00059291           13584-2 0  2843
2 16095  51.6099 305.1026 0000468 304.3317  55.5216 15.42189538408584
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89162.50732034 0.00000010                   0  3251
2 16129  63.7182  99.4527 0116270 150.2138 210.4415  2.00564507 26926
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89166.61135969 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8346
2 16191  82.5415 236.8496 0018339 306.6294  53.3168 13.16866434175312
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89166.59223854 0.00000272           23370-3 0  5036
2 16408  82.5354 220.8915 0015074 310.8206  49.1649 13.84179879175331
Mir        
1 16609U          89170.66369542 0.00024868           36072-3 0  8995
2 16609  51.6217 351.2773 0010918  74.1889 285.8927 15.55619061191551
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89171.82045392 -.00000201          -85512-4 0  5025
2 16613  98.7394 246.3039 0001821 132.1029 228.0280 14.20045018 12646
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89166.63717749 0.00000393           34467-3 0  3058
2 16735  82.5385 247.6750 0015551  20.7917 339.3892 13.83925664154249
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89171.65101573 0.00002458           35811-3 0  6411
2 16881  82.5236  34.7913 0025022  88.2345 272.1883 14.75306618155801
EGP        
1 16908U          89170.77684338 0.00000008           35905-3 0  1371
2 16908  49.9977 290.1255 0010578 359.9189   0.1643 12.44378316129735
FO-12      
1 16909U          89163.84993524 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1483
2 16909  50.0151 311.6572 0010796 334.2315  25.7981 12.44399345128869
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89168.08320950 0.00001072           49210-3 0  2362
2 16969  98.6348 198.5775 0012438 250.1174 109.8665 14.23045027143923
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89166.42048025 0.00000143           11967-3 0  2621
2 17290  82.4679 155.2027 0011362 267.7726  92.2152 13.83725321123371
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89156.19806567  .00000630  00000-0  49446-3 0  1404
2 17527  99.1492 227.7547 0001510  75.7479 284.3839 13.94857891116705
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89164.57217153 -.00000042           10000-3 0  2835
2 17561   0.0551  31.9488 0027390 160.8269 167.0421  1.00277938  1727
Kvant      
1 17845U          89170.79221325 0.00016201           23773-3 0  7847
2 17845  51.6185 350.6388 0010718  73.7464 286.5476 15.55619121191571
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89169.92688841 -.00000261          -29409-3 0  7894
2 18129  82.9267 236.8644 0012886  52.6911 307.5371 13.71983123 99630
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89164.06514047  .00000411  00000-0  19631-3 0  8483
2 18187  65.0136  34.0112 0020265 258.3943 101.4841 14.29365930100538
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89171.60285248 0.00177077  15737-4  25060-3 0   891
2 18225  71.8655  45.5723 0011647 238.9665 121.0738 16.05403352111842
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89166.60404680 0.00000218           18868-3 0  2833
2 18312  82.5580 220.7894 0011397 195.1582 164.9249 13.83480632 92294
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89166.58416087 0.00000295           25543-3 0  1234
2 18820  82.5430 281.8270 0015411 273.8337  86.1085 13.84165561 69469
AO-13      
1 19216U          89147.06007421 0.00000137           10000-3 0   364
2 19216  57.2077 206.1830 6723768 204.7577  96.6993  2.09696457  7298
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89164.11336527  .00003033  00000-0  44894-3 0  4004
2 19274  82.5165 140.3874 0021118 243.7033 116.1904 14.74768465 50485
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89166.97721957 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2032
2 19336  82.5436 176.5168 0018294 144.9309 215.3015 13.16850817 42755
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89165.29545890 0.00000748           43625-3 0   914
2 19531  98.9386 109.3234 0011083 240.2040 119.8032 14.11027479 37067
TDRS 3     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89153.77764324  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   261
2 19548   0.5410  85.9584 0002050  10.4654 263.5580  1.00263057  1649
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89158.52933344  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   407
2 19802  55.1209 212.1893 0068654 156.4879 203.9307  2.00555259  2233
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89166.82178849 0.00000117           10000-3 0   466
2 19851  82.5205 160.3208 0014366 319.5279  40.4811 13.83805692 14899
TDRS 4     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89150.45403160 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-4 0   175
2 19883   0.3186  66.7990 0006825  40.4800 252.7331  1.00552150    49
1989 033C  
1 19970U          89146.89292825 0.00004135           15448-2 0   187
2 19970  27.9756 326.5141 6561442  22.7737 356.2819  3.21038637   706
Cosmos 2020
1 19986U          89167.00035284 0.00713491  34818-4  33909-3 0   650
2 19986  64.7730 355.9562 0129120  90.4929 271.2069 16.04503107  4755
1989 037A  
1 20000U          89166.71735513 0.00273342  20071-4  19406-3 0   544
2 20000  69.9458  15.2671 0062488  74.7482 286.1528 16.11421323  3590
1987 020DA 
1 20004U          89144.20894406 0.00000016           10000-3 0    19
2 20004  73.6361 174.3386 0118944 257.9904 103.3069 12.82100499 65749
RESURS-F   
1 20006U          89166.67758184 0.00125228  60541-5  17209-3 0   460
2 20006  82.2956  17.0495 0008737 226.6604 133.3319 16.06021047  3428
Cosmos 2022
1 20024U          89171.48389838 -.00000011           10000-3 0   284
2 20024  64.8186  51.1778 0002787 256.0200 104.0194  2.13102832   439
Cosmos 2023
1 20025U          89170.83886862 -.00000011           10000-3 0   226
2 20025  64.8299  51.1845 0013579 211.1666 148.8240  2.13102147   425
Cosmos 2024
1 20026U          89171.00578873 -.00000011           10000-3 0   227
2 20026  64.8293  51.1936 0009099 266.3727  93.5919  2.13204765   421
1989 034E  
1 20028U          89165.82785840 -.00000011           10000-3 0    79
2 20028  64.8227  51.3734 0013710 319.3576  40.5899  2.13482574   261
SuperBird A
1 20040U          89164.83976205 -.00000061           10000-3 0    53
2 20040   0.0589 106.6155 0024119 129.0388 124.2054  1.00477101    45
1989 041B  
1 20041U          89169.19624996 0.00000177                   0    35
2 20041   0.2215 154.2023 0004192  76.1585 129.5380  1.00405326    70
1989 041C  
1 20042U          89168.10990423 -.00000034                   0    63
2 20042   6.8178  44.7963 7296662 186.0660 152.7631  2.28322545   163
Cosmos 2026
1 20045U          89167.73580662 0.00000211           20907-3 0   286
2 20045  82.9416 354.7945 0038722 268.5466  91.1249 13.75015640  1312
1989 042B  
1 20046U          89168.96131981 -.00005555          -56739-2 0   198
2 20046  82.9396 353.8706 0033679 260.9527  98.7820 13.76496661  1488
Molniya3-35
1 20052U          89170.86814449 0.00000371           10000-3 0   195
2 20052  62.8298 102.7900 7375278 288.3005   9.4202  2.00613385   230
1989 043B  
1 20053U          89172.10332687 0.01141245  11099-4  16066-2 0   216
2 20053  62.8087  57.8762 0167961 121.8829 240.0133 15.83855307  1952
1989 043C  
1 20054U          89171.10550870 0.00970983  36811-4  13234-2 0   190
2 20054  62.8182  62.2949 0235263 118.2021 244.3986 15.70538878  1793
1989 043D  
1 20055U          89165.88958216 0.00000455           10000-3 0    75
2 20055  62.8288 103.4717 7416953 288.2227   9.1993  1.95976832   121
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89172.22887616 -.00000029                   0   100
2 20061  54.5674  30.5182 0045663 166.7632 193.4094  2.01613355   259
1989 044B  
1 20062U          89172.12447715 0.01608897 -18830-4  15086-2 0   209
2 20062  30.3143 316.5814 0435173 127.1526 237.0906 15.29733503  1557
1989 044C  
1 20063U          89167.70948600 0.00199043  16146-4  23120-2 0   142
2 20063  37.5856  23.2517 6055214 202.8567 111.5172  4.06099284   268
1989 045A  
1 20064U          89168.72805379 -.00000099                   0    61
2 20064  65.8409  61.6686 0023799 347.2999  13.1717 15.22823656   495
1989 045B  
1 20065U          89168.46233429 0.00012092           49289-3 0   100
2 20065  65.8419  62.4836 0029338 353.5280   6.5381 15.24355280   455
1989 047A  
1 20073U          89171.61525562 0.00330158  65250-5  24399-3 0    95
2 20073  69.9839  77.0797 0056920  56.9548 303.8008 16.11540628   684
1989 047B  
1 20074U          89171.83338591 0.14568236  21638-4  50442-3 0   199
2 20074  69.9745  76.2480 0011181  40.3745 320.1520 16.43465185   722
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 20 Jun 89 18:11 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  RE: Nemesis and Pluto's chaotic orbit

Steve Rehrauer writes:
>I seem to recall a thread here some time ago about the "Nemesis" theory
>of a large solar companion out in the hinterlands.  If my oft-faulty
>memory serves me this time, I seem to recall that the supporters of the
>Nemesis idea have used "otherwise unexplainable" quirks in Pluto's orbit
>as circumstantial evidence to support it.
>
>Well, I was interested to read in the May/June issue of _The_Planetary_
>Report_ that there is observational evidence that many small bodies in
>space -- e.g.: Saturn's moon, Hyperion; many asteroids and comets; and
>_Pluto_ -- actually have chaotic orbits.
>
>If true, along with the somewhat disquieting notion that "the eternal
>clockwork" of the heavens is ultimately NOT very eternal, it would seem
>to chop off one of the thickest legs the Nemesis people presently stand
>upon.  Perhaps Pluto's orbit is quirky simply because it IS.

     We had an interesting talk about this exact problem at the American
Astronomical Society meeting last week.  The question really is, what
does it mean that a planet's orbit is chaotic?  Many people mistakenly assume,
and I have to include myself in that group as well, that a chaotic orbit
is one that will do something really crazy at some time (like Pluto
being a moon of Neptune long ago), something that we cannot predict.

     It is only the last half of that statement that is true.  A chaotic
orbit is one which cannot be predicted, in the sense that a second orbit,
with only minutely different initial conditions, will diverge from the
first at an exponential rate.  In other words, we are not able to predict,
after a certain length of time, exactly where the first orbit will be.
It DOES NOT mean that the first orbit will suddenly go crazy on you!  In
the case of Pluto, it seems that predictions cannot be made on
timescales longer than about 800 million years.  Thus, we cannot
determine with computer orbital simulations where in the solar nebula Pluto
was formed.  In a similar vein, it seems that the rest of the Solar System,
including Earth (!!), is also chaotic!  Nevertheless, we know that the Earth
has not deviated very much from its 1 AU orbit - the fossil record back
several billion years proves that.

     Remember, chaos does not imply anarchy, only that we cannot PREDICT
what has happened and what is going to happen!

                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arnold Gill                             | If you don't complain to those who  |
Queen's University at Kingston          | implemented the problem, you have   |
BITNET:  gill@qucdnast                  | no right to complain at all !       |
                                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #510
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Jun 89 12:06:18 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01580>; Sun, 25 Jun 89 05:43:21 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun, 25 Jun 89 05:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8Yd:KXy00UkT830E9E>;
          Sun, 25 Jun 89 05:28:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.gYd:C=:00UkV0JdU5B>;
          Sun, 25 Jun 89 05:19:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4Yd-=oS00UkV0Jc05r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 89 05:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #511

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 511

Today's Topics:
		       RE: SPACE Digest V9 #494
	   Magellan Status for week of 06/20/89 (Forwarded)
			     Firecrackers
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		     Re: Geomorphology from Space
			    Super strings
 Two companies chosen for work on Life Science Satellite (Forwarded)
			Stargazing in Georgia
		  Re: Space Station Computer System
				Re: UN
		  Re: Space Station computer system
		       Ireland contacts wanted
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 89 18:29:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V9 #494


/* Written  6:28 pm  Jun 13, 1989 by john@frog.UUCP in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
>>[me, laughing at the concept of trying to run X-windows under Unix in
>> only 4Meg of memory]
>OK, so what would you have them do?  Draw up all their plans with pencilled-in
>boxes saying "Here Be Computeres"? [ ... ]
> [ comments on how one can't expect state-of-the-art stuff in space ]
/* End of text from s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

Actually, in general I agree with you. But I'm not talking about state of
the art when the station is put up - I'm talking about current designs _now_
being used _then_. The memory is the worst of it - I see _no_ excuse for
not designing more memory except for the name IBM, which (as we CS-geeks know)
has always had a real problem with adequate memory on PC's. Yes, you have
to do extra checks on the system above a normal one. But there's this thing
called "modularity". You design the system in modules, and allow extra modules.
It appears that they tried to do this (since the default seems to be
(painful laughter) 1Meg, which is too little to even _boot_ most '386 Unix
versions). Why limit it to 4M? If they are using '386 chips, then it's recent
enough to know that 4M is too small. In email to me, someone claimed that
it was because memory prices were high. I found that bogus - memory prices
have been steadily dropping for a long time, and the recent price fixing by
the US government for the benefit of Japanese memory-makers is a local bump.
Prices are coming back down to "normal" levels as we speak, and as other NIC's
in Asia break into the market this trend will continue.

It's not like making the memory bigger is a major design change, and designing
to specs that are barely adequate today means that the systems will be crippled
during actual use. Why not design to over-rated specs now? If memory doesn't
get cheaper, than so be it. But if it does, then you win big. I personally
would have designed for 64-256M. Sure, no equivalent system has that now,
but they will then. They're probably designing a 10Mhz bus too, when there
are commercial machines at 25Mhz, and 33Mhz sometime this year. Last year
an Intel rep told us that the '386 would top out at around 40-50Mhz. Why
not design for that _now_? If it doesn't happen, no problem. You can run at
a slower speed. NASA should look to the future, not the past.

A key point here is that none of this is very exotic - I have no doubt that
such work is being done now in various places. NASA used to overpay to get
components _past_ the state of the art, the antithesis of the Big Dumb Booster
concept. Now, they're overpaying to get obsolete components, which combines
the worst of both approaches.

Alan M. Carroll                "And there you are
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu           Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'"
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 89 22:29:13 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for week of 06/20/89 (Forwarded)


                     MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS
                          June 20, 1989
 
 
     This is a weekly status report. Magellan continues to
operate successfully. Momentum wheel desaturations and star
calibrations were routinely performed except for Friday. On that
day, the star scanner correctly identified the first star
crossing of slits 3 and 4 but saw a pulse apparently repeated and
correctly rejected that pulse. That set the timing off and the
second star crossing was not performed. On Saturday and Sunday,
however, star calibrations were routinely accomplished.
 
     The spacecraft was rotated 180 degrees about the Medium-
Gain Antenna axis. This attitude has significantly cooled both
the Rocket Engine Modules (REMs) and the Solid Rocket Motor
(SRM). It will be the primary attitude for the next couple of
weeks. Ground tests for both thermal problems are currently
being initiated and results are expected on the SRM problem
within three weeks.
 
     On Tuesday, June 13, memory read-outs of both the Command
and Data Subsystem and the Attitude and Articulation Control
System were performed and the results compared successfully with
ground-maintained memory maps.
 
     Also on Tuesday, the voice nets between JPL and Denver were
restored after being out of service for six days.
 
     On Thursday, June 15, the first star calibration not used to
update the spacecraft's attitude was performed for the purpose
of calibrating star magnitude thresholds for two different stars,
Alpha Centauri and Alpha Canis Major. The calibration data,
although not used to update the spacecraft's attitude, was
assessed on the ground and indicated lower thresholds were
needed. Another, similar, calibration was performed successfully
on Saturday.
 
     
 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                    6,324,124
     
     Velocity Geocentric                         5,064 mph
              Heliocentric                      62,493 mph
 
     One Way Light Time                           33.3 sec

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 89 12:46:41 GMT
From: mcvax!cernvax!ethz!hoss@uunet.uu.net  (Guido Hoss)
Subject: Firecrackers


Does anyone know the average launch velocity of a typical firecracker?
(I need this for a simulation program).

Thanks in advance
-Guido Hoss

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 89 15:03:13 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <312@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> dl@ibiza.Miami.Edu (David Lesher) writes:

>> Article <SHAFER.89Jun14120042@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> From: shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

># In article <109957@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>#    What use could they have for a Bell HueyCobra (AH-1<mumble>)?
># 
># We have a B-52, fighters, and attack aircraft here at Ames-Dryden.  
># Be nice!
>  NASA Lewis may still have Robert Vesco's {sp} old Lear. Customs
>   used it for a long time, but I guess the Cocaine Cowboys were
>   outrunning it or something, because it appeared on the
>   (internal) govt surplus list. An old prof of mine got it for
>   zero g project use.

It turned into a three-corner trade--Lewis got the Lear, Dryden got
the Lewis Gooney-Bird, and Customs got the Dryden AeroCommander.

We enjoyed the Gooney-Bird, since it was much nicer than the R4D that
it replaced, having soundproofing and cloth upholstery, but it was
a little embarassing to climb into our `new' 1941 airplane.
--

M F Shafer                                |Ignore the reply-to address
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility |Use shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 89 15:09:48 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Geomorphology from Space

In article <10873@ihlpl.ATT.COM> dbg@ihlpl.ATT.COM (dbg) writes:

>>In NASA SP-486, "Geomorphology from Space", pp. 432-433, is a list
>>of 15 possible origins of the Carolina Bays, including meteor swarms
>>
>  .
>   .
>>Incidently, this SP is really great.  Try to get a copy.

>I would very much like to get a copy.  Where do I look?

You can get any NASA SP that's still in stock from the Government
Printing Office.  They have offices in major cities and you can
also do business with them by mail.  The address is:
     The Superintendent of Documents
     U S Government Printing Office
     Washington, D C  20402

I get my NASA pubs through our library, since the Center gets copies
automatically, so I've never ordered from the GPO.

--

M F Shafer                                |Ignore the reply-to address
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility |Use shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 89 16:24:22 +0200
From: BOCHANNK%DB0TUI11.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Comment: CROSSNET mail via MAILER@CMUCCVMA
Subject: Super strings

Date: 20 June 1989, 16:22:31 +0200
From: BOCHANNK at DB0TUI11
To:   space+@andrew.cmu.edu

Dear space friends!

Does anyone have some informations (books, articles, scripts) about the
super string theory?

Alex
BOCHANNK@DB0TUI11.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 89 19:35:43 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Two companies chosen for work on Life Science Satellite (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 20, 1989

Kari Fluegel
Johnson Space Center, Houston

RELEASE:  89-101

TWO COMPANIES CHOSEN FOR WORK ON LIFE SCIENCE SATELLITE

     NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, has selected two 
companies to continue the study and design of an unmanned, 
reusable reentry satellite called LifeSat (Life Science 
Satellite).

     General Electric, Reentry Systems Department, Philadelphia, 
and Science Applications International Corp., Torrance, Calif., 
were chosen for the two parallel $900,000 contracts.  The 1-year 
agreements are tentatively scheduled to start July 3, 1989.

     LifeSat will carry life science payloads and could 
significantly expand NASA's capability to investigate the 
biological effects of microgravity and the unique space radiation 
environment.  This type of investigation can be calculated only 
in space, preferably in polar orbits.  LifeSat will be used 
primarily in the fields of life sciences and materials 
processing.

     LifeSat will fly experiments in a variety of orbits, 
including those providing high doses of radiation, for up to 60 
days, and perhaps longer.  It would be placed into Earth orbit by 
an expendable launch vehicle, reserving the Space Shuttle for 
activities requiring crew presence.  Upon completion of the 
mission, LifeSat would reenter the atmosphere and soft-land at a 
designated ground-site where scientists and engineers would have 
immediate access to the experiments.

     The request for proposals, released in January, called for 
the design of a reusable spacecraft that could be processed and 
readied for reflight in 2 months, allowing for several flights 
each year.

     The project is managed by the Flight Projects Office of the 
New Initiatives Office at the Johnson Space Center.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 89 16:25:21 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Stargazing in Georgia


>From: cmpbsps@pyr.gatech.edu  (Don Barry)
>Subject: September Georgia Star Party and SERAL Convention

>From 28 September through 1 October, the Astronomical Society of the 
>Atlantic will host the the Georgia Star Party(tm) at the Rock Eagle
>4-H Convention center in the dark skies of the Georgia countryside.
                          -----------------------------------------

It's true! I've been in Georgia on summer nights when many star clusters were
visible to the unaided eye, and the Milky Way could be clearly seen against
a black background. I don't know about the West, but that degree of visibility
is rare further north along the east coast.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 89 15:14:24 EDT
From: Colin Hunter <CHUNTER%UMAB.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <SPACE@Andrew.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Space Station Computer System

From:

Although there has been considerable debate as to the merit of choosing an
IBM PS/2 based computer network for Space Station, there appears to be little
doubt that IBM will provide the route to be taken by NASA.  I am curious to
know if affiliated countries and agencies will be forced to use IBM hardware
in their modules.  For example, will ESA be compelled to join the IBM sheep,
or will they be allowed to use a real computer system (Acorn's RISC-based
Archimedes series, for example) of their own choosing?

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 89 21:54:57 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: UN

In article <614016637.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> 
> Just agree not to try to tax me for your part of the defense budget and
> don't ask what the 3 or 5 leaved plants in the hydroponics section
> are... :-)

I can see the need for being able to treat glaucoma, but what do you
want to grow poison oak for?

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 22:10:07 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Space Station computer system

In article <1202@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>pay phone? Will the space station provide anonymous FTP? Will the
>space station astronauts have NET access?

Pay phone? No, but there will be designated "private time."
Anonymous FTP: definitely no.  Very limited disk space obviously.
NET access: definitely yes (NASA internal).

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				*UNIX*

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1989 10:48-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Ireland contacts wanted

I will be moving to Belfast around July 27th and would appreciate it if
I could make contact with network people there. I will eventually have
a NeXT computer at the office I will be setting up there and would like
to get an internet connection of some sort so I can continue to
regale|enrage my fellow Space Digest'ers.

I know that U. Ulster has net access via JANET. Anyone out there?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #511
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Jun 89 05:15:14 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04970>; Mon, 26 Jun 89 03:47:55 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 26 Jun 89 03:47:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.EYdRh9S00UkTE49EAS>;
          Mon, 26 Jun 89 03:29:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.QYdRZ:G00UkVAKZE4p>;
          Mon, 26 Jun 89 03:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYdRV7C00UkV4KXk4U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 89 03:16:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #512

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 512

Today's Topics:
		   SCI.GEO voting results -- FAILED
		       Saturn V/Adv. Propulsion
	       Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
Re: Contractors selected for Advanced Launch System studies (Forwarded)
			  Re: Super strings
	       Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth
		  US vs. USSR space program budget.
	 Re: Magellan Status for week of 06/20/89 (Forwarded)
			 Rocket Fuel Queries
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 20:12:40 GMT
From: leah!ss6349@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Steven H Schimmrich)
Subject: SCI.GEO voting results -- FAILED


   The attempt to create a  SCI.GEO  newsgroup  has  failed  due to a lack  of
interest. The final vote tally was 61 for and 9 against.  A list of the voters
is included below. 

				  YES votes
				  ---------

1 - erlebach@turing.toronto.edu - Beverly Erlebacher
2 - msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu - Mark Robert Smith
3 - uvm-gen!tnl!gwollman@uunet.uu.net - Garret Wollman
4 - palle@mop.luth.se - Bertil Paulsson
5 - mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu - Todd McComb
6 - bill@emx.utexas.edu - Bill Jefferys
7 - nelson@vax1.acs.udel.edu - Todd Nelson
8 - marque!lakesys!davek@uunet.UU.NET - Dave Kraft
9 - platt@rodan.caltech.edu - John Platt
10 - metzge@uncecs.edu - Ellen Metzger
11 - rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu - Anton Rang
12 - dschmidt@athena.mit.edu 
13 - dalex@eleazar.dartmouth.edu - Dave Alexander
14 - mercerd@sliver.bacs.indiana.edu - Doug Mercer
15 - rsmith@udel.edu - R. Timothy Smith
16 - siili@opmvax.csc.fi - Tero Siili
17 - Peter_Knoop@ub.cc.umich.edu - Peter Knoop
18 - alan%essex.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK - Alan M Stanier
19 - uwmcsd1!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uunet!RELAY.CS.NET.todd!reed! - Todd Ellner
20 - uwmcsd1!uunet.UU.NET!ficc!peter - Peter da Silva
21 - joe@hanauma.stanford.edu - Joe Dellinger
22 - @MCC.COM:arisco%cadillac.cad.mcc.com@mcc.com - John Arisco
23 - khl@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu - Kenneth H. Lee
24 - yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu - Yaron Sheffer
25 - clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu - Carrick Talmadge
26 - naucse!rrw@arizona.edu - Robert Wier
27 - dhl247@leah.albany.edu - Debra Lenard
28 - etnpp@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca - Richard Lammers
29 - davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu - David Meile
30 - ejh@SEI.CUM.EDU - Erik 
31 - bnewsl!sw@att.att.com - Stuart Warmink
32 - @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:MAINT@FHSS.BYU.EDU - Kim Sullivan
33 - welty@Lewis.crd.ge.com - Richard Welty
34 - lemay@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu - Lawrence T. LeMay
35 - apollo!catapano@EDDIE.MIT.EDU - Patrick Catapano
36 - phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu - Phil Howard
37 - @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:LOIZEAU@CGEUGE52.BITNET - Jean-Luc Loizeau
38 - dietz@cs.rochester.edu - Paul F. Dietz
39 - van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a864@uunet.UU.NET - Jono Moore
40 - paulc%skat.usc.edu@usc.edu - Paul Cartwright
41 - visdc!jiii@uunet.UU.NET - John E. Van Deusen III
42 - EWTILENI@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU - Eric W. Tilenius
43 - ficc!jeffd@uunet.UU.NET - Jeff Daiell
44 - elf115!rec@uunet.UU.NET - Roger Critchlow
45 - streeter@lansoar.crd.ge.com - Kenneth B. Streeter
46 - inmet!thy@uunet.uu.net - Tom Yelton
47 - uwmcsd1!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jwl - James Wilbur Lewis
48 - greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU - Gregory A. Nowak
49 - cbnews!wbt@att.att.com - William B. Thacker
50 - skyler@uncecs.edu - Patricia Roberts
51 - bathurst@phoenix.Princeton.EDU - Bruce Bathhurst
52 - nate%hobbes.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET - Woodstock
53 - dciem!nrcaer!cognos!alzabo!kebera@uunet.UU.NET - Krishna E. Bera
54 - somewhere!gak@wansor.shell.com - Gary A. Kern
55 - kasameye@lll-lcc.llnl.gov - Paul W. Kasameyer
56 - pvo3366@oce.orst.edu - Paul O,Neill
57 - @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:SELLAMI@CGEUGE52.BITNET
58 - wcpl_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu - Wing Chiu Peter Leung
59 - @RELAY.CS.NET:tv@mscunx.sp.unisys.com - Tim Veerkamp
60 - mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu - Mohib N. Durrani
61 - @po2.andrew.cmu.edu:jk3k+@andrew.cmu.edu - Joe Keane

				   NO votes
				   --------

1 - dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU - David Mark
2 - lear@NET.BIO.NET - Eliot Lear
3 - UNASMITH@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU - Una Smith
4 - cew%venera.isi.edu@usc.edu - Graig E. Ward
5 - biep@cs.vu.nl - J. A. Biep Durieux
6 - NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU - Nelson Broat
7 - jjc@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu - Jeffrey J. B. Carpenter
8 - msw@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu - Matt S. Wartell
9 - oucsace!paul@att.att.com - Paul J. Mech

 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
| Steven H. Schimmrich                    | Internet : ss6349@leah.albany.edu |
| Department of Geological Sciences       |  "The Rock Men are very primitive |
| State University of New York at Albany  | Flash, they have no science."     |
| Albany, New York 12222  (518) 442-4470  |                      Dr. Zarkhov. |
 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 21:44:49 GMT
From: oliveb!mipos3!omepd!mipon2!larry@apple.com  (Larry Smith)
Subject: Saturn V/Adv. Propulsion


Several postings recently have been on the Saturn V.

There will be a paper entitled "History in the Making - The
Mighty F-1 Rocket Engine" presented at the AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE
25th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit on Monday morning
July 10, 1989 at the Monterey Convention Center, Monterey, CA.
The author of the paper is D. Warren, from Rockwell
International (the parent company of Rocketdyne, the
developer of the F-1). There will be other papers that morning on
the LEM descent engine, the Apollo Reaction Control System,
the Titan liquid engines, the Agena engine,
and perspectives on propulsion for the Viking Mars-Lander.
There may also be a paper on Liquid Propulsion in the USSR.
All of the above papers are called Session 21 and entitled
LP2: Liquid Propulsion History. Each paper should take 
approx. 1/2 hour including questions (not much time I agree). 
The above talks are currently scheduled for the Steinbeck Forum
room at the Convention Center. The F-1 paper is currently 
scheduled to be presented at 11:30 AM. The first paper is at
9:30 AM. This session runs till 1:30 PM.

Registration will be at the Convention Center on Sunday, 4-7pm
and Mon-Thurs from 7:30am till close. On-Site fees are:
AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE Member	$225
AIAA Student Member		$0
Student Nonmember		$12

Copies of papers are available after the conference from
AIAA Library at 212-247-6500. Costs: $3.50 members,
$4.50 nonmembers per paper. I would expect the entire
conference proceedings on microfiche to be the cheapest
way to go (when this is available). The F-1 paper is
AIAA number 89-2387.

The complete list of sessions/papers can be obtained from
the May 89 issue of Aerospace America magazine.

By the way, this conference is one of the major conferences
on state of the art aerospace propulsion concepts in the world.
The F-1 was a great engine, and the future concepts that were being
proposed based on F-1/Saturn technology in the mid 60's
(ie: NOVA, Saturn V Cluster, Multiple F-1 cumbustors
per engine, etc ...) were really exciting, even though
they got killed. However, today, there is even more going on
to be excited about in terms of high performance aerospace
propulsion versus the F-1 days. And today, its not all located
in the U.S. either. So in my opinion, lets not resurrect the F-1,
lets fund and develop whats being researched today. 
See my recent posting to sci.space on LACE rocket engines for 
just one example.

Larry Smith

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 18:34:50 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth

In article <626@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes:

>However, if you deploy it at maximum altitude (with such a light payload),
>you can't get back to it again with ANY payload, since rendevous is a LOT
>more expensive than just tossing something over the side wherever you happen
>to be at the time. This means that if something goes wrong (don't _even_ think
>about it), you have to wait for the orbit to decay to a sufficiently low
>altitude to go fix it. (If we can't even get into orbit, the chances of NASA
>flying a mission with NO payload just to fix up the HST are minimal to nil)

Does this mean that after something goes wrong, the orbit decays, and we
launch a shuttle to fix it, we can't reboost it to the original high
orbit?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 18:58:27 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

Don't get any ideas: I'm only rebuilding a .newsrc file so I am
temporarily reading certain old groups along the way.

In article <109957@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>On my way into work this morning, as I passed Moffett Field,
>I noticed a NASA helicopter hovering about the active runway.
>
>What use could they have for a Bell HueyCobra (AH-1<mumble>)?
>
>(I know, it's probably a testbed for some new rotor design,
>but, on the other hand, perhaps someone is getting tired of
>vocal critics... :} )

General rotorcraft design.  The converted Cobra gunship is a high performance
design.  We have to put up with with the racket outside our office window.
Very distracting.  I have promised the Ride of the Valkries for my officemate.

On a more serious note: I was driving 880 in Fremont when I noticed our
Chinook had gone down in a field (there were mechanics working on
it).  Where ever you can set down.......  You just have to look carefully.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 19:49:00 GMT
From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!ceres!tjl@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Contractors selected for Advanced Launch System studies (Forwarded)

In article <27098@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, 
yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> Jim Cast
> Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
> 
> Jerry Berg
> Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
> 
> 
> RELEASE:  89-99
> 
> CONTRACTORS SELECTED FOR ADVANCED LAUNCH SYSTEM STUDIES
> 
> 
>      The Advanced Launch System is intended to provide, by the 
> 1998-2000 time period, a dependable, reliable, high-capacity 
> national launch capability while reducing by a factor of 10 the 
> cost of placing payloads in Earth orbit.

Oh no, didn't we hear this about the Space Shuttle about a
decade or so ago?

-- Joe

"Those who would sacrifice **  I disclaim none of my opinions.
liberty for security,      **
deserve neither."          **       CERES::TJL
 B. Franklin               **       tjl@ceres.physics.uiowa.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 17:53:34 GMT
From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@gatech.edu  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Super strings

In article <Added.kYbaa6S00Ui3QEak9=@andrew.cmu.edu> BOCHANNK@DB0TUI11.BITNET writes:
>Does anyone have some informations (books, articles, scripts) about the
>super string theory?

There was a front cover article in Discover a couple months (maybe a year) back.

Sorry but I don't have the exact reference here.
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 02:12:25 GMT
From: stsci!sims@noao.edu  (Jim Sims)
Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth


 The issue/problem of what altitude to deploy HST is currently under study.
The problem is not quite as simple as it sounds (ie. put it as high as you can
 just _won't_ cut it)

 THere are several competing factors:

 To get maximal performance, only HST and IMAX are onboard.
 Deployment is currently set for 310-330 nm.
 This allows _minimal_ contingency fuel for 2 re-visits during deployment
	for problem resolution (and return of the shuttle 1/2 ;-) )
	(conservative estimate of RCS fuel remaining = 0 !!! lbs (of 25000))

 Since HST is relatively light (25,000 lbs) but HUGE, the shuttle can put it
_way_ up there ("we could put it a _lot_ higher, but we couldn't get back" -
pilot at deployment crew visit at the 'tute last month - "and we _really_
don't want the record _that_ bad...")

However, if you deploy it at maximum altitude (with such a light payload),
you can't get back to it again with ANY payload, since rendevous is a LOT
more expensive than just tossing something over the side wherever you happen
to be at the time. This means that if something goes wrong (don't _even_ think
about it), you have to wait for the orbit to decay to a sufficiently low
altitude to go fix it. (If we can't even get into orbit, the chances of NASA
flying a mission with NO payload just to fix up the HST are minimal to nil)


clearer?

jim
-- 
    Jim Sims      Space Telescope Science Institute      Baltimore, MD
             UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
    ARPA:  sims@stsci.edu                           SPAM:  STOSC::SIMS

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 21:48:54 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!dg-rtp.dg.com!briggs@mcnc.org  (Allen Briggs VPI intern)
Subject: US vs. USSR space program budget.

The difference between the budget of the space programs in the US and in the
USSR cannot be measured only in dollars.  The Russian space program is
designed around improving existing technology.  Instead, the US tends to 
start from scratch on each project.
	Does anyone have any figures on what percentages of the two budgets
go _directly_ to R&D?

Allen Briggs
	briggs@dg-rtp.dg.com
	... !mcnc!rti!dg-rtp!briggs

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 20:54:25 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for week of 06/20/89 (Forwarded)

>From article <27301@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, by yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee):
>      SPACECRAFT
>      Distance From Earth (mi)                    6,324,124
>      
>      Velocity Geocentric                         5,064 mph
>               Heliocentric                      62,493 mph
>  
>      One Way Light Time                           33.3 sec

 Would anyone care to explain Geocentric vs Heliocentric velocity
 of the Magellan? I've noticed that the GV is slowly diminishing
 while the HV is increasing.

 Just curious - m woding

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 89 02:57:21 GMT
From: ganoe@arizona.edu  (Bill Ganoe)
Subject: Rocket Fuel Queries

I've been mulling over (yet again) the cost of getting off the planet.
I've seen several references to the cost of equivalent electrical
energy to get to orbit in a hypothetical situation, but I've never
seen any figures for what real LOX, LH2, N2O2, etc. would cost a
real launch operator in today's real world.  Can anyone out there
provide some price quotes?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #512
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Jun 89 05:12:51 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00990>; Mon, 26 Jun 89 06:23:56 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon, 26 Jun 89 06:23:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8YdTf7e00jZdA2Uk5w>;
          Mon, 26 Jun 89 05:43:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.MYdTJAK00UkV8Kk05T>;
          Mon, 26 Jun 89 05:20:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <oYdTGgq00UkVAKiU4i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 89 05:17:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #513

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 513

Today's Topics:
			    Voyager update
		      Re: SETI (was Re: Comets)
		   Public domain satellite imagery?
			 Fuel for lunar trip
			   Phobos 2 images
		 Re: Computers for the space station
			  Re: Let's go back
		     Children born July 20, 1969
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 10:46:54 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Voyager update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Extracted without permission from  the _Voyager Bulletin_, Mission Status
Report No. 87, June 15:

Three months before Voyager 2's closest approach to Neptune, the spacecraft
is returning images of the planet that show an unexpectedly dynamic atmosphere
on the eighth planet from the Sun.  A recently released set of five images,
taken on May 24 when the spacecraft was 134 million kilometers (83 million
miles) from the planet, shows the large dark spot, smaller white spot,
atmospheric banding, and brightening at the south pole seen in earlier images.
The images were taken through five different filters on Voyager 2's
narrow-angle camera.  The planet's appearance differs markedly as it is
photographed in different colors, probably because of differences in colors
of specific cloud features and the effects of hazes.  Bright features are
more visible in green and orange light, while darker features show more
contrast in violet and blue light.  The degree of dynamic activity was
unexpected in Neptune's atmosphere because Neptune receives only one-tenth
of one percent as much solar energy as does Earth.

NASA SELECT TV TO FEATURE VOYAGER 2 NEPTUNE IMAGES

Beginning Tuesday, June 13, at noon EDT, a selection from the previous week's
images of Neptune from the Voyager 2 spacecraft will be broadcast on the
NASA Select TV system, which uses Satcom F2R, transponder 13, every Tuesday
through August 8.  NASA Select TV is available only in the contiguous United
States since the Satcom satellite is in geosynchronous orbit over North
America.

The broadcast of the images is expected to last about 1 hour and will show
a replay of the first-order reconstruction of Voyager 2's imaging system
views of Neptune.  At the time of the first image in the first broadcast,
Voyager 2 was nearly 2-2/3 billion miles from Earth and approximately 71
million miles from Neptune.

On June 5, the Voyager 2 spacecraft went into the Observatory phase mode.
In this mode the spacecraft begins a series of imaging observations of Neptune
from afar.  Five images are taken every 3 hours, 34.4 minutes (one-fifth
of Neptune's estimated rotation period).  Voyager planetary scientists will
use these images to help study the Neptune atmosphere, already seen to be
more turbulent than that of Uranus and possessing what appear to be variable
"white" spots, covering portions of whole hemispheres.  The spots come and
go with relative rapidity.  Dr. Brad Smith, University of Arizona, said,
"Neptune is now more interesting than Uranus was even at close encounter."
Dr. Smith is the Voyager Imaging Team leader.

The timetable for NASA Select replay of Voyager 2 images, along with the
distance remaining to Neptune and the distance from Earth at the start of
each broadcast, is given below:

Broadcast 	Distance to Neptune	Distance from Earth
  Date             (million miles)	  (billion miles)
June 13			70.70			2.65
June 20			64.40			2.65
June 27			59.00			2.66
July 4 *		53.73			2.66
July 11			48.30			2.66
July 18			42.88			2.67
July 25			37.45			2.68
August 1		32.03			2.69
August 8		26.60			2.70

* - This date may move later in the week due to holiday observance.

The images to be replayed on NASA Select will include both the actual image
of Neptune as seen by Voyager and engineering and science information about
the conditions of the imaging system and lighting.  This data will appear
alongside each image of retransmissions but will be removed in later, more
processed views.

[...]

Because the JPL facilities associated with the Voyager project are
not completely geared up for the close encounter activity, these views will
be released in video format via satellite only.  There will be no capability
to release individual still photos for the complete video series.  Current
expectations, though, include the capability to release, on a periodic basis,
a set of hard copy views which have received the benefit of further computer
enhancement.  JPL's complete computer processing capabilities will be up
and running, though, for the encounter period from August 21 through 29.
The Post-encounter phase runs from August 29 through October 2, at which
time Voyager 2 will return to interplanetary cruise mode.


Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 89 00:46:52 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@purdue.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: SETI (was Re: Comets)

In article <12324@netnews.upenn.edu> duggan@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Paul C. Duggan) writes:
}In article <1527@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
}>In article <11952@netnews.upenn.edu> duggan@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Paul C. Duggan) writes:
}
}>}also, the ods I'e heard from some astrophysicists are very low as well.
}>}NOVA had numbers from 10000 down to 0 between 4.  Then there's the
}>}"If they were here we'd know it"  which says, since von neumann machines
}>}are just a step away for ourselves, we could expect another civilization to 
}>}have developed them already.  But we don't see any, therefore, we are 
}>}the only one
}>
}>1. What does this number mean? 1000 within 100 light years?  Would you
}>please attach some units to this.
}
}It was in the universe.

I must admit, I have never heard this figure.  I have heard one (an early,
very unrealistic and improbable theory of planetary formation that does not
stand up to the observed physics) to millions.  None within an order of
magnitude of 1000.  Where did you get it?

}>2. We are WAY in the boonies. I would not expect a visit, and I am pro-life.
}
}what does pro-life have to do with it?  The von neumann model (not his)
}would have us visited, because they grow exponentially.

So do most lifeforms.  I expect to see VERY few elephants in my neighborhood
because it is a LONG walk.  Exponential growth (unlimited) is not possible
for any extended period.

}>}in light of no evidence for any other intelligent life.  I am an ET
}>}agnostic, and I prefer not to spend money on something I know nothing
}>}about (and have reason to doubt)
}>
}>How odd - when others mention an agnostic belief in something else for which
}>there is no evidence you strongly disagree, and say that they should spend
}>their entire life in service of it.
}
}Christ offers ethical teaching, but he also offers the only way to KEEP his
}ethical teaching.  This is of infinite value to humans.  This aslo isn't
}a question of "service" is a question of my tax money (and the cost of
}my astro book)

Wanna make a guess at the sociological impact of the proof of an 
extraterrestrial advanced (more than us) civilization?  This is of
infinite value to humans, because it would concretely SHOW that extinction
does not necessarily be immediately inevitable.  And the $$$ would be
worth it.

}>}BTW, this argument, while comeplling, is similar to the one
}>}"Every war we've had a democrat has been in the white house, therfore,
}>}If we don't want war, elect republicans"
}>
}>And you ofer no rebuttal.  Noted.
}
}I did: I'm saying the argument is flawed.

With a flawed counter.  BFHD.  Saying it, and proving or even showing, are
different things.  You have not done the latter.


........................................................................
The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu  - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 17:08:29 GMT
From: blake!ogccse!verdix!qtc!jimh@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Jim Hurst)
Subject: Public domain satellite imagery?

I have a friend who's a school librarian.  We got to talking about satellite 
imagery and its application to education.  George got excited about taking a 
sabbatical to put together a GIS of local (western Oregon) imagery for kids 
to fool around with, and he set me to the task of finding out what kinds of 
imagery is available through the public domain.  What he really wants is to 
get images of the same area over the years, so we can track the progress of 
clear cuts, siltation, and other interesting "cultural" features over the 
last decade or two.

	We're not trying to make maps, so registration, control points, and
warping isn't so critical.  I can take care of processing raw data for at least
a few images, more or less regardless of format.  I mentioned the National 
High Altitude Photography program, but he's much more interested in electronic 
media and multiple images over time.

	I'm aware of the National Space Sciences Data Center at Goddard (the
sys admin is visiting in a week, so I can pick her brain then).  Pointers to
other sources are greatly appreciated.  Send email, and I'll summarize.

					Thanks!
					Jim Hurst 

UUCP:	tektronix!qtc!jimh              Snailmail:  QTC
	   amdcad!qtc!jimh			    8700 SW Creekside Place
   	  sequent!qtc!jimh                          Beaverton, OR  97035

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 13:56:44 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Fuel for lunar trip


>From: amdcad!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dave Rickel)
>Subject: Let's go back

>The 20th anniversary is coming up in a month.  To celebrate, the Smithsonian's
>AIR AND SPACE June/July issue was dedicated to Apollo.  Anyway, it started
>me wondering just what you'd need to get there again. 

>...Fuel is, of course, a problem. It seems the solution
>would be to ship up fuel as water to an orbiting cracker/
>refigerator (use expendables for this).
That sounds like a good idea for hydrogen-fueled flights out of earth orbit
in general. Water would take up less volume than the corresponding quantity
of hydrogen and oxygen. Once in orbit, the H2 and O2 would be separated using
the abundant solar power present, and refrigerated. Transfer to other
spacecraft could be human-controlled or automatic. If properly handled,
the reduced launch cost resulting from the use of smaller and lighter
containers for launch could significantly reduce the price of hydrogen and
oxygen in earth orbit. Savings could possibly be reduced further by using a
linear earth-based launcher to shoot the water into space in small containers
in the form of ice.
                           John Roberts
                           roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 13:57:37 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Phobos 2 images


>From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)

>A space exibition featuring some of the results from Phobos 2
>opened at the Science Museum in London last week. 

>First, a number of the images taken of an area near the
>equator in the infra-red clearly show an area covered with a
>series of regular rectangular features about two miles across.

Mars, I presume.

Though it could of course be a natural formation, it is also important to
watch out for artifacts produced by the imaging systems. Remember that the
pictures from the US landers on Mars showed the sky as being made up of
sharply-defined bands of slightly differing colors or shades, and the still
photographs from the moon showed the landscape covered with little "plus signs"
at regular intervals. :-)

>Second, one of the images shown features the shadow of what
>could only be one of the Martian moons. Except that there
>wasn't any moon in the place and time it would have to have
>been to cast the shadow.
Same comment. Also, assuming this was a picture of Mars, remember that Mars
has an atmosphere and dust storms, so the appearance of the surface from
space changes from time to time. Did the Soviet scientists have any 
speculations as to what the images could have been? Chernobyl and other
recent events have shown that the people in the news media are generally
highly skilled at *misinterpreting* images from space probes.
                                   John Roberts
                                   roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 13:25:00 GMT
From: sun-barr!texsun!letni!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!mike@apple.com
Subject: Re: Computers for the space station


It suddenly occurs to me that HAL 9000 must have picked up some infectious
code from COMPUSERVE or something before departing for Jupiter.      

I especially like the part about the "involuntary motor response" of the
RMS arm.

Sounds like a good idea for a movie of the week.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 89 20:15:38 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Let's go back

In article <53233@sci.UUCP> daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes:

>Delta v		which
>
>5.383 km/sec	Earth Orbit (500 km) to escape velocity (i was too lazy to
>		figure a lunar transfer trajectory, this should be reasonably
>		close)
...
>The 5.4 km/sec figure is nasty; it sounds like we need LOx/LH.  Oh well.
>When they come back to earth, they can use aerobraking, and either go into
>LEO or do a direct reentry.

The delta-v to go from LEO to earth escape is about 3.2 km/s, not 5.4
km/s.  The delta-v from LEO to the lunar surface is 6.0 km/s; the
return is 3.1 km/s (using aerobraking).  Ignoring trip time, it's
cheaper in terms of delta-v to go to many near earth asteroids, or
the moons of mars.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date:       Fri, 23 Jun 89 10:24:22 EST
From: JC%RMC.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu
Subject:    Children born July 20, 1969

> Would this person's name be "Module" by any chance? I remember hearing
> on the TV News at around the time of Apollo 11, that someone in the
> States had named her newly-born daughter "Module". Wonder what she's
> doing now. Might even have little space probes of her own :-)

I don't know of anyone named "Module", but this makes me wonder when Frank
Zappa's daughter "Moon Unit" was born.  I know she was about sixteen when
she recorded "Valley Girl", and that was a few years ago.  Hmmmmm...

John Coughlin, BULL Kingston        (613) 541-6439       <JC@RMC.BITNET>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #513
*******************


Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Jun 89 03:32:40 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA12071> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 27 Jun 89 03:32:27 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 27 Jun 89 03:32:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.cYdmgFe00Ui301Ik4f>;
          Tue, 27 Jun 89 03:21:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.oYdmd5C00UkVQLk05K>;
          Tue, 27 Jun 89 03:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8Ydmaty00UkVELiU4q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 89 03:16:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #514

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 514

Today's Topics:
Re: Excerpts From Acting Administrator Truly's remarks at the National Space Outlook Conference (Forwarded)
		 Re: NSS/SpaceCause Legislative Alert
	   Naming children after space missions/astronauts.
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		   after several network bounces...
		     Satellite Images - at home!
		       Re: Fuel for lunar trip
	       Payload Status for 06/23/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 89 11:29:22 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Excerpts From Acting Administrator Truly's remarks at the National Space Outlook Conference (Forwarded)

In article <27285@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident (Peter E. Yee) forwards:
>
>          EXCERPTS FROM REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY:
>
>                NATIONAL SPACE OUTLOOK CONFERENCE
>
>               TYSON'S CORNER, VA.; JUNE 20, 1989
>
>                        RICHARD H. TRULY
>
>                    NASA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

His remarks contradict other information coming out if NASA.  Here are a
few examples:

>
>     First and foremost,  we've got to keep the Shuttle fleet 
>flying ... flying safely at a sustainable and reasonable flight 
>rate.
> ...
>     This clearly introduces another major challenge ... to 
>ensure adequate funding to maintain the schedule for Space 
>Station Freedom, which, as you know, we plan to start operating 
>in the mid-1990s.
> ...
>					         I am committed to 
>continuing the fight for such a budget, and to completing Space 
>Station Freedom within it and on time!

and

>	       I am personally committed to maintaining a balanced 
>NASA program across the board.  The manned space programs will be 
>funded, but not at the undue expense of our important space 
>science programs and other critical NASA priorities.

A glance at the Payload Flight Assignment which Peter Yee recently
forwarded to the net (pp 5.18 - 5.19) reveals the projected need for 20
shuttle flights whose primary payload is the Space Station between March
1995 and November 1997.  This is not going to leave copious space for
"our important space science programs."  Nor will it allow operation in
the "mid-1990s."

>     And in that latter connection, I understand that you'll be 
>hearing later from Jim Rose about what NASA is doing to encourage 
>private sector investment and involvement in space.  So I'll use 
>this opportunity to make only one point and one I feel strongly 
>about:  Since its inception, NASA has been bending over backward 
>to move the private sector into space and to further the goal of 
>space commerce.  Clearly, then, I can't agree with those who say 
>we've been dragging our feet in this area. That simply is not the 
>case.

Jim Bowery has already pointed out how NASA bent over for Amroc to the
tune of a few hundred dollars.  This was such an important event that a
NASA devoted press release (89-92) to it.  The press release probably
cost more.

Another look at the Payload Assignments (p 1.3) shows a plan to use 31
expendible launch vehicles between now and the end of FY 1995 -- an
average of over 4 per year!  Of these, 22 are on existing launch
vehicles from the NASA stables (pp 3.1 - 3.3) while the remaining 9 are
marked "to be determined."  With the charitable assumption that all of
these remaining 9 result in purchase of launch services, NASA will be
purchasing these services for fewer than 10% of their launches.  (There
are 73 shuttle flights projected during the same time period.)  The
figure is even lower if one considers the size of the payload.

This is in sharp contrast to the statement from NASA release 89-92 that
"NASA also is purchasing its ELV launch services needs directly from
commercial operator, whenever possible, to support its scientific and
applications missions that are not assigned to fly on the Space Shuttle.
Missions that do not require the unique capabilities of the Space
Shuttle are being placed on ELVs in support of NASA's policy to use a
mixed fleet of Shuttles and ELVs to assure access to space for its
programs."

>     Space Station Freedom will transform us from visitors to 
>permanent residents of space.  Freedom will be the centerpiece of 
>our space infrastructure for decades.
			      ^^^^^^^
>							This 
>project is the most complex international technological endeavor 
>in history.

In other words, we are not going to move beyond this showpiece for
technology until well into the 21st century, if at all.  Once again, we
are putting all of our eggs in the same basket.  Has he already
forgotten the lessons of Challenger?


Truly proposes one solution to these problems: increase the NASA budget.
He hints that if only Congress threw money at NASA whenever they
requested it, then everything would be fine.

----

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 89 00:29:37 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NSS/SpaceCause Legislative Alert

In article <Added.oYca3i200Ui34Dak85@andrew.cmu.edu>, AABRAMS@UKCC (Steve Abrams) writes:
>
> Pt. 1 - CRAF-Cassini
>
>FROM SPACECAUSE (RPromoting Space Development Through Legislative
>ActionS):
>
>    Because of the critical importance of this legislative year to the space
>program, a united effort is being made, to support the NASA budget as a
>whole and the new start on CRAF-Cassini 

SpaceCause leaders are apparently of the opinion that CRAF-Cassini can
be useful in promoting their agenda, namely the support of Space Station
at all cost.  This letter is an attempt to hook people by talking about
a real space project, and then asking them to support Space Station.
But don't take my word for it --

>    Support for the NASA budget is particularly important this year
>because of the intimate relationship between the budget and the Space
>Station program.

>				        The letter from Charles Walker which
>follows in this package explains in terms of our goals why the Space Station
>is the top priority short-term legislative goal of SpaceCause and the National
>Space Society.

At the NSS Space Development Conference in Chicago, the "discussion" of
the Space Station consisted of Ben Bova interrupting every statement
against the Space Station to remind everyone that if we didn't get Space
Station, none of us would ever go.  This followed Charles Walker's very
careful explanation of why we must not confuse or compare CDSF with a
space station.

>    It is very difficult for new starts, like CRAF-Cassini to survive when
>the NASA budget is severely cut.  We need your help to save the Space
>Station and CRAF-Cassini.

>    Ask for full funding for NASA and in particular for the Space Station.
>Also mention CRAF-Cassini as a secondary issue.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>[Various comments suggesting that unless NASA gets lots of money right
>now, none of us will ever go.]

>    It is for these reasons that Freedom Station is the top priority short-
>term legislative goal of Spacecause and the National Space Society.  we need
>new starts like CRAF-Cassini to help identify resources and chart our future
>course.  But exploration is only the beginning.  For the permanent occupancy
>of space, we need Freedom Station.

Once again, if we don't get Space Station *right now* none of us will
ever go.  They must mean the "top priority" for the signatories -- there
has been no discussion of the merits of the project with members.
Members who question the inestimable merit of Space Station are treated
as National SS heretics.


William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 89 18:41:00 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Naming children after space missions/astronauts.


	In regards to children born around the time APOLLO 11 landed on
the Moon in July of 1969 being named after the astronauts involved,
I also remember reading how twins born in the Soviet Union during the
APOLLO 18-SOYUZ 19 mission of July, 1975 were named Apollo and Soyuz.

	Does anyone have any more such names?  I know that many kids
born in 1962 - the year John Glenn became the first American to orbit
Earth - were named John and Glen.

	Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 89 17:00:37 GMT
From: att!ihlpa!preacher@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Williams)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <SHAFER.89Jun19080313@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
>
>We enjoyed the Gooney-Bird, since it was much nicer than the R4D that
>it replaced, having soundproofing and cloth upholstery, but it was
>a little embarassing to climb into our `new' 1941 airplane.
>--

EMBARASSING!! EMBARASSING!!!  There is such class to crawling into
a DC-3 at an airport that there is not even any word for such mega-
class.  The only thing better than a DC-3 is TWO DC-3s.  Embarassed
indeed.  Any slob can crawl into a Lear or a Citation or something
with blowtorches.  It takes gobs of macho (mega-macho!) to actually
fly a -3!

Embarassed indeed.  The nose gear is in the right place, the controls
are covered with the right kind of metal, the engines drip the right
kind of juice, and the blades are big and turn slowly on nice round
engines.

Oh the horrors of it all, embarassed to fly in a DC-3.

					jeff williams
					ihlpa!preacher
					ATP Multi / DC-3
					(and proud of it!)
					
P.S.:  Put a big :-) on this one, ok???

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1989 14:59-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: after several network bounces...

Ah, the vagaries of network mail...

	Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1989 14:44-EDT 
	From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
	To: paterra%cs.odu.edu@xanth.cs.odu.EDU
	Subject: Re: Space Station Computers

> though we might be able to get away with a less candy coated computer
> system, I don't think we could fly it.  Also there is the public
> affairs problems of saying that we will trust a human life to anything
> that is not 100% safe.

All of which is why I prefer the 100% private route. It may take a bit
longer, but it will get us the real thing: affordable space transport
and lodgings.

There is much that is acceptable to the individual that is not
acceptable to an organization whose existance depends on running a
continuous dog and pony show.

The start will be slower, but just watch. Around 2005 or so, the
entrepreneurs are going to blow past NASA like it was standing still.

And sadly, it may indeed be standing still.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 89 20:18 -0500
From: Kerry Stevenson <kerry@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
To: <space@angband.s1.gov>
Subject: Satellite Images - at home!

Recently, I read a book about amateur radio which told me all about radio, and
mentioned briefly the concept of listening in on signals transmitted from 
various type of earth orbiting satellites.  Although this in itself is not too
difficult, the book mentioned that some individuals have managed to capture
video signals, from weather satellites for example, and using their home 
computer systems have actually printed out images.  Also, a recent article in
Spaceflight detailed the impressive setup owned by a Briton, who had managed
to print out oceanic images from the Soviet Okean satellite.  This topic is
of some interest to me and I have the following questions:
 
- Is this a common activity, or is it done by just a few deranged people?
- What types of satellites are popular for capturing images?
- What equipment (other than computing hardware) is required?
- Are there legalities involved? e.g. are SPOT images encoded?
- Most importantly, are there any referenes, official or otherwise which 
  can be used to find out more detail?

Thanx in advance,
Kerry S.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 89 19:53:04 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Fuel for lunar trip

In article <8906221756.AA29180@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>That sounds like a good idea for hydrogen-fueled flights out of earth orbit
>in general. Water would take up less volume than the corresponding quantity
>of hydrogen and oxygen. Once in orbit, the H2 and O2 would be separated using
>the abundant solar power present, and refrigerated...

At one point there was a proposal to take up water ballast on shuttle missions
that were volume-limited rather than weight-limited, and offload the ballast
at an orbiting facility that would electrolyze it and liquefy the resulting
hydrogen and oxygen.  There were some unknowns; for example, nobody has much
experience at handling cryogenic fuels in orbit, or even in keeping them
liquid for long periods of time in space.  The idea pretty much died out
due to a serious lack of volume-limited missions.  (The Hubble Telescope
mission, for example, looks volume-limited until you consider that they
want the highest possible orbit.)
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 89 15:50:13 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 06/23/89 (Forwarded)


                                   Payload Status Report
                                   Kennedy Space Center
                                   June 23, 1989

          George H. Diller


          Galileo/IUS-19

               In the SAEF-2 planetary spacecraft checkout facility, the
          Galileo spacecraft has been loaded with propellants.  On June 14-
          15, the spacecraft's oxidizer tanks were loaded with
          approximately 1300 pounds of nitrogen tetroxide, and on June 19-
          20, its fuel tanks were loaded with approximately 800 pounds of
          hydrazine.  The tanks are now being pressurized with helium.
          These propellants will be used for spacecraft control during the
          cruise phase and for mission operations at Jupiter.

               The spacecraft is being powered up for further testing.
          Operations are scheduled to resume for the installation of
          pyrotechnic devices next week.  Among the tasks these devices
          perform are deployment of the spacecraft's antennas and
          instrument booms, removing protective covers, and the probe
          release.

               Other work scheduled next week is a deployment test of the
          umbrella-like high gain antenna, to be followed by its
          installation on the spacecraft.

               On IUS-19, the second stage nozzle cone extension tests have
          been sucessfully completed.  Electrical testing of the second
          stage continues.    The IUS is planned to be transported to the
          Vertical Processing Facility on July 23.

               Final spacecraft operations and checkout are on schedule
          which will lead to moving the probe to the VPF on July 24.



          Atlas Centaur AC-68/FltSatCom F-8

               Electrical hook-ups and umbilical connections have been
          completed.  The vehicle was powered up on Tuesday, June 20, to
          begin testing.  Upcoming work includes initial pressurization of
          vehicle systems and series of valve functional tests for the
          Atlas and the Centaur main engines.

               The FltSatCom spacecraft is at the TRW plant in Redondo
          Beach, California, being prepared to shipment to the Cape late
          next month.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #514
*******************
Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Jun 89 05:47:17 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00878> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 27 Jun 89 05:47:08 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 27 Jun 89 05:47:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4YdoabS00jZd01004A>;
          Tue, 27 Jun 89 05:32:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.0YdoNfi00UkVELu05f>;
          Tue, 27 Jun 89 05:18:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <IYdoMEy00UkVELsU5M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 89 05:17:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #515

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 515

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Children born July 20, 1969
		   NSS/SpaceCause Legislative Alert
			  Re: Gold Deposits
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
			  Re: Gold Deposits
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #500
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 89 14:47:53 GMT
From: usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!dkrause@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU  (Doug Krause)
Subject: Re: Children born July 20, 1969

In article <890623.10245792.002090@RMC.CP6> JC@RMC.BITNET writes:
>I don't know of anyone named "Module", but this makes me wonder when Frank
>Zappa's daughter "Moon Unit" was born.  I know she was about sixteen when
>she recorded "Valley Girl", and that was a few years ago.  Hmmmmm...

I think Valley Girl came out around 79 or 80 so she would have been
born about 5 years too early for the landing.

Douglas Krause                     CA Prop i:  Ban Gummie Bears(tm)!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine   ARPANET: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu
Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA  BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 89 11:39:50 EDT
From: Steve Abrams <AABRAMS%UKCC.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      NSS/SpaceCause Legislative Alert

 Pt. 1 - CRAF-Cassini

FROM SPACECAUSE (RPromoting Space Development Through Legislative
ActionS):

Dear Supporter:

    Because of the critical importance of this legislative year to the space
program, a united effort is being made, to support the NASA budget as a
whole and the new start on CRAF-Cassini -- which involves a comet
rendezvous, asteroid fly-bys, a Saturn orbiter and an entry probe into the
organic clouds of Titan down to its unexplored surface.  The NASA budget is
currently under close scrutiny in Congress.  CRAF-Cassini is the first truly
post-Apollo new start of a planetary mission.

    The National Space SocietyUs family of organizations and The Planetary
Society are joining together in this effort.  Both organizations are
recommending that their supporters contact appropriate members of
Congress to authorize CRAF-Cassini along with the requested NASA budget.

    We urge you to read the enclosed.

                    Cordially,

                    (signature)
                    Carl Sagan
                    President, The Planetary Society

                    Charles Walker
                    President, National Space Society


Dear SpaceCause or SpacePAC contributor or National Space Society member,

    The strategy of Spacecause is to politically organize those who are
already pro-space.  The same techniques which have made other movements
powerful can also make the space movement powerful.  In this context, the
preceeding letter of agreement between The Planetary Society and the
National Space SocietyUs family of organizations (SpaceCause, SpacePAC, and
NSS) is a milestone.  This agreement was originally suggested by Lori Garver,
NSS Executive Director.  It was negotiated by Louis Friedman, Executive
Director of the Planetary Society and myself and was ultimately signed by
Carl Sagan and Charles Walker.  Cooperation is the most effective way for the
space movement to make progress.

    Support for the NASA budget is particularly important this year
because of the intimate relationship between the budget and the Space
Station program.  NASA has publicly stated that if its budget is cut by the
$600-800 million or more, the agency will recommend that the program be
terminated.  According to former NASA Administrator James Beggs, Rsuch a
reduction is looming for the agency.S  The letter from Charles Walker which
follows in this package explains in terms of our goals why the Space Station
is the top priority short-term legislative goal of SpaceCause and the National
Space Society.  The CRAF-Cassini mission is important to science and to our
goal of creating a space-faring civilization that will establish communities
beyond the Earth.  It will chart valuable resources like asteroidal minerals
and cometary ice that may be of considerable importance to the
industrialization of space and to the development of space settlements.

    The mission has two components, CRAF and Cassini, which use
separate spacecraft.  The Mariner II spacecraft bus is to be developed and
used for both components.  This type of bus - a considerable advance over
existing technology -  is also expected to be used for other probes.

    CRAF (Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Fly-by) will pass by an asteroid
(449 Hamburga, an 88-km diameter carbonaceous body) for observation on
its way to rendezvous with Comet Kopff.  CRAF will fly alongside Kopff for
almost three years, observing the cometUs behavior and analyzing its
composition.

    Cassini will carry an orbiter and probe that will explore SaturnUs moon
Titan.  The probe will carry instruments to analyze the atmosphere of Titan
as the probe parachutes to the surface and will continue to radio reports
from the surface after landing.  The orbiter will image the surface of Titan,
creating radar maps with 200 meter resolution.  The orbiter will also explore
SaturnUs other moons and its rings.

    It is very difficult for new starts, like CRAF-Cassini to survive when
the NASA budget is severely cut.  We need your help to save the Space
Station and CRAF-Cassini.  There are two key upcoming votes which will
probably decide the issue.  The first will occur in congressman Bob TrazlerUs
House Appropriations sub-committee which deals with NASA.  We shall
contact you about the second later.

    The Traxler vote is imminent, which is why this letter is being mailed
first-class instead of at the less-expensive and slower non-profit rate.  We
need everyone to telephone Congressman Bob Traxler during Washington
business hours (letters may not arrive in time).  His direct number is
(202)225-2806.  In addition, please call those, if any, of the following
members of TraxlerUs subcommittee that are from your state:  Louis Stokes
(D-OH), Lindy Boggs (D-LA), Allan Mollohan (D-WV), Jim Chapman (D-TX),
Chester Atkins (D-MA), Lawrence Coughlin (R-PA), Bill Green (R-NY), and
Jerry Lewis (R-CA).  Any member of Congress cna be reached by calling
(202)224-3121 and asking for the member in question.

    Ask for full funding for NASA and in particular for the Space Station.
Also mention CRAF-Cassini as a secondary issue.  At the time I am writing
this, it is not known when TraxlerUs subcommittee will vote.  The best
strategy is to call as soon as you receive this letter.  Up-to-date information
can be obtained by calling the Space Hotline at (202)543-1995.  After you
call, ask your friends to do the same.  Then help us out by sending a financial
contribution to SPACECAUSE -- these grassroots mailings cost money, and can
be continued only with the support of space advocates like yourself.

    The next century can be the century in which America leads humanity
into space to live and work.  It will be an adventure without parallel in
human history -- grander than the great age of Earth exploration and
settlement that started several hundred years ago and has only ended in this
century.  For the adventure to take place, though, those of us with vision
must work to overcome shortsightedness and ignorance here on Earth.
Please help.

                    Sincerely yours,

                    (signature)
                    Mark M. Hopkins
                    President, Spacecause

Dear Space Supporter,

    The fundamental, long-term goal of Spacecause and the National Space
Society is to create a space-faring civilization that will establish communities
beyond the Earth.  A permanently manned space station is required to meet
this goal.

    If we are serious about opening the space frontier, we must gain long-
term experience with living and working in space.  We must have a platform
for extensive biological and medical research of the effects of low and
variable gravity on living things.  This vital research cannot be done on
Earth.  Nor can it be done on a man-tended platform.  Only a permanently-
manned space station, such as Space Station Freedom, capable of providing
continuous life support, will eet the need.

    We must have a staging base for the efforts to expand permanent
human presence beyond low Earth orbit.  A major spaceport is required to
support exploration and development, first of the moon, and ultimately of
the inner solar system.  Freedom Station is but the first step in human
expansion into space; but it is also a critical first step.  There will be no
return to the moon in the foreseeable future without Freedom Station.

    It is for these reasons that Freedom Station is the top priority short-
term legislative goal of Spacecause and the National Space Society.  we need
new starts like CRAF-Cassini to help identify resources and chart our future
course.  But exploration is only the beginning.  For the permanent occupancy
of space, we need Freedom Station.

    I urge each of you to write or call members of Congress in accordance
witht he instructions in the accompanying materials.  Only by collective
action can we obtain our goals.

                        Sincerely,

                        (signature)
                        Charles Walker
                        Chairman, Spacecause

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1989 14:34-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Gold Deposits

MINERAL SURVEY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM ACCORDING TO DMA...

Gold will most likely be found on planets that either have:

	1) Plate Tectonics
	2) Significant vulcanism that remelts rock and allows slow
	   solidification (ie the nonreactive/nonsoluble gold has a
	   chance to collect in veins/pockets)
	3) Places where there is access to the core of a differentiated
	   body.

Mercury probably has the largest gold deposits of anywhere in the solar
system, but despite the giant size of it's core relative mantle, it is
still an inaccessable number of kilometers deep.

There is gold in small but economically viable percentages in
iron and stony iron asteroids, along with the Platinum and Palladium.
Some asteroids, from collisions over eons, are pieces of naked core
material. Merely add energy and separate using a Carbonyl process.

The Earth is most likely the richest source of mineable VEINS in the
solar system, due to the combination of vulcanism, plate tectonics and
fluid dissolution/deposition. Some think that gold veins may be largely
the result of gold dissolved in sea water that is trapped and carried
down with the plate subduction.

Some of the very large shield volcanoes on Mars and Venus would seem
reasonable but less certain propects also.

The evidence is not in yet, but Venus may have at one time in its past
had active plate tectonics. Some think it may still have. The answers
will be forthcoming when Magellan arrives ans starts sending back maps
at the higher resolution needed to answer this question. The features
are just on the edge of resolution in current images. Close enough to
make good arguments. Not close enough to buy penny mining stocks on
Beta Regio Mining & Extraction Inc.

The Moon probably has no deposits other than that left over from the
dust of asteroid collisions. There have been some theorizing about
limited differentiation in some lava flows, even of underground
volatiles to leach and carry minerals. I place my bet that there are no
lunar volatiles, polar or otherwise. I expect the private Lunar Polar
Orbiter Project will show this to be the case.

The martian moons are probably chondritic and probably have a little of
the Platinum group, but not much. Mostly they will be valuable for
their volatiles for refueling and CHON compounds for food stocks.

Mars itself might have had stillborn tectonics, but most likely was
limited to shield volcano activity, as mentioned above.

The outer moons are mostly "dirty ice's" and unlikely to have much in
the way of heavy nuclei. The furthur out you go, the large the fraction
of "volatiles" (at least things that are volatile in here close to the
solar furnace) grows rapidly.

There are probably loads of heavy metals in the cores of the gas
giants, but you might find it a little difficult to get at them...

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 89 08:57:32 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <13023@ihlpa.ATT.COM> preacher@ihlpa.UUCP (45262-Williams,J.B.) writes:
>EMBARASSING!! EMBARASSING!!!  There is such class to crawling into
>a DC-3 at an airport that there is not even any word for such mega-
>class.  The only thing better than a DC-3 is TWO DC-3s.

    Are you sure you're not really Henry "Version 7" Spencer posting
under an alias?
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 89 19:55:42 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Gold Deposits

In article <614630084.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>MINERAL SURVEY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM ACCORDING TO DMA...
>
>Gold will most likely be found on planets that either have:
>
>	1) Plate Tectonics
>	2) Significant vulcanism that remelts rock and allows slow
>	   solidification (ie the nonreactive/nonsoluble gold has a
>	   chance to collect in veins/pockets)
>	3) Places where there is access to the core of a differentiated
>	   body.

...
>There is gold in small but economically viable percentages in
>iron and stony iron asteroids, along with the Platinum and Palladium.
>Some asteroids, from collisions over eons, are pieces of naked core
>material. Merely add energy and separate using a Carbonyl process.

Asteroids were apparently melted early in the history of the solar
system, and became differentiated.  I wonder if veins or layers
enriched in various materials, like gold, could have formed when
they cooled.  Naively, I'd expect the larger asteroids to be
better differentiated, since they cooled more slowly and have
stronger gravity.

This leads to an interesting question: how deep can one dig a mine on
an asteroid?  My back of the envelope calculation says we should
be able to dig a mine to the center of all but perhaps the largest
asteroids, assuming they aren't too hot inside (I assume not).

Perhaps some smaller asteroids have had veins exposed by impact.  It
would be real nice if we had some close-up data.  It should be
possible to arrange a spacecraft's orbit around the sun so that it
encounters roughly one main belt asteroid per year for a decade or
more.  A more complete survey of the main belt would help a lot.

I hope the price of palladium goes through the roof. :-)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 24 Jun 89 12:05:54 EDT
From: "Marc L. Overman" <MARCC@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V9 #500

Sirs,

     Don't you still need to have an acceleration of at least 8 km/sec in order
 to even reach a stable apogee?  It should be 11 km/sec in order to escape the
earth's gravitational field.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #515
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jun 89 08:53:05 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01022> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 28 Jun 89 08:41:49 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 28 Jun 89 08:41:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kYe5ybC00UkT42Llhb>;
          Wed, 28 Jun 89 01:18:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.8Ye5AG:00UkV4Mfk4j>;
          Wed, 28 Jun 89 00:24:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYe57yK00UkVQMeE5q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 89 00:20:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #516

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 516

Today's Topics:
	Commercial launch services symposium held (Forwarded)
		   Re: Satellite Images - at home!
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		   Re: Satellite Images - at home!
		   Re: Satellite Images - at home!
	       Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth
	       Magellan Status for 06/26/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 89 01:05:05 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Commercial launch services symposium held (Forwarded)

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 23, 1989


RELEASE:  89-102

COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES SYMPOSIUM HELD


     On June 19, NASA hosted a commercial launch services 
symposium in Washington, D.C., in an effort to better understand 
specific industry concerns about the agency's procurement 
practices and procedures relating to commercial launch 
services.  

     Two-thirds of the potential domestic commercial launch 
services companies accepted NASA's invitation to address 
government-wide officials on current developments in the 
fledgling commercial expendable launch vehicle (ELV) industry 
itself; on policies and procedures considered to be objectionable 
in recent NASA commercial ELV solicitations; on ways to 
streamline or tailor individual solicitation requirements to 
specific needs while adequately safeguarding the government's 
interests; and on identifying specific legislation needed to 
procure ELV services on terms and conditions more suitable to the 
industry.

     During the all-day session, presenting companies included:  
Space Services, Inc.; McDonnell Douglas Astronautics; Conatec; 
Martin Marietta Aerospace, CTI; E'Prime Aerospace; LTV; General 
Dynamics, Space Systems Division; and American Rocket Company.

     During the next symposium, yet to be scheduled, the 
government will respond to the myriad comments and suggestions 
received during the June 19 session.

     Reference points for industry comments were NASA's first two 
commercial ELV procurement actions:  the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's series of Geostationary Operational 
Environmental Satellites commercial launches, awarded to General 
Dynamics in 1988; and NASA's latest competition, last May, for 
commercial medium performance class launch services for up to 15 
missions.  Proposals received under the latter solicitation are 
presently being evaluated.

     As a matter of policy, NASA is purchasing future ELV launch 
services directly from commercial operators, whenever possible, 
to support its scientific and applications mission that are not 
assigned to fly on the Space Shuttle.  Missions that do not 
require the unique capabilties of the Shuttle are being placed on 
ELVs so that a mixed fleet of shuttles and ELVs will be available 
to assure access to space for NASA programs.


	BACKGROUND INFORMATION
	COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES SYMPOSIUM

     "If you contract with me to deliver a piece of furniture 
from coast to coast, it's not necessary for you to design and 
micro-oversee my transportation system for me.  My job is to get 
that piece of furniture to its exact destination safely and on 
time.  If I don't do a good job, I won't be in business very 
long.  That same simplicity should guide your future commercial 
launch services procurements!"  (Anonymous entreprenuerial launch 
service spokesman.)

     "It is important to note that launch services requirements 
posed by NASA differ significantly from what could be called 
"routine," non-NASA commercial launches such as a communications 
satellite.  NASA spacecraft are vital and represent a national 
resource.  They are usually one-of-a-kind, complex machines that 
represent not only a large investment from our Treasury, but a 
large investment from the best of our national scientific and 
engineering community.  Indeed some spacecraft investigators have 
their entire career riding on your vehicle."  (Anonymous NASA 
program manager.)

     And so the discussion continued on June 19, 1989.  Over the 
past few months there has been increasing communications between 
private industry and NASA regarding to commercial launch service 
procurement policies and practices.  In an attempt to better 
understand industry's viewpoint, NASA sponsored a Launch Service 
Procurement Symposium in Washington, D.C. on June 19, 1989, and 
invited the expendable launch vehicle (ELV) industry to 
publically express not only their general concerns with NASA's 
procurement practices but also identify specific provisions and 
regulations they perceived as most onerous and provide the Agency 
with recommended solutions and/or modified provisions.

     During the all-day session, representatives from eight of 
the potential 12 domestic launch vehicle companies interested in 
providing commercial launch services accepted NASA's invitation 
to present their company's perspective on NASA's current ELV 
launch service procurement strategy.  The full spectrum of 
potential commercial ELV manufacturers were equally 
represented.  All of the established firms participated including 
Martin Marietta Aerospace, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems, LTV 
Corporation and General 

     A number of new entrants into the industry also participated 
including E'Prime Aerospace, American Rocket Company, Space 
Services Inc. and Conatec.  Presentations and recommendations 
were as varied as the nature of each company's product line and 
perspective.  

     Given the wide experience diversity within the ELV industry, 
ranging from firms who have extensive years of flight experience 
to firms who are in the design phase, it has proven a challenging 
task for NASA to structure solicitations which give every 
domestic launch service company a full opportunity to compete.  

     To futher complicate the process, NASA has been working to 
develop a procurement strategy for commercial launch services 
that not only allows all potential domestic firms to compete, but 
also balances requisite agency oversight, federal procurement 
laws, national space policy objectives and commercially 
reasonable practices.  

     The fact that NASA has indeed taken positive steps toward 
balancing this often conflicting set of objectives while learning 
to procure launch services rather than launch vehicles was 
acknowledged throughout the day.

     NASA's effort to bring together the diverse group of 
interested parties in government and industry was a success, 
since some 100 representatives of the ELV industry, NASA field 
center and headquarters program and procurement offices, the 
Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Transportation, the OMB and 
congressional staffers participated in the symposium. 

     In support of the mixed fleet strategy, NASA is purchasing 
requisite ELV launch services directly from commercial operators, 
whenever possible, to support scientific and applications 
missions that do not require the Space Shuttle's unique 
capabilities.  The NASA mixed fleet strategy has evolved in 
concert with national policy directives to utilize both the Space 
Shuttle and ELV's to assure access to space for civilian 
government missions.  

     NASA was responsible for awarding the first U.S. Government 
commercial launch service contract in support of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geostationary 
Operational Environmental Satellite spacecraft in May 1988.  

     NASA's second competitive solicitation for medium 
performance, launch services, to support three firm and 
potentially 12 additional NASA scientific missions, was released 
in May and served as the catalyst for industry desires that NASA 
procure services in a "commercially reasonable manner".  

     One industry representative stated at the symposium, "NASA 
should treat a launch vehicle failure as a source of learning", 
likewise, industry should treat NASA's second attempt at 
procuring launch services as learning rather than a failure.

     The process to procure commercially is indeed an 
evolutionary rather than an overnight occurrence.  The June 19 
symposium was not a one time event, but a step toward opening 
communication lines between NASA and industry to work together to 
develop a system that balances the concerns and needs of both.  

     A follow-up symposium will be held later this summer where 
NASA's procurement policies, plans and practices will be 
clarified in response to concerns raised by industry.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 89 16:08:06 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Satellite Images - at home!

In article <53*kerry@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kerry@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kerry Stevenson) writes:
>Recently, I read a book about amateur radio which told me all about radio, and
>mentioned briefly the concept of listening in on signals transmitted from 
>various type of earth orbiting satellites.  Although this in itself is not too
>difficult, the book mentioned that some individuals have managed to capture
>video signals, from weather satellites for example, and using their home 
>computer systems have actually printed out images.  Also, a recent article in
>Spaceflight detailed the impressive setup owned by a Briton, who had managed
>to print out oceanic images from the Soviet Okean satellite.  This topic is
>of some interest to me and I have the following questions:
> 
>- Is this a common activity, or is it done by just a few deranged people?
>- What types of satellites are popular for capturing images?
>- What equipment (other than computing hardware) is required?
>- Are there legalities involved? e.g. are SPOT images encoded?
>- Most importantly, are there any referenes, official or otherwise which 
>  can be used to find out more detail?
>
>Thanx in advance,
>Kerry S.

Yes, alot of amateurs do their own weather satellite monitoring. Many of the
satellites were designed to be accessable to users with small setups, so
for instance, someone in a small village in India would be able to pick
up the images.



Hams have been picking up satellite pictures for 20 years or more, at one
time using surplus fax machines. Unfortunately, from what I understand, the
it is very difficult to receive the "direct" signals from the birds. That is,
a satellite will send a picture using a low power transmitter to a specific
receiving station. The station will then add in the country boarders and any
other extra information and send the picture back up to the satellite, which
then relays it on a high power signal down to the normal users.

So for most cases, you won't be receiving the "live" data, but that which
had already been processed.

If you pick up any ham radio magazine, you'll probably find some ads for
weather satellite gear.



          *** mike (still looking for a publisher) smithwick ***

"Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 89 20:41:50 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <32650@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>>EMBARASSING!! EMBARASSING!!!  There is such class to crawling into
>>a DC-3 at an airport that there is not even any word for such mega-
>>class.  The only thing better than a DC-3 is TWO DC-3s.
>
>    Are you sure you're not really Henry "Version 7" Spencer posting
>under an alias?

He definitely isn't.  I consider the DC-3 a charming historical relic,
period.  If you want class when climbing into an aircraft, it has to have
afterburners.

(Alas, I haven't had a chance at this yet...)
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 89 21:00:03 GMT
From: mcvax!fmr@uunet.uu.net  (Frank Rahmani)
Subject: Re: Satellite Images - at home!

> mentioned briefly the concept of listening in on signals transmitted from 
> various type of earth orbiting satellites.  
> - Is this a common activity, or is it done by just a few deranged people?
I just don't like the way you pose your question. Of course its no
'common activity' but why do you call people doing it deranged??
> - What equipment (other than computing hardware) is required?
Something to receive the signal (antenna and receiver, perhaps downconverter)
some kind of signal converter between receiver and computer and of course
computer software.
> - Are there legalities involved? e.g. are SPOT images encoded?
Depends on which satellite you want to receive
> - Most importantly, are there any referenes, official or otherwise which 
>   can be used to find out more detail?
There was a posting very recently on the net (schematics and software)
that used an average Atari computer to receive satpics.
fmr@cwi.nl
-- 
It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck?
Maintainer's Motto:
	If we can't fix it, it ain't broke.
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 89 07:48:46 GMT
From: uc!nic.MR.NET!srcsip!tcnet!nis!datapg!ann!tomg@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Thomas S. Greenwalt)
Subject: Re: Satellite Images - at home!

In article <53*kerry@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kerry@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kerry Stevenson) writes:
>- Is this a common activity, or is it done by just a few deranged people?
>- What types of satellites are popular for capturing images?
>- What equipment (other than computing hardware) is required?
>- Are there legalities involved? e.g. are SPOT images encoded?
>- Most importantly, are there any referenes, official or otherwise which 
>  can be used to find out more detail?
>

There was an Amateur Scientist article in Scientific American around 1974
that had plans for building such a device.  It would create a black and
white photo from the signal sent by the NOAA-2 on the frequency 137.5 megahertz.
I have no idea if this satellite is still transmitting.  The operator would
record the signal and play it back to a imaging device that basicly was a
rotating drum with light sensitive paper wrapped around it and a lamp to expose
the paper.  Really a very simple device.

-- 
Thomas S. Greenwalt	                  {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!ann!tomg
A.N.N. Systems		+1 612-866-1344	  tomg@ann.MN.ORG	tomg@ann!uunet
------------------ Patience is a Vice, Tolerance is a Virtue ------------------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 89 20:36:44 GMT
From: stsci!sims@noao.edu  (Jim Sims)
Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth

> Does this mean that after something goes wrong, the orbit decays, and we
> launch a shuttle to fix it, we can't reboost it to the original high
> orbit?
> 
 well, it's gets more complicated - first of all, you have to pay fuel to make
the rendeveous, not to mention a _very_ narrow launch window each day you want
to try to go snag it. Then, the solar panel sprobably won't stand the reboost
in the deployed position, so you lose them. And now, you back to where you
started on the original deployment mission, except you've spent all that extra
fuel to get here, are at a lower altitude than before, _and_ have a mandatory
EVA if you want to reboost (to replace the solar panels). ugly. THIS is just
ONE good reason we need a space station - drop by _anytime_ & fix the sucker..

-- 
    Jim Sims      Space Telescope Science Institute      Baltimore, MD
             UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
    ARPA:  sims@stsci.edu                           SPAM:  STOSC::SIMS

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 23:53:54 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 06/26/89 (Forwarded)


                     MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS
                          June 26, 1989
 
 
     This is a weekly status report. The Magellan spacecraft
went through successful momentum wheel desaturations on a daily
basis.
 
     Of the seven star scans to update the attitude from Friday
June 16 to Thursday June 22, four were fully successful on both
stars and three were partially successful, rejecting one of two
stars in each case. On each of three days the star scanner
detected a spurious pulse from one of the two stars. The flight
software correctly rejected the pulse, but also rejected the
measurement because the timing was then off. Only a two-axis
attitude update was obtained in each case. The problem appears to
be related to spacecraft attitude, since these events occurred
after the turn to alternate medium-gain antenna attitude June
12.
 
     A second star calibration was performed Saturday to get
acceptable magnitude thresholds for two new stars, Alpha
Centauri and Sirius. The selected magnitudes were acceptable, but
Sirius may be too bright and too blue to be a reliable guide
star, and data analysis is continuing.
 
     The good news concerning star scans is that the on-board
bias estimation process was enabled last Monday and after two
consecutive good scans the following two days, the process was
verified as functioning perfectly. It is so stable, mission 
operators said, that they could miss every other star scan, or
even several in a row, and not lose track of Magellan's
attitude. Further adjustments are being considered to make the
flight system even more immune to interruption by spurious
pulses.
 
     The spacecraft's current attitude is keeping the Solid
Rocket Motor (SRM) and the Rocket Engine Modules (REMs) cool. But
they are expected to warm up again when the High-Gain antenna is
again turned toward Earth on day 181. Tests are in progress at
Morton Thiokol on SRM fuel samples to determine the actual upper
temperature limits and tests results are expected by July 7.
Also, Martin Marietta in Denver is working with JPL on tests to
determine upper temperature limits of the flight REMs.
 
     The final command sequence of Cruise 5 was completed and
sent to the systems verification lab for testing. An error was
found in the flight software and corrected with a one-word patch
and the sequence was uploaded last Saturday.
 
     
 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                    7,039,205
     
     Velocity Geocentric                         5,393 mph
              Heliocentric                      63,381 mph
 
     One Way Light Time                           37.8 sec

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #516
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jun 89 17:41:28 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02821>; Wed, 28 Jun 89 16:58:07 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 28 Jun 89 16:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QYe:T8K00UkTI1wk5G>;
          Wed, 28 Jun 89 06:26:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.gYe7kU200UkVIMwU41>;
          Wed, 28 Jun 89 03:20:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <UYe7j1e00UkV8Mv05i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 89 03:18:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #517

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 517

Today's Topics:
		      Re: ADA and space station
		     Final Frontier Summary V2,N4
	      Re: More on the SS computers and NuBUS/MCA
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		     Final Frontier Summary N3,V1
		     Final Frontier Summary N5,V1
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1989 13:10-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: ADA and space station

> I have talked with several people who have studied Ada, and they claim that
> object oriented programming is one of the major points of emphasis in the
> design of the language.

I was unaware that ADA had classes, objects and methods. True, I can
see how to fake many of these with the visibility rules, but I'm not
sure it's quite the same.

I can believe I am mistaken though. ADA strikes me as being a language
much like PL/I. It was designed by a committee and has EVERYONE's
favorite constructs...

I am not saying that there are not interesting advances in compiler
design and software engineering brought about by ADA. What I AM saying
is that it continues the separation of government aerospace from the
rest of the marketplace and guarantees that everything will be unique
and very, very expensive...

I'll stick with private ventures that buy off the shelf and spec usage
of the prevailing commercial standards, thank you.

> There is a set of articles in the June 1 issue of Computer Design describing
> changes in military procurement of mil-spec and off-the-shelf equipment and
> relevant issues, plus the evolution and current status of Ada.

If true, maybe we'll see the end of the era of the $100 hammer ($15 for
a good 20 oz hammer, $85 for the paper)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:22:51 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Chris Riley)
Subject: Final Frontier Summary V2,N4

Final Frontier, August 1989, Vol 2, No 4.
Final Frontier is published bi-monthly: Address: FF, P.O. Box 20089,
Minneapolis, MN 55420-9829.  $14.95 per year.
[I have no connection with FF except as a reader.]

Cover:"It was 20 years ago today."

"The Observator: The Next Giant Leap" by Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17 commander).  
The United States needs a long term goal to maintain its leadership
position.  A 25 year committment to achieve some goal will embed the
space program into our society.  

"Notes from Earth"
  * A Yen for News: Journalists working for Japan's Tokyo Broadcasting 
     System compete for the first journalist in orbit.
  * Star Tracks: ESA's plans to orbit Hipparcos (High Precision Parallax
     Collecting Satellite).
  * "Fobos" Phlops: some results from the Soviet Fobos craft.
  * Shuttlescapes: watercolors by Molly Springer based on behind the
     scenes view of shuttle preparations.
  * Moonport Alpha: Computer program to sketch blueprints for a lunar hub.
  * Getting there is Half the Fun: Galileo will look at Earth and the moon 
     on the way to Jupiter.
  * Mission to OZ: Plans for a probe into the Oort Zone (Oort Cloud) early
     in the next century.
  * Cool Sounds: A refrigerator that works in space using sound.

"Global Currents: Blue Star Rising" by Eric Lee
In September 1988, Israel launched its first satelite, Ofek-1.  Discussion
of possible effects of continuous surveillance by both sides of Middle East
conflicts.

"Mission File: STS-30"
Day by day coverage of the Atlantis mission of
May 4 to May 8, 1989.

"Boundaries: In Search of The Big Bang" by Henry Fuhrmann
The Cosmic Background Explorer is scheduled to begin a year-long search
for echoes of the Big Bang.  It will conduct two complete scans of the sky
over the year.  It will use detectors to determine whether the cosmic
background radiations is as uniform as previous experiments have shown.

"Windows on the World" by Alcestis R. Oberg
Space Station Freedom's cupolas will provide spectacular view of the
Earth and stars [if it gets off the drawing board].

"The Future as it was" by Les Dorr, Jr.
The proposed space program of von Braun and co during the 1950s.  

"Apollo 11" by Andrew Chaikin
Lots of great moon pictures with text talking about the mission and other
later missions.  Also includes pictures and descriptions of all the Apollo
missions and crew.

"Where have all the moon rocks gone?" by Beth Dickey
Most of the moon rocks brought back by Apollo missions reside at the
Johnson Space Center in Houston.  Also tells where some of the rest of
it is and what it has been used for.

"Luna 2009" by Miles Weiss and Greg Freiherr
Planning to celebrate Apollo's 40th anniversary on the moon again.

"Neptune at last!" by Tony Reichhardt
About Neptune and Voyager 2's upcoming rendezvous.

"Backyard Universe: Where the Boys Were" by Patricia Barnes-Svarney
A telescopic tour of the Apollo landing sites.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riley                                       riley@cs.ucsd.edu
"From the moment the first flint was flaked, this landing was
 merely a matter of time." --W.H. Auden, "Moon Landing" 1969
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:32:27 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: More on the SS computers and NuBUS/MCA

In article <Added.QYaRLEW00UkTMWCU97@andrew.cmu.edu> V131Q5CG@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (John Taylor) writes:

>>>Why PS/2's? Why the Micro Channel bus in particular? If they want to
>>>use PC's, why not the (vastly superior) Apple Mac? Oh well... :(
 
>>You are joking, right? While I am no fan of the IBM PC's and PS's, calling
>>the Mac a "superior" machine is kind of like saying that an amoeba is
>>superior to a bacteria.
 
>I don't get the signifigance; the Mac is faster, easier to use, and has
>a better bus.

Is the Mac faster? By what benchmark? The fastest Mac I have seen runs at
16 MHz, while the fastest PC-type machine runs at 25 MHz....also, in my 
experience, a PC-type machine running at 25 MHz runs the whetstone benchmark
faster than any Mac.

Of course, my point was that it is kind of silly to compare two machines that
are several "quantum numbers" behind other available machines....it is kind of
like arguing which black-powder rifle is best for military applications in the
era of full-auto assault rifles.

Why didn't the engineers go "whole hog" and design a RISC machine with some
of the newer RISC chips? 

>>The only thing that makes the Mac any good at all is the Mac human interface,
>>this will probably not be of any consequence for the space station software.

>No? I think it would make things vastly easier. In additon, all the
>Mac's "Human Interface" routines are in ROM which speeds execution and
>simplifies programming, reduces RAM requirements, etc.

Since the decision has already been made to go with an Unix-like OS, the Mac's
interface stuff is not applicable. Also, why not put the Unix-like OS's
kernel in ROM? (and perhaps more of the software also....)

>>Perhaps the designers will have enough common sense
>>to put a few DMA channels on the thing.....
 
>Micro Channel has DMA...

The Micro channel spec may allow DMA, but I have never seen a Mac with any
kind of DMA built in.

When talking about the NuBus, remember that the Apple Mac uses a "subset"
of the full NuBus spec. I don' know why the decisions were made....you would
have to ask the engineers in charge of the project.

I would imagine that Intel chips were chosen because IBM is the prime
contractor for the Space Station computer system....I imagine that the Micro
Channel was chose for the same reason. Then again, maybe it all has to do
with the availability of radiation hardened chips for the systems.


Neal

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 15:23:20 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <13023@ihlpa.ATT.COM> preacher@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Williams) writes:

>In article <SHAFER.89Jun19080313@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
>>
>>We enjoyed the Gooney-Bird, since it was much nicer than the R4D that
>>it replaced, having soundproofing and cloth upholstery, but it was
>>a little embarassing to climb into our `new' 1941 airplane.
>>--

Incidentally, the R4D was built in 1943 and the `new' Gooney was built
in 41.  The R4D still had the plexiglass dome for taking star
sightings for navigation.  I'm pretty sure the `new' Gooney was a C-47
Skytrain, rather than a DC-3.

>EMBARASSING!! EMBARASSING!!!  There is such class to crawling into
>a DC-3 at an airport that there is not even any word for such mega-
>class.  The only thing better than a DC-3 is TWO DC-3s.  Embarassed
>indeed.  Any slob can crawl into a Lear or a Citation or something
>with blowtorches.  It takes gobs of macho (mega-macho!) to actually
>fly a -3!

It was just fine at civil airports, where everybody looked at us
admiringly and even took photos.  The embarassement came when we
taxied down Contractor Row here at Edwards.  Slowly we'd taxi by the
Air Force's latest and prettiest fighters, smoking and thundering
along.  I'm not sure it takes machismo to fly the aircraft--the pilots
would let me fly it from the right seat for hours and I'm not very
macho (M is for Mary).

>Embarassed indeed.  The nose gear is in the right place, the controls
>are covered with the right kind of metal, the engines drip the right
>kind of juice, and the blades are big and turn slowly on nice round
>engines.

Talk about dripping the right kind of juice--you can still see where
we parked that puppy and it's been _years_.  We got rid of it the
second time it had an engine fire.  It was coming back, full of
engineers, one evening and the engine left burst into flame.  They
turned around and did an emergency landing at 29 Palms.  We sent a
crew down, they changed out the engine (maybe just the affected jugs),
brought it back to Dryden, and parked it.  The next time it flew was
the ferry flight to Ole Miss, who'd picked it up from the salvage
(excess property) list.  Our pilots refused to fly it any more.  They
wanted the R4D back, but it had gone on to Cockroach Corner and was
lost to us forever.

I know our KingAir is faster, but it sure doesn't have the class!
--

M F Shafer                                |Ignore the reply-to address
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility |Use shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:17:54 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Chris Riley)
Subject: Final Frontier Summary N3,V1

Final Frontier, August 1988, Vol 1, No 3.
Final Frontier is published bi-monthly: Address: FF, P.O. Box 20089,
Minneapolis, MN 55420-9829.  $14.95 per year.
[I have no connection with FF except as a reader.]

"The Observatory: Send Only the Best" by Walter M. Schirra (a
Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo pilot).
He argues that we should only send the best for the job so that we
get the most value for each person sent into orbit.  Thus, a Senator
and school teacher should not go.

"Global Currents: A Pan-American Space Agency" by Devera Pine.
By teaming up the US, Canada, and Latin America we could form a beneficial
tracking team in addition to helping to unite these countries with a
common goal.  Astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz is helping to organize an
international advisory board for PASO (Pan American Space Org).

"Earthly Pursuits: Lasers in Inner Space" by Ray Spangenburg and Diane Moser
NASA technology applied to the human cardiovascular system.

"Spacefarers: Remembering Challenger" by Maura J. Mackowski
Remembering the Challenger.

"Ascent: A 'rookie' gives an astronaut's eye-view of the short, fast
trip into space"  by Congressman Bill Nelson.

"At Home on the Space Station" by Ray Spangenburg and Diane Moser
Designs for the space station are discuessed as well as some pictures of
mockups and plans.

"Oceans Above" by Charles R. Pellegrino
Oceans on other planets and moons: Jupiter (Europa), Neptune (Triton), 
Saturn (Enceladus and Titan).  Could these oceans harbor life?

"326 Days in Space" by Les Door, Jr.
'Typical'[!] days aboard Mir based on what cosmonaut Yuri Romanenko did.

"Little Comets BIG SPLASH" by Patrick Huyghe.
The Earth is showered by some twenty, 100-ton comets each and every
minute of every day according to Louis Frank.  They have found water
vapor in the outer fringes of the atmosphere and believe it is from
comets.

"A Discovery in Jazz" by C. J. Houtchens
Artists will create documentary art based on Discovery's coming launch.

"How to Build a Space Shuttle" by T.A. Heppenheimer.
The building of an orbiter is discussed including a discussion of the parts.
Also discussed is Enterprise, the computers, the 104%/109% engine ratings.

Insert: What the previous 25 shuttle missions accomplished 1981-1986

"Adrift on the Winds of Mars" by Greg Freiherr
Lighter-than-air spacecraft scheduled for 1994 departure for Mars.  These
craft will float across the planet to analyze soil whereever they land.

"The Rise and Fall and Rise of AMROC" by Melinda Gipson
The trials and tribulations of AMROC.

"Boundaries: The Great Lunar Helium Rush" by Maura J. Mackowski
He-3 may become the first valuable helium import from space.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riley                                       riley@cs.ucsd.edu
"From the moment the first flint was flaked, this landing was
 merely a matter of time." --W.H. Auden, "Moon Landing" 1969
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:19:17 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Chris Riley)
Subject: Final Frontier Summary N5,V1

Final Frontier, December 1988, Vol 1, No 5.
Final Frontier is published bi-monthly: Address: FF, P.O. Box 20089,
Minneapolis, MN 55420-9829.  $14.95 per year.
[I have no connection with FF except as a reader.]

"The Observatory: After Discovery" by Dave Hilmers.  
What should be our goals after Discovery?  It is time to take risks.

"Special Section: Shooting the Moon" 
* 1958: Pioneers. The early moon shots.
* 1968: Leaving Home. A discussion with Bill Anders of Apollo 8
* 1988: Lunar Oasis.  Is there water on the moon?  Also mentioned is a
  plan to do an inventory map of the moon.

Mission File STS-26: a complete day by day diary of the mission.

"How I Became an Astronaut" by Terry J. Hart
Terry Hart's story on how he became an astronaut.

"Space Songs" 
Songs that have been written about space.  Is this a complete list?

"Summer of the Space Tigers" by Les Dorr, Jr.
The International Space University.  The article covers a lot of what
went on in their first session.

"Robonauts" by Greg Freiherr
NASA's current robotics plans.

Insert on all the Lunar Exploration Missions with Mission name, launch data,
who launched, and a description.

"Boundaries: Hunting for Near-Earthers" by Patricia Barnes-Svarney
Spotting near earth asteroids and other objects.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riley                                       riley@cs.ucsd.edu
"From the moment the first flint was flaked, this landing was
 merely a matter of time." --W.H. Auden, "Moon Landing" 1969
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #517
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jun 89 00:18:05 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03819>; Wed, 28 Jun 89 21:13:44 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 28 Jun 89 21:13:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QYeEVaC00Vs1Q1LlIK>;
          Wed, 28 Jun 89 13:18:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.YYe9Vv:00UkVMN7E4h>;
          Wed, 28 Jun 89 05:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8Ye9SQe00UkVEN5k4y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 89 05:17:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #518

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 518

Today's Topics:
		     Final Frontier Summary N2,V1
	       Shuttle Status for 06/26/89 (Forwarded)
		   Re: Satellite Images - at home!
		     Re: Space station computers
		     Final Frontier Summary N4,V1
		     Final Frontier Summary V2,N2
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:15:52 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Chris Riley)
Subject: Final Frontier Summary N2,V1

Final Frontier, June 1988, Vol 1, No 2.
Final Frontier is published bi-monthly: Address: FF, P.O. Box 20089,
Minneapolis, MN 55420-9829.  $14.95 per year.
[I have no connection with FF except as a reader.]

"The Observatory: The Space Settlement Act"
by Congressman George E. Brown Jr. -D 
Space Settlements should be considered a benchmark for progress in
space.  Wants to ammend the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
to set the establishment of space settlements as a long-term mission for
the space agency.

"Global Currents: Australia's Bid for Space Business" by Les Dorr, Jr.
The Cape York International Spaceport is a proposed spaceport to 
catapult Australia into the 21st Century.

"The Private Vector: Promises, Promises" by Melinda Gipson.
More about President Reagan's new national space policy and its effects
on private industry. Co's: Orbital Science Corp.

"SOLO" by Alcestis R. Oberg
A solitary human in orbit using the MMU is a chilling experience in
more than one way.  Some nice pictures of the MMUs are also included.

"Growing Pains" by Michael Leccese
The National Space Society is the result of the merger of the L5 and NSI
groups, resulting in the second largest space groups.

"The Five Rocket Garage" by Robert G. Nichols
Bob Traux, a retired Navy captain and an 'important pioneer in the field --
working on Polaris, Atlas, and Thor programs-- talks about his plans to
build a rocket company from his garage.  He wants to make a big, simple
booster and possibly use a water launch.  Currently in the middle phase
of building a small test vehicle: 25 feet in length.  

"Digging in on the Moon" by Maura J. Mackowski
The first settlers on the moon could be living in 'homes' made from
burrowing into the lunar topsoil or using recylced shuttle or space station
parts.

"The Stars Come Out for Space" by Tony Reichhardt
Public service spots feature a bunch of stars who are 'opposites' of each
other or do not usually agree on much, plugging the space program.

"Japan's JEM of an Idea" by Gary Stephenson and Greg Freiherr
The Japanese Experiment Module will provide an environment to continue
and build upon experiments conducted using the shuttle.  This is a
nice discussion of the uses and plans for JEM.  The Japan H-1 and H-2
rockets are also discussed.

"Is Anybody Listening?" by Linda Billings
James Fletcher of NASA says the most important space project in the US
over the next few decades could be SETI.

"R.S.V.P. - A Story" by Robert Nozick
A story about SETI.

Insert giving the size of internationl space launchers: US, ESA, Japan,
USSR, China, India.

"Mission to Phobos" by Charles R. Pellegrino
Two Soviet probes will be launched towards Phobos this July to study this
Marsian moon.  A description of the mission is included and they also
discuss whether or not the Soviets will be the first people on Mars.

"Earthly Pursuits: Sweet Success" by Beth Dickey
Heat pipes used to cool satilites are being used on earth to lower heat
bills.  Talks about the savings at one warehouse as a result.

"Boundaries: Supercomputing the Cosmos" by Greg Freiherr
The Hubble Space Telescope will see light that has taken 5 billion years
to reach earth, but will not see the edge of the universe.  Increasingly
simulations are being run on computers to see how galaxies were formed,
thereby seeing 'farther' than HST.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riley                                       riley@cs.ucsd.edu
"From the moment the first flint was flaked, this landing was
 merely a matter of time." --W.H. Auden, "Moon Landing" 1969
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 14:52:11 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Shuttle Status for 06/26/89 (Forwarded)


             KSC SPACE SHUTTLE PROCESSING REPORT - MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1989

                     STS-28  -  COLUMBIA (OV 102)  -  OPF BAY 1

               Columbia's payload bay doors were closed early Saturday
          morning. Technicians are closing out the elevon flipper doors
          today in preparation for a frequency response test of the
          orbiter's aerosurfaces. Later in the week, the orbiter's vent
          doors and external tank doors will be positioned for the rollover
          and the doors will be put on the aft compartment. Structural leak
          checks of the vehicle are also planned this week.

               Technicians are continuing to bond thermal blankets on the
          payload bay doors. One of the finishing touches includes painting
          the name Columbia on the left and right forward fusleage under
          the windows. This activity is scheduled this week.

               Columbia's target date for tow to the Vehicle Assembly
          Building is no earlier than June 30. The date is being assessed
          and depends on when the payload bay is actually closed for the
          move.  While in the VAB, Columbia will be mated with its external
          tank and solid rocket boosters.

                      STS-34  -  ATLANTIS (OV 104) - OPF BAY 2

               Tires for the main landing gear are scheduled to be
          installed today. This past weekend, the right orbital maneuvering
          system pod was installed and electrically mated to the orbiter.
          The left orbital maneuvering system pod will be removed next
          month for a period of about three weeks to allow work to prepare
          it for the next mission. Coolant lines have been installed for
          the radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), used to power
          the Galileo spacecraft, and leak checks of the lines this week.
          Orbiter systems will be tested this week.

                       STS-33  -  DISCOVERY (OV 103)  -  OMRF

               Power down work and modifications continue this week in the
          forward, mid and aft sections of the orbiter.  Discovery will be
          transferred to bay 1 shortly after Columbia is moved to the VAB.

                         STS-28 SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS - VAB

               Closeouts of the boosters and tank are underway in
                  preparation for mating with the orbiter Columbia.

                       STS-34 SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS - VAB/RPSF

               Workers attached the left forward segment last weekend. The
          right aft booster was transferred to the VAB this morning for
          mating inspections. Meanwhile, technicians are readying other
          STS-34 segments in the RPSF.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 15:47:15 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Satellite Images - at home!

In article <931@sering.cwi.nl> fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) writes:
>There was a posting very recently on the net (schematics and software)
>that used an average Atari computer to receive satpics.

Please, folks, if you post something like this, give a more specific reference
than "on the net".
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1989 13:32-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Space station computers

> would have designed for 64-256M. Sure, no equivalent system has that now,
> but they will then. They're probably designing a 10Mhz bus too, when
> there

Not entirely true. The first generation NeXT machine comes standard
with 8Meg and is designed such that the next generation of chips can be
popped in as soon as available. The current machines, as delivered are
thus CAPABLE of containing 64M of main memory WITHOUT add on cards. It
has a 256M R/W removable optic disk and optional 600 or 300M
winchester, all in a 1 ft cube.

The specs of the existing NeXT machines, let alone the next NeXT, make
the specs I've heard for the proposed space station machine obsolete in
1990, let alone in 1998. The specs I've heard here sound like what
you'll see in toys for tots in 1998, NOT in a REAL computer.

If you want a sophisticated machine for 1998, and you REALLY MUST roll
your own, then do something real instead of spending many millions for
a museum piece. I'd suggest you look at:

	- minimum resolution on screen of 300 dpi (400 would be nicer)
	  with ~32 bits per pixel to handle color, intensity and
	  transparency.
	  (this is difficult but that kind of color is coming for
	   million pixel displays. I expect there will be a drive for
	   even higher resolution displays as archiving becomes an
	   important use of machines)

	- a 100% object oriented interface using a combination of
	  gesture sensing and voice for primary input. Keyboard will
	  still be necessary for many things though.
	  (some very good work in this area in the very lab I work in)

	- full spoken language translation capability between all
	  langauges of space faring nations. (ie build on the work the
	  japanese have already done. If IBM can't handle it, buy the
	  consumer market translators that will be coming out of Nippon
	  in a couple years.)

	- the machine should be able to identify people by voice and
	  image, even with multiple individuals speaking or in the
	  image.
	  (difficult, but with systolic arrays and sphinx...)

	- an ISDN optical bus between all machines.
	  (so you can use off the shelf communications equipment)

	- all digital communications, including digital TV. All data
	  collections stored and processed digitally.

	- loads of DSP chips and other standard special purpose
	  processors. I expect off the shelf Systolic Array Processors
	  to be common by then for perceptual analysis tasks.

	- all software and hardware to conform to existing commercial
	  and international standards.

		- PostScript or similar document image transmission
		  language.

		- X.25 or TCP/IP protocols, or at least something in
		  the ISO OSI lineage.

		- etc.

	- 256MB or more main memory with a bus that can support sizes
	  deep into the gigabyte or even terrabyte range.
	  (64MB personal computers are > 1 yr away now. This is
	   conservative.)

	- Terrabyte R/W removal optic disks
	  (I understand that 512MB units are already available)

	- similar size winchesters drives unless the OD's speeds can be
	  projected to be competitive with the whinny's.
	  (not much of an increase considering that 600MB is off the
	  shelf and fairly cheap right now)

I'm sure the rest of you can fill in more of the expected capabilities
for a machine of 1998. I expect much of the above to be available
significantly before hand.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:18:28 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Chris Riley)
Subject: Final Frontier Summary N4,V1

Final Frontier, Oct 1988, Vol 1, No 4.
Final Frontier is published bi-monthly: Address: FF, P.O. Box 20089,
Minneapolis, MN 55420-9829.  $14.95 per year.
[I have no connection with FF except as a reader.]

"The Observatory: The Next President on the Next Frontier"
by Vice President George Bush and Governor Michael Dukakis
The candidate's positions on space policy.

"Global Currents: An Insider's Look at U.S.-Soviet Space Cooperation"
by Les Dorr, Jr.

"The Private Vector: Will a Space Superfund Fly?" by Melinda Gipson
Every dollar spent on space returns seven dollars of economic value over
the next decade and Rep Robert Roe (D) wants to form a superfund a la the
highway trust fund for space.

"Space, Politics and the Next President: Why you won't get to vote for
Mars in '88" by Walter A. McDougall

"The World's Highest Rollercoaster" by Ray Spangenburg and Diane Moser
A ride in NASA's zero-gravity Learjet.

"A Day on Miranda" by Charles R. Pellegrino
Uranus's moon Miranda is 'one of the strangest bodies in the Solar System.'

"Ten Years After" by Alcestis R. Oberg
Where are the members of NASA's class of '78

"The Big Three Open Shop" by Thomas O'Toole
As a result of Challenger, McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics, and Martin 
Marietta are now producing Delta, Atlas, and Titan after scrapping their
plans to close their production lines.

"NASA's little Acre" by Beth Dickey.
Space travelers can't rely on taking all their food with them and must plan
on growing their own.  Some of the current research is discussed along
with what is being planned.

"Antimatter Gets Serious" by Joel Davis
How antimatter can open up the solar system and antimatter costs.

Insert on the Highlights of NASA's first 30 years.

"Earthly Pursuits: A Spinoff Hall of Fame" by Gary R. Graf

"Spacefarers: Rockdonnel, Vulture, and Grumbo." by Norman Sklarewitz
JPL's "SpaceSet '88".

"Boundaries: The Star Most Likely to..." by Tony Reichhardt
...have planets: Beta Pictoris

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riley                                       riley@cs.ucsd.edu
"From the moment the first flint was flaked, this landing was
 merely a matter of time." --W.H. Auden, "Moon Landing" 1969
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:21:13 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Chris Riley)
Subject: Final Frontier Summary V2,N2

Final Frontier, April 1989, Vol 2, No 2.
Final Frontier is published bi-monthly: Address: FF, P.O. Box 20089,
Minneapolis, MN 55420-9829.  $14.95 per year.
[I have no connection with FF except as a reader.]

"The Observatory: Dear Mr. Bush" by Charles D. Walker.  
What must President Bush do to provide leadership for the space program.

"Global Currents: Inside Star City" by Devera Pine
Inside the Soviets main space training facility: 'Zvezdniy Gorodok'.

"The Private Vector"
Several brief articles on private space projects:
* Space business warnings
* Lockheed is willing to spend $50 million to convert Poseidon missiles
into useful ground based rockets if it can line up customers.
* Microgravity experiments on Mir may require a seperate module
* Martin Marietta's plan to use an empty shuttle fuel tank to shield the
proposed Gamma Ray Imaging Telescope from space debris.
* Pikes Peak chapter of the National Space Society started their own rocket
company to build a sub-orbital booster: Hummingbird Launch Systems.
* The US Government should pay attention to the Space Foundation to 
stimulate commercial spending.
* Boeing Aerospace analyzing craters to reconstruct the history of the
solar system.


"Backyard Universe:So you want to buy a Telescope" 
by Blaine P. Friedlander, Jr.

"Boundaries: Small World" by T.A. Heppenheimer
Nanotechnology and space.

"Next Stop, Phobos" by Vyacheslav Kovtunenko
About Phobos 1 and Phobos 2 by the technical director for the Phobos
project.

"Roads to Mars" by Tony Reichhardt
Yet another article on what kind of planning is needed to go to Mars.

"Being There" by Robert M. Powers
The goal once we reach Mars should be to stay at least for a while, possibly
to produce the fuel for the return trip on Mars.

"In Earth's Image" by Alcestis R. Oberg
Terraforming of planets in the solar system

"The China Syndrome" by Thomas O'Toole
China's Long March carrying commercial satellites into orbit.

Insert on STS-27.  As much coverage as was allowed of this classified 
launch.  Also, a list of shuttle launch dates and crew assignments into
early 1990.

"A Fight for Freedom" by Paul Hoversten
Selling the space station to Congress.

"Spacefarers: A Declaration for Mars" by Eric W. Tilenius
More about the Mars Declaration being circulated by The Planetary Society.

"Mr. van den Berg Goes to Space" by Vic Cox
Astronaut Lodewijk van den Berg discusses his mission with Spacelab 3 in
the spring of 1985.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riley                                       riley@cs.ucsd.edu
"From the moment the first flint was flaked, this landing was
 merely a matter of time." --W.H. Auden, "Moon Landing" 1969
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #518
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jun 89 01:21:08 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA14947> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 29 Jun 89 01:20:56 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 29 Jun 89 01:20:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.QYeOShy00Ui3I1Eo1s>;
          Thu, 29 Jun 89 00:38:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.YYeOQCK00UkV8Nvk5y>;
          Thu, 29 Jun 89 00:35:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYeOMaS00UkVANuE5a@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 00:31:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #519

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 519

Today's Topics:
		 Apollo program benefits (Forwarded)
	       Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth
		    Vaguely-space-related queries
		     Final Frontier Summary V2,N3
		     Final Frontier Summary V2,N1
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 23:36:54 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Apollo program benefits (Forwarded)


                                                   June 1989



                     APOLLO PROGRAM BENEFITS



     "We have taken to the moon the wealth of this nation, the 
vision of its political leaders, the intelligence of its 
scientists, the dedication of its engineers, the careful 
craftsmanship of its workers and the enthusiastic support of its 
people.

     "We have brought back rocks, and I think its a fair trade. 
For just as the Rosetta Stone revealed the language of ancient 
Egypt, so may these rocks unlock the mystery of the origin of the 
moon and indeed, even of our Earth and solar system."

                   Michael Collins
                   Address to a joint session of Congress
                   Sept. 16, 1969

     Any discussion of the benefits of the Apollo program must be 
considered a progress report to be continued in the 21st century. 
That is true because the fullest application of scientific 
research and technological development usually takes decades to 
accomplish.  Nevertheless, in the 16 1/2 years since American 
astronauts last walked on the Moon, Apollo's legacy already has 
been profound.  That legacy includes both tangible and intangible 
benefits for the United States and for all mankind.  Some of the 
major areas of benefits are:

Environmental Consciousness

     The first photos of Earth from hundreds of thousands of 
miles away were taken by the crew of Apollo 8, the first humans 
to orbit the Moon.  Those photos depicted Earth as a bright blue 
and white ball floating in a sea of darkness.  They reminded 
people the world over of the fragility of planet Earth and of the 
need to preserve and protect its resources.

Increased Technological Capability for the United States 

     The "within the decade" goal of Apollo forced the advance of 
technology at a more rapid rate than normal, some estimate at 
twice the normal rate.  The new level of technological capability 
resulted in a vast library of technological knowledge and know-
how, and rapid advances in electronic miniaturization,advanced 
computers, remote sensing and other technologies.  The visible 
spin-offs of Apollo technology already have already found 
application in literally thousands of products, processes and 
devices.  Indeed, new technology arising from the space program 
has helped the United States maintain a lead in the world market 
for aeronautic, computer, medical, electronic and other products.

Scientific Benefits

     The Apollo program increased our knowledge of the moon 
beyond expectation.  We now know the moon's age, its gross 
structure, its internal temperature and a good bit about its 
composition.  Apollo provided new knowledge and techniques for 
study of both Earth and the sun.  It produced a rich harvest of 
knowledge in geology, astronomy, physics, biology and other 
scientific fields and has taught us much about the evolution of 
our own planet Earth.  

National Self Confidence 

     Apollo was a response to the Soviet challenge.  The success 
of Apollo was viewed worldwide as the success of a democratic 
free enterprise system over that of a society with a centrally 
directed economic system and a tightly controlled population.  It 
also demonstrated the inherent superiority of American 
technology.  Thus, Apollo contributed significantly to restoring 
American confidence and willingness to accept difficult 
challenges. 

International Relations

     Apollo continues to contribute greatly to international 
cooperation and understanding.  The samples and data returned 
from the moon have been shared with many nations and are still 
being studied by scientists around the world.  The Apollo 11 
landing on the moon had a tremendous psychological impact on 
humanity.  It is estimated that billions of people watched by 
satellite-relayed television.  This shared experienced, if only 
for a relatively brief moment in time, provoked a feeling of 
"oneness" of the human race and is a unique achievement of the 
Apollo program.  In addition, people in emerging countries, where 
forms of government were evolving, saw the American model of 
government in a different light - one that could send people to 
the moon while simultaneously providing a good life for its 
ordinary citizens.

Economic Benefits

     Econometric studies estimate that Apollo returned five to 
seven dollars to the United States' economy for every dollar 
invested in it.  These returns came in the form of new 
industries, new products, new processes and new jobs.

Conclusion

     Apollo did more than reach for the future.  It refreshed our 
spirits and heightened the awareness of mankind of the human 
potential and of our options as a species.

     For the United States, Apollo provided renewed confidence 
that given the resolve, resources and commitment of a free people 
the United States can lead mankind in the great human adventure 
of space exploration.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 14:04:44 GMT
From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth

In article <638@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes:
[comments on the problems of refurbishing the Hubble Space Telescope]
>                                         ....  And now, you back to where you
>started on the original deployment mission, except you've spent all that extra
>fuel to get here, are at a lower altitude than before, _and_ have a mandatory
>EVA if you want to reboost (to replace the solar panels). ugly. THIS is just
>ONE good reason we need a space station - drop by _anytime_ & fix the sucker..
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    Jim Sims      Space Telescope Science Institute      Baltimore, MD
>             UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
>    ARPA:  sims@stsci.edu                           SPAM:  STOSC::SIMS

In general, this is not such a good reason.  Many scientific satellites are
in polar orbits, and other satellites are in awkward orbits, such as
Molniya (highly elliptic) and geosynchronous (a ways further up the gravity
well, and more exposed to energetic particles in the magnetosphere).  If you
wanted to get something in polar orbit, starting from equatorial orbit, you
would have to change your velocity by at least 40% more than a ground launch. 
If you go get a polar satellite, bring it to the space station,
give it a lube job, take it back to polar orbit, and then come back to the
space station, you will have changed enough velocity for 6 ground launches
into space.  If you fix a polar satellite in place, it will still take less
velocity change to get there from the ground than from the Space Station.

Of course, you don't have to fight the atmosphere, and you can use pretty
small engines, but you will spend a lot of fuel or reaction mass.

In fact, satellites seem to be pretty reliable.  Should we bill the Space
Station as a satellite fixer if the only satellite worth fixing was the HST?

(This argument was pointed out here some months back, but not by me)

my own opinions,of course


-- 
John Sahr,     Dept. of Electrical Eng., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
johns@{alfven,calvin}.ee.cornell.edu,  {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 26 Jun 89 15:49:12 CDT
From: Will Martin <wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:  Vaguely-space-related queries

There are several questions that have arisen in my mind based on postings in
the Space list over the past, and I solicit answers, comments, or explanations
from those out there who know about such things. They aren't specifically
and uniquely space-related, but the topics have all been mentioned here from
time to time:

1) Regarding X-ray astronomy -- the X-ray detectors must be placed into space,
either into orbit or on brief sounding-rocket flights, because the X-rays are
absorbed by the atmosphere and do not reach the surface. I accept that this is
*a good thing*, otherwise we probably never would have evolved past some sort
of radiation-hardened and -resistant lichen or the like... :-) But WHY are
X-rays absorbed by the atmosphere when they can penetrate materials that are
opaque to visible light? If light can get through the atmosphere and hit
the surface, one would expect X-rays to have even greater pepnetrating
ability. The answer is probably simple, but it is something I never happened
to run across in my reading, and I don't have the physics training to have
learned it in the past.

2) Regarding elementary particles -- one of their characteristics is called
"spin". Is this REALLY "spin" the way a top or gyroscope spins -- that is,
the particle is actually physically rotating in space? Or is it a term that
is convenient and used to describe a quality of the particle, like "charm".
"color", and "strangeness", which does NOT correspond with anything in
normal human experience?

(If "spin" really means that the particle is rotating, what happens when
you squeeze it between other particles? Does "friction" exist at the
subatomic level, and can you slow down the rotation? I thought "spin" existed 
only in quantized units, so a particle has "spin" of 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, etc.
[Or something like that.] Anyway, if you slowed the spin of a particle down 
*slightly*, it would no longer have an exact multiple. Does the particle then
vanish in a *poof* of quarks or does the universe come to an end or what? :-)

3) The 11-year (or so) Solar Cycle -- I realize the duration of this cycle
varies, and the one we are in now seems to be a mite shorter than normal.
Do we know what causes this cycling? Is it some sort of resonance effect
from vibrations or "ringing" of the sun? (Like standing waves?) Or is
the mechanism behind these variations unknown?

4) Black hole temperature -- Are medium-sized black holes hot or cold? I have
read that small black holes would be very hot, putting out radiation, due to
the Hawking Effect and the tunnelling of particles through the event
horizon and the business of pairs of virtual particles being formed out
of the vacuum right by the event horizon, and one of the pair maybe being
sucked inside the hole, leaving the unmatched other particle to come out
as radiation. At some size, does this stop and the black hole become
very cold, being an infinite energy sink? [The main problem with a
black-hole-powered refrigerator is carrying it up the stairs... :-) ]

5) Neutronium and similar compressed matter -- is there any theoretical
way to keep compressed matter (the stuff that makes up white dwarfs and
neutron stars) compressed if a chunk of it could be brought away from
the intense gravity field of those bodies? Of would it expand
uncontrollably as the piece moves into regions of lower gravity? If it
could be kept compressed, what would it look like? I envision it as
looking something like lead, but that is just some sort of unreasoning
gut feel, not based on science. Would it actually be a perfect mirror?
If you touched this stuff, what would it feel like? I have an idea that
wouldn't be wise, but I'm not sure just what would happen to your finger...
Would it be a perfect conductor of heat and electricity, or a perfect
insulator? [I lean toward the latter -- electrons couldn't migrate
through it...]

Thanks for any info on the above topics!

Regards, Will Martin
"wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil"

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:22:00 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Chris Riley)
Subject: Final Frontier Summary V2,N3

Final Frontier, June 1989, Vol 2, No 3.
Final Frontier is published bi-monthly: Address: FF, P.O. Box 20089,
Minneapolis, MN 55420-9829.  $14.95 per year.
[I have no connection with FF except as a reader.]

"The Observator: The Vision Thing" by Congressman Robert S. Walker (R).  
Mars, a lunar base, and the Space Station are not visions, but projects. The
U.S. needs to have a vision with projects leading to it.

"Spacefarers: Columbus Days" by Maura J. Mackowski
1992 has been named the International Space Year and the Columbus
Quincentennail.

"The Private Vector"
Pacific American Launch Systems and their Liberty launcher.
NASA wants private help to build a water tank to train astronauts
Turning over NASA field stations to the private sector.
Ariane Supersavers are aimed at mini-satellites.

"The Ultimate Vacation" by Jerome Richard
A complete guide to space tourism and space camps.

"Artificial Gravity" by C.J. Houtchens
Combating the effects of no gravity by various means including generating
your own.

"2015: The Age of Spaceplanes" by T.A. Heppenheimer
The United States, Europe, and Japan all have plans for space planes.

"Unveiling Venus" by Charles R. Pellegrino
Magellan is prepared for launch to Venus.

"STS-29 Mission File" Day by day coverage of the Discovery mission of
March 13 to March 18, 1989.

"Backyard Universe: The Happy Looker" by Blaine P. Friedlander
The Moonwatch 1988 was to use volunteers to detect where the first sliver
of the new moon was visible.

"Earthly Pursuits: Back in Time" by Vincent Kiernan
Airborne heat scanners developed by NASA help to find long lost ruins of
missions in Florida.

"Boundaries: The Case of the Missing Planet" by Beatrice S. Smith.
The case for planet X.

"Global Currents: Other Voices" by Jean Paschke.
Foreign coverage of shuttle launches.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riley                                       riley@cs.ucsd.edu
"From the moment the first flint was flaked, this landing was
 merely a matter of time." --W.H. Auden, "Moon Landing" 1969
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:20:11 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Chris Riley)
Subject: Final Frontier Summary V2,N1

Final Frontier, Feb 1989, Vol 2, No 1.
Final Frontier is published bi-monthly: Address: FF, P.O. Box 20089,
Minneapolis, MN 55420-9829.  $14.95 per year.
[I have no connection with FF except as a reader.]

"The Observatory: Confidence Regained" by Dan Rather.  
A reprint of Rather's September 29, 1988 radio broadcast talking about
his reflections on the U.S. space program.

"Boundaries: Lunar Excavations" by Patricia Barnes-Svarney
A discussion of how excavation on the moon should be done.

"Global Currents: Japan's 'Town of the Stars" by Jack D. Kirwan
Usuda Japan wishes to become one of Japan's major space centers.

"Earthly Pursuits: Keeping an Eye on National Treasures" by Robert Moulton.
CCD technology developed at JPL is being used to monitor the health of
national documents.

"The Next Ten Years in Space"
A look at where we may be going.

"Hermes" by Robert M. Powers.
ESA's mini-shuttle will be one of Europes tickets into space.

"Patrick Baudry"
An interview with this French test pilot who flew on shuttle mission 51-G
and is currently heading the development of Hermes.

"We Have Liftoff!" by Dennis Chamberland
Inside launch control for Discovery's flight of September 29, 1988.

"Diary of a Cosmonaut" by Valentin Lebedev
Excerpts from Lebedev's diary from his more than 200 days in orbit on 
Salyut 7 that began in May 1982.

Insert detailing space events that are to happen in 1989.


"To Jupiter and Mars, via Iceland" by Ron Miller
Space art.

"Spacefarers: Peace off Earth" by Maura J. Mackowski
An article about the Orbiting Unification Ring Satellite proposed by Arthur
Woods.

"The Private Vector: Banking on Tanks" by Robert Moulton
External tanks may be used by private companies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riley                                       riley@cs.ucsd.edu
"From the moment the first flint was flaked, this landing was
 merely a matter of time." --W.H. Auden, "Moon Landing" 1969
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #519
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jun 89 03:57:41 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA16248> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 29 Jun 89 03:57:21 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 29 Jun 89 03:57:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sYeQzye00Vs1Q1N4Eo>;
          Thu, 29 Jun 89 03:30:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.0YeQpwa00UkVEOA04Z>;
          Thu, 29 Jun 89 03:19:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <UYeQo5C00UkV4O-U5z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 03:17:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #520

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 520

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		     Final Frontier Summary N1,V1
	       Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth
		     Re: Space station computers
			 Re: Phobos 2 images
			       Question
		      Re: ADA and space station
			    Space medicine
	 Re: Magellan Status for week of 06/20/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 22:31:43 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <1989Jun24.204150.24577@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <32650@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>>>EMBARASSING!! EMBARASSING!!!  There is such class to crawling into
>>>a DC-3 at an airport that there is not even any word for such mega-
>>>class.  The only thing better than a DC-3 is TWO DC-3s.
>>
>>> Are you sure you're not really Henry "Version 7" Spencer posting
>>under an alias?

>He definitely isn't.  I consider the DC-3 a charming historical relic,
>period.  If you want class when climbing into an aircraft, it has to have
>afterburners.

>(Alas, I haven't had a chance at this yet...)

I have.  Three times, a TF-104G, an F-4E, and Concorde.  The best food
is on Concorde but fighters--AAHH!  Just about better than ... er um ....

--

M F Shafer                                |Ignore the reply-to address
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility |Use shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:11:07 GMT
From: beowulf!riley@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Chris Riley)
Subject: Final Frontier Summary N1,V1

Final Frontier, April 1988, Vol 1, No 1.
Final Frontier is published bi-monthly: Address: FF, P.O. Box 20089,
Minneapolis, MN 55420-9829.  $14.95 per year.
[I have no connection with FF except as a reader.]

"The Observatory: Spacepeople" by Isaac Asimov
Earthpeople should concentrate on the Earth-Moon system for a while
before moving into the solar system.

"The Private Vector: Betting on Space" by Melinda Gipson.  
The article talks about several companies in the space business and what
some current projects are. Co's: Space Industries, Wespace and Boeing.

"Spacefarers: Own a Piece of the Rocket" by Maura Mackowski.
The World Space foundation is a volunteer organization trying to 
privately finance select research projects.

"The Countdown Begins" by Tony Reichhardt
Two years after Challenger, NASA is preparing for another launch.  Talks
about the next shuttle mission and what it might have been like if the
weather had been better in 1986.

"The Shuttle's Uncertain Future" by Alex Roland
The Shuttle will be the US's primary launch vehicle until the end of the
century, although other expendable launch vehilces are available.  Many
problems with the shuttle are still not fixed and the goals originally
set for STS will never be met.

"Beyond Neptune" by Joel Davis
Voyager 2 will pass Neptune on August 24, 1989.  The article provides
a summary of the mission and a look at its future.

"Look Back in Wonder" by Frank White
This is a collection of thoughts of astronauts after having seen the
Earth from orbit and the moon.

"The Visions of Vladimir Dzhanibekov" by Les Dorr Jr.
Quotes from the cosmonaut and artist Vladimir Dzhanibekov are presented
along with some reprints of his and other Soviet space art.

"Los Alamos Dreaming" by Robert M. Powers
Los Alamos National Laboratories is the subject with a brief history
of the center leading to a brief discussion of current work.

"Mars--The Next Giant Leap?" by Leonard David
Should the next bold goal of the US be the moon or Mars? Arguments and
scenarios for both are discussed.

Insert showing the next 19 shuttle launches scheduled.

"The Loneliest Place on Earth" by Ray Spangenburg and Diane Moser
Living in Antarctica is useful since effects on humans could be related 
to living in space.

"Interview: Gerard O'Neill"
An interview with "The father of space colonies."  

"Boundries: Beam me up, Arthur" by T.A. Heppenheimer
Laser propulsion of rockets.

riley@cs.ucsd.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul." --George Bernard Shaw
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 15:36:30 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth

In article <638@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes:
>... Then, the solar panel sprobably won't stand the reboost
>in the deployed position, so you lose them...

If I'm not mistaken, the HST solar arrays are retractable, specifically to
permit reboost or even back-to-Earth retrieval of the telescope.
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 04:20:43 GMT
From: biar!trebor@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Space station computers

In article <614885531.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>If you want a sophisticated machine for 1998, and you REALLY MUST roll
>your own, then do something real instead of spending many millions for
>a museum piece. I'd suggest you look at:
>
>	- minimum resolution on screen of 300 dpi (400 would be nicer)

	At normal viewing distances, 120dpi (which is only twice what
	my Mac delivers) would be more than acceptable.  32 bit color
	will probably be standard.  Remember however that the more
	dpi, the more memory required, the higher the dot clock rate,
	(faster memory required), and the more bits you have to twiddle
	to repaint the screen.

	I for one would prefer a LARGER screen to a higher resolution
	one.  Having gotten very used to my 1024x768 Mac screen, I
	would much prefer to double the size than double the resolution.

>	- a 100% object oriented interface using a combination of
>	  gesture sensing and voice for primary input. Keyboard will
>	  still be necessary for many things though.

	Cute, but most people will be keybanging and mousing, because
	the world runs on shuffling words around.  Unless you are doing
	3D work, you don't need fancy datagloves.  Voice is fine for
	some things, not for others.  Note the difference in speed
	between, say, selecting the second sentence in a third
	paragraph of a page with the mouse, and just saying ``select
	the second sentence of the third paragraph''

>	- 256MB or more main memory with a bus that can support sizes
>	  deep into the gigabyte or even terrabyte range.
>	  (64MB personal computers are > 1 yr away now. This is
>	   conservative.)

	I'd be surprised to see 64MB PC's this year, especially for
	<$10k.  I take it back -- I'd be delighted.  BTW, it's
	``terabyte.'' ;^)

>	- Terrabyte R/W removal optic disks
>	  (I understand that 512MB units are already available)

	Hey, what's a factor of 2000 between friends?  You may have
	some fundamental scaling problems here.  Same goes for the
	Magnetic disks.


-- 
(^;-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-;^)
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.   !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP
  ``I can read your mind - right now, you're thinking I'm full of it...''

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 01:33:33 GMT
From: leah!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!peora!rtmvax!dandrews@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (David Andrews)
Subject: Re: Phobos 2 images

>From article <8906221757.AA29187@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, by roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts):
> recent events have shown that the people in the news media are generally
> highly skilled at *misinterpreting* images from space probes.

You mean that might NOT be a statue of Elvi on the surface of Mars?   :-)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 89 20:40 EDT
From: "Asst. Dir. Of Three: The Magic Number" <COLANGELO@CTSTATEU.Bitnet>
Subject: Question
Original_To:  KOS_ROJ,BITNET%"SPACE+@andrew.cmu.edu"

     
Hello,
     
   I am just about done with my Bachelors Degree in Computer Science and need
some relatively simple data for my Senior Project.  Judging from the
intelligent conversations going on here, this must be the place.
I am building a gravitational/orbital simulator and need positional/velocity
data on the large bodies of our system.
'Large' is kind of subjective, just planets would be O.K.
Titan, Europa, other big Jovians and Saturnians would be great, heck we even
have data on the Uranian and Neptunian systems now.
     
I would like it in heliocentric X,Y,Z coordinates/vectors and at multiple times:
     
    Jupiter position was:
                X1 A.U.'s from the sun along some arbitrary X-Axis
                Y1 A.U.'s from the sun alone some arbitrary Y-Axis
                Z1 A.U.'s from the sun alone some arbitrary Z-Axis
    it's velocity was:
                XV1 A.U./Hour along the same arbitrary X-Axis
                YV1 A.U./Hour along the same arbitrary Y-Axis
                ZV1 A.U./Hour along the same arbitrary Z-Axis
    at time 23:00:01 JULY,2,1986 GMT.
     
    Jupiter position was then :
                ...
    it's velocity was:
                ...
    at time 14:30:21 AUGUST,2,1986 GMT.
     
Something like that, or angular/polar coordinates.
Any units are O.K.
(AU/Hour, Meters/Sec, Angstroms/Chronon, anything can be converted.)
Any precision, no matter how high, high is best.
Specific times and multiple position/velocity frames are vital though.
     
   I hope to feed the coordinates into my program at Time1, given position
and velocity, run the program, and then see if the planets are in
the right positions at Time2.
I would imagine JPL uses something like this to figure out where their probes
are going, maybe someone there could help.
Seems simple enough.  Although the N-squared efficiency algorithm tends to clog
up a VAX 8650 completely for sufficiently large numbers of bodies, 10 or even
50 bodies is no sweat.  Hopefully this is all that's required to model our
system accurately, however, with all their finding out about chaotic phenomenon
in orbits, who knows.
Anybody ever heard of this kind of thing working to any degree of accuracy?
The Scientific American Compendium entitled "The Armchair Universe" says this
is a pretty popular computer recreation, and gives some preliminary hints on
how to get started.  It's really a great deal of fun to see orbital mechanics
in real-time on a machine, especially since you can design special bodies
like thrusters and probes to zip around inside some imaginary planetary
system.
     
  Anyway, any help is GREATLY appreciated, as my own searches for such
data have yielded nothing but masses and vague orbital definitions.
Any correspondence on the subject is appreciated also.
     
Thanks,
     Ken Colangelo
     COLANGELO@CTSTATEU
     
P.S. Can anybody at JPL tell me the name of the Personnel Director there
as I would like to specifically address my resume to him/her.  A while ago
it was Duane Patterson, not sure if this is accurate now though.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 15:48:07 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ADA and space station

In article <614884210.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>> I have talked with several people who have studied Ada, and they claim that
>> object oriented programming is one of the major points of emphasis in the
>> design of the language.
>
>I was unaware that ADA had classes, objects and methods...

As Bjarne Stroustup observes, the Ada fanatics tend to reason along the
lines of "Ada is good, and object-oriented is good, therefore Ada is
object-oriented".
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 89 15:02:10 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?)
Subject: Space medicine

Does anyone know of any research done in the following area?  It's of some
interest to me, and probably others.

There is a medical condition in which a small tear/hole develops in the
esophogus near the stomach.  The hiatal hernia is easily handled, although
cure requires rather nasty surgery.  My doctor tells me that about 15% of
American men have this, even if some don't know it (heart burn at night,
trouble sleeping on your back, etc).

Anyways, this seems to be a condition which would be exerbated in microgravity,
or even one which might develop in those conditions, since it frequently
(according to one theory) develops due to excess stomach acid washing back
out of the stomach.

So has there been any research done on this, or should I be contacting the
Mir medical research team? :-(

Thanks,

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 04:55:56 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for week of 06/20/89 (Forwarded)

Can anyone give a plain English explanation of the Rocket Engine
Modules (REM's) temperature problems, and how they arose unexpectedly?
Surely it's not possible that the engineering and assembly team built
the VRM without taking into account normal solar heating effects?
Did something fail to make REM heating a problem?

-- 
You may not redistribute this article for profit without written permission.
--
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #520
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jun 89 05:55:05 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01210> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 29 Jun 89 05:54:57 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 29 Jun 89 05:54:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.4YeSfGe00Vs1010U4r>;
          Thu, 29 Jun 89 05:24:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.IYeSZtK00UkVQOKk44>;
          Thu, 29 Jun 89 05:18:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <EYeSY1i00UkVEOJE4M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 05:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #521

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 521

Today's Topics:
		      Re: ADA and space station
		       [Russians] Lost in Space
		       Re: Fuel for lunar trip
			   Phobos pictures
			   Un-subscription
	     Re: Magellan Status for 06/26/89 (Forwarded)
		     Re: Space station computers
		     Re: Space station computers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 02:09:33 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Re: ADA and space station

References: <614884210.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>

In article <614884210.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> > I have talked with several people who have studied Ada, and they claim that
> > object oriented programming is one of the major points of emphasis in the
> > design of the language.
> 
> I was unaware that ADA had classes, objects and methods. True, I can
> see how to fake many of these with the visibility rules, but I'm not
> sure it's quite the same.
> 
------fascinating verbiage deleted--------

Since the use of Ada in the space station makes this topic marginally
spacey, I thought some of you folks might be interested in a course
being broadcast over satellite by NTU (a sort of electronic university
available to companies and universities by satellite). It is being given
by Peter O'Neill, a manager at Raytheon Company and faculty member with
Norteastern University's State-of-the-Art Program. The course will be
broadcast July 11, 20, 21, and 25, 11am to 5pm Eastern Time.

"Course Description:
Ada is not "just another programming language," but rather was specifically
designed to impact software development across the entire software life
cycle as no language has ever done before. Participants are shown how SW
written in Ada is more understandable and reliable than that written in
other languages, and how SW systems are more modifiable and maintainable
when developed using Ada.

This session begins with an historical perspective on the development of
the Ada language, and is followed by a detailed coverage of all of the
language's features. A description of APSEs (Ada Programming Support
Environments) concludes the seminar. Topics to be covered include

    * History and development
      -The Software Crisis
      -History of Ada's Development
      -Modern Software Engineering Principles
      -Responding to the SW Crisis

    * Ada language overview
      -High-level discussion of Ada language features
      -Short example of each feature

    * Ada in more detail
      -Detailed discussion of Ada language features
       Lexical structure
       Data types I
       Program structure -- packages
       Statements
       Data types II
       Subprograms
       Tasking
       Exception handling
       Program libraries and compilation
       Generic program units
       System-dependent features

    * Ada in use
      -Ada programming support environments

... A strong programming background is assumed."

A discussion of the pros and cons of using Ada for Space Station SW
might be more profitable if carried out in comp.lang.ada. I've added 
a "Follow-ups To" line to that effect, but I have no idea if that works.

An interesting note on the history of Ada appeared in comp.lang.ada
last week:

<From: weber@ellington.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Rosa Weber)
<Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
<Subject: Re: Who invented Ada (enquiering minds demand to know)
<Message-ID: <24499@srcsip.UUCP>
<Date: 23 Jun 89 22:56:17 GMT
<References: <445@sagpd1.UUCP>
<Lines: 15
<In-reply-to: eprice@sagpd1.UUCP's message of 23 Jun 89 18:32:43 GMT
<>    ...    My buddy said that Ada was designed by somone
<>    in Europe. Not beeing an Ada proglammer (I've never coded even
<>    one single line of the stuff, I'm a C hack) I would like to 
<>    know the answer to this nagging question "who actually invented
<>    Ada"
<
<     In May 1979 Ada became the official name for the high-order
<     language of the Department of Defense.  At this time the DoD
<     also announced that Honeywell/France was the winning contractor
<     of the design competition.  The principal author of Ada was
<     Jean Ichbiah from France but other members of the design team
      ************************
<     included citizens from the U.S., the U.K., and West Germany.
<
<     Source : "Software Engineering with Ada", by Grady Booch.

One wonders what languages are used for Ariane, Spot, other ESA projects.
Do they have a version of Ada?


-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 16:24:52 GMT
From: tramp!khaytsus@boulder.colorado.edu  (Max Khaytsus)
Subject: [Russians] Lost in Space


 I spent this weekend, arguing with a friend, quoting to him text books of
published fact, but he keeps insisting that they are wrong.  Granted,
Russia (and the US and other countries) tend to under report at times, but
I am not sure that what he said can all be 'missing info'.  Can any of you
shed any light on the following?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

total	names, places and dates
 3	Vladimir Komarov, 1967, Soyuz 1.  (2 others died with him, but only
					   commander is listed.)  1 day,
					   3 hour flight.
 6	Vladislav Volkov, Viktor Taisayev, Georgi Dobrovolsky, 1971,
	Soyuz 11.
 8	Vostok 5, missing, 2 men, 1962	(see notes)
11	Voskod 3, missing, 3 men, 1966	(see notes)
14	Soyuz 2, missing, 3 men, 1967	(see notes)

	total in-flight known dead =  14
	very likely additional dead = 21
				      --
				      35 highly probable dead

     3 Vostok, 2 man flts not reported = 6 possible
     2 Voskod, 3 men flts not reported = 6 possible
 ? = X Soyuz, 3 men flts not reported (numbering changes = 45 flts
				       only 40 can be accounted for)
     3 Soyuz T1, 3 man not reported (15 "T" flights flown = T-1 disappeared)

notes:	Vostok 5 launched - did not reenter - a 2 man "Gemini Type"
					      Very high orbit, still there.
					      No retro ignition
	Voskhod 3 launched - retro rocket failure - hole in ground landing
						    spy pictures in
						    conclusive (satillite photo)
	Soyuz 2 launched - retro rocket failure - partial burn on reentry, heat
						  killed crew, capsul recovered
	Soyuz 11 launched - blew up on reentry, 23 days, 18 hours into mission
			    (had to deny - fireball visible to everyone)
	Soyuz 1 launched - life support system failure, 1 day 3 hours into mission


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spelling errors all his - I Xeroxed his 'claim sheet'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 I did my best to convince this fellow he's been reading the Enquirer too
long, but no go.  Please flame this if you see anything wrong with it and I'll
pass it on.  Flame me if I'm wrong.  He'll see all the messages.


 Thanks in advance,
             Max
---------------------------------------------------
khaytsus@{boulder|spot|tramp}.UUCP
khaytsus@{boulder|spot|tramp}.Colorado.EDU
..!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!{...|spot|tramp}!khaytsus

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 89 10:37:17 PDT
From: Peter Scott <pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Subject: Re: Fuel for lunar trip

mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer) writes:

>At one point there was a proposal to take up water ballast on shuttle missions
>that were volume-limited rather than weight-limited, and offload the ballast
>at an orbiting facility that would electrolyze it and liquefy the resulting
>hydrogen and oxygen. 

Water takes up volume too.  Where were they proposing to store it?  Does the
shuttle fly with water tanks that are partially empty on weight-limited
missions?

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 16:11:11 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!nickw@uunet.uu.net  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Phobos pictures


In Article 6495 of sci.space bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:

>A space exibition featuring some of the results from Phobos 2
>opened at the Science Museum in London last week. In what
>they called an exclusive report, C4 news interviewed some of
>the Soviet scientists responsible for the Phobos mission.
>
>Three very strange details of the mission were revealed.
>
>First, a number of the images taken of an area near the
>equator in the infra-red clearly show an area covered with a
>series of regular rectangular features about two miles across.
>One of these images was shown in the report, and is in the
>exhibition. (Anyone in London reading this who has been to
>the exhibition and care to comment?)

Julie Cave asked me to post the following response for her. Please reply
to the Net or directly to her: JAC@STAR.UCL.AC.UK.

-------------------------Message Follows-------------------------

PHOBOS 2 IMAGES...COMMENTS FROM LONDON

Having heard of the exhibition of these photos at the Science Museum, London
(and the interest they were generating) I dashed off to see them...
and have to report that they are no longer there. Apparently they were only 
borrowed for a few days and were then passed on to Jodrell Bank Science Centre.
I was informed that 16 (infra-red?) photos were on loan and 4 were displayed.

On a more positive note, " The Times " became interested in running a story
on them and sent us (at the University of London Planetary Image Centre) a 
copy of one of the photos for our comments. I located the image as an area
covering Latitudes -6DEG S to 4DEG N and Longitudes 48DEG to 25DEG. The image 
is ~1350 km wide (measured along the equator). For readers with access to 
MC-lithographs etc., the upper (=Northern) third of the photo is located at 
the bottom centre of Oxia Palus (MC-11 SW) and the lower parts lie in 
Margaritifer Sinus (MC-19 NW).

The main feature of the photo is a large area of jumbled blocks of high
land confined within a divergent channel. We examined the image carefully
and did not find any unusual features (i.e nothing that hasn't already been 
studied from Mariner/Viking data) though the feature did superficially resemble 
a huge sprawling city to observers not familiar with the types of Chaotic
terrain frequently seen on the planet. The "city" is presumably what the paper
were hoping we would confirm!!

By careful comparison with NASA maps I identified the main central collapse/
channel feature as Hydraotes Chaos which opens southwards into the Northern
side of the Valles Marineris. The channel running down the left hand side is 
Shalbatana Vallis and the faint linear feature between the two is Ravi Vallis. 
A small portion of Hydaspis Chaos is seen in the top right hand corner,and the
large area of fuzzy Chaotic terrain, bottom right is Aureum Chaos. The chaotic
crater cut by S.Vallis is Aromatum Chaos.

The main features pass Northwards into Simud and Tiu Vallis and thence into
Chryse Planitia ( where Viking one landed ).

The albedo variations are very different to Viking images, with the channel
floor and low land between the remnant blocks of the collapsed terrain 
showing up significantly darker than the rest of the cratered uplands. The 
photos, if Infra-red, could be indicative of sub-surface volatiles in these 
regions.

The Planetary research group here are hoping to receive details of this 
experiment since our leader was one of the 3 British team members. Considering
the size of the area shown, the resolution is pretty good . Another 3 images
are believed to show other, equally spaced sections of equatorial regions.
Such information could greatly improve our knowledge of the distribution of
volatiles on Mars and hence our understanding of the planet's history.

My supervisor and I are investigating the possibility of seeing these images
and I'll report on any developments.

------------------------------

Date: 		27-JUN-1989 12:55:48 GMT
From: ZDAC131%oak.cc.kcl.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK
Subject:        Un-subscription
Site: Kings College London, England
Sender: "Malcolm.Hey" <zdac131%elm.cc.kcl.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK>

Please would you remove me from the e-mali listing for sci-space.
I must be off on my summer vacation now :-)
			Thankyou
				malc
bitnet zdac131@oak.cc.kcl.ac.uk

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 18:41:27 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 06/26/89 (Forwarded)

I have a question about the Rocket Engine Module (REM) and Solid
Rocket Motor (SRM) overheating problem on Magellan.  Maybe someone
can answer it.

Is there some specific mishap or event that occurred to cause this
overheating?  Or did someone just plain *miscalculate*??  I mean,
this thing's going to Venus -- the incident sunlight levels aren't
going to get any lower.

I would think that the thermodynamics of a system like this would
be well understood by now.  Can anyone explain what's going on?
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 17:10:00 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: Space station computers

In article <694@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
>	At normal viewing distances, 120dpi (which is only twice what
>	my Mac delivers) would be more than acceptable.

    I'm reminded of a story about the design of the Viking lander
cameras: supposedly some members of the design team argued for twice
the angular resolution, until pictures taken both ways were shown -
and they couldn't tell the difference.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 17:24:55 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Space station computers

In article <694@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
>
>	Cute, but most people will be keybanging and mousing, because
>	the world runs on shuffling words around.  Unless you are doing
>	3D work, you don't need fancy datagloves.

I'm not reading or posting for very long, but the above caught my eye.
The discussion has really gotten away from space and into computers
except for the above which is sort of wrong.  Mice are difficult
to use in 0-G.  Even the use of keyboards.  You are making too
many assumptions.  Some one has to write (right) a book about problems
with zero G, like the lack of convection.  Then some one needs to
teach a class on space-qualification of equipment, software, etc.
The some people need to take these classes.  In my case, I had to
learn by picking this up along the way.  A dumb way to learn.  That's
NASA's fault.  But the above illustrates we aren't educating
people enough and our problems maybe too specialized (marketing
influence here, perhaps).  Some things from ground will work after
shooting it up, many won't.  Just hope we kill a minimum number
of people along the way.  Question is: which one of you future people
would be one of those victims?  Hope its not you. 8)

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #521
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Jun 89 06:51:51 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA04571>; Fri, 30 Jun 89 03:27:25 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 30 Jun 89 03:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.0YejdqK00Vs1E130Fu>;
          Fri, 30 Jun 89 00:43:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.sYejPhS00UkVMPCU4f>;
          Fri, 30 Jun 89 00:28:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YejMau00UkV4PB04p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 89 00:25:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #522

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 522

Today's Topics:
Re: Excerpts From Acting Administrator Truly's remarks at the National Space Outlook Conference (Forwarded)
		      Re: Outer Space Committee
		     Re: [Russians] Lost in Space
		      Re: ADA and space station
		      Re: Moon landing nostalgia
			  Re: Super strings
		  Re: Vaguely-space-related queries
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 04:28:43 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Excerpts From Acting Administrator Truly's remarks at the National Space Outlook Conference (Forwarded)

Admiral Truly's remarks ably illustrate everything that's wrong with the
US space program.  Let me point out a few words that were NOT mentioned
in that text.

	"Mars"

	"Soviets"

	"Venus"

	"Jupiter"

	"Moonbase"

	"Mercury"

	"Uranus"

	etc.

The primary problem is that there is no damn *mission* here except
place-holding in LEO and in the budget.  We're not shooting for
*anything* in space except a meal ticket.

Let me read into the record some of Jack Kennedy's words from May 1961.
To do so all I have to do is crack Buzz Aldrin's wonderful new book, MEN
FROM EARTH (written with Malcom McConnell, who did the definitive
Challenger book A MAJOR MALFUNCTION).  I recommend this book
enthusiastically to all space buffs as a must-have for the bookshelf.
(If all you can afford is paperback, start watching carefully in summer
1990 or so.)

The President said it was time "...for a great new American
enterprise...  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 Earth.  No single space project in this
period will be more exciting, or more impressive to mankind, or more
important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so
difficult or expensive to accomplish."

I would like readers of this newsgroup to contemplate *carefully* these
words for a moment.  They are not idle boilerplate -- they hold within
them the seeds of the entire space effort that followed, and in fact
drove *two* nations' energies for nearly a decade to come.

You could practically parse it phrase by phrase.

Imagine it being *time* for a *great new American enterprise.*  Imagine
us actually *starting something new* in 1989, not a pale follow-on of
something we did five years ago, or something the Japanese are already
doing, but something *terrifying* that we're not sure *anyone* can do,
including us.  Just think about that for a moment.

Now imagine us *committing ourselves* to *achieving a goal.*  Not just
sort of limp wristedly agreeing to interim funds for some exploratory
studies, but COMMITTING ourselves to ACHIEVING a GOAL as a nation.

Don't overlook the President's clause in there -- "returning him SAFELY
to Earth."  Who remembers that this all important caveat was in there
from the very challenge that started the program.  We need to think
about astronaut SAFETY and COMFORT and DIGNITY rather than stupid
comsat SCHEDULES.  Right Mr Mulloy?  <cheap shot, forgive me, but I
saw the granite McAuliffe monument this summer and my sobs were the
deepest to the *bone* since Maya Lin's eternal Vietnam memorial hit me>

Now look at what our President saw in his challenge.  He saw *excitement*
(remember when our plans were exciting?  Not the bare fact of orbit,
which can't help but thrill, but rather what we were *doing* with it?),
he saw *difficulty*, and he was totally unafraid to say that he saw
*expense* involved.

...They may have been artifacts of an earlier era (aren't our leaders,
always) but dammit Spock, we had *leadership* in space back then, and
we had *diligence* in LBJ's crucial followup.

Nowadays we have Rotarian boilerplate recited listlessly in underattended
subcommittee hearings, while an entrenched and subsidized LEO contractors'
plutocracy waits for its crumbs.

If you could waft Robert Goddard, N. Tsiolkovsky, Hermann Oberth, Willy
Ley and W. Von Braun via time machine into the visitors' gallery at one
of these House subcommittee chambers, they would be on the next flight
to Beijing or Tokyo faster than you could say "Peenemunde".

I am frankly not sure whether I am making the desired impression with
readers of this article.  It's a hard topic.  What the past thirty years
suggest to me is that we not only need CONCRETE goals in space, we
need EXCITING and SCARY goals in space to achieve greatness.

Yet the folks who say "a one-shot land and return from Mars repeats the
mistakes of Apollo and doesn't build an infrastructure for future expansion"
have a good point.

So I suggest a goal that takes care of this.

LET'S BUILD A PAIR OF MARS STATIONS, IN ORBIT AND ON THE SURFACE, BY 2040.
Let's do it cooperatively -- US, USSR, EEC, Japan, India, Israel, Indonesia
et cetera.  LET'S REDEEM OUR DREAMERS, and END RUN OUR DOUBTERS.  Let's let
*everyone* with the means and desire to do something in space have a hand
in this -- use it to promote world UNITY and world PRIDE.

Is this daring?  Do the means exist to convince today's President to
utter the words?

I am totally open to discussion and debate on this point, I don't claim
to have all the answers, I just want people to think about it.  I am a
feed off UUNET so it's 100% reliable to mail me as uunet!bfmny0!tneff.
-- 
You may not redistribute this article for profit without written permission.
--
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 89 17:53:06 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Outer Space Committee

Although it is almost forgotten (back in the days of Carter--remember
him) the US did not go along with the Moon Treaty.  Now, that was an
interesting document for human rights!  No property rights, searches
without cause at any time, and defectors must be handed back.  I should
find an electronic copy of Star Laws and post it to the net.  

Keith Henson

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 17:32:44 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: [Russians] Lost in Space

This comes up frequently.
The best information you will find anywhere in the public literature
is published by the Congressional Record every two years on the
status of astronauts, cosmonauts, and spacenauts.  Write your
Congressman, or visit a public library.  You might see interesting
surprises (like Gen. James Abrahmson of the SDI office had astronaut
status), various stats on who died in various programs, accidents, etc.
The information is moderately complete (short of getting into
political arguments: => talk.politics) and raises a few things
to consider when making claims for falsifying people's flights or deaths.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
				UNIX
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 17:15:05 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: ADA and space station

In article <4847@mtuxo.att.com> tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes:
>>Discussion on Ada and European origins and possible uses in space....
>One wonders what languages are used for Ariane, Spot, other ESA projects.
>Do they have a version of Ada?

I don't think the launch vehicle specifically uses computers.  Maybe
ground controlling instruments.  You sort of have to makes these
distinctions.  SPOT was planned years before Ada existed so I suspect
lots of its function is either hardwired or assembly language coded,
it's documented some where in remote sensing literature.  I think you
will see its use increasing, but I think you will also see increased
use in C [because of Unix and workstations], LISP [AI interest],
and several other languages, and oh, yes, a decrease in the use of PL/1 and
HAL/[SG].

If you are going to continue the space aspects follow up to
sci.space, but if you are going into Ada, remove sci.space and use
comp.lang.ada.  If you can't read, please return to school 8).

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 04:51:23 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Moon landing nostalgia

In article <Added.QYahxc200Ui3AFcE9z@andrew.cmu.edu> C476721@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU ("Bill Ball") writes:
>			[Man in Space, A Time Television Special], like the
>Air & Space issue, brings home what a fluke the Apollo program
>was--having more to due with the Bay of Pigs than with the exploration
>of space. 

I emphatically disagree with this assertion.  The moon race was not a
fluke offshoot of the Bay of Pigs failure.  The Soviets were at that
time giving every indication of dominating space, including a pervasive
ICBM threat which we sort of take for granted nowadays but which was Big
News back then.  Jack Kennedy was fascinated with space as a political
tool as a Senator, Presidential candidate (remember the "Missile Gap,"
subject of all those Boris Badinov cartoons when Rocky & Bullwinkle [my
patron saints] visited Frostbite Falls, Minnesota?), and later as
President.  The moon race was a natural outgrowth of JFK's geopolitical
contest with the vigorous USSR leader Krushchev.  And Apollo itself from
a technical viewpoint was already on the boards and in the brains of the
US team in the mid-50's.  All that remained was to flesh it out and
suffer the birth pangs of contractors assembling actual hardware, once
the overall strategy (LOR, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) was agreed to.  This
fleshing out makes a marvellous story, one I never cease to be engrossed
in -- but it would be a horrible mistake to dismiss it as a side effect
of some transitory political expediency.

There is no political goal of expedience on the planet that cannot be
solved more cheaply than a moonshot.
-- 
You may not redistribute this article for profit without written permission.
--
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 89 22:43:08 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Keith_Jeffrey_Kushner@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Super strings


On 20 June 1989, BOCHANNK at DB0TUI11 writes:

:Dear space friends!

:Does anyone have some informations (books, articles, scripts) about the
:super string theory?

:Alex


     May I suggest the book "Beyond Einstein - The Cosmic Quest For The Theory
of The Universe" by Dr. Michio Kaku (Bantam, 1987)? It's mostly about
superstring theory, though not written on a technical (i.e. no equations) level.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 06:09:45 GMT
From: ogccse!blake!wiml@husc6.harvard.edu  (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: Vaguely-space-related queries

In article <Added.UYddObu00Ui3MVdk9y@andrew.cmu.edu> wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes:
>There are several questions that have arisen in my mind based on postings in
>the Space list over the past, and I solicit answers, comments, or explanations
>from those out there who know about such things. They aren't specifically
>and uniquely space-related, but the topics have all been mentioned here from
>time to time:
>
>1) Regarding X-ray astronomy -- the X-ray detectors must be placed into space,
>                                                        .... But WHY are
>X-rays absorbed by the atmosphere when they can penetrate materials that are
>opaque to visible light? 

   I think it's just that X-rays are more penetrating than normal light,
even in something opaque to them. I.E., X-rays travel further through
X-ray-opaque objects than visible light does through visble-opaque
objects. I think this has something to do with the frequency and hence
energy of the photons.  And I'm *pretty* sure that the range (of penetration)
is inversely proportional to the density of whatever it's penetrating. But
this constant is larger for X-rays than for visible light.


>2) Regarding elementary particles -- one of their characteristics is called
>"spin". Is this REALLY "spin" the way a top or gyroscope spins -- that is,
>the particle is actually physically rotating in space? Or is it a term that
>is convenient and used to describe a quality of the particle, like "charm".
>"color", and "strangeness", which does NOT correspond with anything in
>normal human experience?

   I think it originally referred to the fact that a spinning charged object
generates a magnetic field, a dipole, like the field generated by these
particles. . (Think right-hand rule.) But it now
refers to the rotational symmetry of the particle. (?) It is the reciprocal
of the symmetry, er, a spin-1/2 particle has 180-degree symmetry, a spin
1/3 particle has 120-degree symmetry, and a spin-2 particle must be rotated
twice before it comes back to its original, er, state. [Who knows. Not me.]


>4) Black hole temperature -- Are medium-sized black holes hot or cold? I have
>read that small black holes would be very hot, putting out radiation, due to
>the Hawking Effect and the tunnelling of particles through the event
>horizon and the business of pairs of virtual particles being formed out
>of the vacuum right by the event horizon, and one of the pair maybe being
>sucked inside the hole, leaving the unmatched other particle to come out
>as radiation. At some size, does this stop and the black hole become
>very cold, being an infinite energy sink? [The main problem with a
>black-hole-powered refrigerator is carrying it up the stairs... :-) ]

   Another back-of-the-spinal-cord calculation (read gut reaction) is that
the energy emitted by a black hole (through Hawking evaporation) would
be proportional to its surface area, because the energy emitted is limited
by the number of virtual pairs created in the zone right outside the event
horizon. (I may be flamed for the use of 'event horizon'. Do it in mail.)
(I can think of some more complicated [general] scenarios for that
pair production, but they still look like they boil down to 'energy
proportional to surface area'.) So larger black holes would emit more
total radiation.
   But the volume of a black hole grows much faster than its mass, the larger
a black hole is, the less dense it is. (I have seen calculations saying that
a black hole the size of the observed Universe would be about as dense as
the observed Universe...) Presumably the surface area also grows faster
than the mass, or large black holes would evaporate as quickly (or faster)
than small ones. Which I am assured is not what Hawking says is the case.
   [And you wouldn't carry a black-hole 'fridge up the stairs. You would
carry the stairs down past the 'fridge... =8)]

	--- phelliax
	    "Oh. Wait a second. If that were true I couldn't exis --"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #522
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Jun 89 04:46:13 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00712> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 30 Jun 89 04:45:53 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 30 Jun 89 04:45:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYem4RO00Vs1I11k4U>;
          Fri, 30 Jun 89 03:28:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.8YelwH600UkVEPTE5S>;
          Fri, 30 Jun 89 03:19:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <UYeluEO00UkVQPRk5=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 89 03:17:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #523

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 523

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
		  Re: Vaguely-space-related queries
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 05:02:51 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #534 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89170.38185254 0.00000411           48322-3 0  2126
2 00424  80.4642 283.6922 0024273 123.7629 236.5831 13.67157185333119
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89167.84095407  .00000252  00000-0  22296-3 0  2700
2 00727  69.9020  96.1821 0011530 100.0180 260.2251 13.93537401293043
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89168.26546722  .00007731  00000-0  51970-3 0  3703
2 03019  64.0572 115.3810 0223487 229.4069 128.7514 14.89272109105092
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89149.67299267 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2320
2 03029  12.7202  24.3096 0015222 196.7828 163.1216  1.00272718 78954
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89170.78087513  .00050886  00000-0  32889-3 0  7431
2 04966  51.5511  26.0078 2524830 216.2175 123.8343 10.51576830552660
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89176.39366642 0.00000004                   0  7820
2 08820 109.8298 232.8911 0044840 314.2601  45.4506  6.38664061 51156
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89172.75216214 -.00000014                   0  2776
2 10061   7.1824  68.1071 0005211 174.8186 185.0060  1.00280224  5429
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89174.93694549 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1444
2 10684  63.5748 100.6328 0108139 198.9036 160.6953  2.00560459 68669
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89175.39471618 -.00000027                   0  9954
2 10893  64.5469 341.4530 0153742  28.5320 332.3057  2.00556129 81494
GOES 3     
1 10953U 78062  A 89163.82999455  .00000088  00000-0  99999-4 0  6777
2 10953   6.0412  70.8826 0008338 259.1647 100.5880  1.00263855   899
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89174.36466744 0.00001755           66254-3 0  1313
2 10967 108.0114 300.3194 0003225 227.5342 132.5518 14.34673560574973
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89177.70209636 -.00000027                   0   412
2 11054  64.1312 337.8911 0054067 119.2139 241.3185  2.00561559 78552
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89173.31637886 0.00000011                   0  1686
2 11141  63.5532 100.5816 0057703 321.1605  38.4296  2.00572416 77165
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89174.09124855 0.00001510           65031-3 0  8652
2 11416  98.5066 170.9779 0013007  91.5653 268.7024 14.25828254518744
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89174.49866269 0.00061929           91648-3 0  9998
2 11703  28.4980 234.5882 0003208 134.8640 225.0642 15.53865850520820
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89175.76627590 -.00000027                   0  9204
2 11783  63.8728 337.5565 0143689  62.3189 299.1357  2.00568202 67150
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89165.62230441 -.00000249                   0  7360
2 12472   2.1442  85.5357 1339225 255.7898  88.3318  1.00210951 28564
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89168.58387105  .00028161  00000-0  99346-3 0  2192
2 12887  97.6868 194.6380 0001370 194.4008 165.7202 15.29217444425216
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89175.12060121 0.00109175           12095-2 0  6134
2 12888  97.5518 229.1842 0000824 112.6109 247.5087 15.62617469430070
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89175.08477021 0.00000338           29421-3 0  6506
2 13113  82.5383  53.2833 0016895  44.7365 315.5170 13.84010410366191
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89177.71251281 0.00016523           38435-3 0  6321
2 13138  51.6092 270.8078 0000851  64.8204 295.2642 15.42432618409662
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89170.62485542  .00002427  00000-0  54883-3 0  9930
2 13367  98.2122 234.2122 0002211 164.9973 195.1571 14.57107026368501
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89170.79326818 0.00000682           35315-3 0  7891
2 13718  81.2416 278.9935 0056805 352.9455   7.0918 14.13219976335924
IRAS       
1 13777U          89174.53526875 0.00000198           16126-3 0  6505
2 13777  99.0420  11.5582 0012029 297.8893  62.1049 13.98603523327085
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89154.60178946 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-5 0  8028
2 13969   3.5055  67.7147 0002838 173.0308 187.3950  1.00270271 89261
GOES 6     
1 14050U 83 41  A 89166.87202487  .00000121  00000-0  00000 0 0  9728
2 14050   1.2982  82.9172 0001846  88.1496 270.8602  1.00277658  6599
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89174.42674285 0.00000053                   0  4120
2 14129  26.1731 258.6318 6055703  52.9375 348.3573  2.05879393 17343
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89169.87120406 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6355
2 14189  63.1886  99.2955 0135661 215.6524 143.4219  2.00568941 43470
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89172.05787242 0.00001289           54900-3 0  7389
2 14452  81.1638 289.6711 0096443  85.4981 275.7223 14.22223210293090
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89176.97285423 -.00001353          -29551-3 0  8044
2 14780  98.1674 239.0521 0002497 184.0575 176.0696 14.57110071282847
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89174.60656127 0.00002955           57613-3 0  4689
2 14781  98.0025 233.2168 0012230 307.1522  52.8563 14.63683629283482
LDEF       
1 14898U          89174.11833612 0.00039948           64539-3 0  8850
2 14898  28.5025 134.9819 0001855 305.8613  54.1636 15.51460135292373
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89175.91314166 0.00000010                   0  6771
2 15039  62.9244  98.3751 0014779 267.4019  92.3494  2.00564587 36879
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89174.96137015 -.00000371          -34086-3 0  9508
2 15099  82.5341   0.9872 0012145 215.1531 144.8876 13.83671224251054
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89175.81435724 -.00000027                   0  6557
2 15271  63.3886 337.2836 0099960 320.8704  38.4151  2.00566298 33984
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89174.45937940 0.00003066           44295-3 0   445
2 15331  82.5331 332.6554 0026119  63.8561 296.5332 14.75694561255148
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89172.45713801 0.00000967           54856-3 0  3957
2 15427  99.1418 159.4808 0014677 304.9577  55.0214 14.12059355233053
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89174.82108467 0.00000384           33454-3 0   934
2 15516  82.5350 299.4827 0018197  94.8468 265.4798 13.84123123221979
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89177.90683155 -.00048171          -11065-2 0  2901
2 16095  51.6083 269.8597 0001822 281.7366  78.0448 15.42379272409699
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89167.49325344 0.00000010                   0  3267
2 16129  63.7144  99.3006 0116902 150.0043 210.6569  2.00564271 27022
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89175.57673348 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8350
2 16191  82.5443 230.5113 0018292 282.8036  77.1062 13.16867709176490
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89175.55563457 0.00000283           24406-3 0  5075
2 16408  82.5352 213.7612 0014820 284.0796  75.8720 13.84184981176571
Mir        
1 16609U          89177.72915167 0.00027378           39022-3 0  9098
2 16609  51.6223 315.9510 0010559  97.1794 263.0256 15.56043566192652
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89177.80969176 0.00000656           32641-3 0  5086
2 16613  98.7380 252.2195 0001826 119.4195 240.7153 14.20005906 13493
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89166.63717749 0.00000393           34467-3 0  3058
2 16735  82.5385 247.6750 0015551  20.7917 339.3892 13.83925664154249
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89176.60211944 0.00002245           32660-3 0  6463
2 16881  82.5237  30.2136 0024832  73.0264 287.3639 14.75331843156536
EGP        
1 16908U          89177.20210717 0.00000472           36377-2 0  1381
2 16908  50.0100 270.3731 0011072  10.2279 349.8631 12.44380545130539
FO-12      
1 16909U          89177.26246302 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1524
2 16909  50.0159 270.4283 0010754   8.6970 351.4053 12.44399976130537
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89175.04402541 0.00001102           50518-3 0  2393
2 16969  98.6351 205.4045 0012484 229.0797 130.9301 14.23061466144919
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89175.38681730 0.00000198           16884-3 0  2669
2 17290  82.4670 148.0103 0011431 242.2012 117.7993 13.83729851124616
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89170.61589713  .00000751  00000-0  58423-3 0  1531
2 17527  99.1492 242.0521 0001309  81.0485 279.0925 13.94871258118713
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89164.57217153 -.00000042           10000-3 0  2835
2 17561   0.0551  31.9488 0027390 160.8269 167.0421  1.00277938  1727
Kvant      
1 17845U          89177.92182194 0.00040462           57203-3 0  7895
2 17845  51.6200 314.9820 0010317  96.7739 263.4521 15.56065488192688
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89177.00089940 0.00000363           38967-3 0  7965
2 18129  82.9251 231.6400 0012450  34.2801 325.9199 13.71987510100603
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89171.83135654  .00000264  00000-0  13844-3 0  8564
2 18187  65.0135  12.3407 0020163 257.7973 102.0832 14.29371419101645
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89177.70546934 0.00176856  16369-4  21874-3 0  1021
2 18225  71.8641  29.0990 0012341 229.7574 130.2361 16.07553339112825
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89175.06572756 0.00000218           18868-3 0  2866
2 18312  82.5632 214.0956 0012510 170.6934 189.4517 13.83485830 93469
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89174.96934957 0.00000415           36233-3 0  1272
2 18820  82.5432 275.1635 0015527 248.6900 111.2607 13.84174526 70627
AO-13      
1 19216U          89147.06007421 0.00000137           10000-3 0   364
2 19216  57.2077 206.1830 6723768 204.7577  96.6993  2.09696457  7298
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89170.96597658  .00002248  00000-0  33123-3 0  4075
2 19274  82.5167 134.0531 0021702 219.4778 140.4730 14.74818278 51499
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89174.95502099 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2077
2 19336  82.5398 170.8708 0019043 125.5081 234.7817 13.16852331 43809
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89174.30092468 0.00000949           54794-3 0   949
2 19531  98.9396 118.2863 0011197 212.9213 147.1259 14.11047542 38338
TDRS 3     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89153.77764324  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   261
2 19548   0.5410  85.9584 0002050  10.4654 263.5580  1.00263057  1649
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89165.50968165  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   446
2 19802  55.1080 211.9148 0067914 156.7943 203.5995  2.00555799  2376
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89175.13685823 0.00000116           10000-3 0   497
2 19851  82.5225 153.7009 0012795 292.5258  67.4546 13.83808899 16042
TDRS 4     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89155.42662356 -.00000217  00000-0  99999-4 0   183
2 19883   0.3388 66 .6627 0006172  45.3845 248.0141  1.00548638    95
Cosmos 2020
1 19986U          89167.00035284 0.00713491  34818-4  33909-3 0   650
2 19986  64.7730 355.9562 0129120  90.4929 271.2069 16.04503107  4755
1989 037A  
1 20000U          89166.71735513 0.00273342  20071-4  19406-3 0   544
2 20000  69.9458  15.2671 0062488  74.7482 286.1528 16.11421323  3590
RESURS-F   
1 20006U          89166.67758184 0.00125228  60541-5  17209-3 0   460
2 20006  82.2956  17.0495 0008737 226.6604 133.3319 16.06021047  3428
Cosmos 2022
1 20024U          89177.11500345 -.00000011           10000-3 0   334
2 20024  64.8199  50.9803 0002660 255.1304 104.9034  2.13102567   554
Cosmos 2023
1 20025U          89177.87773324 -.00000011           10000-3 0   304
2 20025  64.8396  50.9414 0013654 210.9683 149.0115  2.13102871   576
Cosmos 2024
1 20026U          89177.57226728 -.00000011           10000-3 0   280
2 20026  64.8306  50.9674 0009063 266.8491  93.1054  2.13204664   565
1989 034E  
1 20028U          89168.63841789 -.00000011           10000-3 0    87
2 20028  64.8234  51.2765 0013798 319.7861  40.1741  2.13482901   322
SuperBird A
1 20040U          89176.80065555 -.00000100           10000-3 0   122
2 20040   0.0727 249.1889 0004136 200.9820 269.9242  1.00271583   168
1989 041B  
1 20041U          89176.16878802 0.00000175                   0    57
2 20041   0.0519 100.7665 0018737 274.8092 344.6654  1.00273050   142
1989 041C  
1 20042U          89174.64702114 0.00029531           36306-2 0   161
2 20042   6.8072  41.9408 7290640 191.5603 132.0376  2.28779575   310
Cosmos 2026
1 20045U          89175.95852838 0.00000204           20132-3 0   323
2 20045  82.9397 348.7011 0038344 244.4344 115.2842 13.75018692  2447
1989 042B  
1 20046U          89173.25000696 -.00005553          -56739-2 0   237
2 20046  82.9402 350.6834 0033958 248.7281 111.0257 13.76471090  2072
Molniya3-35
1 20052U          89177.84654917 0.00000232          -21967-2 0   260
2 20052  62.8528 101.7261 7376995 288.3203   9.3855  2.00614813   377
1989 043B  
1 20053U          89177.57566668 0.01221372  38946-4  11671-2 0   318
2 20053  62.8055  36.6894 0130198 123.0980 238.2926 15.96160721  2821
1989 043C  
1 20054U          89177.57297641 0.01097276  37698-4  10854-2 0   332
2 20054  62.8140  37.7207 0189879 119.3101 242.5121 15.83925354  2811
1989 043D  
1 20055U          89175.07365879 -.00001083          -10262-1 0    94
2 20055  62.7740 102.2180 7430842 288.1683   9.5465  1.95997089   307
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89177.18867261 -.00000029                   0   159
2 20061  54.5794  30.3149 0045762 166.8648 193.3047  2.01614288   355
1989 044B  
1 20062U          89177.57606627 0.01611026 -19689-4  12077-2 0   345
2 20062  30.3160 279.5069 0373860 185.8067 173.8802 15.45826519  1214
1989 044C  
1 20063U          89175.79623067 0.00144592  16618-4  22196-2 0   221
2 20063  37.5873  17.7257 6033545 210.2266  94.3269  4.08732212   596
1989 045A  
1 20064U          89172.73417751 0.00005352           23335-3 0    99
2 20064  65.8375  49.1097 0023953 344.9857  16.0992 15.22926474  1101
1989 045B  
1 20065U          89172.20200486 0.00006934           28590-3 0   159
2 20065  65.8419  50.7366 0029707 352.7151   7.3551 15.24399900  1020
Cosmos 2028
1 20073U          89177.70934384 0.00105062  88438-5  12199-3 0   224
2 20073  69.9925  58.9330 0043472  78.6039 282.0136 16.06688046  1665
1989 047B  
1 20074U          89171.95493335 0.22683705  21508-4  27768-3 0   201
2 20074  69.9775  75.8690 0009597  31.4079 329.3441 16.49307108   743
1989 048A  
1 20083U          89176.82055309 0.00000039           10000-3 0    93
2 20083   1.5051 274.4868 0009882 101.5605 249.6760  0.98882502    41
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 06:53:59 GMT
From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Vaguely-space-related queries

In article <Added.UYddObu00Ui3MVdk9y@andrew.cmu.edu> wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes:
>There are several questions that have arisen in my mind based on postings in
>the Space list over the past, and I solicit answers, comments, or explanations
>from those out there who know about such things. They aren't specifically
>and uniquely space-related, but the topics have all been mentioned here from
>time to time:
>
>1) Regarding X-ray astronomy -- the X-ray detectors must be placed into space,
>either into orbit or on brief sounding-rocket flights, because the X-rays are

For hard X-rays (>~10keV) and gamma-rays you can also use balloon-borne
instruments. The balloons are ~150 meters in diameter, 10-70 million cubic
feet in volume, and go up to 120-140 thousand feet in altitude, where
there are only a few grams/square cm of atmosphere above it.  They stay up
for a day or so (or for over a week in some cases), carry a payload of
up to a tonne, and cost about 0.001 as much as a shuttle to launch.

Sorry about the mixed units.

>absorbed by the atmosphere and do not reach the surface. I accept that this is
>*a good thing*, otherwise we probably never would have evolved past some sort
>of radiation-hardened and -resistant lichen or the like... :-) But WHY are
>X-rays absorbed by the atmosphere when they can penetrate materials that are
>opaque to visible light? If light can get through the atmosphere and hit
>the surface, one would expect X-rays to have even greater penetrating
>ability. The answer is probably simple, but it is something I never happened
>to run across in my reading, and I don't have the physics training to have
>learned it in the past.

Good question, the trick is not that air is unusually impervious to
x-rays, the trick is that it is unusually transparent to visible light.

Photons (e.g. light particles and x-ray particles, both the same thing but with
different energies) interact with charged
particles (typically electrons) by transferring energy and momentum.
For electrons in atoms, this usually requires a certain amount of energy
(because an atom's electron can only take on certain energy values), which, for
most of the atoms in air, most visible photons do not have.  For opaque solids,
the electrons usually have more freedom so they can affect even low-energy
visible photons.

X-rays are high-enough in energy that many of the electrons in any given atom
can interact with them.  This makes the air much more opaque to x-rays
than to visible photons.  Our atmosphere is about as thick, to x-rays,
as a few feet of lead.

>
>2) Regarding elementary particles -- one of their characteristics is called
>"spin". Is this REALLY "spin" the way a top or gyroscope spins -- that is,
>the particle is actually physically rotating in space? Or is it a term that
>is convenient and used to describe a quality of the particle, like "charm".
>"color", and "strangeness", which does NOT correspond with anything in
>normal human experience?

Spin IS angular momentum.  If you sit on a turntable with an electron in
your hand, and turn it over, you will start turning.  (This is very much
a Gedanken experiment, so don't write saying that it won't work, the
idea is the important thing.)
>
>(If "spin" really means that the particle is rotating, what happens when
>you squeeze it between other particles? Does "friction" exist at the
>subatomic level, and can you slow down the rotation? I thought "spin" existed 
>only in quantized units, so a particle has "spin" of 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, etc.
>[Or something like that.] Anyway, if you slowed the spin of a particle down 
>*slightly*, it would no longer have an exact multiple. Does the particle then
>vanish in a *poof* of quarks or does the universe come to an end or what? :-)

Spin does not mean that the particle is turning around and around, (the 'orbit'
of an electron in an atom also does not go around and around, but that is
a digression.)  You can't slow the spin of a particle *slightly*, only in
integral units.
>
>3) The 11-year (or so) Solar Cycle -- I realize the duration of this cycle
>varies, and the one we are in now seems to be a mite shorter than normal.
>Do we know what causes this cycling? Is it some sort of resonance effect
>from vibrations or "ringing" of the sun? (Like standing waves?) Or is
>the mechanism behind these variations unknown?

The 22-year cycle (The number of sunspots is proportional to the absolute
value of something roughly sinusoidal, so it peaks twice per cycle)
is due to the sun's magnetic field winding up, geting tangled and then
unwinding, all the the same direction (which the tangling makes possible.)
This is not my field, so probably someone else should provide more
details.
>
>4) Black hole temperature -- Are medium-sized black holes hot or cold? I have
>read that small black holes would be very hot, putting out radiation, due to
>the Hawking Effect and the tunnelling of particles through the event
>horizon and the business of pairs of virtual particles being formed out
>of the vacuum right by the event horizon, and one of the pair maybe being
>sucked inside the hole, leaving the unmatched other particle to come out
>as radiation. At some size, does this stop and the black hole become
>very cold, being an infinite energy sink? [The main problem with a
>black-hole-powered refrigerator is carrying it up the stairs... :-) ]

	"I have answered three questions, and that is enough"
	Said his father, "Don't give yourself airs!
	Do you think I can listen all day to this stuff?
	Be off, or I'll kick you down-stairs."
				-Alice

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
	"Only 10% of the 4000 mile long coastline was affected."
		-Exxon's version of the oil spill as reported to stockholders

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #523
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Jun 89 07:35:53 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00894> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 30 Jun 89 07:35:31 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri, 30 Jun 89 07:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QYenhye00UkTQ1XU4K>;
          Fri, 30 Jun 89 05:21:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.cYenfa200UkVQPdE4F>;
          Fri, 30 Jun 89 05:18:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYene9200UkVAPbk4=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 89 05:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #524

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 524

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Vaguely-space-related queries
	       Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth
			   "Space" TV show
			       Rockets
		       Re: Fuel for lunar trip
		LDEF retrieval fact sheet (Forwarded)
		CRESCENT MOON - MON 3 JULY 1989 (LONG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 15:58:30 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Vaguely-space-related queries

In article <Added.UYddObu00Ui3MVdk9y@andrew.cmu.edu> wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes:
>1) Regarding X-ray astronomy -- the X-ray detectors must be placed into space,
>either into orbit or on brief sounding-rocket flights, because the X-rays are
>absorbed by the atmosphere and do not reach the surface...  WHY are
>X-rays absorbed by the atmosphere when they can penetrate materials that are
>opaque to visible light? If light can get through the atmosphere and hit
>the surface, one would expect X-rays to have even greater pepnetrating
>ability...

The atmosphere's transparency is not a simple function of wavelength.  Most
any astronomy text, in fact, will show you a graph of atmospheric absorption
versus wavelength; it's a terrible mess.  The atmosphere is *almost* fully
transparent at visible wavelengths, but elsewhere things vary wildly.  More
energy hurts rather than helping, because it increases the chances of
interaction with the atmosphere.

X-rays are medically useful because they are penetrating but not *too*
penetrating -- they will go through some mass but are blocked by substantial
mass, like bones or shielding.  They penetrate atmosphere well over short
distances but not over long ones.  The fireball of a nuclear explosion is
air heated incandescent by X-rays.

Remember that one atmosphere of pressure, 14.7 psi, means that there are
14.7 pounds of air between space and every square inch of the Earth's surface.
That's really quite a lot of shielding.

>2) Regarding elementary particles -- one of their characteristics is called
>"spin". Is this REALLY "spin" the way a top spins...  Or is it a term that
>is convenient and used to describe a quality of the particle, like "charm".

It may have started out as the former, but nowadays it is definitely known
to be the latter.  Macroscopic rules don't apply in particle physics.

>3) The 11-year (or so) Solar Cycle -- I realize the duration of this cycle
>varies, and the one we are in now seems to be a mite shorter than normal.
>Do we know what causes this cycling? ...

I don't know that anyone really has a clear idea of its underlying cause.
Clearly it's some sort of oscillation in the Sun.  We know some of its
symptoms but not its real cause, as I understand the situation.
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 89 18:39:09 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth

In article <626@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes:
 
>However, if you deploy it at maximum altitude (with such a light payload),
>you can't get back to it again with ANY payload, since rendevous is a LOT
>more expensive than just tossing something over the side wherever you happen
>to be at the time. This means that if something goes wrong (don't _even_ thin
>about it), you have to wait for the orbit to decay to a sufficiently low
>altitude to go fix it. (If we can't even get into orbit, the chances of NASA
>flying a mission with NO payload just to fix up the HST are minimal to nil)

You know, this is really stupid.  Since this mission is not weight limited,
why don't they put a high specific impulse electric drive on it to
move it up and down in orbit?  I know that ion engines have never been
rated for acutual *use*, but if it didn't work, NASA wouldn't be any
worse off than they are now.  Keith Henson

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 15:27:38 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!briar.philips.com!rfc@uunet.uu.net  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: "Space" TV show

Last week, on Friday, I saw the tail end of a TV show called something like
"Space".  It showed a fictional ill-fated Apollo 18 mission.  Something to the
effect that a solar storm happens when the astronauts are on the Moon, they
get sick, and thus fail to fly the lunar module correctly and then crash
it.  I know it's fake, but I wonder how many people might think this really
happened.  Especially when you tune in after the show started, and you think,
"Oh they're doing a drammazation of the history of our moon missions, think
I'll get a beer and watch it".   :-)

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 1989 20:33 +02
From: Alex Bochannek <BOCHANNK%DB0TUI11.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Rockets
To: <SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>

Dear friends!

A friend of my and I we both plan to build a tiny rocket in our spacetime,
but we don't actually have a plan for doing it.

Some days ago anyone told about a book from 1947 (I forgot the guy's name, sorry
) and this seemed to very fitting for us, or what do You think? Any other
recommendations for building rockets are appreciated :-)

Alex

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 02:44:47 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Fuel for lunar trip

In article <8906271737.AA00517@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>>At one point there was a proposal to take up water ballast on shuttle missions
>>that were volume-limited...
>
>Water takes up volume too...

Yes, but *much* less.  Squeezing in a modest water tank would not be overly
difficult, especially if you put it in the innards rather than in the
payload bay.
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 00:43:08 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: LDEF retrieval fact sheet (Forwarded)


	LDEF RETRIEVAL FACT SHEET 


     NASA is planning Space Shuttle mission STS-32 in December 
1989, using orbiter Columbia, to retrieve the Long Duration 
Exposure Facility (LDEF).  This free-flying satellite, carrying 
57 science, technology and applications experiments sponsored by 
NASA, the Department of Defense, private industry, universities 
and foreign governments, was launched on STS-41C and deployed 
into orbit in April 1984.

     After more than 5 years in space, LDEF is a unique and 
valuable repository of information on space environmental 
effects.  LDEF also has valuable science and applications data on 
board.  The data will have critical design implications for 
spacecraft that have requirements for long-duration flight in 
low-Earth orbit.  However, before scientists can study this data, 
LDEF must be retrieved.  Otherwise, the spacecraft and its 
experiments will be destroyed during reentry.

     Recognizing the significance of LDEF, NASA has been 
monitoring the spacecraft's orbital altitude and making every 
effort to ensure a timely and successful retrieval.  Prior to 
1988, LDEF was expected to be in orbit until the mid-1990s.  This 
expectation rested on the belief that the 11-year solar flux 
cycle would be close to normal.  A higher rate of solar flux 
increases the density of the LDEF orbital environment which, in 
turn, accelerates the LDEF altitude decay rate.

     In early 1988 during solar cycle 22, the levels indicated 
that solar activity during this cycle might approach the maximum 
of past cycles.  On this basis, a mid to late 1990 LDEF reentry 
was predicted.  Accordingly, NASA planned a Space Shuttle mission 
to retrieve LDEF.  To protect against the uncertainties in solar 
activity and potential schedule delays, this mission was inserted 
in the Shuttle manifest as early as possible, consistent with the 
minimum lead times required for crew training and other mission 
planning.

     Since prediction of solar flux is not a science, a panel of 
experts has been advising NASA for the past year.  During this 
period, the predictions have continued to change significantly.  
In early April 1989, LDEF reentry projections ranged from 
November 1989 to January 1990 or later, with December 1989 as a 
"best estimate."  However, during the month of May, the flux was 
significantly less than predicted.  The latest reentry estimate 
is January 1990. 

     Each month a new forecast is developed for the next 90 
days.  Every week, NASA updates the reentry predictions with LDEF 
altitude information obtained from tracking data and the latest 
solar flux projections.

     Should the erratic solar activity cause LDEF to reenter the 
Earth's atmosphere before it can be retrieved, there is only an 
extremely remote chance of property damage or personal injury.  
LDEF's orbit is mainly over water and most of the satellite would 
break up and burn as it passes through the Earth's atmosphere.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 13:25:40 GMT
From: phri!cooper!dasys1!mohib@nyu.edu  (Mohib)
Subject: CRESCENT MOON - MON 3 JULY 1989 (LONG)

Replies  to: mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
Followup for Atmospheric-Optics/Physics: Sci.Physics
Followup for Astronomy: Sci.Astro
Followup for Space: Sci.Space



  ***************************************************************************
                       
                       Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
  ( I begin with the name of ALLAH, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )
         
         THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
           102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027
         
         SUBJECT: CRESCENT MOON: FIRST VISIBILITY (every lunar month)
        **************************************************************
            
        NEXT CRESCENT (NEW) MOON, HILAL:  Mon  3 JULY 1989, evening  (*)
              
              for the 12th. Islamic Month of ZUL-HAJJ, 1409,
   the month starting on Tue  4 July 1989, for USA-CANADA and S.America, 
           and possibly from points west of Greenwich, England; 
         and on Wed  5  July 1989, for all points West of Hawaii,
        till the places of first sighting of Mon  3 July, evening.

           It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Crescent Moon to be visible 
                     on  Sun  2 July 1989, worldwide.
 
   (*)      Hilal (crescent) sightings would be in the evenings, 
        at least 10 minutes after sunset, usually before 20 minutes, 
   and upto 40 to 90 minutes after sunset; near and along the sun's path.
 
   ISLAMIC DATES: 1409 ZUL-HAJJ:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10
   (sight on 4th) 1989 JULY    :  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 
                                 We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr (HAJJ-AKBAR,
                                                                for S.Arabia) 
 OR
   ISLAMIC DATES: 1409 ZUL-HAJJ:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10
   (sight on 3th) 1989 JULY    :  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13
                                 Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th (HAJJ-not Akbar,
                                                                for S.Arabia) 

        We are conducting research/survey on the recorded WORLD-WIDE
          first sightings of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" 
                  in the evenings, for every lunar month.
                    Some TECHNICAL INFO. is at the end.
 
                  PHOTOGRAPHS / SLIDES ARE MOST WELCOME
               since they are very helpful in the research.
 
              Please also pass on the request to your friends
               who are interested in astronomy/physics and to 
                 your local amateur astronomy associations.
 
                  We would very much like to hear from you.
                Please respond either by email or by letter.
 
       The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL
          and fine tune some parameters regarding SCATTERING/VISION.
 
 
  When reporting actual Crescent-Hilal sightings, (even if you do not see it)
                        PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

HILAL was visible to naked eye?......... Hilal sighted in binoculars?.........
EXACT TIMES: Complete Sunset at......... Hilal First Visible....... End.......
HEIGHT-Degrees: Hilal highest........... Hilal lowest (faded/set).............
ORIENTATION: Ends of Hilal Curve:  Start at.......'O Clock:End at.....'O Clock
(Right is 3'O Clock:Bottom is 6'O Clock: Left is 9'O Clock:  Top is 12'O Clock)
WEATHER condition: Rel.Humidity......... Temperature..... Pressure............
Sky near western horizon: Clear?........ Hazy?........... Cloudy?.............
OBSERVER: Age.... Eyesight: Glasses?.... Far sighted?.... Near sighted?.......
Name....................... Date........ Location.............................
 
                                 Thanks.
 
        Email to:  mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
 
        Mail:      Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America

 *****************************************************************************
 
        Some ORBITAL details for the SUN and MOON:
 
        Lunation No.: 823
        NEW MOON (not crescent visible moon): 
        1989 July  3d 04h 59m UT (Universal Time), Monday
       (Universal Time, i.e. mean solar time on the meridian of Greenwich)

           EQUATORIAL coords.(0h UT)       ECLIPTIC coords.(for 0h UT)
   Date    Sun    Sun     MOON   MOON      Sun      MOON   MOON      MOON 
   JULY    R.A.   Decl.   R.A.   Decl.     Long.    Long.  Lat.      true Elong
   '89     Alpha  Delta   Alpha  Delta     Lambda   Lambda Beta      from Sun
           hr     deg     hr     deg       deg      deg    deg       deg 
 
    2 Su    6.74  23.01    5.61  27.86    100.25    84.75  4.53      W 16
  * 3 Mo    6.81  22.97    6.64  26.99    101.20    98.55  3.83      W  5
    4 Tu    6.88  22.86    7.62  24.52    102.16   112.07  2.93      E 10
    5 We    6.95  22.74    8.54  20.78    103.11   125.25  1.88      E 22
 
 *****************************************************************************
 
       1989 JULY  3 (Mon) evening (event times are the approximate
                                  Civil - clock - Standard times)
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     Sun     MOON   at Sunset unaided eye
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
                                                            
        MECCA-S.Arabia 20  320    19 04   19 31    11 05    IMPOSSIBLE
        MOSCOW - USSR  56  320    21 08   21 52    13 09    DIFFICULT
        CAIRO - Egypt  30  330    19 05   19 37    12 06    DIFFICULT
        ISTANBUL-Turk  40  330    19 32   20 08    12 33    DIFFICULT
        CAPETOWN-S.Af -35  340    16 40   16 34    10 41    IMPOSSIBLE
        LAGOS-Nigeria  10  355    18 05   18 35    13 06    DIFFICULT
                                                            
      % GREENWICH-Engl 50    0    20 12   20 56    15 13    PROBABLE
                                                            
        DAKAR-Senegal  10   20    18 45   19 19    14 46    DIFFICULT
        RIO DeJENEIRO -20   45    17 32   18 03    15 33    DIFFICULT
        PARAMARIBO-Suri 0   55    17 48   18 16    16 49    PROBABLE
        BUNOS ARESarg -35   60    17 00   17 26    16 01    PROBABLE
        LIMA-Peru S.A -10   80    18 10   18 49    18 11    PROBABLE
                                                            
      % (add 1 hr to event time, for summer DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME,
                  from early April to end of October)       
                                                            
                  For some of these cities (Greenwich-Lima)
        the Cresent may be VISIBLE on the evening of  Mon  3 July 1989,
   hence the New Islamic Month of Zul Hajj may start from  Tue  4 July 1989.

   For those places where the Crescent is not visible on  Mon  3 July 1989,
 the Crescent - Hilal - will be visible on the next evening,  Tue  4 July 1989,
      inshALLAH, and for these places the New Islamic Month of Zul Hajj 
                  would start from  Wed  5 July 1989.

 ***************************************************************************** 

       1989 JULY 3 (Mon) evening  (event times are the approximate
                                   Civil - clock - Standard times)
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     Sun     MOON   at Sunset unaided eye
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
                                                            
      % HALIFAX -CNDA  44   65    20 07   21 21    19 08    PROBABLE
      % NEW YORK -USA  40   75    19 32   20 20    19 33    PROBABLE
      % JACKSONVIL-Fl  30   80    19 25   20 11    19 26    PROBABLE
      % SAN DIEGO-USA  35  115    18 57   19 48    21 58    MOST PROBABLE
      % SAN FRANCISCO  40  120    19 32   20 24    22 33    MOST PROBABLE
      % VANCOUVER-CND  50  125    20 32   21 26    23 33    MOST PROBABLE
                                                            
      % ANCHORAGE-Als  62  150    21 48   22 42    26 49    MOST PROBABLE
      % HONOLULU -Hwi  20  160    18 24   19 18    24 25    MOST PROBABLE
                                                            
      % (add 1 hr to event time, for summer DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME,
                  from early April to end of October)       
                                                            
              When the CRESCENT is visible on Mon  3 JULY 1989
   anywhere from Halifax, New York, Jacksonville, San Diego, San Francisco, 
       to Vancouver, then in the USA-CANADA the next Islamic month of 
                    Zul Hajj starts on Tue  4 JULY 1989.
                                                            
                                                            
               (INCREASE   date one day, if crossing   EAST TO WEST)
  ######################    INTERNATIONAL DATE LINE    ######################
               (DECREASE   date one day, if crossing   WEST TO EAST)
                                                            
                                                            
       1989 JULY 3 (Mon) evening  (event times are the approximate 
                                   Civil - clock - Standard times)         
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     Sun     MOON   at Sunset unaided eye
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
                                                            
        SIDNEY-Austra -35  210    17 00   16 30     2 01    IMPOSSIBLE
        TOKYO - Japan  35  220    18 57   19 16     4 58    IMPOSSIBLE
        PEKING -China  40  245    19 52   20 17     6 53    IMPOSSIBLE
        JAKARTA-Indon -10  250    17 30   17 38     5 31    IMPOSSIBLE
        DACCA -B.Desh  20  270    18 44   19 04     7 45    IMPOSSIBLE
        AGRA  - India  30  280    18 45   19 10     8 46    IMPOSSIBLE
        PESHAWAR -Pak  35  290    19 37   20 05     9 38    IMPOSSIBLE
        BUKHARA -USSR  40  295    19 12   19 44    10 13    IMPOSSIBLE
        TEHRAN - Iran  35  310    18 57   19 28    10 58    IMPOSSIBLE
                                                            
                  For all of these cities (Sidney-Tehran)   
        the Cresent will be IMPOSSIBLE to sight on  Mon  4 July 1989.
             The Crescent will be Visible on  Tue  5 July 1989.
     hence the New Lunar Month of Zul Hajj may start on Wed  6 July 1989.

 ***************************************************************************** 
    Please note that the Islamic dates start from Sundown of a previous day.
 *****************************************************************************



  ISLAMIC GREGORIAN  MOON - MOON - MOON - MOON - MOON        Sun - EARTH 
   YEAR     YEAR  (All times are in UT = Universal Time)
   MONTHS   LUNA.   NEW MOON   MOON-PERIGEE MOON-APOGEE      Sun & EARTH
             NO.  (NOT visible)  (nearest)  (farthest)
                       d  h  m        d  h        d  h         d  h 
   1409     1989

  6 JUMA-II  817  JAN  7 19 22   JAN 10 23   JAN 27 00    JAN  1 22 Perihelion
  7 RAJAB    818  FEB  6 07 37   FEB  7 22   FEB 23 14    
  8 SHABAN   819  MAR  7 18 19   MAR  8 08   MAR 22 18    MAR 20 15 Equinox
  9 RAMADAN  820  APR  6 03 33   APR  5 20   APR 18 21    

 10 SHAWWAL  821  MAY  5 11 46   MAY  4 05   MAY 16 09    
 11 QADAH    822  JUN  3 19 53   JUN  1 05   JUN 13 02    JUN 21 10 Solstice
*12 HAJJ     823  JUL  3 04 59   JUN 28 04   JUL 10 21    JUL  4 12 Aphelion

 *****************************************************************************

  ISLAMIC GREGORIAN  MOON - MOON - MOON - MOON - MOON        Sun - EARTH 
   YEAR     YEAR  (All times are in UT = Universal Time)
   MONTHS   LUNA.   NEW MOON   MOON-PERIGEE MOON-APOGEE      Sun/EARTH
             NO.  (NOT visible)  (nearest)  (farthest)
                       d  h  m        d  h        d  h         d  h 
   1410     1989

  1 MUHARAM  824  AUG  1 16 06   JUL 23 07   AUG  7 15    
  2 SAFR     825  AUG 31 05 44   AUG 19 12   SEP  4 08    SEP 23 01 Equinox
  3 RABI-I   826  SEP 29 21 47   SEP 16 15   OCT  1 20    
  4 RABI-II  827  OCT 29 15 27   OCT 15 01   OCT 28 22    
  5 JUMA-I   828  NOV 28 09 41   NOV 12 13   NOV 25 04    
  6 JUMA-II  829  DEC 28 03 20   DEC 10 23   DEC 22 19    DEC 21 21 Solstice

 *****************************************************************************
    
    Perihelion = Earth Closest to Sun      (Sun  moving FASTEST in sky-Jan  1)
    Equinox    = Earth has Equal Daylight and Darkness      (Mar 20 & Sept 23)
    Solstice   = Sun   apparantly Stationary in Declination 
                       (Maximum of Summer-June 21 OR Minimum of Winter-Dec 21)
    Aphelion   = Earth Farthest from Sun   (Sun  moving SLOWEST in sky-Jul  4)

    Perigee    = Moon  Closest to Earth    (Moon moving FASTEST in sky)
    Apogee     = Moon  Farthest from Earth (Moon moving SLOWEST in sky)
                                                               
 ****************************************************************************
 ****************************************************************************

	  APPROXIMATIONS TO DIRECTION OF KA'BA (MECCA Saudi Arabia)
	  
	In most places of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, an approximation 
	to the direction of KA'BA, to determine the direction of Salat 
	(prayers), can be obtained by noting the direction of your shadow 
	near the time of Sunset.  The direction in which your shadow goes
	is usually a little north of east.  This is the direction in which
	salat can be performed, as an approximation.  This direction changes 
	during the different months of the year but is a good approximation 
	when there is no magnetic compass to determine the exact direction.

 ****************************************************************************

				EID UL ADHA
				***********

	For information regarding the Eid, please contact your local Islamic
	Center or the national organizations:

	1. Islamic Society of North America
	   Tel: (317) 839-1810

	2. Committee for Crescent Observation
	   Tel: (607) 277-6706

 ****************************************************************************

                      QURANIC INJUNCTIONS FOR HAJJ
                      ****************************


   SURA AL-IMRAN (Chapter 3), AYAT (Verse) 97

	... PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOUSE (KABA) IS A DUTY MEN OWE TO ALLAH;
	   THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD THE JOURNEY  ... .

 
   SURA AL-BAQARAH (Chap.2), Ayaat 196-203

	   196. And complete the HAJJ or Umra in the service of ALLAH. ...

  
   SURA HAJJ (PILGRIMAGE) (Chap.22), Ayaat 26-38.

    26. Behold! We gave the site, to Ibrahim (Abraham), of the (Sacred) House,
	(Saying): "Associate not anything (in worship) with Me;
	And sanctify My House for those who compass it round,
	Or stand up, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer).

    27. "And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: ...


		Please also see newsgroup:

			soc.culture.african
			soc.culture.arabic
			soc.culture.turkish

 ****************************************************************************

	Copyright Dr.M.N.Durrani, 1989
	Permission to copy for free distribution is granted to all,
	please do give credit and reference. Thanks
 
 	For further information, please feel free to contact:
 
        Mail:      Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America
  
        Email to:  mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
 
	
 ***************************** End of Document ******************************
-- 
Mohib N Durrani
Big Electric Cat Public UNIX
..!cmcl2!{ccnysci,cucard,hombre}!dasys1!mohib

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #524
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Jul 89 01:27:11 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05169>; Sat, 1 Jul 89 01:06:31 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  1 Jul 89 01:06:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UYf4uFm00Ui3813EFE>;
          Sat,  1 Jul 89 00:54:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.UYf4gDW00UkV8QME4y>;
          Sat,  1 Jul 89 00:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYf4Wgq00UkVQQKk4f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  1 Jul 89 00:29:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #525

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 525

Today's Topics:
	      Voyager 2 Status for 06/27/89 (Forwarded)
		   Tanner to leave NASA (Forwarded)
		 more on Discovery "alien spacecraft"
		 Size limits for rotating Space Ship?
		   Re: Satellite Images - at home!
			   Apollo question
		       private space companies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 00:47:18 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Voyager 2 Status for 06/27/89 (Forwarded)


                  Voyager 2 Status Bulletin   
                        June 27, 1989   
   
        
     Voyager 2 this week received and began executing the   
second load of commands of the observatory phase of the   
Neptune encounter.  The five-week-long command load 
continues imaging and periodic ultraviolet scans of Neptune. 
In late July, the spacecraft cameras will begin photographic
searches for Neptune's uneven ring system and for new 
Neptunian moons that would be undetectable from Earth. 
        
     Efforts on Wednesday, June 28, will focus on a rehearsal
of radio science measurements associated with the 
near-encounter period.  The operations readiness test  
will involve antennas and other ground equipment at the Deep
Space Network complexes, the Very Large Array in Socorro, New
Mexico, Japan's Usuda Radio Telescope and Australia's Parkes
Radio Observatory.  Altogether, 38 antennas on four 
continents will send or receive Voyager 2 telemetry or radio
science data during the Neptune encounter.    
   
     Because the best radio "view" of Voyager and Neptune  
is from Earth's southern hemisphere, the most critical Deep  
Space Network tracking will occur at the Australian site.   
Two of the three largest antennas (one 34-meter and one    
70-meter dish) will be assisted in receiving Voyager's    
signal by the 64-meter Parkes Radio Observatory about  
200 miles away.  During the most important encounter  
period, the huge, super-sensitive antennas will 
simultaneously gather Voyager's faint transmissions, the 
strength of which amounts to only one 10-quadrillionths 
(1/10,000,000,000,000th) of a watt by the time the signal 
strikes the 70-meter antenna surface.  An electronic digital
wristwatch operates at a power level 20 billion times 
greater. 
   
   
   
DISTANCE TO EARTH:   2,663,767,000 miles   
DISTANCE TO NEPTUNE:     52,687,000 miles   
HELIOCENTRIC VELOCITY:   42,209 mph

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 00:44:20 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Tanner to leave NASA (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     June 27, 1989


RELEASE:  89-103


TANNER TO LEAVE NASA

     E. Ray Tanner, Deputy Director, Space Station Freedom 
Program and Operations, announced today he plans to retire from 
NASA effective July 15, 1989.  

     Dr. William B. Lenoir, Associate Administrator for Space 
Station named Jim Sisson as acting Deputy Director.  Sisson 
currently serves as Deputy Program Manager for the Space Station 
Freedom Program Office located in Reston, Va., a position he has 
held since November 1986.  

     Prior to coming to NASA Headquarters, Sisson held key 
management posts at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 
Ala., where he was for 24 years, including Manager of the 
Tethered Satellite System Project, Manager of the Shuttle 
Projects Office's Engineering and Major Test Management Office 
and Chief Engineer and later Manager of the Lunar Roving Vehicle 
Project.  He received a bachelors degree in aeronautical 
engineering in 1958 from Oklahoma University, and studied atomic 
and nuclear physics at the University of Alabama.

     Tanner came to the Washington area last December to head the 
Space Station Freedom Program Office in Reston, Va.  Prior to 
that, Tanner was Manager of the Space Station Projects Office at 
the Marshall Center which is one of four major work packages 
involved in the design, test and operation of the Freedom Space 
Station, a post he had held since August 1988.  

     Tanner joined NASA and the Marshall center in 1960.  He held 
various key management positions, including chief engineer for 
the Spacelab program from 1979 until 1983, and Deputy Manager of 
the Spacelab Program Office from 1983 until 1986.  He was named 
Associate Director for Space Systems in the Science and 
Engineering Directorate in December 1986.

     He was promoted to Deputy Director for Space Systems in that 
directorate where he was responsible for assuring engineering 
adequacy of the Space Station, Hubble Space Telescope, Advanced 
X-Ray Astrophysics Facility, payloads integrated into the 
Spacelab orbital laboratory and other payloads assigned to 
Marshall.

     Prior to joining NASA, Tanner worked in the flight control 
division, Army Ballistic Missile Agency, Redstone Arsenal.  He 
was born in Decatur, Ala., in 1934 and received a bachelor of 
science degree in mathematics from Athens College, Ala., in 
1965.  He has received numerous NASA awards, including the NASA 
Exceptional Service Medal in 1983.

     Tanner is married to the former Mary Zinsmeister of Cullman, 
Ala.  They have three children.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 22:43:44 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!orca!tolkien.WV.TEK.COM!keithr@uunet.uu.net
Subject: more on Discovery "alien spacecraft"

The Quarterly Report (1st Quarter 1989) of the Fund for UFO 
Research includes this item:

"In mid-March, the Executive Committee was informed that a 
Baltimore resident had recorded a very provocative statement made 
during a 'ham' radio rebroadcast of the communications between the 
space shuttle Discovery and Houston ground control.  The statement 
as recorded was as follows: 'Uh, Houston, this is Discovery.  We still 
have that alien spacecraft under (observance?).'  To this there was 
no response from Houston.  (The last word is a bit ambiguous, but the 
other words -- including 'alien spacecraft' are completely clear.)  
Subsequent investigations showed that the hams were 
rebroadcasting 'raw' communications from the spacecraft, rather 
than communications which had been passed first through Houston 
control.  The so-called 'NASA select' audio channel, which was 
transmitted by Houston to the Press and other interested news 
media, *does not include this statement*.

This audio tape initiated a search for confirmation that it had, in 
fact, come from the spacecraft [Discovery, of course, :-)] and was 
not some bizarre hoax by a ham radio operator who transmitted on 
the same frequency as the Goddard ham station (WA3NAN).  The Fund 
immediately arranged for a voice analysis to determine if the 
transmission was authentic and if so, which astronaut made the 
statement.  At this writing, the analysis was inconclusive."

If anyone on the net can add any substantive information to help us 
get to the bottom of this probable hoax, please email or post to the net.  
(CSICOPers and fanatic skeptics: please don't waste net bandwidth 
with more gratuitous UFO ridicule, which only confirms your 
ignorance of the UFO literature.)

Thanks in advance for any substantive responses.


-Keith Rowell, Tektronix, Wilsonville, OR   keithr@orca.WV.TEK.COM

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 06:39:15 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!wcc!tom@humu.nosc.mil  (Tom Evans)
Subject: Size limits for rotating Space Ship?

At a lecture I went to a year ago, a graph was shown giving the size
limits for a space station providing artificial gravity by rotation.
The max. size limit is due to material strength (two capsules on a
rope).  The min. size limit is due to coriolis effects in the inner ear.

There were other limits (the graph looked like a metallurgical phase
diagram). Does anybody know the real figures please?

Please post or Cc: me - this group is too popular.

			    ---------
Tom Evans  tom@wcc.oz		|
Webster Computer Corp P/L	| "The concept of my
1270 Ferntree Gully Rd		|  existence is an
Scoresby VIC 3179    Australia	|  approximation"
Australia			|
61-3-764-1100  FAX ...764-1179	|      D. Conway

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 12:09:31 GMT
From: mcvax!euroies!kom!gnugent@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Satellite Images - at home!

In article <53*kerry@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, kerry@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kerry Stevenson) writes:
> Recently, I read a book about amateur radio which told me all about radio, and
> mentioned briefly the concept of listening in on signals transmitted from 
> various type of earth orbiting satellites.  Although this in itself is not too
> difficult, the book mentioned that some individuals have managed to capture
> video signals, from weather satellites for example, and using their home 
> computer systems have actually printed out images.  Also, a recent article in
> Spaceflight detailed the impressive setup owned by a Briton, who had managed
> to print out oceanic images from the Soviet Okean satellite.  This topic is
> of some interest to me and I have the following questions:
>  
> - Is this a common activity, or is it done by just a few deranged people?
> - What types of satellites are popular for capturing images?
> - What equipment (other than computing hardware) is required?
> - Are there legalities involved? e.g. are SPOT images encoded?
> - Most importantly, are there any referenes, official or otherwise which 
>   can be used to find out more detail?
> 

I won't say its a common hobby, but quite a few people do pursue it. I am
actually in Dublin (Ireland), and I know of only three or four others in the
country who can receive pictures from weather satellites. It is more common in
the UK.

The most popular satellites are NOAA 9, 10 and 11 (USA); the Meteor, Cosmos and
Okean series (USSR), and the Meteosat series of geosynchronous satellites.
The NOAAs transmit visible-light and infra-red pictures, and the Meteors
transmit visible-light pictures. The Okean satellite sometimes transmits radar
images, but tends to be somewhat intermittent. Meteosat transmits regularly
once an hour, but the picture format changes. Visible-light and infra-red
images of the helisphere below the satellite, or selected sections are
broadcast at various times during the day. The meteosat images are the only
ones which have continental outlines superimposed on the images.

To receive images from satellites, the first piece of equipment you require is
a radio receiver which can receive in the 136-138MHz range. Next you need some
form of decoder which feeds the signal into either a framestore or a computer
for subsequent storage/display. A simple crossed-dipole aerial is all you need
to catch the signal. This basic setup allows you to receive transmissions from
the polar orbiting satellites, but not Meteosat. Since Meteosat transmits at
1690GHz, a downconverter is needed along with a dish aerial and a pre-amp to
boost the signal.

My current kit regularly receives/displays weather pictures from the NOAA
series of satellites. I will shortly be upgrading it so I can display images
from the Russian satellites. The equipment I assembled myself, from electronic
kits supplied by a UK company.

A license is required for receiving pictures from the NOAA satellites, but this
is a mere formality.

The only organisation I know of who are dedicated to weather satellite picture
reception are the Remote Imaging Group in the UK. They also supply a range of
equipment at reasonable prices. They can probably put you in touch with someone
closer to home. The person to contact is:

Phil Seaford, 14 Nevis Close, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire LU7 7XD, England.
(Phil is the Secretary of the Remote Imaging Group, and Editor of the groups
quarterly Newsletter.)

---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
 Gary Nugent,              | Internet:   gnugent@vms.eurokom.ie
 System Support Specialist,| EARN/Bitnet:gnugent@vms.eurokom.ie
 EuroKom,                  | uucp:       gnugent%vms.eurokom.ie@euroies.uucp
 University College Dublin,| EuroKom:    gary_nugent@eurokom.ie
 Dublin 4,                 | Janet:      gnugent%vms.eurokom.ie@uk.ac.earn-relay
 Ireland.                  | PSImail:    PSI%027243159000637::GNUGENT    
---------------------------+
"Astronomers love watching | Phone:      +353.1.697890
 heavenly bodies."         | Telex:      (0500) 91178 UCD EI
---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 19:45:07 GMT
From: pjm@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Phillip MacQueen)
Subject: Apollo question


  Did any of the astronauts ever see the Apollo command/service module while
they were on the lunar surface?  This was probably possible because of the
dark daytime sky, and the large size, high reflectivity and low altitude of
the orbiting spacecraft.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 19:53:38 GMT
From: ccncsu!handel.colostate.edu!bogartc@boulder.colorado.edu  (Chris Bogart)
Subject: private space companies

I made the following request a while back:
> 
>    I understand there are, or have been, several private corporations working
> on their own launch vehicles, under a loosening of restrictions on non-NASA
> launches.  Does anyone know if any of these comanies still exist?  Please
> reply by e-mail and I'll post a summary of responses I get.
>    I'm interested more in for-profit companies intending to put up
> communication satellites or whatever, than in futurist groups like the L-5
> society.  Thanks for your help,

Here are the (edited) responses I got:

-----
From: Dave Newkirk, att!ihlpm!dcn

AMROC  - has completed most of its testing and is preparing
         for its first paying customer launch in July. 
Third Millenium - still in the design process
SSI - has already done some suborbital launches using readily available
      solid boosters, and is planning more.
Orbital Systems

-----
From: argosy!kevin@decwrl.dec.com (Kevin Van Horn)

Yes.  Here are the ones I know about.  They are all developing launchers for
small (~1000 lb.) payloads, though some of them plan to also do larger
launchers.

Pacific American Launch Systems
  Developing the Liberty I launcher.  They have been built and tested at least
  one of the stages, and the Air Force is purchasing their test data from
  them.

Space Services Inc.
  Recently launched a suborbital microgravity experiment for a paying customer.

E-Prime
  I believe they plan on adapting MX boosters for commercial use.

American Rocket Co.
  Developing a hybrid rocket (solid fuel with a liquid oxidizer).  Around
  December they had completed a series of tests culminating in a full-duration
  burn of their basic motor.

Hercules - Orbital Sciences Corp.
  These two established companies are collaborating to build the Pegasus,
  a small launcher which is launched by dropping it from an airplane.  It
  has small wings so that it can take off nearly horizontally, spending its
  effort on attaining orbital velocity instead of on just staying off the
  ground.  I believe they have a launch this summer.

-----
From: boulder!utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Bob Pendleton)

OSC/Hercules. Building the Pegasus air launched vehicle. First launch
should be in about 2 months. 2 of the 3 stages have been static test
fired.

-----
From: Sylvia Jacyno   BITNET:  SJACYNO@UGA

[E'Prime info:]
  To get business plan and buying info:  (approx 18 cents/shr in 3/89)
       Gregg Sprigg
       First Eagle Inc, Denver, Col.
       1-800-525-4348

  From glossy souvenir brochure of November 88 launch:
       E'Prime Aerospace Corp
       PO Box 792
       Titusville, Fl 32781-0792
       phone   407-269-0900

 people you might contact (brief biographies in business plan!)
      Jack Dowling      staff
      Jim Mizell        publicity
      Rosie Bracewell   secretary
      Ed Bretzius       tech services manager
      Philip Chien      computer services

-----
Thanks to all the people who responded!

Chris Bogart      bogartc@handel.cs.colostate.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #525
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Jul 89 06:09:19 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00486>; Sat, 1 Jul 89 05:21:52 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  1 Jul 89 05:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UYf7B8W00UkT81kk8x>;
          Sat,  1 Jul 89 03:31:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.oYf73dC00UkVEQd05f>;
          Sat,  1 Jul 89 03:21:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8Yf70b600UkVIQbU4h@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  1 Jul 89 03:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #526

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 526

Today's Topics:
		     Re: [Russians] Lost in Space
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
	    Astronaut Stanley Griggs dies in plane crash.
			     Re: Question
Re: Excerpts From Acting Administrator Truly's remarks at the National Space Outlook Conference (Forwarded)
			   new space goals
	       Re: Apollo program benefits (Forwarded)
		   Re: Satellite Images - at home!
				(none)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #516
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 16:33:10 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@handies.ucar.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: [Russians] Lost in Space

The more knowledgeable Soviet-space analysts -- Oberg, Bozlee, and Vick,
among others -- generally dismiss this sort of thing as baseless nonsense.
Despite Soviet secretiveness, the membership of the cosmonaut corps and
how it changed with time is fairly well known; there are no unaccounted-for
cosmonauts.  For a while there were, but it turns out that they left the
program in quite mundane ways, mostly plane crashes (still the leading
cause of death among US astronauts) and medical problems, with one or two
major disciplinary infractions thrown in.  Claims of secret Soviet space
failures do not appear to have any solid evidence behind them.

(What they do have behind them, quite possibly, is a deep-seated wish to
show the Soviet program as incompetent and wasteful of human life.  As
compared to the awe-inspiring competence and caution of the US program, of
course. :-( )
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 08:45:38 GMT
From: att!occrsh!uokmax!metnet!p3.f30.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Greg.Trotter@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In an article of <23 Jun 89 17:00:37 GMT>, preacher@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Williams) writes:

 >Oh the horrors of it all, embarassed to fly in a DC-3.

And a large bottle of Pepto to go, please!

                                        - greg

-------
Disclaimer: I'm right, you're wrong.



--  
Greg Trotter - via FidoNet node 1:147/10
UUCP: ...!uokmax!metnet!30.3!Greg.Trotter
INTERNET: Greg.Trotter@p3.f30.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 23:38:00 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Astronaut Stanley Griggs dies in plane crash.


         Astronaut Stanley David Griggs died when his light plane crashed
    while he was possibly performing stunt maneuvers on June 18, 1989.
    Griggs, who joined the astronaut corps in August 1978, was scheduled
    to pilot the STS-33 mission on DISCOVERY for this fall.  His only space
    mission was on Space Shuttle 51D on April 12, 1985 on DISCOVERY.  He 
    was a mission specialist on that mission, which included U.S. Senator 
    Jake Garn. 

         Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		      or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		      or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com
    
               N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 07:37:23 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!basser!jaa@humu.nosc.mil  (James Ashton)
Subject: Re: Question

In article <Added.8Ydv=O200UkTIEXE8R@andrew.cmu.edu> COLANGELO@CTSTATEU.BITNET ("Asst. Dir. Of Three: The Magic Number") writes:
>I am building a gravitational/orbital simulator and need positional/velocity
>data on the large bodies of our system.
>'Large' is kind of subjective, just planets would be O.K.
>Titan, Europa, other big Jovians and Saturnians would be great, heck we even
>have data on the Uranian and Neptunian systems now.

You are looking for `The Astronomical Almanac' jointly published annually
in both the U.K. and the U.S..  In the U.S. it comes from the USNO and
you should be able to find copies in every university library where
astronomy is taught.  It's the definitive source for this kind of data.
>From memory there is a section which gives heliocentric coordinates
and velocities for all the planets in cartesian form.  For multiple
dates, look in several successive year's AA.  Do the satellites as
separate problems from a planet centered point of view.  Starting
conditions for these will be harder to come by:  you'll have to
calculate them yourself from orbital data in another form I think.

>Seems simple enough.  Although the N-squared efficiency algorithm tends to clog
>up a VAX 8650 completely for sufficiently large numbers of bodies, 10 or even
>50 bodies is no sweat.  Hopefully this is all that's required to model our
>system accurately, however, with all their finding out about chaotic phenomenon
>in orbits, who knows.

In principle it is simple but unless you know some numerical integration
theory, watch out.  Up until a few years ago, the AA was based on other
methods for most objects but recently I understand it has changed to
numerical integration almost entirely.  Accordingly a new `Explanatory
Supplement' has been in preparation for some years which I eagerly
await.  You may find the old `Explanatory Supplement' useful and it
should be found in the same places as the AA.

>I would imagine JPL uses something like this to figure out where their probes
>are going, maybe someone there could help.

I believe JPL is indeed the place where many of the calculations for the
AA are done.  Good luck.

						James Ashton.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 06:14:30 GMT
From: u571135682ea@deneb.ucdavis.edu  (Gandalf the Grey)
Subject: Re: Excerpts From Acting Administrator Truly's remarks at the National Space Outlook Conference (Forwarded)

In article <14409@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
... [stuff deleted] ...
>Now look at what our President saw in his challenge.  He saw *excitement*
>(remember when our plans were exciting?  Not the bare fact of orbit,
>which can't help but thrill, but rather what we were *doing* with it?),
>he saw *difficulty*, and he was totally unafraid to say that he saw
>*expense* involved.
>
... [more stuff deleted] ...
>Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
>    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

    I applaud your proposal to set ourselves the goal of a base on
Mars by 2040, although I don't think it's reasonable next step (why
try to work out the bugs of living in an esentially hostile
environment when it takes help anywhere from months to years to get
there, why not get the bugs worked out on the moon first?)

  But I would cation against having excitement and adventure as the
only major motivating force.  James Burke, technological historian, in
the concluding show of his television series _Connections_, talked
about the apollo mission.  He talked about the time he covered the
apollo 11 liftoff. He said, "It was an emotional day for all of us, I
won't forget it!  The problem is that that rocket took off as much on
euphoria as rocket fuel.  The public saw it as a great adventure, and
how many great adventures are you willing to pay for when the plot is
always the same? And so, after 7 missions, the program was canceled--
but before you say, 'good, waste of money', in the same period of
time, american women spent the same amount on cosmetics.  It was lack
of understanding of the scientific reasons behind apollo that killed
it." (I'm did my best to recall that from memory, but I may not have
gotten it exactly)  There are many dangers with hoping for euphoria to
carry you all the way to Mars and 2040.
  If any goals are to be set, they have to be closer than either Mars
or 2040. (Even I will be an old man of 72 by the time I see 2040, if I
ever do) and the public should be at least partially what we hope to
learn by this little adventure, and how we plan to learn it.
 
 -- Gandalf
    (a.k.a. Mitch Patenaude)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 16:51:04 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: new space goals

In article <14409@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>LET'S BUILD A PAIR OF MARS STATIONS, IN ORBIT AND ON THE SURFACE, BY 2040.

You realize, I hope, that that's FIFTY YEARS away, and Apollo only took ten.
If I was trying to set an ambitious goal, I'd make it initial deployment
in 2001 and full operation by 2005.  A determined effort ought to be able
to get the necessary hardware development done in a decade, even starting
from the current mess.

>Let's do it cooperatively -- US, USSR, EEC, Japan, India, Israel, Indonesia
>et cetera...

Let's see...  The USSR does the heavylift boosters and nuclear-electric
space propulsion, since they already have most of that done or in the
works.  Japan does the electronics, of course.  ESA builds the crew
quarters, based on Spacelab experience.  The US does... um... well...
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 18:58:48 GMT
From: sei!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Apollo program benefits (Forwarded)

In article <27619@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>                     APOLLO PROGRAM BENEFITS
...
>     "We have brought back rocks, and I think its a fair trade. 
>For just as the Rosetta Stone revealed the language of ancient 
>Egypt, so may these rocks unlock the mystery of the origin of the 
>moon and indeed, even of our Earth and solar system."

oh, dear... wasn't the Rosetta Stone an unanticipated spinoff
from a military venture?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 89 19:55:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Satellite Images - at home!


In article <931@sering.cwi.nl> fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) writes:
>There was a posting very recently on the net (schematics and software)
>that used an average Atari computer to receive satpics.

Henry Spencer replies:
>Please, folks, if you post something like this, give a more specific reference
>than "on the net".

OK, it was posted on rec.ham-radio by watmath!mcvax!mike; I don't
recall the date of the original post, as it's in the paper archives
and not the magnetic ones, and I don't have the time to dig it out.

Eric Roskos (roskos@cs.ida.org) made a similar posting, including a
MacWrite schematic, also in rec.ham-radio; his posting appeared here
on 9 April, with the header slightly munged so I don't have the actual
poting date.

Kevin

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 09:26:00 GMT
From: rpitsmts!forumexp@itsgw.rpi.edu, Kasprzak@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: (none)


   re: Soviets killed/lost in space
 
    From what I've read, only the Soyuz 1 and 11 flights were 
   actual incidences of cosmonauts being killed in spaceflight
   accidents. The parachute on Soyuz 1 failed to open and there
   was some sort of leak in the hatch mechanism of Soyuz 11 which
   resulted in the cosmonauts asphyxiating before re-entry. These
   are well-documented and were not covered up. This being the 
   case, I don't think any of those "missing" Vostok or Voskhod
   missions are very likely. 
    But the people who put together that fact sheet had to have 
   gotten their stories from somewheres (ie, there might be a 
   grain of truth to this). What are the sources of this information?
   Has glasnost opened up some of the old Soviet space files (which
   probably contain some very interesting information, even if 
   they aren't covering up any deaths, like the details of their
   proposed moon mission)? I used to know a lot about early space
   missions but I'd lost interest a few years back. I may do a bit
   of independent research into this if someone can point me in 
   the right direction.
 
    Jim Kasprzak  "This isn't a real .signature, just a clever imitation."
    userfe0u@rpitsmts.bitnet   or   kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1989 00:30-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #516

> time.  If I don't do a good job, I won't be in business very 
> long.  That same simplicity should guide your future commercial 
> launch services procurements!"  (Anonymous entreprenuerial launch 
> service spokesman.)

Sounds an awful lot like George to me!!!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #526
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Jul 89 07:42:00 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA01375>; Sat, 1 Jul 89 05:51:18 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  1 Jul 89 05:51:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYf8uvm00UkT41yE5H>;
          Sat,  1 Jul 89 05:28:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.kYf8n=W00UkVQQn04I>;
          Sat,  1 Jul 89 05:20:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8Yf8kaK00UkVMQlU4r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  1 Jul 89 05:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #527

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 527

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Satellite Images - at home!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 20:34:19 GMT
From: rochester!rit!cci632!ccicpg!paulm@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (tmp Paul Moreau usenet acct)
Subject: Re: Satellite Images - at home!


Here is the document, schematic, and code to receive pictures for an
Atari ST


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                2400HZ Crystal phase lock Weather Satellite decoder
                             By Mike Gore April 1988
Part 1 of 3


	This posting is broken into 3 parts.  Part 1 contains a functional 
outline of the decoder, software overview and some information of interest 
on the NOAA and Meteor weather satellites. Part 2 contains the decoder 
diagram in ascii text format. Part 3 contains some functional test
software written for the ATARI ST. 


	The NOAA and Meteor weather satellites transmit images of the Earth
using an APT format. This format is a 120 lines (Meteor) or 240 line (Noaa) 
per minute encoded with a 2400HZ AM audio signal that is transmitted on a FM 
modulated VHF downlink. Frequencies of interest are 137.5MHZ, 137.620MHZ for 
NOAA and 137.300MHZ, 137.400MHZ and 137.850MHZ for the soviet Meteor satellites.
The receiver bandwidth must be 30KHZ or more for good results. Basically
the satellites scan the Earth a right angles to their orbit with a mirror that 
is directed to a photo detector. The light reaching the detector alters the 
2400HZ  carrier amplitude which in turn affects the bandwidth or spread of
of the FM downlink at a given moment. The NOAA craft transmit both visual
and IR images where the Meteor crafts only send visual band images.
Since my initial posting on this subject, about 1 month ago, I happened across 
the 1987 ARRL handbook and found that it has some good references for this 
subject along with a functional decoder. My decoder is a mix of several ideas 
all in mixed into one with it's main feature being a rather rather novel 
demodulator design.


Circuit description:

	The demodulator uses a bandpass network built of 2 high and 2 low pass
filters. The stop bands are currently 1200HZ and 3600HZ however this value
was somewhat a matter of experiment on my part. The filter feeds a full wave
active rectifier that can be balanced with a 10K variable resistor. The
rectifier part is similar in form to that found in several National Linear 
AP Notes yet I liked the version in the 1987 ARRL handbook enough that
I used theirs. What follows the full wave rectifier is a resetable integrator
followed by a sample hold. The analog switches are made by GE Intersel part
number is DG201. The op amps are TL082 dual or TL084 quad op amps however you
can use LF353's as well. I chose to use the resetable integrator rather
then a low pass filter after the rectifier in order to try to push the 
overall bandwidth of the system to the limit. The results are very good,
the main advantage being that aliasing errors are virtually gone 
because the integration period is synced with the 2400 AM carrier. The 
integrator may be be run at half cycle intervals however the circuit
described here is wired for 1 cycle samples. In order to phase lock
the system clock with the 2400HZ AM carrier I chose a Crystal VXO design.
Phase locking is not really required if one is willing to live with sample
position aliasing. - This would normally be noticed in a feature in the image 
that is at right angles to the scan path as a slow drift of one pixel as
a function of the phase error of the sample. The Sample error would normally
change as a function of doppler shift and or any drifting in the local system 
clock without phase locking. I found that since NOAA scans at 240 lines per 
minute with two images interleaved on alternate scans there isn't much 
bandwidth left over such that one might be tempted to toss some away on sample 
errors.  I should note that the Meteor satellites run their carrier slightly 
off 2400HZ and my system can not phase lock on their carrier - in fact there 
doesn't seem to be a strict 1 to 1 relationship between carrier frequency and
scan rate as is the case with NOAA. The loss of lock still gives good
images - they just are not the best possible. With NOAA the 2400HZ
signal is 1 to 1 mapped to the scan rate so it is possible to
use it rather then the 7 cycle 1200 HZ burst that is modulated on the
2400 HZ carrier to keep frame sync. Meteor use a 300 HZ 7 cycle burst.
I chose not to use the 7 cycle sync markers in favor of a manual
software offset adjustment in the display program. The programs
are broken into two sections - data collection and data display.
The VXO uses a standard XOR phase comparator for locking yet there is no loop 
filter needed. It works out that the phase jitter is to small to even think 
about with an 8bit A/D. Basically the XOR gate forces the 2400 divided
reference clock to be roughly 90 degrees out of phase with the downlink
2400HZ carrier. The crystal I used is series tuned such that when the analog
switch closes the frequency runs too low and when it is open it runs too high.
The 20pf cap across the switch adds to the switch capacitance to give
a minimal value to keep the oscillator stable. The idea is to weight the
two values of frequency with the switch open and then closed such that
it averages to 2457600 MHZ and with about +/- 150HZ swing. The swing
must at least be in excess of the worst case doppler shift - the higher
the value the faster the lock but with a chance of larger phase errors
as a function of noise. This circuit works very well at locking on a
signal almost hidden in noise much unlike what one would expect with
a simple analog PLL. Of course a noisy signal is of no real value
but even noise bursts can cause loss of sync with a normal non VXO analog PLL 
design. 

	The software is very crude and was patched together from odd
bit's of code I wrote for other things. It was hacked to test hardware
that changed just about every day so little attempt was made to clean
it up in however it is actually functional. My only intent for including
it here in this form is for testing and feedback on the hardware. I plan
to actually write a 'real' display/collection program rather soon.
[ That will be of course just to show anyone with doubts that - yes I 
  actually can program dispite my worst efforts here :-)! ]

Anyway, the test programs are 'documented' as follows:

The data collection program takes 1 argument which is simply the file name 
to save the collected data with. The display program takes no arguments but 
is command driven. The programs are run from the Mark Williams shell - I
should mention that I used the MW C complier to write this code. The commands 
are:

H min max
	- Sets the values to be black and white where min and max are
	 number integer values bound by 0 and 255. The program will then 
         attempt to expand the range of these values as a crude form of
         contrast enhancement. This really should be histograms equalization
	 since all the data is at hand - but hey this is a hack program
         remember ? :-)

D offset direction
	- Sets the display offset and direction where offset is a value
          between 0 and 1199 and direction is either 1 for north to
          south passes or -1 for south to north passes.
h
	- Dumps a histogram of the in memory window selected by the D
	  command
d
	- displays the in memory window set by the D command and
          some contrast maps and various stuff - Press return to exit 
	  this display

r file line-skip
	- reads a file where line-skip is the number of scan lines
	  to skip into the file. Offset is remembered across reads.

w file
	- writes a Dagas format file from the in memory copy

A file
	- writes an old format AIM file

W file  - writes a raw 8 bit image file


q	- quit

--
The following are symbols used for the diagram in part 2 of 3


Labels:
        (round braces)

Traces:

     (Corner)    +----O  (Main signal I/O or control)
                 |
 (Connection)    o


Resistor:
        100 = 100 ohms
        4K7 = 4700 ohms
        v10K = 10000 ohms variable

Capacitor:
        3n3 = 3.3 nanofarad

Diode:
            -I<-             ->I-
     (Cathode)(Anode)   (Anode)(Cathode)

FET:
        o       (Drain)
        D        
      oG        (Gate)
        S
        o        (Source)

Inductor:

        --44mH--

Crystal:

        -Y-

Op Amp:

    (-In) o-
           OPo (Out)
    (+In) o+

Analog switch:

         (Control)

            O
 (In/Out)  oXo   (In/Out)

NAND gate:
    (IN 1)  o
            NANDo  (OUT)
    (IN 2)  o

XOR gate:
    (IN 1)  o
            XORo  (OUT)
    (IN 2)  o



                2400HZ Crystal phase lock Weather Satellite decoder
                             By Mike Gore April 1988
Part 2 of 3


	See part 1 for a description of the the symbols used
        in this diagram and a function outline.


Analog section:


Power in                

(+12)---100---o---------O (+12 to all OP amps)
             +|
             47uf
              |
(GND)---------o----o----O (AGND and DGND) - AGND is to be tied to DGND here
             +|    |
             47uf  |
              |    |
(-12)---100---o---------O (-12 to all OP amps)
                   !
                   |
                  47uf
                  +|
(+5)---------------o----O (Logic +5)



               +----13K------+
               |             |      +-----13K-----+
  (IN)  O--3n3-o-3n3-o--o-   |      |             |
                     |   OPo-o--13K-o-13K-o--o-   |
                     |  o+   |            |   OPo-o---+
(AGND)  O--+         |  |   27K           |  o+   |   |
           |        13K |    |            |  |   27K  |
           |         |  +----o           10n |    |   |
           |         |       |            |  +----o   |
           |         |      47K           |       |   |
           |         |       |            |      47K  |
           |         |       |            |       |   |
     +-----o---------o-------o------------o-------o   |
     |                                                |
     |                                                |
     |   +--------------------------------------------+
     |   |
     |   |     +-----13K-----+
     |   |     |             |      +-----13K-----+
     |   +-3n3-o-3n3-o--o-   |      |             |
     |               |   OPo-o--13K-o-13K-o--o-   |
     |               |  o+   |            |   OPo-o---+
     |               |  |   27K           |  o+   |   |
     |              13K |    |            |  |   27K  |
     |               |  +----o           10n |    |   |
     |               |       |            |  +----o   |
     |               |      47K           |       |   |
     |               |       |            |      47K  |
     |               |       |            |       |   |
     o---------------o-------o------------o-------o   |
     |                                                |
     |                                                |
     |                                                |
     |   +--------------------------------------------+
     |   |
     |   |
     |   |             +-4K7-o-v10K-o-10K-+
     |   |             |            |     |
     |   |       +-10K-o-I<-+       |     | (IN1)
     |   |       |          |       |     |
     |   |       o-10K-o->I-o       o-    |   O
     |   |       |     |    |        OPo--o--oXo----o
     |   |       |     o----|-------o+              |
     |   |       |     |    |                       |
     |   +---10K-o-    |    |                       |
     |            OPo--|----o-                      |
     |           o+    |     OPo--1K-o----O (PHASE) |
     |           |     |    o+       |              |
     |          10K   10K   |   +->I-o->I-O (+5)    |
     |           |     |    |   |                   |
     o-----------o-----o----o---o                   |
     |                                              |
     |                                              |
     |   -------------------------------------------+
     |   |
     |   |                    +-------+
     |   |        (IN4) (IN3) |       |
     |   |                    +-o-    |
     |   |          O     O      OPo--o--4K7--O (VID)
     |   |       +-oXo-o-oXo-o--o+
     |   |       |     |     |              +-O (AGND)
     |   |       o-3n3-o     |              |
     |   |       |     |     |              |
     | v10K--10K-o-    |    n15             |
     |   |        OPo--o     |              |
     |   |       o+          |              |
     |   |       |           |              |
     o---o-------o-----------o--------------+
     |                       |
     |                      10n
     |                       |
     |                       o---100---O (+12)
     |                       D
     |           +--o---o--oG  (MPF102)
     |           |  |   |    S
     |           |  |   |    o
     | 2.4576MHZ Y  |   |    |
     |           |  |  n15   |
     |           |  |   |    |
     |        +--o 220K |    |
     |        |  |  |   o----o--n47--O (CLOCK)
     |        o  |  |   |    |
     | (IN2) OX 20p | 44mH  n15    +-O (AGND)
     |        o  |  |   |    |     |
     |        |  |  |   |    |     |
     o--------o--o--o---o----o-----o


Digital Section:



(+5) O-------------------o---------------o
                         |               |
              Mc14020    |    74ls164    |
             =========   |   =========   |
             I    VccI16-o--7IClr VccI14-o
             I       I       I       I   |
             I       I 9----8I>    QaI 3---------------1o
(CLOCK) O--10I>      I       I     QbI 4-----12o        NANDo 3---O (IN3)
             I       I       I       I   |     XORo11--2o
             I       I14o-o-1IA      I   +---13o
             I       I  | +-2IB      I   |
             I       I  |    I     QcI 4---------------4o
             I       I  |    I     QdI 5------9o        NANDo 6-o-O (IN4)
             I       I  |    I       I   |     XORo 8--5o        |
             I       I  |    I       I   +---10o                 |
             I       I  |    I       I                           |
         +-11IClr    I  |    I       I               +-----------+
         o--8IGnd    I  | +-7IGnd    I               |
         |   =========  | |  =========               o--9o
         |              | |                          |   NANDo 8---O (IN1)
         |              | |                          o-10o
         |              | |
(DGND)---o----------------o
                        |
                        |
                        o------------O (A/D Clock)
                        |
                        +----2o
                              XORo---O (IN2)
                (PHASE) O----1o

A/D Sect|on:



                    ADC0809
                ===============
         +----12IVref+        I
         |      I             I
        100     I             I            DB25 Atar| pr|nter port
         |      I             I             ... set to *|nput* mode 
(+5)-----o----11IVcc        D0I17-----O  2
         |     9IOE         D1I14-----O  3
         |      I           D2I15-----O  4
(IN1)-------o--6IStart      D3I 8-----O  5
         |  +-22IAle        D4I18-----O  6
         |      I           D5I19-----O  7
(VID)---------26IIN0        D6I20-----O  8
         |      I           D7I21-----O  9
       + |      I             I
       47uf     I             I
         |      I          EOCI 7-----O 11
         |      I             I
         o----25IA            I    o--O 18
         o----24IB            I    o--O 19
         o----23IC            I    o--O 20
         |      I             I    o--O 21
         |      I             I    o--O 22
         o----16IVref-        I    o--O 23
         |      I             I    o--O 24
         |      I             I    o--O 25
         o----13IGND          I    |
         |      I             I    |
         |      ===============    |
         |                         |
(DGND) O-o-------------------------o
(AGND)



This file includes three files: Makefile, get.c, disp.c

----------------------------------- Makefile
CFLAGS= -V
OBJS=

disp:    disp.o $(OBJS)
          cc $(CFLAGS) disp.o $(OBJS) -o disp.prg

disp.o:   disp.c
          cc -c $(CFLAGS) disp.c

get:    get.o $(OBJS)
          cc $(CFLAGS) get.o $(OBJS) setrte.s -o get.prg

get.o:   get.c
          cc -c $(CFLAGS) get.c

----------------------------------- get.c ---

#include "osbind.h"

#define EXT

#define VSIZE 2400
#define HSIZE 1200
#define VMEM (VSIZE*12)

#define setres(a)   ( *((char *) 0xff8260L) = (int) (a)) 
#define getres()   ( *((char *) 0xff8260L) & 0xff)
#define extsync()   ( *((char *) 0xff820aL) = (1) )
#define intsync()   ( *((char *) 0xff820aL) = (0) )
#define giport(a)   ( *((char *) 0xff8800L) = (a) )
#define giwrite(a)  ( *((char *) 0xff8802L) = (a) )
#define giread()    ( *((unsigned char *) 0xff8800L) )
#define strobeon()  ( giport(14), giwrite(giread() | 0x20) )
#define strobeoff() ( giport(14), giwrite(giread() & ~0x20) )
#define stat()      ( *((char *) 0xfffa01L) )
#define setcol(a,b) ( *((int *) (0xff8240L+((int)(a)<<1)) ) = (int) (b) )


long save_ssp;
unsigned char *mptr;
unsigned int Vsum = 0;
unsigned int Vsize = 0L;
unsigned int Vhead = 0L;
unsigned int Vtail = 0L;
int Verror = 0;
int Vcnt = 0;

unsigned char Vbuff[HSIZE+1];

void extstrobe()
{
     setrte();

     if(Vsize < VMEM) {
               giport(15);
               mptr[Vhead++] = giread();
               if(Vhead >= VMEM)
                    Vhead = 0;
               Vsize++;
     }
     else {
          Verror = 1;
     }
     *((char *) 0xfffa11L) &= ~0x01;
}



void timetick()
{
     setrte();

      if(++Vcnt >= 2) {
          if(Vsize < VMEM) {
                    mptr[Vhead++] = Vsum>>1;
                    if(Vhead >= VMEM)
                         Vhead = 0;
                    Vsize++;
          }
          else {
               Verror = 1;
          }
         Vcnt = 0;
           Vsum = 0;
     }
     giport(15);
     Vsum += giread();
     strobeoff();
     strobeon();
     *((char *) 0xfffa0fL) &= ~0x20;
}


main(argc,argv)
int argc; char *argv[];
{
     register unsigned char *ptr1, *ptr2;
     register int i;
     long          *vecp = (long *) 0x100L;
     long          oldvec = 0L;
     unsigned int oldmask = 0;
     
     int fp;

     if(argc < 2) {
          printf("Usage: vmain OUTfile\n");
          exit(1);
     }

     if((fp=creat(argv[1],1)) < 0) {
          printf("Can't open: %s\n",argv[1]);
          exit(1);
     }

     init();

     save_ssp = Super(0L);
#ifdef EXT
     Jdisint(0);
     oldvec = vecp[0];
     vecp[0] = (long) extstrobe;
     oldmask = *((char *) 0xfffa03L);
     *((char *) 0xfffa03L) |= 0x01;
     Jenabint(0);
#else
     Xbtimer(0,3,32,timetick);
#endif
     Super(save_ssp);
     
     while(Verror == 0) {
          if(Cconis() != 0) {
               Verror = 1;
               break;
          }
          if(Vsize < VSIZE )
               continue;
          ptr1 = (unsigned char *) &mptr[Vtail];
          ptr2 = (unsigned char *) &mptr[Vtail+HSIZE];
          for(i=0;i<HSIZE; i++ )
               Vbuff[i]= (*ptr1++ + *ptr2++)>>1;
          Vsize -= VSIZE;
          Vtail += VSIZE;
          if(Vtail >= VMEM)     
               Vtail = 0;
          if(write(fp,Vbuff,(int)HSIZE) != (int)HSIZE ) {
               printf("Write error: %s\n", argv[1]);
               Verror = 1;
               break;
          }
     }

     save_ssp = Super(0L);
#ifdef EXT
     Jdisint(0);
     vecp[0] = oldvec;
     oldmask = *((char *) 0xfffa03L) = oldmask;
#else
     Xbtimer(0,0,0,0L);
#endif
     Super(save_ssp);

     close(fp);
     portout();
}


init()
{
     register int i;
    
     Vsize = 0;
     Vhead = 0;
     Vtail = 0;
     Verror = 0;
 
     portin();

     mptr = (unsigned char *) Malloc((long)(VMEM)+1L);
     if(mptr == 0L) {
          printf("Malloc Failed\n");
          exit(1);
     }
     for(i=0;i<VMEM;++i)
          mptr[i] = 0;
}

portin()
{
     save_ssp = Super(0L);
 
     strobeon();
     giport(7);
     giwrite( (giread() & 0x7f) );

     *((char *) 0xfffa0fL) &= ~0x20;

     Super(save_ssp);

}

portout()
{
     save_ssp = Super(0L);

     giport(7);
     giwrite( (giread() | 0x80) );
     strobeon();

     Super(save_ssp);    
}

--------------------------------- disp.c --------------------------

#include "osbind.h"

#define VSCAN 1200L

#define DSIZE       ((long)(320L * 200L))
#define BSIZE          ((long)(VSCAN*200L))
#define offset(x,y) ( (long) ( ((long)(x)) + VSCAN * ((long)(y))) )

#define XOFF 0
#define YOFF 0
#define XMIN 0
#define XMAX 299
#define YMIN 0
#define YMAX 179


#define setres(a)   ( *((char *) 0xff8260L) = (int) (a)) 
#define getres()     ( *((char *) 0xff8260L) & 0xff)
#define extsync()   ( *((char *) 0xff820aL) = (1) )
#define intsync()   ( *((char *) 0xff820aL) = (0) )
#define giport(a)   ( *((char *) 0xff8800L) = (a) )
#define giwrite(a)  ( *((char *) 0xff8802L) = (a) )
#define giread()    ( *((unsigned char *) 0xff8800L) )
#define strobeon()  ( giport(14), giwrite(giread() | 0x20) )
#define strobeoff() ( giport(14), giwrite(giread() & ~0x20) )
#define stat()      ( *((char *) 0xfffa01L) )
#define setcol(a,b) ( *((int *) (0xff8240L+((int)(a)<<1)) ) = ((int)(b))&0x1ff )
#define getcol(a)      ( *((int *) (0xff8240L+((int)(a)<<1)) )  & 0x1ff )

unsigned int disp[] = {
      0x000,0x001,0x011,0x111,
      0x112,0x222,0x223,0x333,
      0x334,0x444,0x445,0x555,
      0x556,0x666,0x667,0x777
};

unsigned int Smap[] = {
      0x000,0x001,0x011,0x111,
      0x112,0x222,0x223,0x333,
      0x334,0x444,0x445,0x555,
      0x556,0x666,0x667,0x777
};
unsigned int  Res;

unsigned char *mptr;
unsigned char *sptr;

long     Vskip = 0L;
int          Voff = 0;
int       Vdir = 1;
int          Vline = 0;

long      Vbase = 0xf8000L;

unsigned int  Vmap[256];

long      Vsize = 0L;
int       Vmax = 255;
int       Vmin = 0;

long      hist[256];

unsigned char buff[VSCAN];

long save_ssp;

char line[128], path[128], temp[128];

main(argc,argv)
int argc; char *argv[];
{
     register unsigned int x,y;
     unsigned int i,c;

     int hmin, hmax, hoff;
     int fp,z;

     mptr = (unsigned char *) Malloc(BSIZE+1L);
     if(mptr == 0L) {
          printf("Malloc Failed\n");
          exit(1);
     }
     vclr(mptr,BSIZE);
     sptr = (unsigned char *) Malloc(DSIZE+1L);
     if(sptr == 0L) {
          printf("Malloc Failed\n");
          exit(1);
     }
     vclr(sptr,DSIZE);

     while(1) {
          printf("\n>");
          gets(line);
          switch(*line) {
               case 'r':     
                    sscanf(line,"%s %s %d", temp, path, &Vline);
                    vclr(mptr, BSIZE);
                    if((fp=open(path,0)) < 0) {
                         printf("Can't open: %s\n",path);
                         break;
                    }
                    Vskip = VSCAN * (long) Vline;
                    lseek(fp,Vskip,0); 
                    for(y=0;y<180; y+=20) {
                         if(read(fp,&mptr[offset(0L,y)],
                              (int)VSCAN*20)<(int)VSCAN*20)
                                   break;
                    }
                    close(fp);
                    break;
               case 'w' :
                    sscanf(line,"%s %s", temp, path);
                    fp = creat(path,0666);
                    if(fp >= 0) {
                         z = 0;
                         if(write(fp,&z,2) != 2) {
                              printf("Write error:%s\n", path);
                              close(fp);
                              break;
                         }
                         if(write(fp,disp,32) != 32) {
                              printf("Write error:%s\n", path);
                              close(fp);
                              break;
                         }
                         if(write(fp,((char *) sptr), 0x4000) != 0x4000) {
                              printf("Write error:%s\n", path);
                              close(fp);
                              break;
                         }
                         if(write(fp,((char *) sptr + 0x4000L), 0x4000) != 0x4000) {
                              printf("Write error:%s\n", path);
                              close(fp);
                              break;
                         }
                         close(fp);
                    }
                    else {
                         printf("Can't open:%s\n", path);
                    }
                    break;
               case 'W' :
                    sscanf(line,"%s %s", temp, path);
                    fp = creat(path,0666);
                    if(fp >= 0) {
                         for(y=0;y<180;++y) {
                              for(x=0;x<300;++x) {
                                   if(Vdir<0) 
                                        c = (mptr[offset(299-x,179-y)+Voff] & 0xff);
                                   else
                                        c = (mptr[offset(x,y)+Voff] & 0xff);
                                   buff[x] = c;
                              }
                              if(write(fp,buff,300) != 300) {
                                   printf("Write error:%s\n", path);
                                   break;
                              }
                         }
                         close(fp);
                    }
                    else {
                         printf("Can't open:%s\n", path);
                    }
                    break;
               case 'A' :
                    sscanf(line,"%s %s", temp, path);
                    fp = creat(path,0666);
                    if(fp >= 0) {
                         for(y=0;y<180;++y) {
                              for(x=0;x<256;++x) {
                                   if(Vdir<0) 
                                        c = (mptr[offset(299-x,179-y)+Voff] & 0xff);
                                   else
                                        c = (mptr[offset(x,y)+Voff] & 0xff);
                                   buff[x] = c;
                              }
                              if(write(fp,buff,256) != 256) {
                                   printf("Write error:%s\n", path);
                                   break;
                              }
                         }
                         for(x=0;x<256;++x)
                              buff[x] = 0;
                         for(;y<256;++y) {
                              if(write(fp,buff,256) != 256) {
                                   printf("Write error:%s\n", path);
                                   break;
                              }
                         }
                         close(fp);
                    }
                    else {
                         printf("Can't open:%s\n", path);
                    }
                    break;
               case 'H':
                    sscanf(line,"%s %d %d", temp, &hmin, &hmax);
                    if((hmin >= 0 && hmin <=255) && 
                         (hmax >=0 && hmax <=255) && (hmax > hmin) ) {
                              Vmin = hmin;
                              Vmax = hmax;
                    }
                    else {
                         printf("Must be bound by 0..256 and Max > Min\n");
                    }
                    break;
               case 'h':
                    for(i=0;i<256;++i)
                         hist[i] = 0L;
                    for(y=0;y<180;++y) {
                         for(x=0;x<300;++x) {
                              c = mptr[offset(x,y)+Voff] & 0xff;
                              if(c>0)
                                   ++hist[c];
                         }
                    }
                    printf("\n");
                    for(i=0;i<256;++i) {
                         if((i%12) == 0)
                              printf("%3d: ",i);
                         printf(" %5ld", hist[i]);
                         if((i%12) == 11)
                              printf("\n");
                    }
                    break;
               case 'D':
                    Voff = 0; 
                    Vdir = 1;
                    sscanf(line,"%s %d %d", temp, &Voff, &Vdir);
                    break;
               case '?':
                    printf("off:%d, dir:%d, min:%d, max:%d\n", Voff,Vdir,Vmin,Vmax);
                    break;     
               case 'd':
                    if((Vmin < 0 && Vmin > 255) || 
                         (Vmax < 0 && Vmax > 255) || (Vmax <= Vmin) ) {
                         printf("Max and Min out of bounds\n");
                         break;
                    }
                    scrinit();
                    for(i=0;i<256;++i)
                         hist[i] = 0L;
                    for(i=0;i<Vmin;++i)
                         Vmap[i] = 0;
                    for(i=Vmin;i<=Vmax;++i) {
                         c = 1L + (14L * (i - Vmin)  ) / (Vmax - Vmin);
                         if( c > 14)
                              c = 14;
                         Vmap[i] = c;
                    }
                    while(i<256)
                         Vmap[i++] = 15;
                    for(y=0;y<180;++y) {
                         for(x=0;x<300;++x) {
                              c = (mptr[offset(x,y)+Voff] & 0xff);
                              if(c>0)
                                   ++hist[c];
                              if(Vdir<0) 
                                   set(299-x,179-y,Vmap[c]);
                              else
                                   set(x,y,Vmap[c]);
                         }
                    }

                    Vsize = 0L;
                    for(i=0;i<256;++i) {
                         if(Vsize < hist[i])
                              Vsize = hist[i];
                    }
                    for(x=0;x<256;x++) {
                         hoff = (int)((hist[x]*10L)/Vsize);
                         if(hoff < 0)
                              hoff = 0;
                         if(hoff > 9)
                              hoff = 9;
                         set(x,189-hoff,15);
                         if((x % 10) == 0)
                            set(x,190,15);
                         for(y=191;y<195;++y)
                            set(x,y,x >> 4);
                         for(y=196;y<200;++y)
                            set(x,y,Vmap[x]);
                    }
                    vcopy(sptr,(char *)Vbase,DSIZE);
                    gets(temp);
                    screxit();
                    break;
               case 'Q':
               case 'q':
                    Mfree(sptr);
                    Mfree(mptr);
                    exit(0);
               default:
                    printf("\n?\n");
                    break;
          }
     }
}



scrinit()
{
     gbase();
     Cursconf(0,30);
     getpal(Smap);
     Res=gres();
     sres(0);
     setpal(disp);
     vclr(Vbase, DSIZE>>1);
}

screxit()
{
     sres(Res);
     setpal(Smap);
     Cursconf(1,30);
}

vclr(ptr,size)
unsigned char *ptr;
long size;
{
     while(size--)
          *ptr++ = 0;
}

vcopy(dest, src, size)
unsigned char *dest, *src;
long size;
{
     while(size--)
          *dest++ = *src++;
}

set(x,y,color)
register unsigned int x,y,color;
{
     register unsigned int *ptr;
     register unsigned int mask;

     mask = ((unsigned) 0x8000) >> (x & 0xf);
     ptr = (unsigned int *) (Vbase + (160 * y) + ((x & 0xfff0) >> 1) );
     *ptr++ |= ((color & 1) ? mask : 0);
     *ptr++ |= ((color & 2) ? mask : 0);
     *ptr++ |= ((color & 4) ? mask : 0);
     *ptr++ |= ((color & 8) ? mask : 0);
}

unset(x,y)
register unsigned int x,y;
{
     register unsigned int *ptr;
     register unsigned int mask;

     mask = ~( ((unsigned) 0x8000) >> (x & 0xf)  );
     ptr = (unsigned int *) (Vbase + (y * 160) + ((x & 0xfff0) >> 1) );
     *ptr++ &= mask;
     *ptr++ &= mask;
     *ptr++ &= mask;
     *ptr++ &= mask;
}


setpal(v)
unsigned int *v;
{
     int  i;

     save_ssp = Super(0L); 
     for(i=0;i<16;++i) {
       setcol(i,v[i]);
     }
     Super(save_ssp);
}

getpal(v)
unsigned int *v;
{
     int  i;

     save_ssp = Super(0L); 
     for(i=0;i<16;++i) {
       v[i] = getcol(i);
     }
     Super(save_ssp);
}

gres()
{
     int  x;
     
     save_ssp = Super(0L); 
     x = getres();
     Super(save_ssp);
     return(x);
}

gbase()
{
     save_ssp = Super(0L); 
     Vbase = *((long *) 0x44e);
     Super(save_ssp);
}
     

sres(a)
unsigned int a;
{
     save_ssp = Super(0L); 
     setres(a);
     Super(save_ssp);
}

------

   .===========================================================.
   |  ####### ####### ###  C O M P U T E R  |   =----------=   |
   |  ###     ###     ###  C O N S O L E S  |  An STC Company  |
   |  ####### ####### ###   Incorporated    |   =----------=   |
   |-----------------------------------------------------------|
   |  UUCP:  ...ccicpg!dl2!paulm         (Paul L. Moreau)      |
   |    or   ...ccicpg!dl1!paulm    (Diagnostics Software Eng) |
   |    or   ...ccicpg!paulm           (Irvine, California)    |
   `==========================================================='

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #527
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Jul 89 03:54:35 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05243>; Sun, 2 Jul 89 02:41:52 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  2 Jul 89 02:41:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.wYfNvMe00jZdI1205C>;
          Sun,  2 Jul 89 00:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.oYfNbm:00UkVQRU04z>;
          Sun,  2 Jul 89 00:28:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YfNYRW00UkV4RSU4r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  2 Jul 89 00:25:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #528

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 528

Today's Topics:
			       Re: DC3
	   Toward a New US Policy on Remote Sensing (long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1989 00:14-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: DC3

I would just about sell my left (ah...) for a chance to fly in one of
the best pieces of aeronautical engineering ever created. There
probably aren't a whole lot of us reading this there were alive when
the Gooney's rolled off the assembly line at Douglas Aircraft.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 19:20:50 GMT
From: well!rh@apple.com  (Robert Horvitz)
Subject: Toward a New US Policy on Remote Sensing (long)


                        
This posting concerns H.R. 1574, a bill introduced in the US House of
Representatives by Rep. Robert Mrazek (D-NY).  The first part of this
posting is the text of Rep. Mrazek's statement introducing the bill,
the second part is the bill itself.  H.R. 1574 has already attracted
30 co-sponsors, and has been referred to the Committees on Foreign
Affairs, Intelligence, and Science & Technology.  
 
For more information, call Rep. Mrazek's office at 202-225-5956.
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
                       CIVIL REMOTE-SENSING PROGRAM
 
 
                           Hon. Robert J. Mrazek
                                of New York
                      in the House of Representatives
      Congressional Record - Extensions of Remarks, pp. E 929-931
                         Wednesday, March 22, 1989
 
Mr. Mrazek:  Mr. Speaker, it is with great satisfaction that I have
introduced the International Security and Satellite Monitoring Act of
1989.  The bill, as I will soon discuss, is both timely and comprehensive.
 
I will also take the opportunity to explain in some detail the different
sections of the bill.  Remote-sensing of the Earth by satellite is often
an emotionally charged and complicated subject.  Therefore, it is only
natural that misperceptions could exist regarding the intent of my
legislation.
 
But first, I would like to review a bit of history so that all Members can
better understand the importance of developing a comprehensive remote-
sensing policy as it relates to the security interests of this Nation and
where they may intersect with the national security needs of all nations
of the world.
 
Over 30 years ago, President Eisenhower offered a visionary proposal to
reduce superpower tension and mistrust called open skies or mutual
inspection for peace.  In 1955, open skies as envisioned by the President
would entail an exchange of blueprints detailing military installations
in the United States and Soviet Union.  The shared information would be
verified by reconnaissance planes of both nations.  Unfortunately, open
skies was politically immature in that era, and Nikita Krushchev rejected
Eisenhower's offer.  
 
However, in the changing turbulent environment of the middle and late
1950's, the United States had an overriding interest in understanding the
world it was confronting.  President Eisenhower had little choice but to
developed classified reconnaissance systems to monitor the Earth.  Without
a doubt, classified surveillance capabilities have proven to be a
stabilizing element in world affairs.  Common sense demands that these
operations continue in defense of U.S. national security. 
 
In 1972, the United States launched the Earth resources technology
satellite, later renamed Landsat.  Landsat represented a new initiative
in information gathering and dissemination in the open domain.  Of the
five satellites that have been launched, each has obtained greater
amounts of information on the state of our planet and has addressed human
needs, particularly with respect to managing global resources and the
environment.
 
Our Nation's leadership and success in this arena, along with the policy
of nondiscriminatory access to remotely sensed images, helped ignite a
proliferation of remote-sensing technology.  By the year 2000, it is
projected that 24 nations or multilateral organizations will have launched
40 to 50 satellites, a development which suggests that in the future
cooperative endeavors will become increasingly attractive and necessary.
 
The Soviet Union has also started to commercially sell, on a limited
basis, high-resolution photography, and recently endorsed the concept of
an international satellite monitoring agency, a proposal first offered by
the French in 1978 to the United Nations.  It should also be pointed out
that both the United States and the Soviet Union joined forces to table
the proposal.
 
In addition to the tremendous changes that have taken place in the field
of remote sensing, the world has also undergone a quiet but unprecedented
evolution.  In the last 30 or more years, science and technology has
produced and accelerated untold changes.  Everything from superpower
relations to the planet's ecosystem is being reshaped in ways not quite
understood.  
 
Moreover, an explosion of information technology is moving all nations
inexorably into a new era of international openness.  Is there any doubt
that the United States, a nation founded on principles of democracy and
openness, can best adjust to the information revolution?
 
All told, a transitional phase in international security and world affairs
is clearly at hand.  If the United States is to understand and manage the
dynamics of global change, information acquired by overhead observation
satellite[s will play an increasingly important role.  A significant
database, such as the one Landsat has accumulated over the last 15 years,
is indispensable. 
 
In our current era of global changes and challenges, military strength
will continue to represent one element of a larger national security
strategy.  U.S. intelligence capabilities, both classified and
unclassified, will play an equally critical role.  Therefore, our national
security strategy should strive to include and maximize nonclassified
remote-sensing systems.
 
The combination of expanded satellite remote-sensing capabilities and
national security needs suggests that the time has come to rethink the
original open skies concept so an information policy can be fashioned
which will increase international security and stability. 
 
U.S. leadership in the development and exploitation of civilian remote-
sensing technology is also on the wane.  Very recently, our Government
nearly shut down two operational Landsat satellites.  The official reason
given for such a drastic action was insufficient funding.  In reality, I
believe the roots to this possible action can be traced all the way back
to our Nation's inability to make a strategic commitment to our civilian
remote-sensing systems.  For too many years now, we have operated either
without a policy or focused our entire efforts on only one small aspect
of remote sensing, namely the effort to commercialize the Landsat system.
 
But now that the information age is upon us, we will have to consider and
develop a fully integrated strategy concerning remote sensing of the
Earth.  Today, open skies would entail the sharing of information,
gathered by nonclassified observation satellites, on both a national and
international basis, regarding environmental and economic development
concerns, certain military activities, the usage of global resources, and
to facilitate emergency and natural disaster planning and management. 
 
Another part of open skies would entail the development and articulation
of a coordinated civilian remote-sensing policy.  For instance, much
attention has been recently given to Landsat;  however, Landsat is only one
remote-sensing program.  A clear and interrelated role must also be
specified for satellites which will observe the oceans and atmosphere.
 
Finally, cooperative endeavors would be a key ingredient of any revised
open skies policy.  Open skies would encourage nations with closed systems
of government, such as the Soviet Union, to become more open.  The real
world security challenges facing the United States would be more easily
understood and more effectively addressed.  In short, data collected by
civilian remote sensing satellites in the information age will, as Dr. Ray
Cline, former Deputy Director of the CIA recently stated, "determine who
wins and who loses geopolitically, more, even than missiles and guns."
 
The unlimited potential of a revised open skies policy to increase
international security and stability should be balanced by an equal amount
of realism.  Significant hurdles must be addressed before, during and
after implementation.  There are many unanswered questions.  
 
For instance, will the U.S. intelligence gathering and defense operations
benefit from an open skies concept that addresses our changing national
security requirements in the near and far term?  Second, will scientific
and commercial remote-sensing endeavors flourish or decline if a broad
strategic emphasis is attached to our civilian Earth-observation assets? 
Third, what type of institutions will have to be formed to best exploit
these open information sources?  Fourth, and finally, can global climate
changes studies serve as a model for the future conduct of world affairs,
as well as promote an integrated U.S. remote-sensing policy?
 
Taken together, the above questions establish a context for a national
debate on the convergence of expanded national-security requirements and
the role of space-based observations.  At this point in time, I do not
know all the answers to these complex questions.  However, I strongly
believe the potential security, scientific, commercial and economic
benefits associated with a revised open skies policy are so great that we
can ill-afford to ignore them.  A process should be initiated that brings
together all concerned parties to debate and discuss this issue in a
responsible manner.
 
Therefore, my legislation would take a small but important step toward
initiating a national debate on open skies by establishing a national
commission to examine three interrelated policy questions as specified in
section 4(a) of the bill:
 
First, determine how a revised open skies policy could enhance the
national security strategy of the United States;
 
Second, review the status of the civilian remote-sensing programs of the
United States and then offer a series of recommendations toward developing
a long-term, coordinated policy; and
 
Third, study areas in which the sharing of information collected by
civilian remote-sensing satellites, cooperatively employed along with
other open information sources, could increase international security and
stability.  
 
The principal thrust of the third point will be the role Earth-observation
satellites could play in understanding and managing global environmental
change, particularly with respect to promoting sustainable economic
development.  However, when satellites image the Earth, they do not just
see civilian or military features of society but rather everything at
once.
 
It is my belief that military intelligence gathered by nonclassified
Earth-observation satellites need not be treaty-specific or processed as
soon as the satellite observes certain features on Earth or in near real-
time to be effective.  While arms reduction or limitation treaties should
be pursued as part of an integrated strategy, it is equally clear that
such treaties rarely influence the international behavior of nations.
 
However, our public diplomacy efforts can only be enhanced if a greater
understanding is struck between government and its citizens regarding the
military threat our Nation faces now and into the future.  Real-time
imagery is not needed to accomplish this goal.  Moreover, images acquired
by Landsat and SPOT are already used to monitor with limited effectiveness
the deployment of nuclear and conventional arms, the proliferation of
chemical and biological weapons and regional conflicts.  The expected
improvements in resolution capabilities for future civilian satellites 
will increase the amount of military intelligence gathered by civilian
Earth-observation satellites.  In short, the challenge is to develop a
synergistic relationship between our nonclassified and classified
intelligence gathering satellites.
 
In addition, peace-keeping efforts will be promoted by information
gathered by Earth-observation satellite[s through enhancing the management
and usage of Earth resources.  In the not-too-distant future, wars may
well be fought over water and the destruction or misuse of other natural
resources.
 
In section 4(b) of the bill, the commission will be instructed to examine
certain factors and considerations. I believe they are equally important. 
These factors include:
 
First.  The impact of global developments on the national security
requirements of the United States;
 
Second.  The impact of a revised open skies concept on the defense and
intelligence gathering operations of the United States;
 
Third.  The desirability of establishing an institutional structure to
disseminate information gathered by nonclassified observation satellites
and coordinate civilian remote-sensing programs;
 
Fourth.  How an integrated national remote-sensing program would affect
the efforts to commercialize the Landsat program;
 
Fifth.  Possible joint ventures for investment in the future operation of
Landsat;
 
Sixth.  How the sharing of information gathered by nonclassified remote-
sensing satellites can help to promote greater openness and the
restructuring of military forces on the part of the Soviet Union;
 
Seventh.  The international economic impact of sharing information
gathered by nonclassified remote-sensing satellites;
 
Eighth.  The degree to which satellite monitoring arrangements woiuld
complement established programs within the United Nations;
 
Ninth.  The technical advances and costs associated with improved data
processing capabilities; and
 
Tenth.  Such factors as the commission considers appropriate.
 
Can there be any doubt that with these guidelines in place, such a
Commission would be of great service to our Nation?  Given global
developments, can the United States afford not to develop a coordinated
plan to fully exploit all of its intelligence assets?
 
Therefore, I hope my colleagues and the Bush administration will closely
examine my bill and strongly support it.  It is not the only option we
have to right our civilian remote-sensing program, but I believe that it
represents the kind of comprehensive approach that has been lacking for
the last 15-plus years.  The possible demise of Landsat is a prime example
of having a nonintegrated policy.  We can and must do better.  Now is the
time to set forth on a different course.
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
 
 
101st Congress
1st Session
 
                           H.R. 1574
 
               In the House of Representatives
 
Mr. Mrazen introduced the following bill;  which was referred to the
Committee on_______________________________
 
 
                             A BILL
 
 
To establish the Commission on International Security and Satelite
Monitoring
 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, 
 
 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
 
This Act may be cited as the "International Security and Satellite
Monitoring Act of 1989".
 
 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
 
The Congress finds that--
 
    (1) in a world where important developments increasingly transcend
national borders, there is a need for continuing leadership and engagement
on the part of the United States to enhance international security and
stability,
 
    (2) the development of civilian remote-sensing technologies by nations
other than the United States and the Soviet Union suggests that mutually
beneficial international satellite monitoring arrangements with respect
to understanding global environmental change will soon be possible,
 
    (3) the classified reconnaissance programs of the United States have
been and will continue to be a stabilizing factor in world affairs,
 
    (4) it is necesary to assess existing and proposed satellite
monitoring capabilities in order to identify areas in which mutually
advantageous international satellite monitoring arrangements can be
developed;
 
     (5) the last quarter of the twentieth century is a time in which
information technology is moving all nations inexorably into a new era of
international openness; 
 
     (6) the United States, whose system of government is based on
openness and is respectful of diversity, is the nation best suited to
exploit this information age, and
 
     (7) a revised version of the open skies concept, first articulated
by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1955, has the potential to increase
international security and stability.
 
 
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.
 
There is established the Commission on International Security and
Satellite Monitoring (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
"Commission").
 
 
SEC. 4.  DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
 
(a) AREAS OF STUDY AND ANALYSIS.--The Commission shall--
 
     (1) determine how a revised open skies policy could enhance the
national security strategy of the United States;
 
     (2) review the status of the civilian remote-sensing programs of the
United States and then offer a series of recommendations toward developing
a long-term, coordinated policy; 
 
     (3) study areas in which the sharing of information collected by
civilian remote-sensing satellites, cooperatively employed, along with
other open information sources, could increase international security and
stability, including the following:
 
           (A)  The monitoring, inventorying and protection of the 
      Earth's resources.
 
           (B)  The study of the Earth as an integrated ecosystem and 
      the corresponding implementation of policies that support
      sustainable economic development.
 
           (C)  The formation of an international remote-sensing 
      consortium dedicated to environmental monitoring.
 
           (D)  Disaster management, including pre-disaster preparedness,
      disaster mitigation, and post-disaster relief.
 
           (E)  Facilitation of on-going efforts to control international
      terrorism and drug trafficking activities.
 
           (F)  Monitoring conventional and nuclear weapon deployments,
      the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, and regional
      conflicts.
 
(b) FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS.--In conducting its study and analysis
under subsection (a), the Commission shall consider--
 
     (1) the impact of global developments on the national security
requirements of the United States,
     
     (2) the impact of a revised open skies concept on the defense and
intelligence gathering operations of the United States,
 
     (3) the desirability of establishing an institutional structure to
disseminate information gathered by non-classified observation satellites
and coordinate civilian remote-sensing activities,
     
     (4) how an integrated national remote-sensing program would impact
on efforts to commercialize the landsat system,
 
     (5) possible joint ventures for investment in the future operation
of Landsat
 
     (6) how the sharing of information gathered by satellite monitoring
arrangements can help promote greater openness and the restructuring of
military forces on the part of the Soviet Union,
 
     (7) the international economic impact of sharing information
gathegred by civilian remote-sensing satellites,
 
     (8) the degree to which satellite monitoring arrangements would
complement established programs within the United Nations,
 
     (9) the technical advances and costs associated with improved data
processing capabilities, and
 
     (10) such other factors as the Commission considers appropriate.
 
(c) DEFINITION.--As used in this Act, the term "open skies" means the
nondiscriminatory collection and dissemination of information gathered by
the civilian remote-sensing satellites of the United States (as well as
international arrangements) regarding environmental concerns, economic
development, earth resources, meteorology, urban planning, and military
developments.
 
 
SEC. 5. VOTING MEMBERSHIP.
 
(a) NUMBER AND APPOINTMENT.--The Commission shall have 15 voting members
appointed, from among persons who are not officers or employees of the
Federal Government, within 60 days of the enactment of this Act as
follows:
 
     (1) Five members shall be appointed by the President;
 
     (2) Five members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House
         of Representatives, in consultation with the minority 
         leader of the House of Representatives.
 
     (3) Five members shall be appointed by the majority leader
         of the Senate, in consultation with the minority leader
         of the Senate.
 
A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the same manner in which
the original appointment was made.
 
(b) QUALIFICATIONS.--The members appointed under subsection (a) shall
reflect a multidisciplinary make-up and be selected from among individuals
who are specifically qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue of
their education, training or experience.
 
(c) CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON.--The President shall designate one
of the members appointed under subsection (a) to serve as Chairperson of
the Commission and another to serve as Vice Chairperson of the Commission. 
The Vice Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson in the
Chairperson's absence. 
 
(d) COMPENSATION.--Members appointed under subsection (a) may be paid at
a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
in effect under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, for grade GS-
18 of the General Schedule, for each day, including travel time, during
which such members are engaged in the performance of duties for the
Commission.
 
(e) TRAVEL EXPENSES.--Members appointed under subsection (a) may be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in Government service
uner section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their
home or regular place of business in performance of duties for the
Commission.
 
(f)  MISCELLANEOUS.--Individuals who are not officers or employees of the
United States and who are members of the Commission shall not be
considered officers or employees of the United States by reason of
receiving payments under subsections (d) or (e).
 
 
SEC. 6.  ADVISORY MEMBERSHIP.
 
(a) NUMBER AND APPOINTMENT.--The Commission shall have 17 advisory members
appointed within 60 days of the date of the enactment of this act as
follows:
 
     (1) One advisory member shall be appointed by the President from 
     each of the following Federal departments and agencies:
 
         (A)  National Academy of Sciences
         (B)  The Central Intelligence Agency
         (C)  Department of State
         (D)  Department of Defense
         (E)  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
         (F)  Department of Agriculture
         (G)  Geological Survey
         (H)  Environmental Protection Agency
         (I)  National Aeronautics and Space Administration
         (J)  National Science Foundation
         (K)  Office of Science and Technology Policy
         (L)  The Army Corps of Engineers
         (M)  The Agency for International Development
 
     (2) Two advisory members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
     House of Representatives from among Members of the House of
     Representatives.
 
     (3) Two advisory members shall be appointed by the majority leader
     of the Senate from among members of the Senate.
 
Advisory members of the Commission shall not vote in the decisions of the
Commission and shall not participate, except in an advisory capacity, in
the formulation of the findings and recommendations of the Commission.
 
(b) TRAVEL EXPENSES.--Members of the Commission appointed under section
6(a) shall not be entitled to receive compensation for their work on the
Commission, but shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses in
the same manner and subject to the same conditions as voting members under
section 5(e).
 
 
SEC. 7.  MEETINGS.
 
(a) IN GENERAL.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairperson
or a majority of its voting members.
 
(b) QUORUM.--Eight voting members of the Commission shall constitute a
quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.
 
(c) VOTING.--Decisions of the Commission shall be made according to the
vote of a majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a
quorum is present.
 
 
SEC. 8.  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF; EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.
 
(a) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.--The Chairperson shall, without regard to section
5311(b) of title 5, United States Code, appoint a person to serve as
Executive Director of the Commission.  The Executive Director shall be
paid at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of
basic pay in effect under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, for
grade GS-18 of the General Schedule.
 
(b) STAFF.--Subject to the rules prescribed by the Commission and without
regard to sectoin 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code, the Executive
Director may appoint and fix the pay of such additional personnel as the
Executive Director considers appropriate.
 
(c) STAFF OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.--Upon request of the Commission, the head
of any department or agency of the United States is authorized to detail,
on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to the
Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under this
Act.
 
(d) EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.--With the approval of the Commission, the
Executive Director may procure temporary and intermittent services under
section 3109(b) of title 5 of the United States Code.
 
 
SEC. 9.  POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
 
(a) HEARINGS AND SESSIONS.--The Commission may, for the purpose of
carrying out section 4, hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and
places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence, as the Commission
considers appropriate.
 
(b) OBTAINING OFFICIAL DATA.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of
    law, the Commission may secure directly from any Federal department
    or agency of the United States information necessary to enable it to
    carry out section 4.
 
    (2)  Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head of 
    of a department or agency shall furnish such information to the 
    Commission.
 
    (3)  In the event that such information includes national security  
    information that has been classified according to criteria contained
    in an Executive order, upon request of the Chairperson of the 
    Commission, the head of a department or agency shall expedite the 
    security investigations of members of the Commission in order that
    such members may gain access to the classified information.
 
(c) MAILS.--The Commission may use the United States mails in the same
manner and under the same conditions as other departments and agencies of
the United States.
 
(d) ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES.--The Administrator of General
Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis such
administrative support services as the Commission may request.
 
 
SEC. 10.  REPORTS.
 
(a) COMPREHENSIVE REPORT.--The Commission shall transmit to the President
and to each House of Congress not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act a comprehensive report containing a detailed
statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission and such
recommendations as it considers appropriate.  
 
(b) PRELIMINARY REPORTS.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prohibit the Commission from transmitting preliminary reports to the
President and to Congress.
 
(c) TRANSMITTALS TO CONGRESS.--When transmitting reports to Congress under
subsections (a) and (b), the Commission shall transmit a copy of such
reports to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the majority
leader of the Senate.
 
 
SEC. 11. TERMINATION.
 
The Commission shall terminate on the date 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
 
 
SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
 
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act $3,000,000
for fiscal year 1990, to remain available until expended, and such
additional sums as may be necessary.   
 
 
-----------------------------==< E N D >==------------------------------
-- 
...........                  Robert Horvitz                   ...........
...........  ANARC, P.O. Box 143, Falls Church, VA 22046 USA  ...........
...........      uucp: ...{pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!rh     ...........

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #528
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Jul 89 07:19:59 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00837>; Sun, 2 Jul 89 06:27:43 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sun,  2 Jul 89 06:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.cYfQ:6m00UkT41x05A>;
          Sun,  2 Jul 89 03:21:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.IYfQ7:600UkV0Rkk5Z>;
          Sun,  2 Jul 89 03:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYfQ5kS00UkV8RjE4L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sun,  2 Jul 89 03:17:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #529

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 529

Today's Topics:
Space Station attached payload principal and co-investigators (Forwarded)
	      Re: LDEF retrieval fact sheet (Forwarded)
			     Re: Strings
			 Satellite locations
	       Re: Apollo program benefits (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 19:40:37 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Space Station attached payload principal and co-investigators (Forwarded)


                 SPACE STATION ATTACHED PAYLOAD
                 PRINCIPAL AND CO-INVESTIGATORS

Investigations selected for flight:

Principal Investigator (PI): Robert M. Walker, McDonnell Center 
for the Space Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., 
Cosmic Dust Experiment; Co-Investigators (Co-I): E. Zinner and C. 
Simon, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.; A. Tuzzolino and J. 
Simpson, University of Chicago.

PI: Michael Fitzmaurice, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 
Md., Laser Communications Transceiver.

PI: Paul Gorenstein, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 
Cambridge, Mass., Large Area Modular Array of Reflectors (High 
Throughput X-Ray Astronomy Instrument); Co-I: D. Fabricant, 
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, Mass.; S. Kahn 
and C. McKee, University of California, Berkeley; M. Wiesskopf, 
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.; R. Rosner, 
University of Chicago.

PI: Thomas A. Parnell, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 
Ala., Spectra, Composition, and Interactions of Nuclei above 10 
TeV (Astromag experiment); Co-I: J. Wefel, Louisiana State 
University, Baton Rouge; R. Wilkes, University of Washington, 
Seattle; J. Gregory, University of Alabama, Huntsville; T. Ogata, 
University of Tokyo, Japan.

PI: Jonathan F. Ormes, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 
Md., Large Isotope Spectrometer for Astromag; Co-I: I. Rasmussen, 
Danish Space Research Institute, Denmark; J. Klarmann, Washington 
University, St. Louis, Mo.; M. Wiedenbeck, University of Chicago; 
R. Mewaldt, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena; R. 
Streitmatter, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

PI: Glenn C. Carle, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., 
Exobiology Intact Capture Experiment; Co-I: M. Fonda amd D. 
Blake, SETI Institute, Mountain View, Calif.; T. Bunch, Ames 
Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.; B. Clark, Martin Marietta 
Astronautics Group, Denver, Colo.; P. Tsou, Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.; J. Cronin, Arizona State 
University, Tempe; J. Hayes, Indiana University, Bloomington; J. 
Kerridge, University of California, Los Angeles.

PI: Siegfried Auer, Applied Research Corporation, Landover, Md., 
Cosmic Dust Orbit and Capture Experiment; Co-I: O. Berg, 
University of Maryland, College Park; D. Brownlee, University of 
Washington, Seattle; G. Flynn, State University of New York, 
Plattsburgh; E. Grun, Max Planck Institute fur Kernphysik, West 
Germany; J. Iwanczyk, University of Southern California, Los 
Angeles; F. von Bun, Applied Research Corporation, Landover, Md.; 
H. Zook, Johnson Space Center, Houston.

PI: Robert L. Golden, Particle Astrophysics Laboratory, New 
Mexico State University, Las Cruces, Measurement of Cosmic Rays 
including Anti-protons, Positrons, Anti-nuclei and a Search for 
Primordial Antimatter, Astromag experiment; Co-I: S. Ahlen, 
Boston University; H. Crawford, University of California, 
Berkeley; J. Ormes, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.; 
C. Bower, Indiana State University, Terra Haute; T. Guzik, 
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge; S. Stephens, New Mexico 
State University, Las Cruces; J. Adams, Naval Research 
Laboratory, Washington, D.C.; M. Simon, University of Siegen, 
West Germany; C. De Marzo, Italian Institutions (various).

PI: Arthur B. Walker Jr., Center for Space Science and 
Astrophysics, Stanford University, Calif., Ultra-High Resolution 
XUV Spectroheliograph; Co-I: R. Hoover, Marshall Space Flight 
Center, Huntsville, Ala.; T. Barbee, Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory, Lawrence, Calif.; J. Timothy, Stanford University, 
Calif.; S. Antiochos, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, 
D.C.; S. Wu, University of Alabama, Huntsville; D. Sime, High 
Altitude Observatory, Boulder, Colo.

PI:  Dr. Wilton T. Sanders III, Space Science and Engineering 
Center, University of Wisconsin at Madison, X-ray Background 
Survey Spectrometer; Co-I: Dan McCammon, William L. Kraushaar and 
Richard J. Edgar, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

PI:  Dr. P. Buford Price, Space Science Laboratory, University of 
California, Berkeley, Heavy Nucleus Collector; Co-I: Gregory 
Tarle, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Michael H. Salaman, 
University of Utah, Salt Lake City; Dr. William H. Kinard, 
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.

Investigations selected for concept study:

PI: Peter M. Banks, STAR Laboratory, Department of Electrical 
Engineering, Stanford University, Calif., Plasma Interactions 
Experiment; Co-I: P. Bernhardt, Naval Research Laboratory, 
Washington, D.C.; D. Hardy, Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, 
Bedford, Mass.; S. Mende, Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory, 
Calif., W. Raitt, Utah State University; A. Drobot, Science 
Applications International Corp., McLean, Va., D. Hastings, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; M. Kelley, 
Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; D. Reasoner, Marshall Space 
Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.; L.R.O. Storey, Stanford 
University, Calif.

PI: Michael Shao, Optical Sciences and Applications Section, Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., Orbiting Stellar Inter-
ferometer; Co-I: Charles Beichman, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 
Pasadena, Calif.; B. Burke, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, Cambridge; J. Hughes, Naval Observatory, Washington, 
D.C.; S. Kulkarni, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena; 
K. Johnston, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.; E. 
Kibblewhite, National Optical Astronomical Observatory, Arizona; 
H. McAlister, Georgia State University, Atlanta; P. Nisenson, 
Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.

PI: Robert D. Reasenberg, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 
Cambridge, Mass., Precision Optical Interferometry in Space 
Study; Co-I: R. Babcock, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 
Cambridge, Mass.; J. Phillips, Smithsonian Astrophysical 
Observatory, Cambridge, Mass.

PI: Jonathan E. Grindlay, Harvard College Observatory, Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Observations, Cambridge, 
Mass., Energetic X-ray Observatory for Space Station; Co-Is: S. 
Murray and F. Primini, Harvard Smithsonian Observatory, 
Cambridge, Mass.; Prince, California Institute of Technology, 
Pasadena; B. Ramsey and M. Weisskopf, Marshall Space Flight 
Center, Huntsville, Ala.; G. Skinner, University of Birmingham, 
England.

PI: Robert L. Brown, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, 
Charlottesville, Va., High-Resolution Imaging Spectroscopy at 
Tera Hertz Frequencies; Co-I: A. Kerr, National Radio Astronomy 
Observatory, Charlottesville, Va.

PI: Hugh S. Hudson, Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, 
University of California, San Diego, Pinhole/Occulter Facility; 
Co-I: C. Crannell and J. Davis, Marshall Space Flight Center, 
Huntsville, Ala.; A. G. Emslie, University of Alabama, 
Huntsville; J. Grindlay, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; G. 
Hurford, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena; J. Kohl, 
Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.; R. 
Lin, University of California, Berkeley; R. Munro, Ball Aerospace 
Systems Division, Boulder, Colo.: G. Skinner, University of 
Birmingham, England; K. Wood, Naval Research Laboratory, 
Washington, D.C.

PI: Guy Fogleman, SETI Institute, Mountain View, Calif., Study to 
Develop an Active Collector of Cosmic Dust; Co-I: G. Carle, Ames 
Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.; Benton Clark and J. 
Miller, Martin Marietta Astronautics Group, Denver; J. 
Huntington, SETI Institute, Mountain View, Calif.; D. Perkins and 
D. Thomas, KMS Fusion, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich.

Earth science investigations selected for flight:

PI: M. Patrick McCormick, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., 
Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III; Co-I: W. P. Chu, 
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.; D. M. Cunnold, Georgia 
Institute of Technology, Atlanta; Benjamin M. Herman, University 
of Arizona, Tempe; Alvin J. Miller, NOAA National Meteorology 
Center, Suitland, Md.; Joseph M. Zawodny, Langley Research 
Center, Hampton, Va.; Philip B. Russell, Ames Research Center, 
Moffet Field, Calif.; David Rind, Goddard Institute for Space 
Studies, New York, N.Y.; Jacqueline Lenoble, Universite de 
Sciences et Techniques de Lille, France.

PI: Hugh Christian, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 
Ala., Lightning Imaging Sensor; Co-I: Richard Blakeslee and 
Steven J. Goodman, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 
Ala.; Douglas M. Mach, University of Alabama, Birmingham.

PI: Bruce Barkstrom, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., 
Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System; Co-I: Maurice L. 
Blackmon, NOAA Environmental Research Laboratory, Princeton, 
N.J.; Robert D. Cess, State University of New York, Stonybrook.

Earth science investigations selected for concept studies:

PI: William L. Barnes, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 
Md., Tropical Region Imaging Spectrometer; Co-I: Wayne Esaias and 
Joel Susskind, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. 

PI: Michael H. Freilich, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, 
Calif., Advanced Scatterometer for Studies in Meteorology and 
Oceanography; Co-I: Robert M. Atlas, Goddard Space Flight Center, 
Greenbelt, Md.; Peter Cornillon, University of Rhode Island, 
Kingston; Robert A. Brown, University of Washington, Seattle; 
David Halpern and Fuk Li, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, 
Calif.; Ross N. Hoffman, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, 
Inc., Cambridge, Mass.; David Legler, Florida State University, 
Tallahassee; Richard K. Moore, University of Kansas, Lawrence; 
James J. O'Brien, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

PI: Tiruvalam Krishnamurti, Florida State University, 
Tallahassee, an experiment similar to the Laser Atmospheric Wind 
Sounder, one of six facility instruments included in the Polar 
Platform proposal; Co-I: Daniel Fitzjarrald, Marshall Space 
Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.

PI: William G. Melbourne, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, 
Calif., Global Positioning System Geoscience Instrument; Co-I: 
Thomas P. Yunck, Gunnar F. Lindal and Lawrence E. Young, Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.; George H. Born, 
University of Colorado, Boulder; Bradford H. Hager, California 
Institute of Technology, Pasadena; Chao-Han Liu, University of 
Illinois, Urbana.

PI: Gerald R. North, Texas A&M University, College Station, 
Tropical Rain Mapping Radar; Co-I: Fuk Li, Jeff Dozier, R. 
Eastwood Im, and W. Timoth Liu, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 
Pasadena, Calif.; David Atlas, consultant, Bethesda, Md.; Robert 
Houze, University of Washington, Seattle; Tiruvalam Krishnamurti, 
Florida State University, Tallahassee; William K. Lau, Robert 
Meneghini, David Short, Joanne Simpson and Thomas Wilheit, 
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.; Ken'ichi Okamoto, 
Communications Research Laboratory, Tokyo, Japan; Jagadish 
Shukla, University of Maryland, College Park; Juan Valdes, Texas 
A&M University, College Station; Peter Webster, Pennsylvania 
State University, University Park; James. A Weinman, Applied 
Research Corporation, Landover, Md.

PI: Roy Spencer, Marshall Space Flight Center, Ala., Tropical 
Geophysical Information Retrieval with a High Resolution 
Microwave Spectrometer Sounder; Co-I: Frank J. Wentz, Remote 
Sensing Systems; Paul Swanson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 
Pasadena, Calif.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 16:46:26 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: LDEF retrieval fact sheet (Forwarded)

In article <27683@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:

>	LDEF RETRIEVAL FACT SHEET 

>     NASA is planning Space Shuttle mission STS-32 in December 
>1989, using orbiter Columbia, to retrieve the Long Duration 
>Exposure Facility (LDEF).  ...

>     After more than 5 years in space, LDEF is a unique and 
>valuable repository of information on space environmental 
>effects.  LDEF also has valuable science and applications data on 
>board.  The data will have critical design implications for 
>spacecraft that have requirements for long-duration flight in 
>low-Earth orbit.  However, before scientists can study this data, 
>LDEF must be retrieved.  Otherwise, the spacecraft and its 
>experiments will be destroyed during reentry.

>     Recognizing the significance of LDEF, NASA has been ...

Not mentioned in this press release is that the big push to grab LDEF
before it decays is coming from the Star Wars camp.  Most of the
original experiments are shot.  (I wouldn't want to be in the room when
they open the seedling chamber, phew! :-) )  But a lot of people,
ESPECIALLY the SDI-nauts, want to know what happens when you leave
things in orbit for years at a time.  Which they would of course have to
do.  Having neither the spare budget nor the time to fly their own
custom longevity experiments, they view LDEF as a godsend and lobbied
hard to move up the retrieval mission when solar flux upped the drag
coefficient unexpectedly.

LDEF retrieval will be expensive and it could also be risky, depending
on how far the orbit has decayed when Columbia gets there.  Rendezvous
and RMU operation in the fringes of the atmosphere hasn't been done
before to my knowledge.  I assume NASA knows what it's doing (hmm, do I
really assume that?) but they are skating pretty close to the edge on
this one.  I just wanted to point out to the loyal readership why
they're bothering.
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 29 Jun 89 15:24:04 EDT
From: Jon Kjoll <PH509003%BROWNVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Strings

I post to the net as I have lost the address of the original poster.
I have read none of these references but seen them recommended for the
lay-man. I appologize if somebody has already posted these ones.


   Vilenkin, Cosmic Strings, Scientific American Dec 87
   Press and Spergel, CS: cosmic structure, Physics Today, march 89
   Albrecht, Brandenberger and Turok, CS and cosmic structure, New Scientist
             16 April, 87

 Please send mail if further ref is of interst.

    Jon

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 21:50:01 GMT
From: somers@mcnc.org  (Robert W. Somers)
Subject: Satellite locations



	I am unsure of the newsgroup to post this to, so I
	am posting to several in hope of an answer.

	How does one go about determining whether one can receive
	satellite broadcast at a given location ( for example :
	16 27'00", 28 28'00" the geographic coordinates for 
	El Sauzel, Tenerife, Canarias Islands. )

	I would like to be able to pick-up European and American
	television Broadcast signals.

	Thanks in advance.

----
Robert W. Somers        919-248-1494                       somers@mcnc.org
MCNC, 3021 Cornwallis Rd., RTP, NC, 27709-2889

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1989 12:06-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Apollo program benefits (Forwarded)

Rather than reply at length, I refer you all to Tom Heppenheimer's
recent article on the legacy of Apollo in Reason Magazine. Either the
May or June issue.

In my opinion, the legacy of Apollo is a do nothing pork barrel space
program run by a giant self protective bureacracy.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #529
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Jul 89 02:56:54 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05269> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 3 Jul 89 02:56:04 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  3 Jul 89 02:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8YfimSu00UkTM1okJ4>;
          Mon,  3 Jul 89 00:33:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.YYfiiFS00UkVESYE50>;
          Mon,  3 Jul 89 00:29:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <IYfiex-00UkVMSWk4x@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  3 Jul 89 00:25:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #530

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 530

Today's Topics:
		     space news from May 15 AW&ST
		     Re: Space station computers
			 Re: new space goals
	     Newspaper article on Insat accident results
			  Re: Let's go back
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 05:44:32 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 15 AW&ST

NASA abandons the notion of a serviceable design for the polar platform,
reverting to a one-shot expendable approach.  [Hard to avoid, given the
lack of any way to service it...]

NASA plans to build a ground-based radar system to assess how bad the
small-space-debris problem is, specifically with reference to the space
station.  Existing radars track big pieces but not small ones.

SDI budget cuts slip Zenith Star space-laser experiment two years, at least.

Bush selects "Endeavour" as name of new orbiter, after Captain Cook's first
command, used in exploration of the Pacific, including Alaskan waters.
[As reported by others, AW&ST left out the "u" in the name.]

Authoritative report that the Titan 34D launch on May 10 was a pair of
strategic-forces comsats.  [Said report was later retracted; it was a
snoopsat instead.  The comsat pair is still waiting for launch.]

Magellan doing well en route, with daily star calibration maneuvers being
done to assess gyro drift.

A day before landing, the Atlantis crew replaced one of the orbiter's
five general-purpose computers after it failed.  The orbiter routinely
carries a spare, and the crew are trained in the replacement procedure,
but it took about four hours because the computers are behind some of
the middeck lockers and are not easy to get at.

Atlantis lands successfully at Edwards.  Landing on the lakebed runway
had been planned, but crosswinds were too strong and plans shifted to
one of the concrete runways.  The landing was made there with an 8kt
crosswind, which suited NASA fine, as landing in a mild crosswind has
been a test objective for quite a while.

NASA proposes to switch much of the station's power system from solar
arrays to a solar dynamic scheme.  Solar-dynamic was originally put off
to phase 2, but the technology has developed well and an important
advantage has appeared:  by using a phase-change heat-storage system,
a solar dynamic system can maintain full output even when the station
is in Earth's shadow.  Doing the same for solar arrays requires large
battery banks, which deteriorate and have to be replaced, to the tune
of the equivalent of a dedicated shuttle mission every five years just
for battery replacement.  Solar-dynamic systems also make power growth
cheaper, a significant issue since some feel the station is underpowered.
The station would probably retain one modest solar array for emergency
power.  Station management has not yet approved the switch; general
consensus seems to be that it may be a good idea but it's disturbing
that such major changes are still showing up now.

US and Soviet scientists propose monitoring firing of high-powered lasers
into space by placing scattered-light detectors 1 km or so from suspected
antisatellite-laser locations.  This could help verify a laser-Asat ban.

Soviet shuttle orbiter will appear at the Paris air show, contrary to
earlier reports.  It will be carried there on the new Mriya heavylift
transport aircraft, which will also star at the show.  [This report
quotes Soviet aviation officials as saying that the Paris orbiter will
be a test article, but I think it turned out to be Buran itself.]

Space Services Inc. and Space Data Corp. selected as contractors for
commercial sounding-rocket services being bought by NASA for materials
science.  Contracts are for two launches each, with options on two more.

NASA science managers [now there's a job title for you... :-)] say that
Soviet radarsat reactors will be a "nuisance" to the Gamma Ray Observatory,
requiring careful planning of operations but not badly disrupting them.
Crucial instruments will be turned off for short periods during close
encounters with the radarsats themselves, and will be adjusted to avoid
reporting gamma rays produced by electrons and positrons that the reactors
emit.  This will complicate mission planning but will reduce scientific
returns only slightly.  More reactors in orbit, however, would be bad news.

Martin Marietta gets contract for the space station's Canadian Contribution
Duplication, er excuse me Flight Telerobotic Servicer.  MM's latest design
is much more anthropomorphic than older designs, with a pair of video
cameras with zoom lenses and spotlights in the "head" and a pair of arms
attached to the "shoulders" of a roughly-rectangular equipment box.
There is a third arm, located... um... where a tail would be but in
front :-)... which will anchor the servicer to its work site.  There will
be a flight test in 1991, aimed mostly at human-factors assessment, and
a full flight demonstration in 1993.

SDI prepares to launch a neutral-particle-beam experiment on a sounding
rocket.  The main objective is to examine how the beam propagates away
from the spacecraft and interacts with the near-spacecraft environment.
The hope is to demonstrate that problems with NPB technology, formerly
thought to make it impractical as a useful weapon, have been overcome.

Letter from Michael Lang, commenting on an earlier expendables-are-best
letter:

	"H.L. Anderton is apparently living in a dream world if he thinks
	we would be able to recover from an expendable launch failure in
	a month.  Maybe he forgets that there have been long launch
	delays after every recent failure.  The incidents all have one
	crucial thing in common with the recovery process after the
	Challenger failure -- bureaucrats.  Every time we have a failure,
	it's not the engineers who determine the problems and solutions.
	A bunch of bureaucrats form advisory panels, testify endlessly
	in blue-ribbon, round-table discussions, and make technical
	decisions about systems they may not have seen in years (if ever).
	Meanwhile the technical people, who live and work with these
	systems every day, are forced to worry about layoffs and wait..."
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1989 12:17-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Space station computers

>	At normal viewing distances, 120dpi (which is only twice what
>	my Mac delivers) would be more than acceptable.  32 bit color
>	will probably be standard.  Remember however that the more
>	dpi, the more memory required, the higher the dot clock rate,
>	(faster memory required), and the more bits you have to twiddle
>	to repaint the screen.

120 dpi is not acceptable for archival purposes. 400dpi is probably
marginal. Would you want the Mona Lisa archived for historians at only
120dpi? I wouldn't even store my personal archives at that low a dpi.
And even if you store high and downsample on display, then you still
have to do hardcopy everytime you want to study color pictorial
material.  I would not want to store and display photographic material
at a resolution less than the grain size of the film. This WILL come. I
have talked with library and archive people. BELIEVE ME, 120 dpi isn't
even close to acceptable. Of course, someone has to bust the Adobe Systems
silliness about limiting the output in Postscript to low (400dpi or so)
resolution even on printing, but they won't be able to withstand the
push that I expect in the next decade.

>	Cute, but most people will be keybanging and mousing, because
> 	the world runs on shuffling words around.  Unless you are doing
>	3D work, you don't need fancy datagloves.  Voice is fine for

I did not mention datagloves, I was speaking of the Sensor Frame (TM).
And which is faster, pointing with a mouse, clicking to select a tool,
moving to the beginning of a phrase, clicking to select the start of
range, moving to the end, selecting the end of the range, moving to the
target location... Or spanning the text with two fingers, saying
"Move", pointing at the insertion point and saying "HERE"?

>	I'd be surprised to see 64MB PC's this year, especially for

NeXT is only waiting for the quantities to be available. The NeXT
machine as it exists TODAY can handle this. It has simply not been
tested with the new chips.

>	Hey, what's a factor of 2000 between friends?  You may have

Yeah, you are probably right. Probably won't be more than 128GB by
1998...

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 17:19:17 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <1989Jun28.165104.1307@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <14409@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>LET'S BUILD A PAIR OF MARS STATIONS, IN ORBIT AND ON THE SURFACE, BY 2040.
>
>You realize, I hope, that that's FIFTY YEARS away, and Apollo only took ten.
>If I was trying to set an ambitious goal, I'd make it initial deployment
>in 2001 and full operation by 2005.  A determined effort ought to be able
>to get the necessary hardware development done in a decade, even starting
>from the current mess.

It took twelve years from Sputnik to Tranquillity.  Twenty years after
*that*, space is once again a certified people-free zone.  Mars is such
a mammoth project (much harder than the Moon) that fifty years seems
reasonable to me.  That's how long people spend building cathedrals
(Robert Schuller excepted).

Which is not to say we couldn't have footprints crunched into Chryse
Planitia in a decade or 15 years if we went all out Apollo-style, making
every compromise possible in mission and infrastructure for the sake of
the symbolic sprint -- Apollo-style.  But what you'd have left would be
another bag of rocks and another failed Roanoak, this time eroding
rapidly in the thin Martian dustwind instead of baking in vacuum silence
on the timeless Lunar grit.

What we can do in 10 years simply doesn't last.  What we can do in 50
might.  I want to follow the Antarctica model - establish an
international scientific outpost in a distant, hostile environment.

By drawing the program out timewise, you provide an ongoing focus of
activity that *defines* a half century of endeavor.  New space powers
like China or Israel can do something useful right away, rather than
concentrating on prestige shots and comsats.  You engage a *generation*
of scientists and spaceflight professionals in significant cooperation,
so that it has a chance of becoming second nature.

>Let's see...  The USSR does the heavylift boosters and nuclear-electric
>space propulsion, since they already have most of that done or in the
>works.  Japan does the electronics, of course.  ESA builds the crew
>quarters, based on Spacelab experience.  The US does... um... well...

Simple, Henry.  The US builds an elaborate Peace Shield to protect the
Mars outpost from surprise nuclear attack.  :-)

Oh yes, and you "North Americans" can build some more RMUs.  It's what
you do, after all -- and you do it so well.  Who'd have guessed that
Canada's role in space would turn out to be exporting arms?

>NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Let's see... Glavkosmos is to spaceflight as the USSR is to vodka?  :-)

-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 29 Jun 89 15:02:19 CDT
From: Will Martin <wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:  Newspaper article on Insat accident results

This was in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Wednesday, June 24 1989, page 3C:

SATELLITE LAUNCH WEEKS AWAY

Washington -- A "very unfortunate" launch pad accident last week in
Florida will delay what was to have been the first major private-sector
US launch of a satellite by at least several weeks and possibly many
months, officials say.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. was scheduled to loft a communications satellite
for the government of India aboard its Delta 2 rocket on Thursday,
making it the first American company to dispatch a paying customer's
cargo to orbit.

The company is one of three major American rocket makers trying to
compete for commercial satellite business with the European consortium
Arianespace, which has cornered more than half the free world market.

The competition is an outgrowth of the Reagan administration's efforts
to encourage development of a private-sector launch industry. Previous
US launches have been conducted by NASA or the Air Force.

The accident happened June 19, when a hoist cable snapped, allowing a
heavy steel hook to fall on the $70 million Insat 1D satellite and
damage a critical antenna.

The cable was part of a 5-ton bridge crane that had been used to lift
the satellite 116 feet to the top of a Delta 2 rocket, built by McDonnell
Douglas Space Systems Co. of Huntington Beach, CA, at a launch pad
leased from the Air Force at Cape Canaveral.

The satellite has been removed from the rocket and sent to the company's
Florida facility, where potentially lethal propellants must be unloaded
before the satellite's manufacturer, Ford Aerospace Communications Co.
of Palo Alto, CA, and a representative of the customer, India's
Department of Space, will be able to assess the damage, according to
McDonnell Douglas spokesman [sic] Sheila Carter.

The company plans to proceed with other launches scheduled on its Delta
rockets, she said, including a Navstar navigation satellite in late July
and a British media satellite in mid-August.

"There's a good chance the satellite will have to be sent back" to the
plant in California, said Susan Pearce of Ford Aerospace. There is no
spare antenna, and a new one may have to be built.

Some sources said that finding a new launch slot might take longer than
repairing the satellite -- up to a year if the launch schedule isn't
juggled to make a new opening.

In addition to the Delta boosters, Martin Marietta Astronautics Group of
Denver is marketing a commercial version of the big Titan 34D rocket,
and General Dynamics Corp. of St. Louis is selling Atlas-Centaur rockets.
***End of Article***

Hope this is of interest and doesn't duplicate something already posted!
(I see the Space stuff on the Digest and it runs about a week or so
later than the USENET.)

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 23:22:47 GMT
From: amdcad!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Let's go back

In article <1989Jun22.161538.3937@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) points out that i goofed.

Damn.  Don't hire me as an astrogator.  I should have realized that the numbers
looked funny.

Anyway, new numbers.  Some of them are more accurate than the last bout.  I've
probably made some more stupid mistakes, but what the hell.


LEO (500 im) to lunar transfer orbit (LTO) (figure earth escape orbit):
	3.153 km/sec

LTO to LLO (200 km)
	0.698 km/sec (this number is probably high, but i didn't want to
			work out three-body problems)

LLO to Lunar surface
	1.766 km/sec

LTO to Lunar surface (this number is also probably high, for the same reasons)
	2.411 km/sec

1 minute hover at lunar surface
	0.097 km/sec

3 minutes hover
	0.292 km/sec


OK.  From LEO to lunar surface is 3.153 + 2.411 + .292 is 5.9 km/sec.  Call it
6.  That's still high enough that you'd probably want to use Hydrogen/Oxygen,
but it's considerably better than before.  If you launched a single-staged
vehicle from LEO to the moon, and its rockets were as efficient as the space
shuttle's (Isp = 4.464 km/sec in vacuum), it'd end up at about 74% fuel, the
rest structural and payload.  You can do better by having disposable fuel
tanks.  Let's see.  Assume 10% of the weight of a fuel tank is plumbing and
tank (a bit high, i think).  I think that works out to 50 tons fuel + 5 tons
tanks for the burn from LEO to lunar transfer, 20 tons fuel + 2 tons tanks
for lunar transfer to lunar orbit, 20 tons for the lunar lander (engines,
crew compartment, landing gear, structure, etc.)  So about 100 tons into
orbit to land 20 tons on the moon.  At $8 million/ton, that's $800 million
per lander, not counting materials and development.

For the trip back, assume 10 tons for the reentry capsule, 3 tons engines, 2
tons misc, we need about 2.7 km/sec to launch from lunar surface to earth's
atmosphere.  14 tons fuel + 1.4 tons tanks + 15 tons payload = 30.4 tons.

Typical launch configuration might be:  launch and land fuel tanker.  Launch
and land cargo rocket.  Launch and land astronauts (selenonauts?).  Astronauts
spend first day transfering fuel from fuel tanker to their launch vehicle,
subsequent days exploring, setting up lunar base, etc.  Astronauts can be
periodically resupplied from earth, each resupply ship containing enough
fuel to top up the tanks in the return rocket.  So, maybe five ships all in
all, for, umm, $4 billion in launch costs.  An order of magnitude cut in
launch costs would help a great deal.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #530
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Jul 89 03:55:44 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA12706> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Mon, 3 Jul 89 03:55:20 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Mon,  3 Jul 89 03:55:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AYflKp600Vs1Q1908M>;
          Mon,  3 Jul 89 03:29:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.QYflBKS00UkVQSr05X>;
          Mon,  3 Jul 89 03:18:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYfl=mK00UkVESpU41@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Mon,  3 Jul 89 03:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #531

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 531

Today's Topics:
		    Soviet manned space missions.
		     Re: Apollo benefits summary
NASA selects science experiments for microgravity missions (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 14:10:06 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Soviet manned space missions.


         In regards to Max Khaytsus' friend's "information" on those
    alleged Soviet manned space mission mishaps, I will compare the
    specific missions he has written in his list with what information
    I have on them from various other sources, mentioned at the end of
    this article.

         VOSTOK 5 was launched from Tyuratam in the Soviet Union on
    June 14, 1963, with cosmonaut Valeri Fyodorovich Bykovsky aboard.  
    His flight duration of 4 days, 23 hours, 6 minutes is still the 
    official record for the longest solo manned space mission.  Bykovsky 
    returned to Earth unharmed and is still alive at this writing.  His 
    mission is also noted for making a "rendezvous" (from three miles away) 
    with VOSTOK 6, which carried Valentina Tereshkova aboard, the first 
    woman in space.  There were no multiple crew space missions until 
    the flight of VOSHKOD 1 in 1964, which had three cosmonauts orbit 
    Earth for a day and return safely.

         VOSHKOD 3 never got off the proverbial drawing board.  It was 
    scheduled to place two cosmonauts in Earth orbit for up to two weeks, 
    but the mission was canceled in 1965, and there were no other 
    launchings in the VOSHKOD series.  There were plans to place female
    cosmonauts and journalists aboard other VOSHKOD missions, but these
    flights never materialized.

         SOYUZ 1 is noted for having the first space mission fatality
    of a cosmonaut (the U.S. APOLLO 1 accident, which killed three 
    astronauts on January 27, 1967, occurred during a test of the 
    spacecraft on the ground, so is not considered as an actual space 
    mission).  Vladimir Komarov was put into orbit aboard the new SOYUZ 
    vehicle on April 23, 1967.  The Soviets, eager to show off their 
    first truly new manned space vessel since VOSTOK, rushed the ship
    into orbit before it was completely flight ready.  Komarov had a
    number of problems controlling the craft while in space, including
    his attempts to return to Earth.  When Komarov finally did re-enter 
    the atmosphere one day after launching, the parachute designed to 
    soften the SOYUZ 1 landing became tangled when deployed, and Komarov
    was killed when the spacecraft impacted with the ground.  
         As an interesting side note, Komarov's backup cosmonaut was Yuri 
    Gagarin, the first man in space aboard VOSTOK 1 in April of 1961.
    Had Komarov been unable to fly aboard SOYUZ 1, Gagarin would have
    taken his place, thus very likely gaining the distinction of being 
    the first man to die in a space mission as well.  Gagarin was killed 
    on March 27, 1968, when the plane he was flying crashed.

         SOYUZ 2 was an unmanned spacecraft which was used as a target
    vehicle for rendezvous (and possibly a docking) with SOYUZ 3, commanded
    by Georgi Beregovoi.  Both missions were launched on October 25, 1968.
    SOYUZ 2 was originally intended to be a manned spacecraft, which would 
    have docked with the orbiting SOYUZ 1, where a crew transfer via EVA 
    (Extra-Vehicular Activity) would have taken place.  When SOYUZ 1 
    failed miserably, however, the plans were radically changed.  Both
    SOYUZ 2 and 3 returned to Earth intact and with Beregovoi alive.

         SOYUZ 11 marked a number of firsts in manned spaceflight, 
    including the second set of cosmonaut fatalities from a mission.
    SOYUZ 11 was launched on June 9, 1971 with cosmonauts Georgi T.
    Dobrovolsky, Vladislav N. Volkov, and Viktor I. Patsayev (not 
    Taisayev) aboard.  The crew docked with the orbiting SALYUT 1 space
    station, the first such station in space history.  The SOYUZ 11 team 
    spent 23 days, 18 hours, 21 minutes, and 43 seconds in Earth orbit, 
    a record at the time for human space endurance.  The trouble for this 
    mission began when they attempted to return home.  When the orbital 
    compartment of SOYUZ 11 was broken away from its flight cabin by means 
    of explosive bolts (a necessary procedure for a proper re-entry), the 
    action shook open an exhaust valve in the cabin, creating an air leak 
    which depressurized the craft.  The cosmonauts might have survived 
    this accident but for one thing:  None of them wore spacesuits, since 
    all three would not have fit in the vehicle otherwise.  They were
    dead by the time SOYUZ 11 touched down on Soviet soil (the landing
    was done automatically), and one observer at the site said the
    crew looked "as if [they were] sleeping."  The craft did not "blow
    up" on re-entry, as stated in Khaytsus' friend's article.

         SOYUZ T-1 was an unmanned test vehicle for the first in a new
    generation of SOYUZ spacecraft.  Launched on December 16, 1979,
    SOYUZ T-1 docked with the orbiting SALYUT 6 space station three 
    days later, where it remained before returning to Earth intact on
    March 25, 1980.  The craft did not disappear during its mission.

         I would like to recommend some excellent books on Soviet manned 
    space missions, most of which are currently available through most
    mass-market bookstores:

         Clark, Phillip, THE SOVIET MANNED SPACE PROGRAM, Orion Books
    (a division of Crown Publishers, Inc.), New York, 1988.
    ISBN 0-517-56954-X.

         Furniss, Tim, JANE'S MANNED SPACEFLIGHT LOG, Jane's Publishing,   
    Inc., New York, 1986.  ISBN 0-7106-0402-5.

         Hart, Douglas, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOVIET SPACECRAFT, Exeter Books, 
    New York, 1987.  ISBN 0-671-08932-3.

         Johnson, Nicholas L., THE SOVIET YEAR IN SPACE 1988, Teledyne Brown 
    Engineering, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 1989.

         Oberg, James E., UNCOVERING SOVIET DISASTERS: EXPLORING THE LIMITS 
    OF GLASNOST, Random House, Inc., New York, 1988.  ISBN 0-394-56095-7.
    See also Oberg's 1981 book, RED STAR IN ORBIT.

         Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		      or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		      or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com
    
               N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

------------------------------

Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
X-Alternate-Route: user%node@mbunix.mitre.org
Cc: cb@mbunix.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Apollo benefits summary
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 08:51:08 EDT
From: Christopher Byrnes <cb@mbunix.mitre.org>

>[statement that first pictures of Earth taken from hundreds of thousands
>of miles away were taken by the crew of Apollo 8 in 1968]
  Weren't the first pictures of Earth as a small ball against the
background of space taken by one of the Lunar Orbiter craft in 1967?  For a
while the CBS news used the photo from Lunar Orbiter 2 of a crescent Earth
rising above the lunar highlands to open the nightly news (a practice
copied by other TV news shows).  Apollo 8 may have had the honor of
returning the first color pictures.

					Christopher Byrnes

					cb@Mitre.org
	...!{att,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,philabs,utzoo}!linus!mbunix!cb.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 19:44:56 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects science experiments for microgravity missions (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond/Paula Cleggett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 29, 1989


RELEASE:  89-105

NASA SELECTS SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS FOR MICROGRAVITY MISSIONS


     NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications, Washington, 
D.C., today announced selection of 23 scientific investigations 
and their principal investigators for definition studies which 
could lead to Space Shuttle flights on microgravity science 
missions.  The definition phase is expected to last up to 2 years 
prior to the proposed flight for a particular investigator.

     The 23 investigations come from 19 institutions, all within 
the United States.  Three of the institutions are NASA centers -- 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.; Marshall Space 
Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.; and Lewis Research Center, 
Cleveland.  Eleven institutions are universities.  Of the 23 
investigators selected, 15 were selected for materials science, 
five for fluid dynamics experiments and three for biotechnology 
investigations.

     The microgravity investigations are in response to the NASA 
Announcement of Opportunity for Microgravity Science and 
Applications, AO OSSA 4-88.  The announcement requested proposals 
to fly aboard Shuttle microgravity missions in two series -- the 
U.S. Microgravity Laboratory (USML) and U.S. Microgravity Pallet 
(USMP) series and the International Microgravity Laboratory (IML) 
series.  There were a total of 89 respondents to the announcement 
from which these investigations were selected following peer 
review.

     For the USML flight investigations would be using NASA-
supplied facility instruments such as the Crystal Growth Furnace 
and the Drop Physics Module.  For the IML and USMP flights, the 
investigations would be using facilities such as the Critical 
Point Facility and Bubble Drop and Particle Unit developed by the 
European Space Agency, the Cryostat developed by Germany and the 
MEPHISTO furnace developed by France.  European scientists also 
will use the European facilities on IML, based on the selection 
procedures of their sponsoring agencies.

     The IML-1 is scheduled for launch in December 1990.  The 
USML-1, scheduled for launch in March 1992, would be the first 
mission to use the extended duration orbiter.

     The investigators selected, their institutions and locations 
and the name of their experiment are listed below by mission:

For USML-1:

Robert E. Apfel, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Science and 
Technology of Surface Controlled Phenomena.

Frederick M. Carlson, Clarkson University, Potsdam, N.Y., 
Directional Solidification of Cadmium Telluride.

Randall M. German, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y., 
Gravitational Role in Liquid Phase Sintering.

Edward R. Gertner, Rockwell International Corporation, Thousand 
Oaks, Calif., Cadmium Telluride Microgravity Growth Experiment 
Development.

James Kafalas, GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, Mass., Study of 
Dopant Segregation Behavior During the Growth of Gallium Arsenide 
in Microgravity.

David Larson, Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, N.Y., 
Orbital Processing of High-Quality CdTe Compound Semiconductors.

Sandor L. Lehoczky, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 
Ala., Crystal Growth of Selected II-VI Semiconducting Alloys by 
Directional Solidification.

Bruce A. Nerad, 3M Space Research Laboratory, St. Paul, Minn., 
Advanced Chemical Ceramics Microgravity Experiment.

Michael C. Weinberg, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., 
Measurement of Liquid-Liquid Interfacial Tension and the Role of 
Gravity in Phase Separation Kinetics of Fluid Glass Melts.

Herbert Wiedemeier, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y., 
Vapor Transport Crystal Growth of Mercury-Cadmium Telluride in 
Microgravity.

For IML-1:

Alexander McPherson, University of California, Riverside, Protein 
Crystallization Experiments in Cryostat.

R. Allen Wilkinson, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, 
Investigation of the Thermal Equilibration Dynamics of SF6 near 
the Liquid-Vapor Critical Point.

For IML-2

Robert J. Bayuzick, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Effects on 
Nucleation by Containerless Processing in Low Gravity.

Merton C. Flemings, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
Cambridge, Alloy Undercooling Experiments.

Donald O. Frazier, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 
Ala., Kinetics of Diffusional Droplet Growth in a Liquid/Liquid 
Two Phase System.

W. C. Hymer, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 
Eletrophoretic Separation of Cells and Particles from Rat 
Pituitary and Spleen.

William L. Johnson, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 
Metallic Glass Research in Space.

Jean N. Koster, University of Colorado, Boulder, Interfacial 
Phenomena in Multilayered Fluid Systems: Steady and Oscillatory 
Convection, and g-Jitter and g-Modulation Effects.

Robert S. Snyder, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., 
Electrohydrodynamic Sample Distortion During Eletrophoresis.

R. Shankar Subramanian, Clarkson University, Potsdam, N.Y., 
Thermocapillary Migration and Interactions of Bubbles and Drops.

Julian Szekely, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 
Measurement of the Viscosity of the Undercooled Melts Under the 
Conditions of Microgravity and Supporting MHD Calculations.

For USMP-2

G.J. Abbaschian, University of Florida, Tallahassee, In-Situ 
Monitoring of Crystal Growth Using MEPHISTO.

Undetermined Mission

N.B.Singh, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, Penn., 
Double Diffusive Convection During Growth of Lead Bromide 
Crystals in Space.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #531
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Jul 89 02:31:40 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05460> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 4 Jul 89 02:30:39 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  4 Jul 89 02:30:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IYg3sMC00Vs1A1T09j>;
          Tue,  4 Jul 89 00:33:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.kYg3jYy00UkV8Tk043>;
          Tue,  4 Jul 89 00:24:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <MYg3hsa00UkVQTiU54@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  4 Jul 89 00:22:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #532

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 532

Today's Topics:
		     space news from May 22 AW&ST
NASA selects science experiments for Space Station Freedom (Forwarded)
	       Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth
			 Re: new space goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 01:33:37 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 22 AW&ST

[Cover on this one, by the way, is Mary Shafer's pet F-18, part of the
high-angle-of-attack research program at Dryden.]

NASA to close tracking stations at Guam, Santiago, Ascension, Dakar, and
Hawaii, now that the third TDRS is operational.

Second-stage motor for Pegasus fired successfully May 12 at Hercules.
Third-stage motor was fired a couple of months ago; first-stage motor
to fire June 20.

Truly, in his first week as (acting) NASA Admin., names new heads for
space-station program, after two successive station chiefs quit in two
weeks.  William B. Lenoir, ex-astronaut, is now boss.  Truly wants to
merge station and shuttle management at least partially, as the current
completely-separate managements require Truly himself to referee even
minor disagreements.

National Space Council's first formal meeting comes down very strongly in
favor of continued government support for Landsat 4/5 operations and
Landsat 6 construction, ending uncertainties about Landsat's near-term
future.  What happens after Landsat 6 is still vague, though.

Soviet scientists are grumbling loudly about the compartmentalization of
the Soviet space program.  They blame the Phobos losses, in particular,
on the refusal of the satellite builders to give the science team a role
in design.  [This sounds a bit strong to me... I think it may be just a
matter of seizing a convenient but irrelevant problem as a way of getting
some action on bad organizational structure.]  Both Soviet and US scientists
are unhappy that the 1994 Mars lander/balloon mission is still somewhat
ill-defined and not completely approved, with only five years to go before
launch.  [Sigh, there was a time when five years would not have been thought
a short time in which to build a planetary probe...]

"Brilliant pebbles" funding to rise sharply, as technical doubts begin to
be raised.  For example, there was supposed to be some b-p hardware aboard
the Delta Star satellite launched in March, but it wasn't ready, leading
to suspicion that Lawrence Livermore is overselling its rate of progress
on the crucial technologies.  There is also debate over the degree of
autonomy b-p interceptors should have; Livermore proposes near-total
independence, with the interceptors completely on their own after launch
until an "open fire" command arrives, but the USAF wants business-as-usual,
with constant command and control from the ground -- which would increase
communications requirements and thus weight and cost.  Industry people
involved with more conventional space-based interceptors complain that
a lot of b-p funding seems to be going to educate the Livermore people
about basic space engineering, such as the amount of laser power needed
for reliable laser communications.  Many people are also unhappy that cost
estimates for b-p hardware vary by a factor of four depending on who's
doing the estimating and when.

SDI funding cutbacks delay possible deployment of near-term operational
hardware several years.  Longer-term projects are also hurt, notably the
free-electron laser project, whose priority appears to have dropped and
whose output-power spec has been cut just before the contract was to be
awarded.  [This is more significant than it might sound, because the
FEL is the #1 choice to power a laser-launcher system, and Jordin Kare's
laser-launcher group is relying on SDI for laser development.]

Major changes may be in store for the space-based parts of SDI's Phase 1
design; in particular, there is concern that there are too few tracking
satellites and that they are too vulnerable to attack.

NASA revises shuttle schedule, slipping Hubble telescope to next year
and putting LDEF retrieval dangerously late in the year.  [NASA's big
priorities right now are getting Columbia flying again and getting
Galileo off on time, and things were just looking a bit crowded this
autumn.]

GE signs with Arianespace to launch Satcom C-1 on Ariane in 1991, with
options on launches for C-2 and C-4.

Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center at U of Houston gets NASA contract to build
a "wake shield facility" for the shuttle:  a 10-ft-dia shield to be held
"upstream" of experiments by the shuttle arm, giving materials-processing
experiments an extra-good vacuum.  Space Industries Inc. has been hired
to do most of the design and construction.

Pratt&Whitney says that public support for Aerospace Plane is suffering
because of the secrecy surrounding it.

Data-transmission tests between European Space Operations Center and
NASA's Deep Space Network tracking stations successful, clearing the way
for attempted revival of Giotto next year.  Giotto is far away right now
but will pass moderately close to Earth next summer; the revival attempt
will be made early next year.  If revival is successful, if Giotto is
in good shape, and if funding appears adequate, Giotto will be maneuvered
to make a close Earth flyby, aiming it at another comet.  Grigg-Skjellerup
is a possible target, and could be encountered in summer 1992.

Letter from Charles Scott MacGillivray, observing that quite a bit of
space-station funding could probably be had by selling advertising space
on it.

Letter of the week, from David M. Hoerr:

	"According to acting NASA Administrator Dale Myers, the
	fundamental purpose of the space station is `to inspire young
	people and provide incentives for engineering education'.

	"Does he really expect young people to be inspired by a slow-
	paced, bureaucracy-bound program with uncertain purposes and
	an even more uncertain future?  How ironic that NASA has done
	its best to stifle real innovation and pioneering in space, as
	represented by the efforts of numerous struggling private
	space companies that would really inspire..."
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 19:38:48 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects science experiments for Space Station Freedom (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 29, 1989


RELEASE:  89-104

NASA SELECTS SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS FOR SPACE STATION FREEDOM

     NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications today 
announced the selection of 27 flight experiments, or concept 
studies leading to experiments, that will fly aboard the Space 
Station Freedom.

     The selections fall into two categories.  The flight 
category is for attached scientific experiments that can be 
mounted aboard elements of Freedom's structure during its 
assembly and outfitting phase.  The 14 investigations selected in 
this category will be the first performed aboard Freedom.  Flight 
proposals were solicited that would be limited in weight and make 
only modest demands on station resources, such as power, cooling 
and crew availability, during the busy assembly phase.

     The concept study category is for studies that may lead to 
flight experiments after the assembly phase.  These proposals 
were solicited for more advanced ideas that could be implemented 
after station assembly when additional resources, such as higher 
power and data-handling capabilities, will be available.

     Some of the 14 flight experiments and 13 concept studies 
call upon two facilities the Office of Space Science and 
Applications has indicated would be built for Freedom.  These are 
Astromag, a cryogenically-cooled superconducting electromagnet to 
measure cosmic rays, and the Cosmic Dust Collection Facility, 
which will capture and record the direction and velocity of 
cosmic dust particles for further analysis.

     The 27 selections were made from responses to two NASA 
announcements of opportunity issued in 1988.  The first, issued 
in January, was for the Earth Observing System (EOS) and 
solicited proposals for both the unmanned NASA Polar Orbiting 
Platform and the permanently manned Space Station Freedom.  The 
second was issued in July and was specifically for scientific and 
technological payloads in other scientific disciplines to be 
attached to Freedom.  Eight of the nine Earth science 
investigations selected as attached payloads involve copies of 
EOS Polar Platform instruments.

     The investigations include participants from about 50 
organizations representing NASA and other government and private 
research centers, U.S. universities and five foreign countries.  
The selected experiments and concepts represent a wide range of 
scientific disciplines including space physics, solar and 
planetary physics, exobiology, astrophysics, Earth and 
environmental science and communications technology.  They 
involve nearly 130 scientists.

     Selection of the flight experiments was predicated on their 
ability to meet a timetable for the design, development and 
assembly of Freedom elements.  The earliest expected flight date 
for any of the experiments is 1996.  The Freedom Station will 
provide physical attachment points, power, cooling, data 
communications and pointing for certain instruments.

     The Attached Payload Program is managed by the Office of 
Space Science and Applications, Flight Systems Division.  Program 
manager is Dr. Philip J. Cressy, and program scientist is Dr. 
Stanley C. Freden, both at NASA Headquarters.

     The following individuals have been selected for funding for 
experiments and concept studies in response to the January 1988 
announcement:

Dr. Robert M. Walker, McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences, 
Washington University, St. Louis, Cosmic Dust Experiment, flight 
experiment.

Dr. Michael Fitzmaurice, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 
Md., Laser Communications Transceiver, flight experiment.

Dr. Paul Gorenstein, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 
Cambridge, Mass., Large Area Modular Array of Reflectors/High 
Throughput X-Ray Astronomy Instrument, flight experiment.

Dr. Thomas A. Parnell, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 
Ala., Spectra, Composition and Interactions of Nuclei above 10 
TeV, Astromag experiment, flight experiment.

Dr. Jonathan F. Ormes, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 
Md., Large Isotope Spectrometer for Astromag, flight experiment.

Dr. Glenn C. Carle, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. 
Exobiology Intact Capture Experiment, flight experiment.

Dr. Siegfried Auer, Applied Research Corporation, Landover, Md., 
Cosmic Dust Orbit and Capture Experiment, flight experiment.

Dr. Robert L. Golden, Particle Astrophysics Laboratory, New 
Mexico State University, Las Cruces, Measurement of Cosmic Rays 
including Anti-protons, Positrons, Anti-nuclei and a Search for 
Primordial Antimatter, Astromag experiment, flight experiment.

Dr. Arthur B. Walker, Jr., Center for Space Science and 
Astrophysics, Stanford University, Calif., Ultra-High Resolution 
XUV Spectroheliograph, flight experiment.

Dr. W. T. Sanders, Space Science and Engineering Center, 
University of Wisconsin at Madison, X-ray Background Survey 
Spectrometer, flight experiment.

Dr. Peter B. Price, Space Science Laboratory, University of 
California at Berkeley, Heavy Nucleus Collector, flight 
experiment.

Dr. Peter M. Banks, STAR Laboratory, Department of Electrical 
Engineering, Stanford University, Calif., Plasma Interactions 
Experiment, concept study.

Dr. Michael Shao, Optical Sciences and Applications Section, Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., Orbiting Stellar 
Interferometer, concept study.

Dr. Robert D. Reasenberg, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 
Cambridge, Mass., Precision Optical Interferometry in Space 
Study, concept study.

Dr. Jonathan E. Grindlay, Harvard College Observatory, Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass., Energetic 
X-ray Observatory for Space Station, concept study.

Dr. Robert L. Brown, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, 
Charlottesville, Va., High-Resolution Imaging Spectroscopy at 
Tera Hertz Frequencies, concept study.

Dr. Hugh S. Hudson, Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, 
University of California, San Diego, Pinhole/Occulter Facility, 
concept study.

Dr. Guy Fogleman, SETI Institute, Ames Research Center, Moffett 
Field, Calif., Study to Develop an Active Collector of Cosmic 
Dust, concept study.


The following investigators were selected from responses to the 
July 1988 announcement:

Dr. M. Patrick McCormick, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., 
Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III, flight experiment.

Dr. Hugh Christian, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 
Ala., Lightning Imaging Sensor, flight experiment.

Dr. Bruce Barkstrom, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., 
Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System, flight experiment.

Dr. William L. Barnes, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 
Md., Tropical Region Imaging Spectrometer, concept study.

Dr. Michael H. Freilach, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, 
Calif., Advanced Scatterometer for Studies in Meteorology and 
Oceanography, concept study.

Dr. Tiruvalam Krishnamurti, Florida State University, 
Tallahassee, an experiment similar to the Laser Atmospheric Wind 
Sounder, one of six facility instruments included in the Polar 
Platform proposal, concept study.

Dr. William G. Melbourne, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, 
Calif., Global Positioning System Geoscience Instrument, concept 
study.

Dr. Gerald R. North, Texas A&M University, College Station, 
Tropical Rain Mapping Radar, concept study.

Dr. Roy Spencer, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., 
Tropical Geophysical Information Retrieval with a High Resolution 
Microwave Spectrometer Sounder, concept study.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 14:45:55 GMT
From: asuvax!anasaz!scott@handies.ucar.edu  (Scott Gibson)
Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth

In article <1136@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.spp.cornell.edu.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>In article <638@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes:
>>EVA if you want to reboost (to replace the solar panels). ugly. THIS is just
>>ONE good reason we need a space station - drop by _anytime_ & fix the sucker..
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>In general, this is not such a good reason.  Many scientific satellites are
>in polar orbits, and other satellites are in awkward orbits, such as
>Molniya (highly elliptic) and geosynchronous (a ways further up the gravity
>well, and more exposed to energetic particles in the magnetosphere).  If you
>wanted to get something in polar orbit, starting from equatorial orbit, you
>would have to change your velocity by at least 40% more than a ground launch. 


This is certainly true; my question, however, is that whether the energy
expended to do this exceeds that required by a ground launch.  Seems to me
that a good argument could be made for the efficiency of object repair and
retrieval from an existing orbital platform; ie: the space station.

The real cost seems to be in enabling such a procedure; that is, building
the hardware necessary to adopt such a practice, and getting it where it
needs to be [ie: in orbit].  Seems like we have to do most of this, anyway.
In the short term, it is probably cheaper and easier to build ground launch
vehicles [or use existing ones].  At some point, however, we have to *stop*
thinking about the short term.

This is just my own opinion; I don't really KNOW anything anyway....



Scott

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 16:35:59 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <1989Jun28.165104.1307@utzoo.uucp> I wrote:
>>Let's do it cooperatively -- US, USSR, EEC, Japan, India, Israel, Indonesia
>>et cetera...
>
>Let's see...  The USSR does the heavylift boosters and nuclear-electric
>space propulsion, since they already have most of that done or in the
>works.  Japan does the electronics, of course.  ESA builds the crew
>quarters, based on Spacelab experience.  The US does... um... well...

Before too many people grump at me for this, I should say that this was
meant somewhat rhetorically; I can actually think of one or two things
that the US is well-suited to do.  (Tracking and telemetry is an obvious
one, as is the Mars lander.)  The point is, the US has let its space
technology slip to the point where the list of plausible US contributions
is shorter than you'd think.

There is also often a quiet assumption, when "international cooperation"
is discussed, that the US is the obvious choice for project leader.  Just
to be heretical :-), I would offer the suggestion that based on recent
performance, almost any other country would be better, since space-program
management in the US has been a disaster area of late.
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #532
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Jul 89 03:52:23 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA15822> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 4 Jul 89 03:52:13 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  4 Jul 89 03:52:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8Yg6O3m00UkTE2AUIn>;
          Tue,  4 Jul 89 03:25:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.sYg6Jle00UkVQU3U5A>;
          Tue,  4 Jul 89 03:21:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <YYg6IZS00UkV8U204i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  4 Jul 89 03:20:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #533

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 533

Today's Topics:
	     Newspaper article on Insat accident results
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		   NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
		      Re: ADA and space station
		 JOB VACANCY: for British Cosmanaut.
		   Re: Satellite Images - at home!
	Re: NASA GIVES ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LAUNCH COMPANY!!
			 Re: Phobos pictures
		   Re: Satellite Images - at home!
    Re: Dumping excess heat to space (was Re: IS FUSION GOOD ???)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 29 Jun 89 15:02:19 CDT
From: Will Martin <wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:  Newspaper article on Insat accident results

This was in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Wednesday, June 24 1989, page 3C:

SATELLITE LAUNCH WEEKS AWAY

Washington -- A "very unfortunate" launch pad accident last week in
Florida will delay what was to have been the first major private-sector
US launch of a satellite by at least several weeks and possibly many
months, officials say.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. was scheduled to loft a communications satellite
for the government of India aboard its Delta 2 rocket on Thursday,
making it the first American company to dispatch a paying customer's
cargo to orbit.

The company is one of three major American rocket makers trying to
compete for commercial satellite business with the European consortium
Arianespace, which has cornered more than half the free world market.

The competition is an outgrowth of the Reagan administration's efforts
to encourage development of a private-sector launch industry. Previous
US launches have been conducted by NASA or the Air Force.

The accident happened June 19, when a hoist cable snapped, allowing a
heavy steel hook to fall on the $70 million Insat 1D satellite and
damage a critical antenna.

The cable was part of a 5-ton bridge crane that had been used to lift
the satellite 116 feet to the top of a Delta 2 rocket, built by McDonnell
Douglas Space Systems Co. of Huntington Beach, CA, at a launch pad
leased from the Air Force at Cape Canaveral.

The satellite has been removed from the rocket and sent to the company's
Florida facility, where potentially lethal propellants must be unloaded
before the satellite's manufacturer, Ford Aerospace Communications Co.
of Palo Alto, CA, and a representative of the customer, India's
Department of Space, will be able to assess the damage, according to
McDonnell Douglas spokesman [sic] Sheila Carter.

The company plans to proceed with other launches scheduled on its Delta
rockets, she said, including a Navstar navigation satellite in late July
and a British media satellite in mid-August.

"There's a good chance the satellite will have to be sent back" to the
plant in California, said Susan Pearce of Ford Aerospace. There is no
spare antenna, and a new one may have to be built.

Some sources said that finding a new launch slot might take longer than
repairing the satellite -- up to a year if the launch schedule isn't
juggled to make a new opening.

In addition to the Delta boosters, Martin Marietta Astronautics Group of
Denver is marketing a commercial version of the big Titan 34D rocket,
and General Dynamics Corp. of St. Louis is selling Atlas-Centaur rockets.
***End of Article***

Hope this is of interest and doesn't duplicate something already posted!
(I see the Space stuff on the Digest and it runs about a week or so
later than the USENET.)

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 16:39:43 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

>He definitely isn't.  I consider the DC-3 a charming historical relic,
>period.  If you want class when climbing into an aircraft, it has to have
>afterburners.

BIG "afterburners".  Say, something along the lines of five F-1 engines...:-)



Bob Myers            | "One man's "magic" is another man's engineering.        
myers%hpfcla@hplabs. |     "Supernatural" is a null word."                      
hp.com               |                   - Lazarus Long/Robert A. Heinlein

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 05:03:13 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the satellite user community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.  The most current orbital elements
from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513)
427-0674, and are updated several times weekly.  Documentation and tracking
software are also available on this system.  The Celestial RCP/M may be
accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit, no parity.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:

AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed;
           blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.  (Decimal point assumed)
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1; plus sign = 2)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:

NOAA 6
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978

Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 14:13:01 GMT
From: att!tsdiag!scr1!jeffs@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jeff Schnell)
Subject: Re: ADA and space station

In article <4847@mtuxo.att.com>, tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes:
> "Course Description:
> Ada is not "just another programming language," but rather was specifically
> designed to impact software development across the entire software life
> cycle as no language has ever done before. Participants are shown how SW
> written in Ada is more understandable and reliable than that written in
> other languages, and how SW systems are more modifiable and maintainable
> when developed using Ada.
> 
< Interesting stuff deleted                                          

   How could I get to see this conference???  Please email me back.
-- 
Jeffrey J. Schnell   System Support Eng.      | Concurrent Computer Corp.
FAX:  201-870-4249   Ph: (201) 870-4120       | 2 Crescent Place, M/S 117
UUCP: ucbvax!rutgers!petsa!tsdiag!scr1!jeffs  | Oceanport NJ, 07757

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 89 14:58:18 -0500
From: PEZELY@vax1.acs.udel.edu, DANIEL J <pez@vax1.acs.udel.edu>

unsubscribe space "Daniel Pezely"

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 11:28:37 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: JOB VACANCY: for British Cosmanaut.

JOB VACANCY: British cosmonaut required.

The agreement between a British consortium and the Soviets
for a British Cosmonaut to visit the Mir space station was
finally signed yesterday.

The trip, codenamed Juno, will take place sometime in 1991
and will last eight days.

The #16 million ticket price is to be raised via
sponsorship, advertising and the sale of the TV rights.

The special telephone hotline has already taken hundreds of
calls from applicants.

Candidates should be between 21 and 40 years of age and
possess a formal scientific training in either biology,
applied physics, engineering or medicine. A shortlist of 300
will be drawn up, and two will eventualy be chosen to train
with the Soviets.

Both will have to learn Russian [although I suspect you will
stand a better chance if you already speak it].

If anyone wants to apply, the phone number given was
<UK> 01-224-2211 Mon-Fri 9am-7pm and 10am-5pm at weekends.

If you are planning to phone from outside Britain, remember
those times are in BST.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 15:00:45 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!desw@uunet.uu.net  (Des Watson)
Subject: Re: Satellite Images - at home!

In article <1507@vms.eurokom.ie>, gnugent@vms.eurokom.ie writes:
>
> The only organisation I know of who are dedicated to weather satellite picture
> reception are the Remote Imaging Group in the UK. They also supply a range of
> equipment at reasonable prices. They can probably put you in touch with someone
> closer to home.

I have the doubtful honour of being the membership secretary of this
organization. At present, there are just over 1000 members, mainly in the UK,
and the majority seem to be actively receiving weather satellite signals.
E-mail to me will get you a membership application form, or indeed, a list
of "local" members (but only those who have not objected to their names
being used for this purpose).

Interest in this subject seems to be growing - there have been many articles
published recently in the (amateur) radio/electronics press.

Des Watson         Phone: +44 273 678045       | Computer Science
UUCP: ...mcvax!ukc!cogs!desw                   | Maths & Physics Building
ARPA: desw%uk.ac.sussex.cogs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk| Univ. of Sussex, Falmer
JANET:desw@uk.ac.sussex.cogs                   | Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 12:26:49 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: NASA GIVES ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LAUNCH COMPANY!!

In article <8906180439.AA12168@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes:
>NASA, AMROC AGREE TO CRITICAL CHEMICAL EXCHANGE

>>                                    .....NASA provided two drums 
>>(about 600 lbs.) of the chemical to AMROC.

>Approximate wholesale value of 300kg H2O2 is a few hundred dollars.

Anyone like to estimate what the cost of preparing all the
publicity handouts about providing the drums of H2O2 was?
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 16:25:03 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Phobos pictures

In article <1115@syma.sussex.ac.uk> nickw@syma.susx.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) writes:
>The albedo variations are very different to Viking images, with the channel
>floor and low land between the remnant blocks of the collapsed terrain 
>showing up significantly darker than the rest of the cratered uplands. The 
>photos, if Infra-red, could be indicative of sub-surface volatiles in these 
>regions.

Yes, this sounds like the image which featured on the
original C4 news report I posted about originaly.

They specificaly mentioned it was an infra-red image but
didn't mention what part of the spectrum.

The channel floors between the blocks were said to be
between two and three kilometers wide.

Obviously that Giant statue of Elvis was life size, if this
is the city the inhabitants came from. :->
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 18:17:59 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!paul@hplabs.hp.com  (Paul Bame)
Subject: Re: Satellite Images - at home!

Save yourself some trouble and confusion and find a copy of "The Weather
Satellite Experimenter's Handbook".  I don't have one but it's supposed
to be pretty good.

In general, the several types of weather sats aren't too hard to receive
but the "imaging" satellites (Landsat, SPOT) likely use digital encoding
and/or encrypting.  Weather sats are made for lots of folks to be able
to use, satellites which are either classified or make money are often
designed to be useful only to a particular ground station (or a few).

The polar orbiting weather satellites use a ~137 MHz signal and transmit
continuous images of what's under them.  The geosync ones use 1.6GHz 
(e.g., you might need a dish).

Since this stuff involves radio, you might try asking further questions in
rec.ham-radio too.  Hams have been active in image communication for a very
long time.


	-Paul Bame N0KCL

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 89 15:39:45 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@hc.dspo.gov  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Dumping excess heat to space (was Re: IS FUSION GOOD ???)

>From article <370@wang.UUCP>, by dana@wang.UUCP (890 x76196):
> If it is difficult to eliminate waste heat from industrial processes
> into space, why not reduce the heat recieved from the sun?
> 
> With a (relatively) unlimited energy budget it should be possible to
> launch a number of large, reflective, satellites to reflect away
> excess incoming solar energy.
> 
> Dana Khoyi @ Wang Labs (...uunet!wang!dana)

Yes, that will reduce the amount of heat recieved from the sun. It
will also reduce the amount of light from the sun. Plants live by
photosynthesis, they work off of light, not heat. So reducing the heat
coming from the sun might have some nasty side effects. Just possibly
the destruction of the entire ecology of the earth.

"With a (relatively) unlimited energy budget it should be possible to"
move all the heat producing industries into space. Once in space
getting rid of the heat isn't that difficult a problem. Once in space
it should be cheaper to mine the asteroids for many raw materials and
ship only finished products to earth.

"With a (relatively) unlimited energy budget it should be possible to"
collect much of the accumulated industrial wastes and either ship them
off planet, convert it to something useful, or make it harmless.

"With a (relatively) unlimited energy budget it should be possible to"
provide clean water, clean air, food, and the opportunity for an
education, to every person on earth. In other words, freedom from
want.

Is fusion good? Is penicillin good? I doubt that I would be alive
today if penicilin had not been discovered. I'm convinced that both of
my children would not have survived past age 2 without antibiotics.

But I know that antibiotics have caused major social changes. Some of
those changes are ones I don't much like. But all in all I think
antibiotics are a good thing.

Is fusion good? Yes I think it will be good. Why? Because cheap energy
will give everyone more choices. And reduce the personal risks of
those choices. I'm sure there will be social changes that I don't
like. But social changes that result from personal choices are better
than social changes driven by grinding poverty.

The original poster made a number of nasty statements about the
ability of the average person to "handle" the reponsibility that
comes with unlimited energy. The answer to this is that some people
will make mistakes. Some people will die from those mistakes. The rest
will make good choices and learn from their own and others mistakes.
But they will do it freely.

			Bob P.

P.S.

Those that want to dictate what is good for the people should learn
the lesson of Tiananmen square.

-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #533
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Jul 89 01:54:55 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05134> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 5 Jul 89 01:54:26 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  5 Jul 89 01:54:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QYgN16u00Vs1A1a0Fg>;
          Wed,  5 Jul 89 00:36:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.UYgMsp600UkVAUok5a>;
          Wed,  5 Jul 89 00:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kYgMpUi00UkVEUnE5q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  5 Jul 89 00:24:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #534

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 534

Today's Topics:
	     Space Deaths (was Re: Killing Borgs easily)
	       Payload Status for 06/30/89 (Forwarded)
		    Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins
		 RE: Simulation of planetary motions.
		     Re: Space station computers
			 Re: new space goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 21:59:07 GMT
From: bucsb!ckd@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Space Deaths (was Re: Killing Borgs easily)

In article <598@ubbpc.UUCP> wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) writes:
- In article <7926@brunix.UUCP>, rjd@brunix (Rob Demillo) writes:
- > Seven people were lost in our effort to get off this planet...
-
-  Eleven (Twelve?),
- 
- including Apollo astronauts (on the ground)
- and Russian Cosmonauts.

I'll give this a try.  Crossposted to sci.space, with followups there...
this way, I'll get corrected quickly and precisely. :-)

US spacecraft: 7 deaths in-flight (Challenger) and 3 in a pad fire (Apollo 1).

USSR: 3 deaths on Soyuz 1, 3 on Soyuz 11, others "suspected."

So at least 16.

- Bill Hutchison, DP Consultant	rutgers!cbmvax!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh
-- 
  /\  | /  |\  @bu-pub.bu.edu <preferred>  | Christopher K. Davis, BU SMG '90
 /    |/   | \ %bu-pub.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu |      uses standardDisclaimer;
 \    |\   | /  <for stupid sendmails>     |       BITNET: smghy6c@buacca 
  \/  | \  |/  @bucsb.UUCP <last resort>  or ...!bu-cs!bucsb!ckd if you gotta.
 --"Ignore the man behind the curtain and the address in the header." --ckd--

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 17:57:40 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 06/30/89 (Forwarded)


                                   Payload Status Report
                                   Kennedy Space Center
                                   Friday, June 30, 1989


          George H. Diller



          Galileo/IUS-19

               In the SAEF-2 planetary spacecraft checkout facility, the S-
          Band/X-band high gain antenna was hoisted atop Galileo on
          Thursday, June 29.  Earlier this week, the installation of 120
          radioisotope heater units was completed.  These are small heat
          devices that keep the science experiments and moveable spacecraft
          elements warm in the very cold environment of deep space.  There
          are 84 on the spacecraft, and 36 on the probe for a total of 120
          RHU's.

               Also this week, a stand-alone functional test of the S-
          Band/X-band high gain antenna was conducted.  On Monday, June 26,
          the antenna was deployed.  The following day, a check of antenna
          radio power was conducted.  On Wednesday, June 28, the antenna
          was stowed for flight and prepared for mating with the
          spacecraft.  Today, now that installation on Galileo is complete,
          the antenna will be turned on and the test of radio power
          repeated.  The data will be compared with the earlier results to
          verify that the antenna is properly connected and performing as
          required.  This antenna is used to transmit and receive signals
          between the spacecraft and the Deep Space Network tracking
          stations.

               Also scheduled for today is a deployment check of Galileo's
          science boom.  Continuing in work are electrical tests of the
          pyrotechnic devices which have been installed.  These devices are
          associated with boom deployment, removal of optical covers, and
          release of the probe.  Next week, final installation of the
          thermal blankets will begin, and there will be a deployment check
          of the two RTG booms.

               The Inertial Upper Stage booster is undergoing checkout on
          Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.  The testing of the avionics
          systems is complete and checkout of the first and second stage
          interfaces will now begin.

          SSBUV

               On the Shuttle Backscatter Ultraviolet (SSBUV) experiment,
          which will have fixed attachments in the payload bay of Atlantis,
          calibration testing of the experiment has been completed.  The
          flight batteries have been undergoing installation this week.  It
          will be transported from the Hangar AE cleanroom on Cape
          Canaveral Air Force Station to the Orbiter Processing Facility in
          about another week.  It is scheduled for installation in the
          orbiter's payload bay on July 13.

          AC-68/FltSatCom F-8

               Power-on testing continues.  The nose fairing has arrived
          and has been taken to Hangar J for storage.  The Terminal
          Countdown Demonstration test, the practice countdown which
          includes a complete fueling of the launch vehicle, is scheduled
          for August 9.

               The FltSatCom F-8 spacecraft is at the TRW plant in Redondo
          Beach, California, being prepared for shipment.  It will arrive
          at Cape Canaveral on July 31.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 17:34:19 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!dag@hplabs.hp.com  (David Geiser)
Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins

- NASA Prediction Bulletins -

Effective January 1986, this system began posting the most recent element sets 
received from NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center for several categories of 
satellites:  Amateur Radio, Earth Resources, Manned Spacecraft, Navigation, 
Weather, and NASA's 30 Day Specials (which contain objects launched within the
last 30 days and are often easy to spot visually).  More specifically, these
include the following satellites or satellite series:  OSCAR, Radio Sputnik, 
UOSAT, Cosmos, LandSat, SeaSat 1, SPOT, Mir, Salyut 7, Soyuz, LDEF, US Space 
Shuttle, NAVSTAR (GPS), GOES, Meteor, and NOAA.

These elements will be maintained in ASCII format in the file BULLETIN.TXT
which may be viewed with the 'B'ulletin command.  They are also maintained in
an archive, NPB-xxx.ARC, where xxx is the current file version (a number from
000 to 999) and will serve to indicate whether the file has been updated
recently.  This file is on Drive C0: in CP/M.

Data for each satellite will consist of three lines in the following format:
 
AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN
 
Line 1 is a eleven-character name.
Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical 
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending of ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (Blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1; plus sign = 2)

 Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:
 
NOAA 6   
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978
 
Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in 
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.  All epochs are UTC.
Satellites will be ordered by their NASA Catalog Number.  The data file will 
be updated as soon as possible after receipt of new element sets or whenever 
element sets are received for the Space Shuttle.

Hopefully, this service will provide a central location for users to obtain 
this data in a timely manner and help eliminate the tedious process of 
entering data directly from the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

If any users wish to see other satellites included or have suggestions for 
improvements in these data dissemination procedures, please leave a 
message/comment for the SYSOP and I will get back to you.

                                       - TS Kelso
				       via dag :-)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 89 10:35 CST
From: I am Beatrice <SCOTT%GACVAX1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: RE: Simulation of planetary motions.

   Most first year physics books should give you alot of what you need, at least
in round numbers.  If I were you, I'd find one of these physics students.
You mentioned that you'd found a lot of masses, etc, and didn't really
have what you wanted - this is what you wanted!  Its simple enough to
get the data.  Check the library.  I did this last spring in an evening.
And I'm only a sophomore, with decent physics and computer background
(I'm a CS/Math major.)  I know, you want precise data, etc, etc.  I'm sure
that can be found in almost any college library, out to a decent number of
decimals.

PS: I'd recommend not doing it in real time.  It takes hundreds of years for
the outer planets to complete an orbit about the sun :-)  I found that when
I speed my simulation up enough to get movement on the outside, the inner
planets go WAY too fast.  You really cannot win this one.

Scott Hess
scott@gacvax1.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 16:37:07 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space station computers

In article <615140237.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>>	At normal viewing distances, 120dpi (which is only twice what
>>	my Mac delivers) would be more than acceptable...
>
>120 dpi is not acceptable for archival purposes. 400dpi is probably
>marginal. Would you want the Mona Lisa archived for historians at only
>120dpi? I wouldn't even store my personal archives at that low a dpi.
>And even if you store high and downsample on display, then you still
>have to do hardcopy everytime you want to study color pictorial
>material.  I would not want to store and display photographic material
>at a resolution less than the grain size of the film...

Gee, what do you do now? :-)

Settling for more modest display resolution is likely to have major effects
on performance, reliability, and cost for quite a while to come.  Display
resolution and archival-storage resolution are entirely separate questions.
If you need to study something at full resolution, you don't print it, you
just zoom in.  It's not exactly common to go over a 4Kx4K image pixel by
pixel.  For that matter, it's rare to go over an image at current screen
resolutions pixel by pixel -- a fair bit of the resolution is there to
make it look good, not because every last dot is used.  (When considering
what makes things look good, remember that the dynamic range of the screen
is different from that of hardcopy, and this matters to the human visual
system.)

>..... Or spanning the text with two fingers, saying
>"Move", pointing at the insertion point and saying "HERE"?

And getting two characters too many at the start and three too few at the
end because your fingertips are too big, and having it inserted at the
wrong place because somebody in the background said "HERE!" at the wrong
time.  Not to mention having to grab for the can of Windex every ten
minutes to clean up the screen, and getting snarls from your buddy who's
trying to concentrate while you're shouting at your computer.

There are reasons, quite apart from technical feasibility, why touch
screens and voice input have never been terribly popular except for
specialized applications.
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 17:47:03 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <14424@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>If I was trying to set an ambitious goal, I'd make it initial deployment
>>in 2001 and full operation by 2005.  A determined effort ought to be able
>>to get the necessary hardware development done in a decade, even starting
>>from the current mess.
>
>It took twelve years from Sputnik to Tranquillity.  Twenty years after
>*that*, space is once again a certified people-free zone.  Mars is such
>a mammoth project (much harder than the Moon)...

Uh, why is it much harder?  Remember, going from Sputnik to Tranquillity
required developing a lot of new technologies.  I see no comparable
requirement for Mars orbit+surface bases.  We have adequate rocket engines.
We have adequate power systems, life support, landing technology, tracking
and telemetry, communications, etc.  Better closed-cycle life support
would help a bunch, and incremental improvements on a lot of the above
would be useful, but basically we have the technology we need.  The greater
distances to Mars simply require bigger vehicles (for larger crews and
more supplies); otherwise distance is just waiting time, and Mars is not
much harder than the Moon.  In some ways it's easier, because we have
Phobos and Deimos as potential resources, and the Martian surface has
useful supplies of things like water.

We also have the immense advantage of the beginnings of a private space
launch industry.  The clear number one problem for a major Mars effort
is the high cost of launch to low Earth orbit.  The way to fix that is
to say, *believably*, "starting in 1995, we will buy one million pounds
a year of freight capacity to low orbit from the lowest qualified bidders,
price not to exceed $500/lb, tested hardware required; development funding
must be private, the Mars project will provide none".  General Dynamics,
Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Arianespace, etc., will scream bloody
murder, hire lobbyists, and start talking excitedly to Congressthings,
because they simply can't do it.  Amroc, Pacific American, SSIA, Orbital
Sciences, etc., will scream with joy, hire engineers, and start talking
excitedly to venture capitalists, because THEY CAN... given a reliable
market to justify the investment.

And cheap transport to low orbit makes the whole thing much easier and
much less demanding, because it's no longer necessary to pare every gram
off the project's hardware.

>What we can do in 10 years simply doesn't last.  What we can do in 50
>might.  I want to follow the Antarctica model - establish an
>international scientific outpost in a distant, hostile environment.

Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years?  If we are
assuming (a) that this is meant as a challenging project, not an easy
100%-assured one, (b) that there is strong political support, and (c) that
the objective is considered more important than empire building, I see no
reason why it can't be done in that length of time.  Apollo took 8, it
was harder because it started with less, and it developed -- but was
never allowed to *use* -- most of the hardware needed for more permanent
follow-ons.  (Anyone who claims that Apollo was always meant to be a
one-shot has never seen some of the work Apollo did on follow-ons to the
early missions.  Apollo was strangled in infancy.)

>By drawing the program out timewise, you provide an ongoing focus of
>activity that *defines* a half century of endeavor...

You also tell everyone involved with it now that they will be old or dead
before they see results.

If you want half a century of endeavor, as opposed to half a century of
marking time and wasting money, set your sights higher.  Mars is not that
hard.  In half a century, we could see the solar system explored and
beginning to be settled, and the first starships abuilding.

>>...  The US does... um... well...
>
>Simple, Henry.  The US builds an elaborate Peace Shield to protect the
>Mars outpost from surprise nuclear attack.  :-)

Alan M. Carroll <carroll@cs.uiuc.edu> sent me the following in mail, and
has given me permission to post it:

---------
Top Ten list of Things the US could do for the Mars Stations :

10. Have Congress pass a law saying "This is a good thing, some company should
    put up the cash to do it".
9.  Impose import quotas on Martian materials.
8.  Create 4 congressional sub-committee and 5 commissions to study the issue,
    and maybe find a scientist or engineer, even.
7.  Decry it as unfair foreign competition.
6.  Generate the paperwork, which could then be used as radiation shielding.
5.  Draw up the astrological charts for when would be the best time to launch,
    and provide telepaths for the communications systems.
4.  Pass Anti-Trust laws to prevent internal US cooperation, or US firms
    aiding the effort.
3.  Require English units on all parts.
2.  Duplicate everyone else's work, at twice the price and twice the time.

And number 1,
1.  Provide lawyers for lawsuits the first time someone gets spacesick.
---------

>Oh yes, and you "North Americans" can build some more RMUs.  It's what
>you do, after all -- and you do it so well.  Who'd have guessed that
>Canada's role in space would turn out to be exporting arms?

That one is a bit of a surprise, all right!

(The folks at Spar Aerospace are fond of pointing out that the question
of who would build the arm finally came down to Canada vs. an unnamed US
company.  Canada won.  The US company [Spar refuses to identify them!]
went after, and got, the contract to build... the shuttle toilet.)

>Let's see... Glavkosmos is to spaceflight as the USSR is to vodka?  :-)

That's not a bad analogy, actually...
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #534
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Jul 89 03:47:14 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA13588> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 5 Jul 89 03:47:06 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed,  5 Jul 89 03:47:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.sYgPdzu00jZdA0o059>;
          Wed,  5 Jul 89 03:36:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.AYgPNNi00UkVQV5U5S>;
          Wed,  5 Jul 89 03:18:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYgPM5u00UkVEV405N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed,  5 Jul 89 03:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #535

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 535

Today's Topics:
			      Re: X-rays
			  Re: Let's go back
    NASA selects dance bands for Space Station Titanic (Forwarded)
Boeing, Martin Marietta to study Space Transfer Vehicle concepts (Forwarded)
		   Human deaths on space missions.
		      Re: ADA and space station
			 Re: new space goals
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
			 Re: new space goals
			 Re: new space goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 89 14:29:52 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: X-rays


>From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Vaguely-space-related queries

>In article <Added.UYddObu00Ui3MVdk9y@andrew.cmu.edu> wmartin@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes:
>>... But WHY are
>>X-rays absorbed by the atmosphere when they can penetrate materials that are
>>opaque to visible light? 

>Good question, the trick is not that air is unusually impervious to
>x-rays, the trick is that it is unusually transparent to visible light.
>Photons (e.g. light particles and x-ray particles, both the same thing but with
>different energies) interact with charged
>particles (typically electrons) by transferring energy and momentum.
>For electrons in atoms, this usually requires a certain amount of energy
>(because an atom's electron can only take on certain energy values), which, for
>most of the atoms in air, most visible photons do not have.  For opaque solids,
>the electrons usually have more freedom so they can affect even low-energy
>visible photons.

But why, if that is the case ;-) are we able to make transparent film
conductors, such as those used on touch-sensitive display screens and
self-defrosting automobile window glass? Is the conductive layer simply
so thin that it doesn't block much of the light?
                             John Roberts
                             roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 15:36:36 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Let's go back

In article <54932@sci.UUCP> daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes:
>all, for, umm, $4 billion in launch costs.  An order of magnitude cut in
>launch costs would help a great deal.

Well, you can't get an order of magnitude with any existing system, but you
can get a somewhat-more-modest-but-still-large cut by buying your launch
services commercially from the lowest bidder:  Glavkosmos in Moscow.
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 20:04:21 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: NASA selects dance bands for Space Station Titanic (Forwarded)


Richard Deckard/Sarah Conner
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 30, 1989


RELEASE:  89-970-HOTT

NASA SELECTS DANCE BANDS FOR SPACE STATION TITANIC


     NASA's Office of Redundancy Office, Washington, D.C., today
announced selection of primary and backup dance bands for Space
Station Titanic, and an array of principal music selections for
performance by the bands.  The dance bands will perform in the
Promenade Deck Facility (PDF) to be deployed in the second phase
of Space Station Titanic's construction.

     The two bands were selected from a pool of 71 applicant
groups in 28 states and six foreign countries, in response to an
Announcement of Opportunity for Microgravity Frills and Extras,
AO ORO 88-6000SUX.  The announcement requested audition tapes
from lounge swing bands with an interest in a steady gig at
flight hazard pay rates.  After a six-week review conducted at
NASA's Lounge Gig Simulator Facility (LGSF) in Ramada, Texas,
NASA ORO selected primary and backup bands from diverse and
balanced locales -- Huntsville, Ala. and Ramada, Tex.

     In addition to their duties as Music Specialists aboard
Space Station Titanic, the flight band's members will operate
other PDF payloads and systems, including the Microgravity
Shuffleboard Dynamics Module (MSDM), the Orbital Deck Chair
Rearrangement Experiment (ODCRE), and the Quiescently Frozen
Confection Facility (QFCF). The backup band will train jointly
with the primary band aboard NASA's modified KC-135 Vomit Comet
Facility (VCF), and will provide sound checks and chart
arrangements during Space Station Titanic's mission cycle.

     The bands selected, their conductors, locations and
signature tunes are listed below:

Fidel N. Rohm-Burns, The Ku-Ku Band, Ramada, Tex., "That Old
Devil Moon."

Wernher Pinback, Wernher Pinback And His Capture Features,
Huntsville, Ala., "Will You Want Me (To Launch) Next April."

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 17:59:10 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Boeing, Martin Marietta to study Space Transfer Vehicle concepts (Forwarded)

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 30, 1989

Bob Lessels
Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Ala.


RELEASE:  89-107

BOEING, MARTIN MARIETTA TO STUDY SPACE TRANSFER VEHICLE CONCEPTS


     NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has 
selected Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash., and Martin Marietta Corp., 
Denver, Colo., for negotiations leading to award of contracts to 
study Space Transfer Vehicle (STV) concepts.

     These studies will investigate a high-performance space 
vehicle system capable of ferrying large, automated payloads from 
Space Station Freedom to geosynchronous orbits, the Moon or other 
planets.  The cryogenically fueled system also may evolve to 
support manned missions to the moon or Mars.

     These contracts are for 18-month Phase A studies with 
options for extensions up to 3 years.  The total value of each 
contract, with options, is up to $5 million.

     STV, successor to a previous concept known as the Orbital 
Transfer Vehicle, is targeted for initial operational capability 
in 1999.  The vehicle may be carried to orbit by a variety of 
means, including the Space Shuttle, the proposed Shuttle-C or 
future advanced launch systems.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 22:33:26 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Human deaths on space missions.


         The information on the number of human deaths during space
    missions contains some inaccuracies:  There was only one cosmonaut 
    (not three) onboard SOYUZ 1 in 1967, Vladimir Komarov, who died when 
    his spacecraft parachute tangled as he attempted to land in the Soviet 
    Union.

         Also, APOLLO 1 - as tragic as it was - is not considered a true 
    space mission, as the three astronauts died in the craft during tests 
    on the ground.  The other space missions where people were killed
    were SOYUZ 11 in 1971 (three cosmonauts) and Space Shuttle CHALLENGER
    51-L in 1986 (seven astronauts).  I would like to hope that this list 
    will never need updating, but I'm afraid reality will have other plans.

         As to "suspected" deaths of Soviet cosmonauts, there were, but 
    these were during training exercises on Earth and from other Earth-
    bound incidents, not during actual space missions.  Read James Oberg's 
    UNCOVERING SOVIET DISASTERS (1988) for more details on these events.

         Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		      or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		      or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com
    
              N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 17:11:53 GMT
From: littlei!omepd!inteloa!snidely@uunet.uu.net  (David P. Schneider)
Subject: Re: ADA and space station

In article <1989Jun27.154807.27551@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>As Bjarne Stroustup observes, the Ada fanatics tend to reason along the
>lines of "Ada is good, and object-oriented is good, therefore Ada is
>object-oriented".

On an OOPL scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate Ada as a 5.  Most OOPL languages  are
at  least  a  7.   Bernard  Meyers rates C about a 2 (he also rates FORTRAN
about 2.5, and "straight" Pascal -- no seperate compilation extensions   --
as a 1 or less).

I side with Grady Booch in believing that the encapsulation properties  and
the  generics  features (which offer limited inheritance) allow genuine OOD
in Ada.

I also believe that Ada was originally conceived as a  high-water  mark  in
DSD  and  DASD  design, and the OOD support comes, as for OOD itself, as an
evolution from these techniques.

NASA has been strongly involved in promoting "sw engineering  by  Ada"  and
OOD (Seidewitz and Stark).

Ada is also a good language for describing hardware features (e.g., I/O re-
gisters),  which  presumably is important in applications on the Space Sta-
tion; its strong typing is good for enforcing care with  units  when  doing
scientific  calculations,  and implementations I am familiar with interface
well with other languages.

Of course, I'm somewhat biased, as I was converted from  PL/M  to  Ada  for
system implementation purposes, and the system that I'm doing Ada on has OS
and HW support to increase the OO-edness of my programming  (object  attri-
bute  mechanisms,  etc).   I'd be happy to work on OOD Ada programs for the
Space Station.

                                                David P. Schneider
                                                     BiiN (tm)
                                                   Friday, 6.30

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 89 21:37:22 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <1989Jul1.195448.26645@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>But the most important thing is that space
>exploration (whether public or private) must become as important to
>society as prosperity, defense, welfare/charity, or the environment.
>...
>I think society *is* ready for exploration-oriented values.

    I think people love space - as long as they don't have to pay for
it.  Families who realize they can't ever afford a house are not
likely to support massive increases in the space budget.

    The only reason for going into space which bypasses the fickle
public and government has nothing to do with exploration or science.
It has to do with money.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 89 21:17:23 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <11630013@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>>... If you want class when climbing into an aircraft, it has to have
>>afterburners.
>
>BIG "afterburners".  Say, something along the lines of five F-1 engines...:-)

Yeah.  Now that's megaclass!
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 89 19:54:48 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@rutgers.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <1989Jun30.174703.27589@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <14424@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>What we can do in 10 years simply doesn't last.  What we can do in 50
>>might.  I want to follow the Antarctica model - establish an
>>international scientific outpost in a distant, hostile environment.
>
>Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years? 

>Apollo took 8, it
>was harder because it started with less, and it developed -- but was
>never allowed to *use* -- most of the hardware needed for more permanent
>follow-ons.  (Anyone who claims that Apollo was always meant to be a
>one-shot has never seen some of the work Apollo did on follow-ons to the
>early missions.  Apollo was strangled in infancy.)

>If you want half a century of endeavor, as opposed to half a century of
>marking time and wasting money, set your sights higher.  Mars is not that
>hard.  In half a century, we could see the solar system explored and
>beginning to be settled, and the first starships abuilding.

I agree -- we need to chose bold goals which will capture the
imagination of the public.  But the most important thing is that space
exploration (whether public or private) must become as important to
society as prosperity, defense, welfare/charity, or the environment.
Note that drastic shifts in societal values *can* occur -- 10 years ago,
the last would have been considered peripheral, and 20 years ago it
would have been considered lunatic fringe.

I think society *is* ready for exploration-oriented values.  Look at
the primary gauges of mainstream public opinion -- the mass media.
The current issue of Newsweek looks back at Apollo 11 and calls for
bold new goals for space exploration.  Time has recently released a
syndicated documentary about Apollo 11 which likewise expressed
enthusiasm for new space initiatives.  Around the time of Discovery's
launch, U.S. News did a cover story on possible new goals for the U.S.
space program including a manned mission to Mars, a manned mission to
Phobos, a permanent moonbase, and a permanent lunar observatory.
Moreover, the U.S. News essay concentrated on the real motivation for
space exploration: discovery and adventure on a grand scale.

In trying to convince the public to fund space exploration,
concentrating on the scientific benefits strikes me as a major
tactical error.  Planetary scientists may be intrigued by the
chemical composition of the Martian soil, and astrophysicists may
consider be fascinated by finding out about the formation of the solar
system, but the average taxpayer couldn't care less.  It is
exploration rather than science which will capture his or her
imagination.

Mars by 1999 and the rest of the solar system by 2049 are sufficiently
bold goals -- as long as it is clear that these are not one-shot
missions, but stepping stones toward the rest of the universe.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 89 23:37:27 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@rutgers.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <32823@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>In article <1989Jul1.195448.26645@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>>But the most important thing is that space
>>exploration (whether public or private) must become as important to
>>society as prosperity, defense, welfare/charity, or the environment.
>>...
>>I think society *is* ready for exploration-oriented values.
>
>    I think people love space - as long as they don't have to pay for
>it.  Families who realize they can't ever afford a house are not
>likely to support massive increases in the space budget.
>
>    The only reason for going into space which bypasses the fickle
>public and government has nothing to do with exploration or science.
>It has to do with money.

Well, I definitely agree that private enterprise is the way to go for
space *development*.  Here, the government should just get out of the
way, or better yet, provide incentives -- making all money spent on
space research and development tax-deductable would be a good start.
Giving the launch industry a guaranteed launch market would help as
well -- although it would also have the down side of making these
companies dependent on government payload contracts.

On the other hand, I think the day when private industry will finance
space *exploration* (meaning lunar and interplanetary missions --
either piloted or robotic) is still decades away..  Of course, I
wouldn't mind being wrong on this one :-).

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #535
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Jul 89 02:00:39 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA15594>; Thu, 6 Jul 89 01:04:49 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  6 Jul 89 01:04:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYgi93e00UkTE2cUhZ>;
          Thu,  6 Jul 89 00:38:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.oYgi49u00UkVAVr04E>;
          Thu,  6 Jul 89 00:33:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <wYghyN-00UkVQVpU56@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  6 Jul 89 00:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #536

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 536

Today's Topics:
		       Atari(s) and Sat Photos
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		      Re^2: Fuel for lunar trip
	Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST (replacing computers)
       Re-play of Apollo 11 TV Coverage and 20th Anniv. at NASM
	   Re: Space Deaths (was Re: Killing Borgs easily)
		   Re: Re: Space station computers
		   Re: Re: Space station computers
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
				NOAA-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 05:33:53 GMT
From: sun-barr!texsun!convex!iex!ntvax!yang1@decwrl.dec.com  (cqyang class)
Subject: Atari(s) and Sat Photos

>Article 3587 of sci.space:
>In article <931@sering.cwi.nl> fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) writes:
>>There was a posting very recently on the net (schematics and software)
>>that used an average Atari computer to receive satpics.
>Please, folks, if you post something like this, give a more specific reference
>than "on the net".
> Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology

   I did not see that particular posting, and I hope I am not repeating what
may have already been sent, but the September 1986 issue of 'Antic the Atari
resource' magazine has some articles on receiving weather satellite pictures
(WEFAX pictures) for both an Atari 800 and an Atari ST. Also 1987 and 1988
issues of 'QST' magazine have some articles on receiving weather satellite
pictures for different types of computers.

******************************************************************************
*                           *                                                *
*  Jim Stinson              *     This space intentionally left blank        *
*                           *           (sort of)                            *
* yang1@dept.csci.unt.edu   *                                                *
*                           *                                                *
******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 16:43:40 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <11630013@hpfcdj.HP.COM>, myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
}>period.  If you want class when climbing into an aircraft, it has to have
}>afterburners.
}BIG "afterburners".  Say, something along the lines of five F-1 engines...:-)

Eight* would have been much nicer.  No fooling around with LEO, LLO, or LLO
rendevous.  Just light them here and fire the retros for a soft landing at
the destination, without all the trouble of docking, three different orbits,
etc.

*The original "Nova" booster concept with 12 million pounds of thrust.
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
"When things start going your way, it's usually because you stopped going the
 wrong way down a one-way street."

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 89 03:06:26 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!psueea!parsely!bucket!leonard@uunet.uu.net  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re^2: Fuel for lunar trip

pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:

>mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>At one point there was a proposal to take up water ballast on shuttle missions
>>that were volume-limited rather than weight-limited, and offload the ballast
>>at an orbiting facility that would electrolyze it and liquefy the resulting
>>hydrogen and oxygen. 

>Water takes up volume too.  Where were they proposing to store it?  Does the
>shuttle fly with water tanks that are partially empty on weight-limited
>missions?

Water takes up less volume than an equivalent mass of hydrogen and oxygen,
even LOX and LH2. It's a matter of *density*. LH2 is not very dense at all,
and LOX isn't a lot better. Water is a very space efficient way of storing
them.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 21:09:44 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST (replacing computers)

In article <3827@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>> the Atlantis crew replaced one of the orbiter's five general-purpose
>> computers after it failed ...
>
>	I don't understand.  I thought that the various computers were all
>constantly checking each other and if one failed, it would be taken off line
>automatically and the others would continue to operate without it.  Why the
>need to rummage around behind the furniture for 4 hours?

Almost certainly they could have completed the mission without doing so.
However, having one computer dead *before* reentry means having that much
less redundancy available against the possibility of further failures.
So shuttle mission rules say that if time and parts are available, the
repair will be done.  If you were aboard, would *you* vote for reentering
with one computer dead if you could avoid it?

The real botch here is that the computers are so inaccessible that it takes
four hours to replace one.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Jul 89 14:44:39 EDT
From: howell@community-chest.mitre.org
Subject: Re-play of Apollo 11 TV Coverage and 20th Anniv. at NASM

A while back I believe someone posted some information about a cable
channel (?Discovery? A&E?) planning to re-broadcast coverage of the
Apollo 11 flight during the 20th anniversary; I had the impression they
were going to cover a lot of the mission running it at the same time and
date as the original.  Was this wishful thinking on my part?  If someone
would let me know if this is indeed scheduled, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks.

For those who live in the DC area, the National Air and Space Museum has
two events planned.  On Monday, 17 July at 20:00 they are showing "We
Came In Peace For All Mankind", a film about the Apollo program.  On
Thursday 20 July they are hosting a "Lunar Landing Party" from 19:30 ..
01:30, including re-plays of some of the TV coverage.

Happy Anniversary,

    Chuck Howell
    MITRE, Mail Stop Z-645
    7525 Colshire Drive
    McLean, VA 22102-3481
    howell@community-chest.mitre.org

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 18:27:19 GMT
From: m2c!wpi!tmurphy@husc6.harvard.edu  (Tom [Chris] Murphy)
Subject: Re: Space Deaths (was Re: Killing Borgs easily)

In article <2725@bucsb.UUCP> ckd@bucsb.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) writes:
>
>USSR: 3 deaths on Soyuz 1, 3 on Soyuz 11, others "suspected."
>
>So at least 16.


Soyuz 1 had only one crew mamber, so the total is 14.

Tom Murphy
tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 18:33:22 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Re: Space station computers

>If you want a sophisticated machine for 1998, and you REALLY MUST roll
>your own, then do something real instead of spending many millions for
>a museum piece. I'd suggest you look at:
>
>	- minimum resolution on screen of 300 dpi (400 would be nicer)

Well, speaking as a person who has spent the last few years mucking around
with monitors and the like, let me say that the technical phrase associated
with the above statement is "not a chance in hell", at least if you're
talking about a color display.  (Yes, a 300 dpi monochrome display exists
today - but much of what I'm about to say applies here as well.)

First off, the timing is frightening.  The one thing we know we want in
future displays is reduced flicker, which means increasing the vertical
refresh rate.  72 Hz would be a nice number, which, when coupled with the
dot resolution required for 300 dpi on a reasonable size display - say,
4k x 3k on a 19" screen - puts the dot clock comfortably over 1 GHz, and
horizontal sweep speed at 250 kHz or so.  Not bloody likely.  ("AHA!", you 
say.  "He's talking about *CRT* displays!!! What about LCDs or other flat-panel
technologies.  Persons asking such questions are invited to study LCD
manufacturing technology, and then return with a paper covering defect
densities, etc..  There will be a short quiz later.)

The next problem, in a color display, is the need for a shadow mask (or
aperture grille, if you're a Sony aficionado) and phosphor dots/stripes of
appropriate size.  Present tube sizes/resolutions require, for around 100 dpi,
a "dot pitch" of about 0.3 mm - meaning that each group of three phosphor dots
is about 0.3 mm across (actually, the "pitch" is the distance from, say, the
red dot of one group to the red dot of the adjacent group).  Now, go figure
what this has to be for a 300 dpi display.  We'll likely see CRT displays in
the 2k x 1.5k range come into popularity over the next few years, but these
will only be about 150 dpi or so - and it's a BIG jump to 300 dpi tubes.

It will be far better, and easier in the long run, to use additional memory
so that techniques such as anti-aliasing, etc., can be applied to lower-than-
300 dpi systems.  Sure, we'll get to higher resolutions someday - but not by
1998.


Bob Myers            | "Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of -
myers%hpfcla@hplabs. |  but do it in private, and wash your hands afterwards."
hp.com               |                   - Lazarus Long/Robert A. Heinlein    
----------

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 18:32:14 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Re: Space station computers

>If you want a sophisticated machine for 1998, and you REALLY MUST roll
>your own, then do something real instead of spending many millions for
>a museum piece. I'd suggest you look at:
>
>	- minimum resolution on screen of 300 dpi (400 would be nicer)

Well, speaking as a person who has spent the last few years mucking around
with monitors and the like, let me say that the technical phrase associated
with the above statement is "not a chance in hell", at least if you're
talking about a color display.  (Yes, a 300 dpi monochrome display exists
today - but much of what I'm about to say applies here as well.)

First off, the timing is frightening.  The one thing we know we want in
future displays is reduced flicker, which means increasing the vertical
refresh rate.  72 Hz would be a nice number, which, when coupled with the
dot resolution required for 300 dpi on a reasonable size display - say,
4k x 3k on a 19" screen - puts the dot clock comfortably over 1 GHz, and
horizontal sweep speed at 250 kHz or so.  Not bloody likely.  ("AHA!", you 
say.  "He's talking about *CRT* displays!!! What about LCDs or other flat-panel
technologies.  Persons asking such questions are invited to study LCD
manufacturing technology, and then return with a paper covering defect
densities, etc..  There will be a short quiz later.)

The next problem, in a color display, is the need for a shadow mask (or
aperture grille, if you're a Sony aficionado) and phosphor dots/stripes of
appropriate size.  Present tube sizes/resolutions require, for around 100 dpi,
a "dot pitch" of about 0.3 mm - meaning that each group of three phosphor dots
is about 0.3 mm across (actually, the "pitch" is the distance from, say, the
red dot of one group to the red dot of the adjacent group).  Now, go figure
what this has to be for a 300 dpi display.  We'll likely see CRT displays in
the 2k x 1.5k range come into popularity over the next few years, but these
will only be about 150 dpi or so - and it's a BIG jump to 300 dpi tubes.

It will be far better, and easier in the long run, to use additional memory
so that techniques such as anti-aliasing, etc., can be applied to lower-than-
300 dpi systems.


Bob Myers            | "Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of -
myers%hpfcla@hplabs. |  but do it in private, and wash your hands afterwards."
hp.com               |                   - Lazarus Long/Robert A. Heinlein

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 17:22:22 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <1989Jun24.204150.24577@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <32650@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>>>EMBARASSING!! EMBARASSING!!!  There is such class to crawling into
>>>a DC-3 at an airport that there is not even any word for such mega-
>>>class.  The only thing better than a DC-3 is TWO DC-3s.
>>
>> Are you sure you're not really Henry "Version 7" Spencer posting
>>under an alias?

>He definitely isn't.  I consider the DC-3 a charming historical relic,
>period.  If you want class when climbing into an aircraft, it has to have
>afterburners.

Better watch it, Henry--you'd have to do it in a government-sponsored,
government-funded aircraft!  :-) :-)

--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility     ames!elxsi!shafer
Of course I don't speak for NASA    DON'T use the drynix address

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 13:57:13 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!frank@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Frank Abernathy)
Subject: NOAA-9

I've noticed that NOAA-9 does not seem to be alive on 137.620mhz
for APT services any more.  

Has not been transmitting for about a week on the primary 137.62
or secondary 137.5 frequencies.

Anyone know if this satellite is lost to APT service?
HRPT might still be in service, but I don't have the 1698 or 1707Mhz
stuff to receive it.

Thanks in advance!  E-mail response is probably okay as no one else
seems to miss NOAA-9 APT service.

frank
..cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!frank
(512)-244-0625 Home ans machine.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #536
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Jul 89 05:25:49 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00696> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 6 Jul 89 05:25:28 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu,  6 Jul 89 05:25:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.8Ygkf3q00jZdQ0o0RN>;
          Thu,  6 Jul 89 03:31:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.UYgkTu200UkVMW7k5X>;
          Thu,  6 Jul 89 03:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <sYgkS3e00UkVAW6E5-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu,  6 Jul 89 03:17:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #537

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 537

Today's Topics:
	      Space Transportation Services Purchase Act
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
	Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST (replacing computers)
	       Remarks on HR 2674 (Rep. Packard, R-CA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 22:05:53 GMT
From: ganoe@arizona.edu  (Bill Ganoe)
Subject: Space Transportation Services Purchase Act


Draft HR 2674: 101st Congress, 1st Session
Space Transportation Services Purchase Act of 1989
House of Representatives
June 15, 1989.

(For more information call Mark Voelker, (602) 327-1124 (Tucson)
or Andrew Cutler, (619) 284-2779 (San Diego).)

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515.


Sponsor: Ron Packard.
Original Co-Sponsors: Jim Kolbe, Dana Rohrabacher, George E. Brown,
   Ralph M. Hall, Tom Lewis.


Title: To encourage the development and full capability of a
competitive US space transportation industry by requiring the Federal
Government to contract for commercially provided space transportation
services with certain exceptions.


Mr. Packard introduced the following bill:


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled:


Section 1. Short Title.
        This Act may be cited as the "Space Transportation Services
Purchase Act of 1989".

Section 2. Findings. The Congress finds that--
        (1) the US commercial space transportation industry is
technically capable of providing reliable and cost-efficient access to
space and is an essential component of national efforts to assure
access to space for government and commercial users;
        (2) the Federal Government should encourage, facilitate, and
promote the US commercial space transportation industry, including the
development of commercial launch facilities, in order to ensure US
economic pre-eminence in space, and should do so with minimum Federal
subsidy;
        (3) the US commercial space transportation industry must be
competitive in the international marketplace;
        (4) commercial vehicles, not government vehicles, will be the
most effective means to challenge foreign competition;
        (5) the requirements of government specifications relating to
vehicle design, construction, and operation impose an unwarranted
burden on the engineering and operational freedom necessary to achieve
substantial cost savings in the provision of space transportation
services;
        (6) the procurement of space transportation services by the
Federal Government rather than the procurement of space transportation
vehicles would permit a reduced level of Federal Government regulation
and oversight, which would result in significant cost savings to the
Federal Government;
        (7) the procurement of space transportation services by the
Federal Government in a commercially reasonable manner would result in
significant cost savings to the commercial space transportation
industry and to the Federal Government;
        (8) it is the general policy of the Federal Government to
purchase needed services from the private sector to the fullest extent
feasible, and this policy should include space transportation services
as well;
        (9) application of similar policy by foreign governments has
greatly assisted their respective space transportation industries;
        (10) predictable access to Federal Government space
transportation markets would encourage continuing US private sector
investment in space and related activities; and
        (11) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should
concentrate its resources on the development of new solutions to the
problems of space flight and on the continued manned and unmanned
exploration of space rather than on the operation of mature space
transportation technologies.


Section 3. Definitions. For the purpose of this Act--
        (1) the term "commercial provider" means any person providing
space transportation services, but does not include the Federal
Government;
        (2) the term "payload" means anything which a person
undertakes to transport to, from, or within outer space by means of a
space transportation vehicle, and includes components of the space
transportation vehicle specifically designed or adapted for that
payload;
        (3) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of
Transportation;
        (4) the term "space transportation services" means activities
involved in the preparation of a space transportation vehicle and its
payload for space transport and the conduct of transporting a payload
to, from, or within outer space;
        (5) the term "space transportation vehicle" means any vehicle
constructed for the purpose of operating in, or transporting a payload
to, from, or within, outer space,and includes any component of such
vehicle not specifically designed or adapted for such a payload; and
        (6) the term "United States person" means--
                (A) any individual who is a citizen of the US; or
                (B) any corporation, partnership, joint venture,
	association, or other entity, if the controlling interest(as
	defined by the Secretary in regulations) in such entity is
	held by individuals who are citizens of the US.
Section 4. Requirement to Procure Commercial Space Transportation
Services.
        (a) IN GENERAL--Except as otherwise provided in this section,
the Federal Government shall purchase space transportation services
from commercial providers whenever such services from commercial
providers whenever such services are required in the course of its
activities.
        (b) EXCEPTIONS--The Federal Government shall not be required
to purchase space transportation services as provided in subsection
(a) if, on a case by case basis--
                (1) the Secretary of Defense certifies to the National
	Space Council that national security  reasons require otherwise;
                (2) the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
	Space Administration certifies to the  National Space Council
	that the space shuttle are required; or
                (3) the Secretary finds that the space transportation
	services required are unavailable at a  reasonable cost from
	commercial providers.
        (c) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPACE TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES--Space
transportation vehicles shall be acquired, owned, maintained, or
operated by the Federal Government only if such space transportation
vehicles are manufactured or produced primarily in the US of primarily
US-made components, and only--
                (1) as required under circumstances described in
	subsection (b); or
                (2) by the National Aeronautics and Space
	Administration for conducting research and  development on, and
	testing of, space transportation technology.
        (d) PHASE-IN PERIOD--Subsections (a) and (c) shall not apply
to space transportation services and space transportation vehicles
purchased by the Federal Government before the date of enactment of
this Act. Any such space transportation vehicles purchased by the
Federal Government before the date of enactment of this Act may be
sold to commercial providers if such sale would result in a more
economical acquisition by the Federal Government of space
transportation services.
        (e) HISTORICAL PURPOSES--This Act shall not be interpreted to
prohibit the Federal Government from acquiring, owning, or maintaining
space transportation vehicles solely for historical display purposes.

Section 5. Provision of Space Transportation Services.
        (a) COMPETITIVE BIDDING-- (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), contracts to provide space transportation services to the Federal
Government under section 4 shall be awarded in a process of full,
fair, and open competitive bidding among US persons who use space
transportation vehicles manufactured or produced primarily in the US
of primarily US-made components.
        (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the Secretary determines
that to award a contract under its provisions would be unreasonably
disadvantageous to the Federal Government.
        (3) Submission of cost data either for the purposes of
supporting the bid, or for the fulfillment of the contract, shall not
be required of the bidders.
	(b) SPECIFICATION SYSTEMS--Conformance with the
military Specification (Milspec)  system or NASA specification systems
with respect to the design, construction, or  operation of equipment
used in providing space transportation services to the Federal
Government shall not be a requirement for a commercial provider
bidding to provide such  services, except with respect to emergency
flight termination (range safety) equipment  when flights are made fom
launch sites owned by the Fedreal Government. Section 6. Other
Activities of the Federal Government--
        (a) COMMERCIAL PAYLOADS ON THE SPACE SHUTTLE--No commercial
payloads may be accepted for launch on the space shuttle with the sole
exception of payloads which the Administrator of the NASA, in
consultation with the Secretary, determines require unique
capabilities of the shuttle.
        (b) GRANTS--Grants of funds by the Federal Government to US
persons for activities which use space transportation services shall
carry as a condition of grant the requirement to purchase such
services through a process of full, fair, and open competition, giving
preference to commercial providers who are US persons. In the case of
each such grant, the grantee shall certify to the Secretary that such
a full, fair, and open competition led to the purchase of those
services. This subsection shall not apply to grants made before the
date of enactment of this Act.
        (c) INTERNATIONAL EXPENDITURES--Expenditures of funds by the
Federal Government for the purpose of supporting international
cooperative activities or international organizations utilizing space
transportation services shall be made with the condition that all
commercial providers who are US persons are given a fair and equitable
opportunity to compete for provision of those space transportation
services. In the case of each such expenditure, the head of the agency
making the expenditure shall certify to the National Space Council
that such opportunities exist before the release of funds for such
purposes. This subsection shall not apply to expenditures to be made
under agreements reached before the date of enactment of this Act.
        (d) STUDIES--Expenditures of funds by the US for studies of
means of meeting future space transportation services requirements of
the Federal Government shall be made with the condition that due
attention will be given to the potential of commercial providers to
meet such requirements, and to the need to avoid deterring private
space investment by any future government action affecting space
transportation. In order to facilitate such attention, the head of the
agency conducting the study shall consult with the National Space
Council.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 21:12:54 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <SHAFER.89Jul2102222@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
>>... If you want class when climbing into an aircraft, it has to have
>>afterburners.
>
>Better watch it, Henry--you'd have to do it in a government-sponsored,
>government-funded aircraft!  :-) :-)

Ouch.  Touche. :-)

Actually, you can find non-government birds with afterburners, but there
aren't very many of them and often they aren't very accessible.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 14:12:50 GMT
From: phri!roy@nyu.edu  (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST (replacing computers)

In <1989Jul2.054432.5054@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> the Atlantis crew replaced one of the orbiter's five general-purpose
> computers after it failed [...] it took about four hours because the
> computers are behind some of the middeck lockers and are not easy to get at.

	I don't understand.  I thought that the various computers were all
constantly checking each other and if one failed, it would be taken off line
automatically and the others would continue to operate without it.  Why the
need to rummage around behind the furniture for 4 hours?
-- 
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu
"The connector is the network"

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 22:08:32 GMT
From: ganoe@arizona.edu  (Bill Ganoe)
Subject: Remarks on HR 2674 (Rep. Packard, R-CA)



Extension of Remarks of Hon. Ron Packard (R-CA): Space Transportation
Services Purchase Act of 1989 Thursday, June 15, 1989

Mr. Packard, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Space
Transportation Services Purchase Act of 1989, legislation to enhance
the viability of the US space transportation industry.

The primary objective of the US space transportation policy should be
to encourage the emergence of a strong competitive US commercial space
industry. The Space Transportation Services Purchase Act furthers this
objective through enhanced competitiveness in the US space
transportation industry.

Obtaining this objective will give the US two important benefits, one,
the safe and successful launching into orbit of government and private
payloads at the lowest possible cost. Free competition among private
companies will promote competitive pricing without sacrificing
performance. Two, NASA can focus on its original objective of space
exploration and research. NASA can use its resources to increase our
knowledge of space and leave commercial development of space to the
private sector.

The space transportation services companies are at a severe
competitive disadvantage with foreign launch companies because the
foreign governments either subsidize the launch cost or provide a
portion of third-party liability coverage. It is true that the
intensity of world competition for the launch services market will
depend in part on the level of demand for services. Yet, the fact
remains that the European Arianespace and the Chinese Long March offer
increasingly competitive space transportation services, and the
Japanese are currently planning to begin operation of their space
transportation services in 1992.  Mr. Speaker, only commercialization
will permit a restructuring of US space activities necessary and
sufficient to establish a viable US space transportation industry
capable of competing internationally. The US Government should
encourage this privatization by purchasing launch services in a
commercially reasonable manner from the private sector.

The bill I am introducing today addresses these two key areas which
will greatly affect the viability and privatization of the American
space transportation industry.

First, the government would be required to purchase all space
transportation services from the private sector, except for
currently on a very limited basis. Presently, the government usually
purchases space transportation vehicles from a company, then later
purchases space transportation vehicles from a company, then later
purchases launch services from that same company.

By contrast, a private sector payload operator always purchases a
complete package--space transportation services--never the vehicle,
then the services. As a buyer of the vehicles, the US government has
maintained unnecessary regulatory and oversight authority over the
construction and operation of the vehicle which results in
substantially higher costs incurred and lack of engineering and
operating freedom.

To be internationally competitive in the long term, the US industry
must be launching competitively designed and priced vehicles, not
vehicles designed by government regulation. Major launch companies
have a commercial division and a government division. There should be
no difference between the two. The commercial division's product
design is supposed to reflect marketplace demands such as cost,
efficiency, and reliability. By contrast, the government division's
design is governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations, milspecs,
and the procuring agency's needs. The more that the government buys
commercially rather than in the traditional manner, the more
commercial features will appear in these vehicles, the lower the cost,
and the greater the efficiency of the company.

The second key area which will affect privatization is the
government's space transportation services procurement policy. This
legislation mandates that all federal agencies procure space
transporttion systems in a commercially reasonable manner which would
result in a significant cost savings to the government and to the
space transportation industry. The traditional procurement methods of
the government impose burdensome and unnecessary cost controls and
accounting procedures at great cost to the industry.

Mr. Speaker, the US private sector has the capability and
entrepreneurial spirit needed to expand its role as a major competitor
in the world commercial space market. The economic, technological,
scientific, foreign policy, and national security benefits the nation
would reap from this achievement are great. I invite my colleagues to
join me in supporting the Space Transportation Services Purchase Act
of 1989 as an important step toward enhancing the commercial
environment for the US space transportation industry.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #537
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Jul 89 01:16:44 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05143>; Fri, 7 Jul 89 00:38:31 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  7 Jul 89 00:38:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.gYh36NC00Ui3M1EU9C>;
          Fri,  7 Jul 89 00:29:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.YYh326W00UkVQ22E5:>;
          Fri,  7 Jul 89 00:24:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <EYh2wD200UkVM20k5c@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  7 Jul 89 00:18:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #538

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 538

Today's Topics:
     A reminder: discussion of SCI.AERONAUTICS now in progress...
			 Re: new space goals
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #529
	       Re: JOB VACANCY: for British Cosmanaut.
       *** CALL FOR VOTES *** Creation of newsgroup sci.skeptic
		     HR2674: Dear Space Activist
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
			HR2674: Dear Colleague
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 23:40:07 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!milano!molokai!rdd%rascal.ics.utexas.edu@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: A reminder: discussion of SCI.AERONAUTICS now in progress...

A week or so ago, I posted a call to discuss a potential new newsgroup, 
sci.aeronautics.  Thus far, the response has been mostly favorable.  The 
following points have, however, been raised:

One person said that rec.aviation is satisfactory for all aviation-related
posts.  I covered this in the original call, but would like to add that
rec.aviation is almost exclusively oriented around recreational aviation.
The "serious" airliner-related discussions on other newsgroups rarely get
cross-posted to rec.aviation.  

Note that I'm not suggesting that rec.aviation be phased out, or that 
sci.aeronautics would change it in any way.  The idea behind sci.aeronautics
is merely to get "technology" people out of the closet...  Judging from
rec.aviation's character over the last year, I would doubt that anything
would change on that group.


Another person commented that since the original idea was to concentrate on
human-factors, that comp.cog-eng would do just fine.  The problem with this
is, essentially, that (a) comp.cog-eng's title does not suggest such dis-
cussions are welcome, and (b) until the person commented on it, I had no 
idea comp.cog-eng existed.  That, combined with the relatively low post
rate (I see lots of inquiries, not many answers or discussions) would seem to
indicate that comp.cog-eng isn't really suitable for airliner human-factors
discussions...



Here's the original call, for those who missed it:

> After consulting with several frequent posters to comp.risks and rec.aviation,
> we concluded that it is desirable to have a separate newsgroup dedicated to
> airliner technology, particularly concentrating on: safety, human-interface
> issues (cockpit and otherwise, concentrating on the burgeoning role of
> automation), operations, and general aeronautics.  Many of these concepts have
> crossover applicability to military and general aviation aircraft.
>
> The reasoning behind the need for the new newsgroup is based on three
> longstanding observations:
>
> 1.  The tendency of airliner technology discussions on comp.risks to
> stray too far from the group's charter.
>
> 2.  The tendency of rec.aviation to be oriented around general aviation
> operational issues, rather than technology issues, and the consequent
> reluctance of many people to avoid participating in rec.aviation.
>
> 3.  The reluctance of some sites to import the rec.* stems, thus strangling
> free discussion of what appear to be popular research issues.
>
>The impetus behind sci.aeronautics was largely inspired by the success
>of sci.military.  If someone had told me a year ago that the net could support
>a consistently high-level technical (non-computer) newsgroup, I wouldn't
>have believed it.  Largely based on e-mail contacts, and the tendency of
>discussions on airliner issues on comp.risks to balloon until the moderator
>is forced to yank them, I'm willing to bet that there are enough people out
>there with interest in the issues that would be discussed in sci.aeronautics
>to support its creation.

One last comment: I'm leaning towards establishing a mailing list, based on
sci.aeronautics, for our brethren without USENET access.  This would be done
after the group is established, but should help people in the same situation
as Mike Trout, with unreliable connections.


Reminders:

* followups to news.groups only;

* voting starts Friday, July 7th, and will extend through August 7th.



Robert Dorsett
Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu 
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 89 18:11:12 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <32823@apple.Apple.COM>, leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
> 
>     I think people love space - as long as they don't have to pay for
> it.  Families who realize they can't ever afford a house are not
> likely to support massive increases in the space budget.

If they give up eating pizza, they can have just as much effect on
their ability to buy a house as if they quit spending on space.

If space operations ever become a *profitable* business endeavor,
separate from government interference, then we can have our space
and eat our pizza, too.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1989 17:18-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #529

> this one.  I just wanted to point out to the loyal readership why
> they're bothering.

True, but the information on the effects of long term exposure of
electronics and materials to LEO are going to be very useful to other
people as well: anyone planning on building and flying commercial
facilities. I suspect the External Tanks people will want to know the
results.  Assuming the data doesn't get classified.

It also should give a better statistical handle on the level of
impacts/year and impact particle size distribution of orbital debris.

SDI has consistantly funded interesting long term space development
research. Ask Jordin Kare about who funds laser launch concepts. It
ain't NASA. Probably because they have not yet been around long enough
to get the same hardening of the bureaucratic arteries that NASA has.
(But give them a few years...)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 89 16:26:29 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: JOB VACANCY: for British Cosmanaut.

In article <2473@etive.ed.ac.uk> I wrote:
>JOB VACANCY: British cosmonaut required.

See original posting for details of how to get your
application form.

I should have mentioned in the previous posting that the
closing date is Friday 14th July.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 89 17:52:03 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!yunexus!gall@rutgers.edu  (Norman R. Gall)
Subject: *** CALL FOR VOTES *** Creation of newsgroup sci.skeptic

This is the first call for votes on a new unmoderated group called
sci.skeptic. Instructions for voting are given below.
                   
The charter for this group is:
          
                "A group dealing with issues in Parapsychology,
          UFOlogy, Creation Science, New Ageism, Astrology,
          Paranormal Health Claims, Cryptozoology, and other
          areas of inquiry which might tend to contradict or
          dismiss generally accepted principles of Science.
          Sociological and Educational issues arising from these
          areas are also important to Science and will be
          acceptable material. The aim is not to prove a priori
          that these kinds of claims are false, but to
          scrutinise them and try to tease out new threads of
          inquiry, reveal faulty logic or assumptions (as should
          be the case in _all_ areas of discourse), and
          generally investigate the impact these claims might or
          do have on _Scientific_ discourse. "

What we get out of the new group:
                                                 
-- Allows for exchange of information about current events in these areas.

-- Provides an area for honest discussion of these issues in a non-credulous
atmosphere.

-- Increases the exposure to rigourous argument that some readers may find
hard to locate.

 

To vote, you send a message to one of two addresses.

* If you want the group to be created, send a message to 

skeptic-yes@nexus.yorku.ca

* If you do not want the group to be created, send your message to

skeptic-no@nexus.yorku.ca



The contents of the message are irrelevant; they will be classifed solely by
which address they are sent to.



Votes sent to my personal account, which includes replies to this
posting, will be ignored.


The actual vote tallying is being undertaken by David Collier-Brown
(davecb@nexus.yorku.ca [Don't send things to him, either]

The voting ends on August 3, 1989.

Followups to this message should be posted in news.groups.

nrg



-- 
York University          |"_Wanting_ to think is one thing;
Department of Philosophy |      having a talent for thinking another"
Toronto, Ontario, Canada |                          - L. Wittgenstein (CV 44)
_____________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 89 12:48:56 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: HR2674: Dear Space Activist

Here is Ron Packard's letter to Space Activists.  Are you one?  This
bill needs more Cosponsors.  Have you seen your Representative about
HR2674?


--------------------

Committee on Science, Space and Technology
US House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515

					June 30, 1989

Dear Space Activist,

	I am pleased to have introduced HR2674, the Space Transportation
Services Purchase Act of 1989.  I introduced this bill because of the
concern of people like you in Southern California and all over the
country that we are not progressing fast enough in opening the space
frontier.  We need a robust commercial space industry so we can make
space a place where people can live, work and play,  We must ultimately
create a spacefaring civilization through private endeavor with
settlements beyond the Earth.  The first step in this is to foster the
development of a commercial space transportation industry.

	I need you to help to do this.  If you too wish to foster space
transportation to lower the cost of access to space, please let your
Congressman know this.  Please spread the new among all you know that
Congress is finally poised to take bold steps in creating a commercial
space transportation industry, the first step in truly opening the space
frontier.

				Ad Astra,

				Ron Packard,  Member of Congress

---------------

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 23:06:51 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <1989Jul2.211254.15469@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <SHAFER.89Jul2102222@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
>>>... If you want class when climbing into an aircraft, it has to have
>>>afterburners.
>>
>>Better watch it, Henry--you'd have to do it in a government-sponsored,
>>government-funded aircraft!  :-) :-)

>Ouch.  Touche. :-)

>Actually, you can find non-government birds with afterburners, but there
>aren't very many of them and often they aren't very accessible.

Yes, the only one I can think of is the F-20 and it's a single-seater.
Besides, I'm not absolutely certain that it's still in flying status.
What others are there?  

That's what this country needs--general aviation with afterburners!
I'm ready!
--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility     ames!elxsi!shafer
Of course I don't speak for NASA    DON'T use the drynix address

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 89 12:42:33 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: HR2674: Dear Colleague


Here is the "Dear Colleague" letter from Ron Packard concerning HR2674.

Original Cosponsors of the bill are:

Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), George Brown (D-CA),
Ralph Hall (D-TX), Tom Lewis (R-FL).

Additional Cosponsors include:
Don Ritter (R-PA), Larry Craig (R-ID), Donald Lukens (R-OH),
Ron Dellums (D-CA), Robert Walker (R-PA).

Have you spoken to your Congressmen about HR2674?

--------------------



					June 19, 1989

*******************************************************************
*								  *
*   MAKE THE US SUPREME IN SPACE ONCE AGAIN.  COSPONSOR HR 2674   *
*								  *
*******************************************************************


Dear Colleague:

	I have introduced legislation designed to maintain and strengthen
our preeminence in outer space.  The bill require the Federal Government
to purchase space transportation services from private companies.

	In the face or a growing foreign commercial space industry and an
overburdened US Government program, commercialization represents the most
effective and efficient means to remain dominant in space.  We need to
unleash our nation's private sector so that we can compete in the
international marketplace.  This represents the logical next step in our
commitment to progress in space.  The United States needs vigorous
private enterprise involvement in order to have and maintain a strong
space program.

	To maintain the US lead in space in the 21st century we must
allow for competition.  Free competition among private companies will
promote competitive pricing without sacrificing performance.  In
addition, this legislation will allow NASA to  focus on its original
objective of space exploration and research.  NASA can free up its
considerable resources to give us a better understanding of space, while
allowing commercial development of space in the private sector.

	If you would like to cosponsor HR2674, the Packard space
commercialization bill, or would like more infornation, contact me or
Alana Everts at x5-3906.


				Sincerely,

				Ron Packard, Member of Congress


--------------------

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #538
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Jul 89 03:33:13 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA16541> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Fri, 7 Jul 89 03:33:02 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Fri,  7 Jul 89 03:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.kYh5cFS00Ui381DEAY>;
          Fri,  7 Jul 89 03:21:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.wYh5Z4G00UkV42GE4C>;
          Fri,  7 Jul 89 03:18:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYh5XEq00UkVQ2Ek4Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Fri,  7 Jul 89 03:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #539

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 539

Today's Topics:
		  Re:  Vaguely space related queries
			 Re: new space goals
			 Re: new space goals
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #529
		   Re: Re: Space station computers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 3 Jul 89 14:46 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Re:  Vaguely space related queries

Will Martin asked several questions, which got various responses, some
of which were rather dubious attempts at physics.

>1) Regarding X-ray astronomy -- the X-ray detectors must be placed into space,
> [ stuff deleted about atmosphere X-ray absorption ]

Henry Spencer, among others, gave the correct answer.  The
atmosphere is actually opaque at all but visible wavelengths (plus a few
others).  The penetrability of ANY type of radiation has little to do
with the density of the matter by itself, but rather with ALL of the
properties of the matter, of which density is only one.

>2) Regarding elementary particles -- one of their characteristics is called
>"spin". Is this REALLY "spin" the way a top or gyroscope spins -- that is,
> [ stuff deleted about what spin is and possible changes ]

Here there was some misinformation.  Spin is NOT angular momentum!!
Rather, it is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenum (like the quantites
of colour you mention above).  People mistakenly think that it is an
angular momentum because of its mathematical properties.  In the
mathematics of quantum mechanics, spin transforms and has operators that
are identical to the normal angular momentum operator, though with its
own unique eigenvalues (values that it can take on in particular
physical situations).  It does come in a particular quantum value,
and cannot be reduced.  In fact, spin is an intrinsic feature of any
particle, just like mass and electrical charge.  You can never
change the magnitude of the spin of a particle, just its `direction'.
(Another example of using macroscopic terms for unrelated microscopic
processes.)

>3) The 11-year (or so) Solar Cycle -- I realize the duration of this cycle
> [ stuff deleted about causes of the cycle ]

My knowledge is thin here, though I do know that the physics of the
solar surface and how the surface interacts with the interior is not
known well at all.  This is due to the fact that the surface is
turbulent and chaotic, as well as the fact that all solar models are
generally spherical, with some tweaking to account for rotation.
More than this, I cannot tell you.

>4) Black hole temperature -- Are medium-sized black holes hot or cold? I have
> [ stuff deleted about black hole radiation, etc ]

Here there were a few mistaken answers.  The surface area of a black hole
is proportional to its ENTROPY, and INVERSELY proportional to its
TEMPERATURE.  Thus a small black hole is hotter than a large black hole.
In fact, small black holes can `evaporate' and disappear from the universe
because of the high rate of energy loss (that's how we define
temperature in the first place - equivalent black bodies, and so on).
If you want more information (I just ran dry), read stuff by Hawkings,
Wheeler, or Israel.  They know what they are talking about.  A good
place to look would be back issues of Scientific American.  Sorry, no
dates from me.

>5) Neutronium and similar compressed matter -- is there any theoretical
>way to keep compressed matter (the stuff that makes up white dwarfs and
>neutron stars) compressed if a chunk of it could be brought away from
>the intense gravity field of those bodies? Of would it expand
>uncontrollably as the piece moves into regions of lower gravity? If it
>could be kept compressed, what would it look like? I envision it as
>looking something like lead, but that is just some sort of unreasoning
>gut feel, not based on science. Would it actually be a perfect mirror?
>If you touched this stuff, what would it feel like? I have an idea that
>wouldn't be wise, but I'm not sure just what would happen to your finger...
>Would it be a perfect conductor of heat and electricity, or a perfect
>insulator? [I lean toward the latter -- electrons couldn't migrate
>through it...]

Neutronium is the popular name given to the neutron matter state as
present in the cores of neutron stars (NOT white dwarfs - they are a
mixture of electrons, protons, and heavier elements!).  It is produced
by the intense gravitational pressures, exerts a force that stops the
neutron star from collapsing, and is extremely relativistic.
This matter cannot exist outside of the neutron stars, unless something
else can be found to hold it together (something with, say, a pressure of
10^20 atmospheres or so - being off a few orders of magnitude here
doesn't mean very much).

It actually turns out that neutron matter is a superconductor.  As
evidence for this, consider pulsars.  These are neutron stars with
high magnetic fields that are corotating with the star.  In other
words, the magnetic field and the matter are `frozen' together.  In
MHD (MagnetoHydroDynamic) theory, this means that the conductivity has
gone off to infinity.  In quantum theory, the neutron energy states are
all filled up, but the electron ones are empty, so that an electron can
do whatever it wants within the neutron matter.  In terms of heat
conduction, I would say that pure neutronium cannot conduct heat well for
the same reason - all of the neutron energy states are filled.  However,
I may be wrong on this last point.

Arnold Gill
Queen's University at Kingston
BITNET:  gill@qucdnast

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 89 17:08:00 GMT
From: apollo!rehrauer@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <1989Jun30.174703.27589@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>... and Mars is not
>much harder than the Moon.  In some ways it's easier, because we have
>Phobos and Deimos as potential resources, and the Martian surface has
>useful supplies of things like water.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Certainly not trying to dispute that, just curious: Have readily-accessible
sources of water on Mars been identified, or do you mean that, given the
presense in whatever amounts & form, accessing it is just a question of
engineering?  My impression from the most recent stuff I've read on the
subject was that there was conflicting data (or at least, conflicting
interpretations of it :).
-- 
>>> "Aaiiyeeeee!  Death from above!" <<<  | Steve Rehrauer
    Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168             | Apollo Computer, Inc.
    ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.com             | (A subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard)
"Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'.  Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 89 21:26:15 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <1989Jun30.174703.27589@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <14424@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>                                                           Mars is such
>>a mammoth project (much harder than the Moon)...
>
>Uh, why is it much harder?  Remember, going from Sputnik to Tranquillity
>required developing a lot of new technologies.  I see no comparable
>requirement for Mars orbit+surface bases.  ... [Improved technology]
>would be useful, but basically we have the technology we need.  The greater
>distances to Mars simply require bigger vehicles (for larger crews and
>more supplies); otherwise distance is just waiting time, and Mars is not
>much harder than the Moon.

Going to Tranquillity required that we invent manned spaceflight from
scratch and develop a bunch of new technologies.  We have what we need
to GET TO Mars, and back, safely, in a sort of Apollo Mark II.

What we do not have, and ain't even close to having, is the ability to
go there and stay.  To build anything there that would last.  We know
how to raid space like Leif Ericsson, now we must learn to build an
outpost there like Robinson Crusoe.

We could also do this on the moon, but Mars is sexier and has more to
teach us I believe.  And as Henry has pointed out, it's not that much
farther up the gravity well.

>				In some ways it's easier, because we have
>Phobos and Deimos as potential resources, and the Martian surface has
>useful supplies of things like water.

And you wanted to know what new technology we'd have to develop??  Be
honest, wonderful ANALOG fodder though it makes, nobody has ever run
anything industrial off Earth for any length of time.  It's hard enough
keeping a materials processing plant running right down here.  We'll
certainly do it some day, but not until humans have had the opportunity
to kick around on-site for a while and play with things.  To do that we
have to get them there, with Earth materials.

>We also have the immense advantage of the beginnings of a private space
>launch industry.  The clear number one problem for a major Mars effort
>is the high cost of launch to low Earth orbit.  The way to fix that is
>to say, *believably*, "starting in 1995, we will buy one million pounds
>a year of freight capacity to low orbit from the lowest qualified bidders,
>price not to exceed $500/lb, tested hardware required; development funding
>must be private, the Mars project will provide none".

Perilously close to special pleading here.  Henry is a Usenet treasure,
but David Copperfield's Mr. Dick was beloved too, and he couldn't seem
to keep King Charles's head from popping up in everything he did... :-)

We don't need commercial megaboosters to go to Mars.  We do need USG to
get out of the comsat business BY LAW and get back to exploring,
experimenting and blowing up Ivan like it's supposed to.  (My primary
objection to SDI is that it doesn't kill anybody.**  We pay these guys
to kill people, not build Maginot Modules.  Back to work sojer!)
Reaffirm the original NASA charter and insist it get back in the
business of exploring the solar system -- not trying to make a buck off
it or "establishing presence" or other Zen nonsense -- and you'll see
some action.

>							General Dynamics,
>Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Arianespace, etc., will scream bloody
>murder, hire lobbyists, and start talking excitedly to Congressthings,
>because they simply can't do it.

Precisely the kind of catfight that kills missions.  QED.

>And cheap transport to low orbit makes the whole thing much easier and
>much less demanding, because it's no longer necessary to pare every gram
>off the project's hardware.

Paring grams off the hardware is where you learn.  Weight exigencies
are the soul of spinoff.  The trick is to structure the mission so that
staying there is something you DON'T give up.  Better to live three
years in a Mylar bubble than three nights in titanium.**

>>What we can do in 10 years simply doesn't last.  What we can do in 50
>>might.  I want to follow the Antarctica model - establish an
>>international scientific outpost in a distant, hostile environment.
>
>Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years?

Our track record supports my assertion better than your objection, I
think.  We can't get that hardware ready in 10 years because we can't do
ANYTHING in 10 years anymore.  The can-do technocracy that gave us
Vietnam and Apollo is ancient history.  It's suicidally futile to
predicate a Mars mission on JFK rising Arthur-like from the grave.  We
have to design something around the do-able.  While we don't have
Sputnik or Camelot to lean on anymore, we do have new dynamics like
international cooperation, plus the huge quantum leap in one fundamental
ability: to send back killer images from anywhere we visit.  Neptune
about to provide a fresh example it appears.  The early Moon race had
the support of the nation even though most Americans only "saw" it through
paragraphs in the newspaper.  What could Ogilvy & Mather do with the
Viking stuff and the JPL Mars Movie?  But I digress.

>					[Apollo] developed -- but was
>never allowed to *use* -- most of the hardware needed for more permanent
>follow-ons.

It would be more accurate to say that some NASA and contractor groups
designed, but were not allowed to build or fly, follow-ons.  If Henry or
anyone else is aware of built, unflown hardware besides CSMs, LMs and
Saturn hardware, I would like to hear about it.

>		(Anyone who claims that Apollo was always meant to be a
>one-shot has never seen some of the work Apollo did on follow-ons to the
>early missions.  Apollo was strangled in infancy.)

I guess that depends on who is doing the "meaning."  Certainly by the
time the White House gave Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) the nod as the
mission strategy that would beat the Soviets and the JFK deadline
without busting the budget, things were "meant" to go pretty much as
they did.  No doubt there was a constituency within NASA for ambitious
followups, but the program as pitched, designed and built logically
culminated at Taurus Littrow.  (18 would have been nice, but not
revolutionary.)

Apollo was not strangled at birth, it was conceived in haste and
repented at leisure.**

>>By drawing the program out timewise, you provide an ongoing focus of
>>activity that *defines* a half century of endeavor...
>
>You also tell everyone involved with it now that they will be old or dead
>before they see results.

Old yes, dead maybe, proud definitely.  It also means your kids would
be doing something meaningful in space, which is more than we can tell
the men who built Apollo.

Also keep in mind it wouldn't be 50 years of silent drudgery capped by a
sudden extravaganza.  There would be intermediate projects of great
satisfaction.  A lovely Space Station (Prometheus!  Down with jingoism)
with an actual well-I'll-be-damned MISSION would be nice within Henry's
10 year time frame.  And since we can in fact place hardware out at Mars
quicker than 50 years, another intermediate goal is Phobos Station.  The
perfect observatory and it solves some of the problems with a free
floater, while yielding a scientific bonanza beyond comprehension if you
can actually bunk exogeologists on it.  All this without the fatal extra
gravity well to deal with.

>                            ... set your sights higher.  Mars is not that
>hard.

Prove it!  Let's go there and prove me wrong!

Mars is too easy?  Nice problem to have!**

>(The folks at Spar Aerospace are fond of pointing out that the question
>of who would build the arm finally came down to Canada vs. an unnamed US
>company.  Canada won.  The US company [Spar refuses to identify them!]
>went after, and got, the contract to build... the shuttle toilet.)

This is just the kind of thing that happens when you evaluate bids
by a process of elimination.  :-)

>>Let's see... Glavkosmos is to spaceflight as the USSR is to vodka?**  :-)

--

NOTE: Aphorisms marked ** are approved for use in .signatures, with
credit given of course! :-)

-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 00:49:51 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #529

In article <615503897.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
[about recovering LDEF, which I pointed out is an SDI fetish just now]
>True, but the information on the effects of long term exposure of
>electronics and materials to LEO are going to be very useful to other
>people as well ...
>      ... Assuming the data doesn't get classified.

A very nice assumption indeed.

If the data prove meaningful to SDI, look for a push to classify it.
Musn't threathen the vital potency of our precious Peace Shield.

I do hope I'm wrong though, it would be nice to have some public domain
data on how materials fare up there.
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 04:52:55 GMT
From: shelby!portia!brooks@decwrl.pa.dec.com  (Michael Brooks)
Subject: Re: Re: Space station computers

In <11630015@hpfcdj.HP.COM> (Bob Myers) writes:

>"He`s talking about LCDs and other flat-panel technologies." Persons
>asking such questions are invited to study LCD manufacturing 
>technology...

 The basic idea was that LCD development is not at a stage now, nor 
will it be likely available in 1998  for computer displays (sorry
Bob, I may have the exact quote wrong).

Well, this might be unfortunately true.  Before I went back to school (don`t
ask me why!) I helped build mil-spec developmental devices of this sort
for Hughes Aircraft.  These were designed to function as sources for
the Advanced Tactical Fighter`s headsup display, as well as to be 
retrofitted into the newer aircraft.  Well, last time I checked the 
project was lamely continuing, with only lukewarm top level support.
This is not because the folks doing it are incompetant---far from.

It`s because LCDs are tough to build for a high reliability environment,
and the best of these are coming from those who invest heavily in the
technology and its applied science.  Seiko Epson is currently building
acceptable commercial displays of small size (as are other Japanese
manufacturers).  I am happily employed part-time at Lawrence Livermore
National Labs, where I am part of a group trying to employ some novel
technology to get a new start in this area that Americans seem to have
given up on.  The optimistic forcast by S. Morozumi (head of the 
Seiko Group) is to have is to have LCDs for HDTV in the mid-late `90s.
Unrealistic?  Don`t bet against the Japanese in this.  You can 
probably bet against a US sponsored effort and make money.  IF such
displays do become available, they will probably be commercial and 
not mil-spec`d (let alone space-spec`d), unless we license the 
technology (from the Japanese) and build an appropriate version. 

The sad part is that we here in the US will not likely build them for sale,
within the time frame mentioned, on our own.  They could conceivably
be built, but only by those who want them (perhaps exclusively for 
mil-spec systems).  In the race for LCD technology we are far 
behind, like that of other electronics items (256K DRAMS).

(maybe there`s hope, I could be wrong again! :-))
Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Labs/SU

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #539
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jul 89 11:19:01 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03303> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 18 Jul 89 11:18:50 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue, 18 Jul 89 11:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.UYkoL8m00Ui3M0y04N>;
          Tue, 18 Jul 89 10:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q005/QF.gYkoEMC00UkVI9lk4o>;
          Tue, 18 Jul 89 10:52:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <0Yko=Wu00UkV09kE4B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 89 10:46:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #540

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 540

Today's Topics:
		     space news from June 5 AW&ST
		    space news from June 12 AW&ST
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 02:01:14 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 5 AW&ST

Magellan's first course correction, May 21, used significantly less fuel
than expected and was sufficiently accurate that the second correction,
scheduled for December, may be unnecessary.

JSC prepares RFP for station crew-rescue vehicle.  It will set only the
high-level requirements, leaving bidders to pin down detailed specs; this
is most unusual for NASA.  [Well, I guess now and then NASA's inability
to make up its mind can be useful after all...]

National Space Council expects to finish updated version of the national
space policy by July 20.  Quayle says Bush Administration will emphasize
execution of the policy, not more changes.  "Space policy has not been
implemented for a long time."  Long-term support for the Aerospace Plane
is one of the major issues to be decided.

Growing Soviet and West German interest in spaceplanes is likely to be a
factor in the Bush policy on the Aerospace Plane.  The USSR seems to be
heavily into hypersonic research, and Germany recently approved $200M in
initial funding for its Sanger project.  There is disagreement about how
soon these nations, and Japan, will be competitive.

USAF awards Lockheed $28M contract to build an on-board threat-warning
system to alert satellite controllers to attacks by antisatellite weapons.

First flight of Ariane 44L, the heaviest Ariane 4 configuration, slips to
June 5 due to minor technical problems.

AW&ST reverses itself:  the Titan 34D launch May 10 was a snoopsat, not
a pair of military comsats.  The comsats were originally going to be
first, but the snoopsat hardware was ready early.

Picture of Buran atop Mriya in flight, as it will appear at Paris.

Soviet aerospace industry is awaiting a government decision on how many
more orbiters will be funded for the Soviet shuttle; it will be one or two
in addition to the two now in existence.

Buran was generally in pretty good shape after its orbital flight, despite
some tile problems.  The assessment is not yet entirely complete, as plans
to partially disassemble Buran for wing-interior inspections had to be
postponed slightly when the decision was made to take it to the Paris
Airshow.  There is known to have been minor damage as a result of a
hot-gas leak between the carbon wing leading edge and the tiles aft of
it on the underside; the Soviets say the problem is understood.

Soviets say that Buran was originally going to have a pair of jet engines
in pods beside the fin, with tiled exteriors and covers over the intakes
against reentry heating.  They would not have been enough to permit stable
horizontal flight or a go-around after an aborted landing attempt, but
they would have given greater maneuverability on the final approach.
Approach and landing tests led to the conclusion that they were not
useful enough to be worth the trouble.  The tests were run with a
non-space-ready orbiter carrying a second pair of engine pods on the
sides, which added enough thrust for takeoff and cruise.

Drawings of a small-spaceplane proposal using a Mriya as an airborne
launch platform.

Picture of a stripped Buran orbiter (no tail fin, in particular) atop
an M-4 "Bison" bomber.  [Pretty clear why they want to use Mriya
instead; *this* configuration looks incredibly top-heavy, as the
orbiter fuselage is about twice the diameter of the M-4's.]

Soviets offer Buran's tile-based thermal-protection technology for foreign
spacecraft, including full design, production, and installation services.

Interior and exterior color pictures of the Soviet shuttle and test
articles for it.

Ball Aerospace develops toroidal LOX tank, meant to wrap around an
oxyhydrogen engine to give more room for hydrogen tankage in an upper
stage constrained by length limits.  The USAF doesn't seem to have
abandoned the idea of hydrogen upper stages for the shuttle as thoroughly
as NASA has.  Also of note is that the LOX tank is designed to be cooled
by hydrogen boiloff, with an objective of a 30-day hold time in orbit.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 03:09:14 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 12 AW&ST

This is the big Paris-air-show preview issue.  The front cover is a two-page
foldout of Buran arriving at Le Bourget on top of Mriya.  This was the
15th flight of Buran on Mriya, the Soviets say.  The orbiter is attached
with tubular supports fore and aft; interestingly enough, it is *not*
attached to the two large payload supports on top of Mriya's wing center
section.

Japanese construction company proposes using an underground silo as a
compressed-air gas gun for space launches.  The silo would be 2km deep
and 10m dia, with the vehicle leaving the muzzle at Mach 1.  The
Hazama-Gumi Construction Co. says this would lead to major savings in
fuel and increases in payload, at a capital cost of about $3.3G.

DoT study says US commercial launch suppliers would benefit from a serious
effort to improve procedures for private use of government facilities.
Foreign suppliers can commit to launch dates three years in advance, but
the USAF won't promise availability of US launch facilities more than a
year ahead.  Various other policies can cost commercial users quite a bit
when delays occur.  The study does say that commercial fears of being
actually bumped from the schedule by government payloads are exaggerated.

Recent events in China leave uncertain the fate of efforts that had been
underway to reorganize Chinese aerospace activity for better export
potential.  The Chinese did have booster models at Le Bourget, and are
talking about development of two more booster versions, but nobody knows
what the policy situation will be.

Aerospace planes are big at Le Bourget:  large models of NASP (US),
Sanger (West Germany), Hope (Japan), and Hotol (UK) all in evidence.

OSC/Hercules to sign deal with Ball Aerospace to launch miniature comsats
into Clarke orbit on Pegasus.  [This will presumably mean a small upper
stage or two, since Pegasus is built for low orbit.]  Ball is developing
a new small comsat design, 400-1000 lbs, specifically for Pegasus launch,
and has an agreement with OSC/H. giving it exclusive rights to Clarke-
orbit launches from Pegasus for 1990-91.  Indonesia and Thailand are
reported to be potential early customers, and some European countries
are also interested.  The Ball satellites would carry only a few
transponders, and would be most useful for specialized tasks like
filling in for failing satellites or providing communications to
relatively small customers.  Pegasus managers say the cost of Clarke-orbit
missions might be reduced to about $20M this way, as opposed to $100M for
current systems, opening up a wide range of possibilities for low-cost
use of high orbits.

Pegasus is still on track for first launch in August.

Space-agency managers from a number of countries meet at Le Bourget to
begin coordination of planning for space rescue systems and manned-
spacecraft compatibility in areas like docking systems and operating
pressures.

Soviets study development of a large comsat for both internal use and
commercial export markets.

Soviets expected to begin marketing satellite radar imaging data with
a resolution of 25m in addition to existing remote-sensing services.

Israeli government approves covering most of the operating costs of the
proposed Amos comsat, assuming Israel Aircraft Industries (the sponsor
of the concept) can find commercial funding for construction and launch.

The first Ariane 44L (the maximum-boost configuration of the Ariane 4)
launches German and Japanese comsats June 5, after repeated schedule
slips due to minor technical problems.

Pictures of work underway at Kourou on the Ariane 5 production and launch
facilities.  They will include an SRB test stand that permits firing the
Ariane 5 SRBs in a vertical orientation in the same climatic conditions
as real launches, and a solid-fuel casting facility for making the
booster segments.

Story on Ball Aerospace's large-array image-intensifying sensors, one of
which will be the sensor on the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph
(first of the second-generation instruments that will eventually replace
the current ones on the Hubble telescope).  They also have potential
military applications, since they can see everything from visible light
to soft X-rays, are very sensitive, and are highly radiation-resistant.
The technology is loosely based on current military image-intensifier
technology.

Rockwell International says that cutting production costs for ALS engines
appears best done through simple designs, new production processes, and
less use of exotic materials.  The efficiency of the manufacturing process
is more important than ultimate maximum engine performance, Rockwell says.
Rockwell's Rocketdyne division is studying an oxyhydrogen engine with
somewhat more thrust than the SSME but lower pressures and temperatures
and reduced reusability requirements.  The reduced demands can greatly
reduce the complexity of the engine; for example, the pumps total about
600 parts, versus 2300 on the SSME.

Letter from Jonathan McDowell at the Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge,
Mass, pointing out that the new orbiter's name is "Endeavour", not the
USized spelling "Endeavor" that AW&ST erroneously used.  "The NASA press
release consistently uses the spelling `Endeavour' and makes it clear that
the new shuttle is named after Capt. James Cook's British ship of that
name... Proper nouns do not change their spelling upon crossing the Atlantic."
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 89 20:40:21 GMT
From: helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucsd.edu  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #536 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89184.65243503 0.00000339           39606-3 0  2183
2 00424  80.4643 269.6284 0024609  88.7102 271.6824 13.67166328335061
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89171.78874071  .00000302  00000-0  26057-3 0  2716
2 00727  69.9018  87.7403 0011522  95.0223 265.2206 13.93541329293593
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89176.25590915  .00006386  00000-0  43240-3 0  3777
2 03019  64.0625  89.9529 0222430 228.2977 129.8908 14.89376686106282
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89149.67299267 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2320
2 03029  12.7202  24.3096 0015222 196.7828 163.1216  1.00272718 78954
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89178.00068269  .00067095  00000-0  44117-3 0  7696
2 04966  51.5652   9.4607 2520115 228.6252 106.9097 10.52402576553423
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89185.94573709 0.00000004                   0  7971
2 08820 109.8337 236.1671 0045080 312.2940  47.4072  6.38664216 51760
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89173.74950308 -.00000018                   0  2814
2 10061   7.2788  68.0377 0012458 186.2024 174.0511  1.00285237  5435
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89184.90891120 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1503
2 10684  63.6201 100.2744 0108641 199.2333 160.3666  2.00560609 68861
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89185.86564008 -.00000027                   0  9997
2 10893  64.5040 341.1516 0153671  28.2607 332.5684  2.00556564 81701
GOES 3     
1 10953U 78062  A 89163.82999455  .00000088  00000-0  99999-4 0  6777
2 10953   6.0412  70.8826 0008338 259.1647 100.5880  1.00263855   899
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89185.38126433 0.00001258           48721-3 0  1389
2 10967 108.0099 323.0080 0001900 250.3009 109.7905 14.34698331576558
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89179.69654882 -.00000027                   0   442
2 11054  64.1624 337.8476 0054263 118.3186 242.2212  2.00561678 78591
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89184.78358379 0.00000011                   0  1710
2 11141  63.5602 100.2232 0057639 321.7008  37.8957  2.00571755 77390
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89179.07363106 0.00001415           61054-3 0  8665
2 11416  98.5079 175.8184 0013378  78.2571 282.0122 14.25840986519457
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89186.05444755 0.00052461           74340-3 0   100
2 11703  28.4970 152.7455 0002207 265.9426  94.0847 15.55057383522629
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89179.75487699 -.00000027                   0  9223
2 11783  63.8791 337.4802 0142717  61.8168 299.6214  2.00567922 67239
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89165.62230441 -.00000249                   0  7360
2 12472   2.1442  85.5357 1339225 255.7898  88.3318  1.00210951 28564
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89177.08931209  .00019203  00000-0  67155-3 0  2311
2 12887  97.6842 203.4299 0002293 170.1556 189.8637 15.29580356426518
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89175.12060121 0.00109175           12095-2 0  6134
2 12888  97.5518 229.1842 0000824 112.6109 247.5087 15.62617469430070
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89175.15706430 0.00000340           29620-3 0  6518
2 13113  82.5384  53.2259 0016905  44.6081 315.6445 13.84010518366207
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89179.98011901 0.00011948           28013-3 0  6355
2 13138  51.6081 259.6968 0001046  56.0682 304.0422 15.42494059410016
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89177.62917337  .00001389  00000-0  31830-3 0    23
2 13367  98.2114 241.1208 0002775 152.1326 208.0049 14.57111170369522
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89178.22720267 0.00000523           26982-3 0  7932
2 13718  81.2459 271.7266 0055731 331.6273  28.1863 14.13227046336974
IRAS       
1 13777U          89179.54298995 0.00000379           28794-3 0  6516
2 13777  99.0418  16.4972 0011380 284.5105  75.4795 13.98607863327780
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89176.60453643 -.00000221  00000-0  00000 0 0  8117
2 13969   3.5986  68.4668 0001458 134.6146 225.2992  0.99961599 89490
GOES 6     
1 14050U 83 41  A 89175.84666552  .00000120  00000-0  00000 0 0  9776
2 14050   1.3141  82.6150 0001313 124.5179 234.7014  1.00279638  6688
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89174.42674285 0.00000053                   0  4120
2 14129  26.1731 258.6318 6055703  52.9375 348.3573  2.05879393 17343
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89179.34425238 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6371
2 14189  63.2036  98.9896 0135608 215.6131 143.4776  2.00568655 43664
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89178.24880274 0.00001219           51880-3 0  7405
2 14452  81.1637 283.4658 0096149  67.8022 293.3304 14.22237349293975
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89186.03711697 0.00001015           23495-3 0  8155
2 14780  98.1692 247.9405 0002293 148.6761 211.4392 14.57140410284167
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89174.60656127 0.00002955           57613-3 0  4689
2 14781  98.0025 233.2168 0012230 307.1522  52.8563 14.63683629283482
LDEF       
1 14898U          89182.92899824 0.00035930           56808-3 0  8931
2 14898  28.5061  72.8305 0002120  46.1024 313.9929 15.52049339293743
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89178.90483298 0.00000009                   0  6819
2 15039  62.9171  98.2815 0014891 266.1831  93.6473  2.00563842 36932
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89177.92616610 0.00000342           29980-3 0  9536
2 15099  82.5329 358.6308 0012275 206.8245 153.2286 13.83675051251466
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89175.81435724 -.00000027                   0  6557
2 15271  63.3886 337.2836 0099960 320.8704  38.4151  2.00566298 33984
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89182.79943335 0.00002626           37885-3 0   499
2 15331  82.5374 324.9602 0025849  38.7910 321.5111 14.75733733256376
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89178.48001492 0.00000822           46922-3 0  3968
2 15427  99.1431 165.6229 0014515 287.3150  72.6432 14.12068748233903
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89174.82108467 0.00000384           33454-3 0   934
2 15516  82.5350 299.4827 0018197  94.8468 265.4798 13.84123123221979
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89179.91535696 0.00018705           43289-3 0  2924
2 16095  51.6095 260.0009 0002414   1.4162 358.8175 15.42492175410003
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89176.96653418 0.00000010                   0  3276
2 16129  63.7201  99.0103 0117037 150.0987 210.5845  2.00564098 27212
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89175.57673348 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8350
2 16191  82.5443 230.5113 0018292 282.8036  77.1062 13.16867709176490
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89175.55563457 0.00000283           24406-3 0  5075
2 16408  82.5352 213.7612 0014820 284.0796  75.8720 13.84184981176571
Mir        
1 16609U          89179.97686166 -.00055868          -78910-3 0  9121
2 16609  51.6208 304.7112 0010410 102.1880 258.0323 15.56139958193008
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89186.05371367 0.00000758           37384-3 0  5163
2 16613  98.7388 260.3616 0001966 111.0449 249.1000 14.20014680 14667
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89166.63717749 0.00000393           34467-3 0  3058
2 16735  82.5385 247.6750 0015551  20.7917 339.3892 13.83925664154249
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89186.02937825 0.00001444           20876-3 0  6560
2 16881  82.5231  21.4981 0024424  44.4349 315.8726 14.75366318157926
EGP        
1 16908U          89181.61948396 -.00000077          -26518-3 0  1438
2 16908  50.0075 256.7978 0011161  21.7804 338.3504 12.44378877131089
FO-12      
1 16909U          89177.26246302 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1524
2 16909  50.0159 270.4283 0010754   8.6970 351.4053 12.44399976130537
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89178.55956945 0.00000992           45637-3 0  2408
2 16969  98.6355 208.8529 0012502 218.8160 141.2114 14.23066843145415
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89175.38681730 0.00000198           16884-3 0  2669
2 17290  82.4670 148.0103 0011431 242.2012 117.7993 13.83729851124616
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89177.64542846  .00000445  00000-0  35712-3 0  1612
2 17527  99.1478 249.0224 0001302  73.7199 286.4012 13.94879050119692
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89164.57217153 -.00000042           10000-3 0  2835
2 17561   0.0551  31.9488 0027390 160.8269 167.0421  1.00277938  1727
Kvant      
1 17845U          89179.91263096 0.00044137           62049-3 0  7917
2 17845  51.6229 305.0305 0009782 102.5017 257.6545 15.56183279192991
RS-10/11   
1 18129U 87 54  A 89178.82409608  .00000030  00000-0  26436-4 0  7980
2 18129  82.9255 230.2935 0012417  29.1680 331.0160 13.71986617100856
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89178.82792454  .00000034  00000-0  31280-4 0  8635
2 18187  65.0141 352.8128 0020066 257.2348 102.6453 14.29374224102640
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89185.93366589 0.00131136  86424-5  24352-3 0  1162
2 18225  71.8637   6.9358 0011537 256.8126 103.1827 16.00849891114149
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89175.13804845 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2873
2 18312  82.5632 214.0385 0012528 170.6316 189.5093 13.83485889 93473
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89174.96934957 0.00000415           36233-3 0  1272
2 18820  82.5432 275.1635 0015527 248.6900 111.2607 13.84174526 70627
AO-13      
1 19216U          89147.06007421 0.00000137           10000-3 0   364
2 19216  57.2077 206.1830 6723768 204.7577  96.6993  2.09696457  7298
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89178.83606133  .00002764  00000-0  40778-3 0  4154
2 19274  82.5169 126.7793 0022420 193.0461 167.0192 14.74864452 52654
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89178.90592127 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2088
2 19336  82.5377 168.0753 0019265 116.1302 244.1758 13.16854107 44323
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89178.55544590 0.00000840           48742-3 0   955
2 19531  98.9397 122.5200 0011185 199.9721 160.0955 14.11053109 38936
TDRS 3     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89153.77764324  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   261
2 19548   0.5410  85.9584 0002050  10.4654 263.5580  1.00263057  1649
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89165.50968165  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   446
2 19802  55.1080 211.9148 0067914 156.7943 203.5995  2.00555799  2376
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89178.60748832 0.00000117           10000-3 0   516
2 19851  82.5231 150.9363 0012198 279.0496  80.9283 13.83810723 16522
TDRS 4     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89155.42662197 -.00000217  00000-0  99999-4 0   197
2 19883   0.3364  68.0564 0006551  44.5862 247.4060  1.00548752    96
Cosmos 2020
1 19986U          89167.00035284 0.00713491  34818-4  33909-3 0   650
2 19986  64.7730 355.9562 0129120  90.4929 271.2069 16.04503107  4755
1989 037A  
1 20000U          89166.71735513 0.00273342  20071-4  19406-3 0   544
2 20000  69.9458  15.2671 0062488  74.7482 286.1528 16.11421323  3590
RESURS-F   
1 20006U          89166.67758184 0.00125228  60541-5  17209-3 0   460
2 20006  82.2956  17.0495 0008737 226.6604 133.3319 16.06021047  3428
Cosmos 2022
1 20024U          89180.39981994 -.00000011           10000-2 0   363
2 20024  64.8272  50.8719 0001867 255.3129 104.7148  2.13102677  6110
Cosmos 2023
1 20025U          89180.69329080 -.00000011           10000-3 0   337
2 20025  64.8449  50.8407 0013705 210.6426 149.3398  2.13102719   639
Cosmos 2024
1 20026U          89180.38648897 -.00000011           10000-3 0   312
2 20026  64.8327  50.8698 0008813 267.3366  92.6243  2.13204691   623
1989 034E  
1 20028U          89178.00694809 -.00000011           10000-3 0   101
2 20028  65.0844  49.9949 0026704 349.6370  10.4567  2.13479740   523
SuperBird A
1 20040U          89183.78104506 -.00000099           10000-3 0   180
2 20040   0.0262 313.9524 0003825 147.9338 258.1480  1.00273104   239
1989 041B  
1 20041U          89176.16827699 0.00000175                   0    66
2 20041   0.0519 101.0035 0018654 274.6572 344.3954  1.00273050   146
1989 041C  
1 20042U          89180.73838624 0.00029257           43252-2 0   257
2 20042   6.8451  39.4411 7284761 196.5318 112.7819  2.29135522   453
Cosmos 2026
1 20045U          89182.87143968 0.00000147           14176-3 0   337
2 20045  82.9397 343.5786 0038435 224.9740 134.8304 13.75019694  3391
1989 042B  
1 20046U          89183.28114413 -.00005554          -56739-2 0   415
2 20046  82.9421 343.2304 0034632 219.8560 140.0060 13.76474261  3452
Molniya3-35
1 20052U          89185.82178793 0.00000337          -64412-3 0   382
2 20052  62.8916 100.4812 7378798 288.3491   9.3816  2.00619042   532
1989 043C  
1 20054U          89185.96952823 0.02236606  40159-4  87942-3 0   493
2 20054  62.8076   4.9277 0106206 118.9114 242.6284 16.10794210  4150
1989 043D  
1 20055U          89181.19602649 -.00000033          -72758-4 0   188
2 20055  62.8377 101.2212 7418933 288.2499   9.1610  1.95989428   421
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89184.65013749 -.00000029                   0   209
2 20061  54.5908  30.0107 0075416 162.5932 197.7252  2.00706863   504
1989 044B  
1 20062U          89185.51276141 0.01815174 -21067-4  86130-3 0   460
2 20062  30.3130 223.7873 0272977 274.2600  82.5898 15.72855592  2459
1989 044C  
1 20063U          89180.67387799 0.00150739  16782-4  17311-2 0   284
2 20063  37.5981  14.2665 6028531 215.0459  84.5099  4.10224009   794
1989 045A  
1 20064U          89180.22022443 0.00008604           36818-3 0   107
2 20064  65.8385  25.6376 0024329 340.4779  20.7342 15.23081660  2240
1989 045B  
1 20065U          89182.89576271 0.00017490           70532-3 0   267
2 20065  65.8434  17.1386 0028390 355.9392   4.1515 15.24554372  2656
Cosmos 2028
1 20073U          89186.14669029 0.00200402  64900-5  11042-3 0   377
2 20073  69.9900  33.6678 0028265 122.3807 237.9966 16.18344283  3023
1989 047B  
1 20074U          89171.95493335 0.22683705  21508-4  27768-3 0   201
2 20074  69.9775  75.8690 0009597  31.4079 329.3441 16.49307108   743
1989 048A  
1 20083U          89184.84183444 0.00000149           10000-3 0   199
2 20083   1.4879 273.2044 0005888 345.2657  15.5974  1.00260751   123
1989 048D  
1 20086U          89184.01668549 -.00000103           10000-3 0    17
2 20086   1.4525 273.3035 0020607 327.7995  42.6674  0.97890576   128
1989 049A  
1 20095U          89185.37011683 0.00065210  11046-5  10448-3 0   167
2 20095  82.5626  55.9103 0010502 285.9348  74.1765 16.03412151  1136
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #540
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jul 89 00:58:55 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03589> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Wed, 19 Jul 89 00:56:40 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Wed, 19 Jul 89 00:56:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.IYl0F:e00UkT41PU9R>;
          Wed, 19 Jul 89 00:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.UYl09wC00UkVE1KU4d>;
          Wed, 19 Jul 89 00:24:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYl07mq00UkV01J05o@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 89 00:22:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #541

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 541

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 20:39:41 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #540 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89191.67792219 0.00000280           32586-3 0  2204
2 00424  80.4647 262.7056 0024655  71.0678 289.3132 13.67168820336024
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89183.63206328  .00000279  00000-0  24359-3 0  2768
2 00727  69.9017  62.4105 0012021  75.8113 284.4325 13.93548970295248
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89181.15740204  .00004217  00000-0  29106-3 0  3822
2 03019  64.0705  74.3473 0221919 227.6634 130.5491 14.89412840107012
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89183.58007332 -.00000072  00000-0  99999-4 0  2359
2 03029  12.7880  24.0644 0015683 202.7342 157.2149  1.00270279 79299
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89185.78526733  .00056227  00000-0  36308-3 0  7928
2 04966  51.5597 351.5973 2517323 242.0552  90.3569 10.53140100554242
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89192.05279498 0.00000004                   0  8082
2 08820 109.8319 238.2564 0044879 310.9069  48.7837  6.38664270 52153
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89187.70972559 -.00000018                   0  2840
2 10061   7.2018  67.9345 0006570 168.1449 191.8209  1.00281896  5575
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89191.39082288 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1567
2 10684  63.4716 100.0985 0108935 199.8000 159.8550  2.00560403 68999
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89186.36423113 -.00000027                   0    07
2 10893  64.4963 341.1388 0154121  28.3750 332.4133  2.00556037 81716
GOES 3     
1 10953U 78062  A 89184.77328655  .00000089  00000-0  99999-4 0  6852
2 10953   6.0876  70.6932 0007443 258.9782 100.7917  1.00269670  1101
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89189.21611950 0.00001087           42673-3 0  1401
2 10967 108.0100 330.9053 0001936 246.7814 113.3111 14.34703934577108
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89186.67698069 -.00000027                   0   476
2 11054  64.1050 337.6265 0056452 116.9677 243.5145  2.00561044 78731
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89185.78074990 0.00000011                   0  1726
2 11141  63.5628 100.1906 0057676 322.2992  37.3059  2.00571790 77414
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89188.47691974 0.00000997           43480-3 0  8720
2 11416  98.5086 184.9503 0013312  52.9536 307.2838 14.25854409520797
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89191.18756609 0.00052832           73443-3 0   165
2 11703  28.4948 116.3364 0003007 343.9158  16.1346 15.55572832523426
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89186.73488388 -.00000027                   0  9258
2 11783  64.2630 337.1976 0132174  60.2934 301.1451  2.00568143 67378
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89188.56832149 -.00000242                   0  7397
2 12472   2.1424  83.6487 1365143 261.0840  83.2574  1.00202973 28789
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89184.08861988  .00017860  00000-0  62011-3 0  2352
2 12887  97.6850 210.6691 0003111 154.5926 205.5466 15.29831205427586
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89187.34341396 0.00082918           84786-3 0  6252
2 12888  97.5499 242.2607 0002382 136.8369 223.3123 15.64759874431983
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89185.63973144 0.00000279           24114-3 0  6525
2 13113  82.5392  44.8955 0016571  17.1820 342.9883 13.84015405367659
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89191.70536556 0.00015044           34639-3 0  6506
2 13138  51.6079 202.2051 0001361  86.4609 273.6748 15.42819238411828
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89184.63347268  .00001390  00000-0  31817-3 0   108
2 13367  98.2122 248.0289 0003192 135.4372 224.7144 14.57116608370541
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89178.22720267 0.00000523           26982-3 0  7932
2 13718  81.2459 271.7266 0055731 331.6273  28.1863 14.13227046336974
IRAS       
1 13777U          89187.98453723 0.00000499           37173-3 0  6520
2 13777  99.0435  24.8206 0011439 258.9738 101.0139 13.98616970328962
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89184.60789426 -.00000186  00000-0  00000 0 0  8173
2 13969   3.6063  68.5134 0002541 143.7497 216.2186  0.99957729 89574
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89183.82324780 0.00000118                   0  9834
2 14050   1.3301  82.5159 0001684 118.2945 240.6915  1.00282030  6761
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89178.79777575 0.00000013                   0  4137
2 14129  26.1632 257.9072 6055751  54.1250 348.0249  2.05880722 17436
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89187.32155718 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6405
2 14189  63.1981  98.7413 0136070 215.4965 143.6036  2.00568295 43821
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89187.18335550 0.00000788           33384-3 0  7465
2 14452  81.1657 274.5150 0095889  42.2591 318.5881 14.22245717295243
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89192.07995701 0.00001095           25271-3 0  8215
2 14780  98.1659 253.8677 0002971 143.6486 216.5016 14.57134271285044
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89187.18492743 0.00002015           39540-3 0  4763
2 14781  98.0026 245.4302 0012015 262.4069  97.5528 14.63728035285321
LDEF       
1 14898U          89187.23666890 0.00028138           44041-3 0  8999
2 14898  28.5064  42.4292 0002105  76.2548 283.8005 15.52293587294413
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89190.87096470 0.00000009                   0  6967
2 15039  62.9440  97.8960 0015303 265.7509  94.0492  2.00564158 37177
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89183.92807226 0.00000139           11551-3 0  9560
2 15099  82.5317 353.8558 0012135 189.8215 170.2708 13.83675444252295
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89191.76921310 -.00000027                   0  6673
2 15271  63.3593 336.7781 0099590 321.0065  38.2794  2.00566581 34307
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89187.81692541 0.00002407           34690-3 0   518
2 15331  82.5385 320.3293 0025496  23.2485 336.9848 14.75754344257119
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89181.38516046 0.00000645           37278-3 0  3997
2 15427  99.1432 168.5844 0014465 278.8609  81.0923 14.12070704234317
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89182.26678945 0.00000423           37005-3 0   945
2 15516  82.5349 293.5608 0018179  76.0460 284.2818 13.84130132223009
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89191.64054302 -.00007521          -16457-3 0  3056
2 16095  51.6089 202.5218 0000820  85.4339 274.4356 15.42810643411814
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89176.96653418 0.00000010                   0  3276
2 16129  63.7201  99.0103 0117037 150.0987 210.5845  2.00564098 27212
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89187.58121355 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8361
2 16191  82.5458 222.0260 0018361 250.0613 109.8547 13.16869616178076
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89190.01269714 0.00000155           12950-3 0  5105
2 16408  82.5349 202.2592 0014801 238.3624 121.6078 13.84188640178572
Mir        
1 16609U          89191.59716480 0.00022450           31188-3 0  9301
2 16609  51.6190 246.5427 0009980 140.6053 219.5643 15.56868958194815
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89192.04292659 0.00000583           29161-3 0  5222
2 16613  98.7375 266.2780 0002084 108.3417 251.7981 14.20020354 15513
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89166.63717749 0.00000393           34467-3 0  3058
2 16735  82.5385 247.6750 0015551  20.7917 339.3892 13.83925664154249
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89192.06541676 0.00001214           17512-3 0  6621
2 16881  82.5234  15.9157 0023952  25.6511 334.5753 14.75386476158813
EGP        
1 16908U          89187.80380367 -.00000053          -97648-4 0  1452
2 16908  50.0075 237.7833 0011202  37.5684 322.5914 12.44378829131857
FO-12      
1 16909U          89187.54272147 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1599
2 16909  50.0163 238.8278 0010940  36.0215 324.1355 12.44400311131818
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89183.27038236 0.00000835           38697-3 0  2423
2 16969  98.6359 213.4739 0012602 203.9945 156.0635 14.23072410146084
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89183.99159216 0.00000057           46114-4 0  2679
2 17290  82.4672 141.1128 0011850 212.8240 147.2200 13.83732712125801
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89185.03359185  .00000128  00000-0  12022-3 0  1703
2 17527  99.1487 256.3464 0001203  65.3473 294.7701 13.94879431120727
GOES 7     
1 17561U 87 22  A 89184.51602373 -.00000046  00000-0  99999-4 0  2887
2 17561   0.0121 285.5329 0001851 225.6463 208.7980  1.00276735  1920
Kvant      
1 17845U          89191.53294870 0.00045654           62517-3 0  8043
2 17845  51.6214 246.8662 0009919 142.9432 217.0761 15.56874752194809
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89191.00303835 0.00000258           27326-3 0  8122
2 18129  82.9240 221.2975 0011542 356.3083   3.7983 13.71989715102528
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89184.98489130  .00000182  00000-0  10681-3 0  8694
2 18187  65.0138 335.6301 0019950 257.3125 102.5693 14.29378113103526
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89192.67946782 0.00125804  82103-5  21318-3 0  1254
2 18225  71.8641 348.8548 0011270 249.7614 110.2884 16.02430320115227
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89183.09345332 0.00000218           18868-3 0  2888
2 18312  82.5606 207.7310 0012997 148.4152 211.7789 13.83489621 94572
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89188.55908553 0.00000294           25380-3 0  1293
2 18820  82.5437 264.3650 0015741 209.4470 150.5805 13.84181678 72505
AO-13      
1 19216U          89186.15508008 -.00000132           10000-3 0   382
2 19216  57.2070 200.8551 6748913 207.0433  90.2906  2.09703317  8118
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89185.00985814  .00002440  00000-0  35926-3 0  4214
2 19274  82.5181 121.0725 0022891 172.8722 187.2851 14.74894188 53564
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89189.84690628 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2123
2 19336  82.5432 160.3422 0018754  90.3924 269.9246 13.16852176 45768
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89182.88086140 0.00000757           44082-3 0   981
2 19531  98.9405 126.8266 0011376 187.2771 172.8236 14.11058247 39541
TDRS 3     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89153.77764324  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   261
2 19548   0.5410  85.9584 0002050  10.4654 263.5580  1.00263057  1649
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89180.46759048  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   468
2 19802  55.1035 211.3258 0067111 157.1646 203.2063  2.00556154  2678
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89183.59651735 0.00000117           10000-3 0   526
2 19851  82.5242 146.9660 0012167 262.3862  97.5916 13.83812845 17218
TDRS 4     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89155.42662197 -.00000217  00000-0  99999-4 0   197
2 19883   0.3364  68.0564 0006551  44.5862 247.4060  1.00548752    96
Cosmos 2020
1 19986U          89167.00035284 0.00713491  34818-4  33909-3 0   650
2 19986  64.7730 355.9562 0129120  90.4929 271.2069 16.04503107  4755
1989 037A  
1 20000U          89166.71735513 0.00273342  20071-4  19406-3 0   544
2 20000  69.9458  15.2671 0062488  74.7482 286.1528 16.11421323  3590
RESURS-F 1 
1 20006U          89166.67758184 0.00125228  60541-5  17209-3 0   460
2 20006  82.2956  17.0495 0008737 226.6604 133.3319 16.06021047  3428
Cosmos 2022
1 20024U          89180.39981994 -.00000011           10000-2 0   363
2 20024  64.8272  50.8719 0001867 255.3129 104.7148  2.13102677  6110
Cosmos 2023
1 20025U          89180.69329080 -.00000011           10000-3 0   337
2 20025  64.8449  50.8407 0013705 210.6426 149.3398  2.13102719   639
Cosmos 2024
1 20026U          89180.38648897 -.00000011           10000-3 0   312
2 20026  64.8327  50.8698 0008813 267.3366  92.6243  2.13204691   623
1989 034E  
1 20028U          89178.00694809 -.00000011           10000-3 0   101
2 20028  65.0844  49.9949 0026704 349.6370  10.4567  2.13479740   523
SuperBird A
1 20040U          89183.78104506 -.00000099           10000-3 0   180
2 20040   0.0262 313.9524 0003825 147.9338 258.1480  1.00273104   239
1989 041B  
1 20041U          89176.16827699 0.00000175                   0    66
2 20041   0.0519 101.0035 0018654 274.6572 344.3954  1.00273050   146
1989 041C  
1 20042U          89185.08517834 0.00030059           39919-2 0   287
2 20042   6.9331  37.4445 7284280 200.3317 100.7896  2.29417718   558
Cosmos 2026
1 20045U          89182.87143968 0.00000147           14176-3 0   337
2 20045  82.9397 343.5786 0038435 224.9740 134.8304 13.75019694  3391
1989 042B  
1 20046U          89190.25933410 -.00005554          -56739-2 0   517
2 20046  82.9417 338.0442 0035026 199.2664 160.7174 13.76469147  4415
Molniya3-35
1 20052U          89189.80933893 0.00000326          -81454-3 0   444
2 20052  62.9521  99.8751 7379264 288.3629   9.3770  2.00620985   616
1989 043C  
1 20054U          89188.07223047 0.04278090  41472-4  80540-3 0   555
2 20054  62.8042 356.4649 0069907 118.0415 242.8621 16.24472404  4499
1989 043D  
1 20055U          89187.82942194 0.00000550           19192-2 0   268
2 20055  62.8484 100.2186 7414419 288.3220   9.1933  1.95983490   552
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89192.12697065 -.00000029                   0   265
2 20061  54.5873  29.7087 0080561 163.1763 197.1395  2.00573230   651
1989 044B  
1 20062U          89193.27933477 0.18331712 -23867-4  49193-3 0   674
2 20062  30.2951 166.4880 0064540   2.3773 357.7413 16.35924744  3699
1989 044C  
1 20063U          89190.62410034 0.00111825  17032-4  12205-2 0   390
2 20063  37.5403   7.2226 6012784 224.5458  67.5657  4.12779176  1205
Cosmos 2027
1 20064U          89180.22022443 0.00008604           36818-3 0   107
2 20064  65.8385  25.6376 0024329 340.4779  20.7342 15.23081660  2240
1989 045B  
1 20065U          89189.58668525 0.00012737           51370-3 0   330
2 20065  65.8410 356.1109 0028402 352.2314   7.8374 15.24711048  3678
1989 047B  
1 20074U          89171.95493335 0.22683705  21508-4  27768-3 0   201
2 20074  69.9775  75.8690 0009597  31.4079 329.3441 16.49307108   743
Raduga 1-1 
1 20083U          89191.82317511 0.00000150           10000-3 0   258
2 20083   1.4316 273.2866 0005765 350.8496   9.8315  1.00262529   195
1989 048D  
1 20086U          89190.11936315 -.00000072           10000-3 0    53
2 20086   1.4411 273.8076 0021178 326.8287  33.8381  0.97890444   187
RESURS-F 2 
1 20095U          89191.73809591 0.00064831  10831-5  10865-3 0   271
2 20095  82.5613  48.8076 0010837 290.2435  69.7552 16.02644491  2159
1989 050A  
1 20103U          89189.26872294 -.00000027          -36022-4 0   135
2 20103  82.9621 178.4857 0036386 276.4532  83.9495 13.73487091   507
1989 050B  
1 20104U          89189.91988291 0.00000006                   0    51
2 20104  82.9595 178.0002 0029060 261.9103  97.8792 13.74886858   587
Cosmos 2029
1 20105U          89192.71956696 -.00001703          -12591-4 0   148
2 20105  82.3753  62.6788 0018029  80.5615 279.8275 15.73167491  1016
Gorizont 18
1 20107U          89191.60754045 -.00000041           10000-3 0    90
2 20107   1.5172 276.8179 0014800 165.2660 195.4272  1.01594585    50
1989 052D  
1 20110U          89187.71389954 -.00000112           10000-3 0    15
2 20110   1.4611 276.7767 0030205  72.3828 289.4417  1.03021047    15
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #541
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jul 89 00:59:47 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02866> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 20 Jul 89 00:57:52 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 20 Jul 89 00:57:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.QYlJNn600Vs101JEI1>;
          Thu, 20 Jul 89 00:35:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.EYlJHLC00UkV41Yk5n>;
          Thu, 20 Jul 89 00:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <wYlJDM600UkV41XE5R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 00:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #542

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 542

Today's Topics:
		     space news from May 29 AW&ST
			 Re: new space goals
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
			 Re: new space goals
			 Re: new space goals
			    life xtension
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 04:47:22 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 29 AW&ST

Full-page ad for Pegasus, facing the editorial page.

Editorial observing that commercial spaceflight in the US is starting to
recover from its ills, but it's got a long way to go.  Mostly, it needs
stable government policy, plus government launcher buys done as commercial
deals with minimum unnecessary paperwork.

NASA to review astronaut-physiology data, with a specific eye on how
capable shuttle pilots will be after a 2-4 week stay in space on an
extended-duration orbiter.  Another issue of long-stay shuttle missions
is the need for more stowage space for food, clothing, and incidentals.

Space Commerce Corp. files formal protest of NASA's decision to exclude
it from commercial launch services bidding.  SCC says it is 100% US-owned
and should be allowed to compete, even though it proposes to use Soviet-
built hardware.  NASA interprets procurement rules to forbid other than
US-built rockets, but SCC points out that (a) the contracts call for
launch services, not hardware production, and (b) NASA has bought
sounding-rocket launches using Canadian hardware in the recent past.

Advisory panel warns the government that the government itself is the
major customer for commercial space ventures in the near term, and care
will be needed to keep the industry alive.

Brazil's Avibras Aeroespacial and China's Great Wall Industries form
joint venture specializing in comsat launching, tracking, and networking.
China contributes launchers.  Brazil contributes space-tracking experience,
efficient international marketing (Avibras is a major weapons exporter),
and equatorial launch sites.  Brazil is developing its own launcher, but
it is smaller than the Long March series and would not compete with them.

NASA looks, once again, at scaling down the space station.  The change
of administrations in both the White House and NASA is likely to result
in changes of plan.  The station has been in financial trouble for some
time and there are lingering technical problems as well:  assembly sequence
is tricky, the existing module designs are too heavy and their center of
gravity may be too far forward for safe shuttle launch (although these
issues are uncertain until equipment layout is fully settled, and there
is also the complicating issue that the shuttle will [theoretically] be
using the ASRM improved SRBs by the time station launches start), the
microgravity people are concerned that the station may not give sufficiently
clean free fall, and the latest review of the proposal to change to solar-
dynamic power called [sigh] for more studies.  The official position from
the station program office is that the approved configuration is the only
one that will be worked on until NASA HQ decides otherwise, and that the
plans cannot be based on availability of the ASRM because it is not yet
assured.

Various radical possibilities are being informally looked at, including
schedule stretches, a simpler design with some money diverted to building
Shuttle-C to launch it, and renegotiating some of the complex and constraining
agreements between NASA, Congress, and the White House (Truly is reported
to be willing to take the flak of breaking or renegotiating agreements if
they are too troublesome).  Truly seems to be taking the position that
scaling the station down is better than slipping its schedule, and one
or the other is probably inevitable given the financial problems.  He
is also said to be insisting that the station be launchable, without
question, on the shuttle.

The international station partners are throughly unhappy about all of this.

Galileo is in initial launch preparation at KSC.

USAF assessing schedule impact of May 24 Delta launch failure, believed
to be due to malfunctioning ground equipment.  The engine controller lit
the vernier engines successfully, but the LOX valve for the main engine
refused to open and the controller shut things down.  There was never any
significant risk of explosion, and preparing for another try should take
only a few days.  The payload is another Navstar; the only change made
since the last one (Feb 14) is some vibration-absorbing material to
damp out strong vibration observed in the new payload fairing.

NASA rejects the [inevitable] bid protest from Hercules over the award
of the ASRM contract to Lockheed/Aerojet, clearing the way for contract
negotiations.

Magellan trajectory correction successful May 21.

NASA putting major efforts into getting Columbia ready for a military
launch July 31.  Since NASA has already eliminated one planned DoD
mission this year (originally in August) to clear the decks for Galileo,
it badly wants to keep the remaining military launch on schedule.  There
is a lot left to be done, since Columbia had slipped badly behind in
hardware updates applied to the other orbiters.  Activity on Discovery
and Atlantis has practically stopped so the whole workforce can be put
on Columbia.

[The following are from Spaceflight, May issue.]

Tass reports that Soviet bureaucrats are trying to prosecute Sergei
Krikalev for draft-dodging, given that he failed to report for army-
reserve duty several months ago.  Krikalev has been unable to report as
requested because he has been in orbit aboard Mir.  The Tass headline
was "Space is no escape from dim-wit bureaucrats, cosmonaut learns."

Agreement due to be signed April 14 for 1991 launch of a British
astronaut to Mir.  This will be a purely commercial launch, funded by
a consortium of British companies, with no government funding... although
the British government clearly approves, since a Cabinet Minister will
attend the signing ceremony.  It will cost about $10M.  A short list of
5-10 candidates will go to Glavkosmos in September, and the Soviets will
pick a prime and backup, who will both spend about a year in training
(for emergency procedures and the basics of living on Mir) at Star City.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 06:25:58 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <113594@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>If they give up eating pizza, they can have just as much effect on
>their ability to buy a house as if they quit spending on space.
>
>If space operations ever become a *profitable* business endeavor,
>separate from government interference, then we can have our space
>and eat our pizza, too.

    I don't see your point.  Americans by and large would rather have
pizza today than Mars tomorrow.  This is obvious given the relative
profits of the fast-food and commercial space industries :-)
    Followups directed to talk.politics.misc - redirect if you have
something specifically about space to say.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 15:38:45 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <SHAFER.89Jul2160651@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
>>Actually, you can find non-government birds with afterburners, but there
>>aren't very many of them and often they aren't very accessible.
>
> [F-20] ...What others are there?  

I know of two others which used to exist:  Darryl Greenamyer's souped-up
Starfighter and the privately-owned T-38 in California.  Greenamyer's
Starfighter, alas, is junk following a gear-deployment failure after a
world-low-altitude-speed-record flight, and I seem to recall hearing that
the California T-38 got written off recently too.  Rats.

>That's what this country needs--general aviation with afterburners!
>I'm ready!

Me too!  Unfortunately the US military wants to keep jet aviation all to
itself, so even its tamer aircraft are never sold to civilians.  (Both
the Starfighter and the T-38 were rebuilt from hardware that slipped out
basically by accident.)
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 16:13:25 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <4433bd26.71d0@apollo.COM> rehrauer@apollo.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes:
>>... the Martian surface has useful supplies of things like water.
>
>... Have readily-accessible
>sources of water on Mars been identified, or do you mean that, given the
>presense in whatever amounts & form, accessing it is just a question of
>engineering?  My impression from the most recent stuff I've read on the
>subject was that there was conflicting data...

There is definitely water, frozen, in the polar caps.  There is some
uncertainty about its availability elsewhere.  Chances are excellent that
there is quite a bit of it in reasonably-accessible permafrost down to
quite low latitudes, but that is not yet certain.  A bit of preliminary
exploration would pin this down quickly.  You can definitely obtain water
if you're willing to land at the edge of the north polar cap in northern
summer; there is some uncertainty about more convenient sources, but there
*is* water there.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 19:58:14 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <14435@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>... We have what we need
>to GET TO Mars, and back, safely, in a sort of Apollo Mark II.
>
>What we do not have, and ain't even close to having, is the ability to
>go there and stay...

Uh, why not?  Mir would work just fine in Mars orbit; it lacks only a
solar-flare shelter (hiding behind Phobos might be simpler) and a resupply
system that can work at such distances.  Resupply requirements are not that
bad if (a) CO2 can be extracted without eating up consumables like LiOH,
and (b) water can be recycled moderately well; then the consumables drop
to -- if memory serves -- 2-3 kg per man-day.  That's enough to be annoying
but not too much to be feasible.  As for (a) and (b), new military aircraft
use molecular-sieve technology that ought to be applicable to (a), and (b)
is not something that should take a decade to develop, since normal human
metabolism generates water (from food) and hence recycling need not be
terribly good.

Staying on the surface is easier because the water problem is solved, and
harder because it probably requires a nuclear power source.  (Martian dust
storms can last a long time and are fairly opaque, which makes solar power
a doubtful approach.)  Buy a Topaz reactor from the Soviets; problem solved.

Yes, there are problems.  Ten years ought to suffice to get them firmly
under control, however.

>We could also do this on the moon, but Mars is sexier and has more to
>teach us I believe.  And as Henry has pointed out, it's not that much
>farther up the gravity well.

Actually, my own view is that the Moon is the obvious place to start, if
only because we've barely scratched the surface there.

>>				In some ways it's easier, because we have
>>Phobos and Deimos as potential resources, and the Martian surface has
>>useful supplies of things like water.
>
>And you wanted to know what new technology we'd have to develop??  Be
>honest, wonderful ANALOG fodder though it makes, nobody has ever run
>anything industrial off Earth for any length of time...

We don't need anything very industrial to use Phobos regolith for a
solar storm shelter; the free-fall equivalent of shovels will suffice.
Nor is it overly difficult to make use of CO2 and water, both available
on the Martian surface; water is useful in its natural state and plants
like CO2.  Making rocket fuel out of that combination isn't very hard,
either -- it's being seriously studied for *unmanned* missions.

>...We'll
>certainly do it some day, but not until humans have had the opportunity
>to kick around on-site for a while and play with things.  To do that we
>have to get them there, with Earth materials.

True.  But we can send an expedition equipped to (a) prosper using on-site
materials and (b) just barely get back to Earth without.  If we are fairly
confident that we can make simple things work -- which we are -- then we
can rely on them for everything except emergency return.

>We don't need commercial megaboosters to go to Mars...

It's likely to cut the cost by an order of magnitude, however, which is
not a trivial matter.

>>							General Dynamics,
>>Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Arianespace, etc., will scream bloody
>>murder, hire lobbyists, and start talking excitedly to Congressthings,
>>because they simply can't do it.
>
>Precisely the kind of catfight that kills missions.  QED.

Uh, you think *hiring* those people keeps missions *alive*?  Ever noticed
what's happened to the space-station budget lately?  They're not planning
to use all those dollar bills as insulation in the modules.

>>And cheap transport to low orbit makes the whole thing much easier and
>>much less demanding, because it's no longer necessary to pare every gram
>>off the project's hardware.
>
>Paring grams off the hardware is where you learn.  Weight exigencies
>are the soul of spinoff...

[expetive deleted] spinoff.  If we want to get to Mars, that should be the
first priority, and never mind silly luxuries.  This is what I meant when
I specified that the mission should take priority over empire building.
Paring grams off the hardware is what turns millions into billions, and
makes aerospace-contractor stock a good investment.

>>Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years?
>
>Our track record supports my assertion better than your objection, I
>think.  We can't get that hardware ready in 10 years because we can't do
>ANYTHING in 10 years anymore.  The can-do technocracy that gave us
>Vietnam and Apollo is ancient history...

Nonsense.  It is alive and well in places like Amroc... and even here and
there within NASA.  All we need to do is harness it.  If we try to get to
Mars on a business-as-usual basis, we will NEVER get there!  The current
NASA/NASA-contractors combination is simply incapable of doing it at any
price the nation will support.  It's not clear that it's capable of doing
it at all, in fact; the extrapolated completion time for major projects is
perilously close to infinite already.  Reforming or bypassing the existing
organization is not merely nice, it's *necessary*.

>>					[Apollo] developed -- but was
>>never allowed to *use* -- most of the hardware needed for more permanent
>>follow-ons.
>
>It would be more accurate to say that some NASA and contractor groups
>designed, but were not allowed to build or fly, follow-ons.  If Henry or
>anyone else is aware of built, unflown hardware besides CSMs, LMs and
>Saturn hardware, I would like to hear about it.

Quite a bit of it -- lunar rover technology, for example -- was developed
to the point of demonstration, although not flight-ready hardware.  And
remember that the later LMs, for example, were considerably more capable
than the early ones.

>... the program as pitched, designed and built logically
>culminated at Taurus Littrow.  (18 would have been nice, but not
>revolutionary.)

Ever seen the designs for the "LM Truck"?  Or other "Advanced Apollo"
hardware?  That was just the starting point.  The necessity to design
hardware to meet JFK's deadline did not prevent designing it to go farther
as well.  It's sad to see how many people have actually started to believe
the -- to put it bluntly -- lying bullshit about how Apollo was never meant
to be anything but a dead end.  The program as pitched, designed and built
logically led up to longer lunar expeditions and a permanent base; it
was designed that way from the start, and progressively cut back to the
sad state it finally died in.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 21:09:47 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!disk!wells@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lee wells)
Subject: life xtension

hello;

I am trying to start a mailing list about life extension /preventive medicine

stuff like the free radical theory of aging, how to *prevent* disease, immune

system stimulants, and nutritional information.  I think a couple of science

fiction writers have even said living in space may cause a slowing of the

aging effect, let me know what you think and send mail to the above address.


lee wells

wells@disk.uucp

?future non-moderator of LIFE eXperiments?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #542
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jul 89 04:05:03 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03369> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 20 Jul 89 04:03:23 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 20 Jul 89 04:03:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.AYlLwHS00Vs101FU8n>;
          Thu, 20 Jul 89 03:28:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.8YlLnd600UkVQ1ok4L>;
          Thu, 20 Jul 89 03:19:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QYlLmJi00UkVI1nE41@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 03:17:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #543

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 543

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
	Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST (replacing computers)
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		   Re: HR2674: Dear Space Activist
			  Re: Two Questions
			      Re: Apollo
	       Re: Don't mess with NASA (afterburners)
		     Re: Space station computers
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #535
	       Re: Don't mess with NASA (afterburners)
	       Voyager Status for 07/05/89 (Forwarded)
		   Space program on PBS-TV in July.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 15:01:15 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!stl!stc!pete@uunet.uu.net  (Peter Kendell)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

>From article <1989Jul2.211254.15469@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
} 
} Actually, you can find non-government birds with afterburners, but there
} aren't very many of them and often they aren't very accessible.

	What about Concorde? Just the price of a British Airways or
	(perhaps preferably) Air France ticket.

} $10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
} (Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     Please explain!

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|		  Peter Kendell <pete@tcom.stc.co.uk>	        	   |
|				...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete		   |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 15:43:06 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST (replacing computers)

In article <11749@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes:
>> The real botch here is that the computers are so inaccessible that it takes
>> four hours to replace one.
>
>Sorry, I don't necessarily agree.  As Henry obviously knows, design of
>something like a space shuttle is a series of tradeoffs...

Granted... but NASA has somewhat of a history of assuming that the hardware
must work -- it says so in The Book, after all! -- and so it's unnecessary
to set things up so the astronauts can fix it.  I.e., while tradeoffs do
happen, they can and do get skewed by institutional biases.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 06:53:08 GMT
From: alpha!wxh@lanl.gov  (Billy Harvey)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <1989Jul2.211254.15469@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <SHAFER.89Jul2102222@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
> >>... If you want class when climbing into an aircraft, it has to have
> >>afterburners.
> >
> >Better watch it, Henry--you'd have to do it in a government-sponsored,
> >government-funded aircraft!  :-) :-)
> 
> Ouch.  Touche. :-)

Theres a saying military pilots have - "Just remember, what you're flying
was built by the lowest bidder!"













Billy Harvey            wxh@a.lanl.gov

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 20:08:51 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <1989Jul4.153845.19465@utzoo.uucp> I wrote:
>>>Actually, you can find non-government birds with afterburners, but there
>>>aren't very many of them and often they aren't very accessible.
>>
>> [F-20] ...What others are there?  
>
>I know of two others which used to exist...

And of course, I forgot about Concorde.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 16:08:01 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HR2674: Dear Space Activist

In article <25978@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>Here is Ron Packard's letter to Space Activists.  Are you one?  This
>bill needs more Cosponsors.  Have you seen your Representative about
>HR2674?

I too would urge US readers to get off their behinds and ask their
Congressthing whether he/she/it supports this, and if not why not.  This
bill looks like a very good thing.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 89 01:12:04 -0500
From: avr@cs.purdue.edu (Andrew V. Royappa)


Please remove me from this list.

			Thanks,

				Andrew Royappa

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 04:20:40 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Two Questions

In article <101270024@hpcvlx.HP.COM> gvg@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel) writes:
>   1: A recent AEROSPACE AMERICA article discussed nuclear propulsion
>      and kept referring to "specific impulse", measured in seconds?
>      Can anyone please define?

It's a peculiar and somewhat archaic but still widespread way of measuring
exhaust velocity.  It's thrust*time/fuelweight, and the units happen to be
seconds because of the peculiar notion of measuring fuel burn by weight 
rather than mass.  It turns out to be exhaustvelocity/g, where g is the
acceleration of gravity, 9.81 m/s^2.  Exhaust velocity is the fundamental
measure of rocket engine performance; via conservation of momentum, it
determines how much boost you get out of each kg of fuel.

(Okay, for the curious...  For a pure rocket, carrying its fuel with it,
integration of the differential equation of momentum conservation gives
us
	velocitychange = exhaustvelocity * ln(massbefore/massafter)

as the basic rocket equation.  Note the natural logarithm; what this says
is that it's very hard to get velocity changes more than a few times the
exhaust velocity.  Hence the importance of high exhaust velocity.)

>   2: Mr. Spencer (being the usual gold mine of information that he is)
>      made reference to Giotto being reactivated.  What is the current
>      operational capability of Giotto?  I thought it had been damaged
>      somewhat by the Halley flyby (but "Ah could be wrong!")

Giotto is thought to be somewhat damaged, but also thought to be working
well enough for another comet encounter to be useful.  We won't know for
sure until the revival attempt is made and tests are run.  Last I heard,
the external mirror assembly for the camera is thought to be completely
gone [!], which probably means no pictures.  But most of the other science
instruments should still be okay.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1989 12:35-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Apollo

> follow-ons.  (Anyone who claims that Apollo was always meant to be a
> one-shot has never seen some of the work Apollo did on follow-ons to the
> early missions.  Apollo was strangled in infancy.)

Again, Henry...  I agree that the engineers had lots of pretty pictures
and pipe dreams of what wondrous things they were going to do after
Apollo. BUT... I do not believe that the politicians EVER had any such
ideas. Apollo was politically motivated, had a clearly defined goal,
and was disassembled as soon as the goal was reached and sucked dry of
political profit. That was inherent in the project from it's inception.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 02:28:47 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA (afterburners)

shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov <SHAFER.89Jul5080811@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> :
-
-Attractive though it may be, Concorde won't leave any modern western 
-fighters standing.  Top speed may be greater than some fighters, but
-they'll beat it `off the line'.  (Do you have drag racing in the U K?)

Does this disqualify it as a `B-2' bomber?  I can't see too many big
planes standing on their tails at the end of the runway, even without a
bomb load...

Sure, let's drop truffles and champagne on the Warsaw Pact forces.  That
should *really* demoralize 'em!

[In a desperate attempt to get relevant again...] I *personally* think
that a "classy ride" is one that can't use aerodynamic control surfaces.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1989 12:17-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Space station computers

> There are reasons, quite apart from technical feasibility, why touch
> screens and voice input have never been terribly popular except for
> specialized applications.

Ah, Henry. I think we are in disagreement on this one. I've spent the
last 4 years doing gesture research and I really think you are wrong.
But this is not the place to go into the details of the technology I am
discussing. It is NOT a touch screen. Some of the work was supported by
NASA SBIR's to a local company subcontracted to the CMU Computer Music
Lab. I think one of the reason's is that there is interest in non-mouse
techniques of direct manipulation that do not require getting dressed
(gloved, visored) for the computer. Fingers do not require gravity for
operation.

I could go into many other reasons for the advantages of direct
manipulation. Using a mouse is like having 9 out of 10 fingers cut off.

And on the issue of resolution, I will hold my ground. I have discussed
the issue with an archivists and find agreement. I have heard of even
MORE severe requirements for the arts, particular the storage of
etchings with very fine line width modulation. The feel of the art
CANNOT be conveyed without DPI resolutions far, far in excess of any I have
suggested. Yes, you can zoom in on areas. But you lose the essence of
the whole picture.

Show me an art work original, and show me the piece at 120 DPI and
guarantee you I will see an overwhelming difference.

And if 400 DPI were enough, then typesetters wouldn't bother with the
expensive equipment for printing books. They'd just use your
laserwriter output.

120 DPI might seem miraculous to a long time computer user. But
archivists, artists, and people used to "analog" media are not
impressed by it.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1989 12:46-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #535

> I also believe that Ada was originally conceived as a  high-water  mark  in
> DSD  and  DASD  design, and the OOD support comes, as for OOD itself, as an
> evolution from these techniques.

Object Oriented Design comes from Smalltalk, not NASA or DOD. Let's
keep our spinoff claims honest...

> Of course, I'm somewhat biased, as I was converted from  PL/M  to  Ada  for
> system implementation purposes, and the system that I'm doing Ada on
> has OS

NO WONDER YOU LIKE ADA. I wrote about 20K lines or so of PL/I about 15
years ago. It is the most GAWDAWFUL language I ever had the misfortune to
deal with. (The most telling statement in one of the IBM manuals was
a place that made the statement, "In this case PL/I will probably...")

Personally I'd rather use Objective-C or an object oriented LISP with
the ability to link in routines written in other languages. I've done a
fair amount of NASA SBIR work using such techniques. I would NOT
encourage any company I was involved in to go for on board station
software though, because I find ADA to be of little use in the real
market place.

I would state again, that in my opinion, ADA is not an object oriented
language. It is a very large complex language that has enough different
sets of features that one can FAKE many of the techniques of object
oriented programming. It does not, to my knowledge, have Classes,
Class inheritance (single OR multiple), Class and Object Methods.

I'd love to see a sample of the ADA standard syntax for sending a
message to an object to execute a method on an argument list of
optional length...

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 10:27:49 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!stl!stc!praxis!hilbert!macey@uunet.uu.net  (Ian Macey)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <700@flada.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (P. Kendell) writes:
>From  <1989Jul2.211254.15469@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (H. Spencer):
>} 
>} Actually, you can find non-government birds with afterburners, but there
>} aren't very many of them and often they aren't very accessible.
>
>	What about Concorde? Just the price of a British Airways or

Nope, Concorde doesn't use afterburners. But then again it doesn't need to 
to leave most fighters standing.

Hey! How about putting a bomb bay in a Concorde and calling it a B2? (could
have saved the US government millions!!! :-)

Ian.

|\\\X\\|\  |           Ian Macey  Bath, England.  (macey@praxis.co.uk)
|\\X\\\|\\ |   ----------------------------------------------------------------
|\X\\\\|\\\|       " there are never no bugs, only bugs you haven't found "

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 00:42:13 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Voyager Status for 07/05/89 (Forwarded)

Voyager Status Report 
                        July 5, 1989 
 
 
     Voyager 2's television cameras this week remained the 
only experiment on the spacecraft to detect Neptune, a fact 
that does not surprise Voyager scientists who anticipate that
many of the experiments will not "see" the Neptunian system 
until a month or even days before the spacecraft's closest
approach.  
 
     The planetary radio astronomy (PRA) experiment, which 
detects radio-wave emissions from planets, has not yet
"heard" Neptune.  But interestingly, the instrument is still
hearing radio emissions from Jupiter which, next to the Sun,
is the noisiest radio source in the solar system. 
 
     This Friday, the heating unit for the 20-inch mirror in
the infrared interferometer and spectrometer (IRIS) will be
turned off to allow the heat-mapping instrument to cool down
to its approximately 0 degree Celsius (32 degree Fahrenheit) 
operating temperature.  When the IRIS is not making
observations, the heater is kept on to preserve the 
instrument's sensitivity.  A 1 1/2-month cool-down period 
will ensure the IRIS is ready for its most critical 
observations of heat emissions from Neptune and Triton
beginning about 10 days prior to Voyager 2's closest approach
to the planet.  
 
 
 
DISTANCE FROM EARTH:  2,670,438,000 miles 
DISTANCE FROM NEPTUNE:  45,495,000 miles 
HELIOCENTRIC VELOCITY:  42,202 mph

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 19:30:00 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.pa.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Space program on PBS-TV in July.


        There will be a two-part program on Public Broadcasting Service
    (PBS-TV) this month, titled "The Other Space Race".  The first part
    (July 16) examines the space technology of China and Japan,
    concentrating on communications, weather, and remote-sensing
    technology.  The second part (July 23) examines space programs
    underway in Europe.  You will have to check your local listings 
    for times.  These programs are part of a series called INNOVATION. 
    Source:  SCIENCE NEWS, June 24, 1989.

        Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com
    
             N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #543
*******************

Return-Path: <@PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jul 89 05:34:33 EDT
Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00658> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Thu, 20 Jul 89 05:32:56 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Thu, 20 Jul 89 05:32:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.4YlNcQG00UkTI1lU4h>;
          Thu, 20 Jul 89 05:23:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.IYlNYvq00UkVE1zU5P>;
          Thu, 20 Jul 89 05:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <cYlNX0q00UkV01y04q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 05:17:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #544

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 544

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		    Re: Space station experiments
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
		   Procurement and future computers
			Spin Angular Momentum
	       Re: Don't mess with NASA (afterburners)
	       Re: Don't mess with NASA (afterburners)
		 Re: Procurement and future computers
	       Re: Don't mess with NASA (afterburners)
Re: Harris Corp. selected for Advanced Communications Technology work (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 15:34:04 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <1989Jul4.153845.19465@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <SHAFER.89Jul2160651@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
>>>Actually, you can find non-government birds with afterburners, but there
>>>aren't very many of them and often they aren't very accessible.
>>
>> [F-20] ...What others are there?  

>I know of two others which used to exist:  Darryl Greenamyer's souped-up
>Starfighter and the privately-owned T-38 in California.  Greenamyer's
>Starfighter, alas, is junk following a gear-deployment failure after a
>world-low-altitude-speed-record flight, and I seem to recall hearing that
>the California T-38 got written off recently too.  Rats.

Henry, those two aircraft were specified and funded by the U S
government, regardless of their final owners.  No free enterprise
there.  The F-20 (a nearly-perfect airplane) was funded solely by
Northrop--no government involvement at all.  Lockheed was paid to
build the F-104 and Northrop was paid to build the T-38.  (About that
T-38 accident--one of our pilots said it was too much airplane, too
little pilot :-))

>>That's what this country needs--general aviation with afterburners!
>>I'm ready!

>Me too!  Unfortunately the US military wants to keep jet aviation all to
>itself, so even its tamer aircraft are never sold to civilians.  (Both
>the Starfighter and the T-38 were rebuilt from hardware that slipped out
>basically by accident.)

Like the BD-5J?  USAF even bought/leased a couple of these to test,
wondering if they were suitable for military use.  Turned out they had
terrible flying qualities (I know one of the pilots who fley it and he
has a lot to say about the pitch stability!).  It didn't have an
afterburner, either.  The company went out of business because there
wasn't a big enough market at the price they had to charge.

If you can design, build, and sell a general-aviation jet aircraft
with or without an afterburner, do it.  Jim Bede did.  The military
doesn't care.  Just don't arm it--that makes them testy.

Greenamyer's F-104 was the structural test article--I'm not sure I'd
like to fly in something used to test structural fatigue life!
There's another TF-104, in a museum in Texas that also has a MiG-15
and an F-86.  One of our test pilots flies all three for them.
There's also at least one single-seat F-5 around.
--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility     ames!elxsi!shafer
Of course I don't speak for NASA    DON'T use the drynix address

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 89 17:41:32 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Space station experiments


>From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
>NASA SELECTS SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS FOR SPACE STATION FREEDOM
...
>     The following individuals have been selected for funding for 
>experiments and concept studies in response to the January 1988 
>announcement:

>Dr. Glenn C. Carle, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.  <<<<<<
>Exobiology Intact Capture Experiment, flight experiment.         <<<<<<

Anybody have more information on that experiment? Sounds interesting!
                             John Roberts
                             roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 15:16:59 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <700@flada.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes:

>Path: skipper!ames!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!stc!pete
>From: pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell)
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Date: 4 Jul 89 15:01:15 GMT
>References: <1989Jul2.211254.15469@utzoo.uucp>
>Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB.
>Lines: 18

>From article <1989Jul2.211254.15469@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
>} 
>} Actually, you can find non-government birds with afterburners, but there
>} aren't very many of them and often they aren't very accessible.

>>>  What about Concorde? Just the price of a British Airways or
>>>  (perhaps preferably) Air France ticket.

You missed a little of the joke.  I was "chiding" Henry for wanting to
ride in a "real" airplane with afterburners when he is such a strong
proponent of free enterprise and the stamping out of government
funding and interference.  Concorde was a government project the whole
way so it would fail that particular test, as do virtually all
fighters (except the F-20).

Concorde is an exceptionally nice airplane to fly in and Air France
feeds you marvelously for the entire trip.  I was eating truffled
lobster and sipping champagne when we went through Mach 2.  That
really felt decadent!

--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility     ames!elxsi!shafer
Of course I don't speak for NASA    DON'T use the drynix address

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 89 17:07:02 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Procurement and future computers


>From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
>> There is a set of articles in the June 1 issue of Computer Design describing
>> changes in military procurement of mil-spec and off-the-shelf equipment and
>> relevant issues, plus the evolution and current status of Ada.
>If true, maybe we'll see the end of the era of the $100 hammer ($15 for
>a good 20 oz hammer, $85 for the paper)
(In the article, it was a $700 hammer, with most of the cost in *testing* and
paperwork.) There will always be "mission-critical" situations, especially in
space, for which the $700 hammer is definitely worthwhile. The key is to 
identify those situations in which such high reliability is not necessary.
One of the changes is the addition of several grades between OTS ("off the
shelf") and full mil-spec. You might, for instance, have a $50 hammer. (I've
broken enough hammers to see a need for at least some quality control for a
hammer to be used where it's hard to get a replacement.) Procurement is also
being changed so it is the more expensive grades that must be justified
rather than the cheaper ones.

------------------------------
>If you want a sophisticated machine for 1998, and you REALLY MUST roll
>your own, then do something real instead of spending many millions for
>a museum piece. I'd suggest you look at:

>	- minimum resolution on screen of 300 dpi (400 would be nicer)
>	  with ~32 bits per pixel to handle color, intensity and
>	  transparency.
How would you allocate the bit fields? Many display designers regard 24 bits
(8 each of RGB) as being fully satisfactory for both color and intensity.
Does "transparency" in this context mean priority of overlapping objects or
frames?

>	- full spoken language translation capability between all
>	  langauges of space faring nations. (ie build on the work the
>	  japanese have already done. If IBM can't handle it, buy the
>	  consumer market translators that will be coming out of Nippon
>	  in a couple years.)
Automatic full language translation and continuous speech recognition have
been "a couple of years away" for ~3 decades now. During this time, new
problems have appeared about as fast as the technology has progressed. At the
New York World's Fair, there was a translation machine with teletypes on which
you could enter text, and it would come out in a different language. (The
humans who did the actual translation were hidden away somewhere.) A few years
ago, IBM ran commercials in which a person dictated "Please write Mrs. Wright
right now", and it came out perfectly - must have been authentic, because you
could see it right on television! :-) Even when the basic capability is
developed, real-time performance will still be a problem: modern supercomputers
can take on the order of half an hour to analyze a few seconds of speech, and
I don't think the problem lends itself very well to massive parallelism, the
main hope for higher computational speed in the short term. I suspect the best
chance is the development of specialized hardware that does the sort of
preprocessing performed by the "automatic" portions of the human brain. In the
meantime, voice synthesis and recognition of discrete words from a limited
vocabulary are orders of magnitude simpler, and are available now to some
extent.

------------------------------
>120 dpi is not acceptable for archival purposes. 400dpi is probably
>marginal. Would you want the Mona Lisa archived for historians at only
>120dpi? I wouldn't even store my personal archives at that low a dpi.
>And even if you store high and downsample on display, then you still
>have to do hardcopy everytime you want to study color pictorial
Digitization, storage, and display/printout are more or less separate problems,
except that more pixels digitized means more storage required, and more pixels
on a scanning display means faster display memory needed. I wouldn't mind
having a 120dpi display 10 feet across :-)

>I would not want to store and display photographic material
>at a resolution less than the grain size of the film.
Do you have any good numbers for a 35-mm negative, i.e. Kodak Gold 100, on
its equivalent in pixels and bits per pixel? I don't, but I would guess
~1000-3000 pixels across. How about an IMAX image?

>>	I'd be surprised to see 64MB PC's this year, especially for
>NeXT is only waiting for the quantities to be available. The NeXT
>machine as it exists TODAY can handle this. It has simply not been
>tested with the new chips.
>>	Hey, what's a factor of 2000 between friends?  You may have
>Yeah, you are probably right. Probably won't be more than 128GB by
>1998...
Be careful about factors of 2000. Designers are beginning to approach the
fundamental limits on what can be built and made to work reliably using
extrapolations of current techniques. Precision of line placement, insulation,
and power dissipation become harder to handle as machines speed up and
linewidths shrink. The transition from 256kb DRAMS to 1M and 4M is being
accomplished partly be making the actual chips bigger. There is a limit to
how much memory can be fitted into a computer and still have it considered
inexpensive enough to be a "personal" computer. There is a good chance that
innovative approaches (i.e. solid-state optical storage) will eventually
get us past the current "barrier", but it's not practical yet to predict
when this might happen.
                           John Roberts
                           roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 21:37:10 GMT
From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Spin Angular Momentum

Material originating in sci.space:

>From article <Added.IYfxRrG00Ui38Gzk9=@andrew.cmu.edu>, by GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET:
>>2) Regarding elementary particles -- one of their characteristics is called
>>"spin". Is this REALLY "spin" the way a top or gyroscope spins...?
 
> Here there was some misinformation.  Spin is NOT angular momentum!!
> Rather, it is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenum (like the quantites
> of colour you mention above).  People mistakenly think that it is an
> angular momentum because of its mathematical properties.  

I'm not sure what you mean, but if the spin direction of one particle
in a quantum mechanical system changes, the angular momentum of some
other part of the system must also change.  Total angular momentum,
including the vector sum of all spins, is conserved.  (And you mustn't
forget to include photons, which have spin 1).  To me, this seems
equivalent to saying that atomic spin is one form of angular momentum.
Certainly it is common to speak or write about "spin angular momentum."
Did you just mean to say that one's mental picture should be different
than a gyroscope?

An example is the spontaneous radiative decay of a hydrogen atom from
high principle quantum number (n).  Allowed decays have change in
orbital angular momentum (l) of +/- 1, precisely because the photon
spin carries one unit of angular momentum.  Changes by +/- 2, 3, etc.
are forbidden.  (Or rather, they are allowed only for multi-photon
processes, which are generally of negligible probability except for
special cases like the hydrogen 2s configuration, from which all
single-photon decays are forbidden.  In the two-photon decay, the
photons have opposite spins, allowing the net change in the atomic
angular momentum to be zero.)  Multi-electron atoms have other
selection rules, but total angular momentum (j) is always conserved.

Followups should probably go to sci.physics or be conducted by e-mail.

Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 15:08:11 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <4244@newton.praxis.co.uk> macey@praxis.co.uk (Ian Macey) writes:

>Nope, Concorde doesn't use afterburners. But then again it doesn't need to 
>to leave most fighters standing.

It certainly does.  It takes off in 'burner and then goes back into
'burner while accelerating through the transsonic region.  I know, I
was there.  (Reheat is the British term for afterburner--maybe this
led you astray?.)

Attractive though it may be, Concorde won't leave any modern western 
fighters standing.  Top speed may be greater than some fighters, but
they'll beat it `off the line'.  (Do you have drag racing in the U K?)
--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility     ames!elxsi!shafer
Of course I don't speak for NASA    DON'T use the drynix address

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 06:33:36 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <22963@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes:
>Does this disqualify it as a `B-2' bomber?  I can't see too many big
>planes standing on their tails at the end of the runway, even without a
>bomb load...

    Hm, guess you didn't see the C-130 RATO assisted takeoff at the
Moffett airshow last weekend...  not quite on its tail, but amazing
nonetheless.
    Followups to rec.aviation.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 16:54:26 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Procurement and future computers

In article <8907052107.AA11153@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>>	  with ~32 bits per pixel to handle color, intensity and
>>	  transparency.
>How would you allocate the bit fields? Many display designers regard 24 bits
>(8 each of RGB) as being fully satisfactory for both color and intensity.

Those designers obviously have never talked to remote-sensing people,
who do *not* consider 8 bits per color really adequate.  Said folks would
really prefer 10 or 12 (although of course they have to take what they
can get...).  And this is a lot more relevant to the space station than
arguments about how many thousands of dots per inch you need to reproduce
fine art well enough to satisfy museum experts...
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 16:50:33 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <4244@newton.praxis.co.uk> macey@praxis.co.uk (Ian Macey) writes:
>Nope, Concorde doesn't use afterburners...

Nope, it does use afterburners, throughout its flight.  They had originally
hoped that afterburners wouldn't be needed during cruise, but it didn't turn
out that way.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 20:31:36 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: Harris Corp. selected for Advanced Communications Technology work (Forwarded)

In article <28139@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>RELEASE:  89-109
>...
>     ACTS is a key element in NASA's efforts to develop high-
>risk, advanced communications technology usable in the higher
>frequency bands to support our nation's future communications
>needs.  Realization of this goal will enable the U.S. to maintain
>preeminence in satellite communications.

    Oh really? I guess that explains why NASA kept removing ACTS from
their budget request, and Congress kept putting it back.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #544
*******************

Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/kYlzXk200UkVM13k47>;
          Sat, 22 Jul 89 00:32:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4YlzXU600UkVA1204V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 89 00:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #545

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 545

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Space Deaths (was Re: Killing Borgs easily)
		     Re: Atari(s) and Sat Photos
		      Re: Spin Angular Momentum
			 Re: new space goals
    Poneer and Voyager computers (was Re: Space station computers)
		     Re: Atari(s) and Sat Photos
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
			 Re: Death in Space?
Harris Corp. selected for Advanced Communications Technology work (Forwarded)
Color Screens on Space Station (Was: Procurement and future computers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 17:32:44 GMT
From: asuvax!anasaz!scott@handies.ucar.edu  (Scott Gibson)
Subject: Re: Space Deaths (was Re: Killing Borgs easily)

In article <2725@bucsb.UUCP> ckd@bucsb.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) writes:
>US spacecraft: 7 deaths in-flight (Challenger) and 3 in a pad fire (Apollo 1).

I seem to recall that several [2? 3?] ground technicians were killed by 
a leak of toxic fuel/coolant[?] from one of the shuttles.  Can someone
confirm this?   If it is true, I think these guys qualify as having given
their lives in pursuit of space travel.....

Scott

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 15:37:21 GMT
From: rex!mgse!marks@g.ms.uky.edu  (Mark Seiffert)
Subject: Re: Atari(s) and Sat Photos

In article <1989Jun30.053353.9547@ntvax.uucp> yang1@ntvax.uucp (cqyang class) writes:
->Article 3587 of sci.space:
->In article <931@sering.cwi.nl> fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) writes:
->>There was a posting very recently on the net (schematics and software)
->>that used an average Atari computer to receive satpics.
->Please, folks, if you post something like this, give a more specific reference
->than "on the net".
-> Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-
-   I did not see that particular posting, and I hope I am not repeating what
-may have already been sent, but the September 1986 issue of 'Antic the Atari
-resource' magazine has some articles on receiving weather satellite pictures
-(WEFAX pictures) for both an Atari 800 and an Atari ST. Also 1987 and 1988
-issues of 'QST' magazine have some articles on receiving weather satellite
-pictures for different types of computers.

Could this have been the NOAA-METEOR receiver project? It was posted as
three parts on March 3rd. If so, i have it.

-
-******************************************************************************
-*                           *                                                *
-*  Jim Stinson              *     This space intentionally left blank        *
-*                           *           (sort of)                            *
-* yang1@dept.csci.unt.edu   *                                                *
-*                           *                                                *
-******************************************************************************


-- 
Mark Seiffert,  Metairie, LA.
uucp:           rex!mgse!marks
bitnet:         marks%mgse@REX.CS.TULANE.EDU
internet:       marks%mgse@rex.cs.tulane.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 11:36:11 GMT
From: pur-phy!hal@ee.ecn.purdue.edu  (Hal Chambers)
Subject: Re: Spin Angular Momentum

In article <138@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> willner@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Willner) writes:

>....

>An example is the spontaneous radiative decay of a hydrogen atom from
>high principle quantum number (n).  Allowed decays have change in
>orbital angular momentum (l) of +/- 1, precisely because the photon
>spin carries one unit of angular momentum.  Changes by +/- 2, 3, etc.
>are forbidden.  (Or rather, they are allowed only for multi-photon
>processes, which are generally of negligible probability . . .

Changes by (delta j = 0, +/- 2) are also permitted for one-photon
processes via magnetic-dipole or electric-quadrupole transitions.
Although of much smaller probability than electric-dipole (delta j = +/- 1)
transitions, these (generally speaking) are usually more probable
than two-photon transitions.

I don't know off-hand if magnetic-dipole (etc.) transitions are
forbidden for Hydrogen.  I was speaking to the general case.

-- 
Hal Chambers
hal@newton.physics.purdue.edu
hal@physics-newton.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 02:59:11 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <14435@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

::Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years?

:Our track record supports my assertion better than your objection, I
:think.  We can't get that hardware ready in 10 years because we can't do
:ANYTHING in 10 years anymore.  The can-do technocracy that gave us
:Vietnam and Apollo is ancient history.  It's suicidally futile to
:predicate a Mars mission on JFK rising Arthur-like from the grave.  We
:have to design something around the do-able.  

I think the fire is out.  Thirty years from now Japanese children will
laugh their heads off at sitcoms based on the problems of Japanese farmowners
in the Louisiana rice fields with their mumbling, child-like, illiterate
American fieldhands.  Americans won't have to worry about being perceived
as noisy tourists anymore - that image will be replaced by that of a 
marginally retarded illiterate manual laborer. 

Michael Sloan Macleod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 17:55:31 GMT
From: blake!ndsuvax!ncoverby@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Glen Overby)
Subject: Poneer and Voyager computers (was Re: Space station computers)

There's been a lot of talk about the shuttle and space station computers,
and with Voyager 2's upcoming Neptune encounter, I've been wondering
what kind of computers are used on the Voyagers (and predecessors, such as
Pioneer 10 and 11).

Their manufacturer can truly say that their computers are out of this solar
system :-)

Send replies directly to me and I'll summarise in a week or so.
-- 
		Glen Overby	<ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu>
	uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby (UUCP)	ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 23:05:54 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Atari(s) and Sat Photos

In article <1989Jun30.053353.9547@ntvax.uucp>, yang1@ntvax.uucp (cqyang class) writes:
> may have already been sent, but the September 1986 issue of 'Antic the Atari
> resource' magazine has some articles on receiving weather satellite pictures
> (WEFAX pictures) for both an Atari 800 and an Atari ST. Also 1987 and 1988
> issues of 'QST' magazine have some articles on receiving weather satellite
> pictures for different types of computers.

A few years back The Rainbow magazine had quite an article and
program for receiving WEFEX pix on the RadShack Color Computer.
Just plug the receiver's speaker output into the cassette port,
and software does the rest.

BTW, we are talking about shortwave rebradcasts of WEFAX.
Or do the direct satellite signals use the same audio-fax modulation?
 
-- 
Mike Knudsen  Bell Labs(AT&T)   att!ihlpl!knudsen  knudsen@ihlpl.att.com
  Round and round the while() loop goes;
  "Whether it stops," Turing says, "no one knows!"
Shotguns -- just say PULL!

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 10:48:30 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!stl!stc!pete@uunet.uu.net  (Peter Kendell)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

From article <SHAFER.89Jul5081659@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov>, by shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov:
 
} You missed a little of the joke.  I was "chiding" Henry for wanting to
} ride in a "real" airplane with afterburners when he is such a strong
} proponent of free enterprise and the stamping out of government
} funding and interference.  Concorde was a government project the whole
} way so it would fail that particular test, as do virtually all
} fighters (except the F-20).
 
	Point taken. However, don't forget that Concorde was a joint
	British and French government enterprise with the objective of
	producing a plane that could be sold on the open market to
	civilian airlines.  I know that's not what actually happened -
	better informed persons than myself may well know more than I
	do about the reasons for this.  I think there's a difference
	between this and the Air Force going to a contractor and saying
	build this plane to these specs under our supervision for us to
	use (and maybe sell to friendly powers).

} Concorde is an exceptionally nice airplane to fly in and Air France
} feeds you marvelously for the entire trip.  I was eating truffled
} lobster and sipping champagne when we went through Mach 2.  That
} really felt decadent!

	I bet! I used to live about 20 miles west of Heathrow airport
	and Concorde was *by far* the noisiest plane to fly over. You
	have to imagine a truck with a shot exhaust system about 20
	feet over your head to get an idea of the racket - a sort of
	growling booming crackling noise. I don't suppose the
	afterburners were running at this point; heaven only knows
	what it would have been like if they had.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|		  Peter Kendell <pete@tcom.stc.co.uk>	        	   |
|				...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete		   |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 18:09:36 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Death in Space?

In article <2725@bucsb.UUCP> ckd@bucsb.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) writes:
>- In article <7926@brunix.UUCP>, rjd@brunix (Rob Demillo) writes:
>- > Seven people were lost in our effort to get off this planet...
> Numerous other guesses on casualities.
>So at least 16.

Silly people! 8)
You can't try answer an ill-posed non-question.  It seems you are
implying a person has to die in a spacecraft, or one the way, etc.
You discount (make worthless) all the flight test pilots, technicians, etc.
If you count these we are talking hundreds (since WW-II).  We lost
a plane with 9 people which collided with an Orion.  Several techs
died in a LN2 accidents.  You also neglect the "walking wounded."
No bounds on either time or location were given.  Nearly 100 test
pilots have died at Edwards alone.  Vultures counting nits.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 19:55:21 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Harris Corp. selected for Advanced Communications Technology work (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       July 6, 1989

Mary Ann Peto
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland

RELEASE:  89-109

HARRIS CORP. SELECTED FOR ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY WORK

     NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, today announced the 
selection of the Harris Corp., Melbourne, Fla., for final 
negotiations leading to award of a contract to develop a 
prototype Earth station for use with the Advanced Communications 
Technology Satellite (ACTS).

     ACTS is a key element in NASA's efforts to develop high-
risk, advanced communications technology usable in the higher 
frequency bands to support our nation's future communications 
needs.  Realization of this goal will enable the U.S. to maintain 
preeminence in satellite communications.

     The prototype unit will be developed on the basis of cost-
plus-incentive-fee.  The contract will become effective in late 
summer and last approximately 24 months.  The contractor-proposed 
price is $3.4 million for the prototype development.

     The proposed Earth station will have the capability for 
multichannel voice and data services at data rates up to l.544 
megabits per second.  The prototype unit will be designed so that 
additional units can be built at low cost for the ACTS experiment 
program.  The anticipated contract will include options for the 
procurement of additional low-cost units, depending upon the 
future needs of the ACTS experiment program.

     ACTS is under development for launch from the Shuttle in May 
l992 for a planned 2-year experiments mission.  The ACTS system 
will be made available to the public and private sectors 
(corporations, universities and government agencies) for 
experimentation.  Experimenters will test, evaluate and determine 
the feasibility of key ACTS system technologies.

     Work on the prototype Earth station will be performed at the 
contractor's plant in Palm Bay, Fla.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 23:43:46 GMT
From: rennet.cs.wisc.edu!stuart@speedy.wisc.edu  (Stuart Friedberg)
Subject: Color Screens on Space Station (Was: Procurement and future computers)

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Those designers obviously have never talked to remote-sensing people,
>who do *not* consider 8 bits per color really adequate.  Said folks would
>really prefer 10 or 12 (although of course they have to take what they
>can get...).  And this is a lot more relevant to the space station than
>arguments about how many thousands of dots per inch you need to reproduce
>fine art well enough to satisfy museum experts...

Unfortunately, this is all sheer fantasy!  Read the (Soviet) article in
the most recent Scientific American and notice the as-yet-unexplained
variations in human color sensitivity observed in Mir experiments.
The human eye aboard a space station changes in both sensitivity and
spectral resolution in ways that are both frequency-, and time-,
dependent.

To actually make use of those 10 or 12 bits per color, you'd have to run
a "gamma" correction that varied not only according to the monitor, but
also the user, and the user's biological rythms (these changes are
periodic).  Ivan shows Stefan an image and the colors go weird.  1/2 :-)

And, this is all fantasy for another reason.  Sophisticated image
analysis will continue to be done on the ground for the forseeable
future for the most rational of all reasons:  professional analysts
and their equipment are too bulky and too heavy to put into space
economically.  Rough cut adjustments that could be made on board
certainly do not require precision displays.

I have a hard time imagining ANY realistic space station tasks that
need AS MUCH spatial or color resolution as a current Mac, Amiga, or
Atari.  Larger displays, certainly.  A variety of input devices,
certainly.  But 72 dpi, 4 (too few) to 8 (too many!) fixed colors,
should be ample for robust command/control interfaces.  For
command/control, each color should mean something and subtle shades
only obscure important differences.  A significant minority of males
have a hard time even telling red from green!

Similar spatial resolution and 8 bits is ample for experimental
displays requiring grey scale.  Docking has been done using video of
much worse spatial and intensity resolutions.  Where more information
must be displayed, very good false color displays can be produced with
a 12 bit frame buffer and and a loadable 12 -> 8,8,8 color map.  (On a
decaying '70's vintage piece of hardware, no less.)

You may disagree about exactly what is required, but please keep these
two design principles in mind:

1) If the bits don't carry useful information, they are either
   decoration or a distraction.

2) Minimizing the distinctions a human has to make increases
   safety and reliability.

Stu Friedberg  (stuart@cs.wisc.edu)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #545
*******************
Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jul 89 03:40:14 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA11641> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 22 Jul 89 03:38:35 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat, 22 Jul 89 03:38:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.IYm24bm00Ui3811mN8>;
          Sat, 22 Jul 89 03:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.oYm20aS00UkVA1KU4A>;
          Sat, 22 Jul 89 03:20:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <gYm1yom00UkVM1J05g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 89 03:18:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #546

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 546

Today's Topics:
  Lee appointed Director of Marshall Space Flight Center (Forwarded)
		      Re: Spin Angular Momentum
			What/where is NGC 321?
		      Re: What/where is NGC 321?
   Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special.
		  Re: NASA funding is not transitive
		  Re: NASA funding is not transitive
		    Different Computer Interfaces
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 19:54:01 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Lee appointed Director of Marshall Space Flight Center (Forwarded)

Sarah Keegan                                     July 6, 1989
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   2:00 p.m. EDT
(Phone:  202/453-8536)

Dom Amatore
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
(Phone:  205/544-0034)


RELEASE:  89-108

LEE APPOINTED DIRECTOR OF MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER


     NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly today announced the 
appointment of Thomas J. (Jack) Lee to be Director of the 
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., effective 
immediately.

     Lee, 54, succeeds James R. Thompson, Jr., who was selected 
by President Bush to be the NASA Deputy Administrator.

     Lee has been the Marshall Center's Deputy Director since 
December 1980, after 7 years as manager of the Spacelab program 
at the center.  From July to September 1986, he served as Acting 
Director of the center.

     In addition to his responsibilities as Deputy Director, Lee 
has served as Manager of the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Definition 
Office, which is leading NASA's efforts to define and develop a 
heavy lift launch vehicle capable of meeting national 
requirements.

     As Marshall Center Director, Lee is charged with overall 
management of one of the largest and most diversified of the NASA 
field centers.   The center, with 3,500 employees, has 
responsiblity for the design and development of space 
transportation systems, orbital systems, scientific and 
applications payloads, and other projects for present and future 
space exploration, research and commercial developments.

     Lee began his professional career in 1958 as an aeronautical 
research engineer with the U.S. Army's Ballistic Missile Agency 
at Redstone Arsenal, Ala.  He transferred to the Marshall center 
when it was formed in 1960 as a systems engineer with the 
center's Centaur Resident Manager Office located in San Diego, 
Calif.  From 1963 to 1965, he was Resident Project Manager for 
the Pegasus Meteoroid Detection Satellite Project, Blandenburg, 
Md., and, from 1965 to 1969, was Chief of the center's Saturn 
Program Resident Office at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla.  In 
1969, he became Assistant to the Technical Deputy Director of the 
Marshall Center and served in that position until 1973.  He then 
served as Deputy Manager and Manager of the Sortie Lab Task Team, 
and continued as Manager when that team became the Spacelab 
Program Office in 1974.

     As Manager of the Spacelab Program Office, he was 
responsible for NASA's work with the European Space Agency in the 
development of Spacelab, a multipurpose reusable laboratory for 
Earth orbital science activities.

     Lee was awarded the NASA Exceptional Service Medal in 1973, 
the NASA Distinguished Service Medal in 1984 and in 1988, the 
Presidential Rank of Meritorious Executive.

     He is an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics and a registered professional 
engineer.

     A native of Wedowee, Ala., Lee studied aeronautical 
engineering at the University of Alabama, receiving his bachelor 
of science degree in 1958.  In 1985, he completed the Advanced 
Management Program at the Harvard School of Business.

     Lee and his wife, the former Jean Manning of Scottsboro, 
Ala., live near New Market, Ala., and have two children, Kevin 
and Patrick.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 16:08:55 GMT
From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!ceres!tjl@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Spin Angular Momentum

In article <138@cfa.HARVARD.EDU>, willner@cfa.HARVARD.EDU 
(Steve Willner) writes:
> Material originating in sci.space:
> 
> From article <Added.IYfxRrG00Ui38Gzk9=@andrew.cmu.edu>, 
>by GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET:
>>>2) Regarding elementary particles -- one of their characteristics is called
>>>"spin". Is this REALLY "spin" the way a top or gyroscope spins...?
>  
>> Here there was some misinformation.  Spin is NOT angular momentum!!
>> Rather, it is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon (like the quantities
>> of colour you mention above).  People mistakenly think that it is an
>> angular momentum because of its mathematical properties.  
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean, but if the spin direction of one particle
> in a quantum mechanical system changes, the angular momentum of some
> other part of the system must also change.  Total angular momentum,
> including the vector sum of all spins, is conserved.  

  It seems to me, we have yet to answer the question.
Elementary particles have a property called spin which is
clearly angular momentum.  In atoms, spin is combined with
orbital angular momentum to form the total angular momentum,
a conserved quantity.  Further, this spin couples with
magnetic fields (a la Stern-Gerlach effect) in ways
identical to that of a classical dipole (i.e. a spinning
charged particle).

However, the electron is best not described as a particle,
but as a wave.  In this sense electron spin is not like 
top or gyro spin.
In fact a standard problem in modern physics text is to
compute the velocity of the "equator" of an electron
assuming the electron to be a sphere with the classical
electron radius.  The student finds that the equator would
be moving approximately 1e11 m/s.  So, no, the electron spin
is not spin in the classical sense.

-- Joe 

"Those who would sacrifice **  I disclaim none of my opinions.
liberty for security,      **
deserve neither."          **    DECnet CERES::TJL
 B. Franklin               **           tjl@ceres.physics.uiowa.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 17:37:39 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: What/where is NGC 321?


        The following request is posted for a friend who does not
    currently have USENET access: 

    	I have a question (or perhaps more accurately, a request for
    information) that hopefully someone in this forum can answer for me.
    What is NGC 321 (a cluster, galaxy, nebula, etc.), where is it in the
    sky (what constellation, etc.), and how far away is it from Earth?
    
    			Thanks in advance,
			Drew LePage

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 21:28:14 GMT
From: pogge@astro.as.utexas.edu  (R. Pogge)
Subject: Re: What/where is NGC 321?

In article <8907071737.AA13901@decwrl.dec.com>, klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
> 
>     What is NGC 321 (a cluster, galaxy, nebula, etc.), where is it in the
>     sky (what constellation, etc.), and how far away is it from Earth?
>     


OK, here `tis:

   NGC 321 is a galaxy of type SB(rs)cd (according to the Second Reference
Catalog).  This means it is a barred galaxy with fairly loose spiral arms.
Its appearance on the Palomar Sky Survey prints is unremarkable, and it seems
to have a companion galaxy lying to the Northeast a few minutes of arc
away.  This pair of galaxies carries the designation Holberg 29, and NGC 321 
is Holberg 29A  (29B has no NGC designation).  Its apparent (photographic) 
brightness is of magnitude 14.5, and lies in the constellation of Cetus.

   Assuming a Hubble Constant of 100 km/sec/Mpc (makes converting to your
favorite value of H easy), its distance - accounting for local effects -
is about 56 Mpc (or about 183 Million light years).  The only other thing is
a note that it was the site of Supernova 1939D, but I haven't confirmed that.

   OK, as the cost for the legwork in the library (slow afternoon), why
this particular object?

   Inquiring minds want to know.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 14:31:40 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!dkrause@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Doug Krause)
Subject: Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special.

In article <8907111417.AA18948@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
>	"Liftoff" - July 16, 9:20 AM - 11 AM
>	"Moonwalk" - July 20, 10:30 PM - 2 AM
>	"Splashdown" - July 24, 1:30 PM - 3 PM

Are these times EDT?

Douglas Krause                     CA Prop i:  Ban Gummie Bears(tm)!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine   ARPANET: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu
Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA  BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 17:11:30 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <26298@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>In article <33078@apple.Apple.COM>, leech@Apple (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>>In article <26240@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>>...	The cuts Eric describes would result in a
>>>$1.2 billion surplus for other programs if the space station is cancelled.
>>    The other programs may not have anything to do with space,
>>however.
>Why don't you explain to us where you thought the money could come from,
>or where it could go, and where you think the cuts should come from.
>But please take a look at a copy of the budget request first.

    Why don't you take your patronizing attitude elsewhere first?
Nobody else seemed to have trouble figuring out that eliminating space
station funding doesn't imply part of that funding will be transferred
to other parts of the NASA budget.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 05:30:03 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <33116@apple.Apple.COM>, leech@Apple (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>In article <26298@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>[money to be cut from NASA budget, money left over if space station is
>>cancelled]
>>Why don't you explain to us where you thought the money could come from,
>>or where it could go, and where you think the cuts should come from.
>>But please take a look at a copy of the budget request first.
>
>Nobody else seemed to have trouble figuring out that eliminating space
>station funding doesn't imply part of that funding will be transferred
>to other parts of the NASA budget.

No one has proposed eliminating space station funding.  They have
proposed cancelling the space station project.  This is not the same
thing.

If alternative projects are offered, they are by far the most likely
recipient of the excess funds.  If no alternatives are given, this is an
invitation to deny the funding request outright, and give the money to
some other agency.

The problems at NASA have much less to do with their funding than with
their priorities, or lack thereof.  Ten billion dollars per year is
plenty of money with which to operate a government space agency (as
distinct from a space program).  This is why I asked where you think cut
should be made and what should be done with the money if it is not spent
on the space station.

So, what are the appropriate alternatives?  Or should we refrain from
offering any so that when the money is taken from NASA we can blame all
future space program woes on the congress?

Here is one alternative:
NASA could give grants for space experiments, the grants to include
payment for launch by a party of the experimenter's choosing, all
subject to reasonable conditions, such as peer review in awarding the
grants, and some assurance that the launch company can provide the
service. 

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 19:23:52 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Different Computer Interfaces


A few weeks ago there was a thread of discussions on voice and
other interfaces for the Space Station workstations. I thought
you guys might be interested in what is becoming available from 
that great source of state-of-the-art R&D, the toy industry:

(excerpted from a "Fast Forward" article by Stephen Advokat of
the Detroit Free Press; this appeared in the Asbury Park Press
on 7/2/1989)

PADS ADD NEW TWIST TO OLD GAMES
===============================

(intro stuff deleted) ...

Perhaps the most interesting control pad comes from Broderbund
Software, Inc., which has introduced a video game controller that
you don't touch at all.

U-Force is a spooky-looking device made of two L-shaped motion-sensing
pads. By waving your hands (or anything else, for that matter) over
the pads, you disrupt electronic sensors that translate the speed and
force of your movements into actions on the video screen.

For example, when attached to Mike Tyson's Punch Out!, a popular Nintendo
boxing game featuring the champ, players can try to deck the video
character by throwing a right, ducking and following with a left.

"The force-field can read your body movements faster than the joy stick
can," said Mark Smotroff, Broderbund representative. "So, while it will
work with about 90% of the games on the market, it can actually enhance
the level of play with 40% or 50% of the cartridges on the market."

When attached to Top Gun, a fighter pilot game based on the popular movie,
you can climb and dive through the sky by pulling on an imaginary throttle
with one hand, and fire at enemies by pressing an imaginary rocket switch
with the other.

Aside from the eerie sense of flailing away at your video games, U-Force
(available in July for about $70 retail) also is unusual because it has
no wires or connections to your body.

...stuff deleted about wireless remote controllers Acclaim and Nintendo....

Mattel Toys also is getting in on the Nintendo craze, introducing a
controller that will enable the player to make hand gestures that can
be interpreted as actions on the video screen.

The control device is called the Power Glove, and - as its name suggests -
fits over your hand. Sensors in the glove register various movements -
right, left, up, down, etc. - and send signals through a wire into the
Nintendo game system, just as a joystick would, directing the players
on the screen.

For example, in Mike Tyson's Punch Out!, players curl their fists to 
throw a punch and then aim for the video character's face on the screen.
As you do that, your player also throws a punch.

.... etc. ....
....Bad Street Brawlers, a boxing game scheduled for fall release...

Mattel intends to introduce its Power Glove in the fall for about $80 retail.

-end of article-

So far there seems to be a lack of imagination in how to use these
for video games, and of course the prices are totally out of line
with respect to what the government likes to pay. These might be
an interesting (maybe even useful!) way to control remote robotic
equipment or MMU-derived small "space pods," or mechanical enhancers
(can't think of the real word for the contraption a person wears to
augment their strength). Perhaps these could be adapted to some sort 
of sign-language ASCII entry, where words are represented by a single 
gesture, although that wouldn't help much with inexpert users. Devices 
like these seem most useful when controlling real-time actions, where 
keyboard-entry of phrases would slow response time quite a bit. Using 
these as a controller to a music synthesizer might produce some 
interesting sounds, but that would probably be an unauthorized use on 
the Space Station.

Any other ways of using these kinds of interfaces? Any other interface
devices which are neat or potentially useful?

===============
-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #546
*******************

Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YYm3iUa00UkVM1Uk5v>;
          Sat, 22 Jul 89 05:17:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <UYm3iNC00UkVQ1T04p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 89 05:17:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #547

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 547

Today's Topics:
			   Apollo coverage
			       Spinoffs
Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)
		     Re: Space Transportation Act
			 Re: new space goals
		      Re: SETI related Questions
     A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special.
		      Re: Impossible Space Goals
			Space Launch Log, 1989
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 89 06:28:04 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Apollo coverage

Actually, the Apollo coverage *I* would like to see rebroadcast is that of
Britain's ITN network.  They covered the last 12 minutes of the landing in
total silence, with only the astronauts and mission control talking, with
explanations for the public flashed on screen (over a simulated-landing
video) using a digital caption generator.

(In the course of some digging through old issues of Spaceflight, I happened
across a short piece in the Nov 1985 issue explaining how this happened.
The producer of the show happened to see a video display of flight
information in JFK -- one of the first caption generators in commercial
use -- and missed his flight in order to track down the supplier of the
machine and get one immediately.  It was a deep dark secret until the
broadcast itself.  Everyone, including the astronauts who saw recordings
later, thought it was the right way to do it.  Pity nobody remembers it.)
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 00:40:14 GMT
From: jim@XN.LL.MIT.EDU  (Jim Washburn)
Subject: Spinoffs



	Come on folks, lets quit spreading myths.  Tang, Teflon and
Velcor are NOT spinoffs of the space program.  The youngest of these
inventions dates to 1957 when Sputnik first orbited the earth.  My
source for this is todays Boston Globe (7/17/89) where the entire
Sci/Hi tech section was spent on the space program and these myths
were specifically debunked and the origins of these 3 revealed.

			-- Jim Washburn

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 08:51:59 GMT
From: sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!dkrause@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Doug Krause)
Subject: Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)

In article <14473@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>(I've been up to the Lure Observatory - it's a fantastic setting, about
>10,000 ft MSL.  A near moonscape, but dotted with rare indigenous
>silverswords.

It really is spectacular.  Didn't they actually do some Apollo training
down in the crater?

Douglas Krause                     One yuppy can ruin your whole day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine   Internet: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu
Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA  BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1989 14:38-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Space Transportation Act

I have just read the postings on this Act, and it looks very, very good
to me. It does not contain direct subsidies, which other suggested acts
have contained. Such direct subsidies are, in the long run, damaging to
competitiveness.

As much as I would prefer that all payloads were private, I still give
my blessing to the concept that the the government be forced to give up
it's milspecs and such when it is requesting a parcel delivery to LEO.

If enacted, this law could do more to put a colony on the moon and on
Mars that all the space station lobbying that has been going on. The
private sector will simply make the moon/Mars and manned/unmanned
debates irrelevant.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 18:31:29 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!tekgen!tekred!speed!larryb@uunet.uu.net  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <4783@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>In article <14435@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>
>::Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years?
Politics
>
>:Our track record supports my assertion better than your objection, I
>:think.  We can't get that hardware ready in 10 years because we can't do
>:ANYTHING in 10 years anymore.  The can-do technocracy that gave us
>:Vietnam and Apollo is ancient history.  It's suicidally futile to
>:predicate a Mars mission on JFK rising Arthur-like from the grave.  We
>:have to design something around the do-able.  

Unfortunately I agree with your assessment about getting things done in
10 years. But we do have the technology to go into space!!  Look at the
technology we had when we to the Moon.  

Why not Mars, Moon base, and a station.. It sure beat the hell out of building the
Stealth bomber (development cost over $79Billion detriot news.. I believe
it's slightly higher!!!).  

>I think the fire is out.  Thirty years from now Japanese children will
>laugh their heads off at sitcoms based on the problems of Japanese farmowners
>in the Louisiana rice fields with their mumbling, child-like, illiterate
>American fieldhands.  
>Michael Sloan Macleod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

EXCUSE ME!! They may be your vision of the future... It sure in the Bloody hell
isn't mine. As for the fire being out. Go talk to people at American Rocket Co, 
SSI, Nasa (problems no doubt, but thats another issue :( ), Third Millenum, 
SpacePac, NSS, Planetary Society, others and ME.   
 
Your child may be a mumbling illiterate, mine sure in the hell won't be. 
I don't like allot of things going on in America and some other nations. But
I sure in the hell haven't given up.  

Space goals :: Build the US space station.  I support it and all Private space
companies.  The station is only a steping stone.  Private companies can
utilizing it as a testing ground for research.  

On a side note I don't think NASA will exist in 15 years from now. 
But it's the only system that we have now that can build the station.   

Larry Brader :: larry%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net
Opinions here are just a interpretation of a perception. 
Tektronix nor anyone else are responsible with my views.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 04:08:15 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Re: SETI related Questions

In article <890709-014748-14418@Xerox>, Brantly.WBST129@XEROX.COM writes:

>What are some good sources of information on SETI related topics?

A good source of information on SETI is The Planetary Society.  Through
their magazine, The Planetary Report, books they sell, brochures, and
the people in their office, you should be able to find out the answers
to many of your SETI questions.

Their address:             The Planetary Society
                           65 North Catalina Avenue
                           Pasadena, CA  91106
        Phone:             (818) 793-5528

- ERIC -

Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Quadrangle Club      | 11 Prospect Drive South  | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
33 Prospect Avenue   | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 14:17:24 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special.


        The Arts and Entertainment (A&E) Cable Network is rebroadcasting
    the original NBC coverage of the APOLLO 11 mission to the Moon in 
    1969.  The dates and times are: 

	"Liftoff" - July 16, 9:20 AM - 11 AM
	"Moonwalk" - July 20, 10:30 PM - 2 AM
	"Splashdown" - July 24, 1:30 PM - 3 PM

        "Moonwalk" will be repeated on July 23 from 2:30 PM - 6 PM.

        For those of you in the Boston, MA area, on July 19 at 9 p.m.,
    Channel 2 (WGBH, PBS-TV) will broadcast the program "The Other Side
    of the Moon".  Eight of the twelve astronauts who walked on the lunar 
    surface will be interviewed.  They will discuss what has happened in 
    their lives since their Moonwalks, and how it affected them.

        Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com
    
             N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 06:38:28 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Impossible Space Goals

>In article <11246@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jerbil@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Stainless Steel Gerbil [Joe Beckenbach]) writes:
>}My two cents:  those in JFK's world saw the Moon as "impossibly far",

Ain't hindsight wonderful?

To understand why they used that adjective, you must get library books
dated prior to 1961.  You will see the great unknowns at the time:
Was the surface of the moon hard or miles of dust for a lander to sink?
We now know, but we still don't know its origin.  We didn't whether it
was possible to eat and keep food down (image what we would have done to
keep the food down, well we still do have the waste disposal problem).
We still really don't know for absolute certain whether the polar caps of
Mars are ice or CO2. [You should be skeptical of any absolutes until
we get there.]  There are all kinds of very simple questions.  Some things
work the way you would expect, and others don't.  We adapt.  Just think
if we had not gone, what camp of these various opinions you would be in,
and what rationalization would you make to defend your opinions, but then
maybe "Columbus didn't 'discover' America." 8)

--enm

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 22:43:21 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space Launch Log, 1989

Here are all the orbital launches for the 
first half of the year... I'm afraid the
file is rather wide.  

Jonathan

-------------------------------------------
Space Launches 1st/2nd Qtr 1989
-------------------------------------------
                  
NORAD 	No.  Date	Satellite	 Agency    Launched    by      From    Status at 1 Jul 89

19749 	01A  Jan 10  Kosmos-1987         GK        GK    Proton (4)	KB	64.9 deg,19110x19149 km
19750 	01B  Jan 10  Kosmos-1988         GK                "            	64.9 deg,19110x19149 km
19751	01C  Jan 10  Kosmos-1989(Etalon) GK                "               	64.9 deg,19101x19149 km
19756	02A  Jan 12  Kosmos-1990         TsP GUGK  GK    Soyuz      	KPL     Landed KRZ Feb 11
19758	03A  Jan 18  Kosmos-1991         GRU       GK    Soyuz      	KB     	Landed KRZ Feb 1
19765	04A  Jan 26  Gorizont            MSvyazi   GK    Proton (4)    	KB     	GEO at 53 deg E
19769	05A  Jan 26  Kosmos-1992         KGB?      GK    Kosmos II    	KPL    	778x784 km, 74 deg
19772	06A  Jan 27  Intelsat VA F15     INTELSAT  AE    Ariane 2/V28 	CSG     GEO at 60 deg E
19774	07A  Jan 28  Kosmos-1993         GRU       GK    Soyuz      	KB     Landed KRZ?, Mar 27
19783	08A  Feb 10  Progress-40         GK        GK    Soyuz      	KB     Deorbited over POR Mar 7
19785	09A  Feb 10  Kosmos-1994         VMF?      GK    Tsiklon    	KPL    82.6 deg 1395x1417 km
19786	09B  Feb 10  Kosmos-1995         VMF?              "               	82.6 deg 1413x1417 km
19787	09C  Feb 10  Kosmos-1996         VMF?              "               	82.6 deg 1406x1417 km
19788	09D  Feb 10  Kosmos-1997         VMF?              "               	82.6 deg 1400x1417 km
19789	09E  Feb 10  Kosmos-1998         VMF?              "               	82.6 deg 1390x1417 km
19790	09F  Feb 10  Kosmos-1999         VMF?              "               	82.6 deg 1384x1417 km
19792	10A  Feb 10  Kosmos-2000         TsP GUGK  GK    Soyuz      	KPL    Landed KRZ Mar 2
19796	11A  Feb 14  Kosmos-2001         PVO       GK    Molniya    	KPL    62.8 deg 855x39511 km
19800	12A  Feb 14  Kosmos-2002         ?         GK    Kosmos     	KPL    65.8 deg 181x1538 km
19802	13A  Feb 14  Navstar GPS 14      USAF      USAF  Delta 6925/184 CCAFS  55.1 deg 20004x20361 km
19807	14A  Feb 15  Molniya-1           MSvyazi   GK    Molniya    	KB     63.0 deg 566x39783 km
19818	15A  Feb 17  Kosmos-2003         GRU       GK    Soyuz      	KPL    Landed KRZ Mar 3
19822	16A  Feb 21  Akebono (EXOS-D)    ISAS      ISAS  Mu-3SII/3  	KagSC  75.1 deg 276x10293 km
19826	17A  Feb 22  Kosmos-2004         VMS       GK    Kosmos II     	KPL    83.0 deg 974x1017 km
19851	18A  Feb 28  Meteor-2            GUGMS     GK    Tsiklon II   	KPL    82.5 deg 941x959 km
19862	19A  Mar  3  Kosmos-2005         GRU       GK    Soyuz      	KPL    Landed KRZ? Apr 25
19875	20A  Mar  6  JCSAT 1             JCSAT     AE    Ariane 44LP/V29 CSG    GEO at 152 deg E
19876	20B  Mar  6  Meteosat 4 (MOP 1)  EUMETSAT          "               	GEO at 0 deg W
19882	21A  Mar 13  OV-103 Discovery    NASA      NASA  STS/STS29      KSC    Landed EAFB Mar 18
19883	21B  Mar 13  TDRS 4              Contel            "               	GEO 46W drifting E (6/4)
19893	22A  Mar 14  Kosmos-2006         GRU       GK    Soyuz      	KPL    Landed KRZ Mar 31
19895	23A  Mar 14  Progress-41         GK        GK    Soyuz      	KB     Reentered Apr 25
19900	24A  Mar 23  Kosmos-2007         GRU	   GK	 Soyuz	    	KB     64.7 deg, 228x267 km
19902	25A  Mar 24  Kosmos-2008         VMF?      GK    Kosmos II    	KPL     74 deg 1393x1471 km
19903	25B  Mar 24  Kosmos-2009         VMF?              "               	74 deg 1408x1472 km
19904	25C  Mar 24  Kosmos-2010         VMF?              "               	74 deg 1424x1472 km
19905	25D  Mar 24  Kosmos-2011         VMF?              "               	74 deg 1439x1472 km
19906	25E  Mar 24  Kosmos-2012         VMF?              "               	74 deg 1456x1472 km
19907	25F  Mar 24  Kosmos-2013         VMF?              "               	74 deg 1465x1480 km
19908	25G  Mar 24  Kosmos-2014         VMF?              "               	74 deg 1471x1490 km
19909	25H  Mar 24  Kosmos-2015         VMF?              "               	74 deg 1470x1510 km
19911	26A  Mar 24  Delta Star (USA-36) SDIO      USAF  Delta 3920/183 CCAFS  47.7 deg 475x508 km
19919	27A  Apr  2  Tele-X              SSC	   AE	 Ariane 2/V30 	CSG	   GEO 5 deg E
19921	28A  Apr  4  Kosmos-2016	 VMF	   GK    Kosmos II	KPL    83.0 deg 954x1016 km
19923	29A  Apr  6  Kosmos-2017	 GRU       GK    Soyuz      	KPL    Landed KRZ Apr 20
19928	30A  Apr 14  Raduga	         MSvyazi   GK	 Proton (4)     KB	   GEO
19938   31A  Apr 20  Kosmos-2018	 GRU	   GK	 Soyuz	    	KPL    Landed KRZ?, Jun 19
19941	32A  Apr 26  Foton 	         GK	   GK    Soyuz      	KPL    Landed KRZ May 12
19968	33A  May  4  OV-104 Atlantis     NASA      NASA  STS/STS-30     KSC    Landed EAFB May 8
19969	33B  May  5  Magellan (VRM)	 NASA       "     "                	In solar orbit
19972	34A  May  5  Kosmos-2019	 GRU       GK    Soyuz      	KPL    Landed KRZ May 18
19976	35A  May 10  Vortex 6? (USA-37)  NSA       USAF  Titan34D-T 	CCAFS  GEO
19986	36A  May 17  Kosmos-2020	 GRU	   GK    Soyuz      	KB     64.8 deg 181x289 km
20000	37A  May 24  Kosmos-2021	 GRU       GK    Soyuz      	KB     69.9 deg 206x283 km
20006	38A  May 25  Resurs-F            TsP GUGK  GK    Soyuz	    	KPL    Landed KRZ Jun 17
20056	38C  May 25  Pion                KAI               "        	       82.3 deg 220x234 km
20060	38D  May 25  Pion                KAI               "        	       82.3 deg 231x243 km
20024	39A  May 31  Kosmos-2022 	 GK        GK    Proton	(4)    	KB     64.8 deg 19125x19134 km
20025	39B  May 31  Kosmos-2023	 GK                "		       64.8 deg 19094x19164 km
20026   39C  May 31  Kosmos-2024	 GK                "                   64.8 deg 19099x19144 km
20035	40A  Jun  1  Kosmos-2025	 GRU       GK    Soyuz      	KPL    Landed KRZ Jun 15
20040	41A  Jun  6  Superbird 1         JSCC      AE    Ariane 44L/V31 CSG    GEO 158 deg E
20041	41B  Jun  6  Kopernikus 1        DBP               "                   GEO 26 deg E
20045	42A  Jun  7  Kosmos-2026         VMF       GK    Kosmos II     	KPL    83.0 deg 953x1009 km
20052	43A  Jun  8  Molniya-3           MSvyazi   GK    Molniya    	KPL    62.9 deg 583x39771 km
20061	44A  Jun 10  Navstar GPS13 (USA38) USAF    USAF  Delta 6925/185 CCAFS  54.6 deg 19969x20369 km
20064	45A  Jun 14  Kosmos-2027	 PVO?	   GK	 Kosmos II	KPL    74.0 deg 472x511 km
20066	46A  Jun 15  DSP 14  (USA 39)    USAF      USAF  Titan 4/IUS 	CCAFS  GEO 
20073	47A  Jun 16  Kosmos-2028	 GRU	   GK	 Soyuz		KB     70.0 deg 207x249 km
20083	48A  Jun 21  Raduga-1		 MSvyazi   GK	 Proton (4)	KB	GEO 49 deg E
20095	49A  Jun 27  Resurs-F		 TsP GUGK  GK	 Soyuz		KPL	82.6 deg 258x271 km
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms:

AE        Arianespace, Inc. 
CCAFS     Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
Contel    Continental Telephone  Inc.  (USA)
CSG       Centre Spatial Guyanais, Kourou, Guyane, S. America
DBP       Deutsche Bundespost (West German Post Office)
EAFB      Edwards AFB, California
EUMETSAT  European Meteorological Satellite Organization
GEO       Geostationary Earth Orbit
GK        Glavkosmos SSSR (Soviet Central Space Agency)
GPS       Global Positioning System
GRU       Glavnoye Razvedivatel'noye Upravileniye (Soviet Military Intelligence)
INTELSAT  International Telecommunications Satellite Organization
IOR	  Indian Ocean Region
ISAS      Institute for Space and Astronautical Sciences, Japan
JCSAT     Japan Communications Satellite Co.
JSCC	  Japan Space Communications Co.
KagSC     Kagoshima Space Center, Kagoshima, Japan
KAI	  Korolev Aviation Institute, Kubyshev, SSSR
KB        Kosmodrom Baykonur, Kazakhstan
KGB       Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti SSSR (Soviet State Security Committee)
KPL       Kosmodrom Plesetsk, Russia
KRZ       Kazakhstan Recovery Zone (* my nomenclature)
KSC       Kennedy Space Center, Florida
MOP       Meteosat Operational Programme
MSvyazi   Ministerstvo Svyazi (Soviet Ministry of Communications)
NASA      US National Aeronautics and Space Administration
POR	  Pacific Ocean Region
PVO       Protivo-Vosdushnaya Oborona (Soviet Air Defense Force)
SDIO      Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, US Dept of Defense
SSC	  Swedish Space Corporation
STS       Space Transportation System
TDRS      Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
TsP GUGK  Tsentr "Priroda",Glavniye Upravileniye Geodesiy i Kartographiy
          ("Nature" Center, Soviet Central Geodesy and Cartography Agency)
USAF      United States Air Force
VMF       Voenno-Morskoy Flot (Soviet Navy)


The identification of the Pion subsatellites with specific catalog numbers is tentative.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 23:01:38 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <1473@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:
>In the last year or so, I read about a radio transmitter that was left
>on the Moon by one of the Apollo missions and that is still operating.

As far as I know, all the Apollo lunar-surface transmitters were shut
down when the Apollo seismometer network was shut down (to save some
trifling amount of money!!! :-[ ) some years ago.  I could be wrong.

The only Apollo surface devices that are still useful, that I know of,
are the laser retroreflectors.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #547
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/UYmIUTO00UkV82FE5o>;
          Sun, 23 Jul 89 00:22:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <UYmIULG00UkV02DU4Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 89 00:22:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #548

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 548

Today's Topics:
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
	  Apollo Books (was Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3))
		   Call for Votes: SCI.AERONAUTICS
		      Presence of water on Mars
	     NOAA HRPT Information and Modulation Formats
	      Re: * URGENT ALERT -- NEED YOU TO CALL! *
			   Buran Billboard
		 A&E rebroadcast of Apollo 11 flight
			       Moonwalk
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 22:15:03 GMT
From: nwnexus!edm@uunet.uu.net  (Ed Morin)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:


>If you think about it, reception of this transmitter's signal is
>probably the closest thing to proof that man has indeed put objects on
>the Moon -- at least that is available today to those of us outside
>the space-program complex.

I believe that a fancy mirror was also left for laser experiements not
to mention all the other junk that's still up there like the cameras,
flags, moon rover, etc.

-- 
Ed Morin
Northwest Nexus Inc.
"Unix Public Access for the Masses!"
edm@nwnexus.WA.COM

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 11:34:42 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@uunet.uu.net  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Apollo Books (was Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3))

In article <1989Jul14.050219.19684@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp 
(Henry Spencer) writes:
> [....]
> Charles Conrad Jr., writing in "Apollo Expeditions to the Moon" (NASA
> SP-350), page 231:
> [deleted]

I have always been fascinated by the Apollo project, especially the ones
that reached (and should have reached) the Moon. The above prompts me to
ask: Does anyone have a list of books that specialise in the Apollo
series? Authors, publishers, ISBNs, etc. would be useful - this includes
the one mentioned above by Henry.
Email me if you can, and I'll summarise to the net later.
Thanks!
-- 
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND
JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk   BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 11:59:12 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!milano!molokai!rdd%rascal.ics.utexas.edu@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Call for Votes: SCI.AERONAUTICS

After a false start two weeks ago, I'm officially opening voting on the 
proposal for a new, unmoderated newsgroup,
	sci.aeronautics

The emphasis of the group will (theoretically) be on human-factors, automation,
safety, operations, airfoils, etc.  If it is created, there will be a mailing
list, for those without net access.


If you support the group, please send a vote to:
	yes@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
(...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!yes)

If you oppose the group, please send a vote to:
	no@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
(...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!no)

Or just reply to this message, to
	rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
(...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd)


Voting ends August 7, whereupon I will announce the results.

Please direct all follow-up posts to news.groups.



Robert Dorsett
Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!rdd

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 89 17:02:05 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Presence of water on Mars


>From: apollo!rehrauer@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Steve Rehrauer)
>In article <1989Jun30.174703.27589@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>... and Mars is not
>>much harder than the Moon.  In some ways it's easier, because we have
>>Phobos and Deimos as potential resources, and the Martian surface has
>>useful supplies of things like water.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Certainly not trying to dispute that, just curious: Have readily-accessible
>sources of water on Mars been identified, or do you mean that, given the
>presense in whatever amounts & form, accessing it is just a question of
>engineering?

I've seen pictures taken from a Viking lander early in the Martian morning that
showed frost spread thinly over the ground. The accompanying article said that
this was water ice, precipitated out of the below-freezing air during the cold
martian night. I believe it said that this phenomenon is observed only at
certain times in the martian year.

I think there are several valid arguments favoring colonization of the moon
before Mars, but availability of water is not one of them. If there is water
on the moon, I expect it to be much more scarce.
                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 14:38:26 GMT
From: wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU  (Bill Chiarchiaro)
Subject: NOAA HRPT Information and Modulation Formats


Can anyone provide me with, or a pointer to, descriptions of the
information contained in and the modulation formats used by the HRPT
transmissions from the NOAA-* weather satellites?

Note: I am not talking about WEFAX nor APT.

Thanks,
Bill Chiarchiaro
N1CPK
wjc@xn.ll.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 02:35:08 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: * URGENT ALERT -- NEED YOU TO CALL! *

In article <8863@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc (Eric William Tilenius) writes:
>CRITICAL FUNDING VOTES ARE UPCOMING FOR THE 1990 NASA BUDGET AND
>SPACE STATION FREEDOM.
>
>IF NASA FUNDING IS CUT BY $600-$800 MILLION OR MORE, THE SPACE STATION FREEDOM
>PROGRAM WILL BE CANCELLED, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL BE IN JEOPARDY.

The best possible thing for virtually every other program is
cancellation of the space station boondoggle.  The space station request
for FY 1990 is $2.05 billion.  The cuts Eric describes would result in a
$1.2 billion surplus for other programs if the space station is
cancelled.

Eric has very clearly expressed one of the common myths within the
"space activist" community -- that space activism consists primarily of
asking congress for more money for NASA.  This is based on the unstated
assumption that if only we gave NASA lots of money right now, wonderful
things would happen.

If you want to do something real, go to your congresssman's office.
Tell him how important it is to be prepared when the next shuttle
explodes.  Hand him a copy of the Space Transportation Services Purchase
Act.  Ask him to cosponsor it.  Talk him into it.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 19:45:00 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Buran Billboard


     Article in today's Atlanta Constitution states that starting soon, the 
Soviets will be selling advertising space on Buran.  For a price of one
million dollars, you can get your corporate logo stuck to the side of the 
orbiter.  The article further stated that the material used to print the
logo will burn off within 45 seconds of launch.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     :          [This space for rent]
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 89 18:23:35 EDT
From: capnal@aqua.whoi.edu (Alan Duester)
Subject: A&E rebroadcast of Apollo 11 flight

The TV section of last week's sunday paper has an ad by A&E for the
upcoming rebroadcasts of the Apollo mission. Times listed are:
"Liftoff" Sun. July 16, 9:20AM-11AM
"Moonwalk" Thurs. July 20, 10:30PM-2AM
"Splashdown" Mon. July 24, 1:30 PM-3PM
rebroadcast of the Moonwalk Sun. July 23, 2:30PM-6PM

I *assume* all these times are Eastern Daylight Savings time...

========================================================================
Al Duester, Ocean Engineer, MS S201   #  SPAN: 6308::capnal 
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution  #  INTERNET: capnal@aqua.whoi.edu
Woods Hole, MA  02543                 #  GEnie:  A.DUESTER
(508) 548-1400 x2474 
(508) 457-2000 auto-receptionist for touch tone phones
========================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 89 08:57:59 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!dkrause@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Doug Krause)
Subject: Moonwalk


I have a couple of questions about the moonwalks.  How long did they
spend on the moon?  I have the impression that Apollo 11 was 4 days
of travel, a couple of hours of jumping around, and 4 days of travel.

Also, how did the camera that was left behind on the Moon track the
top of the Eagle taking off?  and how did they get THAT reel of film
back?

Douglas Krause                     CA Prop i:  Ban Gummie Bears(tm)!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine   ARPANET: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu
Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA  BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #548
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/AYmL4bu00UkVQ2W05E>;
          Sun, 23 Jul 89 03:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <AYmL4Tm00UkV02UE4x@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 89 03:17:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #549

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 549

Today's Topics:
			    Space BBS List
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 02:35:25 GMT
From: ico!isis!scicom!rwb@handies.ucar.edu  (Robert Brumley)
Subject: Space BBS List




Here's the latest update to my space-oriented BBS list.  All boards have been
verified at least within the last month, with many new boards.  Enjoy.

        Robert Brumley
PHONE:  (303) 978-1838
MAIL:   4661 S. Vivian St.
        Morrison, CO  80465 (through Sept)
        P.O. Box 14818
        Stanford, CA  94309 (Oct-mid July
UUCP:   (isis,hao)!scicom!rwb (through Sept)
BITNET: brums%portia.stanford.edu@forsythe (Oct-mid July)


------------------------------------<cut here>---------------------------------



 
 =====================================
 
 Permission is given for the unlimited
 reproduction and distribution of this
 list providing credit is given to
 Robert Brumley and The Space Network.
 
 
     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  -*> Directory of Space BBSes <*-
     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
 
 Last update: 7/16/89
 
 
 From: The Space Network, Alpha, and
       The Comm-post
 
 Compiled by: Robert Brumley
 
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Acom II
 PHONE: (713) 879-1448
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Eddie Runner
 SPONSOR: none
 SYSTEM: ?? PC/AT Clone
 COMMENTS: Houston Space Society info,
  astronomy, ham radio.  Also AI,
  ham radio, aviation, shortwave, and
  local history.  Best online chess
  game around (BCHESS13.ARC).
 LOCATION: Houston, TX
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Alpha
 PHONE: (303) 367-1935
        (303) 375-8231
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
  (Hit <Ctrl> @ <Return> for 2400
   baud, or <Return> for 300 baud.)
 SYSOP: Cyro Lord, Robert Galyen,
  Bill McGuire, Mark Felton
 SPONSOR: Alpha SCINET
 SYSTEM: AT&T 3b2 w/ Unix System V
  Release 2.1.0 and UNaXcess 
  Conferencing ver. 1.00.02
 COMMENTS: allows read access to
  space and ham related sections of
  the UNIX network (which has over
  11,000 sites worldwide, incl. USA,
  Canada, Europe, Great Britain and
  Australia). Type 'alpha' at login.
  Only serious users accepted, no fake
  id's.  Also space and ham radio
  discussions within site.
 LOCATION: Colorado
 VERIFIED: Ok - 7/10/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Apple Astronomy
 PHONE: (713) 526-5671
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: The Houston Museum of
  Natural History
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: Sections include: space
  novel, physics/scientific, visual
  guide to the sky, what's new in
  space, experimental/cosmology, 
  online astro news.  Many informative
  files in each section.  
 LOCATION: Houston, Texas
 VERIFIED: No Answer - 7/10/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Astro-Info
 PHONE: (514) 471-1222/471-1226/476-1114
 HOURS: 
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP:
 SPONSOR: Systeme Reseau Enr
 SYSTEM:
 COMMENTS: mostly French.  Astronomy
  Space and Astronautics, NASA news,
  local events, Programs, Gif images,
  European Space Agency News, List of
  observatories and planetariums, 
  observing alerts, uploads and 
  downloads.  There is a $25 (CAN) fee,
  but there is a 15-day free trial
  period.
 LOCATION: Montreal, Canada
 VERIFIED: ??
 
 
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Black Hole BBS
 PHONE: (407) 859-2961
  (2nd node available by subscription)
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Clint Labarthe
 SPONSOR: ??
 SYSTEM: ?? w/ PCBoard ver 11.8A/E3
  and 65 megs online
 COMMENTS: Supports all computers but
  MS-DOS stressed.  Astronomy, adult,
  music, sci-fi, games, AT&T PC's,
  sports, and sysop conferences.  
  Program downloads of all types, many
  of which are astronomy oriented.
  Lots of great functions.  Super
  ANSI color graphics are supported.
  Menus are difficult to read if your
  term is not 100% ASCII compatible.
 LOCATION: Florida
 VERIFIED: Busy - 6/25/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Celestial Datatech BBS & RCP/M
  System
 PHONE: (513) 427-0674
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
  Parity)
 SYSOP: TS Kelso
 SPONSOR: None
 SYSTEM: TRS-80 Model 12 w/ DataTech
  DT-BBS 4.08.00
 COMMENTS: Caters to all areas of the
  Space Sciences including Astronomy,
  Astrodynamics, Celestial Mechanics,
  and Satellite Tracking.  Carries
  the MOST current NASA Prediction
  Bulletins (orbital elements) for 80+
  satellites along with AMSAT
  Newsletters and message system. Over
  two megabytes of space-related
  software and databases available for
  downloading.  While intended
  primarily for CP/M and MSDOS
  systems, source code is available
  for most programs.
 LOCATION: Fairborn, Ohio
 VERIFIED: Ok - 7/15/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Colorado Springs Software 
      Exchange
 PHONE: (719) 531-6172
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 1200-9600
 SYSOP: James Pattee
 SPONSOR: James Pattee
 SYSTEM: IBM compat w/ CD-ROM Optical
  Disk Drive and Remote Operating
  System
 COMMENTS: Features 1.6 Gigabytes 
  online through Compact Disk, making
  it the largest astronomy-oriented
  BBS in the nation.  User
  registration is required for system
  access.
 LOCATION: Colorado Springs, CO
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: The Comm-post
 PHONE: (303) 534-4646 (note: four
  lines will answer from this number;
  534-4311 and 534-4501 are 9600 baud)
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300-9600
 SYSOP: Brian Bartee
 SPONSOR: Boulevard Insurance Services
 SYSTEM: IMS 10Hz 286 w/ TBBS ver 2.1M
  (Multiline) and 320 megs
 COMMENTS: Over 235 megs currently
  available for download.  Sigs incl
  Astronomy, Tandy, TI-PC, and Ham
  radio.  Carries the National
  Astronomy Echo, National Space Echo,
  Ham Radio Echo, Shortwave Echo, UFO
  Echo and many more.  Has many 
  astronomy programs, text files,  
  databases (incl the SAO database w/
  a limiting magnitude of 11, the Yale
  catalog of Bright Stars, SkyBase
  2000.0 and more).  Also  
  International Astronomical Union
  circulars, jokes, open forum,
  critic's corner, and restaurants.
 LOCATION: Denver, Colorado
 VERIFIED: Ok - 7/16/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Datalink RBBS
 PHONE: (214) 394-7438
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300-9600
 SYSOP: Jeff Wallach
 SPONSOR: The L-5 Society
 SYSTEM: ? w/ 100 megs and Fido 
  version 14.1 (?)
 COMMENTS: the most current NORAD
  satellite keplerian elements, 
  updates on Soviet and American 
  weather satellites, ELINT monitoring
  frequencies, realtime weather 
  satellites pictures on-line that may
  be downloaded.  Also info on current
  and past Soviet space activities,
  NASA news wires updates, and Texas
  Packet Radio Society.
 LOCATION: Dallas, TX
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/24/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Day's End
 PHONE: (303) 650-5636
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Chris Day
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: Epson Equity I PC w/ 20 meg
  and Fido version 11W
 COMMENTS: Astronomy SIG with many
  astronomy programs and files.  Also
  many other programs and MS-DOS
  utilities.
 LOCATION: Westminster, CO
 VERIFIED: Down? - 7/15/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Digital Newsletter
 PHONE: (612) 426-0000
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: ? w/ Information Retrieval
  System (I.R.S.) v 10.00.05
 COMMENTS: Supports space and amateur
  radio news.  Space: Soviet space
  news, NASA/USA space news, space
  shuttle audio information. Radio:
  GEARVAKF news, W5YI report, ARLL
  newsletter, packet radio newsletter.
  During space shuttle missions up-to-
  the-day schedules and general info.
 LOCATION: St. Paul, Minnesota
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/24/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Earheart BBS
 PHONE: (316) 721-5481
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: ??
 SYSOP: Todd Earheart
 SPONSOR: ??
 SYSTEM: IBM clone
 COMMENTS: This system is comprised of
  five BBSes: Wichita Student Forum,
  Astro/Space Board, Computer Advice
  Board, Mystic Realm, and a Gaming
  board.  Bulletins related to the
  shuttle, astronomy, the celestial
  bodies, and NASA.  Shuttle manifests
  and frequencies.
 LOCATION: Wichita, KS
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/24/89

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Eye of Osiris
 PHONE: (305) 973-1947
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Garry M. Paxinos
 SPONSOR: none
 SYSTEM: Unix w/ XBBS Bulletin Board
  System and 330 megs
 COMMENTS: Fido Node 369/6 and USENET
  site ankh.  It is a
  bidirectional gateway between
  Fidonet and USENET, carrying over
  70 Echomail conferences (incl.
  astronomy) and USENET computer,
  science, netnews, and recreational
  (hobbies, etc.)-oriented groups.
  _Computer Language_ magazine source
  code distribution site.  Users may
  request shell access to a Unix
  System V connected to the BBS. For
  further info on USENET see Alpha
  listing.  The KA9Q TCP/IP 
  Internetworking package and a large
  number of  Dept of Defense requests
  for comments on networking are
  available online as well.
 LOCATION: Coconut Creek, FL
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/24/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: FORA
 PHONE: (619) 295-3103
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Jim Bowery
 SPONSOR: ??
 SYSTEM: PC clone w/ ??
 COMMENTS: Multi-user chat w/ space
  enthusiasts welcome.  Call
  (619) 295-8868 for voice
  verification.
 LOCATION: San Diego, CA
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/24/89 - Service to
  be discontinued this month
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Howard's Notebook
 PHONE: (816) 331-5868
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Jim Howard
 SPONSOR: ??
 SYSTEM: ?? w/ SEAdog 4.00
 COMMENTS: Astro SIG (Tom Martinez
  section sysop) w/ messages and
  astronomy text files.  Frequented by
  members of the Kansas City
  Astronomical Society.  Also Bicycle,
  Beyond Peace, Freethought, IBM, 
  Peace Alert, Shortwave, Tandy 1000,
  and UFO SIGs.
 LOCATION: Raymore, Missouri
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/24/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Kalamazoo Astronomical Society
  RCP/M
 PHONE: (616) 342-4062
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ??
 SPONSOR: Kalamazoo Astronomy Society
 SYSTEM: Ampro Little Board Plus 
  under CP/M w/ 20 megs of storage
 COMMENTS: Dedicated to the exchange
  of programs and information
  relating to astronomy, meteorology,
  geology, and oceanography.  Many
  text files, incl. a weekly sky
  report, a feature article, local
  museum information, planetary
  information and more.  Also several
  on-line astronomy-related 
  programs.
 LOCATION: Kalamazoo, Michigan
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/24/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Killer BBS
 PHONE: (214) 827-4670, 827-1994,
  821-0390, 824-7881
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Charles F. Boykin
 SPONSOR: The Unix (tm) Connection
  Public Bulletin Board
 SYSTEM: AT&T 3B2/400 w/ UNIX
  SVR2.0.5 Rls 2
 COMMENTS:  This is a free system.
  Allows access to the USENET
  community (see Alpha listing) and
  the Unix shell w/ the capability
  to program online in many different
  languages.
 LOCATION: Bedford, TX
 VERIFIED: Down? - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: L-5 Galesburg, Il (Magie)
 PHONE: (309) 343-3799
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: Prairieland Computer Club of
  Knox County and the Midwest
  Information Systems of Galesburg,
  Illinois
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: several different SIGs.
  Network access to Telenet, Tymnet,
  C-serve, Genie, many others.
  Various computer SIGs and L-5 info.
 LOCATION: Galesburg, Illinois
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Lambert-STL Spaceport
 PHONE: (314) 576-4674
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: ??
 SPONSOR: ??
 SYSTEM: Apple ][+ w/ 20 megs and
  AppleSIG BBS E2
 COMMENTS: Strongly tied to the St.
  Louis Space Frontier Society. 
  Dedicated to the exploration and
  development of space.  Topics incl
  "the Space Shuttle, foreign
  programs, space technology & 
  research, space-related politics,
  the Strategic Defense Initiative,
  colonization and development, 
  science fiction and Star Trek,
  astronomy, extraterrestrial life."
 LOCATION: Saint Louis, MO
 VERIFIED: Ok - 7/14/89

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Minnesota Space Frontier Soc
 PHONE: (612) 920-5566
        (612) 927-9743 (voice)
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Scott Shjeffte/ others
 SPONSOR: L-5 Society
 SYSTEM: ? Leading Edge w/ RBBS-PC
 COMMENTS: color/graphics supported.
  Conferences. Many space bulletins.
  Sub directories: L-5 Minnesota, NASA
  press releases, AP news, ESA &
  Ariane space press releases,
  satellite info, shuttle status
  reports and more.  Files intended
  from Genie Spaceport can be sent
  from here.
 LOCATION: Minneapolis, Minnesota
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: M-net
 PHONE: (313) 994-6333
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Mike Myers
 SPONSOR: Public Access Unix
 SYSTEM: ?? w/ Unix
 COMMENTS: Allows public access to the
  USENET community (see Alpha
  listing).  If you have more info,
  please let us know.
 LOCATION: Ann Arbor, MI
 VERIFIED: Busy - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: NASA Spacelink
 PHONE: (205) 895-0028
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: ??
 SPONSOR: Marshall Space Flight Center
 SYSTEM: Data General ECLIPSE MV7800
  minicomputer w/ the MENU System
  v 1.13.00.00 and 722 megs
 COMMENTS: Current NASA News (incl.
  educational programs, news releases,
  VERY current and specific shuttle
  status reports, NASA speeches, and
  space shuttle manifest),
  aeronautics, space exploration
  before and after the space shuttle,
  guide to NASA instillations, 
  educational services and materials,
  and space program spinoffs.
 LOCATION: Huntsville, AL
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: National Space Science Data Center
 PHONE: (301) 286-9000
 HOURS:
 BAUD:
 SYSOP:
 SPONSOR:
 SYSTEM: VAX
 COMMENTS: I'm told to use NSSDC for
  login and user prompts, but I can't
  get the system to respond.  More
  Info?
 LOCATION:
 VERIFIED: Ok - 7/15/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Naval Observatory BBS
 PHONE: (202) 653-1079
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ??
 SPONSOR: Naval Observatory (?)
 SYSTEM: ??
 COMMENTS: Requires even parity
  (Format: 7/E/2).  All commands must
  have a '@' as the first character
  in the line.  Many files and
  functions.  Strange format but
  very interesting.
 LOCATION: near Washington D.C.
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: NOAA BBS
 PHONE: (303) 497-5000
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200 (??)
 SYSOP: ??
 SPONSOR: NOAA Space Environment
  Laboratory
 SYSTEM: ?? w/ SEL PBBS ver 2.4
 COMMENTS: This is an experimental
  BBS.  It offers daily information
  onn geophysical and solar activity.
  Information on high-frequency radio
  propagation is updated every 6
  hours.
 LOCATION: Boulder, CO
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Novac BBS
 PHONE: (703) 256-4777
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Blaine Korcel
 SPONSOR: Northern Virginia Astronomy
  Club
 SYSTEM: Leading Edge Model D w/ 60
  megabytes and RBBS-PC CPC15-1B
 COMMENTS: Open to all interested in
  astronomy.  Conferences:
  astronomical sciences, comets, image
  processing, and space history. Many
  astronomical files, with support for
  PC's and Amiga's (Macintosh and
  Apple support soon to come).  Also
  political discussions.
 LOCATION: Springfield, VA
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: The Observer's Database
 PHONE: (203) 637-5820
 NET/NODE: 141/745
 HOURS: 24 hrs/7 days
 BAUD: 300-9600(USR HST)
 SYSOP: Jim Bolster
 SPONSOR: none
 SYSTEM: American AT-330 mb's
         QuickBBS software
 COMMENTS: Dedicated to
  Astronomy/Space only. Msg
  areas include: AstroPhoto,
  Solar System, Deep Sky,
  Astronomy Books, S.E.T.I.,
  Space, General Astronomy,
  Astronomy Events.  A large
  selection of Astronomy &
  Space related files.
  We also carry the Astronomy
  & Space Echomail conferences.
 LOCATION: Old Greenwich, CT
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Silent Side
 PHONE: (602) 962-7698
 HOURS: 24 hours/day
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Chris Mitchell
 SPONSOR: ??
 SYSTEM: ?? w/ WBBS
 COMMENTS: Astronomy information
  posted by the Saguaro Astronomical
  Club.  Info includes monthly 
  astronomy events and info on the
  Saguaro Astronomical Club.  Also
  several interesting and different
  text files.
 LOCATION: Arizona
 VERIFIED: Ok - 7/10/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Space Board
 PHONE: (217) 384-0408
 HOURS: 7am-7pm wkdys/24 hrs wkends
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Tany Sienko
        Scott Maclaren
 SPONSOR:
 SYSTEM: AT&T 6300 w/ Fido and 60 megs
 COMMENTS: home of local NSS chapter
  (Illini Space Development Society)
  and ARJSD (Association for Research
  on Japanese Space Development); 
  dedicated to space development, 
  technology, science issues, science
  fiction.
 LOCATION: Illinois
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Space Development Information
  Clearinghouse BBS (formerly NorthCal
  L-5 BBS)
 PHONE: (408) 778-3531
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Chris Winter
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: Morrow MD-3 (CP/M w/ Z80-A)
  w/ Winterware BBS ver. 7.10
 COMMENTS: The purpose of SDI
  Clearinghouse is "to distribute
  information pertaining to the human
  exploration and development of
  space -- humanity's next frontier."
  Many space news bulletins.  L5
  society information, Mars
  Underground newsletter, list of
  space interest groups, list of
  periodical publications on space,
  shuttle manifest, aerospace
  database, and much more.
 LOCATION: Morgan Hill, California
 VERIFIED: Ok - 7/7/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: The Space Network
 PHONE: (303) 494-8446
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Tom Meyer
 SPONSOR: The Mars Institute of the
  Planetary Society, organized by The
  Boulder Center for Science and
  Policy
 SYSTEM: PC clone w/ TBBS ver. 2.0 and
  20 mB (soon to be 40 mB)
 COMMENTS: Much information from all
  segments of the space exploration
  community.  Mars exploration, space
  education, commercial and practical
  uses of the external tank, National
  Space Society Space Hotline, 
  Internat. Planetarium Soc, 
  commercial uses of space, political
  issues concerning space, Aviation
  Week and Space Technology summaries,
  selected portions of the sci.space
  newsgroup on USENET (see Alpha
  listing), exobiology, terraforming,
  spacecraft power and propulsion,
  NASA satellite prediction bulletins,
  daily NASA news press releases,
  NASA missions, flight manifests,
  NASA TV broadcast schedule, and 
  much more.  Full system file search
  to aid in locating information and
  this BBS list.  
 LOCATION: Boulder, CO
 VERIFIED: Ok - 7/16/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: The Space Shuttle BBS
 PHONE: (407) 639-2467
 HOURS: Fri Sat Sun 24hrs these days
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400 
 SYSOP: Mike Mandus 
 SPONSOR: none
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: Space program discussions
           Info on the Space Shuttle 
           Discussions on the Shuttle
 LOCATION: Cocoa, Florida
 VERIFIED: No Answer - 7/16/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Star-net
 PHONE: (612) 681-9520
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Chuck Cole
 SPONSOR: ??
 SYSTEM: ?? w/ RBBS-PC 15.1A
 COMMENTS: Star-Net is a not-for-
  profit scientific information
  exchange society.  Includes: astro,
  technology, management, and general
  interest sigs, many professionals
  in the interest area, a massive 
  library of public domain astronomy
  software, major astronomy databases,
  observational alerts of comets, 
  novae, etc., on-line prediction
  programs and astrophoto aids, and
  instruments (telescopes, etc.) under
  develoment for on-line access.
  Many, many more features and 
  capabilities.  Users are required to
  pay $30/yr, but a new user may
  look around before he is required
  to pay.  More info on star-net is
  available on The Space Network.
 LOCATION: Minneapolis, MN
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Stargazers BBS
 PHONE: (804) 424-9295
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Donald B. Wright
 SPONSOR: Donald B. Wright
 SYSTEM: ?? w/ 10 megs and Wildcat!
  ver. 1.03
 COMMENTS: This BBS serves the
  astronomy community in the Tidewater
  area of Virginia.  Astronomy and
  telescope making forums and files,
  and astronomy-related programs
  (MS-DOS).
 LOCATION: Virginia Beach, VA
 VERIFIED: Ok - 7/14/89

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Starry Night
 PHONE: (913) 631-0761
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: David Young
 SPONSOR: Astronomical Society of
  Kansas City
 SYSTEM: Tandy 1000SX w/ 2 floppies
  and 20 megs and BBS-PC 1.0
 COMMENTS: Forum on radio astronomy,
  local astronomy info, observing
  data, scope building, observing
  tips, astrophotography, misc astro-
  oriented text files.
 LOCATION: Blue Springs, MO
 VERIFIED: Ok - 6/29/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Well BBS
 PHONE: (415) 332-6106
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: E.M. Richards and A.S. Beals
 SPONSOR: Whole Earth Lectronic Link
 SYSTEM: DEC VAX-11/750; 4.2 BSD UNIX
 COMMENTS:  Allows full access to the
  USENET community (see Alpha
  listing).  Cost is $8/month.
 LOCATION: Sausalito, CA
 VERIFIED: Down? - 7/14/89
 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 BBS: Wine Cellar
 PHONE: (616) 235-2947
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: William R. Deumler
 SPONSOR: ??
 SYSTEM: Commodore 128 w/ 20 mb
 COMMENTS: Up to the minute NASA  news
  and shuttle status reports.  Also
  many space-related files w/ over 3
  megs of space info.
 LOCATION: Grand Rapids, MI
 VERIFIEd: Ok - 7/14/89

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Yokohama Science Center BBS
 PHONE: (045) 832-1177  (in Japan)
 DTE ADDRESS: 440881406100
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200  (8/1/0)
 SYSOP: Yoshiro Yamada (?)
 SPONSOR: Yokohama Science Center
 SYSTEM: ??
 COMMENTS: Satellite orbital elements
  list (some 50 satellites) and other
  space/astronomy news.
 LOCATION: Yokohama, Japan
 VERIFIED: ??
 
 
 =====================================
 
 I would like to thank all those who
 have contributed information to this
 list.  
 
 If you know of any additional boards,
 or have any additional information,
 please let me know.  Address messages
 to:
 
 
       Robert Brumley
 
 POST: 4661 S. Vivian St.
       Morrison, CO 80465
       (303) 978-1838
 
 UUCP: (isis,hao)!scicom!rwb
 
 Thanks.
 
 =====================================

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #549
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/QYmMp7200UkVQ2hk4e>;
          Sun, 23 Jul 89 05:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <gYmMoz-00UkV42g041@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 89 05:17:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #550

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 550

Today's Topics:
			S-Band Beacon on Moon
		   Re: Satellite Images - at home!
	 CBS News Special on APOLLO 11 on Thursday, July 13.
Re: Color Screens on Space Station (Was: Procurement and future computers)
		   Re: space news from May 29 AW&ST
		  Re: NASA funding is not transitive
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
		       Launch Date Info Wanted
		Re: Jonathan's Space Report, forwarded
			 Satellite Population
NASA and German Ministry sign Space Transportation agreement (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 14:42:11 GMT
From: wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU  (Bill Chiarchiaro)
Subject: S-Band Beacon on Moon


In the last year or so, I read about a radio transmitter that was left
on the Moon by one of the Apollo missions and that is still operating.
Its frequency is somewhere around 2.3 GHz and is used as "beacon of
opportunity" by some radio amateurs who conduct moonbounce operations
on the amateur 13-cm band.

Does anyone know which mission left this transmitter?

What is its location?

What was its purpose?  I assume it was for telemetry of data from some
experiment package.  If so, is the package still supplying data?

What is the transmitter's power source?

What are its frequency, modulation type, output power, antenna gain,
and polarization?

Are there any other operating transmitters on or orbiting the Moon?

If you think about it, reception of this transmitter's signal is
probably the closest thing to proof that man has indeed put objects on
the Moon -- at least that is available today to those of us outside
the space-program complex.

Thanks,
Bill Chiarchiaro
N1CPK
wjc@xn.ll.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 15:05:00 GMT
From: apollo!ulowell!tegra!vail@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Re: Satellite Images - at home!

In article <1507@vms.eurokom.ie> gnugent@vms.eurokom.ie writes:

   A license is required for receiving pictures from the NOAA satellites, but this
   is a mere formality.

What is this?  Is this something required by your govt in Ireland?  As
far as I know I don't need a license here.

   The only organisation I know of who are dedicated to weather satellite picture
   reception are the Remote Imaging Group in the UK. They also supply a range of

There is the Dallas Remote Imaging Group in this country with a BBS
available.  Email me if you would like the number (I don't have it
with me now...)

"Like a clock, they sent, through, a washing machine:
 come around, make it soon, so alone." -- Syd Barrett
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
 -----

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 89 16:34:43 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: CBS News Special on APOLLO 11 on Thursday, July 13.


        There will be a two-hour CBS News Special on Thursday, July 13 
    at 9 p.m. E.D.T. entitled "The Moon Above, The Earth Below".  It is 
    a twentieth anniversary tribute to the APOLLO 11 mission to Earth's 
    Moon in 1969.  Dan Rather will host the program, Walter Cronkite will 
    discuss the mission aspects, and Charles Kuralt will show what was 
    happening on Earth while Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins were exploring 
    the Moon.

        Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com
    
             N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 89 17:36:12 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Color Screens on Space Station (Was: Procurement and future computers)

>
> And, this is all fantasy for another reason.  Sophisticated image
> analysis will continue to be done on the ground for the forseeable
> future for the most rational of all reasons:  professional analysts
> ... are too bulky and too heavy to put into space economically ...
> 
> Stu Friedberg  (stuart@cs.wisc.edu)
> 

What a thing to say!  How would you like the professional analysts
saying that YOU were "too bulky and heavy to put into space economically"?!

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 752-7718                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

PS: No offense meant, Stu; just never could pass up a joke ... this is
what happens when I sequence out of "rec.humor" straight into "sci.space".

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 17:44:17 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: space news from May 29 AW&ST

From article <1989Jul10.044722.16489@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):

> NASA rejects the [inevitable] bid protest from Hercules over the award
> of the ASRM contract to Lockheed/Aerojet, clearing the way for contract
> negotiations.


The politics of this award are most interesting. Lockheed is a
recognized and respected prime contractor and system integrator.
Hercules is a recognized and respected sub contractor. Hercules was
going to sub contract out the system integration to a recognized and
respected company that is usually a prime contractor. NASA insisted
that the prime contractor also be the system integrator, hence
Lockheed got the bid.

Another nice example of having to be a member of the club before you
can join the club.

While I'm saying nasty things about NASA let me point you all at an
article entitled "After Thirty-two Months of CYA CHALLENGER- The Truth
Slowly Outs" by Yale Jay Lubkin in the May, 1989, issue of Defense
Science. 

If you believe that Challenger was destroyed by a frozen O ring find a
copy of this article and read it. It quotes from Dr.  Richard
Feynman's book "What Do You Care What Other People Think" and then
backs up Feynman's opinions. 

One great quotation from Dr. George Keyworth, President Reagan's
science advisor, is "Of all the organizations that I have dealt with,
some so wrapped up in their bureaucratic interests that they were
certainly counter to the direction ... the country was going in. Some
of them filled with incompetent people.  Some of them outstanding. I
have only seen one that lied. It was NASA.  From the top to the bottom
they lie.... The reason they lie, of course, is because they are
wrapped up in a higher calling. In their eyes they are white lies.
They tell lies in order to do what has to be done. Because in the end
the result will be for the betterment of the public. So they are not
lying from evil.  But, nvertheless, they are lying."

In my personal opinion those lies, told for what ever "good" reasons,
have destroyed NASA in the minds of the public whose "betterment" was
the reason for the lies. In plain english, you can't do business with
a liar.

			Bob P.

-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 14:00:00 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <33078@apple.Apple.COM>, leech@Apple (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>In article <26240@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>...  The cuts Eric describes would result in a
>>$1.2 billion surplus for other programs if the space station is cancelled.
>
>    The other programs may not have anything to do with space,
>however.

The total "Aeronautical Research and Technology" portion of the NASA
budget request amounts to $463 million.  Everything else is space
related, at least in name.

The space station is the largest single item which is not subdivided
further, at $2.05 billion.  The next largest item is space shuttle
flight hardware, at $1.24 billion.

Why don't you explain to us where you thought the money could come from,
or where it could go, and where you think the cuts should come from.
But please take a look at a copy of the budget request first.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 16:27:56 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

In article <8907112246.AA01428@angband.s1.gov> <ASTLC%ALASKA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> writes:
> Can anyone fill me in as to what the Apollo 12 astronauts did when they
>found the SURVEYOR 3 probe on the lunar surface? I read a while back (in
>a now-forgotten magazine) that they took the probe's camera off for "a
>souvenir"...

It wasn't a souvenir, but a planned sample.  Several parts, notably the
camera, were removed and returned to Earth so that the effects of several
years on the lunar surface could be studied.  (One quite unexpected find
in the camera was live bacteria, which had survived sterilization procedures
and years in space!)

Of course, the way things turned out, so far we've had precious little
use for that information...
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 22:03:08 GMT
From: unmvax!aplcen!haven!grebyn!rich@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Rich Kolker)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

In article <8907112246.AA01428@angband.s1.gov> <ASTLC%ALASKA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> writes:
> Can anyone fill me in as to what the Apollo 12 astronauts did when they
>| BITNET: astlc@alaska.bitnet       |   the official opinions of the    |
>| USENET: coming SOON!              |   University of Alaska, so THERE! |
>| Quote: "If A Man In A Blue Suit   |                                   |
>|         Comes Up To You, And Offers                                   |

The took panels off for the purpose of micrometeorod studies as well a

as solar wind studies.  Just hitting the target after Apollo 11 was
an accomplishment.

++rich>|         You OS/2, Remember: JUST SAY NO!"                             |
>=========================================================================

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rich Kolker
|
| uunet!telenet!richk  (not the reply to above)
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 12:02:00 GMT
From: pur-phy!tippy!roger@ee.ecn.purdue.edu
Subject: Launch Date Info Wanted


My family and I will be visiting the Kennedy Space Center sometime during the first two weeks of August. Can anyone provide a list of launches that will be made during this period? If there will be one during this time we will plan our trip around it. 
Thanks in advance - Roger.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 22:17:07 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Jonathan's Space Report, forwarded

> 
> If I could only archive one person's contributions to sci.space it
> would be Jonathan McDowell's Space Reports.  No other posting summarizes
> so much hard, international, factual and timely space information in
> such a modest and unassuming manner.  Grateful as I am to Henry for
> abstracting AvWeek (or as I was before I subcribed myself), Jonathan's
> info has more vitally to do with the cutting edge of space.
> 
> 
> Tom Neff
>

I agree, Tom, but the last time I complimented JMcD on this he sent me a
message telling me to stop wasting net bandwidth ...

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 752-7718                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 19:14:59 GMT
From: cs.dal.ca!dal1!arppeter@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Satellite Population

Hello.
I have a burning question.  How much STUFF is in orbit,
aside from the moon?
How many are in geostationary orbit?
Polar? etc?

Are there any estimates of what kind of population of
satellites can be in orbit before there is too
great a risk of "fender benders"?  How may practical
geostationary orbit parking spaces are there?

I'm looking for substantial pieces here, not bits of
debris, White's glove and those darn Shuttle hubcaps
that fly off on corners.

Last question.  How do countries, or people make dibs
on orbit positions and paths? Is it like Antartica where
the claimed pieces of pie overlap?  Is it a first one
to park wins situation? 

My curiousity abounds.

Peter J. Russell
Bitnet: ARPPETER@AC.DAL.CA

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 06:30:57 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA and German Ministry sign Space Transportation agreement (Forwarded)

[Been on travel, hence the tardiness of these press releases. -PEY]


Debra J. Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 10, 1989


RELEASE:  89-113

NASA AND GERMAN MINISTRY SIGN SPACE TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT

     Richard H. Truly, NASA Administrator, and Heinz Riesenhuber, 
Federal Minister for Research and Technology of the Federal 
Republic of Germany, today signed a memorandum of understanding 
in Washington, D.C., enabling the launch of German payloads on 
the Space Shuttle.

     This agreement confirms general understandings for the terms 
and conditions under which NASA will furnish launch and 
associated services on a reimbursable basis consistent with U.S. 
and German space policy.  Under the MOU, specific launch services 
agreements or other agreements will be signed for each activity.

     The first flight will be the D-2 Spacelab mission, currently 
scheduled for launch in February l992.  It will carry German 
materials processing and life sciences experiments and a small 
number of NASA experiments.  The crew will include two German 
payload specialists.  The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) has 
paid earnest money to NASA for an additional mission, the D-3 
Spacelab, currently scheduled for launch in November l993.

     Under a similar agreement signed in April l981, the FRG's
D-l Spacelab mission was successfully completed in November 
l985.  The D-l mission carried materials processing and life 
sciences experiments.  The crew included two German and one Dutch 
payload specialists.

     FRG has long been a supporter of Space Transportation System 
utilization and contributed 40 percent to the European Space 
Agency development of the Spacelab.  FRG, as a member of the 
European Space Agency, will also contribute significantly to the 
development of the Space Station Freedom.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #550
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/QYmdZtu00UkV83OU4D>;
          Mon, 24 Jul 89 00:22:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <QYmdZlu00UkVQ3Mk5=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 89 00:22:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #551

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 551

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 03:42:27 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #544 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89199.58157413 0.00000234           27109-3 0  2230
2 00424  80.4644 254.9152 0024599  51.9049 308.4307 13.67171168337103
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89198.56177170  .00000164  00000-0  15604-3 0  2797
2 00727  69.9022  30.4841 0011954  55.4275 304.7932 13.93553262297324
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89198.54646773  .00004760  00000-0  32780-3 0  3891
2 03019  64.0624  18.9846 0219843 225.3173 132.9859 14.89572043109609
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89187.56917568 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2365
2 03029  12.7757  24.1274 0015540 194.3702 165.6963  1.00272176 79330
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89199.72951283 -.00016207  00000-0 -10554-3 0  8303
2 04966  51.5658 319.5495 2511049 266.1090  65.2085 10.54262717555713
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89200.97850008 0.00000004                   0  8210
2 08820 109.8338 241.3138 0044879 309.0179  50.6670  6.38664138 52720
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89193.69270730 -.00000018                   0  2869
2 10061   7.2367  67.9134 0005870  97.5785 262.2768  1.00279674  5639
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89199.36849220 0.00000010           10000-3 0  1669
2 10684  63.3933  99.8985 0109154 199.5975 160.0366  2.00559828 69153
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89192.84631872 -.00000027                   0    55
2 10893  64.5056 340.9212 0154238  28.3947 332.4406  2.00555861 81841
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89198.73487946 0.00000088           10000-3 0  6896
2 10953   6.1136  70.5293 0006800 259.6167 100.2746  1.00274815  1248
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89197.23438422 0.00000977           38799-3 0  1437
2 10967 108.0115 347.4202 0002168 235.2265 124.8673 14.34718776578251
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89199.64092642 -.00000027                   0   584
2 11054  64.1067 337.1284 0057739 115.7634 244.8653  2.00561893 78992
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89198.24513911 0.00000011                   0  1788
2 11141  63.5846  99.8028 0057389 321.4849  38.1505  2.00571379 77663
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89200.05544746 0.00000829           36445-3 0  8753
2 11416  98.5094 196.1955 0012703  22.3345 337.8387 14.25872183522445
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89199.90933791 0.00060501           80846-3 0   259
2 11703  28.4912  54.4138 0002291  57.5948 302.4843 15.56627130524783
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89196.70665489 -.00000027                   0  9288
2 11783  64.3024 336.8200 0132258  60.5604 300.8870  2.00569132 67574
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89198.09984502 -.00000043                   0   585
2 11964   5.5685  73.3639 0032389  94.2609 266.1146  0.99231672  2320
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89188.56832149 -.00000242                   0  7397
2 12472   2.1424  83.6487 1365143 261.0840  83.2574  1.00202973 28789
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89198.60724050  .00015696  00000-0  53802-3 0  2468
2 12887  97.6841 225.6881 0003215 118.0081 242.1476 15.30277523429809
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89196.61107726 0.00097478           92866-3 0  6377
2 12888  97.5520 252.2025 0002584 140.8665 219.2811 15.66490996433430
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89196.05007929 0.00000208           17812-3 0  6543
2 13113  82.5387  36.6185 0015945 349.2568  10.8250 13.84018087369097
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89200.77280869 0.00017511           39758-3 0  6617
2 13138  51.6084 157.7276 0001654 107.1105 252.9888 15.43116606413225
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89198.64210169  .00001099  00000-0  25410-3 0   257
2 13367  98.2119 261.8410 0003570  97.4120 262.7608 14.57119054372585
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89198.61733429 0.00000206           10247-3 0  7970
2 13718  81.2447 251.7785 0054867 272.8515  86.6395 14.13238180339859
IRAS       
1 13777U          89199.57374005 -.00000334          -22041-3 0  6598
2 13777  99.0426  36.2509 0012030 223.9617 136.0646 13.98617482   306
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89193.61106535 -.00000183  00000-0  00000 0 0  8197
2 13969   3.6420  68.4417 0002893 137.6679 225.5675  1.00123858 89665
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89197.78372817 0.00000114                   0  9878
2 14050   1.3661  82.3935 0001858 111.0113 248.3075  1.00287640  6901
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89193.36778730 0.00000061                   0  4167
2 14129  26.1248 255.4289 6054432  58.1922 346.9444  2.05879477 17739
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89197.29324708 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6454
2 14189  63.2089  98.4273 0135892 215.4659 143.6608  2.00567967 44026
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89199.07251904 0.00000572           24100-3 0  7508
2 14452  81.1651 262.5987 0095542   8.2763 351.9952 14.22255993296935
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89201.00686373 0.00001007           23323-3 0  8333
2 14780  98.1677 262.6245 0003655 124.2125 235.9439 14.57140005286348
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U 84 21  B 89199.62625717  .00001626  00000-0  32042-3 0  4813
2 14781  98.0027 257.5120 0012166 219.4269 140.6050 14.63764368287146
LDEF       
1 14898U          89200.66929721 0.00032501           49360-3 0  9110
2 14898  28.5075 307.5505 0000286 251.3609 108.7163 15.53146350296507
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89195.85696171 0.00000009                   0  7011
2 15039  62.9559  97.7319 0014876 261.8677  97.9859  2.00563884 37277
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89198.39046606 0.00000145           12119-3 0  9573
2 15099  82.5295 342.3507 0013080 147.4673 212.7293 13.83679414254299
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89197.75227756 -.00000027                   0  6716
2 15271  63.4754 336.2430 0096645 319.2343  40.2690  2.00565267 34420
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89194.80061499 0.00002232           32106-3 0   546
2 15331  82.5390 313.8830 0025148   1.4155 358.7130 14.75782144258144
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89196.47764042 0.00000488           28734-3 0  4043
2 15427  99.1448 183.9754 0014425 233.1046 126.8803 14.12086380236448
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89195.27861883 0.00000387           33737-3 0   975
2 15516  82.5347 283.2100 0017935  42.8510 317.4051 13.84139395224803
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89200.77280534 0.00020392           46125-3 0  3143
2 16095  51.6070 157.7249 0001649 129.5031 230.5861 15.43119681413224
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89197.90747195 0.00000010                   0  3370
2 16129  63.7288  98.3592 0117849 149.9346 210.7897  2.00564131 27631
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89196.01474561 0.00000044           10000-3 0  8382
2 16191  82.5450 216.0604 0018937 228.0033 131.9581 13.16870511179186
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89196.01237538 0.00000112           95426-4 0  5125
2 16408  82.5349 197.4869 0014911 220.2795 139.7256 13.84189356179401
Mir        
1 16609U          89200.71098621 0.00024163           33073-3 0  9449
2 16609  51.6185 200.8932 0009367 171.8406 188.2740 15.57226920196236
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89201.06193297 0.00000449           22868-3 0  5311
2 16613  98.7386 275.1850 0001909  87.2339 272.9102 14.20028436 16795
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89194.11058458 0.00000136           11272-3 0  3062
2 16735  82.5348 225.8346 0013172 304.3151  55.6754 13.83936715158041
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89201.08539041 0.00001651           23892-3 0  6710
2 16881  82.5233   7.5748 0023532 356.9239   3.1744 14.75421763160143
EGP        
1 16908U          89199.36927655 -.00000029           10312-3 0  1468
2 16908  50.0084 202.2258 0011127  68.0358 292.1696 12.44379759133290
FO-12      
1 16909U          89197.10014353 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1630
2 16909  50.0167 209.4498 0011078  60.4152 299.7766 12.44400597133006
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89200.21509624 0.00000598           28162-3 0  2513
2 16969  98.6366 230.0955 0013415 153.2927 206.8943 14.23090983148495
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89194.04252829 0.00000226           19482-3 0  2698
2 17290  82.4676 133.0524 0012369 182.9765 177.1338 13.83737314127191
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89199.02136141 -.00000388  00000-0 -27596-3 0  1872
2 17527  99.1484 270.2132 0000531  56.6570 303.4662 13.94831938122675
GOES 7     
1 17561U 87 22  A 89196.48328078 -.00000046  00000-0  99999-4 0  3008
2 17561   0.0171 117.6897 0002124 328.5324 273.7952  1.00272540  2048
Kvant      
1 17845U          89200.77515705 0.00027178           37108-3 0  8132
2 17845  51.6222 200.5757 0008381 170.5213 189.5630 15.57229173196246
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89200.11900154 -.00000092          -10789-3 0  8204
2 18129  82.9231 214.5636 0010989 330.0751  29.9748 13.71990371103779
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89198.97796186  .00000132  00000-0  69311-4 0  8858
2 18187  65.0147 296.5794 0019568 256.3044 103.5840 14.29382746105525
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89200.72746385 0.00156433  12539-4  23223-3 0  1374
2 18225  71.8623 327.2174 0011423 244.1903 115.8653 16.04632688116514
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89197.05155044 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2913
2 18312  82.5532 196.6614 0012858 109.1610 251.0911 13.83492947 96506
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89197.08879468 0.00000215           18415-3 0  1310
2 18820  82.5437 257.5868 0016069 184.3558 175.7471 13.84183932 73685
AO-13      
1 19216U          89186.15508008 -.00000132           10000-3 0   382
2 19216  57.2070 200.8551 6748913 207.0433  90.2906  2.09703317  8118
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89199.05309436  .00002434  00000-0  35763-3 0  4351
2 19274  82.5184 108.0916 0024166 128.8964 231.4413 14.74959851 55635
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89198.88838834 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2175
2 19336  82.5439 153.9460 0018931  69.3292 290.9789 13.16855311 46958
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89199.89876582 0.00000494           29490-3 0  1061
2 19531  98.9414 143.7651 0012043 138.5761 221.6325 14.11072946 41948
TDRS 3     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89153.77764324  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   261
2 19548   0.5410  85.9584 0002050  10.4654 263.5580  1.00263057  1649
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89195.92402568  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   489
2 19802  55.1018 210.7161 0066687 157.4981 202.8516  2.00556819  2987
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89195.09296800 0.00000116           10000-3 0   554
2 19851  82.5222 137.8092 0013064 231.1896 128.8588 13.83817828 18807
TDRS 4     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89193.30721528 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-4 0   201
2 19883   0.4184  71.6153 0001726  52.2881 235.9737  1.00264167   477
Cosmos 2022
1 20024U          89180.39981994 -.00000011           10000-2 0   363
2 20024  64.8272  50.8719 0001867 255.3129 104.7148  2.13102677  6110
Cosmos 2023
1 20025U          89180.69329080 -.00000011           10000-3 0   337
2 20025  64.8449  50.8407 0013705 210.6426 149.3398  2.13102719   639
Cosmos 2024
1 20026U          89180.38648897 -.00000011           10000-3 0   312
2 20026  64.8327  50.8698 0008813 267.3366  92.6243  2.13204691   623
1989 034E  
1 20028U          89178.00694809 -.00000011           10000-3 0   101
2 20028  65.0844  49.9949 0026704 349.6370  10.4567  2.13479740   523
SuperBird A
1 20040U          89183.78104506 -.00000099           10000-3 0   180
2 20040   0.0262 313.9524 0003825 147.9338 258.1480  1.00273104   239
1989 041B  
1 20041U          89176.16827699 0.00000175                   0    66
2 20041   0.0519 101.0035 0018654 274.6572 344.3954  1.00273050   146
1989 041C  
1 20042U          89185.08517834 0.00030059           39919-2 0   287
2 20042   6.9331  37.4445 7284280 200.3317 100.7896  2.29417718   558
Cosmos 2026
1 20045U          89182.87143968 0.00000147           14176-3 0   337
2 20045  82.9397 343.5786 0038435 224.9740 134.8304 13.75019694  3391
1989 042B  
1 20046U          89190.25933410 -.00005554          -56739-2 0   517
2 20046  82.9417 338.0442 0035026 199.2664 160.7174 13.76469147  4415
Molniya3-35
1 20052U          89189.80933893 0.00000326          -81454-3 0   444
2 20052  62.9521  99.8751 7379264 288.3629   9.3770  2.00620985   616
1989 043D  
1 20055U          89187.82942194 0.00000550           19192-2 0   268
2 20055  62.8484 100.2186 7414419 288.3220   9.1933  1.95983490   552
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89195.11831124 -.00000029                   0   285
2 20061  54.5868  29.5793 0080698 163.2427 197.0849  2.00573534   713
1989 044B  
1 20062U          89193.27933477 0.18331712 -23867-4  49193-3 0   674
2 20062  30.2951 166.4880 0064540   2.3773 357.7413 16.35924744  3699
1989 044C  
1 20063U          89190.62410034 0.00111825  17032-4  12205-2 0   390
2 20063  37.5403   7.2226 6012784 224.5458  67.5657  4.12779176  1205
Cosmos 2027
1 20064U          89180.22022443 0.00008604           36818-3 0   107
2 20064  65.8385  25.6376 0024329 340.4779  20.7342 15.23081660  2240
1989 045B  
1 20065U          89189.58668525 0.00012737           51370-3 0   330
2 20065  65.8410 356.1109 0028402 352.2314   7.8374 15.24711048  3678
Raduga 1-1 
1 20083U          89200.79942550 0.00000150           10000-3 0   320
2 20083   1.4120 273.3644 0005639 349.7231  11.0034  1.00267635   283
1989 048D  
1 20086U          89194.20510965 -.00000025           10000-3 0    76
2 20086   1.4319 273.6399 0021177 326.9784  33.7202  0.97889488   224
Nadezhda   
1 20103U          89195.97062927 0.00000073           71493-4 0   156
2 20103  82.9612 173.5464 0036199 256.8985 102.8131 13.73488558  1422
1989 050B  
1 20104U          89200.25387356 0.00000006                   0    91
2 20104  82.9608 170.3694 0031630 222.5060 137.3651 13.74881959  2005
Cosmos 2029
1 20105U          89200.03402910 -.00209112          -15779-2 0   286
2 20105  82.3761  54.6693 0017365  56.1914 304.1180 15.73325062  2168
Gorizont 18
1 20107U          89199.55821573 -.00000252           10000-3 0   165
2 20107   1.5252 275.8650 0002812  48.0206 312.9569  1.00285433   138
1989 052D  
1 20110U          89196.44413595 -.00000009           10000-3 0    31
2 20110   1.5132 276.3521 0028310  76.1603 285.2915  1.03063157   100
Olympus    
1 20122U          89197.14545698 -.00000030           10000-3 0    69
2 20122   0.2000 129.1102 0341872 153.4050  73.6901  1.04247104    32
1989 053B  
1 20123U          89199.44628220 0.00036506           79598-2 0   116
2 20123   6.1513 104.3297 7309741 183.6105 163.7002  2.25184002   167
Cosmos 2030
1 20124U          89200.70355189 0.00563620  27976-4  27314-3 0   219
2 20124  67.1468 118.1485 0107386  70.7996 290.5279 16.08540630  1147
1989 055A  
1 20134U          89200.94545946 0.00166900  11025-4  28178-3 0    91
2 20134  82.5721 107.8095 0010827 302.1370  57.9313 16.02566242   250
1989 055B  
1 20135U          89200.74657205 0.10140414 -62371-5  35341-3 0   110
2 20135  82.5601 108.0348 0012152  79.8928 280.7654 16.43351793   221
1989 056A  
1 20136U          89200.73466451 0.00705707  56954-4  32056-3 0    64
2 20136  50.5533 118.7742 0051165  93.5456 267.1591 16.17885613   204
1989 056B  
1 20137U          89200.97890289 0.02926702  57603-4  85892-3 0    83
2 20137  50.5561 117.4199 0039591 101.6250 259.0108 16.24115729   240
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #551
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/UYmyfoi00UkVI0lU5C>;
          Tue, 25 Jul 89 00:22:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <sYmyfZ200UkVA0jk4B@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 89 00:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #552

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 552

Today's Topics:
		    space news from June 26 AW&ST
	       Payload Status for 07/14/89 (Forwarded)
		      Questions about Apollo 11
			     Re: Moonwalk
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
		 Re: Procurement and future computers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 03:36:56 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 26 AW&ST

Asiasat is in trouble -- the Bush administration's embargo on shipment of
high technology to China prevents its Hughes-built satellite from being
launched on Long March next April.  Asiasat is lobbying for an exception.

Partial restoration of Aerospace Plane funds is now likely, although it
is likely that there will be some reduction and some resulting schedule
slip.

Interior Dept.'s Bureau of Land Management is evaluating Geostar for
tracking its aircraft.  BLM aircraft do much flying at low altitudes
in wild areas, and crew safety is a major concern.  Existing schemes
involving frequent manual position reporting are very cumbersome.
Six aircraft and two helicopters have been equipped with Geostar hardware
for a two-year trial, and so far it is working very well.

Locstar [I think this is the European side of Geostar] chooses Matra to
build two satellites for European location and messaging services.

Insat, the Indian comsat scheduled for launch June 29, is badly damaged
when a 75-lb hoist hook falls 30 ft onto it.  Although the satellite
was loaded with fuel, there was no explosion and nobody was hurt.  The
USAF, India, and McDonnell Douglas (the launch contractor) are assessing
the damage, but several months of repairs will probably be needed and it
is possible that the satellite may be a writeoff.  The launcher will
probably be used for the British BSB broadcast satellite, which is also
in line for a Delta launch.

Ariane 5 development program will probably slip several months and perhaps
longer, because a US-built solid-fuel-mixing machine destined for Kourou
is being diverted to US solid-rocket manufacturer Hercules to replace a
mixer damaged in an accident early this year.  The mixer was to reach
Kourou in early fall to be incorporated into the Ariane 5 SRB manufacturing
plant, along with another mixer to arrive late in the year.  Worse, the
second mixer may be delayed because the first one needs to be reworked to
fit Hercules's needs, and manpower is short.  The Europeans are Not Pleased,
and are urging the US to deliver the mixers as originally scheduled, saying
that Hercules has others.  "This could go down as another black day in
European-US space relations, and it comes at a time when Europe already
is questioning the reliability of the US as a partner..."

Story on NASA Lewis work on slush hydrogen as fuel for the Aerospace Plane.
Slush is the prime candidate for NASP fuel, as it is both denser than
liquid hydrogen and a better coolant.  Work so far indicates that there
are no impossible roadblocks, just a lot of technology development needed.
Major problems are efficient production of slush, measurement of solid-
liquid ratio for tank-capacity gauges and fuel-flow meters, and the choice
of tank-pressurization gas (hydrogen will tend to condense out, melting
the slush and interfering with pressurization, while helium is costly and
needs heavy, bulky pressure tanks; a mixed scheme, using a layer of helium
to separate hydrogen gas from the slush, is being investigated).

William Lenoir, ex-astronaut now in charge of the space station, urges
accelerating start of station assembly to get things moving.  The idea
has not yet been studied in depth.  Lenoir says the station is likely
to shrink a bit if funding continues tight, and he's not sure that the
20 shuttle flights allotted to station construction are enough, but
identifying such problems and sorting them out is currently his first
priority.  He says the idea of switching to solar-dynamic power has
been rejected:  the technology has not been as thoroughly proven as
he'd like, there was a distinct risk of schedule slips, and it would
cost more in a time of tight funding.  It is still an option for a later
upgrade.

Senate authorizing committee gives NASA full funding for CRAF and Cassini,
on condition that NASA establish a firm cost-control plan, to include
cancellation of CRAF if cost limits are exceeded.

NASA astronaut David Griggs, scheduled to fly a shuttle mission late this
year [not sure which one], dies in a flying accident in Arkansas.

Photo of a model of a Tupolev proposal for a hypersonic transport, on
show at the Paris air show.  [Interestingly enough, the aft fuselage has
a flat top with no central fin -- meant to carry a spaceplane on top??]

Pratt&Whitney propulsion people working on the Aerospace Plane say that
most everyone agrees that some rocket propulsion will be needed for the
final boost into orbit, and that all three airframe contractors include
one in their designs.

General Dynamics starts preparing an Atlas-Centaur for launch from the
Cape, carrying a Navy comsat.  This will be the last expendable launch
under NASA authority.  The satellite is the one that was scheduled to
go up two years ago when the Centaur's hydrogen tank was destroyed in
a pad accident.

NASA prepares for antinuclear protestors to object to the Galileo launch
carrying isotope power units.  The "Florida Coalition for Peace and
Justice" is claiming "...it only takes one Challenger-type explosion
and launch or one Chernobyl accident in space to destroy life on our
fragile planet...", and that solar power would be a practical substitute.
(Both false -- such isotope generators have reentered and disintegrated
before without significant ill effect, and solar power is unworkable for
outer-solar-system missions, especially in Jupiter's high-radiation
environment.)  A more moderate group, the "Committee to Bridge the Gap",
although it opposes space nuclear power in general and believes there
are some risks in the Galileo launch, has given Galileo its blessing on
the grounds that the benefits outweigh the minor risks.  NASA says the
worst case would be a reentry during one of Galileo's Earth flybys; this
would be more likely to disperse the plutonium-238 in the isotope packs
than a launch accident.  The CtBtG expresses some doubts about the numbers
in the safety assessments, although it says NASA has done a good job on
the test program for the generators.  The White House must approve the
launch of the generators before Galileo can go up.

Voyager discovers a large dark spot on Neptune, which (on reexamination
of older pictures) has been there since at least January.  The spot is
comparable to Jupiter's Great Red Spot, in proportion to the planet.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 06:34:28 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 07/14/89 (Forwarded)


                                     Payload Status Report
                                     Kennedy Space Center
                                     Friday, July 14, 1989


          George H. Diller

          Galileo/IUS-19

               Final prelaunch assembly of the Galileo spacecraft continues
          in the SAEF-2 planetary spacecraft checkout facility.  The low
          gain antenna has been installed and checked out.  Final thermal
          blanket installation continues and is scheduled for completion at
          the end of this week.  The installation of micrometeorite
          shielding is also nearing completion.

               The sun gate, acquisition sensor, and star scanner have been
          installed and testing on those instruments is finished.  Testing
          has also been completed on the attitude control sensors.  The
          magnetometer has been installed, connected, and calibrated.
          Deployment tests of the science boom and the pair of RTG booms is
          complete.

               A decision has been made to reschedule the installation of
          the radio relay antenna to later at the Vertical Processing
          Facility.  Some additional thermal blanket work is necessary in
          the area of the antenna.  This system is used by the Galileo
          orbiter to receive data from the probe after its deployment.

               Earlier this week a test was performed between Galileo and
          the MILA tracking station at KSC.  The exercise attempted to
          determine whether the power and the pair of radio frequencies
          used by MILA could cause spurious commands to be introduced into
          the spacecraft computer.  Such a concern arose on Magellan during
          the launch countdown.  While a low level of radio noise in the
          spacecraft receiver was detected, the test determined that
          inadvertant commands to Galileo's computer is unlikely.

               Checkout of the Inertial Upper Stage booster continues on
          Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.  The first and second stage
          have been mated, and this week the booster was attached to the
          aft airborne support equipment.  Electrical testing is now
          underway.  Mating with the forward ASE is scheduled for Monday
          and will also be followed by a series of electrical tests.  The
          IUS will be moved to the Vertical Processing Facility on July 23
          and Galileo's arrival will follow on July 24.  Preparations will
          then begin for IUS/Galileo mating.


          SSBUV

               Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet experiment (SSBUV)
          will provide direct in-orbit data for calibration of ultraviolet
          readings provided by NOAA-9, NOAA 11, and the Ultraviolet
          Atmospheric Research Satellite.  Its primary use relates to the
          long term studies of atmospheric ozone depletion.  This will be
          the first of ten flights for the instrument scheduled between now
          and the end of 1995.

               The payload consists of two GAS-type canisters which are
          mounted on an adapter beam in the orbiter.  One canister contains
          the instrument and operates with a motorized door assembly while
          the other canister contains the support systems.

               SSBUV is currently in Hangar AE on Cape Canaveral Air Force
          Station and is ready to be transported to the orbiter processing
          facility.  On Tuesday, July 18, it is scheduled to be mounted on
          the right payload bay wall of Atlantis.  On Wednesday, July 19,
          an interface verification test (IVT) will be conducted.




          AC-68/FltSatCom F-8

               Checkout of the Atlas Centaur on Pad B at Launch Complex 36
          is going well.  Testing of the Atlas stage and Centaur stage
          propulsion systems is underway.  The installation of the vernier
          engine thrusters used in launch vehicle guidance has been
          completed.

               The nose fairing has been moved to the ESA-60 explosive safe
          area where it will be prepared for its eventual encapsulation of
          the FltSatCom satellite late in August.  The spacecraft remains
          scheduled to arrive at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on July
          31 and will be taken to the Hangar AM spacecraft checkout
          facility for final assembly and testing.

               Ground facilities and ground support equipment continues
          under test at the launch pad and in the Complex 36 blockhouse.
          There have been no signifcant problems.

               The Terminal Countdown Demonstration test - a practice
          countdown, propellant tanking, and launch team certification - is
          scheduled for August 9.

               The launch of AC-68 remains targeted for September 8.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 20:11:43 GMT
From: dsacg1!bcd-dyn!dbp@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (dbp)
Subject: Questions about Apollo 11



I watched the CBS special about Apollo 11 last night.  
(Thanks to whoever posted the notice; I wouldn't have known 
about it otherwise.)  Can anybody answer two questions?

There is lots of footage looking backward as a stage separates and 
falls away.  The cameras that took these shots were mounted in other 
stages that were eventually discarded as well.  How were the pictures 
from those cameras retrieved?  Was there a downlink so the separation 
could be monitored in Houston as it happened?  Was it recorded in 
the CM and seen only after splashdown?

This one I've wondered about for 20 years.  There is the famous view 
of the moon's surface as the Eagle was landing.  I suppose the 
pictures were looking out through the LEM's window.  Just at landing,
something that looks like a hand holding a needle-like object appears in
the upper right-hand side of the picture and comes down across the window.
What was that?  What did it do?

Doug Pape    (dbp@bcd-dyn!dsacg)
Battelle Memorial Institute
Columbus, Ohio
614 424-5667

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 89 12:31:02 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!shogun!msiskin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Marc Siskin)
Subject: Re: Moonwalk

In article <2280@orion.cf.uci.edu> dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu (Doug Krause) writes:
>
>Also, how did the camera that was left behind on the Moon track the
>top of the Eagle taking off?  and how did they get THAT reel of film
>back?
>
>Douglas Krause                     CA Prop i:  Ban Gummie Bears(tm)!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>University of California, Irvine   ARPANET: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu
>Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA  BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

I am not sure how long the Apollo astronauts were on the moon, but I do
know that teh shot of the LM launching was not from Apollo 11 but from a
later flight.  It wasn't filmed either but was a live video shot from the
Lunar Rover's camera.  It was exciting watching the liftoff live (so to 
speak) when it occured.
 
Marc Siskin  Child of the Space Age
Any opinions expressed are my own.  The University of Michigan doesn't pay me
enough to have opinions for them.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 18:09:21 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!drutx!druhi!tml@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Tim Larison)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <1188@bcd-dyn.UUCP>, dbp@bcd-dyn.UUCP (dbp) writes:
> 
> 
> I watched the CBS special about Apollo 11 last night.  
> (Thanks to whoever posted the notice; I wouldn't have known 
> about it otherwise.)  Can anybody answer two questions?
> 
> (first question deleted)
> 
> This one I've wondered about for 20 years.  There is the famous view 
> of the moon's surface as the Eagle was landing.  I suppose the 
> pictures were looking out through the LEM's window.  Just at landing,
> something that looks like a hand holding a needle-like object appears in
> the upper right-hand side of the picture and comes down across the window.
> What was that?  What did it do?
> 

I believe that is the shadow of the antenna on top of the LEM on
the lunar surface.  The needle like object is the antenna, and the
"hand" is the base of the antenna.

I found the CBS special very good, though they did take dramatic license
in one case.  When the top of the LEM blasted off from the moon, they
showed a television feed of the LEM leaving the lunar surface.
As I remember, there were no live shots of this on Apollo 11;  only
on a later Apollo moon landing did they leave a tv camera behind to
record the takeoff from the lunar surface.  But CBS took that footage
and made it appear that we were watching Apollo 11 take off.

				Tim Larison  att!druhi!tml

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 17:58:46 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Procurement and future computers

From article <8907052107.AA11153@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, by roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts):
> 
>>From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
>>If you want a sophisticated machine for 1998, and you REALLY MUST roll
>>your own, then do something real instead of spending many millions for
>>a museum piece. I'd suggest you look at:
> 
>>	- minimum resolution on screen of 300 dpi (400 would be nicer)
>>	  with ~32 bits per pixel to handle color, intensity and
>>	  transparency.
> How would you allocate the bit fields? Many display designers regard 24 bits
> (8 each of RGB) as being fully satisfactory for both color and intensity.
> Does "transparency" in this context mean priority of overlapping objects or
> frames?

The extra 8 bits can be used for a number of different things. Overlay
planes, for things like menus and cursors, underlay planes, for
backgrounds, window priority, how you interpret the rest of the bits
in the pixel... 8 bits really isn't enough. I'd like 16 bits just for
window IDs.

Anyway, for many applications 24 bits of color just isn't good enough
9 bits of RGB is needed. For a true 3D display you also need something
like a z buffer. 16 bits of z isn't always "good enough."  I've met
people who will not be happy until they can get a 32 bit floating
point z buffer. And of course, if you want stereo you need double
buffering.

Lets see, that's 27 bits of color, times 2 for stereo, plus 16 for
window bits plus 24 for z is 94 bits per pixel. It doesn't look that
hard to come up with a frame buffer design that uses more than 100
bits per pixel.

A 24 bit true color frame buffer might impress computer people, like
me. But it doesn't cut it with artists. Or with scientist who are
trying to simulate reality.

			Bob P.
-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #552
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YYn1Eey00UkVI12E46>;
          Tue, 25 Jul 89 03:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4Yn1EXO00UkVE10U4D@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 89 03:17:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #553

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 553

Today's Topics:
	Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST (replacing computers)
			  E-Prime Aerospace
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
     Re: Re-play of Apollo 11 TV Coverage and 20th Anniv. at NASM
Spinoffs are irrelevant (was Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded))
	      Israel conf. on Aviation and Astronautics
   Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special.
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)
		    Re: Re^2: Fuel for lunar trip
		     Re: Space Transportation Act
		    Lunar Landing coverage on A&E
			  Re: Two Questions
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 23:36:10 GMT
From: haven!grebyn!rich@purdue.edu  (Rich Kolker)
Subject: Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST (replacing computers)

In article <3827@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>In <1989Jul2.054432.5054@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> the Atlantis crew replaced one of the orbiter's five general-purpose
>> computers after it failed [...] it took about four hours because the
>> computers are behind some of the middeck lockers and are not easy to get at.
>
>	I don't understand.  I thought that the various computers were all
>constantly checking each other and if one failed, it would be taken off line
>automatically and the others would continue to operate without it.  Why the
It's been a while since I've been on the net, but let me take a crack at
this one.  The GPC's are not taken off line automatically,  In the case
of
a problems, there is a 5x5 grid above the commander's chair that shows
GPC
status.  One axis is which computer is voting and the other is which
computer the voting computer says is going bad (has gone bad).  The
GPC control switches are directly above the CDR's seat and are taken
on/off line manually.  Generally, only three are kept powered up during
orbital flight although flight rules say all five are to be up, running
and available for launch and entry.  This from my feeble memory,
although
if something is really wrong, catch me and I'll go back to the manuals
for the final say (I've got the 2102s for the GPC's around here
somewhere).

++rich
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rich Kolker
|
| uunet!telenet!richk  (not the reply to above)
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 04:40:30 GMT
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Kevin William Ryan)
Subject: E-Prime Aerospace


   What is the present status of this company?  Are they launching, preparing
to launch, belly-up, in stasis, what?

                                                 Kevin Ryan
                                                 kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 05:02:19 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

In article <2612@kepler.sw.mcc.com> richter@kepler.sw.mcc.com (Charlie Richter) writes:
>Al Bean removed three pieces of Surveyor III:  some wire cable,
>some aluminum tubing, and the soil scoop.  (These three pieces
>were brought back to Earth for study.)

Charles Conrad Jr., writing in "Apollo Expeditions to the Moon" (NASA
SP-350), page 231:

"We cut samples of the aluminum tubing... and some electrical cables...
We managed to break off a piece of glass, and we unbolted the Surveyor
TV camera.  Then Al [Bean] suggested that we cut off and take back the
sampling scoop, and so we added that to the collection.  Then we headed
back..."

I think this can be considered authoritative.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 16:08:11 GMT
From: usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!zardoz!tgate!ka3ovk!teemc!mibte!ccd700!jim@apple.com  (J. Sitek)
Subject: Re: Re-play of Apollo 11 TV Coverage and 20th Anniv. at NASM

In article <8907021844.AA00156@boardwalk.mitre.org>, howell@COMMUNITY-CHEST.MITRE.ORG writes:
> A while back I believe someone posted some information about a cable
> channel (?Discovery? A&E?) planning to re-broadcast coverage of the
> Apollo 11 flight during the 20th anniversary; I had the impression they
> were going to cover a lot of the mission running it at the same time and
> date as the original.  Was this wishful thinking on my part?  If someone
> would let me know if this is indeed scheduled, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks.


Please post this information as I think it would be of general interest.

Thanks,

Jim Sitek

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 08:43:06 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Spinoffs are irrelevant (was Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded))

In article <28591@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident (Peter E. Yee) forwards:
>Jim Ball
>Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     July 13, 1989
>
>
>RELEASE:  89-117
>
>APOLLO-ERA TECHNOLOGY SPINOFFS CONTINUE TO ENHANCE HUMAN LIFE
>
>[Nonsense about how NASA is primarily responsible for the development
>of cordless tools, radial tires and sliced bread]
>

Over 133 thousand people had arthroscopic surgery on their knee in the
US in 1987.  Ten years ago this surgery involved a hospital stay and
small chance of a full recovery.  Now it is an outpatient procedure,
with most patients walking the next day.  Much of the advance in this
surgery is due to the frequency of knee injury in the NFL.

Does this mean that Congress should appropriate billions of dollars to
support the NFL in order to benefit those in need of this surgery, or
that the spinoff argument is absurd?

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN NOW AND SCREAM AT HIM UNTIL HE AGREES TO
APPROPRIATE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THE NFL SO THAT PEOPLE CAN
HAVE SAFE ARTHROSCOPIC SURGERY.

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 17 Jul 89 19:51:48 IST
From: AERCONF%TECHNION.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject:      Israel conf. on Aviation and Astronautics

ANNOUNCEMENT

     It is my pleasure to inform you that the 31st Annual
Israel Conference on Aviation and Astronautics will take
place February 21-22, 1990.  The meetings on the first day
will be convened at the Tel Aviv Hilton, while the second
day will be at the Technion, Haifa.
     In the past, the Conference has elicited great interest
among its participants which number between 600-900 scientists,
engineers, and members of the academic community.  Participants
from the United States and Europe increase from year to year.
      The Conference Prodeedings are published in English and
include talks given by both Invited Speakers and contributing
participants.  It is available following the conference and
reaches a wide audience throughout the world.
     Papers may be submitted on the following topics:
   - Aerodynamics and Aeronautical Testing
   - Materials, Aeronautical Structures and Structural Testing
   - Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity
   - Aeronautical Design, CAD/CAM, Manufacturing and Maintenance
   - Propulsion and Combustion
   - Flight Control, Guidance and Navigation, Avionics
   - Flight Mechanics and Ballistics
   - Flight Operation and Systems
   - Space Systems and Astrodynamics

     Papers on recent advances in basic research and technology
applications in the above mentioned categories, as well as other
aerospace related fields, are welcomed.
     To receive a "Call for Papers" or any other information
you may contact us on the bitnet at AERCONF@TECHNION or send a
FAX to Mr. Gideon Waxsman at 00-972-4-231848.
Acknowledge-To: <AERCONF@TECHNION>

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 16:10:39 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special.

In article <8907111417.AA18948@decwrl.dec.com>, klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
> 
>         The Arts and Entertainment (A&E) Cable Network is rebroadcasting
>     the original NBC coverage of the APOLLO 11 mission to the Moon in 
>     1969.  The dates and times are: 
> 
> 	"Liftoff" - July 16, 9:20 AM - 11 AM
> 	"Moonwalk" - July 20, 10:30 PM - 2 AM
> 	"Splashdown" - July 24, 1:30 PM - 3 PM

A&E is also broadcasting a series called "The Eagle and the Bear." Last
week's was a view of the Soviet and US Space Programs in the 50's and
early 60's showing what was happening concurrently in the two countries.
I have no idea if this series is strictly space related or if they plan
on continuing the comparison to the present. A&E seems to be letting it
float from week to week. I saw it at midnight last Friday. My TV schedule
indicates the next show will be broadcast this Saturday at 7:30pm (all
Eastern times).


-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 23:05:20 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

All material from Surveyor returned from to Moon to the Earth
(in fact all returned lunar material including donated Soviet
samples in US possesion) is cataloged with the Lunar Receiving Laboratory
(a part of the Universities Space Reseach Association) in Texas.

Some of the Surveyor parts are at JPL (as noted by Lee), responsible
Center at the time, some are Hughes Aircraft (I believe El Segundo),
and some are at LRL, circulated in exhibits, "researched," stored. etc.
like at the National Air and Space Museum.  There are mechanisms
to request these materials.  Don't contact me, contact the LRL.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 21:53:38 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)

In article <28736@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>APOLLO-11 LUNAR EXPERIMENT STILL USEFUL AFTER 20 YEARS
>
>     An experiment placed on the lunar surface 20 years ago by
>the Apollo 11 astronauts continues to be used to study the Earth-
>moon system by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
>Calif., and other scientific centers around the world.

    And a whole bunch of the powered experiments might still be useful
if they hadn't been turned off in the 70's.  The same wonderful cost
effectiveness that nearly turned off the DSN for Voyager's Neptune
encounter.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 11:55:27 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Re^2: Fuel for lunar trip

In article <1521@bucket.UUCP>, leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
}Water takes up less volume than an equivalent mass of hydrogen and oxygen,
}even LOX and LH2. It's a matter of *density*. LH2 is not very dense at all,
}and LOX isn't a lot better. Water is a very space efficient way of storing
}them.

And, of course, it won't do what the Challenger's tanks did....
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
"When things start going your way, it's usually because you stopped going the
 wrong way down a one-way street."

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 89 00:14:17 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!tekgen!tekred!speed!larryb@uunet.uu.net  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Re: Space Transportation Act

In article <615839927.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>I have just read the postings on this Act, and it looks very, very good
>to me. It does not contain direct subsidies, which other suggested acts
>have contained. Such direct subsidies are, in the long run, damaging to
>competitiveness.
Agree..

>
>As much as I would prefer that all payloads were private, I still give
>my blessing to the concept that the the government be forced to give up
>it's milspecs and such when it is requesting a parcel delivery to LEO.
>

Considering the harsh enviroment of space I'm surprise you suggest this.
What specifications do you actually require for electronics/mechanical items
in space? the moon? 

Larry Brader :: larry%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net
Tektronix nor anyone else is responsible for my views. 
<<or my spelling/grammer ;-) >>

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 05:19:40 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!csun!csusac!sactoh0!mholtz@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Mark A. Holtz)
Subject: Lunar Landing coverage on A&E

Excuse me for asking this, but. . . . 

On A&E (Arts and Entertainment), there will be a playback of the
coverage from a network news archive of the takeoff of Apollo 11,
lunar landing, and slashdown "as it happened." Can someone provide
more details, especially from when to when it is on (ET and PT
please)?

Thank you in advance.
-- 
*->          Mark A. Holtz           <-> AppleLink PE: Mark Holtz <-*
*->       7943 Sungarden Drive       <->      GEnie: M.HOLTZ      <-*
*->  Citrus Heights, CA 95610-3133   <->  Phone: (916) 722-8522   <-*
*-> UUCP: ...!pacbell!sactoh0!mholtz <-> RESERVED PARKING SPACE!! <-*

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 05:37:19 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!psueea!parsely!percival!bucket!leonard@uunet.uu.net  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Two Questions

gvg@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel) writes:
>   1: A recent AEROSPACE AMERICA article discussed nuclear propulsion
>      and kept referring to "specific impulse", measured in seconds?
>      Can anyone please define?

Isp = thrust/(fuel burn rate)

where thrust is in pounds and burn rate is in pounds per second.
Of course the dimensions are all screwed up, but what do you expect
in English units?
-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 14:03:27 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@CS.YALE.EDU  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

In article <8907112246.AA01428@angband.s1.gov> <ASTLC%ALASKA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> writes:
>
> Can anyone fill me in as to what the Apollo 12 astronauts did when they
>found the SURVEYOR 3 probe on the lunar surface? I read a while back (in
>a now-forgotten magazine) that they took the probe's camera off for "a
>souvenir"...
>

As I recall they took a camera mirror off in order to study the
surface pitting, etc. on an object that had been on the surface for
quite a long time.

pkr

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 16:32:07 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!milano!kepler!richter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charlie Richter)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

>  Can anyone fill me in as to what the Apollo 12 astronauts did when they
> found the SURVEYOR 3 probe on the lunar surface?

Al Bean removed three pieces of Surveyor III:  some wire cable,
some aluminum tubing, and the soil scoop.  (These three pieces
were brought back to Earth for study.)
-- 
Charlie Richter   MCC   Austin, Texas
  uucp: richter@milano.uucp     arpa: richter@mcc.com
"The panic ... was not due to anything fundamentally weak in either business
   or finance.  It was confined to the market itself."   - WSJ, Oct. 31, 1929

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #553
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/EYn30gK00UkVA1AE4W>;
          Tue, 25 Jul 89 05:17:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4Yn30ZG00UkV01-U5T@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 89 05:17:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #554

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 554

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
		   Re: Satellite images - at home!
	   Budget cuts (Re: NASA funding is not transitive)
		   Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST
Re: NASA, Canadians to fly plasma experiment on OMV mission (Forwarded)
		     Re: Atari(s) and Sat Photos
		   Request for NOAA satellite info
		   Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST
			 NGC 321 information.
		   Frequently asked SPACE questions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 18:25:00 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!pjm@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

In article <5366@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
(Lee Mellinger) writes:

> The scoop housing was presented to Dr. William Pickering on his retirement as
> Director of JPL in 1976.  (...)

Isn't he Sir William Pickering?  I believe his knighthood came through his
New Zealand citizenship; he initially came from there for graduate(?) studies
at CALTECH.

-- 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Phillip MacQueen                  McDonald Observatory,
  ARPA: pjm@astro.as.utexas.edu     University of Texas at Austin,
                                    RLM 15-308,
                                    Austin, Texas 78712, U.S.A.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 10:33:43 GMT
From: mcvax!euroies!kom!gnugent@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Satellite images - at home!

In article <539@atlas.tegra.UUCP>, vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) writes:
> In article <1507@vms.eurokom.ie> gnugent@vms.eurokom.ie writes:
> 
>    A license is required for receiving pictures from the NOAA satellites, but this
>    is a mere formality.
> 
> What is this?  Is this something required by your govt in Ireland?  As
> far as I know I don't need a license here.
> 
>    The only organisation I know of who are dedicated to weather satellite picture
>    reception are the Remote Imaging Group in the UK. They also supply a range of
> 
> There is the Dallas Remote Imaging Group in this country with a BBS
> available.  Email me if you would like the number (I don't have it
> with me now...)
> 
> "Like a clock, they sent, through, a washing machine:
>  come around, make it soon, so alone." -- Syd Barrett
>  _____
> |     | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu
> |Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
>  -----

A series of articles was published in a UK Electronics magazine detailing how
to build a WEFAX receiver/decoder. It was in this magazine that the reference
to a license being required was made. This applies only to the UK. In Ireland,
as far as I am aware, no such license is needed.

---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
 Gary Nugent,              | Internet:   gnugent@vms.eurokom.ie
 System Support Specialist,| EARN/Bitnet:gnugent@vms.eurokom.ie
 EuroKom,                  | uucp:       gnugent%vms.eurokom.ie@euroies.uucp
 University College Dublin,| EuroKom:    gary_nugent@eurokom.ie
 Dublin 4,                 | Janet:      gnugent%vms.eurokom.ie@uk.ac.earn-relay
 Ireland.                  | PSImail:    PSI%027243159000637::GNUGENT    
---------------------------+
"Astronomers love watching | Phone:      +353.1.697890
 heavenly bodies."         | Telex:      (0500) 91178 UCD EI
---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 08:26:43 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Budget cuts (Re: NASA funding is not transitive)

In article <5235@mtgzz.att.com>, dls@mtgzz (d.l.skran) writes:
>
>If the station budget is cut, it will not in a million years go to other
>space projects except in the naive fantasies of bowery and baxter.

Fortunately, our "naive fantasies" consist of such activities as
visiting congressmen and formulation of alternatives priorities for a
space program.  This is quite different from the "CALL THESE CONGRESSMEN
NOW AND SCREAM AT THEM UNTIL THEY GIVE NASA AS MUCH MONEY AS IT WANTS TO
WASTE ON THE SPACE STATION" approach to space activism.

>The "pigs" are the trough include 
>	SSC, EPA, HUD, Veterans, NSF...

The discussions in the appropriations committee often center around the
possible trade-offs between funding of different projects within a
single agency.  The committee is not fundamentally against spending
money on space -- if anything, they are just the opposite.  But they do
have trouble with projects which are obvious losers, like the space
station.

>However, I do agree with Mr. Baxter that you should call your Congresscritter
>and ask them to co-sponsor the Launch Services Purchase Act.

It is now called the Space Transportation Services Purchase Act of 1989.
The bill number is HR2674.  Ron Packard of district 43 in California
introduced it (a result of the "naive fantasies" of Jim Bowery and
friends in San Diego).

Visit your congressman's office and hand him or his aid a copy of the
bill.  If you don't have a copy, ask him for one, or send me email.  You
may have to visit a couple of times before they get serious and look at
it.  A phone call will not do it.

This is an opportunity to engage in real pro-space activity.  It
requires that you do more than sit at a keyboard and make noise over the
network.  Visit your congressman and present him with something he will
not find elsewhere.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 21:11:05 GMT
From: ecsvax!ruslan@mcnc.org  (Robin C. LaPasha)
Subject: Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST

In article <1989Jul2.054432.5054@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> NASA proposes to switch much of the station's power system from solar
> arrays to a solar dynamic scheme.  Solar-dynamic was originally put off
> to phase 2, but the technology has developed well and an important
> advantage has appeared:  by using a phase-change heat-storage system,
> a solar dynamic system can maintain full output even when the station
> is in Earth's shadow.  Doing the same for solar arrays requires large
> battery banks, which deteriorate and have to be replaced, to the tune
> of the equivalent of a dedicated shuttle mission every five years just
> for battery replacement.  Solar-dynamic systems also make power growth
> cheaper, a significant issue since some feel the station is underpowered.
> $10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
> (Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu


Can anyone tell me what solar dynamic systems are?  Refs please,
in email.

(I looked at the solar power info at the local universities
and haven't found much.  And I'd post instead to sci.energy,
but it's not here yet.)

Does "the technology has developed well" mean that it's cutting-edge
in several years, or that commercial/consumer products are within
a year, or somewhere in between?  And what does the system use for
photovoltaics (if it uses them at all,) thin films or crystal or
something else?

Full of questions... it sounds intriguing.


-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Robin LaPasha               |Deep-Six your
ruslan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu    |files with VI! ;^) ;^) ;^)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 23:58:59 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: NASA, Canadians to fly plasma experiment on OMV mission (Forwarded)

In article <28186@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>scheduled for launch aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 1993.
					       ^^^^^^^^^

that settles that
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 19:31:06 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watmath!maytag!watdcsu!magore@rutgers.edu  (Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR)
Subject: Re: Atari(s) and Sat Photos


	Time to announce that I have a new version of the software for 
NOAA & METEOR receiver/display program. This version now works on IBM 
XT/AT/386 systems and can use 800(H)*600(V)*256(GREY) VGA modes. I hope to 
post a final release within a month. As before this project uses the 
signal received _directly_ from the satellites. The results can be *very* 
nice - just yesterday I received an image from NOAA in IR where I can see the 
thermal footprint of the Kitchener/Waterloo area where I live. Any medium to 
large city can be seen in this way due to the extra heat ...

# Mike Gore, Technical Support, Institute for Computer Research
# Internet: magore@watdcsu.waterloo.edu   or   magore@watdcsu.uwaterloo.ca
# Bitnet:   magore@watdcsu.bitnet    UUCP:     uunet!watmath!watdcsu!magore
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 89 20:20:45 GMT
From: pacbell!hoptoad!peora!rtmvax!dandrews@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (David Andrews)
Subject: Request for NOAA satellite info

A week or so ago, someone posted a circuit diagram and prose describing
how to capture NOAA pictures on an Atari ST system.

I've lost the file somehow, and my local Usenet system has purged it.

Would someone please email a copy to me?  Thanks bunches.

---
David Andrews
{uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!dandrews

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 89 22:35:05 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from May 15 AW&ST

In article <7286@ecsvax.UUCP> ruslan@ecsvax.UUCP (Robin C. LaPasha) writes:
>Can anyone tell me what solar dynamic systems are? ...

Solar dynamic is mirrors, boilers, and turbogenerators.  Well, in this case
it's not technically a boiler, since they plan to use a hot-gas system with
no liquid involved.  Discounting valves, it has one moving part.

>Does "the technology has developed well" mean that it's cutting-edge
>in several years, or that commercial/consumer products are within
>a year, or somewhere in between? ...

Well, most commercial/consumer electric power is generated using thermal
dynamic systems already...  The particular technology I am less sure about;
I suspect it means that NASA and contractors have put enough development
into it that they are now fairly sure they can make it work.  (Pity they
didn't do the same before they chose the imbecilic 20kHz power frequency.)
Me, I'd cross my fingers.

If NASA is going to do a space station, it sure would be nice to see it
happen soon enough that crucial technology doesn't change AGAIN before
it flies.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 89 15:51:14 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: NGC 321 information.


        I want to thank very much the people who looked up and posted 
    information on the NGC 321 galaxy.  My friend, Drew LePage, is making 
    an informal study of the stars and other celestial objects mentioned 
    in the Star Trek series, in order to find out how the series matched 
    up to reality in regards to its astronomy; considering that it is one
    of the few science fiction series on television for which the writers 
    actually knew what a galaxy is (and scores better than average with 
    other sciences as well), he felt it was worth checking out.  

        Drew plans on making a map and catalogue of the various star 
    systems in the ST universe.  I will be glad to send a copy of the 
    current list of star information he has over the net to anyone who
    requests it.  Anyone who would like to help with the list is also
    welcome to do so.

	For the record, NGC 321 was stated in the 1967 first season ST 
    episode, "A Taste of Armageddon", as a star cluster located towards 
    the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy.  Obviously the cluster's designation 
    does not match up with the galaxy data already given.

	Thanks again for all your work, and Drew greatly appreciates it.

        Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com
    
             N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 89 04:00:18 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Frequently asked SPACE questions

This is a list of frequently asked questions on SPACE (which goes back
before 1980).  It is in development.  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.

Questions fall into three basic types:
1) Where do I find some information about space?
Try you local public library first.  You do know how to use a library, don't
you?  Can't tell these days.  The net is not a good place to ask for
general information.  Ask individuals 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.  Sorry, have to take them case by case.

Initially, this message will be automatically posted once per month
and hopefully, we can cut it back to quarterly.  In time questions and
good answers will be added (and maybe removed, nah).

1) What happen to Saturn V plans?

Underconstruction by Henry.

2) Where can I learn about space computers: shuttle, programming,
core memories?

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

Other various AIAA and IEEE publications.

3) SETI computation articles?

%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

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #554
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/EYnHnfu00UkVE2XE46>;
          Wed, 26 Jul 89 00:24:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <kYnHnOq00UkVI2VU4R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 89 00:23:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #555

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 555

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Space Goals
   Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special.
		       Apollo 11 mission events
			Re: Lagrangian Points
		  Re: NASA funding is not transitive
			    Freedom's logo
		       Jonathan's Space Report
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
			 Station alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 12:48:53 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Space Goals

In article <11246@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jerbil@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Stainless Steel Gerbil [Joe Beckenbach]) writes:
}        My two cents:  those in JFK's world saw the Moon as "impossibly far",
}but the goal of safely returning a man from the Moon's surface in under a 
}decade was accomplished.  How about one of three projects which are "impossibly
}far and too soon" for the moment:
}[projects omitted]

What we *really* need is a D.D. Harriman....[1]
















[1]  Robert A. Heinlein, "The Man Who Sold the Moon"
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
"When things start going your way, it's usually because you stopped going the
 wrong way down a one-way street."

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 19:43:16 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!cyrius@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Juan Chen)
Subject: Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special.

In article <8907111417.AA18948@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
>
>        The Arts and Entertainment (A&E) Cable Network is rebroadcasting
>    the original NBC coverage of the APOLLO 11 mission to the Moon in 
>    1969.  The dates and times are: 
>
>	"Liftoff" - July 16, 9:20 AM - 11 AM
>	"Moonwalk" - July 20, 10:30 PM - 2 AM
>	"Splashdown" - July 24, 1:30 PM - 3 PM
>
>        Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
>          					

  For the cableless, CBS will broadcast a special Thursday 13, July
during primetime. I think it starts at 2000hrs CDT over here,
but as they say...CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS...



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan G. Chen                            cyrius@dopey.cc.utexas.edu
University of Texas@Austin              (or grumpy, or doc, or happy...)
P.O. Box 8362
Austin, TX  78713
=======================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 15:26:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!noe@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Apollo 11 mission events


Out of curiosity I looked up dates and times of some of the events
surrounding the Apollo 11 mission.  I think most everyone realizes the
20th anniversary of that mission is nearly upon us.  (Digression - I find
it a strange feeling to think that there is an entire generation out there
who have never, not once in their entire lives, looked up at the moon and
wondered if people will ever walk up there.  But then it occurs to me that
I wonder myself when people will ever walk up there *again* and know that
this youngest generation still has an opportunity to find this sense of
wonder I felt more than 20 years ago.)

Anyway, I picked up David Baker's "History of Manned Space Flight" and
determined the following dates and times of the listed events.  Times
are given as central daylight time (CDT), 5 hours behind UT, because
that's the time Mission Control in Houston was on and more importantly
because that's the time I was on.  The launch of course was in EDT (UT-4)
at Cape *Kennedy* and I think the splashdown was in Hawaiian standard
time zone, UT-10 hours, but I'm not certain.  As long as it's clear I've
converted them all to CDT.

69/07/16  08:32:00    liftoff from pad 39-A
69/07/16  08:43:49.3  earth orbit insertion
69/07/16  11:22:13.5  trans-lunar injection
69/07/18  22:11:55    equigravisphere
69/07/20  12:44:00    CSM/LM undocking in lunar orbit
69/07/20  15:17:39.9  LM touchdown on lunar surface
69/07/20  21:56:15    Neil Armstrong's "one small step for [a] man"
69/07/21  00:30       lunar surface excursion ended (time approximate)
69/07/21  12:54:00.8  LM ascent stage liftoff (They desecrated the flag!)
69/07/21  16:35       CSM/LM ascent stage docking
69/07/21  18:42       LM ascent stage jettisoned
69/07/21  23:55:42    trans-earth injection
69/07/24  11:21:19    CM/SM separation
69/07/24  11:50:35    CM splashdown
69/07/24  12:53       crew recovered (on USS Hornet)
69/07/24  14:57       CM recovered

CM: command module
SM: service module
CSM: command-service modules
LM: lunar module
--
Roger Noe                            noe@cs.uiuc.edu OR roger-noe@uiuc.edu
University of Illinois               40:06:39 N.  88:13:41 W.
Urbana, IL  61801  USA               (217) 333-3496

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 19:11:30 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Lagrangian Points

In article <15070@ut-emx.UUCP> sudhama@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Chandrasekhara Sudhama) writes:
>...Would someone please explain
>(either on this network or in private email) the stability of the
>equilibrium points in the Earth - Moon system? That is, why are
>points #1 and #2 in stable equilibrium? If I remember right, they
>are 60 degrees ahead of and behind the moon in her path...

I think you have the numbering wrong; those are normally numbered 4 and 5,
with 1-3 the straight-line points.

I know of no intuitive explanation of why the "Trojan points" at 60 degrees
are stable.  It is a non-trivial mathematical result.

Even worse is an explanation of why the Trojan points are stable against
small perturbations, while the straight-line points are not.  Or of why
the Trojan points stop being stable against perturbations if the mass
of the primary is not at least N times that of the secondary (I forget
the value of N but I think it's something like 30).

As in other areas of celestial mechanics, there is just no substitute for
mathematics in this.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 17:27:42 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <33078@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>In article <26240@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>...  The cuts Eric describes would result in a
>>$1.2 billion surplus for other programs if the space station is cancelled.
>    The other programs may not have anything to do with space,
>however.

I must reluctantly agree with Jonathan, even though I, too, think that
the Space Station as currently conceived is a waste.

NASA has no well-defined mission for the next century, other than place
holding in LEO at ruinous expense.  Whenever someone outside NASA
proposes an ambitious or exciting alternative, NASA seems to be on hand
at the hearings to testify against it and in favor of the station.

Recent testimony (taken during breaks between mass resignations as
career technocrats scrambled to catch the aerospace contractors' golden
revolving door before ethics legislation closed it) to the effect that
NASA would have to cancel the station if the budget is cut further, is a
classic in the "I'm taking my dolls and going home" genre.  It's also a
self indictment -- if NASA has boxed itself in to the point where
balancing the budget is a fatal blow, it has itself to blame.

The time has come to abolish NASA.  (It probably came in 1980, but
better late than never).  In the true 80's corporate raider spirit of
Gordon Gekko, we should spin it off into its components.

	* Aeronautical research - a strong, important and well managed
	  program dating back to the 40's.  Retain present structure
	  intact and rename National Aeronautics Research Authority
	  (NARA).  Keep those high angle of attack planes flying!

	* Military space research - let the military do it.  No more
	  polluting the national civilian space effort with secrecy
	  and confused channels of authority as with the SDI and Keyhole
	  work of recent years.  If USAF wants a Blue Shuttle let them
	  build it out of their own fought-for budget.

	* Commercial launch services - let industry do it. This also
	  includes on-orbit repair and servicing. Reagan got this
	  started, busting a few shopkeepers' hearts in the organization
	  in the process.  USG is not there to make money.

	* Space based industrial research - let industry and governments
	  worldwide cooperate to do it.  The results could have clear
	  benefit to many nations, but the scale of investment is too
	  large to make single country or single company efforts feasible,
	  and direct massive USG subsidy is dead wrong.

	* Scientific space research - now we're talking!  Reorganize
	  the US effort under the National Space Exploration Agency (NSEA)
	  with a specific set of goals for the next half century, as well
	  as the responsibility to maintain ongoing efforts like the
	  Great Observatories.  The emphasis on international cooperation
	  would be heavy, as NSEA would interact with similar agencies in
	  Europe, Asia and USSR.  The US Space Station would be cancelled
	  outright, and NSEA would be directed to work jointly with Europe
	  and Asia (and maybe USSR) to design and build an international
	  platform by 2001.

Phone Tree Alert! (the sci.space equivalent of Attention K-Mart Shoppers!
<grin>)  Let's get the above passed right away.  Comments?
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 17:20:23 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!basser!jaa@humu.nosc.mil  (James Ashton)
Subject: Freedom's logo

NASA selected the official logo for the space station Freedom on the
5th of May.  Here follows a PostScript rendition I worked out:

----------Cut Here----------
72 25.4 div dup scale	% in millimetres
55 150 translate	% roughly centred for A4

[1.0 0.0 0.55 1.0 0.0 0.0 ] concat	% slant the picture

/box	% fill a standard size box
 { 0 3 rlineto 6 0 rlineto 0 -3 rlineto closepath currentpoint fill } def

10 4 33		% six rows of four boxes
 { 0 exch moveto box
   moveto 7.5 0 rmoveto box
   moveto 29.5 0 rmoveto box
   moveto 7.5 0 rmoveto box pop pop
 } for

1.2 setlinewidth 0 setlinecap	% square ended lines coming up
14.5 21.5 moveto 6.5 0 rlineto stroke
36 21.5 moveto -6.5 0 rlineto stroke

2.4 setlinewidth 1 setlinecap	% round ended lines coming up
23.5 17 moveto 0 9 rlineto stroke
27 17 moveto 0 9 rlineto stroke

0 33 moveto 0 47 22 47 36 34 curveto	% two curved points
21 46 3.5 44 3.5 33 curveto fill
13.5 10 moveto 27 -3 50 -3 50 9 curveto
49 -2 26 -1 13.5 13 curveto fill

/Helvetica findfont 9.6 scalefont setfont	% should be Helvetica Narrow
2.5 45 moveto (FREEDOM) true charpath gsave fill grestore
0.18 setlinewidth 0 setlinejoin 1 setgray stroke % make the chars thinner

showpage
----------Cut Here----------

The rendition looks pretty close to the original to me.

						James Ashton.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 02:14:43 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Jonathan's Space Report

[Truth in Advertising Dept: I have congratulated Jonathan via mail in
the past on his reports.  Now that he's back I want to do it publicly
so he can bask a little.]

If I could only archive one person's contributions to sci.space it
would be Jonathan McDowell's Space Reports.  No other posting summarizes
so much hard, international, factual and timely space information in
such a modest and unassuming manner.  Grateful as I am to Henry for
abstracting AvWeek (or as I was before I subcribed myself), Jonathan's
info has more vitally to do with the cutting edge of space.

So three cheers for Jonathan!  May his Reports continue, and if you
(dear reader) like them too, mail Jonathan and let him know.
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 19:45:59 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!leem@apple.com  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

In article <14393@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Seldon) writes:
:In article <8907112246.AA01428@angband.s1.gov> <ASTLC%ALASKA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> writes:
:>
:> Can anyone fill me in as to what the Apollo 12 astronauts did when they
:>found the SURVEYOR 3 probe on the lunar surface? I read a while back (in
:>a now-forgotten magazine) that they took the probe's camera off for "a
:>souvenir"...
:>
:
:  I know that they brought back several small pieces including the remote
:sampling arm. It was more than just a souvenir, they were examined to see
:what the effects of a long term stay on the moon were. Effects like
:micrometeriod impacts, radiation, cosmic rays, etc...
:
:                         seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu

The scoop housing was presented to Dr. William Pickering on his retirement as
Director of JPL in 1976.  The scoop door is on display in the first
floor of the JPL administration building right next to a moon rock
(both have a video camera trained on them 24 hours a day).  My office
is about 100 feet from them, I pass by them several times every day.

Lee

"I'm the NRA"

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516      
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem  leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 06:10:00 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Station alternatives

In article <26321@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>So, what are the appropriate alternatives?  Or should we refrain from
>offering any so that when the money is taken from NASA we can blame all
>future space program woes on the congress?

    What do "we" have to do with it, anyway?  If the appropriations
subcommittee were to listen to sci.space, they'd get at least as many
different opinions on what to do as there are posters.	A more
appropriate question is what *NASA* is putting forth as an alternative
to station (e.g., nothing).  This is perfectly understandable given
the territoriality of the NASA centers involved, albeit a bad idea.

    That aside, here are some things NASA should be doing whether or
not station is funded:

    Take over developing NASP as an *operational* research vehicle,
since DoD isn't willing to put the money in.  This would easily absorb
funding levels on the order of current station funding.  NASP is a
high-risk aeronautics research project with no commercial applications
at this time ("Orient Express", indeed), and is well suited to NASA's
(supposed) mission and abilities.  While we're at it, DoD should be
completely cut out of NASP and the secrecy level of the program
dramatically reduced.

    Pathfinder ought to be funded at levels far beyond the piddling
amount NASA is asking for.  CRAF and Cassini should be fully funded
and launched as soon as possible.  SSEC recommendations beyond this
should be turned into real missions quickly, particularly sample
return from small bodies.  The Mars rover/sample return should be
decoupled from any Soviet joint mission and flown.

    Throwing a few tens of millions at graduate scholarships in space
sciences, along with a major initiative to analyze the rotting
gigabits which noone has ever looked at, will provide the human
resources for a renewed planetary science program in the next century.

    It would be interesting to split the space science function of
NASA from the rest ala the Japanese model, though the concept of NSF
running it instead, as might well happen, is not a cheery one.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #555
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/sYnKKdq00UkV42o05e>;
          Wed, 26 Jul 89 03:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYnKKWK00UkVM2mE4b@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 89 03:17:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #556

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 556

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
			Decaying Lunar Orbits
	     Re: Magellan Status for 07/11/89 (Forwarded)
  Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)
Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)
				TF-104
		       Reminders for Old Farts
		  News of the Week (well, Month) -19
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 21:38:09 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!leem@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

In article <15258@ut-emx.UUCP> pjm@ut-emx.UUCP writes:
:In article <5366@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
:(Lee Mellinger) writes:
:
:> The scoop housing was presented to Dr. William Pickering on his retirement as
:> Director of JPL in 1976.  (...)
:
:Isn't he Sir William Pickering?  I believe his knighthood came through his
:New Zealand citizenship; he initially came from there for graduate(?) studies
:at CALTECH.
:
:  Phillip MacQueen                  McDonald Observatory,

Not unless he got it in the last couple of years.  You may be
confusing him with another Dr. Pickering, an astronomer whom I know
was knighted.

Lee

"I'm the NRA"

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516      
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem  leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 04:15:37 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!hutto!henry@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Henry Melton)
Subject: Decaying Lunar Orbits



I have seen a couple of references lately in the Apollo shows that the
returning upper portion of the LEM was abandoned in lunar orbit and then
later decayed to crash on the Lunar surface.  How fast is this orbital
decay, considering that there is no atmosphere to speak of?  Is there
some other mechanism that can cause such a fast decay?

-- 
Henry Melton ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!hutto!henry
1-512-8463241 Rt.1 Box 274E Hutto,TX 78634

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 22:29:18 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 07/11/89 (Forwarded)

In article <28584@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>                     MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS ...
>
>     High temperature readings on the Solid Rocket Motor and the
>Rocket Engine Modules in some attitudes have been a problem. The
>operations team said Morton Thiokol made tests with a sample of
		      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the Solid Rocket Motor core, and believes the temperature limit
					       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>can be raised from 34 C (93.2 F), to 70 C (158 F).
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just when you thought it was safe to make a midcourse correction...

(sound of slashing, roaring chainsaw)

HE LIVES!!  MORTON LIVES!!!

-----

TUESDAY THE 28TH, PART II:
MORTON TAKES MAGELLAN

...Coming soon to an Accident Review Board near you...

-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 21:45:09 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 17, 1989
 
Mary A. Hardin
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
 
 
RELEASE:  89-119
 
APOLLO-11 LUNAR EXPERIMENT STILL USEFUL AFTER 20 YEARS 
 
     An experiment placed on the lunar surface 20 years ago by 
the Apollo 11 astronauts continues to be used to study the Earth-
moon system by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, 
Calif., and other scientific centers around the world.

     Scientists, who analyzed the data from the Laser Ranging 
Retro-reflector Experiment, have observed, among other things, 
that the moon is moving away from the Earth, tectonic plates of 
the Earth are slowly drifting and the length of a day varies.

     The Laser Ranging Retro-reflector was designed to reflect 
pulses of laser light fired from the Earth.  The idea was to 
determine the round-trip travel time of a laser pulse from the 
Earth to the moon and back again, thereby calculating the 
distance between the two bodies to unprecedented accuracy.  
Unlike the other scientific experiments left on the moon, this 
reflector requires no power and is still functioning perfectly 
after 20 years.

     The laser reflector consists of 100 fused silica half cubes, 
called corner cubes, mounted in an 18-inch square aluminum 
panel.  Each corner cube is 1.5 inches in diameter.  Corner cubes 
reflect a beam of light directly back toward the point of 
origin.  It is this fact that makes them so useful in Earth 
surveying.

     The McDonald Observatory, Ft. Davis, Texas; the Lure 
Observatory atop the extinct Haleakala volcano on the island of 
Maui, Hawaii; and a third observatory in southern France near 
Grasse, regularly send a laser beam through an optical telescope 
and try to hit one of the reflectors.  

     The reflectors are too small to be seen from Earth, so even 
when the beam is correctly aligned in the telescope, actually 
hitting a lunar reflector is quite challenging.  At the moon's 
surface, the beam is roughly a mile wide and scientists liken the 
task of properly aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving 
dime 2 miles away.

     Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the 
observatories use sensitive filtering and amplification equipment 
to detect the return signal.  The reflected light is too weak to 
be seen with the human eye, but under good conditions, one photon 
-- the fundamental particle of light -- will be received every 
few seconds.

     Three more reflectors have since been left on the moon, 
including two by later Apollo missions and one by the unmanned 
Soviet Lunakhod 2 lander.  Each of the reflectors rest on the 
lunar surface in such a way that its flat face points toward the 
Earth.

     Continuing improvements in lasers and electronics over the 
years have led to measurements accurate to approximately 1 
inch.  Scientists know the average distance between the centers 
of the Earth and the moon is 239,000 miles, implying that the 
modern lunar ranges have relative accuracies of better than one 
part in 10 billion.  This level of accuracy represents one of the 
most precise distance measurements ever made and is equivalent to 
determining the distance between Los Angeles and New York to one 
fiftieth of an inch.

     During the last 20 years, scientists have used the orbit of 
the moon and the lunar ranging sites to study events on Earth.  
Lunar ranging has contributed to several scientific advances:
          
     *  Lunar ranging has helped determine the precise positions 
of the observatories that send the laser beams.  Using these 
positions, scientists can tell that the tectonic plates of the 
Earth's crust are slowly drifting and the observatory on Maui is 
seen to be moving away from the one in Texas.
     
     *  The atmosphere, tides and the core of the Earth cause 
changes in the length of an Earth day -- the variations are about 
one thousandth of a second over the course of a year.
     
     *  The familiar ocean tides raised on the Earth by the moon 
have a direct influence on the moon's orbit.  Laser ranging has 
shown that the moon is receding from the Earth at about 1.5 
inches every year.

     *  Lunar ranging, together with laser ranging to artificial 
Earth satellites, has revealed a small but constant change in the 
shape of the Earth.  The land masses are gradually changing after 
being compressed by the great weight of the glaciers in the last 
Ice Age.

     *  Predictions of Einstein's Theory of Relativity have been 
confirmed using laser ranging.
     
     *  Small-scale variations in the moon's rotation have been 
measured.  They result from irregularities in the lunar gravity 
field, from changes in the moon's shape due to tides raised in 
the moon's solid body by the Earth and possibly from the effects 
of a fluid lunar core.
     
     *  The combined mass of the Earth and moon has been 
determined to one part in 100 million.

     *  Lunar ranging has yielded an enormous improvement in 
knowledge of the moon's orbit, enough to permit accurate analyses 
of solar eclipses as far back as 1400 B.C.

     The usefulness of continued improvements in range 
determinations to further advance understanding of the Earth-moon 
system and the need for monitoring details of the Earth's 
rotation will keep the lunar reflectors in service for years to 
come.
     
     Lunar ranging analysis at JPL is undertaken by Drs. Jean 
Dickey, James G. Williams and X X Newhall and is sponsored by the 
Geodynamics Branch of NASA's Office of Space Science and 
Applications.   Additional analysis is accomplished at the 
Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, both in Cambridge, Mass.; at the 
University of Texas, Austin; and in France and China.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 00:44:16 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)

In article <28736@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>APOLLO-11 LUNAR EXPERIMENT STILL USEFUL AFTER 20 YEARS  ...

>     The McDonald Observatory, Ft. Davis, Texas; the Lure 
>Observatory atop the extinct Haleakala volcano on the island of 
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Maui, Hawaii; and a third observatory in southern France near 
>Grasse, regularly send a laser beam through an optical telescope 
>and try to hit one of the reflectors.  ...

Sorry, NASA - Haleakala is not extinct!  It is dormant, having last
erupted in 1790.  That's not very long ago on an Earth scale.
Geologists keep watch to see if they can detect continued activity.
Let's hope for NASA's sake their search goes unfulfilled.  :-)

(I've been up to the Lure Observatory - it's a fantastic setting, about
10,000 ft MSL.  A near moonscape, but dotted with rare indigenous
silverswords.  Anyone vacationing in Maui should take in a Haleakala
sunrise; if you do so, the Lure domes (together with USAF tracking
station) are just a short hike up to the summit.)
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 20:24:42 GMT
From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: TF-104

>In article <SHAFER.89Jul2160651@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:  <stuff deleted>

>Greenamyer's F-104 was the structural test article--I'm not sure I'd
>like to fly in something used to test structural fatigue life!
>There's another TF-104, in a museum in Texas that also has a MiG-15
>and an F-86.  One of our test pilots flies all three for them.

All three of these airplanes participated in an air show at Centennial
last year.   One day after the show was over, I was working with a student
doing touch and goes.  I heard the Starfighter call for clearance to taxi on
ground freq.  Suitably warned, I timed our pattern so we would be on upwind
(we were on the parallel runway) when the TF-104 took off.  What a sight.
It was up and out of there and very quickly, and soon was only a smoke trail in
the distance.  And I'm sure he was throttled back since we were under
a TCA.  
-- 
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd			* 
CFI Aspen Flying Club			* Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.				* 
*******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Jul 89 04:00:16 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [1 mail message worth 100 posts.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.
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:
please keep lines under 80 characters for those using ASCII terms (use <CR>).

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 22:40:04 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of the Week (well, Month) -19


Jonathan's Space Report

Jul 12, 1989 (no. 19)

Finally I have access again, so here goes on a catchup..
---------------------------------------------------------------------

OV-102 Columbia due to be rolled out to the pad tomorrow
for mission STS-28.

The first Titan 4 launch on Jun 15 was a success. Its payload was
a new generation missile early warning satellite. The upper stage
was an IUS, the same stage used by the Shuttle to launch TDRS
and Magellan.

The last Ariane 3 went into orbit on Jul 11. It carried ESA's
Olympus experimental communications satellite, formerly known as
L-SAT. Ariane 4 will now be the standard Ariane variant.

The first Resurs-F remote sensing satellite was recovered on Jun 17
after 23 days in orbit; a second Resurs-F satellite went into
space on Jun 27. On Jul 5, another similar remote sensing satellite,
also operated by the Priroda center, was launched and given the name
Kosmos-2029; the distinction between the satellites given the new
Resurs-F name and similar satellites which are still given the 
Kosmos code name is not clear yet.

Another Soviet program was further declassified with the launch on
Jul 4 of Nadezhda, a civilian navigation satellite. The Nadezhda 
satellite carries Doppler-type navigation equipment and a 
COSPAS-SARSAT search-and-rescue system. Satellites of this class
have been launched for over a decade with Kosmos codenames; it appears
that the various civilian subprograms are being separated from the
Kosmos program and declassified.

Two recent launches by Proton to geostationary orbit: Raduga-1 on Jun 21
and Gorizont on Jul 5.  Previous Raduga satellites have been named
simply 'Raduga' rather than 'Raduga-1', so this may imply that a
'Raduga-2' model will be introduced soon. 


Kosmos-2026 launched Jun 7, a Soviet navy navigation satellite.

The 38th Molniya-3 launched Jun 8, a Soviet comms relay satellite.

Kosmos-2027 launched Jun 14, probably a radar calibration target
or some other kind of military support satellite.

Kosmos-2028 launched Jun 16, a GRU recon satellite replacing Kosmos-2018
which landed on Jun 19.


 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #556
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/UYnM7YG00UkV02yk5l>;
          Wed, 26 Jul 89 05:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <gYnM7Pi00UkVE2x050@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 89 05:18:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #557

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 557

Today's Topics:
		  Re: NASA funding is not transitive
		   HST article in DISCOVER July 89
		  Re: NASA funding is not transitive
		  Re: NASA funding is not transitive
			Moon landing disbelief
		 Re: Procurement and future computers
		   RE: Vaguely space-related topics
       RE: Re:  Vaguely space related queries ( and then some)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 01:58:28 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive


If the station budget is cut, it will not in a million years go to other
space projects except in the naive fantasies of bowery and baxter.
The "pigs" are the trough include 
	SSC, EPA, HUD, Veterans, NSF...

They all have a good story too - and then there is the deficit as well.

It is a sad thing that space advocates waste time sniping at each others
pet projects as though the cancelation of the other guys stuff would make
it better for them. BTW, Carl Sagan suffers from the same delusion as
baxter.

However, I do agree with Mr. Baxter that you should call your Congresscritter
and ask them to co-sponsor the Launch Services Purchase Act. You should also
ask them to fully fund the space station.

We are going to hang together or we will continue to hang as we are now -
each in our own little Earthbound world.

Dale Skran
not Amon

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 17:37:20 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: HST article in DISCOVER July 89

Discover this month has a whole section on SPACE - The Once and Future Frontier
in honor of the 20th anniverary of APOLLO 11.  For once they are on track, after
an very inflammitory article on evolution a few months back I was just about to
cancel.

I will include here a breif list of highlights from their article of the HST
mirror.  It is well worth the time to read all 11 pages.

HST has been sitting in a clean room at Lockheed since Nov 4, 1984 at a cost
of $10 million a month.  

The contract for the primary mirror was awarded to Perkin-Elmer.  A second
contract was given to Eastman-Kodak for a spare.  Corning made the original
glass blank, two glass plates with a honeycomb of glass inside to reduce
weight.

Perkin-Elmer had earlier dropped a $1 million mirror for Copernicus in 1968
and had only done a "okay" job on a 60 inch demonstration mirror.  The demo
had been scratched and the edge was badly turned.

Perkin-Elmer had its eye on bidding on the Solar Optical Telescope, a $60
million project, so they were very hot on doing a good job.

The Mirror specs called for the mirror to be ground to a hyperboloid to within
lamda by 64 (a 1/64th of the wavelength of neon light).  That would be 
equivalant to 1/2 of a millionth of an inch.  The Aluminum coating had to be 
at least 70% reflective in the ultraviolet, the absolute limit for aluminum 
is 84%.

The final mirror came out as lamda by 78, and 80% reflective.  Not bad.


-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 17:53:42 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <14462@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>The time has come to abolish NASA... we should spin it off into its components.
>
>	* Aeronautical research ...
>	* Military space research - let the military do it...
>	* Commercial launch services - let industry do it...
>	* Space based industrial research - let industry and governments...
>	* Scientific space research - now we're talking! ...

One thing I miss from this list is space technology research -- the space
equivalent of the aeronautical research.  That's the single most important
contribution NASA could make to spaceflight.  NACA enormously speeded up
progress in aviation; we're overdue for the same thing in spaceflight.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 22:51:43 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <1989Jul14.175342.6328@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <14462@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>The time has come to abolish NASA... spin it off into its components.
>>
>>	* Aeronautical research ...
>>	* Military space research - let the military do it...
>>	* Commercial launch services - let industry do it...
>>	* Space based industrial research - let industry and governments...
>>	* Scientific space research - now we're talking! ...
>
>One thing I miss from this list is space technology research -- the space
>equivalent of the aeronautical research.  That's the single most important
>contribution NASA could make to spaceflight.  NACA enormously speeded up
>progress in aviation; we're overdue for the same thing in spaceflight.

I can, like, totally dig this scene, man. :-)

It does sound like a natural for NASA/NARA/whatever, but it should be
picked at a bit more closely, like artichoke stew.  In the first place,
a well defined MISSION should always come first, and NASA/etc should be
carefully evaluated in each case as to whether it's the right agency for
the job.

Take high angle of attack (HAA) aircraft research for example - Henry
and I both see AvWeek pix of this about every other week.  Why are they
doing it?  Because EXISTING flight modes and missions need better HAA
performance.  What do they need to do it?  One or two old planes and
some wind tunnel time.  How's it going?  Great.  How potentially
beneficial for the dollars spent?  Very.

Now take the Kuiper observatory.  Why is NASA in charge?  Ya got me,
buddy.  (I know NSF and others help adminstrate.)

Now take the laughable supposed "mission" of lowering launch costs.  Has
NASA got any damn business being involved?  Snort!  Let Boeing or
someone with a *stake* in lower launch costs do it.

There are a lot of things one could test in space, is my point.  Some
are needed now, some ain't, some are industry's business and some are
USG's.  (Some are the military's.)  Match the actor to the mission.
There's no doubt that if you DEFINE an international Mars mission, for
instance, NASA needs to be tasked with inventing the craft needed.  But
the mission has to come first -- we can't simply let them make burbling
noises about establishing "presence" in space while the pork barrel
rolls.
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 18:07:51 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com  (MacLeod)
Subject: Moon landing disbelief

In article <218100028@s.cs.uiuc.edu> noe@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:

:Out of curiosity I looked up dates and times of some of the events
:surrounding the Apollo 11 mission.  I think most everyone realizes the
:20th anniversary of that mission is nearly upon us.  (Digression - I find
:it a strange feeling to think that there is an entire generation out there
:who have never, not once in their entire lives, looked up at the moon and
:wondered if people will ever walk up there.  But then it occurs to me that
:I wonder myself when people will ever walk up there *again* and know that
:this youngest generation still has an opportunity to find this sense of
:wonder I felt more than 20 years ago.)

On the other hand, as reported her some time ago, a reader was talking
with his young daughter and friend, and discovered that not only did 
they not know that the USA had been to the moon, but when informed of the
fact, didn't believe it.  The space achievements of the Kennedy years
already look like they were performed by another people in another time
in some lost golden age.

Pardon me if this seems too maudlin and emotional, but I get tired of posters
who declaim, "Help America keep her lead in space!" when such players as
Indonesia and India are doing more launching than we are.

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 11:56:47 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Procurement and future computers

In article <8907052107.AA11153@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
}>       - full spoken language translation capability between all
}>         langauges of space faring nations.
}Automatic full language translation and continuous speech recognition have
}been "a couple of years away" for ~3 decades now. During this time, new
}problems have appeared about as fast as the technology has progressed. [...]
}Even when the basic capability is
}developed, real-time performance will still be a problem: modern supercomputers
}can take on the order of half an hour to analyze a few seconds of speech,

Better not tell that to the SPHINX project here at CMU, which is using a Sun4
with some custom hardware to get 1000-word, speaker-independent, continuous
speech recognition in 1.5 to 3 times real time (6-12 times R.T. without the
custom hardware).  They are currently working on a 5000-word vocabulary,
still speaker-independent without "training."

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
"When things start going your way, it's usually because you stopped going the
 wrong way down a one-way street."

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 7 Jul 89 13:14 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  RE: Vaguely space-related topics

>Here there was some misinformation.  Spin is NOT angular momentum!!

Ooops!  Goofed here.  I was thinking more about isospin than spin.  Spin
is an angular momentum term that may or may not interact with the
orbital angular momentum.

Sorry about that, Chief!

Arnold Gill
Queen's University at Kingston
BITNET:  gill@qucdnast

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 89 14:26:12 CDT
From: hess@fermat.mayo.edu (d. scott hess)

Subject:  RE: Re:  Vaguely space related queries ( and then some)
 
Arnold Gill writes:
}Will Martin asked several questions, which got various responses, some
}of which were rather dubious attempts at physics.
} 
}>1) Regarding X-ray astronomy -- the X-ray detectors must be placed into space,
}> [ stuff deleted about atmosphere X-ray absorption ]
} 
}Henry Spencer, among others, gave the correct answer.  The
}atmosphere is actually opaque at all but visible wavelengths (plus a few
}others).  The penetrability of ANY type of radiation has little to do
}with the density of the matter by itself, but rather with ALL of the
}properties of the matter, of which density is only one.
 
Remember: It is no coincidence that the light getting throught the
atmosphere happens to pretty much fall in the set that we can see
easily.  Its not that surprising that all the others are outside the
visible spectrum, because if they came through well, they'd more than
likely also be in the visible spectrum.

}>5) Neutronium and similar compressed matter -- is there any theoretical

There were a couple good books by Robert L. Forward, Dragons Egg, and
Neutron Star.  They are fiction, but he's pretty good with his science.
The electrons do get pretty much free rein in a neuron star - who's to
slow them down?  Its my impression that neutronium isn't a solid, but
more like a liquid.  There isn't really anything holding the neutrons
together, besides gravity.  Its sort of like a planet made up of
billiard balls.  But then again, I didn't get all that far in physics,
so take this with a grain of salt.



Later, same issue, Tom Neff has (in reply to Henry Spencer):
}>                            General Dynamics,
}>Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Arianespace, etc., will scream bloody
}>murder, hire lobbyists, and start talking excitedly to Congressthings,
}>because they simply can't do it.
} 
}Precisely the kind of catfight that kills missions.  QED.

Ooops- out of context here.  The next bit said he thought the private
agaencies would jump in and do it for them.  Of course, the private
agencies certainly aren't going to be doing a lot of heavy-listing for a
while ...
 
}>Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years?
} 
}Our track record supports my assertion better than your objection, I
}think.  We can't get that hardware ready in 10 years because we can't do
}ANYTHING in 10 years anymore.  The can-do technocracy that gave us
}Vietnam and Apollo is ancient history.  It's suicidally futile to
}predicate a Mars mission on JFK rising Arthur-like from the grave.  We
}have to design something around the do-able.  While we don't have
}Sputnik or Camelot to lean on anymore, we do have new dynamics like
}international cooperation, plus the huge quantum leap in one fundamental
}ability: to send back killer images from anywhere we visit.  Neptune
}about to provide a fresh example it appears.  The early Moon race had
}the support of the nation even though most Americans only "saw" it through
}paragraphs in the newspaper.  What could Ogilvy & Mather do with the
}Viking stuff and the JPL Mars Movie?  But I digress.

Sorry, I have to side with Tom here.  The original letter floored me
when I saw it - Henry Spencer being really optimistic! Noooo.  Really,
I'd like to see this happen soon, but I don't see it coming.  I think 10
years is a bit much to ask.  Maybe in ten years, it won't be though.

}Apollo was not strangled at birth, it was conceived in haste and
}repented at leisure.**

I don't think the right people are doing the repenting, though.  The
stranlgers are still out there ...
 
}>                            ... set your sights higher.  Mars is not that
}>hard.
} 
}Prove it!  Let's go there and prove me wrong!
} 
}Mars is too easy?  Nice problem to have!**

Wait?  Mars isn't that hard, if we put our minds to it.  It seems that
the main point you made was that we wouldn't do that, though.  And I'm
sure Apollo looked hard to those who were in charge of implementing it.

And now, for some original thought.  I think NASAs main problem today is
that they tried to be TOO far-thinking.  Apollo was NOT that far ahead
of its time - it broke new ground, but alot of it wasn't really that new
- it was just an engineering problem.  They'd had experience with
rockets, etc.  They basically needed to build them bigger.

The Space Shuttle, meanwhile, was conceived to be way ahead of its time,
and it was!  They had little or no experience with much of the
technology involved.  And thus, they spent much more time than they
thought they would building new industries for it.  If they had waited a
bit, exeperimented more, then maybe we'd be in a better position.  The
shuttle program would have been better off to have started in the 80's,
and launched in the 90's.  Who says we couldn't have done most of what
we've done with the shuttle with apollo-era equipment?  ( I didn't say
all.  There have been things which were done just because we have a
shuttle, some with very little reason beyond that.) And now it looks
like they've finally figured out that they aren't going to have enough
launch space on the shuttle, and its not the best thing since the
invention of the wheel.  And the older technology does have its uses.

So, what I want to say is that I would like to go to Mars, or to
Freedom, but I think they should try building it to be useful, not
revolutionary.

Lastly, about the use of "vapor"-ware on the Space Station (and anywhere
else) - 256M chips will be around by 1998, in all likelyhood, but I'll
consider myself lucky if I can buy 16M chips.  Same with high density
LCDs.  That would be nice to have on the Space Station, but I'd not want
to be trusting in equipment which hasn't been around long enough to be
fully debugged.  I would wait at least five years on equipment, because
by that time industry has generally gotten their act together.  And I
don't mean five years between announcement and usage, I mean between
shipping in quantity and usage.  Right now I'd trust 80386s, or 68030s,
but probably not MIPs or SPARC.  And definitely not the 80486 and 68040,
and 64M RAM chips.  They simply do not work yet.  There is no need for
NASA to pioneer this area anymore.  Others are doing very well, thank
you.

Scott Hess

These opinions may or may not be fictitious or otherwise non-existent.
Any reflection of reality found therein is probably distorted.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #557
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/AYncyGa00UkVQ43U4G>;
          Thu, 27 Jul 89 00:29:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <UYncy0i00UkV841k4q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 89 00:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #558

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 558

Today's Topics:
			      Re: TF-104
		     Re: Space Transportation Act
     Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this
	    George Bush's Upcoming Speech - Have YOUR Say!
		      Significance of July 20th
		  Re: space news from June 12 AW&ST
		 Interesting Apollo crew observations
    NASA awards grants for future exploration studies (Forwarded)
	       Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 22:02:48 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: TF-104

In article <1063@dinl.mmc.UUCP> holroyd@dinl.uucp (kevin w. holroyd) writes:

>>In article <SHAFER.89Jul2160651@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:  <stuff deleted>

>>Greenamyer's F-104 was the structural test article--I'm not sure I'd
>>like to fly in something used to test structural fatigue life!
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
I should have said proof load (sorry)

>>There's another TF-104, in a museum in Texas that also has a MiG-15
>>and an F-86.  One of our test pilots flies all three for them.

>All three of these airplanes participated in an air show at Centennial
>last year.  One day after the show was over, I was working with a student
>doing touch and goes.  I heard the Starfighter call for clearance to taxi on
>ground freq.  Suitably warned, I timed our pattern so we would be on upwind
>(we were on the parallel runway) when the TF-104 took off.  What a sight.
>It was up and out of there and very quickly, and soon was only a smoke trail in
>the distance.  And I'm sure he was throttled back since we were under
>a TCA.  

When I got my ride in the TF-104 we did a max-performance takeoff and
it was incredible!  

The pilots here claim that nothing can match the F-104, although
they're starting to accept the F-18s that we got to replace the
F-104s.  They do like using radar to find the test aircraft when
flying chase--saves a lot of "Where are you now?" chatter.

I think that the most impressive takeoff I've ever seen was an
Ames U-2, though.  I believe the TR-2 is just as good, although
I haven't seen one yet.


--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility     ames!elxsi!shafer
Of course I don't speak for NASA    DON'T use the drynix address

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 89 22:36:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Transportation Act

In article <4205@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> larryb@speed.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) writes:
>>...my blessing to the concept that the the government be forced to give up
>>it's milspecs and such when it is requesting a parcel delivery to LEO.
>
>Considering the harsh enviroment of space I'm surprise you suggest this.
>What specifications do you actually require for electronics/mechanical items
>in space? the moon? 

That they work.

Which does not imply milspec.  Details depend on the environment.

Note that he's talking about launchers, not payloads, too.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 89 05:38:14 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this

In article <1091@syma.sussex.ac.uk> andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes:
>Would this person's name be "Module" by any chance? I remember hearing
>on the TV News at around the time of Apollo 11, that someone in the
>States had named her newly-born daughter "Module".

I don't recall whether the baby was boy or girl, but the name given was
Lunar Module McGee.

-- 

			David R. Smith, HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
			(415) 857-7898

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 05:03:15 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: George Bush's Upcoming Speech - Have YOUR Say!

President George Bush will be giving a speech dealing with space policy on
July 20.  Dan Quayle and the National Space Council have already unveiled
a plan that would consist of putting a base on the moon, then going on to
exploration of Mars.

According to a column in the Washington Post (7/12):  "Whether the president
will use his July 20 speech to buy the full Quayle package or only bits and
pieces will not be known until he returns from Europe."

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!  IF YOU CARE ABOUT HAVING A SPACE, NOW IS THE
TIME TO ACT!

Bush is a president who is very sensitive to public moods and opinions.
If the White House gets lots of calls urging him to commit to a broad,
extensive, far-ranging space program -- including BOTH the Moon and Mars --
the chances of his committing to these goals on July 20 increases
tremendously!

CALL OR WRITE THE WHITE HOUSE WITH YOUR OPINIONS TODAY!

LET PRESIDENT BUSH KNOW THAT WE WANT A VIBRANT CIVILIAN SPACE PROGRAM THAT
AMERICA CAN BE PROUD OF ONCE AGAIN!

The Address:        President George Bush
-----------         The White House
                    Washington, D.C.  20500

The Phone:          202-456-1414   (Ask for the General Comments Office
---------                           or say you'd like to leave your opinion.)

PLEASE CALL OR WRITE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN SUPPORT OF BOTH A MOON BASE
AND A MARS MISSION!!     IF WE MISS THIS JULY 20 OPPORTUNITY, WE MAY BE
WAITING UNTIL WE GET A NEW PRESIDENT FOR ANOTHER CHANCE.

- ERIC -

Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Quadrangle Club      | 11 Prospect Drive South  | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
33 Prospect Avenue   | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 89 12:37:37 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?)
Subject: Significance of July 20th

For me, the moon walk happened on July 21st.  For most of the world, this
is true, since the time was so late in the Western Hemisphere, the remainder
was already into July 21.

Not that this matters much or obscures the meaning of the celebration, but
I've always observed it on July 21 and nobody seemed to contradict me.

A happy 20th to Neil, Buzz, Mike and everyone who helped!

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts 
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com              |
(214)462-5449                        | I hear Quayle sent Michel Jackson
                                     | congratulations on hearing it was
                                     | the 20th anniversary of the moonwalk

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 12:02:40 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: space news from June 12 AW&ST

In article <1989Jul18.030914.3417@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) wrote:
}Story on Ball Aerospace's large-array image-intensifying sensors, one of
}which will be the sensor on the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph
}(first of the second-generation instruments that will eventually replace
}the current ones on the Hubble telescope).  They also have potential

Any bets on whether the replacement will be done before or after launch? :-)

}Rockwell International says that cutting production costs for ALS engines
}appears best done through simple designs, new production processes, and
}less use of exotic materials.  The efficiency of the manufacturing process
}is more important than ultimate maximum engine performance, Rockwell says.

BDB rears its head again....

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
FAX: available on request                      Disclaimer? I claimed something?

PROGRAM n. A magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn one's input
  into error messages.  tr.v. To engage in a pastime similar to banging one's
  head against a wall, but with fewer opportunies for reward.
        -- from a flyer advertising for _Inside_Turbo_Pascal_

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 15:57:12 GMT
From: iconsys!danny@uunet.uu.net  (Danny Young)
Subject: Interesting Apollo crew observations

The July Astronomy magazine quotes Buzz Aldrin's comments on standing on
the moon: "I quickly discovered that I felt balanced--comfortably upright--only
when I was tilted slightly forward.  I also felt a bit disoriented:  On Earth
when one looks at the horizon, it appears flat.  On the Moon, so much smaller
than the Earth and quit without high terrain (at least in the Sea of 
Tranquility), the horizon in all directions visibly curved down away from us."

Were these sensations anticipated?  Are there other interesting observations
that Apollo crews have made that perhaps came as a surprise to them?

-- 
Danny Young		    USENET:  uunet!iconsys!danny
Icon International, Inc.    ARPANET: icon%byuadam.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu   
764 East Timpanogos Pkwy    BITNET: icon%byuadam.bitnet
Orem, Utah 84057-6212       Telephone: (801) 225-6888

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 19:53:30 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA awards grants for future exploration studies (Forwarded)

Edward Campion                                   July 18, 1989
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.


RELEASE:  89-118

NASA AWARDS GRANTS FOR FUTURE EXPLORATION STUDIES


     NASA's Office of Exploration has awarded a series of study 
contracts to various organizations to provide NASA with ideas, 
concepts, devices, systems, trajectories, operations or 
implementations which could be applied to furthering human 
exploration of the solar system.

     The 20 winners, selected from 115 proposals submitted in 
response to the April 12, 1989, NASA Research Announcement, are 
located in 12 different states and come from various occupations 
with five industry-related firms, two space support-related 
organizations and 13 universities receiving awards.

     In selecting the winners, the criteria applied to all the 
submissions was the experience of the principal investigator, the 
relevance of the proposal to programs of human exploration of the 
solar system, the performance improvement or complexity reduction 
possibilities and the uniqueness of the idea or concept.


           Space Support-Related Organization Winners

  o  Oregon L-5 Society, Inc., Oregon City, Ore. - "Site 
Characterization of the Oregon Moonbase."

  o  Tether Applications, La Jolla, Calif. - "Preliminary Design 
of a 1KM/SEC Tether Transport Node."


                    Industry-Related Winners

  o  Martin Marietta Strategic Systems, Denver, Colo. - "Study of 
Nuclear Thermal Rockets Utilizing Indigenous Martian 
Propellants."

  o  Dean & Associates, Alexandria, Va. - "An Early Warning 
System for Monitoring Large Projects."

  o  Titan Systems, Inc., San Diego, Calif. - The Evolution of 
Design Alternatives for the Exploration of Mars by Balloon."

  o  Engineering Development Laboratory, Inc., Newport News, Va. - 
"Determination of the Concentration of Spacecraft Cabin Gases using 
Laser Spectroscopy."


  o  Orbitec, Madison, Wis. - "Aluminum/Oxygen Rocket Engine for 
Lunar Transport Applications" and "The Use of Tethered Platforms to 
Recover, Store, and Utilize CO2 from the Mars Atmosphere for On-
Orbit Propellants."

                    University-Related Winners

  o  Energy & Mineral Research Center, Grand Forks, N.D. - "Further 
Investigation of the Feasibility of Applying Low-Temperature Plasma 
Technology to a Closed-Loop Processing Resource Management System."

  o  Texas Engineering Experiment Station, College Station, Texas - 
"Design of a General Purpose, Mobile, Multifunctional Radiation 
Shield for Space Exploration."

  o  Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Mass. - "Design Considerations 
of a Lunar Production Plant."

  o  Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Mich. - 
"Planetary Materials and Resource Utilization."

  o  The Regents of the University of California, Santa Barbara, 
Calif. - "A Small Particle Catalytic Thermal Reactor (SPCTR) for 
the Conversion of CO and CO2 to Methane in a Gravity-Free 
Environment Vehicle."

  o  The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. - "Advanced Fuel 
Cycles for the MICF - Fusion Propulsion System."

  o  Boston University, Boston, Mass. - "Pneumatic Structures for 
Lunar and Martian Habitats."

  o  State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, 
N.Y. - "Artificial Intelligence to Simulate the Green Thumb."

  o  The Regents of the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo. - 
"Mars Tethered Sample Return Study."

  o  The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M. - 
"Teleprospector:  A Teleoperated Robotic Field Geologist."

  o  Duke University, Durham, N.C. - "Deployable Magnetic Radiation 
Shields using High Tc Superconductors:  A New Concept."

  o  International Space University, Boston, Mass. - "International 
Lunar Polar Orbiter (ILPO)."

  o  The University of Texas, Houston, Texas - "Emergency Surgery 
and Surgical Critical Care to Support Human Exploration of the 
Solar System."


     The Office of Exploration intends to follow these selections 
with future solicitations for other innovative ideas and 
concepts.  These follow-on studies could be to refine concepts 
studied this year or to deepen NASA's understanding or reexamine 
using different conditions or ground rules; or these future studies 
could be aimed at finding more new ideas.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 17:54:08 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)


                     MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS
                          July 17, 1989
 
 
     This is a weekly status report. The Magellan spacecraft
continues to perform twice daily momentum wheel desaturations
and, for purposes of attitude update, once daily star
calibrations. 
 
     All of the desaturations were normal and seven of nine of
the star calibrations were successful. Two were interrupted and
anomalies in the star scans are being investigated.
 
     For 15 hours on July 8 the spacecraft maneuvered to the
alternate Medium-Gain Antenna attitude to gather additional
Rocket Engine Module temperature data. The data showed that REM
temperatures in August and September should be about 87 C (188.6
F). This will require plans to work around the problem unless
ground tests now underway show the higher temperature will be
safe.
 
     The Solid Rocket Motor upper dome temperatures are
increasing slightly each day, and prior to this report, the
temperature was 30 C (86 F). Results of tests by Morton Thiokol,
received last Wednesday, show that the upper dome temperature
limits can be raised to 70 C (158 F) for a sustained period of
four weeks, or 80 C (176 F) for a period of two weeks. After
review, it is expected the higher limit will be used.
 
     The Cruise-6 computer command sequence was uplinked Sunday
and took effect today. The uplink was attempted three times
before it was successful, and the problem was attributed to 
Goldstone.
 
          
 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                   10,167,907
     
     Velocity Geocentric                         9,024 mph
              Heliocentric                      67,493 mph
 
     One Way Light Time                           54.6 sec

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #558
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/AYnfRuO00UkVA4IE4K>;
          Thu, 27 Jul 89 03:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYnfRmO00UkV84GU4J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 89 03:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #559

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 559

Today's Topics:
		     Kuiper Airborne Observatory
		       Looking for Arthur Dula
			   Re: Apollo Books
			    Re: Apollo 11
	       Re: Interesting Apollo crew observations
		      Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
	    NSC pledge for a permanent manned lunar base.
		  Posting of space images (software)
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
			 Apollo 8, 9, and 10
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
	       Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 1
	       Magellan Status for 07/11/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 19:19:31 GMT
From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Kuiper Airborne Observatory

> Now take the Kuiper observatory.  Why is NASA in charge?  Ya got me,
> buddy.  (I know NSF and others help adminstrate.)

Just a tiny correction.  The KAO is entirely operated by NASA - no NSF
or other agency involvement whatever.  The next-generation airborne
observatory (SOFIA - Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy)
will be a joint project of NASA and the West German space agency.
(BMFT, I think, though darned if I know what the initials stand for.)

So why NASA?  Probably because NASA runs active programs in
aeronautical research and in airborne terrestrial sensing and so has lots
of pilots and mechanics on staff, not to mention hangars, runways, and
other support services.  (Many facilities are shared with the Navy at
NASA Ames - Moffett Field.)  NASA also runs an active planetary
research program that includes ground-based as well as space
observations (and often accomodates non-planetary astrophysical
research).  Frankly, I don't see any other agency that could run the
KAO program with reasonable efficiency.

Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 03:05:37 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!turing.cs.rpi.edu!weltyc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Looking for Arthur Dula

I am looking for Arthur Dula, who I hear is a lawyer representing some
companies who want to put payloads up on Energia.  I think he's in
Phoenix.  Please reply by mail.  Thanks. 


Christopher Welty  ---  Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs | "Porsche:  Fahren in
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu             ...!njin!nyser!weltyc |  seiner schoensten Form"

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 16:25:56 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Apollo Books

Try Books in Print.
Also try your local library.  They will offer a more complete list
than could ever be listed on the net.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 20:34:37 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!milano!kepler!richter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charlie Richter)
Subject: Re: Apollo 11


    In August, 1969, President Nixon awarded Medals of
    Freedom to four people associated with the Apollo
    11 mission.  Three medals went to Armstrong, Aldrin,
    and Collins.  Who was awarded the fourth, and what
    was that person's contribution to the mission?

And the answer is ... Steve Bales.  Bales was the
guidance officer for Apollo 11.  As such, he was the
person who gave Eagle the GO to land despite the 1202
and 1201 program alarms.
-- 
Charlie Richter   MCC   Austin, Texas
  uucp: richter@milano.uucp     arpa: richter@mcc.com
"The panic ... was not due to anything fundamentally weak in either business
   or finance.  It was confined to the market itself."   - WSJ, Oct. 31, 1929

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 17:28:27 GMT
From: stadler@apple.com  (Andy Stadler)
Subject: Re: Interesting Apollo crew observations

In article <392@iconsys.UUCP> danny@iconsys.UUCP (Danny Young) writes:
>The July Astronomy magazine quotes Buzz Aldrin's comments on standing on
>the moon: "I quickly discovered that I felt balanced--comfortably upright--only
>when I was tilted slightly forward.  I also felt a bit disoriented:  On Earth
>when one looks at the horizon, it appears flat.  On the Moon, so much smaller
>than the Earth and quit without high terrain (at least in the Sea of 
>Tranquility), the horizon in all directions visibly curved down away from us."
>
>Were these sensations anticipated?  Are there other interesting observations
>that Apollo crews have made that perhaps came as a surprise to them?
>

If you look at any of the surface photos, especially a profile view, this
forward lean is quite evident....  But it's also very evident why:  the large,
heavy life support backpack.  Leaning forward moved the center of mass back
over the feet.

--Andy             stadler@apple.com

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 17:02:59 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules


Not long after Apollo 11, a Berry's World cartoon showed one farmer
coming up to another who was sitting on a chair on the porch of his
house.  He said, "Say, Lem, what's this I hear about you going to the
moon?"
-- 

			David R. Smith, HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
			(415) 857-7898

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 15:27:02 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: NSC pledge for a permanent manned lunar base.


        The following article is from the Space Activists Digest, 
    written by Chris Welty, who is the Moderator of the newsgroup.
    Information on how to receive/send to the Digest appears after
    this article:
 
        The National Space Council, headed by Vice President Quayle, is
    urging the President to launch a "JFK-like manned assault on the
    Moon, including the establishment of a permanent base there."  The
    NSC is also advising President Bush to announce this effort in a
    speech to Congress commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Moon
    landing (July 20).  This information was also reported in THE
    WASHINGTON TIMES (July 11, p. A1). 
 
        A permanent base on the Moon would provide major scientific 
    advances for the US, the most important of which is badly needed 
    direction for the "dying" space program.  A permanent Moon base 
    would also provide an ideal stepping stone for a later mission to 
    the planet Mars. 
 
        This proposal by the NSC has caused some controversy within the
    Bush Administration, as the government is no longer convinced that the
    space program is important to the people.  This country needs such an
    effort, if for no other reason than to stimulate the imaginations and
    spirits of a younger generation whose only heroes are Wall Street
    slicksters and rock stars.  All persons are urged to call the
    Presidential Comment Line at (202) 456-7639, and express their 
    opinions on the need for such a space program. 
    ---
 
        I sent a copy of this, titled "PRESS RELEASE" to the local TV
    stations here, and was invited on the local news for a brief interview.  
    I encourage everyone to try it - this week TV stations are looking for 
    news about the space program.  It is VERY EASY to get on a local news 
    broadcast, and you can reach a LOT of people.  I've done this three 
    times already, and it works! 
 
        TO RECEIVE SPACE ACTIVISTS DIGEST:

    Submissions: space-activists@cs.rpi.edu
    Requests, policy: space-activists-request@cs.rpi.edu
    Back issues are available from host archive.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.1.10] in
    the files space-activists/Vxx/Nyy (ie space-activists/V01/N01 for V1#1), 
    mail requests will not be promptly satisfied.  If you can't reach
    `cs.rpi.edu' you may want to use `turing.cs.rpi.edu' instead.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 18:46:38 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Posting of space images (software)

NASA does not officially post images to the net for a variety of
reasons, but I just got a note from a couple of net readers who do not run
on any typically nice graphics hardware asking that if you do post any kind
of ASCII encoded image, that you post the software to convert or at least
tell the format you are using up front. This goes for anything from
PostScript(tm), GIF, uuencode (oops Unix source code...), etc. Okay,
so at least tell what type of format you are using.  Don't flame
me, I'm only forwarding the request (one running EBCDIC hardware).
Follows up to sci.space because neither astro nor graphics gets gatewayed
to the Internet.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 16:36:39 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <4423@druhi.ATT.COM> tml@druhi.ATT.COM (Tim Larison) writes:
>> something that looks like a hand holding a needle-like object appears in
>> the upper right-hand side of the picture and comes down across the window.
>> What was that?  What did it do?
>
>I believe that is the shadow of the antenna on top of the LEM...

I happened to catch a bit of Apollo coverage the other night -- I watch TV
about once a year, so this isn't as predictable as you might think! -- and
it happened to show that sequence.  I can now confirm what I posted as my
best guess the other day:  it is the shadow of one of the LM's legs and the
long contact probe sticking down from it.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 17:20:54 GMT
From: dftsrv!tomc@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Tom Corsetti)
Subject: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

Hi,
I remember Apollo 8 as being the first time men orbitted the moon.  They
had no LM for that mission.  If I remember right, 10 was the first test
of the LM, and it was done in Earth Orbit.  Please correct me if I am
wrong.  I can't for the life of me remember what Apollo 9 accomplished.
Can someone out there give me the details?
                                             - thanks!
                                               Tom

-- 
  Tom Corsetti                     ************** IP - tomc@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov
  "The hammer of the gods will drive ************* decnet   - dftnic::tomc
   my ship to new lands" - Zeppelin (of course) *** bitnet   - tomc at dftbit

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 18:57:34 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@handies.ucar.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <377@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, tomc@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Tom Corsetti) writes:
>  If I remember right, 10 was the first test
> of the LM, and it was done in Earth Orbit.  Please correct me if I am
> wrong.  I can't for the life of me remember what Apollo 9 accomplished.

Your memory has a few corrupted bits.  Apollo 9 was the first manned test
of the LM, in earth orbit.  10 was a 'dress rehearsal' for the landing,
in lunar orbit.


**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 14:37:07 GMT
From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!seldon@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Seldon)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

In article <8907112246.AA01428@angband.s1.gov> <ASTLC%ALASKA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> writes:
>
> Can anyone fill me in as to what the Apollo 12 astronauts did when they
>found the SURVEYOR 3 probe on the lunar surface? I read a while back (in
>a now-forgotten magazine) that they took the probe's camera off for "a
>souvenir"...
>

  I know that they brought back several small pieces including the remote
sampling arm. It was more than just a souvenir, they were examined to see
what the effects of a long term stay on the moon were. Effects like
micrometeriod impacts, radiation, cosmic rays, etc...

  Does anyone know what else went on?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 15:08:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!noe@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 1


dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu (Douglas Krause) writes:
> In article <8907111417.AA18948@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
> >	"Liftoff" - July 16, 9:20 AM - 11 AM
> >	"Moonwalk" - July 20, 10:30 PM - 2 AM
> >	"Splashdown" - July 24, 1:30 PM - 3 PM
> 
> Are these times EDT?

I think they must be.  The times of the actual events were (in EDT):

69/07/16  09:32  liftoff
69/07/20  22:50  approx. beginning of EVA
69/07/21  01:30  approx. end of EVA
69/07/24  12:50  splashdown

The only one that doesn't match up is the splashdown.  I don't think I could
be one hour off with the time, but if there's a typo in "The History of Manned
Space Flight" I suppose it's possible.  That would mean a mistake of one hour
in the printed mission elapsed time (MET), however.  The astronauts were on
the aircraft carrier deck 63 minutes after splashdown, or at 13:53 EDT according
to my figuring.  A 12:30-14:00 time slot would include both events, and what
klaes@wrksys.dec.com wrote about A&E's schedule is just this shifted over one
hour.  Either I'm messed up about the actual times, or A&E is off by one hour
for the splashdown segment.  But I'm fairly confident that the other times
are in fact EDT.
--
Roger Noe                            noe@s.cs.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois               40:06:39 N.  88:13:41 W.
Urbana, IL  61801  USA               (217) 333-3496

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 06:33:21 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 07/11/89 (Forwarded)


                     MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS
                          July 11, 1989
 
 
     This is a weekly status report. The Magellan spacecraft is
operating well but has had some problem with glitches during
star calibrations which have prevented updates in attitude
knowledge. Still, attitude drift is small and the mission
operations team said the spacecraft can go at least five days
without a star calibration update. So far, only two days in a row
have been missed. The cause of the glitches is being studied.
 
     The team is studying ways to eliminate the problem through
filters in the attitude control software. The glitches are
described as only an aggravation during cruise but will have to
be eliminated to a larger degree before the mapping phase
begins.
 
     High temperature readings on the Solid Rocket Motor and the
Rocket Engine Modules in some attitudes have been a problem. The
operations team said Morton Thiokol made tests with a sample of
the Solid Rocket Motor core, and believes the temperature limit
can be raised from 34 C (93.2 F), to 70 C (158 F).
 
     Rocket Research is doing the tests on the Rocket Engine
Modules, using spares. The current upper limit is set at 77 C
(170.6 F). The tests are to see if the limit can be raised to 120
C (248 F). Both studies will be carefully reviewed. The heating
is caused by direct sunlight when the spacecraft is in certain
attitudes.
 
     This month, Magellan will participate in Deep Space 
Network very long baseline interferometry and telecon tests. It
also will accomplish star calibration with additional stars and
continue high-rate data playbacks.
 
          
 
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                    9,098,851
     
     Velocity Geocentric                         7,536 mph
              Heliocentric                      66,163 mph
 
     One Way Light Time                           48.0 sec

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #559
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYnhBOe00UkVE4SE5M>;
          Thu, 27 Jul 89 05:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <UYnhBGu00UkVQ4QU4Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 89 05:18:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #560

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 560

Today's Topics:
Force to head NASA Space Operations, Aller to leave civil service (Forwarded)
NASA exhibit at EAA focuses on "Investing in the future"  (Forwarded)
Re: Spinoffs are irrelevant (was Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded))
			 Re: breaking up NASA
		      Re: Don't mess with NASA?
    Re: NASA's Voyager 2 finds new moon around Neptune (Forwarded)
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
		 Re: Call for Votes: SCI.AERONAUTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 06:42:37 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Force to head NASA Space Operations, Aller to leave civil service (Forwarded)

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 12, 1989


RELEASE:  89-115

FORCE TO HEAD NASA SPACE OPERATIONS, ALLER TO LEAVE CIVIL SERVICE


     NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly announced today the 
appointment of Charles T. Force to head the Office of Space 
Operations.  He succeeds Robert O. Aller who will leave the 
agency and government service effective July 14, 1989.

     Force was appointed the Deputy Associate Administrator for 
Space Tracking and Data Systems in September 1986.  He spent 10 
years in private industry before joining NASA in 1965.  Force has 
considerable accomplishments in the development, operation and 
management of NASA's global networks that provide tracking and 
communications support for NASA missions.  Prior to becoming 
Deputy Associate Administrator, he held several senior level 
positions at NASA including two overseas assignments. 

     He has received several awards for his career achievements, 
including the Meritorious Presidential Rank Award, Outstanding 
Leadership Medal and the Department of State's Meritorious Honor 
Award.

     A native of Shoals, Ind., Force earned a BS degree in 
aeronautical engineering at Purdue University.  He and his wife 
Marilyn have five children and reside in southern Anne Arundel 
County, Md.

     Aller was named Associate Administrator of the Office of 
Space Operations (OSO) on Jan. 9, 1987.  During his tenure, he 
oversaw the completion of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite 
System (TDRSS).  The three-spacecraft system became fully 
operational following the successful deployment and check-out of 
TDRS-3 and TDRS-4, launched aboard the Space Shuttle in September 
1988 and March 1989, respectively.  The space-based TDRSS network 
permits almost continuous communications with the Space Shuttle 
and other low-Earth orbiting spacecraft.

     Aller served as Associate Administrator for the Office of 
Space Tracking and Data Systems, predecessor to OSO, from 
November 1983 to January 1987.

     In both positions, he was responsible for NASA's worldwide 
tracking and data network, which tracks and communicates with all 
manned and unmanned spacecraft and interplanetary probes.  
Previously, he was Director of the TDRSS Division and responsible 
for the planning, direction, execution and evaluation of the 
TDRSS Program.

     Citing many disappointments in the treatment of government 
employees, Aller accelerated his departure because of the vague 
new-post government employee regulations.  "NASA has produced 
this nation's most exciting programs and it is my belief we are 
on the threshold of a decade of intense worldwide space 
activities, with the United States being the leader in discovery, 
exploration and utilization", he said.

     Aller came to NASA in August 1964 from the Philco Corp., 
Houston.  Prior to joining Philco, he served in the Air Force.  
He held numerous positions in NASA during the Gemini, Apollo, 
Skylab, Apollo/Soyuz Test Project and Space Transportation System 
programs.  He also served as Deputy Director of Expendable Launch 
Vehicles in 1977.

     Aller received numerous awards including the Presidential 
Rank Award, NASA's Distinguished Service Medal, the Outstanding 
Leadership Medal and two Exceptional Service Medals.

     A native of Dayton, Ohio, Aller earned a BS degree from the 
U.S. Naval Academy and a MS degree in aeronautics from the 
University of Michigan.  He also studied at Harvard.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 06:50:15 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA exhibit at EAA focuses on "Investing in the future"  (Forwarded)

Mary Sandy
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 13, 1989

Linda S. Ellis
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland


RELEASE:  89-116

NASA EXHIBIT AT EAA FOCUSES ON "INVESTING IN THE FUTURE" 


     NASA returns to Oshkosh, Wisc., July 28-August 3, as a main 
exhibitor at the 37th Annual Experimental Aircraft Association 
International Fly-In Convention and Sport Aviation Exhibition.  
This year's exhibit, "Investing in the Future," will emphasize 
how the United States benefits from NASA's leadership in 
aeronautics, space science and exploration.

     In the aeronautics area, visitors will see how NASA 
scientists, engineers and craftsmen are working to make the 
aircraft of tomorrow safer, faster and more efficient.

     Visitors also will learn about high-speed research and 
technology projects that will enable commercial airliners to 
travel from Los Angeles to Tokyo in less than four hours. 

     Plans include the exhibition of an 80-foot half-scale mockup 
of the National Aero-Space Plane built by engineering students at 
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, 
Va.  

     The National Aero-Space Plane program, a joint NASA and 
Department of Defense effort, is developing the technology for a 
single-stage-to-orbit vehicle capable of taking off and landing 
on airport runways, accelerating to orbital speeds (Mach 25) and 
flying at sustained hypersonic speeds (up to Mach 12) within the 
atmosphere.  

     The vision for the 21st century is a family of reusable, 
economical aero-space vehicles for rapid, long-distance, 
intercontinental transportation as well as easy access to Earth 
orbit. 

     A 7-foot model of the X-29 forward-swept wing, supersonic 
research aircraft will be exhibited.  The first X-29 flew 242 
technology-proving missions and a second X-29 is being tested for 
maneuverability.

     Aircraft safety improvements will be featured.  The exhibit 
showcases NASA technology designed to help pilots avoid 
collisions, make critical takeoff decisions, detect and correct 
engine problems and overcome weather hazards such as wind shear, 
heavy rain and icing.

     Engineers from the Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., 
have added a vortex flap to the front of the wing of an F-106 
aircraft to reduce drag and increase aircraft lift.  This 
concept, which will be on display, promises to increase the 
maneuverability of swept-wing aircraft by 20 percent.

     Also on display will be revolutionary new engine, wing and 
fuselage designs being tested to make the aircraft of tomorrow 
more maneuverable and fuel efficient.

     Visitors can examine a scale model of a Mach 5 aircraft 
engine inlet model that recently underwent wind tunnel tests at 
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland.  The tests were focused on 
validating computational codes used to analyze the inlet's 
performance.  The work will have application for the next 
generation of high-speed transports, including the National Aero-
Space Plane and trans-atmospheric military vehicles.

      In the 20 years since man first stepped on the moon, NASA 
has taken bold strides toward even greater achievements in space 
science and exploration.  In addition to launching three major 
space science missions this year, NASA stands on the brink of 
establishing a permanent manned presence in space aboard Space 
Station Freedom.

     At the NASA exhibit, visitors can learn more about Space 
Station Freedom and this year's three major space exploration 
projects -- the Hubble Space Telescope, the Magellan mission to 
Venus and the Galileo mission to Jupiter.  Models of the Hubble 
Space Telescope and Space Station Freedom will be available for 
inspection.

     The exhibit also describes the Pathfinder Program which is 
developing technology for possible 21st century missions such as 
a manned outpost on the moon or robotic or manned exploration of 
Mars.

    The U.S. investment in aeronautics and space research has 
paid enormous dividends on Earth.  For example, NASA-developed 
technology has been successfully adapted for more than 30,000 
"spinoff" applications here on Earth.  The NASA exhibit 
highlights some of these spinoffs which have enriched the 
nation's economy and improved our daily well-being.

     One of the most popular displays, the NASA craftsmanship 
exhibit, returns this year.  Operated by technicians from the 
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.; Lewis Research Center, 
Cleveland; and Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif. [No, we
are really located at Moffett Field, California -PEY], the 
exhibit highlights fabrication crafts and focuses on selected 
examples of metal and composite structures, aeronautical models, 
test equipment and data measurement hardware.

     A variety of live and taped programs will be presented daily 
in the mini-theater.  Outside the exhibit building will be the 
AEROVAN traveling aeronautics exhibit and the SARSAT van, a 
mobile exhibit that presents an overview of the Search and Rescue 
Satellite system.

     More than 2 dozen NASA speakers will conduct technical 
forums throughout the convention on subjects ranging from "How to 
Measure Angle of Attack" to "Aircraft De-Icing Systems."

     Education Specialists will be on-hand to inform teachers of 
the many services available to them through the Teacher Resource 
Center Network and Educational Services Offices.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 13:26:15 GMT
From: prism!dsm@gatech.edu  (Daniel McGurl)
Subject: Re: Spinoffs are irrelevant (was Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded))

In article <26383@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>APOLLO-ERA TECHNOLOGY SPINOFFS CONTINUE TO ENHANCE HUMAN LIFE
>>[Nonsense about how NASA is primarily responsible for the development
>>of cordless tools, radial tires and sliced bread]
>
>Much of the advance in this
>surgery is due to the frequency of knee injury in the NFL.
>
>Does this mean that Congress should appropriate billions of dollars to
>support the NFL in order to benefit those in need of this surgery, or
>that the spinoff argument is absurd?

Have you ever heard of the concept of scale?  You named one advance, in one
particular field resulting from the NFL.  The spinnoff from NASA technology
in the medical field alone is asstounding (for a refrence on this read
"Spinoff" by Robert Heinlein from Expanded Universe).   The minaturzation
in large part from space activites has wide ranging effects in the field, 
not to mention the works with polymers and other such things... No, it
probably isn't enough justifaction for the space program, but then again
it's only a small part. 

The other benefits of space have been hashed out here many times before, 
and I won't get into them again... 

>William Baxter


-- 
Daniel Sean McGurl                       "He's got to make his own mistakes,
Office of Computing Services              and learn to mend the mess he makes."
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta Georgia, 30332                                ARPA: dsm@prism.gatech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 17:41:39 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: breaking up NASA

In article <1989Jul18.022946.2595@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>NO!!!  Absolutely 100% wrong!!  ...

Note to US readers: at current exchange rates this means I am 84% wrong,
American. :-)
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 18:19:09 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

>Me too!  Unfortunately the US military wants to keep jet aviation all to
>itself, so even its tamer aircraft are never sold to civilians.  (Both
>the Starfighter and the T-38 were rebuilt from hardware that slipped out
>basically by accident.)

Well, it hasn't got afterburners, but the BD-5J always looked like a hoot and
a half to me!  :-)

(Any word on the BD-*10*J?  The supposed Mach 1+ homebuilt?)



Bob Myers            | "Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of -
myers%hpfcla@hplabs. |  but do it in private, and wash your hands afterwards."
hp.com               |                   - Lazarus Long/Robert A. Heinlein

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 16:39:31 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: NASA's Voyager 2 finds new moon around Neptune (Forwarded)

In article <28184@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>NASA's VOYAGER 2 FINDS NEW MOON AROUND NEPTUNE

    Did anyone else see this and immediately think we should set up a
betting pool (on total # of Neptunian satellites post-encounter)?
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 18:22:58 GMT
From: cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!ns!logajan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <1188@bcd-dyn.UUCP>, dbp@bcd-dyn.UUCP (dbp) writes:
> There is lots of footage looking backward as a stage separates and 
> falls away.  The cameras that took these shots were mounted in other 
> stages that were eventually discarded as well.  How were the pictures 
> from those cameras retrieved?

I believe that the camera (or film) is ejected and falls back to
earth where it is radio-located and recovered.

> pictures were looking out through the LEM's window.  Just at landing,
> something that looks like a hand holding a needle-like object appears in
> the upper right-hand side of the picture and comes down across the window.
> What was that?  What did it do?

I believe that is a shadow of the LM landing leg with a "feeler" extension
so that the pilot can tell when he is a few feet from the lunar surface.

1
2
3
-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 00:13:02 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <1989Jul17.230138.26746@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>As far as I know, all the Apollo lunar-surface transmitters were shut
>down when the Apollo seismometer network was shut down (to save some
>trifling amount of money!!! :-[ ) some years ago.  I could be wrong.

    As I recall, there was a Popular Science article about the
shutdown titled "The Man who Turned Off the Moon".  Were the topic
different, this bit of Heinlein homage would be worth a smiley.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 15:42:29 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Call for Votes: SCI.AERONAUTICS

Some immediate fallout from the voting:

1.  Please don't post your votes to news.groups.  Mail them to me 
instead. 

2.  A couple of people have been asking "why just airliners?"  Answer: it's
what I'm interested in.  :-)  However, I feel the name of the group
is broad enough to let the people who want to discuss broad-spectrum
"atmospheric" issues (such as aerodynamics, propulsion, etc) to have
their say (although, from my experience in rec.aviation, such discussions
are hurt by the lack of an easy way to represent graphs).  

At any rate, since the group won't be moderated, the users can take it 
in whatever direction they want.





Robert Dorsett                                    VOTE on sci.aeronautics!
Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu               yes: yes@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd  no: no@rascal.ics.utexas.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #560
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8Ynxyvi00UkVQ5X05i>;
          Fri, 28 Jul 89 00:23:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <sYnxylK00UkV85VE4m@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 89 00:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #561

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 561

Today's Topics:
      NASA's Voyager 2 finds new moon around Neptune (Forwarded)
			US technology and HDTV
	    In response for references for Black Holes ...
			Black Hole Temperature
			SETI related Questions
	    Mallove and Matloff's THE STARFLIGHT HANDBOOK.
			      Apollo 11
		    Soviet Shuttle as a Billboard
	       Voyager Status for 07/11/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 16:25:19 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA's Voyager 2 finds new moon around Neptune (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim 
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  July 7, 1989

Mary Beth Murrill 
NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.


RELEASE:  89-110

NASA's VOYAGER 2 FINDS NEW MOON AROUND NEPTUNE

     A new moon has been discovered orbiting Neptune, scientists 
on the Voyager Project at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), 
Pasadena, Calif., announced today. 

     The moon's discovery was confirmed Wednesday, July 5, when 
it was located in images returned from the Voyager 2 spacecraft 
enroute to Neptune.  Temporarily designated 1989 N1, the new moon 
was initially seen in Voyager 2 images transmitted to Earth in 
mid-June.  Later images showing the small body in its predicted 
orbit confirmed its existence.  

     Dr. Stephen P. Synnott, a Voyager imaging team scientist at 
JPL, found the small, bright smudge in Voyager pictures that led 
to the moon's discovery.  According to Synnott, the new Neptunian 
satellite could range in diameter from about 125 miles to 400 
miles and is in a very nearly circular, equatorial orbit about 
57,600 miles from the planet's cloud tops or 73,000 miles from 
the planet's center. 

     At this point, the moon is too indistinct to appear in 
photographic prints made from the Voyager images.  Pictures taken 
in coming weeks will show the moon more clearly.

     The moon cannot be seen from Earth because the moon is so 
close to Neptune that the brightness of the planet itself masks 
the tiny point of light.  Voyager 2 will continue to study the 
moon and conduct searches for others as it approaches the planet. 

     Neptune has two other known moons:  Triton discovered in 
1846 and Nereid discovered in 1949.  Triton is between 1,500 to 
2,500 miles in diameter.  Nereid probably is between 200 miles to 
700 miles in diameter.

     Voyager 2 is now 43 million miles away from Neptune and will 
make a close pass of the planet on Aug. 24, 1989.  The spacecraft 
was launched in 1977 and flew past Jupiter in 1979, Saturn in 
1981 and Uranus in 1986.  The Neptune encounter will be the final 
planetary flyby of the Voyager mission, which also included 
Jupiter and Saturn flybys conducted by twin spacecraft Voyager 1.

     The Voyager mission is managed by JPL for NASA's Office of 
Space Science and Applications, Washington, D.C.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 89 17:47:56 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: US technology and HDTV


>From: shelby!portia!brooks@decwrl.pa.dec.com  (Michael Brooks)
>The optimistic forcast by S. Morozumi (head of the 
>Seiko Group) is to have is to have LCDs for HDTV in the mid-late `90s.
>Unrealistic?  Don`t bet against the Japanese in this.  You can 
>probably bet against a US sponsored effort and make money.  IF such
>displays do become available, they will probably be commercial and 
>not mil-spec`d (let alone space-spec`d), unless we license the 
>technology (from the Japanese) and build an appropriate version. 
There are several other technologies being explored in the US, including
active (glowing) and passive (like LCDs) flexible thin-film displays. Note
that at least for consumer products, dots per inch is not a limiting factor,
since the displays can be made as large as desired.

>In the race for LCD technology we are far 
>behind, like that of other electronics items (256K DRAMS).
(256K DRAMs are two generations old now. Everybody knows how to make them)
The US is not really far behind Japan in DRAM technology. The few US companies
still in the DRAM business expect to have the 4Mbit DRAMs available in quantity
a few months behind the Japanese companies. What the US companies lack is
volume capacity (which was wiped out by the Japanese a few years ago through
dumping at an estimated cost of $4 billion), and willingness to take short-term
losses or drops in profit as an investment toward future gains. Now that DRAMs
are profitable again, several former US contenders are hesitant to reenter
the market, because long-term gain is not absolutely guaranteed, and because
a drop in quarterly profit could make them susceptible to attack from
corporate pirates. (Opening a DRAM fabrication line costs several hundred
million dollars.)
                                  John Roberts
                                  roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 7 Jul 89 13:29 PDT
From: <HLEE%TRIUMFER.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  In response for references for Black Holes ...

From : Arnold Gill
       Queen's University at Kingston
       BITNET:  gill@qucdnast

>>4) Black hole temperature -- Are medium-sized black holes hot or cold? I have
>> [ stuff deleted about black hole radiation, etc ]

>Here there were a few mistaken answers.  The surface area of a black hole
>is proportional to its ENTROPY, and INVERSELY proportional to its
>TEMPERATURE.  Thus a small black hole is hotter than a large black hole.
>In fact, small black holes can `evaporate' and disappear from the universe
>because of the high rate of energy loss (that's how we define
>temperature in the first place - equivalent black bodies, and so on).
>If you want more information (I just ran dry), read stuff by Hawkings,
>Wheeler, or Israel.  They know what they are talking about.  A good
>place to look would be back issues of Scientific American.  Sorry, no
>dates from me.

Re : Black Holes ... some references.

1.  "Four Laws of Black Hole Mechanics" :
     Bardeen, Carter, Hawking;  Communications in Mathematical Physics
                                vol. 31, p. 161-170 (1973)

2.  "Black Holes and Entropy"
     Bekenstein;  Physics Review D vol. 7, p. 2333-2346 (1973)

3.  "Particle Creation by Black Holes"
     Hawking; Communications in Mathematical Physics
                vol. 43, p. 199-220 (1975)

4.  "Black Holes and Thermodynamics"
     Hawking; Physics Review D vol. 13 p. 191-197 (1976)

You'll excuse me for any errors or if I didn't acknowledge any authors
to the above.  The references were taken from the publication
Scientific American : Cosmology+1.

                                           Henry Lee
                                  a 'lowly' physics undergrad @ S.F.U.
                                  BITNET : HLEE@TRIUMFCL    or
                                           HLEE@SFU

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 89 20:09:39 GMT
From: frooz!cfashap!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Black Hole Temperature


In an article now mercifully lost, I wrote:
> "Temperature" of a black hole surface goes as the inverse cube
> of the mass.

That's wrong.  Temperature goes inversely as the mass, radiation rate
per unit surface area goes as T^4, surface area goes as M^2.  Put it
all together and total radiation rate goes as M^-2, lifetime as M^3.
Obviously I (mis-)remembered only the last relation.

"Post in haste, repent at leisure."
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Sender: "Dennis_C._Brantly.WBST129"@Xerox.COM
Date: 7 Jul 89 04:51:02 PDT (Friday)
Subject: SETI related Questions
From: Brantly.WBST129@Xerox.COM
Cc: Brantly.WBST129@Xerox.COM


What are some good sources of information on SETI related topics such as:

  > The actual mechanics of the search
  > Separation of intelligent generated vs natural noise
  > Politics (multinational co-operation/ non co-operation)
  > Policies (if Intelligence is detected is the press informed, who
responds, how do they respond, etc...)
  > Estimated impact on society in general if (when) ETI is detected
(religious, political, etc.)
  
Thanks,

Dennis

Rochester, NY
(716) 422-1653

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 89 16:21:00 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Mallove and Matloff's THE STARFLIGHT HANDBOOK.


        There is a new book now available on actual starship designs in 
    most mass-market bookstores.  It is titled THE STARFLIGHT HANDBOOK: 
    A PIONEER'S GUIDE TO INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL, by Eugene F. Mallove and 
    Gregory L. Matloff, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1989, 
    ISBN 0-471-61912-4 (hardcover - $19.95).

        The authors share extensive backgrounds in aerospace engineering 
    and astronomy.  The book gives a good study of the various and varied 
    ways we may one day reach other star systems, and there is an adequate 
    supply of diagrams and mathematics to back up the engineering plans.  
    It is definitely worth a read for those who want to know what it will 
    really take to attain the "final frontier".

        Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 16:44:45 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!milano!kepler!richter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charlie Richter)
Subject: Apollo 11

With the anniversary of Apollo 11 approaching, I offer an
Apollo 11 trivia question for you to think about as you
watch the t.v. specials:
 
   In August, 1969, President Nixon awarded Medals of
   Freedom to four people associated with the Apollo
   11 mission.  Three medals went to Armstrong, Aldrin,
   and Collins.  Who was awarded the fourth, and what
   was that person's contribution to the mission?
 
Please, PLEASE, don't post answers.  (I've probably already
made Eugene's blacklist just for posting the question.)  If
you want to answer, e-mail to me.  I'll post the answer in
a week or so.
-- 
Charlie Richter   MCC   Austin, Texas
  uucp: richter@milano.uucp     arpa: richter@mcc.com
"The panic ... was not due to anything fundamentally weak in either business
   or finance.  It was confined to the market itself."   - WSJ, Oct. 31, 1929

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 20:31:44 GMT
From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Soviet Shuttle as a Billboard

Today's Columbus Dispatch carried an AP story which reveals that 5
US companies are vying for ad space on the side of the Soviet
Buran space shuttle.  The shuttle is slated to launch August 30.

Bargaining is being handled through Soviet-Pacific Enterprises, based
in San Francisco.  The ads will be on thin plastic, and will vaporize about
45 seconds into the launch.  Soviet-Pacific's marketing director mentions
that they want to sell the entire "billboard", at a price of over
$1,000,000, to one advertiser, to avoid making the shuttle "look like
an Indianapolis 500 race car."  The space amounts to two 10x21 foot
panels. Ad space around the Baikonur cosmosdrome is included in the price.

The Soviets will not allow ads for liquor or tobacco companies (maybe
they're afraid US television won't show them ?).  It's pointed out that
a million dollars for 45 seconds compares favorably to the cost of
time during the Super Bowl.  The names of the five competitors were not
released, but include a major oil company, a TV network, an international
courier (*has* to be Federal Express !), a consumer-goods producer, and
a food company.

The article further mentions that the Soviets have also sold space on board
a 1991 flight to a Japanese TV network, which will send a correspondent,
for $12 million.   They add that NASA does not accept advertising or
private fares, and has even discontinued carrying commercial packages
since the Challenger explosion.



Now I'm all confused...  it's getting to where you can't tell your
communists from your capitalists without a score-card.


Followups to talk.politics.misc.   Those of you in sci.space may
want to edit that, depending on content.  Those of you in t.p.m
are largely incapable of editing it, but may want to add
misc.headlines, misc.misc, and soc.culture.nordic. 8-)


------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						wbt@cbnews.att.com
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 06:36:19 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Voyager Status for 07/11/89 (Forwarded)


                    Voyager Status Report
                        July 11, 1989
 
 
     Voyager 2's discovery last week of a new Neptunian moon
has scientists rethinking theories about the origin of
Triton.   
 
     The new moon, 1989 N1, orbits Neptune in a tidy, nearly
circular orbit around the planet's equator.  The orderliness
of its orbit makes it an anomaly when compared with the two
other known Neptunian moons, Triton and Nereid, which occupy
unruly orbits around the planet.  Triton's orbit is
retrograde, or backward, and inclined at about 20 degrees to
the equator.  Nereid has a prograde, or forward, orbit that
is inclined 30 degrees to Neptune's equator.  
 
     Before last week's discovery, scientists thought that
because of Triton's peculiar retrograde and tilted orbit, it
must have been a body wandering the solar system alone when
it was captured by Neptune.  But now, with the discovery of
1989 N1, "The difficulty we have is that we've found a moon
in a place we didn't think one should have existed," said
assistant project scientist Dr. Ellis Miner. 
 
     If Triton were a relative newcomer to the Neptune
system, Miner said, it would have passed near enough to the
low orbit of any preexisting moon such as 1989 N1 either to
collide with it or sweep it up through gravitational
attraction.  Therefore, the existence of 1989 N1 in the orbit
it occupies suggests that Triton may not be a captured
object, but instead be a native to Neptune.  Theoreticians
are now battling with this new discovery to see if the
Triton-as-captured-object theory can be salvaged or if
alternative explanations for its retrograde orbit can be
found.
 
 
DISTANCE FROM EARTH:  2,675,488,000 miles
DISTANCE FROM NEPTUNE:  40,999,000 miles
HELIOCENTRIC VELOCITY:  42,198 mph

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #561
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/gYo0Wnq00UkVE5nk4n>;
          Fri, 28 Jul 89 03:18:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <EYo0Wg600UkV85m04P@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 89 03:18:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #562

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 562

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
Re: Spinoffs are irrelevant (was Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded))
		Re: Write those Letters to the Editor
			  Spaceport Florida
		* URGENT ALERT -- NEED YOU TO CALL! *
		      Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
		    Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
	     Galileo press briefing scheduled (Forwarded)
		      Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
	       Voyager Status for 07/07/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 21:41:36 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <1188@bcd-dyn.UUCP> dbp@bcd-dyn.UUCP (dbp) writes:
>There is lots of footage looking backward as a stage separates and 
>falls away.  The cameras that took these shots were mounted in other 
>stages that were eventually discarded as well.  How were the pictures 
>from those cameras retrieved? ...

The early Saturn Vs had little camera pods that separated, reentered,
and were recovered.  The purpose being, obviously, to monitor how well
things like staging worked.  (Other than staging, the one thing I know
that was photographed by the pods (via fiber-optic bundles) was fuel
movement inside the tanks; those films are pretty boring, though.)

>This one I've wondered about for 20 years.  There is the famous view 
>of the moon's surface as the Eagle was landing.  I suppose the 
>pictures were looking out through the LEM's window...

Yes, there was a variable-rate camera looking through one of the windows,
just above Aldrin's head, and it was set to full speed (movie rate) for
the landing.

>Just at landing,
>something that looks like a hand holding a needle-like object appears in
>the upper right-hand side of the picture and comes down across the window.
>What was that?  What did it do?

It's been a while since I've seen those films, but I think you're seeing
the shadow of the LM on the surface.  As I recall, it becomes visible in
the last few seconds.  Remember that the LM footpads had 6ft probes sticking
down from them; when one of the astronauts says "contact light; engine stop"
that means one of the probes has hit and the engine has stopped automatically
in response.  (The LM simply fell the last 6ft to the surface.)
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 16:37:47 GMT
From: unmvax!aplcen!stda.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Spinoffs are irrelevant (was Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded))


Ever wonder why fools confuse spinoffs with primary goals, then complain
that the accidental results don't justify something that didn't try for
them in the first place?

velcro, microelectronics - space program
econometric advantages, jobs - defense department
first aid - sports

That the spinoffs happen AT ALL is good.  They are NOT a goal.

"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain"
					- Pliny the Elder
These were the opinions of :
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu  - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 17:26:29 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Write those Letters to the Editor

From article <8926@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, by EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric William Tilenius):

- And don't send the same letter to multiple publications.  (Variations may
- be acceptable, but certainly not the same wording.)

Why? I've had the same letter published in three local papers. No
problem. It isn't like you were selling it to them.

By the way, pro-space != pro-NASA. It could be argued that right now
pro-space == anti-NASA and pro-NASA == pro-pork_barrel_in_the_sky.

			Bob P.
-- 
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 14:10:51 GMT
From: att!codas!ablnc!rcpilz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robert C. Pilz)
Subject: Spaceport Florida


Florida Gov. Bob Martinez just signed a new law, the Spaceport
Florida Authority Act, on Wednesday at the Kennedy Space Center
Spaceport USA tourist attraction. The Act creates an authority that
will oversee commercial space operations in Florida. It will
be funded ($1.9 mil from 89-90 FL budget) to foster commercial
space research, education, tourism, and launches.
In Orlando, near the University of Central Florida, a research
park was established several years ago, in anticipation for
such needs. Hopefully, some of this money will come UCF's way.
They are doing some neat things over at UCF; computer graphics,
laser technology, and artificial intelligence. Some of these
efforts may "take off!"
R. C. Pilz
AT&T NBMS
Orlando, FL
attmail!rcpilz

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 02:04:15 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: * URGENT ALERT -- NEED YOU TO CALL! *

CRITICAL FUNDING VOTES ARE UPCOMING FOR THE 1990 NASA BUDGET AND
SPACE STATION FREEDOM.

IF NASA FUNDING IS CUT BY $600-$800 MILLION OR MORE, THE SPACE STATION FREEDOM
PROGRAM WILL BE CANCELLED, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL BE IN JEOPARDY.

PLEASE CALL THE FOLLOWING KEY CONGRESSMEN TODAY - OR AS SOON AS YOU CAN -
SINCE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.   THE FIRST KEY DECISION WILL BE TUESDAY,
JULY 11, SO TRY TO CALL MONDAY DURING BUSINESS HOURS.  CALLS AFTER THAT
ARE STILL HELPFUL.

CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD NUMBER:   202-224-3121

CALL AND ASK, IN TURN, FOR THE FOLLOWING:

    CONGRESSMAN ROBERT TRAXLER  (D-MI)      * Critical Vote
    SENATOR BARBARA MIKULSKI  (D-MD)        * Important!
    SENATOR JAKE GARN  (R-UT)               * Important!

PLUS, PLEASE ASK FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING WHO ARE FROM YOUR STATE:

    SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG     (D-NJ)
    SENATOR ROBERT KERRY         (D-MA)
    SENATOR J. BENNETT JOHNSTON  (D-LA)
    SENATOR WYCHE FOWLER         (D-GA)
    SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY        (D-VT)
    SENATOR DON NICKLES          (R-OK)
    SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY     (R-IA)
    SENATOR BILL GRAMM           (R-TX)

    CONGRESSMAN LOUIS STOKES      (D-OH)
    CONGRESSMAN ALAN MOLLOHAN     (D-WV)
    CONGRESSMAN JIM CHAPMAN       (D-TX)
    CONGRESSMAN CHESTER ATKINS    (D-MA)
    CONGRESSMAN LAWRENCE COUGHLIN (D-PA)
    CONGRESSMAN BILL GREEN        (R-NY)
    CONGRESSMAN JERRY LEWIS       (R-CA)

CALL THEM VIA. THE CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD, THEN SAY YOU LIKE TO LEAVE A MESSAGE
FOR THE CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR WITH YOUR OPINION.

SAY THAT YOU URGE THE CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR TO
    * SUPPORT FULL FUNDING FOR NASA AND SPACE STATION FREEDOM *
      =======================================================

YOUR CALL WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE AS THIS IS A REALLY CLOSE FIGHT.  PLEASE
TRY TO ENLIST YOUR FRIENDS TO CALL AS WELL.

- ERIC -

Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Quadrangle Club      | 11 Prospect Drive South  | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
33 Prospect Avenue   | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 09 Jul 89 01:30:48 -0900
Reply-To: <ASTLC%ALASKA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Sender: <ASTLC%ALASKA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
From: Tom Claydon - Paranoia At Work.. <ASTLC%ALASKA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Subject:  Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)


 Can anyone fill me in as to what the Apollo 12 astronauts did when they
found the SURVEYOR 3 probe on the lunar surface? I read a while back (in
a now-forgotten magazine) that they took the probe's camera off for "a
souvenir"...

=========================================================================
| Tom Claydon                       | DISCLAIMER :                      |
| University of Alaska Anchorage    |  The thoughts expressed here are  |
| Phone: (907) 562-0090             |   are my own. The views are NOT   |
| BITNET: astlc@alaska.bitnet       |   the official opinions of the    |
| USENET: coming SOON!              |   University of Alaska, so THERE! |
| Quote: "If A Man In A Blue Suit   |                                   |
|         Comes Up To You, And Offers                                   |
|         You OS/2, Remember: JUST SAY NO!"                             |
=========================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 15:39:39 GMT
From: wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU  (Bill Chiarchiaro)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)



I'm glad to see that someone else is still interested in the Surveyor
program; I've long been fascinated by it.

A couple of weeks ago I noticed a book in my company's library called:

	"Analysis of Surveyor 3 Material and Photographs Returned by
		Apollo 12"

	Published by: Scientific and Technical Information Office, NASA, 1972

	For sale (at least at one time) by the U.S. Government
		Printing Office as NASA SP-284.


I glanced through the book and it described, in minute detail, what
items were taken from Surveyor 3 and what was done with them.

Bill Chiarchiaro
N1CPK
wjc@xn.ll.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 06:55:47 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Galileo press briefing scheduled (Forwarded)

[What a hassle just to be a reporter. -PEY]

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    July 14, 1989

George Diller
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.

N89-52

NOTE TO EDITORS:  GALILEO PRESS BRIEFING SCHEDULED

     The Galileo planetary spacecraft will be the topic of a 
press briefing on Friday, July 21, at the Kennedy Space center, 
Fla.  A photo opportunity with the Galileo spacecraft will 
follow.

     The Galileo briefing will begin at 11:30 a.m. EDT in the KSC
News Center auditorium and will be carried on NASA Select
television: Satcom F2R, transponder 13, 72 degrees west 
longitude.  Two-way question and answer capability will be 
available. 

    Participating in the briefing will be:

John Conway, NASA Director of Payload Management and Operations,
Kennedy Space Center

John Casani, Deputy Assistant Director for Flight Projects,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

Dick Spehalski, Galileo Project Manager,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Torrence Johnson, Galileo Project Scientist,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory

    At the conclusion of the press briefing, media 
representatives will be transported to the SAEF-2 planetary
spacecraft checkout facility to view Galileo.  All workstands and 
access platforms have been removed from around the spacecraft.

     Required clean room attire for members of the press will be
provided.  All photographic equipment must be self contained with
internal power; no external power will be available.  Electronic
flash will be permitted; no flash bulbs may be used.  No flame
producing devices can be permitted in any part of SAEF-2.

     All reporters are asked to refrain from using hair spray and
make-up until after the showing and are requested to wear low-
heeled, closed-toed shoes.

     Because access to Galileo is on a non-interference basis
with spacecraft operations, media representatives may wish to
keep in contact with the Kennedy News Center to be certain that 
there has been no change in the date or time of the event.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 15:38:38 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@handies.ucar.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

In article <8907160317.AA01918@crash.cts.com>, edward@pro-harvest.UUCP (Edward Floden) writes:
> The ascent modules, of the Apollo lunar landing missions, were abandoned to
> orbit the moon once the astronauts had transferred back to the command module.
> Are any of the ascent modules still in orbit about Luna?  Or have they all
> fallen to ground since then?  In either case, how long are their orbits
> expected to last, before the modules crash?
> 

The ascent stage of Eagle was left in orbit; I believe that most (if not all)
excepting Apollo 13's LEM ascent stage were deliberately crashed into the
surface to get seismic data from the experiment packages left on the moon.


**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 16:27:42 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Voyager Status for 07/07/89 (Forwarded)


                    Voyager Status Report
                        July 7, 1989
 
 
 
      Voyager team scientists have found a new moon in orbit
around Neptune.  
     
     The discovery was confirmed Wednesday when the moon was
located in images from Voyager 2.  Temporarily designated  
1989 N1, the new satellite was initially seen in images
transmitted to Earth in mid-June.  Its existence could not be
confirmed, however, until later images showed the small body
in its predicted orbit.
     
     Dr. Stephen P. Synnott, a Voyager imaging team 
scientist at JPL, found the small, bright smudge in Voyager
images that led to the moon's discovery.  According to 
Synnott, the new Neptunian satellite could range in diameter
from 200 to 600 kilometers (about 125 to 400 miles) and 
orbits in a very nearly circular and equatorial orbit about 
92,700 kilometers (about 57,600 miles) from the planet's 
cloud tops (or about 117,500 kilometers (73,000 miles) from 
the planet's center). 
     
     At this point, the moon is too indistinct to appear in
photographic prints made from the Voyager images, but
pictures taken in coming weeks will show the moon more 
clearly. 
 
     1989 N1 cannot be seen from Earth because the moon is so
close to Neptune that the brightness of the planet 
itself masks the tiny point of light.  Voyager 2 will 
continue to study the moon and conduct searches for others as
it approaches the planet. 
    
     Moons known to orbit Neptune now total three.  The other
two, Triton and Nereid, were discovered in 1846 and 1949,
respectively.
 
     Ultimately, 1989 N1 will be given a name drawn from
mythology associated with Neptune, in accordance with
nomenclature protocol set by the International Astronomical
Union.
 
 
DISTANCE FROM EARTH:  2,672,377,000 miles
DISTANCE FROM NEPTUNE:  43,696,000 miles
HELIOCENTRIC VELOCITY:  42,200 mph

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #562
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/0Yo2HLa00UkVA5yU5S>;
          Fri, 28 Jul 89 05:18:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YYo2HE200UkVA5wk49@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 89 05:18:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #563

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 563

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Space Goals
		      Re: Blackholes - evidence
		 Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions
			  Re: Freedom's logo
			  Voyager Broadcasts
			Re: Lagrangian Points
	National Aero-Space Plane symposium slated (Forwarded)
		      Re: Decaying Lunar Orbits
			     Re: Moonwalk
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 89 23:17:00 GMT
From: jerbil@csvax.caltech.edu  (Stainless Steel Gerbil [Joe Beckenbach])
Subject: Re: Space Goals


	My two cents:  those in JFK's world saw the Moon as "impossibly far",
but the goal of safely returning a man from the Moon's surface in under a 
decade was accomplished.  How about one of three projects which are "impossibly
far and too soon" for the moment:

	1)  a full score of TAU craft [Thousand Astronomical Unit] to explore 
	    extra-solar space in all directions.  The vectors would be spread
	    around to the vertices of a dodecahedron, centered on Sol.
		YEAR OF 20th CROSSING OF NEPTUNE "ORBIT": 2001.

	2)  exploratory craft scouting the two nearest stars to Sol.
		YEAR OF ENTRY TO BARNARD'S STAR INFLUENCE: 2015.
		YEAR OF ENTRY INTO ALPHA CENTAURI SYSTEM:  2030.

	3)  sustained human life outside Terra's atmospheric limits.
		YEAR OF THIRD GENERATION SPACE BIRTH:  2040.

-- 
Joe Beckenbach
339 S. Catalina #316 	jerbil@csvax.caltech.edu
Pasadena, CA 91125	(818) 577-8983

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 07:47:46 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!censor!jeff@rutgers.edu  (Jeff Hunter)
Subject: Re: Blackholes - evidence



        There have been a number of good answers about black
holes, so I thought I'd look for some numbers. I've listed them to
two digits, but don't trust more than the exponent. (What's an
order of magnitude between theorists :-)

        The saying "black holes have no hair" means that a black
hole can be completely descibed by its mass, spin, and charge.
(This may remind you of an elementary particle. Coincidence?
I don't think so.)
        I'm taking the simple case of a neutral, spinless hole
viewed from a distance by a stationary observer (stationary to
the hole that is).
        The temperature is the Hawking Radiation of the hole. If
nearby matter is falling into the hole it can also generate amazing
heat.

                mass            radius          temp            lifetime
                (grams)         (meters)        (degrees        (years)
Cubic                                            Kelvin)
Kilometer
of water        e15             1.3e-15         1.1e11          1.2e11

Mount
Everest         e17             1.3e-13         1.1e9           1.9e17

Moon            7.3e25          9.7e-5          1.5             7.4e43

Earth           6e27            .008            .019            4.1e49

Sun             1.8e33          2400            6.2e-8          1.1e66

Galactic
Center          7e39            9.3e9           1.6e-14         6.5e85

Elliptic
Galaxy          9e42            1.2e13          1.2e-17         1.4e95

        (For those who shun metric, divide grams by 1e6 to get tons,
read meters as yards, and (Kelvin*2) + 300 = Fahrenheit)

        The "cubic kilometer of seawater" is a Gigatonne of
anything you have handy. It is in the range of the smallest hole
that could still have survived from the Big Bang. "Mount Everest"
may be a bit more massive than this. The "galactic center" is an
estimate of the mass of the suspected black hole at the center of
the Milky Way. "Elliptic galaxy" is the core of an energetic galaxy
that was probably a Quasar in its wild youth.

        The formulae I used are:
radius      = M / 7.5e29
temperature = 1.1e26 / M
lifetime    = 1.9e-34 (M**3)   <- Mass cubed
        (The mass loss of a black hole increases again when it drops
below e17 grams since it is then hot enough to radiate electrons and
positrons. (lifetime = 1.2e-34(M**3)) When it drops below 5e14 grams
the lifetime drops again, etc....)

        Some notes of interest (to me anyways :-)
A black hole of reasonable size (one meter) would be somewhat more
    massive than Saturn. It would be quite cold.
A hole of reasonable mass (100 Kg) would evaporate in much less than 
    a second. This would be equivalent to about 2 Gigatonnes of TNT.
A hole at room temperature (~300K) would be about 1/200'th the mass
    of the moon (the mass of Ceres perhaps?), and would be too small
    to see.
The "elliptical galaxy" core is 1/200'th the density of water! Since
    the radius increases proportionally to mass the density of a huge
    hole can be arbitrarily low.
As Matt noted, any black hole with temperature less than ~3K (the
    background temperature of the Universe) will be stable until
    the universe expands enough to cool down some more.

                        Have fun (I did) ...
-- 
	-- my opinions --	jeff@censor.uucp

	Keep track of the current path, and use it naturally. 
		Glenn Reid (Postscript Language Program Design)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 03:05:37 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions

In article <14461@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>1) What happen to Saturn V plans?
>>Underconstruction by Henry.
>
>Wow, so THAT'S where they went! ...
>PS I hope Toronto has adequate barge facilities...

We don't need no steenking barges.   ( Sorry, couldn't resist.  :-) )

Actually we will need some, as we plan to launch from the most worthless
area of land nearby:  downtown Buffalo...  :-) :-) :-)
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 19:20:43 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Freedom's logo

Thanks for that.  While we're on the subject:

Does anyone have a postscript version of the Pioneer plaque?

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 20:30:27 GMT
From: coplex!dannie@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU  (Dannie Gregoire)
Subject: Voyager Broadcasts




I know this has already been posted but.....

Can someone please e-mail me the times and satelite channel(s)
that the Voyager pictures of Neptune can be Viewed.

				Thanx-a-head-a-time
				   dannie@coplex

   +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 
   | |\ /\   Yet Another Precise Exageration from......	    \   / |
   | | | _    						    -o o- |
   | |/.\/.        Dannie Gregoire  (dannie@coplex)  `Roof!'- U	  |
   +--------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 16:59:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!nott-cs!piaggio!anw@uunet.uu.net  (Dr A. N. Walker)
Subject: Re: Lagrangian Points

In article <1989Jul11.191130.3631@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- I see Henry is using C news! [:-)]
Spencer) writes:
>In article <15070@ut-emx.UUCP> sudhama@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Chandrasekhara
Sudhama) writes:
>>...Would someone please explain
>>(either on this network or in private email) the stability of the
>>equilibrium points in the Earth - Moon system? [...]
>
>I know of no intuitive explanation of why the "Trojan points" at 60 degrees
>are stable.  It is a non-trivial mathematical result.

	Somewhat agreed.  However, it's not *that* bad.

>Even worse is an explanation of why the Trojan points are stable against
>small perturbations, while the straight-line points are not.  Or of why
>the Trojan points stop being stable against perturbations if the mass
>of the primary is not at least N times that of the secondary (I forget
>the value of N but I think it's something like 30).

	It's fairly easy to see why the straight-line points are unstable.
First, you must use rotating co-ordinates, in which Earth and Moon are
stationary [ignoring perturbations from Sun, Jupiter, etc.] -- otherwise
there are no points of equilibrium at all.  In these co-ordinates, there
are four forces acting on a particle:

	gravity towards the Earth;
	gravity towards the Moon;
	centrifugal force away from the origin (centre of mass);
	Coriolis force.

Coriolis force is zero for stationary [in the rotating co-ordinates]
particles, so the Lagrange points occur where the other forces balance.
Take for example the straight line point "behind" the Moon.  This is
where the combined gravitational pulls towards the Earth and the Moon
exactly balance the centrifugal force away -- all forces acting along
the straight line.  Put a particle slightly further away -- bingo,
both gravities are weaker, centrifugal force is stronger, so the
particle is strongly pushed away, ergo unstable.  [This is an over-
simplified, intuitive, argument.]

	The triangular points are much less easy to analyse, but I
can offer some pointers.  Basically, they are *maxima* of the
modified potential energy [gravitational potential plus centrifugal
potential] (the straight-line points are saddle-points), and are thus
intrinsically unstable.  However, they are quite flat maxima, and if
the mass-ratio is large, as for the Earth-Moon system, it turns out
that before the particle gets far away from equilibrium, the Coriolis
force is sufficient to turn the particle back round.

	The critical mass-ratio is determined by whether

		27 m^2 - 27 m + 1

is positive (==> stable) or negative (==> unstable), where m is the mass
of the Moon in units of the total mass.  Thus, Henry's N is

		(27 + sqrt (27*23))^2 / 108 == 24.9599....

>As in other areas of celestial mechanics, there is just no substitute for
>mathematics in this.

	True, but the mathematics is within the scope of a competent first-
year university undergraduate -- needs vectors, "normal modes", and a
little mechanics.  A complete expose [of the equilibrium and its stability]
occupies [riffle, riffle] two sides of A4 in my lecture notes.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 06:59:27 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: National Aero-Space Plane symposium slated (Forwarded)

Mary Sandy
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 14, 1989


N89-53
EDITORS NOTE:  NATIONAL AERO-SPACE PLANE SYMPOSIUM SLATED


     Media representatives are invited to attend the first open 
symposium on the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP), sponsored by 
the NASP Joint Program Office and the American Institute of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics.  The symposium is being held in 
conjunction with the Dayton Air and Trade Show, July 20-21, at 
the Dayton, Ohio Convention Center.
   
     The symposium will include presentations on the status of 
the NASP program and status of foreign aerospace plane 
projects.  In addition, progress in the areas of propulsion, 
materials, computational fluid dynamics and other technology 
areas will be discussed, as will potential commercial and 
civilian spin-offs from the NASP.

     Designed to achieve single-stage-to-orbit flight, NASP is a 
joint Department of Defense and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration program involving the development of technologies 
leading to an experimental vehicle, the X-30.  The vehicle also 
will be capable of sustained hypersonic flight within the 
atmosphere.

     To help explain program goals and progress, members of the 
NASP Joint Program Office at Wright-Patterson AFB will man a 
unique information display at the air show.  Central to that 
display will be a 75-foot, half-scale mock-up of the X-30.  It 
will be located in Trade Structure "B" and will be open to the 
public during trade show hours -- from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each of 
the four days.

     Media representatives are invited to a reception which will 
be held for symposium participants on the evening of the 20th, 
from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the Trade Structures at the air show.

     If you are interested in seeing the NASP display at the air 
show or attending the symposium, please contact JoAnne Rumple at 
the Joint Program Office at XXX/YYY-ZZZZ for further details.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 21:34:05 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Decaying Lunar Orbits

In article <744@hutto.UUCP> henry@hutto.UUCP (Henry Melton) writes:
>... upper portion of the LEM was abandoned in lunar orbit and then
>later decayed to crash on the Lunar surface.  How fast is this orbital
>decay, considering that there is no atmosphere to speak of?  Is there
>some other mechanism that can cause such a fast decay?

Even the Earth is not gravitationally a perfect sphere, although you can
model it moderately well as a sphere with an equatorial bulge.  The Moon
is a very different story; gravitationally, it's just plain lumpy.  This
makes it difficult for any low orbit to be stable for long periods, as I
understand it.  Eventually it gets perturbed enough to hit the surface.

Also, the later LM ascent stages were crashed deliberately, to provide
artificial moonquakes for the benefit of the seismometers left on the
surface.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 19:07:15 GMT
From: att!chinet!john@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Mundt)
Subject: Re: Moonwalk

In article <1139@mailrus.cc.umich.edu> msiskin@shogun.us.cc.umich.edu (Marc Siskin) writes:
>In article <2280@orion.cf.uci.edu> dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu (Doug Krause) writes:
>>Also, how did the camera that was left behind on the Moon track the
>>top of the Eagle taking off?  and how did they get THAT reel of film back?
>I am not sure how long the Apollo astronauts were on the moon, but I do

I believe a max of three days on the moon by the Apollo 17 astronauts and
the last flight.

>know that teh shot of the LM launching was not from Apollo 11 but from a
>later flight.  It wasn't filmed either but was a live video shot from the
>Lunar Rover's camera.  It was exciting watching the liftoff live (so to 
>speak) when it occured.

I don't have cable so I don't get the liftoff to splashdown coverage of
A&E, but only the networks truncated coverage.  

I am disturbed that no one felt the need to explain that most of the pretty
color pictures were from the lunar rover's cameras on later flights.  It 
seems that Americans are such bozos that they would not notice that the
11 astronauts landed in a purposely plain, flat area, whereas the pictures
of later flights have sizeables hills and craters.  

Also, CBS's coverage spent most of its time showing the trivial things
being done at the same time as Apollo 11, rather than mission activities.
If I'd have wanted to see a horse being broken, I'd have checked out a
John Wayne movie!
-- 
---------------------
John Mundt   Teachers' Aide, Inc.  P.O. Box 1666  Highland Park, IL
john@chinet.chi.il.us
(312) 998-5007 (Day voice) || -432-8860 (Answer Mach) && -432-5386 Modem

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #563
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/MYoH4Zu00UkV87Ok4e>;
          Sat, 29 Jul 89 00:23:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <wYoH4Oy00UkVM7N05j@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 89 00:22:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #564

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 564

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
		      Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
			   breaking up NASA
			  Lagrangian Points
			      Sci.Astro
		A&E Rebroadcast of NBC Apollo coverage
		 Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions
		    NASA funding is not transitive
		  Re: NASA funding is not transitive
Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 19:14:54 GMT
From: att!chinet!john@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Mundt)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

In article <8907160317.AA01918@crash.cts.com> pnet01!pro-sol!pro-newfrontier!pro-nfmail01!pro-harvest!edward@trout.nosc.mil writes:
>The ascent modules, of the Apollo lunar landing missions, were abandoned to
>orbit the moon once the astronauts had transferred back to the command module.
>Are any of the ascent modules still in orbit about Luna?  Or have they all
>fallen to ground since then?  


Later flights had the ascent modules purposely were impacted into the surface of
the moon to test seismic recording devices with a known force.  When the first
one was done that way, geologists reported that the moon rang like a bell,
demonstrating that the moon had a solid core, rather than a liquid one.

I believe that the orbits of later flights were also less stable than that
of Apollo 11.  The later flights used the command module to change to a
10 x 60 mile high orbit before the lander separated, while on 11 I think
that the command module stayed in a circular orbit.  (Corrections, not
flames if I'm wrong, please.)
-- 
---------------------
John Mundt   Teachers' Aide, Inc.  P.O. Box 1666  Highland Park, IL
john@chinet.chi.il.us
(312) 998-5007 (Day voice) || -432-8860 (Answer Mach) && -432-5386 Modem

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 20:26:51 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

From article <184@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, by kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl):
> The ascent stage of Eagle was left in orbit; I believe that most (if not all)
> excepting Apollo 13's LEM ascent stage were deliberately crashed into the
> surface to get seismic data from the experiment packages left on the moon.

The ascent stage of Orion (Apollo 16 LM) was left in lunar orbit rather than
impacted. It too has probably decayed by now. Pedant's note: NASA abandoned
the abbreviation LEM in the mid sixties, before Apollo flew. The official
abbreviation since then has been LM for Lunar Module. (The E was for Excursion). 

I believe the Apollo 10 LM AS (Snoopy) was sent into solar orbit after it
was jettisoned; the descent stage was left in lunar orbit.

Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 02:29:46 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: breaking up NASA

In article <14471@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>One thing I miss from this list is space technology research -- the space
>>equivalent of the aeronautical research.  That's the single most important
>>contribution NASA could make to spaceflight.  NACA enormously speeded up
>>progress in aviation; we're overdue for the same thing in spaceflight.
>
>I can, like, totally dig this scene, man. :-)
>
>It does sound like a natural for NASA/NARA/whatever, but it should be
>picked at a bit more closely, like artichoke stew.  In the first place,
>a well defined MISSION should always come first, and NASA/etc should be
>carefully evaluated in each case as to whether it's the right agency for
>the job.
>
>Take high angle of attack (HAA) aircraft research for example - Henry
>and I both see AvWeek pix of this about every other week.  Why are they
>doing it?  Because EXISTING flight modes and missions need better HAA
>performance.  What do they need to do it?  One or two old planes and
>some wind tunnel time.  How's it going?  Great.  How potentially
>beneficial for the dollars spent?  Very.
>
>Now take the laughable supposed "mission" of lowering launch costs.  Has
>NASA got any damn business being involved?  Snort!  Let Boeing or
>someone with a *stake* in lower launch costs do it.

Uh, ever heard of winglets?  Supercritical wings?  Energy-efficient jet
engines?  Compression lift?  Practical transonic wind tunnels?  These
things were *not* invented by Boeing or those other people "with a stake
in lower flying costs".  They were invented by NACA/NASA, in pursuit of
its general mission of improving aeronautical technology.  A lot of the
launch-costs problem is bureaucratic and political and financial, but
better technology *always* helps.  And NASA has been doing pretty much
diddly-squat about it for the last couple of decades, despite it clearly
being part of their mission.

NACA's contribution to aeronautics, and in particular to lowering the cost
of flying, is almost beyond measuring.  It is difficult to find any major
development in wing cross-section design, for example, that *didn't* come
from NACA or the aeronautics side of NASA.  These things, by and large,
were *not* done in pursuit of specific missions.  And in particular, they
were *not* done because NACA wanted them for its own use.  The technology
side of NASA needs to be *less* focused on specific missions and vehicles
(like one we could name), not more.

>There's no doubt that if you DEFINE an international Mars mission, for
>instance, NASA needs to be tasked with inventing the craft needed...

NO!!!  Absolutely 100% wrong!!  NASA needs to be tasked with making sure
the necessary technology is there.  Not the same thing at all.  NASA is
no longer capable of designing and building vehicles economically; this
isn't all NASA's fault but is nevertheless true.  NASA should be helping
other people build vehicles, the same way NACA helped other people build
aircraft.  That approach just seems to work a whole lot better.

(Actually, part of the problem is that NASA itself is no longer capable
of building vehicles *at all*.  Few people now seem to appreciate the
extent to which NASA's biggest success story -- the Saturns -- relied
on NASA's own manufacturing facilities.  The contractor for the Saturn I
wasn't even *chosen* until after the first flight -- that bird was built
at Marshall Spaceflight Center, by NASA engineers under Wernher von Braun,
not by a contractor on a cost-plus contract.  The Saturn V was a more
cooperative venture, but the first few were still built at Marshall, by
a mixed NASA/industry crew under von Braun.  Industry deeply resented this
way of doing things, and it was the first capability NASA lost in the
post-Apollo cutbacks.  With results that we all know.  However, I am not
suggesting bringing this approach back, unless we can find someone like
von Braun to run it.  That one man made quite a difference.)
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 00:28:37 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!sudhama@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Chandrasekhara Sudhama)
Subject: Lagrangian Points

Hello, this is my first posting. Would someone please explain
(either on this network or in private email) the stability of the
equilibrium points in the Earth - Moon system? That is, why are
points #1 and #2 in stable equilibrium? If I remember right, they
are 60 degrees ahead of and behind the moon in her path. Any info
on the other points is also welcome.


                         #4

                        MOON

             #1                        #2

                         #3


                       EARTH

                         #5


       Thanks,
           sudhama

sudhama@walt.cc.utexas.edu 
                             "Cold hearted orb that rules the night
                                Removes the colours from our sight"
                                                 - The Moody Blues

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 89 16:51 GMT
From: DI301@ccuab1.uab.es
Subject: Sci.Astro

Please, where is Sci.Astro ?
Which is its email adress ?
Thanks !

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 20:42:00 GMT
From: frog!john@eddie.mit.edu  (John Woods)
Subject: A&E Rebroadcast of NBC Apollo coverage

Someone asked about "some cable network rebroadcasting NBC's Apollo coverage".
Here's the scoop.  All times are given in EDT.

Arts and Entertainment (A&E) cable network will be rebroadcasting the NBC
live news coverage 20 years after the original at the following times:

Liftoff		Sunday 16 July		9:20AM - 11:00 AM

Moonwalk	Thursday 20 July	10:30PM - 2:00 AM
(and again on	Sunday 23 July		2:30PM - 6PM)

Splashdown	Monday 24 July		1:30PM - 3:00PM


-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu
    People...How you gonna FIGURE 'em?
    Don't bother, S.L.--Just stand back and enjoy the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS...

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 22:11:13 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions

>1) What happen to Saturn V plans?
>
>Underconstruction by Henry.

Wow, so THAT'S where they went!  How does this man find the time,
with C news and everything. :-)

PS I hope Toronto has adequate barge facilities...

-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 06:51:51 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <26240@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>...  The cuts Eric describes would result in a
>$1.2 billion surplus for other programs if the space station is cancelled.

    The other programs may not have anything to do with space,
however.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 03:02:01 GMT
From: grits!ddavey@bellcore.com  (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <14462@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> The time has come to abolish NASA.  (It probably came in 1980, but
> better late than never).  In the true 80's corporate raider spirit of
> Gordon Gekko, we should spin it off into its components.
> 
> 	* Aeronautical research - a strong, important and well managed
> 	  program dating back to the 40's.  Retain present structure
> 	  intact and rename National Aeronautics Research Authority
> 	  (NARA).  Keep those high angle of attack planes flying!

Back to the 40's!?  Try 1917.  The NARA that you propose existed from
1917 to 1958.  It was called the National Advisory Council on Aeronautics
i.e. NACA (pronounced en ay cee ay, never as a word).
I agree with your point, but your history is a little off.  It was World
War 1 (not 2) that got the government heavily into aeronautical research.
Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA (the original NACA center, now
a NASA center) celebrated its 70th anniversary in 1987.  NASA was created
from NACA.

> Phone Tree Alert! (the sci.space equivalent of Attention K-Mart Shoppers!
> <grin>)  Let's get the above passed right away.  Comments?
> -- 
> "My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
> want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

                                  |     ___  ___         ___ ___  __   ___
Doug Davey                        |    /__/ /__ /   /   /   /  / /__) /__
bellcore!rruxi!ddavey             |   /__/ /__ /__ /__ /__ /__/ /  \ /__
(ex-NASA Langley employee)        |

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 06:47:57 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded)

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     July 13, 1989


RELEASE:  89-117

APOLLO-ERA TECHNOLOGY SPINOFFS CONTINUE TO ENHANCE HUMAN LIFE


     Twenty years after the triumph of America's first lunar 
landing, the technologies developed to enable manned spaceflights 
and exploration of the moon continue to enhance human life here 
on Earth through technology spinoffs to the fields of health, 
safety, comfort and enjoyment of life.

     The achievement of the national commitment to land U.S. 
astronauts on the moon and return them safely to Earth spurred 
major advances in emerging technologies, such as computers, which 
became smaller, lighter, and more efficient to meet the 
requirements for manned spacecraft.

     Some specific examples of everyday products that employ 
technology from the Apollo program:

     * The lunar roving vehicle, developed for use by the Apollo 
astronauts to venture several miles away from their landing base, 
was the source of a unistix controller now used by severely 
handicapped people to accelerate, brake and steer a typical 
passenger vehicle on the highway.  The vehicle's rubber tires, 
which had to have low temperature pliability, were developed for 
NASA by Goodyear, which used the technology to produce an all-
weather winter radial tire for use on automobiles.

     * Scratch resistant sunglass lenses were derived from a 
highly abrasion-resistant coating developed to protect, from 
harsh environments, the plastic surfaces of aerospace equipment 
like the helmet visors worn by moon-walking astronauts.

     * A collection of cordless tools -- such as drills and dust 
vacuums -- were derived from tools developed for the astronauts 
to use on the moon while collecting surface and subsurface lunar 
soil samples.

     * Patient monitoring equipment, commonly used today at 
nurses stations to monitor the heart rate and other physiological 
signs of hospital patients, employs the same technology that was 
developed to monitor astronaut vital signs during spaceflight.

     * A special fabric developed for Apollo spacesuits, with the 
qualities of being thin, light, flexible, yet durable and non-
combustible, provided the technology basis for heavier material 
used for constructing fabric roofs on structures like Michigan's 
silverdome.

     * For moonwalking safety and comfort, the Apollo astronauts 
wore lunar boots which featured a three-dimensional "spacer " 
material for cushioning and ventilation.  The material has been 
modified for use today in a popular line of athletic shoes 
designed for improved shock absorption and reduced foot fatigue.

     * Hundreds of lives have been saved through a widely used 
commercial raft that will not capsize in heavy seas.  The raft 
employs a NASA-patented water ballast stabilization system used 
in rafts developed for the returning Apollo astronauts after 
their splashdown.

     * An electrical power controller, developed for use on the 
Saturn rocket to conserve energy, has been widely used to reduce 
energy consumption in electrical motors.

     * A 3M-designed, meal-heating unit developed for Apollo 
spacecraft crews served as the basis for an electronic food 
warming system used in hospitals.

     * The inorganic coatings developed to provide corrosion 
protection to the seaside launch gantries used for Apollo-Saturn 
missions have seen widespread industrial use on coastal and ocean 
structures such as bridges, pipelines, ships and oil rigs.

     * Insulation technology developed for the Saturn V booster 
fuel tanks by Rockwell International provided an improved 
insulation for the wells holding fresh-caught fish on tuna boats.

     These are but a few of the spinoffs, estimated to number in 
the thousands, which can be traced directly to the technology 
that launched and landed Americans on the moon in July 1969.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #564
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/AYoJcfy00UkVE7fU4u>;
          Sat, 29 Jul 89 03:18:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYoJcXi00UkV07dk5q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 89 03:17:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #565

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 565

Today's Topics:
			     Re: Moonwalk
		CBS Apollo Special (was Re: Moonwalk)
			     Re: Rockets
 NASA, Canadians to fly plasma experiment on OMV mission (Forwarded)
			      Re: (none)
		  Write those Letters to the Editor
     Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 19:17:20 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!leem@apple.com  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Moonwalk

In article <2280@orion.cf.uci.edu> dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu (Doug Krause) writes:
:Also, how did the camera that was left behind on the Moon track the
:top of the Eagle taking off?  and how did they get THAT reel of film
:back?
:Douglas Krause                     CA Prop i:  Ban Gummie Bears(tm)!

The picture that they showed of the Lunar Ascent Module taking off was
from Apollo 17.  The picture was sent directly to the Apollo and Deep
Space Network stations by a transmitter left on the surface of the
Moon.

Lee


"I'm the NRA"

"...I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." -- John
F. Kennedy 1960, NRA Life Member.

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516      
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem  leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 17:27:32 GMT
From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: CBS Apollo Special (was Re: Moonwalk)

In article <8983@chinet.chi.il.us> john@chinet.chi.il.us (John Mundt) writes:
>I am disturbed that no one felt the need to explain that most of the pretty
>color pictures were from the lunar rover's cameras on later flights.

Yeah, they used a lot of space footage that wasn't from Apollo 11 without
attribution.

>Also, CBS's coverage spent most of its time showing the trivial things
>being done at the same time as Apollo 11, rather than mission activities.
>If I'd have wanted to see a horse being broken, I'd have checked out a
>John Wayne movie!

Well, I was dubious about this when I read the program description, but after 
watching it I liked it a lot.  The special's focus was obviously Apollo 11, but 
they were also showing a video time capsule of what was happening in the US 
during the mission to the moon.  I was impressed that twenty years ago a
network news division felt such an obligation to history that they would send 
40 crews out around the US to film everyday life during that week in 1969 -- 
and not broadcast it until 1989.  They wouldn't do that today, and that says 
as much about what has happened in 20 years as the footage itself.

-- 
"Good.  For a minute I thought we were in trouble."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                      uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu        internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 18:35:15 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Rockets

>A friend of my and I we both plan to build a tiny rocket in our spacetime,
>but we don't actually have a plan for doing it.

May I offer two words which will be of immense help in making sure that your
efforts in rocketry begin along a safe, reasonable path?  These words are:

Estes Industries.


If you really want to get involved in some form of rocketry, to learn about
rocket propulsion, aerodymanics, or whatever, there is no better way to start
than through *model* rocketry (as opposed to "amateur", i.e., build-yer-own-
engines, rocketry).  Model rockets are not toys, and one can both learn a lot
and have a whole lot of fun in this hobby.  You might also want to contact
the National Association of Rocketry (NAR), model rocketry's governing body
in the U.S., for the name and address of an NAR-affiliated group near you.

Trying to build your own rockets - including engines, etc. - is at best risky,
and there is absolutely no need for this sort of thing.  If a model rocket with
an "F" or "G" engine doesn't give you a big enough thrill, then you should 
still consider alternatives which are safer than roll-your-own - such as
skateboarding with nitroglycerine-filled kneepads in a gravel pit.


Bob Myers            | "Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of -
myers%hpfcla@hplabs. |  but do it in private, and wash your hands afterwards."
hp.com               |                   - Lazarus Long/Robert A. Heinlein

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 16:26:30 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA, Canadians to fly plasma experiment on OMV mission (Forwarded)

James Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Debra J. Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

John M. Dumoulin
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.


RELEASE:  89-112

NASA, CANADIANS TO FLY PLASMA EXPERIMENT ON OMV MISSION

     NASA is planning to fly a Canadian experiment to measure the 
behavior of radio waves in space and properties of the upper 
atmosphere, the ionosphere, during the demonstration flight of 
the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV), according to a proposal 
recently agreed to by the Canadian Space Agency.

     The ionosphere layer causes reflection of shortwave radio 
signals and therefore, allows global communications.  It also is 
the region that first begins to filter solar radiation that could 
be harmful to life on Earth.

     The maiden voyage of the OMV, a remotely controlled, 
reusable "space tug" designed to perform a number of tasks 
including maneuvering other spacecraft on orbit, is currently 
scheduled for launch aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 1993.

     Its payload will be a 3-part, high-frequency radio wave 
experiment called Waves in Space Plasma (WISP-HF).  Developed by 
the National Research Council of Canada, the experiment will 
measure the interaction of an antenna with the tenuous upper 
atmosphere that has been transformed into a plasma -- a gas of 
charged particles -- by sunlight.  This layer is called the 
ionosphere.  

     This interaction will be measured close to the antenna.  
WISP-HF will study the propagation of radio waves through the 
ionosphere within a few miles or so of the antenna and then make 
measurements with the OMV up to 60 miles from the orbiter to 
clarify the scale structure and behavior of the ionosphere.

     WISP-HF is the high-frequency portion of a collaborative 
U.S.-Canadian investigation that was scheduled to be flown on one 
of the first space plasma laboratory missions in the l990s.  
These missions were delayed due to the Challenger accident.  
Flight of the WISP-HF hardware on the OMV-1 mission will 
accomplish many of the original science objectives while 
requiring only limited modification to the hardware.

     By operating the transmitter at heights near the maximum 
density of the ionosphere, radio waves will be sent directly or 
bounced between the orbiter and WISP/HF receiver aboard OMV-1.  
Instruments aboard the orbiter and OMV-1 will monitor 
disturbances in ionospheric plasma.

     The WISP-HF equipment will generate, receive and process 
signals in the 0.1- to 30-MHz range.  The orbiter-based 
transmitter will have variable pulse-power levels up to 500 watts 
and will use a dipole antenna, 164 feet tip-to-tip.

     WISP-HF receivers will be located both on the orbiter and on 
OMV-1.  During its checkout, the OMV-1, remotely controlled from 
the ground, will be flown as far from the orbiter as 60 miles. 

     The OMV project, WISP-HF mission integration and hardware 
for integrating the WISP-HF to the OMV-1 will be managed at the 
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 89 17:54:35 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: (none)

/ hpcvlx:sci.space / hess@FERMAT.MAYO.EDU (d. scott hess) / 12:26 pm  Jul  7, 1989 /
Subject:  RE: Re:  Vaguely space related queries ( and then some)
 
Arnold Gill writes:
}Will Martin asked several questions, which got various responses, some
}of which were rather dubious attempts at physics.
} 
}>1) Regarding X-ray astronomy -- the X-ray detectors must be placed into space,
}> [ stuff deleted about atmosphere X-ray absorption ]
} 
}Henry Spencer, among others, gave the correct answer.  The
}atmosphere is actually opaque at all but visible wavelengths (plus a few
}others).  The penetrability of ANY type of radiation has little to do
}with the density of the matter by itself, but rather with ALL of the
}properties of the matter, of which density is only one.
 
Remember: It is no coincidence that the light getting throught the
atmosphere happens to pretty much fall in the set that we can see
easily.  Its not that surprising that all the others are outside the
visible spectrum, because if they came through well, they'd more than
likely also be in the visible spectrum.

}>5) Neutronium and similar compressed matter -- is there any theoretical

There were a couple good books by Robert L. Forward, Dragons Egg, and
Neutron Star.  They are fiction, but he's pretty good with his science.
The electrons do get pretty much free rein in a neuron star - who's to
slow them down?  Its my impression that neutronium isn't a solid, but
more like a liquid.  There isn't really anything holding the neutrons
together, besides gravity.  Its sort of like a planet made up of
billiard balls.  But then again, I didn't get all that far in physics,
so take this with a grain of salt.



Later, same issue, Tom Neff has (in reply to Henry Spencer):
}>                            General Dynamics,
}>Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Arianespace, etc., will scream bloody
}>murder, hire lobbyists, and start talking excitedly to Congressthings,
}>because they simply can't do it.
} 
}Precisely the kind of catfight that kills missions.  QED.

Ooops- out of context here.  The next bit said he thought the private
agaencies would jump in and do it for them.  Of course, the private
agencies certainly aren't going to be doing a lot of heavy-listing for a
while ...
 
}>Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years?
} 
}Our track record supports my assertion better than your objection, I
}think.  We can't get that hardware ready in 10 years because we can't do
}ANYTHING in 10 years anymore.  The can-do technocracy that gave us
}Vietnam and Apollo is ancient history.  It's suicidally futile to
}predicate a Mars mission on JFK rising Arthur-like from the grave.  We
}have to design something around the do-able.  While we don't have
}Sputnik or Camelot to lean on anymore, we do have new dynamics like
}international cooperation, plus the huge quantum leap in one fundamental
}ability: to send back killer images from anywhere we visit.  Neptune
}about to provide a fresh example it appears.  The early Moon race had
}the support of the nation even though most Americans only "saw" it through
}paragraphs in the newspaper.  What could Ogilvy & Mather do with the
}Viking stuff and the JPL Mars Movie?  But I digress.

Sorry, I have to side with Tom here.  The original letter floored me
when I saw it - Henry Spencer being really optimistic! Noooo.  Really,
I'd like to see this happen soon, but I don't see it coming.  I think 10
years is a bit much to ask.  Maybe in ten years, it won't be though.

}Apollo was not strangled at birth, it was conceived in haste and
}repented at leisure.**

I don't think the right people are doing the repenting, though.  The
stranlgers are still out there ...
 
}>                            ... set your sights higher.  Mars is not that
}>hard.
} 
}Prove it!  Let's go there and prove me wrong!
} 
}Mars is too easy?  Nice problem to have!**

Wait?  Mars isn't that hard, if we put our minds to it.  It seems that
the main point you made was that we wouldn't do that, though.  And I'm
sure Apollo looked hard to those who were in charge of implementing it.

And now, for some original thought.  I think NASAs main problem today is
that they tried to be TOO far-thinking.  Apollo was NOT that far ahead
of its time - it broke new ground, but alot of it wasn't really that new
- it was just an engineering problem.  They'd had experience with
rockets, etc.  They basically needed to build them bigger.

The Space Shuttle, meanwhile, was conceived to be way ahead of its time,
and it was!  They had little or no experience with much of the
technology involved.  And thus, they spent much more time than they
thought they would building new industries for it.  If they had waited a
bit, exeperimented more, then maybe we'd be in a better position.  The
shuttle program would have been better off to have started in the 80's,
and launched in the 90's.  Who says we couldn't have done most of what
we've done with the shuttle with apollo-era equipment?  ( I didn't say
all.  There have been things which were done just because we have a
shuttle, some with very little reason beyond that.) And now it looks
like they've finally figured out that they aren't going to have enough
launch space on the shuttle, and its not the best thing since the
invention of the wheel.  And the older technology does have its uses.

So, what I want to say is that I would like to go to Mars, or to
Freedom, but I think they should try building it to be useful, not
revolutionary.

Lastly, about the use of "vapor"-ware on the Space Station (and anywhere
else) - 256M chips will be around by 1998, in all likelyhood, but I'll
consider myself lucky if I can buy 16M chips.  Same with high density
LCDs.  That would be nice to have on the Space Station, but I'd not want
to be trusting in equipment which hasn't been around long enough to be
fully debugged.  I would wait at least five years on equipment, because
by that time industry has generally gotten their act together.  And I
don't mean five years between announcement and usage, I mean between
shipping in quantity and usage.  Right now I'd trust 80386s, or 68030s,
but probably not MIPs or SPARC.  And definitely not the 80486 and 68040,
and 64M RAM chips.  They simply do not work yet.  There is no need for
NASA to pioneer this area anymore.  Others are doing very well, thank
you.

Scott Hess

These opinions may or may not be fictitious or otherwise non-existent.
Any reflection of reality found therein is probably distorted.
----------

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 05:08:14 GMT
From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Write those Letters to the Editor

If you've ever considered writing a Letter to the Editor of a newspaper in
favor of space exploration and development, now is the time to do so!!

With the 20th anniversary just around the bend, papers are RAVENOUS to get
material -- opinions, different angles, anything!

So write down your thoughts about the space program and send them off
today...  It's the best opportunity you'll have of getting a pro-space
letter published for many a year!

Remember, when you write a letter to the editor, leave WIDE MARGINS, always
DOUBLE SPACE, and put your home address, along with a day and evening phone.

And don't send the same letter to multiple publications.  (Variations may
be acceptable, but certainly not the same wording.)

But most of all, DO IT NOW!  The space activist community won't get this
good a chance to be heard for quite some time...

- ERIC -

Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Quadrangle Club      | 11 Prospect Drive South  | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
33 Prospect Avenue   | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 11:10:02 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@uunet.uu.net  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this

From article <5307@hplabsb.HP.COM>, by dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith):
> I don't recall whether the baby was boy or girl, but the name given was
> Lunar Module McGee.

I do hope the poor kid doesn't get their name shortened (as in the way my
name Andrew is shortened (admittedly by choice) to Andy). Imagine being
called "Luny" by all your friends :-( :-)

Still, "Lunar" does sound nicer than "Module" so it's not so bad.

-- 
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND
JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk   BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #565
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/0YoLNzu00UkVM7pU50>;
          Sat, 29 Jul 89 05:18:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <sYoLNs600UkV07nk44@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 89 05:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #566

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 566

Today's Topics:
Re: NASA exhibit at EAA focuses on "Investing in the future"  (Forwarded)
       Re: Station alternatives, What do WE have to do with it
			     Re: Moonwalk
	       Request for more info on ozone depletion
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
	     Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
			     Re: Moonwalk
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 09:05:42 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NASA exhibit at EAA focuses on "Investing in the future"  (Forwarded)

In article <28594@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident (Peter E. Yee) forwards:
>Mary Sandy
>Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 13, 1989
>
>Linda S. Ellis
>Lewis Research Center, Cleveland
>
>
>RELEASE:  89-116
>
>NASA EXHIBIT AT EAA FOCUSES ON "INVESTING IN THE FUTURE" 
>
>
>      In the 20 years since man first stepped on the moon, NASA 
>has taken bold strides toward even greater achievements in space 
>science and exploration.

Bold strides backwards: increasing the complexity of launch systems to
previously unheard of levels, decrease in launch rate, decrease in
number of science missions, increase in dependence on the shuttle since
Challenger.  

>			   In addition to launching three major 
>space science missions this year, NASA stands on the brink of 
>establishing a permanent manned presence in space aboard Space 
>Station Freedom.

So "on the brink" means within 6 years at the cost of $60 billion
dollars, assuming full funding, and that all 70 shuttle flights between
now and then will go off on schedule and without failure.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN NOW AND SCREAM AT HIM UNTIL HE AGREES THAT ONLY
NASA COULD HAVE DEVELOPED CORDLESS POWER TOOLS, AND THEREFORE THEY
DESERVE FULL FUNDING FOR THE SPACE STATION.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 07:31:34 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Station alternatives, What do WE have to do with it

In article <33134@apple.Apple.COM>, leech@Apple (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>In article <26321@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>So, what are the appropriate alternatives?  Or should we refrain from
>>offering any so that when the money is taken from NASA we can blame all
>>future space program woes on the congress?
>
>    What do "we" have to do with it, anyway?

We (or you) have nothing to do with it unless we provide input.  Read
the Congressional Record.  The committees that determine NASA funding
don't get much input from outside NASA.  They need coherent
alternatives, not just people telling them they are bums for questioning
the glorious and inevitable benefits of a NASA dominated space program.

Rumor has it that our elected officials are supposed to represent us.
On that basis it is perfectly reasonable to go to them and ask for their
support on an issue that you feel is important.

My congressman is Ron Dellums.  He is a cosponsor of the Space
Transportation Services Purchase Act (Formerly the Launch Services
Purchase Act).  Who is your congressman?  When did you last visit his
office?  Have you asked him to support the STSPA?

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 14:34:09 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com!hiatus.dec.com!moon.dec.com!fisher@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: Re: Moonwalk


Douglas Krouse asks, "how did the camera that was left behind on the Moon
track the LM taking off, and how did they get the film back"

They did not and it did not.  The picture you saw was not Apollo XI.  It was
XVI or XVII.  There was not picture from the outside of XI taking off.  In the
later flights which had a Lunar Rover, the rover was parked a little ways from
the LM and its camera was focused on the LM.  Ground controllers manuvered the
camera by remote control.  Must have been interesting trying to do that with
a 2-second delay.  (They must have had it preprogrammed).  In any case, this
was not the first rover flight, because they did not try to track the LM
liftoff.  The pitch on the camera was a bit flakey and they did not want to get
it stuck pointing up in the air since they wanted to use it later.  Thus,
it must have been one of the later flights.  Anyone out there who could tell
by the terrain (er selain??)?

BTW, I'm quite angry at CBS for trying to pull this one over on us.  Give us
back Uncle Walter!

Burns

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 16:04:01 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Request for more info on ozone depletion

About a month ago, I heard a news story on how NASA scientists had 
discovered a relationship between the loss of the ozone layer and 
the bombardment of the layer by electrons originating in the magnetosphere(sp?)

A friend of mine has asked me if I can get more information on this subject.
Can anyone point me to an authorative reference for this, possible a NASA
publication or published paper? Please mail replies. Thanks in advance.
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 00:54:49 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <377@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> tomc@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Tom Corsetti) writes:
>I remember Apollo 8 as being the first time men orbitted the moon.  They
>had no LM for that mission.  If I remember right, 10 was the first test
>of the LM, and it was done in Earth Orbit.  Please correct me if I am
>wrong.  I can't for the life of me remember what Apollo 9 accomplished.

After Apollo 7, there was some uncertainty about what to do.  The LM was
badly behind schedule.  The original plans provided for the possibility of
a second Earth-orbit mission by just a CSM, and required an Earth-orbit 
test of the full (CSM+LM) Apollo before any lunar missions were flown.
However, the LM was not going to be ready for months, and nobody could see
much point in just repeating Apollo 7.  So why not fly the CSM around
the Moon?  The second LMless Earth-orbit flight was changed to a lunar
mission and was moved up to precede the Earth-orbit LM test.  So Apollo 8
flew around the Moon with just the CSM, Apollo 9 tested the LM in Earth
orbit, Apollo 10 flew a dress rehearsal of the landing (including LM
descent to 10 miles above the Moon), and Apollo 11 was the big one.

There was some discussion about whether Apollo 10 was really needed; why
get to within 10 miles of the lunar surface and then go home?  But a lot
of people felt that an all-up test, including a real lunar-orbit rendezvous,
was a good idea before landing.  What finally settled the matter was that
Apollo 10's LM was overweight and could not have flown a complete landing
mission.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 16:40:12 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <1188@bcd-dyn.UUCP> dbp@bcd-dyn.UUCP (dbp) writes:
>
>
>I watched the CBS special about Apollo 11 last night.  
>(Thanks to whoever posted the notice; I wouldn't have known 
>about it otherwise.)  Can anybody answer two questions?
>
The one thing that stuck me was the pictures of the LEM lifting off.  And
in color at that.  If I remember right, the first color TV camera was on
Apollo 12, and I thing this was also the first time that they left the 
camera on for lift off.
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 13:46:48 GMT
From: grits!ddavey@bellcore.com  (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <1989Jul19.005449.3163@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> orbit, Apollo 10 flew a dress rehearsal of the landing (including LM
> descent to 10 miles above the Moon), and Apollo 11 was the big one.

The line that sticks in my mind from Apollo 10 was:

	"We're really down among 'em!"

It must have been quite a sight to be in orbit, but be only 10 miles
above the surface.

Does anybody remember whether the ascent or descent engine was used
during Apollo 10's return from low orbit to rendezvous with the CSM?
Either option seems difficult.  On the one hand, I would not expect
the descent engine to be restartable.  On the other, firing the
ascent engine and getting the ascent stage cleanly separated from the
descent stage would be tricky since the descent stage was deigned to
be firmly on the lunar surface during this operation.

                                  |     ___  ___         ___ ___  __   ___
Doug Davey                        |    /__/ /__ /   /   /   /  / /__) /__
bellcore!rruxi!ddavey             |   /__/ /__ /__ /__ /__ /__/ /  \ /__
                                  |

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 12:21:02 GMT
From: mcvax!hp4nl!eutrc3!exiphm@uunet.uu.net  (h.munk)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)

In article <28782@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> continues to perform twice daily momentum wheel desaturations
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Forive me my ignorance, but what is "momentum wheel desaturation",
and why is it done ?


Harm Munk

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 21:15:46 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <17231@bellcore.bellcore.com> ddavey@grits.UUCP (Doug Davey) writes:
>In article <1989Jul19.005449.3163@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> orbit, Apollo 10 flew a dress rehearsal of the landing (including LM
>> descent to 10 miles above the Moon), and Apollo 11 was the big one.
>
>Does anybody remember whether the ascent or descent engine was used
>during Apollo 10's return from low orbit to rendezvous with the CSM?
>Either option seems difficult.  On the one hand, I would not expect
>the descent engine to be restartable.  On the other, firing the
>ascent engine and getting the ascent stage cleanly separated from the
>descent stage would be tricky since the descent stage was deigned to
>be firmly on the lunar surface during this operation.

Since the Apollo 10 was a full dress-rehersal for Apollo 11 it did
everything 11 would do, except land. This flying under the same lighting
conditions as 11 to take landing site pictures, establish landmarks, etc.

This included staging and returning to high-orbit using the ascent stage, 
much as was done on Apollo 9 two months before. So they were doing nothing
really new, just verifying the LMs capabilities in the Lunar environment.
The notable thing that happened on Apollo 10 was at the point of staging when
one of the crew accedentally switched the computer from "attitude hold", over
to a mode that told it to start hunting for the CM. Since the CM was nowhere
to be found the LM went into a wild dance. Stafford hit the abort button
(what Armstrong would've done if the 1202 and 1201 alarms were too serious
to ignore), staged and everything calmed down. They were at an altitude of
about 8 1/2 NM (at least according to the Flight Plan), and were coming up
to a mountain that was 3 miles high. Pretty dramatic stuff.



          *** mike (still looking for a publisher) smithwick ***

"Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 23:06:26 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <17231@bellcore.bellcore.com> ddavey@grits.UUCP (Doug Davey) writes:
>... On the other, firing the
>ascent engine and getting the ascent stage cleanly separated from the
>descent stage would be tricky since the descent stage was deigned to
>be firmly on the lunar surface during this operation.

No, there were various abort possibilities (including running out of
descent-stage fuel while trying to find a smooth spot to land) that
required in-flight separation.  I *think* Apollo 10 tested it.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 16:34:24 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com!hiatus.dec.com!moon.dec.com!fisher@decuac.dec.com
Subject: Re: Moonwalk

Distribution: na
Organization: VMS DECwindows Development


Just out of curiosity, did the Apollo 17 tape that CBS "confused" with
the Apollo 11
version also have audio?  In other words, were we listening to the
mission control
callouts from 17 or 11?

Burns

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 21:31:03 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <1398@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>In article <1188@bcd-dyn.UUCP> dbp@bcd-dyn.UUCP (dbp) writes:
>>
>>
>>I watched the CBS special about Apollo 11 last night.  
>>(Thanks to whoever posted the notice; I wouldn't have known 
>>about it otherwise.)  Can anybody answer two questions?
>>
>The one thing that stuck me was the pictures of the LEM lifting off.  And
>in color at that.  If I remember right, the first color TV camera was on
>Apollo 12, and I thing this was also the first time that they left the 
>camera on for lift off.
>-- 

The Apollo 12 camera was burned out by Al Bean about 45 minutes into the
EVA. Even had the camera lasted, it could not have shown the liftoff since
it was powered by the LM, and had no remote control facility. The first
liftoff views came from Apollo 15 since the TV was controlled by earth, and
being on the rover it was completely independent  of the LM.

Due to Bean's screwup, Apollo 13 and 14 carried a backup black and white
camera (similar to the Apollo 11 model), and were instructed to cover
up the lens whenever it was moved. The thing I wonder about is why no-one
caught Bean's error before it was too late. It took about 25 or 30 seconds
before it was killed, plenty of time for someone on the ground to say
"hey you idiot, aim the camera down!!". What was interesting is that
at one point after the burnout there was a brief flash of the LM that
was visible.

On the Emmy awards later on, the crew was given a special award, and
on it was inscribed something like "never before have so many watched
for so long for so little". 

The Apollo 12 crew was known to be rather clumsy. In "Chariots for
Apollo" they told about a sim in a real LM on the ground with Bean and
Conrad. The LM's cabin was banged around pretty bad. Whereas, I think
it was the Apollo 9 crew, which were so careful they left the cabin neater
then when they arrived.




          *** mike (still looking for a publisher) smithwick ***

"Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #566
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/wYoc9Sm00UkVA8WE47>;
          Sun, 30 Jul 89 00:21:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <oYoc9Je00UkVA8UU47@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 89 00:21:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #567

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 567

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Impossible Space Goals
		    Re: Significance of July 20th
			Re: Lagrangian Points
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
		   Re: Kuiper Airborne Observatory
			   PHONE TREE ALERT
			Re: Lagrangian Points
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
		     Re: Apollo 11 program alarms
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
		      Re: Impossible Space Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 13:46:51 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Impossible Space Goals

In article <1699@infinet.UUCP> rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) writes:
>In article <4304@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>>                 ...  You will see the great unknowns at the time:
>>Was the surface of the moon hard or miles of dust for a lander to sink?
>
>There were even two series of Lunar probes launched to specifically
>answer this and related questions.  It was nice back in the days when
>you could have short turnaround simple missions.  Specific focused
>goals and specific focused schedules are so much easier to work with
>than ongoing generic projects.

Whoa.

Assuming Zond doesn't count, there were two programs where unmanned
spacecraft touched the lunar surface: Ranger and Surveyor.  Ranger was a
hard ballistic impact probe which relayed TV pictures on the way down.
The final pictures were taken a few thousand feet above the surface;
nobody really knew what happened when a Ranger hit.  Dust or basalt
would have extinguished the craft with equal efficiency.

The first real answers about Lunar composition (remember to forget Zond)
came from Surveyor.  It did everything you could have asked -- it was a
terrific program, my all time favorite until Viking.  (After Viking,
it's a tie.)  But it was NOT a short turnaround mission.  In fact it was
one of the few vestiges of the PRE-Apollo, pre-Kennedy-challenge notion
of the US space program.  Surveyor had been on the books for about six
years.  With the crash Kennedy program, the three manned spacecraft
became top priority and Ike's stuff languished at JPL, underfunded and
behind schedule.  In 1963 or 64 it was realized that Surveyor could
provide key answers needed to build an LM.  (I don't think anyone at
NASA took Gold's theory of mile deep dust oceans very seriously, but it
still makes a difference whether you're landing on bricks or sand.)  So
Surveyor got a funding and management push along with the Lunar Orbiter
cameras (now THERE was a simple mission).

For me, Surveyor was the real first glimpse of the Moon as another world.
When Apollo astronauts followed in its footsteps (literally with 12),
we saw an awesome sight -- one which had run in LIFE three years before.


-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 19:54:45 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!leem@decwrl.dec.com  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Significance of July 20th

In article <8907181750.AA09311@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?) writes:

I'd like to remind everyone that July 20th is also the 13th
anniversary of the Viking I soft landing on Mars.

Lee

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516      
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem  leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 04:08:51 GMT
From: crdgw1!ge-dab!sunny!harrison@uunet.uu.net  (Gregory Harrison)
Subject: Re: Lagrangian Points

In article <15070@ut-emx.UUCP> sudhama@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Chandrasekhara Sudhama) writes:
>Hello, this is my first posting. Would someone please explain
>(either on this network or in private email) the stability of the
>equilibrium points in the Earth - Moon system? 

From my L5 days, the straight line points, on the Earth-Moon line are 2/3 stablewhich means that the satellites placed at these straight-line libration points,
L1, L2, and L3 can move in a plane that is perpendicular to the line joining theEarth and the Moon, and the libration phenonenon at these 2/3 stable points actsso as to return the satellite to the libration point.  But if the satellite moves towards the Earth or Moon, the satellite will continue approaching the Earth or Moon.  Thus the L1, L2, and L3 points are 2/3 stable, i.e. they return to the libration point from 2 of the 3 possible dimensions it can traverse away from the libration point.  On the othe






r hand, the L4 and L5 points are stable in all 3 dimensions.  The satellite can move anywhere about the point (within some kidneyshaped bounds) and still experience forces that draw it back into the libration point.

The L5 point, namesake of the pioneering space settler society, is trailing the Earth in the Earth-Moon system cyclical progression (I believe) as the Earth andMoon rotate about their combined center of rotation.  I think that was the case,and I believe the L5 Society decided on that location for settlement due to enhanced safety in case of emergency.  The Earth would be moving away from the Settlement and pose less of a danger should the satellite orbit be perturbed.

The 2/3 stable points are useful despite the instability in the 3rd dimension.  There was, and may still be, a satellite placed at the libration point between the Earth and the Sun, and set into an orbit about the line between the Earth and the Sun such that when viewed from the Earth (with appropriate equipment, not eyes, of course) the satellite would circumscribe the borders of the Sun.  NASA had redirected this satellite into that orbit after it had completed some other mission.  Perhaps it was called 






Solar Max, I can't recall.  Perhaps someone else out there would know.  Maybe the L5er ==> NSS member who originally passed the news to me may be on the net and would know.  

The mathematical formulations of the other postings on this subject are very interesing.  It would be interesting to know what all those numbers mean.  For instance the 24.999~, and the 27*  ... etc.  There must be a good reference?

To The Stars,

Greg Harrison
NSS member

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 15:51:09 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@handies.ucar.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <17231@bellcore.bellcore.com>, ddavey@grits.ctt.bellcore.com (Doug Davey) writes:
> Does anybody remember whether the ascent or descent engine was used
> during Apollo 10's return from low orbit to rendezvous with the CSM?
> Either option seems difficult.  On the one hand, I would not expect
> the descent engine to be restartable.  On the other, firing the
> ascent engine and getting the ascent stage cleanly separated from the
> descent stage would be tricky since the descent stage was deigned to
> be firmly on the lunar surface during this operation.
> 
The LM used nitrogen tetraoxide and hydrazine (was it UDMH or some other
chemical variant???) as oxidizer and propellant.  These are hypergolic
propellants, which means that you don't need an igniter--the chemicals
hate each other so much that they ignite on contact (paraphrased from
"Chariots for Apollo").  So, if you can control the fuel and oxidizer
valves (simple, since the engines had to have thrust control, so valves
were there), you can re-start the engine repeatedly, until you run out
of fuel.

My memory indicates that the descent stage was cut free, and the ascent
stage was used for the rendezvouz.  Again, the book "Chariots for Apollo"
gives some very human-oriented insight into this process.  Some of the
engineers at Grumman who were responsible for the separation never did
watch or listen to a take-off from the moon.  There were many pyrotechnic
charges for the separation, each of which powered a guilliotine to sever
electrical, water, air, etc, lines between the ascent and descent stages.
Failure of one of the guilliotines would have been catastrophic.  If you
haven't read this book, find it.  It is very good, IMHO.

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 20:02:15 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!leem@decwrl.dec.com  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Kuiper Airborne Observatory

In article <150@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> willner@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Willner) writes:
:> Now take the Kuiper observatory.  Why is NASA in charge?  Ya got me,
:> buddy.  (I know NSF and others help adminstrate.)
:
:Just a tiny correction.  The KAO is entirely operated by NASA - no NSF
:or other agency involvement whatever.  The next-generation airborne
:observatory (SOFIA - Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy)
:will be a joint project of NASA and the West German space agency.
:(BMFT, I think, though darned if I know what the initials stand for.)
:
:Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa

BMDT = Bundes Ministerium fuer Forshung und Technologie = Federal
Ministry for Research and Technology. (spelling is probably not quite
right)

Lee

"I'm the NRA"

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516      
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem  leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
BMFT =

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 14:22:39 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: PHONE TREE ALERT


Call Congressman Robert Roe (D-NJ) at 202/225-5751.  Ask him, as
chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, to hold
hearings on HR2674, the Space Transportation Services Purchase Act of
1989, as soon as possible.


William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN NOW AND SCREAM AT HIM UNTIL HE EQUATES "NASA" WITH
"SPACE PROGRAM"

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 12:57:13 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Lagrangian Points

In article <2100@ge-dab.GE.COM>, harrison@sunny.DAB.GE.COM (Gregory Harrison) wrote:
}The 2/3 stable points are useful despite the instability in the 3rd
}dimension.  There was, and may still be, a satellite placed at the libration
point between
} the Earth and the Sun, and set into an orbit about the line between the
Earth and
} the Sun such that when viewed from the Earth (with appropriate equipment,
}not eyes, of course) the satellite would circumscribe the borders of the Sun.
NASA
} had redirected this satellite into that orbit after it had completed some
} other mission.  Perhaps it was called
}Solar Max, I can't recall.  Perhaps someone else out there would know.  Maybe
}the L5er ==> NSS member who originally passed the news to me may be on the net
}and would know.

The one satellite I can recall in such an orbit was reused as the
International Comet Explorer or some such name--NASA spent 18 months
maneuvering it through a complex trajectory around the earth-moon system using
multiple gravity boosts to get it into solar orbit and fly by a comet, all on
station-keeping fuel!  It even managed to beat out all the Halley fly-bys by a
few months, going to a different comet.  Too bad the original mission didn't
require cameras....

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
FAX: available on request                      Disclaimer? I claimed something?

PROGRAM n. A magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn one's input
  into error messages.  tr.v. To engage in a pastime similar to banging one's
  head against a wall, but with fewer opportunies for reward.
        -- from a flyer advertising for _Inside_Turbo_Pascal_

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 20:46:12 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <1989Jul15.214136.8236@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
<
<The early Saturn Vs had little camera pods that separated, reentered,
<and were recovered.  The purpose being, obviously, to monitor how well
<things like staging worked.  (Other than staging, the one thing I know
<that was photographed by the pods (via fiber-optic bundles) was fuel
<movement inside the tanks; those films are pretty boring, though.)
<

On the Apollo 6 mission, one of the cameras was lost. It was finally
found about 4 years later, having washed up onto the beach of some
south sea island. The film was still good.

Most of the footage of staging is from the unmanned missions, I don't
think that any of the manned boosters had the cameras on board.


          *** mike (still looking for a publisher) smithwick ***

"Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 20:59:37 GMT
From: sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!lad-shrike!milano!kepler!richter@decwrl.dec.com  (Charlie Richter)
Subject: Re: Apollo 11 program alarms

> In that CBS special it appeared that Armstrong made that decision. He
> said something to the effect, "Hang tight, we're going" and just kep
> going when the program alarm came up.

Among recently published books, both Aldrin's MEN FROM EARTH and
Harry Hurt III's FOR ALL MANKIND describe the events surrounding
the 1202 and 1201 alarms.  Both books claim that Bales, as GUIDO,
made the decision to ignore the alarms.  (I don't believe that
Collins deals with this topic in either of his books, but I could
be wrong about that.)
-- 
Charlie Richter   MCC   Austin, Texas
  uucp: richter@milano.uucp     arpa: richter@mcc.com
"The panic ... was not due to anything fundamentally weak in either business
   or finance.  It was confined to the market itself."   - WSJ, Oct. 31, 1929

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 17:24:02 GMT
From: ingr!boley@uunet.uu.net  (Kirk Boley)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <1989Jul19.005449.3163@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> There was some discussion about whether Apollo 10 was really needed; why
> get to within 10 miles of the lunar surface and then go home?  But a lot
> of people felt that an all-up test, including a real lunar-orbit rendezvous,
> was a good idea before landing.  What finally settled the matter was that
> Apollo 10's LM was overweight and could not have flown a complete landing
> mission.
> -- 
> $10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
> (Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
	I always wondered about that, after reading about the descent.
(I was too young to remember much about the space program, even though
my dad was working on the Saturn V Instrument Unit for IBM.)
I remember thinking, "Hey if it was me, I'd made up some sort of
excuse for going ahead and landing!" I mean really, it's like Christopher
Columbus coming to within 30 feet of the American shoreline and saying,
"Nah, this is too dangerous, let's go back." It's nice to know the real
reason after all these years. Thanks, Henry.

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Standard disclaimer.  |   Kirk Boley, Intergraph Huntsville, UAH
Witty .sig message.   |   61 hours to go and counting...  ...!uucp!ingr!boley
*******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 20:29:06 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!infinet!rhorn@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Rob Horn)
Subject: Re: Impossible Space Goals

In article <4304@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>>In article <11246@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jerbil@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Stainless Steel Gerbil [Joe Beckenbach]) writes:
>>}My two cents:  those in JFK's world saw the Moon as "impossibly far",
>
>Ain't hindsight wonderful?
>
>To understand why they used that adjective, you must get library books
>dated prior to 1961.  You will see the great unknowns at the time:
>Was the surface of the moon hard or miles of dust for a lander to sink?

There were even two series of Lunar probes launched to specifically
answer this and related questions.  It was nice back in the days when
you could have short turnaround simple missions.  Specific focused
goals and specific focused schedules are so much easier to work with
than ongoing generic projects.

I even recall one wonderful day when discussing some problem (I forget
what) someone seriously suggested designing and launching a simple
satellite to discover the answer.  Today you must politic for years to
create a new satellite.  I hope that some of the quick response and
creativity returns with some of the projects like cheapsat.


-- 
				Rob  Horn
	UUCP:	...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn
		...ulowell!infinet!rhorn, ..decvax!infinet!rhorn
	Snail:	Infinet,  40 High St., North Andover, MA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #567
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8YoeiSe00UkV48n05x>;
          Sun, 30 Jul 89 03:17:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <oYoeiLC00UkV48lE5x@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 89 03:17:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #568

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 568

Today's Topics:
			Re: Lagrangian Points
			Mail, Voyger downlink
		       The Russians are coming!
		     Re: Apollo 11 program alarms
	       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10 and Apollo books
	    Martian enigmas in back issues of SPACE digest
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
	       Voyager Status for 07/18/89 (Forwarded)
	Re: Apollo Books (was Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3))
		     Re: Apollo 11 program alarms
Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 16:37:02 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@handies.ucar.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Lagrangian Points

In article <2100@ge-dab.GE.COM> harrison@sunny.UUCP (Gregory Harrison) writes:
> ...There was, and may still be, a satellite placed at the libration point
> between the Earth and the Sun, and set into an orbit about the line between
> the Earth and the Sun such that when viewed from the Earth (with appro-
> priate equipment, not eyes, of course) the satellite would circumscribe the
> borders of the Sun.  NASA had redirected this satellite into that orbit
> after it had completed some other mission.  Perhaps it was called
> Solar Max, I can't recall...

This is a little garbled.  ISEE-3, the third International Sun-Earth Explorer,
was placed in such a "halo orbit" by design.  While the collinear Lagrange
points are not stable, there are "orbits" around them, in planes perpendicular
to the axis connecting the two major bodies, which are *almost* stable, i.e.
only occasional small corrections are needed to stay in them.  ISEE-3 was
parked in a halo orbit around the sunward Lagrange point to give its
instruments a look at the solar wind upwind of Earth.  The halo orbit is
actually large enough that the line of sight to the satellite was well
clear of the Sun, which was just as well for efficient communications!

ISEE-3 was built for that job.  However, late in its life it was rechristened
ICE, the International Comet Explorer, and was redirected to an encounter
with comet Giacobini-Zinner.  This was the best the US could do for a comet
mission, all attempts at funding a US Halley mission having failed.  ICE's
instruments were designed for solar-physics work, but could return enough
useful data about the comet's tail that the diversion was thought worthwhile.
Getting ICE out to G-Z was quite a trick, involving an elaborate series of
maneuvers, several lunar flybys, and orbits that look truly bizarre.  But
it did all work, and ICE made the very first comet encounter, some months
before the Soviet/Japanese/European flotilla of custom-built probes arrived
at Halley.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Wed, 19 Jul 89 11:45:18 -0900
Sender: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Reply-To: <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: "ROBERT J HALE"  <FNRJH%ALASKA.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Mail, Voyger downlink

   First thing I have to say is "Your back?"   Long time since I have had
space digest in my mail box.  Something is working.  Only problem is my
space plane digest is not getting here.  If any one of you is on that digest
please mail in an complant for me.

  Joe Beckenbaw:   Get in touch with me.

  Now a question.   Is there a satellite west of 80deg (satcom F4 is the first)
that is covering the NASA photos of the Voyger data.   I heard that there was
one that NASA was using but can't find it.   Must be to far east.   From
Alaska the view is about 79deg or more west or I can't see the bird.  Busy
summer.

   Thanks in advance.     Robert J. Hale III
                          ISECCo Director.
                          FNRJH@ALASKA
                          "If you don't get a reply rememberler struck again"
                           The mailer has struck.  Try again.
                           Include USnail address.  RJH"

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 23:32:13 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!reddy@apple.com  (T.S. Reddy)
Subject: The Russians are coming!


    TO NORTH AMERICA AT LEAST! 

    I saw an ad in this week's "Aviation Week" that the Soviets will be there
with the Mig-29 and other planes at an airshow in British Columbia, Canada.
The AN-225 is also a possibility.
    The show will be around August 8th. 
    Check out the magazine! 
-- 
T.S.Reddy

Arpa: reddy@uts.amdahl.com
uucp:...!{ames,decwrl,uunet,pyramid,sun}!amdahl!reddy

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 11:55:28 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Apollo 11 program alarms

In article <2643@kepler.sw.mcc.com>, richter@kepler.sw.mcc.com (Charlie Richter) writes:
> 
> And the answer is ... Steve Bales.  Bales was the
> guidance officer for Apollo 11.  As such, he was the
> person who gave Eagle the GO to land despite the 1202
> and 1201 program alarms.
> -- 

In that CBS special it appeared that Armstrong made that decision. He
said something to the effect, "Hang tight, we're going" and just kep
going when the program alarm came up.

jim
symon@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 16:26:34 GMT
From: janus!bwood@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Blake Philip Wood)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10 and Apollo books

Eugene Cunningham's book about the Apollo program (I forget the title)
provides an interesting perspective on several issues which I've not 
seen elsewhere.  Cunningham, if you'll remember, flew on Apollo 7.

According to him, the crews of the Apollo flights were basically decided
early on, without particular regard to what the flight missions were.
For a long time Apollo 12 was to have been the first moon landing, but
the successes of the earlier flights allowed NASA to move it up to 
Apollo 11.  Cunningham states that the smart money within NASA (and 
there were bets made) was placed on Charles Conrad to do the first 
moonwalk.  As it turned out, Conrad made the third moonwalk on Apollo 12.


                 Blake P. Wood - bwood@janus.Berkeley.EDU
                 Plasmas and Non-Linear Dynamics, U.C. Berkeley, EECS

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 19 Jul 89 15:02 EST
From: <GRAHAM%IUCF.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Martian enigmas in back issues of SPACE digest

While reading some postings from SPACE digest, I noticed a
couple of references to the enigmatic structures
(city, face) on Mars.

My question is: Have these structures been discussed at any length
on this digest, and if so, in what volumes may I find them?

Thanks in advance,
GRAHAM@IUCF

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 17:20:24 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!lsuc!atha!lyndon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <1989Jul17.230138.26746@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>As far as I know, all the Apollo lunar-surface transmitters were shut
>down when the Apollo seismometer network was shut down (to save some
>trifling amount of money!!! :-[ ) some years ago.  I could be wrong.

Eh? Was ConEd charging NASA for the power produced by the (moon-based)
nuclear reactors?
-- 
Lyndon Nerenberg  VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University
    {alberta,decwrl,ncc}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA
        If everyone quit smoking, drinking, and buying gas,
               the nation would probably go bankrupt.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 17:46:55 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Voyager Status for 07/18/89 (Forwarded)


                    Voyager Status Report 
                        July 18, 1989 
 
      
     Neptune's new moon, 1989 N1, is becoming a new guidepost
 
for the Voyager navigation team and is a candidate to help 
better determine the location of Neptune itself.  
 
     Neptune was discovered in 1846, and the planet takes 165
 
years to orbit the Sun; thus, Neptune won't return to the 
position where astronomers first saw it until 2011.  This 
leaves great uncertainty in the precise knowledge of 
Neptune's orbit that Voyager navigators need to get the 
spacecraft to the targeted area of the planet at the right 
time.  But the new Neptunian moon, 1989 N1, will provide the
navigation team with a better idea of Neptune's exact 
location. 
 
     The discovery of the moon fulfilled expectations of 
Voyager navigators who were hoping to find at least one new 
object in the Neptune system whose orbit could potentially be
used to gauge the relative positions of Triton, Neptune and 
various background stars, said Don Gray, Voyager Navigation 
Team Chief.   
 
     Many of the images coming back from the spacecraft are 
optical navigation frames.  Ideally, the frames show a moon 
against a field of stars.  Using stars as dim as 10th 
magnitude as reference points, the Voyager navigators 
progressively update and refine the location of Neptune and 
its moons.  This new information is then integrated into 
commands that adjust Voyager's flight path and retarget the 
spacecraft's observations, if necessary. 
 
     The next trajectory correction maneuver is being 
designed and will be uplinked to the spacecraft late next 
week.  The maneuver is one of the final three that will be 
conducted between now and closest approach to bring the 
spacecraft within about 100 miles (150 kilometers) of the 
point at which it's aimed -- about 3,000 miles (4,850 
kilometers) from Neptune's cloud tops. 
 
 
DISTANCE TO EARTH:  2,686,949,000 miles 
DISTANCE TO NEPTUNE:  33,805,000 miles 
HELIOCENTRIC VELOCITY: 42,192 mph

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 13:39:28 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!ist!kev@uunet.uu.net  (Kevin Holmes)
Subject: Re: Apollo Books (was Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3))

From article <1164@syma.sussex.ac.uk>, by andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews):
> 
> [deleted] 
> Does anyone have a list of books that specialise in the Apollo
> series? Authors, publishers, ISBNs, etc. would be useful 
>
> Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND

Can I echo Andy's plea with a particular reference. When I was in school
(~76) the town library had a brilliant book on Apollo in it's reference
section. As far as memory serves me it was actually published by NASA. It 
was about 14" by 18", approx 250 pages, full colour photographs and actually 
quite technical in detail. As for any other details, memory fails me, 
can anybody help?

Cheers,

Kev Holmes     kev@ist.CO.UK | "Selling software is just like 
Imperial Software Technology |  prostitution; You've got it, You sell it,
Reading, Royal Berkshire, UK |  You've still got it!" - D. Lambert IST.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 23:07:47 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 11 program alarms

In article <8861@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes:
>> And the answer is ... Steve Bales.  Bales was the
>> guidance officer for Apollo 11.  As such, he was the
>> person who gave Eagle the GO to land despite the 1202
>> and 1201 program alarms.
>
>In that CBS special it appeared that Armstrong made that decision. He
>said something to the effect, "Hang tight, we're going" and just kep
>going when the program alarm came up.

Nope, wrong -- it was the people back in Houston, and Bales in particular,
who decided that the problem wasn't serious enough to justify an abort.
Half a dozen sources, including official NASA ones, all agree on this.
CBS is mistaken.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 02:03:47 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)

Wayne Hayes writes:
    >     Once the laser beam hits [the Apollo 11 corner reflector]
    >....  The reflected light is too weak to 
    >be seen with the human eye, but under good conditions, one photon 
    >-- the fundamental particle of light -- will be received every 
    >few seconds.

    Is this right? I would think that many more than that would get back. 
    Besides, if you only got one back every few seconds, it would be
    useless for the accuracy of timing needed to calculate the moons
    distance with "unprecedented accuracy".

Hmm.  Paul Deitz please check :^), but my blackboard claims:
A 100 mW beam (Edmund Scientific league) = 1 million ergs/sec.
at one micron wavelength E=hv gives 1.5e26 photons/sec.
If the beam is one mile square at the moon and one square foot
hits the reflector, divide by 2.8e6 giving 5.4e18, and similarly for
the return trip (use a square foot telescope) giving 2e11 photons/sec.
since c is 3e8m/s, your return beam is averaging 660 photons/meter,
with which you should be able to measure the distance to within an inch.
--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 17:24:25 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Ralf Brown)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <17231@bellcore.bellcore.com> ddavey@grits.UUCP (Doug Davey) writes:
}Does anybody remember whether the ascent or descent engine was used
}during Apollo 10's return from low orbit to rendezvous with the CSM?
}Either option seems difficult.  On the one hand, I would not expect
}the descent engine to be restartable.  On the other, firing the
}ascent engine and getting the ascent stage cleanly separated from the
}descent stage would be tricky since the descent stage was deigned to
}be firmly on the lunar surface during this operation.

As I recall, one contingency plan was in fact such a separation while not
on the surface, in case they ran out of fuel trying to land.  They would
then separate immediately and use the ascent stage to abort back to the
CSM.
-- 
{backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf   ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU   FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA   AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school)   FAX: ask
DISCLAIMER?  Did  |"Let both sides invoke the wonders of science instead of
I claim something?| the terrors." --John F. Kennedy

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #568
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/gYogTGq00UkVM8y05b>;
          Sun, 30 Jul 89 05:18:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYogT=C00UkV88wE4W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 89 05:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #569

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 569

Today's Topics:
Science observations selected for NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
		   Re: Kuiper Airborne Observatory
	       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10 and Apollo books
		      Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
		      Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 17:50:22 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Science observations selected for NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)

Paula Clegget-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     July 19, 1989

Ray Villard
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md.


RELEASE:  89-121

SCIENCE OBSERVATIONS SELECTED FOR NASA/ESA HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE

     The Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md., has 
completed selection of the first science observation proposals 
from the astronomy community to be carried out using the 
NASA/European Space Agency (ESA) Hubble Space TelescopeMd
     The Hubble Space Telescope (HST), scheduled for launch in 
March 1990, is the first major international optical telescope to 
be permanently stationed in low-Earth orbit.  Capable of viewing 
the universe with a tenfold greater resolution than ground based 
observatories, the HST has a tremendous potential for fundamental 
scientific breakthroughs in astronomy.  Observing opportunities 
on the powerful space facility are open to the worldwide 
astronomical community. 

     "It is exciting to see the many excellant proposals and to 
think of the scientific discoveries that will soon emerge when 
the Hubble Space Telescope uncovers the mysteries of fundamental 
scientific questions," says Neta Bahcall, Head of the institute's 
Science Programs Selection Office.

     The selected observations will make use of HST's unique 
capabilities to study a wide variety of astronomical objects, 
from nearby planets to the horizon of the visible universe.  The 
observations should help to dramatically improve current 
understanding of the size, structure and evolution of the 
universe.

     Among the accepted proposals are plans to search for black 
holes in neighboring galaxies, to survey the dense cores of 
globular star clusters, to better see the most distant galaxies 
in the universe, to probe the mysterious core of the Milky Way 
galaxy and to search for neutron stars that may trigger bizarre 
gamma-ray bursts.

     The 162 proposals were accepted following an intensive 
scientific peer review of 556 proposals submitted by astronomers 
from 30 countries.  Approximately 20 percent of the proposals 
were from member nations of the European Space Agency, a joint 
partner with NASA on the HST project.

     The HST is such a powerful, new resource for optical 
astronomy, that observing time was heavily oversubscribed.  
During the first 12-month observing cycle, 11,000 hours of 
observing time were requested, with only 1200 hours available.  
The average length of an accepted observation is 10 hours.  

     "Unfortunately, because of the high oversubscription rate, 
many excellent proposals could not be accommodated," says 
Bahcall. "We expect that the available observing time will be 
somewhat larger in the second cycle, due to a higher anticipated 
HST observing efficiency and a lower fraction of time committed 
to guaranteed time observers (GTO)."

     When HST is launched, it will undergo a 7 month check-out 
and instrument calibration period.  During that time some of the 
first science observations will be made by the GTOs.  They are 
the astronomers on the six teams which developed HST 
instrumentation, as well those astronomers who contributed to the 
design of the 12-ton observatory.  

     General observer proposals will begin 7 months after launch 
and most will be completed within a 12-month period, though a few 
key projects will be extended over 3 years.  Slightly more than 
half of HST's observing time for the first year of operation will 
be available for general observers.  The remainder of the 
observing time will be used by the GTO's.

     To utilize every moment of observing time and hence maximize 
efficiency, HST is "over-booked" with accepted general observer 
proposals by a ratio of 3:1.   One hundred eight accepted 
proposals are high priority and represent 90 percent of HST 
observing time.  The remaining 54 supplemental proposals 
essentially "fly standby."  They will only be executed if 
appropriate scheduling opportunities arise.

     Sixty-two scientists including 10 from ESA member nations 
participated in the proposal review and selection process.  The 
scientists were divided into six peer-review panels which covered 
sub-disciplines in astronomy such as solar system, stellar 
astrophysics, stellar populations, interstellar medium, galaxies 
and clusters, quasars and active galactic nuclei.

     Each proposal was judged primarily for scientific 
importance.  Other selection criteria took into account such 
factors as the technical feasibility of the proposal and an 
observer's need for the unique capabilities of HST. 

     The ranked lists of proposals assembled by the various 
panels were then reviewed by a cross-discipline Time Allocation 
Committee (TAC).  Space Telescope Science Institute Director 
Riccardo Giacconi made the final selection based upon a review of 
the TAC's recommended list of proposals. 

     The proposals now will go through a phase II process where 
the guest observers will specify the technical details of their 
observations.  The proposals then will be checked for technical 
feasibility, such as availability of guide stars required to aim 
the telescope in space and other possible problems.  At the 
conclusion of phase II this fall, a catalog of approved 
observations will be made available.

     The Space Telescope Science Institute is operated for NASA 
under a contract with the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 
Md., by the Association of Universities for Research in 
Astronomy, Inc.  The institute is located on the Johns Hopkins 
University campus in Baltimore, Md.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 20:56:11 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <4481acbf.b097@shadow.engin.umich.edu> tyg@caen.engin.umich.edu (Tom Galloway) writes:
>In article <1989Jul19.005449.3163@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
<> There was some discussion about whether Apollo 10 was really needed; why
<> get to within 10 miles of the lunar surface and then go home?  But a lot
<> of people felt that an all-up test, including a real lunar-orbit rendezvous,
<> was a good idea before landing.  What finally settled the matter was that
<> Apollo 10's LM was overweight and could not have flown a complete landing
<> mission.
<
<The last was probably a good thing. I remember as a kid thinking that if I was
<on 10's flight, I would have gotten some printouts before leaving of what
<information would be needed to land and revendevous later, and gone ahead and
<landed. So what if I would've been court-martialed....Just imagine what the
<temptation would have been like if a landing and return had been possible.
<
>tyg   tyg@caen.engin.umich.edu

Problem is, what would you have done once you reached the surface? Apollo
10 carried no proper EVA equipment, no scientific packages. All the crew
could have done was to land, lookaround and leave (assuming they could
have taken off).

They probably had some emergency portable oxygen system in the case they
had to perform an EVA in order to get back to the CM due to a docking
malfunction. 

As I remember, Tom Stafford was himself asked if Apollo 10 should have 
been the landing, and he said no, the LM needed further testing.




          *** mike (still looking for a publisher) smithwick ***

"Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 21:36:15 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!wayne@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Wayne Hayes)
Subject: Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)

In article <28736@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>     Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the 
>observatories use sensitive filtering and amplification equipment 
>to detect the return signal.  The reflected light is too weak to 
>be seen with the human eye, but under good conditions, one photon 
>-- the fundamental particle of light -- will be received every 
>few seconds.

Is this right? I would think that many more than that would get back. 
Besides, if you only got one back every few seconds, it would be
useless for the accuracy of timing needed to calculate the moons
distance with "unprecedented accuracy".
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."   "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Wayne Hayes	INTERNET: wayne@csri.toronto.edu	CompuServe: 72401,3525

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 05:03:00 GMT
From: mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu!tyg@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Tom Galloway)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <1989Jul19.005449.3163@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> There was some discussion about whether Apollo 10 was really needed; why
> get to within 10 miles of the lunar surface and then go home?  But a lot
> of people felt that an all-up test, including a real lunar-orbit rendezvous,
> was a good idea before landing.  What finally settled the matter was that
> Apollo 10's LM was overweight and could not have flown a complete landing
> mission.

The last was probably a good thing. I remember as a kid thinking that if I was
on 10's flight, I would have gotten some printouts before leaving of what
information would be needed to land and revendevous later, and gone ahead and
landed. So what if I would've been court-martialed....Just imagine what the
temptation would have been like if a landing and return had been possible.

tyg   tyg@caen.engin.umich.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 12:49:31 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Kuiper Airborne Observatory

In article <150@cfa.HARVARD.EDU>, willner@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Willner) wrote:
}Just a tiny correction.  The KAO is entirely operated by NASA - no NSF
}or other agency involvement whatever.  The next-generation airborne
}observatory (SOFIA - Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy)
}will be a joint project of NASA and the West German space agency.
}(BMFT, I think, though darned if I know what the initials stand for.)
  ^^^^
I'm pretty sure it's "Bundesministerium fuer Forschung und Technologie"
(Ministry of Research and Technology).

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
FAX: available on request                      Disclaimer? I claimed something?

PROGRAM n. A magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn one's input
  into error messages.  tr.v. To engage in a pastime similar to banging one's
  head against a wall, but with fewer opportunies for reward.
        -- from a flyer advertising for _Inside_Turbo_Pascal_

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 17:25:02 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@handies.ucar.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10 and Apollo books

In article <30095@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, bwood@janus.uucp (Blake Philip Wood) writes:
> For a long time Apollo 12 was to have been the first moon landing, but
> the successes of the earlier flights allowed NASA to move it up to 
> Apollo 11.  Cunningham states that the smart money within NASA (and 
> there were bets made) was placed on Charles Conrad to do the first 
> moonwalk.  As it turned out, Conrad made the third moonwalk on Apollo 12.
> 
Also read "Carrying the Fire" by Mike Collins.  According to Collins, the
schedule was for Conrad to command Apollo 11.  That was screwed up when
Collins, then scheduled to fly on Apollo 8, was taken off the flight list
because of a medical problem in his spinal column.  His backup flew on 8,
and the successive schedule was perturbed.  As a result, Conrad was bumped
back from commanding 11 to commanding 12.  Also as a result, Collins was
assigned to 11 after he recovered from surgery.  Good book.  In this time
of nostalgia, "Carrying the Fire" is another good book to read.

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 23:11:25 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

In article <1480@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:
>I checked the NASA Satellite Situation Report, Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec.
>31, 1988 for non-booster Apollo items still in orbit...

Does it state the basis for assuming this hardware is still in orbit?
I greatly doubt that it is possible to track the things in lunar orbit;
that's difficult even in Clarke orbit unless there's a transponder aboard.

>Glaringly absent, however, was any listing of the Apollo 13 LM.
>According to one text I have, that LM was never staged (the ascent and
>descent stages were kept together) and was jettisoned 18,000 km from
>earth.

Right.  It went into the Pacific as the CM reentered.  There wasn't any
alternative, since the LM was needed to maneuver the CM into a proper
reentry trajectory with the SM dead.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 16:40:05 GMT
From: wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU  (Bill Chiarchiaro)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules



I checked the NASA Satellite Situation Report, Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec.
31, 1988 for non-booster Apollo items still in orbit.  Here's what I
found:


Int'l Desig.	Catalog #	Name		Orbit		Mission

1969 043C	3948		LM/DESCENT	Selenocentric	Apollo 10
1969 043D	3949		LM/ASCENT	Heliocentric	Apollo 10

1969 059C	4041		LUNAR MODULE	Selenocentric	Apollo 11

1971 063D	5377		SUBSATELLITE	Selenocentric	Apollo 15

1972 031C	6005		LUNAR MODULE	Selenocentric	Apollo 16


The LMs from Apollos 5 (unmanned, earth-orbit test of LM-1), 9, 12,
14, 15, and 17 were all listed as decayed (actually, only the ascent
stages were mentioned for 12, 14, 15, and 17).

Glaringly absent, however, was any listing of the Apollo 13 LM.
According to one text I have, that LM was never staged (the ascent and
descent stages were kept together) and was jettisoned 18,000 km from
earth.


Notes on Apollo 9 and Apollo 10:

As has recently been stated, Apollo 10 was the mission that was
essentially a lunar dry-run of the Apollo 11 landing.  We must be
careful, though, in saying that its LM "descended" to within some
distance of the lunar surface.  Early in the mission planning, an
abort from powered descent was considered, but was passed up in favor
of a mission that emulated a landing in every regard except for
powered descent and subsequent takeoff from the lunar surface.  With
Young in the CSM (Charlie Brown), Cernan and Stafford in the LM
(Snoopy) performed a DOI (descent orbit insertion).  This orbit had a
perilune of about 15 km above the mean lunar surface -- this was their
closest approach to the surface.  It was from such an orbit that later
LMs began their powered descents.  The ascent and descent staging
occured, but I don't remember at which point.  Also, I believe the
descent engine as well as the ascent engine was used for orbital
manuevers.  Cernan and Stafford spent 8 hours in the LM.  Later, upon
ground command, the ascent stage expended all its fuel and was put
into a heliocentric orbit.

One of the other forgotten Apollo mission was 9 -- the earth-orbit
test of the LM.  Scott stayed with the CSM (Gumdrop) and McDivitt and
Schweickart spent 6 hr 20 min in the LM (Spider).  They achieved a
maximum separation of 185 km and did perform ascent/descent staging.


Bill Chiarchiaro
N1CPK
wjc@xn.ll.mit.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #569
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4YoxDSK00UkV49g04G>;
          Mon, 31 Jul 89 00:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <UYoxDJm00UkVE9eE5J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 89 00:21:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #570

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 570

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
Re: Spinoffs are irrelevant (was Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded))
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 22:56:33 GMT
From: pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #546 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89206.16793576 0.00000172           19720-3 0  2241
2 00424  80.4633 248.4238 0024150  36.2692 324.0085 13.67172480338002
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89198.56177170  .00000164  00000-0  15604-3 0  2797
2 00727  69.9022  30.4841 0011954  55.4275 304.7932 13.93553262297324
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89198.54646773  .00004760  00000-0  32780-3 0  3891
2 03019  64.0624  18.9846 0219843 225.3173 132.9859 14.89572043109609
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89187.56917568 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2365
2 03029  12.7757  24.1274 0015540 194.3702 165.6963  1.00272176 79330
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89199.72951283 -.00016207  00000-0 -10554-3 0  8303
2 04966  51.5658 319.5495 2511049 266.1090  65.2085 10.54262717555713
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89206.77237598 0.00000005                   0  8285
2 08820 109.8345 243.2992 0044897 307.8156  51.8574  6.38664132 53099
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89193.69270730 -.00000018                   0  2869
2 10061   7.2367  67.9134 0005870  97.5785 262.2768  1.00279674  5639
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89202.85871690 0.00000011           10000-3 0  1698
2 10684  63.6023  99.7113 0108902 198.3317 161.3557  2.00559884 69221
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89201.32278087 -.00000027                   0    87
2 10893  64.4770 340.6383 0154404  28.1763 332.6305  2.00549743 82010
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89198.73487946 0.00000088           10000-3 0  6896
2 10953   6.1136  70.5293 0006800 259.6167 100.2746  1.00274815  1248
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89197.23438422 0.00000977           38799-3 0  1437
2 10967 108.0115 347.4202 0002168 235.2265 124.8673 14.34718776578251
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89204.62709625 -.00000027                   0   653
2 11054  64.0167 336.9646 0060222 114.0010 246.6680  2.00561675 79092
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89204.72662801 0.00000010                   0  1804
2 11141  63.5822  99.6011 0057467 321.4893  38.1454  2.00571030 77794
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89200.05544746 0.00000829           36445-3 0  8753
2 11416  98.5094 196.1955 0012703  22.3345 337.8387 14.25872183522445
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89201.89658051 0.00059458           78802-3 0   285
2 11703  28.4937  40.2847 0000586  68.4626 291.6007 15.56850600525095
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89202.68997067 -.00000027                   0  9317
2 11783  63.9528 336.6909 0143336  61.9063 299.5654  2.00568321 67691
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89198.09983592 -.00000043                   0   594
2 11964   5.5501  73.3770 0033168  94.9661 265.3246  0.99228840  2329
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89191.00000000 -.00000249           10000-3 0  7407
2 12472   2.6193  79.9038 0001682 120.2420  23.8683  1.00267489 28808
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89198.60724050  .00015696  00000-0  53802-3 0  2468
2 12887  97.6841 225.6881 0003215 118.0081 242.1476 15.30277523429809
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89204.08152074 0.00099250           89255-3 0  6439
2 12888  97.5502 260.2192 0000794 345.5117  14.5401 15.67921102434601
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89204.00241408 0.00000167           14110-3 0  6564
2 13113  82.5370  30.2903 0015066 327.4850  32.5383 13.84020055370192
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89206.08301020 0.00004463           10793-3 0  6700
2 13138  51.6084 131.6728 0001507 128.3129 231.8984 15.43251658414047
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89198.64210169  .00001099  00000-0  25410-3 0   257
2 13367  98.2119 261.8410 0003570  97.4120 262.7608 14.57119054372585
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89198.61733429 0.00000206           10247-3 0  7970
2 13718  81.2447 251.7785 0054867 272.8515  86.6395 14.13238180339859
IRAS       
1 13777U          89199.57374005 -.00000334          -22041-3 0  6598
2 13777  99.0426  36.2509 0012030 223.9617 136.0646 13.98617482   306
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89193.61106535 -.00000183  00000-0  00000 0 0  8197
2 13969   3.6420  68.4417 0002893 137.6679 225.5675  1.00123858 89665
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89197.78372817 0.00000114                   0  9878
2 14050   1.3661  82.3935 0001858 111.0113 248.3075  1.00287640  6901
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89202.10971599 -.00000084                   0  4175
2 14129  26.0887 253.9637 6053670  60.6568 346.2092  2.05883104 17918
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89204.77202103 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6472
2 14189  63.2041  98.2080 0136478 215.3731 143.7755  2.00567719 44174
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89204.06734195 0.00000522           21975-3 0  7515
2 14452  81.1648 257.5931 0095433 354.0213   5.9821 14.22260082297640
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89207.04971353 0.00000739           17364-3 0  8416
2 14780  98.1656 268.5478 0003865 111.5435 248.6087 14.57132172287228
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U 84 21  B 89199.62625717  .00001626  00000-0  32042-3 0  4813
2 14781  98.0027 257.5120 0012166 219.4269 140.6050 14.63764368287146
LDEF       
1 14898U          89203.36779891 0.00028572           43127-3 0  9142
2 14898  28.5060 288.4742 0000305 293.9869  66.0580 15.53295791296922
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89203.83458933 0.00000009                   0  7055
2 15039  62.7617  97.2295 0012949 206.4440 153.6685  2.00568700 37437
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89198.39046606 0.00000145           12119-3 0  9573
2 15099  82.5295 342.3507 0013080 147.4673 212.7293 13.83679414254299
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89205.72943660 -.00000027                   0  6756
2 15271  63.3556 336.3361 0100019 321.0446  38.0588  2.00566524 34584
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89194.80061499 0.00002232           32106-3 0   546
2 15331  82.5390 313.8830 0025148   1.4155 358.7130 14.75782144258144
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89196.47764042 0.00000488           28734-3 0  4043
2 15427  99.1448 183.9754 0014425 233.1046 126.8803 14.12086380236448
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89204.60370140 0.00000358           31246-3 0  1000
2 15516  82.5350 275.7939 0017505  17.9536 342.2241 13.84145796226099
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89205.69444412 0.00020490           46125-3 0  3190
2 16095  51.6090 133.5796 0001120 115.5547 244.4815 15.43260670215088
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89205.88500538 0.00000010                   0  3410
2 16129  63.7328  98.1204 0118094 149.8658 210.8873  2.00563934 27794
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89204.98012498 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8418
2 16191  82.5457 209.7207 0018896 204.8083 155.2143 13.16870606180362
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89204.97574168 0.00000112           94947-4 0  5153
2 16408  82.5350 190.3584 0015447 192.8233 167.2520 13.84191299180642
Mir        
1 16609U          89205.39540184 -.00008640          -11215-3 0  9543
2 16609  51.6196 177.4198 0009423 191.1241 168.9523 15.57421363196968
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89207.05108603 0.00000626           31158-3 0  5390
2 16613  98.7367 281.0995 0001802  81.9325 278.2091 14.20034337 17646
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89205.02762104 0.00000109           93312-4 0  3094
2 16735  82.5350 217.1531 0012761 270.4679  89.5000 13.83938849159552
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89207.05339059 0.00001437           20739-3 0  6775
2 16881  82.5248   2.0576 0022790 337.5195  22.5000 14.75440085161025
EGP        
1 16908U          89202.18032835 -.00000038           77810-5 0  1479
2 16908  50.0064 193.5888 0011257  74.2487 285.9588 12.44379520133640
FO-12      
1 16909U          89197.10014353 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1630
2 16909  50.0167 209.4498 0011078  60.4152 299.7766 12.44400597133006
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89200.21509624 0.00000598           28162-3 0  2513
2 16969  98.6366 230.0955 0013415 153.2927 206.8943 14.23090983148495
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89204.23805203 0.00000216           18513-3 0  2728
2 17290  82.4688 124.8780 0012784 154.3441 205.8358 13.83741427128609
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89199.02136141 -.00000388  00000-0 -27596-3 0  1872
2 17527  99.1484 270.2132 0000531  56.6570 303.4662 13.94831938122675
GOES 7     
1 17561U 87 22  A 89196.48328078 -.00000046  00000-0  99999-4 0  3008
2 17561   0.0171 117.6897 0002124 328.5324 273.7952  1.00272540  2048
Kvant      
1 17845U          89205.58789710 0.00027395           37108-3 0  8192
2 17845  51.6217 176.4560 0008890 193.4524 166.6002 15.57436073133268
DMSP B5D2-3
1 18123U 87 53  A 89197.02695732  .00000640  00000-0  35987-3 0  3478
2 18123  98.8252  27.1514 0013117 260.6515  99.3174 14.13471492106904
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89206.02614146 0.00000078           79289-4 0  8262
2 18129  82.9239 210.1998 0010652 312.2194  47.8085 13.71991825104588
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89198.97796186  .00000132  00000-0  69311-4 0  8858
2 18187  65.0147 296.5794 0019568 256.3044 103.5840 14.29382746105525
Cosmos 1870
1 18225U          89206.76974459 0.00141952  11453-4  16950-3 0  1552
2 18225  71.8628 310.9157 0016331 252.2513 107.7208 16.07994556117480
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89204.42835747 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2952
2 18312  82.5524 190.8171 0013701  90.0786 270.1941 13.83494008 97529
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89205.69077344 0.00000176           14776-3 0  1356
2 18820  82.5427 250.7488 0016955 159.4792 200.7026 13.84186077 74874
DMSP B5D2-4
1 18822U 88  6  A 89198.42622926  .00000551  00000-0  27225-3 0  2468
2 18822  98.6986  78.6651 0006110 152.8227 207.3284 14.20830029 75295
AO-13      
1 19216U          89186.15508008 -.00000132           10000-3 0   382
2 19216  57.2070 200.8551 6748913 207.0433  90.2906  2.09703317  8118
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89199.05309436  .00002434  00000-0  35763-3 0  4351
2 19274  82.5184 108.0916 0024166 128.8964 231.4413 14.74959851 55635
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89204.81473383 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2226
2 19336  82.5418 149.7562 0019050  54.2703 306.0096 13.16855216 47735
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89199.89876582 0.00000494           29490-3 0  1061
2 19531  98.9414 143.7651 0012043 138.5761 221.6325 14.11072946 41948
TDRS 3     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89153.77764324  .00000129  00000-0  99999-4 0   261
2 19548   0.5410  85.9584 0002050  10.4654 263.5580  1.00263057  1649
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89195.92402568  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   489
2 19802  55.1018 210.7161 0066687 157.4981 202.8516  2.00556819  2987
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89204.99868031 0.00000117           10000-3 0   589
2 19851  82.5237 129.9222 0013482 200.0593 160.0041 13.83820641 20175
TDRS 4     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89193.30721528 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-4 0   201
2 19883   0.4184  71.6153 0001726  52.2881 235.9737  1.00264167   477
Cosmos 2022
1 20024U          89180.39981994 -.00000011           10000-2 0   363
2 20024  64.8272  50.8719 0001867 255.3129 104.7148  2.13102677  6110
Cosmos 2023
1 20025U          89180.69329080 -.00000011           10000-3 0   337
2 20025  64.8449  50.8407 0013705 210.6426 149.3398  2.13102719   639
Cosmos 2024
1 20026U          89180.38648897 -.00000011           10000-3 0   312
2 20026  64.8327  50.8698 0008813 267.3366  92.6243  2.13204691   623
SuperBird A
1 20040U          89183.78104506 -.00000099           10000-3 0   180
2 20040   0.0262 313.9524 0003825 147.9338 258.1480  1.00273104   239
1989 041C  
1 20042U          89185.08517834 0.00030059           39919-2 0   287
2 20042   6.9331  37.4445 7284280 200.3317 100.7896  2.29417718   558
Cosmos 2026
1 20045U          89182.87143968 0.00000147           14176-3 0   337
2 20045  82.9397 343.5786 0038435 224.9740 134.8304 13.75019694  3391
1989 042B  
1 20046U          89190.25933410 -.00005554          -56739-2 0   517
2 20046  82.9417 338.0442 0035026 199.2664 160.7174 13.76469147  4415
Molniya3-35
1 20052U          89189.80933893 0.00000326          -81454-3 0   444
2 20052  62.9521  99.8751 7379264 288.3629   9.3770  2.00620985   616
1989 043D  
1 20055U          89187.82942194 0.00000550           19192-2 0   268
2 20055  62.8484 100.2186 7414419 288.3220   9.1933  1.95983490   552
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89195.11831124 -.00000029                   0   285
2 20061  54.5868  29.5793 0080698 163.2427 197.0849  2.00573534   713
1989 044B  
1 20062U          89193.27933477 0.18331712 -23867-4  49193-3 0   674
2 20062  30.2951 166.4880 0064540   2.3773 357.7413 16.35924744  3699
1989 044C  
1 20063U          89190.62410034 0.00111825  17032-4  12205-2 0   390
2 20063  37.5403   7.2226 6012784 224.5458  67.5657  4.12779176  1205
Cosmos 2027
1 20064U          89180.22022443 0.00008604           36818-3 0   107
2 20064  65.8385  25.6376 0024329 340.4779  20.7342 15.23081660  2240
1989 045B  
1 20065U          89189.58668525 0.00012737           51370-3 0   330
2 20065  65.8410 356.1109 0028402 352.2314   7.8374 15.24711048  3678
Raduga 1-1 
1 20083U          89206.78146626 0.00000150           10000-3 0   381
2 20083   1.4049 273.2133 0005585 348.2342  12.0835  1.00271194   344
1989 048D  
1 20086U          89194.20510965 -.00000025           10000-3 0    76
2 20086   1.4319 273.6399 0021177 326.9784  33.7202  0.97889488   224
Nadezhda   
1 20103U          89207.11643209 0.00000084           83861-4 0   170
2 20103  82.9622 165.3359 0036332 225.3657 134.4533 13.73490787  2954
1989 050B  
1 20104U          89203.09208317 0.00000006                   0   107
2 20104  82.9619 168.2739 0032035 214.1965 145.7130 13.74883091  2390
Gorizont 18
1 20107U          89206.53673588 -.00000252           10000-3 0   219
2 20107   1.4679 275.1362 0002553  36.6151 324.4230  1.00278437   204
1989 052D  
1 20110U          89198.38268624 -.00000040           10000-3 0    65
2 20110   1.5129 275.7936 0028263  76.8720 284.4159  1.03064188   121
Olympus    
1 20122U          89206.45833329 -.00000133           10000-3 0   137
2 20122   0.3111 116.5200 0039730 161.1000 186.6730  0.99668381    02
1989 053B  
1 20123U          89202.09859699 0.00114392           97589-2 0   130
2 20123   6.1734 103.5478 7316792 185.4997 162.2780  2.26199326   227
Cosmos 2030
1 20124U          89207.14165407 0.01706290  29258-4  32748-3 0   402
2 20124  67.1451  96.1609 0067734  59.2471 301.7086 16.24824071  2182
1989 055A  
1 20134U          89206.75123345 0.00119290  52645-5  19047-3 0   225
2 20134  82.5685 101.3308 0010288 271.6879  88.3357 16.03507280  1187
1989 056A  
1 20136U          89206.77059950 0.00212921  26538-4  38047-3 0   215
2 20136  50.5522  85.5202 0092144  44.9697 315.8559 15.93565154  1173
1989 057A  
1 20145U          89206.75002318 0.00051150 -19215-7  10033-3 0   239
2 20145  82.3116  93.3835 0097667  75.8591 285.3595 15.91659320   868
1989 058A  
1 20147U          89206.79664603 -.00025164          -41389-3 0    99
2 20147  65.0243 330.8234 0009661 269.1416  90.7071 15.52051461   284
1989 059A  
1 20149U          89207.11359027 0.00018128           19706-1 0    73
2 20149  82.9394  87.6575 0030268 276.4523  83.3026 13.72429037   111
1989 059B  
1 20150U          89207.03988152 0.00034193           36088-1 0    42
2 20150  82.9381  87.7138 0023133 269.7533  90.1012 13.74127805    92
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 14:35:56 GMT
From: bpa!asi!discg1!isc0003@rutgers.edu  (John L. Guy)
Subject: Re: Spinoffs are irrelevant (was Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded))

In article <26383@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
> 
> Over 133 thousand people had arthroscopic surgery on their knee in the
> US in 1987.  Ten years ago this surgery involved a hospital stay and
> small chance of a full recovery.  Now it is an outpatient procedure,
> with most patients walking the next day.  Much of the advance in this
> surgery is due to the frequency of knee injury in the NFL.
> 
> Does this mean that Congress should appropriate billions of dollars to
> support the NFL in order to benefit those in need of this surgery, or
> that the spinoff argument is absurd?
> 
	If the "spinoff argument" is that space spinoffs justify the 
space program, then, yes, the argument IS absurd.  If, however, one argues 
that the space program was without practical value, then that argument is also
absurd.  The space program is justified by the completion of its prescribed
missions.  The "spinoff argument" should merely be, that if one requires
PRACTICAL results to "justify" something, then look at the multitude of
spinoffs beyond the scope of mission accomplishment.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  JOHN L. GUY   (AV 442) 215/697-6732                               /\      *
*  Defense Industrial Supply Center                                 /  \     *
*  DISC-SPQ                                                        / /\ \    *
*  700 Robbins Avenue                                             / /  \/    *
*  Philadelphia, PA 19111-5096                              __   / /  ____   *
*                                                          / /  / /  /_  /   *
*  {bpa,osu-cis!dsacg1}!discg1!isc0003                   / /___/ /____/ /    *
*  {OPINIONS ARE MINE!  ALL MINE!}                     /______________ /     *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #570
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8YoznzG00UkV49w058>;
          Mon, 31 Jul 89 03:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <IYoznqy00UkVI9uE43@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 89 03:17:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #571

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 571

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
       Re: Station alternatives, What do WE have to do with it
	  Stuff left on Moon (was Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon)
			 latest Quayle gaffe
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
		Re: (afterburners) T-38 show rooms....
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
		      Re: Space Quest Foundation
		     NSS Hotline Update for Space
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
	       Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 11:31:57 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

In article <8985@chinet.chi.il.us> john@chinet.chi.il.us (John Mundt) writes:
>Later flights had the ascent modules purposely were impacted into the surface of
>the moon to test seismic recording devices with a known force.  When the first

On the later flights the third stage of the Saturn V was
used for the same purpose after the LM had been unpacked.

It made a much bigger bang :->
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 08:00:08 GMT
From: agate!shelby!portia!hanauma!joe@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: Station alternatives, What do WE have to do with it

In article <26381@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>
>My congressman is Ron Dellums.  He is a cosponsor of the Space
>Transportation Services Purchase Act (Formerly the Launch Services
>Purchase Act).  Who is your congressman?  When did you last visit his
>office?  Have you asked him to support the STSPA?
>
OK! I feel guilty now! Could somebody post again the exact name and numbers
of this bill, a short description, and the generic format of addresses for
the House and Senate?
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 09:42:23 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@uunet.uu.net  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Stuff left on Moon (was Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon)

From article <138@nwnexus.WA.COM>, by edm@nwnexus.WA.COM (Ed Morin):
> I believe that a fancy mirror was also left for laser experiements not
> to mention all the other junk that's still up there like the cameras,
> flags, moon rover, etc.

Not forgetting a golf club and a few balls, a hammer and a feather, and
probably some other interesting stuff too. Gosh, just think, hundreds of
years hence, lunar archaeologists might find that stuff and wondered
what must have gone on up there. The feather may cause particular
consternation :-)
Or am I wrong? did the Apollo crews bring the hammer, feather, golf
clubs etc back to earth?

-- 
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND
JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk   BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 17:07:30 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: latest Quayle gaffe

By the way this is only barely sci.space, but I assume folks have heard
about Danno's latest.  In a speech commemorating Apollo 11 the other
day, he proudly recalled the "historic moonwalk of Neil Armstrong and
Buz Lukens."  Lukens is a name he should know - a veteran Congressman
from Quayle's neighbor state of Ohio, he was recently indicted
(convicted? fuzzy there) for child molesting and has left his seat.

According to press reports, Quayle appeared puzzled at the laughter his
remark drew from the audience, but made no corrections or interruptions
in his prepared text.  You gotta love this guy.
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 18:40:51 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <8907201027.AA07833@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu> dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) writes:
> ... What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from
> doing the following:
>     1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever.
>     2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars.
>     3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''.
>     4. Fly away with same after filling the tank...
>     
>     Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?).

The answer to item 3 will be "sorry, that is a USAF aircraft that is not
for sale to civilians without government approval".  This is partly
because the USAF paid for development and "owns the rights" to some
degree, and partly because practically all of the military-aircraft
manufacturers are utterly dependent on US government business and
are desperately anxious not to annoy their big customer.  And the US
government feels that private citizens should not be allowed to own jet
fighters.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 21:10:47 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: (afterburners) T-38 show rooms....

You mean to tell me with all the what-if hot air generated, not
one person tried to get on the phone and call up Northrup
and inquire about said no longer manufactured aircraft?
Indicative of the net laziness? 8)  You'd rather post a what-if?
than an "I tried...?"  What happened to that reader who really wrote
G. Yeager and posted the response, he deserves more credit.

Ach! Mary you are wasting your time.  Let's turn these guys satellites
off: weather, comm, remote sensing......

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 01:28:38 GMT
From: lll-crg.llnl.gov@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Berry Kercheval)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <33335@apple.Apple.COM>, stadler@Apple (Andy Stadler) writes:
>I used to consider that a stereotype until about the 3rd time a Bonanza
>tried to run me down....  Why is it always Bonanzas making straight in's
>at uncontrolled airports?

I've noticed that too.  I have seen the following happen:
	
	Bonanza nearly clips the 152 I'm in AFTER we're cleared to land,
	and lands ahead of us.  He got a license suspension for that...

	Bonanza goes out Altamont pass (about 900 ft??) VFR when the
	ceiling was 1100.

	Bonanza comes to LVK and can't find the airport even though he 
	claims to see the "gravel pits" less than 2 nm SW.  Controller
	has to give him a vector.

	Bonanza lands gear up at Harris Ranch on 4 July this year (well,
	I saw the aftermath)

Now I have nothing against Bonanzas as aircraft, and I am sure that most 
Bonanza owners are fine, safe, concientious pilots (Hi, pHIL!), but something
seems to attract bozos.

Alene calls this the "Cadillac driiver" phenomemon, as she has noticed that
a disproportionate number of Cadillacs seem to be driven by jerks.

Oddly, though, I was talking to one of the LVK controllers once and he
said that the worst things he saw when at SFO were inevitably PanAm
planes or Mooneys.  He theorized that PanAm captains came in, drove
over to PAO and took off in their Mooney...

  --berry

(If you are with PanAm or fly a Mooney or Bonanza, I don't mean to
offend you.  THese are general observations and not all mine even.
Specific people are different; probably MOST Bonanzas, Mooneys and 
Clippers are fine!  It's the few bad apples...)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 09:46:54 GMT
From: shelby!portia!hanauma!joe@decwrl.dec.com  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <1989Jul20.155847.15452@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>No, but it was costing some small amount of money to receive, store, and
>analyze the data.

Here's a question I've always wanted to ask: why even bother to shut the
things off? Just ignore them, and if they're still working a few years later
when you change your mind, so much the better. If they had shut off the
deep space network, would they have given a command to the Voyagers and
pioneers "make no further broadcasts, accept no further instructions from
Earth"?

\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 18:14:05 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Space Quest Foundation

I have no qualms about this.  I only want to point out one thing.
We the people, mostly of the US, if you are supposedily so intelligent and
so great (so occasionally foolhardy young in this world) have to establish
and balance some long term goals.  Yes yes short-term survival...

But you may have read history books about the early exploration and
colonization of the "New World."  You should visit Canada and stop
by the Hudson's Bay Company (the pred. to Macy's etc.).  Who will
the HBC's of the future.  Will he have HBC-like companies?  Will they
be better and wiser?

Space is a harsh place, more so than your short experience on earth can
tell you.  Space is BIG, really big! 8)

What can you say but gross generalizations?

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

From: ota
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 12:26:50 -0700
Subject: NSS Hotline Update for Space

/* Written 12:09 pm  Jul 20, 1989 by jordankatz in cdp:sci.space */
/* ---------- "NSS Hotline Update for Space" ---------- */
This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline, update -
Space Day, July 20, 1989.

At 10 am this morning President George Bush on the steps of the
National Air and Space Museum commemorated the 20th anniversary
of the Apollo 11 mission which landed the first men on the Moon. 
He went on to stress the need to look forward, and that in the
21st century peoples of all nations will leave the Earth for
voyages of discovery and exploration.  He stated that now is the
time to commit ourselves to a sustained program of human
exploration of the solar system and the permanent settlement of
space.  

"Our goal is to establish the US as the preeminent space fairing
nation, from the voyages of Columbus to the triumph of the Moon
itself...."  He implied that space exploration is a worth-while
venture from an economic stand point by stating the Apollo
program paid down to Earth dividends, and the human exploration
of the Moon would have been a bargain at twice the price. 
"Apollo is the best return on investment since Leonardo DiVinci
bought his first sketch pad."

In his speech, he announced his long range vision as the
completion of the Space Station Freedom in the 1990s, a permanent
return to the Moon at the turn of the century, and then the human
exploration of Mars.  Each mission will succesively build upon
the next.  He added that the future of the space program lies
within the hands of Congress and ultimately in the hands of the
public.  

It is President Bush's intention that the 30th anniversary of
Apollo 11 should be celebrated not in Washington, DC, but on the
fully operational Space Station Freedom.  He went on to add that
the space station will serve as a bridge to the solar system and
our own fragile Earth. "International initatives are need to seek
new solutions to global environmental problems, and Mission to
Planet Earth is an important initiative in our national space
program.  The Space Station Freedom is the necessary next step
for sustatined human exploration."

The President charged his "right hand man" Vice President Dan
Quayle and his National Space Council to work out the specific
time frame, milestones and resources needed to return to the Moon
permanently and go on to explore Mars.

He closed his speech by saying the dream of reaching new stars
and exploring new worlds will be realized not in his generation
or even his childrens generation, but we must begin with this
generation. "We can't make the next great leap for mankind
tomorrow unless we take the single step today."

The NSS mourns the death of a valued and visionary member of the
Board of Directors, George A. Koopman, president and co-founder
of the American Rocket Company. Mr. Koopman died Wednesday of
injuries sustained in an automobile accident. He was forty-four
years old. 

AMROC officials affirmed that preparations for the company's
first space launch, scheduled for August 14, 1989, will continue
as planned. James Bennett, AMROC's vp for External Affairs, said
"This represents an enormous loss to AMROC. Koopman was a true
space pioneer, not only by virtue of his key role in founding and
sustaining AMROC, but also his long support of and participation
in organizations such as the National Space Society. The
realization of George Koopman's dream of creating affordable
access to space will be his memorial."

Koopman's family has requested that in lieu of flowers,
contributions to one of several charitable organizations be made.
NSS has been selected and will set up a trust fund in his name to
continue the visionary goals he pioneered. Contributions will be
excepted by the NSS to the George A. Koopman Memorial Fund.

This has been the National Space Society's Space Hotline updated
SpaceDay, July 20th, 1989.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 20:55:38 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <1989Jul20.184051.19979@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <8907201027.AA07833@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu> dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) writes:
> > ... What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from
> > doing the following:
> >     1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever.
> >     2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars.
> >     3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''.
> >     4. Fly away with same after filling the tank...
> >     
> >     Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?).
> 
> The answer to item 3 will be "sorry, that is a USAF aircraft that is not
> for sale to civilians without government approval".  This is partly
> [...  And the US
> government feels that private citizens should not be allowed to own jet
> fighters.

But, Henry!  The T-38 *isn't* a fighter...though I suppose you could
add an external gun pod after you got it home.  :}

You're probably right anyway.  Darn.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 13:33:42 GMT
From: cica!ctrsol!emory!phssra@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Scott R. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.

In article <7037@ceres.physics.uiowa.edu> TJL@ceres.physics.uiowa.edu writes:
>In article <8907201621.AA00301@decwrl.dec.com>, klaes@wrksys.dec.com 
>(CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
>> 
>>          The possibility that life could have evolved on Mars, and perhaps
>>     exists there now, has been given a boost by the discovery of large
>>     amounts of organic material, the basis of all known life forms, in a
>>     meteorite believed to have come from the red planet. 
>> 
>My question is that all of the pictures from Mars have been of river channels,
>river channels which apparently handled immense quantities of water.  How
>would this environment (i.e. the river) compare with the ocean?  If the water
>was flowing fast enough to carve these channels, would there also be areas
>where the water would be stagnant for a long enough period of time for
>proteins and the like to form?

The origin of these channels is believed to be due to the sudden melting of
large quantities of subterranean ice and/or permafrost, which are then forced
through the surface to produce a gigantic flash flood.  However, the air
pressure on Mars is so low that the water will quickly evaporate away, so there
is little chance that these floods could provide "stagnant" pools of water.

Speculation:  subterranean chambers deep enough in the interior of Mars that
liquid water could exist, and be warm and stagnant.  Volcanic activity
occasionally spits out a rock or two which then find their way to Antartica...
millions of years ago, of course.

*
  *      **                  Scott Robert Anderson      gatech!emoryu1!phssra
   *   *    *    **          phssra@unix.cc.emory.edu   phssra@emoryu1.bitnet
    * *      * *    * **
     *        *      *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #571
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/QYp1ZEy00UkVI:605L>;
          Mon, 31 Jul 89 05:18:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8Yp1Z8-00UkVE-4E5K@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 89 05:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #572

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 572

Today's Topics:
	Re: Space Quest, Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST...
	     Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)
			 Voice channel beeps.
	Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)
      Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)
			     Re: Modules
			George Koopman killed
		    The Soviet ZOND lunar probes.
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
		     "The other side of the Moon"
		       Re: latest Quayle gaffe
	     Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 14:00:42 GMT
From: watmath!grwalter@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Space Quest, Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST...

In article <20134@louie.udel.EDU> pezely@udel.EDU (Daniel Pezely) writes:
>Well, space is important to me and many people I know.  This fall I was
>planning on organizing everyone that I could possibly find and form The
>Space Quest Foundation.  
>
>I would like to approach all of the space contractors with a proposal.
>Most companies are formed as profit making institutions.  With that in
>mind, why don't we form an alternative space administration which is
>OWNED by the space contractors?

I don't see what benefit the space contractors would get out of it. They'd
be giving up something (whatever they gave you); in return they'd get more
people telling them what to do - people who don't have any money to pay
for putting payloads in space.

>There's a lot that needs to be done.  Anyone interested?  Here's a chance 
>to actually do something.  If you don't try, then you wont succeed.  Send
>me mail if you're interested and determined to do something.

I'm interested in doing something, but I don't see the above ever happening.
No company interested in turning a profit will give up something just to get
more administration. If I've misinterpreted something, please let me know.

However, the above does give me some ideas...

	fred

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 14:27:37 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)

In article <12864@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> pgf@space.mit.edu (Peter G. Ford) writes:
>But what, you ask, is a "momentum wheel desaturation?" Well, the wheels
>are much less massive than the rest of the spacecraft (technically,
>their moments of inertia are much smaller), so they must spin up to
>very high rates to turn Magellan in a reasonable time. To avoid their
>spinning so fast that they fly apart, there are auxiliary rockets on
>Magellan that are fired from time to time to give the spacecraft a
>strong twist in the opposite direction, thereby allowing the wheels to
                     ^^^^^^^^
>be spun down and "desaturated".

Jeez I hate to disagree with someone on the Project, but wouldn't the
thruster burns be twisting the spacecraft in the SAME direction as the
momentum wheels' accumulated spin, rather than in the OPPOSITE
direction?  If you add more opposite torque you'd have to spin the
wheels even faster to compensate.  By tweaking in the same direction,
you allow[require] spindown of the wheels to compensate.

That's what I said in my mailed explanation anyway.  If it's wrong I'd
like to know it.
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 17:10:25 GMT
From: voder!berlioz!bill@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bill Bencze)
Subject: Voice channel beeps.


This is a question that always has been bugging me and I have never
been given a good answer:

What function do the ever present "beeps" serve in the voice
communication between spacecraft and the ground? These are the 
1~3 kHz beeps of about a half second in duration which seem to
occur at random duning the transmissions.  Are they electronic
"Over" signals automatically sent at the end of a transmission or
some other type of timing signal.

Please satisfy my curiosity!!!


Bill Bencze.
National Semiconductor Corp.

bill@bach.nsc.com.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 18:40:52 GMT
From: watmath!grwalter@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Fred Walter)
Subject: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)

The article about forming a group (Space Quest) got me thinking.

Why not form a non-profit organization whose goal is to get everyone of its
members off the planet ?

The work would be done by the members; all money raised would be put back
into the organization to better the facilities/do R&D/etc. 

The administration of the group would serve to connect people together
into working groups. They would gather information on the members
(regarding what everyone can do/will do) and give the information to its
members and ask the members for possible plans of action. The
administration would then gather all the plans and try and condense them
into one plan, which would be given back to the members. This would bounce
back and forth until a plan was had that everyone could live with.

I can describe this better by giving a possible scenario :

	You have engineers who are willing to design a rocket
	that would be able to put a payload into orbit. You have
	machinists who are willing to produce the parts (and 
	who are willing to produce the equipment needed to 
	produce the parts). You have salemen/marketers who are 
	willing to try and find people/corporations/etc who have a
	satellite that they will pay to have put in orbit. Plus 
	you have people who are willing to do all the other necessary
	things.

	The administration would design a plan based on plans submitted
	by the members (eg. engineer 1 designs this part; engineer 2
	designs this part; etc.) and gives it back to the members.
	The members would give critique the plan (engineer 1 says that
	he doesn't have the time to do part A, but he can do part T; 
	engineer 3 says he can do more then he's been given; engineer 7
	has some fancy hardware/software that will make certain jobs
	easier and is willing to let other people use it; etc. etc).

	Eventually, a rocket would be build, a satellite launched, and
	non-member money would come in, which would be used to improve
	facilities, so that bigger/better rockets could be built.

	Etc. Etc.

In return for giving time/money to the organization, one would get some
number of shares. When the stage is reached that people are actually being
sent into space, then the people with the most shares are the people who go
first. 

Once the organization is in a position where money is coming in, it could,
instead of shares, remunerate with money the people who give time (IE. said
machinist/whatever could be able to live while working on projects and
gaining shares).

This is a pretty rough outline. Does anyone see any obvious flaws ? Does
anyone have any suggestions ? Is anyone willing to help organize something
like this ?

	fred

grwalter@watmath.uwaterloo.ca                  (Canadian domain)
grwalter@watmath.waterloo.edu                  (US Internet, including CSNET)
grwalter@watmath.waterloo.cdn                  (CDNnet and some European nets)
watmath!grwalter                               (UUCP)
uunet!watmath!grwalter                         (another UUCP alternative)
grwalter%watmath.waterloo.edu@csnet-relay.arpa (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 19:21:15 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)

In article <27897@watmath.waterloo.edu> grwalter@watmath.waterloo.edu (Fred Walter) writes:
>Why not form a non-profit organization whose goal is to get everyone of its
>members off the planet ?

    This used to be called the L-5 Society, before it was sucked into
the near-term political morass...  I'm fond of Keith Lofstrom's
suggestion that we start an L-4 Society.

    The largest existing organization which comes close to what you
mention is the Space Studies Institute.  Become a member, give
everything you can, and SSI may be able to develop the tools to get
us off the planet (my standard offer of details about SSI by email
request goes here).
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 17:18:07 GMT
From: wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU  (Bill Chiarchiaro)
Subject: Re: Modules

In article <2319@orion.cf.uci.edu>, dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu (Doug Krause) writes:
> 
> I lost a couple of articles.  Was Snoopy an LM or CM?  If it was
> an LM, a historic quote would have a whole new feel.


Snoopy was the name for the Apollo 10 LM.  The Apollo 10 CSM was
called Charlie Brown.

Bill Chiarchiaro
N1CPK
wjc@xn.ll.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 20:36:39 GMT
From: ganoe@arizona.edu  (Bill Ganoe)
Subject: George Koopman killed

New York Times, Friday, July 21, 1989 (page A11) carried the obituary
for George Koopman, founder of the American Rocket Company (AMROC).
He was killed when his car overturned on the way to the Air Force
Astronautics Laboratory at Edwards AFB, California.

George was a man with a vision and the capacity to overcome
towering obstacles in the way of space commercialization.
He will be sadly missed -- especially by those of us who knew him..

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 20:37:00 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: The Soviet ZOND lunar probes.


        Someone recently mentioned about several unmanned Soviet ZOND 
    probes actually landing on Earth's Moon.  This is incorrect:  Of
    the ZOND probes sent on lunar missions between 1965 and 1970 
    (ZOND 3-8), none of them landed on the lunar surface, though most
    of them did orbit the Moon.  It is generally believed that these
    ZOND probes were tests for a manned SOYUZ mission to orbit and/or
    land on the Moon.  Such plans did not come to pass.

        Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com
    
             N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 00:53:53 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <3828@portia.Stanford.EDU> joe@hanauma.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>Here's a question I've always wanted to ask: why even bother to shut the
>things off? Just ignore them, and if they're still working a few years later
>when you change your mind, so much the better. 

Unfortunately, spectrum space is not in overwhelmingly abundant supply, so
it's considered desirable to shut down transmitters that you are no longer
listening to.  (It is also considered desirable to have a way to shut the
transmitters absolutely and permanently off, so they can't reawaken due to
static in the receivers and the like.)

>If they had shut off the
>deep space network, would they have given a command to the Voyagers and
>pioneers "make no further broadcasts, accept no further instructions from
>Earth"?

Very probably.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 09:05:16 GMT
From: shelby!portia!hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@decwrl.dec.com  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: "The other side of the Moon"


	A different sort of Apollo TV show is PBS's "The other side of
the Moon". They cover what several of the Apollo astronauts are doing TODAY.
It was pretty surprising:

	One is a test pilot...
	One sells coors beer in Mississippi...
	One paints moonscapes...
	One flies around Mt Ararat (Turkey) looking for Noah's ark...
	One believes humans are descendants of an alien space-faring race...


	All in all, a typical group of average Americans!
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 17:54:05 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: latest Quayle gaffe

In article <14477@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>By the way this is only barely sci.space, but I assume folks have heard
>about Danno's latest.

    Perhaps this is a heretical thought, but it seems to me that
Quayle is actually doing a *good job* as chairman of the NSC.  Now,
maybe this is just because it's full of competent people; but even
then, it shows he's listening to them.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 22:09:38 GMT
From: pgf@ATHENA.MIT.EDU  (Peter G. Ford)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)

In article <805@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl> exiphm@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (h.munk) writes:
>In article <28782@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>> continues to perform twice daily momentum wheel desaturations
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Forgive me my ignorance, but what is "momentum wheel desaturation",
>and why is it done ?

When mapping Venus by radar, accurate antenna pointing is very
important.  Unlike an optical imager, a synthetic aperture radar is
"pointed" electronically, by choosing a precise time and frequency
"window" within which to listen for echoes. If the antenna isn't
pointing at the correct part of the planet, you don't pick up any
useful data at all!  During each orbit of Venus, the Magellan antenna,
along with the rest of the spacecraft to which it is rigidly attached,
must slowly rotate to trace a line on the planet's surface that follows
the pre-chosen "mapping swath" for that orbit.

Unlike the earlier generation of spacecraft which used small rocket
motors for orientation, Magellan uses a set of three small gyroscopes,
called "momentum wheels", each of which spins along one of three
mutually perpendicular axes. To rotate the spacecraft about one of
these axes, it is necessary to change the rotation rate of that
particular momentum wheel IN THE OPPOSITE SENSE.  Magellan, as an
isolated body, must conserve angular momentumm, and the change in the
angular momentum of the wheel is offset by that of the rest of the
body.  A rotation about an arbitrary axis can be put together out of a
series of rotation changes of any two wheels.  Wheels are better than
rockets because they use only electric power (from the solar panels),
not precious liquid fuel.

But what, you ask, is a "momentum wheel desaturation?" Well, the wheels
are much less massive than the rest of the spacecraft (technically,
their moments of inertia are much smaller), so they must spin up to
very high rates to turn Magellan in a reasonable time. To avoid their
spinning so fast that they fly apart, there are auxiliary rockets on
Magellan that are fired from time to time to give the spacecraft a
strong twist in the opposite direction, thereby allowing the wheels to
be spun down and "desaturated".

The desaturation burns are bad news to those of us interested in the
precise location of the spacecraft--e.g. for the altimetry experiment,
or to determine the shape of the Venus gravity field--because, in
addition to a rotation, they tend to push Magellan sideways by a random
amount which must be allowed for in subsequent data processing. By a
careful combination of wheel turns, the need for desaturation burns is
minimized. Once in orbit, we hope to keep them down to less than one
per day.

Peter Ford
MIT and Magellan Project

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #572
*******************
Return-Path: <@PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Aug 89 00:51:00 EDT
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06979> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Tue, 1 Aug 89 00:49:00 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Tue,  1 Aug 89 00:48:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.UYpGU4e00Ui3Q1BE4y>;
          Tue,  1 Aug 89 00:33:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.AYpGQKi00UkVM==04h>;
          Tue,  1 Aug 89 00:29:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8YpGOYK00UkV8=9U4E@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Tue,  1 Aug 89 00:27:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #573

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 573

Today's Topics:
	  Space Quest, Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST...
		       Re: Ranger seismometers
	       Space Activist Survey, Food for Thought
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 06:08:04 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Space Quest, Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST...

In article <1989Jul21.031420.1292@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> ...
>YOUR CHOICE
>-----------
>		...		Is space *important* to you?  Does it
>matter enough to spend, say, one whole hour a week doing something to
>slightly increase your chances of getting up there someday?  *DOING*
>something, mind you, not reading a book or scanning Usenet or something
>else quiet and easy and pleasant, but going out and taking trouble and
>making an effort and spending time that could be more enjoyably spent
>on something else?  One hour out of a hundred?
>
>Then why haven't you done it lately?
>-- 
>1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Well, space is important to me and many people I know.  This fall I was
planning on organizing everyone that I could possibly find and form The
Space Quest Foundation.  

I would like to approach all of the space contractors with a proposal.
Most companies are formed as profit making institutions.  With that in
mind, why don't we form an alternative space administration which is
OWNED by the space contractors?

If each contractor owns stock in this administrative corporation
equivalent to the cost of their hardware contributions, then non-NASA
vehicles and space stations could be produced.  

If other companies wish to use the space facilities, then those
companies would have to pay.  The profit from those sales of services or
space on the station would go back into to original contractors who own
the administrative company.

Since the members of the administrative corporation will be non-government
controlled, progress will be made.  Yes, there will be some problems
with the competition within the administration, but those are minor
compared to NASA's structure.

In a few weeks we will be obtaining the names and addresses of the
chairmen of the boards of directors of every space contractor that we can
find.  When we contact them, I don't think they will just ignore us.

There's a lot that needs to be done.  Anyone interested?  Here's a chance 
to actually do something.  If you don't try, then you wont succeed.  Send
me mail if you're interested and determined to do something.

I will do anything I can to live in a space station, or I will die trying!

- Daniel Pezely

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 14:08:58 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@CS.YALE.EDU  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Ranger seismometers

In article <5348@hplabsb.HP.COM> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
>
>Whoa right back.  Ranger was indeed launched to answer this question.
>Rangers 3-5 had seismometers encased in balsa spheres, attached to
>retrorockets.  These packages were supposed to separate from the main
>spacecraft, brake to a stop 1100 feet altitude, jettison the retros,
>then fall from there.  After rolling to a stop, they were to transmit
>readings back.  If the balls sank into dust, the signals would reflect
>that.
>

Your description makes it sound fancier than I thought it was...I think it was just
a fixed solid-fuel motor that blasted "up" just before impact of the ranger. No 
"separate" from the Ranger first. As a matter of fact, without any stabilization
system, I'm sure you rather fire the retro kick while still attached to the
properly facing Ranger(?).

If memory serves the seismometers were shock protected in fluid, which after
impact was drained out buy "bullets" that fired out thru the case and the balsa
shock absorber sphere. 

I also see to recall that at least one of these things didn't work. I don't
remember any data collected from any of them.....???


pkr

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 01:35:39 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Space Activist Survey, Food for Thought

A Survey for Space Activists


1.   Do you consider yourself to be a space activist?

2.   Who invented the theory of rocketry and when?  Who developed the
first liquid fueled rockets?  Who first discussed the science and
engineering of interplanetary travel?

3.   Are you aware that less than half the population of Mexico was alive
at the time of the last Apollo moon landing?

4.   Does the US have a robust space program?  Does the USSR have a robust
space program?

5.   Are you a member of the:  National Space Society, British
Interplanetary Society, Planetary Society, Space Studies Institute, Other?


6.   Which of the following have you read:  Princeton Space Manufacturing
Conference # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, Keeping the Dream Alive, Scientific
Foundations of Space Manufacturing, AIAA Journal, Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets, Journal of Power and Propulsion, Space Power, Acta
Astronautica, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Astronautica
Acta, Lunar Bases and Space Activities in the 21st Century, 2081, The
Technology Edge, A Space Program Derived from American Values, Space
Colonies and Space Resources, Space Colonies---A Design Study, Space
Settlements---A Design Study, SSEC Report, The Permanant War Economy, The
US Congressional Record, Ad Astra, Planetary Report, Aviation Week and
Space Technology.

7.   Is a national organization necessary for the NSS chapters?  Why or why
not?

8.   Does failure to acheive a quorum at the annual meeting constitute
incompetence on the part of the NSS board of directors?

9.   Should the office staff of the NSS reveal to the chapters potentially
embarrasing facts, such as the level of AIAC support for day to day
activities?  Why or why not?

10.  Should the NSS open its accounting records to interested members?

11.  Should the NSS pay Mark Hopkins' expenses for Spacepac activities?

12.  Has the legislative committee of the NSS done anything: pro-space,
anti-space, at all?

13.  Are Scott Pace and Sandra Adamson's contradictory statements at the
1988 Meet the Candidates Forum a cause for concern?  Why or why not?

14.  Should the NSS accept donations from aerospace contractors who have
interests in the policy positions of the NSS?

15.  Should board members and other NSS policy makers be allowed to hold
simultaneous positions at aerospace contractors which have interests in
these policies?  Is this ethical?  Why or why not?  Do these people truly
represent your views?  Should they speak to your Congressman for you?

16.  Is the nominating process employed by the NSS democratic?  Why is it
used?  Should a nominations committee endorse candidates for the NSS board
of directors?  Even when more candidates have qualified by petition than
can be elected?

17.  The NSS bylaws provide a means for the board of directors to expel
and replace its members.  Should this provision be used instead of
election endorsement?  Should this provision be used at all?

18.  How should the election procedures be changed?  Are you confident of
the ability of Mark Hopkins to implement the appropriate reforms as de
facto head of the NSS?

19.  What should the NSS do to foster debate on policy issues?  Have you
debated questions of space policy at your chapter?

20.  Which subjects should receive more coverage in Ad Astra, and which
should receive less coverage?  Should the society magazine be employed to
promote specific projects, as presently with the NASA Space Station?  Why
or why not?

21.  What should the NSS do or supply in support of its chapters: Periodic
bulk mailings, Free banners, posters and flyers, Maintain a speakers
bureau, Promotional and informative videos, Slide shows, Run a chapter
based phone tree, Fund chapter projects, MIR Watch prediction programs and
materials, More space in Ad Astra for chapter concerns, Ask chapters for
input into NSS policy decisions, Promote debate of space policy issues
among chapters.

22.  Is a chapter based phone tree more appropriate than one consisting of
chapter members and non chapter members?  Why or why not? Who should be
able to activate the phone tree?  What are the valid purposes for the
phone tree?  What are invalid purposes for the phone tree?

23.  Do you see a parallel between NASA having trouble carrying projects
to completion, exhibiting confused priorities and never having enough
money despite steadily increasing budgets, and the NSS having trouble
communicating with membership, displaying confused policy and never having
the resources to support chapters despite AIAC donations?

24.  Who are your congressional representatives?  Have you visited their
offices during the last year?

25.  What are you doing to make space a national or local election issue?
Which potential 1992 presidential candidates are you working with on space
issues?  What are you doing with them?

26.  Are individual projects more important than policy, or vice versa?

27.  Does space policy consist primarily of asking Congress to appropriate
more money for NASA?  Does space activism?

28.  What are the appropriate priorities for a space program?

29.  What is the appropriate space policy for the US to have?

30.  What is the proper role of commercial industry in opening the space
frontier?  What are you doing to support this activity?

31.  If it is necessary to mislead congressmen so they appropriate more
money for the Space Station and the Space Shuttle, is it morally
acceptable?  Would you do it?  Would you want Spacepac and Spacecause to
do it?

32.  If NASA personnel must engage in (techically) criminal violations of
the Hatch act to ensure that the space station continues to receive
funding, do you thing the Justice department should overlook them?  Why or
why not?

33.  What are you going to do when the next space shuttle accident occurs?
What should NASA do?  What will NASA do?  What should Congress do? What
will Congress do?  Have you talked to your Congressman about what to do?

34.  US airlines and airliner manufacturers are among the most successful
in the world.  Much of their early growth was due to lucrative government
airmail contracts, which provided dependable income at a time when the
market for passenger service looked small and very uncertain.  Today, it's
difficult to get financial support for cheaper space launchers because
today's market is small and predictions of growth are very uncertain.
Should the US government offer some similar form of market guarantee---not
development funding, but payment only for results---to encourage cheaper
access to space?

35.  Who wrote the Space Transportation Services Purchase Act?  Who
supports the STSPA?  Do you support the STSPA?  Why or why not?

36.  What is the significance of the eleven year gap between Pioneer Venus
2 and Magellan?  Of the lack of manned lunar landings during the last 17
years?

37.  Should NASA purchase or lease the Commercially Developed Space
Facility?  Is the CDSF an appropriate building block for an incrementally
constructed space station?  Why did NASA refuse to spend the $25 million
dollars which Congress appropriated for the CDSF in fiscal year 1988?

38.  Who wrote the Commercially Developed Space Facility Act?  Who
supports the CDSFA?  Do you support the CDSFA?  Why or why not?

39.  Should the government decide who gets to go to a lunar settlement?
How will NASA select the astronauts who will go to its moon base?

40.  Who should be allowed to go to space settlements: Convicted
criminals, Homosexuals, AIDS victims, Antisocial people, Lawyers, People
who refused to join the Armed Services, Traitors, Nazis, Tax evaders,
Communists, Socialists, Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, Libertarians,
Jews, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Yourself?

41.  What forms of sexual expression should be allowed on space stations
and colonies:  Making of pornographic movies, Sodomy, Homosexuality,
Relations between consenting adults, Relations between married
individuals.  Should NASA regulate sexual relations in space?

42.  Which of the following psychoactive drugs should be allowed to be
used on space colonies:  LSD, Opium, Hashish, Alcohol, Heroin,
Amphetimines, Barbiturates, Nitrous Oxide, Nicotine, Phonylcyclidene,
Cocaine, Amyl Nitrate, THC, Caffeine.  Are people with established
patterns of abusing these drugs the kinds of the responsible adults we
need on space colonies?  Should we allow people who abuse these drugs to
determine space policy?

43.  Does the fact that the US Space Shuttle was the first vehicle of its
kind make it valuable as a launch vehicle?

44.  Did you know that the wing for the US Space Shuttle was patterned
after the wing of the Concorde?

45.  NASA published a 261 page list of acronyms for space shuttle systems.
What does this indicate about the STS?

46.  Would any one designing a launch vehicle from scratch think of the
Shuttle-C?  Why or why not?

47.  Why hasn't NASA flown a lunar polar orbiter in the 20 years since the
first moon landing made apparent the need for the data it would return?

48.  Did the fact that 3 countries sent 5 spacecraft to see Halley's
commet make it unnecessary for NASA to do so?

49.  What does it matter that the cost of launch by NASA has not decreased
over the last two decades?

50.  Why doesn't the US use Saturn V boosters any more?

51.  What was James Fletcher's role in the Apollo program?

52.  How can the Chinese its incredibly high technology launch vehicles in
a refrigerator factory where they make refrigerators when they do not need
rockets?

53.  Why are Soviet launch vehicles 20 times less expensive than US launch
vehicles?

54.  What lesson can be drawn from the fact that Soviet launch vehicles
developed in the 1950's and 1960's are inexpensive, while American launch
vehicles (Atlas, Titan, Delta) originally developed in the 1950's and 60's
are still fairly costly?

55.  Are the Soviet Venera spacecraft, which operate in a high pressure
atmosphere of hot sulfuric acid, representative of their inferior space
technology?

56.  The Soviets performed remote sample return missions from the moon in
the 1970's.  Should we use their technology to do the same or to return
samples from Mars?

57.  Since the Soviets sell launches at an absurdly low price, we are
faced with a win-win situation.  If we buy as many launches as they sell,
we will either have low cost access to space on a grand scale (if the
launches truly are cheap) or we will bankrupt them (if the launches are
subsidized).  Should we commit tens of billions of dollars to buying
Soviet launches?

58.  The Soviets have already agreed to fly several paying passengers.
Who will the next 10 passengers be?  When will the next civilian fly on
the space shuttle?  Why have the French have signed an agreement with the
Soviets to fly a french cosmonaut every two years?

59.  Given the fact that we have reneged on so many past programs of
international cooperation in space, why are the Europeans and Japanese
willing to cooperate with us on the Space Station?

60.  Given a choice between cooperating in space ventures with the Soviet
Union or with NASA, which should a third world country choose? Why?

61.  Due to all our scientific payloads being forced to fly on the
shuttle, the Hubble Space Telescope was not in space to observe the recent
supernova.  What was the cost to space science and to our understanding of
the world due to this unfortunate circumstance?

62.  The Russian book ``Scientific Foundations of Space Manufacturing''
states ``Recent years have seen the advent of manufacturing on board
spacecraft---a new dimension in man's activities in outer space.  The
materials thus produced show performance substantially improved owing to
the factors that exist in orbital flight, above all dynamic weightlessness
which cannot be simulated on the Earth for a sufficiently long time.''
What do you make of this?

63.  What are the Soviets are doing with the gallium arsenide they
manufacture onboard MIR?  Will they sell it to the Japenese?  To the
Pentagon?  Will these groups buy it?  Should they?  Do national security
concerns demand that the Pentagon buy it as an alternative source for an
important material?

64.  With NASA spending 3.5 billion dollars on the space shuttle this
year, how much should it be spending on expendable launch vehicles and
commercial launch services?

65.  What companies offer commercial launch services?  How many launches
has NASA purchased on a commercial basis?

66.  Can the government can operate space industries?

67.  Is it the proper role for government to own and operate factories,
such as the one NASA is building to make a new kind of solid rocket
booster (despite the fact that private companies would rather build their
own plants)?  Is NASA ownership of rocket factories, launch facilities and
research laboratories similar to the communist system of state ownership
of the means to production?  How do you rationalize NASA ownership of
factories with the current Soviet effort to divest itself of state
ownership due to its generally recognized poor performance?

68.  Is Civil Service Tenure similar to the security of employment every
communist citizen enjoys, regardless of how hard he or she works?

69.  Do you find the arguments for the National Aerospace plane
disturbingly similar to those used for the Space Shuttle in the 1970's and
80's?

70.  Why should Landsat be turned off for a lack of funding when several
billion dollars are spent every year to support classified DoD earth
``remote sensing'' activities?

71.  If the Hubble Space Telescope is so wonderful, why can't we have ten
of them?

72.  Since cosmonauts from several countries have flown on Mir, is it
proper to refer to it as the international space station?

73.  Should we offer to buy Salyut 7 from the Soviets so we can have a
space station right away?

74.  Does the fact that the Soviets are using an ion thruster to keep
their Salyut Space Station in orbit mean it is higher tech. than our space
station (which will use chemical propulsion) will be?

75.  What do you think of the following quote from an interview with
Freeman Dyson in the Spring 1988 TECHNE Journal of Technological Studies
from the VTS department at Stanford:

``There are lots of idiots, of course, in NASA, but my view of NASA is
rather like the Royal Air Force used to be in the old days when I worked
for the Royal Air Force during the war.  If you had an officer who was a
dud, you put him in the command headquarters because he would do less
damage there than he would out in the squadrons.  So all the duds
accumulated at the headquarters -- this is what has happened at NASA for
the last thirty years or so.  Acutally, there are lots of very fine
things, but they're all out in the stations.  If you look at JPL out here
in California, or you look at Goddard which is in Maryland, they're doing
very well.  I think JPL is running the Voyager missions, which of course
have been beautifully done.  The Voyager went to Jupiter and Saturn and
Uranus and will go to Neptune next year.  That's a fantastically good
mission, which is run at JPL, and then there is the IUE, run at Goddard.
So there are these very good, what NASA calls, the centers, these places
where the technical work is done.  And there is this terrible bunch of
idiots in Washington at the headquarters which messes everything up.  So I
think if you just abolish the Washington office, NASA would be in very
good shape.

``We actually tried that out during World War II.  There was a very
analogus problem we had in 1943.  The German armaments industry was doing
very well, they were producing a tremendous lot of armaments and we wanted
to put a stop to that.  We found out that all the head offices of these
armament firms were in Dusseldorf and that was where all the paperwork was
done.  So we decided we would really destroy Dusseldorf and disorganize
the whole system.  We went in there one night and it was a very succesful
operation and Dusseldorf really burned down to the ground.  And then, in
the next few weeks, the armament production went up like a rocket.''

76.  What has NASA done that is: pro-space, anti-space?

77.  Why would terminating NASA would speed up or slow down our progress
toward creating a spacefaring civilization?

78.  Given the choice between Space Station Freedom and thirty CDSF's,
which would you choose?

79.  Over 133 thousand people had arthroscopic surgery on their knee in
the US in 1987.  Ten years ago this surgery involved a hospital stay and
small chance of a full recovery.  Now it is an outpatient procedure, with
most patients walking the next day.  Much of the advance in this surgery
is due to the frequency of knee injury in the NFL.  Does this mean that
Congress should appropriate money to support the NFL in order to benefit
those in need of this surgery, or that the spinoff argument is absurd?

80.  What would you do as NASA administrator?  What would you do as a
congressional representative concerned with space issues?  What would you
do as president?  What would you do as a space activist?

81.  What are you doing to make space an election issue nationally and
locally?

82.  Do the ends justify the means?  If they don't, what does?

83.  Why does the statement ``The lunar base begins routine launch of
materials into space at the rate of 30,000 metric tons per year shortly
after sunrise at the lunar base on 1 June 1987'' which appeared in the
1977 Summer Report ``Space Resources and Space Settlements'' bear so
little relation to reality?  Was it ever more realistic?  What could be
done to make it a reality?  How do you think the people who worked on the
report feel now?

84.  Were the Reagan years (during which no planetary missions flew and
the Hubble Space Telescope sat on the ground) were good for the US space
program?

85.  What needs to be done to enhance the success of projects like the
Space Studies Institute Lunar Polar Probe?  What are you doing to support
this kind of project?

86.  What is the most important thing to do in order to open the space
frontier?  What are you doing about it?

--------

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #573
*******************

Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/gYpIttW00UkVI=PE4x>;
          Tue,  1 Aug 89 03:17:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <QYpItl-00UkV4=NU5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue,  1 Aug 89 03:17:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #574

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 574

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Voice channel beeps.
			NASA Select Broadcasts
	       Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
		 Possible evidence for life on Mars.
		      Re: Impossible Space Goals
			    Anniversaries
			     Information
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
			       Spinoffs
			sci.space mailing list
			 Shuttle frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 01:57:30 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu  (Steve Masticola)
Subject: Re: Voice channel beeps.

Bill Bencze writes:

] What function do the ever present "beeps" serve in the voice
] communication between spacecraft and the ground? These are the 
] 1~3 kHz beeps of about a half second in duration which seem to
] occur at random duning the transmissions.  Are they electronic
] "Over" signals automatically sent at the end of a transmission or
] some other type of timing signal.

They're not random. I believe they're sent when the speaking party's
VOX times out (after about a half second of silence).

- Steve (masticol@athos.rutgers.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 20:14:54 GMT
From: pilchuck!ssc!rolls!mtuxo!tee@uunet.uu.net  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: NASA Select Broadcasts

In article <28597@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>      The Galileo briefing will begin at 11:30 a.m. EDT in the KSC
> News Center auditorium and will be carried on NASA Select
> television: Satcom F2R, transponder 13, 72 degrees west 
> longitude.  Two-way question and answer capability will be 
> available. 
> 
I told a friend of mine about the NASA Select broadcasts of Neptune
images on Tuesdays at noon. He has looked for them a couple of times
and had another friend look a couple of times, with no luck picking
up a signal. He has looked at other times to see if he can get anything,
also with no luck. Has anyone been able to find NASA Select's broadcasts?
Did you need to know anything more than the data in the excerpted paragraph?
Is this bird viewable from the east coast with "standard" equipment, i.e.,
is it a good quality signal or very weak?

Thanks for any information.


-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 20:56:01 GMT
From: dino!ceres!tjl@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.

In article <8907201621.AA00301@decwrl.dec.com>, klaes@wrksys.dec.com 
(CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
>          From the July 20, 1989 edition of THE BOSTON GLOBE -
>     
>          "Meteorite Revives Hopes There May Be Life on Mars"
> 
>          The possibility that life could have evolved on Mars, and perhaps
>     exists there now, has been given a boost by the discovery of large
>     amounts of organic material, the basis of all known life forms, in a
>     meteorite believed to have come from the red planet. 
> 

 I have been curious about the possibility of life on Mars
for awhile.  My understanding of current theories on the
origin of life on this planet is that life is thought to
have originated in tidal pools or near the ocean surface.
Both of these places have ample sunlight, rather calm water,
yet would have the necessary chemicals for proteins and
their precursors to form and combine.

My question is that all of the pictures from Mars have been
of river channels, river channels which apparently handled
immense quantities of water.  How would this environment
(i.e. the river) compare with the ocean?  If the water was
flowing fast enough to carve these channels, would there
also be areas where the water would be stagnant for a long
enough period of time for proteins and the like to form?
Have there been areas discovered which resemble a sea or
ocean basin, but just have not received as much press?


-- Joe

"Those who would sacrifice **  I disclaim none of my opinions.
liberty for security,      **
deserve neither."          **    DECnet CERES::TJL
 B. Franklin               **           tjl@ceres.physics.uiowa.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 23:15:39 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!add@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Andrew D. Daniel)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <1989Jul17.230138.26746@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1473@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:
>>... a radio transmitter that was left on the Moon ... still operating.
>
>As far as I know, all the Apollo lunar-surface transmitters were shut
>down ... to save some trifling amount of money!!!

Am I missing something here?
How could shutting down something already on the moon save ANY money?

I DID hear that NASA recently shut down a listening station that was picking
up signals from moon-based instruments to save $2M per year, but that
the instruments themselves were still operating.



-- 

Andrew D Daniel, Video Seven, Inc.           Angels fear to tread
..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!add                        where fools login:

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 16:21:46 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Possible evidence for life on Mars.


         From the July 20, 1989 edition of THE BOSTON GLOBE -
    
         "Meteorite Revives Hopes There May Be Life on Mars"

         The possibility that life could have evolved on Mars, and perhaps
    exists there now, has been given a boost by the discovery of large
    amounts of organic material, the basis of all known life forms, in a
    meteorite believed to have come from the red planet. 

         ...it is virtually impossible that organic compounds could have
    contaminated the rock after it reached Earth because the chemicals
    were found deep within the solid rock and because the meteorite has
    been handled with extreme care since its discovery on the sterile
    Antarctic ice.... 

         ...The meteorite was handled under extremely clean conditions. 
    It was collected in a Teflon bag, placed in a pure nitrogen
    atmosphere...it was treated like a lunar rock....

         The evidence that the meteorite came from Mars is twofold, said
    geologist William Cassidy in an interview yesterday: 

         * Tests show it was formed in volcanic processes about 1.3 billion
    years ago, which rules out origin from asteroids or comets, which have
    no volcanic activity, or the Moon, where such processes ended 4.5
    billion years ago. 

         * Samples of air trapped in glass melted into the rock during its
    formation exactly match the composition and elemental isotope ratios
    of Martian air but not of any other known planet. 

         "Bush Sets Space Agenda Today: Outpost on Moon, Man on Mars"

         President Bush today will seek to commit the United States to
    building a manned outpost on the Moon and sending astronauts to Mars,
    an administration official said yesterday.  Bush will not outline a
    specific proposal but will endorse the concept of a Moon-Mars mission,
    which was recommended by Vice President Dan Quayle and the National
    Space Council, which Quayle chairs, said the official.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 16:48:05 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Impossible Space Goals

In article <14475@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>>Was the surface of the moon hard or miles of dust for a lander to sink?
>>
>>There were even two series of Lunar probes launched to specifically
>>answer this and related questions.
>
>Whoa.
>Assuming Zond doesn't count, there were two programs where unmanned
>spacecraft touched the lunar surface: Ranger and Surveyor.  Ranger was a
>hard ballistic impact probe which relayed TV pictures on the way down.
>The final pictures were taken a few thousand feet above the surface;
>nobody really knew what happened when a Ranger hit.  Dust or basalt
>would have extinguished the craft with equal efficiency.

Whoa right back.  Ranger was indeed launched to answer this question.
Rangers 3-5 had seismometers encased in balsa spheres, attached to
retrorockets.  These packages were supposed to separate from the main
spacecraft, brake to a stop 1100 feet altitude, jettison the retros,
then fall from there.  After rolling to a stop, they were to transmit
readings back.  If the balls sank into dust, the signals would reflect
that.

Rangers 1 and 2 were engineering spacecraft, not intended to hit the moon.
Their Agena stages (2nd stage on top of Atlas) failed to fire to get out
of parking orbit.  Ranger 3 was launched 30,000 miles off course by the
Agena, and was only able to to cut the error to 23,000 miles with its
course-correction motor.  As it passed the moon, it failed to aim its
high-gain antenna at the Earth, so its photos weren't received.  Ranger
4's sequencer failed.  Ranger 5's power failed shortly after trans-lunar
injection.  After this, the spacecraft were simplified to be camera-only
probes, and then Ranger 6 failed to turn on its cameras.  Talk about
snake-bitten.  But at any rate, three Rangers had attempted to get an
instrument to survive a moon landing.
-- 

			David R. Smith, HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
			(415) 857-7898

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 17:52:22 GMT
From: agate!shelby!portia!brooks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Brooks)
Subject: Anniversaries

The following is forwarded from a friend of mine without net access.
It`s either a set of platitudes or an astute observation, take your
pick.

Arguably the two most significant dates in Human History both occurred
in July.  On the 20th, in 1969, a man walked on the Moon.  On the
16th, in 1946, a bomb was exploded at Trinity in New Mexico.  The first
may someday result in humanity freeing itself from the bonds of Earth.
The second may someday result in the Earth freeing itself from the bonds
of humanity.

Most amazing of all, these dates are only 4 days and 23 years apart.


Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Labs (solid state)/SU

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 08:41:05 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!ditmela!latcs1!sestito@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Sabrina Sestito)
Subject: Information

Hello,

	I intend to visit the States in late August until mid September
and as such, would like to visit an appropriate NASA establishment such
as Cape Kennedy.  I would really love to see the launch of either the
Shuttle or any space rocket.  Can anyone help with any appropriate
information and/or any recommendation of good places to visit.
Thankyou.

							Sabrina Sestito

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 14:19:11 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <1989Jul21.031420.1292@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In all the fuss about lunar bases and Mars missions, it is easy to lose
>track of one big, unpleasant, nasty fact that has gone from unlikely to
>certain in the last 20 years.  Unless something changes radically...
>
>None of us is going.

If "us" means everyone reading article <1989Jul21.031420.1292@utzoo.uucp>,
this has a fair chance - not 100% (=84%) - of being true.

Primarily because the hustling overachievers who WILL be in space in the
next 15 years know better than to fritter away their time on Netnews!

>Remember the early days of the shuttle program, when weekly launches were
>seriously planned, and the shuttle was going to open up space?  Remember
>"routine access to space"?  Well, you and I may remember it, but as far
>as NASA is concerned, it's dead, buried, and forgotten ...

Look, let's put this in perspective.  They fly B-1 bombers *daily*.  Has
anyone reading this newsgroup ever flown one?  "Routine access" is not
the same thing as "outdraws Disneyworld."  Most *Soviets* won't go,
either, yet we blithely grant them the "routine access" label.

>Remember when Jerry Pournelle said "we're going if we have to walk!"?
>Did you agree?  Did you think you meant it?  I did.  ...

No aspersions on Henry whatsoever, but anyone who lets the author of
JANISSARIES do his prognosticating for him, deserves the letdown. :-)

>            ... You can ride the bus, but you have to pay in Swiss francs
>and learn Russian first... 

The UK will be sending a cosmonaut up in 1991 (oooh, where are you Eric
Blair!), they are not paying in SFr and although, with 13,000
applicants[!], HMG has the luxury of making an acquaintance with Russian
a requirement, I don't believe the Soviets themselves impose it on
visitors.

				and the driver inspects your baggage before
>deciding whether to let you on.  

Also true on Air Canada. :-)

The most dangerous fallacy in this editorial is the equation of
*conquering space* with *you [the reader] going.*  It's pointless to
cheerlead a guaranteed non-starter.  None of us will go to Mars, unless
someone's kid is reading this.  But we could put a rover and sample
return mission there before your present lawn mower gives out if we
wanted to.  How about some space activism about THAT.

>1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |
>1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.|

Tell it to the boys at Taurus Littrow... to Skylab... Viking... IRAS...
Solar Max... Mir... Voyager...  HST... Magellan... and please, don't 
forget to tell Christa.

-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 12:25:41 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplvax.jhuapl.edu!jwm@purdue.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Spinoffs


How many lives make it "worth it"?

Thousands, perhaps millions, of people owe their lives to something that
you can only do with a space program.

Fact, not wild speculation.  I can aim doubters at the raw data to draw
their own conclusions.


That that is is that that is. That that is not is that that is not.
That that is is not that that is not.  That that is not is not that that is.
And that includes these opinions, which are solely mine!
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu  - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 10:07:44 -0500
From: Steve Norton <sfn20715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: sci.space mailing list

Sir, is this the correct address to e-mail in order to be added to the
sci.space mailing list?  If so, please add me.  If not, do you know what the
correct address is?  My apologies if this is wasting your time.
Bolshoi spaceba, tovarisch.

sfn20715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 21:36:00 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!sfn20715@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Shuttle frequencies


Would someone please be kind enough to post or repost a list of the frequencies
used by Shuttle/KSC/Remote stations communications during Shuttle flight?
Please mail to sfn20715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu or post in sci.space or
sci.space.shuttle.  Bolshoi spaceba, tovarischi.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #574
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/UYpKefm00UkVQ=ZE4m>;
          Tue,  1 Aug 89 05:17:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4YpKeXe00UkVI=XU54@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue,  1 Aug 89 05:17:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #575

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 575

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
			   Re: Space Quest
		  Re:  Vaguely space related queries
		      Re: George Koopman killed
	     Re: Space Activist Survey, Food for Thought
		     Re: Atari(s) and Sat Photos
	     Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)
		     Re: Apollo 11 program alarms
    From the July 17 issue of AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY.
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 23:49:25 GMT
From: stadler@apple.com  (Andy Stadler)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <SHAFER.89Jul20132937@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov>
 shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>>In article <8907201027.AA07833@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu>
 dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) writes:
>>> ... What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from
>>> doing the following:
>>>     1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever.
>>>     2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars.
>>>     3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''.
>>>     4. Fly away with same after filling the tank...
>>>     
>>>     Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?).
>
>Change the scenario to:
>
>     1. Walk into the Bede offices in wherever.
>     2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars.
>     3. Say,``I'd would like that nice BD-5J that's in the showroom''.
>     4. Fly away with same after filling the tank...
>
>and you'll be on your way.  Just speaking personally, as a fairly
>frequent flier, I'd really prefer that fighters be limited-distribution
>items.  There are enough things to worry about, without worrying about
>some yahoo out there in an F-something with sidewinders at my 747's six.
>
> [...]
>
>Just because you can afford an airplane, doesn't mean you can fly it.
>Look at the stereotype about MDs and Bonanzas.
>

I used to consider that a stereotype until about the 3rd time a Bonanza
tried to run me down....  Why is it always Bonanzas making straight in's
at uncontrolled airports?

(This probably belongs in rec.aviation)

--Andy          stadler@apple.com

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 15:58:47 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <683@aurora.AthabascaU.CA> lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
>>... when the Apollo seismometer network was shut down (to save some
>>trifling amount of money!!! :-[ ) some years ago...
>
>Eh? Was ConEd charging NASA for the power produced by the (moon-based)
>nuclear reactors?

No, but it was costing some small amount of money to receive, store, and
analyze the data.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 18:25:44 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Space Quest

I got some mail in response to my posting, and an interesting point was
brought up.  Since I want the space contractors to actually own their
own space administration corporation, Seth Hollub <poopsie!seth@udel.edu>
wrote:

>Some things like this are violations of the Anti-Trust Act, I hope
>that's not an impediment.

I'm not very knowledgeable about the annoying government policies in
this area.  Does any know for sure?

This brings up another point about Space Quest, we need people to help
us with matters such as these.  Anyone care to spend their one hour a
week helping us here?

Yes, there are many obstacles, but they are just little details that we
can get around somehow.  If you're determined enough, you can do
anything.

- Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 16:44:06 GMT
From: emory!phssra@gatech.edu  (Scott R. Anderson)
Subject: Re:  Vaguely space related queries

In article <Added.IYfxRrG00Ui38Gzk9=@andrew.cmu.edu> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes:
>Will Martin asked several questions, which got various responses, some
>of which were rather dubious attempts at physics.
>
>>2) Regarding elementary particles -- one of their characteristics is called
>>"spin". Is this REALLY "spin" the way a top or gyroscope spins -- that is,
>
>Here there was some misinformation.  Spin is NOT angular momentum!!
>Rather, it is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenum (like the quantites
>of colour you mention above).  People mistakenly think that it is an
>angular momentum because of its mathematical properties.  In the
>mathematics of quantum mechanics, spin transforms and has operators that
>are identical to the normal angular momentum operator, though with its
>own unique eigenvalues (values that it can take on in particular
>physical situations)....In fact, spin is an intrinsic feature of any
>particle, just like mass and electrical charge....
>(Another example of using macroscopic terms for unrelated microscopic
>processes.)

It depends on your definition of angular momentum, I guess.  If you insist
that angular momentum is something that is defined by L = r x p, then, yes,
spin is not angular momentum.  But this is a little like saying that energy
is something that is defined by K = (1/2)mv^2, and potential energy or mass
energy are not really energy.

However, if something acts like angular momentum and is interchangeable with
angular momentum, then physicists generally prefer to generalize the concept
of angular momentum. Different sources of angular momentum are then qualified,
when necessary.  So, physicists now speak about orbital angular momentum, spin
angular momentum, and total angular momentum (the sum of the two).  The latter
is a conserved quantity, so, for example, when an electron in an atom changes
its orbital state and loses one unit of orbital angular momentum, a photon is
emitted which carries away one unit of spin angular momentum.

The necessary qualification here is that the name "spin" is a misnomer; as
pointed out above it is an intrinsic property of elementary particles, and has
nothing to do with them spinning like a top.  That seemed like a possibility
in 1925, and though it was disproven by Dirac in 1928, the name has stuck.

*
  *      **                  Scott Robert Anderson      gatech!emoryu1!phssra
   *   *    *    **          phssra@unix.cc.emory.edu   phssra@emoryu1.bitnet
    * *      * *    * **
     *        *      *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 02:38:23 GMT
From: ganoe@arizona.edu  (Bill Ganoe)
Subject: Re: George Koopman killed


Addition:  Koopman was killed Wednesday.

Correction: Koopman was a co-founder (not THE founder) of AMROC.
   Other principals were Bevin McKinney and Jim Bennett (who
   has had a lot to do with commercial space legislation).

-- 
> Standard    | William H. Ganoe             sie!bill@arizona.edu
  disclaimer <| SIE Dept; Univ. of Arizona; Tucson, AZ 85721; USA 
           "We have no gods.  We do business."

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 02:39:30 GMT
From: blake!wiml@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: Space Activist Survey, Food for Thought

In article <26581@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>A Survey for Space Activists
>

   [...]

>3.   Are you aware that less than half the population of Mexico was alive
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>at the time of the last Apollo moon landing?
>
   [...]
>
>William Baxter

   The other half was dead? Why did they include corpses in the population
count? 
   Maybe this questionnaire should have been in rec.humor ...

    --- phelliax
        "Eat spam. Don't eat spam. Eat spam. Don't eat spam."

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 01:15:00 GMT
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma!jpg3196@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (James P. Galasyn)
Subject: Re: Atari(s) and Sat Photos

In article <6073@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>, magore@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR) writes:
 
> 	Time to announce that I have a new version of the software for 
> NOAA & METEOR receiver/display program. This version now works on IBM 
> XT/AT/386 systems and can use 800(H)*600(V)*256(GREY) VGA modes. I hope to 
> post a final release within a month. As before this project uses the 
> signal received _directly_ from the satellites. The results can be *very* 
> nice - just yesterday I received an image from NOAA in IR where I can see the 
> thermal footprint of the Kitchener/Waterloo area where I live. Any medium to 
> large city can be seen in this way due to the extra heat ...

I, being an IBM 386 VGA-type guy, can hardly wait.  This is the coolest.
For digital circuit design hackers, there are excellent Home
Satellite Weather Center plans available from Circuit Cellar Ink, P.O. Box
772, Vernon, CT, 06066 (203) 875-2199. *BIG* MC68000-based project for IBM PCs,
way beyond anything I'd care to tackle.

Go easy,

                  .                  	Strangers passing in the street
    DEATH       .  ..                	By chance two separate glances meet
              .     . .              	And I am you and what I see is me.
      .     .        .  .            	                            - Floyd 
    .  .. .           .   .   .      	 
  .     . .            .    .  ..    	 
.        .  .           .     . . .

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 15:54:30 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)

In article <805@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl> exiphm@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (h.munk) writes:
>Forive me my ignorance, but what is "momentum wheel desaturation",
>and why is it done ?

There are a number of methods of attitude control for spacecraft.  Just
using control jets works, but if the spacecraft is going to have to do a
lot of turning, it uses a lot of fuel.  Magellan is going to be pivoting
around two or three times per orbit for months on end (it alternates
mapping Venus and transmitting back to Earth, through the same antenna),
so one would prefer an alternative.  If you simply put a heavy little
wheel on a motor inside, when you spin the wheel in one direction the
spacecraft turns slowly in the other.  When you stop the wheel, the
turn stops too.  In theory.  The problem is that you can get torques on
the spacecraft from outside forces, like gravity gradients and light
pressure.  Not large ones, but not insignificant.  If the momentum wheel
is used to counter those, it can end up spinning faster and faster when
the spacecraft is stationary.  So once in a while you need to put on the
brakes for the wheel to keep its speed within bounds.  (This generally
means firing control jets at the same time, to keep the spacecraft from
just picking up the wheel's rotation.)  This is momentum-wheel desaturation.
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 21:26:00 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!pierce@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Apollo 11 program alarms


> In that CBS special it appeared that Armstrong made that decision. He
> said something to the effect, "Hang tight, we're going" and just kep
> going when the program alarm came up.

Among recently published books, both Aldrin's MEN FROM EARTH and
Harry Hurt III's FOR ALL MANKIND describe the events surrounding
the 1202 and 1201 alarms.  Both books claim that Bales, as GUIDO,
made the decision to ignore the alarms.  (I don't believe that
Collins deals with this topic in either of his books, but I could
be wrong about that.)
-- 
Charlie Richter   MCC   Austin, Texas
  uucp: richter@milano.uucp     arpa: richter@mcc.com

I just read Mike Collin's first book (newly reprinted), and he mentions
this event in passing while he was monitoring the landing.

He was just going for the manuals to see what a 1202 alarm was when
somebody from Houston gave a GO to land. He thought that it was
good work on their part.

Tedd Pierce
Aero/Astro Eng. UIUC
pierce@uicfda.aae.uiuc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 12:12:13 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: From the July 17 issue of AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY.


                           The Apollo 11 Mission

    Armstrong and Aldrin collected and brought back 48 lbs of Moon rocks 
    and soil.  The task was so important that it was one the first things 
    Armstrong did after stepping on the lunar surface.  After testing his 
    "Moon legs", he scooped up a small bagful of lunar soil and stored
    it in a pocket of his spacesuit. 

    The astronauts left behind a number of items, the largest being the
    descent stage of the lunar lander with a commemorative plaque attached 
    to one of its legs.  A silicon disk about the size of a half dollar, 
    etched microscopically with goodwill messages from the leaders of 73 
    countries, and a gold olive branch symbolizing peace were also left 
    amidst tracks of human footprints.

                         The Apollo 11 Astronauts

    Neil A. Armstrong, commander of Apollo 11, the first man to set foot
    on the Moon, was born in Wapakoneta, Ohio, August 5, 1930.  Armstrong 
    was the only civilian member of the Apollo 11 crew.  He was selected
    as an astronaut in 1962 and served in Gemini 8 before being assigned 
    as commander of the Apollo 11 mission.  Armstrong is now Chairman of 
    Computer Technologies for Aviation, Inc., Lebanon Ohio.

    Edwin "Buzz" E. Aldrin Jr., lunar module Eagle pilot, was the second 
    man to walk on the Moon.  He was born Jan 20, 1930 in Montclair New
    Jersey, and is a graduate of West Point.  An Air Force Colonel at
    the time of Apollo 11, Aldrin was named as an astronaut in 1963 and
    served as a backup pilot for the Gemini 9 mission and prime pilot
    for Gemini 12. 

    Michael Collins, command module Columbia pilot.  During Apollo 11,
    Collins orbited the Moon in the command module.  Collins was born in
    Rome, Italy on Oct 31, 1930.  He is a West Point graduate and was a
    Lieutenant Colonel at the time of Apollo 11.  He was the backup pilot
    in Gemini 7 and a pilot in the Gemini 10 mission.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 15:57:58 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <28852@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) writes:
><The early Saturn Vs had little camera pods that separated, reentered,
><and were recovered...
>
>Most of the footage of staging is from the unmanned missions, I don't
>think that any of the manned boosters had the cameras on board.

I'm not sure about that; remember that there were only two unmanned
Saturn V launches.  I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of the early
manned ones had camera pods aboard, especially given that the second
unmanned flight hit problems.  (It took considerable boldness and a
lot of confidence in the engineers to fly Apollo 8 on the third one.)
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 17:39:28 GMT
From: n3dmc!gronk!johnl@uunet.uu.net  (John Limpert)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <683@aurora.AthabascaU.CA> lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
>In article <1989Jul17.230138.26746@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>As far as I know, all the Apollo lunar-surface transmitters were shut
>>down when the Apollo seismometer network was shut down (to save some
>>trifling amount of money!!! :-[ ) some years ago.  I could be wrong.
>Eh? Was ConEd charging NASA for the power produced by the (moon-based)
>nuclear reactors?

I started working at a NASA tracking station shortly after ALSEP was
shut down.  The story I heard was that NASA ran out of money to receive,
record and process the telemetry data.  The tracking stations used to
record ALSEP data for hours at a time, every day.  I was also told that
NASA had warehouses full of magnetic tape that couldn't be reduced or
analyzed due to lack of funding.

-- 
John Limpert		johnl@gronk.UUCP	uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #575
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/UYpwWVq00UkV8BwE5s>;
          Thu,  3 Aug 89 00:22:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <EYpwWMa00UkVABuU5u@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu,  3 Aug 89 00:22:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #576

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 576

Today's Topics:
			 A&E channel coverage
			   Re: Space Quest
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
			    NASA Select TV
		     It was 20 years ago today...
		      Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
			    Re: Apollo 10
			    Re: Apollo 10
			     Re: Spinoffs
			  Re: Anniversaries
		       Re: latest Quayle gaffe
		      Re: Impossible Space Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 03:48:15 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@handies.ucar.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: A&E channel coverage

Would any of you who happened to tape the A&E coverage of the apollo 11
stuff please, please let me know if I could manage to get a copy?  

(Our cable is an iffy thing--and consequently, we don't get it when we
need it.)
Thanks in advance.

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 17:01:08 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Space Quest

In article <27875@watmath.waterloo.edu> grwalter@watmath.waterloo.edu (Fred Walter) writes:
>I don't see what benefit the space contractors would get out of it. They'd
>be giving up something (whatever they gave you); in return they'd get more
>people telling them what to do - people who don't have any money to pay
>for putting payloads in space.

Hopefully, they would be telling themselves what to do.  The Space Quest
Foundation will be there just to setup up the whole thing.  The actual
adminestrative corporation would be formed by the contractors.  We might
help with personnel placement, facilities, etc, but it will be entirely
within their control.

>I'm interested in doing something, but I don't see the above ever happening.
>No company interested in turning a profit will give up something just to get
>more administration. If I've misinterpreted something, please let me know.

It will definitely never happen unless we try.  This is a start point.
I plan on doing something, and I think big.  If enough corporations are
asked, then maybe something will happen.

>However, the above does give me some ideas...

That's one of the purposes of Space Quest!

- Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 21:33:06 GMT
From: unmvax!aplcen!arrom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

> Off-the-wall observation here, which probably belongs in
> talk.religion.newage:  the Dogon tribe, among others in Africa, have rather
> precise astronomical information on the period of Sirius B, the white
> dwarf companion of Sirius.  It can't be seen by the naked eye (by a long
> shot), yet this knowledge is thousands of years old.  When asked how they
> know this, the shamans answer that they just speak to the inhabitants of
> a planet orbiting around there.  Dialogs with the "Sirius beings" are 
> very old, dating to at least pre-pyramid Egypt.

Sigh.  I suppose this _should_ belong in sci.skeptic, if that group ever
gets created.  The people in question had ample contact with Europeans to
have gotten the information.

If you could give me a source for your claims that dialogs date to "pre-pyramid
Egypt", I'd like to see it.
--
"The fact is self evident from the text and requires no supporting argument."
  --Tim Maroney

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 14:58:17 GMT
From: cica!ctrsol!uakari!larry!jwp@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <1398@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>The one thing that stuck me was the pictures of the LEM lifting off.  And
>in color at that.  If I remember right, the first color TV camera was on
>Apollo 12, and I thing this was also the first time that they left the 
>camera on for lift off.

Yeah, and sound too.  The journalistic equivalence of colorizing.

I was surprised and offended by this, coming from an organization
that takes out full page advertisements in the Times slobbering
about excellence in news and reporting.  I next expected them
to superimpose pictures of Michael Jackson over the LEM.  Bah.
-- 
Jeff Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 14:25:17 GMT
From: att!chinet!john@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Mundt)
Subject: NASA Select TV

I need to know the frequency of NASA's Select TV which will be
showing the Voyager flyby of Neptune in August.  I have it on
SATCOM F2R, transponder 13, but the cable people need frequency
and whether it is KU or CARS (?).  A schedule of broadcast hours
would be nice too :-).  Thanks
-- 
---------------------
John Mundt   Teachers' Aide, Inc.  P.O. Box 1666  Highland Park, IL
john@chinet.chi.il.us
(312) 998-5007 (Day voice) || -432-8860 (Answer Mach) && -432-5386 Modem

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 15:44:24 GMT
From: iris!heberlei@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu  (Todd)
Subject: It was 20 years ago today...


Need I say anymore?

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 17:00:44 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

In article <1480@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:
>I checked the NASA Satellite Situation Report, Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec.
>31, 1988 for non-booster Apollo items still in orbit.  Here's what I
>found:
>
>Int'l Desig.	Catalog #	Name		Orbit		Mission
>
>1969 043C	3948		LM/DESCENT	Selenocentric	Apollo 10
 ...
>1969 059C	4041		LUNAR MODULE	Selenocentric	Apollo 11
 ...
>1972 031C	6005		LUNAR MODULE	Selenocentric	Apollo 16

If 10's descent module was severed before the crew boosted back to high
orbit from something with ~ 10km perilune, does this mean that the LM/D
is supposed to still be swooping down to 10km AGL several times a day?
That would be exciting if true.  However I don't believe it.

There may be little atmospheric drag to deal with, but those MASCONS
discovered from Lunar Orbiter onward must play merry hell with anything
in a low orbit.  10's LM/D is splashed.  It'd be interesting to know
where.  Some day a 3-meter Lunar mapping project will come across all
the Apollo hardware, I'm sure, plus assorted Zonds and Rangers and
Lunar Orbiters[?] and whatnot.
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 16:54:00 GMT
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma!jpg3196@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (James P. Galasyn)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

In article <2729@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, pedro@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
 
>   You see, the chances of detection will strongly depend on the method of
> observation. In most cases we are far from having the appropriate tech-
> nology, but in other cases we are pretty close. 

[stuff on detecting terrestrial planets around other stars deleted]
 
> * by contacting people in those planets. Self-explanatory.
 
 Off-the-wall observation here, which probably belongs in
 talk.religion.newage:  the Dogon tribe, among others in Africa, have rather
 precise astronomical information on the period of Sirius B, the white
 dwarf companion of Sirius.  It can't be seen by the naked eye (by a long
 shot), yet this knowledge is thousands of years old.  When asked how they
 know this, the shamans answer that they just speak to the inhabitants of
 a planet orbiting around there.  Dialogs with the "Sirius beings" are 
 very old, dating to at least pre-pyramid Egypt.

 Now, I wouldn't want to be living next to any blue-white giants like
 Sirius, but maybe somebody can.  Maybe we're going about this SETI thing
 the wrong way.  We should be hiring shamans from Africa to search through
 the nearest stars...

 Only half-joking,


                  .                  	I've seen things you people wouldn't
    DEATH       .  ..                	believe.  Attack ships on fire off
              .     . .              	the shoulder of Orion.  I've  watched
      .     .        .  .            	sea-beams glitter in the dark by the
    .  .. .           .   .   .      	Tannhauser gate.  All these moments
  .     . .            .    .  ..    	will be lost in time, like tears
.        .  .           .     . . .  	in rain.   Time to die.   - Roy Baty

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 17:07:42 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Apollo 10

Gees, a bunch of romantics 8).

This is one of the reasons why they selected military test pilots (ability
to follow some orders 8).  To quote a Commander who will go unnamed,
this is why you select officers out.  To get to that level you have
weeded out the people who would consider things like that.  It has
advantages and disadvantages, and they have been considered thru the
years.  But if you ever apply for such a job in the near future, and
you get a what-if question like this, you had best consider your
answer carefully, and the consequences of lying 8).

In a different vein.  I just heard GB's space speech this morning.
Totally uninspired.  Just seeking media attention.  Next week it
will be something else.  Wanting cake and eating it, too.  Maybe
we need an Alpha Centari initiative 8).  Take us away from B-2s.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 18:19:45 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!aplcen!stda.jhuapl.edu!jwm@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Apollo 10

In article <4414@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
}Gees, a bunch of romantics 8).
}
}This is one of the reasons why they selected military test pilots (ability
}to follow some orders 8). 


I sort of thought the CBS version sounded good...

Since the entire flight was going to be done on an open mike, you wanted
people that could, if necessary, die well.    :-(  (bummer!)

Sounds like military test pilots to me...


"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain"
					- Pliny the Elder
These were the opinions of :
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu  - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 18:02:09 GMT
From: cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!ns!logajan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Spinoffs

jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
> Thousands, perhaps millions, of people owe their lives to something that
> you can only do with a space program.

Pardon my late entry into the spinoff debate -- but one must always remember
that resources that went to the space program were therefore not available
to go toward other uses.  We cannot know what advances would have resulted
if those resources were not in fact diverted toward space.  A good guess would
be that the advances would have been different -- but not necessarily less
important.  The possibility always exists that in diverting resources toward
space, we have actually harvested less important spinoffs than we might
otherwise have gotten.

Since this we obviously cannot predict such matters, the spinoff argument
becomes pointless.  The best we can do is leave such matters up to the choice
of individuals in the form of the free-market.

-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 19:46:16 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Anniversaries

Mike points out dates of the atomic bomb and Apollo.
This is more than just coincidence, but it somewhat political.
In all cases, and also note Viking Lander as well.  There was
some deliberate attempt to shoot (pun not intended) for July 4.
Subject of available technology, etc. of course, but you will
find writings in all these projects which note awareness of these
dates.  Certainly there was no longer term planning for this to take
place, but nearer term, sure.  Note Viking's Bicentennial Logo.
The analogy with fireworks is pretty obvious in all cases.
But then Queen Elizabeth's corination occured about the same time as
the ascent of Mt. Everest.  This is getting away from space.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 22:26:16 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: latest Quayle gaffe

In article <33327@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>Perhaps this is a heretical thought, but it seems to me that
>Quayle is actually doing a *good job* as chairman of the NSC.

WHAT!!!  This statement shows a complete lack of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
and you can expect a visit from the Thought Police very soon!

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Seriously, though, Quale looks to be one of those people whose
tongue is disengaged from his brain.  Gerald Ford is another.
It doesn't mean the man is an idiot.  You're right, he *does*
seem to be doing a good job as chairman of the NSC.
-- 
"Ain't nothin' in the middle                  Mike Van Pelt
o' the road, 'cept a yellow                   Headland Technology/Video 7
line and dead 'possums."                      ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 00:09:37 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Impossible Space Goals

>Whoa right back.  Ranger was indeed launched to answer this question.
>Rangers 3-5 had seismometers encased in balsa spheres, attached to
>retrorockets.  These packages were supposed to separate from the main
>spacecraft, brake to a stop 1100 feet altitude, jettison the retros,
>then fall from there.  After rolling to a stop, they were to transmit
>readings back.  If the balls sank into dust, the signals would reflect
>that.

Damn.  David's completely correct and I am a complete fool to have
forgotten the balsa breakaways.  I remember being fascinated by the
idea of WOOD on the moon at the time!

My public apologies.

Phone Tree Alert - Full Funding for Ranger Mark II!

--
10 news postings = 18 Neff-Minutes  |  John Q. American at Deere School
(NM's). -- The Pentagon             |  jqa@complete.FOOL.NET

-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #576
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/MYpe0eu00UkVQAl04=>;
          Wed,  2 Aug 89 03:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <0Ype0Vm00UkV8AjE5N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed,  2 Aug 89 03:17:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #577

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 577

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
		 Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
		      Re: NASA Select Broadcasts
		       New satellite of Neptune
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
			       Modules
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
	     Voyager rebroadcast frames deciphered (long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 19:34:01 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <SHAFER.89Jul20132937@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>... Just speaking personally, as a fairly
>frequent flier, I'd really prefer that fighters be limited-distribution
>items.  There are enough things to worry about, without worrying about
>some yahoo out there in an F-something with sidewinders at my 747's six.

Anybody with any sense who wants to shoot down your 747 will just hang
the Sidewinders on a Learjet -- less conspicuous, and perfectly adequate
performance for the job.  (You can hang Sidewinders on almost anything.)

>...I have some real definite opinions about required
>piloting skills.  We require our test pilots to fly a minimum of 200
>hours per year, with specified minimums for each aircraft, to maintain
>proficiency.  That F-86 driver had very low total time, low jet time,
>and was what I'd consider non-current...
>Just because you can afford an airplane, doesn't mean you can fly it.

I have no quarrel with the idea that anyone who owns his own jet fighter
needs to be properly qualified to fly it.  I see no reason why a civilian
is incapable of acquiring the qualifications, though.

>... I don't know why those posters who despise the government and all
>its fruits are panting to buy those fruits.  Let's see some consistancy...

If a private market in such things were allowed, we wouldn't have to buy
things designed by the government.  Which sort of brings us back to
spaceflight, since that's the big problem with space launchers too...
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 06:27:34 EDT
From: dsc@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu (david s. channin)
Subject: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

>Me too!  Unfortunately the US military wants to keep jet aviation all to
>itself, so even its tamer aircraft are never sold to civilians.  (Both
>the Starfighter and the T-38 were rebuilt from hardware that slipped out
>basically by accident.)

Hypothetical Question:

  Let's say you just happen to have hit the PA state lottery last April, and walked away with $115 Million. You will receive 5.75 M for 20 years. You save diligently for 6 -7 years. What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from doing the following:
     1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever.
     2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars.
     3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''.
     4. Fly away with same after filling the tank. (assuming you already have a license).
     
     Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?).
     
     
     dsc@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu

David S. Channin
Research Fellow
Division of Orthopaedic Surgery
Pennsylvania State University
College of Medicine
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
717 - 531 - 6698

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 16:46:03 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: NASA Select Broadcasts

In article <4980@mtuxo.att.com> tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes:
>also with no luck. Has anyone been able to find NASA Select's broadcasts?
>Did you need to know anything more than the data in the excerpted paragraph?
>Is this bird viewable from the east coast with "standard" equipment, i.e.,
>is it a good quality signal or very weak?

    I tuned in SELECT numerous times from UNC-Chapel Hill, which has a
pretty good view of F2R.  While I'm no expert on satellite TV, both I
and our communications director had trouble getting a good signal.
Generally we had to fiddle with the skew setting of the receiver and
nudge the antenna back and forth. It seemed to be best ~2 degrees
further east than the claimed position, in general.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 10:17:57 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: New satellite of Neptune
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

Excerpted without permission from NASA _Voyager Bulletin_, Mission Status
Report No. 88, July 12:

ADD A NEW NEPTUNIAN MOON

A new moon has been discovered orbiting Neptune.  Temporarily designated
1989 N1, the new moon was initially seen in images transmitted to Earth
by Voyager 2 in mid-June.  Its existence was confirmed upon examination
of other images after the moon's orbital motion had been calculated and
its position could be predicted.

The new Neptunian satellite could range in diameter from 200 to 600 km (about
125 to 400 miles) and oribts in a very nearly circular and equatorial orbit
about 92,700 km (about 57,600 mi) from the planet's cloud tops (or about
117,500 km) (73,000 mi) from the planet's center).

A permanent name will be given to the moon at a later date by the International
Astronomical Union (IAU).

According to Dr. Stephen P. Synnott, a Voyager imaging team scientist at
JPL, the satellite appeared as a small, bright smudge in Voyager pictures
due to the long (46-second) exposure.  At this point, the moon is too
indistinct to appear in photographic prints made from the Voyager images.
Pictures taken in coming weeks will show the moon more clearly.

1989 N1 cannot be seen from Earth because the moon is so close to Neptune
that the brightness of the planet itself masks the tiny point of light.
Voyager 2 will continue to study the moon and will conduct searches for
others on approach to the planet.  [...]

The moon orbits well outside the orbits of the postulated ring arcs.  Its
existence lessens concerns about radiation hazards to the spacecraft near
the planet, since the moon probably sweeps charged particles out of the
area as it orbits Neptune.


Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov, speaking only for myself)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 23:17:43 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!add@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Andrew D. Daniel)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <138@nwnexus.WA.COM> edm@nwnexus.WA.COM (Ed Morin) writes:
>wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:
>"Unix Public Access for the Masses!"

Now Ed, lets enforce the consitutional separation of church and (solid) state.

-- 

Andrew D Daniel, Video Seven, Inc.           Angels fear to tread
..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!add                        where fools login:

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 11:08:52 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!dkrause@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Doug Krause)
Subject: Modules


I lost a couple of articles.  Was Snoopy an LM or CM?  If it was
an LM, a historic quote would have a whole new feel.

"Houston, Tranquility Base here.  Snoopy has landed."  :-)

Douglas Krause                     One yuppy can ruin your whole day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine   Internet: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu
Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA  BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 14:46:07 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@CS.YALE.EDU  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <199@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>
>My memory indicates that the descent stage was cut free, and the ascent
>stage was used for the rendezvouz.  Again, the book "Chariots for Apollo"


Mine too. And I also recall the the LEM underwent some very scary
gyrations when the ascent stage was fired.....which were not worried
about afterward, as this was the only time anyone planned to fire the
ascent stage/jettision the descent stage in flight.

pkr

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 10:27:02 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Voyager rebroadcast frames deciphered (long)
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"
Lines:  172

Extracted without permission from NASA _Voyager Bulletin_, Mission Status
Report No. 88, July 12:

WHAT DO THE HIEROGLYPHICS MEAN?

Images and some of the other data received at JPL from the two Voyager
spacecraft are sent to display devices at JPL from the computers in JPL's
Multimission Image Processing System.  A subset of these data, primarily
images, is being broadcast on the NASA Select TV channel by the GE Satcom F2R
satellite.  Currently there is a one-hour broadcast every Tuesday through
August 8.  Broadcasts will probably be more frequent as Voyager 2 nears its
closest approach to Neptune on August 25. 

The frames that appear on the monitors are black and white only and include
basic identification information for the image being displayed, as well as
information about the processing that has been applied to that image.  Data from
the Planetary Radio Astronomy and Plasma Wave investigations can also be
displayed on video devices.  The following is a brief summary of the information
shown for imaging, PRA, and PWS frames. 

IMAGING FRAMES

Each Voyager spacecraft carries two imaging cameras: a 200-mm, f/3.5 wide-angle
camera using a refracting telescope and a 1500-mm f/8.5 narrow-angle
(telephoto) camera using a reflecting telescope.  Each camera uses a one-inch
selenium-sulfur vidicon to convert an optical signal into electrical signals.
Each frame consists of 640,000 pixels, each of which is expressed as a level of
gray on a scale from 0 (black) to 255 (white).  Color scenes are reconstructed
on Earth by electronically combining images taken through different filters.
The sensitivity of the filters ranges from 3460 (ultraviolet) to 6184 angstroms
(red-orange). 
          
[The rest of this extract contains mostly information of interest to those
people receiving the images.] 

The elements of the displayed imaging frames are described below:

[1-5 run left-to-right across the top line of the frame]

1.  MIPL  Multimission Image Processing System (a JPL facility).

2.  Spacecraft identifier

3.  System Source:  RLTM  Real Time.  The data is displayed from telemetry as
soon as the data arrives at JPL; this data may be only 4 hours old (as long as
it took for the data to travel from the spacecraft to Earth); it may have been
taken earlier, recorded on the spacecraft's digital tape recorder, and played
back to Earth at an optimum time; or it may have been stored at the Data
Capture and Staging computer and read from there later. (See item 13, to learn
when the data was received at Earth.) 
                    INTR  Interactive.  Image is displayed from a work station 
where a scientist or analyst is interactively enhancing the data.
                    RPLA  Replay, for NASA Select TV, of data received earlier. 

4.  Target Body (Neptune, Triton, Nereid, rings, etc).

5.  FDS Count.  Image identifiction in units of spacecraft clock time (the
spacecraft's clock is in the spacecraft's Flight Data Subsystem computers).

6.  Frame identification in units of picture number, planet, spacecraft,
and days from encounter  [displayed under #5].

7.  Frame.  The data are displayed at half resolution.  As displayed, the
image area is 400 lines by 400 rows [sic] of picture elements.  A full Voyager
image frame is 800 lines of 800 elements, but since the display devices
can display only 640x480 pixels, every other pixel of every other line is
displayed.

8.  Reference Gray Scale [along left edge]

9.  Histogram (frequency distribution) of number of bits at each of the
gray levels in the incoming image [top right].

10. Histogram of number of bits at each of the gray levels in the image
as displayed at left.  [Center right].  (Note: the histograms are an aid
in evaluating the quality of the displayed image; e.g., how bright was the
image, how good was the exposure, etc).

11.  [Text under #10]  Describes processing that has been done to transform
the input image to the output image, e.g., magnification factor, dark current
subtraction, contrast enhancement.

12.  [Text, bottom left to center]  Identification information:
	INSTR  Instrument:  ISSWA  Imaging camera, Wide angle
			    ISSNA  Imaging camera, Narrow angle
	FILTER  Clear, green, orange, blue, ultraviolet, methane (6910 or
		5410 angstroms), or sodium.
	EXP  Exposure time (seconds)
	IMODE  Shutter mode:
		NAONLY  Narrow angle only
		WAONLY  Wide angle only
		BOTALT  Wide and narrow angle shuttered alternately
		BOTSIM  Both wide and narrow shuttered simultaneously
		BODARK  Neither wide nor narrow shuttered (used to calibrate
			background noise (or "dark current"))
		NOSHUT  Neithr wide nor narrow read out
	TMODE  Spacecraft telemetry mode at which data is read out (e.g.
	       compressed, edited, slow scan, etc).
	RANGE  Distance from spacecraft to center of target body, in km.
	INA  Lighting angle (incidence angle of sunlight striking target)
	EMA  Viewing angle (emission angle of sunlight reflected from target)
	PHA  Phase angle (angle between incoming sunlight and emitted or
	     reflected light from target)
	SCALE  Distance across frame (at the target body)

13. [Bottom right]  Time signal was received at Earth (day of year:hour:minute)
in Universal Time Coordinated (UTC).

14. [Right of #13]  Calendar day (JPL local time), MIPS computer ID, display
device ID.


PLANETARY RADIO ASTRONOMY (PRA)

The planetary radio astronomy experiment uses two 10-meter whip antennas to
listen for radio emissions from the Sun, planets, and lightning in planetary
atmospheres over a range from 1.2kHz to 40.5MHz.  The PRA high-rate receiver
gives high time resolution at two fixed frequencies that will be selected by
the PRA science team when the spacecraft is a few weeks away from the planet.
At Uranus the frequencies were 35.9424MHz and 1.230MHz. 

Data from the PRA is sometimes displayed on the video devices.  The following
discussion indicates information that differs from the Imaging frames:

7.  Frame.  A high-rate PRA frame contains 48 seconds of data formatted as 800
lines, each containing 800 8-bit samples.  The total time per line is 0.06
second.  Only 1/4 of the PRA data is displayed in the video convrsion of the
frame.  The first 24 seconds of the displayed frame represents signals at the
first fixed frequency, at two antenna polarizations.  The last 24 seconds show
only one polarization at the second fixed frequency.  "Real" signals show as
horizontal white (or light) streaks running across the frame [an example is
pictured showing lightning-like electrical discharges at Uranus]. 

The pattern observed in each line represents the "loudness" as a function of
time, of an "audio" noise signal in a narrow band centered on the receiver
frequency.  Real data increases the "loudness" of the signal, just like extra
static in a home radio.  The amount and type of noise gives information about
what causes it. 

9.  Histogram of signal intensity as received (input).

10. Histogram of signal intensity values as displayed (output).

12.  Only INSTRU and TMODE have any meaning for PRA and PWS frames.


PLASMA WAVES (PWS)

Plasma waves are low-frequency oscillations in the plasmas in interplanetary
space and in planetary magnetospheres.  The plasma wave instrument detects and
measures plasma wave interactions in planetary magnetospheres and detects
interactions between a planetary magnetosphere and the solar wind.  It can
detect particles in the ring plane and measure their impact rate on the
spacecraft.  The PWS shares the two whip antennas with the PRA investigation to
provide the equivalent of a single 7-meter antenna.  PWS covers the frequency
range from 10Hz to 56.2kHz. 

The PWS high-rate receiver is a very sensitive audio amplifier.  In the display
of a Fourier transform of the data, the horizontal axis is time (one 48-second
frame) and the vertical axis is frequency.  Plasma wave scientists interpret
the signal patterns in terms of various mechanisms the interactions of charged
particles and elctromagnetic waves.  Steady frequencies generally are associated
with interference signals from other subsystems on the spacecraft; for example,
the 2.4kHz hum of the spacecraft's power supply [shows up as a horizontal line
near the bottom of the sample frame]. 


Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)          Standard disclaimers.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #577
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYpfm=y00UkVQAvk5z>;
          Wed,  2 Aug 89 05:19:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YYpfm2e00UkVEAu05Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed,  2 Aug 89 05:18:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #578

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 578

Today's Topics:
			     Re: Spinoffs
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
   space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
		   Neptune Encounter Satellite Feed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 20:05:15 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!stda.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Spinoffs

In article <1501@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
}jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
}> Thousands, perhaps millions, of people owe their lives to something that
}> you can only do with a space program.
}
}Pardon my late entry into the spinoff debate -- but one must always remember
}that resources that went to the space program were therefore not available
}to go toward other uses.  We cannot know what advances would have resulted
}if those resources were not in fact diverted toward space.  A good guess would
}be that the advances would have been different -- but not necessarily less
}important.  The possibility always exists that in diverting resources toward
}space, we have actually harvested less important spinoffs than we might
}otherwise have gotten.
}
}Since this we obviously cannot predict such matters, the spinoff argument
}becomes pointless.  The best we can do is leave such matters up to the choice
}of individuals in the form of the free-market.

Since what I am thinking of can ONLY come from a space program, and NO 
other method could handle it, your opposition is unfounded.

Besides - the free-market DOES want a space program.


"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain"
					- Pliny the Elder
These were the opinions of :
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu  - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 20:29:37 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <1989Jul20.184051.19979@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <8907201027.AA07833@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu> dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) writes:
>> ... What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from
>> doing the following:
>>     1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever.
>>     2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars.
>>     3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''.
>>     4. Fly away with same after filling the tank...
>>     
>>     Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?).

>The answer to item 3 will be "sorry, that is a USAF aircraft that is not
>for sale to civilians without government approval".  This is partly
>because the USAF paid for development and "owns the rights" to some
>degree, and partly because practically all of the military-aircraft
>manufacturers are utterly dependent on US government business and
>are desperately anxious not to annoy their big customer.  And the US
>government feels that private citizens should not be allowed to own jet
>fighters.

Change the scenario to:

     1. Walk into the Bede offices in wherever.
     2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars.
     3. Say,``I'd would like that nice BD-5J that's in the showroom''.
     4. Fly away with same after filling the tank...

and you'll be on your way.  Just speaking personally, as a fairly
frequent flier, I'd really prefer that fighters be limited-distribution
items.  There are enough things to worry about, without worrying about
some yahoo out there in an F-something with sidewinders at my 747's six.

A more practical example is the private F-86 (bought surplus from the
RCAF) that hit the Farrell's in Sacramento.  I work at a facility that
flies high-performance aircraft (F-15, F-16, F-18, F-104, F-111, T-38
currently) and I have some real definite opinions about required
piloting skills.  We require our test pilots to fly a minimum of 200
hours per year, with specified minimums for each aircraft, to maintain
proficiency.  That F-86 driver had very low total time, low jet time,
and was what I'd consider non-current.  I think that there are certain
minimums that should be required.

Just because you can afford an airplane, doesn't mean you can fly it.
Look at the stereotype about MDs and Bonanzas.

More incidentally, the reason you can't buy a T-38 is because they're
no longer in production.  

But I don't know why those posters who despise the government and all
its fruits are panting to buy those fruits.  Let's see some consistancy
here!  :-)

--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 03:14:20 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

Soviets talk to managers for both NASP and Sanger, indicating interest in
joint hypersonic programs.  The US is interested in joint efforts between
NASP and Sanger, but German engineers say the US is too secretive about
its program.  A number of European companies are interested in NASP work,
but there are concerns about US technology-transfer restrictions.

Europeans tell US that they consider the inter-government agreements on
the space station to be promises, which should be kept or there will be
serious repercussions.  The Europeans, unlike many in the US, think
maintaining the content of the station is more important than maintaining
its schedule, if push comes to shove.

Lockheed and Aerospatiale team up to (among other things) propose a
modified Hermes as the space-station rescue vehicle.

Successful first launch of Titan 4 on June 14, carrying a missile-warning
satellite to Clarke orbit.

Successful Delta 2 launch June 10, carrying a Navstar.  The Delta and the
Titan 4 changed places in the Cape launch schedule several times as minor
technical problems delayed each.

Columbia mission, set for launch July 31, will carry two low-orbit DoD
satellites, one 20600 lbs and one 275 lbs.

NASA issues yet another long-range shuttle manifest.  This one forecasts
a rather more gradual climb in launch rate, reaching 13-14 in 1993 as
space station activity begins.  It includes several reserve slots, being
held open in hopes of accommodating future delays without requiring another
major revision.  Several expendables are included, notably a Titan 4 for
CRAF in 1995.

SDI sounding-rocket neutral-particle beam experiment delayed to at least
mid-July after they pushed the button and nothing happened!  The failure
of the Aries sounding rocket to ignite on command is being investigated.

More on Buran's appearance at Le Bourget.  Photo from above showing Buran
on Mriya; Buran looks tiny compared to the US orbiters on 747back.  The
orbiters are almost exactly the same size -- the difference in appearance
is because Mriya is so bloody enormous.

Yuri P. Semyonov, chief designer of Buran, says "Anyone who says Buran is
a copy of the US shuttle is a fool".  Despite the general similarity in
shape, the systems are very different.  Semyonov revealed that Buran was
battery-powered during its flight last fall, as its fuel cells are not
yet ready for flight.  (The USSR does not seem to be giving Buran a very
high priority at present.)  What surprised US observers most was the
Soviet decision to fly Buran in during rainy weather.  The US shuttle
carrier is never flown through rain or even damp-looking clouds, and a
weather aircraft precedes it to be sure.  But Buran/Mriya came in for a
landing at Paris through wet clouds and visible rain, with no escort.
Semyonov says:  "We are not afraid of rain."  The Soviet tiles seem to
be rather more durable than the US ones, although apparently they are
less heat-resistant, and may need replacement after only 10 missions.
Semyonov did not discuss the specifics of the tile design.  US observers
were generally impressed with the appearance of Buran's tiles; there is
little sign that Buran had flown a reentry.  Some of this may be just
weather exposure:  photos just after Buran's landing showed more upper-
surface blackening than was visible at Paris, and the difference may be
because Buran has been sitting outside at Baikonur.  There was a bit of
streaking in some areas on the wings where filler material between tiles
had apparently melted; the same thing happens on the US orbiters.

Buran's propulsion systems are a bit different from the US ones.  Notably,
Burans attitude-control and maneuvering engines burn LOX and kerosene
rather than hypergolic fuels.  There are general similarities in overall
thruster placement, but many detail differences.  An important internal
difference is that the shuttle's nose jets run off tanks in the nose,
whereas Buran puts all its major tankage in the tail, with only small
supplementary tanks in the nose.

Unlike the US orbiters, no tailcone fairing is used for ferrying Buran
on Mriya.  Anatoli Bulanenko, deputy chief designer at Antonov, says
that such a fairing was used when carrying orbiters on smaller aircraft,
but Mriya's wide-span horizontal tail has no central vertical fin and
there were no turbulence problems with it.  [Mriya's tailspan exceeds
the wingspan of WW2 heavy bombers.]  Bulanenko says "...it was
very simple for us... it was just another payload."

Arianespace explores the idea of marketing small-satellite launch services
for Pegasus.  Frederic d'Allest, Arianespace chairman, says "We are
intrigued with Pegasus..." but cautions that the idea is only being explored,
with no specific agreement yet being negotiated.

Arianespace reports net profit of about $20M for FY1988.

Internal NASA review underway on Shuttle-C.  The definitive design takes
the shuttle tail section, minus fin and minus one SSME, with a cylindrical
payload section instead of the orbiter, plus existing ET and SRBs.  In
addition to the space station, SDI's Zenith Star is another possible
payload, and various other groups are interested.  The payload envelope
is 81x15 ft, with growth potential to 96 ft.  The reference mission is
100 klbs into 220nm orbit from KSC.  Second-generation improvements
could include recovering the tail section and increasing payload diameter
to 24ft.  A decision on further work is expected in late summer.



[This being the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11's landing on the Moon --
landing at 1617 EDT, Armstrong's "one small step" at 2256 EDT -- it
seems an appropriate time to editorialize a bit...]

YOUR CHOICE
-----------

In all the fuss about lunar bases and Mars missions, it is easy to lose
track of one big, unpleasant, nasty fact that has gone from unlikely to
certain in the last 20 years.  Unless something changes radically...

None of us is going.

Ever.

Remember the early days of the shuttle program, when weekly launches were
seriously planned, and the shuttle was going to open up space?  Remember
"routine access to space"?  Well, you and I may remember it, but as far
as NASA is concerned, it's dead, buried, and forgotten.  And most of the
other players in the business never believed in it in the first place.
(For reasons that shouldn't be hard to think of, I'm talking here about
spaceflight in the "free world", and ignoring the fact that the USSR
*has* routine access to space, for anyone they feel like sending up.)
Oh, there are a few "crazies" here and there who disagree... but they
aren't making much progress against entrenched Expert Opinion, and
consequently they may never get a chance to try for real.

Remember when Jerry Pournelle said "we're going if we have to walk!"?
Did you agree?  Did you think you meant it?  I did.  Of course, we
never really thought we'd have to walk.  All we had to do was wait for
a few years, contributing a bit of cheerleading here and there, and we
could thumb a ride.  Or, if worst came to worst, buy a ticket.

But that's not the way it worked out.  The "No Riders" signs on the trucks
not only haven't come off, they've been joined by new signs, paint still
wet, saying "Teamsters Union Only -- No Non-Union Personnel Allowed On
This Vehicle".  You can ride the bus, but you have to pay in Swiss francs
and learn Russian first... and the driver inspects your baggage before
deciding whether to let you on.  Put your thumb, and the rest of your hand,
back down by your side and give it a rest; nobody is paying attention.
You can stand there FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, and nobody will pick you up.

Is space *important* to you, worth time and effort and sacrifice, or just
a spectator sport?  Remember "we're going if we have to walk!"?  Did you
say that?  Did you *mean* it?

If so, why aren't you putting on your walking shoes?

Or are you still waiting for the ride that isn't going to come?

Yes, I know...  It's one ghodawful long walk, and the odds are you won't
make it.  Do you really think the odds are better if you don't try?

There are 168 hours in a week.  After deducting sleep and some minimal
survival necessities, most people have about 100 hours for activities
they have some choice about.  Is space *important* to you?  Does it
matter enough to spend, say, one whole hour a week doing something to
slightly increase your chances of getting up there someday?  *DOING*
something, mind you, not reading a book or scanning Usenet or something
else quiet and easy and pleasant, but going out and taking trouble and
making an effort and spending time that could be more enjoyably spent
on something else?  One hour out of a hundred?

Then why haven't you done it lately?

And please don't try to claim there's nothing you can do.  Go harass
your Congressman about the Space Launch Services Purchase Act, HR2674 --
ask him whether he supports it, and if not, why not.  (Don't just pick
up the phone, go VISIT him -- it only takes an hour or so, and it has
much more impact.  If you don't know who he is or where he is, FIND OUT.)
Find and start putting some effort into a group that is *doing* something
in space, like Amsat or SSI or WSF.  (Not just a bunch of cheerleaders,
like some we could name -- walking shoes, remember?)  If you *really*
think those signs are going to come off those trucks in your lifetime,
start badgering the right people about NASA funding.  (The word is
"badgering", not "watching".)  If, like me, you think those signs are
there to stay, find out who else is working on building trucks and what
you can do to help.  Or get together with some like-minded friends and
start working on how to make better truck mudguards, or something like
that -- you'd be amazed at how little work is really being done, and how
much a few determined people can help.  There are lots of ways to stop
putting wear on your behind and start putting it on your shoes.

Or you can just go back to watching TV and dreaming about that ride
that might come someday, maybe.  Like you've been doing for 20 years now.

Your choice.


-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 16:46:34 GMT
From: cica!ctrsol!emory!stiatl!john@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (John DeArmond)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <481@gronk.UUCP> johnl@gronk.UUCP (John Limpert) writes:
>
>I started working at a NASA tracking station shortly after ALSEP was
>shut down.  The story I heard was that NASA ran out of money to receive,

John,

The question at hand is did NASA leave the transmitter on the moon running?
You could probably answer this as well as anyone.  I read a new report in
the local yellow rag that the transmitter had been left on and that only
the tracking station had been shut down.



-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!? 
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You 
...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 23:06:06 GMT
From: usc!venera.isi.edu!cew@apple.com  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Neptune Encounter Satellite Feed

One of the Los Angeles AMSAT people gave me this over the phone.  I am not a
ham-radio operator so any mistakes may simply be misunderstandings on my
part.

NASA has purchased time on the AURORA-1 satellite for broadcasting live
pictures of the Voyager Neptune encounter.  The broadcasts will be August 21
through 29 from 12 Noon until 6:00 pm.  The broadcast will be for all 24
hours on August 24.  AURORA-1 is at 139 degrees west for those with satellite
dishes.

This is a special for the West Coast so those that use it and would like to
see the practice continued (i.e. for Shuttle missions) should write:

				  Les Gaver
			  NASA TV Video Operations
			    400 Maryland Ave. SW
			    Washington, DC 20546

to thank him for setting things up this time.

East Coast service will be from the usual F2R-13 satellite (the AMSAT contact
said everyone over there would know how to find it).

My connection to AMSAT comes from OASIS, the LA/OC chapter of the National
Space Society.  People in the Los Angeles area interested in space activism
can call us at (213) 374-1381.  Outside Southern California, call NSS
headquarters at (202) 543-1900 for the name of the chapter nearest you.
You can also get a weekly update of space news from the NSS Hotline at (202)
543-1995; however, the text of the message is uploaded to USENET so you could
just read it here.

-- 
====================================================================
ARPA: 	cew@venera.isi.edu
PHONE:	(213)822-1511 ext. 111
USPS:	USC Information Sciences Institute
	4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100
	Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Slogan:	"nemo me impune lacessit"
====================================================================

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #578
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/MYqFe9i00UkVA1Dk5:>;
          Fri,  4 Aug 89 00:24:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <sYqFdxm00UkV41C05a@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri,  4 Aug 89 00:24:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #579

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 579

Today's Topics:
      Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)
		     Old observations of Neptune
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
			    Neil Armstrong
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
		       Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
      Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)
		      Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
      Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 02:08:04 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)

In article <27897@watmath.waterloo.edu> grwalter@watmath.waterloo.edu (Fred Walter) writes:
>The work would be done by the members; all money raised would be put back
>into the organization to better the facilities/do R&D/etc. 
I was hoping that people who could afford to spend their on something
such as this, would do just that.

>The administration of the group would serve to connect people together
>into working groups. They would gather information on the members
>(regarding what everyone can do/will do) and give the information to its
>members and ask the members for possible plans of action. The
>administration would then gather all the plans and try and condense them
>into one plan, which would be given back to the members. This would bounce
>back and forth until a plan was had that everyone could live with.

The reason for the suggestion of the space contractors owning the
adminestration corporation was so that the designers could use
off-the-shelf components as cheaply as possible.

Even if the contractors don't want to be part of the corporation, we
should still be able to use off-the-shelf components.  Supposedly, we
could have built massive space stations ten years ago with existing
technology and have space for a population of 30,000.  That should be
more true today.
- Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 19:04:30 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utfyzx!sq!msb@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Old observations of Neptune

> Neptune was discovered in 1846, and the planet takes 165 years to
> orbit the Sun; thus, Neptune won't return to the position where
> astronomers first saw it until 2011.  This leaves great uncertainty in
> the precise knowledge of Neptune's orbit ...

Actually this isn't quite true.  Several astronomers saw Neptune before
it was discovered, recording it as a star each time.  The first of them
was Galileo, who was watching satellites of Jupiter at the time.
He didn't have any way of accurately measuring positions of celestial
objects, but he did record the positions in relation to Jupiter of
whatever stars it was near at the time.  One night he found that one of
them wasn't in the place he'd last put it down--

And he assumed he'd made a mistake, and it happened that he did not get
another look at Jupiter until Neptune was too far away from it to see.

This was all written up in Scientific American a few years ago, and it was
also noted that the position implied by Galileo's notes did not match
the current knowledge of Neptune's orbit.  Perhaps the Voyager II
observations will help resolve this.  Or perhaps not.

This article is crossposted to sci.astro and sci.space, with followups
directed to sci.astro.  This article is in the public domain.

-- 
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
	MARTIANS BUILD TWO IMMENSE CANALS IN TWO YEARS.
	Vast Engineering Works Accomplished in an Incredibly Short Time by Our
	Planetary Neighbors.		-- N.Y.Times headline, August 27, 1911

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 21:22:05 GMT
From: cadnetix.COM!cadnetix!rusty@uunet.uu.net  (Rusty Carruth)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <481@gronk.UUCP> johnl@gronk.UUCP (John Limpert) writes:
->I started working at a NASA tracking station shortly after ALSEP was
->shut down.  The story I heard was that NASA ran out of money to receive,
->record and process the telemetry data....
->-- 
->John Limpert		johnl@gronk.UUCP	uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl

So, we shut down the transmitter so that NOBODY could recieve it.

Makes sense to me. :-(

---------- 
Rusty Carruth  UUCP:{uunet,boulder}!cadnetix!rusty  DOMAIN: rusty@cadnetix.com
Daisy/Cadnetix Corp. (303) 444-8075\  5775 Flatiron Pkwy. \ Boulder, Co 80301
Radio: N7IKQ    'home': P.O.B. 461 \  Lafayette, CO 80026

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 19:46:46 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!hcx1!hardy!fcs@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Fred Sabernick)
Subject: Neil Armstrong

In article <8907201212.AA06992@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@wrksys.dec.com
(CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
>
>                         The Apollo 11 Astronauts
>
>    Neil A. Armstrong, commander of Apollo 11, the first man to set foot
>    on the Moon, was born in Wapakoneta, Ohio, August 5, 1930.  Armstrong 
>    was the only civilian member of the Apollo 11 crew.  He was selected
>    as an astronaut in 1962 and served in Gemini 8 before being assigned 
>    as commander of the Apollo 11 mission.  Armstrong is now Chairman of 
>    Computer Technologies for Aviation, Inc., Lebanon Ohio.
>

There is a humorous but rather unflattering story about Neil Armstrong in
Chuck Yeager's autobiography _Yeager_. The gist of the story is that Chuck
and Neil were flying together at Edwards and Neil wanted to try a touch and
go on the lakebed beneath them. Chuck from past experience tried to convince
Neil that the lakebud was really mud and if they landed they would not be
able to take off again, but Neil was apparently determined to try. Well, they
touched down and got stuck in the mud, and had to wait hours before they were
picked up and returned home. Wonder what the cockpit conversation was like
while they were waiting @8-).

[ The previous summary is from memory. My apologies if I don't have all the
  details correct. ]

Fred Sabernick              (Damn, can't think of a good space quote.)
fcs@hardy.hdw.harris.com

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 17:14:52 GMT
From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

In article <479@tahoma.UUCP> jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) writes:
> 
> Off-the-wall observation here, which probably belongs in
> talk.religion.newage:

It does :-)

>  the Dogon tribe, among others in Africa, have rather
> precise astronomical information on the period of Sirius B, the white
> dwarf companion of Sirius.  It can't be seen by the naked eye (by a long
> shot), yet this knowledge is thousands of years old.

The precision of the astronomical information is more or less limited to
its existence and invisibility to the naked eye.  (I think I've heard that
they also know the period, but I don't know how accurately they know it.  If
my God were a double star, one of the possible periods I might use would be
the typical time it takes a person to die of old age.  (Although a more likely
period owuld be one Human generation time.  The choice depends on the God.)
The actual period of Sirius B is 50 years.)   They also have information
about Sirius C, D, E ... (I forget the exact number of companions they know
about.)  This 'knowledge' goes far beyond anything which has shown up on
astronomical plates of Sirius.

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
	"Only 10% of the 4000 mile long coastline was affected."
		-Exxon's version of the oil spill as reported to stockholders

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 13:49:47 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!infinet!ulowell!tegra!vail@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <4481acbf.b097@shadow.engin.umich.edu> tyg@caen.engin.umich.edu (Tom Galloway) writes:

   The last was probably a good thing. I remember as a kid thinking that if I was
   on 10's flight, I would have gotten some printouts before leaving of what
   information would be needed to land and revendevous later, and gone ahead and
   landed. So what if I would've been court-martialed....Just imagine what the
   temptation would have been like if a landing and return had been possible.

I remember a documentary about the X-15.  There was one pilot that
with just a little more pressure on the stick could have been the
first into space.  He followed the mission and didn't do it.  Of
course on later a mission a pilot died when his plane re-entered
backwards... 

____//|
  O \\|
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
 -----

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 23:20:38 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)

In article <20220@louie.udel.EDU> pezely@udel.EDU (Daniel Pezely) writes:
>The reason for the suggestion of the space contractors owning the
>adminestration corporation was so that the designers could use
>off-the-shelf components as cheaply as possible.

One trouble is that the aerospace contractors, by and large, do not have
off-the-shelf components.  They custom-build everything.  The word "cheap"
simply is not in their vocabulary.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 19:45:19 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!infinet!ulowell!tegra!vail@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

In article <1480@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:

   I checked the NASA Satellite Situation Report, Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec.

Is there an electronic version of this available somewhere?  Maybe on
floppy or tape or something?  It would make searching and sorting for
things easier.  Thanks.

"The crux of the biscuit, is the apostrophe" -- This is the dog talking...
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
 -----

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 00:54:45 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)

In article <1989Jul22.232038.24123@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>One trouble is that the aerospace contractors, by and large, do not have
>off-the-shelf components.  They custom-build everything.  The word "cheap"
>simply is not in their vocabulary.

Even if the contractors don't have "off-the-shelf" components, those
contractors will certainly produce and sell the parts with a lower
price tag to a subsidiary than they would to NASA.  After all, NASA will
pay what the contractors think they can get away with.

- Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 23:13:02 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <14479@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>            ... You can ride the bus, but you have to pay in Swiss francs
>>and learn Russian first... 
>
>The UK will be sending a cosmonaut up in 1991 (oooh, where are you Eric
>Blair!), they are not paying in SFr and although, with 13,000
>applicants[!], HMG has the luxury of making an acquaintance with Russian
>a requirement, I don't believe the Soviets themselves impose it on
>visitors.

I was exaggerating a little bit for effect; payment in "hard currency"
is what's wanted.  Rubles are specifically not included (!).  (I don't know
how they feel about US$... :-))  I believe the official price is stated in
Swiss francs.

As for speaking Russian, my understanding is that that is a non-negotiable
safety requirement, and yes, the British cosmonaut will have to either know
Russian or learn it damn fast.  In any case he's got to spend a while (one
year?) in training at Star City, and that will undoubtedly require Russian
as a practical matter.

>The most dangerous fallacy in this editorial is the equation of
>*conquering space* with *you [the reader] going.*

We have not realistically "conquered" space, in the sense that we have
conquered the oceans, until anyone with a good reason or a good credit
rating can go.  *Without* waiting years, *without* begging permission
from 57 layers of bureaucrats, and *without* having to justify it to
anyone except himself.

>It's pointless to
>cheerlead a guaranteed non-starter.  None of us will go to Mars, unless
>someone's kid is reading this. 

Some of us disagree... the odds are not good but not zero.

>But we could put a rover and sample
>return mission there before your present lawn mower gives out if we
>wanted to.  How about some space activism about THAT.

If cheerleading is what you want to do, by all means do so.  But robot
missions that are not part of any sort of ongoing plan for expanding
exploration are a spectator sport for all but a handful of scientists.
I can't get too excited about supporting spectator sports any more.
I'll watch the results, for sure, but invest effort?  No.

>>1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |
>>1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.|
>
>Tell it to the boys at Taurus Littrow... to Skylab... Viking... IRAS...
>Solar Max... Mir... Voyager...  HST... Magellan... and please, don't 
>forget to tell Christa.

After discounting a bit for poetic licence in the signature -- obviously
Apollo and its brethren did not drop dead at the end of 1969 -- nearly
all of the programs you cite are remnants from those days.  Some of them
have had a very long wait in the queue.  The queue after them looks pretty
bare.

Voyager, on the other hand, is very much the sort of thing I was talking
about.  I do take my hat off to the Rutans and Yeager.  Oh, you meant the
*space mission*? :-)  Although I'm as eager as anyone to see what comes
of the Neptune encounter, I can't help remembering that (a) Voyager is the
leftovers from a rather more ambitious set of missions, (b) it is the
second project to bear that name, and frankly I'd have preferred the
first, and (c) it too is an Apollo-era leftover with *NO* planned followup.

As for Christa...  The saddest thing about her death is how *significant*
it was that a non-astronaut was finally going up on the shuttle -- the
system that was specifically meant to give non-astronauts access to space.
Followed, as a close second, by the fact that her death has effectively
ended that idea for the foreseeable future.  (NASA would like to end it
permanently, but so far hasn't quite dared to make that official.)
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 02:16:38 GMT
From: opus!dante!lesc@lanl.gov  (Lief Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

Hello again, I've been off the 'net for a while.

As a direct result of Eugene Miya's gracious posting last December concerning
summer jobs with NASA I am now working for Lockheed Engineering and
Sciences Company at NASA'a White Sands Test Facility.  Thanks Eugene.

In a few days I shall have more info., but right now I'm not sure what I'm
allowed to post concerning White Sands.  We do rocket engine testing
(though not right now).  We also do materials testing, tests for offgassing
and stuff, for everything that flies on the shuttle.  Pens, mascara, toothpaste,
flight coveralls, etc. etc.  There's even a painting in one of our lobbies
that will be flown for one of the astronauts.
We also do H2 O2 combustion research to determine their properties of
combustion.  This is to know what would happen if the shuttle blows up on
the pad and also to have a good characterization of those and other fuels
such that they can be better used and more safely handled.
  Materials research also includes testing valves and other parts for
performance under odd condidions: high pressure, pneumatic impacts, etc.
I don't have all the details because I (a physicist by academic study) am
in their computer department (and I've never taken a CS course, and don't
plan to -- that's the government).
   Lastly they have a hypervelocity gun to simulate micrometeroid impacts
in order to determine what would be the best shielding for the space station.

Last Thursday all site employees were encourage to go and see two movies during
working hours in one of our conference rooms.  One was on Apollo 11, the
other was on Apollo 17.  Both were pretty good and were produced at the time
of their respective flights.

Friday we saw a 30 minute new movie on Apollo 11,  some really good footage
of Saturn V take off.

Question:  after the engines fired, some very large structures swung up and
away from the base of the Saturn V, like an oil well pump arm swinging up.
What were those?  Were they clamps used to hold the Saturn V to the crawler?

We also saw a 60 minute taping of a press conference with Armstrong, Aldrin,
and Collins taped last March.  Some of the questions were sort of sticky.
Things like: why haven't you done anything to encourage support for NASA since
'69?  or How do you justify NASA spending over social programs?

I liked Collins answer the best.
(paraphrasing) 'Jamestown and the other colonies were squalid places, a lot
worse off than many of our cities today, and yet we did not endeavor to make
them 100% perfect, but expanded westward.  In the same way, we still have
problems here at home but must continue to expand outward.'  He also said
something about space helping us solve our Earthly problems.

Their answers to questions concerning the future of NASA were interesting.
They said that NASA should go on to Mars and maybe Titan.
When asked about Bush and budgetary appropriations they were clearly
discomfited.  They never said it outright, but they all seemed to strongly
wish that the U.S.'s involvement in space greatly increase and speed-up and
had no faith in the current administartion actually doing anything of the
sort.

  Bush's lack of details concerning timelining of goals and budgetary 
apportioning has not made me or any co-workers any more hopeful.

  In summary, I found the Apollo films quite depressing, not because the
films were depressing, but because it made me think about where NASA has not
gone since then.  NASA is like an airplane which was pulled up to go into
a stall; in 1969 the plane was at the peak of the stall, and lost all lift
after that.  I'm waiting for stall recovery.

(Yes, I'm currently working on my pilot's license.  Next is IFR, then
multi-engine, then jet engine, then high altitude and high performance
jets, then a space shuttle :-) )

Any queries concerning White Sands Test Facility address to me.

The views presented here are not those of my employer, but are solely
mine.  -Leif S. Kirschenbaum, Technical Associate, Lockheed Egineering

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #579
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/kYqICd200UkVI1XE5E>;
          Fri,  4 Aug 89 03:20:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <wYqICVS00UkV81VU4A@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri,  4 Aug 89 03:20:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #580

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 580

Today's Topics:
   Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary edito
		     NSS Hotline Update for Space
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
			 SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT
			 Re: PHONE TREE ALERT
			   Re: Space Quest
   Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary edito
      Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 07:40:48 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary edito

In the referenced article, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) wrote:

>In all the fuss about lunar bases and Mars missions, it is easy to lose
>track of one big, unpleasant, nasty fact that has gone from unlikely to
>certain in the last 20 years.  Unless something changes radically...
 
>None of us is going.
 
>Ever.

Henry went on with excellent political suggestions about HR2674 (which I
have been working on this last week, so I didn't feel guilty.)  But
I have to respectfully disagree with him.  I *am* going, even if it 
takes 200 years, or we have to have well developed nanotechnology to
afford the hardware.  I am within a few years of 50, so how can I think
about being alive in 30 years, much less think of going into space?

Simple, I signed up several years ago for cryonic suspension (if and
when I need it).  While the last year and a half has partly been spent
in defending my cryonics organization (Alcor) from the Riverside
coroner, I find that my enthusiams for working on space project has
greatly improved since I have at least some chance of benifiting from
my efforts.  This isn't for everyone (it took Drexler years to convince
me that freezing saves enough for nanotechnology to fix) but for a
truly dedicated spacer, this is one way to get there, "even if we
have to walk."  Keith Henson--A founder of the (gone but not forgotten)
L5 Society.  (PS--the Riveside Grand Jury recently recomended *abolishing*
the coroners office)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 19:09:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update for Space


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline, update -
Space Day, July 20, 1989.

At 10 am this morning President George Bush on the steps of the
National Air and Space Museum commemorated the 20th anniversary
of the Apollo 11 mission which landed the first men on the Moon. 
He went on to stress the need to look forward, and that in the
21st century peoples of all nations will leave the Earth for
voyages of discovery and exploration.  He stated that now is the
time to commit ourselves to a sustained program of human
exploration of the solar system and the permanent settlement of
space.  

"Our goal is to establish the US as the preeminent space fairing
nation, from the voyages of Columbus to the triumph of the Moon
itself...."  He implied that space exploration is a worth-while
venture from an economic stand point by stating the Apollo
program paid down to Earth dividends, and the human exploration
of the Moon would have been a bargain at twice the price. 
"Apollo is the best return on investment since Leonardo DiVinci
bought his first sketch pad."

In his speech, he announced his long range vision as the
completion of the Space Station Freedom in the 1990s, a permanent
return to the Moon at the turn of the century, and then the human
exploration of Mars.  Each mission will succesively build upon
the next.  He added that the future of the space program lies
within the hands of Congress and ultimately in the hands of the
public.  

It is President Bush's intention that the 30th anniversary of
Apollo 11 should be celebrated not in Washington, DC, but on the
fully operational Space Station Freedom.  He went on to add that
the space station will serve as a bridge to the solar system and
our own fragile Earth. "International initatives are need to seek
new solutions to global environmental problems, and Mission to
Planet Earth is an important initiative in our national space
program.  The Space Station Freedom is the necessary next step
for sustatined human exploration."

The President charged his "right hand man" Vice President Dan
Quayle and his National Space Council to work out the specific
time frame, milestones and resources needed to return to the Moon
permanently and go on to explore Mars.

He closed his speech by saying the dream of reaching new stars
and exploring new worlds will be realized not in his generation
or even his childrens generation, but we must begin with this
generation. "We can't make the next great leap for mankind
tomorrow unless we take the single step today."

The NSS mourns the death of a valued and visionary member of the
Board of Directors, George A. Koopman, president and co-founder
of the American Rocket Company. Mr. Koopman died Wednesday of
injuries sustained in an automobile accident. He was forty-four
years old. 

AMROC officials affirmed that preparations for the company's
first space launch, scheduled for August 14, 1989, will continue
as planned. James Bennett, AMROC's vp for External Affairs, said
"This represents an enormous loss to AMROC. Koopman was a true
space pioneer, not only by virtue of his key role in founding and
sustaining AMROC, but also his long support of and participation
in organizations such as the National Space Society. The
realization of George Koopman's dream of creating affordable
access to space will be his memorial."

Koopman's family has requested that in lieu of flowers,
contributions to one of several charitable organizations be made.
NSS has been selected and will set up a trust fund in his name to
continue the visionary goals he pioneered. Contributions will be
excepted by the NSS to the George A. Koopman Memorial Fund.

This has been the National Space Society's Space Hotline updated
SpaceDay, July 20th, 1989.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 15:36:48 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!wayne@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Wayne Hayes)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

In article <479@tahoma.UUCP> jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) writes:
> 
> Off-the-wall observation here, which probably belongs in
> talk.religion.newage:  the Dogon tribe, among others in Africa, have rather
> precise astronomical information on the period of Sirius B, the white
> dwarf companion of Sirius.  It can't be seen by the naked eye (by a long
> shot), yet this knowledge is thousands of years old.

Read _Broca's_Brain_, by Carl Sagan. He debunks this in chapter 6,
"White Dwafs and Little Green Men".

	The story goes basically like this. Sirius B was discovered in 1862
by Alvan Clark. At the time, white dwarfs hadn't been discovered. It was
realized that Sirius B was quite an extraordinary star, so much so that the
story make headlines in regular newspapers, so the average guy-on-the-street
knew about Sirius B.

	Then 70 years later, in the 1930's, Marcel Griaule, an anthropologist
with a knowledge of astronomy, discovers the Dogon's incredible myth about
Sirius B. He also discovers that they know about Jupiter's 4 moons and
Saturn's rings. It appears the Dogon have knowledge that could only have
come from extra-terrestrials. However there was 70 years between the
discovery of Sirius B and Griaule's account of their legends. It is not
inconceivable that the Dogon had had contact with other Westerners who
told them of Sirius B, and then subsequently incorperated this story
into their myths.

	The important thing to note is that the Dogon are not as dogmatic
about their myths as most western religions are, so they are not above
changing their myths which are, by the way, passed on completely by
word of mouth. Sagan cites another tribe in an adjacent valley that
suffered from a rare disease called Kuru, a virus. In 1957, a physician
studying this disease showed the tribespeople what the virus looked like
though a microscope. A few months later, a different phyisician (not
knowing that they had observed the virus through a microscope) asked
them to describe what they know about the disease. Part of the description
told of an "invisible evil", accompanied by a diagram in the sand that
looked very similar to the Kuru virus. The tribespeople maintained that
this was part of their legend, and only later did the physicians realize
that the myth had been changed to account for the knew information of
the first physician. (They probably weren't trying to dupe us, that's
just the way their verbal legends grow.)

	Anyway, there is of course no firm evidence that the Dogon
had been visited by Westerners before Griaule, but the popularity of
Sirius B and the fact that there WERE Westerners exploring that area
before Griaule seems a much more likely explanation that Extra-
terrestrial visitors. Read Broca's Brain for more info.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."   "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Wayne Hayes	INTERNET: wayne@csri.toronto.edu	CompuServe: 72401,3525

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 22:18:27 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT

Call the Space Science and Applications Subcommittee Office
(202/225-7858) and the office of the Chairman of the same committee,
Bill Nelson (202/225-3671).  Ask them to hold hearings on HR2674, the
Space Transportation Services Purchase Act of 1989, as soon as possible.

If you want to engage in additional pro-space activity, take a copy of
HR2674 to your congresman's office and convince him to cosponsor it.
Send me email if you need a copy.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN NOW AND SCREAM AT HIM UNTIL HE ADMITS THAT ONLY
GOVERNMENT CAN RUN A SPACE PROGRAM

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 14:41:05 GMT
From: att!shuxd!attdso!rolls!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzx!dls@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: PHONE TREE ALERT

In article <26466@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
> 
> Call Congressman Robert Roe (D-NJ) at 202/225-5751.  Ask him, as
> chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, to hold
> hearings on HR2674, the Space Transportation Services Purchase Act of
> 1989, as soon as possible.
> 
> 
> William Baxter
> 

I would like to remind people that although this is a good idea,
it IS NOT an official NSS phonetree alert. In general, any posting
from Baxter or Bowery should be regarded as representing only their
opinions. 

Dale Skran

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 21:39:24 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Space Quest


Here's a summary of e-mailed replies in reference to my postings about
The Space Quest Foundation.

I originally quoted Seth Hollub with an incorrect e-mail address.  The
cocrrect one is <seth@vax.ftp.com>.  Sorry.

Seth brought up the question of Anti-trust problems, and later shed some
more light on it:

>Since the advent of R. Reagan and G. Bush in 1980, the vagaries of
>the anti-monopoly law have changed to be more liberal. That is,
>one can run more of a monopoly than before. Consortia like
>Sematech and such are living proof of our ability to form
>such economic-social groups. (I think they are helpful for now
>on the world market).

>Hopefully when we're successful those who follow in our footsteps
>will not curse our solution. We'll need a way to dissolve the
>consortium when it becomes right & proper to avoid strangling
>things NASA-DOD-like.

If The Space Quest Foundation just sets up the adminestrative
coproration, then there shouldn't be any problems of outside agencies
having too much control. 

			   *	*    *
	
From: Marc Ringuette <mnr@daisy.learning.cs.cmu.edu>,

>I have similar reservations to those of Fred Walter.  What role
>do you see a volunteer group playing in the scheme of things?

That's what we'll need to get things off the ground.  Whether we decide
to change the status of the volunteers, that can be done later.

>It seems to me that requirements for a successful effort are
>  (a) a good, obvious reason for setting up such an agency
>  (b) credibility and negotiating skill
>What is the reason for its existence, and do you see the skills and
>credibility being available?

I think that enough qualified people would come forward to help once
we're sufficiently organized.

>I have an idea which I have based on the skills I see available around
>me (physical sciences students): the construction of small satellites
>and exploratory probes using cleverness and appropriate use of snazzy
>technology.  Its answers to the key questions are
>  (a) the reason:  there are lots of un-sexy experiments and exploration
>	(e.g.  search for water on the moon) that just aren't being done, but
>	are genuinely possible with a small directed effort
>  (b) the ability: Graduate students are the manpower; university robotics
>	and physics labs are the location; and very little money is
>	required.  Piggyback space on commercial launches is rumored to
>	be available but is currently the biggest question mark.

I am a sophmore at the University of Delaware.  And as I told Marc, I
hope to work on such projects when I am in grad school.

			   *	*    *

Keith Henson <hkhenson@cup.portal.com> (if it bounces try keith@toad.com)
wrote in responce to my original posting:

>>I will do anything I can to live in a space station, or I will die trying!

>*I* am making the best effort possible to get into space, *even if it takes
>more than a normal life span.*  Details on request.  

I think that I would have lived a full life even if my children's
generation was the first to be able to LIVE in space stations.

			   *	*    *

Anyone else wish to comment?
- Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 04:41:11 GMT
From: quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu!rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu!BRIDGE@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (JOHN BRIDGE)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary edito



     Is this guy for real?  Whew!

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 05:02:31 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)

In article <20263@louie.udel.EDU> pezely@udel.EDU (Daniel Pezely) writes:
>...contractors will certainly produce and sell the parts with a lower
>price tag to a subsidiary than they would to NASA.  After all, NASA will
>pay what the contractors think they can get away with.

Very true.  I'm told that if you take a standard piece of off-the-shelf
equipment, and run it through NASA's cost models (which tell NASA how
much it ought to cost), and compare the result to the catalog price,
you begin to understand why NASA's projects are so costly.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 04:11:25 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!clmqt!preacher@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (J.A. Fegan)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

From article <479@tahoma.UUCP>, by jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn):
> 
>  Now, I wouldn't want to be living next to any blue-white giants like
>  Sirius, but maybe somebody can.  


ok so what's wrong with living next to a blue-white giant?

-- 
Never be backward wen visitors kum;      | mailrus!sharkey!lopez!preacher
Don't sit there quiet like a sap         |--------------------------------
Be sociable!  Tell'em wot momma called pa
When she found the maid parked on his lap. -- Tha Return Uv Snowshoe Al

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 07:05:09 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <1989Jul22.231302.24043@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>(Voyager) is an Apollo-era leftover with *NO* planned followup.

    What are Galileo and Cassini, chopped liver?
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #580
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/sYqJxXG00UkVE1hE5r>;
          Fri,  4 Aug 89 05:18:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <AYqJxO-00UkV81fU49@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri,  4 Aug 89 05:18:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #581

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 581

Today's Topics:
			George Koopman is Dead
      Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #549
		    Re: Re: Impossible Space Goals
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
		       Re: latest Quayle gaffe
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
   Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary edito
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
		   Re: It was 20 years ago today...
	     Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)
			  Re: Neil Armstrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 01:05:53 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: George Koopman is Dead


The following Associated Press bulletin was printed locally on Saturday, 7/22:

George Koopman, business executive

Palmdale, Calif.   Entrepreneur George A. Koopman, whose business
ventures ranged from making special effects for the hit movie
"The Blues Brothers" to co-founding a commercial rocket company, 
died in a car accident. He was 45.

The Mailbu resident, who wanted his American Rocket Co. to carry
small commercial payloads into sub-orbital space, was pronounced dead
Wednesday morning (7/19/1989) after his car struck a dirt embankment
and flipped over.

He was on his way to Edwards Air Force Base to watch a test of a
rocket engine, said Jim Bennett, co-founder of the company.

Before helping found American Rocket in 1985, Koopman was involved
in a variety of enterprises, including producing the special effects
for "The Blues Brothers," the 1980 movie starring Dan Aykroyd and
John Belushi. He also headed a small defense contracting company 
at one time.

===================================================================

I've heard Koopman speak a couple of times. He always seemed very
committed to AmRoc, very energetic, very practical about what steps
would be necessary for successful commercialization of space. My
impression is that he was responsible for acquiring most of the 
financing of AmRoc. I hope that their funding won't dry up this 
close to their objective, and in the future. Perhaps they would 
appreciate words of encouragement from net.folk. 

====================================================================

-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 02:15:28 GMT
From: watmath!grwalter@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)

In article <20220@louie.udel.EDU> pezely@udel.EDU (Daniel Pezely) writes:
>In article <27897@watmath.waterloo.edu> grwalter@watmath.waterloo.edu (Fred Walter) writes:
>>The work would be done by the members; all money raised would be put back
>>into the organization to better the facilities/do R&D/etc. 

>I was hoping that people who could afford to spend their ?time? on something
>such as this, would do just that.

Someway of connecting these people together has to exist... or come into
existance. What sort of information does the existing space societies
collect on its members ? Do these space societies have mailouts to their
members that one could 'piggyback' on ? (By 'piggyback' I mean add a page or
two to the mailout describing the idea and asking for any needed info).

>we could have built massive space stations ten years ago with existing
>technology and have space for a population of 30,000.  That should be
>more true today.

Hmmmm. How much would such a station cost ? How much of that estimated cost
would be for labour/brain power (designing/etc) and how much for materials ?
If you had 30,000 people who were willing to try and build their own
station, how much would it cost/how long would it take ?

Are there any books/papers out there that look at these questions and try
to answer them ?

	fred

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1989 23:26-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #549

Space BBS's: You forgot the National Space Society BBS run by Beverly
Freed here in Pittsburgh!!!

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 18:04:47 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Re: Impossible Space Goals

> 
> Damn.  David's completely correct and I am a complete fool to have
> forgotten the balsa breakaways.  I remember being fascinated by the
> idea of WOOD on the moon at the time!
> 
> Tom Neff
>

I read an article on Pegasus in MECHANICAL ENGINEERING and found out to 
my surprise that the wings were overlaid with a layer of cork -- it burns
off at high velocity.

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 750-3969                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 21:54:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <33400@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>>(Voyager) is an Apollo-era leftover with *NO* planned followup.
>
>    What are Galileo and Cassini, chopped liver?

I hope not, they'll never meet Shuttle safety specs that way... :-)

The two of them together are half a followup.  Assuming Cassini ever gets
off the ground, that is.  Galileo at least seems pretty definite, assuming
it works -- there is no backup, and that half-spinning design gives me the
creeps.  But what about the other half?  Where are the Uranus and Neptune
missions?  (Answer:  nowhere, not even on paper.)  Where is the Pluto mission?
(Answer:  abandoned and forgotten.)  For that matter, Galileo has been
almost-ready-to-fly for a decade now -- where is *its* followup?  (Answer:
there isn't one.)

I plead guilty to slight exaggeration for rhetorical purposes, but only
slight.  As I've said before, one major problem with the US planetary
program -- what's left of it -- is its complete lack of any systematic
plan for future missions.  What comes after Cassini?  "We'll study that
when the time comes."
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 18:10:37 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: latest Quayle gaffe

> 
> Seriously, though, Quale looks to be one of those people whose
> tongue is disengaged from his brain.  Gerald Ford is another.
> It doesn't mean the man is an idiot.  You're right, he *does*
> seem to be doing a good job as chairman of the NSC.
> 

I don't think Quayle could be too stupid and reach the position he has,
and besides, he's got the entire world listening to every word he says,
looking for a gaffe.  (Some news magazine was making fun of him for
holding an RPG rocket launcher backwards ... big deal.  That only
would've been remarkable if it had been loaded.)

Ronald Reagan made gaffes all the time -- "The bombing starts in five
minutes!" sticks out -- and all it ever did for him was make him more
popular.  People could identify with him ...

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 750-3969                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 02:56:30 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

I treasure Henry's acerbity, and would foot race him any day in the NASA
critic dept., but I do think that in "stretching things to make a point"
it is easy to cross the line into silliness, and this does no-one (nor
the debate) any good.  "20 years of nothing" is kind of an atrocious
misstatement.  "25 years of not enough, and 15 years of nothing useful"
might be more on the mark.  That is if you count things from the
planning stage.  If you are satisfied with the years in which things
come to fruition (clearly NASA has been) then the program's still
muddling along -- just you watch, Neptune will rival Saturn for awesome
images.  And HST, delayed as it is, will wow us within weeks of
activation.

What's missing is getting down and dirty on the inner planets, in my
view.  That's where the excitement lies.  IMAX on a sample return and
rover mission!  How bout it!

I just frankly think the other stuff, the "our generation is GOING"
horse****, is just another regrettable 70's artifact of overenthusiasm,
like Rolfing and est.  Columbus's generation didn't "GO" either, in
numbers any more significant than our space specialists have gone.  That
analogy is fairly flawed so I won't push it.  :-)
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 13:53:36 GMT
From: pilchuck!seahcx!phred!petej@uunet.uu.net  (Pete Jarvis)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary edito

In article <2680@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes:
>
>     Is this guy for real?  Whew!

Yes he is, but I wish he would get his dates right! ......Peter

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 18:54:27 GMT
From: tekbspa!optilink!cramer@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

In article <2217@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>, arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
# # Off-the-wall observation here, which probably belongs in
# # talk.religion.newage:  the Dogon tribe, among others in Africa, have rather
# # precise astronomical information on the period of Sirius B, the white
# # dwarf companion of Sirius.  It can't be seen by the naked eye (by a long
# # shot), yet this knowledge is thousands of years old.  When asked how they
# # know this, the shamans answer that they just speak to the inhabitants of
# # a planet orbiting around there.  Dialogs with the "Sirius beings" are 
# # very old, dating to at least pre-pyramid Egypt.
# 
# Sigh.  I suppose this _should_ belong in sci.skeptic, if that group ever
# gets created.  The people in question had ample contact with Europeans to
# have gotten the information.

I would wonder what they mean by "precise astronomical information".
If you ask the question right, you can give all the information to
the interviewee, and never realize it.

# If you could give me a source for your claims that dialogs date to "pre-pyramid
# Egypt", I'd like to see it.
# --
# Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;

Sort of related subject.

Some of the very oldest Egyptian writings refer to Sirius as being
red -- which is clearly isn't.  I've seen the claim made that Sirius
B may have been much larger and red giant in the past -- but not 
recently enough for the Egyptians to have seen Sirius as red, without
a significant rewrite of astrophysics.

Comments?

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Deng Xiaoping: why every home needs a rifle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 14:07:44 GMT
From: att!chinet!arf@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)


agiant/e4 
 
Ref: Article 4892 (2 more) in sci.astro: 
From: preacher@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (J.A. Fegan) 
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space 
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity) 
 
Preacher says: 
 
>ok so what's wrong with living next to a blue-white giant? 
 
Arf says: 
 
It's sort of like a "changing neighborhood"; really drives  
down property values.  A normal, white sequence star is much  
to be preferred.  But nothing quite comes close to having a  
Black hole for a neighbor. 
 
The Amateur Radio Forum (arf)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 00:42:35 GMT
From: attcan!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@uunet.uu.net  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: It was 20 years ago today...

In article <4924@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, heberlei@iris.ucdavis.edu (Todd) writes:
> 
> Need I say anymore?

  You may have said too much.

  Sigh.  I can't for the life of me figure out where the celebratory mood
in the media and the like came from.  While watching the replay of the Great
Event, I could barely hold back a wail of despair when comparing what the US
space program once was (or might have been (or should have been)) to what it
is today.
-- 
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 22:35:19 GMT
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (RAMontante)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)

<12864@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> pgf@space.mit.edu (Peter G. Ford) :
->spinning so fast that they fly apart, there are auxiliary rockets on
->Magellan that are fired from time to time to give the spacecraft a
->strong twist in the opposite direction, thereby allowing the wheels to
->be spun down and "desaturated".

tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) <14480@bfmny0.UUCP> :
-
-Jeez I hate to disagree with someone on the Project, but wouldn't the
-thruster burns be twisting the spacecraft in the SAME direction as the
-momentum wheels' accumulated spin, rather than in the OPPOSITE
-direction?  If you add more opposite torque you'd have to spin the
-wheels even faster to compensate.  By tweaking in the same direction,
-you allow[require] spindown of the wheels to compensate.

No, think of it this way --- You can stop the spacecraft's spin by
transferring it's angular momentum to the momentum wheel(s).  If the
craft is spinning in the same direction as the wheel, then its angular
momentum has the same sign, so transferring the ang. momentum to the
wheel increases the wheel's spin. 

So use the thrusters to give the craft a spin OPPOSITE to the wheel's
spin.  Then transfer this spin (ang. momentum) to the wheels,
incidentally causing the craft to stop spinning again.  The momentum
has the opposite sign to that of the wheel, so the transfer decreases
the net momentum, and hence the spin, of the momentum wheel.


The "opposite torque <=> spin wheels even faster to compensate" argument
would be true IF the torque came from the wheels, but it's coming from
an outside source.  The outside source, thrusters, apply a counter
torque, which just happens to be transmitted through the spacecraft
itself as an intermediary.

Yet another view:  imagine "hitting the brakes" on the momentum wheels.
This will completely stop the wheels, *relative to the spacecraft*, and
the craft will begin spinning in the same directions that the wheels
were (albeit slower).  Now fire up the thrusters to kill this spin.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 00:16:16 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong

In article <1116@hcx1.UUCP>, fcs@hardy.harris.com (Fred Sabernick) writes:
> 
> There is a humorous but rather unflattering story about Neil Armstrong in
> Chuck Yeager's autobiography _Yeager_. The gist of the story is that 
> [...Neil does a touch and go on a dry lake and gets stuck in the mud...]

Another story was that he attempted to taxi a Century-series fighter
all the way to the hangar after shutting down the engine.  The only
problem was that the hydraulic system ran off the engine, and there
was only enough pressure to steer into position...but not enough to
operate the brakes.  (And they *told* him not to try it.)

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have been the type to make a
given mistake more than once.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #581
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4YqalQG00UkV82rk4E>;
          Sat,  5 Aug 89 00:26:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <0Yqal7a00UkVQ2q04L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat,  5 Aug 89 00:25:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #582

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 582

Today's Topics:
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
		   The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.
		 Re: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.
   Russian Mars probe (was Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.)
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
			  Martian enigmas...
Re: Science observations selected for NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 04:33:27 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <14484@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>I just frankly think the other stuff, the "our generation is GOING"
>horse****, is just another regrettable 70's artifact of overenthusiasm,
>like Rolfing and est.  Columbus's generation didn't "GO" either, in
>numbers any more significant than our space specialists have gone.  That
>analogy is fairly flawed so I won't push it.  :-)

Maybe it depends what you mean by "our generation".  Armstrong's
generation may not go, but then Armstrong was 39 when Apollo 11 landed
-- I was 3.  I would guess the readership of newsgroups spans a number
of generations.

(Rolfing and est, what's that? -- Anything like golfing and ESP? :-)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 17:56:00 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.


    	The most likely explanation for the failure of PHOBOS 2 a few
    months back was a technical problem - the Soviets are roughly ten 
    years behind the United States in space technology.  PHOBOS 2 had 
    to make some special images of Mars' largest moon, Phobos, in 
    preparation for landing some instrument probes on its surface.  
    There was no separate scan platform for the cameras, so the entire 
    craft had to turn away towards Phobos, then re-aim its communications 
    antenna back to Earth to transmit the data.
    
    	Well, PHOBOS 2 did turn to image the moon as planned, but it did
    not turn back properly.  Some faint signals were picked up two hours
    after the probe was apparently lost, but Soviet controllers could not
    keep the link, and PHOBOS 2 is now lost for good.
    
    	There was a photo of an undefined object in one of the images
    PHOBOS 2 took, and it is believed to be jettisoned propulsion rockets
    PHOBOS 2 used to brake into Mars orbit.  It may have hit the probe,
    but a technical error with the craft itself is believed to have
    been the problem.  The Soviet engineers were reported to prefer
    the collision explanation, rather than admit to defects in their
    own technology.

        I know this isn't nearly exciting as the idea of an ancient
    civilization on Mars zapping our space probes so as not to detect
    their presence (Gee, then why didn't VIKING 1 and 2 get fried, or 
    all those other successful Mars probes?), but human error is 
    usually the most likely culprit.  If you've ever studied the 
    history of the Soviet Mars program, you will find that in roughly
    twenty launch attempts, only *one* probe, MARS 5, has ever been
    fully successful. 

        And you should also be aware that the press loves a sensational 
    story, and tends to print first and ask the pertinent questions 
    later, if at all.
    
        Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com
    
             N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 23:18:13 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Ralf Brown)
Subject: Re: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.

In article <8907241926.AA08447@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
}    months back was a technical problem - the Soviets are roughly ten 
}    years behind the United States in space technology.  PHOBOS 2 had 

Of course, they're about ten years ahead in routine, frequent, short-lead-time
access to space....  Comes from not throwing away the current generation of
launchers before the next generation has proven itself (or is even built....).
When you've used the same booster over a thousand times, you know just how it
will behave, and don't have to bring everything to a screeching halt after a
malfunction in order to determine whether it's a design flaw.
-- 
{backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf   ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU   FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA   AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school)   FAX: ask
DISCLAIMER? | [on the next instruc after a disk head seek to track 1,000,000]
What's that?| "You have to do a CALL(service repair person)" -- Fred Schneider

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 03:46:08 GMT
From: cs.dal.ca!lane@uunet.uu.net  (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane)
Subject: Russian Mars probe (was Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.)

I caught a bit on the CBC news a few weeks ago about a recent U.S.S.R. probe
to Mars - sorry I don't remember the name.  Apparently the probe suddenly
went dead as it entered the planet's orbit.  According to the news piece,
the Russians have been very closed mouthed about what happened to the probe
but have made comments about something "extaordinary" which "shouldn't have
been there".  They have refused to release the final pictures taken by the
craft which apparently sparked these comments but were planning to show
them at an upcoming scientific conference.  There was no mention of this
being evidence of life on Mars or of alien life but that seemed to be the
suggestion of the piece.

Does anyone have any details or further knowledge about this? 

PS. I don't normally read these groups so sorry if this has already been
    discussed and sorry about the cross-posting.

-- 
John Wright      //////////////////     Phone:  902-424-3805  or  902-424-6527
Post: c/o Dr Pat Lane, Biology Dept, Dalhousie U, Halifax N.S., CANADA B3H-4H8 
Cdn/Eannet:lane@cs.dal.cdn  Uucp:lane@dalcs.uucp or {uunet watmath}!dalcs!lane
Arpa:lane%dalcs.uucp@uunet.uu.net  Internet:lane@cs.dal.ca

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 13:35:08 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!sunic!tessan!patrik@uunet.uu.net  (Patrik Andreasen)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

(Various postings about how you can't by a fighter as your own personal toy)

But howzabout a F-20 Tigershark? After all the USAF didn't want it, and
there are 3 (or two?) prototypes that Northrop built on their own money.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 16:35:37 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <1989Jul23.215443.15698@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>(Answer:  abandoned and forgotten.)  For that matter, Galileo has been
>almost-ready-to-fly for a decade now -- where is *its* followup?  (Answer:
>there isn't one.)

    How can you design a followup to a mission that hasn't flown yet?
It would be silly to build something else and launch it before Galileo
tells us the next questions to ask.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 24 Jul 89 11:23 EST
From: <GRAHAM%IUCF.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Martian enigmas...

I'm new to this list.  My question is...Has there been any discussion
of the Martian "enigmas" photographed by Viking and Mariner?

I have recently read a book "The Monuments of Mars - A City On the
Edge of Forever" by Richard C. Hoagland.  While the subject of this
book may seem rather outlandish, the author does present some interesting
points.  Hoagland speculates about the origin of the so-called "face"
as well as the "pyramids" and "city", primarily in the area called
"Cydonia".

I am non-committal in my own views about these "enigmas".  I have heard
several opinions from those at this lab (IU Cyclotron Facility), and from
one astronomy professor at Indiana University.

The impression I get is that the subject interests them but they talk
about it in such a way that they appear detached from it.  Understandably
so.

Has there been any serious study of these "enigmas" by organizations whose
reputations are not questioned by most of the scientific community?

Finally, is anyone else on this list interested in this aspect of Mars?


Thanks in advance...GRAHAM@IUCF

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 13:54:00 GMT
From: apollo!rehrauer@eddie.mit.edu  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Re: Science observations selected for NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)

In article <28843@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
[...much about the Hubble Space Telescope...]
>     The HST is such a powerful, new resource for optical 
>astronomy, that observing time was heavily oversubscribed.  
>During the first 12-month observing cycle, 11,000 hours of 
>observing time were requested, with only 1200 hours available.  
>The average length of an accepted observation is 10 hours.  

Time for a naive question.  Does this 12-month observing period include
the 7 months' worth of checkout time?  If not, why on (or off :-) Earth
are there only 1200 hours of observation time available?  Is this the
time that has been allotted for such use, or total available time?  If
the latter, why only 50 days' worth?  (Hey, I *said* it was naive!)

-- 
>>> "Aaiiyeeeee!  Death from above!" <<<  | Steve Rehrauer
    Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168             | Apollo Computer, a
    ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.com             | division of Hewlett-Packard
"Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'.  Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 16:24:55 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <1989Jul21.193401.19303@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes, referring to small, high-performance jet aircraft:

>If a private market in such things were allowed, we wouldn't have to buy
>things designed by the government.

Then buy a BD-5J.  There isn't one cent of government money in BD-5Js.

Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft
does exist, why is this market _so_ small?  Why is there essentially
only one entry in the market?  Maybe the market has decided that this
isn't an appropriate place to allocate resources?

I am, of course, assuming that the market is rational.  Since this is
apparently also your assumption, I don't think we're very far off.

I think that, to some extent, the same argument applies to the market
and private space efforts.

I'd like to point out that I'm part of the aeronautical side of NASA 
and not connected to the space portion except as a tax payer and
interested bystander.  But we have a joke that the first A in NASA is
6 point and the S is 36 point.


--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 19:06:39 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <2335@itivax.iti.org> aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <SHAFER.89Jul24092455@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>>Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft
>>does exist, why is this market _so_ small?

>Price.

Exactly.  This is precisely what I've been saying.

>>Why is there essentially only one entry in the market?

>There are more than one. I know of people who own F-86's. A company in
>Addison Tx. has imported some Alpha jets which it sells (for about 2M
>each). A company in CA inports MIG-19's from China and is attempting to
>get permission to import MIG-21's. The Alpha and Mig-21 will do better
>than mach 1.

>Finally, although not jets, there are a lot of WWII fighters out there.

Yes, but these are _all_ government-funded.  Some of the members of this
discussion keep saying that the government is bad, that nothing produced
for the government is any good, and that free enterprise is the answer.
I was pointing out that the free-enterprise "fighter" was a dismal failure,
contrary to the arguments of the free-enterprise-only enthusiasts.

>>Maybe the market has decided that this
>>isn't an appropriate place to allocate resources?

>The great thing about a free market it that it isn't monolithic. There
>is nobody allocating resources.

"The market" is a term for all the businesses and consumers (real and
potential) of a product.  Thus I was saying that if this were such a
great business opportunity, some capitalist would be out there building
"fighters" and making a lot of money.  Since that isn't happening, maybe
this isn't a great business opportunity. So the market isn't allocating
resources to it.

This assumes, of course, that there is no external effect, such as
legal prohibition, on the market.

Back to Econ 1A!  :-)

--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 13:25:28 GMT
From: indri!caesar!blake!thebang@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Siobahn Morgan)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

In article <841@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US> preacher@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (J.A. Fegan) writes:
>From article <479@tahoma.UUCP>, by jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn):
>> 
>>  Now, I wouldn't want to be living next to any blue-white giants like
>>  Sirius, but maybe somebody can.  
>
>
>ok so what's wrong with living next to a blue-white giant?
>
Plenty!  The major drawback is the short Main Sequence Lifetime (when 
it is stable, burning hydrogen into helium).  For the sun, the MS life
is estimated to be 10 billion years.  For blue-white (very hot) stars
like Sirius, the lifetime is closer to Millions of years, hardly
enough time to get any serious evolution started.

Also due to the higher temperature, the star would be producing more 
light in all wavelengths, but most of it would be in the Ultra-Violet,
not good for life as we know it, but who can tell what little bug-eyed
monsters might enjoy?

Siobahn (Shabang) Morgan
thebang@blake.acs.washington.edu

"Yes,...No,...Yes,...No,...." - response to a single question by long
                                suffering faculty member.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 18:48:46 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <191@tessan.datessa.se> patrik@tessan.datessa.se (Patrik Andreasen) writes:

>(Various postings about how you can't by a fighter as your own personal toy)

>But howzabout a F-20 Tigershark? After all the USAF didn't want it, and
>there are 3 (or two?) prototypes that Northrop built on their own money.

One.  The other two were destroyed in crashes--one in Canada, one in
Korea (I think)--during flight demonstrations.  Probably G-LOC, maybe
the T-38/F-5 inverted pitch hang-up.
--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 21:33:46 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <26623@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> richmond@astroplasma.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Richmond) writes:
>
>I realize that you lose a lot
>of observing time being in LEO, and that it really needs to be 
>there, but ...

Why does it really need to be LEO?  Why not put it in a higher orbit?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #582
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4YqdGx:00UkV838U45>;
          Sat,  5 Aug 89 03:18:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYqdGm600UkV836k5i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat,  5 Aug 89 03:18:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #583

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 583

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
		 Re: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
		  What is the Solar Impact Mission?
		       Re: Voice channel beeps.
		     Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
		     Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
	       Magellan Status for 07/25/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 20:12:33 GMT
From: sally!plocher@sun.com  (John Plocher)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

+---- M F Shafer writes
| Then buy a BD-5J.  There isn't one cent of government money in BD-5Js.
| 
| Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft
| does exist, why is this market _so_ small?
+----

It's not the market that's small, it's the plane :-)  Actually, the 
BD-10J sounds like an even hotter bird - Mach 1+ !!!

    -John Plocher

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 21:18:04 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <28805@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, berry@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Berry Kercheval) writes:
> In article <33335@apple.Apple.COM>, stadler@Apple (Andy Stadler) writes:
> >I used to consider that a stereotype until about the 3rd time a Bonanza
> >tried to run me down....  Why is it always Bonanzas making straight in's
> >at uncontrolled airports?
> 
> Alene calls this the "Cadillac driiver" phenomemon, as she has noticed that
> a disproportionate number of Cadillacs seem to be driven by jerks.

Or watching the 310 driver sail into a *WIDE* down wind leg to Angwin
(top of a ridge north of Napa) which just happened to coincide with
an active jump zone at nearby Pope Valley (I *told* you it was wide...),
apparently with his head down in his lap.  Could just as well been under
the hood at the time.

Couldn't understand why everyone was, like, irritated at him.  (I *called*
in on Unicom...!")

The jumpers in the air (on their way down, literally) were just glad
that he missed all of them.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 17:54:41 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3!aws@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <SHAFER.89Jul24092455@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft
>does exist, why is this market _so_ small?

Price.

>Why is there essentially only one entry in the market?

There are more than one. I know of people who own F-86's. A company in
Addison Tx. has imported some Alpha jets which it sells (for about 2M
each). A company in CA inports MIG-19's from China and is attempting to
get permission to import MIG-21's. The Alpha and Mig-21 will do better
than mach 1.

Finally, although not jets, there are a lot of WWII fighters out there.

>Maybe the market has decided that this
>isn't an appropriate place to allocate resources?

The great thing about a free market it that it isn't monolithic. There
is nobody allocating resources.

    Allen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Allen Sherzer                     | DETROIT:                            |
|  aws@iti.org                       | Where the weak are killed and eaten |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 20:06:40 GMT
From: leech@apple.com  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.

In article <8907241926.AA08447@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
>	The most likely explanation for the failure of PHOBOS 2 a few
>    months back was a technical problem - the Soviets are roughly ten
>    years behind the United States in space technology.

    More like twenty years - they have Energia.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@apple.com)
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 20:51:34 GMT
From: agate!astroplasma.berkeley.edu!richmond@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Richmond)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?


  As to why HST only has 1200 hours of observing time in its first
year: I'm not sure whether that figure includes several months of
testing, but one thing I did learn recently is that, 
on those occasions when an observation is being
made for more than one half-orbital period (45 minutes), the 
telescope is left pointing at the object - and hence looking at
the EARTH - for another 45 minutes, until the object comes back
out from behind the Earth. It seems that it's more practical 
(timewise? propellent-wise?) to leave the telescope where it
is pointing than to move it to another object for a short time,
then go back and re-acquire the first one.

  I'd be glad to learn that I am mistaken - can anyone tell us
more about this "feature" of ST? I realize that you lose a lot
of observing time being in LEO, and that it really needs to be 
there, but ...

  Oh well, I imagine that probably only a small number of ST
observations are being made this way; most are probably less
than 45 minutes long.




--                                          Michael Richmond
"This is the heart that broke my finger."   richmond@bllac.berkeley.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 24 Jul 89 09:32:31 BST
From: ZZASSGL%cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK
Myname:   Geoff. Lane. (Phone UK-061 275 6051)
Subject:  What is the Solar Impact Mission?

 
In a recent edition of "New Scientist" there is an article about
matter/anti-matter drives. There was  an incidental mention of a
project  called   the  "Solar   Impact  Mission"  and   that  an
matter/anti-matter drive would be ideal for this.
 
OK, What is the "Solar Impact Mission"  and why is it so hard to
hit the Sun? After all we have already had close ups of Mercury.
 
 
Geoff.
MCC

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 21:03:51 GMT
From: n3dmc!gronk!johnl@uunet.uu.net  (John Limpert)
Subject: Re: Voice channel beeps.

In article <474@bach.nsc.com> bill@berlioz (Bill Bencze) writes:
>What function do the ever present "beeps" serve in the voice
>communication between spacecraft and the ground? These are the 
>1~3 kHz beeps of about a half second in duration which seem to
>occur at random duning the transmissions.  Are they electronic
>"Over" signals automatically sent at the end of a transmission or
>some other type of timing signal.

The beeps are called "QUINDAR tones".  I believe QUINDAR was the
manufacturer of the equipment that decodes the tones.  The tones are
used to control transmit/receive switching in the air-to-ground voice
communications equipment.  Two tones are used, one when a transmission
begins, the other when it ends. 

-- 
John Limpert		johnl@gronk.UUCP	uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 23:53:53 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

In article <14484@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>I treasure Henry's acerbity,

Perhaps I should make a comment about this.  On occasion I enjoy Henry
as well.  As NASA gets more connected into networks of the world (and as
many of the computer security types don't learn about them), some of the
stuff I mentioned at HQ and other NASA sites become more common knowledge
[for instance they were considering a policy on freeware].  As time
has progressed and I have become more cynical (climbing DOWN the ladder,
so to speak), I encounter more and more NASA people who discover the
space mailing list or at Ames (News).  And they comment on the readership,
Henry among others.  In large part they just ignore his (and others)
more negative ramblings (no one ever listens to me).  Its not a matter
of not listening to one's critics: there are traditional paths of
comment and review, and networks aren't one of them.  But the point of
this note to you is to illustrate how NASA is changing and how
some of the bureacracy reacts to people (since people asked).  Water off
a duck's back.  There is a point where people just regard things as noise
and that point is reached very quickly by people reading who have work
to do (unless you have a news window on a multiwindow workstation).
So Henry has pushed most people's internal button's too far and lost
credibility.

>What's missing is getting down and dirty on the inner planets, in my
>view.  That's where the excitement lies.  IMAX on a sample return and
>rover mission!  How bout it!

Sounds great.  Don't see a question mark.  The problem is understanding
the scale of these endeavours.  Consider holding a conversation
in light-time.  That's a real problem going to places like Mars or
Venus.  Just so long as you don't have the short-term "must have it now"
mentality.  Space is big, really big...... 8)

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 20:52:19 GMT
From: n3dmc!gronk!johnl@uunet.uu.net  (John Limpert)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <5951@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes:
>The question at hand is did NASA leave the transmitter on the moon running?
>You could probably answer this as well as anyone.  I read a new report in
>the local yellow rag that the transmitter had been left on and that only
>the tracking station had been shut down.

The usual procedure for mothballing a spacecraft is to shut off the
transmitter and non-essential systems.  The receiver and command decoder
are left on so the spacecraft can be reactivated later.  I suspect this
is what happened to ALSEP.  The tracking stations were _not_ shut down.
There were plenty of other activities to keep them open.  The ISEE
(International Sun Earth Explorer) spacecraft replaced ALSEP in the
"track it and record telemetry for many hours a day" category.  There were
a pair of instrumentation recorders at Ascension that had been dedicated
to supporting ALSEP.  After ALSEP was shutdown, quite a bit of effort was
needed to repair all of the circuit boards that hadn't been used in
the ALSEP recorder configuration.

With the advent of an operational TDRS system, the ground tracking network
is finally being reduced to a minimal number of stations.  Bermuda and
Merrit Island (KSC) are being kept open for launch support.  The rest are
going to be shutdown, turned over to JPL's Deep Space Network or the
Air Force.

-- 
John Limpert		johnl@gronk.UUCP	uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 05:02:33 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

In article <4466@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (The Miya-creature) emerges
from the NAS-cave and writes:
>Perhaps I should make a comment about [Henry's acerbic manner].  On
>occasion I enjoy Henry as well.  As NASA gets more connected into
>networks of the world ...
>						I encounter more and
>more NASA people who discover the space mailing list or at Ames (News).
>And they comment on the readership, Henry among others.  In large part
>they just ignore his (and others) more negative ramblings (no one ever
>listens to me).  ...
>				So Henry has pushed most people's internal
>button's too far and lost credibility.

This is easy to believe -- I cannot imagine Henry's views being welcome
at much of any level within NASA.  I would just point out that
convincing NASA staff is not the only legitimate agenda for
editorializing here.  The opinions of informed, educated and interested
citizens (such as one imagines reads the newsgroup) are worth much more,
if only by sheer numbers (though I have high regard for NASA grunts, as,
I think, does Henry).

>>What's missing is getting down and dirty on the inner planets, in my
>>view.  That's where the excitement lies.  IMAX on a sample return and
>>rover mission!  How bout it!
>
>Sounds great.  Don't see a question mark.  

That's because I'm cheerleading more than I'm honestly questioning.  We
NEED to do this.  It would be a bonanza for science and, if properly
managed, for public perception.  What kind of bucks would Spielberg
contribute to this for the sake of (a) a kick-a** planetary journey
he could produce and present on 70mm movie screens, and (b) immortality.
If someone knew how to sell our real life Solar System the way they sell
BATMAN, the sky would be the limit, or so it seems to me.

>					    The problem is understanding
>the scale of these endeavours.  Consider holding a conversation in
>light-time.  That's a real problem going to places like Mars or Venus.

Completely solvable.  The AI wonks posit totally self sufficient rovers,
which I consider an evident shuck -- I'd orbit a powerful CPU and engage
in hour long exploration programs at most, with frequent ground based
interaction.  At all events it's a purely technical issue, and could
be handled with the proper funding.

>Just so long as you don't have the short-term "must have it now"
>mentality.  Space is big, really big...... 8)

I challenge the Miya-creature to define "now."  I would like to have a
tub of Martian soil in the JPL vaults before the century is out.  I
think we have everything we need to do it, except the will.  If we
insist on taking meat there next after the paparazzi orbiters, 
however, it won't happen.

btw I bet the NASA readership doesn't comment on me much either, after
the "Dance Band" parody  :-)
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 04:36:14 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <1989Jul24.213346.24486@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>Why does [HST] really need to be LEO?  Why not put it in a higher orbit?

HST is a very heavy payload designed to be serviced by the Shuttle, which
cannot visit orbits higher than about 300nm under any circumstances.  Hence
it lives in LEO.  Welcome to the joys of "manned presence in space."
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 22:32:27 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 07/25/89 (Forwarded)


                     MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS
                          July 25, 1989
 
 
     This is a weekly status report. The Magellan operations
team is continuing investigations into star scanner glitches and
attitude calibrations. The spacecraft is performing well,
however.
 
     The hottest Rocket Engine Modules were running at 69 degrees
C (156.2 F) to 74 C (165.2 F) with the temperature rising to 80 C
(176 F) during momentum wheel desaturations. The current red
alarm limit is 87 C (188.6 F), but tests are underway at Rocket
Research to try to push this limit higher. The head end of the
Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) is running at 34 degrees C (93.2 F)
versus its current red alarm limit of 70 C (158 F). Recent tests
were performed at Motor Thiokol.
 
     The spacecraft is continuing twice daily momentum wheel
desaturations and daily star calibrations. Additional star
calibrations were commanded as part of the gyro scale factor
calibrations, and two others were performed to test the star
scanner performance for a future star pair.
 
     All the star calibrations involved in the spacecraft
attitude knowledge updates performed during the past week were
successful except for the one on July 20. That Starcal failed due
to a glitch on the second crossing of the first star, but the
partial update from the second star was sufficient. A preliminary
report indicated solar activity may have caused the problem.
 
     Cruise load 7, the computer command sequence, was uplinked
July 21 and a non-standard sequence was uplinked to Magellan on
July 19 which specified a new star pair, Alpha CEN and Gamma
Cru.
 
          
     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                   11,979,386
     
     Velocity Geocentric                        11,477 mph
              Heliocentric                      69,445 mph
 
     One Way Light Time                         1 minute, 04 sec

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #583
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/kYqf3ny00UkV83HE5U>;
          Sat,  5 Aug 89 05:18:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <cYqf3fC00UkV03FU5n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat,  5 Aug 89 05:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #584

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 584

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
			  Re: Neil Armstrong
		  Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST
			  Re: Neil Armstrong
		    powering down old experiments
		     Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
		  Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST
			  Re: Neil Armstrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 16:25:16 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

I am sympathetic to Eugene Miya.  The tenor of rec.space is in general
the most strident of any newsgroup I read.  It is not that some of the
complaints are not justified (to say they are or are not would require
both a level of knowledge and interest I do not possess) but that after
a while it simply becomes numbing, and it goes in one ear and out the
other.

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 750-3969                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 17:59:44 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!clmqt!preacher@purdue.edu  (J.A. Fegan)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

From article <1940@optilink.UUCP>, by cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer):
# 
# Some of the very oldest Egyptian writings refer to Sirius as being
# red -- which is clearly isn't.  I've seen the claim made that Sirius
# B may have been much larger and red giant in the past -- but not 
# recently enough for the Egyptians to have seen Sirius as red, without
# a significant rewrite of astrophysics.


But was Sirius (if it ever was a red giant) in this state at about the time
the Egyptians were saying it was red?  Doesn't it take a while for a star
to change from a Red Giant to a Blue Giant?

-- 
Never be backward wen visitors kum;      | mailrus!sharkey!lopez!preacher
Don't sit there quiet like a sap         |--------------------------------
Be sociable!  Tell'em wot momma called pa
When she found the maid parked on his lap. -- Tha Return Uv Snowshoe Al

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 15:08:50 GMT
From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong


There's always a reference to Neil Armstrong as a civilian, which he was when
he was an astronaut, but wasn't he a Navy pilot, er, aviator before he flew 
X-15's?

How many astronauts, other than shuttle mission or payload specialists, have
there been who were never in the military?  I am using the strict definition
of astronaut = someone who has been in space on a NASA mission.

-- 
"Good.  For a minute I thought we were in trouble."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                      uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu        internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 11:39:08 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!sunic!sics.se!news@uunet.uu.net  (Bruno Poterie)
Subject: Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST

In article <1989Jul24.033656.20927@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>   Ariane 5 development program will probably slip several months and perhaps
>   longer, because a US-built solid-fuel-mixing machine destined for Kourou
>   is being diverted to US solid-rocket manufacturer Hercules to replace a
>   mixer damaged in an accident early this year.  The mixer was to reach
>   Kourou in early fall to be incorporated into the Ariane 5 SRB manufacturing
>   plant, along with another mixer to arrive late in the year.  Worse, the
>   second mixer may be delayed because the first one needs to be reworked to
>   fit Hercules's needs, and manpower is short.  The Europeans are Not Pleased,
>   and are urging the US to deliver the mixers as originally scheduled, saying
>   that Hercules has others.  "This could go down as another black day in
>   European-US space relations, and it comes at a time when Europe already
>   is questioning the reliability of the US as a partner..."

Same kind of attitude already pushed the French, long ago, to launch a rocket
study which eventually evolved into current Ariane. Surprise! I suppose that now
we will have to build a mixer factory, thereby depriving the Americans of this
market share (and of others as well). Keep on doing the good job ;-! ;-) ;-)

Which firm was building those mixers? I bet that it is a private company.
If confirmed, this is one more reason to doubt about the validity of the "private"
approach. If Arianespace had had a contract with the NASA or with another
government or official agency, it would have been respected. But what can you
expect from a private compagny who does not respect commercial contracts?
Go to a conccurent next time? Attack it in a US tribunal? Ah! 
There was this insert in Newsweek recently (or was it another weekly?) where 
former NASA head said that the leaders of space commercial activities are already 
and will increasingly be the Europeans, because "they have the will and the 
organisation". The will, you Americans certainly do have it as well, but not 
the organisation - rather, not the will of an organisation as i see it on this 
forum. Well, i much prefer expensive public NASA to this cheap private company. 
A question of trust, i suppose.

Disclaimer: those are my opinions and mine only.
Bruno Poterie, Martian.
Vive l'Europe!
email: bruno@inmic.se

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 20:11:04 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong

In article <1750@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) writes:

>There's always a reference to Neil Armstrong as a civilian, which he was when
>he was an astronaut, but wasn't he a Navy pilot, er, aviator before he flew 
>X-15's?

Neil, like Fred Haise, was a NASA civilian (civil service) test pilot
at Flight Research Center (now Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility)
at Edwards, CA.  They were already NASA employees, so weren't hired
by JSC, but transferred.  

Joe Engle was an Air Force pilot who flew the X-15.  He wasn't
employeed by NASA, just assigned to the program.  We frequently 
have military pilots here on joint projects.

>How many astronauts, other than shuttle mission or payload specialists, have
>there been who were never in the military?  I am using the strict definition
>of astronaut = someone who has been in space on a NASA mission.

I think all of the flight crews (i.e. people flying the vehicle) were
military.  This is built into the requirements.  Test pilot implies
test pilot school implies military, for example.  If you're looking
for high-performance jet aircraft time, you're looking for military
pilots.

Mission specialists and payload specialists aren't flight crew and I
think most of them are non-military.  There were some scientists who
flew in the pre-Shuttle era, too.  Harrison Schmitt was a geologist,
not a pilot.  Some of these people may be veterans, but this wasn't
related to their selection.

We have had three test pilots here who weren't _exactly_ U S military--
they were Air National Guard pilots.  This is hair-splitting, I think,
because they're trained by the Air Force, fly Air Force aircraft, and
meet Air Force standards; they're just paid by the state government
rather than the federal government.  But I don't think any Guard pilots
have become astronauts.
--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 03:34:35 GMT
From: att!tellab5!zantow@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Al Zantow)
Subject: powering down old experiments

>>APOLLO-11 LUNAR EXPERIMENT STILL USEFUL AFTER 20 YEARS
>>
>    And a whole bunch of the powered experiments might still be useful
>if they hadn't been turned off in the 70's.  The same wonderful cost
>effectiveness that nearly turned off the DSN for Voyager's Neptune
>encounter.
>--

	I seem to recall that they shut down some of the Viking (?) or
Mariner craft on Mars to "save money".   How does shuting off some
equipment that cost BUCKS DELUXE to put there save money?  Is this stuff 
powered by a mighty long extension cord or what?  It seems to me that
it costs nothing to leave it on, you can always turn off the Earth side
station and later turn on the Earth side equipment again.  I know that
you would probably loose track of distant equipment, but it seems that
the possiblity of re-establishing contact is better than killing it
for good.  Maybe it's to justify the need for more missions  8-)  8-)

(Yes, I know new equipment can do a much better job, and I support
putting more up there, it's just that I think we could use the old too.)

"Physics is fun, unless your personally involved"  -"Alvis of the Labs"

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 25 Jul 89 10:15:10 EDT
From: Leonard Abbey <LABBEY%GTRI01.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>

How can I get back issues of Space Digest?

Thanks.



Leonard Abbey
Georgia Tech
Research Institute
labbey@gtri01.gatech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 23:44:15 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

In article <14487@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>This is easy to believe -- I cannot imagine Henry's views being welcome
>at much of any level within NASA.  I would just point out that
>convincing NASA staff is not the only legitimate agenda for
>editorializing here.  The opinions of informed, educated and interested
>citizens (such as one imagines reads the newsgroup) are worth much more,
>if only by sheer numbers (though I have high regard for NASA grunts, as,
>I think, does Henry).

You have to be careful with information.  It's value changes with time,
sometimes it is not correct, sometimes half-correct [worse].  Although the work
we do is supposedily in the public domain, it can't all be.  We have
contractors, and people reading who bid on contracts, etc.  Agreements
get made, etc.  I speak from
the experience of getting burned once( or was that twice?).  You
should not generally trust me to say everything I know (very little
anyway), nor should you (reader, not just Tom) expect to believe
anything that Henry, Dale, or anyone posts to the net.

>That's because I'm cheerleading more than I'm honestly questioning.  We
>NEED to do this.  It would be a bonanza for science and, if properly
>managed, for public perception.  What kind of bucks would Spielberg
>contribute to this for the sake of (a) a kick-a** planetary journey
>he could produce and present on 70mm movie screens, and (b) immortality.
>If someone knew how to sell our real life Solar System the way they sell
>BATMAN, the sky would be the limit, or so it seems to me.

It kind of depends.  You have to make some distinction between reality
(science) and what we desire: we desired to find intelligent life,
or at least life on other planets.  Science is a study, a search for
truth and understanding.  Part of the motivation is romantic.  The planetary
program has done a surprising amount to "shatter people's dreams:"
Oh it's just another planet with craters...  Bradbury and others had
comments made to them about this prior to Viking.  So the issue
isn't entirely public perception.  Is all science exciting? [Wasn't
this a Monty Python skit?]   I don't think sell or immorality are the
right words.  I mean, I know what I get out of science, but it's not
something at everybody appreciates (otherwise I would expect to see more
of my elementary school companions, and I don't).

>Completely solvable.  The AI wonks posit totally self sufficient rovers,
>which I consider an evident shuck -- I'd orbit a powerful CPU and engage
>in hour long exploration programs at most, with frequent ground based
>interaction.  At all events it's a purely technical issue, and could
>be handled with the proper funding.

Sounds great.  Convince the manned space people. 8)

>>Just so long as you don't have the short-term "must have it now"
>>mentality.  Space is big, really big...... 8)
>
>I challenge the Miya-creature to define "now."  I would like to have a
>tub of Martian soil in the JPL vaults before the century is out.  I
>think we have everything we need to do it, except the will.  If we
>insist on taking meat there next after the paparazzi orbiters, 
>however, it won't happen.

We didn't have vaults at JPL, we had warehouses, sort of like that one
at the end of the 1st Indiana Jones movie (remember?  "We have top men..").
I know people who would like Martian soil now and could use it (planetary
science program at Caltech for instance).
I use "now" in the present tense for the general public.  You won't
have a dialogue like people talking between Earth and Moon.  Consider
light travel time from here to Mars.

My point is that the public has a very short memory, attention span.
Alderin made a comments about that today on a visit.  We (people)
have to be willing to engage in projects we may not see in our lifetimes,
nor will directly involve us.  If it has to absolutely be YOU, who goes
into orbit, then maybe, none of us goes.  The attention span problem
(called "Crisis management" in some areas), is pervasive in other
areas: education, business/manufacturing, urban problems, economic
competitiveness.  We have to deal with this.  We have to be willing
to elect people who think beyond their next election.  To start
projects (non-DOD) which go into the next Century [isn't it amazing
how the DOD is able to do this?].

"Now" means we get bored because it takes months or years to fly to
another planet.  It slips from sight and mind.  So boring that we
start planning the next mission before the first completes [both
good and bad] and fail to integrate new information into these missions.
Never getting anything done.
"Now" must mean we have to change and start to think about this in
the long-term.  Not just for the show or flash, or the glitt-zzzz
That's just surface stuff, lacking substance.  That's Hollywood.
"Now" must mean converting the unconverted, not preaching to converts
(those that read space nets).  Those Congress critters who you might not
have heard speak against Bush's space comments.  Comments which
might disappear from memory after next's week's impending political crisis.
(Just like Exxon, not forgetting we all buy gas).

Anyways, time to go do some real work.

>btw I bet the NASA readership doesn't comment on me much either, after
>the "Dance Band" parody  :-)

What parody? I don't read much (I have to go back to the cave, my
newsrc tells me so).  NO one tells me anything.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 16:14:13 GMT
From: shlump.nac.dec.com!gary.dec.com!hughes@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST

re: the solid propellant mixer for Ariane 5

My understanding is that it was to be purchased by Arianespace from a private company. At
a guess, I'd say that US Gov't approval would be required to export a propellant mixer,
but that would have been the limit of Gov't involvement.

However, some Gov't agency has decided that replacing the mixer in the Hercules plant is
of strategic importance and has diverted the mixer being built for Arianespace. I don't
think you can blame the manufacturer for that; it is Gov't interference. All they have
to do is revoke the export license.

However, it doesn't alter your basic point... in space activities, the US just is not a
reliable partner. I'm sure all countries have policies that could affect, say, launch
assignments at times of strategic need (e.g. I think the need to launch a replacement 
for the malfunctioning French Telecom shuffled the Ariane launch manifest slightly)
but when combined with apparently haphazard changes in national space policies, 
especially those surrounding commercial space activity, it is no wonder that other
countries get nervous.

NASA refusal to launch satellites that may compete with Intelsat was one of the driving
forces behind the French Diamant launchers and the later Ariane series. Ever wonder why
the Diamant first stage burned turpentine and nitric acid? The US refused to export the
hydrazine that they wanted to use.

gary
(hughes @star.dec.com)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 15:33:33 GMT
From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong

In article <117476@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
|In article <1116@hcx1.UUCP>, fcs@hardy.harris.com (Fred Sabernick) writes:
|> 
|> There is a humorous but rather unflattering story about Neil Armstrong in
|> Chuck Yeager's autobiography _Yeager_. The gist of the story is that 
|> [...Neil does a touch and go on a dry lake and gets stuck in the mud...]
|
|Another story was that he attempted to taxi a Century-series fighter
|all the way to the hangar after shutting down the engine.  The only
|problem was that the hydraulic system ran off the engine, and there
|was only enough pressure to steer into position...but not enough to
|operate the brakes.  (And they *told* him not to try it.)
|
Sorry, that was Scott Crossfield, someone else who Yeager apparently didn't
think too highly of.  And it was a failure of the utility hydraulic system.
Crossfield hadn't read the operating handbook very well it seems.

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd			* 
CFI Aspen Flying Club			* Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.				* 
*******************************************************************************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #584
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YYqvoAy00UkV84EU4m>;
          Sun,  6 Aug 89 00:22:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <AYqvo3G00UkV84Ck4Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun,  6 Aug 89 00:22:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #585

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 585

Today's Topics:
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
			   Re: Space Quest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 89 01:33:27 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #549 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89212.53474140 0.00000144           16353-3 0  2251
2 00424  80.4626 242.1478 0024006  20.3307 339.8790 13.67173898338874
Centaur 2  
1 00694U 63047  A 89206.35757999  .00003536  00000-0  56729-3 0  7872
2 00694  30.3919 283.5648 0736884 319.8427  34.9862 13.66438885266000
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89205.95482766  .00000149  00000-0  14510-3 0  2809
2 00727  69.9013  14.6705 0012349  43.2838 316.9236 13.93555572298358
Pegasus R/B
1 01385U 65039  B 89189.13151924  .10923841 -14676-4  14624-3 0  1383
2 01385  31.7255 352.5213 0000010 357.0342   4.4419 16.49499117327733
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89198.54646773  .00004760  00000-0  32780-3 0  3891
2 03019  64.0624  18.9846 0219843 225.3173 132.9859 14.89572043109609
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89202.52779542 -.00000075  00000-0  99999-4 0  2379
2 03029  12.7980  24.0026 0014083 169.0457 191.0927  1.00275153 79486
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89206.64929498  .00093696  00000-0  61161-3 0  8569
2 04966  51.5633 303.6136 2508695 278.0725  54.7228 10.54827098556444
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89213.97557767 0.00000005                   0  8390
2 08820 109.8368 245.7675 0045056 306.3319  53.3353  6.38664114 53555
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89193.69270730 -.00000018                   0  2869
2 10061   7.2367  67.9134 0005870  97.5785 262.2768  1.00279674  5639
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89210.83627740 0.00000010           10000-3 0  1756
2 10684  63.5771  99.3978 0107862 198.8024 160.8443  2.00560212 69381
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89211.29518689 -.00000027                   0   168
2 10893  64.4983 340.3548 0154352  28.1102 332.7039  2.00554910 82214
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89209.70338711 0.00000087           10000-3 0  6957
2 10953   6.1827  70.1813 0008252 256.5055 103.3328  1.00276364  1357
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89212.01565360 0.00000786           32035-3 0  1472
2 10967 108.0162  17.8746 0001994 232.9827 127.1052 14.34743738580377
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89210.61023469 -.00000027                   0   788
2 11054  64.2456 336.7561 0057103 115.5063 245.1188  2.00561312 79216
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89212.20531610 0.00000010                   0  1854
2 11141  63.4602  99.2022 0051406 326.1512  33.7373  2.00570309 77940
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89207.42352370 0.00000775           34108-3 0  8766
2 11416  98.5094 203.3500 0012523   0.7878 359.3299 14.25883233523498
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89212.53338578 0.00053246           67693-3 0   406
2 11703  28.5048 324.6227 0001609 204.5373 155.5173 15.57958627526754
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89211.66428526 -.00000027                   0  9404
2 11783  63.9179 336.4099 0143203  62.0247 299.3432  2.00568619 67872
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89198.09971664 -.00000043                   0   625
2 11964   5.5456  73.3388 0033164  94.9307 265.3600  0.99228861  2323
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89208.54257151 -.00000255                   0  7442
2 12472   2.6653  78.5917 0151911 347.0347  11.6843  1.00463395 28995
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89206.58419930  .00013678  00000-0  46621-3 0  2529
2 12887  97.6826 233.9447 0003634 100.2752 259.8830 15.30491991431028
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89211.60922340 0.00095924           81637-3 0  6560
2 12888  97.5517 268.3271 0001855 321.5136  38.5992 15.69284058435783
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89204.00241408 0.00000167           14110-3 0  6564
2 13113  82.5370  30.2903 0015066 327.4850  32.5383 13.84020055370192
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89212.62292368 0.00014574           32914-3 0  6849
2 13138  51.6103  99.5738 0001213 157.5510 202.5685 15.43425822415055
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89205.44037998  .00001470  00000-0  33597-3 0   338
2 13367  98.2087 268.5451 0004022  88.6953 271.4872 14.57116273373577
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89208.59998527 0.00000295           14953-3 0  7999
2 13718  81.2443 242.0120 0054627 243.7453 115.8099 14.13245130341260
IRAS       
1 13777U          89199.57374005 -.00000334          -22041-3 0  6598
2 13777  99.0426  36.2509 0012030 223.9617 136.0646 13.98617482   306
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89193.61106535 -.00000183  00000-0  00000 0 0  8197
2 13969   3.6420  68.4417 0002893 137.6679 225.5675  1.00123858 89665
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89206.75905511 0.00000111                   0  9955
2 14050   1.3909  82.4789 0001991 115.3211 244.4471  1.00290553  6991
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89206.96629669 -.00000046                   0  4180
2 14129  26.0683 253.1148 6053622  61.9792 345.8051  2.05881470 18017
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89211.75219444 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6496
2 14189  63.2043  97.9962 0136694 215.3743 143.7747  2.00567582 44319
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89208.64005844 0.00000433           18118-3 0  7533
2 14452  81.1644 253.0093 0095147 340.9132  18.8484 14.22262383298298
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89214.25990972 0.00000604           14381-3 0  8524
2 14780  98.1650 275.6152 0003912  94.9718 265.1930 14.57138240288270
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89208.64944038 0.00001438           28416-3 0  4844
2 14781  98.0024 266.2744 0012575 188.6725 171.4234 14.63789272288463
LDEF       
1 14898U          89211.33334513 0.00025357           37664-3 0  9211
2 14898  28.5037 232.1401 0000893  47.9640 312.0900 15.53709888298165
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89211.31371182 0.00000009                   0  7091
2 15039  62.6503  97.2863 0019881 216.2137 143.8408  2.00562832 37585
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89198.39046606 0.00000145           12119-3 0  9573
2 15099  82.5295 342.3507 0013080 147.4673 212.7293 13.83679414254299
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89213.70723764 -.00000027                   0  6822
2 15271  63.3479 336.0797 0099961 321.1049  38.2826  2.00566694 34744
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89213.24232284 0.00001485           21250-3 0   590
2 15331  82.5399 296.8601 0022883 300.9802  58.9146 14.75849998260867
NOAA 9     
1 15427U 84123  A 89206.04322239  .00000406  00000-0  24246-3 0  4083
2 15427  99.1460 193.7325 0014650 204.3023 155.7455 14.12094945237799
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89207.13375672 0.00000342           29741-3 0  1017
2 15516  82.5351 273.7816 0017360  11.4121 348.7426 13.84147096226440
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89212.94665263 0.00020616           46125-3 0  3241
2 16095  51.6077  97.9804 0002688 154.0245 206.0375 15.43435096216205
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89211.86814269 0.00000010                   0  3436
2 16129  63.7270  97.9345 0118094 149.6937 211.0568  2.00563681 27918
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89206.95554602 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8426
2 16191  82.5460 208.3244 0019006 199.6524 160.3871 13.16870916180625
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89206.99972694 0.00000106           89651-4 0  5163
2 16408  82.5352 188.7490 0015552 187.0782 173.0155 13.84191596180923
Mir        
1 16609U          89212.64545487 0.00027379           36674-3 0  9689
2 16609  51.6201 141.0746 0009449 218.1341 141.8965 15.57728565198090
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89214.09712687 0.00000453           23076-3 0  5461
2 16613  98.7371 288.0565 0001639  70.5988 289.5425 14.20038939 18647
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89206.97967397 0.00000104           88258-4 0  3100
2 16735  82.5352 215.6017 0012718 264.4813  95.4898 13.83939123159828
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89214.03857862 0.00001273           18335-3 0  6843
2 16881  82.5249 355.5966 0022111 314.2650  45.6766 14.75458837162053
EGP        
1 16908U          89202.18032835 -.00000038           77810-5 0  1479
2 16908  50.0064 193.5888 0011257  74.2487 285.9588 12.44379520133640
FO-12      
1 16909U          89197.10014353 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1630
2 16909  50.0167 209.4498 0011078  60.4152 299.7766 12.44400597133006
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89209.28498944 0.00000541           25656-3 0  2558
2 16969  98.6371 238.9936 0014140 127.5293 232.7166 14.23100662149787
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89210.38427611 0.00000150           12631-3 0  2760
2 17290  82.4689 119.9484 0013127 133.7184 226.5067 13.83742690129457
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89205.33378304  .00000295  00000-0  24544-3 0  1946
2 17527  99.1462 276.4726 0000698  69.3560 290.7742 13.94834855123558
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89205.43300462 -.00000110                   0  3070
2 17561   0.2328 182.4103 0005071 293.0318 244.6022  1.00300592  2131
Kvant      
1 17845U          89212.90208139 0.00027713           37108-3 0  8247
2 17845  51.6192 139.7837 0009505 224.5703 135.5175 15.57729041134401
DMSP B5D2-3
1 18123U 87 53  A 89206.01693882  .00000347  00000-0  20402-3 0  3528
2 18123  98.8254  36.0205 0013398 234.5993 125.3930 14.13476591108179
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89212.00620697 0.00000009           31805-5 0  8329
2 18129  82.9237 205.7823 0010415 293.6055  66.4044 13.71992636105403
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89205.90451262  .00000119  00000-0  64312-4 0  8922
2 18187  65.0130 277.2514 0019504 255.5146 104.3735 14.29385133106512
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89209.99711656 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2973
2 18312  82.5555 186.4079 0014314  79.8591 280.4166 13.83494687 98292
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89207.13648365 0.00000164           13700-3 0  1368
2 18820  82.5427 249.6004 0017040 155.3495 204.8470 13.84186232 75070
DMSP B5D2-4
1 18822U 88  6  A 89205.75001365  .00000514  00000-0  25571-3 0  2518
2 18822  98.6969  85.8672 0006621 130.1448 230.0309 14.20837554 76337
AO-13      
1 19216U          89186.15508008 -.00000132           10000-3 0   382
2 19216  57.2070 200.8551 6748913 207.0433  90.2906  2.09703317  8118
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89206.04055415  .00002033  00000-0  29777-3 0  4436
2 19274  82.5169 101.6305 0024475 107.3293 253.0533 14.74988091 56664
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89212.26065616 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2297
2 19336  82.5416 144.4909 0019431  34.0571 326.1761 13.16856086 48719
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89209.25852554 0.00000438           26403-3 0  1100
2 19531  98.9420 153.0837 0012739 113.0849 247.1668 14.11080992 43262
TDRS 3     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89201.64856355  .00000127  00000-0  99999-4 0   298
2 19548   0.6976  82.9647 0002435  28.2829 248.8411  1.00266167  2120
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89195.92402568  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   489
2 19802  55.1018 210.7161 0066687 157.4981 202.8516  2.00556819  2987
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89207.09550817 0.00000117           10000-3 0   594
2 19851  82.5238 128.2532 0013617 194.0944 165.9795 13.83821380 20467
TDRS 4     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89193.30721528 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-4 0   212
2 19883   0.4184  71.6153 0001726  52.2881 235.9737  1.00264167   477
1989 042B  
1 20046U          89190.25933410 -.00005554          -56739-2 0   517
2 20046  82.9417 338.0442 0035026 199.2664 160.7174 13.76469147  4415
Molniya3-35
1 20052U          89189.80933893 0.00000326          -81454-3 0   444
2 20052  62.9521  99.8751 7379264 288.3629   9.3770  2.00620985   616
1989 043D  
1 20055U          89187.82942194 0.00000550           19192-2 0   268
2 20055  62.8484 100.2186 7414419 288.3220   9.1933  1.95983490   552
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89195.11831124 -.00000029                   0   285
2 20061  54.5868  29.5793 0080698 163.2427 197.0849  2.00573534   713
1989 044B  
1 20062U          89193.27933477 0.18331712 -23867-4  49193-3 0   674
2 20062  30.2951 166.4880 0064540   2.3773 357.7413 16.35924744  3699
1989 044C  
1 20063U          89190.62410034 0.00111825  17032-4  12205-2 0   390
2 20063  37.5403   7.2226 6012784 224.5458  67.5657  4.12779176  1205
1989 045B  
1 20065U          89189.58668525 0.00012737           51370-3 0   330
2 20065  65.8410 356.1109 0028402 352.2314   7.8374 15.24711048  3678
Raduga 1-1 
1 20083U          89207.77927620 0.00000150           10000-3 0   393
2 20083   1.3949 273.2764 0005647 348.3379  12.0591  1.00270925   353
1989 048D  
1 20086U          89194.20510965 -.00000025           10000-3 0    76
2 20086   1.4319 273.6399 0021177 326.9784  33.7202  0.97889488   224
Nadezhda   
1 20103U          89213.09000256 0.00000075           74156-4 0   181
2 20103  82.9623 160.9356 0036537 208.1477 151.7704 13.73491526  3774
1989 050B  
1 20104U          89210.73341639 0.00000006                   0   134
2 20104  82.9628 162.6306 0032576 192.5149 167.5202 13.74884939  3442
Gorizont 18
1 20107U          89212.51948119 -.00000251           10000-3 0   263
2 20107   1.4683 275.5968 0003017  53.1236 307.3453  1.00278237   260
1989 052D  
1 20110U          89198.38268624 -.00000040           10000-3 0    65
2 20110   1.5129 275.7936 0028263  76.8720 284.4159  1.03064188   121
Olympus    
1 20122U          89211.18336416 -.00000184           10000-3 0   178
2 20122   0.0825 277.7447 0037800   0.6044  81.2721  0.99675348    51
1989 053B  
1 20123U          89213.05351181 0.00081092  16527-4  64579-2 0   231
2 20123   6.2536  98.6722 7303760 194.8981 118.5564  2.28000224   462
RESURS-F3  
1 20134U          89214.05556484 0.00095604  30495-5  15896-3 0   354
2 20134  82.5726  93.1928 0012886 269.2500  90.8565 16.02748942  2359
Cosmos 2031
1 20136U          89214.12557677 0.00305168  51618-4  38305-3 0   380
2 20136  50.5541  45.1625 0048523  84.6019 276.0784 16.04479885  2353
Cosmos 2032
1 20145U          89214.24825458 0.00023755           19726-4 0   355
2 20145  82.3099  84.7576 0009247  54.9818 305.2429 16.13677096    77
Cosmos 2033
1 20147U          89214.20681457 -.00057434          -95421-3 0   215
2 20147  65.0214 305.7721 0010021 275.0274  85.0349 15.52079916  1432
1989 059A  
1 20149U          89212.14362093 0.00000000          -62400-5 0   219
2 20149  82.9404  83.9463 0030210 262.3180  95.3696 13.72418511   805
1989 059B  
1 20150U          89214.02982349 0.00023267           24523-1 0   165
2 20150  82.9367  82.5382 0025109 247.0137 112.8368 13.74295366  1055
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 23:11:27 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Space Quest

To: Fred Walter <grwalter@watmath.waterloo.edu>
>In article <20259@louie.udel.EDU> you write:
>>>I have similar reservations to those of Fred Walter.  What role
>>>do you see a volunteer group playing in the scheme of things?
>>
>>>It seems to me that requirements for a successful effort are
>>>  (a) a good, obvious reason for setting up such an agency
>>>  (b) credibility and negotiating skill
>>>What is the reason for its existence, and do you see the skills and
>>>credibility being available?

>I still don't see an answer to (a). What is the benefit that the
>participating companies get ? The current 'administration' (NASA) has big
>bucks to throw around. What would the adminstration you propose to setup
>give these companies ? Would it help them get other customers ? 

As was mentioned earlier and is worth noting again, The Space Quest
Foundation would only set up the administration company and then it
would either go away, or become some type of information center.  But, it
will not interfere with the operation of the new corporation.

My idea was that the space contractors would have their own launch
facilities (if the gov will let them), their own launch vehicles, and
their own space station.

facilities (if the gov will let them), their own launch vehicles, and
their own space station.

If another company or organization wanted to put a payload in space,
the contractors' company would be competition for NASA, France, and
whoever else would be putting payloads into space at that time.

If another company wanted to have a module or facilities put on the
space station, then they would either lease or buy the space from the
contractors.  

The contractors could supply a large station with a dormitory and
general laboratories.  The station could be designed in such a way that
it could eventually hold 100+ people easily yet only hold 10 once the
first stage is complete, and add living space when needed.

There are three ways for the contractors to make a great deal of money.
I don't remember where I read it, but the next billionares will be make
in space!

- Daniel

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #585
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/oYqyM5600UkVA4VE58>;
          Sun,  6 Aug 89 03:17:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <AYqyLwu00UkVM4TU4E@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun,  6 Aug 89 03:17:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #586

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 586

Today's Topics:
	       Voyager Status for 07/25/89 (Forwarded)
			  Apollo XI landing
		   Re: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
O'Brien returns to NASA as Assistant Deputy Administrator (Forwarded)
			    Beyond Neptune
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552
	    Cheerleading (was Re: Henry's (not Weinhards))
		 Catch-A-Planet (More than a Summary)
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 23:34:59 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Voyager Status for 07/25/89 (Forwarded)


                    Voyager Status Report
                        July 25, 1989
 
 
     Images of Neptune sent back by Voyager 2 in recent days 
show evidence of surprising variability in the large-scale
weather patterns of the planet.  
 
     Two images taken 53 hours apart show the previously
observed small bright cloud breaking away from the edge of
the large dark oval that dominates Neptune's face.  
 
     A time-lapse movie of sequential Voyager images shows
several small cloud features moving across the disc of the
planet as it rotates.  (One Neptune rotation is about 18
hours.)  The smallest detail visible in the images now is
about 1,700 kilometers (1,000 miles) across.  The time-lapse
images show Neptune's atmospheric circulation and are being
used by Voyager scientists to clock wind speeds on Neptune.
 
     
 
DISTANCE TO EARTH:  2,694,587,000 miles
DISTANCE TO NEPTUNE:  27,510,000 miles
HELIOCENTRIC VELOCITY:  42,188 mph

------------------------------

Date:        TUE 25 JUL 1989 15:44:00 CDT
From: Andy Edeburn <CC62%SDSUMUS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Apollo XI landing

 Doug Pape (dbp@bcd-dyn!dsacg) writes:

>                        .......just at landing,
>something that looks like a hand holding a needle-like object appears
>in the upper right-hand side of the picture and comes down across the  w.
>window. What was that?  What did it do?

   What you saw was not an antenna but an indicator about five-feet
long that that signaled the pilot when to shut off the lower-stage
descent stage. When the probe hit the surface, the light in the cockpit
came on, the commander killed the engine, and the LEM glided the last
five feet to the surface.

| Andy Edeburn  {CC62@SDSUMUS}       | "It is always better to trust |
| Computing Center & Data Processing |   your dog, rather than your  |
| South Dakota State University      |     neighbors." - Walton      |

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 16:26:21 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

/ hpcvlx:sci.space / gvg@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel) /  9:25 am  Jul 25, 1989 /

I am sympathetic to Eugene Miya.  The tenor of rec.space is in general
the most strident of any newsgroup I read.  It is not that some of the
complaints are not justified (to say they are or are not would require
both a level of knowledge and interest I do not possess) but that after
a while they simply become numbing, and it go in one ear and out the
other.

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 750-3969                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

----------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 22:36:51 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: O'Brien returns to NASA as Assistant Deputy Administrator (Forwarded)

David W. Garrett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     July 25, 1989 


RELEASE:  89-125

O'BRIEN RETURNS TO NASA AS ASSISTANT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

     NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly today announced that 
John E. O'Brien will return to NASA as Assistant Deputy 
Administrator, NASA Headquarters, effective July 30.

     In this position, O'Brien will support the agency's efforts 
in formulating plans to implement future goals in space as 
outlined by President Bush in his July 20 speech.  Also, he will 
perform special analyses for the Administrator and be involved in 
management problem solving.

     O'Brien returns to NASA from the Washington law firm of 
Steptoe & Johnson where he specialized in defense and aerospace 
legal issues.  He previously served as NASA General Counsel from 
August 1985 to July 1988 after serving as Deputy General Counsel 
since November 1981.  He joined NASA in 1962 as staff attorney at 
NASA's Launch Operations Center, now the Kennedy Space Center.  
Prior to that position, he had served as staff attorney at the 
Navy General Counsels Office in Washington, D.C., from 1957 to 
1962.  In 1970, he was appointed Chief Counsel of the Kennedy 
Space Center and NASA Assistant General Counsel for Procurement 
Matters in 1973.

     O'Brien received the NASA Exceptional Service Medal in 1976 
and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal in 1988.  He was awarded 
the Presidential Rank of Meritorious Executive in 1980 and the 
Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive in 1988.

     O'Brien received a BA degree from Niagara University and a 
Juris Doctorate degree from Georgetown University.  During 1965-
66, he was a Princeton Fellow in Public Affairs at the Woodrow 
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton 
University.  He is a member of the D.C. Bar, Virginia State Bar, 
the Federal Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the 
International Bar Association and the International Institute of 
Space Law.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 17:07:51 GMT
From: cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Charles Daffinger)
Subject: Beyond Neptune


Ok, here's a far-fetched question..

My understanding is that after the Voyager II Neptune fly-by, Voyager
will head out of the solar system.  What possibilities are there for a
slingshot around Neptune to send the probe towards Pluto (if it could
catch the planet), or even slingshot it back towards the planets it had
already visited for yet another look, eventually bringing it towards
Earth?  Let's get a little bit more carried away and say that we could
capture the probe for analysis of anything which may have been carried
back from encounters with the distant planets, such as microscopic dust
from the outer planets.

How possible would such a maneuver be?  Are we lacking too much 
information on the planets to be able to calculate the trajectories?

Alternatively, if Voyager II heads out of the solar system, how much
longer will we be able to maintain radio contact?  Will the probe be
sending back information at that time, or will it be simply shut off 
and left to drift?


-charles

-- 
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  (812) 339-7354
cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu              {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 16:06:38 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <14479@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>The UK will be sending a cosmonaut up in 1991 (oooh, where are you Eric
>Blair!), they are not paying in SFr and although, with 13,000
>applicants[!], HMG has the luxury of making an acquaintance with Russian
>a requirement, I don't believe the Soviets themselves impose it on
>visitors.

NO, No, No! HMG has nothing whatever to do with the sending
of a UK cosmonaut to Mir.

They have done everything they can to dismantle any British
involvment with manned spaceflight as being "too expensive"
and "a joyride at the taxpayer's expense".

A group of companies have research they are wanting done in
orbit, and with the extra funding raised by sponsorship,
advertising and sales of TV rights, they will buy the launch
they need from anyone who is selling. The only sellers so far
are the Soviets.

Please do not give any credit to the myopic penny-pinchers
who seem to be doing their best to stamp out research and
education in the UK.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 25 Jul 89 13:58:01 PDT
From: Craig Cholar <3432P%NAVPGS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552


>> This one I've wondered about for 20 years.  There is the famous view
>> of the moon's surface as the Eagle was landing.  I suppose the
>> pictures were looking out through the LEM's window.  Just at landing,
>> something that looks like a hand holding a needle-like object appears in
>> the upper right-hand side of the picture and comes down across the window.
>> What was that?  What did it do?
>>
>
>I believe that is the shadow of the antenna on top of the LEM on
>the lunar surface.  The needle like object is the antenna, and the
>"hand" is the base of the antenna.

Well, that's a good guess, but I think I have the real solution...

Below each landing pad of the LEM there were long, fragile probes with
sensors mounted at the tip.  When the lunar surface was first touched
by one of the probes a console light in the LEM would turn on so the
the astronauts would know they were just about to land on the surface.
In the recording of the Apollo 11 landing one can hear an astronaut
(either Armstrong or Aldrin, I'm not sure which) say "Contact Light";
this is when the LEM first actually touched the surface of the moon, so
technically these are the very first words spoken by men on another
world.  Why am I mentioning this?  Because the shadow of one of landing
legs (with the probe dangling beneath it) is the shadow seen coming down
the screen in the landing film.  The 'hand' is the wide foot pad at the
base of the leg.

>There is lots of footage looking backward as a stage separates and
>falls away.  The cameras that took these shots were mounted in other
>stages that were eventually discarded as well.  How were the pictures
>from those cameras retrieved? ...

I don't know how those fantastic 'rear-view-mirror' shots of the Saturn
stages separating were done, either.  I've been wondering about that
for a long time, too.

Craig Cholar, 3432P@NAVPGS

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 06:22:26 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Cheerleading (was Re: Henry's (not Weinhards))

>   Neff
>>  Miya
>>> Neff

In article <14487@bfmny0.UUCP>, tneff@bfmny0 (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <4466@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (The Miya-creature) emerges
>from the NAS-cave and writes:
>>Neff writes:

>>>What's missing is getting down and dirty on the inner planets, in my
>>>view.  That's where the excitement lies.  IMAX on a sample return and
>>>rover mission!  How bout it!

>>Sounds great.  Don't see a question mark.  

>That's because I'm cheerleading more than I'm honestly questioning.

And you're admitting it!  What an important revelation!  Why don't you
spare us the cheerleading noise and do some honest questioning.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 00:41:47 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy!pedro@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Catch-A-Planet (More than a Summary)


It looks like such an interesting topic as looking for planets
around other stars died out. It's a shame. Let me summarize:

Someone's original question was about the path described by a
nearby star due to the gravitational influence of a planet.

The right answer, given by several people, was that it would be
some sort of wobble around the path described by the center of 
mass of the system.

Just from memory, I made a summary of the methods to detect a
planet: spectroscopy, infrared photometry, astrometry, and
even by detecting intelligent life living on a planet. After
all, there is a lot of serious groups looking for it, in
several countries. I did not want to start an argument about
this, but I thought it was a perfectly legal method.

What I did not understand is what religion has to do with
this, as someone pointed out. I thought it was radioastronomy. 
Anyway, I assumed that everybody was half-joking.

On the interesting side we have some points that can be/have 
been made:

1. How  hot should be an star not to allow life to develop on
its planetary system?

2. Can a planetary system form in a very hot star? 

3. Do we ALREADY have the techniques to detect other planets?
Anita Cochran (sp?) said we are very close to it, at least
from spectroscopy. Can anyone provide more updates?

4. HIPPARCOS is an astrometric satellite designed to measure
high precision parallaxes. Will it be possible to look for
planets using this satellite?

   ...and so on. So there we go. Post your answers or mail
them to me and I'll summarize. If anyone is interested...

Have a nice day, you humans.

Pedro

Pedro @ ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.EDU
BITNET: Pedro @ ohstpy.bitnet

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"I was very concerned about my significance in the Universe until
I found out that each time I use my deodorant I enlarge the
ozone hole" (R.Fontanarrosa, 1987).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 14:59:39 GMT
From: stsci!berry@noao.edu  (Jim Berry)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

From article <14486@bfmny0.UUCP>, by tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff):
> In article <1989Jul24.213346.24486@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>>Why does [HST] really need to be LEO?  Why not put it in a higher orbit?

> HST is a very heavy payload designed to be serviced by the Shuttle, which
> cannot visit orbits higher than about 300nm under any circumstances.  Hence
> it lives in LEO.  Welcome to the joys of "manned presence in space."

Actually, HST is a very LIGHT payload (it's mostly empty space, after all)
and could be boosted fairly high (still LEO, though).  The problem is that
a 'service' flight would then require that the shuttle take off empty since
any normal payloads would make it too heavy to get up to HST, so we can't
even have a high low Earth orbit.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Berry                         | UUCP:{arizona,decvax,hao}!noao!stsci!berry
Space Telescope Science Institute | ARPA:   berry@stsci.edu
Baltimore, Md. 21218              | SPAM:   SCIVAX::BERRY, KEPLER::BERRY

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #586
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YYrEsQi00UkVA5U04G>;
          Mon,  7 Aug 89 00:20:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <sYrEsJ600UkV05SE5q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon,  7 Aug 89 00:20:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #587

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 587

Today's Topics:
		   Re: It was 20 years ago today...
      Re: Electronic Journal of the ASA, Vol. I, No. I (part 2)
Truly assigns JSC's Cohen to lead NASA preparation for new civil space goals (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 17:34:08 GMT
From: meccts!viper!dave@UMN-CS.CS.UMN.EDU  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: It was 20 years ago today...

In article <1989Jul21.204236.2935@ziebmef.uucp> mdf@ziebmef.uucp (Matthew Francey) writes:
 >In article <4924@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, heberlei@iris.ucdavis.edu (Todd) writes:
 >> 
 >> Need I say anymore?
 >
 >  You may have said too much.
 >
 >  Sigh.  I can't for the life of me figure out where the celebratory mood
 >in the media and the like came from.  While watching the replay of the Great
 >Event, I could barely hold back a wail of despair when comparing what the US
 >space program once was (or might have been (or should have been)) to what it
 >is today.

It is only natural for a society to celebrate it's zenith.  Just as
England looks back on the days when she ruled the seas, the US now
looks back on her days of ascendency while the rest of the world
pushes on to explore space.


-- 
Remember Tiananmen Square.           | David Messer       dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or-
                                     | Lynx Data Systems  ...!bungia!viper!dave

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 23:27:06 GMT
From: garcon!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu  (Andrew Higgins)
Subject: Re: Electronic Journal of the ASA, Vol. I, No. I (part 2)

From: don@chara.UUCP (Donald J. Barry)

>           THE ONE DREAM MAN:  ROBERT H. GODDARD, ROCKET PIONEER
>
>                        Copyright (c) Larry Klaes

I really must object to this title.  In Goddard's own words, "God pity a one-
dream man."  Even after he devoted his life to the attainment of space
exploration, Goddard dabbled in all areas of physics, astronomy, and aviation.

>    What makes Goddard stand out is that he went beyond 
>    just theorizing about various rocket designs and actually built working 
>    models. 

Oh, and Oberth didn't? 

>        In 1920, the Smithsonian Institution published Goddard's paper 
>    on rocket concepts, "A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes", in the 
>    Smithsonian's Miscellaneous Collections (Volume 71, Number 2).

At the recent International Space Development Conference in Chicago, I had
the chance to talk to one of my heroes, Frederick I. Ordway III, who is one
of the world's leading authorities on astronautics history (and was also the
technical consultant to _2001: A Space Odyssey_).  He mentioned that Goddard's
paper ("A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes") appeared in a 20 volume
Soviet encyclopedia on astronautics published in the early 1920's.  More
copies of this encyclopedia were circulated in the Soviet Union than copies
of Goddard's original paper were printed in the U.S.!!  And people wonder
why we are second to everyone in space!
  
>    	Another book (actually a multi-volume work) on Goddard's work
>    is THE PAPERS OF ROBERT H. GODDARD, edited by G. Edward Pendray
>    and Esther C. Goddard, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.

Highly recommended.  Goddard kept a fairly thorough diary since the age of
sixteen.  The volumes also contain *all* of Goddard's correspondence.  It is
rather amusing to read the rejection letters he received from magazines like
_Scientific American_ and _Popular Science News_ for articles he had written
on spaceflight.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins	          |     Illini Space Development Society
 prometheus@uiuc.edu              |     a chapter of the National Space Society
 phone: (217) 359-0056/333-1608   |     at the University of Illinois
          P.O. Box 2255 - Station A, Champaign, IL  61825
"The ability of man to walk and actually live on other worlds has virtually
 assured mankind immortality."			- Wernher von Braun

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 21:02:48 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Truly assigns JSC's Cohen to lead NASA preparation for new civil space goals (Forwarded)


James W. McCulla
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   July 27, 1989


RELEASE:  89-126

TRULY ASSIGNS JSC's COHEN TO LEAD NASA
PREPARATION FOR NEW CIVIL SPACE GOALS


     Richard H. Truly, Administrator of NASA, today announced 
that he has asked Aaron Cohen, Director of the Johnson Space 
Center, to lead agency activities in response to the national 
goal of human exploration of the moon and the planet Mars 
announced by President Bush last week.  Cohen will be temporarily 
assigned to NASA Headquarters in Washington for the next few 
months. 

     Speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon 
landing, the President asked Vice President Quayle to lead the 
National Space Council to determine what is needed for the next 
round of exploration to establish a scientific outpost on the 
moon and begin human exploration of Mars.  Recommendations to the 
President will be influenced markedly by the NASA effort which 
Cohen will lead.  

     "From his engineering work in the early days of the Apollo 
program in the 1960s to today, when he leads the JSC team in 
support of the Shuttle and Space Station programs, Aaron has done 
outstanding work," Adm. Truly said.  "No one in the agency is as 
well suited to prepare NASA to accept the challenges of this 
historic new project.  Aaron will be calling on many other people 
across NASA to accomplish this comprehensive self-examination of 
the agency, and all of us look forward to this challenge.  JSC 
will remain in good hands during this period under the leadership 
of Paul Weitz, the Deputy Director."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #587
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4YrHSV:00UkVQ5kk4l>;
          Mon,  7 Aug 89 03:17:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <QYrHSO200UkV85j04o@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon,  7 Aug 89 03:17:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #588

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 588

Today's Topics:
		     space news from July 3 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 89 05:30:01 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from July 3 AW&ST

This is the Paris Air Show wrap-up issue, light on space news.

NASA reveals plans to do exhaustive photography of LDEF before moving it
into the payload bay on the LDEF-retrieval mission, to document the exact
surface appearance of everything before exposure to air.

Air Force Secretary recommends 70% cut in DoD Aerospace Plane funding,
saying that costs are too high and risks too great.  He does concede
that it will be six months before he can be specific about technical
objections [!].  Reports are that his opinion was based on a report from
the Rand Corp., his former employer.  A 70% cut would effectively kill
the project.

German-led industrial consortium (with members in US, France, and Italy)
beign formed to develop a privately-owned retrievable unmanned space
platform called "Amica".  ESA is considering turning Eureca, a similar
rig developed with ESA money, over to the group.  This would provide two
vehicles for industrial materials work in the early 1990s.  The group
is already marketing platform space to NASA, ESA, and the French and
Italian space agencies; it will concentrate on government-agency payload
sponsors initially, with a gradual shift to commercial customers later.
Construction will be financed with payload deposits and bank loans.
NASA is a crucial customer; Amica does not want NASA money, but wants to
trade payload space for free or cheap shuttle deployment and retrievals.
NASA is interested but wary.  Eureca is scheduled to fly (for ESA) in
mid-1991, and it would then be turned over to the Amica group.  Amica
itself would fly for six months in 1992, after which the platforms would
alternate in doing one six-month mission per year.  ESA plans to use
most of the second and third Eureca flights but has made no commitment
to Amica yet.

British astronaut to fly to Mir in 1991.  The mission, dubbed "Juno", is
now official, with the signing of the contract in Moscow.  It will be
financed by sponsorship and merchandising (!), sale of payload space,
and broadcasting rights.  About L16M is needed all told.  Two astronaut
candidates are being sought; they will start 18 months of training at
Star City in November.  They will learn Russian as part of this.  [I'm
surprised at this -- I'd have expected that to be a prerequisite -- but
maybe they decided there weren't enough people who could meet it.  If I
recall correctly, nominal training for a Mir flight is one year, so
the Soviets are allowing extra time for it.  They may also be charging
extra, as L16M is about twice the reported "going rate".]  The mission
will be 8 days long in spring 1991.  The backup candidate will spend
the time doing the same experiments on the ground.

ESA's Olympus broadcast satellite arrives in Ottawa for checkout before
shipment to Kourou.

First pictures of the new Soviet SL-16 booster.  This is the one whose
first stage is also the Energia strap-on.  At least 11 have been launched
since first flight in 1985, mostly carrying military snoopsats.  A new
version of the Progress freighter is being developed for SL-16 launch.
Capacity to LEO is 30 klbs.  [Sounds like Progress II is going to be a
whole lot bigger than the current one.  SL-16 could well be meant as a
Proton replacement in the long run; payload capacity should be similar
with a third stage added.]

SSME fails during development testing:  pump shaft seizes and hydrogen
fire results, with heavy damage to the engine.  This engine was a ground
test unit, but NASA is assessing whether the problem might affect the
operational engines.

First pictures of Soviet launch activities at Plesetsk; quite good photos,
actually.  This is novel because Plesetsk is primarily military and was
very highly classified until recently.  It is the world's busiest launch
site, ahead of even Baikonur [nowhere else comes close to either], with
over 1200 launches to date.

Lockheed to develop threat-warning system for US military satellites, to
detect and verify attacks by antisatellite weapons.  The initial Satellite
On-board Attack Warning System unit, for delivery and launch in 1992,
will include detection of microwaves, laser light, and impacts.  There
have been suspected cases of "interference" with US satellites
in the past, although details are classified.  A major goal of SOARS
is unambiguous determination of whether trouble is an attack or an
on-board technical problem.  Low-profile attacks like peppering a
satellite with projectiles could be mistaken for problems with space
debris, for example, and it is considered important that the cause of
a satellite failure be known quickly and definitely in a crisis; even
a tentative analysis can take months now.  SOARS normally gets power
and communications through its host satellite, but it includes its own
hardened backup power supply and transmitter, designed to survive an
attack that would disable the satellite.  The initial contract is for
only one unit, although there are options for two more, and Lockheed
obviously hopes to get a production contract eventually.  Later
versions might add sensors for particle beams, radio jamming, and
nuclear radiation.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #588
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YYrJCWC00UkVI5uk5l>;
          Mon,  7 Aug 89 05:17:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <AYrJCOO00UkV85t05L@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon,  7 Aug 89 05:17:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #589

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 589

Today's Topics:
	Electronic Journal of the ASA, Vol. I, No. I (part 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 18:22:59 GMT
From: eedsp!chara!don@gatech.edu  (Donald J. Barry)
Subject: Electronic Journal of the ASA, Vol. I, No. I (part 2)


           -------------------begin part 2------------------  

        
           THE ONE DREAM MAN:  ROBERT H. GODDARD, ROCKET PIONEER

                         Copyright (c) Larry Klaes

        When telescopes were introduced into astronomy during Europe's 
    Renaissance, they revolutionized humanity's oldest science.  Earth's 
    Moon was shown to be no longer a smooth, reflective disk as once 
    believed, but a crater-scarred, mountainous world not far removed in 
    constitution from the planet it orbits.  The other planets, once no 
    more than bright points of light in the night sky, were now shown to 
    be worlds themselves, all displaying discernible disks, some with 
    phases, others with surface features, and even possessing retinues of 
    moons.

        But as good as Earth-based telescopes have become, they still 
    cannot present to us the truly close-up, detailed views of the other 
    planets in the Solar System, neither can they give us direct samplings 
    of these worlds' atmospheres and minerals, nor can they bring humans 
    themselves to these places for exploration and colonization.  Such 
    abilities required the advent of the rocket to place our astronomical 
    instruments and people in space.  All this came about due to a rather 
    private, driven, frequently ill New Englander in the first half of the 
    Twentieth Century.

        Robert Hutchings Goddard (1882-1945) is looked upon as one of 
    the three main founders of modern rocketry, along with Konstantin 
    Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935) of the Soviet Union, and Hermann Oberth (born 
    1894) of Germany.  What makes Goddard stand out is that he went beyond 
    just theorizing about various rocket designs and actually built working 
    models.  In fact, Goddard launched the first liquid-fueled rocket (the 
    forerunner of most rockets used in today's various space programs) in 
    Auburn, Massachusetts, on March 16, 1926.  The flight lasted just 2.5 
    seconds, reaching an altitude of 12.3 meters (41 feet) and landing 
    (crashing, actually) 55.2 meters (184 feet) from the launch site in 
    his Aunt Effie's cabbage patch.  Today the launch site is commemorated 
    with a small monument surrounded by a busy street and numerous stores, 
    including the Auburn Mall.

        Goddard belonged to the league of misunderstood geniuses who was 
    most certainly ahead of his time.  As a teenager growing up in Worcester, 
    Massachusetts (about eighty kilometers/fifty miles west of Boston) he 
    dreamed of sending spacecraft to orbit and photograph the planet Mars 
    at a time when many people didn't even know what Mars was; and sadly 
    this is still true in some cases today.  

        Goddard attended and eventually graduated from Clark University 
    in Worcester, where he earned a degree in mechanical engineering.
    Later he taught physics at Clark and began to assemble, from among
    his students, those who would work with him later on.  Goddard 
    sustained his rocketry work with grants from the Smithsonian 
    Institution in Washington, D.C..  He always preferred to think of
    rockets in terms of space exploration.  However, to stay viable,
    he also attempted to sell the idea of rocket-borne weapons to the
    United States Army.  

        In 1920, the Smithsonian Institution published Goddard's paper 
    on rocket concepts, "A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes", in the 
    Smithsonian's Miscellaneous Collections (Volume 71, Number 2).

        Always concerned about being rejected as an "outlandish misfit", 
    Goddard tried to protect his meager funding by remaining very
    conservative in print.  After discussing some rocket fundamentals, 
    he described the rocket's potential for exploring Earth's upper 
    atmosphere directly.  

        Towards the end of his article, Goddard began to hint at his 
    thoughts for the future by detailing his plans for launching a small, 
    unmanned rocket that would be sent to Earth's Moon, wherein it would 
    strike the surface and explode its payload of flash powder, so that
    observers with telescopes could see where the rocket had landed.
    Goddard was cautious not to mention flights to Mars or any other 
    planet, as any celestial object beyond the Moon was considered by 
    many scientists at that time to be too far away from Earth to ever 
    be reached by humans, and general opinion on journeys to the Moon 
    fared little better. 

        Although published in a journal virtually unknown to the general 
    public, "A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes" did not go unnoticed,
    but it brought about the kind of attention Goddard did not want at all:  
    Regular daily newspapers grabbed his ideas and practically announced 
    that the Massachusetts scientist would be sending a manned expedition 
    to the Moon within a few years!  The prestigious NEW YORK TIMES 
    dismissed Goddard's ideas and said that he didn't even possess an 
    elementary knowledge of physics.  The TIMES' editor incorrectly thought 
    that rockets could not work in space.  He thought the exhaust from the 
    vehicle would have nothing to push against; he did not realize that the 
    rocket exhaust would be acting against the inner walls of the rocket 
    itself, thus creating the required reaction (The TIMES did not make a 
    retraction of this error on their part until the day APOLLO 11 landed 
    Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin on the Moon in July of 1969!).  

        Mary Pickford, the famous silent screen film actress, asked if she 
    could put a letter in the non-existant Moon rocket; one man insisted
    that if Goddard paid ten thousand dollars for the insurance, he would 
    fly to either the Moon or Mars without any other provisions.  

        Goddard was a very private man.  This overblown attention was 
    one of his worst fears come true.  He was also justly concerned of 
    rivals stealing his ideas and claiming them for their own.  Goddard 
    later commented that he should have written about his plans for a 
    Mars mission, as then it would have been deemed ridiculous and he 
    would have been left in peace.  Although it came close to causing 
    him to lose his funding, eventually the publicity would reach the
    right people who would help Goddard finance his dream of rocket 
    research.

        In 1929, a particularly loud rocket test in Auburn, Massachusetts 
    had neighbors believing an airplane had crashed, so they called the 
    police and fire department, who - along with the press - rushed to the 
    scene, only to find Goddard and his assistants gathering up the pieces 
    of a wrecked rocket and putting out small grass fires.

        Even though the incident was really a test with the crash of 
    the rocket fully expected by Goddard and his team, the press had a 
    different point of view and played it much differently:  One of the 
    most painful headlines told about Goddard's rocket missing the Moon 
    by "only 238,799 1/2 miles!"  After this event, Goddard was asked by 
    the local authorities not to fly rockets in the area again, as it was 
    deemed far too dangerous, particularly in a residential area (this 
    was a legitimate concern).  Goddard reluctantly took his project to 
    Hell Pond, a desolate federal artillery range at Camp (now Fort) Devens 
    in Ayer, Massachusetts, where he conducted a number of static firing 
    tests for several months.

        Fortunately for Goddard, he did not have to dwell at the range 
    for long:  Aviator Charles Lindberg - who had become quite famous 
    for crossing the Atlantic Ocean on his own in an airplane two years 
    earlier - took an interest in Goddard's concepts and decided to 
    help finance his work on rockets.  As an interesting note, Lindberg 
    was introduced to Goddard by one of the rocket pioneer's own students 
    and a former associate of the Wright Brothers:  Edwin Aldrin, Sr., 
    father of Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr., the astronaut who landed on the 
    Moon with Neil Armstrong in APOLLO 11 on July 20, 1969, and became 
    the second human being to directly explore another world.    

        Lindberg also convinced philanthropist Daniel Guggenheim to help 
    fund Goddard and move his entire operation to Eden Valley near Roswell, 
    New Mexico.  There Goddard could test his new developments in the 
    comparative safety and peace of the wide open desert.  Goddard's 
    research would be a prelude to the thousands of rocket tests which 
    would be conducted in that part of the United States in the decades 
    to follow, all descended from the launch of that primitive liquid-
    fueled rocket on a farm in Auburn in 1926.

        Here in the desert, Goddard did some of his best work, testing 
    parachute systems to recover rockets and their payloads, constructing 
    stabilizing fins and gyroscopes to keep rockets flying straight, and 
    even putting simple meteorological instruments aboard some flights to 
    study the weather.  During this entire time, Goddard's staff never 
    numbered more than seven people:  Five machinists (some of whom hadn't 
    even graduated from high school), his wife Esther (who took the 
    photographs and extinguished fires), and Goddard himself.  The man 
    who wrote about rockets to the Moon never got any of his rockets higher 
    than 2,250 meters (7,500 feet), though distance was only one of many 
    important aspects of his rocket development.

        Despite all this work, Goddard and his rockets were generally 
    unknown to the American public, and many of his ideas went unrecognized 
    until several decades after his death in 1945.  Ironically, his ideas 
    did not go unnoticed by the Germans, particularly Wernher von Braun, 
    who took Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them 
    into building the A-4 series of rockets - better known as the V-2 - 
    which constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War 
    Two.  The Army also adopted only one major and direct facet of Goddard's 
    concepts in his lifetime, the antitank weapon known as the bazooka.
    Eventually, the United States Patent Office would posthumously recognize 
    214 patents in all for various rocket designs invented by Goddard.

        Goddard was visionary in his dreams for space travel:  Nuclear and 
    ion-powered rockets, solar-powered satellites, solar sails, even methods 
    for communicating with extraterrestrial intelligences.  The proposed 
    (but never built) American probe to Comet Halley in 1986 had incorporated 
    in two of its design plans ion power and solar sails as possible methods 
    of propulsion to reach the comet.  Goddard even felt that rockets would 
    also pave the way to save the human race in the far distant future when 
    Earth's Sun will begin to expand into a red giant star and envelope Earth, 
    vaporizing it along with Mercury and Venus.  He proposed that humanity 
    use its no doubt advanced skills to construct habitats inside large 
    planetoids (less correctly known as asteroids) and then propel them out 
    of the Solar System using some distant descendants of his primitive 
    rockets to other, still viable star systems, where humans could find 
    new planets to live on and continue the existence of the species.

        Today, Goddard's designs and dreams have either become realities
    or at least well-used plot concepts in science fiction.  Because of 
    his work, we have been able to study lunar minerals first hand, search 
    Mars for signs of life, find active volcanoes and frozen oceans on the 
    moons of Jupiter, and view the Milky Way and other galaxies with a 
    clarity unavailable within the turbulent atmosphere of Earth.  As 
    rocket expert Jerome Hunsaker said of the man from Worcester, "Every 
    liquid-fueled rocket that flies is a Goddard rocket."

        Some recommended reading:

        Anne Perkins Dewey, ROBERT GODDARD: SPACE PIONEER, Little, Brown 
    and Company, Boston, 1962, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 
    62-8309 (hardcover).

    	Milton Lehman's 1963 biography on Goddard, THIS HIGH MAN, was
    reprinted in 1988 by Da Capo Press, New York, with the title ROBERT 
    H. GODDARD: PIONEER OF SPACE RESEARCH, ISBN 0-306-80331-3 (paperback). 
    
    	Another book (actually a multi-volume work) on Goddard's work
    is THE PAPERS OF ROBERT H. GODDARD, edited by G. Edward Pendray
    and Esther C. Goddard, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.


                    THE CHARA MULTI-TELESCOPE TELESCOPE
 
                             by Hal McAlister
 
         Astronomers at Georgia State University's (GSU) Center for High
    Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA) have developed a novel approach
    to the design of inexpensive telescopes having significant light
    collecting power.  The new design concept calls for nine 
    32.75-centimeter (13.1-inch) diameter parabolic mirrors to be arranged
    in a 3x3 configuration.  All nine mirrors are carried on a common
    mount, but each mirror directs its collected light to a separate 
    focus - hence the name Multi-Telescope Telescope, or MTT.  At each 
    of the nine foci is located an optical fiber to carry the collected 
    light to a spectrograph, or other instrument, located indoors away 
    from the telescope.  Because the nine optical fibers feed the same 
    instrument, the MTT acts as if it were a larger single-mirror telescope.  
    A standard telescope with equivalent light collecting power would cost
    $500,000, but because of the low cost and weight of small mirrors, the
    CHARA MTT, including spectrograph, solid state detector system, and
    shelter is estimated to cost about one-tenth that amount. 

         The MTT design was originated by CHARA astronomer William G.
    Bagnuolo.  With the collaboration of Georgia Tech faculty members
    William Russell of the College of Architecture and John Dorsey of the
    School of Electrical Engineering, a design concept combining rigid
    light weight mechanical support structures with inexpensive real-time
    electronic control systems has been developed.  Dr. Bagnuolo's
    interest in telescope design grew out of the CHARA Array project, in
    which considerable effort was expended to take advantage of modern
    technology to develop inexpensive telescopes. 

         CHARA members Douglas Gies, Ingemar Furenlid, and Don Barry, all
    members of the Society, are also participants in the project, which
    has been proposed for funding to the National Science Foundation
    (NSF).  Accompanying the telescope would be a dedicated spectrograph
    similar to one designed by Dr. Furenlid and built for use with the
    210-centimeter (84-inch) telescope operated by the Mexican government
    in Sonora, Mexico.  The MTT with its spectrograph will give CHARA a
    powerful new capability for carrying out programs of high signal-to-
    noise stellar spectroscopy.  Planned research programs include the 
    accurate measurement of Doppler velocity orbital motions in binary 
    star systems that are also under scrutiny in CHARA's programs of 
    speckle interferometry and the study of emission features arising in 
    the spectra of so-called Be stars in order to determine whether 
    pulsations in the stellar atmosphere are responsible for the disk-like 
    gaseous envelopes surrounding the stars. 

         Because of the minimal obscuration of light by the fiber support
    structure and the ability to use very high reflectivity coatings on
    the 32.75-centimeter (13.1-inch) mirrors, the MTT, when used for
    spectroscopy, will have the effective light gathering power of a
    135-centimeter (54-inch) telescope.  The CHARA MTT will thus be the
    largest telescope in the southeastern U.S.  It is hoped that the new
    facility can be operational before the end of 1990. 
  

                    A VIEW FROM TAIWAN: WEAN-SHUN TSAY
 
                   An interview by Edmund G. Dombrowski

         Editor's Note:  Wean-Shun Tsay recently completed his thesis
    work for his Ph.D. in astronomy, the first such degree to be 
    bestowed in the history of Georgia.
 
         Society member Wean-Shun Tsay is an astrophysics graduate student
    at Georgia State University under the direction of Dr. Harold A.
    McAlister of CHARA.  He entered the GSU Ph.D. program in the fall of
    1986 after obtaining a Masters degree from Yale. 

         Currently completing his doctoral dissertation, Wean will soon
    graduate, and then return to his homeland of Taiwan to continue
    research in astrophysics.  I interviewed Wean on the morning of 
    June 15, 1989: 
   
         Ed:  I guess a good place to start is your educational background. 
    You obtained a bachelor's degree in physics from the National Central
    University in Taiwan.  Then you came over to the United States to
    attend Yale University at which you earned your Masters degree.   What
    was that transition like, first of all, coming from Taiwan to the U.S.? 

         Wean:  There was a big difference, because during the first half of
    the year when I arrived the language was a big problem; but it was
    fortunate that I had a couple of classmates who really helped me a lot. 
 
         Ed:  How was your experience at Yale University and the Department
    of Astronomy there? 

         Wean:  Yale was my first exposure to the U.S.  It was quite
    different from what I expected before I came.  As you know, the Yale
    Astronomy Department has a very strong background in galactic and
    globular cluster research, and I believe half of the students are
    working on theoretical research.  Most of them are Pierre Demarque's
    students.  [Editor's Note:  Pierre Demarque is a well known 
    astrophysicist who has contributed much to the field of stellar 
    dynamics and evolution].

         Ed:  So you were concentrating more on the experimental.

         Wean:  Yes, it's a big difference.  I wasn't expecting to do much
    theoretical work when I went there. 

         Ed:  Whom did you end up working with for your degree?  And what
    was your master's research? 

         Wean:  van Altena, [Dr. William van Altena].  Most of the research
    I was working on dealt with a PDS machine.  I studied there two years
    and after I graduated I worked for Van Altena for one year, working on
    the PDS, scanning 21 or 22 4-meter plates, from Kitt Peak. 

         Ed:  What is the PDS machine?
    
         Wean:  The PDS machine was designed by van Altena; he improved 
    the commercial type of PDS machine created by the Perkin Elmer company. 
    The original design allowed hospitals to scan x-ray pictures.  The
    machine scans a 20x20 inch (50x50 centimeter) area.  van Altena 
    purchased this one in order to do proper motion studies on big plates.  
    Since the original accuracy of this machine is only 5 microns, he tried 
    to improve it.  The first step involved using a micrometer which had a 
    micron separation between each mark, so the best accuracy with the older
    device was 0.8 micron after several scans.  Later he used a laser
    interferometer to improve this machine.  I went to Yale just at this
    time, so I did a lot with the laser interferometer, making many
    adjustments, scanning data,  and later on improving the machine to
    about the limitation of the grain noise of the plate, which is about
    0.2 to 0.3 micron. 

         Ed:  By a photographic plate, I suppose you mean the machine scans
    over the plate and detects a dark, exposed source.  What specifically
    are you recording? 

         Wean:  The plates I was working on were 8x10 inches in size. 
    The active area was about 8 inches in diameter, and each plate 
    contained more than a million star images.  The brightest stars were 
    about twelfth magnitude, and went down to magnitude 21-22.  The first 
    step of analysis uses a fast scanning mode to search through the whole 
    plate to create a scanning catalogue.  After this, the results were 
    added to the original catalogue which holds about 20,000 stars.  If 
    you go down much fainter than 21 or 22 magnitudes, you get many more 
    stars, but the signal to noise of these are poor.  Then you take out 
    the brighter objects and fit them to two-dimensional profiles, because 
    experience shows that this method gives the most accurate positions 
    compared with other types.  Maybe other types of fitting can do better, 
    but they can't offer higher accuracy on the position.  van Altena was 
    interested in astrometry, or accurately fitting the positions of these 
    stars. 

         Ed:  While you were working for him, how many stars do you think
    you personally measured? 

         Wean:  After the first scan I reduced the search catalogue to
    about 9,000 stars.  I used the first five plates for trigonometric
    purposes.  For this you need to take one picture every half year.  For
    best results you must take five pictures every half year over two and
    one half years to get five points of data.  This data gives you the
    parallax information.  That's the basic idea, and I took the best
    plates on each epoch, and scanned through those for 9,000 stars and
    ran them through the parallax program.  From this information, I
    deleted some more data which were poor spots.  The final catalogue is
    around 5,000 stars on a small plate.  It's only half a degree in the
    sky over the whole region. 

         Ed:  After this, you eventually got your Master's degree from Yale
    and came down to Georgia to attend GSU.  It's a big enough move from
    Taiwan to the U.S., but now you had to move from a northern state to a
    southern state.  What was that like?  Did you notice a different life
    style between the North and the South? 

         Wean:  The big difference between GSU and Yale is that Yale is a
    big university town.  GSU has only a few buildings and is a smaller
    place.  That was a big difference for me.  You have to rent off campus
    here, and use transportation.  The weather is also quite different
    between the North and the South. 

         Ed:  Which do you like better?

         Wean:  I like both, but Atlanta has weather which is much like 
    my home country. 

         Ed:  Yes, I can see how that would be easier to get used to. 
    Could you describe basically your work at GSU which has led to your 
    thesis under Hal McAlister. 

         Wean:  Right now, my topic for dissertation is trying to find a
    site for the future CHARA interferometer array.  That's the basic
    purpose.  This is also very interesting to me because I am working
    with various instruments and technical equipment.  I especially like
    the  CCD camera work.  Even though I used a commercial one, with high
    resolution and low price, I still learned a lot about CCD cameras. 
    Also since I am planning to go back to my home country, I believe this
    site survey project is very useful for me for my later research in 
    Taiwan. 

         Ed:  Your writing your thesis now, and finishing your dissertation.  
    You are expecting to graduate by the end of this summer.  I know you 
    have a wife and son, and they have both constantly moved back and 
    forth between here and Taiwan:  How has this been for them? 

         Wean:  For the first two years when my wife came to the US while
    we were still at Yale, she was not very comfortable with the
    environment there, because she has a very large family in Taiwan, and
    here there were only her and myself, before we had our baby; but when
    we moved down here, her brother joined us.  He is studying here at
    GSU.  In Atlanta, there are more Chinese people and there is the
    Chinese Community Center, and the Farmer's Market where we can buy
    authentic Chinese food. 

         Ed:  It was more difficult in Connecticut?

         Wean:  Yes, because we had to drive one and a half hours to New
    York City or two and a half hours to Boston. 

         Ed:  Was the cost of living that different?

         Wean:  We paid more rent up there than here, but the
    transportation is more expensive here than there. 

         Ed:  You mentioned that there's a big Chinese community down here
    in Atlanta, and there are a lot of Chinese students here.  In light of
    what's happened recently in China, do you think that that's going to
    put a damper on Chinese students coming over here to the United States? 

         Wean:  I think in the near future the students who have already
    applied and have been approved will have some problems coming in, or
    maybe unfortunately they have already died. 

         Ed:  Do you think we'll probably see a withdrawal of the Chinese
    student population for a while? 

         Wean:  I hope that this will be finished in about half of a year.

         Ed:  Do you think things will improve now?

         Wean:  I don't know, because the Communists are trying to
    disconnect all the information to the free world. 

         Ed:  What do you think Taiwan's role will be in any of this in the
    future.  Do you think they'll have more of a role than they have now? 

         Wean:  I think Taiwan will keep going on like right now.  As you
    know, currently, Taiwan doesn't officially support the students at
    Tinianmen Square, and most of the supplies go through the Red Cross
    association, through the patient's branch.  So most of the work is
    done through the government.  The Taiwan government is trying to keep
    some distance from the situation to somehow avoid the problems between
    China and Taiwan. 

         Ed:  It could still be a very tense situation when you return. 
    When you do go back to Taiwan, you'll have your Ph.D. in Astrophysics.
    Where will you be working? 

         Wean:  I'll be working at my home university, the National Central
    University.  I'll be going in as an Associate Professor in Astronomy. 
    The system is different from the university system here.  In the
    coming two years, however, the university law will change, and we'll
    adapt some kind of system like in the US. 

         Ed:  What kind of work do you plan to do in astronomy?

         Wean:  I think I will continue the site surveying because in
    Taiwan we only have a 24-inch (60-centimeter) telescope for research
    and education.  The site is very close to the city, about 30 miles 
    (48 kilometers) south from Taipei.  The population there is probably
    30,000 people at the site, so there are lots of city lights and light
    pollution there. 
 
         Ed:  So you'll take your knowledge from here and apply it there? 
    What essentially were you doing here?  What was your setup like? 

         Wean:  The seeing monitor was designed by Nat White of Lowell
    Observatory, and Bill Bagnuolo here at CHARA.  The basic idea is to
    use a CCD camera attached on a C-14 telescope and then take the star
    image at a fast speed.  This kind of technology lets one directly take
    the image profile from the CCD array and find the width to determine
    the seeing during the moment. 

         Ed:  To describe it, you're taking a star image and looking at the
    image profile you get which is highly dependent on the turbulence in
    the atmosphere.  And so, based on fitting Gaussian profiles to these
    you can tell what the seeing is like at that time.  I guess a good
    description of the seeing would be how the star images vary over a
    certain period of time. 

         Wean:  Yes.  For this kind of seeing test you have two or three
    ways of doing this.  The first way is the direct image profile
    measurement, which involves trying to fit the profile to a Gaussian or
    some other kind of model profile, and to determine the full width at
    half maximum.  The other two ways use the image motion to describe how
    the atmospheric turbulence affects the plane wave when the light
    passes through it, that is, how the light is disturbed. 

         Ed:  A lot of readers are observers in this area.  Recently I was
    looking at a chart Bill Bagnuolo prepared for the Georgia area which
    showed a plot of mean cloud cover versus time.  The mean cloud cover
    looks almost the same as the plot for Arizona, with Arizona being
    better by only 20 percent.  At a site such as the Hard Labor Creek
    observatory, what do you think the prospects are for seeing and good
    observing? 

         Wean:  I think in the future before I go back to Taiwan, and after
    I have done my dissertation, I may spend some time doing some tests
    there.  It looks like a pretty good site. I expect good results. 

         Ed:  After you go back to Taiwan, you'll do more site surveys.  
    Do you think you'll ever travel back to the US? 

         Wean:  I think so.  Presently, the National Central University has
    very generous funding.  They have 400,000 dollars for setting up an
    instrument there.  I think I have a very good chance to get some money
    to do this particular research.  I would like to cooperate with CHARA
    to do some kind of site testing both here and in Taiwan.  Maybe we
    will need help from the CHARA group.  I would also like to invite the
    amateur astronomers here to visit Taiwan because Taiwan is about two-
    thirds mountainous area, and more than 16 mountains are higher than 
    10,000 feet (3,000 meters).  I have seen some pictures that amateur 
    astronomers took from these areas and they show pretty good seeing. 

         Ed:  Speaking of amateurs, are there many groups over there that
    are really interested in astronomy? 

         Wean:  Most of them are in the university astronomy club.

         Ed:  But, in general, is there a big interest in astronomy in Taiwan?

         Wean:  Right now the economics in Taiwan is much better than ten
    or twenty years ago, and the young people are playing with their
    personal computers because right now Taiwan is one of the most
    important suppliers of personal computers.  Many people also have 
    the money to purchase telescopes. 

         Ed:  At one time China was one of the dominant civilizations
    contributing to astronomy.  It was a distinct part of the Chinese
    culture and folklore.  Do you think that presently astronomy is 
    making a resurgence in both China and Taiwan? 

         Wean:  Yes.  That's another reason I'm going back to Taiwan,
    because most of the money at the university is from the government,
    and the Education Administration is trying to develop the astronomy
    program.  They are well aware that the Chinese have about 4,000 or
    5,000 years of recorded history of celestial objects.  Many people are
    also interested in astrology, but people still confuse this with
    astronomy.  That may be another purpose for developing an astronomy
    program, so that we can educate people with more astronomical common
    sense. 

         Ed:  That's good.  You're trying to get across the idea that there
    is a big difference between astrology and astronomy, and bring the
    science up to where it should be.  Well, I'm sure you'll do well no
    matter what pursuit you tackle first.  Thank you very much for your
    time and we wish you all the luck and good fortune when you return to
    Taiwan. 

         Wean:  Thank you.

     THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC 

                        August 1989 - Vol. 1, No. 1.

                         Copyright (c) 1989 - ASA


-- 
Donald J. Barry       (404) 651-2932         | don%chara@gatech.edu
Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy | President, Astronomical
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303  | Society of the Atlantic

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #589
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYrd0B600UkVQ0iU4u>;
          Tue,  8 Aug 89 03:47:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YYrczm-00UkVI0fU5H@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue,  8 Aug 89 03:46:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #590

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 590

Today's Topics:
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
			  Re: Beyond Neptune
       Launch advisory:  Launch date set for STS-28 (Forwarded)
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
		  Re: powering down old experiments
		    Computers on the space station
		  Re: Computers on the space station
		       News of the Week, Jul 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 17:19:58 GMT
From: meccts!viper!dave@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <1989Jul23.215443.15698@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
 >-- 
 >1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
 >1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think that is a little harsh.  It should be:
  1961-1972:  11 years of Apollo.
  1972-1989:  17 years of nothing.

Be fair Henry.  ;-)



-- 
Remember Tiananmen Square.           | David Messer       dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or-
                                     | Lynx Data Systems  ...!bungia!viper!dave

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 13:58:32 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!briar.philips.com!rfc@uunet.uu.net  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Re: Beyond Neptune

In article <23792@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) writes:
>
>My understanding is that after the Voyager II Neptune fly-by, Voyager
>will head out of the solar system.  What possibilities are there for a
>slingshot around Neptune to send the probe towards Pluto?

I remember seeing a question like this in Planetary Report.  The answer was
that, to get to Pluto, that Voyager would have to fly past Neptune so close to
its center of mass that it would hit Neptune's surface.  Not too practical.
They also said that the probe would stay in radio range for something like 20
years, and the probe would observe interplanetary space and maybe reach the
edge of the helieopause (sp).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hope China (and elsewhere) gets democracy soon

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 22:51:05 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Launch advisory:  Launch date set for STS-28 (Forwarded)

Sarah Keegan
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 26, 1989


LAUNCH ADVISORY:  LAUNCH DATE SET FOR STS-28


     NASA officials, meeting at a Flight Readiness Review at 
Kennedy Space Center, Fla., today set Aug. 8, 1989, as the launch 
date for STS-28.  The launch period for the Department of 
Defense-dedicated Space Shuttle mission will be from 7:30 to 
11:30 a.m. EDT.  This schedule depends upon completion of work in 
progress and cooperative weather allowing normal pad activities 
to continue uninterrupted.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 14:34:18 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!arrom@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

>even have a high low Earth orbit.

I understand what you mean, but somehow the phrase "high low Earth orbit" sounds
a bit strange...
--
"The fact is self evident from the text and requires no supporting argument."
  --Tim Maroney

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 19:41:20 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!leem@rutgers.edu  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: powering down old experiments

In article <1452@tellab5.tellabs.CHI.IL.US> zantow@tellab5.UUCP (Al Zantow) writes:
:>>APOLLO-11 LUNAR EXPERIMENT STILL USEFUL AFTER 20 YEARS
:>>
:>    And a whole bunch of the powered experiments might still be useful
:>if they hadn't been turned off in the 70's.  The same wonderful cost
:>effectiveness that nearly turned off the DSN for Voyager's Neptune
:>encounter.
:>--
:
:	I seem to recall that they shut down some of the Viking (?) or
:Mariner craft on Mars to "save money".   

None of the Mariner or Viking spacecraft were turned off to save
money.  All of the Mariner and the Viking orbiters were turned off
when they ran out of attitude control propellant.  Viking lander I was
shut down for technical reasons I don't recall, and Viking lander II
was inadvertantly commanded to point its antenna the wrong direction
and was never recovered.

Lee

"I'm the NRA"

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516      
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem  leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 89 08:40:34 CDT
From: hess@beetle.mayo.edu (d. scott hess)
Subject: Computers on the space station

[QUOTE]
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob
 Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Procurement and future computers
>From article <8907052107.AA11153@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, by
 roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts):
>
>>From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
>>	<spouting about his dream machine for a bit>
>	<asks a computer question>

The extra 8 bits can be used for a number of different things. Overlay
planes, for things like menus and cursors, underlay planes, for
backgrounds, window priority, how you interpret the rest of the bits
in the pixel... 8 bits really isn't enough. I'd like 16 bits just for
window IDs.
 
Anyway, for many applications 24 bits of color just isn't good enough
9 bits of RGB is needed. For a true 3D display you also need something
like a z buffer. 16 bits of z isn't always "good enough."  I've met
people who will not be happy until they can get a 32 bit floating
point z buffer. And of course, if you want stereo you need double
buffering.
 
Lets see, that's 27 bits of color, times 2 for stereo, plus 16 for
window bits plus 24 for z is 94 bits per pixel. It doesn't look that
hard to come up with a frame buffer design that uses more than 100
bits per pixel.
 
A 24 bit true color frame buffer might impress computer people, like
me. But it doesn't cut it with artists. Or with scientist who are
trying to simulate reality.
 
            Bob P.

[ENDQUOTE]

Come now!  Nobody on Earth has that yet!  What do you want, holographic
thing-a-ma-jigs floating around!  Can steer by waving your hand around?
Most scientists ON THE GROUND would like to have this.  I don't think
its going to be there.

As a computer science student (and formerly physics), I'm well aware
that we are very happy with 24-bit color.  But do you think we'd not
like 128-bit color?  Probably.  We aren't hiding machines in our closets
just to spite you.  The problem is, 24-bit color is still
state-of-the-art,  while higher is in the works.  Don't think we've
given up here.  And don't whine about us being impressed.  I'm sure your
impressed every once and a while by new technology.  I think that
24-bits is now a fact of life.

I do have a question:  can YOU differentiat between 16,772,216 colors?
With 256 possible shadings (or hues, or whatnot) for each?  I'm pretty
sure I can't.

This stuff belongs in sci-fi, or a computer list.  Not here.

Rantings brought to you by:
Scott Hess
Scott@gacvax1.bitnet			<< The only address which works.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 20:28:17 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Ralf Brown)
Subject: Re: Computers on the space station

In article <8907261340.AA04296@beetle.Mayo.edu> hess@BEETLE.MAYO.EDU (d. scott hess) writes:
}[QUOTE]
}From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob
} Pendleton)
}9 bits of RGB is needed. For a true 3D display you also need something
}like a z buffer. 16 bits of z isn't always "good enough."  I've met
}people who will not be happy until they can get a 32 bit floating
}point z buffer. And of course, if you want stereo you need double
}buffering.
} 
}Lets see, that's 27 bits of color, times 2 for stereo, plus 16 for
}window bits plus 24 for z is 94 bits per pixel. It doesn't look that
}hard to come up with a frame buffer design that uses more than 100
}bits per pixel.
}[ENDQUOTE]
}
}Come now!  Nobody on Earth has that yet!  

That's right, YET.  My officemate programs a Silicon Graphics "Personal IRIS"
workstation which has 56 bit planes (24-bit color, 24-bit Z, 8-bit control)
with about 1200x900 resolution.  We're over halfway there already....


-- 
{backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf   ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU   FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA   AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school)   FAX: ask
DISCLAIMER? | "Can you put my obfuscation into words?" -- Corky Cartwright
What's that?| "This is instantaneous, which is pretty fast." -- Dick Conway

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 21:25:22 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of the Week, Jul 26


Jonathan's Space Report

Jul 26, 1989 (no. 20)

Twenty years on ... 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

OV-102 Columbia is on the pad. The payload is a new imaging
recon satellite, presumably KH-12. (AvLeak, latest issue).
Mission STS-28 is due for early August.

One of the oldest satellites in orbit has reentered; the Sergeant rocket
used to launch Explorer VII in Oct 1959 burnt up on 16 July.  This is
the first time that a satellite of this vintage has reentered since 1982
(a fragment from Vanguard 3) and 1970 (Explorer I).  Still in orbit are
(from 1958) Vanguard I, its final stage rocket, and a separation clamp
which had connected them; and (from 1959) Vanguard 2, its final stage
rocket, and Explorer VII itself.  (In deep space, we also have the first
Luna AMS, its Blok-E final stage, the US Army Pioneer IV, and its
Sergeant final stage.)

The Japanese satellite Ohzora reentered on Jul 19 after 5 years in space;
and BP-26, a boilerplate Apollo spacecraft launched on a Saturn I test,
reentered on Jul 8.

Kosmos-2028 landed on Jul 6 after 20 days in orbit.  This is the first
time that a standard Vostok-type recon satellite has flown such a long
mission, although the same spacecraft type has flown 20-day missions in
the Resurs-F and biosatellite programs. 

The Kosmos-2020 recon satellite reentered on Jul 15 after two months in
orbit.  It was replaced by Kosmos-2030 launched on Jul 12

Another Resurs-F remote sensing satellite was launched on Jul 18,
together with two Pion air density subsatellites.  This satellite seems
to be on a mission similar to the first Resurs-F, while the second
Resurs-F was a short duration flight which released no subsatellites. 

Kosmos-2031, launched on Jul 18, is a recon satellite in an unusual 50.6
degree orbit. 

Kosmos-2032 was launched on Jul 20 into a low altitude 82 degree polar
orbit.  Satellites in such an orbit are usually announced as being
operated by the Priroda remote sensing center, but there is about one
exception a year, and this is it.  It may be a military recon satellite
with a target in the far north. 

Kosmos-2033 was launched on Jul 24.

 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #590
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4YreOsK00UkVI0tU5h>;
          Tue,  8 Aug 89 05:24:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YYreOiS00UkVM0rk5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue,  8 Aug 89 05:23:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #591

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 591

Today's Topics:
	Electronic Journal of the ASA Vol. I, No. I  (Part I)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 18:22:17 GMT
From: eedsp!chara!don@gatech.edu  (Donald J. Barry)
Subject: Electronic Journal of the ASA Vol. I, No. I  (Part I)


                         THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF 
                 THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC

                     Volume 1, Number 1 - August 1989
         
                       ###########################        
    
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                       ###########################

         * Introduction: Welcome to the EJASA - Don Barry
       
         * ASA Membership Information - Don Barry

         * Astronomy Week in Georgia - Don Barry
 
         * Neptune: Rediscovery by Voyager 2 - Edward F. Albin        
 
         * The One Dream Man: Robert H. Goddard, Rocket Pioneer - Larry Klaes

         * The CHARA Multi-Telescope Telescope - Hal McAlister

         * A View from Taiwan: Wean-Shun Tsay 

           - Interview by Edmund G. Dombrowski 

                         ##########################

                            Welcome to the EJASA

                                by Don Barry

                President, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
 
         Bridging the gulf between human creative impulse and shared
    knowledge lies the realm of communication, spanning the first primal
    sounds conjured by Australopithecus millions of years ago, culminating
    in the elegant crypticisms of modern mathematical typography.  Arguably 
    a neglected stepchild of science and art, the medium of scientific 
    dissemination has always lagged its parent in both theory and practice. 

         Science and scientific enlightenment has therefore depended on
    whim and luck for spread.  Occasionally, in catastrophic turns, such
    as at the extinguishment of the mighty Alexandrian Library in the
    Second Century A.D., culture itself has fallen with the death of the
    communication medium which gave it life.  Where would Science be
    without Sir Edmund Halley, who convinced (and funded) Sir Isaac
    Newton's PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, which stands as a lighthouse at the
    end of the empiricism of the lesser ages?  When Boltzmann, moved by
    Maxwell's electromagnetic theory to quote Goethe's Faust:  "Who was
    the God who wrote these lines," perhaps he should have paid equal
    tribute to the established system which facilitated the printing and
    communication of the Equations which would prove so inspiring 
    to him. 
 
         In the spirit of these modern times, then, the Astronomical
    Society of the Atlantic is embarking on a new venture.  At a year's
    age, and from modest beginnings, the Society's printed Journal has
    grown into a sixteen-page monthly affair, sharing the knowledge and
    experience of professional and amateur astronomers alike.  It is time
    for new growth, with a bent for the future.  Currently disseminated to
    over forty amateur organizations, who enjoy, contribute, and further
    spread information on amateur astronomy, the Journal is going Electronic. 
 
         Although continuing in printed form, the Journal will be published
    monthly on USENET and other computer networks under a different
    editor - Larry Klaes of Boston, Massachusetts.  The Electronic Journal 
    of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, EJASA for short, will 
    reproduce the most suitable articles from the printed version, and 
    will also feature submitted articles from the pool of astronomers - 
    amateur and professional alike - on USENET, which will sometimes make 
    their way into the printed Journal.  The two publications will be
    "separate but equal", will expand readership, and will hopefully 
    encourage serious amateur and professional astronomers to begin to
    consider the networks as attractive alternatives for publication of
    authentic research efforts.  Although the Journal will begin on a
    popular level, it is intended that it eventually include articles of
    serious scientific content, although accessible to the usual reader 
    of the astronomy and space discussion forums. 
 
         In this adventure, we are poised at the crux of a new form of
    publishing.  Our form, content, and direction will be dictated by the
    admittedly vague progress of computer networking.  We ask for your
    patience, constructive criticism, and support in the coming year; and
    not in the least, we encourage the submission of articles for possible
    inclusion in the EJASA. 
 
         It is our intent that amateurs across the nation view the EJASA 
    as a resource for their benefit.  We encourage the excerpting or full
    reprinting of articles in local amateur astronomy publications, and
    also the submission of personal efforts, in writing or software
    development, so that they may be added to the publicly accessible
    archives of the Society. 
 
         From spoken, to written, to printed, to electronically stored, 
    the word is a powerful element for conveyance of ideas.  We hope that 
    this latest effort in the scientific community through communication 
    will be worthy of the technology on which it is built. 

         ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS - 

         Please send your on-line articles on astronomy and space 
    exploration to Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, at the following net 
    addresses:  klaes@renoir.dec.com, or ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes,
    or klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com

         If you cannot send your articles to Larry, please submit them
    to Don Barry, ASA President, at the following net addresses:
    don%chara@gatech.edu, or chara!don@gatech.edu

         You may also use the above net addresses for EJASA backissue
    requests and ASA membership information. 
     
         DISCLAIMER - 

         Submissions are welcome for consideration.  Articles submitted,
    unless otherwise stated, become the property of the Astronomical
    Society of the Atlantic, and although they will not be used for
    profit, are subject to editing, abridgment, and other changes.
    This Journal is (c) copyright 1989 by the Astronomical Society of 
    the Atlantic.


                       ASA MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION

         The Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic 
    is published monthly by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Inc.
    The ASA is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of 
    amateur and professional astronomy and space exploration, and to the
    social and educational needs of its members.

         Membership is open to all with an interest in astronomy and space
    exploration.  Members receive the ASA Journal (hardcopy sent
    through U.S. Mail), the Astronomical League's REFLECTOR magazine, and
    may additionally purchase discount subscriptions to ASTRONOMY, DEEP
    SKY, and TELESCOPE MAKING magazines.  For information on membership
    application, contact Alan Fleming, ASA Treasurer, at 2515 N.E.
    Expressway, Apt. N-2, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, U.S.A.

         ASA Officers and Council -            

         President - Don Barry
         Vice President - Bill Bagnuolo
         Secretary - Scott Mize
         Treasurer - Alan Fleming
         Board of Advisors - Bill Hartkopf, David Dundee, Anita Kern

         EJASA Editor - Larry Klaes
         Georgia Star Party Chairman - Chris Lee
         Advertising Committee - Paul Pirillo, Willie Skelton
         Space Shuttle Trip Committee - Chris Castellaw
         Sales Committee - Jim Bitsko
         Society Librarians - Julian Crusselle, Toni Douglas

         Telephone the Society Info Line at (404) 264-0451 for the
    latest ASA News and Events.


                        ASTRONOMY WEEK IN GEORGIA
 
                               by Don Barry
 
         The Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, in collaboration with
    the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and the Center for High
    Angular Resolution Astronomy, has rejuvenated an old tradition in
    Georgia:  Astronomy Week. 

         The Governor will declare the week of August 11-18 as Astronomy
    Week in Georgia, sponsored by the Society and the Department of Natural 
    Resources.  During this week, encompassing the Perseids and a Total 
    Lunar Eclipse, members and other affiliates will trek across the state 
    to parks and historic sites and bring our hobby to the public at large. 

         For this, we need you.  There are nearly twenty parks that we have
    initially targeted.  And helping to share your favorite hobby is
    easier than ever. 

         Being There

         The most essential part of sharing Astronomy is being there.  
    Park Rangers will coordinate each park's activities in collaboration 
    with the members who volunteer.  Can you tell people what a meteor 
    is?  Arrange to host an afternoon question and answer session.  Do 
    you know the constellations?  Arrange to point out a few at an evening 
    stargaze.  Do you own a telescope?  Arrange to show the planet Saturn 
    and the Moon to those interested.  If two or more volunteer for a park, 
    each can host activities he or she is most comfortable with.  Park 
    Rangers are often familiar with the sky's constellations, and can assist. 

         What's To Show - Perseids

         Astronomy Week begins on Friday, August 11.  The Perseid meteor
    shower, the strongest annual meteor shower, peaks on Friday and
    Saturday evenings, but continues at lesser intensity through the next
    week.  More than 60 meteors an hour may be seen in the morning hours
    of Saturday and Sunday. 

         The Perseid shower is believed to consist of debris left by Comet
    Swift-Tuttle, last seen in the Nineteenth Century. Earth passes
    through this debris stream once a year, producing the meteor shower. 
    Most of the meteoroids in the stream are sand-grain size, while the
    larger ones may reach the size of a small pebble.  These small icy
    rocks heat to tremendous temperature when they strike the atmosphere
    at high speed, forming a meteor trail.  For all the fireworks, though,
    there is really very little debris in the meteor stream.  The planet
    Earth, plowing through space at 48 kilometers (30 miles) per second,
    scours a visible window a over 160 kilometers (100 miles) on a side
    atop the observer, and cleaning a million cubic miles of space a
    second.  One meteor a minute on average means that there is only a
    small meteoroid contained in sixty million cubic miles.  That's empty!

         What's To Show - Saturn

         The Moon, initially past first quarter, will brighten the sky
    until the early morning hours on this first weekend, and by Monday or
    Tuesday will be up most of the night.  Deep sky observation won't be
    easy, but Saturn, the most awe-inspiring planet of all, will be easily
    placed in the southern sky, brightly shining above the teapot of
    Sagittarius.  In even the smallest telescopes, Saturn's rings, which
    are composed of material much resembling the average Perseid meteor,
    shine brightly around the planet.  First seen by Galileo Galilei (who
    only saw them as "ears" on the planet due to his low-power telescope),
    the ring-like form was not discovered until Christian Huygens, the
    Dutch physicist and telescope-maker, first turned his improved
    instruments upon this world in the late Seventeenth Century. 

         What's To Show - Constellations

         In the south will be found the easily recognizable constellations
    of Scorpius, the Scorpion, and Sagittarius, the Archer.  The Scorpion,
    marked by the bright red star Antares, and a long tail complete with
    sharp stinger, is one of those few constellations which realistically
    resemble the object they depict.  The Archer, immediately to the left,
    more immediately resembles at Teapot than a man with drawn bow.  The
    teapot appears to be boiling, as steam emerges from the spout in the
    form of the Milky Way, and rises to the zenith of the sky in the early
    summer evening. 

         Along this "milky" path can be seen many beautiful objects in
    binoculars.  Fuzzy patches are star clusters of hundreds or thousands
    of stars.  Some are clouds of gas in which new stars are being born.
    Some, such as the easy binocular object M22 (the M is for Messier, the
    astronomer who catalogued this celestial object), which is visible just 
    above and to the right of the tip of Sagittarius' teapot, are globular 
    clusters, consisting of a hundred thousand stars apiece. 

         Overhead, the Summer Triangle shines in majesty, encompassing the
    constellations of Cygnus, the Swan; Lyra, the Lyre; Aquila, the Eagle;
    and the minor constellations of Sagitta, the arrow; and Delphinus, the
    Dolphin.  The bright stars of the Triangle are Vega, the seat of the
    Lyre; Deneb, the tail-star of the Swan; and Altair, the heart of the
    Eagle. 

         To the north, Cassiopeia,  the Queen's Throne, circles Polaris,
    the North Star.  Below and to the northeast, rising at midnight,
    Perseus, the slayer of the snake-haired Medusa, appears.  From his
    body appear to emanate the fiery Perseids. 

         Meteors and Perspective

         First noticed during a massive shower of meteors in 1799, each
    meteor of a shower appears to point backwards to a common point in the
    sky.  They don't all start at this point, but merely appear to point
    backwards to this location. 

        The explanation is best provided by analogy.  In a light rain
    shower, as in a meteor shower, raindrops are moving together in the
    sky, with relatively little speed relative to one another, though they
    fall quite rapidly with respect to the observer.  If one is in a car
    moving through the rain, the raindrops appear to zoom past, and if one
    is moving rapidly enough, they may appear nearly horizontal out the
    car's window.  They seem to come from a point ahead of the car,
    straight up if the car is not moving, but closer to the forward
    horizon as the car accelerates. 

        As Earth moves through space, the combination of its motion and
    the meteor shower's own motion means that meteors will appear as
    raindrops, and that they will point back, as raindrops do, to a
    "vanishing point", just as in perspective all parallel lines (such as
    railroad tracks) appear to meet at the horizon.  The location of this
    vanishing point, or "radiant", allows one to determine the speed and
    direction of the meteor shower through space. 

         The Lunar Eclipse

         On Wednesday evening, August 16, the ultimate event of Astronomy
    Week will occur.  The Moon, at full phase, will pass precisely behind
    Earth from the Sun, and therefore be shadowed by Earth's disk.  At
    9:22 p.m. EDT, the Moon will enter the darkest part of Earth's shadow,
    the umbra.  This is the part of the shadow in which all of the Sun's
    light is blocked.  Any passing creatures on these sections of the Moon
    would see the Sun in total eclipse.  Shortly after 10 p.m., the Moon
    will be entirely immersed in the umbra, and will resemble a dim,
    beautiful copper penny in the sky, being colored reddish orange by
    sunlight bent around Earth's edge by our atmosphere. 

         Shortly before midnight, the Moon will begin to exit the umbra,
    and last contact will take place at 12:52 a.m.  A few hours after it
    began, the spectacle will be over; but the fortunate public who see
    it in state parks, enlightened by you, our members and emissaries,
    will remember it for a lifetime. 

         Where To Go?
  
         The Georgia Department of Natural Resources has identified a
    number of parks who are being approached, and with whom arrangements
    are being made.  These include: 

         Amicalola Falls, North Georgia
         Unicoi, North Georgia
         Vogel, North Georgia
         Cloudland Canyon, Northwest Georgia
         Red Top Mountain, Atlanta Vicinity
         Sweetwater Creek, Atlanta Vicinity
         Panola Mountain, Atlanta Vicinity
         Fort Yargo, Atlanta Vicinity
         Hard Labor Creek, East Georgia
         Elijah Clark, Augusta Vicinity
         Indian Springs, Macon Vicinity
         John Tanner, West Georgia
         F. D. Roosevelt, West Georgia
         George T. Bagby, Southwest Georgia
         Reed Bingham, South Georgia
         Little Ocmulgee, South Georgia
         Georgia Veterans, South Georgia
         Laura S. Walker, Southeast Georgia
         Skidaway Island, Savannah Vicinity
         Etowah Indian Mounds, Atlanta Vicinity

         Volunteer!

         At our next two meetings before Astronomy Week, a packet
    containing brochures of each of the parks above will be available 
    for inspection and signup.  Sharing the joy of Astronomy is its own
    reward.  Reaching out to the public is our most noble activity, for 
    it spreads our own knowledge and makes it endure. 

         Rangers at each park will arrange complimentary camping
    privileges, and perhaps more for those places involving a larger
    commute.  Details of your contribution at a park will be arranged
    between you and the Park Ranger.  You can contribute to whatever
    degree you feel comfortable. 

         We will have a brochure detailing the events of Astronomy Week,
    and facts on the eclipse, the Perseids, and the summer sky for your
    distribution at the park.  Your patience, willingness to share, and
    enthusiasm is the only remaining ingredient to be added to make
    Astronomy Week a rewarding success. 


                  NEPTUNE: REDISCOVERY BY VOYAGER 2
 
                          by Edward F. Albin
 
         Since its discovery in 1846, much has been learned of the distant
    eighth planet from the Sun, Neptune.  In a feat of human ingenuity,
    the discovery of this world was based only on theories about planetary
    orbits.  Through the telescope, Neptune appears not much more than a
    faint disk of light, with two companion moons.  But our knowledge will
    dramatically change when a small robotic spacecraft, named Voyager 2,
    skims remarkably close to the planet's cloud tops in August of this
    year.  Upon doing so, this emissary from Earth, which departed almost
    12 years ago, will rediscover a place that has until now eluded the
    close scrutiny of astronomers.  New worlds are literally about to
    unfold before us as "the little spacecraft that could" makes its final
    planetary flyby and forever leaves the bonds of our solar system. 

         Discovery of an Eighth Planet

         It wasn't long after the discovery of the seventh planet, Uranus,
    that astronomers began to think of the possibility of a world circling
    the Sun at an even greater distance. This notion of an eighth planet
    was well founded.  For one thing, celestial mechanics, the science of
    where a planet should be in its orbit, was tested and well understood.
    But, Uranus, the newest addition to the collection of wandering
    worlds, didn't seem to behave properly according to the mathematical
    theories that described its movement about the Sun.  There was a
    discrepancy between theory and observation, or to put it plainly,
    Uranus wasn't where it was supposed to be in the sky.  Such
    observations could have meant that there was another as yet unknown
    world just waiting to be discovered. 

         This riddle of Uranus' position in the sky fascinated a young
    Englishman.  John Couch Adams, a twenty-two year old student of
    astronomy and mathematics at Cambridge University, vowed to solve 
    this mystery after completing his studies.  Unknown to Adams, across 
    the English channel in France, another astronomer, Urbain Jean Joseph
    LeVerrier, a young assistant at the Paris Observatory, had a similar
    notion.  LeVerrier had been given the task of tackling the Uranus 
    "problem". 

         After completing his degree "brilliantly", Adams set about 
    to solve this astronomical problem.  Having spent many months in
    research, he was convinced that the position of a new planet had
    revealed itself through his computations.  Adams was confident that 
    an entirely new world, almost 4.8 billion kilometers (3 billion miles) 
    from the Sun, could be glimpsed simply by turning a telescope of 
    sufficient power towards a point in the constellation Capricornus. 

         Excited about this, Adams was encouraged to contact Sir George
    Biddell Airy, Astronomer Royal.  Unfortunately, Airy wasn't impressed.
    Apparently, in his post he had read many absurd letters containing
    crackpot ideas, and so this great piece of work was discarded with the
    other rubbish.  Unknown to Airy, had he aimed his great instruments
    where Adams had indicated, a new planet would have been observed only
    1.25 degrees away.  After badgering Airy, Adams became discouraged,
    knowing that a telescopic search would be delayed. 

         Meanwhile, LeVerrier solved the riddle independently some eight
    months later.  The position of the new planet was announced to the
    world in June of 1846.  Airy, having learned of this development from
    the great Paris Observatory, was stunned to find that LeVerrier's
    predicted position was almost identical to that of an earlier
    suggestion that he had totally disregarded.  Airy immediately
    recognized that an Englishman, John Couch Adams, had prior claim to
    this discovery, but his blunder might very well cost Adams his
    rightful credit. 

         On September 23, 1846, Johann Galle, an astronomer with the Berlin
    Observatory, had received a letter from LeVerrier.  Galle had been
    asked to direct his telescope to the predicted location of the
    suspected planet.  On that very evening, Galle, joined by a young
    assistant, Heinrich d'Arrest, saw for the first time a world that
    would later be known as Neptune.  Only an hour into the search,
    discovery was made.  The new planet was an intruder in the surrounding
    star field, and it showed a disk, quite unlike the tiny pinpoints of
    light that were recognized as stars. 

         It was 143 years ago that the existence of an eighth planet from
    the Sun became known.  Fortunately, both Adams and LeVerrier received
    equal credit for the discovery.  First seen through the mind's eye, 
    and then with the telescope, Neptune awaits rediscovery by a robotic
    spacecraft in August of 1989.  The excitement that must have been
    generated by the addition of a new world to our solar system will be
    rejuvenated as Voyager 2 zooms by for a close look. 

         The Planet

         Taking almost 165 years to revolve around the Sun, Neptune won't
    complete one revolution since its discovery until 2011.  Although it
    appears nothing more than a tiny green disk through the finest
    telescopes, astronomers have learned much about this distant place. 
    We know that Neptune is a big planet, about 48,000 kilometers (30,000
    miles) in diameter, and we know that it spins on its axis once every
    17 hours, 50 minutes. 

         Neptune's green color is due to methane gas present in the
    atmosphere.  However, like the other gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, and
    Uranus), hydrogen and helium are the most abundant gases found.  Below
    the beautiful green-tinted atmosphere lies a vast ocean of liquid
    hydrogen.  Such a sea of gas is possible only because of the
    tremendous weight and therefore pressure caused by the overlying
    gasses.  Probing still deeper into Neptune brings us to a layer of
    ice; that is, ice composed of a mixture of methane, ammonia, and
    water.  Speculation suggests that at the center of this world there 
    is a rocky core some 16,000 kilometers (10,000 miles) across. 

         Almost as fascinating as the planet itself are its two moons, 
    Triton and Nereid.  They orbit Neptune at 352,000 and 5,440,000
    kilometers (220,000 and 3.4 million miles), respectively.  Triton
    exhibits synchronous rotation (shows the same face to the planet at
    all times) as is common of many moons in the solar system, but Triton
    is very unusual in that it orbits the planet in a retrograde
    (backwards to the usual direction, counterclockwise) direction. 

         Discovered only one month after the planet itself, Triton is a
    natural satellite about the same size as our moon.  This moon has
    attracted much attention because of many bizarre characteristics,
    including its composition which is very different from that of a
    typical outer planet moon.  Instead of being composed chiefly of ice,
    Triton, for some reason, is mostly made up of rocky materials. 
    Astronomers would expect to find such a satellite in the inner parts
    of the solar system. 

          Evidence also suggests that an atmosphere and ocean might also be
    present.  Two compounds, methane and nitrogen, have been detected in
    the moon's surface.  It is not certain if the methane is in a frozen 
    of gaseous state, but one theory holds that at the temperatures
    encountered at Neptune's distance from the Sun, it is reasonable to
    expect to find an atmosphere composed of methane.  Nitrogen is also
    present, and at the frigid temperatures expected this gas would also
    be found only in the liquid form.  In other words, there must be
    oceans of nitrogen covering portions of the surface of Triton.  These
    gasses, when frozen, appear colorless, but through the eyepiece of a
    telescope, Triton has a distinct red color.  Organic molecules, formed
    when ultraviolet light interacts with mixtures of methane, ammonia,
    and water, might best explain the reddish color. 

         Not much is known about Neptune's other moon, Nereid.  It revolves
    in the proper direction but has a very eccentric orbit, more so than
    any other moon in the solar system.  Due to its small size, less than
    560 kilometers (350 miles) across, little has been learned about its
    surface properties. 

         It seems that Neptune does have a ring of sorts, just as all the
    other gas giants do.  This ring, like many things about this world, is
    unusual.  The ring appears to be segmented or just a partial ring,
    orbiting some 72,000 kilometers (45,000 miles) above the cloud tops. 
    Over the past 140 years, much has been learned about this distant
    planet.  However, the rediscovery of Neptune awaits us with the flyby
    of Voyager 2. 

         The Spacecraft

         Voyager 2 began its "grand tour" of the outer solar system some 
    twelve years ago.  The odyssey started from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on
    August 20, 1977.  On that day a Titan/Centaur rocket lifted Voyager 2
    into low Earth orbit, and then, within one hour from launch, it
    boosted the spacecraft on its way to Jupiter at a speed of more than 
    9.6 kilometers (6 miles) per second. 

         Having a mass of 810 kilograms (1,800 pounds), Voyager 2 is one 
    of the most sophisticated spacecraft ever sent to explore other worlds. 
    A large radio antenna always tracks Earth as the spacecraft travels
    towards the outer reaches of the solar system.  Although the
    spacecraft is transmitting data with a mere 23 watts of power
    (equivalent to the power of a refrigerator light bulb), NASA's
    tracking system, known as the Deep Space Network, can follow it even
    at distances greater than Neptune.  Computers onboard Voyager 2 are
    capable of receiving prerecorded sets of instructions that allow the
    spacecraft to operate for days or weeks autonomously.  All systems are
    powered by three radioisotope thermoelectric generators which provide
    about 400 watts of electrical power. 

         Voyager 2 carries an impressive battery of scientific instruments
    capable of investigating its surroundings directly or remotely. 
    Direct sensing instruments "feel" magnetic fields and associated
    charged particles.  Remote sensing instruments can be thought of as
    the "eyes" of the spacecraft.  They are used to detect electromagnetic
    radiation (light) being emitted or reflected by the planet, moon, or
    ring currently under study; but most of all, remote sensing
    instruments provide us with the wonderful pictures often obtained 
    from planetary explorer missions. 

         Along with its cousin, Voyager 1 (which will not fly by Neptune),
    Voyager 2 has shown us the outer planets as never seen before.  In
    July of 1979, Voyager 2 made its closest approach to the largest planet
    in the solar system, Jupiter.  Together, the Voyagers discovered the
    rings of Jupiter, found three new satellites, and returned spectacular
    photographs of the four Galilean moons.

         Two years later, in August of 1981, Voyager 2 passed the 
    beautifully ringed planet, Saturn.  Again, many remarkable discoveries 
    were made.  This time seven new moons were found, and the rings were 
    resolved into many thousands of individual bands. 

         Saturn was the last planetary encounter for Voyager 1, but the
    second explorer continued on to the seventh planet, Uranus, where a
    spectacular flyby occurred in January of 1986.  Ten new moons were
    discovered, and new information and images were returned showing the
    planet, its rings, and moons in fascinating detail. 

         After three incredibly successful encounters, showing that the
    outer planets are more than blurry smudges of light, Voyager 2 on its
    mission of discovery pushes onward toward Neptune.  With the actual
    flyby still several months ahead, the onboard instruments have already
    turned their eyes in the direction of this green jewel, watching and
    patiently waiting as it grows larger and brighter with each passing day. 

         The Encounter

         Three and a half years since departing Uranus, Voyager 2 has
    endured, once again, the immense lonely distances separating the
    planets.  Designed to explore Jupiter and Saturn only, Voyager 2 has
    long outlasted its "warranty".  In the latter part of August 1989, 
    the tiny spacecraft will make a daring pass over the cloud tops of
    Neptune.  The approach on this last planetary encounter will place
    Voyager 2 some 16 times closer than its flyby of Uranus, 20 times
    closer than at Saturn, and an incredible 55 times closer than the
    encounters with Jupiter. 

         This veteran of three spectacular planetary missions is
    approaching Neptune on a trajectory that has been dubbed the "polar
    crown".  What this means is that Voyager 2 will first encounter the
    planet from the south, swinging past the equatorial region, and then
    make its closest approach, only a few thousand kilometers above the 
    cloud tops, over the north pole.  The mission does not stop there.  
    Several hours later, the spacecraft passes Triton's mysterious surface 
    by only 40,000 kilometers (25,000 miles).  However, the tiny moon 
    Nereid will only be viewed from over 4.8 million kilometers (3 million 
    miles) away. 

         Making such a close pass by Neptune does have its dangers,
    however.  Not knowing the exact extent of the atmosphere may cause
    some problems.  If the outer atmosphere reaches further into space
    than currently calculated, drag on the spacecraft may affect its
    trajectory as well as cause some damage, for Voyager was not designed
    to function under such conditions.  The difficulty of detecting the
    dimensions and extent of Neptune's rings might also prove lethal. 
    Even small particles of dust and ice have the potential of destroying
    a planetary vehicle traveling at such great speeds; but, the greatest
    fear is of the possibility of flying through intense radiation belts. 
    It is not understood if the planet has such trapped radiation since
    magnetic fields and auroras haven't been observed thus far.  If Neptune
    has dangerous levels of trapped radiation, it is hoped that they will
    be detected at least a few days before the encounter as was the case
    for the Uranus flyby. 

         Since Neptune will virtually be rediscovered in the late summer of
    1989, one wonders what Adams and LeVerrier might have thought about
    Voyager 2 and its mission.  Astonishingly, many millions of people
    across the world will simultaneously see images returned over almost
    4.8 billion kilometers (3 billion miles) of space, showing us new
    worlds in breathtaking detail.  What do scientists expect to find in
    these images? 

         For one thing, we'll know what Neptune looks like.  Details of 
    its clouds and unknowns about its two satellites will be gathered.  No
    longer will this planet be just a tiny smudge of light in the eyepiece
    of a telescope, but a place with characteristics that make it unique
    among the worlds found within our solar system.  Many factors (e.g.,
    composition of gasses, temperature, chemical processes, wind speed,
    etc.) are at work controlling the appearance of Neptune, and it is
    expected that it is going to look different from the other gas giants
    observed thus far.  The questions surrounding the nature of Triton's
    possible atmosphere and ocean may also be resolved.  Chances are
    promising that many new moons will be discovered.  Upon completion of
    its duties at Neptune, Voyager 2 will have, once again, given us much
    data and photographs to add to the growing library of information on
    planetary objects.  This catalog, by the way, contains pictures that
    cover most of the planets - from Mercury to Uranus; but what about
    Pluto?  Can Voyager 2 complete our catalog, and what about its fate
    upon leaving the solar system? 

         Unfortunately, a flyby of Pluto is impossible.  Pluto's position
    in its journey about the Sun is such that there is no practical way to 
    swing Voyager 2 by for a close look; but, as is the case for its
    predecessors, Pioneers 10 and 11 and Voyager 1, it will continue to
    function while departing the solar system. 

         Traveling at 59,200 kilometers (37,000 miles) per hour and
    traversing 528 million kilometers (330 million miles) each year,
    Voyager 2 is expected to continue transmitting data until the year
    2015.  Afterwards, the vehicle will forever leave the vicinity of the
    Sun and drift among the stars of the Milky Way Galaxy.  Calculations
    show that some 40,000 years into the future, Voyager 2 will come
    within 1.6 light years of a red dwarf star in the constellation of
    Andromeda called Ross 248.  The vast distances separating the stars
    will probably ensure that this tiny spacecraft, which showed us many
    wonders concerning other worlds in our system, will drift eternally 
    in interstellar space, never again to be seen or touched by living
    beings, whether from our world or another that has happened to spawn
    life; but since the chances are not impossible, and the important
    consequences which could be made by an encounter with another
    intelligent race with star-faring capabilities are so great, a gold
    record has been placed on the Voyagers, containing images and sounds 
    of Earth to help give those who encounter the probes some idea of 
    the human race who built them. 

         Conclusion

         First discovered 143 years ago, Neptune is on the verge of being
    totally rediscovered in just a few short months.  Although currently
    labeled as the eighth most distant world from the Sun, Neptune is
    currently the most distant.  The high elliptical orbit of Pluto 
    sometimes allows it to wander a bit closer to the Sun; in fact, Pluto 
    will retain its status as second most distant planet until the end of 
    this century.  So in a real sense, Voyager 2 will truly cross the 
    boundaries of the solar system, speeding off to a fate that is quite 
    unknown to us at present.

        Observers have only a few short months to ponder the mysteries of
    Neptune in the starry sky.  Through the eyepiece of the telescope this
    planet still retains many secrets that have piqued the curiosity of
    generations of astronomers.  However, all of this will change in
    August.  From that point on, Neptune will become a real place, a place
    shown for the first time by images beamed across vast stretches of
    empty space. 

        Before all of the wonderful pictures appear on the front pages of
    newspapers, one should try to take a last glimpse at this distant orb,
    and for the final time see it as only a blob of light, as John Adams
    and Urbain LeVerrier must have so many years ago.  If you do not own 
    a telescope, visit your local planetarium or astronomical Society. 
    You will be sure to find many eager enthusiasts willing to let you 
    peer through their instruments. 

        It is fitting that Neptune will put on a nice display in the
    evening sky when our tiny emissary is at closest approach.  During the
    month of August, Neptune can be found in the southern sky at sunset. 
    Embedded among the stars of the constellation Sagittarius, the planet
    is almost lost within the thickest groupings of stars of our galaxy,
    the Milky Way.  However, to make matters easier, the ringed-jewel
    Saturn is located just to the southwest. 

        Even though plans for other expeditions to Neptune have not 
    been drawn up (but you can bet they exist in the minds of modern
    explorers), the wealth of information returned by Voyager 2 will 
    open new chapters of unknowns.  For now, however, the rediscovery of
    Neptune is enough to occupy inquisitive scientists for some time to
    come. 

    ----------------------end part 1-------------------------
-- 
Donald J. Barry       (404) 651-2932         | don%chara@gatech.edu
Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy | President, Astronomical
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303  | Society of the Atlantic

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #591
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/MYrv=We00UkVA0cE4d>;
          Wed,  9 Aug 89 00:28:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <IYrv=J-00UkVE0aU5q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed,  9 Aug 89 00:28:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #592

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 592

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
			     Re: Modules
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
		     The now defunct Moon beacon
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552
		       Re: Ranger seismometers
			   Re: Space Quest
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
			  Re: Neil Armstrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 19:58:26 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT


Call the National Space Council at 202/395-6175.  Suggest that HR2674,
the Space Transportation Services Purchase Act of 1989, is the
appropriate centerpiece for the new space policy which they are
creating.

Send me email if you need a copy of HR2674.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN NOW AND SCREAM AT HIM UNTIL HE AGREES THAT NASA
IS DOING EVERYTHING IT CAN TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL SPACE INDUSTRIES.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 11:03:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!jack@uunet.uu.net  (Jack Campin)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)


wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) wrote:
[ quoting a plausible debunking of Griaule's Dogon mysterious-knowledge-of-
  Sirius-B story ]
  
>  	The important thing to note is that the Dogon are not as dogmatic
>  about their myths as most western religions are, so they are not above
>  changing their myths which are, by the way, passed on completely by
>  word of mouth. Sagan cites another tribe in an adjacent valley that
>  suffered from a rare disease called Kuru, a virus... [goes on to describe
   a similar process of myth adaptation ]

Hardly "adjacent".  Kuru is endemic among the Fore of New Guinea; it became
notorious as the subject of a Western myth that it was transmitted by brain
eating (in fact the route of transmission seems to be through cuts and
abrasions when preparing bodies for burial).

[ I guess this is only tenuously related to these newsgroups now; it really
  belongs in sci.skeptics, if/when that gets created.  So vote for it. ]

On a similar theme: what is the current status of de Santillana and von
Dechend's "Hamlet's Mill"?  Has anything been published to support or refute
their ideas since its publication?  (For those who haven't read it, it claimed
that many traditional mythologies encoded quite detailed naked-eye astronomy,
including the earth's precession).

-- 
Jack Campin  *  Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND.    041 339 8855 x6045 wk  041 556 1878 ho
INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk  USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp
JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs     PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 20:55:05 GMT
From: bucsb!ckd@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Modules

In article <1482@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:
-In article <2319@orion.cf.uci.edu>, dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu (Doug Krause) writes:
-> 
-> I lost a couple of articles.  Was Snoopy an LM or CM?  If it was
-> an LM, a historic quote would have a whole new feel.
-
-
-Snoopy was the name for the Apollo 10 LM.  The Apollo 10 CSM was
-called Charlie Brown.

Anyone have a complete list of the callsigns (codenames?) for the Apollo
LMs and CSMs?  Bonus points for the Gemini & Mercury capsules...

+5 for listing all shuttle orbiters by OV-num (spelling counts :-).

-Bill Chiarchiaro

-- 
  /\  | /  |\  @bu-pub.bu.edu <preferred>  | Christopher K. Davis, BU SMG '90
 /    |/   | \ %bu-pub.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu |      uses standardDisclaimer;
 \    |\   | /  <for stupid sendmails>     |       BITNET: smghy6c@buacca 
  \/  | \  |/  @bucsb.UUCP <last resort>  or ...!bu-cs!bucsb!ckd if you gotta.
 --"Ignore the man behind the curtain and the address in the header." --ckd--

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 15:28:20 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <296@opus.NMSU.EDU> lesc@dante.UUCP (Leif S. Kirschenbaum) writes:
>Friday we saw a 30 minute new movie on Apollo 11,  some really good footage
>of Saturn V take off.

There was a film shown on the BBC here combining footage
from all the different missions. It contained one particular
sequence I don't remember seeing before.

The view was back along the body of the saturn V third stage 
in Earth orbit. The Earth can be seen going past on the left
of the picture. The third stage is ignited, and the Earth
starts to pass by faster and faster.

My question. Was this speeded up motion.

I suspect so, I don't think that the change in velocity
would have been quite as obvious as all that.

The velocity change was from 28,100 Km/hr to 39,000 Km/hr,
how long was the TLI (Trans-Lunar Injection) burn for.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 14:09:51 GMT
From: att!tsdiag!scr1!tiller@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (David Tiller)
Subject: The now defunct Moon beacon



	Regarding the transmitter that was left on the moon and
	subsequently shut off due to budget constraints:

	1) Can the transmitter be re-activated?

	2) On what frequency was this beacon transmitting? At
	   what power level/radiation pattern/polarization?

	3) Was it transmitting useful data? What format was its
	   data in? 

	4) Would the data be useful today? Could this signal have
	   been received by perhaps an amateur radio operator "ham"
	   or anyone with the proper equipment? 

	If the frequency of the beacon is not in the middle of a 
	currently used (important) band, and if the data would be
	useful today, and if the signal could be received by amateur
	radio or other interested parties, then I would like to see
	the beacon re-activated.  The data from it could be collected
	and perhaps analysed by a group of interested parties.  This
	beacon could serve several purposes to the amateur community,
	besides the value of the actual data such as:

	1) A very good yardstick of the condition of the ionosphere
	   and magnetosphere.  Assumptions regarding HF and VHF
	   propogation could be made from this information.

	2) A challenge to antenna designers/builders and theorists
	   who "push the envelope" regarding new and radical designs,
	   and those of us who attempt to "advance the art of radio"
	   by learning more about the science of RF.

	3) A draw for interest in amateur radio for young people.
	   Imagine showing a classroom of youngsters that a man-
	   made signal is actually emanating from the moon. This
	   would go hand-in-hand with the sattelite demonstrations
	   and packet connections.  With the recent emphasis on
	   computer education in schools, a bit of early digital
	   communications history (the moon beacon) and an example 
	   how computers can talk over the airwaves via modern packet
	   radio would help round out the big picture.  Amateur radio
	   is considered a black art by most, much like computers were
	   several years ago.  If youngsters could be shown that packet
	   is a tool that can be used to provide greater (private, non-
	   commercial) connectivity for their PC's, much greater interest 
           would be generated in the hobby.
 
p.s. Important in regards to frequency bands means in such a place as
     not to cause harmful interference to existing radio communication
     systems. 

Enough rambling from an amateur tech. in training...flames ignored,
intelligent discourse welcome.
-- 
David E. Tiller      Software Support Eng.    | Concurrent Computer Corp.
FAX:  201-870-4249   Ph: (201) 870-4119       | 2 Crescent Place, M/S 117
UUCP: ucbvax!rutgers!petsd!tsdiag!scr1!tiller | Oceanport NJ, 07757
ICBM: 40 16' 45" N   73 59' 00" W             | (Wish I were in Virginia...)

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 26 Jul 89 09:35:26 EDT
From: LABBEY%GTRI01.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU

help

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 14:40:37 GMT
From: mfci!rodman@CS.YALE.EDU  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552

In article <Added.0YnBirO00Ui385uU87@andrew.cmu.edu> 3432P@NAVPGS.BITNET (Craig Cholar) writes:
>

>(either Armstrong or Aldrin, I'm not sure which) say "Contact Light";


Nope. They said "Contact!". 

pkr

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 15:56:20 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Ranger seismometers


In article <955@m3.mfci.UUCP> rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) writes:
>In article <5348@hplabsb.HP.COM> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
>Your description makes it sound fancier than I thought it was...I think it was just
>a fixed solid-fuel motor that blasted "up" just before impact of the ranger. No 
>"separate" from the Ranger first. As a matter of fact, without any stabilization
>system, I'm sure you rather fire the retro kick while still attached to the
>properly facing Ranger(?).

Take a look at the contemporary National Geographic coverage, or a
space program history book, such as Appointment on the Moon (1969).

>If memory serves the seismometers were shock protected in fluid, which after
>impact was drained out buy "bullets" that fired out thru the case and the balsa
>shock absorber sphere. 

This is correct.  I actually wrote that into my message, but deleted it to
save space.

>I also see to recall that at least one of these things didn't work. I don't
>remember any data collected from any of them.....???

They didn't get a chance to work, because of the failures I described.
My message was in response to a statement that only Surveyor was launched
to answer certain questions about the lunar surface, particularly, whether
a spacecraft would sink deep into surface dust.  Rangers were also
launched to gain preliminary answers to these questions.  They failed,
leaving it up to Surveyor (and Luna 9) to answer them.
-- 

			David R. Smith, HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
			(415) 857-7898

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 19:39:12 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Space Quest


Fred Walter <grwalter@watmath.waterloo.edu> writes:
>I think I get your point now. More clearly stated :

>If the private launch companies banded together and combined their
>resources they could finance/develop/put into place their own launch>
>facilities/vehicles and space station.

>This makes sense, and could (if properly presented) help sway the current
>launch companies' financial backers.

>I think you'll have to work on presentation a lot. I wasn't the only person
>who couldn't figure out what your point was - this will be fatal when your
>group is trying to convince the people with millions on the line that your
>idea is worthwhile.
> ...
>I'd be interested in hearing more >about what your plans are and how many
>others are helping/willing to help.

>	fred

I realize that my proposal wasn't explained the best manor, but I
thought that I would just toss the idea around the net for a while.  

We have some public relations people who will be helping us.  The only
problem is getting people who know LOTS more about space than I do so
that we can communicate on the same level with the contractors.


HELP:
We need technical people in the space industry to help us write our 
proposal!


Space Quest should be getting a machine on the internet soon.  My
software company will be donating a 386 machine (unless, of course,
someone else would like to give us a Sun).  We hope to be online in
late September.

- Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 04:04:57 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@rutgers.edu  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <1989Jul17.230138.26746@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> As far as I know, all the Apollo lunar-surface transmitters were shut
> down when the Apollo seismometer network was shut down (to save some
> trifling amount of money!!! :-[ ) some years ago.  I could be wrong.

  How did keeping transmitters on the Moon turned on cost people on
Earth any money?
-- 
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 02:30:56 GMT
From: voder!pyramid!ncc!atha!lyndon@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
>>Eh? Was ConEd charging NASA for the power produced by the (moon-based)
>>nuclear reactors?
>
>No, but it was costing some small amount of money to receive, store, and
>analyze the data.

Actually, I've been informed it was shut down to eliminate some RF
pollution (makes sense).

I still like the idea of using it as a target for EME antenna aiming
and calibration.

Didn't someone purchase one of the lunar rovers for an incredibly cheap
price? Maybe I can buy this experiment for $10 and persuade NASA to turn
it back on for use as an amateur beacon.

The only thing I can't figure out is: what suffix do I sign after the
VE6BBM part of my call to indicate "lunar portable?" [ :-)  I think ... ]

-- 
Lyndon Nerenberg  VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University
    {alberta,decwrl,ncc}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA

                 It's 2:00 A.M.; Nobody looks ugly.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 14:22:00 GMT
From: sun-barr!texsun!texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!bb@apple.com
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong


I talked to an F-16 test pilot for General Dynamics about Chuck Yeager's
book.  This pilot was a former Air Force test pilot and had been through
similar training as Chuck Yeager's.  It was interesting to get a point of view
from a test pilot.  He said that today's test pilots don't think a whole lot
of Chuck Yeager.  He is arrogant and doesn't get along with his peers.  He
went on to say that Chuck would never make it in todays high tech fighters,
his lack of formal education would make it difficult for him to get by
with his "seat of the pants" type flying.   Chuck never liked Neal Armstrong
and considered himself a much better pilot than Neal.  He was apparently
somewhat jealous of Neal.  And that is probably a big reason why Chuck wrote
about the muddy lakebed that Neal landed in.

Anyway, that is the gist of what this test pilot told me.  It does not
necessarily reflect my personal opinions.  I might note that this test pilot
himself was a bit on the arrogant side, it is a common and possibly necessary
attribute for test pilots to have.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #592
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYrxeBS00UkVE0t05y>;
          Wed,  9 Aug 89 03:17:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <0Yrxe6C00UkV40rE4a@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed,  9 Aug 89 03:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #593

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 593

Today's Topics:
		    PAL format spaceflight videos
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
		     Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
			  Re: Neil Armstrong
		      Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
	     Re: Space Activist Survey, Food for Thought
		  Re: Computers on the space station
		  Re: Does This Proposal Make Sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 04:53:48 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!otc!metro!basser!usage!bio73!root@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Karl Redell )
Subject: PAL format spaceflight videos

An advert from Spaceflight Vol.31, April 1989 of interest to Australian
readers has just crossed my desk.  It is for PAL format spaceflight
videos.  Most are 54 to 60 minutes, but a few are shorter.  The videos
are $39 + $5 for airmail postage - payable in US dollars to AVD
767 St. Michaels Dr., Mitchellville, MD 20716 USA.  I have never
purchased one of these videos so can't comment on them.

Challenger Accident Investigation (30 min)
T1:	Mercury Redstones 1, 2, & 3
T2:	Friendship 7
T3:	Aurora 7 & Sigma 7
T4:	Faith 7 & Mercury Summary
T5:	Gemini 4,6, & 7
T6:	Gemini 8 & 10 (38 min)
T7:	Gemini 11 & 12 (44 min)
T8:	World was there (Mercury flights) + Legacy of Gemini
T9:	Apollo 4, 5, & 7 (45 min)
T10:	Apollo 8 & 9
T11:	Apollo 10 & 11
T12:	Apollo 12 & 13
T13:	Apollo 14 & 15
T14:	Apollo 16 & 17
T15:	Skylab 1 & 2
T16:	Skylab Summary & ASTP
T17:	STS 1 & 2 [Shuttle flights I assume]
T18:	STS 3 & 4 (44 min)
T19:	STS 5 & 6
T20:	STS 7 & 8 (72 min)
T21:	STS 9
T22:	STS 41B
T23:	STS 41C
T24:	STS 41D
T25:	STS 41G
T26:	STS 51A
T27:	STS 51C
T28:	STS 51D
T29:	STS 51B
T30:	STS 51G (42 min)
T31:	STS 51F
T32:	STS 51l
T33:	STS 51j
T34:	STS 61A
T35:	STS 61B
T36:	STS 61C (42 min)
T37:	STS 51L All TV Launch Angles Released
T38:	X-15 & Flying Machines
T39:	NASA 1st 25 years
T40:	New Frontiers (STS 1-4) & We Deliver (STS 5-8)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 22:05:36 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <SHAFER.89Jul24114846@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>In article <191@tessan.datessa.se> patrik@tessan.datessa.se (Patrik Andreasen) writes:

>>(Various postings about how you can't by a fighter as your own personal toy)

>>But howzabout a F-20 Tigershark? After all the USAF didn't want it, and
>>there are 3 (or two?) prototypes that Northrop built on their own money.

>One.  The other two were destroyed in crashes--one in Canada, one in
>Korea (I think)--during flight demonstrations.  Probably G-LOC, maybe
>the T-38/F-5 inverted pitch hang-up.

I thought the Pentagon had given permission to Nothrop to sell the F20 to
foreign cusomers, as long as the plane had a wimpy engine and no good
avionics.

What is the ture story if this is incorrect?




Neal

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 09:50:51 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!inmos!conor@uunet.uu.net  (Conor O'Neill)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <8962@cadnetix.COM> rusty@cadnetix.COM (Rusty Carruth) writes:
>In article <481@gronk.UUCP> johnl@gronk.UUCP (John Limpert) writes:
>->I started working at a NASA tracking station shortly after ALSEP was
>->shut down.  The story I heard was that NASA ran out of money to receive,
>->record and process the telemetry data....
>
>So, we shut down the transmitter so that NOBODY could recieve it.

I was at the Spaceport a couple of weeks ago and went on the tour.
They mentioned that they had shut down the beacons, but certainly
implied that they could be turned on again, though I don't remember
their actual wording. I remember thinking at the time
"So when there's more money they can be re-started".



-- 
Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd. JANET:    conor@inmos.co.uk
Disclaimer: All views are my own,         UUCP:     uunet!inmos-c!conor
            not those of INMOS.           INTERNET: @col.hp.com:conor@inmos-c

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 19:07:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)


    eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) posts...

>My point is that the public has a very short memory, attention span.
>Alderin made a comments about that today on a visit.  We (people)
>have to be willing to engage in projects we may not see in our lifetimes,
>nor will directly involve us.  If it has to absolutely be YOU, who goes
>into orbit, then maybe, none of us goes.  The attention span problem
>(called "Crisis management" in some areas), is pervasive in other
>areas: education, business/manufacturing, urban problems, economic
>competitiveness.  We have to deal with this.  We have to be willing
>to elect people who think beyond their next election.  

   But we also have to give those people a CLEAR message about what
   we want.

   The problem that we face in setting goals for space is part of 
   a much broader problem that we face in our society at large.
   We are an extraordinarily diverse society.  We have an amazing 
   range of beliefs, values, priorities, needs, expectations, and
   backgrounds.   For the last several decades we have been utterly
   plagued by an inability to reach consensus on important national
   issues.  We just don't have any good mechanism to do this.

   The Vietnam War was a fine example.  To say there was controversy
   about it understates the problem.  There weren't just two 
   viewpoints, but in fact there were a *multitude* of opinions
   about why we were there, whether we should be there, what our
   goals were, how we should conduct ourselves, and by what metric
   we should measure our progress.   And we have the same problem
   with issues like drugs, poverty, the environment, the economy,
   defense, and of course, space policy.    

   Typically, when confronted with this problem we either:

   1.   Make no decision at all.  ("let's study it some more")

   2.   Make a decision that is so watered-down by compromise
        as to be ineffective.

   3.   Make an ad-hoc political deal with a coalition which
        breaks down after the next election, before it can 
        actually accomplish anything.

   Personally, I don't see any solution to this.   If things reach 
   a real crisis (I mean a REAL crisis, not a "media crisis") in 
   areas like defense or the environment then people may be forced 
   to all agree on something, if only to deal with the crisis. 
   But I can't imagine WHAT it would take to get agreement on
   space-policy.  (an alien invasion?  JAL stealing customers from
   US airlines by offering free flights to the moon?,  ??)

>projects (non-DOD) which go into the next Century [isn't it amazing
>how the DOD is able to do this?].

    One way the DoD does it is by taking the long-term projects off the 
    books, which the Congress allows for national security.  The
    initial Stealth research was funded this way.  There are ample 
    opportunities for abuse of this system and DoD has produced
    some real turkeys and wasted a lot of money in this manner, too.
    It's easy to avoid public controversy if you avoid public scrutiny.
    But a close look at those DoD projects that HAVE been in the 
    public eye, such as MX/Midgetman, SDI, B2, and earlier, DIVAD,
    B1, and of course defense policy problems like Vietnam and more
    recently, the Marines in Lebanon, show that DoD's track record
    in consensus-building is little better than NASA's.  

>Anyways, time to go do some real work.

    Yeah, like learning the kanji characters for 'orbiting factory',
    'planetary probe' and 'how much do we owe you?'. 
                               
                                                   ---Peter

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 15:51:35 GMT
From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

In article <1940@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Sort of related subject.
>
>Some of the very oldest Egyptian writings refer to Sirius as being
>red -- which is clearly isn't.  I've seen the claim made that Sirius
>B may have been much larger and red giant in the past -- but not 
>recently enough for the Egyptians to have seen Sirius as red, without
>a significant rewrite of astrophysics.
>
>Comments?
>

I myself have seen Sirius red many times during my last five years in L.A.
I have also seen Antares shine a brilliant yellow.
Before I came to LA I couldn't see colors in stars at all.  I guess smog
is good for the eyes.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
>Deng Xiaoping: why every home needs a rifle.

Ollie North: Why every jetliner needs defenses against SAMs

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
	"Only 10% of the 4000 mile long coastline was affected."
		-Exxon's version of the oil spill as reported to stockholders

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 23:20:19 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekgen!tekigm2!johnob@uunet.uu.net  (John Obendorfer)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong

In article <SHAFER.89Jul25131104@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>
>How many astronauts, other than shuttle mission or payload specialists, have
>there been who were never in the military?  I am using the strict definition
>of astronaut = someone who has been in space on a NASA mission.

   This is strictly from memory, so I could be mistaken in one of these
instances, but I believe one of the two moonwalkers on Apollo 17 was
a civilian geologist and that on at least one of the Skylab missions
a civilian physicist was in the crew.  These were, of course, the
pre-shuttle equivalent of mission specialists -- they did not fly
any of the vehicles involved.  Sorry, but names don't come to mind.

   John

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 15:36:27 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh!dlj@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (david.l.jacobowitz)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

> I believe the Apollo 10 LM AS (Snoopy) was sent into solar orbit after it
> was jettisoned; the descent stage was left in lunar orbit.
> 
Are you sure the descent stage wasn't left in earth orbit?  :-) :-)
(On the moon).
-- 
Dave J.                                             This space for rent
usual disclaimer implied                               Call 555-3838

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 07:51:03 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!ditmela!yarra!melba!rattle!zvs@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Zev Sero)
Subject: Re: Space Activist Survey, Food for Thought

In article <2887@blake.acs.washington.edu> wiml@blake.acs.washington.edu (William Lewis) writes:

   In article <26581@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
   >3.   Are you aware that less than half the population of Mexico was alive
			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   >at the time of the last Apollo moon landing?
   >William Baxter

      The other half was dead? Why did they include corpses in the population
   count? 

Obviously, because they vote for the PRI.  See the description of
Californian democracy in `Friday'.
--
				Zev Sero  -  zvs@melba.bby.oz.au
"Men have no right to put the well-being of the present generation
wholly out of the question.  Perhaps the only moral trust with any
certainty in our hands is the care of our own time".
						- Edmund Burke

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 08:47:18 GMT
From: sgi!shinobu!odin!sgi.com!scotth@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Scott Henry)
Subject: Re: Computers on the space station

Since it has been brought up:
In article <8907261340.AA04296@beetle.Mayo.edu> hess@BEETLE.MAYO.EDU (d. scott hess) writes:
}[QUOTE]
}From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob
} Pendleton)
}9 bits of RGB is needed. For a true 3D display you also need something
}like a z buffer. 16 bits of z isn't always "good enough."  I've met
}people who will not be happy until they can get a 32 bit floating
}point z buffer. And of course, if you want stereo you need double
}buffering.
} 
}Lets see, that's 27 bits of color, times 2 for stereo, plus 16 for
}window bits plus 24 for z is 94 bits per pixel. It doesn't look that
}hard to come up with a frame buffer design that uses more than 100
}bits per pixel.
}[ENDQUOTE]
}
}Come now!  Nobody on Earth has that yet!  

ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes>
>That's right, YET.  My officemate programs a Silicon Graphics "Personal IRIS"
>workstation which has 56 bit planes (24-bit color, 24-bit Z, 8-bit control)
>with about 1200x900 resolution.  We're over halfway there already....

The Personal IRIS is the low-end of the product line. Typing in part of
the price book specs on the high-end system (specifically 4D220GTX):

1280x1024x48 bitplanes display memory for color (double-buffer 24 bits/pixel)
1280x1024x4  bitplanes display memory for overlays, underlays, user functions
1280x1024x4  bitplanes display memory for system use
1280x1024x24 bit Z-buffer for hidden surface removal
1280x1024x16 bit alpha buffer for alpha blending (double-buffer 8 bits/pixel)

Hmm, that totals 96 bitplanes. Window ID information is not kept in the
bitplane buffers. As far as I know, the only window-related information in
the bitplanes is single/double buffered, and RGB/color index mode.
Obviously, this only aaccounts for two of the system use bitplanes, I
think the other two are cursor.

I have been told that "if you don't know what alpha blending is, you don't
need it". I don't know what it is, I don't have it! (Of course, I don't
have a GTX, either...).

Just typing in published specs, guys...

---
      Scott Henry <scotth@corp.sgi.com>
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
--
      Scott Henry <scotth@corp.sgi.com>
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 06:43:47 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!otc!metro!basser!usage!bio73!root@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Karl Redell )
Subject: Re: Does This Proposal Make Sense

Despite the strong desires of many to experience space travel,

ONLY A SELECT FEW WILL EVER MAKE IT INTO SPACE.

Due to the extreme costs involved, no group of individuals, 
or even a group of companies, can shoulder the expense.  It takes
GOVERNMENT FUNDING!  Only a government can tax millions of people
to generate the billions of dollars required.  Designing and building
a satellite, which can be done in any university physics lab, should
not be confused with building a launch vehicle.  If you have seen one
close up, you will realise that a launch vehicle can not be turned
out by your machinist working after hours.  

Launch vehicle expense is not the result of contractors ripping of the
government.  It due to the fact that the entire design, test, and
construction costs and profits must be written off over the (on the
order of) 10 vehicles produced.  It is just not possible, unless you
have worked in the space industry, to realise how much time, effort,
coordination, raw materials, testing, etc. go into the manufacture
of something even as relatively simple as an ICBM.

And after the contract is completed, all the tools, test fixtures,
spare parts, and leftover materials are smashed and sold for scrap,
so you can't even ask the manufacturer to stamp you out another
rocket nozzle or whatever.

The answer, as I see it, is to let the government know what you want
(however you do that) and try to get that select few into space.

karl:bio73.unsw.oz

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #593
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYrzP:600UkVQ1305I>;
          Wed,  9 Aug 89 05:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8YrzP2m00UkVA11E4N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed,  9 Aug 89 05:17:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #594

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 594

Today's Topics:
 Re: Russian Mars probe (was Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.)
		 Re: Color displays for space station
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
			     Re: Modules
		  Re: Computers on the space station
			     Re: Modules
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 17:02:00 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!drutx!druhi!suelh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Sue Hendrix)
Subject: Re: Russian Mars probe (was Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.)

In article <1989Jul24.034608.15245@cs.dal.ca>, lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) writes:
> I caught a bit on the CBC news a few weeks ago about a recent U.S.S.R. probe
> to Mars - sorry I don't remember the name.  Apparently the probe suddenly
> went dead as it entered the planet's orbit.  According to the news piece,
> the Russians have been very closed mouthed about what happened to the probe
> but have made comments about something "extaordinary" which "shouldn't have
> been there".  They have refused to release the final pictures taken by the
> craft which apparently sparked these comments but were planning to show
> them at an upcoming scientific conference.  There was no mention of this
> being evidence of life on Mars or of alien life but that seemed to be the
> suggestion of the piece.

I tried for an email reply, but my mailer died on this.

Well, I DO have some details, but they come from a fantasy role playing
game.  

We are playing a modern day GURPS game set at JPL.  Our characters have
discovered that the Phobos probe is still active, has been taken over
by some group of people and is sending back pictures which include human
looking skeletons on Phobos.

Of course this is all fantasy,  but our GM has been known to be
prescient on occasion...

Your article was a source of amusement and chills among our group.

Cheers.
-- 
                                      Sue Hendrix, net.goddess
                                      att!drutx!druhi!suelh

"Grenades in the halls?  I don't think I can get that authorized."

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 89 15:13:35 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Color displays for space station


>From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Re: Procurement and future computers

>In article <8907052107.AA11153@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>>>	  with ~32 bits per pixel to handle color, intensity and
>>>	  transparency.
>>How would you allocate the bit fields? Many display designers regard 24 bits
>>(8 each of RGB) as being fully satisfactory for both color and intensity.

>Those designers obviously have never talked to remote-sensing people,
>who do *not* consider 8 bits per color really adequate.  Said folks would
>really prefer 10 or 12 (although of course they have to take what they
>can get...).  And this is a lot more relevant to the space station than
>arguments about how many thousands of dots per inch you need to reproduce
>fine art well enough to satisfy museum experts...

I suspect the area of interest is not so much increasing the number of colors
as increasing the dynamic range of the image. I don't know how many colors
and shades the ideal human eye can resolve, but I doubt that it is more than
~16 million, the number possible using 8 bits each of RGB. On the other hand,
the human eye can make use of many orders of magnitude of brightness. I
haven't been able to find the numbers, but I believe the maximum usable range
is over 10 orders of magnitude, while 24 bits RGB only allows 2-3 OM, and a
full RGB implementation of 10+ OM would require >70 bits/pixel. Ideally, you
would want to look at an image of a sunlit spacecraft against a black
background, and be able to read pale blue lettering on a white panel on the
sunlit side, and at the same time see dark brown lettering on a black panel
on the shady side :-) In practice, a tradeoff reducing the total number of
colors but increasing the dynamic range would probably be preferable. For
the example of 32 bits per pixel, a good compromise might be 8 bits each
of RGB, plus 8 bits representing the overall brightness of the pixel (with
the multiplying factor determined by the total brightness range needed and
the required gradation of colors.)
                                    John Roberts
                                    roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 18:48:28 GMT
From: pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!milano!kepler!richter@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Charlie Richter)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552

> >(either Armstrong or Aldrin, I'm not sure which) say "Contact Light";
> 
> 
> Nope. They said "Contact!"

From Aldrin, MEN FROM EARTH:
 
  "Drifting right," I called, watching the shadow of a footpad
  lightly touching the surface.  "Contact light."  The horizon
  seemed to rock gently and then steadied.
 
And from Collins, CARRYING THE FIRE:
 
  "Contact light!" sings Aldrin, and then a bunch of gibberish
  concerning shutting down their engine.
-- 
Charlie Richter   MCC   Austin, Texas
  uucp: richter@milano.uucp     arpa: richter@mcc.com
"The panic ... was not due to anything fundamentally weak in either business
   or finance.  It was confined to the market itself."   - WSJ, Oct. 31, 1929

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 20:38:02 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <5908@lynx.UUCP> neal@lynx.uucp (Neal Woodall) writes:

>In article <SHAFER.89Jul24114846@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>>In article <191@tessan.datessa.se> patrik@tessan.datessa.se (Patrik Andreasen) writes:

>>>(Various postings about how you can't by a fighter as your own personal toy)

>>>But howzabout a F-20 Tigershark? After all the USAF didn't want it, and
>>>there are 3 (or two?) prototypes that Northrop built on their own money.

>>One.  The other two were destroyed in crashes--one in Canada, one in
>>Korea (I think)--during flight demonstrations.  Probably G-LOC, maybe
>>the T-38/F-5 inverted pitch hang-up.

>I thought the Pentagon had given permission to Nothrop to sell the F20 to
>foreign cusomers, as long as the plane had a wimpy engine and no good
>avionics.

>What is the ture story if this is incorrect?

The F-20 Tigershark was designed (like the F-5) as an export fighter
and was never intended for domestic use.  It had simpler (not
necessarily poorer) systems and fewer maintainence requirements than
some of the older aircraft that it was competing against.  It was
designed for what might be called less-technically-developed
countries.

It had a non-wimpy engine and very good avionics.

We (NASA Dryden) were very interested in acquiring some of these for
chase aircraft, since our F-104s were eating us alive on maintainence
and the F-20s were such great airplanes.  Alas, this came to nothing,
because we didn't have the money.

There were several factors involved in the non-success of the program.
I think that the biggest factor was the active hostility of the U S
Air Force.  They wanted GD to sell F-16s to keep their price down, so
they denigrated the F-20 and offered subsidies for F-16s to countries
considering the F-20.  They also played on national pride, asking why
such an advanced country would want an aircraft designed for less
advanced countries.  There's a lot more status in F-16s!

Another factor was concern about buying an untested aircraft.  Look at
all the aircraft that never met the glowing promises made before
introduction.  Since the commitment had to be made before the F-20 was
in production, there was a certain hesitancy.

I think that the two crashes were really quite a minor factor.  They
came late in the program, when the F-20's fate had pretty much been
sealed.

Northrop wouldn't begin production before getting some minimum number
of orders.  They did get some orders, but only about half what they
needed to open the line, so they cancelled the program.

I think it's a real shame because this was a superior aircraft.  It
had extremely good performance, excellent flying qualities, vastly
reduced maintainence.  But it got shot down for political reasons.

--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 00:20:56 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <28857@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>                                    The thing I wonder about is why no-one
> caught Bean's error before it was too late. It took about 25 or 30 seconds
> before it was killed, plenty of time for someone on the ground to say
> "hey you idiot, aim the camera down!!".
> [...]
> The Apollo 12 crew was known to be rather clumsy.

  HA!  Clearly what we have here is a coverup attempt.  The true purpose of
the Apollo 12 flight was to meet with the space aliens on their own turf!
Just think... it all makes sense now.  Bean "accidently" leaves the camera
pointed at the Sun, and the people in Houston never "notice" it until its
too late and just to make things like this a bit more plausible, Bean et al
put on a clumsy act in the simulators before launch..
-- 
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 01:58:14 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Modules

In article <1620@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:
 [amongst an exhaustively complete list of US manned spacecraft nicknames]
>Apollo	CSM		LM
>11	Columbia	Eagle
    ^^^^^^^^
>15	Endeavour	Falcon
    ^^^^^^^^^
		  ^^^ note same vowels
>17	America		Challenger
                ^^^^^^^^^^

>Shuttle:
>MPTA-098 Main Propulsion Test Article

	what was this?  I would like more info.

>OV-099	Challenger
>OV-102	Columbia
>OV-105	Endeavour
>
>Howzat?

Once again J. McD. kicks butt.  (No flames for praising you, please J! :-) )

This makes a great trivia question:  Which Shuttle names are new?
Answer: Just Discovery and Atlantis! (Omitting the landing test vehicle.)
Not immediately obvious, huh.

Have you noticed how important nicknames are to us.  From little
Chris-Craft to rustbucket tramp steamer to zillion dollar high tech
orbital thoroughbred, sailors want to serve a lady, not a number.
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 18:03:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@EDDIE.MIT.EDU  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Computers on the space station


  Ralf Brown posts...
>In article <8907261340.AA04296@beetle.Mayo.edu> hess@BEETLE.MAYO.EDU (d. scott hess) writes:
>}[QUOTE]
>}From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Bob
<>} Pendleton)
>}9 bits of RGB is needed. For a true 3D display you also need something
>}like a z buffer. 16 bits of z isn't always "good enough."  I've met
>}people who will not be happy until they can get a 32 bit floating
>}point z buffer. And of course, if you want stereo you need double
>}buffering.
>} 
>}Lets see, that's 27 bits of color, times 2 for stereo, plus 16 for
>}window bits plus 24 for z is 94 bits per pixel. It doesn't look that
>}hard to come up with a frame buffer design that uses more than 100
>}bits per pixel.
>}[ENDQUOTE]
>}
>}Come now!  Nobody on Earth has that yet!  
>
>That's right, YET.  My officemate programs a Silicon Graphics "Personal IRIS"
>workstation which has 56 bit planes (24-bit color, 24-bit Z, 8-bit control)
>with about 1200x900 resolution.  We're over halfway there already....

   I'm always amazed when I see such a future-oriented group as 
   sci.space unaware of current technology.

   For years now, at least since the mid-80's, top-end graphics workstations
   have been 1280 X 1024, 80 bits per pixel.   Actually, some companies are
   starting to move beyond 1280 X 1024 to higher res., but the monitor
   costs are wicked, the electronics has to run a lot faster and the
   visual improvements are modest.   Typically, the 80 bits are organized
   as 8 bits each of R, G, and B and 16 bits of Z  multiplied by two for
   double buffering.   I expect that the numbers in the future will go to
   over a hundred bits per pixel as 24 or 32 bit Z becomes more common 
   and people want additional planes for overlays, special LUT bank selecting
   and other stuff.
                                                     ---Peter

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 19:02:44 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Modules

From article <2915@bucsb.UUCP>, by ckd@bucsb.UUCP (Christopher Davis):
> Anyone have a complete list of the callsigns (codenames?) for the Apollo
> LMs and CSMs?  Bonus points for the Gemini & Mercury capsules...
> +5 for listing all shuttle orbiters by OV-num (spelling counts :-).

OK, I'll bite

MR-3	Freedom Seven
MR-4	Liberty Bell Seven
MA-6	Friendship Seven
MA-7 	Aurora Seven
MA-8 	Sigma Seven
MA-9	Faith Seven
GT-3	Molly Brown (unofficial)
GT-4 to GTA-12 not named
Apollo 7,8 not named
Apollo	CSM		LM
9	Gumdrop		Spider
10	Charlie Brown	Snoopy
11	Columbia	Eagle
12	Yankee Clipper	Intrepid
13	Odyssey		Aquarius
14	Kitty Hawk	Antares
15	Endeavour	Falcon
16	Casper		Orion
17	America		Challenger

Skylab SL-2,3,4 not named
ASTP not named

Shuttle:
MPTA-098 Main Propulsion Test Article
STA-099 Static Test Article, later converted to OV-099 
OV-099	Challenger
OV-101	Enterprise
OV-102	Columbia
OV-103	Discovery
OV-104	Atlantis
OV-105	Endeavour

Howzat?


- Jonathan

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 01:19:59 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!otc!metro!basser!usage!ccadfa!csadfa!pgc@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Phil Clark)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

From article <1473@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>, by wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro):
> 
> In the last year or so, I read about a radio transmitter that was left
> on the Moon by one of the Apollo missions and that is still operating.
> Its frequency is somewhere around 2.3 GHz and is used as "beacon of
> opportunity" by some radio amateurs who conduct moonbounce operations
> on the amateur 13-cm band.
> 

The ALSEP transmitters in the "S" band (2200-2300Mhz) were commanded off
about 9-10 years ago by ORRORAL VALLEY tracking station (R.I.P.) in Australia. 
The signal level was quite low (about -150 to -155 DBm) so you would have
needed a damn good setup to get anything! I know they were turned off, because
I verified some of the commands myself. The ALSEP packages were left by several
missions, at one stage there were about 5 operating. From memory, I believe thatthey were powered by small thermonuclear packages. There were several other
scientific spacecraft orbiting the moon at various times transmitting in the
136Mhz, 400MHz and 2200MHz bands, I believe that all of these have now expired.
Incidentally, The Honeysuckle creek tracking station, over the hill from
Orroral valley, in Australia was a prime station for the Apollo 11 moon landing.
Both of these stations were closed as a result of budget considerations and
now are decaying relics in the southern Australian Capital Territory.

P. Clark,
VK1PC
pgc@csadfa.oz

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #594
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/sYsEDWK00UkVE1gU5w>;
          Thu, 10 Aug 89 00:26:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8YsEDHe00UkV81ek5Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 89 00:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #595

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 595

Today's Topics:
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
			  Re: Neil Armstrong
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
			     Re: Modules
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
			  Ground the DC-10!?
	     Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion
			   Moon instruments
		   Re: The now defunct Moon beacon
			     Re: Modules
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
		  Re: Does This Proposal Make Sense
			  Re: Neil Armstrong
	    Civilian Astronauts (was: Re: Neil Armstrong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 20:00:15 GMT
From: jupiter!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

>Didn't someone purchase one of the lunar rovers for an incredibly cheap
>price? Maybe I can buy this experiment for $10 and persuade NASA to turn
>it back on for use as an amateur beacon.

Sorry, but the lunar rovers were powered with primary chemical batteries
(Silver-Zinc, I believe) unlike the later ALSEP packages which were
powered by radioisotope thermal generators. Those chemical batteries
are long dead.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 19:25:48 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@handies.ucar.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong

In article <5428@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM>, johnob@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (John Obendorfer) writes:
> instances, but I believe one of the two moonwalkers on Apollo 17 was
> a civilian geologist 
> 
Does the name Harrison Schmidt ring a bell?  It should.  He was the geologist
on Apollo 17.  (BTW, there is an interesting sidelight on geology in Collins'
book 'Carrying the Fire'.  It was believed by some in the astronaut corps that
proficiency in geology would improve the chance of being first.  Naturally,
there was some desire to be good in geology.)

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 11:52:21 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!mucs!mario@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <2646@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
[concerning footage shown on a BBC programme]
> The view was back along the body of the saturn V third stage 
> in Earth orbit. The Earth can be seen going past on the left
> of the picture. The third stage is ignited, and the Earth
> starts to pass by faster and faster.
> 
> My question. Was this speeded up motion.
> 
> I suspect so, I don't think that the change in velocity
> would have been quite as obvious as all that.
> 
> The velocity change was from 28,100 Km/hr to 39,000 Km/hr,
> how long was the TLI (Trans-Lunar Injection) burn for.

This gives me a good chance to get a plug in for an excellent book on
the Apollo program:
	Project Apollo: The Way to the Moon
	P.J. Booker, G.C. Frewer and G.K.C. Pardoe
	Chatto & Windus, London, 1971.
Lots of technical detail, no cheer-leader stuff.
It took me all of 45 seconds to find that on a "typical" Saturn V
lift-off the duration of S-IVB stage ignition would be 5mins, 13secs. 
This gives an average acceleration of 9.7 ms^-2, or close to one G.  
The TLI burn for Apollo 11 was 5:47 (according to Collins, "Carrying
the Fire", p.370)...I guess they vary a bit from mission to mission.
This does indeed suggest that the film was speeded up. 

Even more amazing than the footage of TLI was the shot of the moon
sometime later.  I can't remember whether it was the LM descent engine
or the CM engine firing for LOI or TEI, but the lunar surface seemed
to light up.  Must watch the video again...

Mario Wolczko
   ______      Dept. of Computer Science    Internet:   mario@ux.cs.man.ac.uk
 /~      ~\    The University               USENET: mcvax!ukc!man.cs.ux!mario
(    __    )   Manchester M13 9PL           JANET:      mario@uk.ac.man.cs.ux
 `-':  :`-'    U.K.                         Tel: +44-61-275 6146  (FAX: 6280)
____;  ;_____________the mushroom project____________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 19:20:09 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@handies.ucar.edu  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Modules

In article <2915@bucsb.UUCP>, ckd@bucsb.UUCP (Christopher Davis) writes:
> Anyone have a complete list of the callsigns (codenames?) for the Apollo
> LMs and CSMs?  Bonus points for the Gemini & Mercury capsules...

Wouldn't you know I left my reference at home so I can't win the prize :-)

Of the Gemini series, only GT3 had a callsign.  'Molly Brown', with reference
to the movie and Gus Grissom's Mercury Redstone flight.  After that, higher-
ups nixed the practice of naming capsules until Apollo 9-17.

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu

standard disclaimer implied

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 23:12:25 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <8907201027.AA07833@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu> dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) writes:
>  Let's say you just happen to have hit the PA state lottery last April, and
> walked away with $115 Million. You will receive 5.75 M for 20 years. You save
> diligently for 6 -7 years.

  Egad!  Don't waste it on a silly airplane!  Proceed immediately to the
russians and book a flight on Mir.  Although with $115e6 to spend, you *could*
do both and have some change...
-- 
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 19:16:52 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Ground the DC-10!?


Why not?  There were civilians aboard.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 23:27:19 GMT
From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net  (John E Van Deusen III)
Subject: Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion

I read today in my home-town paper that "scientists" had presented
"evidence" that the antarctic ozone hole might be "related to" increased
incidence of skin cancer in southern Australia and New Zealand.  Does
anyone know anything about this "study"?  It defies logic for a number
of reasons and is apparently the "first" study to make such a claim.
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865

uunet!visdc!jiii

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 18:08:19 GMT
From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Moon instruments

During the replay of the Apollo 11 landing (THE UNIVERSE CAN BE YOURS, THROUGH
THE MAGIC OF RE-RUNS!!!) they mentioned two passive experiments, the
retro-reflector (much discussed here) and the 'passive seismometer'.

What do they mean by passive?  All the passive techniques I can think of
for seismometry are relatively insensitive.  Does passive just mean
'solar powered' or something like that?

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
	"Only 10% of the 4000 mile long coastline was affected."
		-Exxon's version of the oil spill as reported to stockholders

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 07:42:28 GMT
From: att!tsdiag!ka2qhd!w2vy@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Thomas A Moulton RATS Clifton NJ)
Subject: Re: The now defunct Moon beacon



It is very likely that either the power system is shutdown (or dead) OR
that they turned off any receivers that could be commanded to start the
transmitter again... and even if the receiver was working it would
cost too much to get the equipment and codings for the commands to
get anyone to move on it...

If anyone can Prove me wrong and get it turned it on, Knock your Socks off!
Go for it!... hihi
-- 
Life is too short to be mad about things.
Thomas A. Moulton, W2VY          Packet: w2vy@kd6th  Voice: 145.190 (r)
(201) 478-7919                   uucp: rutgers!petsd!tsdiag!ka2qhd!w2vy

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 12:40:12 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Modules

From article <14494@bfmny0.UUCP>, by tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff):
>>MPTA-098 Main Propulsion Test Article
> 
> 	what was this?  I would like more info.

It was a mockup of the aft thrust structure used to static
test the SSME's, I believe at NSTL (now Stennis Space Center),
but it might have been MSFC. I included it because it got
given a serial number.

-JCM

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 19:21:44 GMT
From: mitel!sce!nrcaer!dciem!bpd@uunet.uu.net  (Brian P. Dickson)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <1989Jul20.155758.15392@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <28852@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>>
>>Most of the footage of staging is from the unmanned missions, I don't
>>think that any of the manned boosters had the cameras on board.
>
>I'm not sure about that; remember that there were only two unmanned
>Saturn V launches.  I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of the early
>manned ones had camera pods aboard, especially given that the second
>unmanned flight hit problems.  (It took considerable boldness and a
>lot of confidence in the engineers to fly Apollo 8 on the third one.)

In the motion picture _Koyaniskaaski_ (sp?), there is a five minute
sequence at the end, where what appears to be a Saturn V is launched,
and in one continuous shot, explodes, with the camera following one
of the enormous engines for a very long time. Does anyone (Henry?) know
which vehicle this was, and why it detonated? (BTW, IMHO a great movie.)
--
Brian Dickson, NTT Systems Inc.
(*SPOILER* quote follows:)

"Launder it." - Bad Guy killed by a Felix lighter.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 18:17:23 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Does This Proposal Make Sense

In article <1226@bio73.unsw.oz> root@bio73.unsw.oz (Karl Redell ) writes:
>Despite the strong desires of many to experience space travel,
>
>ONLY A SELECT FEW WILL EVER MAKE IT INTO SPACE.
>
>Due to the extreme costs involved, no group of individuals, 
>or even a group of companies, can shoulder the expense.  It takes
>GOVERNMENT FUNDING!  Only a government can tax millions of people
>to generate the billions of dollars required.  

Details, details.  If we don't do anything, then yes, "Only a select few
will ever make it into space."

I saw an advertisement a year or so ago from one of the space
contractors involved in the space station.  They stated that if every
American contributed less than 2 cents a day, then there would be more
then enough to pay for the space station.  (I know what you're thinking;
read on.)

I'm sure that not EVERY American cares about space, nor are they willing
to pay anything.  However, if the administrative corporation sells
preferred stock, then people willing to INVEST hundreds or thousands of 
dollars would definitely come forward.  
 
Also, for the corporation to have the benefit of preferred stock
without having to pay dividends they could sell certificates for 
individual sponcerships of their favorite part of the space program.
 
There are ways to achieve our goals.  Nothing will discourage us -- 
Nothing!

- Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 23:21:39 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!dell!mikeh@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Mike Hammel)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong

In article <1750@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.ncsu.EDU (Jay C. Smith) writes:
>
>How many astronauts, other than shuttle mission or payload specialists, have
>there been who were never in the military?  I am using the strict definition
>of astronaut = someone who has been in space on a NASA mission.
Harrison Schmidt was a geologist, wasn't he?  I don't know if he was in the
military before that.  I'm not even sure I spelled his name right. :-)

Michael J. Hammel   | UUCP(preferred): ...!cs.utexas.edu!dell!Kepler!mjhammel
Dell Computer Corp. | Also: ...!dell!dell!mikeh  or 73377.3467@compuserve.com
Austin, TX	    | Phone: 512-338-4400 ext 7169  
	    	    | "I know engineers, they looooove to change things"
Disclaimer:	    |:
	These are my views, not necessarily those of the nice folks I work for.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 12:34:31 GMT
From: vax5!ga9@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: Civilian Astronauts (was: Re: Neil Armstrong)

In article <5428@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> johnob@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (John Obendorfer) writes:
>In article <SHAFER.89Jul25131104@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>>
>>How many astronauts, other than shuttle mission or payload specialists, have
>>there been who were never in the military?  I am using the strict definition
>>of astronaut = someone who has been in space on a NASA mission.
>
>   This is strictly from memory, so I could be mistaken in one of these
>instances, but I believe one of the two moonwalkers on Apollo 17 was
>a civilian geologist and that on at least one of the Skylab missions
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	It was Harrison Schmitt, who did his undergraduate work
	at RPI and his graduate work at some TECH school in CALifornia.

>a civilian physicist was in the crew.  These were, of course, the
>pre-shuttle equivalent of mission specialists -- they did not fly
>any of the vehicles involved.  Sorry, but names don't come to mind.
>
>   John

	*****************************************************************
	*  John Erickson, Professional Student				*
	*  Digital Equipment Corp. & Cornell University			*
 	*---------------------------------------------------------------*
	*  easynet:	mfgmem::erickson				*
	*  bitnet:	ga9@crnlvax5					*
	*  internet:	ga9@vax5.cit.cornell.edu			*
	*  uucp:	...!rochester!cornell!vax5.cit.cornell.edu!ga9  *
	*****************************************************************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #595
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/0YsZIAa00UkVQ3Jk5t>;
          Fri, 11 Aug 89 00:24:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <kYsZHy200UkV83I04C@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 89 00:24:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #596

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 596

Today's Topics:
      Geosync Satellite Finder (was Re: NASA Select Broadcasts)
			Re: Ground the DC-10!?
	     Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 10:11:17 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Geosync Satellite Finder (was Re: NASA Select Broadcasts)

In article <4980@mtuxo.att.com> tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes:
>I told a friend of mine about the NASA Select broadcasts of Neptune
>images on Tuesdays at noon. He has looked for them a couple of times
>and had another friend look a couple of times, with no luck picking
>up a signal. He has looked at other times to see if he can get anything,
>also with no luck. Has anyone been able to find NASA Select's broadcasts?
>
>Thanks for any information.
>

Please - before you flame me for this: I *know* sci.space isn't the place
for sources, but I couldn't think of a better place for this one, and it's
not too long anyway. Just copy the rest of this posting into a file, make
it executable and run it as a shell-script. That gives you the file 'geosync.c'
which you compile and run. Enjoy!

CUT HERE --- CUT HERE
if test -f geosync.c; then echo "File geosync.c exists"; else
echo "x - extracting geosync.c (Text)"
sed 's/^X//' << 'SHAR_EOF' > geosync.c &&
X/*
X * GEOSYNC.C - Calculate position of a geostationary satellite.
X * Version 1.2:	S.Hosgood, May 10th 1989
X *
X * This program is in the Public Domain.
X * It may be freely copied and distributed as long as no charge is made.
X *
X * No responsibility can be accepted for the accuracy of the results.
X * The program is for amusement only.
X *
X * Written for the IBM PC, using Microsoft C 4.0.
X * Use is made of the IBM's 'degrees' symbol. It should be no problem to
X * make it work on other systems though
X *
X * To run: just type 'geosync' and answer the questions.
X *
X * Please forward bug reports to:
X * Steve Hosgood (iiit-sh@pyr.swan.ac.uk).
X *
X */
X
X# include	<stdio.h>
X# include	<math.h>
X# include	<ctype.h>
X
X# ifndef	PI
X# define	PI		3.141592653589793
X# endif
X
X# define	degtorad(x)	((x)*PI/180.0)
X# define	radtodeg(x)	((x)*180.0/PI)
X
X/* Radius of Earth, and Radius of Geosync Orbit */
X/* These constants are off the top of my head, may be a bit wrong */
X# define	E_RAD		6378.388	/* Km (equator) */
X# define	O_RAD		42240.31	/* Km (from centre of earth) */
X
X/* flattening factor for geoid */
X# define	FLAT		(1.0 / 298.26)
X
Xdouble readval( char * );
X
Xmain()
X{
X	double	a, b, c, d, n, w;
X	double	vert, tmp, e_rad;
X	double	satwest, obswest, obsnorth;
X
X	satwest = readval("Enter satellite's Longitude");
X	obswest = readval("Enter observer's Longitude");
X	obsnorth = readval("Enter observer's Latitude");
X
X	a = sin(w = degtorad(satwest - obswest));
X	b = sin(n = degtorad(obsnorth));
X	c = cos(w);
X	d = cos(n);
X
X	/* Earth's radius follows a sin-squared law with latitude (appx) */
X	e_rad = E_RAD*(1 - FLAT*b*b);
X	vert = O_RAD*c*d - e_rad;
X
X	/* attempt to avoid DOMAIN errors from trig functions */
X	if ((tmp = O_RAD*sqrt(c*c*b*b + a*a)) <= 1e-6 && tmp >= -1e-6) {
X		if (vert > 0.0)
X			printf("Vertically up\n");
X		else
X			printf("Vertically down\n");
X	}
X	else {
X		printf("Elevation = %6.2f\370\n", radtodeg(atan2(vert, tmp)));
X
X		if ((tmp = c*b) <= 1e-6 && tmp >= -1e-6)
X			/* bearing directly east or west */
X			tmp = a > 0.0? 90.0: -90.0;
X		else
X			tmp = radtodeg(atan2(a, tmp));
X
X
X		printf("Bearing ");
X		if (tmp > 89.95 && tmp < 90.05)
X			printf("due West");
X		else if (tmp < -89.95 && tmp > -90.05)
X			printf("due East");
X		else {
X			/* nice to see bearings +/- South or +/- North */
X			printf("(Clockwise from ");
X	
X			if (tmp < -90.0 || tmp > 90.0) {
X				tmp += 180.0;
X				printf("north");
X	
X				if (tmp >= 180.0)
X					tmp -= 360.0;
X			}
X			else
X				printf("south");
X	
X			printf(") = %6.2f\370", tmp);
X		}
X
X		putchar('\n');
X	}
X
X	if ((d = e_rad/(O_RAD*cos(n))) > 1.0 || d < -1.0) {
X		printf("No geosync satellites visible from there\n");
X		printf("Limit latitude is appx \361%6.2f\370\n", radtodeg(acos(E_RAD/O_RAD)));
X	}
X	else {
X		c = radtodeg(acos(d));
X
X		fputs("Satellites ", stdout);
X		prlong(c+obswest);
X		fputs(" thru ", stdout);
X		prlong(obswest-c);
X		fputs(" are visible\n", stdout);
X	}
X
X	exit(0);
X}
X
Xdouble
Xreadval(str)
Xchar *str;
X{
X	char		buffer[30];
X	register char	chr, *cptr;
X	int		err;
X	static		longmesg = 0;
X	double		ret, atof( char * );
X
X	do {
X		/* prompt */
X		fprintf(stderr, "%s: ", str);
X		err = 0;
X
X		cptr = fgets(buffer, sizeof buffer, stdin);
X		if (*cptr == '-')
X			cptr++;
X
X		/* check that a number is present at all */
X		if (!isdigit(*cptr) && *cptr != '.')
X			goto error;			
X
X		/* get integer degrees part anyway */
X		ret = atoi(cptr);
X
X		/* look for next non-numeric */
X		for (; (chr = *cptr) && isdigit(chr); cptr++);
X
X		if (chr == ':') {
X			/* get integer of minutes of arc */
X			ret += atoi(++cptr) / 60.0;
X
X			/* step past minutes of arc */
X			for (; (chr = *cptr) && isdigit(chr); cptr++);
X
X			if (chr == ':') {
X				/* get seconds of arc */
X				ret += atof(++cptr) / 3600.0;
X
X				/* step past seconds of arc */
X				for (; (chr = *cptr) && isdigit(chr); cptr++);
X				if (chr == '.')
X					/* step past optional decimal part */
X					for (cptr++; (chr = *cptr) && isdigit(chr); cptr++);
X			}
X			else if (chr == '.') {
X				/* get decimal part of minutes of arc */
X				ret += atof(cptr) / 60.0;
X
X				/* step past decimal part */
X				for (cptr++; (chr = *cptr) && isdigit(chr); cptr++);
X			}
X
X		}
X		else if (chr == '.') {
X			/* get decimal part of degrees */
X			ret += atof(cptr);
X
X			/* step past decimal part */
X			for (cptr++; (chr = *cptr) && isdigit(chr); cptr++);
X		}
X
X		/* check final character */
X		switch (chr) {
X		case 'N':
X		case 'n':
X		case 'W':
X		case 'w':
X		case '\n':
X			/* do nothing */
X			break;
X
X		case 'E':
X		case 'e':
X		case 'S':
X		case 's':
X			ret = -ret;
X			break;
X
X		default:
X		error:
X			/* print a fairly useful error message */
X			fputs(buffer, stderr);
X			*cptr-- = '\0';
X			while (cptr >= buffer)
X				*cptr-- = ' ';
X
X			fprintf(stderr, "%s^-----Error in input\n\n", buffer);
X			err = 1;
X		}
X
X		if (err & !longmesg) {
X			fprintf(stderr, "Format: {-}<deg>{NSEW}\n");
X			fprintf(stderr, "<deg> ::= integer or real\n\n");
X			fprintf(stderr, "Or..  : {-}<deg>:<min>{NSEW}\n");
X			fprintf(stderr, "<deg> ::= integer\n");
X			fprintf(stderr, "<min> ::= integer or real\n\n");
X			fprintf(stderr, "Or..  : {-}<deg>:<min>:<sec>{NSEW}\n");
X			fprintf(stderr, "<deg> ::= integer\n");
X			fprintf(stderr, "<min> ::= integer\n");
X			fprintf(stderr, "<sec> ::= integer or real\n\n");
X			fprintf(stderr, "Items in braces are optional\n\n");
X			longmesg++;
X		}
X	} while (err);
X
X	return (*buffer == '-')? -ret: ret;
X}
X
Xprlong(val)
Xdouble val;
X{
X	char	eastwest;
X
X	/* get into range +180 -> -180 degrees */
X	while (val > 180.0)
X		val -= 360.0;
X
X	while (val < -180.0)
X		val += 360.0;
X
X	if (val < 0.0) {
X		eastwest = 'E';
X		val = -val;
X	}
X	else if (val > 0.0)
X		eastwest = 'W';
X	else
X		eastwest = ' ';
X
X	printf("%5.1f\370%c", val, eastwest);
X	return;
X}
SHAR_EOF
chmod 0644 geosync.c || echo "restore of geosync.c fails"
fi
exit 0

-----------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Steve Hosgood BSc,                             | Phone (+44) 792 295213
Image Processing and Systems Engineer,         | Fax (+44) 792 295532
Institute for Industrial Information Techology,| Telex 48149
Innovation Centre, University of Wales, +------+ JANET: iiit-sh@uk.ac.swan.pyr
Swansea SA2 8PP                         | UUCP: ..!ukc!cybaswan.UUCP!iiit-sh
----------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            My views are not necessarily those of my employers!

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 18:29:05 GMT
From: att!laidbak!jeq@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jonathan E. Quist)
Subject: Re: Ground the DC-10!?

In article <1746@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
>
>Why not?  There were civilians aboard.

Did I miss something?

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 16:35:28 GMT
From: ginosko!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!chidsey@bbn.com  (Irving Chidsey )
Subject: Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion

In article <609@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes:
<I read today in my home-town paper that "scientists" had presented
<"evidence" that the antarctic ozone hole might be "related to" increased
<incidence of skin cancer in southern Australia and New Zealand.  Does
<anyone know anything about this "study"?  It defies logic for a number
<of reasons and is apparently the "first" study to make such a claim.
<--
<John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865
<
<uunet!visdc!jiii

There are several plausible reasons why the Antarctic Ozone Hole might have
an effect in Southern Australia or Souther New Zealand.

The hole is not a neat hole with straight vertical sides like you might make
with a drill; it has messy sloping sides like a hole in dry sand after it has
been walked through a few times.

Horizontal winds can move the ozone depleted air for quite a distance before
it gets to a location where the solar UV flux is strong enough to replenish
the ozone.

The ozone density is the result of a dynamic balance between production and
depletion.  The full equilibrium density as approached asymptoticaly, and
extra solar UV gets through until full density is reached.

Note also that they said might.  This is still a conjecture supported by
plausible armwaving arguments, and refuted by other plausible armwaving 
arguments.  It sounds like it would be a good learning project for a Phd 
candidate ( or perhaps a small group of graduate students ).

					Irv


-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
			Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #596
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4Ysbr=O00UkVE3aU49>;
          Fri, 11 Aug 89 03:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <cYsbr1200UkVA3Yk4w@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 89 03:18:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #597

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 597

Today's Topics:
		      Triton's retrograde orbit
			  Re: Neil Armstrong
		       Re: latest Quayle gaffe
		     Quick and Dirty Won the Race
			     Buzz's jokes
		 Re: Period of sidereal day on moon?y
			  Re: Beyond Neptune
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 89 18:02 EST
From: KROVETZ@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Triton's retrograde orbit

Can Triton's orbit be explained via a collision involving Pluto?
(either directly or via some third body).

Thanks,
Bob

krovetz@cs.umass.edu (internet)
krovetz@umass (bitnet)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 09:29:58 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong

In article <1116@hcx1.UUCP> fcs@hardy.hdw.harris.com (Fred Sabernick) writes:
>There is a humorous but rather unflattering story about Neil Armstrong in
>Chuck Yeager's autobiography _Yeager_.

That's a good book! Actually, I seem to remember another story in the same
book about how Armstrong ran a jet into a hangar door because he killed
the engine(s) before he stopped rolling after a landing, not realising that the
engine(s) supplied the hydraulic pressure to the brakes!

To be fair, Yeager does commend Armstrong's piloting of Apollo 11.

This is also from memory..
Steve

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 23:16:00 GMT
From: ima!mirror!frog!john@decvax.dec.com  (John Woods)
Subject: Re: latest Quayle gaffe

In article <33327@apple.Apple.COM>, leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
> In article <14477@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> >By the way this is only barely sci.space, but I assume folks have heard
> >about Danno's latest.
>     Perhaps this is a heretical thought, but it seems to me that
> Quayle is actually doing a *good job* as chairman of the NSC.  Now,
> maybe this is just because it's full of competent people; but even
> then, it shows he's listening to them.

Interestingly enough, it seems that he's doing a good job by _not_ listening
to the National Space Council.  Consider that his recent Mars Mission Three-
Part Plan (Space Station, Lunar trial base, Mars mission itself) was
supposedly cooked up by himself without giving the NSC members a chance to
pee in the plan (in particular, OMB was upset; their Mars mission plan reads
"Throw a paper airplane at Mars (used government stationery, 1 sheet; cost:
$1465, including folding and throwing labor, cost of cost estimate, cost of
cost-of-cost-estimate, and OMB administrative overhead, underhand, and
overarm).")

My fear is that he's just playing part of a "good cop/bad cop" team; the
"good cop" Quayle proposes a disturbingly sensible and long-range space
effort, the "bad cop" Bush says we can't afford it as long as there are
secondhomeless defense-contractor-CEOs, but the "administration" gets
favorable reviews because a sensible idea was spoken without immediate
retraction...
-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu
    People...How you gonna FIGURE 'em?
    Don't bother, S.L.--Just stand back and enjoy the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS...

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 07:58:31 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!otc!metro!basser!ray@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Raymond Lister)
Subject: Quick and Dirty Won the Race

I thought readers might be interested in the following newspaper article.
Its from the Sydney Morning Herald, July 21st 1989 (Armstrong stepped on
the lunar surface on July 21, Australian time).  

The story ran under the title "Quick and Dirty Won the Race". It is
reproduced here without permission.

---

While NASA celebrates the twentieth anniversary of man's first step on the
moon, all true space cadets should wear black armbands.  The Apollo project
was an expensive political gimmick which set back the exploration and
colonisation of space by more than a decade.

There are two ways to travel into space.  The first way is to ride in a
capsule on a ballistic rocket; it's a bit like flying in a cannon ball.  The
second is to use a rocket with wings.  And there are two ways to get back
down from space;  either in a capsule with a heat shield  (it's a bit like a
cannon ball with a parachute) or by gliding down like an aeroplane.

The cannon ball was the preferred means during the space race.  It was
the quick and dirty approach.  The necessary technology had already
been mastered by both the Americans and the Russians for transporting
their weapons of mass destruction.  However, a new vehicle is required
for every flight, so the cost is high.

In the long term, reusable winged craft are more economical for routine
access to space.  But during the sixties, long term economics stood little
chance against the short term political need to win the race to the moon.

The United States worked on rocket planes long before the space race.
In 1947, Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in a winged rocket called
the X-1. NASA is still developing X series research aircraft.  The
most famous is the X-15.  On July 19, 1963, the X-15 flew over 100
kilometres above sea level, making pilot Joseph Walker the first man to
travel into space on wings.

In 1981, journalists hailed the space shuttle Columbia as the first craft
to fly twice into space.  In fact, the X-15 achieved this in August 1963.
However, the X-15 was never designed to travel fast enough to reach orbit.
Its successor, the X-20, was intended to do that.

The US Air Force was so committed to rocket planes that it started work on
the X-20 in 1957, almost two years before the X-15's first flight. The X-20
was known as "Dyna-Soar", an abbreviation for "dynamic soaring". It was to be
boosted into orbit on a ballistic missile, but it was to glide back
Earth like an aeroplane.

But events had overtaken the rocket planes. The naive engineers of the
X-15 project could not understand the panic among the public when, on
October 1957, Russia launched Sputnik I. As millions listened to its
radio bleeps, they saw a future with orbiting nuclear weapons, ready to
fall and destroy the free world.

The public was shocked again in 1961 when Yuri Gagarin became the first
human cannon ball into orbit.  To the politicians, the press, and the public,
the Russians seemed to be far ahead.  In fact the Russians had pursued the
ballistic missile approach because winged space craft were far beyond their
capacity.  The United States was a long way ahead, but the technology was
too subtle.

When President Kennedy committed the United States to reaching the moon
before 1970, it was impossible for rocket planes to meet the challenge.  The
moon race killed off further development of winged space craft throughout the
60s.  In 1963, the X-20 project suffered death by a thousand cuts.  The
name "Dyna-Soar" had been prophetic.

The X-15 made its final flight in 1968.  It was still a useful research
vehicle, but NASA retired it for political reasons.  It was felt that
Congress would not fund the next generation hypersonic vehicle until the
X-15 was no more.  Congress didn't fund it anyway.  Today, the most
successful research aircraft ever flown hangs from the ceiling of the
Smithsonian Air and Space museum in Washington.

The US achieved the dubious honour of being first to the moon by
constructing the largest rocket that would ever fly.  The Saturn V stood 110
metres high on the launch pad.

All that remained by the end of the Apollo 11 mission was a command module
the size of a Volkswagon.

Even before Armstrong had taken his "small step", NASA knew it needed to
return to winged vehicles. NASA planned to build a space station and a fully
reusable vehicle was required to shuttle between it and the Kennedy Space
Center.

But Congress had other plans.  After Apollo 11, America  had more important
places to spend its money.  The war in Vietnam was expensive.  Later, the OPEC
oil prices left little slack in the national budget.

NASA reasoned that it would take several years to build the shuttle, and it
would face a battle every Budget.  If the shuttle's only rationale was to
ferry materials to a space station that would not be built until after the
shuttle was operational, how tempting it would be for Congress to cancel the
whole project.  An interim role for the shuttle seemed a prudent political
ploy.

NASA hit upon the idea of orbiting satellites from the shuttle. Since the
reusable shuttle would be cheaper to launch than the old expendable rockets,
NASA argued that there was no need for other rockets.  The shuttle would
become America's sole launch vehicle for both civilian and military satellites.

The assumption that the shuttle would be cheap to operate depended on
the idea of a completely reusable vehicle.  However, increasingly tight
development budgets forced NASA to look at a semi-reusable compromise.

The original shuttle design concept had two winged vehicles. The larger one
was called the booster, and was to carry the smaller orbiter on its back. The
booster would take off vertically, and fly to about 80km above sea level. The
orbiter would then fire its own engines and continue up to orbit.  Meanwhile,
the booster would fall back into the lower atmosphere, where it would start
turbofan engines and fly back to base, like a conventional aeroplane.

The anticipated development budget for this design was only half the
cost of the entire Apollo project, but the US government would not fund
it.  So NASA simplified the design, introducing semi-reusable rockets.

NASA had successfully reduced the cost of developing the shuttle to a price
Congress was willing to accept, but the cost of operating the shuttle went up.

NASA's ploy to use the shuttle to launch all American satellites meant
contending with the demands of the Pentagon.  The thought of an emergency
shuttle landing in a communist country, while carrying a military satellite,
was more than any general could bear.  The military insisted that the shuttle
be highly manoeuvrable, so that it could always land in a friendly country.
This requirement led to the large, heavy delta wings on the shuttle, and the
need for the heat resistant tiles.  Just as the politicians had hijacked
NASA in the sixties, the military hijacked the shuttle in the seventies.

When development problems arose during the moon race, money was available
to fix it.  However, Congress had capped NASA's shuttle budget. If more
money was needed to solve a problem, then NASA had to wait until it was
available in the following year's budget.  So, while the shuttle's
development budget stayed low within any one year, delay after delay
fashioned the cumulative budget into NASA's only skyrocket.

Today, America's shuttle fleet achieves nothing like the launch economies
that NASA had originally hoped for.

The space shuttle is no cheaper than expendable rockets for launching
satellites.  It may even be too expensive for servicing NASA's planned space
station.

NASA has to try to run a costly long term research project, when its budget
is subject to annual political review.  With the benefit of hindsight NASA
should never have attempted to build the compromise semi-reusable shuttle;
it should have stuck with expendable rockets.  This would have left enough
money for a modest but useful semi-permanent space station. In short, NASA
should have opted for the sort of space program the Russians run.

Believers in the one true winged path into space convinced President Reagan
to fund the X-30 National Aerospace Plane.  It will be completely reusable;
it won't require booster rockets; it will scoop up air to burn its hydrogen
slush fuel, resorting to rockets only for the last small push into space.

But America now faces its greatest budgetary problems in history. Congress
looks set to kill the X-30, like the X-20 twenty six years ago.  Until
winged travel into space becomes a reality, we will not return to the moon.

Raymond Lister
Basser Department of Computer Science
University of Sydney
NSW  2006
AUSTRALIA

ray@basser.cs.su.oz.au@uunet.uu.net

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 28 Jul 89 16:17 EST
From: <GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:  Buzz's jokes

     A friend of mine saw the lunar landing on A&E and thought he heard Buzz
Aldrin say something as he was closing the outside hatch of the LM.  What
exactly did Buzz say?  Was it something like

     "and I'll try not to lock it." or "You got the keys?" ?

So, who taped the episode and can give me the answer.  E-mail me, by the time
I get the BITNET Digests, the leaves will be falling.  :-)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|  Arnold Gill                      |
|  Queen's University at Kingston   |
|  BITNET:  gill@qucdnast           |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 22:39:51 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!watmath!julian!uwovax!2014_2300@uunet.uu.net  (Ken Hunt')
Subject: Re: Period of sidereal day on moon?y

In article <1496@dukeac.UUCP>, tcamp@dukeac.UUCP (Ted A. Campbell) writes:
> What is the period of a sidereal day on the moon?  

	Hmmm. That's a toughie!

	I can tell you that it is going to be about the length of a lunar
	month, 29.5306 days. The moon has what is called a captured rotation
	Therefore it turns on its axis once every orbit. This is why we always
	see the same side. As for a sidereal day, there are going to be
	corrections for the obrit of the earth and such.

	I am not sure if that helped.
				-- Ken
-- 
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------!
! Ken Hunt,  Dept. of Astronomy, Dept. of Applied Math,                 !
!	University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada          !
! hunt@uwovax.uwo.ca                                 hunt@uwovax.bitnet !
! ----------------------------------------------------------------------!
! "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth     !
!       the humble reasoning of a single individual." -Galileo Galilei- !
! ----------------------------------------------------------------------!
!  	Signature subject to change without prior notification          !
!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 03:17:31 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utfyzx!sq!msb@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Beyond Neptune

> Ok, here's a far-fetched question..
> My understanding is that after the Voyager II Neptune fly-by, Voyager
> will head out of the solar system.  What possibilities are there for a
> slingshot around Neptune ... towards Pluto ... or back [inwards]?

None.  Slingshot maneuvers causing more than a slight alteration in the
vehicle's path are possible only when the escape speed of the planet --
actually the escape speed from the altitude of the closest permitted
approach is what matters -- is about as large as the vehicle's orbital
speed, or larger.  (Notice the many words in that sentence conveying the
idea that it is an approximation; still it will do for intuitive purposes.)

Now, the slingshot maneuvers that Voyager II has already undergone have
each added to its orbital speed.  It made it to Neptune in less than half
the time that a minimum-energy path would have involved.  So it's moving
much too fast now for Neptune to deflect it much at all.

In fact, this was also more or less true in the encounter with Uranus,
I think.  It was only the fact that the outer planets are roughly aligned
just now that made this "Grand Tour" trip possible at all.  And we're very
lucky that Voyager II made it, because it wasn't actually designed for the
trip, and we can all expect to be dead and buried before such an alignment
occurs again.


-- 
Mark Brader		We say, "But it wasn't designed to do that!";
Toronto			our managers say, "Our customers want this!";
utzoo!sq!msb		we say, "Small is beautiful!"; and they say,
msb@sq.com		"Money is beautiful!"	    -- Andrew Tannenbaum

This article is in the public domain.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #597
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/oYsdbG200UkVE3kU5j>;
          Fri, 11 Aug 89 05:18:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <UYsdb-200UkVQ3ik4d@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 89 05:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #598

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 598

Today's Topics:
 Re: Russian Mars Probe (was Re: Possible Evidence For Life On Mars.)
			re: neptune encounter
		 Re: Period of sidereal day on moon?y
			      Satellites
			     Re: Modules
			     NSS Dinners
		  NSS Elections -- Comments anyone?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 06:48:00 GMT
From: uakari.primate.wisc.edu!indri!pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!paranet!mcorbin@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Russian Mars Probe (was Re: Possible Evidence For Life On Mars.)


 > From: suelh@druhi.ATT.COM (Sue Hendrix)
 > Date: 26 Jul 89 17:02:00 GMT
 > Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO
 > Message-ID: <4442@druhi.ATT.COM>
 > Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
 >
 > In article <1989Jul24.034608.15245@cs.dal.ca>,
 > lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) writes:
 > > I caught a bit on the CBC news a few weeks ago about a recent U.S.S.R.
 > probe
 > > to Mars - sorry I don't remember the name.  Apparently the probe suddenly
 > > went dead as it entered the planet's orbit.  According to the news piece,
 > > the Russians have been very closed mouthed about what happened to the
 > probe
 > > but have made comments about something "extaordinary" which "shouldn't
 > have
 > > been there".  They have refused to release the final pictures taken by
 > the
 > > craft which apparently sparked these comments but were planning to show
 > > them at an upcoming scientific conference.  There was no mention of this
 > > being evidence of life on Mars or of alien life but that seemed to be the
 > > suggestion of the piece.
 >
 > I tried for an email reply, but my mailer died on this.
 >
 > Well, I DO have some details, but they come from a fantasy
 > role playing
 > game.
 >
 > We are playing a modern day GURPS game set at JPL.  Our
 > characters have
 > discovered that the Phobos probe is still active, has been
 > taken over
 > by some group of people and is sending back pictures which
 > include human
 > looking skeletons on Phobos.
 >
 > Of course this is all fantasy,  but our GM has been known
 > to be
 > prescient on occasion...
 >
 > Your article was a source of amusement and chills among our
 > group.
 >
 > Cheers.
 > --
 >                                       Sue Hendrix,
 > net.goddess
 >                                       att!drutx!druhi!suelh
 >
 > "Grenades in the halls?  I don't think I can get that
 > authorized."
 >
 > --- ConfMail V4.00
 >  * Origin: Paranet - The worls most important computer
 > network (1:30163/150)

Sue,

Here is a transcript of an article that might be of interest to 
you.  If anyone has more information, I would also appreciate it.

Mike


THE FOLLOWING NEWS ITEM APPEARED ON AP (ASSOCIATED PRESS) AT
4:41 PM EST MARCH 30, 1989:
.
"SOVIET RESEARCH CENTERS ARE NOW TRYING TO INTERPRET SO FAR
'UNEXPLAINED OPTICAL PHONOMENA' ON THE PICTURES OF THE MARTIAN
SURFACE.  THE PICTURES SHOW AN INIGMATIC STRIP 23-25 MILES
WIDE AND A LARGE SPINDLE-SHAPED FORMATION."
.
According to NASA liason spokepersons in Moscow, the Soviets
had not turned on their camera and WERE NOT even taking
pictures of the Martian surface.  This is the information
which was relayed only a few weeks ago.  AP also stated
that the Soviet news program "Vremya" showed a detailed
map of Mars "compiled from photos taken during the mission."
It DOES now appear that the Soviets WERE taking pictures and
furthermore, it looks like they may have found something
in those photographs which is quite interesting.
.
=============================================================
Uploaded by Martin Arant on ParaNet Alpha
(303)431-1343

--  
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 19:14:05 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!drutx!michael@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (J. Michael Butters)
Subject: re: neptune encounter


>Ok, here's a far-fetched question..

>My understanding is that after the Voyager II Neptune fly-by, Voyager
>will head out of the solar system.  What possibilities are there for a
>slingshot around Neptune to send the probe towards Pluto (if it could
>catch the planet), or even slingshot it back towards the planets it had
>already visited for yet another look, eventually bringing it towards
>Earth?  Let's get a little bit more carried away and say that we could
>capture the probe for analysis of anything which may have been carried
>back from encounters with the distant planets, such as microscopic dust
>from the outer planets.

>How possible would such a maneuver be?  Are we lacking too much 
>information on the planets to be able to calculate the trajectories?

>Alternatively, if Voyager II heads out of the solar system, how much
>longer will we be able to maintain radio contact?  Will the probe be
>sending back information at that time, or will it be simply shut off 
>and left to drift?

>-charles
>-- 
>Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  (812) 339-7354
>cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu              {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf
>Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

Way back in December, 1970, National Geographic had an article in their
monthly magazine entitled "Voyage to the Planets" which discussed the
missions of the Voyager spacecrafts and their planned trajectories
to ALL the planets of the solar system.  One of the crafts was to pass
well under the planet Saturn which would send it at an angle up to the
planet Pluto.  I never did learn why this plan was rejected and Pluto
left out of the mission.

In answer to your questions, I think that Pluto is at too great and angle
from where Neptune is at to accomplish such a maneuver with the spacecraft.
Maybe I don't quite understand all the necessary factors involved in changing
trajectories but I think that a large angle change in direction is not 
possible given the conditions of the spacecraft (like the small amount of
fuel on board), or the stress that the craft would have to endure by
coming very close to a planet in order to make such a large change in
trajectory.

As far a the transmitter goes I think that it will be left on and tracked
until it either quits or the signal is too weak to receive any longer.

J. Michael Butters		AT&T Bell Labs    Denver

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 13:58:51 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Period of sidereal day on moon?y

In article <3225@uwovax.uwo.ca>, 2014_2300@uwovax.uwo.ca (Ken Hunt) wrote:
}In article <1496@dukeac.UUCP>, tcamp@dukeac.UUCP (Ted A. Campbell) writes:
}> What is the period of a sidereal day on the moon?  
}        I can tell you that it is going to be about the length of a lunar
}        month, 29.5306 days. The moon has what is called a captured rotation

The sidereal day of the moon is about 27.3 days.  During that time, the
earth-moon system has moved far enough in orbit around the sun that it takes
the moon two full days to catch up.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
FAX: available on request                      Disclaimer? I claimed something?
"I don't want to sound like I'm avoiding answering your question; I just want
to avoid answering your question."  -- Alan Demers

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 06:53:00 GMT
From: uakari.primate.wisc.edu!indri!pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!paranet!mcorbin@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Satellites

I am new to this newsgroup and am curious about something that I 
have seen in the night sky.

I have noticed a variety of objects which appear to be the size 
of a medium star moving in different directions across the sky. 
Some of them are probably satellites, however there have been a 
few which pulse or flash very intensely at times and do not seem 
to be rythmic.  Could anyone enlighten me on what these objects 
could be?

Thanks,

Mike

--  
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 16:43:54 GMT
From: nsc!taux01!amos@decwrl.dec.com  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: Modules

Talk about bad-luck names!

In article <1620@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:
>13	Odyssey		Aquarius
        ^
Named after Odysseus' mythic journey - he had had a lot of trouble coming
back home!

>17	America		Challenger
                        ^
The last of its kind...  :-(

-- 
	Amos Shapir		amos@taux01.nsc.com or amos@nsc.nsc.com
National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
Tel. +972 52 522261  TWX: 33691, fax: +972-52-558322
34 48 E / 32 10 N			(My other cpu is a NS32532)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 01:19:07 GMT
From: edsews!rel!ttardis!lfm@uunet.uu.net  (The Master -- ttardis SuperUser)
Subject: NSS Dinners

I got the following enclosure in my latest issue of the National Space 
Society magazine "Ad Astra" and thought some of you might be interested.  Me,
I can't afford it, but maybe some desperate netter can scrape together the
dough:  (BTW: this is typed in exactly as it appears)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         IN CELEBRATION OF THE VOYAGER 2 ENCOUNTER WITH NEPTUNE
                             Gene Roddenberry
            The Board of Directors of National Space Society
                      The Original Cast of Star Trek

                        Cordially invite you to an

                            Informal Reception

               To see the encounter *live* from Voyager 2
                                  and
                  to meet the Original Star Trek Stars

                        Friday, August 25, 1989

                             5:00 - 7:00 pm

                                  at

                        Dabney Lounge and Gardens
                   California Institute of Technology
                         Pasedena, California

  $100 per person                                             Casual Dress

             CALL NSS (202) 543-1900 FOR YOUR INVITATION
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

         IN CELEBRATION OF THE VOYAGER 2 ENCOUNTER WITH NEPTUNE
                             Gene Roddenberry
            The Board of Directors of National Space Society
                      The Original Cast of Star Trek

                        Cordially invite you to a

                         Private Cocktail Buffet
                                 with the
                   Star Trek: The Next Generation Cast

                     on the closed set of Star Trek

                        Saturday, August 26, 1989

                             7:00 - 9:00 P.M.

                                   at

                           Paramount Pictures
                           5555 Melrose Avenue
                          Hollywood, California

  $1,000 per person                                          Informal Dress
                             Limited Seating

            CALL NSS (202) 543-1900 TODAY FOR YOUR INVITATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-JT
______________________________________________________________________________
"Stop, you running dog of the oppressor class and crypto-fascist enemy of the
 proletariat!"
"Yes! What he said!"
  -- Two Soviet HIND-D pilots use a typical Soviet Battle-Cry 
     [G.I. Joe Special Missions #19]

JT the LFM (Large Furry Marsupial)       UUCP: ...uunet!edsews!rel!ttardis!lfm

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 22:38:49 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: NSS Elections -- Comments anyone?

I just received my ballot for the NSS Board of Directors Election.
While I am familiar with a few of the names (Ben Bova, Hugh Downs,
Eric Drexler, and Christine Peterson), I am completely unfamiliar with
most of the candidates.  Does anyone have any comments (pro or con)
about:

Andrew Cutler
Edward Finch
Nathan Goldman
Mark Hopkins
Margaret Jordan
John Logsdon
Richard Puckett
Joseph Redfield
Glenn Reynolds
Terry Savage
Glen Wilson

(They each have a <300 word essay in the ballot, but most are not
especially informative.)

I do get the impression that Hopkins has been influential in recent
NSS policy -- which may be good or bad depending on whether you like
recent NSS policy.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #598
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/oYttr4O00UkVI1c04k>;
          Tue, 15 Aug 89 00:36:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4YttqsW00UkVM1aE4O@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 00:36:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #599

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 599

Today's Topics:
	      NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 89 22:48:15 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  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
RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS-28     
1 20164U          89221.52882947 0.00078985           25599-3 0    68
2 20164  56.9983  41.8057 0010007 307.1310  52.8389 15.90144002   172
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 89 22:56:43 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #554 -
STS-28     
1 20164U          89221.52882947 0.00078985           25599-3 0    68
2 20164  56.9983  41.8057 0010007 307.1310  52.8389 15.90144002   172
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89219.56017099 0.00000144           16362-3 0  2268
2 00424  80.4619 235.2215 0023767   2.6067 357.5203 13.67175793339836
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89205.95482766  .00000149  00000-0  14510-3 0  2809
2 00727  69.9013  14.6705 0012349  43.2838 316.9236 13.93555572298358
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89220.29644521  .00006700  00000-0  45789-3 0  3987
2 03019  64.0628 309.7143 0216553 222.4163 136.0198 14.89845819112841
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89220.47785184 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2416
2 03029  12.8190  23.7644 0016243 196.2850 163.7257  1.00272220 79665
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89220.38447446  .00106669  00000-0  70063-3 0  9112
2 04966  51.5447 271.9312 2503300 301.8512  36.2312 10.55894323557892
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89221.96173206 0.00000005                   0  8570
2 08820 109.8386 248.5062 0045158 304.6009  55.0550  6.38663924 54069
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89214.63269406 -.00000008                   0  2909
2 10061   7.2769  67.5225 0005202 160.3046 197.8911  1.00262946  5840
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89220.80838454 0.00000010           10000-3 0  1851
2 10684  63.6220  99.0762 0107820 198.4579 161.2307  2.00560015 69581
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89221.26760498 -.00000027                   0   208
2 10893  64.5097 340.0329 0154543  27.9863 332.8582  2.00555137 82416
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89217.68126890 0.00000085           10000-3 0  7001
2 10953   6.1820  70.2390 0007516 256.1492 103.7452  1.00280201  1430
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89221.00981266 0.00000704           29165-3 0  1490
2 10967 108.0191  36.4096 0001906 239.0974 120.9978 14.34755767581664
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89220.58196361 -.00000027                   0   901
2 11054  64.1301 336.4496 0055991 119.0514 241.5322  2.00562006 79414
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89221.17951736 0.00000010                   0  1934
2 11141  63.4587  98.9315 0052167 324.4593  35.2734  2.00569972 78121
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89218.93167398 0.00000610           27187-3 0  8798
2 11416  98.5104 214.5281 0011845 327.3101  32.7342 14.25895274525135
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89221.24208834 0.00061364           75081-3 0   472
2 11703  28.4929 262.5697 0001701 124.5551 235.5500 15.58961427528112
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89218.64469487 -.00000027                   0  9501
2 11783  63.6058 336.1745 0149153  63.7176 297.8212  2.00568458 68016
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89198.09976027 -.00000043                   0   645
2 11964   5.5545  73.3550 0033142  94.8230 265.4677  0.99228738  2321
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89208.54257151 -.00000255                   0  7442
2 12472   2.6653  78.5917 0151911 347.0347  11.6843  1.00463395 28995
SME        
1 12887U          89220.24730868  .00012496  00000-0  42202-3 0  2599
2 12887  97.6844 248.0911 0003580  58.7412 301.4335 15.30816125433117
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89221.10459758 0.00129589           10088-2 0  6739
2 12888  97.5466 278.5847 0001619 171.6246 188.5213 15.71334088437272
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89218.38888884 0.00000140           11604-3 0  6572
2 13113  82.5373  18.8531 0014379 285.7045  74.2535 13.84023452372189
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89221.49277303 0.00036844           80861-3 0  6956
2 13138  51.6088  56.0279 0000462 243.0096 117.1008 15.43684947416427
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89219.58631053  .00000437  00000-0  10709-3 0   499
2 13367  98.2091 282.4930 0003590  61.1447 299.0125 14.57111580375634
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89219.07822958 0.00000177           90410-4 0  8025
2 13718  81.2424 231.7570 0055206 213.2060 146.5643 14.13247991342740
IRAS       
1 13777U          89220.39141682 -.00000037          -13690-4 0  6643
2 13777  99.0413  56.7769 0012863 164.5511 195.6053 13.98615671  3218
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89209.55893578 -.00000205  00000-0  00000 0 0  8227
2 13969   3.6997  68.5011 0015889 158.1406 201.9317  1.00259309 89831
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89217.73541434 0.00000118                   0    21
2 14050   1.4047  83.6444 0000610  35.2149 325.2258  1.00259557  7107
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89213.28003163 0.00000067                   0  4203
2 14129  26.0666 252.0612 6052492  63.7206 345.3327  2.05879250 18144
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89221.72389421 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6521
2 14189  63.2169  97.6678 0136540 215.3219 143.8397  2.00567180 44515
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89218.06687978 0.00000326           13506-3    7553
2 14452  81.1637 243.5596 0094590 313.7234  45.6146 14.22266686299636
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89222.15677534 0.00001300           29822-3 0  8629
2 14780  98.1633 283.3598 0003984  71.9696 288.2060 14.57144785289429
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89218.21934340 0.00001197           23797-3 0  4875
2 14781  98.0018 275.5658 0012994 157.4576 202.7203 14.63810015289865
LDEF       
1 14898U          89220.96616866 0.00035791           52155-3 0  9286
2 14898  28.5032 163.9623 0000784 158.8903 201.2083 15.54287088299661
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89219.78944228 0.00000009                   0  7132
2 15039  62.9433  96.9798 0013914 257.2969 102.6250  2.00565788 37752
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89212.78049718 0.00000158           13287-3 0  9593
2 15099  82.5322 330.9103 0014337 109.1128 251.1584 13.83683944256285
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89222.18308629 -.00000027                   0  6878
2 15271  63.3330 335.8065 0099739 321.2265  38.0809  2.00567108 34918
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89220.22557877 0.00001698           24332-3 0   628
2 15331  82.5393 290.4130 0022626 277.1523  82.7137 14.75872600261893
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89220.63949486 0.00000453           26783-3 0  4118
2 15427  99.1481 208.6227 0015384 162.5511 197.6183 14.12107575239857
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89221.15747079 0.00000189           16085-3 0  1048
2 15516  82.5357 262.6291 0016394 333.1608  26.8692 13.84150327228385
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89221.75171627 0.00020796           46125-3 0  3324
2 16095  51.6069  54.7437 0000490 195.3071 164.7757 15.43690526217568
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89221.84000848 0.00000010                   0  3457
2 16129  63.7406  97.6281 0118808 149.8463 210.9184  2.00563663 28119
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89214.93321749 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8449
2 16191  82.5477 202.6862 0019353 178.7587 181.3592 13.16870987181675
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89212.92710778 0.00000110           93676-4 0  5174
2 16408  82.5351 184.0341 0015955 169.8948 190.2534 13.84192908181746
Mir        
1 16609U          89222.20283842 -.00021269          -27356-3 0  9801
2 16609  51.6210  93.1363 0009768 255.7302 104.1191 15.58217454199589
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89222.12973343 0.00000751           37099-3 0  5542
2 16613  98.7358 295.9886 0001469  57.4633 302.6723 14.20015860 19789
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89212.98042736 0.00000087           72962-4 0  3115
2 16735  82.5356 210.8319 0012714 246.2190 113.7637 13.83939827160655
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89222.04090180 0.00001914           27712-3 0  6936
2 16881  82.5258 348.1999 0021655 286.6659  73.2177 14.75489557163237
EGP        
1 16908U          89216.23557745 -.00000027           11738-3 0  1486
2 16908  50.0069 150.3734 0011216 107.6360 252.5700 12.44379914135399
FO-12      
1 16909U          89197.10014353 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1630
2 16909  50.0167 209.4498 0011078  60.4152 299.7766 12.44400597133006
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89218.07359174 0.00000468           22440-3 0  2596
2 16969  98.6373 247.6148 0014507 103.1080 257.1719 14.23108208151032
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89219.27820059 0.00000187           15907-3 0  2781
2 17290  82.4684 112.8165 0014131 113.5679 246.6968 13.83746565130686
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89219.60835365  .00000079  00000-0  71946-4 0  2092
2 17527  99.1448 290.6207 0000337  77.6458 282.4748 13.94847109125543
GOES 7     
1 17561U 87 22  A 89219.39417037 -.00000106  00000-0  00000 0 0  3139
2 17561   0.0572 144.4386 0004461  22.4040 193.1674  1.00273134  2276
Kvant      
1 17845U          89221.75394337 0.00021115           27962-3 0  8322
2 17845  51.6218  95.3854 0010070 254.1957 105.8553 15.58190549135783
DMSP B5D2-3
1 18123U          89219.46644554  .00000228  00000-0  14051-3 0  1259
2 18123  98.8243  49.2842 0014309 191.7805 168.3773 14.13487763110076
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89222.14314333 0.00000232           24421-3 0  8425
2 18129 000.9260 198.2953 0010261 261.8887  98.1158 13.71994567106794
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89219.96748532  .00000041  00000-0  33747-4 0  9071
2 18187  65.0102 238.0029 0019070 254.7525 105.1380 14.29387795108521
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89220.98996786 0.00000218           18868-3 0  3008
2 18312  82.5566 177.7006 0013844  50.2020 310.0328 13.83497453 99817
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89221.01527970 0.00000097           81590-4 0  1389
2 18820  82.5419 238.5683 0017940 117.6004 242.6978 13.84188044 76995
DMSP B5D2-4
1 18822U          89219.48204071  .00000444  00000-0  22299-3 0   952
2 18822  98.6884  99.3656 0007761  94.6181 265.6464 14.20847369 78286
AO-13      
1 19216U          89219.05239406 -.00000031           14338+0 0   419
2 19216  57.1311 196.3671 6770419 209.0223  85.1375  2.09704703  8801
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89219.94730482  .00001832  00000-0  26772-3 0  4587
2 19274  82.5146  88.7692 0024491  65.0832 295.2927 14.75029501 58716
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89220.84624886 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2368
2 19336  82.5451 138.4219 0018587  17.9998 342.1677 13.16855538 49849
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89221.31268263 0.00000395           23996-3 0  1138
2 19531  98.9426 165.0849 0013324  81.1644 279.1038 14.11090338 44962
TDRS 3     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89205.63786333  .00000126  00000-0  99999-4 0   300
2 19548   0.6721  83.7449 0003585  44.3078 231.9696  1.00266710  2165
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89206.89309308  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   509
2 19802  55.1021 210.2896 0066155 157.6603 202.6523  2.00556809  3205
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89221.33945252 0.00000117           10000-3 0   622
2 19851  82.5253 116.9139 0014294 153.7489 206.4412 13.83826566 22436
TDRS 4     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89208.26829531 -.00000237  00000-0  99999-4 0   243
2 19883   0.4171  71.3998 0001965  32.8167 255.7920  1.00258496   622
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89195.11831124 -.00000029                   0   285
2 20061  54.5868  29.5793 0080698 163.2427 197.0849  2.00573534   713
Raduga 1-1 
1 20083U          89207.77927620 0.00000150           10000-3 0   393
2 20083   1.3949 273.2764 0005647 348.3379  12.0591  1.00270925   353
1989 048D  
1 20086U          89194.20510965 -.00000025           10000-3 0    76
2 20086   1.4319 273.6399 0021177 326.9784  33.7202  0.97889488   224
Nadezhda   
1 20103U          89213.09000256 0.00000075           74156-4 0   181
2 20103  82.9623 160.9356 0036537 208.1477 151.7704 13.73491526  3774
1989 050B  
1 20104U          89210.73341639 0.00000006                   0   134
2 20104  82.9628 162.6306 0032576 192.5149 167.5202 13.74884939  3442
Gorizont 18
1 20107U          89216.50695007 -.00000251           10000-3 0   294
2 20107   1.4314 275.1639 0003293  38.7411 321.6186  1.00275454   307
1989 052D  
1 20110U          89219.72792483 -.00000109                   0   142
2 20110   1.5121 276.5079 0028004  75.6751 284.6099  1.03059945   348
Olympus    
1 20122U          89221.17042368 -.00000119           10000-3 0   211
2 20122   0.0555 290.3066 0003008  22.6655  47.0192  1.00269635    57
1989 053B  
1 20123U          89221.77266018 0.00059295           50008-2 0   318
2 20123   6.2916  94.9826 7293254 202.1218  94.8039  2.29165178   666
RESURS-F3  
1 20134U          89219.92206973 0.00172715  12063-4  26742-3 0   474
2 20134  82.5683  86.6489 0012765 246.0471 114.0135 16.03977299  3292
Cosmos 2031
1 20136U          89221.64918807 0.00542912  16247-3  49465-3 0   489
2 20136  50.5526   3.6447 0039366 116.8451 243.7055 16.10049987  3569
Cosmos 2033
1 20147U          89221.68137164 0.00018487           30726-3 0   339
2 20147  65.0237 280.5020 0009555 277.2813  82.7144 15.52119982  2595
Cosmos 2034
1 20149U          89221.18427574 0.00000079           79075-4 0   275
2 20149  82.9374  77.2738 0030287 236.1763 123.6507 13.72419846  2048
1989 059B  
1 20150U          89221.23791563 -.00005185          -55130-2 0   319
2 20150  82.9384  77.2035 0026703 228.2133 131.6798 13.74194026  2045
Cosmos 2035
1 20151U          89221.68349976 0.00069419  84467-6  12521-3 0   149
2 20151  82.5655 142.7209 0092113  60.6173 300.4046 15.93851292  1155
1989 062C  
1 20170U          89222.10001587 -.00012200          -18562-1 0    18
2 20170   7.1799 123.4034 7255832 178.5285 186.2694  2.25886539    37
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #599
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYtwE2y00UkVQ1v05:>;
          Tue, 15 Aug 89 03:19:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4YtwDt600UkVA1tE4e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 03:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #600

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 600

Today's Topics:
		    space news from July 10 AW&ST
		   NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
		     Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
	     Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion
 Public Interest in Space (was Re: re does this proposal make sense)
	Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 89 03:57:35 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from July 10 AW&ST

[Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is 1221 Ave. of
the Americas, New York NY 10020 USA.  Rates depend on whether you're
"qualified" or not, which basically means whether you look at the ads
for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or
military interest.  Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get
the cheap rate.  US rate is $64 qualified, higher for unqualified.
It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing
to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you.]

ESA plans to open competition for new European astronauts next year,
for Hermes and Columbus.

Voyager starts search for rings and undiscovered moons around Neptune.
[I will be relatively terse with Voyager news, given that much of it
will probably appear in more timely channels.  In case anyone is
wondering, by the way, why I'm always at least a month behind the
cover date, it's a combination of things.  AW&ST doesn't get to my
PO box too promptly, thanks to the Canadian Post Offal.  I only visit
the box about every 10 days.  When I get the thing, I have to read
it.  And then I have to find time to type in a summary.  It's hard
to push the total delay down to much less than a month.]

Arianespace signs deal with Orbital Sciences and Hercules to market Pegasus
launch services in Europe.  [Looks like that announcement a few weeks ago
saying "we're only talking, no specific deal is being negotiated" was a
bit of disinformation to avoid premature publicity...]

European multinational spaceplane project is forming around West Germany's
Sanger concept.  Sanger -- a large hypersonic transport plus a rocket-
powered winged upper stage released at Mach 6.8 at 30 km -- presents
fewer technological difficulties than NASP because it doesn't require
air-breathing propulsion at extreme speeds.  Experimental hydrogen-
fuelled turboramjet engines are being fired in Germany, and wind-tunnel
tests of both stages have been done, with tunnel tests of configurations
seen during stage separation scheduled this summer.  The current Sanger
effort is aimed at a European X-plane, essentially a subscale first
stage, flying in about 2000.  The upper stage would use an Ariane 5
engine, and might be a somewhat enlarged Hermes.

National Space Council recommends slipping NASP [Aerospace Plane] schedule
2.5 years but doubling technology funding.  NSC came out strongly in favor
of NASP, but says that the current program is pushing too hard for early
flight hardware and is suffering from "operational creep", in which the
X-30, supposedly a research aircraft, is being asked to meet increasingly
many requirements more appropriate to a production spaceplane.  NSC's
recommendation is to prolong the NASP technology effort 2.5 years and
double its funding, delaying final decision on whether to build a pair of
X-30s to 1993 and first flight to 1997.

Editorial criticizing decision to stretch NASP, saying that programs which
get delayed that much are prime candidates for cancellation, and this will
back the US down off its lead in hypersonic technology.  Says contractors
are mostly to blame for trying to make the X-30 as "operational" as possible,
i.e. as close as possible to a lucrative follow-on production contract.

Soviets agree in principle to a new cooperative agreement with France,
which will (among other things) provide a new Mir flight opportunity for
a French cosmonaut in 1992, at a price significantly below what Glavkosmos
wanted to charge France for a commercial flight.  (France has been saying
that while the Glavkosmos prices are not unreasonable, more consideration
should be given to the cooperative nature of the Soviet-French flights.)
West Germany would like a similar deal but hasn't been able to get it yet.

Soviet announce commercial bookings of microgravity flights for Intospace
[a European materials group] and CNES [the French space agency].  Intospace
in particular has booked several flights in the next few years, saying that
there simply aren't any comparable flight opportunities available in the
West.  "The Soviets are ready to do business on a commercial basis, and
we have no real choice but to go east."

ESA considers barter arrangements with US to obtain the right to install
scientific payloads on the exterior of the US space station.  The 27
external payloads recently selected by NASA included no European ones.
European observers were more or less expecting this, since access for
such payloads was not included in the original NASA-ESA station agreement.
Ideas under study include giving NASA access to Dornier's instrument
pointing system [developed for Spacelab] in return for external payloads.
NASA is interested in principle, and in particular might like access to
the Columbus free-flying lab.  [Sigh... after concluding that it had no
use for the home-built equivalent, CDSF...  ESA better watch its step.]

Senate Commerce Committee votes to ban export of US satellites to countries
that would launch them on Soviet boosters.

NASA awards early study contracts for a high-performance "transfer vehicle",
as a shuttle and expendable upper stage in the early 21st century.

Arianespace slips flight V32 to July 11 after June 30 launch is scrubbed
at T-4s when ground-equipment problems cause hydrogen umbilical arm to
fail to release.

Rollout of Columbia imminent, following preliminary finding that the SSME
test failure will not affect the mission.  Investigating board says the
problem was a bearing failure in an experimental modified oxidizer turbopump.

The centerspread is an unusually quiet ad from an outfit called Fiberite
that I've never heard of.  Moonscape, Earth in background, with just the
company's name in the lower right and the caption "One small step..." in
the upper left.  On close inspection, one of the small craters is actually
an Apollo-boot footprint.

Several airlines start ordering operational satellite-communication systems
for 747s.  Passenger use of satellite-based air-ground telephone service
experimentally installed aboard one British Airways 747 greatly exceeded
expectations.  The airlines are moving cautiously, however; several of the
systems currently on order are data-only systems aimed at automatic
position reporting rather than voice.  USAF Military Airlift Command is
also interested, after tests of a Geostar package aboard a USAF experimental
aircraft were highly successful.
-- 
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 22:56:56 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the satellite user community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.  The most current orbital elements
from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513)
427-0674, and are updated several times weekly.  Documentation and tracking
software are also available on this system.  The Celestial RCP/M may be
accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit, no parity.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:

AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed;
           blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.  (Decimal point assumed)
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1; plus sign = 2)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:

NOAA 6
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978

Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 21:27:30 GMT
From: voder!berlioz!andrew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head )
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

<44acdae6.c9b9@apollo.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
>    We are an extraordinarily diverse society.  We have an amazing 
>    range of beliefs, values, priorities, needs, expectations, and
>    backgrounds.   For the last several decades we have been utterly
>    plagued by an inability to reach consensus on important national
>    Typically, when confronted with this problem we either:
>    1.   Make no decision at all.  ("let's study it some more")
>    2.   Make a decision that is so watered-down by compromise
>         as to be ineffective.
>    3.   Make an ad-hoc political deal with a coalition which
>         breaks down after the next election, before it can 
>         actually accomplish anything.
>    Personally, I don't see any solution to this.

You are staring democracy right in the face.

Perhaps it's time for a benevolent dictatorship?
That would certainly throw the emergent American-copying nations for a loop.
At least we'd get things done.

Incidentally, (and more seriously), what's wrong with the odd referendum
now and then? I think space has broad support in the body of the people - 
or am I deluding myself?
-- 
...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman	There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away,
nsc!berlioz!andrew	That's what I says to myself, says I, 
time sucks					   jolly good luck, hooray!

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 22:50:00 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion

From article <10616@smoke.BRL.MIL<, by chidsey@smoke.BRL.MIL (Irving Chidsey ):
< In article <609@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes:
< <I read today in my home-town paper that "scientists" had presented
< <"evidence" that the antarctic ozone hole might be "related to" increased
< <incidence of skin cancer in southern Australia and New Zealand.  Does
< <anyone know anything about this "study"?  It defies logic for a number
< <of reasons and is apparently the "first" study to make such a claim.
 
< There are several plausible reasons why the Antarctic Ozone Hole might have
< an effect in Southern Australia or Souther New Zealand.
 
< The hole is not a neat hole with straight vertical sides like you might make
< with a drill; it has messy sloping sides like a hole in dry sand after it has
< been walked through a few times.
 
< Horizontal winds can move the ozone depleted air for quite a distance before
< it gets to a location where the solar UV flux is strong enough to replenish
< the ozone.
 
< The ozone density is the result of a dynamic balance between production and
< depletion.  The full equilibrium density as approached asymptoticaly, and
< extra solar UV gets through until full density is reached.
 
< Note also that they said might.  This is still a conjecture supported by
< plausible armwaving arguments, and refuted by other plausible armwaving 
< arguments.  It sounds like it would be a good learning project for a Phd 
< candidate ( or perhaps a small group of graduate students ).

 I understand that the northern and southern hemispheres are more or
 less "isolated" as far as atmospheric circulation is concerned. If
 this is indeed so, then how do the people, who are alarmed at the "hole"
 at the SouthPole, relate same to chemical pollutants in the northern
 hemisphere? And why not the NorthPole? Or do I err, assuming that the
 bulk of these chemicals are made/used/released north of the Equator?

 m wooding

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 89 19:40:38 GMT
From: rochester!yamauchi@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Public Interest in Space (was Re: re does this proposal make sense)

In article <44bb6cda.c9b9@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  Guess what?  There is no such enthusiasm.  The average American doesn't
>  give a farthing about space, or science, or anything else having to do
>  with the future.

I don't think this is quite right.  If the average American has no
enthusiasm for space at all, how can you explain all of the mass media
Apollo 11 Anniversary Specials?  The media doesn't do such things
unless they expect a lot of people to watch.

I think the real problem is that the emotions which space exploration
stimulates (wonder, excitement, and exhilaration) are not considered
valid emotions for adult behavior in general and public policy in
particular.  The socially acceptable emotional motivations for public
policy are primarily fear (of the Soviets, nuclear war, the greenhouse
effect, the budget deficit, the trade deficit, and crime), guilt
(about the homeless, the poor, and the third world), and
self-righteousness (in regard to money, sex, illegal drugs, insider
trading, political ethics, and flag burning).

True, there are some people who don't care at all about space, but
I would guess that there are probably more people who care to some
degree about space, than about, say, acid rain or the B-2.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 01:10:18 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)

In article <44bb6cda.c9b9@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  This reminds me of some of those people I used to flame here a year ago
>  who were saying things like "*I'M* going into space one way or the other."
>  It's good to be enthusiastic but you have to maintain your grip on reality
>  also.  The fact is that there are many small companies with various indep-
>  endent space projects going as we speak.  One of them performed a
>  successful suborbital launch only a few months ago.  And wealthy enthus-
>  iasts have not exactly been beating down their doors to invest.  

Sure, there are many small space companies around and people are not
coming forward to invest, but I think that is because one company ALONE
is not nearly enough to sufficiently advance the space program.  Investors
feel the same way.  

With my proposal, ALL of the space contractors (and small space companies) 
will be working together as ONE BODY.  This should work to some extent -- 
enough to run an efficient space program.

Once there is such a space program which individual investors could put
their money into, then, and only then, will we see the wealthy 
enthusiasts beating down doors to invest.

The common stock would most likely be purchased by the space contractors
themselves, but I guess that the investors could buy common stock also.
(A very minor detail.)

>  Now the conspiracy fans among us will say that this is due to all the
>  restrictive laws that NASA and the rest of the government have placed
>  in the way.  But if there really is so much enthusiasm out there for 
>  a commercial space program then surely there are millions of voters who 
>  are hopping mad about those laws and who will happily vote-in congress-
>  critters who will change those laws.  

The laws can be problems, but we're a bit too far away to worry about
those things.  There's more important stuff to do such as defining more
clearly what needs to be done.  If we worry too much about all of the
possible pitfalls, then we'll never get off the ground.  (Pun intended)

I think that people know that our government is just too bureaucratic to
control the type of space program which is needed now.  Even if we did
have space enthuiasts controlling congress, that wouldn't be enough.  The
major space contractors have lobbyists to persuade congress anyway, so
that point really doesn't matter.

>  Guess what?  There is no such enthusiasm.  The average American doesn't
>  give a farthing about space, or science, or anything else having to do
>  with the future.  Daniel says 'nothing' will discourage him.  Clearly
>  he has never heard of 'economics' or 'politics'. 

I don't know about you, but I don't consider myself 'average'.  Maybe
you are right in that there is no such enthusiasm, but we will most
certainly find out once we, Space Quest, start achieving our goals.

- Daniel

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #600
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/0Yty1=K00UkV02504g>;
          Tue, 15 Aug 89 05:20:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YYty12u00UkVE23E5m@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 05:20:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #601

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 601

Today's Topics:
	     Successful planetary probes list (Forwarded)
			     Re: Moonwalk
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
		   re does this proposal make sense
		     Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 89 19:07:38 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Successful planetary probes list (Forwarded)

(Important information on receiving and printing this file:
        The file is 106 characters in width and 164 lines
     deep exclusive of this header information.
----------------------------

SUCCESSFUL PLANETARY PROBES - THOSE LAUNCHED AND WHICH
MAINTAINED AT LEAST COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY WITH EARTH
               (version 2 incorporating corrections, amplifications)

DATE            NAME       OWNER         WEIGHT    CURRENT STATUS

Jan 2,1959      Luna 1      USSR     361       space probe now in solar orbit
Mar 3,1959      Pioneer 4     US     5.9       space probe now in solar orbit
Sep 12,1959     Luna 2      USSR     387       lunar probe impacted surface of moon
Oct 4,1959      Luna 3      USSR     278.5     lunar probe in earth-moon orbit, now 
decayed
Mar 11,1960     Pioneer 5     US     43        space probe now in solar orbit
Apr 12,1960     Luna 4      USSR     300       failed to orbit moon, lost in space
Feb 12,1961     Venera 1    USSR     643.5     Venus probe now in solar orbit
Jan 26,1962     Ranger 3      US     327       lunar probe, missed moon now in solar 
orbit
Apr 23,1962     Ranger 4      US     328       lunar probe impacted surface of moon
Aug 27,1962     Mariner 2     US     201       Venus flyby now in solar orbit
Oct 18,1962     Ranger 5      US     340       lunar flyby now in solar orbit
Apr 2,1963      Luna 4      USSR     1,422     lunar probe now in earth-moon orbit
Jan 30,1964     Ranger 6      US     361.8     lunar probe impacted surface of moon
Apr 2,1964      Zond 1      USSR     890       Venus probe now in solar orbit
Jul 28,1964     Ranger 7      US     362       lunar probe sent pictures of its impact on 
moon
Nov 5,1964      Mariner 3     US     260       Mars flyby attempt now in solar orbit
Nov 28,1964     Mariner 4     US     260       Mars flyby, 1st Mars photos; now in solar 
orbit
Feb 17,1965     Ranger 8      US     366       lunar probe sent pictures of its impact on 
moon
Mar 21,1965     Ranger 9      US     366       lunar probe sent pictures of its impact on 
moon
May 9,1965      Luna 5      USSR     1,474     lunar soft-lander failed, impacted moon
Jun 8,1965      Luna 6      USSR     1,440     lunar soft-lander missed moon now in 
solar orbit
Jul 18,1965     Zond 3      USSR     959       lunar flyby now in solar orbit
Oct 4,1965      Luna 7      USSR     1,504     lunar soft-lander failed, impacted moon
Nov 12,1965     Venera 2    USSR     962       Venus probe now in solar orbit
Nov 16,1965     Venera 3    USSR     958       Venus probe crashed on Venus
Dec 3,1965      Luna 8      USSR     1,550     lunar soft-lander failed, impacted moon
Dec 16,1965     Pioneer 6     US     63.4      solar probe in solar orbit still transmitting
Jan 31,1966     Luna 9      USSR     1,580     landed on lunar surface
Mar 31,1966     Luna 10     USSR     1,597     lunar probe in lunar orbit
Apr 30,1966     Surveyor 1    US     269       landed on lunar surface
Aug 10,1966     Lunar Orb. 1  US     386       orbited moon, photographed far side; 
impacted on command
Aug 17,1966     Pioneer 7     US     63        solar probe in solar orbit recently turned off
Aug 24,1966     Luna 11     USSR     1,638     lunar probe in lunar orbit
Sep 20,1966     Surveyor 2    US     292       lunar soft-lander failed, impacted moon
Oct 22,1966     Luna 12     USSR     1,620     lunar probe in lunar orbit
Nov 6,1966      Lunar Orb. 2  US     390       orbited moon, photographed far side & 
potential Apollo
     landing sites; impacted on command
Dec 21,1966     Luna 13     USSR     1,700     landed on lunar surface
Feb 5,1967      Lunar Orb. 3  US     385       orbited moon, photographed far side & A-
12 landing site; 
     impacted on command
Apr 17,1967     Surveyor 3    US     283       landed on lunar surface (pieces brought 
back)
May 4,1967      Lunar Orb. 4  US     390       orbited moon at polar inclination, 
complete Earth-side 
     coverage; impacted on command
Jun 12,1967     Venera 4    USSR     1,104     presumed impacted on Venus
Jun 14,1967     Mariner 5     US     244       Venus flyby now in solar orbit
Jul 14,1967     Surveyor 4    US     283       lunar soft-lander failed, impacted moon
Aug 1,1967      Lunar Orb. 5  US     389       orbited moon at polar inclination, high 
resolution of many 
     important sites; impacted on command
Sep 8,1967     Surveyor 5     US     279       landed on lunar surface
Nov 7,1967     Surveyor 6     US     280       landed on/took off from on lunar surface
Dec 13,1967     Pioneer 8     US     63        solar probe in solar orbit still transmitting
Jan 7,1968     Surveyor 7     US     1,036     landed on lunar surface
Apr 7,1968     Luna 14      USSR     1,700     lunar probe in lunar-solar orbit
Sep 14,1968     Zond 5      USSR     5,375     lunar fly-around, earth return
Nov 8,1968      Pioneer 9     US     63        solar probe in solar orbit, died 3/3/87
Nov 10,1968     Zond 6      USSR     5,375     lunar fly-around, earth return
Dec 21,1968     Apollo 8      US     28,883    manned lunar fly-around, earth return
Jan 5,1969      Venera 5    USSR     1,128     Venus probe presumed impacted on 
Venus
Jan 10,1969     Venera 6    USSR     1,128     Venus probe presumed impacted on 
Venus
Feb 24,1969     Mariner 6     US     412       Mars flyby now in solar orbit
Mar 27,1969     Mariner 7     US     412       Mars flyby now in solar orbit
May 18,1969     Apollo 10     US     42,530    manned lunar fly-around, earth return
Jul 13,1969     Luna 15     USSR     2,718     lunar orbiter finally impacted on lunar 
surface
Jul 16,1969     Apollo 11     US     43,811    manned lunar landing, sample return, 
earth return
Jul 20,1969     Apollo 11     US               date of landing on moon, EASEP set up
Aug 8,1969      Zond 7      USSR     5,979     lunar fly-around, earth return
Nov 14,1969     Apollo 12     US     43,848    manned lunar landing, sample return, 
earth return
Nov 19,1969     Apollo 12     US               date of landing on moon, ALSEP 12 set up
Apr 11,1970     Apollo 13     US     43,924    manned lunar fly-by, rescue, earth return
Sep 12,1970     Luna 16     USSR     5,600     lunar landing, sample return, earth 
return
Nov 10,1970     Luna 17     USSR     5,600     lunar landing, automated rover
Jan 31,1971     Apollo 14     US     44,456    manned lunar landing, sample return, 
earth return
Feb 5,1971      Apollo 14     US               date of landing on moon, ALSEP 14 set up
May 19,1971     Mars 2      USSR     4,650     Mars landing, no planetary data
May 28,1971     Mars 3      USSR     4,643     Mars landing, no planetary data
May 30,1971     Mariner 9     US     974       Succesful Mars orbiter still in Mars orbit
Jul 26,1971     Apollo 15     US     46,723    manned lunar landing, sample return, 
earth return
Jul 30,1971     Apollo 15     US               date of landing on moon, ALSEP 15 set up
Aug 4,1971      P&F subsat.   US     36        launched into lunar orbit from Apollo 15
Sep 2,1971      Luna 18     USSR     5,600     lunar orbiter finally impacted on lunar 
surface
Sep 28,1971     Luna 19     USSR     5,600     lunar orbiter now in lunar orbit
Nov 14,1971     Mariner 9     US               date entered Mars orbit
Feb 14,1972     Luna 20     USSR     5,600     lunar landing, sample return, earth 
return
Mar 3,1972      Pioneer 10    US     259       Jupiter probe then left solar system
Mar 27,1972     Venera 8    USSR     1,180     Venus landing
Apr 16,1972     Apollo 16     US     46,733    manned lunar landing, sample return, 
earth return
Apr 21,1972     Apollo 16     US               date of landing on moon, ALSEP 16 set up
Apr 24,1972     P&F subsat.   US     36        orbited, later impacted lunar suface 
(Apollo 16 launched)
Sep 23,1972     Explorer 47   US     376       cislunar probe in earth-lunar orbit
Dec 7,1972      Apollo 17     US     46,743    manned lunar landing, sample return, 
earth return
Dec 12,1972     Apollo 17     US               date of landing on moon, ALSEP 17 set up
Jan 8,1973      Luna 21     USSR     4,850     lunar landing, automated rover
Apr 6,1973      Pioneer 11    US     259       Jupiter probe, Saturn probe
Jun 10,1973     Explorer 49   US     328       solar physics probe placed in lunar orbit
Jul 21,1973     Mars 4      USSR     4,650     Mars probe now in solar orbit
Jul 25,1973     Mars 5      USSR     4,650     Mars orbiter
Aug 5,1973      Mars 6      USSR     4,650     Mars lander failed now in solar orbit
Aug 9,1973      Mars 7      USSR     4,650     Mars flyby, lander failed now also in 
solar orbit
Nov 3,1973      Mariner 10    US     526       Venus, Mercury flyby now in solar orbit
Dec 1,1973      Pioneer 10    US               date of Jupiter fly-by
May 29,1974     Luna 22     USSR     4,000     lunar probe now in solar orbit
Oct 28,1974     Luna 23     USSR     5,600     lunar probe crashed on lunar surface
Dec 1,1974      Pioneer 11    US               date of Jupiter fly-by
Dec 10,1974     Helios    US/FRG     370       Solar probe in solar orbit
Jun 8,1975      Venera 9    USSR     5,000     Venus probe in Venus orbit, lander set 
down 10/22
Jun 14,1975     Venera 10   USSR     5,000     Venus probe in Venus orbit, lander set 
down 10/25
Aug 20,1975     Viking 1      US     3,399     Mars orbiter/lander
Sep 9,1975      Viking 2      US     3,399     Mars orbiter/lander
Jan 15,1976     Helios    US/FRG     376       Solar probe in solar orbit
Jun 19,1976     Viking 1 Orb. US               date entered Mars orbit (expected decay: 
2025)
Jul 20,1976     Viking 1 Land.US               date landed on Mars, now NASM exhibit 
(Tim Mutch Memorial 
Station)
Jul 24,1976     Viking 2 Orb. US               date entered Mars orbit (expected decay: 
2025)
Aug 7,1976      Viking 2 Land.US               date landed on Mars
Aug 9,1976      Luna 24     USSR     4,800     lunar landing, sample return, earth 
return
Aug 20,1977     Voyager 2     US     800       Jupiter, Saturn fly-by
Sep 5,1977      Voyager 1     US     800       Jupiter, Saturn fly-by
May 20,1978     Pioneer 12    US     582       Venus orbiter (also called Pioneer Venus 
Orbiter or simply 
     Pioneer Venus)
Aug 8,1978      Pioneer 13    US     904       Multi-probe of Venus atmosphere entered 
12/9/78 (also called 
     Pioneer Venus Probe(s))
Aug 12,1978     ISEE 3        US     479       Solar probe later sent to Giacobini-Zinner
Sep 9,1978      Venera 11   USSR     4,940     Venus lander
Sep 14,1978     Venera 12   USSR     4,940     Venus lander
Dec 21,1978     Venera 11   USSR               date landed on Venus, sent back photos
Dec 21,1978     Venera 12   USSR               date landed on Venus, sent back photos
Mar 5,1979      Voyager 1     US               date of Jupiter fly-by
Jul 9,1979      Voyager 2     US               date of Jupiter fly-by
Sep 1,1979      Pioneer 11    US               date of Saturn fly-by, escape trajectory
Nov 12,1980     Voyager 1     US               date of Saturn fly-by
Aug 26,1981     Voyager 2     US               date of Saturn fly-by
Oct 30,1981     Venera 13   USSR     4,000     Venus lander
Nov 4,1981      Venera 14   USSR     4,000     Venus lander
Mar 1,1982      Venera 13   USSR               date landed on Venus, sent back photos
Mar 1,1982      Venera 14   USSR               date landed on Venus, sent back photos
Jun 2,1983      Venera 15   USSR     4,000     Venus radar mapper
Jun 7,1983      Venera 16   USSR     4,000     Venus radar mapper
Jun 13,1983     Pioneer 10    US               date Pioneer 10 crossed orbit boundary of 
Pluto
Oct 10,1983     Venera 15   USSR               date arrived at Venus
Oct 14,1983     Venera 16   USSR               date arrived at Venus
Dec 15,1984     Vega 1      USSR     4,000     Venus/Comet Halley probe now in solar 
orbit
Dec 21,1984     Vega 2      USSR     4,000     Venus/Comet Halley probe now in solar 
orbit
Jan 7,1985      Sakigake   Japan     141       Comet Halley probe
Jul 2,1985      Giotto       ESA     512       Comet Halley probe
Aug 18,1985     Suisei     Japan     141       Comet Halley probe
Sep 11,1985     ISEE 3        US               date of flyby of Comet Giacobini-Zinner
Jan 24,1986     Voyager 2     US               date of Uranus fly-by
Mar 1,1986      Sakigake   Japan               date of flyby of Comet Halley
Mar 6,1986      Vega 1      USSR               date of flyby of Comet Halley
Mar 8,1986      Suisei     Japan               date of flyby of Comet Halley
Mar 9,1986      Vega 2      USSR               date of flyby of Comet Halley
Mar 13,1986     Giotto       ESA               date of flyby of Comet Halley
Jul 7,1988      Phobos 1    USSR     14,000    lost through command error 9/2/88
Jul 12,1988     Phobos 2    USSR     14,000    Mars orbiter/Phobos lander
Jan 30,1989     Phobos 2    USSR               date of Mars orbit insertion 
May 4,1989      Magellan      US               Venus radar mapper deployed by STS-30
Aug 24,1989     Voyager 2     US               date of Neptune fly-by
Aug 10,1990     Magellan      US               date of expected Venus orbit insertion


(user notice:  if you find errors, believe amplification would
benefit others or have other corrections, please post the information
to Charles Redmond (fax 202/426-1535; NASAMail CREDMOND; or c/o
Code E, NASA HQ, Washington DC 20546.  This file will be kept
updated.  Also, please feel free to distribute widely, the sources
are "NASA Pocket Statistics," TRW "Space Log," and periodical
recapitulations published by "Mercury" (Astronomical Society of
the Pacific), "Sky & Telescope" (Sky Publishing), and "Astronomy"
(Astro Media, Inc.).  Other recommended sources will also be
used as I come by them.

Chas Redmond
Code E Public Affairs Officer
7/29/89
Washington, DC

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 89 14:44:40 CDT
From: hmueller@cssun.tamu.edu (Harold E Mueller)
Subject: Re: Moonwalk


The unattributed LM liftoff footage wasn't the only thing the CBS special
tried to slip past us.  Their animation of CM/LM separation showed
LM legs still retracted (they were extended by then).  CBS said the SM engine
burn on lunar arrival was to keep the spacecraft from crashing into
the moon; actually it was to change their free-return trajectory (return
to earth if they do nothing) into a lunar orbit.  And the balloons 
deployed by the CM on splashdown were said to be necessary for flotation
(I think they were for stability indeed).  Close enough for TV news, though.

Hal Mueller                  hmueller@cssun.tamu.edu
Grad Student, CS Dept.       n270ca@tamunix (Bitnet)
Texas A&M University         (409) 846-5462

"Don't think, just throw."

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 89 20:02:59 GMT
From: mist!ruffwork@cs.orst.edu  (Ritchey Ruff)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

well, my prof. is working on an AI-type schedualer for the Hubble Scope
so this is what he got from some Ames friends (as I remember it).

	1. it repositions at about the speed of a minute hand;
	2. it can't point at the sun;
	3. because of the low orbit the moon and earth block large
	   sections of the sky each orbit;
	4. it can't point the same direction as it is traveling
	   (space garbage being scooped up into the scope and
	   hitting the primary---yucko!);

these are the big ones.  Science had a good article early this summer
about lots of this---only something like 30% of the actual time is it
able to observe (that's 2628 hours per year), and this does not take into 
account moving it between observations, etc.  also it is down some percent 
of the time for calibration and testing.  all in all it would be much nicer 
to have an unmanned scope on the back side of the moon! 
(Listening, Danno Quail? ;-)

--ritchey ruff			ruffwork@cs.orst.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 89 16:39:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@EDDIE.MIT.EDU  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: re does this proposal make sense



  pezely@udel.EDU (Dan Pezely) posts...

>I saw an advertisement a year or so ago from one of the space
>contractors involved in the space station.  They stated that if every
>American contributed less than 2 cents a day, then there would be more
>then enough to pay for the space station. 

 OK.   $.02 times 240,000,000 (people) = $ 4,800,000.
 ...times 365 (days) = 1.7 billion dollars per year.   Is this
 enough to design, build and maintain a space station?   What
 is your definition of 'space station'?

>I'm sure that not EVERY American cares about space, nor are they willing
>to pay anything.  However, if the administrative corporation sells
>preferred stock, then people willing to INVEST hundreds or thousands of 
>dollars would definitely come forward.  
  
  Why 'definitely'?  What's your evidence for this?   And why preferred
  stock?  
 
>There are ways to achieve our goals.  Nothing will discourage us -- 
>Nothing!
>
>- Daniel

  This reminds me of some of those people I used to flame here a year ago
  who were saying things like "*I'M* going into space one way or the other."
  It's good to be enthusiastic but you have to maintain your grip on reality
  also.  The fact is that there are many small companies with various indep-
  endent space projects going as we speak.  One of them performed a
  successful suborbital launch only a few months ago.  And wealthy enthus-
  iasts have not exactly been beating down their doors to invest.  

  Now the conspiracy fans among us will say that this is due to all the
  restrictive laws that NASA and the rest of the government have placed
  in the way.  But if there really is so much enthusiasm out there for 
  a commercial space program then surely there are millions of voters who 
  are hopping mad about those laws and who will happily vote-in congress-
  critters who will change those laws.  

  Guess what?  There is no such enthusiasm.  The average American doesn't
  give a farthing about space, or science, or anything else having to do
  with the future.  Daniel says 'nothing' will discourage him.  Clearly
  he has never heard of 'economics' or 'politics'. 

                                                         ---Peter

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 04:59:04 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

>You are staring democracy right in the face.

Which is why the authors of the Constitution did NOT make this country a
democracy.

John W Campbell used to say that there has never in the history of the world 
been a democracy that lasted 100 years, and that the US would not be the
first. Depending on you viewpoint, the US became a democracy either in 1906
or 1964. I tend to believe 1964 myself.

   ++PLS

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #601
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/oYuCkuq00UkV818E4W>;
          Wed, 16 Aug 89 00:23:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <AYuCklK00UkVM16U5l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 00:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #602

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 602

Today's Topics:
       Re: Eggs & baskets (was: Does this proposal make sense?)
	Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
			  Weather newsgroup?
	     Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion
	Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
			Future probe to Pluto
		     Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
			    Re: Satellites
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 18:50:45 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Eggs & baskets (was: Does this proposal make sense?)


In article <1989Jul31.163523.28419@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Completely unbelievable.  The NASA space station is going to cost
>$30B+, and support (sort of) maybe a dozen people.  You propose
>something 1000 times larger for the same amount of money, and you want
>it to be completely self sufficient as well?  Not anytime soon, bucko.

I thought that the discussion about NASA prices versus corporate prices
was over.  :-)  

Although I do agree that a space station THAT SIZE is a bit
large ito be seen in our life times, a 100 to 500 person space station
is feasible.  And, with one station in orbit, components can be
'shipped' to it to construct other stations of similar size.  That leads
to answering the original of space station exportation: construction.

It's much easier to ship parts than the completed item.  Also, wouldn't
most manufactures rather assemble their products in a zero-gravity
environment instead of on the ground?

Primarily, the 'product' which will be exported will be research.
Chemists would just love to be able to conduct experiments without
containers.  Astronomers would kill for spot to put their scopes.
Composite manufacturers would be curious to see what happens to certain
materials if they are constructed without the imperfections that gravity
introduces.  And so on.

- Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 17:38:00 GMT
From: apollo!rehrauer@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)

In article <44c06c30.c9b9@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (nelson_p) writes:
>>Once there is such a space program which individual investors could put
>>their money into, then, and only then, will we see the wealthy 
>>enthusiasts beating down doors to invest.
>
>  I must have missed something in the earlier postings.
>
>  I can see why someone might invest in space ventures that
>  could have some commercial value such as communication
>  satellites or orbital factories.   But why would someone 
>  invest in something that is just done for the sake of science
>  like a manned mission to Mars, an observatory on the 'back'
>  of the moon, or a deep space probe?   Obviously you MIGHT
>  find something of commercial value with these ventures but
>  there's little reason to assume it, certainly not enough to
>  attract investors.

Actually, I can think of several ways to entice the American public
into supporting space exploration, none of which involve stocks & bonds
and other nasty forms of mathematickull stuff:

    1.  Send an unmanned sampler probe to the moon, capable of returning
        about 10,000 pounds of rocks.  Grind these into minute little
        pebbles.  Paint smiles & stick adhesive googly-eyes to each.
        Hawk them as "Pet Loonies" for $19.95 on The Home Shopper channel.
        Emphasize that This Is a Limited-Time Offer.

    2.  Stage the next Mike Tyson fight on Mars.  Triple the normal HBO
        charge for "The Event".  Keep the NASA grunts doing Real Work
        in the background safely out-of-sight of the cameras.

    3.  Establish a national lottery.  Let it be known that the proceeds
        will go towards establishing a permanent manned American base on
        the moon.  Let the annual Grand Prize be a night on the moon with
        your choice of Don Johnson or Vanna White <*>, to be collected only
        when the base is complete.  (<*> Or pick your generic sex-symbol-
        of-the-year)

    4.  Get the CIA to give <name_your_favorite_evangelist> a message from
        God to the effect that "NASA needs your money, Now!"

    5.  Have the Democrats choose "Space is Bad, Stay Away From It" as
        a key plank in their 1992 party platform.

Only partially kidding, alas.  \:-(
-- 
>>> "Aaiiyeeeee!  Death from above!" <<<  | Steve Rehrauer
    Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168             | Apollo Computer, a
    ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.hp.com          | division of Hewlett-Packard
"Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'.  Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 18:44:00 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Weather newsgroup?


	Is there a sci.meteorology newsgroup on USENET?  If not, would
    anyone like to create one?  Thanks,

	Larry

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 19:12:25 GMT
From: cgdra.ucar.edu!ilana@handies.ucar.edu  (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion

In article <10638@smoke.BRL.MIL> chidsey@brl.arpa (Irving Chidsey) writes:
>
>I don't know whether the presence of the hole in just the South is due to a
>somewhat different production / loss regime because the earth is farther from
>the sun during the Northern winter, or due to a different transport regime
>because the South pole is in the center of a high plateau surrounded by
>ocean but the North pole is in the center of a sea surrounded by continents.
>Any meteoroligists in the house?

Oops, there's my cue.  First:  there is ozone depletion over the North
pole too -- however, the ozone loss is less than over the South pole.

The apparent reason for this is that the air over the South pole remains
colder during the winter and into the spring (the ozone depletion
season -- remember, September and October are Southern Hemisphere spring)
because the land/sea distribution is roughly symmetric about the pole.
The planetary waves in the stratosphere, which you can consider to be
the path the air takes as it circles around the pole, are more or
less centered around the pole, creating a pool of relatively isolated
cold air called the polar vortex.

In the Northern Hemisphere, the land/sea distribution is asymmetric,
and the path of the planetary waves, which is determined by contrasts
between heating of land and ocean surfaces, doesn't form a nice tight
isolated vortex, but instead is off-center, mixing the cold polar
air with the warmer subpolar air.

This mixing has two effects.  First, it mixes the ozone-poor polar
air with air that has not been ozone-depleted, so there is no
distinct "hole".

Secondly, the mixing warms the air over the pole.  It is now generally
agreed that the mechanism for ozone depletion in the polar regions
critically depends on the presence of polar stratospheric clouds
(PSCs).  Because there is so little water vapor in the stratosphere,
PSCs can only form where it is extremely cold.  Since the polar
vortex is colder in the Southern Hemisphere, there are more PSCs
over the South pole than over the North pole, and consequently
greater ozone depletion.

I hope this answers your question.  If you have further questions,
I would be happy to try to answer them or recommend reading
material.  I am not an official spokesman of NCAR.

Ilana Stern	      ***  To dream too much about the life you want
ilana@cgdra.ucar.edu  ***	is to waste the life you have.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 89 01:54:07 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)

In article <44c06c30.c9b9@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (nelson_p) writes:
>  I can see why someone might invest in space ventures that
>  could have some commercial value such as communication
>  satellites or orbital factories.   But why would someone 
>  invest in something that is just done for the sake of science
>  like a manned mission to Mars, an observatory on the 'back'
>  of the moon, or a deep space probe?   Obviously you MIGHT
>  find something of commercial value with these ventures but
>  there's little reason to assume it, certainly not enough to
>  attract investors.


I'm not an expert in what people will and will not invest in and I
seriously doubt if anyone reading this is an expert.

I plan on asking the potential investors.  Let them decide whether or
not they want to put their money into this type of a venture.

This is the type of research which needs to be done first, and I will be
organizing it starting in September.  I think I posted the e-mail reply
describing our immediate goals for The Space Quest Foundation.

In case I didn't post it, or if anyone want's it again, here it is.
I will be gathering some people together to write a business proposal
for the organization and structure for The Space Quest Foundation.
Then, I will gather another groups of space experts together (any
volunteers?) to write a business proposal for the adminestrative
corporation which will be set up by Space Quest.  Although the second
proposal will be under constant modification, I would like to have it
complete as soon as possible.  

Once the proposals have been written, I will be contacting the various
space contractors and organizations and present the chairmen of the
boards of directors with the proposals.

To assist everyone in Space Quest, we should have a computer on the
internet so that we can write and edit the proposals and such from the
comfort of our own sites.  My company should be donating a small machine
soon.

I'll make a posting when it's time to work on the proposals.

- Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 10:34:20 GMT
From: voder!berlioz!andrew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head )
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <11877@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, ruffwork@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Ritchey Ruff) writes:
> [lots of reasons why up/down time ratio is about 30%]
> all in all it would be much nicer 
> to have an unmanned scope on the back side of the moon! 
> (Listening, Danno Quail? ;-)

So let's attach a little thruster pack to it, and delta-v the thing where
you suggest!
-- 
...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman	There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away,
nsc!berlioz!andrew	That's what I says to myself, says I, 
time sucks					   jolly good luck, hooray!

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 16:31:56 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!basser!ray@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Raymond Lister)
Subject: Future probe to Pluto


Okay ...  Voyager II can't get a gravity assist off Neptune to reach
Pluto ...  So when is the next opportunity to go to Pluto?  Grand Tour
planetary "alignments" only occur every 175 years. BUT ...

The following is from the British Interplanetary Society's magazine
"Spaceflight", January 1984, in the section "Space at JPL", by William
McLaughlin ...

   "... The key to a reasonably short flight time for a ballistic mission to
    Pluto  (i.e. one not using continuous thrust as in nuclear or solar
    electric propulsion) is a gravity assist by Jupiter. Without such an
    assist, a ballistic flight to Pluto would last about 30 years. ...
    Pluto-Jupiter-Earth line up favourably for a gravity assist about every 12
    years ... [the next launch window will occur] in the 1980's to early
    1990's.  [Four bright guys at] JPL have examined this period ... After a
    1989 launch, Pluto would be encountered by the 800kg spacecraft after 10
    years of flight, having been boosted by a combination of chemical thrusting
    and gravity assists by earth (re-encountered 2.2 years after launch after
    looping out in space in a so-called delta Vega trajectory) and
    Jupiter. ..."

The current launch window has been missed, but if they launch in 2001, I'll
see pictures of Pluto just before I retire.

Raymond Lister
Basser Department of Computer Science
University of Sydney
NSW  2006
AUSTRALIA

Internet: ray@basser.cs.su.oz

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 17:03:38 GMT
From: unmvax!aplcen!arrom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

>>You are staring democracy right in the face.
>Which is why the authors of the Constitution did NOT make this country a
>democracy.
>John W Campbell used to say that there has never in the history of the world 
>been a democracy that lasted 100 years, and that the US would not be the
>first. Depending on you viewpoint, the US became a democracy either in 1906
>or 1964. I tend to believe 1964 myself.

This is quite bogus (though I have no doubt John Campbell actually said that).

Someone is likely to point out that the US is still not a democracy because
there is discrimination against <insert group here>.  Thus, according to
the definition of democracy given above, no country has ever been a democracy.
This makes the statement true, but only trivially.
--
"The fact is self evident from the text and requires no supporting argument."
  --Tim Maroney

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 16:47:22 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca!pooter!kendalla@uunet.uu.net  (Kendall Auel;685-2425;61-028;;pooter)
Subject: Re: Satellites

In article <30.24D154EA@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes:
>I am new to this newsgroup and am curious about something that I 
>have seen in the night sky.
>
>I have noticed a variety of objects which appear to be the size 
>of a medium star moving in different directions across the sky. 
>Some of them are probably satellites, however there have been a 
>few which pulse or flash very intensely at times and do not seem 
>to be rythmic.  Could anyone enlighten me on what these objects 
>could be?
>

I think it is unlikely that what you are seeing are satellites.  What you
are probably seeing instead are passenger jets passing by at high altitudes.
You generally won't hear them, and the pulsing or flashing can be caused
by a couple of things.  First of all, some of the lights are directional,
so that as the aircraft passes by, you will see varying degrees of brightness.
Also, there are strobe lights on the tail and wings, I believe, that flash
at a regular interval.

Here's my one and only UFO encounter:  I was looking out to the horizon one
evening and saw a star.  So, I made a wish.  Over about ten minute's time,
I noticed that the star seemed to be getting brighter.  I went inside and
got my sister to come out a take a look at it.  As we watched, it did indeed
get brighter.  It was completely stationary, because it was just to one
side of a large tree and remained a constant distance from it.  We went
inside again and got the rest of the family to come out and watch it.  There
was a lot of conjecture about what it was.  We talked about super-novas and
satellites, and even UFO's.  As we sat and watched and talked (about another
15 minutes), the object got brighter and brighter, and stayed in its fixed
position.  Suddenly, it started moving upward, slowly then faster and faster.
At the same time it got very bright, almost hard to look at.  Then came
a thunderous scream as an F-4 phantom jet flew directly over our heads at
low altitude.  Wow!

Kendall Auel                       |  kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM
Tektronix, Inc.                    |  P.O. Box 1000, m/s 61-028
Visual Systems Group               |  Wilsonville, Oregon 97070
Interactive Technologies Division  |  (This message composed on a TEK w/s)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 17:10:55 GMT
From: tank!shamash!com50!questar!dave@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552

In article <962@m3.mfci.UUCP> rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) writes:
> In article <Added.0YnBirO00Ui385uU87@andrew.cmu.edu> 3432P@NAVPGS.BITNET (Craig Cholar) writes:
> >(either Armstrong or Aldrin, I'm not sure which) say "Contact Light";
> Nope. They said "Contact!". 

Nope, they said "Contact light" just after the contact probes poking
down from the landing pads hit the surface.  You'll notice in the reruns
they were not down when this was said.

-- 
David Becker  db@kolonel.MN.ORG (home)
and another bug bites, and another bug bites   another bug bites the dust
 ? @cs.unc.edu (this fall :-)  dave@questar.mn.org (salt mine)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #602
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYuFJGe00UkV81N049>;
          Wed, 16 Aug 89 03:18:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YYuFJ-C00UkVI1LE53@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 03:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #603

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 603

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Satellites
			George Koopman killed
		  Re: does this proposal make sense
	     Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion
	Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
		    Why no Voyager Pluto encounter
	     Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion
	   Re: NSS Elections, with apologies to non-members
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 23:06:56 GMT
From: srcsip!nic.MR.NET!ns!logajan@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Satellites

kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM (Kendall Auel;685-2425;61-028;;pooter) writes:
>  mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes:
> >I have noticed a variety of objects which appear to be the size 
> >of a medium star moving in different directions across the sky. 
> >Some of them are probably satellites, however there have been a 
> >few which pulse or flash very intensely at times and do not seem 
> >to be rythmic.  Could anyone enlighten me on what these objects 
> >could be?

> I think it is unlikely that what you are seeing are satellites.  What you
> are probably seeing instead are passenger jets passing by at high altitudes.

Why do you not think he is seeing satellites?  They would be especially bright
just after dawn and just before sunrise.  Pulsations could come from tumbling
objects, the periods of which should be very regular (though the best angles
might only occur temporarily -- so it might appeare erratic.)

The other thing that argues against passenger jets is that there are more
satellites in the field of view than high jets, on average.  At North
American latitudes, the most typical orbital track visible would be
northerly or southerly, rather than easterly or westerly.  Passsenger
jets are more likely to be flying easterly or westerly (depending upon
where you live!)  Also, satellites that are moving at a perceptible
rate are probably only on the order of a couple of hundred miles up.
  


-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1989 09:54-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: George Koopman killed

I to wish to express my regrets at the loss of true pioneer and a
fighter for the cause of free enterprise in space. I have known George
for many years, and although not a close friend, he is one of the
people I have most respected.

He will be sorely missed as a counterweight on our board to the
politics-is-beautiful crowd.

I will also miss him as a person who has gone out of his way and spent
his valuable time to do personal favors for me.

I wish AMROC success in their first launch. There could be no more
fitting memorial.

Ad Astra George...

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 22:00:34 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: does this proposal make sense

In article <121@psitech.UUCP> david@psitech.UUCP (david Fridley) writes:
-Let Me pull a few numbers out of a hat.  Let's GUESS that a reasonable 
-self sufficient space station that will support 35,000 people will cost
-$35,000,000,000.  I know this guess is wrong, maybe its 70 billion or 100,
-but I believe this is within 1 order of magnatude (less than 350 billion).
-
-If we sold apartments, then they would go for $1,000,000 each.  OK, $1 million
-seems like a lot to me, not that it wouldn't be worth it, just that I don't
-know where I could get it.

What you're talking about here is your *home*.  Homes costing that
much are not at all uncommon, especially here in California.
Puts a little different light on it -- if the jobs up there were
sufficiently well paid...

(Remember T.A. Heppenheimer's scheme for time-share condos in space?)
-- 
Mike Van Pelt               "I hate trolls.  Maybe I could metamorph it into
Headland Technology          something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed,
(Was: Video Seven)           fire-breathing dragon."  -- Willow.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 17:21:10 GMT
From: haven!adm!smoke!chidsey@purdue.edu  (Irving Chidsey )
Subject: Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion

< I understand that the northern and southern hemispheres are more or
< less "isolated" as far as atmospheric circulation is concerned. If
< this is indeed so, then how do the people, who are alarmed at the "hole"
< at the SouthPole, relate same to chemical pollutants in the northern
< hemisphere? And why not the NorthPole? Or do I err, assuming that the
< bulk of these chemicals are made/used/released north of the Equator?
<
< m wooding


The answere is in your "more or less".  In the short term, up to a year, they
are effectively isolated.  Lengthen the time to decades and they are coupled.

I don't know whether the presence of the hole in just the South is due to a
somewhat different production / loss regime because the earth is farther from
the sun during the Northern winter, or due to a different transport regime
because the South pole is in the center of a high plateau surrounded by
ocean but the North pole is in the center of a sea surrounded by continents.
Any meteoroligists in the house?

						Irv
-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
			Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 16:30:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (nelson_p)
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)


 
>Once there is such a space program which individual investors could put
>their money into, then, and only then, will we see the wealthy 
>enthusiasts beating down doors to invest.

  I must have missed something in the earlier postings.

  I can see why someone might invest in space ventures that
  could have some commercial value such as communication
  satellites or orbital factories.   But why would someone 
  invest in something that is just done for the sake of science
  like a manned mission to Mars, an observatory on the 'back'
  of the moon, or a deep space probe?   Obviously you MIGHT
  find something of commercial value with these ventures but
  there's little reason to assume it, certainly not enough to
  attract investors.

                                                 --Peter

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 19:34:17 GMT
From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink, OIR)
Subject: Why no Voyager Pluto encounter

From article <11853@drutx.ATT.COM>, by michael@drutx.ATT.COM
(J. Michael Butters):
> 
> Way back in December, 1970, National Geographic had an article in their
> monthly magazine entitled "Voyage to the Planets" which discussed the
> missions of the Voyager spacecrafts and their planned trajectories
> to ALL the planets of the solar system.  One of the crafts was to pass
> well under the planet Saturn which would send it at an angle up to the
> planet Pluto.  I never did learn why this plan was rejected and Pluto
> left out of the mission.

The real "Grand Tour" was rejected because of the cost of guaranteeing
reliable operation of components for the full duration of the flight, which
had to be launched by 1976.  A book, entitled "Beyond Jupiter: The Worlds of
Tomorrow", by Arthur C. Clarke and Chesley Bonestell (Little Brown, 1972)
tells the story of what might have been, ending with a Bonestell painting of
the Grand Tour spacecraft passing Pluto.  According to the endpaper drawings,
there would have been two spacecraft, one to Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune,
the other to Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto. 

Clarke's final paragraphs can serve as earth-bound epitaphs for Voyager 1
and Voyager 2 (after August 25):

    "Sometime in the twenty-first century, at some indefinite distance
from the Sun, we will lose contact as the power of their signals weakens--
though occasionally, when some giant new telescope is brought into operation,
they may be momentarily reaquired.  But one day their transmitters will fail,
and they will be lost forever.
    "Or perhaps not; there are two other possibilities.  As our space-faring
powers develop, we may overtake them with the vehicles of a later age and
bring them back to our museums, as relics of the early days before men
ventured beyond Mars.  And if we do not find them, others may.
    "We should therefore build them well, for one day they may be the only
evidence that the human race ever existed.  All the works of man on his own
world are ephemeral, seen from the viewpoint of geoligical time.  The winds
and rains which have destroyed mountains will make short work of the pyramids,
those recent experiments in immortality,  The most enduring monuments we have
yet created stand on the Moon, or circle the Sun; but even these will not last
forever.
    "For when the sun dies, it will not end with a whimper.  In its final
paroxysm, it will melt the inner planets to slag, and set the frozen outer
planets erupting in geysers wider than the continents of Earth.  Nothing will
be left, on or even near the world where he was born, of man and his works.
    "But hundreds--thousands--of light-years outward from Earth, some of the
most exquisite masterpieces of his hand and brain will still be drifting down
the corridors of stars.  The energies that powered them will have been dead
for eons, and no trace will remain of the patterns of logic that once pulsed
through the crystal labyrinths of their minds.
    "Yet they will still be recognizable, while the Universe endures, as
the work of beings who wondered about it long ago, and sought to fathom
its secrets."

--------------------------------------------------
Doug Mink
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Internet:  mink@cfa.harvard.edu
SPAN:      cfa::mink
BITNET:    mink@cfa
Phone:     (617)495-7408
FTS:       830-7408
USMail:    CfA, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 21:13:19 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion

In article <609@visdc.UUCP>, jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes:
> I read today in my home-town paper that "scientists" had presented
> "evidence" that the antarctic ozone hole might be "related to" increased
> incidence of skin cancer in southern Australia and New Zealand.  Does
> anyone know anything about this "study"?  It defies logic for a number
> of reasons and is apparently the "first" study to make such a claim.

There have been some studies (hearsay...) that some chemicals, including
nitrosamines found in beers may have some bearing on increasing the
likelihood of developing skin cancers in humans.

In any case, there's lots of screaming about the "ozone hole" (not that
it doesn't exist) and "our ozone layer being destroyed" (which it might
well be) and "we're all gonna die 'cause all the UV will get through"
(which is not at all certain).

Here's something that appeared on the net a while back (sorry, I don't
have record of who submitted the information...) relating to some
actual experiments relating to real, observable effects:

*!* Abstract:  Science, February 12, 1988, vol. 239, pp. 762-4.
*!* 
*!* Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation:
*!* Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974 to 1985
*!* J. Scotto et. al.
*!* 
*!* "Recent reports of stratospheric ozone depletion have prompted
*!* concerns about the levels of solar ultraviolet radiation that reach
*!* the earth's surface.  Since 1974 a network of ground monitoring
*!* stations in the United States has tracked measurements of biologically
*!* effective ultraviolet radiation (UVB, 290 to 330 nanometers).  The
*!* fact that no increases of UVB have been detected at ground levels from
*!* 1974 to 1985 suggests that meteorological, climatic, and environmental
*!* factors in the troposphere may play a greater role in attenuating UVB
*!* radiation than was previously suspected."
*!* 
*!* The data in the paper actually show a 0.7% DECREASE per year.  Perhaps,
*!* before we panic and replace clorinated fluorocarbons with something that
*!* could be MORE dangerous, we should calm down and look at ALL the data.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 13:27:45 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NSS Elections, with apologies to non-members

In article <1989Jul29.223849.8413@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>I just received my ballot for the NSS Board of Directors Election.
>			  Does anyone have any comments (pro or con)
>about:

Here are one active member's opinions, with my recommended votes.  A
thousand apologies to non-NSS members on the network.

>Ben Bova
Represents the NSS status quo.  If you think the NSS is an effective
organization, elect him.  Vote NO.

>Andrew Cutler
The most active member of the pro-space community I have ever met.  The
driving force behind HR2674, the space Transportation Services Purchase
Act.  The only petition candidate whose name did not appear on a
petition circulated by Mark Hopkins.  The only candidate whose campaign
statement was edited.  The Nominations Committee removed the following
lines from his statement:

	I am running against Mark Hopkins.  The most important thing
	you can do this election is vote NO on Mark Hopkins.  Write the
	word NO by his name as permitted by NSS bylaws.

	The nominating committee will not permit me to say anything bad
	about Mark in this statement.  Call the chapters (see your April
	Ad Astra, page 40) to find out why you should vote NO on Mark
	Hopkins. 

	I demand a full and public accounting of the L5, SpacePAC and
	SpaceCause accounts where Mark Hopkins has sole signature
	authority before NSS give SpacePAC or SpaceCause any more money.

	Vote for me.  Vote NO on Mark Hopkins.

The NSS headquarters thinks he is dangerous to them, and they are
correct. Things will not remain the same if he is elected.  Vote YES.

>K. Eric Drexler.
Nanotechnology.  Vote NO.

>Nathan Goldman
At the Meet the Candidates Forum at the NSS conference in Chicago, he
stated that as Chapters Coordinator his first priority should be to
foster direct inter-chapter communications.  Vote YES.

>Mark Hopkins
The most important NO vote.  There are many suspicions about the
financial relations between Hopkins and the NSS.  These could be cleared
up immediately by an open accounting for the funds under his control.
He has consistently refused.  Last year he was caught rigging the
Nominations Committee elections (only they are allowed to endorse
candidates).  He was later in charge of the group responsible for making
election rule changes for this election (in which he is a candidate).
Vote NO.

>John Logsdon
See the June issue (I think) of _Spacelines_, the newsletter from the
midwest chapters.  Galesburg L5 puts it out.  They printed a letter he
wrote in response to a paper by A. Cutler and J. Bowery which was heavy
with fascist overtones. (No, sadly I am not kidding)  But credit where
credit is due:  he was the only member of the Board of Directors decent
enough to respond. 

>Margaret Jordan
>Richard Puckett
>Terry Savage
These three are product of the OASIS chapter in Los Angeles, and are
associated with the California Space Development Council, CSDC.  The
claim to fame for CSDC is that they coined the phrase "To create a
spacefaring civilization that will establish communities beyond the
Earth."  They say they are a strong regional group with lots of
accomplishments.  This is nonsense.  I was a member of one of their
chapters.  They are an emotional support group for people who are
burning out from doing nothing but talking about space.  Anybody who
thinks that they are an active pro-space organization is seriously
deluded.  Terry Savage specifically promised to bring the same level of
(in)activity to the Board of Directors.  Vote NO.

>Joseph Redfield
Supports HR2674 and chapters.  Vote YES.  (See how easy I am to please!)

The other candidates seem irrelevant to this active member.  On that
basis I would recommend a NO vote.  If significant change does not take
place in this election (i.e. election of Cutler, defeat of Hopkins) all
hope of NSS actually becoming a space activist organization is probably
lost, if it is not already.

----

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #603
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYuH5fS00UkVM1Xk4k>;
          Wed, 16 Aug 89 05:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <AYuH5Xi00UkVM1W05O@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 05:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #604

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 604

Today's Topics:
		  Re: does this proposal make sense
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
		      Re: Future probe to Pluto
       Re: Eggs & baskets (was: Does this proposal make sense?)
			    Eggs & baskets
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
			 Hipparchos satellite
	       Aircraft Encounters (Was Re: Satellites)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 07:33:40 GMT
From: psitech!david@uunet.uu.net  (david Fridley)
Subject: Re: does this proposal make sense

times how much he/she is willing to put up, All added up.

The one reason that most people SHOULD be interested in a space station
has to do with not keeping all your eggs in one basket.  How far along
are we on rendering this place uninhabitable?  How long would it take
to finish the job? (answer: 20 minutes). If there were a population
living in space, then OUR RACE is less vulnerable to extinction.

How much am I willing to put towards a space station?  Well, I must admit
that it is proportional to the chances of my getting to go.  Let's say that
I could easilly be talked out of $1000 a year, even if the probability is
low.  If I absolutely would get to go, it's worth everything I'll earn
less living expences.

Let Me pull a few numbers out of a hat.  Let's GUESS that a reasonable 
self sufficient space station that will support 35,000 people will cost
$35,000,000,000.  I know this guess is wrong, maybe its 70 billion or 100,
but I believe this is within 1 order of magnatude (less than 350 billion).

If we sold apartments, then they would go for $1,000,000 each.  OK, $1 million
seems like a lot to me, not that it wouldn't be worth it, just that I don't
know where I could get it.  But, the space station isn't ready yet so may be I
could earn it along the way.  Next guess: how long will it take to build
it, starting NOW. Well, knowing something about engineering the answer is alot
longer than I think, so I'll guess 20 years, hoping that it's only 10, Lets
call completion for 2010 (I'll be 48, let's hope I stay in shape.).  Now we are
talking about $50,000 a year.  That's still too muct, but it is less ominous.

Consider that this is a coporation, and not just a bunch of individuals trying
to buy appartments in space.  What do we have to get along the way in order to
build this housing tract.  Well, the first thing that comes to mind is
LAUNCH CAPACITY.  And not a puny 1 launch every 2 months, but several
launches per week.  Consider only transporting 35,000 people to orbit.  If we
could do it 100 at a time, a huge number compared to how many we currently
put up at once, that is 350 launches.  That alone is 1 launch every 3 weeks
over the twenty years of the project, and more likely it is one launch a day
for the last year of the project.  So, if we do this we are going to
be experts in launch capacity, we'll have to be.  It will probably also be
necessary to be experts in more than one type of launch vehicle, since our
schedules will be highly dependent on deliveries.  Lets say that we get into
shuttles and linear accelerators (the best time to start linear accelerators
is when high temperature super conductors come to life, but we could start
with the nitrogen cooled type).

As for the laws imposed by the US, I see no reason to limit participation
to US citizens.  In fact, if we build a linear accelerator there are many
better places outside the US.

I'm sure that there are many other spinnoff enterprises related to building
a space station.  Ideas are encouraged.

I have only one other question.  What can a Space station export, cheeply, in
order to facilitate trade Earth?  The first answer I think of is software.
There is no advantage to doing it in space, but there is no disadvantage. 
Ideas are encouraged.

-- 
david.
DISCLAIMER: If it's important have a backup.  If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Proceed at your own risk.  My oponions are MY own.  Spelling does not count.
My fondest dream is to leave this planet.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 21:08:42 GMT
From: shlump.nac.dec.com!gary.dec.com!hughes@decuac.dec.com
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

The rocket that is shown exploding at the end of _Koyaanisquatsi_ (not sure of spelling
either) is NOT a Saturn V, or a Saturn anything.

It is an early Atlas Centaur flight. As the first flight vehicle to use LH2/LOX propellants,
it had more than its share of inflight catastrophic self disassemblies. The piece that is
followed down is the Atlas main engine (or sustainer if you prefer).

Gary Hughes
hughes @star.dec.com

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 23:06:58 GMT
From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink, OIR)
Subject: Re: Future probe to Pluto

From article <2395@basser.oz>, by ray@basser.oz (Raymond Lister):
> 
> Okay ...  Voyager II can't get a gravity assist off Neptune to reach
> Pluto ...  So when is the next opportunity to go to Pluto?  Grand Tour
> planetary "alignments" only occur every 175 years. BUT ...
> 
> The following is from the British Interplanetary Society's magazine
> "Spaceflight", January 1984, in the section "Space at JPL", by William
> McLaughlin ...
>    [omitted to save space]
> The current launch window has been missed, but if they launch in 2001, I'll
> see pictures of Pluto just before I retire.

Last month I got a notice through the Plutologists grapevine that there
is a possibility of a launch to Pluto in 1997 or 1998 with an Earth
gravity assist three years later and a Pluto encounter (too much velocity
for orbit) in 2013 or 2014.  It was up against such projects as the
Lunar Polar Orbiter for a new start, however, so I doubt if it was
selected by NASA in this year's planning session.  Total cost is
estimated at $500, the same cost as the Lunar Orbiter.  The Pluto probe
would be a clone of the Cassini orbiter launched on a Titan4/Centaur.

My personal opinion, despite being something of a Plutophile, is that the
LPO is more important, but that a Pluto probe should be the next planetary
probe to be considered.

Doug Mink
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Internet:  mink@cfa.harvard.edu
SPAN:      cfa::mink
BITNET:    mink@cfa
Phone:     (617)495-7408
FTS:       830-7408
USMail:    CfA, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 89 02:19:48 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekgen!tekred!speed!larryb@uunet.uu.net  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Re: Eggs & baskets (was: Does this proposal make sense?)

In article <20852@louie.udel.EDU> pezely@udel.EDU (Dan Pezely) writes:
>
>In article <1989Jul31.163523.28419@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>Completely unbelievable.  The NASA space station is going to cost
>>$30B+, and support (sort of) maybe a dozen people.  You propose
>>something 1000 times larger for the same amount of money, and you want
>>it to be completely self sufficient as well?  Not anytime soon, bucko.
>
>I thought that the discussion about NASA prices versus corporate prices
>was over.  :-)  
Hardley :-(...  WHEN corporation actually start launching commerically. Then
we can actually about comparisons.  I'm a very big fan of AmeRoc and SSI (both
the launch group and space techies)..  I was really sorry to hear about
George Koopman death.  A TRUE space visionary and was luckly to talk with him
about space at various conventions.

>
>Although I do agree that a space station THAT SIZE is a bit
>large ito be seen in our life times, a 100 to 500 person space station
>is feasible.  And, with one station in orbit, components can be
>'shipped' to it to construct other stations of similar size.  That leads
>to answering the original of space station exportation: construction.
>
>It's much easier to ship parts than the completed item.  Also, wouldn't
>most manufactures rather assemble their products in a zero-gravity
>environment instead of on the ground?

Depends on what you're building ..
>
>Primarily, the 'product' which will be exported will be research.
>Chemists would just love to be able to conduct experiments without
>containers.  Astronomers would kill for spot to put their scopes.
>Composite manufacturers would be curious to see what happens to certain
>materials if they are constructed without the imperfections that gravity
>introduces.  And so on.
>
>- Daniel

Dan, I like your enthusiam.  You're going to need it to get through the times
ahead.  I want nothing more than go into space.  But you aren't going to
get 1000 engineers together to build a project.  Most of your ideas have
been shooting around for years. I personally recommend you contact the SSI group
building a lunar satellite.  Someone on the net should have some info. I would post
it but it's home in Seattle ;-(.  Get some experience on a space related 
engineering project. Learn the in and outs... 1 Person can still change the
world.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your objective. Rather I'm just trying to
temper you somewhat.  Hell if you could house and feed me and 999 engineers,
I don't think you would have hard time convincing us to help build a ship to leave
Earth.  But a good friend of mind in Chi-town has finally beaten it into me,
It's going to be a long haul...  

Since we really don't have much of choice about leaving currently.  There are 
things we can do now to help.  Support the Space Transport bill. (YES HENRY
and DALE S. and BILL H.and BAXTER and whoever else) I'm actually going and visiting 
my congressperson (good god i cann't live with the guilt nor longer Capn') Although 
I perfer engineering problems to political or economical problems. 

Another altenative is to follow those people who get picked up by UFOs all the
time. We wait for one to land, make contact with the aliens and do one of the 
following :
1. Tell them we're just hitchiking through and could we get a ride to the nearest 
   space port.
2. Sell them a great piece of archecture known as the brooklyn bridge for
   a small plantary shuttle.
3. If you knew when one was landing, hold sf world con there .  And during the
   confusion steal their ship.


Larry Brader :: larry%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net
Tektronix nor anyone else is responsible for my views. 
The US spent >$70B for the B2 = 2 space stations ($30B)
and 3 shuttles ($3B) with $1B left over.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 16:35:23 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Eggs & baskets

In article <121@psitech.UUCP> david@psitech.UUCP (david Fridley) writes:

>The one reason that most people SHOULD be interested in a space station
>has to do with not keeping all your eggs in one basket.  How far along
>are we on rendering this place uninhabitable?  How long would it take
>to finish the job? (answer: 20 minutes). If there were a population
>living in space, then OUR RACE is less vulnerable to extinction.

I have a hard time imagining how a nuclear war or chemical pollution
could render the Earth any less habitable than space already is.
Remember: space has dangerous radiation, no ozone layer, no running
water, no breathable air.  Sure, you can shield & make your own
consumables, but you can do that on Earth too, for a lot less money.

>Let Me pull a few numbers out of a hat.  Let's GUESS that a reasonable 
>self sufficient space station that will support 35,000 people will cost
>$35,000,000,000.  I know this guess is wrong, maybe its 70 billion or 100,
>but I believe this is within 1 order of magnatude (less than 350 billion).

Completely unbelievable.  The NASA space station is going to cost
$30B+, and support (sort of) maybe a dozen people.  You propose
something 1000 times larger for the same amount of money, and you want
it to be completely self sufficient as well?  Not anytime soon, bucko.

>I have only one other question.  What can a Space station export, cheeply, in
>order to facilitate trade Earth?  The first answer I think of is software.
>There is no advantage to doing it in space, but there is no disadvantage. 
>Ideas are encouraged.

Software is labor intensive.  Labor in space is incredibly expensive,
and will, IMHO, likely remain more expensive than labor on Earth for
quite some time.  The idea of making software in space is a nonstarter.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 18:16:04 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <14498@bfmny0.UUCP>, tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

			...........................

> All in all I think it would be best to build observatories with human
> labor, on the Moon's visible side near the limb.  That way Earth is just
> a cookie on the horizon without significant observing impact, but you
> get direct data feeds.  With humans building it, you can get clever and
> work out solutions to the dust and debris problems, and anchor it firmly
> so calibration can be held at a minimum.

I do not know who made the suggestion, I believe it was the late Willy Ley,
but the idea was to use a fixed parabolic mirror with a movable flat reflector
to direct the light to the curved mirror.  The two advantages of this are
that the curved mirror could use a lighter and less complicated mount, and
that the expensive curved mirror would not be exposed to micrometeorites,
etc.  A movable mount for a flat mirror would be relatively cheap, and 
replacement flat mirrors would also.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 14:47:56 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Hipparchos satellite

I was making notes from an old article by Freeman Dyson and he referred
to a satellite named "Hipparchos" -- which was to be launched in 1985
to determine the positions of stars with high accuracy.  (I believe it
was an ESA project.)

Does anyone know the history of this project? 

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | (503) 750-3969                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 89 01:35:48 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekgen!tekred!speed!larryb@uunet.uu.net  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Aircraft Encounters (Was Re: Satellites)

In article <4067@orca.WV.TEK.COM> kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM (Kendall Auel) writes:
>There was a lot of conjecture about what it was.  We talked about super-novas and
>satellites, and even UFO's.  As we sat and watched and talked (about another
>15 minutes), the object got brighter and brighter, and stayed in its fixed
>position.  Suddenly, it started moving upward, slowly then faster and faster.
>At the same time it got very bright, almost hard to look at.  Then came
>a thunderous scream as an F-4 phantom jet flew directly over our heads at
>low altitude.  Wow!
>
>Kendall Auel                       |  kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM

Whew, this reminds me of working at Edwards Air Force Base.  A very interesting
place to visit and work at (even with my cynical attitude).  

I worked in the radar signature building located at the left end of the main run way.
The pilots use to hit their after-burners and shoot straight up over our building.
After awhile I <almost> got use the hourly sonic boons over the building.  Although
one of the engineers looked a little nervous.  He keeped mentioning that all it took
was one little slip up and we would get more then their signature. 

While there I also had a great seat for watching the shuttle land.  Had to get to work
4 hours early (~3am) to beat the traffic jam to Edwards. Well worth the effort ;-).
Also saw the Blue Angles practice. WOW !!!  (I don't think anyone got any work done
that week)

Unfortunately I saw the B1 (I think it was prototype #3 ) crash.  It was doing a low 
altitude turn when the wing on the left side wouldn't rise again, and then the plane 
began to topple.  Found out latter the reason for the crash.  A fuel pump was defective
and the fuel was stuck on the left side of the aircraft.   I never did find out why they
had that much fuel pumped to one side to begin with.  I can see how it would help
with the banking but isn't that what the flaps and rudders are for?? For one thing
the B1 isn't that cg sensitive as compared to the B2.
(as much as I work on aircraft, I could use some more aviation classes :)

Space related information... There's a valley next to Edwards that is used to test 
rocket engines.  What is the name of that valley??  Talked with Bob Sanders an old
time rocket engineer ;-) about testing various engines.  They had an old sherman tank 
used as refuge during a rocket test.  It always made him nervous, because they first 
would have to get the snakes out of the tank.  And every now and then something would 
hit the tank.  

An interesting place to check out if you ever visit Edwards.  And Definitely talk
with the old timers ;-) ;-) ... even the snotnose wiseass kid can learn something ;-)


Larry Brader :: larry%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net
Tektronix nor anyone else is responsible for my views. 
The US spent >$70B for the B2 = 2 space stations ($30B)
and 3 shuttles ($3B) with $1B left over.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #604
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/oYuXubO00UkV81tk4q>;
          Thu, 17 Aug 89 00:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YYuXuO-00UkVM1s05E@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 00:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #605

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 605

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
		       Re: Hipparchos satellite
	     Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion
		      Re: Future probe to Pluto
			  Earth's perihelion
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
	  Re: Cheerleading (was Re: Henry's (not Weinhards))
		 re: Neptune Encounter Satellite Feed
		   Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
			    Re: Satellites
		      Buying the hottest jet...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 13:32:57 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

Of course, an unmanned scope on the back side of the moon would share some
of HST's disadvantages.

	1. The Moon would block 50% of the sky at all times - worse than HST
	2. It still couldn't point at the sun (better to say "musn't" :-) )
	3. Dust and debris on the primary would be an even worse problem since
	   it would be located on a giant dustball instead of in orbit
	4. Calibration would be just as necessary, esp. with an unmanned scope.

And of course

	5. All command and data flow would have to be indirect.

All in all I think it would be best to build observatories with human
labor, on the Moon's visible side near the limb.  That way Earth is just
a cookie on the horizon without significant observing impact, but you
get direct data feeds.  With humans building it, you can get clever and
work out solutions to the dust and debris problems, and anchor it firmly
so calibration can be held at a minimum.
-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 89 07:52:02 GMT
From: mcvax!hp4nl!esatst!neil@uunet.uu.net  (Neil Dixon)
Subject: Re: Hipparchos satellite

From article <101270035@hpcvlx.HP.COM>, by gvg@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel):
> to a satellite named "Hipparchos" -- which was to be launched in 1985
> to determine the positions of stars with high accuracy.  (I believe it
> was an ESA project.)

The latest launch date is now 8th-9th August, from Kourou.


-- 
Neil Dixon <neil@yc.estec.nl> UUCP:...!mcvax!esatst!neil, BITNET: NDIXON@ESTEC
Thermal Control & Life Support Division (YC) 
European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC),
Noordwijk, The Netherlands.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 89 12:33:08 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!ncifcrf!nlm-mcs!adm!smoke!chidsey@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Irving Chidsey )
Subject: Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion

In article <1671@zen.co.uk> helen@zen.UUCP (Helen Grayson) writes:
<In article <10638@smoke.BRL.MIL> chidsey@brl.arpa (Irving Chidsey (INF) <chidsey>) writes:
<>...the earth is farther from the sun during the Northern winter...
<
<According to my Trivial Pursuits set (so it *must* be right :-)
<the Earth is closest to the Sun in January.
<
<(I'm sure this doesn't help at all.)
<
<Helen.
OOPS! You're right, soft memory error!  Just flipped a bit.

It doesn't affect my point, which was that there is a difference between the
poles that might explain why we had only one hole.  It certainly doesn't
affect Ilana Stern's lucid explanation.  Helps it in fact as it makes the
South pole colder.

					Irv


-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
			Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 89 17:10:05 GMT
From: att!shuxd!starr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael L. Starr)
Subject: Re: Future probe to Pluto

In article <2395@basser.oz> ray@basser.oz (Raymond Lister) writes:
|
|    Pluto-Jupiter-Earth line up favourably for a gravity assist about every 12
|    years ... [the next launch window will occur] in the 1980's to early
|    1990's.  [Four bright guys at] JPL have examined this period ... After a
|    1989 launch, Pluto would be encountered by the 800kg spacecraft after 10
|    years of flight, having been boosted by a combination of chemical thrusting
|    and gravity assists by earth (re-encountered 2.2 years after launch after
|    looping out in space in a so-called delta Vega trajectory) and
|    Jupiter. ..."
|
|The current launch window has been missed, but if they launch in 2001, I'll
|see pictures of Pluto just before I retire.

Unfortunately, with NASA's instance on using the Space Shuttle to launch
everything, it'll never happen.  NASA needs to return back to the good
old reliable (and it turns out cheaper) expendable rockets!  Look how
long Galileo has been sitting around waiting for a launch (9 years now?).
A repeat of the success of Voyager could never happen today.
----
 __/\__  ********************  __/\__   |       starr@shuxd.att.com
 \    /  * Michael L. Starr *  \    /   |       att!shuxd!starr
  |/\|   ********************   |/\|    |       attmail!starr

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 89 08:30:33 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!wayne@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Wayne Hayes)
Subject: Earth's perihelion

In article <1671@zen.co.uk> helen@zen.UUCP (Helen Grayson) writes:
>In article <10638@smoke.BRL.MIL> chidsey@brl.arpa (Irving Chidsey (INF) <chidsey>) writes:
>>...the earth is farther from the sun during the Northern winter...
>
>According to my Trivial Pursuits set (so it *must* be right :-)
>the Earth is closest to the Sun in January.

Chock one up for Trivial Pursuit: Earth's Perihelion is on January 2, distance
91,397,000 miles (147 090 000 km).
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."   "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Wayne Hayes	INTERNET: wayne@csri.toronto.edu	CompuServe: 72401,3525

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 89 05:37:37 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) says:

> There are more than one. I know of people who own F-86's. A company in
> Addison Tx. has imported some Alpha jets which it sells (for about 2M
> each). A company in CA inports MIG-19's from China and is attempting to
> get permission to import MIG-21's. The Alpha and Mig-21 will do better
> than mach 1.

I was under the impression that a plane has to be FAA certified for use in
American airspace.  Are the MiG's certified?

I believe this was the objection raised when a private group submitted a
bid for the USAF Adversary Aircraft program.  This was to be a procurement
of planes for use in training American pilots in combat against planes
with performance similar to that of Soviet-built planes.  USAF created this
procurement specifically to justify purchase of the F-20.  Originally, F-20
was the only bidder, but then along came this group with arrangements to
obtain authentic MiG's and spare parts from China and Israel.  Their bid
was rejected because it didn't meet "the requirements of the Adversary 
Aircraft program".  Their protests that these planes ARE the adversary
aircraft came to no avail, last I heard (a few years ago, in Electronics News).

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 89 15:50:50 GMT
From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <20940@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
|
|I was under the impression that a plane has to be FAA certified for use in
|American airspace.  Are the MiG's certified?
|
|I believe this was the objection raised when a private group submitted a
|bid for the USAF Adversary Aircraft program.  This was to be a procurement
|of planes for use in training American pilots in combat against planes
|with performance similar to that of Soviet-built planes.  USAF created this
|procurement specifically to justify purchase of the F-20.  Originally, F-20
|was the only bidder, but then along came this group with arrangements to
|obtain authentic MiG's and spare parts from China and Israel.  Their bid
|was rejected because it didn't meet "the requirements of the Adversary 
|Aircraft program".  Their protests that these planes ARE the adversary
|aircraft came to no avail, last I heard (a few years ago, in Electronics News).


Only CIVILIAN airplanes have to be certificated by the FAA.  Those flown by
military or government agencies do not.  Also the pilots of non-civilian
airplanes do not require pilot's licenses.  (e.g. a state trooper flying
a state police airplane does not have to have a pilot's license, but most
of them do anyway.)

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd			* 
CFI Aspen Flying Club			* Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.				* 
*******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 89 17:50:43 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Cheerleading (was Re: Henry's (not Weinhards))

>>John W Campbell used to say that there has never in the history of the world 
>>been a democracy that lasted 100 years, and that the US would not be the
>>first. Depending on you viewpoint, the US became a democracy either in 1906
>>or 1964. I tend to believe 1964 myself.

>This is quite bogus (though I have no doubt John Campbell actually said that).

>Someone is likely to point out that the US is still not a democracy because
>there is discrimination against <insert group here>.  Thus, according to
>the definition of democracy given above, no country has ever been a democracy.
>This makes the statement true, but only trivially.

Why would anyone think that, in a democracy, there will be no discrimination
against "<insert group here>"?  A pure democracy is actually the most LIKELY
form of government to permit discrimination, as the absolute rule of the 
majority is not subject to any form of checks and balances, and so it is likely
that the rights of a given minority will be abrogated.  Technically, the
U.S. is still basically a republic, as our laws are generated (primarily)
by a body of elected represenatives - although there has been a disturbing
trend in the latter half of this century for legislative power to be delegated
away to bureaucratic organizations (EPA, FCC, FAA, DoT, etc.).  (This trend
seems to me to be a step further away from democracy, as the commissioners.
secretaries, etc., are not directly elected.)

(I am curious about the dates given above, although my somewhat rusty
memory leads me to believe that these are the years in which changes were
made to the presidential election process.  If so, I fail to see how relatively
minor changes in the process to elect the chief *executive* of the government
relate to whether or not that government is a democracy.)

Followups should probably be directed to talk.politics.misc, although I find
myself reading that group more and more seldom.  Poor S/N ratio.

  
Bob Myers            | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but  
myers%hpfcla@hplabs. |  most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."
hp.com               |                        - Winston Churchill

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Aug 89 12:36:06 EDT
From: Gavin_Eadie@um.cc.umich.edu
Subject: re: Neptune Encounter Satellite Feed

I was excited and frustrated by the following posting:
 
> NASA has purchased time on the AURORA-1 satellite for broadcasting
> live pictures of the Voyager Neptune encounter. The broadcasts
> will be August 21 through 29 from 12 Noon until 6:00 pm. The
> broadcast will be for all 24 hours on August 24. AURORA-1 is at
> 139 degrees west for those with satellite dishes.
 
I'm racking my brains for someone nearby with the equipment and the
inclination to let me sit in their control room all night on the
24th while I use their dish for my amusement. Our cable company
isn't interested, though I'm going to try again.
 
I wonder if C-SPAN could be persuaded to transmit some of this
material in the middle of the night for us addicts? I'll have to
call them and see what they say.
 
Of course what I'd *really* like would be someone to make the
digital images available over the Internet, but I've been in this
business too and you don't ship your raw data out to the peons till
you've wrung them dry of discoveries!
 
This is our last chance till Galileo to see this kind of pictorial
history in the making ... I don't expect daily feeds from HST!
 
                              ... Gavin Eadie, Ann Arbor, Michigan
                                  Gavin_Eadie@um.cc.umich.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 89 17:17:16 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race

johnob@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (John Obendorfer) writes:

(discussion of spacecpanes versus shuttles versus standard rockets)
> The question becomes, is 1 Orbiter at 1,500,000,000-plus divided by
> 50 missions cheaper than one booster at a cost of X???  It's certain,
> just from empirical evidence, that Soviet expendable boosters are 
> more reliable and dependable than the shuttle.
>

Empirical statistics for western launch systems suggest that a
"mature" launcher (ie. after the first ten or so development launches,
and after the more subtle bugs have been eliminated) tend towards
95% reliability, as best as I remember. This is about the reliability
exhibitied by the space shuttle, too (one failure in 24 launches; of
course, we don't yet know the standard deviation on that statistic :-(

Have you any reason to believe that the Soviet launch systems have
any better reliability? I wouldn't be surprised if they were a bit
better, with several thousand launches under their belts. Still,
they've had a number of their cosmonauts die, and had one launch-pad
abort of a manned mission, that resulted in loss of the booster.

The trouble with the shuttle is that when it fails in a big way, an
entire crew dies (when it fails in little ways, redundant subsystems 
kick in so that we don't notice). I wouldn't say that the shuttle is
any less reliable than most unmanned launchers, though, nor less
dependable. Now, the >>organization managing<< shuttle launches may
not be as dependable as others...

-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 89 19:45:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!p.cs.uiuc.edu!silber@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Satellites



>Why do you not think he is seeing satellites?  They would be especially bright
>just after dawn and just before sunrise.  Pulsations could come from tumbling
>objects, the periods of which should be very regular (though the best angles
>might only occur temporarily -- so it might appeare erratic.)

The satellites just aren't bright enough.  You can spot Mir easily enough, if
you know where to look (it's no brighter than 4th magnitude), and the old
Echo's were pretty easy, but for something like a spysat, spent booster etc,
you need magnification.

ami silberman, janitor of lunacy

------------------------------

Date:       Wed, 02 Aug 89 08:52:14 EST
From: Brian_Fultz@CARLETON.CA
Subject:    Buying the hottest jet...

I don't know if this will reach you but if it does prune as
necessary and post.
As a Commercial Pilot in Canada I feel more than a little amused
sometimes by the net when people post things that do not match the
rules.  The rules are not the problem but sometimes people not
knowing the rules think there is a problem, so let me give it a kick
at the can.
Rule zero, there are rules.
The countries of the world have decided to give up the power to
make there own policy in exchange for a having the same rules
in force everywhere.  The countries of the world can not decide
to do something without talking to the others.
They then ruled everything that moves off the ground an aircraft.
The next rule was to divide the Aircraft ( A/C ) into two groups called
( in Canada ) "State" and "everybody else".  Each group of A/C has
has rules so lets do both types.
State aircraft are owned by the country, flown by the country,
and have NO DOCUMENTS.  Examples are T-33 jets.
"Everybody else" would be Commercial aircraft, Private Aircraft etc.
If you read the rules closely you will find one of these is a
small metal plate by the door ( plus the rest of the engines,
airframe and other bits) plus documents.
Lets talk Documents ( the real reason you can't fly a T-33 )
A/C have a Certificate of Registration.  Which says "at this time
in the past an approved company following all the rules built this
and it was given this name".  Part of this is a paper from an
approved person saying the thing has been kept up to a standard.
A/C have a Certificate of Airworthess.  Which says "it flyes
like an airplane of it's type".  Plus a paper from an approved
person saying it has been kept up to a standard.
The above makes my point so I will not go on.
An A/C can not be flown till it has an approved person at the
sharp end.  You are given permission based on years of age,
your health, your demonstrated ability TO A COMPETENT OBSERVER.
So lets finish.  You want to fly jet's ( a T-33 ).
1) you are trying to fly a State aircraft! no documents.
This is something the U.S. has agreed with every other country
on the planet they will not do.
2) Document the A/C you say!  How about re-build the thing from
the ground up, it would be less costly.
3) document yourself!  How?  No Approved people exist, no competent
observers exist ( in the not-State aircraft world ).
Let's finish -> -> FORGET-IT <- <-.  Unless you have enough $$$
to re-do the last 40 years of history.   That is what makes rockets
so expensive.

BRIAN

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #605
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YYuaOda00UkV02BE5Q>;
          Thu, 17 Aug 89 03:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <oYuaOVS00UkV42=U5Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 03:17:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #606

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 606

Today's Topics:
CRESCENT MOON - WED 2 AUG '89 - 1 MUHARRAM 1410 - ISLAMIC NEW YEAR  -  ASHURA FASTING.
		Public Domain involvement in Aerospace
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 89 21:03:25 GMT
From: att!icus!dasys1!mohib@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mohib)
Subject: CRESCENT MOON - WED 2 AUG '89 - 1 MUHARRAM 1410 - ISLAMIC NEW YEAR  -  ASHURA FASTING.


Followup on Atmospheric Optics/Physics: Sci.Physics
Followup on Astronomy: Sci.astro
Followup on Space: Sci.space
Replies to: mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu

                       
                       Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
  ( I begin with the name of ALLAH, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )
         
         THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
           102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027
         
         SUBJECT: CRESCENT MOON: FIRST VISIBILITY (every lunar month)
        **************************************************************
            
        NEXT CRESCENT (NEW) MOON, HILAL:  Wed  2 AUG 1989, evening  (*)
              
       for the 1st. Islamic Month of MUHARRAM, 1410, (ISLAMIC NEW YEAR)
   the month starting on Thu  3 August 1989, for USA-CANADA and S.America; 
    and possibly on Wed  2 August 1989, for points West of San Francisco,
    from the places of possible first sighting of Tue  1 August, evening.

           It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Crescent Moon to be visible 
                     on  Mon 31 July 1989, worldwide.

    ASHURA, the 10th. of Muharram, on which it is highly recommended to FAST, 
            will be on Sat 12 August 1989 for most of the world. 
  For more info. see postings  on Soc.culture.african, ..arabic, ..turkish.

   (*)      Hilal (crescent) sightings would be in the evenings, 
        at least 10 minutes after sunset, usually before 20 minutes, 
   and upto 40 to 90 minutes after sunset; near and along the sun's path.
 

        We are conducting research/survey on the recorded WORLD-WIDE
          first sightings of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" 
                  in the evenings, for every lunar month.
                    Some TECHNICAL INFO. is at the end.
 
                  PHOTOGRAPHS / SLIDES ARE MOST WELCOME
               since they are very helpful in the research.
 
              Please also pass on the request to your friends
               who are interested in astronomy/physics and to 
                 your local amateur astronomy associations.
 
                  We would very much like to hear from you.
                Please respond either by email or by letter.
 
       The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL
          and fine tune some parameters regarding SCATTERING/VISION.
 
 
  When reporting actual Crescent-Hilal sightings, (even if you do not see it)
                        PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

HILAL was visible to naked eye?......... Hilal sighted in binoculars?.........
EXACT TIMES: Complete Sunset at......... Hilal First Visible....... End.......
HEIGHT-Degrees: Hilal highest........... Hilal lowest (faded/set).............
ORIENTATION: Ends of Hilal Curve:  Start at.......'O Clock:End at.....'O Clock
(Right is 3'O Clock:Bottom is 6'O Clock: Left is 9'O Clock:  Top is 12'O Clock)
WEATHER condition: Rel.Humidity......... Temperature..... Pressure............
Sky near western horizon: Clear?........ Hazy?........... Cloudy?.............
OBSERVER: Age.... Eyesight: Glasses?.... Far sighted?.... Near sighted?.......
Name....................... Date........ Location.............................
 
                                 Thanks.
 
        Email to:  mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
 
        Mail:      Al-Hajj Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America

 *****************************************************************************
 
        Some ORBITAL details for the SUN and MOON:
 
        Lunation No.: 824
        NEW MOON (not crescent visible moon): 
        1989 August  1d 16h 06m UT (Universal Time), Monday
       (Universal Time, i.e. mean solar time on the meridian of Greenwich)

           EQUATORIAL coords.(0h UT)       ECLIPTIC coords.(for 0h UT)
   Date    Sun    Sun     MOON   MOON      Sun      MOON   MOON      MOON 
  AUGUST   R.A.   Decl.   R.A.   Decl.     Long.    Long.  Lat.      true Elong
   '89     Alpha  Delta   Alpha  Delta     Lambda   Lambda Beta      from Sun
           hr     deg     hr     deg       deg      deg    deg       deg 

    1 Tu    8.75  18.02    8.24  22.15    128.77   120.85  2.23      W  8
  * 2 We    8.82  17.79    9.10  17.78    129.84   133.72  1.12      E  4
    3 Th    8.88  17.51    9.90  12.70    130.79   146.34 -0.04      E 16 
 
 *****************************************************************************
 
       1989 AUGUST  2 (Wed) evening (event times are the approximate
       1410 MUHARRAM               Civil - clock - Standard times)
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     Sun     MOON   at Sunset unaided eye
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
                                                            
        MECCA-S.Arabia 20  320    18 57   19 31    23 51    MOST PROBABLE 
        MOSCOW - USSR  56  320    20 26   20 42    25 20    MOST PROBABLE 
        CAIRO - Egypt  30  330    18 53   19 26    24 47    MOST PROBABLE 
        ISTANBUL-Turk  40  330    19 13   19 46    25 07    MOST PROBABLE 
        CAPETOWN-S.Af -35  340    16 59   17 49    23 53    MOST PROBABLE 
        LAGOS-Nigeria  10  355    18 03   18 47    25 57    MOST PROBABLE 
                                                            
      % GREENWICH-Engl 50    0    19 41   20 07    27 35    VISIBLE 
                                                            
        DAKAR-Senegal  10   20    18 43   19 32    27 37    VISIBLE 
        RIO DeJENEIRO -20   45    17 43   18 50    28 37    VISIBLE 
        PARAMARIBO-Suri 0   55    17 50   18 51    29 44    VISIBLE 
        BUNOS ARESarg -35   60    17 19   18 36    29 13    VISIBLE 
        LIMA-Peru S.A -10   80    18 17   19 29    31 11    VISIBLE 
                                                            
      % (add 1 hr to event time, for summer DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME,
                    from early April to end of October)       
                                                            
                   For most of these cities (Mecca-Lima)
      the Cresent would be VISIBLE on the evening of  Wed  2 August 1989,
          hence the New Islamic Month of Muharram would start from  
                Thu  3 August 1989, the ISLAMIC NEW YEAR.


 ***************************************************************************** 

       1989 AUGUST  2 (Wed)  evening  (event times are the approximate
       1410 MUHARRAM               Civil - clock - Standard times)
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     Sun     MOON   at Sunset unaided eye
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
                                                            
      % HALIFAX -CNDA  44   65    19 43   20 21    31 37    VISIBLE 
      % NEW YORK -USA  40   75    19 13   19 56    32 07    VISIBLE 
      % JACKSONVIL-Fl  30   80    19 13   20 04    32 07    VISIBLE 
      % SAN DIEGO-USA  35  115    18 42   19 36    34 36    VISIBLE 
      % SAN FRANCISCO  40  120    19 13   20 02    35 07    VISIBLE 
      % VANCOUVER-CND  50  125    20 01   20 37    35 55    VISIBLE 
                                                            
      % ANCHORAGE-Als  62  150    20 40   20 45    38 36    VISIBLE 
      % HONOLULU -Hwi  20  160    18 17   19 30    37 11    VISIBLE 
                                                            
      % (add 1 hr to event time, for summer DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME,
                  from early April to end of October)       
                                                            
              When the CRESCENT is visible on Tue  2 August 1989
   anywhere from Halifax, New York, Jacksonville, San Diego, San Francisco, 
       to Vancouver, then in the USA-CANADA the next Islamic month of 
        Muharram starts on Wed  3 August 1989, the ISLAMIC NEW YEAR.
                                                            
                                                            
               (INCREASE   date one day, if crossing   EAST TO WEST)
  ######################    INTERNATIONAL DATE LINE    ######################
               (DECREASE   date one day, if crossing   WEST TO EAST)
                                                            
                                                            
       1989 AUGUST 2 (Wed) evening  (event times are the approximate 
       1410 MUHARRAM               Civil - clock - Standard times)
      (nearest)    (+N,-S) (W)     Sun     MOON   at Sunset unaided eye
        CITY          LAT  LONG    SET     SET    AGE-MOON   SIGHTING
      *************   deg  deg     h  m    h  m     h  m    **********
                                                            
        SIDNEY-Austra -35  210    17 19   17 24    15 13    DIFFICULT
        TOKYO - Japan  35  220    18 42   18 55    17 36    PROBABLE 
        PEKING -China  40  245    19 33   19 49    19 27    PROBABLE 
        JAKARTA-Indon -10  250    17 37   17 57    18 31    PROBABLE 
        DACCA -B.Desh  20  270    18 37   19 00    20 31    PROBABLE 
        AGRA  - India  30  280    18 33   18 56    21 27    MOST PROBABLE
        PESHAWAR -Pak  35  290    19 22   19 47    22 16    MOST PROBABLE
        BUKHARA -USSR  40  295    18 53   19 17    22 47    MOST PROBABLE
        TEHRAN - Iran  35  310    18 42   19 10    23 36    MOST PROBABLE
                                                            
                  For most of these cities (Sidney-Tehran)   
             The Crescent would be Visible on  Wed  2 August 1989,
             hence the New Lunar Month of Muharram would start on 
                  Thu  3 August 1989, the ISLAMIC NEW YEAR.

 ***************************************************************************** 
    Please note that the Islamic dates start from Sundown of a previous day.
 *****************************************************************************



  ISLAMIC GREGORIAN  MOON - MOON - MOON - MOON - MOON        Sun - EARTH 
   YEAR     YEAR  
   MONTHS   LUNA.   NEW MOON   MOON-PERIGEE MOON-APOGEE      Sun & EARTH
             NO.  (NOT visible)  (nearest)  (farthest)
                  (All times are in UT = Universal Time)     
   1409     1989       d  h  m        d  h        d  h         d  h 

  6 JUMA-II  817  JAN  7 19 22   JAN 10 23   JAN 27 00    JAN  1 22 Perihelion
  7 RAJAB    818  FEB  6 07 37   FEB  7 22   FEB 23 14    
  8 SHABAN   819  MAR  7 18 19   MAR  8 08   MAR 22 18    MAR 20 15 Equinox
  9 RAMADAN  820  APR  6 03 33   APR  5 20   APR 18 21    

 10 SHAWWAL  821  MAY  5 11 46   MAY  4 05   MAY 16 09    
 11 QADAH    822  JUN  3 19 53   JUN  1 05   JUN 13 02    JUN 21 10 Solstice 
 12 HAJJ     823  JUL  3 04 59   JUN 28 04   JUL 10 21    JUL  4 12 Aphelion

 *****************************************************************************

  ISLAMIC GREGORIAN  MOON - MOON - MOON - MOON - MOON        Sun - EARTH 
   YEAR     YEAR  
   MONTHS   LUNA.   NEW MOON   MOON-PERIGEE MOON-APOGEE      Sun/EARTH
             NO.  (NOT visible)  (nearest)  (farthest)
                  (All times are in UT = Universal Time)     
   1410     1989       d  h  m        d  h        d  h         d  h 

* 1 MUHARAM  824  AUG  1 16 06   JUL 23 07   AUG  7 15    
  2 SAFR     825  AUG 31 05 44   AUG 19 12   SEP  4 08    SEP 23 01 Equinox
  3 RABI-I   826  SEP 29 21 47   SEP 16 15   OCT  1 20    
  4 RABI-II  827  OCT 29 15 27   OCT 15 01   OCT 28 22    
  5 JUMA-I   828  NOV 28 09 41   NOV 12 13   NOV 25 04    
  6 JUMA-II  829  DEC 28 03 20   DEC 10 23   DEC 22 19    DEC 21 21 Solstice

 *****************************************************************************
    
    Perihelion = Earth Closest to Sun      (Sun  moving FASTEST in sky-Jan  1)
    Equinox    = Earth has Equal Daylight and Darkness      (Mar 20 & Sept 23)
    Solstice   = Sun   apparantly Stationary in Declination 
                       (Maximum of Summer-June 21 OR Minimum of Winter-Dec 21)
    Aphelion   = Earth Farthest from Sun   (Sun  moving SLOWEST in sky-Jul  4)

    Perigee    = Moon  Closest to Earth    (Moon moving FASTEST in sky)
    Apogee     = Moon  Farthest from Earth (Moon moving SLOWEST in sky)
                                                               
 ****************************************************************************
 ****************************************************************************

	  APPROXIMATIONS TO DIRECTION OF KA'BA (MECCA Saudi Arabia)
	  
	In most places of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, an approximation 
	to the direction of KA'BA, to determine the direction of Salat 
	(prayers), can be obtained by noting the direction of your shadow 
	near the time of Sunset.  The direction in which your shadow goes
	is usually a little north of east.  This is the direction in which
	salat can be performed, as an approximation.  This direction changes 
	during the different months of the year but is a good approximation 
	when there is no magnetic compass to determine the exact direction.
        For locations on the West of America the direction is further
        North from the shadow, i.e. further to the left of the shadow.

 ****************************************************************************

	Copyright Al-Hajj Dr.M.N.Durrani, 1989
	Permission to copy for free distribution is granted to all,
	please do give credit and reference. Thanks
 
 	For further information, please feel free to contact:
 
        Mail:      Al-Hajj Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
                   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
                   (Research Division)
                   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
                   Columbia University
                   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
                   United States of America
  
        Email to:  mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
 
	
 ***************************** End of Document ******************************


-- 
Mohib N Durrani
Big Electric Cat Public UNIX
..!cmcl2!{ccnysci,cucard,hombre}!dasys1!mohib

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 89 15:24:33 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!mimir!hugin!augean!sirius!nt!levels!ccajr@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Rollo Ross)
Subject: Public Domain involvement in Aerospace


  The South Australian company Australian Launch Vehicles is progressing
well with its proposal for a low cost, unmanned, nonmilitary rocket to
launch light satellites into low earth orbit. Significant commitment
from engineering companies, component manufacturers and potential
customers - both locally and internationally - indicate that the
innovative concept has sufficient support to carry it through to
completion.

The simplicity of the design is such that the computational requirements
will be within the power of a modern personal computer. Until recently
it was assumed that the software needed for this computer (and also for
the modest ground control installations) would be produced by one of the
many commercial companies able to do so.

  However, it has been suggested that the software needs and other
computing related issues could be better met by a coordinated effort in
the international public domain. Software so produced would remain
within the public domain, freely accessible to any interested parties.

  YOU ARE INVITED TO:

        1) Express your opinions of the general principle of involving
the public computing community at all levels of this complex project,
and

        2) Submit any ideas you may have on how the logistics of such an
operation might be managed, perhaps covering such things as project
managment strategies, networks involved, possible processing sites, and
the like.

        3) Make any other comments you feel to be relevant.

  Please Note: It is thought that if this idea goes ahead the
development would proceed in some sort of stage system, with (for
instance) the hardware/operating system needs being discussed and
decided on in one stage, languages in another, and so on. This means
that it is not really appropriate (yet) to contribute to the discussion
your thoughts on specific details. The organisational structure must be
sorted out first.
                              =================

  The future of this very exciting software development project depends
entirely on your response to this message; the concept has never been
tried on such a scale before and if Australian Launch Vehicles is not
quickly convinced it has the full support of the public domain the idea
will be dropped immediately.

  Comprehensive details on all aspects of the launch system (covering
the propulsion system, autopilot, ground installations required,
positive and negative environmental aspects, and so on) will be made
available if enough interest is shown.

  Australian Launch Vehicles has deliberately set out to take rocket
technology from the realm of vastly expensive militarily or politically
motivated operations to a smaller, commercially viable service. This
means that public domain involvement fits in well with their philosphy 
- but they cannot afford to wait for interest to gradually build up.

  This message has been approved by the company, and given the widest
possible distribution throughout the world in English, French and German
- please help to pass it on in any way you can.

  It's up to you, computing public.
-----------------------------------------------------
(This message is posted on behalf of an Institute student who has been 
in touch with Australian Launch Vehicles in South Australia's 
Technology Park. Mailed replies can be sent to him, Dan Shearer,
MA870894@levels.sait.oz.au or MA870894@sait.edu.au. The original 
Fidonet message included the following alternative address:

>  Until enough feedback is available to allow a decision to be made,
>Martin Crockett of the S.A. Country BBS has arranged to receive and
>collate all replies. His FIDONet address is 3:681/853 - IF YOU HAVE A
>WORTHWHILE CONTRIBUTION TO MAKE PLEASE SEND IT TO HIM.)

                                    Rollo Ross, Network Manager

Comp Centre,  Sth Aust Institute of Technology, The Levels, SA 5095, Australia
Voice: +61 8 343 3158                 Old way:  Rollo.Ross@levels.sait.oz{.au}
Fax: 349 6939      DTE 505282622004       Standard way: Rollo.Ross@sait.edu.au

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #606
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/MYucArC00UkV42M04H>;
          Thu, 17 Aug 89 05:19:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4YucAh600UkVE2KE5W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 05:19:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #607

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 607

Today's Topics:
	  New Soviet mission date set for Mir space station
			 SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT
		Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
		     Proposed new ELAS newsgroup
	       CNN reports on Voyager Neptune encounter
		     Re: The Russians are coming!
			Re: Weather newsgroup?
	       Voyager Status for 08/02/89 (Forwarded)
     Re: The Sociology of Space Inhabitants (Re: Eggs & baskets)
		      Re: Single Source Failures
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 00:27:20 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: New Soviet mission date set for Mir space station

     The Soviet Union has announced on short wave (Aug. 15) that the new 
manned space flight to the Mir/Kvant space complex will occur on Sept. 6th.  
Mir has been unmanned for the past 110 days since it was placed in the 
automatic mode after Soyuz TM-7 left on Apr. 27.
     When the new Soyuz TM-8 crew arrives its first task will be to revive 
Mir.  This will be complicated by the power system failure which 
contributed to the decision to abandon the station.  At that time TV Soviet 
broadcasts stated the solar cells were continuing to put out the power but 
the output of the batteries was declining, which suggests a system short.  No 
Russian statement on this problem has appeared in the meantime.  Most 
commentators in the West are focusing on economics as the reason behind this 
action.
     Certainly one of the difficulties was the failure to get the expansion 
modules ready for addition to Mir.  These are about 10-20 Tonne cylinders 
which would first dock to the front or ball axial docking port of Mir.  Then 
they will be transferred to one of the four side ports using a robot arm on 
the module itself.  This inserts a cone into one of two sockets on the side of 
the ball section.  The same broadcast stated that the first module would 
arrive in October, while the second one would come in February '90.  Note that 
later "star" module contains a docking port to allow their shuttle Buran to 
dock to Mir.  A larger air lock will be added with these modules, along with a 
Manned Maneuvering Unite (MMU) type system for more extensive space walk work.
     This announcement of the Mir's remanning has generated surprisingly 
strong western press coverage this morning, with both the New York Times and 
the Wall Street Journal at covering it.  Let us see how much publicity the 
USSR gives the remanning.  That will give a clue to the support the Soviet 
program is getting.
     Sorry that I have not been posting my regular reports on the Russian 
program these past few months but our VAX has been having communications 
problems with the rest of the world (it is now better).  I will post some 
older info in the next few days to cover that period.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab
                                                  glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 06:34:12 GMT
From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT


Call the offices of Representatives Harold L. Volkmer (D-MO,202/225-2956)
and Norman Y.  Mineta (D-CA, 202/225-2631).  Ask them, as member of the
Space Science and Applications Subcommittee, to request hearings on
HR2674 a soon as possible.

Going to see your own congressman with a copy of HR2674 would help even
more.  If you need a copy of the bill, send me email.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN NOW AND SCREAM AT HIM UNTIL HE UNDERSTANDS THAT
THE CDSF IS NOT A SPACE STATION.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 02:45:51 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?

In article <24.Jul.89.09:32:31.BST.ZZASSGL@UK.AC.MCC.CMS> ZZASSGL@cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.UK writes:
>OK, What is the "Solar Impact Mission"  and why is it so hard to
>hit the Sun? After all we have already had close ups of Mercury.

I don't particularly remember hearing about this one, but almost certainly
it's a mission to go straight down into the Sun, doing some observations on
the way.  The hard part is that to do it, you have to kill *all* Earth's
orbital velocity, which is about 50 km/s.  A Saturn V could have dropped a
couple of hundred kg into the Sun, as I recall.  The shuttle, forget it,
unless you use in-orbit assembly.  A beefed-up Energia with about four
upper stages could probably put a modest probe into the Sun.  Advanced
propulsion technologies would really help.

The Mercury flyby was done with a Venus gravity assist.  But Mercury is
still a long way out from the Sun, and the last few million km are the
really hard ones, deep in that monstrous gravitational field.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 89 12:35:49 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <3879@shlump.nac.dec.com>, hughes@gary.dec.com wrote:
}it had more than its share of inflight catastrophic self disassemblies. The piece that is
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You've been listening to NASA too long....
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
FAX: available on request                      Disclaimer? I claimed something?
"I don't want to sound like I'm avoiding answering your question; I just want
to avoid answering your question."  -- Alan Demers

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 14:47:39 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!brs@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ray Seyfarth)
Subject: Proposed new ELAS newsgroup


    I want to know if there are other ELAS users on the net who would
like to have a newsgroup devoted to ELAS.  If you aren't aware of ELAS,
it is a remote sensing software system developed by NASA.  I prefer
that the ELAS group be unmoderated and would like to get started soon.
The ELAS newsgroup could serve a valuable service to the ELAS users
on the net.

    If you would like to start an ELAS newsgroup, please email to me or
post to "news.groups".  Then you should subscribe to news.groups and
watch for a call for a vote.  I've never tried to start a newsgroup and
I'm not sure of the protocol required, but I think a formal vote is
required.  I'm sure someone will inform me of the requirements soon.

    Later.
--
In Real Life:		UUCP: {gatech|mailrus}!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!brs
Ray Seyfarth		Internet: brs@beach.cis.ufl.edu
University of Florida	"Ninety percent of life is just showing up." Woody Allen

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 21:43:43 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!poole@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Steve Poole)
Subject: CNN reports on Voyager Neptune encounter


CNN is running reports on the Voyager 2 Neptune encounter
every weeknight.  They say the reports run at 8 and 10 pm
Eastern time.  But they don't actually run the reports on the
hour.  Sometimes not even close.  The first report airs
anywhere from 8 to 9, and the second anywhere from 10 to 11.

The best thing about these reports is the images.  Last night
they showed a rotation movie.  You could see the storm that
looks like Jupiter's Red Spot, and a smaller storm.

-- 
Steve Poole  
ARPA: poole@emx.utexas.edu
UUCP: {ames,angband,exodus,gatech,harvard,mordor,rutgers,utah-cs}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!poole

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 89 13:51:22 GMT
From: mcdchg!illusion!marcus@rutgers.edu  (Marcus Hall)
Subject: Re: The Russians are coming!

In article <58.M02d=400q01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> reddy@uts.amdahl.com (T.S. Reddy) writes:
>    TO NORTH AMERICA AT LEAST! 
>    I saw an ad in this week's "Aviation Week" that the Soviets will be there
>with the Mig-29 and other planes at an airshow in British Columbia, Canada.
>The AN-225 is also a possibility.
>    The show will be around August 8th. 
>    Check out the magazine! 

The Russians are already here!!

There was an An-124 on display at the EAA Fly-in in Oshkosh Wisconsin this
past weekend.  No Russian fighters there, just the cargo plane.  It was
sitting there with its nose opened up and they were letting people walk up
the loading ramp into the plane, relatively unsupervised.  It was odd
seing switch panels and instuctions written in Russian, it just didn't look
``real''.  It really makes one think about how big the An-225 must be!

Later on the day I was there, an SR-71 flew in (also REALLY impressive!) and
they parked it facing the An-124.  Interesting face-off.  Probably the closest
that a russian plane has ever gotten to a blackbird!

marcus hall

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 12:01:57 GMT
From: uvm-gen!cavrak@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Cavrak,Waterman 113,656-1483,)
Subject: Re: Weather newsgroup?

From article <8908010047.AA29929@decwrl.dec.com>, by klaes@wrksys.dec.com
	(CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283):  Is there a sci.meteorology
	newsgroup on USENET?  If not, would anyone like to create one?
	Thanks,
 
 	Larry


Strangely enough, nothing like this show up in the ARPANET or BITNET
listing either.  Even stranger considering that NCAR is so "close".
I guess the professionals don't talk about the weather, they do 
something about it !

In anycase, a group would be an interesting idea.  And daily weather
maps would be quite interesting.  I recall reading an article several
years ago describing how to hook an Amiga/Atari to a satellite receiver
and download your own satellite photographs.  It seemed pretty straight
forward.

Could be useful.

The usual way to get a group started is to build up a posting level
on some "almost appropriate" group to a level where the regular users
of that group ask you to take your conversations somewhere else.  Then
you use that evidence to convince the NetCommanders that you deserve
your own group.  

(I don't think it would be appropriate for the group to be one devoted
to letting people know that it is 70 degrees out, looks like another
hazy, hot, and humid day outside, but that there might be a chance of
showers in the evening.  The progress of Hurricane Deane, however,
would be appropriate (Deane, by the way, is bearing down on the Virgin
Islands according to the local forecast) as would discussion of things
like the Santa Ana's, El Nino, and the upper jet stream.)

See ya
Steve

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 20:24:43 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Voyager Status for 08/02/89 (Forwarded)


		Voyager Status Report
		August 2, 1989
 
        Images from the Voyager 2 spacecraft have revealed
three additional new moons in orbit around Neptune, Voyager
imaging team scientists announced today.

        The discovery brings to six the total of moons known to
exist around the blue planet, including one, 1989 N1,
discovered by Voyager 2 last month.  Finding so many moons
when the spacecraft was  more than 22 million miles away from
Neptune may mean there are many more to be found in coming
weeks, according to Voyager scientists.

        The three newest Neptunian satellites, temporarily
designated 1989 N2, 1989 N3 and 1989 N4, were tracked as
candidate moons in images returned by the spacecraft over a
five)day period.  When the objects were found to follow 
predicted orbits, Voyager imaging scientists yesterday were
able to confirm them as moons of Neptune.  Their temporary
names designate the order in which they were discovered.

        Preliminary calculations indicate the objects may range
from 100 to 200 kilometers (about 60 to 125 miles) in
diameter.

        Like 1989 N1, the three new moons occupy nearly
circular and equatorial orbits around the planet.  All move
in prograde orbits (in the same direction the planet
rotates), making the large moon Triton, which occupies a
retrograde orbit, even more of an oddity in the Neptune
system.

        The innermost of the new moons is 1989 N3, which orbits
at a distance of about 52,000 kilometers (32,300 miles) from
the center of the planet, or about 27,300 kilometers (about
17,000 miles) from Neptune's cloud tops.  It makes one
complete orbit of Neptune every 8 hours, 10 minutes.

        Next out is 1989 N4, orbiting about 62,000 kilometers
from the planet's center, or about 37,300 kilometers (23,300
miles) from the cloud tops.  It orbits the planet every 10
hours, 20 minutes.

        The outermost is 1989 N2, at about 73,000 kilometers
(45,400 miles) from Neptune's center, or about 48,300
kilometers (30,000 miles) from the cloud tops.  It makes an
orbit every 13 hours, 30 minutes.

        All three new moons exist in the region where partial
Neptunian rings, or "ring arcs," are thought to exist.  If
ring arcs exist, the new moons might play an important role
in "shepherding" and maintaining them, Voyager scientists
said.
 
DISTANCE TO EARTH:      2,708,706,000 miles
DISTANCE TO NEPTUNE:  19,416,000 miles
HELIOCENTRIC VELOCITY:  42,187 mph

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 00:04:52 GMT
From: pezely@louie.udel.edu  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: The Sociology of Space Inhabitants (Re: Eggs & baskets)

In article <1989Aug2.035352.24699@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>True -- and different types of spacers may be very, very different
>from each other.  For example: colonists will probably have to be like
>you describe -- cooperative, community-oriented, team-players.  On the
>other hand, interplanetary spaceship crews will probably have to be
>the opposite -- highly self-reliant, self-confident individualists who
>can stand being away from all but a handful of other people for months
>or years at a time and who can deal with emergencies on their own
>without consulting with their superiors on Earth (or wherever).  This
>would be especially true for the pilots of any sort of single-person
>spacecraft.

Just as an interesting note, stand back for a minute and look at the
parallels to the descriptions of what we think the inhabitants of the
space station will be and then look back at what history has said about
the early American colonists.  

People went to the New World for various reasons, but they had a
drive to succeed.  Without that drive, they wouldn't have made it -- as
some did not.

Who knows what will come of the society which will be created in space.
That is something which we cannot predict, just as the early settlers
could not predict.  Maybe the problems which the world's societies have
today will be handled in the future -- then again, maybe not.  

Getting into space with permanent stations will be a technological
challenge and staying there could well be a sociological one.

This just goes to show that there is research to be done in EVERY area.
Please don't take this as a lame attempt to get people to see things my
way, but these thing do need to be done.  

Just think about it for now, but act on it very soon.
- Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 05:36:01 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Single Source Failures

It seems the list is nearly infinite, unless you restrict it to items 
directly purchased by NASA.  For example, during WW2, the U.S. faced
a crisis when Sir Ernest Oppenheimer, the South African industrialist
restricted the availability of industrial diamonds.  This material is used
for making tools for machining metal.  Without diamonds, it would have been 
impossible to make the machines which make machines.  Only British gov't
intervention prevented catastrophic impairment of American industry.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #607
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/cYusyjC00UkV81T05D>;
          Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:25:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYusyY600UkV41RE5M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:25:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #608

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 608

Today's Topics:
		Time Urgent: Phone Service to Neptune
   Voyager discovers 3 additional moons around Neptune (Forwarded)
		  Space Launch Services Purchase Act
	 Corrections to corrections to planetary probe list.
			Re: Weather newsgroup?
	      Re: Wrap up on "S-Band Beacon on the Moon"
Re: Science observations selected for NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 17 Aug 89 11:55 CDT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Time Urgent: Phone Service to Neptune
Original_To:  SPACE

From a National Space Society press release:

        NSS ANNOUNCES PLAN TO OFFER PHONE SERVICE TO NEPTUNE

Talk about long-distance phone calls-- the National Space Society
(NSS) today announced it will produce "Dial-A-Planet," an AT&T Dial-it
900 telephone service (1-900-909-NASA).  This phone link to another
world will enable the public to eavesdrop on the Voyager 2
spacecraft's close encounter with the planet Neptune on August 24, 25,
and 26.

Callers to Dial-A-Planet will hear up-to-the-minute details of
Voyager's rendezvous with Neptune as the data is received and
interpreted by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, California.  Dial-A-Planet coverage will include daily NASA
press conferences, interviews with key figures on the Voyager project,
and continuous updates on the scientific findings gleaned from this
historic first close-up look at the planet and its mysterious system
of moons and rings.

Dial-A-Planet is produced by the National Space Society in cooperation
with AT&T's Dial-it 900 service program and NASA.  The service will be
available live on a 24-hour continuous basis from 6 AM PDT on
Thursday, August 24 to 6AM PDT Sunday, August 27.  The live broadcasts
will originate from mobile Dial-A-Planet studios at the California
Institute of Technology (CalTech) in Pasadena, California. CalTech
operates the Jet Propulsion Laboratory under a NASA contract.

The National Space Society is a nonprofit, publicly-supported
membership organization dedicated to the creation of a spacefaring
civilization.  NSS has more than 20,000 members and 113 throughout the
United States and abroad.

There is a toll charge for Dial-A-Planet; it is $2.00 for the first
minute, 45 cents for each additional minute.

National Space Society
922 Pennsylvania Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202)543-1900
====================================================================
Personal note: I'll be working as an announcer on Dial-A-Planet.
Looking forward to it.

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /                          SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -
     ~                              Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 19:59:15 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Voyager discovers 3 additional moons around Neptune (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond                                    August 3, 1989
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                        11 a.m. EDT

Mary Beth Murrill
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.


RELEASE:  89-128

VOYAGER DISCOVERS 3 ADDITIONAL MOONS AROUND NEPTUNE
 
 
     Images from NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft have revealed three 
additional new moons in orbit around Neptune, Voyager imaging 
team scientists announced today. 

     The discovery brings to six the number of moons known to 
exist around the blue planet, including one, 1989 N1, discovered 
by Voyager 2 last month.  The spacecraft, launched in 1977, has 
explored Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus and will come within 3,000 
miles of Neptune at 12 midnight EDT, Aug. 24, 1989. 

     Finding so many moons when the spacecraft was more than 22 
million miles away from Neptune may mean there are many more to 
be found in coming weeks, according to Voyager scientists. 

     The three newest Neptunian satellites, temporarily 
designated 1989 N2, 1989 N3 and 1989 N4, were tracked as 
candidate moons in images returned by the spacecraft over a 5-day 
period.  When the objects were found to follow predicted orbits, 
Voyager imaging scientists yesterday were able to confirm them as 
moons of Neptune.  Their temporary names designate the order in 
which they were discovered. 

     Like 1989 N1, the three new moons occupy nearly circular and 
equatorial orbits around the planet.  All move in prograde orbits 
(in the same direction the planet rotates), making the large moon 
Triton, which occupies a retrograde orbit, even more of an oddity 
in the Neptune system. 

     The innermost of the new moons is 1989 N3, which orbits at a 
distance of about 32,300 miles from the center of the planet or 
about 17,000 miles from Neptune's cloud tops.  It makes one 
complete orbit of Neptune every 8 hours, 10 minutes. 

     Next is 1989 N4, orbiting about 38,000 miles from the 
planet's center or about 23,300 miles from the cloud tops.  It 
orbits the planet every 10 hours, 20 minutes. 

     The outermost is 1989 N2, orbiting at about 45,400 miles 
from Neptune's center or about 30,000 miles from the cloud 
tops.  It completes an orbit every 13 hours, 30 minutes. 

     The three new moons exist in the region where partial 
Neptunian rings or "ring arcs" are thought to exist.  If ring 
arcs exist, the new moons might play an important role in 
"shepherding" and maintaining them, Voyager scientists said.  The 
search for moons and visible ring arcs will continue as Voyager 2 
flies toward Neptune.

     Several sequences of spacecraft activity include plans to 
point Voyager 2's cameras at any newly discovered ring arcs or 
moons.

     The Voyager Mission is conducted by the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., for NASA's Office of Space Science 
and Applications.

------------------------------

Date: Thu,  3 Aug 89 10:26:22 EDT
From: "GE: WE BRING GOOD THINGS TO LIFE" <LUBERECKI@scivax.STSCI.EDU>
Subject: Space Launch Services Purchase Act
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"SPACE@ANDREW.CMU.EDU"

Could someone be so kind as to send me a copy of the SLSPA?  Please don't take
the attitude that someone else will, do it yourself.

                                          Thanks in advance,

                                          Tony Luberecki, STScI, Baltimore
(On a clear disk you can seek forever!)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 20:28:21 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Corrections to corrections to planetary probe list.

From article <8908031634.AA01881@decwrl.dec.com>, by klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283):
> Jul 1, 1966      Explorer 33   93       US      Lunar orbiter; failed to enter
>                                                  lunar orbit. Now in Earth orbit

This probe went into a very high orbit and may now have been perturbed
into solar orbit

> Mar 2, 1968      Zond 4      5600?     USSR     Zond test flight in cislunar
>                                                  space. Now in solar orbit(?)

Although Western tracking lost this probe, there is reason to believe it
may have been on a very elliptical orbit which returned it to Earth.
One rumour said that it crashed in China.

> Feb 19, 1970?  Unannounced   5600?    USSR      Lunar sample return; launch
>                                                  failure
Soviets now confirm Proton launch failure on Feb 6, 1970, but
call the payload 'Kosmos'. Probably a Kosmos-382 class payload.
Similar launch rumoured for Nov 16, 1969.

> Dec 2, 1970    Kosmos 382    5600?    USSR      Circumlunar probe(?); failed
>                                                  to leave Earth parking orbit
> [...         The following year, the Soviets began conducting tests in space
>     in an attempt to avoid the problems of their past Mars missions.  In
>     November and December of 1970, COSMOS 379 and 382 conducted a series
>     of various maneuvers in Earth orbit which would later be learned by the 
>     West as being tests of an improved rocket insertion system, designed to 
>     place the new Mars probes on course to their target planet.  These tests 
>     were apparently successful in accomplishing their tasks.... ]

This craft made a complicated series of maneuvers in Earth orbit and
returned scientific data for several days.  It is very unlikely that it
was a planetary launch failure or related to a rocket insertion system. 
Many analysts believe it was an automatic Earth orbital test of a Soviet
piloted lunar spaceship (LM equivalent?).  K-379 is believed to be a
lunar Soyuz variant, and was acknowledged prior to reentry as a 'lunar
cabin' test.


> Oct 13, 1975?  Unannounced   5600?    USSR      Lunar sample return; launch
>                                                  failure

Proton launch failure confirmed by Soviets for Oct 16, 1975; payload 
confirmed as Luna.

>          Another Mars probe mission in 1960 was not admitted officially by 
>     the Soviets to have existed until 1989, even though increasing rumors 
>     had been spread about it during the intervening decades.  This probe 
>     not only failed to reach Earth orbit, it caused death and serious 
>     destruction on the ground.  According to a press release by the Soviet
>     weekly magazine OGONYOK in April of 1989, a third Mars probe was to be 
>     launched on October 24 when trouble with the rocket booster occurred:
>     An electrical defect in the rocket had created a fuel leak.  

I have been trying (with my nearly nonexistent command of Russian) to
translate the Ogonyok article in question. As far as I can see, it
makes no reference to Mars probes at all, but links the Nedelin explosion
to the first test flight of an ICBM designed by the Yangel bureau. If you
have further information, I would very much appreciate hearing about it.


 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 19:19:16 GMT
From: ecsvax!uncmed!pelham!pswecker@mcnc.org  (Peter St.Wecker)
Subject: Re: Weather newsgroup?

In article <1256@uvm-gen.UUCP> cavrak@uvm-gen.UUCP (Steve Cavrak,Waterman 113,656-1483,) writes:
>From article <8908010047.AA29929@decwrl.dec.com>, by klaes@wrksys.dec.com
>	(CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283):  Is there a sci.meteorology
>	newsgroup on USENET?  If not, would anyone like to create one?
>	Thanks,
> 
> 	Larry
>
>Strangely enough, nothing like this show up in the ARPANET or BITNET
>listing either.  Even stranger considering that NCAR is so "close".
>I guess the professionals don't talk about the weather, they do 
>something about it !

  Actually, there IS a mailing list available for those who are interested
in weather.  Here's a copy of the original posting, giving all the info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 11:55:08 CST
From: AXVSCCN%UICVMC.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu (Chris Novy)
Subject: A new LIST for SKYWARN participants

The list STORM-L has been created for the purpose of discussing
weather-related phenomena such as severe storms, tornadoes, forecasting,
interesting local weather events, SKYWARN storm spotter groups, and
tornado chasing --to name several.  You can subscribe by sending an
interactive message to LISTSERV at UIUCVMD as follows:

         SUB STORM-L <your-full-name>

Example:  SUB STORM-L John D. Doe

You can also subscribe by sending the SUB command as MAIL --where
the SUB command is the first line in the MAIL.  MAIL can be sent
to the following addresses:

LISTSERV@UIUCVMD
LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET
LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU

You can use these same addresses to send a reply to the list.

To unsubscribe send the following command:

     UNSUB STORM-L

This list is not in digested form.  A monthly notebook will be
maintained.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Novy - WA9V                   BITNET: axvsccn@uicvmc
Southern Illinois Univ.           Internet: axvsccn@uicvmc.aiss.uiuc.edu
Carbondale, IL 62901                Packet: WA9V@WD9EBQ
                                     Phone: (618) 453-1657
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope this helps!!!
				-- Peter

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Peter St.Wecker               Internet:pswecker@med.unc.edu 
       (919) 966-1096                    UUCP:pswecker@uncmed.uucp
      Dept. of Physiology, Univ. of North Carolina,  Chapel Hill NC

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 89 18:47:40 GMT
From: peregrine!ccicpg!cci632!dvh@uunet.uu.net  (David Hallidy)
Subject: Re: Wrap up on "S-Band Beacon on the Moon"

In article <1499@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>, wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:
> I have finally found the reference to which I alluded in my original
> posting.  It appeared in QST magazine, November 1981, in the "New
> Frontier" column.
> 
> 	"For EME [Earth-Moon-Earth or moonbounce] work at frequencies
> above 1 GHz, transmitted signals should have right-hand circular
> polarisation, except on 2.3 GHz where the standard is left-hand
> circular.  It may be noted that reflection from the moon causes a
> reversal in polarisation so that received signals will be left-hand
> circular, with again the opposite on 2.3 GHz.  The reason for 2.3 GHz
> being the odd man out is that advantage can be taken of the 2276-MHz
> beacon left on the moon during the Apollo program.  This beacon has
> already proved useful in testing antennas and 2.3 GHz receiving
> systems, but unfortunately it transmits right-hand polarised signals,
> and so the standard was reversed for 2.3 GHz."
> 
> From the weight of responses to my original posting, I do, however,
> surmise that the beacon was shut down sometime after April 1981.

I think your last comment must be correct, because the 2.3 GHz EME
guys (myself included) have gone to the IARU standard polarization.
Since most of the EME activity has been on the 2.3 GHz band since
about 1983 or so, I would imagine that the beacon has been off for
at least that amount of time. Paul Wilson, W4HHK, who is credited
with the first two-way off the moon on 2304 with Smitty W3GKP (sk)
has never mentioned it in any of our many conversations regarding
2.3 GHz EME. We regularly listen on the band for various "beacons"
including a couple of the Soviet COSMOS birds, so I feel sure if
there were any chance of hearing it, or reactivating it readily,
Paul would be working toward that end. After all, it's the only
band he "regularly" operates!

It's an interesting subject, and I personally wish that those
experiments were still operational up there, as they would provide a
very constant weak-signal source to use for antenna/preamp
performance measurements.

My $.02 on the subject.

Dave KD5RO

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 02:49:05 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Science observations selected for NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)

In article <449caca4.71d0@apollo.COM> rehrauer@apollo.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes:
> [HST's first year] ...  why on (or off :-) Earth
>are there only 1200 hours of observation time available?  Is this the
>time that has been allotted for such use, or total available time?  If
>the latter, why only 50 days' worth?  (Hey, I *said* it was naive!)

I don't know the details on this one, but one problem is that HST turns
*very* slowly, so it spends a lot of its time moving from one observation
to another.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #608
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYuvVLS00UkVQ1mU4B>;
          Fri, 18 Aug 89 03:18:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYuvVE-00UkVQ1kk4s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 03:18:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #609

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 609

Today's Topics:
	    Additions/corrections to planetary probe list.
			    Re: Satellites
	       Voyager Status for 08/01/89 (Forwarded)
			    Re: Satellites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 16:34:38 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Additions/corrections to planetary probe list.


         In regards to Peter Yee's recent posting of planetary probes, my
    friend, Drew LePage, and I went through our references on lunar and
    planetary probes and found a number of probes missing from the list of
    such spacecraft, as well as some incorrect information.  The updates
    are as follows: 

         Probes not included in original list:

Launch Date      Name       Weight   Country         Mission/Status
			     (Kg)

Nov 1, 1962      Mars 1       893      USSR     Mars probe; failed en route
Nov 30, 1964     Zond 2       890?     USSR     Venus probe; failed en route
Jul 1, 1966      Explorer 33   93       US      Lunar orbiter; failed to enter
                                                 lunar orbit. Now in Earth orbit
Jul 19, 1967     Explorer 35  104       US      Lunar orbiter. Took field and
                                                 particle data
Mar 2, 1968      Zond 4      5600?     USSR     Zond test flight in cislunar
                                                 space. Now in solar orbit(?)
Aug 17, 1970     Venera 7    1180      USSR     Successfully landed on Venus

         Corrections to original list:

"Luna 4"	The "Luna 4" listed launched on April 12, 1960 was a Luna
		 launch failure and received no "Luna" designation.

Luna 4		Unsuccessful lunar landing attempt. Now in solar orbit.

Venera 4,5,6	Atmospheric probes returned data until crushed by pressure.

Luna 15		Unsuccessful sample return attempt. Crashed during landing.

Mars 2		Lander crashed. Orbiter returned data until Aug 1972.

Mars 3		Lander successfully landed but only returned data for 90
		 seconds. Orbiter returned data until Aug 1972.

Luna 18		Unsuccessful sample return attempt. Crashed during landing.

Mars 4		Failed to enter Mars orbit. Now in solar orbit.

Mars 6		Lander failed during descent. Carrier in solar orbit.

Mars 7		Lander missed Mars. Carrier and lander in solar orbit.

Luna 22		Weight estimated as 5600 Kg. Successfully entered lunar orbit.

Venera 9	Weight announced as 4936 Kg.

Venera 10	Weight announced as 5033 Kg.

Venera 13-16, Vega 1 and 2, Phobos 1 and 2 - Weights estimated at 5000 Kg.

Magellan	Weighed 3545 Kg.

         I should note that I found several variations in the probe weights
    in the list.  Most amounted to only a couple of kilograms.  In the case
    of the Surveyor lunar landers, the weight given is that of the lander
    alone.  Their launch weight (which is what is given in the rest of the
    list) was typically about 900 kilograms. 

         To make this list totally complete, I am listing below all the
    known *failures* of lunar and planetary probes. 

		Known Lunar and Planetary Probe Failures

Launch Date      Name       Weight   Country         Mission/Status
			     (Kg)
May 1, 1958?   Unannounced   350?     USSR      Lunar probe; launch failure
Jun 25, 1958?  Unannounced   350?     USSR      Lunar probe; launch failure
Aug 17, 1958   Project Able 1 38       US       Lunar orbiter; launch failure
Sep 24, 1958?  Unannounced   350?     USSR      Lunar probe; launch failure
Oct 11, 1958   Pioneer 1      38       US       Lunar orbiter attempt; reached
                                                 altitude of 70,700 miles
Nov 8, 1958    Pioneer 2      39       US       Lunar orbiter attempt; reached
                                                 altitude of 965 miles
Nov 15, 1958?  Unannounced   350?     USSR      Lunar probe; launch failure
Dec 6, 1958    Pioneer 3       6       US       Lunar fly-by attempt; reached
                                                 altitude of 63,580 miles
Jan 9, 1959?   Unannounced   375?     USSR      Lunar probe; launch failure
Jun 16, 1959?  Unannounced   375?     USSR      Lunar probe; launch failure
Nov 26, 1959   Atlas Able IV 169       US       Lunar orbiter; launch failure
Apr 12, 1960?  Unannounced   375?     USSR      Lunar probe; launch failure
Sep 25, 1960   Atlas Able 5A 176       US       Lunar orbiter; launch failure
Oct 10, 1960   Unannounced   640?     USSR      Mars probe; launch failure
Oct 14, 1960   Unannounced   640?     USSR      Mars probe; launch failure
Dec 15, 1960   Atlas Able 5B 176       US       Lunar orbiter; launch failure
Feb 4, 1961    Sputnik 7     640?     USSR      Venus probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Jul 22, 1962   Mariner 1     202       US       Venus fly-by; launch failure
Aug 25, 1962   Unannounced   890?     USSR      Venus probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Sep 1, 1962    Unannounced   890?     USSR      Venus probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Sep 12, 1962   Unannounced   890?     USSR      Venus probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Oct 24, 1962   Unannounced   890?     USSR      Mars probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Nov 4, 1962    Unannounced   890?     USSR      Mars probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Jan 4, 1963    Unannounced  1400?     USSR      Lunar lander; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Feb 3, 1963?   Unannounced  1400?     USSR      Lunar lander; launch failure
Nov 11, 1963   Kosmos 21     950?     USSR      Venus probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Feb 27, 1964   Unannounced   950?     USSR      Venus probe; launch failure
Mar 4, 1964    Unannounced   950?     USSR      Venus probe; launch failure
Mar 26, 1964   Kosmos 27     950?     USSR      Venus probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Apr 9, 1964    Unannounced   1425?    USSR      Lunar lander; launch failure
Mar 12, 1965   Kosmos 60     1470?    USSR      Lunar lander; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Nov 23, 1965   Kosmos 96      960?    USSR      Venus probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Mar 1, 1966    Kosmos 111    1600?    USSR      Lunar orbiter; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Mar 10, 1967   Kosmos 146    5600?    USSR      Circumlunar probe; failed to
                                                 leave Earth oparking orbit
Mar 27, 1967   Unannounced    950?    USSR      Mars probe; launch failure
Apr 8, 1967    Kosmos 154    5600?    USSR      Circumlunar probe; failed to
                                                 leave Earth parking orbit
Jun 17, 1967   Kosmos 167    1100?    USSR      Venus probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Nov 22, 1967   Unannounced   5600?    USSR      Circumlunar probe; launch 
                                                 failure
Apr 22, 1968   Unannounced   5600?    USSR      Circumlunar probe; launch
                                                 failure
Jan 5, 1969?   Unannounced   5600?    USSR      Circumlunar probe; launch
                                                 failure
Mar 27, 1969   Unannounced   3200?    USSR      Mars probe; launch failure
Apr 15, 1969   Unannounced   5600?    USSR      Lunar sample return; launch
                                                 failure
Jun 12, 1969   Unannounced   5600?    USSR      Lunar sample return; launch
                                                 failure
Aug 27, 1969   Pioneer E       67      US       Solar probe; launch failure
Sep 23, 1969   Kosmos 300    5600?    USSR      Lunar sample return; failed
                                                 to leave Earth parking orbit
Oct 22, 1969   Kosmos 305    5600?    USSR      Lunar sample return; failed
                                                 to leave Earth parking orbit
Feb 19, 1970?  Unannounced   5600?    USSR      Lunar sample return; launch
                                                 failure
Dec 2, 1970    Kosmos 382    5600?    USSR      Circumlunar probe(?); failed
                                                 to leave Earth parking orbit
May 8, 1971    Mariner 8     1031      US       Mars orbiter; launch failure
May 10, 1971   Kosmos 419    4650?    USSR      Mars orbiter/lander; failed
                                                 to leave Earth parking orbit
Mar 31, 1972   Kosmos 482    1180?    USSR      Venus probe; failed to leave
                                                 Earth parking orbit
Oct 13, 1975?  Unannounced   5600?    USSR      Lunar sample return; launch
                                                 failure
         References:

    "STL Space Log" September, 1961
    "Robot Explorers" (1972) by Kenneth Gatland
    "Handbook of Soviet Lunar and Planetary Exploration" (1979) 
	by Nicholas L. Johnson
    "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology" (1981) 
        by Kenneth Gatland
    "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Universe" (1983) by Richard S. Lewis
    "Nauka I Chelovechestvo 1985: Skvos Oblaka Venera" (1985)
    "Soviet Space Program 1980-1985" (1987) by Nicholas L. Johnson
    "The Manned Soviet Space Program" (1988) by Pillip Clark
    
         Here are some other Soviet planetary missions not listed:

         Another Mars probe mission in 1960 was not admitted officially by 
    the Soviets to have existed until 1989, even though increasing rumors 
    had been spread about it during the intervening decades.  This probe 
    not only failed to reach Earth orbit, it caused death and serious 
    destruction on the ground.  According to a press release by the Soviet
    weekly magazine OGONYOK in April of 1989, a third Mars probe was to be 
    launched on October 24 when trouble with the rocket booster occurred:
    An electrical defect in the rocket had created a fuel leak.  

         The Soviet official in charge of the Mars project, Field Marshall 
    Mitrofan Nedelin, Commander in Chief of the Strategic Rocket Forces, no 
    doubt under considerable stress from Kruschev and the rapidly closing 
    launch "window" (a launch window is the period of time when Earth and 
    Mars are so aligned in their solar orbits that a relatively large 
    payload can be sent using the least amount of rocket energy, saving 
    both time and fuel), hurriedly attempted to solve the problem and went 
    out with rocket technicians onto the launch pad without emptying the 
    rocket of fuel first, a standard safety precaution.  As the workers 
    were installing an electrical distributor, the action somehow gave a 
    command to ignite the rocket's second stage.  The rocket flames burned 
    through to the first stage, which ignited the rocket fuel and created a 
    tremendous explosion, killing Nedelin and dozens (possibly hundreds) of 
    technicians and other personnel, also destroying the launch pad.  The 
    OGONYOK article essentially confirmed what had been reported about the 
    incident over the past years.  

         In 1969, two (and possibly three) spacecraft of the new Soviet
    Mars exploration series were launched.  Weighing far more than any
    earlier Mars craft (approximately 3,500 kilograms/7,700 pounds), they 
    were sent aloft on the powerful D-1-e (PROTON) rocket booster.  These 
    probes most likely consisted of a flyby bus which would drop a lander 
    on the Martian surface as the bus headed on into solar orbit.  
    Unfortunately these latest spacecraft were plagued by old technical 
    problems:  MARS 1969A, launched March 27, was destroyed on its way 
    into an Earth parking orbit when the PROTON booster exploded in 
    mid-flight.  MARS 1969B, launched on April 14, may have been destroyed 
    in the same manner as its sister probe, as it too never achieved Earth 
    orbit.  A third member of this set, MARS 1969C, reportedly never even
    left the launch pad at Tyuratam, for reasons which are still unknown.

         The following year, the Soviets began conducting tests in space
    in an attempt to avoid the problems of their past Mars missions.  In
    November and December of 1970, COSMOS 379 and 382 conducted a series
    of various maneuvers in Earth orbit which would later be learned by the 
    West as being tests of an improved rocket insertion system, designed to 
    place the new Mars probes on course to their target planet.  These tests 
    were apparently successful in accomplishing their tasks.

         Some other books dealing with planetary probes:

         Hart, Douglas, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOVIET SPACECRAFT, Exeter Books, 
    New York, 1987.  ISBN 0-671-08932-3.

         Miles, Frank, and Nicholas Booth, RACE TO MARS: THE MARS FLIGHT 
    ATLAS, Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, 1988.  ISBN 0-06-016005-5.

         Oberg, James E., UNCOVERING SOVIET DISASTERS: EXPLORING THE LIMITS 
    OF GLASNOST, Random House, Inc., New York, 1988.  ISBN 0-394-56095-7.

         Smith, Arthur, PLANETARY EXPLORATION: THIRTY YEARS OF UNMANNED 
    SPACE PROBES, Patrick Stephens Limited, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, 
    England, 1988.  ISBN 0-85059-915-6.

         Wilson, Andrew, SOLAR SYSTEM LOG, Jane's Publishing, Inc., New York,
    1987.  ISBN 0-7106-0444-0.

         Some more information on the 1967 Soviet Mars probe attempts,
    from Drew:

         I double-checked on the 1967 Mars probe failure. I got that
    information from the "Handbook".  There was an unconfirmed rumor that
    the Soviets attempted to launch a second generation Mars probe
    (similar to MARS 2-7) on the then new Proton booster.  The launch,
    like so many early Proton launches, ended in failure.  There are
    additional rumors (although I did not include it in my list) that
    there was a previous attempt in late February or early March of 1967
    that also ended in failure.  These alleged attempts could be just
    rumors but knowing the track record of the Proton booster's Block D
    escape stage in the late 1960s, they could very well be true. 

         Larry Klaes  klaes@renoir.dec.com
		      or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
    		      or - klaes%renoir.dec@decwrl.dec.com
    
              N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 15:55:43 GMT
From: beta!jwa@lanl.gov  (Wayne Anderson)
Subject: Re: Satellites

>>Why do you not think he is seeing satellites?  They would be especially bright
>>just after dawn and just before sunrise.  Pulsations could come from tumbling
>>objects, the periods of which should be very regular (though the best angles
>>might only occur temporarily -- so it might appeare erratic.)

>The satellites just aren't bright enough.  You can spot Mir easily enough, if
>you know where to look (it's no brighter than 4th magnitude), and the old
>Echo's were pretty easy, but for something like a spysat, spent booster etc,
>you need magnification.

>ami silberman, janitor of lunacy

That may be true where you live but not here.  Last night my wife and I were
sitting out on our deck just after dark and we spotted 11 satellites (or
orbiting junk) in less than 45 minutes, including one which was tumbling
and gave the appearance of pulsating.  The elevation here, by the way, is
around 7000'.

Wayne

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 20:03:13 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Voyager Status for 08/01/89 (Forwarded)


     Voyager Status Report
                       August 1, 1989
 
 
     Voyager 2 began executing a maneuver today that, when
completed, will give the one-ton spacecraft a 2.1 mile per
hour boost in velocity and move the spacecraft slightly
sideways toward its target area at Neptune.
 
     The change in velocity and direction will put the
spacecraft closer to its scheduled flyby of Neptune on Aug.
24 at 9 p.m. PDT when Voyager streaks just 3,000 miles over
the planet's northern polar region.  Two more trajectory
corrections are scheduled before Voyager's closest approach.
 
     Data from the spacecraft confirmed the beginning of a
sequence that will result in a 7.5-minute burn of Voyager's
hydrazine thrusters, scheduled to begin at 9:56 a.m. PDT. 
The actual burn had started 4 hours and 2 minutes before, but
Voyager's radio signal takes that long to reach Earth.  The
burn was timed to end at 10:03 a.m. PDT, but mission
controllers would not be able to confirm the success of the
maneuver until about 1:15 p.m. today after reviewing
telemetry from the spacecraft.
 
     Neptune this week provided Voyager flight engineers with
one more clue as to its whereabouts.  Data from the
spacecraft now show a slight but detectable accelerating
effect Neptune's gravity is exerting on Voyager.  The minute
acceleration "tells more about the planet's mass and more
about where the planet is," said Dr. Lanny Miller, manager of
the Voyager flight engineering office.  The point at which
the spacecraft began to feel Neptune's tug, he said, "is hard
to pin down. [The spacecraft] is always under the influence
of the planet's gravity, but you don't see it in the data
until you're real close.  We didn't really sense it until the
last week."
 
     This is the last week of Voyager's observatory phase. 
On Saturday, Aug. 5, Voyager will embark on the "far 
encounter" phase of its Neptune mission, marked by focused
observations of specific facets of the Neptunian system such
as the large dark spot and smaller spots in the atmosphere. 
Searches for moons and ring arcs will continue.
 
 
DISTANCE TO EARTH:  2,705,447,000 miles
DISTANCE TO NEPTUNE:  21,215,000 miles
HELIOCENTRIC VELOCITY:  42,187 mph

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 17:27:54 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Satellites

Many satellites aren't bright enough to be seen with the naked eye,
but you can see some amazing things with a wide field scope shortly
after sunset if you sweep and browse the WSW sky (here in north
temperate latitudes).  I have seen three objects at once, two tumbling,
in my field of view.  LEO is getting CROWDED!
-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #609
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/gYuxGOS00UkV01wU5I>;
          Fri, 18 Aug 89 05:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YYuxGGy00UkVQ1uk5H@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 05:19:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #610

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 610

Today's Topics:
			Re: Martian enigmas...
		     Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
		  Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST
			Re: neptune encounter
			  Re: Beyond Neptune
		  Re: Does This Proposal Make Sense
		   exploding Saturns, lack thereof
		 Re: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
		  Re: powering down old experiments
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
			 Re: Moon instruments
	       Re: Catch-A-Planet (More than a Summary)
			  Galileo followons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 04:19:01 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Martian enigmas...

In article <Added.IYmpFcC00Ui34E_E8o@andrew.cmu.edu> GRAHAM@IUCF.BITNET writes:
>I'm new to this list.  My question is...Has there been any discussion
>of the Martian "enigmas" photographed by Viking and Mariner?

Hoagland's "enigmas" come up regularly here.  The general (although not
universal) opinion is that he's building a whole lot of speculation on
awfully slender evidence.  You can find similar shapes in landforms on
Earth if you look for a while.  (Surely Italy's resemblance to a boot
is too close to be accidental? :-))
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 03:15:02 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

Eugene Miya wrote:
>>				So Henry has pushed most people's internal
>>button's too far and lost credibility.

Every now and then I wonder if I'm being too hard on NASA, criticizing it
more than it deserves and thus making a fool of myself in front of the
people inside who really know what's going on.

And then I get a letter from someone inside NASA or a NASA contractor,
or somebody who's recently escaped :-), saying roughly "you have no idea
how bad it really is..." and going on with enough detail to be convincing.

So I keep at it.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 03:19:40 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST

In article <BRUNO.89Jul25133909@ha7.inmic.se> bruno@inmic.se (Bruno Poterie) writes:
>>   Ariane 5 development program will probably slip several months...
>
>Which firm was building those mixers? I bet that it is a private company.
>If confirmed, this is one more reason to doubt about the validity of the "private"
>approach. If Arianespace had had a contract with the NASA or with another
>government or official agency, it would have been respected...

Ha ha.  Ho ho.  Hee hee.  Remember Ulysses, nee *International* Solar Polar
Mission?  The US government can and does renege on both promises and out-
and-out contracts.  Ask most anybody who had a commercial launch booked on
the Shuttle at the beginning of 1986.  Those people didn't even get their
deposits back, as I recall.  Some of them seriously thought about suing the
US government.

I don't recall the details, but the mixers were undoubtedly being built by
private industry.  However, the diversion was the government's idea.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 03:52:30 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: neptune encounter

In article <11853@drutx.ATT.COM> michael@drutx.ATT.COM (J. Michael Butters) writes:
>Way back in December, 1970, National Geographic had an article in their
>monthly magazine entitled "Voyage to the Planets" which discussed the
>missions of the Voyager spacecrafts and their planned trajectories
>to ALL the planets of the solar system.  One of the crafts was to pass
>well under the planet Saturn which would send it at an angle up to the
>planet Pluto.  I never did learn why this plan was rejected and Pluto
>left out of the mission.

The original "Grand Tour" project planned to do it.  It may have been
pencilled in in early Voyager planning.  But there were only two Voyagers
actually funded for launch, and their primary targets were Jupiter and
Saturn, with the Voyager 2 Uranus/Neptune mission finally okayed only in
flight, after it was clear that both Voyagers were working well and the
the Jupiter/Saturn mission was unlikely to suffer.  (The early name for 
Voyager was "Mariner Jupiter/Saturn".)  There was a proposal to launch
the third Voyager -- the ground spare -- onto the Jupiter/Saturn/Pluto
trajectory.  Never happened; Voyager 3 is in the Smithsonian, along with
Viking 3.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 04:30:07 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Beyond Neptune

In article <23792@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) writes:
>Alternatively, if Voyager II heads out of the solar system, how much
>longer will we be able to maintain radio contact?  Will the probe be
>sending back information at that time, or will it be simply shut off 
>and left to drift?

There was a paper in JBIS a few years ago, by some of the Voyager people
at JPL, addressing this.  There are several limits involved:  attitude-
control fuel, communications bandwidth, and electrical power.  It turns
out that the limit is electrical power.  The isotopes in Voyager's power
packs are decaying steadily, and the power output is dropping accordingly.
Sometime around 2010, as I recall, there is no longer enough power to
run the "housekeeping" systems plus the four experiments that yield useful
data in deep space, and it will be necessary to start shutting things down.
A few years later, there isn't enough to run even the housekeeping systems
alone, and that's it.  Barring problems, control fuel will easily last
that long, and communications would not be a problem until rather later.
Whether the electronics will keep going that long is somewhat of an
open question -- both Voyagers have had non-fatal electronic failures
already -- but there is no definite reason to think they won't.

Whether the Voyagers will be shut down before then to save money on
control and monitoring efforts here on Earth is a separate question.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 05:07:06 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Does This Proposal Make Sense

In article <1226@bio73.unsw.oz> root@bio73.unsw.oz (Karl Redell ) writes:
>...Only a government can tax millions of people
>to generate the billions of dollars required.  Designing and building
>a satellite, which can be done in any university physics lab, should
>not be confused with building a launch vehicle.  If you have seen one
>close up, you will realise that a launch vehicle can not be turned
>out by your machinist working after hours.  

Gee, that would surprise Gary Hudson or the late George Koopman.  Or
Wernher von Braun, for that matter, if he were still around to be asked.
(Remember that the VfR was flying liquid-fuel rockets fairly reliably to
altitudes of 1-2 km in 1932, five years after it was founded by nine
men in a restaurant, without a penny of government money and with only
inconsequential assistance from outside, with 1930 technology.  Things
might have gotten interesting if Germany had kept its head above water
politically for a few more years.)

Yes, I have seen launch vehicles close up.  I have also seen the equipment
that von Braun used to launch Explorer 1 close up; I could easily build
something better in my own little electronics shop, with thirty years of
better technology to build on.

It may not have come to your attention, but the sexiest new launcher, due
to fly most any time now, is a purely private venture that is costing OSC
and Hercules a total of about $70M.  (They have some government customers,
and said customers are supplying the launch aircraft for carrying Pegasus
up to altitude for their launches, but Pegasus itself is all-private.)
Now, $70M isn't exactly an after-hours budget, but Pegasus is a fairly
conservative (in most ways...) project being done in fairly conservative
ways by traditional aerospace contractors.

>... It is just not possible, unless you
>have worked in the space industry, to realise how much time, effort,
>coordination, raw materials, testing, etc. go into the manufacture
>of something even as relatively simple as an ICBM.

What has that to do with launchers?  Confusing MilSpec ICBMs with
civilian space launchers easily adds an order of magnitude to the budget;
some would say two or three.  Launchers should be *simpler* than ICBMs,
not more complex.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 05:18:36 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: exploding Saturns, lack thereof

In article <2311@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> bpd@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Brian P. Dickson) writes:
>In the motion picture _Koyaniskaaski_ (sp?), there is a five minute
>sequence at the end, where what appears to be a Saturn V is launched,
>and in one continuous shot, explodes, with the camera following one
>of the enormous engines for a very long time. Does anyone (Henry?) know
>which vehicle this was, and why it detonated? ...

It wasn't and it didn't.  No Saturn Vs exploded.  In fact, my memory and
a quick look at the references concur:  no Saturns of any flavor (I, IB,
or V) exploded, although some flights did have significant problems.

A possible confusing factor is that Saturn V staging was *very*
spectacular and the first staging event happened early enough that it
was readily visible from the ground.  It looked heart-stopping when you
saw it live for the first time, with a huge sheet of flame erupting outward
sideways from the rocket, followed by the first stage falling behind
and the relatively inconspicuous second stage (oxyhydrogen engines don't
make much of a visible flame) continuing upward.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 02:54:52 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.

In article <8907241926.AA08447@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
>    ... a technical error with the craft itself is believed to have
>    been the problem...

In fairness, it should be pointed out that (a) Phobos 2 had done point-
shoot-repoint-transmit maneuvers before, successfully, (b) there are
indications that it may have been *spinning* after whatever it was
happened, and (c) unlike Phobos 1, nobody has been able to point to
a specific error to explain the Phobos 2 loss.  The suggestion of a
collision with debris in Phobos's orbit, or P2's own maneuvering stage,
may seem a bit convenient for the engineers, but it does explain these
difficulties.  We may never know for sure.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 02:59:10 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <14486@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>HST is a very heavy payload designed to be serviced by the Shuttle, which
>cannot visit orbits higher than about 300nm under any circumstances.  Hence
>it lives in LEO.  Welcome to the joys of "manned presence in space."

Name an unmanned system, except Energia, that could do better for a payload
that big.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 03:36:09 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: powering down old experiments

In article <5452@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) writes:
>None of the Mariner or Viking spacecraft were turned off to save
>money...

However, there was at one point a serious risk that the surviving Viking
lander (which was number 1, not 2) would be turned off to save money.
Fortunately it didn't happen, partly thanks to the Viking Fund's efforts
at private fundraising (which were significant more for showing public
support than for the actual cash raised, although it was noticeable).
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 02:58:07 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <1989Jul24.213346.24486@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>Why does it really need to be LEO?  Why not put it in a higher orbit?

Because no launcher on Earth, except Energia, could get it any higher.
The HST is *heavy*.

There is also a strong desire to put it somewhere where it can be serviced,
so that new instruments can be installed on it eventually.  Development of
second-generation instruments is already well underway.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 04:46:32 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moon instruments

In article <11384@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (David Palmer) writes:
>... and the 'passive seismometer'.
>What do they mean by passive?  All the passive techniques I can think of
>for seismometry are relatively insensitive.  Does passive just mean
>'solar powered' or something like that?

"Passive" seismometry is just listening, as opposed to making something
go bang and listening for the echos from down below.  All the Apollo
seismometers were primary passive, but the later ones got active on
occasion :-) when Saturn V third stages and leftover LM ascent stages
were deliberately crashed on the Moon.  They also gave us a lot of data
on the abundance, or rather lack thereof, of large meteorites -- the
Moon is seismically a rather quiet place, and the Apollo equipment was
eventually considered capable of hearing a basketball-sized meteorite
hitting anywhere on the Moon.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 04:40:51 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (More than a Summary)

In article <3047@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> PEDRO@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>3. Do we ALREADY have the techniques to detect other planets?
>Anita Cochran (sp?) said we are very close to it, at least
>from spectroscopy. Can anyone provide more updates?

The ultra-precise Doppler-shift technique invented a few years ago by the
British Columbia astronomers [apologies; I don't remember exact names and
locations] can fairly easily measure the motions of stars caused by large
planets.  It measures velocity [!] along the Earth-star axis rather than
position perpendicular to that axis, and is precise enough to get results
that most everyone believes (unlike perpendicular-position measurements,
which push things very hard and have many subtle sources of error).  The
biggest problem so far is that such planets will have orbital periods at
least a few years long, and one would like to observe several orbits to
be sure, and there hasn't been that much time yet!  There are a *lot* of
tentatively-positive results already.

Also, don't forget that at least one of the stellar dust disks inferred
from IRAS data has been "seen" optically using CCD detectors and good image-
processing methods.  If you're willing to go with a decidedly broad
definition of "planet", that settles it.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 04:15:42 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Galileo followons

In article <33412@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>>... For that matter, Galileo has been
>>almost-ready-to-fly for a decade now -- where is *its* followup?  (Answer:
>>there isn't one.)
>
>    How can you design a followup to a mission that hasn't flown yet?
>It would be silly to build something else and launch it before Galileo
>tells us the next questions to ask.

Such silliness went on quite extensively, and quite successfully, in the
Apollo era.  There are *lots* of questions about the Jovian system that
Galileo isn't going to even address, never mind answer.  There are
people who would sacrifice semi-essential parts of their anatomy :-) to
see a modified Viking lander set down on Io or Europa.  Given a choice
of launching such a thing to accompany Galileo, with imperfect knowledge
of the environment it will find and the possibility of wasted effort,
or waiting until Galileo results are complete nearly a decade from now,
guess which they'd choose?
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #610
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/EYwBNLW00UkV467E5M>;
          Tue, 22 Aug 89 00:28:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4YwBN-W00UkVQ65U4-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 00:27:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #611

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 611

Today's Topics:
		    space news from July 17 AW&ST
		      NASA Prediction Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 89 02:23:19 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from July 17 AW&ST

Cover is the first Titan 4 launch.

Apollo-11 editorial, more or less correctly predicting what Bush was going
to say, and urging action rather than talk.  "Undertakings of this scale
are never going to get any cheaper.  The time to start is now... History
shows clearly that great nations move forward with bold decision, not a
preoccupation with bean counting."  Dick Truly has observed that manned
exploration programs cannot bubble up from the bottom -- they must be
started from the top.  Truly says he recently reviewed Wernher von Braun's
original post-Apollo plan, and that if NASA funding had remained stable
instead of declining, the US would be operating a manned lunar base and
a space station and would have crews en route to Mars.  "Where are the
US space visionaries of comparable stature today?"

Panamsat and Intelsat, among others, plan to bid for lease of the C-band
transponders on TDRS-3 and -4.  The original intent was for Western Union
to use them, but the commercial deal collapsed and TDRS's commercial relay
capabilities have never been used.

The team responsible for picking the British Mir astronaut is sorting
through 11000+ applications, with more still arriving.  Final selection
of astronaut and backup will happen by October.

Yet Another Major Review of the space station is underway, to give Truly
and his new subordinates a fresh look.  The Langley team doing the review
is also identifying elements that could be delayed if funding is inadequate.

Some officials reported to be annoyed that Quayle's top-secret assessment of
a new space initiative has not involved the Space Council itself.  The
Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Mismanagement
and Beancounting are particularly miffed that they weren't allowed to
mess it up.

It is reported that the great lunar/Mars plan assumes not only the space
station, but also Shuttle-C and two more shuttle orbiters.

House budget proposal includes $1G+ cut to NASA funding, $400M from space
station.

International Astronautical Federation moves its 1989 annual congress, in
October, from Beijing to Malaga (Spain), for obvious reasons.

Last Ariane 3 successfully launches ESA's heavy comsat Olympus July 11.

Pictures of the secret Soviet laser facility at Sary Shagan, taken by
touring US scientists.  The scientists say the facility does not appear
to have operational antisatellite capabilities, the Pentagon's claims
notwithstanding.

Early Voyager pictures of Neptune from 57Mmi, with cloud features fairly
prominent.

Two more rats abandon ship, er excuse me, two more senior NASA officials
resign due to worries about the impending federal law that makes trouble
for retiring federal officials going to work for government contractors.
This time it's the director of Ames and the associate admin for space
operations.

First Titan 4 launched June 14, about eight months behind schedule.  [Ah,
those reliable and timely expendables!]  Titan managers say the complexity
of getting the new booster off was underestimated, notably the problems of
handling the extra-large SRBs and the 8900-lb payload fairing.  Mods to
the pad also took longer than expected.  Other complications included
a lineup for IUSes, masses of new paperwork, bad weather, and the lack of
a "pathfinder" dummy vehicle to get bugs out of support facilities ahead
of time.

The USAF is now taking a fresh look at long-term improvements to Titan
launch facilities, with weather protection at the pad high on the list.

One of the two first-stage engines on the first Titan 4 malfunctioned
partway up, gimballing hard over and staying there, but the other engine
compensated automatically and the payload ended up precisely where it was
supposed to be.  (Payload was a missile-warning satellite on an IUS.)
An internal fuel leak in the malfunctioning engine is suspected.

Team led by France's Matra gets contract for Spain's Hispasat broadcast
and communications satellite project, two birds plus support.  This is
the second contract that will be based on the Matra/BAe "Eurostar" bus,
which has also been selected by the Locstar people [who are, I believe,
Geostar's European cousins].  Hispasat will do TV broadcast to Spain
and the Canaries, plus TV distribution links between Spain and Latin
America and government communications in Spain.
-- 
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 89 04:51:54 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #557 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89224.46332790 0.00000173           19906-3 0  2271
2 00424  80.4613 230.3882 0023328 350.3677   9.7016 13.67177689340509
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89205.95482766  .00000149  00000-0  14510-3 0  2809
2 00727  69.9013  14.6705 0012349  43.2838 316.9236 13.93555572298358
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89220.29644521  .00006700  00000-0  45789-3 0  3987
2 03019  64.0628 309.7143 0216553 222.4163 136.0198 14.89845819112841
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89220.47785184 -.00000074  00000-0  99999-4 0  2416
2 03029  12.8190  23.7644 0016243 196.2850 163.7257  1.00272220 79665
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89220.38447446  .00106669  00000-0  70063-3 0  9112
2 04966  51.5447 271.9312 2503300 301.8512  36.2312 10.55894323557892
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89226.97265887 0.00000005                   0  8652
2 08820 109.8368 250.2175 0044863 303.5162  56.1513  6.38663858 54386
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89224.61122169 -.00000007                   0  2912
2 10061   7.3012  67.3354 0005350 163.5325 196.6831  1.00264554  5948
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89225.79446154 0.00000010           10000-3 0  1902
2 10684  63.6276  99.0224 0108994 197.9351 161.7574  2.00559917 69681
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89222.26483050 -.00000027                   0   238
2 10893  64.4957 340.0149 0154406  28.1681 332.6724  2.00554955 82434
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89217.68126890 0.00000085           10000-3 0  7001
2 10953   6.1820  70.2390 0007516 256.1492 103.7452  1.00280201  1430
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89221.00981266 0.00000704           29165-3 0  1490
2 10967 108.0191  36.4096 0001906 239.0974 120.9978 14.34755767581664
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89226.06656566 -.00000027                   0   931
2 11054  64.1312 336.2759 0056099 119.0540 241.5354  2.00562260 79524
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89226.16543084 0.00000010                   0  2000
2 11141  63.5387  98.7842 0052533 323.7939  36.0235  2.00569955 78223
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89224.05416067 0.00000722           31848-3 0  8803
2 11416  98.5113 219.5069 0011263 311.6778  48.3488 14.25904322525863
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89225.21005251 0.00083538           99592-3 0   561
2 11703  28.4965 234.2503 0000493 276.0211  84.0338 15.59605253528734
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89225.62463252 -.00000027                   0  9523
2 11783  63.8792 335.9672 0142446  62.1049 299.3501  2.00569806 68150
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89198.09976027 -.00000043                   0   645
2 11964   5.5545  73.3550 0033142  94.8230 265.4677  0.99228738  2321
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89219.00000000 -.00000248           10000-3 0  7452
2 12472   2.6923  79.9470 0002216 125.0647  45.9838  1.00259119 29097
SME        
1 12887U          89220.24730868  .00012496  00000-0  42202-3 0  2599
2 12887  97.6844 248.0911 0003580  58.7412 301.4335 15.30816125433117
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89225.11503748 0.00163931           12054-2 0  6793
2 12888  97.5467 282.9235 0002433 168.8732 191.3372 15.72589052437908
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89218.38888884 0.00000140           11604-3 0  6572
2 13113  82.5373  18.8531 0014379 285.7045  74.2535 13.84023452372189
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89226.67140000 0.00018375           40590-3 0  7027
2 13138  51.6070  30.5910 0000592 230.3449 129.7774 15.43901015417228
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89219.58631053  .00000437  00000-0  10709-3 0   499
2 13367  98.2091 282.4930 0003590  61.1447 299.0125 14.57111580375634
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89223.46775744 0.00000262           13209-3 0  8039
2 13718  81.2425 227.4623 0055408 200.3767 159.5200 14.13251317343366
IRAS       
1 13777U          89220.39141682 -.00000037          -13690-4 0  6643
2 13777  99.0413  56.7769 0012863 164.5511 195.6053 13.98615671  3218
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89209.55893578 -.00000205  00000-0  00000 0 0  8227
2 13969   3.6997  68.5011 0015889 158.1406 201.9317  1.00259309 89831
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89220.72708020 0.00000119                   0    32
2 14050   1.4220  83.4804 0000480  18.5977 341.8165  1.00258985  7134
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89222.50747033 -.00000095                   0  4212
2 14129  26.0561 250.4975 6050658  66.2981 344.4864  2.05883706 18330
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89226.21116740 0.00000009           10000-3 0  6531
2 14189  63.2200  97.5243 0136896 215.2337 143.9406  2.00566843 44609
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89224.46866459 0.00000415           17389-3    7560
2 14452  81.1621 237.1388 0093948 295.2149  63.9317 14.22272837300543
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89227.03222320 0.00000800           18771-3 0  8681
2 14780  98.1651 288.1369 0003946  68.0581 292.0809 14.57141507290139
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89225.19157392 0.00001534           30256-3 0  4901
2 14781  98.0004 282.3334 0013821 134.6573 225.5789 14.63836110290881
LDEF       
1 14898U          89224.94650558 0.00046492           66917-3 0  9342
2 14898  28.5044 135.7731 0001040 222.5797 137.5462 15.54638195300289
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89226.27109516 0.00000009                   0  7148
2 15039  62.9490  96.7695 0014282 255.8641 104.0377  2.00564641 37886
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89224.71188286 0.00000254           22067-3 0  9608
2 15099  82.5338 321.4248 0014824  79.3863 280.8978 13.83689141257936
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89226.67036727 -.00000027                   0  6929
2 15271  63.3398 335.6622 0100151 321.1793  38.1270  2.00567216 35009
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89223.88665154 0.00002397           34452-3 0   644
2 15331  82.5384 287.0322 0022297 263.7417  96.1333 14.75891816262433
NOAA 9     
1 15427U          89222.41087799 0.00000442           26164-3 0  4128
2 15427  99.1479 210.4292 0015529 157.4958 202.6896 14.12109160240106
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89224.62725059 0.00000174           14598-3 0  1059
2 15516  82.5339 259.8646 0015683 322.3022  37.7038 13.84151065228865
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89226.54194181 0.00007243           16581-3 0  3387
2 16095  51.6077  31.2286 0001009 242.7403 117.3666 15.43885696218302
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89226.82597903 0.00000010                   0  3464
2 16129  63.7364  97.4708 0119070 149.7409 211.0435  2.00563610 28219
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89224.88630358 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8454
2 16191  82.5480 195.6503 0019774 153.6938 206.5202 13.16871750182983
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89224.85413421 0.00000135           11089-3 0  5189
2 16408  82.5360 174.5492 0016767 136.5388 223.7101 13.84196079183396
Mir        
1 16609U          89226.69167195 0.00026155           34018-3 0  9888
2 16609  51.6205  70.6047 0010022 274.2751  85.6581 15.58537519200284
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89227.06201652 0.00000380           19613-3 0  5592
2 16613  98.7365 300.8571 0001290  52.0466 308.0769 14.20022154 20484
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89224.90962995 0.00000133           10978-3 0  3129
2 16735  82.5362 201.3501 0013177 208.1434 151.9058 13.83942318162306
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89227.05919403 0.00002671           38798-3 0  6982
2 16881  82.5252 343.5613 0021241 268.0202  91.8575 14.75522125163970
EGP        
1 16908U          89216.23557745 -.00000027           11738-3 0  1486
2 16908  50.0069 150.3734 0011216 107.6360 252.5700 12.44379914135399
FO-12      
1 16909U          89226.01332023 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1674
2 16909  50.0170 120.5753 0011692 131.9903 228.1928 12.44401109136602
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89218.07359174 0.00000468           22440-3 0  2596
2 16969  98.6373 247.6148 0014507 103.1080 257.1719 14.23108208151032
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89224.05053702 0.00000236           20288-3 0  2790
2 17290  82.4677 108.9878 0013978 100.1308 260.1427 13.83749497131346
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89219.60835365  .00000079  00000-0  71946-4 0  2092
2 17527  99.1448 290.6207 0000337  77.6458 282.4748 13.94847109125543
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89221.38888294 -.00000105                   0  3159
2 17561   0.0389 183.0274 0004069 353.8803 183.1293  1.00272156  2290
Kvant      
1 17845U          89226.56345153 0.00013926           18456-3 0  8383
2 17845  51.6225  71.2514 0010153 273.7525  86.2931 15.58522761136538
DMSP B5D2-3
1 18123U          89219.46644554  .00000228  00000-0  14051-3 0  1259
2 18123  98.8243  49.2842 0014309 191.7805 168.3773 14.13487763110076
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89227.02928653 0.00000038           34825-4 0  8472
2 18129  82.9260 194.6868 0010331 246.1585 113.8501 13.71995771107468
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89219.96748532  .00000041  00000-0  33747-4 0  9071
2 18187  65.0102 238.0029 0019070 254.7525 105.1380 14.29387795108521
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89224.67835272 0.00000218           18868-3 0  3022
2 18312  82.5575 174.7803 0013974  42.8510 317.3557 13.83497822100327
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89224.84640040 0.00000081           67586-4 0  1390
2 18820  82.5416 235.5226 0018253 107.5785 252.7372 13.84188330 77522
DMSP B5D2-4
1 18822U          89219.48204071  .00000444  00000-0  22299-3 0   952
2 18822  98.6884  99.3656 0007761  94.6181 265.6464 14.20847369 78286
AO-13      
1 19216U          89224.29686106 0.00000147          -56175-2 0   429
2 19216  57.1273 195.6350 6773680 209.3425  84.3091  2.09696573  8917
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89219.94730482  .00001832  00000-0  26772-3 0  4587
2 19274  82.5146  88.7692 0024491  65.0832 295.2927 14.75029501 58716
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89220.84624886 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2368
2 19336  82.5451 138.4219 0018587  17.9998 342.1677 13.16855538 49849
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89221.31268263 0.00000395           23996-3 0  1138
2 19531  98.9426 165.0849 0013324  81.1644 279.1038 14.11090338 44962
TDRS 3     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89205.63786333  .00000126  00000-0  99999-4 0   300
2 19548   0.6721  83.7449 0003585  44.3078 231.9696  1.00266710  2165
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89206.89309308  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   509
2 19802  55.1021 210.2896 0066155 157.6603 202.6523  2.00556809  3205
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89224.88235416 0.00000117           10000-3 0   630
2 19851  82.5255 114.0925 0014506 144.2758 215.9432 13.83827853 22921
TDRS 4     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89208.26829531 -.00000237  00000-0  99999-4 0   243
2 19883   0.4171  71.3998 0001965  32.8167 255.7920  1.00258496   622
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89195.11831124 -.00000029                   0   285
2 20061  54.5868  29.5793 0080698 163.2427 197.0849  2.00573534   713
Raduga 1-1 
1 20083U          89207.77927620 0.00000150           10000-3 0   393
2 20083   1.3949 273.2764 0005647 348.3379  12.0591  1.00270925   353
Nadezhda   
1 20103U          89213.09000256 0.00000075           74156-4 0   181
2 20103  82.9623 160.9356 0036537 208.1477 151.7704 13.73491526  3774
1989 050B  
1 20104U          89210.73341639 0.00000006                   0   134
2 20104  82.9628 162.6306 0032576 192.5149 167.5202 13.74884939  3442
Gorizont 18
1 20107U          89222.49052197 -.00000251           10000-3 0   320
2 20107   1.4417 275.4063 0002878  51.2352 308.9647  1.00274116   367
1989 052D  
1 20110U          89219.72792483 -.00000109                   0   142
2 20110   1.5121 276.5079 0028004  75.6751 284.6099  1.03059945   348
Olympus    
1 20122U          89222.16766756 -.00000119           10000-3 0   226
2 20122   0.0626 271.4242 0002569  41.9678  46.5866  1.00270106    60
1989 053B  
1 20123U          89226.55330121 0.00067328           75185-2 0   359
2 20123   6.3343  93.2259 7283988 205.9228  84.1260  2.29798794   774
1988 063E  
1 20127U          89222.21870866 0.00000402           14264-2 0   291
2 20127   8.0102 316.7338 7224687 109.4018 336.4890  2.26363790  6956
1988 098C  
1 20132U          89222.66670160 0.00028748           69589-2 0   250
2 20132   3.6767 105.9058 7134521  80.5181 346.8895  2.46865740  6790
RESURS-F3  
1 20134U          89219.92206973 0.00172715  12063-4  26742-3 0   474
2 20134  82.5683  86.6489 0012765 246.0471 114.0135 16.03977299  3292
Cosmos 2031
1 20136U          89227.24419919 0.00553097  16113-3  62332-3 0   612
2 20136  50.5505 332.7592 0035926  88.5802 271.7980 16.07204962  4466
Cosmos 2033
1 20147U          89227.28728668 0.00123222           19955-2 0   431
2 20147  65.0198 261.5511 0010673 276.5712  83.4041 15.52098060  3462
Cosmos 2034
1 20149U          89221.18427574 0.00000079           79075-4 0   275
2 20149  82.9374  77.2738 0030287 236.1763 123.6507 13.72419846  2048
1989 059B  
1 20150U          89226.40733136 0.00002177           22930-2 0   368
2 20150  82.9374  73.3743 0028441 213.3998 146.5366 13.74246335  2757
Cosmos 2035
1 20151U          89226.73360772 0.00194781  18080-4  15008-3 0   248
2 20151  82.5612 137.0759 0009257  44.3664 315.8985 16.14840412  1963
1989 062A  
1 20168U          89226.17852624 -.00000064           10000-3 0    28
2 20168   0.1791 260.1973 0028622 356.5583 103.7012  1.00710391    06
1989 062B  
1 20169U          89225.12490331 0.00008880           13409-2 0    13
2 20169   6.9635 121.4232 7284067 181.7493 173.2880  2.29184976   110
1989 062C  
1 20170U          89224.74365037 0.00002364           37560-2 0    77
2 20170   7.2120 122.2013 7254812 180.7664 176.1228  2.25903037    93
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #611
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/UYwDul200UkV46Ok5C>;
          Tue, 22 Aug 89 03:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <gYwDuXO00UkVI6N05d@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 03:20:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #612

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 612

Today's Topics:
		    space news from July 24 AW&ST
			   Re: It was said
			      Re: Alcor
			     Re: Moonwalk
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
			 SPACE Digest V9 #580
		 Re: re does this proposal make sense
		Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
			  NSS Hotline Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 89 03:31:56 GMT
From: agate!bionet!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from July 24 AW&ST

Bush sets forth his long-term space plan, minus budget and timetable, and
calls for -- did you really expect anything else? -- more study.  Congress
likes the vision but doesn't care for the lack of budget planning.  House
Majority Leader Gephardt "noted that when President Kennedy issued the
call to go to the Moon, he included the bill".

DoD preparing RFP for a new antisatellite weapon.

SDI's sounding-rocket particle-beam experiment successful on July 13.
Next on the agenda is a larger experiment in orbit, "traceable to weapon
performance levels", perhaps 1995.

Amroc fires its first flight-weight motor in a full-duration test at the
USAF Astronautics Lab [at Edwards].  The test, on July 11, was fully
successful, including testing of Amroc's liquid-injection thrust vectoring.
A second similar firing is planned before first flight in August.

======================================================================
George Koopman, president of Amroc, killed in automobile accident near
Edwards July 19.  Amroc will try to launch on schedule in August.
======================================================================

House blocks Rep. Charles Schumer's attempt to shift about half the space
station's funding to domestic programs... despite only token support for
the station from the White House.  More modest cuts were made, however,
and an independent analysis of station overhead costs -- i.e., the hefty
fraction of the money that disappears into NASA and never turns into
visible hardware -- has been ordered.  NASA has also been ordered not
to pass more than 50% of the cuts on to the contractors.

House also defers development of the station crew rescue vehicle,
maintaining minimum funding only.

France reaches compromise with USSR on French Mir mission price tag.

France would also like to expand space cooperation with the US, but
says the relationship is difficult when there are constant program
changes due to NASA's budget mess and the US's ridiculous attitude
on technology transfer.  The recent Soviet-French space agreement
includes French access to Soviet wind tunnels and related test facilities
for Hermes development, because France couldn't get the use of US ones.
One French official says, "Dealing with the Soviet Union on cooperative
space efforts is not easy, but we find the Americans are not simple to
work with either."  There are a couple of brighter notes, however.
France has agreed to joint development with NASA on an infrared spectrometer
for Cassini (although it will also fly on the Soviet 1994 Mars mission!).
And the US decision to divert the solid-fuel mixer meant for Kourou
has been reversed.

Ariane launch planned for this week delayed, pending checks on one of its
payloads (Germany's TVSat 2) after the building housing it took a direct
lightning hit.  New date is Aug 8.

Hughes books two comsats on one Ariane for next summer.  A launch slot
opened up unexpectedly when Intelsat requested a postponement in launch
of an Intelsat 6.

Arianespace says that the maximum-lift Ariane 4 configuration has been
deemed operational after its June launch.  There was concern about noise
levels when exhaust from the liquid-fuel strap-ons hits the launch platform,
but a combination of pad modifications and minor engineering changes to
Ariane dealt with the problem.

The payload for STS-28 [the August mission] is a new imaging recon satellite,
the SRS (Strategic Reconnaissance Satellite).  There is a small secondary
payload that may be an SDI experiment.
-- 
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 12:11:48 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: It was said

In article <Added.MYpQK9G00Ui3AAdU9K@andrew.cmu.edu>, denver@NARDAC-NOHIMS.ARPA ("DENVER BRAUGHLER") wrote:
} [golf ball on the moon]
}        Of course, contrary to a current happy trash bag commercial on TV, the
}ball would not have gone into earth orbit either.  What is the escape velocity 
}needed for a single impulse launch from the moon?

What I *really* liked was the way the ball's trajectory curved :-)
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
FAX: available on request                      Disclaimer? I claimed something?

Alan Demers: Here is the promised Fast Fourier Transform example.  It worked
         for the two examples I tried, so I'm fairly sure it is correct.
Student: Proof by exhaustive testing?
Demers:  Well, it sure exhausted me.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1989 13:11-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Alcor

Keith is not the only one to consider the Cryonics option as an
important backup. I too intend to go into space, whether in the next
couple decades (Keith has a bit over one on me) or in 200 years. I know
many others who are serious about their desire who are also signed on
for this. It may be a long shot, but it may also be the ONLY shot...

						Dale Amon
					a former director of the L5 Society
					a former director of NSS

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 15:38:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonwalk

In article <8907301944.AA05616@cssun.tamu.edu> hmueller@CSSUN.TAMU.EDU (Harold E Mueller) writes:
>... And the balloons 
>deployed by the CM on splashdown were said to be necessary for flotation
>(I think they were for stability indeed)...

More precisely, for the right kind of stability.  The CM by itself had two
stable floating positions:  "stable 1", right side up, and "stable 2", nose
down.  Unfortunately, "stable 2" seemed to happen quite a bit in real
life.  And of course, "stable 2" put the hatch underwater.  So the balloons
were added to enforce "stable 1".
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 89 00:19:49 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <1846@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes:
>In article <14513@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>#Speaking of HST, there was a very interesting squib in this month's
>#ASTRONOMY.  Seems a team has taken the Palomar 5-meter scope to the
>#*diffraction limit* using optical interferometry (a technique adapted
>#from radio astronomy), easily splitting two different double stars with
>#separations of a small fraction of an arcsecond. 
>
>It is nice, but you need bright stars to do it with. HST is STILL the
>only way to get the high resolution images on a faint source. 

Is Neptune bright?
-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 15:25:47 GMT
From: uakari.primate.wisc.edu!indri!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Greg S. Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <1989Aug4.025910.19561@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
#Name an unmanned system, except Energia, that could do better for a payload
#that big.

Wasn't that Mr Neff's point? A Saturn V could probably put HST up
pretty high.


-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 4 August 1989 2:21pm CST
Reply-To: space+%andrew.cmu.edu@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
From: XDAA405%UTA3081.CC.UTEXAS.EDU@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #580

Please unsubscribe my id from the space digest list.

Thx.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 20:55:17 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: re does this proposal make sense

In article <44bb6cda.c9b9@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes:
> ...times 365 (days) = 1.7 billion dollars per year.   Is this
> enough to design, build and maintain a space station? ...

It's enough to design, build, and maintain several, if it's done right.

>  ... The average American doesn't
>  give a farthing about space, or science, or anything else having to do
>  with the future...

Not quite right, according to people who've been involved with systematic
polling on the topic.  The average American supports all these things.
He just doesn't think they are particularly high priority.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 04 Aug 89 05:17:27 EDT
From: Colin Hunter <CHUNTER%UMAB.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: <SPACE@Andrew.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

From: J. Colin R. Hunter

In SPACE Digest V9 #580,
cwjcc!mailrs!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!wayne@tut.cis.ohio-stat
e.edu  (Wayne Hayes) writes:

> .............. Sagan cites another tribe in an adjacent valley that
> suffered from a rare disease called Kuru, a virus. In 1957, a physician
> studying this disease showed the tribespeople what the virus looked like
> though a microscope. A few months later, a different phyisician (not
> knowing that they had observed the virus through a microscope) asked
> them to describe what they know about the disease. Part of the description
> told of an "invisible evil", accompanied by a diagram in the sand that
> looked very similar to the Kuru virus ...............................

       This  raises  more  questions  than  it   attempts   to   answer.   The
aetiological agent for kuru is *not* a virus, but is a prion; a discovery that
was not made until the mid-'80s.   Prions in their native state do not contain
any genetic material in the conventional sense (neither DNA nor RNA), although
they are thought to  be  able  to incorporate  certain host nucleotides within
their structure during the "infection" process.  The host's DNA  and  cellular
machinery  is  hijacked  into  manufacturing more prions.  Since prions are so
small (less than 50nm in  diameter),  being  just  protein molecules, I do not
believe  that  microscopy was advanced enough in 1957 to  visualise  a  single
prion, even if they had known what to look for.

J. Colin R. Hunter
Department of Microbiology & Immunology
University of Maryland at Baltimore

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 00:24:29 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!ncrcan!ziebmef!mdf@rutgers.edu  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <33412@apple.Apple.COM>, leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>     How can you design a followup to a mission that hasn't flown yet?
> It would be silly to build something else and launch it before Galileo
> tells us the next questions to ask.

  Ask this of any planetary scientist, and no doubt you will get a deluge
of possible experiments to send to Jupiter that were never considered for
Galileo or were dropped for cost/space/bandwidth/weight/whatever reasons.

  What upsets me most is that all these probes we are launching seem to be
completely unique.  Has no one considered the benefits of making a nice
standard space probe that can do Everything?   Take for example, Galileo.
I have no solid information on this machine, but I know it does go into
orbit around Jupiter and does have at least 1 atmospheric probe... and that
the Cassini mission will do much the same thing... which makes me think that
perhaps instead of spending yet another huge sum on Yet Another Unique
Space Probe, just build another Galileo (or 10) and fire it off to Saturn...
Is this just too radical, or what?
-- 
Name: Matthew Francey			 Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
mdf@ziebmef.UUCP		  uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 10:31:57 GMT
From: cdp!jordankatz@labrea.stanford.edu
Subject: NSS Hotline Update


 
This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline updated August
1st.
 
Response to President Bush's space speech of July 20th, the
Apollo anniversary, has run a full range - from critical
commentary from the media and Capitol Hill - to lukewarm from the
public and interested parties (such as industry) to muted esctasy
from NASA and the space advocacy community.
 
Bush's ambitious 30-year plan for NASA has drawn heavy fire from
Capitol Hill. Sen. Gore of Tennessee accused the president of
offering "not a challenge to inspire us, but a daydream as
splashy as a George Lucas movie - - with about as much connection
to reality." Rep. Charles Schumer of New York, whose amendment to
transfer $714 million from NASA to social programs lost in a
lopsided vote on the House floor, also criticized Bush's
statement as "space exploration by press release." Space program
supporters, such as Sen. Jake Garn of Utah praised Bush for
providing "a blueprint for a substantive, visionary space
policy," and encouraged Bush to lead the fight to "garner the
support of members of Congress."
 
Several newspaper editorials in the week following the presdent's
address were harshly critical, with the New York Times stating
that the president is "merely giving NASA a nominal goal to
justify its vast and so far fruitless investment in the space
shuttle and space station."  The St. Louis Post Dispatch said
that the president's speech was an "exercise in feel-good
Reaganesque public relations."
 
Positive media commentary did come from, of all places, the Wall
St. Journal. Its editors noted that "Washington's tribe of
frightened people (shouldn't) stop the rest of the country from
being bold and brave and successful." 
 
Public commentary seems to have been muted, something which space
advocates can and should change. Spacecause, the grassroots space
lobby, suggests letters to the editors of local newspapers
praising the president's initiative as the departure point of
true space exploration. Calls to the Presidential comment line
would also show the Administration that there is support from the
public for his initiative. The number is 202-456-7639.
 
The scheduled launch of the DoD STS-28 mission of the shuttle
Columbia is set for Tuesday, August 8th. Testing continues on
systems for the launch and the top secret cargo, which the NSS
has learned will be another in the Lacrosse reconnaissance
satellite series. The mobile cargo canister which carried the
mission's payload out to pad 39B was the same as that used for a
previous DoD mission in which a Lacrosse was placed in orbit. The
STS-28 crew will arrive at the Cape on Saturday afternoon.
 
 
The fight for the Space Station and the NASA budget in general
moves from the House to the Senate, but not until after the
August congressional recess. The space station came through the
House on the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing with
only a $395 million cut to its $2.05 billion request. Sen.
Barbara Mikulski's VA, HUD and Independent Agencies subcommittee
will next take up the debate over appropriations for the NASA
budget. Milkulski, in a speech to a group of senators, NASA
officials and industry supporters on July 19th said that she is
an "unabashed space enthusiast" who would struggle "to make sure
we fund the space station". Sen. Mikulski is apparently stalling
the mark-up of the subcommittee's bill in order to keep as many
options open as possible.
 
Johnson Space Center Director Aaron Cohen has been temporarily
assigned to NASA headquarters to lead the agency's response to
the national goal of human exploration of the Moon and the planet
Mars as announced by President Bush on July 20th. JSC will be
managed by Deputy Director Paul Weitz in his absence. Former NASA
General Counsel John E. O'Brien will become an assistant deputy
administrator with responsibility of supporting NASA's efforts in
formulating plans to implement the president's stated future
goals. He will provide "special analysis and management problem
solving" skills according to a NASA spokesperson. Cohen and
O'Brien will both report directly to the Administrator.
 
Rep. George Brown, Jr. introduced an amendment to the defense
authorization bill which would require the administration to
investigate and report on problems caused by nuclear reactors
orbiting the Earth. The move is an attempt to curb the use of
space reactors. A similar measure is to be introduced in the
Senate by Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.). 
 
The DOT's OCST has approved an application by Martin Marietta
Commercial Titan, Inc. to launch the 1st commercial flight of the
two stage booster in September from Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station. Two commercial satellites from Britain and Japan will be
the payloads.
 
Vice President Quayle will address employees at Marshall Space
Flight Center on Wednesday, August 2nd.
 
This has been the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the
week of July 31st.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #612
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/oYwFenO00UkVE6ZU5M>;
          Tue, 22 Aug 89 05:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYwFeeC00UkVE6Xk5M@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 05:19:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #613

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 613

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Does This Proposal Make Sense
			  Re: Eggs & baskets
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
		    Re: Questions about Apollo 11
		Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?
	  Re: Cheerleading (was Re: Henry's (not Weinhards))
		   Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
		   Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
			  Re: Eggs & baskets
		       News of the Week, Aug 4
		Re: NSS Elections -- Comments anyone?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 15:20:09 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Does This Proposal Make Sense

In article <1989Aug4.050706.22309@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

   It may not have come to your attention, but the sexiest new launcher, due
   to fly most any time now, is a purely private venture that is costing OSC
   and Hercules a total of about $70M.  (They have some government customers,
   and said customers are supplying the launch aicrcraft for carrying Pegasus
   up to altitude for their launches, but Pegasus itself is all-private.)

NASA is providing a B-52 and all its support for the 7 or 8 initial
test flights, at a price ridiculously below what it would cost to buy
their own airplane, modify it and maintain it.  It may be private, but
it's subsidized by NASA and hence our taxpayer dollars.

No benefit other than testing and demonstration of flight-worthiness
will come from those first 7 or 8 flights.  They aren't government
launches or mission.  They're just being undertaken to prove that
Pegasus works and to make it marketable.

NASA will also provide the B-52 for the _one_ DARPA mission.
--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 15:48:04 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Eggs & baskets

In article <14504@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>-- this is pretty much what I was trying to convey.  You won't be likely
>to find someone who's been brought up to understand what it means to
>sail the waters off Martha's Vineyard or hike the Sierras or attend
>opening night at Radio City Music Hall or attend an English coronation
>or snorkel with a school of bottlenose, choosing the ant tanker's life
>in space exile instead...

"Speak for yourself, son."

Or as Arthur C. Clarke puts it, when asked what life in a space colony
would be like:  "I'll have to refer that question to my friend Isaac
Asimov, who lives in New York City."
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 18:23:15 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w@purdue.edu  (Greg S. Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <14513@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
#Speaking of HST, there was a very interesting squib in this month's
#ASTRONOMY.  Seems a team has taken the Palomar 5-meter scope to the
#*diffraction limit* using optical interferometry (a technique adapted
#from radio astronomy), easily splitting two different double stars with
#separations of a small fraction of an arcsecond. 

It is nice, but you need bright stars to do it with. HST is STILL the
only way to get the high resolution images on a faint source. 


-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 09:03:30 GMT
From: jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU!kstclair@cs.orst.edu  (Kelly St.Clair)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <3879@shlump.nac.dec.com>, hughes@gary.dec.com wrote:
>it had more than its share of inflight catastrophic self disassemblies.

In other words, it went boom.

Geez, you guys...gotta have a long buzzword for EVERYTHING!
8 )

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 16:30:07 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?

If you can use a Venus gravity assist to do a Mercury flyby, I bet you
could use it to do a Solar re-entry.
-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 07:25:17 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: Cheerleading (was Re: Henry's (not Weinhards))

I was a bit hasty in posting my last message. I really should have explained
my choice of dates.

John W Campbell said that the US became a democracy with the passage of the
Constitutional amendment that provided for the direct election of Senators.
I incorrectly gave this as 1906, it was actually 1913. 

I claim that the US became a democracy in 1964 with the passage of the Civil
Rights Act that effectively remove qualifications from voters, thus
establishing universal sufferage, at least for those who bothered.

I think that the second date matches up rather will with the start of the 
decline in US politics.

  ++PLS

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 17:42:01 GMT
From: js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jon C. Slenk)
Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race

God, how true.

What, pray tell, is the use of the Shuttle? "Reusable." Big fat hairy
deal. The only parts that are (right now) resues are the booster pods
and shuttle. Bye bye main tank.

The Shuttle is too expensive as far as I am concerned. Any "space plane"
is too expensive, as far as I am concerned. We don't need to take up
payload with a plane! We need to toss it into orbit as simply as
possible. I posit that the Shuttle is not the simplest (sp?) way to do
it.

Laser Launchers. This would put mass into orbit cheaply and easily.

Admittedly the accelerations woulSincerely,
Jon Slenk / js9b CMU.

----------------------------+-----------------------
`Land property marked the   | Capitalism:
beginning of civilization.' | Every man for himself.
d make mince meat out of astronauts, but the point of a l. l. is not to
get people into orbit, but mass. If you want people, *then* you take the
Shuttle, with the 'bay packed with bodies.

We should not use the Shuttle for simply putting satellites into orbit.
I believe there are more effiecient ways of doing it: ways that are
cheaper and put up more mass per shot and per $.

My $0.02.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 20:48:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race

In article <2386@basser.oz> the Sydney Morning Herald writes:
>The cannon ball was the preferred means during the space race.  It was
>the quick and dirty approach.  The necessary technology had already
>been mastered by both the Americans and the Russians for transporting
>their weapons of mass destruction.  However, a new vehicle is required
>for every flight, so the cost is high.

The cannon ball is still the preferred means if you are interested in
doing things cheaply.  Mass production can bring costs down drastically.
(This is true even of reusable rockets -- it would have cost NASA very
little more to have had 20 production-line shuttle orbiters instead of
4 hand-built ones.)  The economics of reusability are badly hurt by the
need to build everything to last many missions, and the need to check it
all over to make sure it's still okay for the next one.  (After each
shuttle flight, some 5000 parts need to be removed, inspected, and either
replaced or refurbished... on each SRB!  The situation on the orbiter
does not bear thinking about, with (for example) *every tile* requiring 
inspection, bond testing, and gap measurement.)  Wings look nice, but they
are heavy and difficult to protect against heat.

>In the long term, reusable winged craft are more economical for routine
>access to space...

This is undoubtedly true, given adequate technology and high flight rates.
It is not at all clear that we have the technology to do it well; it is
very doubtful that we are anywhere near the required flight rates.

>The US achieved the dubious honour of being first to the moon by
>constructing the largest rocket that would ever fly...

Nope, the third largest, after Energia and the abortive "G" booster.

>... In short, NASA
>should have opted for the sort of space program the Russians run.

No argument on this one.  Expendables and cannonballs all the way, with
volume production for high flight rates.

>Believers in the one true winged path into space convinced President Reagan
>to fund the X-30 National Aerospace Plane.  It will be completely reusable;
>it won't require booster rockets; it will scoop up air to burn its hydrogen
>slush fuel, resorting to rockets only for the last small push into space.

And, to approximately quote Gary Hudson, "you expect a cross between the
Space Shuttle and the Concorde to be on time, on budget, and fully working?".
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 23:56:32 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Eggs & baskets

In article <1989Aug4.211615.9990@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>As Gerry O'Neill pointed out rather a long time ago -- how quickly we
>forget! -- space is actually quite a benign environment in many ways.
>It is not, by itself, as suited to us as the *average* conditions on
>Earth's surface.  However, it is much more *controllable*; the difference
>between average case and worst case is much less severe.

This doesn't change the basic point.  On Earth, essential elements
like hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen are ubiquitous.  Gravity is
available for free.  Breathable air can be readily obtained anywhere
on the surface.

Space doesn't have weather or temperature extremes, but it does have
occasional lethal radiation the requires shielding all habitable and
agricultural areas.  I suggest that the engineering required to make
earthquake/flood/weather/fallout resistant structures on Earth is
easier than that needed to make space colonies.

>>I have a hard time imagining how a nuclear war or chemical pollution
>>could render the Earth any less habitable than space already is.
>
>There are areas of Earth which are already as uninhabitable as space,
>for all practical purposes.

Surely this is hyperbole.  Whether an unprotected person would die is
a poor measure of the habitability of a region.  A better measure is
the cost of surviving there.  Certainly by that measure just about
all areas on Earth are currently more habitable than space.

> [space station could be 100x cheaper]

Sigh.  I wish these people who make these kind of statements would
put their capital where their mouths are.  As far as I can tell,
existing private space efforts are going to be somewhat cheaper
than NASA, but not 100x cheaper.  Feel free to offer concrete
contradictory evidence.

Also, to be rigorous, a self-sufficient space colony would have to be
beyond LEO (there's no ET resources in LEO), which boosts the cost
beyond existing LEO space stations, and requires shielding.  Also, the
ratio of the proposal I criticized to the NASA space station is 3000x
the population, not 1000x as I stated.

I think eventually you could build a multi-thousand person space colony
much more cheaply than now.  Prices go down in the long run.  I don't
think you could do it now, from a standing start, for only $35G.

> Self-sufficiency I am a bit less certain about, although large
>size helps -- it is known that a large ecosystem can be self-sufficient
>without major development costs.  (Proof by example -- look out your window.)
>Doing it on a small scale is trickier, but there are encouraging signs
>that it may not be that hard.  The Biosphere people should be able to
>tell us within a few years.

I was refering to self-sufficiency in technology.  A space colony that
cannot propagate itself, after being cut off from Earth, doesn't increase
the species' survival odds at all.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 16:41:26 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of the Week, Aug 4


Jonathan's Space Report

Aug 4, 1989 (no. 21)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OV-102 Columbia is on pad 39B. The payload is a new imaging
recon satellite, presumably KH-12. 
Mission STS-28 is due for launch on August 8.

The Hipparcos astrometry satellite is ready for launch
by Ariane, also due on Aug 8.

Kosmos-2033 was launched on Jul 24 by the military version
of the Tsiklon booster from Baykonur. It is an ELINT (Electronic
Intelligence) ocean reconnaissance satellite, which picks up
transmissions from US Navy ships. The satellite carries a 
low-thrust ion engine to maintain a precise orbit.

Kosmos-2034 was launched on Jul 25 by Kosmos launch vehicle
from Plesetsk. It is the Soviet Navy variant of the Nadezhda-class
navigation satellite, a clone of the US Navy Transit system.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Contest for readers: 8 nations plus one international agency have
launched their own satellites. Can you name all 9, in chronological
order of first successful orbital launch? (Entries by email, no
prizes except fame).

 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : (617)495-7144              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM	  |
 |                          |    FAX : (617)495-7356              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 20:53:12 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Elections -- Comments anyone?

In article <1989Jul29.223849.8413@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>I just received my ballot for the NSS Board of Directors Election.
>While I am familiar with a few of the names (Ben Bova, Hugh Downs,
>Eric Drexler, and Christine Peterson), I am completely unfamiliar with
>most of the candidates.  Does anyone have any comments ...

One algorithm you can use, which is probably significantly better than
random choice, is to vote FOR people nominated by petition and AGAINST
people nominated by the nominating committee.  The worst excesses of said
committee have been toned down a bit this year, but it's still a lousy idea.

I haven't studied most candidates carefully yet myself, but Mark Hopkins 
quite definitely gets a NO from me -- too many unanswered questions about
his connections, too much involvement with some of NSS's worst stupidities
(like the way last year's election was run).
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #613
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/AYwWPHq00UkV08OU4V>;
          Wed, 23 Aug 89 00:23:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYwWP5-00UkVQ8Mk4e@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 00:23:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #614

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 614

Today's Topics:
	  Time Urgent: Voyager on TV networks and satellites
		   Circumstances of Koopman's death
		Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?
	Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
    Voyager 2/Neptune encounter background broadcasts (Forwarded)
			 Re: Golfball flight
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
			   Golfball flight
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
			  Re: Eggs & baskets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 22 Aug 89 16:55 CDT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu>
Subject:  Time Urgent: Voyager on TV networks and satellites
Original_To:  SPACE

Here's news from NASA that just popped up on the CANOPUS bulletin board (God
bless Bill Taylor and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics).
It gives the times and dates for NBC, CNN, and PBS coverage of the Voyager
thing.

By now all readers of Space Digest/sci.space/whatever should be aware that you
can get the direct feed on any satellite dish.  The more enterprising ones
(such as myself in Chicago and Pat Reiff in Houston) have persuaded their local
museums or universities to open their doors so the public can look over JPL's
shoulders this week as Neptune looms.  I've been plugging this thing on local
talk shows, saying that it's like standing on the deck of the *Santa Maria* as
the New World appears on the horizon...

Just in case you missed it, the satellite information is:

    GE Satcom F2R                    Aurora 1
    Transponder 13                   Transponder 6
    72 W. Long.                     143 W. Long.
    3960 MHz, vert. polar.           3820 MHz, hor. polar.

Show this to a  pal who has a satellite dish, and say you'll drop over Thursday
night.  If you don't know anyone with a dish, bake some brownies and get a cold
sixpack of beer.  Then drive around the suburbs of your town looking for
dishes.  Offer to trade brownies and beer for a glimpse of Voyager.

If your time is limited, the best thing to do is watch or tape the daily press
conferences at 10 AM Pacific Daylight Time (scheduled to last 90 minutes).
Friday's and Saturday's should have particularly spectacular news.  Perhaps the
best thing of all to tape is the Final Science Summary press conference on
Tuesday the 29th at 10 AM PDT.

I'd be interested to know (by e-mail, please) how you fare if you try any of
this.

Oh, yeah.  Chicago-area people should come to Scitech in Naperville
((312)355-2299), Harper College, Cernan Earth and Space Center, Adler
Planetarium, or Governor State University to see Neptunian video.
==========================================================================
TV Schedule for the Voyager Neptune Encounter - can890816.txt - 8/22/89

HERE'S THE BROADCAST SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS EVENTS ON NASA
SELECT TV.  ALL TIMES ARE EASTERN.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 21 THROUGH FRIDAY, AUGUST 25...........

DAILY COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE OF THE VOYAGER 2 ENCOUNTER WITH
NEPTUNE CONTINUES TODAY WITH HOURLY ON-SITE REPORTS AND NEWS
BRIEFINGS FROM THE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY IN PASADENA,
CALIFORNIA.  COVERAGE WILL RUN FROM 12 NOON TO 8:30 P.M. WITH
EXTENDED COVERAGE ON AUGUST 24.  TRANSPONDER 13 ON SATCOM F2R AND
TRANSPONDER 21 ON AURORA 1.

ALL EVENTS AND TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.

Non-Satellite TV:

TV viewers can see the first pictures of Voyager's flyby of
Neptune when NBC airs a special bulletin at 4 a.m. EDT Friday.
That's when the first images are expected to reach Earth from the
spacecraft.  The network will run a longer report on "Sunrise"
from 6 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. EDT.

*  CNN has 10-minute live reports daily from JPL at 3 p.m.,
5 p.m., 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. EDT.  Other reports Friday:  1:30 a.m.
and 5:30 a.m. EDT.  On Saturday, at 8 a.m. EDT, CNN anchor Lou
Waters hosts an hourlong special, "Voyager: The Final Encounter."

*  PBS plans coverage from between midnight Thursday and
7 a.m. EDT Friday.
=====================================================================

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
 |       |
 \       /                          SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -
     ~                              Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Aug 89 14:42:50 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hp-sde!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Circumstances of Koopman's death

Here are some of the circumstances of George Koopman's death:

After years of being harrassed by NASA, Koopman began going public
with criticism of NASA's attempts to suppress AMROC.  HR2674 was
introduced and Koopman was a leading industrial advocate of this
bill which would force NASA to abide by presidential policy mandating
that NASA purchase all launch services, where feasible, from the
private sector -- a bill which NASA has fought uncompromisingly.
NASA engages in a token gesture of support of AMROC by supplying
them with some hydrogen peroxide, a gesture that Koopman rewards
with praise of NASA's stepping in the right direction.  On the
eve of the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11, one month before the first
launch of an AMROC vehicle, George Koopman dies on his way to a
test firing at Edwards AFB in a single car accident with no witnesses.
He is pronounced dead at the scene.  I'm not sure what the status
is of AMROC's lawsuit against NASA after all this.

Has anyone seen a police report?  Did the coroner's report do
thorough testing for psychoactive substances?

Basically, I want to see the possibility of foul play eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 17:28:07 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?

In article <14512@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>If you can use a Venus gravity assist to do a Mercury flyby, I bet you
>could use it to do a Solar re-entry.

I don't think so.  However, I have read of a proposal to use very high
speed aeromaneuvering in the atmosphere of Venus to swing a spacecraft
onto a sun-grazing trajectory.  Firing a rocket at perihelion on such
a trajectory could send a probe into the outer solar system at up to
100 km/s.

The lowest delta-V way to reach the sun, gravity assist not considered,
is to send a probe *away* from the sun on a highly eccentric orbit, then
kill its velocity at apohelion.  But this is very time consuming.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 19:52:02 GMT
From: att!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)

In article <44c0a954.71d0@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.COM (Steve Rehrauer)
writes:

 >    3.  Establish a national lottery.  Let it be known that the proceeds
 >        will go towards establishing a permanent manned American base on
 >        the moon.  Let the annual Grand Prize be a night on the moon with
 >        your choice of Don Johnson or Vanna White <*>, to be collected only
 >        when the base is complete.  (<*> Or pick your generic sex-symbol-
 >        of-the-year)

You know this isn't a bad idea. Sure, the spend the night on the moon is
silliness, but a national lottery is not a bad idea. People would have the
chance to make money and NASA would make bundles. Kinda like having a space tax
but making it voluntary with a chance on a huge return. 

And if a national lottery is not legal, then how about 50 state space lotteries
that all donate to the space fund?

We just got a state lottery legallized here in KY, it took off like wildfire.
-- 
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
|||||||||||||||          sparks@corpane.UUCP         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 
As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 21:03:24 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Voyager 2/Neptune encounter background broadcasts (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.			   August 4, 1989

N89-58

EDITORS NOTE:  VOYAGER 2/NEPTUNE ENCOUNTER BACKGROUND BROADCASTS


     On August 7 and August 14, NASA Select television will 
transmit background information on the Voyager 2 Neptune 
encounter.  The schedule is:



 Noon - 12:45 pm EDT   Dr. Ed Stone, Voyager Project Scientist, 
                       will host a pre-encounter talk entitled, 
                       "Voyager 2's Encounter with Neptune"

12:50 -  1:20 pm EDT   "Voyager Encounter Highlights" tape

 1:30 -  2:30 pm EDT   Replay of Voyager images.
                      (Length of replay is unknown at this time.)


     Media representatives can downlink the broadcast from NASA 
Select television, Satcom F2R, transponder 13, C-band, located at 
72 degrees W. longitude, 3960.0 MHz, vertical polarization, 6.8 
MHz audio.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 16:44:19 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Golfball flight

In article <Added.IYqOeAu00Ui3A9609T@andrew.cmu.edu> denver@NARDAC-NOHIMS.ARPA ("DENVER BRAUGHLER") writes:

>Okay, would someone please tell me the gravitional acceleration on the moon? 

From memory, about 1.7 m/sec

>	I want to figure out how far a mass traveling at 30 m/s (slow enough?)
>at an initial 45^ trajectory (15 m/s rise + 15 m/s horizontal) will travel
>before landing.  (On *earth* in a vacuum that would be about a 3 second flight
>[1.5 s up and 1.5 s down] X 15 m/s  = 45 meters, which seems less than a fourth
>what pros get in air.  Hmm.  Maybe I'd better let someone else do the
>computations too. I might not be impartial enough.  But that distance wouldn't
>be too bad for someone in a space suit, would it?) 

Um, a 30 m/sec velocity at 45 degrees gives you 21.2 m/sec up and 21.2 m/sec
horizontal.

Using those figures:        

     v=at
  21.2=(1.7)t
     t=12.5 sec

It's round trip (up and down), which gives a time in the (air?) of 25 seconds.

  21.2 m/sec * 25 sec = 530 meters.

At a guess, though, I'd say a golf ball goes a good bit faster, say, 60
meters per second.  (Any golfers out there?).  Running that number through 
gives a distance of 2120 meters...assuming the surface of the moon is flat,
which it's not.  

Normally, I don't speak for Tech, and they don't speak for me, but these
numbers are a special case: all errors in math and formulae are theirs.  :-)

>I'm not a golfer either.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     :          [This space for rent]
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 89 00:29:52 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <1989Jul30.202430.20292@ziebmef.uucp> mdf@ziebmef.uucp (Matthew Francey) writes:
>  What upsets me most is that all these probes we are launching seem to be
>completely unique.  Has no one considered the benefits of making a nice
>standard space probe that can do Everything?   Take for example, Galileo.
>I have no solid information on this machine, but I know it does go into
>orbit around Jupiter and does have at least 1 atmospheric probe... and that
>the Cassini mission will do much the same thing... which makes me think that
>perhaps instead of spending yet another huge sum on Yet Another Unique
>Space Probe, just build another Galileo (or 10) and fire it off to Saturn...
>Is this just too radical, or what?

Not at all.  The Mariner Mark II spacecraft is supposed to be a modular
chassis onto which all sorts of mission specific hardware can be attached.
NASA and JPL want to stop reinventing the wheel as much as anyone.

It's just awfully tough to make progress on these things when you're
fighting for table scraps...



-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 10:18:00 EDT
From: "DENVER BRAUGHLER" <denver@nardac-nohims.arpa>
Subject: Golfball flight
To: "space" <space@andrew.cmu.edu>

>Golfballs, like javelins and footballs, are gliders.  They actually travel many
>times farther in air than in vaccuum, thanks to aerodynamic lift effects that
>stretch their flight.
>
>The astronaut who teed off on the moon said (as I recall) that his ball(s)
>didn't go very far.

	No, maybe just about a half kilometer?  You're quite right if gravity
remains the same.  But the gravity on the moon is a LOT less than on earth. 

Okay, would someone please tell me the gravitional acceleration on the moon? 

	I want to figure out how far a mass traveling at 30 m/s (slow enough?)
at an initial 45^ trajectory (15 m/s rise + 15 m/s horizontal) will travel
before landing.  (On *earth* in a vacuum that would be about a 3 second flight
[1.5 s up and 1.5 s down] X 15 m/s  = 45 meters, which seems less than a fourth
what pros get in air.  Hmm.  Maybe I'd better let someone else do the
computations too. I might not be impartial enough.  But that distance wouldn't
be too bad for someone in a space suit, would it?) 

I'm not a golfer either.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 15:57:20 GMT
From: uakari.primate.wisc.edu!larry!jwp@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <1989Aug4.025910.19561@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <14486@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>Welcome to the joys of "manned presence in space."
>Name an unmanned system, except Energia, that could do better for a payload
>that big.


Ah, but maybe without the emphasis on manned shuttles, we could have
named such a thing.

Isn't that the point?
-- 
Jeff Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 21:22:40 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Eggs & baskets

In article <14500@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> 3. Whether a few get the privilege of living outside the Earth's
>eco- and socio-sphere or not, we still have to solve our problems down
>here.  Arguing pup tent architectures while the kitchen's on fire is
>not a rational strategy.

Ferdinand VI of Castile had many problems, including a few environmental
problems.  Some of them never were solved satisfactorily.  He and his
problems are long forgotten.  Oddly enough, hundreds of millions of people
remember and honor his wife Isabella.  Be careful about declaring long-term
strategies irrational.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #614
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/cYwYzyi00UkV08hk5k>;
          Wed, 23 Aug 89 03:19:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <gYwYzpe00UkVI8g041@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 03:19:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #615

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 615

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Eggs & baskets
		  RE: Golf ball flight (correction)
			   Re: Contractors
			 Re: PHONE TREE ALERT
	Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
	Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
		      Re: Future probe to Pluto
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
	      Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
		Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 21:16:15 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Eggs & baskets

In article <1989Jul31.163523.28419@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Remember: space has dangerous radiation, no ozone layer, no running
>water, no breathable air.  Sure, you can shield & make your own
>consumables, but you can do that on Earth too, for a lot less money.

As Gerry O'Neill pointed out rather a long time ago -- how quickly we
forget! -- space is actually quite a benign environment in many ways.
It is not, by itself, as suited to us as the *average* conditions on
Earth's surface.  However, it is much more *controllable*; the difference
between average case and worst case is much less severe.

>I have a hard time imagining how a nuclear war or chemical pollution
>could render the Earth any less habitable than space already is.

There are areas of Earth which are already as uninhabitable as space,
for all practical purposes.  (The areas of Africa where onchocerciasis [sp?]
is really bad, for example.)  As I've pointed out in the past, an unprotected
human in a January blizzard in northern Saskatchewan -- where I grew up --
will be incapacitated and dying almost as quickly as he would be in space.
The difference is in degree, not in kind.

>Completely unbelievable.  The NASA space station is going to cost
>$30B+, and support (sort of) maybe a dozen people.  You propose
>something 1000 times larger for the same amount of money, and you want
>it to be completely self sufficient as well?  Not anytime soon, bucko.

Doesn't sound ridiculous to me.  Art Dula estimated something like $500M
for a NASA-comparable space station built and launched by the lowest
bidder (construction companies for the hardware, Glavkosmos for the
launches, no aerospace contractors need apply).  That's two orders of
magnitude already.  And sheer size costs nothing but mass -- it's the
sophistication that costs big money.  Yes, mass costs too, because it's
more expensive to launch... but budget one third of that $30G for an
aggressive attack on launch costs, and manage it right, and they will
plummet.  Self-sufficiency I am a bit less certain about, although large
size helps -- it is known that a large ecosystem can be self-sufficient
without major development costs.  (Proof by example -- look out your window.)
Doing it on a small scale is trickier, but there are encouraging signs
that it may not be that hard.  The Biosphere people should be able to
tell us within a few years.

Pushing it a bit, perhaps, yes.  But not ridiculous.  For anyone except
the government, $30G is one #@%^$ of a lot of money.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 12:34:00 EDT
From: "DENVER BRAUGHLER" <denver@nardac-nohims.arpa>
Subject: RE: Golf ball flight (correction)
To: "space" <space@andrew.cmu.edu>

>
>15 m/s up and 15 m/s horizontal gives 21 m/s at a 45 degree angle.
>the horizontal and vertical components of 30 m/s in the same direction
>are (coincidently) 21 m/s.  this gives a flight time of 4.3 seconds
>and a distance of 92 meters.  still not a very good drive.
>
>gravitional acceleration on the surface of the moon is about 1.5 m/ss.
>for the same drive, this would give a 550 m drive which is
>respectable.  don't expect to be able to do this in a space suit.
>

	Ah.  I was thinking sin 45^=0.5.  It's sin 30^=0.5.  Sin 45^=2**0.5.

Y          V=30 m/s
|         /
|       /
|     /
|   /
|/__________ X

	X=21 m/s and Y=21 m/s.  

Respectable drive?  550m is more than the 1/2 km I was guessing at!
I thought pro golfers get maybe a 250 yd *flight* on earth (on a flat driving 
range).  I thought that 30 m/s was a modest swing.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1989 13:00-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Contractors

I agree that the contractors can't produce anything "really" cheap. But
nonetheless, an Atlas built for commercial flight costs something like
30% less than a milspec Atlas. The only significant difference is the
whether there is a red dot or a blue dot on the tail end. One means
there is a paper trail that outtweighs the rocket. The other means it
is produced with "normal" levels of record keeping.

Bill Ganoe might remember the exact price differential. I think he was
at the session in Chicago where this was discussed. I was half asleep
at the time...

I would not be surprised that a competitive, non-government procurement
environment could shape up even the "Ministry of Aerospace" into low
cost production. Of course one or two might go belly up in the process,
but we won't be needing as many fighters and such in the future anyway,
so it's no great loss. And a damn big gain for cheap space access.

					Live Profitably or Die,
						Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Aug 89 16:43:24 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hp-sde!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: PHONE TREE ALERT

Dale Skran writes:
>In article <26466@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William
Baxter) writes:
>> 
>> Call Congressman Robert Roe (D-NJ) at 202/225-5751.  Ask him, as
>> chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, to hold
>> hearings on HR2674, the Space Transportation Services Purchase Act of
>> 1989, as soon as possible.
>> 
>> 
>> William Baxter
>> 
>
>I would like to remind people that although this is a good idea,
>it IS NOT an official NSS phonetree alert. In general, any posting
>from Baxter or Bowery should be regarded as representing only their
>opinions. 
>
>Dale Skran

Dale is right, the UNofficial PHONE TREE ALERTs have not been approved by
NSS "space policy experts" educated by RAND Corporation, such as Mark 
Hopkins and Scott Pace (contact most any local NSS chapter for the low-
down on these individuals) or those educated at George Washington University 
under the guidance of such NSS "luminaries" as John Logsdon whose recent 
Scientific American article on space policy briefly mentioned private launch
services only to dismiss them.  If you're a good NSS member, you wouldn't
DARE pick up your phone and contact your congressman about anything not
pre-approved by NSS (or the "National SS" as it has come to be known
by space activists subsequent to the rigging of recent Board elections).

My UNofficial PHONE TREE ALERTs are posted for the information of
those pro-space activists who want to open the space frontier as
soon as possible.  This is as opposed to the anti-space activist OFFICIAL 
PHONE TREE ALERTs which have been blessed by the OFFICIAL NSS CHAIN OF 
COMMAND, starting at the top with a board of directors which has been packed 
with aerospace contractor scum through dirty politics.  The OFFICIAL PHONE 
TREE ALERTs support NSS's de facto position of keeping the space frontier
closed as long as possible so they can continue to dangle the POTENTIAL of 
space development before the eager eyes of space enthusiasts, enlisting
their support of until the current cadre of aerospace contractor scum is 
safely in retirement.

The last thing NSS OFFICIALS want is for you to think and act independently
in a way that really changes our course from government controlled 50-year
plans to a dynamic, unpredictable explosion of space commercialization
that will put YOU into space and leave THEM all in a well-deserved oblivion.

This is particularly true now that the pro-space activists that originated
HR2674 have successfully fought off attempts by NSS OFFICIALS to "take credit"
for the bill so they can ammend it into meaninglessness.  

REMEMBER: Don't you DARE visit your Congressman in support of HR2674, unless 
you want business in space instead of aerospace contractor scum business-
as-usual.  The National SS officers might not LIKE you anymore.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 89 20:33:14 GMT
From: att!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)

<932@corpane.UUCP>
Sender: 
Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: na
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc.
Keywords: 

In article <932@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
>In article <44c0a954.71d0@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.COM (Steve Rehrauer)
>writes:
>
> >    3.  Establish a national lottery.  Let it be known that the proceeds
>You know this isn't a bad idea. Sure, the spend the night on the moon is

On second thought, it wouldn't generate enough money to buy a B2, much less
sponsor the space program. :-)

The population of the US is about 200 million. If 30% participated in the
lottery, that would be 60 million. Let's say those 60 million each spent $20 a
month on lottery tickets. That's only 14.4 billion a year. A drop in the bucket
:-)

-- 
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
|||||||||||||||          sparks@corpane.UUCP         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 
As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 15:44:10 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)

In article <44c0a954.71d0@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes:
>    1.  Send an unmanned sampler probe to the moon, capable of returning
>        about 10,000 pounds of rocks.  Grind these into minute little
>        pebbles.  Paint smiles & stick adhesive googly-eyes to each.
>        Hawk them as "Pet Loonies" for $19.95 on The Home Shopper channel.
>        Emphasize that This Is a Limited-Time Offer.

Unfortunately, this is probably a violation of one of the outer-space
treaties the US is signatory to.  (Not the infamous Moon Treaty, but one
of the older and more general ones.)  There was at one time a proposal to
run one more Apollo mission as a self-financing private venture, given that
the hardware already existed but Congress wouldn't fund its use; the treaty
argument was one of the considerations that shot it down.

(Note, violating a Senate-ratified treaty is a criminal act in the US.)
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 15:50:55 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Future probe to Pluto

In article <1052@shuxd.UUCP> starr@shuxd.UUCP (Michael L. Starr) writes:
>Unfortunately, with NASA's instance on using the Space Shuttle to launch
>everything, it'll never happen.  NASA needs to return back to the good
>old reliable (and it turns out cheaper) expendable rockets! ...

Um, please get the facts straight.  Titan, for example, was grounded at
almost the same time as the Shuttle, and for nearly as long.  And it's
not significantly cheaper, either.  (A Titan 4 launch costs something
like $120M.)  The Shuttle's big problem for planetary missions is that
it has more trouble meeting exact schedules, admittedly a non-trivial
problem.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 16:43:46 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <1989Aug4.025910.19561@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <14486@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>HST is a very heavy payload designed to be serviced by the Shuttle, which
>>cannot visit orbits higher than about 300nm under any circumstances.  Hence
>>it lives in LEO.  Welcome to the joys of "manned presence in space."
>
>Name an unmanned system, except Energia, that could do better for a payload
>that big.

Talk about a rigged question!  That's like asking "Name a baseball team,
other than the Dodgers, that's won a World Series since 1987."  The USSR
is the one with a major *unmanned* presence in space, and now they've
capped the infrastructure with Energiya, which is not slated to launch
any meat for several years.  We have virtually nothing *but* a "manned
presence" at this point, with our fleet of pretty albatrosses taking us
up and down, so of course we have no options.

Speaking of HST, there was a very interesting squib in this month's
ASTRONOMY.  Seems a team has taken the Palomar 5-meter scope to the
*diffraction limit* using optical interferometry (a technique adapted
from radio astronomy), easily splitting two different double stars with
separations of a small fraction of an arcsecond.  The performance was
equivalent to what an *ideal* 5-meter would see.  Translation: what an
*orbiting* 5-meter would see if you had the bugs out.  Oops!  I goofed.
I have been muttering about HST for some time, saying that we'd have
sharper images from right down here in 10 years anyway.  It seemed like
a safe bet.  Looks like I was too conservative.
-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 22:04:32 GMT
From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net  (John E Van Deusen III)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

I wonder if someone might be able to make use of the data that could be
collected while the space telescope is repositioning at "the speed of a
minute hand".  Such data could consist of a series of short-exposure
data sets, shifted to compensate for movement, and then added.
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865

uunet!visdc!jiii

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 89 03:49:39 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?

In article <1989Aug4.172807.27146@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>If you can use a Venus gravity assist to do a Mercury flyby, I bet you
>>could use it to do a Solar re-entry.
>
>I don't think so.  However, I have read of a proposal to use very high
>speed aeromaneuvering in the atmosphere of Venus to swing a spacecraft
>onto a sun-grazing trajectory...

This is for JPL's Starprobe idea (which I think has been renamed, but
I forget the new name).  The alternative is a Jupiter gravity assist.
But Starprobe isn't going *into* the Sun, just near it.  It's not
trivially obvious that the Starprobe ideas can be pushed far enough
to get solar impact.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 89 03:56:29 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <14517@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>  What upsets me most is that all these probes we are launching seem to be
>>completely unique.  Has no one considered the benefits of making a nice
>>standard space probe that can do Everything?  ...
>
>...The Mariner Mark II spacecraft is supposed to be a modular
>chassis onto which all sorts of mission specific hardware can be attached.
>NASA and JPL want to stop reinventing the wheel as much as anyone.

Unfortunately, Mariner Mk. 2 is not the first attempt to do this.  There
has been a depressingly long history of "multi-purpose", "modular"
spacecraft designs that get used for one or two missions and then
abandoned in favor of a different one.  I'm not sure precisely why this
is, although I can think of one obvious contributing factor, which also
operates in a lot of other government-funded areas:  standardization and
volume production means lower profits for contractors.  (And you had
better believe that contractor opinion helps sell or kill projects in
Congress.  It's not an accident that the B-1 and B-2 subcontractor
networks cover every single state in the US.)

The original concept of the Planetary Observer series was to use an
off-the-shelf commercial satellite for inner-solar-system planetary
missions, giving modest science payloads at quite low cost.  I'm not
up to date on Mars Observer's detailed configuration, but I don't
believe it has quite worked out that way...
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #615
*******************
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/MYwajKW00UkVA8rk4P>;
          Wed, 23 Aug 89 05:18:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YYwajCq00UkV88q04O@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 05:18:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #616

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 616

Today's Topics:
			 signature wars! :-)
		Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?
		      shuttle vs. heavy boosters
		     Re: Public Interest in Space
			    going to Pluto
		 Re: exploding Saturns, lack thereof
			    Re: Satellites
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
			     Face on Mars
			    Re: Satellites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 89 04:01:33 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: signature wars! :-)

In article <14517@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
>	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

Say what?  Your fathers walked on the Moon.  *You* haven't, and can't.
"When we dropped it, it broke."
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 08:36:37 GMT
From: sgi!shinobu!odin!sgi.com!scotth@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Scott Henry)
Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?


On 4 Aug 89 02:45:51 GMT,
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) said:

hs> In article <24.Jul.89.09:32:31.BST.ZZASSGL@UK.AC.MCC.CMS> ZZASSGL@cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.UK writes:
>OK, What is the "Solar Impact Mission"  and why is it so hard to
>hit the Sun? After all we have already had close ups of Mercury.

hs> I don't particularly remember hearing about this one, but almost certainly
hs> it's a mission to go straight down into the Sun, doing some observations on
hs> the way.  The hard part is that to do it, you have to kill *all* Earth's
hs> orbital velocity, which is about 50 km/s.  A Saturn V could have dropped a
hs> couple of hundred kg into the Sun, as I recall.  The shuttle, forget it,
hs> unless you use in-orbit assembly.  A beefed-up Energia with about four
hs> upper stages could probably put a modest probe into the Sun.  Advanced
hs> propulsion technologies would really help.

I remember reading about this type of mission in an astrodymanics book:
You use a Jupiter gravity (un)assist: you go "backwards" around Jupiter to
kill your solar-orbital velocity. You can even get the spacecraft into a
substantially retrograde solar orbit by trading off travel time to Jupiter
(longer travel time -> more retrograde), and a smaller miss parameter at
Jupiter encounter. If the spacecraft is intended to function close to the
solar surface, the radiation environment at Jupiter should be mild by
comparison... 

--
      Scott Henry <scotth@corp.sgi.com>
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 89 03:46:09 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: shuttle vs. heavy boosters

In article <700@larry.sal.wisc.edu> jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu.UUCP (Jeffrey W Percival) writes:
>>>Welcome to the joys of "manned presence in space."
>>Name an unmanned system, except Energia, that could do better for a payload
>>that big.
>
>Ah, but maybe without the emphasis on manned shuttles, we could have
>named such a thing.

Really?  How would that have come about?  I can't see it.  The only reason
the Shuttle is as *big* as it is was the USAF involvement, and the USAF
wouldn't have gotten involved if it had promised to be just another
expendable -- the USAF already had its own expendables, remember, and
was very reluctant to give them up for a NASA-controlled system.  (In
the end, it managed to keep them anyway, after fouling up the shuttle
design fairly seriously first.)

I would welcome an explanation of how a heavylift booster would have
come about in the absence of the shuttle.  I can't see any way myself.
The Saturn V, the obvious choice, was shelved because Congress wouldn't
fund any further production or use of it.  (There was no shortage of
ideas for missions to use it, both in a general sense and in the specific
sense of Saturn Vs numbers AS-514 and AS-515 -- the last two heavylift
boosters the US built -- which now have pigeons nesting in their engines.)
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 19:39:20 GMT
From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net  (John E Van Deusen III)
Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space

In article <1989Jul30.194038.2343@cs.rochester.edu>
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
> ... If the average American has no enthusiasm for space at all, how
> can you explain all of the mass media Apollo 11 Anniversary Specials?
> The media doesn't do such things unless they expect a lot of people to
> watch.

I believe that the media *thought* that they could some how exploit the
fact that we went to the moon twenty years ago and then didn't do
anything nearly that ambitious again.  The probable logic was that
people under thirty might "be amazed".  Well, the networks have been
wrong before, and they will be wrong again.

The real problem is that the media producers are for the most part under
thirty themselves, and they didn't have access to an important piece of
information that many of us "oldsters" recall.  To quote Norman Mailer,
"They [NASA] actually succeeded in making going to the moon boring".
Even with color footage substituted from a later mission, it took barely
ten seconds of watching for it all to come back to me: "Space ship
sitting on the moon; dead silence; nothing; crackle; nothing; Uh, Roger;
nothing; ..." -- *click*.

> I think the real problem is that the emotions which space exploration
> stimulates (wonder, excitement, and exhilaration) are not considered
> valid emotions for adult behavior in general and public policy in
> particular.  The socially acceptable emotional motivations for public
> policy are primarily fear (of the Soviets, nuclear war, the greenhouse
> effect, the budget deficit, the trade deficit, and crime), guilt
> (about the homeless, the poor, and the third world), and
> self-righteousness (in regard to money, sex, illegal drugs, insider
> trading, political ethics, and flag burning).

It is clear from this that manned space exploration buffs are Walter
Mittyish escapists.  Catch the tail of that comet.  Once we begin to
mine the asteroids, all our problems will melt away.

The hard fact is that manned space exploration is dangerous, stupid, and
obscenely expensive.  The harder fact is that we have already blown all
our money.  When the President says, "We're going to the moon to
establish a permanent presence, and we are following this by a manned
mission to Mars, and now Dan Quayle will explain how we are going to pay
for it.", the man is clearly trying to let you down easy.

Let us consider just one manned space project, the space station.  Keep
in mind that the current defense budget for protecting the US, Europe,
and Japan from the world's economic basket case, Russia, is 305 billion
dollars.  Add to that the 50 billion needed, just this year, to insure
the continued existence of ailing S&Ls, most of which are located in the
President's home state.  Given those problems, one might wonder why we
would be building a space station?  Our government must really be
committed to advancing the frontiers, right?  Actually the space station
is a last-ditch effort to stave off a major depression in the military-
industrial complex.  It is the only way that the elected officials of
the affected states, such as California, will allow the administration
to even consider further arms reduction treaties.  You can't get 305
billion dollars a year from the American tax payers to counter the
threat posed by few-dozen, sun-crazed mullahs.

Regardless of the motivation for building the space station, will it be
built?  I think not.  It is now projected that there is a 78% chance
that one of the space shuttle turkeys will blow up before the project is
completed.  There are people screaming in congress right now that we
have to build another shuttle, in addition to the replacement for
Challenger (for which school children sent in their lunch money),
because the project can't be completed with only three shuttles.  Well
I'm sorry, but when the next shuttle blows up, that will be it for
manned space exploration.  The partially-finished, derelict hulk will
just drift around and around.  This fact is so obvious that I really
doubt that anyone will actually put anything up.  Especially since there
is plenty of good money to be made just studying the thing to death.

It once was said that America could make one of something, the Germans
ten, the Japanese a thousand, and so on.  The things we make in America
are now so fantastically wonderful, take for instance SDI, that it is no
longer necessary (or even possible) for us to make even one.  The B2 may
go down in history as the last fantastic, one-of-a-kind, horribly
expensive, stupid thing that we ever made.  A small consolation.
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865

uunet!visdc!jiii

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Aug 89 03:35 EST
From: KROVETZ@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: going to Pluto

If we wanted to send a spacecraft to Pluto, what would be the
earliest date we could reach it (given current technology)?
I assume a fly-by of Jupiter would shorten the trip (with 
respect to a direct flight), but by how much?  Would going
via a third planet, perhaps prior to Jupiter, make the trip
any shorter?

Thanks,
Bob

krovetz@cs.umass.edu (internet) or
krovetz@umass (bitnet)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 15:50:52 GMT
From: sco!hiramc@uunet.uu.net  (Hiram Clawson)
Subject: Re: exploding Saturns, lack thereof

In article <1989Aug4.051836.22429@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <2311@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> bpd@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Brian P. Dickson) writes:
.>In the motion picture _Koyaniskaaski_ (sp?), there is a five minute
.>sequence at the end, where what appears to be a Saturn V is launched,
.>and in one continuous shot, explodes, with the camera following one
.>of the enormous engines for a very long time. Does anyone (Henry?) know
.>which vehicle this was, and why it detonated? ...

As Henry Spencer explained, there were no Saturn V's that exploded.
I remember Koyannisquatsi (sp?), and what you are seeing is the
spent first stage, just as Henry explains its appearance.

--Hiram  (uunet!sco!hiramc  ||  hiramc@sco.COM)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 15:44:26 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!axion!vision!simon@uunet.uu.net  (Simon Taylor)
Subject: Re: Satellites

In article <1497@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:
>
>[...stuff about watching satellites deleted....]

>A good book on visual satellite spotting is "Observing Earth
>Satellites" by Desmond King-Hele, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1983, 184
>pp hardcover.  You can order it from Sky Publishing (i.e. Sky &
>Telescope), Cambridge, MA, 617-864-7360 for about $16.50.


	I called Sky Publishing today, they said this book was out of
	print, does anyone know of any other similar publications, and
	where I can get them.

		Thanks in advance

			Simon Taylor


--
Simon Taylor                    UUCP    : simon@vision.uucp
VisionWare Ltd                  BANGNET : ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!vision!simon
Systime House                   PHONE   : +44 532 529292 Ex. 2458
Leeds Business Park             FAX     : +44 532 526614
Leeds LS27 0JG                  TELEX   : 556283 SYSTIM G
England

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 89 20:24:38 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

It's hard to standardize on a platform when you wait decades between
programs.  The MM2 concentrates on propulsion and communications, I
think, with no specific commitment to one kind of, say, camera or
magnetometer, so it should be good for a while.  At this rate it had
better be...
-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 23:04:00 GMT
From: cica!ctrsol!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!indri!pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!paranet!mcorbin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Face on Mars

I am curious to know if anyone has any information about the 
Soviets finding an unusual anomaly on Phobos as recounted in an 
AP story.


THE FOLLOWING NEWS ITEM APPEARED ON AP (ASSOCIATED PRESS) AT
4:41 PM EST MARCH 30, 1989:
.
"SOVIET RESEARCH CENTERS ARE NOW TRYING TO INTERPRET SO FAR
'UNEXPLAINED OPTICAL PHONOMENA' ON THE PICTURES OF THE MARTIAN
SURFACE.  THE PICTURES SHOW AN INIGMATIC STRIP 23-25 MILES
WIDE AND A LARGE SPINDLE-SHAPED FORMATION."
.
According to NASA liason spokepersons in Moscow, the Soviets
had not turned on their camera and WERE NOT even taking
pictures of the Martian surface.  This is the information
which was relayed only a few weeks ago.  AP also stated
that the Soviet news program "Vremya" showed a detailed
map of Mars "compiled from photos taken during the mission."
It DOES now appear that the Soviets WERE taking pictures and
furthermore, it looks like they may have found something
in those photographs which is quite interesting.
.
=============================================================
Uploaded by Martin Arant on ParaNet Alpha
(303)431-1343

Mike

--  
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 89 22:49:00 GMT
From: cica!ctrsol!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!indri!pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!paranet!mcorbin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Satellites


 > From: kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM (Kendall Auel;685-2425;61-
 > 028;;pooter)
 > Date: 31 Jul 89 16:47:22 GMT
 > Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR
 > Message-ID: <4067@orca.WV.TEK.COM>
 > Newsgroups: sci.space
 >
 > In article <30.24D154EA@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
 > mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes:
 > >I am new to this newsgroup and am curious about something that I
 > >have seen in the night sky.
 > >
 > >I have noticed a variety of objects which appear to be the size
 > >of a medium star moving in different directions across the sky.
 > >Some of them are probably satellites, however there have been a
 > >few which pulse or flash very intensely at times and do not seem
 > >to be rythmic.  Could anyone enlighten me on what these objects
 > >could be?
 > >
 >
 > I think it is unlikely that what you are seeing are
 > satellites.  What you
 > are probably seeing instead are passenger jets passing by
 > at high altitudes.
 > You generally won't hear them, and the pulsing or flashing
 > can be caused
 > by a couple of things.  First of all, some of the lights
 > are directional,
 > so that as the aircraft passes by, you will see varying
 > degrees of brightness.
 > Also, there are strobe lights on the tail and wings, I
 > believe, that flash
 > at a regular interval.
I have clearly identified passenger jets as I use a pair of 10X50 
binoculars and a 6" Celestron Telescope.  What I am seeing is not 
these objects.

 > Here's my one and only UFO encounter:  I was looking out to
 > the horizon one
 > evening and saw a star.  So, I made a wish.  Over about ten
 > minute's time,
 > I noticed that the star seemed to be getting brighter.  I
 > went inside and
 > got my sister to come out a take a look at it.  As we
 > watched, it did indeed
 > get brighter.  It was completely stationary, because it was
 > just to one
 > side of a large tree and remained a constant distance from
 > it.  We went
 > inside again and got the rest of the family to come out and
 > watch it.  There
 > was a lot of conjecture about what it was.  We talked about
 > super-novas and
 > satellites, and even UFO's.  As we sat and watched and
 > talked (about another
 > 15 minutes), the object got brighter and brighter, and
 > stayed in its fixed
 > position.  Suddenly, it started moving upward, slowly then
 > faster and faster.
 > At the same time it got very bright, almost hard to look
 > at.  Then came
 > a thunderous scream as an F-4 phantom jet flew directly
 > over our heads at
 > low altitude.  Wow!
Very interesting report Kendall.  Perhaps you should send me net 
mail at mcorbin@paranet.fidonet.org so we can discuss this 
further.

Mike

--  
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #616
*******************
Return-Path: <@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Sep 89 23:27:40 EDT
Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05153> for Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu; Sat, 2 Sep 89 23:26:38 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu;
 Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:26:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.8Z09WPa00UkTA2OEE2>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.oZ09SF:00VA:E8P05v>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/.Outgoing/QF.gZ09MBO00VA:I8ClZi>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:10:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.10.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3.35
          via MS.5.6.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3_35;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:09:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <kZ09Lxm00VA_E8ClMG@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:09:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Todd L. Masco" <tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #617
X-Kibology: Allowed

(Moderator's Note:  This, and the following messages, are the
"missing" issues from when the digest stopped for several days, due to
administrative problems.  I have digestified these by hand, so there
are probably a few errors, caused by less-than-discriminant use of
grep -v.  For this, I apologize.
        The issues that will (hopefully) be running continuously from
V10 are post-hiatus; V9 #617+ are the "missing" issues.  These issues,
because they were done by hand, are not exactly the same size that you
are probably used to.  Again, my apologize for the lower quality of
these "missing" issues.
        Comments, as always, can be sent to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu, or
space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu.
        Thanks for your (imagined?) patience.

                -- Todd Masco
                   Maintainer, Space Digest)



                         SPACE Digest V9 #617
                         --------------------
		       Subject: Re: Satellites
			Subject: Face on Mars
	    Subject: Re: Circumstances of Koopman's death
	       Subject: Re: shuttle vs. heavy boosters
	 Subject: Bush's Speech -- anyone still need a copy?
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
		  Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #583
		  Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #582
		Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space
		  Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #584
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
		     Subject: Re: going to Pluto
		  Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins

------------------------------
From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Satellites
Date: 4 Aug 89 22:49:00 GMT


 > From: kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM (Kendall Auel;685-2425;61-
 > 028;;pooter)
 > Date: 31 Jul 89 16:47:22 GMT
 >
 > In article <30.24D154EA@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
 > mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes:
 > >I am new to this newsgroup and am curious about something that I
 > >have seen in the night sky.
 > >
 > >I have noticed a variety of objects which appear to be the size
 > >of a medium star moving in different directions across the sky.
 > >Some of them are probably satellites, however there have been a
 > >few which pulse or flash very intensely at times and do not seem
 > >to be rythmic.  Could anyone enlighten me on what these objects
 > >could be?
 > >
 >
 > I think it is unlikely that what you are seeing are
 > satellites.  What you
 > are probably seeing instead are passenger jets passing by
 > at high altitudes.
 > You generally won't hear them, and the pulsing or flashing
 > can be caused
 > by a couple of things.  First of all, some of the lights
 > are directional,
 > so that as the aircraft passes by, you will see varying
 > degrees of brightness.
 > Also, there are strobe lights on the tail and wings, I
 > believe, that flash
 > at a regular interval.
I have clearly identified passenger jets as I use a pair of 10X50 
binoculars and a 6" Celestron Telescope.  What I am seeing is not 
these objects.

 > Here's my one and only UFO encounter:  I was looking out to
 > the horizon one
 > evening and saw a star.  So, I made a wish.  Over about ten
 > minute's time,
 > I noticed that the star seemed to be getting brighter.  I
 > went inside and
 > got my sister to come out a take a look at it.  As we
 > watched, it did indeed
 > get brighter.  It was completely stationary, because it was
 > just to one
 > side of a large tree and remained a constant distance from
 > it.  We went
 > inside again and got the rest of the family to come out and
 > watch it.  There
 > was a lot of conjecture about what it was.  We talked about
 > super-novas and
 > satellites, and even UFO's.  As we sat and watched and
 > talked (about another
 > 15 minutes), the object got brighter and brighter, and
 > stayed in its fixed
 > position.  Suddenly, it started moving upward, slowly then
 > faster and faster.
 > At the same time it got very bright, almost hard to look
 > at.  Then came
 > a thunderous scream as an F-4 phantom jet flew directly
 > over our heads at
 > low altitude.  Wow!
Very interesting report Kendall.  Perhaps you should send me net 
mail at mcorbin@paranet.fidonet.org so we can discuss this 
further.

Mike

--  
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
------------------------------

From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Face on Mars
Date: 4 Aug 89 23:04:00 GMT

I am curious to know if anyone has any information about the 
Soviets finding an unusual anomaly on Phobos as recounted in an 
AP story.


THE FOLLOWING NEWS ITEM APPEARED ON AP (ASSOCIATED PRESS) AT
4:41 PM EST MARCH 30, 1989:
.
"SOVIET RESEARCH CENTERS ARE NOW TRYING TO INTERPRET SO FAR
'UNEXPLAINED OPTICAL PHONOMENA' ON THE PICTURES OF THE MARTIAN
SURFACE.  THE PICTURES SHOW AN INIGMATIC STRIP 23-25 MILES
WIDE AND A LARGE SPINDLE-SHAPED FORMATION."
.
According to NASA liason spokepersons in Moscow, the Soviets
had not turned on their camera and WERE NOT even taking
pictures of the Martian surface.  This is the information
which was relayed only a few weeks ago.  AP also stated
that the Soviet news program "Vremya" showed a detailed
map of Mars "compiled from photos taken during the mission."
It DOES now appear that the Soviets WERE taking pictures and
furthermore, it looks like they may have found something
in those photographs which is quite interesting.
.
=============================================================
Uploaded by Martin Arant on ParaNet Alpha
(303)431-1343

Mike

--  
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
------------------------------

From: EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Re: Circumstances of Koopman's death
Date: 5 Aug 89 19:33:06 GMT

In article <8908012158.AA03853@trout.nosc.mil>, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Here are some of the circumstances of George Koopman's death:
>He is pronounced dead at the scene.  I'm not sure what the status
>is of AMROC's lawsuit against NASA after all this.
>Has anyone seen a police report?  Did the coroner's report do
>thorough testing for psychoactive substances?
>Basically, I want to see the possibility of foul play eliminated.

Jim, I've ignored your anti-NASA cracks for some time, but I can't do
so any longer.  This time, you've gone too far.

Are you so desparate to discredit our nation's space agency that you
turn to unfounded accusations of murder?!

George Koopman's death was a great loss.  He was a friend, and a great
entrepreneur - a man with vision and courage.  And I was deeply distressed
to hear that he had passed on.

But when you try to use his death as another of your propaganda weapons
against NASA, I'm afraid I can't remain silent any longer.

I know you'd like nothing better than to entertain and broadcast your
paranoid fantasies about murdering NASA bureaucrats, but I can't let
the death of a friend be your excuse to do that.

George was a doer - he built Amroc from the ground up through his long
hours and sweat.  His criticisms of NASA's space transportation policy
were well known, but he spoke eloquently of NASA's role in exploration.
He served on the Board of the National Space Society, and carried with
him a hope for our future in space.

And I'm sure that if he could hear you now, Jim, he'd be mad as hell,
because you're using his death as another attempt to demean the entire
space program of the United States of America.

If you're so concerned about private enterprise in space, and if you're so
sure that there's money to be made there, then I challenge you to do what
George Koopman did:

I challenge you to start your own firm to develop the space frontier.

George deserves our eternal gratitude for the positive contribution he made
to the space transportation industry.

He doesn't deserve being used as a tool in your personal anti-NASA slander
campaign.

- ERIC -

Eric W. Tilenius     | Princeton Planetary Soc. | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Quadrangle Club      | 315 West College         | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
33 Prospect Avenue   | Princeton University     | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540  | Princeton, NJ  08544     | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411         | 516-424-2298             | DELPHI:  TILENIUS
------------------------------

From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: shuttle vs. heavy boosters
Date: 5 Aug 89 20:20:43 GMT

In article <1989Aug5.034609.17175@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I would welcome an explanation of how a heavylift booster would have
>come about in the absence of the shuttle.  I can't see any way myself. ...

Military.

-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
------------------------------

From: EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Bush's Speech -- anyone still need a copy?
Date: 5 Aug 89 20:18:09 GMT
Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for contents of this article

I recently posted Bush's speech calling for new space goals on the net, along
with a press briefing by NASA Administrator Truly.

What reaction do people have to Bush's speech?

I felt it was a bit, well, "wimpy", but the best thing we've gotten out
of a President in recent years.  It deserves support - we should all write
letters to the papers, our Congresscritters, etc. in support of a lunar base
and Mars mission as the President outlined.

If anyone needs a copy of the speech, just send me mail.

- ERIC -

Eric W. Tilenius     | Princeton Planetary Soc. | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET
Quadrangle Club      | 315 West College         | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
33 Prospect Avenue   | Princeton University     | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540  | Princeton, NJ  08544     | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411         | 516-424-2298             | DELPHI:  TILENIUS
------------------------------

From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
Date: 5 Aug 89 20:24:38 GMT

It's hard to standardize on a platform when you wait decades between
programs.  The MM2 concentrates on propulsion and communications, I
think, with no specific commitment to one kind of, say, camera or
magnetometer, so it should be good for a while.  At this rate it had
better be...
-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
------------------------------

From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #583
Date: 5 Aug 89 21:20:00 GMT

> a duck's back.  There is a point where people just regard things as noise
> and that point is reached very quickly by people reading who have work
> to do (unless you have a news window on a multiwindow workstation).
> So Henry has pushed most people's internal button's too far and lost
> credibility.

If you change the ordering, this fits my feelings as well. If a NASA
spokesman made a statement, and Henry made a statement, guess which one
@i(I) would believe...

It ain't the one with an acronym for a name.

That organization lost most of it's credibility with me years ago.

I'll listen to Henry because I prefer listening to someone who knows
what they are talking about and aren't muzzled by a CYA bureaucracy.

(No offense intended Gene, you're one of the good guys in my book)
------------------------------

From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #582
Date: 5 Aug 89 21:09:00 GMT

great business opportunity, some capitalist would be out there building
> "fighters" and making a lot of money.  Since that isn't happening, maybe
> this isn't a great business opportunity. So the market isn't allocating
> resources to it.

This might well be a true statement. If there weren't governments
pushing them, there might be an awful lot less high tech weaponry being
built....

This is supposed to be bad????

				Ad Astra, privately
				Dale Amon
------------------------------

From: david@psitech.UUCP (david Fridley)
Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space
Date: 5 Aug 89 21:50:00 GMT

It is interesting that news on sci.space can turn into something that is more
appropriate for talk.politics.

I am infavor of a private space program, because I believe that most people
(read the government) are not but I think that enough people are interested
to get it done.  Further, I am willing to put money where my mouth is, it
is just that my meger salary will not support a space program.  WE WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN A PRIVATE SPACE PROGRAM MUST ORGANIZE. Are there enough 
interested persons to do it?  Those who are not interested, do not have to
participate.  If we die, we die.  If the dream dies, it's a loss for our
children, and our race.

This is beside the point but:

If we participated in a joint space program with the countries which we are
arming ourselve against and matched each other dollor for dollar, and made
a competition out of putting in the most effort (read dollars) then we could
have a very health world space program, and we would stop wasting money on
weapons that we hope we will never use anyway.

It's beside the point because while we are maturing technologically very
rapidly now, we aren't maturing socially any faster.



-- 
david.
DISCLAIMER: If it's important have a backup.  If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Proceed at your own risk.  My oponions are MY own.  Spelling does not count.
My fondest dream is to leave this planet.
------------------------------

From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #584
Date: 5 Aug 89 21:36:00 GMT

> Which firm was building those mixers? I bet that it is a private company.
> If confirmed, this is one more reason to doubt about the validity of the "private"
> approach.

I think you should ask what the engines are for. I'd not be much
surprised if you found something to do with National Security or some
form of underhanded political pressure involved.

If there is a breach of contract, then I have little doubt that damages
can be recovered, and SHOULD BE RECOVERED. Ever hear of "liquidated
damages" clauses in contracts with specified delivery dates?

> If Arianespace had had a contract with the NASA or with another
> government or official agency, it would have been respected. But what can you
> expect from a private compagny who does not respect commercial
> contracts?

Can you say "International Solar Polar Mission"?

I'm sure Henry will give us the rest of the list of the ways the US
Government has broken it's word and screwed Europe and others before.

Keep in mind that "private" does not mean "impervious to government
threats".
------------------------------

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
Date: 6 Aug 89 00:10:54 GMT

In article <14484@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>I just frankly think the other stuff, the "our generation is GOING"
>horse****, is just another regrettable 70's artifact of overenthusiasm,
>like Rolfing and est.  Columbus's generation didn't "GO" either, in
>numbers any more significant than our space specialists have gone.  That
>analogy is fairly flawed so I won't push it.  :-)

It's especially flawed because a number of them *did*, in modest ways --
there were European fishermen working the Grand Banks off Newfoundland
routinely not very long after Columbus.  (Don't have exact dates on hand.)
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
------------------------------

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: going to Pluto
Date: 5 Aug 89 22:57:55 GMT

In article <8908050733.AA05877@crash.cs.umass.edu> KROVETZ@cs.umass.edu writes:
>I assume a fly-by of Jupiter would shorten the trip (with 
>respect to a direct flight), but by how much?  

Infinite.  We cannot reach Pluto without a Jupiter flyby.  Unless you stack
a bunch of upper stages on Energia, or do in-orbit assembly, current boosters
can get useful payloads to Venus, Mars, and (barely) Jupiter.  Period.  To
reach Mercury or the planets out beyond Jupiter, gravity assist is vital.

>Would going
>via a third planet, perhaps prior to Jupiter, make the trip
>any shorter?

Jupiter-Saturn gravity assist can speed things up, but everything needs to
be in *just* the right place, which is why there is no possibility of
another Voyager 2 for a century or two.  Going to another planet before
Jupiter can make impossible missions possible, as witness launching Galileo
without Centaur, but it tends to lengthen travel time.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
------------------------------

From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins
Date: 6 Aug 89 01:33:27 GMT


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of
these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.  This week's elements are
provided below.  The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300,
1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

- Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #549 -
Alouette 1 
1 00424U          89212.53474140 0.00000144           16353-3 0  2251
2 00424  80.4626 242.1478 0024006  20.3307 339.8790 13.67173898338874
Centaur 2  
1 00694U 63047  A 89206.35757999  .00003536  00000-0  56729-3 0  7872
2 00694  30.3919 283.5648 0736884 319.8427  34.9862 13.66438885266000
SOLRAD R/B 
1 00727U 64001  A 89205.95482766  .00000149  00000-0  14510-3 0  2809
2 00727  69.9013  14.6705 0012349  43.2838 316.9236 13.93555572298358
Pegasus R/B
1 01385U 65039  B 89189.13151924  .10923841 -14676-4  14624-3 0  1383
2 01385  31.7255 352.5213 0000010 357.0342   4.4419 16.49499117327733
Cos 185 R/B
1 03019U 67104  B 89198.54646773  .00004760  00000-0  32780-3 0  3891
2 03019  64.0624  18.9846 0219843 225.3173 132.9859 14.89572043109609
ATS 3      
1 03029U 67111  A 89202.52779542 -.00000075  00000-0  99999-4 0  2379
2 03029  12.7980  24.0026 0014083 169.0457 191.0927  1.00275153 79486
Cosmos 398 
1 04966U 71 16  A 89206.64929498  .00093696  00000-0  61161-3 0  8569
2 04966  51.5633 303.6136 2508695 278.0725  54.7228 10.54827098556444
LAGEOS     
1 08820U          89213.97557767 0.00000005                   0  8390
2 08820 109.8368 245.7675 0045056 306.3319  53.3353  6.38664114 53555
GOES 2     
1 10061U          89193.69270730 -.00000018                   0  2869
2 10061   7.2367  67.9134 0005870  97.5785 262.2768  1.00279674  5639
GPS-0001   
1 10684U          89210.83627740 0.00000010           10000-3 0  1756
2 10684  63.5771  99.3978 0107862 198.8024 160.8443  2.00560212 69381
GPS-0002   
1 10893U          89211.29518689 -.00000027                   0   168
2 10893  64.4983 340.3548 0154352  28.1102 332.7039  2.00554910 82214
GOES 3     
1 10953U          89209.70338711 0.00000087           10000-3 0  6957
2 10953   6.1827  70.1813 0008252 256.5055 103.3328  1.00276364  1357
SeaSat 1   
1 10967U          89212.01565360 0.00000786           32035-3 0  1472
2 10967 108.0162  17.8746 0001994 232.9827 127.1052 14.34743738580377
GPS-0003   
1 11054U          89210.61023469 -.00000027                   0   788
2 11054  64.2456 336.7561 0057103 115.5063 245.1188  2.00561312 79216
GPS-0004   
1 11141U          89212.20531610 0.00000010                   0  1854
2 11141  63.4602  99.2022 0051406 326.1512  33.7373  2.00570309 77940
NOAA 6     
1 11416U          89207.42352370 0.00000775           34108-3 0  8766
2 11416  98.5094 203.3500 0012523   0.7878 359.3299 14.25883233523498
Solar Max  
1 11703U          89212.53338578 0.00053246           67693-3 0   406
2 11703  28.5048 324.6227 0001609 204.5373 155.5173 15.57958627526754
GPS-0006   
1 11783U          89211.66428526 -.00000027                   0  9404
2 11783  63.9179 336.4099 0143203  62.0247 299.3432  2.00568619 67872
GOES 4     
1 11964U          89198.09971664 -.00000043                   0   625
2 11964   5.5456  73.3388 0033164  94.9307 265.3600  0.99228861  2323
GOES 5     
1 12472U          89208.54257151 -.00000255                   0  7442
2 12472   2.6653  78.5917 0151911 347.0347  11.6843  1.00463395 28995
SME        
1 12887U 81100  A 89206.58419930  .00013678  00000-0  46621-3 0  2529
2 12887  97.6826 233.9447 0003634 100.2752 259.8830 15.30491991431028
UOSAT 1    
1 12888U          89211.60922340 0.00095924           81637-3 0  6560
2 12888  97.5517 268.3271 0001855 321.5136  38.5992 15.69284058435783
Meteor 2-08
1 13113U          89204.00241408 0.00000167           14110-3 0  6564
2 13113  82.5370  30.2903 0015066 327.4850  32.5383 13.84020055370192
Salyut 7   
1 13138U          89212.62292368 0.00014574           32914-3 0  6849
2 13138  51.6103  99.5738 0001213 157.5510 202.5685 15.43425822415055
LandSat 4  
1 13367U 82 72  A 89205.44037998  .00001470  00000-0  33597-3 0   338
2 13367  98.2087 268.5451 0004022  88.6953 271.4872 14.57116273373577
Meteor 2-09
1 13718U          89208.59998527 0.00000295           14953-3 0  7999
2 13718  81.2443 242.0120 0054627 243.7453 115.8099 14.13245130341260
IRAS       
1 13777U          89199.57374005 -.00000334          -22041-3 0  6598
2 13777  99.0426  36.2509 0012030 223.9617 136.0646 13.98617482   306
TDRS 1     
1 13969U 83 26  B 89193.61106535 -.00000183  00000-0  00000 0 0  8197
2 13969   3.6420  68.4417 0002893 137.6679 225.5675  1.00123858 89665
GOES 6     
1 14050U          89206.75905511 0.00000111                   0  9955
2 14050   1.3909  82.4789 0001991 115.3211 244.4471  1.00290553  6991
OSCAR 10   
1 14129U          89206.96629669 -.00000046                   0  4180
2 14129  26.0683 253.1148 6053622  61.9792 345.8051  2.05881470 18017
GPS-0008   
1 14189U          89211.75219444 0.00000010           10000-3 0  6496
2 14189  63.2043  97.9962 0136694 215.3743 143.7747  2.00567582 44319
Meteor 2-10
1 14452U          89208.64005844 0.00000433           18118-3 0  7533
2 14452  81.1644 253.0093 0095147 340.9132  18.8484 14.22262383298298
LandSat 5  
1 14780U          89214.25990972 0.00000604           14381-3 0  8524
2 14780  98.1650 275.6152 0003912  94.9718 265.1930 14.57138240288270
UOSAT 2    
1 14781U          89208.64944038 0.00001438           28416-3 0  4844
2 14781  98.0024 266.2744 0012575 188.6725 171.4234 14.63789272288463
LDEF       
1 14898U          89211.33334513 0.00025357           37664-3 0  9211
2 14898  28.5037 232.1401 0000893  47.9640 312.0900 15.53709888298165
GPS-0009   
1 15039U          89211.31371182 0.00000009                   0  7091
2 15039  62.6503  97.2863 0019881 216.2137 143.8408  2.00562832 37585
Meteor 2-11
1 15099U          89198.39046606 0.00000145           12119-3 0  9573
2 15099  82.5295 342.3507 0013080 147.4673 212.7293 13.83679414254299
GPS-0010   
1 15271U          89213.70723764 -.00000027                   0  6822
2 15271  63.3479 336.0797 0099961 321.1049  38.2826  2.00566694 34744
Cosmos 1602
1 15331U          89213.24232284 0.00001485           21250-3 0   590
2 15331  82.5399 296.8601 0022883 300.9802  58.9146 14.75849998260867
NOAA 9     
1 15427U 84123  A 89206.04322239  .00000406  00000-0  24246-3 0  4083
2 15427  99.1460 193.7325 0014650 204.3023 155.7455 14.12094945237799
Meteor 2-12
1 15516U          89207.13375672 0.00000342           29741-3 0  1017
2 15516  82.5351 273.7816 0017360  11.4121 348.7426 13.84147096226440
Cosmos 1686
1 16095U          89212.94665263 0.00020616           46125-3 0  3241
2 16095  51.6077  97.9804 0002688 154.0245 206.0375 15.43435096216205
GPS-0011   
1 16129U          89211.86814269 0.00000010                   0  3436
2 16129  63.7270  97.9345 0118094 149.6937 211.0568  2.00563681 27918
Meteor 3-1 
1 16191U          89206.95554602 0.00000043           10000-3 0  8426
2 16191  82.5460 208.3244 0019006 199.6524 160.3871 13.16870916180625
Meteor 2-13
1 16408U          89206.99972694 0.00000106           89651-4 0  5163
2 16408  82.5352 188.7490 0015552 187.0782 173.0155 13.84191596180923
Mir        
1 16609U          89212.64545487 0.00027379           36674-3 0  9689
2 16609  51.6201 141.0746 0009449 218.1341 141.8965 15.57728565198090
SPOT 1     
1 16613U          89214.09712687 0.00000453           23076-3 0  5461
2 16613  98.7371 288.0565 0001639  70.5988 289.5425 14.20038939 18647
Meteor 2-14
1 16735U          89206.97967397 0.00000104           88258-4 0  3100
2 16735  82.5352 215.6017 0012718 264.4813  95.4898 13.83939123159828
Cosmos 1766
1 16881U          89214.03857862 0.00001273           18335-3 0  6843
2 16881  82.5249 355.5966 0022111 314.2650  45.6766 14.75458837162053
EGP        
1 16908U          89202.18032835 -.00000038           77810-5 0  1479
2 16908  50.0064 193.5888 0011257  74.2487 285.9588 12.44379520133640
FO-12      
1 16909U          89197.10014353 -.00000025           10000-3 0  1630
2 16909  50.0167 209.4498 0011078  60.4152 299.7766 12.44400597133006
NOAA 10    
1 16969U          89209.28498944 0.00000541           25656-3 0  2558
2 16969  98.6371 238.9936 0014140 127.5293 232.7166 14.23100662149787
Meteor 2-15
1 17290U          89210.38427611 0.00000150           12631-3 0  2760
2 17290  82.4689 119.9484 0013127 133.7184 226.5067 13.83742690129457
MOS-1      
1 17527U 87 18  A 89205.33378304  .00000295  00000-0  24544-3 0  1946
2 17527  99.1462 276.4726 0000698  69.3560 290.7742 13.94834855123558
GOES 7     
1 17561U          89205.43300462 -.00000110                   0  3070
2 17561   0.2328 182.4103 0005071 293.0318 244.6022  1.00300592  2131
Kvant      
1 17845U          89212.90208139 0.00027713           37108-3 0  8247
2 17845  51.6192 139.7837 0009505 224.5703 135.5175 15.57729041134401
DMSP B5D2-3
1 18123U 87 53  A 89206.01693882  .00000347  00000-0  20402-3 0  3528
2 18123  98.8254  36.0205 0013398 234.5993 125.3930 14.13476591108179
RS-10/11   
1 18129U          89212.00620697 0.00000009           31805-5 0  8329
2 18129  82.9237 205.7823 0010415 293.6055  66.4044 13.71992636105403
Cosmos 1867
1 18187U 87 60  A 89205.90451262  .00000119  00000-0  64312-4 0  8922
2 18187  65.0130 277.2514 0019504 255.5146 104.3735 14.29385133106512
Meteor 2-16
1 18312U          89209.99711656 0.00000219           18868-3 0  2973
2 18312  82.5555 186.4079 0014314  79.8591 280.4166 13.83494687 98292
Meteor 2-17
1 18820U          89207.13648365 0.00000164           13700-3 0  1368
2 18820  82.5427 249.6004 0017040 155.3495 204.8470 13.84186232 75070
DMSP B5D2-4
1 18822U 88  6  A 89205.75001365  .00000514  00000-0  25571-3 0  2518
2 18822  98.6969  85.8672 0006621 130.1448 230.0309 14.20837554 76337
AO-13      
1 19216U          89186.15508008 -.00000132           10000-3 0   382
2 19216  57.2070 200.8551 6748913 207.0433  90.2906  2.09703317  8118
OKEAN 1    
1 19274U 88 56  A 89206.04055415  .00002033  00000-0  29777-3 0  4436
2 19274  82.5169 101.6305 0024475 107.3293 253.0533 14.74988091 56664
Meteor 3-2 
1 19336U          89212.26065616 0.00000391           10000-2 0  2297
2 19336  82.5416 144.4909 0019431  34.0571 326.1761 13.16856086 48719
NOAA 11    
1 19531U          89209.25852554 0.00000438           26403-3 0  1100
2 19531  98.9420 153.0837 0012739 113.0849 247.1668 14.11080992 43262
TDRS 3     
1 19548U 88 91  B 89201.64856355  .00000127  00000-0  99999-4 0   298
2 19548   0.6976  82.9647 0002435  28.2829 248.8411  1.00266167  2120
GPS-0014   
1 19802U 89 13  A 89195.92402568  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0   489
2 19802  55.1018 210.7161 0066687 157.4981 202.8516  2.00556819  2987
Meteor 2-18
1 19851U          89207.09550817 0.00000117           10000-3 0   594
2 19851  82.5238 128.2532 0013617 194.0944 165.9795 13.83821380 20467
TDRS 4     
1 19883U 89 21  B 89193.30721528 -.00000234  00000-0  99999-4 0   212
2 19883   0.4184  71.6153 0001726  52.2881 235.9737  1.00264167   477
1989 042B  
1 20046U          89190.25933410 -.00005554          -56739-2 0   517
2 20046  82.9417 338.0442 0035026 199.2664 160.7174 13.76469147  4415
Molniya3-35
1 20052U          89189.80933893 0.00000326          -81454-3 0   444
2 20052  62.9521  99.8751 7379264 288.3629   9.3770  2.00620985   616
1989 043D  
1 20055U          89187.82942194 0.00000550           19192-2 0   268
2 20055  62.8484 100.2186 7414419 288.3220   9.1933  1.95983490   552
GPS-0013   
1 20061U          89195.11831124 -.00000029                   0   285
2 20061  54.5868  29.5793 0080698 163.2427 197.0849  2.00573534   713
1989 044B  
1 20062U          89193.27933477 0.18331712 -23867-4  49193-3 0   674
2 20062  30.2951 166.4880 0064540   2.3773 357.7413 16.35924744  3699
1989 044C  
1 20063U          89190.62410034 0.00111825  17032-4  12205-2 0   390
2 20063  37.5403   7.2226 6012784 224.5458  67.5657  4.12779176  1205
1989 045B  
1 20065U          89189.58668525 0.00012737           51370-3 0   330
2 20065  65.8410 356.1109 0028402 352.2314   7.8374 15.24711048  3678
Raduga 1-1 
1 20083U          89207.77927620 0.00000150           10000-3 0   393
2 20083   1.3949 273.2764 0005647 348.3379  12.0591  1.00270925   353
1989 048D  
1 20086U          89194.20510965 -.00000025           10000-3 0    76
2 20086   1.4319 273.6399 0021177 326.9784  33.7202  0.97889488   224
Nadezhda   
1 20103U          89213.09000256 0.00000075           74156-4 0   181
2 20103  82.9623 160.9356 0036537 208.1477 151.7704 13.73491526  3774
1989 050B  
1 20104U          89210.73341639 0.00000006                   0   134
2 20104  82.9628 162.6306 0032576 192.5149 167.5202 13.74884939  3442
Gorizont 18
1 20107U          89212.51948119 -.00000251           10000-3 0   263
2 20107   1.4683 275.5968 0003017  53.1236 307.3453  1.00278237   260
1989 052D  
1 20110U          89198.38268624 -.00000040           10000-3 0    65
2 20110   1.5129 275.7936 0028263  76.8720 284.4159  1.03064188   121
Olympus    
1 20122U          89211.18336416 -.00000184           10000-3 0   178
2 20122   0.0825 277.7447 0037800   0.6044  81.2721  0.99675348    51
1989 053B  
1 20123U          89213.05351181 0.00081092  16527-4  64579-2 0   231
2 20123   6.2536  98.6722 7303760 194.8981 118.5564  2.28000224   462
RESURS-F3  
1 20134U          89214.05556484 0.00095604  30495-5  15896-3 0   354
2 20134  82.5726  93.1928 0012886 269.2500  90.8565 16.02748942  2359
Cosmos 2031
1 20136U          89214.12557677 0.00305168  51618-4  38305-3 0   380
2 20136  50.5541  45.1625 0048523  84.6019 276.0784 16.04479885  2353
Cosmos 2032
1 20145U          89214.24825458 0.00023755           19726-4 0   355
2 20145  82.3099  84.7576 0009247  54.9818 305.2429 16.13677096    77
Cosmos 2033
1 20147U          89214.20681457 -.00057434          -95421-3 0   215
2 20147  65.0214 305.7721 0010021 275.0274  85.0349 15.52079916  1432
1989 059A  
1 20149U          89212.14362093 0.00000000          -62400-5 0   219
2 20149  82.9404  83.9463 0030210 262.3180  95.3696 13.72418511   805
1989 059B  
1 20150U          89214.02982349 0.00023267           24523-1 0   165
2 20150  82.9367  82.5382 0025109 247.0137 112.8368 13.74295366  1055
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of
Technology

Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 5247;andrew.cmu.edu;Todd L. Masco
Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/EZ09l0q00VA:88Sk4w>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:36:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/.Outgoing/QF.4Z09kaa00VA:E8Cmhx>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:36:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.10.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3.35
          via MS.5.6.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3_35;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:36:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4Z09kW600VA_Q8CmUT@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:36:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Todd L. Masco" <tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #618
X-Kibology: Allowed

			 SPACE Digest V9 #619
			 --------------------
				   
		Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space
		Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space
       Subject: Re: Bush's Speech -- anyone still need a copy?
	       Subject: Re: shuttle vs. heavy boosters
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
	      Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
	       Subject: Re: Space:  The Final Frontier
		       Subject: Re: Space Quest


------------------------------
From: pezely@udel.EDU (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space
Date: 6 Aug 89 01:54:30 GMT

In article <124@psitech.UUCP> david@psitech.UUCP (david Fridley) writes:
>...	Further, I am willing to put money where my mouth is, it
>is just that my meger salary will not support a space program.  WE WHO ARE
>INTERESTED IN A PRIVATE SPACE PROGRAM MUST ORGANIZE. Are there enough 
>interested persons to do it?  

Like I said before, I should be getting a machine on the internet so that
we could have some sort of centralized "base" to work from.  My company
will supply the machine.  I'll be putting my money where my mouth is
too; I'm self employed, so my company's money is my salary.

>If we participated in a joint space program with the countries which we are
>arming ourselves against ...

Do you think that is a good idea to start working with now -- before we
have anything tangible to speak of?  I mean, that might scare off some
people, and maybe it would be better for public relations if we stayed a
bit conservative right now and didn't touch on that subject unless we
had to.  That should come later once we're organized and we've been 
reconized.
- Daniel
------------------------------

From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space
Date: 6 Aug 89 03:03:38 GMT

In article <124@psitech.UUCP> david@psitech.UUCP (david Fridley) writes:
>I am infavor of a private space program, because I believe that most people
>(read the government) are not but I think that enough people are interested
>to get it done.  Further, I am willing to put money where my mouth is, it
>is just that my meger salary will not support a space program.  WE WHO ARE
>INTERESTED IN A PRIVATE SPACE PROGRAM MUST ORGANIZE. Are there enough 
>interested persons to do it?

I think there are enough interested scientists and engineers (as well
as businessmen, lawyers, and public relations people) to provide the
necessary expertise.  The question is one of financing -- pooling
salaries just won't do it (besides which, the companies that pay those
salaries might be a bit perturbed at their employees spending the
majority of their time on this venture).

Any serious space effort will require serious venture capital.  The
question is whether any venture capitalists are willing to invest in
space exploration and development.

Does anyone know how Amroc and SSI (the launch firm, not the research
institute) got their initial funding?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------

From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Bush's Speech -- anyone still need a copy?
Date: 6 Aug 89 02:55:07 GMT

In article <9221@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>I recently posted Bush's speech calling for new space goals on the net, along
>with a press briefing by NASA Administrator Truly.
>
>What reaction do people have to Bush's speech?
>
>I felt it was a bit, well, "wimpy", but the best thing we've gotten out
>of a President in recent years.

I'd have to agree.  It was a lot less than I wanted, but a lot more than
I expected.....

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: shuttle vs. heavy boosters
Date: 6 Aug 89 04:41:10 GMT

In article <14519@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>I would welcome an explanation of how a heavylift booster would have
>>come about in the absence of the shuttle...
>
>Military.

For what military mission?  The USAF is currently using expendables for
almost everything, with only minimal reliance on the shuttle.  Practically
the only payloads they're using the shuttle for now are a few that were
designed early in the shuttle era and hence are a bit heavy for Titan 4
(whose development was also delayed several years while the USAF battled
the shuttle-as-sole-launcher policy).  They have openly and loudly said
that that mistake will not be made again, and all future operational
payloads will be Titan-compatible; they don't seem to feel that this
represents a major handicap.  Why would they have developed a heavylift
booster?

(SDI wants a heavylift booster, but they haven't been able to make their
case well enough to get near-term funding for one.  They don't count
unless you can explain how the absence of the shuttle would have greatly
accelerated their development schedule and improved their Congressional
support.)
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
------------------------------

From: jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
Date: 6 Aug 89 21:37:51 GMT

In article <1989Aug6.001054.7038@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>there were European fishermen working the Grand Banks off Newfoundland
>routinely not very long after Columbus.  (Don't have exact dates on hand.)



The Basques were working the Grand Banks centuries before Columbus.
-- 
Jeff Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)
------------------------------

From: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
Date: 6 Aug 89 15:37:25 GMT

In article <14520@bfmny0.UUCP>, tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

> "We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
> 	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

I am delighted that Henry Spencer cannot recognise a (presumably) tongue
in cheek quotation from his fellow Canadian Joni Mitchell. The song
if memory serves is "Don't interrupt the sorrow" from "Summer Lawns".
Seems apposite music for the Apollo 11 wake.

Nick


-- 
Nick Watkins, School of Maths & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton
E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND
JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk   BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
Voice: +44 273 678072
------------------------------

From: CHEEHH@uhvax1.uh.edu (Rikhit Arora)
Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
Date: 6 Aug 89 17:20:48 GMT

In article <1989Aug4.204843.9330@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <2386@basser.oz> the Sydney Morning Herald writes:
> 
>  .. stuff deleted..
> 
>>The US achieved the dubious honour of being first to the moon by
>>constructing the largest rocket that would ever fly...
> 
> Nope, the third largest, after Energia and the abortive "G" booster.
>

Is this really true??  Henry, could you compare the payloads that could be
delivered to LEO by the Saturn V and Energiya?  (The third stage of the
Saturn V does constitute a legitimate "payload" to LEO!)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rikhit Arora                         |  Dept. of Chemical Engineering 
Bitnet: cheehh@uhupvm1               |  University of Houston
Internet: cheehh@jane.uh.edu         |  Houston, TX 77204-4792
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------

From: shook@boulder.Colorado.EDU (David R. Shook)
Subject: Re: Space:  The Final Frontier
Date: 7 Aug 89 01:27:16 GMT

In article <4077@sugar.hackercorp.com> jasona@sugar.hackercorp.com (Jason Asbahr) writes:  (with some editing...)
>"Giant leap for mankind..."
> 
>Not exactly cyberpunk, but...

No, but close enough.  After all, they had space stations 
in Neuromancer, right? :^)

>Space colonization is the next step for humanity.
>... it seems that most Americans think of space as
>little more than a waste of tax dollars. 

Very narrow minded of them.  At the *very* least, they should think of it as
a low priority use of tax dollars.

>I think we ought to put more energy into space station Freedom and a moon
>base than on the Mars exploration.  Bush is looking for another "first"
>for the American side of the space race, when we really need a permanent
>off-world "biosphere".  (Maybe a "biocube" - heh)

As I understand it, Mars is a very far off, romantic kinda arbitrary goal 
to set our sights on and Bush plans on building the space station, etc.
first.  I expect that the republican rational for this is that "if you
can't have a war to boost the economy and make the numbers look good,
you might as well conquor space; that requires lots of industry and makes
lots of jobs.  Looks good on the resume, too."

> ... stuff about radiation in space ...
 
Just use lots of sunscreen...   :^)

>We should use the station as a permanent life settlement and as a
>mid-point stop on the way to the moon.  After a few years of
>experimentation and learning, we should use the gathered knowledge to
>build a scientific base on the moon.  Set up networks, grow plants, work
>on making the biosphere completely self-sustaining!
 
More or less what Bush is planning, though he does seem to be in a bit of a 
hurry to get to Mars, doesn't he?

>We need a satellite workshop...  We need atmosphere-free telescopes...
>  We need to reap the benefits of zero-gravity technology!
> 
>     We need to break the shackles that limit human expansion!
> 
>And as for the "Exploratation Earth" idea, let the collective users fund
>it.
 
What exactly do we "need" all this stuff for?  Because it's neat?  To advance
Science (said with a loud, deep voice...)?  Because it's going to make lots
of money so's everyone will be rich?  I dunno...

Don't get me wrong, I think we need to explore space and build a space
station and all that.  But I think it's very important that we understand
why we're doing it.  Otherwise it won't sell and it won't have a proper
"direction" or "theme" or something, which may sound vauge but I think is 
very important; If we're going to do this, we should do it right and
efficiently, rather than bumbling around, doing things for political or other
stupid reasons. 

I mean, Jason here says "let the collective users fund 'Exploration
Earth'".  Frankly I don't know too much about "Exp. Earth", but I get the
idea that it involves solving problems on earth first.  Whatever.  
But who does he think is going to fund the space station?  The collective
users of earth, that's who!  And why should they spend money on a space 
station, when there are so many problems to solve down here?  I mean,
we're on the verge of destroying our planet, environmentaly if not atomicly,
we're going to run out of oil sooner or later, there are lots of homeless, 
hungry people running around, and Ignorance
abounds.  (IMHO, Ignorance is our #1 problem and education should be
our #1 priority.)  Not to mention the national debt, etc.  It (a space 
station) certainly isn't going to solve 
the problems directly and it sure ain't gonna solve the national debt.
So what it comes down to is we have X amount of money/resources; how
can we best spend them to solve our problems and make life in the future
better for all?

So why build a space station?  Self sufficient and all that?  So when we
destroy Earth, we won't be wiped out as a species?  Is it really that
hopeless down here?  And if we can't survive on earth, what makes 
you think we can survive in space?  Whatever.  Maybe we fucked up
and we'll do better next time.  Still not the best of reasons, IMHO.

So how DO we justify it?  Can we say that it will give the economy a 
boost (via new jobs/new technology)?  But will that buy us more time
to solve our problems down here or will it just hasten our end?
(I mean we do have FINITE resources...)  No one's come up with much
convincing evidence that low grav tech is going to be all that valuable.
Actually, I do think we stand to
learn a lot by taking on a new chalenge of conquering the unknown and new
technology almost allways proves valuable in the long run, but do we
need this knowledge right now, and
at what cost?  Then again, who knows, maybe republican economics will work out
after all (see above).  And what the hell good is peering into the depths
of the cosmos going to do us?  I know we're all curious, but how much 
are we going to spend to satisfy our curiosity?  And are we going to get 
more value for our money, in the long run, by sending humans or robots
into space?  And are we going to be able to support ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, if
we don't solve our problems here on earth?  

But going out and exploring space does "feel right" to me.  At least, if we're
going to build truely self-sufficient colonies in space, we're going to have to
learn a lot of environmental science to make it work, and we're going to
have to develop a near-utopic micro-community, or things could get out of 
hand REAL fast.  And I'd be the first to say that Knowledge is good stuff.
Exploring space is also certainly a better way of "investing" our earnings
than building bombers and fighting wars.

I just think we need to figure out our priorities, figure out why we're
doing things, and balance our spending accordingly.  And, oddly enough, 
I'd much rather have the government spending money on space 
stations than bombers; it's the only
thing that Bush has actually DONE (sorta) so far that's made me happy.  

All right, enough blather.  What do y'all think?  Follow-ups to 
alt.cyberpunk, or e-mail me directly.  I don't follow sci.space, just wanted
some more feed back.


>           -Jason Asbahr
> 
>Today, the world.  Tomorrow, the stars!
 
Funny, I think that's what I was trying to say...

Dave.         (shook@boulder.colorado.edu)
------------------------------

From: pezely@udel.EDU (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Space Quest
Date: 7 Aug 89 03:23:07 GMT


Here's my reply to an e-mail letter from Amanda Baker.  Also, this sums
up everything about the goals for Space Quest so far.
<SUMMER: CBC04197 AT UDACSVM.BITNET  (UNTIL AUG 29 1989)>
<PERMANENT: BAKER%SPVA.PH.IC.AC.UK AT UKACRL.BITNET  (until summer'90 ish)>

>I've been reading your stuff in the Space digest, and what you are proposing
>sounds interesting. I think I have missed some of your postings, though.
>I'm interested to know what firm plans/ offers of commitment etc you have
>got so far?

Here are my immediate goals.  Once I get back from my vacation in three
weeks, I will start to write a business proposal (with the help of
professional managers) for the Space Quest Foundation.  This is necessary 
so that everyone, including myself, will know exactly where Space Quest 
will be going and how we'll be getting there.  All of the details of how 
we will be getting financial support, etc, will be included.  After about 
one month further, we will probably file to become a non-profit 
corporation and engage in finding stock holders.

Once Space Quest is official, we should have a computer on the internet
through the University of Delaware.  I haven't talked to them about it
yet, but I work for EE/CIS and know everyone who I would need to know.
Putting the computer on their net will be no problem.  

The first official task to start on will be to write a second business
proposal for a (for-profit) corporation.  This corporation will be
planned and organized by Space Quest.  This second corporation will be
primarily owned by ALL the space contractors and will be run just like
any other corporation.  Once the second corporation is set up, Space 
Quest will be dissolved or function soley as an information center -- 
we will not attempt to control the corporation in any way, what-so-ever.
If they want us, then the new company can hire the individuals involved.

This second corporation will be an administrative one which will
effectively be competition for NASA and other countries' space programs.

The administration will handle every level of the space industry from
designing and constructing launch vehicles, designing and constructing 
space stations, finding customers for occupying the space stations, 
launching vehicles to the station, and controlling the ground crews, 
astronauts, and space station crews.

Since the space contractors will be OWNING the administrative
corporation, they will have their own designers and engineers using
components from their respective parent companies.  Since they are not
working for NASA, the costs should be much lower.  Hence, lower prices
for building things.

There will be plenty of customers for the space station to provide a
nifty income for the space contractors.  Since the customers will have
to use the contractors' own vehicles and ground support to get modules
to the space station, there is money to be made.  Also, if the
customers need to attach a module to the station, then the contractors
could charge 'rent'.  

Also, since this will be a heftier space station than NASA's, it will be
designed in such a way to allow tolerable living environments
(rotational units to simulate gravity, etc) for dormitories for the
crews.  But more on the designs later, once we've become organized.

I am a computer science major at UDel and am working on a distributed
database system for wide area networks (WANs).  Once that is completed, 
I will develop a CAD and simulation package on top of it for us to do 
design proposals.  I have my own software company which is giving me an 
income and will allow me to work on this project.  I expect to have the 
basic system completed in about two years which is when I should be 
graduating.

This CAD system for WANs will allow members of The Space Quest Foundation 
to work on designs from where ever they want (on the internet) and still 
have the benefit of seeing what everyone else is working on.  I can't go 
into any further details, but hopefully you get the general idea.


So far, I have gotten a few people who said that they would like to help
in any way that they can.  Also, I have lots of friends who will spread
the word to their university campuses once we're officially organized.

Although this organization is not restricted to students, I think they
will be the majority of the active members since they have the most time.  
In the beginning, Space Quest will be for volunteers, so people with 
dependents wont be able to spend lots of time.

Once Space Quest becomes a non-profit corporation and gets some
investors then we will be hiring people.  That is one of the areas that
the business proposal for Space Quest will cover.  I don't know what
kind of time scale we'll be dealing with on that subject.  Again, wait about
two months or for the proposal.

- Daniel

*** End of Space Digest V9 #618 ***
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 5247;andrew.cmu.edu;Todd L. Masco
Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/kZ09um200VA:A8Xk4n>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:46:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/.Outgoing/QF.gZ09uZe00VA:I8CnF7>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:46:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.10.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3.35
          via MS.5.6.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3_35;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:46:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <oZ09uXy00VA_E8Cn47@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:46:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Todd L. Masco" <tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #619
X-Kibology: Allowed

			 SPACE Digest V9 #619
			 --------------------

Subject: NASA = US Space Program (Was Re: Circumstances of Koopman's death)
	    Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?
	      Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
		Subject: space news from July 3 AW&ST
	 Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
		  Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #582
		     Subject: ESA news bulletins?
	 Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
	     Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Missio
			   Subject: HR2674
		     Subject: Re: Golfball flight
	       Subject: Re: Space:  The Final Frontier

------------------------------
From: web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter)
Subject: NASA = US Space Program (Was Re: Circumstances of Koopman's death)
Date: 7 Aug 89 04:33:39 GMT

Eric Tilenius once again demonstrates the confusion of NASA with the US
space program.

In article <9220@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc (Eric William Tilenius) writes:
>In article <8908012158.AA03853@trout.nosc.mil>, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>Here are some of the circumstances of George Koopman's death:
>>He is pronounced dead at the scene.  I'm not sure what the status
>>is of AMROC's lawsuit against NASA after all this.
>>Has anyone seen a police report?  Did the coroner's report do
>>thorough testing for psychoactive substances?
>>Basically, I want to see the possibility of foul play eliminated.

Eric, compelled to rush to the defense of his beloved NASA, says

>But when you try to use his death as another of your propaganda weapons
>against NASA, I'm afraid I can't remain silent any longer.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>[diatribe about Bowery, praise of Koopman, and nothing about NASA]

>because you're using his death as another attempt to demean the entire
>space program of the United States of America.		     ^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
No wonder the defense was so swift and emotional.  Eric thinks that NASA
is the entire space program.  He must not have been listening to George
Koopman while he was alive.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web
------------------------------

From: dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer)
Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?
Date: 7 Aug 89 04:20:52 GMT

In article <1989Aug4.024551.18663@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
 >In article <24.Jul.89.09:32:31.BST.ZZASSGL@UK.AC.MCC.CMS> ZZASSGL@cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.UK writes:
 >>OK, What is the "Solar Impact Mission"  and why is it so hard to
 >>hit the Sun? After all we have already had close ups of Mercury.
 >
 >I don't particularly remember hearing about this one, but almost certainly
 >it's a mission to go straight down into the Sun, doing some observations on
 >the way.  The hard part is that to do it, you have to kill *all* Earth's
 >orbital velocity, which is about 50 km/s.  A Saturn V could have dropped a
 >couple of hundred kg into the Sun, as I recall.  The shuttle, forget it,
 >unless you use in-orbit assembly.  A beefed-up Energia with about four
 >upper stages could probably put a modest probe into the Sun.  Advanced
 >propulsion technologies would really help.
 >
 >The Mercury flyby was done with a Venus gravity assist.  But Mercury is
 >still a long way out from the Sun, and the last few million km are the
 >really hard ones, deep in that monstrous gravitational field.

The lowest-energy method to drop a probe into the sun would use a Jupiter
fly-by to kill the probes orbital velocity.  (Basically you fly-by on
the opposite side of Jupiter that the Voyager probes used.)  It should be
possible to drop many tons of spacecraft into the sun using this method.
(Even WITH the shuttle, Henry.)

 >1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
 >1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

1969-1989:
USA: Five landings on the moon, first space-station, first
     international manned spaceflight, Voyager, Viking,
     first reusable space-craft, many other commercial,
     military and scientific missions too numerous to name.

Canada:  A robot arm.

-- 
Remember Tiananmen Square.           | David Messer       dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or-
                                     | Lynx Data Systems  ...!bungia!viper!dave
------------------------------

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
Date: 7 Aug 89 04:48:17 GMT

In article <1690@uhvax1.uh.edu> CHEEHH@uhvax1.uh.edu (Rikhit Arora) writes:
>Is this really true??  Henry, could you compare the payloads that could be
>delivered to LEO by the Saturn V and Energiya?  (The third stage of the
>Saturn V does constitute a legitimate "payload" to LEO!)

There is a problem in doing specific comparisons because it's hard to pin
down a single number for either booster.  The Saturn V's payload rose
steadily over its flight history, which is why you run into such a range
of numbers on its hypothetical LEO payload.  And Energia has flown only
twice, in two slightly different configurations, and others could be put
together easily.  Energia's nominal capacity to LEO is 100 tons at the
moment -- i.e., that's what the Soviets would feel confident about signing
a contract for -- but Energia is believed to be designed for growth versions
with six or even eight strap-ons rather than the four seen so far.  The
Soviets have talked about being able to launch 200 tons relatively soon,
which is definitely a lot more than even the last Saturn Vs could do.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
------------------------------

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from July 3 AW&ST
Date: 7 Aug 89 05:30:01 GMT

This is the Paris Air Show wrap-up issue, light on space news.

NASA reveals plans to do exhaustive photography of LDEF before moving it
into the payload bay on the LDEF-retrieval mission, to document the exact
surface appearance of everything before exposure to air.

Air Force Secretary recommends 70% cut in DoD Aerospace Plane funding,
saying that costs are too high and risks too great.  He does concede
that it will be six months before he can be specific about technical
objections [!].  Reports are that his opinion was based on a report from
the Rand Corp., his former employer.  A 70% cut would effectively kill
the project.

German-led industrial consortium (with members in US, France, and Italy)
beign formed to develop a privately-owned retrievable unmanned space
platform called "Amica".  ESA is considering turning Eureca, a similar
rig developed with ESA money, over to the group.  This would provide two
vehicles for industrial materials work in the early 1990s.  The group
is already marketing platform space to NASA, ESA, and the French and
Italian space agencies; it will concentrate on government-agency payload
sponsors initially, with a gradual shift to commercial customers later.
Construction will be financed with payload deposits and bank loans.
NASA is a crucial customer; Amica does not want NASA money, but wants to
trade payload space for free or cheap shuttle deployment and retrievals.
NASA is interested but wary.  Eureca is scheduled to fly (for ESA) in
mid-1991, and it would then be turned over to the Amica group.  Amica
itself would fly for six months in 1992, after which the platforms would
alternate in doing one six-month mission per year.  ESA plans to use
most of the second and third Eureca flights but has made no commitment
to Amica yet.

British astronaut to fly to Mir in 1991.  The mission, dubbed "Juno", is
now official, with the signing of the contract in Moscow.  It will be
financed by sponsorship and merchandising (!), sale of payload space,
and broadcasting rights.  About L16M is needed all told.  Two astronaut
candidates are being sought; they will start 18 months of training at
Star City in November.  They will learn Russian as part of this.  [I'm
surprised at this -- I'd have expected that to be a prerequisite -- but
maybe they decided there weren't enough people who could meet it.  If I
recall correctly, nominal training for a Mir flight is one year, so
the Soviets are allowing extra time for it.  They may also be charging
extra, as L16M is about twice the reported "going rate".]  The mission
will be 8 days long in spring 1991.  The backup candidate will spend
the time doing the same experiments on the ground.

ESA's Olympus broadcast satellite arrives in Ottawa for checkout before
shipment to Kourou.

First pictures of the new Soviet SL-16 booster.  This is the one whose
first stage is also the Energia strap-on.  At least 11 have been launched
since first flight in 1985, mostly carrying military snoopsats.  A new
version of the Progress freighter is being developed for SL-16 launch.
Capacity to LEO is 30 klbs.  [Sounds like Progress II is going to be a
whole lot bigger than the current one.  SL-16 could well be meant as a
Proton replacement in the long run; payload capacity should be similar
with a third stage added.]

SSME fails during development testing:  pump shaft seizes and hydrogen
fire results, with heavy damage to the engine.  This engine was a ground
test unit, but NASA is assessing whether the problem might affect the
operational engines.

First pictures of Soviet launch activities at Plesetsk; quite good photos,
actually.  This is novel because Plesetsk is primarily military and was
very highly classified until recently.  It is the world's busiest launch
site, ahead of even Baikonur [nowhere else comes close to either], with
over 1200 launches to date.

Lockheed to develop threat-warning system for US military satellites, to
detect and verify attacks by antisatellite weapons.  The initial Satellite
On-board Attack Warning System unit, for delivery and launch in 1992,
will include detection of microwaves, laser light, and impacts.  There
have been suspected cases of "interference" with US satellites
in the past, although details are classified.  A major goal of SOARS
is unambiguous determination of whether trouble is an attack or an
on-board technical problem.  Low-profile attacks like peppering a
satellite with projectiles could be mistaken for problems with space
debris, for example, and it is considered important that the cause of
a satellite failure be known quickly and definitely in a crisis; even
a tentative analysis can take months now.  SOARS normally gets power
and communications through its host satellite, but it includes its own
hardened backup power supply and transmitter, designed to survive an
attack that would disable the satellite.  The initial contract is for
only one unit, although there are options for two more, and Lockheed
obviously hopes to get a production contract eventually.  Later
versions might add sensors for particle beams, radio jamming, and
nuclear radiation.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
------------------------------

From: leeds@cfa250.harvard.edu (Paul Martenis)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
Date: 7 Aug 89 14:58:04 GMT

From article <615@visdc.UUCP>, by jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III):
> I wonder if someone might be able to make use of the data that could be
> collected while the space telescope is repositioning at "the speed of a
> minute hand".  Such data could consist of a series of short-exposure
> data sets, shifted to compensate for movement, and then added.

	Yes, it can be done.  In fact, the guy sitting next to me here
at work is doing this with the "slew data" from the Einstein (HEAO-B)
X-ray Observatory.  According to him, Einstein slewed at about 18
arcminutes per second.  It was up for about two and a half years and
the slew data covers almost the whole sky with an average exposure time
of ~50 seconds.  "The speed of a minute hand" is 6 arcminutes per
second, so the HST will get about three times the exposure time.  I
hope somebody is working on this.

- Paul
-- 
Paul L. Martenis		E-mail:	leeds@cfa
60 Garden St.			    or:	leeds%cfa209@harvard.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA  02138 USA	Phone:	(617) 495-7284
------------------------------

From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #582
Date: 7 Aug 89 16:35:27 GMT

In article <618354547.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

>>great business opportunity, some capitalist would be out there building
>> "fighters" and making a lot of money.  Since that isn't happening, maybe
>> this isn't a great business opportunity. So the market isn't allocating
>> resources to it.

>This might well be a true statement. If there weren't governments
>pushing them, there might be an awful lot less high tech weaponry being
>built....

>This is supposed to be bad????

We were talking about building purely private "fighter" aircraft for
the purely private buyer.  That is, people who believe that everything
spec-ed or funded by the government is evil, unworkable, and poorly
designed can't buy surplus fighters, since such fighters are tainted
by the government stigma.  Thus, for such people who still want
fighter-type aircraft, the only option is a purely private "fighter."
It was the virtually non-existant market for such aircraft that I was
referring to in the posting that was quoted.
--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA
------------------------------

From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: ESA news bulletins?
Date: 7 Aug 89 16:52:04 GMT

If anybody in the European Space Agency is reading this, would it be
possible to post regular news bulletins (similar to Peter Yee's postings)
regarding the status of launchers and/or payloads?

It is not easy to obtain up-to-date info on ESA on this side of the
Atlantic; I am sure I am not the only one who would be very interested
to read such reports!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA    |     sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------
------------------------------

From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
Date: 7 Aug 89 16:45:55 GMT

In article <1989Aug5.132113.17013@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:
>In article <14513@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>
>>Speaking of HST, there was a very interesting squib in this month's
>>ASTRONOMY.  Seems a team has taken the Palomar 5-meter scope to the
>>*diffraction limit* using optical interferometry (a technique adapted
>>from radio astronomy), ....
>
>	I haven't seen this article but the technique is also called Speckle
>Interferometry.

I was hoping someone else would follow up with a detailed correction
to this, but since no one has:

It was my impression that the famous SPECKLE interferometry, which
controversially imaged Betelguese years ago and other things since,
was NOT the same as "optical interferometry" as mentioned above.
Am I right or wrong?  (Should crosspost to astro I guess.)

-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
------------------------------

From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Missio
Date: 7 Aug 89 16:58:00 GMT


>The Mercury flyby was done with a Venus gravity assist.  But Mercury is
>still a long way out from the Sun, and the last few million km are the
>really hard ones, deep in that monstrous gravitational field.

I recall only incompletely what I found, but I did some primitive
computer simulations of a Solar-intercept trajectory around 1971 or
1972, assuming Titan technology.  The only really feasible one that I
saw was a Jupiter gravity assist -- send the probe to Jupiter, and
whip around the planet so that the probe is dropping right into the
Sun.  Would provide a close flyby of Jupiter, too, and (assuming that
the probe is designed for solar exploration), a nice study of the
plasma physics of the Jovian system as well as that of the Sun.

Of course, the simulation may not have been sufficiently accurate -- I
was just a high school kid back then....

A-T
------------------------------

From: rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele)
Subject: HR2674
Date: 7 Aug 89 17:49:49 GMT


I have just looked over HR2674, the space transportation thing, and have
several questions which I'm sure will get me some flames.

1.  If the bill is passed as is, it seems to preclude the government from
owning any spacecraft for routine purposes.  Is this truly what's intended?

2.  The way the phrasing goes, the government can only own its own spacecraft
if space transportation is not available as specified.  But "space 
transportation" being defined as a service, can't this service disappear
on rather short notice, where rather long lead time would be required
to provide spacecraft so the government can provide its own?  Doesn't this
put us in a rather vulnerable position?

3.  The "exception" paragraph of the HR, where the government need not
purchase the services if the cost is too high, or if the security requirements
are not met, seems to me (a veteran civil servant) weasel-worded enough so
that any administrator could reject any potential provider of the transport
service.

Comments?

          Jim Rachiele
          rachiele@nadc.arpa
------------------------------

From: leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Golfball flight
Date: 7 Aug 89 19:15:31 GMT

In article <1359@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
:In article <Added.IYqOeAu00Ui3A9609T@andrew.cmu.edu> denver@NARDAC-NOHIMS.ARPA ("DENVER BRAUGHLER") writes:
:
:>Okay, would someone please tell me the gravitional acceleration on the moon? 
:
:From memory, about 1.7 m/sec
:
:
:At a guess, though, I'd say a golf ball goes a good bit faster, say, 60
:meters per second.  (Any golfers out there?).  Running that number through 
:gives a distance of 2120 meters...assuming the surface of the moon is flat,
:which it's not.  
:
:
:>I'm not a golfer either.
:Georgia Institute of Technology     :          [This space for rent]
:ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :
:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The average golfer hits the ball with clubhead speed of about  90 mph.

Lee

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516      
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem  leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
------------------------------

From: andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head )
Subject: Re: Space:  The Final Frontier
Date: 7 Aug 89 19:43:22 GMT

I was musing about what kinds of things it might take to mobilise the
general population to the point where "space travel" was an everyday
topic of conversation, and continuous action was the order of the day.
I exclude conventional political avenues, since these are frequently
discussed. Something like wartime mentality would be just the ticket,
or that 60s-type intensity.
	It occurs to me that music is a fair touchstone for reflecting
and even augmenting public opinion. This is true in wartime, and also
was of course in the 60s. So how about "space music"?
	So far, I am only aware of 2-and-a-half "pops":

"Rocket Man", Elton John
"Major Tong", David Bowie	(strange note: both Brits)
"Fly Me To The Moon", Dean Martin and the gang (1/2, old)

Maybe it's time for some high-energy pro-space music. Something to get
us moving. The above offerings are very dreamy and floaty (spacey);
perhaps a more positive genre (space punk?) is a mode whose time has
come.
	I urge any space songwriters out there to get busy!
-- 
...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman	There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away,
andrew@berlioz.nsc.com	That's what I says to myself, says I, 
time sucks					   jolly good luck, hooray!

*** End of SPACE Digest V9 #619 ***
Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 5247;andrew.cmu.edu;Todd L. Masco
Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/wZ09zti00VA:A8Z046>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:52:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/.Outgoing/QF.EZ09zjq00VA:48CnZ5>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:52:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.10.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3.35
          via MS.5.6.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3_35;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:52:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <kZ09zi200VA_A8CnM6@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:52:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Todd L. Masco" <tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #620
X-Kibology: Allowed
				   
			 SPACE Digest V9 #620
			 --------------------
				   
	      Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
	  Subject: Re: "Old" question about film resolution
		   Subject: Space Trash to the Nth
	     Subject: Re: exploding Saturns, lack thereof
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong, Yeager, Crossfield, best pilots (Bob Hoover)
		  Subject: Re: design of spacecraft
	 Subject: Atari ST graphic satellite tracking program
	       Subject: Re: Space:  The Final Frontier
	     Subject: Re: exploding Saturns, lack thereof
		       Subject: Re: Satellites
		      Subject: Pegasus and NASA
	    Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?
	      Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
		  Subject: USAF throws in the towel

------------------------------
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
Date: 7 Aug 89 19:36:33 GMT

In article <4YqRJdy00XoV01p2Ul@andrew.cmu.edu> js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes:
>
>The Shuttle is too expensive as far as I am concerned. Any "space plane"
>is too expensive, as far as I am concerned. We don't need to take up
>payload with a plane! We need to toss it into orbit as simply as
>possible. I posit that the Shuttle is not the simplest (sp?) way to do
>it.
>
>Laser Launchers. This would put mass into orbit cheaply and easily.
>
>Admittedly the accelerations woul
>d make mince meat out of astronauts, but the point of a l. l. is not to
>get people into orbit, but mass. 
>...
>Jon Slenk
>
Typical acceleration for a laser launch system is 6 G's max.  
Entirely rideable by people.  You just need a relatively big
laser, since people are not conveniently subdividable into
20 kg pieces (at least, not if you want them to work afterward :-)
One ton is about the minimum payload size for launching people --
that's what the Mercury capsules massed.  Though I do know
some folks who would volunteer to go up without all that
hardware around them -- "Just me and a spacesuit, balancing on
that block of ice..."

Cannon launchers are even cheaper than lasers, but much less
flexible, and they _do_ involve high accelerations.



	Jordin (Speak Softly and Carry a Megawatt Laser) Kare
------------------------------

From: "UTADNX::UTD201::GREER"%UTSPAN.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: "Old" question about film resolution
Date: 7 Aug 89 19:54:43 GMT


This is mighty late, but I've had some trouble getting through.

In Space_Digest V9 #544, John Roberts asks:

>Do you have any good numbers for a 35-mm negative, i.e. Kodak Gold 100, on
>its equivalent in pixels and bits per pixel? I don't, but I would guess
>~1000-3000 pixels across. How about an IMAX image?

	Kodak's newest color print films, Ektar 25, Ektar 125, and Ektar 1000
have maximum resolving powers of 4500 lpi, 4000 lpi, and 2000 lpi,
respectively.  Gold 100 hits about 3000 lpi and Gold 400 yields about 2500 lpi.
LPI is lines per inch, so 35mm Ektar 25 has about 6200x4200 "pixels", though
I'm not sure if that word is quite accurate for film.
	But 35mm isn't the only format by any means.  Some common formats
professional photographers use include 2-1/4x2-1/4 inch, 6x7mm, 4x5 inch, and
8x10 inch.  So an 8x10 photo on Ektar 25 would have about 36000x45000 or 1.62G
pixels.  At 32 bits per pixel, this would require about 52G bytes of memory. 
(Note that "giga" in "gigabytes" is pronounced the same as "giga" in
"gigantic", since they come from the same Greek root meaning "huge".) 

----
"That which you call,			|         Dale M. Greer
	     'E Plabnista...'"		|   Center for Space Sciences
		     -- J.T.Kirk	| University of Texas at Dallas
					| UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.
------------------------------

From: "UTADNX::UTD201::GREER"%UTSPAN.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Space Trash to the Nth
Date: 7 Aug 89 20:28:23 GMT


	Anybody out there have any idea how long near-Earth space would
be uninhabitable after activation of an ICBM Shield?  I'm talking mainly
about debris left behind by things like kinetic-kill weapons,
destruction of orbiting battle stations by ASATs, explosion of neutron
bombs (for decoy discrimination), etc.  Has anyone done any
environmental impact studies of this, or do the SDI people assume a)
nobody's going into space for a long time after a nuclear war anyway or
b) it's a small price to pay for national security, or what? 
	Just curious.
----
"That which you call,			|         Dale M. Greer
	     'E Plabnista...'"		|   Center for Space Sciences
		     -- J.T. Kirk	| University of Texas at Dallas
					| UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.
------------------------------

From: hughes@gary.dec.com
Subject: Re: exploding Saturns, lack thereof
Date: 7 Aug 89 21:02:03 GMT

Perhaps my original reply did not/has not percolated through the net, but I'll try
again.

The rocket that is shown exploding at the end of Koyaanisquatsi is not a Saturn, as others
have pointed out already.

It is not a Saturn staging sequence either.

It is an early Atlas Centaur flight. As the first vehicle to fly with LH2/LOX powered
stages, it had more than it's share of spectacular failures. The engine that the camera
follows for some time is the main, or sustainer, engine from the Atlas stage.

Gary Hughes
hughes @star.dec.com
------------------------------

From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong, Yeager, Crossfield, best pilots (Bob Hoover)
Date: 7 Aug 89 22:41:57 GMT

I don't think anyone should bash General Yeager.  Funny, Mary and I discussed
this topic when she dropped by my office one day (Mary: BTW, I moved from
208 to 200).  

General Yeager's life story isn't one to shake a stick at.  I think
it is well enough documented.  I think the lesson from the story is like
the lesson of prejudice which was presented in the film: Breaking Away.
While his tales may have been glorified a bit, I think he can and does get
a bit of leeway.  He has accomplished much on his "high school" education.
I think it is better to just smile when the topic comes up.
Write Yeager if you really have to know more.

For my money, I think the best test pilot who has ever lived and perhaps
ever will live will be Bob Hoover, but then he was a V-P at North American
Rockwell when I was summer H-S job-shopping there.

This is getting away from space and now belongs in rec.aviation.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.
------------------------------

From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: design of spacecraft
Date: 7 Aug 89 21:03:20 GMT

In article <1989Aug5.035629.17638@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <14517@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>>  What upsets me most is that all these probes we are launching seem to be
>>>completely unique.  Has no one considered the benefits of making a nice
>>>standard space probe that can do Everything?  ...
>>
>>...The Mariner Mark II spacecraft is supposed to be a modular
>>chassis onto which all sorts of mission specific hardware can be attached.
>>NASA and JPL want to stop reinventing the wheel as much as anyone.
>
>Unfortunately, Mariner Mk. 2 is not the first attempt to do this.  There
>has been a depressingly long history of "multi-purpose", "modular"
>spacecraft designs that get used for one or two missions and then
>abandoned in favor of a different one.  I'm not sure precisely why this
>is, although I can think of one obvious contributing factor, which also
>operates in a lot of other government-funded areas:  standardization and
>volume production means lower profits for contractors.

The design of spacecraft and avonics, etc. is a tricky art.  The problem
is that technology isn't one field, it's many: there's electonics,
there's optics, there's materials, chemistry, etc.  Each field is
undergoing incredible changes.  You can combine any two orthogonal
fields and derive what sounds like an interesting question: why not
use the latest warm superconductors on your imaging gear .....?

You want to do Everything? So did the Multics operating system.  Yes, there
has to be a degree of specialization.  To illustrate the change in electronics
alone, I got a photo the electronics bays of the F-111 (the first plane
with modularized electronics).  The problem is that electronics has changed
so much the connectors and adaptors are now larger than the modules themselves.
Minaturization (ignoring who ever gets credit).

Right now standardization implies "freezing" technology.  And this just isn't
space.  It's a problem we will have to face increasingly in all fields.
In the case of space craft, they argue over the different requirements
and some one typically ends up losing (until the next probe gets proposed).
It was like this on Halley Rendevzous, on Galileo, on Voyager, etc.
And before you say, "It's not freezing...., just to this instead.."
That has been thought of, and typically squashed someone else's idea.
So we do have technology freezing.  I think we have to live with the
expense for a little while longer (but I do think we will stablize).

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.
------------------------------

From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Atari ST graphic satellite tracking program
Date: 7 Aug 89 22:55:56 GMT

Although this is machine specific (and it is written in GFA Basic, which
makes it language specific) you might never the less be interested to know
that I have just finished a graphic satellite tracking program that
displays the current positions of the earth satellites found in the
NASA orbital elements posted often to sci.space by T. Kelso.

It reads the element file, as is, and simultaneously tracks all the satellites
found there on a world map.  It is a very pretty display.  It can update the
positions of 100 satellites in about 6 seconds.

It is written in GFA Basic (2.0) for the Atari ST computer.  The source code
is available from me for the asking, and it should appear in
comp.sources.atari.st real soon!

If you want it, drop me a line.

-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -
------------------------------

From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Space:  The Final Frontier
Date: 7 Aug 89 23:12:52 GMT

In article <598@berlioz.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head ) writes:
>	It occurs to me that music is a fair touchstone for reflecting
>and even augmenting public opinion. This is true in wartime, and also
>was of course in the 60s. So how about "space music"?

>"Rocket Man", Elton John
>"Major Tong", David Bowie	(strange note: both Brits)
        ^^^^
        Tom (I think the actual title was something like Space Oddity)

Actually, both of these songs paint a rather negative picture of space
exploration from the point of view of a depressed astronaut.  Similar
themes are expressed in "Major Tom" by Peter Schilling (no, it's not a
remake of the Bowie song) and "Why Me?" by Planet P.

A much more positive song (and one of my personal favorites) is
"Countdown" by Rush from the Signals album.  This is about the first
launch of the shuttle, and includes excerpts from the conversation
between mission control and the astronauts.

Rush has a number of other space-related songs -- "Cygnus X-1" (from A
Farewell to Kings) is about the obvious topic, and the albums 2112 and
Hemispheres are somewhat related to space travel.

Styx also had a space-related hit with "Come Sail Away" from The Grand
Illusion album.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------

From: fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: exploding Saturns, lack thereof
Date: 7 Aug 89 23:36:57 GMT

In article <3952@shlump.nac.dec.com>, hughes@gary.dec.com writes:

> The rocket that is shown exploding at the end of Koyaanisquatsi...
> ...is an early Atlas Centaur flight. As the first vehicle to fly with LH2/LOX powered
> stages, it had more than it's share of spectacular failures. The engine that the camera
> follows for some time is the main, or sustainer, engine from the Atlas stage.

The Atlas sustainer engine used kerosene/LOX, while the Centaur upper stage
used LOX/LH2.

It did have a tendency to cook off sometimes...but in this case, it was the
older Atlas engine that went.
------------------------------

From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Satellites
Date: 7 Aug 89 23:44:51 GMT

mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes:
> I have observed these objects through binoculars and a 6" 
> Celestron telescope and they are not passenger jets.  I have 
> clearly identified these.  However, while I do see a good number 
> of lights travelling north to south and vice versa, I have also 
> seen a number of objects travelling west to east and some other 
> directions.  I did observe one light that had a bluish corona to 
> it with a red light in the center of it which was not a jet 
> travelling to the northeast.

> Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
> UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin
> INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG

In the satellite tracking program I referred to in another posting
to this newsgroup, I take all the satellite orbital elements that
T. Kelso posts also to this newsgroup and display them simulataneously
on a world map.  The preference, at least for those listed in the elements
posted, is clearly for polar orbits -- probably because they get a scanning
effect of the entire earths surface.  Whereas, more equtorial orbits never
make it up to the high latitudes -- though there are many in the posted
elements that aren't in polar orbits.  A third group is geo-synchronos
satellites.  Strangely, by setting my real time clock/calender ahead
several months, I noticed that the geo-sats have moved!!!!!!

What causes this, I wonder?  Do geo-sats have to do station keeping to
stay in place (sats like the TDRS series are some that seem to drift.)?

Or is the satellite predicition program flawed so that it is not accurate
very far in advance?


-- 
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -
------------------------------

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Pegasus and NASA
Date: 7 Aug 89 21:09:33 GMT

In article <SHAFER.89Aug4082009@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>NASA is providing a B-52 and all its support for the 7 or 8 initial
>test flights, at a price ridiculously below what it would cost to buy
>their own airplane, modify it and maintain it...

If NASA is charging full operating and maintenance costs for this, then
I fail to see how there is any subsidy involved; renting existing facilities
is just as much a commercial deal as building your own.  (There is a good
chance that OSC/H will rent or lease a commercial aircraft, rather than
buying it outright, once they start getting commercial customers.)  And
if NASA is not doing full cost recovery, then it's a subsidy, but I can't
see it being a big one -- surely it does not cost millions of dollars to
fly the B-52 7-8 times?
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
------------------------------

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission?
Date: 7 Aug 89 20:04:53 GMT

In article <2555@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes:
>The lowest-energy method to drop a probe into the sun would use a Jupiter
>fly-by to kill the probes orbital velocity...

I'm not sure that's good enough for solar impact, as opposed to a near
flyby, but I haven't seen numbers.

> It should be
>possible to drop many tons of spacecraft into the sun using this method.
>(Even WITH the shuttle, Henry.)

How do you get "many tons" of spacecraft to Jupiter?  Without using Energia,
I mean?  Galileo, which is not exactly "many tons" in weight, will go through
all sorts of contortions and delays to reach Jupiter with a shuttle launch.
(Admittedly it has an extra constraint, wanting minimum arrival velocity to
reduce fuel requirements for settling into orbit, but the point remains:
you can't get "many tons" *anywhere* except low Earth orbit with the shuttle.)
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
------------------------------

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
Date: 7 Aug 89 21:24:27 GMT

In article <4YqRJdy00XoV01p2Ul@andrew.cmu.edu> js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes:
>What, pray tell, is the use of the Shuttle? "Reusable." Big fat hairy
>deal. The only parts that are (right now) resues are the booster pods
>and shuttle. Bye bye main tank.

That doesn't necessarily have to be a problem; the tank is big but it's
not very complicated.  The shuttle would probably be better than it is
if NASA had been willing to accept drop tanks from the beginning, as in
Lockheed's "Starclipper" proposal circa 1970.

>Laser Launchers. This would put mass into orbit cheaply and easily.
>Admittedly the accelerations would make mince meat out of astronauts...

No, actually, the reason for not using laser launchers to launch people
is different.  If I recall what Jordin Kare said the last time I heard
him talk, the accelerations in current designs actually aren't all that
high.  The limitation is that the size of the laser is in fairly direct
proportion to the size of the vehicle, and a human plus life support
plus emergency equipment plus etc etc is a substantial lump, all the more
so if you want a two-man capsule so you can fly people who are not
exhaustively trained in emergency procedures.  Early laser launchers
won't be up to anything that heavy.
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
------------------------------

From: brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks)
Subject: USAF throws in the towel
Date: 8 Aug 89 04:22:12 GMT

Since I haven`t seen it discussed on the net yet, I have reprinted
some text of an article that appeared in the SF Chronicle today, taken
in turn from a NY Times article by William J. Broad.  Broad used to write
for the journal SCIENCE in the news and comment section, and I consider
most of his work to be more reliable than most reporters`.

[reprinted without permission; my comments are bracketed]

Why Pentagon Axed Secret Shuttle Group
by WJ Broad (NY Times) 7aug89

When a secret military payload is launched on the civilian space shuttle
tomorrow, it will be without the Air Force`s Manned Spaceflight Control
Squadron in Houston.

The Defense Department has gradually dismantled its secretive, coast-to-
coast network of space equipment and personnel that cost at least $5 billion
and was intended to operate in collaboration with the civilian space
shuttle.

Over the past three years, the department has mothballed a $3.3 billion
spaceport in California [Vandenberg] and scrapped a sprawling control
center in Colorado.  Last year, it disbanded a secret cadre of 32
astronauts based in Los Angeles.

[text deleted]

After two decades of shuttle collaboration with the civilian space agency,
the Pentagon has decided that manned spaceships are too risky for its
payloads, which include satellites intended to spy on other countries or
warn of a missile attack. Instead, it has bought its own fleet of big
unmanned rockets.

[text deleted]

[the rest of the article details the AF decision to go with a fleet of 
unmanned boosters, and some comments by others that the the AF is 
either "doing the right thing" or possibly setting itself up for 
further troubles by "putting all its eggs in one basket"---that of
unmanned rockets. 

 The "Air Force officials disagee that they need the shuttle." in response
to said worries.

The point, as is probably well known to many here already (though I confess
not myself), is that the enormous AF committment to manned spaceflight is
gone.  Obviously some military astronauts will fly, but probably not on 
AF owned  "blue" shuttles.  The magnitude of how "gone" the AF effort is
seems rather impressive and tells alot as to how the DoD feels about
manned spaceflight.

This is not a good sign for those of us who support such things---it`s 
unlikely that NASA will take up much "slack" left over by the AF withdrawal.
Also clear is the point that private "peopled" spaceflight is a substantial
time away at best.  

Put another way, is this beginning of a US government trend---withdrawal
from manned spaceflight?  (The statements of George Bush and
the talk about the space station not withstanding)

Also, does anyone know more details, beyond what has been posted before on
the topic of the AF getting more Titans?  How about the seemingly scrapped
idea of a "blue" shuttle, or a USAF NASP?  NASP looks pretty unlikely, given
this latest bit of news; are we to conclude that the AF figures "people are
out" or is this strictly a payload economics move?

Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Labs/SU
brooks@sierra.stanford.edu

*** End of SPACE Digest V9 #620 ***
